Reinhold Seeberg Ingles

3?
'<
- f) }
jt
President White Library
Cornell University
_^_ Cornell University Library
BT21 .S45 1905
Text-book of the history of doctrines
3 1924 029 300 064

olin
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in

the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029300064
TEXT-BOOK
OF THE
HISTORY OF DOCTRINES
BY
DR. REINHOLD SEEBERG,
Professor of Theology in Ordinary in Berlin.
REVISED, 1904, BY THE AUTHOR.

TRANSLATED BV
CHARLES E. HAY, D. D.
COMPLETE IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
HISTORY OF DOCTRINES IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH.
PHIIÂDEIvPHIA, PA.:
LUTHERAN PUBLICATION SOCIETY.
COPYiaGHT, 1905,
BY THE
LUTHERAN PUBWCAXION SOClETy.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
The appearance of the present work is in response to the ex-

pressed desire of the teachers of Dogmatic Theology in a number
of institutions in various portions of the Church.
In a department which at so many points vitally affects the
conceptions of fundamental truth, and which has to do with the
entire historical development lying back of the Protestant Refor-
mation, as well as with the formulations of doctrine then made,
which have proved regulative in the sphere of dogmatics to the
present day, it is imperative that our students of theology should
enjoy the benefit of the very best modern scholarship, and that
they should be led through the maze of conflicting views under
the guidance of one who, while impartial as a historian, yet rec-
ognizes the validity of our ecclesiastical inheritance as embodying
and expressing the essential results of both ancient and modem
religious thought.
The *'Lehrbuch" of Dr. Seeberg has since its appearance
been constantly used as a book of reference in our theological
seminaries. The unchallenged pre-eminence of the author in
this his chosen field, the conservatism of his views, so well re-
flecting the spirit of our churches in America, and the condensa-
tion and lucidity of his style combine to commend his work as the
most suitable for the purpose above indicated.
It is confidently expected that the Text -book will find a circu-
lation far beyond the limits of the class-room. To the busy,
working pastor it will prove a welcome companion as with
ripened powers he reviews from time to time the field of his early
studies, enabling also the intelHgent layman to scan the field of
ancient religious thought through the field-glass of a living his-
torian of his own church.
The unusually full treatment of the doctrinal history of the
Reformation will be found peculiarly helpful, displaying the lines
of continuity connecting the theology of the Reformers with the
central truths of the original Christian revelation, and indicating,
at the same time, the sufficiency of the principles then enunci-
ated to direct the religious activities of the present age.
It has been thought best, in order to facilitate the use of the
work in wider circles, to translate the large number of citations
(iii)
iv translator's preface.
from the Greek and Latin, but the pivotal words are in such
cases also presented in the original form. The translation of
citations hasbeen made as literal as possible, sacrificing elegance
of English idiom to exactness in reproducing the originals.
I desire gratefully to acknowledge the courtesy of the dis-
tinguished author in so cheerfully furnishing the large amount of
valuable new material for this edition, thus anticipating future
editions of the original.
Charles E. Hay.
Baltimore.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO ENGLISH
EDITION.
The extracts from the prefaces to the German edition, appear-

ing upon the succeeding pages, give a sufficient indication of the
character of the present work. I have not endeavored to pre-
sent to the reader historical constructions of doctrine, but I
have sought to display the actual course of doctrinal develop-
ment as objectively as possible and in strict harmony with the
sources. The prevalent and controlling view-points have, how-
ever, in each case been kept steadily in mind and prominently
indicated.
I have carefully revised the present English edition, amending
and enlarging it at many points. This is true especially of the
first volume, which has in various parts been very largely re-
written. I felt it to be particularly fitting to introduce a brief

historical sketch of the development of the New Testament
doctrine.
May the work in this English edition, by the blessing of God,
prove a service to the church and to ecclesiastical science
among my brethren in the faith in the distant West.
R. Seeberg.
Berlin, March lo, 1904.
FROM AUTHOR'S PREFACES TO GERMAN
EDITION.
PREFACE VOL. I., 1895, PP. 5, 6.
The work whose volume is herewith presented to the

first
theological public claims to be but a text -book, and I have been

at special pains to adapt it in all parts to the requirements of
academic study. I have endeavored to condense the material
as far as possible without allowing it to become obscure or unin-
telligible. I have, therefore, commonly contented myself with
literal quotation of the original sources, and it is my hope that
the most important passages from them will be found here col-
lected. Historic and dogmatic criticisms are merely suggested.
In my lectures upon the History of Doctrines I am accustomed to
lay stress upon the ecclesiastico-historical setting of doctrinal
development and to accompany its presentation with the appro-
priate biblico-dogmatic criticism. But in this work, with the
exception of a few brief hints, I have refrained from such at-
tempts. Many comments of this kind which I had at first in-
cluded were stricken out in the last revision of the manuscript,
in order that the work, which has nevertheless, despite the com-
pact printing, somewhat exceeded the dimensions originally
contemplated, might not become too large for its designed use.
Such discussions, moreover, are not, strictly speaking, in place in
a work of the present character. Perhaps an opportunity may
be elsewhere found to offer some '* Comments upon the History
of Doctrines." That I do not entirely agree with Baur and
Harnack, nor with Kliefoth-Thomasius, will be evident from
occasional hints in the following pages. As the work owes its
existence to my desire to secure relief from the burdensome task
of dictation in the delivery of my lectures, it takes for granted
that students, at least, will in the use of it have the assistance
of academic lectures. But it is my further hope that, even for
advanced theologians, the earnest study of the material here fur-
nished may bring vividly before the mind the wealth of questions
and problems embraced within the range of the formula, '* Faith
and Doctrine." It cannot be sufficiently emphasized in our
day that a real answering of these questions and an inward
emancipation from these problems can never be attained without
(vi)
FROM author's PREFACES TO GERMAN EDITION. vil
thorough -going studies in dogmatic history. The revelations

and of that theological Dilettanteism, which selects
'
'
evidences
' '
the sphere of dogmatics as the field for its antics, must come to
naught despite the favor or disfavor of parties. The History of
Doctrines demands a hearing and requires an intelligent under-
standing.
The general plan and arrangement of the present work have
been fixed in my mind since the preparation of my lectures upon
the History of Doctrines in the year 1885 -1886. That it is
based upon a study of the original sources will be sufficiently
-evident to the reader. I would not fail to acknowledge with
gratitude the frequent suggestions and enlarged fund of informa-
tion which I have derived from the newer works upon the His-
tory of Doctrines, especially from Baur, Thomasius and Har-
nack, as also from the many faithfully executed Patristic mono-
graphs of the last decennia.
PREFACE VOL. II., 1898, PP. 3, 4.

It is manifest that the acquaintance of any single individual
with the immense historical material embraced within the scope
of the present volume must be far from exhaustive, especially
since there is a great lack of preparatory monographs, such as
exist in abundance for the earlier periods in the History of
Doctrines. It may be readily understood also that the historian,
in seeking to delineate the course of development, should en-
deavor, so far as his time and strength may permit, to fill up the
existing gaps by original research. The delay in the appear-
ance of the present volume is to be thus accounted for, as pains-
taking investigations were necessary in various fields, the results
of which may, I trust, be recognized as constituting an enrich-
ment of our Science. I mention, for example, the full pre-
sentation of the Scholastic theology, particularly that of the
later Scholasticism, and the attempt to give to the teaching of
Luther and the other Reformers its rightful place in the History
of Doctrines. No one familiar with the subject can deny that
it is amazing to find in the existing Histories of Doctrines very
much about Anselm and Thomas, and but little, and that too
often untrustworthy, about Duns Scotus and his followers as
though it were possible without a knowledge of this later de-
velopment to understand the doctrinal coristruction in the Evan-
gelical and Roman Catholic churches, either in its positive or in
its negative aspects It is just as clearly out of keeping with
!
the fitness of things that we may in many Histories of Doc-

trines read much of Origen and the Damascene, and even of
Osiander and Chemnitz, but only passing sketches of the four
Viii FROM author's prefaces to GERMAN EDITION.
great Reformers, and these marred by strong dogmatic preju-

dices, I have here attempted to remedy this defect, although
the section upon Luther has thus grown almost to the dimen-
sions of a small monograph, yet without exceeding the proper
limits of a History of Doctrines.
The reader will observe that the later portions of the work are
somewhat less condensed than the earlier sections. I have thus
sought to meet the wants of the general reader as well as of the
technical student, without sacrificing the clearness and exactness
necessary in a text-book. I have allowed myself also, as the
work advanced, somewhat more liberty in the critical estimate.
of the positions reviewed. I have not concealed my own doc-
trinal views, but have nowhere given prominence to them,
seeking only to make proper comment upon the actual historical
phenomena. If the hand of the dogmatic theologian is more
evident in this than in the former volume, it is to be attributed
in part to the nature of the material under review.
R. Seeberg.
Erlangen, April 27, 1895.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Translator' s Preface iii
Author's Preface to English Edition v

From Author's Prefaces to German Edition vi
GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Definition, Office, and Methods of the History of Doctrines.
^ 1 . and Office
Definition 19
^ 2. Method and Divisions 22
\ 3. Literature 25
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
\ 4. Greek- Roman Heathenism in its Relation to Christianity 28
^ 5. Judaism 30
6. The Primitive Christian Proclamation 32
BOOK I.
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH.
PART I.
CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE POST-APOSTOLIC AND

PRIMITIVE CATHOLIC AGES.
CHAPTER .1.
The Conception of Christianity in the Post-Apostolic Age.
\ 7- The Apostolic Fathers 55

Literature 55
1
. Clemens Romanus 5^
a. God 5^
b. Christ 56
. .
CONTENTS.
PAGE
c. The Work of Redemption 5^
d. Christian Life 57
The Church
r. 5^
f. The Resurrection 5^
2. Hermas 5^
a. The Person of Christ 58
b. The Work of Christ 59
t. Christian Life 60
</. Repentance 61
, The Church 62
3. Ignatius 63
u. Christ as God and Man 63
b. The Work of Christ 65
c. Faith and Love 65
d. The Catholic Church, Bishops, Baptism, the Eucharist 6S
c, Christianity, Heathenism, Judaism 08
4. Polycarp 69
a. Christ 6y
b. Virtue 69
t. Rewards 6'^
5. Papias 70
6. Barnabas 70
a. Christ 70
b. Redemption 70
t. Baptism, Preaching, Faith, Hope 71
d. The New Law 71
f. Judaism 72
f, Eschatology 72
7. Didache 73
a.. Christ 73
b. Life, Knowledge, Faith, Immortality 74
c. Word
Baptism, Eucharist, 74
d. Church and Kingdom of God 74
c. Ethics 75
8. Homily of Clement 75
a. Christ ,
75
b. Redemption 75
c Christian Life 76
9. General Estimate 77
PrEedicatio Petri 77, 80
Rules of Faith 82
1 Old and New Testaments. The * * Canon " 82
2. The So-called Apostles' Creed. Its Age, Origin, and Wording. . 84
.
CONTENTS. XI
CHAPTER II.
Perversions of the Gospel and Reformatory Movements Directed

Against Catholic Christianity.
PAGE
9. Jewish Christianity 87
a. Jewish Christians 87
b. Pharisaic Christians. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 88
c. Elkesaites, Alcibiades, Clementines 89
10. Gentile- Christian Gnosis 91

Sources and Literature 91
1. Origin 92
2. Groups 93
3. Nature 93
4. Doctrines 95
5. Mysteries, Rites, Worship, etc 98
6. Support from Tradition and Secret Doctrine 100
\ II. Reformatory Attevipts of Marcion I02
g 1 2. Montanistic Reformation I04
CHAPTER III.
Beginnings of the Church's Theology.
13. Christianity as Portrayed by the Apologists 109

1 Beginnings of Christian Theology no
2. General View of the Apologists no
3. Christianity, Heathenism, Judaism Iii
4. One God, Logos, Trinity 112
5. Work of Christ, Incarnation, Teacher, Law-giver, Death 115
6. The Church 116
7. Preaching, Baptism, Eucharist 117
8. The Resurrection 117
14. Theology of the Antignostic Fatheis 1 18

. I. Opposition to Gnosticism 119
2. God 119
One God, Creator and Redeemer, a Rational Spirit, Revelation
of, Justice and Mercy of Creation from Nothing, Trinity, . 119
3. Man 122
Good and Evil, Mortal and Immortdl, Sin, Original Sin 122
4. History of Redemption ; First, Second, and Third Covenants.. . . 123
5. The Person of Christ 124
.
Xll CONTENTS.
PAGE
a. Irenseus Logos, Incarnation 124
b. Tertullian Substance and Person 125
c. Hippolytus 127
6. Work of Redemption, Revelation, Substitution, Leaven 128
7. State of Grace ^3^

Irenceus Baptism, Faith
Spirit, 13'
Tertullian Law, Baptism, Repentance, Merit 132
8. Eschatology 1 34
9. Methods of Proof, Scripture, Rule of Faith, Tradition, Church,
Summary 1 35
15. Theology of the Alexandrine Fathers 140
Clemens Alexandrinus. 141
Revelation and Philosophy, Faith and Gnosis I41
One God, The Logos, His Works 142
Sin, Salvation, Ideal of Christian Life 143
Church, Means of Grace 145
Origen 146
1. The Rule of Faith, Three-fold Sense of Scripture 146
2. God, Spirit and Light, Person, Just and Merciful, The Logos,
ofioovaioQ, Holy Spirit 148
3. Human Freedom, Constitution of the World 151
4. The God-man 152
5. Work of Christ, Teacher, Example, Frees from the Devil,
Substitution, Sacrifice, Mediator 153
6. Gospel and Mysteries, Faith and Freedom, the Church 155
7. Purgatory, the Resurrection 159
8. General Estimate 160
CHAPTER IV.
Separate Doctrines and General Conception of Christianity in the

Third Century.
16. Monarchianism 162
Origin 162
1. Dynamic Monarchianism 163
Theodotus the Tanner, Asclepiodotus and Theodotus the Money-
changer, Artemas, Paul of Samosata, De Montibus Sina et
Sion, Acta Archelai 163
2. Patripassian Monarchianism 166
Praxeas, Noetus, Sabellius, Callistus, Beryl of Bostra 167
g 17. Ante-Nicene Christology 169
1. Occasional Patripassian Utterances 169
Christology of the West, Novatian, Arnobius, Cyprian, Lactantius 169
2. Christology of the East, Gregory Thaumaturgus 171
Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of Rome 171
.
CONTENTS.
PACK
3. Methodius, Aphraates I73
^18. Ordinance of Repentance and Advance in Conception of the

Church 1 74
1 Conception of the Church 1 74
2. Praxis of Repentance according to Tertullian 175
3. Callistus, Repentance, Hierarchism 176
4. Cyprian and the Lapsed, Novatian 178
5. Cyprian and the Church 180
6. Resultant 184
\ 19. General Conception of Christianity 185
1. Related Conceptions of Church and Christian Life 185
2. Eastern Theologians : Dionysius of Alexandria, Peter of Alexan-
dria, Theognostus 185
3. Methodius 186
(i) God 187
(2) Man 187
(3) Sin 187
(4) Redemption 188
(5) The Church, Doctrine, Baptism 189
(6) Faith, Works, Celibacy 189
(7) Immortality 191
4. Estimate of Methodius 191
5. Western Theologians 191
General Position 192
God, Law, Redemption 192
Baptism, Faith 193
Repentance 195
Satisfaction 195
Eucharist and Sacrifice 195
Double Morality 197
Eschatology 197
Purgatory 197
Summary 198
PART II.
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH.
CHAPTER I.
The Doctrine of the Trinity.

20. Arianis??i and the Homousia of the So7i {^First Council of Nice') , . 201
I. Lucian 201
. 1
XIV CONTENTS.
PAGE
2. Arius 205
3. Alexander 206
4. Athanasius 206
a. Conflict with Arianism 206
b. Divinity of Christ, Homousia 208
L. Religious Basis 21
5. Council of Nice, Parties, Eusebius, The Creed 215
^21. J'^'urtker Developinent to the Council of Constantinople 218

1. Letter of Eusebius 218
2. Eusebians 219
3. Marcellus 219
4. Photinus, Victory of Arians, Serai- Arians and Arians 221
5. Ancyra
Basil of 224
6. Homousians and Homoiusians 225
7. The Cappadocians, Trinity, Homousia of Spirit, Modification of
Nicene Doctrine 227

8. Council of Constantinople, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed,
Downfall of Arianism 233
\ 2.1. Completion of Doctrine of the Trinity 236

1. Tritheists 236
2. John of Damascus 236
3. Augustine 237
4. Athanasian Creed 241
CHAPTER II.
Doctrine of One Person and Two Natures in Christ.
23. Origin of the Controversies Upon the Two Natures of Christ 243
1 The Situation 243
2. ApoUinaris 243
3. The Antiochians 247
4. The Cappadocians 250
5. Cyril of Alexandria 251
6. Christology in the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine 255
\ 24. Nestorius and Cyril, Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus 261

1. Christology of Nestorius 261
2. Opposition of Cyril, Pope Coelestine, Mutual Anathemas 262
3. Council at Alexandria 263
. .
CONTENTS. XV
PAGE
4. Council at Ephesus 264
5. Compromise Creed, Christology of Theodoret 265
25. Eutychian Controversy and Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon . . 267

1. Dioscurus of Alexandria, Eutyches and Flavian 267
2. Robber Synod at Ephesus 268
3. Dioscurus and Pope Leo 26S
4. Letter of Pope Leo 270
5. Transactions at Ciialcedon, Creed of Chalcedon 270
26. Movements Grozving Out of the Christological ( Monophysite and

Monothelete) Controversies and the Result of the Agitation .... 272
I Monophysite Controversies 273
i;. Justinian's Ecclesiastical Policy 274
3. Theology of Leontius 275
4. Fifth Ecumenical Council 276
5. Severians and Julianists 277
6. Aphthartodocetism of Justinian 278
7. Monothelete Controversies, Ecthesis, Typos 279
8. Maximus, Martin 1 280
9. Sixth Ecumenical Council 282
10. Cyril and the Chalcedon Creed 283
n. John of Damascus, His Christology and Dogmatics 285
CHAPTER IIL
General Conception of Christianity. Completion of Doctrinal

Construction on Greek Territory.
\ 27. Greek Christianity 288

1. ** Orthodoxy" and "Good Works," Mysteries, ''Christianity of
Second Order" 289
2. Dionysius the Areopagite, Christianity, Mysteries, Hierarchy. . . 290
3. Sin, Mortality, Freedom 292
4. Greek Conception of Salvation 295
5. Worship, Word and Mysteries 298
6. Baptism, Eucharist, Sacrifice 299
\ 28. Iconoclastic Controversies^ Final Dogma of the Greek Church .... 303
1. Thirty-sixth Canon of Elvira and Praxis of the Church 303
2. Leo the Isaurian y^Z
3. John of Damascus Upon Images 304
.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
4. Constantine V 305
5. Leo IV., The Seventh Ecumenical Council 306
6. Progress and Termination of the Controversies 307
CHAPTER IV.
Foundation of Anthropological Dogma (Sin and Grace) and Devel-

opment OF THE Conception of the Church in the West. Doc-
trine OF Augustine.
29. The Fundamental Religious Ideas of Augustine and His Place in

the History of Doctrines 307
Place in History 308
Religious Experience and Life 309
Relation to the Catholic Church 312
\ 30. Donatistic Controversy and Further Development of Doctrines of

Church ajzd Sacrajnents by Augtistine 312
1. The Donatistic Controversy 313
u. Occasion and Development 313
/'. Opposition Between Donatists and Catholics Optatus and
Augustine 315
2. Augustine Upon Doctrines of Church, Sacraments, and Relation
of Church and State 317
u. The Catholic Church 317
b. Primacy of Rome 318
c. Character of the Sacraments 319
d. Word, Baptism, Lord's Supper, Ordination, etc 320
c. Baptism and Repentance 322
f The i7ivisibilis caritatis compages 324
g. Church and Kingdom of God, Church and State, Estimate
of the Above 326
31. Establishment of Doctrine of Sin and Grace in the Conflict zvith

Felagianism 328
1. East and West, Chrysostom and Ambrose, Hilary, Jovinian 328
2. Pelagius and Pelagianism, CEelestius 331
a. Pelagius' Doctrine of Human Freedom ^t^'^
b. Sin 334
t. Universality of Sin, Relation to Infant Baptism 2,ZS
d. Doctrine of Grace, Follov^îng of Christ, Paulinus of Milan.. 335
3. Augustine's Doctrine of Sin and Grace -^1^%
A. First Form, Continuous Development, Connection with His

Conception of God 338
1
CONTENTS.
PAGE
B, Completed Form 34
a. Original State 341
b. The Fall 342
L . Original Sin 342
d. Nature of Sin 344
e. Grace, Faith, Forgiveness 346
/. Love, Justification, Estimate 348
g. Irresistible Grace, Predestination 350
4. Historical Course of the Controversy 353
Augustine's Criticism of Pelagius 353
Cselestius 353
Councils at Carthage and Diospolis 354
Innocent 1 354
Zosimus and the General Council at Carthage 355
Julian of Eclanum 356
;
32. Summary of Augustine^ s Theological and Ecclesiastical Views in
the Enchiridion ad Latirentiuvi 357
Faith, Love, Hope 357
Definition of Faith 35S
Sin, the Wrath of God, Punishment 359
Grace Through Christ 360
Baptism and Salvation 360
Work of Christ 361
Holy Spirit, Church, Renewal 362
Purgatory 363
Repentance, Augustine's Definition of. 363
Resurrection, Resurrection Body 365
Sacrifice of Mass, Alms for the Dead 366
Hope and Love 366
Estimate 367
CHAPTER V.
AUGUSTINIANISM AS THE DOCTRINE OF THE ChURCH. COMPLETION OF

Doctrinal Development in the Ancient Church of the West.
\ 33. The Seini' Pelagian Cont7'oversies 368

1. Hadrumentum, Massilians and Augustus 368
2. Doctrine of Cassian 370
3. Prosper, " De Vocatione Gentium " 372
4. " Predestinatus," Vincent of Lerinum, Gennadius, Faustus of
Reji, Semi-pelagian Councils, Lucidus and Decrees of Aries.. 374
2
XViu CONTENTS.
PAGE
5. Downfall of Semi-pelagianism, Attitude of Rome Toward Augus-
tinianism 377
6. Csesarius, Council at Valence, do. at Orange, Origin of Canon of
Orange, its Content 379
34. Tradition and Papacy 3^2

1. The Doctrine in the West, Gennadius and Fulgentius 383
2. Conception of Tradition, Vincent of Lerinum 384
3. Doctrinal Authority of the Popes 386
4. Conclusion 387
GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
DEFINITION, OFFICE, AND METHODS OF THE HISTORY OF

DOCTRINES.
I . Definition and Office of the History of Doctrines.

Kliefoth, Eine Einleitung io die Dogmengeschichte, 1839, R. See-
berg, Ein Gang durch die Dogmengeschichte, Neue kirchl. Zeitschr. 1890, ,
761 ff. G. KrOger, Was heisst u. zu welchem Ende studirt man Dogmen-
geschichte? 1895. Stance, Das Dogma u. seine Beurteilung, 1898.
1. The theological term, Dogma, ^ designates either an eccle-

of such doctrines, /. e.
siastical doctrine, or the entire structure ,
the doctrinal system of the church. As Dogma is the formal

expression of the truth held by the church at large, or by a
particular church, the church expects the acknowledgment of it
by her members, and, as legally organized, demands this of her
recognized teachers. We apply the term, Dogma, not to every
kind of theological propositions or formulas in which the general
consciousness of the church may find utterance, but only to such
propositions as have attained an ecclesiastical character, e., /',
such as have by a public declaration of the church at large,

or some particular branch of it, been acknowledged as expressing
Christian truth. Although the form of Dogma is the work
of theology, its content is derived from the common faith of the
Christian church.
2. Dogma is an exceedingly complicated historical structure.
It has in its various constituent parts, constructed as they have

been in the face of multifarious forms of opposition, and under
the inspiration of many practical (ethical and devotional)
impulses and external (political and canonical) occasions,
received the impress of different theological tendencies. Thus
dogmas have been '* deepened," or *' disintegrated " and super-
/^6}fia is in ordinary Greek ** commandment, precept" (Lk. 2. i. Acts 17.

^
7; 16. 4. Eph. 2. 15. Col. 2. 14. Didache, ii, 3). The word is employed
both in a political and in a philosophical sense. The theological conception
accords most fully with the philosophical use of the terra, as equivalent to
** proposition, principle," e.
g Cicero, Quaest. acad., iv. 9. Marc. Aurel.,
,
ii. 3. Ep. Barn., 1.6; x. 9. Ignat. ad Magnes, 13. i. See fuller discussion
in Miinscher, DG., p. i, and Hagenbach, DG. p i f ,
(19J
20 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
ficialized
logically developed, or, under the influence of advanc-
ing views, transformed, restored, and again newly interpreted.
To delineate these historical processes is the office of the History
of Doctrines
to show how the Dogma as a whole and the
separate dogmas have arisen and through what course of develop-
ment they have been brought to the form and interpretation
prevailing in the churches of any given period.
3. It is a historical fact, that the church gives her faith a fixed
form in Dogma. The continuity of her development and the
necessity of unity and purity in the proclamation of her message,
as well as in her decisions upon questions of morality, afford a
sufficient explanation of this fact. But, theologically considered,
the fallibility of Dogma must, at least upon Protestant territory,
be acknowledged as an axiom. The Scriptures and the religious
faith of the church are the criteria by which Dogma must
submit to be judged. But to prove the harmony or disharmony
of Dogma with these courts of appeal is not the office of the
History of Doctrines, but rather that of Dogmatics and Practical
Theology.^ The History of Doctrines can only be required to
present the arguments which have been adduced by the original
advocates of any given dogma. History is not historical
criticism.
The necessity for a strict observance of the historical character
of our Science excludes, first of all, the Roman Catholic view,
that the Dogma of the church is as such infallible
a view which
is proven to be without historical foundation by the mere fact
of the conflicting dogmas of the various particular churches.
There is no divine Dogma, just as there is no divine church dis-
cipline nor divine liturgy. And just as little can the History of
Doctrines be influenced by a desire to establish the Dogma of the
Confession to which the historian himself adheres. This might
practically be a very desirable achievement, but theoretically it
is an invasion of the proper sphere of dogmatic theology.^ But
it is, on the other hand, just as serious an offense against the
strictly historical character of the History of Doctrines to repre-

sent the Dogma of the church as necessarily tinctured with
error, either because it originated in ancient, unilluminated
periods (Rationalism), or because it marks only a stage of
transition to the spirit of modern times (Baur), or because it
presents Christianity as apprehended by antiquity, /. ,?., a
^ This question has a place in the discussions of Homiletics, Catechetics,

and Liturgies, as well as in (practical) Apologetics.
^ jS".
,f.,
Kliefoth. Compare Thomasius, DG. Wolff, Die Entwicklung
der christlichen Kirche durch Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, 1889. (See
Theol. Litt.-bl., 1890, col. 156 ff.)
^
DEFINITION AND OFFICE. 21
secularized or Hellenistic form of Christianity (Harnack). It

is, of course, to be freely acknowledged, that the dogmas of the
church have attained their present form through the use of the
intellectual apparatus of the times in which they originated.^
This circumstance suggests the possibility of perversion or adul-
teration of the content by means of the scientific form. The
statement of the principles of the religious life of Christianity in
the form of dogmas is accompanied also by the danger that the
religious formula may assume the place of religion itself, or
that faith may cease to be understood as obedience to God and
trust (^fiducia) in him, and become instead the mere acknowl-
edgment of a doctrine concerning God (assensus'). It cannot be
denied that the History of Doctrines furnishes an abundance of
examples of both these forms of error. But this acknowl-
edgment does not by any means condemn the Dogma of the
church as unchristian. It merely warns us to discriminate
clearly between the substance of doctrine and its form
between
that which the framers of the Dogma have sought to express and
the form adopted for the expression of their thought. Upon this
principle, it may be possible for one to recognize the Christian
and Biblical character of the ideas maintained by the Councils
of Nice and Chalcedon (and these form the chief subjects of dis-
pute), while unable to approve all the terminology employed
by them. At the same time, it must be constantly kept in
mind, that the sense and content of a dogma are to be historic-
ally understood in the first instance as in contrast with some
particular doctrinal view. Agreement with a dogma does not
by any means indicate the acknowledgment of the technical and
theoretical method of its presentation, but extends only to
a similar rejection of the opposite position excluded by the
dogma and to a sharing of the religious tendency which demands
such exclusion/
Nor is it to be forgotten, finally, that Dogma is perpetually
subject to ecclesiastical and theological interpretation, which
prepares the forms suitable to each age, which can and does
express the ancient content in these new forms, and which
furthermore seizes upon and preserves the religious experiences
peculiar to its own age in the harmony of the ancient faith.
* There is yet much to be done in the investigation of this terminology (a

field upon which the general History of Doctrines cannot enter). Efforts in
this direction have not seldom been marred by a too pronounced dogmatic bias.
2 See fuller discussion of this principle in Seeberg, Die Grundwahrheiten
derchristl. Religion, ed. 3, 1903, p. 60 ff.

^ This is in some sense true of the valuable thoughts of nearly all the lead-
ing theologians of the last century, c g.^ Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Hofmann,

Frank.
The History of Doctrines is therefore a department of Histori-

cal Theology, and its office is the historical presentation of the
origin and development of the dogmas which have been formu-
lated up to the present time, and of the ecclesiastical Dogma in
its relation to the various doctrinal systems.
2. Method and Divisions of the History of Doctrines,
1. The History of Doctrines, being a historical science, must

employ the strictly historical method.^ What really occurred,
and how it came to pass, must be impartially related upon the
basis of original sources critically examined.^ This requirement
is not met by the simple arraying ol facts side by side which is

not history at all but by tracing the effective forces in their
origin and influence, as well as the interpenetration and co-
operation of the various forces. Only thus is it possible to
set forth truthfully how it really was. In doing this, we must
presume upon a general knowledge of the history of religion, of
the church, and of philosophy, as well as some practice and facility
in the sphere of historical criticism and objectivity. Every age,
furthermore, will preserve its own version of the History of
Doctrines, since our conception of the past is always conditioned
by the views, problems, and questions of the present age.
2. We thus at once exclude the formerly accepted division of
the science into the General and Special History of Doctrines,
as well as the subdivision of the latter (as in Baur and Hagen-
bach) according to the arrangement of topics in the systematic
theology of the day ; for it is evident that this method of
treating the subject is not historical. Believers have not in the
various periods of history revised in turn all the separate topics
of theology, but they have in each case fixed their attention
upon some special vitalizing, fundamental thought, or some
peculiar point of view, and in this one great principle, or revolv-
1 Warning cannot be too earnestly sounded in the interest of historical truth,
which must ever be one with Christian truth, against polemic, ecclesiastico-
political and dogmatic Dilettanteism in the History of Doctrines.
'^
The
original sources of the History of Doctrines are, besides the respect-
ive resolutions, decrees, bulls,and confessions, the records of the transactions
of the bodies by which these were promulgated also the writings of the
;
theologians who participated positively or negatively, directly or indirectly, in

the origination of the respective doctrinal systems. Documents attesting the
faith of the church, such as sermons, hymns, and liturgies, and the literature
of church discipline must also be studied. The relation of the History of
Doctrines to the history of theology will always be a shifting one. The History
of Doctrines may be described as a branch of the history of theology, but must
nevertheless, on account of its great importance, be treated independently and
more exhaustively and it can be thus treated because its special material is
;
subdivided and held in cohesion by an organizing principle peculiar to itself.

METHOD AND DIVISIONS. 23
ing around it as a centre, they have seen the whole sum and
substance of Christianity, thus attaining new conceptions of the
truth and deepening or transforming earlier conceptions. The
historical presentation of the results must adapt itself to the
"
course of this development. Along with the *' central dogma
of every age there comes to view, not indeed a peripheral system
of doctrine (Thomasius), but a general conception of Chris-
tianity dependent upon and involved in the central, dominating
thought.
3. It would seem proper to begin the History of Doctrines with
the adoption of the first Dogma, in the strict sense of the term,
/. e.^ that of the Council of Nice. Since, however, the Nicene,
as well as the later formulation of doctrinal statements, rests upon
the ideas and views of the Primitive Catholic age, the History
of Doctrines must begin with the Post-Apostolic period. It
closes with the last Dogmas which the churches have produced,
/. with the Second Council of Nice (787), the Vatican
e.,
Council (1870), the Formula of Concord (1580), and the
Synod of Dort (16 19).* That these formal statements all
have the character of Dogmas, or complete doctrinal systems,
cannot be denied. It follows that, while it is not justifiable, with
Thomasius, to make the Lutheran confession the goal, it must
be a thorough perversion of historic verity to represent the
History of Doctrines as closed before the Reformation, refer-
ring the later material to the sphere of Symbolics, or to close it
with a portrayal of Romanism, Socinianism, and a general
characterization of the Christianity of Luther
the last method
being based upon the ground ''that the entirely conservative
attitude of the Reformation toward the ancient Dogma belongs
not to the Foundation but to History!'* (Harnack, DG.,
iii. 584). But we cannot recognize this fine distinction as
valid, ^ in view of the clear facts in the case. Socinianism does
not belong to the History of Doctrines at all, but to the history
of theology (as the product of Nominalism). The view above
taken of the limits of the period properly included within the
range of the History of Doctrines may therefore be regarded
as final. It is self-evident that it cannot be made to cover all
1 So Hauck (Schmid, DC,

ed. 4) Seeberg (Thomas, ii., ed. 2); Loofs.
;
^ lb. p. 585. *' To

present in detail a narration of historical events until
the time of the Formula of Concord and the Decrees of Dort and then
suddenly to drop the subject, I consider a serious error, inasmuch as coun-
tenance is thereby given to the prejudiced opinion that the dogmatic structures
framed by the churches of the Reformation in the sixteenth century constituted
the classical completion of the movement, w^hereas they can only be regarded
as points of transition." Such an argument in a historical work must fill the
unprejudiced reader with amazement.
:
the ecclesiastical and theological developments up to the present

time (^. g,, Baur, Hagenbach), since these movements have not
yet produced any dogmas, or authorized doctrinal statements. On
the contrary, it has recently been demanded (see esp. G. Kruger,
in loco) that the distinction between the History of Doctrines
and the history of theology be entirely abandoned, since it is
based upon the Catholic estimate of thedogmasofthechurch, with
which Harnack and myself are supposed to treacherously sym-
pathize. But, apart from purely practical considerations based
upon convenience in the study of the subject, it must be acknowl-
edged that the products in the history of theology have not to
the same extent attained practical ecclesiastical significance. If
Dogma is a tangible historical reality, it may very appropriately
be also historically depicted. Catholic claims of infallibility
have nothing to do with the matter.
We note Three Chief Periods in the History of Doctrines
parallel with those of Church History
1. T/ie Construction of Doctrine in the Ancient Church.
In the study of this period we shall need to (^) Lay a secure
foundation by tracing the theological and ecclesiastical develop-
ment of doctrine in the Post-Apostolic and Primitive Catholic
age. (^) Describe the origination of the separate dogmas upon
the territory of Greek Christianity (Trinity, Christ, Images), in
connection with the prevalent type of piety, incidentally noting
the parallel lines of doctrinal opinion developing in the Eastern
Church, (r) Depict the formulation of the doctrinal system
upon the territory of the Western Church (Augustine Sin, :
Grace, the Church).

2. The Preservation, Transformation, and Development of
Doctrine in the Church of the Middle Ages.
(a) Beginning with the emasculated Augustinianism of
Gregory the Great, we shall have occasion to describe the ex-
ternal conservation of Dogma until the eleventh century (with
the conquest of various concurrent misunderstandings), and
then (/;) the abnormal refinement of Dogma by Scholasticism,
together with the genuine developments (Theology, the Atone-
ment, the Sacraments, the Church) and the perversions (the
dissolution of Augustinianism, Hierarchism) of the doctrinal
system which fall within this period.
3. The Develop77ient of the Doctrinal System through the Ref-
ormation, and the Opposing Crystallization of Doctrine by Roman
Catholicism.
We shall here have to treat of (^) The reformatory ideas of Iû-
ther and Zwingle and the fixation of the same in symbolical form.
ij?') The development of these reformatory ideas, together with
LITERATURE. 25
the doctrinal controversies, etc., up to the Formula of Concord

and the Synod of Dort. (^c) The conservation of the Doctrine
of the Middle Ages by the Romish church (Trent, Jansenistic

controversies, etc., Curialism, Episcopalism, the Vatican).
3. Literature of the History of Doctrines.
S. Baur, Lehrb. der DG. ed. 2, p. 19 ff., and

, Epochen der Kirchl.
Geschichtsschreibung. Harnack, DG., i. 23 ff. Hagenbach, DG. p. ,
20 If.
Neither the polemical works of the ancient church (Irenteus,

TertuUian, Epiphanius, Philaster, Theodoret, etc.), nor Abe-
lards' Sic et Non, Chemnitz' Examen Cone. Trid., nor Joh. Ger-
hard's Confessio Catholica (comp. Luther's Von den Concilien

und Kirchen a repetition of proofs drawn from the History of
Doctrines [Weim. ed., vol. ii.], Melanchthon's tract, De eccl.
et de autoritate verbi divini, C. R. xxiii. also, the discourse
;
upon bulls and the periods of church history, C. R. xi. 786J,

can be regarded as works upon the History of Doctrines. The
first genuine attempt in this direction was made by the Jesuit,
DiONYsius Petavius '^ De theologicis dogmatibus,"

: 4 vols.,
Paris, 1644 Before him may be mentioned Canus, De locis
ff.
theologicis, 11. 12. Salamanca, 1563. Beginnings were further

made from different points of view by Gottfried Arnold,
Unparteiische Kirchen- u. Ketzer-historie ; J. W. Zierold,
Einleiting zur griindlichen Kirchenhistoria, Leipzig u. Star-
gardt, 1700, and Griindliche Kirchenhistoria von der wahren
und falschen Theologie, Frankf. a. M., 1703; Laurenz v.
Mosheim (Dissert, ad hist. eccl. pertinent., 2 vols., 1731 ff.;
De rebus ante Const., 1753) ; Charles W. F. Walch

christ.
(Hist, der Ketzereien, etc., 11 vols., 1762 ff.; Gedanken von
der Geschichte der Glaubenslehre, 1756), as also Semler
(Einleitung zu Baumgartens Glaubenslehre und zu desselben
Unters. theol. Streitigkeiten, 1762 ff. ); comp. also Planck,
Gesch. des prot. Lehrbegriffes, 6 parts, 1787 ff. All these at-
tempts served to improve the traditional idea of doctrinal history,
but in all of them there was lacking a generalized historical
conception, and they did not get beyond monographical sketches
and the gathering of materials. According to Semler, the causes
for the constant modification of opinions are ** of a purely sub-
jective and accidental character, because one chooses to think
this way, another that ; because the relations of things are now
thus, now otherwise." It was from this point of view that the
26 GENERAL INTRODUCTION".
firstdelineations in the sphere of our Science were undertaken.

Itwas then ah-eady quite generally recognized that the Christi-
anity of the church was permeated with Platonic ideas (Logos^
Trinity, etc. ). To this result contributed in no small degree the
book of SouvERAiN, Le platonisnie devoile (1700, translated by
Loffler, 1782). Historians as well as dogmaticians were influenced
by this thought (cf. the 17th book of Herder, Ideen zu einer
Geschichte der Menschheit j We cite the separate works upon the
.
History ot Doctrines. Lange, Ausfiihrliche Gesch. d. Dogmen,

1796. MCnscher, Handb. d. christl. DG., 4 vols., 1797 ff. (the
first 6 Jahrbb. ), and Lehrbuchd. DG., ed. i, 181 1 ed. 3, 183211.
;
(excellent quotations from the sources). Comp. also August:

(1805), Bertholdt (1822 f. ), Baumgarten-Crusius (1832),
F. K. Meier (1840; ed. 2, 1854), C. H. Lentz (i. 1834), J.

G. V Engelhardt (1839), et al.
The suggestive works of A. Neander and F. Chr. Baur
marked an epoch in our Science. Both have incorporated in
their treatment the results of. the great intellectual activity since
the end of the eighteenth century. The one possessed the
marks of personality; the other applied Hegel's conception of
development. The former's History of Doctrines was edited by
Jacobi (1857). Similar is Hagenbach, DG. (1850, ed. 6,
revised by Beurath). Hegel's suggestions were soon followed
by Marheineke (DG., edited by Matthies and Vatke, 1849),
then by Baur, who handled the appalling mass of material in a
thorough and independent fashion, and presented it in the form
of a development (modified, however, by speculative con-
siderations. See Lehrb. d. DG., 1847, ed. 3, 1867, and
especially Vorlesungen iiber. d. chr. DG., ed. F. Baur, 3
parts, 1895 ff. Also the large monographs Lehre von d. Ver-
:
sohnung, 1838, and Lehre von d. Dreieinigk. u. Menschwer-

dung, 3 parts, 1841 ff. ). The labors of Baur were both posi-
tively and negatively of the greatest importance in the develop-
ment of the History of Doctrines. Th. Kuefoth wrote his
Einleitung in d. DG. (1839) from the standpoint of revived
Lutheranism, and G. Thomasius furnished a careful presenta-
tion of the subject, prepared with methodical skill and a fine
perception of religious problems: Die chr. DG., als Ent-
wicklungsgesch. d. kirchl. Lehrbegriffs, 2 vols., 1874, 1876
(Plitt edited vol. ii.); vol. i., ed. 2, published by Bon-
wetsch with many additions, 1886 vol. ii. revised by See-
;
berg, materially enlarged and extended in scope by including

the Reformed and Roman Catholic DG., 1889. Compare
with these, Schmid, Lehrb. d. DG., i860 ed. 4, revised
;
by Hauck: (an excellent collection of quotations from the

LITERA'IX'RE. 27
sources); also Kahnis, Die luth. Dogmatik. (vol. ii., Der

Kirchenglaube, 1864). F. Nitzsch has in his Grundriss der
chr. DG., vol. i., 1870, given us a comprehensive and
careful exhibition of the material, attempting also a new ar-
rangement of it. Finally, we mention A. Harnack, Lehrb. d.
DG., 3 vols., 1886 ff. ed. 3, 1894, with which compare his
,
Grundriss der DG. ed. 2, 1 893, and Loofs, Leitfaden z.

,
Studium d. DG. ,1889, ed. 3, 1894. In his great work

distinguished by richness of material (especially in vols. i. and
ii.), wide variety in the points of view, and vivacity in nar-
ration, Harnack attempts to present the History of Doctrines
in the light of the theory, that the process of their development
consisted in a Hellenizing of the Gospel, following the impulses
of Ritschl's work against Baur Entstehung d. altkath.
:
Kirche, ed. 2, 1857, and of M. v. Engelhardt, in his Chris-

tentum Justins des Martyrers, 1878. With this the History of
Doctrines turned back to an idea of the era of Illumination. The
criterion appeared to have been at the same time discovered for
the criticism of dogma
again in the line of the Illumination
theology. A Hellenizing influence upon dogma 7aas3. historical
necessity, but it furnishes at the same time the ground upon which
the church of the present is compelled to surrender the ancient
Dogma.
Finally, we have a long list of such monographs, under-
taking to follow particular conceptions through the whole
course of history, but throwing light upon the ideas of entire
periods. In addition to the writings of Baur already referred to,
we mention especially F. A. Dorner, Entwicklungsgesch.
:
d. Lehre v. d. Person Christi, 3 parts, ed. 2, 185 1 ff. A.

RiTSCHL, Die Lehre v. d. Rechtfertig. und Versohnung, vol. i.,
ed. 2, 1882. H. Reuter, Augustin. Studien, 1887; Gesch. d.
Aufklarung im MA., 2 vols., 1875 ^' ^- Seeberg, Die Theo-
logie des Duns Scotus. Kostlin, Luther's Theol., 2 vols., ed. 2,
1901. Th. Harnack, Luth. Theol., 2 vols., 1862, 1866. G.
Plitt, Einleitung in die Augustana, 2 vols., 1867 f. F. Frank,
Die Theol. der Cone. Form, 4 parts, 1858 ff. A. Schweizer,
Centraldogmen, 2 parts, 1854, 1856. Excellent material is also
furnished in many articles in the PRE (Herzog's Real-Encyklo-
padie fiir protest. Theologie und Kirche) and in the Dictionary
of Christian Biography, 4 vols., 1877 ff.
From Roman Catholic sources we mention Klee, Lehrb. d.
:
DG., 2 vols., 1837 f. Schwane, DG., 3 vols., 1862 ff. Bach,

Die DG. des Kath. MA. v. christolog. Standp., 2 vols., 1873 ^^
Also, the monographs of K. Werner, Thomas v. Aq. 3 vols., ,
1859, and Die Scholastik des spateren MA., 4 vols., 1881 ff.
;
28 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
4- Greek-Roman Heathenism in Its Relation to Christianity.
Cf. Chantepie DE LA Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionêscli., ii., ed. 2,
421 fif.CUMONT, Die Mysterien des Mithras (in German), 1903. A. DlE-
TERICH, Eine Mithrasliturgie, 1903. Friedlander, Darstellungen aus der
Sittengesch. Romsiii., ed. 6, 5090". Boussier, La religion romaine d'Auguste
aux Antonins, 2 vols., 1874. RiviLLE, La religion a Rome sous les Severes,
1886. Zeller, Die Philos. der Griechen, 3 parts, ed. 3, 1869 ff. LuT-
HARDT, Die antike Ethik, 1887. BonhSfer, Die Ethik Epiktets, 1894.
MOMMSEN, Rom. Gesch., vol. v. Hatch, Griechentum u. Christentum,
translated by Preuschen, 1892.
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his
Son, born of a woman, born under the law (Gal. 4. 4 f.). To
make this declaration intelligible, and thus to secure a foundation
for the History of Doctrines, is the purpose of the following
paragraphs, which will present but a very rapid sketch, presum-
ing upon the possession of the requisite biblical and historical
knowledge upon the part of the reader.
We must first of all take a view of Greek-Roman Heathenism.
The religion of the period is exceedingly varied (see e. g.,
Lucian, Deorum concil. ), and it is from the time of Augustus an
age of religious restoration. Cosmopolitanism opens the door
to strange gods, and these are in wonderful speculations amalga-
mated with indigenous ideas and forms. Strange rites of
worship, with their ''wonderful tales and legends" (Strabo.
cf. Acts 14. II ff. ), flourish. The divinities of the Orient
(Osiris, Isis, Mithras), with their strange, mysterious worship,
find devotees; the mysteries of old are revived as means of sal-
vation (ffwTr;/v6t). Above all, it was the worship of Mithras
which now became rapidly diffused, so that from the end of the
second century onward it met the wants of large sections and
enlisted in serious conflict with Christianity. Regeneration
to a new life, or the counsel to live in heaven, became for
multitudes a real religion imparted to them in many symbols and
acts. From the Orient was derived the worship of the Empe-
rors as gods, which Augustus had already desired. But the most
ancient forms of worship are also again practiced {^^ ajitiqnity
should be revered,''' Macrob. Saturn., iii. 4). Interest in the
highest problems of existence sustained the popular philosophy
of Stoicism with its religious-ethical tendency among the great
mass of the educated (see especially Seneca and Epictetus).
God is the Spirit (Ttveu/ia) which pervades the universe, the
vou<5, Xoyo^, or world-sustaining Force (Tzpovota)
hence the Stoic
Determinism. This Divinity, who was commonly conceived

GREEK-ROMAN HEATHENISM. 29
with Plato as Being without attributes, but also as '^ Father," is

after all nothing more than Natural Law. It is the office of the
knowledge of the truth to make men good. He who desires to
become good must first learn to know that he is bad. This
comes to pass through reflection, or reason, by the help of God (to
live agreeably to nature 6fi(iAii)'(njfjJv(u'$ rrj fj/rec C^^j. Man must
withdraw himself upon his inward life and die to the world, to
the state, to sense (xai'hTjxow and xarop^'^-at/j.a) The world is our
.
state ; we are '

brothers to nature.
'
'
' The proper attitude is ex-

pressed in the familiar Â>i-/ou xat dTzi'/oUj bear and forbear (Gel-
lius, Noctesatt., xvii. 19. 5, andff., following chiefly Epictetus).
Even the slave is free in soul. All men are members of the
Greater Republic of this world. Man is a sacred object to man.
All have God in themselves: ''The sacred spirit has its seat
within us. " '
What else is nature but God and divine reason im-
'
planted in the whole world and its parts.

'
With this combine
' :
*^ A happy life consists in this one thing, that reason be perfect
in us." But between the reason (logos), or God within us,

and the flesh (caro) there is a conflict '* None of us is without
:
fault (culpa). But let man do what is good." Seneca's idea

was: ''Trust thyself and make thyself happy." To become
free from the flesh is the highest goal of man the way of escape
:
stands open, and beyond it great and eternal peace (Seneca).

In these conceptions of the philosophers, as in the great reli-
gious longings of the age, are embedded elements which prepared
the way for Christianity (the unity of God, the Logos of God
effectually working in the world, the emphasis upon the inner
man, the great longing to become God's by becoming free from
self and the world, the shattering of the ancient notions of state
and rank in the interest of a spiritual fellowship of all men).
But, freely as these conceptions were employed by the early
Christians, the difference between them and the sphere of
ancient Christian thought is no less clear (absence of the divine
Person and of personal intercourse with him, and the consequent
lack of the idea of moral guilt, resulting in the physical and
moralistic conception of morality). The yearning after another
'
world is the great feature of the *' fullness of time, but the means '
by which this yearning might be made permanent and effectually

satisfied this the world did not produce from within itself.
The moral life of even the better element seldom corresponded to
the lauded ideals, as history testifies. It is, therefore, not diffi-
cult to understand the methods employed in the apologetic
writings of the ancient church (harsh combating of idolatry,
accommodation to the philosophical formulas, yet the constant
affirmation that Christians are " a Bew generation ").
so HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
5- Judaism,
Comp. SchOrer, Gesch. des jiid. Volkes, 2 vols., 1890, 1886. Well-
HAUSEN, Gesch., 1894.
Israelii, u. jiid. Weber, System der altsyLagogalen
palast. Theol., 1880. Hilgenfeld, Die jiid. Apokalyptik, 1857. Sack,
Die altjiid. Rel. im Uebergang v. Bibeltum z. Talmudism, 1889. Staffer,
Les idees religieuses en Palestine &. I'^poque de J6s. Christ, 1878. Siegfried,
Philo, 1875. Zeller, Philos. d. Griech., iii. 2. Bousset, Die Religion
des Judentums in neutest. Zeitalter, 1903.
I. It is only the ideas of the later Judaism which are here of

interest to us. The relation between God and man is a legal
relation. God commands, and man obeys in order thereby to
merit the reward : Kn^N NnVJ? D^B^ (Pirqe aboth 5. 23) and
"S^ bn;> TS] r^C^n (ib. 4. 22; of. Tobit 4. 6; 2. 14; 12. 9;
14. 9; 13. 2 J. This connection of ideas explains the efficacy
attributed to the ordinances (T\'y>T\ tradition of the elders, Mk.
7.3), deduced by exegesis from (tihno) the text of the Thorah and
constantly multiplied without restraint. There are so many com-

mandments, in order that there may be great reward (Makkoth
3. 16). For this we wait in perpetual humility (^5^^ DplV)
Hence the scrupulous observance of the specific laws (^duauKrir^f)

Ps. SoL, 14. i) and the insistence upon the
TzpotrraYixdrujv,
value of good works (fasting, prayers, alms. Tobit 2. 18 f.; cf.
Matt. 6. 16; 6. 2, I ; 5. 20. Sir., 3. 28. Ps. Sol., 3. 9. 4.
Esra 7. 7: thesaurus operum repositus apud altissimum ; cf.
8. 36, and Tobit 4. 9; Weber, p. 273 ff. ). This also in part
gave vitality to the Messianic hope of the nation, which looked
forward to the coming of Him who should deliver his people
from all the distress of the present time, bringing reward to the
pious and misery to the ungodly. This is the Christ of the
Lord (//Jirrro? xupOfo, Ps. Sol., 18. 8, cf. 6 17. 36), the Son of ;
David, the Son of Man (Par. of Enoch, e. g., 46. 2 63. 11 ; ;
69. 26 62. 7, 14, cf. Son of a Woman, 62. 2, 3, 5

; Son of a ;
Man, 71. 14; 65. 5; 69. 29), the Son of God (Enoch, 105. 2.
4. Esra 7. 28 f.; 13. 32 ; 37. 52 14. 9). According to some,
;
the Messiah would come himself to bring the condition of

eternal blessedness (Sibyll., iii. 766. Ps. Sol., 17. 4. En., 62.
14 f. Jn. 12. 34). According to others, the Messiah but
prepares the way for the consummation. He was thought of as
a mighty king, who should rule Israel four hundred years and
then die (4. Esra, 7. 28, 29 cf. Apoc. Baruch, 39. 7
; 40. 3); ;
only after this should follow the consummation of the world. He

JUDAISM. 3^
is, therefore, a man of

men (avi'^pwnog ^| dv^^pwrzajv Trypho in
Justin. Dial., 49).^ The Messiah appears to have nothing in
common with the spiritual beings who are the media of the
divine presence in the world, with the angels who appear with
increasing frequency, with the ''great Scribe" of God, nor
with the ptptp''p (probably /j.srdi'^povog) and the N^^'P (See

Weber, p. 178.) But longing for the Messianic kingdom
was awakened especially by the consciousness of sin, which
oppresses the entire human race and from which man is ab-
solutely unable to free himself. How can the law with its re-
wards bring help, if no man since Adam has the law ?

fulfilled
Through the fall of Adam

sin and guilt have come upon the hu-
man race (4. Esra; 26; 4. 30; 7. 118 f.; 8. 35, 17.
3. Apoc.
Bar., 1703; 23. 4; 48. 42; 54. 15, 19. Cf.Weber, p. 216, 217).
We have nothing without the Almighty and his law (Apoc.
Baruch, 85. 3). Thus there is a continual advance, as well in
pessimistic estimate of self and the universe, as in the vividness of
the hope centering in the kingdom of the royal Messiah. We
may mention also the rich development attained by cosmology,
by a peculiar metaphysics (everything earthly pre-exists in
heaven), and in eschatological conceptions.
2. It is of the highest importance to observe the combination
formed by Judaism with Greek philosophy, in which are fore-

shadowed many of the developments of the earlier Christian
theology. Here the chief sources are the Wisdom of Solomon
and Philo; cf. also 4 Mace, the Jewish Sibylline books, and the
didactic poem of Phocylides (a) God is conceived (Platon-
:
ically) as abstract Being, without attributes. (<^) There accord-

ingly yawns a great gulf between God and the uXtj (matter).
(/) This is bridged by the intermediate existences, angels,
demons, dovd/istg (powers), Xo^nt (words), comprehended in the
idia idecbv (forms of forms) or the /T(npta (wisdom) or the /'>;'"?,
o yôô? TTpiDToynvo^^ dt6rpo<; 'Vso^ (word, first-born word, other
God), neither ungenerated as God nor generated as are we, the
1 The representation of the birth of the Messiah from the virgin is also
foreign to Judaism, vid. Seeberg, Glaube und Glaube, p. 28 f., note 2. The
announcement of the pre-existence of the Messiah occasionally met with is to
be understood in the light of Enoch, 46. 3 ** Before the sun and the con-
:
stellations were created his Name was mentioned before the Lord of spirits."
The later rabbinical literature similarly describes the Name of the Messiah as
pre-existent (vid. Weber, 1. c, pp. ^-^^^^ 339 f) ^^ ^'^ ^^^ Thorah is
declared, being involved in the divine wisdom, to be pre-existent and the
*' daughter of God." (See Weber, p. 14 ff. ) This is all but a part of the
later Jewish metaphysics, according to which everything Judaic has its origin
in heaven.
high-priest mediating between the creature (dem Gewordenen)

and him who has begotten it, and representing man as his advo-
cate, the bread from Heaven, the source of the water of knowl-
edge. Hethe instrumentality {opya^îr^') through which
is
the
world was created. But the Logos is neither conceived as a
person, nor as bearing any relation to the Messiah, (d) The
dualism of this system is seen in its anthropology, in which the
body of man is regarded as a prison and the cause of evil :
^From the way in which it came to birth, sinning is natural

{û!j4'ue^) to it." Vit. Mos. iii., 157 Mangey. ^
{e) Salvation
is therefore deliverance from sensuality. This is experienced
through the fulfillment of the law, whose external forms must
maintain their validity (de migr. Abr., i. 450 Mangeyj, but
ultimately through enthusiastic ecstasy. (/) All this is de-
duced by allegorical interpretation, after the manner of the Hag-
gadah, from the Old Testament. Philo presents it as authorized
in the strictest sense by *' For the prophets are the
inspiration :
interpreters, God using their organs for the proclamation of what-

ever things he wished (de monarch., ii. 222, and, especially,
Quis div. rer. her. i. 511 Mangey; cf. also Sanday, Inspiration
(Bampton Lectures), ed. 2, 1894, p. 74 ff.^ Nagelsbach, Nach-
homer. Theol., p. 173 ff. Homer. Theol., ed. 2, p. 187 ff.
Pauly Realencycl., ii. 1117).
Among the Essenes also similar Hellenistic conceptions exer-
cised a formative influence.
6. The Primitive Christian Proclamation.

Cf. B. Weiss, Bibl. Theol., ed. 2, 1901. Die Religion des N. T., 1903.
\V. Beyschlag, Neutest. Theologie, ed. 2, 1896. H. J. Holzmann,
Lehrbuch der neutest. Theologie, ed. 2, 1897. Hofmann, Bibl. Theol.,
ed. Volck, 1886. A. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. ii. Pfleiderer, Das
Urchristentum, ed. 2, 1902. Weizsacker, Das ap. Zeitalter, ed. 2, 1892.
Nosgen, Gesch. d. neutest. Offenb., 1891-93. P. Wernle, Die Anfange
unserer Religion, 1901. H. H. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, ed. 2, 1901.
H. Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 189S. A. Schlatter,
Der Glaube im N. T., ed. 2, 1895. R. Schmidt, Die paulinische Christo-
logie, 1870. A. Seeberg, Der Tod Christi in seiner Bedeutung fur die
Erlosung, 1895.
I The prophecy of the Old Testament prophets culminates in
.
the idea of the '* new covenant " in Jeremiah (31. 31 ff. ),and
in the thought that God shall reign as king over his people and
the whole world in righteousness and grace. Jesus Christ and
his work constitute the realization of these ideas. He claimed
for himself absolute authority. His words take a place of equal
This Platonic theory of inspiration, which influenced Christian theology in
1
many ways, leads us back to the Platonic conception of the inspired seer. See
Phaedrus, c. 22, p. 244 a. Tim., c. 32, p. 71 e.
;
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN PROCLAMATION. ;^^
dignity by the side of the declarations of the law (Matt. 5. 7),

and will outlast heaven and earth (Matt. 24. 25 f., 35). He
announced himself as the promised Messiah. This is the mean-
ing of the term which he applies to himself, the ' Son of Man
'
(of. Book of Enoch), and more than this is not in the first
instance involved in his designation as the ''Son of God."
If the term "Son of man " describes the Messiah as of heavenly
nature, origin, and goal (cf. Jn. 3. 12 f. ), he is the ''Son of
God," as one who derives the content and motive of his inner
life from God and therefore lives and works in the power
of God (Matt. II. 27 ; 3. 34 f. ). Since now Christ as the
Messiah lives, teaches, and works in God and by the power of
God, he exercises divine dominion over men (Lk. 22. 29 f.
17. 21, 23; I. 33. Matt. 13; 12. 2, 8), and thereby estab-
lishes the blessed condition of men as a kingdom of God.
Inasmuch as he exercises divine dominion, there belong to him
the divine attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, the

power to forgive sins which did not according to Jewish

teaching belong to the Messiah absolute authority, power,
over heaven and earth until the end of time. Although
John often applies other terms, his ideas do not extend essen-
tially beyond the synoptic representations. The conceptions of
Christ as the light, the life, the truth and the way merely give
fuller expression to the thought that he exercises the divine gov-
ernment of the world for the salvation of men.
2. Thus in Christ is the one expectation met. He rules with
divine dominion for the salvation of men in the world, imparting
to them life and righteousness, and gathering them into a king-
dom of God. In this, one aspect of the new covenant is
realized. But, according to Jeremiah, that covenant embraces a
double purpose. The law is to be written by the power of the
Spirit in the hearts of men, and their sins are to be forgiven.
This second purpose was placed by Jesus in a peculiar relation to
his death, the necessity for which he strongly emphasized ('5^0-
Jesus came into the world to minister. This ministry embraces
the surrender of his soul to death as a Xorpov, so that many may be
thereby delivered from death (Matt. 20. 28. Mk. 9. 35).
Since now death may be regarded for us essentially as a penalty,
Jesus has designated the giving of his life as a means of
deliverance from the penalty of death, availing for many or as ;
a means of the forgiveness of sins (cf. Matt. 16. 26). The

Gospel of John explains this by the illustration of a shepherd faith-
ful unto death (Jn. 10. II, 15, lyf; 12. 24 f.; 15. 13; 18. 11).
His conception was, therefore, the same as that of Jesus
himself, that the fidelity of Jesus even unto death and his obedi-
;;
ence to the Father constitute the ground, or ransom, for the sake
of which God forgives the sins of many (Matt. 26. 28 ff. ). The
declaration in i Cor. 11. 25 expressly represents the new-
covenant estabhshed through the blood of Christ as embracing
the forgiveness of sins but the shedding of the blood of Christ
;
includes also the other aspect of the new covenant, i. e.,

the awakening of new life and the implanting of the law within
the heart. Each of these two cycles of thought divine domin-
ion and new covenant
thus of itself embraces the whole compass
of the work of Christ. He is the King, who bestows a new life
upon men and he does this by achieving for them, through his
;
death, the forgiveness of sins.

An analysis of the manifold particulars in which Jesus has
established the state of grace under his dominion, or in his
kingdom, would carry us beyond our limits. The chief categories
are as follows: (iz) Repentance (yCterriynia), with faith, as the
consciousness of the divine authority and power of Christ (Matt.
8. II, 13; 9. 2, 22; 15. 28. Lk. 17. 19 7. 48, 50); as a
;
receiving (xad'etV) in relation to Christ and his gifts (Jn. i. 16 ;
13. 20; 17. 18). (i^) The following of Christ, and that which
it involves (Matt. 16. 16. Jn. 6. 68f.j 8. 12). {c) The true
fulfilling of the law, or true righteousness, love (Matt. 22. 23 f.
23- 23)- (^) A
prayerful life. According to Matt. 16. 18;
13. 9 ff., Jesus anticipated a historical unfolding of the kingdom
of God in the form of a congregation (ixxXTjUia). In this con-
gregation he will be present (Matt, 28. 20. i Cor. 11. 24 f.;
16. 22. Matt. 26. 26 ff. ). He will also take part as her Lord
in the last judgment. In the final days of his ministry he
indicated the tokens which should herald the latter (Matt. 24.
6-31). In various parables he combined the general tenor of
these prophecies. We should look for the return of him who
will soon come and summon to account, in order that the
eternal destiny of men may be determined (Matt. 24. 43 ff .
25. I 14 ff., 31 ff.).

f.,
3. But, according to the Gospel narratives, the revelation of

Christ was not completed in these declarations uttered before his
death. And that which is said in the reports concerning the
words of the risen Christ we find fully confirmed in the other
New Testament writings. Everywhere we meet with the same
ideas and assertions, which are simply inexplicable in this their
absolute harmony if not derived from words of Christ himself ;
for they cannot be accounted for by anything contained in the
other sources accessible to the writers, /. e. the Old Testament
,
and Judaism. The risen Christ, first of all, convinced his

disciples that he was really alive, and thus at the same time
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN PROCLAMATION. 35
awakened in them the conviction of his victory and his power

over his enemies. He then instructed and exhorted them con-
cerning his person and their mission. ^Ve unfortunately possess
only very brief summarizing accounts of these instructions (Matt.
28. 18 ff. Lk. 24. 44 ff. Acts I. 6 ff. j. The task of their
world-mission is revealed to the disciples. With it are com-
bined preaching and baptism. At the same time there is
imparted to them in the trinitarian formula a knowledge of the
position of Christ and of the Spirit promised them in the life of the
God-head. The term, ''Son of God," received in consequence
a new character. It no longer signifies merely, in the sense of
the Old Testament usage, the man beloved and led by God, but
the Son, who is in heaven with the Father, eternal and omni-
present as the Father. Thus the riddle of the person of Christ
was solved for the disciples. His authority, claims, and prom-
ises during his earthly life now first attain for them their full
significance and force. The Gospel of John in particular under-
takes to present the human life of Christ in the light of the
religious knowledge afterward attained. The last revelation of
Christ serves to interpret his earlier revelations. This finds rec-
ognition when John discriminates between a state of divine glory
(^doâ) belonging to the past, /. ^., to the pre-existence of Christ,
and his present existence (Jn. 12. 16, 23; 17. 5), but in such
a way that this glory is manifested in Christ's earthly life ( i. 14 ;
2. II ; II. 4; 17. 10, 6-9), and especially in his sufferings as
the consummation of his earthly life (13. 31 f. ; 17. i). The
glory of Christ is the unlimited power of divine activity. To the
pre-existent Son of God (8. 58 10. 35 f. ) belongs as his pecu-
;
liar nature the divine glory. This was the knowledge of Christ
which the disciples received through their communion with the
risen Jesus, and by which they became fitted to interpret his
earthly life and actions. The immense historical significance of
the Gospel of John consists in the fact, that it makes it possible
for us to understand how the disciples of Jesus were enabled and
compelled to associate the historical events which they witnessed
with the religious experience of the eternal, omnipotent Lord :
'' The Word became flesh."

in harmony with the Old Testa-
The Spirit, hitherto regarded,
ment conception, as a revelation of the presence of the divine
power (Matt. i. 18. Lk. i. 35), as a creative source of reli-
gious knowledge and power (Lk. i. 15, 41, 67 24. 49.
; Acts
1.8. Matt. 10. 19 f.; 13. II. Jn. 3. 6; 20. 22), or of mirac-
ulous works (Matt. 12. 28, 32), is by the last declarations of
Christ described as likewise a personal principle, as the aA/.o>g
TrapdxXyjTog^ who, coming from the Father (Jn. 15.
26J, sent by
Christ (16. 7), makes the revelation of Christ effectual in the

disciples,and thus becomes the medium of the coming of Christ
to them (14. 18 f.; 16. 12 ff.).
These were the chief features of the revelation of Jesus Christ.
He exercised divine dominion, or actualized the new covenant.
He thus revealed his divine nature, and he expressly based
this nature upon the conception of the unity of the Father with
the Son and the Spirit. He opened up to the disciples a great task,
while at the same time he held out the prospect of his presence
and co-operation for its accomplishment through the coming of
the Spirit,
4. In accordance with the prophecy of Christ, the Spirit pro-
duced a great awakening. Wonderful words and wonderful
deeds were given to those who believed on Jesus. A sphere of
the miraculous (see Acts) surrounds the church. But the Spirit
did not exert his power as a revolutionary principle. On
the contrary, he manifested himself as the Spirit of Christ,
establishing the authority of Christ as Lord in the church. But
in connection with this element of stimulation there were other
and stable elements which preserved the work of the Spirit from
subjective exaltation and onesidedness. These were the Old
Testament ; the authority of the words of Jesus and of the apostles
as his historical witnesses (Acts i. 22 ; 3. 15 ; 4. 33 ; 5. 32 ;
8. 12 ; of. and the

also Matt. 16. 19); the ordinances of baptism
Lord's Supper, established by Jesus and, finally, a complex of
;
traditions (^7:apad6<Tc?) embracing the ordinances just named.

j
These traditions included a formula of belief, of which 1 Cor.

15. 3 f. has preserved a fragment easily recognizable. This
formula of belief stood in a peculiar relation to the administra-
tion of baptism. It had a confessional character. There was
accordingly a formulated basis of instruction for those desiring
to receive the sacrament of baptism, /. e.j a baptismal confes-
sion (cf. Rom. 6. 3 f. Acts 19, 2. Heb. 10. 22, 23; cf. 4, 14.
Eph. 4. 5 f. I Pet. 3. 21 f. I Tim. 6. 12. i Jn. 2. 20).
I Cor. 15. 3 gives an indication as to the age of this formula.
It was made known to Paul already at the time of his

baptism. Since in the New Testament we meet very fre-
quently with a triadic arrangement and formulation of ideas
(i Cor. 12. 4; 6. II. 2 Cor. 13. 13. Rom. 15. 16,30.
Eph. 2. 19-22; 5. 19; 4. 4-6; I. 3-14. 2 Thes. 2. 13-15.
Jude 20 f. I Pet. I. 2 2. 5 4. 13 f.
; Heb. 10. 29-31. Jn.
;
14. 15-17, 26; 15. 26; 16. 13-16. Rev. I. 4 f Withthelast .
passage compare i Cor. 14. 12, 32; 12. 10. Rev. 22. 6), and
since the command to baptize as given by Matthew contains the
trinitarian formula, it is in the highest degree probable that the
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN PROCLAMATION. 3?
formulaof belief was arranged in a triad, /. <?., that it formed the

basis from which at a later day our Apostles' Creed was derived.
In favor of the triadic formulation is to be reckoned, first of all,
the later form of the confession, and also the facts, that this
confession is a baptismal confession, and that Matthew expressly
combines baptism and the Trinity, as is the case also in Didache
7. I, 3 ; cf. I Cor. 6. ii. Further, Acts 19. 2 appears to be
most easih'' understood upon the supposition of a triadically
divided baptismal formula of instruction.-'
To this formula was then added a '* tradition " concerning
the Lord's Supper (i Cor. 11. 23), which stands in connection
with the custom of admitting the baptized at once to the cele-
bration of the latter. But, besides this doctrinal material, tradi-
tion has preserved a great deal of an ethical character in the form
of the enumeration of vices and virtues. Outlines of this charac-
ter run through the entire New Testament and lie at the foundation
of the ''Two Ways Compare the paradoxes of
'
of the Didache.
'
I Cor. II. 2. To these two great chief elements may have been
^ Alfred Seeeerg in his important work, Der Catechismus der Urchris-
tenheit, 1903, disputed the triadic form of this confession, as also its derivation
from the tradition attested in Matt. 28. His arguments are essentially as
follows : That the New Testament speaks of a baptism into the name of Christ,
but never into the name of the Father and of the Spirit, which would be utterly
incomprehensible if the formulation of Matthew 28. 19 had been already
known to the writers. Further, that since the reception of the Spirit
occurred only after baptism at the laying on of hands, a confession of the Spirit
before baptism would not have been possible (7. 235 ff. ). In response to tliis
it may be said, that Matt. 28. 19 is not at all supposed to be a *' formula " in
the strict sense of the word, but only a summary of the last teachings of Christ
parallel with the other summary in Lk. 24. 46-49, except that Matthew, in dis-
tinction from Luke, has given this summary a definite reference to baptism,
recognizing that baptism in fact transports man into the sphere of the personal
influence of the Father, Son, and Spirit. The apostles were taught what was
involved in their commission to the whole world and in the revelation of God
which was at the same time made to them. In this connection there was
given to them, according to Luke, the idea of the Trinity, which Matthew has
placed in a special relation to baptism. The triadic formula is thus in
any case traceable to the tradition attested by both Matthew and Luke ; but
the particular formulation of this tradition, as Matthew has it, can scarcely
have been generally known in the time of Paul. Baptism was administered
commonly only into the name of Christ. It must then have been only through
Matthew that the triadic formula came into general use. This does not, how-
ever, by any means exclude the view that instruction and confession during
this period recognized the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (let the tradition
preserved by Luke be borre in mind). If the baptized person looked forward
at once to the reception of the Spirit, then must the instruction which he
received and the faith which he was to confess also have had reference to the
Spirit. "It is my conviction that the triadic formula has its roots In the words of
Jesus of which Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, have formed an
epitome, and that the original basis for baptismal instruction and confession
was triadically arranged.
later added instructions concerning ordination and congre-

gational offices, as is suggested by various turns of expression in
the pastoral epistles (e. g.. Tit. i. 7 f. ; 2. i ff. i Tim. 3. i,
8, 10, 13, 15, 16. 2 Tim. 2. 2). Heb. 6. i, 2 offers a

summary of these fixed elements of the instruction given by the
church, which are now regarded as a *' foundation ; " and the
Didache, in perfect harmony with the latter, presents us a
revision of the material in a later form.^
Thus the Spirit of Christ and certain definite forms of pro-
clamation, or of doctrinal and moral instruction, stood from the
very beginning side by side in the Christian Church. They
worked together, although there were not wanting at a quite
early day collisions between the two principles. Whatever
heresies or disorderly elements appeared in the congregations
seem to have appealed to the *' Spirit." Very early was heard
the warning against ''false prophets." In opposition to them,
the body of common ideas and representations in the church
became constantly more fixed. Even with such a genius as
Paul, the elements of the common
Christianity outweigh the
original elements of his own
conceptions of truth.
5. This brings us to the gospel of Paul, or to the elements of
a Pauhne theology. Natural endowments and talents, the
culture which he had enjoyed, and the Christ whom he had
been permitted to see, made this man the greatest of the apostles.
The Pauline theology may be presented in the following cate-
gories (i) Law and gospel, faith and works, atonement and
;
justification. (2) Spirit and flesh, the new life. (3) The con-
gregation of believers, or the church. These categories have
for their common basis the apostle's ideas of God and Christ.
The extraordinarily vivid conception of God which distinguished
Paul is concentrated in the thought that God is the omnipotent,
spiritual AVill. To this Will are to be traced all events whether
it be the choice of the apostles and their mission, transfor-
mations in the religious and moral life, or the ordinary occur-
rences of daily life. It is God who works in us to will and
to do (Phil. 2. 13). As everything comes to pass "according
to the counsel of his will" (Eph. i. 11), so revelation is a
* In a certain sense our Gospels might be also included in this category. If

the Gospel of Mark, according to ancient tradition and reports, originated with
Teter, and if Luke set himself the task of giving to Theophilus an orderly
account of the things which he had been taught, the conclusion can scarcely be
avoided that the synoptic Gospels have their common basis in collections of
material which had been gradually formed in the missionary preaching of the
apostles. The problem as to the Gospels is not indeed thereby solved, but the
peculiar, and in principle similar, grouping of the material in the synoptic

writers is thus placed in a new light.
'* making known

to us the mystery of his will " (Eph. i. 9)
and faith the *' knowledge of his will " (Col. i. 9), which how-
ever serves for the accomplishment of his "purpose according
to election" (Rom. 9. 11; 8. 2, 8 ff.; 9. 23. Eph. 2. 9 ff. ).
This purpose includes an election made before all time (Eph.
1. 4. 2 Thes. 2. 13 f. ), which, so far as individual men are
concerned, is actualized in the calling, which latter is always
conceived as being effectual (Rom. 8. 30; 9. 12, 23. 2 Thes.
2. 14). The absolute divine Will is therefore eternal and
rational will. It is characterized further as loving-will (Rom.
5- 5^8) or grace (Rom. 3. 24; 5. 15. 2 Cor. i. 3 ; 6. i.

Col. 4. 18). At the same time God is represented as the Right-
eous One, in the double sense which this attribute bears in the Old
Testament, /. <?. as he who, because he is always consistent with
,
himself, is faithful toward the righteous but punishes the wicked

(Rom. 3. 26 j 2. 5. 2 Thes. i. 5, 6).
To this spiritual almighty Will, which rules in the world
in love and righteousness, all things which occur are therefore to
be traced. This point of view is constantly recurring in the
writings of Paul, and hence any presentation of his theology
must most strongly emphasize it. To this the Pauline Christ-
ology also leads. Christ is the Lord, to whom belongs the
fullness of the divine nature the "Lord of Glory" (i Cor.
2. 8 f. 2 Cor. 4. 4). In this designation of Christ as Lord the
same idea finds expression which was presented in the words
of Jesus when he spoke of the dominion (^âfTcXîa) Avhich Christ
exercises (cf. esp. Rom. 4. 9; 10. 12 ff. 2 Cor. 4. 5. i Cor.
15. 24. Heb. 2. 11). But Paul now thought of Christ as the
ascended Lord, who from heaven, with divine omnipotence and
omnipresence, permeates the world and rules in his church.
Christ, " who is above all, God blessed forever " (Rom. 9. 5, cf.
Tit. I- 3 ; 2. 13 ; 3. 4), is in us (2 Cor. 13. 3, 5), as we on the
other hand are in him (Rom. 8. i. i Cor. 4. 16 ; 6. 17. Gal.
3. 27). He who fills all things, in whom all things exist,
is the head of the church (Eph. t. 22 ff.; 2. 14 ff. Col. i. 9,
18; 3. 11). All of these variations of thought rest upon the
conception, "the Lord is^ that Spirit" (2 Cor. 3. 17, cf. i
Cor. 15. 45; 6. 17). Ci^^he Christ of Paul is the spiritual
Energy which forms the world and shapes history^ He is
related to the church as the governing head to the governed body.
As all -penetrating power, he is in us, as we on the other hand
are in him. In all these ideas we are to recognize, not highly
wrought similes, but assertions in regard to realities to be under-
stood in the most literal sense. But this Lord-Spirit is one with
the Son of David, born of a woman (Gal. 4. 4), who came " in
the likeness of the flesh" (Rom. i. 3 f. ) Through the resur-

rection he has been transferred to the heavenly state of dominion
(Eph. I. 20 f. J, which he at present exercises, and he will soon, at
his Parousia, be manifest to all. This conception becomes com-
prehensible only when we remember that Paul speaks of a pre-
existence of Christ "in the form of God" (Phil. 2. 6 ff.
2 Cor. 8. 9), as the *' first-born of the whole creation," through
whom all things were created (Col. i. 15 ff. i Cor. 8. 6; 10.
4. 2 Cor. 4. 4). Christ, therefore, through the resurrection
returned unto the state of the " form of God," which originally
belonged to him, after having in obedience to the Father borne
for a time the ** form of a servant." Viewed theoretically, there
yet remain here many questions unsolved. That the divinity of
Christ, in the proper sense of the term, was firmly held by Paul is
evident. The triadic formulas receive their interpretation from
the principles above stated. Prayer to Christ (Rom. to. 12, 14.
Phil. 2. 10. I Cor. I. 2; 16. 22. 2 Cor. 12. 8) is the practical
consequence. The History of Doctrines, if it is to understand
the further development of Christology, must keep this con-
stantly before it as the starting-point. It is one of the most
certain facts of history, that the thought and feeling of the
apostolic age was based, not upon the man Jesus, but upon
the Lord in heaven, who pervades and governs the universe,
omnipotent and omniscient. It is simply absurd to attempt to
explain this in a psychological way from the immense impression
made by the man Jesus for no imagination could mistake
;
the most powerful man for God. Just as little can the resur-
rection in and of itself suffice for explanation ; for even a
resurrected man remains a man. A historical explanation is
conceivable only upon the supposition that the disciples received
from the Risen One impressions and evidences of his power and
presence which compelled them to believe :He in us and we in

him as Paul also realized in his experience. Only from this
point of view does the faith of the apostolic age become compre-
hensible. Every other explanation fails to explain anything
historically, and ignores the simple facts of the case in the
sources of our knowledge, not only in Paul and John, but also in
the closing chapters of Matthew and Luke. But, despite all this,
the question, how divinity and humanity are related to one
another in Christ, finds no solution. The * 'fullness of the God-
head," the *'spiritof holiness" (Heb. 2. 9. Rom. i. 4),
which constitute his divine nature, are something different from
'
the existence ' according to the flesh,

* but no definition is given
'
of the relation of the one to the other.

Like the ascended Christ, the Spirit of Christ, or of God, is
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN PROCLAMATION. 4 I
active, and that, too, in the hearts of believers, whether exciting

within them the miraculous powers of the charismata (i Cor.
12. II J 14. 12. Col. I. 29), or as the *' demonstration and
power of the Spirit " (i Cor. 2.4. i Thes. i. 5 f. ; 2.13. Eph.
6. 17). And it was especially in the latter that Paul recognized
the specific energy of the Spirit. Not outward miracles nor
religious exaltation appeared to him as the peculiar domain of
the Spirit ; but the Word, which becomes effectual as a *' power
of God" (Rom. i. 16). As Christ is for Paul divine energy,
so too the Spirit. Thus Christ is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3. 17).
The difference is, that Christ has the church at large as the
object of his activity, whereas the Spirit is the divine energy, as
apprehending and transforming individuals.
6. The first great group of ideas in the Pauline theology may
be placed under the title; Spirit (^7zveofj.a) and Flesh (^(rdpq).

Man is flesh in the first place, according to his natural, visible
substance ; but also because the latter by virtue of its lust
{întd-op.ia) determines the character of man's spirit, and thus the
flesh becomes the instrument of sin. To be '* after the flesh "
(zara <7df>x.a) denotes the immoral condition of the sinner ;
whereas to be ''in the flesh" (iv fTap-A) belongs to human

nature (2 Cor. 10. 3). Thus arises a '* walking in the lusts of
the flesh" (Eph. 2. 3), with a mind ((/fitryrj/ia) of the flesh
(Rom. 8. 7) and a ''minding earthly things" (Phil. 3. 19 ;
2.4, 21), the ** worldly lusts " (Tit. 3. 3 ; 2. 12), the " desires
of the flesh " (Eph. 2. 3), and the "works of the flesh" (Gal.
5. 19 f. ). It is not the idea of Paul, that the natural constitu-
tion of man produces sin in him ; for sin came into the world by
a particular act (Rom. 5. 12. i Cor. 15. 22). He means, on
the contrary, that the historical power of sin {^diiapria') gives a
free rein to lust in man and thereby the flesh becomes the deter-
mining factor in his life. Sin, thus regarded, is for Paul
a degradation of human nature, a^gerversity. From this con-
dition, contrary to nature and uriwbrthy~of it, Christ as the
Spirit sets free. His energy (^hipyeio) works with power (iv
duvdfj.sc) within us (Col. i. 29). We become in him a "new
creature" (2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 6. 15). He lives in us (Phil.
I. 21. Rom. 8. 10. 2 Cor. 4. 10 f. Gal. 2. 20). Wisdom,
righteousness, and sanctification proceed from him (i Cor. i.
30; 6. 11). He who puts on Christ ceases to obey the will
(^Tzpovota) of the flesh. But as through Christ a new life is begun
in us, so will he also make us alive through the resurrection. It
is only when we have received eternal life that the redemption
of Christ is completed (Rom. 13. 11 ; 8. 23 f. ). We have
merely more precise and concrete delineations of this thought,
;
when Paul describes in many aspects the creative activity of the

divine Spirit in the soul of man (the Spirit reveals, teaches,
witnesses, confirms, inspires, impels, vivifies, renews, strengthens,
sanctifies, infuses love, fills us, sets us free, etc.). ''As many
as are led by the God, these are sons of God " (Rom.
Spirit of
8. 14). Christians live and walk '' in the Spirit " and '' accord-
ing to the Spirit." They serve God in him and they lead
a new life through him (Gal. 5. 16, 22. Rom. 7. 6. Phil.
3. 3. Eph. 6. 18). They are spiritual (TrvsofiarcxoQj whereas
other men are only natural (^'u/tzo;') (Gal. 6. i. i Cor. 2. 14?
18). They expect at the resurrection, instead of the merely
natural body, a spiritual body <ra>/xa nveofiaTcxov (i Cor. 15. 44).
But the organ for the reception of the spiritual influences of
Christ, or of the Spirit, is faith (Eph. 3. 17 f ). Faith is also,
according to Paul, a taking and receiving. It is further charac-
terized as a purely spiritual activity as a knowledge of the will
;
of God (Col. I. 9, 6. Eph. i. 17. Phil. 3. 8. i Tim. 2. 4.
2 Tim. 2. 25); as an obedience of faith, or to the faith (uraxoiy

-tVrew?, Rom. I. 5 16. 26); as " the obedience (u-axoij)
;
of your confession unto the Gospel of Christ " (2 Cor. 9. 13.

Rom. 6. 17 10. 3 f 16 f 2 Thes. 1.8. 2 Cor. 10. 4 f); as
; ,
a personal conviction (Rom. 14. 23); as love for the truth

(2 Thes. 2. 10); as also a full persuasion, boldness, confidence
(^7zX7jpo^<>ptaj 7rapprjtTta^7:7:(>ii^7]fTi<$) (Rom. 4. 20, 21. Eph. 3. 12).
But as faith thus in manifold ways apprehends the spiritual gifts

and influences of God, it is, since God is ef^cient Will, essen-
tially to be defined as subjection to God in obedience, or trust.
Even faith itself must according to Paul be received as an effect
of the Spirit for it is a gift of God (Phil. i. 29. 2 Cor. 4. 13)
;
and comes from the Gospel (Rom. 10. 17. i Cor. 15. 14.
Gal. 3. 2, 5), in which the effectual working of the Spirit is
exercised.
Thus there is awakened in man by the Spirit through faith a new
life : working by love (Gal. 5. 6).

faith Inasmuch as fhe Spirit
makes the will of God effectual in man, man becomes free from
the authority of the law (2 Cor. 3. 17. Rom. 8. 2), Christian
morality culminates in liberty (Gal. 5. 1-13). The letter kills,
but the Spirit makes alive. Sin remains even in the believer.
Hence sanctification still proceeds in his life (i Thes. 4. 3.
Rom. 6. 19, 22), as also conversion (îierdvota 2 Cor. 7. 9 f
12. 21. 2 Tim. 2. 25); grace is increased (2 Cor. 9. 8. Eph.
3. 16), and the moral life is a constant striving (Phil. 3. 13 ff-)-
A process is begun in man through the Christ- Spirit, which finds
its consummation in eternal glory (Rom. 8. 18, 30. 2 Cor.
3-8)-
7. We pass now to the second combination of ideas found in

the writings of Paul. Sin {aiiapria), as we have seen, manifests
itself in man as a carnal being. But it displays itself also as dis-
obedience (^-apa/jiYj), and hence, as incurring personal guilt.
This guilt is incurred by both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. i. 3).
The law cannot free from guilt. It only awakens a sense of sin.
It kills, as Paul knew by experience (i Cor. 15. 56. Rom. 7. 7
f. ; 3. 19; 2. 13, 25: 5- 13). Nevertheless it comes from God,
but has been imposed upon men only for pedagogical reasons and
for a definite time (Gal. 3. 19, 21, 24. Rom. 5. 20). For the
present time the Gospel {eoayyihov') holds sway, it being identical
with the ancient gospels (êofiyyeXia) which preceded the law (Gal.
3. 17 f. Rom. I. 2. Eph. 3. 6. Acts 13. 22. Tit. i. 2 f.).
But since the entire race rests under guilt, and hence under
penalty of death, and the law can only serve to make us sensible
of our guilt, we need the forgiveness of sins upon the part of God.
But deliverance from the guilt of sin occurs through the forensic
justifying act (^<^r/.fU(>ov ; cf. XoyiêfTiât ei'? dt.y.at6(7uyr,'^~) of God
(Rom. 2. 13, 26 ; 3. 4 ; 4- 4 f. Gal. 3. 6). Judaism also pos-
sessed the forensic conception of righteousness (ni3j and Dipyn):

but whereas, according to Jewish ideas, the law is a living power
and stimulates man to the good, which God then accepts as a
basis for justification, according to Paul the law is incapable of
making man good, and only faith justifies, and it does so simply
because it accepts Christ. God pronounces righteous the un-
godly man dfreSr^q (Rom. 4. 5), Avho has no righteousness of his
own (Rom. 10. 3. Phil. 3. 9). The meaning of justification by
faith and not by works is therefore, not that God recognizes faith
as an ethical beginning, but that it is faith alone by virtue of which
man apprehends the righteousness achieved by Christ (Gal, 2.

20; 3. 13. Rom. 5. 9 4-25; 3. 22 ff.). This is the sense
;
in which we are to understand the '* righteousness which is of

God by (t-i) faith" (Phil. 3. 9). It is the righteousness of
God, or his faithfulness (Rom. i. 17; cf. 3. 3, 4, 26; 5. 21;
4. 16 ;10. 3), which graciously accomplishes the non-attributing
of guilt, or the pronouncing righteous (Rom. 4. 5 ff. 2 Cor. 5.
19. Col. I. 14. Eph. I. 7). The formula Faith is accounted :
for righteousness (Rom. 4. 3 ff.; cf.. Gen. 15. 6), in itself mis-

leading it is constructed in opposition to the Pharisaic idea :
Works are accounted for righteousness is therefore meant to in-

dicate merely that the righteousness bestowed by God avails for
man only upon condition of faith, because only faith can make
it an inward possession of the man. '^
Of faith " (^z tt^Vtsw?) is
therefore (Rom, 4. 16) the same as ** according to grace"
(xara x^P^^^- Hence the thought of Paul is clear The righteous-

:
ness of God ('9r(*M) bestows upon man the righteousness which is

of (tx) God ; but man possesses this as the righteousness of faith
(^x 7:i(TTeui'<;), But if faith itself is now a gift of God, there re-
sults a double connection with the line of thought developed
under item 6 God works faith in us through the Spirit, and he
:
gives to faith righteousness as a conscious possession ; cf. also

Eph. 2. 8 ff. Tit. 3. 5-7. Phil. 3. 9 ff.
The justified man has peace with God (Rom. 5. i f); son-
ship and right of inheritance (Rom. 8. 23, 15 f Gal. 4. 5, 6 ;
3. 26 f., 29. Eph. I. 5); freedom from the law (Gal. 2. 4; 4.
26 ff.; 5. i), etc.
Weare now, for Christ's sake, declared righteous. But is it
for the sake of his work of redemption ? On the one hand, Paul
defines the object of Christ, who, in obedience to God, gave him-
self to death on account of our sins, but was raised by God from
the dead, to have been deliverance from the world (Gal. 1.4),
sanctification and purification (Eph. 5. 25. Tit. 2. 14), a life
dedicated to Christ (i Thes. 5. 10); on the other hand, he
represents the death of Christ as the means through which we
receive forgiveness and are placed in a new relation to God.
The two conceptions stand side by side in 2 Cor. 5. 14 ff.: In
Christ we are a new creature and through him we have recon-
*
'
'
'
ciliation {/MTaA'Aayyj^y because God has dealt with Christ as per-

sonified sin. Thus in the one direction Christ's death and resur-
rection serve for the establishment of his redemptive dominion
(Rom. 14. 9) and for the awakening of zeal for good works (Tit.
2. 14), since the life of Christ in the flesh displays the divine con-
demnation of sin, and he, by his death, severed forever his rela-
tion to sin (Rom. 8. 3 6. 10 ), and in death most fully attested
;
his obedience (Phil. 2. 8). Christ therefore died and rose again,
by his obedience condemning and abolishing sin. As he who has
done this, he acts in believers, enabling them to lead a new life
opposed to sin. Thus viewed, even Christ's sufferings serve for
the religious and moral regeneration of the race, of which we have
spoken under item 6.
This presupposes that Christ brings into a new relation with
God, or achieves for us the forgiveness of sins. But this has come
to pass, because God has made Christ in his blood a propitiator
(Ûa(TT7Jpto<$)j in order that those who believe on him may be for
his sake declared righteous (Rom. 3. 24 f). His death,
acknowledged by God through the resurrection, brings to us for-
giveness and justification (Rom. 4. 25), and Christ continually
represents us as our advocate before the" Father (Rom. 8. 26 f.,
34 f ). By virtue of the death of Christ we are thus translated
PKI.MITIVE CHRISTIAN PROCLAMATION. 45
into the State of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5. iSL), with the forgive-

ness of sins and justification. We are thus again brought near to
God (Eph. 2. 13, 18; 3. 12). But if this has occurred, then at
the same time we were made free from the law and its curse,
under which Christ fell, in accordance with the declaration in
Deut. 21. 23, since he bore the fate of the transgressor (Gal.
3. 13 f, 17; cf.-^lso Col. 2. 14 f.). What Paul thus means
to assert is this :lînce Christ attested to the utmost his obe-
dience in the con3ition which sin had brought about for the
race, he, in accordance with the appointment of God, covered
the sins of men from the sight of God, or atoned for them, so
that God now enters upon a new relation to the race, looking
upon them for Christ's sake as righteous, and no longer permits
theji^quirements of the law to determine his bearing toward man-
kind! The one righteous man who preserved his righteousness
to the utmost is the basis upon which God, for his sake for he
rules through his Spirit in the race
into a new relation to himself.

permits the race to enter
These conceptions are not con-
structed upon the line of the sacrificial idea, but in accordance
with the idea of the reconciling effect and the vicarious signifi-
cance of the sufferings of the righteous one.
Even here Paul's teachings are not arranged as a ** system."
They are controlled by concrete aims, and the History of Doctrines
proves how many interpretations may be placed upon them.
Nevertheless they do not appear to lack a certain unity. Ssince
Christ as the Reconciler, by his obedience even unto death, ap-
peared and continually appears for man as his advocate, he has
brought the race into the new relation to God. The law is ab-
rogated, sin is man is pronounced righteousT^ But since
forgiven,
this new been established, the inner spiritual domin-
relation has
ion of God in the race has also been made possible. Thus the
two lines of thought which we have traced here unite. But at
the same time it is clear that, for Paul also, the new covenant is
actualized through Christ. The reconciliatior. (xaraAAayTj) is the
new covenant.
8. The idealism of Paul's faith beheld in the few Christian
congregations of his time the beginning of a new epoch of
history, and his practical sense saw in these congregations the
means for actualizing this epoch. In this, Paul adopted the
conception of the church (ixx?.7jfT{a) held by Christ. This, as
viewed from the position of the History of Doctrines, is an idea
of immense significance. Christianity, accordingly, does not
present the spectacle of a number of individuals accidentally
associatec(2but it is the Christ present in the worldj The ancient
idea of Menenius Agrippa, of a body of humanity organically
4^ HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
associated, was revived in many forms in that day. Paul gives

it a new aspect. Christ is the Head of this body, from whom
itderives its origin, its course, itsgrowth, and its goal
life, its
(Col. I. i8 f., 24. Eph. 2. 20 ff.; 1. 22 f. ).
5. 23 ff.; In this
community Christ works through the Spirit.
All the gifts of
the Spirit are present in it. But, above all, is the power of the
Spirit actively exerted in the preaching of the Gospel. Among
other functions of the church are to be mentioned baptism and
the Lord's Supper. Paul in 2 Tim. 2. 20 testifies that there
are among the saints (ây.ot') in the church not only such as lead
a real Christian life, struggling and crucifying the flesh, but also
perverse members.
The Pauline eschatology cannot be here presented, further
than to note the suggestion in the sphere of the philosophy of
history, that the prophecies concerning Israel are yet to find
their fulfillment in the ingathering of the heathen into the church
in the present era and in the salvation of ** all Israel " at the end
of the world (Rom. 11. 25, 26).
9. Having now noted the peculiar doctrinal points emphasized
by Paul, let us cast a brief glance upon the general views preva-
lent in the apostolic age. These laid the foundations upon
which the post -apostolic age carried forward the work of con-
struction. The Old Testament, inspired by God (2 Tim. 3.
16. 2 Pet. I. 20 f.), is the Holy Scripture of Christendom. It
serves for edification (Rom. 15. 4. 2 Tim. 3.16). From its
utterances doctrines are developed (see esp. Hebrews). Its
prophecies serve as the source of apostolic evidences (see esp.
the Gospel of St. Matthew). To the Old Testament are
added the historical sayings of Jesus (i Thes. 4. 5. i Cor. 7.
12, 25 ; 9. Acts 20. 35), but also the Spirit (^nvsufia) and
14.
the spirits (TT^/s^/Aara). But the spirits are to be tried (Matt. 7.
16 ff. I Thes. 5. 19-22. I Cor. 14. 34 f. i Jn. 4. i). The
historical apostolate and the traditions {Tzapadotrst'^) set a limit
to the working of the spirits (see above).
The vivid conception of God which we have found in Paul
is manifest also in other literature of the period. The loving-will
of God desires our salvation (2 Pet. 3. 9) and begets us into
a new life (Jas. i. 18). The all-working God is also holy and
just (Rev. 15. 3 f.; 16. 5, 7 19. i f.
; 2 Pet. i. i, 3. i Pet.
2.
23 ) . Christ is the Lawgiver and Judge (Jas. 4. 12).
He is always thought of as now existing in the state
of exaltation. Rev. i. 12-17 (*^f- n- iS J i7- 14 19- 16; J
22. I ) presents the popular conception. Having passed

through death, he has entered into glory (i Pet. i. 21).
He is the Lord of glory (Jas. 2. i), our only Master and
Lord (^defTTzoTTj^ y.ac xoptoq^ Jude 4.), who is enthroned at the

right hand of God (Heb. 8. i j lo. 12 ; 12. 2), and to whom
the angels are subject (2 Pet. 3. 18 ; i. 14, 16). Interest
centres, above all, in the power (dOvafu^') and coming (^Ttapoufxta)
of Christ (2 Pet. i. 16). The latter is near at hand, but will

occur unexpectedly (2 Pet. 3. 4, 10. Rev. 3. 11). Thus
there will be a revelation (dnoxdXo^'c^) of his glory (i Pet. 4.
13 ; I. 7). The present glory of Christ is in harmony with his
pre-existent state (i Pet. i. 20, 11 ; 3. 19 f.).
That Christ died on account of our sin was the apostolic tra-
dition (i Cor. 15. 3) and the general belief (i Pet. 3. 18).
SThe death of Christ was universally regarded as the means by
which we are transported into a new moral state of life, and this
because Christ died the just for the unjust, in order that he,
having died and risen again, might lead them to God and bring
them into a new relation with GodT The Epistle to the Hebrews
follows a peculiar course. Its Christology recognizes Christ as
prc-existent (Heb. i. 2 f. 4 ff ) and locates his nature in the
, .
** power
of an endless life " (7. 16, 8u-âfii<^ ûjtj^ dy.araXnTou) jinhis
** eternal Spirit " As such, he assumed
(9. 14., Tzvsu/ia aiatvcav').
flesh and blood (2. 14 ; 7. 14), in his earthly life experienced
human emotions, and died in obedience (4. 15 5. 7, 8). He ;
is now at the right hand of God (i. 3 ; 8. i ; 10. 12 ; 12. 2).
In the same way as in the writings of Paul, a discrimination is

made also in this Christology between the human existence of
Christ and a spiritual, eternal, divine element. The author has
presented the exaltation of Christ in the light of his high-
priesthood. The apologetic character of the work, which
required this method of presentation, led him, first of all, to
conceive of the death of Christ as a sacrifice. And this sacrifice
is once for all and forever sufficient (5. i ff., 7 f.; 9. 12-14;
7. 27), as Christ also forever stands as our advocate before God

(7. 25 ; 9. 24). The death of Christ, t, e.^ his blood, inaugu-
rates the ''new covenant" and purifies the heavenly sanctuary
(9. 15 ff. 18 ff. ).
, To this is added, as the object of his death,
the purifying from sin {xay%apiap.oq afxaprnuv^ i- 3 9- I4 26), j
as also the expiatory covering over (ÎXddxefTiiaL^ of sin and the

despoiling of the power of the devil (2. 14 f.). If we leave
out of account the emphasis laid upon the forms of the sacri-
ficial ceremonies, the conceptions of the author do not carry us
beyond the two-fold representation which we have already found
in Paul, /. <?., that God, by the death of Christ, establishes a new
objective relation between himself and the human race, and
that the death of Christ aids in establishing a subjectively new
attitude of man toward God.
'
4^ HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
Christians are partakers {pArayot) of Christ and of the Holy

Spirit (Heb, 3. 14; 16.4). With this all the blessings of sal-
vation are bestowed upon them, for God works in them what is
well-pleasing in his sight (Heb. 13. 21). The word is, how-
ever, the means through which the blessings of salvation are im-
parted to believers (Heb. 4. 2). It is a heavenly summons
(Heb. 3. I. I Pet. 3. 21 5. 10. 2 Pet. i. 3) which pene-
;
trates to the ends of the earth (Heb. 4. 12), begetting a new

life (Jas. I. 18. I Pet. i. 3) and preserving us in it (i Pet. i.
23 ff.; 2. 2. Jas. I. 21). This new life is to be conceived of,

first of all, as faith (Jas. i. 3, 6, 8 ; 2. i, 5. i Pet. i. 7 f., 9,
21; 5. Heb. 12. 7). This term is understood precisely as
9.
by Jesus and Paul. Faith is called wisdom (ô^ta, Jas. 3. 13 ;
cf. 2. 18); also knowledge (îniyvwrTt^, 2 Pet. i. 2, 3 2. 20; ;
3. 18), and is exercised in *'full assurance

" {^TzXrjfunl'opia, Heb.
10. 22). But, above all, it possesses the trait of obedience (i
Pet. I. 22. Heb. 11. 8; 5. 9). *^ is to be noted, however,
that faith constantly assumes more of the characto of hope, and
directs its gaze upon the blessedness of the futurî Pet. i. 21.
Heb. 12. I f.; 10. 36; 6. 11, 12). Thus the spiritual attitude of
the Old Testament was revived. The well-known definition of
Heb. II. I (cf. Rom. 8. 24) exhibits this tendency, and hence
does not express the New Testament conception with entire
fidelity. The modification which begins to appear at this point
appears contemporaneously with the constantly growing ten-
dency to conceive of salvation {^(nurripia) as lying essentially in
the future. It is even designated *' a salvation ready to be re-
vealed in the last time " (i Pet. i. 4, 5 ; cf. Heb. 3. i ; 9. 15.
I Pet. 5. 10; I. 9, 13. 2 Pet. I. 4).
The Pauline doctrine of justification is not found in any of
the other New Testament writers. Heb. 11. 7 furnishes a slight
reminder. The generally prevalent conception may be expressed
in the declaration of John '*He that doeth righteousness is
:
righteous" (i Jn. 3. 7. Rev. 22. 11). God produces good

works in us (Heb. 13. 21). We are to become doers of the
word, or of the law (Jas. i. 22; 4. 4). **Adoer (Trotijny?)
of the work, this man shall be blessed in his doing" (tzoctjêc)
(Jas. I. 25). Righteousness is the moral integrity which avails
before God, and which is recognized by him (Jas i. 20. i Pet.
2. 24 ; 3. 14. 2 Pet. 3. 13). At the same time, the latter is
by no means to be accounted as constituting merit upon the part
of man. On the contrary, everything good is given by God, as
upon the other hand the law is meant only as a law of liberty '
'
'
(M//JJX? iXs:ui^zpia<;^ Jas. 2. 12; cf. I Pet. 2. 16). From this

point of view, the theory of justification presented by James is by
no means to be considered particularly remarkable. James

seeks to base the edict of justification, not exclusively upon
faith, but upon the moral character which accompanies the lat-
ter. From Gen. i6. 5 it is directly inferred that **man is
justified by works (c| epyajv) and not by faith alone " (^x TztfTrsco^
fxovuv) (Jas. 2. 17, 20 ff.). Distinctly as this view differs from

the Pauline,we cannot see in it a falling back upon Judaism.
But this must be the starting-point for anyone who desires to
understand the history of the Pauline doctrine of justification in
the following centuries.
The warnings to keep the life free from sin, to practice love,
etc., are extraordinarily abundant, and attest the spiritual wealth
of the period. The conception of the church as a '* spiritual
house" and a ''chosen generation" (i Pet. 2. 5, 9) embraces
the assurance that it was in possession of all the gracious gifts of
God, and was under obligation to discharge all the duties of love
toward the members of the brotherhood. More and more the
sanctified (^Yjyoufievoc') take the place of the spiritual (^7ivu/j.ari-/.i>t')
as leaders of the church (Heb. 13. 7, 17, 24, 19). Office-
bearers begin to exercise the ministry of the word (i Tim. 3.
I ff.; 5. 17. 2 Tim. 2. 2. Tit. i. 7, 5). But these features
of the period do not indicate any increasing worldiness. Es-
chatology, on the contrary, is a powerful factor of the religious
life. Two characteristics meet and combine in mutual support
in the Christianity of the apostolic age upon the one hand, the
:
powerful impulse to establish the dominion of Christ by serving

him and in his power pressing out to the ends of the earth and, ;
upon the other hand, the conviction that only Christ himself
can achieve this, and that he will soon do so. These two ten-
dencies did not at first conflict, but aided one another. We
may recall the vivid hope of Paul and his great labors in the
service of this hope. In the Apocalypse is given in great pic-
tures, with veiled imagery and many references to the great
world-empires, a portrayal of the conflicts and the great victory
of the last time, which was so varied in its forms that every
period of history has been able to employ it as a mirror of its
own age. The city of God, already prepared in heaven, will
come down to the earth. It remains only for us to pray :Come,
'
'
Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22. 17, 20). Christ will soon be Lord
alone (Rev. 11. 15, 17; 12. 9, 10; 14. 3 f.; 19. 2, 6, 16).
This is the one controlling thought. But just because it is, the
moral counsels and exhortations to conflict and devoted service
gain the support of powerful motives. Of this, the letters to
the churches, recorded in the Apocalypse, furnish an illustration.
10. At the end of the apostolic age we witness the active
:
ministry of John, which is of the greatest signiiicance for the

History of Doctrines. Standing between two eras, he impressed
the message of the days of revelation deeply upon his genera-
tion. We may define his significance in three observations
(i) The Christ, of whose historical revelation he has been a
witness, is the Lord of the world. The apocalyptic hopes of his
youth, of which hitherto but few have been realized in their ex-
ternal form, yet remain. He sees in great visions the final vic-
tory of Christ. The apocalyptic traditions of his nation furnish
for him the forms of these visions. (2) Aseparation begins to
appear between the historical Jesus and the heavenly Logos-
principle (Cerinthus). In response to this, the Gospel proves
that the heavenly Lord was none other than the man Jesus.
John expresses this as paradoxically and bluntly as possible :
**The Word became flesh." From this resulted the pecu-

liarity of his Gospel. The religious knowledge which he had
gained in the course of a long life in communion with the ex-
alted Christ enables him to interpret the life of Jesus, which he
depicts in a thoroughly human way, with many minute human
traits. He carries backward the knowledge gained at a later
day. He seeks out the words which establish it and apprehends the
words of Jesus in this hi gher sense. Profound contemplation
characterizes this treatment of the life of Jesus. It saved to
the church the history of Christ, since it made it possible to un-
derstand it religiously, as the Lord himself, when present, had
been known to his disciples. (3) Vision and contemplation
were in this remarkable man united with a practical, simple tem-
per, averse to all foolish vaporings and pretense. To the watch-
words of the age, such as ''spirit" and '* righteousness," he
opposed this simple knowledge of the truth. Christianity is
summarized in the ''old commandment" (i Jn. 2. 7) or the
teaching (dcda/yj') of Christ (2 Jn. 9 f. ). This is the primitive
Christian catechism, to which reference has been made above
(item 4). Its contents are faith in God and love toward one
another (i Jn. 3. 23; 4. 15).
John does not mean, however, that faith and love are only an
outward keeping of the commandments. On the contrary, they
are given to man by the Spirit in the new birth, or regeneration.
The Spirit does not, as once thought, produce separate states of
excitement. John goes even beyond Paul, for whom the
"power" of the word was, in the last analysis, the Spirit.
The Spirit effects in man a permanent condition of fellowship
(^xotvtouta) with God (i Thes. 4. 13). This communion with
God is manifested in faith and love. But he who believes, be-
lieves in harmony with the commandment (iiroAiy), and he who
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN PROCLAMATION. 5X
loves, loves thatwhich the commandment enjoins. Faith and

love are awakened in the heart of man by the Spirit, and not by
the commandment. But faith and love, if they be genuine and
right, can never contain anything else than the commandment
given by God. Ut is evident that John himself is far removed
from the ancient Catholic conception of Christianity as a '^new
law," to that he yet helped to prepare the way for that con-
ceptionj
But true faith which confesses that Jesus is really
is that
Christ. or God only-begotten (Jn. i. 14), the
The Logos,
'^true God and eternal life" (i Jn. 5. 20), became the man
Jesus. Unless all indications are at fault, John borrowed his
conception of the Logos from Cerinthus, but he interpreted it in
his own sense. The Logos is the revealing God God, because
he manifests himself not only in many words, uttered '*in
divers portions and in divers manners, as those of the prophets,
'
'
but in an all-inclusive, complete revelation (cf. Rev. 19. 13 f.

Heb. I. 2. Ignat ad Magnes, 8. 2 ; 9. 2 ; ad Rom. 8. 2).
This God became the man Jesus. He who denies this /. e.y
two principles, the divine and human, separate from one another
(Cerinthus)
is the Antichrist (i Jn. 2. 22 ; 4. 3, 15 ; 5. i, 5.
2 Jn. 7 ; cf. Iren. i. 26. i ; iii. 11. i).

And true love the practical, active brotherly-love, which
is
walks according to the commandments of God ( 2 Jn. 6 i Thes. .
2. 3 f. ). He who doeth righteousness is righteous. From this

active righteousness may be known whether anyone has really
been born of God (i Jn. 2. 29; 4. 7; 5. 1,4). The regen-
erated, as such, does not sin (i Jn. 3. 9, 6; 1.6; 2. 6). Never-
theless, John assumes sin in his readers, as well as a regularly
observed confession of sin (i Jn. 2. i. f. i. 7f. ) This ap- ;
parent contradiction may, if I am correct in my judgment, be

solved by discriminating between a ''sin unto death " and a
*^sin not unto death" (i Jn. 5. 16, 17), /. ^., between the
sinful state of ungodliness which forever prevents communion
with God and the separate sinful acts which leave room for a
restoration through repentance (i Jn. 5. 16; i. 7 f. ). This
conception also (cf. Heb. 6. 4, 8; 10. 26 f.; 12. 17) reminds
us of ideas in the primitive Catholic period.
II. John subjected the traditional Christian conceptions to a
noticeable redaction. In addition to him, only the Pauline type
can be presented in distinct outlines. Between the two lie the
conceptions of James, Peter, Jude, and Hebrews. These types
of doctrine differ from one another in many particulars, but the
elements common to all certainly outweigh the differences. And
it was not really the peculiar features {e. g.^ Paul's doctrine of
justification, and the theories.of the Epistle to the Hebrews),

but those which were common to all, which influenced the

future. The Apostolic Fathers, e. g., presuppose a general
proclamation which embraced the common basis of the New
Testament doctrine.
These common ideas may be summarized as follows rY^ê
acknowledgment of the Old Testament ; the words of Christ,
together with the apostolic tradition and teaching, as of
binding authority; faith in the living God, who, in omnipo-
tence and grace, directs the life of individuals as well as
the course of history ; faith in Christ as the celestial and
omnipresent Lord, who became man, and, through the resur-
rection, entered again into glory ; the conviction that God
and Christ,through the Spirit, renew and quicken man re-
ligiously and morally, granting him also the charismata^ which
he needs for the upbuilding of the church. The work of Christ
embraces the efficacious atonement for sin as well as the transfor-
mation of man through the power of the Spirit. Forgiveness and
sonship with God, the filling with the Spirit, and eternal bless-
edness constitute the blessings of salvation, which are appro-
priated in faith and love. Love as an active disposition of soul
finds exercise in the congregational life, in which Christ and the
Spirit work through the word, baptism, and the Lord's Supper,
and through the charismata^ and the miracles wrought through
the latter. The final goal of the church is the glory of the
divine kingdom, to be ushered in by the coming of Christ,
which is near at hand.
If we compare this with the teaching of Christ himself, it is
clear that it presupposes the resurrection of Christ and the mani-
festation of the risen Lord in his glory ; and, further, that the
revelation made by Christ during his earthly life gives shape to
the whole structure. Christ exercises divine dominion, in that
he brings to man the forgiveness of sins and a new life, and ac-
tualizes the new covenant wherever these blessings are received.
Through the dominion of Christ, humanity is organized as the
church, or kingdom of God, and thus conducted to its appro-
priate goal. He accomplishes the salvation of men^ forgiving
the evil and bestowing the good, and he brings the race to its
divinely appointed goal. In faith man bows to this beatifying
dominion and in love brings into active exercise his new attitude
in the kingdom of God. These ideas embrace the whole reve-
lation of the New Testament. The redemptive dominion of

God and faith, the kingdom of God and love this is the briefest
possible expression of the Essence of Christianity in the sense of
the New Testament.^
1 Cf. Seeberg, Die Grundwahrheiten der christl. Religion, ed. 3, 1903 ;
lectures iii.-vi.
BOOK I.
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THE ANCIENT

CHURCH.
PART I.
CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE POST-APOSTOLIC

AND ANCIENT CATHOLIC AGES.
CHAPTER I.
THE CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE POST-APOSTOLIC AGE.
7. The Apostolic Fathers.

Sources l.
: From Clemens Romanus we possess a manuscript of the
Roman congregation, addressed to the church at Corinth. It was written
probably early in A. D. 97. Wrede, Untersuchungen zura I. Klemens-
brief, 1891.
2. In Rome appeared also the Pastor of Hermas, a call to repentance
divided into 5 visions, 12 mandates, and 10 similitudes. Its composition
is, with great probability, located in A. D. 97-100, while others, upon the
testimony of the so-called Canon of Muratori, place it so late as A. D. 140-
145. Cf. Zahn, Der Hirte des H., 1868. Huckstadt, Der Lehrbegriff des
Hirten, 1889.
3. The documents which follow carry us to Asia Minor, First, the 7 gen-
uine Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (to the Ephesians, Magnesians,
Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smymans, and Polycarp), written about
A. D. no. Cf. Zahn, Ign, v. Ant., 1874; Von der Goltz, Ign. v. Ant.
als Christ u. Theologe, in Texte u. Unters., xii. 3 (1894).
4. In the same time appeared the Epistle of Polycarp op Smyrna,
5. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, wrote, about A. D. 125, 5 books: 7.oy'i.Liv
KVf>iaK(Jv k^7jyr]<JL^. Of these, unfortunately, only a few fragments have been
preserved to us in Irenceus, Eusebius, etc. Vid. in the small Leipzig edition
of the Apostolic Fathers, p. 69 ff. Cf. also C. de Boor in Texte u. Unters.,
V. 2, p. 170, and also p. 1 76 ff.
6. An Epistle ascribed to Barnabas carries us to Alexandria. Chap. 16.
I gives no aid in fixmg the date of its appearance. According to Chap. 4. 3f.,
it may have been composed under Nerva (A. D. 96-98). It is commonly
assigned to the time of Hadrian. The unity of the composition is to be
maintained.
7. It was also probably in Alexandria that the little liturgical handbook,
îSaxv TGJv if)' aTToffroTiUVy made its appearance. From a literary point of
view, it is very closely related to the Epistle of Barnabas, as is especially
manifest in the section upon "The Two Ways." It can be proved, however,
that neither of the two made use of the other, but that an earlier document
lay at the basis of both. The Didache most probably appeared in the first
decennium of the second century. We refer to publications of it by Har-
NACK in Texten u. Unters., vol. ii., and Funk, Patres apostolici, ii. ed. 2,
1901, and to the small edition " Die Apostellehre u. die jiid. beiden Wege "
:
(Leipzig, 1886), in which, p. 38 fT., is noted also the most important literature.
8. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement is in truth the most an-
(55)
5^ HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
cient church homily that has been preserved to us. It was probably delivered
in Corinth (7. l), hardly later than A. D. 140. Cf. Zahn in Zeitschr. f.
Prot. u. Kirche, 1876, no. 4. Harnack, Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 1877, ,
p. 329 ff.
Thebest edition of the above-named documents, not including the Didache,

is Patrum apbstolicorum opera rec. de Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, 3 vols.,
:
Leipzig, 1S76-1877 smaller edition, Leipzig, 1877

; and FuNK, Patres ;
Apostolici, 2 vols., ed. 2, Tubingen, 1901. Lightfoot, The Apostolic

Fathers (Clemens, 1890 Ignatius, 1885). ;
For estimates of their doctrinal contents, see Ritschl, Die Entstehung der
altkath. Kirche., 1857, p. 274 ff. Lubkert, Die Theol. d. ap. Vater, 1854.
V. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justins, 1878, p. 375 ff. Lechler,
Das apostol. u. nachap.
Zeitalter, ed. 3, 1885, p. 586 ff. Pfleiderer, Das
Urchristentum, 1887, p. 640 ff.,823ff., 845 ff. Harnack, DG., i. ed. 3, p.
140 ff. Thomasius, DG., i. ed. 2, p. 31 ff., with additions by Bon-
wetsch ; cf. p. 141 ff. Behm, Das christl. Gesetztum der ap. Vat. in
Zeitschr. f. k. Wiss., 1886, p. 295 ff., 408 ff., 453 ff.
For the sake of clearness and in view of the importance of

we deem it advisable to examine each of the above
the matter,
documents separately before attempting to present a summary-
account of their doctrinal contents.
I. Clemens Romanus.
((z) The leading thought is that of the One God, the Lord
(f)i<T-6rrji;] 49. 6 and 47 fin. with 48 init.) of the world,
cf.
the Creator, and, in this sense, the Father (<?. g., 35. 3 ; 19.
2). The conception of the latter term is different in 29. i ;
23. I 56. 16 ;
the merciful and gracious Father by his holy
:
discipline protects men and trains them for the reception of

mercy. It is. our duty to love him who elects us, and to draw
near to him with a holy heart. God is -O-eb^; xai 6 xupco^ Î-qfroh^
\iit(jrb<; y.a\ rd irvsup-a nt dycav (58. 2 J 46. 6).
(^) Christ is sent from God to deliver us (42. i; 59. 2).
In that God
elected Christ, he elected us through him as his
-own people (64 ; 59. 3). As to his nature, he is the Son of
God, exalted above the angels (^6^ following Heb. i. 3 ff. ); the
Lord Jesus Christ the sceptre of the majesty of God and yet he
; :
came as the Humble One into the world (16. 2). Already in
the Old Testament he spoke through the Holy Ghost (22. i).
In harmony with this, his descent from Abraham is by the term
TO xazd (Tdpxa discriminated from another descent (32.2). The
sufferings of Christ are described as the sufferings of God (2.
i), unless in this passage we are to read Tzai^rj/jLara aoroo, instead
of Ka^'irjiJ.ara f^zou (Funk).
(c) the only mediator of our salvation.
Christ is Through
him we have become God's possession (vid. b). He is to us a
helper in weakness and a high-priest in the offering of gifts
(prayers; cf 61. 3). Through his mediation we are made
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 57
capable of seeing God and tasting immortal knowledge ; through

it, faith, (godly) fear, peace, patience, temperance, and \vis-
dom (^<sii}(ppoGmri) become the portion of the Christian (64 J.

Out of love Christ gave his blood for us his flesh for our flesh,
his soul for our souls (49. 6; 21. 6). "By the blood of the
Lord there is redemption {loTpmai'^^ to all that believe and hope
in God" (12. 7). This blood, which was shed for the sake of
our salvation, is so precious to the Father of Christ, that it has
obtained the grace of repentance for the whole world. The
humility and patience which Christ maintained in his life's work
are an example for us, who have through him come ** beneath the
yoke of grace " (16. 17).
To summarize In Christ we have become the possession of
:
God. Through him the knowledge of God, faith, and all

virtues have become ours. His blood has redeemed us, since it
brought us the grace of repentance. His life is for us a pattern
of humility. It may be said, indeed, that Clement has not
grasped the saving efficacy of the death of Christ in its full
biblical significance but it is going too far to maintain- that he
;
believed nothing more to be accomplished by it than blotting out

of past sins (Behm, I.e., p. 304. Vid. 7. 4).
(^) As to the personal standing of the believer, Clement
teaches *' They were all (Old Testament saints) therefore glori-
:
fiedand magnified not through themselves nor their works, nor

the righteousness which they wrought, but through his will. And
we therefore, being called through his will in Christ Jesus, are
not justified through ourselves, neither through our wisdom nor
knowledge nor piety nor works which we have done in the holiness
of our hearts, but through the faith through which God
Almighty has justified all men from the beginning " (32. 3, 4).
Such are the paths of blessedness (31. i); faith in Christ brings
us everything good (22. i). Clement writes thus with a full
conception of the wide scope of his words, for he follows them
immediately with the remark, that good works are not thereby
excluded, but on the contrary zeal in such works is required
(33. I, 7, 8). This is as truly Pauline as the definition of faith
as confidence (7t7zoiOr^(n<s, 35. 2 ; 26. i ; cf. 2. 3 ; 58. i).
The humble temper of mind (16-19) and believing trust in God,
obedience to God, and unreserved self-surrender to him (10, i ;
11) obtain salvation. But this line of thought is limited by an-
'' Blessed are we, beloved, if we shall have fulfilled the
other :
commandments of God in the unity of love, that so through

love our sins may be forgiven us " (50. 5). No great weight is to
be laid upon the mention of *' hospitality " along with faith in
the cases of Abraham and Rahab (10. 7 ; 12. i ; cf. also 10. i ;
31. 2); more upon the strong emphasis laid upon the laws
l^vofitn) and commandments (-f)nfTTdyfiaTa) of God and Christ
(i- 3i 2- 8
4 ;13. 3
3, ;37. i 49- i i 40- i)-
;
When ;
Clement is thinking of the origin and nature of human salvation,

he is controlled by Pauline conceptions ; in view of the realities
of life and the judgment, he lays great weight upon the moral
activity of man in harmony with the law of God (but of. also
26. I).
(e) The church is, in Clement, the people of God, which he
has chosen for his own possession {e.g., 59. 4 ; 30. i ; 6. i ;
64); those called to be saints (inscription; 65. 2); the flock of
Christ (16. i). It is of importance to note the legal argument
based upon the Old Testament by which Clement supports the
authority of the elders. Their duty is (40) accordingly, the con-
duct of worship {letroopyia) and sacrifice {ûfrta'). The fixed office
and its authority here took the place of the free activity of the
Spirit in the church. Problems were thus created which were
destined to occupy the best energies of the church of the future
(cf. also Did. 15. i ; 14. i, 2). In this fellowship reign discip-
line and order (2. 6 4-6 47. 6; 21. 6; 40), subjection to
; ;
leaders and to one another (i. 3 21. 6; ^8. i), piety and
;
practical hospitality (i. 2 ff. ; 2), firm fellowship one with an-
other (46. 4 ff.; 30. 3; 15. i). For Clement's ideal of Chris-
tian character, vid. Chapters I. and II,
(/) It may be mentioned, finally, that the author distinctly and

body (24 and 25).
intelligently maintains the resurrection of the
This document makes it clear that the ideas embraced in the
apostolic proclamation have been preserved in the church, but
that there may be already traced a lack of independent scrutiny
of these ideas and of deeper penetration into their significance.
One does not receive the impression that the biblical conception
of Christ's work and the significance of faith are really under-
stood and inwardly appropriated. However, in passing this
judgment, we should bear in mind the particular object of
Clement in the preparation of the work.
2. Hermas.
To understand
the peculiarities of the *' Shepherd/' we must
remember its character as an exhortation to repentance.
(a) Hermas associates salvation directly with the Person of
Christ (Sim. 9. 12. 4-6). His views in regard to this, however,
furnish nothing really new. It is a perversion to make him a
representative of an adoptionistic Christology, as though teach-

ing that Christ was a man chosen of God, in whom the Spirit of
God dwelt, and who, after having proved himself worthy, was
elevated to a position of lordship (Harnack, DG.,ed. 3, p. 182

f. ). Christ, the Son of God, is as well the ancient Rock, out
of which the tower of the church is hewn, as the new Door
through which we enter this tower. '^The Son of God is, in-
deed, more ancient (^7Z(>i)Yevi(7Tep6<5) than any creature ; insomuch
that he was in counsel with his Father at the creation of all
things (Sim. 9. 12. 2, 3). He could very well have protected
his people through an angel (Sim. 5. 6. 2 ; cf. 2. 2) but he ;
did more, since he purified them by his own toil (Sim. 5. 6. 3).
The angels are his to command (Sim. 5. 5. 13 ; of. 2. 2), and he
upholds the whole world (Sim. 9. 14. 5 ; cf. Heb. i. 2). It
cannot therefore be doubted that Christ is for Hermas a pre-
existent Being, exalted above the angels.
It has been contended that, according to Hermas, Christ
is not a separate divine person, but that the Holy Spirit dwelt in
his flesh (Baur, v. Engelhardt, p. 425 f. Harnack, p. 185.

HOCKSTADT, p. 26 ff.). But Sim. 5 distinctly discriminates be-
tween the lord of the farm, e., the Father, the servant,
/*.
e., /'.
the Son, and the son, /. e., the Holy Ghost. The lord commits
to the servant the cultivation of the farm, and after this has been
done, he rejoices over it with the son, e., the Holy Ghost ?'.
(5. 2.6; 5. 2). If said immediately after this (6. 5) that

it is
God caused the Holy Ghost to dwell in the flesh of Christ, and
that the latter served the Spirit without defiling it, the meaning
isnot that the Holy Spirit constitutes the divine nature of Christ,
but that the pre-existent Christ is holy spirit {to 7:veo[j.a to aytov
TO Tzpoov^ TO y.Ti.(Twj TTdfTav TTjv xTtfTv^') , and that thls flesh, since it
did not defile the spirit, has been by God taken with the spirit
to himself (6 ff. ). The other passage adduced in support of the
theory in question, Sim. 9. i. i *' For that spirit is the Son of
:
God means only to say that the holy spiritual being that spoke
'
'
with Hermas was the Son of God. The pre-existent Christ was
not *' the Holy Spirit," but a pre-existent holy spiritual being.
It was not uncommon to speak in this way in the second cen-
tury. Christ is called Spirit of God (îzveofxa iêou') in 2 Clem.
9. 5. Iren. adv. haer., v. i. 2 cf. Arist. Apol., 2. 6.
; Celsus
in Orig. c. Cels., vi. 75. Theophil. ad AutoL, ii. 10. Tertul.
Apol., 21 ; adv. Prax. 8. 26; de orat. i. See already i Cor.
3. 17. The view of Hermas is, therefore, not essentially differ-
ent from that of the New Testament. It would have been in-
comprehensible that he should, in view of the baptismal formula,
have fallen into such confusion. Vid. also Dorner, Christol.,
i., ed. 2, p. 200 ff., 194.
(3) Christ, the Son of God, placed men (evidently meaning
believers of Old Testament times) under the protection of
:'
6o HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
angels ; then himself became man in order to purify men :

'* And
he himself labored very much and suffered much that he might

blot out their offenses . . wherefore having himself blotted
.
out the sins of the people, he showed to them the paths of life,
'
giving them the law which he had received from the Father
(Sim. 5. 6. 2, 3). Thus Christ brought forgiveness for the sins
of the past, and for the future gave to men his commandments.
Cf. Link, Christi Person u. Werk im Hirten des Hermas (Mar-
burg, 1886).
((t) As to the personal state of the believer, we are taught
In the hearts of men, which are in themselves weak and full of

sin {ê.g., Mand. 4. 3. 4. Sim. 9. 23. 4), which turn away from
God, do not know him, and Avill not obey him (Vis. 3. 7. 2.
Sim. 4. 4. 4, etc.), God causes his Spirit to take up its abode,
or the powers of the Son of God are imparted to them. Only
such as have obtained these are able to enter into the kingdom
of God (Mand. 3. i ; 12. 4. 3 ; 6. 2, i ff. Sim. 9. 32.4 ; 13.
2; cf. 25. 4). But this good Spirit cannot live in man together
with the evil spirits (Mand. 5. i. 3 ; 2. 5 ff. Sim. 10. 3. 2).
Sim. 8 explains how this gift is imparted. Branches from a
willow-tree are given to believers. Some bring them back fresh
and blooming others, withering and withered (both classes in
:
various degrees). The willow-tree is the law of God. ^* But

this law is the Son of God, preached throughout the whole
earth " (3. 2). It is therefore the preaching of Christ as anew
code of moral life which accomplishes the above results in be-
lievers. We are futher told that life is given us through the
water of baptism, and this is so necessary that it must in some
way be applied even to Old Testament believers (Vis. 3. 3. 5.
Sim. 9. 16. 2, 3, 5). Through baptism all the sins which aman
has committed are forgiven (cf. below under d).
The fundamental subjective condition of the moral life in man
is faith (Sim. 6. 12). This comes from above, and equips man
with power ; whereas its opposite, double -mindedn ess, is of the
earth and has no power (Mand. 9. 11). Since the latter, which
leads to doubt, must be overcome, as well as care and trouble
(Xo7:7j)j man turns in faith with his whole heart to God, praying
and sure that his prayer is heard (Mand. 9. i, 2, 5 ; cf. Vis.
4. 2. 4-6. Mand. 10). He who fears God becomes free from
the fear of the devil (Mand. 7. 4). Although faith may be
apparently presented as one among the Christian virtues (Mand.
8. 9; 12. 3, I. Sim. 9. 15. 2), it is evident from the above
that it is not so regarded. The elect are saved through faith.
The other virtues are daughters of faith (Vis. 3. 8. 3, 4 ; cf.
Mand. 5. 2. 3). The essential content of faith is presented in
. 1'
the passage quoted as Scripture by Irenseus, Origen and Athana-

sius,Mand. i. i ** First of all, believe that there is one God,
:
who created and framed all things, and made them from being
nothing to be all things (cf. 2 Mace. 7. 28), and who compre-
hends all things, and who is alone incomprehensible (d/wprjro';)
'
God created the world for the sake of men and the church
(Mand. 12. 4. Vis. 2. 4. 2 ; i. 4). That faith in Christ is not
unknown to Hermas is of course to be taken for granted (vid.
Sim. 8. 3. 2 extr. ).
Faith is therefore not only a knowledge and acknowledgment
of God as the Creator, but also an undivided turning of the
heart to God, which makes man strong and is the root of all
moral activity. It is '* as truly fundamental duty as fundamental
power" (Zahn, Cf. Huckstadt, p. 59 f.).
p. 175.
But the relationship of faith and good works is not always ob-
served by Hermas. ** Take heed, therefore, ye that serve the
Lord, and have him in your hearts work the works of God,
:
being mindful of his commandments and of the promises which

he has given, and believe that he will perform these if his com-
mandments are kept " (Sim. I. 7). The moral activity com-
mended is the fulfillment of the separate divine requirements.
To such an observance of the commandments is attached the
promise of life (Sim. 8. 11. 3 6. i. i ;7. 6 10. i. 2
; ; ;
2. 4 4. I.
;
Mand. 4. 2. 4 7. 5). Although this cannot be
;
interpreted as equivalent to the later moralism, it yet dis-

tinctly prepares the way for it. Cf. also the designation of the
preaching concerning Christ as law, vofin^ (Sim. 8. 3. 2, 3).
The view of Hermas as to the possibility of fulfilling the
divine commandments is not fairly represented in the assertion :
** The power thereto is innate in man " (Schmid-Hauck, DG.,

p.
11). On the contrary, it is '' the man having the Lord in his
heart" (Mand. 12. 4. 3 ; cf. Sim. 10. 3. i) who has this ability.
A certain narrowing of the moral horizon is manifest in Sim.
5. 3, 3
'* If thou
: shalt do some good thing not embraced in
the commandment of God, thou shalt purchase to thyself the
greater dignity, and thou shalt be more honored before God than
thou shouldst otherwise have been" (cf. Mand. 4. 4. 2).
(d) Finally, for a proper understanding of the general view of
Hermas, it is very important to note his conception of repent-
ance, which is the dominating note in his discussions. His fun-
damental idea here is '^ that there is no other repentance than
:
this, that we go down into the water and receive the forgiveness
of our past sins " (Mand. 4. 3. i ; cf. 4. i. 8 ). It is a special
favor of God, that now through the preaching of Hermas, in an
exceptional way, a second repentance is granted the congrega-
62 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
tion of believers (Vis. 2. 2, 4, 5. Mand. 4. 4. 4. Sim. 8. 11.

I, etc.). He who from this time forward keeps the command-
ments shall find the forgiveness of his sins (Mand. 4. 4. 4) and
be saved. This idea of one repentance is based, indeed, upon
representations in the New Testament (i Jn. 5. 16 ff. Heb.
6. 4. ff. ). As Christianity was regarded as the consummation
upon which very shortly should follow the end of the world, there
seemed to be no further room for apostasy and repentance (cf.
Apoc. Baruch, 85. 12). Although Hermas in other connections
by no means regards sin as consisting merely in outward works, but
includes in it inward desire (i-td-oiiiaj Vis. i. i. 8; 3.
8. 4. Mand. 12. i. i ;2. 2
; 4. 2. Sim. 5. i. 5), yet of re-
pentance he can say :
**
For he that hath sinned is conscious
that he hath done evil in the sight of the Lord, and his deed that
he has done comes into his heart, and he repents and no more
does evil, but does good most abundantly, and humbles his soul
and afflicts it, because he has sinned " (Mand. 4. 2. 2 cf. Sim.
;
7. 4). But it is not held that he whose sins have been forgiven
can thereafter live without sin. The *' Shepherd" himself since
his conversion remains liable to many moral faults, and the
righteous as well as the wicked must, after every transgression,
take refuge to the Lord (Sim. 9. 31. 2 ; cf. Zahn, p. 355)-
Hermas does not venture to condemn to death the man who, after
hearing the call to repentance, shall sin under pressure of temp-
tation (ôizo y_tipa^ Mand. 4. 3. 6). He has in mind such sins
as effect a surrender of the moral power of the Gospel, a com-
plete corruption : he is thinking of apostasy, which is to be
followed by a new conversion (Sim. 9. 14. i ff. ; cf. Mand. 4.
I. 8. Sim. 9. 26. 6). Accordingly, repentance is like conver-
sion '' If ye turn to the Lord with your whole heart, and work
:
righteousness the remaining days of your life, and serve him

strictly according to his will, he will heal your former sins"
(Mand. 12. 6. 2; cf. Sim. 8. 11. 3). This is the starting-point
of the Catholic discrimination between venial and mortal sins.
The error lies not really in the general idea of repentance, but
in an underestimate of minor sins. But the chief defection
from the biblical standard lies in the failure to understand grace
as the forgiveness of sins extending continuously throughout the
whole life. Hence the moralism of Hermas.
(^) In connection with the preaching of repentance, Hermas
gives great prominence to the conception of the church. The
church rests upon Christ, the ancient rock with the new door
(Sim. 9. 2. 2; cf. 12. 2. 3), ;'.
-., the pre-existent Son of
God, who became manifest only in the last time. It is built
upon the waters of baptism (Vis. 3. 3. 5. Sim. 9, 16. 2), and
is extended through the preaching of Christ (Sim. 8. 3. 2).

The church tne city of God with its own laws (Sim. i. i, 3,
is
9). But not all who receive branches from the great willow-tree,
or the word concerning Christ (cf. above, under c), preserve
them ; and not all who have been admitted to the tower of the
church stand the test when tried by Christ (Sim. 9. 6). Thus
the essence and the appearance of the church are often not in
harmony. task of the preaching of Hermas is the purifica-
The
tion of the church (Sim. 9. 18. 3). There is a pause in the
building of the church in order that sinners maybe purified and
again admitted to the structure of the church (<?. g., Sim. 9. 7.
2 10. 4. 4).
; It is necessary to turn quickly to repentance,
since the building of the church, and with it the time of the
world, will soon be ended (e.g., Vis. 3. 8. 9. Sim. 9. 9. 4 ;
26. 6; 10. 4. 4, etc.). Thus by repentance the contradic-
tion between the essence and the appearance of the church may
be overcome. In this way the ideal of the church would be at-
tained ** After these (the wicked) are cast out, the church of God
:
shall become one body, one understanding, one mind, one faith,
one love and then the Son of God shall exceedingly rejoice
:
among them and receive his pure people " (Sim. 9. 18. 4). It is
not hidden from Hermas, that this state shall never be attained
on earth. As in winter dead and living trees look alike, so it is
also in the church '* Neither the righteous nor the wicked are
:
recognized in this world, but they are alike (Sim. 3. 2, 3).

Only the future world will reveal the difference (Sim. 4. 2)."
We have thus attempted to translate the most important doc-
trinal views of Hermas from the prophetical form of speech into
the language of precise thought. Whatever stress may be laid
upon the prophetic-visionary elements which strike us so strangely,
upon the moralistic and legalistic elements, and the fateful limi-
tation of forgiveness the fact remains, that genuine Christian
ideas hold the central place in his faith and thought.
3. Ignatius.
The martyr bishop of Antioch furnishes in his seven genuine
epistles a portrayal of Christianity delightful in its religious fervor
and power. His general conception is closely related to the
Johannine doctrinal type.
(a) Christ is God, *'our God," and '^ my God " (Eph.
inscr.; 18. 2. Rom. inscr.; 3. 3 ; 6. 3. Polycarp,
8. 3),
He is God, 6 iêS? (Smyrn. i. i), //=? (Trail. 7. i), the only
Son of the Father, o /j.ovn^ olo? r<r> Tzarpd^;, (Rom. inscr.), and the
Lord, 6 JcnptiK^ (Polyc. i. 2). Ignatius uses the formula "in
Son and Father and in Spirit" (Magn. 13. i in 2 roTzvevfia ;
isdoubtful; cf. Lightf. ). He was with the Father before time

began (Magn, 6. i). At the end of the days he became man
and this as a revelation of the One God, the Father, *' who
has manifested himself through his Son Jesus Christ, who is
his word, /o^'os", proceeding from silence " (Magn. 8. 2 cf. 9. 2 ; :
** our only teacher," and Rom. 8. 2 '' the genuine mouth in

:
whom the Father truly spake ").^ Ignatius recognizes the reality
of the earthly activity of Christ and confirms his presentation of its
separate features by an emphatic ''truly," aXrjHuxs (Smyrn. i and
2 Tral. 9. It is not allowable to say that he only seemed to suffer
. :
Tral. 10. Smyrn. 2. Polyc. 3. 2; cf. Smyrn. 12. 2. Ephes. 7).

But since Christ has completed his work on earth, he is now
again with the Father (^v izarpX wy), but in consequence of this
he may be but the better known (^/idXXov (patverat, Rom. 3. 3)
on earth. Even after his resurrection, which he himself effected
(truly raised himself, d'îf7Trj(Tv âorov^ Smyrn. 2, in contrast
with which, however, vid. 8. i *'The Father raised; " cf.
:
Trail. 9. 2), although spiritually united (^nveo/iartxa)? rjvwfiivo^')

with the Father, he is yet *' in the flesh " (Smyrn. 3, i, 3).
Ignatius was fond of combining these two classes of utterances.
Christ is at once God and man '*The one Healer is both
:
fleshly and spiritual, born and unborn. God became incarnate,

true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first passible
and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Eph. 7. 2 cf. ;
18. 2. Smyrn. i. i). Upon

the one hand he is, therefore,
unborn, a^'^wj^ros', but according to the flesh he is sprung from
David's tribe, born of the Virgin according to the will of God
(Eph. 19. i), " conceived in the womb of Mary, according to
the dispensation of God
on the one hand of the seed of David,
on the other of the Holy Spirit " (Eph. 18. 2). He is, therefore.,
perfect (r^xeioy) man (Smyrn. 4. 2) and just as truly God
(cf. supra). It is impossible, in view of the above, to hold that
Ignatius regarded Jesus as by nature a pre-existent spiritual being
who, after completing his work on earth, returned again to
heaven (the so-called "pneumatic" Christology, Harnack i.
183 ff. ). How could he describe such a being as his God and
the God of Christendom ? We should observe further that the
title. Son of God, in Ignatius designates Christ, not only as be-
gotten in eternity, but also as the One sprung, according to the
Thus the Johannine term, Logos, was authentically interpreted. Christ

^
is Word, or the Mouth of God, i. e. the revelation of God. Remarkable,

the ,
further, is the combination of faith and love with the triadic formula [e, g.^
Magn. 13. I. Ep. 9. i cf. I Clem. 58. 2 46. 6). Were both formula:;
;
they possess something of the character of formulas already the

;
in New
Testament handed down together the instruction preceding baptism
in ?
dispensation of God, at once **from Mary and God," ''from

David's tribe and the Holy Spirit," and entering upon a histori-
cal existence ** being truly of the tribe of David according to
:
the flesh, the Son of God truly born of a virgin according to

the will and power of God " (Smyrna i- i ; cf. Zahn, Ignat. p. ,
469 f. ). By virtue of the double origin of his historical exist-

ence, he is * Son of man and ' Son of God. And, being this,
' ' '
'
' '
he is **the new man" (u xatvo'; aW^wTro?, Eph. 20, a term fur-

ther explained in 19. 3 God appearing in the form of man unto
:
newness, ei? xatvoryjra^ of eternal life).

(d) Christ became man in order that he might, as the Aoyo'?
of God, reveal God to men (supra, and Eph. 3. 2 the knowl- :
edge, yvwjrq, of the Father; Eph. 17. 2: the secret wisdom

yvchfTiq^ of God ; Philad. 9. i). His appearance itself is for us
a revelation of God, inasmuch as he is God. This revelation is
not nullified by the death of Christ, but is attested by it anew
for the contemplation of faith (Magn. 9. 2). He who was him-
self impassible is for our sakes passible (Polyc. 3. 2). To the
prince of this world, the virginity and motherhood of Mary and
the death of Christ were alike incomprehensible (three mysteries).
But faith knows that this all aims at the abolition of death
(Eph. 19). Especially does our life now have its origin in the
death of Christ (Magn. 9. i); through this mystery we have
obtained faith (ib. 2). Faith in his death enables us to escape
death (Tral. 2. i). Thus his suffering has in view and effects
our salvation and peace (Smyrn. 2 7. i, cf. Tral. inscr. ;
Philad. inscr. Smyrn. 6. i).

Christ is our life, not only in that he will one day bestow immor-
tality upon us, but in that he personally dwells in believers, work-
ing eternal life in them. This is the leading thought of Ignatius.
Christ is our inseparable life (ro ddiaxpirnv -^ficov ^^y, Eph. 3. 2,
cf. Magn. 15), our life forever (Magn. i. 2), our true life
(Smyrn. 4. i. Eph. 11. t, cf. Tral. 9. 2). Christ now
dwells in the hearts of believers, as does also the Father (<?. g.,
Eph. 15. 3. Magn. 8; 12; 14: '* ye are full of God," 'êot)
yi/iT. Rom. 6. 3). In harmony with this, Ignatius calls him-
self a God-bearer (9f>^/?o9); and Christians are God-bearers,
temple-bearers, Christ -bearers, bearers of the Holy One {vao(p6pot^
/f)t{TTn<popot^ dyuxpopot^ Eph. 9. 2), the temple in which God
and Christ dwell (Eph. 15. 3. Philad. 7. 2). The expres-
sions: being in Christ, living and acting in him, constantly
recur; "without whom we have no true life" (to aXri^^vjov ^r^v
obx. k'^ftfiev, Tral. 9. 2, cf. Eph. 8. 2 ; 10. 3. Magn. 9. 2).
(c) The Gospel
has in it something peculiarly excellent, the
appearing of the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, his suffering
5
' '
and his resurrection. For the beloved prophets prophesied of

him, but the gospel is the perfection of incorruption. For all
these things are together good, if ye believe with love (=y ^7r);,
Philad. 9. 2). Man is, therefore, to apprehend the gospel in
faith. He takes his refuge to the gospel as to the flesh of
Jesus (Philad. 5.1. Cf. also 8. 2 j, or the presentation of his
sufferings and his resurrection (Smyrn. 7. 2 J, and in faith in the
death of Jesus he escapes death (Tral. 2. i. Cf. Smyrn. 5. 3),
Faith leads to love ** Faith is the beginning, love the end.
:
And these two in union are divine. But all other things relating
to a holy Hfe are consequences of these" (Eph. 14. i).
Faith and love are the entire sum (ry yap [t/ov) of Christian
life (Smyrn. 6. i ). The aim is the glory of God: ''Let all
things be done to the glory of God " (Pol. 5- 2). It is thus the
theory of Ignatius that the new life, which has become man's
through the indwelling of God, consists in faith in the gospel
message and in love, and that this life is an eternal one, continu-
ing after death. We may quote as summarizing his general view
*' As being stones of the temple of the
the passage, Eph. 9. i :
Father, prepared for a building of God the Father, drawn up on

high by the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using for
a rope the Holy Spirit. But your faith is the line and love the
'
way drawing up to God.

When being led out to execution, Ignatius is filled with holy
longing through death to reach God. He has only one passion,
the Crucified (Rom. 7.2: my love, 6 ^pid<s was crucified),
epuxsj
and desires to be united to him. " Let me
go," he begs the
Arriving there, I shall be a man
'
Romans, ' '
to find pure light.
(Rom. 6. 2 ; 5. 3 ; 2. 2).
(d) If the indwelling of God and Christ in us is for Ignatius
the one focal point in Christianity, the other is his conception of
church order. He is the first, so far as is known to us, to employ
the term ** catholic church" (-/.ai%Xr/.r^ i/.yikr^fsiay. ''Wherever
the bishop appears, there let the people be " just as wherever ;
Christ is, there is the catholic church (Symrn. 8. 2. Cf.

Martyr. Polyc. 8.1). It is certain that this does not at all involve
"
the idea of the *' binding of believers into an external unity
(RoTHE, D. Anfange d. chr. Kirche u. ihrer Verfassung, 1837,
i. 472 ff. Cf. RiTSCHL, Entstehung d. altkath. Kirche, p. 459 f.)-
The h.y.Xri<7ia y.a^^dXtxrj is here the church universal in contrast
with the single congregation.^ This church universal has Christ
'
For other applications of the term "catholic," vid. Justin. Dial. 81 :
KafWAiK?/ ai>d(7Tao(c ; 102 : na^ôTuKat nat fiep/Kai Kpiueiq. Cf. the Exposition of
Cyril of Jerus," It is called catholic on account of being through the whole
;
ôrldfrom one end to the other "(Cat. 18. 23). Similarly Martyr. Polyc. 8. i,
as its centre and the apostles as its presbytery (Philad. 5. i).

But the episcopacy bears no relation to it. The idea of Ignatius
is, on the contrary, that as the universal church has its centre in
Christ, so the separate congregation should find its centre in its

bishop. What the apostles are to the church at large, that is the
presbytery to the individual congregation. Accordingly, the
bishop is a type of God or of Christ, the presbyters types of the
apostles (Tral. 2. i ; 3. i. Magn. 2 ; 6. i. Smyrn. S. i.
Eph. 6). Christ, the unseen Bishop, is contrasted with the

bishop who is seen (Magn. 3. 2, cf. Rom. 9. i. Pol. inscr. j.
The individual congregation subject to the bishop and presbytery
is a copy of the church universal, which is led by Christ and
the preaching of the apostles. Christ and the preaching of the

apostles, therefore, not the episcopacy, condition the unity of
the church universal.
Ignatius, it is true, attaches great importance to the episco-
pate, but in doing so he has in mind only the relation of the in-
dividual bishop to his congregation. He has, evidently, two
motives for thus emphasizing the authority of the bishops. First,
he wished to maintain the moral principle of authority and sub-
jection in human society (he demands the same subjection and
reverence for the presbyters and deacons). Referring to the
three offices, he says '^ Without these it is not called a church "
:
(Tral. 3. I, cf. Eph. 2. 2 ; 20. 2. Polyc. 6. i. Philad.

inscr. 4. 7. Tral. 2. 2 ; 13. 2. Magn. 13. i and 2 : "Be sub-
ject to the bishop and to one another "
Secondly, there was a ).
special reason for supporting the bishops at that time, as they
presented a fixed authority in opposition to the gnostic tenden-
cies then spreading in Asia Minor (Tral. 7. Philad. 2. 3. 4.
Smyrn. 9. i). Theunity and harmonyof the membersof a congre-
gation in prayer and in temper, in love and faith, in subjection to
one leader, the bishop, constitutes for him the ideal cf congrega-
tional life (e. g.f Philad. 7. 2 ; 8. i. Polyc. i. 2. Magn. i. 2 ;
3. 2 ; Eph. 4. 13).
6. 2It is to be attained by attach-
;
7.
ment to the bishop and obedience to him. Cf. Seeberg, Der
Begriff d. Kirche, i., 1885, p. 11 ff.^
The principle applies not only in matters of doctrine and life,
where the '* catholic church" is the churches throughout the world {Kara T//11
o'iKovfiivTjv hiiOii]ULaL)\ but ibid. 16. 2 speaks o[ "the catholic church in

Smyrna." Cf. 19. 2.
^ here the case is somewhat different with
It is historically incorrect to find
Clement the
beginning of the Catholic hierarchy or *' divine church law,"
as does SoHM ( Kirchenrecht i., 1893), a position to which he is led by his
erroneous principle, that every form of ecclesiastical law is in conflict with the
essential nature of the church and a source of all manner of evil. Cf. m^
critique of the work of Sohm in Theol. Lit. bl., 1893, Nos. 25-27.
but particularly in baptism and the celebration of the eucharist,

in the Agapse and in the celebration of marriage '* It is not
:
allowed without the bishop to baptize or hold the Agape, but

whatsoever he shall approve, that is also well-pleasing to God, in
order that whatsoever is done may be safe and secure " (Smyrn.
S. 2. Cf. Pol. 5. 2). Referring to baptism, Ignatius says
that Christ in his own baptism designed to purify the water by
his passion (Eph. 18. 2), and that baptism is for those who
receive it, like faith, love, and patience, a part of the Christian
panoply (Pol. 6. 2). It belongs to the defensive armor {onXa)
of the Christian life, and has, therefore, a practical daily signifi-
cance. Of the Lord's Supper it is said '' The eucharist is the
:
flesh of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,
which the Father in his goodness raised from the dead." Of
those who deny this, it is said : "It were profitable for them to
coxmnnxio^ {âyaTzav^dyd-Tiv 7:0 (.Itv, Smyrn. 8. 2. Apparently in the
same sense we find dyd-nri a(piâpTo<s, Rom. 3, cf. Zahn. p. 348 f.),
in order that they might rise again" (Smyrn. 7. i. Cf.alsoRom.
7. 3.). The effect of participating is thus described *' Break- :
ing the one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, an an-

tidote that we might not die, but live in Jesus Christ forever"
(Eph. 20. 2). This view is based upon Jn. 6. 54-58. Con- ,
sidered in its connection, this asserts nothing especially new. It

is the meaning of the author that the Lord's Supper is on earth
already a means whereby we are made partakers of eternal life.

(.f) Christianity is sharply opposed to Judaism as well as to
heathenism. This also is a view closely related to the Johannine.

**
To live according to the law of Judaism " is to have not received
grace (Magn. 8. i). On the contrary, we must put away the old
Jewish leaven in order that we may be salted in Christ (dXitn^re iv
dtjTojy Magn. 10, 2). '* It is absurd
to name Jesus Christ and to
Judaize for Christianity did not confess {^tTzifTrtonev e;?) Judaism,
;
but Judaism Christianity, and every tongue confessing Christianity

will be gathered together unto God" (ib. 3, cf. Philad. 6. i, 2).
Judaism is thus only a positive, but now antiquated, stage of
preparation for Christianity. Believers, whether Jews or heathen,
belong to the one body of the church (Smyrn. i. 2, cf.
Paulus Eph. 2. 16). How impressive is this historic self-con-
sciousness of Christianity, that Judaism is for Christianity simply
a vanquished position.
Summarizing, we find that Ignatius in Christ worships God in
person, who became man to reveal God to man, and through
his passion and death to redeem men and make them partakers
of eternal salvation. In the hearts of those who in faith receive
the gospel message Christ henceforth dwells. The believer
leads an eternal whose content is faith and love.

life, Christ is
his life, and death and he who believes on Christ shall
his gain ;
live though he die. The congregational life develops harmo-

niously, since believers are taught to be in subjection in life and
doctrine to their bishops. Finally, we note a consciousness of
living in the last times (etrârtn xatpot, Eph. ii. i. Cf. Magn.
6. 1).
4. POLYCARP.
(a) The epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians assumes that
those to whom it is addressed acknowledge the divinity of Christ,
the fulfillment of his mission on earth, and his subsequent glorifi-
cation and exaltation above heaven and earth ( i. 2 ; 2. I ; 9. 2).
It is just as firmly held that Christ suffered on account of
our sins for our redemption (i. 2 ; 8. i). He knows also
that we are saved by grace, not by our own works, through
Jesus Christ (1.3 extr.); and, further, that only upon the as-
sumption that we now have faith can we attain the glory which
should crown our earthly life (" if we walk worthily of him, we
shall also reign with him, if we believe," 5. 2. Cf. 2, i 8. 2). ;
Faith, love, and hope are the content of the Christian life
(3- 3)-
(d) But the practical force of his exhortations is laid upon the
requirement that we walk in the commandment (ivroAiy) of the
Lord (4. I 5. i
;
2. 2). Only he who possesses faith, love
;
toward God and his neighbor, and hope fulfills the '^ command-
ment of righteousness." He who has love is far from all sin
(3. 3). The righteousness (dtxatotTovf)) of the Christian con-
sists in his moral activity, but the pledge (df>pa&cbv) of our
righteousness is Christ, who lifted up our sins in his body on the
tree (8. i. Cf. i Pet. 2. 24). Christians should follow Christ
and suffer with him (8. 2 9. 2, cf. 2. 2).
;
(c) These exhortations reach their culmination in the thought

that God will raise from the dead all those who, following Christ,
keep his commandments, and will permit them to share in the
dominion of Christ. He that raised him up from the dead
will raise us up also, if we do his will and walk in his command-
ments, and love what he loved, abstaining from all iniquity
(2. 2, cf. 5. I, 2).
The leading thoughts of Polycarp are thus seen to be thoroughly
evangelical The Christian, who has apprehended Christ in faith,
:
will in love fulfill the law of Christ, following him with patience,
inhope of being, like Christ, raised up by God to everlasting life
and of enjoying eternal fellowship with Christ. The influence
of Johannine ideas (especially from the Epistles) is in this
disciple of St.John just as apparent as is the different spirit

which animates him,
5. Papias.
Among the fragments of Papias, only that preserved by Ire-
nêus (v. 33. 3 sq. ) is of special importance in the History of
Doctrines. It paints in glowing colors the wonderful fertility of
the earth during the millennial reign " The kingdom of Christ
:
being established bodily upon this very earth " (Euseb. h. e. iii.
39. 12). The description is drawn from the Jewish apocalyptic
books (Enoch 10. 19. Apoc. Bar. 29), which accounts for
the vivid eschatological expectations and the conformity to Jewish
theology (Cf. Just. Dial. 80).
6. Barnabas.
Despite the repulsive extravagances of Alexandrian exegesis
found in this author, he preserves the fundamental ideas of the
apostolic period in a relatively pure form.
((7) The pre-existence of Christ is affirmed, and with it his
divine creative activity (5. 5, 6). Hewillone day return again
as Judge in divine omnipotence (15. 5). He is not Son of man,
but Son of God (12. 10; 7. 9). He appeared in the flesh,
since men cannot look even upon the created and perishable sun
(5. ID, II).
The Son of God, who thus assumed human flesh, suffered
(J>)
also upon the cross, according to the will of God. His suffer-
ings are understood also as a sacrifice (5. i 7. 3 and since he
;
:
would make the tabernacle of his Spirit [/. e., his body] a sac-
rifice for our sins, 5 c. 8). The object and result of the
;
bodily sufferings are, first, the abolition of death and the demon-
stration of this in the resurrection (5. 6); but chiefly the forgive-
ness of sins and sanctifying of the heart, since we are thus made
new creatures (5.1: *
'end the Lord endured, that he
For to this
might give we might be sanctified
his flesh to death, in order that
by the remission of sins, that is, by his blood of sprinkling;"
6. 1 1 ^' Since, therefore, he has renewed us by the remission of
;
sins, he gave us another character, so that we might have the

spirit of children, as he had moulded us anew "). Accordingly,
the heralds of the gospel proclaim '^the remission of sins and
the sanctification of the heart " (8. 3). Through his suffering
for us Christ has bestowed upon us the covenant which Israel
(see below) forfeited, and has made us heirs of the inheritance
( 14. 4). Although Barnabas has not made clear the necessity,
nature, and object of Christ's sacrifice, there is no ground for
attributing to him the idea that the Saviour's death has relation
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 7^
only to sins of the past (BehiM, Ztschr. f. k. Wiss., 1886, p.

299 f. ). His sufferings are represented as making death power-
less and establishing in us the principle of a permanent renewal.
Barnabas, it is true, has, like the other Church Fathers, failed
to realize and teach distinctly that the forgiveness of sins remains
a vital element of the Christian's entire life.
(r) The believer enters upon the possession of the blessings
of redemption through baptism: "This he says in order that
we may go down into the water bewailing our sins and unclean-
ness, and come up from it having fruit in our hearts, having
reverence and hope in Jesus in our spirits" (11. i, cf. S).
Through baptism, therefore, we become free from sin. Our
heart is thenceforth a dwelling of God (8. 15). As to the na-
ture of this new state and the means (preaching) by which it is
produced, we are taught in 16. 7-9: '* Before we believed in
God, the abode of our hearts was perishable and weak . .so
that it was full of idolatry and the home of devils because we
did the things which were against God. But it is to be builded
up in the name of the Lord. . .How ? Learn Receiving the
:
remission of sins and hoping in his name, we are become new

creatures, created again from the beginning. Wherefore God
truly dwells within us in the abode of our hearts. How ? His
word of faith, his proclamation of the Gospel, the wisdom of (his)
pardons, the commandments of (his) doctrine, he himself speak-
ing in us and dwelling in us, slaves to death as we are, opening to
us the gate of the temple, which is his mouth [for the procla-
mation of the word] giving to us repentance, leads us into the
,
imperishable temple." It will be observed that here also faith is

presented as a fundamental act in the reception of grace (Cf. 2.
2; 4. 8 ; 6. 17; 9. 4 ; II. 11). But faith is in Barnabas most
intimately associated with hope. Faith and hope are but different
aspects of the same inner possession (i. 4, 6 ; 4. 8:
*' In the
hope of his faith " 6. ^ ; 11. 11, /. ^., of baptism: '' having in
;
our spirits reverence and hope in Christ ;" 8. 5; 11. 8; 12.2,

3, 7; 16. 8; 19. 7. Cf. Heb. 11. i). The expectation that
Barnabas will place a corresponding valuation upon justification
(dcxacixTu'^T] and Scxacnu>') is not gratified. With the above
presentation of faith he combines a portrayal of moral integrity
_(i. 4; 4. 12 ; 5. 4; 20. 2 ; 4. 10 ;15. 7. The passage 13. 7
is not decisive, nor is i. 6, where the text is also fragmentary).
(^) He who has thus received Avith faith in Christ through

baptism the forgiveness of his sins and the renewing indwelling
of God will also seek to fulfill the '*new law of our Lord Jesus
Christ" (2. 6). Barnabas describes such an one as *' being with-
out the yoke of necessity " (ib., cf. Jas. i. 5. Gal. 5. 1). This
assertion must not be overlooked amid the very strong emphasiz-

ing of the divine commandments (2.1; 4, 11. Cf. 21. 1,5, 8).
Bat that Barnabas was not free from moralistic overvaluation of
good works in the Christian life is clearly evident from the lan-
guage (not, indeed, original with him, but adopted with ap-
proval) of 19. 10 :'*0r work with thy hands for the ransom
'
(r:9 hjTpov) of thy sins. Christians should not bring outward but
'
inward sacrifices (2. 9, 10); the insight which they have gained
restrains them, as strangers, from observing the Jewish law
(3. 6, cf. 4. 6).
We note, finally, as bearing upon the development of the
moral the admonition
life, '* Do not take it upon yourselves to
:
live alone, as already justified ; but, assembling in one place, strive

together for the common good " (4. 10, cf. 2).
(<?) In one point Barnabas fails entirely to understand the
connections of the traditional faith. He sees in Christianity the
people of God, but does not recognize the historical relation of
Israel in the development of the plan of salvation. According
to his view, the covenant with Israel was never really concluded,
since the tables of the law were broken by Moses (4. 8 ; 14).
Likewise, the assertion that the elder shall serve the youngei
(Gen. 25. 21 ff. ; 48. 14 fif. ) shows that the covenant was turned
over to us (c. 13). Circumcision is accordingly without divine
sanction (9. 6), and the entire conception of the law among
the Jews, based upon a literal interpretation of it, is a colossal
misconception {e. g., 10. 9). They rested in the allegorical
exterior without penetrating to the real meaning. I\w(n<s fur-
nishes Barnabas the proper and profound understanding of the
law. As Philo interprets it in the interest of philosophy, so
Barnabas in the interest of Christianity. For example, the pro-
hibition of the eating of swine's flesh really forbids the associa-
tion with men who are like swine. The prohibition of hyeena
flesh warns us not to become seducers or adulterers, since that
animal changes its sex every year (10. 3, 7). The 318 ser-
vants v/hom Abraham circumcised are thus interpreted : Learn
that he first says the 18, and, after leaving a space, the 300. The
18 :I is ten, H is eight. There thou hast Jesus (7 Hrnwî'). But
because, the cross in the T would indicate grace, he says, ** and
300." Thus he sets forth Jesus in the two letters and the cross
in the third (9. 8), etc. This exegetical method, which soon
became the prevalent one, prevented for 1500 years a historical
interpretation of the Old Testament ; but it also forbade the ac-
ceptance of anything found in the Old Testament which was not
thought to be in consonance with New Testament teaching.
( / ) Barnabas, too, looks forward to the end of the world as

near at hand (4. 9; 21. 3). The last "offense" (â/M-vdahiv

zilzutv) of which Enoch speaks (4. 3 not found in our Book of
Enoch) is near. He calls attention to the signs of the end, as
given in Daniel 7. 24, 7 f. Cf. Barn. 4. 4 and 9. The ten
kingdoms are the Roman emperors from Augustus to Domitian.
The " little king " is Nerva, as the eleventh emperor. The hu-
miliating of the three kings together ( u^'fy ) is fulfilled in the three
Flavians, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, who are humbled to-
gether since their dynasty loses the throne. There is need of
watchfulness, lest the devil (u (lila-i^ 6 ~<rjripo<s />/^''') force his
way and gain i)Ower (4. 9, 13). To avoid this, Christians must
keep the commandments and cling to {-fxxjiy^zvj) the fellowship
of the church (2. i; 4. 10, 11; 21. 8j. Barnabas undertakes
also to map out the future. As there were six days of creation,
so will God in six thousand years bring the present dispensation
of the world to an end, since one day is with him as a thousand
years. Then follows a seventh millennium, corresponding to the
Sabbath of creation, in which Christ renews the world and the
righteous {J^v/.anndivTZ^ y.ai a~<>Xa66vTe^^ tyjV iTzayy-zXiav^ aâ/7>'/cyrc?)
hallow this last day of the world's week. Then dawns the eighth
day, the beginning of the other world {akhio xoaiLoo apyji). The
type of this is seen in the joyous celebration of Sunday, upon
which day also Christ arose from the dead and ascended (!) to
heaven (15. 5-9).
To summarize Through his passion and death Christ brought
:
us forgiveness of sins and deliverance from death. Through

baptism the forgiveness of sins is imparted to us, God dwells in
us, and a new life begins. In this new life we with free will
fulfill the commandments of Christ. The author is writing for
those who are in danger of accepting the Jewish ordinances
(3. 6 ; 4. 6. Cf. his own description of the contents of his
epistle, 17. i), but from any subjection to the Old
he is free
Testament law. The nearness
of the end of all things and
the severity of the account to be rendered should impel us to
zeal.
7. The Didache.
This document can be employed in tracing the History of
Doctrines only with the most extreme caution, since we know
that it was not designed to present a statement of Christian teach-
ing not even of any particular doctrines.
(iz) The designations of Christ as the Son of God (16. 4), as
the God (oris ^[09 the proper reading?) of David (10. 6), and as
the Servant of God (9. 3 10. 2, 3) are to be interpreted in the
;
same sense as in the documents already examined. We have also

)
already met the representation of God as Father, Son, and Holy

Ghost (7. I, 3), preserved in the baptismal formula.
(/^) Of the blessings of salvation bestowed upon us by God
through Christ are here mentioned life, the deeper knowledge
(^'ywrr;^), faith, and immortality (10. 2 9-3, cf. 16. i ; 4. 8),
;
and also the indwelling of the name of God in our hearts (10. 2).
Christians are those who hope in God (J7t\ tov ôv, cf. Barnabas).
The Spirit of God prepares us for our Christian calling (4. 10).
(/) As means by which salvation is applied to the individual
may be mentioned baptism (7); the eucharist (9. 10), which is
spiritual food and drink (10. 3 *' upon us he has graciously be-
:
stowed spiritual food and drink and eternal life through his Son '
'
and is received with consciousness of the personal presence of

the Lord (10. 6. Whether we read xn XilO as in Rev. xxii.
10, " Come, Lord Jesus, " or XHN po, ''The Lord is here," does
not affect the question before us) , through which presence there are
given to men the blessings which we have above (^) enumerated.
(It is, therefore, the Johannine conception of the Lord's Supper
which is presented here as well as in Ignatius); the proclamation
"
ofsalvation('' for the imparting of righteousness and knowledge
(11. 2) by traveling apostles (11. i, 2), by prophets (speaking
in the Spirit. Cf. the description of prophets in Hermas, Mand.
11, and the labors of Hermas himself. Also Ignat. Eph. 20. i.
Rom. 7. 2. Philad. 7. Vid. Bonwetsch, Die Prophetie im
apostol. u. nachap. Zeitalter in Ztschr. f. k. Wiss. 1884, p.
,
460 if.), by special teachers inspired by the Spirit (13.2),

but also by bishops and deacons (*'for these also ministei
(IztroDpyoTjfri^ for you the ministry of the prophets and teachers,"
15. i), and, as well, by brotherly admonition (4. 2).
(//) In this free exercise of spiritual functions there can be no
thought of hierarchical tendencies. Official positions stand upon
the same footing as the free agencies of the Spirit, and it is es-
pecially noted that the latter may fittingly render such service,
and are, therefore, to be accorded like honor (15). The church
(or the saints, 4. 2) is the body of believers scattered through-
out the world, who are to be gathered into the (eschatological)
kingdom of God (9. 4, cf. 10. 5). This eschatological concep-
tion of the kingdom of God is a peculiarity of the apostolic fathers
(the view of Barnabas is different, 8. 6). Here, too, we find a
vivid expectation of the approaching end of the world. Cf. in
the communion-prayer '* Let grace

come and this world pass
away" (11. 6).^ The last chapter of the Didache treats of the
^
It is possible, indeed, that these words have reference to the blessings be-
stowed in lie Eucharist, in which case the petitioner expresses his desire that
Christian duty of watchfulness, of false prophets which shall

come, of Antichrist (then shall appear the yjn7ij.ii~'Aoy<><s as the
Son of God), of the final testing of the church, of the signs in
heaven, the sound of the trumpets, the resurrection, and the
coming of the Lord upon the clouds of heaven.
(<?)In the introductory counsel to candidates for baptism
(''The Two Ways," c. i-6, cf. Barnab. 18-20) the Didache
presents a formula which was frequently used, in which the chief
features of the moral life of the believer are stated in a con-
densed form (i) Love to God and one's neighbor, (2) avoid-
:
ing gross sins, (3) opposing sins of physical and spiritual lust,
(4) proper conduct toward teachers, the church, the needy,
children and servants. The exhortation to the confession of sins
in the congregation before prayer, and also before receiving the
eucharist (4. 14; 14. i, cf. 10. 6 ), indicates a vivid sense of sin.
The Didache also quotes with approval the counsel which we
have found adopted by Barnabas *' If thou hast by (the work
:
of) thy hands, thou shalt give a ransom for thy sins " (4. 6).
The moralism of the document is sufficiently indicated in the
above.
God has through Christ bestowed upon Christians an immortal
life, which is displayed in faith, hope, and knowledge. This is
produced and preserved in man through baptism and the Lord's
Supper, and through teaching and instruction given in many
ways. He maintains this life in earnest moral striving and in
perpetual penitence, and is thus prepared for the approaching
judgment and its terrors.
8. The Homily of Clement.
(a) The sermon opens with the demand: '^ It is

necessary
for us to think of Jesus Christ as of God, as of the Lord of the
living and the dead " ( i i ) . In proportion as we underestimate
.
him will we also underestimate the salvation to come (i. 2).

Of his person, it is said: '-Christ the Lord who saves us,
being first spirit, became flesh and thus called us " (9. 5).
That is, he who was at first a spiritual being became flesh. But
the author appears to regard this spiritual being, and likewise
the Holy Ghost, as a creature of the Father. *'Male" and
'^female" (Gen. i. 27) are applied respectively to Christ and
to the church as a spiritual entity (14. 2).
(b) God sent Christ to us as Saviour and author of immor-
tality (^^'''pyjiYixi r^9 d<piâp(Tia^) and through him reveals to us *^ the
truth and the heavenly life" (20. 5). It is said, indeed, that
the world may fade from his view and the gifts of grace [x^P^^C used, as oftec
for ;i'apiTâ) come to him.
'
Christ suffered for our sakes (i. 2), and that he had compassion
upon the lost (2. 7). But these ideas are, for the author, mere
formulas. The work of redemption means for him that Christ has
abolished the darkness of foolish creature-worship (i. 6, 7) and
brought us instead the knowledge of the Father of Truth (3. i ;
17. i) and imparted to us his laws (3. 4). The promise of im-
mortality is added as a reward for the keeping of his command-
ments (11. i).
The conception of the Christian life corresponds with the
(r)
above. The controlling thought is '' that we give to him some
:
recompense (avTt/fio-i^f'av), or some

worthy of what he has
fruit
given to us" (1. 3 9-7, cf. 15. 2). This consists herein;
5
that we, in view of the magnitude of the work of Christ, con-

fess him as the Saviour (3. 3), and that we thus confess him '* by
doing what he says and not disregarding his commandments
'
(3- or '* we confess him by our works " (^y ror? epym^, 4. 3).
4)?
Doing thus, we may live without fear of death (5. i). The
Christian should preserve his baptism without stain. It has
publicly cleansed him from his sins (6. 9 ; 8. 6, here called a
''seal"). He who in this way serves God is righteous
(11. I, 7; 12. I ), and he who does righteousness shall be saved
(19. 3). But he who transgresses Christ's commandments in-
curs eternal punishment (6. 7). No person nor thing can then
save him :
" nor anyone be our comforter, if we shall not be
found having holy and righteous works" (6, 9 and 7). For
doing such works men must, it is true, have faith as a prerequi-
site ; but faith is nothing more (in contrast with doubt.
diil'oyLfi) than a believing of the divine promise of reward (11. i,
5- 6).
But now, since men are sinful and full of evil lust (13. i ;
19. 2), this demand takes the form of a call to repentance. To

this the preacher summons (8. i f.; 9. 8 ; 13. i ; 16. i ; 17. i ;
19. i). This embraces, first, the forsaking of the former sins
(13. i), and then at once the fulfilling of the Lord's command-
ments (8. 3, 4). Repentance is for the author not a change of
mind, but a change of habits by good works. This repentance
(fierdv na) is the '* recompense " which we owe to God and
Christ (9. 8).
The externalizing of the moral life is further manifest in the
fact that the orator (on the basis of Tobit 12. 8, 9) recommends
certain particular works as peculiarly suited to repentance for
sins : "Almsgiving is, therefore, excellent as a repentance for
sins ; fasting is better than prayer but almsgiving better than
;
either ... for almsgiving becomes a lightening of the burden

(^xttU(pc{T/J-a) of sin" (16. 4).
:
If man has thus fulfilled the will of God, or Christ, striven

against his evil passions, and done good, he receives from God
eternal life in the kingdom of God (eschatologically conceived)
as the reward for his works (8. 4 and 11. 7; 12. i; 6. 7; 9.6;
10. 4). The day of judgment is already approaching (16. 3).
But the Christian receives his reward in the body in which he
was called. The resurrection of the body dare not be called in
question (9. 1-5, cf. also 9. 4). The kingdom of God will
begin at the second coming of Jesus. Terrible tortures are im-
pending over those who deny Jesus and do not keep his com-
mandments (17. 4. 7).^
and "
This lastlatest book of the so-called "Apostolic Fathers
isbeyond question the furthest removed from the Christianity of
the apostolic age. What we have been able to detect in incip-
ient form in the other '' Fathers " here meets us in clear and un-
disguised form. Christ is essentially the Teacher of the knowl-
edge of God and the new Lawgiver. Christianity is the recep-
tion of this teaching and this law into the heart and life. The
motives prompting to the keeping of the law thus given are the
consideration of the magnitude of the gift of God and faith in the
promise of reward.
9. General Estimate.
has been necessary to examine the Apostolic Fathers at such
It
length, both on account of the nature of the documents and be-
cause the material thus secured forms the starting-point for any
proper presentation of the History of Doctrines. It places us in
position to picture vividly to ourselves the faith of the Christian
church at the close of the first and the beginning of the second
century. The picture thus constructed can lay claim to fidelity,
since its features have been drawn from the most diverse sections
of the church and from writings of most various character
congregational epistles and hand-books, martyrs, teachers wan-
dering widely in their conceptions of Christian truth, prophets,
and preachers.
The common features thus elicited are
(1) Faith in the One God, the Creator of the world, ^ the
* Incidentally we the abstruse discussion of the church in c. 14.

refer to
** The first spiritual church"
a creature of God, created like Christ before
is
the creation of the world. It is the Holy Ghost. The rest of the text (es-
pecially 4) is probably interpolated. The passage as it stands appears to
identify Christ with the Holy Ghost (g 4), but 2 requires the recognition of
a difference.
^ Compare also the Pr(zdicatio Petri^ which probably dates from about the
same time (in Clem. Al. Strom, vi. 5): '* Know therefore that there is one
God, who made the beginning of all things and who has the power of the
;
7S HISTORY OF DOCTRTNES.
Father, the Governor of the earth and the church, who has chosen
Christians as his people, who takes up his abode in their hearts
and guides their lives. (2) Faith in Jesus Christ the Son of
God, who was already actively engaged at the creation and
under the old covenant ; who is God, and appeared in the flesh
at the end of the days. We
find, however, nothing doctrinally
definite in regard to his pre-existence (according to 2 Clem., he
is a creature), his relation to the Father, the method of the in-
carnation, or the relationship of the divine and the human in his

person. The New Testament proclamation of salvation is re-
produced, but no doctrinal conclusions are drawn from it. (3)
The designation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is pre-
served in connection with the baptismal formula,* and is occa-
sionally employed, but not made (especially as to the Holy
Ghost) a subject of particular study. (4) There is a general
agreement also as to the sinfulness and misery (especially death) of
the human race, which is, through its disobedience, lost to God
and given over to the folly of idolatry, the power of devils, and
eternal perdition. (5) Jesus Christ is the Redeemer. He re-
vealed the Father and taught the new moral law ; but, above all,
he by his passion and death freed mankind from sin and death.
He brought to men a new life, forgiveness of sins, knowledge of
God and confidence in him he gave the impulse to true morality,
:
the hope of immortality. Although this is made dependent

upon his sufferings and death, we fail to find any distinctive con-
ception, or original religious apprehension, of the latter. The
death of Christ arouses and moves religious feeling, but it is not
understood nor pursued to its consequences. Our authors miss
entirely that interpretation of the Old Testament premises which
isso prominent in the canonical Scriptures. (6) The salvation
which Christ has obtained and brought to men is quite
differently described :{a) Forgiveness of sins through baptism,
new creation. In Hermas and 2 Clement, only the sins of the
past are included. There is a great lack of clearness in concep-
tion ; it is particularly noticeable that the significance of the for-
giveness of sins for the whole subsequent Christian life is greatly
obscured. ** Righteousness " is always merely an active, actual
righteousness. Paul is not understood, but even the influence of

his specific doctrinal ideas falls noticeably into the background.
The type of doctrine which is followed corresponds generally

though in a cruder form with that of the catholic epistles of
end ;the Unseen, who beholdeth all things ; the Unmoved, who raoveth all
things needing nothing, whom all things need and for whom they exist
;
intangible, eternal, incorruptible, uncreated, who made all things by the word
of his power."
-
the New Testament, {b) Communion with God, the indwell-

ing of the Father, or Christ, or the Spirit in the heart (Ignatius,
Hermas). (^c) Knowledge of God as the One God, the Crea-
tor, Lord, Father, etc. {d) The new law. (^) Eternal life as
the reward of moral living.
(7) The means by which these blessings of salvation are ap-
propriated by the church, as the people of God, are particularly :
{a) Baptism, for the begetting of a new life and for the forgive-
ness of sins. (^) The Word of God, as a message of salvation
and as doctrine (Old Testment proverbs; the works, cross, and
commandments of' Christ ; promises of life and threatenings of
judgment), presented in many ways, as sermon or fraternal ad-
monition, by teachers, apostles, prophets, ecclesiastical officials,
etc. No theory is offered, however, as to the connection of the
divine energy with this proclamation of the Word. But, since it
is chiefly through these means that salvation is imparted to men,
we must, of course, understand the divine working upon man as

essentially an actual religious influence corresponding to man's
moral nature, {c) The Lord's Supper, as a means to immortal-
ity. This is not connected by these authors with the forgiveness
of sins, just as the proclamation of the Word is not clearly made
subordinate to that end. (^d) We may mention further the in-
fluence of good angels (Hermas), the providential dealings of
God, the moral efforts of man himself, etc.
(8) The individual Christian apprehends God in faith, which
is a knowledge of God, self-committal to him and confidence in
him, /. ^. in his grace, nearness, readiness to help, and the sin-

,
cerity of his promises and threatenings. These conceptions are

also traceable to the New Testament, but, as the Pauline idea of
justification was lost sight of, a moralistic element readily became
interwoven with them. This faith is the first step. Upon it de-
pends the moral development of the individual. But the knowl-
edge of God is obscured. Sin, whose forgiveness has been effected
in baptism, remains in man as a power, a difference being trace-
able between willful and accidental sins (Hermas). This sin man
must conquer and overcome ; but he accomplishes this not
through faith in the continuous forgiveness of sins, but through
the sense of the nearness of God, through confidence in his
help, and, above all, through love as the obedient fulfillment
of the divine commandments. The connection with faith
is by no means lost sight of, but it is not clearly apprehended,
nor preserved in purity. After the forgiveness of sins has once

been granted to man, he thereafter merits it by his good works.
The latter take their place as a second and independent principle
by the side of faith, since the fixed relation of faith to the for-
giveness of sins vanishes. Thus we note the second great defect

in the doctrinal conceptions of the period. As the work of
Christ is not understood as having directly in view the forgive-
ness of sins, so there is naturally a failure to retain this forgive-
ness as an essential object of faith. Good works are considered
necessary in order to become sure of the forgiveness of sins. It
is perfectly proper to speak of the '* moralism " of such views.
Faith is more and more robbed of its significance. Love assumes
the leading place in the soul, but, having by the depreciation of
faith lost the inner impulsive power, it turns to the fulfillment of
the commandments and the performing of good works. Thus
was lost, however, the attitude of soul which distinguished
primitive Christianity, the sense of receiving everything from
God and by his gift. Instead of this, man's own works now
occupy the foreground. This moralistic modification of the
primitive Christian position was, indeed, brought about by
means of the popular Greek-Roman ideal of human freedom. It
Hellenized, but at the same time it proved a doorway through
which Judaic legalism forced its way into the church.
(9) The Christian lives in connection with a congregation, or
church, (a) In this reign harmony of spirit (especially in the
celebration of the eucharist), brotherly love, readiness to teach
and admonish, to help the poor, etc. (d) It presents a sharp con-
trast to the heathen world, which is to be converted by the efforts
of Christian love, (c) It affords just as sharp a contrast to
Judaism, which represents an antiquated stage of development,
led by national pride to imagine itself still in possession of its
ancient prerogatives.^ (d) The unity of the church at large is
based upon Christ and the preaching of the apostles, to which is
to be added the influence of a common history and a common
destiny. The inner unity finds expression in letters and pilgrim-
ages, admonitions and mutual intercessory prayers. The church
polity, especially the episcopate, has only a local significance for
each particular congregation. Whilst the clerical office is highly
esteemed, there is the fullest recognition also of the free activity
of all believers in spiritual things (Did., Herm.). But we may
already observe the beginning of the conflict between tradition
{7zapddofft<s) and succession {dtadoyij') on the one hand, and the
Spirit and charismata upon the other (i Clem., Did.).
(10) There is a vivid sense of the vanity and the perishable
nature of this world, and of the glory of the eternal world, as
*Cf. the portraiture of Jewish piety in the Pra^dicatio Petri (in Clem. Al.
Strom. 6. 5): " Do not worship after the mannerof the Jews, for they, think-
ing to know God, do not really know him, worshiping angels and archangels,
the moon, Selene, etc.'*
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERb. Si
well as the terrible character of the torments of hell (see espe-

cially Apocal. Petri.). The end of all things is thought to be
very near. Eschatology is moulded by the figures of Old Testa-
ment prophecy and the declarations of Christ. The kingdom
of God, or the supreme good, is, in accord with the whole ten-
dency of the prevailing religious conceptions, regarded as a purely
future entity. The more ancient the document examined, the
more fervent is the expression of longing for this kingdom.
Before the end lies the millennial kingdom (Barnabas, Papias),
Avhich is, after the Jewish pattern, depicted in a fantastic way.
It is going too far, however, to find in this expectation one of
the leading impulses of the Christian propaganda of the first
century (Harnack, i. ed. 3, 158, note). It is, on the other
hand, perfectly proper to assert, with the same author (i. ed. 3,
165), that :
" The chief thing remained the final judgment of the
world, and the certainty that the holy shall go to heaven to God,
and the unholy to hell. '
'This was involved in the idea of reward
for earthly conduct.
Such are the leading thoughts of the age discovered by candid
dissection of the sources. The circuit of thought inherited from
the apostolic age is preserved in outward form and in general
content, but the connection of the component thoughts is de-
stroyed ; and the apprehension of truth becomes at decisive
points uncertain, when it does not entirely vanish. Faith, grace,
and the forgiveness of sins fall into the background, and in their
stead the new law and good works come into prominence. The
thoughts which we have rapidly sketched are not always a real
possession, but in some cases merely titles of possession, not un-
derstood by those who hold them.
A lack of comprehensive understanding and profound appre-
hension of the gospel itself (as related to its Old Testament
antecedents) is here undeniable. And this defect certainly
reaches far back into the apostolic age. But, as the most reliable
result of the study of the period under review, it may be as-
serted that the variations of the range of Christian thought from
the views of the apostles are not to be ascribed directly to Juda-
istic tendencies. The conclusion thus directly drawn from the
general character of the prevalent conception is enforced by the
fact, that in not a single point can any specific influence of Jew-
ish-Christian thought or of the ceremonial law be detected. The
legality which here appears is not of the Jewish sort, but it,
nevertheless, without awakening suspicion, prepared the way for
the intrusion of Judaic influences. The moralism is that of the
heathen world, particularly in that age, and it has its origin in
the state of the natural man as such. The misconceptions of the
6
gO:>pel may be
traced directly to the fact that the Gentile Chris-
tians did not understand the Old Testament ideas presupposed
in the apostolic proclamation of the gospel. But moralism
always serves the interest? of legalism. Making much of man's
O'A'n works, the age accepted (^. g., from the Book of Tobit) the
legalistic works of the later Jewish piety.
8. Rules of Faith.
Already in the period of the Apostolic Fathers, the Holy
Scriptures and the baptismal formula began to be regarded as
presenting the norm of Christian faith.
We can here consider only the earliest tracer of the recogni-
tion granted to these two sources of authority. The problems
associated with them in the course of historical development will
demand our attention at a later period.
Jesus himself describes and employs the Old Testament
( I )
as an infallible authority {ê.g., Matt. 5. 17. Lk. 24. 44), and

the apostles also use it as such {e. g., Rom. i, 2. Gal. 3. 8, 22 ;
4. 30, etc.). But the Lord says of his own words also, that they
shall outlastheaven and earth, and asserts the same of the prin-
ciples to be proclaimed by his apostles (Matt. 10. 40 ;16. 19).
In harmony with this, the apostles appeal to Christ's words as of
binding authority (i Thes. 4. 15. Gal. 6. 2. i Cor. 7. 10;
9. Acts 20. 35), but claim also like authority for their
14.
own utterances (e. g., 2 Thes. 2. 15. 2 Cor. 2. 9; 7. 15).
There is, indeed, a manifest desire to have authoritative words

of Jesus himself (r Cor. 7. 10, 12, 25). The epistles of Paul
and the books of the Old Testament are Xotnai ypaipai (2 Pet. 3.
15. 16).
The Apostolic Fathers still view the matter in the same light.
With them, too, the Old Testament is regarded, as primarily the
absolute authority and norm of truth, howevercoristantly.it is
interpreted in a New. Testamentênê. Quotations from it are
introduced with the traditional formulas, *'the Scripture"
{-q ypfj-ipf)^ and ''it is written" (jiypaTzrai^ If this formula,
.
which, in accordance with New Testament usage, was associated

peculiarly with the Old Testament, was very seldom applied to
the sayings of Christ (Barn. 4. 14. 2 Clem. 2. 4. Cf. Polyc.
12. i), yet the authority of the latter is just as fully recognized.
The words of Christ are appealed to in controversy as decisive.
'* Of some who say Unless I find it in the originals
:
(toTs* afr/stiHi^) in the gospel, I do not believe, and when I

said to them, 'It is written,' they answered me, 'That settles
it " (Ign. Philad. 8. 2. Cf. Smyrn. 7. 2). The same is true
'
of the writings of the apostles, which are regarded as final au-

:
RULES OF FAITH. 83
thorities for the church of all places and all ages (Ign. Tral. 2. 2 ;
3. I, 3 ; 7. Magn. 6. i. Phil. 5. i. Smyrn. 8. i. Rom.

I.
4. 3. The Didache announces itself as the '* Teaching of the

Apostles " ) The gospel is the
. flesh of Christ ; the ap ostles
are the presbytery of the church (Ign. Philad. 5. i). That
such was the esteem in which the writings of the apostles were
the documents which we have
held is confirmed by the facts, that
justexamined abound throughout in references to nearly all of
the New Testament books, and that the latter as well as the Gos-
pels themselves were read in the assemblies for worship (cf.
I Thes. 5. 27. Col. 4. 16. Jas. i. i. i Pet. i. i. Rev. i.
3. I Clem. 47/ I. Cf. 2 Clem. 19. i. Homily of Aristides,

vid. ed. Seeberg, 1894.
Just. Apol. i. 67. Iren. adv. haer.
ii. 27. 2; Can. Mur. 1. 77 {.).
iii. 21. 4. The Antignostic
Fathers at the end of the second century regard this recognition
of the authority of the New Testament as having been always
prevalent in the church. Cf. below Marcion's Canon and
Montanism.
The canon of Scripture was in this period by no means a
clearly defined whole, nor even a distinct dogmatic postulate.
As, on the one hand, not all of the New Testament books were
everywhere in use so, on the other hand, various other writings
;
soon came to be regarded with equal veneration, /. e., Hermas,

Barnabas, the Didache, i and 2 Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter,
the Praedicatio of Peter. These were read in public as the other
books (<?. ^. Herm. Vis. ii. 4. 3.
, Dionys. of Cor. in Euseb.
h. e., iv. 23. II. Hegesip., ib. 22. i). This was carried so
far that a like authority was thought to attach to every prophetic
utterance under the impulse of the Spirit (Hermas, Did. 11. 7).
Ignatius, in Philad. 7. i, cites such a sentence uttered by himself
'*
Crying out in the midst of them, I said with a loud voice, the
voice of God Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery,
:
and to the deacons." (Cf. Eph. 20. i. Rom. 7. 2 (?) and the
Montanistic prophetism.) Thus the author of the Epistle of
Barnabas regards himself as a pneumatic teacher (9. 9 ff. ).
The conflict with Gnosticism, Marcion, and Montanism led to
the gradual development of the conception of the canon in the
dogmatic sense of the term. That which had always been held
in the church was thus distinctly recognized and expressed with
fixed design (see Irenseus).
Cr. Credner, Gesch. d. n. tl. Kanons, i860. Kirchhofer, Quellen-

sammlung zur Gesch. d. n. tl. Kanons, 1844. Overbeck, Zur Gesch. des
Kanons, 1880. Weiss, Einleitung in d. N. T., 1886, p. 21 ff. Zahn,
Gesch. d. n. tl. Kanons, vols. and ii., 18S8 ff. Harnack, Das N. T.
i.
um 200, 1889.
(2) The current text of the so-called Apostles' Creed may be

traced in substantially the same form to the close of the fifth
century. Its origin is located with great probability in Southern
Gaul. But this form, as many others prevalent in the East, leads
back to the old Roman symbol, from which it differs only in em-
bracing a few additions. The latter was the common form in
Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries (see the creed of Marcel-
lus in Epiph. haer. 52 al. 72); but it may be traced back with
certainty to the middle of the third century (cf. Novatian de
trinitate). Since, moreover, the most ancient form is devoid of
all theological, antignostic elements ; since an Irenseus and a
Tertullian declare that the rule of faith has been handed down
from the time of the apostles; since not only the Western, but
also very probably the various independently framed and theo-
logically detailed rules of faith in the East, have all their proto-
type in a confession very similar to the ancient Roman one it
is to be concluded that this most ancient form still preserved
and others similar to it were in common use at the beginning of

the second and the end of the first century, and were then im-
ported from the East, /. e., Asia Minor, to Rome. About the
middle of the second century a fixed form was in use in Rome.
This view is confirmed by the fact that Ignatius and Justin em-
ploy various formulas which remind us of the Symbol (Ign.
Magn. II. Eph. 7. Trail. 9. Smyrn. i. Just. Apol. i. 13,
31, 46. Dial. 85).^ Finally, we must bear in mind the sugges-
tionsabove made ( 6. 4), indicating the existence of a baptis-
mal confession in the early apostolic age. In this we have, there-
fore, beyond doubt the basis of the so-called Apostles' Creed.
But the form of this oldest confession can no more be
reconstructed with certainty than can the actual wording be cer-
tainly established from the oldest patristic parallels. For us, the
oldest form which is positively attested is the ancient Roman.
Since Greek was the ecclesiastical language at Rome until to-
ward the middle of the third century, the most ancient text of
the Roman creed within our reach is that employed by Marcellus
(A. D. 337 or 338). We here reproduce this form, indicating
emendations as seen in the traditional wording of the ancient
Roman confession (the Psalterium of Rufinus):
UcffTsuut eiV ?ov [Traripa^TravToxpaTitpa' xai ei<$ Apttrrdv Îrjrroov zbv
uibv aOTou Tov }i()voyBV7J^ rbv xbptuv rjiiwv, rbv yewrjiS-ivra ix Tcvso/iaTO'^
dyiou xai Mapiaq r^9 TzapiîwoUy rbv km lJi)vrc<tu TJiXdrou fTzaopajiîvra
xai Ta(pivTa, [xa}] r^
'^p^'^Jj
7}fj.ipa dvaffzavra ix ru)v vexpibvy dva6dvTa ti<?
* Fixed formulas appear to be found also in Aristides. Vid. Seeberg in

ZAHN'sForsch., v. p. 270, note.
RULES OF FAITH. 85
Toh<^ oopavo6<;, \/-^'^ -/.a^^fie'ôv h fh^ta too narpog oiêv ip'^zrai y.plvai
Z(hvra<i 7.(11 vzy.poij'i' xai stg ro ayiov n-^zuiJ.a^ o-yiav kxxXrjfriaVj a(pe<nv
dfiapTto)'^, fTo.py.o'i d.'Mj.(TT<L<nv, [^wryi/ alw-jwv^.

Such is the usual wording,^ from which there are sHght varia-
tions in the churches of various countries.^ It was explained
and expanded with perfect freedom in theological argument.
That this *' rule of truth (^xavmv rf^^ dX-qUtia^') has been identical,
'
'
and everywhere employed in the church, since the time of the

apostles, is maintained by Irenaeus and Tertullian (Iren. adv.
haer. i. lo. i, 2 iii. 4. i, 2. Tertul. de praescr. haeret. 37,
;
44, 42, 14, 26, 36; de virg. vel. i). But this creed is nothing
more than a historical development of the current baptismal for-
mula (Matt. 28. 19. Did. 7. i. Just. Apol. i. 61 ; hence
Tertul. de praescr. 9, 13, 37, 44, credits it to Christ himself).
The '* rule of truth," as it was afterward called, is thus in con-
tent only the primitive baptismal confession, no doubt variously
interpreted.^ ''And h6 who thus holds inflexibly for himself
the canon of truth which he received by his baptism," here
^ The received text differs in one modification and several additions (i) :
creatoremcoeli et terrae, (2) qui conceptus est de spiritu sancto, (3) passus,
mortuus, (4) descendit ad infema, (5) catholicam, (6) sanctorum communi-
onem, (7) vitam eternam. Zahn, on the ground of reproductions of the rule
of faith in Iren. and Tertul., concludes that the first clause originally stood :
i(,' tva êop TrnvroKpdropa vid. also Eus. h. e., v. 28, p. 23 ff.
\ But cf
Harnack, Zur Gesch. der Entstehung des ap. Symb., in Ztschr. f. Th. u. K.,
1894, p. 130 ff. In various ancient citations the term, fiovoyEvr/g, is wanting
(Zahn, p. 45, note), and it is doubtful whether it vpâs in the original formula.
2 The majority of theologians of the present day hold, indeed, a view of the
origin of the Apostles' Creed which is at variance with the account here given.
According to Harnack (i) About A. D. 150 a confessional formula ap-
:
peared at Rome, and was from that point spread through the churches of the
West. ( 2 ) Simular formulas were also used in the East, but there was in that
section of the church no commonly accepted confession. Against this it is to
be said (
: ) That Irenceus and Tertullian regard the confession as thoroughly
l
ecumenical. (2) That they locate its origin in the apostolic age. (3) That
the New Testament, as we have seen, testifies to the existence of such a con-
fession. (4) That Ignatius and Justin appear to presuppose a fixed formula
of this kind. Upon my hypothesis all the traditional facts in the case may be
most simply explained.
^ KuNZE has denied this (Glaubensregel, heil. Schrift u. Taufbekenntniss,
1899), as he does not regard the '^canon of the truth" as limited to the bap-
tismal confession, but as also including the Holy Scriptures. An anti-heretical
character is thus given to the baptismal confession. In this there is the
element of truth, that the ** canon of the truth" at least represents the eccle-
siastically interpreted baptismal confession but the Scriptures were by no
;
means formally embraced in the '* canon," for (i ) This is said to be " apos-
tolic," whereas the ** Scriptures " of that age notoriously included non-apos-
tolic elements, as e. ^.j Hermas. (2) In the Ante-nicene period the term
"canon" is but very seldom used to designate the Scriptures (see Jahn,
Grundriss der Geschichte des n. t. Kanons, p. 4f. ).
follows a short summary of the creed, which must, accordingly,

be the content of the baptismal confession. (Iren. i. 9. 4,
cf. 10. I. Tert. de spectac. 4; de coron. 3; de bapt. 11;
praescr. 14. See also Justin Apol. i. 61 extr. Clem. Al.
Strom, viii. 15, p. 887. Potter, vi. 18, p. 826. Paed. i. 6, p.
116. Cf. Caspar!: Hat die Alex. Kirche zur Zeit des Clem, ein
Taufbek. besessen oder nicht, in Ztschr. f. k. Wiss. 1886, p. ,
352 ff. Also esp. Cyprian Ep. 69. 7 70. 2

; 75. 10 fin.)
;
This briefest and unbiased summary of the great realities of

the Christian faith, which Irenaeus rightly calls the brief em-
' *
bodiment ((Tio/j.driov) of truth" (i. 9. 4), at once interprets and

is interpreted by the creed of the Apostolic Fathers. They re-
ceived from the time of the apostles the unquestioning conviction
of the historical events thus related, and this has by means of
the symbol remained as a possession of the church in all ages.
As to the dogmatic use of the symbol by Irenaeus, etc. see below. ,
But even at this point of our investigation, it must be borne in

mind that the historic significance of this brief summary of sav-
ing truth was very great. I t preserved intact the consciousne ss
that salvation isdependen t upo n the deeds of Christ ; it taught
the church to construct Christian doctrine as the doctrine of the
deeds of God ; and, finally, taught men to view the deeds of
God under the three-fold conception of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.
How different may we imagine would have been the
form assumed by dogmatics in the church without the fixed
background of this formula, w^hich the very first dogmatician
known to us, Origen (de principiis), placed at the centre of his
doctrinal system !
Cf. Caspari, Ungedruckte, unbeachtete, u. wenig beachtete Quellen z.

Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, Christiania, 1866, 1869, 1875, and Alte u. Neue
Quellen z. Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, ib. 1879. V. Zeschwitz, Katechetik ii.
ed. I, ^ 19 ff. Hahn, Bibl. derSymboleu. Glaubensregeln, ed. 2, 1877. Patr.
ap. opp., ed. Lips. i. ed. 2, 115 ff. A. Harnack PRE. ed. 3, i. 41 ff. Zahn,
Glaubensregel u. Taufbek. in d. alt. K., in Ztschr. f. k. Wiss., 1881, p. 302 ff.
Zahn, Das ap. Symb., 1892. Kattenbusch, Dasap. Symb. i., ii. ff., 1894.
SwETE, the Apostles' Creed, 1894. Kunze, Glaubensregel, heil. Schrift u.
Taufbekenntniss. A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, 1903.
JUDAIC CHRISTIANITY". 87
CHAPTER II.
PERVERSIONS OF THE GOSPEL AND REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS

DIRECTED AGAINST CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY.
9. Judaic Christianity.
Chief vSources. Justin. Dialogus
c. Tryphone, c. 47. Iren. adv.
haeresesi. 26. 2. Origenes contra Celsum 2. i, 3 v. 71. Hippolyt. Refut.
;
vii. 34. Epiphan. Panarionhaer. 29, 30. Euseb. hist, eccl., iii. 27. Jerome,
esp. Ep. 112 (or 89) and occasionally. Upon the testimony of the Twelve
Patriarchs and the Clementines, see below. Cf. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergesch.
d. Urhristent., 1884, p. 421 ff. Judent. u. Judenchristent., 1886. Ritschl,
Altkath. Kirche, ed. 2, p. 152 ff. Harnack, DG., i. ed. 3, 271 ff. Zahn,
Gesch. d. u. tl. Kan. ii. 642 ff.
Inasmuch as Judaic Christianity, confined practically to the

Jordan and to Syria, exerted no more im-
territory east of the
portant influence upon the development of doctrinal views or
tendencies in the church, it presents little material for the His-
tory of Doctrines, and a brief review must here suffice.^
The terms, " Ebionite " and "Nazarene," applied to differ-
ent groups of Jewish Christians, cannot be sharply discriminated.
We may note three general groups, indications of which may be
traced as early as the apostolic period.
(tz) Justin speaks of Jewish Christians w^ho require of all be-
lievers a strict observance of the law, as well as of others who,
while observing it strictly themselves, do not demand this of all
Christians. He himself does not maintain that the latter class
are excluded from salvation, but he knows that some Christians
so believe (Dial. 47). Jerome still knows of these as a " heresy
Avidely spread throughout all the synagogues of the Jews in the
East, called Nazarenes, who believe Christ to be the Son of God,
born of the Virgin Mary, and say that it was he who suffered
under Pontius Pilate and arose from the dead, and in whom we
also believe." But his opinion of them is *' While they
wish :
to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Chris-
tians " (Ep. 112. 13 [or 89]. Cf. Epiph. h. 29. 7-9). It ap-
pears thus that for centuries a Jewish Christianity maintained
itself in the East, whose confessors agreed in faith with the
^ We may properly take account of the influence of the "Jewish " element
upon the church, as is customary at the present day. But this influence is not
exerted directly through Jewish Christianity, and just as little by Judaism itself,
which has from the beginning, and especially since the Cochebean war, stood
in opposition to Christianity. Its influence has, on the contrary, been exerted
through the later Jewish literature, with its legalism and apocalypticism.
':
S^ HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
Catholic Church/ used only a Hebrew Gospel, acknowledged

Paul and his work, but in their practice remained faithful to
their national law, without demanding an observance of the lat-
ter by all Christians. They were really Jewish Christians, whereas
the two following groups were only Christian Jews.
(/^) The second group is represented by the Jewish-Christian
opponents of St. Paul. They are Christian Pharisees. They
held to circumcision and the law, demanding the practice of
these by all Christians (Just. Dial. 47). They rejected Paul as
an apostate from the law (apostata legis) and used only a recen-
sion of Matthew's Gospel, the Ebionite Gospel of the Plebrews
(Iren.adv. haer. i. 26. 2. Cf. Zahn, Gesch.d. Kanons, ii. 724ff. ).
Besides this, the divinity of Christ and his birth from the Virgin
were denied (Iren. iii. 21. i ; v. 3). This is not to be under-
stood as indicating a conservative tendency, but as a concession
to Judaism. Origen classifies the '' two kinds of Ebionites" ac-
cording to their attitude toward the birth of Christ (c. Celsus,
V. 61). The son of Joseph and Mary was through his baptism
endued with the Spirit of God. He then assumed the prophetic
office, and through his piety became the Son of God (Epiph. h.
30. 14, 18. Hipp. Ref. vii. 34. p. 406, ed. Duncker-Schnei-
dewin).^ In this path we should strive to follow after Christ,
^ Eusebius (h. e. iii, 27.

3) says of these Christians, whom he discriminates
sharply from the "Ebionites," that they held indeed to the birth of Christ
from the Virgin, but did not acknowledge the pre-existence of the Logos
*'And these likewise do not acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God,
Logos, and Wisdom," etc. Cf. Orig. in Matth. torn. 16. 12 Delarue iii. 733.
This cannot offset the above testimony of Jerome. It may be based upon a
confusion with Ebionite views, or merely upon the lack of speculations in re-
gard to the Logos, for which the Jewish Christians had little inclination.
Origen testifies that the Jews know nothing of the identification of the Logos
with the Son of God (Celsum ii. 31). Even the N"1D''D of Jewish theology
has no such reference (cf. Weber, System d. altsynag. palast. Theolog.,

1880, pp. 178, 339).
2 Traces of this position are to be found in the Testamenta duodecim patri-
archarum (ed. Sinker, also Migne gr. ii., 1037 ff.). I remark in passing that
this originally Jewish document, after having perhaps been revised by a Jew,
A. D. 70-130, was again interpolated by an Ebionite Jewish Christian in view
of the destruction of Jerusalem. Brief additions were again made to it about
the beginning of the third century by apatripassian Monarchist. The passage
of chief interest for us is as follows : Test. Jud. 24 :
'* And there shall arise
a man of my seed (i. e., of a. Jew) as the sun of righteousness, associating

{(yv/i7ropEv6fj.Evnc) with the sons of men in meekness and righteousness, and no
sin shall be found in him. And the heavens shall be opened upon him, pour-
ing out the Spirit, the blessing of the Holy Father [t. <f., at his baptism. Cf.
Levi 18), and he shall pour out the spirit of grace upon you, and ye shall be
to him sons in the truth, and ye shall walk in his commandments first and last
'
(cf. Zabul. 9. Naph. 3). This man '* renewmg [avaKaivoTroiovvra] the law
with power from on high," the Jews (specifically the descendants of Levi)
JUDAIC CHRISTIANITY. S9
"confessing that we are justified according to the law"

(Hippol. ). With this are combined the crass conceptions of the
millennium, derived, it is claimed, from the prophets of the Old
Testament (Iren. i. 26. 2. Jerome, on Isa. 1. 18, chap. 66. 20).
(c) As it has not been found possible always to draw the line
accurately between the first and second groups, a similar diffi-
culty is met in contrasting the second and third groups, the
latter of which presents a type of Jewish Christianity marked by
theosophic speculations and strict asceticism. The existence of
this class is implied in the Epistle to the Collosians fcf. the
Alexandrian Judaism and the Essenes). This tendency appears
to have received a strong impulse during the reign of Trajan at
the beginning of the second century through a man named
^HX-/aaai (according to Wellhausen, a man Alexius, Skizzen iii. p.
206, note, or ^D3 TT\ duva/xig xexaXoiifiivrj, hidden power, Epiph.

haer. 19.2. Hippol. Ref. ix. 16, p. 468. Epiph., h. 30. 17,
applies thesame name to the book itself). An angel of terrible
dimensions (Christ), accompanied by a female angel (the Holy
Ghost) is said to have handed to Elkesai, in the land of the Seri,
,
a book with new revelations. In this was enjoined a second

baptism in the name of the Most High God and his Son, the
great king, for the forgiveness (^xatvij a<pe(Tt? dfj.apnwv') of all sins,
even the greatest (adultery), and for the healing of wounds from
the bite of mad dogs, and of severe diseases (in their clothing
into the water with appeal to the heavens, the water, holy spirits,
the angels of prayer, the olive tree, the salt, and the earth, accom-
panied with the promise to forsake evil). The doctrine to be
accepted, and which must be kept secret, related to the observ-
ance of the law and the reception of circumcision. Christ was
not born of the Virgin, but as other men. He had often
appeared (an angel) at earlier periods. Paul was rejected,
as were bloody sacrifices. The eucharist was celebrated with
water (cf. Epiph. h. 30. 16; 19. 3). To this were added vari-
ous astrological superstitions. In general, we must conclude
that this Jewish-Christian movement is an attempt to aid Jewish
Christianity to attain the ascendency by adapting it to the syncre-
tistic tendency of the age. The whole movement falls, then, into
a close parallel to Gnosticism. It is Gnosticism in the sphere of
Jewish Christianity. (See Hippol. Ref. ix. 13 ff. Orig. in
Euseb. h. e., 6. 38. Epiph. h. 19, cf. 53. i 30. 17.)
;
persecute and slay as a vagabond, not dreaming of his majesty (Levi 16).
Israel is, therefore, cast off and Jerusalem destroyed (Levi 10. 14), until in
the last time God will have compassion upon her (Zabul. 9. Asser 7. Joseph
19). Then the kingdom of the enemy will be destroyed (Dan. 6).
Alcibiades, of Apamea in Syria, attempted about A. D. 220,

by employing the manner of a public crier, to establish a propa-
ganda for this theory at Rome. The effect was but transient.
But greater success attended its promulgation in the territory in
which Jewish Christianity prevailed. Epiphanius, for example,
in the second half of the fourth century, applies the term
** Ebionite " to a tendency
which, in all respects, manifests the
closest relation to the teaching of Elkesai. For particulars, see
haer. 30. 2, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Cf. h. 53. i, where his
judgment is *' being neither Christians nor Jews nor Greeks,
:
but being simply midway, they are nothing. '

*
Here belongs also the complex of compositions known under the name,
*'Clementines."^ It consists of a. didactic romance preserved in various re-
censions, whose hero is the Roman, Clement, (i) The so-called Twenty
Homilies, introduced by a letter of Peter to James, the so-caUed (Uafiaprvpia^
edited by Dressel, Goettingen, 1853, and DE Lagarde, Leipzig, 1865. (2)
The same material is worked over in the Recognitiones, in which i. 27-74
is wrought in with the Avata^fibt Ta/cufion.
' We possess only the Latin trans-
lation of Rufinus, ed. Gersdorf, Bibl. patr. i., Leipzig, 1838. (3) Extracts
from the material in the Epitomse, of which Dressel edited two forms. (4)
A Syrian recension compiled from the Homilies and Recognitiones, ed. de
Lagarde, 1861. Cf. Schliemann, Die Clementinen, etc. Hilgenfeld,
Die clem. Homil. u. Recogn., 1848. Uhlhorn, Die Horn, u. Recogn., 1854.
LehmaNN, Die clem. Schriften, 1869. Langen, Die Clemensromane, 1890.
BiCG, The Clem, homilies, in Stadia bibl. at ecclesiast. ii. 157 ff.
In these documents we find Popular-Catholic elements com-

mingling with ideas of a gnosticizing Judaism. The world has
emanated from God, who is the All (rt) -ay). It moves dually and
antagonistically. The devil as well as Christ is sprung from a
change (rpoTTTj) in God (Hom. 2. 15 ff., ^;^ 17. 7, 8, 9 20. ; ;
S). God possesses, as in the Stoic conception, a body (frajf/.a')
and an outward form (^fr^rj/xa) (Hom. 17. 7). In accordance
In regard to the almost hopelessly complicated questions of literary and

'
historical character clusteringaround the Clementine literature, I present but a

few points in a tentative way. {
I
) Both the Homilies and the Recognitiones
are dependent upon a comprehensive Jewish-Christian document. (2) This
latter had a pronounced gnosticizing and Ebionite character. It had absorbed
certain Jewish-Christian writings, such as the Uepioôi Yl^rpov (Epiph. h. 30.
15, 16), the 'AvaOa^/zol 'laKuOov (preserved in Recog. i. 27-74), etc. It was
composed for the purpose of establishing a propaganda in the East (the Roman
Clement, the mask of an Antimarcionite tendency), and in the latter halfofthe
second century. (3) The document was, in the latter half of the third cen-
tury, revised by two Catholic Christians (the time being estimated from the cir-
cumstances attending its composition). The Homilies were written first. The
author of the Recognitiones made use of the primary document and of the
revised Homilies. If this view be correct, we are justified in using with
caution
the Jewish-Christian primary document, which has, as a whole, been
better conserved than the Homilies at large, for determining the character of
the Jewish Christianity of about A. D. 200.
'
GENTILE-CHRISTIAX GNOSIS. 9I
with the law of antagonism, there is a double line of prophets,

male and female. The latter have a representative in Eve, the
former in Adam. From the feminine line comes heathendom,
and also false Judaism. From this false line of prophecy origi-
nate war and bloody sacrifices (parallel with menstruation), as
well as idolatry (Hom. 3. 20-27. Cf. the double line in Recogn.
8. 52 ; 3. 61 ; 5. 9). On the other hand, the true prophet
(Adam or Christ), " continually changing ever since the begin-
ning of the world both his name and his form, proceeds through
the world, until he shall have reached the tijiies appointed, and,
'
anointed by the mercy of God for his toil, shall find rest forever
(Hom. 3. 20. Cf. Recogn. 2. 22). This true prophet has,
especially in Adam, Moses, and, above all, in Christ, taught the
truth, that there is One God, who created the world, and is our
righteous Judge. The idea that Christ is God is thus excluded
(f>Jrr ia'jTo-^ iîov ehai av/]Yo(>eu(7z-/). Although he is son of God,
he is not God ; since God is an unbegotten entity, he, a begot-
ten (Hom. 16. 15, 16). Man has free will :''It has been en-
joined what things it is proper to think and to do choose there-
:
fore what lies in your power " (Hom. 11. 11 ;10. 4 ff.
, cf. 2.
36 fin.; 3. 22, 23, cf. 8. 48). It is our duty no^v to fulfill

the commandments of God. The Homilies do not mention cir-
cumcision (but see Diaraart. Jak. i)j the Recognitiones (5. 34)
distinctly discredit it. AVe have, however, frequent washings
(Hom. 9. 23 10. 26. Recog. 4. 3 5. -^6), vegetable diet
; ;
(Hom. 12. 6 15. 7 ; 8. 15 14. i), prohibition of marriage

; ;
(Hom. 3. 6S. Ep. ad. Jac. 7). A characteristic mode of deal-

ing with the Old Testament led to the rejection of bloody sacri-
fices(Hom. 2. 52 f.; 3. 42).
The documents before us constitute a special foreshadowing of
Elkesaism. Although their preparation appears to have been
undertaken with a view of winning the West, and especially
Rome, we have no evidence that such a result was in any measure
attained. This form of Judaism exercised a historical influence
only upon the genesis of Mohammedanism. (Cf. Wellhausen,
Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten H. iii. 197 ff. ) Out of the combination
of the two great monotheistic religions of the Semitic race arose
the third.
10. Gentile- Christian Gnosis.
Sources. Of the abundant Gnostic literature there have been preserved for
us in complete form only the Epistle of Ptolemaus to Flora in Epiph. h. t,t,.
3 ff
.

the PiSTis-SoPHiA (Copt.), ed. Schwartze-Petermann, 1S53, from the
latterhalf of the third century (cf. Harnack, Texte u. Unters. 7. 2), and two
other Gnostic works in the Coptic language, edited by Schmidt, Texte u.
Unters. viii. i. 2. Besides these we have only fragments. See the account
given by BoNWETSCH Thomasius DG. i. 153 f a comprehensive collection

in .
;
in Grabe, Spicilegium Hilgenfeld, Ketzergesch. des Urchristent. 1884.

ii.; ,
Also, Stieren, Irenceus i. gooff. (Ptol. Valent. Heracleon fragments of ;
the last named were collected by Brooke in Texts and Studies, i. 4. The
most ancient of the works directed against the heretics have been lost, e. g.^
Agrippa Castor (Eus. h. c. iv. 7. 5 ff. ). Justin's Syntagma wider alle
Haeresien (cf. Apol. i. 26) and his writing against Marcioa (Iren. adv. haer.
iv. 6. 2), etc. These have been preserved in Latin, and many Greek
fragments are found in Epiph., Eus., In Irenseus we have ^^^k^yx^^
etc.
Kai avarpoTvy ttjq -ifjevdojv'uôv yvcjaeiog Massuet Stieren Harvey),
11. 5 (edd. ; ;
written about A. D. 180 in Tertullian, de praescriptione haerticorum,

;
adv. Valentinianos, de carne Christi, de resurrectione carnis, de anima.

From HiPPOLYTUS we 'possess Kara iza<yC)v dipeaecjv eXeyxf^Ct H* 10 ca. 230
(Refutatio Oder Philosophumena, ed. Duncker-Schneidewin. Cf. Stahelin
in Texte u. Unters, vi. 3); his earlier Syntagma wider alle Haresien, Photius
Bibl. Cod. 121, written after A. D. 200 (to be reconstructed from Ps.-Tertul.
adv. omn. haeres. Philastrius and Epiphanius), has been lost.
, Further,
Philastrius, de haeresibus. ca. A. D. 380. Epiph. Panarion, written A. D.
374-376 (both in Oehler, Corp, haeresiologie) Adamantius, de recta in deum
.
fide, Delarue 0pp. Origen i. 803; Latin translation by Rufinus in Caspari,

Kirchenhist. Anekdota, 1883. Cf. Zahn, Ztschr. f. Kirch. -Gesch. ix. I93ff.
ca. 310. Also the works of Clemens, Alex., Origen, Eusebius, h. e.,
Plotinus, Ennead. ii. 9 (ed, Miiller i. 133 ff.), Porphyr. Vita Plotin, 16.
For Critical Estimates of the Sources, see Volkmar, Quellen d. Ketzer-
gesch., 1855. LiPsius, Zur Quellenkrit. d. Epiph., 1865. Lipsius, Die
Quellen der altest. Ketzergesch., 1875. Harnack, Zur Quellenkrit. der
Gesch. d. Gnostic, 1873 also in Ztschr. f. hist. Th., 1874, 143 ff. Hilgen-
;
feld, Ketzergesch. des Urchristent., 1884. Kunze, de historic gnosticismi

fontibus, 1894.
Important works are ;Neander, Entwickl. der vomehmst. gnost. Systeme,
1S18. Baur, die christi. Gnosis, 1835. Lipsius, Der Gnostic, sein Wesen,
Ursprung u. Entwicklungsgang, i860. Koffmane, Die Gnosis nach Ten-
denz u. Organis. , 1881. Hilgenfeld, loc cit. Thomasius, DG. , i. ed. 2,
62 ff. Harnack, DG., i. ed, 3, 211 ff. Renan, Origines du christianisme
vi. 140 ff.; vii. I12 ff. Anrich., Das antike Mysterienwesen in s, Einfluss
auf. d. Christent., 1894, p. 74. ff. Wobbermin, Religionsgeschichtl. Studien,
1896. Anz, Ursprung des Gnosticismus, Texte u. Unters. 15. 4. Lichtenhan,
DieOffenbarungim Gnosticismus, 1 901. Krueger, PRE. vi. ed. 3, 723.
I. Already in the apostolic age there arose, particularly in

Asia Minor and Antioch, heretical teachers, who drew their im-
mediate impulse from Judaism. They were characterized by
speculations in regard to the realm of angels and spirits, a dualis-
tically ascetic, ethical tendency, or immoral libertinism, a spirit-
ualizing of the resurrection, and mockery of the church's hope
(Col. 2. 18 ff. I Tim. I. 3-7 4. 1-3 6. 3 f.
;
2 Tim. 14-18.
;
Tit. I. 10-16. 2 Pet. 2. 1-3, 4. Jud. 4-16, Rev. 2. 6, 15, 20 ff.

Cf. Acts 20. 29 f. ). By the end of the apostolic period, about
the close of the first century, these views had taken a more fixed
form. This is the first type of Gnosticism opposition to the :
sensuous, freedom of the Spirit. John combats a theory which

discriminates between Christ and Jesus, denying that Jesus came
in the flesh as Christ (^hjfranv A'ptirruv iv a-af/xl iXrjXoiôra, i Jn. 4.
GENTILE-CHRISTIAN GNOSIS. 93
2 ; 2. 22 ; 4. 15 ; 5. i, 5, 6. 2 Jn. 7. Jn. i. 14). He refers

to the heresy of CErinthus (Iren. i. 26. i ; iii. 11. i). This is
the second type rehgious philosophical speculation.

: To the
apostolic period belongs also the Samaritan Pseudo-Messiah Simon
(Acts 8. 9 ff. Just. Ap. i. 26. 56. Iren. i. 23. Cf. perhaps
Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 4. i), whose doctrine was transplanted to
Antioch by his disciple, Menander. He also practiced magic,
taught that the world was created by angels, which are sprung
from the divine intelligence (h'v'ôta). He promised immortality
to those who should follow him (Just. Ap. i. 26. Iren. iii. 23, 5).
Similarly, Satornil, who, however, assigns a less important
position to the Jewish God (Iren. i. 24. i f. ). This third type
bears the character of the magic of asceticism. The false
teachers cited by Ignatius do not deny their indebtedness to
Jewish ideas. As their chief error appears the theory that Christ
only seemed to suifer ( to doxslv r^tiziv^M-âi, Smyrn. 2-4. Tral.
10. Phil. 6-9. Cf. Magn. 8-1 1. Phil. 6. i). But they are
themselves only in seeming (rd fWsiv), i, e., ascetics.
z. From the early part of the second century these errors were
openly proclaimed and immediately secured an amazingly wide
circulation (Hegesip. in Eus. h. e. iv. 22. 4; iii. 27. 7 f.).
This rapid growth is probably to be ascribed to wandering teach-
ers (cf. T Jn. 4. I. 2 Jn. 10. 3 Jn. 5 f. 10. Did. 11, 12.
Ign. Sm. 4. I. Eph. 9. i 7. i. Pist.-Soph., pp. 253, 372).
;
The particulars of its development are shrouded in uncertainty.

Only this much is clear that within a few decades this mode of
thought had become very widespread among Gentile Christians,
and was still further developed in a specifically Gentile-Christian
way. The most important Gnostic ''systems'* are those of
Basilides, Valentine and his disciples (Heracleon, Ptole-
Mûs, and Theodotus as the chief representatives of the Italian
school ; Axionicus and Bardesanes of the Eastern school), the
Ophites, Kainites, Perates, Sethians, the Gnostic Justin,
the Naassenes. To these are to be added the ultras, such as
Marcion, Carpocrates, etc. (See a comprehensive classifi-
cation in Mollers KG. i. 136 ff.)
The title, yvajfTTuoi^ was assumed by some of these schools
themselves (^. ^., Iren. i. 25. 6. Hippol. Ref. v. 11; 23).
Irenseus rightly applied it to all these tendencies exalting knowl-
edge above faith (cf. Hilgenfeld, p. 343 f. ).
3. In order to understand Gnosticism, it is necessary above all
to bear in mind the syncretism of that period in the church.
The religious unrest of the age eagerly absorbed all possible re-
ligious ideas and sought to generalize and harmonize them.
Preference was given in this process especially to the oriental
'
wisdom. It was by no means the aim merely to satisfy the thirst

for knowledge, but it was sought to realize the upper world in
personal experience through religious revelation and through the
formulas and forms of the mysteries, and at the same time to secure
a sure path for the soul in its ascent to the upper world at death.
As the Gnostic religion addressed itself to this undertaking, so
Christianity seemed to be seeking
in parallel lines and success-
fully to accomplish the same task. And this tendency found
support in the universality of Christianity, in the idea that the
latter as the absolute religion was to be everything to all men and
bring all religions to their consummation. This Gnosticism sought
to achieve. It sought to elevate Christianity to the position of
the universal religion, by combining in it all the tendencies and
energies of the age, and thus adapting it to the comprehension
of all and satisfying the needs of all. Thus revelation was to
be combined with the wisdom of the world, and Christianity
by this means become a modern religion. It was the first attempt
in the history of the church to bring the world into subjection
to the church by interpreting Christianity in harmony with the
wisdom of the world. Under the conditions then existing, this
attempt appeared to be assured of success, and it seemed to
oppose to the gospel of the church a tremendous combination of
forces.
Gnosis is characterized by the following features :( i ) It does
not profess to be properly speculation or religious philosophy,

but it is divine revelation. The '^ Spirit" lives in it, and it
brings revelations of the Spirit. (2) It seeks to be the world-
religion, in that it combines in itself all truth and all the religious
revelation of the race. (3 It seeks to save the soul by impart-
)
ing the truth, but just as truly

this feature is universally promi-

nent to teach men the formulas of enchantment by means of
which they may find entrance through the various gates of the
upper world. (4 ) It presents the truth in the form of mysteries,
and hence often combines its adherents in the form of mystery-
unions.
The religious questions which the heathenism of the second
century propounded, and whose solution it was very widely
thought was to be found in the religions of the Orient, Gnosti-
cism thus undertakes to answer by the aid of a proper valuation
of Christian ideas. It addresses itself to problems, not of
Christian, but of heathenish religious thought. ''
Whence evil,
and in what does it consist ? Whence man and how, and what
is the highest thing ?
'
asks Valentine
'
Whence God ?
'
'
'
'^ Baptism is not only the setting free

(Tertul. de praescr. 7).
(pardon), but also the knowledge {j'ju}(n(i) what we are and why
we were created, where we are or whither Ave shall be cast, what

we are to understand by creation and regeneration " (Clem. Ex-
cerpta ex. Theod. 78).
This leads to a discussion of the origin of this world, and par-
ticularly of the mysterious commingling of spirit and matter in
man, and to a pointing out of the way to deliverance from this con-
dition, or to the attainmentof immortality. To this end a phan-
tastic cosmogony is devised, colored by a leaning toward orien-
tal speculation, this is combined a corresponding
and with
*' gospel history." The
doctrine thus evolved is the content of
Christianity. Following the pattern of the mysteries, and im-
pelled by the same spirit which called them into being, the effort
was made, by introducing a variety of symbolical ceremonies,
magical miracles, and magical formulas, supposed to have signifi-
cance for this life and for that which is to come, to secure th't
personal acceptance of these views. ^ They were attested as
Christian by allegorical exegesis of the Old and New Testaments,
and by appeals to the writings and secret traditions of the new
teachers themselves. It was not philosophical knowledge which
was thus offered to the individual, but intuitive, experimental
knowledge, and experience of the divine life, and with these the
inclination to view all things in a religious light. ^ ''
An aston-
ishing spectre, this Gnosticism, begotten by the rising sun of
Christianity in the evening shadows of departing heathendom
" !
(Graul, D. chr. Kirche and Schwelle d. ir. Ztalters, p. 91).

Without entering into the details of the various systems, we
must examine somewhat more closely their chief features.
4.(1) The world of spirit and that of matter stand dualistically
opposed to each other, as above and below, as good and bad.
(2) From the spirit-world (profundity, fiw^hx;^ the self- father,
anToTzdrojit, pleroma, TzlriftwfKi)^ which is internally agitated by
the aeons (âiw^ê^, sensations and emotions
movements of the
primal spirit, or even personal entities, substantice, Tert. adv. Val.
4. Iren. ii. 13. 10; 28. 4), the present world appeared by
emanation or evolution.
(3) The creator of this world was not the supreme God, but
a subordinate being, the Demiurge, or God of the Jews (e. g.,
Ep. Ptol. ad. Flor. '^ And this Demiurge is hence also the crea-
:
tor of the whole world, being different from those other beings
^ Cf. Hippol. Refut. i. proem But the things esteemed by them had their
:
origin in the ao<j>ia of the Greeks, from their speculative teachings and at-
tempted mysteries and warning astrologers.
^
We may recall the opinion of Celsus :
'* Certain dancing syrens andsoph-
istriennes, sealing up the ears (a Gnostic rite) and turning the heads of their
victims, etc. Orig. contra Cels. v. 64.
[the supreme God and the devil] occupying properly a place be-
,
tween them"), or even an angel,

(4) In the world of matter there exists a remnant from the
spirit-world, and the deliverance of this remnant is the aim of
the soteriological process. According to the proportion of spirit
in the matter in their composition, men are spiritual (Trveu/iarufn'),
psychical (0tj/ix*u'), and carnal ((Tw/xanxo:) (^. g,^ Iren. i. 7. 5.
Tert. adv. Val. 29). This classification maybe used to character-
ize Christianity, Judaism, and Heathenism.
(5) Sensuousness constitutes (in true heathen fashion) the evil
in men. The imprisoned in the body
spirit is ''It explains the
:
conflict in the body, that its structure (^TzXdtr/j.a') is composed of

warring elements (Hippol. Ref v. 8, p. 154. Cf. the hymn of
the Naasenes, ib. c. 10, p. 176 " From thy breath it wanders
:

away it seeks to flee from the black chaos and does not know
how to pass through, etc. ) '
Demons of many kinds have their

' .
abode in the soul of man, and injure and defile it as travelers an

inn (Valent. in Clem. Al. Str. ii. 20. 114). From this results
the universality of sin, and the fact that it is so natural to man
(Basilid. in Clem, Al. Str. iv. 12. 83, in Hilgenfeld, p. 208.
Iren. iv. 27. 2).
(6) Redemption originates in the world of spirit. The Re-
deemer is Jesus Christ. There are many and greatly variant de-
lineations of his person. He is a celestial aeon, which inhabits
a body, practices self-restraint, and thus comes to be of the same
nature as the latter '*
: For we say of that which is seen, and of
that which is unseen, that they are one nature" (Valent. in
Clem. AL Str. iii. 7. 59, and in Photius Bibl. cod. 230. Vid.
Hilgenf. 297, 302), Or he is an aeon which assumed a body
formed of a psychic substance being impassible, he did not
:
suffer, but only his psychic body,

thus the school of Valentine
(Iren. i. 6. i ; 7. 2. Otherwise, Tertul. adv. Val. 39. i). Or
the man Jesus, bearing the image of God, and by a special dis-
pensation born through Mary, is chosen by God with him at ;
his baptism the aeon Christ, also called ''Man" or " Son of

man," unites himself, thus Marcion in Iren. i. 15. 3. Cf. Cerin-
thus in Iren. i. 26. i. Carpocrates, Iren. i. 25. i, 2. Ps.
Tert. adv. omn. h. 15.
Satornil ("He held that the un-
begotten Saviour was both incorporeal and invisible, but he
thought that he appeared a man," Iren. i. 24. 2) and Basilides
(
'
That Christ came in phantasm, was without substance of flesh,
'
did not suffer at the hands of the Jews, but instead of him Simon
was crucified ; whence we are not to believe in him who was
crucified," Ps.-Tert. 4. Cf. Iren, i. 24. 4. Philaster 32, etc.)
agree in discriminating sharply between the historical Jesus and
the celestial Christ, either considering the celestial aeon as

dwelling in an apparent body, or regarding the man Jesus as led
and prompted by the aeon.
(7) In regard to the object of Christ's coming, it is to be
said: **For the Father of all wished to dispel ignorance and
destroy death. But the recognition of himself became the dis-
pelling of ignorance " (Iren. i. 15. 2, Marcion). In the hymn
** Having the seals I
of the Naasenes, Christ says to the Father :
shall affirm I travel through all ages.

: I shall unfold all mys-
teries
I shall show the forms of the gods
the hidden things of
the holy way
I shall summon wisdom (jvwfn^') and teach
"^
(Hipp. Ref. V. 10. a. also Fist. -Soph., p. i f. 182, 232:

* *
Verily say unto you, that ye shall know how the world,
I
x6(7iio<;, was formed," vid. the enumeration, p. 206 ff. ). The
gospel is the knowledge of supermundane things (^ rihv onepyjxrixlujv
yvanTtg, Hipp. Ref. vii. 27, p. 376). At the beginning of the
Jeft-books, p. 142, it is said: **This is the book of the
knowledges of the invisible God by means of the hidden mys-
teries which lead to the elect generation." *' This is the doc-
trine in which the entire sum of knowledge dwells.

'
Christ '
thus brings knowledge to the world, and thereby the spiritual

elements are strengthened to release themselves from matter.
The self-consciousness of the human spirit begins, and it now
recognizes the means of grace and sacred formulas which aid it
to rise from this world into that above.
(8) Redemption has to do chiefly with the pneumatic. '* They
teach that these are not only by practice, but by nature pneu-
matic, and will everywhere and absolutely be saved" (Iren. i. 6.2.
Cf. CI. Al. Str. v. I. 3). The ''only good Father" himself
looks upon the heart of man in Christ, and it is illuminated and
blessed in the vision of God. The man now lives bound to the
Saviour in mutual fellowship, and has become in himself immor-
tal (Val. in CI. Al. Str. ii. 20. 114; v. 6. 52 ; iv. 13. 91 in
Hiigenfeld, pp. 296, 301, 298). The knowledge (sTriyvwrt-;?) of the
great Unutterable is redemption, but it has to do only with the
spirit, and not with the soul or body (Iren. i. 21. 4; 7. 5).
Thus the spirit by knowledge becomes free from the oppression
of the sensuous and mounts to God. The psychic, /. e., ordi-
^ This hymn pictures the distress and anxiety of a soul which has fallqn
under the '* dense darkness," and seeks like a trembling hart to escape from
it, and yet does not know how to go in or out. Then comes Christ, the
Saviour. He brings knowledge and shows the way of escape, c, the ;'.
ascent of the soul to God through the realm of the planetary spirits
which
are the gods. The hymn furnishes a fine example of the practical religious
temper of the Gnostic circles.
^
nary Christians in the church, may be saved through faith and

works, but the hylic will all be lost (Iren. i. 6. 2). In practical
life the Gnostics regarded all their actual adherents as pneumatic
(cf. Iren. i. 6. i fin.; iii. 15. 2. Hipp. Ref. v. 9, p. 174).
(9) The moral philosophy accompanying these views of re-
demption was dominated by the false estimate of sensuousness,
and assumed a double form (Iren. iii. 15. 2), either a strict
ascetic abstinence (Iren. i. 24. 2. Hipp. Ref. v. 9, p. 170.
Pist.-Soph., pp. 250, 254 f.), oralax carnality, confident that
nothing could harm these favored ones, with scornful criticism of
the strict morality of the church, as, for example, on the sub-
ject of martyrdom (Iren. i. 6. 2,3; 25. 3 28. 2 ; ;
31. 2. CI.
Al. Str. iv. 9. 73. Agrippa Cast., in Eus. h. e. iv. 7. 7.
Isadore, in CI. AL Str. iii. i. i, assails the *^ theatric ascetics."
Cf. also Plot. ii. 9. 15).
(10) In keeping with the whole trend of the system of Gnos-
ticism, there is found in it no recognition of the resurrection of
the dead, nor of the early Christian eschatology as a whole.
The return of the spirit freed from matter to the pleroma marks
the end (cf. Iren. i. 7. i, 5. Tert. c. Val. 32).
5. The attempt was made in various special associations to

popularize this general cosmical theory by symbolic rites, mystic
ceremonies, and the teaching of magic formularies, etc. Members
of the orthodox church were particularly cultivated (Iren. iii.
15. 2. Tert. praescr. 42). The Gnostics either formed con-
gregations outside the church or secret organizations within her
pale (Iren. iii. 4. 3 15. 2; i. 13. 7).; At the reception of
persons into these associations, and in their worship, strange
forms and formulas played an important part. It was taught to
have been the design of Christ to grant to his followers such
''mysteries" as a means of protection and as powers to be
effectuallyemployed against sin, death, and the cosmic forces
opposing in the state of death ''Jesus said coming into
: . .
the world I have brought nothing but this fire and this water,
and this wine and this blood " (Pist.-Soph., pp. 372, 219. Cf.
Jeu i. pp. 142,198). We note the principal rites observed :

(i) The redemption (aTroXnrpioTt^), or leading into a bridal
chamber, among the Marcosians (spiritual marriage) (Iren. i.
21. 2, 3). (2) Touching of the glove as a sign of recognition
(Epiph. h. 26. 4). (3) Branding of the right ear (Iren. i. 25.
6. CI. Al. Excerpt, ex proph., ^ 25. Celsus in Orig. c. Cels.
V. 64). (4) Three-fold baptism with water, fire, and spirit
(e.jf., Jeij, pp. 195, 198, 200 ff. Pist.-Soph., 375 ff.). (5)
'
What a difference is thus revealed between this system and the church !
Anointing with oil (Iren. i. 21. 3. Hippol. v. 7. Orig. c.

Cels. vi. 27. Acta Thorn, ed. Bonnet, pp. 20, 6S, 73, 82).
(6) The '* mystery of the forgiveness of sins" (e. ^^., Jefi, p.
206 f. ): ''Therefore must every man who would believe on the
Son of Light receive the mystery of the forgiveness of sins, in
order that he may become entirely perfect and complete in all
mysteries therefore now I also declare that, if ye have re-
ceived the mystery of the forgiveness of sins, all the sins which
ye have consciously or unconsciously committed, which ye have
committed from the time of your childhood until the present
day, and until the severing of the bond of the flesh of fate, are
altogether blotted out, because ye have received the mystery of
the forgiveness of sins." (Vid. Pist.-Soph., pp. 300, 375 f.)
(7) The obscene (menstrual blood and male semen, Pist.
rite
Soph., p. 386. Epiph. h. 26. 4. 2 Book Jeu, p. 194. Vid.
Cyril. Catech. 6. ^^ ; also August, de haeres. 46, de morib.
Manich. 18. 66.) (8) Pictures (Iren. i. 25. (9) Magic
6).
charms and sentences (Plot.Ennead. ii. Orig. c. Celsus
9. 14.
vi.31, Cels. ib. 39, 40. Cf. the various formulas preserved in
the Coptic Gnostic works). (10) Hymns (Acta Joh. ed. Zahn,
p. 220 f. Acta Thorn, vid. Lips. Apokr. Apostelgesch. i. 292
ff. Hippol. V. 6. 10; vi. 37. Tertul. de earn. Chr. 17, 20,
cf. Can. Mur. i. 81 ff. Pist. -Soph. S3 ^-y 53-^8o). (11)
Magic (Iren. ii. 32. 3). (12) Prophecy (Iren. i. 13. 3. Eus.
h. e. iv. 7. 7).^ (^3) Miracles, such as the changing of wine
into blood (Iren. i. 13. 2. Hipp. vi. 39, p. 296. Clem.
Exc. ex Theodot. 82. Cf. the changing of wine into
water, 2 Bk. JeCi, p. 200^. (14) Anointing of the dying with
oil (Iren. i. 21. 5. Cf. Orig. c. Cels. vi. 27. Epiph. h.
^6. 2). The practical importance attached to all this ceremo-
nial is evident from the original Gnostic works preserved in the
Coptic language. It rested above all upon the belief that this
was a means of gaining security in the world to come. It is at
the same time very plain that this entire foolish trifling with
symbols and formulas has an exact parallel in the heathen mys-
teries of the age. It is, really, only in view of this fact that we
can estimate the true essential character of Gnosticism. It is an
attempt to transform the gospel into a religious philosophy and
\ In the unarticulated and senseless formulas of prayer and magic whicli

are often met in the Pist. -Soph, and the Jeu books, we may be tempted to see
an echo, z. e., an imitation, of the speaking with tongues among the primitive
Christians (cf. Harnack, T. u. U. vii. 2. 86 ff. ). We are not compelled to
so regard them, however, since similar formulas are very frequently found in
the magic sentences of Jews and heathen nations. See e.^:, Dieterich,
Abraxas, 1891, pp. 138, 139, etc. Also the Mitiirasliturgie published by
Dieterich, 1903.
'
loo HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
into mystic wisdom to make heathenism the Christianity of the

enlightened.
6. Yet Gnosticism claimed to be Christian in character. The
only way to establish this claim was that prevalent in the church,
i. e. ,by proving that the views held were based upon the Scrip-
tures and the traditions of primitive Christianity. Appeal was
made for this purpose wherever possible to the words of Jesus
(Ep. Ptol. ad. Flor. fin.: ** worthy of the apostolic tradition,
which we also have in turn adopted, together with the establish-
ing of all our words by the teaching of the Saviour " ). To this
end they employed freely the method of allegorical exegesis, then
equally prevalent among heathen and Christian writers (^. ^.,
loc. cit. and Iren. i. 3. 8. Cf. Tert. de praescr. 38. 17. resur.
cam. 63). Appeal was taken also to the professed secret tradi-
tion handed down from apostolic times (Iren. iii. 2. i i. 25. 5. ;
CI. Al. Str. vii. 17. Hipp. Ref. 7. 20; v. 7. Tert. de

praescr. 25 f. Cf. in Pist.-Soph. and Jeu books). Upon this
basis then arose a literature of sacred books (** an unutterable mass
of apocryphal and spurious writings" (Iren. 20. i: 25. 5.
Gospels, see Zahn, Gesch. d. n. tl. Kan. i. 770 ff., 744 ff. See
also the Sources of Hipp. Ref. whatever may be the opinion in
regard to them). By thus treating the accepted writings of the
church, it was not difficult to impose upon many of her mem-
bers (to the amazement of the unthinking and those who do not
understand the Scriptures of truth, Iren. i. 20. i), and repre-
sent the Gnostic teachings as genuine Christianity.
Gnosticism is a coarse, anti-judaistic (cf. the condemnation of
the demiurge) development upon the territory of Gentile Chris-
tianity. It is not merely Gentile Christian in character, but
essentially heathenish. The fundamental problem to which it
addresses itself originates in the religious thought of the heathen
world, as well as the peculiar means employed for the solution
of this problem. Its character is not altered by the fact that it
applies the instruments of Christian and Jewish tradition to the
problem in hand. Its claim to recognition as Christian is sup-
ported primarily by the high estimate which it places upon the
person of Christ. His person marks the decisive turning-point
in human history, and his teaching is the absolute truth. We
may compare the attitude of Philo toward Judaism "(there
Moses, and here Christ), and the pecuhar zeal of the age for
oriental religious forms. It is misleading to designate Gnosis as
''the acute Hellenizing of Christianity" (Harnack), or, with

**
the same author, to call its leaders the first Christian theolo-
'
gians.
Gnosticism is Hellenizing in so far as the problems of Greek
GENTILE-CHRISTIAN GNOSIS. lOI
and Roman culture influence its course, but the means by which
itseeks to solve these problems are of essentially oriental origin.

There were, indeed, systems such as that of Valentine in
which the Hellenistic philosophical tendency was the controlling
element ; but, judged as a historical phenomenon, Gnosticism
was the attempt to establish the universal religion, in which the
religious problems of the educated world in that age should be
answered by means of the ancient oriental mythology and
magic, with the addition of the gospel of the church. We may,
accordingly, instead of a Hellenizing, speak rather of an Ethni-
cizing of Christianity.
The Gnosticism is very great. Chris-
historical significance of
tianity is conceived as *' doctrine " and as a ^'mys-
here first
tery." Thus the church was compelled to determine positively

what is Christian doctrine. And since the Gnostics used for
their own purposes the standards of the church, the Scriptures,
and tradition (which they were by no means the first to use in
this way), the necessity of a clearer definition of the latter was
early recognized. On the other hand, the positive influence of
the Gnostics must not be overestimated.^
It is customary to count Marcion of Sinope also among the
Gnostics; but it is better to treat separately of him. There were two
^ Wemight here enter into many details, e. g.: the universality of sin.
Of the Father of All it is said among the later Valentinians : It pleased him at
one time that the most beautiful and perfect thing which he had in him should
be born and proceed from him for he was not a lover of solitude.
; For love,
they say, was all but love is not love unless there be something loved.
;
Hence the begetting of the intelligence (i-oit) and truth (d/^/t^f/a) (Hipp.
Ref. vi. 29, p. 272). Basilides used the formula : *'That in consequence of
the supermundane election, the cosmic faith of all nature has arisen (CI. Al.
Str. ii. 3, p. 434 ) But this election signifies only an advantage of nature " ( ib.
.
cf. Str. V. I, p. 645). Cf. also the interesting formulas of Origen's Gnostic
opponents "To live virtuously is not our work, but entirely divine grace,"
:
or, *' salvation (ro o(.Kiu-âi') is not from anything in us, but from the planning
or choice of him who has mercy when he will." Cf. Rom. 9. 16 (Orig. de
princ. iii. 1. 8 ff., 15, 18, ed. Redepenning, pp. 28,33). Cut no one will think
Aut<astine historically dependent upon these formulas, whose sense is so far
different (cf. c. Cels. v. 61 ). Gnostic teachers were, perhaps, the first to use
the term, ofioovGio^ {^-g-i Ep. Ptol. ad Flor. in Epiph. h. 33. 7. Iren. i. 5-
I, 5, 6 II. 3.
; Hipp. Ref. vii. 22. Cf. Clem. Hom. 20. 7. Iren. ii. 17. 2
^"of the same substance" [e/'usdam substantia;^. Thus also Augustine
translates it in Joh. tr. 97. 4. Cf. ** consubstantialis^^ in Tert. adv. Hermog.
44. The Gnostic doctrine of the "two natures" has nothing in common
with the teaching of the church, but the Gnostics (as early as Cerinthus) were
the first to recognize the problem which is presented to the mind by the pres-
ence of the divine and the human in Christ. The relationship between the
later Catholic doctrine of the sacraments and the Gnostic mysteries cannot,
however, be denied. Both were influenced by the same models and the same
necessities.
I02 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
attempts at reform about the middle of the second century, that

of Marcion and that of Montanism. The former finds the justi-
fication of his undertaking in the writings of St. Paul ; the latter
draws its inspiration from St. John. The former takes up arms
against the increasing tendency to legality (cf. the Apostolic
Fathers and the Apologists); the latter points out a certain
spiritual torpidity in contrast with the spirituality of the primi-
tive church and a decay of eschatological expectations. Such
was the condition of things about A. D. 150 (cf. supra, under
*'
Apologists ").
1 1. MarciorC s Attempt at Reforvi.

Sources. Iren. i. 27. 2-4 ; iii. 12. 12, fin. Celsus, in Orig. 0. Cels. vi. 74.
53. Tert. adv. Marc. 11. 5. Ps.-Tert. 17. "
Philast. h. 44, 45. Epiph. h. 41,

42. Hippol. Ref. vii. 29-31. Adamantius, Dial, deorth. fid. i.,ii. Esnik (Arm.
bishop of fifth century). Against the Sects, transl. by Schmid, Vienna, 1900.
Cf. also Rhodon, upon Marcion's disciple Apelles, in Eus. h. e. v. 13, and
fragments of the latter in Texte u. Unters. vi. 3. in ff. Cf. Harnack, De
ap. gnosi monarch., 1874; DC, i. ed. 3. 254 ff. and Ztschr. f. wiss. Th.,
1876, p. 80 ff. BoNWETSCH in Thomas. DG. i. 81 ff. Zahn, Gesch. des
n. tl. Kan. i. 585 ff.; ii. 409 f HiLGENFELD, Ketzergesch., p. 316 ff.
Meyboom, Marcion en de Marcionieten, 1888.
About A. D. 140, Marcion came to Rome, apparently driven
from his home church in Sinope on account of adultery. He
became a member of the Roman congregation (Tert. iv. 4).
One question burns within him, /. <?., how can the new wine be
poured into the old bottles ? or, to put it in another form, the
conviction that no good tree can bring forth evil fruit, nor
evil tree good fruit (Matt. 9. 16 f.
; 7. 18). The replies
of the elders to his inquiries did not satisfy him. His eyes
were opened as he read the Epistle to the Galatians_.(Tert.
iv. 3; i. 20). He there finds Paul opposed by the Juda-
istic teachers, who corrupt the gospel through the law,
among whom are to be numbered the other apostles. In this
way is the preaching of the gospel corrupted, the latter being
commingled with the law (Iren. iii. 2. 2). ''The separation
of the law and the gospel is the peculiar and principal work of
Marcion" (Tert. i. 19; iv. i, 6). The Old Testament and
the New, the law and the gospel, he held, are absolutely dis-
tinct the one from the other. Perhaps he already felt the bold
contrast between the natural life and the kingdom of grace. His
doctrinal views assumed their final form when he learned of the
Gnostic teachings from the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo (Iren. iv. 27.
I, 2. Tert. i. 2 iv. 17).
; His theory of opposites could be
best explained upon the supposition of a double God. The one
God is imperfect, full of wrath, a wild and warlike sovereign,
.
MARCION. 103
subject to error, mistakes, and regrets (Tert. i. 6; 2. 20-26.

Adam. i. This is the creator of the world.
11). Of grace he
knows nothing he rules with rigor and justice only. All the
;
misery of human existence results from the character of this God

(e. g., Tert. iii. 11, CI. Al. Str. iv. 7, p. 584). The Old Tes-
tament comes from him the Messiah whom it foretells has not
:
yet come, since the prophecies do not agree with the record of
Christ's life. (He was not called Immanuel, and did not rule in
Samaria and Damascus, Tert. iii. 12-23), and since he speaks
against the law of the God of the Jews, and died on the cross
which the latter had cursed (Adamant, i. 10 ff. ii. 10. 15 ff.). ;
Over against this creator is the other God, who is good and
merciful (Tert. i. 6. 26, etc.). He was '' the unknown God "
until the 15th year of Tiberius, when he revealed himself in
Christ (Iren. i. 27. z. Tert. iii. 3; iv. 6 i. 19). ;
Christ is frequently called the " Saving Spirit " (sj>. salufaris,
Tert. i. 19). He is the manifestation of God himself. As to
his relation to God, there are no plain deliverances. He is com-
monly spoken of as the good God himself (Tert. i. 11. 14 ; ii.
27 ; iii. 9 ; iv. 7). He did not defile himself with the body of
the demiurge, but
merely in order to make himself intelligible
assumed an apparent body (Tert. iii. 8. 11). Thus his work
was a conflict with the ancient God. Because he revealed the
good God, and abrogated the? law and all the works of the de-
miurge (Iren. i. 27. 2. Tert. iv. 25-27; i. 8. 19. Epiph. h.
42. 4), the latter secured his execution on the cross. Christ
thereupon went into the nether world and there liberated the
Gentiles, even the Sodomites and Egyptians, but not the pious
of the Old Testament (Iren. i. 27. 3). Paul has faithfully pre-
served the truth. It is to be received in faith (cf Apelles in
Eus. h. e. v. 13. 5, 7. Adam. ii. 6: ''he changed them
through faith, that, believing in him, they might become good " )
Thus one attains the forgiveness of sins and becomes a child of
God (Adam. ii. 2. 19). An earnest spirit prevailed among the
adherents of Marcion, and the strictest asceticism was advocated,
particularly celibacy (Tert. i. 29. CI. Al. Str. iii. 3, p. 515).
But the majority of men will finally be lost (Tert. i. 24), /. ^.,
they will be consigned to the fire of the demiurge (Tert. i. 28).
The good God does not punish but he does not desire to have
;
the wicked. This is his judgment (Tert. i. 27, cf. Adam. ii.
4 f.). The bodily resurrection is denied (Iren i. 27. 3. Tert.
i. 29).
Such was the teaching of Marcion. The contrasts of law and
gospel, Judaism and Christianity, nature and grace, the just and
the good God, dominate all his utterances. He has presented
*'Antithesen" (Tert. i. 19 ; iv. 6. 9). His

this distinctly in his
understanding of the Epistle to the Galatians led him to theidea
that the apostolic writings in use in the church were partly inter-
polated and partly spurious. Inasmuch as he held firmly to the
literal interpretation of Scripture, the only remedy lay in criti-
cism of the texts of the accepted books. This led to the publi-
cation of Marcion's New Testament, which, besides a revised
Gospel of Luke, contained ten similarly emended Pauline
Epistles (Iren. i. 27. 2. Tert, iv. 2, 3, 5 ; v.). This under-
taking is an evidence of the high place which the New Testa-
ment writings held at that time in the regard of the church.
Marcion was a practical genius. After leaving the church, he
began to work. He proposed to reform the church and restore
the pure gospel. ** For they say that Marcion did not so much
change the rule [of faith] by the separation of the law and the
'
gospel, as restore it again to an unadulterated form (Tert. i. 20). '
He established congregations (Tert. iv. 5, etc.), and as early as

A. D. 150 his doctrine was spread *' through the whole race of
men" (Just. Apol. i. 26). In the sixth century, Marcionite
congregations still existed in the East, their doctrinal views hav-
ing been modified by either Gnostic or Catholic influences (/xi'a
fi-PX'rii Apelles in Rhodon, Eus. h. e. v. 13. Between ajah(w
and zaxov as Tpirri dp'^ri^=^8ix.au>v, Prepon. Hipp. Ref. vii. 31.
The sufferings of Christ redeem men from the power of the
demiurge. The Hyle as third principle, Adam. i. 27. Esnik,
cf. Adam. i. 3. CI. Al. Str. iii. 3, p. 515). The Marcionite
controversy led the church to the clearer apprehension of two
thoughts that the Creator and the Redeemer are the same
:
God, and that in God justice and mercy are combined.
12. The Montanist Reformation.

Literature. The
Montanistic oracles have been collected by Bonwetsch,
Gesch. d. Montan., p. 197 ff. and Hilgenfeld, Ketzergesch. , p. 591 ff. As
to other documents, see Bonwetsch, 1. c. p. 16, note. Tertullian, de
corona, de fuga, de exhort, castitatis, de virg. veland., de monogamia, de
jejunio adv. psych., de pudicitia. The 7 books, DE ECSTASI (cf. Jerome, de
vir. ill. 24, 40, 53), are lost. The most ancient replies have also been lost,
Apolinarius, Melito, Apollonius, Miltiades, an anony-
<?.^., those,
mous writer from whom Eusebius gives large excerpts, Serapion (vid. Eus.
h. c. V. 16-19iv* 26. 2).
; Iren. adv. haer. iii. 11. 9. Hippol. Ref. viii, 6.
19 ; Ps.-Tert. 21.
X. 25. Philast. h. 49. Epiphan. h. 48, 49 (from ancient
sources, cf. Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont. Kampfes, 1891),
Origen. de princ. ii. 7. 3 f. Didymus, De trinitate iii. 41 (Migne Gr. 39,
984 fi".). Jerome, p. 41. Theodoret haer. fab. iii. 2.
Cf. RiTSCHL, Altkath. K. 402 ff. Bonwetsch, 1. c. 1881. Hilgenfeld,
560 ff. Belck, Gesch. d. M. 1883. Harnack, DO., i. ed. 3. 389 ff.
For Chronology, see Zahn, Forschungen, v. j). i ff.

MONTANISM. IO5
In A. D, 156 (Epiph. h. 48. i. According to Eus. Chron.

ed. Schoene ii. 172 f. , not until January, 172. Cf. h. e. iv. 27
with V. 5. 4) Montanus appeared in Phrygia, and there first
found a following. Hence the designation of his teaching as
the Phrygian {xara (Ppoya^) heresy. He and the women, Prisca
and Maximilla, announced themselves as prophets. The style
of this prophecy is indicated by the claim of Montanus :
'* Be-
hold man is as a lyre, and I play upon him as a plectron. Man

is asleep, and I arouse him. It is the Lord who changes the
hearts of men and gives a heart to men " (In Epiph. h. 48. 4,
cf. II, 12,
13; 49. I. Anon, in Eus. h. e. v. 16. 7, 9, 8j.
On the basis of the writings of John, it was held that the last
and highest stage of revelation had been reached. The age of the
Paraclete had come, and he spoke in Montanus. The descent of
the heavenly Jerusalem was near at hand. It would be located
at Pepuzaand Tymios (Epiph. h. 49. i. Cf. Apollon. in Eus.
V. 18. 2). In view of this. Christians should dissolve the bonds
of wedlock, fast strictly, and assemble in Pepuza to await the
descent of the New Jerusalem. Money was gathered for the
support of the preachers of the new doctrine.
Such was probably the original form of Montanism. It soon
spread through Asia Minor, and extended into Thrace, Rome,
and North Africa, where TertuUian accepted its teachings. The
fate of Montanism was that of all eschatological movements.
When the end, whose imminence it had declared, failed to appear,
the certainty of its coming became a mere dogma. The expec-
tation of the immediate coming of the end was supplanted by a
complex of statutory moral precepts. And instead of the Spirit
which was to be imparted to all, men were obliged to content
themselves with the belief that it has been manifested in certain
persons. Instead of the original enthusiasm, the movement
gained greater fixity in form and a theoretical determination of
its essential character and significance, which may be thus
summarized :
I. The period of revelation has opened.

last It is the day of
spiritual gifts. The recognition (agnitio) of spiritual charismata
is a distinguishing trait of Montanism (Tert. monog. i. adv.
Prax. I. Passio Perpetuae i). This involves primarily the

acknowledgment of the Paraclete. Maximilla said :
*' After me
there will be prophecy no longer, but fulfillment "(Epiph. h. 48.

2). But there were visionary prophecies also at a later day.
Prisca had prophesied this (Tert. de exh. cast. 10), and accord-
ingly such actually appeared (Tert. de anima 9. Pas. Perp. i,
14, 21, 4, 7 f. 10, II f.).
, Thus the possession of the charisms
is a badge of Montanism. ''It is necessary, say they, that we
Io6 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
also receive the charisms " (Epiph. h. 48. i). These ideas
were propagated by collections of Montanistic writings (Hip.
Ref. viii. 19 : fHftkni ^Tzetpat. Eus. h. e. v. 16. 17 ; 18. 5
[the Catholic Epistle of Themison] . Pas. Perp. i).
2. The orthodoxy of the Montanists is acknowledged their
acceptance of the rule of faith (Tert., cf. Epiph. h. 48. i.
Philast. h. 49). The Monarchianism in utterances of Montanus
(Did. de 41. i. Epiph. h. 48. 11) is due to lack of theo-
tr. iii.
logical culture (cf. Tert. adv. Prax. 3. Orig. c. Cels. viii. 14),
but was here and there retained at a later day (Hip. viii. 19.
Ps.-Tert. 21. Theodoret h. f. iii. 2. Did. de tr. iii. 41. i.
Jerome ep. 41. 3).

3. The nearness of the end of the world is strongly empha-
sized.
4. There are strict moral requirements, {a) Marriage to be
but once, (d) Fasting to be strictly observed (Tert. de jej. i).
((Tj Strict moral discipline. The Paraclete said *' The church :
is able to pardon an offense, but I cannot prevent the commission

of other offenses" (Tert. de pud. 21). There is no pardon for
gross sins (especially fornication) committed after baptism. An-
other regulation, however, covers the *' faults that daily beset"
(Tert. de pud. 6, 7, 19). In the West this conception led toa
conflict, as it was maintained that only the ''church of the
Spirit through a spiritual man, and not the church as a number
of bishops," can forgive sins (Tert. pud. 21). Only martyr-
dom can atone for mortal sins (ib. 9. 22). (d) Martyrdom
is extraordinarily exalted (Anon, in Eus. v. 16. 20). Flight
from persecution (Tert.) is forbidden. prophetic warning A
urges Do not wish to die upon couches nor from mild
:
'
'
ailments and fevers, but in martyrdoms, in order that he may be

glorified who has suffered for you " (Tert. de fug. 9 ; dean. 55).
5. In the later period, the organization of separate congrega-
tions was effected. Pepuza was the central point, where
assemblies were annually held (Jerom. ep. 41. 3. Epiph. h.
49. 2).
The church was placed in a very embarrassing position (cf.
the attitude of the Roman
bishop in Tert. adv. Prax. i). The
Montanists were orthodox and opponents of Gnosticism. In the
days of Irenaeus, the church still recognized special charisms
(Justin Dial. 39, 82, 87, 88; Ap. ii. 6. Iren. adv. h. i. 13.
4 ii- 31- 2
; 32. 4 V. 6. i. Eus. h. e. v. i. 49 ; 3. 2, 3, 4.
;
;
Anon, in Eus. h. e. v. 17. 4). But such manifestations grew

less and less frequent: '^But signs of the Holy Spirit were
shown at the beginning of the teaching of Jesus, more after his
ascension, and afterward fewer: except that there are yet traces
MONTANISM. I07
of this in a few whose souls have been purified by the "vvord and
by their hves in accordance with it " (Orig. c. Cels. vii. 8, cf. ii.
8; i. 46; cf. also Iren. adv. h. iii. 11. 9: ''They [the so-called
' Alogi '] at the same time reject both the gospel and the pro-
phetic Spirit"). There was also a noticeable relaxation of
moral earnestness and of expectation of an early end of all
things (cf. Tert. Apol. 39 ** we: pray for a delay of the
.
end." Hip. Com. on Dan. ed. Bratke, p. 18 *'Tell me

:
if thou knowest the day of thy departure, that thou mayest be

so much concerned for the consummation of the whole world."
Just., Dial. 80, declares that even many orthodox Christians
take no interest in the millennial kingdom). It is not difficult,
therefore, to understand the favorable reception of the Montan-
istic prophecy. The Scriptures, they said, teach that the end
is at hand. Charisms are necessary for the church. Her life
on earth is but a pilgrimage, and she should hence keep her
members free from contamination with the natural secular life of
the world. It was thought to be in full accord with Scripture to
hold that with the prophetism of Montanus the age of the
promised Paraclete had come, and it was felt that through this
form of Christianity the secularized church (adherents of the
church were regarded as psychic, and the Montanists spiritual,
Tert. monog. i) was being reformed. While Marcion based his
efforts at reform upon the teachings of the greatest apostle,
Montanus made similar appeal to the authority of the last apostle.
But this reformation was a revolution (cf. the Irvingites), as the
church gradually came to understand very fully.
From the eighth decade of the second century raged the con-
flict by which Montanism was driven out of the church. The
confessors of Lyons, A. D. 177, write in condemnation of it to
the Roman bishop (Eus. h. e. v. 3. 4. Cf. Voigt, 1. c, p. 71 ff. ).
The fanaticism involved in the new prophetism {Âa izpoiptTzirx),
as it was called, is easily seen. An attempt was made to re-
claim Maximilla by exorcism (Eus. v. 16. 16, 17, here a say-
ing of Maximilla). Miltiades published a book '' That it is
:
not necessary for a prophet to speak in ecstasy " (Eus. v. 17. i).
The prophets of the Old and New Testaments, it was said, as
those of the later church, were not in such a state when uttering
their prophecies. The new prophetism was pronounced apseudo-
prophetism, inspired by the devil (Anon. in. Eus. v. 16. 4, 7,
8; 17. 2 ff. Apollon., ib. 18. i. Epiph. h. 48. 1-8. Cf.
Orig. de princ. ii. 7. 3). It was also felt to be impossible that
this enthusiastic prophetism should usher in a new era of the
world (Eus. V. 16. 9. Epiph. h. 48. 8, 11, 12. Did. de tr.
iii. 41. 2). It is quite easy to understand that this opposition
should be carried too far, and that with the false prophetism
the genuine gift of prophecy should be discredited (Iren. iii.
II. 9 :
'' they are
imprudent who deny that pseudo -prophetism
is anything, but reject prophetic grace from the church")/
The Muratori fragment says: "I consider the prophets a
finished thing " (1. 79). And Tertullian writes ** And hence
;
the offices have ceased, as also their benefits ; therefore thou

mayest deny that he has continued the endowments until the
present age, because this law and the prophets were also until
John. It remains that ye put away from you whatever in
you is so profitless" (de jej. 11 fin.). The church sees
herself compelled to surrender one element of her former experi-
ence, the charismata. She in principle abandons her claim to
the Spirit. Tradition triumphs over the Spirit. It was charged
upon the Montani^ts that their teachings were unknown to tradi-
tion (Eus. h. e. V. 16. 7, 9). The Spirit expressed in the
word and historical tradition triumphs over the Spirit which
had become fanaticism. Synods the first known to us were
held in Asia Minor, and the adherents of the new prophetism
excluded from the church (Anon, in Eus. v. 16. 10. Thus also
later in Iconium, Cypr. ep. 75. 19). Thus was Montanism
expelled from the church. After the fourth century it began to
feel the pressure of the civil power. With the sixth century it
disappeared (Bonwetsch, 1. c, p. 171 ff.).
The church rejected Montanism because she recognized these
reformatory efforts as out of harmony with the principles of the
gospel, her judgment being here entirely correct. She freed
herself from responsibility for the charisms still claimed by a
few, asserted more clearly the authority of biblical revelation (cf.
the peculiar remark of the anonymous writer in Eus. h. e. v. 16.
3), and prepared the way for the forms of a compact organiza-
tion. The conflict had, therefore, a most important influence
upon the development of the church.
* This is "the heresy which rejects the books of John" (Hippol., vid.
Epiph. h. 51. 3), whose adherents Epiphanius called the " Alogi " (cf.
Epiph. h. 51. Phil. h. 60. Iren. iii, 11. 9). About A. D. 170 in Asia Minor
they rejected the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse as spurious, and as com-
posed by Cerinthus. As to their critical arguments, vid. Epiph. h. 51. 2, 18 f.,
21 f., 32. 34. They are Catholic Christians, who sought in this way to under-
mine the foundations of Montanism. Cf. Zahn, Gesch. d. ntl. Kan. i. 237
ff.
; ii. 967 ff. A similar attempt was made at Rome about A. D. 210 by
Caius, who, however, rejected only the Apocalypse as Cerinthian. Of the
writings of Hippolytus against him, Capitula adv. Caium, Gwynn has pub-
lished five Syrian fragments, found in Zahn, 1. c. ii. 974 ff.
THE APOLOGISTS. I09
CHAPTER III.
BEGINNINGS OF THE CHURCH's THEOLOGY.
13. Christianity as Portrayed by the Apologists of the Ancient

Church.
Sources. The Greek WW. in Corpus apologetarum, ed. Otto, 9 vols.,

1S42 ff. Vols. 1-6 in 3d ed., 1876 ff. Tatian, Athenagoras and Aristides
also in Texte u. Unters. iv. Cf. Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griech.
Apol., in Texte u. Unters. i.
Separately : Quadratus ca. A. D. 125, a sentence in Eus. h. e. iv. 3.
2 ; cf. Zahn in Neuekirchl. Ztschr., 1891, 281 ff. Marcianus Aristides,
his Apol. syr., edited by Harris, in Texts and Studies, i. i. A Greek re-
vision in Vita Barlaami et Joasaph. 26 fin. 27 (Migne, Gr. 96. 1108 ff. ). A
large Armenian fragment in S. Aristides philos. Atheniens. sermon, duo, ed.
Mechitaristae, Venet., 1878, of vifhich a good German translation by HlMPEi.
is found in Th. Quartalschr., 1880, p. no ff.
most correctly preserved in the
Syrian text, ca. A. D. 140-145 vid. Seeberg, Die Apol. d. Arist. untersucht
;
u. wiederhergestellt, in Zahn's P'orschungen, v., pp. 159-414, and See-

berg, der Apol. Arist., 1894, where also the homily of Arist. and a fragment.

The apologies of Melito of Sardes (Eus. h. e., iv. 26 the Syrian apology
bearinghis name which has been preserved is notgenuine), of APOLINARIUS of ,
Hieropolis (ib. iv. 26. I 27), ofMiLTiADES {ib. v. 17. 5, cf. Seeberg, 1. c.
;
238 ff. ) have been lost. They were all addressed to Marcus Aurelius (A. D.
161-180). The most important apologetic writer of the period is Justin
Martyr, born ca. A. D. 100. About A. D. 150 he wrote his two apologies;
somewhat later, the Dialogus contra Tryphone. Of his book, -Ktpl avaordaEug^
two fragments appear in Otto, ii. 208 ff. His "Lvvrayâ Kara Traocjv alpEceijv
has been lost. Cf. Zaun, Ztschr. f. KG., viii. i ff. Veil, Ju^t. Rechtfertigung
des Christ., prefaced, translated into German and elucidated, 1894 vid. See- ;
berg in Theol. Littbl. Febr., 1895. Von Engelhardt, D. Christent. Just,

d. Mart., 1878. Also Stahlin, Just. d. Mart. u. s. neuester Beurtheiler,
1880. Flemming, Zur Beurtheilung d. Christent, Just., 1893. Duncker,
Logoslehre Just., 1848. BossE, derpraex, Christus d. Just., 1891. Tatian,
a pupil of Justin, wrote : irpog 'Ê/iTiT/vag.
7i.6yog Upon his *' Diatessaron,"
vid. Zahn, Forschungen, i. Athenagoras, about A. D. 170, addressed to
Marcus Aurelius his TlpeuCeianepl XP'-^'^^^'^^'^- ^^ wrote also, -Kepi
avacrdasuQ. Theophilus of Antioch ad Antolycum, II. 3. Book iii. was
:
not written until A. D, l8l (iii. 27). As to the commentary upon the gospels
attributed to him, vid. Zahn, Forsch. ii. Harnack, Texte u. Unters., i. 4.
Hauck, Ztschr. f. k. Wiss., 1884, 561 ff. Bornemann, Ztschr. f. KG.,i8S9,
p. 169 ff. The Epistle to Diognetus does not appear to belong to this period.
We possess an apology of MiNUCius Felix, written in Latin and entitled,
Octavius. It was written after A. D. 180 edited by Dombart, also by Halm
;
in Corp. scr. eccl. lat., ii. Cf. KiJHN, Der Octav. d. Min. Fel., 1882.
Tertullian's Apologeticum is dependent upon the latter (cf. Ebert, Gesch.
d. chr. lat. Litt., i. 25 ff. Schwenke, in Jahrbb. f. prot. Th., 1883, 263 ff.
Reck, in Th. Quartalschr., 1886, 64 ff. On the other hand, Hartel, in
Ztschr. f. osterr. Gymn., 1869, 348 ff. Wilhelm, De Minuc. Fel Octavii et
Tert. apol., Breslau, 1887). Cf. also the apologetic material in the Martyrium
of Apollonius in Harnack in the reports of sessions of Berl. Acad., 1893,
p. 721 ff., and Seeberg, in the Neue kirchl. Ztschr., 1893, p, 836 ff. Hil-
GENFELD, in his Ztschr., 1 894, p. 58 ff.
no HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
1. We are now to note the beginnings of Christian theology.

It was the pressure of practical necessity, no less than the force of
inward development, which gave birth to theology. It was, on
the one hand, necessary to assume a positive position against the
assaults from without and the efforts of the age to produce a new
Christianity. On the other hand, in proportion as Christianity
became more widely diffused and permeated the thinking of the
world, was compelled to explain what it claimed to possess in
it
its revelation. The Apologists undertook in their biblical writ-

ings to set forth Christianity in forms intelligible to the cultured
classes of their age, while at the same time repelling all unjust
accusations. The Antignostic Fathers displayed the unbiblical
and unchristian character of Gnosticism, and in opposition to it
gave form to an ecclesiastical and biblical Christianity. The
Alexandrian theology first presented Christianity in the forms
of science, and thus proved that the faith of the church is a
Gnosis superior to the pretended Gnosis of their adversaries. We
must first consider the Apologists.
2. To
outline the Christianity of the early Apologists is a
task undertaken with great caution.
to be They defended
Christianity after the traditional fashion against certain definite
traditional charges.^ In doing this, those features of Christianity
which might most readily be comprehended and acknowledged
by cultivated heathen (the unity of God, the Logos, virtue, im-
mortality) were expounded. There was danger that in this pro-
cess Christ might be almost entirely overlooked (Theoph.
Minuc. Ath. lo. Cf. the apology, ii init.). Christian doctrines
were skillfully presented as similar to heathen teachings (Poly-
theism. Just. i. Ath.
fin.; per contra, Ath. 24.
6. lo The
sonsofZeus, 24 init. Tert. 21
Just. i. 2off.jper contra, Just. ;
i. 53 f. Lat. 21). A choice was made of doctrines suitable to

the purpose in view, and the material was adapted to the con-
ceptions of those for whom the documents were written. That
the Christian beliefs of the writers were not exhaustively pre-
sented under such circumstances is evident, and finds confirma-
tion from the comparison of the apologetic writings in question
with other productions of the same authors (Just. Dial., Tert.
i(iiife(ir7?f, immorality, vid. ep. eccl. Lugd. in Eus. h. e. v. i. 9

aakfjEia, secret :
*' is no atheistic nor impious person among us."

that there Tert. Ap. 10 ;
" We
are assembled for the sake of sacrilege and sedition. This is the chief,
yea, the whole charge." Athenag. 3 **they prefer three charges against
:
us: atheism, Thyestian feasts, and Oedipean intercourse" (cf. Plinii ep. 10.
79. Aristid. 17. Just. Ap. i. 6. 26f.; ii. 12. Dial. lo. Theoph. iii. 4. 15.
Eus. h. e. V. I. 9, 14, 19, 26, 52. Minuc. 8 ff. 28 ff. Tert. Apol, 27 f.;
;
7 ff' 39- Oi"'?- c- Cels. vi. 27 ; viii. 39, 41, 65, 67, etc.
THE APOLOGISTS. Ill
in Other works, Aristid. Horn.). It may be said of the majority

of these writers that they had no clearer conceptions of the gos-
pel than had the Apostolic Fathers but at the same time it *
must be conceded that their views were no more defective. The

study of their works is instructive, not as adding anything to the
general faith of the church, but as furnishing the earliest attempts
of ecclesiastical theology. They have in common with the
Gnostics the attempt to make Christianity comprehensible to the
heathen, but they differ from them in that they do not admit the
syncretism of the age into their conception of Christianity. In
their view, Christianity stands in bold contrast with the religions
of the heathen world. Only in the case of philosophy is any
parallel conceded. The most important of their doctrinal views
may be classified as follows :
3. Christianity, Heathenism, and Judaism. Of Christianity

Justin Martyr declares: "I found* that this philosophy only
is safe and useful" (Dial. 8, cf. Tatian. 31. Melito in Eus.
V. 26. 7, cf. Miltiades, ib. v. 17. 5). The ^' words of the
'
Saviour should be observed, for they are full of power and

'
spirit (Dial. 8, 9). The attitude toward heathenism is one of

repulsion. When the purpose is to show the necessity for Chris-
tianity, the religious life of heathenism is characterized as folly
and immorality, and its gods as demons (cf. Just. Ap. i. 12, 14,
21. Dial. 79 fin., S^. Ath. 25 ff. 23. Minuc. 21 ff. Tert. 23.
For Scriptural proof, Ps. 95. 5 is quoted: *' The gods of the
heathen are demons" {datijM'Ha) in connection with which the ,
different meanings of the term datfioviov in heathen and Christian

parlance must not be overlooked).^ The philosophers and poets
are only promoters of idolatry (Arist. 13), inspired by demons
(Theoph. ii. 8); their productions are nothing but self-contra-
dictory frivolity (Tat. passim, Theoph. ii. 8; iii. 2 f., 5 ff.
Min. Fel. 38. Tert. 46). Whatever is undeniably good in
them has been borrowed from the Jewîsh prophets, who far excel
them in antiquity (Just. Ap. i. 44, 54, 59 f. Tat. 31, 40 f.
Theop. i. 14; iii. 23; ii. 30, 37 fin. Minuc. 34. Tert 47).
But, on the other hand, the Trinity, angels, and the Son of God
are represented as paralleled in Polytheism and in the heathen con-
ception of *'Sons of God" (vid. supra). In the philosophers
of Gentile nations the same Logos was supposed to have dwelt that
afterward appeared in Christ. ''Our [doctrines] appear more
splendid than all human teaching because the Christ revealed
through us was the whole Logos-nature (to XoyrAov r>) 6Xnv)^ body,
^ Cf. e. g-.y the word as used by Celsus and by Origan in Orig. c. Celsus v.
2 ; viii.24, 28, 33, 45, 58, etc. On the other hand, v. 5 ; vii. 67, 68 f.;
viii. 13. 25, etc.
J- 12 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
intellect, and soul. For whatever things the philosophers and

lawgivers excellently uttered or invented wêre wrought out by
them through the co-operation of the Logos in discovery or con-
templation" (Just. Ap. ii. lo). Only germs ('T7r^/>/zar a) of the
Logos dwelt in the prophets, whereas he revealed himself com-
pletely in Christ. Hence much is found in heathen authors
that is erroneous. Plato's teachings are thus related to the doc-
trines of Christ ''not alien {âXXoTpta) to Christ, but that they
:
are not everywhere the same " (Just. Ap, ii. 13). Again, it is
said, "Those living according to the Logos are Christians,"
such as Socrates, Heraclitus, Abraham, Elijah," etc. (Just. Ap. i.
46; cf. Minuc. 20 init.). The entire truth is contained in
the primitive writings of the Old Testament prophets, for they
were inspired ; the Logos himself spoke in them ; they cor-
rectly prophesied of future things (Just. Ap. i. 30 f. , t,6. Ath.
9: *'Who, in the ecstasy of the thoughts within them, the
divine Spirit moving them, gave utterance to the things they
were impelled to utter, the Spirit using them as a flute-player
plays his flute. Cf. Just. Dial. 115). Their utterances are,
therefore, to be acknowledged even by the heathen as absolute
proof of the truth. Christianity, is, therefore, not a new reli-
gion, as Celsus charged (cf. Just. i. 53. Ath. 7, 9. Theoph.
ii. 9, cf. 36, the Sybils. As to this evidence from prophecy,
cf. also Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. iii. 26; viii. 12; vi. 2). The
prophets taught One God, true morality, and future rewards and
punishments (Theoph. ii. 34 fin.; iii.9). Their writings con-
tain the Christian truth (Just. Dial. 29). With their real
spiritual contents, however, was combined, on account of the
hardness of heart of the Jewish people, the ceremonial law
(Just. Dial. 19-22, 42, 44, 46, 67), which contains also veiled
references to Christ (''I say that a certain law was ordained for
the cultivation of piety and right living, and a certain law and
ceremony was also announced as a mystery of Christ, or on ac-
count of the hardness of your hearts," Dial. 44). The Jews
have, by their doctrines (^diddyfxara) supplanted those of God
(Just. Dial, 78). They are, consequently, no more the people of
God.^ In accordance with the prophecies, Christians from the
heathen world are now the people of God and the true Israel
(Just. Dial. 25, 26, 123, 135 fin.).
What are then the true Christian '' doctrines? "
4. There is One God, the Creator, Adorner, and Preserver of
the world (Just. i. 6. Ath. 8. Theop. iii. 9). The invisible
God is an unbegotten, nameless, eternal, incomprehensible, un-
1 The judgment of Aristides is less severe. Cf. Seeberg, 1. c, I, page 295 f.

;
THE APOLOGISTS. II3
changeable Being, without any needs and free from all passions
(Arist. I. lo, 13, 25,49, 53 ; ii. 6.
Just. i. Dial. 127. Tat.
4. Ath. 10, 13, 16, 44, 21. Theoph. i. 4. 3; ii. 10, 3, 22 j.
He made everything for man's sake, and is therefore to beloved
(Arist. 2. Just. i. 10; ii. 4. Tat. 4. Theoph. i. 4 fin.; ii.
16). He
created the world out of nothingness and gave form to
matter (Theoph. ii. 4, 13, 10 *'That in some way matter was
:
begotten, created by God, from which God made and formed the
world"). Yet, with all this, the true nature of the living God does
not find expression. There is no advance beyond the mereabstract
conception that the Divine Being isabsoluteattributeless Existence.
In both operations, God employed the Son as mediator. This
is not to be understood in a mythological sense (Ath. 10). He
is the Logos of God. This was a favorite term of the cultured
classes. Whenever it was mentioned, the interest of all was at
once secured. But that precisely this term was chosen proves
how entirely the thoughts of the church were centered in the
exalted Christ. If they had thought chiefly of the man Jesus,
they might have easily characterized him as a second Socrates.
But they thought of him as God, in God, and with God, and
hence selected a term such as '* Logos/' in order to make the
matter plain to the heathen. Originally God was alone, but by
virtue of the reasoning faculty (Xtfytxij duva/itg) belonging to him
he had in himself the Logos. By a simple exercise of his will,
the Logos sprang forth (Tzpo-KTjda). He is the first-born work of
the Father (Tat. 5; cf. Just. Ap. ii. 6. Dial. 100. Ath. 10:
*'The first begotten thing not as coming into being, for
. . .
from the beginning God, being eternal intelligence, V0D9, had

in himself the Logos, being eternally Logos-natured, ?.oytx6<^').
Of the manner in which the Logos originated, it is said '^ This :
power was begotten from the power of the Father and his counsel
but not by a separation, as though the nature of the Father were
distributed," /. e., somewhat as a fire does not diminish another
by which it is enkindled, ''and that which is taken away from
it appears to be also the same and does not diminish that from
which it was taken " (Just. Dial. 128, 61, 100. Tat. 5). He is
not an angel, but divine ; divine ('êo?), but not God himself
(J iêo?) (Dial. 60 ; vid. per contra, Ap. i. 6). In respect to
the Father, he is something else (irepov n) and another (aXhn;
rig) and is such in number but not in mind, y^<i)!X7) (Just. Dial.
J
S^j 50j 55) 62, 128, 129 ''And that which is begotten is
:
other in number than that which begets, as everyone must con-

fess"). Thus the Logos is God together with the Father, and
to him alone, as to the Father, is worship due ( Just. Dial. 68,
62, f. Ap. ii. 13).
Through the Logos, God has revealed himself. He it is who

in theOld Testament period appears to men (Just. Dial. 56 ff.,
60. Ap. i. 36). He is the messenger of God, '* our teacherand
apostle," God revealed,
yvujfn'ôiievoq'^ (Just. Dial. 60, 127. Ap.
i. 12. Dial. 64Theoph. ii. 22). When God determined
; cf.
to create the world, he begat the word which he had in himself
(^hfyo^ ivdid}^Tii'$) as the word uttering itself in speech (^)yryo^
Tzoocpopr/.o'^y For the use of the terms by the Stoics and Philo,
cf. Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos, p. 140 ff., 231 f.; Orig. c.
Gels. vi. 65 '*: the Logos always existing resident in the
. .
heart of God. For before anything was created, he had this

counselor, which was his own reason (^vou^) and purpose
(<P(K')vrj7L^) .But when God determined to make whatever he de-
sired, he begat this Logos as the word (Tzpocpopr/M^ ) the first- ,
born of the whole creation, he himself not being emptied of the

Logos, but begetting the Logos, and always remaining associated
with his Logos " (Theoph. ii. 22 cf. 10. Ath. 10.
; Tert. adv.
Prax. 5 :sermojialis and rationalis'). Christ is, therefore, the
Reason imminent in God, to which God granted a separate exist-
ence. As the divine Reason, he was not only operative at the
creation and in the Old Testament prophets, but also in the
wise men of the heathen world. The philosophical conception
of the Logos (cf. Heinze in loco) here determines Christian
thought, although the important difference must not be over-
looked, that the Logos of the Christian writers is an independent
personality. The divine person of Christ is acknowledged with-
out any limitations and when the Johannine conception of the
;
Logos is presented as parallel with that of the Stoic philosophy,

it must be understood merely as an outward clothing of the
thought (momentous indeed in its consequences) in such garb as
to commend it to the heathen world.
Along with the " Word " is mentioned also the Wisdom of
God, or the holy prophetic Spirit ; but comparatively little
prominence is given to the latter (Just. Ap. i. 6. 60. Ath. 12.
24). But the Trinity is certainly an article of the common
faith. The term, 7)>ia9, occurs first in Theoph. ii. 15. Although
the Apologists find little occasion to speak of this mystery^
the apprehension of it constitutes for them the profoundest
problem and the supreme desire of their hearts " carried away :
with this desire only, to see God and the Logos with him.
What is the unity of the Son with the Father ? what the fellow-
ship of the Father with the Son? what the Spirit? what the
^ We here note the influence of the Logos-conception in the sense of John

and Ignatius.
THE APOLOGISTS. II5
union and the difference of those who are thus united the Spirit,
the Son, and the Father?" (Ath. 12).
5. The Work of Christ. The Logos of God, who, before the
incarnation, was only a holy spirit {-vti)ia ayur/), became man,
born of the Virgin Mary (Arist. 2. 6. Just. Ap. i. 22, 31, 32 f.
Dial. 43, 45, 48, 6;^, 66, 76, 78, 84 f., 100). The full reality
of his bodily human nature is firmly held (Just. Ap. i. 21 ii. ;
10. Dial. 85, 99 :

" He became
a man, truly subject to suffer-
ing, made incarnate," -Tc^to/iarn-oiry^/Za;, Dial. 70),^ yet he was
not by any means on that account only a man in the ordinary
sense (Just. Dial. 54), but God and man (ib. 59); his divinity
was concealed in his flesh (rr^v aoroh xzy.ii>J!J.iihrj\> h <japxi jUoTTjTa)
and he attested both in his life and work. '* For, being
alike both God and perfect man, he placed his two natures over
us." It is said of him '*
God suffered" (Melito, Corp. apol.
:
ix. 415 f. Cf. Tat. 13 fin., 6 7:e7:(iviû)<^ ^s<k) Accordingly, he

.
is now not a man executed upon the cross, but the Son of God,
whom Christians honor next to the Father {^v dzoTipa ympa
k'yovTz:<^'), and together with the prophetic Spirit (Just. Ap. i. 13,
53). This view is supported by quotations from the prophets

(Just. Ap. i. 30 ff. j.
In defining the work of Christ, it is first of all emphasized
that he became the teacher of the race (xacvk voiiin^hrj^^j Just.
Dial. 18), as he had already shown himself before his incarna-
tion. The content of his teaching is found in the ideas of the One
God ; the new law, requiring a virtuous life ; and immortality
(a^'9a/><7i') , more strictly speaking, the resurrection, bringing with
it rewards and punishments (.?. g.^ Just. Ap. i. 13-19). Aristides
thus reports to the Emperor what is contained in the Christian
Scriptures ** But you may learn from
: their writings, O King,
to know their words and their commandments, and the glorious
character of their service, and the expectation of compensating
reward according to the deeds done by each of them, which they
expect in the other world " (c. 16. 3. Cf. Just. Apol. i. 65init.).
Man has the ability to keep these commandments, since God
created him free (Just. Dial. ^^, 102, 141. Apol. i. 28. Tat.
7). Although man, by disobeying the commandments of God,
fell and became subject to death (Theoph. ii. 25. Tat. fin.), he is,
nevertheless, still free to decide for God through faith and repent-
ance (Just. Ap. i. 28, 43, 61 ii. 14; Dial. 141.; Theoph. ii.
^Justin, according to a quotation attributed to Jeremiah, taught a preach-

ing of Christ in the Lower World (cf. Marcion) '*
And he went to them to
:
preach his salvation to them ( Dial 72 fin. also Iren. v 3 1 1

'
' . ; Cf. iv. 27. 2,
. . .
21. I iii. 20. 4.

; Cf. also Herm. Sim. ix. 16. 5. Barn. 5. 7. Ignat. Philad.
ix. I ; Tral. ix. l).
Il6 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
27}:
'
For just as the man who refuses to hear brings death upon
'
himself, so he who willingly submits to the will of God is able

to secure for himself eternal life. For God has given us the law
and the holy commandments, everyone who keeps which can be
saved and, experiencing the resurrection, in-
(^du-ârac (Tuji^Jjvat)
herit immortality." Freedom here
appears, it will be observed,
as an inamissible element of man's endowment. However
deeply the fall and corruption of man is conceived, his freedom
yet remains unquestioned. From this it may be understood also
that Justin includes grace, in the sense of the effectual power of
God, in his conception of Christian doctrine. Grace is no
more than the revelation of doctrine and of the law.
Although it does not appear from such presentations of the
subject why the sufferings and death of Christ were necessary
(except as in falfillment of Old Testament prophecy), yet the
Apologists very positively testify that the belief in the signi-
ficance of these experiences of the Lord formed an essen-
tial part of the common Christian faith. The sufferings of
Christ deliver men because he thereby took upon himself the
curse which rested upon them; they bring forgiveness of sins
and se:; free from death and the devil (Just. Ap. i. 6^, 50, 32 ;
ii. 13. Dial. 40, 41, 45, 95, 54, 80, 8S, 11 1, 134^ Melito,
Corp. ap. ix. 418). He who now believes in the Crucified is
purified from his past sins, the Spirit of God stands by his side
to help in all assaults of the devil, and Christ will deliver him
from all trouble and receive him to his kingdom if he will but
keep his commandments (Dial. 116). The wood of the cross,
the water of baptism, faith, and repentance are the means by
which to escape from condemnation on the day of judgment
(Dial. 138).^ There was no attempt to enlarge upon these ideas
in the controversial writings of the period ; but there can be no
doubt that they held the same place in moulding the life of the
church at large as in the post -apostolic age.
' 6. The Christian Church is the people of God, the truelsrael,
the high-priestly generation of God (Just. Dial. 116, 123, 135).

The churches are islands of safety in the stormy sea of the world,
where the truth is taught (there are, it is true, also desert islands
inhabited by ravenous wild beasts, /. e.j heresies, Theoph. ii. 14).
In the Christian world prevail strict morality, holy love, and
readiness to suffer with rejoicing. Its members belong to an-
other world. They are a * new generation, "
' the generation of
' *
the pious," winged to fly like birds above the things of this
^
It appears exceedingly doubtful to me whether Justin already employed
the conception of the a\'aKf(pa7â'(Dair. The citation from him in Iren, adv.
haer. iv. 6. 2 would u'"o\e more than is intendtd.
THE APOLOGISTS. H?
world ; but it is for their sake that the world is preserved (cf.
Arist. 15 ff. Theoph. ii. 17. Just. Ap. ii. 7. Melito in
Eus. h. e. iv. 26. 5, etc.).
7. Esoteric elements, which the Apology mentions only for
the sake of completeness in its survey (vid. Just. Ap. i. 61 init. ),
are the means employed in public worship by which one be-
comes and remains a Christian. They consist of the reading of
the prophets and the gospels, preaching and exhortation, united
prayers (ib. 67), baptism, and the Lord's Supper. The candi-
date for baptism is washed in the name of the triune God,
after having prayed for the forgiveness of his sins. Baptism
brings repentance and the pardon (atfetri^) of sins, it trans-
plants into a new existence, and without it there is no salvation
(Just. Ap. i. 61 being made new, xarôTzotrj^îurE^ 66: the
: -^
washing for the pardon of sins and unto regeneration, to vizzp

a(pi<7iuj<; diJ.apTLU)v xai eiY avayiwTjfTVj Xaorpdv cf. Dial. 19, 29,
44. Theoph. ii. 16 61 enlightenment, (pojTi<7p.6<i
j : Dial. 8; \
becoming perfect, rlAztir^ yvjt(7fhj.i). Of the Eucharist, Justin (Ap.

'^ We have been taught that the food blessed by the
i. 66) says ;
word of prayer employed by him (Christ), from which our

bodies and blood are by its transformation (zara !izra6i)Ar^v)
nourished, is also the body and blood of the same Jesus who was
"^
made flesh.
8. The last article of the common faith of the church is the
doctrine of the resurrection. Only upon the supposition of such
an experience does the nature ((pu(n^^ of man remain true to its
essential character. As body and soul have become believing
and done good, so shall both become participants in immortality
(Just. Frag, de
10. Athenag. de resur. 15, 25, 21,
resur. 9,
cf. Theoph. Tat. 13.
ii. 13Tert. Ap. 48).
f. As Christ
promises immortality also to the body, he excels the philosophi-
cal representations upon the subject of the future life (Just. ib.
10).^ The prophets foretold a first and a second coming
^ These words, of course, do not teach transubstantiation. The meaning
is only that the very same food, which, by virtue of its transformation, nourishes
our bodies, is for faith the body and blood of Christ (see also Dial. 41. 70).
The opinion of Harnack, that *' bread and water are the eucharistic elements
in Justin " (Texte u. Unters. vii. 2. 117 ff.
**bread, wine, and water," as also 67.

Just. Ap. 65 fin. mentions
On the contrary, in 65, ^* aproq kol
TTorijpLov vdaroq Kol KfidparoQ^'
the last two words being wanting in Cod.
Ottob, Harnack declares that they, as well as the olvoq, are later interpola-
tions. Cf. especially Cypr. ep. 63), is refuted by critical textual examination,
as well as by the unvarying historical tradition. Cf. Zahn, in Neue Kirchl.
Ztschr., 1892, 261 fif. Ji)LiCHER, in the Theol. Abhandlungen, dedicated to
Weizsacker, 1892, p. 215 ff.
^ There was a wavering of opinion upon the question whether the soul is es-
sentially immortal (Theoph. ii. 19 fin.). Justin (Dial. 6) and Tat. (13) deny
;
IlS HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
(^napooffia) of Christ (Just. Ap. i. 52. Dial. 40, 49, f.). no

Christ will return again in glory and as judge; the world will
perish in fire ; and after the resurrection, both the righteous
and the wicked shall receive their just reward (Just. Ap. i. 20,
52 ii. 7).
; For entire orthodoxy (and if any are in all respects
right-thinking Christians) Justin thinks necessary also an ac-
knowledgment of the millennial kingdom in the restored,
adorned, and enlarged Jerusalem (Dial. 81 f; also A p. i. 11).
9. The Apologists are of importance to us from a double
point of view. In the first place, they make it evident that the
general conception of Christianity in their day labored under
the same defects and limitations as in the generation immedi-
ately preceding them (the work of Christ j moralism). In
the second place, we discover here the beginnings of theology in
the church. In order to bring the Christian religion within the
comprehension of the cultivated in heathen lands, it was forced
into a foreign framework (the religion of reason) and remoulded
after foreign patterns. The prominent ideas thus employed
were the abstract (Platonic) conception of God,, the attempt to
make the divinity of Christ comprehensible by utilizing the
(Stoic) conception of the Logos, and the theory that man's fallen
state consisted essentially in his ignorance and subjection to
death, and redemption in instruction and the granting of immor-
It is upon these attempts that the significance
tality {^d<pd-apaia).
of the Apologists for the History of Doctrines rests. That
back of their formulations lay a richer fund of religious belief,
of which we find only hints in the formal theological state-
ments, has been already emphasized.
14. Theology of the Antignostic Fathers.

Sources. Irenûs adv. haeres,, vid. supra, ^ 10. Cf. Ziegler, Iren.
der Bisch. von Lyon, 1871. Werner, der Paulinism. d. Jr., Texteu. Unters.
vi. 2. Zahn, pre. vii. 129 ff. Tertullian, born ca. A. D. 160; 197 at
the latest, a viriter 199 Montanist died ca. 230. Cf. Hauck, Tert. Leben
; ;
u. Schriften, 1877. Bonvvetsch, die Schriften Tert., 1878. NOldechen,

Tert. 1890. Hereesp., de praescriptione haereticorum adv. Valentinianos ;
adv. Marcionem 11. 5 adv. Hermogenem de carne Christi

; de resurrectione
; ;
;
de anima, cf. adv. Praxeam, written 206-21 1. Opp. ed. Oehler, 3 vols., 1851
ff. HiPPOLYTUS, after ca. A. D. 190 active at Rome 235, banished to Sar- ;
dinia. Upon the Refutatio and the Syntagma, vid. \ 10. Also parts of De
Anti-christo ; comm, upon Dan. 1. iv., after Georgiades, in the ^'EiKKXi/GiaGTiKy
aXr^êm, 1885 f., reprinted by Bratke, 1891 (cf. Bardenhewer, des H.
Comm. z. Dan., 1877); c. Noetum. Also perhaps the so-called "Small
Labyrinth" in Eus. h. e. v. 28. 6 (cf. Refut. X proem.). His writings
were edited by de Lagarde, 1858, and recently by Bonwetsch and Achelis,
this, and Theoph. (ii. 24, 27) writes :

*' He made it, therefore, neither im-
mortal nor mortal, but . . . capable of both."
. ;
THE ANTIGNOSTIC FATHERS. II9
1897. Cf. BuNSEN, H. u. seine. DOllinger, H. u. Kallist, 1853.

Zeit.
VoLKMAR. H. u. die rom. Zeitgenossen, 1855. Ficker, Studien z. Hip-
polytfrage, 1893. Cf. esp., Thomasius DG., i. ed. 2, 88 ff. Harnack
DG.,i. ed. 3,507ff.
For almost a century Gnosticism had extended its sway before

the church met it with a harmonious formulation of her own
doctrine.
From the writings of the Antignostic Fathers we are now
made familiar with this formulation of the common faith of the
church, and also the motives and means for the vanquishing of
Gnosticism.^ Here for the first time a churchly theology comes
into conflict with a modern but unchurchly theology.
1 It was not deemed necessary to construct a new system in
the church in imitation of the Gnostic method, but it was
thought sufficient to establish more firmly the truth which the
church had possessed from the beginning, and to gain a clearer
understanding of it. The Christian is not to be forever search-
ing. Seeking finds its end in faith. He seeks no more, who
believes what he should believe (Tert. de praescr. ii, lo).
The problems with which Gnosticism toils are of heathen
origin (Ir. ii. 14. 1-6. Tert. praescr. 7). Christianity
knows nothing of them: ''What have Athens and Jerusalem
in common, the Academy and the Church? What heretics
and Christians? They have produced a Stoic, and Pla-
. . .
tonic, and dialectic Christianity " (Tert. ib. 7; adv. Herm. i.

Cf. Plot. Ennead. ii. 9. 6, 17). Hence that which in their
writings sounds like Christian truth has a different meaning { Ir.
i. proem. 2 ''saying like things indeed, but thinking unlike
:
things " ) Over against this

'
. gnosis falsely so called, the proper
'
' '
course is to believe what the church has always taught. Thus

an ecclesiastical theology rises to confront the philosophical
theology.
2. Doctrine of God (cf. Kunze, die Gotteslehre d. Iren.,
1891). The separation of God and the Creator appears as the
fundamental error of the Gnostics. It was the guile of the
devil which gave birth to the blasphemous conception of a Crea-
tor other than God himself {blasphemia creatoris, Iren. i. praef.
i. 22. I ; 31. 3 ii. 10. 2 iii. 24. 2 ; v. 26. 2
; cf. already
; ;
Just. Ap. i. 26, 58, 35. Dial, 80). The setting forth of the
true faith must begin with the One God, the Creator (Ir. u.
1. I ; cf. Hipp. Ref. x. 34).
((z) God is One, at once Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer.

The supreme God is the Creator. This is testified by the crea-
' We must moreover bear in mind that the first Antignostic work was the
Gospel of John.
'
:
tion itself,and even by the faith of the heathen (Ir. iii. 9-15;
iv. 9. 3. Tart, de praescr. 13; adv. Jud. 2 init.). The defi-
nition of God demands his unity. ''If God is not One, he
does not exist" (Tert. adv. Marc. i. 3; cf. adv. Hermog. 17.
7). It is the same God who gave both the law and the gospel
(Ir. iv. 9. 3; iii. 12. 11). (^b) God is an intelligent spirit ;
voh<ij spiritus, and eVvoia are accordingly not separate beings, but
different aspects of his being (Ir. ii. 13. 3-6, 8 ; i. 12, 2. Tert.
adv. Val. 4). Referring to the Stoic maxim, that everything
real is corporeal (Tert. de carne Chr. 11 ; cf. Zeller, Philos.
der Griechen iii. i. ed. 3, 124), Tertullian queries :
" For who
denies that God is a body {corpus), although God is a Spirit?"
(adv. Prax. 7 ; also de bapt. 4 ;
" but God is not flesh," caro,
adv. Prax. 27). {c') God is not known through speculation,
but from revelation. Hence we should not concern ourselves

with idle questions as to what God did before the creation, how
the Son was begotten, etc. (Ir. ii. 28. 3, 6 f.; cf. 25. 4 ; 26. i ;
28. i). ''Without God, God is not known" (Ir. iv. 6. 4).
In his greatness God remains incomprehensible ; but in his love
we learn to known him in Christ " Who is unknown according
:
to his greatness by all those who have been made by him . .
but according to his love he is always known through him

through whom he formed all things. But this is his Word '
(Ir. iv. 20. 4). " Just as those who look upon the light are within
the light and partake of its brilliance, so those who look upon God
are within God, partaking of his brilliance " (ib. 5). We learn
to know God by way of revelation and experience, not through
speculation, {d) The justice and the goodness of God are not
to be ascribed to two separate gods '* The Creator was from the
:
beginning both good and just" (Tertul. adv. Marc, ii, 12).
True goodness is controlled by justice. He who is good is an
enemy of that which is evil " Not otherwise is one fully good
:
unless jealous of evir (ib. i. 26. Cf. Ir. iii. 25. 1-3; ii. 30. 9;
'
iv. 38. 3, adding wisdom). As against sin, justice becomes

seventy and wrath (Tert. adv. Marc. ii. 11 ;i. 26). Thus the
moral character of the divine Person is preserved (Ir. iii. 25. 2).
(e) The aim of the ways of God is the salvation of the hu-
man race " Nothing is so worthy of God as the salvation of
:
man " (Tert. adv. Marc. ii. 27 cf. de poenit. 2. Ir. iii. 20. 2).
;
The world was created for man's sake (Ir. v. 29. i ; cf. supra,
p. 113 ). The goodness, justice, and wisdom of God are all
enlisted in the effort to make man capable of beholding God
*'God determining all things in advance for the perfection of
man and for the efficacy and manifestation of his own plans, so
that his goodness might be displayed and his justice executed, and
'
THE ANTIGNOSTIC FATHERS. 121
the church be assembled as a figure of the likeness of his Son, and

that somehow at length man might become mature in such things,
ripening to the capacity of seeing and apprehending God
'
(Ir.
'
iv. 37. 7). (/) God is the Creator and the Framer of the world.
He created it by his Word and his will (Ir. ii. 30. 9 ; 2.4; 3. 2.
Hipp. c. Noet. io)j out of-nothing (Tert. c. Hermog. 8, 45). The
creation is not bad ; all the contradictions which appear in it
harmonize like the different tones of the cithara (Ir. ii. 25. 2).
The same God provides redemption (^. g., Ir. iv. 7. 2). In
contrast with Gnosticism, this conception of God displays again
concrete, living features, particularly in Irenseus. He is the
active God, who accomplishes creation and redemption. He is
the living God, who is just and merciful (contrast to Marcion),
and he is the God historically revealed in Christ.
(g) The consciousness that God is a living God was also pre-
served intact by means of the triadic conception, which always
compels the recognition of a spiritual life in God. The one
God is the triune God (rptd<i^ Hipp. c. Noet. 14; trinitas^
Tert. adv. Prax. 2, 3, 11, 12, etc.). Thus the church teaches
(Ir. i. 10. i). It is presupposed in the baptismal ceremony
(Tert. adv. Prax. 26 extr. ). The believer finds it in the Scrip-
tures (Ir. iv. 33. 15). God, that is to say, was never alone:
''but he, being the Only One, was many. For he was not
'
wordless, nor wisdomless, nor powerless, nor counsel-less
(Hipp. c. Noet. 10 ; cf. Tert. adv. Prax. 5). '* For God was
not without his Horae (the angels) for doing the things which he
had by himself pre-determined should be done, as though he
had not his own hands. For there are always present to him the
Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, through whom and in
whom he made all things freely and spontaneously " (Ir. iv. 20.
I, 3 ; cf V. 6. i). These three are one God, because there
belongs to them one power {buvap.iq^ Hipp. c. Noet. 8, 11).
TertuUian expressed the thought more precisely in asserting that
tvfo personae partake of the one divine substantia in the second
and third places, viz. the Son and the Spirit {consortes substantiae
,
patris, adv. Prax. 3). *' Everywhere I hold one substance in
three cohering" (ib. 12). Thus in the one substance dwell

three persons. Ib. 2 '* Not as if the One were thus all things
:
because all things are from the One, but through unity of
substance j and yet there is preserved the mystery of the
economy (ot'xovo^t'a?) which disposes the unity in a trinity,
placing in order the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
three, not in condition but in order {gradu), not in sub-
stance but in form {forma), not in power but in aspect {specie)^
but of one substance, and of one condition, and of one
power, because one God, from whom are derived these orders
and forms and aspects in the name of the Father, and the Son,
and the Holy Ghost. By expressing the problem in these fixed
'
'
and simple formulas, Tertullian first presented it clearly to the

mind of the Western church but, as always, so here the com-
;
pleted formula might serve to arrest the process of thought.

