__________________________________________________________________ Title: Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds. Creator(s): Schaff, Philip (Editor) Print Basis: Sixth Edition Rights: Public Domain CCEL Subjects: All; Creeds; Reference; History; Proofed LC Call no: BR145.S3 1882-1910 LC Subjects: Christianity History __________________________________________________________________ Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiae Universalis. __________________________________________________________________ THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM, WITH A HISTORY AND CRITICAL NOTES. BY PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, N. Y. IN THREE VOLUMES SIXTH EDITION--REVISED AND ENLARGED VOLUME I. THE HISTORY OF THE CREEDS The Creeds of Christendom __________________________________________________________________ Copyright, 1877, by Harper & Brothers Copyright, 1905, 1919, by David S. Schaff Printed in the United States of America __________________________________________________________________ TO HIS HONORED AND BELOVED COLLEAGUES IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Rev. WILLIAM ADAMS, D.D., LL.D., Rev. HENRY B. SMITH, D.D., LL.D., Rev. ROSWELL D. HITCHCOCK, D.D., LL.D., Rev. WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D., LL.D., Rev. GEORGE L. PRENTISS, D.D., Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., THIS WORK IS Respectfully Dedicated BY THE AUTHOR __________________________________________________________________ PREFACE __________________________________________________________________ A 'symbolical library' that contains the creeds and confessions of all Christian denominations fills a vacuum in theological and historical literature. It is surprising that it has not been supplied long ago. Sectarian exclusiveness or doctrinal indifferentism may have prevented it. Other symbolical collections are confined to particular denominations and periods. In this work the reader will find the authentic material for the study of Comparative Theology Symbolics, Polemics, and Irenics. In a country like ours, where people of all creeds meet in daily contact, this study ought to command more attention than it has hitherto received. The First Volume has expanded into a doctrinal history of the Church, so far as it is embodied in public standards of faith. The most important and fully developed symbolical systems the Vatican Romanism, the Lutheranism of the Formula of Concord, and the Calvinism of the Westminster standards have been subjected to a critical analysis. The author has endeavored to combine the aletheuein en agape and the agapan en aletheia, and to be mindful of the golden motto, In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. Honest and earnest controversy, conducted in a Christian and catholic spirit, promotes true and lasting union. Polemics looks to Irenics--the aim of war is peace. The Second Volume contains the Scripture Confessions, the ante-Nicene Rules of Faith, the cumenical, the Greek, and the Latin Creeds, from the Confession of Peter down to the Vatican Decrees. It includes also the best Russian Catechism and the recent Old Catholic Union Propositions of the Bonn Conferences. The Third Volume is devoted to the Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinistic, and the later Protestant Confessions of Faith. The documents of the Third Part (pp. 707-876) have never been collected before. The creeds and confessions are given in the original languages from the best editions, and are accompanied by translations for the convenience of the English reader. [1] While these volumes were passing through the press several learned treatises on the ancient creeds by Lumby, Swainson, Hort, Caspari, and others have appeared, though not too late to be noticed in the final revision. The literature has been brought down to the close of 1876. I trust that nothing of importance has escaped my attention. I take pleasure in acknowledging my obligation to several distinguished divines, in America and England, for valuable information concerning the denominations to which they belong, and for several contributions, which appear under the writers' names. [2] In a history of conflicting creeds it is wise to consult representative men as well as books, in order to secure strict accuracy and impartiality, which are the cardinal virtues of a historian. May this repository of creeds and confessions promote a better understanding among the Churches of Christ. The divisions of Christendom bring to light the various aspects and phases of revealed truth, and will be overruled at last for a deeper and richer harmony, of which Christ is the key-note. In him and by him all problems of theology and history will be solved. The nearer believers of different creeds approach the Christological centre, the better they will understand and love each other. P. S. Bible House, New York, December, 1876. __________________________________________________________________ [1] I have used, e.g., the fac-simile of the oldest MS. of the Athanasian Creed from the 'Utrecht Psalter:' the ed. princeps of the Lutheran Concordia (formerly in the possession of Dr. Meyer, the well-known commentator); the Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum, ed. 1654; a copy of the Harmonia Confessionum, once owned by Prince Casimir of the Palatinate, who suggested it; the oldest editions of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, of the Savoy Declaration, etc. [2] The Rev. Drs. Jos. Angus, W. W. Andrews, Chas. A. Briggs, J. R. Brown, E. W. Gilman, G. Haven, A. A. Hodge, Alex. F. Mitchell, E. D. Morris, Chas. P. Krauth, J. R. Lumby, G. D. Matthews, H. Osgood, E. von Schweinitz, H. B. Smith, John Stoughton, E. A. Washburn, W. R. Williams. See Vol. I. pp. 609, 811, 839, 911; Vol. III. pp. 3, 738, 777, 799. __________________________________________________________________ PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. -------------- The call for a new edition of this work in less than a year after its publication is an agreeable surprise to the author, and fills him with gratitude to the reading public and the many reviewers, known and unknown, who have so kindly and favorably noticed it in American and foreign periodicals and in private letters. One of the foremost divines of Germany (Dr. Dorner, in the Jahrbueher fuer Deutsche Theologie, 1877, p. 682) expresses a surprise that the idea of such an oecumenical collection of Christian Creeds should have originated in America, where the Church is divided into so many rival denominations; but he adds also as an explanation that this division creates a desire for unity and co-operation, and a mutual courtesy and kindness unknown among the contending parties and schools under the same roof of state-churches, where outward uniformity is maintained at the expense of inward peace and harmony. The changes in this edition are very few. The literature in the first volume is brought down to the present date, and at the close of the second volume a fac-simile of the oldest MSS. of the Athanasian Creed and the Apostles' Creed is added. P. S. NEW YORK, April, 1878. ---------------------------- __________________________________________________________________ PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. -------------- This edition differs from the second in the following particulars: 1. In the first volume several errors have been corrected (e.g., in the statistical table, p. 818), and a list of new works inserted on p. xiv. 2. In the third volume a translation of the Second Helvetic Confession has been added, pp. 831 sqq. P. S. New York, December, 1880. __________________________________________________________________ PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. -------------- The call for a fourth edition of this work has made it my duty to give the first volume once more a thorough revision and to bring the literature down to the latest date. In this I have been aided by my young friend, the Rev. Samuel M. Jackson, one of the assistant editors of my "Religious Encyclopaedia." The additions which could not be conveniently made in the plates have been printed separately after the Table of Contents, pp. xiv-xvii. The second and third volumes, which embrace the symbolical documents, remain unchanged, except that at the end of the third volume the new Congregational Creed of 1883 has been added. Creeds will live as long as faith survives, with the duty to confess our faith before men. By and by we shall reach, through the Creeds of Christendom, the one comprehensive, harmonious Creed of Christ. P. S. New York, May, 1884. ---------------------------- The fifth edition was a reprint of the fourth, without any changes. __________________________________________________________________ PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. -------------- Since the appearance of the Creeds of Christendom, 1877, no work has been issued competing with it in scope and comprehensiveness. The valuable collection of W. W. Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, 1893, and W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 1911, are limited to separate Protestant bodies. The extensive collection of Karl Mueller, 1903, is confined to the creeds and catechisms of the Reformed Churches. Professor W. A. Curtis of the University of Edinburgh, in his History of the Creeds and Confessions of Faith in Christendom and Beyond, gives the contents of creeds and an account of their origins, not their texts. C. Fabricius, in his Corpus confessionum, etc., 1928, sqq., proposes in connexion with colaborers to furnish not only the texts of the Christian creeds, but also the texts of hymns, liturgies, books of discipline, and other documents bearing on Christian doctrine, worship, and practice. For example, 250 pages of Volume I are devoted to hymns, and 250 pages to "The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1924." The new material of the present edition is the following: Volume I. Additions to the literature; notices of the Church of the Disciples and the Universalist and Unitarian Churches; and changes and additions, as, for example, on the primitive creeds and the Russian Church. Volume II. In the fourth edition Dr. Schaff, in view of the new importance given in Canon Law to papal utterances on doctrine and morals, added one of the important encyclicals of Leo XIII., who was then living. To this encyclical have been added bulls on the Church, by Boniface VIII., 1302, Anglican Orders, by Leo XIII., 1896, "Americanism" and "Modernism" by Pius X., 1907-10, and Pius XI.'s encyclical on Church Union, 1928. Volume III. Additions giving Recent Confessional Declarations and Terms of Union between Church organizations. The material on the latter subject, so closely akin to the general topic of the book, makes it quite probable that Dr. Philip Schaff, in view of his pronounced attitude on Church fellowship and union, would have included it, were he himself preparing this edition of the Creeds of Christendom. David S. Schaff. Union Theological Seminary New York, January, 1931 __________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS. (Vol. I.) -------------- HISTORY OF THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM. -------------- FIRST CHAPTER. ON CREEDS IN GENERAL. PAGE S: 1. Name and Definition 3 S: 2. Origin of Creeds 4 S: 3. Authority of Creeds 7 S: 4. Value and Use of Creeds 8 S: 5. Classification of Creeds 9 SECOND CHAPTER. THE OECUMENICAL CREEDS. PAGE S: 6. General Character of the OEcumenical Creeds 12 S: 7. The Apostles' Creed 14 S: 8. The Nicene Creed 24 S: 9. The Creed of Chalcedon 29 S: 10. The Athanasian Creed 34 THIRD CHAPTER. THE CREEDS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. PAGE S: 11. The Seven OEcumenical Councils 43 S: 12. The Confessions of Gennadius, A.D. 1453 46 S: 13. The Answers of the Patriarch Jeremiah to the Lutherans, A.D. 1576 50 S: 14. The Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, A.D. 1625 52 S: 15. The Confession of Cyril Lucar, A.D. 1631 54 S: 16. The Orthodox Confession of Mogilas, A.D. 1643 58 S: 17. The Synod of Jerusalem, and the Confession of Dositheus, A.D. 1672 61 S: 18. The Synods of Constantinople, A.D. 1672 and 1691 67 S: 19. The Doctrinal Standards of the Russo-Greek Church 68 S: 20. Anglo-Catholic Correspondence with the Russo-Greek 74 S: 21. The Eastern Sects: Nestorians, Jacobites, Copts, Armenians 78 FOURTH CHAPTER. THE CREEDS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. PAGE S: 22. Catholicism and Romanism 83 S: 23. Standard Expositions of the Roman Catholic System 85 S: 24. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, A.D. 1563 90 S: 25. The Profession of the Tridentine Faith, A.D. 1564 96 S: 26. The Roman Catecism, A.D. 1566 100 S: 27. The Papal Bulls against the Jansenists, A.D. 1653, 1713 102 Note on the Old Catholics in Holland, 107. S: 28. The Papal Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, A.D. 1854 108 S: 29. The Argument for the Immaculate Conception 113 S: 30. The Papal Syllabus, A.D. 1864 128 S: 31. The Vatican Council, A.D. 1870 134 S: 32. The Vatican Decrees. The Constitution on the Catholic Faith 147 S: 33. The Vatican Decrees, Continued. The Papal Infallibility Decree 150 S: 34. Papal Infallibility Explained, and Tested by Scripture and Tradition 163 S: 35. The Liturgical Standards of the Roman Church 189 S: 36. The Old Catholics 191 FIFTH CHAPTER. THE CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT CHURCHES. PAGE S: 37. The Reformation. Protestantism and Romanism 203 S: 38. The Evangelical Confessions of Faith 209 S: 39. The Lutheran and Reformed Confessions 211 SIXTH CHAPTER. THE CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH. PAGE S: 40. The Lutheran Confessions 220 S: 41. The Augsburg Confession, A.D. 1530 225 S: 42. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, A.D. 1530 243 S: 43. Luther's Catechisms, A.D. 1529 245 S: 44. The Articles of Smalcald, A.D. 1537 253 S: 45. The Formula of Concord, A.D. 1577 258 S: 46. The Formula of Concord, Concluded 312 S: 47. Superseded Lutheran Symbols. The Saxon Confession, and the Wuertemberg Confession, A.D. 1551 340 S: 48. The Saxon Visitation Articles, A.D. 1592. 345 S: 49. An Abortive Symbol against Syncretism, A.D. 1655 349 SEVENTH CHAPTER. THE CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL REFORMED CHURCHES. PAGE S: 50. The Reformed Confessions. 354 I. Reformed Confessions of Switzerland. S: 51. Zwinglian Confessions. The Sixty-seven Articles. The Ten Theses of Berne. The Confession to Charles V. The Confession to Francis I., A.D. 1523-1531 360 S: 52. Zwingli's Distinctive Doctrines 369 S: 53. The Confession of Basle, A.D. 1534 385 S: 54. The First Helvetic Confession, A.D. 1536 388 S: 55. The Second Helvetic Confession, A.D. 1566 390 S: 56. John Calvin. His Life and Character 421 S: 57. 444 S: 58. The Catechism of Geneva, A.D. 1541 467 S: 59. The Zurich Consensus, A.D. 1549 471 S: 60. The Geneva Consensus, A.D. 1552 474 S: 61. The Helvetic Consensus Formula, A.D. 1675 477 II. Reformed Confessions of France and the Netherlands. S: 62. The Gallican Confession, A.D. 1559 490 S: 63. The French Declaration of Faith, A.D. 1872 498 S: 64. The Belgic Confession, A.D. 1561 502 S: 65. The Arminian Controversy and the Synod of Dort, A.D. 1604-1619. 508 S: 66. The Remonstrance, A.D. 1610 516 S: 67. The Canons of Dort, A.D. 1619 519 III. The Reformed Confessions of Germany. S: 68. The Tetrapolitan Confession, A.D. 1530 524 S: 69. The Heidelberg Catechism, A.D. 1563 529 S: 70. The Brandenburg Confessions 554 The Confession of Sigismund (1614), 555. The Colloquy at Leipzig (1631), 558. The Declaration of Thorn (1645), 560. S: 71. The Minor German Reformed Confessions. . . 563 IV. The Reformed Confessions of Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary. S: 72. The Bohemian Brethern and the Waldenses before the Reformation 565 S: 73. The Bohemian Confessions after the Reformation, A.D. 1535 and 1575 576 S: 74. The Reformation in Poland and the Consensus of Sendomir, A.D. 1570 581 S: 75. The Reformation in Hungary and the Confession of Czenger, A.D. 1557 589 V. The Anglican Articles of Religion. S: 76. The English Reformation. 592 S: 77. The Doctrinal Position of the Anglican Church and her Relation to other Churches 598 S: 78. The Doctrinal Formularies of Henry VIII. 611 S: 79. The Edwardine Articles, A.D. 1553. 613 S: 80. The Elizabethan Articles, A.D. 1563 and 1571 615 S: 81. Interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles 622 S: 82. Revision of the Thirty-nine Articles by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, A.D. 1801 650 S: 83. The Anglican Catechisms, A.D. 1549 and 1662 654 S: 84. The Lambeth Articles, A.D. 1595 658 S: 85. The Irish Articles, A.D. 1615 662 S: 86. The Articles of the Reformed Episcopal Church, A.D. 1875 665 VI. The Presbyterian Confessions of Scotland. S: 87. The Reformation in Scotland 669 S: 88. John Knox 673 S: 89. The Scotch Confession, A.D. 1560. 680 S: 90. The Scotch Covenants and the Scotch Kirk 685 S: 91. The Scotch Catechisms 696 VII. The Westminster Standards. S: 92. The Puritan Conflict 701 S: 93. The Westminster Assembly. 727 S: 94. The Westminster Confession . 753 S: 95. Analysis of the Confession . 760 S: 96. The Westminster Catechisms . 783 S: 97. Criticism of the Westminster System of Doctrine 788 S: 98. The Westminster Standards in America 804 S: 99. The Westminster Standards among the Cumberland Presbyterians 813 EIGHTH CHAPTER. THE CREEDS OF MODERN EVANGELICAL DENOMINATIONS. PAGE S: 100. General Survey 817 S: 101. The Congregationalists 820 S: 102. English Congregational Creeds 829 S: 103. American Congregational Creeds 835 S: 104. Anabaptists and Mennonites 840 S: 105. The Calvinistic Baptists 844 S: 106. The Arminian Baptists 856 S: 107. The Society of Friends (Quakers). 859 S: 108. The Moravians 874 S: 109. Methodism 882 S: 110. Methodist Creeds 890 S: 111. Arminian Methodism 893 S: 112. Calvinistic Methodism 901 S: 113. The Catholic Apostolic Church (Irvingites) 905 S: 114. The Evangelical Alliance. 915 S: 115. The Consensus and Dissensus of Creeds 919 S: 116. The Disciples of Christ 930 S: 117. The Universalists. 933 S: 118. The Unitarians 954 __________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONS TO THE LITERATURE In General Kattenbusch: Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Confessionskunde, Freib., 1892.--Gumlich: Christ. Creeds and Conff., Engl. trans., N. Y., 1894.--Callows: Origin and Development of Creeds, London, 1899. S. G. Green: The Christ. Creed and the Creeds of Christendom, N. Y., 1899.--Skrine: Creed and the Creeds, their Function in Religion, London, 1911.