3. Doctrine of Man. (iz) Good and evil in man are not
to be accounted for by different natural endowments. If evil
were in man's nature, it would be impossible to pass moral
judgment upon him (Ir. iv. 37, 2). On the contrary, sin is a
free act of man, who was endowed with independence (rd
anzsônfTiov) and ''made free in his will and having power of
his own " (Ir. iv. 37. i, 3; 4. 3). As to the original state, it
is held that man, as created, was not in a condition to receive
from God at the very beginning of his career perfection.
This consists in immortality ** For things just begotten
:
could not be unbegotten. But in so far as they are not un-

begotten, in so far do they fall short of perfection" (Ir. iv.
;^S. i). This is a Greek idea, not a Christian one. But
here, too, we must yet note the resemblance to the Johannine
conception of life. (/?) Free but mortal man must be obedient
to God in order to become immortal. Since he was free, he must
learn to know evil. To be good, is to obey God to be evil, is
;
to be disobedient to him. Man could not become God (/. e.,

immortal) until he should first have become a proper man (Ir.
iv. 39. I, 2 ; 38. 4). Sin is disobedience. But disobedience
brings death (Ir. v. 23. i), whereas obedience is immortality
(iv. 38. 3). Sins are carnal or spiritual (delicta voluntatis')^
but we dare not regard the latter as of small moment in comparison
with the former (Tertul. de poenit. 3, 7 J. i^c) In Adam the
whole race was disobedient. In him it became subject to sin
and death (Ir. iii. 23. 3; v. 12. 3. Tert. de anima 40; de
earn. Chr. 16). As to the connection of our sin with that of
Adam, Tertullian makes some significant suggestions. Evil be-
came, as it were, a natural element in man. " Evil has, there-
fore, the start of the soul naturally, as it were, from the
. . .
blemish of origin ; for, as we have said, the corruption of nature

But to this it is added Yet so that good
'
is a second nature. '

'
:
*
pertains to the soul as the chief, the divine, and the real thing,
and in the proper sense natural ; for that which is from God is not
so much extinguished as obscured " (Tert. de an. 41, 16. Cf.
also de test. an. 2 de bapt. 18).
; This condition passes over
through generation upon the entire human race, ** through whom
(/. ^.,the devil) man, having been in the beginning enticed to
transgress the commandment of God, and having been in con-
THE AN'IIGNOSTIC FATHERS. I 23
sequence given over to death, made the whole race from that
time onwardj infected from his seed, the bearer also of his con-
demnation " (Tert. detest, an. 3). Tertullian speaks also of a
*' birth-mark of sin " (de earn. Chr. 16). These occasional
hints are the incipient stages of the doctrine of original sin.
They did not, however, prevent Tertullian from emphasizing in
the strongest manner the freedom of man's will. *' To us per-
tains a will and choice of selecting the opposite " (Sir. 15. 18)
'* Therefore
. . *' to will is in us alone" (Exh, cast. 2).
.
"
entire liberty of choosing either part has been granted to him
(c. Marc. ii. 6).
4. History of Redemption. God from motive of grace ex-
pelled fallen man from paradise and suffers him to die in order
that the injury sustained may not remain. forever (Ir. iii. 23. 6).
God has from the beginning been deeply concerned for the sal-
vation of the race, increasing from time to time the blessings
bestowed upon it (Ir. iv. 9. 3). He has remained ever the
same. The race, with its necessities, was constantly changing
(Ir. iv. 16. 3; 38; 36. 2). God has by means of three
covenants {biah-ri-/.ai, foedera. Ir. iii. 11. 8 fin. names four,
corresponding to the four gospels) sought to win the race.
{a) The first covenant embraced the natural requirements of
the law {naturalia legis^ Ir. iv. 13. i ; 15. i). This is the in-
herited, rational, natural law, as understood by the philoso-
phers and jurists of the age. Its content, not differing from the
Decalogue and the commandments of Christ, was love to God
and one's neighbor. The patriarchs, who carried this law in
their hearts, were through it righteous before God (Ir. iv. 16. 3,
cf. Tert. adv. Jud. 2 ; also adv. Prax. 31). {Ji) As this cove-
nant faded from the hearts of men, God renewed it through the
Decalogue, or second covenant (1. c). It wâs the covetous
disposition of the nation of Israel, manifested in their sin in
connection with the golden calf, and in their hankering after the
bondage of Egypt, which gave occasion for the establishment
of the ceremonial law ** They received another bondage suited
:
to their concupiscence, not indeed severing them from God, but

controUing them in his yoke of bondage" (Ir. iv. 15. i). As
the law prepares for the following of Christ and friendship with
God (Ir. iv. 12. 5 ; 16. 3), so the prophets prophesy for the

same purpose the Spirit of God works through them in order
to accustom men to bear the Spirit of God in their hearts (Ir.
iv. 14. 2 20. 5, II f.).
; But the law was diluted by the Phar-
isees and robbed of its chief content, love (Ir. iv. 12. i, 4).
(r) In the third covenant, Christ restored the original moral law
the law of love (Ir. iv. 12. 2, 5 ; cf. Tert. adv. Jud. 6). This
third covenant is related to the second as freedom to bondage

(iv. 13. 2); as the requirement of action to mere speech ; as
right disposition to the outward act (iv. 28. 2; 13. i, 3); as
fulfillment to prophecy, or harvest to seed-sowing (iv. 34. i ;
II. 3, 4; 25. 3). Accordingly, it is our duty to believe, not
only on the Father, but also on the Son, who has now appeared
(iv. 13. I ; 28. 2). As the old covenant had validity for one
nation, so is the new valid for the whole race (iv. 9. 2). Chris-
tians have inherited a stricter law than did the Jews, and have
more to believe than they (iv. 28. 2 cf. Tert. de orat. 22
; :
*^ our law is amplified and supplemented "); but they have also
received a greater donation of grace (iv. u. 3) through the ad-

vent of Christ, who has brought to them life and salvation (iv.
34. i). To this, Tertullian, in his Montanistic age, adds the era
of the Paraclete. This line of thought is important, first of all
on account of the historical significance of the whole movement
which it represents, and also because the attempt is here again
made to establish a positive relation between the religion of the
Old Testament and Christianity.
5. Person of Christ, (a) The Christology of Irenêus (cf.
DuNCKER, die Christol. d. h. Ir. 1843. Zahn, Marcell v.
Ancyra, 1867, p. 235 ff. ) is, in a marked degree, superior to
that of Tertullian and Hippolytus, upon whom it exerted great
influence. He does not begin with speculation as to the
origination of the Logos and his relation to the Father. As to
this,we know nothing, or have only probable guesses (ii. 28.
6 ; 13. 8). The starting-point in his study is the historically
revealed Son of God, who was actually born, lived and suf-
fered as a man, and died.
(a) Nothing can be said, therefore, as to the mode of genera-
tion of the Logos. It is sufficient for us to know that he has
been from eternity with the Father, '* the Son always co-existing
with the Father" (ii. 30. 9; 25. 3 ; iii. 18. i). It has been
his nature from eternity to reveal the Father
to the angels and
archangels, and then to men, and to the latter from the begin-
ning of the race (ii. 30. 9 ; iv. 6. 5 ff. ; 20. 7). He is the
** measure {inensura) of the Father" (iv. 4. 2). He alone
knows the Father and reveals him God (hence also the Son)
:
can be known only through God. The Son is God the Revealer.
Thus he acts in accordance with the Father's will, as well as in
accordance with his own (iv. 6. 3-7). The Logos has, there-
fore, been from all eternity God, as has the Father, by whose
determination and his own self-determination he acts as the rev-
elation of the Father. All further questions are excluded. It is
to be observed in passing that Irengeus constantly maintained for

THE ANTIGNOSTIC FATHERS. I 25
the Spirit, as the Wisdom of God, a special personal position by

the side of the Son (iv. 20. i, 3 ; 33. i). d'i) The eternal
Logos became through the incarnation the historical Jesus.
Jesus was Christ, a fact emphasized in opposition to the Gnostics
(iii. 16-22). The Son of God is the Son of man (iv. ^^. 11).
*' the Word
Jesus Christ is vere homo, ve?'e deus (iv. 6. 7 of. ; :
united to the flesh, iv. 34. 4). He became a real man, assum-
ing not only the body but the soul " (iii. 22. ij V. I. i). This
is maintained, not only as expressing a traditional conception,
but from practical religious interest, since the reality of the work
of redemption depends upon the real humanity of Christ and his
personal experience {e.g., v. 21 ; 16. 3 31, cf. under 6) of
;
human life in its entirety (ii. 22. 3, 5). Especially with respect
to his sufferings and death, the passible Jesus dare not be sepa-
rated in Gnostic fashion from the impassible Christ '* (The:
gospel) recognizes not that the Christ departing from Jesus before
the passion, but that he who was born Jesus Christ is the Son of
God, and that the same who suffered arose from the dead " (iii.
16. 5; cf. 18. 5). This union of God with the human nature is,
for Irenseus, of the greatest religious significance. Thus God him-
self has entered the race and become an active force in it. In-
asmuch as the Logos assumed flesh of our flesh, he united all
flesh to God. From this point of view we must interpret the life
of the Lord :
'* For in what way could we have been able to be
partakers of this adoption as sons, unless through the Son we

had received from him that communion which brings us to him
unless his Word, made flesh, had communicated it to us ?
Wherefore he comes also to every age, restoring to all that com-
munion which brings to God " (iii. 18. 7 ; 19. i ; v. 14. 2).
(b^ Tertullian starts with the Logos theory of the Apolo-
gists, but he develops it in a most remarkable and historically
significant way. (a) The Logos of Christians is, in distinction
from that of the philosophers, a real subsistence {propria sub-
stantia) to which belong word, reason, and power {sermo^ ratio,
virtus, Ap. 21 cf. adv. Prax.
; 5, 6). He is an independent
person, who proceeded from God was begotten by him. He had
a beginning :
'* There
was a time when . the Son was not
. .
. . who made the Lord a Father " (adv. Hermog. 3, 18), In

.
his relation to the Father, emphasis is to be laid upon the unity

and identity of the divine existence and nature the substantia
C other in the designation of person, not of substance
.
for distinction, not for division," adv. Prax. 12); but also upon
the separateness and difference of his peculiar existence and mode
of existence the /frj'i?;/^ (** the distinctio of the two persons,"
adv. Prax. 21 ; " the i:i'/z;?/r//(? of the two persons, " 24). Since
;
J:''ather and Son are the same divine substance {u7iitate substan-
tiae Ap.
21; adv. Prax. 25, 26), they are to be discriminated
not by divisio nor by separatio, but by distinctio and dispositio
(ôhovoixiay adv. Prax. 8, 11, 12, 19 fin., 21, 22): **he proves

two as truly two as they are inseparate for a testimony of
;
two individuals "). Hence '^ I and the Father are one
:
*
as '

to of substance ^j\o\ as to singularity of number " (adv.
//////)'
Prax. 25), and: "Father and Son are two, and this not from
separation of substance, but from arrangement {^dispositio'), as
we pronounce the Son an individual and separate from the
Father other, not in condition (statu), but in order" {gradu)
;
(ib. 19).
This relation is supposed to be made more plain by the idea
that the Logos is only a part of the Father's substance (''For
the Father is the whole substance, but the Son a derivation and
portion of the whole," adv. Prax. 9, 26, adv. Marc. iii. 6), or
by the illustrations of the sun and its rays, the root and the stalk,
the fountain and the stream Ap. 21. adv. Prax. 8 ; cf. Hipp.
(
c. Noet. II ). If the Father is, so to speak, the God of the

philosophers, the Son is the tangible revelation of the Father ;
'* the executive (arbiter) and minister of the Father " (c. Marc,
ii. 27) Tertullian is a Subordinationist. (/5) The pre-existent

Logos became man when he was born of the Virgin Mary (de
earn. Chr. 17, 18, 2off. ). *' How was * the Word made flesh
'
by transformation, so to speak, in the flesh, or by assuming flesh ?
Certainly by assuming." This reply is given in view of the im-
mutability of the divine substance (adv. Prax. 27). Christ, in
order that he might be able to die and to deliver man (de earn,
Chr. 5, 6, II, 14), assumed actual human flesh (ib. 6 ff.; 15,
18 f.), together with a human soul (ib. 12 f.; but cf. 18 fin.).
He was, therefore, a real man. His flesh was sinless, since he
made it his own (ib. 16). Its genuinely human character was
concealed by his divinity (ib. 9). There are two substances, the
divine and the human, the latter of which contains again two
substances, the bodily and the spiritual, united in itself (ib. 13
extr.); but these two are combined in a unity in one person.
'
Thus a consideration of the two substances presents man and
*

God here born, there unborn here carnal, there spiritual
;
here weak, there mighty here dying, there living " (ib. 5, 18).
;
Now these two substances have not by a mixtura become a third,

but " we behold a double condition (status), not confused, but
combined in one person, Jesus, God and man " (adv. Prax. 27)
Each nature here retains its peculiarity of substance (proprietas
substantiae, ib.), and each acts for itself ('*the two substances
act separately, each in its own status,'^ ib.). Accordingly,
.
THE ANTIGNOSTIC FATHERS. I 27
the sufferings and death pertain only to the human substance

(** we say that he was mortal from the human substance," adv.
Prax. 29); the divine is not capable of suffering (the Sonisa'so
impassible by virtue of that condition by which he is God, " ib. )
On the other hand, Tertullian can speak of the '* sufferings of
God," and declare that *'God was truly crucified, truly dead "
(de earn. Chr. 5). (^) To the question as to the possibility of
the humanity of Christ, Tertullian responded by referring to the
inconceivableness, unsearchableness, and impossibility of the
entire transaction " The Son of God was crucified he was not
:
;
ashamed, because it was a thing to be ashamed of. And the

Son of God died; it is credible, just because it is unfitting.
And, having been buried, he rose again it is certain, because ;
it is impossible " (de earn. Chr. 5).
It cannot be said that Tertullian gave really greater depth to

Christian thought upon these points, but he sketched a formula
for it fsee already Melito supra, p. 115), which was sufficiently
capacious to receive the richer thought of a later age, /. e. A :
divine substance, in which three persons subsist ; and, again, the

divine and human substances in Christ, which are combined in
the unity of the person.^ Tertullian established the Christology
of the West.
(i') We notice briefly the Christology of Hippolytus. The
Father begat the Logos out of his own substance, when he
desired to create the world (c. Noet. 10. Refut. x. 33. De
Chr. et Antichr. 26. Horn, in theoph. 2, 7). In distinction
^ Harnack has endeavored to explain Tertullian's contrasting of substantia
and persona by the latter's use of juristic language (DC, ii., ed. 3, 286 n. ),
i. c, he supposes Tertullian to have used, substantia in the sense of possession
(d-. ^., Cant. 8.

7), in which case he could, indeed, ascribe one possession
to three persons, or also tviô possessions to one person. But this supposition
cannot be established, as this sense cannot be proved in any passage that may
be cited, while other passages make the meaning of Tertullian perfectly clear
(adv. Hermog,
3 " God is the name of his [Christ's] substantia^ i. e., of his
:
divinity." Apol. 21 ** We have taught that he was produced from God-and

:
generated by production, and for that reason called the Son of God and God
from the unity of substance " adv. Marc. iii. 6, he calls Christ "the Son
;
and the Spirit and the substance of the Creator ;" de earn. Chr. 9 " the:
human substance of his body " adv. Prax. 2 ** but three, not in condition
; :
but in order; not in substance but in form; .but of one substance and
. ,
of one condition, etc.; " de cam. Chr. 13 fin. *' If one flesh and one soul
:
. . the number of two substances is preserved."

. According to these cita-
tions, the meaning which Tertullian attaches to the term substantia is beyond
question. To this we may add the usage of Melito ** his two natures " see
: ;
the passage cited, supra, p. 115. Tertullian had in mind, therefore, the di-
vinity and the humanity ofChrist. If now it was necessary to maintain the
unity of these substances in one nature (cf. Iren. iii. 16. 5 " They divide
:
the Lord . saying that he is composed of one and another substance " ),
. .
the origin of the formula in question is not hard to understand.

from he shares the nature (oo^ca) of God (Ref. x.

all creatures,
33. Horn. 7: '^the only-begotten according to the divine

nature "). Here, too, the relation is conceived in the mode of
Subordination ism (e.g., c. Noet. 14 ** For the Father is one,
:
but the persons two because there is also the Son and the third,
;
the Holy Spirit. Here the Father is the Godhead " ) The un-
.
incarnate Logos became man, in that he assumed flesh and a

rational soul {4'^XV ^'>)"^''^Vj de Chr. et Antichr, 4. c. Noet. 4,
*' the Logos incarnated and made man, made flesh,
17, 12. 15 :
the incarnate Logos, " (Te<xapxu}/jLivou rod Xoyoo xdl ^vavO-pcDTZTJffavrogj

(xapxwiêt^j Xoyo^^ ev(7apxo<s). He assumed the actual nature of
man. *'
God himself having for our sakes become man " (ib.
18), and: *' And the impassible (dTzai^TJ?) Logos of God went
under suffering" (7zd{}o<;, ib. 15). Having become man, he is the
perfect Son ; but his flesh is conditioned upon the Logos for its
continued existence ( for the Logos unincarnate and of itself was
*
*

not the perfect Son although the Logos was perfect as the Only-
begotten nor was the flesh able to continue without the Logos,
because it had its constitution in the Logos,'* ib. 15).
6. Work of Redemption. Irenaeus described the work of
Christ under various aspects. The premise is always the reality
of the divinity and humanity of the Saviour. Only upon this
basis could he furnish certain deliverance and deliver the partic-
ular race of man (Ir. iii. 18. 7). The leading ideas are (i) :
That the Logos, entered into humanity, brought to the latter the
sure knowledge of God, and by this vanquished it. (2) That
he did and suffered for the whole race what it ought to do, and
what it should have had to suffer, and that he thus became the
source of a new estimate of man in the sight of God. (3)
That he became a leaven through which humanity was purified,
sanctified, and made immortal. The ideas which Irenaeus here
presents are Pauline and Johannine (cf, Methodius and Athana-
sius).
(a) The Son reveals the Father in his love, and teaches men
to observe the primeval law of love (iv. 12. 5ôf the nova lex,
e.g., Tert. praescr. 13). He shows God to men, and presents
them before God (iv. 20. 7 v. i. i). United to God through
;
him, we attain to the faith of Abraham and learn to know and

properly honor God (iv. 7. 2 iii. 10. 2).
; But to this man
could not attain unless freed from the forces of evil under whose
dominion and bondage he had fallen. These are sin, alienation
from God, and the devil. (^) Christ, therefore, became man
in order to recapitulate (cf. Eph. i. 10) the whole human race
in himself. He thereby becomes a source of a new relation be-
tween God and man and the leaven of a new life in the latter
'
THE ANTI GNOSTIC FATHERS. I 29
(vid. supra, p. 125). He embraces in himself the entire hu-

man race and all human hfe '* When he became incarnate and
:
was made man, he recapitulated in himself the long line of men,

standing surety in compendium for our salvation, so that what
we had lost in Adam, i. e., our being in the image and hkeness
of God, this we might receive in Christ Jesus" (iii. 18. i cf.
;
21. 10; V. 23. 2). Jesus became nearly fifty years old, ^'sanc-
tifying every age through that likeness which he bore to it " (ii.
22. 4 ; 3, 5 f. ). As the human race was thus combined in him,
he became a new progenitor like Adam (iii. 22. 4 ; 18. i). He
did what we and Adam should have done (v. 21. i, 2). He, as
the representative of the race, presented his obedience before
God for our disobedience. By his blood Christ redeemed us
from the unrighteous dominion of sin (** By his blood effectually
redeeming us, he gave himself a ransom for those who have been
led into captivity/' v. i. i 2. i).
; Through this fellowship of
Christ with the race, it becomes reconciled to God (v. 14. 3 ;
16. 3 ;
*' For in the first Adam we offended, not observing his
commandment ; in the second Adam we have been reconciled
again, having become obedient unto death " ) . Through the fall,
the race was brought under the dominion, though unlawful, of

the devil. Christ has lawfully (^juste) as a man, by the applica-
tion and observance of the divine commandment (at his tempta-
tion), conquered the devil, and he has by his resurrection broken
the power of death overthe race (v. 21, 1-3 iii. 23. i 18. 7). ; ;
Thus the race became free from the power of death and the devil
and from condemnation (iii. 23. i). In this way man became
again the image of God (v. 16. 2) and the son of God (iii. 19.
I 20. i). And thus man became again precious in God's sight
;
(v. 16. 2), and intercourse and fellowship between God and man
was restored through the forgiveness of sins {e.g., iv. 33. 2 ; v.
'* And having relieved {consolatus) our disobedience
17. I : by
his obedience, giving also to us that manner of life and subjection
which is in accord with our Creator," v. i. i ; iii. 18. 7 ; iv.
1 3 . I : man into the communion and unity of God

*
' who leads ;
'
iv. 14. 2 ''communion with God ;" iv. 20.4: ** through whom
:
occurs a commingling and communion of God and man." (<r)
In Christ, who has become a member of our race, we are now

united with God, and lead a new, eternal life ** For to this end
:
the Logos became man ... in order that man, having taken to
himself the Logos and received sonship, might be the son of
God." " For not otherwise could we have received incorrupti-
bility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorrupti-
bility and immortality" (iii. 19. i). As fellowship with the
first Adam brought death to us, so fellowship with the second
Adam brings life and perfection. **The Word, having been

united to the substance of the ancient creation of Adam, made
man alive and perfect, receiving the perfect God (v. i. i). In
Christ we stand in fellowship with the God by whom we have been
adopted as sons. We thus contend against our sins, and follow
after Jesus in holy love " (iv. 12. 5 ; v. i. i ; iv. 14. i ; 16. 5 :
** generously granting to men through adoption to know the

Father, and to love him with the whole heart . . But he also
.
increased fear {timorem) , for it becomes sons to fear more than

servants, and to have greater love for their father "). This
union of God and man has its more immediate basis in the
activity of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ gives to the race as its
guiding Head (v. 20. 2, vid. under e). (^) But in all this the
emphasis falls, not upon the forgiveness of sins, but upon the fact
that man has through fellowship with Christ become immortal.
This, primarily, is the result of the fellowship thus established
(iii. 24. I ), of this union with God (iii. 187), of the overcom-
ing of the devil (iii. 23. 7) and of sin (v. 12. 6). This is the
consummation toward which Irenseus directs every thought, the
real object of the redeeming work of Christ (cf. iii. 19. i ; 23.
7 ; ''for his (man's) salvation is the evacuation of death").
In that God became a member of our race, we have through fel-
lowship with him become immortal (v. i. i fin.). This is a per-
version of the Johannine idea, that Christ is the life and gives
life, resulting from the fact that the term life is understood by
Irenseus in a one-sided way. But yet there is always thus pre-
served something of the important thought, that Christ gives us
a new life and consummates our existence. Finally, as the curse
of sin consisted in mortality, so salvation is immortality (iii. 20.
2). Thus men become gods (^* first indeed men; then at
length gods;" cf. Ps. 81. 6 f. ), /. f., like God the Creator
(iii. 38. 4). (^) The union of man w^lth God occurs through the
Spirit of God, through whom God descends to usandwê ascend to
him. The Spirit has through Christ become the Head of the
race (v. i. i : ''pouring out the Spirit of the Father for the
uniting and communion of God and man, bringing down God
to man through the Spirit, and again lifting up man to God
through his incarnation." v. 20. 2 :
" giving the Spirit to be
the Head of man, for through him we have seen and heard and
spoken."). The Spirit brings faith and produces fruits in man.
He sanctifies a man's works and makes him a spiritual man {homo
spiritalis). Only through the infusion {i7ifusio') of the Spirit
can we please God. But the Spirit in us is also a pledge of im-
mortality (v. 10. I, 2).
Irenseus accordingly means that Christ has taught us to know
THE ANTIGNOSTIC FATHERS. I3I
God, and that he, by entering the race and becoming a member
of the body of humanity, has, as the new Adam, made the latter
acceptable to God and freed it from the devil, death, and the
dominion of sin. Through fellowship with him the Spirit of
God is brought to us, who begins in us a new life in holy works.
But the aim in view is the immortality of man and thus the j
scope of apostolic teaching is, after the Greek fashion, contracted.

Yet, as means to this end, biblical ideas find recognition as of
fundamental importance.
Tertullian does not give such a comprehensive and varied por-
traiture of the work of redemption (the death of Christ as the
ground of salvation, and as a sacrifice, e.g., c. Marc. iii. 8. adv.
Jud. 13. scorp. 7. de bapt. 1 1 instruction and fellowship through
;
the incarnation of Christ, c. Marc. 1 1. 27. praescr. 13. deorat. 4;

the proposer of a new law and new sacrifices, adv. Jud. 6).
HiPPOLYTUS represents the bestowal of immortality (c. Noet. 17)
as the object of the incarnation. It is this which is effected by
the impartation of the Spirit in baptism (horn, in theoph. 8).
To this end Christ granted the gift of the Spirit in baptism, as
well as his holy ordinances requiring obedience. Whoever obeys
him will become a god, /'.
e., immortal (Hipp. Ref. x. 34 :
**deified, made immortal " ; cf. hom. 8, 10).

7. State of Grace. Through the redeeming work of Christ
the believer is in baptism^ endowed with the Holy Spirit and
with the expectancy of eternal life (Ir. iv. ^6. 4 ; iii. 17. 2).
Sins are washed away and the man regenerated. He can now
live in accordance with the word of Christ. For the attainment
of this condition, faith in Christ is necessary (Ir. iv, 2. 7 ; cf.
Hipp. hom. in theoph. 10: '* he confessesthat Christ is God ").
Faith is the acknowledgment of Christ and the Father, attach-
ment to his person and doctrine (Ir. iv. 5. 4 f.; 7.2; 13. 1).
This recognition and acknowledgment, which, however, carry
with them the observance of the primitive moral law, or the com-
mandments of Christ (Ir. iv. 13. i " because the Lord did not :
abrogate, but extended and completed the natural require- . . .
ments of the law, through which man is justified, which even

before the giving of the law those who were justified b)
faith and pleased God observed ; " cf. 16. 3), are sufficient to
make man righteous before God. Abraham knew Christ and the
Father; he believed on the Logos, and this was accounted to
him for righteousness ** for faith, which reposes upon the Most
:
High God, justifies man " (iv. 5. 5, 3, 4 ; cf. 34. 2 ; also 16. 3).
^ As to infant baptism, vid. Ir. ii. 22. 4 ; also Tert. bapt. 18. Orig. in
Lev. hom. 8, 3 ; in Rom. comm. 5.9: "The church received from the
apostles the tradition to give baptism also to infants."
Faith itself falls under the category of the commandment (iv.

13. I ; cf.and justifying faith
16. 5), in Christ defined as *' to
is
believe him and do his will" (iv. 6. 5). It cannot, therefore,

be maintained that Irengeus understood the Pauline conception of
the righteousness of faith, as he held simply that God regards as
righteous everyone who acknowledges Christ and is ready to fol-
low his teaching.
The Spirit of God fills the Christian with new life and elevates
him into the fellowship of God (v. 9. i, 2). But yet the fun-
damental characteristic of this new life is that it brings the fruits
of righteousness in good works. *' And thus men, if, indeed,
they have advanced to better things through faith, and have as-
sumed the Spirit of God, and have allowed his fructifying power
to develop, will be spiritual" (v. 10. i). ^^ Man, implanted
by faith and assuming the Spirit of God, does not, indeed, lose
the substance of the flesh, but changes the quality of the fruits
of his works" (ib. 2). Irenseus compares true Christians to
clean beasts. They are beasts dividing the hoof, who with firm
step come to the Father and the Son in faith, and, like the ani-
mals that chew the cud, they meditate day and night upon God's
word in order to adorn themselves with good works (v. 8. 31).
The Soteriology of TertuUian is of special interest at this point,
since it became (through Cyprian) normative for the Western
church, and, like his doctrine of the Trinity and his Christology,
anticipates the later development in many particulars. He re-
gards the relation of man to God from the legal point of view.
The gospel is the 'Maw peculiarly ours " (monog. 7, 8. praes.
13); God is the Lawgiver and the Avenger of transgressions of
the law (exhort, cast. 2. c. Marc. i. 26). Hence the funda-
mental relation of man to God is that of fear *' but the fear of
:
man is the honor of God " (paenit. 7, 2, 4,5, 6. adux. ii. 7).
But for the sinner remains, as a means of salvation, repent-
ance, as a floating board for the shipwrecked (paen. 3). The
sinner by his repentance earns for himself salvation in baptism
'* offersimpunity to be purchased by this compensation
(paen. 6 :
of repentance "). Hereby baptism gains a fixed position in the

order of salvation. The grace of God is necessarily connected with
this sacrament. By baptism, guilt and punishment are removed :
'* death having been destroA'êd through the washing away of
sins,and guilt thus removed, punishment is also removed. Man

isrestored to the likeness of God, as he receives again the breath-
ing of the Spirit which was experienced in paradise, but since
lost" (bap. 5). We
are born in the water, not otherwise than
we are saved by remainingin the water (ib. i). Baptism brings
''remission of sins, abolition of death, regeneration of the man,
..
the obtaining of the Holy Spirit " (c. Marc. i. 28). Tertullian,
in Stoic fashion, conceives of the Spirit as something material,
which, on account of its tenuity, can enter the water and impart
'* to penetrate and permeate
to it the power of sanctifying :
easily on account of the subtility of its substance. Thus the na-

ture of the waters, being sanctified by that which is holy, has
itself received (power) to sanctify. The sanctified (waters) im-
bibe the power of sanctifying" (bapt. 4). The impartation of
the Spirit can therefore scarcely be regarded otherwise than as
*' for
the infusion of a spiritual substance, as, e. g,, in de pat. i :
the apprehending and performing of these (/'. e., good) things,

only the grace of the divine inspiration {inspirationis^ is effec-
tual " (cf. Loofs, DG., 104). We ^'remain" in baptismal grace
if we do not sin, but fulfill the law of God
(bapt. 15). If we,
nevertheless, sin, we offend God (^deiun offendere^ ad ux. ii. 7.
exh. cast. v. dejejun. 3. c. Marc. i. 26 "if he is offended, he
:
ought to be angry " ) Satisfaction must now be rendered in view

.
of this wrath of God. This technical term also derived from

Roman law was introduced into dogmatics by Tertullian
''Thou hast offended, but thou mayest yet be reconciled. Thou
whom thou mayest render satisfaction, and he, too, is
hast one to
willing" (paen. 7 extr.). It is necessary ''to satisfy the
offended Lord" (ib. 10): "in order that I may reconcile to
myself God, whom by sinning I have offended" (ib. 11). This
is done by repentance "by repentance God is appeased {miti-
:
fâhir \ ib. 9, 5 *' to satisfy

: the Lord through repentance of
offenses"). But repentance consists of heartfelt sorrow {^paeni-
tere ex anijno^ and confession (^confessid), which embraces a pur-
pose of satisfaction {satisfactio?iis')j ib. 9. The sinner humbles
himself by the confession (^con/essto, iîiiJMXoyTjtn^)-^ he sighs,
weeps, fasts, and thus atones for his transgression. He makes
satisfaction to God and earns for himself forgiveness (ib. 9 ;
jejun. 3). He even brings a sin-offering to God (paen. 12.
scorp. 7 ; resur. 8), and thus satisfaction is rendered to God.
Since man thus punishes himself, he frees himself from eternal
punishment. " By temporal affliction eternal punishments are
I will not say, frustrated
but expunged " (paen. 9).
The entire moral life is regarded from the same legal point of
view. Man is to fulfill the law
not only its precepts (praecepta)^
but, if possible, also its counsels (^co7inlia) (c. Marc. ii. 17.
ad ux. ii. i). Thus he becomes holy and righteous, and recom-
penses Christ for his redeeming work (resur. 8 ; patient. 1 6 fin. )
' By continence thou shalt negotiate a great substance of sanctity
'
by parsimony of the flesh thou shalt acquire the Spirit " (exh.
cast. 10 in.). Let man acquire for himself merits before God.
'* No one
is advanced by practical indulgence, but by obeying
his will the will of God is oursanctification " (ib. i ; cf. paen.
;
6. jej. 3 in.). This is to be done in view of the divine recom-

pense, especially from fear of the judgment ; for the reward will
'* Good done has
always be according to the merits. God as
debtor, just as has evil also, because the Judge is a rewarder of
every case " (paen. 2). Why many mansions with the Father, if
not on account of the variety of merits ? (scorp. 6 ; vid. also
orat. 2, 4; resur. 8. ad Scapul. 4 extr. ). Such is the pro-
gram of the practical Christianity of the West ! Christianity,
according to Tertullian, is salvation and it is such by the giving
;
of sacraments and laws. The sacraments (baptism and repent-

ance) are the properly saving element. The law points out to
those who have been reconciled the way to meritorious works
and holy life. In the sacraments is concentrated the religious
element in Christianity in the law and good works the moral
]
element. Thus there is, to a certain extent, a balance estab-

lished between religion and morality, between the grace of God
and man's deed, although there is wanting an inner connection
between the two elements. In all of this, Tertullian' s view be-
came normative. Compare Harnack, DG., iii. 13 Wirth, fif.
Der Verdienstbegriff in d. chr. Kirche, i. (d. Verdienstbegr. in

Tert), 1892.
8. Eschatology. The resurrection of the flesh is, in har-
mony with the rule of faith, championed against the Gnostics.
Irenaeus adduces in its support the resurrection of Christ (v. 31.
2), the indwelling of the Spirit in our body (v. 13. 4), andalso
the Lord's Supper, since the latter, after God has been invoked
upon it, is the body and blood of Christ (cf. in explanation :
'
the eucharist, consisting of two things, the earthly and the
'
heavenly," iv. 18. 5), and as such nourishes our flesh (v. z. 3 ;
iv. 18. 5).^ The end will come when the devil shall have once
more recapitulated the entire apostate throng in the Antichrist
(v. 25. i: '* recapitulating in himself the diabolic apostasy . . .
he will tyrannically attempt to prove himself God"). Then

will Christ appear, and the six thousand years of the world will
^ is from the entire context of the passages cited beyond ques-

Irenaeus, as
tion, thinks of a real presence of the body of Christ in the eucharist. The
case appears to be the same, though not so evidently, with Tertullian. De
orat. 6 " Thereby by praying for daily bread {4th petition) we ask for per-
:
petuity and personal life from his body " c. Marc. I. 14

; ** bread, in which
:
he presents \reprasentat=^praesentat) his very body." Ib. iv. 40: " This is
my body, i. c, a figure of my body {figura corporis mei, vid. Leimbach,
Beitrage zur Abendmahlslehre Tert. 1874. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
are often combined in such connections, e. g.^ Tert. e. Marc. iv. 34 ; resur. 8;
de virg. oel. 9 ; de exhort, cast. 7 ; de praescr. 40 ; de corona 3.
be followed by the first resurrection and the rest of the seventh

millennium (v. 28. 3 33. 2). In Palestine believers will re-
;
fresh themselves with the marvelously rich fruits of the land

(following Papias, cf. Matt, 26. 29 ; v. 33. 3 f. i). Then fol-
lows the end, the the new earth (v. 36. i).
new heavens and
The blessed will live in graded order in the *' many mansions "
in the Father's house, ascending from the Spirit to the Son, and
through the Son to the Father (as learned from pupils of the
apostles, v. ^6. 2). Then will occur what is described in i Cor.
15. 26 ff. (ib. ). Thus upon this subject also the teaching of
the church stands in sharp and conscious contrast with the
general Gnostic view (v. 36. 3).
9. Methods of Proof (cf., in addition to Irenseus, especially
Tert., de praescr. haeret.). (a) The church professes to teach
the truth concerning God, Christ, and salvation. This is attested
by the prophets, apostles, and all disciples of Christ (Jr. iii. 24.
I). Thus the decisive authority rests with the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments.^ The idea that Gnosticism and Mon-
tanism forced the church to fix the canon of the New Testament
is erroneous. The limits of the New Testament were not more
positively fixed at the end of the second century than at its be-
ginning (Jas. and Heb., e-g-, were wanting in many national
churches others used Hermas [Ir. iv. 20. 2.
; Tert. de or. 16 ;
cf. de pud. 10. Can. Mur. 1. 73 ff.], Barnabas [CI. Strom, ii.
31, 35], andthe Didache [CI. ib. i. 100. Orig. deprinc. iii. 2. 7
cf. Clem, in Ir. iii. ;^^']
as canonical (cf. Zahn i. 326 ff. ). Ap-
;
peal might be made to an established custom in citing the au-

thority of these writings as conclusive. But the peculiar nature
of the opposition encountered in Gnosticism led to the attaching
of a special importance to the source of these documents and
this, not so much as coming from the apostles, as because they
dated from the primitive period of the church, and hence con-
tained the real gospel (Ir. iii. i. Scrap, in Eus. h. e. vi. 12.
3). Hence it is that Irenseus lays such stress upon the utter-
ances of the ''elders'* (/*. e., ad Florin, in Eus. h. e. v. 20.
4. adv. haer. iv. 27. i in.; 32. i ; v. 36. 2). It was but a nat-
ural consequence of this high estimation of the New Testament
writings, when inspiration ('^ Spirit-bearers," 7zvup.aTo^6ptn ;
*' spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit; " '^ the Spirit
^ In addition to the authority of Scripture, TertuUian appealed also to the
testimony of reason " Reason is a thing of God

: . . he has wished nothing
.
to be considered or known without reason (

'
paen. I )
' Words have character,
.
not only by their sound, but by their sense, and they are heard not so much
by the ear as by the mind. " He who knows nothing believes that God is
cruel " (scorp. 7) vid. also corona 4 f. lo, and Cyprian, sub.
;

through the apostle," etc.; ''God-inspired," TêwTri-eu^ro?) was

expressly ascribed to them (Theophil. ad. Autol. ii. 22. 9; iii.
II, 12, 13, 14. Ir. 28. 2 ; iii. 16. 2, 9. Tert. de pat. 7 ; de
orat. 20, 22; c. Marc. v. 7. Clem. Al. Protr. 87). The
conception of inspiration is found frequently in Judaism, as
among the Greeks, but it received its specific meaning only when
Christianity had adopted from Judaism the conception of the
canon i, e., that certain books are holy and every word in them
;
is authoritative.^ To this was, however, now added the Chris-

tian principle, that this authority attaches only to the original
Christian documents. That from this time there should be also
a constant tendency to greater definiteness in marking the limits
of the canon may be easily understood. What was relatively
new was really only the recognition of the canon, consciously
and upon principle, as the legacy of primitive Christianity
as the norm and basis of the church's teaching (cf "in har- :
mony with the Scriptures," aup.ipio^jarai<;ypa<paT^, Ir. in Eus. h. e.,

V. 20. 6). But since the heretics, apparently, in this particular
followed the praxis of the primitive church, but introduced gar-
bled writings, or misinterpreted those which were genuine, or
appealed to private traditions of the apostolic circle, the appeal
to the New Testament did not prove sufficient in controversy :
'* Therefore appeal is not to

be taken to the Scriptures, nor a
controversy instituted in those things in which there is either no
victory, or a victory uncertain, or as good as uncertain " (Tert.
de praescr. 19; cf. Ir. iii. 2. 2 fin.).
((^) A
criterion must be found for the right understanding of
the Scriptures, which will prove that the heretics have no right
to them (Tert. de praescr. 15, 19, 37. Ir. i. 9. 5 ; 10. i ; iv.
20. 2). This criterion is the ancient baptismal confession, or

the ''canon of truth" (Tert. de praescr, 13, 16). This was
paraphrased and interpreted in the free way which had up to this
time been customary. All the reproductions of this rule in
Irenaeus and TertuUian are free, expanded references. It is not
this confession as such which is the criterion, but the confession
as interpreted. But just on this account the church could not
abide by the confession, but was driven to tradition and the
episcopacy (see below under d). (tr) In regard to this con-
fession, it was held that it could be traced back through the

medium of the apostles to Christ (Ir. iii. praef v. praef.; i. 10. ;
I. Tert. praescr. 20 f 37). It is not the formula itself, but

its content, which is had in mind. It was thought that a histori-
' This idea of the canon appears nowhere, as far as I have observed, in the
whole history of religion except, in Judaism and Christianity.
'
cal support for thisopinion could be deduced from the unbroken

succession of bishops in the '' mother-churches" since the days
of the apostles (Iren. iii. 3 ; 4. i ; v. 20. i). TertuUian
(praescr. 21. 36, 32) says '^ Let them [the heretics] therefore
:
produce the origins of their churches ; let them display the

order of their bishops, running through succession from the be-
ginning in such a way that the first bishop had as his teacher and
predecessor some one of the aoostles or of the apostolic men who
were closely associated with the apostles " This applies most
!
especially
and the praxis harmonized to the church of Rome :
*'For it is necessary that the whole church, ^., those from all
/'.
places who are believers, should come, on account of its more

potent headship, to that church in which has been preserved by
believers from all places those things which are a tradition from
the apostles" (Ir. iii. 3. 2).^ The old doctrine is the true
doctrine '* Wherefore it is to be henceforth equally urged in ad-
:
vance against all heresies, that whatever is the first is true, and
whatever is later is adulterated " (Tert. adv. Prax. 2, 20). (^d) If
the bishops are the successors of the apostles, we must learn the
apostolic truth at their hand, as they have received the apostolic
doctrine, " the sure charisma of truth " through succession from
the apostles. Their daily life, moreover, remains confessedly irre-
proachable (Ir. iv. 26. 2, 4, 5; 33. 8; 32. i. Tert. 32. Hipp.
Ref. prooem.). Where the gifts (^charisviata) of the Lord have
been deposited, there we ought to learn the truth, among whom is
that succession of the church which comes from the apostles, and
among whom that is preserved which is wholesome and irre-
proachable in life and unadulterated and incorruptible in speech '
(Ir. iv. 26. 5). In place of the ancient charismata comes the
cha7'isma veritatis, peculiar to the bishops. This consists in the
possession of the traditional faith, and also in the ability to in-
terpret it (iv. 26. 5). Thus not only the confession, but its
interpretation also, became authoritative. It was a historically
comprehensible and necessary, but an abnormal path into which
these ideas conducted.
(.?) But of this there was, as yet, no consciousness. Since
the church is, as thus historically attested, the possessor of evan-
gelical saving truth, it may be said *' For where the church
: is,
there is the Spirit of God ; and where the Spirit of God is, there
^ The meaning of this noted passage is evidently Since two great apostles
:
labored at Rome, there attaches to it a special pre-eminence. Accordingly,

every church must be in harmony with Rome. In Rome, also, the apostolic tradi-
tion was known by people who had come from all parts of the world. The two
apostles granted to Rome its primacy, and this is binding upon all, as people
from all parts of the world have at Rome held fast the true tradition.
'
is and all grace. But the Spirit is truth " (Ir. iii.
the church
24. i), and
**who are beyond the bounds of the truth, /. e.,
:
beyond the bounds of the church " (iv. 33. 7). This concep-
tion of the church is, therefore, not as yet hierarchical, for the
episcopacy comes into consideration only as the bearer of the

historical truth. The church is not essentially the episcopacy *
'
'
(RoTHE, Anfange der chr. K., 1837, p. 486. Ritschl,

Entstehung d. altkath, K. 442 ; per contra, Seeberg, Begriff der
chr. K. i. 16 ff.), but the congregation of those who believe in
God and fear him, and who receive the Spiritof God (Ir. v. 32.
2 ; iv. 36, 2 ; iii. 3. 2). They are all priests (Ir. v. 34. 3 ; iv.
Z' T^'. " have sacerdotal rank." Tert. de

for all the righteous
orat. 28. exh. cast. 7': "Are not we laymen also priests? . . .
where there are three, though they be laymen, there is a church ").
But the Spirit and faith are imparted to man only through the
preaching of the church. *' For this gift of God has been en-
trusted to the church, just as that of breathing at the creation,

to the end that all the members receiving it should be vivified ;
and in it is included the communication of Christ, e., the /'.
Holy Spirit, the pledge of incorruptibility and confirmation of

our faith and the ladder of ascension to God" (Ir. iii. 24. i.
Hipp., de Chr. et Antichr. 59, compares the church to a ship in
which Christ is the pilot the rudder, the two testaments the; ;
cable, the love of Christ ; the accompanying boat, regeneration ;
the iron anchor, the commandments

the ladder repre- of Christ ;
senting the sufferings of Christ and inviting us to ascend to heaven,

etc. The church gives birth to the Logos, ib. 61 *' The church :
does not cease from her heart to give birth to the Logos . . .
the Son of God always bringing forth, the church teaches

. . .
all the nations "). But the proclamation of this truth has been
committed to the successors of the apostles it is found only where :
their words are obeyed.

The unity of the church is not yet traced to the one episco-
pacy. It is based upon the one Spirit, the one truth, the one con-
fession. *' Our bodies have, through that washing, received that
union which makes for incorruption ; but our souls through the
Spirit" (Ir. iii. 17. 2). Tertullian says: *' Therefore such and
so many churches has become that one first from the apostles,
from which they all are derived. Thus all are first, and all are
apostolic, since all are one. The communication of peace and the
title of brotherhood, and the friendship of hospitality, which
laws no other rule controls than the one tradition of the same
sacrament, prove the unity " (praescr. 20 cf. de virg. vel. 2.
Apol. 39 init.
*' sacrament " here refers to the rule of faith).
;
Let us now glance backward. have discovered the ele- We

ments of the common faith of the church at the close of the

second century. The church found herself in a position to estab-
lish a positive doctrine (*' I believed what it was proper for me to
believe") in opposition to Gnosticism. It traced the Gnostic
view to heathen influences. The fundamental features of the
church's doctrine were as follows: (i) One God, who is
righteous and good, the Creator, Preserver, Ruler, and Saviour
of the world. The one God is not a lonely God. In maintain-
ing this, reference was had to the speculations of the Apologists
concerning the Logos, but, independently of these, it was re-
garded as fixed that we are to acknowledge a three-fold Ego in
God (Iren.). Tertullian endeavored to explain this relation by
introducing the conceptions of substance and person. (2) The
evil in man is not implied in the fact of his sensuous nature, but
is an act of his free will. The connection with the sin of Adam
is emphasized, but no way is found to consistently carry out the
idea. Even fallen man is free to choose '* either part. " (3)
The reality of the divinity and humanity of Christ is to be main-
tained unconditionally in the interest of redemption. His per-
sonal life is composed of two substances (Tert.). The salvation
which he brought consists, first, in the law of love which he
taught, and whose observance he made possible then, in immor- ;
tality. Upon the latter the emphasis is laid. Together with

this, other scriptural ideas, especially of a Pauline and Johan-
nine type, are still itifluential and of practical significance, c. g.\
Christ, as the second Adam, the source for us and the leaven in
us ; the Spirit, as making the fulfillment of the law possible and
bringing to us fellowship with God ; sonship to God ; the forgive-
ness of sins; the weakening of the devil ; our reconciliation with
God, etc. (4) The preaching of the gospel imparts salvation,
and baptism applies it to the individual. It is apprehended in
faith. It is, indeed, a portentous turn of thought, when faith is
represented as the acceptance and acknowledgment of Christ, or
as obedience, and its object as ' doctrine ;
'
*
but this position is,
'
after all, practically neutralized in part by the assertion that faith

cannot be awakened without the operation of the Spirit, and is
inconceivable without a life in union with God and holy love. If
it is said that faith justifies man, this is meant substantially in
the sense of an inciting to the fulfillment of the divine com-
mandments. Tertullian, by treating the relation of God and
man in a legal scheme, prepared the way for the later develop-
ment of doctrine in the (5) These ideas find
Western church.
their consummation in the resurrection which the
of the flesh,
teachers of the period seek not only to propagate as a doctrine,
but to understand in its relation to the practical religious life of
believers. (6) In all of this, these men were conscious that they
represented the original Christianity, and were able to attest their
views as primitively Christian by the customary criteria of Scrip-
ture and the baptismal confession. These positions were, in-
deed, further developed in the acknowledgment of the episcopacy
as the bearer and guarantor of the truth thus held, and in the
admission of ecclesiastical tradition to a place by the side of
scriptural authority. It is a result of the great conflict with
Gnosticism, that the church first attained her unity as a
teaching church
in her doctrine. The unity of the church em-
braces the elements absolutely essential if the church and Chris-
tianity are to continue in existence. That this unity consists in
the pure doctrine is, leaving separate considerations out of view,
a result of the conflict with Gnosticism.
The Antignostic Fathers were, broadly speaking, right in their
general conception, as against the position of their opponents.
They did not really present anything new, not even a distinctly
enlarged understanding of Christianity. Their conception of
Christian truth and life is that which prevailed already at the
close of the first and the beginning of the second century. The
only peculiarity is that the opposition encountered compelled
them to greater distinctness and lucidity, as well as to deliberate
utterances with respect to the canon and doctrinal tradition.
The essential content of Christianity is still held to be faith in
the Triune God and in Christ, the Son of Gbd and man, observ-
ance of the new law, and the hope of immortality. As formerly,
so now, religious life found nourishment in the reflections, that
Christ has delivered us and brought to us the forgiveness of sins ;
that grace saves us ; that the believer leads a life in Christ and
with Christ, etc.: but there was no certainty in the treatment of
these ideas. In the last analysis, it is the chief thing that he who
observes the commandment of love becomes a child of God and
a partaker of immortality. In reality, use was made for spiritual
edification of more material than was taken account of in the

books of the age a fact which is of great importance in explain-
ing the vigorous opposition to Gnosticism.
15. The Theology of the Alexandrine Fathers.
Literature: Clemens Alexandrinus (f ca, A. D. 215). K6yo^

TTpOTpeTTTiiidg TTpbc "Fi^.j^T/vac ;
liaKâyu-ydg, 11. 3 ; XTpiofiareig, II. 8 ; /crwy
7r/)n<p7/TiK0}V EKloyai ' tK ruv QfoSotov koI rf/^ avaroTiLKf/g Ka?iov/j.evyg 6tda<7Ka7iiac
Kara rovg OvnTievrivov ;\;f)6u<)rr eTr/rofial. Also the homily, Tig 6 cuCofievog
7rAor'C7/of. Finally, a large fragment from the 'TTroTviruaEic, preserved in Latin
(Adumbrationes); editions by Potter, 1715 (citations of chapter and page in
present work refer to this edition), andDindorf, 1868, in Migne, t. 8, 9. Origen
(f-
A. D. 254). We make use especially of his Uept a()xo)v, 11. 4, preserved
THE ALEXANDRINE FATHERS. I4I
in the Latin translation of Rufinus, of which we have also large Greek frag-
ments. Also Kara KeTloov, 11. 8 editions by De la Rue, 1733, reprinted by
;
LoMMATZSCH, 1831 ff., in Migne, t. 11-17. Compare GutRlKE, de schola

quae Alex, floruit cat. 1824, 1825.
, BiGG, The christ. Platonists of Alex.,
1886. LuTHARDT, Gesch. d. chr. Ethik, i. 113 ff. Zahn, Forschungen iii.
(Supplementum Clementinum), 1884. Cognat, Clement d' Alexandrie,
1859. Winter, Die Ethik d. Clem. v. Alex., 18S2. Merk, Clem. Alex,
in s. Abh. v. d. griech. Philos., Leipz. Diss., 1879. HuETiUS, Origeniana,
1668. Thomasius, Grig., 1837. Redepenning, Grig., 2 vols., 1841, 1846.
H. ScHULTZ, Die Christol. d. Grig, in Zusammenh. s. Weltanschauung, in
Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1875, 193 ff., 369 ff. DENIS, La philosophic d'
Origene, 1884. Moller, PRE. xi. 92 ff. HoLL, Enthusiasmus u. Bussge-
walt, p. 228 ff.
We have noted the league formed in Alexandria between the

Jewish spirit and the Hellenic philosophy, which produced the
type of thought represented by Philo. A similar compact
appears in the same locality toward the end of the second cen-
tury. Hellenistic learning and gospel truth are associated in
the most astonishing way. The catechetical schools at Alexan-
dria provided the basis for this movement, and it was promoted
by Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen (cf., as to the pedagogical
method of Origen, the Panegyricus of Greg. Thaum., c. 6-15).
It was sought to secure what had been attained by the most pro-
found researches of the Gnostics, in the belief that this could be
done without surrendering the church's rule of faith. The Gnos-
tics and Apologists were here excelled. Christianity became a
science in literary forms which assumed a place of equal rank by
This explains the unbounded ven-
the side of secular literature.
and admiration with which Origen was regarded. The
eration
movement was of inestimable significance in the history of Greek
theology. It is associated distinctly with the name of Origen.
The teachings of Clement claim our attention only as preparatory
in their character.
The Greek spirit is in Clement combined with the faith of the
church in a way characteristically fresh and unsophisticated.
The difficulties encountered do not disturb him. He was a tal-
ented dilettante, with the virtues and the vices which belong to
such a character. He held that there is but one truth, in which
all lines eventually converge. God gave to the Jews the law,
and to the Greeks philosophy. *^ For it (philosophy)
led the
Grecian world to Christ as did the law the Hebrews " (Str. i. 5. p.
331 vi. 17. 823
; 5. 762).
;
He spoke of the philosophers as
borrowing material from the Old Testament (Str. v. 14. 699 ff.
This was not the case, however, with their idolatry, Protr. 2).
Philosophy he regarded as still possessing a pedagogical signifi-
cance for every Christian who rises from bare faith (4>cX7j -iVrtc)
to Gnosis. But this occurs according to the canon of the
'
church (xara xdvova h.xXy]fT(arTTtx6v^ Str. vii. 7. 855 vi. 15. 803). ;
Following Philo, Clement effects a compromise with the letter

of the Old and New Testaments by allegorical interpretation
(cf. Str. vi. 15. 806
Faith in revelation is necessary to
f. ).
salvation. Such faithbut points beyond itself to
is sufficient,
Gliosis (Str. ii. 2. 432 ; v. i. 643 ; vii. 10. 864 f.; ''to believe
is the foundation of gnosis "). Hence, " to know is more than
to believe " (Str. vi. 14. 794). Faith is the outward accept-
ance of God and of the doctrine of Christ in the literal sense,
from fear and respect for authority {ê. ^.^ Str. ii. 12 v. i. 643 \ ;
vii. 12. 873 f.). The Gnostic, on the other hand, lives in
initiated vision (^^TTOTZTr/.Tj i')-ujpia), apprehending salvation
inwardly and comprehending it (Str. vi. 10; i. 2. 327). He
does not do that which is good for the sake of expected reward,
but for its own sake, in love to God (Str. iv. 18. 614 iv. 22. ;
625). He avoids not only actual sin, but also every motion of
sinful desire (Str. ii. 11. 455; vi. 12. 789 f.). He regards
himself, not as a servant, but as a child of God (Str. vii, 2. 831).
He prays always, for prayer is companionship with God (Str.
vii. 7. 851 ff., 854 ; vii. 12. 875). If he who simply believes
(âTzXm^ TTSTTtrTTsuxcL)^') Tcqulres the purifications (^y.ad-dp(na) , or
minor mysteries of the church, the Gnostic
(^luxpa fjjjfrryjpta')
needs the great (jxeydla) mysteries, the i-oTzreia (Protr, i, p.

9; 12. Str. v. II. 689). This is the royal way. '*
By as
much as anyone loves God, by so much the more does he make
his way into God (Quis div. salv. 27 fin.). Thus there result
two forms of Christianity. In contrast with the barely believ-
ing, uncultivated beginner, inclined to externahties, stands the
Christian who beholds the mysteries of God, and who, with heart
and understanding, receives God to abiding fellowship. The Stoic
discrimination between the wise and the advancing (izptr/.o-Ttr^r^^)
is here transferred to Christianity. There are now Christians of a
first and of a second class. Thus the evacuation of the conception
of faith by means of the bare orthodoxy which is satisfied with
outward belief (Str. i. 9. 342 f. ) is noted, but also granted
honorable recognition, while at the same time a way of escape,
although a dangerous one, from that error is discovered. The
'
of Clement really stands higher than his * believer.

'
* *
Gnostic ' '
The separate doctrines in Clement as the objects of faith and

knowledge may be readily passed in review. The One God,
who is Being beyond nature (i-ixzVMi tt/^ oo/ria'i), and without
attributes (e. g., Str. v. 12. 695 f.; v. 11. 689), is the Creator
of the world. The formula and the conception of the Trinity
constantly recur (Str. v. 14. 710; cf. Exc.exTheod. 80. Protr.
12 init. Paed. i. 6. 123; also iii. 12. 311. Quis div. salv. 42
.
THE ALEXANDRINE FATHERS. I43
fin. Adumbr., p. 88, Zahn). Christisthe Logos of God (dis-

tinct from the paternal Logos, Tzarpiyjj^ Aoytt^, Hypot. in Photius
Bibl. cod. 109). In him God is known. He has been from
the beginning present and active in the world, giving it existence
and offering the truth in prophets and philosophers. He has
now become man. *' Christ was, indeed, in ancient times this
Logos and [the cause] of our being and of our well- . . .
being ; but now this same Logos has appeared to men, the only-
One both God and man, the cause of all things good to us, by
whom, ha-\^ng been thoroughly instructed in right living, we are
conducted to eternal life " (Protr. i, p. 6). He was a man \\-ith
a human body and soul (cf.
'
impassible as to his soul,
,
* * Paed. i '
2, p. 99). Clement seeks, although without success, to avoid

Docetism '* But in
: the case of the Saviour [to suppose] that the
body, as a body, demanded the aids necessary for duration would
be ridiculous. For he ate, not for the sake of the body sustained by
holy power, but in order that those with him might not be induced
to think otherwise concerning him, just as, indeed, afterward some
thought that he was manifested in seeming (^doxrjtrsi). But he was
entirely impassible, upon whom no emotional impulse, whether
of joy or grief, could manage to exert its power" (Str. vi. 9.
775; cf. iii. 7. 538. Adumbr., p. 87, Zahn). Christ surren-
dered his life to death for us, became a ransom (Xorfxr^) for us,
and overcame the devil (Quis div., p. 37. Paed. iii. 12, p.
310; i. 5. Ill; i. II fin. Protr. ii init.). Not much im-
portance is, however, attached to the conception of Christ as the
propitiation (ÛatT/id^j vid. e. g., Paed. iii. 6, p. 310). He
grows eloquent, on the other hand, in extolling the Logos as a
teacher beyond compare, as leader and lawgiver, and as the way
*^ For if the Teacher who has
to immortality (Protr. 11, p. 86 :
filled all things with his holy powers, creation, salvation, good-
ness, legislation, prophecy, instruction, now as Teacher instructs
us in all things, Athens and Greece also already knew every-
thing in the Logos," ib. p. ^^ f. 12, p. 91. Paed. i- 3, p. 102
,
f.
i. 6. 113.
; Protr. i. p. 8 *' The Logos : having become . . .
man, just in order that thou also mightest learn from a man how
at any time a man might become divine; " cf. Paed. i. 12. 156.
Str. iv. 23. 632 vii. 10. 865).
; Christ, as God, forgives sins,
and his humanity serves the purposes of moral instructiôn ** As :
God, forgiving sins but as man, leading to avoid continuance in

;
sin" (Paed. i. 3 init.).

Man, upon his part, is to render obedience to the teaching of
Christ, and, with a view to reward, exercise love toward others,
in accordance with the commandments fProtr. 11, p. 89 f.
Paed. i. 3. 102). Clement knows full well that man lies bound
in the '* For

fetters of sin (Protr. ii. init. Paed. iii.12. 307 :
to sin continually is natural and common to all " ) but this ,
does not prevent him from most strongly emphasizing his free-
will (âdreôufnov) or the in our power" (ty' ^/î^, Str. vi.
* ^
12. 788). *'But he desires that we may be saved from our-

selves" (ib.). Thus man is free to do good and to exercise
faith (Str. iv. 24. 633; ii. 15. 462 ; iii. 9. 540). God offers
salvation, and man has power to grasp it *'
Just as the physi-
:
cian furnishes health to those who labor with him for health, so
also does God furnish eternal salvation to those working with
him for knowledge and prosperity" (Str. vii. 7. 860). The
first right inclination (^ tt/joIttj rrpu? trojTTjpiav vu(7t<^') is faith.
Then follow fear, hope, repentance (îxerdvota). The goal is
reached in love (dydTZfj') and knowledge (jvcbfrt^) (Str. ii. 6. 445).
Faith is an *' assent" (^(ruyy.a-dff-efnq) and a *' perception of the
mind {^7zp6Xrj(l'cg dcavaca?) concerning the things Spoken " (Str. ii.
12. 458; 2. 437, 432). Inasmuch as faith is a necessary pre-
liminary to salvation, our salvation may be ascribed to it (Str. ii.
12. 457 f.: ''Faith is strength for salvation and power for eter-
nal life ; " Paed. i. 6. 116: ** The one universal salvation of
the human race is faith"). But this faith points beyond itself to
knowledge and love (vid. supra ; cf. Str. ii. 11. 454 *' reason- :
able," doâ<TTtxrjj and *' intelligent," iTrtfTrrj/nrîxrjj faith). This

was a necessary inference when faith was regarded as merely an
assent, or a persuasion to comply with the commandments
{7tzif}-z<7iât zaT^ hrdXaT^^ ib. ). With such an idea of faith, Paul's
doctrine of justification is untenable " Righteousness is two-
:
fold :that produced by love and that produced by fear " (Str. vii.
12. 879). The ** Gnostic " has complete righteousness. This is
*' For example,
illustrated in Abraham's faith and righteousness :
to Abraham, having become a believer, it was accounted for right-

eousness to him, having advanced to that which is greater and
;
more perfect than faith," etc. (Str. vi. 12. 791 cf. vii. 14. 885). ;
Thus, then, the believer of his free will decides for God and his
law, advancing from mere faith and the righteousness which
attaches to it to knowledge and love, to continual inward fellow-
ship with God, to a life of faith and uninterrupted holy activity,
to genuine righteousness. Here the moral ideal is attained the ;
'* He is not strenuous,

lust of the world has vanished : but in a
state of calmness" (Str. iv. 22. 625). Yet, on the other hand,
it is maintained with all earnestness that
*' only the well-doing
which is for the sake of love, or for the sake of the beautiful
itself, is chosen by the Gnostic." He lives and labors in the
world without love for the world (ê.g., Str. iii. 7. 537 ; vi.
"
THE ALEXANDRINE FATHERS. 1-45
12. 790; 12. 874^-878).

vii. He attains to right conduct
whereas the simple believer (dTr/cZi? Tztrrro^) reaches
QAaropi^wij.a')^
only median conduct Qxifrr} Tr/ja?;?), according to the Stoic ter-
minology (Str. vi. 14. 796).
The individual, however, secures his salvation only in con-
nection with the church and its agency (Paed. iii. 12 fin.; i.
6. 123, 114: '*His desire is the salvation of men; and
this has been called the church"). Hierarchical aims are
entirely foreign to Clement (cf. Str. vi. 13. 793)- It is bap-
tism which makes one a member of the church and a par-
taker of salvation. It brings the cleansing from sin, and thus the
capability of apprehending the salvation which the teaching of
the church offers. Thus one becomes through baptism a new man.
Sonship, perfection, immortality have become his in faith (ini-
tially) through baptism (Paed. i. 6. 113 '* Having been bap-
:
tized, we are illuminated having been illuminated, we are made

;
sons having been made sons, we are perfected having been

; ;
perfected, we are made superior to death." p. 114: "Thus

nothing but believing and being born again is perfection in life.
lb. :
'*
Thisdoctrine, /j-rh^/ia, is the eternal salvation of the eternal
Saviour. We, the baptized, having erased our beclouding
.
sins, the condemnation of darkness, by the divine Spirit, have

the free and unhindered and bright vision of the Spirit by which ;
alone we behold divine things, the Holy Spirit streaming in upon

** Therefore we
us from heaven. " p. 1 16 : have washed away all
our sins, and are immediately no longer evil. This is the one grace
of illumination, viz. to be no longer the same as before, or to have
,
cleansed the way. But when knowledge, yvuxn^, appears, to-

gether with illumination . the unlearned are learned
. . when-
ever this learning may have been added for thou hast not
;
[power] to tell the time. For instruction indeed leads up to

faith, but faith is taught together with baptism by the Holy
^ A few sentences may be adduced in illustration '* Wherefore also he eats

:
and drinks and marries, not from choice, but from necessity. As to marrying,
if reason may speak, I say, also because it is proper. For he who has become
perfect has the apostles as examples and he does not really show himself a
;
man who enters upon a single life, but he conquers men who, in marriage and
the rearing of children and providing for his house, has exercised himself
without pleasure and without pain in the care of the house, constant in his
experience of the love of God, and escaping every temptation besetting him
through children and wife, domestics, and property. But it falls to the lot of
the houseless man to be in many things without experience. Hence, caring
for himself alone, he is weakened for that which is still lacking with respect
to his own salvation, and abounds in the management of affairs pertaining to
[the present] life."
.
Spirit "). God cleanses sins committed after baptism by disci-

plinary sufferings (Str. iv. 24. 634).
The Eucharist, according to Clement, bestows participation in
immortality. The communicant enters into fellowship with
Christ and the divine Spirit. ''
On the one hand, the mixed wine
nourishes to faith ; on the other hand, the Spirit leads to immor-
tality. The commingling anew in both of the potion and the
Word is called the eucharist, a blessed and beautiful [gift of]
grace, of which those who partake in faith are sanctified in both
body and soul " (Paed. ii. 2. 177 f.; cf. i. 6. 125). Theseare
the Christian mysteries (vid. Protr. 12, p. 91 ff.). But this all
points beyond itself to the unshrouded knowledge of the ''great
mysteries" (vid. supra, p, 142). This is the Christian life:
*' right living, together with due appropriation of knowledge
for the perception of the truth and the fulfillment of the com-
mandments " (Str. i. I. 318; cf. vi. 12. 788 : '' both in learn-
ing and in exercise " )
Clement taught the resurrection of the body. He appears to
have accepted the possibility of a conversion after death (Str. vii.
2 fin.; 16. 895), without giving prominence to the idea.^
Origen is more positive than Clement, but Clement is more
Christian than Origen. It was the age when Neoplatonism was
beginning to control thought. Starting with God as the abstract
Existence (rO Fy), advance was made through the divine Thought
(v'rj^)j the conceived order of things (y.(ir7/j.(i? votjtov), the uni-
versal soul (^ Tipj 0X00 il'oyji), to this world, in which the souls of
men live imprisoned in matter {ô^fi). The task before them is
escape from the sensuous by asceticism and ecstasy, through the
medium of mystical symbolic rites. '' The only salvation is a turn-
ing toward God" (Porphyr. ad Marcell, 24). In the great
longing which broods over this conception lies its significance.
There is a gradation of being, extending from God to the soul,
which penetrates through all things and all religions with their
forms. All things are but copies of the infinite. Again, the
soul aspires to God through all possible suggestions, means, and
symbols. All things draw it upward. A wonderful musical
rhythm resounds through this structure of thought from God to- :
the soul, and from the soul to God.

I. This trend of thought was not unknown to Origen. His

work, De principiis the first attempt to construct a system of

dogmatics contains a philosophical system, although not con-
sistently adhered to. But Origen is an orthodox Christian. The
^ Clement expresses liimself as against the theory of the pre-existence of
souls ( Eclog. 17). It is not taught in Str. v. 16. 808, nor in Quis div. salv.
'
THE ALEXANDRINE FATHERS. 147
Scriptures contain the truth ; and he sends forth in advance of

his own doctrinal conclusions a completed rule of faith, the
teaching of the church, ecclesiastica praedicatio (De princ.
praef).^ *' It seems necessary before [treating of] these separate
points to lay down a certain line and a plain rule." These
elements and fundaments
* *
*
are to be brought together, with the
'
application of the things which the Scripture teaches, or which

result from the teaching as a necessary consequence (praef. lo).^
But the Scriptures are to be interpreted "spiritually," or alle-
gorically. Thus Origen was enabled to find his peculiar opinions
in them. He developed the allegorical interpretation systemati-
cally (de princ. iv. ). Passages which seem contradictory,
'
or which have a crass external sense, conceal a deeper thought. '

'
The Holy Spirit veiled the thought by means of a '* cloak of

spiritual things." Impossible things are asserted in order to call
attention to the fact that the occurrences could not have taken
place corporeally (^(Tojiiaruoji'), as, e.g., the visible paradise and
the walking of God therein; Lk. lo. 4; Matt. 5. 39, 29 f.;
I Cor. 9. 9 ; many narrations of the Old Testament some fea- ;
tures in the history of Jesus ; and in the Gospels other things

which did not happen (i'reâ /ary <joix6e6riy.6ra cf. iv. 9-18J. -^
Appealing to Prov. 22. 20 f. Origen teaches a three-fold sense

,
of Scripture the somatic, literal sense ; the psychical, moral

:
sense ; and the pneumatic, speculative sense. Historical and

doctrinal passages are alike subject to this rule. He finds his
own doctrme everywhere. Christian language adorns ideas
^ the Creator, the God of the Old and New Testaments, who
One God,
gave Christ ; born of the Father before all creatures, truly born a man,
Christ,
who suffered, died and rose again the Holy Spirit, partaking of equal honor,
;
his nature not clearly de6ned in tradition. The human soul has substance and
life of its own, but there is nothing taught concerning its origin. Man is re-
warded according to his merit. He has free will. The existence of angels
and devils, together with the frequent expression of the opinion that the devil
was an angel. The world was created, but not what was before it, nor what
shall be after it. Holy Scriptures, which have not only the sense which lies
upon the surface \qui in manifesto ist). The whole law is spiritual.
Whether God is corporeal, what is the nature of the soul, if the stars are
living beings, is not decided (de princ. praef. 4. 9; cf. the summary in
Joh. xxxii. 9). A
wide scope is here left for scientific exposition. The first
dogmatician of the church assumed in his labors a position of fundamental
subordination to the Rule of Faith. This has remained the case with his suc-
cessors. The Rule of Faith became normative in the arrangement of doc-
trinal systems, and is so to the present day. This is the significance which it
secured in the history of the world through the Antignostic controversies.
2 Origen treats in the
4 Books of his De principiis, (i)Of God, (2) Of the
Word, (3) Of Free Will, {4) Of the Allegorical Interpretation of Scripture.

The first three books present when viewed in a certain light almost the
whole content of his teaching.
^4^ HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
which are but shghtiy Christian. On the other hand, this method
enables him to conceal the foolishness of the gospel and to glorify
it as wisdom (e. g., c. Cels. vi. v. 60 ; iii. 19 ; cf. the esti-
7;
mate of Porphyry in Eus. h. e. vi. 19. 4, 7 f., and Cels. iv. ^B).
The simpler class and the multitude depend upon the ipse dixit
(âbTd<s <pa') and cling to the literal sense with their "bare and
unreasoning faith " (c. Cels. iv. 9; i. 42. 13; iii. 53). They
speak of God as the Creator, but think of him as a coarse and
unjust man (de pr. iv. 8). They understand literally, and not
in the sense of purifying, what the Scriptures say of judgment
(c. Cels. vi. 26 ; v. 16), and it is nothing but the fear of the
judgment which makes them Christians. This is a lower plane,
above which the cultured believer rises, searching the Scriptures
as Christ has commanded, and learning to understand their spir-
itual contents (c. Cels. ii. 5 f.; iii. 79; iv. 71 ; v. 31 f., 18).
Thus, when contemplating the death of Christ, he reflects that he
is crucified with Christ (c. Cels. ii. 69). He understands why
Christ heals the sick upon the plain, but ascends the mountain
with the disciples (ib. iii. 21). Christ is for him the teacher,
and no longer the physician (ib. iii. 62 ** Therefore the divine
:
Logos was sent to be a physician to sinners, but to be a teacher of

divine mysteries to those already pure and no longer sinning ").
The Christian starts out with faith based upon authority (cf. c.
Cels. i. 11) and Avith cleansing from sin in the fear of punish-
ment ; there follows the higher stage, of understanding and in-
sight (cf. also de orat. 27). Origen thinks of this higher stage
as essentially intellectual, taking thus a step backward toward
Clement. He has, however, the acuteness to recognize it as a
special advantage possessed by Christianity, compared with phi-
losophy, that it is able to offer piety and salvation even to the
mass of the common people (c. Cels. vii. 60 ; iii. 53 f. ).
2. (a) "God is a Spirit," '^ God is light*' thus does Ori-
gen introduce his discussion of the doctrine of God. Yet he re-
mains within the limitations of the Grecian idea. *
God is Being,
'
and beyond Being" (^zTzixecva ooaiaq cf. c. Cels. vi. 64; in

)
Joh. xix. I ad fin.: " in the Over-beyond of Being, in the power

and nature of God " ) . He is an " intellectual nature " (de pr.
i. I. 1-6), free from everything material, not limited by space
and time. Accordingly, he is " incomprehensible, inestimable,
impassible, beyond want of anything," etc. (de pr. i. i. 5 ii.
;
4.4; iii. 5.2. c. Cels. viii. 8, 21). " He is in every part sol-
itary (fiovag) and, so to speak, a unit (ivd^), at once mind and
the source whence is derived the beginning of all intellectual
nature or mind" (de pr. i i. 6). But this Source of the world
is, on the other hand, conceived of as a personality. He is
the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the world {prujAuopxrifTa^^

(juvi^/ajv^ xu6~pva)w; c. Cels. iii, 40 ; cf. vi. 79). In this govern-
ment he is just and good '*This one and the same [God] is
:
justand good, the God of the law and of the gospels he does ;
good with justice, and punishes with goodness " (depr. ii. 5. 3).
The spirit of man attains a relative knowledge of God, and this
in proportion as he severs himself from matter (de pr. i. i. 7 j.
The One God is primarily God the Father. We recog-
(/')
nize him in the Son, who is his image, his radiant crown, his
wisdom (^sapientia) and his Logos (de princ. i. 2. 8, 2 f. ). The
Son proceeds from the Father, not by any kind of division, but
in a spiritual way, somewhat as his will (de pr. i. 2. 6). Since
everything in God is eternal, the begetting of the Son is also an
eternal act *' The Father did not beget the Son and set him free
:
after he wasbegotten, but he is always begetting him" (in Hierem.

horn. ix. 4; de pr. i. 2. 4 eterna ac sempiterna generatio~). Ac-
:
cordingly the Son has no temporal beginning. *' There is not
when he was not (Orig. in Athanas. de deer. syn. Nic. 2 7 de pr.

'
*
;
i. 2. 9. f.; iv. 28; in Rom. i. 5. Afterward, in Joh. i. 22 :
7(.ri<7a'^\ c. Cels. V. 37, fin.: *' the eldest of all created things ").
Upon the basis of this, the relation to the Father is that of unity
of substance *'a vapor of the power, virtus, of God, an ema-
:
nation of his glory they show most clearly that there is in

. .
the Son a communion of substance with the Father. For an

emanation (^z/^rry^^^^) is seen tobe homousian,^ e., of one sub- /'.
stance with the body of which it is an emanation, or vapor " (in

Hebrew fragment, Lommatzsch, xxiv. 359). If the Son is thus
one with the Father through possession of the same nature
(ôu/Tta), he is yet, on the other hand, himself a being, a sepa-
rate hypostasis, or complete in his own subsistence {in propria

subsistentia effectus') (de pr. i. 2. 2, 9).^ There are two hypos-
* Upon the term, ofioovcto^^ whose meaning is here rightly given, compare
supra^ p. loi, n., and especially Zahn, Marcell v. Ancyra, p. II ff. Hatch,
Griechentum u. Christentum, pp. 202, 204. The word stood also, perhaps,
in the original text of Clem. Adumbr. (Zahn, Forsch. iii. 87): secundum
aequalitatem substantiae unum cum patre consistit (cf., for its signification,
Clement, Str. ii. 16, p, 467).
^ The terms, ovcia and v-rvoffracrig, are, in themselves, identical, both signi-
fying primarily " substance." The former is Platonic, the latter Stoic. But
a discrimination begins to appear in Origen, according to which VTroaraaig indi-
cates the ovaia UUa, or personal mode of existence [e. g., in Joh. ii. 6 ; x. 21,
it is held that **the Son does not differ from the Father in number, but the
two are one, not only in nature, ovala, but also in attributes that for certain ;
purposes, Kara, rivac eirtvoiag, the Father and the Son are said to be different,
not according to hypostasis, c. Cels. viii. 12. in cant., cant, iii.) and ovaia the
substance. Cf. Bigg, 1. c, p. 163 f also Hatch, Griechentum u. Christen-
.
;
tum, p. 203 ft., and the terms substantia asidi persona in TertuUian.
tases here, but One God (Origen cites Acts 4. 32). '' There-
fore we worshipthe Father of truth and the true Son, being two
things in hypostasis, but one in sameness of thought and in har-
mony, and in sameness of will" (c. Gels. viii. 12). The two
hypostases have the same will and the same activity (cf. de pr.
i. 2. 12 ; in Joh. xiii. ^6 :
** to there being no longer two wills,
but one will ").

The 6fxoo6(no<s appears to require the complete equality of the
divinity of the Son and the Father. None the less, we meet with
Subordinationistic features in Origen. The Son is the "second
God" (c. Gels. v. 39 cf. in Joh. vi. 23). He is God, but as
;
the image of the Father. He is not the absolutely Good and

True, but he is good and true as an emanation and image of the
Father (de pr. i. 2. 13, a Greek fragment ; iv. 35 ; in Joh. xiii.
25; xxxii, 18; in Matt. xv. 10, etc. Gompare, on the con-
trary, in Matt. xiv. 7 init. ; c. Gels. iii. 41 ; vi. 47 fin.). The
same is true of their activity. Ghrist is the executive officer
(^jTzrjfiiTrj^s') of the Father, carrying out his instructions, as, e. g.,
at the creation (c. Gels. vi. 60 ; ii. 9). This tendency in Ori-
gen appears also in his refusal to sanction unconditionally the
addressing of prayer to Jesus. Petition is to be addressed to the
Father, and is presented to him by Ghrist (de orat. 15, 16 fin.,
14 fin.; c. Gels. viii. 13). Yet in other passages he maintains
that we should pray only to the Father and to Ghrist, to the lat-
ter that he may bear it before the Father (c. Gels. v. 4, 11 ; 8,
26). The prayer to Ghrist which is widely prevalent in the
church (c. g., Gelsus in Origen viii. 12 uTrepi^pTjfTr.soooffc.
: Ori-
gen himself, ib. viii. 67. de orat. 16 init.) is not forbidden, but
Origen has dogmatic objections to it. Thus Origen' s doctrine
of the Logos reflects the conception of his age. Ghrist is God
as is the Father, like him eternal ; yet he is the '^second God,"
and dependent upon the Father.
(c) Whilst some philosophers thus agree with Ghristian teach-
ing in the doctrine concerning the Son, the doctrine concerning
the Holy Ghost must be derived solely from revelation (de pr. i.
3. I -4). He is active, not like the Logos in all intelhgent beings,
but only in the souls of the saints. It is in harmony with this
limitation that he is represented as inferior to the Logos :
" The
Son is less than the Father . for he is second to the Father ;
yet the Holy Spirit is lower, extending to the saints alone " (de
pr. i. 3. 5, 8). But he, too, is uncreated (de pr. i. 3. 3). As
everything else, so he was brought into being through the Son :
*'all things having come into existence through the Son, the
Holy Spirit is more honorable than all, and in the [front] rank
of all those things created by the Father through the Son " (in
THE ALEXANDRINE FATHERS. I51
Joh. 6).ii.The hypostasis, as well as the divinity, of the Holy

Spirit, firmly maintained.
is There is a lack, however, of clear
definition. The Father bestows existence, the Logos rationality,
the Holy Spirit holiness (de pr. i. 3. 5), andalso the *' substance
of the charismata which come from God '* (in Joh. ii. 6).
Origen is, of course, familiar with the term. Trinity (in Joh.
V. 17; vi. 17 in Jes. hom. i. 4 ; iv. i,etc.). In the Latin trans-
;
lation, and also in De principiis, the term is often of doubtful

genuineness.
3. God loved Jacob and hated Esau, and we constantly ob-
serve the most glaring contrasts in the fortunes of men. This is
to be explained, not by the arbitrary decree of God, but by the
freedom of the creature (de pr. ii. 9. 2, 5). Since everything
in God is eternal, his creative activity must be so (ib. i. 2. 10).
The Son serves him here as Mediator. A
definite number of
incorporeal spiritual beings, originally all alike, was at first cre-
ated (ib. ii. 9. 6). To these belonged, however, free-will
(a'jTsrn/Wôi/), which is inseparable from their existence. But
their moral decisions were different. Man, who was intellect
(^vou'^), by reason of his fall from God, cooled down into soul
((J'oxrj), since he lost his participation in the divine fire (de pr.
ii. 8. 3; Origen derives (J'u^^rj from (I'uypo'?'). The condition of
all creatures is regulated bytheir respective merits {vieritin?i^ ib.
i. 8. 2; ii, 9. 7). God has bestowed upon all creatures a mate-
rial Their bodies were framed to correspond with
corporeity.
their merit those
of divinities, thrones, and powers were light
and ethereal ; those of the stars, which are also living beings
(cf. Plato and Philo), brilliant those of Satan and the devils,
;
as being the creatures who fell first and more deeply than others,
coarse and dark. Between the two classes is the corporeal being
of men, *'who, on account of the very great deficiencies of
their minds, needed bodies more crass and substantial " (de pr.
iii. 5. 4; ii. I. 1-4). This accounts for the origination of the
world, which hence had a beginning in time (ib. iii. 5. 3).
This world itself is a judgment before the final judgment thus ;
in the most literal sense, *' the history of the world is the judg-
ment of the world." The place and country, circumstances of
birth, etc., are appointed to everyone in accordance with his
condition in the pre-existent state (ib. ii. 9. 8). This explains
the infinite variety in the world, which is a result of the exercise
of free-will. But God thus attests his righteousness as well as
his goodness. To everyone was given that to which he was en-
titled but God brought the countless contradictions ''into the
;
harmony of one world " (ib. ii. 9. 6 f. ). This world, accord-

ingly, makes an impression of harmony, and God finds means to
make even the sins of the

wicked for which he is not responsible
serviceable to the whole (c. Cels. iv. 54, 70 ; in Num. hom.
xiv. 2).
4. The Logos, from eternity active as the principle of reason
and as the demiurge Cels. iv. 81 vi. 47, 60 ; vii.
(c. 70 ; :
''governing all things " cf. in Joh. vi. 23), became man for
j
our deliverance. He took upon himself human nature (â'ApujTzivyj

(fofxt^j c. Cels. iii. 28), and was God and man (c. Cels. vii. 17),
the God-man (^d-ed^^f^-pajTzo^j de pr. ii. 6. ;^). The divinity re-
mains unchanged, continuing upon the throne (c. Cels. iv. 5).
Thusalso Christ is a real man, with body and soul (c. Cels. iii. 28,
41 ; ii. 31). The soul of Jesus was, like all others, free in the
state of pre-existence. It, from the beginning, surrendered it-
self to the Logos C
the entire receiving the entire ").
grew into an indissoluble union with the Logos (following i Cor.
Yea, it
6. 17) *' It was made essentially one spirit with it " (de pr. ii.
:
6. 3, 6. c. Cels. iii. 41 ; v. 39 vi. 47 f. ). This soul consti-

;
tuted the connecting link between the Logos and the flesh (de
pr. i. i). The flesh of Christ was produced in an unusual way
(c. Cels. I. 69 f.), but was capable of suffering like any human
body (c. Cels. ii. 23 iii. 25 fin.). It is a mystery beyond all
;
mysteries how we are to believe that the word and wisdom of

God were ** within the limitations (intercirc urns criptio7te}7i)
of that man who appeared in Judea If one thinks him . .
God, he sees him to be mortal if one thinks him human, he ;
views him, having conquered the kingdom of death, returning

with spoils from the dead thus is demonstrated the reality
. .
of both natures in one and the same [person] " (de pr. ii. 6. 2).
After the incarnation. Logos, soul, and body constitute one
unity '* For the soul and the body of Jesus became, especially
:
after the incarnation (oixovoî'a), one with the Logos of God

"
(c. Cels. ii. 9). There was one person, which united in itself
divinity and humanity '* The one being was more than one in
:
mind" {Ir.vjoia^ c. Cels. ii. 64 init.). He was a composite

being: *^We say that he became something composite"
{(TovHzTuv Ti ypYjixa) c. Cels. i. 66; cf. ib. ** Concerning the :
composition, too (tov^Îtoo, and of what [entities] the incarnate

Jesus was composed"), Origen earnestly strives to maintain
intact the unity of the person and the integrity of the union of
the two natures. In this he does not, indeed, succeed. God
dwells in a man (c. Cels. i. 66, 6^] de pr. iv. 3 substantially :
filled, substantialiter repletus, with God). Divinity and human-

ity are yet not made one; the divinity suffers nothing (c. Cels. iv.
15: '* Learn that the Logos remaining Logos in nature, r^ vhnia^
does not suffer any of the things which the body or the soul
THE ALEXANDRINE FATHERS. I
53
suffers ... as though it had become flesh; " cf. viii. 42).
" For the dying Jesus is a man" (in Joh. xxviii. 14. c. Cels.
vii. 16). As a man, he really suffered and really died (c. Cels.
ii. 16). His soul then preached in Hades (ib. ii. 43; cf. i6j.
He really rose from the dead, and his body existed in a state
between the material and the psychic modes of existence (c.
Cels. ii. 62 cf. 64-66).
; After the ascension the human was
ent-irely absorbed in the divine. "But the exaltation of the
Son of man this was the being no longer other than the
. . .
Logos, but the same with it" (in Joh. xxxii. 17; in Hierem.
hom. XV. 6; in Luc. horn. 29). The Lord now dwells omni-
present in the supramundane world '' Yet he is everywhere and :
pervades the universe, but we cannot know him anywhere be-

yond that circumscribed body which, when located in our body
upon the earth, he possessed among men " (de pr. ii. 11. 6).
Cf. H. Schultz, loc. cit., 225 ff., 369 ff.
5. If we inquire for the work of Christ, we find the domi-
nant thought to be, that Christ was physician, teacher, lawgiver,
and example. As he in olden time revealed the truth in philos-
ophers and prophets, so he now brought to the world a new law,
which is designed for all and which has found acceptance from
all (e. g., c. Cels. iv. 4, 22, 32). Inasmuch as he brought the
saving doctrines {^(rwr-qpia doyfiara, de pr. iv. 2), the precepts of
the gospel {^raecepta evaîgelii, ib. 24), he is the lawgiver of
Christians (c. Cels. iii .
7) . He is to Christianity what
Moses was to Israel (c. Cels. 51 ; vii. 26 ;
ii. 52, 75 \ iv. 4 ; v.
viii. 5, 53). This law was intelligible, since, as the necessities
of the case required, reward and punishment were attached to it
(c. Cels. iii. 79). He appeared as a physician for sinners, as a
teacher of those who had become pure (c. Cels. iii. 62). His
law is " the law of nature, i. e.j of God," as contrasted with
*' the
law written upon tablets " (ib. v. 37). Its essential con-
tents are the knowledge and worship of the One God, the Cre-
:
ator ; faith in Jesus ; the fulfilling of his commandments in a

virtuous life ; the promise of salvation and threatening of eter-
nal ruin (c. Cels. v. 51, 53 ; vii. 17, 48 f.; viii. 57, 51 *' The :
whole foundation of the faith is God, with the promises through

Christ concerning the righteous and the announcements of pun-
ishment concerning the wicked "). To this is added the life of
Christ as the '* model of a virtuous life" (c. Cels. i. 68 ; viii.
17) 56 ; de pr. iii. 5. 6), particularly as a pattern in the endur-
ance of suffering (c. Cels. ii. 42). By this means we may be-
come partakers, as far as possible, of the divine nature (de pr.
iv. 31). Origen gives expression already to the underlying
thought of the mysticism of the Middle Ages " And, speaking :
;
corporeally and as flesh delivering his message, he calls to him-

self those who are flesh, m
order that he may first cause them to
be transformed into the likeness of the Logos made flesh, and
after this elevate them to the beholding of himself as he was be-
fore he became flesh " (c. Gels. vi. 68).
Prominent as these ideas are in the writings of Origen, he yet
recognizes the fact that the salvation of the believer is depend-
ent upon the sufferings and death of Christ (<?. g. c. Cels. i. 54 j
,
cf. 61 fin.; ii. 23, 44; vii. 57): "His death is not only pre-
sented as a model for [our] dying on account of piety, but also

effects the beginning and progress of our deliverance from the
evil one, the devil" (ib. vii. 17). The death of Christ is ac-
cordingly presented in the light of deliverance from the power
of the devil and the demons ; sacrifice for sin offered to God
the purification of man from sin ; and the advocacy of man's
cause before the Father (cf. Thomasius, Orig. p. 221 ,
). (a)
ff*.
Through sin the souls of men have surrendered themselves to the

devil. Jesus gave his soul (life) to death as an exchange
(^w^T allay ixa)^ OX ransom (^lurpov^y to redeem them from the
devil (in Ex. horn. vi. 9; cf. c. Cels. i. 31. ad mart. 12 fin.
in Matt. xii. 28; xvi. 8. Lommatzsch iv. 27 f. in Rom. iii.
7; iv. II). But the devil was not able to retain these souls
('* For he controlled us until the ransom for us, the soul of Jesus,
was given to him, deceived as being able to rule over it, and not
observing that he does not possess the touchstone for maintain-
ing possession of it," in Joh. xvi. 8). Thus the souls of men

even those in Hades became free from the power of the
devil and his demons ii. 47 ; viii. 54, 27, 64;
(vid. c. Cels. cf.
as to the exorcism of demons, ib. vii. 4, 69 ; viii. 58 i. 67,

;
etc.). An idea is thus expressed which was destined to play an

important role in the History of Doctrines, (d) Sin requires a
propitiatio before God, and this is effected by the bringing of a
sacrifice. Christ is the high-priest, who offered to God in our
behalf his own blood as a spotless sacrifice, in order that God
might become gracious to us and forgive our sins (in Rom. iii.
8 ; in Num. hom. xxiv. i). He bore in our stead the penalty
belonging to us (in Joh. xxviii. 14, p, 355 :
*' And he assumed
our sins and was bruised for our iniquities, and the penalty which
was our due in order to our discipline and the reception of peace
came upon him " ) Since Christ thus, as the Head of the church,
.
intervenes for us, God is reconciled to us and we to God (in

Rom. iv. 8). This work of reconciliation extends beyond the
Avorld of men to the realm of the angels (in Joh. i. 40 ;in Matt.
xiii. 8 ; c. Cels. vii. 17). Origen even seems to hint at a con-
tinuation of the sufferings of Christ in heaven (de pr. iv. 25, a
Greek fragment in Jerome). Thus the sufferings of Christ con-

stitute a sacrifice which is offered to God as an atonement for sin,
while at the same time his soul was delivered to Satan as a ran-
som. (<r) Christ continues through all ages his redeeming work.
The purification of the church is always a matter of deepest con-

cern to him as its Head (in Lev. hom. vii. 2), although he binds
it together in unity in himself (*Mn himself embracing all who
are subject to the Father and he is himself the Head of

. .
all," de pr. iii. 5. 6). He

works from heaven to purify his fol-
lowers by his divine power and by his laAv (c. Cels. viii. 43 ; vii.
17). Thus the divine nature begins to unite itself again with
the human race " From that time, the divine and the human
:
nature began to be associated, in order that the human nature

might in fellowship with that which is divine become divine, not
in Jesus alone, but in all those receiving with their faith Qizra ruh
~t(7Tti)=:vy) the course of life which Jesus taught, which leads
. to God in love and in fellowship with him everyone who lives
according to the foundations of Jesus" (c. Cels. iii. 28). In
these ideas we find the germs of the later conception of redemp-
tion as a ransom (Athanasius). Christ in himself again unites
human nature with the divine (cf. Irenseus); but, concretely ex-
pressed, he does this by teaching men divine truth. He imprints
upon the hearts of men a copy of his wounds (''an imprint of
the wounds appearing in the soul by virtue of the Logos, this is
the Christ in him," c. Cels. vi. 9). Thus effecting in us that
which is divine, he is, on the other hand, the mediator (tj-zra^h wy)
and high-priest who presents our prayers before God and leads
us to him (c. Cels. iii. 34 ; v. 4 vii. 46 viii. 4, 26, 34, 36 f.).
; ;
We have here the conception of the work of Christ which was

characteristic of the second and third centuries. But we may
trace in it a commingling of the ancient and the modern. Christ
is, above all else, the teacher and lawgiver, the pattern, in whom
begins the deification of humanity. But he is this for us, after

all, only because he has snatched us from the power of the devil
and demoniac powers, has reconciled God to us and us to God,

and stands as mediator and high-priest between us and God.
6. (^) The Logos is actively engaged in imparting this salva-
tion to men, as formerly through the moral law and the Mosaic
code, so now through the gospel (in Rom. iii. 7. 3; v. i. c.
Cels. vi. 78; vii. 26). The latter, as has been shown, is con-
ceived of as essentially a lawgiving and instruction. To the
doctrines are added, as further means of salvation, the mysteries.
He who has in faith accepted the teachings of Christianity is
baptized '* The
: washing by water, being a symbol of the
cleansing of a soul washed from every defilement (which comes)
from no less and precisely, to him who surrenders himself

evil, is
to the power of the names of the adorable Trinity, the begin-
ning and fountain of divine charismata" (in Joh. vi. 17).*
Baptism is not a '' symbol " in the modern sense, but as Christ's
miracles of healing were symbols of the healing activity of the
Logos. Yet, as these miracles nevertheless brought real healing to
the individual in whose behalf they were performed, so baptism is
for the recipient nothing less than the beginning and fountain of
the divine blessings. It is a symbol of the purifying power of the
Logos, but for the individual it is actual purification. Through
its administration sins are forgiven and the Holy Spirit bestowed
(in Luc. hom. xxi.; in Matt. xv. 23 ; ad mart. 30 init.). It is

the ''first remission of sins " (in Lev. ii. 4), which, in accord-
ance with the custom {obsey-^jantiayn) of the church, is granted
also to children (in Lev. viii.). Above water-baptism stands
the fire-baptism of martyrdom. This washes away sins, and the
sacerdotal intercessions of the martyrs are heard by God (ad
mart. 30, 50, 34 ff. ). But the mature Christian should partake
of the solid intellectual food (ârtptai XoyixdX rpo(pai^ of the eu-
charist (c. Cels. iii. 60). He here receives the Logos and his
words as the true food of the soul. ''That bread which God
the Word declares to be his body is the nutritious word of souls,
the word proceeding from God the Word And that drink
. . .
... is the word thirst-quenching and splendidly inebriating the

hearts of those who drink it For not that visible bread
. . .
which he held in his hand, did God the Word call his body,
but the word in whose sacrament (^mystenu??i^) that bread was to
be broken. And not that visible drink did he call his blood, but
the word in whose sacrament that drink was to be poured out.
For the body or blood of God the Word, what else can it be
than the word which nourishes and the word which delights the
heart?" (in Matt. com. ser. 85). The word of Christ, of
which the elements are a symbol, is, therefore, the effectual
thing in the eucharist. Primarily Christ's own word, and con-
sequently the words of the apostles and their successors, are the
body and blood of the Lord (in Lev. hom. vii. 5). According
to this, the elements possess merely a symbolical significance.
The word alone, which is spoken over them, brings benefit to
him who approaches the eucharist with a pure heart and con-
science (in Matt. xi. 14).^
1 The text of Lommatzsch is here amended to agree with the citation in

Basil, de spir. sanct. 29. 73-
'^
himself occasionally employs another type of expression [e. g.^
Origin
c. Cels. viii. -^^ : "We
eat the bread which has, through the prayer, become
the body, a thing holy and hallowing those who receive it with a proper pur-
The New Testament proffer of salvation through doctrine

{b)
is accepted by man in faith, (a) He is able to do this by
virtue of the freedom of will which is inseparable from human
nature. It is true, the soul of man at the fall before the creation
of the world became disobedient to God, and sin is hence uni-
versal (cf. under 3, p. 151). ** We are born to sinning" (c.
Cels. iii. 66, 62 ; cf. Clem., supra, p. 141). *'No one is pure
even immediately after birth, not even though his life should be
but a single day," Job 14. 4 f. (in Matt. xv. 23). What need
would there otherwise be for infant baptism? (in Lev. hom.
viii. 3 in Rom. v. 9).
; To the sin of the pre-natal existence
is now added the further defilement involved in the union
of the soul with the body (in Luc. hom. xiv.; in Lev.
viii. 3, 50).4 Account must be made, still fur-
; c. Cels. vii.
ther, of the dominion of the devil and demons over the human
soul, and the entrenchment of sin in the soul through the power
of evil passions and under the influence of evil example
(depr. iii. 2. 2 ; c. Cels. iii. 69). However positively the sin-
fulness of man is thus maintained,
does not exclude his free-will it
(âdre^ôufftov) the continuous and inamissible capacity for freely

^
deciding for the good or the evil ; for the will has only the office,
according to the Greek conception, of carrying out the decisions
of the reason (de pr. iii. 1.3). Only upon the recognition of hu-
man freedom can we understand the ethical exhortations of the
Scriptures, and only thus is the moral character of man pre-
served (de pr. iii. i. 20). There are, indeed, scriptural pas-
sages which appear to confirm the Gnostic doctrine of predesti-
nation (e. g., Ex. 4. 21. Hos. II. 19. Mk. 4. 12. Rom. 9.
16, 18 ff. ), but these may be differently interpreted (de pr. iii.
I. 7 It remains, therefore, an indisputable fact, that free
ff. ).
will preserved in the salvation of man (ib. iii. 5. 8 ; 3. 4).

is
Scripture varies in its representations of the subject **It at- :
tributes everything to us, and * * it seems to attribute everything

'
'
to God" (de pr. iii. i. 22). The truth is, that God endowed
man, not with conquest (the vincere)^ but with the power of
conquest (the vincendi virtus ; ib. iii. 2. 3), i. e., through the
rational nature of man and the doctrine of Christ. As a teacher
promises *'to improve those who come to him, so the divine
Logos promises to take away evil from those who come to him
. . not from those who are unwilling, but from those who,
being sick, commit themselves to the physician " (depr. iii. i.
15). God offers salvation, but free man apprehends it, and is
pose ;
" cf. in Ex. hom. xiii. 3). He is alsoaware that the more simple have
"a commoner interpretation" of the eucharist (injoh. xxxil, 16).
;
always himself active in its appropriation (ib, iii. i. i8). He

may, however, always rely upon the divine assistance {âdjutorium
ib. iii. 2. 5, 2). Cf. Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von d. menschl.
Freiheit, according to Origen's izt^n dpy^wv Ztschr. f. KG., ii.
^
234 ff. (/5) In this sense, faith itself is an act of the free-will
as well as an effect of divine grace (cf. c. Gels. viii. 43). The
object of faith is the doctrines (S6y/j.aTa) of the church (in Joh.
xxxii. g; c. Gels. i. 13). This faith is confidence (^rxoyxardiUfTci^),
often dependent primarily upon outward motives, such as fear,
or the recognition of authority. It needs to be elevated to
knowledge and understanding. It is better to "assent to the
dogmas with the reason and wisdom" (îizra Xoyoo xai <yn<pia^')
than '^ with bare faith" (c. Gels. i. 13; cf. d^.?>o supra, under
i). Many gradations may be traced in this process (in Matt,
xii. 15). Knowledge is the goal. But the unfolding of faith
isinconceivable without a corresponding moral conduct upon
the part of the individual. The Logos acts not only as teacher,
but also as physician (cf. supra). Threats of punishment and
promise of reward are spurs to piety. Thus faith is also the
way to virtue (c. Gels. iii. 69). A
without works is im-
faith
possible {e. g., in Joh. xix. 6). If with such a conception of
faith (lacking the decisive element of an inward, obedient, and
trustful acceptance), Paul's doctrine of justification does not
receive an unqualified acknowledgment, this must be regarded as
merely an evidence of religious tact and of real Ghristian tem-
per. Origen, in his commentary upon Romans, reproduced the
Pauline doctrine of justification, but was not able to maintain
himself at the altitude of that conception. Faith is sufficient,
indeed, for righteousness, but it finds its consummation in works,
and suffices only because it has ever works in view. ''Right-
eousness cannot be imputed to an unrighteous man. Ghrist
justifies only those who have received new life from the example
of his resurrection." Accordingly, the forgiveness of sins and
the salvation and eternal happiness of men depend, not only upon
faith, but more upon their repentance and good works (cf. e. g.,
in Lev. hom. xii. 3 ; ii. 4; c. Gels. iii. 71,57; viii. 10). '*The
salvation of believers is accomplished in two ways, through the
acknowledgment {âgnitionem') of faith and through the perfection
of works" (in cant., p. 84; cf. i?istitutionibus ac disciplinisy de
pr. i. 6. 3). Repentance consists primarily in the confession of
one's sins to God, since he is the true physician of souls (in Ps.
36 hom. I. 5); but also to one's fellowmen (ib. ).
; In the lat-
ter case it is necessary, however, to find a man, whether clerical
or lay, who has the Spirit, who is devoted to the service of God,
and who is like the merciful high-priest Ghrist, as were the
THE ALEXANDRINE FATHERS. 1 59
apostles (de or. 28. 8; in Ps. 37 ; horn. 6). Repentance has

here, it will be observed, an inward character, not a legal, as in
the West. Origen's moral ideal embraces, first of all, the Gnos-
tic contemplation of God, and also a strongly ascetic element
(emphasis upon virginity and a corresponding depreciation of
marriage; c. Gels. vii. 48; i. 26 fin.; viii. 55; commendation
of those who, separate from the world, abstain from the cares of
this life, in Lev. xi. i ; in different vein, Clem., supra, p. 145, n.).
(<:) The church is the congregation of believers, the assembly
of the righteous, the **city of God " (c. Gels. iii. 30 cf. vii.
;
31 ). Outside the church there is no salvation (in Jos. hom. iii.

5). Individual Christians are, indeed, also priests (in Lev. hom.
iv. 6; vi. 5; ix. i, 8; xiii. 5); but to the priests in the special
sense of the term belong special prerogatives. It is theirs to an-

nounce the forgiveness of sins ; but this may be done only by a
pious priest (in Lev. hom. v. 3; cf. Bigg, p. 215 ff.). Fur-
ther, Origen discriminates between the empirical church and the
church properly so called (^xupiw^, e. g., de or. 20; in Num.
hom. xxvi. 7 in Jos. hom. xxi. i. Cf. Seeberg, Begriff d.
;
chr. Kirche, i. 27 ff. ).

7. The process of purification and instruction begun on earth
is continued after death. The good, clothed in a refined spiritual
body, enter ''paradise," or ''a certain place of education, an
auditorium or school of souls." Now are solved for the spirit
all the problems which have been presented here in nature, his-
tory, and faith (de pr. ii. 11, 4, 5). The wicked, on the other
hand, experience the fire of judgment. This is a ''flame of
one's own fire " {proprii igms^, whose material is the individ-
ual's own sinfulness tortured by the conscience (de pr. ii. 10. 4),
In this we are to see, not a permanent punishment, as imagined
by the simple, but a process of purification " The fire of
:
God's vengeance avails for the purgation of souls " (ib. 6").
" It befits the good God to destroy wickedness by the fire of pun-
ishments " (c. Gels. vi. 72 ;cf. v. 15 vi. 26).
; It is a purifying
fire (~op y.a^^dp(7uiVj c. Gels. v. 17).^ While the wicked are thus
purified, the good mount up from sphere to sphere to meet
Christ (de pr. ii. ri. 5). But the former as well as the latter,
although it be only after infinite ages, also attain the goal
(de pr. iii. 6. 6). Then, with the day of the second coming of
Christ, will come the end. Now occurs the resurrection of the
1 This idea, which found recognition also in the West (Cypr. ep. 55. 20),
reminds us of the ancient conception of the purifying power of the fire of
Hades, c. g.y Virgil Aen. vi. 742 Wickedness unconsummated is purged or
:
consumed by fire cf. Dieterich, Nekyia, 1893, P- ^99^-; Îso, Rohde, Psyche,
;
ii. ed. 2, 128 f.

l6o HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
bodies of men glorified, pneumatic bodies (de pr. iii. 6. 4-9 ;

but cf. ii. 3. 7 ; iii. Jerome's translation in Redepenning's
6. i, in
edition, p. 318 f., and also H. Schultz, 1. c, p. 220 f.). God
is now all in all, and all full vision of the
created things live in
Godhead (iii. 6. 3). Here we understand the *' everlast-
shall
ing gospel, 'which is related to the temporal gospel as is the
*
latter to the law (ib. iii. 6. 8 iv. 25). ; But, since there is even
yet the possibility of a change in the attitude of will of a free
agent, it always remains possible that this consummation of
earth's drama may prove to be but temporary, and that freedom
of will may call other worlds into existence (cf. de pr. iii. 6. 3,
in Jerome's translation also c. Cels. iv. 69 ; per contra, de pr,
;
iii. 6. 6: *' in which state they always and immutably remain ").
8. Tested by the original teachings of Christianity, the Alex-

andrine theology, as compared with the doctrinal development
of the second century, indicates in all points a progression, but
in very few particulars an actual advance. The Alexandrine
Fathers gave to Christian literature, in form as well as in scien-
tific method, a position of equal rank with other literature of the
age, and prescribed for the future the method of theological

statement. They are the first dogmaticians. But they knew no
other way of accomplishing their task than by recasting the per-
manent elements of the church's doctrine in harmony with a re-
ligious philosophy of Grecian character (cf. the judgment of
Porphyry in Eus. h. e. vi. 19. 7 f. ). What the Apologists were
compelled to do, these men willingly sought to accomplish. In
their philosophy the elements of the Christian tradition are com-
mingled in an amazing way with ideas and problems of the
heathen world. It is easy to show the wavering character of the
movement and the illogical nature of the presentation. The tra-
ditional elements are retained en masse (by Origen in detail).
But in regard to these, nothing more was required than a simple
assent, which is the proper attitude toward dogmas and a law.
Beyond this lay knowledge and understanding, /. ^., of the philo-
sophically-framed doctrine. The curious fabric thus constructed
was glorified as the wisdom of the wise not, indeed, without
;
some perception of the real nature of Christianity, such as was

in danger of vanishing from the consciousness of the unitiated
The significance of this theology for later times lay in the

fact that it preserved the traditional doctrines of the church in
a form which impressed its own generation (Trinity, divinity

and humanity of Christ, soteriological formulas, baptism and
its effect, elements in the appropriation of Christianity, resurrec-
tion). In Christology, inferences were drawn from the orthodox
THE ALEXANDRINE FATHERS. t6i
view which were genuine logical deductions (cf. Origen). On

the other hand, no little foreign material was given currency as
Christian, and the foreign elements of the preceding age were
carried to the most extreme conclusions (definition of God, con-
ception of faith, moralism and asceticism in Christian life, limi-
tation of the work of redemption to doctrine and example, defi-
nitions of sin and free-will) But it was just in this way that this
.
theology succeeded in delivering the death-blow to Gnosticism.

Whatever was influential in the latter, it also possessed, and pos-
sessed in connection with the faith of the church.
A general view of the historical development thus far traced
leads to the conviction that the Christianity of the Apostolic
Fathers was that which had characterized the church of the
second century. Everywhere we note a consciousness of the
sinner's lost condition, and the conviction that he can be saved
only through grace, through Christ, through the sacred ordinances
of the church but everywhere also the heathen moralism
;
everywhere the zealous effort to hold fast to the ideas of

primitive Christianity and surrender to the enemy not an iota of
the sacred tradition. The more objective an asserted fact, and the
more distinctly it pointed upward, the greater was the certainty
attaching to it ; the profounder its appeal downward to the heart
of the believer, the more waveringly was it received. The for-
mer became an object of contemplation ; the latter was more and
more misunderstood. To the former, assent was given only in
connection with suspicious heterogeneous material, and with a
portentous employment of heathen ideas (Logos, faith); but the
truths of the '*Rule of Faith," however perverted may have
been the relation of the individual to them, were, at least in
general outline, preserved intact against the assaults of heathenism
and a heathenized Christianity. This, together with the initial
attempts at a scholarly interpretation of these truths, constitutes
the significance of the theology developing during the present
period.^
' What has been said applies also, with some modifications, to the faith of
the common people. Cf. the discussion of Celsus, written probably not long
after themiddle of the second century, and occasional remarks of Origen e. g.^,
the sharp contrasting of the " Great Church" with the Gnostic parties (Cels.
in Orig. c. Cels. v. 6^,)', the faith in One God; the rude conception of his
Person (de pr. iv. 8 fin. ; Cels. t. Cels. iv. 71 ; vi. 61 ff. ; the unique position
assigned to the adorable Person of Christ (" your God," "they reverently
worship," Cels. in Orig. c. Cels. viii. 41, 39, 12, 14 cf. iii. 41 ; vi. 10 ; vii. 36
; :
Orig, deor. i6init. ); the hymns recognizing the divinity of Christ (Eus. h. c.
V. 28. 5 vii. 30, 10; the hymn at the close of Clement's Paedag.; Tert. \^.
;
Jud. 7 ;Mart. Polyc. 17. 2 ; Lucian's de morte Peregrin, ii. 13 ; the Roman
mock crucifix, etc.; the emphasis upon bare faith (Cels. 1. c. i. o, 12); the
epitomizing of Christianity in the declaration, "the world is crucified to me,"
II
1 62 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
CHAPTER IV.
SEPARATE DOCTRINES AND GENERAL CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY

IN THE THIRD CENTURY.
The period under review had a decisive influence upon the con-
struction of dogmatics. was then that conditions and views
It
asserted themselves in connection with the popular faith with
which dogmatic theology was compelled to deal, which it could
neither deny nor ignore. A method was inaugurated by which
it was sought to harmonize these and explain their significance.
There was now an ecclesiastical doctrine and a doctrinal church.

Heresy had come to be definitely noted. Every new develop-
ment of doctrine was so regarded. The great extension of the
church produced new perils and new practical problems. A new
outlook had been won, and new requirements must be met. The
secularization of the church, which had been already deplored in
the second century,^ was greatly accelerated in the third, and
with it there became manifest also a secularization of the relig-
ious sentiment. This explains both the general type of doctrine
prevalent and the modifications in the views concerning repent-
ance and the church, as also the strenuous opposition to all doc-
trinal differences, particularly to the attempts, reaching back into
the second century, to reconcile the divinity of Christ with the
principle of Monotheism. We begin with the latter.
1 6. Monarchianism.
Dynamistic Monarchians Hippol. Refut. vii. 35.
: Ps.-Tert. adv. omn.
haer. 23 (8). The small Labyrinth, Eus. h. e. v. 28. Epiph. h. 54.
Paul of Samosata Eus. h. e. vii. 27-30.
: Epiph, h. 65. Fragments
in RouTH, Reliq. sacr. iii. ed. 2, 300 ff. Mai, Vet. scr. nova coU. vii. 68 f.
Patripasstans Tert. adv. Prax.
: Hippol. c, Noet. Refut. ix. 6 12.
Epiph. h. 62. Eus. h. c. vi. 33. Compare Harnack, PRE. x. 178 ff.
HiLGENFELD, Ketzergesch., p. 609 ff. Thomastus, DG. i. 168 ff.
The divinity of Christ is, in the second century, a recognized

fact (cf. supra, pp. 63 f., 70, 75, 78, 113 f., 124 ff., 143, 149 f.,
etc. (Gal. 6. 4. Cels. 1. c. v. 64); grace (Cels. \. c. iii. 71, 78); the vivid,
sensuously-colored hopes of the future life \e. g.^ Orig. de pr. ii. II. 2 cf. in ;
Method, de resur. 20. Cels. 1. c, viii. 49; iv. ii; v. 14; vii. 28); the
strong faith in the power of the devil and demons, vi'ho are to be overcome by
Christian faith through the use of scriptural citations, etc. (Orig. c. Cels. i.
24, 25, 46, 67 ; ii. 8; iii. 24; v. 45 ; vii. 69; viii._37, 58, 59, 61).
^ Cf. the strictures of Irenceus upon those Christians who, for personal rea-
sons and on account of false bretiiren, sever themselves from the church
(i"^- ZZ' 7 ; 3* 3 ; iii* '^- 9 '^- 26. 2
J
cf. Eus. h. c. v. 15, with 20. i).
;
MONARCHIANISM. 1
63
161, n.). The learned attempts to define the relation of Christ to

the Father (Logos, second God J were, indeed, far from satisfac-
tory. Christ was regarded as *' a God," and his human nature
was asserted. The Logos-christology was, in the main, framed in
such a way, as to guard the unity of God. But when the Logos,
proceeding from the Father, assumes an independent existence, he
is then regarded as ** the second God," and thus Monotheism is
endangered. Monarchianism made an effort to reconcile Mono-

theism, the most precious treasure of Christianity as contrasted
with the heathen world, with the divinity of Christ without resort
'
to the expedient of the * *
second God. In this consists its histor-
'
ical significance. It reminded the church that there is only One

personal God. To this task it addressed itself, under the guid-
ance of the two-fold principle (i) making the man Jesus the
:
bearer of the divine Spirit, (2) recognizing in Christ the person

of the Father himself: ** Since they reflected that God is
one, they thought it was not possible for them to maintain this
opinion unless they should hold the belief, either that Christ was
such a man, or that he was truly God the Father " (Novatian,
de trin. 30; cf. Tert. adv. Prax. 3 '*
Therefore they charge
:
that two or three Gods are preached by us, but imagine that they
are worshipers of the one God they say, We hold a mon-
'
archy. "
' Hippol. Refut. ix. 11 Ditheists, did-eoi, Epiph. h.
:
62. 2 ; Hilar, de Trin. i. 16).

I. Dynamistic Monarchianism. The ** Alogi " are generally
treated under this heading, but improperly so. Epiphanius, in-
deed, was disposed thus to classify them (h. 54. i), but, follow-
ing the authority before him, recognizes their orthodoxy (h. 51.
4; cf. Iren. and supra, p. 108, n.).
{a) Theodotus, the Fuller, brought this doctrine to Rome

about A. D. 190: " Maintaining in part the doctrines commonly
held among those of the true church concerning the beginning
of all things, confessing that all things were made by God, he
yet holds . that Christ came into existence in some such
way as this that Jesus is, indeed, a man born of a virgin ac-
:

cording to the counsel of the Father living in common with
all men, and most pious by birth and that afterward at his bap-
;
tism in the Jordan, the Christ from above, having descended in

the form of a dove, entered into him wherefore miraculous powers
;
were not exerted by him before the Spirit, which he says is Christ,
having descended, was manifested in him. Some think that he
did not become God until the descent of the Spirit \ others,
until after his resurrection from the dead " (Hipp. Ref. vii. 35 ;
cf. Ps.-Tert. 8). Pope Victor excommunicated him (small Lab.
in Eus. v. 28. 6) .
(J?) In the time of Zephyrinus this view again
1^4 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
appeared under the leadership of Asclepiodotus and Theodotus,

the Money-changer (Eus. v. 28. 7; see also 17). Here again
it was held: "He asserts that this man Christ (springs) only
from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary " (Ps.-Tert. 8). He
was inferior to Melchizedek (see Epiph. h. 55. 8).. But this
'
bare man
'
'
was at his baptism endowed with the Spirit of God
'
(Hipp. vii. ^6). The attempt was made to prove this doctrine
exegetically, calling in the aid of textual criticism and subde
logical distinctions (Eus. v. 28. 13-18 cf., for examples, Epiph.
;
h. 54). Nevertheless, these men claimed to teach the ancient

confessional doctrine. **
For they say that all the former teach-
ers, and the apostles themselves, both received and taught these
things which they now proclaim, and that the truth of the gospel
message was preserved until the times of Victor but that
the truth was perverted by his successor, Zephyrinus " (small
Lab. in Eus. v. 28. 3 ;cf. the charge brought against them by
their orthodox opponent ** They have
: impiously slighted the
divine Scriptures and repudiated the canon of the ancient faith,
and have not known Christ," ib. 13). It is beyond question
that the claim of conformity to the teachings of the church was,
speaking generally, without foundation. The Monarchian doc-
trine is not an attempt to reproduce the original Christian view,
as is evident from a comparison of its tenets with the apostolic
portrayal of Christ as the Lord of heaven and earth (per contra,
Harnack, DG.j ed. 3, 673 f. ). The origin of this form of
Monarchianism maybe very easily traced to the Logos-idea the
Logos, or Spirit, being conceived not as a personal being, but as
a divine energy. The attempt to establish a congregation of ad-
herents to this view, although made at personal sacrifice, was not
successful (small Lab. in Eus. v. 28. 8-12). (r) After the
middle of the third century we find this view still advocated by
Artemas (or Artemon) at Rome, and he appears to have gath-
ered about him a congregation of his own (Eus. h. e. vii. 30. 17).
(d) But its most important representative is Paul of
Samosata. This imperious and worldly-minded Bishop of
Antioch (from about A. D. 260 cf. encycl. letter of Synod of
;
Antioch, in Eus. h. e. vii. 30. 7-15) taught *' Jesus Christ from
below" (xaroj^/i^, in contrast with avwêi', ib. vii. 30. 11). In
the man Jesus, born of the virgin, dwelt the divine Wisdom.
This is not a separate hypostasis, but exists in God as human^'
reason exists in man :
'
That in God is always his Logos and his
'
Spirit, as in the heart man his own reason {logos'); and that
of
the Son of God is not in a hypostasis, but is in God himself . .
But that the Logos came and dwelt in Jesus, who was a man ; and
thus, they say, God is one one God the Father, and his Son
. . .
MONARCHIANISM. 1 65
in him, as the reason (logos) in a man " (Epiph. h. 65. i). A

parallel to this is seen in the indwelling of Wisdom in the proph-
ets, except that this indwelling occurred in a unique way in
Christ as the temple of God "In order that neither might the
:
anointed of David be a stranger to Wisdom, nor Wisdom dwell

so largely in any other. For it was in the prophets, much more
in Moses ; and in many leaders, but much more in Christ as in a
temple." But also '*He who appeared was not Wisdom, for
:
he was not susceptible of being found in an outward form , .
for he is greater than the things that are seen " (fragm. disput. c.
Malchionem in Routh, Rel. sacr. iii. 301 in Leontius, ib. p.
;
311). As to the mode of this union, Paul teaches that the man
Jesus was from his birth anointed with the Holy Ghost. Be-
cause he remained immovably steadfast in this relationship and
kept himself pure, the power of working miracles became his,
born pure and righteous, he overcame the
'
and, having been '

'
'
sin of Adam. It is amoral union (in the way of learning and fel-
lowship, Routh iii. 312) in the will and in love, which here meets
us, not a merely natural one " Thou shculdst not wonder that
:
the Saviour has one will with God. For just as nature shows us a
substance becoming out of many one and the same, so the nature
of love makes one and the same will out of many through one
and the same manifested preference." (Also: " the thingsob-
tained by the natural reason have no praise, but the things
obtained by the nature of love are exceedingly praiseworthy,"
frag, in Mai, Vet. scr. nov. coll. vii. 68 f. ; cf. Athanas. c. Arian,
or. 10.)
iii. Thus Jesus in his moral development united him-
self intimately with God by the influence of the Spirit and unity
of will, thus securing the power to perform miracles and fitness
to become the Redeemer, and in addition attaining a permanent
oneness with God. ** The Saviour, born holy and righteous,
having by his struggle and sufferings overcome the sin of our pro-
genitor, succeeding in these things, was united in character (rrj
'iperf;) to God, having preser\ed one and the same aim and effort
as he for the promotion of things that are good and he, having ;
preserved this inviolate, his name is called that above every

name, the prize of love having been freely bestowed upon him "
(Mai, 1. c). Three synods were held at Antioch to consider
the matter (264-269 Eus. h. e. vii. 30. 4, 5).
; Paul at first re-
sorted to evasions and no conclusion was reached- Finally, the
presbyter Malchion vanquished him at the third synod. He did ' *
not formerly say this, that he would not grant that in the whole
Saviour was existent the only-begotten Son, begotten before the
foundation of the world" (frg. disp. adv. Paul, a Malch. hab. in
Routh iii. 302 also Pitra, Analecta sacra iii. 600 f. iv. 424. Eus.
; ;
h. e. vii. 28, 29). Thedecreeof the synod proclaimed the heresy

of Artemas and his exclusion from the fellowship of the church
(Eus. h. e. vii. 30. 16, 17).^ But Paul retained a following and
his office until, in A. D. 272, the degree of Aurelian gave the
church property to the control of the one who should be upon
terms of epistolary correspondence with the bishops of Italy and
Rome (Eus. vii. 30. 19). This was the first time that imperial
politics carried into effect a condemnatory decree of the church.^
2. Patripassian Monarchianism is the more influential and
more widely prevalent form of Monarchianism. It is this form
chiefly which gives to the system the historical significance noted
on p. 163. It is not accidental that Rome and Egypt were the
breeding places of Sabellianism and the pillars of the homousia.
The history of the separate representatives of this party is, to
some extent, obscure, and it is, therefore, difficult to keep
the peculiar tenets of each distinct in our minds. Here and
there we may trace a connection with the primitive form of the
doctrine. The prevalent term, '' Patripassians," may be traced
to TertuUian (adv. Prax.). Their fundamental idea is *' For ;
thus it is proper to state Monarchianism, saying that he who is

called Father and Son is one and the same, not one from the
other, but he from himself, called by name Father and Son ac-
cording to the figure of the times, but that this one appearing
and born of a virgin remains one confessing to those who
. . .
behold him that he is a Son and not concealing from those

.
^ The synod rejected also the Origenistic term, ofioovotoq^ according to the
opinion of Athanasius, because Paul understood it as teaching an equaUty

with the divine nature (ovain) and not with the Father, so that there would be
three natures [ovffiat) to be acknowledged (de synodis 45 ff. ), or because
Paul himself expressed the relation of the impersonal Logos to the Father by
this term (thus Plilar. de synod. 81, 86).
^ In Pseudo-Cyprian, De montibus Sina et Sion^ the fourth chapter (0pp.
Cypr. ed. Hartel iii. 108) is by no means (as Harnack, DG., i. 676 holds) to
be understood as presenting a Monarchian Christology. For when it is there
said '* the Lord's flesh from God the Father is called Jesus
: the Holy Spirit
;
who descended from heaven is called Christ," this is but phraseology such as
we find, c. g., in Hermas, Sim. ix. i. i ; Arist. Apol. 2. 6; Cyprian, quod
idola dii non sint II ("the Holy Spirit assumes flesh ; God is mingled with
man"); Lactant. Instit. iv. 6. I ; 12. I Tertul. adv. Prax, 8, 26; Hippol.
;
c. Noet. 4, 16; Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. vi. 69, 72, 73, 78, 79 Apollinar. in
;
Greg. Nyss. Antirrh. 12. See my remarks upon Arist. 2. 6. The case is dif-
ferent with the Christology of the Ac â dispiiiatiQnis Archelai et Manetis (ab.
A. D. 300, in Roîth, Reliq. sacr. v. ed. 2, 38-205). Here, u. 50, the Monar-
chian Christology really appears *' For he who was born the son of Mary, who
:
resolved to undertake the whole conflict because it is great, is Jesus. This is

the Christ of God who descended upon him who is sprung from Mary." But
the author has at once brought this idea into connection with the teaching of
the church : " For God alone is his Father by nature^ who has deigned to
manifest all things to us speedily by his Word^^ (c. 33).
MON ARCHIANISM. 1 6 7
who approach him that he is the Father" (Hipp. Ref.

ix. 10).
(a) Praxeas, a martyr of Asia Minor, came with Victor to
Rome, and gained an influence over this foe of Dynamistic
Monarchianism by means of his Christology as well as by his anti-
montanistic tendencies. His doctrine found acceptance also
in Africa (Tert.c. Prax. i). He taught: ^' After that time
the Father was born and the Father suffered. Jesus Christ is
proclaimed as the Father born, the Father suffering, God
himself, the omnipotent Lord" (Tert. adv. Prax. 2 init. ).
Father and Son are therefore the same person(ib. 5 init.). In
support of this the Scriptures were appealed to, particularly Isa.
45. 5; Jn. X. 30; xiv. 9, 10 (ib. 18, 20). It reveals a lean-
ing toward the orthodox view, employing the term. Son of God,
in the Biblical sense but at the same time an inclination

toward Dynamistic Monarchianism when distinction is, after
'* And in like man-
all, made between the Father and the Son :
ner in the one person they distinguish the two. Father and Son,
saying that the Son is the flesh, i. e., the man /. e. Jesus
; but, j
that the Father is the Spirit, e.^ God, i. e.^ Christ" (ib. 27).
/'.
In this way they avoided the assertion that the Father suffered
('^ Thus the Son indeed suffers {patitur), but the Father suffers
with him" (^compatttur) ib. 29; cf. Hipp. Ref. ix. 12).
;
{l)) NoETUS of Smyrna and the adherents of his theory,

Epigonus and Cleomenes, found again at Rome in the beginning
of the third century an influential centre for the dissemination of
their views (Hipp. Ref. i. 7), which were the same as those of
Praxeas :
'* That when the Father had not yet been born, he was
rightly called the Father but when it had pleased him to sub-
;
mit to birth, having been born, he became the Son, he of him-

self and not of another" (Hipp. Ref. ix. 10). ** He said that
Christ is himself the Father, and that the Father himself was
born and suffered and died" (Hipp. c. Noet. i). Thus the
Father also called himself to life again (ib. 3). The Scriptures
require us to believe this. Thus the Son is glorified (ib. i) and
thus salvation made possible '* For Christ was God and suffered
:
for us, being the Father himself, in order that he might be able
also to save us " (ib. 2). It was a religiously-inspired interest
in the full divinity of Christ which led these men to insist upon their
theory, and accounts for their wide influence.
this They wished
to maintain that Christ was God, and yet not waver in the asser-
tion of the unity of God as confessed in the church's creed :
** For some simple persons (not to say inconsiderate and ignor-
ant, as is always the majority of believers) since the rule of faith

itself leads us from the many gods of the world to the one and
'
i68 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
true God (cf. p. 85, n.), not understanding that he is to be be-

lieved as being one but with his own economy {uix(tvo/j.ia)j are
terrified at this economy. They think that the number and order
of the Trinity implies a division of the unity*' (Tert. adv.
Prax. 3 init. ).
(<f) The final form of this doctrine appears in Sabellius of Pen-
tapolis (?) at Rome (under Zephyrinus and CaUistus). Father,

Son, and Spirit are only different designations of the same per-
son, corresponding to the degree and form of his revelation.
God in his nature, the Father of the Son (uiondrwp, Athan.
is,
Expos, fid. 2): *' He himself is the Father; he himself is the

Son he himself is the Holy Spirit as I say that there are
;
three names one object (hypostasis), either as in man, body

in
and soul and spirit or as, if it be in the sun, being in one
. .
object (I say) that there are three, having the energies of light-
giving and heat and the form of roundness " (Epiph. h. 62. i ;
also Athanas. Grig. c. Arian. iii. ^6; iv. 2, 3, 9, 13, 25, 17).
Cf. Zahn, Marcel, v. anc. 198-216.
((f) The Patripassian Christology had its adherents in the
West as well as in the East. In Rome, the bishops Victor
(Ps.-Tert. adv. omn. haer. 8 '*
after all these a certain Praxeas
:
introduced a heresy, which Victorinus sought to corroborate "),

Zephyrinus (Hipp. Ref. ix. 7, 11), and Callistus (ib. ix. 11,
12) adopted it, with the assent of a large part of the local
church. Hippolytus and his following, who opposed it, were
charged with Ditheism. Callistus, indeed, as bishop, upon
grounds of ecclesiastical prudence, denied his agreement with
Sabellius but he felt himself compelled, for the sake of consist-
;
ency, to advocate a somewhat modified Monarchianistic Christ-

ology. Father, Son, and Spirit are, of course, ''one and the
same," and the Spirit who became incarnate in the Virgin is
identical with the Father, but the flesh of Jesus is to be designated
as " the Son " " For that which is seen, which is the man, this
:
'
is the Son j but the Spirit dwelling in the Son, this is the Father.
Therefore we should not, indeed, speak of a suffering by the

Father, but '' the Father suffered with ((jopTLenovMvat) the Son
"
(Hipp. Ref. ix. 12, p. 458). But this is simply the doctrine of
Praxeas (see p. 167) used by Callistus as a formula of compro-
mise.^
^ A representative of this Christology in the Eastmay yet be mentioned,

Beryl of Bostra. As we have only one sentence of Eusebius setting
forthhis view, it is difficult to form a clear idea of it. *' Beryl ... at-
tempted to introduce certain new articles of faith, daring to say that our Saviour
and Lord did not pre-exi^t according to his own form of being before his coming
among men, and that he did not ])ossess a divinity of his own, but only that of
:
ANTE-NICENE CHRISTOLOGY. 169
17. Ante-Nicene Christology.
(a) But Monarchianism, even in the form last noted, failed in

the East also to secure general acceptance. It meets us in the
third century only in quite isolated cases (Commodian, Carmen
^' Neither was he called Father until he had become
apol.278 :
Son," 618, 94, iioff., 198, 358, 772, 257, ^6s f., 634; but
see also 340). Cyprian classed the Patripassians with the Val-
entinians and Marcionites, and designated them as '* pests and
swords, and poisons for the perverting of the truth " (Ep. 73.4).
That even in Rome the Tertullian view was triumphant as early
as A. D. 250 is manifest from the tract of Novatian, De trinitate
Christ is the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God, pre-
existent and manifesting himself already under the old covenant,
one with the Father by virtue of a communion of substance
the Father committed to him" (h. e. vi. '^^. i). Origen vanquished him at a
synod at Bostra about A. D. 244. The synod took occasion, in refuting him,
to lay emphasis upon the human soul of Jesus (Socrates h. e. iii. 7)- Ac-
cording to this, Beryl (l) knew nothing of a personal divinity of his own in-
hering in Jesus ; his divinity was that of the Father. (2) He taught that
Christ became a separate personality only through his incarnation. (3)
He does not appear to have been led to this conclusion by the study of the
inner human life of Jesus during his incarnation (?). (4) He is not charged
with teaching, as did the Dynamistic Monarchians, that Jesus was a "bare
man." He, therefore, probably approximated the position of the SabeUians,
that it was not until the incarnation that God assumed the special mode of exist-
ence as Son (cf. sub, Marcellus of Ancyra).
Of the Libyan SabeUians we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. It may
be well at this point to call attention to the fact that the "Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs" were, during this period, interpolated by a Patripassian
writer. See Sim. 6. Levi 4 (Trdiôf rov v\\)icTov)\ Cf. Zabul 9. Aser. 7. Benj.
9. Napht. 8). It is with mingled feelings that we turn from the acute attempts
of the Monarchian theologians. They do not satisfy us, but their statement
of the problem attracts and holds us. They endeavored to understand the
divine-human nature of Christ from the point of view of his historical appear-
ance without regard to the prevalent formulas. They did not, indeed, attain
their object, for their theory does not give due prominence to the scriptural
idea of redemption, nor does it make it possible to understand the historical sig-
nificance of the person and words of Jesus. But, on the other hand, we must
give them credit for certain profound intuitions which their contemporaries did
not understand, and, under the prevalent system of theology, could not com-
prehend. Of these the most important were ( i ) The strong emphasis laid
:
upon the personal unity of God and the attempt to reconcile it with the divinity
of Christ. The Sabellian position may have been at this point not without
significance for Athanasius. (2) The attempt to establish the divine-human
nature of Christ, not from the point of view of the two natures, but from that
of the personal life, and thus of the will (especially Paul of Samosata). At
this point the Antiochians joined them, but in such a way that they, by the or-
thodox coloring of their teaching, only enforced the chief weakness of the Mon-
archians the impossibility involved in their conception of the appearance of
Jesus in the flesh.
lyo HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
{^commitnio substantiae^ c. 31). He received his human bodily

substance from Mary. He is ''joined together from both, woven
and grown together from both " iêxutroque connexus, ex utroque
co7itexius atque concj'etits^ c. 24). Monarchianism is energetically
rejected (c. 12, 26, 27, 28, 30). He lays great stress upon the
fact that Christ is not the Father, nor yet a mere man (c. 30).
He is the Son of God, who has united with himself the '* sub-
stance of flesh " {^^ as it were betrothed^ sponsus, to the flesh ").
The bodily human nature constitutes his humanity (c. 21, 25).
At this point he falls short of the positions of Irenseus and Ter-
tullian (supra, pp. 124, 126).
The occasional references to the person and work of Christ in
the other Latin writers previous to A. D. 325 reveal no dogmatic
interest in the doctrine and do not in any way modify the state-
ment of it. It is a settled matter that Christ is God (Arnobius
adv. nationes, i.
53, 39, 42; ii. 11, 60: ''Christ, or, if you
object, God I say the God Christ
for this must be often said,
in order that the ears of infidels may burst and be destroyed."
Cyprian ep. 63. 14 "our Lord and God"), although this is
:
taught in a way that savors strongly of Subordination, as, e. g.j

when Lactantius declares, that God begat his energy {virtus),
reason {ratio), speech (^ser7?io) (cf. Cypr. ep. 73. 18 "God, :
the Creator of Christ"), and through this created the world :
*
finally, of all the angels whom this God formed from his spirits,
'
he alone has been admitted to a partnership in supreme power,

he alone is called God '
(Epit. 36 [42] 3. Instit. iv. 6.2; 8.

'
,
7 14 [20]
;
" On this account, because he was so faithful
: . . .
that he fulfilled the commands of him who sent him ... he

also received the name of God; " cf. Cyprian, quod idola dii
non sint 1 1). The incarnation is the assuming of human flesh.
But this was necessary in order that he might be a mediator be-
tween God and man (Cypr. ib. 11), and in order that he might
labor among men by word and example (Arnob. i. 62. Lactant.
Epit. 38 [43], 8 "Therefore the supreme Father commanded
:
him to descend to earth and assume a human body, in order that,

being subject to the sufferings of the flesh, he might teach virtue
and patience, not only by words but also by deeds." Just. iv.
12.15).
^y virtue of his duplex origin according to the Spirit
from God, according to the flesh from the Virgin Mary he is Son
of God and of man (Lact. Epit. 38. 2. Instit. iv. 13. 6 "he :
was both God and man, compounded of both genera," ex

utroque genera per mixtu77i). Such are the essential ideas of this
Christology. It is a reiteration of the faith professed in the bap-
tismal confession, attempting, without great exertion, to in some
measure justify the latter. But that the ideas of Tertullian were
ANTE-NICENE CHRISTOLOGY. I 7 ^^
not without influence upon the Latin theologians is clearly seen

in Novatian.
2. What TertuUian was for the Christology of the West, that
ft'as Origen for the East. His views upon the subject form the
âsis of thetheories of the Greek theologians. Thus Pierius
(Photius, Cod. 119), Theognostus (Athanas. de decret. syn.
Nic. 25, ad Serapion. ep. iv. 9, iij, Gregory Thaumatur-
Gus '*
One Lord, one of one, God of God, the impress and
:
image of the Godhead, the effective Word neither, there-

. .
fore, any created thing, nor a servant in the Trinity, nor brought
in from without as though not having existed before but coming
in afterward " (Conf. of faith in Caspari, Alte u. Neue Quellen,
etc., p. 10). On the other hand, he also designates the Logos
as created {-/.xiaixa) and formed {jzui-qiux) (Basil, ep. 210. 5).
But his great earnestness in maintaining the divinity of Christ is
attested by his discussions of '* the susceptibility and unsuscepti-
bihty of God to suffering*' (see Rvssel, Greg. Thaum., p.
73 ff.;, leading to the conclusion that the *'divinity did, in-
deed, suffer, but in an immortal and incapable-of-pain way, with-
out experiencing pain " (c. 13 ff. 8 ff. ).
Much light is thrown upon the views of the age by the mutual
explanations of Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of
Rome (about A. D. 260).
Compare Athanasius, Desententla Dionysii and De decret. Syn. Nic. 25,
26 ; De Synodis44
(fragments from Dionysius of Alex., Ep. ad Euphranorum
at Ammonium, as also from the Elenchus tt apol., in 4 books, and from the
correspondence of Dionysius of Rome); se tiiso DiTTRlCH, Dionys. d. Gr.,
1867, p. 91 fi".
Thedoctrine of Sabellius had found veiy many adherents in the

Libyan Pentapolis, even among the bishops (Ath. sent. Dion. 5).
Dionysius felt himself, in consequence, impelled to make a literary
demonstration against Sabellianism. He started with ideas of his
master, Origen, and laid especial emphasis, in view of the nature of
the doctrine which he was combating, upon the Subordinationist
elements which he here found. He accordingly gave special prom-
inence to the personal difference between the Father and the Son,
and this seems to have been done also in the scliool of catechists
at Alexandria fAthan. de deer. syn. Nic. 26). The Son is a
creation of the Father, which has a different nature from
the Father, somewhat as the vine differs from the husband-
man, the ship from its builder, or children from their parents
(''as a thing made was not existent before it was made,"
de sent. Dion. 4, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21). It was orthodox Alexan-
drine Christians who regarded this teaching with suspicion and
brought complaint against their bishop before Dionysius of
Rome (sent. Dion. 13). They accused the Alexandrine bishop

of teaching that *' he was not the Son before he was born, but
there Avas a time when he was not, for he is not eternal " {sent.
Dion. 14); and, further, that "when Dionysius says Father he
does not name the Son and, again, when he says Son he does
;
not name the Father, but discriminates and puts apart, and
divides the Son from the Father " (ib. 16); and " as saying that
the Son is one of those who are born {rcuv ^cvvjrwv) and not of
the same substance (o/xouLxrtu^) with the Father " (ib. 18; de
decret. syn. Nic. 25). These charges were, no doubt, well
founded.^ They prove beyond question that the eternal existence
of the Son (the eternal generation), as well as the oiiotn'jtno^, was
already firmly established in the consciousness of intelligent Chris-
tians, since they followed in the footsteps of Origen.
It is interesting in this connection to observe the nature of the
teaching of the Roman Dionysius. He rejects the view of cer-
tain Alexandrine teachers which destroys the monarchy (/7.nva^;/V/j^
and substitutes for it '* three powers " (''iu>aiit^')^ and in the last
analysis " three gods " (as Marcion). He opposes the designa-
tion of the Son as a created being (-oi'T^/ir/), as also the ascrip-
tion to him of a temporal beginning. On the contrary, Ave
must, according to the Scriptures, connect the Son and the Spirit
very closely with the Father ''I say now that it is fully necessary
:
that the divine Trinity be brought together and summed up in one,

as in a sort of consummation, the one God, the almighty Ruler of
all things." Therefore the divine Unit (/kwa'?) dare not be split
up into three gods, but we must believe *' in God the Father Al-
:
mighty, and in Christ Jesus his Son, and in the Holy Ghost " but
the declaration must be unified (^rjvcu(7iâc) in the God of all things.
For thus the divine Trinity and the holy message of the Monarchy
would be preserved (de deer. syn. Nic. 26). Regarded theo-
logically, this discussion is non-committal (e, ^., the r^vcofn'âc);
but it proves that the Roman bishop was in a position to approve
and sanction the Origenistic formulas of the accusers of his Alex-
andrine colleague,^ and that he was, on the other hand, accus-
tomed to expound the baptismal formula in such a way as to give
due prominence to the unity of God (cf. Tertullian, Novatian,
and even Sabellius). The course of Dionysius is typical of the
attitude of the Romish church in the Christological controver-
' That the Alexandrian bishop did not, as Athanasius suggests in his de-
fense ((?. ^., de deer. syn. Nic. 25sent. Dion. 21), think of the '* economy
;
(o'lKovofica) of the Saviour according to the flesh," is sufficiently evident from

the situation. Cf. also Basil, ep. 9. 2.
2 He appears (according to sent. Dion. 18, de decret. syn. Nic.
25) even to
have laid emphasis upon the ofioovGLot;,

ANTE-NICENE CHRISTOLOGY. I
73
sies ( ) The creed is regarded as a fixed quantity, and as ex-

:
i
pressing everything necessary upon all points, and hence upon the
details of Christological statement. (2) TertuUian's apparatus
of formulas is considered as helpful. (3) The subject itself is
discussed aslittle as possible, as the final conclusion is supposed
to have been reached.
It is particularly worthy of note how quickly Dionysius of
Alexandria found his way back to the doctrine of Origen. The
charges of his opponents appeared to him in reality as a mon-
strous misunderstanding. Influenced, indeed, by the opposition
encountered, he had hitherto revealed only the half of his Ori-
genistic soul. He does not deny that there was a certain one-
sidedness in his earlier expositions, and that his figures of speech
were inappropriate. There are not wanting attempts to help
himself by strained interpretations of his former statements.
But, beyond this, he expresses entire accord with his opponents :
'* For there

was no time when God was not the P'ather. Since
Christ was the Logos and Wisdom and Power he always existed
being always the reflection of the eternal light, he himself also
is eternal. The Son always being with the Father" (sent.
Dion. 15). It is false that he denies the uiJ-oti'xno^, although, in-
*' For as I
deed, the expression is not biblical (ib. 18, 26). do
not think that the Logos is a creation, I also do not say that God
is his Creator, but his Father " (21).
*
We expand the Monity
'
undivided into the Trinity, and again combine the Trinity undi-
minished into the Monity " (ib. 17).
Almost more instructive than the controversy itself is the
readiness with which the opposing parties come to agreement.
The Roman bishop agrees with the Alexandrine plaintiffs, and
the bishop of Alexandria at once finds his way back to the stand-
point of his opponents. A certain uniformity is beginning to
appear in the views entertained of the person of Christ and its
relation to the Father.
3. A
glance must yet be given to the Christology of Methodius
OF Olympus (f A. D. 311. 0pp. ed. Jahn, 1S65, in Migne
Gr. 18; BoNWETSCH, Meth. v. 01. vol. i. Writings, 1S91).
Christ is the Son of God '^ through whom all things became
'^
(urchin, 7. 3), since he is the executive hand of the Father ((le

creatis 9, in Bonw., p. 343 f. ), who stands beside the Father
and the Spirit (who embraces in himself the knowledge of the
Father and the Son), and of whom believers lay hold (conv.
dec. virg. viii. 11, 9, 10 ; v. 2 ; iii. 8 ; cf de resur. iii. 23. 8,
12 ] leprosy, 11, 4 ; distinction of meats, etc., 12. 3 f. ). He
is the '^ pre-temporal Word" (leprosy, it. 4; de resur. ii.
24. 5 ; cf. conv. vii. 4 ; viii. 9 ; pre-existing already before
the worlds), the first sprout (^SXaarrîia^ conv. iii. 4), the *ônly-
born Son " (de resur. iii. 23. 6J, who is, however, -' the begin-
ning after his own unbegun beginning" (de creatis 11), the
first of the archangels (the oldest of the aeons and the first of
the archangels, conv. iii. 4 cf. urchin, 7. 3), the shepherd

;
and leader of the angels (conv. iii. 6), who spoke to the prophets
under the old covenant (ib. 6), greater than all except
vii.
the Father (conv. vii. i). Prayers are addressed to him (de
resur. 11; conv. 11. 2).
iii. 23. According to the will of the
Father he '' truly " assumed the ^^ unsuffering " yet '*much suf-
fering body" (cf. '* he imitated the poor/' vom Leben undvern.
Handl. 6. 2), and truly died (de resur. ii. 18. 8 iii. 23. 4). ;
*^ For this is Christ

a man filled with unadulterated and com-
plete divinity, and God contained in man " (conv. iii. 4). But
the Logos dwelt in Adam as well as in Jesus (ib.: but this same
became Christ and this one [Adam]; cf. 8). The Lord had
also the same '* actual " body, consisting of the same substance,
iii. 7. 12;
in his glorification (resur. i2.3ff. ). ThisChristology,
imperfect as it is, represents the average faith of the age the :
pre-temporal Son of God, conceived of in a Subordinationistic

way, became a. real man.
These are illy-defined ideas, falling considerably short of the
position of Athanasius, also of Origen. and
But it required
only a concrete occasion
as shown by the controversy of the

two Dionysius's to produce a more definite and fixed formula-
tion.*
18. Ordinance of Repentance and Advance in Conception of

the Church.
The church is the general body of men who believe the

I.
truth. The further development of the doctrine concerning the

church by Irenasus and TertuUian started with this idea. The
We may
1 here notice briefly the Syrian, Aphraates (A. D. 337-345),
who was in time post-Nicene, but in principles ante-Nicene (Wright, the
homilies of Aphr., Lond., 1869, translated into German by Bert in Texte u.
Unters. iii. 3, 4 we cite from the latter). Of Christ, it is said, *' that he is
;
Son of God, and that he is God, who came from God" (xvii. 2, p. 280),
" and that through him we know his Father" ( 6, p. 285). To the Jews it
"
is pointed out that they have no occasion to regard this as anything *' unusual
(5), since the Old Testament also calls men gods and sons of God {\ 3).
But the meaning here is not that Jesus was only a sort of prophet, etc. He
" came from God," i. <:., the Father separated him from his own nature [ovuia)
and sent him to men (xxiii. p. 402 also vi. 9, p. 102). It was a special act
;
that he assumed a human body (ib. p. 378 f. ), being born '*of the Virgin
Mary " and "of the Holy Spirit" (p. 388). Gabriel foo/e the Word from on
high and came., and the Word became flesh and dzvelt af7iofig us. He is, there-
fore, God by nature, ** the first-born of all creatures" (xvii. 8 fin., p. 289),
REPENTANCE AND THE CHURCH. 175
bishops are the bearers of the truth. The Catholic church is

the church of pure doctrines, guaranteed and represented by
the bishops. But the church is also the holy people of God.
The recognition of this truth led to consequences of historical
importance. There were three possible interpretations of the
holiness of the church, each of which found its advocates (i) :
Every separate individual is holy (Novatian). (2) The bishops

are holy (Cyprian). (3) The sacraments and ordinances of the
church are holy (Rome).
2. Hermas had, in his day, in accordance with a special reve-
lation (p. 61 f. ), proclaimed the possibility of a ** second repent-
ance.
'
The church didnot lose sight of this idea, and it is almost

'
certain that it was through the authority of this publication that

the idea of the ^second repentance " secured such general ac-
*
ceptance (cf. Tertul. de pud. 10, 20). The resulting praxis was
at about the close of the second century the following A dis-
:
crimination was made between *' sins of daily occurrence " (as
anger, smiting, cursing, swearing, lies) and "sins more serious
and destructive," "mortal" (i Jn. v. 16), "capital" and
" irremediable " (homicide, idolatry, fraud, denial or false testi-
mony, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, " and if there be any
other violation of the temple of God," Tert. de pud. 19 ; c.
Marc. iv. 9). Sins of the firtt class might find at once forgive-
ness through the mediation of Christ, through prayer, good
works and intercession, since the sinner by these means offered
to the offended God sufficient satisfaction (see p. 133); but sins
of the second group require an exclusion from the congregation
of the "saints" (see Tert. de pud. 19). There was, however,
a difference in the praxis of the church in regard to transgressors of
the second class. To the greater number of these it granted the
"second repentance," but only (Tert de poenit. 7, 12) upon
condition that they felt bitter regret, manifesting this by their out-
ward deportment, requested intercession in their behalf, and made
the required confession {exomologesis') in the presence of the as-
sembled congregation The church granted this privilege through
.
her presbyters and confessors (Tert. de poenit. 9, 12, 22 ; Apol.

39). Thus is suitable satisfaction made to God ( " let him repent
from the heart, " if.r (^?z/w(9 .
" confession of sins," t'?/7/^jj"/^y^-
. .
lictorum . "confessionis the method of satisfaction," j-a/?*j/(7f-

. .
tionis consilium, poen. 8 fin.). These are the elements of the

Romish sacrament of penance. The worship of idols, murder, for-
"light of light" (ib. 2, the only Nicene turn in Aphraates). Trinitarian for-
mulas are found, ^.^., xxiii., pp. 411, 412 cf. i. 15. These are ideas that fit
;
easily into the line of thought traced in the present section. For the somewhat
earlier ** Acta Archelai," see p. 166.
I7f> HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
nication, and adultery were absolutely excluded from this second

repentance (Tert. pud. 5, 12, 22 cf. Orig. de orat. 28 fin.).
;
Practically, the discussion centered about two offenses in times of :
peace, especially fornication ; in times of persecution, denial of

the faith and apostasy. The conflicts of the future naturally raged
about these two centres. The opinions entertained concerning
this '^second repentance" were still for a time, indeed, quite
fluctuating. Not to speak of the Montanists, Tertullian, even
before joining their ranks, had only reluctantly accepted the
theory (**Iam afraid of the second, I should rather say, last
hope," poen. 7). But others found fault with the strictness of
the treatment (poen. 5, 10), and even thought that open sinners
might be tolerated in the church, as the ark, which typifies the
church, held unclean animals (Tert. de idololatr. 24 fin. cf. ;
remarks of Dionysius of Corinth in Eus. h. e. iv. 23. 6).

3. Such was about the situation when CALLiSTUSof Rome (217-
222), by the publication of a new penitential order, introduced
a change of momentous import in the praxis of repentance, and
thus also in the conception of the church.
Literature. Hipp. Ref. ix. 12, p. 458 f. Terl. de pudic; cf. Harnack,
Ztschr. Theol. u. K., 1891, p. 114 ff.
f. Preuschen, Tert. Schriften de
paenit; et de pud. Giess. Diss. 1890. Rolffs, Das Indulgenzedikt des rom.
Bischof Callist, in Text. u. Unters. xi. 3.^
Callistus was the first to allow the second repentance in the

case of fornication: '*He first contrived to connive with men
in matters pertaining to their lusts, saying that sins were forgiven
to all men by him " (Hipp. ),/. ^., he declared *' I remitby peni-
:
tence to those who have committed them also sins of adultery and
fornication" (Tert. i). But this applied, as TertuUian's
polemics prove, only to sins of the flesh, and made provision for
but one second repentance. In justification of this innovation,
Callistus (or his adherents) presented a number of biblical argu-
ments, e. g.: '* God is merciful, and does not desire the death of
the sinner," etc. (Ez. xxxiii. 11. Tert. ii. init.); it is not for
us to judge our brethren (Rom. xiv. 4, ib. ); the parables of the
prodigal son and the lost sheep (7 f. ); Christ's treatment of the
woman taken in adultery (11); Paul's manner of dealing with
such (2 Cor. ii. 5 ff. c. 13), etc. The aim of repentance is
forgiveness (3); i^Hio^'^r^ {^communicatio') maybe withdrawn
1 The following analysis proceeds upon the supposition that the bishop
whom Tertullian attacks in his De pudicitia was Callistus, and that we may,
accordingly, from the work of Tertullian, fill out the portraiture given in Hippol.
Ref. ix. 12. This was first done by Rossi, Bulletino archeol. christ., 1866,
p. 26. Extracts from the Edict of Callistus reveal the hand of Tertullian.
RoLFFS attempted a reconstruction.

REPENTANCE AND THE CHURCH. 177
from the sinning, but only for the present {âd pre sens). If he
repent, let it be granted him again according to the mercy of
God (i8). If the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin (i Jn.
i, 7, c. 19), then it is also perfectly scriptural for Callistus to
grant pardon to fornicators. The church has the authority to do
this (*' but the church has, I say, the power of pardoning sins,"
c. 21); particularly the bishops. ''And, therefore, the church
will indeed pardon sins, but the church as a spirit {êcclesia
spirifus) through a spiritual man, not the church as a number of
bishops" (c. 21). Callistus hereappeals to Matt. xvi. i8 (ib.),
and appears to have attributed to himself, as the successor of Peter,
peculiar authority (cf. the form of address, apostolicCy c. 21, and
the \\\\^'a, pontifex viaximus, episcopus episcoporum, c. i). A
similar authority is also ascribed to the confessors (22).
The forgiveness of sins is thus practically given into the hand
of the bishop, who exercises it as a divine right. His own moral
character is not taken into consideration. He is not subject to
removal *':If a bishop should commit some sin, even a mortal
one, it is not permitted to remove him" (Hipp. ix. 12). If the
bishop tolerates sinners in the church, no objection can be made.
He must allow the tares to stand among the wheat, and the ark
contained many kinds of animals (Hipp. ix. 12, p. 460 ; Tert.
de idol. 24).
The innovation of Callistus was certainly in harmony with the
spirit of the age. Many of his deliverances have an evangelical
sound. But that such is not really their character is evident from

subsequent developments from the fact that he did not advance
a single new idea looking to the awakening of penitence, but
only changed the praxis in regard to fornication upon practical
grounds, and, above all, from his conception of the church, which
gave direction to all his thought. Callistus was evangelical

and even liberal because he was the first conscious hierarch.^
Henceforth the church is no longer the holy people of God,
holding in common the faith of the apostles, i. e., the faith of the
bishops ; but it is an association of men, subject to the control
of the bishop, whom he tolerates in the church, and this by virtue
of the divine authority which has been given him to pardon or re-
tain sins. He whom the bishop recognizes belongs to the church.
The bishop is lord over the faith and life of the Christian world by
virtue of an absolute supremacy divinely bestowed upon him.
'
Hipp. ix. 12 fin.: "Callistus.
. whose school remains, guarding morais
.
and the tradition." Perhaps these were watchwords among the Callistians.
They sought to evangelize morals upon the basis of the misinterpreted
tradition.
12
lyS HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
Callistus was the author of the Roman Catholic conception of

the church.
4. The
penitential praxis introduced by Callistus had become
universalby about A. D. 250 (e.g., Cypr. ep. 55. 20; 4. 4),
although there were still lingering recollections of opposition to
it (Cypr. ep. 55. 21). The circumstances of the congregations
during the Decian persecution produced a further and logically
consistent (cf. Tert. de pud. 22) step in advance. Even to such
as had denied the Christian faith must now be extended the op-
portunity of return to the church. It was chiefly Cyprian (f
A. D. 258) who justified this step, and, in doing so, developed
more fully the Catholic conception of the church.
Vid. collection of Cyprian's letters, his De /apsis and De catholicae ecchsiae

unitate (Cypr. Opp. oran. ed. Hartel, 1868), and the letter of Cornelius of
Rome to Fabius of Antioch, in Eus. h. c. vi. 43. Dionysius of Alexandria to
Novatian, ib. vi.
45. Ambrose, de poen. 11. 2. Compare Rettberg, Cypri-
anus, 1831. Peters, Der heil. Cypr. v. Karthago, 1877. Fechtrup, Der
heil. Cypr. vol. i., 1878. O. Ritschl, Cypr. v. K, u. die Verfassung der
Kirche, 1885. Goetz, Die Busslehre Cyprians, 1895. K. Miller, Ztschr. f.
KG., 1896, I ff., 187 ff. Harnack, pre. viii. 417 ff.; x. 652 ff.
During the Decian persecution it became evident that it would

be impossible, in view of the number of backsliders {lapsi), to
maintain the ancient praxis, i. e., to exclude all such from the
communion of the church (the eucharist, Cypr. ep. 57. 2), and
to refuse to allow them to receive the benediction {pax) with the
congregation. Those who had fallen applied to their ** confes-
sors " for letters of recommendation (Hbeliz), which were freely
granted (Cypr. ep. 20. 2; cf. 22. 2; 27. i). Although these
were primarily intended only as letters of recommendation (ep.
15. I 16. 3
; 18. I 19. 2
; ; 22.2 fin.; cf. 1,6. 2), this recom-
;
mendation (cf the more ancient praxis, Tert. de pud. 22, and
Dionys. of Alex, in Eus. h. e. vi. 42. 5 f. 'ep. eccl. Lugd. in
;
Eus. h. e. v. T. 45, 46 ; 2. 6, 7) soon came to have the force of

a command (see the letter of the confessor Lucian to Cyprian,
ep. 23; cf. 21. 3). Cyprian did not dispute the right of the
confessors, but he thought that an assembly of the bishops should
first consider the matter and lay down the principles to govern

such cases before any action was taken particularly in the midst
of the distractions caused by the persecution (ep. 19. 2 20. 3 ; ;
20, cf. 31. 6). This was also the position of the church at
Rome (ep. 30. 3, 5, 6 21. 3 36. 3). Meanwhile some pres-
; ;
byters at Carthage, during the absence of their bishop, Cyprian,

admitted certain of the lapsed to the communion upon the basis
of their libelli, without previous public confession (ep. 15. i ;
16. 2, 3; 17. 2; 20. 2), and in some cities the mass of the
REPENTANCE AND THE CHURCH. I 79
people {multitudo), relying upon the testimonials of the martyrs

and confessors, compelled the bishops to pronounce the benedic-
tion upon them (ep. 27. 3). In contrast with those who, with
the testimonial of the confessors in their hands, believed them-
selves authorized to demand the benediction, stood others, who
declared their purpose to repent and to await the bishop's
declaration (ep. 33. i, 2; 35, cf. 36. i). Cyprian instructed
that the presbyters who would not submit to the episcopal deci-
sion should be excluded from fellowship {^communication ep. 34. 3;
cf. 42). Thus the episcopal authority on the one hand, and on the
other the pastoral office of the presbyters and the prerogative of the
confessors, stand arrayed in opposition (cf. 16. i). It is not in
reality a discord in the praxis of repentance which here conies
to view, but a discord between the bishop and the presbyters.
As a result, an opposition party was formed under the leadership
of five presbyters and a certain Felicissimus (ep. 41. 2).) If
the latter was the '^standard-bearer of sedition," the presbyter,
NovATUs, was the soul of the insurrection, " a torch and fire for
kindling the flames of sedition " (52. 2 ) . Fortunatus became
the bishop of this party (59. 9). Their motto was, *'to restore
and recall the lapsed" (43. 5), and they were opposed to an
episcopal decision in the matter and to a more prolonged probation
for penitence (43. 2). In accordance with the ancient privi-
lege of confessors, they admitted at once to fellowship those who
were recommended by the latter.
About the same time a schism arose also in Rome, occasioned
by an election for bishop (ep. 44. i. Euseb. h. e. vi. 43), in
which Cornelius and Novatian (about A. D. 251) were the
candidates. Novatian, otherwise an orthodox man, established
a party in opposition to Cornelius by retaining the ancient praxis
in relation to the lapsed. He sought to build up a congregation
of the pure {-/.afhxpot^ Eus. h. e. vi. 43. i), since the idolatrous
worship of some contaminates the remaining members of the
church :
** They say that one is corrupted by the sin of another,
and in their zeal contend that the idolatry of an offender passes

over to the non-offending" (Cypr. ep. 55. 27). He proposes
to have a congregation of actually holy men. Hence he has
those who come to him from the church at large re-baptized
(Cypr. ep. 73. 2; Dionys. of Alex, in Eus. h. e. vii. 8;
Ambros. de poenit. i, 7. 30). His adherents were compelled at
the reception of the Lord's Supper to bind themselves by oath
to adhere to his church (Cornel, in Eus, h. e. vi. 43, 18).
There should thus be established a congregation of saints, such
as Montanism had endeavored to form. But to what an extent
church politics and personal motives were involved on both sides
is manifest from the league formed by Novatian after his *' con-
fessors " had forsaken him (Cornel, to Cypr. ep. 49. i, 3; cf,
53, 54) with Novatus (see ep. 47. 50). Novatian appointed
opposition-bishops also in other places (ep. 55. 24 ; 68. i), and
Novatianism ere long struck root also in the Orient (Eus. h. e.
vi. 46. 3; vii. 5). A Novatian counter-church, which after-
ward extended its rigor toward the lapsed to all guilty of mortal
sins (see^. g., Athanas. ad Serap. ep. iv. 13 ; Socrat. h. e. i. 10),
had soon spread, variously combined with Montanism, over the
whole church (see Harnack PRE. x. p. 667 ff.). But it never
gained a more than superficial influence. It was an essentially
powerless reaction in the interest of an archaistic idea, which
never was nor could be applied with real seriousness in practical
hfe.
In Carthage, after Cyprian's return, the proposed assembly of
bishops was held (A. D. 252). Its decrees present the actual
results of the agitation. In expectation of a new persecution, it
is here held to be proper ** that to those who have not departed
from the church of the Lord, and from the first day of their
lapse have not ceased to exercise repentance and lament and
pray to the Lord, the /^x should be given." Although this had
hitherto been granted only to those in immediate peril of death
(cf. Cypr. ep. 55. 13 ; 57. i ; de laps. 16), yet it is now, upon
the suggestion of the Holy Spirit and plain visions, extended to
all the lapsed (see Cypr. ep. 57 ; cf. 55. 6). To this Rome
also agreed (ep. 55. 6). This principle was not, indeed, at once
acted upon in all places (see ep. 55. 22 ; 59. 15), but as a prin-
ciple it had carried the day. It is not in this fact, however,
that the real significance of the decision lay. In the question
concerning repentance, Cyprian accepted fully the position of
his opponents; but it was bishops who passed the final decree,
bishops were to decide in the case of individuals who had
lapsed, and from their authority the latter could not appeal. In
these controversies, therefore, Cyprian's conception of the church
was perfected. The whole heart of the great bishop was bound
up with this idea. In it concentred all the elements of his re-
ligious thought and feeling. He had the juristic, logical bent
of a Roman. TertuUian was his instructor. He had a warm
heart. He was fanatically devoted to the hierarchy, and he
loved Christ.
5. Cyprian's conception of the church embraces the follow-
ing:
(a) The successors of the apostles are the bishops, who, like the
former, are chosen by the Lord himself and inducted into their
office fCvpr. ep. 3. 3; cf. Firmil. 75. 16) as leaders (prae-
':
REPENTANCE AND THE CHURCH. lOl
positi^ or pastors (^pastores) (ep.

8. i 19- 2
; 20. 3; 27. 3;
j
33. I ; 13. I
;
This is to be understood not merely in
59. 14).
the sense of an ** ordinance of succession," but every individual
bishop is inducted into his office by a*' divine decree, for his
own sake " (59. 5). He isabishop, however, and his sacrifices
and prayers are effectual, only so long as he remains faithful and
leads a holy life.^ He who criticises the bishops presumes
thereby to pass judgment upon the judgment of God and Christ
'^This is not to believe in God; this is to be a rebel against
Christ and his gospel, as, when he says Are not two sparrows,
:
*
etc. (Matt. 10. 29) thou wouldst think that priests of God
. . .
are ordained in the church without his knowledge For to

.
believe that those who are ordained are unworthy or corrupt, what
else is this but to contend that his priests are not appointed in the
church by God nor through him?" (66.1).*^ In harmony with this,
the bishops are said to be guided in their decisions by divine sug-
gestions and visions (^. ^., ep. 11.3,4; 57. 5; 68.5; (>t. 10;
^^3- ij 73- 26, cf. 40; 8t see also de aleat. 3. 2).^
;
The
bishop, according to Cyprian, is, upon the one hand, a successor
of the historical apostolate and hence the legitimate teacher of
the apostolical tradition. But he is also an inspired prophet,

endowed with the charismata a claim not found in the teachings
of Irenseus. Thus the bishop discharges the office of the ancient
Spirit-endowed men, for he receives revelations from the Spirit.
The place of the former Tzveufiarr/Mt is filled by the bishop, as after-
ward by the monastic system. But if the bishops have the
^ Ep. 65.4: "to separate the brothers from the folly and remove them
from the contagion of these, since neither can a sacrifice be consecrated where
there is not a holy spirit, nor does the Lord favor anyone on account of the
addresses and prayers of one who has himself offended the Lord." And in
6p' 67. 3 (circular letter of 37 bishops) it is announced as a fundamental prin-
ciple :
" AH are completely bound to sin who have been contaminated [ac-
cording to Hos. 9. 4] by the sacrifice of a profane and wicked priest,'* and
*' a people obedient to the Lord's commands and fearing God ought to sepa-
rate themselves from a sinful leader, praepositus^ and not participate in the sac-
rifice of a sacrilegious priest" (Numb. xvi. 26). These are statements to
which the Donatists could afterward appeal. Cf. Reuter, Augustin.
Studien, p. 254 ff.
^ The divine decision at elections does not exclude " the vote of the people,
the consensus of associated bishops" (ep. 59- 5 55- ^J 67. 4, 5 ; 49. 2).
;
It is even said of the populace [plebs): "Since it most fully possesses the
power of electing worthy or rejecting unworthy priests" (ep. 67. 3).
^ This is an archaistic feature. Visions are mentioned by Cyprian also in
other connections (ep. 16. 4; 39. I ; de immortal. 19 ad Donat. 5
; cf.
i
Dionys. Alex, in Eus. h. c. vii. 7. 2, 3 ; Firmilian's letter, ep. 75. 10, and
the criticism noted in ep. 66.10: "ridiculous dreams and absurd visions
appear to some "). Cyprian has in mind, not a permanent official endowment,
but illuminations granted from time to time. This patriarch was not far re-
moved from superstitious fanaticism.
l82 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
Spirit, it may be understood that all criticism must be

easily
forestalled by deliverances, as formerly by those of the
their
prophets (vid. Didache ; also supra, p. i8i).
{b) According to Matt. xvi. i8 f., the church is founded
upon the bishop and its direction devolves upon him *':Hence
through the changes of times and dynasties the ordination of
bishops and the order of the church moves on, so that the church
is constituted of bishops, and every act of the church is con-
trolled by these leaders " (33. i). ** One in the church is

for
the time priest and for the time judge, in the stead of Christ "
(ep. 59. 5.). How seriously these principles were accepted is
evident from the controversy above noted. The bishop decides
who belongs to the church and who shall be restored to her fel-
lowship (16. I ; 41. 2 de laps. 18, 22, 29).
; He conducts the
worship as the priest of God, who offers the sacrifice upon the
altar (67. i ; Cyprian is the first to assert an actual priesthood
of the clergy, based upon the sacrifice offered by them, vid.
sub, p. 196), and cares for the poor. He defends the pure
tradition against errorists (ep. 6t,, 17, 19; 74. 10). Cf. O.
RiTSCHL, 1. c, 216 ff. He is the leader { praepositus') whose y
office it is to rule the laity (Jaici^ or pie bs) by virtue of divine

authority.
(r) The bishops constitute a college (^collegium'), the episco-
pate {episcopatus). The councils developed this conception.
In them the bishops practically represented the unity of the
church, as Cyprian now theoretically formulated it. Upon their
unity rests the unity of the church. ''The episcopate is one,
a part of which taken separately is regarded as the whole the church
:
is one, w^hich is ever more widely extended into a multitude by
the increase of reproductive energy " (de unit. eccl. 5 ) . The *

'
church, which is one and catholic, is in a manner connected and

"
joined together by the glue of the mutually cohering priests
(ep. 66. 8). In this connection it is said: ''These are the
church united (adunata) to the priest and the flock adhering to
the pastor. Whence thou shouldst know that the bishop is in the
church and the church in the bishop, and he who is not with the
bishop is not in the church, and they flatter themselves in vain who,
not having peace with the priests of God, deceive themselves
and think that they may secretly hold fellowship with any persons
whatsoever " (ib.). This unity of the episcopate rests upon the
divine election and endowment which the bishops have in com-
mon as successors of the apostles, and finds expression in the
same sense {e. g.^ 75. 3) in their united conferences and mutual
recognition (cf. ep. 19. 2; 20. 3 ; 55. i, 6, 7, 24, 30; cf. 75.
4, 45, etc.). The unity is manifest in the fact that the Lord in
REPENTANCE AND THE CHURCH. 1 83
the first instance bestowed apostolic authority upon Peter :
Here the other apostles were also, to a certain extent, what

*'
Peter was, endowed with an equal share of both honor and

power but the beginning proceeds from unity, in order that the
;
church of Christ may be shown to be one" (de un. eccl. 4).

Accordingly, the Roman church is the ** mother and root of the
catholic church " (ep. 48. 3; cf. 59. 14, etc. ). The Roman bishop
made practical application of these ideas (ep. 67. 5 ; esp. 6d>. i-
3; cf. also ep. 8; 71. 3; 75. 17; de aleatoribus i, as well
as the ideas of Callistus, supra, p. 177). As understood by
Cyprian, no higher significance was attached to them than
by Irenseus (supra, p. 137). In reality all the bishops regarded

dogmatically stand upon the same level, and hence he main-
tained, in opposition to Stephanus of Rome, his right of inde-
pendent opinion and action, and flatly repelled the latter's ap-
peal to his primacy (ep. 71. 3 ; 74 ; cf. Firmilian's keen criti-
cism, ep. 75. 2, 3, 17, 24 f; see also 59. 2, 14; 67. 5).
The bond which holds the church to unity is thus the epis-
copate.
(^) Rebellion against the bishop is, therefore, rebellion against
God. The schismatic is also a heretic (59. 5 ; 66. 5 52. i ; ;
69. i; deunit. eccl. 10). He who does not submit to the rightful
bishop forfeits thereby his fellowship with the church and his
salvation. ** is, and whatever his character, he is
Whosoever he
not a Christian who
not in the church of Christ" (55. 24,
is
referring to Novatian cf 43. 5; de unit. 17, 19).
! The
possession of the same faith, to which such persons are wont to
appeal, benefits them as little as it did the family of Korah (ep.
69. 8). It is always chaff which is blown from the threshing-
floor (de un. eccl. 9 ep. 66. 8), even though the individuals
;
concerned were martyrs for the faith (ep. 73. 21): ** because
there is no salvation outside the church." The true members of
the church will, therefore, above all, recognize the bishop and
obey him. Thus they remain in the one church, outside of
which there is no salvation '* It is not possible that he should
:
"
have God for his father who has not the church for his mother
(de un. 6). The members of the church are related to the
bishop as children to their father (ep. 41. i); members of the
fraterniias to one another as brothers, in that they give full sway
to peace and love, and avoid all discord and divisions, praying
Avith one another in brotherly accord, and even sharing with one
another their earthly goods (de un. 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24 f; de
orat. dom. 8, 30 de op. et eleem. 25 fin.; de pat. 15 de zel.
; ;
et liv. 6).
((?) A logical result of this conception of the church is seen
1S4 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
in Cyprian's denial of the validity of heretic baptism. Tradition

was here divided. The bishops, assembled three times (A. D.
255-256) at Carthage under Cyprian, supported their opposition
by appeal to their predecessors (ep. 70. i 71. 4; 73- 3; cf. ;
Tert. de bapt. 15), and, as Firmilian reports (ep. 75. 19), the
synod at Iconium had taken the same view. The Roman usage
was, however, different, and Stephanus followed it (*'let there
be no innovations, let nothing be done except what has been handed
down," 74. i; cf. Ps. -Cypr. de rebaptismate i also Alexandrines, ;
Eus. vii. 7. 4), andappealed to theprimacy of Peter (71. 3; cf.

sent, episcoporum, proem.). When confronted by tradition,^
Cyprian always appealed to the *' decision (^consilium) of a
sane mind" {(i%. 2 and 71. 3; 73. 13; 74. 2, 3, 9;
cf. 75. 19. Compare Tert., supra, 135, n.), /. ^., to the logi-
cal consequences of his conception of the church, according to
which, it was evident, no one who was himself outside of the
church could receive anyone into it. The baptism of heretics
is a ''sordid and profane bath" {tinctio, 70. i ; 72. i ; 73. 6,
2 1 etc. )
, On the other hand
. the water is purified and sanc-
:
'
'
tified through the priest of Christ " (70. i). Only the leaders,
who receive the Spirit, have the power to impart the forgiveness
of sins, and it is only in the church that the Spirit of God is re-
ceived (73. 7 74- 5 ; cf. 75. 9); therefore, in receiving those
;
baptized by heretics, the term employed should be not re-baptism,

but baptism (73. i). Stephanus severed fellowship with the
churches of Africa (75. 25 ; cf. Fechtrup i., p. 236 ff. ) and
threatened to pursue the same course with the Orientals (Dionys.
in Eus. h. e. vii. 5. 4). Thus Cyprian's conception of the
church was used as a weapon against himself. Cyprian held in
this controversy apparently the more logical position. But the
instinct of Rome was keener. Individuals are changeable and
open to assault. A principle is firmly established only when it
has become rooted in institutions, and when these bring individ-
uals into subjection. Accordingly, the seemingly more liberal
praxis of Rome prevailed.
6. We have thus witnessed a momentous transformation in the
general conception of the Church. By the term is no longer
understood the holy people of God believing on Jesus Christ, but
a group of men belonging to the episcopacy. They obey it, not
because it advocates the truth proclaimed by the apostles, but
because the bishops have been endowed and appointed by God
to be the leaders of the congregations, ruling them in God's
^ Hippolytus (Ref. ix. 12) says of Callistus : e'kX tovtov 7rp6T0)C reTdXft^rac
ih'urepov avrotg ^dirTio/ia.
GENERAL CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. 1
85
name and by virtue of divine authority. This subjection under

the episcopacy is the essential feature in the church, for it con-
stitutes her unity. Only he who obeys the bishop belongs to the
church and has relationship with God and salvation. The ideas
of Irenseus must now receive a new interpretation and be brought
into harmony with this new conception, and the holiness of the
church is more and more distinctly associated with her sacra-
ments. The evangelical definition of the church was superseded
by the catholic. The church is no longer essentially the assem-
bly of believers and saints, nor an object of faith, but a visible
body, controlled by divinely authorized '' ecclesiastical law."
Much is yet in a crude state, but the foundation has been laid.
19. General Conceptio7i of Christianity.
I. If the definition of the church is the church's own descrip-

tion of herself, defects in the definition must all find their coun-
terpart in perverted views of Christian character, and the means
by which it may be secured and maintained. will find con- We
firmation of this principle when we come to deal with the litera-
ture of the West, but we must first examine the writings of the
Eastern theologians.
2. Among these we mention ; DiONYSius OF Alexandria (f ca. A. D.

265. PVagments in RouTH,
Reliq. sacr. iii.,iv. Theognostus (ca. A. D.
280; cf. Phot. cod. 106). PiERiUS (age of Diocletian, vid. Phot. Bibl. 118).
Gregory Thaumaturgus (vid. Caspari, Quellen, etc., 1886, p. i ff. Migne
gr. 10. Lagarde, Analecta syr., 1858. Ryssel, Greg. Thaum. Leben u.
Schriften. Pitra, Analecta sacr. iii., iv.). HiERACAS (Epiph. h. 67). Above
all, Methodius of Olympus (Opp. edited by Bonwetsch, vid. supra, p. 173, and
cf. Pankau, Meth. Bisch. V. Olymp.; in '* Der Katholik," i887,ii.,p. Ii3ff.,
225 ff.; Bonwetsch, Theologie des Meth., 1903. With the latter, his con-
temporary, Peter (| A. D. 311 fragments in Routh, Reliq. sacr. iv. Pitra,
;
Analecta sacra, iv, 187 ff., 425 ff. Cf. Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Litt. i.,
p. 443 ff-)-
The thought of Eastern theologians was largely moulded by

Origen, as may be clearly seen even in his most energetic oppo-
nents. His dogmatic formulas and problems (creation, homousia
of the Son, spirit and body, freedom, resurrection, interpreta-
tion of Scripture, etc. ) continue to exert a positive influence.
Compare, e.g., the writings of Dionysius of Alexandria (his
Christology, supra, p. 130; his work, r.epi <p6e3o}^j against the
atomic- theory, frg. in Routh iv. ; his exegetic method in
treatment of the Apocalypse, in Eus. h. e. vii. 25. 8, 21 ff. ).
True, there was also energetic criticism {e. g., Nepos, who in his
work, eXsy/o^ aXX-fiyopKTTUiv, cf. Eus. h. vii. 24. 2, 5 ff., which
argues for a visible millennial kingdom and against the *Mofty
and grand understanding '

of the parousia and the resurrection).
'
This opposition compelled orthodox theology to abandon the

'* Gnostic" elements of Origen's
teaching. At first, indeed,
the Alexandrine theologians reproduced his ideas quite faithfully.
Theognostus and Pierius, e. g., are said to have held his theories
of Subordinationism and the pre-existence of souls (vid. Photius
cod. 105 cf. Athanas. ad Serap. ep. 4. 11 j de deer. syn. Nic.
;
25 ; Phot. cod. 119 ; cf. Hieracas in Epiph. 67. i, 3).* But we

find Peter of Alexandria already vigorously assailing the views
of Origen upon these topics (against the pre-existence of the
soul, see frg, from de anitna in Routh iv. 49 f. Pitra, anal,
;
sacr, iv. 193, 429. Defending the resurrection of a body sub-

stantially identical with the present body, frg. from de resur. in
Pitra, anal. sacr. iv. 189 ff.; esp. 427 ff.).^ The wall of parti-
tion between the faith of the ignorant masses {aizloijarepoi^ and
that of the initiated (j'îoaruoi') has been broken down. Only
thus have the ideas of Origen become common property, and
that not without the repression of his protests against the popu-
lar Christianity. This is, upon the one hand, a matter of inesti-
mable significance ; but, on the other hand, it diminished the
influence of Origen's justifiable antagonism to the type of Chris-
tianity prevalent among the masses in his day.
A remarkable character now meets us. In Methodius we find
a Greek theologian, under the general influence of Origen, yet
consciously in strong opposition to him, giving expression to
the Christian sentiment of the churches in Asia Minor. In
his opposition to Origen, whom he calls a '^centaur" (de
creat. 2, 6), he is at one with Peter of Alexandria.
^ Theognostus published
7 books entitled vTrorvTrojaetg, being the second to
attempt a scientific statement of the doctrines of Christianity. According to
Photius he treated : ( i ) Of God the Father, the Creator, antagonizing
those who hold that the universe is co-eternal with him. (2) Affirmed that it
was necessary for the Father to have a Son, describing the latter as created
[KTiafia), and as ** presiding alone over rational beings," according to
Origen's teaching. (3) Of the Holy Ghost, endeavoring particularly to pre-
sent the proofs of his existence; in other respects following Origen. (4)
Also agreeing with Origen in his view of angels and demons, who have refined
(^7rrd) bodies. (5 and 6) Concerning the incarnation [evav^purryaig) o(
the Saviour, " he undertakes, as is his custom, to show that the incarnation of
the vSon was necessary," in this also following Origen. {7) *' What he
writes about God, the Creator," made a more orthodox impression, especially
in the closing part referring to the Son. The personal Christian life and the
order of salvation are not, therefore, regarded as subjects of Christian knowl-
edge. This is a characteristic omission.
^ There are no doubts as to the genuineness of these fragments, but the
Armenian fragments (Pitra iv. 430) are exceedingly suspicious, e'.^., "Both
the God and the body (of Christ) are one nature and one person, from whose
will and drdering the Spirit comes."
He dislikes his method, and vigorously

assails the allegorical
exegesis (conv. 2; resur. i. 39. 2 ; 54- 6 ; iii. 9. 4 ff.), but
iii.
he himself employs the latter heroically when it suits his purpose

(see his rules, resur. iii. 8. 3, 7 ; of. leprosy, 4. 5). He pro-
'
poses to advocate a ' theology of facts ' as against the ' ' theology
'
of rhetoric " '' For there is nothing sound, whole, nor solid in
:
them, but only a specious display of words merely for the amaze-
ment of the hearers, and an ornamented Pitho " (res. i. 27. 2).
Of the pre-existence of souls, the pre-temporal fall, and the
spiritual interpretation of the resurrection, which is for him a
*'
destruction of the resurrection " (ib. i. 27. i), he will there-
fore know nothing
(e. g.y res. i. 55. 4; iii. i. i 2. 2 f.; 3. ;
3 J 5 12 ; 12).
i 7-
We
present a brief outline of his views in general, (i) The
almighty God, out of love, for man's sake, created this world out
of nothing, as well the essences Qtutrcat') as the properties
(^TzoutrrjTS'^) (de 4-91 ; 22. 7, 8).
lib. arb. 7. The world is not
eternal (de creat. 11. de lib. arb. 22. 10, 11); but, as God
2 ;
was never inactive, the world existed in him potentially (fû^^d/ist),

from eternity (de lib. arb. 22. 9). He created it through the
Logos. As to the Logos and the Holy Spirit, see supra, p. 173.
(2) The essential marks of man as created by God in time are
freedom and immortality: ** For man being free (aursâofno-;)
and independent (adTzozpdTwp)^ his will is both self-controlled
(â'Wodi(T7zoTi)<^) and self-determining in regard to choice " (res. i.
38. 3). " Made free in regard to the choice of the good, etc.,
for. God created man for immortality, and made him the
image of his own eternity" (res. i. 36. 2 34. 3 51. 5). In; ;
and >')-eotxeXoVj res. i. 35. 2).

this consists his godlikeness (^^^hostds^;
This freedom of choice has descended from the first man to his
posterity. *' From whom the subsequent members of the race
also had allotted to them the like freedom " (lib. arb. 16. 2). This
moral equipment of man involves that he was and is in position
to fulfill the law of God *' For it belongs to him to be able to
:
accept the commandment or not " (lib. arb. 16. 7). ''For it
hes with us to believe or not to believe , with us to live . . .
aright or to sin, with us todo good or to do evil " (res. 57.6;

of conv. viii. 17). Since man was created for eternity, God
sees to it that this becomes his portion (res. i. 35. 2-4). This
is the genuine Greek anthropology. (3) The devil's envy of
man led to the fall (lib. arb. 17. 5 18. 4 ff.), /. e.^ man em-
;
ployed his freedom in disobedience of God's command. '* But
wickedness is disobedience" (ib. 18. 8). The spirit of the

world then gained control within him ** For thus first came :
about our condition we were filled with strifes and vain

;
loo HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
reasoning ; on the one hand, emptied of the indwelling of God ;

on the other, filled with worldly lust, which the plotting serpent
infused into us" (res. ii. 6. 2). Thus man ''chose evil from
free choice" (res. i. 45. 2). Thus it is not the flesh, but the
soul, that is responsible for sin (res. i. 29. 8 ; 59. 3), but '* every
sin and every way of life attains its end through the flesh '* (res.
ii. 4. 3). Henceforth evil lusts crowd in upon us, which we, in-
deed, ought to conquer *' For it does not lie wholly with us
: to
desire or not to desire things improper, but to carry out or not
carry out the desire" (res. ii. 3. i). But in order that the evil
in man might not become immortal, God graciously appointed
death (res. i. 39. 5 ; 38. i ; 45. 5 ;ii. 6. 3), which is a penalty
intended, as are all penalties, to lead to amendment (res. i. 31.

4). As an artist breaks to pieces a statue which has been
maliciously defaced, in order to recast it, so God deals with man
in appointing him to death (res. i. 43. 2 ff. ). We may here
again clearly trace the influence of Origen, despite all the polem-
ical assaults upon him.
(4) Wherein now consists the salvation which Christ has

brought to the race ? The answer assumes many forms. The
souls of men are cleansed by the blood of Christ. He is
our ''Helper" in the conflict (distinction of meats, 15; 11.
4; 2. i). He is "helper, advocate, and physician," the
"great Giver and great Helper" (res. iii. 23. 11). Christ
announced through the prophets of the old covenant that he
would bring forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the
flesh (conv. vii. 6). Thus the "Word" "directed us to the
truth and brought us to immortality" (res. iii. 23. 4,6). He
brings to men the redemption of the body (res. ii. 18. 8; 24.
4). But the controlling idea of Methodius is different from
these, /. e., Christ is born in those who are received by baptism
into the church :
" For since those illuminated (baptized) with
the image of the Logos, impressed in figure upon them and be-
gotten within them according to perfect knowledge and faith,
receive also the marks and image and manhood of Christ, so, we
may understand, is Christ born in everyone. ' Since they
*
through the Holy Spirit enter into living fellowship with Christ,
they themselves become, as it were, Christs :"As if having
become Christs, being baptized according to their possession of
the Spirit into Christ " (conv. viii. 8; cf, Ephes. 3. 14-17).
" For to proclaim the incarnation of the Son of God by the holy
virgin, but not at the same time to confess that he also comes into
his church as into his flesh, is not perfect. For everyone of us
must confess, not alone his parousia in that holy flesh which came
from the pure virgin, but also a similar parousia in the spirit
89
of everyone of us" (urchin, 8. 2, 3). ''Be moulded by

Christ, who is within you " (ib. 1.6; cf. distinction of meats,
4. i). Christ becomes known to us, because he dwells in us
(cf. conv. viii. 9). But this fellowship in the Holy Ghost
produces in us a new life and energy, which lead to im-
mortality (urchin, 4. 4, 6 ; 8, 3-5. Conv, iii. 8 *' It is im- :
possible for anyone to be a partaker of the Holy Spirit and be

accounted a member of Christ, unless the Logos, having first
come to him, has fallen asleep and risen, in order that, hav-ing
arisen from sleep with him who for his sake fell asleep, he also
having been formed anew may be enabled to share in the re-
newal and restoration of the Spirit." Conv. viii. 10: *' He
chooses the thought of the restored " ) Thus Christ has come to
.
take up his abode in men. When this is done through the Holy
Spirit, men are renewed, incited to choose the good and thus to
attain immortality. As the Logos once dwelt in Adam (supra,
p. 174), so now he dwells again in believers. (5) Man is in-
troduced into this new life through the church, which is pri-
marily *' the whole assembly (âf}poi(rrj.a) and mass (^frrttpo^) of
those who have believed " (conv. iii. 8 vii. 3); but the more
;
perfect and morally mature properly constitute the church of

Christ, which has the power to prosecute his work (ib.). Fur-
ther, in this ''robe of the Lord," the church, are discriminated
the spiritual and the laity " He calls the more powerful rank
:
of the church, e.j the bishops and teachers, the warp ; but the
/'.
subjects and laity of the pasture, the woof " (leprosy, 15. 4).
This is not yet understood in a hierarchical sense (see complaint
against bishops, ib. 17. 2). The church in which Christ dwells
now bears children to him. This occurs through teaching
(dtdafTxaXca^ conv. iii. 8) and through baptism (ib. viii. 6 ; cf
dist. of meats, 1 1 6 "as the mysteries have been ordained for
. :
the illuminating and vivifying of that which has been learned ").
Baptism introduces into the fellowship of the Spirit and bestows
immortality ("the illuminated [/'. e., baptized] have been duly
born again to immortality," conv. iii. 8). Thus the church in-
creases and grows because it stands in living fellowship with the
Logos: "growing daily into loftiness and beauty and magni-
tude through the union and fellowship of the Logos" (ib.).
Thuii she bears children to Christ
yea, even begets the Word
itselfin the heart (ib. viii. 11 init.). (6) Evident as it is that man
has the ability to accept by the power of his will the salvation
proffered, it is just as certain that sin yet exerts its alluring and
stimulating power within him. " But now, even after believing
and going to the water of cleansing, we are often found yet in
'
sins. Faith only smothers sin, and does not root it out ; it cuts
'
igo HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
off the suckers, but not the root itself (res. i. 41. 2-4). More
than this man cannot accomplish (ib. i. 44, 4 only death can;
complete the workj: but this much he must strive to do. He

does so in the power of the Spirit working within him (^. ^,,
conv. viii. 10). Thus he represses the lusts that burn within
him (res. ii. ,3-5) and obeys not the world but God (**the law
of God is self-control," res. i. 60. 3). In this conflict, Christ is
helper and advocate (res. iii. 23. 11). God is called upon to
grant *' improvement of the heart," and '*non-imputation and for-
giveness of sins" (ib. iii. 23. 7-9). Thus, contending and re-
penting (ib. iii. 21. 9), man struggles upward. Repentance has
to do primarily with the lusts of the heart. These must be con-
fessed to God. But if one is yet unable to overcome them, or
if they issue in sinful acts, then one should entrust himself to
the bishop and be by him subjected to the discipline of the

church. This imposes upon the offender separation from church-
fellowship and public confession. It is the duty of the bishop
to note whether there be real penitence and a forsaking of sin,
and, only in such case, to restore the offender to fellowship
(leprosy, 5 ff.; cf. Bonwetsch, Theol. des Method., p. 103 ff.).
It is important to observe how the point of view here as elsewhere
differs from that of the West. The bishop is not a judge, and
the aim in repentance is not to render satisfaction to God. The
bishop is regarded as a spiritual adviser and official of the church,
and the object of repentance is inward healing and amendment.
The Christian's aim is " that we may become strong and sound
:
through faith to keep thy commandments " (ib. iii. 23.11). All
depends upon '' the faith and the conduct," upon '* orthodoxy,"^
and *' good works," and ^' an active and rational life " (leprosy,
15. 2 urchin, 8. 4
; dist. of meats, 8. 2).
; At the same time
there is running through the writings of Methodius a strong
leaning toward asceticism and thoughts of the life to come.
Suffering purifies (dist. of meats, 1-5). He esteems lightly
*
things present " ( " a using, but no possession " ) but he loves
' ,
*' things
to come," which are eternal (life and rat. conduct, 5.
I 6. ;3). Of Musts" the church will know nothing, for
^
" they say that it is called church from having turned away
* '
from (ixxexXcxivat) pleasures" (de creat. 8). But Methodius

never tires of glorifying celibacy:^ Virginity is nearness to God
^ Cf. the value attached to orthodoxy, f

jf. ,
res. i. 30. 2
. :
" For thou seest that
the doctrines are not of small account to us, but in what way it is necessary to
have believed for I think that nothing is so evil for a man as that of the nec-
;
essary things he should believe anything false."

^ The right to marry is not thereby curtailed, e.
g.^ conv. ii. 1.2; iii, II ff.;
lib. arb. 15. I f.
GENERAL CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. I9I
(^Ttapd-ela yap i) Kapi^)-^via, conv. viii. i). Christ IS the chief Virgin
(ib. 1.5). Virgins are the best portion of the church. " For,
although many are evidently daughters of the church, there is one
rank alone chosen and most precious in her eyes above all others,
the rank of the virgins (conv. vii. 3).
(7) The goal of the Christian life is immortality attained
through the resurrection. The latter term applies not to the
soul, but to the body, v^^hose substance continues to exist, since
it was not the purpose of God to transform men into angels (res.
i. 50. I ] iii. I ff. ). Immortality is, therefore, to be attained after

the final conflagration, which will result in a reconstruction
(aâzT-irT'^rîâ;) of the original creation (xrcVts") (ib. i. 48. 3). All
of this is in direct and designed opposition to Origen.

4. Such are the principles which constituted the ''Christi-
anity" of a cultivated Greek of about A. D. 300. It is a
unique mixture of ideas garnered from the popular philoso-
phy of the Greeks, from the popular Christianity of the age,
from a glowing zeal for the ideals of asceticism, and from a
real interest in the problems which Origen had so forcibly stated.
Methodius has lost all conception of a righteousness to be attained
through faith. Faith is the acceptance of that which is to be
believed, and is accompanied by the moral application to the life
by means of self-control {(Tuxppdfrir^ri) and in obedience, through

good works and an ascetic life with which is combined also the
hope of immortality. But throughout all these assertions is felt
the force of a great primitive Christian experience, '' the Christ
in us," who is our strength, who renews

us in our hearts, and
draws our hearts upward from this earth toward himself. " Up
to the heights of the regenerated who have been borne to the
throne of God are lifted the hearts of the renewed, taught
. .
there to see and be seen, in order that they may not be betrayed
into the depths of the mighty dragon" (conv. viii. 10). But
this Sursu??i Corda I rests upon the thought that he is the Vine

and we the branches he in us and we in him. It is the legacy
of John and Ignatius which furnishes spiritual sustenance to this
theologian of Asia Minor. It is, perhaps, erroneous to charac-
terize his theology as '* the theology of the future " (Harnack);
but it reveals to us one of the factors which explain the bitter
conflicts of the future as to the person of Christ. We
see here
the religious capital which was to bear the expenses of the long
campaign.
5. The Western Theologians now claim our attention.
Sources. The writings of Cyprian with the Pseudo-Cyprian works, De

montibus Sina et Sion, and the sermon, De aleatoribus (probably delivered at
Rome in the second half of the second century), ed. Hartel, vid. p. 178;
the best edition ofDe aleat. by Miodonski, 1889. Compare GoTZ, Das Chris-
tentum Cyprians, 1896. Commodianus, Instructionum 11. 2, and Carmen
apologeticum (ed. Dombart, 1887). Arnobius, adv. nationes, 11. 7 (ed,
Reifferscheid, 1875). Lactantius, divinarum institutionum, 11. 7. Epitome,
de ira dei (ed. Brandt and Laubmann, 1 890).
** Christ since he knew that the nature of mortals is

. , .
blind and not able to comprehend the reahty of any things except
those placed before our eyes, has commanded us to leave . . .
and neglect all those things, and not to devote fruitless medita-
tions to those things which are removed far from our knowledge,
but as far as possible to draw near with our whole mind and soul
to the Lord of all things What is it to you, he says, to
. . .
investigate and search out who made man, what is the origin of
souls, who planned the schemes of the wicked, whether the sun
is larger than the earth whether the moon shines with rays
. . .
from another luminary or with her own ? Neither is it an ad-

vantage to know these things, nor any detriment to be ignorant
of them. Commit these things to God, and allow him to know
what, why, and whence they are, whether they ought to be, or
ought not to be, whether anything is without origin, or has its
primordial beginnings it is not permitted to your faculties to
, . .
implicate you in such things and to be uselessly concerned about

things so remote. Your own interests are endangered, I say the
safety of your souls, and unless you apply yourselves to the
thought of the Lord God, evil death awaits you when freed from
the bonds of the flesh " (Arnobius, ii. 60, 61).
These remarkable words of a Western theologian direct the
interest of the Christian upon the salvation of souls, and deny
to him the consideration of physical and metaphysical problems.
There is here revealed a peculiar and growing tendency of Wes-
tern Christianity, very clearly seen by a comparison of Tertullian
with Origen, or Cyprian with Methodius. Even the theological
interest of Cyprian did not extend further than the salvation
of souls {^salus animarujn) and immortality perpetuitas Arnob. (^
^
ii.
(>s). We note the same limitation in Commodian and Lac-
tantius, in the naive heterodoxy of Arnobius and the correct
orthodoxy of Novatian. The practical Christianity of these men
notably that of Cyprian, who so largely moulded the thought
of the succeeding ages
moves within the lines marked out by
Tertullian^ (supra, p. 132 f. ).
{â) By the Western theologians as well as by the Orientals
^ Even the emphasis laid upon the salus animaj'Jim as the content of Chris-
** Of these blessings there is one superscrip-
an echo of Tertullian
tianity is :
tion, the salvation of man " (paen. 2 cf., e.g,^ ib. 10, 12 ; ;
pud. 9 ;
jej. 3 ;
bapt. 5 praescr. 14; c. Marc. ii. 27

;
res. 8, et supra). ;
GENERAL CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. 1 93
the first and most important place is assigned to the doctrine of

the one almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth (e.g.. Corn-
mod, carm. ap. 90 ff.). Man is under obligation to obey him.
The viewed as a legal one (vid. sub lex, satisfac-
relationship is :
tio, meritum). The sinner is one who has refused obedi-

(/5)
ence. Sin and death passed from Adam upon his descendants
(Cypr, ep. 64. 5 Comm. carm. ap. 324 ** on account of whose
; :
%rs\{^cujus de peccato) we die." Cf. instr. i. 35. 3)/ (^c') God

now endeavors to deliver man from sin and death. This is first
attempted through the law, but finally through Christ, who as
teacher of the truth gives a '^ new law and makes it impressive
'
'
by his example ; ''by the grace of God we are incited to believe

the law" (Comm. carm. ap. 766 ; cf. instr. i. 35. 18; ii. i. 6 ;
7- 5- Cypr. deop. et eleem. i, 7, 23, 24 ; de laps. 21 ; unit,
eccl. 2, etc.). Lactantius scarcely gets beyond these ideas.
Both the incarnation and the death upon the cross find their pur-
pose completely attained in instruction and example (vid. instr.
*' When
iv. 10. I ; II. 14 : God had determined to send the
teacher of virtue to men, he then ordained that he should be re-
born in the flesh and become like to man himself, whose leader
and companion and teacher he was to be ; " iv. 13. i \ 14. 15 ;
16. 4; 26. 30 24. I, 5, 10, 7
; "God himself surely would
:
not be able to teach virtue, because outside of the body he can-

not do the things which he shall teach, and on this account his
teaching will not be perfect ; " also epit. 38. 8 f ; 39. 7 ; 45 ;
46. 2 f. ), if we except the peculiar power attributed to the cross
in the taking of an oath (epit. 46. 6-8. Inst. iv. 27 j see also
iv. 20. 3). Cyprian and Commodian strike a deeper note.
Christ not only taught us the new law, but he suffered for our
sins (Cypr. laps. 17), and thereby made us children of God (ep.
58. 6). He has become our attorney and advocate, our media-
tor (ep. II. 5 quod idola, 11), so that we find forgiveness of
;
our sins through him. His blood nullifies death (ep. 55. 22;
op. et al. i). Thus Christ grants cleansing from sin (baptism),
forgiveness of sins (repentance), the new law and immortality.
He is the Saviour, because he establishes and imparts the grace
of the sacraments and of the church order.
(^) This salvation is imparted to man in baptism ; is pre-
served by faith, fear, and obedience ; and attested by repentance
andgoodworks. Divine grace begins with baptism, *' sincethence
* **What he did of good or of

evil, the leader of our nativity conferred upon
[contulisset) us; we
die likewise through him;" cf. Instr. ii. 5. 8 geni-
:
talia. Cypr. ad Donat. 3 : genuinum^ op. et eleem. i : *' He healed the

wounds which Adam had conveyed and cured the ancient poisons of the er-
pent," etc.
'
begins the whole origin (ôrigo') of faith and the saving entrance
{îngressio) upon the hope of eternal life and the divine regard
{dignatio) for the purifying and vivifying of the servants of God
'
(Cypr. ep. 73. 12)/ In baptism man experiencesthesecond birth

{secunda nativitas^ Cypr. ad Donat. 4; orat. dom. 23). The
recipient receives the Holy Ghost (ep. 63. 8; 73. 9), becomes
free from the devil (ep. 69. 15), from death and hell (ep. 55.
22; op. et al. 2). The second birth secures for man health
(^sanitas, Cypr. hab. virg. 2 J; inborn sins are forgiven (Comm.
instr. ii. 5. 8 ^' in baptism ^d';z/Va& are forgiven thee."
: Cypr.
op. et al. i); the subject really becomes another man (Cypr. ad
Don. 3. 4). The new law now applies to him, by obeying
which he is to preserve the purity attained *' he gives the law :
of innocence after he has conferred health that pardon . . .
may no more be lacking after thou hast begun to know God '
(Cypr. hab. virg. 2 ; cf. Commod. instr. ii. 5. 11 '*

The conclu- :
sion for thee Always avoid serious sins"). Christ, therefore,

:
imparts a two-fold blessing to man. By baptism he makes him

whole, and he grants to him as thus restored the law, by obey-
ing which he may and should preserve himself in health. If he
fails to do this, repentance is offered to him as a means of salva-
tion. It is now a question of forgiving grace and the preserva-
tion of the good will which desires amendment. Man fulfills his
duty toward God by faith and the fear of God *' the whole :
basis of religion and faith begins in obedience and fear " (Cypr.
hab. virg. 2 init.; cf. op. et al. 8); by prayer (or. dom. 12);
and by the reception through faith of the gifts of grace now
richly granted (ad Don. 5 "it flows continually it overflows
: ;
abundantly it satisfies our utmost desire and yet flows on.

; As
much of receptive faith as we bring thither, so much of the over-
flowing grace do we imbibe"). Although these words of
Cyprian, which were written soon after his conversion, seem to
reveal a vivid sense of the supreme significance of faith, yet the
context leads us to a different conclusion. Faith is for him essen-
tially the recognition of the divine law and belief in the veracity
of the promises {e.g., de mortalit. 6. 22 fin., 24 ; ad Demetr.
20 ; de patient, i ; cf. Commod. carm. ap. 311 ff., 615 Lac- ;
tant. epit. 61. 3 fl". ; inst. vi. 17. 23 ff.; also epit. 61. i :
** faith
^ As to the outward form of baptism, we note It is administered in

: the
name of the triune God, not merely in' the name of Christ (ep. 73. 18 ; cf.
69. 7); the baptismal confession (ep. 70. 2 69. 7 ; cf. 75. 10 f.); sprinkling
;
or pouring, with the customary bath [lavacrum^ ep. 69. 12); children to be
baptized, not on the eighth day, but as soon as possible (ep. 64. 2 cf. laps. ;
10); they also receive the Holy Ghost (ep. 64. 3); anointing with the con-
secrated oil [ckrisma^ ep. ']Q. 2); cf. const, ap. vii. 40 ff.
GENERAL CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. J
95
is, therefore, a great part of righteousness. "(!) Hence we may

thus summarize Baptism brings forgiveness of sins and blots out
:
sin in a man he is now equipped with the Spirit and fulfills the
;
law of God, because he believes that God will reward this struggle
to live virtuously and will bestow upon him eternal life. By
good works man really wins for himself a merit (^merituni) before
God (op. et al. 26: **to our merits and works contributing
promised rewards "). He pays back what Christ has done for
him (op. et al. 17. 23 ; cf. hab. virg. 2). He who performs the
works of the law is righteous before God. It is the first concern
of the Christian to be mindful of the law '^
Nor let anything
:
be considered in your hearts and minds except the divine pre-

cepts and the heavenly commandments " (ep. 6. 2).
((?) But thebaptized also still commit sin. For this, too, grace
offers away of escape ** He has given to the restored one a law
:
and commanded that he should now sin no more ... we would

have been constrained and brought into a strait by the law, nor
could the infirmity and imbecility of our human frailty have
accomplished anything, had not the divine goodness, again
intervening, opened out a certain way of preserving salvation
by performing works of righteousness and mercy, so that we
may dy alms wash away whatever stains we have afterward con-
tracted " (Cypr. op. et al. i). This is the idea entertained
of repentance. True, sincere penitence (in case of the lapsed,
see p. 180) and confession before the church are prescribed,
but, at least in the case of trifling daily sins, good works,
and particularly alms, remain the principal thing. By the giv-
ing of alms, the Christian repeats what was granted to him at his
baptism '*just as in the bath of saving water the fire of hell is
:
extinguished, so by alms and righteous works the flame of sin is

quenched. And because in baptism the forgiveness of sins is
once bestowed, diligent and continual working, imitating the
pattern of baptism, bestows again the favor of God " (op. et al.
2 ; orat.' dom. 32). By alms, the sinner renders to God suitable
satisfaction (satisfaction op. et al. 4, 5 ; cf. ep. 35 ; 43. 3 ; 55.
11; 59. 13; 64. i; de laps. 17, 22, 34 ff.); reconciles God
{propitiando deo) and merits {mereri') the mercy of God (op. et
el. 5, cf. 13 fin.; 15, cf. Comm. instr. ii. 14. 14; de aleator.
II. 2).
If man thus by prayer and good works merits for himself the
mercy of God in his battle with sin {precibus et operibiis suis
satisfacere, Cypr. 16.2), we find the Eucharist represented as
a means of strengthening for the conflict. It is a safeguard
{tutela^ in the conflict (ep. 57. 2.) It elevates and inflames the
spirit (''there is something lacking in the spirit which the recep-
;
IC)6 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
tion of the eucharist does not uplift and inflame," ib. 4). It
unites the church with Christ, and the sorrowing heart is by it
filled with joy (ep. 63, 13, 11 *'Let there be a forgetting
:
of the former worldly life, and let the sad and sorrowful heart,
which was before oppressed by its increasing sins, be set free in
the joy of the divine forgiveness " ), These are genuinely Chris-
tian sentiments, which we are not at liberty to discredit because
they give no direct answer to questions raised at a later period.
But the eucharist is also viewed in another light. It is the
^^
sacrifice " offered by the priest, and this can be done only in
the church. Fellowship {communication with the church really
consists in the partaking of the eucharist. This sacrifice is
offered (ôfferre) also for penitent sinners, and in their name (ê.g.^
ep. 16. 2 ; 17. 2). It is a repetition of the sacrifice of Christ
'*This priest acts in the stead of Christ, imitating that which
Christ did, and offering then a true and full sacrifice in the
church to God the Father " (ep. 63. 14). '* For the passion of
the Lord is the sacrifice which we offer" (ib. 17). In earlier

times, the virtues and prayers of believers had been called gifts
(^dmpa, I Clem. 44. 4; 40. 2 ff.; 36. i), particularly the eucha-
ristic prayer (Did. 14. i, 2 ; Just. Dial. 40, 70, 117). Thusalso
the presentation of the elements of the Lord's Supper before
God (Iren. iv. 17. 5 ; 18. i, 4), as well as the contributions
brought at such times as on the anniversaries of the death of rela-
tives, were looked upon as a sacrifice, and before long a peculiar
significance began to be attached to them as such (e. g., Tert.
ad ux. ii. 8; de monog. 10; ex. cast. 1 1 de coron. 3 f; de ;
orat. 28; cf. Cypr. i. 2). The Lord's Supper was called
the ^^ sacrificium.^'*^
Cyprian since the clergy were, in his
view, actual priests
adopted this idea with great earnestness.
Through the priest the sinner is received into the church, and
through the act of the priest the merit of Christ is applied to
him. In this, a distinctive idea of Catholicism again comes to
view. The history of the Lord's Supper is marked by two great
modifications. The first transformed the fraternal Agape into
the ecclesiastical sacrament the second designated as the chief
;
thing in the transaction the bringing of the sacrifice before God

as a repetition of the death of Christ, and not the gracious
presence of God in our behalf The second was effected by
*Tert. de cultu fem. ii. Either the sacrifice is offered, or the word of
11 :
**
God administered " ; cf. de ad uxor. 11. 8. See the association of

orat. 19 ;
Word and Eucharist also in Ps.-Clem. de virg. ep. i. 5 ; cf. Abercius-title,

lines6, 9, 12 ff. (word, baptism, eucharist), and Method., supra, p. 189. For
the sacrificial idea in ancient times, see H5FLING, Die Lehre d. altesten Kirche
von Opfer, Erl. 1851.
GENERAL CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. I97
Origen, and in it we have another ilhistration of the complete

externahzing of religion. Instead of the act and agency of
God appears the work of man, the ordinance of a holy legal
system. It was thus in the eucharist, and most distinctly thus in
the doctrine and praxis of repentance. The Romish sacrament
of penance was constructed by Tertullian and Cyprian. In the
attempt to make repentance difficult, it is made easy. For that

which is the hardest thing in religion repentance and faith is
substituted good works the salutary guardian of our security
:
* ^
a thing placed within our power to do

a thing both grand
and easy " (op. et al. 26).^
(/j The inevitable consequence of the conception of the
Christian life as an obedience rendered to the '^ new law " is a
double morality. The highest self-surrender to God cannot be
demanded oi all, but only advised. The first precept commands
to increase and multiply, and the second counsels continence
(hab. virg. 23). Virginity is the blossom of the ecclesiastical
seed (ib. 3). However beautifully Cyprian may depict the ideal
of the Christian life (see esp. orat. dom. 15 zel. et liv. 16 ; cf.
;
Comm. instr. ii. 17. 17 ff.), yet the best Christians are those
alone who have chosen the heavenly Bridegroom (hab. virg. 20.
22)
and the language here is not meant, as in Origen, to indi-
cate a really higher plane of Christian character.
{g) But, while thus accommodating the Christian life to the
world, the desire was strongly felt to escape from the world, and
there was much thought of the approaching end (Cypr. un.
eccl. 16 de mortal. 25 f. ad Demetr. 3 f. ).
; j The resurrection
was the chief object of faith, for from it was expected the reward
for good works {e, g., hab. virg. 21, also supra). Great delight
was found in drawing portraitures of the last times and the con-
flicts under the reign of the Antichrist (Nero), with the consola-
tion of the millennial kingdom (see esp. Comm. carm. ap. 791
ff.; ii. 2-4 ;
instr. 39 ; i. 27, 2S, 41, etc. Lactant. ep. 66, 67).
The gulf between the church, as it was then conceived, and the
kingdom of God lying wholly in the future, became but the
wider '^He declares that they shall be permitted to see the
:
kingdom who have performed works in his church " (op. et el.
9, cf. de zel. et liv. 18).
^ Cyprian, like Origen, believed in a purifying fire after death one

:
** It is
thing, tortured with prolonged misery for sins, to be cleansed and purged
a for
long time by fire, and another thing to have all sins purged in the passion "
{i, <?., Lord's Supper). Ep. 55. 20; cf. supra, p. 159, n. Vid. also Tert, de
monog., 10: '*He prays for his (the deceased's) soul; he implores for
him meanwhile a cooling (in the flame)." These are ideas borrowed from
antiquity, e. g., Plato, Phaed. 6, and the Orphic poems.
":
I9S HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
6. Such is Western Christianity in the third century. Cyp-

rian's work, De catholicae ecclesiae imitate, and, in at least
equal degree, his De
opere et eleemosyne, may be designated
landmarks of the course of development.
But scarcely at a
single point does he furnish more than a development of sugges-
tions found in the father of Western Catholicism, TertuUian
(cf p. 132 f. ). There exists a legal relationship between God
and man. By baptism, God has in a magical way made man
pure (the Stoic definition of spirit here influences the thought),
and he is now under obligation to observe the new law of
Christ. Since he does not do this, h6 must render satisfaction to
God by good works, by which he merits mercy for himself and
secures as his reward the resurrection. This is the chief con-
tent of the faith. But it is only in the church, /. e. in obe- ,
dience to the bishops, who have been ordained by God and by

him endowed with peculiar powers and authority (priests and
judges of God's grace), that a man can become and continue a
Christian. This is the meaning of the '' salvation of souls,
which Christ has brought to man.
The Christianity of the West is thus marked by the following
characteristics : ( i) Sacramental grace. ( 2 ) The legal conception
of the relationship between God and man. (3) The combination
of the two ideas in the concentration of the whole energy of re-
ligion upon the salvation of souls {^sahis animariun). (4) The
subjugation of the soul, for the attainment of its salvation, to the
control of the hierarchical church with its sacramental ordi-
nances. (5) But the sacraments in the hierarchy are held in
balance by the merits {nierita) of the individual. (6) The for-
mulas of TertuUian and the authority of the Apostles' Creed.
The theology of the East, on the contrary, is distinguished by
(i) The adoption of the theology of Origen. (2) The emphasis
laid upon '* orthodoxy " and delight in metaphysical problems.
(3) The fixing of immortality as the practical goal. (4) The
mystical conception of the work of Christ, as being born in us,
dwelling in us, and permeating us with spiritual life.
The Christianity of the third century presents itself to us as a
direct continuation of the doctrinal teaching of the second cen-
tury. The roots of the ideas here developed may in almost
every instance be traced back to the Apostolic Fathers. In fact,
the departure of the teachers of this period from the views of
the Apostolic Fathers was but small in comparison with that of
the latter from the position of the Apostles. Yet the develop-
ment during the third century progressed with astonishing
rapidity. The original Christian ideas of a life with God in
Christ and of an intercourse of the heart with God through re-
peniance and faith, which in the second century still constantly

assert themselves despite the general moralizing of the gospel,
are now, particularly in the Western church, almost entirely
forced into the background. The practical aims in view have
become different from those prescribed by the spirit of Christ
and the teachings of Paul. In the East, all stress is laid upon
the acceptance of the pure doctrine, which is more and more

reduced to abstract formulas and a life of celibacy yet practical
interest in the ''Christ in us" does not altogether disappear.
In the West, the controlling ideas are the preservation of a right
relation to God and the Catholic church, the way in which man
may come to God and remain in fellowship with him, and the
ideal of celibacy yet there persists a feeling that it is the highest
duty of the church to care for the salvation of souls. The per-
version, although differing in character, is common to the two
branches of the church. The time will come when repentance
will be held to consist only in good works, and yet, under the
delusion of strange ideals, really good works will be neglected,
and when an intellectual acceptance of doctrine shall take the
place of faith. Nevertheless, ** orthodoxy" will pursue its
course in the East and the ''hierarchy" in the West, and both
will bring unutterable sorrow to the hearts of true believers. Yet
it cannot be but that he who with a Christian's open heart seeks
to realize and study the motives underlying the life of that age
will stumble upon ideas and convictions which still attest the
power of the ancient truth. In the one case it will be the " Up
to the heights " (p. 191), and in the other the "Salvation of
!
souls." The Eastern church will endeavor to fathom the mys-

teries of the world above, and enjoy its raptures in mystic con-
templation, while the salvation of the soul will remain the great
problem in the West.
If we consider the course of development from the point of
view of two prominent apostles, the East will be found following
in the path marked out by John, while the West walks in the
footsteps of Paul. These points of view were often much
obscured in the course of the development, but a keen interest
in the Divine Logos, who imparts new life to us, remains the cen-
tral feature among the Greeks, while in the West the central prob-
lem continues to be " How may the sinner become righteous before
God ? " In the doctrines of the Trinity and in Christology the
interest here centres in repentance and the church, and this con-
tinues to be the case in the last great religious agitation of the
West, the Reformation of Luther (vid. vol. ii.). So far-reach-
ing is the outlook which we may gain from the study of the
Christianity of the third century.
Tor tbc grace of 6od bath appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
instructing us, to the intent tbat, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts,
we sbould litê soberly and righteously and godly in tbis present world;
looking fortbe blessed bope and appearing of tbe glory of tbe great God
and our Saviour Sesus 0brist; wbo gave himself for us, that he might
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own
possession, zealous of good works. T/ûs //. 11-14.

PART II.
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH.
CHAPTER I.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
20. Arianisni and the Hojnousia of the Son (^the First Council
of Nice).
I. We have had occasion to observe the diversity of views
concerning the divinity of Christ which prevailed before the out-
break of the great controversy but we have also noted a certain
;
unity of religious conviction at this point *' the church unani-

:
mously adoring the divinity of Christ." Although there was

little attempt to fathom the procession of the Son from the
Father, yet he, like the Father, was regarded as God, as the
brightness of his glory and the image (//>'fTi;'/0 ^^ ^^^ person
(^bnofTTafn^') (Heb. i. 3). These were regarded as the *' apostolic
dogmas of the church " (vid. Alex. ep. ad Alex. inTheodoret. h.
e. i. 3). Opposite conceptions must now inevitably lead to con-
flict, as had become evident in the Monarchian and Dionysian
controversies. After the unity of the church had become a

theory of practical importance, and the conception of ** heresy
"
had, in consequence of the fixation of the church's doctrine,
become more definite, the ancient indefinite formulas became
unsatisfactory, especially as they left room for such interpreta-
tions as that of Arius. But we shall utterly fail to understand
the conflicts of the period before us if we shall interpret them
as merely a result of the metaphysical tendency of Grecian
thought. On the contrary, beneath these controversies lay most
thoroughly practical and religious motives. Christ was the centre
of Greek piety ; the new immortal life, the periphery the idea ;
of salvation, the radius. The centre must be so located that all

the radii may actually meet in it. Christ must be conceived of
as in nature and character capable of bestowing the new divine
upon men.
life
LuciAN of Antioch was an adherent of Paul of Samosata, and
hence out of harmony with the church (ib. in Theod. i. 3, p.
739)-
(201)
Arius was his pupil, was also Eusebius of Nicomedia (ep.

as
Arii ad Eus. in Theod. i. 4 fin. and Alex. ib. 4).
h. e. Traces
of relationship with Paul may be found in Arius Tsee Athanas.
c. Arian. or. iii. 10, 51); but the views of Paul were developed
by him harmony with the later age. The impersonal energy

in
{(J6'âiu<i) become a special personality, which,
in the Father has

however, does not to the gratification of heathen and Jews (ep.
Alex, in Theod. h. e. i. 3) call the unity of God in question,
and keeping with the consciousness of the church and the
yet, in
prevalent theory of the Logos, preserves the independence of
the second divine person. It is thus that the doctrine of Arius,
which, in its main features, Lucian may have already taught, is
to be understood. It is merely the Christology of the third cen-
tury theoretically carried to its logical conclusion. But it was
this very fact of the logical consistency of the theory which
opened the eyes of the church. The same process has been re-
peated in the case of most heresies. The controversies to which
they gave rise have led to the construction of dogmas.
I. The Doctrine of Arius.
Literature. Of the writings of Arius himself we possess a letter to :
Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in Athanas. de synodis Arim. etSeleuc. 16

and Epiph. h. 69. 7, 8 a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia in Theodoret.
;
h. e. i. 4 (opp. ed. Schulze, iii. 2), and Epiph. h. 69. 6. Fragments from
his Od'/vfia in Athanas, c. Arian. or. i. de synod. Arim. et Seleuc. 15).*^ For
;
statements of his teaching, vid. especially the writings of Athanasius and the
letter from Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Byzantium, in Theodoret.
h. e. i. 3, and the Ep. encyclica in Socrat. h. e. i. 6. Compare GWATKIN,
Studies of Arianism, 1882. Kolling, Gesch. d. arian. Haresie, 2 vols.,
1874, 1883. Moller, pre. i. 620 ff.
(a) The dominant idea in the views of Arius is the monothe-

istic principle of the Monarchians (cf. Athanas. c. Ar. or. iii.
7, 28; iv. 10).^ There is One unbegotten God ''We know :
only one God, unbegotten." This axiom led to a keen criticism

of the prevalent representations of the relation of Christ to the
Father. The Son dare not be represented as an emanation
(^-poôXrj'), nor a part of the Father having the same nature
Qj.ipii^ 6/nn>tj(Tt(ry)^ nor as alike uncreated (^(Tovnyh^riru^^. For if
the Father were compound, divided, or mutable (rrnvffzTo^^
oiaipzT<><^^ TffETZTO's'), we should have to think of him as corporeal,
and be compelled to accept two uncreated beings (fJuo dyd'^-^rjToc),

The Son would then be a brother of the Father (ep. ad Al. and
ep. ad Eus.; Athanas. c. Arian. or. i. 14; iii. 2, 62, 67 de ;
* Also, dufiaTa re vavrtKO, nal ETrf^vTua Kal ofhiTVopiKd ypdxl>at . . fJf,'
fiEAo)6lac tKTFivaij Philostorgius h. c. ii. 2,

2 Appeal was made, among others, to Hermas, Mand. i. (Athanas. in
Theod. h. e. i. 7).
THE HOiMOUSIA OF THE SON. 203
deer. syn. Nic. lo). (/') God unoriginated, or unbe-

alone is
gotten, without beginning. a beginning, and was

The Son had
from a non-existent state created by the Father before the begin-
ning of the world :
" The Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of
the unbegotten One . nor from somethingpreviously existing,
. .
but he existed with will and design before times and ages, the com-
plete, only-begotten, unchangeable God ; and before he began
to be, or was either created or founded, he was not. The Son
has a beginning, but God is without beginning He is, out
of things not being (ep. ad Eus.). God was not always
Father, but there was [a time] when God was alpne, and was not
yet Father, and afterward he became Father. The Son was not
always. For, all things coming into being from not being, and
all things created and made having begun to be, this Logos of
God also came into being from things not existing ; and there
was [a time] when he was not, and he was not before he was be-
gotten, but he also had a beginning of being created " (Thai, in
Athan. or. i. 5). (c) The Son is the Logos and the Wisdom
of the Father, but he is to be distinguished from the Logos im-
manent in God. The latter is a divine energy ( ('inva/j.c^') the ^
Son a created divine being, having participation in the immanent

Logos (cf. the Dynamistic Monarchianism). He says thus that
there are two sophias ; the one peculiar to God and co-eternal
with him, and the Son was born in Xh^sophia, and, sharing in it,
he is called simply sophia and Logos and he says thus also
. . .
that there is another Logos besides the Son in God, and that the
Son, sharing in this, is again by grace called Logos and the Son
himself" (Athan. 1. c. i. 5). (^) The Logos is, therefore, a crea-
ture of the Father, created by him as the medium in the creation
of the world (ib. and ii. 24; ep. encycl. Alex, in Socr. h. e. i.
6). Accordingly, he is not God in the full sense of the word,
but through his enjoyment of the divine favor he receives the
names, God and Son of God, as do also others ( ^* and although he
is called God, he is yet not the true God, but by sharing in grace,
just as all others also, he is called by name simply God,

'
Thai. ib.
'
I. 6 ; cf. ep. Al. ad Al. in Theod. i. 3. p. 732). It is, therefore,

clear that *' the Logos is different from and unlike the substance
(o'u^'a)andpeculiar nature (j'^twrijrfjs^) of the Father in all respects"
(Thai. ib. ) . (-?) In view of the significance of this unoriginated
character (âj^vv-qaia) for the divine nature of the Son, a further
consequence is unavoidable. The Logos is by nature mutable.
But since God foresaw that he would remain good, he bestowed
upon him in advance the glory which he afterward as man merited
by his virtue (Thai, in Ath. i. 5; cf. i. 35 init. j ep. Al. ad Al. in
Theod. i. 3, p. 732 ; cf. ep. encycl. Alex, in Socr. i. 6 muta- :

and variable, dXXotmrogj by nature).^ The Arians

ble, Tf)7ZTo^,
held, with Paul of Samosata, that Christ is through unity of will
one with the Father (Athan. c. Arian. or. iii. lo). (/) By
the use of profane logic (Athan. c. Ar. or. ii. 68) and by the
citation of passages of Scripture treating of the humility of
Christ (Alex, in Theod. i. 3, p. 740), the Arians sought to estab-
lish their own view and disprove that which was becoming the
accepted doctrine of the church. It was the easier to carry out
this purpose, since Arianism did not attribute a human soul to
Christ (see Greg. Naz. ep. ad Cledon. i. 7. Epiphan. ancor.
33)'
If we contemplate a whole, we at once observe
this theory as
its relationship with Paul of Samosata and Dynamistic Monar-
chianism. But the earlier views referred to, in the process of ac-
commodation, became much worse. What Paul taught concern-

ing the man Jesus, Arius and apparently Lucian before him
transferred to a median being, the Logos. It is not the man
Jesus who is endowed with divine energy (^dwa/ic^) and preserves
it in a moral life, but the Logos
the man Jesus does not even pos-
"
sess a human soul. The Logos is, therefore, a ** creature of God
and yet *^ complete God." The unity of God is preserved, but
only at the price of teaching '*that there are three persons
(u7:o^Td<Tc-^)j Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" (ep. ad Al. in
Epiph. h. 69. 8). Thus a mythological element is introduced
into Christianity, and bare Monotheism is transformed into the
Polytheism of heroes and demigods; cf. Athan. c. Ar. or. iii.
15, 16), or there is thought to be a necessity, with Philo, for a
median being between the world and God (cf. ib. ii. 24).
Arius reminds us at many points of the old Apologists ( 13),
but what was in their case apologetic art and necessity is here a
deliberate theory, set up in opposition to other views.
There is also the further difference, that by the Apologists
Christ, as the Divine Logos, is regarded as truly God ; whereas
Arius makes him but a rational energy created by God. If we

look for the inspiring motive of this doctrine- which is the worst
Christology imaginable
Athanasius is probably not wholly
wrong in regarding it as Samosatianism modified by lack of cour-
age (ib. iii. 51 i. 38).
; Arius interpreted Paul of Samosata in
the sense of the subordinationistic utterances of Origen and
1 That this was the view of Arias is beyond question. He veiled it in cor-
respondence with Eusebius (see the ovaAAo/wrof above), just as the direct
declaration of the temporality of the Son was avoided (see citations above,
and cf. ep. ad Al. in Epiph. h. 69. 8 being born achronously, and also
:
Athan. c. Arian. ori. 13), or, despite the utterances above cited, Christ was
described to Eusebius as "complete God."
THE HOMOUSIA OF THE SON. 205
pressed every point thus gained to its extreme logical conclu-

sion.
With great activity, political sagacity, and tact, Arius made
provision for the propagation of his theory. He not only gained
a following in Egypt, among bishops and virgins (see ep. Al.
ad Al. init.), but he succeeded in winning the schismatic Mele-
tians (Alex. ep. encycl. Sozomen. h. e. i. 15), and also found
comrades among the bishops in Palestine and Syria (Theod. h.
e. i. 3; Sozomen. h. e. i. 115. The mighty co-Lucianist,
Eusebius of Nicomedia (see his letters to Paulinus of Tyre in
Theod. i. 5), became the patron of this doctrine.
3. The first to oppose Arius was the Alexandrine bishop,
Alexander. He really understood the new doctrine (see his
account of it in Theod. h. e. i. 3 and Socr. h. e. i. 6). He
points out that the Word cannot itself have come into existence
in time, since all things were made by it (Jn. i. 3). His
person (ôTz/xTrarrfi') is beyond the comprehension of men (or
angels, cf. Isa. liii. 8 ; xxiv. 16). If Christ is the effulgence of
God (Heb. i. 3), then to deny his eternity is to deny the
eternity of the Father's light. The sonship QAorr^^) is, there-
fore, different in kind from that of human beings. The theory
of Arius is related to the heresies of Ebion, Paul, and Artemas.
Against it, Alexander regards the claims of the *' apostolic
doctrines of the church," /. f., of the Apostles' Creed, as vindi-
cated by his defense of the eternal divinity of the Son, together
with that of the Holy Ghost (Theod. i. 3, p. 745 f. 742). ,
Less certain is his positive teaching. He appears himself to have

at an earlier period recognized an existence of the Father before
that of Christ (*'and he exists therefore before Christ, as we
taught in harmony with your preaching in the church," says Arius
of him, Ar. ad Al. in Epiph. h. 69. 8). But he now taught
concerning the Son '' Alwâys God, always Son.
: The .
Son exists unbegottenly {âye^^WiTU}^) in God, always begotten

(â=:tYvvrj<i')j unbegottenly begotten" {aye^^rfTuyevrj^) (Ar. ep. ad
Eus. in Epiph. 69. 3). He does not deny the birth of the Saviour
('*that his unbegottenness is a property having relation to the
Father alone ") ; but it is a birth '* without beginning so far as
the Father is concerned," an always being from the Father
(^To de\ eluac i/. tod Tzarpo'^'). He is thus immutable and unvari-
able, and is rightly worshiped as is the Father. When John
locates the Son in the bosom of the Father, he means to indicate
" that the Father and the Son are two entities (^-pdy/j.ara') insep- ,
arable from one another." There are in the person (uTiurTrdfTiQ)

two natures (^/Ve;?). When the Lord declares himself one with
the Father (Jn. x. 30), he wishes to make himself known as the
2o6 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
absolute image of the Father. The Son is therefore a nature

((pnfTfs) separate from the Father ;is mitemporally
but, since he
begotten of the Father, he is God as is the Father. This view is
not clear.
The whole controversy appears in the first instance as a
repetition of the Dionysian dispute. Alexander attributed to
Dionysius of Rome an emphasizing of the "apostolic doc-
trines," but we have no intimation that the opposition became
more pronounced.
4. It seems proper at this point to present connectedly the
teaching of Athanasius [born before A. D. 300; died A. D.
373] which he maintained unswervingly and unyieldingly in a
,
long life, subject to constant assault and persecution. Such a

study will reveal to us the profoundest motives underlying the
great controversy.
Sources. Apologia c. Ahanos ; expositio fidei de decretis synodi

;
Nicaenae Ep. ad episc. Aeg. et Lib. apol. ad Constant, imperat. apol. de

; ; ;
fuga sua hist. Arianorum ad monach. ep. ad Serapionem de morte Arii ad

; ; ;
Serapionem, ep. ii. de synodis Arim. et Seleuc. and especially his chief work,
; ;
Orationes iv. c. Arianos. Opp. ed. Montfaucon, in Migne ser. gr. 25-28 ;
the most important also in Thilo, Eibl. patr. graec. dogmat. i. Compare
MoHLER, Athanas. ed. 2, 1844. Voigt, Die Lehre des Athanas., 1861.
,
Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des Athanas., 1880. Pell, Die Lehre des
Athanas. von der Siinde u. Erlosung, 1888. LoOFS, PRE. ii., ed. 3, 194
ff. Harnack do. ii., ed. 3, 155 ff., 202 ft. Stulcken, Athanasiana, 1899.
Hoss, Studien iiber das Christentum u. die Theologie des Athanasius.
The strength of Athanasius lay in the following particulars (i) :
In the very great stability and genuineness of his character. In a

long life, amid persecution and oppression, he remained immov-
able in his adherence to the truth which he had grasped, without
resorting to political expedients and without any waverings.
(2) He stood upon a secure foundation in his firm grasp upon
the conception of the unity of God, and this preserved him from
the subordinationism of the Logos-Christology. (3) He, with
an unerring tact, taught men to recognize the nature of the per-
son of Christ and its importance. He was able therefore to
understand Christ as the Redeemer and to define his nature in
accordance with the logical requirements of his redeeming work.
Just here is located the peculiarity of his Christology, which
assures it a permanent place in the teachings of the church.
Since Christ effects in us the new supernatural life, therefore he
must be God in the sense of the ho7nousia. To understand the
biblical character of Athanasius' s statement of the problem, we
need but recall the representations of John and the xopio^-
Tzveviia of Paul.
(^) We notice first the denunciation of Arianism. Athanasius

'
clearly recognized the unchristian and irreligious conclusions

to which thisdoctrine leads. If Arius is right, then the
triune God is not eternal ; to the unity was added in time the
Son and the Spirit. The three-foldness has come into existence
from the non-existent. Who can assure us that there may not
be a further increase? (c. Ar. or. i. 17, 18). According to
Arius, baptism would be administered in the name of a creature,
which can after all render us no aid (ib. ii. 41 ; iv. 25). But
not only is the Trinity thus dissolved by the Arians ; even the
divinity of the Father is imperiled. The Father has not always

been Father some change has taken place in him in the course
of time, and he did not always have within him the Word,
Light, and Wisdom (ib. i. 20, 24, 25). Further, Arianisni
leads logically to the polytheism of the heathen world. Only if
the Son partakes of the same nature and substance as the
Father, can we speak of One God. The Arians, on the con-
trary, have two different Gods: "It is necessary for them to
speak of two Gods, one the creator and the other the created,
and to worship two Lords," which leads to Greek polytheism
(ib. iii. 15, i6j.' This is illustrated particularly in the worship
rendered to Jesus in the church. It is heathenish to worship the
creature instead of the Creator (ep. encycl. 4), and, according
to Rev. xxii. 9, worship is not to be rendered even to the angels
(c. Ar. or. ii. 23): *' Who said to them that, having abandoned
the worship of the created universe (ij xtcti^), they should pro-
ceed again to worship something created and made?" (ib. i.
8, 38, 42 ; de deer. 11 fin.). But, above all, theArian view de-
stroys the certainty of salvation. If the Logos is mutable, as the
Arians consistently maintain, how can he reveal to us the Father,
and how can we behold in him the Father ? " How can he who
beholds the mutable think that he is beholding the immutable ? '
(ib. i. 35; cf. Jn. 14. 9). In this way man can never reach the
assurance of salvation, of fellowship with God, the forgiveness
of his sins, and immortality " For if, being a creature, he be-
:
came man, he as man remained none the less such as he was,

not partaking of God ; for how could a creature by a crea-
ture partake of God ? . And how, if the Logos was a
creature, would he be able to dissolve a decree of God and for-
give sin?" (ii. 67; iv. 20). ** Again, the man
partaking of
a creature would not be deified, unless the Son was truly God ;
and the man would not be equal with the Father, unless he who
assumed the body was by nature also the true Logos of the
^ Cf. Basil, ep.
243. 4
:
" Polytheism has conquered with them [there is]
a great God and a small God." Also Greg. Nyss., in his funeral oration for
Ba>iil, Mi. 46. 796. Aug. de symbol., I. 2.
.
2oS HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
Father " 70).

(ii. Finally, this median being (/isfjirTj^') between
God and the world is an utterly useless and senseless invention.
Neither is God too proud to come himself as Creator into direct
touch with a creature, nor in that case would the matter be made
any better by the supposed Logos, since at his creation also some
median creature would have been Jiecessary, and so on ad infi-
nitum (ii. 25, 26; de deer. 8).^Hence, if Christ is not the
true God and one substance with the Father, then it is all over
with the Trinity and the baptismal-symbol ; then polytheism an(i
the worship of creatures are again introduced into the church-;
then the salvation of Christian believers comes to naugh tjV and
yet, after all, no logically tenable position has been reached.
Thus the theory of Arius is just as impious as it is unscientific.
{b') What then is the doctrine of Athanasius himself touching
the divinity of the Son? (a) **And since Christ is God of
God and the Logos, Wisdom, Son, and Power of God, there-
fore, One God is proclaimed in the Holy Scriptures. For the
Logos, being the Son of the one God, is referred back to him
from whom he is, so that Father and Son are two, yet the monad
of divinity is unseparated (a(5fa/?ro?)and undivided (âa'/^nym^'^
Thus it might be said also that there is one original source of
divinity and not two original sources, and hence, also correctly,
that there is a monarchy . .the nature (ûufria) and the person
(u7:orTTa(7i<^) are one" (c. Ar. or. iv. i). These theses voice
the conviction that the divinity of the Son must be under-
stood with a distinct and conscious effort to guard the divine
monad. No basis is left for the '' second God. " Athanasius was
led to recognize the importance of this position by the conclusions
which Arius had drawn from his *' second God." He may, per-
haps, have been influenced also by the significant part played by
Sabellianism in Egypt (vid. supra, p. 168). In this case we have
another illustration of the historical recognition of the element
of truth lurking in a false theory. But the circumstance should
not be overlooked that Athanasius labored in the West, where
the consciousness of the unity of God was always more vivid
than in the East, which was so unquestionably controlled by the
formulas of the Logos idea. (/?) But Athanasius will not rec-
ognize a Son-Father (ocoTzdrwp) with the Sabellians, nor a sole-
natured (/itrôon^cn?') Qod, for the existence of the Son would
thus be excluded. On the contrary, the independent and eter-
nally personal existence of the Son is a fixed premise, always bear-
ing in mind that we are not to think of *' three hypostases sep-
arated from one another," which would lead to Polytheism. The
relationship between the Father and the Son is rather like that
between a fountain and the stream that gushes from it '* Just
:
as a river springing from a fountain is not separated from it,

although there are two forms and two names, so neither is the
J'ather the Son, nor the Son the Father " (expos, fid. 2 ; c. Ar.
or. iii, 4). (;') This distinction, as well as the unity, finds ex-
pression in the term " oneness of essence " (^pottj? ri^g odtrta^).
The Logos is a production, or generation (^tv^Tj/za), from the na-
ture ((>rj(7ca) of the Father (de deer. 3, 22, 23 c. Ar. i. 29).
;
As to his relation to created beings, it follows that *' the Son is

different in origin and different in nature from created beings,
and, on the other hand, is the same and of the same nature
(0^0^0159) as the nature of the Father " (ib. i. 58 ; de deer. 23,
12 de syn. 53). As he is thus other-natured (îrepoitntrtn'^)
;
than created beings, so he is same-natured (^6/ioouffco^y with the

Father, z. e., he shares with him the one divine substance (the
Son is ofiDoofTco^ and of the ou(T{a of the Father, ad Serap. ep. ii.
5 de syn. 40).
; But if this is the case, then the Logos is im-
mutable and eternal (de deer. 23. 12). ((5) The Son comes
forth from the Father by a begetting, or birth. In view of the
unique character of the divine nature, we cannot here thinh of
any outflow from the Father, nor any dividing of his substance.
*' The begetting of men and that of the Son from the Father are
different. For the things begotten of men are in some way

parts of those who beget them .men in begetting pour
. .
forth from themselves. But God, being without parts, is with-

out division and without passion the Father of the Son. For
neither does there take place any outflowing of the incor-
poreal One, nor any inflowing upon him, as with men but, ;
being simple in his nature, he is the Father of the one and only
Son . This is the Logos of the Father, in whom it is possi-
. .
ble to behold that which is of the Father without passion or divi-

sion " (de deer. 11). Nor is it as though '^the Son was be-
gotten from the Father by purpose and will" (c. Ar. iii. 59),
for thus the Son would be again degraded to the position of a
creature created in time, one which the Father first determined to
make and then made (iii. 60-63). All things wêre created by
the will of God, but of the Son it is to be said '' He is outside
:
of the things created by the purpose [of God] and, on the ,
other hand, he is himself the living purpose of the Father, in

which all these things come into being" (64). '' But the Son of
God is himself the Logos and wisdom, himself the counsel and
the living purpose, and in him is the will of the Father; he him-
self is the truth and the light and the power of the Father"
^ Athanasius himself never attached a particular significance to this word

(see, d-. ^., de syn. 41).
14
' .
(65). As the very image (z<> Idtov) of the Father's person

(''-(^rt-ra/r;^-)/ he originate in an arbitrary act of the
did not
Father's will (ib.). But this does not imply that the Son was not
desired by the Father. " For it is one thing to say he was be- ;
gotten by desire (/3otjAiy'f7d), and another thing to say that the

Father loves his Son, who is the same in nature as himself, and
desires him " (66). The Son is thus related to the Father as
radiance to the light ** the living Counsel and
: truly by nature
a production, as the radiance is a production of the light" (67).
Father and Son are, therefore, two persons (the Logos is not
impersonal, avoTro^rraro?, as the word of man, de syn. î fin.),
the Begetting and the Begotten ; but they are again, by virtue of
this same relationship, one
a divine Being ** The Father is
:
Father and not himself Son, and the Son is Son and not himself
Father, but the nature (<p'j<Ti-^) is one. For that which is begot-
ten is not unlike him who begets, for it is his likeness (eUcov)
therefore the Son is not another God.
. For if, indeed,
.
the Son as a begotten being is another, yet as God he is the

same, and he and the Father are one in the peculiarity and
"
structure of their nature and in the identity of the one divinity
(ib. iii. 4). But this relationship of the Begetting and the Be-
gotten is an eternal one: "The Father was always by nature
generating" (/ev^r^rtyMt;) (iii. 66). "It is evident that the
'
Logos is both of himself and always existent with the Father
Athanasius starts with the conception of the One divine Being,

but this one God leads a double life (as to the triune feature, see
below, {f) As Begotten and Begetting, Son and Father stand
.
opposed to one another as two persons, but not as two Gods.

They are one nature Qiia o>j<na), of the same n2Xwxe(^6iiooo(no^)
In these declarations is really expressed all that the church had
believed and taught concerning Christ since the days of the
apostles: the one Godhead and the divine ''I" of the Son.
The elements of truth in Monarchianism and in the popular
Christoiogy, with their^ conceptions of the "second God," the
" divine part," and the Logos of the Father, are all here com-
bined and the errors of thought and expression carefully avoided.
The ancient formulas can never recur in the church in the same
shape. Athanasius really furnished something new. He reduced
the manifold representations of Christ to a simple formula, and
he established the necessity of this formula firmly by displaying
* A discrimination between the terms, vnoarncig ox^d ovtrla, is yet unthought
of by Athanasius, as manifest from this passage and others already cited. Cf.
dedecr. 27 ;de syn. 41 ad Afros 4.
; Cf. Harnack, DG., ii., p. 211. The
same remark applies to the Nicene Creed.
its of redemption.
relation to the doctrine Imperfections, of
course, remain.
still The theologian of to-day will find fault, in
addition to the defectiveness of the scriptural proof, chiefly with
theindefiniteness of the term ahala^ he will not fail to observe that
the one personal God of Athanasius is, after all, to a certain de-
gree, only the Father " (" and thus there will be proclaimed in
the church one God, the Father of the Logos," ad Epict. 9 fin.;
''the Father as the source" (//'?') and fountain {-Tjyyj)^ ad
Serap. ep. i. 28); and he will demand a more distinct recognition
of the divine personality, as well as a proper application of the
principle of historical revelation in connection with the life of
Christ. The problem which Athanasius endeavored to solve thus
becomes more complicated. But it will not be denied that
Athanasius made the best possible use of the materials then
at hand. And Ave can in our day, with the New Testament in
hand, scarcely do otherwise than acknowledge the problem of

Athanasius as one well worthy of our study, and perhaps from
other points of view, in other terms, and with other methods of

proof hold fast to the 6/ioou(no^.
(c) It was not the demands of logical consistency, forced upon
him alike by the assaults of his opponents and by the requirements
of his own position, which inspired Athanasius. The arguments,
both positive and negative, by which he justifies his discussions are
primarily of a religious nature (see p. 207), and it is precisely
this fact which constitutes the novelty and importance of his
view. Only if Christ is God, in the full sense of the word and
without qualification, has God entered humanity, and only then
have fellowship with God, the forgiveness of sins, the truth of
God, and immortality been certainly brought to men. (a) This
will become clear, if we consider the soteriological ideas of
Athanasius. The Logos assumed human flesh i^trdp^') and be-
came man. He was true God and true man (ib. ii. 70 ; iii. 32,
41, 30 iv. 35, 36).
;
" He became man, and did not enter into
man," as, for example, he visited the Old Testament believers
fiii. 30; ad Epict. 11). " He who was God by nature was bom
a man, in order that both might be one" (c. Apollin. i. 7).
But the union (i'l/w^:^) between the flesh (<7dp~'), {. e., the en-
tire human nature (ad Epict. 8 ; c. Ar, iii. 30) and the divinity
(yêoTT)'^') exists *' from the womb " (c. Apol. i. 4), and the union
is indissoluble, but without leading to any mixture (c. Apol. i.
6 : "In order that the body might be according to its nature,

and again, without division, might be according to the nature of
the divinity of its Logos." He ascended in the body, c. Ar. i.
10 *' Shall it not suffice thee that the body in the undi-
45 ;i. :
vided physical union with the Logos has been made his own ? " )
ZI2 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
The Logos was not therefore in some way transformed into the
flesh (ad Epict. 8), but he nature as to use
is so related to human
the latter as his instrument. Hence, the works of the divine
nature are accomplished through the flesh. But, on the other
hand, inasmuch as this impassible flesh belongs to the Logos,
we may attribute to it that which, strictly speaking, applies only
to the human nature, since the divine nature is not capable of
suffering. *'
Being God, he had a body of his own, and, using
this as an organ, he became man for our sakes ; and, therefore,
the things properly spoken of [the body] are said of him, when
he was in it, such as hunger, thirst, suffering, of which ...
things the flesh is susceptible ; but the works peculiar to the
Logos himself, such as raising the dead and making the blind to
see, . he did through his own body, and the Logos bore the
.
infirmities of the flesh as though they were his own, for it was
his flesh, and the flesh assisted in the works of the divine nature,
because it was in the latter ; for it was the body of God '' (c.
Ar. or. iii. 31, 32, 35, 41 ad Epict. 5, 10, 11). We may
;
therefore, in a certain sense, speak of the sufferings of the Logos.

*
For the things which the human body of the Logos suffered,
'
the Logos, being one with it, transferred to himself, in order that
we might be enabled to become partakers of the divine nature of
the Logos. And it was a paradox, that he was a sufferer and

not a sufferer a sufferer, because his own body suffered and he
was in it as it suffered ; and not a sufferer, because the Logos,
being by nature God, cannot suffer'* (ad Epict. 6; c. Ar. iii.
37, 35). Hence Athanasius designates even the human acts of
Christ as good deeds (/.aTop^'^wtiara) of God (c. Ar. or. iii. 41 ;
cf. ad Scrap, ep. iv. 14 All things were connectedly, :
(Tuvrj/x/iivoj^j done for he spat like men, and his spittle

. . .
"
was full of God), and he could speak of the " crucified God
(ad Epict. 10 ; 34), of worshiping the man Jesus
cf. c. Ar. iii.
(c. Apol. i. 6), Mother of God (>êoTox(t^).

and of Mary as the
(j3) The object of this whole method of regarding the
subject is to establish a firm foundation for the salvation
(fTWTTjpia) of men. Inasmuch as Christ was really God, he
could deify the flesh which he assumed ; and inasmuch as this
was really human flesh (c. Epict. 7), human nature has thereby
been deified. ** Man could not have been deified, unless he who
became flesh had been by nature of the Father and his true and
peculiar Logos. Therefore such a conjunction was effected, in
order thatto that which was according to the nature of the divinity
he might join that which was by nature man, and the salvation
and deification of the latter might be secure" (c. Ar. ii. 70).
*' For
as the Lord, having assumed the body, became man, so
THE HOMOUSIA OF THE SON. 2I3
we men are by the Logos deified, having been taken into part-
nership through his flesh, and, furthermore, we inherit eternal
life " (ib. iii. 34). Accordingly, since Christ assumed flesh, he
assumed human nature, and thereby deified and immortalized it :
** From the
holy and God-bearing Virgin he raised up the new
form and creation of Adam, making it his own by union
(za?9' vaj(nv), and thus appeared the man Christ, God from
eternity, and we are members of Christ." i Cor. vi. 15 (c.
Apol. i. 13, cf. c. Ar. i. 43; ii. 61; iii. 33; iv. 36). He is
thus the second Adam (c. Ar. i. 44; ii. 65). The life of the
Lord is to be interpreted in the light of this purpose. He was,
according to the flesh, without knowledge, in order that to
his flesh, and thus to humanity, might be given power to know
the Father (c. Ar. or. iii. 38; ad Scrap, ii. 9). He feared
death, in order that we might become free from the fear of
death and partakers of immortality (ib. iii. 54 ff. cf. ii, 70).
;
He was baptized, anointed with the Spirit of God, received

grace, and ascended to heaven, in order that we through his
flesh might secure the Spirit, grace, and immortality (ib. i.
43-48). To all assertions of this kind must be added, to insure
a proper understanding, the words '^
And all such things in the
:
flesh wholly for our sakes " (ib. iii. 34, 38 ff. ; cf. iv. 6 '* for on
:
this account he became incarnate, that the things thus given to

him might pass over to us " ) But this all happens to the flesh of
.
Christ, and thus to the human race, because that flesh is joined
with true divinity (ib. ii. 70, 67 ; iv. 36). Thus sin is de-
stroyed {w^yjkw-ai^ and humanity becomes free from sin and im-
mortal (ib. iii. 32 ; 2. 56).^ Thus, too, we become a temple
and sons of God (i. 43 ; ii. 59), the Spirit of Christ dwells in
us and we are thereby made one with the Father (ii. 25). We
must in all these discussions avoid the erroneous idea that in this
deification of man Athanasius sees a magical process by which
the seeds of immortality are physically implanted in man. The
deification embraces, on the contrary, all the spiritual and mys-
tical processes in which Christ operates by his word and his ex-
ample upon the hearts of men (ib. iii. 19 ff. ). What Athanasius
means to assert is that Christ dwells in us, and, by the power of
his Spirit, gives us a new, eternal life. But now, since God was
in Christ, and from him a divine life flowed out upon men, the
man Jesus has become in all things the representative of the
^ To this was necessary that the Logos should himself dwell in the
end it
race, for although"many were indeed holy and pure from all sin " (,?. g.,
Jeremiah and John the Baptist), yet death reigned from Adam to Moses also
over those who had not sinned, after the similitude of Adam's transgression.
Similarly, c. Ar. iii. 33.
race, or the second Adam. His death is, therefore, the death
of or he has given his body to death for all, and thereby ful-
all,
filled the divine sentence against sin (ii. 69). This guiltless
self-surrender to death is designated as a " ransom of the sin of
men and an abohtion of death" (i. 45). Represented this ran-
som, or sacrifice, to God the Father, and by his blood cleansed
us all from sin (ii. 7). Athanasius here adopts traditional
ideas. His own thought remains clear. Since we have become
one body with Christ, his death is our death, and his victory
over death is ours :
'*
All men being ruined in accordance with
the transgression of Adam, the flesh of this one was first of all
saved and set free, as being the body of the Logos itself, and
thereupon we, as being of one body (ît'J(t<7w/j.oi') with him, are
saved. . Having endured death for us and abolished it, he
was the first man to arise, having raised up his own body for us.
Furthermore, he having arisen, we also in our order arise from
the dead on account of and through him" (ib. ii. 61). As in
all these positions we can trace the influence of the general point
of view above noted, so too in the passages in which Christ is
represented as the only mediator of the knowledge of the Father
(i. 12, 16; ii. 81), as the pattern of unvarying righteousness
(i. 51), as the dispenser of the forgiveness of sins (ii. 67), and
as the bestower of the Holy Spirit (iii. 23-25, 33 ; de deer. 14).

But it still remains the matter of chief importance that, through
the incarnation of the Logos, God himself has entered into the
human race for abiding fellowship, and the latter have thereby
secured grace and righteousness, the Holy Spirit, a new life, and
with it immortality: ''Therefore the perfect Logos of God
assumes the immortal body . in order that, having paid the
.
debt for us (aviV rj/iajv rry^ 6<piXYjV aTiodtdohg), the things yet
lacking to man might be perfected by him ; but there was yet
lacking immortality and the way to paradise" (ii. 66).
That these are really Christian ideas cannot be doubted.
They follow the Johannine type of doctrine, and, at the same
time, one of the Hnes of Pauline teaching (cf. Ignatius, Irenseus,
Methodius). That the apostolic conception of the gospel is
here reproduced, however, in a one-sided way, can as little be
questioned. Yet it remains true, that it is a religious and Chris-
tian foundation from which the views of Athanasius are logically
developed. Christ is God, or we cannot have God dwelhng and
operating in us and be sure of our salvation,^ /'.
?., of the new
eternal life and the forgiveness of our sins.
^ Harnack's estimate is: " This absurdity (7.^., * the hogos-ofioovaiog-

formula ) Athanasius endured
' he thus unwittingly offered up to his faith a yet
;
{d) AVe mention here by anticipation that Athanasius at a

later period employed the same means to prove the Homousia of
the Holy Spirit (vid. ep. iv. ad Serap. and cf. tomi ad Antioch-
enos). As against the opinion that the Holy Spirit is a creature
(xriV/ia) or an angelic being (ad Serap. i. lo. 12), it must be re-
membered that something of different nature (a izzfiooorfur/)
would thus be introduced into the Trinity, and the latter thereby
be destroyedj or transformed into a Diad {dud<Sj i. 29). What-
ever is true of the Son must therefore be true also of the Holy
Spirit (i. 9, 20j 21). He is of like nature (o/KKiotrnr^^ i. 27),
immutuble (arpsTzro'^, i. 26), and d)/aXX<nLDT<>Vj ib.). And, as in
the case of the Son, this is manifest also from the nature of his
work as attested by our experience. He sanctifies us, and enables
us to participate in the divine nature (Ji-eia(f'j(7t'^, i. 23). ** When
now we are called partakers of Christ and partakers of God, the
anointing within us bears witness and the seal, which is not of the
nature of things made, but of the nature of the Son through the
Spirit who in him unites us to the Father (cf. i Jn. 4. 13) . . .
But if in the fellowship of the Spirit we become partakers of

the divine nature, he would be mad who should say that the
Spirit is of created nature and not of the nature of God. There-
fore, indeed, they into whom he enters are deified ; and if he
deifies, it is not doubtful that his nature is that of God " (i. 24).
Such the doctrine of Athanasius.
is It, in his judgment,
faithfullyreproduces the teachings of the Scriptures, as well as of
the Fathers {e.g., Ignat. Ephes. 7, cited in de syn. 47), the
"great councils," the baptismal command, and the baptismal con-
fession (ad Serap. ep. i. 28, 30, 33 ; ii. 8 ; iii. 6 ; c. Apol. i. 2 ;
ad Epict. i. 3). Its profound religious basis, as well as its sim-
plicity and consistency, must be evident to all.
5. We turn back in our study to present the historical course
of the controversy and the conclusions of the Council of Nice,
A. D. 325.
Sources. The Decrees of the Council in Mansi, Acta concil. ii. 665 ff.
Ep. CoNSTANTiNE ad Alex. et Ar. in Eus. Vita Const, ii. 64-72 and account
there given (ib. iii. 6-22). Euseeius ep. ad Caesareens. in Theodoret. h. e.
i. II. Athanasius, de decretis syn. Nic. and epistle to Afros. Eustha-
THius, in Theod. h. e. i. 7. Further, the accounts of the later church histor-
ians : Socrat. h. c. i. 7-10. Sozomen. h. e. i. 16-25. Theodoret. h. e. i. 6-13.
Philostorgius h. e. i. 7 ff-* ii- 'S- Also Gelasius (ca. A. D. 476); l.ii'Tfi}fj.a
Tiov Kara T^v kv NcKaig dytav avvo(hv 7Tpa;];-d-VTG)v, 1. ii. (in Mansi, Acta
concil. ii. 759 ff. Cf. the collection of decrees in Mansi, 1. c. Neander,
greater sacrifice the historical Christ " (DG. ii. 221). But the peculiarity of
Athanasius which made his teaching normative for the future lay precisely in
the fact that he strictly guarded the unity of God, and yet without wavering
maintained the divinity of Christ and of the historical Christ at that.
2l6 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
KG. ii. 79off. ). Moller-Schuben, KG. i., ed. 2,424 ff. Hefele, Concilien-
gesch. i., ed, 2, 282 ff. Braun, de synode Nic. (Kirchengeschichtl. Studien
by Knopfler, iv. 3). Seeck, in Ztschr. f. KG. xvii. 105 ff. 319 ff.
Already in A. D. 320 or 321, Alexander of Alexandria had

directed two ecclesiastical assemblies in Egypt against Arianism,
and it was condemned by them (Hefele, 1. c. i. 268 ff. ). Arius
was compelled to leave Alexandria. But the agitation was thus
only increased, as a synod in Bithynia enhsted in his cause (Soz.
i. 15). The Emperor Constantine now found occasion to take
part in the affair. He at first endeavored to treat it as an unim-
portant strife of words, and exhorted to mutual reconcihation,
as, in any event, no " one of the chief commandments of our
law" was in question (Eus. vit. Const, ii. 70). The emperor,
indeed, changed his opinion upon this point (ib. ii. 69, 71 and
iii. 12); but he remained faithful to the political interest in the
preservation of the unity of the church's faith, which had from

the first been his controlling motive (cf. vita Const, ii. 65 init.,
with iii. 17, 21). As the agitation continued to grow and
threatened to spread through the entire East (ib. ii. 73. Socr.
i. 8), he summoned a general council of the church to meet at
Nicaea. About 300 bishops (asto the number, see Hefele i. 291),
chiefly Orientals, but also Thracians, Macedonians, Achaeans, and
the Spaniard, Hosiusof Cordova (Rome being represented by tw
presbyters) responded to the call (vit. Const, iii. 7). The order
of business and the course of the debate are alike obscure for us.
There were in the council many elements lacking in independence
(Socr. I. 8). We can note with some measure of certainty three
groups. An Arian section led by Eusebius of Nicomedia (see
his view in Theod. h. e. i. 5), small in numbers (Theod. i. 6.
Soz. i. 20), first presented its confession of faith. This was re-
jected with indignation, and even the partisans of Arius, with
the exception of two, did .not dare to adhere to it (Eustath. in
Theod. i. 7). A
compromising party now entered the field.
Eusebius of Caesarea presented an indefinite Origenistic confes-
sion : We believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Logos
* *
of God, God of God, light of light life of life the only-begotte^t

, ^
Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of the leather before all
the ages ; through whom also all things were made ; who for the
sake of our salvation was made flesh and dwelt among men, and
suffered and rose on the third day and returned to the Father,
and shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead,"
etc. (Eus. in Theod. i. 11). This confession, as the italicized
words indicate, has all the advantages and defects incident to a
compromise formula. The Homousians could find their views
expressed in it as well as the Arians (see Ath. ad Afros). Taken
THE HOMOUSIA OF THE SON". 21 7
as it Stood, undoubtedly presented the view of the majority.

it
The emperor approved it, but wished an acknowledgment of the
o/j.(iou(Tio^ (it). ). It is very probable that he was under the influ-

ence of Hosius (cf. Socr. iii. 7. Philostorg. i. 17), who, in turn,
was in sympathy with Alexander, and for whom, as a Western
man, the term presented no difficulty (vid. Tert. Novat., Dionys.
,
of Rome, supra, pp. 124 f., 169 f., 172). A basis was thus fur-
nished and a program mapped out for the third group, that of
Alexander and Athanasius ** Under the pretext of the addition
:
of the 6fntoufTu>y, they composed the writing," writes Eusebius,

(ib.). With the professed purpose of cutting away the founda-
tion beneath the Arians, the confession of Eusebius was changed,
and finally read ** We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
:
maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begot-
teUj i. e., of the natitre of the Father. God of God, Light of
Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one
substance with the Father, by whom all things were made,
both things in heaven and things on earth ; who for us men and
for our salvation came down and was made flesh and assumed
man's nature, suffered and rose the third day, ascended to
heaven, [and] shall come again to judge the quick and the
dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But the holy and apostolic
church anathe77iatizes those who say that there was \a time, T.ure\
when he was not, and that he was made from things not existing,
or fi'om another perso7i (ûTrofTrdtTew'^^ or being (otto-t'a?), saying
that the Son of God is mutable, or changeable'''' (ib.). The
words which we have italicized indicate in what spirit this modi-
fication was undertaken. This formula was accepted, also for
the sake of peace, though not without some delay, by the median
I)arty (Eus. 1. c). It became the confession of the council.
Besides Arius, only five persons. refused to sign it (even Eusebius
of Nicomedia, who, however, was unwilling to approve the con-
demnatory portion). These were banished by the emperor.
Thus the Homousia of the Son became a dogma. When, in-
deed, we consider the immediate circumstances under which this
dogma was adopted, it was but natural that the real struggle
should only then begin. Nevertheless, the assembled representa-
tives of the church had accepted the Homousia, and the emperor
deemed it his duty to give legal force to the decrees^ of the coun-
^ In addition to the decision as to the Houmosia, decrees were adopted upon
the question of the Passover Êus. vit. Const, iii. 18-20), upon the Meletian
(Socr. h. e. i. 9 cf. Canon 6) and Novatian (Can. 8) schism and upon a
;
number of questions of church order and discipline (cf. Hefele, CG. i. p.

320-431 )
cil, demanding obedience to them and punishing those who

opposed them. The state church comes into power. The
emperor summons the councils the state guarantees traveling
;
expenses and entertainment the emperor, or an imperial com-

;
missioner, opens the councils and regulates the proceedings ; and

an imperial edict gives legal force to the decrees. It is for Church
History to point out the significance of all this. A historical
parallel to Constantine is seen in Augustus' work of restoration.
Both served God and politics, and both crowned their work by
the introduction of imperialism.
21. Ftirther Development Until the Council of Consta7itinopley

A. D. 381.
1. The and contentions of this period belong in their

strife
details to the sphere of Church History and Patristics. We
must, therefore, be content with a brief general view of them.
The Nicene Creed was really, after all, but the confession of a
minority. The letter of Eusebius to his congregation at Caesarea
(in Theod. h. e. i. 11) indicates what skill was required to make
it appear acceptable. According to this explanation, the
v!J.noo<7io^ means no more than that ''the Son is of the Father,"
*' the Son of God bears nc likeness to begotten crea-
and that
tures, but is to be likened in every way alone to the Father who
begat him, and that he is not from any other b7zo(TTdm<i, or ou<yia,
but from that of the Father. The rejection of the Arian for-
'
'
mulas was interpreted to mean that ''he was the Son of God
also before his birth according to the fleshy ... he was dynami-
cally in the Father before he was actually born."
2. It may be easily understood from this why the adoption of
the Nicene Creed did not bring peace, but became the signal for
a violent renewal of the conflict. The inner dialectics of the
conflicts of the ensuing years were as follows (i) The decision
:
of the matter lay in the hands of the Origenists, i. e., of the

larger middle party. (2) Upon these the Arians at first de-
pended in their effort to secure the revocation of the Nicene
Creed, and thus restore the status quo ante. To this end the
Origenists cast their influence with the Arians. (3) When the
Nicene Creed had been set aside, the Arians began to push their
own positive dogmatic views to the front. (4) The Origenists
now parted company with them, and the elements attached to
the homousios were more strongly emphasized in their opposition
to the Arians. (5) The middle party now joined Athanasius.
It may be said that, in the development of the movement, the
same inner legalism proved influential which had produced the
BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 2I9
result attained at Nicaea itself. Since now, instead of -the antic-

ipated peace, the Nicene Creed but provoked further contro-
versy, it is not to be wondered at that Constantine himself un-
dertook to change the aspect of affairs. Eusebius of Nicomedia
was permitted to return ; Arius defended himself to the satisfac-
tion of the emperor (Soar. i. 26); the leaders of the Nicene
party, Eustathius of Antioch and Athanasius (who had been
since A. D. 328 bishop of Alexandria) were removed from office
and banished upon the ground of slanderous treatment of their
opponents (the former A. D. 330 ; the latter by the Council of
Tyre, ;^^^^ being sent to Treves in 336). Constantine died A.
^- 337) shortly after the death of Arius had prevented the
solemn restoration of the latter to the fellowship of the church.
After the death of Constantine, Athanasius was permitted to
return ; but Constantius carried out in the East the ecclesiastical
policy of the last years of his father's life. Athanasius was
again, in A. D. 339, compelled to flee, and proceeded to Rome.
The Eusebians (Eus. of Nic. had meanwhile become bishop of
Constantinople) were now in control in the East. It was neces-
sary to find a form of doctrinal statement w^hich would at the
same time establish firmly their own view, and, out of regard for
the Western theologians, avoid extreme Arianism. This was
secured by the Council held at Antioch A. D. 341 in connection
with the dedication of the church, and that held in the same city
A. D. 344, at which the forjimla niacrostichos was prepared.
The formulas of these two councils (see Athan. de syn. 22 ff.)
approach the Athanasian view as closely as possible ( complete
'
'
God of complete God, begotten of the Father before the

ages"), and reject the statement that the Son had a temporal
beginning, or is from any other hypostasis ; but the 6/i(>oufn<><^ is
avoided. Athanasius is not indeed directly assailed, but in the
person of the like-minded Marcellus of Ancyra (see the three
formulas of the former of these councils and the /onnu/a niacros-
tichos of the latter).
3. In the West, on the contrary, the doctrine of Athanasius,
as also that of Marcellus, was unconditionally endorsed at the
councils at Rome, A. D. 341 (see the letter of Pope Julius in
Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 20-35), and 5i?r<//Va, -^- ^- 343 0^- 36-50).
This brings us to the peculiar teaching of one of the most
zealous of the Nicene party, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra (s.
Eus. c. Marcel., from which are taken the fragments in Rett-
BERG, Marcelliana, 1794; cf. Zahn, Marc. v. Anc, 1867).
This man is professedly a scriptural theologian. Not the
*
'dogmas'* ( ''for the name, dogma, has something of human
counsel and knowledge," p. 21 A), nor the authority of the
Fathers (p. 21), but the Scriptures are decisive. In the Arian
doctrine, like Athanasius, he sees disguised polytheism (p.
25 D; 26 A J 27 C, D ; 28 A ; 29 C). From this it appears
that he is interested, no less than Athanasius, in preserving
the unity of God. If we insist upon investigating the eternal
nature of Christ and his relation to the Father, we should take
for the basis of our study such terms as : Christ, Jesus, Life,
Way, Day (cf. Just. Dial. 150), Resurrection, Door, Bread for
** this starts with that which
is new in him and with his new rela-
tionship according to the flesh" (p. 92). The same may be said
of the names ''Son of God" (p. 54 B), ** image of God " (p. 47
D). His eternal nature finds expression only in the term Logos
(in Johni. iff.). As the Word of God, he is eternal (p. 35 D).
This term expresses his entire pretemporal experience (p. 35 B ;
40 C). To speak of the ''generation of the Logos" is not
scriptural (p. 37 B), but conception applies to him as incar-
nated. John furnishes us three items of knowledge: "Where
he says, in the first place In the beginning was the Word,'
:
'
he shows that the Word is in power (du)^d/ic) in the Father, for

in the beginning of all things created [is] God, of whom are all
things ; and in the second place ' and
: the Word was with
God,* that the Word is in energv {l\>epyzia) with God, for all
things were made by him .; and, in the third place
. :
' the
Word is God,' he tells us not to divide the divine Beings since the
Word is in him and he in the Word ; for the Father, says he, is
in me and I in the Father " (p. 37 A.). The terms dOvaiif; and
bApyeca are here used to designate the Logos as power reposing in
God and power in action, the Ivipyeta dpatrrufj (p. 41 D. ) (see
Zahn, p. 123 ff.). The Logos is, therefore, on the one hand, a
personal power immanent in God, and, on the other hand, in
the interest of his historical work, he proceeds (i|>i'?tt>^,
i-ATzopzuzzai^ p. 167 f) from the Father, but without thereby
changing in any way the first relationship. We dare not start
with three hypostases and then combine them into a divine
unity: "For it is impossible that three, being hypostases, be
united in a monad, unless the triad has first originated from a
monad " (p. 167 D). How is it to be accounted for, upon the
Arian theory of two separated persons {izp6(7Lo-a) ^ that the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the Father and yet is bestowed by the Son?
(ib. ). We have not to do with three different beings, but
the inexpressible relationship is to be regarded somewhat as an
extension of the one God :
" Not distinctly and evidently then,
but in a mystic sense, the ;;z??z^^ appears extended to a triads but,
continuing to exist, is in no way divided " (ib. cf. Dionys. of
Rome in Ath. sent. Dion. 17 and Tert. Apol. 21). These are
BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 22 1
Nicene ideas: the one God leads a three-fold life; only that
Marcellus, with greater exegetical prudence, refrains from apply-
ing directly to the prehistoric life of the divine nature the
knowledge of God which we have historically gained. This is
evident also from the following statements : When God proposed
to establish the church and set apart the human race for sonship
(p. 12 D), the Logos proceeded from the Father as actively en-
gaged in the creation, preservation, and redemption of the
world. Less than 400 years ago he became the ** Son of God,"
Christ and King (p. 50 D). At the end of the days, since his
kingdom shall become the kingdom of God, he will return into
A
God (p. 41 C ; 42 ; 52 Cj, ruling with the Father. What
will then become of his body, Marcelius confesses that he does
not know (p. 53 A).
The significance of this theology lies in the fact that it gave
the Eusebians the opportunity of continually bringing the charge
of Sabellianism against their opponents ; but, on the other hand,
the fact that it was recognized by the Homousians as orthodox (in
Athan. Apol. 32, 47) indicates how sincere they were in their de-
votion to the strictly monotheistic conception of God, and that their
controlling interestcentered in the three-fold historical self -revela-
tion of God. But this theory itself made no impression historically.
It was too original and archaistic to secure wide acceptance
(cf. Iren., p. 124 f.). Athanasius (or. c. Ar. iv.) also attacked
the views of Marcelius without naming him, and, after review-
ing them, had only ridicule for the oddities of the *'old man
"
(Epiph. h. 72. 4). It was further disastrous for them that they
were interpreted even by contemporaries in the sense of Photi-
Nus of Sirmium (Epiph. h. 71), according to whom Christ was
only a supernaturally (per contra, Marius Mercator, opp. ed.
Baluz., p. 164) begotten man, in whom the Logos dwelt. This
was really the doctrine of Paul of Samosata. The Eusebians as
well as the Nicene theologians rejected it.
4. Photinus fell under condemnation (Council at Milan, A. D.
345 (?) and 347). In other points the Western theologians, with
Athanasius, adhered to their views. Constantius, held in check
by the Persians, was driven to the determination to recall
Athanasius (A. D. 346), and two prominent Eusebians, Ursacius
and Valens, deemed it prudent to make peace with Rome and
Athanasius (see Athan. Apol. 51-58). On the other hand,

the (first) Sirmian Council in A. D. 347 (?) condemned Photinus,
indicating Marcelius as the source of his heresy (Hilar, frg. 2. 21-
23). The death of Constans (A. D. 350), who had inclined to
the Nicene orthodoxy, changed the situation. Constantine at once
applied himself with energy to the suppression of the Nicene faith.
The Orientals had alrea'dy, at the (second) Council at Sirmium

(A. D. 351), again made themselves felt. The Sirmian formula
here adopted is in the positive portion identical with the Fourth
Antiochian formula (p. 219), but a large number of Athanasian-
isms (see Ath. de syn. 27; Socr. h. e. ii. 30; Hilar, de syn.
38. cf. Hefele CG., i. 642 ff. ) are appended.
; The latter are
in the line followed hitherto by the Eusebians. The favorite
phrases of the Arians were rejected (n. i. 24), and also the
views of Photinus and Marcellus. Subordinationism appears in
'^ For we
n. 18 ; do not co-ordinate the Son with the Father,
but he is subordinate (^-nT^zayiJ.i'ô^^) to the Father." At Aries,
A. D. 353, at Milan, 355 (at Biterrae, 356), the Western men
were compelled to recognize the condemnation of the *^ sacri-
legious Athanasius " (Mansi, iii. p. 236). It was politically pru-
dent to demand no more than this. Those who resisted this
(Eusebius of Vercelli, Dionysius of Milan, Lucifer of Calaris,
the deacon Hilarius of Poitiers, Hosius of Cordova, Liberius
of Rome) were banished. Athanasius, deposed, fled into the
wilderness, A. D. 356. In response to protests, the emperor as-
serted ** But what I desire, that is canon " (Athan. hist. Arian.
:
ad mon. 33 fin. ). The orthodox now regarded him as the Anti-

christ and a monstrous wild beast {ê,g., Ath. 1. c. 67, 64 Lucif.
;
Bibl. max. iv. p. 247, 244, 246).

But victory is a most dangerous thing for a bad cause and ;
this victory led to the downfall of Arianism. Who then were

these victors and what would they do ? Now that their common
opponent no longer compelled them to harmony of action, it at
once became evident how uncertain and how various were their
positive ideas. One party spoke of the pretemporal and eternal
birth of the Son, and asserted that he is like the Father in all
things. This was the royal path
'
'
'
between Arius and Sabel-
'
lius (thus Cyrillof Jer. Catech. iv; 7; xi. 4, 7, 10, 14, 17).
They, therefore, strenuously advocated the Antioch formulas, ex-
cept that they could not reconcile themselves to the o/jjuiuain^.
They thought to substitute for ito/jMututrtot^ (Sozom. h. e. iii. 18).
In other words they were -willing to agree with Athanasius in
:
the result attained by him, but they reached it by a different

path. Instead of starting as he did from the one divine nature,
they, dreading Sabellianism,^ followed Origen in beginning with
two divine persons. But the result itself might thus be brought
into question, as these formulas could be approved also by ele-
ments more in sympathy with the left wing, /. e., Origenisticand
This is plainly seen in the question of the Anomasan
1 in Apollinarisdial. de
trin.( Draeseke, p. 264 )
" What does ofioovatov mean ?
: I understand this to
teach that the Son and Father are not the same."
BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 223
Ariaiiizing tendencies. These formed the party of the Semi-

arians or Homoiusians. But the consistent Arians now came
out in opposition to this party, as well as to the Homousians,
under the leadership of Aetius of Antioch (vid. discussion by('
him, '^concerning the unbegotten and the begotten God," in
Epiph. h. 76. 1 1 J, and Eunomius of Cyzicus (a confession of
faith and an apolegetic discourse in Fabricius, Bibl. graec. viii.,
and in Thilo, Bibl. patr. gr. ii. pp. 580-629 cf. Philostorg. h.
;
e. iii. 15 ff.; iv. 12 ;v. 2 ; ix. 6 x. 6; v. i, etc.).

; Of
Eunomius, Theodoret says: *' He presented theology as tech-
nology " (haer. fab. iv. 3); and this is a just comment. Al-
though it was, indeed, deemed proper to appeal to the authority
of the Scriptures and the ancients (Eunom. Ap. 4, 12, 15 ; see
the citations in Greg. Naz. or. 29, 18 and the discussion, or. 30),
yet the thmking of these men was dominated by the profane
logic which Athanasius had rebuked in Arius (cf. Greg. Naz. or.
27. 2). God is the unbegotten (âyivvriTir/) .If this is his nature,
then the view that we may fully know God (Socr. h. e. iv. 7 ;
Theod. haer. fab. iv. 3 ;Basil, ep. 235) is quite intelligible. If

now it be proper to designate the Son as begotten (ye-^-^fjzoy^
Eunom. Ap. 11, 12), then it necessarily follows that he is not
God as is the Father, not derived from the substance of the
Father, but as his creature, from his will (ib. 12, 15, 28). But
if the Son is the first creature of the Father, then it follows :
'^that he is neither oVôofWco? nor otjjiwunui^^ since the one indi- -

cates a beginning and a division of the nature, and the other "an
identity " (Eunom. 1. c. 26 cf. Aet. 1. c. 4). Even a similarity
;
(ô/jjnoy) is, in regard to the nature, impossible between the Begot-

ten and the Unbegotten (Eunom. 11. 26), although we may
speak of an imitative moral similarity (Eunom. ib. 24 and conf.
fid. 3 :
'' This only one like, oijjno^, to the Begetter is not
an unbegotten like to the Unbegotten, for the Creator of all

things is alone unbegotten . but as Son to the Father, as the
. .
image and seal [/. e., impression made by seal] of the whole
energy and power of the Creator of all things, he is the seal of
the Father's works and words and councils;" cf. Philostorg. vi. i
and iv. 12). This is all merely consistent Arianism, and when
Euzoius of Antioch (A. D. 361) proposes the formula :
** In all
things the Son is unlike the Father," he is also but consistent

(see similar utterances at the Council of Seleucia, in Hilar, c.
Const, imp. 12). Thus had Arius himself taught.
Yet the Nicene Creed still remained the doctrinal basis, and it
was necessary to secure its abrogation. This was accomplished
by the Third Council of Sirmium, under Ursacius and Valens,
who had long before again become Arians, in the Second Sirmian

formula (A. D. 357 J: ** But as to that which some or many

thought concerning the substance, which is called iisia in Greek,
i. e.y that it be understood very expressly as homousion^ or what
is called homoeusion^ it is proper that no mention at all be made
and that no one teach it, for this reason . that it is not con-
. .
tained in the divine Scriptures, and that it is beyond the knowl-

edge of man (Isa. 53. 8)'\ Furthermore, according to Jn. 14.
28, "There is no doubt that the Father is greater" (Hilar, de
Syn. 11). Western men, among them Hosius, now almost a
hundred years old, accepted this formula, and it was approved
by a council at Antioch, A. D. 358 (Sozom. iv. 12). Thus the
Nicene Creed, and the terms 6{ioob(no<; and 6/j.ocou(T[o? as well,
appeared to be banished from the world.
5. But the development of ideas cannot be forced backward
by decrees. At the council of Ancyra, under the leadership of
Basil of Ancyra (A. D. 358, see the decree of the council in
Epiph. h. 73. 2-11), it became evident that Arianism was not
the faith of the Eastern church. As a son, the Son is not a
creation of the Father (creator and creature are one thing, father
and son another, c. 3). On the contrary, he is in his nature
in another way than other children of God
like the Father, in
his tifj(Tia and not only in his hipysta ("certainly, as Only-one
from Only-one, like in nature, from the Father," c. 5; "of
likeness to the Father according to nature," c. 8 "He had
;
the attributes of divinity, being according to nature incorporeal

(^dfT'M/iarog), and like (ô/ioco^) to the Father according to the
divinity and incorporeity and energy," c. 9. " And if anyone,
professing to believe upon the Father and the Son, say that the
Father is not his Father of like nature but of like energy . . .
thus taking away his being truly a son, let him be anathema," c.
II. But also :
" If anyone, saying that the Father is in author-
ity and nature the Father of the Son, should say also that the Son
is of like or of the same nature (^6[j.oo6(nov de r^ rauToootTtov') as the
Father, let him be anathema/' 11 fin.^ These formulas won the
ear of the emperor (Soz. iv. 13 f. ). The fourth council of
Sirmium now made an attempt, by means of the third Sirmian
formula (A. D. 358), to establish peace by the revival of the
fourth Antioch formula. It was hoped to confirm this peace at
the double council at Ariminium and Seleucia (A. D. 359) by
the presentation of a formula previously prepared at the Court
at Sirmium (the fourth Sirmian), which was a compromise
*In the dual arrangement of these anathemas, placing the Arian extreme
side by side with the Sabellian, there is very clearly revealed the basis of the
mistrust of the term, ofioovacog. They were afraid of being led into Sabellian-
ism. Cf. Ath. de syn. 12 ; Socr. h. e. ii. 39.
between the second formula of Sirmium and that of Ancyra :
*^The term, o?j<ri'a, on account of its having been used only by

the Fathers, but being unknown among the common people, oc-
casions scandal because the Scriptures do not contain it request
that this be done away with but we say that the Son is
. . . ;
like, o/Kicovj the Father in all things, as the Holy Scriptures de-
and teach " (Ath. de syn. 8. Socr.
clare 37). The Western ii.
men were here aiming at the restoration of the Nicene Creed ;

the majority of the Eastern men were Homoiusians. But the
emperor's will prevailed in the end. The formula, conforming
thus to some extent to Nicene ideas, was finally adopted, but the
*'in all things" was dropped^ TAth. de syn. 30). Cf. Hefele,
CG. i. 697-722.
The Arians under Acacius of Caesarea and Eudoxius of An-
tioch (later of Constantinople) now held sway at the court.
The council of Constantinople (A. D. 360) was under their
control. The o/ioto?, as well as the condemnation of the oofrta,
was again proclaimed. Aetius was turned adrift (but Eunomius
honored with the bishopric of Cyzicus). The leaders of the
Semi-arians were deposed (Socr. h. e. ii. 41, 42).
6. The Arians had carried the day and harmony was estab-
lished, but it was only in appearance. Over against the Arians
still stood the Homousians (council of Paris, A. D. 361 see j
Hilar, frg. 11 and Mansi iii. 357-362), and also the old middle
party, or Homoiusians, who were constantly approaching the
right wing. We may learn their position from a treatise of
Basil of Ancyra (in Epiph. h. 73. 12-22): *' The Son is like
the Father in all things (xara Travra), z. e.j according to nature
and not merely "
(zofr' ob(7iay') as being spirit (Tzveu/jLa), in will
(xara ôbX-qacv') 18, 22).
(ib. 13, 17, The term used by the
Orientals, only designed to indicate the separate-
brôfTrafft^j is
ness of Father, Son, and Spirit, but by no means to lead to the

introduction of three gods. *' And do not let the name subsist-
ences, uTTorTTdcrec^j trouble any. For the Orientals speak of

hypostases, in order to indicate the subsisting and existing attri-
butes of the persons (ra? l^torr^rais raJv TTpixjoyTzajv 6ê(TT(i)(Ta<s xai
b~apyou<ja<;). For if the Father is spirit and the Son is spirit
and the Holy Ghost is spirit, the Son is not thought to be the
Father there subsists also the Spirit, who is not thought to be,
;
^ This brought the formula into entire harmony with the Arians, who could
now, as necessity might require, emphasize either the likeness or the un-
likeness, according as they referred to the nature or the attributes. See supra,
p. 222, and especially Philostorg. h. e. iv. 12 cf Basil of Anc. in Epiph. h.
;
73. 13, 15, 22. The rejection of the avofinmQ by Acacius at Seleucia was,
therefore, in reality only a pretense. Cf. Hilar, c. Constant. 14.
15
7 26 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES
and is not, the Son, etc., not saying that the three hypos-
. . .
tases are three sources or three gods for they confess that . . .
there is one Godhead (''f-sozTjra) and one kingship and one. . .
source [of all things] Likewise, they reverently indicate the

.
persons by the attributes of the hypostases, regarding the Father

as subsisting in the paternal dominion, and acknowledging the
Son not as being a part of the Father, but as begotten and sub-
sisting from the Father, perfect from perfect, and designating the
Holy Spirit ... as subsisting from the Father through the
Son" (c. i6, cf. c. 12). The parallel with the incarnation, ac-
cording to Phil. 2. 6 Rom. 8. 3, leads to the result, that Christ
;
as Spirit is the same as the Father,

and as flesh the same as
human but that, as an acting personality, he is like the
flesh ;
Father and like the flesh: 'Âccording to the conception of

spirit, the same yet not the same, but like, because the
. . .
Spirit which is the Son is not the Father" (i8)- Here the
Homousia is really acknowledged, the o/iottK^ applying only to
the different personages *' For whatever the P'ather does, that
:
does also the Son, not in the same way as the Father does it, but
in a like way " (o/jLoiux^) (ib.).
Constantino died A. D. 361, and Julian the Apostate became
his successor. The banished bishops, including Athanasius, were
permitted to return. The latter at once arranged for a council
at Alexandria (A. D. 362, see esp. Tomi ad Antiochenos, ep. ad
Rufinianum also Socr. h. e. iii. 7. Rufin. h. e. x. 27-29). As
;
early as A. D. 359 Athanasius had, in his report of the councils

of Rimini and Seleucia, called the Homoiusians brethren (desyn.
41-43; cf. 12, 53). Inasmuch as they confess '* that the Son is
of the nature (odfrca) of the Father and not of another hypostasis,
that he is not a being created or made," he recognized that they
have something to rely upon and are not far from the homoousios
(41), although it is not distinct and clear to substitute homoios
or homoiotisios for homoousios ( '* because that which is like
{homoios) is said to be like not on account of the natures
(oijfTiihw) [of the objects], but on account of their forms and
properties. Thus a man is said to be like a man, not according

to nature, but according to form and character, for in nature he
is same-natured," vinKfueX^, c. 53). The great bishop was con-
cerned not for his formula, nor for any formula,* but for the real
matter at issue. This was evident also at Alexandria. Here the
justification of the ^' three hypostases " was approved, provided
these be conceived, not as different in nature {d.XXoTptob(Toi) nor
as separate natures {ûKpopoi (mniai) nor even as three sources and
* QU his ridicule of the making of formulas in these years De syn. 32.

gods; but as of ,the same nature (o/xoonmoi) (torn, ad Ant. 5);

but the '*one hypostasis" was also justified, since many hold
that *' it is the same thing to say brzorrTatn^s or o'xria (6). The
condemnation of Arius, Sabellius, Paul, Valentine, Basilides,
and Manichaeus throws light upon the situation (ib.J. The
council taught also the homousia of the Spirit (3, 5) in opposi-
tion to Macedonius of Constantinople, who had declared the
Holy Ghost to be a servant and assistant, like the angels
(Socr. ii. 45 ;Sozom. iv. 27) and the human soul of Christ
(7). Leniency is urged toward those who have erred from the
truth (3, 8, 9), the avoidance of strife about words, and con-
tentment with the Nicene formulas (8).
Athanasius was finally banished again by Julian, but recalled by
Jovian (A. D. 363). Immediately a council at Alexandria (A. D.
363) again endorsed the Nicene Creed (Ath. ep. ad Jovian), and
also, although with some reserve (o'ôorWôî^y/ôif^? y.o.T oofrlav'),
a council at Antioch (A. D. 363 see Socr. h. e.iii. 25).
:
These transactions were of epochal significance for the History

of Doctrines, (i) The combination of the middle party with
the Homousians assures the defeat of the Arians. (2) The
Nicene interpretation of the nature of the Holy Spirit assigns to
the third person of the Trinity a fixed position in the theologi-
cal system. (3) The incipient discrimination between hyposta-
sis and usia will give rise to new problems. (4) The interpre-
tation of the i>iJ.ii<n')(Tni^ in the sense of opjuoofnif^ and of ofxouxi
xar ontnav will engender new ideas foreign to those of Athanasius
and the Nicene Creed.
7. The Three Cappadocians wielded the controlling influence
in the following period :
Zealous Christians, and equally zealous Hellenists,^ these men
Sources. Basil the Great

of Caesarea (f A. D. 379 opp. ed. Gar-
;
nier et Maran, 1721 ff. de Sinner 1839, 1840, Migne gr. 29-32).
, His
brother, Gregory of Nyssa (f after A. D. 394; opp. ed. Fronto Ducaus,
1615-1618, Migne gr. 44-46. Separate writings in Oehler, Greg. Nyss. opp.
i., 1865, and Bibliothek d. Kirchenvater, i. 1858. Mai, Script, vet. nov. coll.
viii. 2. I ff.). Gregory of Nazianzen (t A. D. 389 or 390; opp. ed.
Clemencet et Caillou, 1778, 1842, Migne gr. 35-38. See also the most impor-
tant of the works of these Fathers in Thilo, Bibl. patr. gr. dogm. ii. ). Here
belongs also a part of thie writings attributed by Draeseke, although upon in-
sufficient grounds, to Apollinaris of Laodicea, especially the Antirrheticus
c. Eunom. Dialogi de trinitate and De trinitate. On the other hand, Kara
iikpot; 'Kiariq belongs beyond question, as Caspari has shown, to Apollinaris.
Vid. these documents in Draeseke, Apollinaris v, Laod,, in Texte u. Unters,

vii. 3, 4. The citations below are from this edition.
^ See, e.
g., the correspondence between Basil and Libanius (Basil ep. 335-
359), the sermon 22 of Basil {de legendis libris gentilium) and the funeral
sermon of Greg. Naz. upon Basil (or, 43, c. 17-22).
sympathized with the religious positions of Athanasius and had

appreciation at the same time for the scientific dogmatics of Origen/
They understood and interpreted Athanasius in the sense of Ori-
genistic theology. In this consists their significance for us ; for it
was by this means and in this form that the positions of Athana-
sius were victorious in the Orient. What Origen had sought to

accomplish appears again in these men Christianity and philos-
ophy were to form a covenant with one another. These men
stood actually in a Christianized world, which, it would seem,
should furnish the new and necessary modes and forms of thought
for the combination of the truth of antiquity and the truth of
the gospel. With the gospel in hand, they thought themselves
prepared to Christianize philosophy. The dream thus cherished
was, however, never realized.
(â) Athanasius starts with the one divine nature Q>tj(7ta, or
n-otrzaî^); the three-fold personal life within which, being a
self-evident presupposition, he does not at all attempt to prove.
The Capiâdocians begin with the three divine hypostases (cf.
Basil of Anc. ) and attempt to bring these under the conception
of the one divine t/si'a. The terms, hypostasis and tisia are
now carefully discriminated, the former being understood as in-
dicating the individual separate existence, and the latter the sub-
stance common to all (^. ^., Basil, ep. 38. 1-3 ; 9. 2 ; 125. i \
236. 6. Greg. Nyss. inOehler. Bibl. ii. 218^,236, 234. Cat.

magn. i in. Cf. ApoUin. dialogi, p. 266 f., 271).
(^) There should be recognized three divine u7zo(7rd<Tst<;, or
7tp6t7a)-a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
: The different names
'^ According to
applied to them correspond to real differences :
which the hypostases are to be clearly and without commingling

discriminated from one another" (Greg. Nyss. ohl. ii. 162).
Each hypostasis has its peculiarity (Idtov, idtdôv), or its property
(uhoTT]^') or attribute (îdcw/ia^. Thus, '' the ;"f?;"y of the Father
is unbegottenness that of the Son, birth
; that of the Spirit, pro-
;
cession (Greg. Naz. or. 25. 16 29. 2 ;31. 29. Basil, ep. 38.
;
4-6; 105 125. 3; 210. 4; horn. 15. 2.

;
Greg. Nyss. cat. mag.
3. Apollin. 1. c, pp. 255, 258, 269, 354). This difference must
be distinctly and clearly observed. There are three individual
persons, as were Paul, Peter, and Barnabas. It is Marcellian or
Sabellian to speak of one hypostasis or one prosopon^ instead of
one usia (Basil, ep. 125. i; 69. 2).^ (^) But it is not by any
means the purpose to subordinate one of these three persons to
1 Seethe Philocalia and compare Basil's estimate of Origen, in Basil, de
spirit, s. pp.29, 73.
^ In this criticism of Marcellus, all the points of difference with Athanasius
(compare the latter's judgment in regard to Marcellus) are clearly seen.

'
the Others in respect of divine nature or dignity. Divinity

(^'î''*Tri^) belongs to them all in the same way, for they possess the
same energy (^hipyetrx) and power (^dbvati'.^') (Basil, ep. 189. 7, 8.
Greg. Nyss. ohl. ii. 180, 196 f. 204 ff. 202 f ''The Holy
:
Trinity does not act apart according to the number of the hypos-
tases, butTvery exercise of the good will is one, and an order is
observed, from the Father through the Son to the Holy Ghost ;
'
cf Apollin. dialogi, pp. 272, 279, 277, 306, 313 j. But if there
is an identical energy (^h^p-^siag raoror-rj-i) of the three hypos-
tases, this implies their equality in dignity and nature (Greg.
Nyss. ib. 1S2 ; Basil, ep. 189. 7). This is Origen's way of
thinking upon the subject (supra, p. 149 f ). That which is
common (the xoiv^Jv) is brought into association with that which
is peculiar (the idtaXov, Bas. ep. ^Z. 5J. Accordingly, we may
speak of the divinity ('9(Jr7^T) or nature (^(pufTc^, ooirta) common
to the three hypostases. There is a sameness of nature (ra^^rrl-i;?
T?;? (ftxteu)^^ Bas. ep. 8. 3, 5). The hypostases are the same as
to nature (^rabrov xar ohniav^ Greg. Naz. or. 30. 20). With the
peculiarity (îdcd^(y^) of the hypostases stands contrasted the
community (xfuvriv) of the usia (Bas. ep. 210. 5. Greg. Naz.
or. 29. 2). This relationship finds expression in the hoinousios.
'^ Confessing the sameness of the nature, we accept also the
homoiisios, . . For he who is by nature (xar' obniav') God is

homousi'os to him who is by nature God" (Bas. ep. 8. 3 cf. ;
Apollin. Dial. pp. 264, 267 ff. ). This, he declares, asserts no

more than that they are *' by nature exactly alike " (o/iotow, Bas.
ep. 9. 3).^ Now that the idea of the separate hypostases stands
in the foreground, the predicate in question receives a new shade
of meaning: ''They rightly say oiwobauy^j in order to set forth
the equality of nature in honor (ru ttj^ (pb(reu)<s 6/j.6rt/j.<>Vj Bas. ep.
52. 2). It is the same nature ((pufTc^) and dignity of divinity
(rict'a Ti^s" {^z.or-qro'^') , an equality of nature in honor, which be-
longs to the three hypostases (Greg. Naz. or. 31. 9, 10, 28;
29. 2). The homoiisia, therefore, indicates the same divine
substance or nature, but in consequence of this also the same
dignity or glory, in the three hypostases.
(c/) Thus arises the idea of the Triune God
three persons in
^ The homousios originally sounded strangely to Basil, as is evident from a

letter to Apollinaris (Draeseke, p. 102): ** To such an idea, it seems to me
that the meaning of the exactly equivalent hovioios is even better fitted than
that of the homousios. For light having no difference at all from light in
being more or cannot, I think, be rightly said to be the sajiie, because, in
less,
its own circuit of existence, it is different, but it may be accurately and exactly
said to be like in nature^''' Startlni^ with this understanding, Basil interpreted

the homousios in this sense, as appears above.
'
one Godhead. *'The three one in divinity, and the one three
in individuahties " (t'^jwrry/riv) (Greg. Naz. or. 31. 9; 28.
31;
39. II, 12). The point of view which forms the basis of this
*' In order that
conclusion is : the unmingledness (rt) aamyDT<iv)
of the three hypostases in the one nature and dignity of the God-
head may be saved " (ib. ), and *' for God is not the more and
the less, nor the former and the latter, nor severed in will nor
divided in power . . .but undivided in the divided . . the
.
Godhead" (ib. 14). Thus the hypostatic distinction is pre-

served, as well as the substantial unity :
'* But an indescribable
and inconceivable (One) is discovered in these two things, the

community and the distinction neither the difference of the
hypostases rending the continuity of the nature, nor the commu-
nity as to substance dissipating the peculiarity of the marks of
distinction" (Bas. ep. 38. 4). ** The doctrine of piety knows
how to behold a certain distinction of hypostases in the unity of

nature" (Greg. Nyss. cat. m. i). Hereby, it is claimed, is
established the proper medium between Paganism and Arianism,
as between Judaism and Sabellianism. Due recognition is given
both to the unity and the multiplicity, to the nature (^'Wt^--), and
the persons {izp6fs(jiiza)\ *' Just as he who does not acknowledge the
community of the essence falls into polytheism, so he who does
'
not grant the peculiarity of hypostases is brought under Judaism
(Bas. ep. 210. 5 ; de spir. s. 30. 77. Greg. Nyss. cat. m. i,
3; c. Eunom. iv.; Mig. 45. 644). But the formulas thus
attained brought with them new problems. The Arians loudly
proclaimed that this doctrine, and not theirs, was polytheism.
If the three persons, Peter, James, and John, are three men, we
must then speak here also of three gods (Greg. Nyss. ohl. ii.
188; Bas. ep. 189. 2 f. ; Apollin., xara iizp^ etc., p. 374 f.).
But the increasing mystery was not regarded as a cause of offense
(see above), and it was believed that the argument drawn from
application of the number One to God was met by appeal to the
quantitative nature of the conception of number (Bas. ep. 8. 2 ;
de spir. s. 17, 18. Greg. Naz. or. 31. 18 f.). In reply to the
objection made, appeal was taken to the authority of the Scrip-
tures, which speak of one God (Greg. Nyss. ib. p. 192), but
especially to the argument, that it is only by a misuse of terms
that three persons are called three men. The word avUpui-u^
designates the common element {ro xinvdv) of the nature.
Hence, in three persons there is one nature (^(Vt?), one essence
(o^Vt'w); and hence it follows that, *' in very accurate speech it
would also properly be said, one man " (Greg. Nyss. 1. c. pp.
192, 210, 222, 224, 226, 236). From this Platonic idea it was
inferred concerning God : "We
call the Creator of all things
BEfORE THE COUNCIL OF CONSTAXTINOPLR. 231
one God, although he contemplated in three persons, or hy-

is
postases" (ib. p. 236). It is a relationship like that which

existed between Adam and Eve and Seth ''Do not the clay
:
(Adam) and that which is cut off from it (Eve) and the fruit
from it (Seth) seem to you to be the same thing ? How can it
be otherwise? Are not things of the same nature {(",uH>h(7w.^ the
same? But how can it be otherwise? Let it then be confessed
also that things subsisting differently are admitted to be of the
same nature " (Greg. Naz. or. 31. 11, 14, 15, 32. Bas. ep. 210.
4). The three are one God, but " It is plain that not the per-
:
son (jzfu'xTiDTZDv^ but the nature (^<>tj<yia) is the God" (Greg. Nyss.
1. c, p. 222; cf. Apollin. dial, detrin. p. 270 '*
Is there there-;
fore one hypostasis? No ") and ; ''The monarchy is not one

:
which one person circumscribes but one which equal dig-

. .
nity of nature determines and unity of purpose and sameness of

action and agreement extending to the oneness of the things
proceeding from it ... so that although it differs in number
it is not divided in essence" (Greg. Naz. or. 29. 2)}
(e) It is to be observed, finally, that the theologians here

named zealously maintained the Homousia of the Holy Spirit,
in this, too, following in the footsteps of Athanasius (supra, pp.
215, 227). Vid. especially Bas. despir. s.; c. Eunom. iii. Greg.
Naz. or. 31. Apollin. antirrh. p. 223 ff. 248 ff.; dial, de tr.
p. 307 ff. They found in the prevalent usage the most various
statements in regard to the Spirit. Some regarded him as an
energy (^hipyeca')) others as a creature {y.Tif7p.a)\ others as God ;
while still others thought it scriptural to refrain from any definite

statement as to his nature (Greg. Naz. or, 31. 5. SeealsoCyril of
Jer. cat. 16. 23, and compare the Macedonian in Apollin. with
his oft-repeated question :
" Where is it written, '
the Spirit is
God' ?" pp. 307, 324 f., 321, 323, 317, 328 f., 330). The
earlier state of this doctrine (except in Irengeus see p. 120 f. ) is
here but reflected. In opposition to this uncertainty it was not
difficult pressing forward upon the path once chosen to prove
that he is an hypostasis such as the Father and the Son, accord-
ing to the Scriptures and the baptismal confession that he ;
shares with them the same energy ; and that to him belong ac-
cordingly the same divine nature {jmaia) and dignity {aîa)\
that he is accordingly 6/j.oorjfTux^, and is to be worshiped with the
^ The Dialog! de trin. of Apollinaris are instructive in revealing this ten-
dency to Tritheism. Here the deity is compared to the one humanity

(av&pioTrSrTjc) which belongs to the two hypostases, Peter and Paul (p. 272 ;
cf. 254, 271 f ), or p. 281

:
" Bishop, presbyter, and deacon are homoousioi.
Hast thou not then confessed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a
homoousion ? '
*
Father and the Son (e. g., Bas. horn. 15. 3 ; 125. 3 ; de sp. s.
I- 3 J ô ^ II 5 16 ; 19. 49 ; 21 ; 25. C, Eunom. iii. i, 3.
Greg, Naz. or. 31. 4 f., 7. 9 f., 12. Greg. Nyss. ohl. ii. 160,
170 ff. ApoUin. pp. 327, 333, 334).^ The specific character of
his activity was seen in the completion and execution of the
work of redemption. He unites the human race with the Logos,
and imparts to it the gifts of God (Basil de sp. s. 15. 36 ; 16.
^d>; horn. 15. 3.^ Greg. Naz. or. 34). His relation to the
Father is described, in contradistinction from that of the Son
(otherwise there would be two Sons) not as a generation, but as a
,
sending forth {ey.7:[nl't<s') and a procession (^h-opebemH-at^ (supra,

p. 228). The formula, '*from the Father through the Son," is
also found (Basil c. Eunom. iii. 6. Greg. Naz. Apollin. dial. p.
213 cf Thomasius D.G. i. ed. 2, p. 270 f.).
;
The modification which has here been made in the ancient

Nicene doctrine is very evident. Athanasius (and Marcellus)
taught the one God, leading a three-fold personal life, who
reveals himself as such. The Cappadocians think of three di-
vine hypostases, which, as they manifest the same activity, are
recognized as possessing one nature and the same dignity. The
mystery for the former lay in the trinity for the latter, in the
;
unity. It was with labor and difficulty that the latter guarded
themselves against polytheism. But it was only in this way that
the Nicene doctrines were, for the Orientals, freed from the taint
of Sabellianism, and that the personality of the Logos appeared
to be sufficiently assured. The Cappadocians interpreted the
doctrine of Athanusius in accordance with the conceptions and
underlying principles of the Logos -Christology of Origen. They
paid, however, for their achievement a high price, the magni-
tude of which they did not realize
the idea of the personal God.
Three personalities and an abstract, impersonal essence are the
resultant. In this form the ovtria and <p6tn^ are a heavy weight
upon the doctrine concerning God, for they are in conflict with
the personality of God. It was a partial corrective of this that
they, after all
inconsistently
identified the Deity with the
Âppeal was made not only to the scriptural arguments, but to the Fathers,
Irenasus,Clement of Rome, Dionysius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria,
Origen, Gregory Thaum., Firmilian, Meletius (vid. Bas. de sp. s. 29, 72-74).
2 He enlightens all for the knowing of God, inspires the prophets, makes
legislators wise, perfects priests, strengthens kings, restores the righteous,

exalts the prudent, exerts gifts of healing, revives the dead, sets free the
bound, makes children of the estranged. Such things he does by virtue of his
birth from above. ... By him the weak are strong, the poor become rich,
the unpracticed in learning are wiser than the wise. . . . He dwells entire
in everyone and he is entire with God. He does not as a servant administer
gifts, but autocratically distributes benefits.
Father, which was again a relic of the earlier Subordinationism.