--W. A. Curtis: Hist. of Creeds and Conff. of Faith in Christendom and Beyond, Aberdeen, 1911. An elaboration of the author's art., "Confessions," in Enc. of Rel. and Ethics; includes the principles of Mormonism, Christian Science and Tolstoy.--Hirsch: Art., "Creeds," in Enc. Brit., 14th ed.--The works on Symbolics of Loofs, and Briggs, N. Y., 1914.--Hase: Hdbook of the Controversy with Rome, 2 vols., London, 1906, trans. from Hase's Polemik, ed. of 1900.--Plitt: Grundriss der Symbolen, 7th ed., by Victor Schultze, Erl., 1921.--Mulert: Konfessionskunde, Giessen, 1929. Collections of Creeds Hahn, 3rd ed. enlarged, 1897.--C. Fabricius, prof. in Berlin, Corpus confessionum. Die Bekenntnisse des Christenthums. Sammlung grundlegender Urkunden aus allen Kirchen der Gegenwart, Berlin, 1928 sqq.--J. T. Mueller: Die symb. Buecker der ev. luth. Kirche, deutsch und latein., 12th ed., 1928.-- E. F. Karl Mueller: Die Bekenntnisschriften der reform. Kirche, Leip., 1903.--For papal decrees: Acta, sedis sanctae, Rome.--Mirbt: Quellen zur Gesch. des Papsttums und des roem. Katholizismus, 4th ed., 1924.--Denzinger: Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum, quae a concillis oecum. et summis pontificibus emanarunt, 17th ed. by Umberg, 1928. Page 12. A. E. Burn: Facsimiles of the Creeds, etc., London, 1899; Introd. to the Creeds and Te Deum, London, 1901.--Mortimer: The Creeds, App., Nic., Athanas., London, 1902.--A. Seeberg: Katechismus der Urchristenheit, 1903.--Turner: Hist. and Use of Creeds in the Early Centuries of the Church, London, 1906.--Bp. E. C. S. Gibson: The Three Creeds, Oxf., 1908.--Wetzer and Welte: Enc. 2nd ed. V., 676-690.--Loofs: Symbolik, pp. 1-70.--Briggs: Theol. Symbolics, pp. 34-121.--F. J. Badcock: The Hist. of Creeds, App., Nic., and Athanas., London, 1930, pp. 248. Page 14. The Apostles Creed: Kattenbusch: Das apostol. Symbol, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1894-1900.--Zahn: Das apostol. Symbol, Erl., 1893, transl. by Burn from 2nd ed., London, 1899.--Harnack, in Herzog Enc., I, 741-55 and separately in Engl. 1901.--H. B. Swete: The App. Creed. Its Relation to Prim. Christianity, Cambr., 1894.--Kunze: Glaubensregel, hl. Schrift und Taufbekenntniss, Leipsic, 1899; Das apostol. Glaubensbekenntniss und das N. T., Berlin, 1911, Engl. trans. by Gilmore, N. Y., 1912.-- Kuenstle: Bibliothek der Symbole, Mainz, 1901.--A. C. McGiffert: The App. Creed. Its Origin, Purpose, etc., N. Y., 1902.--Bp. A. MacDonald (R. C.): The App. Creed. A Vindication of its Apostol. Authority, 1903, 2nd ed., London, 1925.--The App. Creed. Questions of Faith, Lectures by Denney, Marcus Dods, Lindsay, etc., London, 1904.--Popular treatments by Canon Beeching, 1906; W. R. Richards, N. Y., 1906; Barry, N. Y., 1912; Bp. Bell, 1917, 1919; McFadyen, 1927; H. P. Sloan, N. Y., 1930.--Also Bardenhewer: Gesch. der altchr. Lit., 2nd ed., I, 82-90. Page 24. The Nicene Creed: Hort: Two Dissertations on the Constan. Creed, London, 1876.--Lias: The Nicene Creed, 1897.--Kunze: Das nic.-konstant. Symbol, Leipsic, 1898.--Harnack, in Herzog Enc. XI., 12-27, and Schaff-Herzog, III, 256-260.--Bp. Headlam: The Nic. Creed. Noting differences between the Rom. and Angl. Churches. Pages 43-68. Die Bekenntnisse und wichtigsten Glaubenszeugnisse der griech.-oriental. Kirche (thesauros tes orthodoxias) ed., by Michalcescu, with Introd. by Hauck, Leipsic, 1904. Includes creeds and decrees of the first seven oecum. councils.--Loofs: Symbolik, pp. 77-181.--Adeney: The Gr. and East. Churches, N. Y., 1908.--Fortescue (R. C.): The Orthod. East. Church, last ed., London, 1916.--Langsford-James: Dict. of the East. Orthod. Church, London, 1923.--The art. in Herzog, "Gennadius II," "Jeremias," "Lukaris," etc.--Birkbeck: The Russ. and Engl. Churches, during the last fifty years, London, 1895.--Frere: Links in the Chain of Russ. Ch. Hist., London, 1918. Page 69. Bonewitsch: Kirchengesch. Russlands, Leipsic, 1923.--Reyburn: Story of the Russ. Church, London, 1924.--Spinka (prof. in Chicago Theol. Seminary): The Church and the Russ. Revolution, N. Y., 1927.--Hecker (student of Drew and Union Theol. Seminaries and Prof. of Theol., Moscow): Rel. under the Soviets, N. Y., 1927; Soviet Russia in the Second Decade, 1928.--Emhardt: Rel. in Soviet Russia, Milwaukee, 1929.--M. Hindus (b. in Russia): Humanity Uprooted, N. Y., 1929.--Batsell: Soviet Rule in Russia, N. Y., 1930.--The Engl. White Paper, Aug. 12, 1930, which gives a trans. of Soviet regulations "respecting religion in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." Page 83. A. Straub (prof. at Innsbruck): de Ecclesia, 2 vols., Innsbr., 1912.--Ryan and Millar: The State and the Church, N. Y., 1902.--F. Heiler (ex-Cath., prof. in Marburg): Der Katholizismus, seine Idee und seine Erscheinung, Munich, 1923.--Doellinger-Reusch: Selbstbiographie des Kard. Bellarmin, with notes, 1887.--Card. Gibbons, d. 1921: The Faith of Our Fathers, 1875.--The works and biographies of Card. Newman, d. 1890, and Card. Manning, d. 1892.--D. S. Schaff: Our Fathers' Faith and Ours, N. Y., 1928. Page 91. Buckley, 2 vols., 1852, gives the Reformatory decisions of the council as well as the Decrees and Canons.--Donovan: Profession and Catechism of the C. of Trent, 1920 and since.--Mirbt: Quellen zur Gesch. des Papsttums. Gives large excerpts from the Tridentine standards.--Froude: Lectures on the C. of Trent, 1896.--Pastor: Gesch. der Paepste, vol. vii.--The Ch. Histories of Hergenroether-Kirsch, Funk, etc. Page 134. Mirbt, pp. 456-466.--Shotwell-Loomis: The See of St. Peter. Trans. of patristic documents, N. Y., 1927.--Granderath, S.J.: Gesch. des Vat. Konzils, ed. by Kirch, 3 vols., Freib. in Breis., 1903.--Doellinger-Friedrich: Das Papsttum, 1892.--Lord Acton: The Vatican Council in "Freedom of Thought."--Pastor: Hist. of the Popes, vol. x. for Sixtus V.'s ed. of the Vulgate.--Card. Gibbons (a member of the council): Retrospect of Fifty Years, 2 vols., 1906.--The biographies of Manning by Purcell, 2 vols., 1896; Ketteler by Pfulf, 3 vols., Mainz, 1899; Newman by Ward, 4 vols., 1912.-- Straub: de Ecclesia, vol. ii., 358-394.--Nielsen: The Papacy in the 19th Cent., vol. ii., pp. 290-374.-- Koch: Cyprian und das roem. Primat, 1910.--Schnitzer: Hat Jesus das Papstthum gestiftet? and Das Papstthum keine Stiftung Jesus, 1910.--Count von Hoensbroech (was sixteen years a Jesuit, d. 1923): Das Papstthum in social-kult. Wirsamkeit, 3 vols., 4th ed., 1903.--Lietzmann: Petrus und Paulus in Rom, 2nd ed., 1927.--Koch: Cathedra Petri (dedicated to Schnitzer), Giessen, 1930. Page 220. H. E. Jacobs: The Book of Concord or the Symbol. Books of the Ev. Luth. Church, 2 vols., Phil., 1882, 1912.--The Luth. Cyclopedia by Jacobs and Haas, Phil., 1899.--Concordia Cyclopedia, 3 vols., 1927.-- Schmid: The Doctr. Theol. of the Ev. Luth. Ch., trans. by Hay and Jacobs, 3rd ed., Phil., 1899.--Luther's Primary Writings, trans. by Buchheim and Wace, 1896.--Luther's Works, Engl. trans., 2 vols., Phil., 1915.--Luther's Correspondence, trans. by P. Smith and Jacobs, 2 vols., 1913-1918.--Lives of Luther by Schaff in "Hist. of Chr. Church," vol. vi.; Jacobs, 1898; Lindsay in "Hist. of the Reformation," 1906; Preserved Smith, 1911; McGiffert, 1914; Boehmer, Engl. trans., 1916; Mackinnon, 4 vols., 1925-1930; Denifle (R. C.), 2 vols., 2nd ed., 1904; Grisar (R. C.), Engl. trans., 3 vols., 1911, 1912.--P. Smith: Age of the Reformation, 1920.--Doellinger: Akad. Vortraege, vol. i, 1872. Written after his repudiation of the dogma of Infallibility. Page 225. Editions of the Augsb. Conf. in Latin and German texts by Kolde,Gotha, 1896, 1911 and Wendt, Halle, 1927.--Ficker: Konfutation des Augsb. Bekenntnisses, Leipsic, 1892.--A number of publications bearing on the Augsb. Confession were issued in connexion with the quadricentennial of the Confession's appearance, 1930. Page 354. Zwingli: Saemmtliche Werke, ed. by Egli, Koehler, etc., 1904, sqq.--Karl Mueller: Die Bekenntnissschriften der reformirten Kirche, Leipsic, 1903. Contains documents not given by Schaff, as Calvin's Genevan Catechism, pp. 117-158; Hungar. Conf. of 1562, pp. 376-448; the Larger Westminster Cat., pp. 612-643; the Nassau Cat. of 1578, pp. 720-738, and the Hesse Cat. of 1607, pp. 822-833.--Lives of Zwingli by Staehelin, 2 vols., Basel, 1897; S. M. Jackson, N. Y., 1901. Also Selections from Zwingli, Phil., 1901.--S. Simpson, N. Y., 1902; Egli in Herzog Encycl., vol. xxi.--Humbel: Zwingli im Spiegel der gleichzeit. schweizer. Lit., 1912. Page 388. Art., "Bullinger," by Egli in Herzog Encycl., vol. iii., pp. 536-549.--Bullinger: Diarium, ed. by Egli, Basel, 1904, and Gegensatz der ev. und roem. Lehre, ed. by Kuegelgen, 1906.--Art., "Helvetische Konfessionen," by Karl Mueller in Herzog Encycl., vol. vii and "Helvetische Konfessionsformeln" by Egli, vol. vii. Page 421. Choisy: L'etat chr. `a Geneve au temps de Th. de Beze, Paris, 1903.--Borgeau: Hist. de l'universite de Geneve, Paris, 1903.--Lives of Calvin by Schaff in "Hist. of Chr. Ch.," vol. vii.; Kampfschulte, ed. by Goetz, 2 vols., 1899; Doumergue, 7 vols., Lausanne, 1899-1927; W. W. Walker, N. Y., 1906; Reyburn, London, 1914; Lindsay in "Hist. of the Reformation," vol. ii. Page 502. The Works of B. B. Warfield, Oxf., 1928 sqq. Page 565. Workman and Pope: Letters of J. Hus, London, 1904.--Lives of Huss by Count Luetzow, London, 1909; D. S. Schaff, N. Y., 1915, and Huss' de Ecclesia, trans. with Notes, N. Y., 1915.--Kitts: John XXIII. and J. Hus, London, 1910. Mueller in Bekenntnisschriften gives in full the Hungar. Confessions and the Bohem. Conf . of 1609. Page 568. The Nobla Leycon, with Notes, ed., by Stefano, Paris, 1909.