The Father is the Deity as the Source whence the Son and the
Spirit proceed *' The nature in the three is one

: God; but the
:
union is the Father, from whom and to whom they are in their
turn referred" (Greg. Naz. or. 42. 15 ; 20. 8. And especi-
^' For one and the same person of the Father, from whom
ally :
the Son was born and the Holy Spirit proceeded. Wherefore
also certainly the one who is the cause of the things caused by
him you call One God, since he is also in them." Greg. Nyss.
ohl. ii. 226; Apollin. y.aiza fxzp. etc., pp. 373, 273).^ Thus,
in place of the conception of the one-natured, three-fold God
had come the doctrine of the like-natured triune God. That
Athanasius was able to endure the latter, without ever zealously
supporting it or condemning Marcellus, as he was urged to do
(see Bas. ep. 125), may be understood from the foregoing.
Such was the teaching of the men who regarded themselves as
the inheritors of the Nicene Creed (Bas. ep. 52. i).^ They be-
lieved that the God whom we worship as above the angels (Bas.
horn. 15. I ) must be apprehended precisely in the terms of these
formulas: ''In regard to the doctrine of God, the different
usage of terms is no longer so harmless, for what was a little
thing then, is a little thing no longer" (Greg. Nyss. Ohl. ii.
192). The conflicts of the age and the toying with formulas
produced an overstrained conception of orthodoxy. These
Fathers
in league with the world
framed orthodoxy in the
Grecian mould.
8. It was only through manifold reverses that the new ortho-
doxy pressed on to victory. Julian was really indifferent (per-
secuting Athanasius as '* the enemy of the gods," Theod. h. e.
iii.
5 Jul. ep. 6).
;
Jovian reigned only ten months. Valens
persecuted Homousians and Homoiusians alike (Theod. h. e. iv.
II ff.; Socr. iv. 16). The East inclined more and more toward
the orthodoxy of the West (embassy to Liberius of Rome coun- ;
cil at Tyana, A, D. 367 see Socr. h. e. iv. 12

; council at An-
;
tioch, A. D. 379; Mansi iii. 461 ff. ). Basil the Great had
now come to the front as leader. In the West, the Nicene or-
thodoxy had been able meanwhile to establish itself securely
^ Apollinaris, indeed, also writes : " It is necessary not only that what the
Father desires the Son shall also desire, but it is necessary that what the Son
desires the Father shall also desire. Wherefore, the Son is placed after the
Father in regard to those things which he desires and which are also enjoined,
but which, if they are only enjoined, he even though not desiring, being under
necessity, performs," Draeseke, p. 209 ; cf. Augustine.
2 Cf. Apollin. dial, de trin. p. 264: "For when thou didst confess that the
Son is homousian with the Father, then didst thou become a Christian ; *
sim-
'
ilarly, pp. 276, 280.

under Valentinian and Gratian, and under the Roman bishop

Damasus (his first Roman council, A. D. 369 or 370, confesses
that Father and Son are of one essence or substance, essentiae
' *
sive substantiae, and also the Holy Spirit," Mansi iii. 444. The
Macedonians are also, upon the urgent desire of the Orientals,
condemned at Rome, A. D. 374 ; see Mansi iii. 488, and also
the Marcellians, A. D. 380 Theod. h. e. v. 11 ; cf. Hefele
;
CG. i., ed. 2, 739 ff. Rade, Damasus). Theodosius the

Great, in A. D. 381, established the Roman -Alexandrian or-
thodoxy in the East as the law of the empire (Cod. Theod. xvi.
1 2.
" We believe in one deity of Father, Son, and Spirit,
:
under equal majesty and under a holy trinity. We command

that all who honor this law shall bear the name of Catholic Chris-
tians deciding that others, mad and insane, shall bear the in-
;
famy of heretical doctrine, to be punished, first, by divine ven-

geance, and afterward also by the avenging of our intention which
we have derived from the heavenly will " cf. i 6 ) The Apostles'
;
, .
Creed and the Codex Theodosianus make the doctrine of the

Trinity the chief and fundamental dogma. But Theodosius, with
a prudent forbearance, recognized the new Oriental orthodoxy,
as is proved especially by the attitude which he assumed in favor
of Meletius of Antioch. Here had existed since A. D. 360

the much-talked-of schism between the homoiusian, neo-orthodox
Meletius and the old-orthodox Paulinus (s. Moller, PRE. ix.
530 ff.; cf. Harnack, DG. ii. 260, n.). The emperor sum-
moned the former as the leader of the great final Council of Con-
stantinople in A. D. 381. It was an assemblage of Oriental
bishops (Theod. h. e. v. 6 ; cf. HefeleCG, ii.,ed. 2, 3). A hun-
dred and fifty Orthodox and fifty -six Macedonian bishops (esp.
from the vicinity of the Hellespont) participated. The attempt
of the latter to win the day failed (Socr. h. e. v. 8). The coun-
cil prepared an exhaustive treatise (ro/jtf/?) upon the orthodox
doctrine of the Trinity/ but framed no separate confession, be-
ing content to rest in the Nicene Creed, which had become the
shibboleth.^
* Perhaps the anathematizing paragraphs handed down as the first canon of
the council belong to this treatise (Tillemont, M^moires, etc., ix. 221). They
profess allegiance to the Nicene Creed, and condemn the Eunomians or
Anomoeans, the Arians or Eudoxians, the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachians,
as well as the Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and ApoUinarians. The
doctrine of Marcellus, which Rome had also in the meantime abandoned, is
here classed with Sabellianism.
^ The so-called Niceno-Constantinopolitan (or simply Nicene) Creed is
not the confession of this council ; for ( i ) It is not mentioned as such before
the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451 (see Greg. Naz. ep. 102 ; the council of
Constantinople, A. D. 382 ; the council at Ephesus). (2) The section upon
With this, the doctrine of Athanasius Avas acknowledged also in

the East, though only in the interpretation above given. The
West was not entirely satisfied with the solution reached. desire A
was felt for a council, to be held, perhaps, at Alexandria or Rome
(Mansi iii. 623, 630). But Theodosius summoned a second
council at Constantinople, A. D. 382. At the same time a
council assembled at Rome. The former addressed a letter to
the latter, professing adherence to the Nicene Creed, with
reference also to the council at Antioch and the Tomus of the
preceding year (Theod. h. e. v. 9). The Ni^^ne Creed had
now gained the ascendency both in the West and in the East.
The attempt of Theodosius, at Constantinople, A. D. 383, to
win the Arians and Macedonians was a failure. From this time
forward, the State was upon the side of orthodoxy and opposed
to the Arians (Socr. v. 10; Sozom. vii. 12). Thus the civil
argument prevails at the close, as at the opening, of the great
controversy. The church won its first dogma, in the stricter
sense of the term, when the teaching-church became also a state-
church, and ecclesiastical doctrine became a part of ecclesiastical
law. But this dogma was an outgrowth of the faith of the
church at large. Arianism continued for a little while, but its
the Holy Ghost does not suit the circumstances of that time. (3) It is cited
as early as A. D. 374 by Epiphanius ( Ancorat. 119). But this is really nothing
else than the baptismal confession of the church at Jerusalem, prepared probably
by Cyril of Jerusalem (Cyr. cat. 5. 12), How it came to be attributed to the
council of A. D. 381 cannot now be certainly known. A. D. 500 it came
into general use, displacing the Nicene Creed. Cf. Caspari in Ztschr. f. luth.
TheoL, 1857, p. 634; Sources, etc., i. HoRT, two dissertations, 1876, and
esp. Harnack pre. viii., 212 ff.; Kunze, Das nicanisch-constantinopolitan-
ische Symbol (Bonwetsch-Seeberg, Studien zur Gesch. der Theol. u. der
Kirche, iii. 3 ) , 1 898. It reads as follows
:
* * We believe in one God, the Father
Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the
Father before all worlds, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not
made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made ;
who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incar-
nate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man ; and was
crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and
arose on the third day according to the Scriptures ; and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again with glory to judge
the quick and the dead ; of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in the
Holy Ghost the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who
with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the
prophets in one holy catholic and apostolic church ; we acknowledge one
;
baptism for the remission of sins ; we look for the resurrection of the dead and
the life of the world to come." Compared with the Nicene Creed, it lacks the
"of the substance of the Father" and the anathemas ; compared with the
more recent doctrinal development, it lacks the ascription of the 6noovoio^ to
the Holy Spirit.
;:
day was past (Philostorg. h. e. xii. 11 ; Sozom. h. e. viii. j).

It still made a passing demonstration among the German nations.
22. The Completion of the Doctrine of the Trinity.
1. Before entering upon the controversy concerning the two
natures in Christ, we must briefly note the final settlement of

the Trinitarian dogma. John of Damascus (f after A. D. 754)
marks the close of the controversy in the East, and Augustine
(f A. D. 430) in the West.
Later Monophy sites, such as John Ascusnages and John Philo-
PONUS carried out the Cappadocian doctrine on the basis of the
Aristotelian philosophy (^'Vf 9 and 67rofrTarTr^--^genus and individ-
ual) to the extreme of Tritheism (vid. Joh. Damasc. de haer. Zt^ \
Leont. desectisact. V. 6; Phot. Bibl. cod. 75 ; Joh. of Ephes. h. e.
v. 1-12, translated by Schonfelder, who discusses the doctrine
on page 275 ff.). To break the force of these deductions from
the system, John of Damascus presented the orthodox doctrine
in his standard dogmatic work, De fide orthodoxa, following
especially the Cappadocians, but guarding the unity of God
more distinctly than they had done (opp. ed. Lequin, in Mign.
gr. 91 ff.; cf. Langen, Joh. of Dam., 1879).
2. The views of John of Damascus may be summarized as
follows :Father, Son, and Spirit are one God, or one substance
(ôoma, fid. orth. i. 2), but not one person ('-^Tro/TTctfTi? or -^wfTtyTTcv)
'
It is impossible to say that the three hypostases of the deity,
'
although they are united to one another, are one hypostasis"

(iii. 5 ; cf. iii. 15, p. 233). This one God is the Creator, Pre-
server, and Ruler of the world *^ one substance, one deity, one
:
power, one will, one energy, one source, one authority, one do-
minion, one kingdom, in three complete hypostases, to be ac-
knowledged and worshiped with one homage . . united with-
.
out mixture and continuously separated" (i. 8, pp. 132, 139,

140). Hence the Logos is the same in nature (au-ru? y-ard tyjv
<ph(>v/) with the Father (i. 6). Accordingly, the three hyposta-
ses, although always to be thought of as realities, are yet not
related to one another as are three men (i. 8, p. 138). They
are one, but different in their mode of existence {rpo-o^ b-Kdpêw^):
*' They are one in all respects . except those of non -genera-
tion, generation,and procession. The distinction is in thought
for we know one God, in the exclusive peculiarities of paternity
and sonship and procession " (i. 8, p. 139). This relationship
may be further defined as a mutual interpenetration of the three
hypostases without comminghng (according to Jn. 14. 11):
'* The hypostases are in one another. They are in not so
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 237
as to be commingled with one another, but so as to be contained

in one another ; and they move about within one another without
any coalescing and without juncture" (i. 8, pp. 140, 138).
*' For the deity is, to speak concisely, undivided in the divided
(^dfiipc(TTo<^ iv ixeixeptdiiivotq), just as also, in three suns contained

in one another and unseparated, there is one blending and mu-
tual connection of light " (ib.). Despite his radical rejection of
Subordinationism, John of Damascus describes the Father as the
Source of the Godhead (i. 7. 8j, and accordingly represents the
Spirit as proceeding from the Father, although, indeed,
** through the Logos " (i.
12 ; per contra, vid. i. 8 fin.). This
way of viewing the subject, which is simply a relic of the Greek
Subordinationism, prepared the way for the controversy, long
continued and never fully concluded,^ between the Roman and
the Greek churches, upon the procession of the Holy Spirit
(^filioque^. See Langen, Die trin. Lehrdifferenz, 1876. Gass,
Symbolik der griech. Kirche, p. 152 if. Kattenbusch, Confes-
sionskunde i., p. 323 ff.
3. The Western conception of the Trinity reached its final
statement in the extensive and magnificent wôrk of Augustine,
De trinitate^ which clearly re-states the Latin view of the Trini-
ity in its divergence from the Grecian, and which, by virtue of
its method and the problems discussed, exerted a commanding
influence upon the dogmatics of the Western church.^ The Oc-

cident, as we have seen, stood unwaveringly upon the side of the
Nicene theologians (Athanasius and Marcellus). The formulas
of Tertullian were the means of preserving the recognition of
the strict unity of God as not prejudicing in any degree the per-
sonal distinctions in his nature. The prevalent theory was not
Sabellian, nor was there thought to be any reason for suspecting
the Alexandrine theology of a Sabellianizing tendency. The Neo-
Nicene orthodoxy was therefore, though tardily, acknowledged.
In this respect, Augustine is thoroughly Western in his point of
view. It is not the Greek theology, nor even, in reality, the
Council of Nice, which is decisive for him, but the ''catholic
faith," e, g., ep. 120. 17 ; in Joh. tr. 74. i ; 98. 7 ; 18. 2 ; 37.
6; de doctr. chr. iii. i (cf. Reuter, Aug. Studien, p. 185 ff. ).
As to Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity Baur., Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit,

:
1841, p. 828 ff. NiTZSCH DC, i. 305 Thomasius, DG. i., ed. 2, 281 ff.
ff.
A. DoRNER, Aug., 1873, p. 5ff. BiNDEMANN, Der heil. Aug. iii. 709 ff.
Gangauf, Aug. spekulat. Lehre von Gott, 1865.
^ Cf. the Russian Catechism (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, ii. 481 f.,
461) and the negotiations between Old Catholics and Greeks at Bonn, A. D.
1874, reported in Reusch, p. 26 ff.
2 See the brief outline of the contents in Book xv.
3, \ 5.
The basis of Augustine's theology is the unity of God. The

Trinity is the one and simple God, '* not therefore not simple,
because a Trinity " (de civ. dei xi. lo ; de trin. v. 7. 9 ; viii. i ;
de fid. et symb. 8. 20). ** The Trinity itself is, indeed, the
one
God, and one God in the same sense as one Creator " (c. serm.
Arian. 3). Accordingly, there belongs to the one triune God one
substance, one nature, one energy, and one will *^The works of :
the Trinity are inseparable" (ib. 4; de trin. ii. 5. 9; Enchirid.

12. 38 de symb. 2 c. Maxim, ii. 10. 2 ; in Joh. tr. 18. 6 20. 3,
; ; ;
7; 95. i; 21. 11). These ideas are carried out to the fullest
extent. Even the theophanies of the Old Testament are not re-
ferred exclusively to the Son (trin. ii. 15 ff.). The Son (and
the Spirit) even takes an active part in his own inissio into the
world, since this was not accomplished otherwise than through
*'the Word of the Father:" **The incarnation was . . .
effected by one and the same operation of the Father and the
Son inseparably, the Spirit, indeed, not being separated from it " ;
cf. Matt. I. 18. '* Since

the Father sent him by his Word, it
was brought about by the Father and his Word that he was sent.
Therefore by the Father and the Son was sent the same Son,
because the Son himself is the Word of the Father" (trin. ii.
5. 9). But the fact that it is just the Son (and Spirit), and
not the Father, who is sent, is not because they are inferior to the
Father, but because they proceed from him (ib. iv. 20. 27 c. ;
serm. Ar. 4, cf. de symb. 9 and opp. viii. 1636). Father, Son,
and Spirit are, therefore, not three persons different from one
another in the sense in which three human persons differ al-
though belonging to one genus (in Joh. tr. 39. 2 f. 91. 4). On ;
the contrary, each divine person is, in respect to the substance,

identical with the others, or with the entire divine substance :
'
For Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit together are not a greater
'
essence (êssentia) than the Father alone or the Son alone, but
these three substances, or persons, if they be so called, are to-
gether equal to each one alone " (de trin. vii. 6. 11 viii. i ; ;
** Neither are two something more than one."

vi. 7. 9; 10. 12 :
In this sense, of the identity of substance, the term vijaioIxtkk; is

used in Joh. tr, 97. 4). It is plain that Augustine's entire con-
ception of the unity of God leads inevitably to the recognition
of his personal unity. Augustine felt this, but for him and

long afterward a distinct enunciation of this truth was prevented
by the triadic application of the term person (cf. de trin. vii.
4. 7 ; 6. II).
The One (personal) God is thus for Augustine an established
fact. No less certain is however, that there are three persons

it,
in the one God. Here lay for him, as for Athanasius, the
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 239
greatest difficulty
the real problem. These are related to God,
not as species to genus, nor as properties to a substance. Every
quantitative or qualitative distinction is excluded {e. g., trin. v.
5-6; vii. 3-6; V. II ; viii. i). On the contrary, this termi-
nology is designed to indicate the mutual inward relationship be-
tween the three *' They are so called, not with respect lo sub-
:
stance, because they are thus called, not each one of them as
related to himself, but as related mutually and the one to the
other; nor with respect to property, because what is called
Father and what is called Son is eternal and immutable in them.
Wherefore, although to be Father and to be Son are two differ-
ent things, yet there is not a different substance; for they are
called thus, not with respect to substance, but with respect to that
which is relative, which relativity is yet not a property, because it
it is not mutable " (trin. v. 5,6; 8-9 viii. i init.; cf. 'Ânother,
;
not other {alius non aliud),^' civ dei. xi. 10. i). The one God
is never either Father only nor Son only, but the three forms of
existence of the one God, each requiring the others, are Father,
Son, and Spirit. They are hence substantially identical
the re-
lation of dependence between them is a mutual one. The
Father, who commands the Son, is no less dependent upon him
than is the latter upon the Father (c. serm. Ar. 3). Father,
Son, and Spirit behold in themselves the entire undivided Deity,
only that it belongs to each of them under a different point of
view, as generating, generated, or existing through spiration.
'* Father
and Son, therefore, know one another mutually, but the
one in begetting, the other in being begotten" (trin. xv. 14-
23). Between the three hypostases exists the relation of a mutual
interpenetration and interd welling (trin. vi. 7. 9). For the
designation of this relationship, the t^rm. pe?'sona (or substantia)
does not altogether satisfy Augustine. ** Nevertheless, when it
is asked, What are the three? human speech at once toils with
great insufficiency. Yet we say, three persons, not in order to

express it, but in order not to be silent" (trin. v. 9, 10).^
That, with this conception of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost is
regarded as proceeding not only from the Father ''but from
both at once," follows as a matter of course (xv. 17. 29 ; in Joh.
tr. 99. 6).
According to Augustine, then, the one personal God, from an
inward necessity, leads a three-fold, mutually-related personal
^ The whole passage

is important in elucidating the terminology of Augus-
tine. He luav bvolav^ rpeiq vTroGraoeig

translates : unani essentiam^ tres
substantias; but decides for the formula : Unam essentiam vel stibstaniiam,
tres autem personas. Cf. vii. 5. lo, where, appealing to Ex. 3. 24, he prefers
essentia to substantia.
;
life. The attempt

is made to explain this view in a number of
analogies,and thus prove the possibility of the three-fold life in
the one God. These analogies are drawn from the human soul,
because it was made in the image of God. Thus there is a
trinity in sight (*' thing seen, vision, intention of the will uniting
the two" (trin. xi. 2. 2 ; cf. xv. 3. 5); in thought (*' thus there is
memory, and inner vision, and the will which unites
this trinity in
the two," ib. xi. 3. 6); in the human spirit (ix. and x.; xv. 3. 5 :
''mind, and knowledge by which it knows itself, and love by

which it esteems itself and its knowledge memory, intelligence,
will "); inlove (ix. 22 which is loved,
:
'* that which loves, that
and love These analogies not only give expression to the
itself '
) .
idea that three are equivalent to one, which the ancient teachers
sought to illustrate from nature (cf. in Aug. de fid. et symb.
9. 17), but they present the idea of a harmonious spiritual
entity, impelled and controlled from a three-fold centre. In this
there was a distinct advance upon the representations of the
older theologians, which constantly wavered between the unity
and the trinity. Augustine made it impossible for later ages to
overlook the fact, that there can be no Christian doctrine of the
Trinity which is not at the same time an unequivocal confession
of the one personal God. *' Thrice have I said God, but I have
not said three Gods ; for God thrice is greater than three Gods,
because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God " (in Joh. tr.
6. 2; cf. serm. 2. 15. 8; trina unitas^ . Augustine did not con-
ceal his deep realization of the inadequacy of all these attempted
explanations. He closes his work with the words ** Lord, our :
God, we believe in Thee, the Father and the Son and the Spirit.
For Truth would not have said. Go, baptize, etc. (Matt. 28. 20),
unless Thou wast a Trinity, ... I would remember Thee
I would know Thee ; I would love Thee Lord, Thou one . . ,
God, divine Trinity, whatsoever I have written in these books by

suggestion of Thee, the One, mayest Thou the Three accept, if
anything of myself, mayest both Thou the One and Thou the
Three overlook it " (xv. 21. 51).^
Such is Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity. In it is collected
a wealth of psychological observations and profound speculations.
Theorists have hence always returned to it anew. It is but the
more noticeable on this account that it really exerted but a slight
influence upon practical piety. This is accounted for by the fact
that the Augustinian theory was concerned only with the imma-
1 Ambrose represented the Trinity in a way more in harmony with the Cap-
padocian ideas three persons who are one by virtue of their
:
*' one substance,
divinity, will, law." See de fide ad Grat. i. 2. 17-19; ill. c. 12, 26; ii. 8.
10. 86 iii. 14. 108 iv. 6. 68 8. 83, etc.
73 ; ; ; ;
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 24I
nent Trinity, without deducing this from the view-point of the

economic Trinity \ whereas a practically religious conception of
the Trinity can be secured only from a contemplation of the re-
vealed Trinitarian activity of God. It was because Augustine did
not start at this point, that he was compelled to confess that men
in theory acknowledged allegiance to the absolutely One, Triune
God, whereas their practical ideas were always tinctured with
Tritheism. But, despite this, what a wealth of ideas and views
has this doctrine of Augustine bequeathed to the church !
4. This Augustinian conception of the Trinity was in its

fundamental features embodied for the Western church in the
so-called Athanasian Creed, or Symbo/nm Qutcungue p- ''That
we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither
confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there
^ The mention of this symbol, which was not produced until a later
period, at this point is justified by the fact that it contains the theology of
Augustine.
Of the recent literature we cite : Kollner, Symbolik i., 1837. Ffoulkes,
The Athan. Creed, London, ed. 3. Lumby, History of the Creeds, ed. 3,
1887. SWAINSON, The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, etc., 1875, p. 195 ff.
Ommanney, The Athan. Creed, 1875, and Early History of the Athan.
Creed, 1880. G. Morin in La science catholique, 1 891, 673 and in the
ff. ,
Revue benedictine xii., 1895, p. 385 ff. Burn, The Athan. Creed and Its
Early Commentaries (Texts and Studies, ed. Robinson, iv. i, 1896). Har-
NACK DG., ii. 298 ff.LooFS PRE. ii. ed. 3, 178 ff.
The origin of the symbol, despite the most diligent efforts of scholars in re-
cent years to discover it, is still unknown. It is evident that it has no relation
to Athanasius. The following relatively certain data throw some light upon
the question : (l) The manuscript copies of the text carry us to the eighth
century. (2) The ancient expositions would lead us still further back, if the
Expositio fidei Foriunati (Burn, p. 28 ff. ) can be attributed to Fortunatus
(f ca. A. D. 600), whom one manuscript represents as the author, while
another manuscript names Euphronius the presbyter, who was bishop of
Treves A. D. 555"572. But the crediting of this Expositio, which would
otherwise come to us anonymously, to two men who were personal acquaint-
ances is very remarkable, and the apparently probable solution, that Euphro-
nius as presbyter (hence about A. D. 550) composed it, must still remain un-
certain. (3) Parallels to the formula of the Creed appear in great numbers
in Southern Gaul. Especially important is the Pseudo-Augustinian Sermo 244,
which has from ancient times been attributed to Csesarius (f A. D. 542).
But an Expositio discovered by Caspar! in two Paris manuscripts ( Anecdota i.
283 ff. ) shows close relationship to Sermo 244, but does not contain the
parallel to the Quicunque. On this account the originality of Sermo 244 is
assailed. Caspar?, Zahn, and Kattenbusch, however, zealously defend it.
But if Sermo 244, in the form in which it appears in Pseudo-Augustine, was
really composed by Caesarius, we then must here recognize, not only anticipa-
tions of the Quicunque, but an acquaintance at this early day with a completed
formula. Such a formula must then have existed as early as about A. D. 500.
(4) Vincent of Lerins, when he wrote his Commonitorium in A. D. 434, had
no knowledge of the Creed (Loofs). (5) A
council at Autun, at which
Bishop Laodegar (A. D. 659 to ca. 683) presided, expressly mentions the
*' creed (yft/i?OT) of Saint Athanasius, the president." Thus at this time
16
::
is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the

Holy Spirit ; but the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as is the Father, such is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit.
. . And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal;
just as there are not three uncreated nor three unbounded, but one
uncreated and one unbounded not three omnipotents, but
. . .
already the Creed bore at Autun the name of Athanasius. (6) The codex
Paris, 3836, dating from the eighth century, cites among canonical material a
Christological rule of faith which is intimately related to ^ 28-40 of the Qui-
cunque, but which varies considerably in the wording. But the writer of the
Pans codex had before him a Treves manuscript. From the fact that the
Christological part of the symbol stands by itself in this document, it has been
inferred that this second part was added later to the above-cited trinitarian
portion (Swainson, Lumby, Harnack). But Loofs (p. 186) has correctly sur-
mised that the part of the Treves manuscript cited by the writer beginning
" Domini nostri, Jesu Christi fideliter credat," is merely a fragment torn from
27 of the Quicunque. From this he infers that there was a page wanting in the
Treves manuscript in the hands of the Paris writer, and that he (about A. D.
750) had no knowledge of the Quicunque, or he would not have copied this.
This is supposed to disprove the so-called two-source theory. Yet this entire ar-
gumentation does not appear to be at all decisive. The very circumstance that
the creed designated as Athanasian atAutun aboutA. D. 670 should have been
unknown to this writer of A. D. 750 is sufficient to shake our confidence in the
conclusion. Nevertheless, the suggestion with which Loofs starts is correct be-
yond question ; but the inference drawn by him is false. The proper inference
can only be : Since a librarian living about the middle of the eighth century would
be familiar with the Athanasian Creed, and it was such a man who transcribed
the Christological part, he must have been yet in ignorance of this portion of
the document. This might be said already of the writer of the Treves Codex.
Thus the two-source theory concerning the codex of Paris, 3836, receives, in
my opinion, an important support. It commends itself also from the fact that
the transition from the first to the second part ( 27) plainly betrays the
attempt to artfully unite two documents in hand. Compare also 40. It is
evident, for example, that, according to the first part, i}s\^ fides catholica em-
braces nothing more than faith in the Trinity (| i-3)' To this \ 27 adds
that it is necessary to eternal salvation that one believe also in the incarnation ;
while in \ 28 the confession of the divinity and humanity of Christ is presented
as the content oifides recta. This is evidently something new, which was not
in view when \ 3 was composed.
The history of the Quicunque must accordingly be somewhat as follows
The first part was composed from formulas of Augustinian theology for the eluc-
idation of the Apostles' Creed. It may have attained a fixed form by about A. D.
500, and in South Gaul. But, in addition to this formula, there was also a
second and Christological one, which was not much later in its appearance.
It was probably bound up with the first named as early as the seventh century.
Yet toward the middle of the eighth century there were scholarly people who
knew nothing of the Christological formula. But, with this exception, the
combination of the two formulas must be regarded as a fixed fact. Since the
time of the Carlovingians, we find the Quicunque making its way into liturgies
and then co-ordinated with the other two symbols as the Creed of Athanasius
(Anselm, ep. ii. 41. Alex, of Hales, Summa iv. quest. 37, \ 9, etc.). Thus
the Reformers were also led to accept the symbol.
THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 243
one omnipotent. The Son is the only (son) of the Father

. .
;
not made, not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the
Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but pro-
ceeding. . In. nothing before or after,
this Trinity there is
nothing greater or but the whole three persons are co-
less ;
eternal together and coequal, so that in all things, as has been

said above, both the unity in trinity and the trinity in unity is
to be worshiped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let
him think thus concerning the Trinity " ( 3-26).
CHAPTER II.
THE DOCTRINE OF ONE PERSON AND TWO NATURES IN CHRIST.
23. Origin of the Controversies Upon the Two Natures of

Christ.
1. Two things had been transmitted by tradition as fixed : the

reality of the humanity of Christ, with his human activity and
sufferings (recognized in conflict Avith Docetism in the second
century), and the reality and Homousia of his divinity. Divinity
and humanity are now combined in one person ; there is a syn-
thesis (^(jovd-srov^ Origen), but as to the question how this union
was conceivable, especially how two personal natures can consti-
tute one person, there was no further investigation, despite the
propositions put forth by the Dynamistic Monarchians. Only
the West possessed, in Tertullian's view of one person in two
substances, a formula which appeared to adequately meet the
situation,and which had been confirmed by the fuller develop-
ment of the doctrine of the Trinity. Western theologians, with
this theory in hand, felt themselves relieved from the necessity
of further investigation, and in the conflicts of the succeeding
era they presented it as an adequate solution of all the questions
raised in the Orient.
2. This was the situation when Apollinaris of Laodicea
(born about A. D. 310) carefully stated the Christological prob-
lem and, at the same time, presented a clear and challenging at-
tempt at its solution. The learned bishop was prominent as a
humorist as well as noted for his acquaintance with the Scriptures
and his intellectual acuteness.
Of his writings, the following are here of interest : The treatise attributed
to Gregory Thaum., Kara fiepog de divina incarnatione, frg. die
irtar/.g \ ;
pseudo-Athanasian, nefji r/'/g aapKucecog tov êov a6}ov, and a number of frag-
ments, vid. Draseke, in Texte u. Unters. vii. 34. Caspari, Alte und Neue
Quellen, etc., p. 65 ff. Further, in opposition Athan. c. Apol. (genuineness
:
questioned); cf. in Epiphan. h. 77 ; Greg. Naz, ep. ad Nectarium, epistolae

ad Cledonium ; Greg. Nyss. Antirreheticus c. Apol.; Theodoret Eranistes
dial. 5 ; haeret. fab. iv. 8. Theodore of Mopsuestia, frg. from his c. Apol.
etde Apollinari. Compare Dormer, Entwicklungsgesch. d. Lehre v. d. Pars.
Christi,i. pp. 975-1036. LooFS PRE. ii. ed. 3, 177 ff. Burn, the Athan.
Creed, Texts and Studies iv. i. G. Krueger, PRE. i., ed. 3, 671 ff.'
(^) The Christology of this enthusiastic champion of the

6/if>(inrTt(i<; took its form in opposition, both to the Arian doctrine
of the mutability of the Logos and that of the external juxtapo-
sition of the two natures of Christ, as taught by the Antiochian
*'Paulinizing " (Paul of Samosata) theologians, who ''say that
the man that is from heaven is one, confessing him to be God,
and the man from earth is another, saying that the one is uncre-
ated, the other created" (ad Dionys. ep. p. 348 ; cf. ep. ad
Jov. p. 342 ; cf. p. 381). The idea of the God, Christ, held
his thought in positive thralldom. On the one hand, it was his
aim to so construct Christology that no shadow of mutability
might fall upon Christ. But this appeared to be possible only if
this man was really God
if there was in him no free human will
(de incarn. pp. 383, 387, 388). Otherwise, he would be sub-
ject to sin (fid. conf. p. 393 and Athan. c. Apol. i. 2 ii. 6, 8 ; ;
Greg; Nyss. Antirrh. 40. 51 Greg. Naz. ad Cled. i. 10) and

;
the redeeming death of Christ would be only the death of a man

(de inc. p. 391 ; in inc. adversar. p. 395). On the other hand,
the outward juxtaposition of the two natures does not help to
overcome the difficulties. It is impossible to make the divinity
and the humanity combine in their entirety into one person (de
inc. pp. 384, 388, 389, 400). Two persons (-/>or7a>;ra) would be
the necessary result (ib. 387, 392). ''That two complete
things should become one is not possible " (Athan. c. Apol. i.
2). We
would thus be led to a fabulous being like the Minotaurs
or Tragelaphs, or we would be compelled to introduce a quater-
nity instead of the trinity (Greg. Nyss. antirrh. 42). Only be-
cause the flesh (trdp^) of Christ is one person (^TzpofTWTzo'y) with
his divinity is it possible to worship Jesus without, at the same
time, worshiping a man (pp. 389, 349, 350). Only thus is re-
demption a work of God. (^) From this it follows that the im-
mutable divinity of Christ and the unity of the Redeemer's per-
son can be preserved only by yielding the integrity of his hu-
man nature. Arius and his followers had, with a purpose dia-
metrically opposite to that of ApoUinaris, maintained the same
'
position (in order to make all evidences of mutability or infirmity

in Jesus applicable to the Logos), /. e.^ that Christ was not made
man, but only became incarnate, and therefore assumed only a
human body and not also a human soul (see Confes. of Eudoxius
in Caspar:, 1. c. iv. p. i8o Athan. c. Apol. ii. 4
; Greg. Naz.
;
ad Cled. ep. ii. 7 ; Epiph. ancor. 33 cf. supra, p. 203). This

;
same inference Apollinaris now drew with a different purpose and

in a different sense. He regarded the trichotomy of man's na-
ture as established by
i Thes. 5. 23 (deinc. pp. 382, 388, 390).
The Logos assumed the body and soul of a man, but the divine
Logos itself took the place of the spirit (^vwj^) or intellectual
soul {4"-'X'0 i^"^/>). *' Christ, having, besides soul and body, a
divine spirit, i. e., mind, is with reason called the man from
heaven" (de inc. pp. 382, 401). Hence it may be said:
*' Thus the one living being consists of a moved and a mover,
and is not two, nor composed of two, complete and self-moving

beings" (deinc. p. 384); and thus Christ is one person with
one personal life in mind and will and energy, z. e., the purely
*' For, saying that 'theLogos
divine (pp. 349, 399, 400, 401).
became flesh,' he does not add, and soul; for it is impossible
^ '
that two souls, a thinking and a willing, should dwell together in

the same person, and the one not contend against the other by
reason of its own will and energy. Therefore the Logos as-
sumed not a human soul, but only the seed of Abraham " (de
unione, frg. p. 401; cf. 396). The difficulties are thus over-
come ^* For God, having become incarnate, has in the human
:
flesh simply his own energy, his mind being unsubject to sensual
and carnal passions, and divinely and sinlessly guiding the flesh and
controlling the fleshly emotions, and not alone unconquerable by
death, but also destroying death. And he is true God, the
unfleshly appearing in the flesh, the perfect one in genuine and
divine perfection, not two persons (-^'Vw-a), nor two natures
(^y^sf?). There is one Son both before the incarnation and
;
after the incarnation the same, man and God, each as one. And
the divine Logos is not one person and the man Jesus another
'
{y.aTo. p.zp. -:rt-r. pp. 377, 378). (r) But since Apollinaris in
this way found in Christ one person, one harmonious being, he
could also speak of his one nature (^(phai^') and one substance
(ourrca) (^. ^., 341, 348, 349, 352, 363), the Logos being unsep-
arated and undivided (^fj.y(i)fnf>T<i^ xai aixipiGZix;^ from his flesh (pp.
395? 39^) ^^^ y^t ^^so distinguish two natures (de trin. pp. 358,
360) ^* For as man is one, but has in himself two different na-
:
tures . so the Son, being one, has also two natures" (p. 358).
. .
Since this illustration from the nature of man is a proper one, it

follows also that the relation of the two natures ((Tuvd(pzta^ pp.
344, 346, 351, 367) is not to be conceived as a change

i^/jLTa6oXrj) nor as a mixing (^<Tuyxpafn<;') and confounding
(^(TuyôfTc^) (c. Diodor. p. 366 sq. ), for the IDeity remains immu-
table (pp. 347, 393). (d) ApoUinaris drew yet another nota-
ble inference from his premises, teaching, in a certain sense, a
pre-existence of the ffdp^ of Christ, appealing to Jn. 3. 13 and
I Cor. 15. 47 not as though the Logos had the flesh already
while in heaven and brought it with him to the earth (<?. g., Ath.
c. Ap. i. 7; ii. 10; Greg. Naz. ep. ad Nect. 3, ad Cled. i. 6;
Greg. Nyss. antirrh. 13 f. ), for this Apolhnaris expressly denied
(ep. ad Dionys. pp. 348, 349).^ But he wrote: '*The man
Christ pre-exists, not as though the spirit, /. e. the divine Spirit,
,
were that of another than himself, but in such a way that the
divine Spirit in the nature of the divine man was the Lord " (de
inc. p. 382 f.). Although this is obscure in some points, the
meaning can scarcely be other than that the Logos was from all
eternity predestined to become man, and was, in this sense, the
pre-existent heavenly man.
Such was the teaching of this great bishop, which he, as an
earnest exegete,^ endeavored to establish upon biblical authority.
*'This man is certainly also God. If Christ had been only
man, he could not have saved the world ; and if only God, he
could not have saved it through suffering. ... If Christ had
been only man, or if only God, he could not have been a middle
one between men and God. The flesh is, therefore, an organ of
life adapted to suff"erings according to the divine counsels, and
neither are the words of the flesh its own nor its deeds, and, hav-
ing been made subject to sufferings as is suitable for flesh, it pre-
vailed over the suff'erings through its being the flesh of God. He '
'
"
believed that he was not in reality in conflict with the '* dogmas
of the church in his day,^ but in this he Mâs self-deceived.*
^ Epiphanius, indeed, heard this view expressed by pupils of ApoUinaris

(h. 77.2, 14).
2 This {cf. Hieron. vir. ill. 104) is shown, ^. g.^ in the sensuous Chiliasm
of ApoUinaris (see Basil, ep. 263. 4 Greg. Naz, ad Cled. ii. 4).
;
^ See ep. ad Dionys. p. 351 :

" We are not divided on accountof these ex-
pressions. For to pretend that the things in the expressions which differ from
the dogmas agree with them would be wicked ; but to pretend that the things
in the expressions which agree with the dogmas differ from them would be vain
and foolish. But let those having this agreed upon, that Christ is God incar-
nate, and that he is from heaven and earth, in form a servant, and in power
God, remain in unity, and neither be foolishly separated nor fall into the logo-
machy of the heretics, but rather esteem highly the simplicity of the church."
* Nor was ApoUinaris able to free himself from the bonds of the Antiochian
theology. Its statement of the problem remained regulative for him, and
he could find no way to escape their solution of it except at the terrible price
of the surrender of the human viiv(; of Christ. He substituted the human
From the decade A. D. 370-380, the Cappadocians assailed

his views (see already Ath. c. Apol. and, perhaps, the Alexan-
drine Council of A. D. 362 ; torn, ad Antioch. 7). They were
moved to opposition chiefly by their general sense of the integ-
rity of the human nature of Jesus, as he is depicted in the Gos-
pel narratives, and of its significance in the work of redemption.
Only if Christ had a human mind {xto^^^ could he redeem also
the human mind
an idea which, from the standpoint of the dei-
fication theory of the Greek Soteriology, was not a mere phrase.
On the contrary, the Athanasian Christology was against Apolli-
narianism ''If anyone imagines a man without a mind, such
:
a one is really inconceivable and altogether not worthy to be

saved. For that which cannot be added to cannot be cured ; but
that which is united to God is already saved. If the half of
Adam fell, it was the half also which was added to and saved ;
but if the whole [Adam] fell, the addition was made to the
whole that was born, and he was wholly saved " (Greg. Naz. ep.
ad Cled. i. 7 Greg. Nyss. antirrh. 17).
. Apollinarianism
was condemned at the councils of Rome, A. D. 374 and 376
( ''If therefore the whole man was lost, it was necessary that
that which was lost should be saved" ), and also at Constanti-
nople, A. D. 381.
3. But this,did not answer the question raised by Apollinaris.
It failed to explain how two personal natures could exist in one
person. Apollinaris had stated the Christological problem for
the ancient church. Its solution was attempted from two
directions.
We .must note the view of the Antiochians, which had
first
stirred Apollinaris to opposition. It was they who for some

years manifested the deepest interest in the question (see
Diodor. of Tarsus, f bef 394, frg, in Marius Mercator in Gal-
landi Bibl. viii. 705. Theod. of Mopsuestia, f 428, dogniat.
frgg. esp. from de incarn. and c, Apol. in Swete, Theod. comm.
on ep. Pauli ii. 289-339 > ^^so Theodoret, see excerpts in Mar.
Merc), (a) A settled point is here the Homousia of the
Logos. The Logos, by his birth from Mary, assumed a complete
man as to nature, consisting of "soul and mind and flesh"
{<I'o/rj. vnepd. ffdp^
Theod. expos. fid. p. 328). We are, there-
fore, to acknowledge in Christ two complete entities (^ziXeca).
This applies to the nature (^6(7^?) as well as to the person
(TTpotTw-ovy. "When we attempt to distinguish the natures, we
say that the person of the man is complete and also the person
" flesh " for the complete human being controlled by the Logos, because he
was as little able as the Antiochian theologians to understand the divine-human
natureand life of Christ (cf. also Cyril, ad reginas ii. 55).
'
of the deity " (Theod. de incarn. viii., p. 300). We can speak

of the deity as becoming man, only in appearance '^ For when :
he says 'he took' (Phil. 2. 7) he speaks according to the

. . .
reality; but when he says he became* (Jn. i. 14), he speaks

'
'
according to appearance ; for he was not transformed into flesh
(ib. ix., p. 300). (d) Since, therefore, the integrity of the
two natures, especially that of the actual and developing human
nature, must be preserved (Diod. p. 705), the conclusion was
reached that the Son of God dwelt within the son of David.
This was illustrated by examples. The Logos dwells in Jesus,
somewhat as God dwells in a temple, or as he dwelt within the
Old Testament prophets, or even, as in all Christian believers, but
it is emphasized that this occurs in another but a uniquely com-
plete and permanent way in the case of Jesus (Diod. p. 705.

Theod. de inc. xii. c. Apol. iii., pp. 303, 313). The Logos
dwelt in the man Jesus *'from his very first formation" on
throughout his whole life, ''conducting him to perfection"
(Theod. c. Ap. iii. 2, p. 314). It is hence, not a natural, but
a moral union which exists between the two not
according to
'
'
essence" (oOrrta), but "according to good pleasure" {>}8{>xia).

The man Jesus desires what God desires. Through him the Deity
becomes efficient. There is one willing (^^î\rj<n^) and one
energy (Theod. ep. ad Domn. p. 339). "But the unity of the
person is to be seen in this, that he does all things through him-
self, which unity has been effected by inhabitation, which is ac-
cording to good pleasure " (Theod. de incarn. vii.,p. 297). This
unity has become an indissoluble one, and has attained its com-
pletion through the ascension of Jesus ("making him immutable
in the thoughts of his mind, but also in the flesh incorruptible
and indissoluble,** Theod. p. 326; de incarn. xiv., p. 308).
(f) In view of this connection (^<7uvd(pEta) of the two personal
natures through their unity of will,^ we may speak of the one per-
son " For the natures are discriminated, but the person made
:
complete in the union is one" (Theod. de inc. viii., p. 300).

"The manner of this union, according to good pleasure, pre-
serving the natures unmingled, shows also that the nature of the
two is inseparably one, and the will one, and the energy one, in
consequence of the abiding of one control and sway (âuiêvrca'^
1 The lineal relationship of Paul of Samosata, Lucian Arius, Diodorus

Theodorus is here plainly traceable ; Christ, a man united with God through

um/j/ of will a demi-god thus joined with God a man, thus one person
with the personal Logos. The theory became step by step more orthodox,
but the difficulties in its fundamental structure were not thereby solved.
Theodorus, indeed, declares Paul to have been an "angelus diaboli " (pp.
Zl-^y 318).
xai SerTTTOTtia^s) in them" (Theod. ad Domn., p. 339). Thus

there are seen to be two different natures ('*each of the natures
remaining indissolubly by itself the natures being discrimi-

nated" de inc. viii., p. 299), but in their combination they
are one person
ing to the completed union "
C
the natures combined into one person accord-

ib.; *' difference of natures and
unity of person," ib., p. 302 ; *' the reason of the natures un-
confused, the person undivided/* ib. p. 292). But, Iq further ex-
planation, the union of man and wife as **one flesh" is cited
(ib. and p. 324); or, it is even said ''The one receives bless- :
ing, the other gives it !

" (de inc. xi., p. 302).
(d) Upon more than an
this basis, the personal unity is little
assertion. According to it, in the sufferings of Christ *' the deity
was indeed separated from him who suffered (according to
Hebr. 2. 9, citra deum^/w^}? iêr^D), yet it was not absent . . .
according to love from him who suffered" (Theod. pp. 325,

310). The worship of Jesus is, therefore, possible only in so far
as the worshiper combines in his thought his humanity and his
divinity. *' We adore the purple for the sake of him who wears
it, and the temple for the sake of him who dwells within it the
form of a servant for the sake of the form of God" (Diodor. 1. c;
Theod. pp. 308, 309, 316, 329). Thus also Mary, the mother
of the man, can only in this metaphorical sense be called the
mother of God (Diod. ib.; Theod. de inc. xv., p. 310 ''for :
she was mother of man by nature, since he who was in the womb
of Mary was man, but mother of God, since God was in the
. . .
man who was being born ; not in him as circumscribed after the
manner of nature, but in him after the manner of the understand-
ing," xard rijv (Tîfrcv ttj^ yvu)fj.rj>^). In view of these statements,
we can understand the vigorous opposition of Apollinaris. The
unity of the person is endangered. The divine cannot be said
to have really become man, as there remains only the moral rel-
ative union (iVoio-i? rrêrcxrj') between two persons. The religious
significance of this union is that Christ, in prototype and
example, represented the union of man with God in obedient
will. As did the man Jesus, so may we also attain sonship to
God *' by grace, not naturally." His purpose was ^' to lead all
to imitation of himself" (Theod. de inc. xii. 7, p. 306; xiv.
2, p. 308; cat. 8, p. ss^).^
(f?) The church is indebted to this school of theologians for
the preservation of a precious treasure the reality of the human

and personal career of Jesus. To what extreme the ideas of
^ Cf. the saying attributed to Ibas " I do not envy Christ," he says, "that
:
he was made God ; for what he has been made I have been made, because he
is of my nature " (Gallandi viii. 705).
ApoUinaris lead may be seen in the later Monophysites. But it

cannot be maintained that the *' historical Jesus" would ever
have received justice at the hands of those who were content with
this theory. The abstract conception of God which lay at its
basis prevented any real and historical understanding of the na-
ture of the God-man. Two difficulties were felt : (i) The
unity of the personal life of Jesus remained problematical,
although this problem was perhaps soluble. (2) The tendency
of Greek Soteriology toward a mystical deification of the humanity
through the medium of the God-man did not appear to harmo-
nize with the theory as proposed by the Antiochians. The only
significance remaining to the work of redemption appeared to be
instruction and imitation. This explains the often unjustifiable
opposition to this Christology. The theology of the Antiochians
at least prevented the acceptance of Apollinarianism as a solu-
tion of the problem of ApoUinaris.
4. The other Greek theologians attempted to solve the prob-
lem in a different way, following upon the track of Athanasius :
the God-man is a concrete unit, in whom, however, we discrim-

inate in the abstract two natures (supra, p. 211). The Cappa-
docians maintained essentially the same position. But, in facing
the problem of ApoUinaris, they, like the Antiochians, could not
get beyond mere allegations. They spoke of two natures {^(poast^) ,
but did not infer from this that there were ** two Sons," although
the two natures were to be conceived as each complete (Greg.
Naz. ep. ad Cled. i. 7, 8). It was thought that the two natures
coalesced in one. There is a miraculous commingling, the one
deifying and the other being deified :
*' For both the taking and
the taken are God, the two natures concurring in one ; not two
Sons" (Greg. Naz. or. 37. 2); and " being that which deified and
that which was deified. O, the new mixture Qxiî^) ; O, the strange
compound" {xpa(n^)\ (or. 38. 13). It is, says Gregory of Nyssa,
a relation like that between a drop of vinegar mingled with the
sea and the sea itself. This simile indicates how utterly unlim-
ited was the range of thought which these men allowed them-
selves. Since the Logos becomes flesh, the human is transformed
into the divine ('* changed, a mixing up, dvdxpatTL^^ with the
divine, a transformation, iisrafTrinyemfnq, of the man into the
Christ "). Thus the infirmity, mutability, and mortality of the
human nature are consumed by the deity :
*' He mixed his life-
giving power with the mortal and perishable nature. . The

.
Immutable appears in the mutable, in order that, having changed

and transformed from the worse into the better the evil commingled
with the mutable subject, he might, having expended the evil in
himself, cause it to disappear from the nature. For our God is a
''
THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 25I
'
consuming fire, in which all wood of evil is thoroughly burnt up

(Greg. Nyss. c. Eunom. v., Mi. 45, pp. 700, 693, 697, 705,
708, also Antirrh. 42). It is also held, indeed, that " the be-
holding of the attributes of the flesh and of the deity remains
unconfused, so long as each of these is regarded by itself" (ib.
p. 706). Thus the humanity weeps at the grave of Lazarus, but
the deity calls him But viewed concretely, the deity, by
to life.
virtue of the union, affects the human just as well as the humanity
the divine :
*' thus through the connection and union the (prop-
erties) of both become common to each, the Lord taking upon
himself the stripes of the servant, and the servant being glori-
fied with the honor belonging to the Lord" (ib. 705, 697).
The relation of the two natures is thus a different one from that
existing between the persons of the Trinity ** God and man are, :
it is true, two natures but there are not two Sons nor two
. . .
Gods. . .And if it is necessary to speak concisely other

. :
and other (a'AAo xat alh>^ are the entities of which {ra i^ wv')
the Saviour not another and another, aXht^ xa\ aXhi^.
. . God
forbid. For both are one in the compound, God being human-
ized and man being deified but I say other and other . . .
*
in a contrary sense from that in which it may be said of the

Trinity; for there it is 'another and another,' in order that
we may not commingle the hypostases, and not other and '
other,' for the three are one and the same in their divinity
"
(Greg. Naz. ep. ad Cled. i. 4).
Unfinished as is all this, we may yet clearly see the aim of
these writers. The historical character of Christ compels them
to maintain the two complete natures as well as the intimate
union of these two natures. But their conception of redemption
leads them to think of this union as a commingling of the na-
tures, as a transformation of the human into the divine. They
maintained in their relation to the Antiochians a religious posi-
tion, and in opposition to Apollinaris a historical standpoint.
In view of this tendency though by no means in the import-
ance or clearness of their ideas they are superior to both (cf.
p. 246, n. 4).
5. Thisview received its final formulation at the hands of Cyril
OF Alexandria (bishop from A. D. 412, \ A. D. 444).
Opp. ed. Aubert, 1638. Mi. gr. 68-77. Especially : Quod unus sit Christ.
Dial, de incarn. unigeniti. De incarn. verbi. De incarn. domini. Adv.
Nestorii blasphemias, virgo deiparasit.
11. 5. Quod
L. adv. nolentes con-
s.
fiteri a. virgo esse deiparam. Explicatio duodecim capitum. Apologetic,
pro duodecim capitibus. Apologet. c. Theodoret. De recta fide ad reginas,
11. 2. Frgg. ex libris c. Theodor. et Diodor. Ep. iff.; ep. 17 ad Nestor.;
epp. 45, 46 ad Succensum, in Mi. t. 75-77.
; Cf. LoOFS, Leontius v. Byz. in
Texte u. Untersuch. iii. i, p. 40 ff.
(a) Cyril starts with the person of the Logos. This person
assumed complete human nature for our salvation. His formula
is: "one nature of the divine Logos, made flesh." He does
not speak of the one nature of the incarnated Logos, or Christ,
but habitually of the one incarnated nature of the Logos. The
Logos, as the subject contemplated, has thus the one incarnated
nature. It may, however, also be said of the Logos that he was
made man and incarnated (e. ^., c. Nest. v. 4, 7 ii. 10 j ad;
regin. ii. 4, 33). In detail, Cyril teaches Two natures are to be

:
acknowledged, the divine and the human, both of them com-

plete, so that the latter includes the reasoning soul (^4'^X'^ ^^"T^^-'^j)
(adreg. i. 13, Mi. 76. 1221 ; ii. 55 inc. unig., Mi. 75. 1208 f.,
;
1220). Thus Christ is " of like nature (^6/j.ooijffco';) with his

mother as with his Father" (dial. c. Nest., Mi. 76. 252; ep.
40, Mi. 77. 192). In consequence of his becoming man, there
is a concurrence (âwdpo/j.ij') and union (iVw^c^) of these two na-
tures. How is this to be understood? Not as a conversion or

change, since " the nature of the Logos is immutable and abso-
lutely unchangeable" (ad reg. ii. 2, 22; inc. unig.. Mi. 75.
ii92ff., 1200, 1253). *' Neither as a mixture nor compound
"
(^(popfiofs^ (Toyxpafyfiy xpa.fn'i^] quod unus, Mi. 75. 1292 ;c. Nest.
ii, 11; ep. 4, Mi. 77. 45); yet not as a mere connection
{^fTuvaiptio) or indwelling (^hoixr)<7(.^^ (^. g,, c. Nest. ii. proem.
quod b. virgo 8). On the contrary, both natures retain their
own characteristics unmingled. The deity throughout all the
changes of its earthly lot remains in its full glory what it was be-
fore (c. Nest. ii. i ; ad reg. i. 4; ii. 9, 16, 27, 33, 37 ; inc.
unig.. Mi. 75. 1216, 1220, 1221, 1229), and the humanity re-
tains its complete Homousia with us (ep. 40, Mi. 77. 192 ; inc.
unig.. Mi. 75. 1 216 :Christ's body mortal). Cyril can, there-
fore, speak of two natures (vid. esp. quod unus. Mi. 75. 1292),
and he can compare the relation of the two to that between an
emperor in his proper character, and as appearing in the garb of
a consul (quod b. virg. 14); or to that of body and soul in man,
which yet together compose one man (c. Nest. ii. 12 inc. unig.,
;
Mi. 75. 1224; ep. 17, Mi. 77. 116; ep. 45, p. 233, quod unus,
Mi. 75. 1292). This illustration affords us a key to the inter-
pretation of the above-cited formula of Cyril. The two natures
are, indeed, after their union the same as they were before, but
they are combined in indissoluble unity by means of the unity of
the person the Logos, as also by means of the consequent mu-
tual communication of their respective attributes. Thus the two
natures are kept distinct in abstract thought, although the con-
crete object of contemplation is the ''one incarnate nature,"
which has the Logos as its controlling factor. The unity in this
sense is, therefore, one of hypostases (Jvo<jt(i xa^V biz6(jra<yv/) , as

Cyril often describes it in his later writings, /. e., it is the Logos-
person which establishes the unity. Cyril, in opposing Theodoret,
confesses the novelty of this formula, but maintains its import-
ance in the combating of heresy. It asserts no more, in his
view, than '* simply that the nature (^<p>j(n^) or hypostasis of the
Logos, i. e., the Logos itself, is truly united (cStui^'cf?) with the
humannature " (Apol. c. Theodoret, Mi. 76. 400). Inasmuchas
the Logos-person of the God-man is for Cyril the self-evident
postulate, he was not called upon to face the problem of ApoUi-
naris, and hence, of course, furnished no solution of it.
{b) But Cyril's ideas lead us also upon a different path. We
are to acknowledge **one Son, one Lord, one Christ," and him
as '* of two perfects: " *' the two natures proceed together in
unbroken union, unconfusedly and unchangeably ... we do
not at all detract from the concurrent unity when we say that it
is (derived) from two natures. From two and different natures
is the one and only Christ" (ep. 45, p. 232 f.). For, just as
the Logos was God before his sojourn on earth, so also, having be-
come man . he is again one. Therefore he has called him-
. .
self a mediator between God and man (i Tim. 2. 5), as being

one from both natures" (quod b. virgo 12; cf. c. Nest. ii.
12 ; ep. 17, Mi. 77, 116 inc. unig.. Mi. 75. 1220, 1221, 1233,
;
1253, 1208 " We are accustomed to guard absolutely the un-

:
broken unity, believing him to be the Only-begotten and the

First-born ; the Only-begotten, as the Logos of God the Father
. . the First-born moreover in that he becameman ").
, He is,
therefore, one and the same before and after the incarnation :
'* for the Son according to nature from the Father, having taken
to himself a physical and rational body, was carnally born

and, not turning into flesh, but rather taking it to himself, and
ever mindful of his being God " (ad reg. ii. 2). '' Being
man,
viewed outwardly but inwardly true God" (quod b. virgo 4).
;
Cyril denies the charge that in his conception Christ is two-per-

soned (^dt7zp6fTW7:o<s') (inc. unig., Mi. 75. 1221 ; inc. dom. 31 ep.
;
46, Mi. 77. 241); but without fully recognizing its force. (^) But
all these speculations assume a practical shape when Cyril comes
to speak of the concrete form of the God-man. Here he be-
comes really great. His conception of the historical Christ dom-
inates his thought and lifts his ideas above their normal plane.
'*It is evident, therefore, that the mind beholds a certain dif-
ference of the natures '' (inc. unig. Mi. 75. 1221), but
, : ''the
fact is, that the Logos, not dividing but combining both into one,
and, as it were, commingling with one another the attributes
Qdiwixara) of the natures, escapes us through whatever the multi-
:
;
:
tude of our words " (ib. 1244, 1249), /. tf., ** bestowing upon the
proper flesh the glory of the divine energy ; but, on the other hand,
appropriating the things of the flesh and, as though in someway
according to the economic union, also conferring these upon its
own proper nature " (ib. 1241). Accordingly, the expressions
of the Evangelists, applicable now to the divinity and again to
the humanity, are not to be referred to two hypostases ox prosopa
*' for the
one and only Christ is not double, as though he were
to be regarded as derived from two and different things " (ep. 17,
Mi. 77. 116). Since there is here but one person, all the at-
tributes may be ascribed to the one Christ. The Logos is visi-
ble and tangible. His sufferings are the sufferings of God.
Hunger and thirst, learning and praying, were parts of his experi-
ence while, on the other hand, the body of Christ was a *' divine
;
body," and the Son of man comes from heaven, returns to it, is
worshiped, etc. (t-. g., inc. unig.. Mi. 75. 1224, 1244, 1249,
1228, 1233 f.; ad regin. ii. 16, 36 f.; c. Nest. i. 6 ; ii. 3 ;iv. 6
quod unus 75. 1309 inc. dom. 75. 1469 ep. 45, Mi. 77. 234 ;
; ;
46, p. 245; cf. Thomasius DG. ed. 2, 348 f.).

i., Hence, also,
the designation of Mary as the mother of God " is dogmati-
**
cally correct. But this commnnicatio idiomatum at once finds its

limitation in the inflexible immutability and impassibility of the
Logos: *' suffering excepted, in so far as he is thought of as
divine" (quod unus. Mi. 75. 1337, 1357; c. Nestor, v. 4).
Suffering could as little affect him as strokes falling upon a piece
of glowing iron permeated by fire affect the fire (quod unus, Mi.
75- ^357)- I^ ^^î therefore, an ** impassive passion " {d-ai%co<;
(^) It is very to give a correct summary of Cyril's

difficult
view. If we beginwith his fundamental formula, '^ one nature
of the divine Logos, made flesh," and keep in mind his own
explanations, we reach the result : The Logos-person as-
sumed the (impersonal) human nature, uniting it with the divine
nature. The Logos is now no longer fleshless (aW/^zo^), but is
not on that account a duplex personality, "but has remained
one" (ep. 46, Mi. 77. 241). If, on the other hand, we start
with the community of attributes, we come to the formula
*' from two natures the one Christ," and to the conception of a
divine-human Christ-person. Our faith in Christ reposes not

upon the man, ** but upon the God by nature and truly in the
person (TTjOort-wTToj) of Christ " (inc. unig.. Mi. 75, 1233). In the
first case, Cyril starts with the one Logos-person, who has a divine
human nature; in the second, we have the two natures, consti-

tuting one divine human person. Cyril did not realize the dis-
sonance of these ideas, as his views were developed in contrast
with those of Nestorius and not of Apollinaris. But a sound

historic^ and rehgious instinct led him to emphasize, as against
the unhistoric tearing asunder of Christ, the unity of his person
and of his manifestation. In this lies the significance of his
teaching.
(e)Cyril's view, like that of Athanasius, grew upon religious
soil. Since the Logos assumed the entire human nature, the lat-
ter becomes partaker of God and immortality '* For Christ the
:
first man .the root, as it were, and the appointed first-fruit

. .
of those transformed by the Spirit into newness of life, was to

effect the immortality of the body, and to make the human race
already, both by grace and in its entirety, secure and safe, as in
participation of the divine nature" (inc. unig., Mi. 75. 1213,
1216; also 1241 f.; c. Nestor, iv. 6; ad reg. ii. 55). Other
ideas connected with the Soteriology of Cyril demanded the
same basis, e. ^., the conception of Christ as the mediator be-
tween God and man (c. Nest. v. i ; inc. unig., Mi. 75. 1245 ;
quod b. virgo, 12), of redemption through his blood and the over-
coming of the devil (ad reg. 7. 31, s^)j of his life as an example
(ib. ii. 41 f.).
6. We must notice, finally, the Christology of the contempo-
raneous Western theologians (cf. Reuter, Augustin. Studien, p.
194 ff.). It is to be said in general that the leaders in the
Western church did not look upon the great question of the age
as a " problem." Since they firmly maintained the formulas of
TertuUian, they no more questioned the unity of the .person than
the duplicity of the natures, only giving to the latter more prom-
inence than did Cyril. As their formula gave some recognition
to the ideas of both parties in the East, it was the formula of the
future.
We can but glance briefly at the Christology of Hilary of
Poitiers.
f A. D. 366. His chief work was De Works edited by Maffei,

trinitate.
1730, in Mi. lat. 9. 10 cf. ; Dorner, Lehre v. Person Christi, i. 1037 ff.
d.
Looks, PRE. viii., ed. 3, 57 ff. Forster, Zur Theol. d. Hilar. Stud. u.
Krit., 1S88, p. 655 ff.).
Christ is God and man (trin. ix. 19). As One, he is God

just as he man '^ the whole in him is God the Word the
is : ;
whole in him is the man Christ retaining this one thing in the
* The widely prevalent opinion, that the Antiochians were inspired by his-
torical and Cyril by dogmatic or ** speculative " interests, is incorrect. Cyril
really came nearer than the Antiochians to the Christ of history, and he
manifests an extraordinary zeal for a true understanding of the historical facts
of the Saviour's life (tf. ^., inc. unig.. Mi. 75. 1196 f., 1215 ; ad reg. ii. 36,
et pas).
.'
2 5*5 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
sacrament of his confession, neither to believe that Christ is

'
other than Jesus, nor to preach that Jesus is other than Christ
(x. 52-71). Compare '*in him is the nature of man, just as
:
the nature of God" (in ps. 68. 25, or *' person of both na-
tures," trin. ix. 14). His strongly emphasized 'êvacuation"
of the Son of God in the interest of the incarnation arrests our
attention *^ For, remaining in the form
: of God, he assumed the
form of a servant, not being changed, but emptying {êxinaniens)
himself and hiding within himself, and he himself being emptied
within his power, while he adapts himself even to the form of
human condition " (xi. 48). But this asserts no more than that
the Logos undertook a change of his condition. ''The empty-
ing (êvacuatio) of form is not an abolition of nature " (ix. 14).
The power of omnipotence remains to him (xi. 48 fin.; xii. 6 ;
X. 15 ; ix. 51 f. ). The divine nature did not and could not
feel the sufferings (x. 23, 48, 24 *^ that which is customary to
:
a body was endured in order to prove the reality of the body " )
Hence, the form of a servant implies a latency of the form of
God.
Ambrose (f A. D. 397. See esp. de fide ad Gratianum, de
incarnationis Sacramento. Works edited by Ballerini, 1875 ff.,
Mi. lat. 14-17. Cf. FoRSTER, Ambros., 1884) presented the
genuine Western Christology of Tertullian " the Son of God
:
is said to be one in both natures, because both natures are in the
same" (de fid. ii. 9. 77): *'a two-fold substance (^substaiitia)

. both of divinity and of flesh " (ib. iii. 10. 65).
. . T\v^dis-
tinctio of the two natures or substances is to be sharply preserved
(ib. ii, 9. 77 inc. 4. 23).
; The immutability and immunity
from death of the divine nature (inc. 5. 37 ff.; 6. 55 ; fid. ii.
7. 57 ; 8. 60), as well as the completeness of the human nature,
with the ''rational soul" (inc. 7. 64 ff., 76), are guarded.^
Around the ''immutable wisdom" has been thrown the
" mantle of flesh " (ib. 5. 41). He, too, speaks of an empty-
ing (exinanire) and a hiding {celare) of the divinity (inc. 5. 41,
de spir. s. i. 9. 107), without thereby attaining any greater
lucidity, inasmuch as the form of God and the form of a servant
are, nevertheless, alike regarded as belonging to the incarnate
Being (ep. 46. 6ff. ; cf. Reuter, p. 210 ff.). But the two natures
^' The One is
are now combined in one person : of two-formed
and two-fold {biformts et geniinaeque) nature, partaking of di-
vinity and of the body. Not divided, but one because
. . .
;
Ambrose says, de fide

^ ii. 6i, indeed: **from the person of man he
8.
called the Father greater ; " but this must be interpreted in the light of the
further remark, ib. 68 : "for it is not written from the person of the Jews
. .
. but the Evangelist speaks from his own person."
one and the other are both in each, /. <?., either in the divinity
or in the body " (inc. 5. 35 fid. v. 8. 107 ; iii. 2. 8).
;
*' The
Lord of majesty is said to have been crucified, because, partaking of

both natures, i. e., the human and the divine, he endured the suf-
ferings in the nature of man " (fid. ii. 7. 58). This is the an-
cient theory of the Western church, which knew nothing of the
problem of the age.
7. Augustine follows in the same path. It is not our task to
present the Christology of Augustine in process of formation.
Our interest lies in its final form. Yet a few remarks are neces-
sary to a correct understanding of its appearance (cf. the
thorough discussion of O. Scheel, Die Anschauung Augustins
liber Christi Person und Werk, 1901). Augustine had, as a
Manichaean, denied the true humanity of Christ. When he
found his way back to the church, the authority of the Scriptures
led him first to recognize this (cf. Confessions, vii. 19. 25). The
authority of the church's teaching then led him to accept also
the divinity of Christ. But since his speculative spirit was con-
trolled by Neo-platonic conceptions, and had from his early days
been familiar with trinitarian ideas, his conception of the divinity
of Christ was moulded by the Neo-platonic ideas of the divine
vo^9 and the y.<>^fj.d vorjro^. The eternal Word is conceived pri-
marily in his relation to the world, and not in a purely religious
way, in his relation to salvation and to human history. As, e.g. all ,
things are but copies of eternal ideas, and these ideas are in God
(de Oct. quaestionibus, q. 46. 2), so all things exist only in so far
as God gives to them a '' continuing and unchangeable form
"
(de lib. arb. ii. 17. 45). But the eternal ideas (rationes) of all
temporal things are present in the Logos (de genes, ad litt. iv.
24. 41), and the Logos is the '^ form of all real things," '^ the
unfashioned form" {forma infabricata)^ ''without time . . .
and without local dimensions." Of him it is said ** For he is :
a certain form, an unfashioned {non formata) form, but the form

of all fashioned forms, an unchangeable {incommutabilis^ form
. .controlling {sicperans^ all things, existing in all things and
.
a kind of foundation in which they exist, and a roof under which

they exist. Therefore all things are in him, and yet, be-
. . .
cause he is God, all things are under him" (serm. 117. 2, 3).
These are clearly conceptions derived from Greek philosophy,
regarding the Logos as the cosmic principle of idea and form.
But, if we would rightly understand Augustine, we must also bear
in mind he always thinks of this Logos as the second person
that
in the Trinity, as the Son of God immutably present with the
Father, who in time became man. All ideas of Subordination-
ism are utterly remote from his thought, however strongly the
17
Greek conception of the Logos might impel in that direction, as

we have seen in the Apologists and in Origen. At this point, the
church's doctrine of the divinity of the Son marked out for him
an absolutely fixed path from which he never deviated. Nor
did Augustine fail to draw from the divinity of Christ practical
inferences in the sphere of Soteriology (vid. sub). But the
starting-point of his doctrine, and hence its relation to other
views, was always different from that of Athanasius.^ Whilst the
latter began really with the redeeming work of Christ, and upon
this, as a basis, erected his homousian theory, Augustine
started with an accepted ecclesiastical doctrine, which he inter-
preted for himself through speculative reflections, and from this
drew his conclusions as to the redeeming work of Christ. Hence
his Christology does not present the strikingly religious one-
sidedness which marks the conception of Athanasius. Regarded
as doctrine, its originality dare not at all events be too highly
rated. Augustine maintained unconditionally the divinity of
Christ, and he esteemed highly his humanity, as a fact of which he
had gained knowledge in his personal experience. But in re-
gard to the combination of the two natures, he did not advance
beyond the views traditional in the "West. The sources do not
sustain the opinion of A. Dorner (Augustinus, p. 92) and Har-
NACK (DG. iii., ed. 3, 120), i. e., that it was because of the sus-
ceptibility of the human soul of Jesus that the Logos appeared in
it, nor justify the latter in declaring that *' Augustine constructs
the God-man from the standpoint of the human person (soul),"
or that the chief interest of Augustine centres in the human soul
of Jesus. We may, perhaps, characterize his fundamental ten-
dency as in harmony with the positions taken in his De civ. dei,
X. 23, 24. The oracular deliverance cited from Porphyry,
'
** fountains can purify principia posse piirgare), is correct, ex-
'
(
cept that we can here speak of but One fountain. This foun-
** Christ the
tain, the Logos, in entering humanity, purifies it :
Lord the fountain, by whose incarnation we are purified.

is For
neither the flesh nor the human soul (/. <?. of Christ) is the
,
fountain, but the Word through which all things which were
1 I mention here only the fact that this Christology, taking seriously as it does
the idea of the divinity of Christ, cannot avoid questions concerning his activ-
ity before the incarnation. This is seen already in Paul and John. That
is to say, since the work of Christ controls history to the attainment ot the ends
of the kingdom of God, and since there is a connection between the course
of history before and after Christ, there must in some way be found a place for
the direction of history by Christ also before the incarnation. Wemust, how-
ever, discriminate between such attempts and the purely cosmological discus-
sions of the Greek philosophers, although the latter at a very early date influ-
enced the structure of Christian thought.
made stand secure. Therefore the flesh does DOt cleanse of

itself,but through the Word by which it has been assumed."
We now address ourselves to the examination of the Doctrine
OF Augustine in detail. It is for him an absolutely fixed fact that
in Christ two complete natures or substances (inclusive of the
rational human soul ; see in Joh. tr. 23. 6 ; 47. 9 ; conf. vii.
19 ; de agone christ. 19. 21) constitute one person :

** Christ is
one person of two-fold substance, because he is both God and

man" (c. Maximin. Arian. ii. 10. 2). *' Now truly has thus
appeared the mediator between God and man, in order that, com-
bining both natures in the unity of person, he might both exalt the
ordinary by means of the extraordinary,- and temper the extraor-
dinary by means of the ordinary " (ep. 137. 3, 9, 12). '^ He
assumed the man, and from himself and the latter made the one
Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and men, equal to the
Father according to his divinity, but less than the Father accord-
ing to the flesh," /. e.^ according to the man. But this unifica-
tion in the man-God (^homo'deus, enchir. 25. 108) is different in
kind from the indwelling of God in the saints, in whom the
Word does not become flesh ** evident that, by a certain
: it is
unique assumption, the person of this man

has become one with
the Word " (ep. 137. 12,40; in Joh. tr. 72. i; de agone chr.
20. 22). The idea is thus that the two natures are combined
in the unity of one person (cf. enchir. 10. 35 ; 12. 40, 41 ; in
Joh. tr. 27. 4). But this is evidently the person of the Logos.
" The rational soul and the flesh entered into unity of person with
the Word." '' The Logos, who is the sole Son of God, and that
not by grace but by nature, was made also Son of man, and this
same, the One Christ, was both and from both. He remained
'
'
that which he was. *' He assumed the form of a servant, not aban-
doning nor diminishing the form of God" (enchir. 10. 35).
There can here be no thought of any merit of the human nature
of Christ as leading to the union. On the contrary, it is an ex-
hibition of the same grace which justifies sinful men, that makes
it impossible for the man Jesus to sin, viz., inasmuch as his na-
ture was *' taken up in a unique way into the unity of the person
of the unique (unici) Son of God" (ib. ii. 2>^'). ''The only-
begotten Son of God out of grace so united himself with his human
nature, that he became man. The only-begotten Son of God, not
by grace by nature, by nature uniting himself in such unity of per-
son, that he, the same, was also man. This same '' Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God, /. e., the unique One, our Lord,
wasbornoftheHoly Spirit and the Virgin Mary " (ib. ii. 36, 37}.
But in all of this the Logos remains unchangeable (de agon. chr.
i. I ; X. II. 23, 25). But Augustine can also speak of the com-
bination of the natures as a '' mixture :

" '^ the man is joined to,
and some way mingled
in (^cominixtus') with, the Word into a
unity of person " (trin. iv.
20. 30). It is such a mixture as is
found in every human person ** In that person there is a mix-
:
ture of soul and body in this person is a mixture of God and

;
man" (ep. 137. 3, 11; serm. 174. 2). But at the same time
the immutability of the divine nature is still carefully guarded,
and we accordingly read also '' the same who is man is God,
:
and the same who is God is man, not in confusion of nature, but
in unity of person " (sermo 186. i). The idea of a change of
the divine nature, or a denuding it of power in the interest of
redemption, is entirely foreign to Augustine. The divine na-
ture remains as it was, except that the flesh is added to it, and
becomes with it the same person. *' The Word does not come
into the flesh in order to perish, but the flesh comes to the Word
in order that it may not perish " (sermo 186. i ; 121. 5 264. 4 ; ;
ep- 137- 7. 10; trin. i. 8. 15).^

But the religious interest of Augustine does not centre entirely
in the divinity of Christ, rather in this no less than in his
humanity. In Christ the divine nature reveals itself. Its wis-
dom is thus offered to us as milk to babes (sermo 117. 10. 16 ;
126. 4. 5 ; conf.
18). The love of God manifest in him
vii.
awakens us to a responsive love. His humility overcomes our
pride (de catechiz. rudibus 4. 7, 8; conf. vii. 18). His whole
* Augustine has also the following modification (afterward, employed by

Abelard): '* the Word of God having the man" [habens hoitiinetHy in Joh.
tr. 19. 15), but also: "he assumed the man" (de agon. chr. Ii. 12; 18.
20 19. 21 20. 22 cf. Hilar, de trin. x. 22). He also teaches a predestina-
; ; ;
tion of the man Jesus (de praedest. 15. 30, 31 cf ScHEEL, 1. c, p. 215 f.).
;
These terms of expression are, indeed, of value in aiding to a proper under-

standing of Augustine, since they show to what an extent he was able to grasp
independently the idea of the humanity of Christ (cf. also such expressions as :
"The Son of God assumed man, and in that man {in illo homine) suffered,"
de agon. chr. ii. 12 ;ib. "in which \i. t., that man] the Son of God offered
:
himself to us as an example " ib. 23. 25

; "Thus we say that the Son of God
:
suffered and died in the man whom he carried, without any change or destruc-
tion of his divinity " ). But when Scheel (p. 216) infers from the predesti-
nation of Jesus a fundamental departure from the doctrine of the two natures,
since only a person and not a substance can be predestinated (Harnack simi-
larly speaks of a "profound relationship with the Christology of Paul of Samo-
sata, and Photinus," p. 121), he is in so far correct, that the ideas and for-
mulas cited testify that Augustine could conceive of the human life of Jesus as
relatively independent and like our own (vid. with reference to the childhood
of Jesus, Scheel, p. 230). Yet in this Augustine by no means abandons his
controlling scheme of thought, for the predestinating of the man Jesus means
exactly that that the Logos should absorb him "in order through him as the
mediator to bring grace to the predestinated." At all events, there are here
points of view at variance with Greek conceptions, which became significant in
the theology of the West.
NESTORIUS AND CYRIL. 261
life and conduct, in both its human and its divine aspects, serves
as an example for believers (enchir. 14.53; ^5- 108). Asman,
he is the mediator between us and God (conf. x. 43 '' For in :
so far as he is man, in so far is he a mediator"); but only in so

far as he is also God. As man he is the mediator (as Augustine
always states with emphasis), for thereby he stands near to men ;
but the nearness is the nearness of God. The man becomes the
mediator, because he has God within him (enchir. 25. 108 conf. ;
X. 42). Compare also in Joh. tr. 42. 8 *'His divinity whither:
we journey, his humanity where we journey," similarly tr. 13. 5 ;
civ. dei xi. 2.

The West had, therefore in independence of the East its
own Christological theory. It was more nearly in accord with the
Christology of Alexandria than with that of Antioch, although
not without points of agreement with the latter.
24. Nestorius and Cyril. The Third Ecumenical Council

at Ephesus.
Upon
Nestorius, see Socr. h. e. vii. 29 ff., the letters of Coelestine his ora- ;
Marius Mercator in Gallandi, bibl. viii. 629 ff., in Mi. lat. 48, cf.
tions in
Hefele CG. ii. 149 ff. Loops, PRE. xiii. ed. 3, 736 ff.
I. The
great controversy arose from the discussion of a litur-
gical formula. Nestorius, who was called in A. D. 428 from
Antioch to Constantinople, desired to controvert the heretics.
He vigorously assailed the Arians, the Novatians, and the Mace-
donians, but joined hands with the western Pelagians. The
designation of Mary as the mother of God, which was becoming
current, aroused his polemics. He
held the genuine Antiochian
view : The Logos, being was not
as divine absolutely immutable,
born. This can be said only of his garment, or temple, i. e.^
his human nature (or. 1.2; 3. 2). Hence Mary was not to be
called really the mother of (>od {^s.<n6-/.i)<^') ^ God-bearing, but
God-receiving (jêoôjô?), and man-bearing (â'Apojizoroyji^') , or
Christ-bearing {yptfTToToxix^^ (or. 2. 8 ; 5. 2 ; ep. i ad Coelest.
3). only to the man Christ, therefore, that birth, suffering,
It is
and death can be ascribed (or. 2. 2 ; 3- i). The man Jesus
was the '* organ of the divinity." Hence the Logos as God is
strictly discriminated from the man, but without making two
Sons or Christs We call our Lord Christ in view of his nature
:
'
'
two-fold, in view of his sonship one (or. 3. 2); for to both na-
tures belong, in consequence of their union, the same dignity
and a common reverence for there are two, if you regard the
:
nature ; one, if you consider the dignity. I divide the natures,

but combine the reverence " (or. 1.2; 2. 6, 8). And, above
I
all, the Logos, after the incarnation, does not act except in union
with the man Jesus (Cyril c. Nest. ii. 7). Of the worship of the
human nature, he says '* I adore it as the animated mantle of
:
the King" (2. 6). When vigorous opposition was at once

manifested, Nestorius conceded the possibility of the -fi-eoToxo^ :
" the genetrix of God .on account of the Word united with
.
its temple," but he still thought that the term was calculated to
give aid to the Arians and Apollinarians (or. 4. 3 ; 5. 2, cf. ep.

I ad Coelest. 3 ; ep. 2. 2). In his Christology there is evidently
nothing heterodox. It was only the usual doctrine of the An-
tioch school. Nothing was further from his thought than a
denial of the divinity of Christ, or of the doctrine of the two
natures.'
2. The controversy assumed larger proportions only when
Cyril of Alexandria (supra, p. 251) entered the lists. *' With-
out Cyril there would have- been no Nestorian controversy,"
Loofs. A passionate correspondence arose between the two
patriarchs. Cyril then thought it proper to inform Theodosius
himself, as well as his wife and sister, of the existing doctrinal
divergence. But the letters were very unfavorably received at the
court. He held firmly to the incarnated nature of the Logos, as
well as to the term jVenr/Jzos' (supra, pp. 252, 254). He adduced an
exhaustive array of testimonies for his view from the Scriptures and
tradition. But he was, at this time and afterward, chiefly concerned
in pointing out the irreligious consequences to which the doctrine
of Nestorius would lead. According to Nestorius, we would be
redeemed by the sufferings of a mere man (c. Nestor, iii. 2 iv. ;
4 ; V. i); a man would have become to us *' the way, the truth,
and the life " (c. Nest. v. i);Twe would worship a God-carrying
(^d-t(>(p6(>o^) manVib. i. 2 ii. 10, cf. inc. unig., Mi. 75, 1232);
;
when we are baptized into Christ and by him, we would be bap-

tized into a man (ad reg. ii. 52 ; c. Nestor, iii. 2 ; inc. unig..
Mi. 75, 1240); we would in the Lord's Supper partake of the
flesh and blood of a man (c. Nestor, iv. 5 inc. unig., Mi. 75,
;
1241 j. Compare Thomasius, DG. 341 ff. Thus the Christian

world would be robbed by Nestorius of all the treasures which it
possesses in the historical Christ. All these things have now
only a human valuation and we no longer have in Christ God
;
himself. The whole religious energy of Cyril's views is here

^ Lechler has prepared the way for a juster estimate of Nestorius, proving
that the latter taught the true divinity and humanity of Jesus, as well as the
union of the two in one person, but did not draw the inference of the cotiwiu-
nicatio idiomatum. Further, he maintains that it was chiefly love of conflict
and of debate which produced the controversy. Erl. Ed. 25, ed. i, 304 fi".
;
revealed. The real point of controversy is, whether it was the

man Jesus controlled by the Logos, or whether it was God him-
self, who was born, lived, taught, labored, and died among us.
The positive teachings of Cyril have been already outlined.
These writings of Cyril, viewed from the standpoint of church
politics, arethe works of a master hand. Theologically and
morally, they make a different impression, giving evidence of a
lack of capacity to understand and appreciate a theological
opponent.
Rome was very soon drawn into the controversy. Nestorius
wrote to Pope Coelestine as his colleague, and Cyril sought direc-
tion and instruction from the same source. Nestorius expressed
his view in the charge which he brings against his opponents
*' They confound, in the mutability of modification, both natures
which, through the supreme and unconfused union, are adored

in the one person of the only-begotten " (ep. 2 ad Coel. c. 2)
/. e.j he expressed himself
in word
in harmony with Western
ideas. ^ Nevertheless Rome, after some delay, decided against
him at a synod, according to her traditional policy making com-
mon cause with Alexandria (A. D. 430). Coelestine could find
nothing to say to Nestorius except that he was a ravening wolf
and a hireling, and that he must within ten days subscribe to the
teaching of the Romish and Alexandrine church, or, failing to
do .so, be excluded from the church (see Coelestine, ep.
11-14).
3. Cyril now drew the lines of opposition most sharply at the
Council of Alexandria, A. D. 430. He addressed a communi-
cation to Nestorius, containing an exposition of his teaching, and
closing with twelve anathemas (ep. 17, in Hahn, Bibl. d. Sym-
bole, ed. 3, p. 312 ff.): Mary is the mother of God (i). The
one Christ dare not be divided in accordance with the hypostases,
and the latter are not bound together only by their conjunction
in accordance with their dignity, i.e., their sphere of dominion
or power, but through a physical union {'ivwfn^ <pof7ixri') (3). The
expressions of the Scriptures are not to be divided between the
two persons, i. e., hypostases (4). Christ is not a God-carrying
(iôip6po<s') man (5). The man assumed is not to be called God
and, as such, to be worshiped as ''one in another" (8). The flesh
of the Lord is life-giving (11). The Logos of God suffered in
the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh
(12). Nestorius at once replied with twelve counter-anathemas
(in Marius Merc, Mi. 48. 909): Christ is Emmanuel, God with
* It should be borne in mind that Coelestine had received

an account of the
teaching of Nestorius from Cyril (M. iv. 548 and Cyril's first letter to
Coelestine). The sermons of Nestorius had also been sent to Rome.
"
US Mary
; the mother, not of the Word of God, but of
is
Emmanuel (i). If anyone should say that flesh is capable of

(containing) the divine nature . and call the very same na-
. .
ture God and man, let him be anathema (2). Christ is one ac-
cording to union, not according to nature (3). The words of
Scripture are not to be referred to one nature, nor are sufferings
to be attributed to the Logos (4), If anyone dare to say that,
after the assumption of man, the Son of God is one in nature,
since he Emmanuel, let him be anathema (5). He who was
is
made of the Virgin is not the Only-begotten, but has only

through his union with the Only-begotten received a share in his
name (7). The form of a servant is not to be worshiped on ac-
count of this union (8). The flesh united with the Logos is not
*' through the passibility
of the nature the giver of life " (n).
The sufferings of Christ are not to be attributed to the Logos
*' without discrimination of the dignity of the natures
(12).
4. The Antiochians now declared themselves (see the letter of
John of Antioch in M. 756) for Nestorius, charging Cyril
v.
with ApoUinarianism. The emperor, in a very harsh letter, ac-
cused Cyril of pride, love of strife and intrigue (on account of
his letter to the women of the imperial household) (M. iv.
1 109). A general council was called at Ephesus on Whitsunday,
A. D. 431, in the interest of the salutary union between civil
welfare and religious harmony (M. iv. 11 11). The invitation
found Augustine (f Aug. 28, 430) no longer among the living.
Nestorius and Cyril appeared before the appointed time. Coel-
estine was represented by three legates, who were instructed to
act in all things with Cyril, and, beyond this, not to dispute
but pass judgment (M. iv. 556). The arrival of John of
Antioch was unduly delayed (M. iv. 1121, 1229, 1329 f.; cf.
1225). Despite the protests of Nestorius, 6S Asiatic bishops
and the imperial commissary (M. iv. 1129 ff. v. 765 f., 770 f.),
;
Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus opened the council. 159

bishops (M. iv. 1123 ff. 11 70 ff. ) participated, sanctioned
,
the teaching of Cyril as in accordance with Nicene doctrine, and

condemned the '^godless Nestorius." Many patristic citations
were then read, and passages from Nestorius. *' With many
'
tears he was then declared to be deprived of episcopal rank
'
and of priestly fellowship (M. iv. 12 12). The decision was re-
ported to the ^' new Judas," the city illuminated, and the deci-
sion announced to the populace by posters upon the walls, and
to the church at large by letters. Nestorius protested. John of
Antioch arrived at this juncture. He at once, in the presence
of the imperial commissioner, opened the properly authorized
council, which must be so called/ although it numbered but 43

members. Cyril and Memnon were deposed because they had
illegally opened the council, and their followers excommunicated
until they should be converted to the ** Nicene faith." Noth-
ing was said of Nestorius, nor of his doctrine (M. iv. 1260 ff. ).
The Romish legates now, for the first time, came to the front.
Since Peter is *' the head of the entire faith," they requested the
decrees for '^ confirmation " (M. iv. 1289). John was three
times summoned, but declared that he would have no intercourse
*
'
with deposed and excommunicated persons." The papal deci-

sion in regard to the Pelagians was approved (M. iv. 1337).^ It
was then resolved to report the action of the council to the em-
peror and the pope (M. iv. 1325, 1329 ff.). Such was the
course of the third ecumenical council. One of the partici-
pants (Theodoret, opp. iv. 1335) declares: '*No writer of com-
edies ever composed such a ridiculous farce, no tragic author
'
such a mournful tragedy. The only positive result was that it

'
was known that Cyril had been able to win the majority of those
who participated in the proceedings.
Both parties now addressed themselves to the emperor. The
followers of Cyril were able to cultivate a sentiment in their
favor (Dalmatius). Opinion was divided in Constantinople.
The emperor, weakling that he wâs, approved the action of both
parties, and the depositions on both sides were confirmed (M.
iv. 1396). Both parties now turned to him again. Nestorius
voluntarily entered a cloister. The emperor received deputations
from both sides. He inclined to the Alexandrines.^ Cyril and
Memnon received their bishoprics again, and the council was
adjourned (M. iv. 1465).
5. But peace was not yet restored. Efforts were, therefore,
made to effect a union. They proved successful, as the Antioch-
ians surrendered Nestorius, who was now abused as a heretic,
the assemblages of Cyril's followers being recognized as the legal
council (see John of Antioch in M, v. 285, 289), and as Cyril
was willing to subscribe to a union-symbol, prepared apparently
by Theodoret of Cyros (A. D. 433), without, indeed, re-
tracting any of his former utterances (for further particulars, see
^ designation of the Cyrillian assemblage as " the Council of Ephesus "

The
is only because it was afterward so recognized in the course of eccle-
justifiable
siastical politics, and John himself, the leader of the Anliochians, agreed to so
regard it.
2 As to the inner relationship of Pelagianism and Nestorianism, see Cassian.
de incarn. i. 3 ;v. i ff
.
; vi. 14; cf. Faust, de grat. i. i.
^ It was said that Cyril, through his nephew, bribed influential persons (M. v.
819). For accounts of such '^presents" of Cyril, vid. M, v. 987 ff.

'
Hefele ii. 247-288). The Creed of Antioch reads (Hahn, ed.

3> P- 215):
*' We, therefore, acknowledge our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, the Only-begotten, complete God and complete man, of
a rational soul and a body ; begotten of the Father before the
ages according to (his) divinity, but in the last days ... of
Mary the Virgin according to (his) humanity ; that he is of the
same nature with the Father according to (his) divinity, and of
the same nature with us according to (his) humanity. For a
union of the two natures has taken place ; wherefore, we confess
one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In accordance with this con-
ception of theunconfounded union, we acknowledge the holy Vir-
gin to be the mother of God, because the divine Logos was made
flesh and became man, and from her conception united with him-
self the temple received from her. We recognize the evangelical
and apostolic utterances concerning the Lord, making the charac-
ters of the divine Logos and the man common as being in one per-
son, but distinguishing them as in two natures, and teaching that
the godlike traits are according to the divinity of Christ, and the
humble traits according to his humanity. '
The Antiochians had in this the rejection of Apollinarianism

and the recognition of the two natures; Cyril, the one person,*
the union of the two natures, and the iêoroxa^. Each party
could read its own Christology into the symbol, and Cyril did
this in a liberal way.^ But inasmuch as the formula, which ex-
cluded both extremes, had been accepted, the submerging of the
matter in the drawing of inferences was prevented. There was
not lacking opposition upon both sides, but it was in part quelled
by force. The Nestorians were persecuted, and were able to
maintain themselves only in the Persian Empire (see Hefele ii.
270 ff.).
1 Whether the one person is that of the Logos or the divine-human person
is not clear in the symbol.
^ See the letters of Cyril in M. v., and, on the other hand, the attitude of
Theodoret, who remained essentially in harmony with the Antiochian Chris-
tology. Yet he emphasized the unity of the person more strongly than his pred-
ecessors see Eranistes u. haer. fab. v.
: Compare Bertram, Theodoreti doc-
trina christologica, 1883. His view is, in brief * he showed in the one person
:
*
the distinction of the two natures," /. e., Paul in Rom. 5- 9 (haer. fab. v. 14,
opp. iv. 1 433 ) . Even after the incarnation there remain two natures ' that
, : '
each nature remained also unmixed after the union" (Eranist. ii. opp. iv.
I, p. loi, p. 99), and **we do not separate the flesh of the divine
also
Logos, nor make
the union a commingling '
(ib. p. 102).
' The divine nature
did not, indeed, depart from the human nature, either on the cross or at the
grave, but "being immortal and immutable, it endured neither death nor suf-
fering" (haer. fab. v. 15, p. 435 cf. ep. 113. 2).
;
EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 267
25. Eutychian Controversy and Councils of Ephesus and

Chalcedon}
I. Cyril may be designated either as a Dyophysite or as a
Monophysite. This explains his historical position. The ortho-

dox were trained under his influence, and he became the teacher
of the Monophysites. The Greek theory of redemption more
and more repressed interest in "the man Jesus. Christ, in order
to 'Meify " us, must be God, and practical Christianity con-
stantly tended to find its entire expression in the doctrine and
mysteries of the church. That these really were divine and pos-
sessed the power of deifying man appeared to be certain only if
the man Jesus was deified
if he was absolutely God. The
practical conception of Christ's personality demanded this view,
and the administration of the mysteries in the ritual of the
church gratified it. The tendency to sensualize the spiritual,
which marked the age, was here also manifest. In this way arose
a piety of Monophysite type. But in theology there still sur-
vived a part of the Antiochian Christology. We can understand
it, therefore, that the energetic and shrewd successor of Cyril,
DioscuRUS (from A. D. 444 bishop of Alexandria), thought to

best promote his own advancement by favoring the Monophysite
conception. In February, A. D. 448, the emperor had renewed
the anti-Nestorian edicts. The Alexandrine bishop zealously
maintained intercourse with all Alexandrine territory, and thus,
with a celebrated monk in Constantinople, Eutyches.
Opportunity for a decided stroke now appeared to be afforded
him by the agitation aroused by this archimandrite. The latter,
after A. D. 433, was in the habit of accusing the Unionists of Nes-
torianism (see Leo ep. 20). He was in consequence denounced by
Eusebius of Dorylgeum at a council at Constantinople, A. D. 448
(s. HEFELEii. 320 ff. ). After various refusals, he finally appeared
before the council and declared ''I confess that our Lord was
:
of two natures before the union, but after the rmion I confess
one nature," and ** until to-day I said that the body of our
Lord and God was of the same nature with us" (M. vi. 744,
742).^ He opposed the union symbol of A. D. 433, but did not
by any means accurately reproduce the doctrine of Cyril.
Eutyches can scarcely be said to have possessed a theory of his
own upon the subject. He was deposed and excommunicated as
a reviler of Christ, with the proper accompaniment of tears (M.
vi. 748). But Eutyches did not rest quietly under condemna-
1 LooFS, PRE. V. ed. 3, 635 f.

2 Exceedingly characteristic is his earlier utterance: "Which Father has
declared that the God Logos has two natures? " (M. vi. 725).
tion. By the use of placards, he aroused the interest of the pop-

ulace, and also of the emperor, in his cause and appealed to Pope
Leo of Rome (Leo ep. 21). But bishop Flavian of Constanti-
nople also laid his ^* burden of grief and multitude of tears " at
the feet of Leo (Leo ep. 22J, declaring that Eutyches had
revived the teachings of Valentine and Apollinaris, and demand-
ing that the pope inform his bishops of the heresies of Eutyches.
The pope had meanwhile, of his own accord, requested an accu-
rate account of the affair, in order that he might pass judgment
upon it (ep. 23, 14). Flavian complied with the request, and
implored the pope's approval of the "faith of the God-fearing
and Christ-loving emperor" (ep. 26). The pope now sent to
Flavian his *' doctrinal letter" (ep. 28). He had thus defi-
nitely fixed the attitude of Rome, which is historically a fact of
the greatest importance, for established a positive and power-
it
ful opposition to the Alexandrine doctrine. But, meanwhile,
Dioscurus of Alexandria had entered the lists and secured the
summoning of a general council at Ephesus. Theodoret was ex-
cluded from participation in the proceedings, and Dioscurus
presided. Everything seemed to assure a Monophysite victory.
2. This resulted in the Robber Synod of Ephesus. The
pope was here represented by three legates (ep. 31. 4), who
were informed that the Catholic doctrine was contained in the
'Moctrinal letter" (ep. 29).^ But Dioscurus dominated the
council by brutal terrorism and nearly all yielded to intimida-
tion. Discussion was not desired, but the faith of the Fathers
(/. e.y of the councils of Nice and Ephesus) was to be acknowl-
edged (M. vi. 625). Eutyches defended himself, and 114

of the 135 participants were of opinion that he was orthodox.
" Anathema to everyone who speaks of two natures still after the
incarnation" (M. vi. 737, 832 ff.). Leo's letter was not even
read. Eutyches was restored. Flavian, Eusebius of Dorylseum,
together with Theodoret, Domnus of Antioch, and others, were
deposed (M. vi. 908 ff. Theodoret ep. 113, 147)..
3. The
victory was thus with Dioscurus. Measured by the
standard of his age, and compared with the people who followed
his leadership, we can scarcely pass a severe judgment upon him.
He had the courage to discard the traditional policy of the Alex-
andrine church in its compact with Rome. He had vanquished
the New Rome without the aid of the Old Rome had even
most seriously disabled the latter. For one moment the Bishop
of Alexandria was lord of the church. An Alexandrine priest
* As to the person of Eutyches, Leo expressed himself with remarkable for-

bearance, ep. 29 ; 31. 4 32 7,^. 2 38.
; ; ;
EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 269
under his control became bishop of Rome (Leo ep. 53), and
Leo was excommunicated by Dioscurus (M. vi. 1009 j. But Leo
was shrewd enough to be true to Flavian, himself, and his
''dogmatic epistle" (ep. 50, 51, 67, 68. 1, cf. 69. i), since
the latter was in harmony with Cyril and the first council of
Ephesus. He became the refuge of the ** humble and small,"
z. e., the opposite party, who sought ^' help at the apostolic
throne" (Theodoret ep. 113). His constant desire was to secure
the annulling of the decrees of the Robber Synod and the summon-
ing of a new council to be held in Italy under his leadership (ep.
44, 54. 70, cf. 55-58). Thus, and only thus, could he recover
from the defeat experienced at the hands of the *' Alexandrine
bishop who usuries all things to himself" (ep. 45. 2). But Theo-
dosius held fast to the confession of the second council of Ephesus
as the '*faith of the Fathers" (Leo ep. 62-64). Yet the pope's
waiting was not in vain. Theodosius died (A. D. 450). He
was succeeded by Pulcheria, who was married to Marcian. It

was decided that the desired council should be held although
in the Orient (ep. 73, 76, 77). It appeared to be a necessity,
for it is scarcely correct to say 'Hhat the council of A. D. 449
had really pacified the church in the East " (Harnack ii. 365).
If we consider the brevity of the period during which the second
confession of Ephesus was in force, it will be evident that Har-
nack' s conclusion is merely a dogmatic one. It follows from his
assertion of the Monophysite-Apollinarian character of Greek
Christianity. But there were other tendencies opposed to this !
The Antiochian theology was not dead. The Union symbol had
had many adherents. Individuals and whole groups of theolo-
gians in the Orient accepted the second confession of Ephesus.
Neither the calling of the council of Chalcedon, nor its transac-
tions, can be explained under Harnack' s theory (vid. Liberatus
Breviarium 12 b, Gallandi xii. 140. Theodoret ep. 113, cf.
also the opinion of Loofs, PRE. v. ed. 3, 647 f. ). Leo, indeed,
no longer needed the council, and declared it now inopportune,
especially as it was to be held, not in Rome, but at Nicgea. And,
on the other hand, his epistula dogmatica.y^'zs,, without the aid of
a council, finding ever wider acceptance in the East (ep. 82. 2 ;
^^. 2 ; 89; 90; 94). But the emperor clung to his purpose,
and the Council of Chalcedon (having been first summoned to
meet in Nicaea), was accordingly held A. D. 451 (cf. M. vi. vii.
Hefele CG. ii. 410-544. Also, Kruger, Monophys. Streitig-
keiten inZusammenhang, m. d. Reichspolitik, Jena, 1884).

The pope claimed the right to preside in the person of legates
and considered his letter sufficient to decide the matters in
controversy (ep. 93. i. 2).
4. The contents of this letter

(ep. 28) may be thus summarized :
Christ is God and man, born

of Mary, her virginity beingpreserved
(c. I, cf. c. 4). The two substances remain what they were, but
combine in one person '*The peculiarity of each nature and sub-
:
stance being therefore preserved and entering into the one per-
son, humility is received by majesty," etc. This is necessary in
the interest of redemption ''One and the same mediator of
:
God and men, the man Jesus Christ, should from the one be able
to die, and from the other be unable to die." But, inasmuch as
each nature retains its own peculiarity, the *' emptying (êxiiiani-
tio, cf. p. 256) by which the invisible makes itself visible . .
is not a loss of power " (3). There is, therefore, after the in-
carnation only one person, but the natures of this one person act
in alternating fellowship: ''For each form performs what is
peculiar to it in fellowship with the other, e., the Word doing /'.
that which is peculiar to the Word, and the flesh accomplishing

that which is peculiar to the flesh. The one of these shines forth
in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. The one nature be- '
'
wails the death of Lazarus ; the other wakes him from the dead
(4). In consequence of the unity of person (" on account of
this unity of person in each nature "), it may be said that the
Son of man came down from heaven (Jn. 3. 13), and that the
Son of God was crucified and buried (i Cor. 2. 8), etc. (5).
The confession of Eutyches, " before the incarnation two
natures, after it one nature," is in both its parts equally profane.
He who regards the death of Christ as a real death cannot deny
" that the man whom he sees to have been passible was of our
body " (6). This much-lauded document is nothing more than
a reproduction of the Western Christology (Tertullian, Am-
brose; cf. Augustine). It does not enter at all upon the con-
sideration of the problem which perplexed the Greeks, and the
dogmatic simplicity of the pope is most strikingly revealed in his
opinion, that the twelve propositions of the Apostles in the Creed
sufficed for the refutation of this and other heresies (vid. ep. 31.
4 ; 45. 2 ; 28. i). As to the Christology of Leo, see also ep.
2,S- 2 ; 59- 3-5 ;
S8. 1; 114. I ; 119. i.
5. The council itself (2 1 sessions in 14 days, Hefele

ii., 411 f. j,

attended by about 600 bishops all Greeks makes an exceed-
ingly unfavorable impression. Not only was it as boisterous^ as
the Robber Synod ; but worse than this was the cowardly and
senseless abandonment of Dioscurus and of the position taken
two years before ("we have all been wrong; we all beg for
^ At the very first session, as Theodoret appeared *' Cast out the
Jew, the :
adversary of God, and do not call him bishop " to which the opposing party
;
responded: "Cast out the murderer Dioscurus. Who does not know the
EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 27 I
pardon," vid. M. vi. 637 ff., 674 ff., 690, 827 ff., cf. 973 f.,
1005). Dioscuruswas self-consistent. With Athanasius, Gregory,
and Cyril he professed to agree in the '' one incarnated nature of
the Logos." He did not question the '^ of two" (iz d'')<>), but
'nhe two (ru duo)^ I do not receive" (M. vi. 684, 689). He
was deserted by all, as his deposition had been a settled matter
already at the first session. At the later sessions he did not ap-

pear not even when summoned at the third session. A number
of accusers of this *' heretic and Origenist " now cried out that
Dioscurus was a reviler of the Trinity, a desecrator of relics, a
thief, an incendiary, a murderer, a licentious fellow, a traitor
(M. vi. 1005 ff., 1012 ff., 102 1 if., 1029 ff. ). But he was at
length deposed for contempt of the ^Mivine canons" and for
** disobedience toward the council " (M. vi. J. As to the 1093
matters in dispute, the doctrine of the papal letter was approved :
''This is the faith of the Fathers, this the faith of the Apostles.
Thus we all believe. Anathema to him who does not so believe !
Through Leo, Peter has spoken exactly thus taught Cyril

. . !
Why was this not read at Ephesus ? Dioscurus kept it hidden"

(M. vi. 971). It was thought that the harmony of Leo's teaching
with the confessions of Nice, Constantinople (supra, p. 235, n.),
and the First Council of Ephesus could be clearly established.
Only the 13 Egyptian bishops refused to subscribe to it, and they
were in earnest in their refusal *' : We
will be killed, we will be
killed if we do it. We would rather be slain here by you than
there (in Egypt). Have mercy on us we would rather die at ;
your hands and the emperor's than at home " (M. vii. 53 ff., cf.
the 30th canon of the council). Despite the opposition of the
Roman legates, the letter of Leo was not given dogmatic autho-
rity, but the council at its fifth session adopted a new formula
(M. vii. 112 ff. ). The synodical letters of Cyril against Nes-
torius were adopted in refutation of Nestorianism, the letter of
Leo to Flavian in refutation of Eutychianism. Those are con-
demned who teach a * dyad of sons, as well as those who dream
'
'
'
of " two natures before the union, but one after the union." On
the contrary :
*' We
confess one and the same Son, our Lord
Jesus Christ .the same perfect in divinity and the same per-
fect in humanity . of a rational soul and a body, of the same
. .
nature with the Father according to (his) divinity, and of the

same nature with us according to (his) humanity, and we recog-
nize the same one Christ, Son, Lord, and Only-begotten, in two
natures (not, as the Greek text reads of, ix, two natures, cf. :
crimes of Dioscurus? " M. vi. 589, cf. also the cry :

'* We shout for piety
and orthodoxy."

Hefele ii. 470 f,^), unmingled, immutable, indivisible, insep-

arable the difference of the natures being by no means obliter-
;
ated by the union, but, on the contrary, the peculiarity of each

nature being preserved and entering into one person and one
hypostasis, not divided nor separated into two persons.
'
It will be '
observed that these definitions do not go beyond the statements

of Leo's letter. The Western Christology was forced upon the
Greeks, for the decree of the council marks a breach, not only
with Dioscurus and Eutyches, but also with the much-lauded
Cyril. The formula preserving the peculiarity (tV^torij?) of the
two natures was contrary to Cyril's view, as also the terms, *' un-
mingled, immutable." The Christological contradictions of the
Orient found no solution, to say nothing of a solution of the gen-
eral Christological problem. But in the course of the develop-

ment an element was fortunately we cannot regard it otherwise
introduced, which, in the form now assumed by the contest and
the terminology of the day, fixed a barrier against extreme views
in either direction. It must be remembered, too, that it is not
the office of symbols to establish dogmatic theories. They
merely give expression to the religious convictions of their age.
Such convictions found expression in the Chalcedon creed
essentially, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances of the
period, in a negative form. As the formula of the one person
and the two natures was adopted as a fixed dogma, the historical
Christ was gained, although only in faintest outline, as the norm
and corrective for the ideas of the dogmaticians. This may be
seen most clearly in Luther.^
26. Movements Growing Out of the Christological Conflict

(^Monophysite and Monothelete Controversies') and the Result
of the Agitation.
I. The emperor condemned Eutyches and Dioscurus to exile.

Strict measures were employed against their followers and the
Apollinarians (M. vii. 476, 498 f, 502 f.).
^ Originally the overwhelming majority, despite the letter of Leo, demanded
the formula '* e/c 6vo (}>vaijv.^'

: The reason for this is evident, as this formula
left open the possibility of speaking of on/y one nature even after the incarna-
tion. Only after severe pressure had been brought to bear from above was the
victory gained for the kv 6vo (j)ba(n
thus saving the historic Christ.
2 Leo endured the chagrin of having the council refuse to adopt his letter
as a dogma, increase the power of the bishop of Constantinople, and place

the bishop of New Rome, in view of the equal importance of the city as
an imperial city (nothing being said of Peter), by the side of the bishop of
Rome as second in dignity. Canon 28; cf. Leo ep. 104-107, 114, 119, 127,
135 f. At the opening of the council, the clerical delegates had requested
MONOPHYSITE AND MONOTHELETE CONTROVERSIES. 273
But peace was by no means restored. On the contrary, the

history of the ensuing yearsis marked through its whole course
by the records of wild excitement and horrible deeds of religi-

ous fanaticism. Within the limits of a general History of Doc-
trines the MoNOPHYSiTE CONTROVERSIES can be treated but briefly.
Literature. Vid. the KG. of Zacharias Rhetor, syr. in Land, Anec-

dota syr. iii. (German by Ahrens and Kriiger, Leipzig, 1899). Evagrius h.
e. 1. ii.-v. Johannes v. Ephesus h. e., translated from the Syrian by
SchOnfelder, 1862. M. vii,-ix. Cf. Walch, hist. d. Ketzereien vi.-viii.
SCHROCKH KG. xviii. Gieseler, Comment, qua Monophysitarum opin.
illustr. i.-ii., Gott. 1835, 1838. Hefele CG. ii. S64ff. Kruger, PRE. xiii.,
ed. 3, 372 ff. Kruger, Monophys. Streitigkeiten, etc., p. 68 fF., Jena, 1884.
LooFS, Leontius of Byzantium, 1888, p. 53 ff.
A Strong party arose for the defense of Monophysitism, or the

doctrine of Cyril
first in Palestine (Theodosius) and in Egypt
(Timotheus Aelurus, Petrus Mongus), then in Antioch (Petrus

Fullo), here in alliance with the ApoUinarians. All the efforts
of the emperor could gain but superficial control of the move-
ment and secure but temporary recognition for the confession of
Chalcedon. This was the situation under Leo I. (A. D. 457-
474). The usurper, Basiliscus, by his Encyclion (A. D. 476)
rejected the Chalcedon Creed, and about 500 bishops agreed
with him (Evagr. h. e. iii. 4; Zachar. v. 2). The emperor,
Zeno, endeavored by his /r(??z^//r7, A. D. 482, to effect a union
(Evagr. iii. 14; Zachar. v. 8). The definitions of the coun-
cils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, as well as the twelve
anathemas of Cyril, were here recognized, and Nestorius and
Eutyches condemned. Christ the true God and the true man
is confessed to be of the same nature with the Father according
to his divinity, and of the same nature with us according to his

humanity, but *' to be one and not two. For we say that the
miracles and whatever sufferings he endured in the flesh are
(those) of one." Whoever adopts another teaching (^dZ/T^^-a)
than this, whether taught now or heretofore, at Chalcedon or
elsewhere, is anathematized. Nothing is plain except the
authority of Cyril and the rejection of Nestorianism and Euty-
chianism. Beyond this, the disputed formulas are carefully
avoided ; the rejection of the Chalcedon confession is implied
but not distinctly expressed. The agitation was not allayed by
this formula. Neither the strict Monophysites nor the orthodox
were satisfied. The former missed in the Henoticon the ex-
the exclusion of Dioscurus, because he had presumed to open an ecumenical

council without the presence of Rome. For the further history of the question,
see Hefele ii. 562 f., 568 f. The foundation was thus laid for the schism
between the East and the West.
18
press condemnation of the Chalcedon Creed and of the letter of

Pope Leo (Zachar. v. 7, 9 vi. i). The latter, as in the days
;
of Chalcedon, took refuge in Rome. Pope Felix III. turned to

the emperor in defense of the endangered Chalcedon creed and
excommunicated Acacius, the bishop of Constantinople, A. D.
484 (ep. 1-4, 6). The latter, in turn, struck the name of Felix
from the Dij)tychs. The breach with Rome had become com-
plete. It was a necessity, as an agreement was not possible be-
tween the ancient Latin Christology and the Greek doctrine,
which inclined more and more toward Monophysitism. But
even in the East there were still elements which withstood the ad-
vance of the Monophysite views. The emperor, Anastasius
(from A. D. 491), permitted the ^*Henoticon" to stand, but
favored the Monophysite interpretation of it. Nevertheless, there
were bitter controversies during the entire reign of Anastasius.
In Antioch, Severus, one of the Monophysite leaders, became
bishop, but the emperor yet labored to secure peace with the ad-
herents of Chalcedon and the authorities of Rome. But it was
now evident that the situation had only become the more com-
plicated, and that the Roman bishops were contending, not in the
interest of pure doctrine, but to secure the dominion of the en-
tire church. Hence the transactions with Pope Hormisdas were
without result (cf. Kriiger, PRE. xiii., 387 f. ).
2. Anastasius was succeeded by Justin I. (A. D. 518-527).
He was under the control of his nephew, Justinian, who suc-
ceeded him upon the imperial throne (A. D. 527-565). The
political plansof this great prince (cf. Kriiger, PRE. ix. ed. 3,
,
650 required the pacification of the church.

ff.) The ancient
universal empire was to be revived, and restraint put upon the
aggressions of the Germans. To this end there must be har-
mony in the government, the laws, and the church. He sought
for the formula of the universal empire and made everything
serviceable for his own purpose. *' He still lives in the Codex
and the Hagia Sophia '
(see delineation of his character in
'
Ranke, Weltgesch. iv. 2, p. 125 f. ). No one before him had

attempted to carry out in so comprehensive and reckless a way
the idea of the state church. The ecclesiastical doctrines and
ordinances became state laws, and heresy and heathenism were
forbidden by the civil government. The power of the church
was thus vastly increased, but it at the same time lost every ves-
tige of independence and distinct character as contrasted with
the state. The emperor was unwearied in his efforts to
strengthen the power of the clergy, but he at the same time
ruled in the church with despotic power. Great as was his
power, however, he was confronted by immense difficulties in

the prosecution of his final plans. The old unity of the Greek
and Roman churches had been Rome and Constan-
dissolved.
tinople were now independent centres, and it was sought to
combine them in one. The church of the East was to be har-
monized and again united with the church of the West. The
restoration of the orthodoxy of Chalcedon was hence, from
the start, the watchword. It was a difficult undertaking, as the
power of the Monophysites was yet unbroken in the East, and
they enjoyed the sympathies of the empress, Theodora, not to
mention the favor of hosts of pious believers. The creed of

Chalcedon must remain in force that was now clearly seen
and an interpretation of it found which would be tolerable for
the Monophysites. The ecclesiastical primacy of Rome must be
recognized in principle (vid. Novella 131. 2 *^ that the
: pope of
Old Rome is the first of all priests, but that the most blessed
archbishop of Constantinople, the New Rome, has the second
seat after the holy apostolic seat of Old Rome"), but the
power of the popes practically overcome. Such was the task,
as complicated as the circumstances and the purpose which
gave it birth. The first attempted policy, that of the forcible
suppression the Monophysites (Zachar. h. e. viii. 5 f. ), was soon
abandoned by Justinian as fruitless.
3. The theology of Justinian' sage accommodated itself to the
tendencies of the emperor. This was particularly true in the case
of the ^'Scythian" monk, a relative of Vitalian, Leontius of
Byzantium (about A. D. 485-543. See especially his publica-
tion in three ** books" against the Nestorians and Eutychiansin
Mi. gr. 86. 1267 ff.; cf. Loofs, L. v. B., 1888. Rugamer, L. v.
B., 1894). The formulas of Chalcedon are here recast in ac-
cordance with Aristotelian categories (otifft'a, îvo<$j sMo?, repre-
sented by the eidoTtoto} dta(pofjaij or TTOcoTTjTei^ ob(jtwdsL<T, aroiiDv^
see Loofs, p. 60 ff. ) :(fbai'i and b7:6(TTafn<; are related to one an-
other as ddfKs to oLTup-ov. But now a nature (^'V^?) exists only
an image exists only as a body
as a substance (^-ort-rarTig-), just as
(Mi. 86. 1278, 1280). Therefore the acknowledgment of two
natures would lead to two hypostases, or to Nestorianism (ib.
1276 f. ). Leontius escapes this consequence by introducing the
idea of a nature as being intrahypostatic (c^'UTrorrraro?). That is,
one nature may combine with another to form a unity in such a way
that, although it retains the peculiar characteristic of its own ex-
istence, yet it has its substance (urro^ra-s-fs-) in the second nature.
It is then not without hypostases (aytJTTfi^raro?), but (îvoizofTraro^),
e.g.ySi man composed of body and soul, or a burning torch ; in-
deed, ''it has given of its attributes interchangeably, which con-
tinue in the abiding and uncommingled peculiarity of their own
natures*' (ib. 1304, 1278 ff. J. Thus the problem of the time

appears to be solved two independent natures, and yet only-
one hypostasis. The Chalcedon creed is justified, and Cyril is
justified, for the hypostasis of Christ is thus the hypostasis of the
Logos. *' Our author stands for an orthodoxy leading back as
far as possible to the Alexandrine theology. This is the per-

manent impression left by all his discussions" (Loofs, p. 71).
This theology made it less difficult to approach the Monophy-
sites, which was done by the recognition of the enlarged Trisa-
gion first introduced in Antioch by Peter the Fuller '*Holy
:
God, holy Mighty, holy Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy
upon us." It was thus acknowledged that one person of the
Trinity had suffered, and the Scythian monks gave their ap-
proval. The same end was served by a religious conference held
with the Severians at Constantinople (A. D. 533 or 531, vid.
Loofs, p. 283), as also by the condemnation of the former lead-
ers of the Antiochian theology, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas^
Theodoret (vid. decrees in M. ix.),^ which occurred in the
course of the Three-Chapter controversy (A. D. 544). The
East soon acquiesced, but the West resented this condemnation
of its honored teachers, who had died at peace with the Church
(s. esp. Facundus Hermian, pro defensione trium capitum, in Mi.
lat. 67). The part taken in all these controversies by the
Roman bishops was, on the other hand, but a pitiable exhibition

of their weakness a wavering between the spirit of the West
and fear of the emperor, a kicking against the pricks and a half
or entire surrender (Hormisdas and the Trisagion, Johann II.,
Agapetus I., and the Theopaschite supplement, Vigilius and the
Three-Chapter controversy, the fifth ecumenical council).
4. The Fifth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 553 (M. ix.
Hefele CG. ii. 854 ff. ) was called primarily to sanction the con-
demnation of the Three Chapters. The bishop of Constanti-
nople presided. About 150 bishops participated. Pope Vigilius,
who was present, protested against the condemnation. He was
in consequence denounced as a liar in view of some of his earlier
utterances, and the council resolved to strike his name from the
Dyptichs. The Three Chapters were condemned *' A Theodore,
:
a Judas." **His defenders are Jews; his adherents heathen.

Many years to the Emperor " (cf. can. 12-14). The council
!
of Chalcedon was recognized, Origen condemned (can. 11), the
* politics of Justinian and the world-embracing church mark a

The church
visibledecadence of intellectual and spiritual energy. Heathenism was for-
bidden, Judaism repressed, the Manichgsans destroyed. The ancient school of
Athens was closed A. D. 52S, Origen condemned A. D. 544, and, finally, the
Antiochians surrendered.
,

doctrine of the Theopaschite supplement adopted (can. lo). Pope

Vigilius subsequently acquiesced in the decisions of the council
(HEFELEii. 905 ff.), as also the African bishops (ib. 913).^ The
ecclesiastical politics of the emperor had proved successful.
5. But the emperor had not yet accomplished what he desired.
The situation was made more hopeless by the dissensions which
arose among the Monophysites themselves. Monophysitism was
prmiarily but an opposition to the Chalcedonian and Cyrillian
theology. Its adherents spoke of the '* heresy of the Dyophy-
sites
'
' in opposition to the doctrine of *

' believers,
'
' who hold to

the one nature {^[ua ip'xjt^'). It was acknowledged in theory that
Christ is oiiooofrui^ with the Father as well as with man. Apolli-
naris and Eutyches were rejected (Timoth. Ael.in Zachar. h.e. iv.
12 ; v. 7). Dioscurus was the ''apostolic man " who would not
worship the '^ idol image with two faces that was set up by Leo
and the assembly at Chalcedon " (ib. iii. i). But their temper
became more pronounced, and the views of the Monophysites
themselves became more aiid more divergent. There was also,
from the beginning, a group of more strict partisans, who held
about the position of Eutyches (vid. e.g., Zachar. h. e. iii. 9. 10).
The two chief parties were known as Severians and Julianists,
so named from their later leaders, Severus and Julian of Halicar-
nassus. Severus taught essentially the Christology of Cyril :
"Of two natures one Christ," He expressly recognizes the

reality of the two natures after the union, in which he accords
with Nestorius. But there is an *' unmixed union," in which,
as Cyril says, the distinction can be noted *'at a single glance."
He appropriates the Areopagite formula of a "new theandric
energy (^hiiiyzux) of Christ." He is unable to accept the Chal-
cedon creed, because it leads to two persons, and even to a
"duad of wills. " This is all in the spirit of Cyril. It makes no
real difference, that Cyril starts with the Logos without flesh
(âfrapy.o^) and Severus with the Logos in the flesh ( ivaapxa^')
as the latter conception occurs also frequently in Cyril (despite
Loofs, p. 206 f. frg. of Severus in antiquorum patr. doctr. de verbi
,
inc., in Leont. Hierosolym. c. Monophysit., Eustathius. ad

Timoth. de duab. nat., in Mai Scriptur. vet. nov. coll. vii.; vid.
also Mi. gr. 86 and several letters in Zachar. h. e. ix. u, 13,
16, 20, 22, 23. Cf. DoRNER ii. I. 166 ff., LooFS, 1. c. p. 54
ff.). The inference from this view is that the body of Christ
Â number of bishops of Upper Italy, indeed, renounced church fellowship

with Pope Pelagiusl. in consequence of the Three Chapter agitation (Hefele
ii. 914 f. ). The downfall of the Lombards (A. D. 568) released the Roman
pontiff from the critical situation. Subsequent bishops of Rome were com-
pelled to exert themselves with energy for the healing of the Italian schism.
.

was, according to its nature, capable of suffering and corruptible.

Hence opponents spoke of it as Phthartolatry Its advocates
its ,
did not even shrink from the inference that the human soul of
Christ was not omniscient (Agnoetae). The Julianists, on the
contrary, taught that Christ assumed our flesh *' in order that he
'
might deliver it at once from corruption and from sin. His '
human nature, being sinless, is therefore not corruptible

(Julian Anath. 6, 7, in Gieseler, comment, de Monoph., etc.,
ii. 6). On the contrary, the body of Christ is, from the moment
of the union, glorified, incorruptible, and of the same character
as after the resurrection (Gieseler ib. 11. 7). Hence, Christ's
capability of suffering is not natural to him, but rests upon his
free-will (octo quaesit. 4, in Gieseler ii. 7). Julian did not in
this way by any means wish to deny the Homousia of Christ's
human nature with our humanity. By the ''incorruptibility"
he understood, not a Docetic character, but the freedom of
Christ's nature from all the human infirmities which have re-
sulted from the entrance of sin. Christ assumed such a body
and Adam possessed before the fall (cf. KrOger, PRE.
soul as
ix. ed. 3, 608). In the face of this position, the task of the
Severians was a difficult one for, in the denial of the Aphthar-
;
sia of the human nature of Christ, his divine unity, which they
asserted, appeared to be lost. Hence the Julianists accused
them of Aphthartolatry. Yet the Severians maintained that
there was a Docetic element in the theory of Julian, charged
him with holding the doctrine of Eutyches, and reviled his fol-
lowers as Aphthartodocetes or Phantasiasts
(Upon Julian, vid.Zachar. h. e. ix. 9 ff. Leontius, desectis, 10, Mi. gr.
86. I. 1260 Joh. Damasc. haer. 84.
ff. Assemani, Bibl. oriental, ii. 168.
Werner, in Vien. Mus. Iv. 321 ff. Gieseler, 1. c. Kruger, PRE. ix. ed.
3, 6o6ff.)
Other Monophysites (the Gaianites) carried out their ideas

to the absurdity, that the body of Christ, from the time of the
union, was uncreated. They were called Actistetes. Stephen
Niobes held that all distinction of the divine and human in
Christ must be totally denied (Adiaphorites).*
6. Justinian tolerated the Monophysites (Joh. v. Eph. h. e.
i. 4 f. ). Even in the capital they had honored representatives
(Theodosius, John of Ephesus); and the restlessly wandering
1 We have here the germ of the later Syrian Monophysite pantheism, vid.
Frothingham, Stephen ben Sudaili, 1886; his teachings, p. 28 ff. Iftheunity
of the divine and human in Christ was granted as a natural characteristic, the
inference might easily be drawn that the two natures are essentially one. Thus
this form of Greek Christian philosophy reverts to the pantheism of Greek
philosophy.
MONOPHVSITE AND MONOTHELETE CONTROVERSIES. 279
Jacob el Baradai was able to accomplish much for the unification

and strengthening of the party. The emperor has held the
church under his control, but he has not achieved his purpose.
We can easily understand from this situation how he, at the close
of his career, should conceive the idea of unifying at least the
church of the Orient by' the adoption of Aphthartodocetism.
Death prevented the execution of the edict, which he fully pur-
posed to enforce (Evagr. h. e. iv. 39). That which he failed to
accomplish, his successors (Justin II., Tiberius, Mauriciusj were
equally unable to attain, although they spared neither the arts of
persuasion nor force. Monophysitism steadily advanced to a
permanent position in church life among the Syrian Jacobites and
in the Coptic, Abyssinian, and Armenian churches.
7. The efforts to win the Monophysites gave occasion, further,
to the MoNOTHELETE CONTROVERSIES. Here, too, political aims
furnished the controlling motive.
(Vid. Acta, in M. x., xi., cf.G. KrOger, PRE. xiii., ed. 3, 401 ff.
Walch, Hist. d. Ketzereien ix. Schr5ckh, KG. xx. 386 ff. Hefele, CO.
iii. 121 ff.; OwsEPlAN, Die Entstehungsgesch. des Monotheletismus, Leipz.,
1897.)
The policy was to gain support for the empire, which was
hardly pressed by the Persians and Saracens, by gaining over the
numerous Monophysite elements in the Eastern church preserv-
ing, of course, at the same time the Chalcedon creed. The

patriarch Sergius of Constantinople advised Heraclius (A. D.
610-641) to employ for this purpose the formula, that the one
Christ performs divine and human acts ''by one theandric
'
energy (thus already Dionys. Areop. ep. 4 and Severus
'
supra, p. 277). Although this formula served its purpose in

Egypt and elsewhere, it was necessary to abandon it because of
the opposition of Sophronius of Jerusalem. Whether there is
one energy or two, is not a proper matter for investigation,
thought Sergius. One will (iv iîXrj/xa') was, however, postulated
of Christ as self-evident. In this spirit Sergius wrote to Hon-
orius of Rome (M. xi. 529 ff.), and the latter responded
approvingly, ''that the question, whether there be one energy
or two, is not biblical, and belongs only to the sphere of the
grammarians. Among the uninstructed populace, one energy
might be interpreted as having a Eutychian sound and two as
'
savoring of Nestorianism. It follows, on the contrary, from the
'
fact of the incarnation " Wherefore also we confess one will of

:
the Lord Jesus Christ" (M. xi. 537 ff. ). In a second letter,
the pope again rejected the question concerning the energies, and
employed Leo's formula, that each of the two natures " works in
fellowship with the other" (M. xi. 580). Sergius, therefore,
secured the publication of his " EyJê(n<s Tzifrrewg^ A. D. 638):

Two natures with their peculiarities, but one hypostasis and one
* *
person of the divine Logos, together with rationally -animated

flesh ; " ''we ascribe all divine and human energy to one and
the same incarnated Logos and do not by any means per-
. . .
mit anyone to maintain or teach either one or two energies of the

incarnate Lord." The two energies would work confusion, as
they would give occasion for the inference '' And there preside :
two wills of those who are in opposition to one another,

'
which '
even the impious Nestorius would not have dared to assert. It

is thus impossible to accept '*two, and these opposing, wills in
the same (person)." Following the Fathers in all things, it is

to be said: *^We confess one will of our Lord Jesus
. . .
Christ" (M. 992 ff.). The Roman legates of Severinus,

x.
the successor of Honorius, declared themselves ready to adopt
the Ecthesis; but as early as A. D. 641, John IV. of Rome
condemned Monotheletism (M. x. 607), while, at the same
time, he endeavored to defend Pope Honorius from the sus-
picion of a Monothelete type of doctrine, maintaining that
the latter had in mind only the human will of Christ, and
denied that there were two contrary wills in Christ (vid. his
Apol. pro papa Honor., M. x. 682 ff. ), His successor, Theo-
dore I., desired the rejection of the Ecthesis (M. x. 702,
705 f.). The Africans assumed the same attitude (Hefele iii.
205 ff. ). The emperor, Constans II., yielded in the tutzik; of
A. D. 648. The problem is to be banished from the world for-
ever, as had been attempted in the Ecthesis. The latter is sur-
rendered, and questions are to be decided in accordance with
the five ecumenical councils, the utterances of the Fathers, and
the doctrinal positions held before the controversy, just *'as it
would have been if no such controversy had ever arisen." *' We
decree that our subjects abiding in orthodoxy . . . shall, from
the present time, not have permission to carry on any contro-
versy whatsoever among themselves concerning one will or energy,
or two energies and two wills," etc. Any who may disregard this
decree are threatened with severe punishments (M. x. 1029 f. ).
It may be seen from this brutal composition to what tyranny the
secularized church was compelled to submit.
8. But at Rome
there were hopes of accomphshing something
more. The monk, Maximus, provedin writings and disputa-
tions that Dyotheletism is a necessary inference from the two
natures of the Chalcedon creed (his writings were edited by
Combesis, 2 vols., Paris, 1675 ; see esp. the interesting dispu-
tation with Pyrrhus in Combes, ii. 159-195 M. x. 709 ; ff.;
cf. upon Maximus, Wagermann-Seeberg, PRE. xii., ed. 3,

1
457 ff.).^ We must devote some attention to the Christol-

ogy of Maximus. He was inspired by a keen interest in the
reality of the humanity of Christ. Without a human will, he
maintained, Christ would not have been a man (opp. ii, 105-
108). On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity demands
Dyotheletism ; for since, according to the Fathers, the Trinity
has a will, the theandric will of Christ must also be the will of
the Trinity (ii. 163). This is impossible. The real human na-
ture of Christ requires a human will, and with this the divine
will united itself. The unity of the two is effected through the
one hypostasis which is common to both (ii. 164), Christ lived
as God and man (ii. 165). Since the Logos assumed human
nature, he received also a human will, which acts in a way cor-
responding with its natural psychological character. But this
will was not compelled, as is ours, to decide between opposites,
but, by virtue of its union with the Logos, it received a perma-
nent, fixed moral inclination. In this way the true doctrine is dis-
tinguished from that of Nestorius (ii. 13, 14). The celebrated
formula of the Areopagite (//savSpixij ivipyBia) itself proves the
presence of two energies, but is merely the expression of the em-
pirical relationship (ii. 51). The opinion of Maximus is there-
fore :that the Logos appropriates to himself the human will of
Christ, since he by this union with it gives to it a fixed inclina-
tion, which, however, exerts itself in many separate free human
choices. The theology of Maximus rightly defined the nature of
the man Jesus, positing it in the spiritual will, and it exerted
itself with energy to maintain this nature intact within the lines
of the two-nature theory. This gives to it its historical signifi-
cance. It is remarkable to observe how, toward the end of the
great controversies, ideas again came to the front which had at
the beginning been advanced by the Antiochians.
We return to the contemplation of the course of external events.
Pope Martin I., without waiting for the imperial approval, con-
ducted a large synod (105 bishops) at Rome, A. D. 649. He here
declared himself opposed to the Ecthesis, as contradicting the
two natures, and also opposed to the Typos, which he dismissed
with the perfidious charge, that it denies to Christ will and
energy, and thus every kind of nature. The synod decided in
accordance with his wishes, adding to the Chalcedon creed :
*'two natural wills, divine and human, and two natural opera-
tions " (M. X. 1150). With great energy the pope now sought
to interest the Frankish church and the two kings in his cause,
^ Reversing the process, the Monotheletes from the one person inferred one
will, c. g.yM. A. 709.
and endeavored to gain influence in the Oriental churches among

the Saracens. was even charged that he gave money to the
It
Saracens in Sicily. The emperor treated both the pope and
Maximus as traitors. They died in exile, A. D. 655 and 662.
Eugene I. and Vitalian of Rome adapted themselves to the sit-
uation, their scruples apparently met by the reflection that the
two natural wills unite in one hypostatic will. We may, there-
fore, speak of one will as well as of two, accordingly as we use
the term. Rome, on the other hand, would know nothing of
this, as the doctrine of Maximus had there full sway.
9. Constans was murdered A. D. 668 and succeeded by Con-

STANTiNE Pogonatus (A. D. 668-685). The constantly obtrud-
ing antagonism between Rome and Constantinople induced the
emperor to call a council and to yield, as far as possible, to the

demands of Rome the greater part of the Monophysites being
in any event lost to the Byzantine empire. This resulted in the
Sixth Ecumenical^ Council, held at Constantinople, A. D. 680.
There were about 170 participants (proceedings in M. xi. cf. ;
Hefele iii. 249 ff.). The letter of Pope Agatho here played an
important part. It is presented as the doctrine of the Romish
church, which has never departed from the way of truth, or the
apostolic tradition, that
as an inference from the doctrine of

two natures the will of Christ is two-fold, having in it *'two
natural wills and energies just as two natures" (M. xi. 239J.
Accordingly, the council decided, after the reading of volumes

of patristic excerpts not, indeed, without opposition (Poly-
chronius, a Monophysite, seeking by his formula to call a dead
issue to life)
in accordance with the wishes of the emperor
('* Thou hast established the completeness of the two natures of
our God," M. xi. 656) and the pope but Honorius of Rome
;
was anathematized as well as the Monothelete patriarch of Con-

stantinople. The doctrinal decree recognizes the letter of
Agatho and the five ecumenical councils. After citing the
formulas of Chalcedon, it proceeds: **Two natural willings
(^f^h?.rjfTst<^) or wills (^Hekyjij.aTa) in Christ and two natural energies,
inseparably, immutably, indivisibly, without mixture, according

to the teaching of the holy Fathers. ... It follows that his
human not in opposition or conflict with, but, on the con-
will is
trary, is subject to his divine and almighty will. For just . . ,
as his flesh is called and is the flesh of the divine Logos, so also his
proper human will is called and is the will of the divine Logos..
. . His flesh deified is not divided ... so also his human
.
1 It was not the original purpose to summon an ** ecumenical" council, s.
Hefele iii. 260.

MONOPHYSITE AXD MONOTHELETE CONTROVERSIES. 2S3
will deified is not divided . . for each form performs what

.
is peculiar to it with the fellowship of the other form " (M. xi.
637)-
The revival of Monotheletism at alater date (A. D. 711-713)
by the emperor, Philippicus Bardanes, and the Monotheletic
church of the Margnites, which persisted in Lebanon until the
Crusades, are of no dogmatic significance.
The Council of Constantinople marks the termination of the
great intellectual movements which had agitated the church from
the days of Apollinaris, and of Nestorius and Cyril. It did not
originate any new ideas nor intellectual tendencies, as the age did
not furnish the necessary inner religious force. This was evident
from the fact that, as in all ages of deterioration, there was lack-
ing the courage to undertake anything new. Passages of the
'
Fathers
' were anxiously sought after.
'
' Citations were gath-

ered by the volume, and it was not ventured to maintain any
position until some word of one of the great Fathers of the
earlier age could be found for support and protection. Thus the
council did nothing more than draw an inference from the Chal-
cedon creed, and this was attached to the latter in a quite ex-
ternal way. It was, however, a just inference. It thus, in its
own way, gives evidence that the Chalcedon creed was not a
Trojan horse for the church of the Orient. On the contrary, it
made it necessary for her theologians to pursue the doctrine of
the two natures to its profound depths. The two natures must
be apprehended in their full significance, as extending not only
to the external <po<yt<^, but also to the internal spiritual life with
its centre, the will. In this way the problem became more and
more difficult Two inner wills and yet only one inner person.
:
The council presented, not a solution, but an assertion. Yet it

stated distinctly a fact, and one which summoned Christian
thought to a serious task. There was, however, lacking in the
Greek Christianity of the age the energy necessary to a proper
discharge of this obligation, and the church of the West felt no
interest in the problem as such.
10. The historical development which we have reviewed in
the above paragraphs was a most remarkable one. Forces which
appear to have everything in their favor succeed in making
their way but feebly, and their power is broken by cold formulas.
Intellectual forces which appear to have been entirely overcome
continue to exert a silent influence. The formalism of Greek
philosophy comes to the assistance of the church's dogma. Ex-
ternal considerations of church policy become the decisive fac-
tors in the discussions of doctrine. A reckless abandonment of
old and a compulsory adoption of new formulas alternate with
!
one another, and, as the result of it all, the recognition of a cer-

tain inner necessity
We must note a few details of the process. The great Atha-
nasius had, in the interest of practical religion, established the
Homousia of the Son. The man Jesus served the divine Logos
as the organ through which he acted. But this idea was capable
of many interpretations, although the Homousia was the iixed
premise for them all. One might adopt the bold course of
Apollinaris, who treated the human nature of Christ as did Arius
his divinity, i. e., mutilatedOr, one might conceive the
it.
problem in the sense of the view of the Antiochians, and

first
lay all stress upon the inner personal unity of the Logos with the

man Jesus a view which, as an intellectual formula, if not as an
actual theory, continued to be influential even after it had been
condemned in the person of Nestorius. Or, again, one might,
with Cyril, centre his theory in the divine-human unity of
Christ, his deified nature, and thus be led
under the increasing
pressure of the mystical materialism of the age to the Mono-
physite position. It is evident that the broad current of Greek
piety flowed within this channel. Finally, one might face the
problem with the formulas of Tertullian in hand, and constantly op-
pose these formulas, as a canon, to all assaults of the times, Rome
possessed these formulas. But Rome was a political power. The
desire to preserve intact the unity of the East and the West made
the Greek emperors dependent upon the dogmatic teachings of
Rome. They were compelled to give due recognition to the
Roman formulas ; became but the more necessary, as
and this
there were never lacking among Greek theologians and believers
earnest opponents of Monophysitism. All who had any realiza-
tion of the problem as stated by the Antiochians could adopt the
Western formulas, but not the views of the Monophysites. It
was political considerations, indeed, but not these alone, which
compelled the emperors to join in league with the dogmatics of
Rome. Thus was brought about the second decisive event in the
history of Christology, ranking in importance with the adoption
of the Nicene creed, /. e. the construction and adoption of the
,
creed of Chalcedon, marking the triumph of Western Chris-

tology in the East. That this was possible, and that the Chal-
cedon creed, despite the most bitter opposition, was not only
able to maintain itself, but controlled the entire development of
the future, proves very clearly that it is a great mistake to place
the oriental Christology simply upon the plane of Monophysitism.
But if the Chalcedon creed had really won a secure footing in
the East, then the entire course of subsequent events is intelligi-
ble. Such theologians as Leontius and Maximus must labor to
interpret the now accepted creed as far as possible in haimony

with the teachings of Cyril. Monophysitism and Monothele-
tism must be driven from the church. The sixth ecumenical
council was compelled to decide as it did, and John of Damas-
cus could not tolerate any other doctrine. All this followed by
necessity upon the adoption of the creed of Chalcedon.
It may be said, in view of the above Thus it was the politi-
:
cal scheming of the calculating deniagogues at Rome and of the

imperial advisers at Constantinople that framed the faith of the
church ! This is not untrue, and yet it is not correct. It is not
untrue, for without the political ambitions of the age, the creed
of Chalcedon would not have been constructed, nor could it
have secured the approval of Justinian, and the sixth ecumenical
council would never have been held. On the other hand, the
statement is not correct, for without the faith of the Greek
church, Monophysitism and Monotheletism could never have
been permanently banished. In order to realize this, it is only
necessary to consider the Christology of Maximus, who was a
thorough -going Greek and a fanatical Areopagite. Thus was
formed the Christology of the Greek church. It is Chalcedo-
nian, but limits the humanity as far as possible. It is Cyrillian,
but also anti-Monophysite. Cyril and the Chalcedon Creed are
the authorities by which it is determined. The two tendencies
which, at the beginning of the controversy, struggled for the

mastery the Antiochian and the Alexandrine were, as a result
of the controversy, in a measure, united, having both found
their secure unity in the Christological scheme of the West.
Politics led to this result, but politics could never have chosen
this way if the course of inward development in the church had
not required it. The Western Christology was taken into account,
not only in order to satisfy Rome, but also in order to gratify
those in the East who were not in accord with the Monophysite
doctrine.
The position recently taken, especially by Ritschl and Hamack,
that Greek piety was Monophysite in type, and that, in conse-
quence, the conception of Soteriology here dominant, can have
represented only the Christology of Dioscurus or Julian, cannot
be sustained in view of the actual facts. It generalizes upon an
observation which is, in itself, correct. Generalizations of this
character may be an effectual aid in the establishment of particu-
lar theories, but they cannot be permanently maintained. This
is manifest from the account above given, but others also, as, e. g.
,
Loofs and Kriiger, have begun to call attention to the one-sided

nature of this modern interpretation of history.
II. John of Damascus gave the final form to Christology
,
also upon Grecian territory (see his ^' Exd-e(n<; 7:tfTTeto<?j cf. supra,
p. 236). The dogmatics of again mirror the char-
this leader
acter of the preceding centuries. Faith is the '*not over-
'
curious assent to the incomprehensible doctrine of the triune
'
God, the dogmas of the church, and the utterances of the

Fathers (iv. 9, 10, 11; i. i), along with which many strange
things are advocated (adoration of the cross, the manger, the
socket of the cross, saints, relics, images, celibacy, iv. 1 1 f.
15 f., 24).^ (a) John is a thorough Chalcedonian and Dyothe-
lete in his Christology (vid. book iii. of >e fide orthodoxa :
'
' One hypostasis in two natures " ) From the latter it necessarily
.
follows that Christ also possessed two natural wills and energies
(iii. 13-15). We can no more accept the idea of one will (iii.
14) than we can speak of one composite nature (iii. 2). In the
Cyrillian formula: ** One nature of the divine Logos, made
flesh " (/-tc' <puGi<i rod i^sod Xoyuo tTstyapxio/j.i'^r}') the term *'made,
flesh" indicates ** the essence {oixria) of the flesh" (iii. 7,

p. 215, c. II, p. 221). {b~) The union of the two natures is im-
plied in the acknowledgment of one hypostasis. Here John
follows Leontius.^ It is, indeed, true that no nature (c^^Wt^) is
without hypostasis (av'jTro^raro?), and no essence (ôb<T(a) is with- ;
out person (â7:p6(Tu}7to^)-^ but it is possible for two natures to have

a common hypostasis. The flesh of Christ has no other hypostasis
than that which the Logos also has ; but is, on thexontrary, en-
*
'
hypostatic in the same hypostasis " (iii. 9). The Logos-hyposta-

sis, therefore, became the hypostasis of the formerly impersonal
flesh '^ For he assumed

: a germ of our clay, not used before as
an actual hypostasis and atom and thus taken to himself, but
having its existence in the same hypostasis. For the hypostasis of
the divine Logos became an hypostasis in the flesh, and in this
^ The divisions of this work are as follows (cf. Origen, Theognostos,

supra, p. 147, n. 2, 186, n. I, and Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Peter Lom-
bard, Melanchthon): Book I. treatsof God, his incomprehensibility, revelation,
the Trinity, divine attributes, etc. Book II. discusses the world, the devil,

heaven, the air, winds, paradise, man including under the last-named head-
ing the whole range of psychology, free-will, etc. Book III. treats of Christ,
the two natures, the one hypostasis, the trisagion, the mother of God, the life,
energies, and will of Christ, his unblamable emotions, his fear, his prayers, his
sufferings, the descent to hell, etc. Book IV. deals with the state of the risen
Saviour, redemption, baptism, faith, the cross, the mysteries, worship of
saints, images, the Scriptures, the Jews, celibacy, circumcision, Antichrist, the
resurrection, etc.
That this outline became not to the advantage of dog-

matic theology a model for later discussions, cannot be denied. look in We
it in vain for an answer to the question. What is Christianity ? or, What is the
Gospel ?
^ Whom he often uses and in iii. il expressly names (although Harnack,
DG. ii., ed. 3, 410, n., declares that Leontius is "never mentioned " ).
;
way the Logos became flesh' " (iii. n. pp. 220, 221 c. 2
*
; :
'
The Logos himself became an hypostasis in the flesh " ) This
' .
is the conception of Cyril and Leontius, and also of Apollinaris.
But, since the term ''hypostasis" does not exactly correspond

with our term ''personality," but indicates as well simply indi-
vidual existence (iii. 7), the Damascene speaks of a "compo-
site hypostasis" of Christ. As Christ is God and man, there
belongs to him the separate divine-human existence, or hypostasis.
Hence John can say " The hypostasis of the divine Logos be-
:
fore the incarnation was single and incomposite and non-corporate

and uncreate ; but it became incarnate and a hypostasis in the
flesh, and became compounded of divinity, of which it always
partook, and of flesh which it assumed, and it bears the properties
of the two natures, being seen in two natures, so that this one
hypostasis is uncreate in its divinity and create in its humanity,
visible and invisible" (iv. 5; similarly iii. 3, 4, 5, 7, 14).
(<:) With this unity of the hypostasis is involved the mutual par-
ticipation and interpenetration of the two natures ' The Logos
'
:
participates in the human (attributes) and imparts of its

. .
own to the flesh in the way of exchange through the mutual

revolution of parts and the hypostatic union, and because it was
one and the same performing both the divine and the human acts
in either form with the participation of the other " (iii. 3, the
closing part cited from Leo; see also iv. 18). But this inter-
penetration proceeds only from the side of the divine nature (iii.
7 fin.). The human will of Christ is deified, so that he volun-
tarily wills what the divine will of Christ wills (iii. 17, 18). His
humanity is also omniscient (iii. 21). Christ does not know any
choice (rtpoacpetn^, iii. 14). The declaration of Lk. 2. 52
is to be understood as a revelation of the wisdom which dwells in
him, or as indicating that he assumes as his own the progress

made by the human nature (iii. 22). The prayers referred to
in Matt. 26. 39 and 27. 46 are simply for our instruction, or de-
signedly vicarious (iii. 24). The divine nature has no direct
relation to the sufferings of Christ (iii. 15). This is illustrated
by various similes. If we strike a tree upon which the sunlight
is falling, the sun is not struck, but remains without suffering
and if we pour water upon glowing iron, the fire is extinguished,

but the iron remains, according to its nature, unconsumed (iii.
26). From the hypostatic union is inferred, indeed, the propriety
of worshiping the flesh of Christ (iii. 8 ; iv. 2) and of employing
the term "mother of God " (iii. 12 :
" For this name involves
the whole mystery of the economy " ) and it is taught that Christ
,
effects our salvation according to his two natures (iii 14); but this
.
does not overbalance the one-sided intoning of the divine nature

2S8 HISTORY OV DOCTRINES.
in the Christology of John. He is the diligent recorder of the

doctrinal development up to his own day, but there is no ground
for the extolling of the truthfulness and profundity of his view (as
is done by Thomasius DG. i. 391). His ideas followed the lines
of the Chalcedon creed ^nd his spirit was Cyrillian ; but he did
not succeed in giving effectual prominence to the valuable
features of Cyril. He presents the result of Greek Christology
/. e.y the Chalcedon creed triumphed, but it triumphed in
alliance with Cyril.
CHAPTER III.
GENERAL CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. COMPLETION OF DOC-

TRINAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE EAST (nICAEA, A. D. 787).
27. Greek Christianity.
We can here make but a few general comments upon this

theme. The material is inexhaustible.
We shall depend chiefly

after the writings of Athanasius those of the j
three Cappadocians the homilies of Chrysostom (f A. D. 407 opp. ed.

; ;
Montfaucon, 1718 ff. Jvli. gr. t. 47-64); the 50 homilies of Macarius the
Great (f about A. D. 390, ed. Floss, 1850. Mi. gr. 34) upon the comprehen-
sive presentations of the subject by Cyril OF Jerusalem in his catechisms
(t after A. D. 381, ed. Touttê, 1720. Mi. gr. t. >^t,')\ the large catechism of
Gregory of Nyssa the De fide orthodoxa of John of Damascus the works
; ;
of Maximus the Confessor (ed. by Combesis, 1675), and of Anastasius

Sinaita (Mi. gr. 89), etc.; and finally the writings of PseudodionysiusAreo-
PAGITA (de coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiasticahierarch., de divinis nominibus,
de mystica theologica, epistulae lo, ed. Corderius, 1634, also 1644 and 1755 '"
Mi. gr. 4, translated and scrutinized by Engelhardt, 1823 ; cf. HiPLER,
Dionys. der Ar., 1861 Stiglmayr, Das Aufkommen der ps. -Dionys.
;
Schriften, etc., 1895 ; H. Koch, Das Auikommen der pseudodionysian.

Schriften, in Theol. Quartelschr. 1895, 353 ff. , Bonwetsch, PRE. iv., ed
;
3,687 ff. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 1894, p. 284 ff.^ Cf. further Kunze,
Marcus Eremita, 1895 Holl, Enthusiasmus u. Bussgewalt beim griech.
:
Monchtum, 1898. Harnack DG. ii., ed. 3, 441 ). flf".
1 There is yet no general agreement as to the time when these writings ap-
peared. They are first mentioned at a synod at Tyre, which was held not later
than A. D. 513 (Zachar. rhet. h. e. vii.; 12 in Land, Anecdota Syr. iii. 228),
and by Severus( bishop of Antioch, A. D. 512-518, vid. Mai, Vet scriptor. nov
coll. vi. I, p. 71); then at the religious colloquy at Constantinople, A. D. 533
(M. viii. 817 ff.; vid. also Liberat. breviar. 10; and Bonwetsch, 1. c.
689). It appears safe to place its appearance at the close of Cent. v. in Syria.
As the writings now stand (have they been revised ?) they appear (despite
the arguments of Hipler to the contrary) to be a designed forgery (cf. Stigl-
mayr and Koch). Suspicion is aroused by the relationship of the eighth letter
GREEK CHRISTIANITY. 289
according to Methodius,
' '
I .
'
' Orthodoxy ' and '
' good works, '
constitute Christianity (supra, p. 190, and Clem. AL, p. 146).

Cyril of Jerusalem names *' the teaching, [ifb^Huim, of the dog-
mas " and ''good works" (cat. 4. 2 ; cf. Const, ap. iii. 12).
But among the Greeks the emphasis was laid more and more
upon the ''orthodox" doctrine. The doctrine of the church
as such, in its technical and detailed form, was regarded as an
object of faith. This explains the acrimony in the conduct of
controversies, and the bad habit of denying life and salvation to
the adherents of another doctrinal formula. The '' tradition of
the Catholic church," i.e., the dogmas of the Trinity and the
two natures in Christ, is to be accepted and believed to be true
{e.g., Cyril, cat. 16. 24 fin.; 5. 12 ; 11. 20 init. Greg. Nyss.
cat. m. 1-3; 3.9. Joh. Dam. iv. 10). It is only necessary to
observe the style employed in the documents named in order to
realize that the bread is here already beginning to turn into stone.
The dogmas are state laws whose acknowledgment the state re-
quires of its citizens. It therefore persecutes with its own
weapons opposition to the doctrines of the church. But these
same doctrines are also an expression of the most ancient con-
victions of Christian truth. It is only by their acceptance that
a saving view of the truth can be obtained. But such a view is
made dependent upon a merely intellectual apprehension of the
truth. Here, then, appears the office of the mysteries. He who
participates in these is lifted above the world in the experience of
salvation. Here becomes manifest thelife-giving fountain of reli-
gion. The doctrines are the theory of life the mysteries bestow :
this life. But only he who accepts the theory can experience that
which it contains. It is easy to understand that the conception of
the inwardnature of Christianity shouldthusbegraduallylost. The
Pauline doctrine of justification was never comprehended by the
Greek church. The internal element which it contains did not
become a motive for the regulation of piety. To believe means
'* simply
to obey," z. e., the traditional doctrine, and how this
can bring salvation to a man, cannot be made plain to the inner
consciousness (see, e.g., Cyril, cat. 5. 5 ; the homilies of Chrys.
upon Romans i. 17 ; 4. 7 ; 3. 21 ; Gal. z. 8, 16 f.; Heb. 11).
Faith is nothing more than the acceptance of a doctrine, with
its mysteries and with the injunctions to the performance of
pious works. But when faith has been robbed of its true char-
acter, the church must find for herself a substitute. The church
(cf. eccl. hier. iii. 3. 7) to that which Dionysius of Alexandria wrote against
Novatian (Eus. h. e. vii. 8 f. ); and also by the relation of a passage of the
letter (^ 5) to the ep. ad Conone?n of Dionys. Al., ^ 3 (in Pitra, jur. eccl.
Graecorum hist, et Monum. i, 547 cf. 549 f. ). ;
19
:
of the West chose *

good works ;
'
'
that of the East, worship
'
and its mysteries, mystic consecrations, relics and saints, amulets

and images. Thus there is poured into the church the M^hole
current of religious materialism, which seeks to realize the
spiritual and eternal in sensuous, tangible and audible forms.
Christianity is participating in worship, subjection to ecclesiasti-
cal ordinances. The sacred symbols are commended to the mul-
titude, and the spirit of reverence for them cultivated
as in the
" dreadful hour " when the ** terrible mystery " of the eucha-
rist is presented (cf. Chrysost. de sacerdot. iii. 4 ; ep. ad Olym-
piad. 2. 2 init.; the 9th homily upon repentance). This is rep-
resented as Christian piety. The same may be said of all parts
of the "second order of Christianity," and even of the mys-
tery of the dogmatic formulary itself. The interest of the popu-
lace in the dogmatic controversies was, after all, only that of
veneration for a formula. There is nothing left to awaken de-
vout longings and hold reverence in the ** beholder " (Dionys.
Ar.) but the venerated symbol. Thus visible sacred symbols
were relied upon to lead the soul to the vision of the spiritual
" Since it is not possible for the spirit in our state to pass through
to that immaterial imitation and contemplation of the heavenly
hierarchies unless it makes use of the material guidance to it, we
regard the visible beautiful things as reflections of the invisible
loveliness, and the sensible odors as typifications of the spiritual
largess, and the material lights as images of the immaterial
glory, and the sacred doctrines as channels for the satisfying of
the mind contemplatively. . In which way he would lead
.
us through things sensible to things spiritual " (Dionys. coel.

hier. 1.3; eccl. hier. i. 2, 4, 5 ; 3. 2 " the multitude catching.
:
a glimpse only of the divine symbols;" 3. 3. 12; 4. 3. i).

It is the flourishing period of the arcana discipUna.
2. This reveals the fundamental thought of the work of
DiONYSius Areopagita, which became so influential in the East.

() Christianity is the representation of the ladder of sacred
symbols, mysteries, consecrations, which come down from God
to men through the medium of divinely-enlightened hierarchs
and the persuading of men to climb upward upon the ladder of
these mysteries to God. Grace reveals itself in a complex of
purifying and consecrating mysteries. In this connection, the
** hierarchy "
in a way peculiar to the Orient
finds its place.
(/^) God is the unpredicated, supersubstantial Existence.

This
"primeval source" (div. nom. i. 3, 5), this "darkness above
light" (theol. myst. i. i), this "unapproachable Light," and

this "divine darkness" (ep. 5) is not approachable to man.
But God allows himself to be known by man by means of the
GREEK CHRISTIANITY. 29I
hierarchical ladder, (if) The hierarchy is hence a sacred order

and agency through which God, extending his energies from
person to person, purifies, illuminates and perfects or actually,
deifies those whom these energies reach (coel. hier. 3. i, 2 ;
7. 2, 3; 9. 2 ; 10. 2; 12. 2 ; eccl. hier. i. i, 3 ; 5. i. 4, 7 ; 6. 3. 6,
1,3: " For as one, in speaking of all taken together, calls the
order of the priests a hierarchy, so evidently, when speaking of
the chief priest (hierarch), he means the inspired and divine
man who presides over all sacred knowledge. The source . . .
of this hierarchy is the fountain of life the one cause .
of existing things, the Triad, from whom come both existence

and prosperity to existing things through his goodness. . .
And this is the common aim of the entire hierarchy, an intimate

affection for God and divine things the gnosis of existing
.
things, in which all things exist the vision and understand-

. . .
ing of sacred truth, the inspired impartation of the unique per-

fection of this One as far as possible, the feast of contemplation
spiritually nourishing and deifying him who attains to it").
(^) This hierarchy is primarily the heavenly hierarchy of angels,
which in its three orders bears a graduated relation to the Deity
(coel. hier. 4-9). Through it God revealed himself under the
old covenant (ib. 4. 3). Then follows the earthly hierarchy,
whose source, essence, and power is Jesus, the supremely-deified
and supersubstantial mind (u d-sapyuayrazo^; vod? y-oi OTzepohaut's').
Through him, or the Holy Trinity, according to the declarations
of the sacred Scriptures, the hierarch is filled with divine knowledge
and inducted into the '^sacred and spiritual vision" (ib. i. 2,
3; 3. 2. I fin.; 3. 3. 14). But there is here also a three-fold
gradation (hierarch, priest, deacon), which is regarded as ab-
sorbing God, not in a local way, but according to capacity (ep.
8. 2), in which process purity becomes the portion of the dea-
cons, illumination that of the priests, and perfection that of the
hierarchs (cf. ib. 5. i. 5, 6 ; 6. 3. 5). Furthermore, the in-
cumbents of the higher orders possess also the endowments of the
lower (ib. 5. 3. 7). (^) By means of the sacred mysteries, the
hierarchs perform their official duties toward the people, purify-
ing, enlightening, and perfecting them. These symbols are
baptism (ib. 2), the eucharist (ib. 3), the holy oil (ib. 4), the
consecration of the priesthood (ib. 5), monastic consecration
** possessors of the most
(ib. 6 : perfect philosophy"), conse-
crations and prayers for the dead (ib. 7). The aim of all these
symbolical acts is union with God through the luxurious contem-
plation of his Being (coel. hier. 3. 2; eccl. hier. i. 3):
''Trinity more than nature, more than God, and more than
good \Thou guardian of the wisdom of Christians, lead us to
-92 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
themore than unknown and more than lofty and unapplauded

summit of the mystic doctrines, where the simple and absolute
and unchangeable mysteries of theology are veiled in the more-
than-light darkness of the crypto-mystic science, shining with
superlative brilliancy in the superlatively dark, and more than
filling unfettered souls in the absolutely intangible and invisible
(realm) of super-lovely glories" (theol. myst. i init.),^
Rightly did a philosopher term our author a ''patricide" (ep.
7. 2). The Neo-Platonic premises of this opponent of heathen-
ism are everywhere very apparent. ^' All transitory things are
but a parable the insufficient here is that which occurs."

Such is the Neo-Platonism of the Areopagite. It is a distinct
expression of the Greek Christianity of a later period. The
Christianity of dogmatic formulas has been paralyzed by the de-
votional symbols, although the veneration of formulas finds in
this very devotional tendency its strongest support. The great
majority were satisfied with the formula, and the latter might
easily become a mere formula of enchantment.
3. Recognizing this fact, we feel that less importance attaches
to the separate doctrines presented by the Areopagite. We must
constantly keep in mind his fundamental principle. Greek
Christianity evolved no ''dogmas," in the strict sense of the
term, except those above discussed. We note particularly the
lack of interest in matters pertaining to personal religious life.
Men spoke of sin and grace with the same unsophisticated piety,
or unsophisticated rationalism, in the centuries following as in
those preceding the Nicene period. The problems which held
the interest of Augustine leave no trace in the East. Yet it
would be incorrect to regard the Oriental church as Pelagian, as
the problem upon which Pelagius and Augustine joined issue
does not even occur to their minds.
The state of man fallen into sin is, after as before the Nicene
age, painted in the darkest colors. The devil has gained posses-
sion of the soul ; the serpent dwells as a second soul within our
own (Macar. hom. 15. 35, 49): " Thus the evil prince clothed
the soul and its whole substance with sin, and polluted it entire,
and made it entire a prisoner to his kingdom, and did not release
nor set free from him a single part, not the reasoning powers, nor
the spirit, nor the body, but he clothed the soul in a garment of
darkness. . . The evil one put upon the whole soul, z. e.^
.
^ Observe the transcendental character of the Neo-Platonic conception of
God. Of God, as the Absolute Existence, everything existent must be affirmed

and again denied (div. nom. i. 5-7; 7. 3; theol. myst. 3-5, cataphatic and
apophatic theology). This accounts for the many combinations with vtrep and
a privitive in the Areopagite.
'
.
the essentialmember and part of man, its malady, i. ^., sin, and
thus the body became passible and mortal" (Macar. h. 2. i ;
Marcus Erem. c. Nestor. 18). Thus the whole man, with all
his powers, is imbued with sin. He is separated from God.
The devil holds sway over his soul. Sensuality overpowers the
reason. Man, originally destined for immortality, becomes
transitory and subject to death
in all things the very opposite of
his original character and condition (Greg, Nyss. cat. 5
Athanas. c. gent. 3 f. Dionys. eccl, hier. 3. 3. 11). He has
forfeited grace and boldness toward God, and has won for him-
self *' mortality and the dullness of the flesh." He is '* sen-
tenced to death" and ''subject to perdition" (Joh. Dam. iii.
i), the emphasis being laid finally upon the latter. Sin is at the
same time regarded not so much in the aspect of guilt as in that
of infirmity or weakness
of mortality and death. This is a
different attitude from that of the West.
It directs the thoughts
not only upon the forgiveness of sins, but upon the contemplation
of the state of sin and its conquest by means of a ncAV inner
life.
That the entire human race fell into this condition through the
fallof Adam is acknowledged. But, although the idea of the in-
heritance of sin may at times appear to be advanced (Greg. Nyss.
cat. 16 :
'* of human birth teaches
The pleasurable pain
the beginning of death, having been made in one, has passed
through upon the whole human nature" (de orat. 5): ''to
speak again of the common debts of human nature, in which
each and everyone who shares the lot of nature bears a part '
(Oehler iii. 300. Dionys. Ar. eccl. hier. 3. 3. 11 " Having :
had its origin in corrupt births, it naturally pursues its course in

a way conformable to its beginning " ) yet it is only meant, after
,
all, that since Adam the human race has been subject to corrup-
tion. In view of the conflict between the spiritual and the sen-
suous inclinations of man, it is difficult, or altogether impossible,
to abstain entirely from sin (C^reg. Nyss. 1. c, p. 302). Hence
we occasionally find new-born children referred to as "sinless "
(Cyril, cat. 4. 19 init. ); or we read of "many" who have kept
themselves "free from sin" (as Jeremiah and John); or the
opinion is expressed that this would have been possible if obedi-
ence had been rendered to the law (Athanas. c. Arianos serm.
^^^-
ZZ ^^ incarn. 12). Commenting upon Rom. 5. 19, Chrys-
\
ostom remarks that it is inconceivable that we should have become

sinners through Adam's sin, but that we through Adam's sinning
and becoming mortal have also become mortal. It is not meant
that all are in Adam sinners, but that we have through him be-
come mortal and thereby lost the power to give to the spirit
:
dominion over sensuality. The terrible thing is not guilt, but

subjection to death. '* But whence
did the evil spirit come and
take up its abode with him ? It first assailed him from with-
out through the hearing, then proceeded through his heart, and
took possession of his whole being, and thus, he being subjugated,
the whole creation beneath and above him was carried along
with him " (the illustration of a chained nobleman with his vas-
sals led after him has been used in the context). ** For through
him death gained dominion over every living soul and darkened
the whole likeness of Adam on account of. his sin, so that men
were transformed and came to the worship of demons " (Macar.
horn. II. 5 12. i).
; cf. Marcus Eremita says likewise, that,
since Adam had been given over to death on account of his sin,
'*we have all, whether sinners or righteous, fallen from eternal
life" (adv. Nestor. 18). Only death and not sin, properly
speaking, is inherited. The latter is expressly denied by Marcus
(de baptism. Gallandi viii. 50 D 54 B). ;
Thus Adam is to
blame for the wretchedness which has resulted, since it was
through him that death gained the mastery and ruined the origi-
nal image of Adam in us. There has, however, remained to
man the Ubei'ty of deciding for God when grace is offered to him.
This is the conclusion to which the view in question leads. The
soul is free and lord of itself; the devil cannot drive it to do
anything against its will, and God will not do so, since right-
eousness would otherwise not receive its merited crown (Cyril.
cat. 4. 21. Macar. h. 15. 40 27. 9, 1 1. Joh. Dam. ii. 25 ff.).
;
There still remains something good, therefore, in every man. It

is his inner nature, his reason, or free will. Only a stimulus is
needed, and man can then decide in favor of the good. But the
free will is always in such connections innocently embraced in
the thought, as a ''good co-operation (truv^pysia ayai^) for the
attainment of salvation*' (Maxim, i. 414). But it is also often
strongly insisted that no one can by his own strength overcome
or drive out sin, and that to accomplish this divine help is always
necessary (Macar. h. 2. 4; 3.4. Greg. Naz. or. 37. 13). ''Audit
is not the case, as some, misled by false doctrines, say, that man is-
totally dead and utterly unable to do anything good. For even

a child, although it is not able to accomplish anything, nor to
walk upon its feet to its mother, yet rolls upon the ground and
calls and cries because it yearns for its mother. And this moves
the mother's heart to pity, and she is pleased that her child, with
struggle and outcry, seeks to come to her. And although the
child cannot come to her, yet the mother, in view of this great
yearning of the child, goes to it, constrained by love for the
child, takes it up and cherishes and feeds it, with great love
this does also the man-loving God for the soul that approaches
and yearns for him" (Macar. h. 46. 3). It may be said, in
brief, that the Fathers of this period remained throughout the
entire range of their teaching upon the basis of the second and
third centuries (vid. supra, p. 115 f., 139, 157). The fall of
Adam made us mortal, giving free reign to sensuality. Since
Adam, we are all sinners. Without his help there is no salvation.
But we, by virtue of our liberty, may secure and accept his
assistance.
4. The redemption achieved by Christ brings salvation. Here,
too, the ideas of the past are adopted, without reduction or re-
vision. In accordance with the conception of the primitive
church, salvation is, first of all, dependent upon the death of
Christ. The Damascene summarizes as follows ** For the whole

:
activity and wonder-working of Christ is most great and divine

and wonderful but his precious cross is the most wonderful of
;
all. For by nothing else was death destroyed, the sin of our
first parent atoned for, hell despoiled, resurrection bestowed,
power given to us to disdain things present and death itself, the

restoration to original blessedness accomplished, the gates of par-
adise opened, our nature seated at the right hand of God, we
made children of God and heirs of heaven butthrough the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. For through the cross have
all things been set right " (fid. orth. iv. 11 ; cf. iii. 20). This,
of course, does not set forth all the ideas accepted in the period,
as such summaries never do (Eusebius demonstr. ev. iv, 12 and
esp. Epiphan. ancor. 65). The ancient ideas are developed
more at length the innocent Christ became a sacrifice, a ran-
:
som, which was brought to the Father that we might be made

free from condemnation (Joh. Dam. iii. 27). It is also asserted
that he intercedes with the Father for us (Greg. Naz. or. 30.
14). ,0n the other hand, he has by his death freed us from the
dominion of the devil (ib. iv. 4. Dionys. eccl. hier. s- -^S- i^)-
At the same time we find in'its crassest form the idea, that he ran-
somed us from the devil by making satisfaction for Adam's guilt
(Macar. h. 11. 10). The devil had a certain right to man,
whom he had made his slave through lust. The justice of God
prevented him from snatching us from the devil by force. There-
fore Christ was offered to him as an object of exchange and ran-
som. In this is displayed the kindness of God toward us, and
his justice toward the devil. But his wisdom also appears in the
transaction. In order not to alarm the devil at the outset, the
divinity of Christ is concealed in the flesh. With the bait of
the flesh the devil swallows also the fishhook of the divinity.
Since life now appears in death, death is brought to nought.
The devil outwitted (thus Greg. Nyss. cat. 22-24; cf. Cyril.
is
cat. 12. Gregory of Nazianzum, indeed, rejected this
15).
offering of a ransom to the devil as outrageous (J>^pt^)j as did
also the Damascene (Greg. or. 45. 22 ; Joh. fid. orth. iii. 27):
but they did not altogether break away from the idea (vid. Greg.
or. 39. 13. Joh. fid. orth. iii. i). In this, as in the sacrifice
brought to God, is manifested the goodness, justice, and wis-
dom of God (Cyril, cat. 13. 33. Greg. cat. 23. Joh. Dam.
iii. i).^
But the real central thought of the Greeks in connection with
the doctrine of redemption was, after all, a different one. The
conceptions of sin which we have traced are based not so
much upon the idea of deliverance from the torment of the devil
and from the wrath of God, as upon the thought that we are to
receive life and be freed from the power of the devil. The con-
trolling conception here was that, since God himself entered the
human race in Christ, humanity has been deified and made im-

mortal a conception which may be traced back through Atha-
nasius, Methodius, Irenseus, and Ignatius to John, We have
cited passages of this character from Athanasius, the Cappado-
cians, and Cyril of Alexandria (supra, pp. 212 ff., 251, 255).
*' For, since he has made
us partakers of his own image and his
own spirit, and we have not guarded it, he in exchange became
partaker of our dull and weak nature, in order that he might
purify and immortalize us, and make us again partakers of his
divinity" (Joh. Dam. iv, 13). Since one member of the body
of humanity (Christ's body) becomes immortal, the whole body
of humanity becomes so just as when anyone of all the race is
:
* *
alive, the resurrection of the part, being communicated from the

part to the whole, penetrates the whole in consequence of the
continuity and unity of the nature" (Greg. Nyss. cat. 32).
The Logos assumed a man, who became a divine man
'
'
(^y,uptaxo<i a'Apw-Ko^') in Order that we might thereby become

what he is. The Logos became flesh in order that the flesh
might become Logos" (Marc. Er. ad Nicol. 9). The ob-
ject of the creation, and likewise of the incarnation, is that we
may secure a part in the divine nature and in eternity (Maxim.
1 Also the power of God : That the almighty nature is even able to conde-
scend to the humble things of humanity is a greater display of power than the
great and supernatural features of the miracles. . . What an overflow of
.
the power that knows no restraint in things beyond nature is the condescension
to humble things (Greg. Nyss. cat. 24 init. ). Gregory denies the charge that
his theory of the outwitting of the devil introduces a fraud, maintaining that
justice demands that the deceiver be deceived, and, moreover, the latter will
by this means be himself restored in the end (ib. 26 as to the restoration, see
;
also 35 fin.).
;
GREEK CHRISTIANITY. 2()7
i. 519, 525). God's will in regard to man is the deification

of the latter (ib. i. 345J. The religious application of
{^'fiujfft^)
these ideas may be studied in Athanasius (vid. supra, p. 212 ff.).

The deification of man is, on the one hand, a mystical concep-
tion. Man is drawn up into the Eternal Existence. In the
symbols of worship the Eternal Existence comes near to him.
He through them feels himself one with God, and has become a
partaker of the divine nature, or of immortality. But these
ideas are always capable of a spiritual interpretation. With them
is intimately connected the thought, that Christ is the lawgiver,
pattern, and example. Christ restores again in and through him-
self the original nobility of human nature together with immor-
tality, but he imparts this to us by teaching us the knowledge of
God and virtue. This idea is very distinctly expressed by John
Damascenus (iv. 4): *' In order that through and in himself he
might restore that which was according to (his) image and like-
ness, and might teach us the excellent way, having through him-
self made it easy of ascent for us, and in order that, having be-
come the first fruits of our resurrection, he might in the fellowship
of life free us from corruption and restore the antiquated and
shattered tabernacle, having called us to the knowledge of God
in order that we might be ransomed from the tyranny of the
devil . . and that he might teach us to overthrow the tyrant
.
by patience and humility." Good works are, therefore, by no

means excluded by the deification of the believer. On the con-
trary, the path of deification is the path of virtue. Man attains
the divine life of Christ by striving for the holy innocence pre-
served by him (Dionys. eccl. hier. 3. 3. 12. Joh. Dam. iv. 13;
iii. I. Greg. cat. 35).
It remains only to observe how this conception of Soteriology
fits into the general view of Christianity presented by the Areo-
pagite. The consciousness of being deified and immortal was

to be awakened by the mystical worship in its intimate associa-
tion with the imagination and the senses, and the demand for
instruction and ethical inspiration was met by the symbolical
acts. '*How otherwise could the imitation of God be engen-
dered in us than by our having the recollection of the most holy
works of God constantly refreshed in the sacred benedictions and
services?" (Dionys. eccl. hier. 3. 3. 12 init.; cf. 11). The
symbol is the actual presence of that which is symbolized :
'*The sign of Christ (the cross) is, therefore, to be Avorshiped

for wherever the sign is, there will he also be " (Joh. Dam. iv.
II, p. 265). We
must, therefore, be careful not to understand
the term, deification, which has a strange sound to our ears, in a
one-sided, physical way, as do Ritschl and Harnack. There is
not lacking in it, indeed, the hyperphysical hypnosis of natural

mysticism, wrought by means of the holy symbols. But this
does not exhaust its content. It always embraces also the in-
ward, gracious, moralistically conceived influence of Christ.
The worshiper becomes one with the immortal Christ, but this
embraces as a means the keeping of his commandments and the
imitation of his divine life.
5. This bring us to the means by which salvation is to be ap-
propriated. With the increased importance attached to the
forms of worship is intimately associated a comparative neglect
of indoctrination looking to the moving of the will. Of course,
there is still some effort to arouse the will by instruction and the
Scriptures.^ But the chief means relied upon were the formula
and form of worship. Worship naturally centred about the
ancient ecclesiastical sacraments (especially the eucharist). To
these were added further mysteries (chrism, priestly and mon-
dead ; see the Areopagite, p.
astic consecration, prayers for the
291). Then followed a whole array of mystic signs and conse-
crations. Thus there was a veneration of the cross, the nails,
the lance, the clothes of Christ, the manger, the socket of the
cross, etc. (Joh. Dam. iv. ii. Cyril, cat. 4. 10; 13. 6). The
saints who intercede for us in heaven are to be adored (e. g.j
Greg. Naz. or. 43. 80), as also the " mother of God '*
(e. g., Greg. Naz. or. 24. 11. Joh. Dam. iv. 16) and the
relics of the saints: '* Christ the Lord gives us as fountains of
salvation the relics of the saints, pouring forth blessings in many
ways, distilling the oil of a sweet odor. Let no one neglect
them" (Joh. Dam. iv. 15, p. 278). Amulets and images must
be added to the list (<?. ^. Chrysost. ad cat. 2. 5. Joh. Dam.
,
iv. 16). These were all means of salvation, ''for where the
sign is, there will he himself also be " (p. 297). But to what
an extent this paganized Christianity, with its demoralizing faith
in miracles and demons, had forced its way into the church, may
be seen most strikingly in the biographies of the holy ascetics.^
* See e. g. Macar. hom. 39 : The Holy Scriptures are letters of the King to
us. Similarly Chrysost. in 2 Thes. hom. 3. 4. We meet very frequently in the

homilies of Chrysostora discussions of the practical significance of the reading of
the Scriptures and urgent exhortations to the practice of it; e. g., in Col.
hom. 9. I ; in I Thes. hom. 7. 3 ; in i Tim. horn. 13. I ; in 2 Tim. hom. 8.
3. 4 ;9. I ; de poenit. hom. 4. i. Vid. also Cyril, catech. 4. 35 ; 9. 13 ; 16.
2; 17. 34. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, in Zahn, Gesch. d. Kanons ii.
212. Marc. Er. de leg. spirit. 4 ff., 24. 87. Upon the pedagogical signifi-
cance of the Bible, see in Eph. hom. 21. i ff, cf. Basil, serm. 22. 2 (de
;
legendis libr. gentilium, ep. 2. 3). Also, Joh. Dam. iv. 17. In addition to
this is the reading of the Scripture in religious services, see Dionys. eccl.
hier. 3. 2 ; 3. 3. 4. and the liturgies.
2 Harnack DG. ii. '* It fell to the lot of monasticism, especially in
442, n.:
These life-portraits make a wonderful impression. Here the

miracle still survives. Here visions and revelations are yet the
order of the day. The old Grecianism appears to be uncon-
quered ; only all has become more crude and coarse. The
entire range of Hellenic superstition finds covert in the manifes-
tations of the Spirit. Yet, in the midst of all these strange
phenomena, it must not be forgotten that there still remained, in
the consciousness of the presence of God, an element of true
religion ; but it is, it must be confessed, a sensualized and exter-
nalized religion. Inclose relationship to these things stood also
the sacraments. Under the circumstances, even the relatively
small interest attaching to each of these must follow the lines of
the general theory of the sacraments. Distinction is made be-
tween the metabolic and the symbolic view ; but there is no good
reason for ascribing credit to the advocates of the former, for it
is commonly among them that the spiritual and religious charac-
ter of Christianity is most seriously misunderstood. In addition

to this, the distinction above noted is a modern one, and cannot
be detected in the period under review. The symbol as was in

a Neo-Platonic way conceived is the reality. In the symbolic
act, the reality itself is received. *'The things sensibly sacred
are images of the things perceived in thought and a guide and
way to them '' (Dionys. hier. eccl. 2. 3. 2). In picture or cross,
in water or in bread and wine, Christ himself is present and is
imparted (cf. also Harnack DG. ii. 429).
6. Of
the separate sacraments, Baptism is effectual in laying
the foundation of the Christian life. It brings to the individual
regeneration and renewal, and makes him a member of the church
(Basil, serm. 13. 4, 7). Hence, in contrast with the misguided
custom of the fourth century, it was urged that its administration
be not postponed (Basil, serm. 13. Greg. Naz. or. 40. Chrys.
adcatechum. i. i, cf. Joh. Dam. iv. 9 fin.). The requirements
for its reception were faith, as a recognition of the doctrine of the
Trinity (Basil, de spir. s. 12. 28. Greg. Nyss. cat. 39. Joh.
Dam. iv. 9), and a penitent frame of mind (Cyril cat. 3. 15).
It effects the blotting out of sins, which are ''washed away as
with a flood" (Chrys. in Rom. horn. 2. 6), and the new life in
Christ; and it bestows immortality. ''Baptism, release to the
imprisoned, the pardon of debts, the death of sin, the new birth
of the soul, a garment of light, an inviolable seal, a chariot to
heaven, an ambassador of the kingdom, the chrism of sonship"
the East, to play the role of mediary between the Christianity of the first and
that of the second type. It contributed, perhaps, more than any other influ-
ence, to introduce the watchwords of the former into the latter and the spirit
of the latter into the former.'*
(Basil, ep. 189. 5, sermo 13. 5 closely following Cyril, procat.

16 init. Greg. Nyss. cat. 33, 35). There are references also to
the dying of the old and the arising of the new man, as set forth
in Rom. 6. If we meet the term *' forgiveness of sins" fre-
quently, the idea conveyed by it is that of a xdiâp<7tq or xai^dpfftov,
i. e, , the cleansing, or blotting out, of sin in the individual (Chrys.
ad catechum. i. 3. Greg. Naz. or. 39. i, 14. Cyril cat. 3.

4): although '' not indeed completely banishing " (Greg. Nyss.
cat. 35). But baptism imparts to the individual the obligation
and impulse to ** follow Christ by imitation." It is now his
duty, striving to walk in the footsteps of Christ, to contend
against sin, and thus, since God has healed the wounds of the
past, to guard against new offenses in the future, or to heal them
by repentance (Cyril, cat. 18. 20; cat. myst. 2. 5, 6. Basil, de
sp. s. 15. 35 ; sermo 13. i fin. Greg. Nyss. cat. 35,40. Const,
ap. ii. 7. Chrys. ad catechum. i. 4. Dionys. eccl. hier. 2.
3. 7. Joh. Dam. iv. 9, 13). With this, the sacrament assumes
a tangible and practical character. The mystery in some way
blots out sin, but its chief significance lies in its symbolic stimu-
lus to the recipient himself to strive against sin and overcome it.
The question as to the relation between the visible symbol and
the divine agency is answered by ''the divine being present with
the occurrences," or "by the ceremony being performed in ac-
cordance with divine directions" (Greg. Nyss. cat. 34). The
important point was, that the presence of God is not lacking in
the observance of the outward symbol :
'
for the things seen are
'
symbols of the things spiritually discerned " (Joh. Dam. iv. 9).
Essentially, it made but little difference whether it was said :
*' if
there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of the
water, but from the presence of the Spirit" (Basil, sp. s. 15.
'' sanctifying power dweUing in the water
"
35), or whether the
(Cyril, cat. 3. 3 ; but see also cat. myst. 2. 5) was spoken of, or
it was said :
'* By the energy of the Spirit the visible water is
transmuted {fivatTror/^ziouTaC) into a certain divine and inde-

scribable power, and it furthermore sanctifies those among whom
it maybe found " (Cyril. Al. in Joh. under 3. 5, Mi. 73. 245).
Under all forms of expression, there is the conception of the

mystery which has been above outlined. But he who has now
become pure in baptism must contend against sin, and, if he is
overcome, repent, since repentance (/lerdvoca) is the fulfillment
of the commands of Christ. In accordance with the Greek
conception of sin, the idea in repentance was not only the sail >
faction rendered to God in order to secure forgiveness, as in the
West, but rather a discipline for amendment, an inward purifica-
tion and sanctification. Thus Clement and Origen had regarded
;
GREEK. CHRISTIANITY. 30I
the matter (vid. supra). Something of this idea long lingered^

even in the presence of the ecclesiastical ordinance of penitential
discipline. The duty of confessing all their sins
even their secret

thoughts which was imposed by Basil upon the monks, was not,
indeed, extended to the laity (vid., e. g.^ Chrysost. hom. 4 ; in
Laz. 4); but the injunction to confess sin to God, in order
thereby to deepen one's own conviction of sin, was often re-
peated in homiletic exhortations (ib.). Upon the history of
the ordinance of public repentance in the Greek church the
History of Doctrines has no occasion to enter (cf. Holl, 1. c,
p. 240 ff.).
The EUCHARIST is, above all, enwrapped
in the awe of mystery,
as the chief symbol Dionys. hier. eccl. iii. i; 2.
(âf>yj(Tu(i6ohiv^
i,,c|. supra, p. 290), since all the angels hover around the priest
as he offers the 'awful sacrifice " (Chrys. desacerd. vi. 4, and ac-
*
counts by him of actual appearances of angels). Regarded from

a dogmatic point of view (cf. Steitz's discussions of the doctrine
of the Greek church concerning the Lord's Supper, in Jarbb. f.
d. TheoL, vols, ix.-xiii.), we may distinguish a more scientific
symbolic tendency from the practical metabolic view, a differ-
ence which did not, however, produce any actual conflict (cf. p.
Basil says, for example ** He called his whole mystic
299). :
life (^^Trtdrjfj.ia') flesh and blood, and taught a doctrine composed

of practical and natural and theological elements, by which the
soLil is nourished and meanwhile prepared for the contemplation
of things existing " (ep. 8. 4 fin.). Other teachers speak in a

similar way of spiritual food, or spiritual reception of the flesh .of
Christ (Athan. ad Scrap, iv. 19; in ps. 80. 17. Macar. horn. 27.
17). But it is not hereby intended to question a real presence
of Christ. The difference between this and the metabolic view
is, therefore, not so great. The latter regards Christ as himself
miraculously dwelling in the elements. This is very plainly
taught by Cyril of Jerusalem in his *' mystagogical catechisms."
By means of the invocation, the miracle of Cana is repeated
the bread becomes body, and the wine blood (i. 7 ; iii. 3 ; iv.
1,2). We are not to allow ourselves to be deceived by the sense
of taste (iv. 6, 9). On the contrary, we call upon God '' to
send forth the Holy Spirit upon that which lies before us, in
order that he may make the bread the body of Christ and the
wine the blood of Christ. For, if the Holy Spirit should touch
would be sanctified and changed QieraSioXrirat').''^
this at all, it
But with this we must also keep in mind the declaration For in
:
'
'
the type of bread is given to thee the body, and in the type of
wine is given to thee the blood, in order that, partaking of the
body and blood of Christ, thou mayest become of the same body
and blood (^(TfjfTf7a)/xo<^ a.nd aovaqxof^) with him" (iv. 3). Now this
body of Christ imparts itself to our body and makes it a partaker
of the divine nature (iv. 3; v. 15), and thus the eucharist
works for us immortality. The Origenist, Gregory of Nyssa^ ex-
presses himself in essentially the same way in his 'Marge cate-
chism " (c. 37 ) . As the soul is purified in baptism through faith,
so the eucharist bestows an antidote for the poison which has pene-
trated the body *' The body (of Christ) immortahzed
: by God,
being in ours, tranforms and changes the whole into that body
itself." Bread and wine, as the natural means of nourishment,
are the potency of every body, including that of Christ. Hence,
it is said: ** Well do we, therefore, now believe that the
bread consecrated by the word of God is transformed into
the body of the divine Logos." But the design of t,îs is
''in order that, by this union with the immortal, man might
also become a partaker of incorruptibility." During the
Christological controversies it became customary to regard
the body of Christ, spoken of in connection with the Lord's
Supper, as identical with the body which the Lord bore when
on earth (thus Cyril. Al., supra, p. 262, cf. Chrys. in Tit.
hom. 2. 4; in Eph. hom. 3. 3). Here again the Damascene
summarizes the thought for us (orth. fid. iv. 13): He who
framed for us a body from the blood of the Virgin, by the power
of the Spirit also changes bread and wine into body and blood.
The elements are now not a type of the body and blood " (pp.
'
'
271, 273), nor are they the body come down from heaven but ;
they are transformed : The body is truly the body from the
*
'
Holy Virgin united with divinity, not that the ascended body
comes down from heaven, but that the bread and wine are
transformed into the body and blood of God" (p. 269). A
remarkable conclusion, which reveals how little of a religious
character attaches to this system The purpose of the bestowal
!
of the body and blood is the forgiveness of sins

but, above all,
unification with Christ and this means deification, or the
;
bestowal of immortality (pp. 271, 272). To this is added

"
''communing, and being through this united with one another
(P- 273>
Side by side with this line of interpretation runs the other,
which regards the eucharist in the light of the unbloody, mystic,
*
'
God -appeasing sacrifice," as a repetition of the sacrifice of

Christ (Euseb. vit. Const, iv. 45. Joh. Dam. de imag. or. 2. 17.
Chrysost. de poenit. hom. 9), which only a priest can adminis-
ter (Chrysost. de sacerd. iii. 4, 5 ; vi. 4), and which is efficacious
for the living and the dead (Eus. 1. c. iv. 71. Chrysost. in i
Cor. hom. 41. 5 init. Greg. Naz. ep. 240).
ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSIES. 303
28. Iconoclastic Controversies. Final Dogma of the Greek

Church.
Literature. Vid. the Byzantine chronographies in Corp. sacr. hist. Byz.,
esp. Theophanes Chronographia, edited by De Boor, 1883. For details of
the proceedings, vid. M. Act. cone, xii., xiii. JoH. Damasc. de imaginibus
orat. tres. Theodor. Studita, opp., in Mi. 99. Also the modem delinea-
tions of Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. x. Hefele CG. iii., ed. 2, 366 ff. Her-
genrother, Kirchengesch. I, 528 ft. Harnack DG. ii. 450 ff. Schwarz-
LOSE, Der Bilderstreit ein Kampf der griech. Kirche um ihre Eigenart u. um
ihre Freiheit, 1890. Thomas, Theod. von Studion u. seine Zeitalter, Leipz.,
1892. Bonwetsch, pre. iii., ed. 3, 222 ff.
The 36th canon ofthe synod of Elvira (A. D. 306, or, per-
haps, as early as A. D. 300) reads ^^ It seems good to us that
:
there ought not to be pictures in the church, nor should that

'
which is worshiped and adored be painted upon the walls. This '
principle was carried out also in decisions and in action (Eus. ep.
ad Constantiam, Mi. 20. 1545, cf. h. e. vii. 18. Epiph. opp.
ed. Dindorf iv. 2, p. 85). But it was not the view of the theo-
logians which influenced public conviction in the matter, but
the latter compelled the acquiescence of the teachers {ê.g., in
Joh. Dam. or. i. 27; 2. 23; 3. 42). It was an outgrowth of
the exaggerated culture of mysteries (p. 290).^
That an assault upon images should cause a profound excite-
ment, may be readily understood. It is not so easy to discern the
motive which prompted it. Neither respect for the Jews nor re-
gard for the Saracens can have been the stimulating force. The
Emperor Leo the Is auri an appears to have received the suggestion
from Phrygia (Bishop Constantine of Nicolaea). To a man
holding a legalistic conception of the Old Testament, the idea
seemed self-evident (the imperial edict based its argument upon
the Old Testament prohibition of images, Ex. 20. 4 ; 2 Ki. 18
4; cf. Joh. Dam. or. i. 4ff. , and the first letter of Pope
Gregory to the emperor); and it was as natural for the emperor
to command the church in the matter as the limitation of the
latter's power was desirable.^ In A. D. 726 the emperor forbade
the worship of images (Hefele iii. 378 ff. ), on the ground that
they take the place of the idols of the heathen, and that the
worship of them is forbidden in the Scriptures. We dare not
worship ** stones, walls, and boards." With the approval of the
patriarch Anastasius, the agitation was renewed in A. D. 730.
Energetic opposition was at once aroused upon the part of the
^ The controlling idea, that God is present in pictures of the Deity, is an-
tique (see the Apologeles) and Neo-Platonic (see Zeller, Philos. der Griechen
iii. 2,ed. 3, pp. 626, 697).

The discussion by Schwarzlose (p. 45 ff. ) of the imperial *' politics " is
not satisfactory.
people as well as among the theologians, e. g., Germanus of

Constantinople (in M. xiii. 100 ff.), Gregory II. of Rome
(M. xii. 959 fF. ), John of Damascus (Mi. 94. 1227 fF. ).
Appeal was made to tradition and custom, to the miracles
wrought through the images, to which at any rate only venera-
tion (^nf>i)rTx6\'7j(7(.^) and not worship (^Xarpeia) was rendered, to
the cherubim, etc. The Roman bishop also reflected that '* the
dogmas of the church are not an affair of the emperor, but of
the bishops," and pointed to the position of Peter ''whom the
kingdoms of the West regard as the earthly God," at the same
time, in the most offensive manner, charging the emperor with
outrageous folly. ^
John of Damascus published a comprehensive defense of the
images. The images of Christ and' the saints may and must be
honored, not, indeed, by divine worship (or. 3. 29 ff.), but by
veneration. God himself is the originator of the use of images,
having sanctioned it by the method of Old Testament revelation,
the forms of Old Testament worship, and his own visible ap-
pearance in Christ (or. 3. 12, 18, 21 ff., 26; i. 14, 20 ff.).
Everything on earth is a picture of God ( i 11). . The spiritual,
and, therefore, the revelation of God, can be revealed to us only
through matter (S-iij). We honor the images just as we honor
the gospels, the eucharist, the cross, the spear and sponge, or

Golgotha (i. 16; 2. 14, 19) not the materials composing
them as such (2. 19), but as being bearers of the divine.
The controlling idea of the age here finds expression '^ Things :
made by our hands are holy, leading us through matter

to the immaterial God (2. 23), through bodily vision to
spiritual vision" (3. 12, 25). We must either surrender
our veneration for the "parchments of the gospels" writ-
ten with ink, and for the elements of the eucharist, or ac-
knowledge *' the veneration of images of God and of the pre-
cious things consecrated to the name of God, and thus over-
shadowed by the grace of the divine Spirit " (2. 14). Images
are, therefore, means of grace, since the material copy brings to
us God himself Ctherefore I revere, aiSo), and through the
unseen draw near and venerate, the material object through which
salvation comes to me. But I revere it not as divine, but as
filled with divine energy and grace," 2, 14). Such character is
"
possessed by them not only as the '' books of the unlearned
(3. 9). Hence, to deny them veneration is Manichasism (i. 16 ;
^ Schwarzlose's attack upon the genuinenessof the two letters of Gregory
has not convinced me. We may, at the most, acknowledge some alterations,
which may perhaps be charged to the account of a contemporary Byzantine
translator, who was familiar with the writings of the Damascene upon imagr--:.
ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSIES. 305
2. 13). Not only does God himselfj with his whole revelation
to man, thus defend the veneration of images, but it is just as
fully supported by the tradition of the church (i. 27, 23 2.
;
23 ;3. 42). To abandon the veneration of images is a worse

offense than fornication (3. 13). At any rate, the emperor has
nothing to do with the inner life of the church : The emperor's
*
'
sphere is the right conduct of political affairs; the management

of ecclesiastical affairs is the province of pastors and teachers
"
(2. 12).
To the punctilious legality and Csesaropapy of the emperor is here
opposed the historically well-defined Greek Christianity, not with-
out suggesting the idea in spite of recent events
of the inde-
pendence of the church. In so far the worshipers of images
were right. But it is Christianity as represented in the lower
form which magically sinks the spiritual in the material (^. g.,
power of images against demons, i. 27, p. 231; miracles per-

formed by them, i. 22; 3. 41 hence religious veneration).
In this
impartially considered lies the error of the image
worshipers, and of the piety of the church which they repre-
sented.
It must be left to Church History to trace the outward course of
the resulting controversies. Constantine V. (Copronymus, A.
D. 741-775) proceeded against the images with the greatest
energy, particularly after an insurrection of their defenders under
his brother-in-law, Artabasdus, had most seriously endangered
his throne. A
general council was now planned to set the stamp
of ecclesiastical authority upon the emperor's view. It met at
Constantinople, A. D. 754 (see the /loros of the council in
M. xiii. 205 ff. ). Since the devil could not tolerate the adorn-
ment of '* glorious doctrines " in the church, he was constantly
re-introducing idolatry. As God in ancient times equipped the
apostles to contend against ancient idolatry, so now has he en-
dowed the apostolic emperors with the spirit of wisdom for the
conflict against images. The council realizes that the ** iniqui-
tous art of painting" reviles the incarnation of Christ, since
Christ can be painted only by a Nestorian separation, or by a
Eutychian confusion, of the divine and the human. Bread and
wine in the Lord's Supper are the only authorized pictures of
Christ. The Scriptures forbid images (Jn. 4. 24 ; Deut. 5. 8 ;
Rom. I. 23, 25, etc.). Accordingly, images dare neither be
made, nor placed in churches or private houses, nor kept in
secret. Any cleric who violates the prohibition shall be removed
from office any layman or monk so transgressing anathematized,
;
in which case he is amenable to the civil law as '* an opponent

of the commandments of God, and an enemy of the dogmas of
20
the Fathers." These decrees were executed with great energy.

The clergy yielded, but the monks resisted. Pictures were de-
stroyed, plastered over, or replaced with landscape and hunting
views. The emperor pursued all who resisted with terrible
cruelty. The monks were treated with special severity. The
emperor went so far as to forbid the veneration of relics and
prayers to the Virgin Mary and the saints (Theophan., p. 439 ;
cf. Cedrenus, hist, compend. ed. Bekkerii., p. 3).
Leo IV. (Chazarus, A. D. 775-780) espoused the principles
of his father, but his cunning and ambitious wife, Irene, was
friendly to the images. After the death of her consort, she felt
herself constrained, in order to retain her position as guardian of
her son, to depend upon the support of the image -venerating
party (cf. Ranke, Weltgesch. v. 89, 91 f.). Advancing by
slow stages, she crowned her efforts by securing the assembly of
the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, A. D. 787. The
members of this council approved the veneration of images, sup-
porting it by the Scriptures (ark of the covenant and cherubim,
Gen. 32. 24), and a great number of patristic citations, and re-
futing at length the horos of A. D. 754. The council's own
horos laid stress upon the assertion, that it held to the doctrines
of the first six ecumenical councils. With respect to images, it
was maintained, with appeal to tradition, that veneration is to be
shown, as to the cross, so also to images of Christ, of the stain-
less lady, the angels and saints, whether depicted in colors or on
stone, upon vessels, clothing, walls, or on the streets: '* for, as
often as they are seen from time to time in pictorial representa-
tion, so often are those who behold them incited to the recollec-
tion of and desire for the prototypes, and to render to them
affection and deep veneration not, indeed,
; true worship accord-
ing to our faith, which is properly rendered only to the divine
nature, but in such a way as to the symbol of the precious and life-
giving cross and to the holy gospels, and to the other sacred ob-
jects, and to make a presentation of incense and lights for the honor
of such, as it was customary among the ancients piously to do.
For the honor rendered to the image passes over to the proto-
'
type. Clerics refusing to conform to these requirements are to
'
be deposed, laymen excommunicated. The decree was sub-

scribed by those present. With loud salutations of the new
Helena and the new Constantine, and with abundant anathemas
against all heretics, especially such as refuse to venerate the
images and reject tradition, the seventh and chief session closed.
A feature of Greek Christianity was saved, but it is a peculiar
illustration of the irony of history, that the same city, Nicaea, in
which the first dogma was framed, was also the birthplace of this
FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS OF AUGUSTINE. 307
last Greek dogma. The two councils of Nicaea mark the course

of Greek Christianity from dogma to images.
The further history of the iconoclastic controversies does not be-
long to the sphere of the History of Doctrines. The restitution of
the images naturally followed, and was accomplished without
bloodshed. The superstitious practices in connection with images
passed all bounds (see passages in Thomas, Theod. v. Studion,
p. loi). The Armenian, Leo V., renewed the warfare against
them. Michael II. (Balbus), and Theophilus followed in his
steps. But the populace and the monks, led by the powerful
abbot of Studion, Theodore, resisted, despite all oppressive
measures (Thomas, p, 98 ff.). Theodora, the wife of Theo-
philus, restored the images, A. D. 842, and in celebration of
this act it was appointed that the '* festival of orthodoxy"
should be annually celebrated.
With this, the dogma of the Greek church reaches its con-
summation ; for neither the separation between the Greek and
Roman churches (Photius, Michael Cerularius, A. D. 1054) nor
the later attempts to unite them (A. D. 1274, 1439) ^^^^ within
the domain of the general History of Doctrines. The same is
to be said of the heretics in the Russian church and the great
schism dating from the age of Nicon, A. D. 1654. The study of
these agitations furnishes nothing beyond what has been pre-
sented in the two preceding paragraphs. As to the conditions
of the present, see especially Le Roy Beaulieu, das Reich der
Zaren, vol. iii.
CHAPTER IV.
foundation of anthropological dogma (sin and grace),

development of the church in the west. doctrine
of augustine.
29. The Fu7idamental Religious Ideas of Augustine and His

Place in the History of Doctrines.
Literature. The Works of Augustine, Maurine ed., 11 vols., Paris,

1679 Reprint edit, tertia Veneta (from which we quote), Migne Lat. 32-
ff.
46. BiNDEMANN,
Cf. Det h. Aug., 3 vols., 1844 ff. BoHRlNGER, Aurel.
Aug., ed. 2, 1877 f. DoRNER, Aug., sein theol. System u. sein rel. phil.
Anschauung, 1873. Reuter, Augustin. Studien, 1887. Harnack DG. iii.
54 ff. Feuerlein, Aug. Stellung in der Kirchen. u. Kulturgesch., Hist.
Ztschr. xxii. 270 ff. DiLTHEY, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaft, i. 335
ff. EuCKEN, Die Lebensanschauungen d. grossen Denker, 1890, p. 258 ff.

Cunningham, Saint Aug. and his Place in the History of Christian Thought,
l88i. Bestmann, Qua rat. Aug. notiones adhib., 1877.
phil. graec.
LOsCHE, DeAug. plotinizante, 1880. Storz, Die Philos. d. h. Aug., 1882.
SciPiO, Des Aur, Aug. Metaphysik im Ramen s. Lehre v.|Ûebel, 1886. SlE-
BECK, Geschichte der Psychologic, i. 2, p. 381 ff.
The general conception of Christianity which prevailed in the

Western church in the third century has been seen (p. i98)tohave
been that of a legal relationship between God and man, whose
result is the salvation of souls (^salus animarurri). *' The whole
foundation of religion and faith proceeds from obedience and

the fear of God
'
{observatioiie ac timore^ Cyprian, de hab. virg.
'
ii.; cf. supra, p. 194 f.). We have seen, further, that in the
Trinitarian and Christological controversies the West maintained
its characteristic position (illustrated in Tertullian, p. 125 f.;
also pp. 237, 255). Nevertheless, the Renaissance movement

in the Eastern church made itself felt even here, as is manifest
in the views of Hilary, and no less in the writings of Ambrose,
who was dependent upon the Cappadocians (especially
largely
Basil), and method of exe-
in the prevalence of the allegorical
gesis (cf. also Jerome). Such a man as the orator Victorinus,
in a way which reminds us of Augustine, applied the Neo-
Platonic theory of ideas in the interest of Trinitarianism and

which is of special interest to us was able to reproduce Paul's
doctrine of justification, although not, indeed, without exhibit-
ing a naive Pelagianism (vid. Mi. viii., also Diet, of Christ. Bio-
graph, iv. 1 1 29 ff. R. Schmidt, M. Victorinus Rhetor, Kiel,
1895). At the same time, the chacteristic ideas of the West were
not lost sight of, but even more fully developed. In the doc-
trines of original sin and grace (where Tertullian is still the
controlling influence, vid. p. 122; cf. also Cyprian and Com-
modian, p. 192), Ambrose largely anticipated Augustine (vid.
supra). The agitation which prevailed throughout the Western
church from the days of Augustine was not without its forerun-
ners. Ambrose was an Augustine before Augustine, and re-
mained for the latter the controlling authority. But such a man as
the Docetic Tyconius likewise prepared the way for Augustine,
not only in his views concerning the church, but also by his em-
phasizing of grace. At this point begin the labors of Augus-
tine, who combined in himself all the elements of the culture
and religion of his age, and yet produced something quite new.
He is the dominating force for the History of Doctrines in the
West during the following periods. The ideas which he ex-
pressed gave birth to the dogmatic history of the West the ;
form of piety which he represented remained as a model, and be-

came one of the most powerful co-efficients in the intellectual
FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS OF AUGUSTINE. 309
and spiritual life of the race. The labors of scholasticism no

lessthan the emotions of the mystics, Roman hierarchy as well
as the antihierarchical parties of the Middle Ages, Rome and
Wittenberg, alike leaned upon him and found support (cf. Reu-
TER, p. 479 ff. ). His formulas, his statement of the perplexing
problems of theology, and his religious temper, are constantly
reappearing as we pursue the subsequent History of Doctrines.
Even where an entirely different spirit is manifest, there is no
escape from the masterful influence of his thoughts and termi-
nology.
The history of his conversion is well known. Aurelius
Augustine (A. D. 354-430) was, despite his fervid sensuous tem-
perament and the errors into which it led him, a noble soul, free
from everything sordid. He was inspired with an intense yearn-
ing after truth and life. A disciple of the IVIanichgeans, he was
won by the glory of the Catholic church (conf. v, 14 ; vi. r. 5,
II ; vii. 19), the examples of her confessors (ib. viii. 2, 5, 6 f.),
and the power of the grace of Christ (ib. vii. 5. i8f.; viii. 8ff.).
The allegorical interpretations of Scripture in the preaching of
the day (ib. vi. 5. 11 ; cf. vii. i), the teaching of Paul (ib. vii.
21 init.; viii. 6), and the spirit of the Neo-platonic philosophy
prepared the way for him into the communion of the church.
The universal significance of Augustine results from his return to
the original Christian temper of soul. He was from his youth
distinguished by an insatiable longing for happiness, life, and
wealth. Not quiet contemplation, but the utmost exertion of
every power, was from the very beginning of his career the ideal
of this daring genius. The will is the essential part of man. It
turns away from God and toward nothingness. It is, accord-
ingly, the cause of all misery. On the other hand, the new will,
inspired by God, /. ^., love, is the real blessing bestowed by di-
vine grace. Only when God's will controls the will of man is
man free (vid. conf. vii. 16. 22; viii. 5. 10 ; xiii. 10. 19; de
civ. dei xxii. 22. i ; de sp. et lit. 30. 52). But God is the
almighty Will, which controls and ordains all things. Over
against and beneath the divine Will, stands the will of man.
To be controlled and permeated by the will of God constitutes
salvation and blessedness. Regarded from this point of view,
religion is subjection to God in love. But from this same point
all the positive and empirical ordinances of the church could ap-
pear to Augustine to exist rightfully, because designed and
appointed by God. But to this principle of Augustine, which,
in the last analysis, rested upon the primitive Christian recogni-
tion of the sovereignty of God and the subjection of the human
will, was added the Neo-Platonic element in Augustine's sphere
'
3IO HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
of thought. Fundamentally considered, it is the will which leads

man to knowledge. That which is willed becomes a constituent
part of the soul, since the latter knows it. '* For certainly
a
thing cannot be loved unless it is known^^ (de trin. x. i. 2). But
knowledge arises not only from the perception of these heavenly
truths. There is innate in the soul an *' interior sense," which
apprehends the nature of things through their intelligible forms
{per intelligibile?7i specie?7ij de civ. dei, xi. 27. 2). This species
iiitelligibilis is not attained, but innate. But here Augustine
launches out into the '' intelligible world " of the Platonic sys-

tem into the contemplation of the ancient fantasies of the origi-
nal forms of all existing things. The contemplation of the eter-
nal becomes for him
in genuinely Greek spirit salvation (cf.
de quaest. oct. 1. 46. 2).
These are the fundamental intellectual lines within which the
thought of Augustine moved. First, voluntarism (God is Will
and man is will love is blessedness). Then, the Neo-Platonic
\
intellectualism (the contemplation of the intelligible world is

blessedness). Both are, in a marvelous way, interwoven,
and over all lies the enchantment of inner and personal expe-
rience.
It was in the midst of earnest struggle that Augustine found
salvation in the fellowship of the living God, of whom he could
so impressively speak. All that he has written bears the marks
of its origin in the depths of his personal life and earnest striv-
ing. There exist for him but two great realities : God and the
Soul. God is hght, truth, life; in the soul dwell darkness,
misery, death. But where the soul lays hold upon God and God
lays hold upon the soul, there is clearness of vision and the power
to do good -there is blessedness, A few citations will best re-
veal this fundamental religious temper of the man: ''What,
therefore, dost thou desire to know ? State briefly. God
. . .
and the soul I desire to know. And nothing more ? Noth-

ing at all." But this limitation of interest is a consequent upon
^^ I
the declaration ; love nothing else but God and the souV^
(soliloq. i. 2, 7 ; viii. 15; xv. 27). '*Thou dost stir us up
to find delight in praising Thee, because Thou hast made us
*
for Thyself, and our heart is restless until it rests in Thee
** For in this I sinned, that I sought pleasures,
(conf. i. i).
sublimities, truths, not in Himself but in his creatures, myself
and others. And thus I rushed into griefs, confusions, errors"
(ib. i. 20). *' Who will give tome that I may find rest in Thee?
Who will give to me that Thou mayest come into my heart and
intoxicate it, so that I may forget my evil ways and embrace Thee
as my only good? Say to my soul I am thy salvation " (ib.
:
FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS OF AUGUSTINE. 31I
i. 5).
**
Too late I have learned to love Thee, Loveliness so
ancient and so new
too late I have learned to love Thee.
And behold, Thou wast within and I without, and there I sought
Thee ; and I, unshapely, rushed upon the shapely things which
Thou hast made. Thou wast with me and I was not with Thee.
Those things held me far from Thee, which would not be if they
were not in Thee. Thou hast called and cried aloud, and broken
through my deafness. Thou hast sparkled and shone and driven
away my blindness. Thou hast broken and allured my spirit,
and I pant for Thee. have tasted, and I hunger and thirst.
I
Thou hast touched me, and I have been consumed with Thy
peace" (ib. x. 27). *'And I sought a way of gaining the
strength that would be capable of enjoying Thee, and I found it
not until I embraced the Mediator between God and men, the
man Christ Jesus " (ib. vii. 18). *^ His coming is his humanity ;
his remaining is his divinity. His divinity is the whither we are
journeying ;his humanity is the where we are journeying. Un-
less he had become for us the where we are journeying, we could
never have come to him where he dwells (in Joh. tr. 42. 8). I
have entered the depths under Thy guidance, and I have been
able, since Thou hast become my helper. I have entered and
have seen, as with a certain eye of my soul, above this same eye
of my soul, above my mind, the unchangeable Light. ... O
eternal Truth and true Love, and lovable Eternity, Thou
art my God. .And since I first have known Thee, Thou
.
hast taken me to Thyself, that I might see that that exists which
I should see, and which I who see am not yet . . and I have
.
trembled with love and terror " (conf. vii. 10). *' For when
I
seek Thee, my God, I seek blessed life. I will seek Thee, that
my soul may live. For my body lives from my soul, and my
soul lives from Thee " (ib. x. 20). '' For me, to cling to
God
is good ; this is the whole good. Do you wish anything more ?
I grieve that you so wish. Brothers, for what more do you wish ?
There is nothing better than to cling to God '* (in ps. 72. 34).
'* God is to be worshiped by faith, hope, love *' fenchirid. iii.;
cf. soliloq. i. 7. 14). ''Give what Thou appointest, and ap-

point what Thou wilt " (conf. x. 37 ;cf. solil. i. i. 5). ''
Do
Thou suggest to me, do Thou show me, do Thou grant me help
by the way . increase in me faith, increase hope, increase
.
love" (solil. i. i. 5). "But there is a delight which is not

given to the wicked, but to those who willingly worship Thee,
whose joy Thou Thyself art. And this is blessed life itself, to
delight one's self toward Thee and on account of Thee ; this it
is, and there is no other " (conf x. 22).
A new spirit breathes through these utterances, and they illus-

;
trate at the same time the enrapturing diction of Augustine.

The very existence of man is sin and misery but God is his
;
salvation not by virtue of fixed laws, not by way of reward

or punishment, but in the direct personal fellowship of life and
love. These are the ideas upon which rests Paul's view of sin
and grace. But Augustine now proceeded, while maintaining
as his central position that above indicated, to unfold his religious
ideas within the lines of the traditional formulas and ideals of the
church. He *' deepened " and transformed the latter. But he
had also from the start demanded submission to the authority
of the church (vid. de utilitate credendi ix. ff. ; c. ep. Mani-
chaei 5.6: '* But I would not believe the gospel, unless the
authority of the Catholic church impelled me " ). This has been
manifest in our study of his Trinitarian and Christological utter-
ances (p. 238). It comes to view again in his doctrine of sin
and grace, as developed in the conflict with Pelagianism, although
here the characteristic religious elements of his theology assert
themselves with peculiar force. In the same light are to be
viewed his utterances touching the church and the sacraments
during the anti-Donatistic controversy, as well as his acceptance
and ennobling of nearly all the teachings of the popular Catholi-
cism. He remains himself almost everywhere, but he is yet, at
the same time, an orthodox Catholic teacher in the church of his
age. He did not, like Origen, develop a theological sj^stem,
but he furnished to his age a wealth of fruitful religious and
speculative ideas, giving back to it in a purified and profounder
form what he received from it. His ^' doctrine " is deficient in
unity, combining the most violent contradictions (gospel and
philosophy, Catholic tradition and religion, voluntarism and in-
tellectualism, etc.); but his writings proved stimulating in an
unparalleled degree. He was a theologian and a philosopher
but he was also more, a religious genius and a great man.
It will be necessary for us to examine (i) His doctrine of
:
the church and the sacraments, in opposition to Donatism. (2)

His doctrine of sin and grace, in opposition to Pelagianism. (3)
His general view of theology and the church, in tracing which we
must follow the lines of his only comprehensive dogmatic work,
the Enchiridion ad Laurentium.
30. Donatistic Controversy and

Further Development of the
Doctrines of the Church and the Sacraments by Augustine.
Literature. Optatus of Mileve, de schismate Donatistarura II. 7 ed.

Ziswa in Corp. scr. eccl. Lat. 26 (written perhaps A. D. 368, but see ii. 3).
Synodal Acts and fragments of the same in M. iv. Original sources in Opp.
Aug. xvii. 2446 ff. Also Deutsch, Drei Aktenstiicke z. Gesch. d. Donat.
DONATISTIC CONTROVERSY. 313
1875. VOlter, Der Ursprung d. Donat, 18S3. Seeck, Quellen u. Urkun-

den iiber die Anfange des. Donat., Ztschr. f. KG. x.505 ff. Ribbeck, Dona-
tus u. Aug., 1858. Hefele, in Wetzer u. Welte's Kirchenlex. iii. ed. 2,
1969 ff. THtJMMEL, Zur Beurteilung des Donatism, 1893. F. Hahn,
Tyconius-Studien (Bonwetsch-Seeberg, Studien zur Gesch. derTheol. a. der
Kirche, vi. 2), 1900. Bonwetsch, PRE. iv., ed. 3, 788 fF. Of the works of
Augustine: c. epistulam Parmeniani, 11. 3 (ca. A. D. 400); de baptismo c.
Donatistas, 11. 7 c. litteras Petiliani, 11. 3 de unitate eccl. (after A. D. 400);
; ;
c. Cresconium, 11. 4 (ca. A. D. 406); de uiiico baptismo c. Petilianum (ca.

A. D. 410); breviculus collationes cum Donatistis (A. D. 411); ad Donatistas
post coUationem (A. D. 412); de gestis cum Emerito (A. D. 418); c. Gau-
dentium 11. 2 (ca. A. D. 420). Upon Aug's conception of the church, vid.
KosTLiN, Die Cath. Auffassung v. d. Kirche in ihrer ersten Ausbildung, in
Deutsche Ztschr. f. chr. Wiss. u. chr. Leben, 1856, p. loi ff. 113 ff. II. ,
Schmidt, Des Aug. Lehre v. d. Kirche, in Jarbb. f. deutsche Theol., 1861,

p. 197 ff. Reuter, Aug. Studien, pp. 231 ff., 47 ff. Seeberg, Begriff d.
Kirche, i. p. 38 ff. Specht, Die Lehre v. d. Kirche nach dem. h. Aug.,
1892. Upon his doctrine of the Sacraments, vid. Hahn, Die Lehre v. d.
Sakr., 1864. DiECKHOFF, Theol. Ztschr., i860, p. 524 ff.
I, The Donatistic Controversy.

(^) The greatest schism in the ancient church arose from per-
sonal and local conditions in the congregation at Carthage. As
in the case of the Novatian schism, a persecution furnished the
occasion. Various courses of action were advocated in North
Africa in response to the demand for the surrender of the Scrip-
tures during the Diocletian persecution. Bishop Mensurius of
Carthage represented the milder view (surrender of other
writings of indifferent character permitted). He and his arch-
deacon Caecilian also opposed the exaggerated veneration of
confessors and martyrs. Secundus of Tigisis advocated a
rigoristic view. After the death of Mensurius, Caecilian, who
was hated by the strict party in Carthage, was chosen bishop
and consecrated to the office by Felix of Aptunga, whom the
strict party regarded as a **traditor. " This election awakened
great indignation among the ^' pious " (Lucilla), which was en-
couraged by the foreign rigorists. The Numidian bishops had
sent Docetus from Casae Nigrae to Carthage as vicar of the
bishopric. An assemblage of 70 bishops in Carthage (A. D.
312) declared the ordination invalid. Majorinus was then
elected Bishop of Carthage. His successor was Donatus the
Great. Through a combination of many influences, this con-
flict led to the formation of two warring churches sharply op-
posing one another, the Catholic and the Donatistic. The pride
of the martyrs, the spirit of piety quickened anew under the
stress of persecution, the idea of the holiness of the church, ar-
chaistic religious reminiscences, the pressure soon brought to
bear by the civil authorities, the league of the Catholic church
with the state, social distress, perhaps also national motives, all
united to expand the personal dispute into the great schism

which distracted the church of Africa for a century. The Afri-
can church was really split in two (in A. D. 330 there were 270
Donatistic bishops at a council, and in A. D. 311, at Carthage,
266). Outside of Africa, Donatism secured no following
worthy of mention (a bishop in Spain and another in Rome are
spoken of, gesta collationis i. 157), only Caecilian and his fol-
lowers being recognized. The emperor, Constantine, after being
drawn into the matter by the Donatists, assumed a similar atti-
tude. He ordered an investigation of the subject ; then ex-
amined it himself, deciding that Caecilian and Felix were inno-
cent, but that their assailants were contemptible slanderers.
Stringent laws were enacted against the latter, but, proving in-
effectual, they were soon revoked. But the most important
measure was that adopted, under the influence of Constantine,
at the council of Aries (A. D. 316, according to Seeck, 1. c, p.
50S f. ; cf. Eus. V. C. 44, 45), /. ^. the establishment of the
,
milder view on the ground of principle. It was here decreed

that even the ordination administered by a '* traditor " is valid,
provided only that the persons so ordained '* remain reasonable "
(can. 13); also, that persons who had been baptized by heretics
should be questioned only upon the Creed, and that, if it be found
that they have been baptized in the name of the Triune God,
only the laying on of hands shall be further administered to
them (can. 8). According to this, ordination and baptism are
not dependent upon the worthiness of the administrant. Thus
a doctrinal difference runs parallel with the personal and histori-
cal conflict. The agitation spread with great rapidity, especially
among the lower ranks of society. Socialistic ideas as to property
and a reckless fanaticism, leading to a complete outward separa-
tion, to frightful deeds of violence, and to wanton and con-
temptuous surrender of life, became distinguishing marks of the
church of the saints (Circumcelliones, Agonistici, vid. Opt. ii.
18 f. 21 ; vi. I f,;iii. 4. Aug. unit. eccl. 19. 50; c. ep. Farm,
ii. 3. 6 ; c. Crescon. iii. 42. 46; brev. iii. 11). Against this,
church and state were alike powerless. Restrictive measures
under Constans and Constantius, as under Jovian, Valen-
TiNiAN, Gratian, and Honorius, were unable to suppress the
movement. The most serious obstacle encountered by the party
was its division into mutually antagonistic groups (Rogatus,
Tyconius, Maximian, and Frimian)
the fate of all separatists.
Augustine, soon after entering upon the episcopacy, addressed
all his energy to the work of reconciling the opposing factions.
This resulted in the three-day conference at Carthage in June,
411 (vid. gesta collationis in M. iv. and Aug. brevic. coll.).
Both the and the doctrinal questions were here dis-

historical
cussed. Noreader of the proceedings of this assembly can
escape the impression that the Donatists here appear in the light
of embittered fanatics, incompetent but vain, adepts in the most
trifling legal quibbles, in questions of formality and in intrigue,
always seeking to impede the progress of the proceedings. The
imperial presiding officer (Marcellin) accorded the victory to
the Catholics upon both points of dispute. His decision was a
just one. Augustine continued to labor in the same spirit.
Strict imperial edicts forbade the assemblage of the Donatists
upon penalty of death, and their churches and church property
were given over to the Catholics. The power of Donatism was
broken, and it soon after disappears from church history.
((^) The doctrinal difference between Donatists and Catholics
may be briefly expressed. Donatism does not question the epis-
copal foundation of the church. It demands only that the
bishops be holy men, and maintains that only when they are
such are the sacraments administered by them eflectual. In
this, as at other points, it could appeal to Cyprian. It was well
known that Cyprian denied the validity of heretic baptism (p.
184). He taught that there was no virtue in the sacrifices or
prayers of fallen priests (referring to Jn. 9. 31), and warned
against the contamination of their touch (p. 181, n. i). When
the Donatists appealed to the miracles performed by their
bishops, to visions and dreams (Aug. unit. eccl. 19. 49),
they had in this also a precedent in Cyprian (p. 181, n. 3).
They maintained, further, that they were the only true and real
Catholic church (gesta coll. i. 148, 202; iii. 22, 91, 165), the
holy, persecuted church of the martyrs (ib. i. 45 ; iii. 116).
The Catholics are not a church, but adherents of Caecilian,
traditors, and blood-thirsty oppressors (Optat. ii. 14, 18 ; gest.
i. 148; iii. 14, 29, 258). The Donatist church is in reality the
holy bride of Christ, without spot or wrinkle, because it requires
holiness of its bishops and its members (ib. iii. 75, 249, 258.
Optat. ii. 20; vii. 2). They apply the term, Catholic, ** not
to provinces or races," but *' the name Catholic is that which
:
is filled with the sacraments" (^sacra77ientis plenum ^ gest. iii.
102, cf Aug. brev. iii. 3), or, ** thou shouldst interpret the
name Catholic, not from the fellowship of the whole world, but
from the observance of all the divine commandments and of all
the sacraments " (Aug. ep. 93. 7. 23). In accordance with the
holiness of this church, its members are to carefully avoid asso-
ciation with all who are not in its fellowship,^ all such being re-
1 Vid. Optat. i. 4; iv. 5 ; vi. 3. Aug. c. litt. Petil. ii, 83. 184. At the
6
garded as no better than heathen.^ Any connection whatever

of the church with the civil government is regarded with abhor-
rence " What have Christians to do with kings, bishops with
:
the palace?" (Opt. i. 22 Aug. c. litt. Petil. 92. 202).^ The

;
dogmatic reason for this separateness lies in the invalidity of the

Catholic sacraments. The moral unworthiness of the bishops of
the traditor-church robs their sacraments of value *' How can
:
he give who has nothing to give?" (Opt. v. 6; cf. gest. iii.

258). Hence the repetition of the sacraments, the second bap-
tism, and the repetition of extreme unction are necessary (Opt.
i.
5 iii. 2
; iv. 4 j v. i. 3 f.
; vii. 4).
; Yet it is going too far
to regard re-baptism as, without any modification, a character-
istic mark of Donatisra. The Donatist Tyconius advocated the
validity of the Catholic sacraments, and maintained that this was
the genuine Donatist view
a position that is supported by his-
torical evidences from other sources (Aug. ep. 93. 43 cf. ;
Hahn, Tyconius-Studien, p. 102 ff. ). ,But, since the Donatists

have the full observance of the sacraments, they are the Catholic
church. Hence, Christ and true baptism are to be found only
among them **For how can it be, if the church is one and
:
Christ undivided, that anyone located without may obtain bap-

tism (gest. iii. 258)?"
The Catholic position, on the contrary, is as follows :^ The
orthodoxy of the Donatists is acknowledged, as well as the
validity of their sacraments, and they are regarded as Christian
brethren (gest. i. 16, 55, 62; ii. 50. Opt. i. 4 f iv. 2): .
;
''
Both among you and among us there is one ecclesiastical life
(^conversatio')^ common texts, the same faith, the same sacraments
of the faith, the same mysteries" (Opt. V. i). Even their baptism
is unassailable, for baptism is baptism, even though administered
by thieves and robbers (gest. i. 62); for it is not a man, but the
holy Trinity, which here bestows a gift (Opt. v. 7). The Trinity
is necessary in baptism, and also the faith of the recipient.
These elements are unchangeable but the administrant is a
;
variable element. 'Âdministrants may be changed, but the

sacraments cannot be changed. If, therefore, you consider all
religious colloquy at Carthage, the Donatists could not be induced to sit with
the Cathohcs (gest. i. 45 ; ii. 3).
i
Optat. iii. II (cf. vi. 8): You say even to the clergy, ** Be Christians,"
and you dare to say to everyone " Gai sei Gaia seta : adhuc paganus es aut
:
pagana'^ (translating the Punic words, vid. remarks in Ziswa's edition, p.

277).
2 Yet the Donatists themselves called upon Constantine to act as umpire,
and, as it appears, did not at a later day disdain the assistance of the secular
arm (gest. iii. 194. Aug. brev. iii. 11).

3 We take no account for the present of ideas specifically Augustinian.
who baptize, they are administrants, not lords j and the sacra-
ments are holy in themselves and not through men " (Opt. iv.
4, i). Thus regarded, the Donatists are also a part of the
church. But they are not so in the full sense of the word,
since they lack catholicity and are only quasi ecclesia. They
build a ** ruinous wall" (Ez. 13. 10). There is no other
house beside the house of God. What they build is only a wall,
and that not even resting upon the corner-stone '* your part is a
:
quasi-church, but is not Catholic" (Opt. iii. 10). They array

*' novelty against antiquity " (ib. iii.
2), and cut themselves off
from the root (iii. 7). Among the Catholics, on the contrary,
is found the house of God and the one Catholic church. It is
the latter, because, according to the promise of Christ, it spreads
abroad over all nations and is not confined ** to a small part of
Africa, to the corner of a little region " (Opt. ii. i, 5iii. 2,
;
3). But it is also the holy church, and not because of the
this
character of the men belonging to it, but because it has the
*' symbol of the Trinity, the chair of Peter, the faith of believers,
the salutary precepts of Christ " (ib. ii. 9, 10; vii. 2), and, above
all, the sacraments ^' whose holiness is derived from the sacra-
:
ments, not measured by the loftiness of persons" (ib. ii. i).

When the Donatists refuse to accord holiness to the church be-
cause some bishops at the time of the Diocletian persecution be-
came traditors, they magnify what is irrelevant, if true, and
what is, moreover, historically incorrect (gest. i. 16, 55. Aug.
brev. iii. 19 ff.). There are, indeed, unholy persons in the
church, but we are forbidden to cast these out before the time
by the parables of the tares and of the net in which are gathered
good and worthless fishes (gest. i. 18, 55. Opt. vii. 2). Those
passages of Scripture which speak of a state of unmixed holiness
in the church are to be understood as referring to her condition
of final blessedness (Aug. brev. iii. 9. Opt. ii. 20), The
church, therefore, as a whole, is holy in the present day by
virtue of the divine agency exerted within its bounds in the sac-
raments, and it will one day be holy in all its members. The
error of the Donatists consists in seeking to realize this final state
before the time. It is certain that, viewed dogmatically, the
Catholic position was the more correct, yet its victory was not a
clear step in advance. The ancient idea, that the people of
God should consist of holy children of God, was forced another
step backward.
2. Augustine's Doctrine of the Church, the Sacra-
ments, AND the Relation of Church and State.
(iz) Augustine's doctrine of the church is a complicated
structure. Ideas evolved in the conflict with the Donatists, the
3lS HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
popular conception of the church, his own doctrine of grace,

and certain Donatistic tendencies are here brought into combina-
tion. Augustine was influenced especially by Tyconius' concep-
tion of the church. This Donatist maintained, indeed, that the
church is composed of
saints only, but he also taught that em-
pirically the church for the present embraces evil as well as good
persons, and that this is so by divine ordering. True, this
mixed condition of the church is, according to his view, soon to
be terminated, and to this end Donatism is a beginning (vid.
Hahn, Tyconius-Studien, p. 80 ff. ). As opposed to Donatism,
Augustine thus formulates the point at issue '^ The question is, :
indeed, discussed between us. Where is the church, whether among

us or among them?" (de unit. eccl. 2. 2). With Optatus,
Augustine holds that the great church is the one Catko/ic chnich by
virtueof the distribution of the latter throughout the whole world
(c. litt. Petil. ii. 38. 91 iii. 2. 3 ; de unit. eccl. 6. 11 ff. )and
;
by virtue of its connection with the church of the apostles, whose

successors the bishops are (c. Cresc. iii. 18. 21 ;
deunit. eccl. 11.
30, cf. in Joh. 37. 6). Outside of this one Catholic church,
tr.
the body of Christ, there is no truth, ^ no salvation (ep. 141. 5 ;

de Separation from it is sl sacri'/egi'um (c. ep. Farm,
unit. 2. 2).
i. 8.14; 10. 16). Only chaff is blown off by the fan (bapt. v.
21. 29); only pride and lack of love can impel 9, Christian to
split the unity of the church (c. Cresc. iv. 59. 71 ; c. litt.
Petil. ii. 77. 172). The declaration of Augustine is not, how-
ever, inspired by hierarchial motive, but rests ultimately upon the
thought that it is only in the Catholic church that the Spirit and
love are bestowed upon man. But the saints are to be found only in
the Catholic church. In this connection, Augustine championed
the motto, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, no less positively than

Cyprian ; but, at the same time âs a result of the different
character of the opposition
displayed less of hierarchical in-
terest than the latter (cf. Reuter, 1. c, p. 253 ff. ),
((5) The idea of the Roman Primacy likewise receives no
special elucidation at the hands of Augustine. We find a gen-
"
eral acknowledgment of the ** primacy of the apostolic chair
(e. g,, ep. 43. 7), but Augustine knows nothing of any special
authority vested in Peter or his successors. Peter is a ** figure of
the church " or of the '^ good pastors," and represents the unity
of the church (serm. 295. 2 ; 147. 2). In this consists the
significance of his position and that of his successors (thus also
Cyprian, p. 183). As all bishops (in contradistinction from the
^
'g.f it is manifest, faith admits it, the Catholic church approves it,
it is true (serm. 117. 4. 6).

Scriptures) may err (unit. eccl. ii. 28), so also the Roman
bishop. This view is plainly manifest from the bearing of
Augustine and his colleagues in the Pelagian controversy (vid.
p. 355 cf. ep. 177, 191 ; pecc. orig. 21. 24, cf. 8. 9).
f., The
infallibleauthority of the pope in the church at large was a
dogma in which only the popes believed (vid. the letters of
Innocent, p. 355 ; cf. as to Leo, p. 268, and Callistus, p. 177).
Dogmatically, there had been no advance from the position of
Cyprian. The Africans, in their relations with Rome, played
somewhat the role of the Gallicanism of a later period (cf.
Reuter, p. 291 ff.).
(c) The between the Donatistic and Catholic
opposition
churches was based upon their different conceptions of the sacra-
ments. From the time of the Council of Aries (p. 314), the
great point of discussion was whether baptism and ordination
administered by an unworthy person retained their validity.
Augustine's views concerning the sacraments, by an inner neces-
sity, determined his attitude upon this question (cf. Reuter, p.
278). The sacraments
are gifts of God, and the moral condi-
tion of the administrator cannot detract from the value of the
gift conveyed "What he gives is, nevertheless, real {yeriini),
:
if he gives not what is his own, but God's " (c. litt. Pet. ii. 30.
69; unit. eccl. 21. 58). Only thus is the result certain, and sal-
vation dependent upon God, not upon men. It is not the
intercession of men, but that of Christ, which helps us (c. litt.
Pet. i. 3. 4;Parm. ii. 8. 16).
c. ep. *' No reason is shown
why he who cannot baptism itself can forfeit the right of

lose
administering it. For each is a sacrament, and each is given to

man by the same consecration the one when he is baptized, and
the other when he is ordained therefore, in the Catholic church
:
neither dare be repeated" (c. ep. Parm. ii. 12. 28). This is ex-
plained by the fact that these sacraments impart to the recipient
a permanent character ** just as baptism,
: so ordination 7'emains
7<;'/;(7/^ in them " (ib.). Baptism and ordination impress upon
man a fixed " dominical character.' ^'^
This military form of ex-
pression implies that, as there is a military brand (^nota militai-is')
whose significance continues through the whole life, so also
baptism and ordination have a perpetual and indelible (the term
employed in the Middle Ages) force for the recipient (c. ep. Parm.
ii. 13. 29). There remains in him something sacred, z. sanctum.
The spirit is preserved to him, not in a moral sense, but in the
sense of an official equipment. He may have committed heinous
^ Augustine introduced this terra into theology. He was also the first to
use the expression obicetn opponere (ep. 98. 9).
3-0 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
crimes may have severed himself from the church, yet this char-
acter once impressed upon him remains, and the sacraments ad-
ministered by him retain their force. If he be converted, there
is no need for a repetition of the sacrament (c. ep. Parm. ii. ii.
24; 13. 28 f.; bapt. iv. 12. 18; vi. i. i ; de symbol. 8. 15;
de bon. conjug. 24. 32: '*in those ordained, the sacrament
of ordination remains; " bapt. vi. 5. ; in i Joh. tract. 5. 7). It
7
is evident that this character indelebilis may be employed as
the most telling argument against Donatism but it also brought
;
Augustine into new difficulties. If the sacraments have be-

stowed such a character, how can objection be brought against
the Donatistic church ? It was necessary, therefore, to maintain
the validity of the Donatist sacraments, and yet to condemn
them as seriously defective. This was accomplished by discrim-
inating between the sacrament itself and the effectiis or usus
sacramenti. By failing to observe this distinction, Cyprian and
others were led to the n'iqv^ " that the baptism of Christ cannot
exist among heretics or schismatics." By observing it, we may
say ** its effect or use, in liberation from sin and in rectitude of
:
heart, could not be found among heretics" (bapt. vi. i. i).

Baptism imparts to the recipient an abiding character, but if he
do not live in the church, the ^* effect " in the forgiveness of sin
does not follow. The baptism cannot, indeed, be repeated ; but
only when the individual is converted to the unity of the true
church does it become effectual *' He who has received the
:
baptism of Christ, which they have not lost who have separated
themselves ... in any heresy or schism, in which sacrilegious
crime his sins were not remitted, when he shall have reformed
and come to the fellowship and unity of the church, is not to be
again baptized, because in this very reconciliation and peace it is
offered to him, that the sacrament which, when received in
schism, could not benefit, shall now in the unity (of the church)
begin to benefit him for the remission of his sins" (bapt. i. 12.
18 ; V. 8. 9 ; vi. 5. 7). In the case of ordination, it was held
that the character remains, bringing, however, to the individual
himself not blessing, but the contrary '*the Holy Spirit
: . . .
fails,indeed, to effect his salvation ... yet does not desert his
ministry, by which he works through him the salvation of
others" (c. Parm. ii. 11. 24; de bon. conjug. 24. 32). By
this means the Donatist theory is discountenanced and, at thef
same time, the necessity of the return of its adherents to the
Catholic church is made evident.
(îT) is built up are the sacra-

The means by which the church
ments, especially baptism and the Lord's Supper, and also the
Word. *' Blood and water flowed (Jn. 19. 34), which we know
'
DONATISTIC CONTROVERSY. 32 I
to be the sacraments by which the church is built up " (civ. dei,

xxii. 17). ''God begets sons from the church we are, . . .
therefore, spiritually born, and we are born in the Spirit byword

and sacrament. The Spirit is present, that we may be born
'
(in Joh. tract. 5; serm. 88. 5; ep. 21. 3).

12. The term,

sacramentum corresponding exactly to ixtxsxripiov is applied
also to other ecclesiastical acts, such as confirmation (bapt. v. 20.
28; c. Faustum xix. 14), the presentation of the consecrated
salt to catechumens (de catechizandis rudibus, 26. 50), ordina-
tion (bon. conjug. 24. 32 ; c. ep. Farm. ii. 13. 28; cf. supra),
exorcism (serm. 27). But the proper sacraments are the two
Avhich proceeded from the side of Christ (civ. dei, xv. 26. i in ;
Joh. tract. 15. 8 ; 120. 2 ; 50. 12 ; doctr. christ. iii. 9. 13), to

which is to be added ordination. The representation of the
divine agency exerted is essentially the same in the word and in
the sacraments.^ The human transaction is accompanied by a
divine, inwardly effectual act. The word is read in the hearing
of others, preached, sung, and chanted by men ** we enjoy :
the hearing of it, the truth speaking to us without sound in-

wardly " (in Joh. tr. 57. 3 40. -5 71,. i
; 77- 2
;
bapt. v. 11.
; ;
24). Augustine is thus the first to formulate a doctrine of

the word as a means of grace. The problem is here presented,
how the spoken human word can be the medium through
which the divine Spirit operates. In the same way in the sacra-
ments as in the word, men work outwardly, God inwardly (c.
ep. Farm. ii. 11; bapt. v. 21. 29; ep. 98. 2: *' the water,
therefore, presenting the sacrament of grace outwardly, and the
Spirit inwardly effecting the benefit of grace"). It is to be,
however, here noted that the outward observance of the sacrament
and the inner work of grace do not always correspond (bapt. iv.
25. 32; in Lev. iii., quaest. 84; enarr. in. ps. 77. 2).
We are now in position to define Augustine' s conception of a sac-
rament. We must, first of all, discriminate carefully between the
outward sign and the inward power and efficacy the sacra- :
'
'
ment is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another " (in Joh.
tr. 26. 11). Viewed in the first aspect, the sacrament is purely
symbolical. Thereare needed, says Augustine, in genuine Neo-
Platonic spirit, in religious associations * signs {signacula) or vis-
'
ible sacraments" (c. Faust, xix. 11). The visible signs are
symbols of an invisible content: "they are, indeed, visible
signs of divine things, but in them are to be honored the invis-
ible things themselves" (de cat. rud. 26. 50). **They are
called sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another thing
^ Even the word is included among the signs [sig-na), doctr. christ. ii. 3.
21

understood" (serm. 272). The symbol has at the same time a

certain resemblance to that which it represents (ep. 98. 9). Ac-
cordingly, the visible symbols become what they are through the
word ''the word comes to {accedit) the element and
interpreting :
it
becomes {Jit) a sacrament itself also, as it werCj a visible
word." The fit^'' is used here not in the objective, but purely
''^
'* Whence
in the subjective sense is there in the water such
:
virtue that can touch the body and purify the heart, unless the
it
word effects this ? not because it is spoken, but because it is be-

HevciV (in Joh. tr. 80. 3). In the light of this explanation,
Augustine would seem to have a purely symbolical view of the
sacrament ; and it is beyond doubt that the Neo-Platonic caste
of his thought at least inclined him in this direction. But we must
not overlook the fact, that an actual ex-ertion of divine energy, as a
rule, accompanies the sacrament. God really forgives sins in bap-
tism, in it, as in ordination, imprinting a character upon the recip-
ient. In the Lord's Supper there is really an effectual refreshment
{salubris refectio) in the Lord's flesh and blood. Thus to drink is
to live a spiritual eating and drinking accompanies the visible
\
reception (serm. 131. i). The two-fold aspect of the sacramen-

tal theory of the ancient church here comes into distinct promi-
nence The sacraments are purely symbols, but the reception of
:
the sacraments brings real, objective exertions of divine energy.

In Augustine, indeed, the whole conception is wavering, since
there is no fixed connection between the sacrament and the gra-
cious divine energy. Here, too, is felt the influence of his
theory of predestination. As to the sacraxnental character see p. ,
319-
(^) peculiarities of the separate sacraments may be briefly
The
stated, (a) Baptism, as the sacramentum remissionis peccatorumj
(bapt. V. 21. 29) works the forgiveness of sins, primarily the
forgiveness of the guilt of original concupiscence ; in this con-
sists its chief efficacy (cf. p. 314)- Augustine frequently speaks of
a blotting out of sins (<?.^., by baptism sins are destroyed,
. . .
deientur, in ps. 106. 3). Discrimination is to be made between

this forgiveness once granted and the recurring forgiveness of
daily sins in response to the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer
{e.g., serm. 58. 5. 6). Augustine, however, made the latter
dependent upon the former ''by that which is given once it
:
comes- to pass that pardon of any sins whatsoever, not only be-
fore but also afterward, is granted to beUevers.'* Prayer, alms,
and good works would bring no forgiveness to the Christian if he
were not baptized (nupt. et cone. i. 33. ^?>). But this idea was
obscured by the penitential discipline (vid. sub) and by the
relatively unimportant place of the forgiveness of sins in the
'
UONATISTIC CONTROVERSY. 323
consciousness of Augustine (p. 346f. ). Compare Dieckhoff, 1. c,

p. 536 ff. ). (/3) In contradistinction from Ambrose {e. g., de
fide iv. 10. 124: ''through the mystery of the sacred prayer
they are transfigured into flesh and blood "), the symbohcal char-
acter of the sacraments comes in Augustine into distinct promi-
nence " The Lord did not hesitate to say, ' This is my body,'
:
when he gave the sign of his body " (c. Adimantum Manich. 12.
3 ; in ps. 3. i): The blessing, or gift, of the sacrament iscon-
ceived in harmony with this. The body of the Lord is the
mystic body, or the church '' hence he wishes the food and
:
drink to be understood as the fellowship {societas) of his body

and of his members, which is the holy church " (in Joh. tr. 26.
15, 14; serm, 272; civ. dei, xxi. 25. 2); or, ''this is, there-
fore, to eat that food and to drink that drink
to remain in
Christ and to have him remaining in us " (in Joh. tr. 26. 18 ;
civ. dei, xxi. 25. 4). Augustine can even say that the eating of
the body of the Lord is "delightfully and profitably to store
away in memory that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us
'
(doctr. christ. iii. 16. 24).^ It is true, there are not wanting
passages in which Augustine expresses himself differently and
more fully, speaking of the reception of the body of Christ, etc.
(^. g., serm. 131. i ; bapt. v. 8. 9); but his real thought is even
here not that which the words seem to convey, although he still
has inmind the bestowaland reception of a real gift. Thus Augus-
tine'stheory of the Lord's Supper has more of a really religious
character than his doctrines of baptism and grace, since the per-
sonal nature of fellowship with God here finds due recognition.
It is to be observed, further, that in the view of Augustine, Christ
is, indeed, omnipresent according to his divine nature, but ac-
cording to his human nature he is in one place in heaven

{iibique totmn praesentem esse non dubites tanquam deu)n et . .
in loco aliqtio caeli propter veri corporis mo diim, ep. 187. 12. 41).
In this again we see the model after which the medieval theories
were patterned. The genius of Augustine is manifest in his in-
terpretation of the sacrifice of the mass the congregatio sancto-
:
rum presents itself to God in good works under its head, Christ.
" This is the sacrifice of Christians Many one body in Christ"
:
* I purposely omit the famous passage which is usually cited in this connec-
tion (by Loscher already, in the Weimar edition, ii. 742): '* Why preparest
thou the teeth and the stomach ? Believe, and thou hast eaten" (in Joh. tr.
25. 12), for, in the context in which this occurs, the author has not the Lord's
Supper in mind. The food to which he refers is the God-given command-
ment, to believe on Christ ; and in order to receive (eat) this, the teeth are
not needed, but faith. Compare the similar statements (ib. 26, i): " for to
believe in him, this is to eat living bread ; " "he who believes eats *' and 35.
;
3 : ** with the mind, not with the stomach."

(civ. dei, x. 6). Of which thing [the sacrifice of Christ] he

wished the sacrifice of the church (which, since it is the body
of him, the Head, teaches that it offers itself through him) to be
a daily sacrament [symbolical imitation] (ib. x. 20). (;') As
to the sacrament of ordination, see p. 319 f., and cf. Reuter
I.e., 253, 264 ff.
(/) But we have thus far seen but one side of Augustine's
conception of the church. When we remember that the infu-
sion of the Spirit and of love makes the Christian (p. 347 f. ),we
realize that we are brought to face another line of thought, (a)
The good, who have the Spirit and love, constitute among them-
selves a communion (^congregaHo, compages'). These saints are the
unspotted bride of Christ, hisdove, and the house of God, the rock
upon which the Lord builds his church, the church which possesses
the power to loose and bind (unit. eccl. 21. 60; c. litt. Pet.
ii. 58. 246; bapt. vii. 51. 99). It is not being outwardly in the
church, nor partaking of the sacraments, that decides, but be-
longing to the church in this sense Nor are they to be thought
:
' *
to be in the body of Christ, which is the church, because they

become corporeally participants in its sacraments they are . . .
not in the union {^compages') of the church, which, in the mem-

bers of Christ, grows through connection and contact to the in-
crease of God*' (c. litt. Pet. 1. c. ), It is this communion of the
saints,^ united by the Spirit and love, through whose intercession
sins are forgiven, and through whose mediation the gifts of grace
are bestowed. To it, and not to the officials of the church, are
given these great promises. *'God gives the sacrament of
grace, indeed, through evil men, but not grace itself except
through himself or through his saints. And, therefore, he effects
remission of sins either through himself or through the members
of that dove, to whom he says If to anyone ye remit, they are
:
remitted'* (bapt. v. 21. 29). *' Or does the sacrament and a
secret dispensation of the mercy of God, perhaps, through the

prayers of the spiritual saints who are in the church, as through
the continuous cooing of the dove, accomplish the great thing,
that even the sins of those who have been baptized, not by the
1The term, communio sanctorum, is found m the first canon of the Council
at Nimes (A. D. 394. Hefele, CG. 62) and among the Donatists
ii., ed. 2,
(Aug. in ps. -^6 serm. 2. 20 and opp. xvii. 2532). In Augustine's own writ-
;
ings, serm. 52. 3. 6; cf. congregatio sanctorum (civ. dei, x. 6; bapt. i. 17.
26); communis unitatis corporis Christi {hî.'î. i. 4. 5); societas credentium
(bapt. vii. 53. 102); Christiana societas (c. litt. PetiL ii. 39. 94); bonorum
societas (ib. ii. 77. 174); also communio malorum (bapt. vii. 25. 49). At a
later date, as is well known, it appears in the Creed (Nicetas v. Romatiana in
Caspari, Anecdota, 355. Faust, v. Riez, ib. li%, Ps. Aug. serm. 240, 241,
242 ; cf. vol. xvii. i960).
' :
dove but by the hawk, are remitted? " (ib. iii. 17.22; 18. 23).
This the essence of the communion of the good and pious
is
They love God and one another, and they pray for the church.
This is the 'invisible union {compages) of love " (bapt. iii. 19.
26; de unit. eccl. 21. 60) with the invisible anointing of love
{unctio caritatisj c. litt. Petil. ii. 104. 239). Butthis exists, and
is conceivable, only within the Catholic church, separation from
which is at once a renunciation of the Spirit and of love (ep.

141. 5, and citations on p. 318). Only in the Catholic church
is the spirit of love thus present. But Augustine here thinks not
only of the efficacious working of the sacrament, but also, and
particularly, of the working of the Spirit upon the spiritual life
through the personal fellowship of the believing and holy with
one another. He has not, therefore, yet reached the position of
medieval Catholicism.
(;3) But is not the church then split into two churches,
the mixed church of the present and the pure church of the
future (Donatist criticism, brev. iii. 10. 19)? Augustine meets
this objection with a variety of illustrations. The question is
one solely of a present relationship. Good and evil are com-
mingled in the church. According to the instructions of Christ,
the latter cannot be outwardly excluded, although they are in-
wardly entirely separated from the pious (c. ep. Farm. iii. 2. 12 ;
c. Cresc. iii. 65. 73; bapt. vi. 3. 5; vii. 51. 99), just as are
*' Whether they
heretics : seem to live within or are openly with-
out, that which And even he who in car-
is flesh is flesh. . . .
nal obduracy mingled with the congregation of the saints is

is
always separated from the unity of that church which is without
spot or wrinkle (bapt. i. 17. 26; alsovii. 51. 99 extr. ). But:
' *
'* he tolerates the '

wicked in comnmnione sanctoru7n (serm. 214. '
11). It is a relationship like that between the wheat and the

tar^s upon the same threshing-floor (bapt. v. 21. 29); between
belonging to a house and being in the house (ib. vii. 51. 99);
between the outerand the inner man (brev. iii. 10. 20); or even :
'
thus there are in the body of Christ in some way evil humors
'
'
(in I Joh. tr. 3. 4). We may, therefore, speak of '* the true and
the commingled, or counterfeited, body of the Lord, " or of a
''commingled church." Hence, in the proper sense, the church
consists of only the good and holy the wicked and heretics only
:
apparently belong to it by virtue of the temporal commingling

and the communion of the sacraments " (doctr. christ. iii. 32.
45). We can see that Augustine takes some account of the de-
mand of the Donatists ; but he effects only in thought the^sepa-
ration which they sought to reahze in fact. '^We understand
the departure (^recessio) spiritually, they corporeally " (serm. 88.
20. 23). From a critical point of view, the Donatistic objection

is not without justification, for the church of the sacraments and
the church of grace can only with the greatest difficulty be in-
tellectually harmonized.
(;') This difficulty is intimately connected with Augustine's
definition of grace, and it becomes still more serious when the
doctrine of predestination is taken into account. '* The invisi-
ble union of love " is not identical with the *' number of the
predestinated. As the latter may extend beyond the bounds of
'
'
the church (p. 351), so, on the contrary, some may belong to
the church who are not in the number of the predestinated, and,
therefore, do not have the ** gift of perseverance " (corr, etgrat.
9. 22; don. pers. 2. 2). Practically, indeed, Augustine did
not realize this discrepancy any more than that between the in-
ward and the outward church. That it nevertheless exists, can-
not be denied, although Augustine only occasionally combines
the conceptions, church and predestination.^ We may, accord-
ingly, speak of a two-fold, or even a three-fold, definition of the
church in Augustine. Cf, Reuter, 1. c, p. 47 ff. Seeberg, 1. c,
49 ff.
(^) It must be mentioned, finally, that Augustine applied the

term, kingdom of god, also to the church of the present, whereas
the ancient church, as represented in other teachers, regarded
the kingdom as the result and goal of the church's development,^
looking to the future for the highest good. But Augustine says :
*'The church is even now the kingdom of Christ and the king-
dom of heaven" (civ. dei, xx. 9. i cf. de fid. et op. 7. 10 j ;
serm. 213. 7; 214. 11). This utterance means primarily only

that the saints are the kingdom of Christ and reign with him.
But this dominion is at once attributed to the leaders (^praepo-
siti) ''through whom the church is now governed*' (ib. 2).
The kingdom of God is thus for Augustine essentially identical with
the pious and holy ; but it is also the episcopally organized church.
The contrast between the city of God {civitas dei) and the city^ of
1 We read, de bapt. v. 27. 28 : The church as an enclosed garden, paradise,
etc. , and yj/2. Then appears as equivalent: " the cer-
consists of the jawf^z
tain predestinated number of saints," and from this again: *'the number
of the just." Yet many of the predestinati are now living carnally and

unworthily are heathen and heretics. And yet these are all to be considered
as included in the enclosed garden, the church, which originally consisted of
the holy and righteous. Cf. Seeberg, p. 53.
2 Vid., e.
g,. Did. 10. 5. Cypr. de op. et eleem. 9; de unit. eccl. 14.
Hieron. adv. lovin. ii. 19, Also Augustine himself, serm. 13 1. 6. 6 ; esp.
brev. coUat. iii. 20 9. 16.
lo. ;
8 Cisjitas is i. 25), a signifi-

here used as meaning **city" (civ. dei, xv.
** state."
cation which in general historical connections passes over into that of
Vid. Reuter, p. 131 f.
);;.
the world {^civitas viundi) , or of the devil, is for him that between
Christanity and heathenism (in the first lo books): between the
good and the bad, including the devil and angels (civ. dei, xii. i
27, 2), or between the saintsandthewicked even within the church;
between the spiritual and the carnal, the love of God and self-love,
grace and nature, those foreordained to glory or to torment (^. g.
XX. 9, 3; xiv. I ; 4. 2 ; 28 ; xv. i. 2 j16. 3). The evil world is
never represented, indeed, as itself equivalent to the state. But
since the civitas dei may be and is conceived as the empirical
church, the reader very naturally thinks of the civitas mundi
concretely as equivalent to the state (^. g., xiv. 28 xv. 4 ; i.
;
35). This is encouraged by the fact that, although Augustine

"recognizes the necessity of the (Christian) state and the civil
law (xv. 4 in Joh. tr. 6. 25 f ), yet everything really and per-
manently good is found upon the side of the church. From this it
follows, that it is the duty of the state to execute the commandments
of Christ, or of the church (xv. 2, ep. 138. 2. 14; 105. 3. 11).

From this point of view, Augustine in conflict with his earlier
convictions (ep. 93. 5. 17) desired the state to employ force
against Donatists and heretics: ** Compel them to come in"
(Lk. 14. 23 ; vid. ep.93 and 185 in Joh. tr. 11. 14). Here, as
so frequently, he into the current of the popular Chris-
falls
tianity of the day. great work upon the ** City of God"
The
capable of many interpretations (a double line of aims and
'
means running through the work, just as through Plato's ''State
'
became the criterion for the development of the church polity

of the Middle Ages. Cf. Reuter, p. in f
Such, in outline, was Augustine's conception of the church.
The power of the historic Catholic tradition, the opposition of
the Donatists, the fundamental tendency of his doctrine of grace,
the predestination theory, and a grandly broad view of the
course of history were the threads woven into the texture. In it
the best and the worst elements appear side by side. It is Evan-
gelical and Catholic ; superior to the world and compromising
with the world \ at once, true and untrue. Theoretically contem-
plated, it is a malformation without parallel practically consid-
:
ered, a redundancy of large conceptions and impulses

not an
organism, but a vessel full of fermenting elements.
Augustine prepared the way for the medieval ecclesiasticism
but he also revived and gave practical efficacy to a central idea
of primitive Christianity
the present kingdom of God. He
embraced the many treasures of Christianity in the one treasure
the kingdom of God, and thus made them concrete and histori-
cally visible. He also, in his conception of the church, saved
from the confusion of Donatistic ideas the primitive truth of the
;
3^^ HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
church as the communion of saints. In connection with this,

he definitely asserted the natural character of the charis77iata.
The Spirit, who creates new life, is the great gift of divine grace
to the church. It may be said that Augustine was the first since
Paul to renounce the grace of visions, dreams, and inner sugges-
tions (cf. Cyprian and the Donatists), since he understood grace
as consisting in the spirit of love animating the church. Not
only could Rome appeal to Augustine, but the Evangelical
theory of the church finds in him as well a champion.
31. Establishment of the Doctrine of Sin and Grace in the

Conflict with Pelagianism.
Literature. Walch, Ketzerhistorie iv. v. Wiggers, Pragmat. Dars-

tellung d. Augustinismus u. Pelagianismus, 2 vols., 1821, 1833. Jacoei, Die
Lehre des Pelag., 1842. W5RTER, Der Pelagianismus, 1866. Klasen, Die
innere Entwicklung d. Pelagianismus, 1882. Dieckhoff, Aug. Lehre v. d.
Gnade, in Theol. Ztschr. von Dieckhoff u. Kliefoth, i860, p. II ff. Lan-
DERER, Das Verhaltniss v. Gnade u. Freiheit, Jarbb. f. deutsche Theol.,
1857. P- 500 Luthardt, Die Lehre vom fr. Willen u. sein Verh. zur
ff.
Gnade, 1S63. Rottmanner, Augustinismus, 1892. Dorner, Augustin, p.

113 ff. Hefele, CG. ii., ed. 2, 104 ff. Reuter, Augustin. Studien, p. 4ff.
Thomasius, DG. i., ed. 2, 456 ff. Harnack, DG. iii. 151 ff. Worter,
Beitrage zur DG. des Pelagianismus, 1898.
I Divergences of the Eastern and Western Churches.

.
We have had occasion to observe ( 27) that the Eastern

church laid great emphasis upon the freedom of the natural man.
This is done especially in moral exhortations, while, at the same
time, when treating of the work of redemption, the state of the
natural man was often depicted in the darkest colors {e. g., by
Athanasius). We must bear in mind that the attitude of the
Greeks toward the problem of free-Avill was fundamentally differ-
ent from that of the Latins. They began with the intellect, to
which the will was simply subordinate, as an organ through
which it operates. Whatever a man thinks, that he is also able
to will. The Romans, on the contrary, assign an independent
position to the will. In the utterances of such a practical Greek
teacher as Chrysostom, we find indeed both conceptions
embodied, but that of human freedom holds the place of
prominence: '* For God created our nature self-controlling"
(aoreôutno^j in Genes, hom. 19). Accordingly, it is only the
separate acts of man that are regarded as evil. There is no sinful
habitus: "Thou shouldst not acknowledge any substantial
{îvoTzofjraro^') power, but the evil deed, always coming into being
and vanishing, not existing before it has occurred, and disap-
pearing again after it has occurred" (in Rom. hom. 12). The
BOCTRINE OF SIN AND GRACE. 329
result of the fall for us is that, as Adam thereby became mortal, so

his descdhdants are also mortal (horn, in ps. 51). The concep-
tion of grace is in harmony with this view. Man makes the be-
ginning in that which is good, and grace comes to his aid " For :
it is necessary that we first choose the good, and when we have
chosen it, then he also brings his part. He does not anticipate
our wishes, in order that our freedom may not be destroyed.
But when we have chosen, then he brings great help to us . . .
it is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but it is God's to ac-
complish and lead to the result" (in Heb. h. 12 in Rom. h, ;
16; in Joh. h. 17). This expresses very fairly the position of

the Eastern church, in which, moreover, the conception of grace
itself becomes confused by its connection with the worship of
the mysteries. Cf. Forster, Chrysostomus, 1869, pp. 6^ ff.,
139 ff. August, c. Jul. i. 6. 21 ff.
In contrast with the above, we may place the teaching of a
Western theologian, Ambrose (f A. D. 397), the forerunner of
Augustine upon the subject of sin and grace. In his conception of
sin we can still trace the beginnings of a doctrine of original sin
which we discovered in Tertullian, Cyprian, and Commodian (pp.
122 f., 193).^ {a) In his practical addresses, Ambrose also oc-
casionally used strong language in placing the responsibility for
evil deeds upon the free will of man (^. ^., enarr. in ps. i,

30 de Jac. et vit. beata i. 10). But his thought is dominated
;
by the view, that through the fall of Adam we come into the
world as sinners, that sin is an attribute which belongs to us from
our conception, and that we, therefore, being from the outstart
sinful, must sin even when for the time being we do not desire to
sin :
* *
Adam was, and in him we all were. Adam perished, and in
him we perished " (in Luc. vii. 234, 164). ''I fell in Adam,
all
I was in Adam ejected from paradise, I died in Adam " (de
** No one at all who
excessu fratr. sui Satyri ii. 6).^ has been
born under sin can be saved, whom that very inheritance of
^ Hilary at this point betrays the influence of the Greeks, e. g., in ps. 118
N. 20 ** There is, indeed, in faith a gift of continuance from God
lit. : ; but
the source of the beginning is from us, and our will ought to have this of itself
as its own, that it wills. God will give an increase of the beginning, because
our infirmity does not through itself attain the consummation ; nevertheless, the
merit of reachingthe consummation is, from the beginning, of the will." Yet
he uses also the term, vitiutn originis^ and says :
*
In the error of the one
'
Adam, the whole race of men went astray" (in ps. 119 lit. N. 20; P. 6; in
Matt. i8. 6). Cf. Landerer, 1. u., p. 591 i.
^ Cf. also the so-called Ambrosiaster upon Rom. \. 12: " It is manifest
that in Adam all sinned, as it were, in the mass for all whom he who was
;
himself corrupted through sin begat were bom under sin ; from him, therefore
all are sinners, because from him we all are." Vid. also the (apparently not
Ambrosian) Apol. ii., David, 71.
'
guilty condition has constrained to sin " (in ps. 38,^ 29). ** Be-
fore we are born we are defiled by contagion, and before we enjoy

the light we receive the injury of our very origin ; we are con-
ceived in iniquity." In response to the question, whether this
last assertion relates to the mother or to the child, it is said :
'* But
see whether it may not be known which. The one con-
ceived is not without sin, since the parents are not without fault.
And, if the infant of one day is not without sin, much more are
all the days of maternal conception not without sin. We are
conceived, therefore, in the sin (^peccato) of our parents and in
their faults {^delictis') we are born Hence
'
(apol. David, 11. 56)
' .
also :
'
We are led unwilling and reluctant into guilt (^culpani),
'
'
'
and ' * For our heart and our meditations are not in our power
:
'
(de fuga seculi i. i ; ii. 9). According to these citations, Am-

brose really taught the propagation of Adam's sin; but we do
not find in his writings the idea of the imputation of Adam's
guilt to the race sprung from him. He recognizes a physi-
cal, but not a moral, original sin (cf. Forster, Ambr., p.
154 f.)-
(/?) As to his doctrine of grace, we note that Ambrose very

strongly emphasized the activity of grace, but yet knows nothing
of its alone-activity. *' He who follows Christ, when asked why
he resolved to be a Christian, can respond '

It seemed good to
:
me' " (Lk. i. 3). '' When he says this, he does not deny that it
seemed good to God, for the will of men \% prepared by God.
For that God may be worshiped by a saint is from the grace of
God " (in Luc. i. 10). But also '^ By free will we are either
:
disposed toward virtue or inchned toward vice. And, therefore,

either free affection draws us toward error, or the will, following
reason, recalls us " (Jac. etvit. beat. i. i; de poenit. ii. 9. 80). It
is Christ, coming to us and into us, who effects this" (in Luc.
X. 7). But this occurs chiefly through baptism. The efficacy

of the latter is seen in the blotting out of iniquity {iniquitas, the
sinful habitus'), the forgiveness of sins, and the bringing of the
gift of spiritual grace (^spiritualis gratiae munus') (apol. Dav. 13.
62): ''Thus perfect virtue destroys iniquity, and the remission
of sins every sin " (de myst. 4. 20 ; ep. 7. 20 ; 41. 7 ; in Luc.
ii. 79). If, indeed, after the manner of the ancient church,
room is here found for the blotting out of sins by the endow-
ment with new spiritual power, yet Ambrose could, nevertheless,
** I will not glory because I am righteous, but I will
write :
glory because I have been redeemed. I will glory, not because

"
I am empty of sins, but because my sins have been forgiven me
(Jac. et vit.; b. i. 6. 21 cf. in ps. 44. i ;

; ep. 73. to). It
is easily seen that this forerunner of Augustine was not unac-

DOCIRINE OF SIN AND GRACE. 33I
quainted with Paul.^ We find in him, it is true, a certain syner-

gism. But while the Eastern theologians represent man as mak-
ing the beginning for the attainment of salvation, and then
ascribe a synergia to God, here it is God who begins the work,
and the synergia is upon the part of man. The Eastern teachers
think of a divine, the Western of a human synergy.
Cf. FOrster, Ambrosius, 1884, p. 139 ff. Deutsch, Des Ambros. Lehre
von der Siinde u. Siindentilgung, 1867 (Program of the Joachimsthal Gymn.
in Berlin). EwALD, Der Einfluss der stoisch-ciceron. Moral auf die Darstel-
lung der Ethik bei Ambr., 1881.
2. Pelagius and Pelagianism.

Sources. Pelagius, epistula ad Demetriadem in the Works of Jerome,
ed. Vallarsi, xi. 2. i ff. Ep. ad Livaniam, in fragments only in Augustine
and Jerome. Marius Mercator, in his Commonitorium super nomine Caelestii,
and in the Liber subnotationum in verba Juliani. Eulogiarum liber, fragments
^ We must not fail to note also the remarkable teaching of the monk,
JoviNiAN (in Rome and Milan, about A. D. 390), although the sources do
not enable us to form a perfectly reliable opinion in regard to him. Jovinian
made a vigorous assault upon the low estimation of marriage, in which the in-
fluence of Manichieism and heathenism was so plainly seen maintained the
;
moral equality of marriage and celibacy, as also of fasting and the receiving
of food with thankfulness and asserted an equality of reward for all believers
;
(Jerome adv. Jovin. 1. ii. 5 ff- ). A difficulty meets us in his assertion (ib. i.
3):
'That those who have been with full faith regenerated in baptism cannot
*
be subverted by the devil" (in ii. 1, "cannot be tempted," or, according to

Julian of Eclanum, who had read the work of Jovinian, "cannotsin ;" vid. Aug.
op. imperf. i. 98 It is beyond question that Jovinian expresses this view, but
) .
it is also to be observed that he does so with appeal to Jn. iii. 9 v. 18 (ii. i),;
and that he did not deny to the baptized the possibility of repentance " Al- :
though ye have fallen, irepentance will restore you " (ii. 37). His real opinion
can scarcely be other than that expressed in ii. 27 " But if the Father and the
:
Son make their abode with believers, where Christ is guest, ikere can be nothing
lacking." Hence, they in whom Christ dwells, who are baptized and believe,
are good, and fundamentally free from sin. They constitute the one true church
(ii. 18, 20, 27 i. 2).
; So far as their salvation is concerned, it matters not
whether they are married or unmarried, whether they fast or not; and every
sin is of equal guilt (n. 30 f. ). They shall receive at last the same reward.
It must be noted, however, that he taught that ** before baptism it is possible
to siu or not iosin''^ (Julian, 1. c), and " But whoever shall yield to tempta-
:
tion {tentati fuerini) are proved to have been baptized by water only and not
by the Spirit, as we read of Simon ^lagus" (ii. l). That the former of these
citations represents his view cannot well be doubted, and it proves that his
theory of sin was not as yet of the Ambrose- Augustinian type. It is surprising
that Jerome does not take more advantage from the second. Jovtinian proba-
bly means that baptism is of immediate (vid. ii. 37) benefitonly when received
in faith( i.
3) The student of the History of Doctrines will note in Jovinian
.
premonitions of the interest soon to be awakened in the great problems dis-

cussed by Augustine. Upon Jovinian, vid. Neander, KG. ii. 2, p. 574 ff.
GRttTZMACHER, PRE. ix., ed. 3, 398 ff. Harnack, Die Lehre v. d.
Seligk. allein durch den Gl. in d. alt. K., in Ztschr. f. Theol. u. K., 1891, p.
138 ff. W. Haller, Jovinianus, 1897.
in Augustine, de gestis Pelagii, andin Jerome in his Dial. c. Pelag. Frag-

ments of the work of Pelagius, Denatura, in Augustine's De nat. et grat. Of
Pelagius, De libero arbitrio, 11, 4, also only fragments in Augustine. Com-
mentary upon the Pauline epistles in the works of Jerome (Migne, 30. 645-
902). Libellus fidei ad Innocentium in Hahn, Bibl. der Symbole, ed. 3, p.
2S8ff.
Of the many writings of Caelestius only fragments remain, especially
from the Definitiones in Augustine's de perfectione justit. His confession of
faith is found in the Appendix to the works of Augustine, xvii. 2728 ff. Vid.
also citations in Marius Mercator (Migne, 48. 65 ft". ).
Of 'Julian of Eclanum, who wrote Libri 4 and Libri 8 adversus Augus-

tinum, we have very many fragments in August, c. Julianum, 11. 6, and espe-
cially the Opus imperfectum. Vid. further the Confession, Hahn, ed. 3, p.
293 f., and Aug. opp. xvii. 272 also Marius Mercator (Migne, 48. 109 ff.).
;
Further, the Pseudo-Augustinian work, De vita Christiana (opp. Aug. xvii.

1941), ascribed to Bishop Fastidius, and other writings (letters and trac-
tates) perhaps belonging to a Briton, Agricola, in Caspari, Briefe, Abhand-
lungenu. Predigten, etc., 1890, pp. 1-167. Vid. especially Opp. August, and
Opp. Hieron. The Liber apologeticus of Orosius, ed. Zangemeister, p. 601 ff.
Collections may be seen in M., Acta conciliorum iv,, and in the appendix to
the works of Augustine, xvii. 2649 ff.
Pelagius, a British monk of austere morality, began before

the close of the fourth century to preach repentance with great
earnestness. He seems to have been under Greek influence
(Marius Liber, subnot. praef. i. 2).^ The starting-point of his
exhortations was the natural moral ability of man. When con-
'^ Grant
fronted, as he speedily was, with the Augustinian :
what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt

'
(Aug, '
don. pers. 20), it but confirmed him in his theory and led him
to express himself the more positively. Two fundamentally dif-
ferent conceptions of Christianity were here brought into con-
tact. The hitherto unharmonized doctrines of man's free will
and the influence of divine grace presented a serious problem.
Pelagius soon won, in the eloquent Caelestius, a disciple who
stated the problems with keen discrimination and formulated
them in a most aggressive way. Contemporaries spoke not
without reason of the ^* Pelagian, or Caelestian, heresy." Their
adherents were not few nor insignificant. After A. D. 418, the
diplomatic and prudent Pelagius and the radical Caelestius were
reinforced by the young bishop of Eclanum, Julian, a keen-
witted but fundamentally rationalistic disputant, as champion of
the new views. That these three men present a progressive de-
velopment cannot be denied. The practical ideas of Pelagius are
followed by the doctrinal formulation of Caelestius, and the con-
1
In the theory of sin, following Theodore of Mopsuestia, through the me-
dium of a Syrian, Rufinus, who, according to Jerome (in Hierem., lib. i. i
praef.), appears to be identical with Aquileia. Vid. also Aug., De pecc. orig.
iii. 3.
DOCTRINE OF SIN AND GRACE. ^;^^
captions of Julian, wrought out as component elements in his

cosmogony, go beyond them both.
As we are in other connections to follow the course of the
controversy, we shall here attempt merely to set forth clearly the
Pelagian view of Sin, Liberty, and Grace. *' Whenever I am
upon to speak upon moral training and the course of holy

called
am accustomed first to display the power and quality of
living, I
human nature and show what it is able to accomplish, and. then
from mind of the hearer to (some) forms of
this to incite the
virtues, lest nothing to summon to those things which it
it profit
would have thought to be impossible for it." In these words of
Pelagius (ad Demetr. 2 init.) we recognize distinctly his moral
temperament, (a) God has commanded man to do that which
is good he must, therefore, have the ability to do it.
; That is
to say, man is free, /. e. it is possible for him to decide for or
,
against that which is good *' But we say that man is (always)
:
able both to sin and not to sin, so that we confess ourselves to have
always a free will " (Pel. in his confession). '* Freedom of th^
will . consists in the possibility of committing sin or of ab-
. .
staining from sin" (Jul. in Aug. op. imp. i. 78). This '* pos-
" has distinguished man ever since the creation *' For
sibility :
God, wishing to endow (his) rational creature with the gift of

voluntary good and with the power of free will, by implanting
in man the possibility of either part, made that to be his own
which he may choose, in order that, being by nature capable of
good and evil, he might choose either and bend his will to either
the one or the other" (Pel. ad Dam. 3, cf. de lib. arb. i., ii., in
Aug. de gr. Chr. 18. 19; 4. 5).^ It, therefore, constitutes his
essential nature, and is accordingly inamissible. Whether I will
do good or do evil is a matter of my free will, but the freedom,
**the possibility of this free will and of works," is from God:
^' By no means can I
be without the possibility of good " (Pel.
lib. arb. iii. in Aug. degr. Chr. 4. 5). The ideas of Pelagius move
within the limits of this scheme of freedom of the will, a scheme
alike insufficient as seen from the religious or the moral point of
view. It follows from it, that there is no such thing as a moral
development of the individual. Good and evil are located in
the separate acts of men. The separate works finally decide
whether a man is good or evil. But it is possible for one, by a
free use of the*' possibility" of well-doing, to lead a holy life.
This natural goodness {bonmn naturae)^ historically regarded,

made very many heathen philosophers capable of the most lofty
' In this and the following citations from Augustine, the first figure refers to
the chapter and the second to the numbered paragraph in the parallel notation.
virtues; how much more, then, may Christians expect from it?
(Pel. ad Dem. 3. 7). There is no shrinking back from the in-
ference, that an entirely sinless life is possible ''I say that
:
man is able to be without sin, . , but I do not say that man is

without sin " (Pel. in Aug. nat. et grat. ; 7-8 de gr. Chr. 4. 5).
Despite the cautious statement of the passage cited, this declara-
tion was very sincerely interpreted by the Pelagians ; see Aug.
de gest. Pel. 6. 16 ; ep. 156 (letter of Hilary from Syracuse to
Augustine). Caelest. definitiones in Aug. de perfect, justit.,
and the Pelagian in Caspari, pp. 5. 114 ff. (ep. de possibilitate
non peccandi).
(^) From this position we can understand the doctrinal
teaching concerning sin. This consists, as a matter of course,
only in the separate acts of the will. There is no such thing as
a sinful character or a sinful nature. Otherwise, sin would not

be sin not something which can be avoided ; and God could
not charge sin to our account as guilt and punish it (Caelest. in
Aug. perf. grat. 2. i ; 6. 15). Since sin cannot have been
created by God, it is not a thing {res'), but an act (âctus) (ib.
2.4). It is a fault, not of nature, but of the will (in Aug. de
pecc. orig. 6. 6; op. imp. i. 48). Man's peculiar nature, the
justice of God, and the reality of sin, alike forbid us to speak of
an ** original sin." If such were the nature of sin, a deliver-
ance from it would be impossible '^ Even if we should wish not
:
to be able not to sin, we are not able not to be able not to sin,
because no will is able to free itself from that which is proved to
be inseparably implanted in (its) nature " (Pel. in Aug, nat. et
grat. 49, 50, 57, 58). **If original sin be contracted by the
generation of original nativity ... it cannot be taken away
from infants, since that which is innate continues to the very end
of him to whom it has adhered from the occasion of his ances-
tors " (Jul. op. imp. i. 61). Inasmuch as sin consists only in
separate acts of the will, the idea of its propagation by the act
of generation is absurd. Adam was certainly the first sinner,
but such a connection between his sin and ours cannot be estab-
lished. The sins and guilt of parents no more pass over to their
children than do those of children to their parents (op, imp. iii.
14, 19 f, ). '*If their own sins do not harm parents after
their conversion, much more can they not through the parents
injure their children*' (Pel. in Marius Com. 2, 10). The view
of Augustine is habitually referred to by Julian as Manichseism
{e. g., op', imp. vi. 10: **Your doctrine differs in nothing
from the Manichseans "). In contravention of God's Word, it
pronounces marriage and the desire for carnal intercourse sinful
(de nupt. et concup. i. i, 2 ; ii. i. 2). Julian refuses to recog-
DOCTRINE OF SIN AND GRACE. ^:^S
nize Augustine's distinction between marriage {nuptiae) and

concupiscence *^ Natural sin within cannot be asserted without
:
defamation of sexual intercourse " (op. imp. v. 5). Adam's little,

childish sin (op. imp. vi. 21) is an act of disobedience which
has only a temporary significance for him, /. e. until his conver-
,
sion (op. imp. vi. II f.), and none at all for us. Adam's death
was not a punishment for sin, but only conformity to a law of
nature (Aug. de gestis Pel. 11. 23 f.; op. imp. ii. 64, 93 f., but
also vi. 30). Accordingly, new-born children are sinless, and
baptism cannot in their case have any sin-remitting effect (vid.
Caelest. in Aug. pecc. orig. 6. 6 Marius Lib. subnot. praef. v.;
;
also Jul. op. imp. i. 53 *' He bestows his

: gifts according to the
capacity of the recipients").^ The passage, Rom. 5. 12, merely
asserts *^ that sin has passed from the first man upon other men,
not by propagation, but by imitation" (Aug. de peccator.
meritis et remiss, i. 9. 9); or the term izavrz^ does not mean
absolutely all (Aug. de nat. et grat. 41. 48).
(r) This brings us to the Pelagian explanation of the univer-
sality of sin, which all experience testifies. It is attributed to
imitation, the '* long practice {longus usus) of sinning and the
Jong habit (^longa consuefudo) of vices" (Pelag. ad Demetr. 8).
* * For no other cause occasions for us the difficulty of doing good
than the long custom of vices, which has infected us from child-
hood, and gradually, through many years, corrupted us, and thus
holds us afterward bound and addicted to itself, so that it seems
in some way to have the force of nature " (ib. cf. 17 fin.). To
this must be added the natural sensuous and worldly character of
man (Pel. in Aug. de gr. Chr. 10. 11). This line of thought
reveals the final conclusion reached by the naive Pelagianism of
the Greeks There are really no sinners, but only separate
:
wicked acts. A religious conception of sin is hereby ex-

cluded, and nothing more is needed than the effort to perform
separate good deeds. But just as truly is a religious conception
of the history of the race impossible, since there are no sinful
men, but only wicked acts of individual men.
(^) The religious and moral superficiality of this way of re-
^ It is of dograatico-historical interest to observe that the Pelagians were,

on the one hand, charged with undermining infant baptism (Council of Car-
thage, vid. Aug. ep. 157. 3. 22. Innocent in Aug. c. duas epp. Pel. ii. 4. 7 :
'* They seem to me to wish to annihilate baptism itself " and that they were,
;
)
on the other hand, very anxious to free themselves from the charge ( Aug. pecc,
orig. ig. 21 c. duas epp. Pel. iv. 2. 2); the confession of faith of Pelagius and
;
Julian, Caelestus, op. imp. iii. 146 i. 53

; Hahn, Bibl. ed 3, 294, in refer-
;
ence to which Augustine indeed says " You fear to say, Let them not be
:
baptized, lest not only your faces be defiled by the spittle of men, but your
heads softened by the sandals of women" (c. Jul. iii. 5. 11).
garding the subject is very plainly manifest in the doctrine of

grace. The necessity of grace for the attainment of salvation is
not denied. On the contrary, Pelagius has declared that grace
is needed ** not only for every hour or for every moment, but
even for every separate act of ours" (Aug. de gr. Chr. 2. 2 ;
7. 8 ;
32. 36 ; de gest. Pel. 14. 31 ; PeL ep. ad Dem. 3 fin.;
Jul. in op. imp. iii. 106 i. 52).
;
Over against this affirmation of the *' help of grace, " or " di-
vine assistance," Caelestius, indeed, declares in his fashion,
** that
the will is not free if it needs the aid of God," and that
** our victory is not from the assistance of God, but from (our)
free will" (Aug. de gest. Pel. 18. 42). This is but a blunt
statement of the logical inference from the position of Pelagius.
The latter wrote ** grace is given in order that what is com-
:
manded by God may be more easily fulfilled " (Aug. de gr. Chr.
26. 27), from which Augustine rightly infers " that even with- :
out this, that which is divinely commanded can be done, although

less easily. What do the Pelagians then understand by grace ?
'
'
Really nothing more than the *' good of nature," or the endow-
ment with free will, i. e., the possibility of doing good or evil. So
Pelagius distinctly expressed himself at the council at Diospolis :
'*this he calls the grace of God, that our nature, when it was
created, received the possibility of not sinning, since it was
created with a free will " (in Aug. de gest. Pel. 10. 22). The
endowment with reason (Pel. ad Dem. 2) and free will is pri-
marily grace. This was sufficient in the primitive age of the
race (ib. 4 ff 8). But when ignorance and the habit of sinning
.
gained the upper hand among men, God gave the law (Pel. ad
Dem. 8), and again, when the law proved too weak to break the
power of evil habit, he gave the teachings and example of Christ
(Aug. pecc. orig. 26. 30). Pelagius, indeed, writes: '^ We,
who have been instructed through the grace of Christ and born
again to better manhood, who have been expiated and purified
by his blood,and incited by his example to perfect righteous-
^
ness, ought to be better than those who were before the law, and
better also than those who were under the law " (ad Dem. 8);
but the whole argument of this letter, where the topic is simply
the knowledge of the law as a means for the promotion of virtue
(9, 10, 13, 16, 20, 23), as well as the declaration, that God
opens our eyes and reveals the future when he illuminates us '
'
with the multiform and ineffable gift of celestial grace " (Aug.
de gr. Chr. 7. 8), proves that for him that the "assistance of
God consists, after all, only in instruction. Augustine is correct
'
'
'
The same idea occurs in Julian, op. imp. i. 171.
DOCTRINE OF SIN AND GRACE. 337
in maintaining that, in addition to nature and the law, it is only

the teaching and example^ of Christ which are thought of by
Pelagius as embraced in the term, grace (de gr. Chr. 41. 45 ; c.
duas epp. Pel. iv. 5. 11). ^'Briefly and summarily I reply to
thee :He is a Christian in whom are to be found those three
'
things which ought to be in all Christians knowledge, faith,

:

and obedience knowledge, by which God is known j faith, by
which (our) acceptance is believed ; obedience, by which the
compliance of servitude is rendered to the one believed " (ep. '
de possibil. non peccandi, 5. i. Casp., p. 119). Christianity

is law, and, as compared with the Old Testament, an enlarged
law (ib. p. 71). It is, therefore, good works which decide

whether anyone is good '*
For the wicked are so called from
:
their wicked works thus, on the contrary, the good are so

;
named from their good works (de vit. chr. 10). The Christian
'
'
reads the '*word of God" as a laWj which requires to be not

only known, but also fulfilled (Pel. ad Dem. 23). He acts,
therefore, in accordance with it, and seeks to " extinguish habit
by habit," since ''it is habit which nourishes either vices or vir-
tues " (ib. 17. 13). He abandons the ** imitation of Adam,"
and lays hold upon the '' imitation the holiness of Christ
"
of
(op. imp. ii. 146). This doctrine of grace is in entire harmony
with the theory of sin. Sin is overcome through free will en-
lightened by the reason, or by the giving of the law. This,
properly speaking, is grace. That which is occasionally said of
atonement through the blood of Christ, of the forgiveness of
sins, and renewal through baptism, is inconsistent, and beyond
the range of Pelagian ideas.
Instead of attempting a summary, I cite in conclusion the six
propositions into which the first antagonist of Pelagianism,
Pauiinus of Milan, compressed the Pelagian doctrine: '* Adam
was born mortal, and would have died, whether he had sinned
or not sinned. The sin of Adam injured only himself, and not
^ For the Pelagian idea of following Christ (also de vita christ. 6, 14 Jul. in
;
op. imp. ii. 146 ii. 223

; Aug. degr. Chr. 2. 2), vid. Caspari, pp. 5, 20, 40, 121.
;
Julian emphasized the truth that we are by Christ incited to a responsive love
toward God ** God, as is well known, did whatever he did toward us with in-
:
estimable love, in order that we might, though late, love him in return " (op.
imp. i. 94). Pelagius could not clearly explain wherein consisted the unutter-
able impartation of grace which he maintained. He mentions, indeed, in
reference to Rom. 4. 7, the forgiveness of sins ( ** in addition, faith is first im-
puted for righteousness in order that he may be absolved from the past and jus-
tified in the present, and prepared for future works of faith," Mi. 30. 688).
But, under the Pelagian theory of sin, the significance of forgiveness is very
slight, the more so since such forgiveness applies only to the sins committed
before the renewal wrought in baptism (Aug. c. duas ep. Pel. iii. 8. 24 iv.
;
7. 17; degr. Chr. 34. 39).
22
the human Children who are now born are in the state in
race.
which Adam
was before the fall. Neither does the whole human
race die through the death or fall of Adam, nor does the whole
human race arise from the dead through the resurrection of
Christ. The law sends into the kingdom of heaven in the same
way as does the gospel. Men were impeccable, i. <?,, without
sin, even before the coming of the Lord (in Marius Common.
'
'
I. I ; cf. I subnot. praef. 5).

3. Augustine's Doctrine of Sin and Grace.
Of the works of Augustine, the following are of chief importance for us :
Liber de 83 quaestionibus (about A. D. 388 to about A. D. 396), De libero

arbitrio (A. D. 388-395). Quaestiones ad Simplicianum (397). Confes-
siones, 11. 13 (400). In connection with the Pelagian controversy Depecca-
:
torum meritis et remissione,

3 (412).
11. De spiritu et Httera (412). De
natura et gratia (415). De perfectione justitiae hominis (415). De gestis
Pelagii (417). De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, 11. 2 (418). De
nuptiis et concupiscentia, n. 2 (419). Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum,
II. 4 (420). Contra Julianurn, 11. 6 (421). De gratia et libero arbitrio {427).
De correptione et gratia (427). De praedestinatione sanctorum (428). De
dono perseverantiae {429). Opus imperfectum contra Julianum, 11. 6 (until
his death). Also a number of letters, vid. Opp. xiv. 1705 ff. Compare the
literature referred to at the beginning of the section.
A. The controlling factor in giving to Augustine's doctrine of

grace its peculiar form was not primarily the nature of his con-
version, although this helped to mould his theory ; nor the Pela-
gian doctrine which he was compelled to face, although this gave
form to many details in the statement of the doctrine ; least of
all, the Augustinian conception of the church. Piistorically
considered, Augustine, following Ambrose, gave recognition to
the religious common sense of the West, and was moulded by
the ideas of the Epistle to the Romans. His doctrine was com-
plete in its essential features before the beginning of the great
controversy (cf. the remarks, don. persev. 20. 52).
The first utterances of Augustine upon this subject remind us
of the view of Ambrose. Indeed, they are even more moderate
than the latter. The human race is a '* mass of sin " (1. de 83
quaest. dZ. 3, 4). No one, not even new-born children, is free
from original sin (^peccatum onginale, conf. i. 7 ; v. 9 ; ix. 6).
Concupiscence or lust, ignorance, and death, reign in the human
race (qu. 66. i; lib. arb. i. 4. 9 ff.; iii. 20. 55 Hust comes from
:
'
a perverse will ; " conf. viii. 5. 10), '' because it was just, that
after our nature had sinned we should be born animal and
. .
carnal " (qu. 66. 3). But our nature sinned in Adam {66. 3-5 ;
lib. arb. iii. 20. 56). Yet Adam sinned as a free man. Evil
in the world is a result of freedom, as Augustine very frequently
reminds the Manichâns (vid. esp. de. lib. arb.). The law
can accomplish nothing toward releasing from the state of sin,

since it can only convince of sin (66. i, 3). There is need of
grace. is able to will unless admonished
'Ând since no one
and where no man may see, or exter-
called, either internally
nally through the spoken sermon or some other visible signs, it
comes to pass that God, works in us even to will itself" (68. 5).
But, although grace here produces the will (to do good), yet
Augustine thinks: **But God would not have mercy . . .
unless the will had preceded," and says the reason why God has
mercy upon some and rejects others lies **in the most hidden
merits " of the former, since God is not unrighteous (ib. 68. 5,
4). Of fallen man, it is said :
" It was fitting that God should not
only not hinder, but should even assist him in willing " (lib. arb.
iii.20. 55). The capacity for striving after salvation remained
to his will (ib. iii. 22. 65). He
is able of himself to believe and
to will, but God must

him the power to do good (exposit.
give
quarundam proposit. ex ep. ad Rom. 61 cf. retract, i. 23. 3; ;
de praedest. 3. 7). The form of doctrinal conception may here

be summarized as follows : Man has, through the fall of Adam,
become subject to ignorance, lust, and death. In response to
the call iyocatid) ofGod, he is indeed able to believe and to
will thatwhich is good, but it is only grace that works in him the
power to perform it.
But, under renewed study of the Epistle to the Romans (vid.
quaest. ad Simplician. i. quaest 2), Augustine revised this
theory (vid. remarks, praed. sanct. 3. 8). The subject there
under discussion is the election of Jacob, according to Rom. 9.
Works can in this instance not be the ground of the election, nor
can the divine prescience of the '' merits of the faith " of Jacob
(1. c. qu. 2. 2. ff.). According to Rom. 9. 16 and Phil. 2. 13,
the resolution to save lies solely in the mercy and good pleasure
of God. Hence salvation must be attributed solely to grace. It
has its beginning in man in faith. Even this faith is a work

wrought by grace namely, through the divine call (10). But
to this might be objected, that grace of itself is not sufficient,
it
but that the human will must be combined with it. To this
Augustine replies *'But this is manifest, that we will in vain,
:
unless God have mercy but I do not know how it can be said,
;
that God has mercy in vain unless we will. For if God has
mercy, we also will our willing belongs to the same mercy"
;
(12). Therefore, it depends solely upon the omnipotent wall of

God, whether anyone shall will or not will. When this idea is
combined with that of the divine call, it results in the discrimi-
nation of two classes: the elect {electi) who are suitably {con-
gruenter') called, whom God calls *'in whatever way was suitable
;
for them and the called ( vocati ) to whom the call indeed came,
'
' ,
but ** it was of such a character that they could not be

because
moved by it and were not suitable (âpti f) to accept it, they
could be said to be called indeed, but not chosen" {electi)
(13). That Esau was not chosen is, therefore, because God did
not have mercy upon him, and did not effectually call him (14).
There can be no thought here of any unrighteousness in God,
since no one has a right to be delivered from the ''mass of
sin." But the judgments and ways of God are inscrutable
(Rom. II. 23). God "therefore laments with justice and
mercy" (16). It is, hence, not the willing and the conduct
of man which lead to salvation, but solely the grace of God,
which has mercy upon some and effectually calls them, but
leaves others to their merited fate. It is interesting to observe
here that the peculiar effect of grace is held to be, not the
awakening of faith, but an upright life :
'* But grace justifies, in
order that the justified man may be able to live justly (right-
eously): the first thing, therefore, is grace; the second, good
works " (3, cf. 1 2 '* the will of man alone does not suffice, that
:
we may live righteously and rightly " ) This may be understood .
in the light of Augustine's personal Christian experience. He

learned to lay hold upon the grace of God, not because it
awakened in him, as in Luther, the assurance of faith, but be-
cause it overcame his unwillingness to lead a Christian life. He
apprehended it as he read the exhortation to moral conduct in
Rom. 13. 13 f.: ''Neither did I wish to read any further, nor
was there any need; for immediately with the end of this sen-
tence, the light of assurance being, as it were, poured into my
heart, all the shades of doubt were dissipated" (conf. viii. 12.
29, cf. 30 "Thou didst convert me to Thyself, that I might
:
'
desire neither wife nor any other hope of this world ; also the '
prayer x. i).
But we notice also in this connection the influence of the con-
ception of God entertained by Augustine. Profoundly and fully
as he recognizes the personal God holding intercourse with man,
yet there is also a foreign element in his conception of the Deity.
He thinks of God as pure Being, absolutely simple, immutable,
and indestructible {e. g., soliloq. i. i. 4 init.; de trin. vi. 6. 8 ;
in Joh. tr. 13. 5 ; i. 8).^ This absolute Subsistence (^substantia)
is the Good. All that exists either is this Subsistence or is derived
from it. Hence it follows, that everything that exists is good.
'* Therefore every subsistence is either God or from God, be-
1 The last passage reads : "What is formed in my heart when I say God ?
A certaingreat and supreme Subsistence is thought of, which transcends every
mutable carnal and animal creature."

1
:
cause all good is either God or from God" (lib. arb. iii. 13.
36). Hence, the base and the evil are not subsistences. *' And
that evil of which I inquired whence it was, is not a subsistence,
because if it were a subsistence it would be good" (conf. vii.
12. 18).^ Evil bears a privitive character as 2. privatio boni
(civ. dei, xi. 22). It has no *' cause," but only a '* de-
efficient
ficient cause " (civ. dei, xii. 7). a lack of existence, not a
It is
subsistence. Evil has its basis, not in God, but in free will
*^ And I inquired what iniquity was, and I found not a subsist-
ence, but the perversity of a will turned away from God, the
supreme Subsistence, to the depths (conf. vii. 16. 22). The
evil will is the source of all evil (enchirid. 4. 15 ; civ. dei, xii.
7; op. imp, vi. 5).
But if evil be thought of in this (Neo-Platonic) scheme as a
nonentity in man, then grace can be regarded only as a creative
act of God, making of the nonentity an entity, by transforming
the basis of the former, the evil will^ through the inbreathijig of
a good will. It is only from this point of view that we can en-
tirely understand Augustine's doctrine of grace. He has in
view primarily, not the establishment of a personal communion,
but a creative act. Grace is effectual as the almighty, creative
Will, which infuses into man a new subsistence, the moral will.
B. These principles remained as normative for the exhaustive
treatment given to the subject by Augustine in opposition to
Pelagianism.
(a) God created man good and upright. He knew nothing
of concupiscence. His will was positively good. Being thus
good, he was in consequence truly free. *'God made (man)
therefore, as it is written, upright, and hence of a good will. .
Therefore the decision of the will is truly free whenever it does

'
not serve vices and sins (civ. dei, xiv. 11. i
' 10 op. imp. v.
; ;
61). In this condition man served God, and found supreme satis-
faction in doing so. The body meanwhile, with all its impulses,
served the soul, and reason reigned in man (civ. dei, xiv. 24, i ;
26 init. nupt. et cone. ii. 15. 30 ; pecc. merit, ii. 22. '^(i). But
;
this condition was one of freedom: *'It should be within his

choice, either that he should always wish to be in this (good
will) or that he should not always thus wish, but should change
from it to an evil will without compulsion from any source (op.
'
'
imp. V. 61). The divine assistance (adjuto7'iu}ji) was within

his reach, by means of which he was able, but not compelled^ to
persevere in the good. This was the ^* first grace " (corrept. et
grat. II. 31). There was a posse 12 on pec care, but not a non
^
lb.: ** Therefore whatever things exist are good,'*
posse peccare, and, in connection with this, posse non mori^ but 2^.
not a non posse mori (ib. 12. 33 op. imp. vi. 16), and hence
; :
'*He had a possibility, but not a necessity, of sinning" (op.

imp. vi. 5). Man was, therefore, created with an inclination
of the will toward the good and was by God preserved in it, but
in such a way that, through his freedom, it was possible for his
inclination to be turned in another direction.
(^) All of this Adam lost in the fall. Since he transgressed
the commandment of God, which he might so easily have ful-
filled, his will became evil. Pride was the cause of it. Man
was not willing to obey God, but wished to be his own master.
But, since man refuses obedience to God, God assigns it as his
punishment, that his flesh shall cease to serve the spirit, that
ignorance shall take possession of his soul, and the potential mor-
tality of body and soul shall become a reality. ** An evil will
preceded, by which credence was given to the wile of the ser-

pent, and evil concupiscence followed, by which he stood gaping
before the forbidden food " (op. imp. i. 71 ; vid. also civ. dei,
xiv. II ff.; xiii. 3. 13; nat. et grat. 25. 28). Adam has not
merely done a single act, but has become a sinner.
(<:) This character of Adam has now passed over to his pos-
terity. Through the punitive decree of God, Adam has become
a different man, and human nature has thereby been changed :
** Nature (was) vitiated

by sin our nature, there transformed
:
for the worse, not only became a sinner, but also begets sinners ;
and yet that languor in which the power of living aright has
been lost is certainly not nature, but defect " (nupt. et cone. ii.
34. 57 \ 8. 20; c. Jul. 24. 53; op. imp. iii. 11 ; ii. 163;
iii.
in Joh. '* defect grew, inolevtt, in-

civ. dei, xiii. 3 ; cf. 44. i
tr. :
stead of nature " ) . But now all men were in Adam * ' All men :
were that one man " (pecc. mer. et rem. i. 10. ii)j hence, ac-
cording to Rom. 5. 12 {i(p' di :=n in quo): " in Adam all then
sinned" (ib. iii. nupt. et cone. ii. 5. 15 ; op. imp. ii.
17. 4 ;
176). They were all, indeed, contained in him. From this it

follows: (i) That his moral character becomes theirs. (2)
That the penalty pronounced upon him (of being subject to con-
cupiscence and death) passes over also upon them. We have his
sin, and are burdened with his guilt. '' Wherefore condemna-
tion in view of the magnitude of that sin has changed nature for
the worse, so that what preceded penally in the first sinning men,
follows naturally in other men in birth. But what the . . .
parent man is, that is also the offspring man. ... To such an
extent was human nature vitiated and changed in him that it
should have to endure the disobedience of concupiscence warring
in its memberSj and be subject to the necessity of death, and
DOCTRINE OF SIN AND GRACE, 343
thus that which sprung from fault became penalty, i. e. he should ,
generate those subject to sin and death" (civ. dei, xiii. 3, 13,
14; op. imp. iv. 104; vi. 22; i. 47). Thus, in Adam the
whole human race has become a ** mass of perdition " and is
condemned in him. '* For all men were thus seminally in the
loins of Adam when he was condemned, and, therefore, he was
not condemned without them" (op. imp. v. 12). From this no
one is exempt, not even new-born children (c. Jul. i. 6. 22 ;
op. imp. i. 56; iii. 154; cf. the scriptural proof in pecc. mer.
et rem. i. 27. 40 ff. ). This is attested by the sufferings which
the righteous God appoints for men, and especially by the suffer-
ings of children (pecc. mer. et rem, iii. 10. 18) and by exorcism
at baptism (c. Jul. vi. 5. 11). As original sin simply as such
brings condemnation, it must have this effect even in the case of
children, although there is meted out to them *' the lightest con-
demnation of all " (pecc. mer. et rem. i. 12. 15; 16. 21).
From all the above it follows, that there is in us a ** necessity of
sinning" (op. imp. i. 106; v. 61 ; perf. just. 4. 9). Of this
life, it is said: ''whether mortal life or vital death, I know
not" (conf. i. 67 ; cf. civ. dei, xiii. 10 init.). But, above all
else, the absolute unfitness of man for salvation must be empha-
sized. It is the energy with which Augustine maintains this idea,
embracing all human activity under sin and guilt (the virtues of
the heathen being but *' splendid vices j " cf. civ. dei, v. 12 ff.;
xix. 25),^ which marks advance beyond Ambrose, and consti-
his
tutes the religious significance of his theory. That nothing good
and no salvation can be found except in Christ was the thought
impressed upon the church by' these discussions.
Original sin is regarded in the light of real sin, as well as of
guilt. It is sin, and is a divine penalty. It is propagated among
men, not in the way of imitation (c. Jul. vi. 24. 75), but by
generation. *' Through one man it entered the world, and it
passes through all men" (pecc. mer. et rem. i. 12. 33). Al-
though marriage is a moral good (pecc. orig. 37. 42 33. 38 ; ;
though celibacy is to be preferred, vid. op, imp. v. 17), yet gen-

eration never occurs without sinful concupiscence, as is proved
clearly enough by the sense of shame associated with the act
(nupt. et cone, ii. 5. 14), and the concupiscence passes over upon
the children. This is the case even when the parents are regen-
erate, '^ as from the seed of an olive springs nothing but a wild
olive " (ib. ii. 34. 58). '* Yet, when it shall come to the
act of
generation, it is not possible that allowable and honorable inter-
^ This term does not itself occur in Augustine, but it admirably summarizes
his view ; somewhat as the credo quia absurdu?n attributed to Tertullian ; cf.
supra, p. 127.
course should occur without the burning of lust, so that what springs
from reason might be transmitted, and not what springs from lust.
. Of this concupiscence of the flesh, which I grant is in the regen-
erate not imputed as sin (previously described as venial sins '),
'

but which is not found in nature except from sin of this concu-
piscence of the flesh, I say . . whatever offspring is born is
.
by virtue of its origin (ôriginaliter) bound to sin" (nupt. et

cone. I. 24. 27). There is *'a defect {yitiuni) of the seed"
(ib. ii. 8. 20). In the questionof Traducianism orCreationism,
Augustine could reach no conclusion (de anima et ejus origine,
ii. 14. 20; 15. 21; retract, i. i. 3). There is, consequently,
at this point a lack of clearness in his theory of sin. He cer-
tainly represents sin as propagated by lust in copulation, but this
is not to be understood as though he regarded the intercourse of
the sexes as in itself sinful or unworthy of man. His idea is
only, that man, being a sinner, can generate offspring only in a
sinful wây. The sinful state, to his mind, logically precedes the
sinful act. It is, therefore, not correct to trace this idea to unvan-
quished Manichsean dualism (Harnack, DG. iii. 191, note 3),
as was done already by Julian of Eclanum. It may be said that
the ** monastic temper of Augustine favored " it (Loops, DG.,
ed. 3, p. 215), but beyond this we cannot go. In evidence
against the suggestion, we may recall that even yet there lies
in the background in Augustine's mind the conviction that
sin has no subsistence, but is only ^.privatio boni, a i-ltj ov (nat. et
grat. 20. 22 ; c. Jul. i. 8. 37 ; enchir. 11 ; cf. p. 341). From
original sin, which is thus a '' necessity," proceed the individual
sins of man, which he adds to the former ** of his own free will,
not through Adam " (pecc. mer. et rem. i. 15. 20; conf. v. 9
init.). Yet, despite all this, we may speak of a free will
{libeni77i aj-bitrium) even in the case of the sinner, though not in
the sense of the Pelagian possibilitas utriusque partis^ for a man
cannot be at the same time both a good and an evil tree (grat.
Chr. c. 18, 19, 19 ff. ). The libertas of paradise has been
lost, /. ^., *'to have with righteousness full immortality ;
" for
this freedom (''free to live well and uprightly") now exists
only by virtue of the influence of ''grace," which is precisely
what is lacking in the sinner's case. But the freedom to sin of
*' We
his own will has, however, remained to him. do not say
that by the sin of Adam free will perished from the nature of
men, but that it is capable of sinning . . but it is not capable
.
of living well and piously, unless the will of man has itself been
liberated by the grace of God " (c. duas ep. Pel. ii. 5. 9 ;op.
imp. i. 94). Hence, " we are not such against our will."
(d) In harmony with what we have before observed, the
words of Augustine just cited indicate clearly that, in his view,

righteousness is a '* living well and rightly." This gives us a
clue to his conception of the nature of original sin. It cannot
be, as in Luther, unbelief. According to Augustine, it is above
all, evil ox carnal concupiscence, which finds its subject, -indeed,
in the soul : ''for the flesh does not lust (^concupiscif) without the
soul, although the flesh is said to lust, because the soul lusts car-
nally " (perf. just. 8. 19). In this dominion of sensuality over

the spirit we are to recognize the penal consequence of the first
sin, but not its cause. ** The corruption of the body which op-
presses the soul is not the cause, but the penalty, of the first sin ;
neither does the corruptible flesh make the soul a sinner, but the
sinful soul makes the flesh corrupt " (civ. dei, xiv. 3 ; cf., as to
the term, flesh, ib. c. 2). With this degradation of the spirit is
intimately connected the ** horrifying depth of ignorance. This '
*
enables us to understand why man surrenders himself to his pas-

sions and to vain things. '* But these are all characteristics of
wicked men, yet they come from that root of error and perverted
affection with which every son of Adam is born" (civ. dei,
xxii. Lust finds its explanation in ignorance.
22. i). And
both have their foundation in the perverted inclination of man.
He turned away from God and toward himself, and in this fell a
prey to the world. He wanted to love himself, and abandoned
his love to God ; he is, in consequence, given over to the lust
which loves and pursues the husks of the world. This '* love of
self
'
is the real essence of sin
' That such is Augustine's concep-
.
tion is manifest from his magnificent presentation of the subject in

Sermo p6. 2.2: " The first ruin of man was the love of himself .
. . That is, his making it his will that he should will to love
.
himself. For, having forsaken God, he begins to love him-

. , .
self and is driven away from himself to the loving of the things
which are without. . . . Thou hast begun to love thyself : re-
main in thyself, if thou without? canst.Thou What is . . .
hast begun to love what is without thee thou hast destroyed thy- ;
self. Therefore, when a man's love passes from himself to the

things which are without, he begins to lose himself (evanescere)
in vain things and to squander his strength like the prodigal. He
is emptied, poured out, rendered destitute, and feeds swine."
Such is the nature of sin love of self, ignorance, concupiscence.

:
Man falls away from God, wishing to serve himself, and he is

drawn into the whirlpool of worldliness. Henceforth his exist-
ence is but death. Of our first parents, it is said *' Therefore, :
although they lived many years afterward, yet they began to

die in that day in which they received the law by which
they should grow into the decay of old age (pecc. mer. et
'
'
rem. i. i6. 21J. The whole host of evils now overwhelms

man.
Thus life in the world was by sin transformed into a hell, from
which only Christ was able to deliver (civ. dei, xxii. 22. 4). But,
in discussing original evil, Augustine does not forget the original
good. Men generate inen,^ and God permits the latter through
his '' efficacious power " to become men, with intellectuaHike-
ness to God. '*In original evil there are two things, sin and
penalty ; in original good, two other things, propagation and
conformation. Yet there is not entirely extinct within man a
certain spark of the character {scintilla rationis) in which he was
created after the image of God " (civ. dei, xxii. 24. i, 2, 3).
Such is Augustine's doctrine of sin. Here at length sin is
treated from a purely religious point of view, as the absolute op-
posite of the good, and as the condition of the race, which can
be changed only through Christ. But here, too, sin is regarded as
the sin of ma?t himself and of the race. The way is thus opened
for the recognition of the spiritual character of man as in itself
consistent, and for a proper conception of the historical develop-
ment of the race. Augustine's doctrine of original sin is not
only a matter of religious interest, but it is also a scientific ad-
vance in the realms of psychology and ethics, as well as a massive
conception in the sphere of history.^
(^) In harmony with his doctrine of sin, Augustine attributes
the salvation of men to grace alone. Grace begins the good in
man, and it remains actively influential in him after it has
liberated his will. '* It goes before him when unwilling, that he
may will ; it follows him when willing, that he may not will in
vain '* (enchir. 9. 32). God ''prepares the will, and by co-
operating completes what he begins by operating. Since he, in
beginning, operates that we may will, who, in perfecting, co-op-
erates with us when we will " (grat. etlib. arb. 17. 33). It is thus
only under the gracious influence of God that man comes to the
good and remains in it. We have already observed (p. 341) that
Augustine conceives of grace as divine creative power in action.
We understand, therefore, how it can be described as a ''won-
derful and ineffable power" which effects in 'man "not alone
true revelations, but also good wills" (grat. Chr. 24. 25), and
how its influence can be pronounced necessary even in the state
of integrity in paradise (ep. 186. 11. 37 ; enchir. 25. 106).
Grace is simply the resistless creative power of God, which ex-
^ Observe the point of view under which Augustine could here regard the
act of generation.
2 I fail to find aproper recognition of this and other aspects in Seyreich's
dissertation, Die Geschichtsphilosophie Augustins, Chemnitz, 1891.
;
erts its influence in the hearts ofmen as the power of the good.
This must be kept in view when we follow Augustine's delineation
of the work of grace. Not man himself, not doctrine, not example,
not the law, can help. The bare commandment is powerless
against concupiscence. Only through grace and faith can salva-
tion be attained '* what the law of works demands with threat-
:
ening, that the law of faith secures by believing. Here the '
'
motto is :
' *
Grant what Thou commandest
; '
' there, ' * Do what I

command" (sp. et lit. 13. 22). The first blessing is \.\\t for-
giveness of sinSy which man receives through baptism. With it
begins renewal (^renovatio), which finds here its basis (pecc. mer.
et rem. ii. 7. 9 ; 27. 43 ; conf. i. 11). Sin is, therefore, forgiven
through baptism. Concupiscence, however, yet remains even in
the baptized but it is no longer sin, because God no longer so
;
accounts it (nupt. et cone. i. 25. 28; 31. 36; pecc. mer. et

rem. i. 37. 70). It is to be noted, however, that the forgive-
ness of sins is not brought into such unvarying connection with
faith as in Paul. The Christian life begins with faith, which is
wrought by God (supra, p. 339) as the "beginning of our religion
and life." Faith is described as '* to agree that what is said is
true" (sp. et lit. 31. 54) or *'to meditate upon with assent"
(praedest. sanct. 2. 5). Faith is, therefore, the assensio to the
preached truth (cf. enchir. 7. 20 ; conf. vi. 5 in Joh. tr. 40. ;
9 ; 79. i). This explains why a higher stage i supposed to be

'^ un-
reached in knowledge ((:?^m'//(?), according to Isa. 7. 9 :
less you had believed, you would not know " {e. g., sermo 43 ;
in Joh. tr. 27.7; 22. 5; 29. 6; 48. i ; 112. i " he can believe :
before he can know;" ep. 114. 7 ; 120. 3). We meet, indeed,

statements which appear to lead us beyond this definition, as, for
example, when the idea of ** justification through faith " is occa-
sionally reproduced (vid. sub), or when it is said that men would
not be free from sin, "unless united and joined by faith to his
body" (z*. e.j Christ's, sermo 143. i), or when a distinction is
drawn between " believing Christ" and " believing in Christ,"
and the latter is described as constituting Christian faith (sermo
144. 2). But just here the thought becomes clear, as Augus-
tine explains " For he believes in Christ who both hopes in
:
Christ and loves Christ ... to him Christ comes, and in some
way is united to him and is made a member in his body
which cannot occur unless both hope and love are added " (cf.
in Joh. tr. 29. 6). Here, again, faith points beyond itself to a
higher stage. Instead of knowledge, this is now love.^ The
^ Through love there is effected also an advance in knowledge, in Joh. tr,
96. 4.
'
nature of faith is not that trustful attitude of heart which appre-

hends present grace, but it is the preparatory step toward a right-
eousness not yet attained. It is, therefore, also the ability to
pray for this righteousness: *'the spirit of grace brings it to
pass that we have faith, so that through faith we may by praying
secure the ability to do what we are commanded" (grat. et lib.
arb. 14. 28; sermo 168. 5 ; enchir, 28. 117). Faith in itself
is thus the belief of the truth of revelation. But it becomes
Christian faith only when it is a '* faith which works by love "
(fid. et op. 16. 27 ; serm. 168. 2 ; cf. in Joh. tr. 6. 21).
(/) The chief work of grace is really the infusion of love,^

or of a new and^good will, by the Holy Spirit. *'
They who
have love are born of God ; they who have not, are not born
of God " (in Joh. tr. 5. 7). This is not efifected by external
commandments, nor by the example of Christ ; but '* he gives an
increase internally by shedding abroad love in our hearts by the
Holy Spirit " (sp. et lit. 25. 42 ; pecc. mer. et rem. i. 9, 10),
or there is even said to be an ' tnspiratio of good will and work
' '
(corr. et grat. 2. 3). Thus evil desire is crowded out by desire

for God and his will : '*the Spirit inspiring good concupiscentia
instead of evil shedding abroad love in our hearts"
that is,
(sp. et lit. 4. 6; enchir. 32. 121). The endowing with new

moral power, and thus the transforming of the man ('* nature re-
paired by grace'" sp. et lit. 27. 47), is for Augustine the proper
meaning of the term, justification. Its essential nature consists
in this, that man becomes and is, hence, able
actually righteous,
to perform righteous works. For what else is it to be justified,
'
'
than to be made righteous (just), /. <?., by him who justifies the

ungodly man, that from being ungodly he may be made right-
eous " (ib. 26. 45; grat. et lib. arb. 6. 13). ''Through the
gift of the Spirit we work righteousness" (sp. et lit. 18. 31).
Thus the individual becomes a new man -from being an un-
godly, he becomes a righteous man from being a dead, be- ;
'* He heals the sick in spirit and revives

comes a living man.
the dead, /. ^., he justifies the ungodly " (nat. et grat. 26. 29).
''When the soul lives in sin, it is its death ; but when it be-
comes righteous, it becomes a participant in another life, which is
not the same as before, for, by lifting itself to God and inbreath-
ing God, it is justified by him" (in Joh. tr. 19. 11). This
instilling of the good, justifying will by the Spirit is progressive
and marks the entire Christian life, since concupiscence remains
even in the regenerate (nupt. et cone. i. 25. 28): "We are
(have been made righteous), but righteousness itself
justified
^ The expression is derived from Rom. 5. 5.

grows as we go forward " (serm. 158. 5). Although the essen-

tial nature of justification lies in the *' inspiring of a good will,"
yet, in a wider sense, the forgiveness of sins may also be ascribed
to it ; in such a way, however, that the emphasis still rests upon
the inspiration. ^'
Nor is this grace only the remission of sins
"
. . but it effects that the law is fulfilled and nature set free
.
(grat. et lib. arb. 14. 27; cf. op. imp. ii. 165; civ. dei, xii.
22). ^' For grace assists in both ways
by remitting the evil
things that we have done, and by aiding us to depart from the
evil and do the good" (op. imp. ii. 227 ; vi. 15).
We have thus secured a clear conception of Augustine's doctrine
of grace. Grace is the action of divine omnipotence which makes
man's will good, or capable of doing good. The view corre-
sponds exactly with his doctrine of sin. Ignorance is overcome
by the bestowal of faith ; the love of self, together with lust by
the imparting of the good will and of love to God and his law ; the
sinner's state of death, by the process of grace through which he
is made righteous and alive.
^
Notable above all else in this doctrinal structure is the energy

with which everything is referred to the grace of God, to the ex-
clusion of all human work. But whoever scrutinizes carefully
the real character of the operation of grace as thus depicted will
observe how imperfectly this theory meets the requirements of
the fundamental religious impulse of Augustine. The Pauline
character, which so largely distinguishes the latter, fails, after all,
to rise to the height of Paul's conception of the righteous-
ness of faith. Augustine cites the formula of Paul times
without number ; but he interprets it as meaning, that we
reach the conviction that righteousness is granted to us by
God without antecedent works upon our part, or that faith jus-
tifies because it works by love. ''This is the righteousness
of {ex') faith, by which we believe that we are justified; that is,
made righteous by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our
Lord, so that we may be found in him, not having our own right-
eousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith
of Christ. Which righteousness of (êx) God in faith, is in faith
in this way, that we by faith believe that righteousness is divinely
granted to us, not achieved by us by our own strength '* (ep.
* Augustine's order of salvation (following Rom. 8. 29 f.

) includes the fol-
lowing heads; " (Praescience) predestination, vocation, justification, glorifica-
tion" (inJoh.tr. 26. 15; corr. et grat. 9. 23). Or: ''Remission of sins,
thine infirmities are healed, redemption from corruption, the crown of right-
eousness" (serm. 131. 6. 8). Or: " Before the law, under the law, under
grace, in peace " (enchir. 31. I18). **By the grace of God we are regene-
rated, purified, justified" (c. litt. Petil. iii. 50. 62).
** For we read
i86. 3. 8). that they are justified in Christ who
believe in him, on account of a mysterious secret communication
and inspiration of grace, by which whoever clings to the Lord is
one spirit" (pecc. mer. et rem. i. 10. 11). Accordingly, it
may be said that even this great disciple of Paul, powerfully as
he was influenced by the apostle, yet misunderstood, him at the
crucial point. ^
(g) Grace, as being irresistible, is characterized by Augustine
z.%predestmating grace. Many lines of thought are concentrated
in this term the Platonic tincture of Augustine's doctrine of
:
God, his personal religious experience, his recognition of the sole

agency of grace, and exegetical considerations (p. 340). If
grace lays hold of man, there can be no resistance, for God car-
ries out his will in the human heart no less than in nature. *'
It
cannot, therefore, be doubted that human wills are not able to
resist the will of God, so that he may not do what he will, who
has done all things which he has willed in heaven and in earth,
and has done even those things which shall be, since, even
with respect to the wills of men themselves, he does what he will
when he will .who nevertheless does not do so except
through the wills of men themselves having beyond doubt
;
omnipotent power of inclining hearts whithersoever it may

please him" (corr. et grat. 14. 45, 43; enchir. 21. 95). The
difference between grace and the '* primary grace," or "assist-
ance," granted to Adam lies in the fact that the latter could be
voluntarily relinquished, whereas the former produces the will
(corr. et grat. 11. 31, 38). To the question, whether the
freedom of man's will is hereby destroyed, Augustine replies in
the negative. On the contrary, grace heals and restores the free
will, so that it is able to freely choose the good (sp. et lit. 30.
52 ; enchir. 25. 105). Man does not, as the Pelagians would
have us believe, attain grace by freedom, but freedom by grace
(corr. et grat. 8. 17). But when we remember that a new
will is in an irresistible way implanted in man, and this will then
" indeclinably and insuperably" controlled by the divine power
it cannot be open to question that
{virtus, corr. et grat. 12. 38),
the claim of freedom is here meant to be taken in a very pecu-
liar sense. It can be understood only in the sense that God
1 Yet Augustine
as many of the pious in the Middle Ages was able to
find his chief consolation in the forgiveness of sins, e.g.: ** And this our right-
eousness, although it is a true righteousness on account of the end of real
goodness at which it aims, yet is in this life of such a nature that it consists
rather in the remission of sins than in the perfection of virtues. A
witness to
'
this is the prayer of the whole kingdom of God, Forgive us our debts
*
'(civ. '
dei, xix. 27).

deals with man in a way consonant with his endowment wuth a

will, so that man survives the transformation of his will as a
creature still (formally) possessing the power of willing (see
above citation). In this way man becomes free, 2. e., from the
power of concupiscence. The state of spiritual subjection to
God divinely wrought in him, by virtue of which he withdraws
himself from the control of sensuous motives, is his freedom.
The same result is reached if we consider the doctrine of perse-
verance in grace. This is a work of grace, the donum ferse-
verantiae (^don. -^trs. i. i). Here also applies the rule '^God :
effects that they may will (corr. et grat. I.e.). A real freedom,
'
'
in the metaphysical sense of the term, is thus excluded. This,

again, is a consequence of Augustine's conception of grace as a
creative energy {virtus) and not as a personal, spiritual relation.
But it is necessary to face the fact, that not all who are called
{vocati) are subdued by grace. Augustine explains this on the
ground of predestination. Before the creation of the world,
God formed the resolution to redeem certain men in Christ and
to apply to them his grace. ''The predestination of God,
which is in the good man, is a preparation ... for grace, but
grace is the effect of this predestination (praedest. 10. 19 ; don.
persev. 9. 21). There is a *' good -pleasure of his (God's)
will," which has nothing to do with human merits, not even
with such as were foreseen by God. On the contrary, the deter-
mination iproposituni) of God is the ground upon which the good
will is imparted to this or that one (praed. 18. 37). There is a
strictly definite number (as maintained already in debapt. v. 27.
38) whom God has thus foreordained to grace: ''There is a
number so fixed, that neither can anyone be added to them nor
taken from them " (corr. etgrat. 13. 39).^ Predestination is the
cause of salvation. All saving ordinances are means for realizing
it, and therefore really serve and benefit only the predestinated.
Only to the elect comes the effectual "peculiar calling of the

elect" (praed. 18. 37), so that he may follow him who calls :
others are not so {non ita) called (don. pers. 9. 21). The elect
alone has the "gift of perseverance," whereas the foreknown
{praesciti) may still fall away even in the last hour (corr. etgrat.
9. 22 ; don. pers. 8. 19). All, therefore, rests in the hands of
God, depends upon his choice " Therefore whoever have in
:
the most provident ordering of God been foreknown, predesti-

nated, called, justified, and glorified, although yet, I will not say
unregenerated but even yet unborn, are now the sons of God
^ The fixity of the number is evident from Augustine's view that the elect
are to form a substitution for the number of the fallen angels (enchir. 9. 29 ;
15. 62 ; civ. dei, xxii. i ).
and can by no means perish " (corr. et grat. 9. 23). The pre-
destinated saved, commonly becoming a called and justified
is
member of the church. But it must be held as possible that

such an one may not come into contact in any way with histori-
cal Christianity, and yet be saved
because he is predestinated
(ep. 102 quaest. 12, 14, 15 ; cf. with praedest. 9, 17-
"2,
19 ; also Reuter, Aug. Stud., p. 90 ff. ). The unpredestinated,

or foreknown^ on the other hand, under all circumstances, fall
into ruin, as parts of the massa perditionis. Even if they appear
to be true Christians, called, justified, regenerated through bap-
tism, renewed
they will not be saved, because they have not
been elected (don. pers. 9. 21). No blame attaches to God;
they are alone to blame, as they simply remain given over to
their just fate :
'' He who falls, falls by his own will ; and he who
stands, stands by the will of God"
(don. pers. 8. 19).^ In
such God reveals his justice, as in the elect his mercy (ib. 8.
16). To the question. Why he chooses some and leaves others to
their fate, the only answer is 'Î so will," at which the creature
:
must humbly bow before his Creator (ib. 17).^

In these conceptions, Augustine's doctrine of grace culmi-
nates. Grace and nature, mercy and justice, are seen in direct
opposition to one another, as formerly in Marcion, and a solu-
tion is offered as paradoxical as was his, and as unsatisfactory to
the religious sense. The profoundly religious spirit of Augustine
is as manifest as is the fact that certain foreign and unevangelical
threads have found their way into the texture of his thought.
He had learned to present faithfully the sola gratia, but his doc-
trine suffered detriment from the fact that he did not understand

the sola fide that the God whose fellowship his heart could so
wonderfully portray was yet for his intellect not the God of the
gospel. Assurance of salvation cannot
according to this theory
be attained (corr. et grat, 13. 40 ; 9. 22 ; civ. dei, xi. 12).
'^ Nevertheless, this is
good: not to be too wise, but to fear"
(don. pers. 8. 19), says the man who yet so well knew that re-
ligion is something more than the fear of breaking off a covenant
relationship. But however deeply this mighty intellectual struc-
ture may be enshrouded beneath the shadows of the age, yet it
stated the problem for the doctrinal history of the future. In
^ Augustine commonly expresses himself in this way, but he also speaks of

those ** predestinated to eternal death" (in Joh. tr. 43. 13, cf. no. 2; civ.
dei, XV. I. I ; enchir. 26. 100).
2 Augustine escapes the force of opposing passages of Scripture, especially
Tim. 2. 4, by peculiar interpretations, as that no one is saved unless God wills

it (enchir. 24. 103), or that **all" means the predestinated, *' because the
whole race of men is in them " (corr. et grat. 14. 44).
tones that can never be forgotten, it taught the church There :
is only one thing to be feared

rebellion against God, or evil in
the heart ; and there is only one thing good and great the
effectual grace of the living God.
Historical Course of the Controversy.
4.
Thedirect opposition between the positions of Pelagius and
Augustine is manifest. It was natural that a violent controversy
should ensue, in which the leadership should fall to the lot of Au-
gustine. The ideas with which he confronts his opponents may be
readily inferred, i, e., that Pelagianism knows nothing of grace,
and that it is not freedom of the will, but the grace of God, which
saves man. If man were free in the Pelagian sense, then would
Christ have come into the world in vain (nat. et grat. c. 19 ff.,
21 ff. ). If it was only a question of teaching and example,
then why did not the pious Abel long since become the chief of
the righteous? (ib. 9. 10). Christian experience, no less than
the prayer of the whole church for the forgiveness of sins, testi-
fies that man cannot by his own power avoid sin (serm. 181).
Further, the universality of the penalties imposed by a righteous
God, from which even children are not exempt, makes against
the Pelagian view (op. imp. iii. 154). In this connection,
Augustine strongly emphasizes infant baptism. Either new-bom
children are sinful, or they are not. In the latter case, they
need no baptism (pecc. mer. et rem. i. 23. 33; 18. 23; op.
imp. ii. 222)
an inference, indeed, against which the Pelagians
protested (p. 335, note). Finally, Augustine appeals to a num-
ber of passages of Scripture (Rom. 5. 12; 7. 14-26; 8. 26.
Gen. 2. 7. Ps. 51 143. 2. Eph. 2. 3.
; Joh. 8. 36). He
even endeavored to produce a proof from the history of the
church's doctrinal development (c. Jul. i. ii.). Thomasius
(i. ed. 2, 543 ff. ) has treated exhaustively this
critique of
Pelagianism.
The controversy was started when Caelestius was endeavoring
to secure an appointment as presbyter in Carthage. The first
offense appears to have been taken at the claim of the followers
of Caelestius, that infant baptism does not aim at the forgiveness
of sins (Aug. pecc. mer. et rem. iii. 6. 12).^ Paulinas, a
deacon of Milan, brought charges against him (vid. the charges
in Marius Commonit. i. i, supra, p. 337 f. ) at a council in Car-
^ In the discussion, Caelestius laid emphasis upon the necessity of baptism

for infants. In the Relatio of the theses in Lib. subnot. praef. 5, Marius has
the declaration : " Since infants, although they are not baptized, have eternal
life." This is therefore, perhaps, original. All these instances give evidence
that the assertion of Caelestius in regard to baptism referred to in the text fiyed
attention upon the subject.
23
thage (A. D. 411 or 412). Caelestius was excommunicated and

went to Ephesus, where he secured on Greek territory ap-
pointment as a presbyter. Pelagius, who had also been in Car-
thage, had gone to Palestine. He, too, secured a following.
But Jerome wrote against him (ad Ctesiphontem [ep. 133] and
dialogus c. Pelagianos 11. 3).^ Reports from the West impelled
John of Jerusalem to summon a council (Jerusalem A. D. 415,
vid. account of Orosius in Liber apologeticus 3-6) to consider the
case of Pelagius. But John unequivocally defended the thesis of
Pelagius, that man may easily keep the commandments of God,
/. ^., by divine help. Orosius, therefore, requested that, as Pela-
gius was a Latin, the matter be referred to Rome. Under the
urgency of two exiled Gallic bishops, Heros and Lazarus,
another council was called, A. D. 415, at Diospolis, or Lydda
(cf Aug. de gestis Pel.; also Mansi iv. 311 ff. ). Pelagius
adroitly satisfied the minds of the bishops, affirming that man
can indeed do everything good, but only with the divine assist-
ance iâdjutoriuni) Assertions ascribed to him he pronounced
,
apocryphal. He disclaimed responsibility for the positions of

Caelestius, but with the remark *^ But the things which I have
:
declared to be not mine, I, in accordance with the opinion of the

holy church, reprobate, pronouncing an anathema against every-
one who opposes. This was a cowardly untruth.
'
' The council

pronounced him orthodox.^ But the Africans did not rest. A
council at Carthage and another in Mileve (both A. D. 416)
sent letters to his '* Holiness," Pope Innocent L, at Rome.
Then came an exhaustive and instructive private communication
by five bishops (including Augustine among his letters ep.
175-177), cautiously urging to energetic action. The situation
is depicted, the doctrine of Pelagius described and confuted,
the unique authority of the Roman bishop extolled (ep. 175. 2
f; 176. i; 177. 19), and the latter urged to take the matter in
hand. Pelagius, who gloried in the decision of the Eastern
1 This work, bitter and passionate in style (Jerome heaps upon the head of
Pelagius the names of nearly all the heretics), proved that Jerome wished to
please Augustine, but in the question itself stood not very far from Pelagius
{e. g.j ep. ad Ct. 6. 10, dial. ii. 5 ff. ; iii. 5. 6, cf. Zockler, Hieronymus, pp.
42off.,3iifr.).
^ Pelagius shrewdly emphasized his orthodoxy upon the Trinity (Aug. gest.
Pel. 19. 43), and also the fact that the question in dispute did not affect any
"dogma." '* I anathematize them as fools, not as heretics, if there is no
dogma" (ib. 6. 16). This is to be explained not by a disinclination to enlarge
"the sphere of the dogmatic " (Harnack iii. 162, n. i), but it is simply a
means of defense, just as Caelestius declared at Carthage " This is a matter :
of inquiry, not of heresy" (Aug. pecc. or. 3, 3, cf. the Roman confession of
Caelestius in Aug. pecc. orig. c. 23, Julian's term, quaestiones indiscipli-
natae^ in Marius 1. subnot. 6. 12).

theologians (ep. 177. 2), was required to recall his statements or

to acknowledge the saving nature of infant baptism and the insuffi-
ciency of nature for the attainment of salvation (ep, 175. 6).^
The pope lost no time in answering the letters (vid. in the let-
ters of Aug., ep. 181-183). In the labored style of the Curia,
there is, first of all, an acknowledgment of the praiseworthy and

proper observance of the discipline now observed by the whole

world in appealing, as all churches do, to the decision of
Rome (ep. 181. i; 182. 2). But in the discussion of the doc-
trinal question, this pope, as some of his predecessors, showed
himself a poor theologian. The Africans have, indeed, spoken
rightlyand said all. It is superfluous for any person of orthodox
views to dispute concerning grace and freedom (ep. 181. 7, 9 ;
183. 5), for it is clear that man needs the divine assistance for
his salvation (ep. 181. 4-6, 8; 182. 3 f.). In other words
the Africans are of course in the right, because the doctrine of
their opponents is correct The dogmatic helplessness of the
!
pope in this instance, having no finished scheme at his com-

mand, is comical. As to other phases of the difficulty, speedy
help must be given against the pestilent poison (181. 2 f. S). ,
The pope does not believe that Pelagius and Caelestius can be
converted (181. 8)
he doubts also if decision was really given
in favor of Pelagius at Diospolis
they are both to be excluded
from the church (ep. 181. 8; 182. 6).^
A strictly orthodox confessioii of Pelagius now found its way
to Rome. The questions at issue were but briefly touched upon,
infant baptism and the freedom of the will acknowledged (but
with the limitation *'we are always in need of the help of
God"), and emphasis laid upon complete subjection to the
pope^ (Hahn, ed. 3, p. 288 f. J. Innocent had died (March,
417), and the confession fell into the hands of his successor,
ZosiMUs. Caelestius, having in the meanwhile gone to Constan-
tinople and been driven thence, had also appeared in Rome.
He acknowledged baptism for the remission of sins and the in-
faUibility of the papal decision, but denied that "sin is born
with man " (Hahn, ed. 3, p. 292 f. ). Zosimus was entirely sat-
isfied, and in this he did not come into collision with the dog-
matics of his predecessor. A council at Rome (A. D. 417)
^ This practical inference in the letter from Carthage is interesting, as it
fallsback upon the starting-point of the controversy.
'^
I do not interpret these letters in the customary way, nor as does Har-
NACK (iii. 165). The pope did not leave '* back-doors " open behind him
but he simply did not understand anything about the matter.
^ The words : "We execrate those who, with Manichseus, condemn first
marriage," are evidently a stab at Augustine.
35'^ HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
certified tothe orthodoxy of Caelestius. The confession of

Pelagius, which appeared soon afterward, to the support of
which the bishop of Jerusalem cast his influence, caused jubila-
tion. The pope was imprudent or honest enough to send a
report of this in two letters to the African bishops, and to re-
prove them sharply from the lofty station of the apostolic chair
for their lack of due consideration in the matter (vid. Zos. ep.
3, 4).^ But a council at Carthage (A. D, 417, or early in 418)
explained to the pope that good reason had not yet been
shown for the various transactions, and that they would still
recognize as valid the condemnation pronounced by Innocent
(Mansi iv; 376, 378). The pope, alarmed, replied that Peter
received the authority to loose and bind, and that no one
dare oppose the pope, but that he would take counsel with
the Carthaginians in the matter, in which meanwhile no posi-
tive steps had been taken (ep. 15). At this point the great
African General Council, A. D. 418, was assembled at Car-
thage, with 200 participants (Mansi iii. 810 ff.; iv. 377 ff.).
Condemnation was here pronounced against the doctrines That :
Adam was created mortal without respect to sin ; that children

are not subject to original sin inherited from Adam that grace ;
does not help with reference to future sins that grace consists
;
only in doctrines and commandments that grace only makes it

;
easier to do good that saints utter the fifth petition of the

;
Lord^s Prayer not for themselves, or only from humility. But,

at the same time, the practice of appealing to Rome, ** beyond
the sea," was placed under the ban. This interdict was repeated
A. D. 419 at Carthage (occasioned by the meddling of Zosimus
in African affairs). The emperor had (A. D. 418) issued an
and their followers, which ex-
edict against Pelagius, Caelestius,
pelledthem from Rome and threatened more serious measures
(Aug, opp. xvii. 2720 ff.). Zosimus now yielded and published
the epistola tractoria (frg. vid. Coustant-Schoenemann, pontiff.
Rom. epp. i. 709), which he requested all bishops to subscribe.
Eighteen bishops refused to accede to this request (Aug. c. duas
ep. Pel. i. I. 3). The
leader of the latter was Julian of
EcLANUM, who in two pope (in Mar. 1. subnot. 6.
letters to the
10-13. -^^g- *^PP- ^^^^' 2728 ff. ) defended their course, upon
the ground that it was not right to condemn the absent without a
hearing, and announced the adherence of these men to a rather
mildly-expressed statement of Pelagianism (the paradoxes of
Caelestius being rejected). From this time, Julian (having lost
1 The pope learned also from Caelestius that the quarrel was about en-
iangling questions and useless dissensions (s. ep. 3. 7)-

VIEWS OF AUGUSTINE. 357
his bishopric)assumed the offensive, and proved the most ener-

getic, combative,and voluminous opponent of Augustine, charg-
ing Augustine and his adherents, for whom, as heretics, he in-
vented the title Tmduciani, with Manichseism, contempt of
marriage,^ unscientific spirit, and unreasonableness (vid. frgg. in
Aug. nupt. et cone, ii.; c. Jul.; op. imp.). He became more
and more extreme, reaching at length the boldest rationalism :
'^ What reason disputes authority cannot prove " (op. imp. ii. i6,
137, 144). Questions are to be decided, not by assemblies of
clerics who have scarcely mastered the categories of Aristotle,
nor by the uncouth populace, but by the small number of the cul-
tured (c. Jul. ii. 10. 35-37, cf. Klasen, Entwicklung des Pel.,
p. 98 ff. ). He appealed to the testimony of reason and the
Scriptures, neither of which recognizes original sin. Sin resides
in the will. Infants have no will, and hence no sin (ii. 28). Imi-
tation leads to sin (ii. 48. 209). The generating act is pure
(iv. 6). Augustine's view leads to Manichaeism. Christ re-
deems us, in that he brought to us our nature and his will, and
thereby gave to us a mirror and a rule, namely, that our sin, as
also our righteousness, consists in the will (iv. 84). Under his
hands the teachings of Pelagianism became more and more
secular and self-sufficient. But all of this exerted no influence
upon doctrinal history. Pelagianism extended over considerable
territory. We meet its adherents not only in Rome, Southern
Italy, and Sicily, but also the district of Aquileia (Dalmatia),
Brittany, and in the district of Aries. The council of Ephesus
(A. D. 431), to the great gratification of the pope, confirmed the
rejection of Pelagianism (vid. p. 264 f. ).
32. Summary of Augiistiiie^ s Theological and Ecclesiastical

Views in the Enchiridion ad Laurentiitm.
We are reminded of Origen (^de principiis^ and his school,

Gregory of Nyssa {catech. magna'), John of Damascus {^de fide
orth.)y Lactantius (Înstitut.'), as we undertake to review Augus-
tine's brief general survey of Christianity, written about A. D. 421.
" God to be worshiped in faith, hope, and love," is the theme of
the book. The question is *' What ought to be believed, what
:
to be hoped, what to be loved ? Truths which may be learned

'
'
by our natural intelligence are to be defended by reason. Those

which liebeyondthisprovince *^ are to be believed without any hesi-
tation upon the testimony of the witnesses by whom was composed
^ In connection with this point, Augustine was denounced by Pelagius be-

fore Comes Valerius (vid, nupt. et cone. i. i, 2).
that Scripture which has hitherto been justly called divine, who,
divinely assisted, were enabled, whether through the body or
through the spirit, to see, or even to foresee, these things " (4).
This is the '* beginning of the faith which works by love," whose
higher stage is attained in vision (5). This is the Catholic con-
ception of faith (cf. assensio, 7. 20, and supra, p. 347) and the
scholastic division of Christian doctrine into natural and revealed
truths.^ Succinctly stated, faithhas its object in the Creed; hope
and love find exercise in prayer (the Lord's Prayer, 2. 7).
In discussing the question, **What is to be believed pertaining
to religion ? " we are not to think of insight into the physical
laws of the universe '' It is enough for the Christian
: to be-
lieve that the first cause of created things, whether celestial or
terrestrial, ... is nothing other than the goodness of the Cre-
ator . and that there is no nature which is not either the
. ,
Creator himself, or from him " (3. 9). This God is the God of
the Trinity. The world was made good, and even evil fits into
its harmony (10). Evil is the lack of good {-brivatio boni^ 11).
That which it comes from God.
is, is good, since Even evil, so
far as it good ''corruption cannot consume the
really is, is :
good except by consuming nature " (4. 12). Evil, as a lack of

existence, presupposes an existing good *' evil cannot be unless :
there be something good " (13 ff ) The Christian must be ac- .

.
quainted, not with the general order of the universe, but with
the causes of good and evil things, that he may be able to avoid
error and misery (5. 16). To err is to accept the false as true
(17). The worst error is for a man not to believe that which
leads to eternal life, but to believe that which leads to eternal
death (6. 18). Not every error is sin, and the opinion of the
Academy, that all assent must be held in suspense, is false. There
would then be no faith *' if assent be taken away, faith is taken
:
away; because without assent nothing is beHeved " (7. 21). In

matters not connected with the way which leads us to God, nor
with the faith in Christ which works by love, error (faith being
preserved) is no sin, or at all events only *'the least and
lightest sin ; " but even then it is to be counted among
the " evils {mala) of this life " (21). But every lie is a sin,
1 It is to be noted that Augustine excluded from the objects of faith a series

of physical and metaphysical speculations (3. 9 ; 5. 16 ; 7. 21 ; 15, 58 f.,
66 ; 29. 86, 92). Catholic truth is summarized in the Creed (in Joh. tr. 98.
7). The content of *' believing well " is the trinitarian God and the incarna-
tion of the Word (ib. 18. 2 74. i ep. 120. 2); but the true Catholicfaith
; ;
excludes also the teachings of Pelagianism (in Joh. tr. 67. 3). The highest
normative and only infallible authority is, for Augustine, the Holy Scriptures,
e. g-., doctr. christ. ii. 8 ep. 82. i. 3, unit.; eccl. 3. 5
; 13. 33 ; li. 28 j ;
bapt. ii. 3. 4; civ. dei, xi. 3 ; enchirid. I. 4.

.
since '' words were instituted, not that men might through them
deceive one another, but that each might through them bring
his thoughts to the knowledge of the other " (22). What we
need to know, therefore, in order that we may not fall into sin,
is the causes of good and evil, namely *' that the cause of good
:
. . things is nothing else than the goodness of God, but that

.
of evil things is the will of a mutably good being

first of an angel,
afterward of a man
forsaking the immutably good " (8. 23).
The first evil {f>rimum malum) of man is his unwillingness to do
(nolle') that which God wishes. From this results the '* ignor-
' '
ance of things to be done, and the lust of things injurious ;
hence *' error, distress, fear, i. e., the whole misery of men, as
well as the death of the body " ( 24 f. ) Adam by his sin viti-
.
'
'
ated his posterity ... at the root, made them subject to the
penalty of death and damnation." All who are begotten
*' through carnal concupiscence" have original sin (26). The
entire race is thus living in wickedness and subject to the *' most
just wrath of God. This is evident both from the fact that the
'
'
wicked willingly indulge their concupiscence, and the further fact

that they are, against their will, visited with punishment. God
is, however, not only just, but also merciful,^ and he, therefore,
does not abandon men to their merited fate (27). Inasmuch as

the angels are not bound together by natural descent, the fall of
the evil angels had no effect upon the good (9. 28). It is de-
signed that men shall (in, perhaps, larger numbers) take the place
of the fallen angels (29). But that portion of the human race
to whom God has promised deliverance attains that end not
through the exercise of free will, for this has been lost, but only
through grace. As servants of God, they become truly free (30)
Faith itself is a gift of God (31). God alone works in us to will
and to do (Phil. 2. 13. Rom. 9. 16). *' He precedes him who is
unwilling, that he may will ; he follows him who is
willing, that he
may not will in vain." ^*the will of man
It is false to say :
alone is not sufficient, if there be not also the mercy of God,"

for God works all things (32). ''When men were, through
original sin, under this wrath, the more seriously and ruinously
they had added to this more and greater (offenses), the more
necessary was a mediator, that is, a reconciler, who should pla-
wrath by the offering of one sacrificed The wrath of
cafe this
God not a ** disturbance, such as that in the heart of an angry
is
man," but it is *' his vengeance, which is nothing but just " (10.
33). The mediator became man (his divinity not being changed
This contrast, which we have met before (pp. 120, 295, 340, and already
1
in Marcion, p. I02f. ), has been normative in dogmatics since the time of

Augustine.
into flesh ) sinless,

, not such as is born from the two sexes through
*
'
the concupiscence of the flesh with inevitable tendency to wrong-

doing, " but of the Virgin, whose '^ integrity" was not impaired
at his birth (34). Christ was God and man (35). It was no
merit of the man Jesus which secured this combination, but only
the grace of God (11. ^6). His human birth itself was awork
of the Holy Spirit (37). But Christ is not, therefore, accord-
ing to his human nature a Son of the Spirit, as he is according
to his divine nature a Son of the Father (12. 3S f. ). But the
grace of God is manifested in the incarnation '^ by which man,
no merits preceding was joined with the Word of God in
. .
such unity of person, that the very same who was the son of man
was the Son of God, and the very same who was the Son of God
was the son of man " (40). The absolutely sinless Christ has
now been pronounced "sin" (2 Cor. v.), since in the Old
Testament the sin-offering was thus designated. Christ is, there-
fore : "a sacrifice for sins, through which we might be able to be
reconciled^ He became sin " in the likeness of the sin of the
flesh, in order that he might thus, in a manner, die to sin,
.
when he dies to the flesh in which was the likeness of sin . .
and might by his resurrection seal our new reviving life

from the old death in which we would have died in sin"
(13. 41). Hence, Christ died as a sacrifice for sin, as our rep-
resentative, and he arose as an evidence of the new life brought
to us by him. We have a reflection of this in baptism, as we die
to sin and live through the washing of regeneration (42). All,
therefore, have need of baptism. Children thereby die to origi-
nal sin, and adults also to the further sins actually committed (43).
The aim of baptism is the remission of sins " (44 and 51; cf.
*
'
supra, pp. 322, 349). It is asserted, notwithout probability, that

children are bound also by the sins of their parents
not alone of
the first human beings, but also theirparents of whom they
own
were born " (cf. Ezek. 18. 2). But baptism has essentially to do
with deliverance from original sin, as individual sins may also be
atoned for through repentance (46). Original sin, as the root
of all sins, is removed and destroyed only through the one medi-
ator, the man Jesus (14. 48). The baptism of Christ was signifi-
cant, not for him, but for us ''in order that his great humility
:
might be commended." The same is to be said of his death :
*Mn order that the devil, overcome and vanquished by the

truth of justice, not by the violence of power, since he had
most unjustly slain him who was without any desert of sin,
might most justly lose those whom he for desert of sin held
in his power " (49). It is only as new-born in Christ that we
can become free from the condemnation which rests upon all
1;
through Adam (51). As to the way in which this is accom-

plished **
: just as true death has occurred in him, so true remis-
sion of sins in us ; and just as true resurrection in him, so true
justification in us." The former takes place in baptism, which,
however, has the latter as its goal (52, cf. supra, p. 322). As
Christ is in this our pattern, so also in his whole history " in
order that to these things, not only mystically spoken, but
also done, the Christian life which is lived here might be con-
formed " (53). The coming of Christ to judgment is here ex-
cepted (54). That which we designate the doctrine of the
Work of Christ is treated by Augustine under three aspects as :
the sacrifice for sin, by virtue of which we receive the forgiveness

of sins in baptism as deliverance from the devil ; and as a pattern
;
and example for believers.^

^ Sections
41, 42, 48, 51, 52, 53 reveal quite fully the aspects under which
Augustine regards the work of Christ. We add a few remarks. The domi-
nating thought is : Christ is the Head the church (the predestinated, in Joh.
;
tr. iii. I ) is his body. All who are his and whom he has won belong to the
church (pecc. mer. et rem. i. 26. 39 civ. dei, xvii. 15 in Joh. tr. 21. 8
: ; ;
108. 5 ; serm. 117. 10. 16). He who became man an4 yet remained God is,
as man, the mediator or the way to God (often, following i Tim. 2-5,
e. g.^ civ. dei, xi. 2; xxi. 16; ix. 15. 2; in Joh. tr. 82. 4; 105. 7).
Hence, the rule is: From the man Jesus to God: '* If thou wishest to
live piously and christianly, cling to Christ according to that which he has
done for us, in order that thou mayest come to him according to that which he
is and according to that which he was " (inJoh.tr. 2.3; 13. 14; cf.the pas-
sages cited on p. 261), The Head now reveals and secures salvation as a
whole for his members (civ. dei, x. 32. 3). Regarded more closely, Christ
(l) has by his blood brought us the forgiveness of sins; by his sacrifice
cleansed us from our sins, paid a ransom for us, taken away the wrath of God,
bestowed upon us righteousness, reconciled us with God, and has become our
advocate {e. g., in Joh. tr. 92. I 98. 2; 119. 4; 3. 13; 41. 6; 4. 2; 123.
;
4; 14. 13 ; civ. dei, vii. 31 ; x. 24; doctr. chr. i. 15, 17 serm. 134. 4, 5 ;
;
155. 8 ; 19. 3 ; conf. ix. 13 x. 43). ;(2) He has freed men from the power
of the devil, who without any right seized upon the flesh of the righteous
Christ, and to whom that flesh proved a bait (serm. 134. 3. 4 5. 6 ; in Joh.
;
52. 6). (3) He has, as Mediator, in his person and work revealed to us God,
his wisdom and love in :
'* That
we have, therefore, been reconciled to God by
the death of his Son, is not to be understood as though the Son had reconciled
us to him, so that he should now begin to love what he had hated, as when an
enemy is reconciled to an enemy, so that they are thereafter friends, and they
who have mutually hated now mutually love ; but we are now reconciled to
him who loves us, with whom we have been at enmity on account of sin" (in
Joh. tr. no. 6 ; cf. 2. 16 serm. 174
; 126. 4. 6); by this love we are moved
;
to love him in return (de cat. rud. 4. 7, 8). (4) He has given us an example
and pattern of humility, patience, and trust in God [e. g.y civ, del, xviii. 49
in Joh. tr.4. 13; 25. 16, 18; 51. 11; 58. 4 ff.; 113. 4; 116. I 119. 2);
;
but " the animal man . . does not perceive what the cross of Christ con-
.
fers upon those who believe, and thinks that by this cross was accomplished
only that an example for imitation should be given to us as wê contend even to
death for the truth " (in Joh. tr. 98. 3). (5) He has through his incarnation,
and especially through his death and resurrection, brought to us immortality,
^62 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
After thus treating of God, creation, sin, grace, and of Christ,

Augustine, following the order of the Creed, comes to speak of
the Holy Spirit. The church depends upon the Trinity *' The :
proper order of confession requires that the church be subordi-

nated to the Trinity, just as to the tenant his house, to God his
temple, and to the founder his city." In this we are to have in
view, not only the Christians yet sojourning on earth, but also
glorified saints and angels (15. 56). There is then a discussion
of angels, in which the author confesses his ignorance as to the
orders of celestial beings, and the propriety of numbering
among them the sun and the moon (Grig., supra, p. 151), or the
kind of corporeality involved in the appearances of angels on earth
(58 f.). It is more important to discriminate when Satan trans-
forms himself into an angel of light, in order that we may not fol-
low him upon his paths of error^ (60). The church is thus to be
dividedintotheearthlyandtheheavenly. The redemption wrought
by Christ extends also, in a certain measure, to the angels, inasmuch
as by it the enmity between them and sinful men is removed, and
the places vacated by the fallen angels are filled. Hence, as
affirmed in Eph. i. 10, the heavenly is by Christ united in peace
with the earthly, and the earthly with the heavenly (61, 62).
This peace shall be complete for us only in the full vision of the
future world, but it exists here already through the forgiveness of
sins. Hence, the next item in the Creed is the forgiveness of
sins. Renewal begins (Jncipit renovatio) with the blotting out
of original sin in baptism, yet everyone needs beyond this the
forgiveness of sins, since he is, though perhaps without crime
{crimen), not without sin (64). But even in regard to crimes,
we dare not despair of the mercy of God. The church excom-
municates the criminal ; but let him repent. In this, not the
extent of time, but that of the sorrow, is important. Since now
it is only in the church that sins are forgiven, there are fixed
** times of repentance,
in order that it may be exercised to the .
satisfaction of the church as well " (65). The regenerate are

also subjected to temporal penalties, in order that their guilt may
in order thus to make

us gods ** to make us gods who were men, he who was
:
God was made man " (serm. 192. i ; 166. 4) but also : "by loving God we
;
are made gods" (serm. I2i. i). Augustine presents not a consistent theory,
but elements of rehgious truth which are genuinely Christian. In this he has
again furnished dogmatic material to the church of the West. Cf KOhner,
Aug. Anschauung von der ErlosungsbedeutungChristi, 1890. Scheel, Aug,
Anschauung iiber Christi Person und Werk, 1901.
^ This is, indeed, difficult, but the very difficulty of this thing is beneficial
in that no one may be hope for himself, nor one man for another, but God for
all his own.

not be charged against thenx for eternity (66). But there are
Cathohc Christians^ who hold that, if they have been baptized
and beheve, /. e., do not renounce the name of Christ, they will
be saved despite the most grievous sins, ^' which they neither
wash away by repenting nor atone for by alms," that *' they will

be saved by fire punished, doubtless, in proportion to the mag-
nitude of their offenses and the duration of their shameful deeds,
yet not with eternal fire" (cf. i Cor. 3. 11 ff.). Only faith
manifesting itself in works saves faith without works does
:
not save (67). The fire in the scriptural passages under

discussion refers to the pain endured in the giving up of
that which is fervently desired (68). Augustine leaves it an
open^ question whether a purifying fire does not exist also
after this life for such as through repentance, and especially
through almsgiving, have secured for themselves forgiveness
whether ''some believers are not saved more tardily or more
speedily, through a certain purgatorial fire, in proportion as they
have more or less loved the things that perish " (69). He adds,
in explanation, that one cannot indeed daily atone by alms for
sins which exclude from the kingdom of God, nor, forsooth,
by them purchase for himself the right to sin in the future (16.
70).
Turning now to the practice of repentance, Augustine de-
clares ** But for
: brief and light daily sins the daily . . .
prayer of believers makes satisfaction" (satisfacit), i, e.^ the

fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer. But this prayer also blots
out grave offenses, when the believer forsakes them and when
he also forgives those who trespass against him. For forgiveness
is also an alms, just as are all good works done for those in need.
'*
There are thus many kinds of alms, when we perform which
we help to secure the remission of our own sins" (71, 72).
Forgiveness of others and the love of enemies are the best alms
(73). Only he who is ready to forgive receives forgiveness
(74). Only he who also reforms his life becomes pure through
alms (17. 75). Indeed, in a certain sense, everything is in-
cluded in alms, if we give to ourselves the alms of charging
guilt upon ourselves, /. e., if we by the mercy of God seek
^ As to the view of these "lay brethren," see retract, ii. 38 de fide et

;
operibus civ. dei, xxi. 19 ff.

; These people are in no kind of harmony with
the evangehcal view of justification by faith (despite Harnack, Ztschr. f.
Theol. u. K., 1891, p. 165 ff. ). On the contrary, they anticipate the most
extreme Catholicism He who has accepted the teachings of the church, been
:
baptized, received the Lord's Supper, and remainsin the church, will be saved,
without any regard to his moral character, the deficiencies of which will be re
paired in purgatorial fire.
^ Thus also civ. dei, xxi. 26. 4.
;;
out ourselves in our misery (76; also serm. 87. 9. 10). The
division of sins into peccata levia and gravia cannot be carried out
fully by any means in our power ; but it is established by such
passages as i Cor. 7. 5 ff. ; 6. i ff. (78). Some which seem
light to us C thou fool ") are grievous according to the Scrip-
tures (79J, while many which are really grievous are from force
of habit regarded by us as light (80). We cannot resist sins,
whether arising from ignorance or from infirmity, ûnless we are*
divinely assisted" (19. 81). The mercy of God also impels us

to repentance (82). He who does not believe, or despises, the
forgiveness of sins in the church is guilty of the unpardonable
sin against the Holy Ghost (83).^
^ Augustine's view of repentance is, in its essential features, fully presented

in his Enchiridion. It is merely a continuation of the Ancient Catholic teach-
ing upon the subjects ( supra, p. 195 ) Although the East also possessed a peni-
tential ordinance (vid. Greg. Thaum. ep. canon, and Basil, ep. 199, 217), yet
the penitential discipline of the church never there attained so rigid a develop-
ment as in the West (cf. the homilies of Chrysostom upon repentance, and
supra). The antecedent of the Western view is the distinction drawn between
venial, daily, petty sins, and damnable or great {grandia) sins, such as idol-
atry, the constellations of the mathematicians heresy, schism, murder, adul-
y
tery, fornication, robbery, theft, false witness (perf. just. 9. 20 in Joh. tr. 12.
;
14; op. imp. ii. 97; serm. 56. 8. 12). If we include repentance before bap-
tism, there are three kinds of repentance : { l) Repentance for sins committed
before baptism ; in the case of children, ' ' the faith of those by whom they are
presented prevails" (serm. 351. 2. 2). (2) Repentance for the lighter daily
sins, " whose committal runs through the whole of this life," the daily repent-
ance, which brings to man a daily medicine of forgiveness (Augustine is fond of
describing grace as medicina). This occurs through the daily use of the Lord's
Prayer (fifth petition), as well as through alms and fasting (serm. 351. 3. 3 ff.
352. 2. 7 ; 18. 5 ;
58. 5. 6 de symbolo ad cat. 7. 14 ; civ. dei, xxi. 27. 4
; ; cf.
Ambrose, depoenit. ii. 5.35 *' Hewhoexercisesrepentance, agit poeniteîtiam^

:
ought not only to wash away his sin with tears, but also to hide and cover his
greater offenses by better works, so that sin may not be imputed to him " ).
(3) Repentance in the proper sense of the term (*' the more serious and pain-
ful repentance, in which they are properly called penitents, poeriitentes^ in the
church ) has to do with those who, on account of grave sins ( forbidden by the
'
'
Decalogue), have been excluded from the holy communion [co^nmunio sacra,
Ambros. ib. i. 15. 78), or the Lord's Supper (Aug. serm. 355. 4. 7). Such
must make confession to the bishop, who assigns to them an appropriate *' sat-
isfaction," and, if the matter has been publicly known, directs them to repeat
the confession before the church (vid. 351. 4. 7-10; 352. 3. 8; ep. 265. 7.
Also can. 30 of the council of Hippo, A. D. 393, Hefele CG. ii., ed. 2, 58),
This repentance is, like baptism, to be granted but once (ep. 152. 2 153. 3. 7;
;
cf. Ambrose, 1. c. ii. 10. 95 ;the decretal letter of Pope Siricius toHimerius,
A. D. 385, c. 5). Thus repentance becomes a continuation of baptism (ep. 56.
8. 12 init. Ambrose, 1. c. ii. 1 1.98:
" Repentance is therefore a good thing
for, if it did not exist, all would have to defer until old age the grace of cleans-
ing"). But in this way repentance is externalized and set in opposition to
grace, and thus was a new stone fitted into the hierarchical structure:
" Let
him come to the overseers (antistites), through whom the keys are admirris-
tered for him in the church ... let him receive from those placed over
Augustine treats, finally, of the Resurrection. After some re-

marks in regard to the resurrection body of the abortive fcetus
(20. 85 f.) and of monstrosities (87), he declares that the mate-
rial of the human body is for God not lost (SS); that in the res-
urrection God will restore the entire body, it being not implied,
however, that every particle of the matter shall become a portion
of that member to which it once belonged (89). The bodies
will not be all alike (e. g., the notes of an anthem), nor will they
be repulsive (wan or corpulent). They will be spiritual bodies,
but in substance still flesh {^caro'), although serving the spirit in
all things (90, 91; of. civ. dei, xxii. 12 ff., 19 ff.). The lost
have also a body a continual dying and decaying is their fate
;
(92). This is the second death. Condemnation (^danmatio) is

graded according to the measure of guilt, being lightest for chil-
dren. ** Certainly the lightest punishment of all will be that of
those, who, beyond the sin which they have inherited from their
ancestry, have superadded none*' (93). It is only in the two-
fold outcome of human life that we shall learn why one was saved
and another left to condemnation. It will become clear how
certain, immutable, and most efficacious is the will of God (21.
94, 95). Since God permits evil, its existence must be good; other-
wise the almighty Will would not allow it (96). What God wills,
that he does. But he wills that all men be saved (i Tim. 2.4;
cf 23. 27), and yet by far the greater number are not saved (97).
God in mercy turns the evil will of some into a good will, with-
out any regard to future works. To others he is simply just (22.
98 f.). The will of God rules in all, even in the wicked ** so :
that . . even that which is contrary to his will does not occur
.
without his will" (23. 100 f). Therefore: *^ he does not do

anything wicked, nor does he do anything unless he wills to do
it, and he does all things whatsoever which he wills to do " (102).
At this point Augustine takes up i Tim. 2. 4 (103) and endeav-

ors by a forced interpretation to bring it into harmony with the
above (supra, p. 352). The will of man is always free, even
and particularly when it can no longer will to do evil (25. 105).
But free will would not have sufficed even in paradise to merit im-
mortality even there the divine assistance {âdjutofiuui) was
:

needed how much more since the fall (106). Hence, strictly
!
speaking, eternal life is a matter, not of reward, but of grace. It

' *
is to be understood, therefore, that even the good merits of man
themselves are gifts of God, to which when eternal life is given,
the sacraments {praepositi sacramentoruni) , the mode of his satisfaction"

(sermo. 351. 4. 10). "Where, if ministers are wanting, how great ruin fol-
lows thosewho depart from this world either not regenerated or bound" (ep.
228. 8).
. "
how is grace given except (in exchange) for grace?

"^ God's
mercy is the ground of salvation; therefore let noone boast (107).
Even the Mediator through whom salvation is secured is not only
man but God. In description of his work, it is declared **it :
was necessary for us to be reconciled to God in order to the

resurrection of the flesh unto eternal life. Through him the
'
'
resurrection is the devil conquered.

set forth, Further, ''an
example of obedience is by the divine man set before contuma-
cious man," He showed to men also in his person how far they
had departed from God (108).
After death and before the resurrection, the souls of men are in
a secret retreat (addita 7'eceptaaila), where it goes well or ill with
them according to their deserts. For the alleviation of their
condition, their friends may avail themselves of the sacrifice of
the mass and of alms. But the latter avail as ^^ propitiationes "
only for those who on earth have deserved that the benefits of
these things should now be enjoyed (those who were *' not very
wicked," 20. no; vid. also serm. 172.2; civ. dei, xxi. 27. 6).
The civitas dei and the civitas diabolic both of which include
men and angels, will continue to exist in eternity (m). There
can be no doubt of the eternal duration of the punishments of
hell. The most that could be deduced from Ps. 76. 10 would
be a temporary alleviation or interruption. That condition it-
self is one of dreadful torment 'Ho depart from the kingdom
:
of God, to be an exile from the city of God, to be alienated

from the life of God, to be deprived, with so great a multitude,
of the delightful fellowship of God " ( 1 1 2 f ) .
These are the doctrines " which are to be faithfully believed.

Out of faith spring hope and love. What we hope is shown by
the Lord's Prayer. We hope only in God, not in men nor in
ourselves. " Therefore only from the Lord God ought we to
seek whatever we hope either to do well or to receive (in exchange
for good works)" (27. 114). Then follows a short exposition
of the Lord's Prayer, as given in Matthew and Luke (115 f. ).
Then comes Love. " When it is asked whether anyone is a
good man, it is not asked what he believes or hopes, but what he
loves ... he who does not love, believes in vain, even though
the things which he believes are true." True faith is that which
works in love. Love is shed abroad in us by the Holy Spirit ; it
annihilates concupiscence and fulfills the law " (28. 117 ; cf. supra,
p. 348). The course of moral development is then sketched :
For this strained interpretation of the term '* merit," see further in Job.
^
tr. 10: **he crowns his gifts, not thy merits;" grat. et Hb. arb. 7. 16.
3.
Augustine, pf course, uses the term also in the ordinary sense, e. ^., ep. 214.
4 ;
grat. et lib. arb. I init.

(i) '*Living according to the flesh, reason making no resistance

sunt prwia) of man." (2) ^* Recog-
this is the first state (Jiaec
nition of sin through the law," but ''sinning knowingly . . .
this is the second state of man. " (3) Faith in the help of God :
*' and that the man has begun to be moved by the Spirit of God,
he lusts against the flesh by the stronger power of love ... his

whole infirmity not yet being healed, pious perseverance this is
the third state of the man of good hope." (4)
*' Final peace

remains after this life. Of these four different stages, the first is
before the law, the second under the law, the third under grace,
the fourth in full and perfect peace.
'
The history of salvation

'
has followed the same course (118). But grace brings the for-
giveness of sins and removal of guilt (^reatus, 119). Every
commandment of God has love as its aim. ''Therefore, that
which is done either from fear of punishment or with any carnal
aim, so that it cannot be traced to that love which the Holy Spirit
sheds abroad in our hearts, is not yet, although it may seem to be,
done as it ought to be done " (121).
The treatise does not furnish the outlines of a doctrinal '* sys-
tem," but a connected presentation of that which Augustine re-
garded as essential in Christian teaching. The great underlying
current of his thought runs through the composition. Into it he
has interwoven his profoundest ideas upon sin, grace, and predes-
tination. The metaphysical background is clearly traceable in his
doctrine concerning God and the distinctively hierarchical ele-
;
ments are to a remarkable degree overshadowed. He skillfully

arranged his ideas in harmony with the orderly statements of the
Creed but, as in all his teaching, so even in this brief epitome,
;
he has introduced nearly all the elements of the popular Catholi-

cism of the day (ideas of merit, fastings, alms, together with
hierarchism, sacramental magic, saint worship, veneration of
relics, and the ascetic ideal of life). Wherever he stepped, the
scene became one of verdure and flowers. He could attach the
profoundest ideas to the most external things (<?. g., his exposi-
tion of merit and alms). Stones under his hand became bread.

His influence upon the church is explained in part, at least
by this wonderful power of assimilating and glorifying. But it
may also be readily understood, in view of this same trait, that
the loosely-connected elements of his general view, harmonized
in him only by the power of his religious genius, were unable to
exert a thoroughgoing reformatory influence upon the entire
scope of ecclesiastical doctrine. He possessed the creative
power of the reformer, but he lacked the talent required for
tearing down. From this characteristic we may explain also the
multitude of inconsistencies and self-contradictory tendencies in
5^^ HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
his teachings (e. ^., predestination and church, church and

church, Christ and grace, grace and sacraments, the knowledge
of God and the definition of God, faith and love, etc.). And
yet the ideas of this man furnished the themes for the piety and
theology of more than a thousand years. No one possessed the
''whole" Augustine, but all lived upon the fragments of his
from which each appropriated and understood what was
spirit,
" adapted " to his own wants.
CHAPTER V.
AUGUSTINIANISM AS THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. COMPLE-

TION OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANCIENT
CHURCH OF THE ViÊST.
^;^. The Seiiii- Pelagian Controversies.
I. Augustine won the day in the conflict with Pelagianism,

but his views were not by any means generally accepted in all
their details (vid. p. 357). Offense was taken, especially at his
doctrines of man's absolute inability to do good and of predes-
tination, however for the time being his illustrious name and
the charm of his writings may have smothered opposition. But,
even before his death, doubts were openly expressed upon these
points. In the cloister at Hadrumetum there were some, he
reports, who " preached grace in such a way that they deny that
the will of man is free," and all discipline and works were thus
abolished (Aug. ep. 214. i cf. corr. et gr. 5. 8); while others
;
held that "the free will is assisted by the grace of God, in order
that we may know and do what is right" (ib.). Augustine
agrees with the latter, for he was concerned above all else to
counteract the ethically perilous consequences to which the view
of the former group would lead. He thus formulates his posi-
tion :
" Both the will of man and the grace of God, without
whose assistance it cannot be converted to God nor advance in
God, are free " ( ib. 7 ) This he sought to establish in his publica-
.
tions, De gratia et libera arbitrio and De correptione et gratia (cf.

p. 350 f. ). On the other hand, violent opposition arose in South
Gaul, especially in Massilia. Prosper of Aquitaniaand a layman
named Hilary reported (Aug. ep. 225, 226) to Augustine that
men in high positions and of lofty character, who were in other
THE SEMIPELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES. 369
points great admirers of Augustine (ep. 226. 9) were most strenu-

ously opposing his doctrine of predestination, and, in doing so,
werecitingthelatteragainsthimself (ib. 3). Thatdoctrine itwas

claimed in the land of Irenceus is new and of no value ; it col-
lides with the intuitions of the church {êccksiasticus sensus),
with antiquity, and the opinion of the Fathers (226. 2 225. ;
2, 3); it is dangerous, because it cripples the force of preaching,

reproof, and moral energy (226. 2, 5; 225. 3), and plunges
men into despair (226. 6); finally, *' under this name, predesti-
nation, there is introduced a certain fatal necessity, or the Lord
the Creator is said to be of diverse natures " (225. 3 ) Pelagius.
may be refuted without resort to this theory (226. 8). All have
sinned in Adam (225. 3), and no one can free himself by his
own but *' everyone who is sick desires to be made
will (226. 2);
well." Hence man wishes to have the Physician, z. e., he be-
lieves on him (226. 2. 4). This believing (^crcdulitas) is a deed
of man, his merit (225, 6, 4). Grace now interests itself in
behalf of the man through the '^ sacrament of regeneration"
(225. 4). God assists the human will to do that which is good;
but man, and not God, makes the beginning. '' In order that
he who has begun to will may be assisted, not that the power to
will be also given (226. 2), they wish grace to be regarded as
concomitant, and not prevenient to human merits" (225. 5).
God wishes to save all {indifferenter universos') and the pro-
pitiatio of the blood of Christ avails for all (225. 4, 3). Pre-
destination is therefore based upon fore-knowledge. The latter
extends to the case of children dying in infancy, and to the his-
torical diffusion of the gospel (226. 4;^ 225. 5). Accordingly,
there is not ** a definite number of persons to be elected or re-
jected," '' since he wishes all men to be saved, and yet not all
men are saved " (226. 7). Hence, only the will of man is to
blame. The motives, as well as the tendencies, of these Semi-
augustinians are here plainly revealed. Augustine replied in the
publications, De praedestinatione sanctorum and De dono per-
severa?itia, in which he maintained his position without modi-
fication.
2. But the struggles between the doctrine of Augustine and
that of the Semipelagians were yet long continued. The name
Semipelagians is not very appropriate ; for the majority of that
party might be more accurately described as Semiaugustinians,
inasmuch as the influence of Augustine upon them was very
marked, and they really found their starting-point in his teach-
^ The appeal to Sap. 4. 11 is here rejected ** as not canonical ;" but see,
on the contrary, the 36th canon of the council at Hippo (Hefele CG. ii., ed,
2, 59) and also Aug. doctr. Christ, ii. 8; retract, ii. 4. 2.
24
ings. The scene of these conflicts was the GalHc church. For
almost two and a half centuries the African church held in its
hand the leadership of Western theology. It was now, under the
pressure of political conditions, compelled to surrender this
leadership to the Gallic church. The views of this Semiaugus-
tinian circle are clearly seen in the writings of Johannes Cassi-
ANUS (de coenobiorum institutis 11. 12. Collationum 11., 24 ed.
Petschenig in Corp. scr. eccl. lat. 13, 17, and in Migne lat.
49 cf. HocH, Die Lehre des Joh. Cassianus von Natur u.
;
Gnade, 1894). In the background is the monastic temper. The

ideal of ^* evangelical perfection," as the fulfilling of the evan-
gelical commandments and counsels, is to be attained by the
most severe ascetic discipline (coll. iii. 7 xi. 8, 10 xvi. ; ;
22 xix. 9; xxi. 5, 7 ff. ).

; The most painstaking carefulness is
made a duty. But with the contemplations (^contemplationes^
coll. I. 15 ; xiv. 8), flights (êxcessus, iii. 7), and profoundest
emotions (^sec?'etissh7ii sensus, iv, 2) , alternate anxiety and
sadness (iv. 2 ; vi. 10). Accordingly, human sinfulness, and
that in its sensuous aspects, is strongly emphasized,^ and, on the
other hand, man's moral activity is made equally prominent.
The sin of Adam is a hereditary disease (inst. xii. 5);^ since
the fall, there has been an infirmitas liberi arbitrii (coll.
iii. 12 fin.). The Pelagian theory is very positively rejected
(coll. xiii. 16 ;.cf. de incarn. 1.3; v. i). Two principles con-
cerning divine grace are firmly held by Cassian that we are un- :
able to do anything good without the help of God (coll. xiii. 6),
and that the freedom of the will must be preserved: ''For
through these things which we have presented we have not
wished to remove the free will of man, but to prove that the
assistance and grace of God are necessary for it every day and
moment" (coll. iii. 22). From this it follows that grace and
free will co-operate : ** And thus the grace of God always co-
operates for that which is good with our will and in all things
assists, protects, and defends it " (coll. xiii. 13 ; iii. 12, cf. inst.
xii. 14). By grace Cassian understands illumination and in-
struction through the law, as well as the illuminafio of the spirit
for the spiritual understanding of the law, and divina inspv-afio :
''To breathe into anyone the principles of salvation and to im-
plant the fervor of a good will " (vid. inst. xii. 18; coll. iii. 10, 14,
^ The eight principalia vifia are : Gluttony, fornication, covetousness, anger,

melancholy, taedium, vainglory, and pride, coll. v. 2, also inst. v.-xii. Upon
this list, which is found also in Evagrius and Nilus, vid. Zockler, Das Lehr-
stiick von den 7 Hauptsiinden, 1893, p. 16 ff. Upon the list of the seven chief
crimes, which may be traced to Gregory the Great, see ib., p. 40 ff.
'^
Original and actual sin, coll. xiii. 7.
THE SEMIPELAGIAN" CONTROVERSIES. 37 I
15 xiii. 6, i8).
; Together with the imparting of the law, there
is hence also an infusion {infundere') of grace (inst. xii. i6 fin.;
cf. coll. vii. i: ''The gift of chastity infused by a peculiar
blessing "). Cassian occasionally attributes the willing, as well
as the doing, of good to the working of grace (^' the beginning
of our conversion and faith," coll. iii. 15): Man cannot even
preserve his own faith intact by the power of his will fib. 16). Yet
it is meant by this only that ** he is not able to perform anything
without the assistance of God, which produces industry," and

that no one ''may think that his work is the cause of the divine
bounty" (coll. xiii. 3). Conversion is effected in this wise:
" Who, when he has observed in us a certain beginning of a good
will, immediately illuminates this and comforts and incites it
toward salvation, bestowing an increase upon that which either
he himself has implanted or which he has seen to arise from our
own effort" (coll. xiii. 8, 7), and "the beginnings of good
wills sometimes precede, which, nevertheless, unless they are
directed by the Lord, cannot proceed to the attainment of vir-
tues " (ib. 9, cf. inst. xii. 14). Man may, like Zacchseus,
make the beginning or God, as in the cases of Paul and
;
Matthew (coll. xiii. 11, 12, 17, 18). The chief thing is the co-
operation (ib. 13), and that "the consummation of our salva-
tion be attributed, not to the merit of our works, but to celestial
grace" (ib. 18); but, at the same time, the freedom of man
must be preserved both at the beginning and through the various
stages of the process (ib.). At this point, as in its assertion
that God really desires to save all (ib. 7), this theory opposes
Augustine. The idea of Cassian is, that the human will has in-
deed been crippled by sin, but that a certain freedom has yet
remained to it. By virtue of this, it is able to turn to God, and, just
as though God had first turned to it, it is able, with the assistance
of divine grace, setting before it the law and infusing the needed
power, to will and to do that which is good. Hence the sin-
ner is not dead, but wounded. Grace comes to view, not as
operansj but as cooperans ; to it is to be attributed not alone-
activity, but synergy. This doctrine is theoretically as well as
practically^ untenable, but its appearance is a very severe arraign-
^ The opinion has, indeed, been expressed that this doctrine of grace is ''as
a theory entirely correct^ but as an expression of self-condemnation before

God, entirely false ( Harnack, iii. 223, u. )
'
' but, aside from the discrepancy
;
between theory and praxis, which to my mind is not clear in this proposition,
'
every doctrine of grace is * ' entirely false which is not deduced from the idea
'
of a personal intercourse of God with man or directly from "grace alone."

That this is not the case in Cassian is evinced by the inconsistent double
origin of conversion in his theory. This leads not to a life with God, but only
to the idea of a parallel working of God and man.
merit of Augustinianism, as it proves that the doctrine of *' in-

fused grace," which Cassian had adopted from Augustine, was
tolerable to the Christian consciousness only in combination with
the conception of God as the Lawgiver and with man's relative
freedom to obey the divine commandments. It was an instruc-
tive attempt to preserve the personal and spiritual relationship of
man to God. But the attempt of necessity surrendered that

which was the best in Augustine the sola gratia} '* For this it
is to be under grace to perform the things which grace com-
mands " (coll. xxi. 34). The effort thus led back again to about
the ancient Latin position.
3. The controversy upon grace and freedom was protracted
through the following decennia in the Gallic church. The oppo-
nents of strict Augustinianism did not hesitate to draw the most
appalling inferences. They feared the annihilation of man's
freedom, the introduction of fatalism and Manichaeism. Baptism
and the divine call are robbed of their force and value. God
does not wish all men to be saved. Christ did not die for all.
Sin and the fall are to be attributed to God's planning. God
creates man and directly compels him to sin and crime. This,
they contended, is contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures
(esp. I Tim. 2. 4), as well as to the intuitions of the church,
and makes predestination coextensive with foreknowledge, etc.
(vid. the separate propositions in Prosper's writings Fro Aug.
:
responsiones ad capitula calumnia7itiu7n Galloriim and Resp. ad

objectiones Vine entianas, Migne5i. 155 ff. ; also, Aug. opp. xvii.
2887 ff. ). On the other hand. Prosper, in the writings named
and in his Liber contra coUatorem (Cassian, cf. his poem, Dein-
gratis') defended the Augustinian position and made fierce assaults
upon his opponents. But he not infrequently ascribed to them
Pelagian conclusions which they themselves did not draw, and
in his positive statements he did not advance beyond a repetition
of the ideas of Augustine (cf. VViggers, Augustinianism and Pela-
gianisrii, ii. 136 ff., 183 ff. ). His intemperate zeal can only have
drawn the lines more sharply between the opposmg parties. And
the attempt to bring the Augustinian doctrine into closer accord
with the religious intuitions, made in the anonymous book, De
vocatione gentium (Migne5i. 647 ff.), can hardly have produced
any large results. The ideas of Augustine are here reproduced,
though in a diluted form. By the fall of Adam, it is said,
1 This is confirmed by the further soteriological views of Cassian. Vid., upon

the definition of nierity Wiggers, Augustinianism and Pelagianism ii., p. 81
f. ; upon his theory of repentance as a satisfaction rendered by good works to
an offended God, coll. xx. 3-8.
'
human nature has been depraved {vitiata, i. 6 f.): *' the choice
(^judiciiu7i)) of the will has been depraved {depravatuni)^ not
abrograted. Therefore, what has not been slain by the wounder
is not annihilated by the healer. He who is endowed with
the power of willing is cured ; his nature is not removed. But
that in the nature which has perished is not restored ex-
cept by the author of the nature" (i. 8j. Accordingly,
it is not the human will by its merits that makes the be-
ginning toward salvation (ii. 7), but the elective will of God
(i. 18), who works everything good in us and upholds us in it
(i. 23). ** There is given to everyone without merit that by
virtue of which he tends toward merit" (ii. 8). Christ died
for all (ii. 16). Yet it is a fact, that not all are saved, as
especially children dying unbaptized (i. 16, 22 ; ii. 20, 22) and
the heathen world. This leads to the insoluble problem, '* Why
he who wishes all men to be saved does not save all men ?
'
(ii. i). Though utterly unable to solve this fundamental ques-

tion, the author labors earnestly to make the course of God com-
prehensible. In the first place, he emphasizes the fact that the
gracious working of God does not exclude the free exercise of
the human will :
'* but the will of man is also subjoined to and
conjoined with {^subjungitiir et conjungihir^ it ... so that it co-

operates with the divine work within itself and begins to exercise
for merit what it received for the awakening of energy (ii. 26)
from the seed implanted from above," and also, *' it does not
take away from those who will persevere the mutability which can
refuse to will " (ii. 28;. He then presents the thought peculiar
to himself, that God proclaims his desire that all men be saved,
not in the first instance through grace, or a special call {vocatio
specialist, but from the very beginning through general grace
{generalis gratia) as a revelation made in nature (ii. 25. 4).
The latter has always existed ; the former is now announced to
the whole world ("no part of the world is now excluded from
the gospel of Christ," ii. 33). But since this general assistance
{auxilium generate) does not suffice for salvation, and since, on
the other hand, from ancient times some, although indeed very
few, from the heathen world, '* have been separated by the Spirit
to the grace of God " (ii. 5, 15 fin.), it is evident that this whole
scheme does not solve the problem, but only complicates it.
The author finds only the precarious ground of consolation, '
the
'
more difficult this is to understand, the more laudable is the faith

that believes it. For he has great fortitude of faith (^consensionis)
for whom authority suffices to lead to acceptance of the truth,
although reason remains dormant " (ii. 2). Augustine's concep-
tion of religious truth is thus supported by the medieval idea of
faith the more unintelligible the matter in hand, the greater

:
the merit of the faith which accepts it !
4. Semipelagianism, or the old Western view, continued its

assaults upon the advocates of Augustinianism, and the latter
may here and there have been betrayed into the extreme conclu-
sions attributed to them. The anonymous book, Praedestinatiis
(Migne 53), written about A. D. 450, professes in its second
part to be the literary production of a Semipelagian, who, by
presenting the horrible doctrines said to be taught by a predes-
tinarian sect, seeks to awaken in the pious a sense of alarm in
order that he may more effectually administer consolation.^ But
there were also doubtless Ultra -Augustinians, who allowed them-
selves to be led from grace to libertinism. In consequence,
Augustinianism itself was charged with leading to immoral con-
clusions. Vincent of Lerinum, on the other hand, called atten-
tion to its novelty and its lack of support from the tradition of
the ancient church (^novitatis adiftventores, vid. Commonit. 32).^
But the Semipelagian view of grace found an especially zealous
champion in the highly-esteemed Bishop Faustus of Riji (f ab.
A. D. 495, vid. his writings in the corp. scr. eccl. lat. xxi. ed.
Engelbrecht, also Mi. 58 ; cf. Wiggers, 1. c. ii. 224 ff. Koch,
der h. Faust. 1895. R. Seeberg, PRE. v. ed. 3, 782 ff.).
Faustus contended (vid. esp. De gratia) sharply against Pelagius
and his denial of original sin, and of the necessity of grace
(i. i). He himself represented the Semipelagian view. All
men have original sin, and that *'from the carnal delight of
their progenitor " (i. 2, p. 12^), and are, in consequence, sub-
^ Yet it is to be remarked that objections of no inconsiderable force may be

urged against this now prevalent solution of the historico-literary problem pre-
sented by this publication. It is not impossible that there were libertines of
grace, and that the terrifying portraiture of predestinarian consequences, which
was continually drawn by their opponents, was utilized by them as a pillow for
their consciences (did not heretical tendencies influence these Augustinians?).
"
We cannot here go into details. But let the polemical and not " symbolical
character of the book (the publisher says it was used as a symbol, Mi. 53.
628) be observed, and also the statements of Lucidus (Faust, ep. I, p. 162,
ed. Engelbrecht). But see recently VoN Schubert, Der so-genannte Praedes-
tinatus, 1903.
2 At this point should be considered the remarks of Gennadius upon
Augustine and Prosper, vid. De scriptoribus ecclesiast. 38, 84, as also Genna-
dius' own doctrine of grace, vid. De ecclesiastic, dogmatibus, c. 21, 56. This
chapter may not be free from interpolation. Chapters 22-51, which develop
the Augustinian doctrine of grace in exact harmony with the Council of
Orange, are also, upon the testimony of preserved manuscript, an interpolation
(vid. Elmenhorst in Mi. 58. 1023).
^ But whence comes that connection which produces posterity ?
lb. p. 13 :
*'
. .Through the impulsive ardor of accursed generation and through the

.
seductive embrace of both parents. For since thou seest that he alone is
*
ject to death (i. i, p, ii). But man has not lost his freedom
through sin. There is no *^ necessity of an ordained and im-
posed perdition," but a ** power of choosing." The free will
has, indeed, been weakened, and freedom has lost the *' bloom
and vigor of its grace " (i. 8, p. 24 f.). ** The power of choice
of the human will has been attenuated not abrogated " (i.
. . .
16, p. 50; ii. 10, p. 88). We are to speak, not of impossibil-

ity, but of infirmity and difficulty (ii. 8, p. 76). *'We see,
therefore, that the consent of the human mind may pass over to
the good or to the contrary side" (i. 12, p. 41 i. 10, p. 32). ;
Hence, even fallen man possesses ** the possibility of striving for

salvation" (ep. 'i, p. 163). The appropriation of salvation by
man is effected in such a way that grace and the human will co-
operate ** we always associate grace with work " (i.
: 16, p. 51 ;
cf. I. 6, p. 21 f.; ep. I, p. 163). *'And thus these two are

combined, the power to draw near,
and the impulse to obey, just
as if a sick man should attempt to rise and his faculty should not
obey the mandate of his spirit, and he should, therefore, beg
that a right hand be extended to him" (i. 16, p. 52). From
this it follows, that man makes the beginning. He believes in
God, and God increases him this faith and helps him to good
in
works (i. 6, p. 22). The word ''assistance " implies equally two
(persons), one working and the other co-working, one seeking
and the other promising, one knocking and the other opening,
one asking and the other rewarding" (ii. 12, p. 91). Thus
also in baptism, the '* desire of the will " comes first ''The :
will of the applicant is first required in order that the grace of the
regenerator may follow " (ii. 10, p. 84). It appears sometimes
as though faith itself were regarded by Faustus as a gift of grace
(ii. 5, p. 67 f. ), but in such cases the meaning is only that the
author regards the will itself as a gift of creative grace ( that I am '
indebted to God for the will itself, " ii. 10, p. 84; alsoii. 12, p. 90;
cf. Koch, 1. c, p. 92 ff. ). The matter can also be conceived in
this way That God, as in the case of the prodigal son, by his
:
providential guidance gives to man the stimulus to serious reflec-

tion (i. II, p. 38). But to comprehend fully the variance from
the Augustinian position, it is necessary to consider, further, that
Faustus understands by grace, not an inwardly illuminating and
renewing power, but, after the manner of Pelagius (p. 336), the
preaching, the comfort, the threatenings, and the promises of the
exempt from original contagion who was conceived not by flesh but by
spirit,and not with the passion that makes ashamed . behold the cause of
. .
original sin, that one is born from the delight of conception and from the vice
of carnal pleasure." This is the monastic idea of original sin. Consider also
the reference to the origin of Jesus.
)
37^ HISTORY OF DOCTRINES,
Scriptures. Thus is the *' drawing" of the Father (Jn. 6. 44)

explained (i. 16, p. 52), and the ''divine assistance" is more
closely defined as the law and the prophets, the evangelical
oracles and divine laws (i. 10, p. 33^). If this representation
of the view of Faustus be correct, he is yet further removed
from Augustine than Cassian (p. 371 f. ) and nearer to Pelagius
(cf WiGGERS, ii. 264 ff.). In harmony with the general char-
acter of this theory, predestination and foreknowledge merge
** Foreknowledge foresees the things
into one. that will come
to pass ;
predestination afterward defines the retributions to be
meted out. The former foresees merits ; the latter foreordains
rewards. And thus, until foreknowledge shall have explored,
predestination decrees nothing " (ii. 3, p. 6^). From thisview-
point, the problem, why not all men are saved, may, so far as
human freedom is concerned, be easily solved (i. 16, p. 50 f ).
The question as to children dying unbaptized, man is not able
to answer (i. 13, p. 45 f.). Thus, the Semipelagian doctrine,
as related to Cassian, had been further developed, i. e., had
approached nearer to Pelagianism. Two councils were held, at
Aries about A. D. 473 (cf. Engelbrecht's prolog, to his edition,
p. i5),andsoon after, at Lyons, in the spirit of Faustus, andagainst
the '' error of predestination " (de grat. prolog., pp. 3, 4). It
was under the instructions of these councils that Faustus wrote the
work above analyzed (vid. the prolog.). The document, as
well as the letters exchanged by Faustus and the predestinarian
presbyter, Lucidus, give us some knowledge of the spirit of
these assemblages (ep. i. 2, pp. 161-168). Lucidus had cham-
pioned certain ultra-predestinarian propositions (that the fore-
knowledge of God appoints men to death; that a ''vessel of
wrath cannot become a vessel of glory ; that Christ did not die
'
'
for all, vid. ep. i, p. 162). He, under moral pressure, anathe-
matized these propositions and, going still further, of his free
will acquiesced in the praedicandi statuta of the council (vid.
ep. 2, p. 165 f.).'
1 In very passage, indeed, side by side with the law, is mentioned a

this
working of grace (he gave) " divine precepts
: ; to those observing them
through the duties of laborious servitude, grace co-operating, he has promised a
celestial kingdom."
2 In his letter, addressed probably to the second council (at Lyons), Luci-
dus announces his agreement with the '* council's recent statutes for preach-
ing " (Fausti ep., p. 165 f.), and then cites a series of theses which do not
entirely correspond with those presented to him for his recantation. We may
probably see in them the decrees of the council at Aries. He condemns ( i:
Those who say that, after the fall of the first man, the choice of the will is
totally extinct. (2) That Christ . . did not undergo death for the salva-
.
tion of all men. (3) That the foreknowledge of God violently compels men
5. Various causes combined to check Semipelagianism. In

the place, its approach to Pelagianism, which was especially
first
perilous while the latter was still in existence. Secondly, the
literary assault upon the Traducianism of Faustus by the philos-
opher, Mamertus Claudianus (vid. Faust, ep. 3 and 5, also Mam.
CI. de statu animae), and the condemnation of Traducianism as
heresy by Pope Anastasius II. (ep. 6, v. 23; Aug. 498).^ But
it must be emphasized, in the third place, that Rome clung to
the Augustinian doctrine, though, indeed, only in the sense of

Innocent I., /. ^., with an ignoring of predestination. The
popes, maintaining this position, always pronounced Pelagianism
heretical, and also expressed themselves against Semipelagianism.
Vid. CoELESTiNE I., ep. 21. 2, where the Semipelagians are
charged with '* preaching things contrary to the truth." Hilary
and Prosper are lauded, and the rule laid down *Met novelty :
cease to assault antiquity." ^ Leo opposes Pelagianism, appeal-

ing to the doctrinal instructions of Rome (vid. ep. i, 2 of A. D.
442 ; so also Gelasius I.; vid, ep. 4. 2, 3 6. i, 4, 5 f., 7, 8 f.).
;
This pope from Africa expressed himself with exceptional

thoroughness upon the subjects of original sin and grace (vid.
also his Tractatus adv. Pelagian, haeresim, Thiel, epp. pontif. , p.
571 ff. ). The Romish position appears most fully in a disserta-
tion upon grace preserved as a supplement to the 21st letter of
Coelestine In Adam all lost their natural power and innocence
:
(5). Hence, no one, without the help of God, can, of himself
to death. (4) That whoever sins after baptism legitimately received dies in
Adam. (5) That some are destined to death, others predestined to life.
(6) That from Adam to Christ none of the Gentiles were saved through the
primary grace of God, i. e.y through the law of nature, until the coming of
Christ, because they had lost their free will entirely in our first parent. (7)
That the patriarchs and prophets, or some most lofty saints, were living in the
dwelling place of paradise even before the times of redemption. (8) That
there are no hres nor infernal regions. Under the last thesis, vid. p. 167: ** I con-
fess, indeed, that eternal fires and infernal flames have been prepared for capi-
tal offenses, because divine judgment justly follows human faults persisting to
the end." To this is added the positive assertion of the mere weakening of
the will by the fall, and the proof from Scripture and tradition that Christ died
for all.
^ The pope was able to answer very easily, to his own satisfaction, the
dog-
matic question of whose solution Augustine despaired: According to Jn. 5. 17,
the Father worketh always. He, therefore, gives souls also (c. i. 4). It has
been established that the child receives its spirit four weeks after conception
(2. 5). Hence, Traducianism is heresy (3. 6). Nevertheless the sin of
parents reproduces itself in the children (4. 7). The whole Scriptures teach
Creationism, and, in view of Psalm 99. 3, it is said :*'in this clearest trumpet
tone all iniquity is silenced."
^ That the force of these deliverances was felt in Gaul is evident from the
perversion of the words by Vincent, comm. 32.
;
be good (6); even those who have been renewed through bap-
tism attain steadfastness in the good only by the daily help of
God (7). All merits are gifts received from God (9). God
works the free will in man by giving him holy thoughts and the
good will (10). This is also the end had in view in sacerdotal
prayers (12). Hence: ''By these ecclesiastical rules [utter-
ances of Innocent, and Zosimus, and the African decrees] and ,
by the documents received by divine authority ... we are

assured that we should acknowledge God as the author of all
good emotions and works, and of all efforts and all virtues . . .
and that we should not doubt that all the merits of man are pre-
ceded by the grace of him through whom it comes to pass that
we begin to will and to do anything good
by which assistance
and of God free will is not abolished, but liberated, so that
gift
instead of darkened it becomes light ; instead of evil, right
instead of sick, well ; instead of imprudent, provident. For
such is the goodness of God toward all men that he wishes those
things which are his gifts to be our merits. Wherefore he
. . .
effects in us that we will and do what he wills ... so that we

are also co-operators with the grace of God " (14). Finally, it
is said ''
: We
hold that as we dare not despise, so it is not nec-
essary for us to afhrm, the more profound and difficult parts of
the questions before us, which those who opposed the heretics
have fully treated, because we
believe that, for confessing the
grace of God, whatever, according to the proclaimed canons of
the apostolic chair, the Scriptures have taught us, is sufficient, so
that we simply do not regard as Catholic that which has appeared
to be contrary to the universally accepted opinions" (15).
Thus the non-Augustinian doctrine of grace is rejected as un-
catholic, while predestination is, not indeed discountenanced,
but yet not designated as an absolutely necessary element in the
church's doctrine of grace. This important document plainly
indicates the attitude of the Roman chair toward the doctrine of
grace during the fifth and the early part of the sixth century. ^
It is Augustinian, but avoids committing itself to the extreme
positions of Augustinianism. Pope HoRMiSDAsalso, in hisdecision
^ From the last section it is evident that Prosper cannot have been the
author of the document. That it is not a part of the 21st letter of Coelestine
is plain. The date of composition cannot be placed later than A. D. 431,
since only utterances of Innocent I. and Zosimus are made use of (vid., how-
ever, expressions like those of Gelasius, ep. 4. 3), and no mention is made of
the condemnation of Pelagianism at Ephesus (p. 264). On the other hand,
Dionysius Exiguus found it so early as the days of Symmachus (A. D. 498-
514) bound together with the letter of Coelestine (Mi. 67. 270). It may be
included under the capitula of Hormisdas (ep. 124.5); but it is, perhaps,
already presupposed by Leo (ep. i. 2) and Gelasius (ep. 4. 3 ; cf. 5. 2).

called forthby the assaults of the Scythian monks upon the ortho-
doxy of Faustus, pursues the same line. He goes even further, as
he describes the Catholic doctrine as being simply the Augustinian
( * it may be seen in the various books of the blessed Augustine,
^
and chiefly in those addressed to Hilary and Prosper,"^ ep. 124.

5). The same controversy called forth the (now lost) publication
of the Augustinian Fulgentius of Ruspe, Contra Faustum^ 11.
7 (vita Fulg. 28. 54). He, in a number of other writings,
championed the strict Augustinian doctrine of grace, including
the ** double predestination, the one of the good to glory, the
other of the wicked to punishment " (vid. ad Monimum, 11. 3,
and especially vol. de veritate praedestinationis
i. ; also ep. 15
in Mi. 65 ; cf. Wiggers, ii. 370 ff., 419 ff. ).
Thus Semipelagianism, as a theory, failed to secure accept-
6.
ance in the most influential quarters. Then appeared a man in the
church of South Gaul, who was by personal religious conviction an
Augustinian, but who, nevertheless or perhaps also therefore
was able to look beyond the sacred paradoxes of predestination,
Caesarius of Arles (t A. D. 542. Morin is preparing an
edition of his widely-distributed homilies. Portions in Mi. 67 ;
cf. Arnold, Caes. von Arel., 1894. As bearing upon our

question, see esp. 312 ff. and 533 ff.). But opposition arose
against the view of grace advocated by Caesarius,^ which may
have been increased by political and practical considerations
(vid. Arnold, p. 344 ff. ). His teaching, however, really con-
flicted with the legally binding decrees of Aries (p. 376).
The council at Valentia (A. D. 529) was accordingly sum-
moned to oppose him. Caesarius was prevented from attend-
ance, but sent representatives to conduct his cause, who argued
that no one can of himself make spiritual progress, unless
previously called by ''prevenient grace," and that the will
of man becomes free only through Christ's redeeming work
(vita Caesar, i. 5. 46).^ The decrees of this council have been
^ /. <?., the strict predestinarian books, De predest. and De don, persev.,
vid. p. 368.
^ Caesarius did not write the work attributed to him, De gratia et libero
arbitrio. The statement to that effect in Gennad. de scr. eccl. 86 is a rather
late interpolation (cf.Arnold, p. 498 f. ).
^ That the council of Valence was held before that of Orange is to-day
almost universally admitted (vid. Hefele CG., ii. 739 f.). The passage cited
from the Vita Caes. permits no other conclusion. The council of Orange does
not, indeed, directly mention it, but indirectly in the statement that Caesarius
(after the council of Val.) presented the proof from apostolic tradition for the
view of his delegates (not of the council of Valence, as Hefele states, p.
738), and that Boniface II. confirmed this. Of course, Caesarius was not
*' flatly accused of Semipelagianism" (KocH, Faust, p.
53) at Valence. On
the contrary, his accusers were Semipelagians.
SSo HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
lost,'but that they bore a Semipelagian character does not admit of

doubt. ^ Before the summoning of this council, Caesarius had ap-
pealed to Pope Felix IV., who sent to him "a. few chapters."
These, which have been preserved substantially in Can. 9-25 of
the decrees of Orange, were taken from the Sentences of Prosper.
When Caesarius, while in attendance at the dedication of a
church at Arausiacum (Orange, A. D. 529), learned of the
Semipelagian decrees of Valence, he took advantage of the
assemblage to reaffirm his views upon the doctrine of grace. He
added to the Sentences sent by the pope, the introduction, the
final confession, and decrees 1-8.^ Thus originated the decrees
^ But see further remarks below upon the decrees of Orange.

^ Vid. Arnold, p. 349 f., especially, as otherwise the biographer of
Caesarius would not have failed to mention the acceptance of the arguments of
the latter' 5 delegates at Valence.
^ As to the origin of the Canons of Orange, Arnold is substantially correct
(p. 534 ff. ).We remark briefly ( i ) N. 9-15 a, except n. 10, is derived from
:
Prosper's Sentences (22-372, vid. the Maurine ed. of the works of Augustine,
xvii. 2818 ff. Hefele, ii. yôff.). These are the capitula sent by the
pope. Caesarius inserted n. 10 and made some modifications (esp. n. 13, but
not n. 18, where Arnold labored with a false LA. (2) The preface and the
final confession, n. 25 b, are from Caesarius.
(3) N. 1-8, in form and con-
tent different from the other sentences, are also the work of Caesarius, i. *-., of
the synod. This is confirmed particularly by the fact that Caesarius has pre-
sented to the pope for his approval the proposition ** that even faith is a gift
of grace,' and that the papal letter accordingly enlarges upon this proposition.
'
But this is the leading thought in n. 3-6. (4) Caesarius framed the canon
with a wise moderation and consideration for the opponents (avoidance of the
double predestination, 25 b ; insertion of baptism, 13, 25 b ; the reladon of
grace to perseverance in good works, 10). (5) The question as to the motive
for the construction of n. 1-8 is thus answered by Arnold : N. i and 2 are
directed against Pelagianism ; 3-6, against Faustus ; 7, against the earlier
Augustine; 8, against Cassian (p. 557). But this does not harmonize with
the concrete situation in which Caesarius was placed. It would be an aston-
ishing thing if he had framed these sentences with a view to considerations of
doctrinal history. Caesarius, as we know, sent with his own document to the
pope the letter of a certain priest, Mansi viii. 737. This letter must have
some reference to the Sentences of his opponent, the condemnation of which
he was endeavoring to secure. It contained, in other words, the Sentences of
the assembly at Valence. If Caesarius regarded the sending of these as neces-
sary for the understanding of his canon, it then follows that n. 1-8 (but also
the other comments and modifications of the documents received from Rome)
were constructed in the light of the canons of Valence. And this is, in fact,
in view of the entire situation, the only probable conclusion. This opens to

us the possibility of reconstructing in their fundamental features the de-
crees of Valence. These began with a condemnation of strict Pelagianism.
Not only death, but also sin, has come upon the race through Adam (accord-
ing to n. I, 2). Grace delivers man, if the latter calls upon God, desires to
be pure, believes in God and the gospel message, and manifests an earnest
longing and striving after grace and baptism (3-7). At the same time (ac-
cording to Caesarius), there was left open the possibility that in some cases
grace should make the beginning (8); while, on the other hand, as testified
1
.
THE gEMIPELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES. 38
of Orange, designed to put an end to the Semipelagian contro-

versy. Pope Boniface 11. (in Mansi viii. 735 ff.) confirmed
them, A. D. 530 or 531 (Hefele ii. 737 f. )
The leading ideas of this doctrinal decision^ are as follows :
Both Pelagianism and Semipelagianism are in conflict with

the ''rule of Catholic faith." By the sin of Adam, he him-
self and all his posterity were ruined in body and soul. Not
only death, but sin also, has through Adam come upon the whole
human race (i, 2, 8). ** No one has of himself anything except
falsehood and sin " (22^). The free will has been inclined and
weakened in such a way that man of himself can neither believe
in God nor love him (25 b). If man even before the fall was
unable without the help of his Creator to maintain his original
integrity, how shall he be able without the grace of God to re-
'
'
cover what he has lost?" (19). The grace of God works in us

the impulse to call upon God and to strive after purification, as
'
also faith. Grace is an '^ infusio et operatio of the Spirit (4). '
That we believe, and that we will or are able to do these things as

we ought, is wrought in us through the infusion and inspiration of
the Holy Spirit (6. 5). Faithis ** to consent to the preaching of the
gospel " ( 7 , of. ib. ' in consenting to and believing the truth
:
* "
J
The faith thus inspired by God impels us to baptism (25 H., p.
152). It is baptism which renews our will: *' the choice of
the will, weakened in the first man, cannot be repaired except
by examples in the Old Testament, the natural goodness (the bonum naturae^
of man might stand at the beginning of the process (25 b). Finally, assault
is made upon the double predestination, and the evisceration of baptism and of
morality which it involves (cf. n. lo, 13, 25 b). This was the ancient Semi-
pelagian position, which has close affinity with n. 3-7 of the Sentences of
Aries (supra, p. 376, n.). It was maintained with a certain moderation (the
preface of the Canons of Orange attributes the doctrine to the '* simplicity " of
its adherents) and an energetic rejection of Pelagianism.
The origin of the Canons of Orange may accordingly be thus explained. But
if Caesarius was able to inform himself as to the canons of Orange only by
means of a letter, then it follows that the council of Orange was held imme-
diately after that of Valence, This conclusion is demanded also by the
preface. It was only after assembling at Orange that information was secured
concerning the departure from the rule of faith {êsse aliquos^ etc.). But then
Caesarius had already, before the council of Aries, requested the papal advice,
and probably received it immediately before the council of Orange. Caesarius
did not summon the council for the purpose of conferring with them upon this
point, but merely embraced the opportunity afforded. The pope calls the
Canons a coUatio (M. viii. 736)- ^^ i^^y thus understand also the silence of
the Vita in regard to them.
^ Vid. the decrees in Hahn, Bibl. d. Symb. and a revised text of
143 ff.,
Maassen in Mon. Germ. Leg. sect. 3 concil. t. i. (1893), p. 44 ff.

;
^ As to the solution of the problem bequeathed in this thesis to modern

Catholic theologians, vid. Ernst, Die Werke und Tugenden der Unglaubigen
n. Aug., 1 87 1, p. 228 ff. (appendix).
^
through the grace of baptism " (13). God, therefore, works in us

to every good work. The assistance of God must always be
'
'
implored even by the regenerated and restored (var. reading =:

saints) in order that they may be able to attain to a good end, or
to persevere in the good " (10). Thus every good deed is to be
traced back to God (20, 23 f. ). Accordingly, our worthiness
before God depends not upon our merit, but upon the gift of
God. ** God loves us for what we are to be
by his gift, not for
what we are by our merit " ( 12, cf. 18). The double predesti-
nation is expressly anathematized (25 b). We present as a
summary the leading sentences of the concluding confession :
'' We ought to preach and believe, that the free will has
been so
inclined and weakened by the sin of the first man, that no one
since would be able either to love God as he ought, or to believe
on God, or to work what is good before God, unless the grace of
the divine mercy had preceded him. We believe that, grace
having been received through baptism, all the baptized are able
and under obligation to perform by the assistance and co-opera-
tion of Christ the things which pertain to the salvation of the
soul, if they have resolved to labor faithfully. But that some
have by the divine power been predestinated to evil, we not only
do not believe, but even if there are any who are willing to be-
lieve such an evil thing, we with all detestation pronounce an
anathema upon them. He, no good merits preceding, inspires
in us faith and love of himself, so that we may both seek in
faith the sacraments of baptism, and may be able after baptism,
by his assistance, to perform those things which are pleasing to
him. Thus the doctrine of
'
' grace alone
* * came off victor-
'
'
ious ; but the Augustinian doctrine of predestination was aban-

doned. The irresistible grace of predestination was driven from
the field by the sacramental grace of baptism. The doctrine of
grace was hereby brought into a closer relationship with the
popular Catholicism, as also by the exaltation of good works as the
aim of the divine impartation of grace.
34. Tradition and the Papacy.

I We have now traced the genesis of dogma in the ancient
.
church of the West. The doctrines of Anthropology and So-

1 Harnack says " It is a fact which has not hitherto been duly consid-
:
ered, that the Catholic doctrine did not continue Semipelagian simply because it
declared the sexual passion sinful " (iii. 233). This is false, since it was just
Pelagianism (vid. Faust., supra, p. 374) which presented the strongest state-
ments upon this point, and because the controversy between the Semipelagians
and the Augustinians really culminated elsewhere.
TRADITION AND THE PAPACY. 383
teriology were the most distinctly original products of Occidental

Christianity. But even in the development of the doctrines of the
Trinity and of Christology, the influence of the Western church
was, as we have seen (supra, pp. 217, 272), of very great signifi-
cance. Thus the Western theologians made themselves felt in the
formation of both the Nicene and the Chalcedon creeds, and re-
tained their peculiar conception of God and Christ in the forms of
the Augustinian theology. The Trinitarian and Christological
dogmas are hence common to the Eastern and Western churches,
while the Greeks have given expression to their peculiar relig-
ious tendency in the doctrine of images, and the Occidentals in
the doctrine of sin and grace. In the West, there was also a
close and scrupulous adherence to the orthodox definitions and
the heaping of condemnations upon heretics. This is clearly
proved alike by the anti-heretical writings of the period (Augus-
tine, Philaster) and by the efforts made to present a summary
statement of Catholic truth (Vincent of Lerinum, Gennadius,
Fulgentius of Ruspe^). Biit in close association with this regard
for dogma stand the views and ideals, the superstition and cus-
^ Vid. the writings of Faustus and Gennadius, cited by the latter, de vir.
ill.85, 100 the works attributed to Vigilius of Tapsus (in Mi. lat. 62); also
;
the writings of Fulgentius (Mi. 65). As summaries, Gennadius, de eccle-

siastic,dogmatibus (Mi. 58. 979 ff. ), and Fulgentius, de fide (Mi. 65. 671
ff. )are of special interest. Gennadius treats of the Trinity and Christology,
the resurrection, the creation, man and his soul, freedom (c. 21 ; as to c. 22-52,
vid. supra, p. 374, n., and Arnold, Caesar., p. 535), then of baptism, the
eucharist, repentance (54, 80), in condemnation of sensuous Chiliasm, upon
angels, marriage, temperance, the Virgin Mary, relics, the necessity of bap-
tism to salvation, the eucharist (c. 75: **pure water ought not to be
offered in the sacrament in order to deceive some by the symbol of sobriety '' ),
the resurrection, the influence of the death of Christ upon the dead, etc.
Fulgentius, under the heading of Redemption (22 f. ), gives a more exhaustive
treatment of the Trinity and Christology in the spirit of Augustine. This
constitutes the first part of the work, entitledby the author, De trinitate. The
second part teaches :
*' What thou shouldst believe without doubt ^concerning
created things" (24), viz.: creation from nothing (25, 29), the omnipresence
of God, angels, freedom, and the possibility of falling, predestination and the
leavingof some, especially of children dying unbaptized, to perdition (31); that
original sin expresses itself primarily in unbelief ( infidelitas^ (34) eternal death
;
and eternal life, wherein no ** indulgence " follows repentance (36), whereas
in repentance on earth : "if thou shalt have with the whole heart renounced
past sins, and shalt have shed tears of the heart ... for them, and shalt
have been careful to wash away the stains of evil works by good works, thou shalt
have at once indulgence for all thy sins" (37 cf. 82 ** to wash away
; : . . .
thy sins by alms, fastings, prayer, or tears"); that baptism is not to be re-
peated that " without association with the Catholic church neither can bap-
;
tism profit anyone, nor works of mercy (42); that perpetual continence is
better than a good marriage " (43); then follow forty rules which, for the most,
are a repetition of what has preceded ; 84 :
" that the wicked are mingled
with the good in the communion of the sacraments," i. c, in the church.
;
toms, of the popular Catholicism. In this also Augustine pre-

pared the way for the later development (p. 367). We may,
accordingly, refrain at this point from a portrayal of the Chris-
tianity of the period, as this will form a fitting introduction to
Book II. (cf. p. 24).
At the beginning of the course of development, whose con-
clusion, relatively speaking, we have now reached, we met the
ideas of Irenseusand Tertullian upon Tradition (p. i36f.). In the
present period Vincent of Lerinum, ConDnonitorium
in his
(A. D. 434, in Mi. 50. 637 fif.
), gave to
always influential
this
consideration a form in harmony with the views of his age, at
the same time recording some interesting remarks upon the de-
velopment of doctrine. The Catholic faith is fundamentally dis-
tinct from heresy in the fact that it is based ''primarily, of
course, upon the authority of the divine law ; then, likewise, upon
the tradition of the Catholic church. '
Although the canon of
'
Scripture is complete, '* and of itself is sufficient and more than

'
sufficient for all things, yet tradition is needed for a proper
'
understanding of the Scriptures 'Mn the Cathohc church itself

:
the greatest care must be exercised to hold that which has been
believed everywhere and always and by all."
Genuine tradition is, hence, that which has in its favor univer-
sitas, antiquitas and consensio (c. 2). Heresy is innovation :
''when well-established antiquity is subverted by wicked nov-

elty " (14). This is confirmed by the study of the historical
heresies (^. g., Apollinaris, Nestorius, Origen, Tertullian). Let
us, therefore, be on our guard against the darkness of heretical
illumination. "If novelty is to be avoided, antiquity is to be
cherished ; and if novelty is profane, age is hallowed " (21).
There is, indeed, progress in history, "but yet in such a way that
it advances truly in the faith, not a transformation." The
knowledge of the church grows, but " in its own kind {genere)^
in the same doctrine, in the same sense (^sensu)^ in the same
opinion
'
(^sententia)
' . There is a growth, just as the child be-

comes a man a development, as the plant comes from the seed.
" Whatever, therefore, has in the agriculture of God been planted
in this church in the faith of the Fathers, this same flourishes
and matures, this same advances and is completed. For it is
right that these primal doctrines of celestial philosophy should,
in process of time, be carefully studied, refined, and polished
but it is nefarious that they should be changed, abbreviated,
mutilated" (23). Accordingly, the councils have only fur-
nished more precise definitions of the ancient doctrine. " What
else has ever been produced by the decrees of councils, except
that what had before been believed in simplicity {siinpliciter),

this same was afterward believed more heartily ; what had before
been preached more moderately, this same was afterward
preached more vigorously ; what had before been cherished in
greater security, this same was afterward cultivated with greater
solicitude?" (ib.). That which was ''not a new doctrine
{sensum) of the faith " was now designated by the ** peculiarity
of a new appelation." The heretics, on the contrary (^. ^.,
Pelagius, Sabellius, Novatian, Priscillian^), produce one innova-
tion after another, and do not fail to adduce abundant proofs for
their views from the Scriptures (Paul of Samosata, Priscillian,
Eunomius, Jovinian), in this following Satan's example (24 ff. ).
The church must oppose to all heresies either the decisions of the
councils or
if there be none applicable to the case in hand
the concensus of the ancient Fathers, i. e. of those who re-
,
mained until their death in the communio catholica, and, even in

their case, not their obscure and private opinions upon minor
points, but the fundamental views common to them all. What-
ever has been plainly, frequently, and persistently accepted and
handed down, either by all or by the majority, in one and the
same sense, is to be regarded as true (28). Finally, as the letter
of Pope Coelestine (p. 377) is quite evidently used as fully as
possible against the Augustinians, this Semipelagian betrays his
determination to apply his canon against the doctrine of Augus-
tine. The doctrine of the ancient Fathers is, therefore, the
truth, in comparison with which the authority of the Scriptures
retreats into the background. Tradition was for Ireneeus a trib-
utary line of evidence for the establishment of the identity of the
religious views of the church with the truth revealed in the Scrip-
tures. Here tradition has become an independent entity, and
really the chief consideration. From this time forward, side by
side with the Scriptures
and in fact above them, runs the Cath-
olic tradition. With this is combined the idea that the de-
velopment of doctrine should and dare be nothing more than
the formal restatement of the teachings of the Catholic Fathers
an idea which must stand or fall with the false presumption,
that those Fathers had exhausted the contents of the gospel.
The decreasing prominence of the episcopacy in this connection
is worthy of note, but we dare not fail to observe also that the
^ Upon (f A. D. 385) vid. Prise, quae supersunt, ed. Schepss,

Priscillian
1889; also Paret, Reformator des 4. Jarh. 1891.
Prise, ein Hilgenfeld,
in Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1892, p. i flf. The solution of the historical prob-
lem presented by the theology of Priscillian (in which Gnostieizing, popular-
Catholie, and arehaistie elements are combined) does not lie within the prov-
ince of the History of Doctrines. I regard Paret' S attempt as unsuccessful.
Cf. also the instructive study of F. Lezius, Die Libra des Dictinnius (in
Abhandlungen fiir Alex, von Oettingen, 1898).
25
episcopate is regarded as self-evidently the means for the preser-

vation of the tradition.
3. When considering the evidence for the truth of the church's
dogmas, mention must be made of the Papacy. It is the prov-
ince of Church History to trace the extension of the temporal
power of the popes ; we can deal only with the dogmatic
authority of the papal deliverances. The popes themselves with
ever-increasing boldness referred to their doctrinal utterances as
simply the truth (Callistus, p. 176; Stephan, p. 184; Leo, p.
271 ; Innocent I., p. 356); but they did so atfirstin theancient
sense (vid. Iren., p. 137, and also Tertul. praescr. ;^6, 20), that
they were the representatives of the ancient doctrine
that, as
the successors of Peter, they have the doctrine of Peter in their
keeping (Stephan, p. 184; cf. Coelestine, p. 321). However
lofty their utterances may sound, they are yet very far from as-
serting the *' I am tradition '* of a later age. The first traces of
this theory may, indeed, be already noted, as at the council of
EphesuSjA. D. 431, where thepapallegates declare: "who (Peter)
until the presentand forever both lives and decides in his suc-
cessors " (Mansi, iv. 1296). So also the ep. decret. Gelasii de
recip. etnon recip. , libr. i. (Thiel,p. 455): *' The Roman church
has been exalted above other churches by no synodical decrees,
but has obtained the primacy by the evangelical voice of the
Lord and Saviour, Matt. 16. 18." But the councils by no
means blindly acknowledge the papal claims, but subject them to
scrutiny (e. g., at Chalcedon, p. 272, at the sixth ecumenical
council, p. 282 ; cf. Mansi, xi. 331 ff. ). This explains how a
pope could be expressly condemned for error by a council and by
another pope (Honorius, p. 282 ; also Jaff6 Reg. pontif. Rom.
i., ed. 2, n. 2118). The bishops always ascribed the highest
value to the authority of the pope when that authority was en-
listed, or thought to be enlisted, in favor of their own opinions
{e. g., Aug., supra, pp. 354, 318; Caesar., vid. passages in
Arnold, p. 298, n.). Where this was not the case, they were
ready enough to set over against Matt. 16 the course of Paul,
described in Gal. c. 2 (Cyprian, p. 183, Aug. and the Council of
Carthage, p. 356 f.). Highly esteemed as was the papal author-
ity dogmatically, the views entertained scarcely went beyond
*' But thou sayest that the church is
the deliverance of Jerome :
founded upon Peter. Granted, that this same thing is in an-

other place said with relation to all the apostles, and that they
all received the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . yet one
.
was selected among the twelve in order that by the appointment

of a head the liability to schism might be removed
'
(adv. '
Jovin. i. 26; cf. Cypr., p. 183; Aug., p. 318}. Very similar

was the attitude of the emperors toward the popes. The actual
power wielded by the latter forced from them expressions of the
highest esteem, but they were never inclined to treat the papal
teachings as infallible (of. pp. 222, 235, 268 f., 272, n., 276 f.,
281, 303, 356). In fact, the first decided interest was awakened
by the edict of Valentinian III. (A. D. 445), which aimed to
bring the Western church into complete subjection to Rome :
'* For then

at length will the peace of the churches be every-
where preserved if the whole world {universitas') acknowledges its
ruler ;
'
and *' let this be law for them all, whatever the authority
'
'*
of the apostolic chair has sanctioned or shall have sanctioned
(Leon. ep. 11). The Justinian laws had only added emphasis to
this. But that the papal utterances were even yet in the last analy-
sis controlled by the traditional conception of the matter is best
attested by the Exemplum libelli of Hormisdas :*'Our chief
safety is to guard the rule of the true faith, and by no means to
deviate from the ordinances of the Fathers. And since the
opinion of our Lord Jesus Christ when he said, Thou art Peter,'
'
cannot be disregarded . these things which have been said

. .
are to be attested by the actual results, because in the apostolic

chair the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.
Whence .following in all things the apostolic chair and
.
preaching all its ordinances, I hope that I may merit to be with

you in the one communion which the apostolic chair preaches,
in which is the whole and true solidity of the Christian rehgion
"
(A. D. 515, ep. 7. 9; Thiel, ep. rom. pont., p. 754 f.). Cf.
Langen, Das vatikan. Dogma vom Universalepiskopat u. der
Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes, 4 parts, 1871-6. Dollinger, Das
Papsttum, 1892. Vid. Sources in Mirbt, QuellenzuGesch. des
Papsttums., ed. 2, 1901.
4. In the doctrine upon the subject of tradition there is again
brought to view the harmony between the theological ideas of
the later period of ancient dogmatic history and those of the
second century, but none the less distinctly the departure of the
former from the latter. The doctrines of the ancient church
were constructed upon the basis of the primitive Cathohc Chris-
tianity. In this process we may again remark (vid. p. 383)
tliat the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas were a common
product of the Orient and Occident, whereas the SoteriologicaJ

dogma was an entirely Western construction.^ This dogma,
or these dogmas, became the basis of the entire doctrinal struc-
ture of the church and of the religious conceptions of the Chris-
^ The condemnation of Pelagianism at Ephesus (p. 264) was merely an

accident.
S^^ HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
tian world. This explains the inestimable importance of a famil-

iarity with the course of doctrinal development in the ancient
church in order to a correct understanding of the doctrines now
held in the church. But we are led, on the other hand, to the
conviction, that the established dogma of the ancient church does
not present the final truth, but is capable of and requires devel-
opment, expansion, and continual recasting and progressive re-
vision. For the evangelical believer, the Gospel of the Lord
and of the apostles is the norm for the criticism and revision of
the dogma of the ancient church. Inasmuch as the latter ex-
cludes certain conceptions, and, in their stead, formulates an
actual statement of religious principles in the philosophical forms
of antiquity, it has been a leaven modifying the course of further
development. It transmitted a gift to posterity which, like
every spiritual legacy, became of necessity for the recipient^ a chal-
lenge to labor. The further course of dogmatic history must reveal
to what an extent the church of later times understood the
problem, and what progress was made toward its solution,
1 Cf. Frank, Syst. d. chr. Warh. i., ed. *' It is no less unjustifiable
3, 161 f. :
to regard the fixed formulas of the church as of such a character that in them
is established a complete dogmatic conception of the topic under consideration,
whereas, in fact, they furnish, or attempt to furnish, nothing more than
the most suitable terms in which it is possible to define the realities of
faith as such ; " and further, *' that this is not to be so understood as though
the formula once established in consequence of the Arian controversy, and
since then handed down in the church, were in itself, and in this external form,
the basis for our dogmatic investigations. It is this only because, and in so far
as, in it finds expression a treasure of faith which ... as an inherited legacy,
but one which, requiring, in order to its actual possession, to be appropriated
anew from generation to generation, leads us constantly forward." Vid. also
RiTSCHL, Rechtfertigung u. Versohnung, ii., ed. 2, 18 f.: *'Even Philippi
(Kirchl. Dogm. ii. 150) attributes but a negative \3\mq for theology to the doc-
trinal formulas of the church. Yet this value is to be understood as positive
in character, in so far as these formulas keep within the range of view problems
whose solution has been attempted in the articles of faith, even though a more
careful scrutiny may have convinced us that the solution sought has not beeti
attained in them. Viewed in this light, both aspects of the doctrinal state-
ments of the Lutheran church endure the test as a direct contribution toward
the derivation from the New Testament of the authentic content of the Chris-
tian religion.'*
; ;
INDEX.
Agonisti, 314.
A.
Alcibiades, 90.
Ability, Human. In Judaism, 31 ;
Alexander of Alexandria, 205, 216.
Hermas, 61 ; Barnabas, 71, 73 ;
Alexandria, Council at (A. D. 362),
Apostolic fathers, So ; Ebionites, 226; (A. D. 363), 227; A. D.
91 ; Apologists, 115 ; Antignostic 430), 263.
fathers, 122, 139 ; TertuUian, 123 ;
Alexandrine Fathers, works of, I40
Clement of Alexandria, 144 ; Ori- aim of, 140 ; moralism of, 161 ; vs.
gen, 147, 151, 157; Methodius, Gnosticism, 161 ; estimate of, 160 ;
187 ; John of Damascus, 286 on confession, 158; on divinity of

Dionysius, 294 ; Eastern Church, Christ, 161 ; on rule of faith, 160,
328 Western Church, 318 Chry-

; ; 161.
sostom, 328; Ambrose, 329; Pe- Almsgiving. In Clement, 76 ; Cy-
lagius, 332 f., 337, 355 ; C^lestius, prian, 195 ; Augustine, 363, 367.
33^=33^'^ Augustine, 339, 341, Alogi, 163.
344, 350, 353> 3S9, 3^5 ;

Pelagian- ApoUinarianism, condemned, 234 ;
ism, 353 ; Cassian, 370 ff .

; Faus- repressed, 272 ; and Antiochians,
tus, 375 Lucidus, 376 n. ; Coun- 246 ; and Cappadocians, 247 ; and
cil of Orange, 380, 38 1; Council Monophysites, 2/7 ; on Logos,
of Valence, 379, 381 n. 245-
Acacius of Caesarea, 225, 225 n. ApoUinaris, works of, 227, 244; prob-
Acacius of Constantinople, 274. lem of, 247, 250, 253, 255 ; and
Actistites, 278. Cappadocians, 247, 250 ff.; on per-
Adam, sin of, 335* 337 ; original state son of Christ, 233 n., 240, 284 ;
of, 34r. on incarnation, 245 ; on Chiliasm,

Adiaphorites, 278. 246 n.
Aelurus, 273. Apologists, The, iog-ii8; aim of,
Aeon, Christ as, 96. no ; vs. Judaism and heathenism,

Aetius, 223, 225. III; estimate of, 110,118; legal-
Agapetus I., 276. ism of, 118 ; on God, 112 person ;
Agatho, Pope, 282. of Christ, 113 f. ; Trinity, 114;

Agency, Divine. In Paul, ^^ ; Apos- work of Christ, 115 ; human
tolicage, 52 Apostolic fathers,
; ability, 115 ; sufferings of Christ,
79 Augustine, 309 (see Will of

; 116; the church, 116; worship,
God, Grace). baptism, eucharist, 117; resurrec-
Agnoetae, 278. tion, immortality, 117.
(389)
39 INDEX.
Apostasy, 176. Anastasius II., Pope, 377.

Apostles, words of, 36, 82 f. Anastasius Sinaita, works of, 288 ;
Apostolic Age. On interpretation on images, 303.

of Scripture, 46, 52 ; words of Ancient Church, 287 ff.
Christ, 46, $2 ; Holy Spirit, 46, Ancyra, Council of, 244 ; formula of,
52 God, 46 tradition, 46
; ; ; do- 225.
minion of Christ, 46, 49, 52 ; ses- Angels. In Apostolic fathers, 79 ;
sion alright hand, 47 ; preexistence Menander, 93 Origen, 147, 154

; ;
of Christ, parousia, 47 humanity ; Theognostus, 186 ; Dionysius,

and divinity of Christ, 47; sufferings 291 Augustine, 359, 362.
;
and death of Christ, 47 incarna- ; Ante-Nicene Teaching. On theology

tion, 47 ; new covenant, 47 the ; and Christology, 169-174 ; on re-
Word, 48, 52 ; new life, 48 faith, ; pentance, 174-180.

48, 52 ; 49 sanc-
justification, 48, ; Antichrist, 134
tification, 49 righteousness, 48, ; Anti-Gnostic Fathers. Aim of, no,
49 5^1 good works, 48; hope, 119; estimate of; on God, 119,
48, 49 ; love, 52 ; the church, 49, 139 ; Trinity, 121 ; sin and human
52 ; charisms, 52 ; sacraments, 52 ;
ability, 122, 139 ; new covenant,
resurrection of Christ, 52 ; morality, 123 ; state of grace, 131 ; tradition,
49- 136, 140 ; the Scriptures, 135, 136 ;
Apostolic Fathers, works of, 55 ; legal- the church, 138 ; faith, salvation,
ism of, 79 f., 81 estimate ; of, 77, 139-
81 ; on rules of faith, 82, 86 ;
Antioch, Council at (A. D. 265 to
God, 77, 79; faith, 77, 79 f.; 269, three), 165; (A. D. 341),
fruits of faith, 78, 86 ; depravity, 219; (A. D. 358), 224; (A. D.
forgiveness, righteousness, 78 ; 363), 227 ; formulas of, 222, 224,
work of Christ, 78 ; communion 266.
with God, 79 new law, 79, 81, ; Antiochians z's. Sabellianism, 169 ;
84; immortality, 79; baptism, 78, at Council of Ephesus, 265 ; later
79 ; the Word, 79 ; eucharist, 79 ;

influence of, 281 ; relation to Paul
sin, merit, 79 ; love, 79 f.; the of Samosata, 248 f. ; to Nestorius,
church, 80 ; human ability, 80 ; 264 to Cyril of Alexandria, 264
; ;
charismata, 80 ; baptismal formula, on God, 250 person of Christ, ;
82, 84 f. ; communion of saints, 247, 284 ; work of Christ, 250.

80 ; eternal punishment, 81 ; Scrip- Aphraates, 174.
tures, 82 ; canon of Scriptures, 83 ;
Aphthartodocetes, 278, 279.
eschatology, 81 ; influence ot, in Apocalypse, 49 ff.
third century, 190. Apocalypse of Peter, 83.
Ambrose, works of, 256 ; anticipates Apostolic succession, 137, 138, 318.
Augustine, 308, 329, 33$ ; on Arcana discipHna, 290.
Trinity, 240 n., 308 person of ;
Arianism, 201 ff.; Athanasius on,
Christ, 256 sin and grace, 308,
; 206 f.; condemned, 216, 227; at
329 ff,; baptism, 330; synergism, Council of Ancyra, 224 ; at Sir-
331- mian Council, 222 ; temporary vic-
Anastasius, Emperor, 274. tory of, 222, 225 ; in Aetius and

; ;
INDEX. 39'
Eunomius, 223, 225 ; decline of, divinity of Christ, 206 if. ; work of
236. Christ, 212 f.; Logos, 206, 20S f .
Alius, works of, 202 ; activity of, person of Christ, 209 ff. ; incarna-
205 relation to Lucian, 252 to

; ; tion, 211, 213; communion with
Monarchians, 202, 204 to Apolo- ; God, 214; Holy Spirit, 215, 227,
gists, 204 ; to Paul of Samosata, 231 ; depravity, 328.
204 ; at Nice, 217 ; at Aries, 217 ;

Augustine, works of, 307, 338 ; esti-
at Alexandria, 227 ; on person of mate of, 258, 308 f., 312, 327, 352,
Christ, 202 f., 204. 367; as Manichccan, 257, 309; per-
Ariminium, Council at, 224. sonal experience of, 309, 310, 340 ;
Aristides, report of Christian teaching, Neoplatonism of, 257, 309, 310,

"5- 340, 341 ; contrasted with Athana-
Aries, Council at (A. D, 316), 314; sius, 258; with Paul, 349; relation
(A.D. 353), 222 ; (ca. A. D. 473), to Ambrose, 308, 329, 338 ; enchiri-
376, 379- dion of, 357 ff.; legalism

308; of,
Arnobius, works of, 192 ; on divinity compared with Luther, 340; on

of Christ, 170 ; on salvation of God, 310, 340, 367 will of God, ;
souls, 192. 309, 365 communion with God,

;
Artabastus, 305. 311,312; communionof saints, 324,

Artemas, Artemon, 164, 166, 205. 324n. ,325 charisms, 328 homou-; ;
Ascension of Christ, 153, 248. sia, 238 f. ; Trinity, 237 ff. , 362;
Asceticism, Gnostic, 98 ; in Mar- person of Christ, 258^,360; Logos,
cion, 103 ; in Montanists, I06 257 f. ; humiliation of Christ, 260 ;
Origen, 159 ; Methodius, 190 work of Christ, 361 n.; resurrection

Greek Church, 298 ; Cassian, 370. of Christ, 365 Holy Spirit, 324 f., ;
Asclepiodatus, 164. 348 ; human will, 309 ; original

Ascusnages, 236. state, 341 ; sin, 312, 364; original
Assistance, divine, Chrysostom, 329 ; sin, 338, 341, 342 ff., 345, 359;
Augustine, 341, 344, 34^, 349, 35, concupiscence, 345, 347, 348, 359 ;
364, 365, 368; John of Jerusalem, depravity, 338, 341 ff., 367 ;
guilt,
354; Pelagius, 336, 354, 355; 342 ; human ability, 339, 341, 344,
Semipelagians, 369 ; Cassian, 371 ; 350, 353. 359, 365; angels, 359,
"Deresurrectione gentium," 373 ; 362; Donatism, 314, 325, 327;
Coelestine,378 Faustus, 375 ; ; the church, 309, 312, 317 f.,
Canons of Orange, 382. 324 f. ; sacraments, 312, 319 f.
Athanasian Creed, 241. baptism, 319 f-, 322, 347, 3^0,

Athanasius, works of, 206 ; estimate 364 n.; infant baptism, 253 eu- ;
of, 206, 210; vs. Arianism, 207; charist, 320 the Word, 321 au- ; ;
and Nicene Creed, 218 ; banished thority of Scriptures, 358 ; original

and restored, 219, 222, 226, 227 ;
good, 346 ; righteousness, 345,
condemned, 222 attitude toward ; 348 ; repentance, 362, 364 ;
justifi-
Marcellus, 221, 233 ; toward Ho- cation, 347, 348, 349; faith, 310,
moiusians, 226 ; contrasted with 340, 347, 349, 352, 358, 366, 367 ;
the Cappadocians, 232 ; triumph forgiveness of sins, 322, 347, 350,

of, 228; on God, 206, 210; on 362; grace, 312, 324 f., 338 f..
;
392 INDEX.
346, 349> 350. 352, 359, 365 ;

di- Bardesanes, 93.
vine assistance, 341, 344, 346, 349, Barnabas, Epistle of, 55 J
legalism of,
350, 364 f., 368 ;

predestination, 72 ; on divinity, incarnation, and
326, 350, 351 f. ;
perseverance, sufferings of Christ, 70 ; interpreta-
351. 353; infusion of good-will, tion of Scriptures, 72, 73 ; Judaism,

349 f. ; order of salvation,
349 ; 72 ; forgiveness of sins, 70, 73 ;
love, 310, 324f., 347, 348, 366; baptism, 71, 73; new law, 71 ;
hope, 366; knowledge, 310, 347 ;

new life, ôi., "j^ ; new covenant,
divine calling, 351 ; satisfaction, 70 ; old covenant, 72 ; faith, hope,
363 ; merit, 366 ;
peace, 367 ;
justification, 71 ;
good works, 72 ;
almsgiving, 363, 367 ; purgatory, eschatology, 73>
363, 366 ; summary of views of, Basihdes, 93, 227.
357 ff. Basil, the Great, works of, 227 prom- ;
Augustinianism, in church, 368 f.; inence of, 239 ; on homousia, 229 ;
criticism of, 372. on eucharist, 301 (see Cappado-

Aurelian, Emperor, 166. cians).
Autun, Council at, 241, 242. Basil of Ancyra, 224, 225.
Axionicus, 93. Basilicus, Emperor, 273.
Benediction for the lapsed, 178, 180.
Beryl of Bostra, 168 n.
B.
Bishops, office of, 67, 80, 175, 189;
Baptism. In Gospels, 36, 37 Paul, ; duties of, 58 ; authority of, 140,
46 ; Apostolic age, 52 Hermas, ; 180, 182, 185 ; authority of, for-
60, 62 ; Ignatius, 68 ; Barnabas, feited by wickedness, 181 ; divine
71, 73 ; Didache, 74, 75 ; Clement, right of, 180, 182, 183; charismsof,
76 ; Apostolic fathers,78, 79 137, 181 ; not to be deposed, 177,
Apologists, 117 ; Hippolytus, 131 ; 178 ; beyond criticism, 181 ; have
Tertullian, 132; Clement of Alex- visions, l8i ; collegeof, 182; repre-
andria, 145 ; Origen, 155 ; Metho- sent the church, 182, 185, 326 ;
dius, 188, 189; Western Church, guardians of tradition, 80, 140, 385 ;
193 f-> 198; Cyprian, 193 f.; successors of apostles, 137, 138,
Commodian, 193 ; Greek Church, 318 ; fallible, 319 ; obedience to,
291, 299 ; Dionysius, 299 ; Do- 67, 69 ; confession to, 301 ; and
natists, 316, 320 f.; Augustine, papacy, 386.
319 f., 322, 347, 360, 364; Am- Bitterae, Council at, 222.
brose, 330 ;
Jovinian, 331 n. Body, the spiritual, 92 (see Resurrec-
canons of Orange, 381 f. ; Caeles- tion).
tius, 355. Boniface II., Pope, 381.
Baptism, office of, 156 ; form of admin- Bostra, Council at, 169.
istration of, 194 ; formula of, 36,
37, 82, 84 ff.; repeated, 179, 314,
316,320; requirements for, 299;
infant, 155, 335, 353. 355; three- Caecilian, 313, 314.
fold, 98 ; by heretics, 184, 314, Caelestius, works of, 332 expelled ;
315. 3i9f- from Rome, 356 ; excommunicated,

;
INDEX. 393
354) 355 7 ^^ f^s^ will and grace, Cerdo, 102.

332, 33^ ; infant baptism, 353 ; bap- Cerinthus, 93.
tism, 355 papal infallibility, 355.
; Chalcedon, Council of, 269, 270, 271.
Caesarius, on grace, 379 decrees of ; Chalcedon, Creed of, estimate of, 272,
Orange, 380, 3800. 273, 284 f. under Leo, ; Basilicus,
Call, special and general, 373 ; effec- and Zeno, 273 under ; Justinian,
tual and ineffectual, 351. 275 f.; at Constantinople, 283 ; on
Callistus, literature upon, 176; ex- papacy, 386.
communicated, 175 ; ondivinityof *' Character'* in sacrament, 319, 320.
Christ, 168 second ; repentance, Charism of the truth, 137-
177 ; church and episcopacy, Charisms in Apostolic age, 52 Apos- ;
I77f.; papal infallibility, 176,386. tolic fathers, 80 ; Montanism,

Canon. See Scriptures ; of truth, 105 f.; of bishops, 181; Augus-
85, 136. tine on, 328.
Cappadocians, The Three, works of, Children, unbaptized, 376, 383.

227; aim of, 228; relation to Athan- Chihasm. In Papias, 70 ; Barnabas,
asius, 228, 232 ; to Origen, 228 73 ; Apostolic fathers, 81 ;
Jewish
criticized by Arius, 230 ; Platonic Christian, 89 ; Dionysius of Alex-
ideas of, 231 ; vs. Apollinaris, andria, 185 Ireneeus, 134
; ; Cy-
247, 250 f.; subordinationism in, prian, 197; Apollinaris, 246 n.
233 ; estimate of, 232 ; influence Chrism, 291, 298.

of, 308 ; on us?a and hypostasis, Christ, as aeon, 96 ; ascension of,
228; Trinity, 228 f.; the term, 153, 248 ; as example, 260 n., 297 ;
"persona,'' 230; homousia of as lawgiver, 77, 78, 297 ; as physi-

Spirit, 231 ; communicatio idioma- cian, 153, 158; as second Adam,
tum, 251 ; Holy Spirit, 231, 232 n.; 129; as teacher, 115, 143, 148,
orthodoxy, 198, 199. 155, 193.
Carpocrates, 93. Christ, death of. In Paul, 33 f.,
Carthage, Council at( A. D. 252), 180; 44, 47, 65, 68 ; Apostolic age,
(A. D. 255-6), 184 A. D. 416), ; 47 ; Barnabas, 70, 73 Apos- ;
354; (A. D. 411 or 412), 354; tolic fathers, 78 ; Origen, 154 ;
(A. D. 4i7or4i8), 356; (A. D. Apologists, 116; Athanasius, 214 ;
418), 356, 386. John of Damascus, 295 ; Augus-

Cassian, works of, 370 ; on asceti- tine, 360.
cism, 270 ; sin, ability, and grace, Christ, divinity of. In Gospels, 35 ;
370 ; divine assistance, 371 ; con- Paul, 39 f., 40 Apostolic age, 47

; ;
version, 371 ; merit and repent- John, 50 ; Clement of Rome, 56 ;
ance, 372 n.; good- will infused, Hermas, 62; Ignatius, 63 f.; Poly-
370, 372. carp, 69 ; Barnabas, 70 ; Didache,
Catholic Church, Ignatius on, 66 ; 73 ; Ebionites, 88 ; Apologists,
claim of, 317, 318 ; Donatists on, 113, 115 ; Antignostic fathers, 121,
315 ; and tradition, 384. I24ff., 139; Irenseus, 124; Ori-
Celibacy, Origen, 159 ; Methodius, gen, 147, 149; Alexandrine fa-
190 ; Cyprian, 197 ; Jovinian, thers, 161 ; second century, 162 ;
331 n.; Ebionite, 91. Patripassians, 167 ; Callistus, 168 ;

; ;
394 INDEX.
Novatian, 169 ; Arnobius, Lactan- Origen, 152 ; Praxeas, 167 ; Athan-

tius, Cyprian, 170 ; Dionysius of asius, 212, 263 ; Cyprian of Alex-
Alexandria, 171, 173 ; Dionysius andria, 254 ; Hilary, 256 ; Nesto-
of Rome, 171, 206 ; Methodius, rius, 264 Severians, 278 ; ; John
174 ancient church, 201
; Alex- ; of Damascus, 287.
ander of Alexandria, 205 Athan- ; Christ, person of. In Judaism, 31,
asius, 206 ff. ; Council of Antioch, 33; Gospels, Paul, 39 f.; 35 ;
219; Marcellus, 220; Aetius and John, 50 ; Clement of Rome, 56;

Eunomius, 223 Basil of Ancyra, ; Hermas, 58 f., 62 Ignatius, ;
226 ; Cappadocians, 229 f. ; Au- 63 f., homily of Clement, 75 ;

68 ;
gustine, 237fF., 257 ff.; Apollinaris, Apostolic fathers, 78 Ebionites, ;
244; Cyril of Alexandria, 252 f.; 88, 91 ; Elkesai, 89 ; Gnostics, 96 ;
Hilary, 255 Ambrose, 256 Nes- ; ; Marcion, 103 ; Apologists, 113-

torius, 261 ; Council of Chalcedon, 115; Irenaeus, 124; Tertullian,
271 ; Sergius, 279; Maximus, 1 25 ff. , 243 ; Hippolytus, 1 27 ;
280 ; John of Damascus, 288. Antignostic fathers, 139; Clement

Christ, dominion of, ^;^^ 46. of Alexandria, 143 ; Origen, 152 ;
Christ, exaltation of, 40, 47, 69, Monarchians, 163 ; Paul of Samo-
Christ, humanity of. In Apostolic sata, 164, 169, 221,244; Praxeas,
age, 47; Apologists, 115; Iren- 167 ; Noetus, Epigonus, Cleo-
ceus, 125; Tertullian, 126; Anti- menes, 167 ; Pierius, 171 ; Theo-
gnostic fathers, 139 ; Origen, 147 ;
gnostus, 171, 186 ; Methodius,
Synod of Bostra, 169 ; Cappado- 173 ; Aphraates, 174 ; Arius, 202 ;
cians, 247 ; Antiochians, 248 ;

Alexander of Alexandria, 205 ;
Ibas, 249 ; Ambrose, 256 ; Augus- Athanasius, 206 ff., 210 ff.; Mar-
tine, 257, 258 ; Nestorius, 261 ;
cellus, 220 ; Photinus, 221 ; after
Council of Chalcedon, 271, Maxi- Council of Nice, 222 ff.; Apolli-

mus, 281. naris, 233 n.; 244 f., 284; West-
Christ, indwelling of. In Paul, 41 ;
ern Church, 243, 255 ; Diodorus,
Ignatius, 66, 68 ; Apostolic fathers, 249; Antiochians, 247 f., 284;
77; Methodius, 188, 191'; West- Cappadocians, 247, 250 f.; Cyril
ern theologians, 198 ; Athanasius, of Alexandria, 252 f., 262f., 269,
213. 284; Hilary, 256 f. ; Ambrose,
Christ, intercession of. In Apostolic 256 ; Augustine, 258 f., 360 ;
^g6> 47 ; Western Church, 193 Eutyches, 267, 270 ; Pope Leo,

Eastern Church, 295. 270 ; Council of Chalcedon, 271 ;
Christ, ^gnosis of. In Hilary, 256 ;

Leontius, 275, 284 ; Severus, 277 ;
Augustine, 260 ; Pope Leo, 270. Julian, 277; Monophysites, 273 ff.
Christ, mediation of. In Origen, Niobes, 278 ; Council of Constan-

155 ; Western Church, 193 ; Au- tinople, John of Damascus,
283 ;
gustine, 261. 286 f.; Maximus, 281, 285.

Christ, obedience of, ;^;^, 45 ( see Christ, preexistence of. In Gospels,
Work of). 35 ; Paul, 40 ; Apostolic age, 46,
Christ,passibility of. In Ignatius, 47, 52 Clement of Rome, 56; ;
65; Clement of Alexandria, 143; Hermas, 59; Ignatius, 64, 66;

;
INDEX. 395
Barnabas, 70 ; homily of Clement, Didache, 74 ; epistle of Clement,
78; Judaic Christianity, 88; Diony- 77 ; Apostolic fathers, 80 ; Apolo-

sius of Rome, 173; Apollinaris, gists, 116; Antignostic fathers, 138 ;
246 ; Augustine, 258 n. Clement of Alexandria, 145 ;

Ori-
Christ, resurrection of. In Gospels, gen, 159; second century, 175 J
34 ; Paul, 40, 41, 42 ; Apostolic Callistus, 177 f.; Novatian, 179 ;
ag^j 52; Irenaeus, 129 ; Origen, Methodius, 189 ; Cyprian, 180, 185,
153- 198 ; Augustine, 309, 312, 317 f.,
Christ, session of, at right hand of 324f.; Jovinian, 331 n.; Fulgentius,
God. Apostolic age, 47 ; Origen, 363 n.; a necessity, 161 ; marks of,
153- 138 ; nature and holiness of, 174 ;
Christ, words of. In Gospels, 36 no salvation outside of, 183, 318;

Paul, 46 ; Apostolic age, 52 represented by bishops, 182, 185 ;
Apostolic fathers, 82. secularization of, 162; term

Christ, work of. In Gospels, ;^^, 35
'* Catholic" applied to, 66; un-
Paul, 34, 44, 45 ; Apostohc age, worthy members of, 46 ; visible
47, 52; Clement of Rome, 56 f. and invisible, 159, 324, 325 ; and
Ignatius, 64 ; Polycarp, 69 ; Bar- predestination, 326 ; and the state,
nabas, 70 f. ; Apostolic fathers, 78 166, 218, 222, 234, 274, 279, 285,
Irenceus, 125, 128 ; Tertullian, 289, 33f 3<^5^ 327-
127, 131; Hippolytus, 128; Ori Chrysostom, works of, 288 ; on hu-
gen, 153, 154 ; Cyprian, Lactantius, man ability and sin, 328 ; the fall,
193 ; Augustine, 361, 361 n. ; John 329 ;

grace, 329.
of Damascus, 287, 295 . Circumcelliones, 314.
Christ, worship of. In Paul, 40; Circumcision demanded, 88, 89.
Origen, 154 ; Diodorus, 249 Clement, homily of, 55 ; legalism of,
Cyril,262; Nestorius, 264 ; John 76 ff.; on Holy 75 inimor-

Spirit, 5
ofDamascus, 2S7 Augustine, 311. ; tality, 75 ff.; baptism, repentance,

Christ, virgin birth of, denied, 89. obedience, righteousness, good
Christianity, essence of, 52 ; in hom- works, 76 ; resurrection of the
ily of Clement, 77 ; adapted to all body, 77 ; eternal punishment, 76,
men, 148 (see Greek Christianity). 77 ;
mt^rit, 77.
Christian life. In Gospels, 34, 36 ;

Clement of Alexandria, works of,
Paul, 41 f. , 48, 49 Hermas, 60 ; ; 140 ; estimate of, 141 ; on God,

Ignatius, 68 f. ; Polycarp, 69 ; Bar- Trinity, 142 ; Scriptures, 142;
nabas, 71 Didache, 75 Clement,
; * faith, 142, 144 Christian life, 142,
;
76 ; Gnosticism, 142 Clement of ; 146 ; Docetism, 143 Logos, passi- ;
Alexandria, 143, 146; Theognos- 143; human ability,

bility of Christ,
tus, 186; third century, 198 ; Me- righteousness, 144 knowledge, ;
thodius, 289 ; Maximus, 288 ;

love, 144 ; Holy Spirit, the church,
Dionysius, 290. baptism, 145 ; eucharist, resurrec-
Church, The. In Gospels, 34 Paul, ; tion of the body, 146; conversion
38, 45; Apostolic age, 49, 52; after death, 146.
Clement of Rome, 58 Ignatius, ; Clement of Rome, 55 ; on God, 56 ;
66 Hermas, 62 f. Barnabas, 72
; ;
;
divinity of Christ, incarnation, 56 .
;
39^ INDEX.
work and sufferings of Christ, 57 ;

Constantine Pogonatus. In Monothe-
justification and obedience, 57 ; the lete controversy, 282 ; in Icono-
church, 58 ; resurrection of the clastic controversy, 305.
body, 58 Constantinople, Council at (A. D.
Clementines, 90. 360), 225 234;
;
(A. D. 381),
Cleomenes, 167. (A. D. 382), 235; (A. D. 448),
Coelestine I., Pope, and Nestorius, 267; (A. D. 533 or 531), 276;
263; of, 377 f., 385 ; and
letter (A. D. 680), 282,386; (A. D.
Semipelagianism, 377 ; on the fall, 754), 305-
377 ff- ;
grace, co-operation, 378. Constantius. In Arian controversy,
Commodian, 169, 192, 193 f. 221 ; in Donatist controversy, 314.
Conimunicatio idiomatinn. In the Contemplation (see Communion with
Cappadocians, 251 ; Cyril of Alex- God); Mystic, 291 ff.
andria, 252 f. ; Pope Leo, 270 ;

Conversion. In Paul, 42 ; Cassian,
John of Damascus, 287. 371 ; after death, 146.
Communion of saints. In Barnabas, Co-operation, of God with man (see
72 ; Apostolic fathers, 80 ; Augus- Assistance); of man with God,
tine, 324, 324 n., 325. 373> 378-
Communion with Christ. In John, Cornelius, 179.
50; Polycarp, 69; Origen, 153, Cosmology of Jews, 31.
155 ; Dionysius, 276. Council, at Alexandria (A. D. 362),
Communion with God. In John, 5 1 ; 226; (A. D. 363), 227; (A. D.
Apostolic fathers, 79 ; Irenêus, 430). 263 at Ancyra (A. D. 358),
;
129; Tertullian, 131 ; Gnostics, 224 ; at Antioch (A. D. 265-269,

142, 144 ; Athanasius, 214 ; Diony- three), 165; (A. D. 341), 219;
sius, 291 f. ; Augustine, 311 f. (A. D. 358), 224; (A. D. i^z\
Concupiscence, 41, 343^-7 345> 347 I'l'j at Ariminium (A. D. 350),
;
359, 374- 224; at Aries (A. D. 316), 314;

Confession to God. In Didache, 75 \
(A. D. 353), 222; (ca.A.D. 473),
Tertullian, 133 ; Origen, 158 ; yi^, 379; at Autun (A. D. 670),
Methodius, 190; Greek Church, 242 ; at Bitterae (A. D. 356), 222 ;
301. at Bostra D. 244), 169; at

(A.
Confession to man. In Alexandrine Carthage (A. D. 252), 180 (A.
fathers, 158 ; Tertullian, 175 ;
D. 255, 256), 184; (A. D. 411 or
Greek Church, 301 ; Methodius, 412), 354 (A. D. 416), 354 (A.
; ;
190 ; to bishops, 190. D.4i7or4i8),356;(A. D.418),

Constans I. In Arian controversy, 356, 386 at Chalcedon (A. D.
;
221 ; inDonatist controversy, 314. 451), 269, 270; at Constantinople

Constans II. In Monothelete con- (A. D. 360). 225; (A. D. 381),
troversy, 280 ; Typos of, 280 234; (A. D. 382), 235; (A. D.
tyranny of, 280. 448), 267 (A. D. 533 or 531),
;
Constantine I., at Nice, 216; and 276, 277; (A. D. 680), 282,
Nicene Creed, 219 and state
; 386; (A. D. 754), 305; Diasco-
church, 218 ; and Donatists, 314, polis (A. D. 415), 354, 355;
316 n. Elvira (A. D.306?), 303; Ephesns

1
INDEX. 397
(A. D. 430, 264, 265 n.; (A. and restored, 264, 265 ; at Coun-
D. 449), 268; Iconium (A. D. cil of Ephesus, 264 ; as leader
Jerusalem (A. D. of Monophysites, 267 estimate

235), 1S4 ;
;
415), 354; Lydda (A. D.4i5) of, 254, 255, 263, 267 ; final in-
354; Lyons (ca. A. D. 473), 376; fluence on person of

of, 285 ;
Milan (A. D. 355), 222; Mileve Christ, 252ff., 262 ff., 284, 369 ;
(A, D. 416), 354; Nice (A. D. Logos, 252, 262 ff. communicatio ;
325), 215 f., 227; (A. D. 787), idiomatum, 252 ff. ; work of Christ,
306; Orange (A. D. 529), 379 n., 255; *'MotherofGod," 262, 263 ;
380; Rimini, 226; Rome (A. D. passibility of Christ, 254, 263.
369 or 370), 234 (A, D. 382), ;

Cyril of Jerusalem, catechism of,
235; (A. D. 417), 355; (A. D. 288 ; on orthodoxy, 289 ;

good
649), 281 Valence (bef. A. D.
; works, 289 ; eucharist, 301.
529), 379. 381.

Counsels and precepts, 133.
Covenant, the new. In Paul, 23 f-,
44 r.; Apostolic age, 47; Barnabas, Damascus, 234.

70; Antignostic Father?, 123. De fide orthodoxa^ iZ'
Covenant, the old. In Barnabas, 72 ;
De montibtis Sina et îr-:n^ 166
Antignostic fathers, 123. De principiis^ 146 ff.
Covenants, the three, 123. De vocatione gentium^ yj2. ff.
Cross, worship of the, 286, 297. Deacons in Greek Church, 291.

Creation, 187. Decian persecution, 178 ff.
Creationism, 187, 344, 377. Deification of man, 212, 296.
Creatures, 151- Demiurge. In Marcion, 102 ; Origen,
Creed, the Apostles'. Text of, 84f. ;

152.
influence of, 86 ; in Paul, 37 ; Ori- Demons, 96.
gen, 84; Antignostic fathers, 136. Depravity of man. In Judaism, 31 ;
Cyprian, works of, 178, 191, 198; Paul, 41, 42 ; Apostolic fathers,
legalism of, 198, 308 ; relation to 78 ; Gnostics, 96 ; Origen, 157,
Donatism, 315 on incarnation,
5 161 ; Dionysius, 292 f. ; Eastern
170; excommunication, 175; Church, 32S ; Pelagius, 335 f-
bishops, 179, 180; thelapsed, 178 ;
Augustine, 338, 34I f., 367 Cas- ;
the church, 180-185, ^9^7 priest- sian, 370 decrees of Orange, 381.
;
hood, 182; heretic baptism, 184; Desce7isus ad inferos y 1 53.

salvation of souls, immortality, Devil. In Origen, I47, 157 \ Greek
192 ; baptism, 193 f. ; faith, 194 ;
Church, 292 ; Dionysius, 295.
repentance, satisfaction, eucharist, Diospolis, Council at, 354, 355.
195; good works, 193, 195; sac- Didache, 37 ; character of, 55 ; au-
rifice, celibacy, 197 ; millennium, thority of, 83 ; on Holy Spirit,
purgatory, 197 ;
papacy, 386. Trinity, church, 74 ; baptism, 74,
Cyril of Alexandria, works of, 251 ; 75 ; eucharist, 74, 75 ; eschatology,
relation to Nestorius, 262, 263, immortality, 74, 75 ; repentance,
271 ; relation to Severus, 277 ;
confession, 75.
religious aims of, 255 ; deposed Diodorus, works of, 247 ; on person
;;
398 INDEX.
of Christ, 249 ;
" Mother of God," E.
249.
Eastern Church, in third century, 198,
Dionysius of Alexandria, writings of,
199 ; doctrines of, 387 ff.; piety of,
185 ; influenced by Origen, 185 ;
201 Western Church, 19 in
; vs. ;
on divinity of Christ, 171, 173.

post-Nicene age, 328 on eucha- ;
Dionysius of Milan, 222.

89 dualism, 91
rist, ; ; depravity,
Dionysius of Rome, on divinity of
328; synergism, 331 ; orthodoxy,
Christ, 171, 206 ; Trinity, 172.
198, 199.
Dionysius the Areopagile, Neoplaton-
Ebionites, 87-91 gospel of, 88 ; on
ism of, 292, 299 on God, 290, ;
;
celibacy, 91.
292 n.; Christian life, "hierarchy,"
hierarchy of angels, 291 Ecthesis pisteos^ 280, 281.
290; ;
sacred mysteries, 291, 297, 298 ;

Elect, number of the, 351, 351 n.;
mystic contemplation, 291 ; devil, vs, called, 339.
292, 295 ; depravity, 292 f.; thefall, Election. In Paul, 39 ; Augustine,

original sin, 293 ; human ability, zz% 340.
294; work of Christ, 295 f.; deifi- Elkesai, 89 f.
cation of man, 296 f. incarnation, ; Elvira, Council at, 303.

296 ; good works, 297 worship of ; Emanation of the world, 90.
cross, etc., 297 means of grace,; Enchiridion^ 357 f-
298; baptism, 299 f.; repentance, Energy vs. power. In God, 220.
forgiveness of sins, 300. Ephesus, Council at (A. D. 431),
Dioscurus, Monophysite views of, 264, 265 n. ; on papal infallibility,
267 ; estimate of, 26S ; at Ephesus, 386; Pelagianism, 387 n.; council
268; atChalcedon, 270; exiled, 272. at (A. D. 449), 268 ff.; second
Docetism, 143. confession of, 269.
Doctrine, substance and form of, 21 ; Epigones, 167.
of New Testament summarized, 52. Episcopate. In Clement of Rome, 58
Dogma, definition of, 19 ; fallibility Ignatius, 67, 69 ; Apostolic fathers,
of, 20 ; abuse of, 21 ; acceptance 80; Antignostic fathers, 137 ff.;
of, 21 ; estimate of, 388. Callistus, 177 f. ; Cyprian, 175,

Dominical character, 319. 179, 180 ; Methodius, 189 ; Au-
Domnus of Antioch, 268. gustine, 326 ; Vincent, 3S5 (see
Donatism, origin of, 313 ; teachings Bishops).

of, 315 ; decay of, 315 ; relation to Eschatology. In Gospels, 34 ; Paul,
Cyprian, 315 ; estimate of, 315. 46 ; Apostolic age, 49, 52 ; John,

Donatistic controversy, 312 ff. ; sacra- 50 ; Papias, 70 ; Barnabas, lo ;
ments, 320. Didache, 74 f.; Apostolic fathers,

Donatists on baptism, 316, 320 f,; 81 Gnosticism, 98
; Montanism, ;
papacy, 386. 105 ; Iren?eus, 134 ; Dionysius of

Donatus, 313. Alexandria, 185 ; Cyprian, 197 ;
Dualism, Ebionite, 91 ; Gnostic, 95 ;

ApoUinaris, 246 n.
in Marcion, I02. Eucharist, The. In Gospels, 37

Dyotheletism. In Maximus, 280 fF.; Paul, 46 Apostolic age, S^ Ig-
; ;
John of Damascus, 286. natius, 68 Apostolic fathers, 79

; i
INDEX. 399
Didache, 74, 75 ; Ebionites, 89 F.

Apologists, 117; IrensEus, 134 Faith, definition of, 21 ; in teaching of
Clement of Alexandria, 146
Christ, 34 ; Paul, 38, 42, 44 ; Apos-
Origen, 156 Cyprian, 195 Basil
; ;
tolic age, 48, 52 ; John, 50 f.; Clem-
the Great, 301 ; Cyprian of Jeru-
ent of Rome, 57 ; Hermas, 60 ; Ig-
salem, 301 John of Damascus,
;
Polycarp, 69 homily
natius, 65 f. ; ;
302; Augustine, 320 f.; and im- Apostohc

of Clement, 76 ; fathers,
mortality, 79, 146, 302 and word, ;
77, 79f. ; Marcion, 103; Irenaeus,

156; as a sacrifice, 196, 301, 302,
Antignostic fathers,
130 ; 131,
323; benediction in, 178, 180;
139 ; Clement of Alexandria, 142,
benefits of, 74, 117, 146, 156, 195,
144 ; Origen, 158, 160 ; Cyprian,
301, 323; denied to the lapsed,
194; John of Damascus, 286;
178 f.; in Greek Church, 291,
Augustine, 310, 340, 347, 349,
301 f.; real presence in, 134 ; sym-
352, 358* 366, 367 ; Faustus, 375 ;
bolic view of, 301, 323 ; water as

canons of Orange, 381 alone,
;
element in, S9, 117.

43) 35^ ; ^s assent, 21, 42, 61,
Eudoxius, 225.
76, 139, 142, 144, 158, 166, 191,
Eugene I., 282.
194, 286, 289, 299, 347, 381,
Eunomians, 223, 225.
388 ; as trust, 21, 57, 79, 131, 158,
Eunomius condemned, 234.
310, 340 ; as obedience, 21, 42,
Euphronius, 241.
48, 132 ; a gift of God, 42, 44, 74,
Eusebius of Caesarea, confession of,
I30> 349. 367, 375 ; a receiving,
216, 217 ; banished and restored,
42 ; a spiritual activity, 42 med- ;
217, 219; on Nicene Creed, 218.

ieval idea of, 373 ; and hope, 48,
Eusebius of Dorylaum, 268.
69, 71, 366 and knowledge, 144,
;
Eusebius of Nicomedia, relation to

158, 347 ; and love, 42, 50, 66,
Lucian, 202 ; relation to Arius, 202,
69, I39 M4, 310, 340, 347 348,
205 ; at Council of Nice, 216 ; as
349, 352, 358, 366, 367.
bishop of Constantinople, 219.
Eusebius of Vercelli, 222. Fall, The. In Irenaeus, 129 ; Metho-
Eustathius, 219. dius, 188 ; Dionysius, 293 ;
Eutyches, deposed and excommuni- Chrysostom, 329 ; Pelagius, 334 ;
cated, 267 ; appeal of, to Rome, de vocatione gentium, 373 Coeles- ;
tine, 377 f.; Augustine, 392.

268; restored, 268; exiled, 272;
rejected by Monophysites, 277. Fanaticism, 314.
Eutychian controversy, 267-272.
Fastidius, 382.
Eutychianism condemned, 273.
Fasting, 76, 331 n.
Euzoius, 223.
Evil. In Gnosticism, 96 ; Augustine, Faustus, works of, 374, 375 ; on
grace, 374, 375 ; original sin, con-
358, 359-
Excommunication. In Tertullian, cupiscence, 374 ; human ability,
Callistus, 177 Cyprian, 178. 375 divine assistance, faith, 375 ;

;
175 ; ;
Externality. In Eastern Church, 289, predestination, 376 unbaptized ;
290, '299 ; in Western Church, 290. children, 376 ; traducianism, 377-
Extreme unction, 99. Felicissimus, 179.

;;;
4-00 INDEX.
Felix III. In Monophysite contro- 102 ; aims and principles of, 93 ff.
versy, 274. systems in, 93 ; condemned by

Felix IV., 380. John, 92 ; specific teachings of,
Felix of Aptunga. In Donatistic con- 95 f. ; on demons, depravity, 96 ;
troversy, 313,314. asceticism, immorality, 98 ; mys-

FiHoqtte, 237. teries, eschatology, 98 ; miracles,
Firmilian, on Roman primacy, 183. extreme unction, 99 ; estimate of,
Flavian, 26S. 100, iiS, 119 the ; later, 141 f .
Forgiveness of sins. In New Testa- higher mysteries in, 142 ; on com-

ment, 2>^ Paul, 44
; ; Hermas, munion with God, 142, 144 on ;
60 f.; Barnabas, 70, 73 ; Apostolic 145, 148; condemned

perfection,
fathers, 78 ; Origen, 157 ; second by Alexandrine fathers, 161.
century, 175 ; Western theology, God, Greek conception of, 28 f.
193; Dionysius, 300; Augustine, Jewish-Gnostic conception of, 31 ;
322, 347> 350^362; Ambrose, 380; in Paul, 38 f.; Apostolic age, 46 ;
announcement of, 159; by bishops, Clement of Rome, 5^ > Ignatius,
177, 184, 190; of others, ^6^ (see 63 ;Apostolic fathers, 77, 79 ;

Baptism). Clementines, 90; Apologists, 112;
Formula macrostichos, 219. Antignostic fathers, 1 19, 139 ;
Fornication, 176, 177- Clement of Alexandria, 142 ; Ori-

Fortunatus, on the lapsed, 179 J and gen, 147 ff. ; Theognostus, 186 ;
the Quicunque, 241. Western theologians, 193 Atlian- ;
Freedom from the law^, 42, 44. asius, 206 f.; Antiochians, 250;
Fulgentius, works of, 253 ; on grace, John of Damascus, 286 Diony- ;
predestination, 379>3S3ii-> system sius, 290, 292 n. Augustine, 310, ;
of theology, 383 ; original sin, re- 340, 367 ; Coelestine, 378 as ;
pentance, good works, church, Father, 149; a, Spirit, 120; good-

383 n. ; unbaptized children, 383 n. ness of, 120, 149; justice of, 120,
149, 352 ; known only by revela-

tion, 120 ; unity of, 120 (see
Christ, Trinity).
Gaianites, 278. Good, original, 346.
Gelasius I., on Pelagianism and Semi- Gospel. In Ignatius, 66 ; Origen,

pelagianism, 377 ;
papal suprem- 155 ; as legacy to the church, 388 ;
acy and infallibility, 386. the everlasting, 160.

Generation, act of, 35?) 374i^-j Grace. In Paul, 39, 43 ; Polycarp,
38211.; generation of Christ, 149, 69; Justin Martyr, 116; Augus-
205, 209, 219, 222. tine, 312, 324, 328, 338, 339^341,
Gennadius, works of, 383 ; on grace, 346, 349. 352, 359 365 ;
Chrysos-
374 n.; on systematic theology, tom, 329; Ambrose, 329, 330;

Pelagius, 336 ; Council of Car-
Germanus on images, 304. thage, 356 ; Cassian, 370 f.; Gen-
Gnosis. In Barnabas, 72; Didache, nadius, 374 n. ; Faustus, 374,
74- 375 ; Fulgentius, 379 ; Coelestine,
Gnosticism, Gentile-Christian, 91- 378 ; Caesarius, 379 ; Council of
INDEX. 401
Valentia, 379, 38111; decrees of Hell, 366, 375 n.

Orange, 381; libertines of, 374; Heracleon, 93.
means of (images), 304; (vari- Heraclius, in Monophysite contro-
ous), 298, 299 ;
(word and sacra- versy, 279.
ments), 320; sacramental, 381 ;
Heretics in Apostolic age, 92.
state of, 131. Heresy, conception of, 162, 384.
Gratian. In Donatist controversy, Hermas, works 55 of, ; authority of,
3H- 83 ; legalism of, 61 ; on incarna-

Greek Christianity, 288-302 ; aim of, tion. Logos, 59 ; forgiveness of
292; externality of, 289 f., 299; sins, 60 f. ; baptism, 60, 62 ; sin,
doctrine in, 292 ff.; central idea of, 62; the church, 62 f. ; second re-
296 ; elements of true religion in, pentance, 61, 63, 175.

299; on God, 290 ; Logos, 171, " Hierarchy " in Greek Church, 290,
^73} 179; tradition, 289; sacra- 291.
ments, 291 ; hierarchies, 291 ;
Hierarchy of angels, 291.
chrism, 291, 298; Monasticism, Hilary (layman), on predestination,
priesthood, 291, 299 ; mysteries, 368.
289 f., 291, 297, 298, 303, 329; Hilary of Poitiers, banished, 222 ;
asceticism, 298 ; images, 298, 304 ;

works of, 255 ; on person of Christ,
confession, real presence, 301. incarnation, 255 f.; passibility of
Greek philosophy, on reason, Logos, Christ, 256; kenosis, 256 original ;
29; and Judaism, 31. sin, 329 n. ; Trinity, 308 ; predes-

Gregory of Nazianzen, works of,227 ;
tination, 368.
on person of Christ, 250 ; ransom HippolytuSj works of, 1 18; on per-

from the devil, 296 (see Cappado- son of Christ, 127 ff.; subordina-
cians). tionism, 128; incarnation, bap-
Gregory of Nyssa, worksof, 227, 228 ;
tism, 131 ; Patripassianism, 16S.
on person of Christ, 250 (see Cap- History of Doctrines, office of, 19 ;
padocians). sources of, 22 ; aims, methods, di-

Gregory Thaumaturgus, 185. visions of, 22, 24 ; scope of, 23 ;
Gregory IL of Rome, on images, 304. literature of, 25 f.
Guilt. In Paul, 43 ; Augustine, 342. Holy Spirit, The. In Gospels, 35,

36,38; Paul, 41, 42,46; John,
50 ; Apostolic age, 46, 52 Di- ;
dache, 74 ; homily of Clement,

H.
75; Apologists, 114; Antignostic
Habitus, 328, 330. fathers,121 Ireneus,_ 125, 130, ;
Harnack. On dogmas, 21 ; millen- 139; Clement of Alexandria, 145;

nial expectation, 81 ; Tertullian's Origen, 147, 150; Theognostus,
Christology, 127 ; Greek piety, 186; Council of Nice, 227 ; Athan-
285 ; Catholic doctrine, 382. asius, 215,227, 231 ; Macedonius,
Heathenism, Greek- Roman, 28 f.; 227 ; Council at Alexandria, 227 ;
morality in, 29 ; Apologists on, Augustine, 348 ; homousia of, 215,
III. 227, 231 ; infusion of, in baptism,

Hebrews, Epistle to the, 47. 133 ;
procession of, 232, 237, 239;
2')
; ;
402 INDEX.
various conceptions of, 231 (see I.
Trinity).
Ibas. On humanity of Christ, 249 ;
Homoiusians, recognized by Athana- condemned, 276.

sius, 226.
Iconium, Council at, 184.
Horoousia of the Son. In Tertul-
Iconoclastic controversy, 303 f. ; esti-
lian, 126; Origen, 149; Council
mate of, 305.
at Antioch, 166 ; Alexander of
Idiomata, 228 ff.
Alexandria, 205 Athanasius, ;
209 f.; Council at Nice, 216; Ni-

Ignatius, vôrks of, 55. On God,
cene Creed, 218 post-Nicene con- 63 divinity of Christ, 63

; Logos, ;
;
person of Christ, 64 incarnation, ;

troversies, 222 f. ; Council at
64, 68 passibility of Christ, 65
Ancyra, 224 ; Cappadocians, 229 ;
; ;
Christ in us, 66, 68 ; faith, love,

Meletius, 234 John of Damascus,
;
64,66; the church, 66; bishops, 67;

236 ; Augustine, 238 f.; Apolli-
baptism, eucharist, 68 Judaism, ;
naris, 244 f.; Antiochians, 247 f.;
68; Christian hfe, 68 ff.
Cyril of Alexandria, 252; Mono-
Images, worship of. In Greek
physites, 277 ; Christological con-
Church, 298, 304 John of Damas- ;
troversies, 284.
cus, 304 Gregory of Rome, 304,
;
Homousia of the Holy Spirit. In

Immortality. In the Gospels, 52 ;
Athanasius, 215 ; Council at Chal-

Ignatius, 68 ; Didache, 74, 75 ;
cedon, 227 ; Cappadocians, 231.

homily of Clement, 75!.; Apos-
Homousians, triumph of, 228. tolic fathers, Gnostics, 98
79 ; ;
Honorius, Emperor, in Donatist con- Apologists, 117 ; Antignostic

troversy, 314. fathers, 122; Irenasus, 130, 131,
Honorius, Pope, anathematized, 282 ;

139 Clement of Alexandria, 146
; ;
on theandric energy, 278 ; Mono- Methodius, 187, 189 Cyprian, ;
theletisra, 280. 192 Western theology,

; 198
Greek Church, 302 and baptism, ;
Hope. In
Apostolic age, 48, 49
131, 189; and eucharist, 68, 75
Polycarp, 69; Barnabas, 71 Au- ;
79, 146, 302 ; not an original en-

gustine, 366,
dowment, 122.
Horae, 121.
Imperialism. In the church, 1 66,
Hormisdas. On Monophysite con- 218, 222, 234, 274, 279, 285, 289,
troversy, 274, 276 ; Semipelagian- 303* 305-
ism, 378 f-; papacy, 387. Incarnation, The. In Gospels, 25 I
Hosius, 222. Paul, 40 ; Apostolic age, 47 John, ;
Hylic, The, 98. 50, 51 ; Clement of Rome, 5^1

Hymns, Gnostic, 99. Hermas, 59 ; Ignatius, 64, 68 ;
Hypostasis. In Origen, 149 ; Athan- Barnabas, 70; Irenaeus, 125, 129;

asius, 210, 2281.; Basil of An- Tertullian, 126 ; Hippolytus, 131 ;
cyra, 225 ; Augustine, 239; Cyril, Origen, 152 ; Ante-Nicene fathers,
253 f- 263 ; Leontius, 275 ; John 170; Cyprian, 170 ; Theognostus,

of Damascus, 286 (see ** Person of 186; Athanasius, 211, 213 ; Apol-
Christ"). linaris, 245; Antiochians, 247 f.;
; ;
INDEX. 403
Cyril of Alexandria, 252 f.; Hi- Jerome. On Pelagius, 354 ;

primacy
lary, Ambrose, 256; Augus-
25s ; of Rome, 386.
tine, 258 f.; Maximus, 281 John ; Jerusalem, Council at, 354.
of Damascus, 286 Dionysius, ; John, influence of, 50 ; character of,
296. 50 ; on death of Christ, ;^^ ;
justi-
Infallibility of the Pope. In Ter- fication, 48 ; divinity, dominion,

tullian, 137; 386; Callistus, 176, and person of Christ, 50 ; escha-
386; Pope Stephanus, 183, 386; tology, 50 ; Logos, incarnation, 50,

Pope Innocent I., 354, 355, 356, 51 ; communion with. Chiist, Holy
386 Pope Leo, 270 f.
; 386 Spirit, regeneration, 5*^ 5 faith,
;
Augustine, 319 under emperors, ;

love, 50, 51 ; new law, righteous-
272n., ness, sin, repentance, 51.

222, 235, 268f., 276f.,
281,303, 356. John Ascusnages, 236.
Infusion of good-will. In Augus- John II. , Pope. On Monophysite

controversy, 276 ; Monothelete
tine, 349 ff-; Cassian, 370, 372;
controversy, 280.
decrees of Orange, 381.
John of Antioch, 264.
Innocent I. On Pelagianism, 354 f.,
John of Damascus, works of, 236,
355 n. ;
papal infallibility, 356, 386.
286, 288 ; de fide orthodoxa of,
Intercession, of Christ, 47, 193, 295 ; 286, 288 deficiency in the theol-
;
of martyrs, 156. ogy of, estimate of, 288

286 on ; ;
Intercourse, sexual, 366 (see Concu- Trinity, 236 f. God, person of ;
piscence). Christ, 286 f.; worship of saints

Intermediate state, 366 (see Purga- and relics, 286 systematic theol- ;
tory). ogy, 286 n. passibility of Christ,;
Introhypostatic nature, 275. communicatio idiomatum, 287 ;
Irenseus, works of, I18 ; on person of death of Christ, ransom, 295 ;
Christ, 124; incarnation, 125, 129; eucharist, 302 ; images, 304.

Holy Spirit, 125, 130, 139; John of Ephesus, 278.
work of Christ, new law, 128; John of Jerusalem, on divine assist-
second Adam, the fall, communion ance, 354.

with God, 129; immortality, 130, John Philoponus, 236.
131,139; faith, 130; justification, Jovian. In Donatist controversy, 314 ;
131 ; new life, 131, 132 ; resurrec- Christological controversy, 233.

tion of the body, 134, 139 ; eucha- Jovinian, teachings of, 331 n.
rist, millennium, antichrist, resur- Judaic Christianity, 87-91 ; legalism
rection of Christ, 134; authority of of, 87 f. ; on divinity of Christ, 88
Scriptures, 135; papal infallibility, justification, 89.
137, 386. Judaism, legalism

in, 30 Barnabas ;
Irene, Empress. On images, 306, on, 72 on original sin, 31 Logos,

; ;
88; and Greek philosophy, 31;

and Christianity, 68.
Julian, Emperor. In Christological
Jacob el Baradai, 279. controversy, 233.
Jacobites, 279. Julian of Eclanum, works of, 332 ; on
; ;
404 INDEX.
originalsin, 357 and Pelagius, ; fillment of the, 134 ; written in the

356; and Augustine, 357. heart, 33 f.
Julian of Halicarnassus, 277. Law, the new. In John, 51 ; in Bar-

Julianists, 277 ; on passibility of nabas, 71 ; Apostolic fathers, 79,
Christ, 278. 81, 84; Irenseus, 128 ; TertuUian,
Julius, Pope, letter of, 219. 131; Origen, 153; Western theo-
Justification. In Paul, ^S^ 43, 44, logians, 193 f.
45 ; John, 48 ; Apostolic age, 48, Legahsm. In Judaism, 30 ; Hermas,

49 ; Clement of Rome, 57 ; Bar- 61 ; Barnabas, 72 ; homily of
nabas, 71 Judaic Christianity, 89 ;
;
Clement, 76 f.; Apostolic fathers,
Irenasus, 131; Origen, 158; Vic- 79, 81 ; Judaic Christianity, 87;
torinus, 308 ; Augustine, 347, 348, Apologists, 118; Alexandrine
349- fathers, l6l ; TertuUian, 132, 133,
Justin Martyr, works of, 109 (see 139; Cyprian, 198, 308; Augus-
Apologists). tine, 308 Pelagius, ssy.
;
Justin, the Gnostic, 93. Leo I., Emperor, and Chalcedon

Justinian. In Monophysite contro- creed, 273.
versy, 274, 278 ; on state church, Leo IV., Emperor, and Iconoclastic
278 ; papacy, 387. controversy, 303.
Leo, Emperor, the Isaurian, and
Iconoclastic controversy, 306.
K Leo I., Pope. In Eutychian contro-
Kainites, 93. versy, 268 ; at Council of Chalce-
Kingdom, millennial (see Millen- don, 269 ; excommunicated, 269 ;
nium). doctrinal letter of, 268, 269, 270,

Kingdom of God. In the future, 74, 271, 272, 279; on communicatio
77, 81 ; in the present, 326, 327. idioraatum, 270 ;
papal infallibil-
Knowledge. In Gnosticism, 93 f. ity, 27of, 271 n., 386; Pelagian-

Clement of Alexandria, 144, 145 ;
ism, 377.
Origen, 158 ; Augustine, 310, 347. Leontius i/s. Nestorius and Eutyches,
275 ; and formulas of Chalcedon,

275 ; on person of Christ, 275 f.,
284.
Lactantius, works of, 192 ; on di- Libelh of the lapsed, 178.
vinity of Christ, 170. Liberius, of Rome, 222, 233.
Lapsed, The, Roman Church on, Logos, The. In Greek philosophy,
178, 180; Cyprian on, 178; No- 29; John, 50, 51 Clement of ;
vatian on, 179; eucharist denied Rome, 56 Hermas, 59 Ignatius,

; ;
to, 178 f.; benediction denied to, 64 f Judaism,

; 88 Apostolic ;
178, 180. fathers, Ii3f. ; Irengeus, 124 ; Ter-

Law, freedom from the, 42, 44 ; and tuUian, 125 ; Hippolytus, 127
gospel, in Paul, 38, 43 f. ; Marcion, Clement of Alexandria, 143 ; Paul
102 ; Pelagius, 338 ; natural, 123 ;
of Samosata, 164; Greek theol-
of Christ, 69, 71 (see New Law) ;
ogy* i7i I73 199; Methodius,
of love, 123, 128, 139 ; true ful- 174, 189; Arius, 203, 207; Lu-
;
INDEX. 405
cian, 204 ; Athanasius, 206, 208 f. Trinity of God, 220 ; Logos, per-
Marcellus, 220 ; Apollinaris, 245 ; son of Christ, 220 ; condemned,
Antiochians, 248 ; Cyril of Alex- 222.
andria, 252, 262 f. ; Hilary, 255 ;
Marcellinus, In Donatist controversy,
Ambrose, 256; Augustine, 257 f-j 315*
Kestorius, 261 f.; Leontius, 276; Marcianus, works of, 109.
Sergius, 279 John of Damascus,;

Marcion, 93 ; career and teachings
286 ; Dionysius, 296. of, 102 f.; asceticism of, 103; on
Love. In John, ô, î ; apostolic law and Gospel, 102 ; demiurge,
age, 52 ; Clement of Rome, 57 ; 102, 103 ; dualism, 102 ; faith,
Ignatius, 66
Polycarp, 69 Apos-
; ; resurrection of the body, 103 ;
tolic fathers, "J^f.; Clement of interpretation of Scriptures, 104.

Alexandria, 144; Augustine, 310, Marcionite, congregation, 104 ; con-
324 f., 347, 348, 366. troversy, 104.
Lucian, relation to Paul of Samosata, Marcionites, 169.
201 ; relation to Arius, 202 ; on Maronites, church of the, 283.
Logos, 204. Martin I. In Monothelete contro-
Lucidus, on human ability, redemp- versy, 281 ; on eucharist, 282.
tion, predestination, 376 n.; hell, Martyrdom. In Origan, 156.
377 n. Martyrs, intercession of, 156.
Lucifer of Calaris, 222. Mass, the, 323.
Lucilla. In Donatist controversy, Maximian, 314.

3^3- Maximilla, 105, 107.
Lutheran Church, doctrine of, 388. Maximus, works of, 288 exiled, ;
Lydda, Council at, 304. 282; in Dyotheletism, 28of.; hu-

Lyons, Council at, 376. manity of Christ, 281 person of ;
Christ, 28 1, 285 ; Christian life,
288.
M.
Median being. In Arianism, 202 f.
Macarius, homilies of, 288. Melito, works of, 109.
Macedonians condemned, 234. Melitius of Antioch, 234.
Macedonius, 227 Memnon, at Council of Ephesus,
Majorinus. In Donatist controversy, 264, 265.
3^3- Menander, on angels, 93.
Malchion, 165. Mensurius. In Donatist controversy,
Man, deification of, 212, 246; origi- 3^3-
nal state of, 341 : preexistence of, Merit, human, 77, 79, 147, 366,
151, 157, 186, 187. 372 n. (see Works, Good).
Manger, worship of, 286, 298. Messiah, the, Jewish conceptions of,
Manichseans, 227. Scriptural representation of, ^;i.
Marcus Erimita, on sin, 294. Methodius, works of, 173; estimate

Marcellians, condemned, 234. of, 191 ; relation to Origen, 186 ;
Marcellus, the creed in, 84 ; and the on Trinity, 173 ; Logos, 174, i8g;
Arians, 220 ; attitude of Athanasius interpretation of Scripture, 187 ;
toward, 221, 233 ; on unity and preexistence of souls, creation,

4o6 INDEX.
human ability, resurrection of the Alexandria, 254, 262 f. ; Nestorius,

body, 187 ; the fall, 187 f.; death, 261, 262, 264.
188 ; salvation, 188 ; baptism, Mysteries. In Gnosticism, 98, 142 ;
188, 189 ; the church, 189 ; ascet- Origen, 155 ; Greek Church, 289 f.,
icism, celibacy, 190 ; repentance, 291, 297, 298, 303, 329.

confession, 190 ; Christ in us, 191 ;
immortality, 191 ; orthodoxy,

N.
190 n., 289; good works, 289.
Michael II., and images, 307. Naasenes, 93.
Milan, Council at, 222. Nazarenes, 87.
Mileve, Council at, 354- Neoplatonism, influence of, 146 ; in
Millennium. In Papias, 70 ; Bar- Dionysius, 292, 299 ; Iconoclastic
nabas, 73 ; Apostolic fathers, 81 ; controversy, 303 ; Victorinus, 308 ;
Judaic Christianity, 89 Irenteus, ; Augustine, 309, 310, 341, 357.
34 ; Dionysius of Alexandria, 185 ;

Nestorian controversy, 261-266.
Cyprian, 197 ; ApoUinaris, 246 n. Nestorians condemned, 266, 267,
Miltiades, works of, 109 ; vs. Mon- 273, 284.
tanism, 107. Nestorius, works of, 261 ; Christology
Miracles. In Gospels, 36 ; Gnostic, of, 261 f.; and Cyril of Alexandria,
99- 261, 262, 263, 271 and Pope
;
Monarchianism, 162, 163, 168, 169; Coelestine, 263 ; and Antiochians,

estimate of, 169 in Anus, 202, ; 264 ; condemned, 264 ; at Council
204; Dynamistic, 162, 167 ; Patri- of Ephesus, 265 ; on ** Mother of
passian, 162, 166 f., 169. God," 261, 262, 264; Logos,
Monasticism. In Greek Church, 291. 261 f.; passibility of Christ, 264.
Montanism, nature of, loi ; rise and New law, the. In John, 51 ; Bar-
decay of, 105, 108 ; charisms in, nabas, 71 ; Apostolic fathers, 79,
105 f.; eschatology in, 105 ; asceti- 81 ; Irenseus, 128; Tertullian,
cism in, 106; congregations of, 106; 131 ; Origen, 151 ; Western theolo-
condemned, 107 f.; results of, 108. gians, 193 f.
Montanus, career and teachings of, New life. In Paul, 34, ^8, 42, 48 ;
105. Apostolic age, 48 Barnabas, 70 f.,

;
Monophysite controversy, 273 f., 73; Irenseus, 131, 132.

279, 284, 285 ;
pantheism, 278 n. Nice, Council at (A. D. 325), 2i5f.,
Monophysitism, attempted suppres- 227; (A. D. 787), 306.
sion of, 275 ; spread of, 279; dis- Nicene Creed, the, adopted, 216,
sensions in, 277 ; in Greek piety, 217 ; opposition to, 218 ; endorsed,
285. 227 ; established at Constantinople,
Monothelete controversy, 279-283, 234 ; history of, 235 ; ascendency
285. of,235 estimate ; of, 235.
Monotheletism, revival of, 283. Noetus, 167.
Morality, heathen, 29; Christian, louf vs. fpvxV', 15'*
42,49; double, 197. Novatian, rebaptism by, 179; and

** Mother of God." In Antiochians, Novatus, 180 ; on Trinity, 169;
249 ; Diodorus, 249 ; Cyril of purity of Ihe church, 179.
,
INDEX. 407
Novatianism, spread of, 180 ; esti- gospel, 153 ; sufferings of Christ,

mate of, 1 80 ; at Council of Nice, satisfaction, 154 ; mediation of
217. Christ, 155 ; baptism, 155 ; eu-
Novatus, and Novatian, 180 ; on res- charist, martyrdom, 156 ; commun-
toration of the lapsed, 179, ion with Christ, 153, 155; de-
pravity, 157, 161 ;
predestination,
157; knowledge, repentance, con-

O.
fession, justification, 158 ; faith,
Obedience. In Paul, 42 ; Apostolic 158, 160; asceticism, the church,

age, 48; Clement of Rome, 57; forgiveness of sins, 159; paradise,
Hermas, 61 ; Polycarp, 69 homily ; purgatory, parousia, 159; celibacy,
of Clement, 76 ; Apostolic fathers, 159; resurrection of the body, 160.
79 ; Tertullian, 131 ; to bishops, Origenists at Nice, 218.
67, 69 (see Works, Good). Original state, 341.
Obstacle, to grace, 319 n. Orosius, on Pelagius, 354.
Office-bearers, influence of, 49, Orthodoxy. In Methodius, 1 90 n.
Ophites, 93. 289; Eastern theologians, 198,
Orange, Council of, 379 n.; decrees 199 Cappadocians, 233
; Cyprian ;
of, 380 f; decrees confirmed, 381 ; of Jerusalem, 289 Theodosius, ;
on Pelagianism and Semipelagianr 234 ; triumph of, 234.

ism, 381 ; sin, depravity, ability,
grace, 381 ; infusion of good- will,
P.
381 ; faith, baptism, 381 ; divine
assistance, predestination, 382. Pantaenus, 141.
Ordination. In Paul, 38 ; validity Papias, works of, 55 ; Chiliasmof, 70.
of, 314; indelible character of, Paraclete. In Gospels, 35 ; Mon-
319, 320. tanus, 105.
Origen, works of, 140 ; influence of, Paradise. In Origen, 159.

185 ; influence on the Cappado- Parousia of Christ. In Gospels, 34 ;
cians, 228, 229 ; de principiis of, Paul, 40, 47 ; Apostolic age, 47,
1 46 f ; and Methodius, 1 86 ; on 52 ; Papias, 70 Barnabas,
; 70,
interpretation of Scriptures, rule of 73; homily of Clement, 77;
faith, 147 ; God, divinity of Christ, Origen, 159; in the believer, 188.
147; angels, 147, 154 ; devil, 147, Passibility of God, 167 f., 171 (see
157; merit, good works, 147, 158 ; Christ, Passibility of ).
hypostasis and usia, I49; subordina- Patripassians, 162 ; on divinity of

tionism,l5o; Holy Spirit, 147, 150; Christ, 167 ; Trinity, 168.
Trinity, 151; Logos, 149, 152, Paul, on death of Christ, 33 f. ; work

155 ; human ability, 147, 151, of Christ, 34, 44, 55 ; Trinity,
157 ; creatures, 151 ; incarnation, rule of faith, 36 ; new life, 34, 38,
person of Christ, 152 ;
passibility 42, 48 ; ordination, 33 ; law and
of Christ, demiurge, 152 ; mys- gospel, 38, 43 f.; spirit and flesh,
ticism, 153 ; descensus, resurrec- 38, 41 f.; church, 38, 45; God,
tion, ascension, session of Christ, 38 f.; election, 39; grace, 39, 43 ;
153 ; work of Christ, new law, dominion of Chri'^t, 39, 46 divin- ;

;; ;
4o8 INDEX.
ity of Christ, 39, 40 ; incarnation, Penance, as sacrament, 197 (see Re

person of Christ, 30 ; resurrection of pentance).
Christ, 40, 41, 42 ;
preexistence of Perates, 93.
Christ, 40 ;
parousia of Christ, 40, Perfection among Gnostics, 145, 148.
47 J prayer to Christ, 40 ; Holy Perseverance, 351, 353.

Spirit, 41, 42, 46 ; original sin, Petrus FuUo, 273, 276.
concupiscence, 41 ; depravity, 41, Petrus Mongus, 273.
43 ; salvation, Christ in us, 41 ;
Phantasisasts, 278.
spiritual believers, 42 ; resur- Philaster, 383.
rection of the body, faith, 42, Philippicus, Bardanes, 282.
43, 44 ; faith and love, 42 ; con- Philoponus, 236.

version, sanctification, 42 ; guilt, Philosophy, Greek, 29, 141.
43 ;
justification, 43, 44, 45 ; free- Photinians, condemned, 234.
dom from the law, 44, 45 good ;
Photinus, on person of Christ, 221 ;
works, peace, 44 ; new covenant, condemned, 221, 222.

^'^j 44, 45 ; sacraments, eschatol- Phthartqlatry, 278.
ogy, 46. Pierius, works of, 185 ; on person of
Paul of Samosata, works of, 162 on Christ, 171 ; subordinationism, 186.
;
Logos, 164; person of Christ, i6g, Pistis- Sophia f 91.
221, 224 ; relation to Arius, 204 Pitra of Alexandria, on preexistence

;
relation to Antiochians, 248 f of souls, resurrection of the body,

condemnation of, 227. 186.
Pneumatic believers, 197, 181.
Paulinus of Antioch, on person of
Pneumatic Christology, 64.
Christ, 234.
Polycarp, works of, 55 ; on divinity
Paulinus of Milan, on Pelagianism,
and sufferings of Christ, resurrec-
337, 353- tion, righteousness, grace, faith,
Peace, 44, 367. hope, love, obedience, Christian
Pelagianism, 331 on sin, 3370.;
ff.; life, communion with Christ, 69.
human ability, 353 ; Paulinus on, Polychronius, formula of, 282.
337, 353 ; Augustine and bishops Post-apostolic writings, authority of,

on, 354 Innocent I. on, 354,
; 83.
355 n.; canons of Orange on, 381 ;

Power vs. energy of God, 220.^
condemned, 357. Praedicatio Petri, 77, 80, 83.

Pelagius, works of, 331; legalism of, Praxias, 167, 168.
337 ; at Council of Jerusalem, 354 Prayer. In Gospels, 34 Apostolic ;
at Council at Diospolis or Lydda, age, 34 ; homily of Clement, 76 ;
354; confession of, 355, 356; ex- for the dead, 291, 298 ; to Christ,
communicated, 355 expelled from ; 40, 154, 249, 262, 264, 287.
Rome, 356 ; on human ability, Predestinated, number of the, 351.
332 337, 355 ; depravity, 331 ff.,

f., Predestination. In Origen, 157
338; infant baptism, 335 n., 355; Augustine, 326, 350, 351 f., 369 ;
grace, divine assistance, 336, 354, Hilary, 368, Prosper, 368,372; in
355 ;
good works, 337 ; resurrec- Semipelagians, 369; Gaul, 369 f;
tion, 338 ;
papal supremacy, 355. Vincent, 374; Faustus, 376; Lu-
. ; ;
;,
INDEX. 409
cidus, 37611.; Fulgentius, 379, cus, 295; Dionysius, 295 f.; uni-
383 n. canons of Orange, 382

; versality of, 376 n. (see Christ,
and the church, 326, 366 and the ; Work of).
sacraments, 322; to death, 352; Righteousness, actual. In the Gos-
of Jesus, 260 n. pels, Apostolic age, 34, 48,
34 ;
Predestinattis J 374. 51 John, 51 ; Polycarp, 69

;
Preexistence, of Christ (see Christ) ; homily of Clement, 76 ; Apostolic

of souls, 151, 157, 186, 187; of fathers, Clement of Alexandria,
flesh of Christ, 246. 144; Augustine, 345, 348.
Preface, Author's, to Editions I. and
Rimini, Council of, 226.
II., vi-vii ; to Enghsh Edition, v.
Ritschl, on Greek piety, 285.
Preface, Translator's, iii.
Priesthood. In Cyprian, 182 ; Greek Rogatus, 314.

Church, 291 ; universal, in Apos- Rome, Church of, attitude in Christo-
tolic fathers, 80; Tertullian, 138. ôgy, 172 ; attitude in Monophysite
Primian, 314. controversy, 276 ; attitude toward
Prisca, 105. Pelagianism and Semipelagianism,
Priscillian, 385, 385 n. 377 on rule of faith, 173 treat-
; ;
Procession of Holy Spirit, 233, 237, ment of lapsed, 178; heretic bap-
239. tism, 184; sacraments, 185; doc-
Prosper, on predestination, 368, 372 ; trines of grace, 378 ; legates of, in
and decrees of Orange, 380, 380 n. councils, 265, 268 ; Pelagius on,
Pseudo- Cyprian, 288. 355 ; Jerome on, 386.
Pseudo-Dionysius, 191. Rome, Council at (A. D. 369 or 370)
i^XV ^-T- vovQ, 151. 234; (A. D. 382), 235; (A. D.

Psychic believers, 97. 417), 281 (A. D. 649), 355.
;
Ptolemaus, 91, 93. Rome, Primacy of. In Antignostic

Punishment, eternal. In homily of fathers, 137; Stephanus, Firmilian,
Clement, 76, 77 ; Apostolic fathers, Cyprian, 183 ; Augustine, 318,
81. 354 f.; Pope Innocent I., 355 f.;
Purgatory. In Origen, 159 ; Cy- Pelagius, 355 ; Jerome, Chalcedon

prian, 197 ; Augustine, 363, 366. Creed, 386 Hormisdas, 387. ;
Rule of faith. In Gospels, 36 Paul, ;
36 Apostolic fathers, 86 Origen,

; ;
Q- Alexandrine
147 ; fathers, 160,
Quadratus, 109. 161 ; Roman Church, 173.
Quicunque, 241 (see Athanasian
Creed )
S.
Sabellianism vs. Antiochians, 169

R.
in Africa, 171, 202 ; at Council of
Redemption. In Apostolic fathers, Alexandria, 222 ; at Council of
78; Irenaeus, 128 f.; Athanasius, Constantinople, 234.
212 f.; Antiochians, 250; Cyril of Sabellius, 168.
Alexandria, 255 ; John of Damas- Sacrament, parts of a, 321.
;
; ;
4IO INDEX.
Sacramental grace, Dionysius, 300 ;

Secundus. In Donatist controversy,
Augustine, 320.
Sacraments. In Gospel, 36 Paul, ; Self, love of, 345.

46; Apostolic age, 52; Catholic Seleucia, Council at, 224, 226.
Church, 185 Western Church,
;
Semi-Arians, 223, 225, 234,
185 ; Greek Church, 291 Dion- ;
Semi-Pelagian controversies, 368-382.

ysius, 298, 299; Augustine, 312,
319 fF.; efficacy of, 321 ; symbolic Semi-Pelagianism, attitude of Rome
view of, 322 validity ; of, 184, toward, 377; downfall of, 377, 379;
decrees of Orange on, 381 ; on
314, 315, 316, 3i9f.
predestination, divine assistance,
Saints, worship of, 286, 306.
369-
Salvation, as aim of divine dealings,
Sergius, on theandric energy, 279 ;
123; blessings of, 41, 52, 213;

ecthesis pisteos of, 280.
assurance of, 207, 352 ; conception
Session of Christ at right hand of
of, inApostolic age, 48, 52 ; Anti-
God, 47, 153.
gnostic fathers, 139 ; in Methodius,
Sethians, 93.
188 ; Athanasius,John of 213 ;
Severians, 277, 278.
Damascus, 295 Augustine, 300 ;
Severinus, on Monotheletism, 280.
means of, in Greek Church, 298 f.
Severus, 274 ; on person of Christ,
(see Word and Sacraments).
277 relation to Cyril, 277.
;
Sanctification, 42, 49 (see Christian Sign in sacrament, 321.

Life). Simon, the Pseudo-Messiah, 93.
Satisfaction. In Tertullian, 133 Sin. In Paul, 41 John, 51 Her- ; ;
Origen, 154; second century, 175 ;

mas, 62 Apostolic fathers, 79
;
Cyprian, 195 Western Church, ; Antignostic fathers, 122 West- ;
198, Augustine, 363. ern Church, 193 ; Dionysius,

Satornil, 93. 293 ; Ambrose, 308, 328 ; Augus-
Scintilla, 346. tine, 312, 364; Chrysostom, 328;
Scriptures, authority of. In Paul, after baptism, 189; as inner mal-
46 ; Apostolic age, 52 Apos- ; ady, 293 ; of Adam, 335 (see Fall,
tolic fathers, 82 ; Antignostic fath- The).
ers, 135 ; Irenaeus, Tertullian, 135 ;
Sin, original, Jewish idea of, 31. In
Augustine, 358 ; canon of, in Apos- Paul, 38, 41 ; Antignostic fathers,
tolic fathers, 83. 122, 139; Tertullian, 122; Ori-
Scriptures, interpretation of, allegori- gen, 157, 161 Western Church,
;
cal. In Barnabas, 72 ; Clement of 193 ; Dionysius, 293 Ambrose, ;
Alexandria, 142 ; Origen, 147 329; Hilary, 329 n.; Theodore of

Methodius, 187 ; literal, in Mar- Mopsuestia, 332 n.; Pelagius, 334,
cion, 104 ; Alexandrine fathers, 338 ; Augustine, 338, 341, 342 ff.,
148. 359 ; Council of Carthage, 356
Scriptures, reading of, 298 n.; sur- Julian, 357 Faustus, 374
; de- ;
render of, 313 ; three-fold sense of, crees of Orange, 381 Council ;
147. of Valence, 381 n. ; Fulgentius,

Secularization of church, 162. 383 n.; sense of, 31 ; Didache,
;
INDEX. 411
75 ; penalty of, 294 ;

propagation hood, 138 ; second repentance,
of 343. 344. 176; salvation of souls, 192 ;
papal
Sins, confession of (see Confession) ; infallibility, 386.
forgiveness of (see Forgiveness) ;
Testamentaduodecimpatriarcharu7?ij
great and light, 364 ;
purged by 88, 169.
sufferings, 146; venal and mortal, Theandric energy, 277, 279, 281.
62, 175 ; willful and accidental, Theodora. In Monophysite contro-
79- versy, 275 ; on images, 307.
Sirmia, Council at (A. D. 347), 221 ;
Theodore on Monotheletism, 280.
I.,
(A. D. 351), 222; (A. D. 357), Theodore of Mopsuestia, on problem

223; (A. P. 358), 224. of Apollinaris, 247 Paul of Samo- ;
Son of God, Scriptural sense of the sata, 248; sin, 332n. condemned, ;
terra,35 (see Christ). 276.

Sophronius, 279. Theodore of Studium, 307.
Spiritual believers, 42. Theodoret, 207; views of, 266; for-
Subordination. In Tertullian, 126; mula of, 265 deposed, 268 at ; ;
Hippolytus, 128 ; Origen, 150 Chalcedon, 270 condemned, 276. ;
Arnobius, Cyprian, Lactantius, Theodosius of Palestine, 273, 278.

170 ; Dionysius of Alexandria, Theodosius the Great, patron of or-
171 ; Theognostus, Pierius, 186; thodoxy, 234 ; codex of, 234 ; at
Sirmian formula, 222 ; Cappado- councils of Constantinople, 235 ;
cians, 233 ; John of Damascus, attempt of, to win Arians and Mace-
237- donians, 235 ; and Nestorian con-
Substantia and persona. In Tertul- troversy, 262, 264 ; and Pope Leo,
lian, 125 f.; Origen, 149. 269.
Symbol, applied to sacraments, 322. Theodotus, 93.
Symbols, sacred, 297. Theodotus the Fuller, 163 ; the
Synergism, Ambrose, 331 ; Eastern money-changer, 164.
and Western theologians, 331. Theognostus, works of, 185 on per-
;
son of Christ, 171 ; God, Holy

Spirit, 186; Subordinationism,
T.
angels, incarnation, 186; system of
Tertullian, works of, 118 legalism of, ; theology, 186.
132,133,139; influence of, on Latin Theology, beginnings of Christian,
theology, 171, 173, 237, 256, 270, no, 118, 119; in Alexandrine fa-
284, 308, 329; on Trinity, 122; thers, 160, 161 ; in third century,
original sin, 122 ; human ability, 198; systematic, 186, 286n.,
123 ;
person of Christ, 125 f., 243 ; 331 n., 349, 357 362, Z^Z.
work of Christ, communion with Theopaschite supplement, 276,
God, new law, obedience, 131 ; Theophilus, on images, 307.
Soteriology, 132; baptism, 132; Three-chapter controversy, 276,
repentance, confession, satisfaction, 277 n.
133; counsels and precepts, 133; Tradition. On Gospels, Z^ f- Apos- J
Christianity, 134 ; authority of tolic age, 46 ; Antignostic fathers,

Scriptures, 135 ; universal priest- 136, 143 ; Greek Church, 289 ;
412 INDEX.
Vincent, 384 ; Western Church, V.

384 f.
Valence, Council at, date of, 379 n.,
Tradition, value of, 388.
381 n. ; decrees of, 380 ; on human
Tradition vs. Spirit, 80.
ability, sin, grace, predestination,
Traditors vs. Donastic controversy,
381 n.
Valens, 221, 223.
Traducianism, 344, 377, Valentine, 93, 227.
Trichotomy, 245, Valentinian I. In Donatist contro-
Trinity, The. On Gospels, 35, 37 ; versy, 314.
Paul, 35, 41 ; Didache, 74; Apos- Valentinian III., on papacy, 387.
tolic fathers, 78, 86 ; Apologists, Valentinians, 169.
114; Antignostic fathers, 121, 139; Vices, the chief, 370 n.
Tertullian, 122; Clement of Alex- Victor, 164, 167, 168.
andria, 142; Origen, 151; Patri- Victorinus, 308.
passians, Sabellians, 168; Nova- Vigilius, Pope. In three-chapter con-
tian, 169; Dionysius of Rome, 172; troversy, 276.
Methodius, 173; ancient church, Vincent of Lerins. On the Qui-
201, 243; Marcellus, 220; Basil cunque, 241 ;
predestination, 374;
of Ancyra, 225 ; Cappadocians, systematic theology, ;}S^ tradition,
;
228 ff. ; Council at Rome, 234 ; 384 f.
John of Damascus, 236 f.; Augus- Virginity of Mary intact, 270, 360.
tine, 237 ff., 362 Ambrose, 240 n., ;
308; Athanasian Creed, 241 ;

W.
Greek Christianity, 289 ; Victori-
nus, Hilary, 308 ; analogies of, "Western theology, traits of, 198; ex-
240 ; immanent and economic, ternality in, 290 ; on salvation of
241. souls, 192, 198, 199, 308 ; God,
Trisagion, The, enlarged, 276. sin, forgiveness, 193 ; church, bap-
Tritheism, 236. tism, 193, 198; new law, 193 f.;
Tyconius. On church, 318; church double morality, 197; sacraments,

and grace, 308; Donatism, 314; satisfaction, 198 ; Christology, 255,
Catholic sacraments, 316. 383 ; Trinity, 383 ; tradition, 384.
Typos of Constans II., 280, 281, Will, good, infusion of. In Augus-
tine, 349 f.; Cassian, 370, 372;
decrees of Orange, 381.
U.
Will of God. In Paul, 38 f.; Apos-
Union, mystic, 214. tolic age, 46; Antignostic fathers,
Unity of God. In Monarchians, 167 ; 120 ; Augustine, 309, 365.

169; Dionysius of Rome, 172; Will of man. In Eastern and West-
Athanasius, 206, 210 ; Marcellus, ern Churches, 328 ; Augustine,'309,
220 ; Augustine, 238. 341, 365 ; Pelagius, 333 ; Faustus,
Unpredestinated, The, 351, 352. 375-
Ursacius, 221, 223. Willow tree, in Hermas, 60, 63.
Osza, 149, 210, 224, 225, 227, 228 f., Wisdom of God (personified), 164,
230, 239. 203.
;
INDEX. 413
Word, The. In Apostolic age, 48, Dionysius, 297 ; Pelagius, 337 ;
52 ; Apostolic fathers, 79 ; Augus- Fulgentius, 383 n.

tine, 321 ; in eucharist, 156 Worship, elements of, 117.
preaching of, 74. Worship, of Christ (see Christ) ; of
Works, Good. In Judaism, relics, 286, 298, 306 of saints,

30 ;
Paul, Apostolic age, 48 286, 306 ; of the Virgin Mary, 306.

44 ; ;
James, 49 ; Barnabas, 72 homily ;
of Clement, 76 ; Apostolic fathers,

79 f., 81 ; Tertullian, 133 ; Origen, Zeno. In Monophysite controversy,
147, 158 ; second century, 175 ; 273 ; henoticon of, 273.
Cyprian, 195, 198 ; Methodius, Zephyrinus, 164, 168.
289 ; Cyprian of Jerusalem, 289 ;
Zosimus, 355 f
:
TEXT-BOOK
OF THE
HISTORY OF DOCTRINES
BY
DR. REINHOLD SEEBERG,
professor of Theology in Ordinary in Berlin.
REVISED, 1904, BY THE AUTHOR.

TRANSLATED BY
CHARLES E. HAY, D. D.
COMPLETE IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. 11.
HISTORY OF DOCTRINES IN THE MIDDLE AND

MODERN AGES. .
PHIIÂDELPHIA, PA.
IÛTHERAN PUBIvICATlON SOCIETY.
Copyright, 1905,
BY THE
IÛTHERAN PUBWCATION SOCIETY.
. 7
CONTENTS.
BOOK II.
THE PRESERVATION, TRANSFORMATION, AND FURTHER

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
PART I.
HISTORY OF DOCTRINES FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE TENTH

CENTURY.
CHAPTER I.
Introduction. Theology of Gregory the Great, ^^^^

^ 35. Chai- act eristics of this Period 15
\ 36. Theology of Gregory the Great 1
1. Theology, Christology, Councils, Scripture 17

2. Work of Christ 19
3. Doctrine of Sin and Grace 21
a. Original Sin 21
b. Grace 22
c. Predestination 23
d. Repentance 24
e. Mass, Purgatory 24
4. The Church 25
5. Relation to Augustine 26
CHAPTER II.
Doctrinal Conflicts of the Earlier Middle Ages.

\ 37. Adoptionist Controversy 27
1. Migetius, Elipandus, Felix 27
2. Alcuin, Decision of the Controversy 28
\ 38. Eastern Church and Worship of Images. Filioque Controversy . . 29
^ 39. Controversy Upon Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination 30
1 Gottschalk 31
2. Opponents of Gottschalk 31
3. Leaders of Both Parties 32
4. Councils at Chiersy, Valence, Toucy 33
\ 40. Divergent Upon Parturition of the Virgin
Vie%vs -^"^
\ 41. Controversies Upon the Lord^ s Supper 34

I. Popular Views 34
(i)
..
11 CONTENTS.
PAGE
2. Paschasius Radbertus 35
3. Critical Estimate 37
4. Rabanus 37
5. Ratramnus 38
6. Result 39
CHAPTER III.
Hierarchical Principle. History of Ordinance of Repentance.

42. Papacy and Hierarchy 40
1 Situation 40
2. Problems 40
3. Donation of Constantine 40
4. Pseudo-Isidore 41
43. Repentance in Mar Her Middle Ages 4I
1. Limitation of Public Repentance 42
2. Private Repentance 42
3. Penitential Praxis and Theory 43
4. Historical Situation <, 46
PART II.
HISTORY OF DOCTRINES IN SCHOLASTIC AGE.
CHAPTER I.
Foundations of Hierarchical and Religious Ideals and of

Scholastic Theology.
I 44. The Church and the World, 49
1. Cluny 49
2. Humbert, Gregory VII 50
3. Canon Law and the Church 51
^ 45. Christianity of St, Bernard. 52
^ 46. History of Theology from Anselm to Peter the Lombard 52
1 Methods of Treatment 54
2. Beginnings, Lanfranc, Anselm, Abelard, Roscellin 55
3. Abelard's Theological and Philosophical Position, His Followers. 57
4. Opposition to Abelard, Honorius Augustodunensis, Hugo of
St. Victor, Robert PuUus 60
5. Peter the Lombard, Heads of Doctrine 62
\ 47. Christology of Abelard and the Lombard, Opposition of Gerhoh. 64

1. Christology of Abelard 64
2. The Lombard, Nihilianism 65
3. Christology of Gerhoh 66
48. Doctrine of Atonement. Anselm and Abelard. ,

60
I. Anselm's Theory of Satisfaction, Critical Estimate 66
.
CONTENTS. Ill
PAGE
2. Abelard's Criticism, His Theory of Atonement 7^
3. Bernard vs. Abelard 72
4. Atonement in the School of Abelard, in Honorius, Hugo, Robert. 73
5. Atonement in the Lombard 73
49. Berenger of Tours and Doctrine of Lord'' s Supper 74
1 Berenger 74
2. Opposition to Berenger 76
3. Development of the Doctrine, Transubstantiation 77
4. Honorius, Hugo, Robert, the Lombard 77
5. Dogmatic Establishment of Transubstantiation 78
50. Definition of Sacraments. Seven Sacraments 79
1. Origin of the Number Seven 79
2. Definition 80
3. Baptism So
4. Confirmation 81
5. Lord' s Supper 81
6. Repentance 81
u. Abelard 81
b. Hugo 82
t. Robert Pullus 83
d. The Lombard 83
7. Extreme Unction 84
8. Ordination 84
9. Marriage 85
51. Conception of the Church 85
I. Hugo, Robert, John of Salisbury 85
-:. Church, Hierarchy, Relation to State 85
CHAPTER IL
Development of Christian Doctrine During Second Period
OF Scholasticism.
52. Aims of the Church. Religious Life. Efforts at Reform 87
1. Innocent III., Boniface VIII 87
2. Francis of Assisi and His Influence 88
3. Popular Practical Christianity go
4. Preaching, Penitential Praxis 91
5. Heretical Movements, Cathari, Waldenses, Begards 94
53. History and Characteristics of Theology in the Thirteenth Century. 96
1. Scholasticism and the Secularization of the Church 96
2. Development of Scholasticism in Thirteenth Century 97
Alexander of Hales 98
Albert the Great 99
Thomas of Aquino, Divisions of the "Summa" 99
Bonaventura 100
IV CONTENTS.
PAGE
3. Leading Scholastic Ideas 100
a. Revelation, Scriptures, Symbols, Pope 100
b. Faith lo-j
t. Reason vs. Faith 104
d. Universals 104
4. Two Aspects of Scholasticism, Roger Bacon, Lullus, Henry of
Ghent, Richard of Middleton 105
54. Doctrine of God and Christology I06
1. Advance of Thomas in the Doctrine of God 106
2. The Trinity, Richard of St. Victor, The Lombard, Joachim of
Floris, Fourth Lateran Council 108
3. Christology log
\ 55. The Work of Christ no
1. Alexander, Bonaventura no
2. Thomas I13
^56. Doctrines of Original State and Sin 114
I. Original Righteousness, Synteresisy Donum superadditum 1
14
X. Original Sin 116
57- Doctrine of Grace and Human Freedom 118
1. Man Cannot Deliver Himself 118
2. Gratia^ creata and increata 1 18
3. Grace and Free-will 119
4. Justification, Infusion, Forgiveness of Sins, Assurance 120
5. Faith and Works, Meritum de condigno and de congruo I2i
6. Evangelical Councils and Christian Perfection 124
\ 58. Sacram-ents and the Church. Dogma of Seven Sacraments 124
1. Dogmatization by Eugene IV 124
a. Nature and Number of Sacraments 125
b. Definition of Sacraments 125
c. Relation of Sign and Grace 126
d. Effect, *' Character " 127
c. Ex opere operate 128
2. Baptism 129
3. Confirmation : 130
4. Lord' s Supper, Transubstantiation, Concomitance, Accidents,
Bodily Presence and Local Limitation, Efli'ect, Sacrifice of the
Mass, Definition of Eugene IV 131
5. Repentance I35
M. Contrition and Attrition, Confession and Absolution,
Thomas and Duns, Biel 135
b. Satisfaction 13^
c. Indulgences 139
7. Ordination 14^
8. Marriage H^
.
CONTENTS. V
FAGB
9. The Church, In Thomas, Current Definition, Conmiunio sancto-
rum^ The Pope ^44
10. The Kingdom of God on Earth 146
CHAPTER III.
Gradual Dissolution of Scholastic Theology. Religious and

Ecclesiastical Crisis at Close of Middle Ages.
59. Theology of Duns Scotus and its Significance for the Histoiy of
Doctrines 1 47
1. Philosophical Position of Duns 147
2. Revelation, Symbols, Romish Church, Faith 149
3. Conception of God, Predestination 150
4. Sin, Original Sin 153
5. Christology 154
6. Mariology 155
7. Redemption, Criticism of Anselm's View 156
8. Definition of Grace, Habitus, Merit, Justification 158
9. Sacraments 161
10. Significance of Duns in History of Doctrines 162
\ 60. Criticism of Hierarchical Conception of theChurch 165
1. Situation of the Curia,Reform Councils, Leo X. 165
2. Marsilius and Occam, Separation of Church and State, Tasks of
Pope and Clergy, Fallibility of Pope and Infallibility of Scrip-
tures, Rights of the Laity 167
3. Theory of Natural Right 170
\ 61. Church Life and Religious Agitations at the Close of the Middle
Ages _. 1 72
1. Crisis, Superstition, Expectations 173
2. Influence of the Church Upon the Masses, Penitential Praxis,
Attrition, Indulgences, Jubilee Indulgences 174
3. German Mysticism 1 78
4. Christian Socialism, Wickliffe 181
\ 62. Review of History of Theology in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Centuries. Nominalism and Augustinianism 1
85
1 Duns and the Nominalists 1 85
a. Nominalists 185
b. Thomists 186
c. Paduan School 187
d. Augustinian Eremites 187
e. Return to Augustine, Gerson, Forerunners of the Reformation 188
2. Nominalist Theory of Knowledge 190
3. a. Criticism and Skepticism 191
b. Submission to Doctrine of Scriptures and Church, Theory of
Inspiration 192
VI CONTENTS.
PAGE
4. Faith, Fides implicita 195
5. Collapse of the Scholastic System 196
63. Labors of Later Middle Ages Upon Separate Dogmas and Doctrines 197
1. Sin, Human Freedom 197
2. Atonement, Redemption 198
u., Aureolus, Baconthorp, Durand, Capreolus 198
b. Biel 198
t. Practical View of Atonement 200
3. Sacrament of Repentance, Attrition, Justification, Meritum de
cong7'uo and de condigno, Assurance 201
4. Lord's Supper 203
a. Occam, Durand, D'Ailli, Substance of the Bread 203
b. Bodily Presence, Ubiquity in Occam, Faber Stapulensis .... 204
c. Wickliffe's Criticism of Transubstantiation 206
5. Augustinian Tendency 207
a. Bradwardina 207
b. Wickliffe's Doctrine of Predestination 208
t. Goch, Wesel and Wessel upon Grace 208
6. Criticism of Sacrament of Repentance and Indulgences by Wick-
liffe, Wesel and Wessel 209
7- Conception of the Church in Wickliffe, Wesel and Wessel 211
^ 64. The Renaissance and Humanism in their Significance for the
History of Doctrines 212
1. Literary Agitation 213
2. Lorenzo Valla, Religious Attitude of Erasmus 213
3. Lack of Reformatory Elements in Erasmus, Colet, Review and
Prospect 215
BOOK III.
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE THROUGH THE

REFORMATION AND FIXATION OF THE DOCTRINES OF
CATHOLICISM.
PART I.
GENESIS OF PROTESTANT DOCTRINE.
CHAPTER I.
The Views of Luther.
65. Luther's Place in the History of Doctrines 221

1. Luther's Personality 221
2. Influence of Sacramental Repentance and of Augustine Upon
Luther 222
1
CONTENTS. Vll
PAGH
3. Early and Later Views of Luther Compared 223
4. Luther and Scholasticism 223
5. Evangelical Repentance as Central Point in Luther's Reformatory
Views 224
6. Reformatory Work of Luther 225
66. Luther's Views Before the Reformation Period 227
1. External and Internal Word, Law and Gospel 228
2. Original Sin 229
3. Christology and Redemption 229
4. Grace, Faith 231
5. Sacrament of Repentance 234
6. The Church 234
7. Old Forms with New Content 235
67. Criticism of Sacrament of Repeîtance. Evangelical RepentaJice.
Faithy SiUy Grace, Justification, Atoneinent. 235
1. Theology of the Ninety-five Theses 235
2. . Contrition a Fruit of Faith and Love, The Law 237
b. Confession and Absolution 240
c. Satisfaction, Advance Upon Previous Theories 241
3. a. Sin and Original Sin 242
b. Enslaved Will and Predestination 243
t. Wrath of God, The Devil 245
4. w. The Law as Natural Right, The Sabbath 246
b. The Gospel 248
t. The Law 249
d. The Law and Penitence, Agricola 249
e. Law and Gospel 25
5. Faith 252
a. Its Origin, God Revealed in Christ as Loving- Will 252
b. Its Nature Acceptance, Trust, Faith and Redemptive
Realities 254
c. Faith and Regeneration 256
d. Feeling, Experience, Assurance 256
6. Good Works. From Faith, through Christ, in Liberty 258
7. Justification Secured by Faith, Actual and Imputed Righteous-
ness, Harmony of Luther's Earlier and Later Teachings 260
8. Grace and Gifts 263
9. Work of Christ 265
u. Satisfaction, Payment, Kingdom of God 265
b. Rendered to the Wrath of God and
Sacrifice, Satisfaction the
Law, Release from Dominion of Devil 266
c. Intercession 269
d. Christ the Second Adam, Example, Following of Christ .... 269
e. Content and Critical Estimate of Luther's Doctrine of the
Atonement, Relation to Duns 271
Vlll CONTENTS.
PAGE
lo. General Summary 272
^ 68. Evangelical Ideal of Life 273
1. Significance of Luther's Ideal of the Christian Life 273
2. Christian Perfection 273
3. Secular Callings 274
4. Content of the Christian Life, The Kingdom of God 275
5. Luther and Social Problems 278
\ 69. Word and Sacrainent 279
1. The Spirit and the Means of Grace 279
2. The Word and the Spirit vs. the Inner Word of the Fanatics.. . . 279
3. Conception of the Sacraments 282
4. Baptism, Infant Baptism 283
5. Luther's Earliest View of the Lord's Supper, Honius and
Carlstadt 285
6. Luther vs. Sacrifice of the Mass 289
\ 10. Reformatory Conception of the Church 289
1. Significance of the Leipzig Disputation 289
2. New Conception of the Church 291
3. Fundamental Features of the New Conception 292
a. The Communion of Saints, Invisibility of the Church 292
b. The Church and the Means of Grace 293
t. The Church as Seen 293
d. The Ecclesiastical Office 293
e. Nature of the Church 294
f Marks of the True Church 294
71. Luther' s Attitude Toward the Traditional Standai'ds of Doctrine^
i. e.y the Scripturesand the Dogmas of the Church 296
1. Attitude of Luther Toward the Traditional Standards 296
2. a. Sole Authority of the Scriptures 298
b. Difference as Compared with View of the Later Middle Ages,
Christ the Content of Scripture, Biblical Criticism 299
c. Luther's Treatment of the Scriptures 301
3. Attitude of Luther Toward the Dogma of the Ancient Church. . 302
4. Attitude of Luther Toward the Trinitarian Dogma 304
CHAPTER II.
Doctrine of Zwingli. Opposition of Luther and Zwingli Upon the

Doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
\ 72. Reformatory Principles of Zzvingli 306
1. Zwingli' s Dependence Upon Luther 307
2. Authority of the Scriptures 308
3. Doctrine of Sin 309
4. Work of Christ, Its Objective and Subjective Aspects 309
5. F"aith 310
CONTENTS. IX
PAGE
6. The Law of Christ 3*1
7. The Ideal of Ufe 312
8. Predestination, Conception of God ^12
9. The Church 315
10. The Sacraments, Baptism, Infant Baptism 316
11. Medieval Limitations of Zwingli 317
73. Controversy Upon the Lord'' s Supper 318
1. Origin of Zwingli' s Doctrine, Tactics of the Conflict 318
2. Doctrine of Zwingli 320
3. Luther and the Words of Institution 322
4. Christology of Luther as Related to His Doctrine of the Lord's
Supper 323
5. The Right Hand of God, Mode of Bodily Presence, Relation to
Occam 325
6. Reception and Blessing of the Sacrament 327
7. Marburg Colloquy, Schwabach Articles 330
8. Wittenberg Concord, Bucer, Schwabian Compromise 331
CHAPTER HI.
The New Dogma.
74. The Augsburg Confession 332
1. Relations Between the Civil Authorities and Theologians in the
Establishment of Protestant Doctrine 332
2. Aim of the Augsburg Confession 334
3. The Trinity, Sin, The Confutators 335
4. Faith, Justification, Doctrine of Justification in the Apology 336
5. Good Works, Ideal of Life 339
6. The Church, Ministerial Office 340
7. The Sacraments, Baptism, The Lord's Supper, Repentance .... 341
8. Practical Demands 343
75- The Karlier Reforined Co7tfessions 344
Justification, Faith, The Church, The Sacraments 344
PART II.
THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND (PROVISIONAL) COMPLETION OF

PROTESTANT DOCTRINE.
CHAPTER I.
Lutheran Doctrine to the Adoption of the Formula of Concord.

\ 76. Theology of Melanchthon. Its Significance for the History of
Doctrines 347
CONTENTS.
PAGE
1. Melanchthon and Calvin 347
2. First Edition of the Loci 348
3. Deviation from Luther in the Theory of Conversion 349
4. Deviation from Luther Upon the Lord's Supper, Article X. in the
Variata 350
5. Later Revisions of the Loci^ Attitude Toward the Scriptures, the
Ecclesiastical Dogmas, and the Authority of Luther 351
6. Theology and Philosophy 353
7. The Church, Visible and as Object of Faith, " Pure Doctrine".. 354
8. Justification, The Law and Contrition, The Gospel and the Atone-
ment, Forensic Theory, Faith and Regeneration, Self-con-
sistency of Melanchthon' s Theology 358
77. Theological Controversies in the Lutheran Chtirch from the Death
of Luther to the Adoption of the Formula of Concord. 362
1. Significance of Melanchthon for the History of Doctrines 363
2. The Interim, Adiaphoristic Controversy 364
3. Majoristic Controversy, Menius, Amsdorf, Flacius 364
4. The Antinomistic Controversy, Amsdorf, Poach, Otto 365
5. Controversy Upon the Lord's Supper, Brenz, Crypto-Calvinists,
Consecration of Elements 366
6. Synergistic Controversy, Pfefifinger, Strigel, Flacius 367
7. The Osiandrian Controversy 369
a. Osiander's System 369
b. His Opponents 373
. Stancar 374
8. Christological Conflicts 374
a. Brenz 374
b. Chemnitz 374
9. Predestinarian Controversy, Aepin Upon Descent into Hell 378
78. The Formula of Concord 378
1. Political Reasons for Harmony, Frankfort Recess, Weimar Con-
futation, Naumburg Diet, Corpora Doctrinae 378

2. Genesis of the Formula of Concord 380
3. Original Sin and Free Will '}>^'i
4. Doctrine of Justification 3^4

a. Obedience of Christ 3^4
b. Imputed Righteousness 3^4
c. Faith and Justification 34
5. Good Works 385
6. Law and Gospel 3^5
7. The Lord's Supper 3^6
8. Christology 3^7
9. Descent into Hell 3^8
10. Adiaphora 3^8
11. Predestination Z
1
CONTENTS. XI
PAGE
12. Factions and Sects 3^9
13. Critical Estimate of the Formula. .*
389
CHAPTER II.
Completion of Doctrinal Construction in the Reformed Church.

79. Theology of Calvin. Its Influence Upon the History of Doctrines. 390
1. Theological Type of Bucer, Theology of Bucer, Luther, Bucer,
and Melanchthon, Bucer and Calvin 390
2. Calvin as Theologian and Churchman 394
3. Calvin's Doctrine of the Scriptures and Inspiration 395
4. Conception of God 396
5. Sin 398
6. Atonement and Redemption 399
7. a. Faith 401
b. Repentance 402
c. Justification 403
d. Human Freedom 405
e. Election 405
8. The Church and its Organization 408
a. The Totality of the Predestinated 408
b. The Visible Church 408
t. Outward Organization 409
d. Relation to the State 410
9. The Sacraments 411
u. Definition of a Sacrament 411
b. Baptism 412
t. The Lord's Supper 412
10. The Significance of Calvin for the History of Doctrines, Medie-
valElement in His View 414
\ 80. Triumph of Calvin* s Doctrine of the Lord'' s Supper. 417
1. Bullinger's Revival of Zwingli's Theory 417
2. The Consensus Tigurinus 417
3. Reformed Confessions 417
\ 81. Fundamental Evangelical Principles in Later Reformed Con-
fessions 418
1. Reformed Confessions in Harmony with Calvin 41S
2. Atonement, Faith, Repentance 418
3. The Church, The Glory of God 419
\ 82. Triumph of the Doctrine of Predestination 420
1. Pighius, Consensus Genevensis 420
2. The Symbols 421
3. Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants, Decrees of Dort 42
4. Place of Predestination in Doctrinal System 423
5. Amyraldus, The Formula Consensus Helvetica 424
Xll CONTENTS.
PART III.
COMPLETION OF DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE ROMAN

CATHOLIC CHURCH. PACE
I S3. Establishment of Aledieval Theology by the Council of Trent 427
1. Reformation and Counter-reformation 427
2. Jesuitism 429
3. The Council of Trent 431
4. The Scriptures and Tradition 431
5. Original Sin, Sin of Adam, Propagation, Relation to Baptism,
Concupiscence, Exemption of the Virgin Mary 432
6. Justification, How Attained, Preserved, Lost, Synergism, Impu-
tation or Infusion, Inherent Righteousness, Prevenient Grace,
Disposition Good Works, Repentance 433
7. The Sacraments 438
8. Baptism 439
9. Confirmation 439
10. The Lord's Supper 439
a. The Dogma 439
b. Withholding of the Cup 440
t. Sacrifice of the Mass 441
11. Sacrament of Repentance, Indulgences, Purgatory 442
13. Ordination 445
14. Marriage 446
15. Curialism vs. Episcopalism, Conception of the Church in the Cat-
echismus Romanus 446
16. Significance oftheTridentJne Confession for the History of Doctrines 448
\ 84. Revival of the Aiigustinian Doci?'ine of Grace and its Eccle-

siastical Rejection 449
1. Decadence of the Augustinian Doctrine of Grace 449
2. Bajus, The Bull, Ex omnibus affiictionibtis 450
3. Molina 451
4. Jansen, The Bull, Cum occasione 452
5. Quesnel, The Constitution, Unigenitus 454
6. Immaculate Conception 456
\ 85. Completionof the Romish Dogma oftJie Chw'ch. The Vatican Council 456
1. Episcopalistic Movements, Declaration du clerge de France 457
2. Febronius, The Punctation of Ems 45 7
3. Synod of Pistoja 458
4. Increased Respect for the Papacy in the Age of the Restoration.. 459
5. The Vatican Council, Schema defde^ Inspiration 460
6. Infallibility of the Pope 460
7. Present Significance of Dogma in the Roman Catholic Church. . . 462
Conclusion. Significance of Dogma in Protestantism 464
BOOK II.
THE PRESERVATION, TRANSFORMATION, AND FUR-

THER DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THE
MIDDLE AGES,
PART I.
HISTORY OF DOCTRINES FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE TENTH

CENTURY.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION. THEOLOGY OF GREGORY THE GREAT.
35- Characteristics of this Period.
1. Viewed historically, this period is characterized chiefly by
the disintegration of the ancient world. New nations and new

governments appear upon the scene. Yet the life of antiquity
is perpetuated among the barbarians by the church. Theology
becomes the bearer, not of doctrine alone, but of philosophy
and culture as well. For this task it was well fitted by the inti-
mate connection of the fixed doctrines of the church with the
ancient modes of thought, and by the universal spirit of Augus-
tine. Wisdom belonged to the past. ''The first precept of
safety is to guard the rule of right faith and to deviate in nowise
from the ordinances of the fathers" (Vol. I., p. 387) such is
the motto of the doctrinal history of the period. The only man
who indulged in independent speculations, the philosopher Scotus
Erigena, was misunderstood by his age. With Augustine, he
recognized two sources of knowledge, sound reason {recta ratio)
and proper authority {vera auctoritas) He endeavored from a
.
combination of the two to construct a speculative system. But

the speculative-pantheistic tendency prevailed, and the Scriptures
were subordinated by means of allegorical exegesis. His specu-
lations had no influence worthy of mention upon the History of
Doctrines (cf. Christlieb, Leben und Lehre des Joh. Scotus
Erigena, i860).
2. The German nations received Christianity from the church
in fixed forms and as a fixed formula. For them Christianity
became simply dogma, and faith the acceptance of tradition/
^ The only ** dogmas," in the full sense of the term, in the Middle Ages
as for the preceding period, were those of the Trinity and the two natures of
Christ Cf. sub. under Gregory the Great and also, <?. ^., Agobard, de fid.
verit.
3 (Mi. 104, 269), and the Poenilentiale of Theodore of Canterbury (i. v.
6, p. 189, in Wasserschleben, Penances): " from a heretic who should not
ds)
;
This, no less than the course of pohtical events, served to con-

firm the hierarchical idea and the papal power. Rome planted
herself firmly in the new provinces of the Western church (cf.
the Christianizing of the Anglo-Saxons, her relations with the
Franks, Boniface), and, despite many rebuffs, secured power and
maintained it.
3. Upon German territory Christianity was, it is true, con-

ceived and publicly presented in a popular form (vid. the poetry
of Cynewolf, Caedmon, the Heliand, the Crist of Otfrid. Cf.
Seeberg, Die German. Auffassung d. Christentums in d. frueh-
eren Mittelalter, Ztschr. f. k. Wiss., 1888, p. 91 ff., 148 ff.
Hauck, kg. Deutschlands, ii. 706 ff.). The spirit of the theo-
logians of the period was influenced by this (vid., e. g., Hauck
ii. 268, 589 ff.); but theology not so much as one should sup-
pose. The development of the practical life of the church pro-

duced, indeed, new forms which became influential in shaping
doctrinal conceptions (the church, repentance, the Lord's Sup-
per) and which the church could not ignore in her teaching
but even here the old formulas were still the sacred material
which lay at the basis of all theological labors.
4. The Greek church knew no Middle Age, for it never got
beyond the range of the ancient problems of Origen, /', ^., the
Greek church had no Augustine. The dominant theological au-
thority in the Middle Ages is Augustine. The entire doctrinal
history of the period may be treated as the history of Augustin-
ianism. His ideas controlled the leaders of the church and the
unfolding of all ecclesiastical conceptions and institutions. The
worst features in this development may be traced back to him, as
well as the best. The piety of the age found in his teachings an
unfailing source of inspiration. They were not the Light, but
they testified of the Light. But while Augustine's formulas thus
control the theology of the period, the theologians do not master the
formulas. They accomplished nothing more than the collection and
arrangement of the Sentences of Augustine (Isidore of Seville,
f 636 Sententiarum sive de summo bono, 11. 3. Alcuin, f 804
:
:
De fide sanctae trinitatis, 11. 3. Rabanus Maurus, f 856 De :
clericorum institutione, 11. 3. Paschasius Radbertus, f 865 De :
fide, spe et caritate, 11. 3. Cf Thomasi us -Seeberg, DG. II.

13 f. ). But even this presentation did not faithfully reproduce
true Augustinianism. It was an Augustinianism misinterpreted
in a Semipelagian spirit and degraded to a popular level. Next
to Augustine, the determining authority is Gregory the Great.
rightly believe the Trinity.'' To these dogmas the later Middle Ages added
only obedience to the church, the doctrine of the sacraments, and, particularly,
repentance and the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
THEOLOGY OF GREGORY THE GREAT. I
7
The former was understood as interpreted by the latter. The

History of Doctrines in the Middle Ages must, therefore, begin
with an outline of the theology of Gregory.
5. It follows from the above that we cannot expect to find any
real development of dogma in this period. The question in the
disputes of the age concerns always the proper understanding or
misunderstanding of the traditional formulas, not an actual de-
velopment of them, Significant as is the period for the History
of the Church, it furnishes very little material for the History of
Doctrines. As in treating of the history of doctrines throughout
the entire Middle Ages, so especially during this period the his-
torian must constantly bear in mind the task immediately before
him. He is not to embrace the whole field of theology, but only
to portray the movements which prepare the way for and make
possible the true doctrinal development of the Reformation
period (Council of Trent and Protestant Confessions).^ The
great awakening of piety at the close of this period is to be
studied in other connections.
36. Theology of Gregory the Great.
The writings of Gregory (I A. D. 604) which particularly concern us are

the following :
Expositio in 1. lob sive Moralium, 11. 35 Homiliae in Ezech., 11. 2 Hom-

; ;
iliae in evangelia, 2 ; Dialogi, 11. 4

11. ;Regula pastoralis, 11. 3 Collection
;
of letters in 14 volumes. Of the latter, the Liber sacramentorum and the

Expositio in 1. I regum are critically open to suspicion. Editions : The Mau-
rine (Sainthe Marthe), Paris, 1705, in Migne Lat. 75-79. Die Briefe s.
Gre^. registr. epp. edd. Ewald et Hartmann (Mon. Germ. hist, epist, t. I, 2).
Cf. Lau, Greg. I. d. Gr., 1845. Wolfsgruber, Greg. d. Gr., 1S90. Clau-
siER, St. Gregoire, Paris, 1886-91. Upon the doctrine of grace, vid. also
WiGGERS, Schicksale d. aug. Anthropol. etc., in Ztschr. f. hist. Theol., 1854,
,
p. 7ff.
I. In theology Gregory is an Augustinian in his formulas, and
something of the spirit of the great African is also traceable

in his writings. But the ruder elements of the popular theology,
which in Augustine are kept in the background, here come
again into marked prominence. To this is added a crude supersti-
tion and mythological speculations touching angels, demons, etc.,
as found especially in the *' Dialogues.
'
Gregory is consciously
'
orthodox. The Christian faith \%ioT^\i\vi fides trinitatis {moT.

xxxiii., c. 10. n. 20 ; in Ezech. 1. ii. hom. 4. 11), but includes
also the incarnation (ep. 1. vii. 15 ev. ii. h. 33. 6). The term-
;
inology, ** trinity of persons" and *' one substance " (^svbstan-
^ The History of Doctrines in the Middle Ages bears the same relation to
that nf the Reformation period as does the Ante-nicene to the Post-nicene.
Cf. Vol. I., p. 23.
8 '
iia)^ occurs very frequently in his writings (Ez. ii. 4. 7 ; ev. i. 18.
3 j mor. xxx. 4. i?)*^ His Christology is just as or-

19. 7 fin.;
thodox Christ, the deus homo (Ez. ii. i. 4), or the homo deus
:
(mor. xxii. 17. 42), is true God and man **of one {unius) with
:
the Father and of the same nature " (mor. iii. 14. 26). But the
divine and the human nature, united inconfuse ac ins eparabiliter,
constitute one person, unus in utraque natura (Ez. i. 8. 24 f. ).
'^ For we say that he exists,
of (êx) two natures and iii (in) two
natures, but we avoid as impious the statement tnat he is to be
considered as composed {composituni) of two persons " (ev. ii.
38. 3; mor. xviii. 52. 85 vid. also mor. i. 18, 26; xxiii. 19.
;
35 xxiv. 2. 2
; xxix. i, i f.; xxxiii. 16. 32
; ev. ii. 22, 8, etc.).^
;
The Holy Ghost is said to be ** of one substance {^substantia),

:
with the Father and the Son " (ev. ii. 30. 3).^ Gregory knows
himself to be upon these points in harmony with the doctrine of
the church councils. He is orthodox, he holds, who accepts
what sanctae quatuor universales synodi accepted, and rejects
what they rejected (ep. vi. 66 opp. ii., p. 843). ;
*' I confess
that I receive and venerate four councils, just as I receive and

venerate four books of the holy gospel " (ep. i. 25, p. 515;
also iii. 10; v. 51, 54; iv. z^')-'' Thus the authority of the
church is recognized as on a par with that of the Holy Scriptures.
Gregory, indeed, sustained by the strictest theory of inspiration,"^
sees in the Holy Scriptures the
'
foundation of divine authority

*
'
{^ciivinae auctoritatis fundamentum, mor. xviii. 26. 39). God

through them answers the 'ôpen or secret questionings of all
men" (mor, xxiii. 19. 34). They must lie at the foundation of
1 The divine activity is described, e. creantem et regen-
^., in Dial. iv. 6 :
tem, implentem et circumplectentem, transcendent em et sustinentem. Mor.

xvi. 37. 45 vid. Ez. ii. 5. 10; mor. x. 6. 6.
;
'^
The birth from a virgin was necessary in order to avoid original sin. Vid.
mor. xi, 52. 70; xviii. 52. 84; xxiv. I. 3.
^ Upon the procession of the Spirit, vid. mor. xxx, 4. 17 " how the :
*' whose
spirit of both proceeds co-eternal from both ; '' mor. xxix. 31. 74 :
{i. e.j the Son's) spirit is the same spirit who proceeds from the Father." The
symbol attributed to Gregory (opp. ii. 1283): "proceeding from the Father
and the Son." Vid. further in Lau, p. 459 f
* Gregory recognizes also the fifth council, e.g., ep. i. 25, p. 515 ix. 52, p. ;
966. Cf. Vol. I., p. 276. The authority of the four councils was legally es-
tablished by Justinian. See Novella 131 : " Therefore we decree that the holy
ecclesiastical rules which have been announced or confirmed by the four holy
councils shall prevail instead of laws. For we accept the doctrines of the
aforesaid councils just as the Holy Scriptures, and the rules just as laws."
^ Mor. praef. I. I, 2: "Let it be faithfully believed that the Holy Spirit
is the author of the book. He, therefore, wrote these things who dictated the
things to be written." "The writers of sacred eloquence, because, filled
with the Hoiy Spirit, they are drawn above themselves, become a^ it were
Csoraething) beyond themselves." The Scriptures are "words of the Holy
Spirit" (Ez. ii. 10. 3).
9
THEOLOGY OF GREGORY THE GREAT. 1
all preaching ; by their study priests are to be prepared for their

vocation the reading of them is most urgently commended to
;
all.^ But the force of all this was broken by the introduction of
allegorical exegesis as of fundamental authority (mor. i. 24, 33 ;
xvi. 19. 24). Thenceforth it became customary to laud the
Holy Scriptures, but also to present as scriptural teaching the
** ecclesiastical " doctrines.
In treating of the Work of Christ, Gregory employs the
2.
traditional mode of thought and expression (cf. Vol. I., p.
361 n.). Christ is the Redeemer and Mediator of fallen human-
ity. '* The Lord appeared in the flesh in order that he might
arouse human life by admonishing, stimulate it by furnishing
models {exempla), redeem it by dying, and restore it {repararet)
by arising from the dead" (mor. xxi. 6. 11).
{a) This involves the general conception that Christ sur-
rendered Himself to sufferings and death for us and thereby deliv-
ered us from them (Ez. ii. 4. 20 ; i. 9; mor. xiii. 43. 48). To
speak more precisely, this occurs in the following way God is :
angry with the sinner. Hence there is need of a Mediator, who

as a "mediator of God and man " must de God and man
**
through flesh become redeynptor, mediator dei et hoviinis. ^
, . ,
Because he appeared as the only righteous person among men,

and, nevertheless, though without sin {culpa'), faced the pun-
ishment of sin, both persuading man no more to sin and hinder-
ing God from smitmg, he furnished an example of innocence
and received the punishment of evil-doing. By suffering, there-
fore, he who took away the sin of man by inspiring righteous-
ness and tempered the wrath of the judge by dying, persuaded
both and gave a hand to each, because he afforded man an
example which might be followed and displayed to God deeds
wrought upon himself by which he might be reconciled toward
men " (mor. ix. 38. 61). The appearing of Christ in our be-
half thus appeases the divine wrath. Upon this conception of
the intercession of Christ Gregory laid great emphasis. Christ,
Gregory often and energetically advised the reading of the Scriptures, e. g.^
^
mor. vi. ip. 12 xvi. 19, 24.

; Ez. i. 10. I fif.; ii. 3. 20 ep. ii. 52 iv. 31, p.
; ;
712: ** The Lord of heaven has for (the good of) thy life transmitted to thee
his epistles." Cf. Vol. I., p. 298 n, Ep. viii. 17: "But I have inquired
who of you belong to the collegium of sacred reading,'' points to conventicles
for the reading of the Scriptures. The Old and New Testaments differ essen-
tially as presenting the lower (minofa) and higher (altiora) precepts, inasmuch
as the New Testamentlaw addresses itself to the inner disposition. Ez. ii. 4,
5, 9 ; I. 10; mor. xviii. 4. 7.
^ Instead of this exposition of the incarnation we find another :
" Because
there was no one among men who could appear before God as a righteous
intercessor, I have made myself a man in order to make propitiation for men.'*
Mor. xxiv. 3. 6.
as the Righteous One, makes his merit^ available before the

Father. " For to the Only-begotten Son, to plead for man is to
demonstrate before the eternal Father that he is himself a man ;
and to him, to have asked in behalf of human nature is to have taken

upon himself that same nature in the altitude of his divinity "
(mor. xxii. 17. 42). The effect of the merit of Christ is, there-
fore, that God abandons his wrath against sinners.^
(/^) Another and death is our de-
result of Christ's sufferings
liverance 'from the power of the devil, Man was in a state of
guilt. The devil had a certain claim upon him (''held man, as
it were, lawfully " ). " This guilt must, therefore, be canceled ;
'
but this cannot be done except through a sacrifice (^saa'ificiu77i). '
But beasts were not sufficient for such a sacrifice ; a man was re-
quired, and that a sinless man. Since there was none such, the
Son of God became man in order to offer the sacrifice. Since
the devil made a mistake in seizing the Innocent One, '' he law-
fully lost him whom he had, as it were, lawfully held" (mor.
xvii. 30. 46 f.). The divinity veiled in humanity was thus the
bait which God held out to the devil (mor. xxxiii. 7. i4ff.).
((t) Of the Mediator it is said: ''Who, although he could
have striven in our behalf even without dying, nevertheless wished

to aid men by dying, since he would certainly have loved us less
if he had not taken upon himself our wounds, nor could he have
shown us the poAver of his love if he had not himself borne for
a time that which he took from us " (mor. xx. 36. 69). This
shows plainly where the emphasis falls in Gregory's theory of the
atonement. That Christ was a teacher and an example appears
to him the principal feature of his work. He reveals to us the
invisible God, instructs us in regard to our sinful state, and
teaches us the will of God and his commandments (Ez. ii. i.
15 f. ; ev. ii. 32. i ; mor. vii. 2.2; x. 6. 7 ; xvi. 30. 37 \ xxi. 6.
II ; xxii. 17. 42 ; xxix. i. i). To the instruction thus given is
1 Although the expression, *' merit of Christ" [meritu?7i), is not found,

the conception appears very plainly: '' For, interceding for sinners, he shows
himself the just man who merited indulgence {indidgentiam merereiur) for
others." Mor. xxiv. 2. 4, and ib. 3. 5. " But, because there was no one by
whose merits {^nieritis) the Lord would have been bound to be reconciled
with us, the Only-begotten appeared as the only righteous (One),
.
in order that he might intercede for sinners." Cf. ib. xvii. 30. 46. The
term, "merit," thereby receives a new application. From ancient times the
merita of men had been spoken of, but the term is now transferred to the
work of Christ. The Reformation shattered the whole conception as applied
to man, but allowed it to stand with reference to the work of Christ.
^
It may be well here to note that Gregory speaks of the intercession
of the saints and martyrs, as well as that of the church with its sacrifices (ep.
ix. 52, p. 971 mor. xvi. 51. 64; x\xv. 8. 13); and also of an intervention
;
[intervenire) of the Holy Ghost (ev. ii. 30. 3).

THEOLOGY OF GREGORY THE GREAT. 2 1
added the incitement by example. ''For the incarnate Lord

has displayed in himself everything which he has inspired in us,
in order that he might commend by example what he had uttered
in precept (mor. i. 13. 17). The life and active work of Christ,
as well as his death, are regarded from this point of view (e. g.,
dial. i. ev. i. 18. 4 ; 16. 3 ; ii. 22. 7 f.; 32. 3
9 ; 21.7; mor. ;
xxi. 6. 11; xxviii. 18. 42). The purpose is " That by present-
:
ing a form for imitation, he might change the life of previous

evil-doing" (mor. xxiv. 2. 2).^ Gregory's theory of redemp-
tion follows thus the Western type (Vol. I., pp. 193, 260, 361),
since it understands Christ as essentially the historical power of
goodness in the world, the teacher and exemplar. The idea of
outwitting the devil also appears, it is true, in a terribly realistic
form (cf. Vol. I., pp. 295, 361 n.). But it is a fateful phenom-
enon that Gregory seeks to combine the objective and subjective
aspects of redemption *' Inasmuch as Christ dwelt among us,
:
he both presented before the Father the new humanity and

actually renewed humanity by his stimulating influence " (p. 5).
All the Middle Age theories of the atonement find their proto-
type in Gregory
that of Anselm as well as Abelard's.^
3. In his doctrine of Sin and Grace, Gregory reveals himself
as an Augustinian, or, at least, a Semi-Augustinian.
(iz) The entrance of sin into the world is explained by the
weakness of man (mor. iv. 3. 8).^ The first sin was a free act
of the first man (mor. iii, 14. 26). He surrendered his love to
God, and hence was compelled to depend upon himself and his
own flesh (mor. viii. 10. 19 6. 8); he became afflicted with
;
spiritual blindness (mor. viii. 30. 49; xi. 43. 59; ix. 33. 50)
and spiritual death. '* Man the sinner dies in sin, is deprived
of righteousness, consumed in punishment " (mor. xii. 6. 9).*

Through Adam all have become sinners (mor. iv. 27. 53 ; ep. vii.
14 : We come to this life with merit {cum inerito) of our death
* * '
*
(mor. iv. 24. 45). This is effected through the medium of

conception. *' For conception itself is impurity on account of its
^ Gregory often emphasizes the ideas of example and imitation in treating of

the mutual relations among men, e. g.^ Ez. ii. 3. 20 10. 18 ;ev. ii. 31. 4 ; ;
38. 15 ;mor. x. 6. 9. Vid. especially xv. 51. 57, where the sin of children is
explained as an imitation of the sin of the parents.
2 Even the mystic view of Bernard is not foreign to him, e.
g., Ez. ii. 1. 16 :
'* Meditating
upon his passion with anxious reflection " mor. xxxi. 52. 104
; :
"Because the hearers are by no means able to understand the secrets of his
divinity, they are content to recognize the blood of the crucified Lord."
^ Lau, p.
376, has sought to find in mor. xii. 15. 19 and ix. 49. 73 the be-
ginnings of the donum superaddituni ; but in this he is in error. Vid. mor.
xxiv. 7. 13 ; viii. 6. 8.
* Vid. in mor, xxxi. 45. 87 ff. the seven principal vices : inanis gloria,
invidia, ira, tristitia, ventris ingluvies, avaritia, luxuria. Cf. Vol. I., p. 313 n.
carnal delight " (mor. xi. 52. 70 ; xviii. 52. 84). And *f Because :
the human race became corrupt {putruit^ in its first parent as

in its root, it has carried out its barrenness (âriditatejii) into its
branches*' (ep. ix. 52, p. 970; cf. mor. xvii. 15. 21). As be-
tween Creationism and Traducianism, Gregory, like Augustine
(Vol. I., pp. 344, 377), declines to decide (ep. ix. 52, p. 970),
The consequence of Adam's sin as thus inherited is the damna-
tion of unbaptized children dying in infancy (mor. ix. 21. 32 ;
XV. 51. 57). This has an Augustinian sound/ but Gregory can-
not make serious practical application of such ideas. For him
sin is still always only weakness and disease. *^ We are born with
implanted defect of infirmity" (mor. viii. 6. 8). Accordingly,
he describes the human race in its natural state as *'this one :
great and sick of very great infirmity this is the human race
lying languid throughout the whole world " (mor. xviii. 45. 73 ;
cf. xxi. 7. 12). Yet, with all this, freedom (but not goodness)
of the will seems to remain for the natural man (Ez. i. 9. 2):
*
prevenient grace had transformed the free will in him to a good
'
will." Cf. mor. xxxiii. 21. 39; xvi. 25. 30.

{F) In the doctrine of grace also we find a similar emaciated
Augustinianism. Gregory emphasizes the fact that without grace
there can be no salvation, no human merits (mor. xxxiii. 21. 38 ;
xviii. 40. 62 Ez. i, 10. 45).

; Only grace as preveniens and
subsequens makes us capable of goodness. Grace, therefore,
begins the work: '* Celestial piety in advance (/r/z^j-) effects
something in us without our agency {^sine nobis'), so that subse-
quently it may also effect with us by our free will the good which
we now seek " (mor. xvi. 25. 30). Prevenient grace works in
us the willing of the good subsequent grace, that we are able to
\
do the good (mor. xxii. 9. 20). In the latter, the will now be-
'* For the good which we do is
comes a good will, co-operates.
both of God and of ourselves, of God through prevenient grace,
of ourselves through obedient freewill " fmor. xxxiii. 31. 40; xxiv.
10. 24 xviii. 40. 63). The first thing effected in man by grace
;
is faith (mor. ii. 46. 71), as an acceptance of the doctrinal

teaching of the church (dial. iv. i *'that we should believe
:
the things which we cannot yet know by experience ") This .
beginning is effected through baptism, which works faith and for-

gives the guilt of antecedent sins, particularly of original sin(Ez.
ii, 10. 7; ev. i. 10. 7; mor. ix. 34. 54; xvi. 51. 57; xviii. 53.^ 87).
The next step in the process is the imparting of the good will, or
love {gratia spiritus infusi, mor. xxx. 6. 22; ?nunus mfusunij ib.
1 Augustinian, too, is the idea: **Evil is without substance" (Mai. xxvi.

37. 68; iii. 9. 15).
1.5). This is accomplished by the preaching of the woid. A

sharp discrimination is here observed between the outward, aud-
ible, and the inward, divine word (mor. xxix. 24. 49). Through
this inward speaking of the word occurs the inspiratio or aspiratio
gratiae (mor. xxx. i. 4. 5 ; xi. 9. 12 ; xviii. 40. 63) and through
it the good will (bonum velle), or love, is wrought (mor. xxii. 9.
'* For to hear the voice of the Spirit is
20 ; Ez. i. 9. 2 ; 7. 16).
to mount up by the power of deep inward compunction to love of
the invisible Creator'' (mor. xxvii. 21. 41). Thus, after faith
comes love (Ez. ii. 4. 13). This is thoroughly Augustinian
(Vol. I., p. 347 ff.); but how wavering Gregory is upon this
point is manifest from such assertions as the following "For :
the commandments of the Lord are called justifications (Ps. 19.

92 J, in which he by correcting justifies us " (Ez. i. 7. 16; alsoii.
10. 5).^ According to this, grace would consist in the giving of
the commandments ; and such is accordingly the view of Faustus.
And it is to be observed that Gregory, in keeping with this,
lays great stress upon man's co-operation. Thus place is found
for the merit (^merituni) of man in connection with the idea of
reward. If we ourselves co-operate in striving after the good,
then "That which is a gift of the omniponent God becomes
:
our merit" (Ez. i. 9. 2; ii. 4. 6; mor. xvi. 25. 30; xviii. 40. 63;
xxxiii. 21. 40). In the same line is Gregory's assertion that
man can do more than is commanded (mor. xv. 18. 20 ; xxvi.
27- 51)-
((t) The
doctrine of Predestination is retained only in form.
The of grace appears to be taught (mor. xi. 9. 13 ;
irresistibility
cf. Ez. ii. I. 13), but it is denied in mor. xxx. i. 5. So, likewise,
predestination is taught as a "secret counsel*' (mor. xviii. 26.
43) in connection with the " certain and definite number of the
elect" (mor. xxv. 8. 20; Ez. ii. i. 11); but it is, after all,
only a result of omniscience "Whom
he calls also elect (Matt.
:
24. 24), because he perceives that they will persist in faith and
good works" (Ez. i. 9. 8; mor. xxv. 8. 19; xviii. 29. 46). The
idea is, therefore, that there is a definite number of men whom
God appoints to salvation, because he knows in advance that
they will accept it. But no one is able to pronounce a certain
judgment as to his own election or that of any other person (ev.
ii. 38. 14; mor. xxv. 8. 19 ff-; xxiv. 11. 32).^ Here, too, Gregory
wavers, and it is evident that predestination has no important
place in his religious convictions.
* I know of no other reference \.o justification in Gregory's writings.

2 But z/zV. Ez. ii. 5. 22: "but one sign of election is the firmness (soliditas)
of love."
{d) Following the course of the Christian life/ as depicted by-

Gregory, we find it interrupted by many sins. God is thereby
offended, but man must ''abstain even from some things lawful,
until by this he may make satisfaction to his Creator
'
in order '
that his sin may be forgiven him (ev. ii. 34. 15 ff.)- This is
repentance. It embraces first of all compunctio^ or cofitritio^
i. e., contrition, mourning, penitence (mor. xxiii. 21. 40; xvi.
29, 36). This is effected either through fear of the merited
punishment, or through the flame of love and longing for the
heavenly fatherland (Ez. ii. 10. 20 f. dial. iii. 34 mor. xxiv. 6. ; ;
10). Secret sins in the thoughts are washed away by the sin-
ner's tears of penitence and his good works (mor. ix. 55. 83 f. ).
But in the case of public repentance, there follows a confessiofi
of sins (mor. viii. 21. 37 xxii. 15. 31 xxxi. 46. 93).
; When ;
grace has accomplished this, absolution is granted *' Whom

the :
omnipotent God visits through the gX3.ceoi compuncliOy them the

declaration of the pastor absolves " (ev. ii. 26.6). Butthe'^pas-
tors of the church " also lay a penalty {ôena) upon those who
thus publicly confess their guilt. ^ This is the satisfaction v^hich.
the sinner renders to God by abstaining from that which is other-
wise allowable (vid. supra and reg. past. iii. 30; opp. ii. 87).
Thus the sinner secures forgiveness from God, who takes the
offering or gift {munus') for the offense {culpa') (dial. iv. 60).
We have here essentially the fundamental elements of the Romish
sacrament of repentance (cf. Vol. L, pp. 177 f., 195 f., 363 f.).
** For there are three things
to be considered in every one truly
penitent, /. e., the change of the mind, the confession of the
mouth, and the punishments of the sin (^conversio mentis^ con-
'
'
peccati (in i reg. vi. 2. 33).'*

fessio oris, et vindicta
(^) In closest connection with the above stand Gregory's
views upon the Sacrifice of the Mass and Purgatory. The whole
significance of the Lord's Supper is found in the sacrifice of the
mass. He maintains the real presence of the body of Christ
(ev. i. 14. I ; 22. 7 ; also Libr. sacr. post. Theoph. dom. v.
praef. opp. iii. 27). But the principal thing is that the appeas-
* Upon the division of Christian life into active and contemplative^ vid. e.g.^ ,
mor. vi. 37. 57-61 ; xxxi. 25. 49; Ez. ii. 2. 2ff. (=Martha and Mary); reg.
past. i. 7. For a portrayal of the ideal of the Christian life, e. g., Ez. i. 10. 9.
2 The
injunction is given '* But let those
:who preside show themselves to
be such that those subject to them may not blush to make known to them even
their secret" (sins) (reg. past. ii. 5. opp. ii. ig).
^ The execution of the punishments [vindicta) constitutes the satisfactioy as
is evident from ep. ix. 52, p. 968 f.

* Vid. also the compulsory penitence [Zwangsbzisse) of clericals, monks,
and nuns, e. g ep. i. 44, p. 537 f.; iv. 9.
ing wafer {hostia placationis^) be so presented^ that the sacrifice

** For as often as we offer to him
of Christ for us be repeated :
the hostia of the passion, so often do we renew {reparamus') his

passion to ourselves for our absolution/' and that the church
may have in it a means of influencing God in addition to prayer
and alms (ev. ii. 27. 7-9; dial. iv. 58). There has thereby
been given to the church a means of enchantment, which may
be of great service, e.g., breaking chains and extending help to
the shipwrecked (dial. iv. 57). But it is, above all, an effectual
means of bringing help to the souls of the departed. '^ That for
certain light offenses there is to ht d. purgatorialfire hîoxî^^

judgment," is to be believed, according to Matt. 12. 31 i Cor. ;
3. 12 ff. (cf. Vol. I., pp. 159, 197 n., 363). Some sins can,
accordingly, be forgiven in that world (dial. iv. 39). The sac-
rifice of the mass is particularly efficacious for this purpose, free-
ing souls from purgatory (ib. iv. 55).^
4. We must yet glance at Gregory's conception of the Church.
" The present church is called the kingdom of heaven for the
congregation of the saints is said to be the kingdom of heaven "
(ev. ii. 38. 2 32. 6 ; mor. xxxiii. 18. 34).
\
The church is the
kingdom, but primarily limited to the ecclesiajustoriDn^ /. r., the
elect (vid. mor. xxv. 8. 21). The *'one, holy universal
church " embraces angels and men
men from the time of Abel
onward, all believers of the old covenant belonging to it (Ez. i.
8. 28; ii. 3. 17; ev. i. 19. i).^ In its concrete form, like its pro-
totype, the ark, it embraces clean and unclean. ** In this church,
therefore, there can be neither the evil without the good, nor the
good without the evil" (ev. ii.38. 7 f. ; Ez. ii. 4. i6f. ). But only in
the church are truth and love to be found, only in it salvation
* Dial. iv. 58:

" Living in himself immortally and incorruptibly, he is for
us again immolated in this mystery of sacred oblation. For there his body is
taken, his flesh is broken for the salvation of the people, his blood is poured
now into the hands of unbelievers, but into the mouths of
out, not believers.
Hence we consider what is the nature i^qualitas) of this sacrifice for us, which
always repeats [ijnitatur) for our absolution the passion of the Only-begotten.
For who of the believing can have a doubt that in the very hour of the immo-
lation the heavens are opened at the voice of the priest, that the choirs of
angels are present in that mystery of Jesus Christ, that the lowest things are
associated with the highest ? " Also ev. ii. 37. 7. " The host offered with
the tears and benignity of the sacred altar pleads in a peculiar way for our ab-
solution, because he who, arising by his own power, now dies no more,
through it in his mystery suffers again for us." Then follows the sentence
above quoted.
'^
The fourth book of the Dialogue treats exhaustively of conditions in the
other world. Vid. especially its conception of the bridge (iv. 36).
^ Membership in the church is conditioned upon faith in the Trinity, and
this the Old Testament believers possessed. Ez. ii. 4. 4, 7, 10 3. 16 ; mor.

;
xxix. 31. 70.

(mor. XXXV. 8. 13). The holy

universal church proclaims that
God cannot, except within
be truly worshiped, asserting that
it,
all who are without its bounds will by no means be saved (mor.
xiv. V. 5; ep. xi. 46). Only the church's sacrifice avails; only
its members are in the valid bond (^compages) of love only is its ;
martyrdom meritorious (mor. xxxv. 8. 12; xviii. 26. 40). Sep-

aration from the church proves lack of love (mor. xviii, 26. 41 f.).
But everything upon which the necessity of the church to salva-
'
tion depends lies in the hands of the '* officers (rulers, 7'egentes,
'
and subjects, subditi, mor. xxx. 6. 23; iv. 31. 61; reg. past. ii.
6; in reg. vi. 2. 21). Binding and loosing are prerogatives of
the clericals. And whether the pastor binds justly or unjustly,
'
'
nevertheless the pastor's declaration (^sententia) must be revered

by the multitude " (ev. ii. 26. 5 f.). They watch over the lives
of those under them (^subditi)^ lead them to repentance, dis-
pense absolution (mor. xi. 14. 22; xiii. 18. 21 dial. ii. 23),
;
present the sacrifice, etc. For the accomplishment of her work,

the church lays claim to the aid of the unchristianized state.
'*
The holy church, because she is not sufficient in her own
strength, seeks the assistance of that rhinoceros" (Job 39. 9J,
/. e.^ the prince of this world (mor. xxxi. 5. 7),
5. If we compare the Christianity of Gregory with that of

Augustine, we reach a remarkable result. Almost everything"
in Gregory has its roots in the teaching of Augustine, and
yet scarcely anything is really Augustinian. That which
was un-Aagustinian in Augustine becomes the vital element of
this Semi-augustinian. The fundamental spirit of Augustine has
vanished, and superstition gained supremacy. Everything is
coarser, more fixed, and ordinary. ^ The controlling motive is not
the peace of the heart which finds rest in God but the fear of
;
uncertainty, which seeks to attain security through the institu-

tions of the church. *' For thus the holy church, in the course
of her preaching to the faithful concerning the piety and right-

eousness of the Redeemer, mingles hope andfear^ in order that
they may neither incautiously trust in his mercy nor in despair
fear his righteousness " (mor. xx. 5. 13). There are some rays
of light in this dark picture {e. g.j the initiative of grace, the
emphasis laid upon preaching, incidental remarks touching the
nature of the church); but the crude Christianity, which is its
characteristic, overshadows them with its sacramental magic, its
ghostly miracles, its priestcraft, its superficial conception of sin,
and its intoning of merit and reward. And even where Gre-
^ Cf. the opinion of Melanchthon " Gregory, whom they call the Great,
:
T call the dancer and torch-bearer of the theology now passing away " (Corp.
Ref. xi. 16).
ADOPTIONIST CONTROVERSY. 27
gory's teaching was, in itself considered, more correct than that

of Augustine, as upon predestination, the better was, as matters
then stood, arrayed against the good. Such is the form in which
the legacy of Augustine was preserved to the church even thus
a rich inheritance.
CHAPTER IL
DOCTRINAL CONFLICTS OF THE EARLIER MIDDLE AGES.
37. Adoptionist Controversy.

Sources. The letters of Eupandus, Espana sagrada v. 524 ff. Migne
Lat. 96. Etherii et Bead adv. Elipandum, 11. 2. Alcuinus adv. Elipandum ;
adv. Eelicem (Opp. ed. Frobenius, 1777, and Migne 100, loi). Paulinus, U.
3, c.Felicem, Migne 99. Benedict of Aniane, Testimoniorum nubecula,
Migne 103. Agobard, Liber adv. dogma Felicis, Migne 104. Cf. Mansi
xii., xiii. Gams, KG. Spaniens, ii. 2, p. 261 ff. Hefele, CG. iii., ed. 2,
642 ff. Werner, Alkuin, 1881, p. 54 ff. Moller, PRE. i., ed. 3, i8off.
Grossler, Ueber die Ausrottg. des Adopt, ira Reich Karls des Gr., 1879
(Jahresbericht d. Gymn. zuEisleben). Hauck, KG. Deutschlands ii., 251 ff.
Bach, DG. des MA. i., p. 103 ff. Thumasius-Seeberg, DG. ii., 15 ff.
Harnack, DG, iii. 248 ff.
The great Renaissance of the Carlovingian age was of the

profoundest significance for Church History. Its results for the
History of Doctrines were comparatively small. So great de-
pendence was placed upon antiquity that no advance was made
in dogmatics beyond the interpretation of the Fathers. This is
attested by all the controversies of the age, which were essen-
tially disputes about misunderstandings of the accepted teachers
of the church.
I. In Spain, a crude attempt was made by a certain Migetius
to solve the problem of the Trinity. God, he affirmed, has re-

vealed himself in a three-fold form as the Father in David, as
:
the Son in Christ, as the Holy Ghost in Paul (Elip. ad Miget. 3.

Esp. sagr. v. 526). He was opposed by the aged bishop, Eli-
PANDUS OF Toledo. His Christological theory was championed
especially by Bishop Felix of Urgellis. The watchwords,
adoptio, filius adoptivns, are taken from the Spanish so-called
Mozarabic liturgy { per adoptivi hominis passioncm ; adoptivi hovi-
i?iis vestimentum carnis, etc. Vid. Hlfele, iii. 651, and also
Hauck ii. 257 n.). The theory was that Christ, as the second
person of the Trinity, was the '^ only-begotten of the Father
but that the Son of God assumed, or
'
without adoption ; '

adopted, the Son of man, who is thus adoptivus and called God
(Alcuini opp. ii. 568. Esp. sagr. v. 536. Gallandi xiii. 407.
Ale. adv. Fel. i. i ). The unity of person is thought to be pre-
served in this process, inasmuch as, from the time of his concep-
tion, the Son of man was taken up into the unity of the person
of the Son of God (Ale. 1. c. v. i). He suffered, indeed, only as
the adopted (âdoptivus') man and was buried in his '* adopted
flesh" only (Elip. iv. 16; Mi. xcvi. 879). The doctrinal
type of the Adoptionists is in the line of the Western Chris-
tology, which aimed to secure fuller recognition of the humanity
of Jesus. ^ They proved the necessity of this upon religious
grounds, adducing the resemblance of believers to Christ, their
relations to him as members of his body, and his human charac-
ter (Ale. c. Fel. ii. 4. 14; v. 9; Paulin. iii. 3, 4). Only if an
actual man should, with his untainted blood, blot out the deadly
handwriting, could we become free from bondage (Elip. ep. 4.
14; Mi. 96. 878. As every man is according to the flesh
born from Adam, so everyone obtains the ^* grace of adoption,"
who receives it in Christ, the second Adam, born of the virgin
(Ale. adv. Fel. ii. 16, also Agob. adv. dogm. Fel. 37). This
theory was not really Nestorian, but it was possible to deduce
from it consequences which led in that direction. It is scarcely
justifiable, therefore, to attribute it to the influence of oriental
Nestorians Gams, ii. 2, p. 264^).
{c. g.^ ** Adoptionism is
to be accounted for by the continued influence of old religious

theories, the dependence upon ecclesiastical formulas, and the
defective theological culture " (Hauck, ii., p. 258n.).
2. This doctrine was vigorously assailed by the Asturians,
Beatus and Etherius then particularly by the Frankish
;
church. Among its literary opponents the most prominent was

Alcuin. The charge against the Spaniards was that they
first
are led to teach a double person {altei- et alter)', *' Just as the
Nestorian impiety divided Christ into two Persons on account of
the two natures, . so also your untaught temerity divides him
.
into two Sons, one a true and the other an adopted Son " (Ale.
adv. Fel. i. 11). Attention was then called to the inconsistency
of Adoptionism with the teaching of the Fathers and the church.^
These attempted refutations display a remarkably defective con-
1 Assuvitio illim ho minis ; verhim habens hominem, says Augustine (Vol.

I., pp. 260 n., 360. Cf. Hilar, upon Ps. 138. 2. To assume man {^hominem
suscipere) is the standing formula in the Spanish Confession (vid. Hahn, Bibl.
d. Symbole, ed. 3, pp. 211, 236, 237, 245 f.). The Synod of Toledo, A. D.
675, says in regard to the Logos
not the Son of man
*' He is a son by na-
ture, not by adoption " (vid. Hahn, p. 243, also Hefele, iii. 1 15).
^ For special instances, vid. Bach, i. ii6fF.
EASTERN CHURCH AND THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES. 29
ception of the real problem at issue. Their authors were con-

tent to rest in the simple thought Christ was God, and as God
:
he has delivered us.^ Yet they understood that *'In the as- :
sumption of the flesh by God, the person, not the nature, of the
man perishes" (Ale. adv. Fel. ii. 12). Adoptionism was con-
demned at Regensburg, A. D. 794 ; at Frankfurt, A. D. 794 ;
at Aachen, A. D. 799. Pope Hadrian I. had already rejected it

as Nestorianismand blasphemy (Cod. Carol. 99, p. 294. Mansi,
xiii. 865 ff.). Under Leo III. it was again condemned by a
Roman Council (Mansi, xiii. 1031, probably in A. D. 799).
Nothing was gained as a result of the controversy. The oppo-
nents of the Adoptionists could not refute them because they
were themselves too orthodox to understand them.
38. Eastern Church and the Worship of L7ia,ês. Filioqiie

Controversy.
LiBRi Carolini, ed. Heumann, 1731 ; in Migne, 98. 999 ff. Alcuin, de
processione spiritus sancti, Migne, loi, 63 ff. Hefele, CG. iii., ed. 2, 694 ff.,
749 ff. Hauck, kg., Deutschl.ii. 276 ff., 299 ff.
I During the controversies concerning images, the popes arrayed

.
themselves on the side of the image-worshipers (Vol. I., p. 304).

The Prankish church had assumed the same position. Delegates
of Pope Hadrian had taken part in the Council at Nice, A. D.
787, and it had not been thought necessary to take special
measures to protect the Frankish church. But Charlemagne
took hand in the controversy. The Libri Carolini contain a
keen criticism of the worship of images. God alone, they de-
clare, is to be adored and worshiped {âdorandus et colendus);
the saints are only to be venerated {venerandi). Images, on
the other hand, are only ornamental objects and reminders. It
is, therefore, folly to render them worship. The Council of A.
D. 754, which was hostile to image-worship, and the Council of
Nice were both pronounced infamous and most incompetent {inep-
tisstmae). No attention whatever was given, it is true, to the dis-
tinction between veneration (7zpo(}X')vr,(jfi) and worship {laTpeia),
the former word having been represented by the term adoratio in
the Latin translation of the acts of the Council which was for-
warded to Charlemagne. Accordingly, the second canon of the
Council of Frankfurt, A. D. 794, decided that all adoratio and
servitus are to be withheld from images, and that the Nicene
Council is to be condemned (Mansi, xiii. 909).
'
It is possible that, as Hauck maintains (ii.,pp. 268, 271, 275), the Ger-
manic conception of Christ as the rich God, our God, had something to do with
this.
;
2. The Augustinian theology, as is well known, teaches the

procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Vol. I.,
p. 239 f.). The formula, a patre Jilioqtte procedens, first meets
us, excepting in the Athanasian Creed (Vol. I., p. 241), in Leo I.
(ep. 15. 1 de utroque processit, in opposition to Priscillian's
\
Sabellianism, e. g,, tract i); then in the confession of faith of a

Council at Toledo (in Hahn, ed. 3, p. 210, probably about A.
D. 444); also in the confession of Reccared and the Gothic
bishops (A. D. 589, Hahn, p. 232 f.); in Gregory the Great
(p. 4); and in A. D. 633, 638, and 675, in confessions of
Toledo (Hahn, p. 236, 237, 243). From Spain the term
reached the Franks. A council at Gentilly, so early as A. D.
767, appears to have pronounced in its favor (Hefele, iii. 432).
In the Confession of Reccared it already appears inserted in the
Constantinopolitan Creed (Hefele, iii. 48). In this enlarged
form, the confession was used under Charlemagne in the Frankish
church. Certain Frankish monks were called to account for this
at Jerusalem. As Charlemagne had, at an earlier day, instructed
his theologians to advocate the filioque (Alcuin, de processione
spiritu sancto; Mi. loi. Libri Carol, iii. 3., p. 269 ff.), soTheo-
DULF OF Orleans now wrote a defense of it (de spiritu sancto
Mi. 105, 239 ff.), and the Council at Aachen, A. D. 809,
adopted the doctrine and, most probably, also the term itself.
But Pope Leo III. opposed, not indeed the doctrinal position,
but the unauthorized enlargement of the symbol (Mansi, xiv.
1 9 ff. ) The latter, however, despite the opposition, main-
.
tained its place even at Rome.
39. Controversy Upon Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination,
Sources. Gottschalk's (f A. D. 868) utterances upon the subject are

collected in Migne, 121, 345 ff. Vid. further especially Rabanus, the let-
ters to Noting, Eberard, and Hincmar in Migne, 112. Hincmar, de
praedest. dei et lib. arb., Migne, 125. JoH. ScoTUS Erigena, de diy.
praedest., Migne, 122. Florus, sermo de praed., Migne, 119. Amolo in
the Bibl. max. patr. xiv. For Gottschalk, Remigius, de tribus epistolis
and Libell. de tenenda immobiliter scripturae veritate, Migne, 121. Pruden-
Tius, ep. ad. Hincm., Migne, 115. Servatus Lupus, libell. de tribus
quaestionibus, Migne, 1 19. Ratramnus de praedest., Migne, 121. Mau-
guin published a collection : Vet. auctor. qui sec. ix. de praed. scrips, opera
1650; cf. Hefele, CG., iv., ed. 2, 130 ff. Borrasch, der Monch Gottsch.,
1868. ScHRdRS, Hincmar, 1884. J. Weiszacker in Jahrbb. f. deutsche
Theol., 1859, p. 527 ff. Bach, DG. des MA. i. 220 ff. Reuter, Gesch. d.
rel. Aufkiarung im MA., 1875, i. 43 ff. Thomasius-Seeberg, DG., ii. 24ff.
Harnack, DG., iii. 261 ff.
I. Augustine had incidentally spoken of a double predestina-

** Pre-
tion (Vol. I., p. 352 n.). Isidore of Seville yet wrote :
CONTROVERSY UPON PREDESTINATION. 3I
destination is two-fold, either of the elect to (heavenly) rest, or

of the wicked to death " (Sentent. ii. 6). But in this also the
Augustinians of the Carlovingian age understood their master in
the same sense as had Gregory the Great (cf. p. 22). Then arose
a man who, in a checkered career, had found peace for his soul
in the Augustinian doctrine of election (Mi. 121, 362 and
363). The monk, Gottschalk of Orbais, had met with the
writings of Augustine, although he did not have the whole Au-
gustine. His thought and emotions centered in the unchange-
able God, who, of his own good will, elects men or rejects them.
This ** most salutary truth "was his strength and stay. Repaid
no attention to the ecclesiastical machinery, the system of good
works (** not by merits, indeed, but by the gift of the Father,"
Mi. 121, 372). ''Just as the immutable God before the
foundation of the world through his gratuitous grace immutably
predestinated all his elect to eternal life ; so in like manner all the
reprobate who will in the day of judgment be condemned on
account of their evil deserts has this same immutable God
through his righteous judgment immutably predestinated to
death justly everlasting" (in Hincm. de praed. 5). God has
not foreordained the evil, but the immutable God has ordained
salvation for the one class and them for salvation
a gift of
grace (^beneficiuni gratiae')
and for others through a decision
of justice (^judicium jiistitiae)^ the merited punishment, and
them for it (Mi. 121, 350). Each of these is a good act
{bonum^ ib. 358). Hence it is said that God ''has predes-
tinated only good things {bona, ib. 349). This cannot be based
upon the divine prescience, since God would then be mutable
and dependent upon the temporal (Mi. 121, 353). Presci-
ence merely accompanies praedestination ; by it the justice of
the latter is attested. With Augustine, Gottschalk regarded the
redemptive work of Christ as having reference only to the pre-
destinated (Hincm., de praed. 27, 29, 34, 35, and Mi. 121.
367, 372). That this is genuine Augustinian doctrine cannot be
questioned. It became the criterion for the " Augustinianism
"
of the period.^
2. Gottschalk's opponents did not understand him. They
pressed home upon him, as the "destroyer of the faith," the
familiar brutal consequence :
" God makes man sin against his
will," and is the author of evil, as, e. g., Rabanus, to whose
attention the matter was brought by Noting of Verona. At
first
Mayence, A.D. 848, Gottschalk's doctrine was condemned and he
Êven the expression, trina unions (Mi. I2i, 364) employed by Gotts-
which harmonizes with the Augustinian conception, was assailed by
chalk,
Hincmar de una et non trina deitate ; cf. Hefele, iv. 220 f.
:
himself delivered for punishment to Hincmar, in whose district

his cloister lay. At Chiersy, A, D. 849, he was terribly
scourged and condemned to life-long imprisonment.
3. But the matter now only assumed wider dimensions. In-
fluential theologians, such as Prudentius of Troyes, Remigius
of Lyons, Ratramnus in Corbie, Servatus Lupus in Ferrieres,
defended the theory of a two-fold (^gemina) predestination as the
Augustinian doctrine, while, on the other hand, Rabanus and
HiNCMAR further assailed it.^ Amolo and Florus agister M
pointed to its disastrous consequences. There was a possibility
of reconciliation between these opponents, for they were con-
tending more or less about words but the controversy between
;
Gottschalk and his adversaries could not be compromised, for

he was an Augustinian and they were Semi-augustinians. Such,
indeed, were also Gottschalk's defenders at heart. Between
them and his opponents the final contention was only in regard
to formulas. The latter would apply the concept of predestina-
tion only to the election to life, and base reprobation upon pre-
science (Hincm., de praed. 16; Mi. 125. 424; Raban., Mi. 112,
155)5 the former spoke, with Augustine, of a double predestina-
tion, but likewise based reprobation upon prescience. But both
agreed that the baptized and believers are predestinated, which
Gottschalk denied. The controlling consideration for the

former but no less for the latter -was that of the dangerous
consequences for the church involved in the strict theory of pre-
destination. The sacraments would thus be robbed of their
value, becoming a mere form and trifling ; the motive to good
works, /. ?., the thought of rewards and punishment, would be
removed, and thus the moral life, as they understood it, would
be destroyed. The terrible bugbear of the predestination sect is
exposed for the execration of the age (Amolo bibl. max. xiv.
333 f. Raban., Mi. 112. 1554, 1562. Hincm.,de praed. 2.
15, 18 ff., 24 ff. The 5th Canon of Valence in Hefele iv. 195 ;
cf. Bach 235 ff. ).

i., Kurz says *' The spirit of Gregory for
:
the first time joined issue with the spirit of Augustine, and it
carried the day." The will of man has been wounded by sin.
When grace heals it, it is free to perform good works. Hincmar
asserts, with Gregory, that the good (which we do) is ours and
God's '* God's, through prevenient grace ; ours, through obedi-
:
ent free will'* (de praed. 37. 21).
^ Scotus Erigena also, though in his own way, opposed Gottschalk : Sin
and punishment are nonentities, and as such cannot be objects of the divine
will, and hence there is only one predestination, /. e., to life. His contem-
poraries do not seem to have fully understood him, but they suspected his
criticism as an "invention of the devil " (Flor. Mag., Mi. 119, loi).
PARTURITION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 33
4. The decisions rendered at the two Councils of Chiersy and

Valence, A. D. 853, were in harmony with these vicavs. The
four chapters of Chiersy accurately reproduce Hincmar's position,
(i) The race became through the fall a massa perditionis.
**
But a good and just God elected from this same mass of perdi-
tion according to his prescience those whom he through grace
predestinated to life, and predestinated eternal life to them. He
foreknew that the others, whom by the judgment of righteous-
ness he left in the mass of perdition, would perish ; but he did
not predestinate that they should perish, but because he is just he
predestinated to them eternal punishment. Hence, they ac-
knowledge but one predestination. (2) Grace has made our
will (ârbitriuni) free, "by grace set free and by grace healed
from the corrupt state." (3J God wishes all men to be saved :
*'*
that some perish is the desert {inerituni) of those who perish."
(4) Christ died for all. That his death does not set all free " is
the fault of those who are unbelieving, or who do not believe
with the faith that works by love." The Augustinian party at
Valence, on the other hand, adopted the following statement :
" We confess a predestination of the elect to life, and a predes-

tination of the wicked to death ; but that, in the election of
those who are to be saved, the mercy oi God precedes good
merit {nieriium boitiini), and in the condemnation of those who
will perish, evil merit {iiieritum malum) precedes the righteous
judgment of God. But that in predestination God has deter-
mined only those things which he himself would do, either from
gratuitous mercy or in righteous judgment But that in the
. . .
wicked he foreknew the wickedness because it comes from them ;

and did not predestinate it, because it does not come from him."
Those are condemned who think that *' some are predestinated
to evil by divine power, i. e.j so that, as it were, they cannot be
anything else." The work of Christ is held to apply to all who
believe on him.' At Toucy, A. D. 860, the controversy was
abandoned without any decision having been reached (Hefele,
iv. 217 f ). No decision was needed after Gottschalk was re-
moved from the field.
40. Divergent Views Upon Parturition of the Virgin Alary.
Sources. Ratramnus, de eoquodChr. ex virg. natus est, Migne, 121.

Radbertus Paschasius, de partu virginis, Migne, 120. Cf. Bach, DG. i..
152 ff. Steitz, pre. xii. 482f.
Various views were expressed during this period in regard to the
^These declarations were repeated at Langres, A. D. 859, when they seem

to have been confirmed by Nicholas I. Vid. Moller, PRE. v. 327.
;
partus virginis, which attest the growing disposition toward the

worship of Mary. Ratramnus taught that the corporeal virginity
was, indeed, preserved before, in, and after the birth of Christ
but that he nevertheless entered the world by way of birth,
through a being born {nasci), but not through a being brought
forth {eriimpi). Radbert
explained, in reply to the question of
certain nuns, that it would be presumptuous
to say that Christ
was born according to the common law of nature. Such partu-
rition rests under the curse of sin, and the ** authority of the
church," upon the contrary, teaches through the universal
{ubique ab omnibus) worship of Mary that she remained free from
sin in the womb, and, therefore, entered the world without sin
(Mi. I20, p. i37if.).^ Yet this was by no means a universally
accepted doctrine. Anselm still spoke of the original sin of the
Virgin (cur deus homo? ii. i6).
41. Controversies Upon the Lora' s Supper.
Sources. Of the writings of Radbertus Paschasius, vid. Liber de

corpore et sanguine domini (A. D. 831) and his commentary on Matt. xxvi.
Mi. 120. Ratramnus, de corpore et sanguine domini, Mi. 121. Cf. Steitz,
PRE. xii. 474 ff., 535 ff. RiJCKERT, der abendmalsstreit des MA. in Ztschr. f.
wiss. Theol. 1858, p. 22 ff. Dieckhoff, Ev. Abendmalsl. im Ref. Ztalter,
1851, p. 13 ff. Bach, DG. i., i59ff. Thomasius-Seeberg, DG. ii., 33ff.
Harnack, DG. iii., 275 ff. Ernst, d. Lehre d. h. Pasch. R. v. d. Eucha-
ristie, 1896.
I. The Ancient Church produced no dogma of the Lord's

Supper. Two methods of presenting the subject are found side
by side without any attempt at discrimination. They are com-
monly spoken of as the 7netabolic and the symbolic views (Vol.
I., pp. 196, 301, 323). Pope Gelasius I. taught that ''the
substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to exist,
although the elements, the Holy Spirit perfecting them, pass
over (transeajif) into a divine substance, as was the case with.
Christ himself. And certainly the image and likeness {imago et
similitudo') are honored {celebrantur') in the observance {actione')
of the mysteries" (de duabus naturis in Christo, Thiel. Ep.
pontif. p. 541 f.).
,
The theologians of the Carlovingian period,
as Augustinians, were fond of emphasizing the symbolic charac-
ter of the ordinance, presenting it as a memorial and a symbol
(vid. ROcKERT, 1. c, pp. 25, 53). On the other hand, as a
result of the growing religious materialism, which found in visi-
ble miracles the characteristic trait of religion, and of the widen-

ing influence of the sacrificial idea, the conception of a transfor-
^ Cf. already Augustine, de nat. et. grat. 36. 42.

CONTROVERSIES UPON THE LORD S SUPPER. 35
mation of the elements became more and more clearly defined.

All manner of miraculous occurrences in connection with the
celebration were related, as that the Christ -child had been seen
at the consecration of the elements in the form of a lamb, and
his appearance had led many a doubting Thomas to faith (Ger-
manus in Martene Thes. anecdot. v. 96, 95. Radbert, c. 14.
Cf Bach, p. 166 ff.). And even the theologians in their tech-
nical discussions spoke of a " consecrating into {consecrare in)
the substance of the body and blood of Christ " (Alcuin, ep. 41,
163, 90, in Mi. 100, 203, 423, 289).
2. A
decisive step was taken in the first monograph upon the
subject which we possess. It was written by a monk of Corbie,
Paschasius Radbertus. In his book, De corpore et sanguine
dominiy the attempt is made to combine the religious concep-
tions of the church at large with the theory of Augustine, as fol-
lows {a) The omnipotent God does whatever he wishes to do.
:
A miracle of divine omnipotence occurs in the Lord's Supper ;

there is a creative act, a creari (4. i 15. i, upon Matt. 26, Mi.
;
895). The God who created Jesus in the womb of the Virgin
without seminal infusion, ^* to-day, through the consecration of
his sacrament by his invisible power, effects {operatur) in the
substance of the bread and wine the flesh and blood of Christ
"
(3. 4). Through this miracle the daily sacrifice for the benefit
of the world is made possible (4. i). The inference is **so :
that, immediately after the consecration of Christ, the true body

and blood are truly believed (8. 2). The body of Christ is,
therefore, really present, and this body is in substance the same
body in which Christ was born, suffered, rose from the dead, and
which he still possesses in heaven (i. 2 ; 4. 3; 21. 9). The
question as to the relation existing between the body now really
and locally present in heaven (in this following Augustine)^ and
the body present at all places in the Lord's Supper, is not dis-
cussed by Radbertus. He speaks of the fruits of the flesh of
Christ, and cites in illustration the multiplying of the loaves and
increase of the meal, oil, etc., in scriptural miracles (7. 2).
'^From which wholesome field (/. e., the body of Christ) the
hving bread of flesh and the drink of blood daily grow abun-
dantly for believers, and are reaped by the faithful" (Ez. 21. 3.
2). According to this, the body is present, and yet there is
present only a something effected by the body. To the objec-
tion, that as a fact that the bread and wine can be recognized as
such by the senses (taste, color, form"), Radbertus replies, that
^ Vid. Vol. I., p. 323 also civ. dei xxii. 29. 4

; ; in Job. tr. 50. 4 ; de agone
chr. 20. 28; serm. ad catech. 4. 11.
the actual eating of body and drinking of blood would be contrary

to human custom, and that, just because of the difficulty in ques-
tion, belief is meritorious (10. i ; 13. i, 2; i- 5 ; 8. i, 2).
The effect of participation consists in a deliverance ** from daily
faults and slight sins " (19. 3), in the testing and confirming of
faith in the presence of the " visible sacrament " (4. 2 ; i. 5),
and in a bodily unification with Christ: ''but even our flesh
also is through it restored to immortality and incorruption " (19.
i; 21. 2). {b) Realistic as this sounds, Radbertus yet moves in
Augustine's sphere of thought when treating of the reception of
the sacrament. He pronounces it a " spiritual thing," which
must be understood in spiritu (5. i). Only those who have
spiritually apprehended Christ receive the body and blood (8. 3 ;
6. 2). To the unbelieving they are only apparently offered.
"Unless through faith and knowledge {inielHgentia), of what
does it taste but of bread and wine to those who eat?" (8. 2).
(ir) This line of thought seems quite out of harmony with the
views noted under (^7) above. Upon the one hand, we receive
actually ''nothing else" than the body and blood of Christ
(20. 3 ; I. 6; 4. 3); on the other hand, it is a spiritual partici-
pation of faith. But we have here to do with a "mystery."
Hence figura and Veritas must be side by side: "because
the sacrament mysterious {j7tysticuni)y we cannot deny that
is
it is a figure ; but if it is a figure, we must inquire how it can
be verity. For every figure is a figure of another thing and

is always referred to that other thing as being the real thing of
which it is a figure." In this case there is z. figure^ in so far as

we have to do with the sacraments as evident to the senses and ;
there is verity in so far as through the word of Christ "the body

and blood of Christ are made {efficitur) from the substance of
the bread and wine." This verity, however, only faith appre-
hends {interius recte intelligitur autcreditur). The relationship is
like that between the outward appearance of Christ and his
divine nature or like that between the letter and the word.
The visible is present in order that we may through faith attain
to the invisible (4. i, 2). The idea of Radbertus is In the
:
Lord's Supper there is both a symbol and a reality. The outward

visible and sensible forms, which remain despite the transforma-
tion, make it a symbol; the body of Christ, which is present, is
the verity. But only he receives the body who believes that it is
offered in these symbolic forms. It is, therefore, through
(meritorious) faith, or the right understanding of this symbol,
that the body is received. Subjectively considered, everything
depends upon the merit of faith and the spiritual understanding
of the ordinance. The latter may thus be considered the prin-
CONrKOVERSIES UPON THE LORO'S SUPPER. 37
cipal thing. We must not overlook, however, the re-enforcement

of the idea of faith with that of merit, and the thoroughly un-
evangelical conception of faith.
3. This book of Radbertus might have been written, in its
principal parts at least, several centuries earlier ; for its leading
ideas are those of the ancient church. It does not lead us be-
yond the obscurity which marked the teaching of the earlier age.
And yet it is of the greatest importance. It is the merit of
Radbertus, that he preserved the eucharist from being entirely
lost inthe sacrifice of the mass, that he attached to its reception
some sort of personal moral effect.^ It is true, upon the other
hand, that his statement of the problem proved portentous
for the development of dogma. Without concerning himself
about the historical circumstances connected with the institu-
tion of the ordinance or about its religious effects, he understands
the words of institution as. a legal charter^ (cf. in Matt., in Mi.
120, 890 f.). But the questions which he raised have never
since ceased to agitate the church. We may find much in the
doctrine to criticize, but we should not forget that the first at-
tempt to formulate these problems might have proved different,
and might easily have been worse.
4. The views of Radbertus met with opposition. Some
thought, he reports (in Matt., p. 890 f. ), that only the efficacy
{virtus^ of the flesh, and not the flesh
only the Jigura, and not
the Veritas
is present in the sacrament. Against these he
maintains his position, appealing to the words of institution
and the fact that the forgiveness of sins is (to be found) only
in the very blood of Christ. A
new turn of thought was
given by Rabanus (vid. ep. ad Egilonem, Mi. 112, 15 10 ff. ).
He too maintains that the true body of Christ is daily created
by divine power potentialiter creatur^ p. 151 2) out of the
{^
* Apart from other considerations, thiis is attested by his assigning to the

all
eucharist a place side of bapiistn and the word
by the :
** For Christ has left
to his church nothing greater in mystery than this and the sacrament of bap-
tism, and also the sacred Scriptures, in all of which the Holy Spirit ... in-
wardly works the mysteries of our salvation unto immortality " (i. 4; cf. Vol.
I., pp. iq6 n., 189, 320 f. ). Upon the number of the sacraments, vid.
3. 2 : *' But the sacraments of Christ in the church are baptism and unction,
and also the body and blood of the Lord." Cf. Agobard, De privil. et jur.
sacerdotii, 15.
^ The external conception of the miraculous element in the sacrament
should not be overlooked. It is in keeping with the general conception of God,
which was, no doubt, largely due to Germanic influences. The doing of
wonders is the chief prerogative of God. Creation is, properly speaking, the
only form of activity that is worthy of him. Everything connected with re-
ligion is miraculous because brought about, or created, by God. God is
power.
.
bread but he denies the absolute identity of the sacramental

;
and the historical Christ. They differ not in nature, but

in the form of their appearance: '* Not indeed in nature
i^naturalite?') but in form (^specialiter'), that body of the Lord
^\^hich is daily . . consecrated from the substance of the
.
bread and wine for the life of the world, and which is . . .
offered by the priest, is one thing, and the body of Christ which
was born of the Virgin Mary and into which the former is
changed, is in form (^specia liter') another thing" (p. 15 14).
Thus an idea of great importance for the future was injected into
the new dogma.
5.Against the view of Radbertus appeared Ratramnus of
Corbie in a publication addressed to Charles the Bold. He un-
dertakes to answer two questions Whether the Lord's Supper
:
contains a mystery which only faith can recognize, and whether

it is the historical body of Christ (5). (a) The bread, he
maintains, remains externally what it is, but, inwardly consid-
ered, it is for faith something higher, heavenly and divine, which
is seen, received, eaten, only by the believing soul (9). There
occurs, indeed, a change into something better {^conimutatio in
melius), but this is to be understood spiritually diud figuratively
'* Under the veil
of the corporeal bread and the corporeal wine,
the spiritual body and the spiritual blood of Christ exist.
'
'Out-
wardly considered, it is bread and wane for the eye of the spirit,
;
it is body and blood (16. 21). " They are figures according to
the visible form ; but according to the invisible substance, /. e.,
the power of the divine word [the Logos] the true body and
,
blood of Christ truly exist" (49). The Lord is spiritually

present through the symbol. '* The Lord is known to be present
in some manner, and that manner is in figure and in image, in

order that the verity may be felt to be the real thing" (84).
This is evidently the view entertained, despite the occasional use
of such ttrms diS converti commutai'i, confici (13, 15, 28, 30, 42,
,
43). {b) The second question Ratramnus answers in the nega-

ative. *'In appearance (^specie) it is bread, but in the sacrament
the true body of Christ" (57)- *' What appears outwardly is
therefore not the thing itself (//^tz res), but an image of the thing
{imago rei) but what is felt and known by the mind is the reality
;
of the thing " {veritas rei) (77. ^^). Therefore bread and cup
are memorial signs, likenesses of that which we spiritually receive
(73 ff., 96, 98 ff. 86, 88). {c) What then does the sacrament be-
,
stow ? The answer can only be :The invisible bread, the spirit of
Christ, the power of the Logos (22, 26, 44, 64, ^'^ f. ). Christ,
the Word, is therefore spiritually imparted to us through the mystic
form of the sacrament. This is the Augustinian view, adapted to
CONTROVERSIES UPON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 39
meet the statement of the problem by Radbertus. The religious

element which it contains, the spiritual fellowship of Christ, can-
not be overlooked. Perhaps Ratramnus would have been able
to furnish a more profound and lucid exposition if the problem
had not been forced upon him from without and the direction of
his thought thus determined for him. The question which he
sought to answer was not, how we apprehend Christ in the Lord's
Supper, but whether the historical body of Christ constitutes the
Lord's Supper.
6. The future belonged to Radbertus, for he had the praxis of
the church upon his side. His theory did not, indeed, as a
theory secure general adoption ; but the Lord's Supper had be-
come a subject of theological discussion, and the theologians of
the age did not get beyond the obscure position of Radbertus.
Some already distinctly taught the theory of transubstantiation,
as HAiMOof Halberstadt (f A. D. 853): *'That the substance,
/. e. of bread and wine
,
that is, the nature of the bread and

wine is substantially changed into another substance {^substan-
tialiter convertatur in aliam substantia??!), viz., into flesh and
blood" (Bach,!. 2i3n.). Others clung to the symbolic view of
Ratramnus, e. g., the author of an anonymous tract (Bach, i.
203 ff. ); **Thou receivest the sacrament indeed in a similitude,
but thou obtainest the grace and efficacy of the real nature " (ib.
205 n. Cf. the ''some " who are said to deny the identity of
the sacramental and the historical body, in a tract^ attributed to
Gerhertj De irorpo?'e et sa??guine d<???2i?iiy Mi. 139, p. 179). Still
others, as the author of the last named tract, called in question
the distinction between ve?'itas and figura (c. 4). Essentially
{naturaliter) the one body of Christ
it is ; in appearance {^spe-
cialite?'') we must discriminate it from the
latter (5). It is a
figura, in so far as we
see the external bread and wine, but a
verity when in truth the body and blood are inwardly believed
(4). The effect of participation is a quickening of our flesh
through the spiritual and bodily substance of Christ for the pur-
pose of its resurrection (9 and 8). It is the position of Raba-
Nus (supra, p. 38) which is here maintained, and it could be
easilycombined with that of Ratramnus. The discussion did not
lead to the final adoption of any form of dogmatic statement.
* Upon the question of its authorship, vid. Hauck, KG. Deutschlands, iii.
302 f.
CHAPTER III,
THE HIERARCHICAL PRINCIPLE. HISTORY OF THE ORDINANCE

OF REPENTANCE.
42. Papacy and Hierarchy.