--Comba, father and son: Hist., of the Waldenses in Italy, Engl. trans. 1889; Storia dei Valdesi, 1893.--Jalla: Hist. des Vaudois, Torre Pelice, 1904. Page 589. Balogh: Hist. of the Ref. Ch. in Hungary in Ref . Ch. Rev., July, 1906. Page 592. Use of Sarum, ed. from MSS. by Frere, 2 vols., Cambr., 1898-1901.--Gee and Hardy: Documents Illustr. of Engl. Ch. Hist.--Prothero: Select Statutes of Elizabeth and James I.--H. E. Jacobs: The Luth. Ch. Movement in Engl., Phil., 1870, 1891.--Lindsay: Hist. of the Reformation, vol. ii., pp. 315-418.--The Hist. of the Engl. Ch. from Henry VIII. to Mary's Death by Gairdner and under Elizabeth and James I. by Frere, 1902, 1904.--Pollard: Henry VIII., London, 1902, Thos. Cranmer, 1904; Wolsey, 1929. Page 650. Tiffany: Hist. of the Prot. Bp. Ch., N. Y., 1895.--Hodges: Three Hundred Years of the Ep. Ch. in Am., Phil., 1907.--Cross: The Angl. Episcopate and the Am. Colonies, N. Y., 1902. Page 669. Histories of the Scotch Reformation by Mitchell, 1900; Fleming, 1904, 1910; MacEwan, 1913.--Lives of Knox by Cowan, 1905; P. H. Brown, 1905.--A. Lang: J. Knox and the Reformation, 1905. Pages 701, 820, 835. H. M. Dexter: The Congregationalists of the Last 300 Years, N. Y., 1880.--W. W. Walker: Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, N. Y., 1893; Hist. of the Cong. Churches in the U. S., N. Y., 1894.--J. Brown: The Engl. Puritans, London, 1910.--R. C. Usher: Reconstruction of the Engl. Ch., 2 vols., London, 1910.--W. Selbie: Engl. Sects. Congregationalism, London, 1922.--Orig. Narratives of Early Am. Hist., ed. by Jamieson, N. Y., 1908, sqq.--W. E. Barton: Congr. Creeds and Covenants, Chicago, 1917. Page 813. McDonnold: Hist. of the Cumber. Presb. Ch., Nashville, 1888.--Miller: Doctr. of the Cumberl. Presb. Ch., Nashville, 1892. Page 840. Vedder: Balthazar Huebmaier, N. Y., 1903.--Newman: Hist. of the Bapt. Chh. in the U. S., N. Y., 1894.--Underhill: Conff. of Faith of the Bapt. Chh. in England in the 17th Century, London, 1854.--McGlothlin: Bapt. Conff. of Faith, Phil., 1911.--Carroll: Baptists and their Doctrines, N. Y., 1913. Page 859. Thomas: Hist. of the Soc. of Friends, in "Am. Ch. Hist. Series," N. Y., 1894.--Sharpless: Hist. of Quaker Govt. in Pa., 2 vols., Phil., 1898.--R. M. Jones: The Quakers in the Am. Colonies, London, 1911; The Faith and Practice of the Quakers, 1927.--Holder: The Quakers in Great Britain and Am., N. Y., 1913. Page 874. Hamilton: Hist. of the Morav. Ch., Bethlehem, 1900. Also in "Am. Ch. Hist. Series." Page 882. The Journal of John Wesley, 8 vols., ed. by Curnock, London, 1910.--Buckley: Hist. of the Methodists in the U. S., N. Y., 1896.--E. S. Tipple: The Heart of Asbury's Journal, N. Y., 1905.--Simon: Revival of Rel. in England in the 18th Cent., London, 1907.--Lidgett and Reed: Methodism in the Modern World, London, 1929.--Rattenburg: Wesley's Legacy to the World, London, 1930.--Allen: Methodism and Modern World Problems, London, 1930.--Lunn: J. Wesley, London, 1929.--Lives of Asbury, by Tipple, N. Y., 1916, and J. Lewis, 1927. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ A HISTORY OF THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM HISTORY OF THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM. __________________________________________________________________ FIRST CHAPTER. OF CREEDS IN GENERAL. General Literature. Wm. Dunlop (Prof. of Church Hist. at Edinburgh, d. 1720): Account of all the Ends and Uses of Creeds and Confessions of Faith, a Defense of their Justice, Reasonableness, and Necessity as a Public Standard of Orthodoxy, 2d ed. Lond. 1724. Preface to [Dunlop's] Collection of Confessions in the Church of Scotland, Edinb. 1719 sq. Vol. I. pp. v.-cxlv. J. Caspar Koecher: Bibliotheca theologiae symbolicae et catechetiae itemque liturgicae, Wolfenb. and Jena, 1761-69, 2 parts, 8vo. Charles Butler (R.C., d. 1832): An Historical and Literary Account of the Formularies, Confessions of Faith, or Symbolic Books of the Roman Catholic, Greek, and principal Protestant Churches. By the Author of the Horae Biblicae, London, 1816 (pp. 200). Charles Anthony Swainson (Prof. at Cambridge and Canon of Chichester): The Creeds of The Church in their Relations to the Word of God and to the Conscience of the Individual Christian (Hulsean Lectures for 1857), Cambridge, 1858. Francis Chaponniere (University of Geneva): La Question des Confessions de Foi au sein du Protestantisme contemporain, Geneve, 1867. (Pt. I. Examen des Faits. Pt II. Discussion des Principes.) Karl Leohler: Die Confessionen in ihrem Verhaeltniss zu Christus, Heilbronn, 1877. The introductions to the works on Symbolics by Marheineke, Winer, Moehler, Koellner, Gunricke, Matthes, Hofmann, Oehler, contain some account of symbols, as also the Prolegomena to the Collections of the Symbols of the various Churches by Walch, Mueller, Niemeyer, Kimmel, etc., which will be noticed in their respective places below. __________________________________________________________________ S: 1. Name and Definition. A Creed, [3] or Rule of Faith, [4] or Symbol, [5] is a confession of faith for public use, or a form of words setting forth with authority certain articles of belief, which are regarded by the framers as necessary for salvation, or at least for the well-being of the Christian Church. A creed may cover the whole ground of Christian doctrine and practice, or contain only such points as are deemed fundamental and sufficient, or as have been disputed. It may be declarative, or interrogative in form. It may be brief and popular (as the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds), for general use in catechetical instruction and at baptism; or more elaborate and theological, for ministers and teachers, as a standard of public doctrine (the symbolical books of the Reformation period). In the latter case a confession of faith is always the result of dogmatic controversy, and more or less directly or indirectly polemical against opposing error. Each symbol bears the impress of its age, and the historical situation out of which it arose. There is a development in the history of symbols. They assume a more definite shape with the progress of biblical and theological knowledge. They are mile-stones and finger-boards in the history of Christian doctrine. They embody the faith of generations, and the most valuable results of religious controversies. They still shape and regulate the theological thinking and public teaching of the churches of Christendom. They keep alive sectarian strifes and antagonisms, but they reveal also the underlying agreement, and foreshadow the possibility of future harmony. __________________________________________________________________ [3] From the beginning of the Apostles' Creed (Credo, I believe), to which the term is applied more particularly. [4] Kanon tes pisteos or tes aletheias, regula fidei, regula veritatis. These are the oldest terms used by the ante-Nicene fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. [5] Sumbolon, symbolum (from sumballein, to throw together, to compare), means a mark, badge, watchword, test. It was first used in a theological sense by Cyprian, A.D. 250 (Ep. 76, al. 69, ad Magnum, where it is said of the schismatic Novatianus, 'eodum symbolo, quo et nos, baptizare'), and then very generally since the fourth century. It was chiefly applied to the Apostles' Creed as the baptismal confession by which Christians could be known and distinguished from Jews, heathen, and heretics, in the sense of a military signal or watchword (tessera militaris); the Christians being regarded as soldiers of Christ fighting under the banner of the cross. Ambrose (d. 397) calls it ' cordis signaculum et nostrae militiae sacramentum. ' Rufinus, in his Expositio in Symb. Apost., uses the word likewise in the military sense, but gives it also the meaning collatio, contributio (confounding sumbolon with sumbole), with reference to the legend of the origin of the creed from contributions of the twelve apostles (' quod plures in unum conferunt; id enim fecerunt apostoli, ' etc.). Others take the word in the sense of a compact, or agreement (so Suicer, Thes. eccl. II. 1084: ' Dicere possumus, symbolum non a militari, sed a contractuum tessera nomen id accepisse; est enim tessera pacti, quod in baptismo inimus cum Deo '). Still others derive it (with King, History of the Apostles' Creed, p. 8) from the signs of recognition among the heathen in their mysteries. Luther and Melancthon first applied it to Protestant creeds. A distinction is made sometimes between Symbol and Symbolical Book, as also between symbola publica and symbola privata. The term theologia symbolica is of more recent origin than the term libri symbolici. __________________________________________________________________ S: 2. Origin of Creeds. Faith, like all strong conviction, has a desire to utter itself before others--'Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh;' 'I believe, therefore I confess' (Credo, ergo confiteor). There is also an express duty, when we are received into the membership of the Christian Church, and on every proper occasion, to profess the faith within us, to make ourselves known as followers of Christ, and to lead others to him by the influence of our testimony. [6] This is the origin of Christian symbols or creeds. They never precede faith, but