Sources. Decretales pseudoisidorianae ed. Hinschius, 1863 cf. :
Wasserschleben, pre. xii. 367 ff. Donatio Constantini, especially

edited by Zeumer in d. Festschrift fiir Gneist., 1888. Cf. Friedrich, die
const. Schenkung, 1889, also Krueger in Theol. Litztg., 1889, nn. 17, 18.
Seeberg in Theol. Littbl., 1S90, n. 3-5.
1. To
complete our review of the dogmatic history of the
period, we must (i)
observe in what particular the hierarchical
conception of the Western church was extended and modified,
and (2) note the influence exerted upon the Christianity of the
world by the church through the ordinance of repentance, whose
history we must trace in outline, leaving details to the province
of Church History.
2. Charlemagne wielded supreme authority over the Western
church, and he recognized the primacy of the pope. These two
facts are the roots from which sprung the great conflict between
pope and emperor. This relation was not changed essentially in
principle, but it was changed in fact, under the immediate fol-
lowers of Charlemagne. Especially did Pope Nicholas I. (A.
D. 858-67) assert in unheard-of fashion the claim of papal
power, of dominion over bishops and metropolitans, of authority
over princes and the imperial crown. Although his successors
did not always maintain his position ; although weak and un-
worthy popes, devoid of all political influence, sat after him in
the chair of Peter ; although powerful emperors enforced their
edicts upon the church and made popes prisoners
yet something
remained as a permanent gain to the church. The church in
general believed in the papal idea, and the popes themselves be-
lieved in it. The pope stood, in his sphere as sovereign, on an
equality with the emperor. The kingdom of God stands alongside
of and above the kingdom of the world. This was not changed
when, in A. D. 982, Otto the Great secured the rank of Roman
Emperor. Cf Hauck, KG. Deutschl. iii. 206 ff., 239 ff.
3. How high-strung were the papal claims is attested by the
Donatio Co7istantini^ which appeared about A. D. 754. The
spiritual emperor is here presented in contrast with the secular
emperor, sharing the latter' s glory and dominion, and even de-
manding and receiving service at his hands. To him, as the sue-
.
PAPACY AND HIERARCHY. 41
cessor of the prince of the apostles, belongs the primacy over the

church of the whole world and secular power as well (c. 1 1 ff. )
4. But the hierarchial ideals were carried out to their most
extreme details in the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals. It will be
necessary for us to note scattered utterances occurring in the doc-
ument and gather a general impression from them taken as a
whole. The priestly estate, particularly the bishops, is exalted
in unmeasured terms above the laity. No one should venture to
prosecute them before the law, for it is the prerogative of Christ
alone to pass judgment upon them (Clem. ep. i. 32 f., p. 40.
Anaclet. ep. i. 3, p. 62 f. et pas.). Christ is the head of the
church, '* but the priests act by legation instead of Christ in the
church." And, just as his church is joined to him, so are the
churches joined to the bishops, to everyone according to his
portion (Evarist. ep. 2. 4, p. 90). The bishops open and close
the gates of heaven, and their decision is, therefore, to be
accepted even if they be in error (Clem. ep. i. 39, p. 43).
This applies with especial force to the pope, for it is the Lord's
will that the church at large shall be governed in doctrine and
hfe by the Romish church (Anacl. ep. 3. 34, p. 84; ep. 2. 24,
p. 79. Zephyrin. c. 10, p. 133, etc.). Accordingly, no one but
God or the bishop of Rome can sit in judgment upon a bishop
(Melchiad. ep. i. 2 f., p. 243 et pas.).^ For a fuller discussion
see Thomas. -Seeberg, DG. ii., ed. 2., p. 187 ff. It was thus
definitely settled that the popular catholic conception of the
church should prevail, and not the higher ideal of Augustine,
although the latter was still, as a definition, employed until even
a later period. The church is the hierarchy, or the subjects
(^subditi), who obey the prelates {praelati). It is the province
of the hierarchical state to direct the secular, since its rulers
have the truth and the keys of the kingdom of heaven. There
remained some elements of truth in these theories also, but the
falsehood in them was more potent than the truth.
43. Repentance in Earlier Middle Ages.

Literature. Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen der abendl. Kirche,
1851. Regino, De synodalibus causis et disciplinis ecclesiasticis, 11. 2. ed.
Wasserschleben, 1840. Ps.-Augustin, de vera et falsa poenitentia, Aug. opp.
xvii. i849ff.^ SCHMITZ, DieBussbuecheru. dieBussdisciplind. K. 1883. HiL-
^ The fraudulent tendency, afterward so prominent, is manifest in these

claims (of. the removal of the episcopacy from the jurisdiction of civil and
metropolitan courts). But the chief gain was to the papacy. Nicholas I.
accepted the new theory : **The decretal letters of the Roman pontiff are to
be accepted, although they are not joined to [compaginatae) the codex of
the canons." Mansi Coll. cone. xv. 695.
^ As to the date of this document, vphich Gratian and the Lombard
DEi'RAND, Unters. iiber d. germ. Poenitenzbb., 1851. MORINUS, Comment,

hist, de disciplina in administr. sacr. poenit. Paris, 1651, and Venet. 1702.
Steitz, Das rom, Bussakr. 1854. V. Zezschwitz, System d. kirchl. chri^tl.
Katechetik i. 485 ff. K. Muller, Der Umschwung in d. Lehre v. d. Busse,
warend d. 12 Jahrh., in den Abhandl. f. Weizsacker, 1892, p. 289 ff.
Hauck, kg. Deutschlands, i. 2i2fF., 252f., ii. 223fif., 664 ff. Funk, in
Kirchenlexikon ii. 1561 ff. LooFS, DG., ed. 3, p. 258ff. Moeller, KG.
ii. 105 ff. 206 ff.
,
1. The praxis connected with public repentance in the ancient
church had already in the days of Augustine been to some extent

abridged.^ Upon Germanic territory it had been introduced, both
in the episcopal courts established by Charlemagne and in a strict
{^g-, Regino ii. i. ff ) ecclesiastical form (Morinus, 1, vii, c.
.
2ff. ). But this public process was distasteful to the Germans.

In England it could not be introduced at all (Theodor, Poeni-
tentiale i. 13. 4, p. 197, Wassersch.), and even in the Frankish
empire, despite various admonitions, it constantly lost ground
(Hauck, ii. 224 f.). It became practically limited by the
general adoption of the principle that '^ the repentance of those
whose sins are in public {m publico) should be in public
(Hraban. de clericor. instit. ii. 30 cf. decrees of the Councils of
;
Rheims, Mainz, Chalons, A. D. 813. Hefele, iii. 758, 759, 765 ;
De vera et fals. poen. 11. 26). It was accordingly only gross

actual sins which were regarded as demanding public repentance.
2. The custom of Private Repentance now arose and soon
largely usurped the place of the public ordinance. It was a
form of cloister discipline originating in Ireland and England,
and introduced into the Frankish empire chiefly through Columba
(about A. D. 700), whence it spread to other countries. It
was at first not required, but only urgently recommended
(Counc. of Chalons, 813, c. '^î- Hefele, iii. 765); but as it grew
customary, it became also a positive requirement of the church.
The penitential books gave directions to the clergy for interro-
gating the wrongdoer concerning his sins, and determining the
appropriate works of satisfaction to be performed by him. The
system was certainly not without beneficial results in that age.
The sinner was compelled to scrutinize his whole life in search
of his sins he was induced to look for and to recognize and
;
already cite as Augustinian, vid. MUUer, p. 29.2 ff. 10. 25 seems to prove
that the author was acquainted with the 33d canon of Chalons [K. D. 813).
From various indications I would assign it to the end of the mnth or begin-
ning of the tenth century. Its spuriousness was detected already by the criti-
cal eye of Busch (Erl. ed., 27. 344. Letters i. 34).
1 Vid. Vol. I., p.
364 n. Cf. Aug. serm. 82, 7, 10 f.: ** Those sins are to
be reproved before all which have been committed before all those are to be
;
reproved more secretly which have been more secretly committed." For fur-
ther details, vid. Morin. v. 9.
REPENTANCE IN EARLIER MIDDLE AGES. 43
mourn as sins, not only gross outward offenses, but also the in-
ward evil desire itself(Vinniaus, poen. 2 ff., 17. Columba, poen.
23, 35. Theod. poen. i. 2. 21 f. Halitgar, pt)en., in Morin.
append., p. 8a. Reg. i. 304, p. 147), not only mortal sins, but
their ramifications (Poen. Merseb, Wasserschl., p. 387 ff.
Regino i. 292, 304, p. 146 f. Corrector Burchardi, c. 181, p.
665}.^ And the advice was given, that not onlymortal sins, but
every sin by which God is offended, be confessed to the priest
(Reg. i. 292). If this involves a deepening of the religious life,
it is, on the other hand, closely allied to a lamentable superficial-
ity, as will appear if we examine in detail the practical application

of the system.
3. The following outline of the theory, while keeping private
repentance primarily in view, is applicable also, with such modi-
fications as are involved in the nature of the case, to the public
administration of the ordinance (vid. Morin. vii. i. 21). {a)
The benignant God is offended by sin (de ver. et fals. poen. 8.
20; 14. 29). Venial sins are absolved (gelost) by the use of
the Lord's Prayer (Vol. L, p. 364 n.); mortal sins, through the
fruits of repentance {fnicii4s poenitentiae, de ver. et fals. poen.,
v. 10). It is necessary now to make satisfaction {^satisfacere^
through suitable repentance (^condignam poententiam^ Reg. ii.
429; i. 303 condigna satisfaction
: The satisfaction consists in
.
bearing the penalty *' whatever of punishment I may be able to

:
devise, that may suffice for thee" (de ver. et fals. poen. 2. 4).
Hence, to do penance is to bear penalty (poenitere est pocnam
tenere, ib. xix. 35).^ This penalty consists in sorrow (^dolor) of
heart on account of sin, which should continue throughout life
(doloremcum vita finiat, ib. 13. 28); then in the confessio\iîox^
the priest (or even before a layman), which in itself brings a large
measure of satisfaction (^??iu Uu?n satisfactionis, ih. 10. 25); and,
finally, in the performance of the appointed works of penance.
He who has done, or endured, this is worthy of divine mercy,
since he has rendered satisfaction to the divine righteousness (it
is necessary (ôportei) in order that the righteous One may right-
eously show mercy, ib. 10. 25 ). Reconciliation, therefore, can-

not really occur until after the performance of the works of
penance (vid. Vinn. poen. i. 35. Benedikt Lev. c. i. 116.
Hraban. de cler. inst. ii. 30 ; cf de fals. et ver. poen. 15. 31).
* Vid., t.
g., the confessional formula in Reg. i. 304, p. 147 ; cf. Alcuin,
de psalm, usu, pp. 2, 9 Mi. loi, p. 498 ff.
;
^ In addition to this vindicative character, the works of penance have also
a medicinal vaXMt. Vid., e. g.^ Vinn. 28 :

'*
So that it cures and corrects con-
traries by contraries." Reg. i. 292, 304, p. 148: remedia peccatoruin ; cf.
Alcuin, de confess, peccator. 3.
But this rule was not observed. On the contrary, it became cus-
tomary to admit penitents before the expiration of the peniten-
tial period to the *' fellowship of prayer" (^com7?iunw orationis),
and also to full fellowship (^plena co7nniunio) (Theod. poen. i. 12.

4, and many citations in Morin. ix. 16). It might even be
granted immediately after the confessio and the assignment of the
works of penance to be performed (Morin. ix. 17. yf.). Insuch
cases, however, the subsequent performance of the required pen-
ances was taken for granted, for the sinner was not pardoned
through his confession alone (dever. et fals. poen. 18. 34). The
motives for this hastening of the process were of a practical
nature, /. ^., that the penitent might not be driven to despair or
alienated from the church, etc. They are, of course, evident
enough in the case of those who secured immediate release from
the penalties imposed by the payment of money. He who thus
experiences sorrow for sin and confesses the same to the priest
has changed his mortal into a venial sin (de ver. et fals. poen.
10. 25), and is in consequence no longer subject to the punish-
ments of hell. But if he do not now bring forth the " fruits of
'
repentance in works of penance, he will have to endure the
'
fires of purgatory {ignis purgatorius) (ib. 18, 34). {b) The

sinner applies to the priest the latter examines him strictly in
;
regard to his sins, assigns the atoning works to be performed, and

wishes him forgiveness. The sinner confesses his sin and begs for
the intercessio of the priest, as well as of Mary and the saints
(Alcuin, de psalm, usu, p. 2. 9. Reg. i. 304, p. 147. Halitgar
in Morin. app., p. 6b. Corrector Biirchardi, 182, p. 666.
Beichtanweisg. Othmars, Wasserschl., p. 437).^ The priest
prays to God (*'Mayest thou deign to be appeased," placatus
'* God Omnipo-
esse digneris^ and pronounces the absolution :
tent be thy helper and protector and grant indulgence for thy
sins, past, present, and future" (Reg. i. 304, p. 148. Corr. Burch.,
182, p. 667. Further particulars in Morin. viii. 8. i f. c. 10 f. ).
,
The absolution always bears this deprecatory character, partly in

recognition of the traditional idea that God alone can forgive
sin (August, serm. 99. 9), partly in view of the immediate
situation, inasmuch as the pardon ( piirgatio) of sins could not
really be secured until the works of penance should be actually
performed {e. g., Reg. i. 304 fin.), (e) An important feature
of the system is seen in the redemption of penartces. The works
^
The way was prepared for later theories in the thesis: **It is to be
believed . . that all the alms and prayers and works of righteousness and
mercy of the whole church combine {succurrant) ... to effect conversion.
Therefore, no one can worthily repent [poenitere) whom the unity of the
church does not sustain'' (de ver. et fals. poen. 12. 27
; 11. 26).
REPENTANCE IN EARLIER MIDDLE AGES. 4$
of penance are chiefly Fasting (bread and water on Monday,

:
Wednesday, and Friday), discarding of linen clothing, going

barefoot, pilgrimages (^peregrinatio) , entering a cloister, scourg-
ings (introduced byDominicus Loricatus, Petrus Damiani,
vid. Morin. vii. 13 f). It became customary at a very early
period to substitute other good works for the required penances.
These consisted commonly in prayers and alms, as also scourg-
ing, pilgrimages, striking the hands upon a pavement, etc. The
German system of legal composition for crime opened the way
for the adoption of a definite system for such '* redemptions."
There were tariffs fixing the character and amount of the works
of substitution. It was considered a special advantage of the
system that the penitential period could be thus shortened. For
example, instead of one day's fasting, fifty psalms might be sung,
or three denarii, or perhaps one, be given to a poor person ;
for one year's fasting there must be twenty-two solidi given in

alms, etc. (Corr. Burch., 187 ff., p. 671 ff.; poen. Merseburg,
41. Canones Hibern., p. 139 f Beda, poen. 10. 229 f
Egbert poen. 15 f., p. 246). Worst of all, it was considered
allowable to hire some righteous person to perform these works
(Beda, 8, p. 230. Cummean. poen., p. 463; cf especially
Morin. x. i6ff. ). But the most convenient form of '^ redemp-
tion " was by the payment of money, which had a precedent in
Germanic law (**Wergeld," vid. Schroeder, Lehrb. d. deutsch.
Rechtsgesch., 1889, pp. 75 f., 330 ff., 707).^ Fixed taxes were
imposed, the payment of which exonerated from liability to pen-
ance, e.g.: ** If anyone is not able to fast and does not know
the psalms, let him give one denarius per day and if he has
;
not the money, let him give as much food as he eats. For one
year upon bread and water let him give twenty-six solidi
'
( Poen. '
Merseberg. 42 cf 148.
; Columba, 25. Vinn. 35. Poen.
Vindob. 43. Correct. Burch., 2 ff., 50, 190, 195, 198). The
Council of Tribur, A. D. 895, first recognized redemption by
money also for public penances (vid. Hefele, iv. 558). This praxis
was extended through the Crusade movement. The journey to
the holy sepulchre was regarded as the required work of pen-
ance {iter illud pro omni poenitentia reputetur, Council of Cler-
mont, A. D. 1095, vid. Hefele, v. 222). But not only such as
actually took the journey were credited with the performance of
this penance, but also any person who furnished the necessary
equipment for a crusader,^ Since great multitudes now received
* On the other hand, it was, in any case, but a step from

penance by alms-
giving to redemption of penance by money.
^ The comments of a contemporary, Leo Cassinensis in his chronicle (iv.
11), are worthy of note. He attributes the First Crusade directly to the "pen
.
absolution immediately after confession, this became everywhere

the usual praxis (Morin. lo. 20, 22). But inasmuch as, by the
fixed rule of the church, the forgiveness of sins depended upon
penitence and confession,^ new problems arose leading to further
doctrinal definitions. It was necessary particularly to clearly
prove the legality of the works of penance as required after the
forgiveness of sins had been already granted, as also the right of
the church to substitute money for such works of penance and to
insist upon confession to the priest as well as to God. To these
problems Scholasticism turned its attention (vid. sub.).
4. Both the best and the worst elements in the Christianity of
the Earlier Middle Ages come to view in the history of the ordi-
nance of repentance on the one hand, the vivid sense of sinful-
:
ness (cf. Hauck, ii. 700 f. ; iii. 289), which made the whole life
of the behever a perpetual penitence (de ver. et fals. poen. 12.
28;,^ and the confidence reposed in the living God as the only
One who is able to help ;^ on the other, the complete external-
izing of religion by the theory of the opus oJ>eratum. Com-
pared with the ancient penitential praxis, there are here new fea-
tures of great importance (a) The substitution of private for
:
public penance. (3) The extension of the sphere of peniten-

tial discipline to a wider range of outward conduct and into the
realm of inner experience, (c) The consequent representation
of man's relation to God as a legal one. {d) The introduction
of ^* redemptions " for penalties prescribed. But just at this
point the logical sequence of the theory was broken, inasmuch as
(e) the reconciliation of the sinner was, in course of time, made
more and more dependent solely upon penitential sorrow and con-
fession. (/) This led to a transformation of the conception of
repentance, the forgiveness of sins being associated with a
itents" of the age who were unwilling to forego the carrying of arms (Morin.
X. 19. 7).
1 Thus, for example, in Anselm, Meditat.
4 fin., "to be cleansed {mun-
dari) by repentance and confession." But forgiveness is located in the con-
fessioy since the latter embraces in itself the intention of the repentant one,
e. g., homil. 13 " They are cleansed in the very confession on account of
:
the repentance which they are about to exercise, they begin to work
. . .
righteousness, and the working of righteousness is their purification" [tnun-

datio )
^ This conception is frequently met with, as already in Eligius of Noyon :
otnnis vita christiani semper in poenitentia et compunctione debet consistere

(in Hauck, i. 289 n. i).
^ In contrast with the unevangelical conception of repentance, it may be
well to call attention to the emphasis laid upon faith [Jidticia) in the peniten-
tial praxis, c. g.^ Otmar of St. Gall in Wasserschl., p. 437
*' swell [surge)
:
with faith and true credulity " cf. de ver. et fals, poen. 5. 15
; 7. 18. Sor-
;
row for sin is attributed to a divine inspiration (ib. 17, ^^ cf. Otmar, I. i;.,
;
P'437)-
REPENTANCE IN EARLIER MIDDLE AGES. 47
penitent frame of mind and confession, and the works of satis-

faction with deliverance from purgatory. It was only after this
idea had become prevalent that (g) repentance could become a
sacrament in the strict sense of the term, for only then was there
thought of a special divine gift imparted to the penitent, whereas
repentance had hitherto consisted merely in a series of human
transactions.
Such was the history of the ordinance of repentance from about
A. D. 700 until about A. D. iioo. The History of Doctrines
must present it with clearness, as an accurate knowledge of it is
essential to a correct understanding of the dogmas formulated in
the Reformation period. As the permission of the redemptions
gave occasion in that age for a certain evangelizing of the con-
ception of repentance, so, four hundred years later, opposition to
them led to an evangelizing of the church.
Tor otbcr foundation can no man lay than that is laid, w1)icb is Jesus
brist. now if any man build upon this foundation flold, silver, precious
stones, wood, bay, stubble ; etêry man's work sbal! be made manifest:
for tbe day sball declare it, because if sball be repealed by fire$ and tbe
fire sball try eoery man's work of wbat sort it Is,/ Cor. ///. ii-is.
PART II.
HISTORY OF DOCTRINES IN SCHOLASTIC AGE.
CHAPTER I.
FOUNDATIONS OF HIERARCHICAL AND RELIGIOUS IDEALS AND OF

SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY.
44. The Church and the World.
I. The historical result of the movements and tendencies within
the church from the end of the tenth to the close of the thirteenth
century is found in the reformatory ideas which centered at
Cluny, and which gradually brought the church under their con-
trol. It was an ethical reformation which was sought. A check
was to be placed upon the secularizing of the cloisters, the rude-
ness and immorality of the clergy, and the anarchy which
marked the social life, especially under the domination of the
robber-nobility. It was a genuinely reformatory idea the world
was to adopt the principles of the church, and the church was to
be free from the world. But both objects were sought in the
spirit, and by the means, of the prevalent type of piety. The
conception of the '*City of God " {civitas dei) began to be re-
garded in a practical way, and the ** State " of Charlemagne was
abandoned. Many measures were employed, such as the revival
of the religious practices of Mysticism, increased severity in
cloister discipline, celibacy of the priesthood, repression of
simony, /. ^., investiture by civil authorities, the complete inde-
pendence of church property. But the movement was soon
combined with the effort to realize the pseudo-Isidorian ideals
(p. 41), which were interpreted entirely in the interest of the
papal power. The mystical piety of the ancient Monasticism,
the pseudo-Isidorian writings, and the church property were the
ruhng motives in the attempted Reformation. The church was
actually reformed by it ; but in the line, of course, of the motives
indicated. It promoted the religious life of the individual, partly
by giving a marked impulse to the worship of saints and relics,
the craving for miracles, superstition, asceticism, pilgrimages,
etc., but also by a real deepening of the religious sensibihty.
4 (49)
Cf. Sackur, Die Cluniacenser in ihrer kirchl. u. allgemeingesch.

Wirksamkeit, 2 vols., 1892-94 Hauck, KG. Deutschl. iii.
445ff- 459 ff-
2. The movementreform opened and smoothed the path

for
to the realization of the pseudo-Isidorian ideals by the papacy.
This can be studied to advantage in the work of Cardinal Hum-
bert Libri tres adv. Simoniacos (Mi. 143), in which the fol-
;
lowing line of progress is manifest Independence of the civil

:
authority on the part of the church, its officials and property (iii.
3, 5, 10), and therefore of the investiture by secular rulers,
which is simony (iii. 6, f. ); u
denial of the efficacy of the sac-
raments when administered by simonists, since simony is heresy
and can bring only ruin (ii. 20 ff. 26 ff., 34) summons to in-
, ;
surrection against the civil government (iii. 16).^ The life-work

of Gregory VII. aided in the attainment of these ideals. His
ideas form the classical expression of the claims of the papacy in
the Middle Ages. In the twenty-seven propositions of the
Dictatus attributed to him, they are presented with precision
(cf. especially Ep. ad Herimannum, Registrum viii. 21 ; Jaffe
Monum. Gregoriana, Mi. 148 ; also in Mirbt, Quellen zurGesch.
d. Papsttums, 1895, pp. 47-64): The Roman church has never
erred and never will err. Only he is catholic who agrees with it.
Accordingly, only the Roman bishop is universalis ; he has author-
ity over all other bishops, whom he can appoint and remove; his
legates outrank all bishops. The other bishops are only his substi-
tutes (registr. i. 12, 60 ; iv. 11), and it is their duty to support him
even to the extent of furnishing soldiers whenrequired (reg. vi. 17a;
ep. coUectae 1 3 fin. ) To him alone it is permissible to estab-
.
*
'
lish new laws according to the need of the time.

'
All the graver '
matters of dispute in any portion of the church are to be brought be-

fore his tribunal (cf. reg. i. 17; iv. 27). *'No section [of a law]
"^
nor book may be regarded as canonical without his authority.
The pope alone decides matters at councils (reg. iii. 10). Only
his foot is kissed by the princes. He can remove emperors, but
can himself be judged by no one. The canonical ordination
gives him sancity **by the merits of the blessed Peter he is in-
:
fallibly made holy. " He is not only the lord of the church,
^ It is interesting to note the two conceptions of the relation of church and
state existing side by On the one hand " That the laity are forbidden to
side. :
take charge of ecclesiastical affairs just as they conduct secular affairs" (iii.
gin.); on the other hand **Just as the soul is higher than the body and
:
instructs it, so the sacerdotal dignity excels and instructs the regal, as, e. g.j
"
the celestial the terrestrial. It is the duty of kings to obey ecclesiastics
. .
(iii. 21). This is Augustinian, but Gregory VII. still holds the same position.
2 In Gratian the inscription of Part I. dist. 19, c. 6 reads " The decretal
:
letters are counted among the canonical scriptures."

1
THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD. 5
but universal dominion (ûniversale regimen) has been committed

to him, and he is " prince {f>rinceps) over the kingdoms of the
world" (reg. ii. 51, 75; i. 63). Upon this is based the
supremacy of the pope over civil governments and their princes.
The latter are to receive their authority in trust from him
(reg. viii. 26, 23 iv. 28).
; They stand related to him as the
moon to the sun (reg. vii. 25 iv. 24J. Independent dominion
;
on their part is based on sinful pride. As they are notoriously

dependent upon the priests in spiritual things, since they cannot
administer (^conficere) the communion, and do not have the
power of the keys, so it is a valid maxim that in secular affairs
they are subject to the pope alone. He who can bind and loose
in heaven can surely do so on earth (reg. viii. 21). **
iût if
the holy apostolic chair judicially determines spiritual things by
the original authority divinely granted to it, why not also sec-
ular things ?" (reg. iv. 2). The power of the keys is therefore
the magic key which opens up to the pope all authority (cf. iii.
loa; vii. 14). Gregory indeed allows to the state a relative in-
dependence (reg. i. 19; vii. 25; cf. Mirbt, Stellg. Aug. inder
Publicist, desgreg. Kirchenstreites, 1888, pp. 91, 94 f. 96), but it ,
presupposes the willingness of the state to serve the church and

obey the pope. Thus Gregory had given currency to an ideal of
the papacy whose assumptions could not be surpassed. The in-
faUible pope has authority over body and soul, the world and the
church, time and eternity. To this extreme was the Augustinian
idea of the civitas dei carried. He who opposes the pope is a
heretic (e.g., Henry IV. vid. reg. iv. 7, 12 ; viii. 21).^ All these
;
claims rested, in the last analysis, upon the objective effect of the
sacrament of ordination. But the hierarchical idea was carried
too far by Gregory (cf. Cyprian, Vol. I., p. 184) when, in his
struggle against the marriage of priests and simony, he denied the
efficacy of the consecration of schismatics and of the sacraments
administered by them (vid. reg. vi. 5b ; v. 14a ; iv. 2 and 11).^
3. The reform, as Gregory regarded it, brought the church
^ This is a new conception of heresy. In Irenseus, heresy was the denial of

the ecclesiastical, biblical doctrine in Cyril, rebellion against the ecclesiasti-
;
cal organization (schism). Now it is opposition to the hierarchy.

^ Vid. upon these conflicting views during the great conflict the exhaustive
discussion of Mirbt, Publicistik in Ztalt. Greg. VII., pp. 378-446. The ac-
ceptance of the ecclesiastical or of the sacramental conception, alliance with
the reformatory movement or adherence to the hierarchical tradition, deter-
mined the position taken in each case as to the efficacy of the simonistic sacra-
ments. ** In the later sects which rejected the sacraments administered by
unworthy priests was reaped the harvest of the seed which the popes of the
eleventh century had helped to sow." MiRBT, p. 445 f. As to Gregory's use
of the ban and interdict, vid. ib. pp. 202 ff., 219 ff.
into the most intimate relations with secular life. He exalted

the hierarchical idea as no one before him had done, but at the
expense of reducing the church to the position of a political fac-
tor in worldly" affairs. '*The more completely the religious
spirit of the Middle Ages subdued the world, the more entirely
must the church become the world" (vid. Eicken, Gesch. u.
Syst. d. mittellalt. Weltanschauung, 1887, p. 741). Well did
Bernard write to Eugene III. ** To evangelize is to pasture do
: ;
the work of an evangelist, and thou fulfillest the work of a pastor"

(de considerat. iv. 3. 6). Even he acknowledged **
Some are :
called to the lot of care thou to plenitude of power

; (ib. ii. 8.
'
'
16), and \h\s plenifudo potestatis was the dominion over church
and world. Nowhere is the secularization of the church in this
age more clearly seen than in the impress given to the papal
canon law. The church is to be governed by the laws of the
papal decretals. They have binding authority. Collections of
them are made, and they constitute the law of the church. The
body of laws which had been historically developed was increased
by fraudulent additions. But, in the last resort, abo\e this posi-
,
tive law stood the natural law of reason (vid. supra, Gregory's
argument for the authority of the pope over worldly affairs).^
The legal manuals (Gratian's Decretal, etc.) were the control-
ling authority for the theologians of the day upon the nature and
mission of the church. Since the church had become the world,
it was to be governed by the ^'divine ecclesiastical law." To
portray the struggles between the papal and the national concep-
tions of fundamental law, which continued until the Concordat
of Worms (A. D. 11 22), is not the province of the History of
Doctrines.
Cf. upon paragraphs 2 and 3, MiRET, Die Publicistik im Ztalt. Greg. VII.,
1894. Martens, Greg. VII., 2 vols., 1894. Hauck, KG. Deutschl. iii.
752ff., 844 ff. Von SCHULTE, Gesch. derQuellen d. Kirchenrechts i., 1875.
Von Doelunger, Das Pabsttum, 1892, p. 40 ff. Moeller, KG. ii. 283 ff.
MuETXER, KG. i. 436 ff , 447 ff.
45. Christianity of St. Berna?'d.
But the agitation for reform became the occasion also of an

actual revival and deepening of personal piety. The best
thoughts of Augustine were revitalized. Reverent speculation
f Anselm) drew inspiration
from his writings, as well as that mys-
tical absorption in Christ which Bernard of Clairvaux (f A. D.
1 153) so vividly portrayed to the piously inchned in the Middle
^ Cyprian already appealed when it suited his purpose to the "sound

mind" in opposition to tradition {Vul. I., p. 184).
CHRISTIANITY OF ST. BERNARD. 53
Ages. To gain a knowledge of the compass of his rehgious

thought, we must study his homilies upon the Song of Solomon
(Mi. 182). (a) The strongest feature of Bernard is the energy
with which he leads the souls of his hearers and readers to immerse
themselves in the contemplation of the humanity of Jesus, par-
ticularly his passion. " For what is so efficacious for the curing
of the wounds of conscience, and for the clarifying of the vision
of the mind as sedulous meditation upon the wounds of Christ?
"
(sermo. 62. 7). We should allow the contemplation of his
passion to lie upon our breast like a bundle of myrrh (43. i ff. ).
Thus God draws near to us in the man Jesus, and his love is re-
vealed to us (61.4; 20. 2; II. 9). ((^) This love now awakens
a responsive affection in our hearts (20. 7 ; 11. 7). Devout
contemplation of the man Jesus leads us, further, to a blessed
union with his divinity. It is the " outgoing of a pure mind into
God, or a pious descent of God into the soul. Let it receive
him, gliding from heaven, with the deepest emotions and with
the very marrow of the heart" (31. 6). Ecstatic contemplation
is the personal experience {proprium experimentiini) (3. i.) of
the soul. It is a blessed and delightful embrace between the

loving soul and its beloved (7. 2 ; 73.10; 75.1; 74.4.). The
heavens are opened, new ideas flow down from above into the
heart, which, like a fountain, pours forth from within the words
of wisdom. There is the bridegroom present (74. 5 ; 69. 6).
((t) But only he can obtain this goal who produces the fruits of
repentance in pious works (3. 2-4; 18. 5f. 67. 8; 11. 2),
;
who follows Jesus as his teacher, and seeks to follow his example
beneath sufferings and the cross (22. 7; 21. 2; 61. 7; 47. 6;
20. 7). He himself gives the needful power to this end "I :
thus receive examples for myself from the man and aid from the
Mighty One" (15.6). '* If I with the name call to mind Jesus the
man, meek and lowly of heart, kind, sober, chaste, merciful, and
conspicuous for everything honorable and holy, and the same as
the omnipotent God, who both restores me by his example and
strengthens me by his aid." (^/) But Bernard does not himself
attain to a regular and constant life with Christ. The enchant-
ing blessedness of pious contemplation gives place to hours of
poverty, vacuity, and obtuseness of spirit (9. 3 ; 14. 6 ; 32.
2, 4; 74. 4). From this Bernard did not draw the inference
of Quietism, but emphasizes the truth that, in addition to the
contemplative life, the active life with the good works of love is
also necessary (58. 3; 85. 13; cf. de diligendo deo 10):
Martha is the sister of Mary (51. 2). This is all purely a gift of
grace. ** Grace restores me to myself, justified freely and thus
liberated from the service of sin " (67. 10 cf. Ritschl, Rechtf.
;

u. Vers. i. iii ff. ). But Christ has two feet, mercy and judg-
ment. If we were to cling only to the first or the second, the
result would be most injurious security or despair. should, We
therefore, grasp both feet at once {6. S, 9). (e) Bernard here
follows a suggestion found in Augustine The humanity of Jesus
:
* *
is a way to (his) divinity " (vid. Vol. L, p. 361 n.); but when
he, the preacher of Crusades, makes the entire practical knowl-

edge of God dependent upon the contemplation of the good
deeds of the historical Christ, he goes beyond Augustine. For

him and in this he fixes the type of piety for the Middle Ages
the whole of Christianity is an imifafion of Christ. His Christ
is not merely a dogmatic formula, not only the eternal judge of the
world, but the actual historical Christ, the personal revelation of

God, and he led the way in apprehending this Christ in a relig-
ious way. But these ideas were interspersed with the demands
of the Areopagite Mysticism. Communion with Christ is at best
attainable only in the ecstatic state. Hence, in the contempla-
tion of the historical Christ, the soul does not after all experience
a revelation of the living and present Lord, and such contempla-
tion is only the bridge by which to reach the ecstatic union.
Neander, D. h. Bern.
Cf. u. s. Ztalter ed. Deutsch, 1889-90. Reuter,
Ztschr.f. KG., 1877, 36 ff. Ritschl, Geschichte d. Pietism., p. 46 ff.
Seeberg-Thomas., do. ii. 2, p. 267 ff.
46. History of Theology from Anselm to Peter the Lombard.
BuLAEUS, hist, universit. Paris, 1655. Denifle, die Universitaten d. MA. i.
1885. Kaufmann, Gesch. d. deutsch. Univ. i. 1888. Haurâu, Hist, de

la philosophic scolastique, 2 parts in 3 vols., ed. 2, 1873. Nitsch, Art.
Scholastik, PRE. xiii. Reuter, Gesch. d. rel. Aufklarung im MA., 2 vols.,
1875-77. Prantl, Gesch. d. Logik im Abendlande, 4 vols., 1855 ff. Ueber-
weg-Heinze, Gesch. d. Philos. ii., ed. 7, 1883. Ritter, Gesch. d. Philos.,
vols. vii.and viii., 1844-45. Erdmann, Gesch. d. Philos. I, ed. 4, 1896.
Stockl, Gesch. d. Philos. d. MA., 2 vols., i864f. Willmann, Gesch. d.
Idealism., vol. ii., 1896, p. 321 ff. Lowe, der Kampf. z. d. Nominalism, u.
Realism., 1876. Schwane, DG. d. mittleren Zeit, 1882. Thomasius-
Seeberg, DG. ii., ed. 2, 55 ff. Harnack, DG. iii. 5i2ff., 419 ff.
I. The term, Scholasticism, is used to designate the theology
of the period from Anselm and Abelard to the Reformation, /. e. ,
the theology of the Later Middle Ages. Its peculiarity, briefly

stated, consists in the logical and dialectical working over of the
doctrine inherited from the earlier ages. The History of Doc-
trines cannot attempt to present an exhaustive history of the
genesis and progress of the scholastic method, nor to note in de-
tail all the doctrines espoused by the scholastics, as it would thus
invade the domain of the Piistory of Theology. It is our task
simply to trace the scholastic theology in so far as it was influen-

FROM ANSELM TO PETER THE LOMBARD. 55
tial in the creation of new dogmas (the sacraments) or in the

modification of the traditional dogma (Augustinianism). The
material to be selected must be such as will illustrate the influence
exerted by the reformatory and anti-reformatory movements
(Councils of Trent and the Vatican) in the moulding of
dogmas.
As to the arrangement of the material, the question arises
whether we shall present the scholastic doctrines as a whole in
the various stages of their development (Harnack, Loofs), or
trace each separate doctrine in its historical development through-
out the entire scholastic period (Schwane, Thomasius). Much
can be said in favor of either method but we decide upon the
;
former, although in pursuing it we can scarcely avoid some repe-

titions, for the reason that the historical development can be thus
so much more clearly seen. The method cannot, of course, be
carried out to its full extent, as the result would be a history of
scholastic theology.
2. The beginnings of Scholasticism were closely associated
with the pedantic methods employed in the study of theology in

the cloister schools (the schools of Tours and of Bee were of
great importance) and in the universities, which began to appear
in the early part of the thirteenth century. It received an im-
pulse from the revival of interest in philosophy, and particularly
in dialectics, which was enkindled and sustained by the study of
Aristotle, as from the middle of the twelfth century onward, and
especially since the thirteenth century, theologians became,
partly through Arabian literature, better acquainted with all the
works of Aristotle. But it was also in no small degree the
natural logic of the situation which led to Scholasticism. If the
traditional dogma was an inviolable legacy, the spirit of the age
could be exercised upon it in no other way than in presenting by
dialectic methods the evidence of its harmony with sound reason.
This tendency first arrested the attention of the church at large
in the controversy of Berenger (f A. D. 1088).' He appealed
in arguing to the ratio and denounced the senselessness {vecor-
^
dia) of his opponents but the latter met him with arguments
;
based likewise upon reason ((?. g., Lanfranc). There was an

ever-widening circle of disputants who either depended solely
upon rational arguments or held that faith should at least find
confirmation in the deductions of reason.^ And although there
may have been some theologians who were content to simply ac-
* As to earlier instances, vid. Hauck, KG. Deutschl. iii. 331 f., 935, 952 f.
^ Anselm cur deus homo ? i. 2 fin.; " They ask the reason because they do
:
not believe, but we because we believe ; yet that which we ask is one and the
same thing."

cept the doctrines received by tradition, theirs was not the future
(vid. Hauck, iii. 956 f., 963 f.).
Two theologians are to be considered as the founders of
Scholasticism, Anselm of Canterbury
(f A. D. 1109) and Peter
Abelard (f A. D. 1 142).
The contributions of Anselm to the general history of Scholasti-
cism consist in the following particulars (a) He possessed a great
:
talent for formulation, having the ability to express the traditional

ideas in forms which would arrest the attention of his own age.
His work, Cur deus homo ? is, e, g., a masterpiece in this respect,
since Anselm here taught his contemporaries to apprehend the
meaning of redemption under the conceptions of the then prev-
alent penitential praxis (satisfaction). (^) He maintained the
realism of universals. Boetius had, in the commentary accom-
panying his translation of the Isagoge of Porphyry,* left the ob-
jective existence of universalia, or genera and species, an open
question but in the commentary accompanying his translation of
;
Victorin he pronounced in its favor. The so-called Nominalis-

tic view, according to which the general conceptions are not
realities {res^, but only sounds {voces') and names {nomina),
was derived also from a passage, in Boetius, in which the latter
is apprehended by the mind {intel-
asserts that the reality {res')
lectus),and given expression by means of the voice {vox).
These problems were discussed at an early period.^ Anselm
became involved in the controversy through Roscellin of Com-
piegne, who applied the Nominalist theory, that universals are
merely subjective conceptions (breaths flatus voa), to the
Trinity, and thus approached Tritheism (vid. Anselm, ep. ii. 35.
41 ;de fid. trin. 2.3). This Anselm considered simply foolish-
ness. To him universal conceptions appear as presenting truth
and reality, and the individual species as simply manifestations of
the genera. Thought is trustworthy only as it looks to the uni-
versal (vid. dial, etverit. ). But Anselm did not further develop
these ideas. We have an evidence of his view in the Proslogium
(cf. c. Gannilanum), which presents the ontological proof of the
existence of God, /. e. from the idea of God his real existence is
,
inferred. Thehighestcan bethought of onlyas existent therefore ;
God cannot be imagined as non-existent. Existence belongs abso-

^ The passage of Porphyry is as follows Concerning genera and species I
:
decline to say, indeed, whether they subsist or are located in the bare intel-
lect alone ; whether they are corporeal or incorporeal substances and whether
;
they are located apart from sensible things or insensible things, and existing in
connection with them.
2 Vid. Prantl, Gesch. d. Logik, ii. 118 ff., 41 fF. Barach, Zur Gesch. d.
Nominalism, vor Roscell., 1866 ; also Gunzo v. Novara, Mi. 136. 1294; cf,
Hauck, iii. 33 r.
lutely to the highest being (c.Gannil. 3ff. ). (c) Theobject of theo-

logical research is faith, of which Anselm has a two-fold concep-
tion. He first interjects into subjective faith the idea of a striv-
ing after knowledge, which leads to the rule :
** The Christian
ought to advance through faith to knowledge, not to come

through knowledge to faith, nor, if he cannot know, recede from
faith. But when he is able to attain to knowledge he rejoices ;
and when unable he reveres that which he is unable to grasp " ( ep.
ii. 41). Faith is always the necessary beginning of knowledge.
We must always first of all grasp the object as such. Only then
can an experience (êxperientia) of it be attained, and this then
leads to a knowledge {intelligere) of it (de fide trinit. 2). This
is the familiar ** faith seeking knowledge : I believe, in order that
I may know" (proslog. i; meditat. 21; cur deus homo? i. 2).
It is a tending toward God {tendere in deiimy monolog. 75 f. ).
Just what Anselm meant by this faith becomes evident when we
consider the other requirement associated with the above, that
the faith of the Catholic church, i. e., the faith of the three
symbols (Apostolic, Constantinopolitan, and Athanasian, vid. ep.
ii. 41), is to be maintained (de fide trinit. 2 in.), and this even
though knowledge (the intelligere) in the matter be denied to the
intellect (monolog, 64). This faith, accordingly, which reaches
a higher stage in knowledge, is the acceptance of the teachings
of the church as true, which is at the same time a '^ tending
toward God," and, just on this account, attains its summit in love
(monolog. 76 f.). This is the Catholic conception, (d) With
this conception of faith, it is easy to comprehend how Anselm
could undertake (cur deushomoPi. i f., 10, 20, 25; ii. 9, 11,
15 de fide trinit. 4) to establish the faith of the church (incar-
;
nation, existence of God, Trinity) ** by reason or necessity," and

could believe that he had " by reason alone made manifest not
only to Jews but even to pagans " (ib. ii. 23) the necessity for
the incarnation. The speculative, rationalistic character of
Scholasticism is here betrayed. The intellectual independence
of the system, the energetic penetration into the nature of
things which we observe, for example, in Duns Scotus, has its
first great representative in Anselm. Cf. Reuter, Gesch. d.
Aufkl. im MA. i. 297 ff. R. Seeberg, Die Theologie des Duns
Scotus, 1900, pp. 3 ff., 599 ff. Ans. Werke, ed. Gerberon, 1675,
in Mi. 158-59; cf. Hasse, A. v. C, 2 vols., 1843-52. Rule,
Life and Times of St. Ans., 2 vols., 1883.
3. Anselm is commonly called the father of Scholasticism, but
if we regard the entire movement, the title of honor belongs
rather more fully to Abelard. This wide-awake, richly endowed,
and keen spirit furnished a wealth of suggestions, both positive
and negative, which continue to exert a marked influence upon

the development of Scholasticism, whereas Anselm's views upon
particular points, even his discussions of the atonement, seldom
find an echo in the subsequent periods. At one time, indeed,
in the history of English theology, the spirit of Anselm exerted
an important influence, (a) When Abelard in his Su et JVon
(ed. Henke Lindenkohl, 1851) collected a number of mu-
et
tually contradictory passages from the Bible and patristic litera-
ture, he introduced the method by which Scholastic dialectics
sought to reconcile these discrepancies (Sic et Non, prol., p.
1349, Mi.), (d) He, too, placed raf/o hesidG ^des. He op-
poses as well the ** pseudo-dialecticians " who think that they
can prove everything (theol. christ. iii., p. 1226 f., 1212 f.,
1 2 18) as the mere authority-faith, which makes faith rest only

in the mouth and not in the heart. **Not because God said
anything is it believed, but because it has been proved to be so
it is accepted" (introductio ad theol. ii. 3, p. 1050). Faith
is the foundation. Faith, particularly the trinitarian faith, is,
according to Athanasius, necessary to salvation (ib. i. 4ff.).
Faith is not to be, properly speaking, proved, but only made
clear and probable to reason (ib. ii. 2, p. 1040 ; theol. christ.
iii., p. 1227). Yetthere wasin thisthinkeran independent atti-
tude toward tradition which was foreign to his age. The writ-
ings of the fathers are to be read ** not with the necessity of be-
lieving, but with the liberty of judging." Inquiry is the chief
key of knowledge, *'forby doubting we come to inquiry, and
by inquiring we discover the truth." He halts only when
brought face to face with '* the excellency of the canonical au-
thority of the Old and New Testaments. " Here no error is
possible. If it appears so, either the codex or the interpretation
must be defective. The opinions of later writers may be errone-
ous ** unless it can be defended either by sure reason {^certa
ratione) or that canonical authority "* (Sic et Non, prol. Mi., p.
1347)- These principles are not, however, always adhered to.
In his expositions of the Trinity, as well as in his theory of the
atonement, there is a very prominent rationalistic tendency, as
judged by the prevailing view of the age. ^ An illustration of his
1 Cf. Reuter, Aufklar, i. 224 fif., 326 fif. His judgment of Abelard is, how-
ever, in keeping with the tendency of the book, one-sided. He
has no sym-
pathy with the healthful tone in Abelard's theology, but sees him too largely
through the spectacles of Bernard. Vid., on the other hand, Deutsch,
Pet. Ab., 1883, p. 173 fF.
2 Vid. Abelard's tract, condemned at Soissons, A. D. I121, De unitate et
trinitate dei, ed. Stolzle, 1891, and also the Theologia christ. The leading
proposition reads : " Thus it is, therefore, that God is three persons, ... as
if we say that the divine substantia is powerful, wise, good or, rather, that it
;
s
:
FROM ANSELM TO PETER THE LOxMBARD. 59
intellectualindependence is seen in his expositions of the Trinity.

He maintains the unity of substance and the personal trinity.
He teaches, in full harmony with Augustine, *'each one of the
three persons is the same substance" (de un. et trin. 32, 36,
76), and he rejects Sabellianism j but he thinks that, although
the divine attributes and works belong without division to the
entire Godhead, yet in a special and peculiar way {specialiter
et proprie) power pertains to the Father, wisdom to the Son,
goodness to the Spirit. That this attempt to interpret the
Trinitarian idea was essentially inferior to the method in-
herited from Augustine will scarcely be affirmed.^ (c) It is
to be remarked, further, that Abelard proposed a new method
of dividing systematic theology. In the Introductio ad theolo-
giam has been preserved for us only a fragment of his dogmatic
scheme. This great work was arranged under the headings
fides, sacramentum, caritas (introd. i. init. ). Four works have
been preserved whose intimate dependence upon Abelard is evi-
dent from the adoption of this scheme and from many internal
indications The Epitome iheol. christ. ( first edited by Rheinwald
:
in 1835); the anonymous Sentences of the Convent Library at St.

Florian, preserved only in manuscript ; the Sentences of Mag-
ister Omnebene, likewise only in manuscript ; and the Sentences
of Roland {z.iX.^r^zxA Pope Alex. III., ed. Gietl, 1891 ; cf.
Denifle, Ab. Sentenzen u. die Bearbeitungen seiner Theol. in
Archiv f. Litt. u. KG. d. MA. i., 402 ff., 584 ff. especially ,
419 ff., 603 ff. ). Among the disciples of Abelard was Peter
the Lombard, of whom further notice must betaken. Abelard'
arrangement of topics preserved in a very marked way for the
doctrine of the sacraments the position which that doctrine held
in the religious life of the Middle Ages. In correcting the
scheme of Augustine's Enchiridion by substituting the sacra-
ments for the second heading of the latter, /. ^., hope, he proves
his dogmatic talent. It is this, too, which, to a great extent has
is power itself, wisdom itself, goodness itself" (de unit, et trin., pp. 3, 2,
62).
^ At the basis of Abelard' s theory lies the correct conviction that the inter-
pretations of the Trinity must set forth the three-fold life z.% personal^ which is
not the case in the analogues of subject and object, appointer and appointed.
But Abelard himself falls into the same error when he compares the Trinity
with matter and object formed of matter {materia ei viateriatum) and with ,
wax and waxen (theol. chr. iv., p. 1288, Mi.); whilst, on the other
figure
hand, the declarations that the persons of the Trinity are related to one an-
other as different names for the same object, e. g,, mucro zxi^ gladius (de
unit, et trin., pp. 51, 6), as attributes to th-e soul (p. 68), as the three gram-
matical persons when applied to the same individual (pp. 63, 70), lie very
close to the SabeJlian theory.
given him such an important influence upon the development of

Christian doctrine. (^) We must note, finally, the place of
Abelard in discussions of the theory of perception. His teacher,
William of Champeaux, had advocated an extreme Realism,
maintaining that universals are the true realities, vi^hich are present
entire and undivided in all individuals, so that the latter do not
differ essentially, but their differences are produced simply by
the variety of their accidents (Abal., hist, calamitatum, 2, Mi.
178, 119). Abelard forced his instructor to a modification of
this view (vid. Deutsch, p. 103 f. n.).
, His own utterances
upon the question are not entirely clear. On the one hand,
general conceptions not only have a subjective existence, but
they are called into being as thus subjective by virtue of the
nature of things. They are thus objective in so far as begot-
ten of objective things and subjective in so far as existing
only in the subject (cf Glossulae super Porphyr. opp. ed. Cousin
ii. 761). Yet, on the other hand, Abelard deduces the species
from the genus through the influence of the form, according to
the common reaHstic theory (cf. Prantl, ii. 177 ff.). There are
not wanting in his writings, however, utterances which betray a
certain mistrust of the conception of universals (vid. Deutsch, p.
106 ff. ). His view cannot now be reproduced with certainty,
but his limitations of Realism were not lost upon succeeding
ages. Works of Abelard, edited by Cousin, 1849-59, ^^ î-
178. Cf. Deutsch, Pet. Abalard, 1883.
4. The first half of the twelfth century witnessed a remarkable
intellectual activity. On the one hand wQxt those, professores di-
alecticae, whose arrogance was so great that, " despising the uni-
they thought themselves able to comprehend
'
versal authorities, '
everything by their little reasonings {ratiuncuHs) (Ab. theol.

christ. iii., pp. 1218, 1212 f.); on the other hand, the the-
ology of Abelard and his widespread following (Denifle, Archiv.
i. 613 f.). A storm of opposition now arose against the Master.
It was charged that the faith of simple believers was ridiculed by
him, the mysteries of God emptied of their meaning, the Fathers

scorned that '* human genius was usurping all things to itself,"
that Abelard proclaimed a new fifth Gospel (Bernh. de errori-
'
' ^
'
bus, Abael. 5. 12; cf.Wilhelm v. St. Thierry in Mi. 180. 249 ff.).
Dialectics was declared to be useless and fooHsh, ridiculous, and
even Satanic (JoH. of Salisbury, Walther of St. Victor ;
vid. Bulaeus, hist. univ. Paris, ii. 402, 629 if. Reuter, 1. c,
ii. 16 f. Bach, DG. d. MA., ii. 384 ff.). Similarly spoke
Gerhoh and Arno of Reichersberg. The former especially
charges Nestorianism upon the dialectics of his time (vid. De in-
vestigatione Antichristi, ed. Scheibelberger, 1875, ^^*^ Bach,
1
ii.390-722)/ Abelard was confessedly vanquished by his oppo-

nents at Soissons (A. D. 1121) and Sens (A. D. 1141). The agi-
tation led to various attempts to present the ''positive theology"
in systematic form. The work of Honorius Augustodunensis
(Augsburg or Autun), in which he undertakes to embrace in a
short compass the entire Christian doctrine (vid. Elucidarium
sive dialog, de summa totius christ. theol. in Mi. 172, 1109 ff.)
seems to have appeared even before the outbreak of the contro-
versy, /. e., about A. D. 1120.^ Then came Hugo of St.
Victor (f 1141) with his great work, De sacramentis and the
Summa sententiarum (Mi. 176). The chief content of the Holy
Scriptures consists of the the works of human restoration (ôpera
restaurationis hiunanae) , but for the proper understanding of these
the work of the natural state (ôpus conditio7iis) must first be pre-
sented (de sacr, prolog. 2, 3). From this soteriological point of
view are the doctrines of Christianity presented for the purpose
of promoting a right understanding of the Scriptures. Having
treated of creation, the fall, original sin, etc. (lib. i. pars
first
1-7), he comes to reparatio (p. 8), and presents the work of re-
demption in harmony with the ideas of Anselm. The great
Physician has appointed the sacraments as means of healing
(c. 12). These therefore constitute the chief part of the work.
The principal sacraments are baptism and the Lord's Supper
(6, 7). But since the sacraments are sacr amenta fidei, and
since fides belongs to salvation (8), part 10 treats of faith;
then part 11 of natural law, and part 12 of the written
law. The Second Book begins with a discussion of Chris-
tology, followed by a section upon the church, the ecclesiastici
ordines, etc. The author then turns to the sacraments, ''bap-
tism, confirmation, body and blood, and the minor sacraments
and sacred things" (ii. 9), simony, marriage, vows, vices and
virtues ; then treats of confession and repentance and remission
of sins (ii. 14), and finally of the anointing of the sick and of
eschatology. Hugo professes to be guided throughout only by
the authority of the Scriptures (summ. praef. ) Only the faith
that has no experience (êxperimenttim) and no reason (^ratio'),
,
Vid. also Rocholl, Rupert of Deutz, 1886, p. 1S9 ff.

1
2 He
treats first of God, creation, the devil and the fall
; then of the neces-
sity of satisfaction (here using Anselm, vid. I., 8, 16 f., 21), then of Christ's
life and activity, the mission of the Spirit, the church as the mystical, and the
eucharist as the actual body of Christ. The Second Book treats of sin, predes-
tination (9), the origin of the soul, marriage, ranks, and orders (18), the for-
giveness of sin through confessio and baptism (20), theprophets and the Holy
Scriptures (27), guardian angels and demons, anointing of the sick (30) and
death. In the Third Book he treats exhaustively of blessedness, perdition,
and purgatory (3). Does i. 2 betray an acquaintance with Abelard ?
s
is meritorious (ib. i. ii, part 59).^ However little we may be

impressed with the systematic arrangement of this great work, it
is very instructive to observe the subordination of the entire
structure to the sacramental idea and the disregard of the ratio.

But already in the Sentences of Robert Pullus (f ca. 1150,
in Mi. 186), which were accepted by Bernard, the ratio asserts
its claim along with the atictoritas (^. ^. i. 12 iii. 23), and , ;
dialectic investigation begins to appear in the midst of the posi-

tive presentation of traditional doctrine. The modern spirit
carries the day, but it does so only by making concessions to
the ancient spirit.

5. This is most plainly evident in the compendium of a dis-
ciple of Abelard, which became the manual of dogmatic study
in the Middle Ages.^ Peter the Lombard (f 1160 ; accord-
ing to some authorities, 1164) in his Quatuor libri sententiariim
furnished a work which, by virtue of its wealth of materials, its
adaptation to the times, and the prudent withholding of the author'
own opinions, was admirably fitted to become the basis of further
dogmatic labors. The author proposes to set forth faith and the
sacraments of the church. He rejects the garruli ratioci- . . .
natores (i. dist. 4B) and a *' new dogma of their own desiring."
He says in the prologue *' We
have by the aid of God brought
:
together this volume, in which thou wilt find examples and the
doctrine of the greater teachers." His book is, accordingly, a
great collection of citations from the Fathers. None the less,
however, it is dominated by the ratio and the dialectic method.
Reason is recognized along with authority (^. ^. iv. dist. 4 ,
E; 15 B). Questions are raised, authorities collected, and a

result reached by dialectic treatment ; but in the end the author
refrains from a positive solution of the problem in hand (^. g.,
i. dist. 19 O; iii. d. 7 N). He crosses swords with Abelard,
yet constantly reveals the influence of his method and his teach-
ing. In his positive presentations the Lombard frequently, often
in the very terms employed, avails himself of the writings of
Hugo of St. Victor and Gratian. Between the Sentences of a
* The genuineness of the Sentences ascribed to Hugo

has been assailed by
Denifle (vid. Arch. f. Litt. u. KG. d. MA. ); but see, on the
iii. 634 ff.
contrary, GiETL, Die Sentenzen Rol. S. xxxiv. ff. part of Hugo's Sen-A
tences have come down to us as the tract, theologic. of Hildebert of Lavardin
(Mi. 171, 1067 ff. Col. 1150 closes with the passage found in Sent. iv. 3,
Mi. 176, 121). Cf. Haurau, Les oeuvres de Hug. de St. Vict., 1886, p.
71. As to the spuriousness of the seventh tractate (de coniug. ), see Gietl,
1. c, S. xl. f.
2 Gerhoh opposed the Lombard, and Walther of St. Victor counted

him among the ruinous dialecticians. His orthodoxy was even assailed at
Synods (Hefele, CG. v.. ed. 2, 616 ff, 710 f )
certain MasterGendulph and those of the Lombard, there is a

manifest relationship. Already in the Middle Ages the Lom-
bard was declared to be the borrower whether justly or not,
cannot be certainly known until the appearance of the work of
Gendulph, which is still preserved in manuscript. The Lom-
bard closes the first period of Scholasticism. His dogmatic sys-
tem is that of the future, /. ^., Abelard's method combined with
the traditional reverence for authorities.
The Lombard was familiar with the dogmatic works of the
Damascene and made use of them. ^ The arrangement of the latter
had great influence upon him (Vol. L, p. 285 f. ), but he labored
also with the Augustinian problems, and treated exhaustively the
doctrine of the sacraments. His arrangement, briefly stated, was
as follows: Book I. treats of God, his existence, trinity, and attri-
butes; BookIL, of the creation, man, sin, liberty, and grace; Book
IIL, of Christology, the work of redemption and, incidentally,
whether Christ had faith and hope as well as love of the cardi-
nal virtues, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the commandments ;
Book IV., of the seven sacraments and eschatology. If we
take a general view of this scheme, its similarity to that of the
Damascene will be as evident as its variations from the latter are
characteristic. Imperfect as is the plan, defective as its develop-
ment, and loose its structure, there is yet a decided advance
upon the dogmatic system of the Damascene. True, we will
seek in vain in either for a real comprehension of the gospel.
The Augustinian elements are presented with the Semipelagian
interpretation of the Middle Ages. Really, the only feature which
challenges our admiration is the consistent development of the
doctrine of the sacraments, and here Gratian had already led the
-way. But it was not only the commendable features of the
work, but in even greater degree its faults, that won for it the
unique historical position which it came to occupy. It has been
printed times without number. The Franciscans have furnished
'
a critical edition in the publication of the works of Bonaventura,

vid. vols, i., iv., Quarrachi, 1882 ff. Cf. R. Seeberg, PRE. xi.
630 fl".; O. Baltzer, Die Sentenzen des Petrus Lombardus (in
Bon wetsch -Seeberg, Studien zur Gesch. derTheol. u. der Kirche,
viii., 1902. Protois, Pierre Lombard, 1881. Vid. also the
* It is said of him in i. dist. 19 N ;

** The greatest among the teachers of
the Greeks in the book which he wrote concerning the Trinity, and which
Pope Eugene (iii. v. 1 145-53) caused to be translated." Another translation
is mentioned by Duns Scotus in Sent. iii. dist. 21. quaest. unica, ^ 4. Then
follow citations from the De fide ortho, iii. 6, 4. As to the time of composi-
tion of the Sentences, we may accept the years between A. D. 1 147 and 1150
(vid. Seeberg, PRE. xi., ed. 3, 631).
Sentences (5 books) of Petrus Pictaviensis (f 1205) in Mi.

211).
The separate doctrines of the period under review must now
be examined in so far as they exerted an influence in moulding
the forms of doctrinal statement. Such are the following i. :
Christology. 2. Doctrineof the Atonement. 3, Berenger's theory

of the Lord' s Supper and the fixing of the church' s doctrine upon
that subject. 4. Doctrine of the Sacraments. 5. Conception
of the Church. A few further doctrines will be reserved
for treatment in another connection, i. e.. Sin, Grace, Liberty,
Faith, Works. It is proper for us at this point to call attention
to the fact, that the real theological work of the church in the
Middle Ages was not performed by the masters of dialectics who
followed Thomas Aquinas, but was done in the present period by
Anselm, Abelard, Hugo, and the Lombard.
47. Christology of Abelard and the Lombard. Opposition of

Gerhoh.
Bach, DG. desMittelalters, ii. 390 ff. O. Baltzer, Beitrage zur Geschi-
chte des christologischen Dogmas im nth and 12th centuries (Bonwetsch-
Seeberg, Studien zurGesch. der Theol. u. der Kirche, iii. i, I098).
The Christology of Abelard follows the Western, or Augustin-

I,
ian, type (vid. Vol. L, p. 2 59f. ). Its fixed premise is One per- :
son in two substances, or natures {una in duabus substantiis vel

naturis persona^. In connection with this, it is maintained with
special emphasis, that the immutability of God remains unim-
paired. The incarnation does not involve for God the introduc-
tion of a new element, *' but we indicate a certain new effect of
his eternal will " (introd. ad theol. iii. 6, p. 1104 f., Mi.). So
also the becoming, in his becoming man, is not to be understood
in the strict sense of the word. There is in the incarnation no
77iutatio of the divine nature, and the proposition, God is man,
can be understood only in a unliteral sense nee hoino esse proprie
:
dicendus est (ib., p. 1107 f., 1106).^ As to the mode of union

of the divine and the human natures in Christ, Abelard repro-
duced the orthodox formulas, but yet gave a peculiar turn to the
thought. Christ is the man assumed by the Word {assumptus a
verbo); this man now fulfills in all things the will of the divinity
dwelling within him. " That this assumed man never sought to
do anything because he hoped that it would be agreeable to hini-
1
Abelard makes the remark that ** transfers of names are often made from
the whole to the parts, or from the parts to the whole, e. g.^ when it is said of
the Son of God that he is born (exposit. symb., p. 626, Migne) cf. Deutsch,
;
Abelard, p. 302 n.
CHRISTOLOGY OF ABELARD AND THE LOMBARD. 65
self, but because he believed that it would be pleasing to God

(expos, of Rom. v. 15, p. 963).^ Thus, at this point also, the
keen-witted man indicated a needed modification of the church's
teaching by locating the union of the divine and human natures
in the sphere of the will or person.^ Yet he might, not without
reason, be charged with Nestorianism.
2. The Lombard, of course, adopts the formulas of the church.
The second person of the Godhead assumed the impersonal hu-

man nature (sent. iii. dist. 5 C) *' he assumed the flesh {^carnem)
:
and soul {animam),buX not the person {^personam^ôi^. man. But '
'
he was greatly exercised over the question, whether the humanity

of Jesus was not, after all, to be conceived of as d^ persona j de-
ciding in the negative, because at the time of the assumption
body and soul had not yet been combined, into one person (În
unam personam) (iii. d. 5, A, D, E; d, 10 C). " The intel-
^
lectual development of Jesus was, accordingly, only apparent,"

not, indeed, in himself, but in others {in aliis) (iii. d. 13 B).
In treating of the question, whether the Son in the incarnation
became anything, the Lombard betrays his affiliation with Abe-
lard, since he, though only by silence, indicates his preference
for the view, that the Logos merely assumed human nature like
a garment in order that he might be visible to human eyes. Thus
the Logos-person remains '^ one and the same unchanged " (iii.
d. 6 F ; d. 10). God has become man, because he '* has a human
nature " (êst habens hominem, iii. 7 K). Since, in this case, the
human nature is not to be conceived as personal, it was inferred
by some that ** Christ, according to his human nature, is not a
person nor anything" (iii. 10 A, see also Gietl, p. 179), but
not a word can be cited from the Lombard in support of this
absurd proposition. The view, which was called Nihilianism,
was disapproved by Alexander IIL, A. D. 1163 and 1179.^ As
a consequence of the sharp discrimination between the divinity
1 This way of regarding the relationship became current in the school of
Abelard. Christ is ** The Word possessing the man " and " the man possess-
ing the Word " [verbum habens hominem and ho?no habens verbum), (epitome
24 extra Rol. sent., p. 171 f., 180. Omnebene in Denifle, Archiv. i. 466 f.).
Roland here further appeals, and rightly, to Augustine (against Gietl, p. 175 n.,
vid. Aug. in Joh. tr. 19, 15 ; cf. Hilarius, de trin. x. 22, Mi. 10, 360,
supra, p. 28). The view is clearly stated, Epit. 24, p. 1733, Mi.: ''Thus
that soul was subject to the Word, so that it could give no motion to the body
except as far as the Word inspired." Vid. also c. 25, de volunt. assuinpti
homin.
^ The problem of Christology is to be solved, not in the sphere of nature,
nor of attributes, but of the person.
^ Not condemned. Vid. Reuter, Gesch. Alex, iii., vol. iii. 703 ff. He-
FELE, V. 618, 719.
5
and humanity, it was held that divine worship {latria) was not to
be rendered to the human nature of Christ, but only servitude

(^dulia) (iii. d, 7), and that the sufferings of Christ were, as to
substance, limited to his human nature (iii. d. 15 D). This
formally orthodox conception of the subject receives its peculiar
coloring on the one hand from the difficulty of a rational combi-
nation of the divine and the human, and on the other hand from
the influence of the Augustinian Christology.
3. But contemporaries felt bound to condemn these views as
Rationalism and Adoptionism. The most elaborate presentation
of the subject in opposition was made by Gerhoh of Reichers-
berg. He follows in the path of Cyril, He starts with the con-
crete God-man, in whom divinity and humanity are united, in
nature as well as in person.^ This union is not impossible, since
the finite is capable of comprehending the infinite.^ Gerhoh
proves the importance of his view by its practical bearing
upon the doctrine of salvation. Since God became man, human
nature has been raised to the right hand of God, and a fire has
entered human nature which destroys sin. The God-man is as
man our way and example, and as God the truth and the life
(ê. g., de investig. 190 f.). According to
antichr. ii. i, p.
this view, the Nestorianism of the age
is a curse. Christ, the
one God-man, is *' to be adored with one adoration " (de glor.
et honore fil, hom. 12. 3, Mi. 194. 1114). Another inference
relates to the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Christ
can at the same moment be in a thousand places at once. *' And
whence this unless because the same spiritual body has risen
above all limitation of places and times For neither is . . .
Christ, who, just as he wishes, is everywhere, to be thought of

as corporeally in one place, however beautiful or desirable " (de
invest, 51, p. 299 f.
ii. Similarly, Arno of Reichersberg, vid.
Bach, 685). Thus the balder Western theory was in the early
ii.
stages of Scholasticism opposed by the ancient Alexandrian

Christology. See the writings of Gerhoh cited p. 60, and Mi.
194. Cf. Bach, DG. ii. 390 ff.
48. Doctrine of Atonement. Anselm and Abelard.
I. In his work. Cur deus homo? Anselm made the first attempt
to present in a harmonious and consistent way the doctrine of
1 The one and the same Christ is *' at the same time a divine and a human
person,'* in proof of which it is naively argued that, as when a person be-
comes good he is not thereby doubled, so also Christ did not duplicate his
person when his divine person became the human person (de investig.
aniichr. ii. 40, p. 278).
2 The perfectly pure humanity in Christ was, as a white cloud, capable of
;
DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 67
the work of redemption (salvation). He seeks to prove upon

rational grounds the necessity of the incarnation and redemption,
although the omnipotence of God could have stood in no need
of these (i. 6). Of any claim of the devil upon man, he knows
nothing (i. 7; cf. medit, ii. ). In addressing himself to the
solution of the problem, he proceeds upon the assumption that
man can attain salvation only through the forgiveness of sins
(i. 10, extr. ). Sin consists in the creature's withholding from
God the honor which is his due. ** He who does not render to
God the honor due, robs God of that which is his and dishon-
ors God, and this is to sin" (i. 11). Man has thus violated
the obligation laid upon him as a rational being. The expecta-
tion sometimes cherished, that the divine mercy will remit sins,
cannot be met, because the non-punishment of sin unatoned for
would bring disorder into the kingdom .of God, **but it is not
proper that God should overlook anything disorderly in his king-
dom " ( i. 12). But order is preserved by righteousness.
*' Nothing
is less to be tolerated in the order of things than that
the creature should withhold the honor due to the Creator
should not render that which he withholds " '* God there-
. . .
fore preserves nothing with more just cause than the honor of
his majesty." From the necessity of maintaining the order of
the divine government and the honor of God is deduced the
rule :
*' It is therefore necessary, either that the honor withheld
be rendered, or that punishment follow" (i. 13). By either

means the divine honor is vindicated in the one case, since God
thus displays himself as the Lord of the rebellious man (i. 14);
in the other, in that the guilty one by a willing satisfaction for
his offense re-establishes the violated order. Thus the above-
cited rule assumes the form It is necessary that satisfaction
:
or punishment follow every sin (i. 15). But God has not pur-
sued the way of punishment, or man would have gone to ruin and
God would not have accomplished his purpose (ii. 4). God
chose the way of satisfaction. Since men are to fill up the num-
ber of the angels who fell (i. 16 ff. ), God cannot accept them as
sinners (i. 19). Satisfaction must however be subject to the rule :
'*
It does not suffice merely to restore that which was withheld
but, for the contumely inflicted, he ought to restore more than he
withheld" (i, 11). But since the most trifling sin, as an im-
proper glance, weighs more than the whole world, a satisfaction
must be rendered to God which is more than all things outside
of God (i. 20 ii. 6).
; And since man dishonored God by sub-
receiving the divine light, and that light was capable of imparting itself to it.
Bach, DG. ii. 425.

mitting to the devil, satisfaction in this case must include the

conquest of the devil by man under more trying circumstances
(i. 22 f, ; ii. ii). As, on the one hand, the satisfaction required
is so great and comprehensive, so, on the other hand, man is ab-
solutely incapable of rendering it, for whatever good he may do

he is already under obligation to render to God, and it cannot
therefore be taken into considersition els safi's/acfw (i. 20). Satisfac-
tion of the character demanded only God can render. But a man
must render it, one who is of the same race, in kindredship with
humanity (ii. 8): (Unless there be a satisfaction), '* which no
one except God can render and no one but man owes it is :
necessary that the God-man render it." The God-man must do

for the honor of God something which he is not already under ob-
ligation to do. This cannot be the obedient fulfilling of the will
of God, since this every rational creature is under obligation to
render. But the free surrender of his infinitely precious life to
death will suffice (ii. 11). The infinite value of this life is more
than sufficient as a payment of all the sins of the whole world
(ii. 14 fin.; 17). Thus the incarnation and sufferings of the
God-man are necessary as a satisfaction rendered to the divine
honor. Only incidentally does Anselm indicate a connection of
Christ with humanity, speaking (ii. 11 fin.; 19 init.) of the in-
struction and example which Christ was able and desired to give
to men ; but the two points of view are not expressly and clearly
combined. This oversight explains why Anselm is so lacking in
clearness when he attempts to show how the result of the work
of Christ inures to the benefit of mankind. The Father cannot
suff*er the nieritum of Christ to go unrewarded, or he would be
either unjust or impotent. Since he cannot give anything to the
Son, who needs nothing, the reward accrues to the advantage of
*' To whom should he more ap-
those for whom the Son died.
propriately attribute the fruit and reward of his death than to
those for whose salvation ... he made himself man and to
whom by dying ... he gave an example of dying for right-
eousness ; for in vain will they be imitators of him if they shall
not be participants in his merit ? " (ii. 20). ''Thus the sins
of mankind are remitted " (ib. ) In this way the divine justice is
preserved as well as mercy (ii. 21 ). And thus also the doctrine
of the Scriptures is proved ''by reason alone" (^so la ratione,
ii. 23).
This discussion is of importance as the first attempt to present
a connected view of the work of Christ.^ It is a master-
1
Gregory the Great is to be specially mentioned as a forerunner of Anselm
(p. 19). As to Augustine, vid. Vol. I., p. 361 u.

,
piece, because the author really understands the subject under

discussionand makes it intelligible to others. The cross of Christ,
which was so often mentioned in pretentious phrases, was here
recognized in clearly defined language as a means of salvation.
Anselm anticipates the scholastic method, combining logical dem-
onstration with juristic principles. The argument is based upon
the (Germanic) legal maxim, which dominates the book: pun-
ishment or satisfaction ( poena aut s atisfactio)} Of special inter-
est is the attempt of Anselm to deduce the divinity of Christ
from his work. Whereas the ancient Greek theology, when speak-
ing of the work of Christ in such connections, had in mind his
''deifying" activities, Anselm sought to prove the necessity of
his divinity from his sufferings and death. At all events, a
proper recognition must be given to the effort of Anselm, not
simply to accept the divinity of Christ in a merely external way
as a dogma, but to understand it in its inner necessity, and none
the less to his tact in bringing the matter home to the hearts of
his generation by connecting it with the penitential practices of
the day. On the other hand, the serious faults of the treatment
of the subject are very apparent (^z) Anselm recognizes only
:
a legal relationship between God and man

not, indeed, a per-
sonal legal relationship, but that of a subject to his legal ruler.
(/^) Redemption is based in a very one-sided way upon the death
^ Cf. Cremer, Die Wurzeln d. anselm. Satisfactionsbegr., Stud. u. Krit.

1880, 7 ff. , and ib. 1893, 316 ff. The attempt is here made to trace the depend-
ence of Anselm' s theory upon the fundamental principle of the Germanic legal
system, poena aid satisfaction showing that the principle of a substitution for
penitential penalties was transferred from the penitential discipline (supra, p. 45)
to the doctrine of the atonement. Cf. Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgesch. i.
163: "The right of challenge belonged only to the offended party or his
blood relative. It depended upon the choice of the relative, whether the
offender with his relatives should respond to the challenge {^die Feindschaft
tragen), or render the composiiio fixed by law." The validity of this associa-
tion of ideas has indeed been recently called in question from the juristic
point of view (vid. Von Moller, Stud. u. Krit., 1899, p. 627 ff. ). Moller
shows that the Germanic penance through money has itself a primitive char-
acter, and that the idea of substitution is not embodied in German jurispru-
dence. According to this, the parallelism, ^^ aut poena anl satisfacdo,^^ \s
not specifically German. Nevertheless, the general conception of the subject
may be characterized as Germanic. It is only in the light of this system of
procedure that we can understand the inner harmony of the transaction as
viewed by Anselm, the emphasis laid upon the divine honor, the princely
mildness in the conception of God (ii. 16), the substantial character of the
service rendered by Christ (cf. Wergeld), the importance attached to the
racial -relationship of Christ to mankind, since only a relative could perform
specific works of satisfaction. Tlie introduction of the idea of nierituni is
beset with difficulties (cf. Gregory, p. 20). In other connections also
Anselm attributes to the sinner the obligation of rendering satisfaction {^deb-
itutn satisfaciendi)\ vid, De concej^tu virginal. 2.
of Christ, the latter being, under the influence of the juristic con-
ception of the satisfaction regarded as a material contribution.
(*r) The connection between the active life and the sufferings of
Christ is not made clear. (^) The transfer of the benefits of

the work of Christ to the church is not intelligibly stated, {e)
Above all, the change in the attitude of God toward the sinner
which Anselm maintains cannot be made intelligible from a re-
ligious point of view by the means which he employs, etc.
Cf. Baur, D. chr. Lehre v. d. Versong., p. 155 ff. Hasse,
Ans. ii.^ 485 ff. Cremer, 1. c. Ritschl, Rechtfertigung, u.
Versonung. i. ed. 2, 33 ff. Harnack, iii. 341 ff". , as also the
presentation of the subject by Duns Scot, in Sent. iii. dist. 20
qu. un.
2. If we leave out of the account the theory of redemption
as a ransoming from the devil, which Anselm rightly disowned,
we will find in the theological contributions of the West, in ad-
dition to the soteriological construction of Anselm, especially
that conception of the divinity of Christ in which he ap-
pears as revealing the love of God, and, by teaching and example,
leading to responsive love and piety. It was perfectly natural
that this view should soon assert itself in opposition to the theory
of Anselm, as it did in the person of Abelard (vid. Ritschl, 1. c,
i., ed. 2, 48 ff. Seeberg, Die Versdnungslehre Ab. u. ihre
Bekampfgung durch Bernh. in Mitteil. u. Nachr. f. d. ev. K. in
Russl. 1888, 121 Thomas, ii., ed. 2, 124 ff. Mourier,
ff.; also in
Abel, et la redemption, these Montaub. 1892). In his com-
mentary upon Romans (under Rom. 3. 22 ff.), Abelard de-
velops his doctrine of the atonement. He, too, rejects the
theory of a meeting of the claims of the devil. Redemption has
to do only with the elect, over whom the devil never had any power.
Furthermore, the devil cannot by the wrong perpetrated upon
mankind have gained any right over them. He can be re-
garded only a jailer and torturer, to whose power God commits
men. God could before the death of Christ forgive the sins of
men, as he did in the case of the Virgin Mary. To what end then
did the Son of God take upon himself the burden of his sufferings ?
If Adam's slight off"ense required so great an atonement, what
atonement will the slaying of Christ demand? Shall we think
that God was pleased by the death of his Son, that he on account
of this greater sin forgave the less? And to whom should the
ransom of the blood of Christ be paid ? Not to the devil ;
hence, to God. But is it not improper that the blood of the

innocent should be demanded as a ransom? Can God have
pleasure in the death of his Son, so that through it he should
be reconciled to the whole world? (Mi. 178. 833-36). There-
fore the opinion of Anselm, that God is reconciled by the death

of Christ, is disproved.
Abelard's positive statement of the doctrine is as follows:
Through the works of the law no one could have become right-
eous. But in Christ the lo.ve of God was made manifest, in that
he assumed our nature, and, as our teacher and example, re-
mained faithful unto death. This love of God admonishes us to
an answering love toward God and awakens it in us. By virtue
of our faith in the love of God made manifest in Christ, we are
united with Christ, as with our neighbor, by an indissoluble bond
of love. The love thus awakened in our hearts is the ground of
the forgiveness of sins, according to Lk. 7. 47. The phrase in
Rom. 3. 25, *'for the display of his righteousness," Abelard
understands as referring to the righteousness imparted to men,
that is, *'of the love which justifies us before him" (p. 833).
Thus we are redeemed from sin and from fear, since Christ works
love in us. ** Our redemption, therefore, is that supreme love
in us, through the sufferings of Christ, which not only liberates
from the servitude of sin, but acquires for us the true liberty of
the sons of God, so that we fulfill all things from love rather
than from fear of him who has shown to us such grace that, as
he himself declares, no greater can be conceived" (pp. 836,
832 f. ).^ Side by side with this line of thought we find another.
Under Rom. 5. 12 ff., Abelard declares that Christ, in becoming
man, subjected himself to the commandment of love for others.
This law he fulfilled ** both by instructing us and by praying for
us. " It is in this way, since his prayers must on account of his
righteousness be heard, that Christ *' supplements from his merits
what was lacking in ours" (p. 865). As instruction is still
given by Christ (p. 859), so also his mediation through prayer
in behalf of his followers continues (cf. serm. 10, p. 449). We
are, therefore,redeemed through Christ, *' dying once for us and
very frequently praying and diligently instructing us" (p. 861).^
The view of Abelard is thus evidently God sent his Son to the
:
sinful human race as a revelation of his love, and as a teacher
^ Cf. 836 Bat to us it seems that by this means we are justified in the
:
blood of Christ and reconciled to God that through this particular favor
;
manifested toward us, that his Son assumed our nature and persisted even
until death in instructing us both by word and by example, he has very
strongly drawn us to himself through love, so that, inflamed by this great
benefaction of divine grace, true love now shrinks not from the endurance of
anything whatsoever.
^ The other passages which claim attention in this connection (serm.
5, p.
419 f.; serm. 12, p. 481 serm. 10, p. 452, in Com. to Romans, p. 860) all
;
fall into place naturally in this line of thought, as shown in my comments, 1. u.,
p. 131 ff-
and example. By this means faith and love are aroused in sinful
men. This love becomes the ground of the forgiveness of theirsins.
On the other hand, the love of Christ leads him*to continue to
teach men and to intercede for them before God. Thus their in-
sufficient merits are completed. But when Abelard now, in
response to the inquiry, why it was the Son and not the Father
who became man, declares that the Son, or the divine Wisdom
(supra, p. 59), became man, in order to instruct us by word
and example (theol. christ. iv. p. 1278 f Cf serm. 5, p. 423),
it would seem that the former line of thought was the dominat-
ing one in his theology (cf. Seeberg, 1. c, p. 136 ff.). This

theory derives from the treasures preserved in the traditional
theology of the church certain views which serve to coun-
terbalance the one-sidedness of Anselm. It was in harmony
with the medieval form of piety, since it represented the pious
walk of love as the aim of redemption. There is lacking,
indeed, as in Anselm, the association of the work of Christ with
the institution of the sacraments. If the latter were, in the
medieval conception, the vehicles of salvation for the regenerate,
then must they be expressly made intelligible as a product of the
work of salvation. But as, in Abelard' s expositions of the sub-
ject, no specific importance attached to the death of Christ, he
fell into the error of one-sidedness in the opposite direction.
3. Abelard's doctrine of the atonement was in turn assailed by

St. Bernard (vid. ep. 190, and Seeberg, 1. c, p. 143 ff.). Abe-
lard, he contended, curtails Christianity, making Christ only a
teacher. In reality, Christ brings the forgiveness of sins and
justification, and releases from the bonds of the devil (7. 17 8. ;
20). Just as little as the example of Adam made us sinners does

the example of Christ suffice for our redemption (8. 22 ; 9. 23).
No place, he holds, is reserved for the blood and the cross of
Christ in the system of Abelard, ''who attributes everything
pertaining to salvation to devotion (^devotioni) nothing to regen-
^
eration, ... he locates the glory of redemption, not in

. . .
the value of the blood, but in its effects in our walk and conver-
sation " (9. 24). It is certain, indeed, that the example of the
love of Christ is great and important, *' but they have no foun-
dation, and hence no tenable position, if the foundation of redemp-
tion be wanting. . Therefore neither examples of humility
. .
nor proofs of love are anything without the sacrament of redemp-

'^
tion (9. 25). Instruction (înstitutio) or restoration {resti-
tutio'), the question (9. 23). Bernard made practical use,
that is
perhaps to a greater extent than Abelard himself, of the latter's

method, maintaining that we should meditate upon the love of
Christ in order to be incited to a responsive love toward him (in
Cant. serm. i6. 5; 43. 1-3). He is our teacher and example

(ib. serm. 15. 6 ; 43. 4 ; 22. 7 ; 21.2; 61. 7 47. 6 ; 20. 7 ;
;
24. 8). But the Other aspect of the doctrine is also made prom-
irient. The blood of Christ is the ''price of our redemption.
Unless he had tenderly loved, his majesty would not have sought
me in prison. But to affection he joined wisdom, by which he
might ensnare the tyrant, and suffering, by which he might ap-
pease the offended God the Father" (vid. 20. 2). Bernard
constructed no theory ; but the association of the two concep-
tions the love of Christ begets love in response, he is teacher
and example ; the blood of Christ redeems us from sin, death,

and the devil, and effects the reconciliation of the Father pre-
sents the general view of the subject which prevailed in the
Middle Ages.
4. The central thought of Abelard was perpetuated in his fol-
lowers. Thus, the author of the Epitome answers the question.
Cur dens homo ? with a reference to true love and a good exam-
ple (chap, 23, p. 1731, Mi.). And the Sentences of St. Florian
"
assert that redemption was wrought **inthe person of the Son
in order that, as often as we should recall the love which he has
shown for us, we might abstain from sin. We have ourselves,
'* on account of the
wonderful love which he has shown toward
us," freed ourselves from our subjection to the devil {Denifle,
archiv. i. 431). But the other contemporary theologians share
the attitude of Bernard, t. e., of Anselm. Honorius Augusto-
DUNENSis repeats the thoughts of Anselm (elucidar. i. 8, 16, 17,
21). Hugo likewise reproduces him. It is necessary to '* ap-
pease God," and this is accomplished by making good the dam-
age {damnum restaurare) and making satisfaction for the insult
{de cotitemptu satisfacere^. This the God-man does. Even if
this method of redemption cannot be shown to be necessary, yet
it is the most appropriate, inasmuch as the magnitude of our
guilt and of the future glory is thus set forth (de sacr. i. 8. 4, 6,
7, 10; ii. 1.6). Robert presents both views. Christ has freed us
by his sacrifice rendered to God, not to the devil (sent. iv. 14).
This was the most appropriate, though not the only possible, way
of effecting redemption (iv. 15). It is an appropriate way, be-
cause it makes known to us the magnitude of our sin and of the
divine love (iv. 13). The work of redemption is, here too,
presented under the aspect of instruction and example (iii. 28).
5. Peter Lombard, in his discussion of the problem in the
18th and i()th. Dtstinctzons of his third book, betrays as well his
dependence upon Abelard as his correctness from the ecclesias-
tical point of view. His starting point is the merit of Christ.
By his pious life Christ merited for himself glorification and free-
dom from suffering (i8 A, B). His death occurred therefore

** for thee, not for himself'*
(i8 E). And by it he merited for
us admittance to paradise and redemption from sin, punishment,
and the devil. ** Christ the man was a sufficient and perfect
hostage," i. e., for our reconciliatio (i8 E). According to this,
it may be asked how this deliverance from the devil, sin, and
punishment is effected by his death. To this it is replied, first

of all, with Abelard, that the death of Christ reveals to us the
love of God. *' But so great a pledge of love toward us being
displayed, we also are moved and inflamed to love God . . .
and through this we are justified, being released from sins

/. <?.,
are made righteous. Therefore the death of Christ justifies us,

since through it love is excited in our hearts.''^ But this occurs
also, according to Paul, through faith in the Crucified. When
we are thus freed from sin, we become free also from the devil.
But this thought is defaced by the reminiscence from an earlier
age, that the cross became a mousetrap and the blood a bait for
the devil ( 1 9 A ), The fundamentally Abelardian tendency of the
author is revealed also in the remark ( 1 9 F) that we are reconciled
,
to God, who has a/ways loved us, by the removal of our sins and
hostility toward God. Prominence is also given to the objective
aspects of redemption. God became man in order to overcome
the devil, because a man or an angel might easily have himself
fallen into sin (B). It is further held that Christ delivers us from
everlasting punishment by remitting our debt {relaxando de-
bituvi) (C), and also from temporal punishment, which is re-
mitted in baptism and ameliorated in repentance '* For that :
penalty could not suffice by which the church binds penitents,

"
unless the penalty of Christ, who absolves for us, co-operates
fD). Thus, according to the Lombard (^) Christ has: merited
deliverance for us through the ineritum of his death, since the
suffering endured by him works for our deliverance, {b) He
has overcome, /. e., captured the devil. (*:) His death has
awakened us to love and thereby made us righteous and delivered
us. Of especial interest for us is the prominent introduction of
the conception of the merit of Christ and of his endurance of
punishment, and we are particularly impressed by the lack of
clearness in the adjustment of the ideas presented in their mutual
relations. Thus the idea of redemption did not attain a fixed
or complete form in the present period, but the component ele-
ments were distinctly wrought out.
49. Berenger of Tours and Doctrine of Lord' s Supper,

Sources. Berknger (f 1088) wrote Epistola ad Adelmannum and Liber
:
de SAcra coena adv. Lanfrancum (ed. A. and F. Viscber, 1834). Lanfranc

DOCTRINE OF LORD S SUPPER. 75
(t 1089): Dj Corp. domini adv. Ber. Tur., in Migne 150. 407 ff.
et sang,
a. Sudendorf, Berangarius Tur., 1850.SCHNITZER, Ber. v. Tours, 1890.
DiECKHOFF, Abendmalslehre im Ref.-zeitalter, i. 44 ff. Reuter, Gesch. der
rel. Aufklaning im MA. i. 91 ff. Schwabe, Studien zur Gesch. des. 2.
Abendraalsstreites, 1886. Bach, DG. i. 364 ff. Thomas. -Seeberg, DG. ii.
43 ff-
I.The doctrine of the Lord's Supper received its scholastic

form as a result of the assaults which a forerunner of Scholasti-
cism directed against the (Radbertian) theory which was at the
time gaining general acceptance in the church. Berenger
taught as follows Bread and wine become through consecra-
:
tion the body and blood of Christ, /. <?., they become a '* sacra-
ment of the body and blood of Christ. " Bread and wine signify
{^significant^ the body and blood of Christ they are a similitude
;
(^similitudo)^ sign {signuni), figure {figura), pledge (pignus).

The reality involved comes not into the hand nor into the mouth,
but into the thought {in cognitioneniy de s. coena, pp. 431, 223,
ep. ad Adelm. ) The elements therefore remain what they were;
.
but something new is added to them through the consecration,

/. ^.the spiritual significance, which is apprehended by the
,
spirit of the communicant {e. g., p. 125). We appropriate the

sufferings and death of Christ, so that they become inwardly
directive for us (p. 194). According to this conception, only
believers receive Christ' s body. In support of his view, Berenger
appeals to the Scriptures (Jn. 6), and to the Fathers, especially
Augustine. He regards the teaching of his opponents as silli-
ness {yecordia) ; his own, as the only logical and reasonable
view, required by the proposition Bread and wine are body and
:

blood in which the former remains what it is in order that it
may be the latter (pp. 50, 161). Since the body of Christ
exists in heaven impassible and indivisible, how can the attempt
be made to distribute particles of the flesh in the separate com-
munions in various places (p. 199) ? And did not Christ prom-
ise to give himself entire to believers, not only parts of him-
s.elf? Finally, the doctrine of his opponents leads, as he
acutely perceives, to two kinds of flesh {^diiae carnes^ p. 200), a
heavenly and a sacramental body (cf. Dieckhoff, p. 50 ff. ). To
estimate Berenger correctly, it is necessary to bear constantly in
mind the theory in opposition to which his views were devel-
oped, and to remember also that he had a deeper interest than
his opponents in the religious bearing of the subject. He was
concerned to maintain cheideaof personal fellowship with Christ.*
^ A group of the followers of Berenger taught that bread and wine indeed
remain after consecration, but that the body and blood of the Lord are there
'
'
contained, truly but latently {latenter), and so that they may be understood in
some such way as though I should say that they are impanated (impanari) ''
,
2. The teaching of Berenger awakened opposition from many-

quarters. The keenness with which he expounded the Lord's
Supper as and the rationaHstic method of his argument
2.figii7'a,
(Reuter, 112, 293.
i. Bach, i. 387 ff. ) caused alarm. The
*' multitude of incompetents " were, as he declares, against him,
and even Gregory W\. was unable to protect him. He was con-
demned at Rome and at Vercelli in A. D. 1050. Although the
Papal legate, Hildebrand, at Tours (A. D. 1054), declared him-
self satisfied with the teaching of Berenger, he was still regarded
with suspicion. At Rome, A. D. 1059, he was compelled to
assent to a confession which presented transubstantiation in the
crassest form ''That bread and wine
: after consecration
, .
are not only a sacrament,* but also the true body and blood of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and are not only in a sacrament, but in
truth handled in the hands of priests, broken and torn by the
teeth of the faithful " (Hefele, iv. 826). Having at a later day
again advocated his view in France, where he wrote his treatise,
De sacra C(?ena,'-^he was, in A. D. 1079, 3.ga.in compelled to recant
at Rome.^ But his views still remained unchanged. *'In fact,
Berenger was an acute theorizer of the Illumination, but a hero
in its defense he was not" (Reuter, i. 126).
3. As a result of these controversies, the Lord's Supper be-
came a favorite topic of theological discussion and the doctrine
of Radbert
in a grosser form
-the doctrine of the church.
Lanfranc, Hugo of Langres (de corp. et sang, christi, c. Ber-
enger, Mi. 142. 1325 ff. ). Alger, of Liittich (de sacramentis
corp. et sang, dom.. Mi. 180. 743 ff.). Durand of Troanne
(de corp. et sang, dom., Mi. 149. 1375 ff.), and especially
GuiTMUND of Aversa (de corp. et sang. chr. veritate in euchar.
Mi. 149. 1427 ff. ) appeared in behalf of either the old or the new
teaching. (Cf. Bach, i. 385 ff. ). Guitmund (Mi. 149. 1469 ff.)
maintains that there is a change {mutatio) in the elements, as is
proved by the words of institution, which speak of the body ot
Christ, not figuratively, but substantively {^substantive^. Thus th6
church had taught from the earliest times (Lanfr, c. 18), and a
whole series of miraculous appearances confirm it (Guitm., p.
(Guitmund, De corp. et sang. chr. i. Mi. 149, 1430; cf. Alger, De sacr. i.
;
6; Lombard, sent. iv. dist. ii. D).

^
Thus the word '* sacrament" is no longer regarded as satisfactory; and
in reality the Lord's Supper was, according to this theory, not a sacrament
in the ancient sense of the term. The conception of the mystery had become
quite different.
2 Written A. D. 1077-78. Vid. Brocking, Ztschr. f. KG. 1S92, p. 177 ff.
^
Great prominence was here given to the identity of the sacramental body
with that born of the virgin and dying on the cross. Vid. Lanfr., De corp. et
sang. dom. u. 2.

DOCTRINE OF LORD'S SUPPER. 77
1479 ^-j Durand, Mi. 149. 1418). After the transformation,

the properties of the elements (color, odor, taste) remain, in order
that participants may not be horrified, and in order that believers
may receive the fuller rewards of faith (Lanfr. 18). In every

wafer the entire body of Christ yea, more, the entire Christ
is, by virtue of his omnipotence, present (Guitm. 1434, 1480.
Alger, i. 15). Anselm of Canterbury, ep. iv. 107, Mi. 159,

255. Believers and unbelievers alike receive him, the latter not
\i\\}cv's,dî\XigQ^(:2^<iy {nonsalubri efflcientia) (Lanfr. 20. Alger i.
20). With reference to the question concerning the relation of
the sacramental to the historical body, Lanfranc declares Both :
* *
the same body which was received from the Virgin . and yet
. .

not the same the former, so far as relates to essence the latter,;
"
if thou regardest the appearance {spectem) of bread and wine
(Lanfr. 18). Alger endeavored to meet the difficulty thus
arising by maintaining that Christ can, by virtue of his omnip-
otence, be even bodily omnipresent :
'* In heaven and on earth
he can be corporeally present everywhere, in whatsoever way it

may please him contrary to the nature of flesh always the
same and entire" (i. 15, Mi. 785). The term transubstantio is
first found in Petrus Comester
(f 1179), in the sermons of Hilde-
bert of Lavardin (f 1134), sermo 93, Mi. 171. 776;^ cf. PRE.
viii., ed. 3, 69.
4. Even in the early days of Scholasticism the theory of tran-
substantiation was everywhere advocated. Thus in the school of
Abelard,^ we note especially Roland's Sentences, p. 223 ff.,^ as
also passages from the Florian Sentences and Omnebene, as pre-
sented by Gietl (in his edition of Roland, pp. 223, 227, 233,
234), and the Epitome, 29. Also in Honorius Augustod.
(elucid. i. 28, 30). Hugo is particularly clear: '* Through
the words of consecration the true substance of the bread and
the wine is changed (^convertitu?-) into the true body and blood
of Christ, the appearance, only of bread and wine remaining,
substance passing over into substance {substantia in substantiain
transetinte), (de sacr. ii. 8, 9). Since the body of Christ is not
1 But we find already in Germanus Paris, in Martene Thes. v. 95 :
transformatur.'"
^'-
Haimo of Halberstadt, supra, p. 39. HONORIUS Au-
gustod. Eucharistion, c. 3: **z;z substantiam translatuvi'''' (5, 9, Mi. 172.
1252, 1255). Stephan Augustodunens. (ca. A. D. 1120), De sacr. altaris c.
16: ^^ in corpus ?neumtranssubstantiari{W\. 172. 1293). WiLHELM of St,
Thierry, De corp. et sang. dom. c. 3.
2 Wehave no discussion of the Lord's Supper by Abelard himself, but the
harmonious utterances of his followers reproduce his view.
* Roland here proceeds already in true scholastic fashion. He, like the
other followers of Abelard, discusses the question whether a wafer eaten by a
mouse is the body of the Lord (ed. Gietl, p. 234).
';
omnipresent (cf. ii. 2, 13), he is, therefore, only for the time
{ad tempus) so long as he will, now present in the Supper as
,
once on earth (ii. 8, 13 ; cf. summ. 6. 2).^ As Robert Pul-

Lus (sent. viii. 5), so, too, Peter Lombard advocated the trans-
formation theory *' It is certain that
: the true body and blood
of Christ are upon the altar rather that the whole Christ is
;
there under both the forms, and that the substance of the bread
is converted into (his) body, and the substance of the wine into
(his) blood" (sent. iv. dist. 10 D). The accidents of the

earthly substance remain for the familiar reasons (dist. 11 A E).
But as to the manner of the conversioy he declines to attempt any
further explanation (11 C). He regarded the effect of the sac-
rament as consisting in the forgiveness of venial sins and in the
perfection of virtue {J>erfectw virtuiis, dist. 12 G ; infusion of
grace, Hugo, sacr. ii. 8. 7). Finally, he considers the Lord's
Supper under the aspect of a sacrifice. It is a daily sacrifice :
*
But he is daily immolated in the sacrament, because in the sac-
'
rament there is a commemoration of that which was once done. *
The sacrifice is repeated on account of our daily sins. Christ ''
was both once offered and is daily offered but then in one way,
\
now in another" (dist. 12 G). This sacrifice represents that

upon the cross only as a picture of the latter (Petr. Pictav, sent.
v, 13). Here, as often, theory tardily followed praxis.^
5. The doctrine thus elaborated by the theologians was exalted
to the position of a fixed dogma by Pope Innocent III. at the
Fourth Lateran council (A. D. 1215): '* The body and blood are
truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms
{speciebus^ of bread and wine, the bread transubstantiated into
the bodyand the wine into the blood by divine power. And . . .
this sacrament no one can in any case administer except a priest who
has been properly ordained" (Mansi, xxii. 982. Vid. already
Can. 6 of the Council of Piacenza, A. D. 1095, Hefele, v. 216).
^
But side by side with these fruitful ideas stands the barren suggestion
that, at the first celebration of the Supper, Christ for a time laid aside his mor-
tal and as mortal bore his immortal self in his hands: **In that
nature,
which gave he was mortal, and in that which was given he was immortal
and, nevertheless, he who as mortal gave, and he who as immortal was given,
were not two but one self" (de sacr. ii. 8, 3).
^ Other theologians of the twelfth century also treated exhaustively of the
Lord's Supper. Vid. Bach, i. 392 ff. Special mention may be made of the
theory of Rupert of Deutz. If Radbert understood the transformation of
the elements as a creative act, Rupert conceived it as analogous to the incar-
nation. As the divine nature assumed the human without destroying it, *' so
it does not change nor destroy the substance of the bread and wine according
to outward appearance subject to the five senses, when by the same Word he
unites the latter in the unity [in unitatem^ of the same body which hung
upon the cross " (in Exod. ii. c. 10, Mi. 167, 617 f. ).
DEFINITION OF SACRAMENTS. 79
The " multitude of incompetents," the logic of the theologians,

and the hierarchy combined in the production of this dogma.
It was a corruption of the church's best possession {^cor^-uptio
optimi)\ yet it served at least to preserve one article of religion
to the Christian world.
50. Definition of Sacraments. The Seven Sacraments.

I. The significance of Scholasticism for the History of Doc-
trines consists chiefly in the establishment of the Catholic doc-
trine of the sacraments. The decisive steps in this direction also
were taken during the present period. The divine efficiency is
located in the sacraments, not in the word. Augustine, as we
have seen, had a much more profound conception of the signifi-
cance of the word. The definition of a sacrament was, to begin
with, by no means clear, largely because of uncertainty as to the
number to be recognized. Bernard still speaks of many, and
enumerates ten (Mi. 183, 271 f.). Hugo of St. Victor recog-
nizes among the sacraments the sign of the cross, the invocation
of the Trinity (de sacr. i. 9, 6J, and all manner of ecclesiasti-
cal symbols and formulas (ib. ii. 9). Roland thus designates
the incarnation (p. 157). But in the twelfth century the con-
stant tendency was to give prominence to certain definite sacra-
ments. Robert (sent. v. 24) contrasts the unrepeatable (bap-
tism, confirmation) and the repeatable (repentance, the Lord's
Supper).^ Hugo treats in his Summa of: baptism, confirma-
tion, the eucharist, extreme unction, marriage, but also repent-
ance (6. 10 ff.; cf. de sacr. ii. 14), and the power of the keys,
which is conferred through ordination (6. 14). This is practi-
cally a recognition of the number seven. Here, too, the influ-
ence of the school of Abelard was felt. The Epitome has bap- :
tism, confirmation, the Lord's Supper, extreme unction, mar-

riage (similarly the sentences of St. Florian, Denifle, archiv. i.
432); repentance is treated of in the third section of the system
under the heading of *'love" (c. 35 ff.).^ Roland and Om-
nebene, on the other hand (vid. Denifle, 1. c, p. 467), have :
baptism, confirmation. Lord's Supper, repentance, extreme unc-

tion, in connection with which the power of the keys and ordi-
nation (RoL, p. 267 f.) are spoken of, and marriage. Since
Omnebene appears to have made use of Roland (vid. Gietl,
Sent. Rol., p. 54), Hugo and Roland must be regarded as the
^
It is not correct in view simply of the incidental utterance at vii. 14 to re-
gard him as including ordination as a fifth sacrament.
^ Abelard himself appears to have divided in the same way. Vid. Ethica,
^. 23.
;
first to have placed the number of sacraments at seven. But not

until we reach Peter Lombard do we find this number clearly
and definitely fixed (sent. iv. 2 A).^ It was even then still cus-
tomary to speak, of baptism and the Lord's Supper as the chief
sacraments, which were said to have flowed from the side of
Christ (Lomb. sent. iv. 8 A; Hugo, de sacr. i. 9. 7 ii. 2. i). ;
2. The old (Angustinian) definition of a sacrament,

as the
*'sign of a sacred reality" (^sacrae rei signuin) or a "visible
sign of invisible grace," was still in vogue (Roland, p. 155 ;
epit. i.). But the conception was gradually becoming more

precise : *' God instituted the remedies of the sacraments against
the wounds of original and actual sin " (Lomb. iv. i A; Hugo, de
sacr. i. 8. 12). They are not merely signs, and were instituted
not only for the sake of signifying (^significandt gratia) but for the
^
sake of sanctifying (^sanctificandi gratia) (ib. B). Faith and

repentance are mentioned as the subjective condition required
for a profitable reception (ib. iv. 4 B). But no one so clearly
expressed the controlling thought as Hugo '* A
sacrament is a
:
corporeal or material element, openly (and) sensibly presented,

representing by similitude and signifying by institution, and con-
taining by consecration, some invisible and spiritual grace (de
sacr. i. 9. 2). Thus, e. g.^ it may be said of the water of bap-
tism ''By consecration (^sanctificatione) it contains spiritual
:
grace" (ib. ii. 6. 2). This fully expresses the sacramental con-
ception which dominates the Middle Ages. The sensuous ele-
ments somehow contain grace ; with them grace is infused into
the recipients. There are, indeed, differences between the vari-
*' Some, as baptism, offer a remedy for sin and
ous sacraments :
confer assisting grace ; others, as marriage, are for remedy only

others, as the eucharist and ordination, strengthen us with grace
and virtue " (Lomb. iv. 2 A). As we shall have occasion here-
after to discuss each sacrament separately, we here offer but a few
brief comments.
Baptism accomplishes man's renewal by a putting off of
3.
vices {depositio vitium), and a contribution of virtues {coltatio
virtutum) (Lombard iv. 3 L). Original sin is remitted, because
(i) through the grace of baptism the vice of concupiscence is
^ According to the above, my

statement in Thomas. DG. ii., ed. 2, 216,
must be modified. say that the Lombard was led to enume-
It is inaccurate to
rate seven sacraments by combining those acknowledged by Hugo and Robert
(see note I, p. 79). It seems chronologically impossible that the Lombard
should have been influenced by Roland (vid. Gietl, 1. c, p. 16 f.). The
Lombard started out with the enumeration customary in the school of Abe-
lard (vid. the Epitome), and, following Hugo, added to these repentance and
ordination. But this was a natural result of the theological tendencies of the
age.
'
DEFINITION OF SACRAMENTS. S I
weakened and (2) guilt (^reatus^ is abolished

(^debilitatur) ,
(âboletur') in baptism (ib. ii. 32 B).
4. Confirmation works the bestowal of the Holy Spirit for
strengthening (ib. iv. 7 A.; infusion of grace, Hugo, de sacr. ii. 7.
i). *' Confirmation is as much worthier than baptism, as it is
worthier to be made an athlete than to be cured of disease.

... Wherefore confirmation is now granted only by a bishop '
(Robert, sent. v. 23 Hugo, 1. c, ii, 7. 4). Roland, on the

;
other hand, declares that baptism is the worthier in its effect,

and that confirmation can be called worthier only because it
ought to be administered by a worthier person (p. 213).^
5. As to the Lord's Supper, see Section 49, 3, 4.
6. We must examine the discussions of repentance somewhat
more fully, since the theologians of the period attempted to
justify upon theoretic grounds the advances made in the statement
of this doctrine. Here, too, Abelard and his school exerted a great
influence. Hetaughtthat (i) True repentance consists in contri-
tion of the heart (^confritio cordis) Where this exists, God grants
.'^
the forgiveness of sins (ethica 19). Also the Epitome (35) and
Roland (sent., pp. 243, 245). Usually confessio vfiW immediately
follow contrition (eth. 24; epit. 36; cf. praxis, serm. 8 fin.);
it is not, however, a condition required for the forgiveness of
sins, but ''a large part of satisfaction " (eth. 24). (2) But this
forgiveness has reference only to the eternal punishments of sin :
** For God, when he pardons sin to the penitent, does not remit
all penalty to them, but only the eternal" (eth. 19; epit. 35).
The '^ penalty of satisfaction," on the other hand, was held to
release from all temporal ^wmshm^nl of sin, either in this life or
in purgatory. If these works of repentance are not sufficient,"*
God will complete the punishment **by afflicting with purga-
torial punishments either in this or in a future life" (expos,
in Rom. 2. 4, p. 840 eth. 25 ; cf. epit. 37 ; Roland, p.
;
248). (3) Roland established the necessity of confession and

works of satisfaction as follows ** We offend God by thinking
:
wickedly, and we scandalize the church by acting perversely :
and just as we offend both, we owe it to both to render satisfac-

tion
to God through contrition of heart, to the church through
confession of the mouth and satisfaction by works, if the nature
Vid. also Petr. Pict. sent. v. 9: ''Baptism

'
. is more useful
. . . .
confirmation better and worthier and more precious, just as water is more use-
ful than wine, but wine more worthy and excellent."
^ According to the Epitome,
5j it arises " not from fear of punishment, but
from love of righteousness."
^ Observe the keen remarks of Abelard concerning " some of the priests
. . entrapping those under their care in order that for the oblation of coins
.
they may condone or relax the penalties of the enjoined satisfaction " (eth. 35).
6
,
of the time demands" (p. 249). Abelardthus deduced the pro-

priety of works of satisfaction from the necessity of expiating
the temporal penalties of sin, and by this means solved a prob-
lem raised by the new penitential praxis. But, as he made the
remission of the eternal penalty dependent solely upon contri-
tion, he increased the difficulty attaching to another problem of
the same praxis, /. e.^ that absolution seems to be robbed of its
chief significance and the office of priest becomes merely to
give advice in reference to works of satisfaction for temporal
penalties.
{b^ Hugo of St. Victor, controverting the views of Abelard,
becomes, upon the doctrine of repentance as elsewhere, the rep-
resentative of the hierarchical orthodoxy. For him the confes-
sion is the chief thing in repentance, as was doubtless the case in
the prevalent praxis {oi. supra, p. 46). It presupposes contri-
tion and the willingness to render satisfaction (de sacr. ii. 14.
I ; summa 6. 10). He who will not make confession is a de-
spiser of God (sacr. ii. 14. 8). But repentance is actually
secured only through confession and satisfaction He confesses :
' ^
his sin to the priest, who imposes upon him a just satisfaction,
for he is bound to make satisfaction, not according to his judg-
ment, but according to the judgment of the priest, and then the
priest releases him from the debt of future damnation " (summ.
6. 11).^ Absolution accordingly follows confession, but it is
granted in view of the satisfaction imposed in connection with
the former (see foot-note). Hugo thus theoretically comes to
the support of the theory of the older penitential praxis (p. 43 f. ).
Finally, he vigorously assails the opinion that priestly absolution
has only an ecclesiastical and declaratory signification. Against
this he argues The sinner is bound in a two-fold way ** by ob-
: :
duration of the mind and by the debt of future damnation. The '
'
former, God removes through the grace which works penitence in

us, *'so that penitent we merit to be absolved from the
. . .
debt of damnation" (sacr. ii. 4. 8, p. 565), As the resusci-

tated Lazarus was by the apostles '* loosed" from his grave-
clothes, so the priests, by means of a power divinely conferred,
release the penitent sinner from eternal, perdition (ib. p. 565 f.
^ It is Hugo is aware that forgiveness depends

necessary to observe that
upon and confessio : *' But there is this remedy, that he repent of his
contritio
fault in his heart and confess it with his mouth which, when he has done,
;
he will then no longer be a debtor of damnation" (sacr. ii. 14. 8, p. 5^7)-

The passage above cited does not exclude this view, as the *' then " refers
only to the imposing of the satisfaction. Cf. somewhat later (p. 149)-
" The priest releases from the debt of future punishment by absolving
, . .
through the satisfaction which he imposes."

;
'
DEFINITION OF SACRAMENTS. 83
568, and summ. 6. ii).^ In this idea lies the dogmatic signifi-
cance of Hugo's teaching.
(c) Robert Pullus, on the other hand, locates the essence
of the sacrament in absolution and confession. ''Absolution,
which is, in confession, pronounced above the penitent by the
'
priest, is a sacrament, since it is the sign of a sacred reality
(sent. vi. 6i). But the priestly absolution is only the announce-
ment of the forgiveness which God, upon the ground of peni-
tence, imparts to the sinner (ib.; likewise Petr. Pict. sent. iii.
i6). But after absolution it remains necessary to perform the

penitential works (vi. 52). If the latter be not rendered, they
will be completed by the penalties endured in purgatory (ib. and
vii. T ; vi. 59).
(^) The Lombard betrays also here the influence of Abelard.
Repentance embraces the usual three parts (sent. iv. 16 A). It
is a punishment, and, as such, of a satisfactory nature {poena
satisfacit, iv. 14 A, B, 15 C). The admission (iv. 17 C),

that forgiveness presupposes only contrition and confession be-
fore God, is supplemented by the declaration " Confession :
ought to be offered first to God and then to the priest, nor if

there be opportunity for this can entrance to paradise be other-
wise attained (ib. D), since the latter is a kind of punishment
of sin " (ib. F). This does not involve any divergence from
Abelard. Confession is then followed by absolution (dist. 18).
The question, whether God or the priest forgives, is thus decided :
" That God only remits and retains sins, and nevertheless he has
conferred upon the church the power of binding and loosing
but he absolves in one way and the church in another '^ (18 E).^
The priests decide whether the sinner is regarded as released
*
'
in the view of the church " (F). But the priests further bind
and loose by imposing and mitigating the satisfaction, and by
the admission to participation in the sacrament of those who
have been purified by rendering the required satisfaction. But
dependent upon absolution, the Lombard
since this was, in fact,
further interprets his language It is to be observed that, be-
:
cause they bind some with the satisfaction of repentance, by
^ The practical frame of mind which harmonizes with

this theory cannot be
better expressed than by Hugo :
" How
can I know when my repentance is
sufficient [condigna)} Because thou canst not know this, therefore thou hast need
always to repent. Thou canst make satisfaction thou canst not do too much. It
;
is better to do more than less . .Nevertheless, in order that the conscience of

.
the sinner may sometimes find comfort, the mode and measure of external repent-
ance has been appointed, so that when the latter has been completed and
perfected, thou mayest begin to have confidence" (de sacr. ii. 14. 2 fin.).
^ Here, as often in the Lombard, we have the theology of " Yes and No."
In iv. 18 Dthe views of Hugo and Abelard are cited.

'
.
that very act they show such to be released from their sins, since
penitential satisfaction is not imposed upon anyone except such
as the priest judges to be truly penitent. But upon any other
they do not impose it, and by that very act they adjudge that
his sin is retained by God (G). A defective exercise of re-
pentance results in the tortures of purgatory ''And they are
:
more severely punished than if they had fully completed their

repentance here " (20 B).^ The Lombard advanced the doctrine
of repentance by assuring to absolution, by virtue of its close con-
nection with confession, a secure place in the sacrament, follow-
ing in this in the footsteps of Hugo. The dogmatic contribu-
tion of the present period lay in the fact that it began to estab-
lish a connection between confession and priestly absolution,
and to argue the necessity of satisfaction in view of the tem-
poral, i. e.j purgatorial, punishment of sin.
7. The custom of Extreme Unction, based on Jas. 5. 15,
was in the present period included among the sacraments. It
serves a double purpose for the remission of sins and for the
:
* *
( Lomb. iv. 2 3 B Hugo, de sacr.

'
alleviation of bodily infirmity ' ;
ii- 15- 3}-

8. The origin of the sacrament of Ordination has been
traced in Vol. I., p. 319 f. A
new motive was furnished
for the careful statement of the doctrine by the enlargement of
the penitential system and the sacramental conception of grace.
The priest receives through ordination the two keys, discretio dA\d
*' In consecration these two are given to all, i. f., the
potestas.
'
office of exercising discretion and the office of exercising power.

Binding and loosing are thereby committed to them (Hugo,
summ. 6. 14; cf. Roland, p. 264 ff.; Lomb. sent. iv. 19 A-C).
Yet this is only one aspect of the matter. Through ordination
is imparted a more abundant grace {ampHor gj'atia, Lomb. iv.
24 A j, as wellas a spiritual power {spiritualispotestas) and spiritual

character {character spiritualis') (ib. K). To it those are to be
admitted ''who may be able worthily to administer the Lord's sac-
raments " (ib. B). If this applies to all the seven orders (ostiarii,
lectores, exorcistae, acolythi, subdiaconi, diaconi, presbyteri),
ithas yet special reference to the priesthood. "The word priest
{sacerdos) is derived from the Greek and Latin, t. e. sacrum dans, ,
or sacer dux. For just as a king {rex) receives his title because he
reigns {a regendo), so a priest {sacerdos) receives his because he
'
consecrates {sacrando) , for he consecrates and sanctifies (ib. J) '
In the conception of this sacrament, as elsewhere, no full and

^ The Council at Aachen, A. D. S36, mentions it among the duties of the
spiritual adviser (Mansi, xiv. 681). Item, at Pavia, A. D. 850 (Hefele, iii.
177). The custom is first met with among the Gnostics (vid.Vol. I., p. 99).
CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH. 85
clear conclusion was attained in the present period, but the con-
trolling thought is clear enough. Ordination imparts the spiritual
authority to administer the sacraments, and through them to sanc-
tify the laity (cf. Greg,
vii., supra, p. 51).
9. The sacrament
of Marriage betrays the juristic origin by
the form of statement.
It is clear from the evidence above adduced that the theolo-
gians of the twelfth century had already clearly wrought out the
materializing of grace through the sacraments. The theologians
of the thirteenth century inherited, indeed, a number of un-
solved
and insoluble problems, but also the firmly established
fundamental conception which proved the regulating force of
medieval Christianity, /. e. , Grace is the power efficaciously
manifested in the sacraments, whose administration belongs by
divine right to the priesthood.
51. Conception of the Church.

1. The task of the present chapter would be imperfectly per-
formed if we should fail to note the acceptance by the theolo-

gians of the day of the conception of the church which Gregory
VII. introduced (supra, p. 50 ff. ). The utterances of the
Scholastics upon the subject are confessedly meagre. Neither
the system of Abelard nor that of the Damascenes gave occasion
for its discussion. The conception was a self-evident premise,
whose application must be made practically by the canonical
laws and theologically in the doctrine of the sacraments.
It is, therefore, all the more significant that Hugo of St. Victor
and Robert Pullus should have expressed themselves plainly
upon the subject. We have also discussions of the relation oi
church and state in the Polycraticus of John of Salisbury (f
1 180, opp. ed. Giles, 5 vols., 1848. Cf. Gennrich, Die Staats-
u. Kirchenlehre d. Joh. v. Sal., 1894).^
2. Augustine indicates the starting point in his query ^' What :
is the church except the multitude of the believing, the whole

number of Christians?" (jnultitudo fide Hum , universitas chris-
tianoruni). (Hugo, de sacr. ii. 2. 2). But inasmuch as, ac-
cording to this, believers are simply Christians, this definition
by no means brings us '*to the true Christian idea of the
church *' (LiEBNER, Hugo v. St. Victor, p. 446); it only declares
that the Christian world constitutes the church.^ The correct
' Vid. also HONORIUS Augustod.; **The highest glory composed of the
apostoHc and the imperial." Mi. 172.
^ Interesting is the definition of Alanus ab Insul.: *' the church is
the con-
gregation of believers confessing Christ and the guardian {subsidium) of the
sacraments" (de articul. oath. fid. iv. in., Mi. 210. 613).
"
conception is gained by the division of Christians into rulers and

subjects (^pj-aelati et subjecti) (Hugo, ib. ii. 2. 5 ; cf. Robert,
sent. vii. 19: '^ prelates governing the church").
This for-
mula, frequently occurring already in the writings of Cyprian
(Vol. I., p. 180 ff.), signifies that the right side of the church con-
sists of the clergy and the left side of the laity (Hugo, ii. 2. 3).
There are, therefore, two lives or two nationalities, of which one
ministers to temporal necessities, and the other administers what
pertains to the spiritual 3). Each of these nationalities
life (ib.
is subject to a ruler, the king and the pope (ib. 4).
i. e., The
nature of the church is in harmony with this idea, and there are
discussions of its orders sacraments, dJ\d precepts.
^ The grada-
tion of the orders is then treated of. The special privileges of
bishops, as compared with priests, are placed upon the ground
that otherwise the subjects might take advantage of their superi-
ors and forget the obedience due the latter (ib. ii. 3. 12). The
archbishops and the four patriarchs stand above the bishops, and
over all is the pope {papa), i. e., father of fathers, whom, pre-
siding in place of Peter, the chief of the apostles, every ecclesi-
astical order is bound to obey, who alone has as prerogatives of
his high rank the keys of binding and loosing all things upon
earth (ii. 3. 5). No one but God may pass judgment upon him
(Johann. Polycr. viii. 23 ; opp. iv. 363). According to the in-
terpretation of the Augustinian conception of the two states
which dominates Hugo, it is but a self-evident conclusion that the
spiritual power stands far above the secular ; it is the older and
has authority to institute the latter and sit in judgment upon it
(ii. 2. 4; cf. Robert, vii. 7): ''This sword, therefore, the
prince receives from the hand of the church. The prince , . .
is, and one who exercises

therefore, a minister of the priesthood,
that part of the duties of the priests which seems unworthy of
the hands of the priesthood " (Polycr. iv. 3 in.).^ Yet the state
is also to be regarded as a divine institution (Polycr., 1. c, iv.
i), but must be subject to spiritual (clerical) direction. Robert

expresses the opinion that, according to Matt. 22. 21 "The :
priesthood is superior to the kingdom in those things which it

administers for God, and the kingdom to the priesthood in those
things which pertain to the world " (vii. 7, p. 920 f. Cf. Hugo,
ii. 2. 6, 7; Gregory VH., supra, p. 50). These utterances
furnish a precise outline of the Gregorian conception of the
1
John, says: "Therefore the prince is a minister of the public utility and
a servant of equity " (Polycr. iii. 2). The gravest crime is tyranny, which is
directed ''against the very body of justice." From this is deducted the right
of slaying tyrants " To kill a tyrant is not only allowable, but right and just
:
(ib. iii. 15 ; viii. 17 in., 18 fin.).

AIMS OF THE CHURCH. 87
church : clergy are related to the laity as a government

( i ) The
to (2) This exalted position of the clergy is ex-
its subjects.
plained by their authority to dispense the sacraments. (3) The
clergy is a graded organism, whose summit is the pope. (4)
The secular power is by divine right subject to the spiritual.
CHAPTER II.
DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE DURING THE SECOND

PERIOD OF SCHOLASTICISM.
52. Aims of the Church. Religious Life. Efforts at Refo7'm.
I. We are now standing upon the summit of the Middle Ages.
The cornerstone and foundation of their theological structure

were laid in the former period, its scope and tendency deter-
mined. The decisive work was not done by the leaders of the
thirteenth century, but by their forerunners in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries. This is true of the theologians no less than
of the ecclesiastics and the reformers of the church's devotional
hfe.
We must first of development of the hierarchical
all trace the
ideas and the religious whose introduction was noted
ideals,
in Sections 44 and 45. We recall the firm adherence of the
later popes to the principles of Gregory VII. Innocent III.
claims special attention. He held that *' The pope is the vicar
{incarius^ of Christ, placed midway between God and man, be-
neath God and beyond man, less than God and greater than man,
who judges concerning all and is judged by none (Mi. 217.
658). Thus Aristotle once spoke of the genie as '* O, thou to
men divine " (Pol. iii. 13. 8). Not only the whole church, but
!
the whole world, is subject to the sway of the pope James, the :
*
'
brother of the Lord left to Peter not only the whole church,
. . .
but the whole world, to be governed " registr. ii. 209). Inno- (
cent accordingly sought to adminster the affairs of the church as

itssole ruler (cf. the confirmation of bishops, their oath of obe-
dience, their being called to the duty of ^(?//r/V////^, appellation to
Rome, the Roman land titles, etc. Vid. the bull of Eger. A. ,
D. 1 213, in MG. leg. ii. 224 f.; reg. i.

495, 496), and claimed
also supremacy over states. As the moon receives its light from
the sun, ''
so the royal power receives the splendor of its dignity
,;
SS HISTORV OF DOCTRINES.
from the pontifical authority " (reg. i. 401, Mi. 217. 1 180. Cf.
DoUinger, Papsttum, p. 401 f. ).^ These ideas were most abruptly
expressed in the bull Unam Sanctam, issued by Boniface VIII.
*
'
'
'
A. D. 1302, whose leading declarations are as follows: **We

are compelled by the faith to believe one holy catholic . . .
church . outside of which there is neither salvation nor the

. .
remission of sins. In which there is one Lord, one faith,

. .
one baptism. Therefore of this one and only church

. .
there is one body and one head, not two bodies, as though it
were a monster, viz. Christ and the vicar of Christ, Peter and
:
the successor of Peter. That in this and in its power are

. . .
two swords, viz., the spiritual and the temporal. There- . . .
fore both are in the power of the church, viz., the spiritual and
the material sword ; but the latter to be exercised for the church,
the former by the church. The one is in the hand of the priest
the other in the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the command
and permission (âd mitu7n et patientiain) of the priest. But it is
fitting that sword be under sword, and that the temporal author-
ity be subject to the spiritual. But that the spiritual power
. .
excels both in dignity and nobility any earthly power whatsoever.

. , For, truth being the witness, the spiritual power has (the
right J to establish the earthly, and, if it have not been good, to
judge it. .Whosoever, therefore, resists this power thus or-
. .
dained of God resists the ordinance of God, unless, like Mani-

chaeus, thou dreamest that there are two principles. More- . . .
over, to every human creature we declare, say, define and pro-

nounce, that to be subject to the' Roman pontiff is absolutely
necessary to salvation " {^de necessitate salutis).
2. The writings of St. Bernard exerted a profound influ-
ence upon the devout speculation of the following period, but it
does not lie within the province of the History of Doctrines to
follow them in detail.^ We must not, however, overlook the
protest against the secularization of the church which, at the
time when the hierarchy was at the summit of its power, and
when even ideas of reform had become merely a means for
further secularization, was raised by the Brethren of the Poor
Life of Christ. The power of love was revealed in Christ to
^ Innocent maintained that the popes had in the time of Charlemagne
transplanted the Greek Empire to Germany, and that in consequence the
*' right and authority of examining the person elected to be king" belonged
to them (de elect. 34, in Mirbt, Urkunden, p. 78).

^ Vid. the mystical writings of Hugo (f 1141) and Richard (f 1173) of
St. Victor also Bonaventura, Itenerarium mentis, as presented in detail in
;
Thomasius, DG. ii., ed. 2, 2728". Religious mysticism is here systematized

and developed into a philosophy. These writings may he described as the
beginnings of theological ethics.
Francis of Assisi. The poor life of Christ overwhelmed his

soul the imitation of Christ became his ideal.
; He became the
knight of *'holy poverty." Poverty set him free from the
world. As he, surfeited with the old life, shook off his relations
with the world, he soon found something else and more than his
ideal had promised
he found himself and individuality. He
did not clothe his thoughts in doctrinal statements. The gospel
frame of mind was everything to him. The love of Christ kept
his tears of joy ever flowing and taught him to perform miracles
of love. The whole creation testified to him of the love of God,
and all living things demanded of him love. ^'Everything
temporal " was to him ** only an image," the image of the soul,
which belongs to its God. Thus his life, and with it the whole crea-
tion, became a hymn of praise to God, for the service of free love.
'* Praise and bless the Lord, and render thanks, and serve him
with grand humility (Song of the Sun) '* My God and all, who
'
' .
art thou, sweetest Lord, my God ; and who am I, an insignificant

worm, thy servant? Most Holy Lord, that I might love thee " !
(opp. Franc, ed. v. d. Burg, 1849, p. 44). '* May the glow-
ing and mellifluous power of thy love absorb, I pray, O Lord,
my mind from all things which are under heaven, that I may die
from love of thy love, who hast deigned to die from love
of my love" (ib. p. 43). Or, as Jacopone sings: ''Make

me truly to rejoice with cling to Jesuline ; then at length
Francis was made the founder of an order
'
shall I have lived. '
by the church of his age. But he sought and attained more than
this. He discovered human individuality and opened to it an
immediate intercourse with God. It may, perhaps, be correct
to say that he wished to make all men monks ; but he did cer-
tainly also teach the children of men to. become Christians and
men. As he found God and love in the Jesus of the gospels,
and attained liberation from the world in the following of Jesus,
he exerted a powerful stimulus upon his contemporaries. He
taught the world the directly individual character and the present
blessedness of the religious life, and he led men to look
upon the world and mankind simply and without dogmatic
spectacles. He glorified poverty and love, and taught men to
realize in them the sense of personal perfection. His influence
can be easily traced in the religious life, as well as in the
art and literature, of the following period. This is especially
true with reference to the direct and loving appreciation of the
human life of Jesus which was manifested in the ensuing age.
The one precious pearl of the church's tradition was thus found
anew. How exhaustively and how lovingly have not Bonaven-
TURA (Meditationes vitae Chr. opp. vi.) and Ludolf of Saxony
(Vita Christi ; vid. also De vita et beneficiis salvatoris Jesu Chr.

devotissimae meditationes) portrayed the human life of Jesus :
'* in order that in all places and deeds thou mayest

be in mind,
as though thou wast present in body*' (Bonav. c. 88 fin.). Into
the heart of him who thus regards the life of Jesus there comes
a certain ** familiarity, confidence and love " for the Lord (ib.
proem.). He is, as is constantly emphasized, for us the good
example '* Who to this end was sent from
: heaven to us in order
that he might go before us in the path of virtues, and might give
to us in his example a law of life and discipline " (Ludolf, pro-
log.). This is the way *' to behold him inspirit " Tib. ii. c. 89).
Upon this point cf. Seeberg, in Ztschr. f. K. Wiss. 1888, p. ,
163 ff. The lessons taught by St. Francis were, thanks to his
monastic order and despite it, not lost upon the Christian
world. He was a '^pioneer of the reformers."
Cf. Hase,
Fr. V. Ass. 1856. Sabatier, Leben d. h. Fr., German trans-
lation, 1895. Hegler, Ztschr. f. Theol. u. K. 1896. K. Muller, Die
Anfange des Minoritenordens, etc., 1885. Thode, Fr. v. Ass. u. die
Anfange der Kunst d. Renaissance in Ital., 1885. Ehrle, in Archiv. f, Litt.
u. Kirchengesch. d. MA. iii. 554 ff.
3. The reformatory agitations very naturally exerted a marked

influence upon the piety of the
This was especially true in
laity.
regard to the penitential brotherhoods attaching themselves to the
third order of St. Francis. But it must be acknowledged, further,
that among the great masses of the population an external eccle-
siastical religious life was perpetuated. The people believed in
God, Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints. They believed
just " what the church believes."* " There is a certain body of
the faith to which everyone is bound, and which is sufficient for
the simple and, perhaps, for all laymen, e. that every adult be-
/'. ,
lieve that God is, and that he is a rewarder of all the good.
Likewise must all believe the other articles implicitly^ i. e. that ,
everything which the universal church believes is true.

'
These '
words of Innocent IV. ^ justly represent the actual state of things.^

Faith in God consists in the conviction that he guides the for-
* The "faith" the Apostles' Creed, e.g., Schonbach, Altdeutsche Pre-

is
digten i. essential content is the Trinity, ib. i. 4; ii. 115
41, 46. Its "i. ;
114. It includes also the divinity of Christ and the seven sacraments (vid.
Altdeutsch. Pred. ed. Wackernagel, p. 77 ff. ). Vid. also i. 42 **I believe all
:
that which I as a Christian man ought to believe." Compare Tertullian's

"credidi quod credere debui."
2 Apparatus quinque libror. decretalium i. i. Vid. Ritschl, Fides impli-
cita,1890, p. 10.
^ was the law for inquisitors They have power to excommunicate laymen
It :
disputing publicly or privately concerning the Catholic faith (Bernard. Guid.

practica inquisit. iv. , p. 207).
1
tunes of men, rewarding the good and punishing the wicked.

Christ by his death overcame the devil (e, g.j Schonbach, Alt-
deutsche Predigten, iii. 76, 174). He became for us an example
of virtue, humility, and poverty (ib. iii. 7, 238, 252, 40). He
is **the heavenly King" (ib. iii. 6). By faithful fulfillment of
one's duties in the church the favor of God may be secured.
Then comes the intercession of the saints, particularly of the
Virgin Mary,ând the protective influence of relics, and, finally,
almsgiving. Life should be spent in constant view of the future
world. Every act of the Christian has reference to reward or
punishment there. ^ And as he thus stands in constant touch
with the other world, so its wonders are constantly injected into
the present life.^ The providence of God, implicit faith, Christ
the vanquisher of the devil and the teacher of virtue, ecclesias-
ticism, alms, saints, relics, and the future world constitute the
chief articles of practical Christianity."* But in the most culti-
vated circles of the age even the utterance attributed to Frederick
II. concerning the three deceivers (Moses, Jesus, and Moham-
med) found currency (cf. Reuter, Gesch. d. rel. Aufklarung.
ii. 276 ff. ).
Vid. Knoeler, Kathol. Leben. im MA., 4 vols., 1887 ff. (after Digby).
FoSTE, ZurTheol. d. Berthold v. Regensburg, Zwickauer Gymnasialpr. 1890. ,
SoMMER, Deutsche Frommigkeit in I3ten Jalirhundert, 1901. Michael,

Kulturzustande des deutschen Volkes wahrend des i3ten Jahrhunderts, 1903.
4. The means by which the church influenced the religious life

of the age were chiefly the following {a) Preaching, which con-
:
sisted mainly of admonitions to a moral life, in connection with

which doctrine was presented only in general outlines, the liturgy
explained, and the history of Christ and of the saints repeated.^
Adoration of the virgin was rapidly gaining in popularity.

^ So early as
A. D. 1 140 an attempt was made at Lyons to introduce a festival of the im-
maculate conception of Mary, but Bernard expressed himself positively against
the idea. Vid. ep. 174. For the position of St. Francis, vid. ep. 11, 12,
and p. 400pp. Konrad of Wiirzb. in the Gold. Schmiede (especially 210,
282, 488, 632
Du hist ein ewic fundament dar uffe de geloube stat diu
:
Kristenheit gemuret hat
ir zuoversiht uf dine kraft, 1374, 1832, 1992.
Altd. Predigten, ii. 79 ** Our Lord is the King and our lady the queen."
:
^ Two brothers were expelled from that monastery. Unless these two shall
have returned, its condition will never be good. One of these is called Give
[Date): the other Take [Dabitur) (Caesar. Heisterb. dial. iv. 68).
^ Vid. especially the Dialog, miraculorum of Caesar, v. Heisterbach (ed.
Strange, 1851), and Peter Venerabil., De miracuHs sui teraporis, in Migne 189.
* There has, strangely enough, been as yet no systematic presentation of the
religious ideas of medieval literature, although Schonbach has made a begin-

ning Uber Hartmann v. Aue, 1894.
:
5 Cf. LiNSENMAYER, Gesch. d. Predigt in Deutschl., 1886, p. 157 ff. Vid.

ScHt^NBACH, Altdeutsche Predigten, 3 vols., 18S6 ff. Honorius Augustodu-
Then came the Sacrament of Repentance. The transformation

of the church's teaching upon this point in the twelfth century
(supra, p. 45) gave rise to a number of new questions, as: Whether
contrition is sufficient in itself, or if it requires also confession
before a priest. Gratian still leaves it an open question, whether
*' sins are remitted upon
contrition of the heart, not upon con-
fession of the mouth," or whether '* without confession no par-
don can be merited" (decret. pars ii.; causa 33; quaest. 3
can. 30, 60, 89). The theologians finally decided for the latter
position (vid. sub). Inasmuch as confession before the priest
thus became the controlling factor of the sacrament/ the indica-
tive form of absolution gradually supplanted the optative.^ It is,
therefore, now the church which, through its representatives,
grants ''absolution from penalty and guilt." Again, it was
asked whether all sins, or only mortal sins, were to be confessed.
In general, it was the rule that for a multitude of lighter sins the
'* general repentance in the church,
the Lord's Prayer, fasting,
and giving alms to the poor, and, at most, the salutary host of
the altar," were sufficient (Hugo, de sacr. ii. 14. i ;Lombard,
sent. iv. dist. 21 E ; ân anoymous tract of the twelfth century,
de poenit., Migne 213. 880. Cf. Die taegeliche buoze, Schonb.
altd. pred. 34).
iii. There was a constantly growing tendency
to substitute indulgences for the actual performance of works of
satisfaction, and for this purpose various occasions and forms
were devised (opposing heretics, jubilee celebrations, the build-
ing of churches, feasts of dedication, festivals of Corpus Christi
and the Virgin Mary, canonization of saints, brotherhoods, gar-
lands, crucifixes, etc. Vid. Wildt in Kirchenlex. i., ed. 2,
102 ff.).^ Thus repentance came to be regarded as the chief
sacrament *' Where there is repentance
: {poenitentia') there is
nens., speculum ecclesiae (Mi. 172). Alanus, ab Insulis, Summa de arte

praedicatoria (Mi. 210). GuiBERT, de Novigent., lib. quo ordine sermo fieri
debeat (Mi. 156), col. 26: "But by the grace of God faith now becomes
known to the hearts of all, and although it has been necessary very often to
inculcate and discuss this anew, yet it is none the less proper to speak even
much more frequently of those things which may instruct their morals."
^ The new view appears with peculiar distinctness in Abelard, Serm. 8 fin.,
and later, e. g.^ Schonbach, Altd. Pred. iii. 88.
2 Honorius still differently, Specul. eccl., Mi. 172. 826. The Synod of
Treves, A. D. 1227, already employs the formula, ego te absolvo (Hefele,
CO. v. 948). Cf. Lea, Hist, of conf. and indulg., i. 482 ff.
^ Faith in the virtue of indulgences became a special criterion of orthodoxy.
The Council of Constance directed that those suspected of heresy should be

asked : ** Whether they believe that the Roman pontiffs can grant indulgences
on reasonable grounds? " Later, pilgrimages were imposed upon those found
guilty of heresy. Vid. Bernard. Guid. practica inquis., ii. 5,11; iii. i, 8, 13,
45 fin. Meanwhile, the further custom of commutation arose (ib. ii. il, 22),
and for money (ii. 23, 25 ; cf. iii. 45, p. 166 f.).
also indulgence. ... As often, therefore, as God gives to a

man repentance, so often does he give also indulgence " (Mi. 213.
873). The rule, that for public offenses there must be also pub-
lic repentance, is still maintained in theory/ but, in point of fact,
public repentance fell rapidly into disuse. Honorius Augustodu-
nensis already speaks of those performing public penance as rid-
iculing God {demn irridentes^ elucidar. ii. 18). In the four-
teenth century it had been in many places entirely abandoned.
''In such things, according to the course of the present age,
there is seen rather a scandal than edification" (Durand. sent,
iv. dist. 14 qu. 4 a. 3). Innocent III. established the follow-
ing rule at the Fourth Lateran council (A. D. 12 15); '* Let
every believer of either sex, after arriving at years of discretion,
faithfully confess all his sins alone at least once a year to his own
priest, and endeavor with all his strength to observe the penance
enjoined upon him, receiving at least at Easter the sacrament of
the eucharist. Iêt the priest bediscreet and cautious
. . . . . .
inquiring diligently as to the circumstances of both the sinner

and the sin, from which he may prudently judge what counsel he
ought to give to him, and what kind of remedy he ought to im-
pose " Tc. 21, Mansi xxii. 1007). This law was very often em-
phasized and observed (Councils of Narbonne, A. D. 1227, c. 7 ;
Treves, A. D. 1227, c. 3 and 4 ; Canterbury, A. D. 1236, c. 18 ;
Toulouse, A. D. 1229, c. 13, where confession three times an-
nually is recommended. Vid. Hefele, v. 943,946, 1052,982).
GOETZ, Revue internat. de theol., 1894, 300 if., 431 ff., and Ztschr. f.
Cf.
KG. Lea, A history of auric, conf. and indulgences, 3 vols.,
XV. 321
ff.
London, 1896.
(<:) The
other sacraments must also be mentioned. "And to
them (the God has committed the seven
priests) the almighty
sacraments in order that they might with these sanctify Chris-
tians to the world, as they journey into the world, and as they
journey through the world, and as they journey out of the world,
with holy baptism, and with holy marriage, and with holy con-
firmation, and with holy confession and penance, and with the
holy body of God, and with holy oil, and with the judgments
"
(Berthold of Regensb. ed. Pfeiffer, i. 142). We postpone for
the present the further discussion of these, stopping at present
^. g., Schonbach, altd. pred. i. 36 :

*' A man does penance for his sin
in two ways, public and private." A made between /t''?z-
discrimination was
itentia publica 2.Xi^ poeniteiitia soleninis. The
was appointed only by
latter
the bishop, was performed with peculiarly solemn ecclesiastical rights, and
could not be repeated (Alex. Hal. summ. iv. quaest. 64; membr. 2. Thorn,
summ. iii. suppl. qu. 28, art. 3. Ricardus de Medievilla in sent. iv. dist. 14,
princ. II, quaest. I and 2. Cf. MORIN, de discipl. v. 25. 2 ff. Hefele, vi.
183, 220, 502).
only to observe how closely the whole course of the Christian

life has been bound to the church, /. e., the hierarchy.^
5. Finally, brief mention must be made of the heretical move-

ments which assumed such large proportions after the eleventh
and twelfth centuries. The controlling aim of Western Chris-
tianity was the salvation of souls (^salus aniviarujii) through the
church (Vol. I., p. 192). It was in consistency with this that
the church of the Middle Ages expressed its characteristic
thought in its theory of the church and the sacraments, especially
the sacrament of repentance (penance). The same controlling
aim, however, gave impulse also to the heresies and schisms
(Novatianism and Donatism) which arose in the Eastern church.^
Even the great heretical groups of the Middle Ages display their
essential characteristics, not in their divergence
from the accepted
theological views, but in the practical desire to secure liberation
from sin and, at least in the conception of their leaders, to rein-
state the holy apostolic church. We
have to do with the two
great branches of medieval heresy
the Cathari and the Wal-
denses. The Cathari, indeed, in keeping with their Oriental
origin, revived, with various modifications, almost the entire
Gnostic system, t. e., Manichaeism (two Gods, Gnostic Christ-
ology. Dualism, etc.). But even these agitations culminated
practically in the ideas that the Romish church was the whore
Babylon, her hierarchs Pharisees, and her sacraments invalid ;
whereas the Cathari were the only holy church, with the true and
holy hierarchy and effectual sacraments. The *' good Christians"
and ''the true imitators of Christ " are persecuted by the church
which is not a church but only they can actually release from
;
sin by their baptism and penance (^consolmnentuin, melioramen-

tian)} Among the Waldenses the doctrinal divergence (denial
of purgatory, opposition to the worship of saints and images)
was given comparatively little prominence but practically these
;
preachers of apostolic poverty rejected finally Rome and its hier-

archy (especially the Lombards), opposed their own hierarchy to
that of Rome, and offered the true sacrament of repentance to their
1 This the medieval conception of the relation of the individual believer

is
to the church. Vid. Greg. VII., supra, p. 51, and cf. Hagen, Minnesinger,
lii. II a: **Wirwaeren doch verirret gar, unt heten wir der pfaffen niht."
Thom.-Sepberg, DG. ii., ed. 2, 214.
^ The same is true of the Reformation.
,^., Reiner's Summa de Catharis, etc. (Martene,

3 Vid., i-. Thes. anecd.
V. ) p. 1764 ff., as well as in the original documents, published by D6LLINGER
,
(Beitrage zur Sektengesch. d. MA., vol. ii.), e. g.^ pp. 17, 286, 322, 372
(church); 188,6,39, 280, 295 (hierarchy); 197, 280, 198,371, "S* 294
(sacraments); 280, 313, 323, 326, 370, 373 (repentance) and also BERNARD.
;
Guid. practicainq. iii. c. 32, -î ; iv., p. 222 f. ; v. i. i. 2, 3,4.

,
,
followers.^ Neither of these parties overstepped the bounds of

medieval Christianity. For them, as in the church at large, Chris-
tianity consisted in purification through the sacraments, obedi-
ence to the hierarchy, and good works in imitation of Christ.
The church, from her point of view, rightly charged upon them :
*' they annulled the

sacraments and made void the priesthood."^
The immediate result of these agitations, constituting as they
did the most energetic assault upon the church since the days of
Gnosticism, was only a more distinct assertion of the ecclesiasti-
cal and sacramental character of Christianity (vid. especially
chapters i, 3, and 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council, Hefele,
V. 878 ff., 881 f 888). More and more, for faith in God was
,
substituted the summons to '^ obey the mandates of the Roman

church."^ On the other hand, the '* free thinking "* heresy of
the Regards, which from the middle of the twelfth century was
propagated in Germany, presents with its pantheism, its ethi-
cal indifferentism, and its essentially anti-ecclesiastical spjrit^
a symptom of the growing independence and discontent as
against the church and her institutions. This is true of the rad-
ical Franciscanism^ and of the apocalyptic speculations (the
'* everlasting gospel*'), which from the time of Joachim of
Floris (] 1202) agitated and disturbed the church.
Vid. original documents in MOller, KG. 374f., 383 Bernardi Gui- ii. ;
donis praclica inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis ed. Douais, 1886; cf. Ch.
Schmidt, Hist, et doctrines de la secte des Cathares ou Albigeois, 2 vols.,
1849. DOllinger, Beitr. z. Sektengesch d. MA., 2 vols., 1890. Dieck-
HOFF, Die Wald. im MA., 1851. K. Muller, die Wald. u. ihre einzeln.
Gruppen, 1886. Preger, Abh. d. bayr. Akad. d. Wiss. xiii.,xiv. Preger,
Gesch. d. deutschen Mystik, i. 207 ff., 461 ff. Reuter, Gesch. d. rel.
Aufkl. ii. 240 ff. JUNDT, hist, du panthîsme populaire, 1875. Denifle,
Dasev. aet. in Arch. f. Litt. u. KG. des MA. i. 49 ff. Ehrle, Die Spiri-
tualen, iii. 553 ff.; i. 509 ff.; ii. 108 ff., 249 ff.; vi. i ff. Haupt, Ztschr. f.
KG. vii. 372 ff.

1 In D5LLINGER, ii., pp. 7, 287, 252, 306, 97, 288 f., 306, 332, 335
{Romish and Waldensian hierarchy); 256, 115 (sacraments); 288, 304, 332
(repentance). Bernard, Guid. pract. inq. iii. 34, 35 ; v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
^ In addition to the above citations, see the collection of Seeberg-Thomas.,
DG. ii., p. 192 f.

3 Thisis the ever-recurring formula in the renunciation of heresy. Vid.,
e. ,^., Bernard, pract. inq. iii. 10 f., 14, 46, p. 168; v. 6. 2, 4, 8, 11 8. 7, 10. ;
* '' Ein fry Geist " (Dollinger, ii. 386).

^ Vid.,
f. ^., pp. 384, 390 (impeccabiles), 417, 3S4, 385 f
Dollinger, ii.
390 (one with God, pares Christo)\ 390, 416 (omnia sunt deus. Oi?inia
fiunt a deo)\ 386, 387, 403, 416 (ethics); 398, 416, 398 (Christology, pur-
gatory), etc.
^ The ideals of Francis are by this party exalted as a " fifth gospel,
'
with the '
severest criticism of the church, which has become Babylon. Vid., c. ^.

Bernard, pract. inq. iii. 39 v. 4. 5 ; v. 3. 2, 3
; 8. I ff. As they very ;
often combined forces with the Begards, they were also designated by the
latter term.
53. History a?td Characteristics of the Theology of the

Thirteenth Century.
See Literature cited under Section 46 also Etole in Archiv. f. Lit. u*

;
KG. des MA. v. 603 ff. Thomas. -Seeeerg, DieTheologie des Duns Scotus,
1900, p. 600 ff.
I. The history of the church's intellectual life from the middle
of the eleventh to the end of the twelfth century may be

depicted in the lives of three men
Pope Gregory VIL, St.
Bernard, and Abelard. The thirteenth century was likewise
characterized by the activities of three great leaders Pope
Innocent III. ( 52, i), St. Francis ( 52, 2), and Thomas
of Aquino. The hierarchy had reached the zenith of its
power, and maintained its position as against the world and
the encroachments of heresy. But at the same time there was
quietly inaugurated a process of liberation and refinement of the
inner life, and, simultaneously, a fuller and more vigorous devel-
opment of scientific study than had been previously known in
medieval history. Antiquity was again the teacher. Hitherto
only the dialectic writings of Aristotle had been known, but to
them were now added his metaphysics, physics, psychology, and
ethics.^ Their study was pursued with eager interest and enthu-
siasm. Men like Albert the Great and Thomas of Aquino wrote
commentaries upon them. There was a larger conception of the
universe, and the sphere of thought was refined and more ac-
curately delineated. Aristotle, the ^^ praecursor Christi in natur-
alibus,'' became the regulating authority and the master of
method. The effect of the knowledge of Arabic philosophy
was also manifest. The materials and the problems of knowl-
edge were rapidly multiplied. But all knowledge must
in the end serve the church. Religion and secular learn-
ing are not yet separated. Thus the dogmatic systems con-
tinue to grow apace, being presented partly in commentaries
upon the Sentences of the Lombard, and partly in independent
works (summa theologiae).^ The ancient dialectic method is still
followed, and the wider the range of material becomes, the greater
1 Vid. JoURDAiN, Recherches critiques sur I'age et Torigine des tra-

ductions latines d'Aristotele, 1843. Haureau, hist, de la philosophic
scolastique, ii. I. 124 ff. Upon the culture and learning of the age, vid.
V. LiLlENCRON, der Inhalt d. allg. Bildung in d. Zeitd. Schol. Munich,
1876. Cf. also PRANTL, in d. Sitzungsberichten d. Miinch. Akad., 1867,
ii., p. I73fir. In the Chartularium universit. Paris (ed. Denifle), i., p. 644 ff.,
may be found a very interesting catalogue of the books which the booksellers
of Paris had for sale in A. D. 1286, together with the prices.
2 The title, ** Summa," was employed before the times of the Lombard.
Vid. Denifle, Gesch. d. Univ. i. 46.

THEOLOGY OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. 97
becomes the number of proofs and authorities pro and con, the
keener the logical distinctions, and the more complicated the lines
of dialectical discussion. Dogmatics again became, as with the
Alexandrines of the second and third centuries, a great system
of the philosophy of religion, appropriating for itself all the
learning of metaphysics and physics, with all the power of the
church and her institutions, and which must never lose from be-
neath it the basis of the rule of faith and the accredited dogmas
of the church. And yet it was evident that the structure thus
reared must fall by its own weight, for during the very period of
its construction it was discovered that the elements here joined
together were mutually irreconcilable. The secularized church
had a secular theology. Every church is secularized which
strives toward any other goal than the kingdom of God and its
gospel ; and every theology is secularized which seeks anything
further than a true understanding of the gospel. And both alike

must come to grief missing the gospel, which they do not seek,
and no less the world, which they seek. This was the sad ex-
perience of the medieval church. Boniface "VIII. and Duns
Scotus were contemporaries. The pope, who made the most
audacious claims for papal supremacy (vid. 52, i),^ aroused
against that theory the opposition which has never since
been allayed and the theologian who carried the dialectic pre-
;
sentation of the doctrines of the church to the greatest extreme

himself fell into error as to the proper relation of faith and phi-
losophy, and gave the final occasion for the severance of the
two (vid. sub).
2. Taking a general view of the history of Scholasticism in
the Second Period, we observe that nearly all the theologians
claiming our attention belong to the Dominican or Franciscan
orders. A few remarks may be necessary to insure a proper under-
standing of the historical course of events before entering upon
the study of the leading theologians of the age. It is well
known that there were sharp lines of contrast between the
great leaders (as, e. g,, Thomas and Duns). These find their
explanation in the historical development. All received their
inspiration from Aristotle. But this was in the first instance
mainly formal. In the general conceptions of truth, the pre-
dominant influence was chiefly that of Platonic-Augustinian
Idealism. The reality of ideas was acknowledged, and they
were regarded from a religious point of view. From Augustine
was borrowed the view of the primacy of the will, in contrast
^ The chief thesis of the bull : Porro subesse, etc., is taken from the Opusc,
i. error. Graec. of Thomas.
,
with the reason. The symbolic conception of the sacraments

is also Augustinian. Thus, for example, taught both Alex-
ander OF Hales and William of Auverne. But Aristotelian-
ism gained ground. The reality of ideas began to be questioned.
The Greek primacy of the intellect was reasserted. Separate
doctrines were more and more subdivided and established upon
the basis of Aristotelian dialectics. It appeared to be a
'*modern" theology which was advanced by Albert and
Thomas of Aquino. The ecclesiastical authorities at first met
these înnovations" with severe censure (Stephen, bishop of
Paris,Robert Kilwardby and John Peckham, archbishops of
Canterbury, vid. Chartularium universit. Parisiensis, i. 543 ff.
558 ff., 624ff.). The Thomistic doctrine is charged with con-
tradiction of Augustine. On the other hand, Alexander and
Bona VENTURA are lauded (chart, univ. Paris, i. 634), This ac-
counts in part for the attempt of the older theology to maintain
itself, not hesitating to employ to that end the scientific means
furnished by the age, e., Aristotelianism.
/'.
In this attempt
Henry of Ghent and Bonaventura were most prominent. But
English theology brought important aid to this tendency. The
traditions of Anselm were still influential in England. To these
was added the stimulus of the important work of Robert
Grosseteste of Lincoln (f 1253), who combined the Augus-
tinian Realism with a Realism of the empirical philosophy as
applied to individuals. Such men as Richard of Middle-
ton, and, above all, Duns Scotus, as also Roger Bacon, con-
tinued to promote this tendency. Thus from various directions
the older Platonic -Augustinian theology antagonized the modern
Aristotelian dialectic theology, but in such a way as to turn the
entire scientific fabric of Aristotle against the Aristotelians.
It may be said that the two tendencies which were once repre-
sented by the schools of Tours and Bee, and which then in the
first period of Scholasticism found in Abelard and Anselm typical
representatives, /. e., the rational-critical and the speculative,

have been perpetuated to our own times. side stood Upon one
the Aristotelians, and upon the other the Platonizing Augustin-
ians. Both parties were, indeed, dependent upon the scientific
method of Aristotle ; but the differences which separated them
may be rightly traced as above to their source.
We now, having gained a general view of the situation, turn
to note the individual theological leaders of the period.
At the head of the list we place Alexander of Hales {doctor
irrefragabilis^ f 1245). He composed Summa
universae theo-
a
logiae. He already betrays the influence of Aristotle. In his
great work, the problems and methods of the later Scholasticism
distinctly appear, and he exerted a controlling influence upon

his successors, particularly in the doctrine of the sacraments.
The new spirit is yet more plainly manifest in Albert the Great
{^doctor universalis,
f 1280). It was he who first employed the
system of Aristotle in a comprehensive way in the construction
of theology. His discussions upon metaphysics and the theory
of knowledge moulded the thought of Thomas. Besides his
Paraphrases upon Aristotle, special mention must be made of
his Co7nmentary upon the Sentences of the Lombard, a (not com-
pleted) Summa, and a Summa de creaturis (0pp. 21 vols., ed.
Jammy, Lyons, 1651 cf. Bach, Alb. Mag. 1881). In the
;
spirit of Albert, his greater disciple, Thomas of Aquino (a/z-

gelus ecclesiae, f 1274) toiled on. In him, with a comprehen-
sive acquaintance with Aristotle and the ecclesiastical writers
(the Areopagite now comes into prominence), were combined
complete harmony with the teachings of the church and a gen-
uinely religious spirit, together with pre-eminent dialectic talent.
Thomas can scarcely be called a man of genius, but he was as
great in systematizing as was Albert in collecting. Among his
writings we may mention the Commentary on the Sentences of
the Lombard, the Summa totius theologiae^ the Summa de veri-
tate cath. fidei contra gentiles, the Expositio symboli, and the
Compendium theologiae } The systematic talent of Thomas is at
once manifest in the simple arrangement of the material in his
Summa : (i) Concerning God. (2) Concerning the approach
of the rational creature toward God, or of man. (3) Concern-
ing Christ, who, on account of his being man, is for us the way
of approach to God
under which he treats of Christ, redemp-
tion, and the sacraments. From God to God
through Christ:
this is the simple foundation thought. The work is confessedly
unfinished, closing abruptly at the doctrine of repentance but ;
it was completed by the disciples of Thomas from his other
writings. The scheme of the work is as follows question

: A
{quaestio') is stated, and then divided into a series of articles,
each of which is presented in an interrogative form. Then,
with the introductory formula, videtur quod non, a number of ar-
guments, perhaps from the Bible, the Fathers, or Aristotle, are
presented against the question. Then are given, introduced by
a sed contra est, a number of other arguments on the affirmative
^ They wereoften edited. Before me lies the Antwerp edition of 1612. I

cite the Summafrom the edition of Frette and Mare (Paris, 1882 ff. ), and
the Compendium according to the edition of Albert, 1896. The literature
connected with his name is also almost limitless. Vid. Werner, d. h.
Thorn., 3 vols. Wagenmann, PRE. xvi. 570 ff. Portmann, Das Syst. d
Summa d. h. Thorn., 1894.
lOO HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
side, upon this follows the decision, beginning w\\h Respondeo

dicendum, and usually answering the question in the affirmative.
The supposed counter-arguments are then answered under the
captions: Ad primum, Ad secundiiin^ etc., dicendum} We
cite an illustration. In the First Part of the Su7nnia the fourth
article under the eighth question reads '' Whether to be every-
:
where is an attribute of God ? (i) It appears that to be every-

where is not an attribute of God." Four philosophical argu-
ments are adduced for this position, partly from Aristotle, and
then are added two arguments from Augustine. (2) **But
upon the opposite is what Ambrose says.'"
side (3) Here fol-
lows the answer reply
: It is to be said, that to be every-
*' I :
where is, from the beginnin_g and essentially, an attribute of

God." Then we have the establishment of this proposition, and
afterward a refutation of the six arguments for the negative :
'*To the first, second, etc., it is to be said."

With Thomas, the Aristotelian, we here mention his friend, the
Franciscan, Bonaventura (^doctor seraphicus, f 1274), who,
however, in theology maintained the old Augustinian-Platonic
theories. Bonaventura attached a greater importance to the
mystic element in his theology than his predecessors. It is not
to be inferred, however, that he pursued with any the less energy
the dogmatic and philosophical problems of his age. He de-
clared himself, in comparison with Alexander, a " poor and lean
compiler" (in sent. ii. declaratio). Of his writings, we mention
his Commentary upon the Sentences, his dogmatic Compendium
breviloquium, and also his Compendium theol. veritatis, the
Declaratio termino7'um theologiae, and the mystical Compendium
itinerarium mentis in deuni.^
3. Before scrutinizing the teachings of the age upon separate
doctrines, it will be well for us to observe, in the case of Thomas,
who was so influential in determining them, the method and aim
of scholastic labors. ((?) The Object of faith, and there-
fore also of theology, is supernaturally revealed by God. The
necessity of revelation grows out of the fact that human reason
cannot by the power of nature recognize the nature of God,
e,g., the Trinity. But revelation extends also to such matters
^ This is the treatment of 'material introduced by Abelard. The conclusio

printed in most editions at the end of the separate articles is not the work of
Thomas himself.
^ At Rome, 1588 ff.; Lyons, 1668 Mayence,
His works were often edited : ;
i6og; Venice, 1751 Paris, 1863 f.

; The best edition is that of Quaracchi,
1882 ff. Hefele edited the Breviloquium in 1861 and Vicetia in i88i. It is
not to be imagined that Thomas held a monopoly of the theological ideas
in the thirteenth century. Bonaventura both as a Mystic and as a Scholastic
followed to a large extent an independent course.
THEOLOGV OK THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. lOI
as reason might perhaps by itself discover, but only slowly and

at a late period (c. gentil. 3 ff. ; summ. i. qu. i, art. i). In
i.
this way man becomes absolutely certain in regard to his religious

knowledge, since it comes ** immediately from God through rev-
elation " (summ. i. q. i, art. 5). But revelation is contained
in the Holy Scriptures. Their real author is God auctor sacrae :
scripturae est deus (ib. i. q. i, a. 10). By inspiration God im-

parted to the prophets definite items of knowledge by the way of
transient impression {impressionis transeuntis). *' Prophecy is
a certain knowledge {quaedam cognitlo') impressed upon the mind

of a prophet by divine revelation through some manner of in-
struction (per modum cupisdam doctrinae) (cf. ii. ii. q. 171, a.
2, 6; q. 172, a. 3).^ God has immediately confirmed this by
the history of the diffusion of faith, as well as by miracles and
signs. And thus he shows the teacher of the truth [to be] in-
visibly inspired (c. gent. i. 6). It must therefore be said:
'*The authority of those should be believed to whom revelation
has been made " (summ. i. q. i, a. 8). As the Scriptures must,
on the one hand, be believed because of their origin, they are, on
the other hand, the only sure and binding authority. ** But one
uses the authorities of the canonical scripture properly and in

arguing from necessity the authorities of other teachers of the
;
church in arguing, as it were, from one's own resources, but with

probability. For our faith rests upon the revelation given to the
apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, but not
upon revelation, if such there were, given to other teachers "
(ib.).^ Thus did Thomas distinctly proclaim the Holy Scriptures
as the revelation of God
as the source and absolute authority of
Christian doctrine. Precisely so did Bonaventura also teach :
'* Authority resides primarily in the Holy Scriptures, which

have
been wholly established {condtta tota) through the Holy Spirit
for the directing of the catholic faith" (brevil. 5. 7). But reve-
lation is a doctrine.^ Its necessity is deduced, not from the ex-
* Vid. Bonaventura in hexaem serm. 9 (opp. i. 35 f. ), c. g.^ it is proper

that faith be confirmed, through the inspired word. Albert, summ. i. tract, i,
qu. 4 ; qu. 5 membr. 2. It will be observed how moderate is the view here
taken of inspiration. In tlie earlier Middle Ages A.gobard had rejected the
view which so represented the matter as though * * the Holy Spirit had not only
breathed into them iinspiraverit) the sense of the preaching and the modes
or arguments of their speeches, but had also himself from without formed in
the mouths the corporeal words." Speech is not produced in the prophets as
in Balaam's ass (vid. adv. Fredegis. 11, Mi. 104. 166).
^ Cf. Quodlibeta xii. a. 26 " The sayings of expositors do not carry with
:
them necessity, that it should be necessary to believe them, but alone tlie ca-
nonical scripture which is in the Old and New Testaments."
^ The proper object of revelation, i. <?., of faith, is the "first truth," or God.
Everything else (as the divinity of Christ, the sacraments) is entitled to con-
istence of sin, but from the debilitas of the human intellect

(summ. I q. I, a.
5). The lines of thought presented in the
Scriptures must, it was further held, be supplemented. It had
been felt necessary in the church from the beginning, that what
was contained in the Scriptures *' diffusedly and in various forms
'
and in some cases obscurely should be plainly and briefly stated

'
in a connected way, /. ^., ** what should be proposed to all to be

'
believed. This is furnished in the symbolum apostolorum^ which
'
contains the essence of the Christian faith (cf also Bonav.

breviloq. 5. 7). But since the heretics introduced false doc-
trines, it became necessary to enlarge and explain this symbol,
which was done by the Nicene Creed, the deliverances of other
councils, and the Fathers.^ The confession is handed down, ** as
it were, by the personality of the entire church which is united
through the faith." A

''new edition of the symbol . . .
for the shunning of rising errors may yet be a necessity. Its

'
'
preparation, in such case, is within the province of the pope.

The counsel given in i Cor. i. 10 cannot be followed *' unless a
question of faith arising concerning the faith should be deter-
mined by him who presides over the whole church, so that thus
his opinion may be firmly held by the whole church. And there-
fore a new edition of the symbol pertains to the sole authority of
the supreme pontiff, just as do all other things which pertain to
the whole church, as the assembling of a general council."
Hence: "by whose authority a council is assembled and his
opinion confirmed" (summ. ii. ii. q. i, a. 9 and 10; cf q. 11,
a. 2). Accordingly, revelation is handed down to the Christian
world in the symbols and the decrees of councils, and by means
of the papal definitions of the faith. It is of course presumed
that these are in harmony with the authority of Scripture ; but
in reality, side by side with the auctoritas scripturae, and above
it, stands the sola auctoritas stvmjti pontificis.
sideration "in so far as we are directed toward God, and

through these things
we assent to them also on account of the divine truth " (summaii. ii. q. i, a. i).
* In the twelve, or as the Scholastics commonly enumerate, the fourteen arti-
cles, *' are contained those things which are chiefly to be believed (Bonav. in
sent, iii., d. 25, a. I, q. i). Three symbols are uniformly acknowledged ; the
first is for the teaching of the faith ; the second, for the explanation of the
faith ; the third, for the defense of the faith " (Bonav. compend. theol. verit.
v. 21 ; Centiloq., p. 3, sect. 38. Anselm, ep. ii. 41. Alex. Hales, summ.
iv. q. 37, sect. 9, names four, but enumerates only three : Apostolic, Athana-
sian, Constantinopolitan, for which Bonaventura names the Nicene. So also
Richard, sent. ii. d. 25, principale 2, q. I and 2. Duns, sent. i. d. 26, q. I,
25. Durand, sent. iii. d. 36, q. 2. Biel, iii. 25, qu. un. Duns, sent, iv, d.
43, q. I, 11). To the Scripture and the symbols are added the works of the
teachers [documenta doctoru?n), of these, Bonaventura enumerates Dionysius,
Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus, Basil, Athan-
{b) Since revelation cannot be comprehended by the reason,

it follows that it must be acccepted in faith. This is necessary,
if for no other reason, because otherwise the *' merit of faith
would be made void" (summ. ii. ii. q. 2, a. 9, 10). Thomas
was the first to make a careful analysis of the conception of faith
(vid. quaestio disputata de fide, opp. viii. 804 ff. and summ. ,
ii. ii. qu. i ff. ). He starts with the Augustinian formula:

*'To believe is to think with assent." The intellectus possi-
bilis, or thinking faculty, reaches a conclusion in one of two
ways, either that the object impresses itself upon this faculty in
an intellectual way as true, or that the faculty is, by the
will, inclined to assent.^ "And thus also are we moved to
believe things said, in so far as the reward of eternal life is
promised to us if we shall believe, and the will is moved by this
reward to assent to those things which are said, although the intel-
lect be not moved by anything intellectual (de fide, art. i, p.
805 b). That the intellect in this way responds to the impulse
of the will is explained by the disposition (^habitus') of faith
divinely infused," e., infused into the intellect (a. 4, p. 812 ;
/'.
cf. Heinrich, quodlib. v. q. 21). Faith is thus incited by

'* The act
the will, but it has its seat in the intellect of faith :
consists essentially in cognition, and there is its perfection " (a. 2,

p. 809). Faith is therefore an incipient knowledge of divine
things, ** which are above reason," dependent upon practical
motives. It is because of the infirmity of human reason that
faith alone is possible in this life. But the goal consists " in
perfect knowledge (^cognitione) of God " (a. 10, p. 820 ; c. gent,
iii. 25, 8 ; 26 ; 50, 6 ; iv. 42, i), and ** eternal life will afford
perfect knowledge of God*' (a. 2, p. 807 b).^ Upon these
principles it can be understood, on the one hand, that faith
should be regarded as reaching its consummation in knowledge,

and, on the other hand, that faith, since it proceeds from the
will, should be held to be meritorious (a. 3), and also that it
should receive its moral character (^formafio) from the will Oi-
from love: ''faith is formed {Jnforma fur') by love " (a. 5, ]).
813 a; cf. summ. ii. ii. q. 4, a. 5 and 3 q. 2, a. 9). The ;
ordinary layman, indeed, never attains an explicit faith fides (^
explicita) embracing all the articles of faith. Of him, it is ever

to be said '* He believes implicitly the separate articles which
:
asius, Chrysostom, Hilary, Gregory, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome (in

Hexaem. vid. 9, p. 36 a).
^ Faith has to do not with the determination of the "simple natures"
(^simplex quidditates') of things, but with the decision. For we believe the
true, and we disbelieve the false (de fide, art. i).
^ to Thomas, the will is subordinate to the intellect, and is
According
spiritual only in so far as it is dependent upon the latter (c. gent. iii. 26. i).
are contained in the faith of the church. * But Thomas not only
'
'
expects of all teachers and spiritual advisers an explicitfaith but he ^
requires the same from the laity also in regard to the Trinity, the
incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, and "other
(articles) of this kind, concerning which the church appoints
festivals" (a. ii, p. 822). This demand is in harmony with
the fundamentally intellectualistic tendency of Thomas. If final
salvation consists in perfect knowledge, then a certain measure
of knowledge must be attained on earth as a preparation (p.
822 a). Faith is, therefore, an incipient knowledge of divine
revelation begotten of practical motives of the will. But the
first subjection of man to God is through faith (summ. ii. ii. q.
16, a. i).
((t) This knowledge is just as little as revelation itself contrary
to reason it is above reason (de fid. art. 10 ad 7).
; It cannot,
therefore, be the province of theology to prove revelation by
human reason (^ratione humand). This would be impossible,
since theology deals Avith super-reasonable articles of faith,
receiving its principles from God (summ, i. q. i, a. 5 and 8;
cf. q. 32, a. i). It can only elucidate somewhat by adducing
those things which the philosophers can also recognize. The
reasons {rationes) of theology are not really ^^demonstrative,
but a kind of persuasions, showing that the things which
presented in the faith are not impossible*' (ii. ii. q. i, a. 5).
They are useful also in refuting opponents (c. gent. i. 9).,
But inasmuch as theology operates with the principles of revel-
ation, its knowledge is more certain and more important than
that of all other sciences (i. q. i, a. 2, 5). This is essentially
the position of Abelard. The great scholastics did not possess
the naive confidence of Anselm.^
(^) This was involved in their relation to the question of
Universals. Thomas here, in almost the same degree as Albert
before him, follows Aristotle or his Arabian interpreters. Man
by means of the senses perceives external things separately.
** Nothing is in the intellect which was not in the sense"
(summ. i. q. 85. a. 3 and 7). There thus arises from the
object a particular form (^
forma particularism. The active
1 Vid. also Bonav. sent, iii., d, 25, a. i, q. 3. Upon implicit faith, vid. G.
Hoffman, Die Lehre von der fides implicita, 1903.
^ In the question, whether theology is a scieniia speculativa vel pradica,
Albert adopted the latter view (summ. i. tr. I, q. 3, memb. 3), Thomas
rather the former (summ. i. q. i, a. 4). Thomas argues that theology has to
do not so much with human actions as with the "divine affairs." There is
here no real contradiction, since this theology, which is no more than
advanced knowledge of the faith, is after all in the conception of Thomas
eminently pracf'rnl
intellect {L.%i:ellectus agens) then transforms this in the intellectual

faculty {Jntellectus possibilis) into an intelligible species (^species
intelligibilis^ (ib. i. q. 79, a. 3; q. 85, a. 2). The intellect
accordingly nas knowledge of the Universal, but by this it is by
no means to be understood that it thereby directly cognizes ideas
actually existent. The general conception, which we form for
ourselves, is always merely derivative, a universale post rem.
The universal does not exist as a general idea, but it is in the
objects of sense under certain criteria {universale in re). Its
original type is seen in the ideas of God (universalia ante rem),
which eternally preexist in him, as the artist's ideas exist in him
before he executes his work. Thus Albert held, and before
him Avicenna. Accordingly, the essential nature of things is
dependent upon the divine idea, and in so far Plato was right
(c. gent. iii. 24). Theoretically, this Aristotelian fully accepted
the maxim '* For the present we cannot know (cognoscere) God
:
except through material effects " (summ. i. q. 86, a. 2, ad. i).

But as revelation now supplies this defect, the knowledge of this
world in its connection of causes and effects becomes a knowledge
of God (c. gent. iii. 50). The ideas of God are made manifest
in the order of the world.
4. Finally, it may be said that Scholasticism has two aspects.
It is orthodoxy, maintaining that the teachings of the church,
the declarations of the ecclesiastical canon, the customs and
practices of the church, are absolutely and unassailably true.
That which actually exists is true, if it be ecclesiastically sanc-
tioned. On the other hand, Scholasticism has a rationalizing
tendency. That which is unchurchly is condemned as being
unreasonable, and that which is churchly proved to be reason-
able, by the intricate methods of dialectics.
Here may be mentioned two great philosophic minds. Roger
Bacon (f 1294) emphasized the importance of experience and
the knowledge derived from it.^ Raymundus Lullus (f 1315)
demanded, in opposition to the Averroistic illumination,^ that
the positions of the Christian faith be strictly proved ** We :
propose to prove the articles of faith by necessary reasons."

The understanding must follow the faith, and thus they must
mount together to the knowledge of the truth, even to the
mysteries of revelation.^ The joyous confidence in the omnip-
otence of logical demonstration, which marked the early days of
Scholasticism, is here revived. But from the theological point of
1 Vid. StOckl. ii. 916 ff.

^ Vid. Reuter, Gesch. d. Aufklarung, ii. 148 ff.
^ Vid. his Ars magna and cf Neander, Denkwiirdigkeiten ii. (1846).
St6ckl. ii. 924 ff.
lo6 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
view, Henry of Ghent (| 1293) is above all worthy of men-

tion as a sturdy representative of the older theology (he wrote
Quodiibeta, a Commentary upon the Sentences, and a Summa
theologiae)} In his conception of universals, he varies from
Thomas. He held that the patterns (êxemplaria) of things
exist as independent entities in God (quodl. vii. q. i, 2). Only
grace can secure for us a view of these (summ. i. q. 2). He
also maintained an actual existence of matter, which Thomas,
following Aristotle, regarded as a mere potency (quodl. i. q. 10).
Body and soul have not one, but two forms (quodl. iii. q. 15).
Everywhere we find the emphasis laid upon perception and the em-
pirical, as well as upon the religiously-colored Realism of ideas.
In this, as his exaltation of the will above the intellect, Henry be-
trays his Augustinian character, since the activity of the will is
the dominating and controlling factor in life *' The will out- :
ranks the intellect ** (quodl. i. q. 14 and 16). As Duns Scotus

establishes the transition to the last phase of the scholastic
theology, we reserve notice of his position for our next chapter.
We can here but refer also to his contemporary, Richard of
MiDDLETON, who likewise strongly emphasized the significance
of the will in God and in man, (His commentary on the Sen-
tences was printed, Brixen, 1591.) For the doctrine of Richard,
vid. Seeberg, Theologie des Duns Scotus, p. 16 ff.
54. Doctrine of God and Christology,

Baur, Die Lehre v. d. Dreieinigket u. Menschwerdung, ii. 1842. J. De-
LiTZSCH, Die Gotteslehre d. Thorn, v. Aq., 1870. Ritschl, Geschichtl.
Stud. 2. chr. Lehre v. Gott, in Jarbb. f. deutsche Theol., 1865, 279 ff. Wer-
ner, Thomas, ii. 619 ff. Dorner, Lehre v. d. Person Christi, ii. 399 ff. H.
SCHULTZ, Lehre v. d. Gottheit Christi, 1881, p. 153 ff.
I. The doctrine of the Nature of God was not wrought

out by the ancient church, as the entire interest of that age was
absorbed by the Trinitarian problem. The term '* person"^
was restricted to the Trinitarian formulae, the divine nature
'
being described as *' substance or *'essense" {^substantias

*
essentia'). And even when this was embellished by the predi-

cates of eternity or of superessentiality, it led no further than to
^ Ed. Venet. 1613. Cf. Stockl. ii. 739 ff. Werner, Heinr. v. Ghent in
Denkschr. d. Wiener Akad. Phil. -hist, cl., vol. 28, p. 97 Siebeck,
ff.
Ztschr. f. Philos. a. phil. Krit., vol. 93, p. 200 ff. For his biography, see
Ehrle Arch, f Litt. u. KG. d. MA. i. 366 ff.
in For his theology, See-
berg, Theol. des Duns Scotus, p. 605-625.
2 How persistent are such traditional usages is illustrated in the fact that
Jacobi is the first who speaks of the "personal" God. Vid. Eucken,
Grundbegriffe d. Gegenw, ed. 2, p. 269.
DOCTRINE OF GOD AND CHRISTOLOGY. I07
the unfruitful abstractions of the conception of God in Greek

philosophy. Even Augustine defined God as Essence (êssentia),
and the conception of the Areopagite appeared to be in harmony
with this (Vol. I., p. 290 f ). This theoretical deficiency was
balanced practically by the doctrine of the divine attributes,
and theoretically by the wealth of personal analogies, in the
Augustinian doctrine of the Trinity, and, still more, by the rec-
ognition of God as energetic Will in the Augustinian doctrine of
predestination. But it was a decided step in advance when
Anselm expressly maintained that God is a thinking Spirit
(monolog. 27. 7 ff).^ Here, too, the teaching of Thomas is
very significant. He also spoke of God in the Grecian way, as
the supremely Existent {fnaxiine ens), the prime Mover {^pri-
muni movens'), and gave the maxim: '* We cannot consider
concerning God how he is, but rather how he is not " (summa
i. q. 2, a.
3 ; q. 2 init.; compend. 3 ff. ). But in such connec-
tions he yet always made it clear that the being of God is think-
ing and willing (summ. i. q. 19, a. i). Since now God is the
prime Mover, it follows that he is '* pure Action {actus purtis)
and without any admixture of potentiality (comp. 4, 11;
'
*
summ. q. 3, a. i, u. 7 ; 9, a. i ; q. 25, a. i). Since this absolute

Activity is thinking and willing^ it realizes a goal ; and since God
is goodness. His will is moved only by goodness or it is love
(ib. i. q. 19, a. 2; q. 20, a. i). The final goal commensurate with
God is He himself. Everything occurring in the world must
therefore be referred to this goal, since God is the originator of
the world. From this it is inferred that the fundamental relation-
ship of God to the world is that of love for it. '* When anyone
loves another, he wishes good for him, and so treats him as

he would treat himself, doing good to him as to himself" (ib.
q. 20, a. I, ad 3). The thought is clear: God always desires
himself as the final goal. When he establishes the world, he
desires it from eternity as a means to this end ; in other words,
he is related to it i. e.j he loves it.
as to himself, This relation
of God to the world manifested in that he gives to the world
is
all things needful and preserves it in its course (this constituting
h.\^ Justitia and Veritas ; q. 21, a. i and 2), and, further, in that
he banishes misery. This is done when deficiencies are over-

come *^ through the perfection of some good." This is the
mercy of God (ib. a. 3). God therefore loves the world, since,
in every action of his bearing upon it, righteousness and mercy
are joined together. This classical argumentation leads to a
religious conception of God Avhich necessarily includes the idea
^ Cf. the Germanic conception of God in Cur deus homo ? Esp. ii. 16,
Io8 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
of a personal loving will. But instead of resting content in this

positive conception, Thomas
displays the influence of the Greek
apprehension of God, e, g., regarding redemption as merely the
best adapted means '* through which he better and more appro-
priately attains his end" (ib. iii. q. i, a. 2). Yet we cannot
fail to note in Thomas a positive advance in the doctrine con-
cerning God.
2. This cannot be said in regard to the doctrine of the
Trinity. When the Lombard, Alexander, and Thomas cite the
spiritual functions of man
as furnishing analogies, or when
Richard of St. 6 de trin.) endeavors to find the
Victor (11.
solution of the problem in love, which requires a ** mutual
love and a separateness {âlietas^ of the three persons,^ they do
'
'
not overstep the suggestions of Augustine. Only one point

calls for our attention here. The Lombard (i. dist. 5) dis-
cusses the questions, whether the Father begat the divine essentia^
or whether the latter begat the Son or himself. He answers
them all in the negative. Since the divine essence, or nature,
'*
is common to the three persons and entire in each," the
Father would otherwise have begotten himself, /. ^., the essence

by virtue of which he exists, which is impossible. Further-
more, the divine essence would thus seem to be degraded to a
mere relationship of the Godhead. The Lombard decides that
the divine essence, which is identical in the hypostases, neither
begets nor is begotten ; accordingly, the intertrinitarian life is a
relation subsisting between the hypostases. These ideas, which
were based upon the Augustinian premise of the. strict unity of
God, were assailed by Joachim of Floris (f 1202), who main-
tained that the discrimination of the divine substance from the
persons leads to Sabellianism or Arianism. He himself, like
the Cappadocians, proceeds upon the supposition of the three
persons, who together constitute one entity {unum), one substance
{7ina substantia), or one God (jimis dens'), but not simply one
individual {iinus). Collective terms, such as *' one herd, one
populace," are cited in illustration.^ The Fourth Lateran
Council (A. D. 1215) made the following deliverance *' We :
believe and confess with Peter Lombard, that there is one

certain supreme Entity {una quaedam summa res), incompre-
hensible indeed and ineffable, which truly is the Father, the
1 Cf.Meier, DieLehre v. d. Trinit. i. 292 ff. Rich, exclaims " Behold,

:
how easily reason demonstrates that there must be ^ plurality of persons in

the Godhead!"
'^
Vid. excerpts from Joachim in the Protocol of Anagni (A. D. 1255),
Denifle, Archiv. i. 136 ff.; cf. also the citation in Duns Scotus, sent. i. d.
DOCTRINE OF GOD AND CHRISTOLOGY. I09
Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons at once, and separately
either one of them. And therefore in God there is a trinity
alone, not a quaternity ; because anyone of the three persons is
that Entity {res^, viz., substance, essence, or divine nature,
which alone is the source of all things, outside of which nothing
can be found. And that Entity is not begetting nor begotten,
nor proceeding ; but is the Father who begets, the Son who
is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds, that there may
be distinctions in persons and unity in nature (Hefele, v.

880 f ). The church of the Middle Ages thus explicitly adopted
the Augustinian doctrine concerning God.^
3. The Christological discussions of the twelfth century were
not renewed in the thirteenth. The great Scholastics present in
their Christology merely a reproduction of the traditional
dogma, in which we note however the failure to emphasize that
contemplation of the Man Jesus which inspired the devotional
ardor of the Jmitatio Christi. The fundamental ideas are as
follows : The Logos-person, or the divine nature, takes the
impersonal human nature into unity with itself. There is not
thus originated one nature., but the union is consummated in the
person. **
The divine nature . united to itself human
. .
'
nature, although not to its very self, but in one person (Bonav. '
iii. d. 5, a. i, q. i). " The union was made in the person, not
in the nature" (Thorn, summ. iii. q. 2, a. 2).^ It is the entire
human nature which is here involved. But the result is, after
all, not a real combination of the two natures. The union con-
sists in their common relation to the Logos-person. The union
... is a certain relation which may be considered between the
divine nature and the human, according to which they meet
in the one person of the Son of God. The unio is real, not in
the divine, but only in the human nature (ib. q. 2, a. 7).
Accordingly, the incarnation is to be understood only relatively :
'*
But God became man in this, that human nature began to be
in the suppositum (yTro^rra^c?) of the divine nature, which pre-
existed from eternity" (ib. q. 16, a. 6, ad i). It is the inherited
^ The Lombard introduces into theology the Cappadocian terminology of
the Damascene, and argues in its support (i. d, 19 NO). But it is important
to observe that, even in the sermons of the period, the Augustinian type of the
doctrine is preserved. E. g., Schonbach, Altd. Fred. ii. 115, iio; iii.
115 f. (ein warer got in der heiligen driniisse. Der vaterund sein v/istumund
sein minne ist neur ein got).
^ Thomas accurately defined both terms. ^'^
Natura signifies essence
(essentia)^ or that which anything is, or the quiddity of a species (ib. q.
2, a. l); persona, the rational, individual substance of a nature {ratio7ialis
naturae individua substantia) (a. 2, after Boethius); hypostasis is the same,
with the omission of the term rationalis.^'*
no HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
defect of this Christology, that while divinity and humanity are

placed in opposition abstractly, as infinite and finite, the Christ
of the Gospels only depicted in empty words/
is This drift is
clearly seen in the discussionby Thomas of the question, whether
there is only one being (êsse) in Christ. He concludes that, as
there is no hypostatic being {Seiri) in the human nature of
Christ, the question is to be answered in the affirmative (ib. q.
17, a. 2). Finally, the communicaiio idiomatum is taught, as
existing between the concretes, God and man ^' They
are able :
to impart to one another the attributes {idioviata communicare)

of that nature according to which they are spoken of in con-
crete," as though.it should be said: God is man and man is
God (Bonav. iii. d. 6, a. i, q. i ; Thorn, iii. q. 16, a. 5). Upon
the two wills and two *' operations," see Thom. iii. q. 18 and
19. The present period displayed no independent interest in
questions of Christology.^ Theologians were content to demon-
strate the logical consistency of the traditional teaching of the
church.
They learned nothing nor did they forget anything.^
55. The Work of Christ

I . The present period produced nothing new touching the work
of Christ, The attempt was made, as had been done by the
Lombard, to combine the objective view, in which the ideas of
Anselm were accepted, with Abelard's subjective interpretations.
Thus Alexander of Hales, following Anselm, teaches the
necessity of the satisfaction which Christ effects through his
''merit" (summ. iii. q. i, memb. 4 ff.; q. 16, memb. 3 and 4).
BoNAVENTURA States the doctrine with more precision. The
work of reparatio includes ( i ) That men through Christ,
especially through his innocent sufferings, learn to know, love,
and imitate God, and (2) that their sins be forgiven them
through a worthy (^condign ain^ satisfaction. This makes the in-
carnation a necessity (breviloq. 4. i, 9). ''Since a simple
creature could not make satisfaction for the whole human race,
nor would it be proper that a creature of another race be taken
for the purpose, it was necessary that the person of the one
1 little the problem was understood may be gathered from the fact
How
that Thomas declared that it would have been possible for the Logos to
assume two human natures at the same time (ib. q. 3, a. 7).
2 But note the attempt of Bonaventura in the Breviloq. to find for every
Christological proposition a ground in the theory of redemption.

^ Luther charged upon the Scholastics, that they "make a wall between
the Son of God and the Son born of the Virgin Mary" (Erl. ed. 47. 362).
This charge cannot be brought against Bernard, but it is true as applied to the
scholastic method.
THE WORK OF CHRIST. Ill
rendering satisfaction be God and man " (sent. iii. d. 20, a. i, q.

3). The satisfaction is effected through the merit of Christ
(^pro nobis i?iereri et satisfacere, iii. d. 18, a. 2, q, 2) which he
won not only in action but also in suffering
*
'
'
{passione) (ib. a. '
I, q, 3. ; cf. brevil. 4. 7)- Since in the acting and suffering of

'
Christ there was a concursus of both natures
*
' (brevil. 4.2), '
there belongs to the '* merit of the God-man the perfection and
plenitude of merit " (ib. 4. 7). '*
But to make satisfaction is
to repay the honor due to God " (4. 9). This was done by the
sufferings of Christ as the most appropriate means '* for placating
God" (iii. d. 20, a. i, q. 5). Herein is displayed the mercy as
well as the righteousness of God (ib. a. i, q. 2). But with this
Anselmian view is combined also the Abelardian idea, that the
passion commended itself also as the most appropriate means,
because suited to arouse men to a responsive love toward God
(ib. a. I, q. 5), It is to be noted, finally, that Bonaventura,
by developing the thought of Christ's relation to the church as
the Head to the members, brought into view the connection
between the work of redemption and the redeemed, as Anselm
was never able to do.^ Reparation is accomplished, accordingly,
by remedying, satisfying, and reconciling {remediando, satis-
faciendOj et reconciliando, brevil. 4. 2).
2. The noteworthy discussion of the subject by Thomas fol-
lows the same line. In Christ as the Redeemer, the human
nature comes into prominence ; but to it belongs, in consequence
of its union with God, a certain divine efficacy (^virtus') (summ.
iii.q. 48, a. 5, ad i ; q. 49, a. i, ad i and 2). This is not in-
comprehensible, when we remember that the human nature
exists only in the divine hypostasis (vid. supra). The work of
redemption is thus presented ** Inasmuch as he is also man, it
:
is competent for him to unite men to God by exhibiting the pre-
cepts and gifts (of God) to men and by making satisfaction and
intercession for men to God " (q. 26, a. 2). In this summary
the leading ideas of the discussion are clearly expressed. (a')
In the human nature of Christ dwells the fullness of all grace
(ib. q. 7, a. i). He is now the Head of the human race, or of
the church. From the Head, rank (ôrdd)^ perfection and virtue
overflow upon the members (q. 8, a. i, 3, 4).^ On the other
hand, the merit of the Head inures to the good of the members
(q. 48, a. I ; q. 49, a. i) in so far as the latter are willing to
belong to the Head. ** But the members ought to be con-
^ But see Bernard, De erroribus Abael., 6, 15: "Therefore the Head

made satisfaction for the members."
^ Thus even the sacraments, ** which have their virtue from the passion of
of Christ " (q. 49, a., i ad 4).
formed to the Head " (q. 49, a. 3, ad 3). This great concep-
tion establishes the proposition, that Christ is the new man, who
is the leaven and principle of the new humanity. (3) The
work of redemption is accordingly to be considered primarily
from the point of view, that Christ by his teaching, his acts, and
his sufferings became the teacher and pattern of our race. This
applies to his circumcision (q. 37, a. i), baptism (q. 39, a. i),
temptation (q. 4, a. i, 3), teaching *' By associating with men
:
... he manifested to all his divinity by preaching and per-

forming miracles and by dealing innocently and justly among
men" (q. 40, a. i, ad i)/ and miracles (q. 44, a. 3). It can
neither surprise nor give offense to observe that Thomas applies
this thought even to the passion of Christ '* Through this, man
:
recognizes how much God loves man, and through this he

is provoked to the loving of God, in which the perfection of
human salvation consists," and ** through this he has given to

us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, righteousness,
and other virtues" (q. 46, a. 3 ; q. 47, a. 4, ad 2). The love
(^caritas^ to which we thus attain serves also (according to Lk.
7. 47) to secure the forgiveness of sins (q. 49, a. i). Even
the resurrection, the ascension, and the session at the right hand
of God serve this end of instruction and suggestion, the last-
named particularly because the exalted Saviour ''sends forth
thence divine gifts to men" (q. 53, a. i ; q. 55, a. 3 ; q.
57, a. 6). This is the first train of thought The Head of the :
church reveals God to his followers, teaches them, incites them

to good, and bestows his gifts upon them. (^) Then comes the
question of satisfaction. The absolute necessity of this Thomas
denies. Since there is no one above God, and he is himself the
'* supreme and common Good of the whole universe," he could
even without satisfaction forgive sin (q. 46, a. 2, ad 3). But the
method of satisfaction would most clearly give expression to his
righteousness and mercy, and he therefore chose it (ib. a.
I, ad 3). At this point Thomas parts company with the juristic
conception of Anselm, a departure which is further emphasized
by his view that, on account of the greatness of Christ's love and
the value of his life, the passion of Christ was not only a suffi-
'
'
superabundant satisfaction " (q. 48, a. 2 and 4).

cient, but also a
Thus both the necessity and the equivalence of the satisfaction
are surrendered. The satisfaction consists in the passion of
Christ. He bore all sufferings '' according to genus" (q. 46,
a. 5 ), and the greatest possible grief {^dolor piaximus, ib. a. 6).
1 Cf. q. 42, a. 2, an intelligent response to the inquiry why Christ did not
become a writer.
:
THE WORK OF CHRIST. 1^3
But the passion of Christ is now to be regarded, not from a

material, but from a personal and ethical point of view. It was
an act of obedience and love '' He suffered out of love and
:
obedience " (q. 47, since God *' inspired in him the will
a. 2),
to suffer for us by infusing love into him" (ib. a. 3). His
death was also a sacrifice only in so far as it was an act of free
will (q. 47, a. 2,ad 2 ; a. 4, ad 2 ; q. 48, a. 3). If the concep-
tion of ** merit" forms the basis of man's ethical conduct,
according to the theory of the Middle Ages, it is but consistent
that Thomas should regard the passion also from this point
of view : *' Through his passion he merited salvation, not only
for himself but also for his members'* (q. 48, a. i); for suffer-
ing is meritorious ^'only in proportion as anyone voluntarily
endures it" (ib. ad. i). The expiatory sufferings of Christ are
the fundamental basis of our salvation. But that the aim of
these is for our justification and the imparting of grace, is not
clearly set forth by Thomas. As the stimulating influence of
Christ continues in his state of exaltation, " his representation
from human nature," in heaven is **a kind of intercession
" (q. 57, a. 6).
{interpellatio) for us
{d) The Result of the work of redemption, according to
Thomas, embraces the following ( i ) The forgiveness of sins,
:
and this through the love begotten in us (vid. under (^) ), as

also through redemtio (cf. q. 48, a. 4), since the church is
'*regarded as one person with its Head " (q. 49, a. i). This
applies not only to original, but also to actual sins (ib. a. 5).
(2) The releasing from sin releases also from the devil (a. 2).
(3) Releasing from the punishment of sin (a. 3.). (4) The
sacrifice of Christ has the effect *' that on account of this good
found in human Ti2XViXQGod is placated \\\Xh respect to every offense
of the human race" (a. 4). (5) The opening of the door
of heaven on account of the release from sin (a. 5). This
genuinely scholastic analysis of the material obstructs a clear
perception of the view of Thomas. But we may, in harmony
with his spirit, condense the statement of his view as follows
Christ, the Head of the church, is by virtue of this position our
Redeemer, (i) Because he reveals God to us, and by love
overpowers us and incites us to good, and thereby makes us cap-
able of securing the forgiveness of sins. (2) Because he
through his passion reconciles God and renders satisfaction to
him, and thereby effects for us salvation and immunity from
punishment. (3) Because he by both these achievements de-
livers us from the power of the devil and opens for us the door
of heaven. In this classical presentation of the subject are com-
bined the views of Anselm (in a fragmentary way indeed) and
of Abelard.^ The result is evidently that forgiveness is accom-

plished and secured in a two-fold way. The theory before us is
the positive resultant of the discussion concerning the nature of
redemption.
56. Doctrines of the Original State and of Sin.
Cf. ScHWANE, DG. d. mittl. Zeit, p. 334 ff.
I. The
doctrine of the original state stands in most intimate
relations with that of sin and with the ethical ideal, and hence
requires attention at this point. It receives its peculiar scholas-
tic form from Alexander of Hales, whose ideas were per-
petuated and modified by Bonaventura, Albert, and Thomas.
Its chief peculiarity consists in the strict line of discrimination
between the original state of the first man and the additional
endowment bestowed upon him by grace (Thorn, sent,
ii. d. 20, q. 2, a. 3). (a) The inborn, natural ethical state
ijiabitus) of man is by some described as original righteousness
{Justitia .originalis) by which is meant the harmony of the
,
natural powers and the absence of the concupiscence which now

hinders their normal exercise (Bonav. sent. ii. d. 19, a. 3, q. i.
Thorn. 1. c.).^ ((^) To this is added the donum superadditum, or
^ This varies from the usual presentation of the case. The observant reader
will be disposed to make an attempt to reduce to one the two chief lines of

thought somewhat perhaps in this way In becoming man, Christ opened to
:
the human race through his life communion with God, and in his passion
attested that the men who should follow him should, despite all the sufferings
of the world, remain with God and by this means he became the ground of
;
the forgiveness of sins, inasmuch as God looks upon the men who follow him
and who have begun in the Christian life in the light of Christ's perfection,
and, on the ground of his guarantee, passes upon them a different judgment
than he has previously done. I find some approaches to this in Thomas, <?.^.,
q. 49, a. 3, ad 3 :" That the satisfaction of Christ has effect in us in so far as
lue are incorporated in him^^ and ib. a. 4 :
" That on account of this good
found in human nature [i. e., the work of Christ) God is placated . . in .
so far as pertains to those who are united to the suffering Christ.^^ Not the
fact that this good is in Christ, but that it is through him in human nature,
serves to reconcile God. But Thomas did not plainly teach this.
2 Among the natural ethical powers, especial prominence is given to the
synderesis^ or synteresis. According to Alexander, who first treats the con-

ception exhaustively, the Synteresis is the habitual inclination toward the good
which, infallible and inalienable, dwells in man, as well in the reason as in the
will (ii. q. 76, m. 1,2,3). Similarly, Bonav. ii. d. 39, a. 2, q. I ff.; vid. also
Heinrich, quodl. i. q. 18. According to Thomas, this has its seat exclusively
in the reason : " A natural habitus of first principles of action, which are
natural principles of natural law. Which has an immutable rectitude . . .
whose office it is to object to evil and incline to good" (Quaest. disp. desynder.
a. I, 2, opp. viii. 836-838. ; cf. sent, i. q. 79, a. 12, 13, and Alb., De homin.
tr. I, q. 69, a. i). But the conscience [consdentia) embraces the acts which
ORIGINAL STATE AND SIN. I^S
added gift of grace. According to some theologians, as, e. g.,

Henry (Quod. lib. ii. q. donuvi super-
ii. ; vi. q. ii. ) this
additum is the first ground of the original righteousness of man.
It embraces, in the first instance, the separate *' graces gratuit-
ously given," such as the bestowal of the sciences, contem-
plation, and the immortality of the body. Especially was there
given to Adam, as the head of the race, such a measure of
knowledge, " that he might always be able to instruct and gov-
ern others " (Thorn, summ. i. q. 94, a. 3). It was a "knowl-
edge {scientia) illuminating the intellect for the recognition
of itself and its God and this world " (Bonav. brevil. 2. ii)-^
(^) Yet the thing of chief importance is other than this, /. e.,
the gift of *' the grace which makes acceptable " {gratia gratiun
faciens^. 'Y\{\% supernaturale complementum (Alex. ii. q. 96, m.
I. Bonav. in sent. ii. d. 29, a. i, q. i) consists essentially in
an indwelling of God, or an infused love, adapting the feeling
{caritas habilitans affectuni) to the loving of God (Bonav. ii. d.
29, a. I, q. I brevil. 2. 11). This grace which sanctifies man
;
is a '* universal habitus, moulding {informans) both the subject
and all his powers and works, through which God, dwelling in
'
all his saints, infuses the power of meriting eternal life (Alb, '
summ. ii. tr. 16, q. 98, m. 4). This habitus of grace has its
seat in the ''essence of the soul," not in the separate powers
(Thom. i. ii. q.no,
4). Accordingto some, this grace is not
a.
imparted to man at
the moment of his creation, but at some
later point of time ; and hence man may and should earn it for
himself by a merit of fitness {ineritum congrui) (Alex. summ.
ii. q. 96, m. i. Bonav. sent. ii. d. 29, a. 2, q. 2. Alb. 1. c, tr. 14,
in any given instance impel to or restrain from action, or pass judgment upon
deeds performed, in either case in accordance with the principles contained in
the Synteresis {(^z.^%\.. de consc. a. i, ib., p. 840), According to Duns, the
Synteresis is the **habitusof principles which is always right," resident in the
intellect; whereas the conscience is the "personal {^proprius) habitus of
practical decision." If the former, therefore,
contains the principles of
ethical conduct, the latter applies these principles inany given case to the con-
duct (Sent. d. 39, q. 2. 4).
ii. The
conception of the uxrvrrjprjat^ dates back to
Jerome (opp. ed. Vallarsi v. 10) and is further defined by him as scintilla
conscientiae. NiTZSCH (Jarbb. f. prot. Theol. 1879, 500 ff.) makes it appear
probable that simply aweid?}(jic stood originally in the passages in Jerome. E.
Klostermann found manuscript evidence of this (Theol. Littztg. 1896, 637.
Cf. Appel, Die Lehre d. Scholastiker v. d. synt. 1891 and Ztschr. f. KG.
xiii. 535 fF. SlEBECK, Gesch. d. Psychol, i. 2, p. 445 ff. Seeberg,
Gewissen u. Gewissensbildung, 1896, p. 69f. ).
^ This gratia gratis data is, according to Thomas, given '*in order
that another may co-operate in securing justification;" the gratia gratum
faciens, that through it "man may be united to God." The former is there-
fore a kind of charismatic endowment. Vid. quaest. de grat. a. 5, p. 988 i
quodlibetaxii. a. 96, ad i.
'
q. 90, m. i). According to others, it is bestowed upon man

together with original righteousness at his creation (Thom. in
sent. ii. d. 29, q. I, a. 2). If the motive of this new doctrine
be sought, it is not to be found in the desire to minimize
the distance separating the natural state from the state of sin.
Such was an incidental result, but not the ground upon which
the doctrine was based. The motive lay in a certain Augustin-
ian tendency. An end can be attained only by the exercise of
powers commensurate. '* But eternal life
is an end exceeding
the proportion of human nature." There is therefore granted
to man the supernatural power (virtus) commensurate with that
high end. The moral life, however, is conceived under the
dominating idea of '' merit." And, as acts of merit are to be
valid before God, they must be wrought by him (vid. Thom.
i.ii. q. 109, a. 5 and 6. Bonav. in sent. iii. d. 29, a. i, q. i.
Alb. ii. tr. 16, q. 98, m. 4). Therefore, man has need of the
impelling power of grace before as well as after the fall (Thom.
ib. a. 2).
2. Anselm already reproduces the Augustinian conception of
sin as a nonentity {Mchtsein). Evil is an ^'absence of good
"
(dial, de casu diabol. 11). Original sin he defined as ''the
lack {nudiias') of original righteousness, caused by the dis-
obedience of Adam, through which we are all the children of
wrath" (de conceptu virginal. 27). The Lombard saw in
original sin a tinder (^fo77ies) of sin and an infirmity (^languor)
of nature, its essence consisting in concupiscence (ii. d. 30 F,
G). The great Scholastics were the first to discuss the subject
with thoroughness, and they agreed substantially in their views.
Here, as usual, Alexander marked out the path, and Thomas
drew the final formulas, {a) Alexander presents original sin
under the two aspects of guilt (^culpa) and penalty (poena).
In the former aspect, it is a lack (^carentia) of original righteous-
ness in the latter, concupiscence (ii. q. 122, m. 2, a. i). Thii
;
carentia embraces the loss both of grace and of the natural

original righteousness, or order of nature, since nature has been
'* The natural powers in us and in the
sorely wounded by sin.
first man . . . are weakened and wounded and deteriorated
'
(Bonav. in sent. ii. d. 24, p. i, a. i, q. 2). Accordingly, Thomas

defines :
"
Original sin is materially indeed concupiscence; but
formally also a defect (defectus) of original righteousness" (i. ii.
q. 82, a. 3). (<^) The possibility of the fall lay in the fact
that the creature, ''made from nothing and defective, was
capable of deficiency in acting according to God " (Bonav. brev.
3. i); its cause was pride (ib. 3. 9). {c) Thomas carefully
defines the nature of original sin. It is, as sickness in the body,
ORIGINAL STATE AND SIN. II7
a State or condition {habitus) attaching itself to the soul in its

essence (êssentia), and hence a languor naturae. From this
follows both that it is a negation and that it is something positive,
/. e., the lack of the original righteousness and the *' unregulated
disposition of parts of the soul " (i. ii. q. 82, a. i ; q. 83, a. 2).
The powers of the soul are robbed of their original order and
wounded, since *Mgnorance, malice, infirmity, and concupi-
scence " now rule in it (ib. q. 85, a. 3). But it is not entirely-
deprived of * the good of nature, for in that case it would have
'
'
'
and would then be no longer capable of sin (ib.

forfeited reason,
a. 2). Man's natural endowment therefore remains, but it has
no more the original inclination toward the good (a. i). But
the latter was, properly speaking, not natural. The conflict of
the powers was involved from the beginning in their multiplicity
(in sent. ii. d. 32, q. 2, a. i). (^) Finally, the question as to
the manner in which the Adam and of parents is trans-
sin of
ferred to their children answered, on the one hand, by a
is
reference to the peculiar position of Adam as the head of the
race (Alex. ii. q. 122, m. 3, a. 3. Thorn, ib. q. 81, a. i), and,
further, by dwelling upon the corruption of carnal conception
(Alex. ib. m. 4). Here, however, arises the difficulty, that,
as the Scholastics regarded Creationism as the only orthodox
theory as to the origin of the soul (Lomb. ii. d. 17 C, H.
Bonav. sent. ii. d. 18, a. 2, q. 3. Thom. c. gent. ii. 86. Duns,
sent. iv. d. 43, q. 3, 21), the connection between the nature
corporeally propagated and the soul infused by an immediate
creative act of God is not clear. Bonav. finds a medium in an
inclination of the soul toward union with the corrupted flesh (ii.
d, 31, a. 2, q. 3). According to Thomas, the propagated bodily
nature is impure (i. ii. 81, a. i ; c. gent. iv. 50. 4). But the
nature is propagated by generation, and the existence of the
soul begins only in that act therefore the soul also becomes
;
sinful (i. ii. q. 83, a. i). But this does not make the matter
clear. (^) The results of sin are sin as an evil, i. e., the dis-
ordered nature (natura inordinata') and the evil itself above
all, the liability to punishment ( 7'eatus poenae) or eternal death ,
(ib. q. 87 ; q. 109, a. 7). The punishment of children dying

unbaptized is light they are deprived of the vision of God
{znsto dei^ Lomb.
ii. 33 E). There is, in their case, not a
punishment, a ** defect of nature " (Heinr. quodlib.
but
vi. q. 12). Thus they occupy a median position ** They are :
without any outward or inward affliction," but " are deprived

of the vision of God and of corporeal light
'
(Bonav. ii. d. 33, a.
'
3, q. 2.Thom. in sent. ii. d. 33, q. 2, a. 2).

If we now review the course of thought thus developed,
. '
we can find no reason to designate it as un-Augustinian. The

Scholastics teach, with Augustine, that through sin man has
become subject to ignorance, lust, and death. And that they
regard the natural endowments of man as only wounded and dis-
torted, not destroyed, by sin, is also not an un-Augustinian
idea. Their Semipelagianism first appears when they attempt to
describe the state of the natural man in its relation to the work-
ings of grace. We must therefore suspend judgment until we shall
have examined their expositions of grace and human freedom.
57. Doctrine of Grace and Human Freedom,
1 Nevertheless, because human nature has not been totally

* *
corrupted by sin, i, e., so as to be deprived of the whole good

of nature, but is able even in the natural state of corruption by
virtue of its nature to do some particular good thing, as to build
houses, to plant vineyards, and other things of such sort, it does
not follow that everything good is connatural to it so that it is

deficient in nothing just as a sick man may of himself have some
motion, but cannot be perfectly moved with the motion of a
whole man unless he be made whole by the aid of medicine '
(Thorn, i. ii. q. 109, a. 2). By this, every thought of self-

redemption is excluded. Salvation must be traced back simply
to God, for the attainment of the final goal can be secured only

through the Prime Mover in which aspect God is constantly
regarded in Thomas's doctrine of grace *' It is necessary that
:
man be turned (^convertatur) toward the final goal through

a motion of the Prime Mover" (ib. q. 109, a, 6 and 9). If
this rule prevailed before the fall, it is thoroughly applied only
after the fall (ib. a. 2). This metaphysical rule dominates the
doctrine of grace as held by Thomas. Christ is mentioned in
this connection only incidentally, as the Head of the church,
who was alone in a position to merit the '^ first grace for others
'
'
(q. 114, a. 6; cf. Bonav. brevil. 5. i init.). Thus grace, and

with it everything good in man, is referred to the divine agency,
as indeed everything is the result of his agency as the Prime
Mover.
2. But what is Grace ? The teachers of this period did not,
like Abelard and the Lombard (sent. ii. 27 C, F. iii. 4 a.)
;
understand grace, or love, as being the Holy Ghost himself

{e. g.y Thom. in sent. i. d. 17, a. i). The term grace desig-
nates, according to Thomas, on the one hand, the gratuitous
motion (mo fio) ofGod(ib. q. iii,a. 2; q. no, a. 2; q. 109,
a. 9, ad 2); on the other hand
and this is the vitally important
signification the effect of this divine act (gratia increata and
GRACE AND HUMAN FREEDOM. II9
creata). '*
The motion of the moving God is itself an infusion
of grace" (q. 113, a. 8). Grace, it is expressly declared, is not
only (lod' s eternal love
'
' and the * * remission of sins " (q. no,
'
'
a. I , ad I and a certain supernatural thing i n

3 ) It is, in essence,
* *
.
man, coming into existence from God " (q. no, a. i ), an infused
condition {habitus infusus)^ which is **in the essence of the
soul" (q. 109, a. 9 ; q. no, a. 4; of. Bonav. sent. ii. d. 26, a.
I, q. 5). **
A certain gift of inwardcondition {habituale donuin)
isinfused into the soul by God " (q. no, a. 2). It is *' super-
natural quaUties," which are infused into the soul, a *' higher
nature, ' which pours forth from God as multifarious force into the
'
" powers of the soul " and renews them (q. no, a. 2, 3, 4, ad
I ; Bonav. brevil. 5. 3 recreare ; and 5.4, upon the rami-
cf. :
fication of grace). This is the grace which makes acceptable

{gratia gratum faciens) as a divine inflowing, which makes
man like God and pleasing to him (Bonav. ii. d. 26, a. i, q. 2).
This supernatural, ethical nature inborn in man embraces in itself
all virtues, including faith, but above all love, which alone, as
Bonaventura says, infuses life into the whole spiritual * *
machine" (i. d. 14, dub. 6. Thom. q. 3, a. 4, ad 3). Such is

the conception of grace
the new nature created by God in the
depths of the soul, which makes man capable of good. This
idea may find support in Augustine, but it has no footing in the
gospel nor in the moral conception of religion. Here, on the
contrary, lies
the doctrine of the sacraments being most
intimately associated with it
the deepest source of the process
by which a mechanical character was impressed upon the religious
life of the Middle Ages.
3. Since man is involved in this process, however, the old

question of the relation of human freedom to grace again comes
to view. Thomas maintains that '* conversion," it is true,
occurs ** through the free will {liberuin arbitriuin), but the free
will cannot be converted to (turned toward) God, except when
God himself converts it to himself (q. 109, a. 6, ad n). The
will is moved by God. Every supposed preparation for the
reception of grace rests upon this ** free will moved by God
"
(ib. a. 7 ; q. 112, a. 2, 3, 4). God himself establishes in us
the disposition toward the reception of grace (q. 113, a. 7).
The divine causality alone effects moral impulses of the will (q.
in, a. 3). If we regard grace from the point of view of God as
its cause, we must speak of operating grace ; but if we think con-
cretely of the resultant movements of the will, of the consent of

man, the term r.^-^/^r^/z^/^^r^^r^ will find its place (q. in, a. 2).
Thomas is strictly Augustinian in his ideas ; but, since he assigns
the chief place to the infused substantial gift of grace instead of to
the personal divine working, it is necessary in order not to lose

the personal element entirely emphasis upon
to lay the greater
human freedom, especially in connection with the conception of
merit. This is seen in Bonaventura, who represents the impar-
tation of grace as having for its end to make men capable of
merit (brevil. 5. 2), which can be attained however only
through the free will (sent. ii. d. 26, a. i, q. 5). Under this
practical view of the matter, despite all emphasizing of the
agency of grace, the personal agency of man himself constantly
presses to the front, as will hereafter plainly appear.
4. We now turn to the conception of Justification, which in
the thought of the period embraces the following points ''Four
:
things are required for the justification of the wicked, i. e.,

infusion of grace, a movement of the free will toward God
through faith, a movement of the free will toward sin, and
remission of guilt" (Thom. q. 113, a. 6; cf. Bonav. brevil. 5.
3: '* infusion of grace, expulsion of guilt, contrition, and a
movement of free will"). It must be clearly understood, first
of all, what is the object in view in justification. But this is
a certain transmutation of the human soul ( Thom. q. 113, a.
'
'
' '
3, ad 3), or, **the reparation {reparation of the soul is called

justification " (Bonav. iv. d. 17, p. i, dub. i). It is therefore not
justification in the Pauline sense, which is here altogether ex-
cluded by the conception of grace ; but the making of man
righteous by virtue of the supernatural power infused. more A
precirse analysis yields the following (^) If we start with the
:
conception oi grace as a divine agency, the basis of justification

is the *' love with which God loves us " and the *' not imputing
sin to man," but this presupposes upon his part the infusion of
grace (q. 113, a. 2,resp.u.,ad 2). But it is the other conception of
grace which dominates, i. e., a divine agency *' by which man
is made worthy of eternal life'* (ib.), and it is in accordance
with this that justification is to be understood. Forgiveness is

therefore the object which is attained through this means.
Thomas has indeed also designated forgiveness as the means of
renewal {transformation, q. 113, a. i), but in this case he evi-
dently uses the former term as expressing the purpose of the divine
will which precedes the entire process (vid. Seeberg, Duns
Scotus, p. 328, n. i). {b) The chief thing practically is the
infusion of grace. Simultaneously with this, the will is moved to
its acceptance. He so infuses the gift of justifying grace, that
he also, at the same time with this, moves the free will to the
accepting of the gift of grace (ib. a. 3). {c^ The soul thus in-
cited by grace attains first to faith: '* The first conversion to
God occurs through faith." This faith (vid. 53, 3 h') would
GRACE AND HUMAN FREEDOM. 121
be incomplete unless it were given form {infor7natus^ by love

(ib. a. 4). But faith is necessary to justification, because man
must by it be convinced that ''God is the justifier of men
through the mystery of Christ. " (^) Since, moreover, ''justifi-
cation is a certain movement {jnotus') by which the human mind
is moved by God from the state of sin into the state of righteous-
'
ness, the will must in justification turn away from sin and toward
'
God (a. 5). (^) The end in view is the forgiveness of sins, but
in such a way that it is dependent upon the infused grace " For :
by the selfsame act God both grants grace and remits guilt " (a.
6, ad 2)
for by far the most important thing is the infusion of
grace (a. 7). (/) Thomas conceives, too, of this act of justifi-
cation as occurring in a moment, and not as a continuous
process. "The infusion of grace occurs in an instant without
progression,'* and hence also :
" the justification of the wicked
by God occurs in an instant "
Accordingly, the succes-
(a. 7).^
sion noted in the various stages of the process is to be regarded,
not as temporal, but as logical. (^) An actual certainty of
salvation is thus not attainable, since the grace of God lies
beyond the sphere of human perception, and hence the possession
of grace can only be inferred conjecturaiiter from good works
(q. 112, a. 5). Justification is therefore the making of a sinner
righteous. Since sin in him has been in principle destroyed,
God regards it as remitted.
This view of righteousness makes its aim not a personal in-
5.
tercourse with God, but the making of man capable of perform-
ing good works. Hence it is not faith which holds the central
place in the religious life, but love and good works. Perfect
faith, or t\\Q fides forjnata, is bound up with love in one " An :
act of faith is perfected and given form {perficitur ac formatur)

through love" (summ. ii. ii. q. _4, a. 3). But love tests itself in
good works, which are good in so far as they are in accordance
with the divine commandments. Thus man becomes righteous.
"But righteousness consists in conforming one's self to the rules
of the law. For this purpose God gave the law, that we might
'
'
obey it (Bonav. brevil. 5. 9). But, at the same time, there is

assured to man by the obligatory law the possibility of meritori-
ous conduct (Bonav. sent. iii. d. 37, a. i, q. i). This brings us
to the important conception of " merit." As it was the aim of
the bestoAval of grace upon our first parents in paradise to enable
^ This is established by careful argumentation in the Quaest. disp. de justif.

a. 9 : Whenever between ** the two termini of a change " there is neither a
local movement nor a, quantitative decrease and increase, " then the transi-
tion from one terminus to the other is not (accomplished) in time, but in an
instant."
:
them to perform meritorious deeds, this is likewise the chief

object of the grace infused into the sinner. '* But grace
is prop-
erly called an assistance divinely given toward meriting, . . .
for it, as the root of meriting, antedates all merits " (Brevil. 5.
2). Grace is, therefore, '* the source {principmm) of a meri-
torious work " (Thorn, i. q. 109, a. 6). ii.The idea of merit
is not to be regarded as really applicable between God and man,
but only upon the ground of a divine appointment, that God will
reward the deeds for the performance of which he has himself
given the needed power (ib. q. 114, a. i). But, since no merit
is conceivable without a co-operation of the free will (ib. a. 4),
there is, after all, a merit on the part of man. Therefore, all
human works originating in the grace of God are merits in the
sight of God. By them man merits for himself eternal life and
an increase of grace (q. 114, a. 2, 8, 9. Bonav. ii. d. 27, a. 2, q.
3j. But he can never, according to Thomas, merit the first
grace {prima gratia ^ ib. a. 5); for conduct is at any time meri-
torious only as proceeding from grace (q. 109, a. 6 ; q. 112, a.
2, ad i). Discrimination is made between the merit of worthi-
ness {meritum condigni or de condtgno) and the merit of fitness
{meritum congrid or de congruo). The former term describes
the conduct in so far as it is purely a product of grace the ;
second, in so far as it results from the exercise of free-will.

Under the former aspect the conduct is, indeed, worthy of eter-
nal life ; whilst, regarded under the latter, it is to be said of it
^' For it seems fitting that to the man acting according to his
virtue God should give recompense according to the excellence

of his virtue " (q. 114, a. 3. Bonav. ii. d. 27, a. 2, q. 3). But
this discrimination is, in reality, a mere abstraction ; concretely,
merits exist only in the form of free actions (Thorn, a. 4). The
Augustinian idealization of the conception of merit (Vol. I., p.
365), which Thomas follows, can scarcely be maintained in
practice. This may be strikingly observed in Bonaventura. Ac-
cording to Thomas, as we have seen, a merit before justification
is inconceivable, but afterward man may by worthiness {^de con-
digno) merit eternal life. According to Bonaventura, a ** grace

gratuitously given " constitutes the beginning of the process of
salvation, forming a connecting link between the '* grace which
'
makes acceptable and the free will (e. g., servile fear, the piety
'
instilled by education, accidental impressions or words). ^ This

is, therefore, the influencing of the man through the word, or,
as Heinrich says, the calling {vocatio) through the external or
1 Bonav. here uses the term in a general way. His specific conception of
it is the same as that of Thomas. Vid, p. 115 n. Also, iv. d. 7, a. i, q. 3,
ad 2.
GRACE AND HUMAX FREEDOM. I 23
internal word (quodlib. viii. q- 5). So small, in comparison

with the sacrament, the significance of the word/ This
is
general influence makes man capable of meriting by fitness the
grace which makes acceptable {gratia gratum fadens) (ii. dist.
28, a. 2, q. I ; d. 27, a. 2, q. 2). Only after the infusion of the
latter is a merit of worthiness (<;<y/2^/^/z/j possible (ii. d. 27, a. 2,
q. 3; brevil. 5. 2); butfurther grace can be merited only by fitness
{de congnio'){ih. q. 2). Without any grace, no merit at all is possi-
ble (d. 27,a.2,q. I, concl.), but to the attainment of justification
man can, nevertheless, dispose himself by fitness. This, however,
points already toward the later apprehension of the matter, accord-
ing to which man merits the grace which makes acceptable even
by fitness, in so far as he does what he should do, and, after its
reception, merits salvation by worthiness (Biel, in sent. iv. d. 16,
q. 2, a. 3, dub. 4 '^
Good works morally performed without love
:
merit by fitness many spiritual good things ; which is evident,

because they merit the grace of justification." Also, ib. dub. 6 :
** Every act proceeding from love and grace in the pilgrim merits
some grade of essential happiness. He who works, merits

. . .
such a reward by worthiness"). There are thus two dominant

elements in the scholastic conception of grace infused grace and :
merit. The Augustinian metaphysics and religion here woven

together with the ancient Western moralism, when strictly inter-
preted, destroy one another (vid. the vieritum cofidigni in
Thomas); in reality, they restrained and thereby supplemented
one another. The idea of merit was made tolerable by the
pious interpretation given to it in the appeal to grace, and into
the conception of grace was introduced through the scheme of
merits the element which it lacked, /. e., that of personal rela-
tion to God. We can scarcely avoid the conclusion that this
vulgar conception of merit furnished a kind of corrective of the
scholastic Augustinian conception of grace. ^ Cf. H. Schultz,
d. sittl. Begr. d. Verdienstes, Stud. u. Krit. 1894, 273 ff.
^ The development of the mendicant orders increased the dogmatic signifi-
cance of the word. In his writing, De perfection e siatuum. Duns assigns to

the clergy the administration of the sacraments, and to the mendicant friars
the proclamation of the word, exalting the latter far above the former. Vid,
Seeberg, Duns Scotus, p. 474 fi".
^
That in such a scheme justification, as connected with faith, could be
brought only formally into consideration (as was the case already with Augus-
tine) is self-evident (f. g.y Lomb. iii. d. 23 D "Through this faith the
:
wicked is justified, so that then faith itself begins to work through love."
Cf. Robert, sent. iv. 14, and my remarks in Thomasius ii., ed. 2, 179). In-
stead of being scandalized at this, we should rather note it as an evidence of
religious tact, for to what perversions would not a theory of justification by
faith have led when the latter was regarded as merely an intellectual assent
i^ciun assensione cogitare^ ?
6. Merit must in the above system logically have for its corre-
late the gaining of eternal life as a reward. But as Thomas held
it to be possible that one person might by fitness merit eternal
life for another (i. ii. q. 114, a. 6), it was also regarded as possi-
ble for a man to earn more merit than is necessary to the attain-
ment of salvation. The Christian may not only obey all the
commandments of the gospel, but also observe its counsels (^con-
silia evajigelica). This occurs when he entirely renounces the
good things of this world, e., property, sensual pleasure and
/'.
honor, and becomes a monk: **in which three things is

founded the whole religion^ which professes the state of perfec-
tion " (i. ii. q. 108, a. 4. Bon. brev. 5. 9). Evangelical per-
fection, or the ideal Christian life, is thus realized in a monastic
life, or one of similar character (ii. ii. q. 184, a. 2, 5 and 4 cf. ;
Bonav. apol. pauper, resp. i, c. 3). This is the perfectio supe?'-

erogationis (Bon., 1. c), th.Q fustitia superabundans (brev. 5. 9
fin.). By this means the treasure of superabundant works is
created (vid. sub.), the multitude of saints placed beside Christ
as intercessores and mediatores (Thorn, iii. suppl. q. 72, a. 2),
and the monastic ideal of life brought within the comprehension
of the common people.
It is, however, only the one side of the medieval ideal of
Christian life which finds explanation in the light of the concep-
tion of merit then prevalent. Starting with the conception of
grace, we discover another ideal, that of a supernatural
'^heavenly" life. If the new disposition {habitus^ of grace in the
soul is the true life, it is incumbent to root out and destroy the
old soul (heart) with all its powers. It is by the path of an as-
cetic *' imitation of Christ " that we are to reach the enjoyment
of partnership in his divinity. The active life {vita activa) is
followed by the contemplative {inta contemplativa). To give
vivid expression to this conception was the task of German Mys-
ticism. We therefore postpone its consideration to the follow-
ing period. We
desire, however, at this point to direct special
attention to the connection of this ideal of life with the medie-
val conception of grace.
58. The Sacraments and the Church. Fixing of Dogiria of

Seven Sacraments,
Cf. ScHWANE, DG. der mittl. Zt., p. 579 ff- Hahn, Die Lehre von den
Sacramenten, 1864. ScHANZ, Die Lehre von den Sacraraenten, 1893.
The doctrine of the sacraments received during this period the

form in which it was afterward dogmatically fixed by Pope
1 In the medieval sense, i. t\, Monasticism, Order.
SACRAMENTS AND CHURCH. 1 25
Eugene IV. Florentine Council of A. D. 1439 (vid. the

at the
Bull, Exultate deo, in Mansi xxxi. 1055 ff.; also Mirbt, Quellen
z. Gesch. d. Papstt., p. 100 ff.). We shall be compelled, therer
fore, to follow the development of the doctrine somewhat be-
yond the limits of our period, citing at once from the definitions
of the bull.
I. (a) The sacraments constitute the positive product of the
work of Christ. Since the salvation of mankind is dependent

upon the passion of Christ, and that of the individual upon the
sacraments, it is clear ** that the sacraments of the new law must
have their whole efficacy from the passion of Christ " (Thom.
summ. iii. q. 62, a. 5. Alex. summ. th. iv. q. 8, membr. 3, a.
5, 7. Cf. Biel, sent. iv. dist. 2, q. i, a. 3). That the num-
ber of the sacraments is seven is considered self-evident.^ The
necessity of this is argued in various ways. The Christian life,
it is said, is allied in character to the development of the body,
and, therefore, needs a sacrament of generation (baptism), one

of growth (confirmation), one of nourishment (the eucharist).
Then come the healing of daily sins (repentance) and the removal
of the remains of sin (unction). From the social nature of
men is deduced the necessity for marriage as a means of sancti-
fying the process of propagation, and for ordination as empower-
ing those who receive it to lead the people (vid. Thom. ib. q.
65, a. I and, further, in Bon. brev. 6. 3.
; Cf. Duns, sent. iv.
d. 2, q. I, 3. Biel, iv. d. 2, q. i, a. i). But baptism and
the eucharist are the ''most powerful sacraments" (Thom. q,
62, a. 5). According to some, they alone were instituted imme-
diately by Christ (Alex. iv. q. 8, membr. 3, a. 2, 3. Bon.
iv. d. 23, a. I, q. 2), while, at a later period, all the seven were
traced back to a direct institution by Christ (e. g., Albert, sent,
iv. d. 23, a. 13, Thom. q. 64, a. 2. Duns, iv. d. 2, q. i,

4, 5. Biel, iv. d. 2, q. i, concl. 2).
(/j) Thomas defines the sacrament as *'the sign of a sacred
thing, since it is (a means of) sanctifying men'* (q. 60,
a. 2); Bonaventura, as ** sensible signs divinely instituted as
medicaments, in which, under cover of things sensible, divine
power very mysteriously (^secretins') acts" (brev. 6. i; cf,
Augustine, doctr. christ. ii. i). The sensible sign becomes a
real sacrament, however, only when it is administered with the
intentio of producing by it a supramundane effect, or at least '* to
do what the church does, or, at all events, what Christ has
* The Third Laterau Council, A. D. 1 speaks of burial, the installa-
179, still
tion of bishops, and " other sacraments," Hefele,v, 713. A Council at Lon-
don, A. D. 1237, enumerates the seven as the " principal sacraments,"
Hefele, v. 1056.
'
appointed" (Bon, sent. iv. d. 6, p. 2, a. 2, q. i).^ The sen-

sible elements (^res sejtsibiles') constitute the materia of the sacra-
ment ;the words of institution, \\.% forma ; i. e., through the
recitation of the words the sacrament is observed (^perficitur)
(Thorn, q. 60, a. 7. Alex. iv. q. 8, m. 3, a. 2). Accordingly,
Eugene IV. defines: 'ÂU these sacraments are observed by-
three things, viz., by the elements as the ^Jiateria^ the words as
the forma, and the person of the minister administering the
sacrament with the intentio of doing what the church does of
which, if anyone be wanting, the sacrament is not observed. '
((t) There are therefore together in the sacrament an external
sign and grace. How are these two related ? Hugo had framed
the formula which practically gave direction to the solution of
the problem: ''The sign contains the grace " (supra, p. 80).
This Thomas recognizes as *' not unsuitably " expressed (q. 62,
a. 3, ad 3). He is also of the opinion that a causation of grace
{gratiam causare) may be predicated of the sacrament (ib. a. i),
but he feels too the difficulty. If grace originated from God,
how can it be effected through created objects ? He sought to
overcome the difficulty by discriminating between the principal
and the instrumental cause, the latter (and thus the sacraments)
being efficacious as set in motion by the former. *' And in this
manner is there spiritual power in the sacraments, in so far as

they are appointed by God for (producing) spiritual effect."
The words of institution effect a spiritual efficacy {virtus) in the
external sign, which resides in the latter until this virtus has
accomplished its end (ib. a. i and 4).^ But over against this
view stands another throughout the whole period of the Middle
Ages. It appears plainly in Bonaventura (also in Richard).
We dare not say that the sacraments contain grace. This dwells
only in the human soul. The sacrament is in itself a symbol,
somewhat like a letter with the royal seal. There exists how-
ever a covenant (^pactio) of God, that he will accompany the
use of this sacrament with his own working upon the soul of the
recipient. Thus regarded, it can be positively said of the
sacrament only that it, by inciting faith, prepares for the recep-
tion of grace ( " the motion of faith is excited through the
exhibition of the sign "). The infusion of grace results through
1 Duns discusses this point exhaustively. Report. Paris, iv. d. 6, q. 6.
Cf. Biel, iv. d. 6, a. 2, concl. 5-

2 Cf. Alex, iv q. 8, m. 3, a.
5, ^l :
" Power [virtus) wonderfully asso-
** Consecration {sanc-
ciated with {coUata) the corporal agent itself." \ 5 j
tificatio) is something coming to the water or oil, and it does not eive sub-
stantial existence {esse substantiate) to the oil or water, but it gives accidental
existence" [esse accidentale).
";
a directly creative act of God in the soul, /. e.\ ''By such

covenant the Lord has obligated himself to, in some way, give
grace to him who receives the sacrament " (Bon. sent. iv. d. i,
p. I, a. I, q. 2, 3, 4; brev. 6. i). This view, through its
advocacy by Duns Scotus, became the dominant one in the
later Middle Ages. Since God alone has power to create, grace
can have only an act of God as its direct cause. The sacra-
ments are '* sure signs," since the divine covenant with the
church makes a concomitance of the divine working certain.
''The divine will alone is the invisible cause of the effect
which the sacrament seals and accompanies. God therefore is
the immediate cause of such effect of the sacrament through his
assistance to the sacrament, upon which he has arranged always
to bestow assistance and confer grace and thus his will
. .
alone is the prime and principal invisible cause of this effect

(report, iv. d. 2, q. i, 2). We cannot say "that he binds
his power to the sacraments" (sent. iv. d. 14, q. 4, 6). Ac-
cordingly, the external sign "signifies" that which the accom-
panying grace inwardly effects in the recipient, as, e. g. in the case
,
of baptism, purification " But the cleansing of the soul from sin
:
which it certainly signifies, it represents by divine appointment

from which (it follows that) God, who instituted baptism,
assists his sign to the producing of the represented effect " (Biel,
iv. d. I, q. I, a. i ;cf. Durand. iv. d. i, q. 4, a. i). This
view reminds us distinctly of the Augustinian origin of the defini-
tion of a sacrament, being in reality a remnant of Augustinianism
in the Franciscan dogmatics the external sacrament is in and
:
of itself only an image of that which God works in the soul.^ It

was certainly only by artifice that transubstantiation could be
maintained under such a definition. Of the two views noted,
the church naturally chose the coarser. Eugene IV. writes :
" They (the ancient sacraments) did not cause grace but . .
these of ours both contain grace and confer it upon those worthily
receiving them."
(^d^ The sacraments bring to man justifying grace (^gratia
justificans, Thom. q. 62, a. 6). "By
sacramental effect I
understand the grace making acceptable, which he secures who
receives the sacrament not unworthily " (Biel, iv. d. i, q. i, a.
2). Thomas here discriminated between the " grace of powers
and gifts" and "sacramental grace," inasmuch as the former
^ Thomas had already pointed out the possible consequence of this view
:
"According to this, the sacraments of the New Testament would be nothing

more than signs of grace, although it is held by many authorities of the saints
that the sacraments of the New Testament not only signify but cause [causant)
grace" (iii, q. 62, a. i).
complete in a general way the nature and powers of the souJ,

while the separate sacraments produce special effects (q. 62, a.
2 ; q. 89, a. i ; vid. also Bonav. iv. d. i, p. i, a. i, q. 6).
Later theologians acknowledged the essential identity of all ^ra//a
stratum faciens : ** That there is one and the same grace in kind
in all who have grace, whether this be infused through partici-
pation in the sacraments, or through merits acquired, or, even
without either, gratuitously infused. The difference existing is
'
'
*'only in the mind {rationed and not in reality nor in essence

"
(Biel, iv. d. 2, q. i, a. 3, dub. 2 ; vid. already Alex. iv. q. 8,m. 4,
a. 2, i). But the sacraments impart not only justifying grace.
To those which are administered but once is attributed as a * sec- '
ondary effect" the impartation of spiritual character {^character

spirttuaiis) which makes man continuously capable of honoring
God according to the manner of the Christian religion (Thom.
q. 63, a. I, 2). And, inasmuch as this involves a certain
participation in the priesthood of Christ, which is eternal, this
** character" attaches to the soul ''indelibly" (ib. a. 5).
The ''character" is therefore the indestructible habitual dis-
position of the Christian soul
and that "according to the in-
tellectual part
toward those things which are for the promotion
of divine worship " (a. 4, 5. Alex. iv. q. 8, m. 3, 4. Bonav. iv,
d. 6, p. I, a. I, q. 3, 5). Duns located the character in the
will (iv. d. 6, q. 11, 4). But the conception is so lacking in
clearness that we are led to infer that Duns (iv. d. 6, q. 9, 13),
as well as Biel, still entertains serious doubts upon the point.
Neither reason nor the authorities demand it, and only one
passage of Innocent III.^ can be cited in its favor, and even this
Biel thinks can be differently interpreted (Duns, iv. d. 6, q. 9,
13 f Biel, iv. d. 6, q. 2, a. i, concl. 2). But Eugene IV.
elevated this point also to the dignity of a dogma of the church :
"Among these sacraments there are three which imprint a

character, i. e. , a certain spiritual mark (si'gnum) distinctive from
others, indelibly upon the soul. Whence, they are not repeated
in the same person."
(e) Only one further question concerning the sacraments in
general remains to be considered
touching the worthy or
unworthy reception of them. It is involved in the conception
of the New Testament sacraments, that they are effectual exopere
operate^ i. e., through their objective administration. Thus
teaches Alexander (iv. q. 8, m. 4, a. i) and especially Albert
(sent. iv. d. i, a. i) and all the later writers, i\ g., Bonaven-
1 Vid. the passage in Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolor. et detinit. n. 341,

342; cf. Duns, 1. c. "Therefore solely upon the authority of the church,
-.
running up to the present time, it is to be held that character is imprinted."

tura " The sacraments of the New Testament justify and con-
:
fer grace of themselves ex opere operato'" (iv. d. i, p. i, a. i,

q, 5). A
certain disposition is indeed desired in the recipient,
perhaps faith (Lombard, iv. d. 4, B. Bonav. iv. d. i, p. i, a.
I, q. 2); but the later writers especially confined themselves to
the requirement, that there be no obstacle [obex) nor mortal sin.

As an opus operatum^ the sacrament did not presuppose a good
inner motive {bonus viotus interior) as necessary to a profitable
reception. Precisely this was one mark of distinction from the
Old Testament sacraments (Duns, iv. d. i, q. 6, 10). With
this efficacy ex opere opei-ato is contrasted that based upon the
personality or action of the participant (êx opere operante).
That is to say, if the recipient prepares himself for the reception
of the sacrament, he receives also as a reward, upon the ground
of this merit, a further gracious influence, '* Any sign may be
understood to confer grace in a two-fold way. This occurs in

one way by the sign itself or the sacrament, or, as some say, by
the deed performed, ex opere operato. Thus by the very fact
that the work (ôpus), i. e., sign or sacrament, is celebrated
{exhibetur)^ grace is conferred unless an obstacle of mortal
sin hinder ; because, besides the celebration {exhibitio) of the
sign externally celebrated, a good inner motive is not required
in the recipient by which he may merit grace by worthiness or
fitness, but it suffices that the recipient interpose no obstacle.
... In another way, signs or sacraments are understood to
confer grace by the one performing the work {ex opere operante')
and by the way of merit, /. e. that the sacrament externally
,
celebrated does not suffice for the conferring of grace, but

beyond this is required a good motive, or inner devotion, of the
one receiving the sacrament, according to whose intention grace
is conferred corresponding to the merit of worthiness or fitness,
precisely, and not more, according to the celebration of the

sacrament " (Biel, iv. d. i, q. 3, a. i, n. 2).
2. Turning to the separate sacraments, we begin with Bap-
tism. The material {materia) of this sacrament is water, or,

more precisely speaking, washing Avith water.^ The form {forma)
consists in the words *' I baptize thee in the name of the Father,
:
andof theSon,andoftheHoly Ghost." Fromthe time of Alexan-

der the effects of baptism were more precisely stated than had been
done by the Lombard. It is said to impart the grace making
acceptable {gratia gratuin faciens) ^ and this impartation effects
both a capacitating of the soul for the doing of good and the
^ Duns, iv. d. 3, q. 3, ^ 2:" The first thingis the visible washing itself, for
this, together with the words as a sign, signifies the first effect of baptism."
9
forgiveness of guilt and penalty/ '^ He who is baptized is freed
from the guilt (liability, reatus) of the entire penalty owed by

him for his sins" (Thom. summ. iii. q. 69, a. 2), and*' through
baptism one secures grace and powers" {virtutes, ib. a. 4).
*' From all eternal (penalty) baptism
absolves by destroying all
sin (^culpay^ and ''grace has a two-fold action, viz,, to destroy sin
{peccatum) and to make apt for good " (Bonav. sent, iv, d. 4, p.
1, a. I, q. 2 and 3). By it there is effected at the same time a
restraint of concupiscence (Lomb. iv. d. 4 F ii. d. 32 A. ;
Duns, iv. d. 4, q. 7, i). Finally, baptism imparts the spiritual

''character," which is to be thought of as an infused disposition
{Jiabitus infiisus). According to this theory, in baptism grace
is infused into the sinner, and this grace blots out the sins of the
past and weakens the sinful impulses of the recipient. But as
these impulses still remain active, there remain also for the bap-
tized the punishments {^poenalitates) of the present life (Thom.
q. 69, a. 3). Both serve for testing and attesting. Precisely
the same gifts are granted in infant baptism, any difficulties sug-
gesting themselves in this case being met by the consideration,
that baptism confers not separate virtues, but the habitus virtu-
tum (Thom. q. 69, a. 6). To secure the benefits of baptism,
faith is required in the recipient. In the case of unbelievers
(^fictio), the benefit is secured when they have done penance for
their unbelief (Thom. q. 69, a. 10. Bonav. iv. d. 4, p. i, a.
2, q. 2f.). In the case of children, an obligation imposed
upon the sponsors to see to their instruction in the Christian
faith takes the place of the yet lacking confession of faith
(Lomb. iv. d. 6 G. Bonav. iv. d. 6, p. 2, a. 3, q. i).^
Eugene IV. defines as the effect of the sacrament :
" the remis-
sion of all original and actual sin, also of every penalty which is
due for that sin."

3. There is no advance in the doctrine of later Scholastics
upon the sacrament of Confirmation for the assertion that it;
was instituted by Christ (^. g., Albert, iv, d. 7, a. 2), and the
attempt to justify the restriction of the right of administering
this sacrament to the bishop by all manner of fanciful reasons, do
Duns, '* God remits the sin of no one except of

1
2, ^ 3
iv. d. 3, q. : . . .
him to whom hegives grace, for he frees no one from perdition except him
whom he ordains to be a son of the kingdom." Also, ib. iv. d. 4, q. 5 4 =
(God) *' is prepared always after the reception of this sign to assist him who
has received it for the causing of its effect."
2 Baptism is preceded by catechisation and exorcism (Lomb. iv. d. 6 H.
Thom. iii. q. 71, a. I, 2). The baptism of the children of non-Christian

parents, without or against the will of the latter, was disapproved by Thomas
(q. 68, a. 10), approved by Duns (iv. d. 4, q. 9), and declared of doubtful
propriety by Biel (iv. d. 4, q. 2, a. 3, dub. 5).
'
SACRAMENTS AND CHURCH. I3I
not constitute an advance. Eugene IV. designates the chrism

as the material, and as the form of the sacrament, the words ** I :
sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee in the
chrism of salvation in the name of the Father, etc. The proper
'
'
administrator (ordmar/us minister) is the bishop. **But the

effect of this sacrament is, that in it is given the Holy Spirit and
'
strength.
4. **A11 worship in the church is, as it were, in line (///
ordine~) toward this sacrament." These words of Duns (iv. d.

8, q. I, 3) spoken in reference to the Lord*s Supper, express
the practical significance of this sacrament. The doctrine was
received in completed form from the great Scholastics. The
only task remaining for the present period was to make the tra-
ditional dogma somewhat moreacceptable to reason by the arts
of logic, and more conformable to the
spiritual tastes of the age.
Here also, Alexander suggested essentially the ideas and problems
which later writers accepted. The fixed basis of all discussion
was transubstantiation. When the priest utters the form-giving
words of institution above the materia^ or elements, the latter
are in their entirety transformed into the entire body of Christ.
" The whole wafer (Jiostia) is actually changed into the whole
body of Christ" (Alex. iv. q. 40, m. 3, a. 5). This concep-
tion may be analyzed as follows :
(^) The words of institution, as they are spoken by the priest,

effect the transformation ** Whence also the consecrating power
:
{virtus consecrativa) consists not onlyin the words themselves, but

also in the power conferred upon the priest at his consecration
and ordination " (Thom. summ. iii. q. 82, a. i, ad i). Thomas
is of the opinion '* that in the formal words of this sacrament a
certain power {virtus) is created for effecting the conversion of

this sacrament '* (q. 78, a. 4). According to Duns, it is, in
reality,only the divine omnipotence which can effect the change.
But God has appointed the priest as the administrator (Duns, iv.
d. 13, q. 2, 3). *' This is according to gospel law, and not only
according to positive law" (Duns, report, iv. d. 13, q. 2).^
^ only with great difHculty that a place can be made for transubstantia-
It is
tion in the Scotistview of the sacraments. The ** sensible signs " testify that
the things signified are really ** contained under them." Further ** God
:
has so established these elements that after their consecration he may assist
them to (the securing of) this presence of Christ" (iv. d. 8, q. i, 2 ff. ). But
for what purpose then the transubstantiation? Would it not be in keeping
with the general conception of a sacrament to maintain only an accompanying
of the symbol with an exercise of divine power, either in such a way that a
divine influence be exerted directly upon the soul, or in such a way that Christ
be bodily present without affecting the continued existence of the substance of
the bread? It was an addicc-îve instead of a productivd transubstantiation, as
(^) The transformation occurs in the moment when the words

are spoken *' At the end
: of the utterance of the words the sac-
rament begins to be " (Duns, iv. d. 8, q. i, 5). It is a pecu-
liar advantage of this sacrament that it is realized not only in
the administration (înusii), but already in the consecration of
the elements (Thom. q. 78, a. i).
(r) The resultant of the transformation is the presence of the
true body and blood of Christ (Thom. q. 75, a. i), the soul of
Christ and his divinity being present, not by way of sacramental
power {êx vi sacramentali), but by way of real concomitance
(êx reali conco?nitantia) (ib. q. 76, a. i. Alex. iv. d. 2y^, m.
5). On the basis of this, justification was found for the con-
stantly extending custom of withholding the cup from the laity
(vid. Thom. q. 80, a. 12. Alex. iv. q. 32, m. i, a. 2).
(f/) The accidents of the substance of the bread and wine
still remain, which is, indeed, a new miracle (Alex. iv. q. 40,
m. I, a. 2. Thom. q. 75, a. 5).^ So long as the form (^species') of

the bread and wine is retained, the sacrament continues. Hence
the advocates of this theory did not even shrink from the conclu-
sion, that even if a dog or a mouse should eat the hostia,\\iQ sub-
stance of Christ would remain in it (Abelard. Thom. q. 8, a. 3,
ad. 3. Cf. , as to the course pursued in distributing, Hefele, CG.
vi. 203).
The body which Christ gave to his disciples was the im-
(^)
mortal glorified body, and of this he himself partook as an ex-
ample for his disciples. **'And, nevertheless, he who as mortal
gave, and as immortal was given, was not himself two, but one "
(thus Hugo. Vid. especially Alex. iv. q. 44, m. i and 3. Thom.
q. 81, a. I and 3).^
DunsScotus says. Alexander already suggests the latter theory ("That in this
sacrament there is not any transformation, but, upon the utterance of the words,
without any transformation, it comes to pass by divine power that the body of
Christ is there " ). He suggests as an objection, that this view might lead to a
worship of the bread, iv q. 38, m. i
, . Such was the view also of some followers
of Berenger (vid. p. 75 n. Cf. also Petr. Pictav. sent. v. 12), and Duns (iv. d.
'^ "^^ 3 3 f') ^^*^ presents this explanation as possible one, and merely
says in comment: *' Therefore the other way is more suitable than this."
But to this theory belongs the future, as we shall see. Duns continued to
maintain transubstantiation only because it was a dogma of the church. See-
BERG, Duns Scotus, p. 382 fF.
1 Although it is said that the substance of the bread and wine do not re-
main (f?(2^r(?), the term rt//;;7f7//(7 was avoided, inasmuch as the resultant
is the body of Christ. Vid. Thom. q. 75, a. 2, 3. Duns, iv. d. 11, q. 4, 14.
Biel, iv. d. 11, q. l, a. 2, dub. 6. Occam, iv. q. 6, ad dub. 7.
'
Biel says that Christ gave to his disciples a " body such as he had, i. e.,
mortal and passible," without feeling the ** teeth of those eating it " (iv. d.
9, (]. I, a. 3, dub. 3). From the other view it would follow, that if the hostia
of the first celebration had been preserved, Christ would have been, during the
SACRAMENTS AND CHURCH. 133
(/) But at this point a difficulty emerges whose solution exer-

cised the Scholastics beyond all others If the body of Christ is, as
:
is confessed, present in heaven at a particular place, how can it be
received at the same time in the sacrament at various places ? Alex-

ander' s opinion was that '' Christ is circumscriptively, or locally,
contained in heaven, but not contained circumscriptively, or
locally, under thesacrament " (iv. q. 40, m. 3, a. 7). Thomas
similarly taught ** that the body of Christ is in this sacrament in
the manner of substance {^per modum substantia), and not in the
Taajin^xoic^Mdiniiiy (^per?nodumquantitatis')'^ (q. 76, a. i,ad3).
The Christ who is locally present in heaven is, therefore, not
present in a local manner in the sacrament, but only substantially
(q. 75, a. I, ad 3; q. 76, a. 4, 5 cf. Richard, iv. d. 10,
;
princ. 2, q. i. Durand, iv. d. 10, q. 10 fin.; vid. also Carthu-

sian, iv. d. 10, q. iff.). Duns rightly rejected this, since a
thing without its properties is not conceivable (iv. d. to, q. i.
12). Duns himself thinks that God, by virtue of his omnipo-
tence, which is limited only by the logically impossible, can very
well cause a body to exist at different places at the same time.
We cannot see, he argues, why the relations of a thing to space
may not be multiplied (ib. q. 2. 11 ; q. 3. 5). Accordingly,
Christ can be at the same time in heaven and at any number of
places. The later writers disputed this, for its (realistic) pre-
mise is the independent existence of space, while to the Nomi-
nalists s]3ace is only the object presented as occupying space,
upon which theory a spacial existence of Christ in the Lord's
Supper is inconceivable. It is rather to be said, that quantity
and the property of occupying space are accidental properties of
a thing. If the thing be reduced to a point, it yet remains what
it was, and, therefore, still possesses the property of occupying
space, although it no longer exists in space. It is, therefore, to

be said that the body of Christ is present in the Lord's Supper
with the property of quantity, but without existing therein as a
quantity (vid, especially Occam, tract, de sacr. altar, c. 16 ff.
Biel, iv. d. 10, q. i, a i and 2. Cf. fuller discussion at a later
point). But these empty speculations, all combined, do not
prove the impossible. The body of Christ is local in heaven,
and it is in its entirety present in its substance at every celebra-
tion of the Lord's Supper. Dogma stands over against dogma,
and all the efforts of logic cannot bridge the gulf.
{g) Finally, the effect of this sacrament claims attention. In
general, it is to be said *' The effect which the passion of Christ
:
three days after his crucifixion, both dead and alive at once ! (Biel. exposit.
canonis miss. lect. 46 L).
)
has produced in the world, this sacrament produces in man '*

(Thorn, q. 79, a. i). Regarding it more closely, we may say
'* that the eucharist
was instituted to be a sacrifice and to be a
sacrament, or food" (Biel, exposit. can. miss. lect. 85 D). As
the latter, it signifies a strengthening of the spiritual life, the im-
parting of grace, and the forgiveness of venial sins (Thorn., 1. c. ).
The later writers are but logically consistent when, in accordance
with their interpretation of the work of Christ, they make this
impartation of grace to consist in a reminding of the love of
Christ and his pious example, and in the awakening of a respon-
sive affection and inciting to good works. The Supper is a
memoriale divinae passionis. This view is instructively presented
in Biel, exposit. can. miss. lect. 85 B, O, V, X, Y.^ But, side
by side with this effect of the sacrament, stands its sacrificial
character. The body of Christ is really offered up '' There is :
not only a representative {repraesentativa) , but a real immola-

tion {immolatio vera), (Albert, sent. iv. d. 13, a. 23). Thesac-
rifice benefits first of all the participants in the sacrament, but
then also others " in so far as it is offered for their salvation,"
and in so far as they have faith in the sacrament (Thom. q. 79,
a. 7, q. ^;^, a. i). The sacrifice is also effectual for souls in
purgatory.^ The reality of the sacrifice does not interfere with
itsbeing at the same time a representation and reminder of the
passion (Biel, 1. c, lect. 85 F). But the principal thing is still :
'* And this sacrifice
is of operative effects similar to those which
the sacrifice upon the cross itself produced " (Biel, ib. K). This
formed the basis of the worst perversions of the practical life of the
church (meritoriousness of the mass; private masses ; after A. D.
1264, the festival of Corpus Christi). Here also, theology made
no advance.
We cite from the definitions of Eugene IV. the following :
'* For the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, Yi\2ik.t^

{^conficit
^ Biel enumerates the following effects: " vivificare, relaxare, inflammare,

patientiam dare, nutrire, restaurare, unire, copulare, sanare, conservare, robor-
are, perducere.'* Vid. also sermo 46 of Biel's Festival Sermons.
^ Vid. Biel, sermo 46 R *' It is
: granted that the fruit of the eucharist is
more efficacious as a sacrament, but it is more general as a sacrifice, . . .
because as a sacrament It operates only in those who take it, but as a sacrifice it
has effect in all those for whom it is offered. But it is offered, not only for
those who participate by taking it, but also for all who are standing by, yea,
even for the absent, the living and the dead. Although it is granted that
. . .
sinners are inflamed by partaking (^perceptione) of the eucharist, but not by

the hearing of the mass. . Yet even to sinners not contrite nor ... re-
. .
garding with displeasure their continuing sins, it is useful to frequently give

help (assistere) by the oflfice of the mass, and to procure that it be offered for
them in order that they may thus merit to be regarded by the Lord with pily.
and may be inspired to displeasure in their sins which they yet have."
this sacrament ; for, by virtue of the very words, the substance

of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, and the sub-
stance of the wine into his blood, yet in such a way that Christ
is contained entire under the form of the bread, and entire under
the form of the wine, and under any part whatever of the con-
secrated wafer and consecrated wine, when separated, is the en-
tire Christ."
5. As the Lord's Supper blots out venial sins, and baptism orig-
inal sin, so Repentance has been instituted to dispel mortal sins.
It is with mortal sins alone that confession and absolution have
to do, not with so-called venial sins. A
certain displeasure in
view of the failing, the repetition of the Lord's Prayer, sprink-
ling with consecrated water, the blessing of a bishop, are suffi-
cient for the latter, which are not regarded as requiring an in-
fusion of grace (Alex. iv. q. 77, m. 2, a. 5. Bonav. iv. d. 17,
p. 3, a. 2. Thorn, summ. iii. q. 87, a. i.; a. 2, ad 2 ; a. 3).^
Thus the disastrous discrimination between greater and smaller
sins,^the latter of which were scarcely regarded any longer as
actual sins, was justified. This discrimination was necessary, as
only by this means could the petition for the forgiveness of sin
have any meaning after the sacrament of repentance had been ob-
served.
Turning now to the sacrament of Repentance, we recall the
problem which the school of Abelard had left unsolved, i. e.,
If divine forgiveness follows contrition^ what need is there of
confession and absolution ? This question was answered, as we
shall see, by the Scholastics. In this sacrament also materia
diiid forma are discriminated. The former consists in acts of the
penitent (âctus poenitentis); the latter, in the words of the
priest I absolve thee (Thom. q. 84, a. 2, 3.
: Bonav. iv. d.
22, a. 2, q. 2. Biel, iv. d. 14, q. 2, a. i). The remark, *' that
in anything whatsoever perfection is attributed to the form"
(Thom. ib. a.3), fixes at once in advance the position of Ab-
solution, as constituting the essential element of the sacrament.
(c?) According to traditional teaching, the first element of the
sacrament is contritio. To understand the course of' develop-
ment here we must constantly bear in mind that repentance, and
particularly its first part, contrition, is already, as an act
1 According to Duns not even c^'/rZ/zf? is here necessary (iv. d. 17, q. 1,25).
^ Thomas (q. 86, a. 4 q. 87, a. 2) thus discriminates *' In mortal sin
;
:
there are two things, i. e.y a turning away [aversio) from immutable good,
and a turning [cojzversio) toward mutable good ;" in venial sins, on the con-
trary, there is present only '* an inordinate turning to mutable good without
turning away from God. Eternal punishment, therefore, befits the former,
and only temporal punishment the latter." Upon this question, see also BieU
iv. d. 17, q. I, a. 2, concl. 3. Cf. Melanchthon apol., p. 168, 6.
*' formed " by love or as a Christian virtue, a product of grace.

From this it follows, that contrition and effects
in itself merits
the full annihilation of guilt and punishment (Thom. suppl. q.
5, a. 2. Cf. Wilhelm v. Paris, de sacr. opp. Nlirnberg, 1496,
ii. fol. 41 V, On the other hand, in the sacrament
44 V, 46 r).
of repentance, contritio is represented as an 'inclination {disposi-
tio) toward the receiving of grace " (Thom. ib. q. 5, a. i, and
iii. q. 89, a. i, ad 2). But there is no need of any such dis-
positio ; in fact, it makes the sacrament entirely unnecessary.
Quite forced appears, therefore, the argument of Thomas, that,
since no one can know whether he hasa degree of sorrow sufficient
to secure forgiveness, it is necessary for us to continually avail
ourselves of the opportunity of confession and absolution
(suppl. q. 5, a. 2, ad i). And it is no more than an opinion,
that the resolution to confess is always combined with contrition
(ib. ). When we consider, further, that the individual concerned
is always one who has fallen into a mortal sin, it is evident that
he cannot, without the influence of the sacrament of repentance,

even produce contrition in himself. To meet this difficulty a new
idea, that of an attritio, or purely human inclination toward the re-
ception of grace, is introduced as being sufficient. This furnishes
a key for the solution of the above problem, for this half-penitence
does not fully merit the forgiveness of sins, and hence room is left
for confession and absolution. The word, attritio^ occurs first in
Alanus of Insults,^ then in Alexander of Hales (iv. q. 74) and
William of Paris (opp. 11. 45 v), but it is used by them in such
a way as to indicate that it was already an accepted term in the
language of the schoolmen. Thomas defines it: "Attritio
signifies a certain, but not perfect, displeasure concerning sins
committed " (suppl. q. i, a. 2).^ Its motive is commonly fear :
*' the source (^principiuiii) of attrition " (Alex. iv.

Servile fear is
q. 74, m. I. Durand, iv. d. 17, q. i, a. 3).^ If now anyone

has a certain displeasure toward his sin, he is in suitable condi-
Vid. Regul. theol. 85 (Migne, 210. 665 C): *Ms either remitted by attri-
1
tion . although he have not perfectly repented, or dismissed by contrition

. .
when he is fully converted from sin."

^ Upon the two terms, vid. Biel, iv. d. 16, q. i, a. i, n.
3.
3 Cf. Thomas (iii. q. 85, a.
5), who, in answer to the question, "Whether
the source of penitence is from fear," replies that the acts of the soul in re-
pentance are the following " Faith, servile fear, by which one is restrained
:
from sin by fear of punishments, hope, love, filial fear." Accordingly " It :
is evident that the act of penitence proceeds from servile fear, as from the first
motion of the affection inclining toward it." Cf. also Biel, iv. d. 14, q. I, a. 3,
dub. 6 "In beginners not yet perfect
: it frequently arises from fear of
. .
punishment, which arises from love of self, but in the perfect it arises from
the love of God and of righteousness." Durand (vid. supra): "For peni-
tence is conceived in fear."
tion to make confessson.a penitent, prepared as far as

** But if
in him lies, comes but not contrite, I say
to confession, attrite
that confession, with subjection to the will of the priest and sat-
isfaction of the penance enjoined by the priest, is a sign and
cause of the blotting out of guilt and penalty" (Alex. iv. q. 60,
m. I, a. 3). Confession is made before the priest, because he
only who can consecrate the eucharist has authority over the
powers of grace (Thom. suppl. q. 8, a. i ; q. 10, a. i. Alex,
q. 76, m. 3, a. i). Then follows absolution, which brings the
divine forgiveness. But it is impossible ** that God should remit
"
an offense to anyone without any change of the latter' s will
(Thom. q. Z()^ a. 2). Hence *' There can be no remission of
:
sins except through infusion of grace" i). Ab- (ib. q. 89, a.

solution, therefore, brings divine forgivenessby effecting at the
same time the abolition of the mortal sin by an infusion of grace
(cf. supra, p. 120). If the attrite person do not now himself
interpose an obstacle, he receives grace through confession and
absolution (Thom. suppl. q. 18, a. i).^ This effects the for-
giveness of the liability \reatus) to eternal punishment, as well as
"something of {aliquid de) the temporal punishment. " This lat-
ter expression, which somewhat modifies the conception of Abe-
lard, is to be attributed to a regard for the " satisfaction," which
would otherwise be useless (ib. q. 18, a. 2). Such is the teach-
ing of Thomas.^ Duns gives a different turn to the doctrine.
AttritiOyaccording to his view, when it has lasted for a definite
time, establishes a merit of fitness (^de congri/o), a claim to the
favorable regard of God. The penitent must now make his confes-
sion, wnereupon grace is infused, or sin is destroyed by the conver-
sion of ^///'///tf' into î?^/^///"^?, /.^., since love is imparted, and thereby
the informa attritio is transformed into th.Qfor??iirta cont?'itio (sent,
iv. d. 14, q. 2, i4to 16). The outcome of this is essentially the
same as in Thomas, for since absolution infuses grace, it creates
love, and by this means transforms the attritio into contritio.
The infusion of grace takes place through absolution. For the
attrite, the process takes the following course " For it is suffi- :
cient thatsome displeasure, although imperfect {info7'f?iis) ,

pre-
cedes, and then he is capable of sacramental absolution, and
through it contrition is awakened " (iv. d. 16, q. i. 7). And
^ If the confessing person is sufficiently contrite^ absolulion brings an in-
crease of grace.
2 It became afterward the general scholastic doctrine. Alexander taught
differently, 7. (r. that " absolution from sin [culpa) belongs to God alone (iv.
,
q. 80, m. l), and that the priest can only remit a part of the penalty (m. 2,
a. I), and that temporal and not eternal " (ib. a. 2). Similarly Bonaventura,
iv, d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. I,
138 HISXORY OF DOCTRINES,
*' Thus the priest

further : absolves what he yet binds. For he
absolves from the debt of eternal penalty and binds to the dis-
charge of temporal penalty " (ib.). It may, therefore, be said
that absolution transfor??is eternal into temporal penalty (ib. d.
17, q. I. 23. Cf. Durand, iv. d. 16, q. i, a. 3), and thus that
iX. forgives eternal penalty (ib. d. 19, q. i. 32).^ present a We
brief summary of the theory of Biel, as a representative of the
later writers Forgiveness takes place through the destruction of
:
sin by means of an infusion of grace (iv, d, 14, q. i, a. i, n. 2,

4). But for this there is necessary some preparation on the part
of the sinner. And although this could be done by God with-
out us, yet he requires also something from us " (ib. q. 2, a. i);
man can and should do '^ what in him is " (ib. q. i, a. 2, concl.
2, 3). He
should have a detestation of his crime {detestatio
criminis') and a displeasure with his sin (^displicentia peccati)
(ib. concl. 5). Usually, repentance has its beginning in
servile fear ; ** for he who fears hell guards against evil things
"
{mala cavet) (ib. q. 2, a 3, dub. 3). Everything depends upon
the ''vow to be contrite" {imtum conterendi). ''Where the
votum conterendi is, there is contritio. To refuse to have de-'
'
testation for sin is to refuse to acknowledge having sinned (ib. a.

I, n. 2). Thus one finds himself in the state of attritiofi, and
merits grace by his fitness {de congruo^ d. 16, q. 2, a. 3, dub. 4).
' ^
He has appointed that he will not be lacking to him who does
that which is in him, nor will he withhold grace from him who is
sufficiently inclined to its reception " (d. 14, q. 2, a. i, opin. 3).
Confession and absolution, then, bring grace, and transform the ai-
tritio into contritio. Despite the variations here in separate points,
the general view is the same. Confession and absolution are
necessary in order that attrition be changed to contrition, and
that sin be blotted out. Thus, the difficulty which cumbered the
theory of Abelard was removed by the introduction of the atti'i-
tio. Although in theory contrition was always spoken of as the
chief thing, in practice it was attrition that carried the day. It
is not easy to say which of the two conceptions was the more
dangerous the exercise of penitential grief to which was affixed

:
the reward of forgiveness of sin, or the sorrow for sin which was
to be transformed into complete penitence by the solemnities of
divine worship.
{h^ After absolution there yet remain temporal penalties for
the sinner. These are met by the satisfaction of works {satis-
^ How coolly and with what fine-spun theorizing, is not

rationally, but
this process conceived : A on account of sin is increased by
certain unrest
solemn confession and absolution to the point of contrition, and thereby sin is
blotted out in a psychological way !
factio operuni). Such works, performed for the re-establishnient

of the divine honor (Thorn, suppl. q. 12, a. 3), are, indeed,
not an equivalent (^satisfactio aequivalens)y but this does not pre-
vent their being sufficient (a sufficiens fieri) before God (ib. q.
13, a. i). They consist in our denying ourselves something for
the honor of God. But we possess goods of soul, of body, and of
fortune. The renunciation of these leads to prayer, fasting, and
almsgiving respectively. According to Duns, the sinner may
decline to accept the temporal penalty (iv. d. 19, 27 f.).^
The failure to perform the good works imposed at confession
brings, however, suffering during this life and in purgatory.
(^) Very important becomes, therefore, the office of Indul-
gences. They are justified as follows: ''It is conceded by all
that indulgences have some efficacy, because it would be impious
to say that the church did anything in vain " (ib. q. 25, a. 2)!
The attempt was made to draw an argument in their favor from
the unity of the church. The merits of Christ, as also of the
saints, were greater than necessary. Thus arose the spiritual
treasury (^thesaurus) of the church, which consists of these
** works of supererogation (^supererogationes) of the members of
Christ," and of the Lord himself (Alex. iv. q. 23, m. 3, a. i.

Albert, iv. d. 20, a. 16). But, since the body of Christ is one,
these deeds of some members redound to the benefit of the rest
(Thom. suppl. q. 25, a. 2). Inasmuch, further, as the dead who
enter purgatory are still upon their journey heavenward, and as
they are yet, on account of their sins, before the forum of the
church, they also may secure a share in these treasures of grace
(vid. especially Biel, expos, can. miss. lect. 57). It is under-
stood, of course, that the church expects in return a work of
piety and of profit to the church (ôpiis pium et utile ecclesiae)
(ib.). Whilst indulgences are granted to the living, however, by
the pope * by the way of judiciary authority,
'
' they avail for the

'
dead by the way of supplication " (^perviodumsuffragii^-y ''in-

''
dulgences profit them by the way of suppUcation, i. ^. on ac- ,
count of some work done by another and applied to them by the

way of supplication" (ib. L. Cf. Alex. iv. q. 23, a. 2, m. 5.
Bonav. iv. d. 20, p. -z, a. i, q. 5).By indulgences even the
entire penalties of purgatory may be averted (Heinr. quodl.
viii. q. 19). Authority over indulgences belongs to the pope
alone, but he may at will permit the bishops to share it with him
^ Cf. Duds, iv. d. 15, q. I. 12. Biel, iv. d. 16, q. 2, a. I. In this con-
nection Biel presents a thorough discussion of a number of important ethical
questions, following in this Duns, dist. 15. In general, it maybe said, there
is at this point a mine of ethical suggestions in the dogmatics of the Middle
Ages.
;
(Thorn, suppl. q. 26, a. i, 3). This is the doctrine taught also

by Eugene IV., though not in precisely the same words '* Acts
:
of penitence are, as it were, the material {materia) part of the

sacrament.
'
Then follows an enumeration of the usual three
'
parts. Of confessio7t it is said '* To which it pertains, that the

:
sinner confess entirely to his priest all the sins of which he has
'
recollection. Satisfaction ^* is rendered chiefly through prayer,
'
fasting, and alms.

'
^\i^form of the sacrament consists of the

'
words of absolution ; its effect is absolution from sins. Thus

was completed the construction of the sacrament of repentance.
The elements composing it remained the same, but they were
placed in varying relations to one another. The emphasis was
at first laid upon the satisfaction ; later, upon the contrition
and then upon the confession, and by this means, in order to
impress the necessity of the latter, upon the attrition.^ But
whenever one element is thus emphasized, questions and doubts
arise as to the propriety and significance of the others. The
Scholastics established the propriety of confession, and thereby
provoked a new inquiry, i. e.: If absolution brings grace, what
is then the need of subsequent works and of indulgences ? At
this point was aimed the criticism of the closing period of the
Middle Ages.
6. The sacrament of Extreme Unction received no additional
development in this period As to its efi*ect, opinion wavered,
some attributing to it a removal of venial sins (Bonav. brevil.
6. II. Duns, report, iv. d. 23, q. i, 4); others the blotting out
of the dregs of sin remaining after the observance of the other sac-
raments (Albert, sent. iv. d. 23, a. i. Thom. sent. iv. d. 23,
q. I, a. 2). To this must be added also, when it follows
{quando expedit), bodily relief or healing. The doctrine of the
Scholastics is clearly summarized by Eugene IV. The material :
* ^
is the oil of the olive, blessed by a bishop.'* The ointment is

applied '* to the eyes, the ears, the nose, the mouth, the hands,
the feet, the loins." The /^r/?2 is: ''Through this sacred
anointing and his most pious mercy may the Lord pardon
(indulgeaty to thee whatever through the sight, etc., and like-
'' But the effect is the heal-
wise in other members," etc. . . .
ing of the soul {mentis) and, so far as it succeeds, even of the

J
body itself."
* Durand directly denies that contrition and satisfaction are constituent

parts of the sacrament, maintaining that everything depends upon confession
and absolution, and that the sacrament should of right be called the "sacra-
ment of confession " (iv. d. 16, q. i, and d. 14, q. l).
2 Instead of this deprecative form, the indicative form was in use in some
churches, Thom. summ. suppl. q. 29, a. 8.

SACRAMENTS AND CHURCH. 14^
7. The sacrament of Ordination was more accurately defined.

Its necessity appears from the need of an order of men who may
make application of the medicamenta of the sacraments (Bonav.
brevil. 6. 12). The material is seen in the symbols, or the ves-
sels used in ordination ; while the accompanying words are the
form (Thom. iii. suppl. q. 34, a. 5. Duns, iv. d. 24, q. i. 8).
Ordination embraces the seven orders (ôrdines), vid. p. 84.
Everyone ordained receives thereby the spiritual character
(Thom. q. 35, a. 2). In addition, there is granted to him by
his ordination the grace making acceptable {gratia gratum
faciens) in view of the administration of the sacraments en-
trusted to him (Thom. 35, a. i).^ The question here arose
whether the episcopacy is an order by itself, or coincides with
the presbyterial office. Thomas and Bonaventura declare that,
since the eucharist is the highest sacrament, and priest and bishop
have the same authority for its administration,, the episcopacy
is no separate order in the proper sense of that term. Only
when the term, ordoj is used in a peculiar sense, to indicate a
*' certain office with respect to certain sacred acts," or asa ** dis-
tinction of dignities and offices," can the episcopacy

speaking
loosely
be described as a special order. Hence: *' Beyond
the priesthood, there is no degree of rank" {gradiis ordijtis),
and '' The episcopate, in so far as it concerns the order of the
:
priesthood, might well be called an order but, in so far as it is

;
discriminated from the priesthood, it expresses a certain added

dignity, or office, of the bishop " (Bonav. iv. d. 24, p. z, a. 2,
q. 3. Thom. q. 40, a. 5). Duns gives a different turn to the
thought. He, too, in view of the high character of the act
{tiobilitas actus') in the administration of the eucharist, regards
the priesthood as the highest rank {supreme s gradus, sent. iv. d.
24, q. I. 7), but, nevertheless, that order {ordo) which has the
authority to elevate to this lofty position stands upon a yet higher
plane. '* But if to simply administer the eucharist
{conficere)
be not the most excellent act in the church, but to be able to ap-
point anyone to the lofty position which befits such act, then there
are not only seven orders, but eight, because the episcopate is
then a special grade and order in the church, whose province it
is to confer all orders, and, consequently, to establish all in
^ Allthe orders have relation nearer or more remote to the eucharist.

The the deacon is permitted to distribute the blood
priest consecrates ; the ;
sub-deacon may bring the material to be consecrated. The others are en-
gaged in preparing for the reception of the sacrament the acolyte illuminat-
:
ing for worship, the lector bringing the knowledge, the doorkeeper keeping
away the unworthy, the exorcist warding off demons (vid. Duns, iv. d. 24, q.
1.7).
such lofty position " (report, iv. d. 24, q. i. 9). This separa-
tion of the episcopacy from the ordinary priesthood found advo-
cates in the later Middle Ages.^ The administration of the sac-
rament of ordination belongs only to the bishop. Heretics can,
indeed, validly administer this, as the other sacraments,^ but in
that case it does not bring the gratia gratiwi faciens, on account
of the sin of those who receive the sacraments from them against
the prohibition of the church (Thom. q. 38, a. 2). In this
way it was possible to remain orthodox and yet appropriately
discredit the sacraments aoministered by heretics. Eugene IV.
designates as the wa/^m// of ordination '* That through the de- :
livering of which the order is conferred, just as the priesthood is

conferred through the handing of a cup with wine and a plate with
bread," etc. T\i^ for??i of the priesthood is
. . .
** Receive :
authority for the offering of sacrifice in the church for the hving
and the dead in the name of the Father, etc. The effect '
' . . .
is an increase of grace, so that one may be a suitable minister.
8. Marriage consists in the union for life of man and woman

for the purpose of begetting and rearing children. An addi-
tional purpose since the fall is the prevention of fornication
(Thom. suppl. q. 48, a. 2). It accordingly embraces a con-
tract (^contractus) in respect to '*the mutual giving of the bodies
for carnal copulation " (Duns, iv. d. 30, q. 2. 4; d. 26. 8.
Thom. q. 58, a. i). To its contraction belongs therefore
mutual consent (^mutuus consensus') to the latter (Thom. q.
45, a. I, 2; q. 48, a. i). The public profession of this
consent constitutes the establishment of marriage {jriatrimo-
niw7i ratum), and by it is given the right to demand the
conjugal debt (^debitum conjugate). It is only the actual
copula carnalis which constitutes the matrt??ionmm consumma-
tum. Before this consummation, marriage may be annulled by a
previous solemn vow of continence (Thom. q. 53, a. 2) or by
entering an order (q. 61, a. 2). Marriage once consummated
is indissoluble and monogamistic.^ It is forbidden to the holy
order (ôrdo sacer),^ Marriage, as a type of the union of Christ
^ . g.y Durand in sent. iv. d. 24, q. 6. 7*

**
Only penance is excepted (Bonav. iv. d. 25, a. i, q. 2. Durand, iv. d.
25, q. I, ad 2), because the validity of absolution always depends upon the
regularity of the priestly jurisdiction, and this is vi'anting in the case of here-
tics and schismatics as in their administration of all sacraments.
; Cf. Duns,
report, iv. d, 25, q. I, 16.
' According to Thomas polygamy contradicts natural law.
(q. 65, n. l),
Duns denies this, and considers possible that after depopulating wars or pes-
it
tilences polygamy may be revealed by God to the church as allowable (iv. d.

33, q. I. 6).
* Because those established in sacred orders handle the sacred vessels and
with the church, is a sacrament. It^form consists of the words

of consent, **but not the benediction of the priest, which is sacra-
mental in character " (^quoddam sacramentali). This sacrament
is, therefore, administered by him who uses it (q. 42, a. i). In
the consensus^ there is an accompanying divine agency which

hallows the married life (q. 45, a. i).^ Duns expresses himself
most accurately, representing as the sacramental effect of mar-
riage the gracious union of souls {gratiosa conjunctio anvnarumy
iv. d. 26, 15, 17). Inasmuch as the two persons desire to be-
long to each other, God establishes an inner relation between
them. As separate effects are mentioned marital fidelity, the
repression of lust during the act of copulation, and the turning
of its energy toward a useful union {^copula utilisj Bonav. iv. d.
26, a. 2, q. 2), i. e.y the living together of the married pair and
their co-operation in the rearing of children (Albert, iv, d. 26,
a. 14), To these is to be added what Christian marriage has in
in common with the natural ordinance, /. e.y that the copulative
act, which is in itself unwortny of man, because for the time
being depriving him of reason, is in marriage legitimized and
excused in witv^ of the blessings which it brings (Thorn, q. 49,
a. i). These blessings are progeny and fidelity, to which Chris-
tianity adds the sacrament (thus Lombard, iv. d. 31 A, follow-
ing Augustine, De genesi ad litt. ix. 7. 12). We
need not enter
upon a discussion of the hindrances of marriage, which were
considered at length by the Scholastics.^ Eugene IV. describes
as the efficient cause of marriage, the *' mutual consent expressed
through words concerning the person present.'* As the bless-
ings of marriage, he enumerates '* Children to be received and
:
educated ; fidelity, which each of the married pair ought to ob-

'
serve toward the other, and ' * the indivisibility of marriage
'
on account of the fact that it signifies the indivisible union of

Christ and the church." It is very evident that this last of the
sacraments attained but a loose and unfinished form. Neither is
there a distinct definition of its material, nor is it clear how or
sacraments, and it is, therefore, becoming (decens) that they by continence

preserve bodily purity (iv. q. 53, a. 3).
^ Bonaventura (iv, d. 26, a. 2, q. 3): "Matrimony receives a reason of
spirituality and grace when consent is joined with the benediction, where its sig-
nificance is explained ; and sanctification is obtained through the benediction,
and thus in the sacerdotal benediction consists chiefly the spiritual reason."
It is remarkable that this idea is not, following the example of the sacrament
of penance, crystallized in the formula, that the priestly benediction is the/f??-^,
and the consent of the parties the material, of the sacrament. This was done
only in sporadic instances during the Middle Ages, though more frequently at
a later period, Vid. Kirchenlex. iv., ed. 2, 145 f,
* Briefly presented in the Versus memoriales in Bonav. brevil. 6.
13.
whence the consent of the contracting parties has a sacramental

character.^
9. Such is the CathoUc doctrine of the sacraments, as it was
afterward adopted substantially unchanged by the Council of
Trent. Two elements concurred from the beginning in its con-
struction, the materializing of grace and the hierarchical concep-
tion of the church (vid. Augustine). The sacraments infuse
grace, but the priests make the sacraments. We have been con-
sidering the conception of grace involved, and it remains for us
to glance briefly at the conception of the church, where we will
find that no advance has been made upon the utterances of
Hugo.
(ij) '' The Church is the same thing as the assembly (^congre-
gation of the faithful, and every Christian is, therefore, a mem-
ber of the church." This definition (Thomas, exposit. symbol.
opp. xvii. 69) asserts nothing more than that the Christian com-
munity is the church. Thomas employs also, instead of this, the
term coi7t7nunio fidelium (summ. suppl. q. 23, a. i).^ In the
church, as in Noah's ark, there is salvation. That is to say, in
the ''communion of saints " is transmitted, /. e., participation
in the sacraments, for this is Thomas's conception of the term.^
^ It is true that, for those who express such consent, the creative benedic-
tion becomes effective. may be said, in case they are Christians,
It that the
blessing of the kingdom of Christ is also theirs; but can we think of a dis-
play of grace here which would not be identical with that personally experi-
enced? The objection commonly urged by Protestants that, although mar-
riage is acknowledged as a sacrament, virginity is regarded as a higher state,
has no force, as a parallel to this is furnished in the case of repentance,
^ This is the current definition of the church. Vid., e. g..^ Duns, report,
iv. d. 24, q. I. 5 universitasfidelium.
: In sent. iv. d. 19, \ 15 coijimunio
fidelium. The meaning is peculiarly clear in De perfec. statuum 34. 9 the :
church is the congregaiw of all believers, u <?. the Saracens, for example, do
,
not belong to it. Occam, dial. Goldast, monarchia, ii. pp. 402, 503, 471,
481, 498, 788, 799 congregatiofidelium^ or communitas fidelium or christia-
:
;2(7rw, ib. p. 788ff., 8o6f., 810, 814, 923. Marsil. Defensor pac. ii. 2, p.
193 ; 6, p. 209, in Goldast, monarch, ii. Biel, expos, can. miss. lect. 22 D.
Thomas Motter, doctrinale, ii. 9 ff.
^ The term, communio sanctorum^ is very differently interpreted : of the
sacraments^ Abelard (Mi. 178, p. 629), Ivo of Chartres (Mi. 162, 606),
f. ,^.,
Thorn. I.e. of the saints^ e. g.y Bntito of Wiirzburg (Mi. 142, 500), in
;
Schonbach's Altd. Predigten, i. 42 f. 46; of the angels, c. g., Alexander

(summ. iv. q. 37, 9); of the church triumphant (Gerson, opp. i. 240); of
the saints and the sacraments c g, Bonav. centiloq., p. 3, ^ 38
, worthy of
note is the remark of Joslenus of Soissons (Mi. 186, 1488), in which the two
are thus combined: **I believe the truth of the sacraments, in which the
saints took part, so that I believe what they, too, believed in regard to bap-
tism and the Lord's Supper " cf. Richard, iii. d. 25, princ. i, q. 2.
;
Thom.
Motter, doctrinale, v. 95 o( fellowship of the saints and the spiritual bless-
;
ings secured by them (vid. rfasack, Der chr. Glaube d. deutschen Volkes, etc.,
^
But the sacraments bring us grace. They lead us, further, to the
ministers {ininistri) who have received from the apostles author-
ity for the forgiveness of sins (expos, p. 70). Thus the defini-
tion of the church as the congregation of believers fits in exactly
with the conception of it as a body politic {^congregatio politica.
Thorn, suppl. q. 26, a. i), consisting of rulers {rectores) and
subjects {subdtft).
{b) But since the church is an organized state {polifia oi'di-
nata), there is in it a gradation of rulers (Duns, iv. d. 24, 3).
In addition to the lawgivers, there must be some whose office it
shall be to adapt the laws to circumstances (Thom. suppl. q. 20,
a. i). All priests are authorized to administer the eucharist,
but some sacraments are reserved for the bishop. In regard to
the power of the keys, a distinction is made between the key of
the order (^clavis ordinis') and the key of jurisdiction (^jurisdic-
tzonis). The former, which grants forgiveness, belongs to the
priesthood. The latter belongs to the bishop alone, and is his power
of spiritual dominion, the plenary authority potestas plena) to
(^
grant or refuse the sacraments, and also the jurisdiction in the

administration of justice {inforo causarum). The bishop alone
can grant to the priest the right to use the key which belongs to
the latter (Thom. sent. iv. d. 18, q. i, a. i), in doing which he
reserves special cases for his own decision (Thom. suppl. q. 20,
a. 2). Hence :
** The bishop alone is properly called a prelate
of the church, and, therefore, he alone has plenary
i^pj-aelatus')
power the dispensing of the sacraments and jurisdiction in the
in.
administration of justice, but others, on account of that

. . .
which is committed to them by him. But the priests who are set
*
over the people are not simply prelates, but, as it were, assistants '
(ib. q. 26, a. i).

(t)But the church is One Body. In harmony with this is the
solitary power of the pope (ib. q. 40, a. 6). **The supreme
pontiff is the head of the whole church" (Thom. summ. ii.ii. q. i,
a. 10). He possesses *' plenitude of power over ecclesiastical
affairs" (ib. q. 89, a. 9). He rules in the church as a king in
his kingdom, and the other bishops are admitted by him to a
share in his care over the church (în partem sollicitudints, Thom.
sent. iv. d. 20, q. i, a. 4). How then is the episcopal related
to the papal power ? The bishops, too, have by divine right the
plenitudo potestatis in their own territories, but they have it to-
gether with the pope and in subjection to him. Accordingly,
the pope has direct jurisdiction {regiffien immediatum') over all
1868, p. 90); finally, of the fellowship of the pious of all times and places
Wessel, opp. p. 809. Erasm. opp. v. 1 174.
souls, and can

assert for himself episcopal rights in every terri-
tory. This was of great importance for the mendicant orders
in their preaching and confessionals (Thom. sent. iv. d. 17, q.
3, a. 3. Bonav., Quare fratres minores praedicent ? opp. vii.
340 ff. and Explicat. regul. ib. 324 f.). To the pope belongs
law-giving and government in the church. He is to decide what
is correct faith, to publish upon occasion a new symbol of faith,
and to summon general councils (Thom. summ. ii. ii. q. i, a.

10).^ He proclaims indulgences (ib. suppl. q. 38, a. i). He
stands above all princes as the vicar of Christ. If they rebel
against him, he may punish them by removal from office and by
releasing their subjects from the oath of allegiance 10 them (ib.
ii. ii. q. 67, a. i ; q. 12, a. 2 ; sent. iv. d. 44, q. 2). The
church attains summit in the pope. With Aristotle, it was
its
held "But the best government of a multitude is that it be
:
ruled by one" (c. gentil. iv. 76).

As compared with the leaders of the Gregorian age, the later
writers carried out many ideas to a further extent, and supported
their views by more painstaking argument, but they furnish
scarcely anything essentially new. The Second Council: of
Lyons (A. D. 1274) accepted this view of the Romish primacy
(vid. Hefele, vi. 139 f., 141).
10. We stand now at the close of our period. It had inher-
ited an abundance of suggestive thoughts from its predecessor,
which were all accepted and applied. Hence the wealth of
views and ideas in this century. As in the days of Origen and
Augustine, all contradictions seemed blended into a higher har-
mony. Reason and faith have entered into covenant, ideal and
reality, religion and science, contemplation and speculation, have
joined hands, and the body serves the regnant spirit. More than
this, the world appeared to be at length rendering due obedience
to the kingdom of God. The lord of the church is lord of the
world. Augustine and Aristotle, Anselm and Bernard, Hugo
and Abelard, Gregory VII. and Francis of Assizi all the results
of their thought and efforts appeared melted into unity in the
writings of Thomas of Aquino. It was then that Otto of Frei-
sing wrote *^ The kingdom

: civitas) of Christ appears to have
(
received already in the present almost all things promised to it

except immortality" (Mon. Germ. scr. xx. 198). And yet,
shortly after the year 1300, premonitions of the coming crisis
began to appear. Of this our next chapter will treat.
1
Upon infallibility, vid., further, quodlib. ix. a. 16 ; contra errores Graecor.
Also Albert, sent. iv. d. 20, a. 17.

THEOLOGY OF DUNS SCOTUS. I47
CHAPTER III.
THE GRADUAL DISSOLUTION OF THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY.

THE RELIGIOUS AND ECCLESIASTICAL CRISIS AT THE CLOSE
OF THE MIDDLE AGES.
59. The Theology of Duns Scotus and Its Significance for the
History of Doctrines.
J. Duns Scoti, opp. ed. Wadding, 13 vols., 1639. Reprinted in the new
Paris edition in Viv^s, iSgiff., 26 vols. We
are chiefly interested in the
Commentary upon the Sentences known as the Opus Oxoniense (which we
quote as sent. " ) and the abbreviated copy of it in the Reportata Parisiensi**
'
' ,
(which we quote as ** report."

). Cf. Werner, Duns Scotus, 1881. Plezan-
SKi, Essai sur la philosophie de Duns Scot., 1887. Seeberg, Die Theologie
des Duns Scotus, 1900, and in PRE. v., ed. 3, 62 ff. Ritter, Gesch. d.
Philos. viii. 354 ff. Prantl, Gesch. d. Logik, iii. 202 f. Erdmann, Gesch-
d. Philos. i., ed. 4, 446 ff. Stockl, Gesch. d. Philos. d. MA. ii. 778 ff.
Baur, Lehre v. 448 ff., 589 ff., 621 ff., 642 ff., 673 ff.,
d. Dreieinigkeit,
ii.
690ff., 727ff., 759ff., 823 ff., 861 ff. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. i. 73 ff
Kahl, Primat des Willens in Aug., Duns Scot., u. Descartes, 1886, p. 76 ff
SiEBECK, Die Anfange der neueren Psychol, in d. Scholast., Ztschr. f. Philos,
u. phil. Krit., vol. 94, p. 161 ff. 95, p. 245 ff.
;
T. The movements at the close of the

history of the dogmatic
Middle Ages must begin with a study of Duns Scotus (f 1308).
For, however true it may be that the masterly skill of this man in
dialectics and his acuteness carried the scholastic method to its
point of highest development, yet it is equally true upon the

other hand and this must determine his historical position
that the theological method which he pursued became the con-
trolling influence leading to the dissolution of the scholastic
theories and the crisis in theology.
We must first briefly note the leading positions in the general
conception of the universe entertained by Duns. Upon the
question of Universals he stood upon the basis of a modified
Realism (vid. p. 104). The universal he held to be as well
before as in and after an object. Everything which exists, exists
also, since everything comes from God, as an eternal original
image in the mind of God (sent. i. d. 35, q. i, 12). Here
comes to light an important variation from the view of Thomas,
as Duns lays the emphasis upon the singular, and no longer upon
the universal. The individual being, the individuitas or haeccei-
tas according to his view, the real goal of nature, and is
is,
therefore, as compared with the universal, the higher form of ex-

istence (rep. i. d. 36, q. 4. 14). There is an ultimate reality of
being {ûltima realitas entis) which makes the particular object to
be just what it is. From this results the emphasis laid upon ex-
perience as a ground of knowledge (<?. ^., de anim. q. 15)- In
the theory of knowledge, Duns adopts, in a general way, the
prevailing Aristotelian formulas. The intellect apprehends the
intelligible form (species intelligibilis^ which is presented to it
in the sensible object, and thus begets the conception. He
does not, like Thomas, interject the ** intelligible form" be-
tween the sensuous perception and the intellect, but it is already
present in the perception and given with it. Hence, upon the
Scotist theory of knowledge, the individual object is as such per-
ceptible (de anim. q. 22. 4). But he very strongly emphasizes
also the spontaneity of the spirit in the act of perception. The
object does not beget the conception in the (passive) spirit, but
the intellect is the organ which apprehends the object and im-
prints the conception. But here the will asserts itself. It impels
to thought, or restrains from it ; it constrains to or prohibits agree-
ment with the conception received (sent. ii. d. 42, q. 4. 5, 10 f. ).*
Thinking in itself occurs as a necessary and natural process (sent.
i. d. 32, q. I. 14; ii. d. 42, q. 4. 5). It is only through its
connection with the will, which is free, as perception is not, from
the necessity of the causal process, that it receives a personal
and free character. From this originates one of the leading
thoughts of Duns, /. e. the doctrine of the/nVz/atry of the will. The
,
entire inner and outer man, with all his thoughts, words, works,
and impulses, is subject to the will. It is the will alone which
makes human conduct good or bad (sent. ii. d. 42, q. 4). The
will, and not the thought, is the organ for the appropriation of the
highest objects and values. Faith does not arise without the con-
sent of the will (iii. d. 25, q. I. 11). Love is realized in the will,
and blessedness is experienced by it (ii. d. 25, 13 f., 19;
iv. d. 49, quaest. ex latere, 10 ff.). According to Thomas,
blessedness consists in the intellectual contemplation of the
supreme end, from which contemplation results the joy of the
pacified will (Thom. summ. 2-5).
ii. According to Duns,
i, q.
it God, as the present supreme
consists in the apprehension of
good, in the voluntary act of love, which brings with it the su-
preme satisfaction of man's longings. But this joy is only an
accompanying experience, while the real blessedness consists in
the apprehension of God (iv. d. 49, q. 4. 7, 8 j. The will is
free^ for as touching the same object the will has the choice of
a velle or a nolle (ii. d. 25, 6). Not in the object therefore
lies the determining ground of the will, nor in the perception,
' Except when the conception carries its own absolute evidence, Quaest.
subtiliss. in raetaphys. 9.
THEOLOGY OF DUNS SCOTUS. 149
which always but reflects the object, but in the will itself.
*' Nothing else than
the will is the cause of the entire volition in
the will " (ii. d. 25, 22), Only upon the premise of freedom
isthe possibility of meritorious conduct intelligible (ib.). A
strictproof of the freedom of the will, /. e., the existence of a
contingent course of action, cannot, indeed, be produced, but it is
attested by immediate experience. If anyone were to cast doubt
upon contingent conduct and events, he ought to be flogged until
he should acknowledge the possibility of not being flogged (i. d.
This brief summary must here suffice. The interest of Duns

centres, not in the universal, but in the singular and in the indi-
vidual. And in his conception of man, the chief thing is that
man himself freely wills. These are ideas which foreshadow a
new conception of the universe. The emphasis is laid, not upon
ideas nor the perception of them, but as, on the one hand, man
himself is nothing more than his individual free will, so the final
end, or goal, of the world is to be seen in the concrete separate
objects which it contains.
2. What then is the task of Theology? It presupposes revela-
tion. The latter instructs man as to the end which his will should
pursue and the means for attaining it (sent. prol. q. i. 6ff. ).
These truths necessary to salvation are presented by the Holy
Scriptures. The credibility of the latter is exhaustively proved.
The resultant maybe stated in two propositions: **That the
doctrine of the canon is true," and **that the Sacred Scriptures
sufficiently contain the doctrine necessary to the prilgrim " (ib.
q. 2. 14). Duns, like Thomas, maintains that this truth is sum-
marized in the Apostles' Creed, or, also, in the three symbols
of the ancient catholic church (iii, d. 25, q. i. 4 ; i. d. 26,
25; iv. d. 43, q. I. 11). He, however, placed beside
the authority of the Scriptures and these symbols, as of equal
value, the teaching of '* the authentic Fathers" and of the
** Romish church " (i. *' Nothing is to be held
d. 26, 26).
as of the substance of the faith except that which can be ex-
pressly derived {êxpresse haberi) from Scripture, or which is ex-
pressly declared by the church, or which follows evidently from
something plainly contained in Scripture or plainly determined
by the church " (iv. d. 11, q. 3. 5). As the church has decided
which books belong to the canon, the requirement of subjection
to the Scriptures is equivalent to subjection to the church, which
'*
approves and authorizes" the books of Scripture (iii. d. 23,
q. I. 4 ; i. d. 5, q. i. 8). In the last resort, the Romish church
is the only authority. Her utterance decides what is or is not
heretical. Even if a doctrine be deprived of all other authority
and all arguments drawn from reason, it must be accepted solely

upon the authority of the Romish church (iv. d. 6, q. 9. 14, 16,
17). This is the churchly positivism of the later Scholasticism.
The ecclesiastical doctrines are employed as so many legal pre-
cepts, and orthodoxy receives a juristic flavor. But, as at a later
period, so already in Duns, this positivism is only a counterpoise
to an unlimited criticism of the traditional doctrines. He criti-
cizes not only the contemporary theologians, but even Augustine
and Aristotle (especially Thomas and Heinrich). In regard to
many a traditional dogma, impossibility of proof and aimlessness
are openly acknowledged (transubstantiation, habitus), or the
possibility of the contrary opinion granted. The decision, how-
ever, is always in favor of the Romish doctrine, although under
the formal endorsement may lurk many a bold perversion of the
sense.
The complex of positive and practical truths^ of which theol-
ogy treats is apprehended in faith. Duns acknowledged the
possibility of explaining faith in a perfectly natural way, as as-
sent to tradition {Jides acquisita, vid. iii. d. 23, i, 4 ff. ). But
the '' authority of Scripture and the saints" demands the rec-
ognition of a supernatural habitus, the fides infusa (ib. 14).
This is a habitus infused into the intellect, as the habitus of love
is infused into the will. To speak more exactly, it is a habitus
inclinans, which impels, but does not compel, the intellect to as-
sent. There is thus retained even here some liberty of action
for the will ( 11). This assensus, as infused, has a perma-
nence and certainty which does not characterize acquired faith
( i5f. ). In regard to implicit idiith., his position agreed with
that of Thomas (supra, p. 103).
3. In his discussion of separate doctrines, we will find -almost
everywhere in Duns suggestions which assumed great importance
for later ages. We note first his conception of God. He en-
deavors from the principles of causality, finality, and eminence
to establish the necessity of an Infinite Being, which has its cause
or end in nothing else, and which can be outranked by nothing
(i. d. 2, q, 2. loff. ). But, as in this scheme God is viewed
under the aspects of the First Cause {primum efficiens) and the
Self-acting {per se agens), there result a number of valuable
1 Duns strongly emphasized the positive character of theology (sent. prol.

q. 2, lateral.). has an independent sphere, and, as a number of contin-
It
gent facts are embraced in it, other principles than those of metaphysics (1. c,
^29). He maintains likewise the practical nature of the propositions of the-
ology for even such doctrines as those of the Trinity or the conception of the
;
Son are of a practical nature, since their aim is to awaken love for the objec*
presented (1. c. ^32).
1
positive ideas. First of all, " That the first cause is intelligent
and volitional' ' {intelligens et volens')
( 20). This is proved
as follows ; There is in the world contingent causality. Since
now every second cause causes 'Mn so far as it is moved by the
first," the First Cause must also act contingently, /. e., it is free
will(ib. ). ''Therefore either nothing happens contingently,
/. (?., is evitably caused, or the First Cause thus causes imme-
diately what it would be able also not to cause " ( 21). It is

utterly impossible to derive contingency, with Aristotle, from
second causes^ for the necessity of the all-embracing activity of
the First Cause would necessitate also the actions of the second
causes (i. d. 39, 12). God is, accordingly, to be represented
as free will. This involves, further, that there can be found no
reason for his willing or not willing, since all willing is abso-
lutely without ground or reason " And, therefore, there is no
:
reason (^causa) why his will willed this, except that his will is
will " (i. d. 8, q. 5. 24). God, then, wills this or that, because
he wills it. Good is, therefore, good because God wills it to be
so; he does not will it because it is good (iii. d. 19, 7). All
things, considered in themselves, may be said to be possible to
the omnipotence of the divine will. This potentia absoluta of
God has only one limit, /. ^., the logically impossible (iv. d. 10,
q. 2, 5, 11). God can, therefore, according to his absolute
power, save the already lost Judas ; but he cannot give eternal
blessedness to a stone, nor make undone what has been done.
But by the side of this absolute power stands the ordained power
(^potentia ordinata) of God, i. e., the manifestations of divine
power upon the ground and within the bounds of laws and ordi-

nances fixed arbitrarily by God himself. God commonly
works according to his ordained power, but it is also conceivable
that he may, upon occasion, by virtue of his absolute power,
vary from the course of the former, or entirely abolish it. For
example, the rule that no one shall receive glory who has not ac-
cepted grace might be abrogated (i. d. 44, 1-4). Duns con-
ducts this whole discussion under the heading of the conception
of God as the absolute Being ; but it affords evidence that he
held ideas of God far transcending the limits of such a scheme.
This is proved especially by his important theory, that the sum
total of the relations of God to the world is to be described as
Love. This idea he develops as follows God wills, or loves,
:
himself. As now all being originates in God, it is subject to

God as its final end, and has, therefore, a share in the love
which God exercises toward himself (iii. d. 32, 2). This love
embraces, accordingly, the whole creation, its present and its
future. But the creation is a composite with a gradation of its
parts according to their relations to the final end. This relation-

ship decides in every separate case the measure of the divine
love to be bestowed. This produces the following scheme (^7) :
God loves himself, (d) He, therefore, loves that which has im-
mediate relation to himself as its final end, or elect men, /. e.y
God wills that there shall be men who, with himself, love him,
and this loving will is predestination, (c) The divine love then
directs itself upon the means for the realizing of this predestina-
tion, /. <?., the ordinances of grace, (d) Finally, God, for the
sake of the elect, wills the more remote means, /. e.j the visible
world (1. c, 6).^
The doctrine of the Trinity need not long detain us. Duns,
in the traditional way, deduces the Son from the divine thought,
and the Spirit from the divine will (i. d. 2, q. 7, 3).
But it is not at this point that the historical significance of
Duns' conception of God is to be seen, but in the fact that God is
here, more clearly and distinctly than in the writings of Thomas,
conceived as a thinking and willing personality, and that love is
recognized as the content of the divine activity in the world.
But since Duns made the arbitrary will of God the source of all
things, faith in the traditional formulas concerning the harmony,
and order of the universe was shattered. It was, accordingly,
1 Some further remarks upon the views of Duns upon predestination are
needful. Although he did not attach much practical importance to the doc-
trine, he yet applied it theoretically with great zeal. The question, whether a
predestinated person can be lost, he answers in the affirmative, since God
might have willed the one as well as the other (i. d. 40, i, 2). God can,
therefore, predestinate any person, or he can fail to predestinate him. Duns '
answers the objection, that predestination leads to immortality, by asserting that

the will of God cannot be limited from without (^3). The current concep-
tion, that predestination depends upon prescience, he refutes by observing that
God always foresees all contingent events in their dependence upon the divine
will, and, therefore, the good deeds of men appear as determined by the divine
will (i. d. 41, 10). Besides, this would not apply to children dying in in-
fancy, who are, without any deeds of theirs, either elected or reprobated.
Duns himself teaches that predestination has no ground whatever upon man's
part for the divine will that any creature be saved exists before faith or good
;
works, and hence the latter cannot under any circumstances constitute the
ground of the former (ib. ^ 11). In reprobation, it is true, it appears neces-
sary to grant such a ground in man, the foreseen final sin, since otherwise the
justice of the sentence cannot well be conceived (ib.). The difficulties thus
remaining were not overlooked by Duns. He suggests, further, that it be sup-
posed that God, while predestinating Peter to glory and then to grace, in re-
gard to fudas, determined nothing at all, but, on the contrary, willed that both
belong to the ** mass of perdition." Inasmuch as the first-named act of the
divine will had relation to Peter, he receives grace and eternal life, while
Judas is simply left to perdition (^ 12). Thediscussion closes with a warning
against prying into such matters, and an exhortation that everyone bS allowed
to hold his own opinion, only so that the divine freedom be guarded against
any charge of unrighteousness (^ 13).
no longer eternal ideas and laws, but the positive activity of God,
which constituted the material of religious knowledge. On the
other hand, a powerful weapon was, by this new conception of
God, placed in the hands of the critics of the traditional teach-
ings of the church. If the illogical is to be acknowledged as
frequently true, may not the logical also be false ? And when
once the idea of absolute power has been admitted, may not
anything be regarded as conceivable, as possible, or as allowable ?
4. The sinlessness of man in paradise was, in and of itself, only
potential, since the will as such always involves the possibility of
sinning. The actual innocence of the first pair can, therefore,
be explained only by their possession of their additional endow-
ment, the donum superaddituni (ii. d. 23, 6, 7). There is in
man by nature, in consequence of the existence of the sensuous
impulses together with the reason and will, an inward rebellion.
Only the imparted supernatural habitus of grace is able to sub-
ject the lower forces to the higher (ii. d. 29, 4). If, there-
fore, concupiscence, or the rebellion of the sensuous nature

against the spirit, belongs to the original human nature, original
sin cannot possibly consist in concupiscence. Original Sin, on
the contrary, is to be described as only a want (^carentia) of orig-
inal righteousness (d. 30, q. 2. 3). It has as its material con-
cupiscence, but this gains control and becomes sin only through
the loss of the restraining rein {frenum cohibens^ d. 32, 7).
This view presents the question of the propagation of sin in a
new light. Duns opposes the theory of physical inheritance.
If sin is in the will, how can the latter make the whole body
sick ? And if this were the case, why should the seed only, and
not the spittle and blood as well, be infected? Or again, how
should theinherited physical condition transform the will? (d. 32,
4 f. ). The solution must be reached from another direction.
Since the original righteousness was bestowed upon Adam for
himself and his posterity, it is a righteousness which they now
owe, z. justitia debita. **By virtue of such a gift, the will of
every child of his becomes a debtor " (ib. 8-12).^ Concep-
tion demands attention in the case only as being that which
makes man a child of Adam. Only as descended from Adam, is
he a debtor to the righteousness granted to the latter ( 17").
It is evident that the Augustinian theory of original sin is here
^ It does not harmonize with this, that Duns asserts that our first parents
could not have transmitted their righteousness to their posterity (ii. d. 20, q.
I, 3). He maintains, therefore, in this passage that had Adam not fallen,
God would by co-operation have regularly imparted grace to the children of
the race.
This is, however, nothing more than a postulate to account in

some way for the inheritance of sin in the doctrinal system of Duns.
surrendered in its fundamental principle. In place of the phys-

ical propagation of the original concupiscence, is posited the
ideal obligation of every child of Adam to the supernatural right-
eousness once granted to Adam.^
The teaching of Duns in regard to Actual Sin is in keeping with
this theory of original sin. The former is a defect in the will.
Instead of loving the supreme good, or God, the will of man
rests content with an earthly end as its supreme good. He thus
offends also against the divine law revealed to him (d. 37, q. i,
6f.).
5. We may, perhaps, venture the opinion that the Christology
of Duns displays a higher appreciation of the human life of
Christ than is manifested by the other great Scholastics. This
is noticeable especially in his discussions of the impartation of
grace to the soul of Jesus (iii. d. 13, q. i. 3), and of the knowl-
edge of Jesus (iii. d. 14), in which he maintains that the soul of
Jesus by its union with the Logos possessed at least an in-
herent (^habituale) knowledge of all universals, but that it was
subject to the necessity of gaining a progressive knowledge of the
individual and the contingent, so that Lk. ii. 40 is to be under-
stood of a real progress (1. c, q. 2. 16, 20 ; q. 3. 6 ff. ). It is
granted also that pain could penetrate to the higher part of the
soul of Jesus (ib. q. 15). Merit likewise is attributed to the
human nature of Christ. He merited the favor of God, because
he did not yield to his sensuous desires. He could merit by
fasting, watching, and prayer (iii. d. 18, 4-6). But all of this
does not extend to the experiences and visions of the person of
Jesus which occur so abundantly in the devotional literature of
the Middle Ages (supra, p. 89 f. ). This is to be acounted for by
the fact that Duns clings unalterably to the christological scheme
of the ancient church, which he, like the other Scholastics, in-
terprets after the manner of Abelard. The union is a relation
of subordination {relatio ordinis')^ a relation of dependence of
the human upon the divine nature, a relation which maybe com-
pared to that between attribute and substance (iii. d. i, q. i. 3).
The divine nature is in no wise limited by its relation to the hu-
man. The latter, in the moment of its genesis, subordinates
itself to the divine nature and receives at once and thereby from
^ Duns abolished the conception of original sin, or substituted for it that of

original debt. But the substitution, although aiming to maintain the idea of
guilt, or debt, cannot be regarded as satisfactory, for it fails to afford that
which it is the province of the theory of original sin to furnish, /. .?., to ex-
plain the universality and depth of the conviction of guilt. If God withdrew
righteousness from Adam, and this could be bestowed upon his descendants
only by a special divine act, it is not easy to see how the sense of guilt can he
traced to the concupiscence originally inhering in human nature.
;
the latter its personality (ib. 9 ; d. 2, q. 2. 12). A human

personality, or separate existence, of Jesus is in no wise to be
maintained (d. 5, q. 2. 4). It has not even an independent ex-
istence {esse). It has its existence from the divine Logos-
person, as my foot exists only by virtue of my existence (d. 6,
q. I. 2 ff. ). The proposition : God became man, is not an ac-
curate statement. The becoming was only an experience of the
man, not of the Logos. To speak properly, we should say :
'* the human united personally with the Word " (d. 7, q.
nature is
2. 5 if.). There is a unity of the two natures, which consists in

the union, /, e., in the relation of the one to the other (iii. d. i,
q. 2. 10).^ These conceptions do not indicate an advance in the
knowledge of the subject. The doctrine of Duns is certainly
orthodox, but it is, in consequence, not clear. Shall it really
be thought possible for us to think of that human nature which
resists the allurements of sensuality in order to merit the divme
favor as absolutely impersonal
as something which, with no
existence of its own, has been united as an attribute to the infi-
nite divinity of the Logos ? The two currents of medieval

Christology as represented in Abelard and Bernard here
meet, and it is evident that they will not unite
not, at least, in
the channel of the traditional formulas. The rational Chris-
tology of Abelard discriminated sharply between the finite and
the infinite, in order to insure the independence of the finite
while the pious reflection of Bernard beheld in the human words
and deeds of the finite Jesus the revelation of the love of the infinite
God. Abelard was mainly concerned for the humanity of Jesus,
but he in reality promoted the undue emphasizing of his divinity.
Bernard sought the ever-present heavenly Son of God, and he
awakened and deepened appreciation for the humanity of Jesus.
Abelard' s ideas adapted themselves to the traditional formulas,
found a place in the dogmatic system of the Middle Ages, and
have endured beyond that period. Bernard's ideas were not ac-
cepted by the dogmatic system of the Middle Ages, but they in-
fluenced the life of the age, and thus frequently made inroads
upon the logical consistency of the dogmatic formulas. An illus-
tration of this may be seen in the portraiture by Duns of the man
Jesus as acting meritoriously.
6. Duns confessedly owed something of his repute to his
championship of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin
^ During his stay in Hades, Christ was not a man,

g., the Lombard
as, <r.
teaches. For in his human nature were

state of death the various parts of the
not really united with the divinity of Christ, although they may have still ex-
isted. Vid. iii. d. 22, J 18 ff. Christ was, hence, in Hades only according
to his divinity.
156 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES,
Mary. He castsdoubt upon the then current opinion that, since

Mary was born of sinful seed, it was necessary for Christ to be
her Saviour as well as her Son. The argument drawn from the
sinfulness of the seed had no force for Duns. On the other
hand, it would appear fitting that Christ should merit salvation
for the person most nearly related to him in an absolutely perfect
way, i. e., in such a way that she should remain free from origi-
nal sin.
As God blots out original sin in baptism, so can he also do
in the moment of conception. Christ's passion was then accepted
in advance by God as the means of her salvation (iii. d. 3, q.
I. 3f., 9, 14, 17). Mary, therefore, remained entirely un-
tainted by sin. Her descent from Adam does not of itself in-
volve sinfulness. Even if we should hold that the soul origi-
nates through generation in the moment of conception, it would
not be necessary to regard Mary as sinful, since God could in-
fuse grace into the soul in the very moment when it comes into
being (ib. 17, 20). Measured by the doctrine of Duns upon
original sin, the advantage enjoyed by Mary is none too marked.
The whole subject in Duns is treated rather as a theological hy-
pothesis, not at all as a doctrine of any special importance.
7. We turn now to the work of Redemption. Duns denies
the infinity of the merit of Christ. The merit of Christ is a
matter of his human will ; it is the obedience which he rendered
(iii. d. 19,
4 ; iv, d. 2, q, i. 7). Hence, as the human will
of Christ is finite, so is also the merit which he gains through its
exercise (iii. d. 19, 5). This meritof Christ was foreseen by God
as the means of human redemption. The divine predestination
embraces that merit as the means of realizing its purpose. The pas-
sion of Christ was therefore foreordained from eternity by God as
the means for the salvation of the predestinated. To it belongs
a peculiar value and a special efficacy, not in and of itself, but
by virtue of the foreordination of the divine will, which foreor-
dained this means and will accept it as effectual (1. c, 6). The
merit of Christ is not of itself good, nor is it of itself a means
of salvation, but it is the divine will alone that makes it the one
or the other (7). It might, indeed, of itself avail for all men,
but it was God's will that its efficiency should be limited to the
predestinated ( 14).
But was the precise form of Christ's sufferings, or any render-
ing of satisfaction, necessary to man's salvation ? Duns raises
this question in a criticism of Anselm's theory. He disputes,
first of all, the necessity of a satisfaction, which he holds to have
been necessary only because God so willed. But it was not nec-
essary that God should will it, just as the salvation of men is
THEOLOGY OF DUNS SCOTUS, 157
itself not a necessary, but a contingent, act of God (iii. d. 20,

7). But even granting the necessity of satisfaction, it would
still by no means follow that the one rendering it must be God.
It is not correct to say that something greater than the whole crea-
tion must be offered up to God. Any pious act of Adam would
have sufficed to atone for his first sin (ib. % 8). Just as little
can the demand that satisfaction must proceed from a man be
strictly proved. The value (of the sacrifice) does not lie in the
offered object as such, but in the acceptance by the divine will.
But it is perfectly conceivable that God might will to accept the
deed of an angel, or of a sinless man, as a sufficient atonement.
Yea, it would even be conceivable that every sinful man might
have rendered satisfaction for himself, if God should, by im-
parting the primary grace (^gj'atia prima), qualify him for meri-
torious action and accept this as a satisfaction (9)- In this crit-
icism it is plainly to be seen that the conception of God enter-
tained by Duns excludes all necessity for the occurrence of the
events connected with the passion of Christ. That which came
to pass, came to pass according to God's free will and entirely ;
different occurrences were in themselves conceivable. That

which has actually occurred is, God has willed ; but who will
prescribe to him that he has been compelled so to will ? This
idea is a gain as compared with the rationalistic speculation of
Anselm.
Duns gave but a brief positive response to the above question.
Christ suffered * *
for the sake of righteousness. 'He beheld the
*
sins ofthe Jews and their perverted adherence to the law.