presuppose it. They emanate from the inner life of the Church, independently of external occasion. There would have been creeds even if there had been no doctrinal controversies. [7] In a certain sense it may be said that the Christian Church has never been without a creed (Ecclesia, sine symbolis nulla). The baptismal formula and the words of institution of the Lord's Supper are creeds; these and the confession of Peter antedate even the birth of the Christian Church on the day of Pentecost. The Church is, indeed, not founded on symbols, but on Christ; not on any words of man, but on the word of God; yet it is founded on Christ as confessed by men, and a creed is man's answer to Christ's question, man's acceptance and interpretation of God's word. Hence it is after the memorable confession of Peter that Christ said, 'Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I shall build my Church,' as if to say, 'Thou art the Confessor of Christ, and on this Confession, as an immovable rock, I shall build my Church.' Where there is faith, there is also profession of faith. As 'faith without works is dead,' so it may be said also that faith without confession is dead. But this confession need not always be written, much less reduced to a logical formula. If a man can say from his heart, 'I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,' it is sufficient for his salvation (Acts xvi. 31). The word of God, apprehended by a living faith, which founded the Christian Church, was at first orally preached and transmitted by the apostles, then laid down in the New Testament Scriptures, as a pure and unerring record for all time to come. So the confession of faith, or the creed, was orally taught and transmitted to the catechumens, and professed by them at baptism, long before it was committed to writing. As long as the Disciplina arcani prevailed, the summary of the apostolic doctrine, called 'the rule of faith,' was kept confidential among Christians, and withheld even from the catechumens till the last stage of instruction; and hence we have only fragmentary accounts of it in the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers. When controversies arose concerning the true meaning of the Scriptures, it became necessary to give formal expression of their true sense, to regulate the public teaching of the Church, and to guard it against error. In this way the creeds were gradually enlarged and multiplied, even to the improper extent of theological treatises and systems of divinity. The first Christian confession or creed is that of Peter, when Christ asked the apostles, 'Who say ye that I am?' and Peter, in the name of all the rest, exclaimed, as by divine inspiration, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' (Matt. xvi. 16). [8] This became naturally the substance of the baptismal confession, since Christ is the chief object of the Christian faith. Philip required the eunuch simply to profess the belief that 'Jesus was the Son of God.' In conformity with the baptismal formula, however, it soon took a Trinitarian shape, probably in some such simple form as 'I believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.' Gradually it was expanded, by the addition of other articles, into the various rules of faith, of which the Roman form under the title 'the Apostles' Creed' became the prevailing one, after the fourth century, in the West, and the Nicene Creed in the East. The Protestant Church, as a separate organization, dates from 1517, but it was not till 1530 that its faith was properly formularized in the Augsburg Confession. A symbol may proceed from the general life of the Church in a particular age without any individual authorship (as the Apostles' Creed); or from an oecumenical Council (the Nicene Creed; the Creed of Chalcedon); or from the Synod of a particular Church (the Decrees of the Council of Trent; the Articles of Dort; the Westminster Confession and Catechisms); or from a number of divines commissioned for such work by ecclesiastical authority (the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England; the Heidelberg Catechism; the Form of Concord); or from one individual, who acts in this case as the organ of his church or sect (the Augsburg Confession, and Apology, composed by Melancthon; the Articles of Smalkald, and the Catechisms of Luther; the second Helvetic Confession by Bullinger). What gives them symbolical or authoritative character is the formal sanction or tacit acquiescence of the church or sect which they represent. In Congregational and Baptist churches the custom prevails for each local church to have its own confession of faith or 'covenant,' generally composed by the pastor, and derived from the Westminster Confession, or some other authoritative symbol, or drawn up independently. __________________________________________________________________ [6] Comp. (Matt. x. 32, 33: 'Every one who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.' Rom. x. 9, 10: 'If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus [Jesus as Lord], and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, then shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto [so as to obtain] righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.' [7] Semisch, Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss (Berlin, 1872, p. 7): ' Bekenntnisse, an welchen sich das geistige Leben ganzer Voelker auferbaut, welche langen Jahrhunderten die hoechsten Ziele und bestimmenden Kraefte ihres Handelns vorzeichnen, sind nicht Noth- und Flickwerke des Augenblicks . . . es sind Thaten des Lebens, Pulsschlaege der sich selbst bezeugenden Kirche. ' [8] The similar confession, John vi. 69, is of a previous date. It reads, according to the early authorities, 'Thou art the Holy One of God' (su ei ho hagios theou). A designation of the Messiah. This text coincides with the testimony of the demoniacs, Marc. I. 26, who, with ghostlike intuition, perceived the supernatural character of Jesus. __________________________________________________________________ S: 3. Authority of Creeds. [9] 1. In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, as of all human compositions, is relative and limited. It is not co-ordinate with, but always subordinate to, the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith and practice. The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. The Bible is of God; the Confession is man's answer to God's word. [10] The Bible is the norma normans; the Confession the norma normata. The Bible is the rule of faith (regula fidei); the Confession the rule of doctrine (regula doctrinae). The Bible has, therefore, a divine and absolute, the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority. The Bible regulates the general religious belief and practice of the laity as well as the clergy; the symbols regulate the public teaching of the officers of the Church, as Constitutions and Canons regulate the government, Liturgies and Hymn-books the worship, of the Church. Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing. Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living pope. It is apt to produce the opposite extreme of a rejection of all creeds, and to promote rationalism and infidelity. 2. The Greek Church, and still more the Roman Church, regarding the Bible and tradition as two co-ordinate sources of truth and rules of faith, claim absolute and infallible authority for their confessions of faith. [11] The Greek Church confines the claim of infallibility to the seven oecumenical Councils, from the first Council of Nicaea, 325, to the second of Nicaea, 787. The Roman Church extends the same claim to the Council of Trent and all the subsequent official Papal decisions on questions of faith down to the decree of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility proclaimed by the Vatican Council in 1870. Since that time the Pope is regarded by orthodox Romanists as the organ of infallibility, and all his official decisions on matters of faith and morals must be accepted as final, without needing the sanction of an oecumenical council. It is clear that either the Greek or the Roman Church, or both, must be wrong in this claim of infallibility, since they contradict each other on some important points, especially the authority of the pope, which in the Roman Church is an articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, and is expressly taught in the Creed of Pius V. and the Vatican Decrees. __________________________________________________________________ [9] On the authority and use of Symbols there are a number of Latin and German treatises by C. U. Hahn (1833), Hoefling (1835), Sartorius (1845), Harless (1846), A. Hahn 1847), Koellner (1847), Genzken (1851), Bretschneider (1830), Johannsen (1833), and others, all with special reference to the Lutheran State Churches in Germany. See the literature in Mueller, Die symb. Buecher der evang. luth. Kirche, p. xv., and older works in Winer's Handbuch der theol. Literatur, 3d ed. Vol. I. p. 334. Comp. also Dunlop and Chaponniere (Part II.), cited in S: 1. [10] For this reason a creed ought to use language different from that of the Bible. A string of Scripture passages would be no creed at all, as little as it would be a prayer or a hymn. A creed is, as it were, a doctrinal poem written under the inspiration of divine truth. This may be said at least of the oecumenical creeds. [11] Tertullian already speaks of the regula fidei immobilis et irreformabilis (De virg. vel. c. 1); but he applied it only to the simple form which is substantially retained in the Apostles' Creed. __________________________________________________________________ S: 4. Value and Use of Creeds. Confessions, in due subordination to the Bible, are of great value and use. They are summaries of the doctrines of the Bible, aids to its sound understanding, bonds of union among their professors, public standards and guards against false doctrine and practice. In the form of Catechisms they are of especial use in the instruction of children, and facilitate a solid and substantial religious education, in distinction from spasmodic and superficial excitement. The first object of creeds was to distinguish the Church from the world, from Jews and heathen, afterwards orthodoxy from heresy, and finally denomination from denomination. In all these respects they are still valuable and indispensable in the present order of things. Every well-regulated society, secular or religious, needs an organization and constitution, and can not prosper without discipline. Catechisms, liturgies, hymn-books are creeds also as far as they embody doctrine. There has been much controversy about the degree of the binding force of creeds, and the quia or quatenus in the form of subscription. The whole authority and use of symbolical books has been opposed and denied, especially by Socinians, Quakers, Unitarians, and Rationalists. It is objected that they obstruct the free interpretation of the Bible and the progress of theology; that they interfere with the liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment; that they engender hypocrisy, intolerance, and bigotry; that they produce division and distraction; that they perpetuate religious animosity and the curse of sectarianism; that, by the law of reaction, they produce dogmatic indifferentism, skepticism, and infidelity; that the symbololatry of the Lutheran and Calvinistic State Churches in the seventeenth century is responsible for the apostasy of the eighteenth. [12] The objections have some force in those State Churches which allow no liberty for dissenting organizations, or when the creeds are virtually put above the Scriptures instead of being subordinated to them. But the creeds, as such, are no more responsible for abuses than the Scriptures themselves, of which they profess to be merely a summary or an exposition. Experience teaches that those sects which reject all creeds are as much under the authority of a traditional system or of certain favorite writers, and as much exposed to controversy, division, and change, as churches with formal creeds. Neither creed nor no-creed can be an absolute protection of the purity of faith and practice. The best churches have declined or degenerated; and corrupt churches may be revived and regenerated by the Spirit of God, and the Word of God, which abides forever. __________________________________________________________________ [12] These objections are noticed and answered at length by Dunlop, in his preface to the Collection of Scotch Confessions, and in the more recent works quoted on p. 7. __________________________________________________________________ S: 5. Classification of Creeds. The Creeds of Christendom may be divided into four classes, corresponding to the three main divisions of the Church, the Greek, Latin, and Evangelical, and their common parent. A progressive growth of theology in different directions can be traced in them. 1. The OEcumenical Symbols of the Ancient Catholic Church. They contain chiefly the orthodox doctrine of God and of Christ, or the fundamental dogmas of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. They are the common property of all churches, and the common stock from which the later symbolical books have grown. 2. The Symbols of the Greek or Oriental Church, in which the Greek faith is set forth in distinction from that of the Roman Catholic and the evangelical Protestant Churches. They were called forth by the fruitless attempts of the Jesuits to Romanize the Greek Church, and by the opposite efforts of the crypto-Calvinistic Patriarch Cyrillus Lucaris to evangelize the same. They differ from the Roman Creeds mainly in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the more important doctrine of the Papacy; but in the controversies on the rule of faith, justification by faith, the church and the sacraments, the worship of saints and relics, the hierarchy and the monastic system, they are much more in harmony with Romanism than with Protestantism. 3. The Symbols of the Roman Church, from the Council of Trent to the Council of the Vatican (1563 to 1870). They sanction the distinctive doctrines of Romanism, which were opposed by the Reformers, and condemn the leading principles of evangelical Protestantism, especially the supreme authority of the Scriptures as a sufficient rule of faith and practice, and justification by faith alone. The last dogma, proclaimed by the Vatican Council in 1870, completes the system by making the official infallibility of the Pope an article of the Catholic faith (which it never was before). 4. The Symbols of the Evangelical Protestant Churches. Most of them date from the period of the Reformation (some from the seventeenth century), and thus precede, in part, the specifically Greek and Latin confessions. They agree with the primitive Catholic Symbols, but they ingraft upon them the Augustinian theory of sin and grace, and several doctrines in anthropology and soteriology (e.g., the doctrine of atonement and justification), which had not been previously settled by the Church in a conclusive way. They represent the progress in the development of Christian theology among the Teutonic nations, a profounder understanding of the Holy Scriptures (especially the Pauline Epistles), and of the personal application of Christ's mediatorial work. The Protestant Symbols, again, are either Lutheran or Reformed. The former were all made in Germany from A.D. 1530 to 1577; the latter arose in different countries--Germany, Switzerland, France, Holland, Hungary, Poland, England, Scotland, wherever the influence of Zwingli and Calvin extended. The Lutheran and Reformed confessions agree almost entirely in their theology, christology, anthropology, soteriology, and eschatology, but they differ in the doctrines of divine decrees and of the nature and efficacy of the sacraments, especially the mode of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. The later evangelical denominations, as the Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, Arminians, Methodists, Moravians, acknowledge the leading doctrines of the Reformation, but differ from Lutheranism and Calvinism in a number of articles touching anthropology, the Church, and the sacraments, and especially on Church polity and discipline. Their creeds are modifications and abridgments rather than enlargements of the old Protestant symbols. The heretical sects connected with Protestantism mostly reject symbolical books altogether, as a yoke of human authority and a new kind of popery. Some of them set aside even the Scriptures, and make their own reason or the spirit of the age the supreme judge and guide in matters of faith; but such loose undenominational denominations have generally no cohesive power, and seldom outlast their founders. The denominational creed-making period closed with the middle of the seventeenth century, except in the Roman Church, which has quite recently added two dogmas to her creed, viz., the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (1854), and the Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome (1870). If we are to look for any new creed, it will be, we trust, a creed, not of disunion and discord, but of union and concord among the different branches of Christ's kingdom. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ SECOND CHAPTER. THE OECUMENICAL CREEDS. Literature on the three OEcumenical Creeds. Gerh. Joan. Voss (Dutch Reformed, b. near Heidelberg 1577, d. at Amsterdam 1649): De tribus Symbolis, Apostolico, Athanasiano, et Constantinopolitano. Three dissertations. Amst. 1642 (and in Vol. VI. of his Opera, Amst. 1701). Voss was the first to dispute and disprove the apostolic authorship of the Apostles', and the Athanasian authorship of the Athanasian Creed. James Ussher (Lat. Usserius, Protestant Archbishop of Armagh, d. 1655): De Romanae ecclesiae Symbolo Apostolico vetere, aliisque fidei formulis, tum ab Occidentalibus tum ab Orientalibus in prima catechesi et baptismo proponi solitis, Lond. 1647 (also Geneva, 1722; pp. 17 fol., and whole works in 16 vols., Dublin, 1847, Vol. VII. pp. 297 sq. I have used the Geneva ed.). Jos. Bingham (Rector of Havant, near Portsmouth, d. 1723): Origines Ecclesiastici; or the Antiquities of the Christian Church (first publ. 1710-22 in 10 vols., and often since in Engl. and in the Latin transl. of Grischovius), Book X. ch. 4. C. G. P. Walch (a Lutheran, d. at Goettingen in 1784): Bibliotheca Symbolica vetus, Lemgo, 1770. (A more complete collection than the preceding ones, but defective in the texts.) E. Koellner: Symbolik aller christlichen Confessionen, Hamburg, 1837 sqq., Vol. I. pp. 1-92. Aug. Hahn: Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der Apostolisch-katholischen Kirche, Breslau, 1842. A new and revised ed. by