Christ willed '* to recall them from that error through his works
and discourses.
'
' He
declared to them the truth, and died for
righteousness. To be added, that since he offered his
this is to
passion in our behalf to the Father, he bound us to himself, and
thus to God, with fetters of gratitude. ^* Therefore he did this
chiefly, as I believe, to allure us to his love, and because he

wished man to be more securely bound to God " ( 10). This
theory of satisfaction follows most closely the type of Abelard,
although Duns declares it possible to make use of Anselm's ideas,
if ** divine ordination be presupposed " ( 10). From another
passage we may gather how Duns conceived the objective side of
the atonement. God will not forgive the sins of the transgressor
unless something be offered to him which pleases him more than
the sins of mankind displease him. This could only be the obe-
dience of a person more fervently loved by God than mankind
would have been loved by him had they not sinned. This was
the person of Christ, who in his obedience offered the highest
love in enduring death for righteousness' sake (iv. d. 2, q., i. 7).
For the sake of the obedience and the love of Christ, God be-
stows grace upon mankind. There is thus attested in the activity
of Christ, as in the divine act of deliverance, the combined action
of mercy and righteousness (ib. 8).
The theory of redemption held by Duns embraces thus two
leading thoughts: (i) The pious obedience, or the love, of
Jesus is, according to the will of God, acknowledged as meri-
torious and employed as the means of bestowing grace upon man.
(2) This activity of Christ, sealed by his death, has conquered
mankind and incited them to love and gratitude. The obedi-
ence and love of Jesus thus became the occasion, on the one
hand, for the bestowal of grace by God, and, on the other, for
the renewal of mankind.^
8. The essential result of the work of Christ is, therefore,
that he merited for us the impartation of Grace. This leads us
to examine the conception of grace. By this term, as gratia creata
(supra, p. 118 f.j. Duns understands the habitus of love, created
in man, which inclines the will to meritorious works (ii. d. 27,
3). Thishabitusequipsmanwithaworthiness(^z^;?//iZj), ''which
consists in a correspondence of merit to reward," by virtue of
which man becomes dear to God ( 4). Grace is a co-operating
* Duns himself did not effect a combination of these two lines of thought,
having treated the questions involved but briefly. This may be attempted in
various ways. It may be said, for example, that the love of Christ trans-
formed the character of men, and that this became the ground of God's dis-
play of grace toward them. If we would gain a proper understanding of the
view of Duns, we must bear in mind that he conceived the entire work of sal-
vation and grace under the scheme of means and end ( supra, p. 1 5 2 ) In the .
will of God, priority is given to the glorification and gracious acceptance of the
elect above the mission of Christ as the means of effecting grace and of conse-
quent glory. If we now apply this scheme, further, to the two aspects of the
work of Christ in the writings of Duns, the logical priority must be given to
themanward aspect, since the object of the work of Christ is to win the elect.
From this we might derive the thought : be able to awaken love
that, in order to
and gratitude in men, Christ used his influence with the Father to secure the be-
stowal of grace. But I doubt whether this was the idea of Duns, for he does not by
a single word suggest that the granting of grace is the condition upon which alone
the love and example of Christ can become effectual. On the contrary, Christ

exerted the latter influence upon the Jews before grace had been bestowed. If,
on the other hand, we seek to combine the two aspects in the activity of Christ
in the way first suggested, thus making the influence exerted upon God de-
pendent upon the result secured in man, we come into direct conflict with the
fundamental tenor of the discussion. It follows that the two conceptions are
not to be subordinated the one to the other, but to be co-ordinated perhaps
somewhat as follows Christ lived among men and prepared them for the grace
:
which he secured from the Father, or, Christ secured grace from the Father for
the men whom he by his life won for the Father. Thus, too, would the rela-
tion of Christ and his work to the human race become intelligible. The im-
portant thought, that Christ is the head of the race, which we find in Thomas,
is lacking in Duns.
'
THEOLOGY OF DUNS SCOTUS. 1 59
principle (^principiujn co-operans') beside the will (ii. d. 7, 15).
Meritorius conduct results therefore from the working together of

the will-power and the habitus (i. d. 17, q. 2. 8). Since the will
without the habitus can produce an act, but not the habitus with-
out the will, the leading part in this co-operation appears to be-
long to the will. The habitus simply complements the act (ib.
9), or it stimulates to its performance ( 12). The habitus
is, therefore, a certain' supernatural influence which gives to the
will an inclinatio to action and secures the performance of the

action ** with delight, promptly and expeditiously" (ib.). It
appears, however, since action without the habitus is perfectly
conceivable, that the former has no need of the latter. But
then man would act meritoriously by his natural powers alone
(êx soils naturalibus') , which would be a Pelagian doctrine.
There must therefore be a supernatural form, which shall imprint
its character upon man's actions without limiting his own activity,
and thus also his merit fib. q. 3. 18, 19).
!
But it may be urged against the doctrine of the Habitus, that

experience does not attest it, since the moral acts referred to
may very readily be realized without it (q. 3. 21). Duns silently
acknowledges this. But it is not only our separate acts, he holds,
which are acceptable to God, but our whole nature, and the
ground of this is to be found in the habitus (ib. 22). Of the
habitus it is to be said '* That this habitus, beyond that which is
:
decorous, is a spiritual (power) inclining to determinate actions

'
( 23). Theacceptanceof an act, on the other hand, as meritor-

ious is entirely a matter of the divine will (iv. d. 22, qu. un. 9).
We may, therefore, discriminatein an act between its substanceand
its meritorious quality. In the former aspect, the will occupies the
place of prominence ; in the latter, the habitus has greater influ-
ence, since an act appears more worthy of reward when begotten
of love than when begotten of free will ( 27). The act re-
ceives its value in the sight of God
according to divine appoint-

ment from the fact that grace co-operates in its production.
The habitus is the rider, the will the steed. As the steed can
have value for anyone only in so far as it carries the rider to a
definite goal, so the act, produced in the first instance by the will,
is made valuable in the sight of God only through its connection
with the habitus ( 28).^ It can hardly be said that this con-
^ Very interesting are the remarks of Duns, 1. u., 28 : As every intellec-

tual capacity necessarily bears within itself the intelligible object, so must
also the moral habituality, to a certain extent, bear in itself the lovable good.
When now this habitus incites to activity, the resulting action will be directed
toward the good embraced in the habitus. Since the habitus receives its
power essentially from the object toward which it is directed, its influence may
l6o HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
ception of the supernatural habitus has been made perfectly plain,

still lessthat its necessity has been clearly demonstrated Duns !
retained the traditional physical conception of grace, but he sub-

limated it as far as possible. Grace is for him not the material
of Christian acts, but really only a something which gives toman
a new direction, an inclination toward God, and a value in his
sight. Duns recognized the fact that there was really no need
of i)\Q gratia creata, and we can easily understand why he was
unable to make use of it in his expositions of the moral life.
Thus the will remained, after all, as the chief cause of human con-
duct. But was not Duns, nevertheless, nearer in his views to the
proper evangelical conception of the matter than Thomas, or even
than Augustine himself?
And what was his conception of Justification ? He discusses
it in connection with the sacrament of repentance.^ We select
the doctrine of the attritio as our starting-point. This is sup-
posed to establish a merit of fitness (^de congruo), as a preparation
for the achievement of justification. This half-penitence is,
therefore, meritorious, and through it man merits justification
(iv. d. 14, q. 2. 14, 15 ; cf. d. 19,
32). But it must be
borne in mind that the final cause is not really the human merit
as such, but the will of God which has appointed this relation-
ship. Duns discriminates in justification between the infusion of
grace and the forgiveness of sins (iv. d. 16, q. i. 4). The
former is an actual change (miitatio realis), for before grace is
infused it has no existence. The forgiveness of sins, on the con-
trary, is only an ideal change, since it calls into existence noth-
ing essentially new in man (ib. 6), and the guilt of man is no
real entity, but only the ideal relationship to the- desert of pun-
ishment (7). Even in God, the forgiveness of sins is no sep-
arate act, but God never wills that any man be punished without
also willing that
under certain definite conditions he be no more
punished, and he, likewise, never wills that any man be not pun-
ished without willing also that, under certain conditions, punish-
ment be meted out to him (ib. 12). If the forgiveness of sins thus
denotes only the ideal and conditional change, that the one lia-
ble to punishment (J)uniendus) becomes no longer liable to pun-
ishment {non puniendus) the infusion of grace is, on the con-
,
trary, a real change. It is the factor which really effects justifi-
be ascribed essentially to the activity of the said object. But that is merely to
say, that the direction of man's activity toward God gives to his conduct its
value and character.
^ This is, therefore, the appropriate connection in which the conception of
justification stands. Cf., c.g.^ Carthusian, iv. d. 17, q. i, 2. This corresponds
with the practical situation of the day.
THEOLOGY OF DUNS SCOTUS. l6l
cation. And, as the infusion of grace is more intimately related

to the object, /. e.^ to the glorification and gracious acceptance
of man, than is the forgiveness of sins, the former has the priority
in the divine will ; bat in the actual execution of that will va
time, the order is reversed, and stands first, forgiveness of sins,
:
then infusion of grace ( 19. Cf i. d. 17, q. 3. 19 ''that :
God naturally remits an olfense before he gives grace to him,'' i. e.,

the offender).' Here, too, Thomas taught differently (supra, p.
121). Duns denies a causal connection of the two processes,
since neither can be logically deduced from the other ( 19).
Such is the doctrine of grace according to Duns. By attrition
man secures the merit of fitness. He is thereby prepared for the
reception of justification, or the infusion of grace, particularly in
the sacrament of repentance ; and this enables him to do meri-
torious works. These are ideas which became controlling forces
in the Scholasticism of the later Middle Ages. But along with
them we note, as also characteristic, the separation of forgive-
ness of sin and infusion of grace, and the spiritualizing of the
conception of grace. The ideas of Duns served as a support for
the superficial praxis of the church, but, considered in their en-
tire connection, they were nearly always directed against the
Augustinian foundations underlying this praxis. In illustration,
we recall the statement, that there is really no such thing as
'
merit
' in itself considered, but that God accepts certain definite
'
*
acts as merits ; and, on the other hand, the challenge If every- :
thing depends upon the divine acceptance, to what end then the
gradation of merits ?
9. At this point the doctrine of the Sacraments finds its place,
_
for it is through the latter that grace is infused into man. As we

have already considered them in 58, we here recall only the chief
principle involved. The sacraments are symbols, which signify the
working of grace, and which, by virtue of a divine covenant, pro-
duce in the soul a creative act of God concurrent with their re-
ception. We may describe the sacrament as, to a certain extent,
a cause of grace (^causa gratiae^) , inasmuch as it, as it were, com-
pels the accompanying presence of grace (sent, iv. d. i,q. 5. 12).
The critical ability of Duns is here also displayed (criticism of
the " character "), as well as a certain inclination to differently
interpret and refine the traditional conceptions (repentance and
the Lord's Supper).
^ In this order, Duns follows, as far as I can see, the course of Robert
Grosseteste in the tractate, De gratia et justificatione hominis (in Brown,
Fascicul. rer. expetendarum et fugiendarum, 1690, append. 282. Cf. Wiclif,
De domiiiio divin. iii. 5, p. 246 f.,ed. Poole). So also Wilhelm v. Paris,
opp. ii. f., 48 V. Cf. aUo CARTHUSIAN, iv. d. 17, q. 2.
lo. It remains for us to characterize the position of Duns in

the History of Doctrines. It is hardly saying too much to des-
ignate his theology as the key to the dogmatic history of the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This is true primarily in a
formal sense. The refinement of dialectic art to the point of
hair-splitting, the tinghng delight in logical proof and disproof,
the complicating of linguistic expression he wrestles with lan-
guage, and, instead of creating new forms for new ideas, the old
forms are split into shreds, this was learned by latter theologians
from Duns. But they also learned from him to apply dialectics
ruthlessly and earnestly to even the deepest mysteries of reli-
gion. There are no mysteries before which reason must halt.
Almost everything is for him open to scrutiny,^ and the more
fully the miraculous can be eliminated the better. ** I concede
that, even in the things believed, nothing more should be posited

without necessity, nor more miracles than necessary*' (sent. iv.
d. II, q. 3. 14). All this tended, on the one hand, to hasten
the dissolution and downfall of medieval thought ; but it was not
only in view of this that it was ** timely." It provided for
theology, at the proper moment, the forms which assured and
directed to it the interest of the age.
As to the material influence of the Scotist dogmatics, its method
appears to be only the direct continuation of that of Thomas,
i. e.y the authorities and reason are to be brought into harmony.
But with how much greater enthusiasm and fervency did not
Thomas address himself to the task ! For him, dogma and phi-
losophy really coalesced to form one great system of religious
philosophy embracing heaven and earth. Thomas yet believed,
not only in the absolute truth of the church's dogma, but also in
its agreement with scientific knowledge. This second conviction
has, in Duns, receded far into the background. Theology and
metaphysics are sharply discriminated. It is not the province of
theology to construct a universally applicable philosophical sys-
tem, but a complex structure of practical truths, /. <?., truths bear-
ing upon the conduct. Nor is it by any means to be taken for
granted that these truths can always be made clear to reason.
The criticism of Duns has a keener edge and loftier aim than
that of Thomas. In regard to many a leading Romish doctrine
he declares, that its suitability for attaining the end in view can-
not be proved, and that not much is to be said against the oppo-
^ How much light it casts upon the position and tendency of Duns to ob-
serve that he develops his theory of knowledge when treating of the doctrine
of angels that he presents his psychology under the heading of eschatology ;
;
and that the discussion of the sacrament of repentance gives him opportunity
to expound his theory of political economy!
THEOLOGY OF DUNS SCOTUS. I03
site opinion. Dunsindeed, particularly fond of throwing out

is,
hints of this nature, in the end working out some sort of

and yet
arguments in support of the proposition in question. But the at-
tentive reader will observe, what is elsewhere openly declared,
that the authority of the Romish church is, after all, the deci-
sive consideration. Even the propositions incomprehensible to
reason and incapable of proof are true
because Rome teaches
them. Duns no longer believes in the agreement of dogma and
philosophy ; but he believes in the authority of Rome. Like
Thomas, and yet how different For, inasmuch as in Thomas
!
these two principles coalesce, his faith in Rome retains a religious

character. But since, in Duns, even the incomprehensible and
unreasonable becomes truth through the authority of Rome, this
authority begins to assume the aspect of positive law. Both the
criticism of accepted dogmas and this ecclesiastical positivism
exercised a controlling influence upon the theology of the future.
But Duns is not to be counted among the leaders of thought
who accomplish only negative results. He wrought also out of
the materials of his age positive results for its advancement. And
it was this fact that lent such force to his criticisms. His chief
contribution of this character was his view of the will as the cen-
tral function of the spirit, which dominates alike his anthropology
and his theology. It is not the world in which man lives, nor
the ideas which he derives from it, which explains his conduct

and his aspirations but his will. The will is the innermost
faculty in man, the absolutely individual part of his nature. He
no longer views with merely theoretic interest the divine pano-
rama of the world's history, but he has himself become a co-
operating factor in the shifting scenes. In volition he experi-
ences the highest satisfaction. Man can be understood only by
appreciating this will, free in itself and determined by nothing
outside of itself. His worth depends upon it. It is the modem
man^ whose features are thus drawn in outline. The estimate of
a man according to his own character and deeds, personal re-
sponsibility and self-determination,
these are ideas which are
involved, at least implicitly, in the psychology of Duns, however
imperfect and incomplete the latter may be in particular points.
But this theory became even more significant when applied to
God. Since God is conceived as the absolutely free Will, many
of the categories of the traditional logic are dissolved, and the
ground is swept from beneath all the speculations as to what God
must do, and what must come to pass (cf. the criticism of
^
Vid. also the elaboration of the doctrine of states of the mind by Duns,
in SlEBECK, 1. c, vol. 95, p. 251 ff.
Anselm). If the absolutely free, and even wanton Will is the

ground of all things, then the truth can be learned only by the care-
ful observation of objects and events. This explains the impor-
tance attached to the concrete and the empirical, and the appeal
to experience, and, at the same time, the unrestrained liberty of
thought as over against traditional theories, as well as a certain
skepticism, which time and again leads the thoughtful student to
rest content with a '^ probable " or '* more probable." This defi-
nition of God betokens, however, a really deeper conception of
the divine nature. The God of Duns is no longer the abso- *
'
lute Substance," but a free, living Spirit. He did not venture

.
even here, it is true, to cast aside the ancient formulas, but he

conceived the large thought of God as the Loving-Will, the sum
total of whose relations to the world is to be regarded from this
point of view. Everything occurring in the world, as well as all
divine activity, is
in religious reflection
to be viewed from
the view-point of predestination. At this point Augustinian
predilections exert their influence (cf. also Thomas, supra, p.
107), the Oxford circle from which Duns came being as distinctly
Augustinian in temper as they were inclined to empirical investi-
gation.^ Nevertheless, Duns was no Augustinian. It was upon
the basis of the predestination pervading all things and the divine
freedom ordering all things that the theory of merit and good
works first began to
flourish. The ecclesiastical system is not in
itself necessary,
but it is and this is more positively deter-
mined upon and ordained by God. Thus the apparently Augus-
tinian premise is transformed into the popular Catholicism of the
close of the Middle Ages.
Finally, we can but point to the separate doctrines in which the
theology of Duns scored an advance, /. e.j a change as compared
with the system of Thomas. In nearly all these instances, the
later theologians followed in the steps of Duns. We have noted
the divergencies in the question of first principles (skepticism
and ecclesiastical positivism); the revision of the. conception of
1 A history of theology would find it needful at this point to discuss especially

the work of thegreat bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste (f A. D.
1253), who paved the way for the ideals of the mendicant orders in England
and directed toward its goal the awakened scientific impulse (religion in the
sense of Augustine, and empiricism in methods). It is to be regretted that we
possess as yet neither a comprehensive biography of this great man, nor even
an edition of his more important writings. Some material is furnished in
Brown, Fasciculus, etc., appendix, London, 1690. Luard edited his letters
(London, 1861). Vid. his introduction, and Lechler, Wiclif, i. 177 ff.
Also, supra, p. 161 n,, and Felton, Rob. Grosset., 1S87. As to his theolog-
ical position, see Seeberg, Duns Scot., p. 1 1 tT. Kropatscheck, Das
Schriftprincip der luth. Kirche, i. (1904), 3S9 ^'^-

HIERARCHICAL CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH. 165
God ; the emphasis upon the will in psychology ; the doctrine of

the original state and the minimizing, ^., elimination, of orig-
/".
inal sin ; the theory of redemption, with the co-ordination of the

subjective and objective aspects of the atonement ; the criticism
of the Augustinian definition of grace, /. ^., the new definition
of the habitus ; the significance of the meritum de congruo ; the
Pelagianism in the order of salvation ; the logical apprehension
of the relation between God and man under the scheme of the
meritum ; the symbolical interpretation of the sacraments, with
the severance of sign and substance ; and the criticism of tran-
substantiation.
Such is the theology of Duns Scotus.
proclaims the ap- It
proaching downfall of the cosmology ofMiddle Ages. the
Dogma and reason, church and world, threaten to part company.

And yet -Thomas looks backward. Duns faces the future.
60. Criticism of Hierarchical Conception of the Church.
I. Wemusthereassumethefamiliarityofthereaderwiththe out-
ward history of the papacy from the days of Benedict XI., thesuc-
cessorof Boniface VIII. The papacyatAvignon reiterated, indeed,
with lofty assumption the ancient claims of supremacy. But its de-
pendence upon the course of French politics the bull Unajn sanc-
tani was annulled, so far as France was concerned, and Boniface
VIII. barely escaped condemnation for infidelity and frivolity
robbed its claims of all force or sacredness. The great contest
against Louis of Bavaria (A. D. 1314-47), despite many humilia-
tions inflicted upon the emperor, set loose a storm of criticism of
the papacy, its legality and its claims, which penetrated to its very
foundations. The Electoral Union at Rensedeclared (A. D. 1338)
that the electors elect the emperor, and that this election confers
uponhim the right of government in the empire without any nomi-
nation, approbation, or confirmation on the part of the Curia. The
papacy, when again transferred to Rome, was rent by the great
schism (A. D. 1378). The moral delinquencies of many mem-
bers of the hierarchy were well known, but, above all, the avarice
of the Romish Curia, The trade in spiritual offices, the indul-
gences, the papal taxes, etc., all served but one end, to procure
money and much of it. The unnatural character of the papal
dominion made this a necessity it was a civil government with-
;
out the regular sources of revenue. With murmurings against

the draining of national resources by the papacy were com-
bined bitter complaints of the immorality and dissipation of the
higher as well as the lower clergy.^ The widespread discontent
^ A striking portraiture of the times is given in the work of Nicholas of
awakened by these abuses led to a constantly growing demand

for a reformation of the church, which led to the so-called ** Re-
form Councils " at Pisa, A. D. 1409, atConstance, A. D. 1414-17,
and at Basel, 1431-47. The exaltation of the church universal
above the papacy was here asserted^ and utterance gi\en to many
].tious laments and hopes touching the ** necessity of a reforma-
tion of the church in head and in members."''^ But there was

neither the power nor the courage requisite for a thoroughgoing
reformation. And every politic compromise indicated a victory
for the old order of things. Thus the popes always grasped
again the sceptre, and, despite all the complaints of clergy and
laity, the reformation still remained only a pious wish. In the
bull, *' Pastor aeterniis,'^ Pope Leo X. announced to the world :
*'Since also that only the Roman pontiff (in office) for the time
being, as having authority over all councils, has the full right and
power of summoning, transferring, and dissolving councils, is
evident not only from the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, the
sayings of the holy fathers, and of the other Roman pontiffs, , . .
and the decrees of the holy canons, but even from the very con-
fession of the councils themselves" (Binius, Concil. general, ix.
151). And yet the great spiritual agitation, which disturbed
the minds of multitudes for almost two hundred years, was not
in vain. The mistrust of Rome and the hierarchy, the critical
attitude toward the church and her laws, and, combined with
this, the conviction that there is a church of God which is more
and better than the hierarchical system of Rome these ideas
were engraven more and more deeply upon the general con-
sciousness. And, just in proportion as the sense of national in-
dependence gained in strength and the value of earthly posses-
sions increased, must these critical ideas become more extended
in their scope and the unreasonableness of the Romish system
Clemanges, De ruina ecclesiae (in VoN D. Hardt, Constant, concil. i. 3).

He writes, p. 21 Everywhere they search for money (quaestum)\ they are
:
greatly concerned about money they think money is piety. They do noth-
;
ing at all unless they believe that, upon their doing it, money may be voted for
the increase of their gain. For this they dispute, fight, swear, go to law ;
they would bear with much greater equanimity the casting away of ten millions
of souls than of ten or twelve solidi. Vid. also the other writings col-
lected in this volume
from D'Ailli, Gerson, etc.; also Dietrich v. Niem,
De scismate, 11. 3 ed. Erler, 1890.
1 This council, assembled legitimately in the Holy Spirit, representing the
Catholic church, has authority immediately from Christ, to which everyone of
whatsoever rank or dignity, even the papal, he may be, is bound to render
obedience in those things which pertain to the faith, and to the general
. . .
reformation of the said church in head and in members (Constanz sess. 5,
vid. Mansi, xxvii. 590 Basel sess. 2, vid. Mansi, xxix. 21).
;
2 Title of a document in Hardt, i. 7, p. 277.

becoine more evident. Cf. Hefele, CG. vi. vii. Schwab,

Gerson, 1858. Tschackert, Peter v. Ailli, 1S77. Erler,
Dietrich v. Niem, 1887.
2. The criticism of the hierarchical system in the new period
found its fullest expression in the literature which was produced

during the conflicts of Louis of Bavaria with the pope.
Especially Marsilius of Padua and William Occam developed
ideas which tapped the very roots of the dominant system (vid.
Mars,, Defensor pacis. Occam, Octo quaestiones Compen-
;
dium errorum papae Dialogus

; ; Opus XC dierum, all to be
found in Goldast, Monarchia ii. Frankf. 1614). The most
characteristic feature of these publications is the distinct separa-
tion of state and church, politics and religion. As all laws are
to be traced back to the people, so the sovereign power lies also
with them. They choose their princes and give them their
authority ; they, therefore, may recall it again and remove the
princes from office (Mars. i. 12, p. 169 ff.; 9, p. 168 18, p.
;
184 f. ). There is no necessity for a papal confirmation of the

election, nor for an investiture by the pope, any more than the pope
has authority to remove the emperor. The election gives the
emperor his power; he stands directly under God (Occ. 8,
quaest. 2. 7, 8 ; 4. 8, 9). As concerns the pope, further, it is
held that he is subject to the emperor in all secular affairs,
as even Christ allowed himself to be condemned by secular
judges, and neither he nor anyone of the apostles ever laid claim
to earthly dominion or any kind of cooperative jurisdiction
(^jiirisdictio coactiva) whatever, even though the emperor had
of his own free-will granted the Donation of Constantine (Mars,
ii. 4, p. 195 ff. Occ. 8, quaest. 3. 3, 4 J dial., p. 75of-7Ss> 959^
956). According to Jerome, the bishops were originally the same
as the priests, and it wasonly atalaterdaythatoneof the latterwas
selected to be, as it were, a superintendent. There can hence be
no thought of any such thing as a divine authority of bishops
or popes (Mars. ii. 15). The papacy, as such, can by no means
be described as an institution absolutely necessary for the church.
No more cogent arguments can be adduced for a monarchical
than for an aristocratic form of civil government. And even
though the monarchy be preferable in civil life, it can scarcely
be so in the world-embracing government of the church. Here
Christ reigns as the only supreme Head (Occ. dial., p. 818 f. ).
Thus the question of the papal primacy is treated entirely from
the view-point of the natural reason it has for our author
;
no positively religious aspect. The discussion is regulated by

the transfer of the idea of popular sovereignty to the church.
The Scriptures, Occam holds, do not teach us that Christ
appointed Peter as the prince of the apostles. All the apostles

received the Spirit in the same way. Paul does not consider
himself subordinate to Peter, and the latter does not preside at
the first council. The injunction to feed the lambs is given
to him only as the representative of the other apostles. Even
in Matt. i6, Peter is only " in a certain way " designated as a
foundation. The real and absolutely necessary foundation of
the church is Christ. It is only as an incidental historical
foundation that Peter comes into view (dial., p. 846-863. Mars,
ii. 22, p. 264). According to Marsilius, it yet remained to be
proved from the Scriptures that Peter was ever at Rome and, ;
in any event, Paul was certainly there before him (ii. 16).
Accordingly, the papacy is to be regarded as an institution
worthy of commendation upon practical considerations, but by
no means as one enjoined by religious precept.
The duties of the pope, as of the clergy in general, are purely
spiritual. Christ bestowed upon Peter, as upon the other
apostles, the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power to
bind and loose. They were commissioned to spread the teach-
ing and the moral principles of Jesus, and to baptize believers.
But the ÎtmXnde oi'pov^tr {J>Ienitudo potestatis) consists really in
the exercise of the priestly functions of the sacrament of repent-
ance. But, inasmuch as the forgiveness of sins and the imparting
of grace are matters for God alone, the priestly absolution has
merely a declarative signification. Beyond this, the pope or

any other priest may allow the substitution of a temporal satis-
faction for the pains of purgatory. It seems of doubtful
propriety, on the other hand, to allow the clergy to administer
the great excommunication. An unjust excommunication, it is
true, does the victim no spiritual harm (" can do no harm for
the state of the future world, because God does not always follow
the church, /. e., the decision of the priests, when, e. g., they
condemn anyone unjustly"); but it is hurtful for the present
life through the accompanying disgrace. It seems, therefore,
prudent to commit the duty of casting out from the church to the
church itself, or to a council, as suggested in Matt. 18. 17.
Finally, to the clergy belongs the power of administering (coi?-
ficiendi^ the sacrament of the eucharist (vid. Mars. ii. 6, p.
205-209). The right of the pope in spiritual things consists,
therefore, in the authority to issue precepts and prohibitions in
the church as required by the common good {utilitas communis').
In temporal affairs, he has only the right to proper sustenance :
'
the right of asking for temporal things for his support and for the
'
execution of his office" (Occ. dial, p. 786). These sentiments

indicate an immense revolution of thought. The canon law.
69
the jurisdiction of the church, exemption of the church from

taxation, and the holdings of the church in property, are all here
surrendered, and there remains no intelligible reason why the
state should not hold the prebends and the congregations them-
selves elect and remove their pastors.^ The pope ceases to be a
dogmatic entity ; he is an administrator of the devotional services
of the church, and is bound to the positive instructions ot the
New Testament. He is fallible, as are all other men. He cannot
therefore establish any new articles of faith. His declaration
does not make any opinion hei^tical, but the crucial question in
regard to every doctrine is, whether it can be deduced from the
Scriptures (Occ. dial., p. 420). It would be altogether
irrational to suspend one's recognition of the truth until a papal
declaration could be secured. Our faith would thus be made
subject to the opinion of a man, whereas Paul in the second
chapter of ist Corinthians instructs us not to let our faith rest
upon the wisdom of a man, but upon the power of God (com-
pend. error., p. 976). Here, for the first time, the infallible
Scriptures are set over against the fallible pope '* Holy Scrip- :
ture cannot err " {cn-arenon potest); but, *' the pope can . . .
err " (ib. p. 843).^ But if a pope should stubbornly fall into
error, i. e.y become a heretic, he may, according to both law
and reason, be deposed (p. 464 ff., 568 ff. ).
God
has indeed promised to lead his church into all truth ;
but this promise by no means applies to the pope (for popes

have become heretics, ib., p. 464, 468 fif., 958, 976, 994), nor
to the college of cardinals not even to the Romish church nor
a general council, for in case every member of such a council
were to fall into error before his arrival, how should his falli-
bility be removed by his arrival at a certain locality or place (p.
495 f. ) ? It is very possible that God may at certain times so

order it that the truth may be preserved among the laity alone :
^ Vid. especially Mars. ii. 9, 17, 13.

2 Let it be observed, that it is the same juristic, abstract infallibility which
had been ascribed to the pope, which is here transferred to the Scriptures. It
is based upon a strict theory of inspiration, and falls short of the evangelical
view of the Scriptures. But it is yet important to observe that it was practical
considerations which determined the attitude of Occam. His religion drove
him to the Scriptures. But his religion was epitomized in the doctrine
of poverty. When popes and cardinals denied this doctrine, which Occam
believed to be found in the Scriptures, it was evident to him that their teach-
ing was erroneous, and he was compelled to assert the authority of the Scrip-
tures against that of the hierarchy. The same considerations impelled him
to free the civil government from the dominion of the hierarchical power.
Thus inner motives led him to the Scriptures. It would be instructive to
compare his experience at this point with that of Luther. Vid. Seeberg upon
Occam in PRE., ed. 3.
**He is able to give the poor, simple, illiterate, and rustic for
the edification of the orthodox church " (p 498 )
. . This dare by-
no means be limited to the clergy. The clergy have indeed, in
the canon law, limited the term ecclesia onesidedly to the clerici^
but the Scriptures understand by it the whole number (^congre-
gatio) of Christian believers. It may therefore be said that
'* laymen and women are ecclesiastics {^personae ecclesiasticae) as
truly as the clergy, because they are as truly of the church {^de
ecclesia) as are the clergy'* (ib. p. 502). A new conception
of the church breathes in these words. The truth surrendered
by the hierarchy may be preserved among the women of the
church, and if not among them, among the children. The laity
have the full rights of membership in the church. Kings and
laymen should be admitted even to the councils (p. 603 f., 605 ;
cf. Mars. ii. 20). The papal tyranny must not control the
church, for the gospel is a law of liberty (p. 776 f. ). Plain
laymen, guided by the Scriptures, may soar beyond the knowl-
edge of the ecclesiastical authorities. " Let it be granted, that
the simple are not legally (^regulariter) bound to believe any-
thing explicitly except those things which have been by the
clergy declared necessary to be believed. Yet the simple, never-
theless, in reading the divine Scriptures with acuteness of reason,
in which even the simple are not altogether lacking, observe
that something which the pope and cardinals have not declared
follows evidently from the divine Scriptures this they can and
ought to in that case believe explicitly, and they are not bound
to consult the pope and cardinals, because the sacred Scripture
is to be preferred to the pope and cardinals." Further :
** The
pope and cardinals are not the rule of our faith " (p. 770).
The transformation in the conception of the church which is
foreshadowed in this movement consists in the following points :
( I ) The state is independent of the church. ( 2 ) The sphere of

the spiritual (clerical) office is not lordship, but doctrine and
the administration of the sacraments. (3) The hierarchical
organization of the church has become historic, but is not a
religious necessity. (4) Not the pope, but Scripture, is the
infallible authority in the church. (5) Pope and clergy may
err, and are liable to deposition. (6) In secular affairs, the
clergy are subject to the secular jurisdiction. (7) The laity are
independent members, and the compeers of the clergy, in the
church.
3. But these ideas and their critical motive must, in order to
be fully understood, be viewed in a wider connection. Very
early in the Middle Ages the Old Germanic idea of a purely legal
state was so far modified, after the pattern of the church and the
HIERARCHICAL CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH. I?!
ancient theory of the state, that the state was no longer regarded
as existing only by virtue of the law and for its execution, but as
having in view the further object of promoting the common weal,
and as based upon natural motives. A compromise of the con-
tradiction between the Germanic idea, that the state exists for the
law, and the ancient idea of the subordination of the law to the

common weal both of which ideas existed side by side was
attempted by the combination of the positive and the natural
law. The statutes of the positive law, it was maintained,
whether expressions of the will of the ruler or of that of the
sovereign people, have their norm in the law of nature. Noth-
ing which contravenes the law of nature can be regarded as au-
thoritative. This primacy of the natural law was, indeed, limited
by the condition, that its execution must always be guided by the
concrete circumstances in any case. As the idea of popular
sovereignty furnished, on the one hand, the controlling thought
in the struggles of the councils against the popes, so, on the
other hand, the criterion of the natural law was relentlessly ap-
plied in criticism of the positive ordinances of the church. The
ancient juristic ecclesiastical conception of the primacy of
natural law,^ which had hitherto been employed by the church
in criticism of secular laws, was now turned against the church
herself. But the application of this weapon was here, no less
than in the secular use of it, subject to serious limitation by the
positive forms of the church life. Criticism was applied with a
keen relish and carried ruthlessly to its logical conclusions but ;
no one thought of abolishing the papacy, the hierarchy, the

canonical law, or the accepted dogmas of the church. Even the
boldest agitators sought no more than a correction of the existing
system within its own limits.
What is then the content of natural law ? ^ Natural law is the
law of reason, and it is the divine law *' Employing the natural
:
dictate {^dictameji) of reason, this is employing natural law;"

or, '' natural reason {ratio~) is natural law" (Occ. dial., p. 629,
568). It is, therefore, man's innate ideas of law and order in
the world (p. 932).^ Now, the same God who implanted these
^ Vid., e.
g.^ Isidor, etymol. v, 4 f. Gratian, decret., pars I, dist. 5. Cf.
Greg. VII.
'^
do not enter further upon the differentiation of \.\\^Jus naturale^ lex dei,
I
2Xi6. commune jus geniiujn. Vid. GIERKE, J. AUhusius, p. 273.
^ The latest offshoot of this theory of infallible moral ideas innate in man is
in the modem definition of conscience as the voice of God. Its origin is to be

sought in the idea entertained by the Apologetes of the Logos-sharing upon
man's part. According to Thomas, natural law is the content of the con-
science. Vid. supra, p. Ii4n. Also Seeberg, Gewissen u. Gewissensbildung,
1896, pp. 6ff., 69 f.
ideas in man, has imparted them likewise through inspiration in

the Holy Scriptures. The law of God is, therefore, identical
with the law of nature {lex del et jus naturae, ib. pp. 772, 778,
783, 786, 934). From this is derived the idea of the absolute
authority of the law of reason and nature
and of the Scriptures :
*' Human laws founded in divine and natural law" (ib.

p. 587).
*^No just positive law can be contrary to natural law " (p. 629).
'^ There can
be no law which is repugnant to the higher law or
'
to plain reason. Hence, whatever civil law is repugnant to the

'
divine law, or to plain reason, is no law. In the same way, the

words of the canonical or civil law, in any case in w^hich they are
repugnant to the divine law, /. ^. the Holy Scripture or right
,
reason, are not to be observed" (p. 630). But all of these

declarations are but repetitions of definite ideas of the canonical
law (vid. Gratian, decret., pars i., dist. 1-9). This was, there-
fore, the path which led to the establishment of the authority of the
Scriptures. Scripture and reason are identical. The Scriptures
present not positive revelation, but the universal truth of reason.
It is quite evident that in this way the Scriptures should come to
be regarded more and more from the view-point of the law. And
it is further beyond question, that this entire legal way of appre-
hending the church and religion could not possibly lead to a

spiritual conception of the nature of the church. On the con-
trary, it was just in this age of reform councils and of conflicts
wîth the Curia that the church came to be almost universally re-
garded as a polity, based upon juristic principles.
RiEZLER, Die litt. Widersacher d. Papste, pp. 194 ff., 243 ff. A. DoRNER,
Staat u. K. nach Occ. Stud. u. Krit., 1886, p. 672ff; Friedberg, Die
mittelalt. Lebren iib. d. Verhaltn. zw. Staat u. K., 1874. K. MOller, Der
Kampf Ludw. d. Bay, mit. d. Curie, i879f. Gierke, J. Althusius u, die
Entwicklg. der naturrechtl. Staatstheorien, 1880, p. 77 ff., I23fr.,264ff. Von
Bezold, Hist. Ztschr., vol. 36, p. 33ofF, Kropatscheck, Occam und
Luther (Beitrage zur Forderung christl. Theol. iv.), 1900.
61. Sketch of Church Life and Religious Agitations at the Close

of the Middle Ages.
Literature. Jani^sen, Gesch. d. deutsch. Volkes seit Ausg. d. MA. i.
14 A., 1887, and in connection, Kawerau, Ztschr. f. K. Wiss., 1882, p. 142 ff.,
263 ff., 313 ff., 362 ff. Moll, Die vorref. KG. d. Niederlande, deutsch. Von
Zuppke, ii. (1895), pp. 396-406, 554-565, 579-768. MoLLER, KG. ii.,
481 ff., 531 ff. Lamprecht, Deutsche Gesch., vol. v. i, 1894. VoN Bezold,
Gesch. d. deutsch. Ref. (Oncken Allg. Gesch.). Gothein, Polit. u. rel.
Volksbewegg. vor. d. Ref., 1878. Berger, Die Kulturaufgaben d. Ref.,
1895. Geffcken, Der Bilderkatechism. d. 15, Jarh., 1855. Joh. Nider's
Formicarius, and in connection, SCHIELER, Mag. J. Nider, 1885, pp. T95-
248. Hasack, D. chr. Gl. d. deutsch. Volkes b. Schluss d. MA., 1868.
Lechlkr, J. V. Wicl. u. d. Vorgesch. d. Ref., 2 vols., 1873. Bratke,
;
CHURCH LIFE AND RELIGIOUS AGITATIONS. 1 73
Luther's 95 Thesen u. ihre dogmenhist. Voraussetzungen, 1884. Vid. Kro-

PATSCHECK, Das Schriftprincip der luth. Kirche, vol. i. (Mittelalter), 1904.
Hrieger, Das Wesen des Ablasses vor Ausgang des MA. Leipziger Pro-
graram, 1897.
I. in the history of religion is preceded

Every great revolution
by a Traditional forms and aspirations no longer
crisis period.
satisfy the world. Some blame the old order of things, and long
for a new order which they know not how to secure. Others
glorify the old order. The new requirements of the age, which
even they must recognize, are to be met by the diligent and'
thorough use of the old means. Harsh criticism of the tradi-
tional positions and customs and abnormal devotion to them are
here closely associated. It is still hoped that the stones may be
made bread. The crisis through which Luther passed in the cloister
had been hovering over the church in the fifteenth century. The
individuality of the modern man and the deepening of religious
experience crave a personal assurance of faith and inner cer-
tainty. The church offers instead the rule of faith and the
power of the sacraments. The heart seeks life through the for-
giveness of sins ; the church points to confession and absolution.
The consciousness of the independence of the world and its
interests is crushed beneath the ancient claims of the hierarchy
the increasing prosperity of the world and the new business en-
terprises are in conflict with the ideal of '* poverty. " New
necessities and old methods, with the zealous attempt to draw

from old forms the satisfaction of new requirements this consti-
tuted the crisis. It was naturally first felt among the cultured
classes ; but it penetrated also the masses. All the phenomena in
the religious life of this period
the ecclesiastical institutions, the
brotherhoods,^ the indulgences, the pilgrimages, the increasing
adoration of relics, of Mary and the saints, the spread and exagger-
ated terrors of the faith in devils and demons,^ the craze upon the
subject of celibacy,^ the mysticism, the revolutionary Christian-
social plans, the contempt for the clergy and the monks, are all
closely connected with the crisis. So loud were the complaints
that eyes were turned to the future in expectation of a new era of
" prophecy" and the ''introduction of a new religion."^
We must observe {a) the means by which the church at-
Vid. Lea, Ahist. of conf. and indulg. iii., 470 ff.
1 Moll, KG. ii., 646 ff.
Vid. esp. the bull of Innocent VIII., Summis desiderantes affectibus, the
2
Malleus maleficarum, and Joh. Nider*s Formicarius, lib. v. Cf. Roskoff,

Gesch. d. Teufels, ii. (1869), p. 206 ff., 226 f.
3 Vid. Examples in Schieler, Nider, p. 203 ff.
" Vid. Tritheraius chronolog. myst. 18 fin. Cf. Schneegans, Trithemius,

P- 183 f.
-
tempted the culture of piety, (^b) the way of salvation as con-

ceived by the *' Friends of God," and (^r) the scope of the
reformatory ideas of the age.
2. The means by which the church sought to influence the
multitudes remained the same as of old, except that there was
as required by the demands of the age
an increased zeal in the
use of them. The duty of preaching is insisted upon with
greater emphasis. It is required that all members of the church
be acquainted with the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ave
.Maria, and the teachings of the church concerning mortal
sins and the sacraments. Louis of Bavaria, e. g., proved his
orthodoxy by repeating the Lord's Prayer, the greeting of the
angels, and the Apostles' Creed (R. MCller, Der Kampf Lud-
wigs mit der Curie, ii. 75). This knowledge is to be tested at
the confessional, which thus becomes a religious examination.'
The Ten Commandments were frequently here used as the
criterion.^ In preaching, the moral element still predominates;
but with it are combined quite rigid doctrinal discussions,
miraculous narratives, and commendations of indulgences and
the grace accompanying them. If it cannot be said that the
church shirked the new task assigned her, she certainly dis-
covered no new means to apply in the performance of it. The
sacraments bring grace, as the power enabling their recipients
to perform meritorious works (Hasack, p. 419, 133, 262 f. ).
But Repentance appears as really the chief sacrament.^ The
religious unrest of the age and the financial schemes of the Curia
^ E, g., Hefele, vi. 608, 696, 706, 721, 944. Moll, KG. ii. 396 ff., 653 f.
Geffcken, Bilderkatech. p. 24 ff., and suppl., p. 191 f.; Beichtanweisung
,
aus d. 15 Jarh., ed. Wagner, Ztschr. f. KG. ix. 445, 462. The ** Christian
faith" consists, as before, of the twelve or fourteen articles of the Apostles'
Creed (as to the number, vid. Hefele, vi. ed. 2, 220 a. ) ; its content is especi-
ally the doctrine of the Trinity and Christology, e. g.^ Gabr. Biel, De festi-
vitat. serm. 21, fol, 2141, and Hasack, 1. c, p. 138 ff. All are required to
believe **what the holy church commands to believe" (Ztschr. f. KG. ix.
462). As examples of open heresy, Occam adduces the denial of the unity
and trinity of God and of the birth of Christ from the Virgin (dial., p. 631).
2 E.
,^., Hasack, 1. -., p. 191 ff., 227 f. Geffcken, 1. c, Ztschr. f. KG.
ix. 445 ff. , 462 ff.
3 Augustinian, John of Paltz, has in his Coelifodina (Lips. 1510)

The

undertaken to uncover the mine of grace for the guidance of preachers. Of
what does he treat? First, there is a detailed exposition and application of the
passion history then, sins in thought are discussed, and death
;
then the sac-
;
raments are explained, with all the emphasis upon repentance and indulgences.
In the Suppleraentum Coelifodinae (Lips. 1516), indulgences are defended at
length and the doctrine of the sacraments again presented. Vid. also the many
manuals of confession at the close of the Middle Ages, t. in Hasack, 1. c.
î,"-.,
As to the biography of Paltz, vid. Kolde, Die deutsche Augustinercongrega-

tion, 1879, p. 174 ff.
here joined hands. The whole reUgious life of the times finds
its centre in the ordinance of repentance. Here faith is confessed
and sins are forgiven here meritorious works are assigned and
:
men thus justified ;^ but here, too, may release from them be
purchased. The dominant conception of confession and abso-
lution is in thorough conformity with the scholastic theories
(supra, p. 135). As the logic of the theory led by necessity to
the recognition of attrition as the starting point of repentance
(p. 136), so in praxis the latter came to be regarded as entirely
sufficient. John of Paltz considers the advantage of the new
covenant over the old to consist precisely in the fact, that it
does not require contrition, as does the old, but is content with
attrition, which is then by absolution transformed into con-
trition, this contrition being the destruction of sin.^ To do
this, however, is a matter for the priest (Coelifodina, Cc. i v).
'* Under the new law, the mode of repenting and of salvation
is easier " (ib. Q. 5 v). Paltz gives an excellent definition of

attrition. ''And such attrition cannot be better defined in
common speech than as gallows-penitence (^galgenrew') ^^
' '

because the attrite mourns that he has sinned on account of the
infernal gallows " (ib. Q. 6 v). It has for its basis servile fear
and the fear of death, whereas contrition springs from filial fear
and the love of God (ib. Q. 6 r). Very few get beyond the
former: "About all of our people who confess in Lent do
not have true contrition, nor do they have attrition in the first
grade, because they would then do entirely what they can
to attain true contrition ; but they often have attrition in the
second grade, doing in some measure what they can, and such
are assisted by the priests in the sacramental absolution " (ib.
R. I v). It is therefore sufficient if there be within the heart a
certain discontent with self and fear of hell, begotten by the con-
templation of the commandments (supra, p. 174). This will
be sufficient to secure the forgiveness, /. ^., the destruction,
of sin. There was a recognition of the fact, that in the days of
the first love there had been no need of indulgences *
' But now,
:
love having grown cold in these last times, neither are satisfac-
^ Vid., c. ^. in Hasack, p. 137

, : *' Grace justi6es man: whatever infirmity
(Bresten) clings to man, it punishes this, and changes it, and cleanses it with
repentance."
^ Attrition is transformed into contrition by other means also, i. f., through
,
extreme unction (coelifod. T. 2 v), the eucharist (Z 6 v), the mass and
preaching (Aa 3 r). The last-named especially confirms the pyschological
interpretation of this Scotist formula (vid. supra, p. 138). Cf. also Tetzel's
theses, n. 49: "attrite and through confession contrite" (Luther, opp. var.
arg. i. 300).
^ So also Luther, Weim. ed. i.
99.
tions commensLirately imposed, nor when moderately imposed

are they performed therefore there is a much more necessary
:
and copious use of indulgences, so that what is lacking through

indolence (âcedia) may be supplemented through the prayers of
others (Biel, expos, can. miss. lect. 57, fol. 154 v). It is doubt-
less true that it was always presupposed, whether expressly
so stated or not, that, in order to secure the benefit of the indul-
gence, the purchaser must have experienced and confessed sorrow
** He who remains
for sin : in sin, and is neither contrite nor
attrite nor has confessed, can by no means secure indulgences
(Paltz, Aa 3 r). Just as the sacrament of repentance has respect
directly to sin (^culpa)j so the benefit of indulgence has respect
to penalty," and that the temporal penalty (ib. i r). This X
is true even of the so-called jubilee-indulgence, whether so stated
in the bull proclaiming the latter or not (ib. Z 6 r). But, on

the other hand, attention may be drawn to the formula employed
in the proclamation of such indulgences *' I absolve thee from
:
punishment and from guilt" {a poena et a culpa). Paltz

replies: ** But a jubilee is something more than a bare indul-
gence, because it includes the authority of confessing and absolv-
ing, and, with this, the indulgence of remitting penalty, and thus
it includes the sacrament of repentance and, with this, indulgence
properly so called. .Commonly, when the pope gives a

. .
jubilee, he gives not a bare indulgence, but he gives also

authority of confessing and absolving from all sins, even so far as
their guilt. And thus guilt is remitted by reason of the sacra-
ment of repentance which is there introduced ; and penalty, by
reason of the indulgence which is there employed " (ib. i r). X
Paltz, therefore, understands the remission of sin as involved in
the authority granted by the jubilee-indulgence to select for
one's self a confessor, who shall be authorized to absolve in
all cases not reserved to the pope himself (Aa 4 r). Even the
^
latter cases were often included in the authority thus given.
The jubilee-indulgence thus indeed embraced in itself the sacra-
ment of repentance. The sacrament must not of necessity be
administered by the properly appointed confessor, but sacra-
mental functions may also be discharged by the papal commis-
sary. Thus the papal power intruded upon the province of the
pastoral cure of souls, and thus, although the forgiveness of sins
* E. g.^ Lea, Hist, of conf. and indulg., iii, 70 n. Cf. Hasack, p. 4S4 :
"Indulgence from penalty and guilt . . . is to be thus understood : Indul-

gence from penalty is a remitting of the penalty which one ought to suffer
for his sin. Indulgence from guilt is complete authority to absolve and
release from all sins, even those sins which are to be reserved for the
holy Roman chair."
CHURCH LIFE AND RELIGIOUS AGITATIONS. I 77
was not secured by the payment of money, yet the

itself directly
especial administration of the sacraments which carried with it
the forgiveness of sins was thus purchased. Under these circum-
stances, the popular perversions upon the subject may be easily
understood. The above formula was in the highest degree open to
misunderstanding.^ Popes expressly rejected it/ and theologians
pronounced against it. Nevertheless, it was permitted still to play
its part of deception and confusion of thought in the church (cf.
Lea, hist, of conf. and indulg. iii., p. 57-78. Moll, ii.
728).^ Matters were made worse, as the theory of the validity
of indulgences for the souls in purgatory {supra, p. 139) also
found endorsement in praxis.* Cf. e, g.j Paltz, Cc i r, Dd 5 v,
,
etc.^ The idea that, " as soon as the money rings in the chest,
the soul leaps out of purgatory," was only a perfectly intelligible
inference.
Such was the course of penitential praxis at the close of the
Middle Ages. The frightful danger attending it can be under-
stood only when attrition and indulgences are viewed in their
combination, and when the misleading glorification of the latter is
considered.' A little ''gallows-penitence" and the confes-
sional, and then a little money, and the sinner is freed from the
fear of hell and purgatory, and even from the performance of
works of penance. Money was immediately the means of re-
leasing from purgatory, and mediately of securing the forgive-
ness of sins.
1 Bratke prepared the way for this understanding of the jubilee-indul-

gences. Brieger produced convincing evidence of it (Das Wesen des
Ablasses (Leipzig, 1899).
2 Boniface IX., vid. Lea, 1. c, iii. 66 f.
, the papal plan of reformation at
Constance, vid. Hefele, vii. 341. Benedict XIV., vid. Wildt, Kirchenlex.
i. ed. 2, 95.
^ Cf. already the complaints of Berthold of Regensburg, touching the
"penny-preachers." When thou standest up and forgivest one all the sin
which he has ever done for a single helbelinc or a few pennies, then he im-
agines that he has atoned and at once refuses to atone any more. Thou mur-
derer of God and the world and many Christian souls, which thou murderest
with thy false comfort, so that he can never be saved (Fred. i. 117). He
claims that he has power from the pope, to take from thee all thy sin for a few
helbelincs or for a heller (ib. i. 208). The Reformat. Sigismunds, p. 163,
edited by Boehm, also speaks of paying dearly for indulgence of sins, Cf.
Wessel, De poenit., opp., p. 798 f.
^ According to Lea, iii.
345 ff., not before Sixtus IV., A. D. 1476. Vid.
also BiEL, expos, can. miss. lect. 57 K.
^ Indulgences may bring even to the lost a mitigation of punishment,
Paltz, Ff. 4 v.
6 Vid. Kawerau, Sobald das Geld, etc., 1889, p. 9, 11 f., 17 ff.
A contrite person may, even before confessing, receive an indulgence

"^
(Durand, sent. iv. d. 20, q. 4, a. 2. Paltz holds otherwise, Aa 3). How easily
may he be deceived as to his condition, or postpone the subsequent confession !
!
But along with this externalizing of religion which the church

herself
promoted were heard also some voices emphasizing
the seriousness of repentance and its works. The whole Chris-
tian life is a *' doing penance: " "That
whole life of the
a Christian man is nothing else than a cross" (Hasack, p. 443).
But this thought is completed by the additional idea, that we " are
'
obligated to the imitation of the crucified life of Christ, '* since '
the passion of Christ has not been an entire, but a partial, cause
of our salvation " (ib.,alsop. 477). The " imitation of Christ "
is, therefore, a supplementing of the redeeming work of Christ
by effort upon our part

3. The so-called German Mysticism, dogmatically considered,
furnishes scarcely anything further than a popular rendering of
the scholastic, ^., Thomistic ideas. But these ideas are applied
/".
to the relation of the soul to God. The practical aspect of the

way to God is the controlling one for these writers. The ideas
of the dogmaticians become, under their hands, practical relig-
ious truths, which were employed for edification by the wide-
spread circles of the ** Friends of God. The use of the mother
'
'
tongue deepened the experience and enriched the religious ap-

prehension. Little as it belongs to the sphere of the History
of Doctrines to follow the speculations of the Mystics, it is im-
portant, in tracing the transition from the Middle Ages to the
Reformation era, to understand the way of salvation as pursued
by the pious at the close of the medieval period. In endeavor-
ing to trace this briefly, we follow chiefly the following :
Master Eckhart (f 1327, vid. Pfeiffer, Deutsche Mystiker, ii., 1857. Ex-
cerpts from his Latin writings in Denifle, Archiv f. Litt. u. KG. d. MA. ii.
553 ff.), JoHANN Tauler (t 1361. Sermons, Basel, 1521), Heinrich
Seuse (Suso, t 1366, ed. Denifle, MfJNCH., 1880), Johann von Ruusbroec
(t 1381. WW. 6 vols., Gent, iSsSff.), the Theologia Deutsch (ed.
Pfeiffer, reprint 3, 1875), the BucH von geistl. Armut (ed. Denifle, 1877),
Thomas a Kempis, De imitatione Christi (ed. Hirsche, 1874).
The spiritual life pursues the course : Purification, Illumina-

tion, Unification (Theol. D., p. 50).^ A devoted man must
'*
be unfashioned from the creature, fashioned with Christ and re-

fashioned in the divine nature" {entbildet^ gebildet, uberbildet^
Seuse, p. 248). He is first a servant, then a friend, and finally
a son of God (Ruusbr. vi. 208 ff. ). (t?) The first step, there-
fore, is to turn away from the creature and turn toward God.
The sacrament and the word of God then exert an influence
(Tauler, fol. 65 v); especially repentance and the Lord's Supper
are recommended. These are re-enforced by prayer and the
* Cf. Dionys. Areop., Hierarch. eccl. 6. 3. 5.

,
contemplation of the love of God (Eckh., p. 557). Thus

man feels himself impelled to a pious and virtuous life, to con-
tinuous and earnest self-examination, and penitence. '* Purifi-
cation belongs to the beginning or repenting man, and takes

place in three ways, with sorrow and mourning on account of sin
with complete confession, and with perfect penitence " (Theol.
^} P- 5)* This is the first stage, repentance and its exercises ;
the struggle for the overcoming of sensuality (^Sinnlichkeif) is its

essential characteristic, (^b) In the second stage, the Imitatio
Christi holds the place of prominence. ^*Thou must break
through my suffering human nature, if thou art really to come to
my unveiled divine nature" (Seuse, p. 52. Tauler, f. 117 v,
i56r. Theol. D., p. 220).^ Here the principal thing is thorough-
going meditations upon the passion of Christ *'Not with a :
hasty going over it as one has time and place \ but it must be
witha fervent love and with amournful review " (Seuse, p. 396).
The life of Seuse testifies with what dramatic vividness and with
what barbarous ascetic exercises these meditations were prac-
ticed. The aim is sympathy and imitation.^ But, apart from
these, God himself sends sufferings and crosses of various kinds
upon man, in order to make him a true follower of Christ. '* The
swiftest beast that bears you to perfection is suffering" (Eckh.,
*' No one so cordially feels the passion of Christ as he
p. 492).
to whom it happens to suffer similar things" (Thom. a Kemp,
ii. 121). True, there is in these circles a deep conviction that
Christ's passion is our '^ perfect righteousness'' (Seuse, p. 393).
** And thus has he redeemed us, not with our works but with his
works, and with his merits has he made us free and redeemed
us" (Ruusbr. iii. 140). ''All my comfort and my confidence
rests wholly upon thy passion, thine atonement, and thy merits"
(Seuse, p. 427f.).* But Seuse writes also: *'And yet every
man draws to himself only so much of the atonement as he with
sympathy makes himself like me," /. ^., Christ (Seuse, p. 398).''
What is this but saying, as this school bluntly puts it, that Christ
is only the partial cause of ours alvation ? The Imitatio ChHsti
(vid. Thom. aK. i. i. i ; 25. 3 ; ii. i. 2) is the religion of these
mystics: **Give to me to imitate thee with contempt of the
world" (ib. iii. 56. 2). They plunged into asceticism which
* Augustine, serm. 261. 7
Cf. *' Through the man Christ thou attainest to
:
the God Christ;" also the passages cited in Vol. I., p. 262. Already in
Origan, c. Celsus, vi. 68.
2 Vid. Seuse,
p. 52 ff., 321 ff., and Seeberg, Leben Seuse, p, 28 ff.
^
Particularly the dying are often urged to pray: *' Upon thy mercy and
goodness will I die, and not upon ray good works " (Hasack, p. 437).
* Cf. Thom. in sentent. iii. d. 49, a. 2, 3). Thom. a Kemp. i. 24. I :
satis factional and purifying sorrow {^dolo7' satisfactoriiis et purgativus^.

too HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
they regarded as meritorious and entitling to reward (^lonbar^

Seuse, p. 385, 383), but they nevertheless kept alive a love for
Jesus and appreciation of his life
as the counterpart to the view
which regarded him as a stem celestial judge, before whom
Mary and the saints must appear to intercede for us. As the
* *
lodestone draws to it the iron, so does Jesus draw to himself all

hearts that are touched by him" (Tauler, f. 43 v). Though all
this remains perfectly Catholic, yet these ideas just as truly be-
token a '* pre-reformation " element.^ This is the way. Man
must return to nothingness (êntwerden^ *^ unbecome "), for
only out of a nothing {niht) does God make anit (îht), (Eckh.,
p. 189. Taul. f. 146 v).
((:) The goal, finally, is unification with God in the depths of
the soul ; and this, too, with God in the inner unity of his nature.
** The essence of the soul is united with Nothingness, and the
powers of the soul with the works of Nothingness. ^ In this state of

absolute passivity God causes his Son to be born in our soul '' a
hundred thousand times more quickly than the twinkling of an
eye " (Tauler, f. 60 r).^ This state can be experienced in two
psychological forms either in such a way that man in the intel-
:
lectual process experiences the ''vision" (^Schauung) of the

essence of God, or in such a way that the created will is merged
'
'
into the eternal Will and therein dissolved and reduced to noth-
ingness, so that the eternal Will alone here wills, acts, and fails
to act " (Theol. D., p. 104). The former harmonizes with the
Thomistic, the latter w'ith the Scotist theology (Ritchl, Gesch.
d. Pietismus, i. 470), although the two forms*were not sharply
discriminated.* The moments of extreme ecstatic exaltation
were of brief duration. Lukewarmness and lassitude followed
(Seuse, p. 360, 355, 358, 448). The words of the Scriptures
Christ's sweet love-letter, and his presence in the Lord's
1 But it must be ever borne in mind that this conception of the " Follow-
ing of Christ," which maybe traced back to the Apostolic Fathers, is but a
mutilated and dislocated presentation of bibUcal ideas. The following of
Jesus means, in the Gospels, that he who attaches himself to Jesus walks with
him and finds in him God and the Son of the living God, The result of fol-
lowing him is announced in Matt. 16. 16 and Jn. 6. 67 f.
2 This is the Areopagite conception of the nature of the Godhead. Cf.
my remarks, Thomas. DG. ii., ed. 2, p. 305, A. 2.
^ Cf. my exposition, Thomas. DG. ii., ed. 2, p. 307 ff-
* Cf. my remarks, I.e., p. 310 f. Also Dante, Parad. 28. 109 ff.: "Through
vision, therefore, is blessedness attained. Not through love, for this follows
only when it has sprung from vision as its source." With Staupitz (ed.
Knaake, i. 106), Luther accepted the latter form, vid. Glosses upon Tauler,
Weim. ed. ix. 102 "The whole of salvation is resignation of the will in all
:
things." Also, Thorn. aK.,iii. 15. 2; 56. i. Goch, dialog. 9. 10 (Walch,

Monim. Med. aev. i. 4, p. 129, 132).
CHURCH LIFE AND RELIGIOUS AGITATIONS. l8l
Supper console the pious (ib. 355, 621 f., 450 f. Thorn, a Kemp,
iv. II. 4). They should be always ready to turn aside from the
highest religious transport to prepare a plate of soup for a pauper
(Eckh., p. 553. Taul. f. i28r, 95 r, 121 r).^ ''He to whom
inwardness becomes outwardness, to him the inwardness becomes
more inward than to him to whom inwardness becomes inward-
ness " (Seuse, p. 246).
We
cannot overlook the medieval mould ascetism and ecstacy
in which the controlling ideas here are cast. But, inasmuch as
the entire body of the traditional teaching and culture of the
church is concentrated upon the religious life of the individual
soul, which is to grow by the contemplation of Jesus and by that
intercourse of the soul with him" in which blessedness consists/^
these men were, nevertheless, ** schoolmasters leading to Christ.""*
Literature. Greith, Die deutsche Mystik im Predigerorden, 1861.
BoHRiNGER, Die deutschen Mystiker, 1855. Preger, Gesch. d. deutschen
Mystik, 3 vols., 1874, 1881, 1893 cf. Denifle, Hist, polit. Blatter, vol. 75,
;
679 ff., 771 ff., 903 ff., and Archiv f. Litt. u. KG. d. MA. ii. 417 ff. Denifle,
Das geistl. Lebea, 3 A., 1880.
Upon separate topics: Lasson, M. Eckh., 1868. R. Seeberg, Ein Kampf
um jenseitiges Leben (Biogr. Senses), Dorpat, 1889. C. Schmidt, J.
Tauler, 1841, and Denifle, Taul. Bekehrung, 1879. Upon the Buch v.
geistl. Armut, Ritschl, Ztschr. f. KG. iv. 337 ff. Strauch, Marg. Ebner
u. Heinr, v. Nordl., 1882, and " Offenbarungen d. Adelheid Langmann,"
1875. Upon the Brethren of the Common Life, Hirsche, PRE. ii. 678-760.
Particularly Seeberg in Thomas. DG. ii., ed. 2, 290-315.
4. Not least among the influences leading to the crisis at

the close of the Middle Ages was the change in the conditions
of the business world. (Cf Inama-Sternegg, Deutsche Wirt-
schaftsgesch. iii. 2, 1901.) The traffic in money emphasized
the contrast between the rich and the poor. In the cities
there was an accumulation of capital in the hands of indi-
viduals, which proved in the highest degree detrimental to the
general social advancement, as both the nobles and the peasants
realized in sad experience. The Romish canon law was rigidly
enforced, and proved, as always, the ally of the financially
stronger party. The heaviest burden fell, in the last instance,
^ Cf. Thom. summ. ii. ii. q. 182, a. i, ad 3.

^ Thom. a Kemp. ii. 8. I :
" It is a great art to know how to walk (^con-
versari) with Jesus."
^ Ib. iii. 59- i "Where thou, there heaven," ii. 12. 3: *'Thou hast
found paradise on earth."
* Note also the value attached to practical deeds of love. The monastic
idea of forsaking the world is often painfully prominent [e. g.^ Thom. a K. i.
10. I ; 20. i); but see also the splendid sermons of Tauler upon the earthly
callingr (fol. 117 r f., fol. 94 v f.). Cf. Uhlhorn, Die christl. Liebestatig-
keit, ii. (1884), p, 350 ff.
upon the peasantry. The impoverishment of the latter, the de-

velopment of the feudal system, and the pressure exerted by the
nobles, gave birth to the " social question " of the fifteenth cen-
tury. As the only social power of the Middle Ages was the
church, it was inevitable that these social problems should assume
a religious form. The ethics of the medieval church had not
risen to the demands of the new economic conditions. The
friendly interest with which the most truly religious spirits of the
day regarded the suffering peasants did not alleviate their misery.
The terrible strain of mind found vent in forecasts and prophe-
cies. Not only the hierarchy, which had become utterly secu-
larized and was ever thirsting for gold, but all the high and
mighty of the world as well, were to be destroyed. All secular
ordinances and laws were declared null and void, and only the
divine law must rule. The pious shall conquer. Wealth will
cease to be ; evangelical poverty will become universal, and
with it communism will prevail. All are to be equal, made free
by ''evangelical liberty." God will bring it to pass. The
time would soon be ripe, it was thought, to lay hand to the work.
This was the Christian Socialisin of the day, which, in league
with ''evangelical liberty," pressed on to revolution.' Far
beyond the circles of those actually engaged in these movements
extended the stimulating and disturbing influence of these ideas.
What strange contrasts are here blended ideas as full of contra-
^ Vid. especially *'The Vision and Creed of Piers Ploughman" (ed,

Wright, Lond., 1856). Die Reformation Sigismunds (ed. Bohm, 1875).
Cf. Gesch. des Hans Boheim (Barack, Arch, d, hist. Vereins f. Unter-
franken, xiv. 3, pp. 1-8). The '*new" or** divine" order which the Refor-
mation of Sigismund had in view (p. 241, 242, 170) embraces, in addition to
all manner of ecclesiastical and social improvements, the demand of ** liberty."
The latter is deduced, however, from the redemption achieved by Christ:
'* Christ suffered for us " that he might free us and release us from all bonds,
and herein no one is exalted above the other, for we are in the same condition
in redemption and liberty, whether noble or peasant, rich or poor, great or
small (p. 221, 214, 245, 246 f.). In the name of this liberty, feudal serfdom
is to be abolished, and woods, pasture, and water (Wald, Weide, Wasser) are
to be free to all (p. 222 f. ). The imperial and papal codes of law are slumber-
ing, but the "Little Ones" are wakeful (p. 225). This liberty which
Christ is said to have brought, constitutes one root of the conception of " evan-
gelical liberty." The other is found in the (evangelical) idea of natural law,
i. e., that by nature all are free, and all things common to all (vid. sub). To
this must be added the great emphasis laid upon evangelical liberty and the
evangelical law in pre-reformation circles (vid. especially Goch, dialog, c. 7,
18, 19). I would thus answer the inquiry raised by Von Nathusius (diechristl.
soz. Ideen d. Ref.-zeit u. ihre Herkunft, 1897, p. 48 ff.), but, in my judg-
ment, not satisfactorily answered by him, as to the medieval origin of the con-
ception under discussion. As to the eschatological framing of these ideas,
vid. Wadstein, Dieeschat. Ideengruppe, 1896, p. 183 ff., 171 ff. Kropat-
SCHECK, Das Schriftprincip der luth. Kirche, i. 247 ff.
!
CHURCH LIFE AND RELIGIOUS AGITATIONS. 183
dictions as the closing period of the Middle Ages itself!

M-'as
Hatred of the church and love for evangelical law, longing toi
more secure possession of property and enthusiasm for holy pov-
erty, individualistic and socialistic tendencies, practical demands
of the present age and lofty apocalyptic expectations (cf. Joachim
V. Floris), the gospel and natural law,
here meet. The result
was in keeping with it all^revolution in the name of the gospel.
But even here it was theological ideas which lay in the back-
ground, /. e.^ the evangelical, or natural, law as the criterion for
criticism of all existing institutions, and the perfect life to be
found in the observance of this law. But by natural or divine
law was understood ''all possession of all things in common,
:
and there is one liberty of all " (Occam, dial., p. 932. Cf. op.
90, dier. p. 1143).^ But above all influential here were the
ideas of the great Hussite-Wickliffe movement, or the views of
WiCKLiFFE (f 1384), whom Huss and his adherents interpreted
for their countrymen.^ Wickliffe's work, De civili domiiiio (i., ed.
Poole, 1885), demands attention.^ All human rights, it claims,
must rest upon divine right. Accordingly, the unpardoned sin-
ner holds unrightfully what he possesses (i., p. 2 f., 28, 8). In
the sight of God his possessions would belong to the righteous,
and he, therefore, steals them (p. 34): ** for by the very fact
that anyone takes another's goods unjustly, their owner being un-
willing or ignorant (of the act), he commits theft or robbery.
Since, therefore, every unrighteous man unjustly takes the goods
of his body and goods of fortune, which all belong to every
righteous person, . he in this way seizes or. steals whatever
. .
goods (he possesses).'* But the righteous are, in Wickliffe's

view, the predestinated (vid. sub). These, accordingly, as the
adopted sons of God, have rightful claims to dominion over the
whole world: "he has a right to the whole kingdom, . . .
'*
therefore everyone thus righteous rules the whole visible world
(p. 47 f.). They are, therefore, kings, like Christ; but also
bishops, since they must proclaim the holy doctrine.* It is, of
^ Occam borrows this verbally from Isidor, Etymol. v. Gratian also ac-
4.
cepts Communism as guaranteed by natural law, with appeal to Acts iv, 32,
Plato and Augustine (Deer, pars i., dist. 8). Roman law allows, as included
in natural rights, only the union of man and wife, the education of children,
and the liberty of all. Vid., e. g.. Digest, i. i.
2 As to the relation of Huss to Wickliffe, and the controlling influence of the
latter upon the Bohemian agitation, vid. Loserth, H. u. W., 1884. The in-
fluence of this English theologian upon the continent may, perhaps, be in this
respect compared with that of Carlyle in the nineteenth century.
^ It was widely read in Bohemia. LOSERTH, pp. 242, III.
* How similar is this to Luther's '< Liberty of a Christian Man," and yet
how different
,
course, not meant by this that the righteous are at once to appro-
priate to themselves the possessions which others have wrong-
fully seized. On the contrary, the positive duties of life are
contained in the *' evangelical law," which term best expresses
comprehensively the practical reformatory demands of Wickliffe.
The Holy Scriptures, or the 'Maw of Christ" (p. 397), is in
and of itself sufficient for the regulation of the entire life of the
Christian world (Îpsa pure per se siifficit regere totiim populiwi
chrisliannni, p. 395)/ There is really no need of any law be-
yond the Scriptures for the Christian world (opus evangelic, i., p.
200, ed. Loserth). Civillaws are righteous only insofar as they
have the Biblical spirit (civ. dom., p. 400, 139). Only in so
far can they claim acknowledgment at the hand of believers (op.
ev. i. 367). But the requirements of the evangelical law are
met by humility, love, and poverty in the imitation of Jesus :
*'But humility, love, and poverty are the doctrine of Christ.

Therefore, whoever shall not hate those things by imitating
'
Christ as an eagle, knows that he is not of his church (de eccl. '
p. 6^y ed. Loserth). The life of Christ is the commentary upon

his law (trialog. p. 300, ed. Lechler).
,
Ascetic imitation oi
Christ is, therefore, in the true Franciscan fashion, depicted as the
duty of the Christian. *' It behooves everyone who is to be
saved to follow him either in suffering or in mode of life

'
{inori- '
bus) (sermones ii., p. 15, ed. Loserth; also iii. 491 f.; op.
evang. i., p. 105}. '* We ought to imitate the life of Christ and
his apostles as far as we are able " (trialog., p. 456 ; op. ev. i.
469 f.; ii. 140). These are the ideas found in Wickliffe. The
predestinated and the pious are the lords of the world, the prop-
erty of the wicked being robbery and their codes of justice injus-
tice. But, on the other hand, they ought to be imitators of Christ,
poor, humble servants of the divine law. These ideas stand side by
side. Either of them alone, or both combined, may be capable
of arousing a storm of criticism that may shake the world.
Either the evangelical law or the rights of nature may be in-
voked in deadly assault upon all property and law, upon every
rank and every ordinance of society.^ The pious may assert
their rights against the ungodly in the name of the gospel. The
rights of nature and the imitation of Christ are woven together,
1 Evangelical law and natural law fall naturally into one, since both are in-
spired by God, ^.^., De civ. domin., p. i, 22, 37, 28; p. 125: "Divine
created right is divinely inspired right; human right is right devised by occa-
sion of the sin of humanity."
2 Wickliffe feels this when he restricts the thought, that civil laws are valid
only in so far as they agree with God's law, by the caution ** Therefore the
:
"
things thus said here are not to be proclaimed too freely to the whole populace
(opp. ev. i. 367).
;
THEOLOGY IN FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES. 185
and the resultant is the holy revolution. Hussitisra first put the
ideas into practical execution.
Cf. WiEGAND, De eccl. notione quid Wicl. docuerit, Lips., 1S91, p. 58 ff.
Von Bezold, Zur Gesch. d. Husitentums, 1874; ib. Die '* armen Leute,"
Hist. Ztschr., 1879, i ff.
62. Review of History of Theology in the Fourteenth and

Fifteenth Centuries. Nominalism and Augustinianism.
Literature. Werner, Dienachscot. Scholastik, 1883 Der Augustinism.
;
jnd. Sciiol. d. spat. MA., 1883 Der Endausgang dermittelalt. Schol., 1887.
;
RiTTER, Gesch. d. Philos. viii. ( 1

845 ) 547 , p. ff. Prantl, Gesch.
d. Logik, iii.
{1867), p. 327 ff.SiEEECK, Occ. Erk.-lehre, Archiv f. Gesch. d. Philos.,
'897, p. 317 ff. Ullman, Reformatoren vor der Ref., 1841-42. Ritschl,
Rechtf. u. Vers, i., ed. 2, 129 ff. Kolde, Diedeutsche Augustinercongregat.
u. Staupitz, 1879. Clemen, Joh. Pupper v. Goch, 1896. Kropatscheck,
Der Schriftprincip der luth. Kirche, i., 1904.
I. As
at the beginning of the twelfth century a keen critical
mind furnished the occasion, both positively and negatively, for
the great theological agitation of the twelfth and thirteenth cen-
turies, so again, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, a
critical thinker directed theological ideas into new paths. The
former movement conducted to the culminating point of Schol-
asticism ; the latter, to its fall. Thus far we may find a parallel
between Abelard and Duns Scotus. The method of Duns con-
trols his opponents as well as his adherents. Nothing is too lofty
nor too sacred, too firmly settled nor too well attested, to be
called in question. This method, which stands in intimate rela-
tion with the conception of God as the absolute, unregulated
Will, became the lever for the critical unsettling of dogma, em-
ployed particularly and in a far-reaching way by the so-called
Nominalists. The Lombard brought the materials together
Thomas framed definitions Duns built up and demolished
;
arguments Occam advocated the positively valid, though not

;
without robbing it of the nimbus of rationality.

(a) Although Duns was not yet a Nominalist, the way was
prepared for the transition to Nominalism by his emphasizing of
the singular and the individual (p. 147). The work was com-
pleted by his greatest pupil, William of Occam (f ca. 1350).
Vid. esp. super quatuor libr. sent, and Centilogium theologic, Lyon,
1495. Quodlibeta, Strassburg, 149 1. De sacr. altaris, Strassburg, 1491.
Summ. totius logicae, Bologna, 1498. Major summ. log., Venet. 1508.
Exposit. aurea super totam artem veterem, Bol. 1496. The writings upon
church polity, vid. supra, p. 167. In these and the following citations of lit-
erature, I have been guided by no bibliographical interest (for which see
Werner), but merely cite the editions which I have used.
Following Abelard, Thomas and Duns, Occam is the fourth

lS6 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
typical figure among the Scholastics. An intellectual acumen

that moved with ease amid the finest subtleties of thought,
a devotion to abstraction and rational criticism of the strictest
type, are his striking characteristics. He is keenly interested in
politics; but in politics, as in theology, he is a fanatical champion
of logic. One looks to him in vain for warmth of feeling or
devotional language. His logic is keen, but its edge is turned
when it meets the authority of the Romish church. The reader
cannot escape a painful impression, when the talented author
apologizes for his bold conclusions as harmless intellectual exer-
cises, or quotes a large number of opinions without stating clearly
which of them accords with his own judgment (octo quaest., p.
391, 398; dial., p. 504, 546, 771; de sacr. alt. c. 6, fin.)!
His Nominalistic theory of knowledge (vid. sub) as well as
his critical skepticism (upon both, vid. sub, 2 and 3) spread
rapidly in all directions (esp. Adam Goddam, Robert Holkot,
JoH. Buridan, Marsilius of Inghen", Peter D'Ailli. Quaes-
tiones super libr. sent., Strassburg, 1490). But it is scarcely
correct to consider his theological standpoint as merely a conse-
quence of his Nominalism.^ His critical radicalism is rather to
be explained as, on the one hand, a direct application of the
Scotist method ; and this method led him, on the other hand, to
the position of external ecclesiastical positivism. The last
important representative of this tendency was Gabriel Biel
(f 1495, vid. CoUectorium sive epitoma in Sentent. 11. iv. Tiib.,
1 50 1, with the Expositio canonis missae, Basel, 15 10. Cf. also
Sermones de tempore u. de festivitatibus, Hagenau, 151 5. Cf.
LiNSENMANN, Theol. Quartalschrift, 1865, 195 ff. 449 if., ,
601 ff. Werner, Endausgang, p. 262 ff. ). At the same time,

however, pure Scotism still found adherents (f. ^. Vorillon ,
and Franz Lychetus, who wrote a commentary upon the Opus

Oxoniense).
{b) Parallel with the Nominalist tendency, was still preserved
a line of Thomist theologians (i'. î^., Hervaeus Natalis, f 1323 ;
cf. Seeberg, PRE. vii,, ed. 3, 771 ff. Petrus de Palude,
t 1342); but even such Dominicans as Durandus de St.
Portiano (t 1334, vid. in iv. libros mag. sentent., Paris, 1508
et pas.) departed from the doctrine of the great teacher of their
order. The most energetic defender of Thomism against the
Scotist theology was the General of the Thomists, Joh. Cap-
REOLUS (f 1444. Defensionum theologiae divi doctoris Thomae,
11. iv., Venet. 1483. Cf. Werner, D. h. Thom. v. Aq. iii. 151
I
E. iT., Baur, Dreieiniffkeit ii. 872 f. Thomas, ii., ed. 2, 92 f. Wagen-
MANN', PRE. X., ed. 2, 691.
THEOLOGY IN FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES. 187
ff.). DiONYSius RiCKEL (Carthusianus) (f 147 1, vid. in sent.

Venet. 1584) deserves mention in this connection, as he attached
himself in essential points to Thomas, although giving, in his
eclectic fashion, an excellent summary of the theories of the
various scholastic teachers (cf. AVerner, Endausgang, p. 134 ff,,
206 ff. ). The commentaries written by Thomas sel Vio
(Cajetan) upon the Summa of Thomas and by Sylvester Fer-
rariensis upon the Summa contra gentiles (cf. Werner, 1. c, p.
305 ff. ) extend into the Reformation period.
(;:) Side by side with these two tendencies, we note a third,
which sought to combine certain mystical notions with Averroistic
ideas. ^ Its prominent representatives are Petrus Aureolus ( f ca.
1345, Sentence-comm. and Quodlibet, Rome, 1596), Joh. v.
Baconthorp (f 1346, Quaest. in iv. libros sent, and Quodlibet,
Cremona, 1618), and Joh. de Janduno (ca. 1320). The last-
named especially maintained that the Averroistic ideas of the
eternal world and of the one intellect common to all men are
rationally necessary truths, i. e. he did not adopt the Thomistic
,
interpretation of Aristotle, but held that of Averroes as the more

correct because it made a fundamental distinction between theo-
logy and secular philosophy. But, since the Christian concep-
tion of salvation can be maintained intact only on the basis of
the faith of the church, it was necessary to cling to the ecclesi-
astical dogmas (Werner, Nachscot. Theol. p. 5 f. ) This ,
.
tendency, with its extreme Realism, was dominant in the theo-

logical school of Padua {e. g., Urban of Bologna, f 1403 ; Paul
of Venice, f 1429; Augustin Niphus of Suessa, f ca. 1550,
etc. Vid. Werner, Endausgang, p. 142 ff. ). This view, which
prevailed in northern Italy, and outlasted Nominalism by about
a hundred years, requires no further notice in the History of
Doctrines.
{d) Neither can the school of Augustinian Eremites be
compared in importance or completeness of thought with the
two tendencies first named. At their head stood Aegidius of
Colonna (also called Romanus, f 1316. The best edition of
his Comm. upon the first three books of the Sentences, Cordova,
1707, Kirchenlex. iii. 669). Among his adherents were
Jacob Capocci, f 1308 Gerhard of Siena, Prosper of
;
Reggio, Albert of Padua, Simon Baringundus, Thomas of

Strassburg (f 1357, vid. 11. iv. in mag. sentent., Strassburg,
1490 and passim). But despite the aim of this school to main-
tain Augustinianism, their theory of sin and grace is by no means
1 Cf. Renan, Averroes et I'Averroisme, 3 A. 1866 ; and briefly, Erdmann,

Gesch, d. Philos. i., ed. 4, 339 ff.
t88 history of doctrines.
that of Augustine (vid. Werner, Der Augustinismus, p. 171 ff.,
1 81 ff. ) . The resolution adopted A. D. 1 2 8 7 to , make the theology

of Aegidius the doctrine of the order (vid. Ossinger, Bibl.
Augustiniana, 1786, p. 237), had comparatively slight effect.
Gregory of Rimini (f 1358, Lectura in 1. i. and ii. Sent.,
Paris, 1482) advocated variant views, accepting Nominalism,
on the one hand, .and then demanding strict adherence to
Augustinianism, which he held is to be freed from the wrappings
of Peripateticism. He was therefore honored with the title,
Doctor Authenticus. He strongly insisted that man was created
in a state of grace, and that concupiscence is the material of
original sin. Sin is transmitted through the sensuous concupis-
cence of the generating act.^ That in other points the popular
theology of the Augustinians before the Reformation did not
overstep the bounds of the common Catholicism, may be seen,
e. g., in the Coelifodina of Johann of Paltz (supra, p. 175).
(^) The tendency which crops out in men like Gregory had
from the middle of the fourteenth century been influencing the
minds of many theologians, i. e.y the desire for a return to the
genuine Augustine, or to the simple teaching of the ancient
church. In A. D. 1400 JoH. Gerson wrote ^'
A reformation :
seems to be necessary in the faculty of theology. First, . . .
that useless doctrines without fruit or solidity may not be so

commonly discussed, since through these the doctrines necessary
to salvation and useful are deserted. Second, that those
. . .
who are (not) scholars are misled through these (teachings),

because they think that those persons are chiefly to be regarded
as scholars who give themselves to such things, despising the
Bible and the doctors. Through these teachings, theolo-
. . .
gians are ridiculed by the other faculties for they are, on this :
account, called Phantastics, and are said to know nothing con-

cerning solid truth and morals and books. Through these . . .
(teachings) the church and the faith are edified neither

internally nor externally.'"' A remedy is to be found by
lecturing not only, as was customary, upon the first book of
the Sentences, but upon the last three, and lectures should be
presented in a simple way, and with practical reference to the
religious and moral conditions of the age (Gers. opp. ed. Dupin
^ Both Aegidius and Gregory taught the maculate conception of Mary.

Tko?fias of Strassburg championed the immaculate conception. Werner,
p. 176 f.
'*
In the later commentaries upon the Sentences (already in Hervaeus, and
especially since Occam), the metaphysical questions of the First Book really
claim the first place in importance and in the space devoted to them. Theology
is lost in metaphysics or canonical casuistry.

THEOLOGY IN FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES. 1 89
i. 122 ff. ). The faults here noted are manifest in the scholastic
literature of the age. When criticism found itself limited by the
dogmas of the church, it became empty and fruitless. And
a theology which created a thousand difficulties and suggested a
thousand possibilities, only to return at last to the formulas so
laboriously criticized, became, together with its advocates,
ridiculous. Demand was made for a practical and churchly
theology, and gradually the beginnings of such a theology began
to appear. Side by side with the commentaries upon the Sen-
tences, we find treatises and brochures upon popular theology,
expositions of the Creed, directions for confessing, '* patterns of
virtue," etc.^ A simple outline of dogmatics is presented, e. g.,
in the Compendium theologiae found imong the works of Gerson.^
If works of this character led back to the simple forms of the
earlier theology, there was at the same time a return to Augus-
tine. Many influences contributed to this movement. Against
the rising tide of Pelagianism, Thomas of Bradwardina
(t 1349) lifted the standard of Augustinian doctrine, not how-
ever without first refining it into a system of Determinism (vid.
De causa dei c. Pelagium et de virtute causarum, London, 1618.
Cf. R. Seeberg, PRE. iii., ed. 3, 350 ff.). In the mind of
Wickliffe the conception of the Supreme will of God was asso-
ciated inseparably with that of predestination, and thus became
a critical weapon against the church and the clergy. His chief
opponent, Thomas Netter (f 1431. Doctrinale antiquitatum
fid. cath. ), endeavored to expound the Catholic doctrine from the
Scriptures as in opposition to the views of Wickliffe, and with an

avoidance of the scholastic forms. He thus helped to prepare
the way for the final statement of the church's doctrine in the
Confession of Trent (vid. Seeberg, PRE. xiii., ed. 3, 749 ff. ).
The more profound piety of the Mystics produced a certain con-
geniality in temper and thought with Augustine. And wherever
the deeper religious needs came into collision with the external-
ized church, they found in him both religious nutriment and
^ The libraries furnish a mass of such material in manuscript.

These docu-
ments are partly in refutation of the charges ventilated at the Reform Councils.
But cf. in connection with them the mystical tractates, which also present out-
lines of popular theology. Wickliffe as a theologian followed strictly the
scholastic method but, as he always contrived to give to his monographs a
;
practical and reformatory bearing, even he strengthened the union of theology

and the church.
^ This book first expounds the Creed then the Decalogue. It then treats
;
of the seven sacraments, of the three theological and the four cardinal virtues,
of the seven gifts of the Spirit, of the eight Beatitudes, of the various sins
and, finally, the definitions of pyschology are discussed, with constant refer-
ence to sin. As to the question of its authorship, see Schwab, Gerson,
p. 780.
weapons for the conflict. This is true of all the men who are
commonly spoken of as the Forerunners of the Reformation,
such as JoH. PuppER OF GocH (f after 1475), J*^^- Ruchrath
OF Wesel (f 1481), JoH. Wessel (f 1489). But Augustine
could give to no one more than he possessed himself and hence ;
these men, in the decisive question concerning grace and justifi-

cation, still held to the Catholic conception of infused grace
(vid. sub). They had no more real grasp than the later
Scholastics upon the principle of the sole authority of Scripture
in matters of faith. It follows, that the term *' Forerunners of
the Reformation " is a misleading one^ (vid. Ritschl, Rechtf. u.
Vers, i., ed. 2, 129 ff. ).
This hasty review is sufficient to reveal the activity and
versatility of the intellectual life of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries.^ But the progressive impulse in this play of forces
came practically from the Nominalistic and Augustinian circles,
and to them we must now turn our attention.
2. We first view the positions of Nominalism, as presented in
Occam (cf. Seererg, PRE. xiv. ed. 3). Man's knowledge
,
has to do with propositions, not with things. Nature produces

only the individual object (sent. i. d. 2, q. 4 X). The Universal
does not objectively exist, but only in the subjective understand-
ing (ib. q. 8 E). In order that knowledge may come into
existence, there is needed only the intellect {inteliectus) and the
\h\ng^QrctivQ6.{res cognita)'^ the mediating intelligible forms (j/^-
cies sensibiles et intelligibiles') are superfluous (contrary to Duns,
supra, p. 147), ''because in vain is that accomplished through
more stages, which can be accomplished through fewer "^ (sent.
ii. q. 15 O). Objects beget in us a sensuous impression. From
this, the intellect is able to beget in the mind a picture (^fictum),
a copy (^simulacra, idola, phaiitasmata, imagines^, of the actual
object (ib. q. 17 S, i. d. 13, q. i J), which is of course only a
representatively (ôbjectively), and not a really (^subjectively)
existent copy (ii. q. 15 SS). " The intellect, seeing anything
outside of the soul, constructs a corresponding thing in the
1 This is notably true of Savonarola

(-f 1498),
who was in theology
a Thomist, and whose reformatory labors pursued strictly the line of the
medieval conception of the relations of church and state, and the ascetic ideal
of Christian life.
^ Regarded separately, with almost every name mentioned in the above
review is associated a wealth of historical questions of biographical, hterary,

dogmatic, and philosophic interest. Protestant theology will find it increas-
ingly necessary to devote far more attention and industry to this field of investi-
gation than has been customary.
3 A favorite principle with Occam, as it had been with Duns, derived
originally from Aristotle.
THEOLOGY IN FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES. I9I
mind" (ib. i. q. 8 E). This copy corresponds exactly with

the object copied. Over against these results of first intention
{termini primae intentionis^ originating directly from the actual
individual object, stand the results of second intention {termini
secumiae intenticnes) , whicha.reBa.tu.ra\ly {naturalitur^ constructed
by the thought from the former.^ These are the abstract con-
ceptions, assert something as common to the separate
which
objects, /'.
the Universals (ib. ii. q. 25 O).
^., There is no
objective existence corresponding to them. They are simply a
result of the inability of the human mind to apprehend a single
object without at the same time thinking of it as having a general
character. For example, when one sees a white object, or
several white objects, he is compelled to think of the abstract
property of whiteness
or, we cannot look upon a thing as hav-
ing bulk, or as related to other things, or as continuing to exist,
without thinking of quantity, or relation, or duration. It is easy
to see from this why knowledge, or science, should be concerned
only with conceptions and definitions, not with real objects.
But according to Occam, conceptions of both the classes named
are truly real entities {vere entia realia), i. e.y as *' qualities sub-
jectively existing in the mind" (quodlib. iv. 19 ; v. 13), and
they correspond to existing reality. It is utterly unjust to
accuse Occam of robbing concepts of their content and see-
ing in them only figments of the imagination. He writes:
** The universal is not such a figment, to which nothing similar
in the subjective^ being corresponds, as if it were only imagined

to be in the objective being (sent. ii. q. 8 H). Intoning, as
he does so strongly, the activity of the soul in the act of per-
ception, and shattering so completely the illusive dreams of
Realism, Occam is the real originator of the modern theory of
knowledge.
3. This more precise theory as to the nature of perceptions
was enlisted in the service of the critical assaults upon the tradi-
tional dogmatics. (^) Dogma, it was held, cannot be scientifi-
cally proved. With equal right entirely other views might then
be advocated. In his Centiiogium, Occam presents a number of
examples If God assumes any other nature than his own, the
:
propositions '* God is an ass, God is a stone," are also possi-

:
ble (concl. 7). If the Son became the son of Mary, so might
^ Here belong thought or will,

also intelligible processes, such as acts of the
desire, sorrow, etc., which man
experiences within himself and which can
become the direct objects of thought, i, e.y which furnish an intentio prijua,
or a directly-formed conception (sent. i. prol. q. I HH).
^ Subjective
substantively, or objectively objective:
imaginatively. The
meaning of the terms is now just the reverse.
19- HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
also the Father (8) or the Holy Ghost (9). From the doctrine
of the communicatio idioviatiun might be drawn such prop-
ositions as, **God is the foot of Christ," or, ''the foot is the
hand" (13)- The Trinity is undemonstrable, and can be
known only through infused faith (^fides infusa) (55). Differ-
ences of ethical merit cannot lead to corresponding differences
of reward, since the latter is infinite (92). In a similar way,
transubstantiation is criticized ; the proofs for the unity of God
surrendered (Biel, sent, i, d. 2, q. 10); it is declared probable
that God created the world in eternity (ib. ii. d. i, q. 3 A); or
taught that God could have forgiven sin without the repentance
of the sinner (Occ. sent. iv. q. 8 M); or, that God might have
just as well have commanded as prohibited hatred against him-
self, theft, murder, etc. (sent. ii. q. 19). {b') But it by no
means follows that the dogmas of the church are to be surren-
dered, nor their acceptance made a matter of indifference. On
the contrary, it is declared ''This is my faith, since it is the
:
Catholic faith ; for whatever the Roman church believes, this

alone and not anything else do I believe, either explictly or im-
plicitly " (Occ. desacr. alt. i. 16; quodlib. iv. 35). The author-
ity of the church's doctrine is supported by that of the Scrip-
tures. But this is done theoretically at least in a different
way from that adopted by Thomas or Duns (supra, p. loi f., 149).
Only those truths are Catholic which the Holy Scriptures teach :
"Therefore the Christian is not by the necessity of salvation

bound to believe ; nor is he to believe what is neither contained
in the Bible, nor can be inferred by necessary and manifest con-
sequence alone from the things contained in the Bible " (Occ.
dial., p. 411, 769 f., Goldast). "An assertion of the canonical
Scripture is of greater authority than an assertion of the Christian
church " (D'Ailli in Tschackert, Petr. v. Ailli, append., p. 10) ".
But these doctrines are true because inspired by God, whether as

natural and innate in all men, or as revealed for recording in
Scripture. The pope or the church can by their declarations
alter absolutely nothing in these truths (Occ. ib., p. 419)-
" Human authority is by no means to be relied upon in those
things which pertain to the faith, because our faith is above the
human intellect " (p. 432). The truths of the faith are binding
.simply on account of their conformity to the Scriptures (Biel,
sent. d. 25, q. un. dub. 3 ; d. 24, q. un. dub. 3).
iii. The cred-
ibilityof the Scriptures is acknowledged "because there it has
been written and asserted by suggestion (Jnstinctit) of the Holy
Spirit (Occ, p. 822, 834). God immediately infused the knowl-
edge here contained into the minds of the Biblical writers as the
most perfect certainty or evidence (Biel, iii. d. 24, q. un. concl.
'
THEOLOGY IN FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES. I93
7).^ Should anyone, therefore, call the Scriptures in question

he would have to be regarded as a heretic *^ Whoever says that
:
any part of the New or of the Old Testament asserts anything

.false, or is not to be received by Catholics, is to be regarded as
heretical and stubborn " (Occ. ib., p. 449). D'Ailli, indeed,
placed the authority of the New Testament above that of the
Old, and could even ascribe to some of the writings of the New
Testament an '* authority greater" than that of others
(Tschackert, append., p. 9); but this had no practical signifi-
cance. As, now, *'all things to be believedare contained in the
there can be no quantitative enlargement
'
canonical Scriptures, '
of the body of truth. The three ancient symbols merely sum-

marize the biblical ideas, or explain them as against the heresies
which have arisen (Biel, iii. d. 25, q. un., a. i ; a. 3, dub. 2.
Durand. iii. d. 26, q. 2, a. 2). **It is evident that the church,
or the pope, by ordaining or making a new symbol, does
, . .
not make new Catholic truths or articles, but declares anew that
certain truths have been and are Catholic " (Biel, ib. a. 3, dub. 3
fin.; cf. expos, can. miss. lect. 41 L). But, plainly as the prin-
ciple of the exclusive authority of the Scriptures is here theoret-
ically expressed, our authors did not undertake to make practical
application of it. The teachings of the Scriptures and of the
church are unconsciously placed upon the same level {e. ^.,
Occ. 1. c, p. 434, 459, 475 ; sent. i. d. 2, q. i F).^ Occam,
e. g., declares that he will hold to transubstantiation on account
of the authority of the Romish church, although he knows of

another view which explains everything better and is not con-
trary to the Bible, which does not expressly teach transubstantia-
tion (quodlib. iv. 35 ; desacr. alt. 3). He would not support the
usual theory of original sin, unless there were '* authorities of the
saints " in its favor (sent. ii. d. 26 U). It appears to be safer
to submit to ancient authority.^ ''To the apostolic .sanctions
^ Biel says (sermon, de temp. fol.

157 r): *'But the canonical Scriptures of
both Testaments are believed to have been written, the Holy Spirit dictating
and inspiring." Paul is the " celestial secretary*' (D'Ailli, sermones, Strassb.
'* We assent
1490, form Y 5 v). Durand. sent. prol. q. I L : to them (the
articles of faith) alone or chiefly upon the authority of the Scriptures, which
we believe to be inspired by God." D'Ailli *' All the canonical Scriptures
:
have been revealed by the same infallible author," z. ^., God (Tschackert,
Petr. V. Ailli, append., p. 9). Vid. also Duns, sent. iv. d. 14, q. 3. 5.
Wickliffe, de civil, dom. i. p. 418, 439: ** Scripture divinely inspired."
Other citations may be found in Holzhey, Die Inspirat. d. h. Schr., 1895, PP-
94-119.
^ Occam (de sacr. alt.
3) even says :
*' This (transubstantiation) is believed
to have been divinely revealed to the holy fathers.

'
^ Ritschl's comments upon Occam (Fides implicit^, 1890, p. 28 ff ) are un-

.
reliable, as he was unacquainted with the thorough discussion of the questions

'
and decrees which are not certainly contrary to the divine and
natural law of Holy Scripture, although there should be some doubt
of this, assent and obedience are to be rendered" (Biel, serm.
de temp. fol. 157 r).^ It is remarkable that the same men who
apply reason so sharply in criticism of the dogmas of the church
and subordinate them to the sole authority of the Scriptures, are
yet always ready in any given instance to submit to the Romish '
'
'
doctrine. But we should not on this account wonder at their

studied irony, nor doubt either their honesty or their courage.
If I understand the matter rightly, this wavering stands in inti-
mate connection with the juristic conception of the church.
Just as in civil life the law of nature holds primacy and yet finds
application only in a form adapted to the precepts of positive
law (supra, p. 171 f. ), soitisalso in the church. Here, the ac-
cepted dogma, or the Roman doctrine, is the positive law ; the
Scriptures (and reason) correspond to the law of nature (supra,
p 171 f )
. The application of the latter criterion produces a rad-
.
.
'^
ical criticism of dogma and church ; but this criticism is shat-

tered
very much as in the political world upon actual concrete

conditions upon the positive legal status of the Romish church.
Neither in church nor in state has the criticism based on the law
of nature abolished the existing positive law, although logical
consistency might require that it should do so. But, since all at-
tempt to prove the teachings of the church to be conformed to
reason has been abandoned upon principle, ecclesiastical positiv-
ism asserts itself in the naked form I believe what the Romish
:
church believes This position could, of course, not be perma-

!
nently maintained. The longer criticism pursued its way, the

more intolerable became the positivism of the church, and the
longer the latter held sway in the church, the more improper
must the bold criticisms appear.^
at issue in Occam's writings upon church polity. On p. 30, the Dialog, is re-
ferred to as "not printed," but see G. Hoffmann, Die Lehre der fides impli-
cita, 1903, p. 153 ff. ^
Such a man as D'Ailli could, upon occasion, write of the books of the
^
Bible " We thus receive the canonical or divine Scriptures on account of the
:
authority of the Catholic church, vi^hich so receives and approves them"

(Tschackert, append. , p. 11).
2 It is, of course, not implied that the entire contents of the Scriptures fall
under the heading of the law of nature ; but, regarded as a whole, they claim
the same primacy over the positive ecclesiastical principles devised by man, as
the law of nature given to man by God holds over positive human laws.
^ These theologians, on the one hand, identified the law of reason with the
teachings of the Scriptures, and, on the other, regarded the latter as in con-
formity with the teachings of the church. Both ideas are equally perverted,
and both errors combined in preventing them from seriously applying their view
of the authority of the Bible. Hence, they never established the authority of
THEOLOGY IN FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES. I95
4. The truths of Scripture are apprehended in Faith. (^)

"Faith is a certain adherent {adhaesixa) and firm knowledge
(jiotitia) of truth pertaining to religion, received through reve-
lation " (Biel, iii. d. 23, q, 2, a. i D). In its essential
nature, faith is intellectual assent (âssensus) :
'* To believe is an
act of the intellect assenting to the truth, proceeding from a
command of the will (ib. C ) '
But revelation embraces only to
' .
a small extent truths which are necessary, or evident to reason ;
the majority of its teachings are contingent truths, for which it

would be impossible to present a scientific demonstration (Occ,
sent. prol. q.i N ; q. 7 ; quodlib. ii. 3. Biel, iii. d. 25, q. un.,
a. I, or which may even directly contradict reason.
n. 3),
''Whoever is a Catholic and believing Christian can easily
believe anything to which he could by no means by his natural
powers assent." Here God comes to his aid: '*God, out of
his grace, infuses into him a habitus, through the medium of
which (^quo inediante) he is able to assent to any article of faith
whatsoever" (Occ, centilog. 60). This is t\\Q Jides infusa,
without which no act of faith would be possible.^ It is a
'*
quality {qualitas) produced by God in the soul," which in-
clines the understanding to the act of faith." This habitus is
infused in baptism (Biel, iii. d. 23, q. 2, a. i G. Occ,
quodlib. iii. 7). But, in order that acts of faith may be actually
performed, there is always further needed an acquired faith {^fides
acquisita). No child can come to faith, despite the faith infused
into it, secure also, through instruction or the reading
unless it
of the Bible, the concrete faith directed upon particular, separate

truths (Occ, sent. iii. q. 8 LM). (b^ However untenable the
conception of the '* infused faith" may be, yet our Dogmati-
cians, in employing it, are guided by a certain presentiment of a
real truth. It was their great aim to gain a special sphere for the
religious life. The pious reader of the Bible, Biel explains, en-
larges not so much his knowledge as his faith, since he is through
the infused faith inwardly bound to the authority of Scripture
(iii. d. 24, q. un., a. 2, concl. 5). But again, in so far as the
material furnished by revelation for faith is not accessible to
reason as such, theology is not in the usual sense of the term a
science (Occ, sent. prol. q. i. Biel, sent. prol. q. 7). {c')
Occam thus defines the fides implicita To believe implicitly
.
' *
the Scriptures upon any secure basis. It was not establishing it to take from
the pope his infallible authority and transfer it to the Bible But this is the!
basis of Occam' s regard for the Bible. Vid. supra, p. 169, 11. 2.
^ But Occam in Quodlib., iii.
7, has introduced this conception as required
neither by reason nor by experience nor by inference but solely by
. . .
authority. Cf. Duns, supra, p. 150.

is to firmly assent to some Universal from which many things

follow, and not to pertinaciously cling to anything contrary to
it" (dial., p. 434). Faith in the doctrine of the Scriptures is
thus also included in the category of implicit faith. It is the
idea, already familiar to us (supra, p. 103), that we accept
everything taught by the Scriptures, i, e., by the church, as
taught by these authorities: ''Everything contained in the
canonical Scriptures is true" (Biel, iii. d. 25, q. i, a. i, n. 2 ;
expos, can. miss. lect. 12 B: *'I believe as the church be-
lieves " ) The technical formulas of the doctrine of the
.
Trinity and of Christology fall, for the laity, under the implicit '
'
faith"* (ib. a. 2, concl. 5), as well as the facts of biblical

history, which cannot be experienced (ib. a. i, n. 2). Even if
a layman, in thus obeying his prelate, should believe what is
false, *' such a one would not only not sin, but he would even, by
thus believing what is false, merit" (words of Innocent III. in
Biel, 1. c, a. i, n. 2). But every believer must unconditionally
possess explicit faith in Christ as the Redeemer (ib. a. 2, concl.
3 ; further, concl. 5). It is therefore the specific Catholic con-
ception of faith which here again meets us. Faith is knowledge,
(^noiitia) and assent (âssensus) in regard to the biblical revela-
tion. Faith is the same in all persons ; but some believe ex-
plicitly, others implicitly (ib. concl. 4).
5. Such are the principles of Nominalistic Scholasticism.
Within the old forms a new ferment is stirring ; but the new
wine has not yet burst the old bottles. The Scriptures are the
sole authority in the church. It is felt that they constitute
a canon of criticism ; but yet no dogma is overthrown, nor is
any right of the hierarchy molested. Reason calls in question
the bold systems of the past. Theologians surrender the sys-
teois, but allow the definitions to stand. Or, they doubt the
separate doctrines, but believe the whole. Skepticism forms a
league with the positivism of the church
doubt with implicit
faith
and they counterbalance each other. There is an unde-
fined sense of a really positive theology within reach but what
;
is actually cultivated is a fruitless criticism, a *' negative theo-
logy." But, amidst all the murkiness of thought, two ideas are
never lost sight of, i. e. the authority of the Scriptures as over
,
against the church and her dogmas, and the feeling that the
Christian religion is no ordinary human system of religious
philosophy, but a special, positive, and clearly marked whole
the historical revelation given by God, which only faith can
But Occam claimed also for himself the right of cherishing implicit faith
^
in the doctrine of transubstantiation (!) ( De sacr. alt. i, supra, p. 192).

Cf. also account in Moll, KG. d. Niederl. ii. 562.
SF.PARATE DOCTRINES IN LATER MIDDLE AGES. I97
apprehend. The league between the gospel and speculative

thought, which held sway in the church from the days of Origen,
was glorified by the Scholastics also but it was finally shattered,
;
too, at their hands. Duns and the Nominalists proved it unten-

able. It is this service chiefly which establishes their position
among the forces preparing the wayfor the coming Reformation.
It would be a serious error to criticize their separate teaching."
and ignore the chief service rendered by them.
The separate doctrines are here of interest to us only because
of their significance in the historical development. In the
closing period of Scholasticism, as we have already treated of the
sacraments in 58, and of repentance in particular in 61, 2,
we shall need to examine only the views held upon sin, redemp-
tion, grace, and the appropriation of salvation, together
with the modifications in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
We have, likewise, no occasion to attempt a presentation of the
Augustinian tendency in all its details ;^ and shall therefore con-
fine ourselves to a few remarks touching the doctrine of grace
and to criticism of the conception of the church and of the
theory of indulgences.
6^. Labors of the Later Middle Ages Upon Separate

Dogmas and Doctrines.
the conception of God held by Duns regulated the

I. As
theistic speculationsof the Nominalists, so in nearly all doctrines
they attached themselves more or less closely to the Doctof
Subtilis. This is evident in their views of Sin and Liberty.
The rebellion of the sensuous nature against the spirit is natural.
The donwn superadditu??i removed it, and in consequence merits
became possible (Biel, ii. d. 30, q. i, a. 1-3). Original sin
*' consists in a privation of the original righteousness owed"
(Biel, ib. q. 2, a. 2, concl. 3. Occ, sent. ii. q. 26 U; cf.

Durand, ii. d. 30, q. 3). Yet an infection of children through
the generating act is also maintained (Biel, ib. q. 2, a. i, concl.
I. Duns differs, supra, p. 153). But, despite sin, the natural
freedom of the will remains perfectly intact. *'The integrity
of his natural will, /. e., its freedom, iS not corrupted by sin;
and not separable from it" (Biel,
for that is really the will itself,
ii. d. 30, dub. 4).
q. I, a.''Through mortal sin nothing
3,
is corrupted nor destroyed in the soul " (Occ, sent. iv. q. Sand
9 D). That these assertions are irreconcilable with the Augus-
^ Of how little interest for the History of Doctrines such a discussion would
be may be seen in Clemen's work upon Goch.
tinian doctrine of original sin is very evident.^ Vid. also Biel,

De serm. 33.
festivit.
2. The doctrine of the Atonement and Redemption is treated
entirely in the spirit of Thomas and Duns. The subjective as-
pect is the more prominent, but the objective is not wanting.
The relation of the two to one another remains, as heretofore,
without clear definition.
(a) AuREOLUS, Baconthorp, Durandus, and Capreolus fol-
low in the tracks of Thomas. The merit of Christ is of infinite
value, and is capable of affecting atonement for all (Aur. iii. d.
20, q. I, a. I. Bac. iii. d. 32, a. i. Capr. iii. d. 18, a. 3.
Dur. iii. d. 19, q. i, a. 2: ** The passion of Christ was a sufficient
and superabundant satisfaction for the sin of the whole human
race. . Christ, by suffering out of love and obedience,
. .
offered to God something more acceptable than the recompens-

ing of the sin of the whole human race required "). Anselm's
idea of the necessity of satisfaction is rejected (Aur. 1. c, q. 2.
Dur. d. 20, q. i). But redemption through the passion of
Christ is, nevertheless, the most suitable way, since man is in this
way assured of the magnitude of the divine love and incited to
a responsive affection, and receives also the example of Christ to
stimulate him to the practice of every virtue (Dur. ib.). The
redemption wrought by Christ is realized only in the case of
those *'who are joined to him as members to the Head," or
** through real imitation, /. e.j when we suffer after the similitude
of Christ*' (Dur. d. 19, q. i, a. 2).^

(^) Gabriel Biel, on the other hand, follows Duns more closely.
Christ, from the time of his conception onward, by his obedience
** for he was in the very moment
merited for us grace and glory :
of his conception a man perfect in every grace and virtue and

meritorious work " (iii. d. 18, a. 2, concl. 2). This merit be-
comes efficacious through the acceptio divina (d. 19, a. 2, concl.
** Only for the predestinated
i), but only for the predestinated :
did he merit final grace and glory," for '* no one finally obtains
salvation unless he was predestinated from eternity. Here also '
*
Biel follows Duns (supra, p. 152).^ Salvation rests upon the divine
1 As to the views of this period upon the immaculate conception of Mary,

see Esp. Occam, quodlib. iii. 9. 10,and cf. Werner, Nachscot. Scholast.,
P- 347-
2 Wicliffe argues the necessity of a satisfaction upon the ground that man
must perform an act of humility, which, in contrast with Adam's presumption,

shall lower him beneath himself (trialog., p. 215 f., ed. Lechler).
* The idea of predestination occurs very frequently in his writings. The
eucharistic sacrifice brings ** remission of sin; not, indeed, to all, but to the
predestinated" (Biel, sermon, defestiv. fol. 279 r). The church is the "mul-
titude of the predestinated " (expos, can. miss. lect. 22 E. vid, also sent. d.
;
;,
SEPARA'JE DOCTRINES IN LATER MIDDLE AGES. 1 99
predestination, and the passion of Christ is only a means for its

reahzation :
'* had not suffered, the elect would never-
If Christ
theless have been saved, because before the passion of Christ God
foresaw that the elect would be saved " (ib. concl. 4). By the
side of this conclusion stands the other, that, although the pas-
sion of Christ primarily {frincipaliter) secures salvation for us,
yet our own working {operatio') cooperates. For, when anyone
becomes a recipient of grace, he needs, upon his part, a certain
disposition of the will, such as attritio ; and this implies a merit
of fitness {^de congruo'). In the case of the baptized child, a sub-
stitute for this is found in the merit of the sponsors. The per-
son thus equipped with grace performs works having merit of
worthiness {decondigno)j and these become a ground for the in-
crease of grace. It is concluded therefore: *' That, granting
that the passion of Christ is the principal merit on account of
which are conferred grace, the opening of the kingdom and glory,
yet it is never the sole and entire meritorious cause. This is
evident, because with the merit of Christ always concurs some
work, such as the merit of fitness or of worthiness of the one re-
ceiving the grace or glory " (concl. 5). Thus the merit of Christ
finds its necessary complement in our merit. This final conclu-
sion is hfere
not illogically derived from the idea of merit
but it is essentially an outgrowth of the Thomistic idea, that we
became partakers of the results of the work of Christ only in so
far as we are in life conformed to his image (supra, p. 178 f
i79f, n. 4).^ This merit of the obedience of Christ, as thus
more sharply defined, God accepts as a satisfaction for the sins
of all who believe on Christ (d. 20, a. 3, dub. i). This course
of divine dealing cannot, of course, be described as necessary
(ib. a. 2, concl, i); and Anseim is thus refuted with the
weapons of Duns (ib. a. i).^ On the other hand, the plan of
salvation may be shown to be most admirably adapted to the end
in view, since it binds us to God and stimulates us to love him
27, a. 3, dub. 4). Werner ( Endausgang, p. 285) interprets the above-cited

passage from the Sentences as teaching "the universal efficacy of Christ's
redemptive act for all the descendants of Adam."
^ This relationship between Biel and Thomas is, with justice, maintained
by an ascetic document dating from the beginning of the sixteenth century,
which reproduces the thoughts of Biel (in Hasack, p. 477), where we find
also the declaration (p. 443): '* Since the passion of Christ was not an entire,
but a partial, cause of our salvation." In general, this formula represents ad-
mirably the religious conception of the day. But we find, on the contrary, in
Duns, iii. d. 19, 8 '* Christ, as the entire cause [totalis causa), merited for
:
us the opening of the gates of paradise."

^ Yet Biel, like Duns (supra, p.
157), is not indisposed to accept the argu-
ments as valid, " divine ordination being presupposed " (q. 20, I, ii. I B).
ii..
:
in return (ib. a. 3, dub. 2), and also because God chose this plan
and no other (ib. a. 2, concl. 2).
(<:) It is not correct to say that *' the fundamental ideas of
Anselm's theory were nevertheless generally accepted" (Thoma-
sius, Christi Person u. Werk, ii., ed. 3, 165). Anselm's theory
is accepted by no one. On the contrary, we constantly meet the
fundamental ideas of Abelard, almost always indeed combined
with the older thought of the merit of Christ which avails before
God as the ground of divine grace. This combination appears
also in the popular treatises of the day, particularly in the mys-
tical literature.^ The passion of Christ is here treated in the spirit,
and often in the very language, of Bernard. Its purpose is to re-
veal to us God's love and inciteus to responsive love and imitation.^
On the other hand, salvation and eternal blessedness are Avith the
greatest earnestness made dependent upon the objective merit
of Christ and the satisfaction rendered by him, the contempla-
tion of which is especially commended to the dying. ^ It is a
favorite thought (Anselm, supra, p. 70) that in the redemptive
work of God justice and mercy concur (^. g., Biel, sermon, de
festiv. fol. 225 V). Exceedingly instructive is a sermon by Biel
(De circumcis. domini). Here Anselm's doctrine is first pre-
sented in bold outlines, and from it deduced the concurrence of
the justice and mercy of God (1. c, fol. 197 v). But this work
of Christ has for its purpose the efficacy of the sacraments
*' The sacraments by which man is directly disposed to the
. . .
reception of grace, which is the health and life of the soul ; for
these he merited efficacy by the shedding of his blood " (fol.
** Christ, as true God and man, instituted the sacra-
198 r).
ments, primarily {^principaliter) according to his divine nature,
meritoriously according to his human nature" (ib.). This
medicine gives grace, ** by which they are able to merit eternal
blessedness " (199 v). But even this institution of the sacra-
ments is a work of the grace which grants the means of salvation
^ The numerous sermons and meditations upon the Passion in the Incuna-
bula-literature of before and after 500 are especially instructive.
A. D. 1
Space forbids the citation of these separately. See both views also in Wessel,
De causis incarnat. 6 (opp. p. 424^), and GOCH, vid. Clemen, Goch, p.
131 ff).
2 E. g., Wessel, De caus. incarn. i, p. 414 " Nothing is so effectual for
:
turning the minds of men to good as pious exercise in the life and passion of
the Lord." G. Biel, passionis dominie, serm. (Hagenau, 1515), form 3 ; A
expos, can. miss. lect. 85 XY.
^ Cf. supra, p. 179, n. 3. Upon Christ as atoning sacrifice, e. g.^ in
Wessel, De caus. incarn. 19, p. 455 ; de magnitud. passion, 39, p. 539 40, ;
p. 541 ; 44, p. 549. Cf. in Hasack, p. 155 f., 143: "Thou wilt to-day
interpose between thy wrath and my transgression the most dear and accept-
able sacrifice, Christ." Vid. also Moll, KG. d. Niederl. ii. 657 f.
,
SEPARATE DOCTRINES IN LATER MIDDLE AGES. 20l
to its enemy, as well as of the justice which rewards in accord-

ance with the work of Christ, ?., through the institution of
/'.
the sacraments (sent. iv. d. 2, q. 1, a. 3, dub. i ; cf. Duns, iv.

d. 2, q. 2. 8). The so-called objective aspect of salvation may,
accordingly, be reduced to the proposition, that Christ has
secured for us the medicine of the sacraments (cf. Duns Scotus).
3. It has already been remarked (p. 174), that the religious
life is moulded under the influence of the sacrament of repent-
ance. It is accordingly under this heading that the develop-
ment of personal piety is treated.^ The problem is the con-
version of the sinner, (tz) It is for the sinner as is repeated
until itbecomes wearisome to do
what in him lies (^quod in se
est), and God will then not suffer grace to be lacking (^. g.,
Biel, sent. ii. d. 27, q. un.). The sinner acts from himself up
to the point of attrition. But, according to Paltz, even this is
to be traced back to the influence of a grace gratuitiously given
(suppl. R 2 r ;4 r). ** Nevertheless, if we do what is in us,
so that we have attrition, he changes for us that attrition into

contrition sometimes of his own motion (^per se) before the
reception of the sacraments, sometimes in the reception of the
sacraments, which is more certain" (ib.). The sacraments,
and even divine worship before their reception, effect this
transformation (see citation, p. 175), in connection with which
man receives simultaneously the peculiar grace ( gratia gratiim
faciens) infused by the sacraments. By contrition mortal sin
in him is destroyed, and by the sacrament the power of doing
good is infused. (J?) This is the Justification of the sinner. The
ultimate disposition being fixed by an act of the free will, grace,
which is the form of justification, is immediately infused by God
(Durand, iv. d. 17, q. i, a. 3). There is need of faith in con-
nection with this process only in so far as the disposition to
accept the grace which is the prerequisite of the process, /. <?.
'* Therefore for the reception
faith, is necessary. of justification
in the adult there is required a motion of the free will, accord-
ing to which it consents to grace. And, because the first motion
through which he consents to grace is a motion of faith^ there-
fore that motion itself is a motion of faith. Thus Romans,
chapter 5, justifies through faith" (Paltz, 2 r).R Justification
may, like generation, be understood in two senses as the :
gradual movement toward righteousness, or as a change without

movement {niutatio sine niotii). In the former sense, it occurs
gradually {successive); in the other, ''justification is effected in
* Cf., in addition to Bid's Book of Sentences, also

JoH. of Paltz, who, in
the supplement of his Coelifodinay treats of conversion and justification in con-
nection with a discussion of the sacrament of repentance.
;
an instant " (ib. R 5 r). When the sinner thus becomes right-
eous through the infusion of grace, he receives at the same time
the forgiveness of sins/ (c) But the infusion of grace is also the
basis of meritorious works/ which are accordingly imposed in the
confessional. By this means the entire process is brought under
the view-point of merit (supra, p. 122), The dominant termin-
ology is derived from Duns (p. 160). The general definition
'* A meritorious act
is : is an act called forth {eliciiiis^ by free
will, accepted for the repaying of some recompense (âd retri-
buendum aliquod praemium) ^
(Biel, ii. d. 27, a. i, n. 2 ; cf. iii.
d. 18, q. un.). which man is able to take

The initiatory steps,
in his own strength, e. g., the attrition produce the merit of
fitness (^de congruo). ** The soul is able, by the removal of an
obstacle and by a good movement toward God elicited by free

will, to merit the first grace by fitness, since it is just for God to
'
'
reward this merit by imparting grace (ib. concl. 4; cf. iv. d.

14, q. I, a. 2, concl. 5 meritum de congruo ad justificationem
:
d. 16, q* 2, a. 3, prop. 4; Durand, i. d. 17, q. 2, a. 2). But

through the infusion of grace the works become merits of
worthiness. ** A merit of worthiness (^condigm ox de condigno)
isan act elicited by free will for a recompense (praemium) of
someone according to a debt to be repaid to justice." An
*
*
equality
' and proportion of merit to reward is here required
'
* *
' '
(ib. ii. d. 27, a. i, n. 3).^ By means of these merits, man

secures for himself both an increase of grace and eternal glory
(vid. also Paltz, coelifod. Bb 3 r and suppl. R 4 r)."* (^/) The
possibility of being sure of the possession of grace was denied by
Biel, though asserted by Duns (ii. d. 27, a. 3, dub. 5). The
unworldly ideal of life, and the dualism between the religious and
the secular life, were perpetuated (cf. the Mystic literature).
But here also, the views of the church were in conflict with
modern advancement and its ideals.^
^ Some foUowThomas
(p. 120), and conceive of it as the logical consequent
of the infusion of grace, e, g. Paltz, R 5 r '* Grace is infused before guilt is
, :
remitted, because through grace the guilt is remitted " Biel, iv. d. 14, q. i, a. ;
2, concl. 5. Others, with Duns, reverse the process (p. 161), ?.^., Occ,
iv. q. 8 and 9 L " Yet in fact and as a rule, the expulsion of guilt is
;
previous to the infusion of grace." Vid. also supra, p. 161, u.

2 Cf. Hasack, p.
133 "It (grace) moves the free will to do well and to
:
think well, to live well and to work well, and it gives power for all praise-
worthy undertakings. Grace makes all work meritorious.
, . . . But . .
grace is given, that man may with (the assistance of) grace perform all things
appointed."
3 Yet Durand asserts, that, in the strictest sense, man can secure this merit
with men only, and not with God (i. d. 17, q. 2, a. 2).
* Cf. Hasack, p. 262 f.
^
Yet such a man as Biel had a certain comprehension of the economic con-
SEPARATE DOCTRINES IN LATER MIDDLE AGES. 203
Our review makes it very evident that in the theology of the

Schoolmen only the sacramental and Pelagian tendencies made
progress. The free will and the sacraments are the two forces
which mould the Christian life.
4. In regard to the Lord's Supper, mention must be made of
a theory which found many adherents.^ (a) It is the view
mentioned already, and not without sympathy, by Duns, i. e. that, ,
even after the creation of the body of Christ, the substance of

the bread is retained, and not merely the accidents (supra,
p. 131 n.). Occam calls attention to the fact, that the Scriptures
do not contain the theory of transubstantiation (de sacr. alt. 3),
and he plainly intimates that the view, that the substance of the
bread and wine remain, is '* very reasonable ;" ** Neither is the
contrary to this contained in the canonical Bible, nor does
it any more include any contradiction, that the body of Christ
coexists with the substance of the bread, than (that it coexists

with) its accidents, nor is it repugnant to reason" (quodl. iv.
35 ; cf centilog. 39 C). Nevertheless, out of regard for the
Roman church, he will continue to hold transubstantiation (sacr.
alt. I, 5). But the entire tenor of his discussion (vid. sub)
testifies that he is not serious in his submission.^ Durand also
acknowledges the possibility of the retention of the earthly sub-
ditions of the age, and when treating of repentance made excellent comments
upon it, t. g., against the communism based on the law of nature (iv. d. 15, q.
2, a. I, n. I ), upon war (ib. q. 4), upon the method of taxation (ib. q. 5, a. 2,
concl. 3), upon the wild-game abuses (ib. concl. 5), upon trading and prices
(ib. q. 10, a. I, n. 2), upon the question of coinage and interest (ib. q. 9, ll),
etc. Cf. also Roscher, Gesch. der Nationaloekonomik, p. 22 ff.
* The high regard for the mass continues (vid. supra, p. 134). Cf.
Luther, Weim., ed. vi. 375 " That they made of it a sort of magic
; Some !
have masses held, that they may become rich and that it may go well with them
in their business ;some, because they think that if they hear mass in the morn-
ing, they are safe for the day from all distress and danger some for their
;
sickness; some for things even more foolish and even sinful,
and yet find
priests so stupid as to take money and do their will. And, further, they have
now made one mass better than the others, and esteem one as useful for this
purpose, another for that. . Here everyone keeps silent and (they) let
. .
the people go on for the sake of the accursed, shameful penny." In con-
nection with the idea that the Lord's Supper blots out venial sins, stands the
view that, as Christ atoned for original sin, so the eucharistic sacrifice atones
for daily sins, e. g., Pseudo-Thomas, Opusc. 58, c. i (opp, ii. 42). Cf.
Confes. Augsb. 24.
2 A contemporary of Duns, the Dominican John of Paris (ca. 1300),
declared in favor of the retention of the substance of the bread, which how-
ever combines with the body of Christ to form one "subsistence," so that
there are indeed two corporeities [Corpoi-eitaten) but only one body. Vid. his
,
work: Determinatio de modo exisiendi Corpus Christi in sacr. alt. alio quam
sit ille quem tenet eccl., ed. Alix, London, 1686. Cf. Kirchenlex. vi. ed. 2, ,
621 f. Argentke, CoUectio indiciorum, i. 264 fif.

stances (iv. d. ii, q. i, a. 3) ; likewise Biel (expos, can. miss,

lect., 41 J); Thomas of Strassb. (iv. d. 11, p. i, a. 2 ; cf.
also Dionys. Carthus. iv. d. 11, q. i), and Joh. v. Wesel
(vid. Ullmann, Reform, vor d. Ref. i. 330, 390). D'Ailli
zealously supports this view, ''because it is altogether possible
that the substance of the bread coexists with the substance
of the body. This mode is possible ; it is repugnant to neither
reason nor the authority of the Bible ; it is far easier to
be understood and more reasonable" (in sent. iv. q. 6 E).^
Wessel also holds to both the presence of the body of Christ
(de eucharist. c. 8, 16 ; opp. 161 4, p. 673, 688 f. ), and the con-
tinued existence of the bread, *' which truly vivifies and refines
alone by signifying {^signification e^ and by pious commemo-
ration" (c. 13, p. 683). The chief thing is that Christ '* desired
to be corporally nQd.r^cominus') to those longing for him
'
(c. 23, '
p. 695; 24, p. 697), and that spirit and life are thereby brought
to us (c. 8, 9, 10). (/?) For the completion of this theory, we
must bear in mind the conception then held of the presence of
Christ's body in the Supper (cf. supra, p. 116). We follow here
chiefly Occam. AccordingtotheNominalisticview, quantity hasno
independent existence, but it is the '' how much " of a thing; it
is not separate from the substance or the qualities of an object
(sacr. alt., form B 2 r and c. 17). The quantity of a thing

may be increased or diminished, as by compression or by exten-
sion, without the thing becoming thereby a different thing. Ac-
cordingly, a thing may become, like a mathematical point, with-
out quantity, without thereby changing its substance (ib. c. 37 ;
sent. iv. q. 4 H
cf. Biel, Sent. iv. d. 10, a. i, n. 2).
; In this
way the body of Christ exists in the Lord's Supper The body :
of Christ is not quantitatively {quantum^ in the sacrament of the

altar (sacr. alt., form B 6 rand c. 31, 41). The bodily pres-
ence of a thing may be of two kinds *' To be ciraimscriptively
:
in a place is for anything to be in a place, a part of which

is in a part of the place and the whole of it in the whole place ;
but to be definitively in a place is when a whole thing is in

a whole place and not beyond it, and the whole of it is in every
part of that place " (quodl. i. 4).^ Examples of the latter are
seen in the angels and in the human soul, which are present
entire in every part of the space which they occupy as well as in
the entire space. Thus also the. whole Christ is present in the
hostia, just as he is equally in all its parts (sacr. alt. c. 6). If
now the body of Christ exists at the same time with the bread in
1 To this Luther appealed in his De captiv. Babyl., Weim. ed. vi., 508.
2 Biel added the further category, repletive (sent. i. d. 37, q. un. a. l).

the hostia^ two questions arise ( i ) How the same body can be
:
present at the same time in different places, and (2) How its
parts can coexist in one place. The former is answered by
a reference to the simultaneous presence of the soul in all parts
of the body. In reply to the second question, it is to be said,
that the body of Christ is not in the Supper quantitatively, and
therefore we are not to think of a correspondence between
separate parts of the space with parts of the body. There is
hence no necessity to inquire whether the body present is the
glorified or the natural body (sent. iv. q. 4 J O). K
While the
body of Christ is at one place in heaven in extended form and
quantitatively, it is also present everywhere as a whole in the
host (cf. Biel, iv. d. 10, a. 2, concl. 2, and expos, can. miss.
lect. 43).^ But this presence is not confined to the host:
**The body of Christ is present to everyone, is present to him-
self immediately, and consequently that form of bread, c.^ the
/'.
host, has nothing to do with {nihil facif) the presence of the

body " (Occ, ib. N). Thus regarded, it may be said that the
body of Christ can be everywhere {iibique') just as God is every-
where (centiloq. 25, 28).^ This way of apprehending the
matter, which had an influence on Luther, suggests the following
comments: (i) The abstract logical method of considering the
subject, and the references to the institution of the Supper, and even
to the act of worship involved, are not clears (2) The eucharistic
body of Christ stands in boldest contrast with his actual body
it isa certain omnipresent Something. (3) As Occam weaves
in the problem, How two bodies can be at one place, he
betrays the fact that transubstantiation is not in his mind. (4)
Transubstantiation maintained its place in the canons of the
church, but the theology of the closing era of the Middle Ages
took no delight in it. ^ Cf. Rettberg, Occ. und Luther, Stud. u.
Krit. 1839, 69 ff.
1 Vid. also Durand, iv. d. Ii, q. I, a. I, z.

2 also (concl. 23), the view that a stone fallen from heaven might
Cf.
cleave through the body of Christ without dividing it or meeting with any
opposition in its course.
^ We
must not overlook at this point the teaching of Faber Stapulensis,
t 1536 (cf. Graf, Ztschr. f. hist. Theol. 1852, 3 ff., 165 ff.), since the
attempt has been made to trace to him Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper
(Hospinian, Calixtus). At the first Supper Christ was present both sensibly
and also concealed, sacramentally and impassibly, beneath the outward signs.
The result was a union (uniiio) between him and the participants, which
brought to the latter immortality (Comm. upon the Fourth Gospel, Basel,
1523, fol. 115). Thus he is again present at every subsequent celebration of
the Supper. "For, always remaining in heaven, he, existing everywhere,
descends hnmobilely into every believer, whom he vivifies and nourishes." He
gives immortality and life (ib. fol. 318 f). But in this his presence is a
s
(c) In this connection we must recall the very bold and cut-
ting criticism which was during the Middle Ages directed against
the doctrine of transubstantiation. It originated with Wickliffe
(vid. work of A. D. 1382-83, De eucharistia, ed. Loserth,
his
1892 cf. Fasciculus zizaniorum, Mag. Joh. Wiclif, ed. Shirley,
;
1858, p. 1151.) and was spread by Huss (vid. De corpore

Christi) and the Hussites (cf. Loserth, in the introduction to
De euchar., Transubstantiation is to Wickliffe'
p. xliv ff. ).
mind worse than heathenism: **They believe worse than the

pagans, that that consecrated host is their God " (p. 13 f. ). It
is a new doctrine, against which the Scriptures and reason pro-
test (p. 71). It has against it the testimony of the eyes (p. 57),
and involves inallmanner of contradictions. Will God then destroy
a portion of the entire substance of the body (p. 129), or will he
cause the body to grow at every celebration of the ordinance ?
(p. 193). According to Wickliffe' s own view, we must dis-
criminate sharply between the s/g/ij or saa'amentj and the body
(p. 18, 38, 112; trial., p, 248). The words of institution are
to be understood tropice, ox figurative. Their effect is that they
to the bare natural existence {îiudu?n esse naturak^ of the bread
add a superadded sacramental character (^superadditum esse
sacramentale^ (p. 153, 35, 83, 291). The bread signifies the
body of Christ, upon which we should spiritually direct our
attention and remembrance. *^That change does not destroy
the nature of the bread, nor alter the nature of the body but
. . .
it effects the presence of the body of Christ and destroys the pre-
eminence of the bread, so that the whole attention of the worshiper

is concentrated upon the body of Christ'* (p. 100). "Not
that the bread is destroyed, but that it signifies the body of the
Lord there present in the sacrament " (p. loi, 121). But this
presence of Christ is a spiritual one, mediated through the
symbol ''That the body of Christ is there virtually and in the
:
sign
not the body of Christ as it is in heaven, but the vicarious
sign of it" (p. 303, 271, 83 f. ). Then, as to the eating:
*' We
do not tear the body of Christ with the teeth, but
bodily one :
** Who
is divinely everywhere, and also corporeally wherever he
wiW 402 v). But only the believing recipient obtains this blessed
(ib. fol.
presence (fol. 318 r). Faber here lays special emphasis upon ^^x^ personal
presence of Christ (praesentia salvatoris). The punishments inflicted upon
unworthy participants are educational (according to I Cor. ii. 29, ff. ).
Vid. Epp. div. Pauli, Paris, 1512, fol. 97 v. This important composition is
distinguished by its independence of tradition. Faber pays no attention to the
Scholastic problems. He sought to draw directly from the sources, and insists
upon the personal and bodily presence of Christ, without concerning himself
about the how. This does indeed remind us of Luther's original position, but
without any evidence of historical connection between the two.
'
we receive it spiritually " (p. 13). It is eaten, not corporeally,

but spiritually, by the believer, since his mind is fed from the
memory of the body of Christ (p, 308, 17). This is the
doctrine of the Scriptures, which the teachers of the first thousand
years
when Satan was bound (Rev. 20. 2)âlso advocated
(p. 286). It commends itself particularly by its simplicity, as
the yoke of the New Testament law is always light (p. 119J.
This is essentially a reproduction of Augustine, with his view
polemically developed and directed against the Catholic ,docr
trine.
5. We
are thus already brought into contact with the labors of
the Augustinian school upon the doctrines of the church. First
of all, we note the resuscitation of the Augustinian doctrine of
grace. The latter embraces predestination, which now becomes
its leading thought. If predestination was with Augustine an
auxiliary line of thought, it now becomes the first principle.
With him it was developed
anthropologically here, in a ;
strictly way.
theological The conception is further unde-
signedly combined with the Scotist conception of God the :
absolute Lord of the world rules absolutely as he will, and hence

the inexplicable predestination.
(a) Bradwardina was especially severe in his arraignment of
the age upon the charge of Pelagianism. Free will, man's own
strength, merit
is everything, and thus predestination is earned
(vid. de causa dei,^ i. 31, p. 602, ed. Savil. ). Thus, he

maintains, do his contemporaries teach. On the contrary, he
has learned by experience that not merit, but grace alone, saves
us (i. 35). Everything which exists and happens is made and
brought to pass by God (i. 3, 32 ; ii. 29 f. ). Divine foresight
{^providentia) is in reality fore-determination of the divine will
(^praevolentia voluntatis') 27, p. 261).
(i. All that happens
rests upon the immutable **
antecedent necessity" of the divine
determination (i. 25). No one can pray better than by saying :
Thy will be done. This being the case, all merits fall to the
ground (i. 39). Here predestination finds its place. It is *' a
pre-ordination of the divine will concerning a rational creature ;
'
and there is a two-fold {gemina) predestination (i. 45). All the

gifts of grace are grounded upon it " The effects of predestina-
:
tion are the conferring of grace in the present, justification from

sin, good merits, final perseverance *' (ib., p. 422). Grace is a
*' habitus of the soul gratuitously infused by God" (i. 23).
The determinism into which this theory leads {e. g., iii. 27,
* The very numerous manuscripts in which this work has been preserved,
even upon the continent, attest its wide distribution.

p. 704)^ Bradvvardina rejects, maintaining free-will (ii. r, 2 ;
iii. i). Cf. Seeberg, PRE. ed. 3, 350 ff.

iii.,
(^) WiCKLiFFE also exalts predestination to the central place

in his theology. God alone is the cause that some are pre-
destinated and others only foreknown (^praesciti^. " God
necessitates individual active creatures to whatever action he
desires (âd quemlibet actum sutmi)^ and thus some are predesti-
nated, /. e.y ordained to glory after labor, and some are fore-
known, /. e., ordained to everlasting punishment after a miser-
able life " (trialog., p. 122). But human freedom is not thereby
excluded: ''But God cannot determine that I shall merit
or demerit, unless I also determine'* (de dom. div., p. 149).
The predestinating grace is the deepest ground for the bestowal
of grace upon the sinner. Grace is both, z.% gi-atia ina'eata, the
'* divine volition,
by which God determines to do good to a
creature,** and, zs, gratia creata, the infused ''good quality, by
which the creature is formally acceptable to God" (ib., p.
236 f. ). But this quality is the condition of the " acceptation by
which God accepts a man" (trial., p. 152 f.; de dom. div.,
p. 238). Since this divine acceptance is taken into the account,
the personal nature of grace comes to some extent into view.
But it is the imparting of grace which first capacitates man for
meritorious conduct (dom. div., p. 241). Since God *' pre-
veniently (^praeveniendo) incites and necessitates to meriting
. . the freedom of the will being preserved," it follows, that
.
every creature merit is, as such, only a merit of fitness (ib.,

p. 226 f. 242, 249).
, It is evident that the Catholic concep-
tion of grace underlies also the theory of Wickliffe, but the
gratia increata^ or the free loving will of God, receives at
his hands through predestination and acceptance an actual
importance which does not attach to it in the popular teaching.
It is the old conception, but there is yet in it an element which
points the way to a new apprehension of the subject. The
divine loving will is the chief thing, and the infused quality is
only a means for its realization. Should it be inconceivable that
other means might also be found for the accomplishment of the
divine purpose?
{c^ The CathoHc doctrine of grace was not repudiated even
by the more popularistic theologians of this school, suchasGoCH.
He combats the Pelagianism of his day, and maintains the neces-
sity of grace for salvation, since faith and love are supernatural
acts, which man cannot render without the aid (âuxiliiini) of
grace (dialog, c. 5, Walch, nionimenta med. aev. i. 4, p. 91,
1 Cf. Wickliffe's critique, De dominio div. i. 136 f., 148 ft.

94-97). T\iQ. infusio graiiae Q.oxi%\%\.'s, in this: that God begets

'*
in us a supernatural faculty (^facultas) for doing supernatural
acts" (c. 14, p. 162). The acts thus performed are meritorious
(c. 19, p. 192 f.). The j^^î'/^r/?ztz/(Z makes the soul acceptable
to God (c. 4, p. 86). According to Wesel, the forgiveness of
sins is the infusion of i\\t gratia gratum facte ns (adv. indulg. i8,
in Walch, monim. med. aev. ii. i, p. 126). Likewise Wessel :
** Concerning justification
it is evident enough, because that sins
be taken away is nothing else than to have justifying love, which

he who does not have remains in sin. In order, therefore, that
he may take away sin, it is necessary to infuse righteousness"
(de magnitud. passionis, c. 7, opp. Groning, 1614, p. 466).
God accepts the sinner on account of faith, faith being regarded
as including love :
** And since faith is the source of love, there-
fore it is also accepted on account of its offspring" (c. 45, p.

550). That is, God will bestow upon the believer the righteous-
ness secured through the satisfaction rendered by Christ (ib. p.
551). '^ Therefore neither our faith . . . nor the sacrifice of
Christ, but the determination of God accepting the sacrifice of
Christ, and through Christ accepting the sacrifices of Christians,
is our righteousness " (c. 44, p. 549). These are all medieval
ideas. As long as they are not abandoned, all the admirable at-
tempts to overthrow the monastic ideal which are found, e. g,,
in Goch, and the idea of evangelical liberty (which grace does
not destroy, but completes) which is not to be resigned in favor
of any vow, as though without the latter there can be no ' *
perfec-
tion of Christian life" (dial. c. 7, p. 109 ff.; 11, p. 144; 12,
P- 155 j 9) P- 125 ff. ) are but a beating of the air. The same
must be said of the emphasis laid upon the rights of property :
*' The proprietorship of law may consist with the highest evan-
gelical perfection ; the proprietorship of love is simply inad-

missible and forbidden to all Christians through the precept of
love (c. 22, p. 234). But in these thoughts there breathes the
atmosphere of a new era. The Holy Scriptures, which in these
circles, as in the church in general, are recognized as the highest
authority (vid. esp. Goch, Epistola apologetica, in Walch,
monim. med. aev. ii. i, p. 4 ff., 10, 11) begin to be employed
as a critical standard, by which not only the laws of the state
(p. 183 f), but the ordinances and ideals of the church as well,
are measured.
6. This leads us a step further, to the criticism of the Sacra-
ment of Repentance and Indulgences. ** There are two
prin-
cipal sacraments, in which the church is being ruined, viz., the
sacrament of the eucharist and the sacrament of repentance"
(Wickliffe, De euch. et poenit., in Loserth's edition of De
14
eccl., p.329J. Wickliffe denies the necessity of the sacramental

confession, whichdoesnot.harmonize with the '^ liberty of the law
of the Lord" (ib.,p. 331 ff., 341). He combats indulgences most
vigorously as a scandalous traffic and blasphemous presumption
of the pope (ib., p. 340; trialog. iv. 32, p. 357 ff. Cf. Huss,
Quaestio disputata de indulgentiis, opp. Norimb. 1558, i.
. . .
174 ff. ). Wesel teaches that God alone forgives the eternal
penalties of sin, which he does by the infusion of grace. To the
priest belongs only a sacramental ministration (^ministermm').
There exists a *' covenant established with priests " (adv. indulg.
23, 26, 27, 28 ; in Walch, monim. med. aev. ii. i). Since
now God himself imposes temporal penalties for sin in this
life, it is clear that indulgences have no ground to rest upon.
They would do away with purgatory altogether (ib. 47).

The pope can remit only the penalties which men have imposed
(34). The doctrine of indulgences has the Scriptures arrayed
against it ; they are only *^ pious frauds upon believers " (50).
Wessel is still more severe. Under his hand, the whole sacra-
ment of repentance falls to pieces. The pope can only out-
wardly separate any person from the church ; and when he does
so, his action has no direct significance for the inner life (de
sacr. poenit., opp. p. 772 f 776, 781). . ,
This sacrament has
really nothing to do with the matter. God grants the spirit of
love, and with it contrition. This is already a work of infused
grace: *^The contrite (is) righteous before the sacrament"
(p. 790).^ *' Repentance, if it be a sacrament, does not need
Similarly, it is God alone who forgives sin ;

'
contrition (ib. )
' .
the priest has no judicial power in administering absolution

(p. 794 f. ). Should God, who remits the eternal penalties,
not forgive also the temporal (p. 798)? And if he does not do
so, he is but exercising the educational discipline of a father
(ib.). Thus the satisfaction to be rendered by good works also
falls to the ground. Grace gives peace. What is the benefit of
the dismissal '* in peace " and the assurance of the forgiveness
of sins, if the sinner still remains subject to the severest penal-
ties (p. 800) ? It is not a question of a contrite body, but of a
contrite heart (p. 801). Satisfaction, strictly interpreted, ends
in a blasphemy ; for Christ did his work completely. We
receive forgiveness from grace alone, and do not have to con-
tribute anything by works of satisfaction (p. 802).^ Indulgences
can accordingly be understood only as remitting ecclesiastical
1 Cf. my remarks, supra, p. 135 f.
2 Vid., oa the other hand, the view discussed, supra, p. 199.

SEPARATE DOCTRINES IN LATER MIDDLE AGES. 2 11
penalties (p. 781).^ The whole theory is overthrown ; but the

infused grace still remains.
7. Finally, we must notice the conception of the Church,
especially in Wickliffe (De eccl., ed. Loserth) and Huss (De
eccl., opp. i. Norimb. 1558). (a) In harmony with the idea
of predestination, the church is here defined as the congregatio
omnium predestinatorum, whether the latter belong to the past,
the present, or the future
whether they be men or angels,
or even Jews and heathen (Wickliffe, p. 2 f., 5, 70, 409. Huss,
fol. 196 V, 201 r). The foreknown (^praesciit^) do not belong
to the church as thus conceived. They are not of the church,
although they are empirically in the church they no more
:
belong to the church than filth and foul humors belong to the
body (Huss, fol. 199 v). Whether anyone really belongs to the
church, /. <?. is predestinated, can only be judged with prob-
,
ability from his life (Wickliffe, trial., p. 325. Huss, fol.

198 v). In the sense of the assembly of the predestinated, the
church is an object of faith, since it may be thus brought under
the category of Heb. 11. i (Wickliffe, eccl., p. 409. Huss,
fol. 204 V, 206 v). In proportion as Wickliffe's opposition to
the accepted doctrines spread, this conception of the church,
combined with the emphasizing of the exclusive authority of the
*'law of Christ," became the critical canon. The pope errs,
when he has the Scriptures against him (eccl., p. 563 f. ). So
far from being the head of the church, it is even open to
question whether he is a member of the church (p. 464.)
Therefore, no man's salvation can depend upon him (p. 33);
and his excommunication can exclude no one from the true
church (p. 72). (^) Wesel and Wessel base their criticism
upon other grounds. Wesel declares that the hierarchical order
of the church is ''derived from paganism and forbidden by the
word of Christ" (adv. indulg. 42). In the church universal
the cJmrch of Christ exists as a part \ and only the latter is holy
and spotless (ib. 52 f. ), According to Wessel, the spiritual
authority rests upon a compact (de potest, ecclesiastica, opp.,
p. 752). But Christians, as rational beings, must criticize their
leaders, and not blindly follow them (p. 753). The latter are
**not therefore to be heard simply on account of their pastoral
authority " (p. 755). ** A currupt prelate desires the obedience
of his subjects, in order that he may rule them at will"

Cp- 757)' False teachers are not to be followed (p. 762 f. ).
If the prelates violate the compact, not observing the law
* Vid. also the discussion of the sacrament of repentance in Marsilius,

Defensor pacis, ii. 6, p. 205 f. Goldast.
as it applies to them, then is the other party, z. ^., the sub-

jects, free from every obHgation.
Such prelates must be de-
posed. If they are still tolerated, it is only as abandoned
women are tolerated in the cities for fear of other evils (p. 765 f.).
It is not the clerical office which establishes the unity of
the church, but its one Head, the one divine truth, ^ and the faith
and love of its members (767, de poenit., p. 778-781). In
this communion the spirit of love is infused (cf. supra, p. 209).
This is the *' commu7iio sanctorum : '* All saints have fellowship
(^communicant) in true, essential unity as many as cling to
:
Christ with one faith, one love ; under whatsoever prelates they
live ; however the latter may ambitiously contend or dissent or
err, even though they be heretics ; in whatever locahties in
space separated by whatever intervals of years
; and this is ;
that communtOj of which we speak in the Creed: I believe in the

communion of saints " (de comm. sanct., p. 809). From this
spiritual communion no declaration of the church can sever (de
poenit., p. 782). The criticism of these men does not extend
any further than that of Marsilius and Occam (p. 167); but it
attests the wide distribution of the critical temper. It was aided
by the fact that the church was coming to be regarded ever more
clearly and positively as a spiritual body. The communio sanc-
torum^ the congregatio predestinatorum,
such is its essential
character. The place for its discussion is under the Creed, not
under canon law. The forms of the latter are either to be
repudiated, or are of temporary value, in the course of historical
development. Cf. Seeberg, Begr. d. Kirche, i. 65-7^7. Gott-
SCHICK, Ztschr. f. KG. viii. 357 ff. Buddensieg, Joh. Wiclif,
1885, p. 157 ff. WiEGAND, Quid de eccl. notione Wicl.
docuerit ? 1891, p. 11 ff., 92 ff.
64. The Renaissance and Humanism in Their Significance for

the History of Doctrines,
Literature. J. Eurckhardt, Die Kultur der Renaiss. in Ital. 4, A.,

1885. Geiger, Renaiss. a. Humanism., 1882. Voigt, Die Wiederbele-
bung des klass. Altertums, 2 vols., 2 A, 1880 f. Vahlen, Lorenzo Valla,
1870. Geiger, Reuchlin, 1871. Von Bezold, K. Celtis in Hist. Ztschr.,
1883, I ff., 193 ff. Drews, Pirkheimer's Stellungz. Ref., 1887. Stichart,
Erasmus, seine Stellungz. Kirche, etc., 1870. Seebohm, The Oxford Re-
formers, ed. 2, 1869. Lezius, Zur Char. d. rel. Standpunktes d. Erasm.,
1895. Kampschulte, Die Univ. Erfurt in ihrem Verh. z. Humanism, u. z.
Ref., 2 vols,, 1858. MAURENBRECHER,Gesch. d. Kath. Ref. i. iigff., 349 ff.
^ '
For we believe in God not in the Catholic church, not in a Latin council,
not in the pope," p. 779- /'Since therefore it is not obligatory to believe
man, neither will it be obligatory to believe the pope," p. 780.
RENAISSANCE AND HUMANISM. 2I3
DiLTHEY, Archiv. f. Gesch. d. Philos,, 1891, 604 ff. ; 1892, 337 ff. K.
MtJLLER, KG. ii. 167 ff.p. 228 A. Z. i v.
1, The Spiritual unrest of the fourteenth and fifteenth cen-

turies constituted the starting-point for a revolution in the whole
conception of the universe and in the civilization of the world.
The latter was accomplished beneath the banner of Individual-
ism. The circle of interest extended beyond the limits of the
church and her dogmas. The individual emerges. A man is
something more than a member of the ecclesiastical or civil cor-
poration, for he is himself a separate something. The world is

looked upon with other eyes it is not lying in wickedness.
Nature and history, man in himself and in his association wdth
his fellows, the state and society at large are seen in a new
light. New criteria are applied the independence of the:
spiritual and political spheres, individual character, personal re-

sponsibility and honor. In proportion as this spirit was propa-
gated must ensue alienation from the existing order and criti-
cism of it ; or, at least, the best men had neither time nor incli-
nation to pursue that which was officially regarded as the best.
The reformation of St. Francis, the spread of the Mystic type
of piety, the criticism indulged in by Duns and the Nominalists,
the revived interest in literature and art (Dante, Petrarch, Boc-
caccio), and the political and social conditions, combined to
create a new spiritual atmosphere. But the most powerful factor
in this combination was antiquity. The treasures of the ancient
world were brought to light and comprehended. In cultivated
circles, especially in Italy, antiquity assumed the leadership and,
for not a few, took the place of the chiirch. Its treasures were
studied with an indescribable enthusiasm.^ The ancient world
appeared to furnish the ideal of life and culture.
2. Such a profound movement could not but prove highly sig-
nificant for the History of Doctrines. This is true in a general
way, in consequence of the enlarging of the intellectual horizon,
the increased study of languages, the introduction of the historic
method, and of historico-philological criticism the evidence
adduced by Lorenzo Valla of the spurious character of the
Areopagite, the non-apostolic^ composition of the Creed, and the
forging of the Donatio Constanti7ti, suggesting what might be
expected from the last-named source. To these influences must
be added especially the new method of discussion modeled after
the ancient patterns. The method of questions, with the pro
^ Cf. the account of the body of a young girl of ancient Rome found in
1485 :
**She was beautiful beyond all that can be said or written."
- Cf. THiEMr, Aus d. Gesch. d. apostolicums, 1893, p. 4 ff.
'
and contra, followed by the ** resolutions,'* yields to the simple

presentation required by *' reason and sound sense. " The tech-
nical Latin of the Middle Ages makes way for the toilfully-won
language of the classic authors, /. e., the Latin is becoming a
dead language. The Italians, for the most part, avoided the-
ology ; but Humanistic circles in England (Colet, f 15 19, and
Thomas More, f 1535) and Germany (especially Reuchlin, f
1522, and Erasmus, f 1536) showed a different disposition.
The traditional theology of the Scholastics at least was rejected,
although some thoughtful minds still recognized its value i
'* Scotus and his like are useful

for study (âdrerum cognitionem)^
but useless for speech " (^dicendiini) (Erasm., ratio concionandi.
ii. opp. Ludg. Bat. 1704, v. 857). The scholastica dogmata are
not articles of faith (Erasm., ratio verae theol., opp. v. 90).
The Scriptures and the Church Fathers are the true authorities.
** We may therefore philosophize
upon the sacred writings in so
far as our industry leads us to the conclusions which Paul has re-
corded. But those who have not fixed for themselves this limit,
but choose this profession in order that they may bring forth any
kind of paradoxes or novelties by which they may win the admira-
tion of the populace, who are always ready to admire insipid things,
are vanity-mongers (/?;a/a^t?/^^/), not theologians. Now into , . .
the sacred assemblies themselves this ostentation has penetrated.

... I see the simple multitude panting and hanging eagerly
upon the lips of the orator, expecting food for their souls, desir-
ing to learn how they may return better to their homes, and
there some theologaster ventilates some frigid and perplex-
. . .
ing question from Scotus or Occam" (ib. v. i3Sf.)- ''I ^^^

rather be a pious theologian with Chrysostom than an invincible
one with Scotus " ( ib. 1 3 7 ) '
Scotus seems to have given these
. '
men such great confidence that, without having even read the
'
sacred writings, they yet think themselves unlimited theologians

(enchiridion, 2, opp. v. 8). Erasmus, therefore, published not
only the New Testament in Greek (A. D. 1516), but also the
works of Jerome, Cyprian,^ Hilary, Irenseus, Ambrose, Augus-
tine, Chrysostom, and Origen. It was the aim to liberate the-
ology from dogmatics, and introduce a practical, ethical undog-

matic Christianity. We cannot fail to note here a certain
flavor of Augustinian piety, however unwilling the leaders of the
movement were to reproduce the entire Augustine. At this
point the efforts of the theologians of a practical turn, whether
Augustinians or Mystics, and those of the pious Humanists
1
Cf. Lezius, Der Verf. d. pseudocypr. Traktates de duplici martyrio, Neue
Jarbb. f. deutsche Theol., 1S94.

RENAISSANCE AND HUMANISM. 21 5
coalesced. In this sense, Humanism possesses a *' pre-reforma-

'
tory character.
' But, earnestly as the Humanists desired to
reform the church, they yet shrunk with terror from the Refor-
mation and the ** tumult" it occasioned. Erasmus frequently
thus expressed himself as the movement assumed a serious
form. The tragedy of his life is thus explained. He was
prevented by internal and external motives from pressing for-
ward as the new and great agitation surged about him, and he
could not retreat.^ It was his fate, like Moses, to die in the land
of Moab.^
Consequently, no positively influential ideas emanated from
3.
Humanistic circles. Despite all their criticism of the church and
its doctrines, despite their exaltation of worldly delights
which too often, especially in Italy, led to brutal egotism and
sordid self-indulgence
the old religious ideas maintained their
sway, and in times of distress, in life or in death, the heart turned
to them for comfort. This was seen in the case of the leaders
of the movement themselves. '* Lived like heathens and died
like Christians
was applicable to very many of the representa-
tives of the new classical culture" (Bezold, 1, c, p. 212). We
may study the same phenomenon in Erasmus. There was very
much of the *' modern man" about him, but yet he remained,
in his unmarried and unsettled life, a monk of the higher order.
And even his religious ideas, particularly in the pre-reformation
period, do not rise beyond the religious conceptions of the Middle
Ages. It is, to state it briefly, the piety of the Imitatio Christi
which he commends. Let this be thy
'
' rule set Christ. . :
before thee as the sole centre (^scopus) of thy whole life, to whom
alone thou mayest bring all thy studies, all thine efforts, all thy
leisure and thy business. But I think Christ to be not an empty
word, but nothing else than love, simplicity, patience, purity, in
short, everything which he taught. To Christ tends every-
. . .
one who is lifted to virtue alone " (enchir. 4, p. 25). But the
History of Doctrines has no occasion to attempt a portrayal of
the theology of Erasmus,^ nor that of his friend, Colet, who so
^ Cf. esp. the attractive sketch of Lezius, Zur Char. . . . d. Erasm., p. 46ff.
^ Vid. Luther's opinion of him in Kostlin, Luther, i., ed. 4, 688 f.
\ Upon particular points Erasmus furnishes much that is of importance*, e. g. ,

hisremark as to the gradations of authority in the books of the New Testa-
ment (opp. V. 92, 1049); the Bible written under dictation of the Holy Spirit
(v. 274); his criticism of the homousios (v. 1090) and of the sacrament of
repentance (ib. 167, 944, 1046); his legal conception of Sabbath observance
(v. 1 190 f. ); his symboUc view of the Lord's Supper (iii. 521 f., 892 ff., 1028,
1891 V. 1019); his definition of faith b.s Jlduciam, collocare in deo {v, 105,
;
lilt 798, 1079, 1147, 1 166 et passim). We do not yet possess a detailed
presentation of his views. Vid. Stichart, and esp. Lezius.
earnestly sought to understand the writings of St. Paul.^ The

fundamental ideas are always the same. Christ came down from
heaven in order to teach us to despise the world and its posses-
sions, and practice peace, love, and harmony, and to confirm
this teaching by his example. *' For his life is a doctrine excel-
ling all human (doctrine)" {Beatus Rhenanus upon Zwingli,
opp. vii. 58). But to this is to be added faith in the evangelical
doctiine^ which is laid down in the Scriptures, the Apostles'
Creed, and the Fathers (Erasm. v. 8, 1162, 162 i. 653). ;
Such is the dogmatic history of the Middle Ages. At the

first glance it may be thought that doctrinal development was
carried backward by more than a thousand years. The declara-

tions of Scripture, the Apostles' Creed, the Fathers, and the
dogmas of the ancient church, appear to be all that remain in the
shiftings of history. There were extended circles in which this
was felt to be the case. Biit history never simply turns back-
ward. Other forces were in the field, and they, too, were alive,
and have perpetuated their vitality to the present day. There
was a complicated play of forces even the ancient and despised
;
was a force to be reckoned with.

still We must differentiate
three groups in the closing period of the Middle Ages, which
were capable of various combinations, (i) The Popular Ca-
tholicism, the official ecclesiasticism. It does not scorn the
help of the '' Moderns " (/. ^., Nominalists), but it begins to
rely upon the ''old theology " of the thirteenth century. (2)
The ''negative," critical theology of the Nominalists. They
preserved their claim to recognition by their theory of the fides
zmpliciUi. (3) The Mystic, Augustinian, and Humanistic ten-
dencies. To them the future seemed assured, for they sought
to serve the cause of reform and progress. Which of these ten-
^ His Opuscula theologica, ed. Lupton, London, 1876, lies before me.
Particularly in his commentary upon Romans^ his effort to be Pauline is notice-
able. He strongly emphasizes the justitia Jidei sola ( p. 209). ** By this
sole faith of Christ one enters the kingdom of heaven believers are righteous
; ;
the faith of Christ is righteousness** (p. 230), and this gratuitously:

*' through grace men believe, and through grace believers are justified " (p.
251). The divine will alone is the ground of justification (p. 254). But
faith is to be more precisely defined as: "The faith of Christ vtîth imitation
and representation of him " (p. 241, 272), or "Justifying faith imports in its
signification imitation of Christ and co-operation with him " (p. 248). In har-
mony vrith this must be understood the declaration *'By this (/. ^., faith) be-
:
lievers are justified, so that they may do well in love. . Believers, if they
. .
imitate Christ Jesus, God will crown this righteousness" (p. 261 f.; cf. p. 186:
'* made righteous factipisti) bv God, that we may live righteously " ). Colet
(
thus taught esseniially as did Thomas (supra, p. 120). God infuses grace
into the sinner, which produces: first, faith, and then love and good works.
Further than this, he, like Erasmus, did not attach himself to any particular
scholastic tlieory.
RENAISSANCE AND HUMANISM. 217
dencies
and with what combinations and concessions would
have gained the victory, if no new element had been introduced ?
It will not be without profit to reflect upon the problem.
The future did actually produce the humanistic Nominalism of
the Socinians, the Augustinianism of the Jansenists, the Thom-
ism of the Modems. But a fourth spiritual power appeared

amid the play of forces the Gospel, or the Reformation. This
introduced a new element. Old problems were pushed aside,
and the questions pressing for solution assumed a different form.
BOOK III.
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE THROUGH

THE REFORMATION AND FIXATION OF THE
DOCTRINES OF CATHOLICISM.
PART I.
GENESIS OF PROTESTANT DOCTRINE.
CHAPTER I.
THE VIEWS OF LUTHER.
65. Luther's Place in the History of Doctrines.
Literature. The works of Luther are cited in the following pages from
theWeimar edition (^W) and from the first issue of the Erlangen edition
(German Works=E); de W. =
De Wette, Luther's Briefe, 6 vols., 1S25 ff.;
opp. ex. = Opera Exegetica and var. arg. =
Varii Argumenti both of the
Erlangen edition Gal. =^ the large Commentary upon Galatians in the same
;
edition. Cf. Kostlin, M. Luther, 2 vols., 5th edition by Kawerau, 1903.

KoLDE, M. L., 2 vols., 1883 ff. Kostlin, Luther's Theologie, 2 vols., 1863,
2ded., 1901. Th. Harnack, Luther's Theologie, 1862-86, 2d issue, 1901.
LoMMATSCH, Luther's Lehre v. eth. rel. Standp. aus, 1879. Luthardt, Die
Ethik Luther's, 2d edition, 1875. Plitt, Einleitungind. Augustana, i., 1868.
Moller-Kawerau, kg. iii., 1894. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. i. 141 ff.
Thomasius, DG. ii., ed. 2, 330 ff. Looks, DG., ed. 3, 345 ff. Harnack,
DG. iii., ed. 3, 726 ff.; cf. KtJBEL, Neue kirchl. Ztschr., 1891, i3ff. Hering,
Die Mystik Luther's im Zusammenhang s. Theol., 1879. LiPSius, Luther's
Lehre v. d. Busse, 1892. Thieme, Die sittl. Triebkraft des Glaubens, 1895.
Schafer, L. als Kirchenhistoriker, 1897.
I. In the crisis periods of history there is commonly no lack
of vigorous thought and great possibilities. There were now

many possibilities in view. But which of these, if achieved,
could have solved the problems of the great crisis now threaten-
ing the doctrinal structure of the church, as well as the moral and
social life of the world? Altogether, they did not extend in
scope beyond the horizon of medieval piety. But in the midst
of the sultry calm and dark forebodings of those days appeared
a man who had something practical to propose in the face of all
the vague possibilities. He trod like a giant through his age,
tramping to earth what a thousand years had held in veneration;
but everywhere new life blossomed in his footsteps. It was the
wonder-worker of modern times, Martin Luther (b. A. D.
1483). He was a genius without parallel, and yet his was
a "simple soul." He possessed the wonderful faculty of real-
izing in the clear depths of his own experience all the emotions
and needs of his age. **Yet he possessed" also, "in his
( 221 )
religious genius, a unique and peculiar energy which carried his

contemporaries along, at least for some distance, in his path as
by a power beyond and higher than their own. He was born to
deal with men and govern them " (Dilthey, Archiv f. Gesch.
d. Philos. V. 356 f. ). His power lay in his faith, which he dis-
covered amid the stress of dark and terrifying spiritual struggles.
The firm assurance of evangelical faith which he had himself
won, he proclaimed to his age with the amazing vividness which
only personal experience can give, with the force and versatility
of a true religious genius, and with the holy passion of a prophet.
Looking back upon his life, he himself declares ** God led me
:
on like a horse whose eyes have been blind-folded that he may

not see those who are rushing toward him," and ** that a good
work should seldom be undertaken or accomplished through

wisdom or foresight everything must be accomplished in the
midst of error or ignorance" (E. 57, 31 f. ). Men listened to
him. He led them back from scholastic speculations to the firm
ground of historical revelation, from dogma to faith. The
Reformation, so longed talked of, here became a reality, and in
a way which no one had anticipated. And only gradually has the
Christian world learned to understand clearly its controlling
principles, to draw the inevitable conclusions and estimate it
correctly from a critical point of view, casting aside the peculiar
and sometimes incongruous wrappings that have partly concealed
its true character. It would be idle to wish that the great
age of the Reformers might itself have wrought out to a logical
conclusion all that was involved in the new principles.
2. It is very significant, that the peculiar rehgious experiences
of Luther in the cloister fall within the sphere of the sacrament
of repentance and the overvaluation of the monastic life. The
controlling element in the penitential praxis was not for him
attrition, but contrition.^ Luther sought to force himself to con-
trition by meditating upon his sins. He was thus led to '* bung-
ling work and doll-sins " indeed but he also discovered, as the
;
chief source of trouble, sin in the sense of sinfulness. As his

own contrition never reached the required depth, so, on the
other hand, absolution
the formula for which makes forgive-
ness dependent upon the ''contrition of the heart, the good
works which thou hast done from love of Christ " (KOstlin, M.
Luth. i. 5, 64) ^brought him no certainty of the forgiveness of
his sins.
The genuinely Cathohc suggestion, that it was his
*
In theory, contrition alone was generally spoken of, but in practice attri-
"
tion alone was usually thought of, as the " beginning of penitence
(E. 25, 130). But this lightening of the burden permitted by the dogmatics
of the age, Luther would not allow to himself.

Luther's place in the history of doctrines. 223
duty to believe the forgiveness of sins, pointed him in a new

direction. He learned that not separate acts, but love to
righteousness and to God, constitute the criterion of true
repentance (Staupitz). From this time onward, Luther fell
more and more under the influence of Augustine and Mysticism.
It is perhaps the greatest work of Augustine, that he prepared
the way in following which this, his greatest son, found Paul.
Gradually Luther is led in his inmost experience into the very
heart of scriptural ideas, and such terms as grace and righteous-
ness receive a new meaning.
3. There meets us, hence, in the very first connected utterances
of Luther ( 66), an entirely new apprehension of religious truth.
The differences between the *' first form " and the later forms
of Luther's theology are commonly very much exaggerated. If
we consider the technical terminology, there is indeed a mani-
fest difference but if we have in view the actual content and
;
logical results of his ideas, we can scarcely reach any other con-
clusion than that Luther had before A. D. 151 7 already grasped
the conceptions and attained the points of view which gave
character to his life-work. This can be traced, as will be done
in the following pages, in the peculiar construction of nearly all
the theological definitions of the later Luther. But it is most
important of all to observe that he, at the very beginning of his
career, makes practical application of his new idea of faith ; for
the leverage of Luther's reformatory principle lies, not in justifi-
cation, nor in a new theory of grace, but in the conviction that
faith is \}cvQ, form of true religion. ''He who believes, has"
(^. g.y E. 27, 180). But dominates-his
this central conviction
very first writings, and it is instructive to observe what a trans-
forming influence it exerted upon the theological views there
presented (vid. sub) It will be advisable, nevertheless, to
.
present separately the first utterances of his new thoughts, as

their historical relations can thus be more clearly seen.
4. Luther, it is well known, had pursued a thorough course of
Scholastic study, making himself familiar particularly with the
Lombard, Occam, D'Ailli, and Biel. This schooling is often
apparent in the earlier period (?. ^., W. i. 367 ff.). But the influ-
ence of these studies was a permanent one. He had imbibed the
outline and organization of the theological ideas of Scholasticism,
and they remained as the points of connection in his theological
thinking. In the most of his definitions, the form of construc-
tion can be understood only if we bear this fact in mind.^ Yet
^ Luther was accurately acquainted with the separate Scholastic writers, as
may be seen from his writings during the indulgence controversy e. ^., his
opinion of Duns, W. 2. 403, and of Occam, 6. 183. E. 24. 347 "Occam,

:
Luther was confessedly a passionate opponent of Scholasticism,

as well as of Aristotle. ** Thomas wrote many heretical things,
and is the cause of the dominance of Aristotle, the devastator of

pious doctrine " (W. 8. 127). But the motive which impelled
him in this opposition was different from that which inspired the
hounding of the Scholastics by the Humanists. His criticism
was not directed primarily against the formal defects of the
system. He regards the teachings of Biel as good, except upon
the topics of grace, love, hope, faith, and virtue (De W. i. 34);
at a later date, he speaks approvingly of the Lombard, with
the exception that what he has said of faith and justification is
''too thin and weak" (E. 25. 258).^ This is the ground of
Luther's opposition: "That carnalizer of consciences, theolo-
gistria,'^ with its doctrines of free-will, merit, righteousness,
and works, directs to a false way of salvation, which leads
only to doubt and despair *'
I lost Christ there
: now I have \
found him in Paul " (W. 2. 401, 414, 503, 447). It destroys
the gospel (W. 2. 416, 465) and opposes "sacred theology"
(ib. 416). It mixes Scripture and philosophy (E. 6^. 162).^
"Scholastic theology is nothing else than ignorance of the truth
and scandal placed side by side with Scripture " (W. 8. 127).^
Many have assailed the formalism of Scholasticism Luther ;
attacked its substance, and he overthrew it.

5. Luther's decisive religious experiences were gained in con-
nection with the sacrament of repentance, under the stress of a
false conception of repentance for which he struggled to find a
substitute. This was the starting-point from which his funda-
mental religious ideas were developed. The latter may, there-
fore, be comprehended under the conception oi Evangelical Re-
pentance, constituting a Sicbstitiite for the observance of the Sacra-
ment of Repentance. This is the point of view from which the
work of Luther must be considered in the History of Doctrines.
my dear Master;*' Scotus and Occam are "the best two." He himself
counts himself among the Moderniy or Nominalists, W. 9. 9 ; cf. i. 226 and
op. var. arg, 5. 137 : sum Occanicae factionis. As to his studies, see Glosses
upon the Lombard, W. 9. 28 fF. and in the Mystics, upon Tauler, ib. 97 ff.
;
1 W. I. 391 : "Not that I entirely condemn them (the Scholastics), for they
have done their part." Cf. especially the remarkable contrasting of the prob-
lems of the Scholastic and the Evangelical theology, E. 24. 372 ff.
2 " Origen, who soured and spoiled the Scriptures by philosophy
.
and reason, as with us the universities have hitherto done."

3 With this agrees Luther's opinion of Aristotle " the constructor of
:
words, the deluder of minds" (W. i. 612). In addition to his Moralism, he

charges upon him, that his God does not act mightily in the government of the
world, but "governs the world blinkingly, as a woman rocks her child in the
dark'* (E. 10. 321 7.239; W. 6.457 f.). Vid. Nitzsch, Luth. and Arist.,
;
Kiel, 1893.
Luther's place in the history of doctrines. 225
All his ideas ia regard to penitence and faith, faith and works,
sin and grace, law and gospel, together with his new ideal of life,
constitute a complex of religious conceptions which were devel-
oped under the pressure of and in opposition to the sacrament
of repentance.^ This brings his work, however, into the very
centre of the current of religious development in the West. The
controlling thought in the latter is always the salvation of souls
{^salus animaruni) (Vol. I., p. 192 f,, 199)- Repentance, for-
giveness, new life were, hence, the inspiration of all conflicts
and schisms from the days of Calixtus to the Fanatics of the
Reformation era. One ideal runs through all these movements :
the congregation of saints. The great church thought of the

holiness of her ordinances, the opus operatu??i. To this her
critics had nothing to oppose, in the last analysis, but human

works, the opera operantis not holiness and righteousness. In
the conception of the righteousness of faith, Luther found the
solution of the problem. 'Everything comes to the sinner from
'
God \ but it becomes his only when it begets in him a powerful,

glowing, vital experience." Yet the heart does not place its con-
fidence in this experience in so far as it is its own ; but only in so
far as it comes from God. This is now both entirely objective
and entirely subjective. It is broad enough to embrace all that
was right in the position of the church as against the schismatics,
and all that was right in the contentions of the latter against the
church.''
6. Wecannot here attempt a review of the reformatory work
of Luther. A few observations must suffice. The question of
the authority of the church forced itself upon his attention
already in the indulgence controversy. ^ The Leipzig Disputation
(A. D. 1 5 19) brings Luther to the conviction that the pope and
^ Melanchthon recognizes this in Corp. Ref, xi. 728: Luther makes evident
the true and necessary doctrine ; for that there was densest darkness upon the
doctrine of repentance is manifest. Discussing these things, he shows what is
true repentance. Cf. v. 5^8; î* 9of.; i. 35off.; viii. 311.
'^
Regarded from the viewpoint of the medieval church, the Reformation
may be considered as the last of the schisms in the Western church. But it
must, in that case, be freely acknowledged that it is profoundly and entirely
different from all schismatic movements.
* Vid., besides, the
95 Theses: Disputat. pro declarat. virtutis indulgent.;
Ein sermon V. ablass u. gnade, 15^7; Asterisci ; Sermo de poenit. Eine frei-
heit des sermons papstl. ablass u. gnaden belangend ; Resolutiones dispula-
tionum de indulg. virtute ; sermo de virtute excommunicat. (these in W. i).
Eine kurze unterweisung, wie man beichten soil, 1518. Unterricht auf. etl.
artikel ; sermo de duplici justitia Ein sermon vom sakr. d. busse, 1519
;
(W. 2). Confitendi ratio, 1520 (W. 3). Cf. esp. for this ])eriod the Dispu-
tat. c. scholast. theol., 15 17. The Heidelberg Theses, 1517 fW. i), the small
commentary upon Galatians, 1519 {W. 2). Responsio ad Hbr. Ambros.
Catharini, 1519 (opp- v* a- 5)-
15
councils may err, and that the Scriptures are the only authorized
authority in the church.* The outward barriers which had hitherto
restrained Luther's spirit are thereby broken down. The eyes
of men of culture and of all friends of reform are now turned
upon him. He is recognized as a prophet. His cause is no
longer a theological tournament ; it is the cause of the people.
Thus, stimulated and sustained by the longings and hopes of his
people, he enters the greatest year of his life, 1520. With wonder-
ful energy he wields the sword and plies the trowel. The old theory
of the sacraments is demolished ; there is a new conception of the
church ; the new ideal of Christian life appears ; good works are
understood in the evangelical sense ; and the program of practical
reformation is clearly indicated.^ Then follows the fiery trial-at
Worms, the test of sincerity at the Wartburg and in face of the
fanaticism^ at Wittenberg. Political circumstances then open
the way for the development of evangelical church life* and the
spread of the gospel. But to this period of development belong
also separations (1524-25). The powerful movement for re-
form had quickened into new life the other reformatory ten-
dencies of the age, and it seemed as though they might be com-
bined in one current with it. Humanists, Mystics, and social
reformers stretch out their hands to Luther. And he recognizes
the *' other spirit " in them and repels them.^ It is among the
greatest acts of his life. He thereby lost his unparalleled popu-
larity. He, whom nothing had hitherto been able to withstand,
was now compelled to realize the inexorable limitations which
beset all human efforts. To this was added the alarming revela-
^ Ad
dialog. Silv. Prierat. de potest, papae, 1518 (W. i). Acta Augus-
tana, 1518. Disputat. et excusat. adv. criminationes loh. Eck. Resolut.
Lutheriana super proposit. sua XIII.; the proceedings of the Disputation at
Leipzig (W. 2).
2 Von den
guten Werken vom Papstt. z. Rom wider den hochberiimten
;
Romanisten z. Lpz. Ein sermon v. N. T. d. i. von der h. Messe an den

; ;
christl. Adel deutscher Nation von des christl. Standes Besserung; De capti-
vit. baby].; Wider die Bulle des Endchristes (W. 6). Also Von der Frei-
heit eines Christennienschen (E. 27 and op. v. a.), all in 1520. In 1519 i
Ein sermon v. d. hochw. Sakr. der Taufe Ein sermon v. d. hochw. Sakr.
;
des h. hochw. Leichnams Christi (W. 2). Vid. alsoThemata de votis Vom
;
Misbrauch der Messe De votis monasticis, 1521 (W. 8); An die Herren
;
deutschen Ordens, 1523 E. 29).

^ Vid. the Eight Sermons, 1523 (E. 28).
* E.
g.f Ordnung eines gemeinen Kastens Von d. Ordnung des Gottes-
;
dienstes, Taufbiichlein, 1523. Deutsche Messe, 1526 (E. 22). Traubuch-

lein (E. 23); the two catechisms, 1529, etc.
^ De servo arbitrio, Wider d. himml. Prophelen,
1525 (op. v. a. 7);
1524-25 (E. 29). Ermanung zum Frieden Wider d. morderischen u. ran-
;
berischen Rotten der Bauern Ein Sendbrief v. dem harten Biichlein wider
;
die Bauem, 1525 (E. 24).

EARLY VIEWS OF LUTHER. 227
tions of the church visitations. From this time forward a certain

austerity of temper is noticeable in the Reformer. Severe utter-
ances touching the '* coarse, common man " and '* the full and
foolish Germans " now belong to his constant repertoire.^ There
is a lowering also of his ecclesiastical ideals.^ But he remains true
to himself and the gospel, even against Zwingli/ The evangel-
ical views are now summarized in the Augsburg Confession.
The most wonderful thing in Luther was that his opponents could
never confuse him nor force any concessions from him. On the
contrary, every obstacle which he met but served to open up new
treasures from the deep mine of his fundamental religious idea ;
as, in opposition to the Fanatics, he defined more accurately the

significance of the means of grace, and against Erasmus main-
tained salvation by grace alone.
We
have thus indicated the points of view from which the re-
formatory ideas of Luther will be presented in the following
pages. One of the most important tasks of the History of Doc-
trines is thus set before us. For whether we regard Luther as
the destroyer of the foundations of the old dogma, or as the
originator of new dogmas, it is evident that either opinion can
be sustained only by a thoroughgoing study of his teachings.
Above all is it the duty of those who extend the scope of the
History of Doctrines into the age of Protestantism to furnish a
complete portraiture of Luther. It is astonishing to find in some
Protestant works upon the subject lengthy discussions of Augus-
tine, Thomas, etc., but only a short sketch of Luther.* This is
out of all due proportion, whether we regard the matter from
the standpoint of medieval doctrinal development or in the light
of the Protestant Confessions,
66. Doctrinal Vietus of Luther Before the Period of His

Reformatory Activity.
Literature. Expositions of the Psalms, with work upon the Penitential
Psalms, lectures upon Judges, sermons and tracts to A. D. I5i7in Weimar
edition, vols, i., iii., iv. Cf. Dieckhoff, L. Lehre in ihrer ersten Gestalt,
1887.
1 Cf,, e.g., E. 24.

305, 309; 22. 255, 181, 194; 4. 405 ;also the com-
plaints of the great change of sentiment, 14. 225 f., 233 ; 47. 14 f., 210 ff.;
48. 375-
2 KoLDE, Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch. xiii. 552 ff.
Cf.
Wider die himml. Propheten u. Bildern u. Sakr. 1524-25 (E. 29); letter
3
to the Strassburgers, 1524 (De W. 2. 574ff. ); Vorwort z. Syngramma suevi-

cum, 1526 (E. 65. 180 ff. ); sermon V. Sakr., 1526 (E. 29); Das diese Worte,
Das ist mein Leib noch ifeste stehen, 1527 Bekenntnis v. Abendmal Christi,
; ;
1528 (E. 30); Kurzes Bekenntnis v. h. Sakr. 1545 (E. 32).

A praiseworthy exception is found in the Leitfaden of LooFS.
'*
;
I. The high regard for the Scriptures, which is already so

evident in Luther, is scarcely more pronounced than was usual in
the writers of the later Middle Ages (e, g., W. 3. 517 ; 4. 531
1 52). But a new path was opened by his conception of Christ as
.
the real content of the Scriptures (i. 219). Highly significant,

too, was his view of the difference between the Law and the Gos-
pel. The external word of the preacher reaches only the ear of
the hearer; *'but God speaks (^sonat) and teaches inwardly to
the heart" (3. 124,514). Human speech effects nothing*' with-
out the co-operation and inward infusion (Ps. 2)^. 2) of God."
There is an *' inward whispering Thy sins are forgiven thee "
:
(i. 175, 190, 201).^ This is the Augustinian view. (Vol I.,
p. 321). The word falls into the two categories of law and
gospel. These terms are often synonymous with the Old and
the New Testament, e. g.: ''The law teaches the knowledge of
self; but the gospel, or the New Testament, teaches the knowl-
of God " (4. 565, 567). In this sense, the law is the rude vesti-
bule to the gospel (3. 249). It conceals the New Testament
ideas (4. 251, 305), such as evangelical grace and the righteous-
ness of faith (3. 560). It is unable to give to anyone a good
will, or love (4. 250). But, since it can call forth only outward
works, it makes men in the end hypocrites (4. 566). It
makes men sinners, but the gospel comforts and saves them
(4. 566). But Luther finds law also in the New Testament,
since the latter teaches the spiritual understanding {intelligentia)
of the law: ''But this understanding of the law spiritually
much rather slays, because it makes the law impossible to fulfill,
and thereby makes man despairing of his own strength and
humiliated" (i. 105). This is, however, a foreign, and not
the peculiar, office of the gospel (i. 113; 4. 87.) Its own
mission is to comfort and lift up all who have been smitten and
humbled by the law. "Therefore, as much as the gospel has
caused grief by interpreting the law, so much and more does it
cause rejoicing by proclaiming grace " (i. 105, 106, 108, 113).
The gospel humiliates, not only by its interpretation of the law,
but also by manifesting the works and the glory of God and
thereby revealing the sin and shame of man (i. iii f.).
Finally, the gospel imposes a cross and chastisement upon man,
since it subjugates the old man (4. 253 ; 3. 462). The gospel
may therefore be called a compound {mixtum): "because the
gospel imposes cross and life, peace and war, good and evil,
poverty and riches. And this is most truly a salutary mixture so
^
It is the word of the gospel, vocal or written, i. ^. , the Holy Scriptures
(3-404)-
long as this life lasts " (3. 516). If it is therefore the chief office
of the gospel to proclaim grace and consolation, it yet deepens
also the understanding of the law and humiliates and chastens
the sinner.^ We shall treat the doctrinal points resulting from
this general view in the order sin, freedom of the will, Christ,
:
grace, faith, righteousness.

2. Luther did not suffer while in the cloister from outbreaks
of any particular sin. He was oppressed by the sense of sinful-

ness, or Original Sin. He recalls attention to it *' No one is :
longer solicitous for the mortification of the tinder (^fomes') and

the root-sin, but they are concerned only for the cutting off
(âmputandis') of actual sins by contrition, confession, and satis-
faction " (i. 67). But original sin (^peccatuni originale^^ Erb~
sund, I.197) is the concupiscence filling the whole man (i.
'^ It is an
126, 225), which is the root of all peccata actualia.
abiding sin in this present time" (i. 168, 86), **a very cor-
ruption {corruptio) of nature " (i. 121), since the memory, the
understanding, and the will are weakened by it (3. 453). This
is the old man, ''which absolutely does not love God, nor
fervently hunger and thirst (for him), but thinks to find full
satisfaction for mind and spirit in created things " (i. 146). It
has a horror, not a fear, of God ; *' but horror is the seed-bed
of hate" (i. 39).^ The ** nature and essence" of man is,
from his birth, an evil tree and a child of wrath (i. 188).* Just
as little, therefore, as the will is free to do good (i. 148, 224),
is man able to prepare himself in worthiness {de condigno^
or in fitness (^de coitgruo') for the reception of grace (i. 147,
148, 70).
3. In Christology, certain definite fundamental conceptions of
Luther are already quite prominent. The doctrine of the two
natures of Christ (3. 467) is, for example, presented in its
practical religious aspect. We
recognize the divinity of Christ,
^ Cf. the frequently recurring declarations, that man must become nothing,
must be judged and crucified, before God can work in him, ^.. I. l83f., 112,
<f.
113, 119,227, 186, 189, 201 f., 214; 3. 513, 288 f., 291, 466; 4. 376 f., 412.
Vid. also the view of the Mystics, supra, p. 180.
2 Definition, 4. 690; cf. 9. 73, 75.
^ Luther retains the Scholastic idea of the Synteresis (supra, p. ii4f. ):
"Therefore, just as the synteresis of the understanding {^rationis') is also con-
formed to the wisdom of God, although the entire understanding may be
totally non-conformed to it, so the synteresis of the will is conformed to the
will of God " (i. 36, 558; 3. 238). t
* The wrath of God is attributed to the creature, without having a real exist-
ence in God :
**
God does not, properly speaking, afflict by approaching, but
by departing and leaving in the hand of creatures." This is the biblical
idea, that God is angry when he forsakes. Luther's conceptions at this time
harmonize with Creationism (4. 342).
sincewe attribute all our blessings to him and expect salvation

wholly from him, as well as render him obedience ''To con- :
fess that Christ is God is to restore and refer to him all good
things received from him, ... to hope for all good things from
him, and to put our trust in no creature" (i. 123, 140). His
divinity is *'a gracious will to pity and help " ( i. 203). ^' That
he pities, proves him to be God and distinguishes him from
others, who cannot pity {niisereri ) since they are themselves
objects of pity (^jniseri). Therefore he who pities and is good,
is God" (4. 248.) But Christ concealed his divinity in his
humanity, so that it remained in the Father (^divinitatem siiam
abscondi ab eis in pairey 3. 502 f., 124). He put away from
him his power: ''He banished (^subiraxif) all his power
by which he would have been able to resist them (his
enemies) and in every way subjected himself to infirmity"
(3. 121). Thus, even his divine works were concealed in the
humiliation of his passion (3. 547)-^ Thus God came to us.
" Since God pitied us, he also adapted himself to our infirmity,
so that he came to us as a man, concealing his divinity and
thereby removing all terror" (4. 647; i. 201). There is,
therefore, no knowledge of God, save only in the humanity of
Jesus. " All ascent to the knowledge of God is perilous except
that which is made through the humility of Christ, because this
is Jacob's ladder. . Wherefore he who, of himself, makes
.
haste to know God, is hastening to the abyss of despair. . . .
In other works God is recognized according to the greatness of

his power, wisdom, and justice, and there his works appear to be
exceedingly terrible ; but here is seen his most gentle pity
and love, so that thus his works of power and wisdom may be
contemplated with confidence " (4. 647, 648). God has come
to us in Jesus, as the Temple of God (i. 203), through the in-
carnation. In him alone is God to be known (202).
This is the great revelation of God to us his love and right-
:
eousness are revealed in Christ (i. 140). This, to speak pre-

cisely, embraces two ideas: Christ dwells in us (4. 328, 3, 8),
as a "counsel of example," and, through his sacraments, an
" aid of grace "(1.77). In the former aspect, his zeal for our
salvation inspires our zeal for the same.^ He still lives in
his followers, and incites them to all good. The kingdom
in which Christ reigns is the church (4. 85). "And thus

1 harmonizes with the emphasis thus laid upon the humanity of Jesus
It
that Luther even held it permissible to speak of him as exercising faith
(4. 267).
2 This idea appears to be related to that of Biel; that Christ is only
the partial cause of our salvation (4, 596, 645).
'
it truly comes to pass, that the life of Christ does not lie quiet
in his believing follower, because has never lain quiet, but
it
always lives and acts. . . , We

live, speak and act, but
do not
Christ lives, acts and speaks in us because what we do and say
;
is accomplished by his acting within us and impelling us"
(4. 646). No law is able to transform the will and make it

good; but the life of Christ effects this, moving our will to
imitation (4. 646 ; i. 121). The Christ in us is not idle, but
most active (i. 140). But it is only one aspect of the work of
Christ that is thus described. The same Christ has also fulfilled
the law for us, endured for us the wrath of God and death, and
overcome the devil (i. 35, 59 ; 4. 609). He is our righteous-
ness (i. 171, 140; 3. 174), and his merits are imputed to us
by God (i. 140). *' Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness,
but I am thy sinthou hast assumed mine and given thine to
;
me ; thou hast assumed what thou wast not. Therefore

. . .
not except in him, by sincere despair of thyself and thy works,

canst thou find peace "( De W., i. 17). Christ's blood cleanses
us (i. 189, 121). He is the hen, under whose wings we find
rest and peace (i. 31, 35, 117). " Now henceforth our God
is no more the exactor of righteousness and the judge, but he is
through his pity a saving (power) within us " (4. 609). He

does not simply causally work our righteousness, ''for that is
'
dead, yea it is never given, unless Christ himself is also present

(i. 219).
These are the permanent, fundamental features of Luther's
Christology and Soteriology. The historical Jesus is the revela-
tion of God. In the love of Christ his divinity is revealed ; but
the power of the latter he conceals. The Christian experiences
Christ as a present and active reality in his life. Christ hereby
becomes an active force within him, both as the law and pattern
of goodness setting him free to do good and making him capable
of doing it, and as the righteousness transferred from him to us.
Christ's fellowship with us brings us both a new life and the for-
giveness of sins; it makes us good both in the real and in the
ideal sense of the word. This leads us to consider the con-
ception of grace and the subjective forms of the blessings it
confers.
4. According to the traditional dogmatics, the activity of
grace is two-fold, embracing the infusion of new powers and the
forgiveness of sins. This must be borne in mind if we would
understand Luther correctly. When guilt has been removed,
sickness must be replaced by health (3. 453 i. 65, 68, 43, 84
; :
justificante et iinputante'). The infusion of grace is not a mo-

mentary act, so that at once all grace is given and all sin blotted
out. That idea leads to despair, as Luther had learned in his

own experience (i. 43). '*The infusio is an interior illumi-
nation of the mind and inflammation of the will this is neces-
. . .
sary for the extirpation of concupiscence, untilit shall be perfectly-

extirpated " (i. 66). It brings the '* good-will directed straight
toward God, seeking God alone " (i. 191), and it infuses love
(i. 115; 4.250). AsChrist was conceived by the Holy Ghost, so
every Christian is through love born anew andjustified by the Holy
Ghost (3.468). Itpurifiesus: '' But that purification (//^r^^//t?)
isa work of God and an infusion of grace, a justification with-
out us" {^sine nobis, i. 118). It washesand purifies us continu-
ally (i. 186, 189). The essential factor in the righteousness
infused by grace is faith. '^Faith is righteousness" (i. 118,
84). It is from God, who gives the true, fundamentally good
righteousness, which is the faith of Christ (i. 213). To pray
for faith is the same as to prayfor life or righteousness (4. 325).
When God, therefore, graciously ** begets and creates " the
new man, /. e., works righteousness in him (i. 215 3. 154) ;
through the Holy Spirit (i. 218), this righteousness consists not
somuchin works, as in hope, love, and especially faith (i. 84). So
little does this appear to depend upon the inward state, that Luther
traces it to a divine covenant Faith and grace, by which we
:
'
'
are to-dayjustified, would not of themselves justify us unless a

covenant of God caused them to do so" (3. 289),^ /. <?., that
he who believes and is baptized shall be saved (Mk. 16. 16).
This presentation of the subject runs entirely within the lines
of medieval theology. But Luther's new definition of faith
leads us further. What is faith, and how does it originate? We
recall the fact that the accepted dogmatic scheme found place for
an acquiredfaith in addition to the infused faith, and that the
later Scholasticism laid special stress upon the former (supra, p.
150, 195).^ '*When thou hearest that he suffered for thee,
and believest, there springs up already confidence toward him and
tender love, and thus perishes all love of (other) things as use-
less, and there arises a passionate regard for Christ alone as the
* This is a Scotist idea. Thus Luther occasionally declares of every human

preparation for receiving grace, that the latter is given, not through such pre-
paration, but by virtue of adivine covenant (4. 329).
2 The Scotist criticism prepared the way for this (p. 150, 159 f. ). We can
understand the advance of Luther from the position held by Duns, although
Luther rejected the self-acquired faith as a work of man himself in favor of the
infused faith (vid. ^ 67, 5)! And, similarly, the new conception of grace may
be explained by the fact that \hQ gratia creata first recedes behind the gratia
incrcata (p. 1 18 f. ), and then makes way for the latter. It follows that the
imputed c;race crowds the infused from the field. Here, too. Duns performed
some preparatory work fp. 160).
One Thing necessary, and there remains to thee nothing save

Jesus only, he alone enough and sufficient for thee, so that de-
spairing of all things thou hast this Only One, in whom thou
hopest for all things, and, therefore, lovest him above all
things. But, Jesus is the one true and only God whom when
thou hast, thou hast no strange God" (i. 399 f. ). This is a
faith wrought by God, but yet inwardly acquired and experienced
a faith alive and practical, the experience {exp crime ntiim) of
despairing of self in order to allow one's self to be led by God
alone (i. ZZ^} This faith, as it springs from the contemplation
and experiencing of Christ, ** consists more in taking from God
than in giving, more in longing than in having, more in becom-
ing than in being pious " ( r 212). But since the Christian recog-
.
nizes that all his blessings come from God, he gains confidence
in him (i. 74ff.). ** His whole life is
a trusting, depending,
waiting, hoping, in God" (i. 210). **And hence faith takes
away from us ourselves and the things that are ours, referring all
things to God with praise and gratitude " (i. 123). Faith is a
" possession of things hoped for " (4. 271). This faith is, there-
fore, upon the one hand, the entreating, struggling faith of Au-
gustine (Vol. I., p. 347); but it is, on the other hand, some-
thing more, i. e., the apprehending of God in Christ and trust in
God. Its essential content is Christ (i. 219); what is his, be-
comes ours there is between us and him a perfeciu7n matrhno-
;
niiuii (i. 104). This leads to the new conception of grace. The
actions resulting from the infused love find a filling out of their
imperfection in the fullness of Christ, ** because the fullness of
Christ is accepted instead of it, until it is also made perfect"
(i. 115): not only thus, however, but in the comprehensive
sense, that without any regard to any beginnings of subjective
righteousness, the righteousness of Christ alone is our righteous-
ness *^ That the Father in his mercy imputes to us the right-
:
eousness of his Son " (i. 140). Thus sin is no more imputed
to us, but forgiven (i. 86). Lust remains in us. "It is here,
but God in grace does not impute it to us " (i. 168). '^ For to
such an one he does not impute sin, because he imputes right-

eousness to him" (3. 175). But this righteousness is mine
only in so far as I accept it, " For his mercy is my righteous-
ness. . For what is mercy, if I do not accept it ?
. . But . . .
my righteousness signifies that I am accepted by the One showing

mercy " (3. 43). But this comes to pass through faith.
This is Luther's Soteriology in its first form. Two lines of
1 This does not conflict with the fact that outward perception and recogni-
tion of this faith are still excluded (he does not see nor experience it, i. 102).
;
thought pervade it. God infuses grace, i. e.^ faith and lo\e
he makes us righteous. But since faith is regarded as a confi-
dence in the revelation of God inwardly acquired, it may also be
said, that faith lays hold on Christ and thereby also upon the
righteousness, or forgiveness of sins, which exists in him and is
imputed to us. The gratia infusa is here supplanted by the
Christ living and acting within us. It is no longer the sacra-
ments Luther very seldom mentions them in this connection
but the word concerning Christ which produces the result. But
this Christ is *' most active " within us (i. 140) ; and, although
the righteousness of faith is not given to us on account of our
works, yet it is given to enable us to perform works (âd opera,
I. 119). It may be said: ''For righteousness is from God,
since, when we are righteous, it is because God justifies and im-
putes '' (i. 84).
5. The religious processes above traced are actualized in expe-
rience in connection with the observance of the Sacrament of Re-
pentance. Let us glance at Luther's view of that sacrament.
Contrition springs from meditation upon the blessings conferred
by God and upon our ingratitude as revealed by our sins '' All:
these things reflected upon and compared with our own sins won-
derfully stir up hatred and detestation of ourselves, but love and
praise of God. But this penitence arises from love to God and
'
*
to righteousness (i. 99 ; cf. supra, 136 n. 3, 175). ''This con-

trition must be so brought about (J>aranda) that it may proceed,
not so much from hatred as from love " (i. 446). But neither
the completeness of this contrition nor confession following it
imparts the certainty of forgiveness, which comes to us only
through /a///; .-" Simply believe the word which the priest utters
in absolution, that the absolution may be based upon neither his
merit nor thine own " (i. 131). The true satisfaction is that
required in Lk. 3. 8: it is a "service of the whole Christian
life." Where private confession and satisfaction are taught in
the Bible, Luther does not know (i. 98 J. Through them we
cannot secure any righteousness, but only through faith fi. 102).
He regards indulgences with suspicion. If no one can be sure
of the contrition of another person, it is mere trifling to main-
tain that a soul escapes from purgatory through indulgences for ;
if the individual concerned had not true contrition, the indul-

gence would not secure his pardon (i. 66). Moreover, the
grace imparted impels us to perseverance in the self-mortifica-
tions of repentance, so that the true Christian does not desire
any indulgence (i. 68),
6. It is to be observed, finally, that upon other points
Luther is during this period very conservative. The worship
REPENTANCE, FAITH, SIN, GRACE, ATONEMENT. 235
of Mary and the saints,^ the seven sacraments, transub-

stantiation, the mass, and the infaUibility of the church are
still maintained. He has no idea of assailing them (vid. Kost-
lin, L. Theol. i. 221 ff., Engl, transl. i. 200 f ) ; but it may
.
be observed that the elements of his later conception of the

church may be found already in his writings. The church is the
City of God. ** It is built, not
by human teachings or works,
but by the word and grace of God alone" (i. 202 ; 4. 400).
It is the summary of the works of God, or the new creation
(3. 154).^ But since the church is thus the work of God, or of
his word, its essence is invisible and perceptible only by faith :
** Because the church is a labor and construction {opera et

factura) of Christ, it does not outwardly appear to be anything,
but its whole structure is internal, invisible before God and ;
thus they are known, not to the carnal eyes, but to the spiritual
in the mind and in faith " (4. 81 ; 3. 154, 367).
7. Everywhere, beneath the old forms the new life was swell-
ing. Let us once more recall the leading features of the latter :
The recognition of man's moral oondage the new apprehension

;
of the humanity of Jesus as the absolute revelation of God the ;
conception of faith as a laying hold upon Christ, together wath

trust in God the thought of Christ working in us the idea of the
; ;
righteousness of Christ and the forgiveness of sins graciously

attributed to us. It is a new understanding of religion which
finds expression in these views, however all the elements of the
past
the ancient dogmas, the Augustinian apprehension of sin
and grace, the criticism of the scholastic and pre-reformation
eras, the mystic attempts to mount from the man Jesus to God,

with their doctrine of the indwelling of Christ may have pre-
pared the way before it.
67. Criticism of the Sacrament of Repentance and Exposition

of Evangelical Repentance, Eaith, Sin^ Grace, Jtcstifica-
tion. Atonement.
I. **The right way and the proper manner, than which no

other is to be found, is the most worthy, gracious, holy sacrament
of repentance" (W. 2. 715). ''But I, a poor brother, have
kindled a new fire, and have bitten a great hole in the pope's
pocket, by attacking confession" (W. 8. 340). The central
point in ]ûther's work lay in the abolition of the sacrament of re-
. ** And thus the divine Virgin holds the medium between

^
g-, 4. 694 :
Christ and other men," with reference to her conception.

^ The communio sanctorum et bonorum (4. 401) is to be interpreted in
the neuter gender.
pentance and the substitution for it of the new conception of faith

and justification. This must also be our starting-point. In the 95
Theses (A.D. 151 7) we find the traditional view of the sacrament
of repentance, as well as some echo of the criticism of the preced-
ing period and of Luther's own evangelical views, (a) Luther
does not here assail indulgences as such. They are to be highly
esteemed (Th. 69, 38, 7, 71), and he proposes to combat only
the abuses connected with them (72). The pardoning power of
the pope can extend only to the canonical penalties imposed by
himself, and not to every penalty (5, 20, 21, 34). As regards
the dead, they are valid only in the way of supplication (26).
The forgiveness of sins has in his view only a declarative force
(38, 76, 6). The thesaurus of the church is not to be found in
the merits of Christ and of the saints, as these are effectual with-
out the pope (58); but the keys of the church bestowed through
'
'
the merit of Christ" constitute it. (^) But this is not in

the present day the character of indulgences. The indulgence-
preachers are in many ways responsible for the abuses, as if souls
were freed from purgatory as soon as the money rattles in
the chest (27, 28, 86), and as though the certainty of salvation
may be purchased (52, 30-32). Good works appear to be no
longer necessary. It might be asked why the pope does not
employ his power to empty purgatory (82, 84), and why
he does not spend his own money to build St. Peter's (86).
The church is being exposed to ridicule (90). (r) Our Lord
and Master Jesus Christ, by saying Repent, intended that the
:
whole life of believers should be repentance (i). This is not

said, of course, with reference to the sacramental acts, but to the
mortifications of the flesh and the hatred of self (2-4). In this
sense, the penalty poena) of sin remains as long as we live on
(^
earth (4). But if this self-mortification is a duty, then the true

penitent will prefer the penalties, /. tf. the works of love,
,
to indulgences (40, 41, 43, 44). But he cannot by these means

*^ Every truly contrite
gain a consciousness of forgiveness.
Christian has plenary remission of penalty and guilt due him,
even without letters of pardon {2>^)y and he has this through his
participation in Christ and the treasurers of the church (37)-
The hierarchy cannot pardon the least sin as to its guilt (76);
there belongs to it only the declaration of that which God does
(38). Therefore, God alone forgives the guilt of sin ; but the
penitent exercises himself in good works. Indulgences are not
necessary. They are indeed dangerous, in so far as they may by
outward means make the sinner feel secure, and in so far as they
give to him something which is altogether uncertain. If scarcely
anyone is certain of his contritio^ how much less of the attain-
ment oi plenaria remissio? (30-32). He who has not money in

superabundance need pay out nothing for indulgences (46).
Such are the Theses. They are less energetic than many criti-
cisms of earlier date (supra, p. 210). But yet carried to their
logical conclusions
they leave very little remaining of the sac-
rament of repentance. The contrite sinner secures forgiveness
it is taught with Augustine
to what end does he then need
confession and absolution ? Works are moral exercises then :
indulgences, and works of satisfaction as well, have no ground

to stand upon. As indicated in the first Thesis, the repentance
which fills the whole life occupies for Luther the central place,
and no longer the sacrament of repentance.^ Cf. Dieckhoff,
Der Ablass-streit, 1886. Bratke, L.'s95 Thesen, 1884- Brie-
GER, Das Wesen d. Ablasses mit RiicksichtaufL.'s Thesen
. . .
(Lpz. Progr. 1897).

2. Luther's utterances in the" following years develop these
ideas in both their positive and their negative aspects. The
essence of repentance consists in Contritio. (a) But true con-
trition is secured by the contemplation of righteousness, which
begets in us love for the good, and, through this, sorrow for our
sins (W. I. 319). *' But this contrition is to be produced in such
a way that it may proceed, not so much from hatred as from love.
But it proceeds from love, .if a man reflects with himself
. .
upon the benefits of God conferred upon him throughout his

whole life. .All these things, reflected upon and compared
.
with our own sins, wonderfully stir up hatred and detestation of

ourselves, but love and praise of God " (W. i. 466). The op-
posite course is most vigorously rejected. He who determines to
attain sorrow for sin simply by the contemplation of it, becomes
a hypocrite, and is sorry only from fear of punishment. He
really gets no further than attrition (ib. 319, also W. 2. 160 f.,
421, 363, 368; 6. 160, 610. Cf. E. 31. 182, 183; 18. 6).^
An actual penitent frame of mind can thus, according to Luther,
be induced only upon the basis of positive love for the good,
^ In this consists the historical significance of the first Thesis all depends,
:
not upon the sacramental acts, but upon the penitent disposition of the heart.
This introduction follows the example of the medieval discussions of the sub-
ject, which open with a presentation of the virtue of repentance. Particularly
in Duns, the sacramental acts are really only means for promoting repentance as
a self-mortification dominating the whole Christian life. Vid. my discussion
of Duns' doctrine of repentance in Abhandl. f, Alex. v. Oettingen, p. 172 ff.
2 The last two passages prove that Luther in writings of the years 1530 and
1537 could advocate exactly the same views as in his tract, De poenitentia, of
the year 1518. But it is of the greatest importance, that he here denies
entirely the possibility of begetting contrition before the reception of grace.
His own conflicts in the cloister therefore fall under the head of attrition.
23S HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
which measures its own conduct by the good, and not by the pre-
sentation of duties and penalties. But it is important to scruti-
nize the theological connection of this thought. It was clearly
expressed by Luther at the Leipzig disputation (15 19): All the
Scholastics, he maintains, agree with him, *' since they all agree
that contrition ought to be produced {fieri) in love, that . . .
contrition is produced, love impelling and enjoining" (W. 2.

263, 364, 371, 422).^ This is, in fact, correct, for contrition is
an act *' formed " by love (p. 135).^ But it must be said at the

same time ( 1 ) That this love presupposes faith for such is the
:
traditional relation and (2) That Luther is not here thinking

primarily of the empirical beginning of conversion. It is not to be
denied, however, that Luther, during the years of the indulgence
controversy, not infrequently made even the initial penitence of
the Christian life dependent upon faith and love ''The great
:
thing is a heart contrite from nothing else than faith ardently re-
garding the divine promise and threatening, which, beholding
the immutable truth of God, alarms, terrifies, and thus makes
contrite the conscience
again exalts and consoles and keeps it
contrite, so that the truth of the threatening is the cause of the
contrition, and the truth of the promise the cause of the conso-
lation if it is believed, and by this faith man merits the forgive-
ness of sins" (W. 6. 545 ; i, 542, 364). Thus faith produces
contrition and maintains it. Not fear, but the gentle goodness
of God allures the sinner to repentance (W. 2. 362, t^^'^^ 37o)-
In the moment when we hear that Christ suffered for us, faith
and love arise (W. i. 399). Contemplation of the sufferings of
Christ transforms man, and in them we recognize the magnitude
of our sin (W. i. 137): ''This contemplating essentially trans-
forms man and, very nearly like baptism, regenerates him " (ib.
139). " This faith justifies thee, will make Christ to dwell, live,
and reign in thee" (ib. 458). Thus as we contemplate the
goodness of God in Christ, true contrition appears, while at the
same time man is preserved from despair." "When true con-
trition is about to arise from the goodness and benefits of God,
especially from the wounds of Christ, so that man first comes to
(a sense of) his ingratitude from the contemplation of the divine
goodness, and from that to hatred of himself and love of the
^ Eck acknowledged that this is the higher position, but that it is one
which, on account of frailty, cannot be attained (W. 2. 361). Luther was
brought to his view through Staupitz, De W. i. 116.
2 If, then, grace produces this condition, Luther has a right to say " It is,
':
therefore, expressly Pelagian heresy to say that repentance begîns before love
"
of righteousness but love of righteousness is from God, and not from nature
;
(W. 2. 421, 362).

' '
goodness of God, then tears flow, and he will heartily hate him-
self, but without despair, since he will hate his sin, not on ac-
count of its penalty, but on account of his view of the goodness
of God which, being beheld, preserves him that he may not de-
spair, and may hate himself ardently, even with delight" (i.
576).^ Thus God crushes the sinner's heart by showing him
favor. ^ But in that perturbation {conturbatione) begins salva-
tion (540). But ''the grace of contrition is given to no one,
"
but at the same time the merits of Christ are given to him
(612). This great unrest is the beginning of grace (595)-
Contrition lasts
as habitualis poenitentia
through the whole
life (322, 652), being experienced daily (W. 2. 160, 408, 409 f.
E. 29. 357). Repentance in this sense can certainly not be
identified with the temporal acts of the sacrament of repentance
(W. I. 531 ; 8. 109). ''Because this is at length to exercise
living and true repentance, to separate the heart from vices for
God's sake, and to keep it separated and to separate it the more.
But thou who dost practice only that sacramental repentance and
initial repentance before theeyesof men, whose fervor and tumult
'
cannot last without a miracle, thou hast devised an impossibility
( 1. 649 f. ) . The meaning is here, that love of the good springs
up simultaneously with faith in the heart. The divine benefits,
together with the good now ardently desired, beget in us shame
and grief on account of the sins yet clinging to us. To this is
now added the law, which, as the standard of the good, " co-
operates in giving a knowledge of sin, but in no way effects pen-
itence." " I concede that the law, the recounting of sins, the
contemplation of penalties, can terrify the sinner ; but they never
make him penitent " (W. 2. 362). The Commentary on Gala-
tians already lays very great stress upon this influence of the law.
It is said to teach man to know his weakness and his wrong, to
show us the good. It can, indeed, never awaken in us a desire
for the good, but only increase the desire for evil (2. 526 f.);
but it even in this way drives us to Christ (528).^ This is the
1 The endurance of the pains of hell (W. i.
557. Cf. E. 12. 387 De W. 2.
;
125) is thus excluded as an abnormal experience; cf. Gottschick, Ztschr. f.

Theol. u. K., 1891, 255 ff.
2 lb. "But then (at the infusion of grace) the man is so ignorant of his
justification that he thinks himself to be very near to damnation, and does not
think this to be an infusion of grace, but an infusion of wrath.
'
^ Hence the law makes no one pious, but teaches only the outward piety of
hypocrisy, W. 6. 353 f. W. 2. 720 suggests a further use of the law ** Bufr the
:
hard-hearted, who do not yet desire comfort of the conscience, and who have
not experienced the same torture, to them the sacrament (of repentance) is of
no benefit. They must first be made tender and timid, that they may also long
for and seek this comfort of the sacrament." The method of threatening must
thus, after all, be employed in dealing with such as are still impenitent.
"
true childlike fear of God, even though something of servile

fear {timor servilis') may yet ever cleave to it throughout life on
earth (\V. i. 321 f. ). ** Love being possessed, man is at the same
time moved God, and thus repentance begins from
to the fear of
fear in love'* (W.
364, 369, 396).
2. There thus arises an ex-
ultant hatred of sin (i. 543), faith meanwhile restraining from
despair (632). Thus repentance, both as a state of life and as
the beginning of life, is a fruit of faith and love, however much
the law may contribute to its production.
This repentance now begets in the heart a positive desire to
perform good works. The man is willing to bear the penalties
(W. I. 597); impelled by the Spirit and the Christ dwelling
within, he brings forth fruits of repentance (i. 532, 649, 364;
2. 424).* (^) Luther at an early period recognized the im-
possibility of confessing all mortal sins (W. i. 322 ; 2. 60; 6.
162, 545). The thought then soon occurred to him, that we
are really under obligation to confess our sins only to God (W.
6. 158 f. ), and that the confession required by the church is only
a human ordinance (8. 152 f.). Hence we can confess to whom-
soever we will \ we are even free to omit confession to man al-
together, if we but confess to God (8. 161, 182, 175, 181. E,
28. 248, 308; 29. 353; 10. 401 ; 23. %(> f.). From this posi-
tion Luther never wavered, although he always warmly com-
mended voluntary private confession (8. 168, 173, 176, 178;
6. 546. E. 23. 26 f.; 28. 249, 250, 308)/ Absolution is
to be received in faith. In so far as we, in receiving it, believe
the divine promise, it is(W. i. 595). **Thy sins are
effectual
forgiven, if thou believest them forgiven '* (ib. 631, 542). It
IS faith in the institution of absolution by Christ which is here
meant (W. 2. 14, 59). Everything depends upon this faith :
*' It
depends not upon the priest, not on thy doing, but entirely
upon thy faith as much as thou believesL, so much thou hast
;
(2. 719, 715). Luther still, indeed, at first understands this in

the Catholic way: Grace and faith are infused (i. 364), and
forgiveness results from the infusion *' Remission
of guilt
:
occurs through the infusion of grace before the remission of the

priest" (i. 541)/ But the essential thing is, after all, only that
^ In view of this connection, Luther laments that works no longer, as of old,

precede absolution, since the sincerity of the contrition would thus be tested,
W. I. 551, 66r.
^
'In A. D. 1519 be demands that, together with the ^'testing" of the
penitence, faith be also tested (W. 2. 720 cf. the severe arraignment of the
;
confessional manuals, 6. 163, and E. 15. 469 f. 22. 3), and similarly in 1526
;
(E. 29. 358 cf II. 185. Conf. Aug. 24. 6: " But none are admitted unless
;
they have previously been examined ").

^ Cf. W. I. 542 Remission effects [operatur) the grace of God
:
;543 :
REPENTANCE, FAITH, SIN, GRACE, ATONEMENT. 24 1
the word be believed ; and to this end there is no need of the

ecclesiastical machinery.
(c) Satisfaction cannot be shown to be commanded by God
(W. I. 324, 383 ; 6. The same
is to be said of Indul-
610),
gences (i. 384 ff.).^ The thesaurus indulge ntiarum is rejected
(2. 161). Luther for a time adheres to the idea of Purgatory,
despite some suspicions (i. 555, 563 2. 161, 423, 323 f., 332, \
324 f.; 2. 70 6. 17, 370), but at a later period recognizes it

;
as an invention (^. g., 11, 362). Of the penalties of '* satis-

there yet remain only moral works and readiness to
*
faction '
bear the cross. *'God changes eternal into temporal penalty,

viz., that of cross-bearing " (W. 2. 161).
Luther appears to have preserved almost the entire structure
of the sacrament of repentance. But this is only in appearance.
Every separate part of it is recast and the structure as a whole
demolished. Into the place of attrition, or contrition, has come
that repentance which has not to do '* piece-meal" with some
particular works, but extends '* over the whole person with all
its life and conduct" (E. 11. 282), and which springs, not
from slavish fear, but from love. Instead of the sacramental con-
*^ This confession is now so highly neces-
fession, it is required :
sary, that it should not be omitted for a moment, but should be

precisely the whole life of a Christian " (E. 11. 154). Accord-
ingly, every sermon becomes an absolution (11, 267). But by
the side of repentance stands Faith. This element is now
woven into the penitential process by Luther.^ Satisfaction was
replaced by the good works which spring from faith. The
sacrament of repentance as a whole is therefore disintegrated. It
is only ''invented folly" (E. 9. 299; 279 f.; smalc. art. iii.,
3. 313 ff. ). Into its place comes the moral and religious state
of evangelical repentance, consisting of penitence, faith, and
good works (E. 10. 401),^ and embracing justification and the
forgiveness of sins. Luther began with criticism of the sacra-
**Remission of sin and donation of grace, to justify and to heal;" 428 :
'*God showing mercy and infusing."

Luther often ( W. 1 587 f. ) declared, according to the popular understanding
^ .
of the matter, "that they sold indulgences for the divine grace which forgives
sin" (K. 24. 337; 26. 18). Theologically, he thus expresses himself "In :
all indulgence bulls he (the pope) promises forgiveness of the sins of all who
have mourned [bereuet^ and confessed i^gebeichtety (E. 28. 175; 31.
141), who have " mourned and confessed and give money " (25. 132). Eck
well expresses the doctrine as understood by the masses (W. 2. 352 f., 359).
^ A
partial anticipation of this is seen in the testing of faith at the confes-
sional toward the close of the Middle Ages. Supra, p. 174.
^ Only penitence and faith are commonly spoken of as elements of repent-
ance (d-. ^.,E. 6. 340; 3. 76 f.; II. 293, 296; 17. 125 ; 19.64; 23. 39), but it
is clear that works fall under the same heading.

16
ment of repentance, and he substituted for it evangelical repent-

ance. Of a change in his views concerning the initial penitence,
we speak in another connection.
shall
We have thus outlined the views of Luther at this period upon
the topics of repentance, faith, works, and the pardon of sin.
We have yet to trace his teachings concerning sin, the relation
of law and gospel, and the work of Christ.
3. In regard to Sin and the moral Bondage of the Will, he main-
tained the same positions which he had taken in the earliest period
(supra, p. 229). (a) Before the fall, Adam was inclined only
to good (E. 15. 46). Since the fall, he and all his descendants
are subject to sin. The human race is a massa perditionis (W.
I. 427; 2. 526. E. 28. 206). Every individual of the race is
full of sins (W. I. 427), his nature full of lust (W. 2. 412 f.).
Human works may appear outwardly beautiful, and yet be mortal
sins (W. I. 353). Every sin is a mortal sin (W. 2. 416, 419).
''And there is therefore included briefly and barely in this
word, Sin, what one lives and does without and outside of faith
in Christ" (E. 12. in). Sin constitutes a kingdom of the
devil (W. 2. 96). Especial emphasis is laid by Luther upon
original sin.^ He proposes to defend Augustine's conception of
it against the Pelagianism of Rome (W, i. 272, 649. E. 11.
281). The Scholastics of all schools, with the single exception
of Gregory of Rimini (supra, p. 188), were Pelagians (W. 2.
295 f., 303, 394 f., 308).^ The danger of that tendency lies
in the fact that it leads to work righteousness (E. 14. 245 30. ;
365). This opposition forms the central nerve in Luther's

presentation of the subject. Through the act of generation,
which is performed in evil lust, sin passes from parents to their
children. It is inherited sin, ornature-sin (E. 19. 15), as being
the real chief sin (10. 305; 15. 49). As the formative
material in father and mother is corrupt, it remains so in the
children (E. 11. 246; 19. 15. W. 2. 167). From Adam
down, the nature and essence of man is corrupt (E. 10. 304 ;
46. 67). Human nature is "an evilly disposed nature" (E. 7.
289), a "corrupted nature " (E. 9. 234; 15. 187; 20. 155),
a flesh poisoned by sin (15. 47 ; 20. 157, 297), in which evil
lust reigns (15. 48; 18. 73). In his doctrine of the "old
man," Luther however strongly emphasizes the spiritual, moral
1 The Scotist definition : Want of original righteousness ( E. 15. 46) does
not influence his conception. The contrast to original sin is the wirkliche
S'linde (E. 10. 306), which is simply a translation ^{ peccatum actuate. Vid.
alsoW. 9. 73, 74 f., 78.
2 But Pelagianism is the '* chief heresy," E. 19, 184. Upon Gregory, see
Stange, NeuekirchlicheZtschr., 1900, 574 ff.; 1902, 721 ff.
side of sin. Its essence consists in ' * blindness and ^vickedness

(9. 2 88 J, *^ the despising of God, inborn inward impurity of
heart, the disobeying of God's will" (12. iii), '^ unbelief, the
despising of God, disobedience" (9. 15), but, above all, in
imbeliefi as the '*real chief sin" (12. no; 50. 57; ^2>' ^^)
and *^ cause of all sin and crime " (13. 158; 47. 54). ''The
chief righteousness is faith ; again, the chief wickedness is
unbelief" (12. 178).^ It is just the distinguishing feature of
the ''natural man," that he has not the Spirit. Strongly
as Luther emphasizes the natural depravity of man, he just as
positively recognizes also the ability of the natural man. '^ The
natural light" sustains the striving after good, without indeed

knowing the good (10. 182; 35. dZ^. It may protect against
the lusts, but not against lust (14. 151). In secular affairs, in
law and order, reason judges very correctly (12. 90 f., 109)/
although in spiritual matters it appears as the *' devil's strumpet"
(29. 241).
{b) The consequence of natural depravity is the Bondage of the
Will. Free-will is for the non-Christian only a word (W. i. 354.
E. 29. 353).^ His will is free only to do evil, but not to repent
(W. I. 359 ; 2. 362, 702. E. 7. 239, 302). But it is main-
tained, on the other hand, that no compulsion to either good or
evil is exerted upon the will (W. i. 365 ; 2. 370). The sig-
nificance which the absolute bondage of the sinner holds in
Luther's circle of thought from the beginning explains his bitter
assault upon the De libera arbitrio of Erasmus. Luther's work,
De servo arbitrio (1525, opp. var. arg. 7), reveals a fundamen-
tal difference from the Semipelagianism of the cultured circles of
his day.* This is not saying, however, that his theoretical sys-
tem was an expression of his fundamental religious position. To
* E.
9. 313 gives a classification of sins: If we gather all sins upon
one heap, they fall into two classes, which are the devil's own work, namely,
lies and murder.
^ The term Conscience [Gewissen) is very often used by Luther in the
general sense of the moral consciousness. As to its nature, see W. 8. 606 :
*' For conscience is not a power (virtus) of working, but a power

of judging,
which judges concerning works. Its proper work is to accuse or excuse, to
make either guilty or acquitted, fearful or secure. Wherefore its office is not
to do, but to dictate concerning things done and to be done, which make either
guilty or saved, in the sight of God." Similarly in E. 47. 23, 59 ; 18. 58, 22:
*' If we sin greatly, our conscience gnaws us, leaves us no rest; my heart
passes the judgment : I shall be punished for this." The medieval conception
is reproduced in E. 29. 156: "The natural law, written upon every man's
heart." Cf. supra, p. 171.
^ But see W. 6. 27 " wounded in (his) free will."
:
* But Erasmus' statement of the question: "Either freewill or physical

unfreedom " had an undue influence upon Luther.
the theory of man as free and determining his own destiny he

opposes the ahiiighty, all-working will of God. He, not man
himself, effects salvation. But this thought is enlarged to a met-
aphysical determinism: ** That God works all things in all
things."* Hence everything that happens, happens by absolute
necessity. This thought is, however, combined with the Scotist
idea of the absolute independence of God's will and appoint-
ments *' Because
: he wills, therefore what happens must be
right *' (p. 260). God is also working in the wicked, but it is
their fault that they do evil. It is as when a carpenter cuts badly
with a sharp hatchet (p. 255f. ). Everything is the work of God,
evera the fall of Cain, although Luther does not enter upon the
question of the genesis of evil in the world. From this follows,
as a logical consequence, the absolute double Jfredestmafwn and
the subjugation of the free will ** With this thunderbolt he
:
hurls down and crushes the free will to its foundations

*
{penitus, '
p. 132). What we so name is in reality only the particular

form of man's activity, which requires a peculiar divine energy
operating upon him. The will is not coerced, but acts accord-
ing to its own inclination and desire \ but it attains to the doing
of good only through the divine action upon it. Man is passive
in his relation to God; God alone has a free will (p. 158).
Man is, as Luther, adopting an old metaphor, says, like a sleed.
He wills what God or the devil wills, just in so far as he is
guided by God or the devil (157). But why God converts some
and leaves others to destruction we do not know. That is a
matter of his secret will, in regard to which we dare ask no
questions. It is for us to be guided by his revealed will. In
this way Luther attained the end which he had in view, /. ^., he
proved that free will was inconceivable, and that grace was the
sole agency in conversion. This was the essential thing for
Luther. The Scotist and Deterministic^ ideas were only means
for reaching this end. We can understand, therefore, why he
did not employ them more frequently, but, on the contrary, with
all his emphasizing of the moral bondage of the natural man,
appealed constantly to God's earnest will, revealed in the word,
to save all men (E. 54. 22 ; 55. 162 ; opp. lat. 2. 170). Christ
^ no: '* All created things are masks and disguises of God,
Cf.,c.,^.,E. II.
which he chooses permit to work with him and help him do all manner of
to
things;" or 35. 252, according to which praying and working "are merely a pure
sham-battle." But, on the other hand, we find the queries: ** Who can
coerce the will of a man ? " (E. 24. 310). " Who can control his heart ? "
(ib. 311).
^ This is the conception of predestination found in Bradwardina and Wick-
lifife. Luther appears to derive it directly from Augustine. See also LooFS,
DG. 376 n.
bore the sins of a// men ; if all believed, all

and not alone the
predestinated
would be saved (46. loyf. ). The method of the
De servo arbitrio presents therefore nothing more than theoreti-
cal lines of thought employed as auxiliary to the main purpose.
But, as is well known, Luther always maintained the correctness
of the conclusions here drawn; vid. Comm. in Gen. Cf.
LuTHARDT, Lehrev. freien Willen, p. 91 ff. Lutkens, L. Prae-
dest.-lehre, Dorpat, 1858. Kattenbusch, L.'s Lehre v. unfr.
Willen, Gott., 1875.
(i:) Luther's views concerning the Wrath of God must be con-
sidered in this connection. Upon the sinner is visited the wrath
of God, which ** condemns (him) in advance to death, that we
must be eternally separated from God " (14. 117). '' God can-
not deny his nature, /. <?., he is not able not to hate sin and sin-
ners, . otherwise he would be unjust and would love sin
"
. .
(Gal. I. 338). This relationship to God we have inherited from

Adam (46. 67). But, since God punishes sin, it is clear that sin
is our fault '' For since there is wrath here, there must also be
:
guilt, which meritssuch wrath " (E. 14. 1 17 ; 19. 213 ; 8. 177).
*^ The word sin embraces the eternal wrath of God and the whole
kingdom of Satan '* (Gal. i, 54). '* Death is the eternal pen-
alty of God's wrath '* (E. 20. 161). To feel one's %Q\iforsaken
of God is to experience the wrath of God (39. 44, 46). Even
children dying unbaptized are lost (W. 6. 26). The sinner,
when he is *' separated" from God regards *'him alone as a
stern judge " (17. 37). The unbeliever remains under wrath
(46. 29; 47. 25, 31). The Christian, on the other hand,
recognizes God as nothing but love. He is no longer to think of
him as a wrathful judge (47. 21 f., 342). *^ For God alone is the
Man who ceases not to do only good to the world " (E. 19. 364^,
377, 366). If the Christian has now learned to know that his
nature is iiothing but love ^ he knows then " that, so far as we are
concerned, even his works of wrath must be nothing but love,"
since they serve for the subjugation of our foes and to our *' test-
ing " (47. 21). '* There is, therefore, with God no wrath
nor
disfavor, and his heart and thoughts are nothing but pure love, as
may be seen in all his works before our very eyes (E. 19. 369, '
'
370). Thus, whoever is *' separated " from God experiences

his wrath" the Christian knows him as ** nothing but love."*
^ The believing Chrislian cannot and dare not by any means represent God
to himself as angered and placated {iratum et placatum') ^ as the sacrifice of
the mass requires (W. 8. 441). Cf. 47. 342:
*' For he who thinks of
God and
believes that he is a wrathful God, will also find him such ; for as one holds,
believes, and imagines concerning God, so is he also, and one finds him also
so, namely, a wrathful God."
,
He who considers the death of Christ recognizes **how im-

measurably great and terrible is the wrath of God against sin,
and again how unutterable, yea, how unsearchable, is the mercy
and grace of God toward us condemned men" (E. 3. 100).^
4. In his understanding of the relation between the Law and
the Gospel, Luther also continued within the lines originally
drawn by him (supra, p. 228). No one attains salvation,
except as the law performs its work upon him before the gospel.
Law and gospel are the word of God, but each in a peculiar
sense (E. 19. 235). Not to have recognized this difference, is
the greatest fault of the Romish theology. Luther never wearied
of urging this distinction in ever-new applications. '*This
difference between the law and the gospel is the highest art in
Christianity, which each and everyone who boasts or accepts the
name of Christian should know and understand " (E. 19. 235).
{a) The Law is a divine requirement, rule, and mirror. It
tells what man ought to do and has not done. '
' It reveals what
man is, what he has been, and what he shall again become "
(E. 14. 151). What it says to the heart is confirmed by
the conscience (14. 153). But what is here to be understood
by the **Law?'* The Mosaic law, in so far as it ''made
particular laws and ordinances," /. e., was a positive system of
laws, is only a ''Jewish-Saxony code." But in so far as it
coincides with inborn natural right, it is a permanent requirement
valid for all times, which has received a peculiarly excellent ex-
pression in the Mosaic law. " Where now the law of Moses and
the law of nature are one thing, there the law remains and is not
outwardly abolished, only spiritually through faith. There-
. . .
fore image-making and Sabbath and everything which Moses
* Luther shared the vivid faith in devils and demons which characterized
the close of the Middle Ages. But it must not be overlooked that he repre-
sented the central processes of the religious life without making any essential
use of these views. Large sections of his sermons may be searched in vain
for any reference to the devil. His conceptions here also were more spiritual
than those of the Middle Ages. He added, so to speak, a hellish majesty
to the devil, and the comic aspects of the popular belief disappear entirely.
Touching the work of the devil, he says : "When impurity abounds, the
devil fills the arteries and bones as full of such evil lust as man permits"
(E. 17. 3). A

** Christian must know this, that he is sitting in the midst of
devils, and that the devil is nearer to him than his coat or shirt, yea, nearer
than his own skin, that he is round about us, and that we are always at dag-
ger's points with him" (17. 178, i8off. See also 11. 269 ff.). The devils
are very shrewd (17. 1S2, 195). They exist in great numbers (17. 190 =
*' How many devils do you suppose were there . . at the Diet of Augsburg?
.

Every bishop had brought with him so many devils as many as a dog has
fleas on it about vSt. John's Day" (ib. 210). Upon the fall of the devil, see
46. 3 f. upon angels and the protection rendered by them, 17. 177 ff., 1S2 f
;
189,202, 216, 219; 10. 151.

;
appointed more than and beyond the natural law, since it has no
natural law, is free, void, and done away with " (E. 29. 156 f.
46. 84, 87; 47. 25). God's law, or love, is natural law (E.
20. 125 ; 22. 104, 202). These written laws are to be included
under the category of the reason, since they have flowed from it
as from a fountain of law (E. 20. 106).^ As Luther shared
the medieval conception of an inherited natural law (supra,
p. 1 7 1 f. ) , he therefore recognized the Law only in so far as
'
'
' *
it agreed with the latter. In connection with it, he thought of

other means of convincing us of our sins. From this point of
view, the sufferings of Christ became also a preaching of the
law (E. 13. 116 f. ; II. 147). The entire law, however, in-
cluding the decalogue, together with the laws of the church (Gal.
I. 181. W. 2. 527), does not give life, but slays (W. 2. 468;
^* 353)- ^^ ^^s ^^^ ^^^ power to move or renew man inwardly,
but remains an inflexible, tormenting requirement (46. 75).
Thus it calls forth the hatred of the sinner against itself (W. 2.
498, 532). The works which he performs without being
inwardly conquered by the good, merely upon the requirement
of the law, are done from fear of punishment (W. 2. 532), and
are in the last analysis therefore hypocritical (2. 513 6. 354). ;
A ** servile spirit'* arises in man's heart (E.

7. 247). The
law makes him really worse (W. 2. 525, 527), however far out-
ward integrity may be secured by it (E. 7. 283, 284). The
righteousness of works which it produces is no righteousness
at all :
'* That righteousness of works is most truly nothing else
than to love sin, to hate righteousness, to detest God with his

law, and to adore the greatest wickedness" (Gal. 2. 103).
Since the law thus presses upon man and he cannot inwardly and
actually meet its demands, there seizes him, on the one hand, a
terror at the thought of God and desire to escape from him
(E. 9. 179); he becomes an enemy of God, without being able
to escape from him (E. 18. 73). But, on the other hand,
a great longing fills his heart to be free from this pressure. This
impels him toward Christ and the gospel (W. 2. 528, 532. E.
^ This passage is very instructive in showing Luther's conception of the Old

Testament law. It is indeed a divine revelation ; but it is universally valid
only in so far as in harmony with the moral ideas inborn in man. Wemay
here detect a remnant of the natural theology of the Middle Ages. The con-
clusions which might be drawn from this position
denial of the total depravity

of the natural man, the superfluity of the preaching of the law Luther did not
realize. From this point of view we may understand also his interpretation of
the Third Commandment and his naturalistic and rationalizing way of regard-
ing the observance of Sunday. See esp. the Larger Catechism, Symbol. Biicher
(Miiller), p. 401 f. In his works as early as 1518 :W. I. 436 f. Cf. G.
HiLLNER, L. Stellung in d. Sonntagsfrage in Mitteil. u. Nachr. f. die ev. K.
in Russl., 1888, Sept.-Oct.
;
7. 289). It awakens displeasure with himself, the resolution to

amend the life (6. 390, 339), and a thirst for the grace of God
(E. 7. 251).
(^) Preachers should begin with this preaching of the law, and
never cease (E. 10. 123 f, ); for the world surely needs it (10.
283 ; 48. 210). The knowledge of sin must first be preached;
the consciences of men must be terrified by the divine wrath
the sinner must feel that he, with his sinful lust, belongs to
the devil and is lost (E. 14. 15). Only then, after he recog-
nizes his sin, can Christ and grace begin their work (E. 11. 328 ;
13. 295; 51. 270), Only after the preaching of the law has
had its effect, follows the consolation of the gospel, according
to Lk. 24. 47 (E. 29. 139 f.; II. 327 f.; 27. 124. Gal. t.
186 L; 2. 115). Then should be preached, alongwith repent-
ance, the forgiveness of sins (3. 354). *' That is all a preach-
ing of the law, however or whenever it is done, which preaches

of our sins and God's wrath. Again, the gospel is such a preach-
ing, which shows and gives nothing else than grace and forgive-
ness in Christ. . Yea, where is there a more earnest and
. .
terrible announcement and preaching of God's wrath against sin

than the sufferings and death of Christ ? . But so long as all
. .
this preaches God's wrath and terrifies man, it is not yet the real
preaching of the gospel nor of Christ, but a preaching of Moses and
*' The law is that
the law against the impenitent "(E. 13. 116).
which displays what we must do ; the gospel, where we are to
get the power to do it. The law reveals the sickness ;
. .
the gospel gives the medicine" (14. 14; cf. 19. 239 f.; 48.
200). '^ The law has its goal, e., how far it is to goand what
/'.
it is to accomplish, namely, to terrify the impenitent with God's

disfavor and wrath and (to lead up) to Christ " (19. 236). He
who rests under the law, is without grace and without the Holy
Spirit (12. 112). If he is not to fall into despair, the gospel
must soon come to his aid (E. 12. 372). With the gospel
comes the Spirit; Moses must now withdraw, and the law
is robbed of its power (12. 251 ; 9. 251 ; 19. 246). The
gospel proclaims the goodness of God and the forgiveness of sins
(7- 156, 327 ; 10. 89). With it, the Spirit enters and quickens
the man inwardly, bringing with him Christ, who reigns in us.
By this means faith, desire and love for the good, and a new
pious are produced in man (9. 240, 278; 13. 234, 265
life ;
51. 302). The gospel effects the new birth (12. 323). The
law inwardly transforms no one it is only the Holy Ghost who
;
does this (52. 296}.^ But the new man needs no law. ''Just as
^ The Holy Spirit does not therefore come through the preaching of the law,
three and seven

not ought to be, but are ten, nor is any law or
rule to be sought for making them ten ... so a righteous

man not ought to, but does live well, nor does he need a law
which may teach him to live weir* (W. 2.596. E. 22. 66 f.).
The Christian has nothing to do with the law (E. 13. 35, 37,
39). *^ It is therefore
the highest art and wisdom of Christians
not to know
the law" (Gal. i. 16). Christ has abolished it
(W. 6. 354).Neither the Mosaic law nor the law of nature can
longer require anything, since there is no longer need of any
requirement.
((t) The law is designed, therefore, to awaken the repentance
which is involved in conversion. To this end it is to be

preached. But it is to be preached also for the maintenance of
order among the rude and coarse populace, and to be taught to
children (E. 13. 51 ; 19. 246). The influence of the civil law
lies in the same direction. The same fundamental principle
finds expression in all codes of laws. Finally, even converted
Christians, being yet flesh, have need of admonition and the
presentation to them of the divine will (13. 118). ''Thus must
Moses without Christ do his work, that it may drive those who
are not Christians, or, in other words, the old man. For he does
not thereby make Christians pious ; but this indeed he does, he
shows them what their calling is, which they according to the
Spirit willingly observe
not that the flesh either will or can so
readily follow that they do not on its account still need to be put
on guard and admonished " (13. 41).
their
{d) We
cannot fail to observe the difference between this
view of the subject and that presented above (under 2 a). In
the large Commentary upon Galatians (A. D. 1535), Luther
writes: *'But man, being humiliated through the law and
brought to the knowledge of himself, then he is made truly peni-
tent^ for true penitence begins from fear and the judgment of
God" (Gal. I. 193). But in his publication, Von den
Schhisseln (A. D. 1530), we meet again the other position:
but comes afterward, since it is only through the gospel that he acts:
" Now
the Holy Ghost is not the law, nor the reverse. Where the law is, there the
Holy Ghost is not. .The law is not intended to and cannot make pious,
but the Holy Ghost makes pious before God" (E. 52. 297; 47.359). Parallel
with this way of apprehending the process, we find another, which traces
penitence directly to ih^ preaching of Christy which awakens terror before the
wrath of God and the purpose of amendment. ''But such penitence man
cannot himself awaken ; it is the liwrk of the Holy Ghost which he begins in
us through the word of God, which first reveals sin and at the same time an-
nounces the penalty of sins, eternal death." Here penitence is represented as
awakened by the Holy Spirit, whereas faith does not appear to come until
afterward (E. 6. 339 f., 389 f., 356). See also 63. 127:
" The wrath of God
is revealed through the gospel " (A. D. 1522).
'* In order that repentance also may be begun from desire and
love" (E. 31. 183). And in a sermon of A. D. 1537, he de-
clares '*
Hypocrisy indeed comes from the law, but true
:
repentance follows only from the name of Jesus Christ " (18. 6).
One thing is here clear. In the first passage, '* repentance "
designates the transitory penitence of the yet unconverted,
wrought by the law.^ In the other two passages, it is the evan-
gelical repentance, springing from faith and love, and filling the
whole life. Apart, however, from this difference in the use of
the term, two things are historically certain, (i) Luther, from
the beginning to the end of his activity, urged the preaching of
the law, since it is its office to humiliate, awaken an initial peni-
tence, and point to Christ. (2) He also, from the beginning to
the end of his activity as a reformer, urged a repentance which,
springing from faith and love through the agency of the gospel
and of the Holy Ghost, indicates a conflict with evil filling the
whole Christian life.^ And we note also (3) as an episode in the
controversy concerning confession, the view that the religious
process in the Christian's heart begins with faith and love, and
that only as a result of these does repentance ensue. If I am
correct, the last-named view is to be attributed to the effort to
retain in the life of the believer only a complete penitence and
to avoid everything analogous to the traditional attrition (supra,
p. 237). But as early as A. D, 1524, upon the occasion of
a controversy upon the question, whether the law must of neces-
sity precede the gospel, he maintained, with appeal to Lk. 24. 47,
that law and gospel are to be preached, since the latter comforts
only those who have through the former learned to know their
sin. The law is also to be used for the outward disciplining of
the rude and ungodly (E. 53. 250).^ Cf. Kawerau in Beitr.
z. Ref.-gesch., dedicated to Kostlin, p. 61 ff. Melanchthon's ut-
terances in the ** Unterricht an d. Visitatoren," 1528, follow the
same line. Through the preaching of the law, the people are to be
stirred up to penitence and fear, *^ For along with this it is
1 This is still Using

the dominant use of the term in the praxis of the church.
it in this sense, how could we
understand Luther's 6rst Thesis? Cf. E. 6.
151 *' Ceasing from
: evil, regret, and sorrow for it
he calls repenting
(Biisse thun)\ believing on Christ he calls being converted to God (zu Gott
sich bekehren)," and 27. 194: "Penitence {die Reu) flows from the com-
mandments, faith through the promise of God."
^ The law here comes under consideration only as a directive and confirm-
ing agency.
^ Under these circumstances Luther could write '* And, in fine, it is more
:
necessary to preach and urge the law of God than the gospel, because there
are many wicked who must be restrained through the compulsion of the
law, but the pious who understand the gospel are few and known to God"
(53- 249)-
useful to preach of faith. The law is to be proclaimed also in

'
'
order to incite the justified to good works (C. R. xxvi. 51 ff.).

It cannot be said that this is a change from Luther's position.
Yet so early as A. D. 1527 Melanchthon was violently assailed
for holding this opinion by Joh. Agricola, who deduced peni-
tence from love of righteousness. Luther succeeded in allaying
this conflict (cf. Kawerau in Stud, u Krit., 1880, p. 24 ff.),
but ten years later Agricola renewed his assault, maintaining
that repentance should be taught as produced, not by the law, but
by the gospel. There is no need whatever, he held, for the
preaching of the law. *'The decalogue belongs to the hall of
justice, not the pulpit." Man is overpowered by the kindness
of God, and thereupon renounces his former life and shrinks
from incurring the displeasure of his heavenly Father (Luth.
opp. var. arg. iv. 420 ff, Forstemann, Neues Urkunden-
buch, i. 304. Kawerau in Beitr. z. Ref.-Gesch., etc., p.
65 ff. ). Luther opposes him in the six disputations against the
Antinomians, arguing anew in defense of the position which he
later, as is well known, maintained. The right to appeal to the
earlier Luther can be only to a limited extent granted to Agricola,
for Luther had always attributed an influence of some kind to the
law, and, in view of the practical demands of the years 1527-28,
it was an extreme of folly to speak as did Agricola.
(e) Law and gospel represent for Luther two opposing con-
ceptions of the universe. The natural man's view of God and
the world is always legalistic (e. g., 46. 87 ; 48. 148). The
gospel opposes this; the mercy of Christ lays hold upon man's
heart and transforms him. He allows Christ to lay hold of him,
and he lays hold of Christ. This is the source of all good in
him. But only he will allow himself to be transformed by
Christ who has
according to the appointment of God and

under his guidance (the law) seriously struggled with the
legalistic view of the world and has, in his own sin, experienced
its insufficiency.^
But the problem is not thus solved. It is not evident how the law (which
^
is from God, but does not exert the specific divine energy of the Holy Ghost,
p, 248 u. ) produces contrition. How can the good control us, before we
have been inwardly laid hold of by it and have recognized it as good ? Luther
silently assumes such a recognition, presupposes it upon the basis of the 'Maw
of nature," or even of a certain general faith in Christianity, but yet discrim-
inates between the application of the law to the pistificandi and to the
"wild'* and **rude." But is there not thus presupposed a certain initial
faith before the working of the law ? However distinctly this may differ from
the specific saving faith Agricola in his first controversy spoke of a faith in
the threatenings of the law {fides minarum)^ see Kawerau, Stud, u Krit.,
1880, 43
which, as Luther shows, cannot arise before there is a full con-
sciousness of guilt, yet it just as distinctly differs from it as being its beginning.
* * How possible to preach about the forgiveness of sins,

is it
where not first present?" (32. 73, 70).

sin is In history, the
revelation of law preceded the revelation of grace ' This occurs :
*
to-day individually and spiritually in every Christian in whom is

found a season of law and a season of grace following in turn "
(Gal. 2. 109).
Cf. Th. Harnack, L. Theol. i. 479 ff. Herrmann, Die Busse des ev.
Christen, Ztschr. f. Theol. u. K., 1891, p. 28 ff. LiPSius, L. Lehre v. d.
Busse, 1892. Galley, Die Busslehre Luther's (Beitrage zur Forderung
christl. Theol. iv. 2, 1900).
5. The definition of the gospel leads us to consider Luther's

conception of faith, (a) Christian faith has, in his view, for
its object simply the peculiar, positive revelations of God in the
words and works of Christ. Christ says :

*' Come to me, I will
refresh {tranken) you, through me you shall find
i. ,?. , in me and
the word and doctrine, which will comfort and strengthen your
heart" (E. 48. 199; 13. 55, 172; 14. i). Only in the man
Jesus is God actually to be found here he wishes therefore to be ;
sought, found, and called upon (E. 10. 181 7. 68 41. 385 ; ; ;
47- 179. 296, 344, 348 ff.; 48. 334; 49. 92, 183 f.; 49. 83 f;
50. 197). Christisthe ** true epistle," *' the golden book " in
which the gracious will of God is revealed (W. 8. 274 f 276. ,
E. 10. 187; 12. 381). God is ^' hidden in the despised man,
Christ" (W. 8. 381). Just in the Crucified do we discoverthe
'
Such a * * part of faith '
(
Stuck des Glaubens ) Luther himself recognizes in the
disciples before the resurrection (12. 171). But in positing this legal peni-
tence before true repentance, Luther really establishes -^ pendant to attrition.
It was the same considerations which led him to the acknowledgment of such a
legal penitence,and the Scholastics to their theory of attrition (p. 135 f. ). It
is also with him, in the last analysis, a doing by man of " what is in him
"
(W. 4. 261 ), although there remains the immense difference, that he did not
allow to this initial penitence in any sense a meritorious character It may, !
perhaps, be said, that Luther, both in his pre-reformatory period and again in
his later years, regarded his experiences beneath the pressure of "the law"
in the cloister as normal, and only during that episode felt them to be simply
the result of erroneous views. But even thus, there still remains the vast
difference between his position and that of his opponents, that the law and the
actual gospel are to be proclaimed together and also his contention, that
;
"repentance " is not a sacramental act, but the very substance of the moral
development of the Christian. I remark, finally, that both the lines of thought
thus traceable in Luther are borrowed from the representations of the law in
the New Testament. It is abolished and powerless, as the rule of conduct
which is to make righteous (Paul Rom. 6. 14 10. 4); and it remains, as the
: ;
expression of the divine will (Jesus: Matt. 5. 17). But with the latter
thought as a point of departure, and in view of the positive confirmation of the
law in the discourses of Jesus, might not Luther have secured some more im-
portant place in his theory for the authority of the Old Testament law ?
;
REPENTANCEj FAITH, SIN, GRACE, ATONEMENT. 253
loving-will of God. From the kind heart of Jesus^ we mount

up to the heart of God (W, 2. 140 f., 84 ; i. 362, 614. E. 9.
17 f., 247 ; 12. 297, 381). Christ should, therefore, not be
preached as '' a history and narrative from chronicles," but in
such a way as to tell us ''why Christ came, how we are to use
and enjoy him, what he has brought and given tome" (27.
187). This is the right way to find God, and not the opposite
course of beginning to speculate from the basis of the divine
majesty and government of the world (E. 19. 50 f ; 20. 132, .
138). In Christ we may gain a conception of God as he is, so

*' that we
do not place instead of him in our hearts a horrible
bugaboo or scarecrow, but long for him rightly, as he wishes to
be and has represented himself " (E. 16.206). If we do not hold
to the revelation given us, we will picture him to ourselves ** as
the painters paint the devil, with long horns and horrible fiery
eyes" (ib. 203. 208). In Christ we have the good gathered
up as into one word (W. i. 341), and in him we have the very
nature of God. That nature is 'merciful will, kind will " (E. 7.
*
68, 72, 74, 76; 12. 230, 246, 260, 311, 325, 373; II. 96;
14. 193); ''nothing but love" (14. 49) "divine nature is
;
nothing else than pure benevolence" {eitel Wohlthdtigkeit, 7.

159);^ "an eternal power and divine energy" (3. 302; 10.
188). Christ is free, since he is the deliverer (21. 99).
In these ideas are manifest two steps in advance, /. ^., the
Christian religion, and hence also theology, is understood as a
positive entity (in contrast with all innate religion of reason or
nature); and the nature of God, which is to be apprehended by
faith, is defined as an eternal and almighty loving -will. By either
of these conceptions the religious character of Christianity is
assured.^
^ Cf. his combating of the popular belief, which looked upon Christ as a
*' tyrant " and "judge" (^.^., E. 13. 49 15.485; 16.144; 19. 222
; ; 20.
151 ; 47- 23.)
In all these explanations, the divinity of Christ is assumed by Luther as a
'^
fixed premise (vid. sub), but his ideas carry hira also beyond the ancient
Greek doctrines of the Logos. In opposition to the view that the " Word of
God is a light which shines naturally and has always shone in the reason
. .
of men, even of the heathen," he says '*These are all still human, Platonic,
:
and philosophical ideas, which lead us out of Christ into ourselves. The
Evangelist, on the other hand, desires to lead us out of ourselves into Christ
for he does not desire to deal with nor speak of the divine, almighty, eternal
Word of God except as in the flesh and blood which walked upon the earth.
He does not wish to scatter us out among the creatures which were created by
him, that we may there run after him, seek hira, and speculate about him as
do the Platonists but he wishes to recall us from those high-flying and widely-
;
wandering thoughts of Christ " (E. 10. 181).

^ In both, however, Luther follows impulses which passed from Duns into
the life of the later Middle Ages (cf. supra, p. 164, 150 n. ).
{b) When God

thus through the gospel, which is always ac-
companied by an influence of the Spirit, reveals to men his love in
Christ, faith arises (W. 2. 140. E. 7. 164, 76, 109 ; 28. 417).
The love of God overpowers our hearts. ** Thus God has noth-
ing but the best, and this he shares with us, nourishes us, sup-
ports us, waits upon us through his Son. Thus our heart is con-
verted to follow Christ" (W. I. 275). '* But when thou
hearest that he suffered for thee, and believest, there arises
already confidence toward him and tender love " (ib. 399; 6.
216. E. 47. 341, 346). The first thing that is to be said of this
faith is therefore, that is a taking Sind a receiving. *' But that such
bestowed righteousness should be in us this comes to pass

. . .
alone through faith, for it must always be received and accepted

by us. Now it cannot be grasped by us otherwise than with the
heart" (E. 12. 118). Faith lays hold upon the benefits of
God (W. 8. 35 ; E. 12. 118), the works of Christ (E. 14. 286;
10. 10 1 '* Therefore, in order that thy faith may remain pure,
:
do nothing but hold still ; let it receive good, accept the work
of Christ, and let Christ exert his love upon it " ), atonement and
salvation, with all gifts from above (7. 178, 227, 272, 304). It
is God, therefore, who begets faith in man when the latter ac-
cepts the divine revelation. With this, as Luther said at an
earlier period, God infuses faith into men. But this does not
mean that a quality is thereby imparted to them, as the Scholas-
tics taught, but that the heart is penetrated by the word of God,
and the dominion of Christ is inwardly experienced: *'The
heart is imbued with the same truth of the word and through the
word is convinced of the truth " (W. 6. 94).^ Christ is in the
soul by faith as king the will as servant (W. i. 283).
; Faith is
therefore a having (W. i. 595. E. 12. 169; 27. 180). God,
accordingly, through the revelation in Christ, leads us to accept
that revelation. If now the content of the revelation be the un-
changing purpose of God to save us, the acceptance of it must
'^
take the psychological forms of obedience, confidence, or trust.
Luther most vigorously rejects ^^ fides acquisita of the Scholastics (supra,

^
p. 195 f. ), for this is supposed to be secured by man's own efforts,

150,
whereas it is in fact only through a divine influence that we can attain faith. He
therefore advocates \y\Q fides infusa
this it is which justifies (W. 2. 566, 146 ;
6. 85, 89, 95 8. 323).

; No one can apprehend an article of faith ** without
grace and the giving of God" (E. 18. iii). This leads us back to Occam
(supra, p. 150). Ifthe medieval conception of grace be abandoned, no import-
ance then attaches to the figure of an "infusing." Despite of it, in fact, it
maybe said that it \s\.\it fides acquisita, which constitutes a prelude to Luther's
psychological conception of faith, rather than the idea of an '* infused faith."
^ This remark finds confirmation in the fact that Luther at an earlier period
discriminated between ^^<?^ Q.\idfiducia, by the former designating the accept-

*'
be genuine, it is a certain sure confidence of the heart
If faith
and firm by which Christ is apprehended " (Gal. i. 191)-
assent,
Faith is '* confidence in God's mercy (W. 6. 209. E. 7. 66 ; '
'
II. 50, 116 ; 14. 41 ; 18. 46), the assurance that God, and he
alone, will make it well with us (E. 22. 15, 16, 135). Faith is
therefore not a theoretical belief of certain things (E. 7. 242),^
but it is the practical confidence, that we are ourselves through
the work of Christ in favor with God (12. 97, 149, 164, 174,
333 j 13- 203; 27. 187), and that we and our works will be
pleasing in his sight (W. 6. 206, 209 J. In the light of this, we
can understand the declaration '* Faith is never concerned with
:
things past, but always with future things *' (W. 8. 323).
But this confidence in the grace of God is based upon the con-
templation of a historical revelation and it is in particular histori-
:
cal facts that the latter has been given. Hence, this confidence
with regard to the future embraces also the conviction of the real-
ity and potency of definite facts of the past. *' It is not enough
to believe that Christ has come, but also that he has come as St. Paul
here relates, namely, that he was sent from God and is God's
Son likewise, that he is true man ; likewise, that his mother is
;
a virgin likewise, that he alone fulfilled the law ; likewise, that

;
he did this not for himself, but for our good and grace " (E. 7.
261; 23. 18).^ Rome, on the contrary, knows only the outward
fides historical (47. i 2 ff ) *' To believe the resurrection of Christ
.
is nothing else than to believe that we have a reconciler before
God" (12. 171 20. 141). The same inner relationship of ideas
;
prevails also in the exposition of the Apostles' Creed in the cate-

chism. The connection of thought is therefore as follows The :
revelation of God in Christ influences us to its own acceptance,

which occurs when we place our trust in the love of God as rec-
ognized by us and are convinced of the reality of the historical
events in which God was revealed to us.*
atice as true, and by the latter the personal application to one's self (\V. i.
593 ; 2. 458).
^ It is no contradiction of this statement, that Luther upon occasion says :
" Faith means properly the holding to be true . . . what the gospel says
about Christ and all the articles of faith" (E. 12. 204 f. ) for the context
;
shows that even here we

are to think of a practical religious insight.
2 To make a universal application of this idea lay far from the thought of
Luther and from the needs of the age. The birth of Christ from a virgin he
supported from the necessity that the Saviour should be sinless, which would
not be tenable ifhe had been sexually generated {e.g., E. 7. 263 10. 131, 306 ; ;
II. 246; 14. 161 15. 52 ; 20. 155 ; 29. 49, 52).
; Even though this argu-
ment be not convincing, it is instructive to observe the attempt of Luther to
find a religious basis for the doctrine.
* Cf. his strictures upon "milk-faith" (E. 46. 219).
*
Faith originates in the reason, but extends also to the will *' For wher- :
J
(^) This saving faith, or the trust awakened in us through the

revelation of Christ, is, further, the beginning of an absolutely-
new state of life. no natural human work, but some-
Faith is
thing new which God in man, the directing of the

effects
life toward God. With faith comes the new birth of the man.
*' Now the divine birth is nothing else than faith " (E. 10. 206;
II. 311). Faith ** renews man " (13. 236). It is ** a living,

real thing, makes man entirely new, transforms his disposition,
and converts him wholly. It goes down to the foundations and
there occurs a renewing of the whole man " (ib. 267). It is in
harmony with this, that the principle of the new birth, or the
Holy Ghost, becomes with faith, according to Luther, effectual
in man to his regeneration and renewal (8. 223, 308, 307 ;
7. 240; 12. 112; II. 314; 14. 149).. The usual representa-
tion is that the Holy Ghost through the gospel effects regener-
ation and renewal, whose first and essential element is faith (W.
T.632. E. 4. 184; 8. 223; 7. 171; 10. 206; 12. 324, 404
24. 325 46. 269 f., 275 ; 61. 125 ; 63. 124). But, inasmuch
;
as the renewal effected by the Spirit does not develop into

activity until after the entrance of faith, it may also be said that
the effectual workings of the Spirit follow faith (W. 6. 206, 356;.
At all events, the first activity which the gospel begets in man is
faith. And he who believes has begun an entirely new life.
'' Your faith is not a dream and fancy, but it is life and deed
"
(W. 8. 385. E. 24. 325). It is a life with Christ and from
and reigns in us (W. i. 455, 458 8. 608).
Christ, for he lives ;
*'Out of a dry block" God makes "a new flourishing tree"

(E. 7. 170). Thus the believer, since his life takes the new
direction toward God, is a new man, who now endeavors to love
God and be obedient to him (W. 8. 357, 363. E. 12. 90; 10.
289 f., 184 ; 12. 324).
(d) Having seen that faith is a work of God, and that its
essential nature is trust, as the beginning of a new state of life,
there yet remain to be noted, according to Luther, some accom-
panying phenomena. First of all, we may observe that faith is
intimately associated with a Feeling and Experience of divine
grace. Luther says indeed: "Feeling is against faith, faith
against feeling;" but his meaning here is only that faith
ever reason goes, there the will follows after ; wherever the will goes, there
follow love and desire" (E. 10. 207; n. 200; 22. 135; cf. W. i. 66;
* The will is in the soul as a king in
vid. the polemics against Eck' s assertion :
his kingdom") (W. I. 283). According to this, Luther does not accept the
Scotist idea of the primacy of the will. With regard to the relationship of the
reason and the will in faith he thus agrees to a certain extent with Thomas
(supra, p. 103), Duns (p. 150), Biel (p. 195); but he places a higher esti-
mate upon the share of the will in faith than any of the medieval theologians.
reaches out beyond '' what we can apprehend by reason and the
senses." It has, according to Heb. ii. i, nothing whatever to
do with *' the things which are seen " (E. ii. 198; 12. 165,
89, 341; 14. 55, 62, 231; 46. 276. W. I. 541). ''But
when feeling and thinking fail, then comes another light, another
feeling" (E. 11. 200). The believer feels directly that he has
a gracious God (W. 8. 106). He has and feels Christ and thu
workings of grace in his heart (E. 9. 278 f.; 7. 170; 48. 333).
He feels that Christ has power, and '*is man enough for the
devil " (E. 20, 148). He feels the Holy Ghost, as well as sin,
within him (8. 311 \ 49. 179). The immediate inner observa-
tion of these things effects an experience, not uncertain opinions
** For a Christian life consists
(^persuasiones, 50. 28 f. ).
entirely in the exercise and experience of those things which we
daily hear and read from the word of God" (9. 95). The
Christian experiences the care of God (W. 6. 125). The
*' experience of faith " ''feels" the presence of Christ (E. 29.
334 f. ), In order that the faith that is in us may be steadfast,

experience must enter. " Although I should preach of God for
a hundred years, that he is so kind, sweet, and merciful, and
helps men
and have yet not tasted this by experience, it yet all
amounts to nothing, and no one thereby learns to trust God
aright" (E. 13. 155). Creation and redemption are not realities
"
for us, " if we do not also experience and feel them to be so
(E. 23, 249). Without such personal experience, Christ is not
our Saviour (E. 18. 7 f., 45 f, 47). Only where this feeling
and this experience are present, do we become " sure of (our)
faith" (E. 14. 220. W. 2. 458), "sure of salvation"' (E.
7. 275), and only there is the truth of the gospel and of the doc-
trine confirmed (E. 12. 362, 3865 13. 118; 23. 250, 267).
The immediate (direct) feeling and the abiding experience of the
living object of faith are therefore the final evidence of its reality
(E, 13. 183 ff. ). Only thus is an inner certainty possible,
according to Luther; not through trust in one's own works,
which are always uncertain (E. 58. 375 f. ). This experience is
not of itself identical with the act of faith. The feeling may at
times be wanting, so that faith must depend solely upon the
word (E. 12. 309 18. 47 ; 14. 45
; "before we experience or
:
*
feel it. W. 2 117); but, as a rule, it accompanies every act of
' .
faith, as indeed the entire Christian life. " And there comes to
him unsought and undesired the feeling and experience, precisely,
in and through such thinking {voniiuiheTi) or believing (W, 8.
^ Luther, on the other hand, most vigorously denounced the false ** secur-
ity" of the impenitent, t. g.^ W. 2. 'j-^'^. E. 18. 8
; 9. 185, 187.
17
357, 379)/ And if thou dost not experience it, then hast thou
not faith, but the word hangs upon thine ears and floats upon
thy tongue like foam upon the water " (E. 13. 184 28. 298).;
The believer experiences a light and joyful heart (W. 2. 714).

With faith is intimately associated the feeling of present blessed-
** Thou must have heaven and
ness. be already saved before
thou doest good works." The Christian life is a waiting for the
blessedness which we already have (E. 7. 165 ff.; 11. 3, 196 ;
12. 329, 331; 14. 120; 16. 116, 138; 47. 367; 48. 24 f;
46. 26). The Christian therefore leads a life of peace, joy, and
liberty (E. 11. 321; 7. 272). He has a ** courageous, bold,
and unterrified heart " (W. 6. 275; i. 273. E. 6;^. 125). In
all affairs of his outward life also he consoles himself with the
thought of the providence of God (W. 8. 215 f E. 9. 138 ;
10. 241, 244 12. 332
; 13. 175, 252
; 47. 183J).'
;
Faith im-
pels to prayer; yea, it is itself prayer (14. 47). It makes us
thankful (9. 49) and capable of decision in spiritual things (12.
90), etc.
6. But the most important phenomena resulting from faith are
Good Works. Christ dwells in the believer and moves him
to imitate the works which he himself has done (W. i. 364,
649). '^ But he lives in us, not speculatively, but really, most
intimately, and efficaciously (Gal. 2. 134). Further, if faith is
the new attitude of man toward God, it in consequence works
in him as a *' leaven ^' (W. 8. 106); it is the beginning of the
pious life from which proceed all good works. The works which
the believer performs are hence, in so far as they proceed
directly from faith, and good^ (E. 12. 160; 7. 229;
sinless
10. 4). Faith (the Spirit) gives power to fulfill the law
(12. 113; 9. 259), and that willingly and with delight (7.
290, 296; 10. 88). The good is written upon the heart as a
law of the Spirit, as a ** living will and an experimental life "
(W. 2. 499). The energy of faith finds expression in good
works.* **For, as faith brings to thee blessedness and eternal
^ There are elements here

-and they are intimately connected with Luther's

conception of faith which present him in the light of a pioneer of the views
which have been prevalent among us since the days of Schleiermacher. The
method of detecting the agent in the effect is very common in Luther, e. g.:
Where faith is, there also grace and the Holy Ghost (E. 7. 164; 1 2. 99,
267 f.); where works, there faith (13. 228).
2 Luther can even say, that faith makes man a god, since all things are
now possible to him (E. lo. 311 II. 52).
;
^ With this, indeed, we meet concurrently the thought, that imputed right-
eousness also makes the works good.
* So far as faith is exercised by ourselves, it may also be considered as
a **work'' yea, it is the *' chief work " (W. 6. 204, 206, 210).
life, it also bring with it good works and is unrestrained.

SO does
For a living man cannot refrain, but must exert himself,
just as
eat and drink and find something to do, and as it is not possible
that such works should fail to appear as long as he lives, and as
he does not need to be commended and driven to do such works,
but, if he is only alive, does them
so nothing more is needed
in order that we may do good works than that it be said * Only :
believe,* and thou wilt do everything of thyself" (E. 12. 16 f.,

399; 47. 20). The Holy Spirit brings it to pass ''that the
commandment of God now begins also to live in the heart
of man, for he now comes to have desire and love for it, and
begins to fulfill it, and thus eternal life begins on earth" (9.
248). It is a pleasure for the believer to serve God ; for this
reason he does good, not for the sake of laying up ** merits " for
himself (W. 6. 207). The heaven within us, which faith has
"
brought us, does these works *' without any seeking after merit
(E. 7. 165). Gratitude prompts us to fulfill the will of God
and to practice upon our brethren in turn the love which we ex-
perience (E. 27. 189 ff. ). In such connections, Luther not
infrequently maintains that works attest the presence of faith (E.
13. (id, 228, 237 f., 266. Gal. 2. 165). This does not, of course,
mean that the works make the man pious. The contrary is
true
the man must first be good, then will good works follow,
as only the good tree is able to bring good fruits (W. 2. 71,
492. E. 7. 249; 27. 191 ff. ). The doctrine of Christ is not
''about doing and not doing, but about becoming; so that it
may be said not new work done, but first become new not
: ;
lived otherwise, but born otherwise" (E. 12. 399). Only

those works therefore are good which are done by him who has
through faith become a good man. But whether these works
come from faith or from the Holy Spirit, it is clear that
they have nothing to do with the law. They are done in the
"liberty of faith" (^. g., W. 2. 425, 479, 485, 560, 497 8. ;
372, 594 f. E. 7. 268, 270; 29. 140 f.). But since these
works are effected in the heart of man by the Spirit, they
naturally are in harmony with the works of actual morality as
enjoined by the law (W. 6. 204, 225).^ Thus the Christian
performs, indeed, the works of the law, but with free delight in
them, and not because they have been commanded. To sum-
marize The Holy Spirit works faith as the beginning of regen-
:
eration. By this means man becomes actually good. Faith
^ Cf. Miiller, Symbol. Books,

444 That outside of the Ten Commandments
:
no work nor thing can be good and pleasing to God, let it be as great and
precious as it may in the eyes of the world.

2 6o HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
becomes the beginning of a new and pious life. Cf. Thieme,

Die sittl. Triebkraft des Glaubens, 1895/
7. Only now are we in position to examine Luther's doctrine of
Justification. Here, too, the ground originally taken by him was
maintained (p. 231 f.). But we must bear constantly in mind that
the theological tradition of the age discriminated in the process of
justification between the infusion of grace and the forgiveness of
sins, the former being a real and the latter an ideal change in the
sinner (p. 120 f. 160 f. 201 f. ).
, Luther, in harmony with
,
this conception, regards the matter

viewed in the first aspect
as follows: The faith which God awakens in man effects a real
inward righteousness (^jitsfitia inferior^ infus jiistificatiir peccator.
W. I. 118, 632; 6. 98J. Faith is the inward righteousness
which heals the malady of the soul of man and makes him right-
eous (^rechtfertig) (W. 8. 106, in; 2. 13, 14, 424. E. 22. 138,
248 ; 12. 89 ; 13. 238), for Christ and the Holy Spirit dwell in
their power in the heart of the believer (AV. 2. 458, 490, 749.
Gal. I. 245). Thereby man is made really righteous (E. 12.
89. W. 8. 605). This righteousness is, however, by its very
nature subject to a process of development, which is never com-
pleted in this life. '* Everyone who believes in Christ is right-
eous, not yet fully in reality, but in hope. For he has begun to
be justified and healed. But meanwhile, while he is being
.
justified and healed, what remains of sin in the flesh is not im-
puted to him for the sake of Christ, who, although he is without
any sin, has now become one with his follower and intercedes for
him with the Father (W. 2. 495).
Here appears, it will be observed, a new line of thought.
While the process of making righteousness is being carried for-
ward, the sins )'et cleaving to him who believes on Christ are not
imputed to him. The sins of him who is undergoing the process
of justification are forgiven, on the one hand, because he is be-

ginning to be righteous which is God's doing and, on the other
hand, because he is living in fellowship with Christ. *' Thus,
because through faith righteousness and the fulfilling of the law

have been begun, therefore for the sake of Christ in whom they
believe, what remains of sin and of the law yet unfulfilled is not
imputed. For faith itself, where it has been born, has this as
its office, to purge the remains of sin from the flesh " (ib. 497).
1 The brought against Lutheranism by its opponents of all

superficial charge
ages and all circuit of thought good works and
parties, that in Luther's
morality are not sufficiently provided for, is utterly refuted in Thieme's work.
It may be said, on the contrary, that in no other of the Reformers does the
moral principle penetrate so deeply and directly to the very centre of the relig-
ious life.
REPENTANCE, FAITH, SIN, GRACE, ATONEMENT. 26 i
" Sin remains it has begun to be driven out

there, but, because
"
(êxpurgari) , not imputed to him who is driving it out
it is
(ib. 414). In precise harmony vidth these utterances of A. D.

1519, it is said in 1522, that, although there are still many sins
in us, ' Yet grace does so much, that we are accounted altogether
'
and fully righteous before God takes us completely under

. . .
its protection for the sake of Christ, our advocate and mediator,
and on account of the fact that (its) gifts have been begun in us '*
(E. 63. 124).^ The idea is Inasmuch as sin has been in prin-
:
ciple shattered in the believer,and God looks upon him in Christ,

sin forgiven and not imputed.
is The Smalcald Articles (A. D.
1537) follow the same line of thought ^'Thatwe, through faith,
:
secure another and new heart, and God, for Christ, our mediator's
sake, will and does consider us as entirely righteous and holy.
Although sin in the flesh is not yet entirely banished nor dead,
yet he will not impute nor recognize it. And upon such faith,
renewal, and forgiveness of sin then follow good works. And
what in these is yet sinful or defective, just for Christ's sake
shall not be reckoned as sin or defect, but the man shall both in
person and in his works be called and be entirely righteous and
holy, out of pure grace and mercy shed abroad and poured out
upon us in Christ" (E. 25. 142. Cf. 11. 171; 46. 260).
The only difference observable in this exposition is that the dec-
laration of man's righteousness by God is no longer based ex-
pressly upon the beginning of righteousness within man and the
work of Christ, but only upon the latter. But the difference is
only apparent, and Luther is right when he claims to have thus
taught *^ hitherto and always " (ib. ); for in the very first years of
his reformatory activity he finds the ground of our comfort and
confidence only in the mercy of God (A. D. i5i9,W. 2. 100).^
Christ is our righteousness, since he, as the bridegroom to the
bride, gives what he has to us and bears our sin (W. 2. 146.
De W. 1. 17. E. 27. 182 f. J. Thus he teaches also at later
periods. In so far as we hide ourselves in Christ, who has made
full atonement for our sin, and like chickens seek protection under
the wings of this hen, we are righteous before God. '* For our
^ Cf, W. 8. Because they believe, and are living undei

92 (A. D. 1521) :
the kingdom of mercy, and them is condemned and assiduously morti-

sin in
fied, therefore it is not imputed to them. Also ib. 109, iii. E. 8. 255 ;
9. 310; 7. 226; 12. 97, 100, 103; 13. 239, 267; 14. 17.
^ Cf. W. 6. '*We rest, I say, in the righteousness of
133 (A. D. 1520) :
Christ, by which he is righteous, because we cling to this, through which he is

acceptable to God and intercedes as our advocate for us and makes himself
... as impossible as it is therefore that Christ in his righteous-
entirely ours
ness should not be acceptable, so impossible is it that we by our faith, by
which we cling to his righteousness, should not be acceptable."
faith and all that we may have from God is not sufficient, yea it
is not genuine, unless seeks refuge under the wings of this hen
it
and believes firmly that not we but Christ can render and has
rendered satisfaction for us to the righteousness of God, and that
grace and salvation are granted to us, not for the sake of our
faith, but for Christ's sake " (E. 7. 178 ; 3. 424 ; 10. 226 ; 15.
381, 486 ; 28. 417 ; 46. 71. W. 8. inf.). If we look upon

the faith which we have, it is only a beginning of righteousness
(Gal. 2. 312; cf E. 16. 256); but if we look upon Christ, who
is embraced by this faith as a precious stone in a ring, it maybe
said :
'* God regards him
as righteous " (Gal. i. 195, 322, 339).
The true, abiding righteousness is wrought in us by the gracious
forgiveness of sins guaranteed us through the work of Christ and
through his *' return to the Father" (E. 25. 76; 50. 60 f.; 7.
299. Opp. ex. 19. 43. Opp. var. arg. 5. 438). '' Sinis indeed
still present, but it is forgiven " (E. 5. 251). It is another's (<f/;z^
fremde) righteousness which is transferred to us (E. 14. 12.
Opp. ex. 5. 269) " That we may become righteous and deliv-
:
ered from sin through forgiveness of sins " (E. 5. 247). And yet
it remains true, in Luther's mind, that abiding righteousness be-
fore God belongs to him alone in whom actual righteousness has

through faith begun to exist, ^ not indeed because this faith as a
human activity constitutes the subjective beginning of actual
righteousness, and thus embraces in itself also love (per contra,
Gal. I. 137), but b)ecause it, as a work of the Christ most actively
tuorkmg in uSj and by virtue of the power of Christ,' furnishes
the guarantee for the continuance of the process of advancing
actual righteousness. Not for the sake of man's faith, but be-
cause Christ, the Redeemer, constitutes the substance and power
of this faith, does God, through the forgiveness of sins, pro-
nounce the believer righteous. *' Therefore it is not our right-
eousness, but Christ's righteousness

yea, this righteousness is
Christ himself, and yet becomes my righteousness if I believe"
(E. 3. 435 ; 50. 61. Opp. ex. 18. 189 f.).
^ Very instructive is his development of the parallel between the influences
flowing from Adam and from Christ (E. 13.120): " As sin has been inherited
by us from Adam, and has now become our own, so must also Christ's right-
eousness and life become our own, in such a way that the same power of right-
eousness and life may work in us, just as though they had also been inherited
by us from him. For there is in him not a merely personal, but an actual and

powerful righteousness and Hfe yea, a fountain which gushes and flows forth
into all who become partakers of himself, just as from Adam sin and death have
flowed into man's whole nature. And it is therefore now declared that men
become righteous and alive from sin and death, not from themselves or through
themselves, but through the alien righteousness and life of this Lord Christ,
namely, when he touches them with his hand and imparts to them through the
word his work and power to blot out sin and death, and they believe the same."
Whoever will be at pains to compare with this the utterances

of Luther at the beginning of his career must confess that he has
steadfastly kept within the lines which he then marked out :
(1) Christ, or the Holy Spirit, works faith. In the believer

(the regenerated) Christ is efficaciously present, together with the
Holy Spirit, through and in his faith. Man is thereby renewed
(yerneuert), made ''actually" righteous. "Justification is, in
fact, a certain regeneration into newness (of life) " (Jen. i.
540 v). (2) But this fermentative energy of faith is a progressive
and not seldom interrupted process. The sinner can hence find se-
cure comfort only through the fact that God, by virtue of the union
between Christ and the believer effected and made effectual in
faith, imputes to him the righteousness which Christ has secured
for him, z. e., forgives him his sins. This is the ** personal"
righteousness which avails for the whole man and makes him,
despite his sins, acceptable to God. In this are firmly rooted
the consolation of the believing conscience and the assurance of
salvation.^
If we now review these delineations of the process involved in
the justification of the sinner, it must, it appears to me, be evi-
dent to all that the deepest motives of the Pauline and Johan-
nine cycles of thought find expression in them ; but, none the
less, that they are moulded formally upon the pattern of the
medieval idea of justification. But, in place of the infused
grace of the earlier theology, is now the Christ working effect-
ually in us. And the powerless forgiveness of sins, which was in
one way or another merely a pendant to \\i^ gratia infiisa^ is re-
placed by the energizing consciousness, inseparably connected
with the contemplation of the life and work of Jesus, ^ that his
redemptive work means for us the forgiveness of our sins.^
8. This leads us to Luther's conception of Grace. It must be
1 Cf. ex. 19. 48 (A. D. 1532)

0pp. : "These are \h.t: two parts of justifi-
cation. The former is the grace revealed through Christ, that through Christ
we have a God appeased, so that sin is no longer able to accuse us, but the confi-
dence of conscience in the mercy of God is reduced to certainty. The latter
is the bestowal of the Spirit with his gifts, who illuminates against the pollu-
tions of the spirit and the flesh." So also, E. 12. 285. It is no more than a
dividing of this second element of righteousness, when Luther in other con-
nections discriminates between an 'Mnward" and an "outward" righteous-
ness, describing the former as ** righteousness in the heart" and the latter as the
** fruit, result, and proof" of the former. E. ^., E. 13. 238, 269. W. 2. 146.
^ Here, as in connection with the above remarks upon the " workings" of
Christ, must be borne in mind, what Luther has said (see supra, pp.
230 f , 252 f. ) touching the contemplation of Christ and the continued activity
of the exalted Saviour.
^ If this doctrine of justification shall appear '* unlutheran " to any, they
must explain to their own satisfaction the fact that it comes from Luther !
) ;
said here, first of all, that Luther never wearied of assailing
every form of work-righteousness and all claims to human merit.

This is a leading point in his reformatory ideas. As he who now
performs good works does not aim thereby to gain merits, since
God is, in the last instance, the original source of the works
( E. 7. 165. Cf. above under 6),^ so also by the conception
of the forgiveness of sins all meriting or atoning is excluded
(E. 15. 385; 9. 257 f.; 24. 98; 46. 106). By his own merit
can no one become righteous or be saved (46. 69; 43. 362);
nor can anyone even act meritoriously before the recep-
tion of grace (43. 360). '^ When we are speaking of that
which concerns the Christian life .how we may become
. .
pious before God and secure forgiveness of sin and eternal life,
then all our merit is absolutely excluded {j'ein abgeschnitten)
and we should not hear nor know anything of it " (E. 43. 359.
Gal. I. 185 f., 193 f. ). Thus is this idea, which had since the
days of Tertullian exerted its fateful influence in the Western
church, finally ejected from the Christian conception of religion.^
But this was made possible by the new understanding of grace
for so long as the conception of the latter as a substantial endov^-
ment prevailed, the legalistic view of the relation between God
and man, together with the associated notions of merit, consti-
tuted a counter-weight to it, preserving the personal element in
the relation of man to God.
The dominant idea in the medieval doctrine of grace is the
gratia creata, as a quality created in man (<?. g., Biel, p. 195).
Against this idea Luther's criticism is directed. '* I accept
grace here properly as meaning the favor of God, not a quality

of the soul as our more recent writers have taught *' (W. 8. 106,
92 f. E. 7. 170). God's favor, his merciful will, as it is re-
vealed and proclaimed by Christ, is grace (W. 6. 209. E. 7.
128 f. 10. 90, cf. 50. 61 ; 46. 69).
; Hence it follows that

God just because he is love forgives sin. The effect of this
grace is not a quality 'âttached " to the soul, but forgiveness
and salvation (E. 5. 246 f. ). From the grace of God thus un-
derstood must be discriminated the gift bestowed upon its
recipient. ''Grace and gift differ in this, that grace properly
means the favor, or regard, which he in himself cherishes toward
us, by which he is disposed to pour upon us Christ and the Spirit
with his gifts " (E. 63. 123; 12.285). This is by no means to
be understood as equivalent to the gifts of the gratia c?'eata ; for
^ Wemay therefore understand also the declaration, that works are unsuited,
yea, even offensive, and a hindrance to justification. (E. 10. 161.
^ Upon the popular use of the idea
drawn from the Scriptures see E. 43.
364 ^x
")
grace in the sense of gift is most clearly discriminated from the

*' quality" of the old theory. *'It is a very great, strong,
powerful, and active thing
this grace of God. It does not lie,
as the dream-preachers falsely teach, in the souls of men and
sleep and allow itself to be carried by them as a painted board
carries its color. Nay, not so It carries, it leads, it drives,
!
it begets, it it works all things in man, and makes

transforms,
itself felt and experienced." This is the grace which '^ trans-
forms and renews" man (E. 7. 170 f 30. 368).^ It is the ,
same thing to which Luther applies the term, Gift. The two
elements in the definition are therefore related as follows (
i
:
Grace expresses the favor, or the loving-will, of God, as revealed

in his not imputing sin. (2) The word '^ grace," or ^'gift,
designates the peculiar workings of this loving-will within the
heart of man. With these two aspects of grace naturally corre-
spond the two meanings of the term, Justification (p. 263). The
old conception of grace, as wrought out by Augustine (Vol. I.,
p. 350 f ) is here overthrown. From the time of Duns, the irre-
sistibly-working natural power of grace had been but a respect-
able phrase (see note, /. ^., on this pagej. The Augustinianism
of the closing Middle Ages (supra, p. 207) then sought to repris-
tinate Augustine's doctrine of grace. Luther replaced and sur-
passed it with the idea of the personal loving-will of God, which
is omnipresently and omnipotently accomplishing its work in the
hearts of men. It is in this only that we discover the deepest re-
ligious motives underlying Luther's De servo arbitrio (p. 244 f ).
Luther's God is the Almighty Loving-Will almighty power,
present in all that exists and shall exist (30. 58), almighty
energy also in the outworking of love.^ The grace of this God
is a working force, not a quiescent quality in the soul.
9. Faith in the grace of God embraces the conviction that the

forgiveness of sins is granted not for nothing, nor without
'
'
satisfaction of his 7'ighteoits7iess (justice). For there can be no

room for mercy and grace to work upon us and in us satis- . .
faction must first be rendered most completely to righteousness,
The Sophists, Thomas and Scotus, say of it, that it adorns and he! ps
^ *
'
'
'
* *
to produce the works" (ib.); cf. supra, p. 158, 119. Luther rejected the
gratia infusa^ as an empty notion. At this point the criticisms of Duns pre-
pared the way, as the gratia infusa was for him little more than a phrase
(p. 159 f.). Luther rejected the '* infused grace " not becauseit attributed
too viuch to God, but because it attributed too little to him.
* But Luther never, when unfolding his religious ideas, especially in his
sermons, permitted these principles to lead him to determinism or predesti-

nation. For him there exists between God and man a personal and ethical
relation. It must not be forgotten, that the power of love of which he thinks
is, in the last analysis, the spiritual power of the person of Christ.
;;
Matt. 5. 18." (E.

175). This compels us here to consider
7.
the *' Work of Christ. "^ (a) It is Luther's firm conviction that
justification does not rest upon an arbitrary imputation by God,
as the passion of Christ would otherwise have been unnecessary
(E. 7. 298). In this, he takes up arms against the Scotist
theory of an arbitrary divine will.^ *' But if the wrath of God
is to be taken from me and I am to obtain grace and forgiveness^

then must it be merited (âbverdienet) from him by someone
for God cannot be favorable nor gracious toward sins, nor remove
penalty and Avrath, unless payment be made and satisfaction ren-
dered for them*' (11. 290; 9. 381 f. W. 2. 137). But
Christ, in obedience to the Father, serving our race in love, has
offered this satisfaction or payment to God through his life and
death (E. 8. 177 15. 57 f.
; W. i. 270 \ 2. 146). The pur-
pose which inspired him in so doing was to obtain for himself
the human race as a kingdom and to become their Lord (W. 2.
97. E. 22. ^(i). All his acts and his endurance were subor-
dinated to this purpose, to become the Lord, that is, **a help-
ful power to his subjects." His government is forgiveness of
sins, peace and righteousness (E. 20. 146 f. ; 48. 265 f.
50. 61). He rules through the gospel of the forgiveness of sins
(E. 14. 251 7. 55; 8. 229; 40. Z%^.
;
''For we should
regard Christ's kingdom as a great and beautiful dome or roof,
everywhere stretched out above us, which covers us and protects
us from the wrath of God yea, as a great wide heaven where
;
nothing but grace and forgiveness shine and fill the world and
all things, so that ail sins are in comparison scarcely as a spark
to the great wide ocean" (14. 181 f.). But, as his reign
brings to men the forgiveness of sins, so does it bring also the
fullness of all virtue, faith, love, purity, happiness, and obedient
service. This flows over upon the Christian world from its
'
'
Lord, who is a head and beginning of all grace and virtue " ( W.
6. 13 f.). The purpose of the work of Christ is therefore the
establishment of the kingdom of God, /. e.^ he becomes Lord,
in that he forgives sins and inspires to a new life.
(F) The Acts and Sufferings of Christ are subordinate to
this purpose.^ Luther presented the so-called objective aspect
'
Luther uses this term, E. 7. 109; 14. 115. Upon the atonement as
a reconciliation of love and righteousness, cf. supra, p. 67, 1 12, 156 f. , 200.
Vol. I., p. 295, 361.
^ But he does not, like Anselm, postulate the necessity of the atonement
upon general grounds, but deduces it as an inference from the actual fact of
the passion of Christ. On the contrary, see the Scotist ideas, supra, p. 151 :
"God is not pious because he does this work, but the work is right, good,
holy, and well done, because he himself does it " (E. 35. 168).
^ Let it be observed, further, that Christ here appears everywhere as the
'
of the atonement with energy and with variety of form. The

sinful race was under the wrath of God, under debt to him,
fallen under the power of the devil, under obligation to the law,
subject to penalties for the transgression of the law, or to eternal
death (E. 15. 57). But Christ has entered the race, and in
such a way that he bore for us the lot which had become ours
through sin :
** But now has he stepped into our place and for
our sakes suffered law, sin, and death to fall upon him" (51.
272). He pays and makes good for our debt, so that we are
released from it (6. 371 f ). He is sacrifice and payment for
the sin of the world (12. 246, 118 ; 18. 49 2. 249; 3. 100 ;;
47, 46 ;
48. 97; 50. 246). Christ **as himself guilty'* has
*' stepped into
the place of our sinful nature, heaped upon him-
self and vanquished all the wrath of God which we had merited
'
(7. 302 ; II. 290), He was compelled **to feel in his tender,
innocent heart the wrath and judgment of God against sin,
to taste for us eternal death and perdition, and, in short, to suffer
everything which a condemned sinner has deserved and must
eternally suffer *' (39. 48).^ But all this he endured, *' that the
wrath of God might be placated, in order that we might stand in
grace and have forgiveness" (W. 8. 442. E. 10. 418; 11.
290; 12. 283; 311; 14.119; 20.161). He likewise fulfilled
in our stead and for our benefit the law, which affected only sin-
ners, and endured the penalties prescribed for its violation ( E. 15.
26of ; i.3ioff.; 14. i54f; 161). He thereby ** renderedsatisfac-
tion to the law " (15. 17 ; 11. 314), /. e.y the law has, since he
has satisfied its demands, no right and no further claim to men
(15. 57f, 262).^ He also robs the devil of his ''right and
God-man. His divinity recognized in his works, c. g., from his mediatorial
is
activity (E. iS. 225 ; 16. 211); or from the infinite nature of the atonement
and his appeasing of the wrath of God (ii. 290; 49. 139 46. 366; 45.
;
3i5f,; 46. 46); or from his exercising of the sovereignty of God in the world
7io. 345 ; 40. 50. Opp. ex. 23. 308; iS. 85); or from his power to save
(47. 6, 198); or from the fact that ê can believe only on God (47. 44).
* Luther can, of course, not mean to say that Christ was eternally dead and
accursed, for the latter could not be the case, if for no other reason, because
the former was not true. He means that Christ endured, as all other conse-
quences of sin, also an abandonment by God which corresponded with that
awaiting the lost. See \V. 2. 260 " was forsaken by God, as one who is
:
eternally accursed." Cf. 20. 161 ; 46. 191.

2 That is, since the law laid hold upon Christ, the sinless One, Christ
robbed it of its power over the race. It is made powerless. This is explained
in a thoroughly mythological way (cf. the outwitting of death and the devil,
45. 318; 46. 370) ; t. g.f E. 15. 261 ; 18. 176 f. But in the last citation
above appears the expression, " to satisfy the law." In order to understand
this, we must clearly keep in mind the fact that the relation established by the
law between man and God is to be regarded as one, not of private, but
of public obligation. This is of the very highest importance, for it reveals ihe
,
power " over men, because he ''slew Christ without any guilt "
(49. 250; 33. 107).
Christ therefore became a sacrifice for our debt he endured;
the wrath of God, took upon himself the works and penalties of
the law, suffered the assaults of the devil and of death. All this
carries us back to the will of God, who would not forgive before
satisfaction had been rendered to his justice. " God, neverthe-
less (/. ., despite his mercy) required that satisfaction be made
for sin, and that his honor and law be recompensed." His
mercy sent forth Christ, '*who merited it for us and in our
stead" (15. 385. Cf. 12. 266). The death of Christ was the
payment, or satisfaction, for our sins (19. 74, 211 f. 11. 290; ;
28. 240). Thus God requires also that positive satisfaction be

rendered to his law, which is accomplished by Christ's perfect
meeting of its demands. What he did in this respect is as
though we had ourselves done it (7. 177 f.; n. 314; i- 312).
Luther's idea is thus The ordinance of the law, established by
:
God for the sinful race of men, has been with its penalties abol-
ished by Christ, in that he fulfilled the law and endured its
penalties
and that in such a way that the sufferings of Christ
prevent the execution of the penalties of the law, while his active
fulfillment of the law's requirements deprives the whole ordinance
of the law of its force. Thus Christ passed through the whole
course of human existence from conception to the state of the
dead, and thereby *' consecrated and hallowed it " (20. 156 ff.
*' In him and through him " we become free from death
150).
and all misfortune (ib. 172). He who holds to him in faith is
for his sake free as well from the works as from the penalties of
the law. Christ bestows upon us his piety and his sufferings
(12. 230).^ His obedience, innocence, and holiness are our con-
solation (i. 311; 7. 178. W. I. 593).
entirely different meanings attached by Luther and Anselm to the '* satisfac-
tion " rendered by Christ. In Anselm, the satisfaction is brought to God per-
sonally, as to an offended private man according to Luther, it consists in the
;
fulfilling of the divinely given system of laws by our representative, Christ.