Ludwig Hahn, Breslau, 1877 (pp. 300). W. Harvey: History and Theology of the Three Creeds, Cambridge, 1856, 2 vols. Charles A. Heurtley (Margaret Prof. of Divinity, Oxford): Harmonia Symbolica: A Collection of Creeds belonging to the Ancient Western Church and to the Mediaeval English Church. Oxford, 1858. The same: De fide et Symbolo. Oxon. et Lond. 1869. C. P. Caspari (Prof. in Christiania): Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel. Christiania, 1866 to 1875, 3 vols. J. Rawson Lumby (Prof. at Cambridge): The History of the Creeds. Cambridge,1873; 2d ed. London,1880. C. A. Swainson (Prof. of Divinity, Cambridge): The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. Their Literary History; together with an Account of the Growth and Reception of 'the Creed of St. Athanasius.' Lond. 1875. F. John Anthony Hort (Prof. in Cambridge): Two Dissertations on monogenes theos and on the 'Constantinopolitan' Creed and other Eastern Creeds of the Fourth Century. Cambridge and London, 1876. __________________________________________________________________ S: 6. General Character of the OEcumenical Creeds. By oecumenical or general symbols (symbola oecumenica, s. catholica) [13] we understand the doctrinal confessions of ancient Christianity, which are to this day either formally or tacitly acknowledged in the Greek, the Latin, and the Evangelical Protestant Churches, and form a bond of union between them. They are three in number: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creed. The first is the simplest; the other two are fuller developments and interpretations of the same. The Apostles' Creed is the most popular in the Western, the Nicene in the Eastern Churches. To them may be added the christological statement of the oecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451). It has a more undisputed authority than the Athanasian Creed (to which the term oecumenical applies only in a qualified sense), but, as it is seldom used, it is generally omitted from the collections. These three or four creeds contain, in brief popular outline, the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as necessary and sufficient for salvation. They embody the results of the great doctrinal controversies of the Nicene and post-Nicene ages. They are a profession of faith in the only true and living God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who made us, redeemed us, and sanctifies us. They follow the order of God's own revelation, beginning with God and the creation, and ending with the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. They set forth the articles of faith in the form of facts rather than dogmas, and are well suited, especially the Apostles' Creed, for catechetical and liturgical use. The Lutheran and Anglican Churches have formally recognized and embodied the three oecumenical symbols in their doctrinal and liturgical standards. [14] The other Reformed Churches have, in their confessions, adopted the trinitarian and christological doctrines of these creeds, but in practice they confine themselves mostly to the use of the Apostles' Creed. [15] This, together with the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, was incorporated in the Lutheran, the Genevan, the Heidelberg, and other standard Catechisms. __________________________________________________________________ [13] The term oikoumenikos (from oikoumene, sc. ge, orbis terrarum, the inhabited earth; in a restricted sense, the old Roman Empire, as embracing the civilized world) was first used in its ecclesiastical application of the general synods of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), also of patriarchs, bishops, and emperors, and, at a later period, of the ancient general symbols, to distinguish them from the confessions of particular churches. In the Protestant Church the term so used occurs first in the Lutheran Book of Concord (oecumenica seu catholica). [14] The Lutheran Form of Concord (p. 569) calls them 'catholica et generalia summae auctoritatis symbola.' The various editions of the Book of Concord give them the first place among the Lutheran symbols. Luther himself emphasized his agreement with them. The Church of England, in the 8th of her 39 Articles, declares, 'The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius's Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.' The American editions of the Articles and of the Book of Common Prayer omit the Athanasian Creed, and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States excludes it from her service. The omission by the Convention of 1789 arose chiefly from opposition to the damnatory clauses, which even Dr. Waterland thought might be left out. But the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed is clearly taught in the first five Articles. [15] The Second Helvetic Confession, art. 11, the Gallican Confession, art. 5, and the Belgic Confession, art. 9, expressly approve the three Creeds, 'as agreeing with the written Word of God.' In 'The Constitution and Liturgy' of the (Dutch) Reformed Church in the United States the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed are printed at the end. The Apostles' Creed is embodied in the Heidelberg Catechism, as containing 'the articles of our catholic undoubted Christian faith.' The Shorter Westminster Catechism gives it merely in an Appendix, as 'a brief sum of the Christian faith, agreeable to the Word of God, and anciently received in the churches of Christ.' __________________________________________________________________ S: 7. The Apostles' Creed. Literature. I. See the Gen. Lit. on the OEcum. Creeds, S: 6, p. 12, especially Hahn, Heurtley, Lumby, Swainson, and Caspari (the third vol. 1875). II. Special treatises on the Apostles' Creed: Rufinus (d. at Aquileja 410, a presbyter and monk, translator and continuator of Eusebius's Church History to A.D. 395, and translator of some works of Origen, with unscrupulous adaptations to the prevailing standard of orthodoxy; at first an intimate friend, afterwards a bitter enemy of St. Jerome): Expositio Symboli (Apostolici), first printed, under the name of Jerome, at Oxford 1468, then at Rome 1470, at Basle 1519, etc.; also in the Appendix to John Fell's ed. of Cyprian's Opera (Oxon. 1682, folio, p. 17 sq.), and in Rufini Opera, ed. Vallarsi (Ver. 1745). See the list of edd. in Migne's Patrol. xxi. 17-20. The genuineness of this Exposition of the Creed is disputed by Ffoulkes, on the Athanas. Creed, p. 11, but without good reason. Ambrosius (bishop of Milan, d. 397): Tractatus in Symbolum Apostolorum (also sub tit. De Trinitate). Opera, ed. Bened., Tom. II. 321. This tract is by some scholars assigned to a much later date, because it teaches the double procession of the Holy Spirit; but Hahn, l.c. p. 16, defends the Ambrosian authorship with the exception of the received text of the Symbolum Apostolicum, which is prefixed. Also, Explanatio Symboli ad initiandos, ascribed to St. Ambrose, and edited by Angelo Mai in Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, Rom. 1833, Vol. VII. pp. 156-158, and by Caspari, in the work quoted above, II. 48 sq. Venant. Fortunatus. (d. about 600): Expositio Symboli (Opera, ed. Aug. Luchi, Rom. 1786). Augustinus. (bishop of Hippo, d. 430): De Fide et Symbolo liber unus. Opera, ed. Bened., Tom. XI. 505-522. Sermo de Symbolo ad catechumenos, Tom. VIII. 1591-1610. Sermones de traditione Symboli, Tom. VIII. 936 sq. Mos. Amyraldus (Amyraut, Prof. at Saumur, d. 1664): Exercitationes in Symb. Apost. Salmur. 1663. Isaac Barrow (Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, d. 1677). Sermons on the Creed (Theolog. Works, 8 vols., Oxf. 1830, Vol. IV.-VI). John Pearson (Bishop of Chester, d. 1686): An Exposition of the Creed, 1659, 3d ed. 1669 fol. (and several later editions by Dobson, Burton, Nichols, Chevallier). One of the classical works of the Church of England. Peter King (Lord Chancellor of England, d. 1733): The History of the Apostles' Creed, with Critical Observations, London, 1702. (The same in Latin by Olearius, Lips. 1706.) H. Witsius (Prof. in Leyden, d. 1708): Exercitationes sacrae in Symbolum quod Apostolorum dicitur, Amstel. 1700; Basil. 1739. English translation by Fraser, Edinb. 1823, 2 vols. J. E. Im. Walch (Professor in Jena, d. 1778): Antiquitates symbolicae, quibus Symboli Apostolici historia illustratur, Jena, 1772, 8vo. A. G. Rudelbach (Luth.): Die Bedeutung des apost. Symbolums, Leipz. 1844 (78 pp.). Peter Meyers (R. C.): De Symboli Apostolici Titulo, Origine et Auctoritate, Treviris, 1849 (pp. 210). Defends the apostolic origin. J. W. Nevin: The Apostles' Creed, in the 'Mercersburg Review,' Mercersburg, Pa., for 1849, pp. 105, 201, 313, 585. An exposition of the doctrinal system of the Creed. Michel Nicolas: Le symbole des apotres, Paris, 1867. Rationalistic. G. Lisco (jun.): Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, Berlin, 1872. In opposition to its obligatory use in the church. O. Zoeckler: Das apostolische Symbolum, Gueterslohe, 1872 (40 pp.). In defense of the Creed. Carl Semisch (Prof. of Church History in Berlin): Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, Berlin, 1872 (31 pp.). A. Muecke: Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss der aechte Ausdruck apostolischen Glaubens, Berlin, 1873 (160 pp.). The Apostles' Creed, or Symbolum Apostolicum, is, as to its form, not the production of the apostles, as was formerly believed, but an admirable popular summary of the apostolic teaching, and in full harmony with the spirit and even the letter of the New Testament. I. Character and Value.