Since satisfaction is rendered to this moral order of the world and it is thus
recognized and actually honored, the wrath of God is appeased, and the law
made powerless. There is thus presented a really ethical view, capable of the
most profound interpretation, in contrast with the objectionable anthropo-
morphism of Anselm. Here again Duns prepared the way for Luther. Sent,
iv. d. 14, q. I, 7.
1 For ethical purposes, Luther stripped the conception of *' Satisfaction " of
its validity, as he had already (supra, p. 264) done with that of merit { 1 1. 296,
280 " Therefore let this word, Satisfaction, henceforth be nothing and dead in
:
our churches and our theology, be committed to the judges and to the schools
of the jurists, where it belongs and whence the papists derived it " vid. Tertul.j
;
Vol. I., p. 133). Yet in the doctrine of Redemption both conceptions play
(c) Christ has, according to the will of the Father, appeased

wrath, satisfied the law, and effected the forgiveness of sins.
Grace is now maintained through his continuous intercession in
heaven. We need no sacrifice, since his blood atones eternally
'
(E. 8. 154; 9. 236; 28. 240) and he '' without ceasing offers
before God " (W.6. 369; cf. i. 703. E. 7. 109; 12. 118;
47- 23)-
These thoughts are for Luther of great practical importance.
Since sin at all times yet clings to the believer, he experiences
also the divine wrath directed against him. To counteract this,
he lays hold of the thought that Christ intercedes for him before
the Father. He who now by faith is united to Christ becomes
certain that, for the sake of Christ's intercession, God forgives
him his sin (Gal. i. 338 f.), for that intercession silences the
demands of the law upon us, since he has fulfilled it ; and
he frees us from sin, death, and the devil, since he has vanquished
them. But this avails for us only in so far as we *' creep beneath
his mantle and wings," /. ^., believe (E. 14. 154 ff., 159, 156;
48. 275). Since Christ intercedes for us, and his work is well
pleasing to the Father, we are sure of being in favor with God
(E. 15. 237 ff.). ''But we are very certain that Christ is
pleasing to God. ... In so far, therefore, as Christ is pleas-
ing and we cling to him, in so far we also are pleasing to God
. . and although sin clings in the flesh
. . nevertheless
. .
grace is more abundant and more powerful than sin. . . .
Wherefore sin is not able to terrify us nor make us doubtful con-

cerning the grace of God in us. For Christ, the most mighty
giant, has borne the law, condemned sin, abolished death and
all evils. So long as he is at the right hand of God interceding
for us, we cannot on account of ourselves doubt concerning the
grace of God " (Gal. 2. 164 f.).
(i^) But Christ is not only our representative before God ; he
also represents God among us. This comes to pass in that he re-
veals to us the love of God and thereby awakens in us faith and
love. According to this, a further element must be included in
the Work of Christ. Christ not only secures the revelation of thp
grace of God, but he also imparts it to us. '*
It was necessary
for him to appear before God for us and be our veil, shield, and
hen, beneath whom we have forgiveness of sin and salvation
from the wrath of God and from hell. And not on/y f/iis, but he
in addition gives the Holy Spirit, that we may also follow him

a leading role in Luther and until the present day! (Upon the term merit,
see also E. 7. 179, 194, 195 ; 15. 385; 28. 417. W. i. 309, 428, etc.)
But this is with Luther no inconsistency, for both conceptions fall within the
lines of the relation between man and God as fixed by the law..
and here begin to quench and crucify sin " (E. 14. 161 f.). As
the intercession of Christ applies both to his earthly life and to
his present existence, so also does his revealing agency. Christ
once on earth revealed God, and he now does so again, in that his
word preached, the Spirit sent by him, and thereby a new life
is
begotten within us (^. ^. 14. 155).^ , He is the ground of the

forgiveness of sins, and is at the same time the source of faith and
of personal righteousness (0pp. ex. 18. 189. E. 14. 1 19 f., supra,
p. 260 ff.). ^'Therefore has God given us, in the first place, a
man who should make complete satisfaction for us to the divine jus-
tice. In the second place, he through the same Man pours out
grace and rich blessing." This occurs through regeneration (7.
177). *
This is grace upon grace, that we are pleasing also to the
'
Father for the sake of the Lord Christ, and that we also through
Christ receive the Holy Ghost and become righteous " (46.68).
From Christ, as the Second Adam and head of the new race,
streams into us new life and righteousness, for he dwells and
reigns in us (E. 13. 225 f. W. 2. 531, 502, 529J. It is only
a varied application of this thought, when it is said that the love
of Christ begets a responsive love in our hearts (W. 2. 523 ; 6.
117. E. 12. 258 f., 312), or when he is represented as our
pattern, or, in the earlier writings, as a **divine legislator"
(W. I. 533).^ But in the discussions of Christ as our pattern,
we observe a connection between this subjective aspect of re-
demption and its objective side. To regard Christ merely as an
example is papistic and fanatical error (E. 8, 235 f. 248; 9. ,
244 f.; 15. ^8S ; 29. 278).'' ''Imitation does not make sons,
but sonship makes imitators " (W. 2. 518. E. 29. 211). We
must first accept Christ in faith ''as a sacrifice and portion " and
thereby become blessed and righteous, and only then follows
'* the example and imitation"
(E. 7. 303 f 8. 3).*
.
;
* to Christ a representative agency toward men similar

Luther thus ascribes
to which he exercises in behalf of men before God. But it must be
that
remembered that the revelation of Christ through the Holy Spirit, being lim-
ited to the Word, cannot go essentially beyond the historical revelation made
during his earthly life. E. 12. 300, and cf. ^ 69, 2.
^ Luther afterward expressly rejects this term, e. ^., E. 7. 298
47. 302. ;
3 How striking is this remark in view of the history of the Imitatio Christie
c. .c-, supra, p. 178, 179.

Luther often speaks of the Following of Christ in the sense of the imita-
*
tion of hira as our pattern, e.i;., W. i. 338, 364, 320, 613, 697 2. 13S, 141,
;
147 f., 151, 501. 747 6. 275

; 8. 367, 420.
; E. 29. 11 8. 157, 234, 247,
;
251 9. 51
; II. 52, 171
; 14. 46; I5- I75 425, 462
; 17. 41.
; Only sel-
dom, so far as I can recall, did he designate the " Following " in theoriginal
sense (supra, p. 180, n. I, cf E. 48. 276) expressly as faith (\V. i. 275); but
this idea lies at the foundation of his entire conception of the faith obtained in
the contemplation of the historical Christ.
(e) Reviewing now the work of Christ as thus portrayed, it is

evident that, as in the medieval presentations of the subject, the
features of that work having relation to man are to be discrim-
inated from those relating to God. Christ reconciled the
Father, and he revealed God to us. In the first aspect of his
work, all the conceptions of the traditional teaching are pre-
served, /. e., satisfaction, merit, sacrifice, deliverance from sin,
death, hell, devil, etc.^ Yet it is important to observe that there
is here, after all, a certain modification of the thought. Luther's
fundamental idea of the subject is as follows On account of sin,
:
God has placed the race under the law, with its demands and
penalties. The relation of man to God is accordingly not to be
apprehended in the light of private obligation (law), but in that
of public law (supra, p. 267, n. 2). The legal ordinances thus
expressing the will of God have not been observed, but their pen-
alties could be borne pnly by those who were guilty of their vio-
lation. To this divine ordinance Christ rendered satisfaction in
our stead through his fulfillment of the law and through the en-
durance of its penalties. Thereby it became possible for God to
abrogate the legal ordinance, since his love has now been revealed
to men in Christ, renewing them and filling them with the con-
sciousness that they now enjoy his favor (grace).
It is very clear from this that, in Luther's conception, the rec-
onciliation of the Father by Christ precedes the bestowal of
grace as its basis. But it is equally true, that there is lacking
here, as distinctly as in Thomas or Duns (p. 114 n. i, 141
n.), any clear explanation of the inner relationship of the two
ideas. This could be secured only by showing the reconciliation
of the Father to be a necessary means for securing the end in
view, /, e.j the bestowal of grace. But this Luther never attempts
to do. Since the nature of God is love, the revelation of his
righteousness (justice) does not abrogate his mercy. The mis-
sion of Christ is to be traced back to the divine compassion. But
in what connection does the selection of the particular form of
Christ's work stand with the end in view? Why does not love
directly abolish the ancient ordinance? To this Luther responds :
Because God willed that satisfaction must first be rendered to the

latter. The mercy of God sends Christ to bring to us the for-
giveness of sins, but God wills that it shall first be earned, or mer-
ited {abverdienf), from him through the satisfaction to be ren-
dered by Christ (15. 385; 12. 266; 7. 299 f).^ It is therefore
* The " Sermon von der Betrachtung des heil. Leidens Christi," A. D.
1519* W. 2. 136 displaying the variety of aspects
is peculiarly instructive as
fif.,
under which Luther could present the sufferings of Christ.

^ The last of these citations summarizes Luther's view in a classical form:
the -will of God

and nothing more can be said that the be-
stowal of grace, or the introduction of a new ordinance, shall
follow only upon the ground of the allaying of his wrath thirough
the satisfaction of the old ordinance/ The connection existing
between this two-fold character of the work of Christ and the
duplex nature which we have traced in grace, justification, faith
and sin, is self-evident.
Cf. Held, De opere Jesu Chr. salutari (Gott., i860). VoN Hoffman,
Schutzschriften, ii. 23 ff. Th. Harnack, L. Theol. 288 ff. Gottschick,
Propter Christum, Ztschr. f. Theol. u. K., 1897, p. 352 ff
.
; 1898, 406 ff.
10. The entire Christian life is a repentance. But contrition

is no longer a fruitless self-torture, for it stands in league with
faith. And works are no more attempts to render satisfaction,
for God performs them through faith. This repentance is to fill
the entire life. It takes the place of the discipline once exacted
through the sacrament of repentance. Luther's central ideas
can be understood, as we have shown, only' when regarded from
this point of view.
Our study of the new conception of moral works leads us, fur-
ther, to consider Luther's ideal of life ; and the examination of
his conception of the work of Christ leads to the doctrine of the
Word and Sacraments, and also to that of the Church.
" Although now purely out of grace our sin is non-imputed to us by God, yet
he would nevertheless not do this, unless satisfaction should first be fully and
superfluously rendered to his law and his justice. It was required that such
gracious imputation should first be purchased and secured for us from his jus-
tice. Therefore, since this was impossible for us, he appointed One for us in
our stead, who should take upon himself all the punishment which we had
merited, and fulfill for us the law, and thus avert from us God's judgment and
reconcile his wrath." It will be observed how strictly the discussion is here
held to the ideas of law, with its fulfillment and penalties. The firm rela-
tionship here established marks a step in advance which is intimately connected
with Luther's general doctrinal position. The idea of "superfluous" satis-
faction is derived from the Thomistic theology (p. 112, 198).
1 The influence of Scotist ideas is here unmistakable. That Christ recon-
ciled the Father was simply because God willed that he should do so. Only
in this sense could Luther speak of a necessity, and a '* must " in connection
with the atonement (see previous note), just as in Duns and Biel. But in
other aspects also, if I am correct, Luther's way of regarding thematter is for-
mally parallel with the conceptions of Duns and Biel (vid. supra, p. 157,
200), since in them also the purpose to effectually bestow grace upon men
(through the institution and agency of the sacraments) was associated with the
arbitrarily ordained condition of a previous reconciliation of God through the
merit of Christ. This historical parallel will explain the peculiar lack of con-
nection between the two aspects of the work of Christ. To speak of an " abso-
lute necessity " of the atonement as maintained by Luther (Th. Harnack, L.'s
Theol. ii. 304 ff. ) is therefore in my opinion misleading. A
solution of the
problem thus stated it is the province of Dogmatics to seek with the most care-
ful study of the Scriptural ideas involved. The History of Doctrines can only
state the fact, that it is not to be found in the writings of Luther.
EVANGELICAL IDEAL OF LIFE. 273
68. The Evangelical Ideal of Life.
Literature. Cf. Ritschl, Gesch. d. Pietismus, i. (A. D. 1880), -^fi ft"
LuTHARDT, Gesch. d. chr. Ethik, ii. (1893), 25 fF. Uhlhorn, Die chr.
Liebestatigkeit, iii. (1890), 3 ff. Eger, Die Anschauungen Luther's von
Beruf. Giessen, 1900,
, Seeberg, Luther's Stellung zu den sittHchen und
sozialen Noten seiner Zeit., Leipzig, 1902.
1. The crisis at the close of the Middle Ages was occasioned,
not only by the dissolution and practical insufficiency of the

''dogma*' of the church, but by the conflict between practical life
and the church's ideal of what life should be (cf. supra, p. 173,
181 f. ). The Reformation achieved by Luther was, accordingly,
not a reconstruction of doctrine, but the vigorous enforcement of
a new ideal of life. Ritschl has rendered good service in empha-
sizing this. For the medieval Christian, faith was subjection to the
canon law of the church. Sin was located chiefly in the sensual
impulses of nature. The natural was essentially evil. Hence,
the natural order of human life in the state was the direct con-
trast to the kingdom of God, or the church. At this point the
ideas of Luther entered a mighty protest. He drew the con-
clusion from the entire previous course of development or, ;
more properly speaking, he substituted vigorous Christian ideas

for the negations and skepticism, the longings and anticipations
of the past. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had, it is
true, prepared the way for him. But in his spirit criticism
became assertion, the unchurchly and secular became churchly
and biblical. His criticism did not end in the helpless pusil-
lanimity of Occam, nor in the worldly frivolity or secret qualms
of conscience which marked so many of the Humanists. He
recognized the right of every man to gain for himself religious
conviction, without constraint, and pointed to Christ as the way
to its attainment. He taught that, since God created man, his
natural impulses and ordinances are in accordance with the will
of God. No one need be ashamed of them.^ He recognized
the lawfulness of the natural life and of the civil organism,
beholding in them ordinances of God which are not sinful.
The natural forms of existing things are not essentially evil, but
according to God's will, however men, as Luther never forgets,
may continually pollute them.
2. From this point of view we may understand his demolition
of the medieval ideals both in the sphere of individual life and
^ E.
g.^ E. 10. 440: Dear lad, be not ashamed that you long for a maid,
and the maid longs for a lad. Only let it lead to marriage and not to wanton-
ness, and it is then no disgrace to you, just as little as eating and drinking are
a disgrace. Cf. 29. 39 28. 199, but also E. 22. 205.
;
in that of the state. The ethics of the desensualizing theory

beheld the *' " in the life of the religiosi, i. e.,
state of perfection
the monks
(p. 124). Luther saw therein only a self-chosen and,
in the deepest sense,ungodly sanctity (E. 28. 231). This is not
Christian perfection (W. 8. 328. E. 9. 287 7. 321 ;
8. 13; ;
12. 227). Good works, as they are performed either in accord-

ance with the so-called ** evangelical counsels " {^consilia evan-
gelica)^ which come from the devil (W. 8. 585. E. 22. 65),
or in pursuance of the sacrament of repentance (W. 6. 207,
20S, 209, 210 f., 212; 8. ^66, 378, E. 7. 245 \ 10. 234, 273;
13. 208, 217 f. ), are not good works pleasing to God for they;
neither result from the free inner impulse of the heart, nor
do they benefit anyone. **
It is most shamefully repugnant and
contrary, not only to the word of God, faith, Christian liberty,
and the precepts of God, but to thee thyself" (W. 8. 639, 605,
616. E. 10. 425; 29. 39). The marks of really good works
(p. 259) are wanting in these, /. <?., the impulse from within,
or freedom ; the divine commandment ; and usefulness. It is
better to rear one's children well than to make pilgrimages or
build churches (W. 2. 169 f. ). And since these works are un-
natural, the pursuit of them bears bitter fruit, as may be seen in
all those who have taken the (monastic) vows; for example, in
the *' unchaste chastity" of the monks (E. 29. 17, 327 ; 10,
426). This is one objection which Luther constantly presents
against the Romish ideal of life its works are unnatural and
:
purely legalistic.' And just because they are so, they are regarded
as ** meritorious," which forms his second ground of objection
to them. But, as these works are rejected, there remains no
place for the *
'saints." Whatever in them was good, was
wrought by God (W. i. 420). They have had no power to
render satisfaction even for themselves (ib. 606). There are
no superfluous iûherldngliche) works (ôpera siipererogationis , E.
14- 35)-
3.In the sphere of civillife, also, the rightfulness of the natural
order is to be recognized as in accordance with the will of God.
''The secular law and sword" exist in accordance with the

divine ordinance (E. 22. 63, 76), for they are necessary for the
world (73). Hence the Christian may with a good conscience
hold a civil office (73, 80), provided he can thus benefit his
neighbor (78).^ This is especially true of the ''Christian
prince." " Service " is his calling (94 ff.). But^ essentially,
^ This is true even of war " What else is war than a punishing of wrong
:
and evil? Why does anyone go to war, except because he desires to have
peace and obedience ? " (23. 249. Cf. 16. 195). From this we may under-
stand Luther's attitude toward the ** thieving and murderous peasants."
the civil government has to do only with the outward conduct of

men (87 j, whereas Christ reigns only in the hearts of men by his
Spirit (E. 22. 70). In the duty resting upon the government
is included a solicitude for culture and education (schools), as
.well as for social conditions. But ** the secular government has
laws which do not extend further than over body and property
and what is outward in the world. For over the souls of men
God cannot and will not allow anyone but himself alone to rule.
Therefore in matters which have to do with the salvation of
souls, nothing but God's word must be taught or accepted (22.
82, S^, 86; 45. 115)- Thus the boundary line of the civil
authority and the rights of liberty of conscience are preserved.^
(Cf. Lezius, Gleichheit u. Ungleichheit, in Greifswalder Studien,
1895, p. 287 ff. Ward, Darstellung . der Ansichten
. .
Luther's vom Staat u. seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben, 1898.)

4. The State of Perfection (status pei'fectiojtis^ is to be (pos-
sessed) of a living faith, a despiser of death, of life, of glory,
and of the whole world, a servant of all in fervent love (W. 8.
584). Faith and love (or works) are the content of the
Christian life. *' Now faith and love are the whole life of a
Christian man. . . Faith receives, love gives " (W. 8. 355,

.
362, 366, 385 f. E. 7. 159, 161 ; 8. 40, 71, 75 ; 9. 280 f.,

137; 10. 20; 46. 254). ''Thus faith remains the doer and
love remains the deed" (E. 8. 63). "Faith brings man to
God ; love brings God to men. Through faith man allows God to
do him good ; through love God does good to men (E, 14. 40).
But all this is not to be required by compulsion or law. The
Christian life is a life of freedom, since the good is wrought in
the heart by God and is done with delight. Hence no com-
mandments have validity here. This is ''evangelical," or
"Christian hberty," or "the liberty of faith." ^ The law is
valid only for the outward man (vid. supra, 3), where it is neces-
sary, particularly for the rude " Lord Omnes " (E. 24. 140 f.).
These ideas are grandly developed in the tract, Von der Freiheit
eines Christem?tenschen. Through faith the Christian becomes a
free lord of all things. In faith he lays hold upon the man
^ But Luther places the law of nature (cf., p. 171) above the "written law
or the counsels of the jurists " " The highest law and master of all laws
:
remains the reason " (E. 22, 95, 257). '* Such free judgment does love
pro-
nounce, and natural law, of which all reason is full " {ib. 104).
2 E.
g., W. 1. 530, 647, 675 ; 2. 486 ; 8. 327, 330, 334. E. 10. 425 ;
12. 363 f.
29. 188 f., etc.
; The pope and the fanatics, according to Luther,
destroy this liberty ; the former by commandments, the latter by prohibitions
(29. 189). Against Carlstadt he formulated the practical canon, *' that
everything should be free which God does not in clear language forbid in the
New Testament " (29. 188).
Christ, and the righteousness of the bridegroom becomes a prop-

erty also of the bride, the soul (E. 27. 183). Again, the soul
through faith is filled with all goodness (181), so that it needs
no law nor commandment. Hereby the Christian is made free.
Since he does good with inward heartfelt delight, because the
word of Christ dwells in his soul, he does not require the
demands of the law. Is God now his in faith, there is thereby
given to him the certainty that all things must work together for
his good (185), as he has now, on the other hand, to appear
before God in intercession for others. Thus the Christian is a
king and a priest. "Through his kingship, he has power over
all things; through his priesthood, he has power over God"
(186). But the Christian must also " govern his own body and
'
associate with his fellow-men. This requires a disciplining and

'
exercising of the body, that it may become obedient and con-

formable to the inner man.^ But faith is an inward appreciation
of the benefits of God, and hence begets the inner impulse to do
what will please God, /. ^. to serve one's neighbor.
,
'^ There
thus flow from faith, love and desire toward God ; and from
love, a free, willing, joyous life of service of one's neighbor"
(196). These are the true good works, as they flow forth
freely from the heart and bring good to others. *' For whatever
work is not designed to serve another ... is not a good

Christian work" (198). Thus the Christian is through faith a
free lord, and through love a ministering servant.
These remained controlling principles with Luther. Faith is
the acceptance (^Hinnahme) of God and his benefits. These so

overpower our hearts that and also through the Holy Spirit
(E. 19. 376)
there follows a self-surrender (^Hingabe) to God,
as a '* great fervent love" to him (E. 14. 4). But this love
leads us with inward desire to subject ourselves to the will of
God (E. 7. 161). And thus out of love to God arises love to
our neighbor (W. 8. 386. E. 14. 34, 46; 28. 207; 9. 284).
Love is accordingly defined as the will to do good " Love is :
nothing but simply to do good and tobeuseful toall men, friends

and foes " (W. 8. 362;. '' But
to love is from the hearttowish
good to another " (W. 2. 604).^ Thus all love is service, ^Xi^
the Christian's whole life is a service for God and his brethren
(W. 2. 148 ; 8. 360 f 367). We know that we were created
,
1 These ideas produce a complete transformation as to the province of ascetic

exercises. These are not a self-mortiRcation nor a meritorious work, but the
disciplining and exercise of the natural powers, which they thus make
fit agencies for the accomphshment of
good in the Christian sense. See
R. Seeberg, Askese, PRE. ii., ed. 3. 138 f.
^ With this definition compare p. 107.
;
for the sake of others (E. 8. 263),and that we are instruments

in thehand of Christ (12. 365). But such service can be ren-
dered only by really good works, such as we may learn from the
Ten Commandments, and not by the self-chosen Romish works
(E. 9. 287; 10. 411 f II. 318; 13. 159).
.
; These are the
works which belong to the natural course of life, in which we
should manifest toward our fellow-men **love, humility, patience,
gentleness" (E. 9. 287, 289 f.). This we should do, further-
more, each in his own particular calling ''serve God in his :
calling and thank him that he uses him also in his position in life
as an instrument " (9. 290). The moral equality of all callings,
even the lowest, is continually assumed (^. g.j E. 7. 228; 10.
233 ff-; 8. 259 f.; 16. 137 ; 17. 258 ; 18. 85 ; 19. 337, 352 f .
30. 367 ; 48. 273). To serve God in the forms of the natural
life and calling by the
humble service of love toward the brethren
such the appointed task of the Christian's life.
is But the
power for such service springs from faith, or from God.
But this is also the path to a realization of the Kingdom of
God. This term has in Luther a two-fold significance. On the
one hand, it indicates the dominion which Christ exercises in
begetting faith and life through the word and granting the for-
giveness of sins (E. 14. 181 f., cf. supra, p. 266; 21. 115 ; 14.
238 f., 240, 251 ; 18. 234; 39. 34 f.; 15. 21 f.; 12. 2 f.; 51.
** Christ's kingdom must on earth rule in our
181; 34. 26 :
hearts"). On the other hand, it signifies the sphere in which

this dominion is exercised, or mankind, in so far as they place all
that they do or can do at the service of God (W. 2. 97 ; 22.
166). Hence, all virtues in their fullness are combined in this
kingdom ** The kingdom of God is nothing else than to
: be
pious, orderly, pure, kind, gentle, benevolent and full of all
virtue and graces ; also, that God have his being within us and
that he alone be, live, and reign in us. This we should first of
all and most earnestly desire " (W. 2. 98). Since Christ exer-
cises his dominion upon us, we become and grow to be members
of his kingdom.^
This is what is meant by true evangelical perfection in the
sense of Luther. But it is not to be thought of as a completed
attainment, but as a continual striving. This is true of faith,
which maintains itself amid all manner of assaults, so that it be-
^ The term "kingdom" in Luther, as in the New Testament, very often

(^.^.,.4.356; 23.311; 18.233; 15-21; 29. 295) signifies "dominion."
He always, as do the Scriptures, thinks of it as in close association with its
Ruler (t\ g.^ 2. 95). It is the result of the work of Christ in the world. In
this sense, it is a purely religious conception but, since men strive with all their
;
power for its realization, it is also the supreme ethical ideal.

comes *' tried and experienced faith " (W. 8. 378. E. 14. 52).
The same is to be said also of the entire scope of the inner life :
''It is and remains upon earth only a beginning and increasing,

which will be completed in yonder world " (E. 27. 188 j. This
ideal of life eradicates the ancient disposition, imbibed from
Hellenism, to flee from the world. It makes possible a life of
active interest in the duties of the natural life and secular voca-
tion, yet in perfect consistency with the most profound religious
experience.
5. The recognition of the validity and independence of the
natural life awakened in Luther the desire to see civil and social
affairs regulated by the principles properly underlying them.
The dispute between the peasants and the nobility had to do, it
appeared to him, with purely secular affairs (E. 24. 283, 277 f. ).
The gospel neither advocates communism (ib. 291), nor does it
abolish feudal service (281). The peasants may be never so
clearly in the right, yet let them not press their legal claims in
the Christian name (273). ** In the name of the gospel " they
act against the gospel (275). The social question of the age
was accordingly in his view not an ecclesiastical, but a natural
and civil one.* But it by no means follows that the church has
nothing to do with this question and its solution. How little
such an idea would harmonize with Luther's meaning^ is evident
from his broad program of reform, as seen in his Address to the
Nobility, and in his energetic discussion of social problems,
as in his ^^Zinskauf'*'' and ^ Kai/fhandhmg und Wucher.^^
^
But
as the Address is dedicated, not to the church, but to the nobility,
so for himself Luther declined to assume responsibility for the
solution of the technical questions involved/ The church calls
attention to the abuses, demands that they be corrected, and
gives her counsel and encouragement to that end ;* but to the
state, /. e., to the social organization, belongs the execution of
the task. This is, briefly stated, Luther's attitude upon such
questions.
^ The peasants claimed to be "a Christian mob or union,'' ''Christian

brothers" (24. 265, 290), and on that ground claim for themselves "divine
right" (265) and " evangelical liberty" (270). These terms had for them the
genuine medieval significance, supra, p. 171, 182.
2 We must here let the " whole Luther" be heard, which will at least not
be "unlutheran."
^ E,
g., W. 6. 6 "But it is no part of my work to announce whether five,
:
four, or six per cent, is to be paid. I leave it to the decision of the laws, so
that where the ground is so good and rich, six per cent, may be taken."
* DiLTHEY, Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos. v. 366, rightly says : In the name
of the new Christian spirit, Luther demands a reorganization of German society
in its secular and ecclesiastical ordinances.
.
WORD AND SACRAMENT. 279
Cf. SCHMOLLER, Zur. Gesch. d. nat.-6k. Ansichten in d. Ref.-zeit, in

Ztschr. f. d. ges. Staatswiss, i860, 461 fF. Erhardt, Dienat.-6k. Ansichten
d. Ref., in Stud. u. Krit., 1880, 672 fif. Also, Braasch, L. Slellung z.
Sozialisra., 1897. W. K5HLER, Die Quellen z. L. Schrift an den Adel.,
1895. Seeberg, Luther's Stellung z,. u. den sittlichen u. sozialen Noten s.
Zeit., 1902.
69. Word and Sacrament.

la the religious processes depicted in 6 7 a personal influence
1 ,
}S exerted by God upon the human heart. It is in keeping with

a true conception of the nature of man in its sensuous and social
features, that Luther does not conceive of such influence as mys-
tical and direct.^ In order to win the hearts of men, God makes
use of elements of this world and its history ; of Christ and the
word which testifies of him ; as also of the sacraments instituted
by him. Only through Word and Sacrament^ does the Spirit,
operating upon the heart {intus opera?is) , comQ to us (W. i.
632; 2. 112. E. 29. 208; 9. 210; II. 223).^ Through
these are mediated the great chief miracles, which Christ performs
upon the soul, and which are far greater than the bodily miracles
which he wrought (E. 16. 190 ; cf. 58. 95 ; 59. 3). This view
was confirmed and deepened, particularly in the conflict with the
*
' * fanatics. '
2. But before the outbreak of the fanatical movement, Luther's

doctrine was firmly established in its essential features. In the
word alone does God work in the hearts of men *' The word :
alone is the vehicle of grace." Therefore man should hear the

word and meditate upon what he has heard (W. 2. 509, 95,
112, 453; I. 698). Only in this form can we apprehend
Christ *' He of no benefit to thee and thou canst not know
: is
anything about him, unless God put him into words, that thou
mayst hear and thus learn to know him " (W. 2. 213). Luther
discriminates here, however, between the ** inward" and the
** outward" word. Yet the two are closely associated:
*'
But when the outward goes rightly, the inward does not fail
to appear for God never suffers his word to go forth without
;
(bringing) fruit. He is .with it, and himself teaches inwardly

1 The mystical way in which Augustine rings the changes upon the theme :
" God and the soul," is not characteristic of Luther. His praise is given to
faith " For the two belong together, faith and God" (Miiller, Symb. Book,
:
386, 3S8. E. 49. 20). But this faith is wrought by the Word, and its content
is the God revealed in Christ.
See the association of the two in Augustine, Vol. T., p. 320 f.
^
^ Word and sacrament, according to Luther, differ in the fact, that the
former is addressed to tTie church at large, the latter specifically to the indi-
vidual (E. 29. 345 II. 157 f.). ;
what he gives outwardly through the priest ** (ib. 112). The

words of the priest are, accordingly, accompanied with an inner
working of God upon the heart.
From the beginning of the third decade of the sixteenth
century, there was an energetic effort in both Germany and
Switzerland to carry forward and complete the evangelical
reformation by exalting mystic and ascetic ideals. The pro-
moters of the movement were representatives of the mystical
piety of the closing Middle .Ages, with which they not infre-
quently combined apocalyptic visions or socialistic principles.
The "Imitation of Christ " with a "sensible tasting of his suf-
ferings," the " divesting self of material things," the " becom-
ing naked and barren of all created things," the " righteousness
of dying to the world," "the righteousness of the Spirit,"
the "inward call," the "heavenly voice," the "inner word," the
" tedium," and the " reformation " of the Christian world into
a "congregation of saints,"
such are the watchwords of this
party. But, above all, they held that no importance attached
to an external ecclesiasticism, or to the outward word and sacra-
ments. The "Spirit" does everything, and has no need of
infant baptism or the " bodily " word.* This agitation has im-
portance for the History of Doctrines, because it gave occasion
(Zwickau prophets, Carlstadt, Miinzer) to Luther to verify and
deepen his doctrine touching the word.
In opposition to the idea of a direct operation of the Spirit,
Luther rtiaintains: "Since now God has sent forth his holy
gospel, he deals with us in two ways first, outwardly, and
:
secondly, inwardly. He deals with us outwardly through the

spoken word of the gospel and through bodily signs, such as
baptism and sacrament. Inwardly, he deals with us through the
Holy Spirit and faith, together with other gifts ; but all this in
1 Luther describes these religious theories very thoroughly in his publica-

tion, Wider die himrnlischen Propheten^ e. g.j 29. 138, 146, 152, 173, 177,
180, 168, 160, 278, 285, 295, 177, 209 f. Cf. H. LiJDEMANN, Reformation
and Taiifertum, Bern, 1896. The " inner word " may be thought of as
. . .
accompanying the outer word (thus Augustine, and at first Luther). It may
also be conceived as a direct speaking of God to the soul, which was the idea
of the Fanatics {e. g.^ Denk, Stud. u. Krit., 1851, 177, 184, cf. 131. Seb.
Franck, in Hegler, Geist u. Schrift in S. F., 1892, p. 83 ff. ). It may be
understood therefore as the innate intuition of reason, or as the Conscience :
** The conscience, which is the Godhead and Christ himself, who now dwells
in our hearts, understands and decides what is evil and what is good " (Th.
Thamer, vid. Neander, Thamer, 1842, p. 27, 24 f., 26 f., 28, 29, 38 f.,
cf. It is interesting to observe that Seb. Franck regards the idea of com-
47 ).
munism as a part of man's inherited moral endowment (Hegler, p. 92). Cf.

supra, p. 183. Upon the entire question, vid. R. Grutzmacher, Wort und
Geist, 1902.
the manner and order, that the outward part shall and must pre-
cede^ and the inward come afterward and through the outward, so
that he has determined to give the inward part to no man except
through the outward part" (E. 29. 208; 47. 391; 49- 86).
'În the same word comes the Spirit and gives faith where and
to whom he will" (29. 212). From this time, Luther never
ceased to lay emphasis upon this point. Where the word is,
there are Christ and the Spirit (9. 275, 229, 236; 11. 35;
14. 326; 47. 57, 198, 221 f. ). The Spirit himself '^ speaks to
the heart " and * impresses" the word upon the heart of the
hearers. He ^'touches and moves the heart" (9. 232, 274 ;
13. 184, 286; 8. 308; 206 ; 28. 298: 47- 353 f-)-
II.
The relation of the outward word to the divine operation
accompanying it is explained by Luther in various ways. The
Spirit enlightens "with and through the word" (14. 188).
The power of God is *^ with it and under it " (11. 131)- <Jf
the Spirit it is to be said, that he is given ** through the word and
with the word external and preceding" (Smalc. Art., Miiller,
321), and that he " comes with and through the word, and goes
no further than so far as the word goes " (12. 300). The Holy
Spirit therefore teaches nothing else and nothing more than
what the words *' which pass out of the mouth of Christ from one
mouth to another" contain (ib.). He does not enlarge the
sphere of revelation, but he with divine power adapts the revel-
ation made to the individual and his needs. Luther discrimi-
nates therefore the purely human operation of the word from the
resultant operation of the Holy Spirit "in," "with and through,"
" with and under " the word,^ but in such a way that the latter
occurs absolutely only through the former.^
^ E. 18. ** Alongwith this preaching office, Godis present, and through

38
:
the spoken word touches to-day this heart, to-morrow that heart. All preachers
are nothing more than the hand which points out the way, which does no more
than stand still and allow (us) to follow or not to follow the right path. . .
They are not the persons whose duty it is to make anyone pious. God alone
does that."
^ Tliese formulas display an interesting parallel to those upon the Lord's
Supper. Viewed in detail, the matter is not perfectly clear. Luther began
with Augustinian differentiation of the outward and the inward word, but he
modified it by positing a fixed connection between the two. For this the Scot-
ist theory of the sacraments appears to have originally furnished the suggestion.
God has "determined" (29. 208) that wherever the word goes, a divine in-
fluence shall accompany it. Vid. also 45. 215 f . : "Noone can rightly
understmid God according to the Word of God unless he receives it [/. c,
this ability] immediately from the Holy Spirit. But no one can have it from
the Holy Spirit, unless he experiences it, tries it, and feels it [er e?'fahr es,
vorsuchs tina e mpfinds denn)', and in this experience the Holy Spirit" teaches
as in his own school, outside of which nothing is taught but appearances,
words, and idle prattle."
'
Medieval theology constructed the doctrine of the sacraments.

Luther was the first to frame a doctrine of the Word of God.^
Of the Bible, we shall speak in another connection.^ Cf. R.
Grutzmacher, Wort und Geist, 1902, 9. 8 ff.
3. As to the general conception of the nature of the sacraments,
it is to be observed, that Luther started with the Scotist idea,
that the sacraments are efficacious signs {êfficacia signa) of grace
(W. I. 595). But this is modified by placing them in the most
intimate association with faith. Their effectual operation de-
pends upon faith (ib.). They are ^* signs which help and incite
to faith . without which faith, they are of no benefit " (W.
. .
2. 686, 693). *^ And it depends altogether upon faith, which
alone brings it to pass that the sacraments effect what they signify"
(2. 715; 6, 24). The sacraments are symbols which awaken
faith, and thus promise grace to all, but confer it only upon be-
lievers (6. 86). The sacrament
is a sign '* That is, it
: is ex-
ternal, and yet has and something spiritual, in order that
signifies
we may through the external be drawn to the spiritual '
(^' 359)- ^^ ^^^s> Luther has fallen back upon the Augustinian
conception. The sacrament is a symbolic transaction, which
brings to the believer that which it outwardly signifies. This
idea meets us also later, but with the modifications, that the
sacrament gives something also to the unbeliever, and that great
stress is laid upon the fact that there is a real influence exerted.
But, in and of itself, it is, even at later periods, spoken of
as an *' outward sign," as a "seal or signet ring" (E. 12.
178 f. 16. 48, 50, 52).
; In the tract, De captivitate Babylonica
(A. D. 1520), Luther sharply criticises the Romish doctrine of
the sacraments. Of four of the seven sacraments, he asserts
that the Scriptures know nothing at all. There remain only
three (baptism, the Lord's Supper, and repentance), although,
strictly speaking, even repentance dare not be described as a
sacrament (W. 6. 549, 572).^ It therefore gradually became

customary repentance having now entirely lost its sacramental
^ The " Word of God " is for Luther primarily the oral proclamation, since
through this God operates upon the heart. But this operation occurs only
when such proclamation is in content a presentation of the biblical revelation ;
^. ,-, W. I. 391. E. 9. 230; 36. 197; 46. 240; 65. 170; 3. 347.
2 Due attention should be given at this point to the ideas formulated
at about this time that the reformation is to be effected not by violent means,
;
but through the proclamation of the word (E. 28. 217 f., 219, 221, 227 f.,
308, 310); that outward customs may be retained {28. 237); and that in such
matters the rabble (Pofel) is not to have the deciding voice (29. 160, 162 f.,
166 f., 206, 226).
^ In A. D. 15 19, he already calls them the two chief furiiei7iliche) sacra-
{^
ments, W. 2. 754.
character to count only two sacraments (E. 28. 418; 29. 20S ;
12. 179).
But the general definition is here of little importance. As,
from the time of Duns, the theory of the Lord's Supper did not
fit into the general definition of a sacrament, but was carried
along independently (supra, p. 131 n.), so was it likewise with

Luther, particularly in the case of the Lord's Supper, but also
noticeably in the case of baptism. We must therefore treat
directly of the two sacraments in turn.
4. Luther presents a connected view of his theory of baptism in
the Sennon von dem heiligen, hochwiirdigen Sakrament dei' Taufe
(A. D. 15 19). The sign is to be distinguished from the signifi-
cation {Bedeutung) of baptism. The latter consists in ( i ) The
duty of dying to sin ; for by baptism a sentence of death is pro-
nounced upon the natural man '* Therefore drown thyself in
:
the name of God." Thus a blessed dying begins wdth baptism

(W. 2. 728). (2) The ^* spiritual birth." This, like the
** increase of grace and righteousness," "begins in baptism, but
continues also until death (ib. )

'
'
on the ground that God through
baptism contracts a covenant with man, from which result both
regeneration and the forgiveness of sins, so that both are contin-
^ and begins
uous :
'
from that hour to renew thee, pours into thee
his grace and Holy Spirit, who begins to crucify the nature and
sin" (730).. Sin yet remains in man (728) but, since God
;
considers it as in principle shattered, he does not thereafter im-

pute it to the sinner ** will not look upon it nor condemn thee
:
for it, is satisfied in regard to it, and is pleased that thou art thy-
self continually desiring and attempting to slay it " (731). In
this fact, that God has '* bound" himself no longer to impute
sin to the baptized, lies the peculiar consolation of baptism (732,
733). It is here evident that the theory of baptism harmon-
izes precisely with the original view of justification through the
word regeneration and, in connection with it, the forgiveness
:
of sins (cf. p. 26of. ).

This remained essentially the view of Luther, except that, at a
later period, just as in the case of justification, forgiveness is no
longer so closely associated with the divinely wrought re-
newal. In baptism, the triune God is present ; the Holy Spirit
being particularly operative (E. 19. 76). The word and will of
God make it what it is, so that it is not merely a **sign"
(Large Catechism, Miiller, Symb. Bb. 495, 487 f. 489. " Bap- ,
tism united with and confirmed by the divine word and ap-
is
pointment)." ^ It thus secures an '* admission to all divine
blessings" (E. 22. 165. W. 2. 746).
^ But, on the other hand, baptism, is still '* nothing more than an outward
'
This involves two things. (<?) The Holy Spirit through baptism
effects regeneration. water, in which the
It is ''a spiritually-rich
Holy Spirit is, and in which he works; yea, the entire holy Trinity
is present, and the man who is baptized is then called regenerated
'
(E. 46. 266; 16. 69, 74; 29. 341).^ Thus the heart is washed
clean (8. 226), the whole nature transformed (7. 169), the
Spirit granted (Cat. 493), grace **infused" (12. 387. W.
2. 168). Biit since baptism is an act but once performed,
it assures of the continuous readiness of God to renew the sin-
ner '' Therefore baptism also remains always, and thou canst
:
not be so far nor so deeply fallen from it but that thou couldst
and shouldst again hold fast to it " (E. 16. 99). With this
continual renewal, proceeding from God, are given also the im-
pulse and the obligation to constantly renew ourselves. The
slaying of the old Adam and the arising of the new man is the
duty of the baptized, *' so that Christian life is nothing else than
a kind of daily baptism " (Cat. 495, 496, 498. E. 16. 103).
In baptism is involved the duty of making the whole Christian
life a repentance (Cat. 496 f. ).^
This is one aspect of baptism. But, despite the renewal thus
effected, our life remains sinful, and original sin is still operative.
(/?) The second blessing which the baptismal covenant car-
ries with it is the certainty that God is ever ready to fo?'give tis
our si7is. " They are all forgiven through grace, but not yet all
healed through the gift '* (W. 8. 107, 57,88, 93; 2. 160,415.
E. 15. 50; 16. 141). God has in baptism embraced us and laid
us upon his bosom (E. 13. 38) ; all sins are now and shall be
forgiven us. Hence, the sinner should ever anew '* creep to
(hisj baptism" (E. 16. 119. Cat. 492). This sign has been
given us by God, to assure us that he will through Christ be gra-
cious to us (E. 12. 163, 205), and that we are really admitted to
a place beneath his sway and ** incorporated " into his kingdom
(12. 212). This means, in the sense of Luther, nothing else
than that we, by virtue of our fellowship with Christ, al-
sign, that is to admonish us of the divine promise. If we can have it, it is
well. . But if anyone could not have it, or if it were denied to him, he
. .
is nevertheless not lost, if he only believes the gospel, . Therefore he

. .
who has the sign, which we call sacrament, and not faith, has a bare seal
attached to a letter without any writing in it " (E. 12. 179).
1 "At an earlier period the Scotist foundation underlying the conception of
the sacrament was more evident : That the priest pours upon the child, sig-
nifies the holy, divine, and eternal grace which is together with this i^do neben)
poured into the soul" (W. 2. 168).
2 " Thus resipiscentia^ or repentance, is nothing else than a sort of retracing
of the steps and return to baptism, so that that is again sought and practiced
"
which was indeed before begun and yet through negligence intermitted
(Cat. 497)-
:
ways experience the forgiveness of sins and renewal to a better

life.
In Luther's view, baptism has thus a double blessing, or effect.

God enters into a covenant relationship with the baptized,
which signifies (i) That the Holy Spirit is always present and
:
operative for his renewal.^ (2) That he always finds God ready
to forgive him his sins for Christ's sake. Baptism therefore
brings: '* namely, victory over death and the devil, remission of
sins, the grace of God, Christ with his works, and the Holy
Spirit with all his gifts" (Cat. 491). But, since only the be-
liever is capable of enjoying such experiences, it is to be believed
that God
in some way endows infants brought for baptism with
faith,on account of the believing presentation of them and the
prayer offered in their behalf by their sponsors {e. g.^ De W. 2.
126, 202. W. 6. 538. E. 28. 416; II. 62 ff.; 26. 255 ff.
Cat. 494).^
These are the leading principles of Luther*s doctrine of bap-
tism. We meet in them precisely the same ideas already found
in the discussions of grace and justification. In a certain sense,
his doctrine of baptism is therefore a complement to his doctrine
of the grace operative in the word. Baptism both begets a dis-
position to yield to the influences exerted by the word, and it
accompanies and individualizes those influences.
5. Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, in the form which
it assumed through the conflict with Zwingli, will require atten-
tion hereafter. We have now to do with his view of the sacra-

ment before the outbreak of the controversy. We take as a
starting-point the tract in Sermon von der hochw. Sacrament
:
des Leichnams Ch'isti u. von den Briiderschaften (A. D. 15 19).

The meaning or work of the sacrament is here said to be com-
' *
'
'
* *
^ Of
the highest importance upon this point is the remark, E. 12. 215 f.
" Where the word goes and is heard and baptism is desired, there it is com-
manded to administer baptism to both old and young. For where the word
as the chief part goes right, there everything else goes right also ; where the
word or teaching is not right, there is the other also in vain, for neither faith
nor Christ is there."
^
Luther accordingly does not think here of a "vicarious faith" of the
sponsors. " The faith of the sponsors and the church implores and obtains for
them personal faith, in which they are baptized and believe for themselves"
(11. 63). The lack of reason in the child does not, to Luther's mind, make
against the possibility, that they may have faith, as it is just reason "which
chiefly resists faith and the word of God" (il. 65 f ). But is such faith in
any way psychologically conceivable? See KosTLiN, L. Theol. ii., ed. 2, 237
ff.
, where my view is inaccurately stated. With respect to infants dying unbap-
tized, Luther afterward said that they are " without doubt admitted to grace by
him" (God) on account of the intercession of parents and sponsors (E. 3.
166; 23. 340).
:
It establishes a fellowship with Christ and all saints in

tnunio.''''
heaven and on earth, so that all blessings, sufferings, and sins

become common to all. Accordingly, the communicant may
console himself with the merit of Christ, and his representation
of and intercession for the saints above and the church on earth
(W. 2. 743, 744): **That we here lay aside from us all misery
and distress upon the church {gemeyn), and particularly upon
Christ" (745). But we are ourselves also obligated by this
cominunio to render to others the service which we here enjoy
**Thou must learn, as this sacrament is a sacrament of
. . .
love, and as love and help have come to thee, to show love and
help in return to Christ in his needy followers. For here must
thou grieve for all the dishonor of Christ in his holy word, all
the misery of the church, all unjust sufferings of the innocent
. . here must thou protect, act, and pray, and if thou canst do
.
no more, have pity. Behold, thus thou bearest them

. .
all, and thus do they all bear thee again, and all things are com-

mon good and evil " (745, 747). The fellowship thus effected
by the Lord's Supper is symbolized in the bread and wine, com-
posed of many grains and separate grapes, and in the fact that
we eat and drink the bread and wine and thus transform them
within our bodies that they become one thing with us. It
'
is taught, further, that this sign is a ** perfect one, viz. '* his ' :
^'''^
true natural flesh in the bread since *' the bread is changed
{yerwandelf) into his true natural body, and the wine into his
natural true blood " (749). In reply to the question, ** where
the bread remains, when it is changed into the body of Christ,"
Luther warns against '* subtlety." ** It is enough that thou
knowest that it is a divine sign, in which Christ's flesh and blood
are truly present
how and where, commit to him " (750).^
But Luther's interest centres in this bodily presence of Christ
only in view of the conviction that * Christ has given his body, in
'
order that the meaning of the sacrament, /. ^., fellowship and the
interchange of love, might be practiced, and he esteems less highly
his own natural body than his spiritual body," /. ^., the fellow-
ship of his saints. Hence the communicant should fix his mind
more upon the spiritual body of Christ than upon the natural
body, for the latter without the former would be of no benefit
(751). The presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's
Supper is therefore designed to remind us that he surrendered
this body in order that a fellowship of love might be estabhshed.
We shall meet this idea again.
1 Literally, transubstantiation is here retained (cf. W. 8. 435), but really
Luther is only concerned to hold fast the idea that the body is "in" the
bread.
'
WORD AND SACRAMENT. -87
The presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper was

thus the fixed belief of Luther from the first. Its denial he
regarded as a Hussite heresy (W. 6. 80). But from A. D.
1520, he expressly rejected transubstantiation. It is a Thomistic
fiction, that only the accidents of the bread and wine are pre-
served, but not the substance. It is refuted by eyesight.
Luther now, appealing to D'Ailli (supra, p. 204), adopts the view
prevalent in theology since Duns and Occam (p. 131 n., 203),
that the substance of the bread remains, and with it the body of
Christ is at the same time given (W. 6. 508. E. 28. 366 ff. ).^
Bread and wine are signs, *^ under which is truly Christ's flesh
and blood" (W, 6. 365, cf. sub pane et vinOj W. 8. 440 ; vn
Broty E. 29. 336). The significance of this presence of the
body of Christ consists in the fact, that it is **a powerful
and most noble seal and sign " (W. 6. 359. E. 28. 412 ; 29.
350; 22, 40): That is, the presence of the body of Christ
attestsand confirms the grace of God, for it was this body which
was offered up to obtain grace for us. *În order that this
divine promise might be for us the most certain of all and might
render our faith most secure, he appended the most faithful and
most precious pledge and seal of all, viz., the very price of the
promise itself, his own body and blood with the bread and wine,
by which he has merited that the blessings of the promise be
given to us, which he paid also in order that we might receive
the promise " (W. 8. 440 6. 230, 358.
; E. 22. 40 29. 350).
;
Luther's meaning is The body of Christ, as it is symbolized by

:
the bread and really present in it, is by its presence the clearest
evidence of the grace of God toward us. It does not occur to
him to doubt the bodily presence,^ but its significance consists
alone in deepening the impression of the word. This is the im-
portant thing, and the believer may even do without the sacra-
ment (W. 6. 355 f 362, 363, ,
E. 22. 39 f ). As the sacra-
ment can be received with benefit only by him who believes in
the atonement and intercession of Christ (E. 28. 240), its bless-
ing consists in the fact, that we therein ^' remember " Christ and
are thereby * * and * made ardent in love
strengthened in faith
'
'
'
'
(W. 6. 358; 8.
437. E. 22. 40; 28. 240). This strength-
ening of faith, together with the gift of the body of Christ will-
^ His condemnation of transubstantiation is here a mild one, provided that
doctrine be not made an article of faith ( W. 6. 508). ** No great importance
attaches to this error, if only the body and blood of Christ are left, together
with the word." (A. D. 1523. E. 28. 402.)
2 The idea of a purely symbolical interpretation occurred to him indeed :
*' because I saw well that I could thereby have given the pope the greatest
thump." De W. 2. 577.
ingly given to death for our sins, assures us of the forgiveness of

sins (E. 29. 347 f. ). Nothing is here made to depend upon the
eating of the body. The consciousness of the bodily presence*
of the Lord increases within us faith in (the offered) grace, and
thus produces the assurance of the forgiveness of sins. On the
other hand, the fellowship into which he here enters with us is
for us the most powerful incentive to serve him and our brethren
in love (E. 29. 351). '' You have two fruits of the holy sacra-
ment one is, that it makes us brethren and fellow-heirs of the

:
Lord Christ, so that from him and us one loaf results the other, ;
that we also become common and one with all other believers . . .
and are also one loaf" (E. Vid. alsoW. 19. 96, 99).
11. 186.
This is Luther's original doctrine of the Lord's Supper.^ The
most profound impulses of his religious consciousness contributed
to its formulation, /. e. the Christ in us, who becomes ours only
,
by virtue of the apprehension of his historical character, and the

summing up of all the results of his activity in the forgiveness of
sins, faith, and love.
It was not until A. D. 1522 that Luther was confronted with a
new problem. He learned from certain Bohemian Brethren, that
they regarded the bread and wine as bare symbols (cf. Wickliffe,
supra, p. 206). At the same time, Honius of Holland laid
before him by letter the interpretation of the jEst in the words
of institution, as equivalent \.o significat. Then appeared Carl-
STADT with his strange idea, that the *^ This " of the words of
institution relates to the body of Christ, while the ** Take " and
the ** Eat in remembrance of me " refer to the bread. These
suggestions opened up new questions for Luther. The relation
of the body to the elements, and the exegesis of the words of in-
stitution, claim the chief attention. From this time forward, he
calls for a simple adherence to the words of Scripture (E. 28.
412 f.; 29. 329, 321, 216, 331); when the Bible says ^' is," we
dare not interpret it as meaning ''signifies" (28. 393, 396,
398). But the bodily omnipresence of the Lord is not to be dis-
puted, as he does not travel up and down between heaven and
earth (29. 289, 293 f. ).
Luther, as we have seen, never denied the real presence of the
body of Christ in the Lord's Supper. But as the question of the
^ E. II. 187: ** If I believe that his body and blood are mine, then I have
the Lord Christ entire, and everything that he is able to accomplish." Accord-
ing to this and the above, a personal presence and fellowship of Christ is also
to be maintained. On the other hand, Luther rejected (28. 412) speculation
upon the concomitance of the divine nature ( supra, p. 132) and discriminated
,
between the presence of the body and that " of the entire Christ, /. e., of his
kingdom (lordship)" (29. 295).
^
What practical applications may be made of these ideas !
REFORMATORY CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH. 289
'' " of that presence now comes to the front, he is led to

How
ascribe to it a greater and independent significance. Whereas
the body was originally only a means of realizing the sacramental
gift, it afterward comes to be regarded as being the gift itself,
as wehave further occasion to observe.
shall
We
note, finally, that, from A, D. 1520, Luther expressed
6.
himself clearly and positively in favor of the reception of the
Lord's Supper in both elements (W. 6. 502 ff., 78 f. E. 28.
296; II. 161) and against the sacrifice of the mass. The
Scriptures do not teach the latter (W. 8. 421).^ Neither would
it be possible for us to bring a sacrifice (W. 6. 367), nor is it
necessary for us to appease God (W. 8. 441 f. ). He denounced

the abuses which have made of the mass simply a magical
jugglery (W. 6. 375, supra, p. 203, n. i). We should offer to God
nothing but prayer, thanksgiving, and praise (6. 368), together
with the faith '^ that Christ in heaven is our priest, offers himself
for us without ceasing, presents and makes acceptable us, our
prayers and our praises" (6. 369 f.).
70. The Reformatory Conception of the Church.

Literature. Kostltn, L.'s Lehre v. d. Kirche, 1853, and L.'s Theol.,
i.248ff., Engl. Tr. i. 289 ff. Kolde, L's Stellungz. Concil. a. Kirche, 1876.
Seeberg, Begriff d. Kirche, i. 85 ff. Gottschick, Ztschr. f. KG. viii. 543 ff.
SOHM, Kirchenrecht, i. 460 ff.
I. The chief elements of Luther's conception of the Church
may also be traced in his writings of the pre-reformation period
(p. 235 f.);^ but they were made powerless by his bondage to the
canonical ideas upon the subject. The pope, as such, is still re-
garded as an authority (W. i. 582, 670, 683 ; 2. 30), and he yet
looks to councils for new articles of faith (W. i. 582 ff., 681 2 ;
36 f.). This wavering and confusing attitude terminated with

the controversy with Eck and the Leipzig Disputation (A. D.
1519). Luther had asserted that the primacy of the Romish
church over all others had not been exercised in the days of
Gregory L, at least not over the Greek church (W. 2. i6i), and
that, according to the Fathers, the pope was only a co-episcopus
' See the interesting discussion of the origin of the mass, W. 6. 365 f.
^ Gottschick has rightly, in opposition to Ritschl, myself, and others,
proved Luther's independence of Huss. At the time of the Leipzig Disputa-
tion, Luther was not acquainted with Huss's book upon the Church (E. 24.
22, cf. Enders, L.'s Briefe, ii. 196) and he had only a slight knowledge of
his sermons, gained while at Erfurt (E, 65. 81). Since the formula, congre-
gatio praedestinatortim^ does not affect Luther's conception of the church, we
cannot think of the acts of the Council of Constance as the source of his views
upon that topic. His Conception of the church is based upon Augustine and
the current medieval definition, communio fidelium (supra, p. 144, u. 2).
If)
290 HISTORV OF DOCTRINES.
with the other bishops (2. 20, 229). At this point the contro-
versy began. Luther maintained his position (2. 185). Peter
does not, according to the Scriptures, stand above the other
apostles (ib, 235 {.). The Council of Nice did not attribute
primacy to the Roman bishop (238, 265, 397, 672). The duty
of obedience to the pope is not called in question, but it is
like that which is due to any government, even that of the Turk
(1S6J. The papacy is based, not upon divine, but only
upon human right; for such passages as Matt. 16. 18 f. have
nothing to do with the pope (187, 189 ff., 194). The papal
decretals, upon which the claims of the papacy are based, are
mere human laws (201). On the other hand, it is the divine
law, according to 2 Pet. 2. 13, that the pope, together with all
his subordinates, should be subject to theemperor (220 f.). As
Peter exercised no secular authority, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction
is not of divine right (223). And Luther finally comes to
doubt whether, after all, *âny other head of the whole church
has been appointed upon earth except Christ " (239). Luthernow,
at Leipzig and elsewhere, defends the proposition, that Huss was
right in calling the church the general assembly of the predes-
tinated {predestinatorum universitas'). But as this definition was
condemned at Constance, Luther found himself driven to the fur-
ther assertion ^^Nor caji a Christian believe?' be forced beyond
:
ike sacred Scriptures which are properly the divine law, unless
,
some new and proved revelation should be added ; for we are for-
bidden by divine law to believe except what is proved either through
thedivineScripturesor through manifest revelation "(W. 2. 279).
A principle of immense scope is thus established, that in all ques-
tions affecting doctrine the Scriptures are, as the divine law, the
only decisive authority. This idea is not new. It lay at the basis
of the medieval criticisms of the papacy (supra, p. 169, 172), and
Luther himself had made use of it at an early period.^ But the
establishing of it as a fundamental principle and the energetic
concrete application of it were new. The new canon is directed
against the councils in general, especially the venerated Council
of Constance, and against the pope as well (W. 2. 283 ff., 313,
'* A council cannot make divine right out of
404, 314, 397).
that which is not by nature divine right " (308). To establish
the Romish papacy by divine right is a '^ new dogma," which is
not binding. The church needs no head (313 f. ) The .
hierarchical system is not biblical, nor of divine right (379,

433 f-)- -^^^ canon law begins to totter (423).
^
Cf. Undritz, Neue kirchl. Ztschr. , 1897, 579 ff". As the idea was
widely current in the later Middle Ages, no importance attaches to itsuse by
Carlstadt, A. D. 151S ( KOLDE, L.'s Stellung z. Concil,, p. 34).
,
'
REFORMATORY CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH. 29I
great significance of the Leipzig Disputation and the con-

The
flicts it lies in the fact, that Luther
which preceded and followed
was thus led to break fundamentally and permanently with the
Romish conception of the church and the authorities upon which
itdepended (canons, pope, councils, ecclesiastical authority). In
place of the latter, was now acknowledged the sole authority of the
Holy Scriptures. The way was thus open to carry out and
apply the ideas of reform, the old barriers being broken down.
Criticism presses forward with rapid pace against Rome (<?. ^.
W. 6. 287 ff., 290 ff. E. 31. 257, 310), the pope as anti-
christ (De W. I. 239. W. 6. 2S9, 331, 598, 603 ; 8.
470, 183; 9. 701 ff. E. 28. 224; 17. 25, etc.), the coun-
cils (VV. 6. 79, 138, 25S; 8. 150. E. 22. 143 f.), and
the tradition of the Fathers (E. 31. 205 ; 11. 10 ff.; 12. 138;
2.But we turn to view the new conception of the Church,

as Luther first develops it in detail in the tract, Von dem
Papsttum zu Rom (A. D. 1520). The church is **an as-
semblage {7)orsamli4ngc') of all Christian believers on earth"
(W. 6. 292), and, furthermore, *' an assemblage of hearts in one
faith," or '*a community (^gemein) of saints " (293). Since
this assemblage is represented as a spiritual fellowship, the
principle of its unity is not to be seen in an accidental his-
torical body, such as Rome or the papacy, but in Christ
(294 f.), for it is he who so operates upon the members of the
community ( Gemeinde') that they are thereby united into one com-
munity. As the Head, he infuses his "disposition, temper,
and will" into the community (298). The church is there-
fore the spiritual association of those who believe on Christ,
established and sustained by him. But by the word '* church "
is also understood the organized association of those who be-
lieve on Christ, *'an outward thing with outward actions,"
and the order of the clergy (296). This '* outward bodily
church '
( Christcnheit)
' and the '* inner spiritual church '
(Christenheit) are to be carefully discriminated, but not sep-

arated. They are related to one another as body and soul in
man (297). It is, of course, of chief importance that we be-
long to the spiritual church, but this membership stands in
close connection with membership in the external church. At
this point appears the new element in Luther's theory- By
the introduction of the word and sacraments, he prevented the
dissolution of the conception of the church as held by Aug-
ustine and the reformers of pre-reformation days. The word
and sacraments, as externally and sensibly set forth, call
into existence the inner spiritual church. " For where baptism
and the gospel are, there let no one doubt that there are
also saints, even though it should be only children in their
cradles" (301). The church is therefore, in one aspect, an
external, visible association. But this is not '^ the true {rechfe)
church which is believed." Since, however, the word and
sacraments are here operative, faith concludes that here in the
external association may be found a community of saints.
Thus the church is an object of faith, and not visible, ''for
what is believed is not bodily nor visible " (300, 301).
3. In this simple combination, the way is pointed out for the
solution of the problem of the nature of the church. Luther
held without wavering to these principles, not indeed without
adapting them to the practical needs of his time. Two things
here demanded his attention, /. <?., the establishment of an evan-
gelical church order, and defense against the theories of the
Anabaptists. If the former task compelled him to a funda-
mental discussion of the form to be assumed by the external
church, in order that it may be an appropriate agency for the
production of the commiinio sanctorum, the conflict with Ana-
baptism emphasized the necessity of such an ecclesiastical system
(supra, p. 280 f. ). In opposition to Rome, he asserted Only :
the word and the sacraments are necessary to the existence of

the church ;and against the Anabaptists Without the word and
:
sacraments no church We must note a few features brought

!
into prominence in the further development of the doctrine con-

cerning the church.
(a) The spiritual nature of the church is maintained without
abridgment of any kind. The church is the communio sanc-
torum(yV. 6. 606, 131. Op. ex. 15. 357), for these words are
'* nothing else than a gloss, or interpretation, by which someone
wished to indicate what the Christian church is " ( Large Cat. 457).
It is the ''assembly (^Versammlimg) of all believers" (W. 8.
163), the "holy Christian nation " (E. 25. 355), the regenerated
(46. 258). It is holy, because the Holy Spirit reigns in it (W.
8. 163). Those who belong to it are all priests in the spiritual
sense (ib. 247 f., 251 f., 254, 382, 415, 417, 470). Thus con-
sidered, the church is the " new creation of God " (W. 6. 130),
the product and sphere of the redemptive work of Christ (E.
46. 154); or it is the "kingdom of God," in which Christ
reigns through the Spirit and faith (E. 29. 3;^ cf. p. 277).
Upon the relationship of the kingdom and the church, see E. 5. 231
' :
'*
Such kingdom of heaven begins on earth below and is called by another name,
the Christian church, here on earth, within which God reigns through his word
and his Spirit." The church is therefore the kingdom of God in its temporal,
historical course of development.
The church an object of faith, and may therefore,

in this sense is
upon the Heb. ii. i, be described as
basis of the definition,
spiritual 2iud invisible (see citations, supra, p. 235, and also Op.
var. arg. 5. 295. AV. 6. 300; 8, 419, cf. the exposition of the
kingdom of Christ as 'invisible." E. 12. 96, 127; 17. 236,
cf. 63. 168 19. 26).^
; ((^) The agency of Christ which incor-
porates individuals into the church is, however, bound to the
chosen means, the word and sacraments for through them God
;
gathers the community, and they bring the Spirit (E. 9. 124;
12. 406; 22. 142; 49. 220; 50. 75 ff., 48. 68, 346). Hence
the pecuhar character of the act of faith by which the existence
of the church is recognized. Wherever the means of grace are,
there faith assumes the presence of a
perhaps very small com-
munity of saints (25. 358, 360; 22. 142). {c) By this course
of reasoning the necessity for an outward ecclesiastical associa-
tion is maintained. The church must, further, always exist as
an empirical historical entity. Thus considered, it is "the
number or multitude of the baptized and believing who belong
to a priest or bishop, whether in a a whole land, or in
city, or in
the whole world " (E. 31. 123). It is evident, also, that mem-
bership in the church is necessary to salvation, *
for outside of the '
Christian church is no truth, no Christ, no salvation " (E. 10. 162,

444; 12. 414; 22. 20; 9. 292; 48. 218 f.). (^d) All this
may be said of the church, because the word and sacraments are
absolutely essential to its existence. It follows, also, that all
the members of the church are called to bear a part in the
proclamation of the word, and that the congregation should do
all in its power for its own edification {e. g., E. 12. 222, 278).
But since the congregation can no longer expect charismatically-
endowed preachers, and since the preaching of the word dare
not be discontinued, provision must be made for an office to ad-
minister the word and sacraments, without allowing this office to
duty of every individual to bear testimony to
interfere with the
the truth (E. 17. 250; 22. 146 fif.). The *'keys," /. e.,
teaching and preaching (15. 395), belong really to all Christians
(W. 8. 173), but the public official exercise of this duty, as is
^ Already in the middle of the third decade of the century, the EvangeUcal
party in Franconia assert against the Romanists ' This church is spiritual aridi
:
*
invisible^ not that we do not see the persons, but that no one knows which
really belong to the Christian church" (in Engelhardt, Ehrengedachtnis
der Ref. in Franken, p. 97, 123). This is no longer the original method of
establishing the point. Luther meant to indicate by the term, invisible^ only
that the nature of the church is spiritual, and hence invisible and an object of
faith ;and did not apply it as discriminating among the members of the visible
church. Cf. Wickliffe and Huss, supra, p. 211). The term was, as appears
from the above, first used by Luther, and afterward by ZwingH.
;
Strongly emphasized in opposition to the Anabaptist propaganda,

should be restricted to officials regularly called (E. 31. 218,
214 ff.; 48. 298 f.). The object of every divine service is the
preaching of the word (22. 153, 155, 235). Whatever is
essentially an affair of the congregation is to be actually admin-
istered by an office, viz., the preaching of the word, with the
administration of the sacraments and the care of souls (E. 22.
^13; 3^- 3^5)- ''Therefore upon whomsoever the office of
preaching is laid, upon him is laid the highest office in the
church" (E. 22. 151; 9. 220; 19. 205). The office of the
pastor can therefore not be outranked by a higher ecclesiastical
office, as that of abishop (28. 181 ; 47. 16) and the hierarchy;
for, according to the analogy of Christ's rulership, no outward
government dare be exercised in the church, such as that of the
pope, but only ** to rule souls through the word of God."
There is no ecclesiastical government which has authority to im-
pose laws without the permission and will of the congregation,
" but their reigning is nothing else than to use the word of God,
and thereby guide Christians and vanquish heresy " (E. 22. 6,
93 f 46. 183 ff.
;
Thus the relationship of the word and the
Spirit requires an ecclesiastical office.^
But since the church must, according to this definition,
(^)
always be an external association, it is evident that there must
belong to it empirically a great number of inchoate, imperfect,
and even hypocritical members, who can have no share in its
spiritual exercises (E. 9. 303; 14. 211; 16. 247; 2. 53, 61 f
25- 3^3) 65. 66. Gal. 3. 151 f.). Regarded empirically,
therefore, the church is like a field in which tares are growing
among the wheat. ^ (/") This must be borne in mind when
speaking of the evangelical church of the New Testament. If
the question be raised, which of the two churches, the Romish
and the Evangelical, is the **true" {rechte) one, the answer
cannot be given on the basis of their comparative morality. But,
since the object of the outward organization of the church is to
bring Christ to men through the word, therefore it can lay claim
to the title, ''true church," just in proportion as its preaching
of the word is in harmony with this purpose, /. e., is truly evan-
gelical.^ The mark of the true church is, accordingly, that in
1 The purely secular character which every form of church government has
and must have, in Luther's view, is evident from the above, cf. SoHM, 517 ff.
^ This affects the conception of the character of public wôrship, and
explains Luther's reference to sinful assemblies of more mature Christians in
his Deutsche Messe, W. 19, 73, 75, IT2.
^ Cf. E. 26. 42 31. 389
;
I have, thank God, reformed more with my
:
gospel than they could perhaps have done with five councils.
it the gospel is purely preached (E. 31. 366), that it has the
*^teaching, faith, and confession of Christ" (12. 245, 249;
48. 224ff.; 49.230; 50. 10 ff.). This can be known from the
agreement of its doctrine with the '*word of Christ" (12.
289): *' That the true church holds with me to God's word"
{28. 279 ; 9. 230). Our doctrine is *' the Scriptures and the
clear word of God" (13. 219, 223). The *' pure doctrine "
is therefore of the highest importance, since every corruption of
it must immediately influence the life (15. 358; 16. loi 26. ;
35 f. ). Hence, the church dare not tolerate false teachers (E.

26. 37 f ). As, therefore, the inner unity of the church is
established through Christ as its head, so its external unity is
secured through the pure doctrine of the gospel.^ *^ Therefore
thisunity of the church is not said to be, and is not, the having and
holding of any one form of outward government, law, or ordi-
nance, and church customs, as the pope and his crowd profess
and wish to have all excluded from the church who will not in
this be obedient to him. It is called one holy catholic or
. .
Christian church, because there is here one pure and uncorrupted

doctrine of the gospel and outward confession of the same" (9.
293). Where this old, true doctrine^ has free course, /. e.^
where the Apostles' Creed confessed, there the conditions are
is
present for the existence of the commwnio sanctortim, and hence

there is the true church,'* There has been a change in the
1 We
dare not here, if we would not lose the spirit of Luther, overlook the
practical aim of the "doctrine." Even the theoretical construction of the
doctrinal system is, to his mind, subordinate to the great aim of interpreting
and appropriating the gospel. (. g., W. 2. 469.) This is attested by his
according to all Christians the right to pass judgment upon the doctrine and
preaching of the church (22. 145 12. 367
; ; 13. 182 ff.; 46. 232 f. 47.
;
354). But this assumes an inner experience secured through the hearing of
the gospel, which may be used as a criterion. *' If thou knowest God, then
hast thou already the level, measure, and yard-stick, by which thou canst judge
ail the doctrine of the Fathers. . Who teaches you this? Thy faith in
.
thy heart, which believes only this (13. 185). Thou must thyself decide. It

means for thee thy neck it means thy life. Therefore God must say to thee
in thy heart, 'This is God's word;' otherwise it is undecided" (ib. 183).
There was, accordingly, in Luther's mind no thought of adoctrinal liierarchy.
^ The papal teachings are a "new" doctrine (<?.
g.j E. 17. 142, cf. 51.
103, where "Scripture and experience " are represented as " two touch-stones
of the true doctrine" ). The Evangelical party have the " old doctrine " and
are therefore " the old, true church." " For whoever thinks alike and holds
alike with the old church, he belongs to the old church " ( E. 26. 14).
^ Although Luther declares the Romish church to be a "devil's church,"
because it confesses "untrue articles," he yet holds that in it the Lord

through baptism and the word "nevertheless retains the young children . . ,
and some adults, but very few, who have turned to Christ again at their
death " (E. 26. 28, 281 ; 4. 59 ff. ). Strictly speaking, the false church has
no right to the property of the church (26. 39, 59).

meaning of this term. Once it signified the'* true church, which
is believed'' (W. 6. 301); it is now the church of pure doctrine

(E. 12. 245, 249; 26. 43; 28. 379 48. 359 f.).
;_
Once it
was a purely religious, now it is an empirical conception.^ THe
doctrinaire tendency which may attach itself to the watchword,
''pure doctrine" (^reiiie Lehre)^ is entirely foreign to Luther.
The doctrine of the church embraces the gospel, and the latter is
a power which lays hold upon the entire life, begetting faith,
love, and works, and binding Christians together in inward and
outward fellowship.^
71. Luther^ s Attitude Toward the Traditional Standards of

Doctrine, viz., the Scriptures and the Dogmas of the Church.
Literature. Romberg, L.'s Lehre v. d. heil. Schrift, Wittenberg, 1868.

Thimme, L.'s Stellung z. heil. Schrift, Neue kirchl. Ztschr., 1896, 644 fif.
Katteneusch, L.'s Stellung zu den okumen. Symbolen, Giessen, 1883. H.

Preuss, Die Entwicklung des Schriftprincips bei L. bis zur leipziger Disput.,
1901. SCHEEL, Luther's Stellung zurheil. Schrift, 1902. W. Walther, Das
Erbe der Reform, i., 1903. Thieme, Luther's Testament wider Rom, 1900.
I. In the preceding paragraphs we have

traced the leading
features of Luther's teaching in so far as has affected the His-
it
tory of Doctrines. It maybe said that here all is new. Luther

knew how to present the Gospel in all its heights and depths as
no man had done since the days of Paul and John. We may
best understand how he was led to this profound knowledge of
the truth by noting, first of all, his new conception of Faith
not the intellectual acceptance of a dogma, nor the theoretical
conviction of the correctness of a formula, but the heartfelt ex-
perience of the omnipotence of love revealed to us in Christ.
This experience makes of me a new man, and inspires me with
the powers and impulses of another world. But this experience
involves also the assurance that I enjoy the favor of God, al-
though sinful impulses are yet felt within. There now springs up a-
new life, which is full of true evangelical repentance. The do-
minion of the sacrament of repentance is abolished by true repent-
ance ; the works once demanded by the former being replaced
by the works of my earthly calling and the introduction of a new
ideal of the Christian life. But even more than this may be truly
^ It is scarcely necessary to guard here against the misunderstanding of this
change as involving a limitation of the religious character of the church. The

church of the pure doctrine has value or significance only in so far as it is a
means for the establishment of the communio sanctorum.
2 I still maintain the positions taken in my Kirchenbegriff^ y. ^.S*, as to the
social -ethical tendency of Luther's conception of the church, despite the criti-
cisms of K. MiiLLER (Symbolik, p. 326 f. ),
-
LUTHER AND TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE, 297
said. iVs Luther interprets Christianity, with all its facts and
doctrines, from the view-point of faith, all his utterances have
the direct impress of religious experience.^ What he sought to
tellof all things was, what influence they might have upon the
beheving heart and how the latter might secure such influence.
In this way he fell upon simpler, yet at the same time more pro-
found, formulas than many of those which tradition had handed
down. He held to Augustine's doctrine of original sin, or, to
speak more accurately, restored it ; but for him the essence of
sin lay no longer in sensuous desire, but in unbelief. He often
reproduced the theological and Christological formulas of the
ancient church ; but the God of his experience was not the infinite
'*
Subsistence " (Vol. I., p. 340 n.), but the omnipotent Loving-
will. He spoke of grace and its gift to us, even of ** infused
grace;" but he meant by it not a ** quality glued in," but the
efficient power of love which transforms our hearts.
The re-discovered gospel bore within itself the hidden impulse
for the construction of new theological formulas, and with lavish
hand, and almost recklessly, Luther dashed them from his pen.
But the reformation of the theology which he effected was not
directed by any thought of a complete revision of the traditional
dogmatic system. It was Luther's aim to obtain a secure and
permanent place for the newly-won conceptions touching the re-
ligious life (faith, justification, grace, works, the enslaved will, the
gospel, the lavv).^ He never wearies of seeking to impress them
upon his hearers and readers.^ Under the guidance of this cen-
^ Cf. 58. 398 f. : *' There is only one article and rule in theology ; he who
does not know and have no theologian,
true faith, or trust in Christ.
this is viz. ,
All the other articles continually flow into this one and out again, and the
others are nothing without this," Similarly in Gal. i. 3.
^ From this fact, as exemplified particularly in Luther's writings and the
Epistle to the Romans, it may be understood that Melanchthon should have

failed to treat of the Trinity and Christology in his first edition of the Loci.
^ There may be found in Luther a very great variety of propositions, each
of which is declared to be the " chief article," or " the sum of the gospel."
In reality, they all amount in the end to the same thing. I cite a few groups :
Justification and the forgiveness of sins y t. g.^ E. 31. 250: "The word of
grace and forgiveness of sins, and that we become righteous and are saved
alone through Christ without merit : for this is the chief article, out of which
all our doctrine has flowed, which was held and confessed at Augsburg before
the emperor, as it is based upon the Scriptures." Cf. Miiller, Symb. Bb., 300.
De W. 4. 151. E. 8. 184, 236; II. 157; 14. 188. Repentance and for
givenessy 11. 279. Grace^ forgiveness^ liberty^ 13. 30; 40. 324. Christy
the God-}7ian, who delivers us^ 13. 49, 56, 204; 15. 155 16. 254 9. 213 ; ; ;
10. 346 ; 12. 246

24 19. 390
f ; 47. 45, 58
18. ;48. 98. But not our free
; ;
will, 10. 218 14. ^^.; Grace and love^ 14. 73 22. 233 25. 76. Gal. i. ; ;
322. Faith and baptism^ 12. 204. Faith and %vorks^ 16. 140. The Trinity^
9. I, especially the contents of the Creed, 28. 413 f., 346 f 13. 221 f 49. 5, ;
;
and the symbolical writings.

'
tral idea, he moulded anew all doctrines that came within his
range. Whatever stood in its way, he rejected, as, e. g., the
medieval Semi-pelagianism and doctrine of grace, the whole
theory of the sacraments, the hierarchical system, work-right-
eousness, and the doctrine of merits. And just as readily did the
fanatical notions of an immediate operation of the Spirit fall be-
neath the weight of the reformatory principle. Other doctrines,
on the contrary, which did not collide with his religious princi-
ple, he conserved. If he had been entrusted with the construc-
tion of the doctrines of the Trinity or of Christology, he would
certainly have framed formulas different from those of Nice or
Chalcedon. This does not imply connivance, nor calculation
of consequences^ not even a lack of logical consistency.
With a genuine historic sense, he allowed the formulas in ques-
tion to stand, for the sake of the important truths imbedded in
them. Here arises for us a new question What was Luther's
:
attitude toward dogma?

2. Before attempting an answer to this query, we must have
a clear understanding upon another point. We have seen that
Luther, impelled by his central reformatory principle, was led
by an inner necessity to abandon the theories of the medieval
church and replace them with new doctrinal statements. Faith,
with its independent assurance, its feeling
* *
and experience
'
'
' *
'
(p. 257. E. 13. 185, 183, supra, p. 295, n. i, 2. ), here became

at once the critical and the constructive norm, (a) But, in the
decisive hour at Worms, Luther appealed not only to his religious
experience, but also to the authority of the Hofy Scriptiwes. In
this he established a further canon for the reformation of doc-
trine. He habitually appealed to it^very naturally in contro-
versy with his opponents, and was controlled by it in his own
religious life.^ Its importance became clear to him at the Leip-
zig Disputation (p. 289 f.). Only the ''divine law" (^das
gbttliche Recht), or the Scriptures, dare rule in the church :
'*What is asserted without the Scriptures or proved revelation

may be held as an opinion, but is not necessary to be believed "
(W. 6. 508 2. 297, 279, 309, 315). No water dare be min-
;
gled with this wine (W. 8. 141 f 143 f. )

; no lantern held up
;
against this sunlight (ib. 235). The word of God, not the
1 For the legal status of the Reformation, the retention of the Trinitarian
and ChristDlogical formulas was of the highest importance.
2 E. 28. 350: "Now I handled the abomination (indulgences) at first
almost tenderly and gently and handsomely, and would very gladly have
allowed the papacy to stand and have helped it be something but the Scriptures
;
I was determined to have uncorrupted, pure and certain I did not yet know
:
that it (the papacy) was contrary to the Scriptures, but only considered it to
be without Scripture, as other worldly government set up by men."
LUTHER AND TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE. 299
teachings of
men Christ, not philosphy, must rule the people of
God 144, 146, 149, 345.
(ib. E. 9. 232 ; ii. 7 ; 28. 298).
The servants of Christ must teach only his word (E. 7. 82). The
word itself is to be taught ; it is not to be bound by the inter-
pretation of it, as does Rome (W. 2. 339. E. 11. 31), nor be
robbed of its meaning by neglect of the context (W. 2. 361,
425; 8. 348). This principle became the more firmly estab-
lished for Luther in proportion as the necessity of an authori-
tative norm became apparent among his own following. He
thus withstood Iconoclasts and Fanatics, and upon this basis
constructed the new evangelical organization of the church. It
was henceforth a maxim: '*Thou must plant thyself upon a
clear, transparent, strong statement of the Scriptures, whereby
thou canst then hold thy ground " (E. 28. 223). From this
may be understood his insistence upon the est in the formula of
the Lord's Supper. But there is nothing essentially evangelical
as yet in all this reverence for the Scriptures, for it had been
quite common in the Middle Ages (supra, p. loi, 149, 192 ff. ).
The strict view of inspiration which Luther sometimes expresses
C the writing of the Holy Spirit," '* the Spirit's own writing."
Op. ex. 7. 313 ; I. 4. E. 27. 244 ; 11. 248 ; 45. 301 ; 52.
321, 333J^ was also current in the later Middle Ages (p. 193 n. ).
But for Luther the Scriptures were something more than the
"divine right," or law inspired by God, as Occam and Biel
regarded them.
{b^ This is proved by a number of considerations which point
to another conception of the Scriptures. ( i ) At the close of
the Middle Ages the natural law (^natun-echt) innate in the

reason was represented as equivalent to the divine law {gottlichcs
Recht^ of the Scriptures (supra, p. 171 f., 192 f., i84n.). Since
Luther denies this (E. 11. 30 ; 19. 266),'^ revelation is not for
him equivalent to the general dictates of reason, but has positive
and peculiar content. (2) This content is Christ and the rev-
elation given through him. '* If
I know what I believe, then I
know what stands in the Scriptures, because the Scriptures con-
tain nothing more than Christ and Christian faith" (W. 8.
236). The Holy Spirit, operative in the New Testament authors,
merely carried out what Christ said *^ As the evangelist John
:
See many more instances in Rohnert, Die Inspirat. d. h. Schr., 1889,

^
p. 1^4 ff. _
This is not contradicted by the fact that Luther would at first accept only
^
*' what the holy father proves with Scripture or with reason" (E. 27. 21),
nor his readiness at Worms to be convinced " by proofs of Scripture or by
clear reasons " (Kostlin, L.*s Leben, i. 452). Luther here means citations
from Scriptures or evident inferences from such citations. Cf. Occam, supra,
p. 192.
wrote many more things than Christ said just at this time, but yet
always keeps to this one purpose, to most thoroughly present the
article concerning the person, office, and kingdom of Christ, of
which Christ also himself speaks" (E. 12. 135 f., 138, 141).
Thus is for Luther the specific content of all Holy Scriptures de-
fined. That which is valuable in them, and which determines
their character, is their relation to Christ. *'This is also the
proper touch-stone for the criticism of all books, if we observe
whether they treat of Christ or not, since all Scripture testifies
of Christ (Rom. 3. 21), and St. Paul will know nothing but
Christ (i Cor. 2. 2). That which does not teach Christ is not
apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul should teach it. On
the other hand, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic,
even if Judas, Hannas, Pilate, and Herod should do it " (E. 63.
^57)' (3) In this connection, Luther's critical opinions con-
cerning the Scriptures are very significant. Thus, he asserts
that the text of the prophecies has often fallen into confusion ;
the discourses were presumably not committed to writing until

afterward, and then by redactors (63. 57, 74; 62. 123). The
prophets were often in error (^fehlten)^ when they prophesied of
worldly events (iwn weltlichen Laufteii) (E. 8. 23). The books
of the Kings are more trustworthy than the Chronicles (62. 132).
By whom Genesis was composed, is a matter of indifference (57.
35). It would be better if the book of Esther were not in the
canon (op. ex. 7. 195. E. 62. 131). The composition of Eccle-
siastes by Solomon is doubted (E. 62. 128). The reports of the
synoptic gospels are not of uniform value (30. 314, 331 14. ;
319). The Epistle of Jude is derived from the Second Epistle

of Peter {(i-^. 158). The Epistle of Hebrews errs, in denying
a second repentance (ib. 155), *' and is apparently composed of
many parts. '
James wrote ** a right strawy epistle

' for it
. . .
has certainly no evangelical character about it " (ib. 115), /. c,

*'he teaches nothing " about Christ, and connects righteousness
with works (i56f. ). He even says ^' James talks wildly"
:
{delirat) (op. ex. 4. 328. W. 2. 425). Luther did not orig-

inally regard the Apocalypse as a prophetic or apostolic book,
''because Christ is neither taught nor known in it " (63. 169 f.).
He remained in doubt as to its authorship (159).^ Great em-
phasis was laid by him upon the testimony borne to the various
books by the ancient church.^ On this ground, Hebrews, James,
1 Luther attaches very little value to prophecies touching outward events,
but places the Apocalypse in this respect upon a level with Joachim of Floris
and the Lichtenberg prophet (E. 8. 22).
!
^ Already, A. D. 1519, at Leipzig, he rejected Mace. TL as not canonical

(W. 2. 325, 329, 339). As to the Apocrypha in general, see 63. 91 ff.
LUTHER AND TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE. 30I
Jude, and the Apocalypse are distinguished in the Prefaces of

A. D. 1522 from the ** real certain chief books " (63. 154).
But the inner canon is for him yet more important. The Gospel
of John and Paul's epistles, especially Romans and First Peter,
are '
the real kernel and marrow among all the books.
* . . .
For in these thou findest not much description of the work and
miracles of Christ ; but thou findest here portrayed in the most
masterly way how faith in Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell
and gives life, righteousness, and salvation which is the real
character of the gospel " (63. 144 f.; 51.3273. Inconsistency
with this view of the Scriptures, historical oversights and errors
in the sacred writings disturbed Luther but little (<?. g., E. 14.
319; 46. 174; 50. 308 f. ; 62. 132. Walch, Luth. xiv., WW.
1208, 1293 f.).^ They did not affect the real grounds of his
confidence.^ (4) It is again in perfect consistency with the
above, that Luther's acknowledgment of the authority of the
Scriptures is not based upon their official recognition by the
church,^ but upon the experience of their truth: *' Everyone
must believe only because it is God's Word and because he is
satisfied in his heart (Jnwendig befinde') that it is truth (E. 28.
"
340; 47. 356), /. ^., a reality and not a mere ^ idea '
(48. 29).
(^r) The principles thus avowed indicate a conception of the
character of the Holy Scriptures entirely different from that un-

derlying the medieval formulas employed by Luther as cited in
paragraph (â) above. We
must not be too ready therefore to
regard such declarations as the hasty utterances of superabundant
enthusiasm, and magnanimously absolve the Reformer from re-
sponsibility for them. This is forbidden, not only by the fact
that they occur for the most part in carefully composed passages,
such as the prefaces to his publications, but especially by the im-
portant consideration that they stand in very intimate connection
with his reformatory conception of faith. There thus results an
entirely new conception of the authority and inspiration of the
Scriptures. Their specific content, in both the Old and the New
^ It is thus seen that Luther employed "criticism" in the widest variety of

forms. Almost all the criteria employed at the present day were applied l>y
him in his own way.
2 In the sense of Occam or Biel, Luther's position is simply he7-etical, since
the Christian is under obligation to accept all the books of the Bible and believe
everything found in them (supra, p. 192). It is very remarkable that the op-
ponents'of Luther did not make more capital out of his bold utterances in this
direction. It is true, indeed, that similar views were held by such men as
Erasmus and Cajetan (of. KuNZE, Glaubensregel, heil. Schrift u. Taufbe-
kenntniss, 1899, p. 516 ff. ).
^ D'Ailli still taught differently, supra, p. 191, n. I.
Testaments, is Christ, with his office and kingdom. It is this con-

tent in which faith is interested, and which faith verifies by inner
experience. This is therefore the important thing in the Scrip-
tures. must accordingly be the impelling motive in the special
It
divine agency which gave the Scriptures their peculiar character.

In other words, the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures
is thetestimony tothe great facts of salvation andredemption. This
is the purpose of their inspiration, and in proportion as they ful-
fill it do they substantiate their claim to be regarded as an au-
thority in matters of religion.^ This makes them the criterion

and touch-stone, by which all the teaching of the church must
be attested as evangelical truth (e. E. 207, 372 12. 289 ;
î,--. , 9. ;
13. 208; 15. 144; 18. 23; 48. 69, 92 46. 231, 240). This ;
places the above-cited passages touching the authority of the

Scriptures in a new light. The Scriptures were for Luther an
absolute authority. But although he could in controversy em-
ploy them as "divine law" in contrast with '* ecclesiastical
law," yet they were an actual authority for him only as the
primitive and original testimony to Christ and his salvation.
This determines their nature and their form."
But, when thus regarded, the Scriptures dare not be co-ordi-
nated with justifying faith as the second principle of Protestant-
ism. The controlling principle is faith and, since only the be-
;
liever can understand the Scriptures, and they exist only to min-
ister to faith, they are subordinate to it. This view produced a
new and profoander conception of the authority of the Scriptures.
The ancient problems wherein the authority of the Scrip-
:
tures really consists, how is it to be proved, and what its relation

to that of other writings
were fundamentally solved by Luther,
since he recognized this authority as based upon religious grounds
a statement which is not invalidated by the fact that Luther
did not always in praxis adhere strictly to his own principle.
3. We are now in position to understand Luther's attitude
toward the Dogmas of the Ancient Church. We have seen that
^ Cf. the remarkably characteristic declaration, E. Ii. 248: **Tl-ius I

would take Moses, the Psalter, Isaiah, and also the same Spirit, and make
just as good a New Testament as the apostles wrote but since we do not ;
have the Spirit so fully and powerfully, we must learn from them and drink
out of their well."
^ The doctrine of the Scriptures in the dogmatic system of the present day
must be framed with due regard to the principles of Luther as above deduced,
although the latter were not reduced by the Reformer himself to a complete
doctrinal form. How, for instance, could a verbal inspiration be sustained
in view. of Luther's derogatory remarks upon particular passages in the canon-
ical books, his recognition of redactors, who have collected the materials of
many of the books, and his acknowledgment of errors?
'
he rejected as unbiblical the medieval doctrine of the sacraments,

and denied the infallibility of the pope and the councils. But
what was his attitude toward the ancient dogmas? (cf. esp. his
tract, Von den Conciliis und Kirchen^ i539> ^^^ three Symbols of
1538, andtheother symbolical writings). It is very clear, in the
first place, that Luther acknowledged and frequently reproduced
the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian Christol-

ogy Also, that he treated the symbols of the ancient church with
.
great respect, especially the Apostles' Creed, which, he declared,

contains all the principal articles of faith (28. 413 f., 346 f.; 9.
29 ff.; 13. 221 f.; 20. 297 f.).^ But this is not to be under-
stood as implying that he believes these symbols or councils as
such, and thus subjects himself to an earthly authority. His
liberty in this respect is manifest from his criticism of the ancient
terminology. ** That if my soul loathes the word, homousioî, and
I am unwilling to use it, I am not a heretic ; for who will com-

pel me to use it, provided I hold the thing which is defined from
the Scriptures by the council " (W. 8. iiyf. )." He objected to
the word ' 7>'//;//y " (E. 6. 230), declaring that it ''sounds
'
cold," and was 'discovered and invented " by men (E. 12.
*
378); although neafterward admitted that the form of expression

is not important, as "original sin," for example, is not found in
the Scriptures (E. 25. 291 f.; 28. 382 ; 29. 183 f.). And in his
tract. Von den Conciliis^ etc., he " with masterly historical crit-
cism " ^ denies all binding authority to the ancient councils.
The highest council was that of the apostles, and it enjoined re-
fraining from blood, an injunction which no one now observes.
" If we want to be guided by councils, we must recognize this one
above all others if we do not, then we need not recognize any
;
'
of the other councils, and are therefore free fro?n all councils
(25. 240). Just as little are all the decrees of Nice observed
('244, 251 f.). And no council has set forth " the whole Chris-
tian doctrine" (261). The decrees of councils are not on their
own account true, but because they repeat the old truth, as given
to the apostles by the Holy Spirit (266 f., 295, 328, 331).
Councils likewise have " no power to form new articles of faith,
but should indeed smother and condemn new articles, in accord-
^ *' I have a little book which is called the Credo.

E. 20. 155: . This
.
is my which has stood so long and still stands unshaken, to this I hold
Bible,
fast, to this I was baptized, upon this I live and die." E. 9. 29 "Thus :
this Symbol has been excellently and briefly composed out of the books of the
holy prophets and apostles for children and plain Christians, so that it is fitly
called the Apostles' creed, or faith."
2 Eck, on the other hand, at Leipzig highly lauded the ecclesiastical defini-
tion of the homousia. W. 2.335. Erasmus already criticises it. Opp. \. 1090.
^ K. g.j his investigations concerning Nestorius, 25. 304 ff.
ance with the Holy Scripture and the ancient faith. Thus, at
'
'
Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, the '* new arti-

cles " of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and'Eutyches were re-
jected (333, 345)- Luther's idea is, that thedogmasare true only
in so far as they agree with the Scriptures they have no au-
;
thority in themselves. But the truth of the Scriptures is inwardly

attested. Hence it may be said, in harmony with Luther's idea,
that the Holy Spirit begets in us an experience of the truth of
the doctrine (of the Creed) (E. 23, 249, 267 ; 20. 148); for in
no other way can we be led to faith than by being practically
and inwardly convinced of that which has been taught (20.
141, 136, 144 f; 22. 15 f).^ The doctrine of the two natures
in Christ is in itself of no interest to the Christian ; it is only
from the work of Christ that he learns to understand it (35. 208).
We have thus before us the criteria and rules which Luther
applied in the criticism of religious utterances of all kinds."^ A
thing is true, if it is attested by faith, by his own experience,
and by the Scriptures] The outward and legalistic testing of
religious views by the Aandard of the ancient dogmas has been
abolished the ancient canon of Vincent of Lerius shattered.
;
But, beyond this, the legalistic use of the Scriptures is itself upon
principle abandoned. Luther's attitude toward the Bible was
thus very different from that of Occam. The problems which
in every age arise in this field of study, in consequence of advanc-
ing historical knowledge, may all be adjusted to the principles of
Luther and thus find their solution. That his praxis was not
always consistent or worthy of imitation can be here merely
suggested.
4. In conclusion, we may at least touch upon a further ques-
tion Was not Luther's peculiar apprehension of religious truth
:
limited or restrained by the recognition and acceptance of the

Trinitarian and Christological dogmas ? The reader of his dis-
cussions of the knowledge of God in Christ (supra, p. 252 f ) re-
ceives at first the impression that the Father was revealed in the
words and works of Jesus, and that a separate divinity of the Son
is therefore not in the author's mind. But, on the other hand,
Luther emphasizes most vigorously the idea that the divinity of
the Son is revealed in his own life. He is true God and true
Hence the papists have, in Luther's opinion, the whole second article of
1
the Creed only "with the mouth"

"in the heart they deny it," since they
hold that "man is not so utterly lost," and credit him with "free will " (E.
20. 142 ; 46. 87 ;6;^. 154). It is evident that everything is made todepend,
not upon the acceptance of the traditional formula, but upon a practical ex-
perience, upon the basis of which alone can the formula be really comprehended.
Critical objections to any one of the facts asserted in the Creed had never
fallen under Luther's observation.
'
man, two natures and one person (E. 7. 185 f., 196). His
human with its deprivations, sufferings, and temptations, is
life,
depicted in the most animated and vivid way (E. 13. 307 10. ;
131 f., 299 ff. ) This man was entirely under the guidance of
the divine nature. It was ''personally present" in him (7.
185). His human nature does not see and feel everything, but
what the divine nature permits it to feel and know hence Jesus
does not know when the day of judgment shall be (ib. ). Thus
it becomes, since the Spirit more and more profoundly and con-
stantly controls it, the *^ instrument and dwelling place of the

divine nature " (10. 300). Yet, in his passion and death, the
divine nature *' lay entirely hidden and quiet within him, and
did not assert itself nor shine forth" (3. 302; 39. 47 f.,
supra, 66, 3), as, upon the other hand, Jesus restrained his
omnipotence and, as it were, concealed it (37, ;^^ ; 39. 55;
40. 49). The intimate conjoining of the divine and human
natures, as the emphasis laid upon the reality and genuineness of
the human life of Jesus, is by no means a product of the sacra-
mental controversy, but is closely connected with the most pro-
found tendencies of Luther's thought in the words and works
:
of Jesus, God is revealed. But, in the first line of thought, it

seemed necessary to think of the Father ; in the latter, only
directly of the Son (cf. 8. 156 ff.; 40. io9j.^ The difficulty
cannot be overcome by assuming a Modalistic conception of the
Trinity,^ for Luther reproduces the orthodox doctrine in its
regular form (/. g.y Smalc. Art., Miiller, 299; 9. 2 ff. 22,
32, 116, 231; 10. 166, 171 f,; 12. 378 ff.; 16. 79, 108 f.;
18. 23 ; 30. 363 f. 45. 294 f. 308 f. ).^
; ;
It is true, that even in
so doing he manifested a Western feeling. The term Trinity '

'
'
(^Dreifaltigkeit, three-foldness) does not please him, because
^ Upon the Christology of Luther, cf. Th. Harnack, L.'s Theol. ii.
126 ff. ThOiMASIUS, DG. ii., ed. 2, 573 ff. H. Schultz, Gotth. Christi,
182 ff. Lezius, Die Anbetung Jesu'neben d. Vater, Dorpat, 1892.
^ Cf. Loops, DG.
358. A. Harnack, DG. iii., ed. 3, 752 f. This position
is not justified, but it is true that Luther had a strong consciousness of the one
personal God.
^ Cf. 28. 136 God is " not only one person " but, on the other hand, see
: ;
30. 227, 217. Christ is "one undivided person with God " cf. also the re-
;
mark, 189 *' The Holy Spirit is easily believed," " if a man is brought
7. :
so far as to regard two persons as One God." The Holy Spirit is a separate
person (49. 149); his divine nature is recognized in his working (49. 391);
in viôrdand sacrament he works (49. 220 50. 75, etc.) faith and everything
;
good in man. He is a comfort against the Evil Spirit in the world (49. 382 ).
The place in which he is revealed is the church "Learn
: . how and where
.
thou shouldst seek the Spirit not up above the clouds

: . . but here on
.
earth below is he, just as the church is on earth ... so that we may draw
him into the ofifice and government of the church, the word and sacrament"
(49. 223 f.).
20
God ''the supreme Unity."

is Simply Dreiheit (threeness)
"sounds entirely too ironical." The comparison with three
angels or men will not do, for there are not " three Gods."
''There is indeed in the Godhead ein Gedrittes (a tripartate
reality) but this same Gedrittes consists of persons of the One
only Godhead (6. 230).^ Luther was therefore not a Monarch-
ian. But he had a vigorous consciousness of the absolute unity
of God, and this enabled him to see in each trinitarian person
the entire Godhead. God is therefore fully revealed through
Christ (30. 62 45.295; 47.180; 49. 93), just as through the
;
Holy Spirit, with his sway in the hearts of men (16. 214J.
Father and Son are "one nature, one will," "one heart and
will" (47. 305 f.; 49. 144). Where one part is, "there is
certainly the entire Godhead " (50. 94). There is therefore no
contradiction between the expressions referred to and Luther's
consciousness of the Trinity
all the less since Luther did not con-
ceive the nature of the Godhead as " Subsistence," but as om-
nipotent Loving-will. He was able to combine this idea in his
own mind with the traditional content of the doctrine concern-
ing God. The theoretical problems w^hich arise in this connec-
tion never presented themselves to his mind.^
CHAPTER n.
DOCTRINE OF ZWINGLI. OPPOSITION OF LUTHER AND ZWINGLI

UPON THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD's SUPPER.
j5 72. The Refo7'matory Principles of Zwingli.

Sources. Zwingli's Works, edited by Schuler and Schulthess, 8 vols.,
1828 ff. Among the writings of Z., the following are the most important for
our purpose Von klarheit und gewiisse des worts gottes, 1522 Uslegen und
: ;
^ Cf. Augustine: dens not dii tres.

ter^ Vol. I., p. 240.
"
If the divine nature is to be conceived as Loving-will, how must we then
represent to our thought the trinitarian life of the Godhead, particularly the
divinity of Christ? The divinity of Christ consists chiefly in this, '* that the
Father has just the will which I have" (47. 306, 308, îS)- "This will of
the Father thou canst not miss, if thou keepest thyself to the man Christ, but
meetest him in this man " (ib. 318 48. 142). ;
Luther represents to himself
the trinitarian life as a conversation in God (45. 300 ff. 50. 82).
; These are
problems which Luther has left to Protestant dogmatic theology. DiLTHEY
also recognizes that Luther's faith does not touch " the material of the ancient
Christian dogma" Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos. v. 358 ff.
REFORMATORY PRINCIPLES OF ZWINGLI. 307
grund der schlussreden, 1523; Vnleitung, 1525 ; Von gottl. und menschl.
gerechtigkeit, 1523 (vol. i.). Archeteles, 1522; De vera et falsa relig.,
1525 (vol. iii.). De 1530; fidei ratio, 1530; fid. exposit., 1531
provident.,
(vol. iv.). Cf. MoRlKOFER, Huldr. Zw., 2 vols., 1S67-9. R. Stahelin,
Huldr. Zw., 2 vols., 1895-7, cf. PRE. xvii. 5S4 Hundeshagen, Beitrage
ft'.
zur Kirchenverfassungsgesch., etc., i. 1864, 136 ff. Moller-Kawerau,

KG. iii. 44 AT. Zeller, Dastheol. Syst. Zw., 1853. Sigwart, U. Zw., 1855.
Sporri, Zwinglistudien, 1866. A. Baur, Zw. Theol., 2 vols., 1885-9.
USTERI, InitiaZwinglii, Stud. u. Krit., 1885, 607 ff., 1886, 95 ff. Ritschl,
Rechtf. u. Vers. i. 165 ff. Seeeerg, Zur Charakteristik der ref. Grundge-
danken Zw. in Mitteilgn. u. Nachr., etc., 1889, I ft'., and Thomasius, DG. ii.,
ed. 2, 395 ff. LOOFS, DG., ed. 3, 381 ff. Nagel, Zw. Stellung z. Schrift, 1896.
I. At the 1506, while lAither was seeking *'a

close of A. D.
gracious God" Ulrich Zwingli (b. A. D.
in the cloister,
1484), became pastor at Glarus. His pastorate was a stormy
and eventful one. When Luther in 1517 began the great con-
flict, Zwingli was at *' Einsiedeln in the Dark Forest/' searching
in the Scriptures for the true ''philosophy of Christ." The

former stepped forth from the lonehness of inner struggles into
the great conflict of the church ; the latter had learned to know
men and human life before devoting himself in solitude to his
studies. Luther was impelled by the religious needs of his own
heart, the personal experience of faith making him a reformer.
Zwingli followed the counsel of Erasmus and the humanistic ten-
dency of the age, in turning to the '* very purest sources." His
point of departure was different from that of Luther, z. e.^
the humanistic, critical temper of the age, as differentiated from
the church and its teachings
a return to the sources, or the con-
viction that only the doctrine of the Bible is the truth. These
were ideas which Erasmus advocated, and which the majority of
the cultured classes applauded. It was under these circumstances
that Zwingli began his study of the Scriptures. The scope of his
reformatory activity was in consequence, from the first, wider
than that of Luther, and he was more conscious of a definite pur-
pose. The idea of a reformation, which only gradually dawned
upon Luther, was the controlling motive with Zwingli from the
beginning. From A. D. 1 519 he labored in Zurich, preaching
the Scriptures, taking up one book after another. Reformatory
ideas, in the proper sense of the term, were at first foreign to
him (UsTERi, Stud. u. Krit., 1886, 122 ff".). As the religious
lever of his work as a reformer was undoubtedly found in
the idea of justification through Christ and by faith, it is natural
to inquire from what source he derived this idea; and there can
be no doubt that he derived it, as well as his fundamental
reformatory views, from Luther. This is manifest, not only
in view of his known acquaintance with the Avritings of Luther
(UsTERi, 1. c, 141 ff.), but as well from the form of his doctrinal
writings, as they are found in his '* Schlussreden " and '' Usle-
gung. " ^ Zwingli started with the Erasmian ideas of a reforma-
tion. This led him to the Scriptures ; but it was Luther's range
of ideas that continually guided him in their interpretation. At
the central point of his apprehension of religious truth, Zwingli
is dependent upon Luther. But, as the more comprehensive aims
of the school from which he sprung fitted him, on the one hand,
for more varied application and a more speedy realization of the
reformatory ideas ; so, on the other hand, he retained some ele-
ments which were not up to the evangelical standard, and which
betray their origin from the medieval conceptions of the
humanistic party. ^ This explains his agreement with Luther in
the central doctrines, as well as the divergence of their theological
and ecclesiastical views.
2- In endeavoring to depict the reformatory ideas of Zwingli,
we must begin with the emphasis laid by him upon the Authority
of the Holy Scriptures. Here the will of God is revealed to us
(i. 54. 207), and here the Holy Spirit teaches us *âll that we
should know of God " C^y^)- All doctrine is to be based upon

the inspired word (i. 81. 177; iii. 51. 359). The proclama-
tion of the latter and obedience to it are the essential tasks of
the Reformation (i. 36. 38; iii. 70), This was the point of
departure which regulated all his thinking *'
Is it proper to
:
conform to (yobtempe^'are) divine things or human?" (iii. 67).

This went, indeed, beyond the attitude of the medieval reformers
toward the Scriptures ; for with Zwingli they were more than a
book of external laws. His obedience to them was a result of
inner religious experience (i. 79). But he never attained in
' Zwingli' s dependence upon Luther may without hesitation be asserted as

a settled historical fact. UsTERi, 1. c, and Stahelin, Zw. i. 164 ff., 175 f.,
furnish the material to substantiate this, although their own judgment upon it
is hmited to a "perhaps." We can understand their hesitancy from the fact
that Zwingli himself denies all such dependence (i. 253 ff". ; iii. 489, 543 ; vii.
144; ii. 2. 20 ff.). But we can understand also the sad self-deception to
which he has here fallen a victim. The study of the Scriptures was and
remained for him the source of his doctrinal views; and he found Luther's
ideas in the Scriptures after he had learned them from Luther. It is some-
what similar to this, when he disputes Luther's claim to having brought forth
the Scriptures from their obscurity by pointing to Erasmus and Reuchlin
(ii. 2. 21). Cf. also Kawerau (Moller, KG. iii. 46).
^ In Luther, the general demands for reformation, in so far as he joined in
them, were thoroughly subordinated to the religious principle ; for it was not
those demands which had awakened his energy and directed his course. With
Zwingli, they occupied an independent position side by side with the religious
principle ; or, rather, the latter stood related to them as means to an end.
Those who embraced the Erasmian conception of reform, unless they gained
also the religious experience of Luther, found what they sought in Zwingli
rather than in Luther. Of this, history furnishes many illustrations.
'
REFORMATORY PRINXIPLES OF ZWINGLI. 309
his relation to them the lofty religious freedom of Luther.^

Zwingli holds the humanistic view, that the Scriptures are the
original source of primitive Christianity ; yet he also applies the
medieval, juristic conception, that they constitute the divine law
which is to regulate public life.
3. In order to understand Zwingli's conception of Justification,
we must familiarize ourselves with his doctrine of Sin. Adam
was created free, but died through his sin, and with him the
whole human race. '* There he and all his race in him died as
dead as stone" (i. 183, 196). Sin, as original sin, is '' the in-
firmity and defect {Bresten und Mangel) of shattered nature."
In this invalided nature, the flesh is more powerful than the
spirit. From this disease of original sin grow individual sins
like branches from a tree (i. 190, 264, 60; iii. 203). *'Sin,
then, is when, the law of the Creator being neglected, man prefers
'
to follow himself rather than the banners of his leader and Lord
(iii. 169). Sin is disobedience toward God. The sinner
cannot obey the law of God (i. 184 f.), because his nature has
been ** shattered" {zerbrochen). But original sin in itself is
only *
a defect which one derives from birth without his own
'
fault" (ii. I. 287; i. 309; iii. 203f. ). The longing for eternal
life is likewise innate (i. 59, 58), since the *' natural law," or
an internal illuminating and drawing agency of the Spirit of
God, still remains to all men, even the heathen *' although I :
think that few of them have understood it " (i. 326, 360 f. ).
Accordingly, all truth in the natural man is inspired by God (iv.
2,6, 93, 95 ; iii. 156). But, however this may be, for practical
purposes we must regard sin as a shattering force which excludes
all possibility of self-deliverance.
4. Christ is the Deliverer. In the work of deliverance (sal-

vation), the divine Mercy finds exercise, and at the same time
satisfaction is rendered to the divine Justice (i. 186; iii. 180;
iv. 475). (^) Christ has by his innocent sufferings made pay-
ment to the divine justice (i. 186, 387 ii. 2. 7 ; iii. 194, 187,
;
198, 498). He suffered for us, bought us, reconciled us with

God {ut i7'atus placetur, iii. 181), became a sacrifice for us, and
delivered us (i. 76, 179, 233 f., 236 ; iii. 189, 197, 209, 194).
There is therefore no need of the sacrifice of the mass (i. 237),
nor of other mediators, such as the saints (i. 268 ff.). His
payment of the debt covers not only original sin, but all sins
(i. 264; ii. 198; supra, p. 203, n. i). He, the Innocent and
Just, fulfilled the law for us (i. 213, 263, 309). The latter he
^ Zwingli holds the Humanistic view, that the Scriptures are the original
source of primitive Christianity yet he also applies the medieval, juristic con-
;
ception, that they constitute the divine law which is to regulate public life.
did as God, since his will was the divine will the former, as a ;
pure man, w^ho could render a spotless sacrifice (i. 264). By

thus effecting our deliverance, God ** by this example of justice
removed from us our languor and torpor and displayed himself
to us as he was
just, good, and merciful " (iii. 180).^ (l?) This
last idea leads further. Christ is also by his works the
Revealer of God. He has made known to us the will
of God (i. 179). This, strictly speaking, carries beyond
the mere fact of deliverance: "is come not alone to deliver
us, but also to teach true love of God and works which God
requires of us" (180). He thus becomes our leader (195) and
pattern {"313), whom we should follow (iii, 194, 211). Thus
the agency of Christ is two-fold: "For Christ everywhere in-
culcates these two things, viz. redemption through him, and
:
that those who have been redeemed by him ought now to live
according to his example " (iii. 324). (r) Christ's redemptive
act now becomes ours through his relation to us as our Head,
and in the way appointed, z. e., through our believing in him.
"But Christ is righteous and our Head, and we are his mem-
bers ; therefore we the members come to God through the
righteousness of the Head " (i. 310), and " If we believe upon
:
the Lord Christ Jesus, that he is our propitiation, etc., then is

he our entire perfection before God, our salvation, our payment
and atonement " (i. 186). He who believes on Christ is counted
by God as righteous (iii. 164J and has the forgiveness of sins
(i.296, 393; iii. 230); so far, is, as he follows
that Christ.
" Whence also his righteousness our righteousness, if only we
is
walk, not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit"

(iii. 209 f. ). These are clear and thoroughly evangelical ideas.
Christ has endured for us the penalty of unrighteousness and per-
formed the works of righteousness. Because we believe on him
and hold to him, God for his sake regards us as righteous.
5. Here arises the further question How about Faith and its
:
origin? The revelation of the love of God in Christ overcomes

us: "So that ... at length the great humility of his mind
and his deeds of mercy compel us to hold him in love and
.
to anticipate all good things from him " (i, 186, 311 ; iii. 205).
Faith is thus confidence in the grace of God. " For faith is
that by which we rest immovably, firmly, and undistractedly
upon the mercy of God " (iii. 231 J. But
not to be under- it is
stood in the sense of the^V^j- acquisita{\\\. 174. Cf. Luther, supra,

p. 254, n. i), but it is wrought by the Spirit of God (iii. 223").
1 But Zwingli adds: '* or, that we may not presume to say too little about
his counsels, because it thus pleased him." Cf. Luther, supra, p. 271.
REFORMATORY PRINCIPLES OF ZWINGLI. 3II
The Spirit makes man's spirit {GemNt/i) ''to understand his

word " (i. 389) and gives man's spirit to understand that the
word ''comes from God" (i. 8i). As one reads the Scrip-
tures, comes the consciousness: "I have experienced that"
(79). Hence, because the Spirit of God incites, we under-
stand and comprehend the teachings of the Scriptures as the
word of God. Thereby we are overpowered with a sense of
satisfaction and inward health: "For Christian faith is some-
"
thing which is felt in the soul of believers, as health in the body
(iii. 198). To matter briefly in the sense of Zwingli,
state the
we may say : The Holy moves man, that he feels the
Spirit so
Scriptures to be the truth, and thereby attains confidence in the
grace of God. This is faith. The Scriptures, as doctrine, have
thus for him a significance different from that which they have
for Luther, whose faith arose directly from the experience of the
efficacious working of Christ (supra, p. 252 f.).
6. The movement begun in us by the Holy Spirit continues
in such a way that good works follow faith (i. 278, 311). Since
God thus works in us, we are his " fellow- workmen," /. e.,
"tools in his hand" (406). Although the "infirmity"
(^Bresten) still clings to us and we sin in many ways, yet God
continually " moves" us again, so that we return to him. And
thusour very sin compels us to take refuge anewin God (i. 191 f. ).
Since now the Spirit of God works in believers that which
is good, they no longer really need the law, " for the Spirit is
above the law ; and where it is, there one no longer needs the
law" (i. 212, 214).^ The example of Christ takes the place
of the law. "Therefore there is need of no law, for Christ is
his law ; upon him alone he looks, yea, Christ guides and leads
him alone, so that he needs no other leader, for Christ is the end
of the law " (i. 213). As the example of Christ here replaces
the old law as an outward rule of conduct, it may also be said
that all who are born of God obey his word (11 1. 178). In
this sense, the law remains, and is even a part of the gospel.
"The gospel thus understood, namely as the will of God
revealed to men and required of them, contains in itself .
commandment, prohibition, precept, and obedience ; so that all

commandment and prohibition of God must remain in force
forever" (i. 209 ff., 308)/ The believer is to fulfill his com-
mandments, except the tinsel-work of the ceremonial law Ti.
^ Cf. also the freedom from the law of Sabbath-observance, which recalls
Luther's position, 317.
i.
^ Cf. also in i. 308, 554* the complaint concerning those who speak
insolently iûnbescheidenlich) of the law, representing that it makes us despair
and hate God (referring to Luther).

311, 586), i. e., the commandments, in so far as they coincide

with the '' law of nature " (i. 359, 361). The law is therefore
the permanent moral rule of conduct (i. 359, 325 ; iv. 102). But
it can be fulfilled only as God works in us the necessary power.
" The believer does it not of his own power, but God works in
him the love, the counsel, and the work, as much as he does"
(i. 311). But when we, warmed by the fire of love within us,
fulfill the law, we do it freely, not under compulsion (in. 205).
Herein is a further modification as compared with Luther

Zwingli does not realize that ''the law" is the expression
of an entirely different conception of life, and he uncon-
sciously makes the gospel a '* new law" (i. 311J. God
impels us, but he impels us to the fulfilling of his command-
ments. Luther laid more stress upon the negative than upon
the positive character of the law ; Zwingli, on the contrary, put
the chief emphasis upon the latter.
7. In seeking to discover Zwingli's Ideal of the Christian
Life, we shall find especially instructive his tract entitled : Quo
pacta ingenui ddolescentes formandi sint (iv. 149 ff. ) Faith here .
stands first. Christ is our attorney, surety, and advocate ; he has

opened for us the way to the Father. He who believes on him,
to him are his sins forgiven. But faith is also the principle of a
life of ceaseless striving after the good: ** Only believers
experience how Christ gives them no ease and how cheerfully
and joyfully they address themselves to his business " (p. 152).
Among the means of preserving the spirit in this exalted state,
the study of the word stands first, but the example of Christ is
also particularly mentioned. As Christ gave himself for us, so
should we also not live unto ourselves, but seek to become all
things to all (155 f.). At the same time, we should be always
humble as was Christ. ''
He will therefore be perfect {adsoIutNs)
who resolves to emulate Christ alone" (157). life in the A
assurance of faith and in the steadfastness of love in the imitation
of Christ
this is the ideal. The Christianity of Zwingli is
'' It is the duty of a Christian man, not
thoroughly practical.
to talk magnificently about doctrines, but to be always doing
great and difficult things with God " (158). Only when life is
conducted in obedience to God and his word, in true doctrine
and right living, is justice done to the glory of God {e. g., i.
237, 322, 392, 39^- Cf iii. 165, 132, 48 f.).^
8. These are the fundamental reformatory principles of Zwingli.
Their essential agreement with Luther's ideas must be evident to
all. With these fundamental ideas were, however, combined a
1 C(. also the discourse of Schmidt of Kiissnacht, i. 536 f.

number of subordinate convictions which help to explain the

new form assumed by his teaching in opposition to the medieval
views. In opposition to the Romish doctrine of ?;^m/ and works,
he developed his theory of predestination. God is an eternally
* *
existent AVorking and Knowing" (i. 276); *' the eternal

Power of all good, and an unchangeable Working" (277) and ;
''the first moving Cause " (278J. Yea, he is, properly speak-
ing, Causality itself, since all second causes are only figuratively
speaking causes (iv. 96). God rules in the world, as the soul
in the body. Nothing can transpire which is contrary to his
will (iii. 283). Everything which occurs maybe traced back
to his power. The believer recognizes that his works are really
works of God, and that he *' is only an instrument and tool by
which God works" (i. 276). This is divine providence.
'' Providence is the perpetual and immutable government and
administration of the affairs of the universe" (iv. 84). This

leads to the denial of all accidental occurrences as well as of all
free actions (iv. 93). Everything, even evil, is based upon the
will of God (iv. 112 ff. ). This determinism involves the doc-
trine of Predestination (iii. 283) :
'*
He elects one, to be fitted
for his work and use ; another, he doesnot desire" (i. 276). *'So
that thus election is attributed only to those who are to be saved ;
but those who are to be lost are not said to be elected, although
the divine will has determined also concerning them, but for the
repelling, rejecting, and repudiating of them, by which they
may become examples of justice " (iv. 115). It is in accord-
ance with the sole agency of God, that when some are saved and
others lost, the fate of both is ascribed to the divine will. Every-
thing depends upon the eternal election of God. Only in the
elect is faith wrought it follows election, and is a sign of its
;
presence (iv. 121 ; vi. i. 215, 340 ; vi. 2. 106, 105, 155). He
who believes is elect. But even the elect who die before attain-
ing faith will be saved. '' For it is election which saves {beatos
facity (iv. 122, 123). Only in a figurative sense can faith be

traced to the preaching of the word. God uses the latter only
as an instrument: ** He implants faith, as with an instrument,
but his own hand being also very near. This inward dra\Ying
is (the work) of the Spirit directly operating" (iv, 125).
Election alone saves ; it works everything .good in man.
Only upon the ground of fixed election can man be sure
of salvation (iv. 140).
One thing is clear and this was what

concerned Zwingli that this doctrine excludes all insistence
upon works and merits. '* By the providence of
God therefore
are abolished at once both free will and merit, for since it deter-
mines all these things, what are our parts, that we should be able
:
to think anything done by ourselves ? But since all works are

from him, how shall we merit anything? " (iii. 283 iv. 116; ;
i. 375f., 27S). The Synergism of the Middle Ages is thus shat-

tered by the doctrine of the sole agency of grace. Zwingli in
this entered upon the path pursued by Luther in his De servo
arbitrio. But there is still an essential difference between the
two. While Luther never allowed his speculative determinism
to effect his Soteriology, it assumed great importance in Zwingli's
religious thought. He constantly recurs to it. While Luther
once broaches the idea, Zwingli lays a constantly-increasing stress
upon it, particularly in the controversy with Anabaptism. His
ideas were doubtless moulded by Thomas of Aquino and the
Stoic conception of God. ^ In fact, the parallel to Thomas' doc-
trine of grace is very striking. As the latter, for example, re-
duces grace finally to the idea of the Prime Mover (p. 118), so
also does Zwingli (vid. supra). Whereas lAither conceived of God
as Almighty Love revealed in Christ, Zwingli did not make this
positive limitation of the earlier conception. God is to be
known before Christ *' The knowledge of God by its very nature
:
precedes the knowledge of Christ " (iii. 180).' It is certainly a

perversion to describe the determinism of Zwingli as the ** funda-
mental principle " of his theology, since his doctrine of justifica-
tion had other sources and motives. But neither is it correct to
regard it as a passing episode. It is a foreign, but permanent,
intrusion
otherwise than in the case of Luther into the warp
and woof of his religious thought.^ This foreign element robs
^ IV. 139 :
" To be of the universe is therefore to be of God " cf. 90
;
" What he (Pliny) calls nature, we call God." Seneca, p. 95, 93, the doc-
trine of ideas *' These patterns of all things God has within himself."
: He
studied Thomas, iv. 113, And shall we see no connection between the divis-
ion of his material in the Comni. de ver. et fals. religione (God, to whom re-
ligion tends, and man, who by religion tends to God) and the arrangement in
the SiDinna of Thomas? (cf. supra, p. 98).

The whole passage which cora;bats a fundamental thought of Luther's
^
reads: " That therefore our rivals shall here say, that we have hitherto dis-
coursed of piety in such a way as to have made no mention of salvation through
Christ and of grace, they caw in vain :first, because whatever we have said
concerning the fellowship of the soul and God has been thus said also of
Christ just as of God fforChristis Godandman) ; second, because the knowl-
edge of God by its very nature precedes the knowledge of Christ."
* I cannot therefore agree with K. MOller (Symbolik,
450), when he pro-
nounces it just as improper to bring the charge of a metaphysical determinism
against Zwingli as against Luther. He has failed to take account of the increas-
of the theory for Zwingli. Cf. also Dilthey's opinion as to the
ing^ significance
*' pantheism" of Zwingli (Archiv. f. Gesch. d. Philos. v. 370). The close-
drawn lines of the whole document, De providentiadei^ attest both the human-
istic and philosophical trend of Zwingli and the lingering influence of
Thoinistic metaphysics upon him.
^
man indeed of the freedom of the will, but it also inspires his
will an instrument of the almighty divine agency to the
as
most strenuous activity. ^Â long list of stern, heroic spirits
down to Cromwell stands beneath the influence of this attitude
of will (DiLTHEV, Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos. v. 369).
9. Another consequent of Zwingli's reformatory views is seen
in his conception of the Church. The hierarchical view disap-
pears entirely. Christ alone is the foundation of the church.
All disciples, '* all believers and teachers," receive the keys, /.
e., the authority to preach the gospel (i. 386, 3S7 f., iii. 215,
221). The prelates are not the church, but it is ''the entire
congregation of all those who are founded and built up in one
faith upon the Lord Jesus Christ." \Mth this congregation at
large contrasted the individual congregation, or kilchhore (i.
is
197 ff., 656; iii. 125 ff.). The church, as the communion of
saints, that is, of all believers (iii. 131 ), is not visible, since its
members are scattered throughout the whole world (i. 201 ). It is
composed of believers, who place their confidence in Christ alone,
and obey, not human ordinances, but the authority of the divine
word (i. 201 f. ). That is the true church, which never errs,
which clings to the word of God, and follows only the shepherds
who bring that word (iii. 129). These simple conceptions were
afterward modified by the introduction of the idea of predestina-
tion. The invisible church now becomes the totality of the elect
and believing of all ages (vi. i. 337, 447J). Whereas, in the
earlier writings of Zwingli, the conceptions of the true church
universal and the comniunio sanctorum are not kept distinctly sep-
arate, this is now done. The separate congregations, or Kilch-
horen, form in combination the universal ecclesia senszdiiis, or
visibilis (iii. 574, 576 ff., 580, 586; vi. 432;
viii. 380), in
which the contained (iv.
ecclesia spiritualis invisibiliSy or electa is
8 f., 58). The source of the latter' s existence is to be found

solely in predestination. Therefore may children, even though
baptism effects no real change in them, be fully qualified mem-
bers of the church. It was, in part, the effort to maintain his
theory of baptism against the Anabaptists and yet preserve the
membership of children in the church, which led to this applica-
tion of predestination to the conception of the church (cf. Gott-
SCHICK, Ztschr. f. KG. viii. 604 ff.). But the church thus falls
asunder into two unconnected parts the elect of all ages and
:
places, including noble heathen whom we shall meet in heaven

in short, all whom the Spirit shall have transformed by the exer-
^ E. ,f.,
Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camil-
lus, the Catos and Scipios, iv. 65 ; vi. I. 242 ; ^. 69 ; viii. 179 ; vii. 550.

omnipotence -and the historical fellowship of believers
tion of his
in Christ. There exists no necessary connection between the
two, for ''a. conductor {liux) or vehicle of the Spirit is not
necessary" (iv. lo). See Seeberg, Begr. d. Kirche, i. 78 ii.
10. This brings us to the conception of the Sacraments.
Zwingli here adopts the Augustinian, purely symbolical view,
which was also advocated by Erasmus. The sacraments are
nothing more than ** a sure sign, or seal " (i. 239). They, on
the one hand, remind the believer in a symbolic form of salva-
tion and its blessings, and are, on the other hand, a means by
which he testifies his membership in the church of Christ. There
resides in them no kind of purifying or sanctifying power they ;
are simply signs in the sense indicated (iii. 229, 231 iv. 117). ;
We dare not attribute to the symbols the ** things which belong

to the divine power alone " (iv. 119). Only two signs of this
kind were instituted by Christ ; the other five sacraments are to
be abolished as not being commanded by him. Baptism also
^
falls under this symbolical point of view. Through it we engage

ourselves to Christ (is ''either a candidate or a soldier of
Christ " ), and we receive a symbol, " that we are to conform our
life to the rule of Christ " (iii. 231, 643). It is an ** initiative
sign, an engagement, as when a member of a confederacy wears
'
'
a white cross as a badge of his membership (ii. i. 242, 249).

If Zwingli himself at first entertained doubts as to the propriety
of infant baptism (ii. i. 245 ; vii. 365), he distinctly advocated
it after the Anabaptists began to make it a prominent object of
their assaults (A. D. 1525. See esp. Von Tauf, Von Wieder-
tauf, and Von Kindertauf). But while Luther in these conflicts
was led to value more highly the historical and positive ordinances,
Zwingli thought that he could best sweep away the foundations
of the Anabaptist party by making baptism a bare symbol, and,
particularly, by insisting upon it as an obligatory symbol. By
the greater stress laid upon predestination and the purely ex-
ternal character of baptism, it appeared that the great importance
attached to baptism by the opposing party might be best shown
to be unjustifiable ; while by insisting upon the obligatory char-
acter of the ordinance its administration to children was made to
appear necessary. It was in combating the Anabaptists that
the speculative and philosophical element became more promi-
^
See criticisms in the ^^Wslegm,^^ etc.: confirmation, i. 240 f .
unction,
;
241 ;against confession to men [lyselbic/it), with slight criticisms of Luther,

393 f- 40O) cf. iii. 543, 562 ii. 2. 22 confession to be made only to Christ,
; ;
396 f. the priest is only to be asked for advice, 394 ; works of penance, 397
; ;
indulgences, 398 ff, purgatory, 402 ff.

;
Against the priestly character of the
clergy
the priesthood an *' office," not a rank, 414 f.
nent in Zwingli's teaching. His determinism, having served

him as a weapon against the Romish work-righteousness, was
turned also against the mystical dreams of a visible congregation
of saints. Upon Zwingli's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, see
73. Cf. Stahelin, i. 484 ff. UsTERi, Darstellung d. Tauf-
lehre Zw., in Stud. u. Krit., 1882, 205 ff.
1 1 Zwingli proclaimed the truth of the gospel, and drew the
.
doctrinal inferences which seemed involved in it. The source

upon which he depended was primarily the Holy Scriptures.
But he felt himself also in full accord with the doctrine of God
and the Christology found in the ancient symbols (i. 57 ;
iv. 3 ff. ). He
presented no original ideas in these connections.
He conceived of God as the all-working Power, and at the same
time accepted the orthodox formulas, without attempting to har-
monize the two conceptions. His Christology has the Nestorian
tendency of the Scholastics (see below). His interpretation of
original sin harmonizes with that of the later Middle Ages. His
theory of the sacraments follows the symbolic view not infre-
quently held in the Middle Ages. He mingles philosophical
theories with his presentations of the gospel, lacking Luther's
sense of the positive character of revelation
Duns and the Nomi-
nalists having here prepared the way. Thus Christianity became
a kind of philosophy deduced from the Bible. In view of these
characteristics of his teaching, it may be said that the undeniable
difference between Zwingli and Luther
despite their common

understanding of the gospel is to be explained by the fact, that
Zwingli received his impulse originally from the Erasmian illu-
ministic tendency, and that, in consequence, the medieval ideas
continued to exert a greater influence upon him than upon Luther.
As in the particulars already noted, so also in his practical
operations in the church, Zwingli betrays his dependence upon
the medieval ideals. But the theocratic ideal which he pursued
allows to neither church nor state its proper position. On the
one hand, the secular governinent conducts the discipline of the
church in such a way that the doctrine of the latter becomes di-
rectly the law of the state ; while, on the other hand, the secular
government is absolutely subject to the authority of the Scriptures,
its laws and ordinances being valid only in so far as they are scrip-
tural. If the government acts in a way contrary to the Scriptures,

it is to be abrogated. The subjection of the church to the state is
only apparent, for the laws of the state are, after all, valid only
in so far as they conform to the law of the church, or the Bible.
This is a genuinely medieval idea.^ The carrying out of his re-
^ Supra Cf. Zw. i. 524 ** My lords should also prescribe
(p. 172, 183 f. ). :
no law otherwise than out of the holy undeceptive Scripture of God. If they
S
formatory work embraced both a new system of doctrine and a new

order of social and practical life, which must be enforced
by the agency of the state. Christianity is an affair of the
state, but the state is the organ of the church. Like Savona-
rola, Zwingli sought to reform his city according to the divine
law of the Bible, with the help of the secular power. It was
also in accord with the example of Savonarola, that Zwingh's
political ambition was not satisfied with the direction of his
native city, but associated his direct reformatory labors with
political combinations of the widest and most daring character
(cf Lenz, Zw. u. Landgraf Philipp, in Ztschr. f. KG. iii,
28 ff., 220 ff., 429 ff.). Thus, in every sphere of his doctrinal
and practical activity, we are impressed with the medieval and
humanistic limitations of Zwingli, and that, too, in such forms as
to emphasize the contrast between his ideas and those of Luther.^
73. The Controllersy Upon the Lord's Supper.
Literature. Dieckhoff, Die ev. Abendmalsl. im Ref.-ztalter, i. 1S54.

Thomasius-Seeeerg, DG., ii. 522 ff., 571 ff. Baur, Zw'sTheol. ii. 292 ff.
Stahelin, Zwingli, ii. 213 ff. Kr)STLiN, Luther, ii., ed. 4, 66 ff. W.
AValther, Reformirte Taktik ira Sakr.-streit der Ref., in Neue kirchl.
Ztschr., 1896,794 ff., 917 ff. Kawerau (Moller, KG. iii.), 74 ff. KCbel,
PRE. xvi., ed. 2, 121 ff. Jager, Luthers relig. Interesse an der Lehre von
der Realprasenz, 1900.
I. The difference in the views of Zwingli and Luther found

expression in the controversy upon the Lord's Supper. But
Zwingli had already, before the outbreak of the controversy,
developed his view of the Lord's Supper to a certain degree of
maturity. The theory of transubstantiation he had from the
beginning regarded with suspicion (WW. vii. 391). He received
the impulse to the construction of a positive theory, as he
reported to Melanchthon, from Erasmus (C. R. iv. 970). The
purely symbolical view was in harmony, as well with the critical
humanistic school of thought, to which he originally belonged,
as with his general conception of the sacraments and the sepa-
ration of the immediate divine operations from all earthly media,
should become negligent at this point and recognize anything else, as I hope
(they may) not, I would none the less stiffly preach against them with the
word of God." See also " Schlussreden," 42 : " But should they (the gov-
ernment) become untrustworthy and act beyond the rule of Christ, may they
be deposed by God." Zwingli here has in mind by no means simply the form
of the republican constitution. On the basis of his conception of popular sov-
** greater part,"
ereignty, it is his view that '* the mass of the people," or the
are authorized to "cast out" ungodly kings (see Vol. I., p. 31S).
^ I do not, of course, forget that I.uther aho had medieval limitations.
CONTROVERSY UPON THE LORD S SUPPER. 3I9
towhich he advanced. It therefore fits logically into the frame-

work of his theological cannot be regarded as
ideas, although it
a criterion of his fundamental reformatory principles. For as,

one the one hand, he derived his ideas upon the subject from a
foreign source, so also in the illuminated circles of the day the
symbolical theory was in the very air. His ideas were brought
to a definite conclusion only in consequence of the correspondence
of Honius with Luther (p. 288), in which the former interpreted
the es^ SiS equivalent to significat} The publication of Zwingli
upon the subject seems not to have become known until the
latter part of A. D. 1523 (Loops, DG. 387 n.). Thenceforth
he is clear in his mind. Basing his argument upon Jn. 6 (" the
flesh profiteth nothing"), he, in harmony with Augustine and
the older Scholastics (Vol. L, p. 323 ; supra, p. 133 f.), con-
ceives of the existence of the body of Christ in heaven as local,
and accordingly rejects the presence of the body in the Lord's
Supper, being thus, of course, compelled to interpret the words
of institution in a purely symbolical way. He was from the first
conscious of the deviation of his ideas from those of Luther,
which explains in part the zealous assertions of his (supposed)
independence of the Saxon reformer (supra, p. 308). If he at
first, indeed, represented this difference as a merely formal one,
though emphasizing the idea of a repeated memorial (Wieder-

gedachtniss, i. 257), yet he very soon resolved to assail the
theory of Luther, and from the year 1525 built up a carefully
planned and vigorous propaganda for the purpose of winning the
Southern Germans to his view, at first through the fictitious letter
to Alberus (iii. 591 ff.
J.^ Like-minded friends rallied around
him with advice and aid (Oecolampadius,^ Bucer, Capito),
and means of doubtful character were employed (the corruptions
in Bugenhagen's commentary upon the Psahiis, and the notes in
the translation of Luther's Church Postils). There was a feel-
ing of strong confidence that Luther's view could be explained
^ The formula, significat^ has a point of attachment in the general sacra-
mental theory of the later Middle Ages (supra, p. 127). What was relatively
new was really only the application of the formula to the Lord's Supper,
which held an exceptional position in relation to the medieval sacramentaj
theory. But see already Wickliffe, supra, p. 206.
The following among Zwingli's
2 writings have a bearing at this point the
:
Comm. de ver et fals. relig., 1525 (iii. 239 ff.); Subsidium sive coronis de
eucharist, 1525 (iii. 326 ff. ) ; Ad
Bugenhagen, 1525 (iii. 604 fF.); Un-
lo.
derrichtung vom Nachtmal, 1526 426 ff. ) Amica exegesis, 1527 (iii.
(ii. I, ;
459 *^-l; friindlich verglimpfung, 1527 (ii. 2. iff.); Dass dise worte Christi
. .ewiglich den alten einigen sinn haben werdend, 1527 (ii. 2. 16 ff. );
.
Uiber Luther's buch bekenntniss genannt, 1527 (ii. 2. 94 ff.).

^ Oecolampadius entered the controversy with his tract, De genuina ver-
borum Christi . . expositione liber, 1525.

away as simply the product of hypocrisy and timidity (^. g., vii.
390 f. ). Zwingli and his friends were impatient in their desire
to measure swords with Luther and undermine his authority,
and counseled against the use of prudent or pious tactics in deal-
ing with him. (See proofs adduced in Walther, 1. c. p. ,
815 ff. 916 ff. )^

,
And they actually succeeded in stirring up a
serious agitation against Luther's doctrine in Southern Germany,
although their efforts met with some determined opposition upon
that territory (Osiander, Brenz, the Syngramma, Pirckheimer).^
These facts must be kept in view if we would understand the
severity of Luther when he finally broke his silence and entered
the fray.^
2. Zwingli's theory is a simple one. Bread and wine are
signs of the body and blood offered up in sacrifice for us. These
signs signify the body and blood thus offered, and thus remind
us of the redemptive act (e. g., iii. 599). The est of the words of
institution is therefore equivalent to significat (ii. 2. 41 ff., 61 ;
ii^- 257, 336, 553, 606). Only faith can apprehend and appro-
priate salvation ; but faith has to do only with spiritual entities.
Hence the eating of the body of Christ can signify only the be-
lieving appropriation of the salvation secured for us by the
sacrifice of that body. Christ is present in the Supper only '^ by
the contemplation of faith'* {contemplatiojie fidei), but not 'în
essence and really " {^pcr essentiani et realiter^. Faith in Christ
^ Bucer writes very characteristically to Zwingli: "O Flesh! O Satan!

what work hast thou made for us !It shall be destroyed by us for the pro-
motion of the glory of God, and we shall see this arrogance vanish" (Zw. opp.
vii. 521 ). Luther expresses his opinion of the conflict from the moral point of
view with unsurpassable clearness (E. 30. 266): **My free, open, simple
snapping at the devil is to my notion much better than their poisonous, plot-
ting assassination, which they practice against the upright under the pretense
of peace and love." As to the method of his opponents, see also 30, 24, 38,
61, 98, 139, 148 ff., 160, 205. It is more important to set forth clearly the
spirit of these opponents and the historic basis of it, than to shudder at the
thought of Luther's coarseness in dealing with them.
^ See Bilibaldi Pirckheimeri de vera Christi carne et vero ejus sanguine ad
lo. Oecolarap. respons. Norimb. 1526, and B. Pirckh. de vera Chr., etc.,
respons. secunda, Norimb. 1527. The argumentation of these documents
touches the positions of Luther at many points {c. g.^ the clearness of the

words of institution see the first response, form B, 7 r, E 4, and in the con-
clusion, upon the definition of a tropus, E 5 v against the significat^ F. 2 r and
;
the two resp. F. 8 r); even in the conception of the ubiquity: "And it
would not indeed be impossible with God . that one body, most highly
. .
clarified, should be in many places" (istresp.F. 5 v). But Stahelin (Zw. ii.
269 f. ) is in error when he represents Pirckheimer as having " first " intro-
duced the idea of the ubiquity into the controversy, as Luther had already done
so in 1525 (E. 29. 288 f., 294). Pirckheimer had read Luther {ê. g.^ resp. i
F. 3v, 6 v; H. I r, 2).
" See Luther's writings during the controversy. Cf. supra, p. 227, n. 3.
1
CONTROVERSY UPON THE LORD S SUPPER. 32
is really the eating of his body, *^ The body of

Christ is then
eaten, when believed " (iii. 243 f.,
his death {caesuin) for us is
595) Z'h^'^ iv* 53j 118). If we would take the eating of the body
of Christ seriously, we would come into conflict, on the one
hand, with the maxim, that the flesh profiteth nothing (Jn. 6.
dî f-J ii- 2. 85 ff., 184 ff.); and, on the other hand, collide
with the limitation of Christ's body to locality (ii. 2. 81 ; iii.
332, 338, 512). Moreover, at the time of the institution of the
Lord's Supper, the blood of Christ had not yet been shed (iii.
The Christology of Zwingli is at this point called into service.

While Luther interprets the traditional dogma from the view-
point of personal unity, Zwingli always premises the abstract
difference of the two natures. God ** assumed human nature "
the incarnation signifies nothing more than this (ii. 2. 69 f. ).
As in the history of Christ's earthly life his two natures are to be
carefully discriminated (so that, for example, he according to his
human nature does not know the day of his second coming, yet
according to his divine nature knows all things, iii. 537 i.\ ii.
2. 67), so also his divine nature fills heaven and earth, while at
the same time his human nature is limited to a particular place

in heaven (for, as created, it is " not infinite ") and is a type of
our resurrection (ii. 2. 71, 72, 81 *' willst also never be able to
:
maintain that the human nature of Jesus Christ is in more

than one place"). If now in the Scriptures that is ascribed to
the one nature which belongs to the other, or attributes of the
one nature are attributed to the entire person, this is to be ex-
plained through the figure of speech known as Ailoeosis, or
interchange, /. e. , it is a rhetorical ** exchange by which, when
' '
' '
speaking of the one nature of Christ, we use the terms belonging

to the other" (iii. 525; ii. 2. 68 f ). Thus, if it is said of
Christ that he is at the right hand of God, this, strictly inter-
preted, applies only to his divine nature (ii. 2. 71). Zwingli's
ideas as to the divine and human natures of Christ and his per-
sonal unity are here orthodox (^. g., ii. 2. 66 ff., 82 ; ii. i.
449). But for the great thought in Luther's theology -that
even the human words and works of Christ are a revelation of

God he has no comprehension. ^ His Christology remains
absolutely upon the plane of the medieval conception. The
divine and human natures are assigned to the opposite cate-
gories of finite and infinite nature. The consequences of this
* Stahelin is not entirely correct, when he (Zw. ii.
175) describes, as the
reformatory factor, in Zwingli as in Luther, " the overwhelming impression of
the vision of Christ upon the sensibilities of the soul burdened by sin." Cf.
supra, p. 314, but also p. 310.
21
position came to light in the controversy upon the Lord's

Supper.
The Lord's Supper is thus, according to Zwingli, on the one
hand, a memorial celebration designed to remind us of the re-
demption wrought by the death of Christ ; and, on the other
hand, a profession of adherence to Christ in the presence of the
congregation, and thus the assuming of an obligation to lead a
Christian life (iii. 60 1).^
3. We found, as the result of our study of Luther's doctrine of
the Lord's Supper (supra, p. 288), that he from the beginning
taught the presence of the body of Christ in the Supper, and in
such a way that the body, as a seal of the forgiveness of sins
wrought by it and by the word appropriated by faith, strengthens
and confirms the communicant in his faith. The theories of
Carlstadt, who misinterpreted the rohro of Zwingli, who inter-
;
preted the est as meaning significat ; of Oecolampadius, who ex-

plained the aihîa as a sign of the body,
all fell beyond the lines
of his thought. It was just at this time, moreover, that Luther
became thoroughly convinced of the indissoluble connection be-
tween the empirical word and the exertion of the Spirit's
agency. Here appeared to be another attempt, similar to that
of the Anabaptists, to tear the two asunder (E. 30. 136, 353).
Finally, he felt the new theory to be unspiritual and unchurchly,
and he was convinced that it was unscriptural as well. The
words of the institution appeared to him simple and plain. What
need for interpretations of such plain terms as bread, wine, body,
"blood, eat, drink,is (29. 329, 331; 30. 33 ff., 154, 293, 355)?
And as the words point to reality, this is confirmed by the cir-

cumstance that the traditional preservation of them is in all the
sources in the same simple form (30. 311), and by the consider-
ation that symbols are characteristic of the Old Testament, not
of the New (ib. 338). Accordingly, he inferred that we truly
eat the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper (29. 338; 30. 30,
'' But how this occurs, or how he is in the bread, we do
103).
not know, and are not to know. We
should believe the word of
God, and not dictate ways and means to him " (30. 30). The
1 Zwingli thus summarizes the errors of Luther: (l) That the body of
Christ, naturally eaten in this sacrament, confirms faith. (2) That the body
of Christ, naturally eaten, forgives sins. (3) Thatthebody of Christ is nat-
urally brought in the vehicle of the words spoken. (4) "That when I offer
the body of Christ to be naturally eaten, I bring the gospel very near to him
to whom I offer this, and to whom I give the body and blood " (iii. 561).
Also, ii. 2. 93 :
" That the flesh of Christ is an entirely spiritual flesh ; that
the body of Christ is, like the divine nature, omnipresent, . . that the body
of Christ, bodily eaten, preserves our body for the resurrection, . . gives
.
and increases faith."

exegetical difficulties of the words of institution never troubled

Luther, and he denied the application of Jn. 6 to the Lord's
Supper (30. 79 ff.). Nor did the manner of the union of the
body and bread disturb him. There was another problem,
however, which awakened his most profound concern. His op-
ponents asserted the impossibility of the bodily presence at many
places. If Luther meant to maintain his position, it was, there-
fore, incumbent upon him to prove that the ubiquity of the body
of Christ was conceivable (30. 49, 56, 58, 70, 201, 206, 282).
4. In order to follow the arguments employed by Luther in
support of this position, we must bear two things constantly in
mind. In the first place, for Luther, as a scholastically trained
theologian, the problem was not an uncongenial one ;^ and, in
the second place, his Christology furnished the materials to be
used in its solution. He had from the beginning thought of the
two natures of Christ as so united that the man Jesus was, in all
his words and works, the expression and organ of his divine na-
ture. He knew no God except the One revealed in the man
Jesus. God '* is present and substantial (geo-enwdrtig und wes-
'
'
enlicK) in all created things, but he ** dwells" in Christ bodily,

so thatone person is man and God (30. 63). When these ideas
are considered in the light of the formula of the doctrine of
the two natures, the inference is, that the two natures are
''one single person" (30. 63, 206 f., 211, 222), in abso-
lutely inseparable union, so that where the one is the other
must also be (2iif. ). There subsists between the two a re-
lation like that between body and soul (204); and the flesh of
Christ is, therefore, being permeated by God, ** nothing but
spirit, nothing but holiness, nothing but purity " (231). It is
'*
a divine flesh, a spirit-flesh." *' It is in
God and God in it "
(30. 125; 48. 26, 58), God has become completely man, so
that all human attributes, such as suffering and dying, have also
become his (25. 310, 312, 314). '' Out of the infinite
God has
been made a finite and definable man " (47. 182). The commit-
nicatio idiomaticm is thus taken in its full meaning (25. 309) All .
the activity and suffering of the man is also the activity and suf-
fering of God (30. 62, 67 ;
46. 332 f ). " Whatsoever I be-
hold in Christ is at the sametimeboth human and divine" (47.
'* Wherever thou canst say, Here is
361 f. J. God, there must
thou also say, Therefore Christ the man is also here. And if
thou shouldst point out a place where God was and not the man,
^ Supra,
p. 133, 204. Luther had the feeling of superiority of a dogmati-
cally (scholastically) trained theologian as compared with Zwingli. The
latter was for him'* a self-grown doctor; they generally turn out so" (30.
267).
then would the person be already divided, since I might then say
with truth, Here is God, who is not man, and never yet became
man. But nothing of that God for me ! .Nay, friend,
. ,
wherever thou placest God for me, there must thou also place
for me the human nature. They cannot be separated and divided
from each other. There has come to be One person" (30.
211).^ The divine nature gives its peculiarity (attributes) to
the human nature, and the human nature also in return its pecu-
liarity to the divine nature (30. 204 ;.47. 177). It is no more
wonderful that God dies, than that he became man (25. 312).
Hence Luther could see in the Alloeosis Qx\\y ** the devil's mask"
(30. 203, 205, 225), for this separation of the works of the two
natures no longer permits us to see in the human nature the full
revelation of God. It misleads us, after the fashion of the
Scholastics, to take refuge in the divine nature and cling to this,
looking away from the man Jesus (47. 361 f.). It robs the
atoning work of Christ of its specific divine value (25. 312 f.;
30. 203; 18. 225). It is, therefore, by no means a product
of polemical necessity which we behold in Luther's Christology,
as developed in the controversy with Zwingli. It is the same
Christology which he had advocated from the beginning. And this
doctrine marks an advance in the development of the traditional
Christology effected by evolution from within. The divine nature
no longer swallows up the human nature, but the latter is the organ
and bearer of the former. It is precisely the unqualified preser-
vation of the human nature which makes Jesus capable of really
becoming the God revealed among us. Luther's most profound
ideas concerning the knowledge of God and faith may be under-
stood in the light of these principles (supra, p. 252 f. ). But his-
torical fidelity requires the recognition of the fact, that Luther in
the controversy upon the Lord's Supper extended his Christology
by including an inference not previously drawn. The practical
identity of the divine and human natures in the earthly life of
Jesus is deliberately transferred to the state of exaltation. If the
words and deeds of Jesus on earth were the words and deeds of
God, then are the works of the Lord in heaven also the works
of the man Jesus. And this means that the man Jesus is at the
same time the omnipotent and omnipresent Lord of the world.
If he is present in the Lord's Supper, he is there also the man
Jesus ; and since he arose from the dead bodily, his body is also
present in the sacrament. Thus the theory of the Ubiquity is,
' Luther does not yet employ the term, Person, in the modern sense. It
corresponds precisely with the ancient "Hypostasis," e.g., 30. 204: "Be-
cause body and soul is one person." Luther elsewhere speaks of Christ as
"one person" with God (30. 216, 227).
in Luther's understanding of it, only a logical inference from

his Christology.^
5. Luther opens the discussion with a definition of the term :
the Right Hand of God. This cannot be conceived of as a

.
*'golden chair" beside the Father (30. 56f. ). We must here

conception of God as the ** omnipotent Power."
recall Luther's
If now God is the all -permeating and all-moving Will, then his
Right Hand is simply everywhere. If God is "substantial and
present at all places," in the smallest leaf upon the trees," in
*'
'
the most inward
' and '
' *
'
most outward things (58),^ then his
'
'
Right Hand is also " everywhere in all things " (64). Accord-
ingly, Christ is also omnipresent, and that, too, in his body, /. e.,
he reigns and has power over all things. "If he is to have
power and reign, he must certainly also be there present and
substantial" (65). This must, of course, be applicable in a
general sense, even apart from all thought of the Lord's Supper.^
The body of Christ is in every stone, in fire and water. But we
can really find and apprehend him only where he has in his word
directed us to seek him (29. 338). " But he is then present for
thee when he adds his word, and thereby binds himself, and
says Here shalt thou find me." He is omnipresent, but in his
:
divine mode of presence incomprehensible " He has now also :
become incomprehensible, and thou wilt not seize upon him,

although he is in thy bread, unless it be that he may bind him-
self to thee and assign thee to a particular table by a word, and
point out to thee the very bread by his word " (30. 69 f. ). As
the divine nature, so also is Christ in his body near to all, " and
it is only a question of his revealing himself " (30. 67); butthis
takes place in the words of institution, which instruct us to seek

and find in a particular loaf him who is essentially present in
^ A peculiarity of Luther's Christology is the lack of a sharp discrimination

between the states of humiliation and exaltation. This may be understood,
when we remember that his practical religious mode of apprehension saw in
the man Jesus the full and real revelation of God. If we recall his definition
of the divinity of Christas the omnipotent Loving-will (p. 253), the question
arises How, in the light of this, shall the Ubiquity be conceived in harmony
:
with Luther? We
might, perhaps, reply : The omnipotent Redeeming-will,
which became one with the man Jesus, is present with the man Jesus in the
Lord's Supper, in order by this presence to assure us of the reality of redemp-
tion. But Luther did not draw these inferences.
^ ' Therefore must he be himself present in every creature in its most inward
'
and most outward (parts), around and about, through and through, beneath
and above, before and behind, so that nothing can be more truly nor pro-
foundly present in all creatures than God himself with his power."
^ Even the earthly body of Christ was "present everywhere," 30. 67 ;
upon the glorification of his body Luther lays but little stress, 30. q8 ff. cf. ;
Occam, supra, p. 205.

every loaf. The presence of the glorified body is to be con-

ceived of in the same manner as the divine presence in the world
in general. God is not '* such an outspread, long, broad, thick,
high, deep Being," filling the world as straw fills a sack (ib.
221); as though God were such a great outspread Object, reach-
ing through and out beyond every created thing " (213, 216).
We are not, therefore, to think of any local, sensible presence.
There are, says Luther, *' three ways of being in a place locally :
or circimiscriptively definitively, and repletively (207). The first

y
indicates a purely spacial relation, as of wine in a cask. Anything

is definitively, or ^* incomprehensibly," at a place when it does
not correspond with the portions of space in the latter; as an

angel may be in a whole house, in one room, or even in a nut-
shell (208). The mode of presence is repletive, or supernatural,
*
when anything is at the same time in its entirety at all places and
'
"
fills all places, and is yet measured and contained by no place
( 209 )
^ This repletive existence is now attributed also to the body
.
of Christ (211). All things are as related to the body of* *
Christ, present and penetrable'* (210, 216). His body was

Y>restXiX. circumscriptive ly dnrmg his earthly life, ^' since it took
and gave space according to its size " (216). Tht definitive form
of presence is to be attributed to the body which passed out of
the closed grave and through the locked doors, and to the body
present in the bread (216). As the soul is present at the same
time in the whole body just as in every separate part as vision ;
or sound reaches over great distances ; as sound passes through

air, water, boards, and walls, and enters many ears at once, in
such a way are we to conceive also of Christ's presence in the
Lord's Supper (29. 333 f.; 30. 216, 218 f.). We are, hence,
to represent to ourselves the presence of Christ in the sense in
which God as the Omnipotent Will dwells in all things, or in
which the soul permeates the body, and not in the '' crude, fat,
and thick ideas of the circumscriptive mode of existence (215).
'
'
The word *' in " is not to be understood in the sense in which

*^
straw is in a sack and bread in a basket" (223). Not in this
external, local way is Christ's body in the Lord's Supper, but in
some such way as color and light are in the eye {66. 189 f.)-
A *' sacramental unity" {Einigkeit) exists between the body
and the bread (297, 300). But the body, which is here spoken
of, is the veritable body of Christ which was born of the Virgin
If we compare with this Occam's doctrine of Ubiquity, p.
'
This classification is of scholastic origin. The first two modes are de-
rived from Occam (supra, p. 204). The three-fold classification (adding the
repletive mode) was taken from Riel (Sent. i. d. 37 qu. ).
;
'
CONTROVERSY UPON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 327
204 f. )/ it is was influenced by Occam.

clear that Luther Both
the classification of the modes of spacial existence, and the super-
spacial existence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper and
in all existing things, point unmistakably to that source. But
a profound difference is here traceable. While Occam, in addi-
tion to this bodily presence everywhere, thinks of the real body
of Christ as in one place in heaven ; for Luther the body of
Christ is, by virtue of the communicatio idiomatum, absolutely
omnipresent. Occam appends to the current medieval doctrine
a speculative inference, postulating a certain Something which
may figure as the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Luther
defends the religious idea, that, just as we apprehend Christ only
in the positive forms of his human life, so he is present in the
Holy Supper also as the man Jesus with the human nature (in-
cluding his body) by which he effects our salvation. What he is
most earnestly striving for will be evident if we compare his orig-
inal conception of the Lord's Supper *' The same Christ who
:
has secured for us grace and the forgiveness of sins is present in

the Lord's Supper in order to assure us of his redeeming act."^
Here lies the nerve of his opposition to Zwingli and Oecolampa-
dius. The sacrament is not * a sign of a future or absent thing
'
'
;
but a *'form of the thing present and yet invisible." Under

the visible form of bread and wine are ''his invisible body and
blood present " (105). The important thing, for which he con-
tends, is that Christ, and Christ the historical Redeemer, is him-
self present, and that we are not merely to think of him as
present by an effort of our imagination. The scholastic mate-
rial by which he seeks to establish this position is regarded as
means to the end in view.*
6. With this view harmonize also the utterances of Luther
concerning the Reception and Fruits of the Sacrament. do We
really eat and chew the body of Christ, and the pope was there-
fore justified in requiring this confession from Berenger (supra, p.
76). But the bread is the body, as the dove is the Holy Spirit
for *'no one sees, grasps, eats, or chews the body of Christ, as
we visibly see and chew other fiesh. For whatever we do to
the bread is well and properly applied to the body of Christ, on
account of the sacramental unity " (297, cf. 57. 75 f.). The
bread is therefore really eaten, but with it at the same time the
^ See already Alger, supra, p. 77> ^^^ Gerhoh, p. 66,

2 Cf. 29. 348; 48. 23; 30. 85, 134, 137: "What is the difference now?
Yea, how is it any better for them to eat fiesh and bone with the soul, than
that we should eat it with the mouth ? "
^ Luther himself wished these explanations to be regarded only as possibil-
ities, which do not exclude other explanations, 30. 200, 202, 210, 217.
' "
spiritual body of Christ; bread and body are at the same time
and together present (300). There results *'a substantial
(^natilrlich) unification of the body of Christ with us, and not
alone a spiritual, subsisting in the mind and will " (202). But
despite this manducatio oralis, our reception of this gift must be
spiritual, /. e. the heart must believe the presence of Christ in
,
the bread, which the word proclaims (90 f., 93, 185).^ Only
faithapprehends life and salvation in the present body of the
Lord (130). This is the spiritual eating, which must accompany
the bodily eating (86, 185). The body of Christ is therefore
present in the Lord's Supper, but only the believer understands
and grasps this and has in consequence the blessing which the
body brings " That which is given therein and therewith, the
:
body cannot grasp nor take to itself; but this is done by the
faith of the heart which discerns this treasure and desires it
(Large Cat., Miiller, p. 504).^
From we may understand Luther's view of the Benefit of
this
the Sacrament. The body of Jesus, whose presence in the bread
faith apprehends, strengthens faith (135) and gives to it the as-
surance of the forgiveness of sins (136). The presence of the
body and blood of Christ brings us the salvation which he has
secured by means of this body and blood. The new testament
is here and brings us *^the forgiveness of sins, the Spirit, grace,
life, and all blessedness" (338J. Thus the word, combined
with the Redeemer offered by it and bodily present in the sacra-
ment, effects a strengthening of faith, the sense of forgiveness,
life, and salvation.^ To this spiritual effect produced by the
^ But unbelievers also receive the body {?nanducatio injideliu7n)^ although to
their own hurt, 29. 346 30. 369, 86, 343).
;
Cat. 509. But those who do
not at all believe the words of institution, such as the Fanatics, receive nothing
but bread and wine (30. 132. Cat. 504)-
^
The presence of the body and blood, as Luther always maintained, in-
volves the personal presence of Christ, by virtue of the personal unity (29.
295; 30. 130 ff,). On the other hand, the idea that the older German
linguistic usage, in which Z^z-^ (body) is equivalent to ^'person" (^. ^., in
Luther, 45. 13 f. " In the German language we do not call a dead man a
:
'body,' but a living man who has body and soul" ), influenced Luther's con-
ception of the **body " of Christ, is, so far as I can see, without any foundation.
3
30. 338 f. :" The words are the first thing, for without the words the cup
and bread would be nothing. Further, without the bread and cup, there would
be no body and blood of Christ. Without the body and blood of Christ,
there would be no new testament. Without the new testament, there would
be no forgiveness of sins. Without forgiveness of sins, there would be no life
and salvation. Thus the words, in the first place, embrace the bread and the cup
(to constitute) the sacrament. The bread and cup embrace the body and
blood of Christ. The body and blood of Christ embrace the new testament.
The new testament embraces the forgiveness of sins. The forgiveness of sins
embraces eternal life and salvation. Behold, all this do the words of the Lord's
Supper offer and give to us, and we grasp it by faith.'
CONTROVERSY UPON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 329
Lord's Supper is added further, in harmony with the representa-

tions of the ancient church (Irenaeus, ib. ii6 ff.), an effect upon
the body of the recipient. The body of Christ is a pledge which
gives to our body the assurance that it shall, by virtue of the
**
eternal food" thus received by us, also live forever (72).
This ''spiritual food" transforms the poor ''moth-sack," so
"that it also becomes
spiritual, that is, eternally alive and
blessed" (loi 132, 135).
f. But this second train of thought,
which was of course particularly adapted for use against Zwingli,
had but a secondary importance for Luther. He could omit it
altogether in his exposition of the subject on the Large Cate-
chism,^ where the whole benefit of the sacrament is made to con-
sist in the strengthening of faith, or in the consciousness of the
forgiveness of sins, and that, too, in a way thoroughly in keeping
with Luther's original conceptions, viz.: The word proclaims
forgiveness; the Christ present confirms and seals it, as it is he
himself who secured it for us. " Therefore we come to the sac-
rament in order that we may there receive such a treasure,
through which and in which we obtain remission of sins.
Wherefore this ? Because the words are here and give these
things to us. If therefore I am commanded by Christ to eat and
drink, in order that he may be mine and may confer a benefit
upon me, it is, as it were, a certain pledge and surety, or rather
the very thing itself which he has presented and pledged for my
.sins, death, and all evils" (Mliller, 502).^ In view of this re-
sultant, the divergence of Iûther's later from his earlier view of
the Lord's Supper must not be overestimated. The bodily
presence of the Saviour in the bread and wine for the sealing of
the words of institution, for the strengthening of faith, and for
giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins, was beyond question
his leading thought. The only addition made to this was the
adoption of certain definite ideas as to the mode of presence of
the heavenly body, to which he was led by the course of contro-
versy upon the subject. These were, in the first instance, only
auxiliary ideas, but they gradually assumed the character of per-
manent elements in the dogma of the Lord's Supper.^
* Or at least set it in new relations, p. 509 : The sacrament is '*
nothing
but a wholesome and comforting medicine, which may help thee and give thee
life in both body and soul. For where the soul is restored, there help is given
also to the body."
^ Cf. the discussions as to "worthy" and " unworthy " communicants
(504
ff. ). Faith, together with the sense of unworthiness, makes worthy (504,
509 f. ). "Therefore we call those alone unworthy who do not feel their
faultsnor are willing to be (regarded as) sinners" (510), i.e., "who are
insolentand wild," 5*^^ Under no conditions dare we think of the sacrament
as "though it were a poison, in which we should eat death " (509).
^ Luther from this time most vigorously rejected the position of those who
^;^0 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
7. The Colloquy
at Marburg could not, under the circum-
stances, lead to harmony, although Zwingli, impelled by political
considerations ( '* Burgi'echt " )^ made as large concessions as pos-
sible to the Lutherans. Agreement was indeed reached upon
fourteen articles of faith, modeled upon formulas drawn by
Luther (Trinity, Christ, original sin, faith, justification, word,
baptism, works, civil government). In regard to the Lord's
Supper, there was agreement in the demand for *' both forms ac-
cording to the institution of Christ," in the condemnation of the
mass, and in the assertion that */ the spiritual partaking of this
body and blood " is '* especially necessary for every Christian."
But there remained the difference that they ''have at this time
not agreed whether the true body and blood of Christ are bodily
in the bread and wine " (art. 15), Luther, although he had not
hesitated to express to the Strassburgers his conviction that they
had '' another spirit," yet hoped for a "good-natured friendly
harmony, that they may in a friendly spirit seek among us for
that which they lack " (E. 36. 322). Zwingli wrote ** Luther, :
impudent and contumacious, was vanquished although he

, . .
meanwhile declared that he was unconquered " (opp. viii. 370).

Upon the return journey to Wittenberg, the Saxon theologians
drew up the Schwabach Articles, which assert of the Lord's Sup-
per :That in the bread and wine the true body and blood of
*
'
Christ are truly present, according to the word of Christ" (art.

10). This doctrine belongs with others to the faith of the true*
church ** Such church is nothing else than believers in Christ,
:
who believe and teach the above-named articles and parts" (art.
12). And they really reproduced the doctrine of the Luth-
erans. The fault lay, not in this exaltation to the position of a
" dogma," but in the fact that a peculiar theological method of
establishing the doctrine very soon began to be included in the
" pure doctrine " itself.
Cf. ii. 308 ff., and Der Tag v. Schleiz, in Abh. f.

KoLDE, Luther, Kostl.,
1896, p. 94 Stahelin, Zwingli, ii. 395 ff. The text of tlie Marburg and
ff.
Schwabach Articles in Kolde, Die Augsb. Conf., 1896, p, 119 ff., 123 ff.
held that there is here no article of faith, and we should therefore not quarrel
about It, but each one should be allowed here to believe as he wishes (32.
406 ; 30. 43). This is the opinion of some laymen, such as Henry of Kron-
'* My understanding is not competent to reach an opinion " (see
berg :
BoGLER, H. V. Kr., Schriften des Vereins f. Ref.-gesch., 57, p. 14). See

also Luther's opinion upon Schwenkfeld's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, 30.
285 ff., 305, 354 ; 32. 397, 404 ff. Also Kadelbach, Ausfiirl. Gesch. K. v.
Sch., i860, p. 104 ff.
1
Considerations of the same character the possibility of reconciling the

Emperor influenced the opposition of Melanchthon, whom the Strassburgers
regarded as their real and most dangerous opponent.
"
CONTROVERSY UPON THE LORD'S SUPPER. 33I
8. Nor did the Wittenberg Concord (A. D. 1536) produce an

actual and permanent agreement. From the time of the Diet
of Augsburg, Bucer labored unweariedly to bring about an agree-
ment between the Saxons and the theologians of Southern
Germany. His formula was: ''That the true body and the
true blood of Jesus Christ are truly present in the Lord's Supper
and are offered with the words of the Lord and the sacrament. ^
'
'
Both Luther and Melanchthon hoped that an understanding

might be reached upon this basis. ^ But Luther did not change
his own opinion. Although he was willing to refrain from lay-
ing special stress upon the assertion, that the body of Christ is
present also for the unbelieving, yet the formula finally adopted
expresses his view *' that with the bread and wine are truly
:
and substantially present, offered, and received (jêrc et substan-

tialiter adesse, exhiberi et siuni) the body and blood of Christ.
Just on this account the Wittenberg Concord failed to attain the
desired result. Cf. Kolde, PRE. xvii., ed. 2, 222 ff. Baum,
Capito u. Butzer, i860, p. 498 ff.
^ As in general, so in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Bucer found his

point of departure in Luther (see the summary of his preaching, Strassburg,
1523), form g 3 V. During the sacramental controversy, he was on Zwingli's
side. His view at this time is given in Ennarrationum in evang. Matthaei, 1.
ii. (Argentorati, 1527), p. 329 fF. : As food strengthens the body, so the
recollection of the deliverance and forgiveness of sins wrought by Christ
strengthens faith. Thus the body is truly eaten, p, 329 r. To this end Christ
instituted the Supper, p. 330 r. The transition to his later position was made
possible by the strongly emphasized assertion, that we at least with our spirit
eat the body of Christ (p. 330 v, 336 v, 333 v), and through the misinterpre-
tation of Luther's doctrine " They contend that the body of Christ is really
:
.transported into the bread by the word, i. e., that the body of Christ is
really present in the bread " (p. 331 r, 338 r). But influential, above all, were
political considerations and the feeling that *' what ought to be for us the symbol
of the warmest love, some evilly disposed men have made the occasion of the
most violent hatred and of the separation of brethren and of the rending of
churches" (1. 329 V).
u., p.
^ Cf. the formula of compromise agreed upon at about, this time between
Blaurer and Schnepf for Wittenberg ;
" That the body and blood of Christ are
truly, i. e., substantially and essentially [substanzUch tmd zvese?iilich), but not
quantitatively, nor qualitatively, nor locally, present and offered."
CHAPTER III.
THE NEW DOGMA.
74. Tlie Augsburg Confession.
Literature. Plitt, Einleitung in d. Augustana, vol. ii. 1868. Putt,

Die Apol. d. August., 1873. Zockler, Die Augsb. Conf., 1870, Koldk,
Die Augsb. Conf, 1896 (together with the Marburg, Schwabach, and
Torgau Articles, the Confutation, and the Augustana variata). Tschackekt,
Die unanderte Augsb. Konf. nach den besten Handschriften, 1901. Picker,
Die Confut. d. Augsb. Bek. in ihrer ersten Gestalt, 1891. Knaake,
Luther's Anteil an der Augsb. Conf., 1863. Virck, Melanchthons polit.
Stellung auf d. Reichstag zu Augsb. 1530, Ztschr. f. KG. ix. 67 ff. 293 ft". ,
Thomasius-Seeberg, DG. ii., ed. 2, Loops, DG. 397 ff.

364 ff. Moller-
Kawerau, kg. iii. 94 fF. J. VV. Richard, Luther and the Augsburg Confes-
sion, in the Lutheran Quarterly, 1899 and 1900.
1^^ In the references in this section, a. indicates an article in the Augsburg

Confession; p. refers to a page in MUller's Symbolische Biicher the second ;
figure following, to a paragraph upon the same page. The excellent English
translation in Jacobs, Book of Concord, may be used, as MuIler's paging is
there carried in the margin.
I. The adherents of the Lutheran doctrine gave confessional

expression to their religious convictions at Augsburg in 1530.
It was not their aim to establish a *^ new dogma," but they on
the contrary desired only, as they professed adherence to the
ecumenical symbols, to furnish the proof that they really held
the genuine old Catholic faith. But the doctrine which they
presented in the Confession became nevertheless the fixed dogma
of the new church. It formed originally the charterof the Smalcald
League, and gradually became the recognized standard of pure
doctrine for the universities as well as for the congregations (as
proved in MoUer-Kawerau, iii. 98 f. ). The same may be said
of the Apology. But it was the Religious Peace of Augsburg,
A. D. 1555, which first officially and plainly designated the
Augsburg Confession as the standard, by which new associations
in the church were to be tested in order to secure recognition
from the empire. While we must leave to Symbolics the more
precise treatment of this subject, it is necessary for us to con-
sider the question, in what forms the new doctrine attained
recognition as the official teaching of the church. The dogmas
of the ancient church received a canonical character from the
fact that they were the decrees of general councils which were
*' accepted " by the church at large. These decrees were recog-
nized and given legal force by the state, or by an ecclesiastical
authority
the Roman bishop ^recognized by the state. The
former was the case with the dogmas of the Greek church the ;

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 333
latter, with the decrees promulgated during the Pelagian and

Semipelagian controversies. The council did not itself possess
binding authority for when the acceptance,
;
/".
e. the civil recog-
,
nition, was withdrawn because another council had adopted new

and contrary decrees, the decrees of the former were annulled.
This is plainly illustrated in the conflicts within the Greek
church. The medieval conception of the church changed the
formal basis of accepted dogma and led to the establishment of
the rule, that the decrees of ecumenical councils, or the doctrine
of the Romish church, or the formal proclamation of a pope,
received eo ipso dogmatic authority in the church. Dogma
became simply the formal statement made by official teachers of
the church. But the authority which these were supposed to
possess was shattered in its very foundations by the Reformation.
The congregations were looked to for the reformation of doctrine
and life, as to them belonged the right of passing judgment upon
doctrine (supra, p. 295 n.). Practically, however, the princes
were regarded as the agency possessing the necessary power for
the carrying out of reform. Luther had voiced this sentiment
in his ** Address to the Nobility," and this led to the unique
fiction of *' emergency bishops" {Notbischofe). The princes
were utilized for these ecclesiastical purposes, not as being the
bearers of the specific civil authority, but as representatives of
''
Christianity," /. e., of the congregation at large, and particu-
larly as ''prominent" (^praecipua) members of it (thus ex-
pressed first by Melanchthon, Schmalk. Art., Miiller, p. 339,
54. C. R. iii. 244). When the new church fellowship had
taken tangible shape through the carrying out of the ideas of the
Reformation by the secular authorities, the princes and magis-
trates were at once recognized as its official representatives.
Negotiations were entered into with them, and they became the
public defenders of the new doctrine. The theologians formu-
lated the latter, but they attained a legal character only when
adopted by the secular government and this applies to their
;
inner contents as well as to the outward form. This principle

was first openly recognized in the decree of the Diet of Spires in
1526, although indeed the real force of the latter was only the
postponement of an imperial decision. It then became the
guiding principle for the organization of the new church, and
received the legal sanction of the empire through the Religious
Peace of Augsburg. The teachings of the Evangelical church
in Reformed as well as in Lutheran districts thus became the
fixed doctrine of the church, or dogma, when the doctrinal
statements formulated by the theologians were ''accepted" by
the secular government in the name of the church. There was
in this a certain analogy with the genesis of the dogmas of the

ancient church. As a result, the dogmas of the church were no
longer, as in the Middle Ages, the creation of merely ecclesias-
tical, /. e. , hierarchical procedure. Nor does there lie behind them
the mystical authority of general councils. They are proposi-
tions which the theologians hold to be biblical, and to which the
church at large, /. e., the state, gives assent. But it is not, as in
Greek Christianity, the civil authority as such which expresses
this assent, but the state as the representative of the church at
large. The latter idea is a genuinely medieval one. The state
is not yet recognized as the organism of secular jurisprudence
nor sharply discriminated from the church. From this com-

bination resulted all the weaknesses of territorialism. But the
latter were associated with the concrete application of the theory,
and not with the principle itself. The principle is expressed in
the simple axiom The doctrine of the church, or dogma, is bib-
:
lical truth, discovered by theologians, but recognized and accepted

by the Christian congregation as such. This was Luther's mean-
ing when he clearly and distinctly granted to the congregation the
right to pass judgment upon doctrine.^ Cf. as to the bearings
upon ecclesiastical jurisprudence, Sohm, Kirchenrecht, i. 322 ff.,
330 ff., 560 ff., 658 f.
2. The Augsburg
Confession was composed by Melanchthon,
but it reproduces, though as a *' gentle-stepper " {Leiselre-
terin), the thought of Luther.^ The '* timidity " and '* philos-
ophy of Melanchthon, and his attempts to moderate and com-
'
'
promise, do not belong to the History of Doctrines. But it is

important to bear in mind the circumstances under which the
Augsburg Confession was prepared. It was the Emperor's chief
desire to discover whether the Protestant doctrine was in har-
mony with the twelve articles of the Christian faith (Kawerau,
Agricola, p. 100. C. R. ii. 179). Eck had in 404 theses charged
almost all heresies upon the Protestants. These considerations
required of the Reformers a distinct emphasizing of their agreement
with the doctrine of the ancient church and a clear rejection of all
heresies. It appeared to be important, likewise, to avoid all fel-
lowship with Zwingli, whose political aims made him an object of
suspicion (C. R. ii. 25 i. 1099, 1106). In all these particu-
;
lars Melanchthon's personal inclinations were in accord with the
1 This does not exclude a recognition of the fact, that Luther always main-
tained his demand for the general recognition of a harmonious pure doctrine,
.-.
^., 32. 406.
^ Melanchthon had before him, when composing the Augsburg Confession-
on the dogmatic side theSchwabach Articles, and on the practical reformatory

side the so-called Torgau Articles. Upon the latter, see Brieger in the
Kirchen-fjeschichtl. Studien f. Reuter, 1888.
'
demands of ecclesiastical policy. was only the out-

But all this
ward framework for the real task, /. ^., fundamen-
to present the
tal ideas of the evangelical party, and to show clearly that they
demolish the monastic ideal of life and the external legality of
the Romish church, but that they have no connection with the
revolutionary tendencies of the Anabaptists. The Confession,
therefore, undertakes to present the evangelical doctrine as the
genuine ancient doctrine, which is supported by the Scriptures as
well as by the better Fathers, e. g. (p. 91 f., 29). *' Only those
things are recited," it is said in the Epilogue, ^' which seemed

to be necessary to be said, in order that it might be known that
nothing is received among us in doctrine and ceremonies con-
trary to the Scriptures or to the Catholic church ; because it is
manifest that we have been most diligently on our guard lest any
new and impious doctrines should creep into our churches. '
Not all evangelical convictions found expression under such a

rule {e.g.^ C. R. ii. 184, 182 f. Luther, Briefe, De W. iv. no,
52); but, on the other hand, nothing was asserted which had not
been included in the faith of the evangelical party.
3. Articles I. -III. reproduce the results of the dogmatic labors
of the ancient church: **One divine essence three per-
. .
sons of the same essence and power" (a. i). Original sin
consists in the inheritance of sin *' Without
: the fear of God,
without trust in him, and with concupiscence." This marks the
connection of Luther's thought with that of Augustine (cf. ApoL,
p. 79. 7 ff.
81. 23).
; The main practical point of the doctrine
is seen in the condemnation of the idea, that a " man may by the
powers of his own reason be justified before God " (a. 2 cf. a. ;
20. 9, 10 ; p. 88. 9 f. ). In respect to the power of *' working

(êfficienda) the righteousness of God," man, without the influ-
ence of the word or of the Spirit, is not free, although he has
''some power to work a civil righteousness and to choose the
things subject to reason " (a. 18 and p. 219. 73). Sin is con-
centrated in a historical kingdom of the Evil One. '*
The his-
tory of the world shows how great is the power of the devil."
Hence, *' it will not be possible to recognize the benefits of
Christ unless we understand our evils " (p. ^b. 50). This is the
religious point of view from which sin is regarded. Of Christ it
is said: *'t\vo natures, . .inseparably joined together in
.
unity of person." The object of his work was, '' that he might
reconcile the Father to us and might be a sacrifice, not only for
original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men."^ The result
^ Also, a. 24. 21, where the blotting out of daily sins is represented as
wrought by the sacrifice of the mass. Cf. Zockler upon this passage, and
supra, p. 203, n. i; also Zwingli, opp. iii. 198.
of his resurrection and ascension is his dominion over his follow-

ers and their sanctification through the Holy Spirit (a. 3 ; of. p.
94. 40). Further, *' Christ does not cease to be Mediator, after
we have been renewed." He remains such, *' in order that for
his sake we may have a reconciled God, even though we are un-
worthy." For his sake, who is always interceding for us before
the Father, we have the forgiveness of sins (p. 116 f, 42, 44).
These are the initial principles, which the new church held in
common with the old. Yet they are not absolutely identical.
The Confutators were, from their point of view, right in object-
ing to the '* born without the fear of God, without trust in him,"
as a definition of original sin (Ficker, p. 8). They quote
Luther's remark in regard to the homousios^ and call attention to
the fact, that the trinitarian formulas as such are not found in the
Scriptures (ib. p. 4f ). The deliberate hostility of the critics
should not blind us to the fact, that a difference in point of view
is here revealed.
4. Article V. marks the transition to the evangelical principle :
*' Through the word and sacraments, as through instruments, is
given the Holy Spirit, who worketh faith where and when it
pleaseth God in those who hear the gospel, namely, that God,
not for our merits' sake but for Christ's sake, justifieth^ those who
believe that they are for Christ's sake received into favor." The
word and the sacraments are the means through which the Spirit
begets faith. But faith ''doth not only signify a knowledge
of the history," . . ''which believeth not only the history,
.
but also the effect of the history, namely, this article, the remis-
sion of sins " (a. 20. 23;p. 96. 51), " But this is to believe,
to trust in the merits of Christ, that for his sake God wisheth to
be reconciled to us" (p. 99. 69); "to desire and accept the
offered promise of remission of sins and justification" (p. 95.
48; p. 94f.,44ff.; 139. 183). This is evangelical saving faith,
as the trusting acceptance of the grace of forgiveness which has
been revealed through the work of Christ. In this light maybe
understood the central thought of Justification: "That men
cannot be justified before God by their own powers, merits, or
works ; but they are justified freely {^^ratis') for Christ's sake
through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor,
and that their sins are forgiven for the sake of Christ, who hath by
his death made satisfaction for our sins. This faith doth God im-
pute for righteousness before him ".(a. 4; cf. 24. 28; p. 123.
93; 105. 97). Here the whole Romish system is excluded :
1 The German translation of the Editio princeps is important: '*Are ac-

counted righteous before God for Christ's sake." Cf. Kolde. Augsb. Conf.,
p. 28.
.
" they teach only that men treat with God through works and
merits " (p. 97. 60). The relationship between God and man
is not to be thought of in accordance with the scheme of merits :
'*as though Christ had come for the purpose of delivering cer-
tain laws, through which we might merit the remission of sins
"
(p. 89, 1 5 J. But neither is it as though the ** knowledge of
'
the history concerning Christ, together with the infusion of a
'
"habitus inclining us the more readily to love God," would

suffice (p. 89. 15, 17). In all of this human merit still remains.
Nor does the distinction drawn between the merits of fitness
(^congrui) and of worthiness (^condigni') help matters for if God ;
must of necessity reward the meritujn cofigriii by the bestowal of

grace, it is in reality a meriUim condigni {^. 90. 19).^ Only
faith justifies. It does this, however, not as being in itself a
worthy work, nor as being the beginning and source of good
works, but solely because it apprehends the grace revealed and
promised in Christ, and applies and appropriates this to itself
(p. 96. 56; 102. 84, 86; 100. 77; 113. 27; 115. 40; 99.
71). Man therefore becomes righteous through an ** imputation
'
of another' s righteousness. This is Christ's righteousness.^

*
But since faith is the only appropriate organ for the apprehension
of this righteousness, it is our righteousness. " Faith is right-
eousness in us imputatively, /. e., it is that by which we are
made accepted before God on account of the imputation and or-
dination of God " (p. 139. 186)^ The leading elements in the
conception of justification are here brought into conjunction.
The law terrifies the heart with the wrath of God ;* the gospel
awakens in it trust in Christ, or the assurance that God for
Christ's sake forgives us our sins and regards us as righteous (p.
I o1 79. ff. )
Faiththus represented as the reception of the grace revealed

is
in Christ, and
justification as the forensic declaration that the
person involved is righteous. But faith is also at the same time
the beginning of a new life. *' This faith, encouraging and
consoling in these fears, receives the remission of sins, justifies
and quickens ; for this consolation is a new and spiritual life."
The Holy Spirit, who works faith through the word, works in
and with faith a new life (p. 98, 6t, ff., p. 177, 60). Only it
^ These terms are here used in the sense attached to them from the time of
Duns Scotus. Cf. supra, p. 161, 202.

2 And Christ alone, not " partly our works," p. 130. Cf. Biel, supra,
p. 199)-
^ Cf. p. 99. 69 :
" For how will Christ be Mediator if we do not believe
[sentimus) that for his sake we are accounted righteous ? " p. 99. 62 " this
:
forgiveness, reconciliation, and righteousness are received through faith.'*

* The same influence is also ascribed to the gospel, p. 98. 62.
22
must be borne in mind that justification in the above sense does

not depend upon faith in so far as the latter is considered as the
beginning of a new life. But faith is also the beginning of the
regeneration of man, or of the process of making him actually
righteous. Inasmuch as faith sets free from the sense of guilt,
the heart becomes animated, peace and joy enter, and also
eternal life *'\vhich begins here in this life" (p. 105. 100).^
The Holy Spirit has begotten faith, and faith brings with it the
Spirit, thereby renewing the man (p. 108. 115). Hence we
might more appropriately designate faith than love as the grace
making SLCce-ptoble (graf/a gnitum facienSj p. 108. 116), But,
as faith is a new life, it also produces '*new movements and
works in man " (p. 130. 129). The Apology itself summarizes
its view of justification as follows ** Thus far we have shown with
:
sufficient fullness and from testimonies of Scripture, that by faith

alone we obtain the remission of sins for Christ's sake, and that by
faith alone we are justified, /. e., from unrighteous men are made
rightous, or regenerated " (p. 108. 117). Therefore, faith, which
is begotten by the Holy Ghost, is (i) the organ for the appre-
hension of grace, and (2) the beginning of a new life. In the

former sense, it receives the imputed righteousness of Christ in
the latter, it is the beginning of ethical lightness in character and

conduct. But the former is the fundamental element (p. 100. 75).
From it, /. e. from the sense of the forgiveness of sin, the Apology
,
psychologically deduces the inward renewal for he who has be-

;
come sure of the forgiveness of his sins, becomes at heart free and
joyful (supra). ^ This portraiture of justification and sanctifica-
tion in the Apology corresponds exactly with the conceptions of
Luther, except that he laid still more stress upon the actual
righteousness wrought by faith (supra, p. 260 ff.).^ Upon the
doctrine of justification in the Apology, compare the treatment
^ Upon
the idea of eternal life as begun by faith on earth, see also p. 215.
54 287. 10 ; no. HI
; 216. 58 ; 146. 231.
;
Melanchthon, p. lOi. 79, assails the Scotist separation of forgiveness and

2
infusion (Duns, iv. d. 16, q. 2. 6, cf. supra, p. 160).

3 The terminology of p. 100. 72 ff. presents difficulties *' And because to
:
be justified means from unrighteous men to be made righteous, or to be regen-

erated, it signifies also to be pronounced or accounted righteous, for the Scrip-
tures speak in both ways." That is, the general sense oi justificari includes
"also" the particular form of justification indicated by the term jtisium
pro^tuntiari. Upon the basis of this is constructed the following syllogism :
I. Since the chief thing in justification is forgiveness, we may say "To obtain
:
remission of sins is to be justified, Ps. 32. I. 2. By faith alone, and not on
account of love or works, we obtain remission of sins, although love follows

faith. 3. Therefore, byfaith alone we are justified," andthatinthe sense that
"from unrighteous men we are made righteous, or regenerated" (p. lOO.
75-78). The conclusiveness of this deduction may be doubted.
of the subject by Loofs, Stud. u. Krit., 1884, 613 ff. Eich-

HORN, ib. 1887, 415 ff. Frank, Neue kirchl. Ztschr., 1892,
846 ff. Stange, ib., 1899, 169 ff.
5. Faith is followed by Good Works as its fruits. ''For
good works are to be done on account of God's command ; like-
wise, for the exercise of faith ; likewise, on account of confession
and giving of thanks " (p. 120. 68, a. 6. i f.). They spring from
the Holy Ghost, or from regeneration and justification (a. 20.
29, p. 109. 4)^
both the "spiritual movements" and the
*' external good works" (p. no. 15). But works are in no
way the ground of justification (a. 20. 9, 27). Good works are
accordingly such as spring from the agency of the Holy Spirit
and the impulse of faith, and as are performed according to the
will of God (a. 20. 27); and hence, such as are in accord with
the commandments of God, and not with the self-made ideals of
the Catholic church (a. 27. 57). By virtue of their origin in
the inward man, these works are performed in Christian liberty
(a. 28. 51). These four criteria determine the character of
good works in the evangelical sense. Accordingly, all civil and
secular occupations are, contrary to the view of the Anabaptists,
good works (a, 16; a. 26. 10), Marriage likewise assumes a
new dignity (a. 23). On the other hand, the works of monastic
observances and of an external ecclesiasticism are not good
works (a. 26. 8 ff. ). It follows, further, that ascetic exercises
are not in themselves good works, but are undertaken for the
purpose of preparing ourselves to do good works: *' Not in
order that through this discipline he might merit remission of
sins, but in order that he might have a body apt and fit
for spiritual things and for doing his duty according to his
calling" (a. 26. 38). Finally, this conception of good works
gives birth to a new Ideal of Life. In contrast with the per-
fection of the monastic vows, evangelical perfection embraces
the Christian life in its religious central impulse, and, as well, in
its discharge of the duties connected with the secular calling.
'
Christian perfection is to reverently fear God, and again to con-
'
ceive great faith and confidence that we have a reconciled God;

to ask and certainly look for aid from God in doing all things in
connection with our calling; and meanwhile outwardly to dili-
gently perform good works and attend to our vocation " (a. 27.
49, cf. p. 216. 61 f 281. 48 ff.).
.
; But this perfection exists
only in the form of earnest effort: "For they ought to strive
after perfection as long as this life endures, and always grow in
^ It is only upon the ground of the personal experience of the divine mercy
that God becomes for us an object of affection {ôbjectum amabiie)^ p. no. 8,
the fear of God, in faith, in love toward their neighbor and the
like spiritual gifts " (p. 279. 37).
6. and VIII. present the evangelical conception
Articles VII.
of the church. There will always be a holy church. *' But the
church is the congregation of the saints, in which the gospel is

rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered " (a. 7).
Since the word and the sacraments constitute the church, it may
be said '' And unto the true unity of the church it is sufficient
:
to agree concerning the doctrine of the gospel and the adminis-

tration of the sacraments," but it is not necessary that cere-
monies and traditions be everywhere the same (ib., cf. Torgau
Art., i. ). This church, which holds the pure doctrine and /
which the preaching is in harmony with this doctrine, cannot
possibly, as is the common belief, be the church as an object of
faith, or as the so-called ** invisible church." Melanchthon, on
the contrary, in the note to Article XII. of the Schwabach
Articles (supra, p. 294 f.; cf. Luther's conception ot the '*true,
rechten^ church," supra, p. 294), expresses the opinion, that there
has always been and alwa}'s will be a true church, i. e. men who ,
hold essentially the pure evangelical doctrine (cf. C. R. xii.

481 f. 483, 433), and that this church requires for its continued
,
existence only the word and the sacraments. Since in this con-
gregation assembled around the word there will always be a
'* fellowship of faith and
of the Holy Spirit in the hearts " of
men (p. 152 f., 5, 8), it is called congregatio sanctorum ;'^ but
since it exists in an empirical earthly form, there are always
'* many hypocrites and wicked men mingled in it" (a. 8,
p. 157. 28). These ideas are in the end practically the same
as Luther had expressed. But the definition of the church is
constructed by Melanchthon from a somewhat different point of
departure from that of Luther. Luther started with the idea,
that the presence of the word guarantees to faith the existence
of believing Christians, or the (invisible) church. The differ-
ences in the proclamation of the word led him afterward to dis-
criminate between the true and the false (visible) church.
Melanchthon begins with the idea, that there has always been
and always will be a true (visible) church, but shows, further,
that it can never exist without a commixture of wicked men and
hypocrites. In the church, which is in its essential nature the
congregatio sanctorum, there are found a kingdom of Christ and
a kingdom of the devil but only members of the former are
;
really members of the church (p. 154 f., 16 ff.).'* There has
1 For the " saints," and they only, are properly the church.
2 This different point of departure explains also the later construction of
Melanchthon* s definition of the church (vid. sub). He always starts
always been, Melanchthon means to say, a congregation (of

professing Christians), which possessed the gospel, as did the
association of evangelical believers existing at that time. In
this congregation
not outwardly corresponding with it in

dimensions is the kingdom of Christ, /. <?., the church as an
article of faith. The marks which prove the existence of the
former, and therefore enable us to infer the existence of the latter,
are the '' pure doctrine of the gospeP and an administration of
the sacraments in harmony with the gospel of Christ" (p.
152- 5)-
From this definition of the church were drawn a number
of inferences, (i) That the bishops do not have the right
**to ordain anything contrary to the gospel" (a. 28. 34).
(2) That the peculiar power and authority of the church is the
preaching of the gospel, and therefore: *' The preaching office
is the highest office in the church" (p. 213 p. 215. 54; ;
a. 28. 5, 8, 10). (3) That all other ordinances in the church

are of purely human origin and must prove their legitimacy by
the gospel (a. 26. 28). (4) That the church has no right to
claim or exercise any kind of secular authority (a. 28. 2 ff. ).
The ** power of the sword" {^potestas gladii ) must not be
confused with the ecclesiastical power (^potestas ecclesiastica),
which includes only the ''power of the keys," or the " com-
mandment of God to preach the gospel, remit and retain sins,
and administer the sacraments" (a. 28. 2-5, 10 f.,). Hence
the gospel cannot come in conflict with civil and social ordi-
nances, but, on the contrary, confirms them (p. 215. 56 f ).
7. This brings us to the evangelical doctrine of the Sacra-
ments, which is treated in Articles IX. -XIII. Of Baptism it is
taught, that it is necessary to salvation, and that through it '' the
grace of God is offered ; " that children also, who are to be bap-
tized, are received into the favor of God " (a. 9). Sin is for-
given, not annihilated (p. %t^. 36). Of the Lord's Supper, it is
said '''that the body and blood of Christ are truly present
:
with the visible church. The (later) heading of Art. vii., De JEcclesiay
should rather have been De perpetuitate ecclesiae. Cf. Apol., p. 153. 7t 9*
C. R. xii. 524, 432, 482 ; XXV. 688, and my comments in Neue kirch. Ztschr.,
1897, 143 f., n.
_
This expression points beyond question (cf. a.. 28. 70 and doct7'ina fidei,
*
p. lOl. 81) to the specific evangelical conception of salvation and grace for ;
this was, in Melanchthon's view, all that was lacking in wide circles of the
ancient church
but it does not exclude on the contrary includes the
;
acceptance of the ancient dogmas (cf. C. R. xxiii. 600). To the marks of the
true church belongs also beyond question, according to Melanchthon, as the fol-
lowing words attest, the Lutheran conception of the sacraments. It was
Luther's main argument in support of his doctrine of the Lord's Supper, that
it was ** in harmony with the gospel of Christ."
and distributed in the Lord's Supper (a. lo); that they are
'* truly and
substantially " present, and ** we speak of the pres-
ence of the living Christ " (p. 164. 57).^ Melanchihon m/enêd
to reproduce in the language of the Augsburg Confession the
doctrine of Luther (C. R. ii. 142). The Confutators interpreted
Article X. in the sense of transubstantiation (Ficker, p. 40),^ and
Melanchthon, so far from contradicting them, even introduced
into the Apology a citation containing the expression changed *
'
(jniitari') into flesh" (p. 164. 55).^ Private absolution is

recognized, but not in the sense that the preceding confession is
an '* enumeration of all faults " (a. 11 ; also a. 25). Repent-
ance is open to everyone who turns from his sins, and the church
must grant him absolution. Repentance consists of two parts.
One is contrition^ or terrors stricken into the conscience through
the knowledge of sin ; the other \%faith^ which is conceived by
the gospel, or absolution. . Then ought to follow good
. .
works, which are fruits of repentance (a. 12). These two, or

three (p. 171. 28 ; cf. supra, p. 241, n. 3), parts therefore con-
stitute evangelical repentance. Here again it is very evident
that the general evangelical conception of salvation furnishes the
direct contrast to the theory of the sacrament of repentance, and
presents a substitute for it ; for the ideas we have just cited sim-
ply summarize what has been already presented in the discussion
of faith, justification, and works. This is still more distinctly
brought to^ ligl^t in the extended discussions of the Apology.
The law and the gospel are the substance of the Scriptures (p.
175- 53)- '^'^^ \a.-^^ as also the gospel (according to Lk. 24.
47), first exercises its office of rebuke upon man and begets con-
trition. ** We say that contrition is the true terrors of con-
science, which feels that God is angry with sin, and grieves that
it has sinned. And this contrition thus occurs when sins are
censured from the word of God, because this is the sum of the
^ This language is chosen in view of the charge of the Confutators, that by
Luther's view there is present in the bread ** a body alone, without the accom-
paniment of soul and blood," and that thus he ** offers a dead body of Christ,"
Ficker, p. 41.
^ As did also later Catholic writers (^. g.y Heppe, Gesch. d. Prot. iv. 371 f.
This interpretation of the German text: *' That . . body and blood
. . . .
are present under the form { Gestali) of the bread and wine," is not an impossi-
ble one, since the form [species) of the bread, according to the Catholic
theory, remains despite the transubstantiation.
^ Strictly speaking, Melanchthon cites Vulgarius (Theophylact) only to
prove that the Greeks also teach the presence of the body of Christ. He by
no means thereby commits himself to their miitari^ and did not, therefore,
" drag in " this term (as LooFS asserts, DG. 399). But we dare not deny a
fatal diplomacy in the choice of the citation. Upon the entire question, see
Calinich, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1873, 541 ff.
preaching of the gospel, viz., to convict of sin and to offer re-

mission of sins and righteousness for Christ's sake, and . . .
that, as regenerate men, we should do good works'' (p. 171.

29).^ But, since the preaching of the gospel accompanies that of
the law, contrition is followed by ** special faith this faith fol-
:
lows terrors in such a way as to overcome them and render the

conscience pacified. To this faith we ascribe that it justifies
and regenerates, since it frees from terrors and brings forth in
the heart peace, joy, and a new life" (p. 177. 60). Hence
the gospel, or absolution, as the better Scholastics also recog-
nized (supra, p. 137), constitutes the real substance of the sac-
rament of repentance (p. 173. 41). The proclamation of the
gospel is, therefore, the real power of the keys (a. 25. 3 f j.
As the Confession places Article XIII., on the use of the Sac-
raments, after the discussion of baptism, the Lord's Supper and
repentance, it is evident that it recognizes three sacraments
(cf. ApoL, p. 202. 4),^ The general conception of the sacra-
ments is not merely that they are marks of profession (as in
Zwingli), ** but rather that they are signs and testimonies of the
will of God toward us, for the purpose of awakening and con-
firming faith in those who use them" (a. 13. i). They are
'* rites" {Riteii) instituted by God, which, in connection with
the word (of institution), move the heart, since they reach us
through the eye as does the word through the ear. *' Wherefore
the eifect of both is the same" (p. 202. 5). Now, as God has
affixed definite promises to these rites, faith is necessary as the
prerequisite for their proper reception (a. 13. 2 ; p. 204, 19^.).
The sacraments are, therefore, to be evangelically defined as
signs, through the observance of which God gives that which the
words employed in their institution promise. As their substan-
tial result is the strengthening of faith, so faith is also the pre-
requisite for their profitable reception. The Apology rejects the
Scholastic doctrine, that they bestow grace by virtue of the mere
administration of them (êx opere operato^ p. 204. 18).^ The
religious character of the sacramental acts is here in an admirable
way preserved.
8. The remaining articles of the Confession, especially those
directed against the prevailing abuses, have already been referred
to as far as they have important bearing upon the History of
^ The question, when contrition springs from love and when from fear, is
waived aside as profitless scholastic disputation, p. 171. 29.
^ But the Smalcald Articles enumerate two sacraments,
p. 485. i.
^ The corresponding words of the Augsburg Confession (a. 13.
3) were not
in the original document, as the Confutators (Ficker, p. 48} do not mention
them.
Doctrines. We
mention here only the articles upon the saints,
who are not to be regarded as mediators in addition to Christ,
nor to be worshiped (a. 21. Upon Mary, see p. 227); upon
the marriage of priests (a, 23), the prohibition of which is con-
trary to the law of nature (p. 236 f. ); upon the mass (a. 24)
upon confession (a. 25); upon discrimination of meats fa. 26)
upon monastic vows (a. 27); upon episcopal authority (a. 26)
and of Christ's return to judgment (a. 17).
Reviewing the entire document, it may be said that the Augs-
burg Confession affords a clear, compact, and thorough presen-
tation of the views of Luther in their fundamental features.
75. TJie Earlier Reformed Confessions.
Literature. Niemeyer, Collectio confessionum in ecclesiis reformatis

publicatarum, 1840. K. MOller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformirten
Kirche, 1903. Thomasius-Seeberg, ii., ed. 2, 417 K. MOller, Sym-
fif.
bol ik, 398 ff.
1. The original documents which here demand our attention
(Tetrapolitana, 1530. Basileensis prior, 1534. Helvetica

prior, 1536) are only in a general way in accord with the views
of Zwingli. The influence of Bucer's irenic efforts is already
traceable in them (vid. sub).
2. It must be distinctly noted, first of all, that these confes-
sions also give clear expression to the doctrine of justification by
faith alone. This is *' the highest and most prominent chief
article . that we are preserved and saved alone through the
. .
simple mercy of God and through the merit of Christ. . . .
Such high and great benefits of divine grace and the true sancti-
fying of the Spirit of God we receive not from our merits and
powers, but through faith, which is a pure gift and bestowal of
God" (Helv. 12. Tetr. 3. Bas. 83).^ The sole authority of
the Scriptures is also maintained. Only that is to be preached
which is found in them, or deduced from them (Tetr. i.
Helv. i).
The fundamental reformatory principle excludes the meritor-
ious character of works and justification by means of them
(Bas. 83). But as faith is, in one aspect, the receptive organ
by which all the gracious gifts of God are appropriated, it is also,
in another aspect, the fundamental principle of a new moral life.
''This faith is a sure, firm, yea, an undoubted foundation and
apprehension of all things which we hope for from God, who
^ These figures indicate articles of the confessions, except in the case of the
Basileensis, where they refer to the marginal numbers in Niemeyer.
'
THE EARLIER REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 345
causes love,and hence all virtues, to grow from it. This . .
faith,which does not rely upon its own work, although it per-
forms innumerable good works, but upon the mercy of God, is
the real true service, by means of which we please God
'
(Helv. 13).
The spiritual nature of the Church is here also plainly asserted
(Helv. 14. Bas. 8i. Tetr. 15). In the doctrine of the sac-
raments, there is a general agreement with Zwingli. The sacra-
ments serve "for the begetting of faith and brotherly love"
(Bas. 81) ; but yet they are
according to the Helvetica not
only symbols {sy/nboia), but they " consist of signs and at the
same time realities " {sigîis siviul et rebus^. Thus in baptism,
water is the sign, and regeneration and adoption the reality ; in
the Lord's Supper, bread and wine constitute the sign, while the
reality is *' the imparting (^cominunicalio) of the body of the Lord,
the procuring of salvation, and the remission of sins." This is
however upon the condition, that an inner reception by the heart
accompanies that of the outward symbols (21. 16). The, chief
attention is naturally given to the Lord's Supper. Christ is the
food of believing souls. Our souls are through faith refreshed by
his flesh and blood (Bas. 81 f ). Christ left his body to his
disciples as food for the soul (Tetr. 18). The difference from
Luther's view here remains evident, however carefully it is kept
in the background. A carnal presence {^carnalis praesentia^ is
expressly denied. The Supper brings a commemoration of the
Crucified One, and thus refreshes our hearts (Helv. 23). Zwingli
could certainly have subscribed these statements in detail ; but
we can nevertheless discern here, as elsewhere in the Confessions,
a certain modification of his ideas. There is here an effort to
associate the spiritual influence as closely as possible with the
bodily reception of the sacraments.^
^ This softening down of Zwingli's ideas is manifest also in the theory of

original sin (Bas. 80. Helv. 8). Predestination is not discussed, but the
characteristic separation of the divine influence from the earthly means remains
as the fixed premise to the doctrine of the means of grace.
that Christ may dwell in your hearts tbroudb faith; to the end that
ye, being rooted and grounded in looe, may be strong to apprehend with
all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and
to know the looe of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be

filled unto all the fullness of 6od*p/r. ///. 17-19.
PART II.
THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND (-PROVISIONAL) COM-

PLETION OF PROTESTANT DOCTRINE.
CHAPTER L
LUTHERAN DOCTRINE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FORMULA OF
CONCORD.
76. Theology of Melanchthon and its Significance for the

History of Doctj'ine.
Literature. Schmidt, Ph. Mel., i860. Hartfelder, Mel. als

Praceptor Germ. (^ Mon. paed. vii. ), 1S89. Herrlinger, DieTheol. Mel.,
1870. Troltsch, Vernunft u, Offenb. bei J. Gerh. u. Mel., 1890. Ritschl,
Die Entstehung d. luth. Kirche, Ztschr. f. KG. i, 51 ff. ii. 366 ff. LOOFS,
;
DG., ed. 3, 408 ff. Seeberg, Mel. Stelluag in d. Gesch. d. Dogmas, Neue
kirchl. Ztschr., 1897, 126 ff.^ Haussleiter, Aus d. Schule Mel. (Greifs-
walder Festschr. ), 1897. Sell, Mel. u. die deutsche Ref. bis 1531
(Schriften des Vereins fur Ref. -Gesch., 56), etc. Dilthey, in Archiv. f.
Gesch. d. Philos. vi. 226 ff., 347 ff.
I. In the first period of Protestant doctrinal history, we have

familiarized ourselves with the genesis of the Lutheran and Re-
formed Doctrines. We
studied first of all the religious ideas of
Luther in their peculiar character and force, and sought to
understand them in the light of the circumstances attending their
development. We then followed the course of Zwingli, and the
influence of his teachings.
The second period is marked by the development and pro-
visional^ completion of doctrinal construction in the Protestant
church. If in the first period ideas were produced and new
ideals created, the second period addressed itself to the task of
constructing forms and formulas for their permanent embodi-
ment. The former was an essentially religious, this an essentially
^ A is reproduced in the present section.

part of this article
^ The completion
of dogmatic statement thus attained is described as merely
*'provisional," partly upon general historical principles, for we can of course
not tell in advance to what modifications, additions, and omissions the Prot-
estant doctrines may yet be subjected in the church. But the word has also a
special significance, as guarding against the error of regarding the present forms
of statement as final, which would be an unauthorized dogmatic opinion.
(347)
theological era. Melanchthon and, Calvin are the leaders in the

toil of the second period. The historical transition from the first
to the second stage of development may be easily understood.
Luther had restored the gospel to the church ; but his religious
instinct preserved him from the attempt to simply reproduce the
thought of the apostolic age, ignoring the entire historical devel-
opment which intervened. Upon the contrary, many ideas and
elements derived from the past became coefficients in the shaping
of his religious views/ This was at first quite unavoidable in the
sphere of external historical forms. Continuity of life demands
points of attachment to the forms of the past. But as, in this
case, a great literary and scientific revolution preceded the re-
ligious movement, the direct dependence of Protestant theology
upon the scholastic materials of the preceding epoch was less
marked than might otherwise have been expected.
2. It was Melanchthon who, on Lutheran territory, rendered
the important service of providing a system of doctrine for the
youthful Protestant church. His universal culture, which fitted
him, by the publication of many text-books, to become the in-
structor of his age in the spheres of general philosophy and phil-
ology, his delicate sense, so averse to all extremes and disturb-
ances, and his wonderful talent for formulating, fitted him to be-
come the Praeceptor Gervianiae also in the sphere of theology.
As early as A. D. 1521 appeared the first draft of his Loci (ed.
Plitt-Kolde, 1890). There is here presented in brief and com-
pact form an excellent epitome of Luther's views touching the
plan of salvation. The Scriptures alone, it is held, furnish the
*^ form of Christianity " they alone es-
(^foj'ma christianismi') ,
tablish articles of faith (p. 59, 139). The

doctrines immediately
connected with Soteriology are presented, but no attention is
devoted to the doctrine of the Trinity or toChristology.^ Sharp
protest is entered against the injection of philosophical specula-
tions into religion.^ A
fuller description of the work would be
apart from our present purpose (see my review in Neue kirchl.
^ In this sense the entire period from the time of Augustine may be described
as pre-reformatory. We can in the light of this understand also the simple

retention of the dogmas of the ancient church.
2 Melanchthon accepts the Nicene doctrine (p. 139 f. ), but he thought that
a "cbmpendiura of Christian doctrine" might be given following the ex-

ample of the Epistle to the Romans without detailed theories in regard to
God and Christ (p. 64, 61) ;cf. C. R. i. 305:
" fori condemn metaphysical
theories, because I think it a great peril to subject celestial mysteries to the
methods of our reason."
^ See his fine remark, p. 37 *' For just as in these modern times of the
:
church we have embraced Aristotle instead of Christ, so, immediately after the
beginning of the church. Christian doctrine was weakened through Platonic
philosophy."
THEOLOGY OF MELANCHTHON. 349
Ztschr. , 1897, 129 ff. ), although we

shall have occasion to ex-
amine the Melanchthon.
later theological views of His aim is
here very distinctly to present the teachings of Luther. But we
notice a characteristic materializing and leveling down of the
ideas of Luther, while upon certain points the author knowingly
advocates positions differing from his. Both these tendencies
became most highly significant in their influence upon the devel-
ment of doctrine, although the former is to be regarded as the
more important in its results. We begin with the deliberate doc-
trinal divergences.
There were two doctrines upon which Melanchthon con-
3.
sciously differed from Luther, viz., free will and the Lord's
Supper. That he wavered from his original deterministic posi-
tion is perhaps to be attributed to the influence of the polemical
writings of Erasmus against Luther (cf. e. g.^ C. R. i. (>%%').
,
As early as 1527, in his exposition of the Epistle to the Colos-

sians, he recognizes human freedom in the sphere of the outward
life,although no one can fear and love God except he be im-
pelled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Luthardt, Die Lehre vom fr.
Willen, p. 162 ff. ). Similarly, in the Unterricht der Visita-
toren^ xxvi. 78. In the Augsburg Confession, he purposely
avoids questions concerning predestination (ii. 547). And upon
the occasion of a disputation at Wittenberg in 1534, he pointed
out that neither religion nor morality could be harmonized with
the Stoic doctrine of the necessity of all events (x. 70 f., 785 ff. ).
Already in the Loci of 1535, Melanchthon attributed to the
human will an active, although small, part in producing conver-
sion. He there recognizes three causes of conversion the word, :
the Holy Spirit, and the human will. He explains, further, that
the will either determines to accept or determines not to accept
the grace of God (xxi, 376 f., 332). He expresses himself most
plainly upon this point in the third revision of the Loci (A. D.
1543). His inner motive is opposition to the Stoic dvdyxrj. Man
yet retains freedom as a power of applying himself to grace {fc^c-
iiltas applicandi se ad gratiaiii) (xxi. 652, 659f.). Accordingly,
in conversion God stirstheheart through the word read or heard,
and the heart then, by virtue of a certain freedom yet left to it,
decides for or against God. ''God anticipates {ântevertif) us,
calls, moves, aids but we must see to it that we do not resist
"
;
(658).^
^ In order to rightly judge this view of Melanchthon' s, we must bear in

mind (i) That he holds strictly to the doctrine of original sin, and therefore
excludes every form of salvation by man's own efforts (xx. 1. 669), and {2)
That he sought, in opposition to the doctrine of predestination, which he under-
stood as magical, morally untenable, and deterministic, to retain the personal
4. In a similar way, Melanchthon gradually lost confidence in

Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. He at first shared the
symbolic conception of Augustine, as advocated by Erasmus. He
then fully adopted the view of Luther {e. g.y C. R. i. 760, 823,
830, 1109 f.). Zwingli's theory appeared to him at this time
and afterward as profane (ib. i. 1067, 1077). In Marburg, he
assisted Luther in making a collection of citations from the
Fathers in confirmation of the latter's position. With his grow-
ing respect for the consensus of the ancient church, he was very
profoundly impressed by the dialogue of Oecolampadius, which
produced evidence that, in a closer study of the Church Fathers,
the symbolical view might also be found in their writings. He con-
fessed this to Luther (ii. 217); yet he still clung to the Lutheran
conception (ii. 212, 222^,226; i. 1109^). This is also the posi-
tion taken in the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession (ii.
142). The formula of Bucer (supra, p. 331), appeared to him
to prepare the way for a union of the divergent parties (ii. 498 f. ).
But he still distinctly maintains the bodily presence of Christ
(ii. 311, 315, 787, 801). He was able, indeed, to accept the
formula which Luther now framed, /. e.y that the body of Christ
is *^ crushed with the teeth " (E. 55. 75 f-)> only as *' the spokes-
man of another's opinion '* (^nuntius alienae sententiae, ii. 822).

But, in view of the testimonies of the ancient church, he could
find no rest. *'I affirm the true presence of Christ in the Sup-
per. I am not willing to be the author nor defender of a new
doctrine in the church " (ii. 824; cf. xxi. 479 ; ix. 785). At
heart, he inclined more and more to the view of the theologians
of Southern Germany (ii. 824, 837, 841 f.; iii. 292). Melanch-
thon always held to the presence of the Lord in the Supper, but
he became less and less satisfied with Luther's conception of that
presence.
At a later period, he never wearied at least in his
private correspondence
of inveighing against bread-worship
(aproXarpeia), as against the '' Stoic necessity " (e.g., viii. 362,
791, 660). Hefellback whenever possible upon the thought, that
there is in the Lord's Supper a "communion of the body and
blood of Christ." He denied the bodily ubiquity of Christ
(vii. 780, 884; viii. 385; ix. 387, 962, 963), and emphasized
in contrast the spiritual presence of Christ *'The Son of God
:
lives and reigns, and wishes to be present in the sacrament in-

stituted for this purpose, and joins us as members to himself"
(xv. 1112).^ In this sense is the tenth article of the Augustana
and moral element in conversion. But he did not succeed in the solution of
the problem.
1 Cf. iii. 514 (A. D. 1538): ** Not to depart very far from the ancients, I
have affirmed a sacramental presence in the celebration [in usu) and have said
THEOLOGY OF MELANCHTHON. 35 I
Variata (A. D. 1540) also to be understood '* Concerning the

:
Lord's Supper they teach, that with the bread and wine the body
and blood of Christ are truly offered to those eating in the Lord's
Supper.^ The *'damnant" is here also wanting. Cf. Herr-
LiNGER, Theol. Mel., p. 124 ff.
5. The Loci oi Melanchthon, after the second revision, fell
more and more into the track of the traditional doctrinal
statements. Refraining from the attempt to trace the develop-
ment of his theological views, we present a general summary of
them based upon the third redaction of the Loci. The pedagog-
ical character of the work has become increasingly prominent as
it has been popularized in the manner so characteristic of the
author.^ The simplicity of form and the desire to secure prac-

tical usefulness exclude the discussion of the more profound prob-
lems and extended logical proof of the positions taken. ^ Although,
even in the last revision of the Loci, Melanchthon followed no me-
thodical plan beyond the enumeration of the separate doctrines, yet
the study of his later writings makes it manifest that the Reformer
had at least grouped his theological ideas around certain definite
fundamental principles. These were ( i ) the combination of ideas
involved in justification and the new conception of repentance,
and (2 J the conception of the church (cf. xxviii. 371 f. ). These
ideas constantly recur. They lay nearer to his heart than all
else. To make them plain to all, and to impress them upon all
hearts, appeared to him his chief duty. They may be designated
as the two focal points in the theology of Melanchthon.
We take as our starting-point the question as to the Sources
and Standards of Christian truth, which Melanchthon of course
answers by pointing to the Holy Scriptures. Therefore let us
regard it as a great blessing of God, that he has given and pre-
that with these elements Christ is truly present and ejjicaciotis. This surely is
enough. Nor have I added such an inclusion or conjunction by which the
body would be joined to the bread. .. . Sacraments are pledges that some-
thing else is present with the things received."
^ The formula of Bucer and the Wittenberg Concord (supra,
p. 331) here
exerted a controlling influence, but the possibility of an interpretation favoring
transubstantiation is excluded. But it is significant that the^-^r^ et substantialiter
adesse oi the Wittenberg formula is omitted. Luther himself originally in-
tended to express himself in a way similar to this in the Sraalcald Articles :
'* That under bread

and wine the true body and blood are present," etc., but
wrote instead :
'* The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are the true body
and blood of Christ." (SeeKoLDE, Stud. u. Krit., 1893, p. 159.) However

true it may be that the formula of the Augustana Variata may be interpreted
in a Lutheran sense, it is equally true that it was in reality designed to favor the
divergent conception of Melanchthon.
*' With every new
2 issue, paper and tradition exerted greater influence"
(DlLTHEY, 1. t;., vi. 230).
^ Cf. the remark of Erasmus, C. R. iii. 87.
served to the church a certain book, and binds the church to it.
That company of people alone is the church, which embraces this
book, hears it, teaches it, and retains its true sense in the wor-
ship of God and in the regulating of conduct (xxi. 8oi).' As no
parallels can be found in the writings of Melanchthon to the free
utterances often made by Luther in regard to the letter of the
Scriptures (supra, p. 300 f. ), so also his conception of the author-
ity of the Scriptures receives a different coloring from his en-
dorsement of their teachings as being the same as embraced the
three ancient symbols of the church (xii. 399, 568, 608; v.
582).^ Their doctrine he approves as being genuinely Catholic.
''This a Catholic association (^coefus'), which embraces the
is
common consensus of prophetic and apostolic doctrine, together

with the belief (-r^;2/^/2//a), of the true church. Thusin our Con-
fession we profess to embrace the whole doctrine of the word of
God, to which the church bears testimony, and that in the sense
which the symbols show" (xxiv. 398; xxi. 34-9)-^ He con-
demns whatever varies from the symbola accepta (iii. 826, 985 ;
ix. 366). He will not extend his hand to any '* new dogma"
(i. 823, 901, 1048), nor alter anything in the ecclesiastical
formulas, for '' often a change of words begets also new beliefs"
(xxiv. 427). This high valuation of the ancient symbols is very
different indeed from the attitude of Luther toward them. Whilst
Luther most clearly declares that they have value for him only be-
cause, and in so far as, they agree with the Scriptures (supra, p.
304), Melanchthon makes no express limitation of this kind in
his endorsement of them. Thus again, the ideas of Luther
are contracted and materialized. To the symbols of the ancient
church was added, as we have seen, the Augustana. But this is
not sufficiently explicit.* The genuine, true doctrine is that of
Luther. Melanchthon was the first to understand the relation of
Luther to the historical development of the world, and he ex-
* Cf., e.
g.j xxiv. 718
; xii. 479, 646 f., 649, 698
; xxiii. 603; xi. 42 v.
;
580 "has revealed in certain testimonies, and given a particular doctrine and
:
word." Here are the germs of the later theory of inspiration,

^ Osiander assailed the subscription of the three ancient symbols and the
Augsburg Confession under oath, which was customary at Wittenberg (xii.

6, 7). Upon the daily devotional use of the Apostles' Creed, see xxv. 449 ;
xxiv. 394, 581.

^ Cf. " With true faith I embrace the whole doctrine handed down in the
:
books of the prophets and apostles, and comprehended in the Apostolic, JSIi-
cene, and Athanasian symbols" (Thesisof A. D. 1551, in Haussleiter, 1. c,
P- 95)-
^ III. 286, 29S, 1000, 827, 929: ''Confessio u. Apologia," v. 581 ix.
;
386 viii. 284 xxxiii. p. xxxviii. names, besides the three ancient symbols,
; ;
" Catechismus u. Bekenntnis Lutheri u. Confessio," ix. 319, 366, 618,

213 f. Also Smalcald Articles.
pressed it with classical lucidity. He counts him among the

mighty heroes of the church and her faith Isaiah, John the Baptist,
:
Paul, Augustine, and Luther. *' Luther brought to light the true
and necessary doctrine " (xi. 728; cf. vi. 57, 72, 73, 92; vii.
398; xi. 272). We must hold fast to the pure doctrine, namely,
the confessio Liitheri (xi. 272 f. viii. 49).^ It is the doctrine of
;
the Church and of the University of Wittenberg (xi. 327, 600 ;

xxi. 602 iii. 1106).
; But the truth of the church's doctrine is
attested also by the experience (êxperientia) of the pious (xxi.
420; xii. 426; cf. Luther, supra, p. 256 ff.).
6. This, therefore, is the truth : The teachings of the Bible, as
understood and summarized by the ancient doctrinal standards,
Luther and the Wittenberg theology. To the understanding
and presentation of this truth all other sciences minister as
** handmaids" of theology (xi. 394), not only by pedagogi-
cally sharpening the intellect for the apprehension of Scrip-
tural truth, but also by furnishing the necessary preliminary sci-
entific knowledge. Without scientific education, the theologian
could produce only unconnected and confused statements, which
would beget innumerable errors and a '^cyclopian" monster
(xi. 280). Hence the church needs, not only grammar and
dialectics, but also physics and philosophy. *' Not only for the
sake of method ... is philosophy necessary, but also many

things must be taken (âssumenda) by the theologian from
physics." Thus the theologian derives his physiological, psy-
chological, and logical definitions from the sphere of the arts and
sciences {ôrbis artium') (ib.
281, 934). It is, in other words,
the popularized philosophy of Aristotle, which theology requires
as a prerequisite and support. To this naturally-acquired knowl-
edge itadds that derived from the Scriptures. The light of
reason (^lumen naturale^ xii. 514, 577, 648) furnishes every man
with a number of innate moral and religious ideas. It plays as
important a role in Melanchthon's line of thought as the '* law
'
of nature in the later Middle Ages.
' In the application of
this principle, he follows largely the example of Cicero. There
is a natural religion, a natural morality, and a natural law.
Although sin may have beclouded this light, it yet remains as an
endowment of human nature. It cannot be denied that a dan-
gerous tendency is thus inaugurated. Theology appears to be the
product of a combination of the cosmology of the ancient world and
the ''articles of faith" derivedfromthe Scriptures.^ Cf. Dilthey,
^ The co-ordination of '* Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr" is perfectly in
accord with Melanchthon's feeling. See already Anton Otto, C. R. viii.

460 "the faith {sentenHa) of Luther, that is, of Christ."
:
^ This combination reminds us of Thomas (supra,

p. 100 f. ), but DiLTHEY
23

Archiv., etc., vi. 236 ff. TrOltsch, 1. c. Hartfelder, Mel.,

p. 161 f., 181 f., 240.
7. In this last period of Melanchthon's labors, he emphasizes
with great energy the idea, that those who confess the correct faith
are the true church
thus following Luther also in the conception
oftheChurch (p. 294 f.). He recognizes the altered conditions
there being now an evangelical church organization, having as
its distinguishing mark the possession of the true doctrine in
most clearly from this time onward designating the visible as-
sembly of the called (^coetus vocatorujii) as the church. ** The
visible church is the assembly of those embracing the gospel of

Christ and rightly using the sacraments, in which God through
the ministry of the gospel is efficacious and regenerates many to
eternal life, in which assembly, nevertheless, are many unregen-
erated, but assenting to the true doctrine " (xxi. 826, and con-
stantly. See Neue kirchl. Ztschr., 1897, 154, n. i). This defi-
nition and the connection of thought in which it is found very
clearly reveal the general conception of Melanchthon. The true
church under any circumstances exists only where the true doc-
trine is found. Thus Zacharias, Anna, Elizabeth, the shepherds,
etc., since they did not accept the official teaching of their age,
but remained steadfast in the true doctrine, constituted the true
church in that age. God provides that there shall always be
some servants of his word, like Zacharias, as faithful representa-
tives of this true doctrine. Only in this true church, in which
are gathered the really called, may believers and the elect be
found,^ as only there is the church, in which God is known, con-
fessed and worshiped, as ** he has revealed himself" (xxi. 834).^
In the Middle Ages the church existed only where the doctrines
of an Augustine and Bernard, a Tauler and Wessel, were taught
(xxi. 837 ; xxiv. 309 xxv.862f.). They only, according to the
;
Scriptures, are churches, *' which hold the pure doctrine and are
in harmony with it'' {in ea cojisentiunt^ xi. 273). Only in
tliis church are to be found the forgiveness of sins and justifica-
(p. 238) very properly points out the difference

that Melanchthon does not,
like Thomas, unite and philosophy in the construction of a system of meta-
faith
physics, but only makes the natural consciousness his point of departure.
Nevertheless, this Melanchthonian combination led historically to the ortho-
doxy of the seventeenth, as well as to the illumination of the eighteenth cen-
tury.
^ This is the "church of the elect," xxi. 913 xii. 67S : the **church of
;
the regenerate " xii. 589, 431

;
xxiii., p. xxxv.: the " eternal church ; " xi.
;
760 the " elect alone in this " army of the called On the other
' '
: ' xii. 567.

; '
hand, the term, true church (ecclesia vera), is used to designate the church
which holds the true doctrine ; but only in this are the " true members of the
church," e., the '^saints"
?". .see xxiii. 599.
'^
Cf. xi. 273 xii. 567
;
ix. 557 ; xxv. 220 f., 325, 640
; xxiii. 597 f.
;
tion (xi. 400). But those who, like the Romish church, do not
hold the central principle of the true doctrine, but persecute the
real church, do not belong to the true church.^ Yet Melanch-
thon also maintains the conception of the church as an object
of faith ^ since it is only by faith that we can be assured that there
is really in this visibly assembly (^coetus') a number of elect per-
sons (xii, 368 f.; xxiv. 365, 368, 400, 405 ; xxv. 148 f., 221,
677 ; viii. 284). The marks which attest the existence of the
*' true visible church," and at the same time assure to faith the
presence of a '* church of the regenerate " within the former,

are therefore the true evangelical doctrine and the proper admin-
istration of the sacraments
to which Melanchthon afterward
habitually added
reverence {j-everentia) or obedience, to the ,
ministry (ôbedientia ministerii)}

Such is the church. In it the divine purpose is being accom-
plished in the world. It is the realization of the aim of the
work of Christ.^ But this it is, because in it alone the truth of
God is apprehended by men and becomes effectual through them.
To maintain this doctrine in its simplicity and purity is the task
of theology, as well as of every branch of science. This end is
to be served by universities, princes, and states (xi. 272, 326 f.;
iii. 198; viii. 401; vii. (i(>6, Hartfelder, p. 437). It may be
said that the maintenance and spread of *'pure doctrine " is the
great motive which inspired Melanchthon's life-work, as a Re-
former of the church and of the universities, as a theologian, phil-
ologian, and teacher.* This involved again, as compared with
Luther, a narrowing of the horizon, resulting not merely from
the great importance attached to the *' pure doctrine," but from
the fact that the life-giving energy of the church was attributed
^ XII. 526, 628 xxiii.; p. xxxvii.

; ; xxiv. 78 1, 855 " There is the church
:
where are the fountains of Israel. . . The Turks are not the church, neither
are the Papists."
2 XIL xxiv. 367,401, 502 xxv. 129, 685, etc. The
599, 433, 602, 655 ; ;
peculiar importance attached to the clerical office (see also xxv, 692) marks
one of the materializing features of Melanchthon's later writings. The
church, he holds, is neither a tyranny nor a democracy, but an honoralile
aristocracy [hones/a aristocratia), xii. 367, 496; cf. also ii. 274, 2S4, 334,
376; iii. 942.
^ XXI. 345 xxiv. 307
; xii. 520
;
** To this end he established the human
:
race, that there might be a. church obeying God and worshiping him," 566 ;
xiii. 199 xxiii. 198

; xii. 339, 539, 616, 634, etc.
;
* This explains his severity toward heretics [e. Servetus), ii. iS iii. ;
ff.,
I97f., 199, 241 f.; viii. 520 ff.; iv. 739; xii. 696; xxiv. 375, 501. On the
other hand, we may thus also understand his fatal attitude toward the Interim,
vii. 382 f. 322 f., and toward Calvin and his party for, aside from the devi-
, ;
ations which had separated himself as well from Luther, he believed himself
to be in doctrinal accord with Calvin
and everything to his mind depended
upon doctrine.
directly to the latter. It cannot be denied that in these views

of Melanchthon are to be found the germs of the errors of the
orthodoxy of the seventeenth century.^ Melanchthon even de-
fined faith, aSj in the first instance, an ^'assent," with which in-
tellectual act, the voluntary act of trust is necessarily associated
(xxi. 790). But this is only a passing remark, trust still remain-
ing for him the first and controlling element of faith. *'This
consolation is trust, by which the will acquiesces in the promise
of mercy granted for the sake of the Mediator. But trust in the
mercy embraces also a knowledge of the history, because it looks
upon Christ, whom it is necessary to know as the eternal Son,
crucified, arisen, etc., for us. And the history must be brought
into relation with the promise, or effect, which is presented in
the article: *I believe in the forgiveness of sins " (ib. p. '
743 ; vi. 910). None of these passages must, of course, be in-

terpreted as making the salvation of the individual dependent
upon the possession of the pure doctrine. *^ Although the true
church . preserves the articles of faith, nevertheless that
. .
true church may itself hold the articles of faith with obscurity
on account of erroneous conceptions of them." If very much
in the teaching even of the Fathers is overlooked, if they have
only held fast to the fundamental truth, how much more must be
forgiven weakness and errors found among the laity (ib. p. 837 fij
cf. xii. 433 fi; xxiii. 599, 601, 207). The important matter
is only that the proper foundation be laid in the acceptance of
the chief doctrine. He does not regard all separate doctrinal
statements as of equal importance, but expressly recognizes a
** But this faith embraces all the arti-
gradation of doctrines.
cles of the Creed, and refers the others to this one '
I believe :
in the forgiveness of sins " (xii. 406, 540 ; xxi. 422),

'
There
are chief articles, which are important above everything else.
The chief article is that concerning the blessings of Christ,
or justification.^ In this lies the whole practical comfort of the
Christian religion, and it is in their relationship to it that all the
1 This remark is not a novel one. See G. Arnold, Kirchen u. Ketzer-

historie, ii. Bk. 16, c. 9, 4 ff. Zierold, Einleitung zur Kirchenhistorie
(Leipzig u. Stargard, 1700), i. 387 ff., 384; recently Ritschl, Die Entste-
hung der luth. Kirche, in Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch. i.
2 Cf., e.
g.j xxiii. 600, 280; v. 582 (original sin, grace, faith, works, sac-
raments); vi. 116; vii. 117 f., 532,433; XXV. 863. Cf. also similar lists in
Luther (supra, p. 297, n. 3). But note also, in a disputation held under
Melanchthon, the remark in reference to the Athanasian Creed " When they :
say, * This is the Catholic faith (/i/d-j), they do not mean this trust {fiducia).
'
But nevertheless the principal good work and destruction of the kingdom of
Satan is to think rightly {recte seniire) concerning God, to confess God," etc.
(in Haussleiter, p. 51).
Other doctrines receive their position and significance. It may,

perhaps, be correctly said, that Melanchthon in this really
means to say no more than that spiritual life can be aroused and
flourish only when the gospel is actually preached. But it would
be an error, in view of such a remark concerning Melanchthon's
personal sentiment in the matter, to minimize the historical re-
sults traceable to the form in which he expressed that sentiment.
And it him as holding merely
will scarcely suffice to interpret
that the church has in the pure doctrine a substantial means for
the effectual proclamation of the gospel. This was certainly
essentially what Melanchthon meant. But he s a id more than
^
this. Only they are members of the church who preserve '* the
doctrine uncorrupted, " /. e.j the foundation, namely, a// the
articlesof faith and the teachings of the decalogue.^ And it is
just in the uncompromising one-sidedness of this position that its
power and significance lie. It was in the sphere of doctrine, as
including the ideal of practical life, that the issue had been
joined with Rome. Under the circumstances of the age, it could
have occurred in no other sphere. The "= pure doctrine " was
the only legal title to existence held by the youthful evangelical
church. This was a controlling factor in her political fortunes ;
it opened the nations to the new church. Hence the duty of pro-
claiming the pure doctrine must be constantly impressed upon her
preachers,^ for the age was full of echoes of the scholastic teachings
and superstitions of the past. There was still a strong tendency to
disputations upon doctrine and its forms, and it was needful to de-
cline many a hand outstretched to the Reformers with proffers of
assistance or of sworn alliance. The practical conditions of the
1 See the fundamental definition, supra, p. 354; ** those embracing the
gospel" and the "true doctrine." We may, perhaps, say, that when Me-
lanchthon speaks of the evangelical doctrine, he thinks primarily of saving
truth in the narrower sense of the term (cf. xxiii. 600). As in his first edi-
tion of the Loci, the Trinity and Christology were regarded rather as matters
for reverent contemplation than for teaching, so it is known that shortly be-
fore his death he still hoped to gain clear ideas in regard to these objects of
faith only in a higher world.
2 XII.
433 :
" It is necessary that those who receive the uncorrupted doc-
trine of the gospel . retain the foundation, all the articles of faith, and
. .
the doctrine of the decalogue." The text of the C. R. places the " and,"
not after faith, but as follows: <f^ omnes articulos fidci doctrinam decalogi,
which can hardly be correct, as it is said in almost immediate connection :
*'
By the term consenstis in fundamento is required agreement in the articles
of faith and in the decalogue."
^ Cf. the catalogue of doctrines in the *' Examen ordinandorum," and the
remark: *'that they upon opportunity present these questions in an orderly

way in their sermons, so that the people may among themselves reflect and
meditate upon a clear and fundamental outline of the Christian doctrine which
is necessary to (lead them to) conversion and to faith," xxiii., p. xl.
.
8
age gave birth to the formula of Melanchthon, and it in turn

reacted upon the age. We may to-day recognize its one-sided-
ness without calling in question its historical justification. It
undoubtedly fixed upon the Lutheran church for a long time to
follow something of the character of a school ; but it was also
the legal title upon which that church based, maintained,
and justified its existence. Cf. Seeberg, Begriff d. Kirche, i,
104 ff.
8. The Church of the Pure Doctrine
this is the one focal point
in the intellectual horizon of the later Melanchthon. The other
is Justification, or
which is the same thing (supra, p. 235 ff. )
the substitute for the sacrament of repentance. It appears at first
but an illustration of the lack of strict systematic order in Me-
lanchthon, that the terms discussed under the heading of repent-
ance, such as faith, works, justification, etc., have all been already
exhaustively treated in an earlier portion of the Loci. But it
is also an evidence that these religious processes are not to his
mind limited to the praxis of confession, but that the latter praxis
merely includes also these processes.^
Melanchthon' s starting-point is the Law. The law is the im-
mutable wisdom of God, a rule for discrimination between good
and evil. It teaches men that there is a God, and what is his
character, that he has placed all men beneath this rule of life and
will punish all who do not live in accordance with it (xii. 614,
658 f.; xxi. 421, 685, 741, 885). Since now all men are from
their birth guilty and subject to condemnation, the law brings
primarily to all men judgment and condemnation ; it leads us to
recognize that we are under the wrath of God (xxi. 692 f. ; xxv.
777). But since even the regenerate still commit sin, the law
awakens in them also a sense of the wrath of God. To this are
to be added reflections upon the misery of life in this world,
future punishments, and the necessity for the atoning death of
Christ (xxi. 876, 883 f.).
The result of this faithfully pros-
ecuted
preaching of the law \s> contrition. The latter, however,
would but drive man to despair, if preaching of the law were not
at once accompanied with the proclamation of the gospel. The
gospel, as the announcement of the forgiveness of sins, teaches us
to know Christ and the blessings which he bestows (xii. 605).''
^ We cannot fail approach to the Romish model, es-

to note here a formal
pecially when we remember the importance again attaching to the confessional
in the latter half of the century. Cf. Von Zezschwitz, Katechetik, i. 570:
'* Thereby
(/. e.y through the combination of private confession and examina-
tion upon doctrinal points) the Lutheran Church substantially readopted the
pedagogical system of the Middle Ages in a purified form. Cf. also Ritschl,
Gesch. d. Pietismus, ii. 201 f., 539 f.
^ Parallel with this narrower definition of the Gospel, Melanchthon recog-
At this point the doctrine of the Atonement is considered. If

we are to speak of mercy to the sinner who is alarmed at thought
of the divine justice, so there must be some means of accounting
for this change of the divine attitude toward him. This require-
ment. Melanchthon meets by substantially reproducing the satis-
faction theory of Anselm, to whom he expressly refers, thus ex-
hibiting both the divine and the human natures of Christ in
their connection with human salvation. In this alone lies the
significance of Christ's redeeming work '* Christ has a ministry
:
of teaching, but this is not his principal office. He was sent

chiefly to be the victim for the human race, to be their Redeemer,
to free us from the curse of the law. "^ The tempering of justice
with mercy was brought about by Christ's bearing the punishment
for us, or bringing a sacrifice and an ** equivalent price," and
thereby satisfying the justice of God. As such service could be
rendered only by a man, so, on the other hand, only God could
offer a ** price equivalent" for the *' infinite wickedness " of the
race (xxiv. 78 f, 579; xxv. 171, 776; xii. 577 593,
569,
446 f.; 616,424,428; 733,743,904). The obedience of
xxi.
Christ was the price rendered for us (xii. 424, 607 xxiii. 451).^ ;
Christ is now standing before the Father and interceding (înter-

pellirf) for us, for the whole church, as for everyone who prays
to him. *' We are righteous on account of Christ, his righteous-
ness which he discharged in doing and bearing being imputed to

us " (xxiv. 216). His *' merit " and *' intercession " are
the foundation of the Christian faith (xii. 426). The effect
of this redeeming work is the forgiveness of sins and the imputa-
tion of the righteousness of Christ, the impartation of the Holy
Spirit of love and righteousness and of the new eternal life (xxiv.
80. 216, 654 f, 656, 748, 775, 798, 873, 864, 875; xxiii.
452 ; XV. 895)/

Faith lays hold upon the consolation which the gospel pro-
nizes also a broader conception, according to which it is *'the preaching of

repentance and the promise" {following Lk. 24. 47); xii. 589, 640 xxi. 732 f. ;
^ XXV. 171 f xxiv. 78

; The final cause of the incarnation of the Son is
:
' *
.
that he may be a victim, the placator of the wrath of God." But in xxiv.
694, the object of the sending of Christ is said to have been the gathering,
preservation, andsanctification of the church. In xv. 133, teaching and atone-
ment are co-ordinated.
2 According to xxiv. 242 ; xxv. 175, the fulfilling of the law by Christ had
also a vicarious significance.
^ Eternal life," as Melanchthon often insists, begins in the present life,
'*
xxiv. 625 **The beginning of eternal life is in this life, i, e., by faith to know
:
this eternal God who has sent his Son, and it is to know him to be reconciled
through the Son, and to call upon him, to ask and expect consolation in all
tribulations. This faith and consolation in genuine griefs is a taste of eternal
life."
claims, /. appropriates justification, or the forgiveness of

<?., it
sins. But with justification there is at the same time given the
Holy Spirit, who begets a new life. Thus upon contritio and
fides io\\o\s'^justificatlo, and together with the latter is effected
regeneration or renovatio (xxi. 427 f. ). '' And when God remits
sins, he at the same time gives to us the Holy Spirit, who begins
new powers {yirtutes^ in the pious '* (742). Justification is con-
ceived strictly as a forensic act, and hence clearly discriminated
from renewal. Jusiificatio is a '' forensic term," and indicates
the *' remission of sins " and '* reconciliation or personal accept-
ance" (âcceptatio personae, 742). In this consists theessential
work of grace. *' Let this therefore be the definition of grace.
Grace is the remission of sins, or mercy promised for Christ's
sake, or gratuitous acceptance, which the gift of the Holy Spirit
necessarily accompanies." Even here, in the doctrine of justifi-
cation, Melanchthon's conception varies from Luther's form of
presentation. According to Luther, the Spirit works faith
through the word. Faith is both the principle of anew life and
the organ for apprehending the forgiveness of sins. To justifica-
tion belongs the begetting of faith and the new life, as well as the
forgiveness of sins (supra, p. 260 f. ). This was also the position
taken by Melanchthon in the Augsburg Confession and the
Apology (supra, p. 336). Now faith seems to arise before the
bestowal of the Spirit and before regeneration.^ Faith appre-
hends the purely forensic decree of justification. And because
this occurs, the Spirit is also granted to the individual for his
regeneration. The inseparable connection which is in Luther
always maintained between regeneration, justification, and
sanctification is thus broken. These are the ideas which
underlie the thoroughgoing revision of the Articles IV. and
V. in the Variata Edition of the Augsburg Confession."'^
Whether the complete separation {^^ reiniuhe Scheidiing''^ ) of
justification and sanctification is to be regarded as a step in ad-
vance or not, can only be decided by dogmatical and exegetical
study. We
here merely call attention to the fact, that Melanch-
thon, under this new grouping of the conception referred to, was
^ There is here a peculiar lack of clearness in Melanchthon, since faith is

forhim on the one hand a product of the Holy Spirit working through the
word (xii. 607, 426 f. ), and yet, on the other hand, is supposed to precede
the bestowal of the Spirit. Faith is accordingly a prerequisite of justification
and begotten by the Holy Spirit, and yet, according to the recognized formula,
the Holy Spirit is imparted only as a consequence of justification, t. g., xxi.
742, 421, 427. Cf. Herrlinger, p. 54.
^ If the Augsburg Confession is to be interpreted in accordance with the
Apology, then the prevalent formula of the Lutheran doctrine of justification

finds its symbolical support in the Variata !
THEOLOGY OF MELANCHTHON. 3OI
not able to make the ethical motive power of faith as manifest as in

Luther's theory. Faith is now for him essentially nothing more
than the organ, by. which the forgiveness of sins is apprehended.
It is not, indeed, merely a historical knowledge, but the repose
of the will in the proffered gracious acceptance
confidence in
the grace of God. From this practical experience (faith as con-
fidence, ^du cm, applying this benefit to ourselves) of the effects
of the history and the doctrine, may be understood the intellec-
tual conviction of both the history and the doctrine (xxi. 422,
743, 746, 785, 886; xii. 431).
** Faith signifies to assent to
the promise of God (which is in the intellecf), and with this assent
is necessarily connected confidence (which is in the will), willing
and accepting the promised reconciliation and acquiescing in the
Mediator set forth " (xxi. 790).^ Since the sinner now desires
above everything else the forgiveness of sins, justification takes
place (xxi. 742). But, as the impartation of the Spirit renews
the man, reconciliation must necessarily be followed by good
works and a righteousness of a good conscience. Upon a de-
tailed examination of the nature of good works as represented by
Melanchthon we need not enter. They are necessary, since
without them faith would be lost (for it is not compatible with
sinful thoughts or deeds), and, further, since they have been
commanded by God and are in keeping with the dignity of the
Christian calling (xxi. 429, 762, 775 ff. ). They are works
which are really good on account of the faith which prompts
them, and which may also be spoken of as " meritorious," but
not in the sense that they merit the forgiveness of sins. They,
however, merit other spiritual and material blessings (xii. 448,
454).
be observed that we have here a combination in a fixed
It will
order of the elements w^hich are of prime importance, in the
all
view of Melanchthon, for the development of the religious life.
But it is just as evident also that this entire general theory finds
its closest parallel in the Reformer's doctrine of repentance.
Contrition, faith, and new obedience are for him the constituent
elements of poenitentia,'^ to which he adds confession and
absolution.^ There can be nothing suspicious in this, unless re-
* XXI.
759 enumerates noHHa, assensus^ fiducia ; but the last two terms
:
are used as equivalents (see also Haussleiter, p. 22) :

" Faith is to assent to
every word of God given to us and in this promise of the gospel, and it is con-
fidence acquiescing in the Mediator."
2 XXI.
877 ; XXV. 62 xxiv. 426. Melanchthon at first enumerated only
;
contritio andjit/es. C. A. 12 Apol. 12, 28 fi".; xii. 506 f., 510 Erl. 23. 39.
; ;
^ From the contrition which precedes faith must be discriminated the con-
trUio ciinifide^ which awakens, not like the former a servile, but a filial fear
{îimor)y and whichrhas a purer sorrow for sin ( puHor dolor'). It does not
pentance and justification were again limited to the confessional,

and the first Thesis of Luther thereby discredited. Of itself, it
is ground for neither criticism nor surprise that- the doctrine whose
definition started the whole reformatory movement should fur-

nish the frame-work for the systematic construction of the entire
compass of religious truth won by the Reformation.
It would be an error to infer from Melanchthon's method of
arranging his doctrinal views in separate ^^ Loci,'''' that he has
transmitted his religious ideas in a confused and unconnected
form. On the contrary, he summarized all the results of his
religious study under two headings the Church and Justification
:
by Grace. The former of these is most intimately associated

with the conception of *'pure doctrine," and the latter with
that of the law and the gospel. This double complex of ideas
presents, in the theology of Melanchthon, a substitute both
for the conception of the church which dominated the ecclesi-
astical life and for the sacrament of repentance which regulated
the practical piety of the Middle Ages. This furnishing of new
guiding principles for both ecclesiastical and individual religious
life is a matter of such immense historical significance as to
abundantly atone for any defect in his method of presentation.
In formulating his definition of the empirical church, he fixed a
goal, toward which not only all the gracious dealings of God
were seen to tend, but toward which, as well, all human effort
might be directed. As no one might hope for salvation outside
of this church, all the moral and scientific energies of the age
were pressed into the service of this supreme aim. This con-
ception impressed a uniquely ecclesiastical character upon the
intellectual and practical life of more than two centuries. But
the conception of the **pure doctrine " was the boundary -line
within which the self-consciousness of this church was developed
and confirmed. Although modern theologians may deem the
limits thus affixed too narrow
there were historical reasons for

allowing them no wider scope it cannot be denied that the
consciousness of having in possession the pure doctrine became
one of the most powerful coefficients in the expansion and
preservation of the church thus endowed.
77. The Theological Controversies in the Lutheran Church

fro7n the Death of Luther to the Adoption of the Formula
of Concord,
Literature. SchlOsselburg, Haereticorum catalogus, 13 parts, 1597 ff.
flee from God, but seeks him and his forgiveness with the acknowledgment of
its sin (xxi. 886 f. ).
CONTROVERSIES IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH. ^6^
Walch, Einleitung in d. Religionsstreitigkeiten innerh. u. ausserh. d, Luth.

Kirche, lo parts, 1730 ff. Planck, Gesch. d. prot. Lehrbegriffes, 6 vols.,
1781 ff. (i-3ined. 2, 1791 ff.). Heppe, Gesch. des deutschen Protestant-
ism. 1555-81, 4 vols., 1852 ff. Frank, Theol. der CF., 4 vols., 1858 ff,
Thomasius-Seeberg, DG. ii., ed. 2, 425 ff. Loofs, DG., 438 ff., 422 ff.
I. The
significance of Melanchthon for the History of Doc-
trinesmay, in accordance with the foregoing review, be sum-
marized in three particulars (i) He gave permanent form to
:
the ideas of Luther, thus laying the foundation for the theology
of the following period and determining the direction of its
progress. Luther created a new church ; Melanchthon estab-
lished a theology in harmony with it. (2) He laid down the
lines within which the spiritual life of the ensuing centuries was
to be developed, obtaining a secure position for secular learning
and the natural sciences by setting them in an auxiliary relation to
'
the church of the pure doctrine.
*
' Thus the maintaining and
'
the proclamation of the pure doctrine became more and more

the essential and constituent function of the church. Doctrine
threatened to swallow up life.^ (3) He advocated a number of
theological doctrines of his own, at variance more or less with
those of Luther. Although he proceeded cautiously in this
direction during Luther's life-time, it is important to observe
that the latter allowed these divergences of his associate to pass
unchallenged. They assume importance, although supported
by very many of Melanchthon's disciples, only in view of the
strict definition of ''pure doctrine" and of the authority of
Luther, which had been, by the efforts of Melanchthon himself,
carried to the highest point and stamped as dogmatic. The
practical application of these principles and views led to the
lamentable doctrinal controversies in the period from the death
of Luther to that of Melanchthon. Both the unfortunate waver-
ing of Melanchthon in connection with the Interim when the
doctrine appeared to him to be sufficiently guarded and the
bitter assaults made upon him by the so-called Gnesio-Luth-
erans for his lack of firmness upon that occasion and for his
doctrinal divergences find explanation in the one-sided character
of his later conceptions of the church and of doctrine.^
The great prophetic age of Protestantism was followed by a
didactic age. We can understand the necessity for the tran-
^ But it is unfair to ascribe this onesidedness entirely to the influence
of Melanchthon (Arnold, Ritschl, and others), for (i ) The same thoughts are
found not seldom in the writings of Luther, and (2) Melanchthon only gave
expression to ^ tendency which dominated the period and characterized its
particular stage of cultural development.
^ With the above compare also my article, Die Stellung Mel. in d. Gesch.
der Kirche u. der Wiss., ed. 2, Erlang., 1897.

sition but it proved a retrogression similar to that from the days

;
of the old prophets of Israel to the great Synagogue ! We

must
glance briefly at the leading controversies of the period.
2. The Interim and the Adiaphoristic Controversy.
Melanchthon and the Wittenberg theologians announced them-
selves prepared (see Bieck, Das dreifache Interim, Leipz., 1721,
p. 361 ff. ) to accept the so-called Leipzig Interim, A. D. 1547.
In this document, justification was modified and made to signify
*' that man is
renewed by the Holy Spirit, and can fulfill right-
eousness with his works ( Gerechtigkeit mit dem werk vollbringen
kann), and that God will for his Son's sake accept in believers
this weak beginning of obedience in this miserable frail nature"
( BiECK, 372).^ In addition to this, the episcopal jurisdiction was
restored, and almost all the Romish ceremonies were to be again
introduced (p. 377 f., 38.0 ff. ). It is not surprising that on every
hand a most bitter conflict was precipitated. Melanchthon by
his course on this occasion forfeited the confidence of wide
circles of his former friends. The controversy is known as the
Adiaphoristic^ because the chief question at issue was, whether it
is morally permissible to yield in unessential external matters,
provided the chief matter, /. (?., pure doctrine, be conserved.

To this the Wittenbergers answered in the affirmative. Their
opponents (esp. Flacius, vid. Preger, Flac. i. 142 ff. ) applied
the principle: ''Nothing is indifferent (âîdipopw/) in a matter
of confession and abuse {in casa confessionis et scandali).''^
3. The Majoristic Controversy. Luther was accustomed,
upon occasion, to employ the paradox, that good works are a hin-
drance to justification (supra, p. 264, n. i). Melanththon, on the
contrary, declared them to be necessary, {a') George Major
(A. D. 1552), following the latter suggestion, maintained that
good works are necessary to salvation, since no one is saved by
wicked works and no one without good works. He then further
explains, that they are necessary for retaining salvation (âd
retine7tda7?i saluteni). Justus Menius, after A. D. 1554 (vid.
Thomasius, ii. 473 ff. ), held a similar view. These ideas were
by no means meant to be understood in a Catholic sense, but
were simply designed to establish the profound connection
between faith and a new life, and were therefore genuinely
Lutheran in their tendency. But Amsdorf and Flacius raised a
vigorous opposition. The former declared, that anyone who
would defend the statement that good works are necessary to
"
salvation was a *' Pelagian, a Mameluke, and denier of Christ
Free will is treated in harmony with Melanchthon' s views (p. 362^). It

^
isasserted that " God does not deal with man as with a log, but draws him in
such a way that his own will also co-operates."
CONTROVERSIES IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH. 365
(ScHLiJssELBURG, Catal. vii. 210). The latter argued, that, if

faith alone justifies and saves, this cannot be said in any sense of
works (Wider den Evangelisten des h. Chorrocks, 1553, form
C. ). And in the same way the preservation of the state of grace
can be based only upon faith. In the whole course of the
Christian life, faith must maintain its dominant position and
dare not share the latter with good works (vid. Schliisselb. vii.
162 ff. 534 ff., 572 ff. ).
,
This criticism did not indeed apply
to the tendency of Major and Menius. Melanchthon wished to
rest in the proposition: *'New obedience is necessary," and
advised that the qualifying words, ** to salvation," on account of
the possibility of interpreting them as involving the idea of
merit, be used only in connection with faith (C. R. ix. 498 f.,
405 ff. 474
, ; viii. 410 ff. ). (^) But the opposing party now
went further. They asserted that the gift of the Holy Spirit is
only *'an appendage, consequence, and supplement of grace"
(Synod at Eisenach, A. D. 1556, in Flacius, De voce et ?'ejidet,
p. 199) or, '* Renewal is an entirely separate thing from justi-
fication " (Flac, De justif., 182). This position was really
only a logical inference from the Melanchthonian conception
of the doctrine of justification (supra, p. 360). But while
Melanchthon himself had, in his theory of the ethical necessity of
good works, a certain corrective for the severance of justification
and renewal, Amsdorf pressed on to the bold assertion, that
*'good works are injurious to salvation," and in other declara-
tions threatened to carry dut the idea of freedom from the law
to the extreme statement: ** God does not care for works"
(cf. C. R. viii. 411). But not only Melanchthon and his

school opposed these excesses in doctrinal statement ('*in the
divine order man owes obedience," C. R. ix. 370, 474; cf.
den Endlichen Bericht vnd Erklerung der Theologen beider
Vniversiteten Leipzig u. Wittemberg, 1570), but Gnesio-
Lutherans also recognized the necessity of the new obedience as
proceeding from the inward impulses of the new heart (vid.
Schliisselb. vii. 572 ff.
, 603, 615, 617 ff. ).
4. The Antinomistic Controversy is most intimately con-
nected with the foregoing. At the Synod at Eisenach, Amsdorf
had proposed the thesis: *' Good works are, even in the forum
of the law and in the abstract (^de idea), not necessary to
salvation (Salig, Gesch. d. Augsb. Conf. iii. 56 f.). In en-
dorsing this, Andreas Poach maintained, that it is the office of
the law only to accuse and condemn, and that the gospel alone
leads to the doing of good : "After grace has been obtained
and remission of sins and salvation accepted, we cease to do evil
and begin to obey God " (Salig, iii. 58 f. Schliisselb. iv. 265 ff.,
'
338 ff., 342, 344). Anton Otto advanced to crass Antinomi-

anism, affirming that there is no *' third use of the law ; " that
the new obedience belongs not to the kingdom of Christ, but to
the world, as to Moses and the supremacy of the pope j that the
Christian is '* above all obedience." We should pray God that
we may remain steadfast to our end in faith without any works
(cf. Planck, v. i. 62 f.). It was the old ideas of Agricola
which were thus continually reappearing, although Luther had
refused to countenance them (supra, p. 251).
5. The Eucharistic Controversy. Calvin's doctrine of the
Lord's Supper (vid. sub) was enabled for some time to prose-
cute a silent propaganda in Germany, as Melanchthon and his
followers maintained a friendly attitude toward it. In A. D.
1552, Joachim Westphal, the Hamburg pastor, raised his voice
against it. He pointed out that Calvin's view of the Lord's
Supper was not that held by Luther. Immediately there was
great excitement. Wild conflicts were waged in Bremen (Har-
denberg and Timann), in Heidelberg (Tilmann, Hesshusen, and
Klebitz), in the Palatinate (cf. Schmid, Der Kampf d. luth.
Kirche um Luther's Lehre v. Abendmal, 1868, p. 151-225).
Under the leadership of Brenz, the church of Wlirtemburg
(Synod at Stuttgart, 1559) pronounced in favor of the Lutheran
doctrine. Melanchthon anxiously avoided a public deliverance.^
He died in 1560. The Wittenbergers, at the request of their
Electors, temporized, condemning Zwingli and defending them-
selves against ** Flacian innovations. The atmosphere was clar-
'
'
'
ified by the Exegesis perspicua etfe7'me integra de sacra coena,

*
'
1574, written by JOH. Cureus in Glogau (ed. Scheffer, Marburg,

1853 j. In this document the doctrine of the ubiquity of the
body was controverted, with keen polemic against the Lutheran
conception of the communicatio idiomatum.'^ Christ is present
for believers only according to his divine nature and personally.
''The substance of this Supper is communion {vMivmna) with
Christ. As now
this ingrafting {Jnsertio^ cannot be effected, as
we have often declared, without faith, so the sacraments have
been instituted for behevers, and not for the ungodly " (p. 24f.).
The book thus summarizes the author's view '' Believers are,:
^ '* beg of you," he wrote to Hardenberg, "dissimulate much (w/;'<2

I
dissimules) " (C. R. viii. 736; cf. ix. 15 ff., 960 :
*' To answer is not diffi-
cult, but dangerous." Against Brenz, ib. 1034 f. ).

2 This, it was held, destroys the true corporeality of Christ and is Euty-
chian {e. g., p. 41 ). " The body of Christ is, as it were, abducted from us ;
therefore no part of his substance {^sitbstaJitiae') is infused into us " (p. II).
*' We think, indeed, of no magical nor physical binding of Christ to the word
or sacraments, but we say that he is, according to his covenant, most freely
efficacious in believers through the word and sacraments" (p. 10).
and wine, made by faith true and living

in the use of the bread
members of the body of Christ, who is present and efficacious
through these symbols, as through a ceremonial agency (^ministe-
riurn), inflaming and renovating our hearts by his Holy Spirit.
But unbelievers are not made participants or communicants
{vMLvrnvoi) but are guilty of the body of Christ on account of
,
their contempt " (p. 26). This document became the occasion
for a severe condemnation of the Saxon Crypto- Calvinism^2XiA the
express rejection of Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
iMelanchthon's doctrine was pronounced in harmony with that of
Luther, but the doctrine of the ubiquity was disapproved
(Torgau, A. D. 1574).^ Cf. Heppe, Gesch. d. deutschen Prot.
li. 431 ff-
6. The Synergistic Controversy, {a) Pfeffinger in Leipzig

had in A. D. 1555, following Melanchthon (supra, p. 349), taught
in his Quaestiones de libertate voluntatis hmfianaey that man is in
conversion not ** purely passive," as a statue, but must also do
his part. The ability to give assensio must in him be called into
exercise for the actualizing of conversion. Against this Ams-
DORF and Flacius protested. Two startling events then sur-
prised the church. Victorin Strigel, at the very seat of Gnesio-
Lutheranism, suddenly announced himself as a Synergist (A. D.
1559), and Flacius, the fanatical champion of the pure doctrine,
in combating him, fell into the grossest of all heresies. In A. D.
1560, a disputation was held at Weimar between Strigel and
Flacius (see Disput. de originali peccato et lib. arb. inter M.
Flac. 111. et Vict. Strigel, 1562. Also, Salig, Gesch. d. Augsb.
Conf. iii. 587 ff.). {b) Strigel taught: No man can be con-
verted to God by his own power without the Holy Spirit.
But neither can conversion occur by magic nor by compul-
sion. God takes* into consideration, among other things, the
nature of man, as a creature endowed with a will. The nat-
ural difference existing between a free agent (^liberiim agens) and
a natural agent {natiiraliter agens) (Disput., p. 22, 210) is the
ground of a special divine agency adapted to the peculiar char-
acter of man. *' The will cannot
be coerced, if the will
could be coerced it would not be will, but rather non-will " {vo-
luntas, p. 82, 25, 73, 176). Sin has not abolished and de-
^ We may mention also the superstitious conception of the consecration
taught by JOH. Saliger and Fredeland in Liibeck and carried by the former
to Rostock: The body is present in the Lord's Supper immediately after the
consecration and before the distribution (A. D. 1568-69). Similiar supersti-
tions spring up elsewhere (hair of the beard upon which a little of the wine
has hung is plucked out ;stones upon which it falls are crushed and the pow-
der gathered up and preserved ; the upsetting of the cup is regarded as a seri-
ous offense). See Heppe, Gesch. des Prot. ii. 3S5 ff.
stroyed free-will, but depraved it^ (p. 49). Nor does grace
move this will in a mechanical or natm-al way. ** The conver-
sion of man differs from a violent and natural movement (of an
object). And the will acts in its own way in conversion, and is
not a statue or a log in conversion" (p. 73). Strigel means,
therefore, that even in conversion man's peculiar ** mode of
action " must be preserved, i. e.y that no inward transformation
can be real except the will has also given its assent. But he
combined with this mode of action also features of a material
freedom of will. He conceives of the natural man as only bound,
wounded, and hindered by sin, and hence teaches a material co-
operation of the will in conversion. Although it be but weakly,
yet the will of man co-operates ; its attitude toward grace is not
simply passive, but only ' * more passive than active " ( p. 2 3 2 ) At .
this point, Flacius parts company with him. A

co-operation of
the will is acknowledged also by the latter, but only as beginning
after the actual moment of conversion. This was with him the
only question *' I ask whether you say that the will co-operates
:
before the bestowal of faith, or after faith has been received ?

Whether you say, that it co-operates by its natural powers, or in
so far as (the power) to will well has been granted to it by the
renevvalof the Holy Spirit ?" (p. 43, 71, 100, 178, 233). But
to this clear-cut question Strigel did not give a precise answer.^
((t) According to Flacius, the sinner is completely dead to
good impulses. His attitude in the (momentary) act of con-

version is ''merely passive;*' yea, before, in, and after con-
version, his attitude is purely one of resistance (ib., p. 131).^
Thus he asserts, that *' man is converted (while) willing and re-
sisting {yole7itein, repugnantei7i)\^^ and that he ''is converted,
not only when his natural free will co-operates, but even when it
raves and howls " (p. 131 and thesis 4). " God alone converts

man he does not exclude the will, but every efficacy or oper-
ation of it " (p. 118). As Flacius, reversing Strigel's method,
starts with the material bondage of the will, he loses sight of its
^ here evidently thinking of the formal freedom of the will.

Strigel is
2 What he had in view is evident from the following illustration
:
" A child
cannot seek nourishment from its mother unless the mother gives it to him.
She must even turn his mouth in the proper direction. But the child must it-
self draw the milk from the mother's breast" (p. 131 f. ). The fundamental
mistake of Strigel was that, while he had a proper sense of the personal char-
acter of conversion, he failed to give proper expression to his conviction, be-
cause the natural, formal freedom of choice was transformed under his hand
into a material and ethical freedom. He was, accordingly, unable to ascribe
the ground and beginning of conversion absolutely to God.
^ Cf. Amsdorf: "God deals with willing and knowing men just in the
same way as with all other created things, a stone or a log, through his own
sole willing and decreeing [velle et dicere):' See Schliisselburg, v. 547.
formal freedom. Conversion thus becomes, in the end, a trans-

formation of man's nature. From this point Flacius went a
step further, and maintained that sin is not an attribute (âcci-
dentia), but of the essential substance of man. He was guided
by the Aristotelian definition of an attribute :
*^ That which is
'
present or wanting without destruction of the subject. ' Accord-
ing to this, original sin, regarded as an attribute, would appear
to be only an accidental trait. But in the view of Flacius, the
essential nature of man has been itself transformed by sin.
Although Flacius may have used the term, substance {sudstanz),
rather in the sense of formal nature (esse?itiaformaHs), or sub-
stantial form forma substantialis)^ there yet remained the idea
(^
of a transformation of man's nature by sin. A "horrible

has taken place ; the image of God has been
'
metamorphosis '
replaced by the *'true and living image of the devil." Man's

nature has been distorted into a diabolic nature, and every point
of attachment for divine influences has been lost. For the
advocacy of these ideas Flacius sacrificed his position and the
fortunes of his life (see esp. Theil. ii. of the Clavis, p. 651 ff.,
and *' De essentia justitiae originalis et injustitiae," 1568}.
i^d) The Lutherans persisted in their external and mechanical
conception of conversion, and the Philippists also maintained
their position. To the latter, the conceptions of the purely
passive attitude of man in conversion, his resistance to it, and
the illustrations of the animating of a stone or log, appeared
overdrawn and enthusiastic (see the Endl. Bericht, 1570).
They were anxious, on the other hand, to retain in some way
the personal and psychological element in the process of con-
version. But it is of the greatest significance that they clearly
and plainly deny '*any kind of ability or a free will for their
own conversion " in the unregenerate. Man can, they held, do
nothing whatever toward his own conversion (Endl. Bericht,
form Ii, lb; 4b; 4 a). This acknowledgment opened the
way for a possible understanding with the theologians of the
former group. The controversy therefore effected a positive
clearing of the atmosphere.
7. The Osiandrian Controversy. (^) In A. D. 1850 and
the following years attention was drawn to a new theory of justi-
fication taught by Andreas Osiander (Disput. de justificatione,
1550; Von dem einigen Mitler Jhesu Christo vnd Rechtferti-
gung des Glaubens, 155 1 ; Widerlegung der vngegrundten vn
dienstlichen Antwort Phil. Melanthonis, 1552). *' They teach
(doctrines) colder than ice, that we are accounted righteous

only on account of the remission of sins, and not also on account
of the righteousness of the Christ dwelling in us by faith. God
24
is not indeed so unjust as to regard him as righteous in whom

there is really nothing of true righteousness" (De justif. thes.,
73 f. ). This citation reveals his aim. Justification as con-

nected solely with imputation is to his mind an irreligious con-
ception. Justification is more than a mere declaring the sin-
ner to be righteous. But the talented man now placed these ideas
in a wider setting. To understand him, we must briefly repro-
duce his entire scheme of thought. Man was created in the
image of God. This image of God is in the Son, and in the Son,
furthermore, as from eternity appointed to become incarnate.
Accordingly, the appointed goal of human nature can be realized
only by the indwelling of God in it. This was actualized in
the case of Adam, as in him the Son of God already dwelt
before the fall.^ Through this indwelling he became righteous.
Through sin this " original righteousness " was lost. The
renewal of the race is now effected by Christ's entering it in the
incarnation. But Christ is brought to the individual soul
through the word. He is himself the '* inner word " (accord-
ing to Jn. i.); but the latter enters the human soul in
and through "the outer word." The words of Jesus and
his apostles are thus the vehicle through which the Logos
takes up his abode within us (Von d. Mitler, C. i). It
is, therefore, through this indwelling that man becomes right-
"
eous. Righteousness is "no work, no act, no endurance ;
"but it is the character (^die Art') which makes him who

receives and possesses it righteous and moves him to act and
endure aright" (ib. H. 4). It is the piety {^Frommbkeit)
which makes the man absolutely a new man. Thus the righteous-
ness of man is a condition, but a condition which is and will be
effected by God himself. This righteousness is God himself. As
the humanity of Christ became righteous through its union with
God as the essential righteousness, so we also become righteous
by virtue of such a union with Christ (H. 3 b).
But this union depends upon Christ's mediatorial work as its
prerequisite. The latter has two aspects: redemptio ^Xi^ jiisti-
Jicatio. Redemption embraces two things. The sinner is
under obligation to bear the eternal penalty of his sin, or
the wrath of God, and also to fulfill the law. By his innocent
sufferings, Christendured the wrath of God and obtained for us
the forgiveness of sins. And since we, even after regeneration,
are unable to fulfill the law perfectly, he, in order that the
law might not further accuse us, " fulfilled it purely and
perfectly for us and for our benefit, in order that it might
1 See already Methodius, supra, Vol. I., p. 174,

1
,;
not be imputed to us, nor we be accursed because we do

not in this life perfectly fulfill the law" (ib. A. 3 b
4 a). By both of these aspects of redemption^ our ob-
jective salvation is effected. Everyone who belongs to the
church of Christ is by it without regard to his subjective
attitude
objectively saved." But this reconciliation, or for-
giveness of sins, is not yet by any means our righteousness. The
relation of justification to redemption is to be conceived of as
that of a consequent *'That righteousness is granted because
:
sin has been before forgiven" (VViderleg. J. 4 a). We are

righteous only in so far as we become alive but we become alive, ;
or righteous, only through the indwelling of Christ. Justifica-

tion is therefore not to be conceived forensically, but as a
making-righteous (B. 2 a). Justificare is *^from an ungodly to
make a righteous man, /. e. to recall the dead to life " ( De justif
,
.
thes. 3). This indwelling of the divine nature of Christ, Avith

which at the same time the Triune God dwells in us, is our right-
eousness before God. Still more precisely, '' his divine nature
(Widerleg. L. 2 a Von d. Mitler, B. i b).
'
is our righteousness ' ;
It is therefore perfectly clear, that justification is the renewal of

man wrought by the presence of Christ, or at least that it em-
braces this as its chief element. If the Scriptures make right-
eousness dependent upon faith, faith is thus mentioned by them
because its content is Christ (J. i b), /. <?. '' Jesus Christ, true ,
God and man, who dwells in our hearts by faith " (J. 2 b). In
this connection, Osiander acknowledges, after all, a certain im-
putation. When we are united with Christ by faith, we are
** overwhelmed and filled" with divine righteousness. And
although sin indeed still clings to us, yet it is only as an impure
drop compared with a whole pure ocean, and, on account
of Christ's righteousness which is within us, God will not regard
1 /. the passive and the active obedience of Christ, cf. Luther supra,
c.y
p. 268. This discrimination became, as a result of the present controversy, a

permanent feature of the accepted doctrine of the church. See, c. g: Flacius, ,
Von d. Gerechtigk. D2 :
'* The essential righteousness of God . . . demands
two kinds of righteousness the first is, that we make full satisfaction for the
:
transgression and sin which we have committed the other, that we thereafter
;
be also perfectly obedient to his law in heart and works." Cf. Thomasius, Das
Bek. d. Luth. Kirche v. d. Versonung, 1857, p. 56 ff. Osiander also gave a
peculiar coloring to this double obedience of Christ by representing the active
obedience as out the deficiencies in the incipient righteousness.
filling The
original idea associated by Luther with the two terms was, that by the suffer-
ings of Christ the penalties of the law were nullified, and by his active fulfill-
ing of the law the whole economy of law ( which as the law of nature held ' '
' '
sway over all men) was abrogated for us. See citations, supra, p. 271 f.
2 But, despite this, man remains under the wrath of God until repentance
and justification take place (Von d. Mitler, B. 4 a ; 2 b).

it (X. 4 b). '^ When

he dwells in us by faith, he brings with
hini into us his righteousness, which is his divine nature, and this
is then also imputed to us, as though it were our own " (Q. 3 a).
The theory of Osiander is thus, briefly stated, as follows :
Christ through his sufferings appeased the wrath of God, and

through his fulfillment of the law made satisfaction for our con-
tinuing disobedience. We are thereby objectively redeemed.
Salvation becomes ours subjectively in this way In the preached
:
word the Logos enters us, and he, embraced by faith, begets in
us a new life. Thus is our righteousness really begun, and yet it
is righteousness only because Christ's abiding presence in us
maintains it and leads God to regard our beginning of righteous-
ness in the light of his (Christ's) perfection. This theory is evi-
dently not Roman Catholic ; for it neither takes any account of
merit upon our part, nor does it really base justification upon our
new life, the ground of the latter being, on the contrary, the power
of Christ.^ Penetrating to the heart of Osiander' s contention,
it cannot be denied that he was endeavoring to reproduce the
early Protestant doctrine of justification, and in this he had

a right to make appeal to Luther. Like the latter, he intoned
with unwearying energy the indwelling of Christ within us, and,
like him, he saw the believer's righteousness and goodness in
faith because of its content, e., Christ (supra, p. 260).
/*.
And
yet, if wê compare with him the entire Luther, we will observe
a distinct difference. Osiander was distinctively a scholar
dominated by thoughts, and not by experience and he wrote
also under the stimulus of a visible opposition. This made him
one-sided. He was not able by his train of connected ideas to
combine, as did Luther, the legality and the consolation of the
imputed righteousness. The accent is differently placed by the
two men. According to Luther, the Christ for us is our con-
solation and is the effectual power of the Christ in us \ while
according to Osiander, the former is but the logical prerequisite
for the latter. The practical result of the forgiveness of sins is
for Luther above all else faith ; for Osiander, the power of doing
the good. But we should not on this account minimize the ser-
vice which Osiander rendered by advocating ideas embraced in
original Lutheranism as against Melanchthonianism.^
^ The
connection between redemptio and justificatio, the objective and sub-
jective aspects of the work of salvation, remains for Osiander thoroughly be-
clouded. His most serious fault is his placing of the forgiveness of sins in the
background. In this, he reminds us somewhat of Duns.
^ A broad systematic instinct permeates the discussions of Osiander. He
had a connected general theory of Christianity, such as no otlier among
the theologians succeeding Luther possessed until Calvin appeared. Among
the men of second rank in the Reformation period, he was perhaps the
Cf. MoLLER, A. Os., 1870. Thomasius, ii. ed. 2, 437 ff. Frank, Theol.
d. CF. ii. 5 fF. RiTSCHL, Rechtf. u. Vers, i., ed. 2, 235 ff. Loops, DG. 423 ff.^
((^) Both Philippists and Lutherans at once arose with one

accord against the theory of Osiander. There was no appre-
ciation of the relative (historical) justification of his contention."
His charge, that under the doctrinal formulas sufficient emphasis
was not laid upon man's renewal, was indignantly resented
(Mel. C. R. vii. 895). The chief objections to his theory
were the following. He depreciated, it was said, the forgive-
ness of sins, by separating it from justification, and laid the
emphasis, not upon the revealed gracious disposition of God
toward us, but upon the **gift" (^donum') of grace (Mel. C. R.
vii. 899. Menius, Von d. Gerechtigk., E. 4 a). He thus
reverses the proper order, regarding renewal as the ground in-
stead of the result of justification. But this, it was further said,
was connected with his second chief error, namely, that he tears
asunder redemption and justification. The obedience of Christ,
by virtue of which he both made atonement for our sins and ful-
filled the law in our stead, is at the same time our righteousness
and our redemption (see esp. the Censur of the theologians of
Electoral Saxony, B. 4 b, C. 2 b, and Flacius, Von d. Gerech-
tigk. wider Os., Magdeb., 1552, D. 4 a). ** In such a way that
this obedience of the Mediator, Jesus Christ, at the same time

delivers and justifies the poor sinner and reconciles God who has
been angry" (Menius, 1. c, E. 2. Flac, 1. c, D. 3 a). As
we lay hold upon this righteousness of Christ in faith, it becomes
ours, and the objective certainty of this righteousness secures us
the comfort of the assurance of salvation. Osiander, on the
contrary, bases our righteousness and salvation upon our own
state, or condition, and thus the assurance of salvation is stolen
from *^ poor distressed consciences " (Lauterwald, Fiinf. Schlus-
spriiche wider Os., 1552, A. 3 b. C, R. viii. 583. Flacius,
Verlegung Os., J. 3 a). These objections were certainly well
greatest. Viewed historically, his attempt constitutes the contemporaneous

counterpoise to the doctrine of justification taught by the later Melanchthon.
Both men gave one-sided interpretations of ideas of Luther's ; the latter,
through undue emphasis, upon the imputed, the former by exalting out of
proper proportion the effective, righteousness of faith. But it must, after all,
be accounted a blessing, that the Melanchthonian and not the Osiandrian
scheme met the approval of the church.
^ My estimate of Osiander agrees, so far as I can see up to a certain
point
with that of LooFS.
2 Brenz opposed an express condemnation of Osiander at Worms in
1557
(see G. Wolf, Gesch. d. deutsch. Protestanten, 1555-9, 1888, p. 334, 339,
363). Calvin also most vigorously combated his views (Institut. iii. II. 5 ff.;
cf. ii. 12. 5 f.; i. 15. 3).
taken. Osiander's method of presenting the doctrines involved

was in fact liable to the serious peril of making the redemption
wrought by the historical Christ but a comparatively unim-
portant precursor of the effective agency of the Logos, and of
confusedly mingling our righteousness and that of Christ, But
was not the Melanchthonian doctrine also liable to the perilous
misconception, that man may by simply giving intellectual
assent to the theory of satisfaction become sure of his salvation ?
(c) In opposition to Osiander, Franz Stancar, appealing to
the Lombard, for whom he entertained an exceedingly warm re-
gard, maintained :^ *' Christ is (our) righteousness only accord-
ing to his human nature " (sent. iii. dist. 19. 7). Since it was the
mission of the Mediator to reconcile men to God and to die for
them, his works, because mediatorial, were human (e. g.^
SchlUsselburg, ix. 244). And the human voluntary acts of
the Mediator cannot be attributed to the immutable God (ib.
277). He thus moved in the direction of Nestorianism.
8. The Christological conflicts belong to a later period, (a)
The Heidelberg theologians assailed the Lutheran Christology
(see esp. Griindl. Bericht, v. h. Abendm., 1566) by denying
the ubiquitas and the conwiunicatio idiomatum (Thomasius, ii.,
ed. 3, 603), and the Wiirtembergers, especially Brenz (De per-
sonali unione duarum natunim, 1561 ; De divina majestate dom-
ini nostr. les. Chr., 1562), appeared in its defense. According
to Brenz, the entire fullness of the divine attributes was at the
moment of the incarnation infused into the human nature of
Christ. And Christ, even during his life on earth, actually ex-
ercised these divine attributes, although secretly. Whilst he
lay dead in the tomb, he was filling and ruling heaven and earth ;
whilst he was, at the time of the death of Lazarus, outwardly far

from Bethany, he was according to his divine nature present at
his death-bed.^ Cf. Thomasius, Christologie, ii., ed. 2, 384 ff.
H. ScHULTZ, Gottheit Christi, p. 216 if.
{b') A similar conflict of views was developed in Saxony.
The Crypto-Calvinists, P. Eber, G. Major, Krell) also rejected
the communicatio idiomatum (Von der Person vnd Menschwer-
dung vnseres HEerrn J. Christi, der waren christi. Kirchen
Grundfest, 1571)- The ^' great and high gifts and glories'*
^ Thus already Augustine (Vol. I., pp. 260, 361 n. ) as well as Thomas
and the other Scholastics.
^ Brenz based his theory upon ideas developed by Luther in the contro-
versy upon the Lord's Supper. The interests of Christology are for him en-
tirely wrapped up in the communicatio idiomatum but, measured by the his-
;
torical career of Christ, his theory, framed entirely in conformity with the
ubiquity idea, proves insufficient.
which the humanity of Christ received are '' not eternal, infinite
attributes of the divine nature " (1. c,
23, 25). Each of the two
natures retains its own peculiar attributes and energies unmingled
with those of the other nature. Against this, Martin Chemnitz
directs his treatise, De duabus naturis in Chrtsfo, 1571.^ If we
compare the ideas here presented with those of Brenz, we are
favorably impressed with his strict adherence to the scriptural
terms/ his familiarity with the historical development of doc-
trine and his dogmatic carefulness ; but he lacks the broad,
pacific temper which impresses the reader so favorably in the
works of Brenz. He holds that the human nature of Christ re-
ceives infused gifts, qualities, and habitus {^ciona^ qualititates^
habitus, p. 253 ff., 267, 40) from the divine nature. It re-
ceives these in the fullest measure possible to a finite nature,^ and
its susceptibility is thereby increased, so that it is enabled by
virtue of the hypostatic union to receive the essentially divine
attributes (c. 20 f. ). This leads to a real manifestation of divine
attributes in the human nature. The human nature is permeated
by the divine as iron by fire (c. 23, 6). An inlerpenetration
(7rspt^(OfJ7)f7t<i^ takes place.
But and this is a significant thought
Chemnitz very frequently conceives of this relationship as an
exertion of the energy of the divine will in the human nature
and its natural powers. The divine will with its energy consti-
tutes the divine nature in Christ ; the human nature is the ap-
propriate Organ for the actualizing of its operationes. '* He
wished to assume as an organ our nature, taken up into the com-

munion of his divine energies {operationes'), particularly in the
work of the Messiah, " p. 3 2 3. The human nature is the intelligent
and self-determining Organ through which Christ accomplishes his
redeeming work. There is a co-operation, since the powers of
the human nature have an organon co-operans in the divine na-
ture, and viceversa (p. 224, 363, 261). The will of the Logos
guides the human will, and the latter willingly accepts the leader-
ship. The human will in Christ desires, craves, wills, and ap-
proves what Christ performs in his offices by his divine power
(p. 224). *' For this soul (ânima) of Christ willed those things
which the divine will of the Logos willed that it should will"
(p. 473). As, according to this, the divine nature of Christ
consists, in the last analysis, in the omripotent Loving-will which
is revealed in the works of Jesus \ the whole character of the
* The citations are from the Leipzig edition of 1578.

^ P. 328 :
" For concerning God we should neither think nor speak other-
wise than as he has in the very word (employed) revealed himself in the
Scriptures." ^
^ He sees a parallel in the indwelling and operating of God in the believer.
I
life and sufferings of Jesus must be traced to the will of the

Logos (p. 39, 72, 227, 46). With this connection of ideas the
Ubiquity appears in a new light. It is now the power of the
God-man to determine to be bodily present where he will (mul-
tivolipresence): ** That the Son of God is by virtue of the hy-
postatic union able to be present with his assumed nature wher-
ever, whenever, and in whatsoever way he will, /. e., wherever
he has in a positive word taught and promised that he desires to
be present with it " (p. 517, 477, 479, 480, 496). Upon this
basis, Chemnitz secures more room for the human development of
Jesus and for discriminating between the states of humility and
exaltation. The divine nature refrains from exercising its energy
upon the humannature {^paullisper retrahens et retinens~) ,2\\h.0Vi^
the latter has from the moment of the conception really possessed
and had at command the fullness of the divine nature.^ Thus the
sufferings and death of Christ became possible, and we can thus
understand also that the divine nature should, during the stale
of humiliation, deliberately refrain to a certain extent from the
exercise and revelation of its full glory, in order to again bring
into action the fullness of its divine glory in the state of exalta-
tion. But as Jesus, from the commencement of his human ex-
istence, really possessed the whole compass of the divine attri-
butes, or the divine nature itself, this refraining was also a conceal-
ing. The human nature therefore possessed the fullness of the
divine nature plenitiido divinitatis)
(^
but ''did not always
,
exercise and apply it" (p. 57). This is the meaning of the
term exinanition : ''He concealed and withdrew and made
quiescent the employment and display of his divine glory and
power in the flesh and through the fiesh " (p. 353). Chemnitz
further declares: "He, as it were, restrained and withdrew
the rays of the indwelling fullness of the divine nature, not
only in order that they might not shine forth from him, but
that they might not always be fully and perfectly cast even
upon the nature assumed, but slowly and gradually,"
. . .
making a growth possible (p. 553). As the exercise of the

divine glory was thus restricted in the state of humiliation, so in
his state of exaltation should the plenary and manifest posses-
sion and employment of his majesty be reassumed (p, 58, 295,
1 Chemnitz was, therefore, by no means a Kenotist in the modern sense of
the terra. Every form of aUeration in the divine nature in the sense of dimi-
nution or accretion is excluded (p. 163, 250, 252). On the other hand, all
the attributes of the divine nature, as essenHalia, are inseparable from the divine
essentia, or nature (p. 253 ff., 2(5;, 14, 23, 279 f., 328). Christ, therefore,
as God, retained the full possession of these attributes and placed a voluntacy
limitation only upon their employment and manifestation.
;
346). These ideas are combined in the exposition of the

all
co77tmiuiicatio idiomatum,Chemnitz discriminates three forms of
the latter, a classification which had an important influence in
the shaping of Lutheran dogmatics (i) Each of the two na-
:
tures imparts its attributes to the One

person (p. i6i f. ). (2)
The action of the two natures always a combined action ; the
is
person effects salvation '* according to both natures. The Son of

God did not wish to operate in one nature alone, but in both,
with both, and through both " (p. 162). (3) The human nature,
since it cannot of itself perform all the works necessary to our
salvation, is illuminated in every part by the divine light, and is
the Bearer and Organ of the operations of the Logos (p. 163 f.).^
Inasmuch as this mode of presenting the subject does not deal
merely with quiescent '' substances," but sets forth the two na-
tures of Christ as actively engaged (in the work of redemption),
it proved successful in preserving some important elements in
Luther's conceptions of Christology.^ Cf. Thomasius, Christol.

ii., ed. 2, 383 ff. H. Schultz, Gotth. Christi, 223 ff.
But the Wiirtemberg theologians also gradually learned to
think more specifically than formerly of the state of humiliation.
Christ as a child '^ did not know, did not see, did not hear, did
not do all things, although the power of God, of which he
became partaker through the personal union, is infinite and un-
circumscribed. 'His condition while his body lay in the
*
sepulchre is to be compared with that of a sleeping person. As

the union of body and soul continues during sleep, although the
sleeper does not see, hear, nor do anything, so the soul of Christ
was also in the state of death without detriment to its union with
the divine nature (Wiirtemberg Theologen, Bekenntn-. v. d.
Majestat des Menschen Christi, 1585, p. 37 ff. Cf. Thomasius,
Christol. ii., ed, 2, 365 ff. ).^
^ The later dogmatics discriminated the genus idiomaticum, majestaticuin^
and apotelesmaticum, see ScHMlD, Dogmatikd. luth. Kirche, ed. 7, p. 226 ff.
English Transl., Hay and Jacobs, ed. 3, p. 312 ff.
2 But the concentration of the divine and human life under the category of
the ivill is, after all, less energetic than might have been expected. Contrast
Virith Luther, supra, p. 253.
^ Mention may be here made of the controversy upon the Descensus ad
inferos^ started by JOHANN Aepinus (from A. D. 1549). In his view,
I Pet. 3. 18 refers, not to a preaching after the descent of the soul of Christ
into Hades, but to a proclamation made by Christ in his divine nature before
the Incarnation. The Descensus, as a part of the obedience rendered
by Christ, must be considered as the final act of his humiliation. The soul of
Christ descended into Hades while his body lay in the grave ; but, although
the obedience thus rendered by Christ certainly vanquished hell, this was not
a manifestation of the power of the Risen Saviour. Cf. Frank, Theol. d.
C. F. iii. 398ff,434ff.
9. A Controversy upon Predestination arose in Strass-

burg, A. D. 1561, between Hieronimus Zanchi and Johann
Marbach, Hesshusen having already in 1560 assailed the Cal-
vinistic view of that doctrine. The controversy was precipitated
by the request of the Lutheran, Marbach, that his Calvinistic
colleague should base the certainty of election not a priori upon
the eternal counsel of God, but upon the will of God as revealed
in the word. It was not until later that Marbach attacked the
doctrine, that God grants faith but once to the elect and
that they, by virtue of the '^ gift of perseverance," cannot lose
it (LosCHER, Hist, motuum, iii. 30). The way was opened for a
settlement of the conflict by the adoption of a formula of com-
promise in 1563 (vid. Loscher, ii. 286 ff.). According to this,
everyone who believes on Christ obtains grace. The promises
are universal, and everyone may therefore lay claim to them.
Why the divine call does not work faith in all, or why God does
grant faith to all, is a mystery. Into this mystery we should not
seek to pry, but confine our attention to the gracious will of
God as revealed in Christ. These explanations lay along the line
of the Lutheran development. Cf. Schweizer, Die prot. Cen-
traldogmen, i. 418 ff.
78. The Formula of Concord.

Literature. Planck, Gesch. des protest. Lehrbegriffs, vol. vi. Frank-
Seeberg, pre. X., ed. 3, 732 ff. Frank, Die Theolg. der C. F,, 4 parts,
1858 ff. Thomasius, Das Bek. d. ev. luth. Kirche in der Consequenz s.
Princips., 1848, and DG. ii., ed 2, 425 ff. Heppe, Gesch. d. deutsch. Prot.,
vol. iii., 1857
; Die Entstehung u. Fortlnldung d. Luthertums u. die kirchl.
Bek.-schriften desselben, 1548, 1576, 1863. G. Wolf, Zur Gesch. d.
deutschen Protestanten, 1555-59, 1888. K. MUller, Die Symbole des
Luthertums in Preuss. Jarbb., vol. 63, 129 ff. Moller-Kawerau, KG. iii.,
265 ff.
I. The pernicious principle, that religious differences pro-

hibit even political combination, gave a double importance to
the embittered controversies above reviewed. When the Gnesio-
Lutherans at the Religious Colloquy at Worms, in 1557, denied
to the Philippists the right to claim adherence to the Augsburg
Confession, thus excluding them also from the benefits of the
Religious Peace secured at Augsburg in 1555, the Protestant
princes felt themselves compelled to place all possible restraint
upon the theological conflicts which were dominating all other
interests. The passion displayed and the worship of formulas
reminded of the worst periods of the dogmatic struggles upon
Byzantine territory. As then, the attempt was made to restore
peace either by prohibiting contention, or by constructing

THE FORMULA OF CONCORD. 379
formulas upon which all could agree. The movement origin-

ated indeed among the theologians, but its direction and the
fixation of definite ideas as legally-authorized dogmas was,
as heretofore, taken in hand by the princes, and political con-
siderations also influenced the course of thought. The first
attempt to restore peace was made in the Frankfort Recess of
1558 (C. R. ix. 489 ff".). The princes, **asa Christian, pious
civil government, to which has been solemnly committed and
commanded the protection and secure establishment of divinely-
'
revealed truth, ^ here affirm that they desire always to support the
'
*'pure true doctrine " as contained in the Scriptures ** and also

in the three chief symbols and likewise in the Augsburg Confes-
sion, together with its Apology" (494)- It is then asserted in
detail: that righteousness consists in ''the forgiveness of sins
and imputed righteousness" (495); that new obedience and
good works are indeed necessary for the begetting of faith, but
that no one should place his trust in them (498); that Christ
*' is true, living, substantial, and present " in the Lord's Supper,
or that '*the bread is communion {die Gemeins chaff) with the

body of Christ " (499 f.)-^ Non-essential {mitteimdssige) cere-
monies are to be conducted in so far as possible in harmony with
the word of God, and local differences in their celebration are to
be tolerated without quarreling (501). In cases of '' conflicting
opinions," the counsel of the learned, ''gently and kindly"
given, as will readily be done by the consistories and superin-
tendents, should be followed. 'No ^'writing nor booklet in
religious matters" should be printed " which has not first been
examined by the constituted authorities and found in accord
with the true confession of our faith " (502). This document
which is instructive as showing the spirit of the incipient secular
ecclesiasticism
accomplished nothing. The strict Lutherans
published in response to it in 1559 the Wehnar Confutation^
which vigorously condemned the Philippists. The conflict in
regard to the Invariata and Variata editions of the Augsburg
Confession ^ first appeared at the Imperial Diet of Naumburg, in
1 56 1, leading at that time to no results. It was the controver-
^ P. 492. This is the conception of the "Christian government " (p.

495), when just upon the verge of transformation into the secular ** ecclesias-
tical government."
^ Here, as in what precedes, the Melanchthonian basis is traceable,
cf. C. R. ix. 407, 409 f.
^ It was the edition of 1531 which was subscribed. Of the editions of 1540
and 1542 it is said, that they ** reproduce the above-named Confession in a
somewhat more becoming and detailed form also, explained and enlarged
;
upon the basis of the Holy

Scriptures." It is the *' Amended [verdesserte)
Confession," i, <?., an exposition and development of the Invariata.
sies upon the Lord's Supper (p. 366) which now proved the
chief obstacle in the way of conciliatory movements. The
authority of Luther was here arrayed too distinctly against
Melanchthon. So long as the Philippists would not agree to
reject the Melanchthonian view of the Lord's Supper, there
could be no thought of reconciliation. On the other hand,
some progress was made toward a comparative unity of doctrine
in the separate territorial churches by the introduction of Bodies
of Doctrine {^corpora doctrinae). The first of these, the so-
called '* Corpus Philippicum," or *' Misnicum," was a private
undertaking of the book-dealer, Vogelein, in Leipzig, who
in 1560, shortly after the death of Melanchthon, edited a
collection of the latter' s doctrinal writings, which contained, in
addition to the three ancient symbols, the Augsburg Con-
fession, the Apology, the Confessio Saxonica, the Loci
( ed. 1556), the Examen ordinandorum, and the Respon-
siones ad impios articul. Bav.aric. inquisitionis. This collection
was not only introduced into Electoral Saxony, but was
received with favor in other regions (^. g., in Hesse and Pom-
erania). There at once appeared in opposition to it a number of
strictly Lutheran Corpora doctjinae. There were commonly

found in these besides the three ancient symbols, the Augsburg
Confession and the Apology
only writings of Luther, such as
the two catechisms, the Smalcald Articles, various smaller pub-
^
lications, and extracts from controversial works.
2. A fixed doctrine was thus secured for the separate terri-
torial churches. The plan of uniting the various churches by a
common confession seemed now more feasible. The efforts to
promote concord which Jacob Andreae had been making since
A. D. 1569 (see JOHANNSEN inZtschr. f. hist. Theol. 1853, 344 ff.)
were at first fruitless. But the times were constantly becoming
more auspicious. A new generation had succeeded the earlier
leaders of the Gnesio-Lutherans, less deeply involved in the old
doctrinal controversies, and hence able to pass calmer judgment
upon their merits. In the general apprehension of evangelical
doctrine, as well as upon many separate points, the Melanch-
thonian views prevailed. But the only reformatory authority
was Luther, as Melanchthon had himself maintained. Wher-
ever they openly differed, the views of Luther were accepted.
The specific Lutheranism of this circle really consisted, there-
^
^.^., thecity of Brunswick, 1563 Prussia, 1567; Brunswick-Wolfen-
;
biittel, 1569; also the so-called Corpus JuHum^ 1576; the dukedom of
Saxony, 1570 Brandenburg, 1572 Liineburg, 1576.
; ; Vid. the first collection
of the documents in the Book of Concord of 1580, in the Corpus of Brunswick-
Wolfenbiittel, which was also composed by Chemnitz and Andreae.
1
fore, only of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, in connection

with the cotnmimicaiio idiomattim, and in the rejection of Syner-
gism.^ On the other hand, the specific Philippism was dying
out. There were no conspicuous leaders to carry forward the
work of Melanchthon. The great Reformer had two souls, one
of which was orthodox Lutheran and the other Humanistic. The
heirs of his Humanism had since A. D. 1574 (cf. p. 367) been
branded as Crypto-Calvinists and regarded with suspicion, and
they were also the supporters of the positions in which Melanch-
thon differed from Luther. Some of them influenced in part
by the adoption of the Formula of Concord went over to Cal-
vinism.^ The peculiar characteristics which marked German
Calvinism in many particulars may be at least partly accounted
for by commingling of Humanistic-Melanchthonian and of
this
Calvinistic elements.^ Other followers of Melanchthon, drift-
ing away from the peculiar teachings of their master, became
Lutherans from conviction (<?. g., Chemnitz, Selnecker, Chy-
traeus). They were at heart in harmony with the new group
of Lutherans, although always characterized by the dogmatic
caution of their great teacher (cf. Chemnitz, supra, p. 375).
It was not accidental that two such men as Chemnitz, an original
Melanchthonian, and the Wiirtemburger Andreae, who came
from a church which had attested its Lutheranism especially by
its fidelity upon the doctrine of the Lord's Supper (Brenz, supra,
p. 366), were found to lead in the interest of concord. The

consensus aimed at was, in its essential aspects, here already
actualized
a Melanchthonian Lutheranism.*
The movement for concord must, in view of the circumstances,
address itself to a two-fold task. It must (i) Construct a Body
of Doctrine which should find acceptance with all Lutherans,
^ This course of historic events explains the fact that the general estimate
of Lutheranism has been more and more restricted to these two points.
2 Cf., e. g.^ the biographies of Widebram, Pezel, Hyperius, Fink, Ursinus,
and the younger Cruciger.

^ This furnishes Heppe and others the point of attachment for their con-
struction of history, in which a great general reformatory movement, embrac-
ing Melanchthonianism, a humanistic undercurrent, and Calvinistic elements,
is represented as crushed out by the domineering spirit of the Gnesio- Lutherans.
* It furnishes an instructive illustration of the confusion which existed in re-
gard to the divergences between the teachings of Luther and Melanchthon

apart from their views of the Lord's Supper that at the colloquy at Alten-
BURG in 1569, the Lutherans charged the Melanchthonians withholding **that
we become righteous before God alike by imputatio and by inchoatioy i. <?.,
from imputed righteousness and obedience begun " (Heppe, Gesch. des Prot.
ii. 217). They were here thinkingof the Interim (vid. supra, p. 364). They
thus seized in an entirely superficial way upon Melanchthon's formula of good
works, although this very error might have been charged upon Luther instead,
at least with an appearance of justice (supra, p. 260).
,
and (2) Formulate itsconsensus with due regard to the contro-

versies of the preceding decennium ; for only thus could there
be any hope of finally disposing of them (see Pref Form. Cone. )
The former of these requirements was met by including in the
Book of Concord a collection of the normative documents (the
three ancient symbols, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology,
the Smalcald Articles, and Luther's Catechisms); the latter, by
the second portion of the work, viz. the Formula of Concord.
:
The Formula of Concord thus at once assumed a position among

the regulative symbols of Lutheranism. It would lead us too far
from our purpose to attempt in this connection a history of the
genesis of this important composition. ^ It was published officially
at Dresden, June 25, 1580. Fifty-one princes, counts, and barons,
thirty-five cities, and more than eight thousand theologians had sub-
scribed to it. The book was not accepted by Brunswick-Wolfen-
biittel (because of hostility to Chemnitz), Schleswig-Holstein,
Hesse, Pomerania, Anhalt, Pfalz-Zweibriicken, Nassau, Ben-
theim, Tecklenburg, Solms, Magdeburg, Nordhausen, Bremen,
Dantzic, Frankfort, Worms, Strassburg, Spires, Nuremberg,
Weissenburg, Windsheim.^
In forming our estimate of the Formula of Concord, it must
be borne in mind that it is based upon the fundamental symbols
of the Lutheran Church ; that the problems with which it deals
were dividing the church in that age ; that it actually gave ex-
pression to a consensus already inaugurated ; and that it conse-
quently succeeded in gradually restoring the peace of the church.
The detailed theological definitions of the pure doctrine which
it presented were in keeping with the spirit that had prevailed in
the church it represented for about a century and a half ^ We
1 The process of its development is regulated by the following documents :
Six controversial sermons of Andreae (in Heppe, iii.,suppl. 3 ff.); the Tubin-
gen Book, orSchwabian Concord, 1574 {Ztschr. f. hist. Theol. 36. 234 ft.); the
Schwabian Saxon Concord (in Heppe, suppl. 75 ft". ); the Maulbronn Formula,
1576 (Jarbb. f. deutsche Theol. 11. 640 ft".); the Torgau Book, 1576 ; the
Bergen Book, 1577 (see Heppe, Der Text d. Bergischen C. F. verglichen
mit dem Text der Schwab. Cone, der Schwab. -sachs. Cone. u. des Torgauer
Buches, 1857). The original plan of having the work adopted by a great as-

sembly of the churches such as was often spoken of was afterward abandoned.
Such an assembly, modeled after those of the ancient church, had been de-
sired by the Jena theologians as early as 1560 (Heppe, i., suppl. 124). The
Formula of Concord is composed of the Epitome and the Solida declaratio.
The latter is the Bergen Book the former a summary of the Torgau Book,
;
prepared by Andreae and revised at Bergen.

2 Silesia took no part in the proceedings. Strassburg accepted the Formula
in 1597. Pomerania in 1593 added to an edition of the Corpus Philippicum,
enlarged by a volume of Luther's writings, some parts of the Formula of
Concord.
2 I cannot agree with the opinion of Kawerau (Moller, KG. iii. ), p. 268,
THE FORMULA OF CONCORD. 3S3
can, therefore, as little ignore the historical necessity of the enter-

prise, as we can fail to be impressed with the tactful and ener-
getic literary labor which it reveals. The Formula of Concord
did indeed make final the breach between the Lutheran-Melanch-
thonian and the Calvinistic-Melanchthonian types in the evangel-
ical church of Germany but this breach was, under the existing
;
circumstances, unavoidable. No reproach can be cast upon a

confession for giving expression to a condition of affairs already
existing.
We must note the leading doctrinal statements of the Formula.
3. Articles I. and 11. are devoted to Original Sin and Free
Will, (a) The Formula opposes Flacius' theory of original sin
and every view which does not acknowledge that man is ^' utterly
corrupted and dead toward good" (p. 589. 7). There yet re-
mains, indeed, in the natural man a certain knowledge of God and
the capacity of
civil righteousness" (589.9). This makes him
capableof experiencing conversion (593. 22). (d) Accordingly,
God does not deal with man as with a log or a stone (603. 61).
He does not coerce man (602 f. ), although the latter does not
possess the '* power of applying himself to grace " (590? 594)-
In this respect, it may be said that '* not even a spark of spiritual
strength remains " (5S9. 7), and *' no more than a stone, log,
or lump of clay;" even *'in this particular he is worse than a
block, because he is rebellious and hostile to the divine will"
(57^- 23; 591 ff.; 599. 46). (c) The only cause of con-
version is therefore the Holy Spirit, who through the word lays
hold upon the heart and works faith, *' new spiritual emotions,
regeneration and renovation, and new obedience." Man is
'' merely passive " in conversion But this dare not
(530. 22).
be so represented as when *'a seal is impressed upon wax," but
in such a way that, in the very moment of the beginning of the
divine operation within us (** until the Holy Spirit has first
. . begun in us
. his work of regeneration"), the will,
. . .
that the Formula of Concord abandons Luther's conception of faith. He ap-

peals in its support to the passage: "The gospel is properly the doctrine
which teaches . . what that most miserable sinner ought to believe in order
.
that he may obtain the forgiveness of sins before God " (Miiller, p. 637. 2q).
This sentence is certainly unfortunately framed, but the context shows clearly
what is meant: '* For whatever consoles fearful minds, whatever offers the
favor and grace of God to transgressors of the law, this is, properly and cor-
rectly speaking, the gospel, c, the most joyful announcement that the Lord
?'.
God does not wish to punish our sins, but for Christ's sake to forgive them.
Wherefore penitent sinners ought to believe, that is, they should place their
entire confidence in Christ alone, i. e., because he was offered up on account of
our sins," etc. (ib. ^ 21 f.). We
are here told what evangelical faith is. The
"rightly-believing" are those "who have true and living faith in Christ" (p.
534. 39). Similarly also Luther (supra, p. 225, n. I ).
impelled by God, engages according to its own nature in active

Syîergy (*' are able, and ought, to cooperate " (604. 65).
we
Hence it is said The man who is of himself absolutely unfree
:
for the doing of good is by the Spirit of God made free

(^liberatum arbitrium, 604. 67), andj in the moment of the
effectual touch of the Spirit, the will is able to co-operate
actively in the work of renewal.
Article III. treats of Justification,
4. (a) It is asserted, in
opposition to Osiander and Stancar, that our righteousness
depends exclusively upon neither the divine nor the human
*' in his whole person, who,
nature of Christ, but : as both God
and man, alone in his entire and most perfect obedience
is
our righteousness" (622. 55; 629). The personally ren-
dered obedience is thus the point of view under which the
\vork of Christ is regarded. This obedience was manifested
** in doing and suffering "
(612. 14, 15). It was a '' most per-
fect obedience, by which he fulfilled the law for us." It con-
stitutes the merit of Christ, which God imputes to us for right-
eousness (618. 30). That man now receives grace,. is based
upon the fact that Christ by his double obedience has first nulH-
fied both the penalties and the demands of the law (supra, p.
371, n. i). (^) Justification consists in this imputation of the
righteousness (/. <?., the obedience) of Christ (611. 4; 612. 15;
613. 17). The result of this imputation is forgiveness of sins,
reconciliation with God, adoption, and the inheritance of
eternal life (615. 25; 613. 16). But this justification is appre-
hended by faith, not because the latter is the beginning of
a new life, but because it is the receptive organ for the appro-
priation of the merit of Christ (612. 13; 616. 31). The
genesis of faith is expressly traced to the operation of the Holy
Spirit in the gospel (619. 41). (r) Faith and Justification are
therefore the central acts. They must be preceded by '*true
and not simulated contrition," for only thus can faith exist
(614 f, 23, 26).^ The Holy Spirit now works faith. *' And
this apprehends the grace of God in Christ, by which the person

is justified." Buf the believer is also *' renewed and sanctified
by the Holy Spirit, which renewal and sanctification are then
followed by good works." But this "inaugurated righteous-
1
615. -Tf}-. ''Contrition precedes, and justifying faith exists in those who
truly, not fictitiously, exercise repentance." The last term here has a
narrower signification (== co7ttnHon, penitence) than in the earlier confessions,
cf also the remark, p. 634. 7 ff. This may be explained by the fact that the
original parallel with the sacrament of penance was gradually fading from
memory and in its stead such passages as Mk. 1. 15 regulated the usage of the
term.
ncss of the new obedience " dare never be taken into consider-
ation as influencing justification itself, since no one can stand
before God upon the ground of this yet ** incomplete and
impure " righteousness. Justification has to do only with the
* ^righteousness of the obedience, sufferings, and death of Christ,
which is imputed to faith" (617. 32; cf 620. 44 ff.). By
means of this exposition, the Melanchthonian construction of
justification secured definite ascendancy.^
5. Article IV. discusses Good Works, {a) There was hisre
a general agreement upon the following points That, according
:
to the will of God, believers should perform good works ; that

good works are not such as are self-chosen, but such as are com-
manded by God ; that works are pleasing to God in so far as the
person of the one performing them is acceptable to him ; that
faith is the ^* mother and original source of good works"
(625 f ). (^) It was pointed out how dangerous and liable to
misunderstanding was the position assumed by Amsdorf (supra, p.
364). Against Major it was argued (supra, p. 364), that works
dare in no wise be introduced into the *' article of justification
and salvation," as otherwise ** assailed and distressed conscienceb
will be robbed of the consolation of the gospel " (629. 23). The
thesis of Major concerning the necessity of works to salvation is
therefore untenable (632. 37). (^) The doctrine, positively
stated, is that faith brings with it good works, as the determination
to persevere in evil-doing is inconceivable as cherished along
with faith (627. 15);^ and that these works are voluntarily
performed (628. 18).
6. Articles V. and VI. treat of the Law and the Gospel, (a')
The law is the ** divine doctrine, in which is revealed the most
just and immutable will of God, as to what manner of person
man ought to be, together with the threatening of temporal and
'
'
eternal penalties (636. 17). The gospel, in the *' proper

of it, is the preaching of the grace of God
'
understanding '
(634. 6; 637. 21). The law teaches us to recognize our sin

and the wrath of God. But, in order that man may not fall into
despair, the preaching of the gospel must follow (635. gf )-^
^ Yet the presentation of the Formula is to be preferred for lucidity and
well-considered statement to that of Melanchthon. A number of problems

were allowed to remain unsolved, e. g., the genesis of contrition, the relation
of the operations of the Holy Spirit in the begetting of faith and works, etc.
2 Many erroneously hold a dead faith, or a certain empty persuasion, which
is without repentance and good works, in place of true faith.

* It is therefore not only the office of the Holy Spirit to administer comfort,
but he also, as a ''strange work," administers rebuke (635. ll). This

is analogous to Christ's taking the law into his own hands and interpreting it
spiritually (ib. 10).
25
This works faith, and through it righteousness (637 f. ). (^)

If the law is thus necessary at the beginning of the Christian
life, it is none the less so during its progress :First, because sin
and infirmity still cling to the regenerate, and they therefore
still require ''instruction and admonition, warning and threat-
ening " (641 f.); secondly, in order */ that they do not fall
into a holiness and worship of their own, and may be preserved
'
'
from imagining that their '* work and life are entirely pure and
perfect " (644. 20 f. ). Yet it must ever be borne in mind that
the Christian " fulfills the will of God, in so far as he is regen-
erate, from a free and joyous spirit " (643. 17).
7. Article VII. discusses the Lord's Supper, (a) The view
of Zwingli is rejected (646. 4), as well as that of Calvin, the latter
of which acknowledges indeed in words a " presence of the body
of Christ, but means by this only a "spiritual presence
' '
' and that

'
of the divine nature (647. 5 f. ). Upon the basis of the words

of institution, the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper
is taught (646 ff. , ,
656 f. cf. supra, p. 14 f.) in harmony with
the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Wittenberg Concord,
the Smalcald Articles (by which '*all evasions and loopholes
are stopped up " against the sacramentarianizing interpretations
of the Wittenberg Concord), and the catechisms. Thus it is
said :
'* that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ
are truly and substantially present, and that they are together
with the bread and wine truly distributed and taken" (539).
From this follows the ''oral manducation," which does not
mean the Capernaitic eating of the body of Christ, but which
takes place, although " with the mouth " (ore^j yet in a spiritual
way (modus spiritualus^ (543- 661). The reception by the
unworthy ( manducatto indignorum) also follows as a logical con-
clusion (666. 89). ((5) It is therefore to be confessed, that
"under the bread, with the bread, in the bread is present and
offered the body of Christ " (654. 35). Between the substance
of the bread and the substance of the body of Christ there is a
union, which may be compared to the union of the two natures in
Christ. Yet this union is not 0.11 mo personalis^ but diûnio sacra-
mentalis (Ji^df. 36 f.). The possibility of this union is based upon
the Ubiquity, which is defined in the sense of Chemnitz (supra, p.
376): "that, namely, even according to that assumed nature and
with it, he can be present, and is indeed present, wherever he
wishestobe" (692. 78). (^r) This furnishes also the point of view
from which may be understood the effect of the reception of the
Supper. The Formula, with a fine tact, brings out the leading
ideas of Luther. The Lord's Supper testifies that Christ desires
to be continuously operative in believers according to his human
nature (622. 79). It is a seal, assuring us that the blessings

which Christ obtained for us in his body are through it present for
us (of. supra, p. 287, 329). ** And the pious, indeed, receive the
body and blood of Christ as an infallible pledge and assurance

that their sins are surely forgiven them, and that Christ dwells
in them and wishes to be efficacious in them (661. 63 ; 655. 44).
Thus the forgiveness of sins is recognized as the substantial
result of participation in the Lord's Supper (661. 63).^ {d)
*' Christians who are
weak in faith, timid, and distressed, who are
terrified at heart on account of the magnitude and multitude of
their sins and think they are in this their great uncleanness not
worthy of this noble treasure and the benefits of Christ . . .
these are the truly worthy guests, for whom this sacrament was
principally instituted and appointed " (662. 69). {e) But it is
only as a transaction that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament the :
mere consecration makes no sacrament, if distribution and recep-

tion do not follow (665. 83 f. ). But where this transaction
occurs, there Christ is himself present as the real transacting
personage (663. 75). These definitions, which follow essentially
in the line of Luther's views, form one of the chief dogmatic
contributions of the Formula.
8. Christology is presented in Article VIII. (^) The Formu-
las of Chalcedon furnish the point of departure. The conmitcni-
catio idiomatuni^ is based upon the personal unity constituted by
the combination of the two natures (676. 11). The entire glory
of God has entered into the human nature and manifests this glory
in and through it, '* whenever and however it seems good to it-
self." But a full and continuous revelation of the divine glory
occurs only after the laying aside of the '* form of a servant,"
in heaven (Ji%Z f., 679). The God-man, as it were, concealed
the glory dwelling in him :
'* he held it secretly, . . employed
.
it as often as seemed good to him" (680. 26). These ideas may

be traced to Chemnitz (supra, p. 376). ((^) The union of the
two natures and their attributes is, here also, presented under the
view-point of cooperation (689. 66; 685. 51 f.)- But in this
combined operation, the relations of the two natures are not strictly
mutual, since the divine nature can be subject to no addition nor
diminution (684. 49). {c') As to the Ubiquity of Christ, in
addition to the Midtivolipresence mentioned in paragraph 7, he

is said to be '* present in all created things " (547. 16 cf. 682 ff.,
;
667 ff. ). The presentation of this topic, regarded as a whole,

1 The Formula is silent
and certainly rightly so in regard to Luther's
occasional references to effects of the Lord's Supper upon the body (p. 329).
2 It presupposes that human nature is capable of receiving the divine,
685.
52 f.; 549. 14.
leaves the impression of incompleteness. It is hampered by the

differences of opinion existing between Brenz and Chemnitz.
The ideas of Luther are really presented in a connected way only
in the discussion of the Lord's Supper. The influence of Chem-
nitz, on the other hand, is everywhere felt.
9. In regard to the Descent into Hell, it is said in Article IX.

*' that the entire person and man descended after the burial into
hell, vanquished the devil, and destroyed the power of hell"

(696). Yet we should lay aside *Mofty and precise thoughts "
as to the manner in which this occurred.
10. Article X., discussing Adiaphora, asserts that the church
has the authority at any time to change ceremonies and church
customs (698. 9), but that when the church is in the state of
confession (/// static confessionis), it must not yield to its oppo-
nents even in such matters.
11. The topic of Article XI. is Predestination. (^) As con-
trasted with foreknowledge { presdentia)j which relates to both
the good and the evil, predestination is the ordaining to salva-
tion (705. 5). Prescience has no causative character, but the
cause ( Ursache) of the salvation of the elect is the divine elec-
tion (554. Z^)' -^^'- pi'escience includes the fact, that God has
'* set bound and measure" to those whose wickedness he has
foreseen (705. 6). It is, of course, to be understood that God,

before the beginning of the world, foresaw who of the called
should believe and persevere in faith, and when his call should
reach each individual and nation, and when it should be with-
drawn from them (716. 54 ff.; 708.23). ((^) But the Christian
should confine his attention to the gracious revealed will of God
and avoid all speculation in this field (717 f. 719. 70; 715. ;
52 ff.; 706. gff.; 707. i3f.). He should further remember that

the '* promise of the gospel" is really '' universal," /. e.^ it
'* pertains to all men "
(709. 28); that thecal! (z/^r^//^?) is there-
fore always sincere (710. 29; 257. 18); and that the Holy
Spirit is always operative in the word as heard (712. 39). It is
not the divine foreknowledge, but the human will, which is to
blame if the word does not attain its end (713. 41). The divine
will aims at the salvation of all, and does not desire that any
should perish (555. 12; 722. ^li-)- (^) There is, therefore,
an ** eternal predestination " (717. 65). It is the active will
of God, that all men who believe on Christ shall be saved through
the gospel. This will is based upon the merit of Christ, not upon
our works (720. 75 ; 723. Z^'). Upon the ground of this eter-
nal will, we may be certain of our salvation for it rests in the
;
hands of God (724. 90 ), and is based ''upon his eternal pur-

pose, which cannot fail nor be overthrown " (714. 45). There
is thus " completely and fully given to God his glory," since
salvation is traced alone to his gracious will (556. 15 ; 723. 87).

Of these propositions, it must likewise be said, that they do not
furnish a conclusion in all respects satisfactory. Yet their logi-
cal consistency is not so obscure as isGod, by
often thought.
virtue of his foreknowledge, knows everything which shall ever
happen. This foreknowledge enables him to set measure and
bound to that which is to happen. We must distinguish from
this the gracious will of God to save through Christ all who shall
believe. If this aim be not achieved, the fault lies with man.
This view can, indeed, scarcely be designated predestination in
the strict sense of the term.^
12. Article XII. speaks '* of Other Factions and Sects," and
'
recounts the erroneous articles
' *
of the Anabaptists, the
'
Schwenkfeldians, and the " new Antitrinitarians." Here again,

the breach, now put upon record, had long been complete.
13. Such are the doctrinal articles of the Formula of Con-
cord. They record the conception entertained of Lutheran doc-
trine in the second generation of the Reformation period, or the
form of Lutheranism which became the basis for the develop-
ment of Lutheran theology. Historical investigation can only
record, that the Formula accomplished the purpose which it had
in view. It presented the fixed results of doctrinal development,
and exhibited in connected form the ideas of Luther and Mel-
anchthon which were influential in that generation. But, when
compared with the entire scope of Luther's religious and theo-
logical ideas, the decision must be, that the Formula of Concord
was not in a position to rescue from neglect and recoin all the
valuable truth
the whole historical material which Luther had
given to the church. The contribution which Luther brought to
the church still furnishes material for earnest study. Evangeli-
cal theology must continue to seek, and seeking shall yet find, in
* '* And God, indeed, by this his counsel, purpose, and ordination
708. 23 :
(;". that all who believe on Christ shall be saved, vid. ^ 18), not only pro-
e-. ,
cured the salvation of his own in general, but also mercifully foresaw, all and
each, the persons of the elect who should be saved through Christ, elected
them to salvation, and decreed that ... he wished through his grace ... to
make them partakers of eternal salvation ... to strengthen and preserve
them." Even this passage does not lead to strict predestination for, in the ;
context in which it is found, it can scarcely mean more than the following :
God, by virtue of his prescience, knows in advance what particular result will
be accomplished by his gracious will, which is in itself considered universal
in its application. And, just as his prescience in general guides him in the
ordering and directing of all things (vid. supra), so also in this particular
instance, since God takes a particular interest in the guidance and protection
of those whom he foresees as believers. The connection of this article with
the Strassburg Concord should not be overlooked (supra, p. 378).
the marvelous intuitions of the Reformer's ideas view-points, in-

spiration, energy, and a renewal of her strength.
CHAPTER II.
COMPLETION OF DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE REFORMED

CHURCH.
79. The Theology of Calvin and its Influence Upon the History
of Doctrines.
Sources. Calvin, Opp. ed. Baum, Cunitz, Reuss {== Corp. Ref. xxix. ff. ).
We shall have occasion to refer especially to vols. xxix. and xxx. (Insdtutio
religionis christianae), vol. xxxiii. (the catechism), vol. xxxvi. (theol. discus-
sions), vol. xxxviii. (ordonnances ecclesiastiques). Upon the life of Calvin,
see Henry, 3 vols., 1835 ff. E. Stahelin, 2vo1s., 1863. Kampschulte, J.
Calvin, seine Kirche u. sein Staat in Genf., vol. i., 1869. A. Lang, De
Bekehrung Joh. Calv., 1897 (Studien z. Gesch. d. Theol. u. Kirche, ed.
Bonwetsch u. Seeberg, ii. i). Upon his theology, vid. Kostlin, Calv. In-
stitutio, in Stud. u. Krit., 1868, 7 ff., 410 ff. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers, i.,
ed. 2, 203, 227ff. Seeberg (Thomasius, DG. ii., ed. 2), p. 638 ff. LoOFS,
DG., ed. 3, 427 ff. A. Lang, Die altesten theol. Arbeiten Calv., in Neue
Jarbb. f. deutsche Theol. ii. 273 ff. Schweitzer, Centraldogmen,
i. 150 ff.
MuLLER, De Godsleer von Scheibe, Calv. Praedest.-Iehre,

Calvijn, 1881.
1897. USTERI, Calv. Sakraments u. Tauflehre, Stud. u. Krit., 1884, 417 ff.
Seeberg, Begriffd. Kirche, i. 119 ff. Lobstein, Die Ethik Calvins, 1877,
DiLTHEY, in Archiv. f. Gesch. d. Philos. vi. 528 ff. Elster, Calv. als
Staatsmann, Gesetzgeber u. National okonom, in Jarbb. fiir National5konom,
vol. 31. 163 ff.
I. As Zwingli's political plans were frustrated by his death,
so the direct influence of his theology also, within a comparatively

short time, ceased to be felt. Even men who stood so near to
him as Bullinger accepted his doctrinal views only in their
general outline, and proceeded to *' deepen " and develop them
(see Pestalozzi, H. Bull., 1858, and cf. Usteri, in Stud. u.
Krit., 1883, p. 730 ff.). In the circles in Southwestern Ger-
many in which Zwingli's influence had been particularly felt
arose a new theological type, which, with a close adherence to
the principles of Luther, combined a certain leaning toward
ideas of Zwingli. The most important and active representa-
tive of this group was the great compromise theologian, Martin
BucER (f 1551). Its characteristic features were the following :
'' The fundamental ideas of the Reformation upon sin, grace,

justification, and sanctification were reproduced in harmony with
1
THEOLOGY OF CALVIN. 39
Luther and Melanchthon. The relation to Luther is incompara-

bly more intimate and evident than was Zwingli's.^ The assurance
of salvation was commonly based upon predestination, or the " gift
of perseverance." In the doctrine of the sacraments, and espe-
cially of the Lord's Supper, the attempt was made to find a me-
dian ground between the views of Luther and Zwingli. The
men of this group very earnestly insisted upon referring every-
thing to the Scriptures in a somewhat legalistic way, the state-
ments of the latter being regarded as fixed formulas of doctrine
and of ecclesiastical life. With this tendency is closely associated
the marked biblical character of the theology in question, as well
as the effort by the fuller application of biblical ideas to carry
out the principles of the Reformation more completely than
had been done upon more strictly Lutheran territory. Stand-
ing upon the historic ground of the earlier ideas of reform,
and inspired by Erasmian ideals, it was sought to realize the
practical ideas of reform by a strict discipline and by benevo-
lent operations and careful church organization, in so far as this
appeared possible and desirable within the scope of the evangel-
ical reformation. The church was regarded as the '* kingdom of
Christ,'' in which there exists a new covenant {foedus) with
God. Living under the sovereignty of God, it is proper for us
to minister to his glory. As, on the one hand, the entire Chris-
tian life became, in the light of this conception, one of active
service, so, too, it was thought that the glory of God demands
that h'e alone and not our works nor any agency other than
divine be recognized as effecting the salvation and life of the
church.^ Hence their advocacy of predestination. Not, in-
deed, in the form of a connected theological system, but as a
practically influential combination of opinions and sentiments,
this tendency secured adherents and became a recognized power
in the church.
It may be studied most readily in the writings of Bucer. His
last publication treats of the Kingdom of Christ, De regno
Christi (vid. in Scripta Anglicana, Basil, 1577, p. 3-173).
This kingdom is an admintstratiopopuli (p 3 ) *
The kingdom
. - '
of our Servitor, Jesus Christ, is an administration and procuring
1 This is plainly seen in Bucer's first publications. The Summary of his

sermons of 1523 presents in its positive explanations an excellent outline of
the fundamental religious conceptions of Luther.
2 In Bucer, as in Zwingli (supra, p. 312), the thought of the glory of God
constantly recurs. How practically pervasive was this idea is indicated, e. g.^
in the subscription appended by the citizens of Strassburg to a petition,A. D.
1527, for thecomplete abolition of the mass ** : The obedient citizens of your
Excellencies, who desire the advancement of the glory of God and of the king-
dom of Christ" (in Baum, Capito u. Butzer, p. 393).
of the eternal salvation of the elect of God, by which he himself,

our Lord and the King of heaven, by his doctrine and discipline
administered through special ministers appointed for that purpose,
. .gathers his elect to himself and incorporates them in himself
.
and his church, and in it so governs them that, daily purged more
fully from their sins, they may live well and blessedly" (p. 31).
The elect allow themselves to be guided and governed by the
"ministry regularly constituted (p. 34). The ministry teach, con-
fining themselves strictly to the Holy Scriptures (p. ^6),^ The
first marks of the true church are scripturalness of doctrine and of
the administration of the sacraments ; the third is discipline (p.

40 ff.), to which is added care for thepoor(p. 50). Thesecond
Book contains a the introduction of the
fully detailed plan for
Kingdom into England.^ In the Introduction to the exposi-
tion of the Epistle to the Romans is found a brief statement of
Bucer's Soteriology.^ He here also presents at length his view
of predestination (vid. excurs., p. 358 ff.). This is, in the
proper sense, an election to salvation. The practical import-
ance of the doctrine lies in its making known to us ^' this
certain and immovable will of God concerning our salvation,
which no creature is able to prevent " (p. 358 a, 360 b).
If salvation is based upon the eternal counsel of God, we
may then be sure of it. Predestination leads to the measures
for attaining its end, /. e., vocation, justification, and glori-
fication. He to whom the call is given may, therefore, be
sure of his election (p. 359 b). In a wider sense, predestina-
tion in general is traced to the divine pre -determination (^prac-
firiitw'); in which sense we may also speak of a *' predestination
of the wicked." They, too, have an appointed place in the
divine plan of the world. God knows in advance for what pur-
pose he will use them *^ He then ordained and destined them
:
to these ends, ad ea^^ (p. 358 bj. ** God foresaw and destined
even these to this lot before he created them. For he does all
thingsbypredeterminate and infallible counsel" (p. 3S9a). Pre-
destination is thus utilized in a purely practical way as a means
^ Cf. in the Einleitung zur Enarratio ep. ad Roman. ( Argentorat. 1536), p-

*' To this republic the Scriptures are instead of law, for they set forth
19 a :
and appoint the will of its head concerning all the duties of life."
2 See also the interesting suggestions for the advancement of farming, in-
dustry, and commerce in England, p. 136-140.

3 Justijicare =^ absolvere. We are assured of this pardon of sins, secured
through Christ, by the Holy Spirit, who begets faith in us, but at the same
time subdues evil lust and calls into being a new will (vid. Enar. in ep. ad
Rom., p. II ff.). Faith is 3.*'^ persuasio {=7riGTi.c, p. 22 a) of the mercy of
God toward us," p. 14 b, or an assensus^ not only with the intellect, but also
with the will, p. 15 f. See also briefly in the Epitome doctr. eccles. Argento-
rat., in Scripta anglicana, p. 173 ff.
^
in establishing the certainty of salvation. Zwingli's speculative

method of theorizing on the foreign to Bucer, nor does
subject is
he follow Luther's deductions as to the enslavement of the will.

As to his doctrine of the Lord's Supper, vid. supra, p. 331, n. i.^
These excerpts from Bucer may serve to illustrate the above-
noted characteristics. The theological type which they repre-
sent
which may be briefly styled Bucerism is the contempo-
raneous pendant of Melanchthonian Lutheranism. The ideas of
Luther were by Bucer, as by Melanchthon, recast in the forms de-
manded by his practical aims. The parallel may readily be
carried out in detail. In neither of these men, with the tendencies
which they represented, was the process developed without
omissions and displacements in the Lutheran complex of ideas.
But, while it was the fortune of Melanchthon to construct
formulas which should dominate the thought of two centuries,
Bucerism became but the stepping-stone to Calvinism. Bucer's
mediating theology was almost everywhere merged in Calvinism.
This did not involve any violence to the former, but was but the
transition from a lower to a higher form. Calvin, like Bucer,
drew his first inspiration from Luther. Luther's ideas moulded
him in a general way as a theologian, and also in his views of
particular doctrines/ Yet he was a Lutheran only in the same
sense as Bucer. Or, we may say, the impulses which made
Calvin a theologian and churchman proceed, not only from the
influence of Luther, but also from that conception of religion
and of the church and her duty which prevailed at Strassburg and
which pervades the writings of Bucer. Not only his ethical appre-
hension of the work of reformation, but his views upon a number

of important doctrines as of the sacraments, particularly the

Lord's Supper, of predestination, and of faith point distinctly
to this source. Calvin starts therefore, not with Zwingli, but with
Luther,* and promotes that conception of the work of the Refor-
^
For the biography of Bucer, see Baum, Capito u. Butzer, i860. A
worthy presentation of his theology has recently been published by A. Lang.
Vid. DasEvangelienkommentarM. Butzers, u. die Grundziige seiner Theologie
(Bonwetsch-Seeberg, Studien zur Gesch. derTheol. u. der Kirche, ii. 2), 1900.
^ In the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Melanchthon and his school draw
from Bucer.
^ See Lang, Bekehrung Calvins, p. 47 ff. and the same author's collection
,
of utterances of Calvin concerning Luther in Deutsch-Evang. Blatter, 1896,

322 ff.
* Zwingli's significance for the History of Doctrines really consists therefore
only in the fact, that he by his energetic opposition prevented the complete
dominance of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The statement of
DlLTHEY (Archiv. vi., 529, 531), that Calvin drew his inspiration from
Zwingli's " freely breathing religious animation " and from his spiritual wealth
{Seelenfulle')^ is historically untenable.


mation which originated not indeed without Zwinglian influences
in Southwestern Germany, particularly at Strassburg, These his-
torical facts explain the divergence of view from that of the
Wittenbergers upon methods of practical reform (supra, p. 391),
and also the phenomenon, that a Calvinistic church should arise
upon German soil, and, as is acknowledged, win the allegiance
of a number of Melanchthonian Lutherans.* As the Calvinistic
type became the dominant one in the Reformed church, it falls
to the province of the History of Doctrines to present an outline
of his teachings. As to their historical relations, the above must
for the present suffice.
2. It is of the first importance, for a proper appreciation
of Calvin, to remember that he is a man of the second gener-

ation of this great period. He received his ideas and program
of action by tradition in an essentially complete form. It was
his task, in the church as in theology, to complete and organize
and for this his special talents also fitted him. Calvin was not
a genius like Luther, nor did he possess the happy balance
of endowment which distinguished Zwingli. Neither was he a
scholar unskilled in the ways of the world, like Melanchthon.
He possessed the wonderful talent of comprehending any given
body of religious ideas in its most delicate refinements and
giving appropriate expression to the results of his investigations.
This made him the greatest exegete of the Reformation period,
and enabled him to accomplish a remarkable work in organizing
the dogmatic materials within reach. As a dogmatician, he
furnished no new ideas, but he with most delicate sense of per-
ception arranged the dogmatic ideas at hand in accordance with
their essential character and their historical development. If
we compare Melanchthon and Calvin, for example, in their views
upon the appropriation of salvation, we shall observe that the former
constructs tenable formulas, while the latter traces the inner rela-
tions of spiritual experience. His was a keen and delicate, but not
a creative mind.^ With these intellectual gifts was combined the
will of a nature born for organizing
the tenacious, imperial
spirit and govermental skill of the ancient Roman. But this was
held in check and guided by the obedience which dedicates the
life to the glory of God, without regard to the demands of the
world." Thus Calvin was just the man to represent most
1 At this point must begin the study of the interesting question of the
genesis of the Reformed Church in Germany.
2 We may compare Melanchthon and Calvin as dogmaticians, separately and
in their mutual relationship, with the Lombard and Thomas Aquinas.
* Cf. C. R. xliii. 738 : ** I am not ignorant of what is pleasing or offensive
to the world, but nothing is of more concern to me than to follow the rule
prescribed by the Master."
worthily and effectively the second type of reformatory character

which sprung from Luther's prolific principles. That its pecu-
liar characteristics were due in measure to the influence of earlier
ideals of reform, has been already observed (p. 391).
3. Our study of the theology of Calvin must be confined
to the points bearing particularly upon the history of doctrinal
development/ Beginning with the source of Christian truth,
we find this to be the Holy Scriptures, and they alone. '* For
the Scriptures are a school of the Holy Spirit, in which, as

nothing necessary or useful to know is omitted, so nothing is
taught except what it is profitable to know " (iii. 21. 3).^ God
has deposited in them the "oracle" of his truth, and, since
they come from heaven, they are endowed with full authority
(^plena autoritas) among men (i. 7. i). " Belief (^fides~) of the
doctrine is not established until we have been indubitably
persuaded that God is its author^'' (ib. 4). God first revealed
the law, " then followed the prophets, through whom God pub-
lished, as it were, new oracles." By divine command, the
prophets recorded the latter, all of which served for the expla-
nation of the law. *' With these came at the same time the his-
tories, which are themselves also productions from the pens of the
prophets, but composed under the dictation of the Holy Spirit
"
(^dictante spiriiii. sancto, iv. 8. 6). Then followed the New
Testament (ib. 8). Of the authors of these writings, it is said :
"They were infallible and authentic amanuenses of the Holy

Spirit, and therefore their writings are to be held to be oracles
of God" (ib. 9). The truthfulness of these scriptural oracles
is therefore established from the fact, that they, together with the
historical narratives, were dictated and inspired by the Spirit of
God (cf. i. 18. 3).^ This conviction as to the origin of the
Scriptures is confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit,
which is effectually given through them, and through the divine
majesty which characterizes them (i. 7. 4). Through this
unique testimony we become certain of the character of the word
(i. 8. I ; 9. 3). Thus Calvin establishes the authority of the
Scriptures partly upon their divine dictation, and partly upon
the testimony of the Holy Spirit working through them. His-
^ We
depend, in so doing, chiefly upon the last revision of the Institutio
religionis Christianae, A.D. 1559. We shall occasionally quote, for the pur-
pose of comparison, from the first edition, A. D. 1536, and from other doctrinal
writings of Calvin.
^ These and similar references indicate books, chapters, and paragraphs of
the last edition of the Institutio.

3 Heppe's remark in referring to Calvin (Die Dogmatik d. ev.-ref. ICirche,
1 86 1, p. 16 f. ): *' Heis not speaking of any real inspiration in the recording,"
is not vi'ell founded.

torically considered, he thereby combines the later medieval

conception of inspiration (supra, p. 192) with the theory of
Luther. Calvin is therefore the author of the so-called inspir-
ation theory of the older dogmaticians.^ Of the ancient symbols
and decrees of the councils, Calvin says, that they formulated
Biblical truth more exactly in opposition to the heretics (i. 13.
3 f.): ''For they contain nothing but pure and native inter-
pretation of the Scriptures" (iv. 9. 8). He set a high value
upon pure doctrine for the church ^ (ii. 2. 7), but acknowledged
also that no one should forsake his church for the sake of ** any
little differences of opinion " (iv. i. 12 j.
4. In the doctrine concerning God, the Reformation concep-

tion of the Divine Being as omnipotent Will is the controUing
thought. The divine omnipotence is not to be represented as
alternating between action and non-action, but as in ** continual
action." It is manifested in the divine providence which rules
all things (i. 16. 3). Calvin meets the charge of Stoic fatalism
by pointing out that the latter rests upon the inviolability of the
natural order of cause and effect, while Christian faith, on the
contrary, refers all events to the determination of the divine
will :We acknowledge God as the arbiter and director of all
'*
things,who, according to his wisdom, decreed from the most re-

mote eternity what he would do, and now by his power performs
what he has decreed " (ib. 8). Accordingly, the totality of all
events, as well the course of nature as all that men endure or do,
is referred back to the eternal counsel of God. In other words,
everything that happens, happens as it does because God so wills.
^ It is just this combination which constitutes the theory in question :
Because there proceeds from the Scriptures an influence of the Holy Spirit
which attests their contents to the heart as truth, their origin must be traced to
the Holy Spirit. This combination, in itself considered, is open to no
objection. But, since the inspiration is conceived of as a dictation of the entire
historical material, the proof of it from religious experience cannot be sus-
tained, because this experience can by no means attest all the separate words of
Scripture. We need not here refer to the objections raised against the theory
by historical criticism. Calvin writes: "I know how some obscure men
clamor in their little corners to show the keenness of their talents in assailing
the truth of God. For they inquire, Who will make us very sure that these
things which are read under the names of Moses and the prophets were
written by them ? For they even dare to raise the question whether there ever
was any Moses? But if anyone should raise a doubt as to whether there ever
was any Plato or Aristotle or Cicero, who would not say that he deserved to
be thrashed with cuffs or lashes? " (i. 8. 9).
^ This is attested by the sworn confession of faith, based on his catechism,
to be required of the citizens of Geneva (C. R. xxxiii. 3S5"3^2). This contains

in a nutshell a system of dogmatics in a plain and practical form. No attempt
is made to present the doctrines of the Trinity or Christology in a scholarly
way.
What transpires in the "world serves the interest of man, of the

church, and of salvation (ib. 6 ; i. 17. i); but its final purpose
is the revelation of the glory and honor of God (i. 16. iff. J:
'* That our salvation was a matter of concern to God in such a
way that, not forgetful of himself, he kept his glory primarily in
view, and therefore created the whole world to this end, that it
might be the theatre of his glory" (C. R. xxxvi. 294). The
purpose of God therefore extends beyond the salvation of the
human race. It follows from the above that even the actions of
the wicked must be referred to the divine will. Calvin rejects
as frivolous the explanation of these as due to divinQ permissio
(i. 18. 2). It is to be said, on the contrary, that the will of
God **not only exerts its power in the elect, who are controlled
by the Holy Spirit, but also compels the reprobate to obedience "
(ib.). The application of these principles in the sphere of the
religious life leads to the theory of a double election (vid. sub),
namely, that the divine will leads the elect to the goal by caus-
ing duly appointed means to work upon them in a determinative
way. The elect, accordingly, do not die until they have been
regenerated and sanctified (iv. 16. 18). We have thus here,
as in Thomas or Zwingli, a religious determinism carried out to
its logical conclusions. The cosmic system has been established
by God as a complex of means inwardly adapted to the realiza-
tion of the end in view. Thus regarded, the adoption of the
particular means employed may be maintained as being a rational
necessity. Or, where there is an election, the redemption
through Christ, the church, and her means of grace are involved
in it as necessary means for its realization. This explains the
energy of the adherents of these views in prosecuting the work
of the church, with her means of grace and her morality ; for
these are the means requisite to the carrying out of the divine
purpose, which can only thus be realized. But now, as in
Luther's treatise upon the Enslaved Will, this logical structure is
apparently buttressed, but really broken down, by the introduc-
tion of the Scotist idea of the irresponsibility of the divine will.
The reason for the introduction of this idea is, as in Luther, easily
discovered. By the association of the divine will with a system
of earthly means, its absolute freedom and its exalted majesty
appear to be endangered. Hence the inner necessity of these
means is called in question, and their employment looked upon
as a fixed rule indeed, but their selection regarded as accidental,
and the original adoption of other means or
possibility of the
of the abolition of means asserted *' which means he cer-
all :
tainly employs in the calling of many, upon whom he be-

stows a true knowledge of himself by the illumination of the
Spirit inan internal way without the intervention of preaching '

*
(iv. 19; I. 5 in.). Even of Christ's work it must accord-

i6.
ingly be said '* not except
by the good pleasure of God could
:
it merit anything" (ii. 17. i).^ The aim of Calvin is clear

from such passages as iii. 23. 2 '' For
so truly is the will of God
:
the highest rule of right, that whatever he wills is, just because
he wills it, to be accounted right. Therefore when it is asked,
why the Lord did thus, the response must be, Because he wished
to do so. God is not, indeed, to be considered lawless {exlex),
'
'
for his will is the ** law of all laws; " but all seeking for the
ground of any divine appointment is forbidden. Its ground lies
simply in the will of God, as otherwise we would have to ac-
knowledge something superior to the divine will (ib., cf 5, C.
R. xxxvi. 115). Hence, the election of some men and rejec-
tion of others must be traced simply to the unrestrained will of
God^ (iii. 22. i). But just at this point this second line of
thought falls into the iirst. The will of God is alone the ground
of all events. As the ultimate end of all things is fixed by this
Will, so also the means by which that end is to be attained ; but
a rational necessity for the latter cannot from our point of view
be proved or maintained. This conclusion confirms our view of
the relation existing between the two lines of thought,^ a point
to which we shall recur (^[ 7 e).
5. The Sin of Adam consisted in disobedience (ii. i. 4). His
sinful character was handed down to his posterity: " From a
'
corrupt root have sprung corrupt branches. But no good end '
can be served by brooding over specific possibilities. It

is the divine appointment, that the sin of Adam should
become the sin of his posterity: **The cause of the con-
tagion lies neither in the substance of the flesh, nor in that of
the soul ; but because it has been thus ordained by God, that
man should hold or lose at the same time both for himself and
for his posterity whatever gifts God had at first conferred upon
^ This passage taken alone is not sufficient to appear in evidence, as we

must grant to SCHEIBE (Calv. Prad.-lehre, p. Iiof. ), for it merely asserts
that Christ was '* foreordained to the end that he might appease the wrath of
God by his sacrifice." But it must be studied in the light of Calvin's general
apprehension of the subject (vid. ii. 12. l) and the parallels in Luther's
writings have weight in deciding upon its proper interpretation (vid. supra,
p. 271).
2 Calvin rejects in connection the "profane" idea of "absolute
this
power." But what have we
in the above-cited passage, iv. 16. 19, but an
application of this idea that goes even beyond the position of Duns ?
^ This doctrinal conception of God is inferior to that of Luther in anima-
tion and consistent force, if for no other reason, because Calvin assumes a
two-fold source of our knowledge of God, t,, in the course of nature and
?*.
in Christ (i. 2. I ; v'. I f. ).

.
him" (ii. i. 7).^ Original sin is defined as ''the hereditary-

depravity and corruption of our nature which first makes
. . .
us subject to the wrath of God, then also produces in us works

which the Scriptures call works of the flesh (ib. 8) Thus the
'
' .
entire man is depraved: ''From the crown of the head to the

sole of the foot, not a spark of good can be found " (iii. 14. i).
The natural freedom of the will yet remains, but not as though
it had an equally free choice of good and evil, but because it
commits evil by free-will and not from coercion" (ii. 2. 7).

There still remain the natural talents, which are requisite for
the prosecution of political affairs, science, and art, although
they have also become depraved (ii. 2. 12. ff.).^
6. The consideratron of this our natural condition, combined
with the stress of the law (ii. 7. 2 f. 6 ff. ), awakens in man the
,
sense of helplessness (ii. 2. 11). Grace alone saves us, through

Christ. The purpose of God is the ' first cause
'
' of our salvation '
He appoints his only-begotten Son to be a "fountain of grace"

(ii. 17. i). Since now it was to be the mission of Christ, both
to convince men of the gracious disposition of God toward them,
making them his children, and to render satisfaction to the
Father in our stead, it was necessary that the Son of God should
become man, since for both the purposes indicated both divine
and human nature would be required in him (ii. 12. 1-3; iii.
II. 9). Yet we cannot speak here of an "absolute necessity,"
but only of the divine decree by which this was made the
method of our salvation (ii. 12. i).^ With this general pre-
mise, Calvin presents the mediatorial work of Christ under the
three aspects of the prophetic, royal, and high-priestly offices
(ii. 15). According to Hebr. i. i, Christ is the last and per-
fect revelation of God (ii. 15. i, 2). Endowed by God with
eternal power, he exercises spiritual and eternal dominion over
the church. " Such is the character of his government, that he
* Even here we can trace the influence of the Scotist element in Calvin's
conception of God but he rejects as insufficient the Scotist definition of origi-
;
nal sin, and frames his positive statement of the subject upon Augustinian
lines.
^ But conscience remains to man as the organ of innate natural law " It is :
afhrmed that the law of God, which we call the moral law, is nothing else
than the testimony of the natural law and the inner sense [conscietih'ae) of it
which has been inscribed by God upon the hearts of men" (iv. 20. 16. Cf
Luther, supra, p. 247, 243, u. 2). Similarly (ii. 8. i), where its ope-
ration is thus described " it sets before us the discernment between good and
:
evil, and thus accuses us when we depart from duty."

^ Calvin warns against "vain speculations," as to whether Christ would
have become man if there had been no need of redemption, since the Scrip-
tures present the incarnation as subordinate to the purpose, '* that he should,
as a victim, make satisfaction to the Father for us " (ii. 12. 4).
'
may share with us whatever he has received from the Father '
(ib. 4). As priest, finally, he procures for us the grace of God

by making atonement for us through his sacrifice and appeasing
the wrath of the Father (ii. 12. 3; 15. 6, ad placandam iram
*' He poured out his sacred blood as the price of redemp-
del).
tion, by which was extinguished the wrath {furor) of God
burning against us, and our iniquities also were purged " (C. R.
xxxiii. 339). But this result was achieved by the obedience
covering his entire earthly life (according to Rom. 5. 19). The
latter was manifested both in his sufferings and death, and
(according to Phil. 2. 7) in ** the other part of obedience which
he rendered in this life" (ii. 16. 5). In the course of this
obedience, he became an atoning sacrifice {yictima satisfactoria)^
the condemnation merited by our sins being visited upon him
(ib. 6. 5).^ The enduring of the wrath of God included also
the struggle with eternal death and condemnation ** Whence it
:
was necessary for him to wrestle, as it were, hand to hand with

the powers of hell and with the horror of eternal death"
(ib. 10). Not alone his body was the price of our deliverance,
*^but there was another greater and more excellent price, that
he endured in his soul the dire agonies of condemned and lost
man " (ib. ). Discrimination is made between the effects of the
death and of the resurrection of Christ. By the former, ''sin
is abolished and death destroyed," while by the latter *^ right-
eousness is restored {reparatd) and life established" (ib. 13}.

The ascended Lord ministers in heaven as our advocatus et
intercessor^ attracting the eye of the Father from our sins upon
his righteousness. He also sanctifies us from heaven by his
Spirit (ib. 16).
If we disregard thethree-fold division of the work of Christ,
which, in Calvin's discussions as elsewhere, does not prove
helpful in elucidating the subject, we may trace a clear line of
thought. The human race was, as sinful, subject to the wrath
and curse of God. The God-man endured this wrath and curse
in obedience to the divine will, without perishing beneath the
burden. He thereby secured the forgiveness of sins and aboli-
tion of all penalties, as well as the positive bestowal of grace
upon man, which he now, as the Ascended Lord, administers
through the Spirit. This leaves only the question of the existence
of wrath and love together in God. It is, says Calvin, a peda-
gogical mode of speech, when the Scriptures represent God as the
1 The dominant idea in this connection is that of satisfaction. It is only

incidentally that he introduces, in ii. 17, the idea of merits without et all
designing thereby to change the general conception of the subject. Cf.
RiTSCHL, Rechtf u. Vers, ii., ed. 2, 228.
THEOLOGY OF CALVIN. 40I
enemy of the sinner (ii. i6. 2). It is however fully justified ;
for as God is righteousness, he cannot love sin. As sinners, we

rest under his wrath. Yet even thus we are still his creatures,
and his love therefore goes out toward us, so that his love became
the motive (Eph. i. 4) for the mission of Christ (ii. 16. 3, 4).^
Love is accordingly the fundamental attitude of God toward the
elect of the race. On account of sin, wrath is also awakened, but
this is dissipated by the work of Christ which was planned and
executed by love (ii. 17. 2). It might here easily have occurred
to Calvin to make this work of Christ also the principle of the
effectual renewal of the race, but he does not broach this idea.^
On the contrary, it was clearly his conception, that *'God, to
whom we were odious on account of sin, was reconciled by the
death of his Son, so that he is propitious toward us" (ii. 17. 3).
Thus the objective reconciliation of God is the ground of the
effectual bestowal of grace. This type of doctrine forms an
average presentation of the ideas upon the atonement in the
Reformation period.^
7. From the work of Christ, Calvin turns to the Application of
Redemption to the individual soul. As he describes the course
of man's renewal and, in this connection, develops the idea of
justification, he not only brings into play his great systematic
talent, but reveals especially his profound appreciation of the
original aims of Luther. Christ is the Head of the human race.
What he by his sufferings and works secured from the Father
becomes ours by virtue of fellowship with him (iii. i. i). This
occurs, however, through the imparting of his Holy Spirit to us:
*' by the grace and virtue of his Spirit we are made
members of
him, so that he holds us in union with himself (^siib j-<?), and we
in turn possess him " (ib. 3). (tz) The essential thing which
the Spirit works in us is Faith (ib. 4). By faith we apprehend
Christ and his kingdom (iii. 2. i, 6): '* Faith itself is a certain
infallible and secure possession of those things which have been
promised us by God" (ib. 41 ; cf. iii. 3. i). It is not "a
'
certain assent to the evangelical history, but the apprehending
'
of God revealed in Christ (ib. i); not the regarding as true that
^ Calvin here follows Augustine. See in Joh. tract., no. 6.

2 Cf. the rejection of the idea, that Christ's righteousness is given to us only
as an example for imitation, ii. I. 6.
^ The theological difficulties connected with this conception are not over-
come by Calvin, This will be the more evident, if we remember that here too
the idea of the irresponsibility of the divine action appears as a disturbing
feature, and if we have in mind the complications inevitably attending the
conception of a predestination according to which the work of Christ is avail-
able only for the elect.
26
'
which the church instructs us to believe/ but the recognition of

the fact that God is through Christ gracious to us (ib. 2),
together with the repose of the heart in this assurance (7). We
believe, not only with the understanding, but from the bottom of
our hearts (36). Faith is a ''knowledge of the divine will
toward us," united with a firm conviction of the truth of revela-
tion. '^ But the foundation of this (knowledge) is a presumed
conviction concerning the truth of God '^ (^praesiunta de veritate

del persuasio') (6. 14, 15). Thus is derived the definition of
'^ We may say that it
faith : is a firm and certain knowledge
(^cognitio) of the divine benevolence toward us, which, the truth

of the free promise in Christ having been established, is through
the Holy Spirit revealed to our minds and sealed to our hearts
'
(7 ) .Faith is the firm conviction of the grace of God, together

with the sense of repose and security begotten of such con-
viction. *' In short, no one is truly a believer unless, assured
by firm conviction that God is to him a propitious and benevo-

lent Father, he promises to himself all things from the divine
goodness " (16).^ Upon the ground of this, '* it is a firm and
solid confidence (^fiducia) of the heart, by which we securely
acquiesce in the mercy of God promised to us through the
gospel " (C. R. xxxiii. 333 f. ). Since this faith is the appro-
priation of Christ, it not only assures to man the forgiveness of
sins, but also constitutes the beginning of a new life in him.
'^ Christ cannot be known except in connection with the sancti-
fication of his Spirit. It follows, ,that faith can by no means be

separated from pious affection " (iii, 2. 8). Thus by faith we are
united to Christ and become partakers of all his gifts and
blessings (ib. 35). It follows, that faith essentially lays hold of
the promises of God ; but it also '' obediently accepts his com-
mandments " (29). It is noticeable, further, that Calvin lays
more stress than Luther upon the intellectual element of faith.
{f) Faith leads to Repentance (iii. 3. i), /. e.^ with faith a
new moral condition is inaugurated (ib. 2).^ But repentance is
conversion and regeneration extending through the whole life of
the believer. **Thus repentance might be defined to be the
^ This excludes implicit faith in the Catholic sense. Yet Calvin acknowl-
edges a kind of implicit faith, in that there may be, as in the case of the dis-
ciples, some belief before full enlightenment, though of course only as a Jidei
praeparatiOy or iniiitwi. See 1. c. ^ 4 f.
,
^ The itrm persuasio (conviction) is characteristic of Calvin's expositions of
faith
and was so from the beginning see C. R. xxix. 56; xxxiii. 334. It
appears to have been derived from Bucer (supra, p. 392 n. 3).
^ We are therefore not to insert a "space of time" between faith and
repentance. Nor is repentance to be confused with the timor initialis which
often precedes the reception of grace, ii. 3. 2.
'
true conversion of our life to God, proceeding from a sincere and

serious of God, and consisting in the mortification of
fear
our flesh and of the old man, and in vivification by the Spirit '
(iii. 3. 5). *'I interpret repentance therefore with one word

. regeneration, whose scope is nothing else than that the
. .
image of God ... be re-formed in us" (ib. 9). Repentance

is therefore the state of regeneration, and one of its essential ele-
ments is faith. Without faith, there can be no repentance

(ib. 5). This repentance consists in mortification, or anguish
of soul, in view of recognized sin, together with the crucifying of
the old man, and vivification, or the ''effort to live holily and
piously " (ib. 3. 8). Both are results flowing from fellowship
with Christ (9). Both penitence and the new moral striving in
repentance are wrought through Christ and the blessings of his
kingdom (19). The antecedent fear {twwr initialis) which fre-
quently precedes this state is not to be included under repent-
ance (2). These statements lead us in the path which Luther
followed during the controversy upon confession and absolution
(supra, p. 2 38f. ),* There is no thought in this connection of the
influence of the law/-^ But the Christian possesses this new life
only in a constant conflict of self-preservation (ib. 10.). The
goal toward which he strives is the actual manifestation of the
filial character bestowed upon him (iii. 8. i). As an external
means to the attainment of his goal, the law is mentioned (ii.
iii. 19. 2), as also the example of Christ. '^ He adds,
7. 12 f .
;
that Christ has been set before us as an example, whose image we

'
should express in our lives (iii. 8.3). But the goal of ' evan -
'
'
gelical perfection " Christians cannot attain in this life j yet it is

their duty to strive earnestly to advance upon the road which
leads toward it (ib. 5) and, in this way, in obedience to the
divine will, to promote the glory of God (iii. 7. i, 2)}
(c) Now only does Calvin treat of Justification. This arrange-
ment of topics does not, however, by any means imply that justi-
fication is to be understood, as in the Roman Catholic system, as
Differently conceived in the first edition of the Institution where Calvin

*
limits repentance to *' mortification of the flesh,'' denying, however, that the
latter can exist without faith (xxx. 149).
^ In Calvin's doctrine of the law, we are taught that the law fills the sinner
with a sense of his unrighteousness, in order that he may feel his need of
grace (iii. 7. 6, 8). Since this influence of the law is exerted upon such as
yet lack faith (ib. 11. 12), there is always in Calvin's mind a stage of con-
scious condemnation under the law as an experience preparatory to evangelical

repentance a stage which finds a parallel in the Catholic attrition (cf.
supra, p. 251 n.).
^ In this connection, Calvin treats of evangelical asceticism, iii. 3. 16;
iii. 8, cf. iv. 12. 15. See also his critique of Stoic ethics, iii. 8. 9.
4C'4 HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
a result of effectual grace. The meaning is, that the fellowship

with Christ which we secure in faith brings to us a double grace.
First, on account of his innocence we are reconciled to God ;
and, secondly, *' that, sanctified by his Spirit, we may practice
innocence and purity of life " (iii. ii. i). In thus understand-
ing justification as intimately connected with the new life spring-
ing from faith, Calvin falls back into the original channel of
early Reformation thought. Justification and sanctification can-
not be separated de facto : '' for, since God really renews for the
practice of righteousness those whom he graciously regards as
righteous, he combines that gift of regeneration with this gra-
cious acceptance." But it does not follow from this that the two
conceptions dare be confounded, as was done by Osiander (ib.
6; cf. iii. ii. lo ; i6. i). Justification is God's regarding of
the sinner for Christ's sake as righteous. "He is justified by
faith who, shut out from the righteousness of works, apprehends

by faith the righteousness of Christ, clothed in which he appears
in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as righteous." It is the
*
' acceptance by which God regards us, having been received into
his grace as righteous." It consists, accordingly, in the "re-
mission of sins " and in the " imputation of the righteousness of
Christ " (ib. 2). The consciousness of righteousness does not,
therefore, at all rest upon the beginnings of the new life or its
works (3. 2), but solely upon the gracious imputation of the
obedience of Christ. " What else is it to locate our righteous-
ness in the obedience of Christ, than to assert that we are for his
sake alone accounted righteous, because the obedience of Christ
is said to be accepted for us as though it were our own? " (23).
Although it is thus perfectly clear that the assurance of salvation de-

pends solely upon divine grace, yet it dare not be forgotten that
this assurance can never arise nor be preserved unless there is first
a living fellowship with Christ. " We may distinguish between
them, yet Christ contains them both (justification and sanctifica-
tion) in himself. Dost thou desire therefore to attain righteous-
ness in Christ ? It is necessary for thee first to possess Christ.
But thou canst not possess (him) unless thou becomest a partaker of
his sanctification, because he cannot be rent asunder and made of
no effect. . . It is hence clear how it is true that we are not justi-
fied without works, nor yet by works, since in the fellowship (^par-
ticipatio) of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained sanctifi-
cation no less than justification " (iii. 16. i; xxxiii. 335). As
thus with faith the new life is effected in man by the Spirit, there
is at the same time implanted in him an active, ethical principle,
as the organ with which, despite all the imperfections and defects
of the incipient new life, to apprehend the pardoning grace of
)5
;
God. and confidence in God not

Believers attain assurance
through the of regeneration
''gift
which, as it is always muti-
lated in this flesh, so also contains in itself mutiform material to
awake doubt but, '
because they are implanted in the body of
'
'
'
Christ, they are freely accounted righteous. For, so far as justi-

fication is concerned, faith is a merely passive thing, contributing
nothing to our conciliating of the grace of God, but receiving
from Christ what is lacking in us " (iii. 13. 5 ; cf. 11. 11 14. _;
gff.). This way of regarding the matter is said to give the

glory to God, as well as to actually assure rest and peace to us (iii.
13. I ff.).^ It is just as evidently in harmony with the pro-
foundest impulses of the teaching of the Reformation as it sur-
passes the formulas of the later Melanchthonian doctrine.
(f/) For a proper understanding of the evangelical doctrine
of justification, it is further necessary to note the significance of
Christian liberty, which, for Calvin, implies three things (
i :
That from our conception of justification we exclude all thought

of legal righteousness (iii. 19.2). (2) That we obey God, not
under the pressure of the law, but willingly (ib. 4 ; cf. ii. 7. 14).
(3J That we do not allow the religious life to be bound or de-
termined by any external things or adiaphora whatsoever (ib. 7 )
although the law teaches us to recognize really good works
(ii. 8. 5).
Calvin concludes this presentation of the order of salva-
(^)
tion^ with a discussion of Election. The place thus assigned
in itself reveals the practical interest which he felt in this doc-
trine. Man can be certain of his salvation only if the latter is
foundedupon the eternal will of God ; and this certainty is but in-
creased by the fact, '* that he does not choose all for the hope of
salvation, but gives to some what he denies to others " (iii. 21.
i). But with this is combined another thought, arising from the
conception of the divine nature. According to the doctrine of
Determinism, all things that occur must be understood as caused
by the divine determination. But the call to salvation fails en-
tirely to reach some, and with others it is ineffectual. In both
cases, the cause must be located in the divine will (ib. i init. ).
This explains the importance attached by Calvin to the doctrine
of predestination. Redefines the term as follows: '* We call
the eternal decree of God by which he has determined with him-
^ The efficient cause of salvation is, therefore, the mercy of God ; the mate-
rial ca-uso., Christ with his obedience ; \.\iQ formal or 2 nstrwjiental coMstj faith,
iii. 14. 17.

2 Prayer is treated of (iii. 20), between Liberty and Election, as the princi-
pal exercise of faith " and as the daily means for the reception of divine bless-
ings.
self what he wishes to have come to pass concerning every man,

predestination. For not all are created under the same condi-
tion {condido)y but to some eternal life is foreordained, and to
some eternal damnation. Therefore, accordingly as anyone has
been formed for one or the other end, we say that he has been
predestinated to life or to death " (ib. 5). When, therefore, God
wins for himself particular men by calling, justification, and sanc-
tification, this achievement accomplished in time is an expression
of his eternal will. But it is just as truly an expression of his
will, when this does not occur in the case of others, but in its place
a devoting to destruction {exitio devovere) (ib. 7). But it is im-
possible to refer the election and not the reprobation to a posi-
tive act of the divine will (iii. 23. i ; ib. 8 :*' Why do we say
* permit *
unless because he wills ? " ) which is evident enough in
,
view of the determinism of the system. Just as God has chosen

some, he has also rejected all those whom he has seen fit (C. R.
xxxvi. 109). On the other hand, the Scotist element in the
conception of God (supra, p. 397) here asserts itself, since the
only reason which can be assigned for the election of some and
the reprobation of others is the purely arbitrary will of God
(ib, 2.5). But if God thus foreordains the final destiny, together
with the means which bring it about, then must the first occasion
for this evil destiny of man have also been foreordained by him,
/. e.:
*' God not only foresaw the fall of the first man and the
ruin of his posterity in him, but appointed it by his own will."

In general, it is his special prerogative ** to rule and govern all
things by his hand" (ib. 7). His will is ** the necessity of
things." He willed that Adam should fall, and that all the
misery of sin should descend upon his posterity. Why he so
wills we know not. This does not, however, in Calvin's view,
exclude the opinion that man of himself found occasion for the
'* Therefore man fell, the provi-
fall, and by it became guilty :
dence of God so ordaining; but he fell by his own fault " (8 ;
cf. xxxvi. no). All attempts to cast reproach upon God in

view of this double election must fail, because no one has
authority to coerce the divine will, and because no wrong is
done to sinners by their reprobation. The justice of God is
made manifest in them, as his mercy in the elect (11 f. ).
Calvin's theory of predestination goes beyond that of Bucerin
that it lays special stress upon the double predestination. His
view embraces chiefly the following points : (i) The idea that
everything which occurs on earth is a direct result of divine
causality. Hence the divine call with its results is but the carry-
ing out of predestination (iii. 24. I, 10). Only the elect attain
to real faith (iii. 2. 11); and they alone receive the gift of per-
severance and gain the assurance of salvation (iii. 24. 6).^ In

this way the sole sovereignty of God and his glory and honor are
displayed in all earthly events (vid. citations in Scheibe, C*s
Praedestinationslehre, p. ii5ff. ). (2) Thus our salvation, being
based upon the eternal will of God, is absolutely assured. (3)
Predestination embraces a double election that in some men
:
only the divine justice, while in others his mercy also is made
manifest, has no other ground than the will of God. At this
point we observe a Scotist influence moulding the thought.^
If we now seek to estimate the significance of this doctrine in the
Calvinistic theology, it is not correct either to see in it his central* *
dogma" (ScHWEiZER, Centraldogmen, 57), or to pronounce it

i.
an *' appendage " attached to the doctrine out of regard for the
authority of Paul (Ritschl, Jarbb. f. deutsche Theol., 1868,
108). It is not the former, as the doctrines of redemption and
justification are not deduced from it ; ^ nor the latter, as
exegetical considerations have but a subordinate place in this con-
nection. It is, however, true that this doctrine has for Calvin an
entirely different significance than for Luther. For both it is a
subsidiary conception. Calvin bases upon it the certainty of sal-
vation ; Luther, thesinner's lack of liberty.^ But this conception
found in Calvin an important point of attachment in his idea of
God as the Almighty Lord, who works all things, and to whose
glory all things minister. The God of Luther is the Almighty
Loving-will revealed in Christ. As Calvin's thought was not
controlled by Luther' s vivid sense of Christ, so, in his conception
of God, sovereignty and omnipotence assumed the place of
prominence rather than love. It was to him not an intolerable
thought, that God, for the display of his justice, never felt any
love whatsoever for a portion of the human race. From this, it
may be readily understood that predestination should have con-
^ At seen the injustice of the charge brought against Calvin,

this point is
that this doctrine leads to moral indifference ; for God is represented as work-
ing effectually in the predestinated to the end of the sanctification, so that pre-
destination is the most powerful stimulus to the new life, iii. 23. 12.
^ This is the case when Calvin appeals only to the divine will as such (iii.
23. 2); but he also at times pointed to the inscrutability of the divine purposes
to the human intelligence {e. g.^ iii. 21. I ; C. R. xxxvi. 10). This is evi-
dently another thought. In the former case, the course of events, being de-
termined by the will of God, is without cause and incomprehensible :here,
being divine, it is inscrutable by the finite reason. In the one instance, Calvin
may be said to be Scotist in conception in the other, Thomistic or Augus-
;
tinian.
^ Let it be observed, e- g-, that predestination is not in itself justification,
but the latter becomes a reality only in those who believe.
* Luther used predestination chiefly as an argument against the Pelagian
doctrine of sin Calvin, against the Pelagian doctrine of grace.

;
tinually grown in importance for him, and that the theologians

who attached themselves to him should have made it the first prin-
ciple of their theology.^ Compare Scheibe, C's Praedestinations-
lehre, p. 117 f.
8. The doctrine of the Church logically follows the discussion
of the redemption wrought by Christ and its attainment through
the Holy Spirit, (a) The Church is the totality of all the pre-
destinated (iv. I. 2, 7 '* it comprehends, not only the sancti-
:
fied who dwell upon earth, but all the elect who have existed
from the beginning of the world"), as well as also the totality
of all those who have been led by the Holy Spirit to fellowship
with Christ (ib. 3 fin., 7). This coordination of the elect and
the sanctified may be understood when we remember that elec-
tion is realized in the individual through sanctification. The
elect have now a desire to influence one another. In this way
the church becomes also a communion: ''in order that they
may mutually distribute among themselves whatever blessings
God confers upon them" (ib. 3). This takes place through
external means, /. e., word and sacrament, which human weak-
ness requires and which God has therefore bestowed upon the
** God inspires faith in
church (ib. i) : us, but by the agency
(ôrgano) of his gospel." In harmony with this, the develop-
ment of the believer is secured only ''by the tuition of the
church " (5). Thus the entire empirical activity of the church is
brought into the relation of a means to the work of salvation im-
plied in predestination. (<^) The church, as the totality of the ^/^(T/,
is invisible and an object of faith. But, inasmuch as the elect are
found in an empirical communion, which has its marks in the pro-
fession of faith in God and the true doctrine, in a common par-
ticipation in baptism, the Lord's Supper, and works of love, as
well as in the maintenance of the office of the ministry, we are
to acknowledge also a visible church, which includes hypocrites
among its members. We are to believe in the former ; of the
latter, it is said : we are commanded to respect it, and to culti-
* *
vate its communion " ( 7 ) Since this attitude toward the visible
.
church is required on account of its recognized aim, the title

** church " in the creed may also be applied with some reserva-
tion (aliquatemis) to the visible church (3 init.). Further, we

mav always from the presence of word and sacrament infer the
presence of an actual church, as the former can never remain fruit-
less (ib. 9, 10). Severance from the (visible) church is, there-
fore, also a denial of God and Christ (10). This view of the
^ This point requires further elucidation through historical research;

Ritschl's investigations are here not satisfactory.
church approaches that of Luther, as the attempt is here also

made to deduce from the presence of the means of grace the as-
surance that the true church is hkewise present. But there remains
the difference, that for Luther grace is always effectually present
with the means of grace, whereas Calvin influenced by his con-
ception of God
regards the external means of grace as, after all,
merely symbols of a possibly accompanying divine influence (ib.
6; iv. 14. 8; i6. 19). Since there is, accordingly, such a thing
as a proclarnation of the word without an accompanying influence
of the Holy Spirit, the motto: ''Where the word, there the
church," has not the profound basis for Calvin which it finds in the
teaching of Luther.
(r) But Calvin always antagonized with the greatest energy
the conclusion which sectarian leaders might easily deduce from
his premises, that the external organization of the church is of
small importance. He emphasized the necessity of ecclesiastical
forms and ordinances more strongly than Melanchthon himself.
The administration of the means of grace and the preservation of
pure doctrine necessitated the divine appointment of definite
ecclesiastical offices. "For this reason it has seemed good
that the spiritual government, such as our Saviour has
indicated and appointed by his word, should be reduced to
good form. . . First, there are four orders, or kinds of
.
offices, which our Saviour has appointed for the government of

his church : namely, pastors ; then teachers ; after that, elders ;
fourthly, deacons" (xxxviii. a. 92f. ; cf. i5ff. ). Christ has,
therefore, instituted ** a ministry of men . . as it were a vica-
.
rious work" (iv. 3. i); ''he has shown the human ministry
which God employs for the governing of the church to be the
chief nerve by which believers are held together in one body
"
(iv. 3. 2). It is not an ideal plan of organization, resulting with
Historical necessity from the nature of the tasks assigned, which
here confronts us, but a divine commandment, /. e., a precept of
the old divinely-ordained ecclesiastical law. It must be remem-
bered, further, that these officers have not only the duty of
preaching, teaching, and the care of the poor ; but, above all, the
duty of exercising Christian discipline. *'
Just as the saving
doctrine of Christ is the soul of the church, so this discipline
stands for its strength (pro nerv/s).''' Discipline restrains the
opponents of Christian doctrine ; it is the goad for the indolent
and the rod for the erring (iv. 12. i). The consistorium, com-
posed of spiritual and lay-elders, or the "assembly of the
elders," exercises the disciplinary power, which includes that of
excommunication (ib. 2). Upon the particulars of this author-
ity it is not the province of the History of Doctrines to enter.
But it is important to recognize clearly the fact, that Calvin

believed in a divinely-appointed form of church government. Cf
SoHM, Kirchenrecht, i. 648 ff. Cornelius, in Abhandl. d. bayr.
Akad. der Wiss. Hist. CI., vol. xx., 1893, 251 ff.
{d) Since the church has, in this way, a form of government
given by God himself and therefore immutable, the sphere of her
independence of the state is a wider one than upon the territory
of the Saxon reformation. But even in Geneva the idea of
Calvin was but imperfectly carried out,^ since the state retained
in its hand as well the regulation of the ecclesiastical judicatory
as the confirmation of the election of clergymen ; and further-
more, the extension of moral discipline required an enlarged
co-operation of the state in the sphere oi religion and morals.
Calvin, therefore, found it possible to carry out his ideas of re-
form only by regarding the civil authority as the agency for the
exercise of Christian discipline, or by ascribing to the state the
duty, in its service of God, of putting into execution the ideals
of the church even by worldly means. ^ ''And it is the duty
of the chief magistrates to consider whom they serve in their
office, and not to permit any harm to the ministers and vicars
of God. But their whole care should properly lie in this, that
they may preserve the pubhc form of religion unpolluted, that they
may mould the life of the people by the best laws, and that
they may secure the prosperity and tranquillity of their realms
both publicly and privately " (C. R. xxxiii. 354 ; cf. iv. 20. 3,
2). The state is therefore under obligation to punish every
uprising against the recognized religion, and to be solicitous for
the observance of the commandments, not only of the second
table of the decalogue, but of the first table as well. This is
attested not only by the history of the Israelites, but even by the
view of heathen nations, which makes the guarding of piety the
first duty of the state (iv. 20. 3, 9). Of course, in so doing the
state dare make no change in the divine law (ib. 3). In reality,
it will therefore only be required to carry out what is prescribed
by the incumbents of the spiritual offices. From this point of

view we can understand the personal attitude assumed by Calvin
in Geneva, as well as the drastic rigor of the government and its
administration under his leadership. Since every sin is an act
'
"The consistent application of Calvin's ideas of church government first
became possible in those Reformed churches which were compelled to develop

their polity in opposition to the authority of the State." SoHM, KR. i.
655 f. ; cf. Weber, Geschichtl. Darstellung d. Calvinism, im Verhaltnis zum
Staat, 1836.
^ It must here be borne in mind that Calvin most strenuously discriminated
** spiritual kingdom of Christ" and the "civil
hi principle between the
government."
THEOLOGY OF CALVIN. 4II
of rebellion against the divine majesty, it is also to be visited

with the severest civil penalties (cf. Elster, Jarbb. 1. National-
okon., vol. 31, p. 182 if., 207 ff,).^ Hence, Calvin's reforma-
tion was conducted after the manner of the theocracy. God is
the Lord, whose worship the church desires and the state com-
pels. But, inasmuch as this attitude of the civil government
toward the church in the end coincides with the ecclesiastical
office endued with divine authority, the coincidence of Calvin's
ideal oi the church with the conceptions of the Middle Ages is
yet far more evident than in the case of Zwingli.^ And in this
parallel we are confirmed by observing the narrow spirit, hostile
to all natural enjoyment and social pleasure, which marked the
civil administration of Calvin (vid., e. g., the laws concerning
luxury in Gaberel, hist, de I'eglise de Geneve, i., 1858, p.
339 ff. ). It is manifest, therefore, that the enlarging of the
reformatory aims of Luther was accomplished only by re-adopt-
ing the ideals of the Middle Ages.
9. We are led to consider, finally, the doctrine of the Sacra-
ments. Calvin defines a sacrament as an *' external symbol by
which the Lord seals to our consciences the promises of his be-
nevolence toward us, and we, in turn, testify our piety to-
. . .
ward him " (iv. 14. i). The sacrament itself is thus a symbolic
confirmation of the grace announced in the words of insti-
tution (ib. 4).
But it is more a sure pledge of his grace (7).
It confirms to us what the word has taught us (8). But the
sacrament in itself is just as little accompanied by the Spirit of
God as is the word. The Spirit follows the word and sacra-
ment, and only where this inner teacher {interior magisier') in-
wardly opens, moves, and enlightens the heart, do they bring
grace to man (ib. 8-12 ; cf. Consens. Tigur. 16). Hence, for
the unbelieving, they are merely signs without content (15).
Here again the idea of predestination asserts itself only the pre-
destinated receive anything through the sacrament. In them
God works immediately, just as all things are only means
^ C. R. xli. 76 : " The great and enormous corruptions which I see every-
where constrain me to beseech you to have solicitude that men may be kept in
strict and honest discipline. Above all, the honor of God is maintained in
punishing the crimes of which men have not been accustomed to take much
account. I say it, since larcenies, fightings, and extortions will sometimes be
severely punished, because men are injured. Yet they will suffer lewdness,
adultery, drunkenness, and blasphemy of the name of God, either as lawful
things or as of very little importance. Now we see, on the contrary, in what
esteem God holds them. He declares how precious his name is to him. It
is not possible then that he should allow such wrongs to be unpunished."
^ Although, of course, even in Calvin's view this office has no authority to do
more than maintain and execute the commandments of the Bible. But this
does not essentially transcend the limits of the theory of the Middle Ages.
through which his agency is exerted. Not to them, but to God

alone, belongs the glory (12).
{b) Baptism is *' like some sealed diploma " and testifies to
us the forgiveness of sins (iv. 15. i). The recollection of his
baptism serves the believer therefore as a standing testimonial,
that God will forgive us our sins (3). It thus takes the place of
the Romish sacrament of repentance (4). Baptism, further,
introduces us into fellowship with Christ, with his death and
resurrection, for our mortificatio7i and vivification (5). Through
it we become partakers of all the blessings of Christ (6). As in
his general view of the sacraments, so also here in his doctrine
of baptism, which is in thorough harmony with the former,
Calvin goes further than Zwingli. While the latter regarded
the sacraments as purely symbolical, there was, in the view of
Calvin, a real divine energy connected with the administra-
tion of these symbols.^ But this energy is not involved in the

mere external ceremony, but accompanies it only, however, in
the case of the predestinated. This view thus becomes in form
analogous to the Scotist theory of the sacraments (see p. 127),^
except that with Calvin the accompanying divine energy is
limited to the elect.
(^c) We find that in Calvin also, as so frequently in other cases,
the doctrine of the Lord's Supper oversteps to a certain extent,

the limits of the general definition of the sacraments. In this
sacrament we receive the body of Chtist, '* in order that, as we
see ourselves made partakers of it, we may assuredly believe that
the virtue of his vivifying death shall become efficacious in us."
It is, as it were, a reminder of the covenant established through
the blood of Christ (iv. 17. i). As bread and wine become
one with us and nourish our bodily life, so the Lord's Supper
effects a real spiritual fellowship with Christ, which nourishes our
soul (ib. 3,. 5). As we receive the body of Christ, we experience
the continuous efficacy of his sacrifice, and his blood as a *' per-
petual drink." There is, therefore, here a real presence of
Christ, even a presence of his corporeal nature (^Leiblichkeif)',
^ An evidence of this is seen in Calvin's idea, that, in the case of children,
regeneration is effected in an initial way by baptism without the word : " We

confess that the word of the Lord is the one and only seed of regeneration ;
but we deny that it is to be inferred from this that infants cannot be regener-
ated by the power of God, which is to him as easy and plain as it is to us in-
comprehensible and wonderful" (iv, 16. 18). Why should not God, since
he can awaken faith even without the word, bestow also upon children "some
share of his grace," or a certain knowledge of God, *' the full abundance of
which they are soon after to enjoy ? " (ib. 19). Cf. Luther, supra, p. 285, n. 2.
^ As Duns denies that God binds his power to the sacraments (p. 127), so
Calvin says : ** No power is by us located in created things " (iv. 14. 12).
")
*' I declare that in the mystery of the Supper through the sym-
bols of bread and wine Chi'ist is truly offered to uSy even as to

his body and blood" (ii). It is not sufficient to speak merely
of a spiritual fellowship with Christ, since he has designated his
flesh and his blood as veritable food (7). Christ, coming from
heaven, has infused into his flesh his life-giving energy, '* in order
that thence the communication of life might extend to us
(8). From his flesh, life flows into us as from a gushing foun-
tain (9). But the body of Christ is now far removed from us in
space : how then can his flesh come to us and serve us as food ?
This occurs through the "secret power of the Holy Spirit:
therefore what our mind does not comprehend, faith accepts, /. e.,
that the Spirit truly unites things which are separated in locali-
ties." We must, therefore, believe that where the visible sym-
bols are offered to us, " the body itself is also certainly given to
us" (10; cf. C. R. xxxvii. 72). The reception of the body
takes place therefore by means of faith (5, 11, 32).
Accordingly, Calvin teaches a real presence of Christ,^ which
is mediated through the symbols of the bread and wine he even
speaks of a presence and energy of the body of Christ. But it
is, according to i Cor. x. 16, a y.tn'JiO'îa of the body of Christ ;
*' but a communication is something different from the body it-
self " (22}. We do not receive the body of Christ, "but all
the blessings which Christ has offered to us in his body " (C. R.
xxix. 123). If we would understand this view, as contrasted
with that of Luther, we must bear three things in mind ( i :
That the "substance" of the sacrament is "Christ, with his

"
death and resurrection." (2) That the " prodigious ubiquity
is unconditionally excluded. If we do not wish to volatihze the
body of Christ into a phantasm, we must firmly maintain his cir-
cumscribed local existence in heaven (12, 26, 29, 30). (3)
That, in strict consistency with the above, the presence of the
body of Christ is to be represented as a presence mediated by
the Spirit to faith, yet in such a way that " the flesh itself of
Christ does not enter into us" (10, 32). Calvin's view is,
therefore, clear. Christ is present in the Supper as he who in his
body and through it has accomplished our salvation his power :
{potential and efficacy (virtus') as Redeemer is present. " He is

always present with his own, breathing into them his life he ;
lives in them, sustains them, confirms them, quickens them,

keeps them safe, not otherwise than if he were present in body :
finally, indeed, he feeds them with his very body, the commu-
^ He
expressly guards himself against ihe misunderstanding : *'As though,
when say that Christ is received by faith, I should wish to be understood as
I
meaning only by the mind and the imagination " (Jb. 11).
nion of which he infuses into them by the power of his Spirit.

In this way the body and blood of Christ are offered to us in the
sacrament " (18). The difference between this doctrine and that
of Luther is manifest. However emphatically Calvin maintains
the earlier position of Luther, that the significance of the body of
Christ consists in the presence, as a pledge to us, of him who has suf-
fered for us (supra, p. 287 f. ), yet the difference isalways equally
manifest
Calvin having in mind the spiritual influence, and
Luther the real bodily presence. When the question is raised,
whether Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper is nearer to that
of Luther or to that of Zwingli, the decision is usually, under
confessional bias, given in favor of the latter opinion.^ But when
it is remembered that, in contrast with Zwingli's purely subjective
commemorative view, Calvin maintains both a special ** presence

of the living Christ" (ApoL, vid. supra, p. 342) and the relig-
ious influences exerted by it, quite in the spirit of Luther/ the
conclusion may, nevertheless, be reached, with due account of
the differences above noted, that in his religious conception of
the sacrament Calvin stands nearer to Luther than to Zwingli.*
Calvin himself pronounced Zwingli's theory of the sacraments
profane (C, R. xxxix. 438). The words of institution are, ac-
cording to Calvin, to be understood as a metonomy, somewhat
as circumcision is called a covenant ; the Rock, Christ the Old ;
Testament sacrifices, atonements. But *' it does not only repre-

sent, as a bare and empty token, but also truly offers " (ib. 21).
Such is Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. It affords addi-
tional evidence of his dependence upon Luther in his apprehen-
sion of religious truth.
10. The significance of Calvin for the History of Doctrines
lies in the fact, that his view of Christianity and the church ex-
presses in classical completeness the conception of the Reforma-
tion which prevailed in Switzerland and Southwestern Germany.
To the wide acceptance which this type of doctrine gradually
^ ScHWEiZER, Glaubenslehre d. ev.-ref. Kirche, ii. 656. Hagenbach,
DG., ed. 6, 556. Thomasius, DG. ed. 2, 550, 554 f.
ii.,
^ The sacrament not only brings the fullness of the gifts of Christ and fills
us with the assurance of eternal life, ' but it even makes us secure in regard to
*
the immortality of our flesh" (ib. 32); it also lays upon us the duty of
brotherly love (44)-
^ This also throws light upon the relation of Bucer's theory and the later
teaching of Melanchthon to Luther. For Luther's mild judgment of Calvin

and his doctrine of the Lord's Supper, vid. Stahelin, C. Leben, i. 226 f.
Luther firmly maintained his own position to the last, notwithstanding the
well-known utterance said to have been made to Melanchthon. See Kostlin,
Luther, ii., ed. 4, 627 f,, and Stud. u. Krit., 1875, 373 ^-y ^s also Diestel-
MANN, Dieletzte Unterredung Luther's mit Mel, lib. d. Abendmalsstreit, and
especially Haussleiter, Neue kirchl. Ztschr., 1898, 831 ff.
attained, we can here merely refer in passing.^ The close con-

nection between Calvin's conception of the central ideas of Chris-
tianity and Luther's underlying thoughts need not be further
emphasized. We must not allow the confessional conflict of the
following century to obscure for us the important fact, that the
two types of Reformation doctrine which gained ascendancy in
Protestantism, e., the type of Luther and Melanchthon and
/'.
that of Bucer and Calvin, are in essential accord in their under-

standing of faith and works, of justification and atonement, of
repentance and sanctification, in their recognition of the dogmas
of the ancient church, as well as in their rejection of the Roman
Catholic Pelagianism and hierarchism. At the same time, the
differences must not be overlooked. But it is not correct, so
far as I am able to judge, to attribute these differences to a
religious conception begotten upon the territory of the church as
remoulded by the Reformation. Rather are they sufficiently

explained when studied from the purely historical point of

view -as the preservation and propagation, upon the territory of
the so-called Reformed Church, of ideals and doctrines of the
pre-reformation period. This is true, for example, (i) of the
aim and scope of the assumed task of practical reform, which in-
cluded a reformation of the moral life, to be enforced with
stringency and finding its justification in positive biblical ordi-
nances, and also a thorough revision and revolution of the
ecclesiastical system. (2) In this undertaking, the ecclesiastical
offices ordained of God come into prominence ; a covenant
must be formed between the civil authority and the church,
which involves a subordination of the former to the ordinances
of the latter. (3) The prevalent ideal of a practical life fre-
quently betrays a relationship with the medieval renunciation of
the world and of the natural impulses. (4) The Scriptures, as the
source of authority for the conduct of the reformation sought,
are verbally inspired ; both ideas being, as we have seen (supra,
p. 169 172, 192, ff.), embraced in the theory of the later
Middle Ages. (5) The conception of the sacraments is related
to the ideas of Erasmas, and reminds us of the Scotist-Nominalist
theory. (6) The difference in the doctrine of the Lord's
Supper rests chiefly upon the adherence to the Augustinian and
^ The influence of Calvin as a theologian upon his church exceeds that
exerted by Melanchthon, and even by Luther, in a similar respect upon their

followers; for it may be said, that his theology has' become the accepted doc-
tTine of the Reformed Church. Nearly all the later confessions reproduce his
formulas, and we may hence pass them by with slight notice. Calvin did not
leave behind him questionable coins, as did Melanchthon ; nor, on the other
hand, like Luther, uncoined gold.
6 ;
Scholastic idea of the corporeal nature of Christ as transported to

a heavenly place. (7) Even the determinism, which is a
natural outcome of the conception of God, is no new discovery,
but is the common factor in a number of reformatory movements
appearing in the Western church since the days of Augustine.
We need but briefly point to the Thomistic and Scotist elements
which appear concurrently.
It is precisely in this conception of the nature of God-^ more
in the practical, unwritten conception than in the theoretical
formulas that we find the basis of the peculiar character of the
Reformed view, and at this point accordingly begins the diver-
gence from the Lutheran view, God is, to pious minds in the
Reformed church, the Lord who rules omnipotently.^ The de-
velopment of the universe is the product of his sovereign will
its goal his honor or glory. But the sovereignty of God is dis-
played above all through the ''Law," which controls all life
and all its ramifications. All that is and is done in the
world, everything personal and natural, must subserve this end.
Obedience is the whole content of life. Natural inclinations are
bent and crushed beneath the pressure of the " law ;" the state
and society at large are agencies for its enforcement. There is
something *'unmodern " in this magniloquent portrayal of the
energyof obedience and the fanaticism of submission. We always,
when we allow the system as a whole to make appeal to us,
receive an impression of a piety in keeping with that of Augus-
tine and the Middle Ages. This impression is often confirmed in
a startling way by the history of the Reformed Church. This
history rests upon a foundation-wall of holy zeal, and a cloud of
strong-willed witnesses overshadows it. But the gospel, as it
appears in Paul and John, we find in clearer and brighter form
in Luther than in Calvin. The God of Calvin is the omnipotent
Will, ruling throughout the world ; the God of Luther is the
omnipotent energy of Love manifest in Christ. In the one case,
we have acts of compulsion even in the heart, subjection, law,
service ; in the other, inward conquest by the power of love,
free self-surrender, filial love without compulsion. The one
does not necessarily exclude the other ; but the tone and
emphasis give rise to the differences which undeniably exist.
From the practical energy of the Reformed ideals with which
praxis has not always been able to keep pace
the Lutheran
church may learn a valuable lesson. But when, in any age of
1 E,
g.j Heidelb. Cat., Niemeyer, p. 398:What dost thou understand by
the providence of God? The almighty and ever-present power of God, by
which he still upholds and also governs heaven and earth, together with all
created things, as with his hand.
CALVIN'S DOCTRINE OF THE LORD's SUPPER. 417
evangelical Christianity, faith grows dim, and love grows cold,

and it seems as though the gospel were no longer sufficient
to satisfy the advanced spirit of the *^ modern " world, then will
deliverance be found, not in the views of Calvin, but in return
to the gospel and the faith of Luther.^ Evangelical Christianity
has yet much to learn from her Luther.
80. The Tj'iumph of CalvirC s Doctrijte of the Lord^ s Supper.

Literature. Niemeyer, Collect, confessionum in ecclesiis reformatis,
1840. HUNDESHAGEN, Conflikte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherturas u. Calvin-
ismus in d. bern. Landeskirche, 1842. Pestalozzi, BuUinger, 1858, p,
229 ff., 373 ff. Stahelin, Calvin, ii. 91 ff.
1. Luther's severe condemnation of Zwingli in his '^Kurz. Be-
kenntnis vom h. Sakr.," 1545, induced Bullinger to revive the

Zvvinglian doctrine of the Lord's Supper in the baldest form
( Warhaftes Bekenntnis der Diener der Kirche zu Zurich " )
'
' At .
about the same time, a series of conflicts arose in the church at

Berne in consequence of the demand of the Council that all pas-
tors should accept the Zurich doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
Calvin took a hand in the controversy, as he had a large number
of adherents in the territory of Berne. Under his influence, the
Consensus Tigurinus appeared in A. D. 1549, setting forth the
doctrine as agreed upon between Bullinger and Calvin.^
2. The Consensus, while bringing the doctrine in outward form
nearer to the position held by Zwingli, is in substance Calvin-

istic. The sacraments are signs of recognition and commem-
oration (art. 7). Yet these signs are not empty, but accom-
panied by God with special exertions of his energy. With the
sacramental signs the believer also really receives Christ with all
spiritual gifts (9). More precisely speaking, this is true only in
the case of the elect (16, 17). A
bodily presence of Christ is
to be rejected (21, 24). The words of institution are to be
understood figuratively (^figiiratey 22).
3. The Reformed Confessions did not here depart from the
^ I cannot therefore agree with K. Muller (SymboUk, 540), who regards

it as " certain
that in the evangelical church of the future * ' the spirit of the
'
'
general Evangelical Reformed Church will be in the ascendancy," since

Luther's contributions to the church *' were substantially already adopted in
the sixteenth century." Miillerhas moreover acknowledged that in a certain
sense the Reformed Church stands nearer to Roman Catholicism than does the
Lutheran (p. 387 A.).
2 This document is pronounced by E. Stahelin (Gal V. ii. 121): " the solemn
act by which the Zwinglian and Calvinistic reformations were joined in ever-
lasting wedlock as the one great Reformed church.
27
8 .
teachings of Calvin. The sacraments are efficacious signs (êffi-

cacia signa) oi gxz.c^ (39, art. 35). Accordingly, with the recep-
tion of the bread and wine, there is an impartation of grace, not
only in that we are thereby enabled to realize the sacrifice of
Christ upon the cross, but also *' that
he himself feeds and re-
:
freshes my soul to eternal life with his crucified body and shed
blood as certainly as I receive the bread from the hand of
, . .
the administrator" (Heidelb. Cat., Nieraeyer, p. 409). Be-

lievers '* through the Holy Spirit receive also the flesh and blood
of the Lord, and are by these nourished pascuiitur^ unto eter- (^
nal life " (Conf. Helv. poster, a. 21). The body and blood of
Christ are thus really received, but by the soul in faith, their
presence being secured by an operation of the Holy Spirit.
When, e, ^. ,the Galilean Confession (a. 36) teaches *' nourishes :
and vivifies us with the substance (^substantia) of his body and

blood," this is at once (a. 37) explained to mean that the
body and blood are food and drink of the soul, as the bread and
wine of the body (cf. Westminster Conf. c. 29. 7 ; 39 a. 28.
Conf. Belg., Scot, i., Niemeyer, p. 386, 352). This is the Cal-
vinistic doctrine.
81. Fundamental Evangelical Principles in the Later Confes-

sions of the Reformed Church.
Sources. Cf. Niemeyer, 1. i;. K. MOller, Symbolik, 1896, p. 415 ff.,
445 ff-
1 The later Reformed Confessions all distinctly display the

controlling influence of the spirit of Calvin (cf. Conf. Gallicana,
1559. Conf. Czengerina, 1557. Conf. Belgica, 1566. The
39 Articles, 1562. Conf. Scoticana prior, 1560. Conf. Helve-
tica posterior, 1566. Heidelberg Catech., 1563. Westminster
Conf., 1646. Declaratio Thoruniensis, 1645). Of these vari-
ous confessions, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Con-
fession, and the Later Helvetic Confession attained the greatest
authority.
2. The fundamental evangelical ideas find clear expression in
these writings. For the sake of the and obedience of
satisfaction
Christ, God forgives the sins of those who
believe on Christ and
regards them as righteous '* : God, without any merit of mine,
out of pure grace, bestows upon and imputes to me the perfect
satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as though I
had never committed any sin and had myself rendered all the
obedience which Christ has rendered for me, if I only accept
such benefit with a believing heart " (Heidelb. Cat., p. 405 f.;
LATER CONFESSIONS OF THE REFORMED CHURCH. 419
cf. Helv. 15, 16. West. Conf. 8. 5; 11. i, 3J.^ God works
faith through the Holy Spirit in the elect "by means of the
preaching of the gospel and the prayer of the believer" (Helv.
post. 16. Westm. Conf. 14. i). Faith is **not only a sure
knovvledge by means of which I regard as true everything which
God has revealed to us in his word, but also a heartfelt confi-
dence " (Heid. Cat. 396). It is an assured acknowledgment of
the divine truth ** presented (^proposita) in the Scriptures and the
Apostles' Creed" (Helv. 16). Since faith accepts the contents
of the Scriptures as true ** on account of the authority of God
himself speaking therein," it embraces obedience to the com-
mandments, as well as the acceptance of the promises and repose
in Christ (Westm. Conf. 14. 2). These, too, are Calvinistic
ideas, which deviate from the view of Luther. Faith is not only
acceptance of Christ, but also the obedient subjection to God and
the reception of the doctrines revealed by him.^ The emphasis
laid upon penitential discipline is also to be traced to Calvin
(Heid. Cat. 412. Westm. Conf. 15). The Helvetic Confes-
sion defines repentance as follows *' a change of mind in man
:
the sinner, incited by the word of the gospel and the Holy Spirit,
and accepted by true faith." It is ** conversion " to God and
to all good, and *' aversion" from the devil and evil (a*. 14.
Heid. Cat. 413 f.)-
3. The recognition of the spiritual nature of the church is
epitomized in the formula The church is the fellowship of the
:
predestinated iê.g.^ Westm. Conf. 25. i. Heid. Cat, 404).

This definition stands by the side of a strong emphasizing of the
visible church, with its offices, and discipline, and the obligation
to submit to the latter and diligently use the means of grace
'
Upon Original Sin and the Enslaved Will, vid. Helv. 8. Gal. 10, 11.
Scot. 3. Heid. Cat. 393. Belg. 15, 39, art. 9, 10. Westm. Conf. c. 6 and 9.
2 We in this connection naturally recall the strong emphasis upon the in-
spiration of the Scriptures and the enumeration of the books of the canon in
the Reformed confessions, e, g., Helv. i " We believe, therefore, that from
:
these Scriptures are to be sought true wîsdom and piety also, the reformation
;
and government of churches, and the institution of all the duties of piety."
The West. Conf., I. I and 2, after enumerating the canonical books, says:
" Which have all been given bydivine inspirationas the rule of faith antUife."
In4: ** The authority ofthe Holy Scriptures depends
. . . alone upon their
. . .
author, God." In 5 ;
'* A full persuasion and certitude, as well of their in-
not otherwise begotten than by

fallible truth, as of their divine authority, is
an internal operation of the Holy through the word and with
Spirit, testifying
the word in our hearts." Thus the Small Catechism of the Puritans, in
Niem., p. 98 :" There are two things which the Scriptures teach first of all :
what man should believe concerning God, and what duty God demands of
man." Gal. 2-5. Belg. 3-7 ; 39 art. 6 (8 the three symbols, the Nicene,
:
Athanasian, and what is commonly called the Apostles' ^ are to be entirely re-
ceived and believed).
(e.g.f Held. 407. Helv. i. 17, 18. Westm. Conf. 25. 2 f.).
the predestinarian determinism and the represen-
It is precisely
tation of God as the Lord who does all things that are done,
which afford the explanation of the strictness and severity of
Reformed church life. All that is done by the church and its
members is but the carrying out of the divine Will. Through
vocatio andi justijicatio predestination is realized (Westm. 10. i ;
II. i).^ Thus God alone works, and all human action serves
his ends. These ideas find utterance in the term, ''the divine
glory" (cf. supra, pp. 312, 391, 416, and Miiller, Symbolik, p.
445 ff. ). We are thus brought to the doctrine of predestination.
82. Triumph of the Doctrine of Predestination.

Literature. Schweizer, Centraldogmen, 2 vols., 1854-6. Seeberg-
Thomas. ed. 2, 660 ff. LlNSENMANN, A. Pighius
, u. sein theol. Standpunkt,
in Tub. Quartalschr., iS66, 571 ff. Upon Bolsec, \id. C. R. xxxvi. 145 ff.
In harmony with his fundamental religious temper, and in

I.
opposition to foolish opposers, Calvin developed the doctrine of

predestination with constantly increasing clearness and distinct-
ness. Albert Pighius had in A. D. 1542 made a vigorous
assault upon this doctrine in his publication, De libero arbitrio
et divina gratia 11. 10. To this Calvin replied in his De libero
y
arbitrio (C. R. xxxiv. 233 ff. ). He here develops the ideas

grown familiar to us that God alone works salvation, but to a
:
certain extent includes his working in the church's means of

grace (252 ff. ); that the sinner himself is to blame (256 f. );
that the doctrine of predestination is not equivalent to Stoic
fatalism (257 ). If Pighius had employed against the doctrine
the common arguments, that it leaves no room for morality and
human responsibility, nor for merits, etc., Jerome Bolsec,
who came to' Geneva in A. D. 155 1, endeavored to find the
source of faith in grace alone, but with the exclusion of election.
God, he held, works faith through efficacious grace {^gratia
efficax). That it is not always produced, is to be attributed to
rebellio in man, and not to the decree of God (C. R. xxxvi.
217, 213). But he taught also that man has not been '
*
entirely deprived of free-will but his will remains, wounded

. . .
and corrupt" (ib. 218). Though Bolsec by no means questioned

salvation by grace, he strongly opposed the idea of a pretemporal
election (vid. also 1, c, p. 179 f. ).
Vid. esp. 3, 6
* But, just as
:
*' God has
destined the elect to glory, so he
has foreordained all the means by which they shall attain it. Wherefore the
elect, after they had fallen in Adam, have been redeemed by Christ, are by
the Holy Spirit efficaciously called to faith in Christ, justified, sanctified, and
by power kept through faith unto salvation."
his
1
TRIU.MI'H OF DOCTRINE OF PREDESTIiNTATION. 42
An appeal issued from Geneva to the other Swiss theologians

awakened but a lukewarm response, instead of the clear and
incisive testimony in favor of the double predestination which
the Genevans expected (cf. Schweizer, i. 218 ff.). The
Consensus Genevenis, De aetema dei praedestinatlone^ in which
Calvin, in A. D. 1552, again presented his view (C. R. xxxvi.
249 ff., in Niemeyer, Coll. conf., 218 ff. ), was hence officially
accepted only in the Genevan church.
2. The doctrine is treated in the most of the Reformed con-
fessions in a very moderate way. God elects some in Christ and

leaves others to perdition (Belg. 16; Gal. 12"). The Heid.
Cat. passes over the subject of predestination entirely (but see
404 the elect church, ausserwelfe gemeiii). The Helv. recog-
:
nizes it, indeed, but warns : Nevertheless we should hope well

*
'
for all, nor is anyone to be rashly counted among the repro-

bates,'* and also *' It
: is to be considered as beyond doubt, if
thou believest and art in Christ, that thou art elect " (a. 10 ;
cf. Schweizer, i. 290 f.).^ The definitions of the Westm.
Conf. are more positive ; but even there the doctrine of pre-
destination serves only to enforce the certainty of salvation,
since it is the basis underlying the entire soteriological activity
of God (3. 8, 6, also i *' Neither is liberty, or the con-
:
tingency of second causes, taken away, but rather more firmly

established"). But, in contrast with this moderation, in the
theology of the leaders of the second generation (Beza, Peter
Martyr, Musculus, Zanchi) the doctrine of predestination is
advocated in its most extreme supralapsarian form. This
emphasis upon predestination became but the more pronounced
in the course of the development, and thus this doctrine, /. c,
of the divine decrees, gradually became the starting-point of
Reformed dogmatics.
3. The growing prominence of this doctrine is reflected in the
decrees of the Synod of Dort, A. D. 1618-9, which was devoted
to its consideration (cf. Acta synodi Dortrechti habitae Lugd.
Bat., 1620, Niemeyer, 690 ff. Graf, Beitriige zur Kenntnis d.
Synode v. D., 1825. Schweizer, ii. 141 ff. ). The occasion
for the holding of this Synod was the Arminian controversy.
Jacob Arminius, from A. D. 1603 professor at Leyden, was
brought, in consequence of his freer views upon the subject, into
conflict with his colleague, Francis Gomarus, who held to the
strict doctrine of predestination. His death occurring A, D.
1609, James Uytenbogaart and Simon Episcopius became the
^ In the Confessio Sigismujidi [h. D. 1614), salvation is indeed traced to
the pretemporal election, but it is, on the other hand, denied " that he (God)
does not desire to have all saved " (Niemeyer, p. 650).
leading champions of the modified position. In A. D. 1610,

the Arminian leaders, branded as heretics by their opponents,
united in a protest, the Remonstrantia (Schaff., The Creeds
of Christendom, iii. 545 ff. ), whose positions are the following :
God determined, before the foundation of the world, to save

through Christ those of the fallen human race who should believe
on him. Man does not by the power of his free will attain
saving faith, but he is born and renewed to such faith by Christ
through his Holy Spirit. As the beginning, so also the progress
and completion of good in man, is dependent upon grace, but
grace does not work irresistibly. Those who have received the
Spirit and faith are able, through the assistance of grace, to
struggle against all temptations and come off victorious. The
question, whether the regenerated can fall from grace, is left
undecided.
The Remonstrants were at once confronted by the Contra-
remonstrants. The agitation increased, and it was decided to
settle the dispute by a synod, to which nearly all the Reformed
national churches were invited. It was held at Dort, lasting
from November 13, 1618, till May 9, 1619. Delegates were
present from the Palatinate, Hesse, Nassau, East Friesland,
Bremen, Emden, England, Scotland, Geneva, and German
Switzerland. It was a council which has no parallel in the his-
tory of Protestantism. In view of the overwhelming majority of
the Contra-remonstrants, the result could not be doubtful,^ and
it is not surprising that the Remonstrants were from the first
placed in the position of defendants. The canons of the synod
cast a strong light upon the significance of the doctrine of pre-
destination for the later Reformed church. We reproduce the
leading thoughts The fact that only some of the race of sinful
:
men come to' faith must be attributed to the eternal counsel of

God. God elected a definite number of men in Christ to
salvation, whilst in his justice leaving the others to perdition.
But the election is realized in the mission of Christ, the effectual
call, the bestowal of faith, justification, sanctification, and glori-
fication (c. I. 6, 7). Hence man is assured of his election by
its infallible fruits. Faith, the fear of God, sorrow for sin,
hunger and thirst after righteousness, constitute thus the basis of
our recognition of predestination ; or, the latter is the real basis
of the entire new life (i. 12). The activity of God in the in-
terest of human salvation is therefore regarded as, in its entire
scope, nothing more than the actualizing of predestination.
1 The assembly decided for the infralapsarian view of the doctrine, only
Gomarus still adhering to the supralapsarian formula.
TRIUMPH OF DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION. 423
Consequently, the sacrifice of Christ, or the satisfactioD rendered

by him, which is in itself considered of infinite value and
abundantly sufficient for the salvation of all men, effects only
the salvation of the elect (2. 3, 8). Hence, God accompanies
the calling through the word with illumination through the Holy
Spirit and the agency of regenerating grace *'
He infuses new
:
qualities into the will and makes it from dead, living ; from evil,
good; from unwilling, willing" (3. 10, 11).^ This regener-
ation is a creative act of God, like the recalling of the dead to
life. It is not accomplished by means of moral persuasion, and
it does not impart to man the mere possibility of conversion
;
but it is a wonderful work of divine agency ''In order that all

:
those in whose hearts God operates in this wonderful way may

certainly , infallibly and
efficaciously be regenerated and actually
believe'*'' In the case of the elect, therefore, the call
(3. 12).
certainly produces regeneration ; but, on the other hand, it is
also held that ** as many as are called through the gospel are
seriously {serio) called," so that it is to be ascribed only
to their unwillingness if they are not converted (3. 8, 9 j. As
this latter position is evidently out of accord with the former,
so, if strictly interpreted, it carries us entirely beyond the
bounds of the determinism which otherwise pervades the docu-
ment.^
The certainty of the salvation of the elect is secured finally by
the Perseverance of the Saints. Although the elect may fall into
grave sins, and thereby lose for a time the consciousness of grace
(5. 1-5), yet God sopreserves his Holy Spirit in them that they
can never fall entirely out of the state of grace nor commit the
sin against the Holy Ghost (5. 7). The unchangeableness of
the divine decree excludes the possibility that they should entirely
fall away or be lost (5. 8).
4.In this document, the later Reformed view attained ade-
quate expression.^ Predestination was exalted to the position of
a dogma, and its opponents defeated. But the decrees of Dort
^ It is necessary merely to contrast with this the prudent remarks of the

Formula of Concord (supra, p. 383) in order to understand the benefit of the
Philippistic ideas.
2 For, according to the leading principles here maintained, the call is
an effectual expression of the divine will only in the case of the elect. Upon
these it must have its effect upon others it cannot have any inward efficacy at
;
all. The idea expressed above is hence a concession, similar to the other one
already noted, i. e.y that the death of Christ was sufficient to eff"ect the salva-
tion of all men, although it is intended to actually benefit only some.
^ The decrees of Dort were officially recognized by the Netherlands but
;
they were received largely also in Switzerland, France, and the Palatinate, as
well as by the Puritans.
as also the Westminster Confession (supra, p. 419) indicate

a displacement of the original order of thought in the sphere of
soteriology. Predestination was once a support for the assurance
of salvation ; now it has itself been made the fundatnental con-
ception. The course was once from below upward, i. e., from
justification to predestination ; now it is from above downward,
/. c, from predestination to justification.^ This transformation
indicates something different from a victory for the theoretical
idea of Calvin ; for the Institutio did not observe the order fol-
lowed in the later statements of the doctrine, and, on the other
hand, the Confession of Dort did not fully reproduce the rigor
of the Calvinistic ideas. It was rather that practical conception
of God which marks the writings of Calvin
God, the all-work-
ing Lord, who rules all things for his own glory
which was here
victorious. This practical point of view must be kept in view in
order to understand the later form and relationship of the doc-
trine of predestination.
But the definitions of Dort are also, in another direction, of
the greatest historical significance, since they mark the breach
between ecclesiastical Calvinism and its humanistically-inclined
followers. Among the adherents and forerunners of the Refor-
mation in the spirit of Zwingli and Calvin were not infrequently
found representatives of the Erasmian ideals of reform. Practi-
cal ethical reforms, a large-hearted undogmatic Christianity, and
scholarly tastes were often combined in these circles. It was
among them especially that the Arminians found recruits. Their
opposition by no means signified merely dissent from a single
doctrine, but it was rather a protest against the enlargement of
the sphere of dogma and against the limitation of exegetical
freedom by dogmatic formulas. This is proved by the further
history of Arminianism. As against this tendency, the Synod
of Dort marks the victory of strict orthodoxy within the Re-
formed church.
5. This may be seen, as well as the important place occupied
by the doctrine of predestination in the theological thought of
the age, in the discussions called forth by the modifications of
this doctrine, in themselves of no great moment, suggested by
Moses Amyraldus in Saumur (vid. Traits de la predestination
et de ses principes, 1634; cf. Schweizer, ii. 280 ff. ). He
maintains firmly the Reformed doctrine of predestination, that
God has elected some to salvation, but has purposed to leave
others to perdition. He, however, modified this position at two
* The original view may be expressed in the formula Because there is
:
justification, there is predestination ; the later view reverses this Because

:
there is predestination, there is justification.

TRIUMPH OF DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION. 425
points in a way which was out of harmony with the prevalent

view. In the first place, he held, upon the ground that the will
always follows the intellect, that the irresistible working of God
upon the will of man is effected through the illumination of the
intellect.^ The process of conversion, he claimed, was thus
made psychologically more intelligible.' Secondly, he intro-
duced the idea oi \h.Q.ô-c2S\.Q^hvpothctical iiniversalism of grace.
In order to throw some light upon the rejection of the reprobate
acknowledging, as he did, the absolute inscrutability of the
grounds upon which the divine election is based he conceives
that there is in nature and history, independent of the gospel
message, a certain dim revelation of the grace of God. Both
forms of revelation have been made possible, however, only be-
cause satisfaction has been rendered to the divine justice by the
sacrifice of Christ. But neither this general revelation, nor the
preaching of the gospel in itself, can bring salvation to the sin-
ner. This depends upon the divine election. Yet since, upon
this theory, a certain announcement of the grace of God has
in some way reached all men, the destruction of such multitudes
is more easily accounted for, since all have been guilty of reject-
ing either the general or the special offer of grace.

Whether Amyraldus succeeded in establishing his positions,
may well be doubted. But he was certainly justified in defend-
ing his position as within the bounds of orthodoxy. French A
national synod, at Alengon, in A. D. 1637, certified to this, and
simply advised him to avoid such unusual and startling forms of
expression. Another synod in A. D. 1645 (vid. Aymon, Tous
les synodes nationaux des eglises reformees de France, 17 10, vol.
ii. 571 ff., 663), pronounced the same judgment. But the
Swiss theologians were also greatly disturbed by the teachings of
Amyraldus. They feared that they might thus become **the
sport of the exultant Papists, Luthoromanites, and Arminians, to
whose doctrines the. windows were thus opened," and they felt
themselves under obligation to construct a new symbol in the
interest of orthodoxy. Thus originated, after many conferences
and conflicts, the Formula Consensus Helvetica, composed by
Heidegger, and adopted as a symbol, A. D. 1675 (Niemeyer, p.
729 ff. ). This document rejects the view of Amyraldus (c. 6),
teaches the strictest particularism in the election (4), and main-
tains with emphasis, that Christ died only for the elect and recon-
^
Just as sin began in the intellect and passed thence into the will. Am-
yraldus in this follows John Camero in Montauban (f A. D. 1625); vid.
ScHWEizER, ii. 235 ff.
^ Cf. on the other hand, the severe formulas of Dort

, upon the transformation
of the will, supra, p. 423.
)
ciled them alone to God (13). Only the elect come through
external call^ which is serious and sincere (^seria et sincera),
X\\Q.
to faith. But that, by the will of God, in the call thus univer-
' '
sally announced, only the elect are led to faith, but the reprobate
are hardened
this proceeds from the discriminating grace of
God alone " (19). The theory of predestination in its strict form
is thus formally proclaimed as the doctrine of the church.^
In view of the above, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the

theology of Calvin has become, in its essential points, the doc-
trine of the Reformed church. What has been said in Section
79, 10 is, therefore, here equally applicable.
^ It is here also, in view of the controversy of L. Capella with Buxtorf, de-
clared, that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament ** is inspired (i^ftSTrvevorof
both as to the consonants and as to the very vowels or points, or as to the
force and power of the points, and both as to the subject-matter and as to
the words" (3).
PART III.
COMPLETION OF DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE ROMAN

CATHOLIC CHURCH.
83. Establishment of Medietâl Theology as the Doctrine of

the Church by the Council of Trent.
Sources. Canones et decreta Cone. Trid., ed. Richter et Schulte,

1853. Doctrinal formulas also in SxRElTWOLF nr Klener, Libri symbol,
eccl. Rom. i., and in Denzinger's Enchiridion, in Mirbt, Quellen z. Gesch.
d. Papstt., 124 ff. A. Theiner, Acta genuina cone. Trid., 2 vols., 1874.
Le Plat, Monum. ad histor. cone. Trid., 7 vols., 1781 ff. V. Dollingek,
Ungedruckte Berichte u. Tagebb. z. Gesch. d. Cone. v. Tr. 1872. Con-
,
cilium Tridentinum, diariorum, epistularumtractatuumnovacollectio,vol. i., ed.

Merkle, Freiburg, vol. i., 1901 ff. This work when completed will include the
protocols and a comprehensive collection of all other original documents bear-
ing upon the work of the Council vid. Seeeerg, in Theol. Litt.-bl., 1903, 6ff.
;
Paoli Sarpi, Istoria del cone. Trid., 1619, Germ, translation by Rambach,
6 vols., 1761 ff. Sforza Pallavicini, Istoria del cone, di Trid., 1656,
Latin translation, Antwerp, 1673, cf. Ranke, WW., vol. 39, append.,
p. 25 ff. Salig, VoUsc. Hist, d. trid. Cone, 3 parts, 1741 ff. Mendham,
Memoirs of the Counc. of Trent, 1834. Ranke, vol. y] 129 ff. Mauren-
^
BRECHER, in Hist. Taschenbuch, 1886, 147 ff.; 1888, 305 ff. Moller-
Kawerau, KG. iii. 215 ff. Upon the doctrines, vid. Chemnitz, Exam,
cone. Trid., 1566. Seeberg, Beitr. z. Entstehungsgesch. d. Lehrdekrete v.
Tr., in Ztschr. f. k. Wiss., 1889, p. 546 ff., 604 ff., 643 ff., and in Thomasius
ii., ed. 2, 688 ff
The Reformation made astonishing progress during its first

I.
decades. The intellectual activity of the closing Middle Ages

had prepared the way before it both positively and negatively.
The old church was incapable of damming the current. This
can be plainly seen in the course of the early antagonists of the
new movement. In the general consternation, the Catholic theo-
logians accepted the challenge of their opponents,^ defended
with half-heartedness the worst outgrowths of medieval Chris-
1 E.
g.^ the defense of indulgences by Tetzel and Eek. Dietenberger's
publication, " Der leye, ob der gelaub allein selig maehe." Berthold of
Chiemsee, Tewtsche Theologey (ed. Reithmeyer, 1852). Schatzgeier's
works (1543). A
review of the positions maintained in this pre-Trentine
theology is given by Lammer, Die vortrid. kath. Theologie, 1858. Our

space forbids a fuller delineation, but a further study of this literature from
a wider historical point of view than Lammer (Schul- und Ordens-Theo-
logie)
would yield valuable results.
(427)

tianity assailed by the latter, fell back upon the '* authority "
of the church, and relied for protection and victory in the great
intellectual conflict upon politics and measures of external
force. It was,indeed, a difficult task to defend the ancient
positions at large. The theologians were soon divided into a
number of hostile groups. In every important point of doctrine,
the differences of the ancient schools of theology came to light.
The Thomistic, and the Scotist, or Nominalist, views were btill
zealously advocated. The confusion was increased by the fact
that the age looked with misconception and contempt upon the
technicalities and methods of theology. Finally, it must not be
overlooked that in their own camp, the champions of Roman
Catholicism were compelled to hear clamorous demands for
reform (Spain, Italy, the Oratorium, the Theatines, etc.). And
yet all these tendencies advocates of reform and strict adherents

of the curia, mystics and dogmaticians of every class consti-
tuted from one point of view, /. c, their common opposition to
Protestantism, a compact unity. The will was present, and a
way was found. AVe can understand therefore how it came to
pass that the internal differences were reconciled, and that, in the
compromise, the ruder and coarser ideas and tendencies held the
ascendant.
It is not our task to trace the reforms in the ecclesiastical
life which were forced upon the Romish church by the Refor-
mation. Weare concerned only for the theological develop-
ment. The Thomistic theology again assumed the lead in this
post-reformation age. There had at an earlier period been a
disposition to regard it as the specifically ecclesiastical doctrine.
It now became a necessary equipment of the church. It was free
from the foreign skepticism and critical temper of Duns Scotus,

and it was simpler a compacted system. Authority and dogma
were here securely fixed and rationally estabhshed, and curialism
found here a valiant champion. This theology was the destruc-
tion of the ideals and the faith which prevailed in the thirteenth
century, at the time of the church's greatest power. We are
not surprised that appeal should be constantly made to this
earlier period. But in every attempted repristination of the
former doctrines, the original accurate adaptation to actual cir-
cumstances has vanished, and the ideas are in consequence
eviscerated and vulgarized. The system of Thomas, once a lofty
conception of ecclesiastical idealism, was forced into the narrow
limits of ecclesiastical positivism as fixed by Duns. There was
no use in this age for the keen criticism of the Nominalists,
their impertinent skepticism, and their remorseless dialectics
and they became a thing of the past. But there was need now
.MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY AT COUNCIL OF TRENT. 429
of implicit faith and subjection to formulas and these were re-

tained. That which was great and imposing in Thomas and
Duns must be eliminated from them, and the dregs their
formulas remain.
2. But if medieval theology had been shattered by its contact
with the spirit and the religious needs of the modern man, then
no victory could be permanent which should fail to take due
account of this spirit. Here the Jesuits found their field (cf.
GoTHEiN, Ignat. v. Loyola u. die Gegenreformation, 1895).
They required obedience and subjection to the church as strictly
as had ever been done in the Middle Ages ; but they were
shrewd enough to adapt the form of this requirement to the
spirit and temper of the modern man. The old theology was
adopted, but it was adorned with the embellishments of modern
humanistic learning. The authors wrote in elegant style, and
exegetical and historical studies were pursued with diligence.
But it was in the Sacrament of Repentance that the force of the
movement was most distinctly felt. It was here that the Jesuit
praxis gained its greatest triumph
it constructed the modern
Roman Catholic sacrament of repentance. The penitential dis-

cipline, which in the closing period of the Middle Ages had
been so often utterly neglected (vid. Dollinger and Reusch,
Gesch. d. Moralstreitigkeiten in d. rom.-kath. K., 1889, i.,
p. 20 n. ), was revived and enlarged (ib. i. i9ff.,6iff. Gothein,
1. c, p. 324 ff. ). It became again, with its attrition and
probabilism, its intentionalism, and mental reservations, the
dominant force in the church, forming the historical counterpart
to justification by faith and the new life of faith among Pro-
testants. And it was at this point that the worst elements in the
theology of Duns and the Nominalists poured in a great flood
upon the church, viz.: the minimizing of sin and the fondling of
the sinner ; the dialectic trifling with the intentions, the will, and
the sensuous impulses ; the juggling with the authorities (cf
LuTHARDT, Gesch. d. chr. Ethik, ii. 120 ff. ) But it was just
in this way that the chasm between the church and the world
was spanned. In the confessional was learned the art of living
in the world, continuing to cherish the spirit of the world, and
yet being sure of salvation. This was the ''devotion aisec,''
the compact of the church wîth the world. Dogmas no longer

formed the theme of the pulpit that remained dangerous

ground but preachers discoursed eloquently upon the beauty
of virtue and the repulsiveness of vice. Thus the minds of men
were diverted from the burning questions of the day.^ But a
' Cf Gothein, p. 319 ff., who very correctly says : "The preaching of the
compromise was effected also in the sphere of dogma. A new-

definition of faith was framed. Even the old faith of assent

seemed to require too much and it had no really practical
object. It was therefore replaced by the faith of silent obedience.
It is sufficient that one do not publicly oppose the formula of the
church. Thus the dogma appeared to be saved, and faith made
possible to everyone. In this way, the freest modern spirits
could submit to the rule of the church. Everyone now became
churchly again. As the art of the confessor met the wants of the
great masses, so the change in the ascetic method was carried
out in a way to suit the modern man. The age of merely
sensuous discipline was past, as was that of simple obedience to
authority. Ignatius accordingly attached little importance to
outward asceticism. In its place came the inwardly transforming
meditations of spiritual exercises {êxercitia spiritualia) Ascetic .
exercises in the outward form were but means to an end (cf.

GoTHEiN, p. 227 ff., 240, 416 ff.). In accordance with this,
the aim of obedience is to be seen, not only in the outward sub-
jection which it manifests, but in the regulation of the life
according to one's own convictions.^ And even though this
aim should in separate instances not be attained, yet it would
still have a suggestive influence upon the inward disposition.
The deed thus prompted was done from obedience; but it was
done by the man himself, and was done to further the glory of
God. 2
Such are some of the ideas which stirred Roman Catholicism
after the Reformation. First of all, the return to Thomas, the
ancientdogma and curialism, together with the rejection of all
and skeptical elements in theology. In the sphere of
critical
dogma and ecclesiastical politics, Thomism appeared to gain a
and comprehensible, was well calculated to

Jesuits, dealing with things near
wean the Catholic masses from their anxiety about the dogmas it was for ;
them a soothing potion" (p. 321). This method has become characteristic
of the preaching of the Roman Catholic church.
^ Upon this obedience, vid. Dollinger and Reusch, Moralstreitigkeiten i.
623 ff. GoTHEiN (p. 332) finds a contradiction between the emphasizing of
the will and the will-less obedience. This is scarcely justified, since the
obedience is supposed to be rendered with delight and devotion (vid. ib. 455)
as a voluntary personal act. On the contrary, it is just in this refined adap-
tation of all requirements to the temper and spirit of the modern man that the
power of the Jesuits lies.
2 Ignatius, too, speaks frequently of the relation of obedience to the *' glory
of God" (vid. GOTHEiN, p. 334, 426, 452, 455). If we would find upon
the so widely different territory of Protestantism a parallel to this remarkable
man, we must look for it not in Luther, despite the inner struggles which con-

stitute a feature of similarity but in Calvin, the fellow-student of Loyola at
Paris.
1
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY AT COUNCIL OF TRENT. 43
decisive victory. But as its energy was lost under the pressure
of the positivism of Duns, so in the sphere of practical Chris-
tianity, the emasculating of the conceptions of sin and grace and
the retinement of the dialectics that excuses all things and makes
all things possible for which Duns was also responsible gained
ascendancy in the church. Much was borrowed from the two
great leaders of medieval theology, but no way was found to
make use of that which was best in either. The legacy which
they had left was deftly woven into the texture of the practical
church politics of the Jesuits.
In a word, it was Jesuitism the
history of its spread being the history of the counter-reforma-
tion which accomplished the great task of making the tradi-
tions of the Roman Catholic Middle Ages acceptable to the
Spirit of the modern age. In this consists its historic signifi-
cance, and in this way it became the counterpart of the Refor-
mation.
3. The Council of Trent (A. D. 1545-63) discharged the
difficult task of marking out a median course between the con-
flicting views of scholastic theology, which was then proclaimed
as the official doctrine of the church. Only with great difficulty
was the result attained. The contradictory principles of the
opposing schools came into prominence in the discussion of
nearly every question. It was possible to preserve an outward
unity only by the employment of the most studied diplomatic
arts. The points of controversy were either avoided altogether
or carefully veiled. Thus, to the student familiar with the his-
tory of the formation of the doctrinal definitions of the council,
the latter but too often appear as the deliberate productions of
church politics and diplomatic refinements. The decrees do not
present tons a vigorous and joyous confession of sincere faith,
but formulas of compromise artfully welded together, bent to
this side or that with great labor and pains, and then finally filed
into proper dimensions.
4. Turning now to the doctrinal decrees of the Council of
Trent, we must first observe their attitude toward the Scriptures
and Tradition (session 4). We note at the outset the complete
co-ordination of the two. The council receives the Holy Scrip-
tures and the traditions of the church* 'with equal feeling of
reverence" {^pari pietatis affectu^. The former have God for
their author J the latter have been ''dictated by Christ or by
the Holy Spirit." The opposition to this co-ordination of tra-
dition with Scripture was in vain. The council distinctly rec-
ognized the ecclesiastical traditions, being inspired as truly as
the Scriptures, as of equal dignity. It carefully avoided, how-
ever, any designation of the particular traditions to which this
principle was to be applied. '^ We

receive those which we wish,
but reject altogether those which displease us " (acta, i. 71b)
these naive words of a bishop betray the general attitude.
The Vulgate is, with appeal to tradition, established as the au-
thentic translation. The apocryphal books of the Old Testa-
ment are also acknowledged. The attempt to co-ordinate Scrip-
ture and tradition here, as always, results in the actual subordi-
nation of the former to the latter. But it might now be rightly
claimed that the church had gone half-way in the right direction.^
5. The 5th session established the doctrine of Original Sin.
Here, too, the contrary principles of the opposing schools were
manifest, the one party wishing to locate original sin in con-
cupiscence, while the other regarded it as merely the lack of
righteousness. The subject was at once complicated by the
question as to the relation of the Virgin Mary to original sin
(acta, i. 145 f. ). The doctrine finally adopted is, in brief, as
follows (a) The first man, through his own fault, lost the
:
righteousness and holiness into which he had been inducted

{constitutus'f in paradise, and thereby fell under the wrath of
God and the power of the devil. There was, in consequence, a
deterioration of the whole man. ** The whole
Adam was by that
offense of transgression changed for the worse according to body
and soul." Yet this is true only in the sense 'Âlthough free-
:
will had by no means been extinguished in them, yet it was weak-

ened in its power and perverted" (ses. 6, c. i). (/-) The sin
and guilt of Adam passed over upon the whole human race.
{c') Since the sin of Adam passed over upon his descendants
**
by propagation, not by imitation," human means are notable
to release from it. {d ) Even children can be purified from
their inherited condition only by the regeneration of baptism.
(<f) Not only is original sin forgiven by imputation through bap-
tism, but the latter actually renews the sinner. There remains
in him, however, concupiscence (^concupisce7itia) or the tinder of
^ Q.i. Profess, fid. Trid.: " I most firmly acknowledge and embrace the
\\\^
apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and appointments
of the same church. Also the Holy Scripture, according to that sense which
the holy mother, the church, has held and holds, whose (part) I acknowledge
it to be to judge concerning the true sense and interpretation of the Holy
Scriptures, nor will I ever accept and interpret them except in accordance
with the unanimous consensus of the Fathers" In these declarations the
Scriptures are not only assigned a place second to tradition, but they are also
bound and gagged. At the same time all attempts to attain a profounder
religious or scientific knowledge of the Scriptures were excluded.
^ Instead of constitutuSy the original draft of the decree had creatus (acta,
i. 130 b). The words occurring in the original draft : '* no part of the soul
remaining uninjured," were also stricken out. The first-mentioned change
was required by the doctrine of the donzim superaddituvi (supra, p. 115).
evil (^fames'). Concupiscence is, indeed, sometimes spoken of

by the apostle must not, according to the doctrine
as sin, but this
of the church, be understood in the sense " that it is in the re-
generate truly and really sin, but because it comes from sin and
inclines to sin." (y^) These definitions do not apply in the case
of the Virgin Mary.
6. The 6th session undertook to treat of Justification. Upon
this topic much time and labor were expended. Sarpi relates
that at least a hundred sessions were devoted to it, and that the
second president of the council, Cervino, made emendations of
the decree daily in order to meet all demands and make it ac-
ceptable to all parties. This may be readily understood. On
the one hand, the opposition of the Protestants made a precise
definition necessary \ on the other hand
and in this, as Cervino

pointed out, lay the difficulty the scholastic tradition afforded no
material/ as in it justification was treated only, and that but briefly,
as an element in the sacrament of repentance. The specific doc-
trine of justification, as it was now framed, was forced from the
Roman Catholic church by the pressure of Protestantism. It was
modeled upon the pattern found in Thomas. The doctrine was
at the council divided originally into three sections (i) How
:
one may attain justification ; what part God has to do in it, and
what part man ; what is the significance of faith in relation to it.
(2) How one may preserve the justification attained. (3)
How one may again secure justification when it has been lost.
The first was the decisive section. Agreement was, indeed, soon
reached upon certain definite fundamental points, i. e., (i)
That the call comes through the law and the gospel, to the preach-
ing of which man gives assent through faith. ( 2 ) That grace is
a new disposition of the soul, which is attested by good works.
(3) Accordingly, there are everywhere traces of a certain syner-
gism, and faith is the condition of justification, because the latter
presupposes the acceptance of the teachings of the church. But
within the lines of these fundamental Roman Catholic ideas,
which all held in common, there were not lacking marked dif-
ferences. The Thomistic tradition made the forgiveness of sins
dependent upon the previous effectual equipment with grace
(supra, pp. 121, 201); the Scotist view, on the contrary,
placed forgiveness first, to be followed by the infusion of grace
(supra, pp. 161, 201). Under the influence of the Pro-
testant, or Pauline, doctrine of justification, the latter way of
viewing the subject had cqme to have a significance which by no
Note also the obscurity in the decree upon justification (c. l), according
^
towhich all men are " servants of sin, although free-will had by no means
been extinguished in them, yet it was weakened in its power and perverted.'*
28
;
means attached to it when understood in the sense of its greatest

medieval advocate.^ Both points of view were advocated at the
council. The one party maintained ** The imputation of
:
Christ effects in us that sins are not imputed, yet it does not jus-
tify ; but, after the remission of sins, God justifies us 3 and justifi-
cation is not remission of sins, because remission occurs before
justification" (acta i. 176 a); the other party held that*' God
first infuses grace, then remits sins" (ib. 180 b). Finally, we
meet in some of the fathers of the council a certain sympathy
for the evangelical view.^ Another difference appears in the
fact, that one party {e.g.j acta i. 179 b, 176 b, 180 a) would
ascribe a meritorious character, disposing to the reception of
grace, to works done under the general influence of the grace of
the call (^gratia vocationis)^ whereas others would attach import-
ance only to the works wrought through grace (ib. 181 a; cf.
Sarpi, ii. 366 ff. ). There were divergent opinions also as to the
measure of the divine influence and of human liberty in the be-
stowal and reception of grace.
As to the second section in the statement of the doctrine, the
use of the sacrament, prayer, and good W9rks were mentioned as
the means by which justification once secured was to be retained.
He who is in a state of grace can secure for himself by worthi-
ness {^de condigno) eternal life (acta i. 195). The restoration
of the state of justification, when lost
treated of in the third
section of the doctrinal statement is accomplished through the
sacrament of repentance, just as that condition was in the first
instance attained through baptism. There is, however, this dif-
ference in the two transactions, that if, in the latter case, the
lapsed one has not lost his faith, there is no necessity for the re-
* We are reminded here of Pighius and Cropper, both of whom repre-

sent the imputed righteousness of Christ as preceding the infused righteous-
ness and place the emphasis, for the practical religious consciousness, upon the
former. Cf. LiNSENMANN, Tiib. Quart.-schr., 1866, 641 ff. Brieger, in
Ersch, and Gruber's EncycL, sect, i., vol. 92, p. 135. DlTTRlCH, Casp. Con-
tarini, p. 660 ff. If I am not mistaken, this view, which was advocated also
by Seripando at Trent (Seeberg, Ztschr. f. kirchl. Wiss., 1889, 671 ff. ),
points back to the Scotist scheme. I have proved the Thomistic and unevan-
gelical character of Cardinal Contarini's theory of justification, 1. c, 657 ff .
cf. 676 f. In thisKAWERAU agrees with me (MoLLER, KG. iii. 129).

2 Here may be mentioned Jul. Contarini (nephew of the well-known
Thomas Sanfelice, Bishop of Cava, and the Augustinian Genera.
cardinal),
Seripando. We must be on our guard, however, against the error of pro
nouncing the opinions of these men without large reservation as " evangel'
ical." Vid. Seeberg, 1. u., 652 ff. ; also the Archbishop Bandini of Siena
(Pallavicini, viii. 4. 7)-
^ Upon this term, vid. supra, p. 122.

establishment of this (ib. i88 b).^ Furthermore, the lapsed

one must himself satisfy the temporal penalties of sin by works
of penance, since the sacrament of repentance releases him only
from the eternal penalties whereas by baptism both the tem^
;
poral and the eternal penalties are removed.

The first draft of the decree was rejected (i. 203 ff. ). While
a new formula was being prepared, a number of questions arose
for discussion, upon which no agreement could be reached for :
example, whether the inherent '* righteousness imparted to man

'
'
is sufficient, through the works which it produces, to merit eternal
life, or whether there is needed in addition the imputation of grace
for the completing of the human works. Very many prelates

maintained the former view, e. g., i. 258 b: '^The justified
man, if he shall have retained his inherent righteousness and
done good works, is able with this to appear before the tribunal
of God without any other imputation of righteousness." Simi-
larly, in regard to the assurance of salvation, some held it to be
unattainable without a special revelation, while others maintained
that one may, by virtue of his reception of the sacraments and
fulfillment of the commandments, be sure of his salvation. The
former is a Thomistic, the latter a Scotist theory (supra, pp. 121,
202). The discussions upon Justification by Faith are espe-
cially instructive. Both the Jide and the sine operibus gave rise
to difficulties. There were not wanting some who desired to
strike out the last words from the decree (i. 340 f. ); and they
were finally suppressed. Faith was conceived as a completed faith
(^fides formata) or as another designation of the Christian re-
,
ligion (^religio Christiana) or as an inclination (dispositio) toward

^
justification. Cf. my studies in Ztschr. f. k. Wiss., 1889, 649-700.

We now turn our attention upon the finally accepted Decree.
We note traces of the original three-fold division of the material,
both in the positive statement of the decree and in the canons
condemning the contrary teachings (cap. 1-9, 10-13, i4"i6, and
can. 1-22, 23-26, 27-33). {a) Of justification, it is said:
*' That
it is a translation from that state in which man is born a
son of the first Adam into the state of grace" (c. 4). The
order of salvation begins, in the case of adults, with prevenient
grace {gratia praeveniens), i. e., with the call and the awaken-
ing iêxcitans) and assisting (adjuvans) grace which accompanies
it. Man himself now, by consenting to the work of God and
working with him {eidem gratiae libere assentiendo et co-operando')
prepares himself for justification (c. 5). There is thus, on the
^ At this point the utterly unevangelical conception of faith, which pervades

the whole discussion, is clearly revealed.
one hand, a recognition of a cooperation preceding justification,

and an acknowledgment that the works preceding justification
are not altogether sinful (can. 7); while, on the other hand, the
call comes before any merit exists (îiullis eorum existentibus
fficntis). With this both the Thomistsand the advocates of the
ineriiuin de congruo could be satisfied. The preparation for justi-
fication produced by this general influence of grace embraces,
first of all, faith ** Receiving faith
: by hearing, they of free-will
draw near to God, believing those things to be. true v^^hich have
been divinely revealed and promised," above all, that God out
of grace will justify the sinner in Christ.^ From fear of the
divine justice, they rise in faith to the contemplation of the
mercy of God: '* believing that God will for Christ's sake be pro-
pitious.
'
Now begins love to Christ as being the source of right-
'
eousness, ' and afterward they are impelled against sins by a cer-
'
tain hatred and detestation," and this is followed by the resolution

to lead a new life (c. 6 Thus faith, the beginnings of love to
) .
God and abhorence of sin, and the resolution to obey the com-

mandments of God are all wrought by the v^ôrd before the actual
infusion of grace.
(/') Upon this inclination {dispositw)^ or preparation, now
follows justification itself : "which
not the bare remission of
is
sins, but also sanctification and renewal of the inner man through
the voluntary reception of grace and of gifts, whence the man
from unrighteous becomes righteous" (c. 7). The opinion is
expressly condemned that men are justified by the bare impu-
:
*
'
tation of the righteousness of Christ, or by the bare remission of

sins, the grace and love being excluded which are shed abroad in
their hearts by the Holy Spirit and abide in them ; or, that the
grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God " (can.
11). Justification consists in the renewal of the inner man,
which occurs through baptism. By this, faith, hope, and love
are imparted to man at the same time as the forgiveness of sins.
This impartation is granted in such measure as seems good to the
Holy Spirit, and ''according to the peculiar inclination and co-
operation of each individual" (c. 7J.^ The decree differs from
Paul so widely as to understand by the term, *' by faith " ( per
'* the basis and root of all justification,"
fidei7i), only that faith is
and by the term '* freely " (gratis), that the faith and works
* Even here the expression is not clear: ** Christ died for the sins of the
whole world, for all but only they receive the benefit of his death to whom
;
the merit of his passion is communicated " {commztnicatur, c. 2, 3).

^ Here again all is designedly left in uncertainty. It is not clear whether
the infusion precedes forgiveness or follows it. Similarly, the free imparling
of grace is at once corrected by this " cooperation."
^
preceding justification do not merit grace. As to the tenn,

*' without works " {sine operibus), nothing is said (c. 8). Just
as artfully is the question as to the assurance of salvation evaded,
while at the same time a thrust is made *' against the empty con-
fidence of the heretics." Certainly sins are forgiven through
grace, but if any man boasts of the certainty of this forgiveness,
or trusts in it alone, his sins are not forgiven It is not desira-
!
ble that all who are justified should be sure of their justification.
We dare not, of course, have any doubts as to the efficacy of
Christ and the sacraments; but everyone "may" have some
fear as to "his grace" in view of his own weakness (c. 9).^
This basal section of the document is a combination of two lines
of thought :(1) The word is accompanied by a general prepar-
atory influence of grace, which, in a psychological way, begets
faith and a striving after the good. (2 ) The power to pursue
the good faith, hope, and love
is infused into man by the sac-
rament of baptism. He here receives justification as an impar-

tation of grace, together with the forgiveness of sins. Although
the former of these ideas appears to approximate the Protestant
position, yet the difference is very evident, since the influence
here accorded to the word does not embrace the gracious accept-
ance of the individual, and since the emphasis in the discussion
is laid, not upon the word and faith, but upon the sacrament and
the inherent grace.

(r) The gift of justification is preserved by obeying the com-
mandments and by good works. By this means there is effected
alsoan increase of the justification " Through the keeping of
:
the commandments of God and of the church, faith cooperating

by good works, they grow in that righteousness itself received
through the grace of Christ, and are more justified^'' (c. 10).
Justification, as a creative act of God, is, indeed, a momentary
act (vid. Thomas, supra, p. 121 ); but, since it also establishes a
moral condition, an advance in it is yet possible, as is indicated
by the above citation. Man ought to and can obey the divine
commandments, since God gave them to him for that purpose.
If the justified man, in seeking to render this obedience, fall into
venial sin, he does not on that account cease to be righteous, or
justified (c. 11). No one dare be secure in view of his supposed
predestination (c. 12; can. 15, 16). The fundamental spirit of
^ This chapter is a laboriously-constructed composition. The decision of

points at issue is avoided, but it inclines more toward the Thomists, since
the opposition of the Protestant position which is horribly caricatured
drove its authors in that direction.
^ How the process is realized in the case of those baptized in infancy is not
explained.

the Christian life is fear, which can never do enough to satisfy

itself in the works of the prescribed devotion in the Roman
Catholic church : With fear and trembling let them work out
'
'
their salvation in labors, in vigils, in alms, in prayers and

oblations, in fasting and chastity ; for they ought to fear, know-
ing that they have been regenerated to the hope of glory and not
yet to glory " (c. 13). To one reading these declarations in a
central position in the formal statement of the church's doctrine,
it must appear as though there had never been an Augustine in
the Western church. The decree, in its practical aspects, moves
in the circuit of Cyprian's ideal of piety, with its legal observ-
ances and its servile fear (Vol. I., p. 194 ff., 308). The moral
life is dominated by this idea of merit. Whoever doubts this,
falls under the anathema (can. 26). It is insisted, indeed, that
these 7neritay being wrought in the members by the power of
Christ, the Head of the church, and being a product of the in-
herent righteousness are gifts of God (c. 16).
^ But *' the good
works of a justified man are also ' merits of the justified him-
'
'
*
self " and, as such, merit eternal life (can. 32), It is evident

enough the old positions must be preserved unchanged !
{d) But the grace of justification may be lost, not only through
unbelief, but by any mortal sin (c. 15). Those who have
mortally sinned may again be justified {rursus justificari pote-
runt^f i. <?., by the sacrament of repentance, and not, as some
fancy, by faith alone (can. 29). But to secure this, there is
need, not only for contrition^ but also for confession, at least
in pledge and to be made at the appropriate time, together with
absolution and the works of satisfaction. The eternal penalties,
as well as the guilt, are removed by absolution, but for the can-
celing of the temporal penalties {poena temporalis) there must
be works of satisfaction (c. 14). The practical experience of
justification can be realized, accordingly, only within the limits
of the sacrament of repentance.
This is doctrinally but a reproduction of the average scholastic
views (cf. Chemnitz, Examen cone. Trid., i. 369). But the
reception of this teaching is now the necessary antecedent of jus-
tification '* which
; {t. e., the Roman Catholic doctrine of
justification) unless anyone shall faithfully and firmly accept he
cannot be justified " (c. t6 fin.). In the apprehension of the
Christian life here set forth, it is no longer a matter of the
adoption of theological views, but of the acceptance of the fixed
doctrines of the church, which are absolutely necessary to salva-
tion.
7. The 7th session was devoted to the doctrine of the Sacra-
ments. The scholastic conflict was here also at once renewed
the one party maintaining that the sacraments include in them-

selves grace, the other regarding them as signs, which God, in
view of ,his covenant, accompanies with his own energy (vid.
supra, p. 126 f. ). This question was not solved, nor was that
'
of the indelible character.

' * ^
There was essential agreement
'
in the general doctrine of the sacraments, and as the discussion

of the differences might have led to the revival of profounder
points of opposition between Thomists and Scotists,^ it was
decided to frame no decree upon the subject, but merely to con-
demn the teaching of the adversaries by appropriate canons. It
is possible, however, to gather from the discussions the positive
views which found general acceptance. They were essentially
as follows The seven sacraments were instituted by Christ
.
(can. i). They are necessary to salvation, since without them

the gratia justificationis cannot be secured (4). They do not
merely serve for the nourishment of faith (5), nor are they only
external signs and badges of discipleship ; but they contain
grace (6).^ They work ex opere operate^ and they and not

only faith ^bring grace (8). Three of them impress a character
upon the soul, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark
*
'
(signum)" (9).
8. In regard to Baptism also, the council contented itself
with the framing of canons. The baptism of heretics is valid,
provided it is administered '* with the intention of doing what
the church does" (4). Baptism does not release from the
obligation to obey the law of Christ and all the commandments
of the church (7, 8). Sins committed after baptism are *'not
forgiven simply by the remembrance and the faith of the bap-
tism," /. ., are not venial (10). Finally, the Anabaptists are
condemned (12-14).
9. In the discussion of Confirmation, anathemas are pro-
nounced upon the views that it is not a true sacrament \ that
:
it *' was formerly nothing more than instruction " (i); that it
may be administered by a ** simple priest," and not only by a

bishop (3).
10. It was not until the 13th session, that dogmatic utterances
were again attempted. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper was
now the topic of discussion, (^z) Here again we meet the con-
flicting scholastic principles (Sarpi, iii. 240 ff. ). The positive
^ This theory never recovered from the shattering criticisms of Duns (vid.
supra, p. 128).
2 Cf. Pallavicini, ix. 7. i, and Sarpi, ii. 597 ff.
^
Continere gratiam is the ancient formula (vid. supra, p. 126). Here
Zwingli is rejected, but at the same time the way is paved for the Scotist
theory.
'
dogma is as follows : Under the form {^species') of the elements,

Christj the God-man, is really and substantially {realitei- et sub-
stantialiter) present. He is, indeed, seated at the right hand
of God ''according to the natural mode of existing," which
does not, however, exclude a *'way of existing" (^cxistendi
ratio^ which we cannot indeed express, but which we can
recognize as possible, in accordance with which Christ, ** sacra-
mentally present in many other places, may be in his substance
(^siia substantia) present with us" (c. i). By means of the
consecration, there is a ** conversion (^conversio') of the entire
substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ '
(c. 4). The entire Christ (^totus et integer Christus) is present

under the form of the bread and in every portion of it (c. 3).
Whereas in all other sacraments the sanctifying power {vis
sanctifica7idi') enters only in the moment of the administration,
in the eucharist thebody of Christ is present already before the
reception of the elements by the communicant, since the Lord
called his body bread before the disciples had received it (c. 3).
These views naturally led to the defense of '' the worship of
adoration {latriae citltus') which is due to the true God," for the
host, and to the advocacy of the festival of Corpus Christi (c. 5).
The blessing of the sacrament consists in the forgiveness of
venial sins and in preservation from mortal sins. The sacrament
is, further, a pledge of future blessedness and glory, and a symbol
of the unity of Christ's body (c. 2).

The following, among other positions, are condemned That :
the substance of the bread remains the same after consecration

(can. 2)\ that Christ is present in the celebration, while it is
being received {in usu, dum sutnitur')^ but not before nor after
(4); that the forgiveness of sins is the chief, or even the only,
fruit of the eucharist (5); the rejection of self-communion by
the priest (10); the characterizing of faith as a ''sufficient
preparation " for the reception of the sacrament (n)-^
{b) It was not until the 21st session (A. D. 1562), that
action was taken upon the demand for the granting of the cup
to the laity, although this had been often urged upon the
attention of the council. It was then decided, that the institu-
tion of the Supper does not require that all believers must
receive it in both forms (c. i.), and that the church has
authority to introduce changes "in the administration {dispen-
satione) of the sacraments, their substance being preserved."
This was done when it, " led by weighty and just reasons," ex-
^ In the original draft of the canons, the demand of the cup for the laily is
also anathematized (8. 10 act. i. 520 b).

; But political considerations led to
the postponement of a decision upon this point (act. i. 503 a, 521 b, 528 b).
.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY AT COUNCIL OF TRENT. 44I
eluded the laity from the cup (c. 2). And there is the less
occasion for objection to this upon internal grounds, since the
entire Christ is present under each of the two forms, and hence
no one is robbed of a blessing by the withdrawal of the cup
(c. 3 j. Those are accordingly condemned who doubt that the
church for just reasons withdrew the cup from the laity (can. 2).
Finally, consideration of the question, whether the church must
always exclude the laity from the cup, or whether '* under any
conditions" it might grant the cup to a particular nation or
kingdom, was postponed. It was afterward decided that the
matter should *' be referred to our most holy lord " {ad sanctis-
simiim dominum }iostriuii, act. ii. 96 ff. ). No decision was
given.
(if) In this connection we naturally consider the Mass, which
was the subject treated at the 2 2d session. Christ, the Mel-

chizedekian High-priest, in order that his sacrifice might not be
obliterated, instituted in the Lord's Supper a sacrifice to be re-
peated by his disciples, *^ by which that bloody (one) once
offered on the cross should be represented " (repraesentaretur')
The repetition of the sacrifice is commanded by the words :
'' This do in remembrance

of me " (c. i). Whoever questions
this exegesis, is anathematized (can. 2).-^ The same Christ who
offered himself up upon the cross is here in the mass sacrificed in an
unbloody way. The anathema is pronounced upon everyone who
questions the reality of this sacrifice (can. i). By this offering
God is reconciled, and grants grace and the gift of repentance, and
forgives even great sins {peccata etiam ingentia).'^ This sacrifice
avails also for the dead. Its efficacy is due to the fact that
it is in content identical with the sacrifice upon the cross, *' only
themethod of offering being different" (c. 2). The entire
Romish praxis in connection with the mass
thus dogmatically
is
stated: Masses "in honor and memory of the saints" and

private masses {iiiissae privatae') (c. "^^^'^ the mixing of water
with the wine (c. 7); the canon of the mass (c. 4); the cere-
^ This theory involves a complete confusion of thought. The sacrifice of the
mass is said to be merely a copy, or representation, of the offering upon the
cross but yet it is to preserve the priesthood of Christ in the world and to re-
;
peat the sacrifice made upon the cross. We may easily understand what diffi-
culties this must have occasioned in the debates. If the Lord's Supper

already in the first celebration is the sacrifice of Christ, for what purpose
then the subsequent death upon the cross? {e. g., act. ii. 78 b, 82 b, 81 a, 83.
DoLLiNGER, Berichte u. Tagebiicher, ii. 81).
2 Here,too, the decree is full of contradictions. According to this passage
(c. 2), the mass, as a sacrifice of Christ, blots out all sins
even mortal ; but
in c. I it is said : " the virtue of this is applied for the remission of those sins
which are daily committed by us." In view of these diffiulties, we can under-
stand the origin of the theory mentioned supra, p. 203, n. i cf. p. 335.
;
"
monies and garments; the alternation of the ''lowered and elevated

voice " (c. 5). Anathemas are pronounced upon all variations
from these positions (c. 5-9). There was thus again adopted a
feature of the popular Christianity of the Middle Ages, with all
its murkiness and fallacies. The work of Christ was committed
to the hands of the church, i. e., the priests/ which was in per-
fect keeping with the entire tendency of the medieval doctrine
of the sacraments.
II. The 14th session treats exhaustively of the Sacrament of
Repentance. This is said to have been instituted by Christ
(Jn. 20. 22 f.) for the forgiveness of the sins of those who have
lost the grace of their baptism (c. i, 2). Its essence consists in
the priestly absolution (cf. supra, p. 136, 140 n. ). It embraces
contrition^ confession, and satisfaction. It works reconciliation
with God, which is at times followed in the case of the pious by
peace of conscience and the comfort of the Holy Spirit^ (c. 3).
The opinion that repentance consists in ** terrors of conscience "
and faith is condemned (ib.). The decree then treats of Con-
trition (c. 4). This embraces sorrow for past sins and the de-
termination to sin no more. It obligates itself to the right
reception of the sacrament, *'with confidence in the divine
mercy and with a vow to perform the things remaining. Even '
'
when the contrition, being combined with love, is perfect, it

does not itself work reconciliation, but does so only by virtue of
the ** vow of the sacrament " connected with it.^ ** Imperfect
contrition," which is called attrition, not only does not make

man a hypocrite, but is a gift of the Holy Spirit, by the help of
which the sinner ** prepares for himself a way to righteousness.
It is not indeed dhX^ per se to lead the sinner to justification, but
^ Observe also the crass conception of the effect of the sacrifice of Christ
which was perpetuated by the sacrifice of the mass (vid. already Gregory,
supra, p. 24). It would be a profitable exercise to trace historically the mutual
influences of the theory of satisfaction and the doctrine of the sacrifice of the
mass. The ecclesiastical sacrifice was not seldom the counterpart of the
sacrifice of Christ.
'^
The language is instructive: ** Reconciliation with God, which some-
times {înterduf?i), in pious men and those receiving this sacrament devoutly,
peace of conscience and serenity, with great consolation of spirit, are accus-
tomed to follow." The opus operatuin is of itself sufficient, and its "objec-
tive" result, the peace of repentance, is an accessory which sometimes in the
case of the ** pious" follows! Luther's comment was, that this "objective"
result was not sufficient, but that a way should be sought by which the " inter-
dum^^ might become the rule. The 5th canon pays its respects to this pro-
posed search by condemning the view, that a man will by simply recounting
his sins become a hypocrite.
^ This requirement, in itself considered, removes a difficulty of the medieval
system, but it is no more consistent with the connection in which it is found

than was the position of Thomas. Vid. supra, p. 136.
it "disposes" him toward the sacrament. This is essentially

the popular medieval doctrine. But it is now further asserted
with emphasis, that no impartation of grace is granted *' without
a good motive of the recipients, and that the Ninevites
'
'
advanced from the imperfect penitence of one beneficially

alarmed {iitiliter concussus) to "repentance full of terrors/'
Thus contrition again appears to be necessary, but it will be
observed upon careful examination that even this presentation of
the matter does not indicate any real advance upon the popular
medieval view, as the latter also required a transformation of the
attrition into contrition
by means, it is true, of the sacrament
(vid. supra, p. 137, 175).'
Upon
contrition follows Confession, in which all mortal sins
which can be remembered
and that not only in general {i?i
genere)y but in particular (Jn specie) must be confessed,
together with a detailing of all the circumstances which may be
essential to a correct judgment of the offense. Only thus can
the priest form a correct opinion and find the appropriate
penalty (c. 5). The priest has not merely the " ministry . . .
of declaring that sins are forgiven ; but after the manner of a

judicial act, in which sentence is pronounced by him as by a
judge " (c. 6). Sins of particular gravity are " reserved " for
the decision of the higher authorities (bishop, pope) (c. 7).
Works of Satisfaction are designed, first of all, as a pedagogic
measure, to restrain the sinner from future sins " As by a kind :
of rein, these satisfactorial penalties make penitents more

cautious and vigilant in the future." In the second place, they
make the sinner like Christ, "since in making satisfaction we
suffer for our sins." This determines, thirdly, their atoning,
satisfactorial character, in which connection, however, emphasis is
laid upon the fact, that it is only from the satisfaction rendered
by Christ that "all our sufficiency comes." Of the design of
satisfaction, it is said "It is not only for the guarding of the new
:
life and a medicine for infirmity, but also for a punishment and
castigation of past sins " (c. 8). Finally, it is observed, that
1 But the matter is not clear. The of the decretal said

original draft
of attrition : *' but it of this sacrament" (act. i.
suffices for the constitution
584 a). These words were indeed afterward stricken out, but the other state-
ments in regard to attrition were allowed to stand (vid. Pallavicini, x. 12.
25, 26). But Dollinger-Reusch, Moralstreitigkeiten, i. 72, go too far in
their attempt to acquit the Tridentine Confession of the charge of attritionism.
Here, too, there was doubtless a deliberate avoidance of clear definition. The
Constitution designates Pius VI. as the '* Promoter of the faith" [aucto?-
fidei) and describes the " fear of Gehenna " as a doniuii supernaturale and as
a "way (7//0i/;/j) inspired by God, preparing for the love of righteousness"
(Denzinger, Enchirid. n. 1388).
a '
there is a satisfactorial significance, not only in the penalties im-
posed by the priest, but also in the patient endurance of the

temporal chastisements which are appointed by God (c. 9J.
But as to the relation of the latter penalties to the former
point often assailed by the later criticism (vid. supra, p. 210 j
nothing is said.
The canons condemn the Protestant doctrine, e. g. that bap- ,
tism contains the sacrament of repentance (2); that repentance

consists of only penitence {terrores) and faith (4); that con-
trition alone leads to hypocrisy (5); that the sacramental con-
fession and the extension of its scope to cover "all and separate
mortal sins, which can be held in memory by due and diligent
premeditation, even those which are secret" are not *'of
divine right" (6, 7); that the priestly absolution is not a
*' judicial act"
(9); that Matt. 16. 19 and Jn. 20. 23 give to
all Christians the authority to pronounce absolution (10); that
bishops do not have the *
right of reserving cases to themselves
'
'
(11); that satisfaction is nothing more than faith in forgiveness

(12); that satisfactions are merely human traditions (14); that
it is a '' fiction," that, after the removal of the eternal penalties,
temporal penalties often remain to be discharged (15)-^

Indulgences were considered at the 25th session (Dec. 4,
1563). The impatient haste with which all business was trans-
acted toward the close of the council did not admit of a
thorough discussion of this subject (act. ii. 676 b. Sarpi, vi.
368 f. ). But in order not to pass over the topic entirely, a
sketch was prepared in the last night (act, ii. 680 a). Since
Christ, it is held, gave indulgences to the church, this *' prac-
tice very salutary for the people" is to be retained. Those who
pronounce indulgences useless, or challenge the right of the
church to grant them, are condemned. But in the granting of
them moderation should be exercised, in accordance with the
ancient and approved custom of the church, in order not to
weaken ecclesiastical disciphne. The abuses which have at-
tached themselves to the system of indulgences and have given
to the heretics an occasion for blasphemy against ''this noble

name of indulgences," are to be corrected especially ''all un-
worthy { p7âvos^ gains in return for the securing of these,
whence has come the greatest cause of abuses among the Chris-
tian populace, are to be entirely abolished."^ Furthermore, the
bishops are to take notice of the abuses and make report of them
to Rome. The pope would then see to it, " that thus the favor
1 As to public repentance, vid. sess. 24, De reformat, c. 8.

2 Here, too, in the last minute it maybe said, there was an alteration which

{^)nuni(s) of the holy indulgences may be sacredly and without

corruption dispensed to all believers." Even here, it will be
observed, there was no surrender of any part of the traditional
dogmatic position.^
Purgatory was also here discussed (ses. 25). The decretal
drawn up 30) affirms that help
in great haste (vid. ses. 6, can.
may be given to souls in purgatory by the intercession of the
saints and the sacrifice of the mass. This doctrine is to be
preached without entering into discussion of the difficult ques-
tions connected with it. Masses, prayers, alms, and '' other
pious works" should be "piously and devoutly" rendered in
behalf of the dead.
12. Extreme Unction (ses. 14) is said to remove the remains
of sin in the dying and to lighten and confirm the heart (c. 2)
again, it will be observed, a reaffirmation of traditional doctrine.
13. The sacrament of Ordination, it is affirmed (ses. 23J, was
instituted in connection with the New Testament sacrifice. It
was, therefore, instituted by Christ, who thereby committed to
the apostles and their followers the power of offering and admin-
'
'
istering his body and blood both for the remitting and for the re-
taining of sins " (c. i). In view of the sacredness of the mat-
ter, it was appropriate that there should be in the church " more
and diverse orders of ministers." The Scriptures attest the
priesthood and the diaconate, and the other ranks have been
appointed from time to time since the early days of the church
(c. 2 But since, according to the Scriptures, apostolic tradition,
) .
and the harmonious consensus of the Fathers, grace is conferred in

ordination by words and outward signs, it is without doubt to be
counted among the sacraments of the church (c. 3). Whoever
denies this, or that the " character
'
is impressed by ordination,
'
falls under the anathema (can. 4). The universal priesthood of

believers is directly rejected. Not all have the same spiritual
power {^spiritualis potestas) Priests are discriminated from the
.
laity not only by a '^ temporary power." All these opinions

are refuted by Eph. 4. 11 and i Cor. 12. 28 ff. The hierarch-
ical government of the church is of divine appointment (divina
ordination~) (can. 6). Bishops are superior to presbyters { pres-
byteris siperiores); to them are reserved confirmation and ordi-
was not in the interest of lucidity, " Nevertheless, in this there were then
stricken out certain words, which expressly forbade that certain large sums be
impo-ed for the securing of indulgences " (act. ii. 680 b); vid. Pallavicini,
xxiv. 8. I.
1 condemnation of the theses of the Synod of Pistoja in the Consti-
Cf. the
tution, " Auctorem fidei " (1794), where the doctrine, that indulgences effect
the forgiveness of temporal penalty, is presupposed (Denzinger, Enchirid. n.
1403)-
nation "and many other things." Ordination thus confers the

spiritual office. The approval of the civil government, its call
and authority, are not required in the sense '* that without this
ordination would be invalid."^ On the other hand, all who are
called and inducted into office only by the people or the civil
authority are, like those who arrogate a spiritual office to them-
selves, ** thieves and robbers " (Jn. lo. i) (c. 4).^
14. The discussion of Marriage (ses. 24) is in very general
terms, treating of its nature and the grace which Christ has won
for it. As by the latter, Christian marriage is made superior to
that of earlier times, it must now be reckoned among the sacra-
ments. The canons discuss a number of canonical questions, forbid
marriage to clerics and monks (can. 9), and condemn the view,
that "it is not better nor more blessed to remain in virginity, or
celibacy, than to be joined in marriage " (can. 10). Thus the
medieval ideal of life is transported into modern times, which,
aside from the practical ecclesiastical situation of the period,
constitutes the historical significance of these canons.
15. Although the defenders of the old church placed the defi-
nition of the church at the centre of discussion
and rightly so
it was yet deemed prudent at Trent to refrain from a full dis-
cussion of this topic/ The debates occasioned by the presenta-

tion of the section upon ordination reveal the grounds for this
caution. The highest officials desired a recognition of the papal
system ; but a great number of the bishops were thoroughly
episcopal in their ideas. The original draft of the decretal upon
ordination gave quite open expression to papalistic premises, the
hierarchical organism being described as standing "under one
supreme hierarch, the vicar of Christ on earth ; " or (according to
the second draft) the bishops standing under the pope being said
to be " called to participation in care {in pai'fem soUicitudinis'),
but not to plenitude of power" {in plenitudinem potestatis^ (act.
ii, 152 a, 155 b, with can. 7, 156 a). It was but logically con-
sistent, when in the subsequent proceedings it was maintained,
that all ecclesiastical authority belongs primarily to the pope,

who can appoint and endow bishops at his will he the sun, they
the rays. The pope is, accordingly, the "vicar of Christ" in
an absolute sense {e. g., act. ii. 158 b, 175 a, 168 a: "Bishops
are, therefore, not directly from Christ, but from the pontifex ").
^ Observe the prudent selection of language which would permit in praxis

many interpretations. The entire conception is only a deduction from the sac-
ramental character of ordination.
2 The 8th canon also deserves mention :
" If anyone shall say that bishops
appointed by the authority of the Roman pontiff are not legitimate and true
bishops, but a Roman figment, let him be anathema." Cf act. ii. 155 f.
^ Eck's Loci, r, i;., begin with a section, De ecclesia.
In opposition to this it was, however, maintained by many, that

the pope is only " the chief vicar {su?nmus vkarius) of Christ
"
(act. ii. 157 a, 165 a, 170 a, 193 b, et pas.). The apostles re-
ceived their power, not from Peter, but from Christ. Not Peter,
but Christ, selected the substitute for Judas. Thus the bishops
also receive the ** power for ruling and for governing the church
of Christ " directly from Christ, and not from the pope (ib. ii.
188 f). Primacy is ascribed to the pope only for the sake of
earthly order '* Therefore the
: bishops have (their) power orig-
inally from God, but from the pope as a second cause " (ii. 165).
The episcopal power ( potestas) comes from Christ ; the specific
earthly territory within which it is to be exercised is assigned by
the pope (ii. 168 f, 191 b, 192 f., etc.). Hence the constantly-
recurring controversy as to the introductory clause of the decre-
tals, /. e. , whether to the word synodus ^hoMldh^ added the words
universalem ecclesiam repres entasis. Under these circumstances,
it was certainly the most practical course to follow the counsel of
those who advised an avoidance of this point of the controversy.
The final draft of the decretal presents, therefore, in an almost
unrecognizable form the original curialistic conception.
This clashing of views is historically intelligible ; but it
appeared impossible in the situation then existing to find any way
of harmonizing the antagonistic parties. Both agreed in ac-
knowledging a double tradition. To the bishops belongs, by
virtue of the apostolic succession, a peculiar power over the
church, and
the popes, as the successors of Peter, are the rulers
of the church. The episcopal party reasoned If the bishops
:
have apostolic power by divine rights then the papal primacy

must have reference only to the external economy of the church.
But no one ventured to draw the further inference, that the
papacy must then exist only by human right (cf supra, p. 167 f ),
since the primacy of Peter was also instituted by God. Here
lies the fault of the system. At this point the logic of the
Curialists is brought to bear, the actual conditions in the church
constituting an argument in their favor. If the papal primacy
exitsyV/r^ divino, then the pope is the lord of the church \ to
him belongs all power in the church ;' and the bishops are only
called by him to a share in his practical oversight {in partem
sollicitudinis^ They possess the apostolic succession only in the
.
form illustrated in the apostolic age

of dependence upon
Peter. But, in this case, can the power of the bishops be
described as of divine right ? ^ Does it not fall merely under
1 Cf. the definition of the " divine right" oy the Jesuit Salmeron:
**
That
is of divine right which God himself does directly through himself" (Le Plat,
Monument. <. 524).
the category of canon law, or jus humanum ? This neither

party could or would acknowledge. There was at this point a
very patent failure of logical consistency. The apostolic succes-
sion bound the hands of the Curialists, while Peter stood in the
path of the Episcopalists ; and neither of these obstacles could
be cast aside.
That which the council could not do was accomplished at a
later day by the Catechismus Romanus. The doctrine of the
church is here treated on the basis of Thomas (cf. supra, p.
i44f. ). The church is the assembly of believers i^congregatio
Ji /e//u/n,\. c. 10). Pious and wicked live in it side by side,
possessing in common " the profession of faith and the commu-
nion of the sacraments." The pious are united to one another
*'by the spirit of grace and the bond of love " (ib. quaest. 6).
But in must prevail obedience to that rank
this fellowship there
which not only entrusted with the proclamation of the gospel,
is
but is also judge and physician for the sinful (c. 7, q. 2, 28).
But all this power is concentrated in the pope. '* For there
is
indeed one ruler and governor of it (the church), the invisible

Christ but also that visible (one) who occupies the Roman
;
chair as the legitimate successor of Peter, the chief of the apos-

tles " (c. 10, q. 10 j cf. 7, q. 24). Christ, who rules the
church, appointed a man as vicar and minister of his power
*'
j
for, since the visible church needs a visible head, therefore our
Saviour established Peter as the head and pastor of the whole
race of believers" (c. 10, q. 11). The papalistic theory here
finds a positive recognition which it could not have secured at
the council.
The Professio fidei Tridentina contains, as a component
part of the Catholic faith
''outside of which no one can be

saved" the assertion '* I promise and swear true obedience
:
to the Roman pontiff, successor of the blessed Peter, the chief

of the apostles, and the vicar of Jesus Christ."
16. The council preserved intact the Christianity of the Middle
Ages. Nothing of importance in it was overlooked-. Even the
worship of saints and the veneration of images and relics are com-
mended (ses. 25). Medieval theology was exalted to the posi-
tion of ecclesiastical dogma. In this lies the chief significance
of the Confession of Trent. We
cannot but regard with amaze-
ment the great work which was here accomplished. Out of the
innumerable array of contradictory formulas and theories, a re-
duction was made which, in a most masterly way, presents the
fundamental principles of the Scholastic theology. True, many
things are passed over or concealed, and others are expressed
ambiguously but, viewed as a whole, the result was a self-
;
REVIVAL OF AUGUSTINIAN DOCTRINE OF GRACE. 449
consistent system of doctrine such as the Roman Cathohc church

had not hitherto possessed. By this means the medieval
theology was made independent of the shifting favor or disfavor
of the schools. The Tridentine Confession rescued the Schol-
astic theology from the Scholastics, by placing it upon an eleva-
tion beyond their reach. But, comprehensive as was this doc-
trinal scheme in general, in particular points it was just as notice-
ably capable of indefinite expansion and modification. Many
variant tendencies and shades of opinion might be gathered
beneath it, and interpret their views into its language. In fact,
Thomists and Scotists, Augustinian mystics and Jesuits im-
mersed in practical politics, did just this, and did it without re-
buke. It is only the gospel, as understood by Protestantism,
to which there is no bridge from the Tridentine theology. In
this direction only its declarations are clear, sharp, unyielding,
and enclosed in a hedge of innumerable anathemas. The
supremacy of tradition, the sacramental infusion of grace, faith
as an assent or subjection to formulas, the hierarchy as the
almoner of supernatural powers and gate-keeper of the celestial
world, the ascetic ideal of life
upon these points there is no
wavering and no uncertain sound. It is here, therefore, that the
ways part. The anathemas of the Tridentine canons branded
as heresy the Protestant teaching in its entire compass, as the
decretals elevated the Roman Catholic theories to the position
of dogmas. This constitutes the two-fold significance of the
Council of Trent.
84. Revival of the Augustinian Doctrine of Grace and Its

Ecclesiastical Rejection,
Literature. Linsenmann, Mich. Bajus, 1867. Moller-Seeberg,

PRE. ii.,ed. 3, 363 ff. Sainte-Beuve, Port-Royal, ed. 3, 6 vols., Paris, 1867.
Reuchlin, Gesch. v. Port-Royal, 2 vols., 1839-44. Schneemann, Entste-
hung u. Entwicklg. d. thomist.-molinist. Controverse, 2 parts, 1879-80.
ScHROCKH, KG. seit der Reformat, iv. 310 ff. Henke, Neuere KG., ii.
98 ff. Ranke, Franzos. Gesch., vols. iii. and iv. Schill, Die Constitution
Unigenitus, 1876. Reusch, Index der verbotenen Biieher, ii. 457 ff., 539 ff^-*
552 ff., 724 ff, Thomasius-Seeberg, DG. ii., ed. 2, 717 ff. Harnack, DG.
iii., ed. 3, 647 ff.
I. The Augustinian doctrine of grace found recognition at
Trent in but a mutilated form. More emphasis was laid upon it

in the Romish Catechism, as the latter was influenced by
Thomas. But the ethics and dogmatics of the Jesuits soon
banished this doctrine entirely from the regnant theology.
There were not lacking, indeed, some theologians of Augustin-
ian tendencies to oppose this growing Pelagianism. They
29
asserted themselves in Belgium and France, being influenced also

by humanistic predilections. Their distinguishing character-
istic was merely the advocacy of the Augustinian doctrine, their
orthodoxy being unassailable in 'ill other points. More import-
ant, therefore, than their views is the papal condemnation which
was visited upon them, as this falls with all its force upon
Augustine himself. They were accordingly in the right who, in
A. 0.(^15637) laid before the pope the complaint ''Under a
:
mask, they condemn the doctrine of Augustine," or: "0

grief Augustine is condemned under the name of the Jan-
!
senists " (Reusch, Index ii. 469). We must trace the course
of the controversies induced by Baius, Jansen, and Quesnel.
2. Michael Baius (De Bay, A. D. 1513-89), a professor in
Louvain, advocated the Augustinian doctrine of grace. Original
righteousness, as the subjection of the sensuous nature to the spirit
united with God, is not to be designated as an added endowment
(^donum superadditunt) If man was created good by God, then
,
concupiscence, as the rebellion of the flesh against the spiritual

nature, is really sin. Man is utterly depraved by sin " free- :
will without the assistance of God avails for nothing except for
sin." As the entire man, so also the entire race has become
subject to sin. The justification of the sinner takes place through
the transformation of his will by God '* Our evil will is trans-
:
formed into a good (will)." This new will man now employs
in good works: ''Righteousness is properly obedience to the
law. " ^ But since this righteousness wrought in man upon earth
by grace can never be flawless, God here grants as supplementary
the forgiveness of sins. "Justification is nothing else than a
certain continuous progression both in the practice of virtues and
in the remission of sins." This whole structure of thought is
thoroughly Catholic.^ Nevertheless, the 79 theses of Baius were
condemned by Pope Pius V. in the bull, Ex omnibus afflictioni-
bus. Thus genuinely Augustinian ideas were rejected, e. g. :
That the will without grace can only sin that even the con-
;
^ This a definition strongly emphasized by Bajus, e. g.y in his theses con-

is
demned by the pope, n. 42 " Righteousness, by which the man is justified
:
by faith, consists formally in obedience to the commandments ;" 69 : " The

justification of the wicked man occurs formally through obedience to the law,
but not through a secret communication and inspiration of grace which causes
those who are justified to fulfill the law through it."
^ The independent role here attributed to the forgiveness of sins which is
not, as in Thomas, the recognition of an act of making righteousness already

accomplished reminds us of Pighius and Gropper (supra, p. 434, n. i ) . Let
it not be overlooked, however, that forgiveness removes only the guilt
(rea/Hs) of sin, whereas grace in the proper sense atones for or transforms the
act itself.
1
cupiscence that is contrary to the will is sin ; that the sinner is

moved and animated by God alone,and not by the ministrations
of the priest; that merits are bestowed upon men gratuitously.^
Bajus recalled his assertions.
3. The controversy associated with the name of the Jesuit,
LuDwiG Molina (f A. D. 1600), ran its course without produc-
ing any permanent result. In his work, Liberi arbitrii cum
gratiae donis, div, praescientia^ proindentia, praedestinatione ct
reprobatione concordia (A. D. 1588), an acute attempt is made
to reconcile Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, and Augustinianism.
Man is even in his only natural,
sinful state free to perform, not
but also surpernatural works, the cooperation of grace being pre-
supposed. Grace elevates and stimulates the soul, making it ca-
pable of supernatural works ; but the real act of decision is not
wrought in the will by grace, but is made by the will itself, the
will being, however, in union with grace. Thus, as the free de-
cision of the will and the capacitating of the soul for the super-
natural (grace) in their cooperation mark the beginning of the
state of acceptance with God (^Heilsstand'),^ so both combined
in simultaneous combination {^concursu simultaneo) produce the
supernatural acts. They work together like two men who tug a
vessel with one rope. Now the thoroughgoing cooperation thus
attained becomes a mere illusion if all the free acts of created
beings are really recognized, as among the Thomists, as willed
1 A few of the important theses (vid. the Bull in Denzinger, Enchiridion,

881 are as follows
ff. ) 20. *' No sin is by its nature venial, but every venial
:
sin merits eternal punishment." 25. '*A11 works of unbelievers are sins,
and the virtues of the philosophers are vices." 27. "Free-will without the
assistance of the grace of God avails only for sin." 28. *' It is a Pelagian
error to say that free-will avails for the avoiding of sin." 35. *' Everything
which the sinner, or servant of sin, does is sin." 51. "Concupiscence, or
the lawof the members and its depraved desires, which men now willingly feel,
is a real disobedience of the law." 73. " No one except Christ is without
original sin ; hence the blessed virgin is mortal on account of sin contracted
from Adam, and all her afflictions in this life, just as those also of other right-
eous persons, vpere avengings of actual or original sin." 58. "The penitent
sinner is not vivified by the ministration of the absolving priest, but by God
alone, who, suggesting and inspiring (his) repentance, vivifies and resuscitates
him ; but by the ministration of the priest guilt alone is removed." 8. "In
those redeemed by the grace of Christ, no good merit can be found which is
not conferred gratuitously upon the unworthy." 77* '* Temporal satisfactions
do not avail to expiate de condigno temporal punishment remaining after sin
has been pardoned." 10. "The remitting of the temporal punishment,
which often remains after sin has been pardoned, and the resurrection of the
body, are properly to be ascribed to nothing but the merits of Christ."
2 Molina gains a place iox ^prevenient grace by maintaining that, in the first
act [actus primus) y before the advent of the second act (actus secundus) of
the will, t. ., in the habituality of the will while not as yet realized in acts,
grace alone acts. The cooperation is posited only of the actus secundi.
by God himself of his own original motion. At this point,

Molina's theory of a '* median knowledge^' (^scientia media)
is introduced. God, he maintains, foresees what his free
creatures under any given circumstances will do or not do.
The scientia media is, therefore, a knowledge of the contin-
gent future. By means of it God beholds the entire future, and
he orders the course of the world in accordance with the knowl-
edge thus in his possession. In contrast with the theory of a
causal connection of events strictly determined by divine decree,
there is here retained a place for human freedom. Upon the
metaphysical questions which are thus left unanswered, it is not
needful for us to enter. The aim of Molina is clear. Grace and
human freedom are to be combined with one another in a peace-
ful union. The ancient problems are to be thus solved in a very
simple way. Predestination and reprobation may be readily ac-
counted for by the scientia media, by virtue of which God fore-
saw which men would cooperate with grace, and which of them
would not do so. But this foreseen free activity of man is to be
regarded only as a means, and hot as a cause, of predestination,
as the latter idea would be Semipelagian.
It is true, a critical eye will readily discover that the combina-
tion thus assumed is only apparent, and that the Augustinian-
Thomistic conception of grace is here torn out by the roots. It
is not the all-working power of the divine will w^hich effects sal-
vation ; but the hands of God and man work together as coordi-
nate factors. Synergism in its boldest form is the confessed first
principle of this theology. But the opposition to it inaugurated
by the Dominicans was crippled by the championship of the
Jesuits, who adopted this theory of grace as the official doctrine
of their order. The popes did not dare to give decision against
the powerful order, and hence the whole matter was buried in the
sessions of the commission of the congregatio de auxiliis gratiae
without the promised papal declaration. As a result, the Jesuits
were allowed to propagate their doctrine without opposition from
the church. Cf. Schneemann, 1. c. Morgott, in Kirchenlex.
viii., ed. 2, 1737 ff., and iii., ed. 2, 897 ff.
4. The most powerful reaction against the lax and Pelagianiz-

ing moral principles of the Jesuits came from circles which centred
about the abbey Port Royal, situated not far from Paris. The medie-
val form of piety was indeed preserved in these circles, but they
drewtheir inspiration from Augustinian Mysticism, and in this they
believed themselves to possess the means of rescuing all serious-
minded persons from the nets of the Jesuits. Hence it was that
this party could find its program in a work which professed to be,
and really was, nothing else than a revived Augustine. This was
the publication of the Bishop of Ypres, Cornelius Jansenius

(f A. D. 1638): Augustinus seu doctrina Augustini de humanae
naturae sanitate, aegritudine, medicina adv. Pelagianos et Afassi-
iienses. It was published in A. D. 1640, Jansen having completed
it shortly before his death. As Bradwardina had done at an
earlier day, Jansen holds up as a mirror before his age, sunken in
Pelagianism, the genuine teachings of Augustine. This is done
with historic, fidelity, and not, as was the case with the English
theologian, in order to establish a deterministic system. Origi-
nal sin, he taught, has filled the entire human race with lust and
ignorance. The sinner is now free in the domain of sin. Justi-
fication by grace is by no means to be identified with the forgive-
ness of sins, as is done by the Protestants. Christ brings the
'* medicinal aid of the Saviour." Irresistible grace, and this
alone, works the good in men it '* makes them will
'
: {facit uf
'
velinf). Grace consists essentially in the inspiration of good

concupiscence, or love. Grace aims at love as its goal, and love
is crowned with the forgiveness of sins. These ideas are mar-
shaled within the lines of the Augustinian doctrine of predesti-
nation.
The Augustinian character of Jansen's teaching cannot be
called in question. He in reality simply reproduced Augustine.
Yet this book precipitated a bitter conflict, which convulsed all
France for more than a century. Upon the suggestion of the
Jesuits, Pope Urban VIII. in A. D. 1642 in the bull. In Eniin-
enti, called attention to the condemnation of the doctrine of
Bajus, of which it declares the teaching of Jansen to be a revival.
This was the signal for the strife. Protests were uttered
against the moral principles of the Jesuits, the secularized Chris-
tianity of the age, and the smothering of liberty by the church.
The contestants strove with flaming words and glittering irony,
not only for dogmatic formulas, but for the genuine Christian
religion for the rights of the inner life and personal conviction
(^. ^., Anton Arnauld, Blaise Pascal). Nevertheless, they
thought it still possible to remain good Catholics, and no attempt
was made to assail the infallibility of papal deliverances. Out-

wardly less untrammeled, and with a fuller inward apprehension
of the truth, than the representatives of the great reformatory
movement upon the same territory in the fifteenth century, the
Jansenists were at one with their predecessors in the idealism
which thought it possible to mend and make available for practi-
cal purposes the old garment by sewing upon it the great patch of
a reform conducted upon the ancient ecclesiastical and national
basis. When this attempt at the restoration of the church with-
out tearing down any part of her structure collapsed, Jansenism
fellwith it ;not, indeed, without contributing its share to induce

the great calamity which overwhelmed its adversary in the Revo-
lution.
But the doctrine of Augustine never again gained the ascen-
dency. Five theses selected from Jansen's- book by the Sor-
bonne were condemned by Innocent X. in the bull, Cum occa-
sione (A. D. 1665). They were as follows: i. "Some com-
mandments of God are impossible to righteous men willing and
striving according to the present powers which they have there :
is lacking also to these the grace by which they would be made
possible." 2. '' Resistance is never offered to inward grace in

the state of fallen nature. " 3- For meriting or demeriting in
* *
the state of fallen nature, there is not required in man freedom

from necessity, but freedom from coercion suffices." 4. ** The
Semipelagians admitted the necessity of prevenient inward grace
for single acts, even for the beginning of faith, and they were
heretics because they maintained that this grace was of such
a nature that the human will was able either to resist it or to con-
form to it." 5. " It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died,
or shed his blood, for all men whatsoever."^
Inasmuch as the Jansenists did not wish to call in question the
papal authority, they attempted to extricate themselves from
their embarrassing position by discriminating between the
*' question of fact" and ''the question of right," maintaining
that, as a matter of fact, Jansen had not advocated the theses

which the pope thus and rightly condemned. The com-
promising position of the Jansenists soon brought them into
further difficulty, as Pope Alexander VII. plainly declared, that
the five theses had been condemned '* in the sense intended by
the same Cornelius Jansen" (Constitut. Ad sanct. Petri sedem^
A. D. 16^) ! The five theses remained therefore under con-
demnation, and even the ''obsequious silence" observed by
Clement IX. (A. D. 1668) was declared insufficient by Clement
XE. (1705). Port Royal was destroyed, A. D. 1710. The
particulars must be referred to Church History.
5. Yet once again the embers of the strife were rekindled.
The occasion was the publication by the Oratorian, Paschasius
QuESNEL (f A. D. 1719), of his Meditations upon the New
Testament (Z^ nouveaii test, en fraîâis avec des reflexio?ts
1
These theses, although torn from their context and therefore difficult to
fully comprehend, no doubt reproduce the doctrine of Jansen. The first thesis
means to maintain, that for each separate good work there is necessary a recep-
tion of efficacious grace [gracia efficax). It must be borne in mind also that
beneath them all lies as a premise the predestinarian o-ratia irresistibilis. Cf.
Henke, ii. 103 f. Reuchlin, Port-Roy. i. 761, 77S f.
;
morales sur chaqiie verset). At the instigation of the Jesuits,

the notorious constitution, Unigenitus, condemned no fewer
than loi theses of this biblical commentary. With terrific
directness, not only the Augustinian theology, but the entire
structure of Augustinian Christianity was here condemned. It
is heretical to teach that the natural man is only sinful ; that
:
faith is a gift of God ; that grace is given only through faith

that faith is the first grace, and the first grace is the forgiveness
of sins; that grace is needed for all good works; that grace
works in us what God has commanded.^ But, in reality, this
condemnation strikes at a higher authority than Augustine. It
is directed, in the last instance, against Paul, who had occa-
sioned the Council of Trent so many laborious hours (cf. supra,

p. 436); for Quesnel was influenced not only by Augustine, but
also by Paul (^. ^. thesis 26).
, Intense excitement was awak-
ened (the Appellants versus the Acceptants), but it subsided
without result when compelled to face the firm alliance of the
papal infallibility (to which the Appellants could at best submit
^ We cite a few of the most important theses : 38. " The sinner is not free,
except toward evil, without the grace of the Redeemer." 62. " He who
does not abstain from evil except from fear of punishment, commits it in his
heart, and is already guilty before God." 48. "What else can we be than
darkness, than error, ihan sin without the light of faith, without Christ, and
without his love?" 39. " The will which grace has not anticipated (prae-
venit) has no light (lamp) except for erring," etc. 29. *' Outside of the
church no grace is granted." 73. " What is the church, except the assembly
of the sons of God, abiding in his bosom?" 74. *' The church, or the
entire body, has Christ the incarnate Word as its head, but all the saints as its
members." 76. " Nothing is broader than the church of God, since all the
elect and righteous of all ages compose it." 79. '* It is useful and necessary
for every age, every place, and every class of persons to study and know the
spirit, piety, and mysteries of the Holy Scriptures." 80. **The reading of
the Holy Scriptures is for all." 82. *' The Lord's day ought to be sanctified
by Christians by readings of piety and, above all, of the Holy Scriptures."
85. "To forbid to Christians the reading of the Holy Scriptures, especially
of the gospel, is to forbid to the children of light the use of the lamp, and to
make them suffer a kind of excommunication." 69. " Faith, the practice,
increase and reward of faith all is a gift of the pure generosity of God."
26. "No graces are given except through faith." 27. "Faith is the first
grace and the fountain of all others." 28. " The first grace which God grants
to the sinner is the remission of sins." 51. " Faith justifies when it works,
but it does not work except through love. " 2. " The grace of Jesus Christ,
the efficacious source of every kind of good, is necessary for every good work ;
without it, not only is nothing done, but neither can anything be done."
3. " In vain, O Lord, dost thou command, unless thou thyself dost also give
what thou commandest." II. "Grace is nothing else than the will of the
omnipotent God, commanding and effecting what it commands." Are not
these almost literally Augustinian propositions ? And how remarkable is the
condemnation of the 2gth thesis ! To the naturalistic Pelagianism of this bull,
even Cyprian appears dangerous !
only against the protest of their consciences) with the influence

of the court and the Jesuit interpretation of the gospel. Bene-
dict XIV. finally decided, that the Constitution, Unigeîitusj
must be regarded as legally valid, but that no one was to be
persecuted who did not publicly assail it (A. D. 1756), We note
here the intrusion of that worst of all the externalizations of faith
effected by the Jesuits, viz. the theory that assent to dogma
:
is not necessary, but silent submission is sufficient. Within the

whole range of the History of Doctrines, there is no official docu-
ment which so richly merits condemnation as scandalous as does
this. And yet it has not only been confirmed by a great num-
ber of popes, but accepted by several French councils and *' by
the entire Catholic world " (vid. Denzinger, ante n. 1216). It
marks the definite expulsion of Augustinian piety from the
official Roman Catholic church.
6. Here may be mentioned the dogmatization of the doc-
trine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin by Pius IX.
in the Constitution, Ineffabilis deiis (8. dec, 1854). In pro-
portion as the strict logical consistency of the Augustinian doc-
trine of sin and grace was impaired, did it become possible to
give to the doctrine of tne immaculate conception dogmatic au-
thority, especially as the masses of the populace had long regarded
Mary as miraculously endowed and holy. The pope now pro-
claimed :
'* We
declare, pronounce, and define, that the doctrine which
holds that the most blessed Virgin Mary was in the first moment
of her conception, by the peculiar grace and privilege of the
omnipotent God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the
Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all pollution
of original sin, has been revealed by God, and is therefore to be
firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful," etc. Thus,
here too, a doctrine of the Scotist and Jesuistic theology
triumphed.
Z"^, Completion of the Romish JDog?na of the Church. The

Vatican Council.
Sources. Planxk, Neueste Rellgionsgesch., vol. i. 2, 1787 ff. V.
Munch, Sammlg. aller alteren u. neueren Konkordate, 2 vols.,
Vollst.
iS30f. ib., Gesch.des Emser Kongressesu. seiner Punktate, 1840. Nippold,
;
Handb. d. neuesten KG., ed. 3, vols. i. and ii. Meier, Zur Gesch. d. rom.-
deutschen Frage, 2 vols., 1 87 1 -3
; ib., Febronius, ed. 2, 1S85. H. Schmid,
Gesch. d. Kath. Kirche Deutschlands, 1874. Henke, Neuere KG., vol. iii.
Nielsen, Gesch. d. Papstt. im 19 Jarh. i., ed. 2, 1880 ib., Aus dem inneren
;
Leben d. kath. Kirche im 19 Jarh. i., 1882. Friedberg, Sammlg. von

Aktenstiicken zum Vat. Cone, 1S72. Die Constitutiones d. Cone, also in
Denzinger, Enchirid. n., 1630 ff., and Mirbt, Quellen, p. 255 ff. Fried-
rich, Gesch. d. Vat. Cone, 3 vols., 1877, 1883, 1889. QuiRiNUS, Rom.
COMPLETION OF ROMISH DOGMA. OF THE CHURCH. 457
Briefev. Cone, 1870. AcTON, Zur Gesch. d. Vat. Cone, 1871. Frommann,
Gesch. u. Krit. d. Vat. Cone, 1872. Janus, Der Papst u. d. Cone, 1871.
1. The ancient Struggle between the curial and the episcopal
systems was, as we have seen, not brought to a conclusion at the

Council of Trent. The episcopal view subsequently asserted it-
self with great energy in both France and Germany. The in-
consistencies, which had always been involved in this view (vid.
supra, p. 446), were even now not eliminated. Despite the re-
sort to rationalistic and illuministic principles in support of it,
the advocates of the episcopacy did not yet venture to draw the
final conclusions to which their theory logically pointed. In the
nineteenth century, it was definitely vanquished.
In France, under Louis XIV. , the Decla^-ation du clefge de
France had plainly asserted the liberties of the Galilean church.
It contains the following propositions i. ** The power of Peter
:
and his successors extends only to spiritual, but not to secular

and temporal things, so that in matters of the latter kind princes
are in no way subject to the spiritual government." 2. The
^*full power {plena potestas') of spiritual things" inheres in the
popes in such a way that at the same time the decrees of tne
Council of Constance, *' upon the authority of the general coun-
cils,'^ recognized by the popes and the entire church, also remain
in force. 3. The papal power is, therefore, to be circumscribed :
'* The rules, customs, and institutions adopted by the Galilean
kingdom and church are also valid." 4. '* In questions of faith

also, the chief parts belong to the supreme pontiff", and his de-
crees pertain to all churches and every church ; nevertheless, his
decision is not irreversible {irrefonnabile') unless the consensus
of the church shall have been added to it " (in Mirbt, 209 f. ).
These articles were at various times condemned at the instiga-
tion of Rome. Louis XIV. did not dare to maintain them with-
out modifications. It was Napoleon 1. who, in A. D. 1810, made
them a part of the civil law. But since he, without regard to the
French episcopate, in the Concordat of A. D. 1801, combined
with the pope in regulating the affairs of the French church, he
in reality brought the latter again under the dominion of the
pope. The despot used the pope for the furtherance of his
own plans (''if there had not been a pope, we would have had
to invent one "),but he incidentally increased thelatter's power.
2. In Germany, the suffragan, Nicholas of Hontheim, in
Treves, impressively advocated the episcopalistic theory in his
work published under the pseudonym, Febronius, De statu
ecclesiae et legitima potestate Romani pontificis, Bullioni^
. . .
iy6j.''^ All the apostles, he maintained, were on an equality,

and all were entrusted with the same power of the keys. The

bishops have their authority directly from Christ. The papal

primacy dare not claim to exceed that of Peter himself. The
papacy is designed only to serve for the promotion of church
order. It is not the pope, but the general council, which repre-
sents the church. The pope is subordinate to the whole council,
and is merely on a parity with its separate members. These
principles, it was held, must be carried out with all energy.
Occasion was given for the practical application of these ideas
by the controversy in regard to the nunciatures. A part of the
episcopal functions had been unlawfully assigned to the papal
nuncios. ^ When the Elector of Bavaria now applied for a nuncio,
the archbishops of Cologne, Mayence, Treves, and Salzburg at-
tempted to break the curial system. Their representatives pre-
pared at Ems the so-called **Punctation of Ems" (vid. Von
MOnch, EmserKongr., 103 ff.). In this it is acknowledged that
the pope is ' the chief-overseer and primate of the whole church
*
the central point of her unity, and endowed by God with the
jursidiction requisite to this end." But, on the other hand, the
bishops are the immediate successors of the apostles, and hold
directly from Christ the power to bind and loose and te make
laws, as well as to grant dispensations from the latter (e. ^., in
regard to hindrances to marriage). Romish bulls and breviaries
are therefore valid only in so far as they are acknowledged by
the bishops. By these principles, the ground is torn from beneath
the nunciatures.
But Bavaria persevered in her request, and the pope in his
claims. The attempt to exalt the episcopacy based upon divine
right above the primacy based only upon human appointment
was met by Rome with the exaltation of faith in the divine right
'' And that this is the
of the papacy : power of primacy, which
he holds by divine right in order that he may outrank other
bishops, not only in the degree of honor, but also in the fullness
of supreme power." The theory, that Christ gave to all the
apostles equal authority, and that all bishops have the same claim
as the pope to participation in the government of the church, is
rejected as folly (vid. the brief, Super soliditate, 1786, in Denzin-
ger, n. 1363).^ The old title of Peter as the rock did good
service also in this modern age.
3. It must be noticed, finally, that at the Synod of Pistoja
(A. D. 1786), under the leadership of Recci, a reform program
1 Vid. Meier, Die Propaganda, ihre Provinzen und ihr Recht, ii. 180 ff.
The Nunciatures are the incorporated claims of the curial system, in which the
latter, against law and order, seeks to encroach upon the episcopal jurisdiction.
2 The brief condemns the book of Eybel, " Was ist der Papst ? " 1782. Cf.
Kirchenlex. iv. , ed. 2, 1152 f.
COMPLETION OF ROMISH DOGMA OF THE CHURCH. 459
was prepared, which also included a recognition of episcopal prin-

ciples. But the constitution, Auctoremjidei {K. D. 1794), con-
demned, in connection with the whole program, particularly the
theses : That the Roman pontifex is the ministerial head ;
'
'
' '
'^ that the bishop has received

from Christ all necessary rights
for the good government of his diocese " ^' that the rights of
;
the bishop, received from Jesus Christ for the governing of the
church, can neither be altered nor impeded" (Denzinger, n.
1366, 1369, 137 1). The French Revolution at this point dis-
tracted theigrowing interest in these plans, associated as they were
with the general movement of the Illumination.
4. On the other hand, the conditions prevailing in the age of
the Restoration were as favorable as possible for the papacy.
Talented advocates arose for its defense, who skillfully directed
the thought of the age, impressed, as it now was, with its need
of authority, toward Christianity, identifying Christianity at the
same time indissolubly with the papacy. The kingdom of the
devil must be destroyed and the old order of things restored.
Two citations may serve to exhibit the spirit in which this pro-
gram was carried out *' If it were permitted to establish degrees
:
of importance among the things of divine institution, I would

place the hierarchy before the dogma, so much is it indispensable
to the maintenance of the faith " (de Maistre). '* The company
of the devil cannot but recoil before the company of Jesus"
(Bonald). With the open and sinister reactionary ecclesiastical
tendencies was combined a romantic enthusiasm for the rock of
Peter, which had defied the storms of the Reformation and the
floods of the Illumination, and a deep interest in the political
reaction. It was imagined that these drifts of sentiment might
now be encouraged without danger, since the Illumination had
ensured absolute security against all Romish attempts. This was
a sad mistake. At scarcely any period since the great days of
the Middle Ages has the Curia ever displayed such a susceptibil-
ity to the whole course of events, such a ready adaptation in
tactics and in speech, such zeal in well-considered action as in
the past century. The results are clearly manifest. The con-
cordats, for which Napoleon had set the example, and which
were from A. D. 1816 concluded with many states, subjected
the church to the pope as her lord. Their significance consisted
less in that which they contained than in the fact that they were
concluded, and that, too, with the pope directly, without any
recognition of the bishops. The course of action deliberately
chosen by the curia with a view to the achievement of the end in
view was acquiesced in by the states and nations. No more is
henceforth to be heard of the episcopalistic ideas of reform which
agitated so many minds before the Revolution. Curialism has

triumphed.
5. The Vatican Council (1869-70) really did no more than
give dogmatic form to the conquest thus long before achieved.
There was at the outset laid before the council an outline of the
faith (^Schema de fide). This was approved April 24th, 1870
(vid. MiRBT, Papsturkunden, p. 255 ff. Denzinger, n. 1630 ff.).
This summary contains nothing new. In opposition to Ration-
alism and Naturalism, the pope declares with the assent of the bish-
ops,^ relying upon the word of God written and handed down,
* *
'

what is the true doctrine. First of all, God '* an entirely simple
'

and unchangeable spiritual subsistence" is acknowledged as
the Creator and Ruler of the world (ses. 3, c. i). Secondly, it is
taught, that God has revealed himself. This revelation ^'is
contained in written books and traditions without writing."
The latter come from Christ or the apostles ; the former em-
brace the books approved at the Council of Trent, which are to
be found in the Vulgata. These books are canonical, not
because they contain the revelation without error, ^' but for this
reason, that, written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have
God as their author, and, as such, they have been handed down
to the church." The church establishes the meaning of the
Scriptures ^^That is to be considered as the true sense of the
:
Sacred Scriptures, which the holy Mother, the church, whose office
it is to judge concerning the true sense and interpretation of the
Holy Scriptures, has held and holds " (c. 2).^ To this revela-
^' We are
tion we are to render obedience in faith : under
obligation to render obedience of intellect and will in faith."
** that we, the grace of God inspiring and
Faith consists in this :
assisting, believe the things revealed by him to be true.

'
This '
'^ assensus " pertains to all things ^' which are contained in the
written or handed-down word of God, and which are by the

church, either by solemn decision or in her ordinary and uni-
versal ministrations, pronounced worthy to be believed as
divinely revealed " (c 3).
6. But these were merely incidental matters. More and more
plainly the real object had in view by the curia and a consider-
able number of the members of the council was revealed. The
^ Ses.
3, u. I ''The bishops of the whole world, assembled to this
:
ecumenical synod by our authority in the Holy Spirit, sitting and judging with
us " these words, as indeed the very superscription of the *' Constitution :
"
" Bishop Pius, servant of the servants of God, the holy council approving,"
assume as granted the curial conception.
^ Vid. this view of inspiration and the interpretation of Scripture also in the
apostolic circular letter of Leo XIII. (A. D. 1894), in Mirbt, Quellen,

p. 280.
:
pope was, in a formal address, requested to present a paper upon

the Infallible Authority of the Pope. smaller party made A
some opposition, expressing themselves no opinion upon the
subject, but pronouncing the definition of the new dogma as
inopportune and ill-timed. The pope ^' felt " his infallibility.^
An appendix upon the infallibility was added to the outline
previously presented to the delegates (in Friedberg, Akten-
stiicke, p. 572). What difference did it make, that the public
opinion of Europe arose in amazement against the new dogma
that the anti-infaUibilists assailed the document before them with
well-grounded arguments ; that they besought the pope to with-
draw or modify the passages in question in the new paper laid
before the Council on May loth ? The pope held to his opin-
ion. The Infallibilists produced a mass of arguments some

of them most astonishing for their theory.^ Many of its oppon-
ents left the city. On July i8th, the vote was taken, of the 535
bishops present only two voting **Non placet."
The constitution, Pastor aefemus, defines the new dogma. In
order that there might be one episcopate, and that the multitude
of believers might by it be held together in harmony, Christ
placed Peter above the other apostles *' In him he established
:
both a perpetual source of unity and a visible foundation upon

whose stability should be constructed the eternal temple"
(Pref. ). The '^ primacy of jurisdiction over the universal
church of Christ " was imparted by Christ directly and imme-
diately to Peter and to Peter alone. It conflicts with the teach-
ings of the Scriptures to say that '* this same primacy was con-
ferred, not immediately and directly upon the blessed Peter him-
self, but upon the church, and through it upon him as a minister
of this church" (c. i). This power has passed from Peter
upon his successors *' Whence whoever succeeds in this chair
:
of Peter, he, according to the institution of Christ himself,

obtains the primacy over the universal church " (c. 2). Accord-
ing to this doctrine, which is demanded by the Scriptures and
tradition, the pope
as the Florentine decretal has taught is to be
recognized as the successor of the prince of the Apostles, '' the
^ Cf. his declarations :

*' As for infallibility, being the priest Mastai, I
always believed it now, being the pope Mastai, I feel it;" and with this,
;
his pendant to the well-known saying of Louis XIV.: *' The tradition I am
"
(Quirinus, p. 107, 555).
^ Among the "proofs" were the passages, Lk. 22. 32 Iren. lii. 3; the ;
title, Vicar of Christ ; the fact that Peter was crucified with his head down-
ward, his head thus bearing the burden of his body that Peter himself ;
in Sicily claimed for himself infallibility ; and that Mary, being asked,
declared that Christ had indeed granted this plenary authority to Peter. Vid.
Quirinus, p. 412 ff.
: "
true vicar of Christ and head of the whole church and father
and teacher {pater et doctor) of all Christians. To him belongs
'
'
the actual *' power of jurisdiction " {potestas jurisdictionis).

This power is '' ordinary " and " immediate/' and extends to
every single behever, i. e., the pope exercises such power, not
only in special cases as a last resort, but he can employ it at all
times and under all circumstances. It is a '* truly episcopal
"
power, inasmuch as the pope is authorized to perform all episco-
pal functions in all places. Every individual is therefore bound
to render direct obedience to the ordinances of the pope in all
things affecting faith and life, or the disciphne and government
of the church: "This is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from
which no one can deviate without forfeiting faith and salvation.
The pope is the supreme judge of believers (the faithful). It is
an error to desire to appeal from his decision to a council as a
higher authority (c. 3). The popes have always been acknowl-
edged as the supreme authority in matters of faith. " char- A
ism of never-failing truth and faith '
has been bestowed upon
'
Peter and his followers, in order that the church may remain
free from error and the pure doctrine be preserved in power.
Since in our tinie many oppose this authority, the new dogma
is, for the glory of God and the salvation of the nations, formu-
lated as follows
** Therefore we the holy council approving, teach and
. . .
declare to be divinely revealed the dogma That the Roman

:
pontiff, when he speaks from the chair {ex cathedra), that is, when
he, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians
by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, defines the doctrine
concerning faith or morals {fide ve I mon bus )\Nh.\ch is to be held by
the universal church, he acts, through the divine assistance prom-
ised to the blessed Peter himself, with that infallibility by which
the divine Redeemer wished his church to be instructed in the
defining of doctrine concerning faith and morals and therefore
',
the definitions of such Roman pontiff are of themselves^ but not

by virtue of the consent of the church,^ beyond revision {irre-
formabiles). If anyone (which may God prevent) shall presume
to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema" (c. 4).
7. The excitement caused by the Vatican Council subsided
within a remarkably short period. A
small party of pious Idealists
protested vigorously, but few listened to them. There was no op-
portunity for a popular demonstration upon the part of Old Cath-
* The words: '^ non autein ex consensu ecclesiae,'^ which in as crass a

form as possible express the personal infalHbility, were not placed before the
council until July 15th (Friedrich, Documenta ad illustr. cone. Vat. ii.
3'8).
olicism. The unexampled rapidity with which the aims of the

council were secured may be understood when we remember that
the whole world had long since become accustomed to think of the
pope as the legitimate lord of the Roman Catholic church, and
that the very ancient claims of the popes to be the bearers of
divine truth had ever since the days of the Counter-reformation
been constantly gaining a firmer foothold in Catholic circles.
That which in the days of the reform-councils would have ap-
peared inconceivable could become a reality in the Nineteenth

Century the acknowledgment of the infallibility of the pope as
over against and superior to that of the council. The Vatican
Council caused but little excitement in the church because it pro-
duced nothing new. But there was also another reason. The
influence of Jesuitical teaching had long since dissipated the
interest of the Catholic masses in doctrine as such. Their atti-
tude toward the dogmas of the church was very largely the same
as toward the Scriptures
they have them as though they had
them not. Obedient submission to the formulas, /. refraining
<?. ,
from criticism of them, is sufficient. Or, the dogmas might be

used for an ascetic disparagement of the '* reason." But the
real sources of religious life do not, for the Roman Catholic
masses, lie in the realm of doctrine. Sacraments and good
works, relics and scapularies, the sacrifice of the mass and all
kinds of holy water, the mother of God with her appearances
and her adoration, the worship of the heart of Jesus and that of
the Virgin,^ etc.
bring grace and regulate the intercourse of the
soul with God. The most of these customs could not well stand
the test of dogmatic authorization. But there was no need of
this as long as the dogma and the church but left room for them.
It must not be forgotten that it was only at the Council of Trent
and then only under the pressure of the opposition of the
Protestant church and its Augustana
that Roman Catholicism
secured any consistent system of ecclesiastical doctrine. It is,
therefore, not difficult to understand that, now that the strain of
the conflict has been moderated by time, the church should gradu-
ally sink back into the medieval forms, although a somewhat differ-
ent shading may be given by the influence of Jesuit skill upon the
character and temper of the modern church life. In the Orien-
tal churches, dogma has become a mystery and a relic (supra.
Vol. I., p. 306); the mystagogy of worship is to produce life.
In the West, it has become chiefly a means for discipline and an
incentive to obedience; but
at least in the present age it ap-
1 Vid. esp. Reusch, Die deutschen Bischofe u. der Aberglaube, 1879.
For Italy material is furnished in Treue, Das Heidentum in der kath.-Kirche,
1889 ff.
pears to represent as little vital influence in the church as in the

Middle Ages. And yet the Roman
Catholic church has of late

again not without some effort urged the study of Thomas and
prescribed it as a panacea. Truly it is possible to adorn the
graves of the prophets without catching their spirit But no
!
one can deny that, even in Catholic theology, the spirit of serious
labor and earnest effort has not died out. Are there still lurk-
ing here the elements which are yet to infuse into Roman Cathol-
icism the ** principle of progress " (Schell)? Shall scientific
culture as Thomas understood it
or shall the ecclesiasticism of
the Ultramontanes assume the spiritual leadership in the further
doctrinal development of Roman Catholism ?
Be that as it may, the Protestant student of the History of

Doctrines cannot turn from the subject without calling attention
to the different conception of Dogma which prevails in his own
church as contrasted with the positions which the churches of the
East and of Rome have finally assigned to their dogmatic utter-
ances. It was the church of the '*pure doctrine " which made
Dogma again a vital and powerful factorin history. Luther put new
life into the ancient dogma. It had become a toy of theology ;
he made it a sword of the Spirit. The ideas embodied in divine
revelation, not mysticism nor magic, are to give birth and guid-
ance to the church of the gospel. ** Doctrine " and ''dogma"
have their source in the ideas grasped by faith. The evangelical

church as such cannot sink into ''undogmatic Christianity"
there is always in the individual soul an eternal " undogmatic "
life -without losing its very life. But while the church clings
steadfastly to her doctrine, she does it, and must ever do it, in
the spirit of Luther. This will mean: (i) That the dogma
which she proclaims, and which regulates her preaching, must be
the evangelical doctrine of salvation. Her doctrines must find
their source in the redemption which is in Christ, and their goal
must be faith in Christ. They must be from faith and for faith.
The significance of this may be most clearly seen in the teach-
ings of Luther himself, above all in the manifest relation of his
interpretation of the Creed to the Creed itself. (2) That the
evangelical church must always continue to labor upon her dog-
matic statements, always ready not only in principle and in word
to prove and improve them upon the basis of the divine revela-
tion given in the Scriptures. From this it follows, (3) That the
evangelical church highly values a free theology, in the assured
conviction that such a theology has a vital function to perform in
-
the church of the pure doctrine. The immense accumulations of

dogmatic tradition will otherwise rest heavily upon her, as upon
the Romish and the Oriental churches. She cannot pass around
this mountain by any arts of interpretation or of silence, but must
surmount it. It is true, life itself will here silently and unob-
served accomplish much. The course of the ages alters the accen-
tuation placed upon various parts of the traditional doctrinal
structure. Some members of the organism become rudimentary
and others attain fuller development. But all of this will not
suffice. If evangelical theology is not to Decome merely an epi-
sode of the '* History of Religion," if it is to remain an eccle-
siastical science
and who will seriously doubt that it shall sore-

main ? then must it in the future, as in the past, recognize its
calling to study the treasures of tradition with all the means
which God has given to man, with all the watchfulness and keen
criticism which the importance of the subject demands (biblical
and historical theology), and, upon the basis of this earnest and
conscientious study, seek the forms and formulas which the age
may require for a proper comprehension of the gospel (syste-
matic theology). The *' ancient truth" remains; the method
of presenting it will change, as it has constantly changed in the
past. From this may be readily understood the entirely different
attitude
which the Protestant Luther himself being an illustri-
ous example
assumes toward the dogma of the church from that
which the Roman Catholic must hold. Even the thought of a

'^new dogma " has for him however fully he may realize the
immense historical difficulties which such a proposition would
have to face, since all the forms of the church's life are attached
to the ancient dogma^ nothing repulsive in principle, so long
and in so far as this should be a true expression of the divine
revelation in the Scriptures.
But against one stupendous error must the spirit of the Protes-
tant world be ever scrupulously upon its guard, viz. the delu- :
sion so readily embraced by the ecclesiastical politician, that

sufficient honor has been accorded to the dogma of the church
when publicly confessed and silence maintained as to the
it is
points in which it contradicts the convictions personally held. We

may in our day hear voices openly raised in defense even of the
ancient delusion of ^' implicit faith." The principles above stated
protest with united voice against this thoroughly unevangelical
position, and the protest is abundantly confirmed by the History
of Doctrines.^ What we Protestants need is a living and life
^ Of., e. g., Lasson, Zur Theorie des Dogmas, 1897, p. iSfif., 100 f., 112,
120.
2 The demand might at this point be made, that the History of Doctrines
30
producing, an intelligible and convincing system of doctrine

(dogma) not a relic of the past nor a manual of ascetic prac-
tices (supra, 463, 430). Such a system of doctrine the evan-
gelical church possesses in the ancient symbols and the Confes-
sion of the Reformation. To comprehend and give proper ex-
pression to the religious depth and the wealth of practical sug-
gestion of these inherited treasures, with unhesitating return, if
need be, to the ideas of the original sources of evangelical truth
the ritornar al segno
is the task of the Protestant theology
of the present, and, in a measure also, of the History of Doctrines.
should trace the development of Christian teaching down to the present time
(cf. the works of Baur and Hagenbach upon the subject, and Kruger :
Was heisst and zu welchem Zweck studirt man DG. ? 1895). But, although
the possibility of thus extending the scope of the History of Doctrines must be
granted, yet we must maintain also the scientific propriety ol the presentation
of the publicly acknowledged and binding statements of the church's official
doctrine. It is a historical fact, to be recognized by the historian
whether or

not it be in accord with his own preferences that the church of the present
knows and acknowledges such a public doctrine (doctrine pul/Hca). Our
position is confirmed by the consideration, that in any such ' History of
Modein Theology there would be lacking the organic principle of the proper
'
'
History of Doctrines, viz. the relation of the views therein delineated to the
:
Dogma of the future ; for who shall to-day venture to say which of the nega-
tions and affirmations, which of the buttressing arguments and destructive
criticisms, which of the omissions and supplements registered in the progres-
sive history of theology, shall lead to the completer Dogma of the future ? The
history of theology may be represented as the history of the varying experiences
of Dogma; but to attempt to treat it as ** Prolegomena to any and every
future" dogfma is a most indefinite and uncertain task. The writing of a his-
tory of modern theology when one considers the state of the investigations

which must necessarily precede such delineation is in itself an undertaking
sufficiently great, without the complication of keeping ever in mind the relation
of the theological views of the present to the yet unknown official statements of
the future.
Finally, even a history of the Union (cf. LoOFS, DG. 462 f.) does not, in
my opinion, strictly speaking, lie within the province of the History of Doc-
trines ; for the Union, as known to history, did not effect any transformation
or reconstruction of the dogmas of the church. The original aim to accomplish
something of this character spent its force in a comparatively short time. Cf.
the decree of the Cabinet, February 28, 1834: **The Union indicates and
effects no surrender of the previous confession of faith, nor is the authority
which has been hitherto enjoyed by the confessional writings of the two evan-
gelical confessions destroyed by it. Adherence to it is merely an exhibition
of the spirit of moderation and mildness," etc. The details of the move-
ment lie within the sphere of Symbolics.
;; ;
INDEX.
A. Adiaphora, 388.
Abelard, estimate of, 56, 57 f., 62, Adiaphoristic controversy, 364.
64, g6, 98, 100 n., 185 ; opposi- Adoptionist controversy, 27 f.
tion to, 60 ; on reason, faith, tra- Advent, Second, 344.

dition, Scriptures, 58 ; Trinity, 58 f. Aegidius of Colonna, wôrks of, 1S7 ;
sacraments, 59, 72, 79 ; knowl on sin and grace, 187; immaculate

edge, 60 ;
person of Christ, 64, 155 conception, 188 n.
atonement, 70, 1 10 ; love, 71 Aepinus. On descent into hell, 377.
Lord's Supper, 77 n.; repentance, Agobard, works of, 27 ; on Scriptures,
81 f.; contrition, forgiveness, 81 101 n.
confession, 81, 92 n.; purgatory, Agricola. On law andgospeI,25 1 366. ,
81 ; satisfaction, 82 ; communion Alanus ab InsuHs. On attrition, con-

of saints, 144. trition, 136 f . ;
preaching, 92 n.
Ability, human. In Gregory, 21 f. Albert, The Great. Works of, 96,
Semi-Augustinians, 32 f. ; Thomas, 98 ; philosophy of, 99, 105 ; in-
118 f.; Bonaventura, 120; Biel, fluence of, 99 ; on original state,
138 ; Duns, 159 Bradwardina, ; 114; infused grace, I15 ; sacra-
207 ; Luther, 243 f., 256 ; Zwingli, ments, 128 ; confirmation, 130
313 Augsburg Confession, 335
; ;
Lord's Supper, 134 ; extreme
Melanchthon, 349 Synergistic ; unction, 140 ; marriage, 143.
controversy, 367 f. Formula of ; Albert of Padua, philosophy of, 187.
Concord, 383 Calvin, 399 Armi- ; ; Alberus, Zwingli's letter to, 319.
nius, 421 Remonstrants, 422
; ;
Alcuin, works of, 27, 29 ; on Adop-
Amyraldus, 425 Council of Trent, ; tionism, 28 ; Lord's Supper, 35.
433 f-; Quesnel, 455 n. Alexander III. On Nihilianism, 65 ;
Absolution. In Gregory, 24 Early ; and Jansenists, 454.

Middle Ages, 44 Hugo, 82, 92 ; ;
Alexander of Hales, estimate of,
PuUus, 83 ; Lombard, S^, 92 98 f. on person and work

; of
Gratian, 92 ; Council of Treves, Christ, no f. ; original state, syn-
92 n.; Thomas, Duns, 137 f.; teresis, 1 14; original sin, 116;
Bonaventura, 137 f., 142 n.; Du- indelible character, 128 ; sacra-
rand, 142 n. ; John of Paltz, 176 ; ments, 125 f., 126 n.; Lord'sSup-
Wessel, 210 ; Luther, 234, 240 ;
per, 131 f., 133 ; repentance, 135 f.;
Augsburg Confession, 342 ; Coun- attrition, contrition, 136 f.
cil of Trent, 438, 442, 444. Alger. On Lord's Supper, 76 f.
Acceptants . In Unigenitus contro- AUoeosis. In Zwingli, 321 ; Luther,

versy, 455. 324-
(46 7)
;; ;
468 INDEX.
Almsgiving, 91, 92. Augsburg Confession, 339 ; Calvin,

Amolo, works of, 30 ; on predestina- 403) n. 3, 441 Reformed church, ;
tion, 32. 415, 420; Jesuits, 430; Council

Amsdorf. In Majoristic controversy, of Trent, 438, 449.
364 f. ; in Synergistic controversy, Assurance. In Gregory, 23 ; Thomas,
367 f,; on conversion, 367 f. 121; Biel, Duns, 202; Formula
Amyraldus. On predestination, 424 f. of Concord, 388 Calvin, 404, ;
revelation, human ability, conver- 407 ; Synod of Dort, 422, 435

sion, 425. Council of Trent, 435, 437.
Anabaptists, opposition to, in Luther, Atonement. In Gregory, 19 ff.
292 ; Zwingli, 316 Augsburg Con-

; Anselm, 66 ff. , 200 ; Abelard, 70 f.
fession,
339 ; Formula of Concord, no, 267, LI. 2 ; Bernard, 72,
389 Council of Trent, 439.

; III n.; Honorius, Hugo, Pullus,
Andreae, Jacob, sermons of, 382 n. 73 ; Alexander, Bonaventura, IIO:
on concord, 380. Thomas, inf.; Duns, 156 ; Wick
Angels. In Gregory, 17, 25. lifiFe,i98 Later Middle Ages, 198
; ;
Anselm, estimate of, 56, 58, 64, < Luther, 261, 266 ff.; Melanch-
legalism of, 69 ; on immaculate thon, 359; Zwingli, 310; Calvin,
conception, 34 ; universals, 56 400 ; Synod of Dort, 423 ; Coun-
person of Christ, 57 atone
faith, ; cil of Trent, 442, n. I ; Later
ment, 66 if., 200; sin, 67, no Reformed Confessions, 418.
satisfaction, 67 f.,267, u. 2 ; forgive Attribute, definition of, 369.
ness, 68 ; God, 69 ; devil, 67, 70 Attrition. In Alanus, Alexander,
example of Christ, sacraments, 72. William of Paris, 136 f.; Biel, 138,
Antinomian controversy, 365. 199, 201 f. ; Duns, 160; John of
Apocalypse, 300. Paltz, 175 f; Luther, 222, 237;
Apocrypha. In Luther, 300 ; Coun- Council of Trent, 442.
cil of Trent, 432. Augsburg, ReHgious Peace of, 332,
Apology of Augsburg Confession, as 333, -il^'
standard, 332 on justification, 338
; ;
Augsburg Confession, estimate of,
repentance, 342 ;sacraments, 343. 332, 344, 466 ;

genesis
334 of,
Appellants. In Unigenitus contro- aim of, 335 ; and Zwingli, 334 on ;
versy, 455. sin, human ability, nature and

Arabic Philosophy, 96. work of Christ, 335 ; faith, 336 ff.,
Aristotle, study of, 55, 96 f.; in- 342; justification, 336 ff., 343;
fluence of, 98 ;
philosophy of, 95 ;
regeneration, 337 i. ; merit, 337 ;
Luther on, 224 n. ; Melanchthon marriage, monasticisra, Christian

on, 348, 11. 3; on attributes, 369. life, 339 ;
good works, 339, 343 ;
Arminian controversy, 421 f. , 424. church, 340; bishops, 341, 344;

Arminius. On predestination, 421 f. ministry, human ordinances, civil
Arnauld, Anton, vs. Jesuits, 453. power, 341 ; baptism, 341 ; Lord's
Arno, philosophy of, 60 ; on real Supper, 341, 351 ; repentance,
presence, 66. contrition, absolution, 342 con- ;
Asceticism. In Mystics, 179 f-; Sa- fession, 342, 344 ; law and gospel,
vonarola, 190 n.; Luther, 276 n.; 342; power of keys, 341, 343;
; ;
INDEX. 469
sacraments, 341 f.; worship of Begards, 95.

Mary and saints, mass, meats, Benedict of Aniane, works of, 27.
vows, hierarchy, second advent, Benedict XI. On papacy, 165.

344- Benedict XIV. On Unigenitus, 456.
Augsburg Confession, Variata. On Berenger, works of, 74, *]6 ; phi-
Lord's Supper, 351 ;
justification, losophy of, 55 ; on Lord's Supper,
360. 75 f.
Augustine, influence of, 15, 16, 52, Bergen Book, 382 n.
97 f., 189 ; on church, 85 ; Trin- Bernard, influence of, 88, 96 ; on

ity, 306 n. papacy, 52 ; imitation of Christ,
Augustinianism, revival of, 449 f., 53 54. 72; good works, 53;
and Jansenists, 453 f. work of Christ, 72, no; sacra-
Aureolus, works of, 187; on work of ments, 79 ; heresy, 92, u. 3 ;
Christ, 187, 198. person of Christ, 155.

Averroes, philosophy of, 187. Berthold of Ratisbon. On sacraments,
Avicenna, philosophy of, 105. 93-
Beza. On predestination, 421.
Biel, Gabriel, works of, 186 ; Nomi-
B.
nalism of, 186; Luther on, 224;
Bacon, Roger, philosophy of, 105. on sacraments, 127, 187, 200
Baconthorp, John of, philosophy of, church and state, 128 Lord's ;
187 ; on work of Christ, 198. Supper, 132 n., 134 f., 204; re-
Bajus, Michael, theses of, 450, pentance, 134 f., 138, 201 ; con-
451 n.; on original state, grace, trition, 136 f., 201 ; attrition, 138,
free-will, sin, justification, good 199, 201 f; purgatory, 139; in-
works, 450. dulgences, 139, 176 ; Scriptures,

Bandini, Archbishop, evangelical 192 f.; faith, 195 f.; original state,
views of, 434, n. 2. sin, free-will, 197 ; work of
Baptism. In Gregory, 22 ; Lombard, Christ, predestination, 198 ; merit,
74, 80, 83, 130 ; thirteenth cen- 199, 202; grace, 201 f ; social
tury, 129 f.; Eugene IV., 130 problems, 202 n.

Thomas, Bonaventura, Duns, 130 ;
Bishops, authority of. In Early Mid-
Luther, 283 f.; Zwingli, 316; dle Ages, 41 ; scholastic age, 50,
Augsburg Confession, 341 Re- ; 86 f; Hugo, ^6'y Innocent III.,
formed Confessions, 345 Calvin, ; 87 ; Thomas, Bonaventura, Duns,

412 ; Council of Trent, 432, 434, 141 f., 145 f.; MarsiUus, Occam,
436, 439, 444 ; benefits of, 22, 80, 167 ; Augsburg Confession, 341,
129 f., 283, 345, 412, 432, 434; 344 Leipzig Interim, 364 Council
; ;
of infants, 22, 130, 284, 285, 315, of Trent, 439, 443, 444, 445,
316, 341, 412; by heretics, 439. 446 f , 449 ; Galilean church, 457 ;
of, 344 f. ; council at,
Basel, confession Bavaria, 458; synod at Pistoja, 459
166. (see Hierarchy),
Beatus. In Adoptionist controversy, Blaurer. On Lord' s Supper, 33 1 , n. 2.
28. Blessedness, 148.
Bee, school at, 55, 98. Boetius, philosophy of, 56.
;;
470 INDEX.
Bohemian Brethren. On Lord's unigenitus, 455, 456 ; ineffabilis

Supper, 288. deus, 456 ; auctorem fidei, 459.
Bolsec. On grace, divine call, pre- BuUinger and Zwingli, 390 ; and
destination, 420. Luther, 417.
Buridan, philosophy of, 186.
Bonaventura, works of, 100 ; mys-
ticism of, 89 f., 100 ; influence of,
98 ;
philosophy of, loo ; on
Scriptures, loi ; communicatio
Cajetan, commentaries of, 187.
idiomatum, no person and ;
work
of Christ, no original state, Call, the divine. In Henry, 122;
; 115 ;
Luther, 244 ; Formula of Concord,

original sin, 116; infused grace,
3S8 ; Bucer, 392 ; Calvin, 405 f.;
115, 119; free-will, 120; justifi-
Bolsec, 420 Later Reformed Con-
cation, 120 f., 201 ; human merit,
;
fessions, 420 ; Synod of Dort, 423

122 ; monastic life, 124 ; sacra- ;
Consensus Helveticus, 425 Coun-

ments, 125 f.; indelible character, ;
cil of Trent, 433, 435.

128; baptism, 130; repentance,
Calvin, works 390, 395 nn.j and of,
I34f.; absolution, I37f., I42n.;
Bucer, 393 and Luther, 393, 394,
;
purgatory, 139 ; extreme unction,
401, 414 f., 416 and Loyola, ;
140; ordination, 141 ; marriage,
430, n. 2 and Melanchthon, 394
;
143 ; communion of saints, 144. ;
and Osiander, 373, n. 2 and ;

Boniface VIII. On hierarchy, 88,
Zwingli, 393, n. 4, 394, 412, 414 ;
165 ; pope, 88, 97, 165.
estimate of, 394, 407, 415 n.
Bradwardina, Thomas of. On per- on Lord' s Supper, 366, 386,
son of Christ, 1 10 predestination, 412
; f., 417; Scriptures, 395,
189, 207. 396 n. ; ancient symbols, 396 ;
Brenz and Osiander, 373, u. 2 on ; God, 396 f., 407 Trinity, 396, ;
Lord's Supper, 320 person of ;

11. 2 ; will of God, 396 ff. ; glory
Christ, 374. of God, 397 ;
predestination, 397,
Brethren of Poor Life, 88 f. 405 ff., 420 ; original sin, 398;
Brotherhoods, 173. conscience, 399 n.; free-will, 397,
Bruno. On communion of saints, 144. 399 gi'ace, 399 ; person and work
;
Bucer and Melanchthon, 393, n. 2, of Christ, 399 ; wrath of God,

350 and Luther, 393 and Cal
; ; 400; Holy Spirit, 395, 401,411;
vin, 393 ; and Reformed Confes faith, 401 f., 405 ; renewal, sane-
sions, 344 ; on kingdom of Christ. tification, 402, 404 ; repentance,
391 ; church, divine call, faith 402 f. ; 403 regenera-
contrition, ;
392 ;
justification, 392, n. 3 ; pre tion, justification, 403 f. ; law, 403 ;
destination, 392 f.; free-will, 393 asceticism, 403, n. 3, 411 Chris- ;
Bull, unam sanctam, 88, 165 ; porro tian life, 403, 405 ; communion
subesse, 97 ; exultate deo, 125 with Christ, good works, 404 ;
pastor aeternus, 166, 461 ; ex prayer, 405 n.; divine call, 405 f.
omnibus afflictionibus, 450, 451 n, assurance, 405, 407 ; fall, 406

in eminent!, 453 ; cum occasione, church, 408 ; ministry, discipline,
454 ; ad sancti Petri sedem, 454 409 ; church and state, 410 ; ideas
;;;; ;;
INDEX. 471
of reform, 41 1 ; sacraments, 41 1 ff. 318 ff.; Augsburg Confession, 341,

baptism, 412 ; ubiquity, 413. 35 1 ; Eucharistic controversy,
Calvinism. In Germany, 381, 394 ; 366 f.; Consensus Tigurinus, 417.
and Synod of Dort, 424. Christ, indwelling of, 53, 230 f., 270,
Calvinists, energy of, 397, 407, n. i, 370 f.
416. Christ, intercession of. In Gregory,

Camero. On will, 425 n. I9f. ; Thomas, 113; Luther, 269 ;
Canterbury, Council of, 93. Melanchthon, 359 Calvin, 400. ;
Capito. On Ixjrd's Supper, 319. Christ, merit of In Gregory, 20

Capocci, philosophy of, 187. Abelard, 71 ; Anselm, 72 ; Lom-
Capreolus, works of, 186 ; on work bard, 73 f. ; Alexander, Bonaven-
of Christ, 198. tura, 10, III; Thomas, 113;
1
Carlstadt. On Lord's Supper, 288, Duns, 154 f., 156 f., 199; Later
322. Middle Ages, 198 ff.; Melanch-
Catechismus Romanus. On church thon, 359 ; Formula of Concord,
and papacy, 448 ; on Augustinian- 384-
ism, 449, Christ, active and passive obedience
Cathari, 94. of. In Luther, 371 n.; Osiander,
Celibacy, 173 ; of priesthood, 142. 371 n.; Menius, Flacius, 373 ;
Ceremonies. In Frankfort Recess, Calvin, 400.
379 Formula of Concord, 388

;
Christ, offices of, 399.
Romish, at Leipzig Interim, 364. Christ, omnipresence of, 66 (see

Character, indelible. In Alexander, Ubiquity).
Eugene IV., Innocent III., 128; Christ, person of. In Gregory, 18,
Lombard, Bonaventura, Duns, 130 ;
19 Synod of Toledo, 28, n.
; i ;
Trent, 439, 445. Roland, Omnebene, Lombard, 65,

Charlemagne, works of, 29 ; on 74; Anselm, 57, 66 f.; Gerhoh,
papacy, 40. 66 thirteenth century, 109 Alex-
; ;
Chemnitz, works of, 375 estimate ;

ander, Bonaventura, 1 10 ; Thomas,
of, 375, 381 on person of Christ,
;
iiof.; Duns, 154 f.; Bernard,
375 f.; Lord's Supper, 377 f. 155 ; Luther, 229 f., 235, 253,
communicatio idiomatum, 375 if. 266, n. 3, 298, 304 f., 323, 324 n.:
ubiquity, multivolipresence, 376,
Zwingli, 321, 323 Augsburg
;
388 ; exinanition, 376 ; states of Confession 335 ; Heidelberg the-

Christ, 376, 387. ology,374 Brenz, Krell, Eber,
;
Chiersy, Council at, Major, 374 Chemnitz, 375 ;

32, ^;^. ;
Children, unbaptized, 22, 117, 245. Formula of Concord, 387 Calvin, ;
Christ, as head of race, 401 ; as ex- 399-

ample, 19, 21, 53, 68, 70, 71, 73, Christ, states of, 325 n., 376 f 377 , f.
112, 158, 198, 200, 270, Christ, sufferings of In Gregory, 19

90, 91, ;
40i> n- 403; as Bernard, 53 Anselm, 69;

310, 311 f., 2, ;
teacher, 53, 71, 72. Thomas, 112 f. ; Duns, 156 f .
Christ, body of, in Lord's Supper. Luther, 266 f. (see Atonement,
In Later Middle Ages, 203 ff; Work of Christ).

Luther, 286 ff., 322 f ; Zwingli, Christ, work of In Gregory, 19 ff.;
;; ;
472 INDEX.
Gottschalk, 31 ; Anselm, 66 f.; sembly of the predestinated, 211,

Bonaventura, 72 f. ; St. Florian, 290, 408, 419 ; necessary to salva-
Honorius, Hugo, Pullus, 73 ;
tion, 26, 293, 362, 408 ; unworthy
Lombard, 73 f., 91 ; Alexander, members of, 294, 354 ; authority
Bonaventura, 1 10 ; Thomas, 1 1 1 f. of, 18, 149, 163, 170, 192 f., 211,
Duns, 154 f.; Mystics, 179; Later 226, 235, 289 ; infallibility of, 50,
Middle Ages, 198 ff.; Aureolus, 149, 192 ; rulers and subjects
187, 198 ; Biel, 198 ; Capreolus, in, 26, 86, 145, 2H f. ; seculariza-
Baconthorp, Durand, 198 ; Luther, tion of, 52, 97 ; visible and invisi-
230, 261, 266 ff.; Zwingli, 3095.; ble, 235, 291 f., 293 f., 315, 317,
Melanchthon, 359 ; Augsburg 340, 345, 3S5. 408, 419 marks ;
Confession, 335 ; Osiander, 370 ;

of the true, 294, 340, 341, 352,
Eber, Stancar, 374 ; Formula of 354, 355. 357, 408; and secular
Concord, 384 ; Calvin, 399 learning, 353, 362, 363.
Synod of Dort, 423 ; Council of Church and State. In Gregory, 28 ;
Trent, 436. scholastic age, 50 f. ; John of Salis-
Christian Life, in Middle Ages, 16 ;

bury, 86; Innocent III., 87 f.
Gregory, 24, 26 ; Later Middle Louis of Bavaria, 165 ; Marsilius,

Ages, 178 f. , 202; Luther, 256, Occam, 167, 170 ; Savonarola, 190
273> 275, 296; Zwingli, 312; n., 318 ; Zwingli, 317 f. ; Reforma-
Augsburg Confession, 339 Osian- ; tion era, 332 f.; Frankfort Recess,
der, 370 Formula of Concord,
; 379; Calvin, 410; Reformed the-
386 Calvin, 403, 405
; Reformed ; ology, 415 Augsburg Confession,
;
Theology, 415; Jesuits, 430 341 ; Council of Trent, 446 ; Gal-

Council of Trent, 438. lican Church, 457.
Chronicles, Luther on, 300. Chytraeus, Lutheranism of, 381.

Church, The. In Gregory, 25 ; Au-
Civil Life, 273 f.
gustine, Hugo, Pullus, John of

Classics, study of the, 213.
Salisbury, Alanus, 85 Gregory
f. ;
VII., 50, 85, 86 Waldenses, 94 Clement XI. and Jansenists, 454.

;
Thomas, 144 f.; Duns, 144 f., 149; Clermont, council at, 45.
Occam, 192 f.; Huss, 211, 290; Clergy, orders of the, 141 ; and laity,
Wicklifife, Wesel, Wessel, 211 ;

170.
Luther, 226, 235, 289 f., 291 ff.; Cluny, reformatory ideas at, 49.
Bucer, 392; Zwingh, 315; Augs- Colet. On faith, justification, grace,
burg Confession, 340 ; Melanch- 215, 216 n.

thon, 340, 351, 354 f., 362; Cal- Comester, on Lord's Supper, 77.
vin, 408 Later Reformed Confes-
;
Communicatio idiomatum. In
sions, 419 ; Council of Trent, 446 ;
Thomas, Bonaventura, no; Oc-
Catechismus Romanus, 448 ; Ques- cam, 192 ; Luther, 323 Cureus, ;
nel, 455 n, ; Vatican Council, 460 ;

366 ; Brenz, Heidelberg theolo-
askingdom of heaven, 25 ; as com- gians, 374; Chemnitz, 375 ff.;
munion of saints, 25, 85, 144, 212, Gnesio- Lutherans, 381.

291, 292, 315, 340, 455 n.; as as- Communion with Christ. In Luther,
sembly of the called, 354 ; as as- 231 ; Calvin, 404 (see Mysticism,
; . ;;
INDEX. 473
Imitation of Christ) ; of saints, 144 Consensus Genevensis, 421 ; Hel-

f., 212, 235, 286 f., 291 ff., 408. vetica, 425 ; Tigurinus, 417.
CommunisTn, 182 f. Conservatism. In Middle Ages, 15 f.
Conception, carnal, 2i f. ; immacu- Consistorium, 409.

late, 81, 91 n., 155, 188 n., 456. Constance, Council at, 166.
Concomitance. In sacraments, 127; Constantine, Donation of, 40, 213.
in Lord's Supper, 132. Constantinople, councils at, 18, 29.
Concord, attempts to secure, 380 ; Contarini, Cardinal, on justification,
Formula of, genesis of, 378 f.
,
382 ; 434, " I.
estimateof, 382, 3S9 on ; original Contarini, Julian, evangelical views

sin, free-will, conversion, 383 ; of, 434, 11. 2.
faith, 383 n., 384, 3S5 ; synergism, Contemplation of Christ, 53, 54, 72,
justification, forgiveness, work and 124, 179 f.
merit of Christ, 384 ; Holy Spirit, Contingency, 150.

383 f., 385 nn.; contrition, 384, n. Contra -remonstrants. On predestina-
l; renewal, 384, 423 n.; good tion, 422,
works, 384 f. ; Christian life Contrition, Gregory, 24 ; Early
Lord's Supper, 386 ; person of Middle Ages, 43 ; Abelard,
Christ, 387 ; predestination, word, Epitome, Roland, 81 ; Gratian,
divine call, assurance, descent into 92 ; Alexander, Thomas, Alanus,
hell, adiaphora, 388 ; Book of, 382 ;
William of Paris, 136 f.
the Schwabian, 382 n. ; the Schwa- Biel, 136 f., 201 ; Luther, 222,
bian-Saxon, 382 n. ; the Witten- 234, 237 ff.; Augsburg Confession,
berg, 321, 386. 342 ; Melanchthon, 358, 361 ;
Concordat of, A. D. 1801, 457. Formula of Concord, 384, 385, n.

Concupiscence (see Sin, original). I ;Calvin, 403 Council of Trent, ;
Confession. In Gregory, 24 Early ;

438, 442, 444.
Middle Ages, 43 f. Abelard, 81, ; Conversion. In Melanchthon, 349 ;
92 n. Hugo, 82, 92 PuUus, 83

; ; ;
Synergistic controversy, 367 ff.
Lombard, 83, 92 Gratian, 92 ; ;

Ambrose, Strigel, Flacius, 367 f.
Innocent IIL, 93 Alexander, ; Formula of Concord, 383 ; Later

Albert, 130 ; Thomas, William of Reformed Confessions, 419 ; Amy-
Paris, 137; Eugene IV., 140; raldus, 425.
Durand, 140 n.; Luther, 234, 240; Co-operation. In divine nature, 375,
Zwingli, 316 n.; Augsburg Con- 387 between God and
; man (see
fession, 342, 344 ; Council of Synergism )
Trent, 438, 442. Corpora doctrinae, 380.
Confession, private, 93, 174, 234, Corpus Christi, 134.
240, 358 n. Corpus Philippicum, 380,

Confirmation. In Hugo, Roland, 81 ;
Council, at Nice (A. D. 325), 18;
Later Middle Ages, 130 ; Eugene (A. D. 787), 29; Constantinople
IV., 131 Council of Trent, 439.
; (A. D. 553), 18; (A. D. 754), 29;
Congregation, rights of the, 294, 3^^, Ratisbon (A. D. 794), 29; Frank-
334. fort(A. D. 794), 29 Aachen (A. ;
Conscience, 171 n., 243 n., 399 n. D- 799), 29; (A. D. 809), 30;
;
474 INDEX.
{A. D. 836), 84; Rome (A. D. Cup, withholding of, 132, 440.
799), 29; (A. D. 1050, 1059, Cureus. In Eucharistic controversy,
1079), 76; Toledo (A. D. 366.
444), 30; (A. D. 633, 638, 675),
28; Gentilly (A. D. 767), 30;
Mayence (A. D. 848), 31 ;
D'Ailli, philosophy of, 186 ; on
Chiersy (A. D. 849), 32; (A. D. Scriptures, 192 f .
; Lord's Supper,
853), 33 i Valence (A. D. 853), 204.
33; Toucy (A. D. 860), 33; Dead, masses for the, 25, 441, 445.
Chalon (A. D. 813), 42 Tribur, ; Decalogue, 174.
(A. D. 895), 45; Clermont (A. Decretals, papal, 50, n. 2, 52, 290
^' 1095 ) 45; Soissons (A. D. Pseudo-Isidorean, 41.
I121), 61 ; Sens (A. D. II41), Descent into hell, 135, 377 n., 3S8.
61 ; Fourth Lateran (A. D. 1215), Devil, claim of, on man, 67,70 ; con-
78, 93, 95, 108 ; Piacenza (A. D. questof, 68, 74 ; outwitting of, 21,
1095), 78; Treves (A. D. 1227), 74, 267, u. 2.

92, 93; Narbonne (A. D. 1227), Devils, faith in, 17, 173, 246 n.
93 Lauterberg (A. D. 1236),

; Dialectics. In Middle Ages, 60, 96.
93; Toulouse (A. D. 1229), 93; Dionysius, Areopagita. On God, 107.
London (A. D. 1237), 125 Con- ; Discipline, church. In Calvin, 409 ;
stance (A. D. 1414-17), 92, n. 3, Later Reformed Confessions, 419.

166, 290; Second Lyons (A. D. Doctrine, the pure, 295, 330, 351 ff.,
1274), 146; Florence (A. D. 396 ; and the Lutheran Church,

1439), 125 ; Third Lateran (A. D. 358, 379 ; Protestant construction
1 179), 125; Pisa (A. D. 1409), of, 347 ff.
166 ; Basel (A. D. 1431-47), 166 ;

Doctrines, gradation in, 356.
Trent (A. D. 1545-63), 431 ; Vat- Dogma. In ancient church, 332 ; in
ican (A. D. 1869-70), 460. Middle Ages, 15, 17, 55, 332 ; in
Councils, authority of, 166, 289, 290 Reformation era, 333 f., 347 ff.;
f., 293, 303, 457 ; the four pri- Luther, 302 ff. ; modern Roman
mary, 18. Catholic church, 46 ; Protestant
Counsels, evangelical, 124, 274. and Roman Catholic churches,
Counter-reformation, 428 ff. 464 f. provisional, 347.
;
Creationism, 22, 117. Donation of Constantine, 40, 213.

Creed, Apostles'. In Thomas, Bona- Donum superadditum. In Gregory,
ventura, 102 ; Later Middle Ages, 21,11. I.; Henry, Thomas, Bona-
174; Luther, 303 f. ventura, 115; Duns, 153; Biel,
Creed, Nicene, 102 n. 197 ; Council of Trent, 432 n.;
Crisis, at close of Middle Ages, 173, Bajus, 450.

181, 213, 216, 221. Dort, Synod of, estimate of, 422 ; in-
Criticism, biblical, 300 f

.
; of dogmas, fluence of, 423, n. 3 ; and Calvin-
192 ff. ism, 424 ; on Arminianism, predes-
Cross, sign of, 79. tination, 421 ff. ; faith, grace, elec-
Crusades, 45. tion, 422 ; will, 423, 425 n.; work

Crypto- Calvinism, 367, 381. of Christ, divine call, regeneration,
; ;
INDEX. 475
perseverance, 423 justification, ;

Eremites, Augustinian, 187.
God, 424; assurance, 422, 435- Esther, Luther on, 300,
DunsScotus, works of, 147 estimate ; Etherius. In Adoptionist contro-
of, 97, 106, 146, 162 f. ; influence versy, 27.
of, 428 f., 431 philosophy of, 98, ;
Eucharistic controversy, 366.
147 ;on sacraments, 127 f., 161 ;
Eugene IV. On sacraments, 125 ;
indehble character, 128; baptism, indelible character, 128 ; baptism,

130 ; Lord's Supper, 131 f., 133, 130; confirmation, 131; repent-
150 ; confession, absolution, 137 f.; ance, extreme unction, 140 ; ordi-
satisfaction, indulgences, pur- nation, 142 ; marriage, 143.
gatory, 139 ; extreme unction, 140; Ex opere operante, 129.
ordination, 141 ; marriage, 142 Ex opere operato, 128, 343, 439.
communion of saints, 144; church, Excommunication, 168, 210, 21 1,
144 149; will, 148 f.; blessed-

f., 409.
ness, 148 faith, 150, 160; God,
; Exorcism, 130 n.
150 f., 163 f.; predestination, 151, Eybel, work of, 458, u. 2.
156, 164 ; original state, 153 ;
original sin, 153, 154 n., 163;

F.
person of Christ, 154 f. ; work of
Christ, 156 f. ; merit of Christ, Faber Stapulensis. On Lord's Sup-
154 f-> ^5^ f- ^99; immaculate per, 205 n.
conception, 155 ;
grace, 158 ; at- Faith. In Gregory, 17, 22; Early
trition, justification, forgiveness, Middle Ages, 15, 46, n. 3; Rad-
160 f. bertus, 37 Anselm, 57 Abelard,
; ;
Durand, philosophy of, 186; on 58; Innocent IV., 90; Thomas,

Lord's Supper, 76 f., 203 ;
public 103, 120 f.; Lombard, 123 ii.;
repentance, 93 ; confession, 140, Duns, 150; Biel, Occam, 195 f .
142 n.; work of Christ, 198 Erasmus, 215 n.; Colet, 216 n.;
grace, 201 f. Innocent III., 196; Luther, 223,
225, 232 ff., 240, 241, 252 ff.,
E. 275 f., 296, 297 f 302, 328 ; Cal-

,
Eber. On person of Christ, 374. vin, 401 f., 405; Zwingli, 310 f.,
Ecclesiastes, Luther on, 300. 313 Augsburg Confession, 336 ff,,

;
Eck, theses of, 334. 342 Reformed Confessions, 344

; ;
Eckhart, works of, 1 78 ; on imitation Melanchthon, 356, 360 f. Osian- ;
of Christ, 178 f. der, 371 f. ; Formula of Concord,

Ecstasy, 180 f. 383 n., 384, 385; Bucer, 392;
Eisenach, synod at, 365. Later Reformed Confessions, 419 ;
Elipandus, works of, 27 ; inAdoption- Remonstrants, Synod of Dort, 422 ;
ist controversy, 27. Jesuits, 430 : Council of Trent,

Episcopacy (see Bishops) vs. 433, 435. 436, 437, 440, 449;
papacy, 457. Quesnel, 455 n. Unigenitus, 455 ; ;
Episcopus. On predestination, 421. Vatican Council, 460 ; as trust,

Epitome, The, 382 n. ; on repentance, 215 n., 233, 235, 254, 310, 356,
81. 361, 365, 401, 419 ; as conviction,
;
476 INDEX,
402, 419 ; as disposition toward mysticism of, 89 ; order of, 90 ; on

grace, 435 f. ; implicit and explicit, Virgin Mary, 91 n.
90, 103, 104, 150, 170, 195
f., 255, Franciscans, 95.
402, 429; infused, 103, 150, 195, Frankfort Recess, 379.
254; acquired, 232 254; and
f., Fredeland, consecration of host,
love, 103, 121, 209, 436; and 367 n.
sacraments, 80, 282, 328 and ; Free-will. In Gregory, 20 f.
Lord's Supper, 413. Rabanus, 31 f .

; Hincmar, 32
Fall, The. In Gregory, 21 ; An- Councils of Chiersy and Valence,
selm, 116; Duns, 153; Biel, ;iS 'f
Thomas, 118 f .
; Bonaven-
Occam, 197 ; Luther, 242 ;
tura, 120; Biel, 138, 197; Duns,
Zwingli, 309 ; Osiander, 370 ; Cal- 148 ; Occam, 197 Bradwardina, ;
vin, 398, 406 ; Council of Trent, 208 ; Wickliffe, 208 ; Luther,
432. 243 f.; Zwingli, 313 f .

; Melanch-
thon, 349 ; Leipzig Interim, 364 n.;
Fasting, 92.
Synergistic controversy, Strigel,
Faustus. On grace, 23.
367 f.; Flacius, 3^7 f-, 3^3; For-
Fear, province of, 26, 136, 138, 249, mula of Concord, 383 Bucer, 393 ; ;
438 (see Law). Calvin, 397, 399; Eolsec, 420;

Felix of Urgellis. On Adoptionism, Remonstrants, 422 Synod of ;
27. Dort, 423, 425 n. ; Council of

Filioque, 30. Trent, 433 f. ; Bajus, 450, 451 u.;
Flacius. In Adiaphoristic and Molina, 45 1 f. ; Jansen, 454 f.
Majoristic controversies, 364 ; in Quesnel, 455 n.

Synergistic controversy, 367 f, ; in
Osiandrian controversy, 373. G.
Florence, council at, 125. Galilean Church, struggles of, 457.
Florian, St., work 59 on, work
of, > Gelasius. On
Lord's Supper, 34.
of Christ, 73 ; Lord's Supper, 77 ;
Gendulph, Sentences of, 6^.
sacraments, 79- Genesis, Luther on, 300.
Florus, works of, 30 ; on predestina- Gentilly, council at, 30.
tion, 32. Gerbert. On Lord's Supper, 39.
Foreknowledge (see Prescience). Gerhard of Sienna, philosophy of,
Forgiveness of Sins. In Gregory, 187.

24 Radbertus, 37 Early Middle
; ; Gerhoh, philosophy of, 60 ; on per-
Ages, 46 Anselm, 68 ;Abelard, ; son of Christ, 66.
81 ; Lombard, 83 ; Gratian, 92 ;
Germanic church, 15 f.
Thomas, 112 f., 121; Duns, Germanic legal system, 69.

160 f.; Luther, 260 f., 283, 284, Germanus of Paris. On Lord's Sup-
372; Melanchthon, 356, 358, 360 ;
per, 77.
Osiander, 372 Formula of Con- ; Gerson, Reformatory ideas of, 188;
cord, 384 Council of Trent, 433,
; on communion of saints, 144.
437 ; Bajus, 450, n. 2 ; Jansen, Glory, the divine, 397, 420.
453 Quesnel, 455 n.

;
Gnesio-Lutheranism, 380, 381, n. 3.
Francis of Assisi, estimate of, 89, 96 ;
Goch, Pupper of, and Augustinian-
; ;;;
INDEX. 477
ism, I go ; on grace, 208 f.; Scrip- data^ 122, 128, 209; infused, 78,
tures, evangelical liberty, 209. 80, 115, 119, 120, 123, 137 f.,
God, conception of. In Gregory, 18; 153, 160 f., 190, 201 f., 208 f.,
Germanic, 29 n.; in Anselm, 69, 216 n., 232, 239, n. 2, 240, 263,
107 Thomas, lOO, 107 Augus-
; ; 265, li. I, 297, 433, 449 ; opera-
tine, Dionysius, 107 ; Duns, 150, ting and co-operating, 119; irre-
163 f.; Luther, 253, 265, 298, 407, sistible, 453, 454 (see
23, 422,
416; Zwingli, 314 Calvin, 396 f., ; free-will); prevenient, 22,32,208,
407 Reformed theology, 416;

; 435, 454 ; in sacraments, 80, 85,
Synod of Dort, 424 Vatican ; 126; in ordination, 84; means of,
Council, 460 ; existence of, 56 ; 293, Zl^. 409-

as love, 107, 151, 164, 253, 265, Gratian, and Lombard, 62 f. ; on con-
401, 407, 416 ; relation to the trition, confession, absolution, for-
world, 107; wrath of, 229 n., 245, giveness, 92.
249. 358. 370 f., 400; glory of, Greek Church. In Middle Ages, 16.
397, 420, Gregory the Great, works of, 17, 25 ;
Gnosticism, 94. estimate of, 17, 26; theology of,
Goddam, philosophy of, 186. 15, 16; and Augustine, 26, 32;
Gomanus. On predestination, 421, Melanchthon on, 26 n.; on Trinity,
422 n. 17 ; angels, 17, 25 ; God, 18

Gospel, The, 228, 246, 248 f., 250 horaousia, 18; Holy Spirit, 18, 20
251,311, 342, 358, 366, 385. , n., 30 ; incarnation, 19 n.; person
Gospels, the Synoptic, Luther on, of Christ, 18 f.; work and interces-
300. sion of Christ, 19 ff.; Scriptures,
Gottschalk, works of, 30 ; con- 18, 19; church, ancient symbols,
demned, 32 ; on predestination, 18 ; example of Christ, 19, 21 ;
Trinity, work of Christ, 31. saints and martyrs, 20 original ;
Grace. In Gregory, 22 f. ; Faustus, 23; state, 21 n. demons, 17; devil,

;
Council of Chiersy, ^^ ; Thomas, 21; faith, 17, 22; free-will, 21,

115, 128; Lombard, 1 18; Biel, 22 ; sin, 21 f. ; fall, guilt, 21 ; vices,
John of Paltz, Durand, 201 f. 21 n.; carnal conception, 21 f.
Bonaventura, 115, I19; Duns, Creationism and Traducianism, 22 ;
158 ; Goch, 208 f.; Wesel, Wessel, unbaptized children, 22 ;

grace,
209 ; Colet, 216, 11. I ; Luther, 22 f. ;
justification, predestination,
231 f., 263 ff., 297 ; Zwingli, 314 ;
co-operation, merit, 23 ; baptism,
Melanchthon, 360 Southwestern ; 22 ; repentance, contrition, confes-
Germany, 390 Calvin, 399 ; Bol- ; sion, absolution, satisfaction, good
sec, 420 ; Remonstrants, Synod of works, forgiveness, 24; Lord's
Dort, 422 ; Council of Trent, 433, Supper, mass, purgatory, 24 f.
435. 439, 449; Bajus, 450; Mo- church, 18, 25 ; Christian life, 24,
451 f. Jansen, 453
lina, Quesnel,
; ; ,
26.
455 11.; Unigenitus, 455; creata Gregory VII., estimate of, 96; on
and increata, 1 1 8, 158, 208, 232 church, papacy, 50, 85, 86 ; state,
n., 264 ; g-7'aiumfaciens, 115, 119, 51, 85, 86 ; Lord's Supper, 75.
122, 127, 128, 129, Z^^-y graiia Gregory of Rimini, philosophy of,
;s ;;
;
478 INDEX.
l88 ; on immaculate conception, 344 ; Luther, 290, 294 ; Council

1 88 n. ; Luther on, 242. of Trent, 445, 449.
Gropper, imputed righteousness, Hincmar, works of, 30 ; on Trinity,
434". 31 ;
predestination, 32.
Grosseteste, philosophy of, 98 ; theol- Hildebert. On Lord's Supper, 77.
ogy of, 164 n. History of Doctrines, method of,
Guibert. On preaching, 92 ; Lord's 55 ; scope of, 466.

Supper, 39, Holkot, philosophy of, 186.
Guilt, 21, 81, 117. Holy Spirit. In Gregory, 18, 30;
Guitmund. On Lord's Supper, 76 f. Luther, 248 n., 256, 263, 280 f.,
305; Zwingli, 311; Melanchthon,

H. 360 Majoristic controversy, 365
; ;
Habitus, 103, 131 f., 150, 158 f., Formula of Concord, 383 f., 385
195 (see Faith, Grace). nn.; Calvin, 395, 401, 411 ; pro-
Hadrian. On Adoptionism, 29. cession of, 18, 30 ; intercession of,
Haimo. On
Lord's Supper, 39. 20, n. 2 ; work of, 385.
Hardenberg. In Eucharistic contro- Homousia, 303 ; of Christ, 18 (see
versy, 366, Christ, Person of); of the Holy
Heathen, salvation of. In Zwingli, Spirit, 18, 30.
315. Honius. On Lord's Supper, 288, 319.

Hebrews, Epistle to the, Luther on, Honorius. On systematic theology,
300. 61 ; work of Christ, 73 ; Lord's
Heidelberg Catechism. On Lord' Supper, 77 ; public repentance, 93.
Supper, 418 ;
predestination, 421. Host, desecrated, 77 n., 132 ; adora-
Heidelberg theologians. On person tion of, 440.
of Christ, ubiquity, 374. Hugo of Langres. On Lord's Sup-
Helvetic Confession, estimate of, 344 ; per, 76, 77.
on predestination, 421. Hugo of St. Victor, estimate of, 64
Henry of Ghent, works of, 106 ;

and Ix)mbard, 62 ; on systematic
philosophy of, 98, 106 ; on uni- theology, 61 ; sacraments, 19, 80,
versals, 106; will, 106; original 61 ; work of Christ, 73 ; confirma-
state, 115; divine call, 122; in- tion, 81 ; repentance, confession,
dulgences, purgatory, 139. absolution, satisfaction, 82, 92 ;
Heretics and sacraments, 50, 5 1, extreme unction, ordination, 84

142 ; and baptism, 439 ; and ordi- church, 85 f. ; state, 86.
nation, 142. Humanism, 213 ff.
Hervaeus Natalis, philosophy of, 186. Huss, influence of, 185, 289 n.; on
Hierarchy. In Early Middle Ages, church, 211, 290.
40 f., 50, 87 f., 96; Nicholas, 40; Hussites. On Lord's Supper, 206 f.
Donation of Constantine, 40 f.
I.
Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, 41 ;
Boniface VIII., 88, 165; Wal- Images, worship of, 29, 94, 448
denses, 94 ; Later Middle Ages, adoration vs. veneration of, 29.
165 ff.; Marsilius, Occam, 167 fF.; Imitation, of Christ. In Bernard, 54,
Wesel,2ii; Augsburg Confession, 72 ; Francis, Ludolf, 89 Tauler, ;
;;; ;
INDEX. 479
Eckhart, 178 f .
; Wickliffe, 184; Jansen, work of, 453 theses of, ;
Erasmus, 215; Luther, 270; 454 and Augustinianism, 453

; ;
Zwingli, 312 ; of parents' sins, 21, and Bradwardina, 453 on original ;
n. I. sin, will, justification, forgiveness,

Impanation, 75. love, predestination, 453 ; irresist-
Impulses, natural. In Luther, 273 ible grace, 453, 454.
Reformed theology, 415- Jansenists, estimate of, 453 f,

Indulgences. In Middle Ages, 92 ; Jesuits, estimate of, 429 f. condem-
;
Biel, 139, 176 ; Alexander, nation of, 453 J on repentance,

Thomas, Duns, Henry of Ghent, 429 ; faith, asceticism, preaching.
139 Later Middle Ages, 165,

; Christian life, 430 ;
grace, 449.
173; John of Paltz, 176; Wick- Joachim of Floris, apocalyptic visions
liffe, Wesel, Wessel, 210; Luther, of, 95, 183 ; on Trinity, 108.
234, 236, 241; Zwingli, 316 n.; John, Gospel Luther on, 299.
of,
Council of Trent, 444 ; for money, John of Damascus, influence on Lom-

177. bard, 63.
Indwelling, of God, 231, 270, 370 f. John of Paltz, works of, 179, n. 3,
of Christ, 53, 230 f., 270, 370 f. 201, 175 f.; theology of, 188; on
Infallibility, of church, 50, 149, 192; attrition, 175 f. ; absolution, indul-
of pope, 169, 170, 461, 462 f.; gences, 176; grace^ 201 f. ; justifi-
decree of, 462 f. cation, 201.

Innocent III., estimate of, 96 ; on John of Paris. On Lord's Supper,
papacy, church and state, 87 ; 203 n.
private confession, 93 ; indelible John of Ruusbroec, works of, 178.
character, 128 ; faith, 196. John of Salisbury, philosophy of, 60 ;
Innocent IV. On faith, 90. on church, 85 f.

Ino. On communion of saints, 144 n. Joslenus. On communion of saints,
Intention. In sacraments, 125 ; in 144.
baptism, 439. Jubilee indulgences, 176.
Intercession, of Christ, 19, 1 13, 269, Jude, Epistle of, Luther on, 300.
359, 400 ; of saints and martyrs, Justification. In Gregory, 23 Scho- ;
20, n. 2, 309 ; of the church, 20, lastics, 120 ff. Bonaventura, 120
;
11. 2 ; of the Holy Spirit, 20, n. 2. f., 201 ; Thomas, 120 f Lom- .
;
Interim, Leipzig, estimate of, 355 n. bard, 123 ii.; Middle Ages, 175;
and Melanchthon, 363, 364 ; on Duns, 160; John of Paltz, 201 ;
justification, bishops, Romish cere- Wessel, 209; Colet, 216 n.
mcpies, 364; free-will, 364 n.; Luther, 233, 235, 260 f.; Zwingli,
righteousness, 381, n. 4. 307, 310 ; Augsburg Confession,
Interpretation, allegorical, 15, 19. 336 ff.; Apology, 338; Early Re-
Isidore, works of, 16; on predestina- formed Confessions, 344 Me- ;
tion, 30. lanchthon, 351, 356, 358, 36of.,

362, 372, 11. 2 ; Leipzig Interim,
J- Majoristic controversy, 365
364 ; ;
James, Epistle of, Luther on, 300. Osiandrian controversy, 369 f.,
Janduno, philosophy of, 187. 373 ; Formula of Concord, 384 j

;; ;
48o INDEX.
Southwestern Germany, 390 Law and Gospel. In Luther, 228,

Bucer, 392, n. 3 ; Calvin, 403 f. 246, 248 250; Agricola, 251,
f.,
Later Reformed Confessions, 420 ; 366 Augsburg Confession, 342 ;

;
Synod of Dort, 424 Council of ; Zwingli, 311 Formula of Con- ;
Trent, 433 ff., 435, 436, 437; cord, 385 ; Antinomian contro-
Contarini, 434, n. I Bajus, 450 ; ; versy, 365.
Jansen, 453; Quesnel, 455 n.; Law, natural, 52, 55, 171 f., 183,
progressive, 437. 184 n., 246 f., 309, 399.
Legalism. In Middle Ages, 46 ; An-
selm, 69.
K.
Leipzig Disputation, 225, 289 f., 291,
Kempis, Thomas k, works of, 178; 298.
mysticism of, 178 f. Leo I. In filioque controversy, 30.
Kenotism, 376 n. Leo III. On Adoptionism, 29 ; fil-
Keys, power of the. In Gregory, 26, ioque controversy, 30.

51 ; Hugo, 86 Thomas, 145 ;
;
Leo X. On councils, 166; bull of,
Marsilius, Occam, 168 Luther, ; 166.
293 ; Augsburg Confession, 341, Leo XIII. On inspiration of Scrip-
343 ; Council of Trent, 444. tures, 460, n. ^.
Klebitz, in Eucharistic controversy, Liberty, evangelical. In Later Middle

366. Ages, 182 f. ; Goch, 209 ; Luther,
Krell. On
person of Christ, 374. 275.
Kilwardby, philosophy of, 98. 273 f. eternal, 359; the
Life, civil, ;
Kingdom of Christ, 266, 277, 292, new, 231, 256 f., 337, 360.
340, 391, 410, n. 2. Lombard, Peter, estimate of, 62, 64,
Kings, Books of the, Luther on, 300. 185 ; system of, 63 and Abelard, ;
Knowledge, median, 451 f .

; original, 59 ; Luther on, 224 on person of ;
115; theory of, in Boetius,

56; Christ, 65,74 ; work of Christ, 73 f.,
Thomas, 104 f. ; Albert, Anselm, 91; sacraments, 63, 80; Lord's

105 ; Abelard, 60 Duns, 148
; Supper, yS repentance, 74, 80,
;
Occam and his school, 186 f., 83, 92 ; confession, absolution, sat-
190 f.; Henry of Ghent, I06. isfaction, Sî 92 forgiveness, pur-
;
gatory, 83 f. ; extreme unction, or-

dination, 84 Trinity, 108
; ; orig-
L.
inal sin, 116; grace, 118; faith,
Lanfranc, works of, 74 ; on reason, justification, 123 n. ; baptism, 130;

55 Lord's Supper, 76 f.
; marriage, 143.
Lauterwald, Osiandrian controversy, Lord's Supper. In Middle Ages,
373- 16, 34; Gregory, 24 f.
; Gelasius,
Law, The. In Luther, 239, 246 ff. 34 Carlovingian period, 34 ; Al-
;
Zwingli, 311 Melanchthon, 358

; ;
cuin, 35 Radbertus, 35, 37, 76
; ;
Augsburg Confession, 337 Osi- ; Rabanus, Ratramnus, 38

37, 39 ; ;
ander, 370 f Calvin, 403; Re-

.
; Guibert, Haimo, 39 Gregory VII., ;
formed theology, 416; preach- 75 y Durand, ^6, 203 ; Berenger,

ing of the, 248 f., 250. 75 f.; Lanfranc, Hugo of Langres,
;;
Alger, Guitmund, 76 f.; Comester, reception of,s^, 207, 328, 330;

Hildebert, St. Florian, Roland, worthy and unworthy reception of,
Honorius, Omnebene, 77 ; Abe- 77, 329 n., 366, 386 ; miracles ac-
lard, 77 n. Pullus, Lombard,
; companying, 35, 7^ ; ^^*l immor-
Rupert, 78 ; Duns, Alexander, tality of the body, 36, 329, 387,
131 f-> ^33 ; Biel, 132, 134 f., 204; 414, n. 2; and the unbelieving,
Thomas, 133 Occam, 133, 202, ; 36, 38, 206 n., 328 n., 331, 386 ;
327; Albert, 134 n.; EugenelV., benefits of, 25, 36, 37, 38^ 78, 133,
134; John of Paris, 203 n. 134, 287 f., 327 f., 329, 345, 386 f.,
Thomas of Strassburg, Wesel,Wes- 440, 441, 442 (see Christ, Body
sel, D'Ailli, 204; Faber, 205 n.; of).
WicklifFe, 206; Erasmus, 215 n. Loyola, estimate of, 429,430 n. ; and
Luther, 235, 286 ff., 322 ff.; Bo- Calvin, 430, n. 2.
hemian Brethren, 288 ; Brenz, Louis XIV. and papacy, 457.

320, 366; Zwingli, 318 ff.; Ho- Louis of Bavaria, and papacy, 1 65 ;
nius, 288, 319 ; Oecolampadius, on papacy, 165, 167 f., 174.

319, 322; Bucer, 319, 331; Ludolf of Saxony, mysticism of, 89.
Capito, 319 ; Carlstadt, 288, Lullus. On logical demonstration,
322 ; Pirckheimer, 320 ; Blaurer, 105.
Schnepf, 331 n.; Schwabach Ar- Lupus, Seratus, works of, 30 ; on
ticles, 330 Augsburg Confession,
; predestination, 32.
341; Variata, 351 Reformed ; Luther, works of, 221, 225 u., 226
Confession, 345 ; Chemnitz, 377 ;
nn., 227; theses of, 236; scholas-
Melanchthon, 350, 366, 380 Cal- ; tic training of, 223 ; estimate of,
vin, 366, 386, 412 f., 417 Hess- ; 221 f., 225 f., 296 f., 348, 389,
husen, 366 ; Eucharistic contro- 417 ; and Bucer, 393 ; and Calvin,
versy, 366 ; Westphalia, 366 393, 394, 401, 414 f., 416; and
Saliger, Cerveus, 367 u.; Frank- Melanchthon, 349, 352,363, 381,
fort Recess, 379 ; Gnesio- Luther- n. 3; and Osiander, 372, 373 n.;
ans, 381 Formula of Concord,

; and Southern Germany, 320 and ;
386 ; Southwestern Germany, 391 Southwestern Germany, 391 and ;
Reformed theology, 415 BuU- ; Zwingli, 303, 308 n., 319 f.,
inger, 417 ; Consensus Tigurinus, 323 n. on Aristotle,
; Lombard,
417; Heidelberg Catechism, Hel- Thomas, Biel, 224 on ; attrition,
vetic Confession, 418 Council of ; 222, 237 ; contrition, 222, 234,

Trent, 439 f. as bond of unity, ; 237 ff.; repentance, 224, 234, 235,
33if.;asfoodforthesoul, 134,345. 241, 251 n., 272, 358 ; confession,
418 ; as a memorial, 134, 319, 240 ; absolution, 240 satis-

234, ;
322, 345. 412; as a pledge of faction, 234, 241, 265 f. indul- ;
fidelity, 322; as a sacrifice, 134, gences, 234, 236, 241, 267, li. 2,
441, et passim (see Mass); as a 268 n.; law, 239, 246 ff. ; law and
symbol, 36, 38, 39, 75, 126, 206, gospel, 228, 246, 248 (., 250;
286 f 318, 320, 340 ; matter and
,
Scriptures, 226, 228, 290 f., 298 f.,
form in, 135 ; elements in, 289, 301 f. ; Apocrypha, 300; criticism
440 ; in usu, 386, 440 ; spiritual of Scriptures, 300 ; Word, 234,

31
;;;
; ;;;
452 INDEX.
279 f., 299 f., 322 ; Books of the Romish Church, 295, 289 ; creed,
Bible, 300 reason, 224, 303 f.; "chief article," 297 n.'^,
;
243,
247, 299 n.; personal experience, preaching, 281, 293 ; councils,
224, 225, 228 f., 230, 233, 235, 291* 303 ; 302 ff.
tradition, 291,
256 f., 281 n., 296, 298, 301, mass, 235,289 monasticism, ;
304 ; human merit, 229, 264 274 ; asceticism, 276 n. civil life, ;
synteresis, 229, n. 2 ; sin, 229, 273 f.; natural impulses, 273 ;
242 f., 297, 309 ; free-will, 243 f .

social problems, 278 ; the state,
will of man, 256, 243 f., 255, n. 274, 290.
4; 212; conscience, 243 n.
fall, Lutheranism, and Calvinism, 415 ;
conception of God, 253, 265, 298, and Catholicism, 4i7 ^- i > Me-
407, 416 ; will of God, 244 Trin- ; lanchthonian, 381, 383.
ity. 3<^3^ 305 f-; wrath of God, Lychetus, philosophy of, 186.
229 n., 245, 249; predestination, Lyons, second council at, 146.
244, 407; person of Christ, 229f.,
235, 253, 266, n. 3, 298, 304 f.,
M.
323, 324 n.; work of Christ, 230,
261, 266 ff. ; intercession of Christ, Major. In Majoristic controversy,
269; indwelling of Christ, 231, 364 on person of Christ, 374
;
270; Holy Spirit, 248 n., 256, good works, 364, 385.
263, 280 f., 305 grace, 231 ff., ;
Majoristic controversy, 364 f.
263 ff., 297; love of God, 245, Manducation, oral, 327, 350, 386.
253, 265, 407, 416; justification, Marbach. On predestination, 378.

233. 235, 260 f.; forgiveness, Marburg colloquy, 330.
260 f., 283, 284, 372 ; faith, 223, Marriage. In Lombard, 80, 143 ;
225, 232 ff., 240, 241, 252 ff., scholasticism, 85, 125 ; Bonaven-
275 f-, 296, 297 f, 302, 328; tura, 143 ; Council of Trent, 446.
regeneration, 283 f. ; sanctification, Marriage of priests. In Thomas,
new hfe, 256 f., 284, 231, 337, Duns, 147 Albert, Eugene IV.,
;
360 ; Christian life, 256 f., 273, 143 Augsburg Confession, 339
; ;
275 f., 296 imitation of Christ, ; Council of Trent, 446.

270 ;
good works, 234, 240, 247, Marsilius of Inghen, philosophy of,
258, 264, 274, 364

277, ; love to 186.
fellow-man, 238 f, 275 f., 248; Marsilius of Padua. On hierarchy,
devil, 267, n. 2 ; devils, 246 n.; 167.
communion of saints, 235, 286 f., Martyr. On predestination, 421.
291 ff. ; Virgin Mary, 235; Sab- Mass, The. In Gregory, 24 f.
bath, 247 n.; sacraments,

246, Luther, 235, 289; Zwingli, 309;
235 279, 282; baptism, 283 f., Marburg colloquy, 330 ; Augsburg-
2$$ Lord's Supper, 235, 286 ff.,
; Confession, 344 ; Council of Trent,
322 ff. ; alloeosis, 324 ; right hand 441, 445 ; modern Roman Cath-
of God, 325 ; ubiquity, 288, 320 olic church, 463.
" 323 f- ; kingdom of God, 277; Massa perditionis, ^;^.
church, 226, 235, 289, 291 ff. Maulbronn, Formula of, 382 f.
key!^, 293 ; hierarchy, 290, 294 Mayence, council at, 31.

;
Meats, distinction of, 344. Council of Trent, 434, 43S; of fit-

Melanchthon, works of, 348, 351 ff.; ness and worthiness, 112, 115,
estimate of, 348, 363 ; and Prot- 123, 13S, 160, 199, 202, 229, 337,
estant doctrine, 348 ; and ancient 434, 436.
symbols, 352 ; and Bucer, 350, Migetius. On Trinity, 27.
393, n. 2; and Calvin, 394; and Ministry, The. In Luther, 293 f.,
hyper-orthodoxy, 356 and In- ; Zwingli, 316 11.; Augsburg Con-

terim, 355 n., 363, 364; and Lu- fession, 341 ; Melanchthon, 355
ther, 349, 352, 363, 381, li. 3; n. ; Calvin, 409; Council of Trent,
and Majoristic controversy, 365 ; 445-
and Oecolampadius, 350 ; and Miracles, 35, 76, 91.
Osiander, 372 n., 373 ; and Mohna, work of, 450; on grace and
Zwingli, 350; on Luther, 352 ; fun- free-will,
451 f .
; median divine
damental ideas of, 351; on church, knowledge, 452.
340, 351. 354 f-, 362 ; Scriptures, Monastic life, 124, 274.
348, 351 f. ; ancient symbols, 348, Monastic vows, 344.
352; speculation, 348; reason, Monastic works, 339.
science, 353 ; Aristotle, 348, n. 3 ; Money, abuse of, in the church, 165,
free-will, sin, predestination, con- n. I, 177, 203.
version, 349 ; Lord's Supper, 350, Moralism. In Middle Ages, 91.
366, 380; repentance, 351, 358, Multivolipresence, 376, 3S6, 3S7,
361 ; experience,
353 justifica- ; 388.
tion, 351, 356, 358, 360 f., 362, Musculus. On predestination, 421.
372, 11. 2; pure doctrine, 352 f., Mysticism. In Bernard, 52 f,, 88;
354 ff.; Romish Church, 355; Bonaventura, 88 n., 89 f., 100,
ministry, 355 11.; law, wrath of Hugo, Richard, 88 n., 89 f.; Fran-
God, 358; contrition, 35S, 361; cis, Ludolf, 89; Scholastics, 124;
faith, 356, 360 f. ; regeneration, German, 178 fF., 280.
360; merit, 361 gospel, 358;
;
work, merit and intercession of

N.
Christ, fruits of redemption, eternal
life, 359 ;
grace, Holy Spirit, 360 ;
Napoleon I. In Galilean church,
new life, 360; good works, 361, 457; on pope, 457.
364- Narbonne, council at, 43.
Mendicants, 146. Naumburg, diet at, 379.
Menius. In Majoristic controversy, Nestorianism. In thirteenth century,

364 ; in Osiandrian controversy, 66.
373- Netter z'j-. Wickliffe, 189.

Merit, human. In Gregory, 23; Nice, councils at, 29, 290.
Albert, 1 16; Thomas, 116, 121 f., Nicholas of Clemanges. On greed
124, 136; Bonaventura, 1 16, 121 f., of papacy, 166 n.
124; Duns, 158; Occam, 192; Nicholas of Hontheim, work of, 457;
Biel, 199, 202; Luther, 229, 264; on episcopacy, 457; papacy, 458.
Zwingh, 313; Augsburg Confes- Nicholas I. On papacy, 40, 41 n,
sion, 337; Melanchthon, 361 Nihilianism, 65.

; ,;
44 INDEX.
Niphus, philosophy of, 187. Osiandrian controversy, 366 ff.
Nominalism, 56, 1S6, 188, 190 ff., Otto, Anton. Antinomianism of, 366.
428, 429. Otto of Freising. On papacy, 146.
Nunciatures, papal, 458. Otto the Great. On papacy, 40.
O.
Obedience. In Jesuitism, 430. Palude, Petrus de, philosophy of,
Obedience of Christ, 371, 373, 400. 186.

Objective vs. subjective, 191. Pantheism, 95.
Obstacle, in sacraments, 129. Papacy, greed of, 166 n.
Occam, estimate of, 185 f., 191 ; on Pascal vs. Jesuits, 453,
communion of saints, 144 ; Scrip- Paternoster, 92.
tures, 162, 172, 192 f.; hierarchy, Paul of Venice, philosophy of, 187,
167 ; natural law, 183 ; Nominal- Paulinus, works of, 27.

ism, 190 ff.; Trinity, communicatio Peckham, philosophy of, 98.
idiomatum, 192; transubstantiation, Penance, forms of, 45 ; redemption
church, 192 f.; faith, 195 f. ; sin, of, 44 f.
free-will, 197. Penitence, compulsory, 24 u.

Oecolampadius. On Lord's Supper,. Penitential books, 42.
319, 322. Perfection, Christian. In Francis,

Offices in church, Calvin, 409, Ludolf, 89 f. ; Thomas, 124 ; Bona-
Omnebene, work of,59 on person ; ventura, 89 f., 124; Luther, 275 f.;
of Christ, 65 ; Lord's Supper, 77 ;

Augsburg Confession, 339 ; Cal-
sacraments, 79. vin, 403.
Omnipresence of Christ's body, 66, Perseverance, 378, 391, 406, 423.
77, 288 (see Ubiquity). Peter, Epistles of, Luther on, 300
Opus operatum, 46. primacy of, 168.
Ordinances, human, 341. Pfeffinger. On Synergism, 367.

Ordination. In Gregory, 51 ; Hugo, Philippism, 381.
Roland, Lombard, 84 Scholastic- ; Philosophy of Aristotle, 95 ; Arabian.
ism, 125 ; Thomas, Bonaventura, 95-
Duns, 141 ; Eugene IV., 142; Piacenza, council at, 78.
Council of Trent, 445. Pictaviensis, Petrus, works of, 64.

Osiander, works of, 369 ; estimate of, Pighius. On predestination, 420
372 and Brenz, 373, n. 2 and
; ;
righteousness, 434 n.
Calvin, 373, 11. 2 and Melanch- ;

Pilgrimages, 173.
thon, 372 n.; and Luther, 372, Pirckheimer. On Lord's Supper

373 ii- J
^^ justification, 369 ff., 320.
373 ;
person and work of Christ, Pisa, council at, 166.
370 f.; inner word, faith, right- Pistoja, synodal, 445, u. I, 458.
eousness, obedience of Christ, Pius IX. On i mmaculate concep-
371 II.; forgiveness, 372 f. ; re- tion, 456 ; Vatican Council, 460.
newal, Christian life, 370, 373 Poach. On law and gospel, 365.
symbolic subscription, 352 n. Polygamy, 142, n. 3.
; ;;
INDEX. 485
Pope, authority of. In Nicholas I., bogaart, Episcopius, 421 ; Re-

Donation of Constantine, 40 monstrants and Contra-remon-
Humbert, Gregory VII. , 5 f* 5
strants, 422 ; Consensus Helvetica,
Hugo, Pullus, 86 Innocent ; III., 425 ; Amyraldus, 424 f. ; Jansen,
87; Boniface VIII., 88, 97, 165 ; 453 f. ; Helvetic Confession, Heid-
Thomas, 102, 145 f.; 2d Council elberg Catechism, Westminster
of Lyons, 146, 165 f., 167 f.; Confession, 421.
Wickliffe, 211 ; Luther, 225 f., Presence, mode of, in Lord's Supper,
289 f., 298 n.; Council of Trent, ^33* 204, 326, 329, 440; sacra-
440, 446 f. 448 ; Catechismus

,
mental, 350, 440 ; Real (see
Romanus, 448 Louis XIV., 457 ; ; Christ, Body of).
Galilean church, Nicholas of Hont- Prescience. In Gottschalk, 31 ;
heim, 457 ; Punctation of Ems, Coiinci' of Valence, ^$ Formula

;
458 f.; modern church, 459 ; Vati- of Concord, 388 f. ; Bucer, 392.
can Council, 461. Prophecies, Luther on, 300.
Porphyry, philosophy of, 56 n. Prosper of Reggeo, Eremite, 187.
Port Royal, abbey at, 452, 454. Prudentius, works of, 30 ; on pre-
Poverty, Book of Spiritual, 178. destination, 32.
Prayer, 405 n., 419. Pullus. On work of Christ, 73
Preaching. In Middle Ages, 91 f.; transubstantiation, 78 ; sacraments,
Guibert, 92 ; Later Middle Ages, 79; confirmation, 81 ; confession,
174; Luther, 281, 293; Jesuits, absolution, purgatory, 83 ; church,
430. 85 f. ; state, 86.
Predestination. In Gregory, 23 ; Punctation of Ems, 458.
Florus, 30 f. ; Isidore, 30 ; Gotts- Purgatory. In Gregory, 24 f. Early ;
chalk, 31 ; Rabanus, 31, 32 ; Middle Ages, 44 Abelard, Ro- ;
Council of Mayence, 31 ; Councils land, 81 ; Lombard, Pullus, 83 f.

of Chiersy and Valence, 32, ;}^ ; Waldenses, 94 ; Alexander, Bona-
Prudentius, Remigius, Ratramnus, ventura, Biel, Henry, Duns, 139
Lupus, Hincmar, Amolo, Scotus, Luther, 241 ; Zwingli, 316 n.
32 Council of Toucy, 33
;
Duns, ; Purification. In Mysticism, 179 f.
151 f, 156, 164; Biel, 198;

Bradwardina, 207 ; Wickliffe, 208 ;
Luther, 244, 407 ; Zwingli, 313 f., Q-
315; Melanchthon, 349; Calvin, Quesnel, work of, 454 ; theses of,
397, 405 ff-, 420; Zanchi, 378, 455 ^'i on Scriptures, church, will,
421; Marbach, Hesshusen, 378; faith, forgiveness, justification,
Formula of Concord, 388 South- ; grace, 455 11.
western Germany, 391 Bucer, ;
392 f.; Reformed theology, 416,

R.
421 ; Later Reformed Confessions,
419, 421 ; Pighius, Bolsec, 420 ;
Rabanus, Maurus, works of, 16, 30
Gomarus, 421, 422 n.; Beza, on predestination, 31, 32 ; Lord's
Martyr, Musculus, 421 ; Synod of Supper, 37, 39.
Dort, 421 ff. ; Arminius, Uyten- Radbertus, works of, 16,34; on Virgin
;;;
486 INDEX.
Mary, 34 ; faith, 37 ; Lord's Sup- Remonstrants. On predestination, 422.

per, 35> 37, 76. Renaissance, The, 27.
Rationalism. In Abelard, 58 ; PVed- Renewal. In Luther, 231, 256 f.,
erick 11., 91 ; thirteenth century, 284, 337 f., 260; Majoristic con-
60. troversy, 365; Osiander, 370 ff.;
Ratramnus, works of, 30, 34 ; on pre- Formula of Concord, 384, 423 n.;
destination, 32 ; Virgin iMary, 34 ;
Calvin, 402 f., 404.
Lord's Supper, 38. Repentance. In Middle Ages, 16,
Realism. In William of Champeaux, 41 to 47; Durand, 92; Waldenseb,
60; William of Auverne, Alex- 94; Biel, 134 f., 138, 201; Later
ander, 98 ; Duns, 147 ; Later Middle Ages, 175 ff.; Mystics,
Middle Ages, 186 f. 179; John of Paltz, 201 ; Luther,
Reason. In Scolus, 15 ; Abelard, 251 n., 272, 358; Augsburg Con-
58 ; Anselm, 57, 68 ; Berenger, fession, Apology, 342; Melanch-
Lanfranc, 55 Thomas, Bonaven- ; thon, 351, 358, 361; Later Re-
tura, 104 Luther, 224, 243, 247,
; formed Confessions, 419; public
299 n.; Pullus, 62 ; Melanchthon, 7's. private, 42, 93.
353- Repentance, sacrament of. In Gre-

Recarred, Confession of, 30. gory, 24, 47; Abelard, 81 f ,
; Epit-
Redemption. In Hugo, 6l Mystics, ; ome, Roland, 81 Hugo, 82, 92; ;
119 ; benefits of, in Lombard, 14 ;

Pullus, 83; Lombard, S^, 92;
Thomas, 113 ; Duns, 106 f .
Thomas, Alexander, Bonaventura,
Melanchthon, 359 ; Osiander, 370 Biel, 134 ff.; Eugene IV., 140;
(see Christ, Work of). h)hn of Paltz, 174 n., 175 f.,
Reformation, attempted, 49 f need .

; 201 n.; Wickliffe, Wesel, Wessel,
of, 188 f. ; forerunners of, 190. 210; Luther, 222, 224, 234 ff.,
Reformation, The, 217, 222, 225 u., 241 ; Calvin, 402 f. ;

Jesuits, 429;
308 f., 411, 415. Council of Trent, 434, 438, 442,
Reformed Church, asceticism in, 415, 444.
420. Revelation of grace, in Amyraldus,
Reformed Confessions, Earlier, 425-
344 f.; Later, 345 f., 41S f. Reward, 23, 91 (see Merit).
Reformed Theology, pre-reformation Richard of Middleton, philosophy of,
ideals of, 415; and Roman Catho- 98; on will, 106.

licism, 417, n. I; and Calvin, 426; Richard of St. Victor. On Trinity,
on sacraments, 415, 418; predesti- loS; communion of saints, 144.
nation, 416, 421, 422. Rickel, philosophy of, 187.

Regeneration. In Luther, 283 f. Righteousness, actual, 259 f., 338,
Augsburg Confession, 337 f. ; Me- 370 f., 381, n. 4, 384, 438; im-
lanchthon, 360; Calvin, 403 f. puted, 260 f., 337 f., 359, 370 f.,
Synod of Dort,423 (see Renewal). 379. 381, " 4y 384, 404, 48,
Relics, worship of, gi, 94, 173. 43 f., ctpassim ; original, 114, 153.
Religion, natural, 353. 370-

Remigius, works of, 30; on predesti- Right Hand of God, 325, 413, 440.
nation, 32. Roland, work of, 59; on person of
;
INDEX. 487
Christ, 65 ; Lord's Supper, 77; 282, 316, 439 place of, in dog- ;
sacraments, 79; repentance, con- matic system, 59; validity of, 94;
trition, confirmation, ordination, matter and form of, 126 inten- ;
purgatory, 81. tion in, 125 ; as symbols, 126,

Roman Catholic Church before the 127 f., 282, 316, 411, 417, 439 i
Reformation, 146 ; reformation as pledges, 411 ; and word, 78,

within, 428 ; modern condition of, 123 n., 285 f., 411 ; adm^gistered'^
463 f. Luther on, 2S9, 294

; Me- ; by heretics, 50, 51, 142; benefits
lanchthon on, 355. of, 80, 93, 127, 345.
Roman Catholic Theology, sources Saints, communion of, 144!., 212,
for,427 estimate of, 427 f., 430,
; 235, 2S6 f., 291 ff., 408.
431 Thomistic character of, 428
; ;
Saints, intercession of. In Early
iniluence of Duns upon, 428, 431 ;
Middle Ages, 44, 91 Waldense'-, ;
and Paul, 455 ; and opposing 94 Thomas, 124

; Later Middle ;
schools, 428, 431, 432, 433, 438, Ages, 173 Augsburg Confession,
;
439- 344 ; Council of Trent, 445.

Romania, Epistles to, Luther on, 301. Saliger. On Lord's Supper, 367 n.
Rome, councils at, 29, 76. Salmeron. On divine right, 447 n.
Roscellin, philosophy of, 56 ; on Salvation, causes of, 405, n. I ; of
Trinity, 56. souls, 94, 225.
Rupert. On Lord's Supper, 78 n. Sanctification, in Apology, 338 ; Lu-

ther, Melanchthon, 360 ; South-
western Germany, 390 ; Calvin,
402, 404 (see Life, New).
Sabbath. In Erasmus, 215 n.; Lu- Sanfelice, evangelical views of, 434,
ther, 246, 247 n.; Zwingli, 311, n. 2.
11. I. Satisfaction. In Early Middle Ages,

Sacraments. In Abelard, 59, 72, 79 ; 43, 47; Anselm, 67 f .
; Roland,
Hugo, 61, 79, 80; Lombard, 63,80; 81; Abelard, Hugo, 82; Lom-
Anselm, 72; Bernard, Roland, Pul- bard, 83, 92; council at Aachen,
lus,Omnebene, St.Florian,79; Ber- 84 ; Thomas, Duns, 139 Eugene ;
thold, 93 Later Middle Ages, 98,

; IV., 140; Wessel, 210; Luther,
124 f.; Eugene IV., 125 ; Thomas, 234, 241, 265 f, 267, li. 2, 26S,
Bonaventura, 125 f .
; Alexander, n. ICouncil of Trent, 435, 438,
;
125, 126 n. ; Duns, 127 f., 161 ; 443> 444; Bajus, 451 n.
Albert, 128 ; Biel, 187, 200 ;
Savonarola. On asceticism, church
Luther, 235, 279, 282 ; Zwingli, and state, 19S n.; politics, 318.
316; Augsburg Confession, 341 f .

Scepticism,, Abelard, 58 ; thirteenth
Apology, 343; Calvin, 411 ff.; century, 60; Frederick II., 91,
Reformed theology, 418 415, ;
Scholasticism, estimate of, 54 ff. , 57,
Consensus Tigurinus, 417; Re- 105, 146, 196, 214; in Luther,
formed Confessions, 345 ; Council 223 ; Luther on, 224.
of Trent, 438 f .
; definition of, 79, Schnepf. On Lord's Supper, 331 n,
80, 93, 125, 411 ; number of, Schwabach Articles, 330,

37 n., 63, 79, 80, 93, 125, 135, Schwabian Concord, ^82 n.
; ;
488 INDEX.
Schwenkfeldians, 389. Simon Baringundus, Eremite, 187,

Scotus Erigena, works of, 30 ; on Simony, 50.
predestination, 32.
Sin. In Gregory, 21 f.; Anselm, 67,
Scriptures, authority of. In Gregory,
IIO; Luther, 229, 242 f.; Augs-
18; Abelard, 58; Thomas, 100;
burg Confession, 335 ; Zwingli,
Bonaventura, loi ; Duns, 149
309) 3^7; Biel, Occam, 197; as
Occam, 169, 172, 192; Wickliffe,
disease, defect, 22, 117, 309
184; D'Ailli, Biel, 192 f.; Goch,
venial vs. mortal, 43 f., 92, 135
209 ; Erasmus, 215 o-; Luther,
et passim ;
propagation of, 117;
226, 228, 290 f., 298 f., 301 f.;
results of, 1 17, 118.
Zwingli, 308, 309 n.; Reformed
Sin, original. In Gregory, 21 ; An-
Confessions, 344 Melanchthon,
;
selm, Lombard, Alexander, Bona-

348, 351 f. ; Southwestern Ger-
ventura, Thomas, 1 16 f. ; Duns,
many, 391; Calvin, 395>396n.;
153, 154, 163; Biel, Occam, 197;
Later Reformed Confessions, 419
Luther, 229, 242 f., 297; Me-
n.; Council of Trent, 431 ; Bajus,
lanchthon, 349 n.; Zwingli, 309,
450, 45 in.; Jansen, 453; Ques-
nel, n.
317; Augsburg Confession, 335;
455
Earlier Reformed Confessions,
Scriptures, criticism of, 301,301 n.
Scriptures, inspiration of. In Gregory, 345 n. Formula of Concord, 383
;
;
Southwestern Germany, 390 Cal-

18 ; Abelard, 58 ; Thomas, loi ;
;
vin, 398 ; Later Reformed Confes-

Agobard, loi n. ; Occam, Biel,
sions,419 ; Council of Trent, 432
192 ; Erasmus, 301 f. ; Luther, ;
Bajus, 451 n.; Jansen, 453.

Calvin, 395 ; Reformed theology,
415) 4'9 II- ; Consensus Helvetica, Sins, actual, 154, 242; enumeration
Council of Trent, 431 of, 443-
426 ; ; Vat-
ican Council, 460 ; Leo XIIL, Social Problems, 182, 202 n., 278,
460 n. 292 n. z.
Scriptures, interpretation of, 15, 19. Soissons, council at, 61.

Scriptures, reading of. In Gregory, Solida Declaratio, 382 n.
19, 455 n- Southwestern Germany, theology in,
Secular learning and religion, 353, 390 ff., 414.

362, 363. Spires, diet at, :^:iZ-
Secular 273 f.
life, Stancar. On Osiandrian controversy,
Self-communion, 440. 374-
Selnecker, Lutheranism of, 381. State,The. In Gregory VIL, 51, 85,
Semi-Augustinianism, 32, 86; Pullus, Hugo, Innocent III.,
Semi-Pelagianism, 16, 63. 86 f.; Boniface VIII., 88; Louis
Sens, council at, 61. of Bavaria, 165 ; Marsilius,
Seripando, evangelical views of, 434, Occam, 167, 170 ; Luther, 274,
li. 2. 290; Zwingli, 317 f. ; Augsburg
Seuse, works of, 178. Confession, 341 ; Calvin, 410.
Sigismund, confession of, 421 n. State, original. In Gregory, 21 n.;
Silent Submission, to doctrine, 456, Alexander, Bonaventura, Albert,
463, 465. Thomas, 1 14 f . ; Henry, 115^
; ;;
INDEX. 4S9
Duns, 153 ; Biel, 197 ; Council of lanchthon, 348, 362, 363 ; nature
Trent, 432 n.; Bajus, 450. of, 104 n,, 149, 150 n.; German,
States of Christ, 325 n., 376 f., 387. 178.
Stephen of Paris, philosophy of, 98. Thomas of Aquino, estimate of, 96,
Strigel. In Synergistic controversy, 97 98, 99, 100, 146, 185, 224;
367 f. method of, 99; on God, 100, 107;
Stuttgart, synod at, 366, revelation, icx)f.; Scriptures, loi ;
Subjective vs. objective, 191. faith, 103, 121; will, I03 ; uni-
Sufferings of Christ. In Gregory, 19, versals,104; Trinity, 100, 109;
53; Anselm, 69; Thomas, 112 f.; communicatio idiomatum, no
Duns, 156 f.; Luther, 266 f. (see person of Christ, nof. ; work of
Atonement, Work of Christ). Christ, III f. ; intercession of
Supererogation, works of, 23, 124, Christ, 113 ; fruits of redemption,
139. 113 ; synteresis, 114 ; original
Superstition, 49. state, Il4f. ; infused grace, 115,
Symbols, estimate of, 466 ; the an- 119; original sin, 116; forgive-
cient, in Gregory, 18; Thomas, ness, 112 f., 121 ; free-will, ir9f.;
Bonaventura, Anselm, Alexander, justification, 120 f.; faith, 103,

Richard, Durand, 102; Duns, 120; guilt, 117; grace, 115,118;
149; Luther, 303; Zwingli, 317 ;
good works, 116, 121 ; human
Melanchthon, 348, 352 Calvin, ; merit, 116, 121 f., 124; merit of
396 ; later Reformed theology, Christ, 113; monastic life, 124;
419 n. sacraments, 125 f. ; indelible char-
Synergism, controversy upon, 267 ff. acter, 128; baptism, 130; Lord's
in Formula of Concord, 384; Coun- Supper, 133 ; repentance, 134 f.
cil of Trent, 433, 435 f.; Molina, contrition, 136 f.; confession, abso-
451 f. lution, 137 f.; indulgences, satis-
Syn gramma, 320. faction, 139; extreme unction, 140;

Synod, at Alengon, 425 Dort. 421 ; ; ordination, 141 ; marriage, 142
Eisenach, 365 ; France, 425 ;
church, 144 f.; pope, 102, 145 f.;
Pistoja, 445 XI. I, 458 Stuttgart, ; blessedness, 148.

366 ; Torgau, 367 (see Council). Thomas of Bradwardina. On person
of Christ, 1 10 ;
predestination,
189, 207.
T.
Thomas of Strassburg, philosophy of,
Tauler, works of, 178 ; on word and 187 ; on immaculate conception,

sacraments, 128 ; imitation of l88n.; Lord's Supper, 204.
Christ, 1 78 f. Thomas sel Vio (see Cajetan).
Tetrapolitan Confession, 344 f. Tilmann. On Eucharistic contro-

Theodulf. On filioque, 30. versy, 366.
Theology, Systematic. In Abelard, Timann. On Eucharistic controversy
59 ; Honorius, Hugo, 61 ; John 366.
of Damascus, Lombard, ^-i, ; Mid- Torgau, synod at, 367.
dle Ages, 9^, 189, 214; Albert, Torgau Book, 382 n.
Thomas, 99 ; Gerson, 189 ; Me- Toucy, council at, ^'^.
; ;;
490 INDEX.
Toulouse, council at, 93. 442, II. I; forgiveness, 433, 437;

Tours, council at, 76; school at, 55, asceticism, 438, 449; Christian
98. life, 438; contrition, 438, 442, 444;
Tradition. In Middle Ages, 17 confession, absolution, 438, 442,
Abelard, 58; Luther, 291, 302 ff.; 443, 444; sacraments, 43S f.
Council of Trent, 431 f., 449; Lord's Supper, 439 f. ; mass, 441,
Vatican Council, 460; Protestant 445; hierarchy, 443, 444, 446 f.,
Church, 464 f.
445, 449; indulgences, 444; purg-
Traducianism, 22. atory, extreme unction, ordination,
Transubstantiation. In Radbertus, priesthood, 445; marriage, church,
35; Rabanus, 37; Haimo, 39; 446; pope 446 f., 448, 449; and-
Berenger, 76; Comester, Hilde- Augustinianism, 450.
bert, Roland, St. Florian, Omne- Treves, council at, 92, 93.
bene, Honorius, Hugo, 77; Ger- Tribur, council at, 45.
manus, Stephen, William of Trinity. In Gregory, 17; Migetius,
Thiersy, 77 n.; PuUus, Lombard, 27 ; Gottschalk, Hincmar, 31
Fourth Lateraji Council, yS; Later Roscellin, 56; Abelard, 58 f.;
Middle Ages, E27, 205; Thomas, Thomas, 100, 109; Richard, Lom-
Alexander, Duns, 131 f., 150; bard, Joachim, Fourth Lateran
Occam, 1925.; Wickliffe, Hussites, Council, 108; Occam, 192; Luther,
206; Luther, 235, 286 n., 287; 303, 305 f-; Augustine, 306 n.;
Zwingli, 318; Augsburg Confes- Calvin, 396, n. 2.

sion, Apology, 342; Council of Tubingen Book, 382.
Trent, 440.
Treasure, of the church, 139, 236, U.
241. Ubiquity, of body of Christ. In Al-

Trent, Council of, estimate of, 43 1 , 448, ger, 77; Occam, 204; Luther, 288,
463; history of,431 ff. and scho-
; 320, n. 2, 322 ff.; Melanchthon,
lasticism, 55; and modern theology, 350; Cureus, 366; synod at Tor-
448; on ScriptureSj 43 1; tradition, gau, 367; Heidelberg theologians,
431. 449; Apocrypha, 432; origi- 374; Chemnitz, 376, 388; Formula
nal state, 432 n.; sin, fall, Virgin of Concord, 386 f. ; Calvin, 413.
Mary, 432; baptism, 432, 434, 436, Unbelief, 243.
439, 444; concupiscence, donum Unction, extreme, 84, 140, 445.

superadditum, 432; divine call, 433, Unification with God, 180 f., 328.
435; faith, 433, 435, 436, 437, 440, Union, mystical, 328.
449; grace, 433, 435, 439, 449; jus- Union, sacramental, of elements and
433 ff.; 435, 436, 437;
tification, body of Christ, 326 f., 386.
imputed and infused righteousness, Union, the Protestant, relation to dog-
434; merit, 434, 438; free-will, mas, 466 n.
434; repentance, 434, 438, 442, Universals, 56, 60, 104 f., 147, 190 f.
444; satisfaction, 435, 438, 443, Urban of Bologna, philosophy of, 187.
444; assurance, 435, 437; good Urban VIII. and Jansenism, 453.
works, 434, 435, 437, 443; love to Uytenbogaart, On predestination.
God, 436; work of Christ, 436, 421.
; ;
INDEX, 491
V. cal law," Scriptures, imitation of

Valence, council at, ^^.
Christ, 184; work of Christ, 198;
Valla, Lorenzo. On spurious docu- Lord's Supper, 206 predestina- ;
ments, 213. tion, 108 ; repentance, indul-
Vatican Council, 456 ff.; sources on, gences, 210 ; church, pope, ex-
estimate of, 463; and scholastic- communication, 211.

Will, of God. In Richard, 106 Duns,
ism, 55; on God, Scriptures, tra- ;
dition, church, faith, 460; infalli- 151, 156, 163; Luther, 244;
bility of pope, 461. Zwingli, 313; Calvin, 396 ff.;
Vercelli, council at, 76. 405 ff. ; Reformed theology, 416 ;
Vices, the principal, 21 n. secret and revealed, 244.

Vincent of Lerius. On tradition, 304. Will, of man. In Middle Ages, 97 ;
Virgin Mary, immaculate conception Thomas, 103 Henry, Richard, ;
106 Duns, 148, 159, 163 Biel,

of, 18, 19 n., 155, 456, 188 n.; ; ;
intercession of, 44, 91, 173; par-

Occam, 197 Luther, 243 f., ;
turition of, worship 255, n. 4, 256 ; Synergistic con-

33 f.; of, 235,
344; and original sin, 432, 451 n.;
troversy, 367 f. ; Formula of Con
in modern Roman Catholic church, cord, 383 ; Caraero, 425 ;
Jansen,
463- 453 f-; Quesnel, 455 n.

Vorillon, philosophy of, 186. William of Auverne. On sacraments,
Vows, monastic, 344. 98.
Vulgate, 432, 460. William of Champeaux, philosophy

of, 60.
William of Paris. On attrition, contri-

W. tion, 136 f.
Waldenses. On repentance, church, William of St. Thierry. On Lord's

saints, images, purgatory, 94 Supper, 77 n.
good works, 95. Wittenberg, disputation at, 349.
Walther of St. Victor, philosophy Wittenberg Concord, 386.
of, 60. Word, The. In Gregory, 23 ;
Weimar Confutation, 379. Tauler, 178; Luther, 234, 279 f.,

Wesel, relation to Augustine, 190 ; 299 f., 322 ; Formula of Concord,
on Lord's Supper, 204 grace, ; 388 ; Calvin, 409 ; Osiander,
2og repentance, absolution, in-
; 370 f.; significance of, 123; outer
dulgences, 210; church, 211. and inner, 23, 279 f., 280 f., 370 f;
Wessel, relation to Augustine, 190; and sacraments, 78, 123 n.,
on Lord' s Supper, 204 ;

grace, jus- 285 f , 411.
tification, 209 ; repentance, indul- Words of Institution. In sacraments,
gences, satisfaction, excommunica- 126 ; in Lord's Supper, 131, 132,
tion, 210 ; church, 211 f .
; commu- I35> 322, 328, 414-
nion of saints, 212. Worms, colloquy at, 378.
Westminster Confession. On predesti- Works, good. In Gregory, 24
nation, 421. Early Middle Ages, 43 ; Bernard,
Wicklifte, works of, 183 ; influence 53 ; Waldenses, 95 ; Thomas and
of, 183 n., 189 n. ; on *'evangeli- followers, 116, 121 ; Luther, 234
; ;
492 INDEX.
240, 247, 258, 264, 274, 277, 364; reformatory ideas of, 308, 318
Zwingli, 311 ; Augsburg Confes- and Augsburg Confession, and Bul-

sion, 339, 343 ; Reformed Confes- linger, 390 ; and Calvin, 393, n. 4,
sions, 345 ; Melanchthon, 361, 394, 412, 414 ; and Erasmus, 307,
364 ; Major, Amsdorf, Menius, 317, 318; and Luther, 303, 3o8n,,
364, 385; Flacius, 364; Antino- 319 f.; and Reformed Confessions,
mian controversy, Poach, 365 345 ; and Savonarola, 318 on ;
Otto, Agricola, 366 ; Frankfort Scriptures, 308, 309 n. ;

justifica-
Recess, 379 ; Formula of Concord, tion, 307, 310; sin, 309, 317;
384 f. ; Calvin, 404 ; Council of mass, work of Christ, 309 f. ;
per-
Trent, 434, 435, 437, 443 ; Bajus, son of Christ, 317, 321, 323 ;
450 ; Unigenitus, 455, faith, 310 313; Holy Spirit,

f.,
Worship of Christ, 65, 66; of images, 311 ; experience, good works, law
29. 94, 448; of relics, 91, 94, 173; andgospel, 311 ; Sabbath, 311 n. I;
of saints, 94, 344; of Virgin Mary, Christian life, imitation of Christ,
235, 344. 312 ; divine will, human merit,

Wurtemberg theologians. On person 313; predestination, 313 f., 315;
of Christ, 374 ; state of humilia- God, grace, 314; church, salvation
tion, 377. of heathen, 315 ; sacraments, bap-
tism, 316 ; confession, indulgences,
purgatory, priesthood, 316 n.; an-
Zanchi. On predestination, 378, 421. cient symbols, 317 ; church and
Zwingli, works of, 306, 319 f. ; esti- state, 317 f. ; Lord' s Supper,
mate of, 307, 317, 390, 393, n. 4; 318 ff.; alloeosis, 321.

Reinhold Seeberg Ingles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reinhold Seeberg Ingles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reinhold Seeberg Ingles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3?

3 1924 029 300 064

The original of this book is in

the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in

REVISED, 1904, BY THE AUTHOR.

COMPLETE IN TWO VOLUMES.

HISTORY OF DOCTRINES IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH.

The appearance of the present work is in response to the ex-

The extracts from the prefaces to the German edition, appear-

written. I felt it to be particularly fitting to introduce a brief

The work whose volume is herewith presented to the

theological public claims to be but a text -book, and I have been

thorough -going studies in dogmatic history. The revelations

PREFACE VOL. II., 1898, PP. 3, 4.

the fitness of things that we may in many Histories of Doc-

great Reformers, and these marred by strong dogmatic preju-

Author's Preface to English Edition v

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH.

CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE POST-APOSTOLIC AND

The Conception of Christianity in the Post-Apostolic Age.

\ 7- The Apostolic Fathers 55

Perversions of the Gospel and Reformatory Movements Directed

10. Gentile- Christian Gnosis 91

\ II. Reformatory Attevipts of Marcion I02

g 1 2. Montanistic Reformation I04

Beginnings of the Church's Theology.

13. Christianity as Portrayed by the Apologists 109

14. Theology of the Antignostic Fatheis 1 18

7. State of Grace ^3^

Separate Doctrines and General Conception of Christianity in the

^18. Ordinance of Repentance and Advance in Conception of the

DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH.

The Doctrine of the Trinity.

5. Council of Nice, Parties, Eusebius, The Creed 215

^21. J'^'urtker Developinent to the Council of Constantinople 218

Nicene Doctrine 227

\ 2.1. Completion of Doctrine of the Trinity 236

Doctrine of One Person and Two Natures in Christ.

\ 24. Nestorius and Cyril, Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus 261

25. Eutychian Controversy and Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon . . 267

26. Movements Grozving Out of the Christological ( Monophysite and

General Conception of Christianity. Completion of Doctrinal

\ 27. Greek Christianity 288

Foundation of Anthropological Dogma (Sin and Grace) and Devel-

29. The Fundamental Religious Ideas of Augustine and His Place in

\ 30. Donatistic Controversy and Further Development of Doctrines of

31. Establishment of Doctrine of Sin and Grace in the Conflict zvith

A. First Form, Continuous Development, Connection with His

AUGUSTINIANISM AS THE DOCTRINE OF THE ChURCH. COMPLETION OF

\ 33. The Seini' Pelagian Cont7'oversies 368

34. Tradition and Papacy 3^2

DEFINITION, OFFICE, AND METHODS OF THE HISTORY OF

I . Definition and Office of the History of Doctrines.

1. The theological term, Dogma, ^ designates either an eccle-

the doctrinal system of the church. As Dogma is the formal

such as have by a public declaration of the church at large,

It has in its various constituent parts, constructed as they have

/^6}fia is in ordinary Greek ** commandment, precept" (Lk. 2. i. Acts 17.

strictly historical character of the History of Doctrines to repre-