--As the Lord's Prayer is the Prayer of prayers, the Decalogue the Law of laws, so the Apostles' Creed is the Creed of creeds. It contains all the fundamental articles of the Christian faith necessary to salvation, in the form of facts, in simple Scripture language, and in the most natural order--the order of revelation-- from God and the creation down to the resurrection and life everlasting. It is Trinitarian, and divided into three chief articles, expressing faith--in God the Father, the Maker of heaven and earth, in his only Son, our Lord and Saviour, and in the Holy Spirit (in Deum Patrem, in Jesum Christum, in Spiritum Sanctum); the chief stress being laid on the second article, the supernatural birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. Then, changing the language (credo in for credo with the simple accusative), the Creed professes to believe 'the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.' [16] It is by far the best popular summary of the Christian faith ever made within so brief a space. It still surpasses all later symbols for catechetical and liturgical purposes, especially as a profession of candidates for baptism and church membership. It is not a logical statement of abstract doctrines, but a profession of living facts and saving truths. It is a liturgical poem and an act of worship. Like the Lord's Prayer, it loses none of its charm and effect by frequent use, although, by vain and thoughtless repetition, it may be made a martyr and an empty form of words. It is intelligible and edifying to a child, and fresh and rich to the profoundest Christian scholar, who, as he advances in age, delights to go back to primitive foundations and first principles. It has the fragrance of antiquity and the inestimable weight of universal consent. It is a bond of union between all ages and sections of Christendom. It can never be superseded for popular use in church and school. [17] At the same time, it must be admitted that the very simplicity and brevity of this Creed, which so admirably adapt it for all classes of Christians and for public worship, make it insufficient as a regulator of public doctrine for a more advanced stage of theological knowledge. As it is confined to the fundamental articles, and expresses them in plain Scripture terms, it admits of an indefinite expansion by the scientific mind of the Church. Thus the Nicene Creed gives clearer and stronger expression to the doctrine of Christ's divinity against the Arians, the Athanasian Creed to the whole doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ's person against the various heresies of the post-Nicene age. The Reformation Creeds are more explicit on the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures and the doctrines of sin and grace, which are either passed by or merely implied in the Apostles' Creed. II. As to the origin of the Apostles' Creed, it no doubt gradually grew out of the confession of Peter, Matt. xvi. 16, which furnished its nucleus (the article on Jesus Christ), and out of the baptismal formula, which determined the trinitarian order and arrangement. It can not be traced to an individual author. It is the product of the Western Catholic Church (as the Nicene Creed is that of the Eastern Church) within the first four centuries. It is not of primary, apostolic, but of secondary, ecclesiastical inspiration. It is not a word of God to men, but a word of men to God, in response to his revelation. It was originally and essentially a baptismal confession, growing out of the inner life and practical needs of early Christianity. [18] It was explained to the catechumens at the last stage of their preparation, professed by them at baptism, often repeated, with the Lord's Prayer, for private devotion, and afterwards introduced into public service. [19] It was called by the ante-Nicene fathers 'the rule of faith,' 'the rule of truth,' 'the apostolic tradition,' 'the apostolic preaching,' afterwards 'the symbol of faith.' [20] But this baptismal Creed was at first not precisely the same. It assumed different shapes and forms in different congregations. [21] Some were longer, some shorter; some declarative, some interrogative in the form of questions and answers. [22] Each of the larger churches adapted the nucleus of the apostolic faith to its peculiar circumstances and wants; but they all agreed in the essential articles of faith, in the general order of arrangement on the basis of the baptismal formula, and in the prominence given to Christ's death and resurrection. We have an illustration in the modern practice of Independent or Congregational and Baptist churches in America, where the same liberty of framing particular congregational creeds ('covenants,' as they are called, or forms of profession and engagement, when members are received into full communion) is exercised to a much larger extent than it was in the primitive ages. The first accounts we have of these primitive creeds are merely fragmentary. The ante-Nicene fathers give us not the exact and full formula, but only some articles with descriptions, defenses, explications, and applications. The creeds were committed to memory, but not to writing. [23] This fact is to be explained from the 'Secret Discipline' of the ante-Nicene Church. From fear of profanation and misconstruction by unbelievers (not, as some suppose, in imitation of the ancient heathen Mysteries), the celebration of the sacraments and the baptismal creed, as a part of the baptismal act, were kept secret among the communicant members until the Church triumphed in the Roman Empire. [24] The first writer in the West who gives us the text of the Latin creed, with a commentary, is Rufinus, towards the close of the fourth century. The most complete or most popular forms of the baptismal creed in use from that time in the West were those of the churches of Rome, Aquileja, Milan, Ravenna, Carthage, and Hippo. They differ but little. [25] Among these, again, the Roman formula gradually gained general acceptance in the West for its intrinsic excellence, and on account of the commanding position of the Church of Rome. We know the Latin text from Rufinus (390), and the Greek from Marcellus of Ancyra (336-341). The Greek text is usually regarded as a translation, but is probably older than the Latin, and may date from the second century, when the Greek language prevailed in the Roman congregation. [26] This Roman creed was gradually enlarged by several clauses from older or contemporaneous forms, viz., the article 'descended into Hades' (taken from the Creed of Aquileja), the predicate 'catholic' or 'general,' in the article on the Church (borrowed from Oriental creeds), 'the communion of saints' (from Gallican sources), and the concluding 'life everlasting' (probably from the symbols of the churches of Ravenna and Antioch). [27] These additional clauses were no doubt part of the general faith, since they are taught in the Scriptures, but they were first expressed in local creeds, and it was some time before they found a place in the authorized formula. If we regard, then, the present text of the Apostles' Creed as a complete whole, we can hardly trace it beyond the sixth, certainly not beyond the close of the fifth century, and its triumph over all the other forms in the Latin Church was not completed till the eighth century, or about the time when the bishops of Rome strenuously endeavored to conform the liturgies of the Western churches to the Roman order. [28] But if we look at the several articles of the Creed separately, they are all of Nicene or ante-Nicene origin, while its kernel goes back to the apostolic age. All the facts and doctrines which it contains, are in entire agreement with the New Testament. And this is true even of those articles which have been most assailed in recent times, as the supernatural conception of our Lord (comp. Matt. i. 18; Luke i. 35), the descent into Hades (comp. Luke xxiii. 43; Acts ii. 31; 1 Pet. iii. 19; iv. 6), and the resurrection of the body (1 Cor. xv. 20 sqq., and other places). [29] The rationalistic opposition to the Apostles' Creed and its use in the churches is therefore an indirect attack upon the New Testament itself. But it will no doubt outlive these assaults, and share in the victory of the Bible over all forms of unbelief. [30] III. I add a table, with critical notes, to show the difference between the original Roman creed, as given by Rufinus in Latin (about A.D. 390), and by Marcellus in Greek (A.D. 336-341), and the received form of the Apostles' Creed, which came into general use in the seventh or eighth century. The additions are inclosed in brackets. The old Roman Form. The Received Form. 1. I believe in God the Father Almighty [31] 1. I believe in God the Father Almighty [Maker of heaven and earth]. [32] 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord; 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord; 3. Who was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; [33] 3. Who was [conceived] by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; [34] 4. Was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried; 4. [Suffered] [35] under Pontius Pilate, was crucified [dead], and buried [He descended into Hell (Hades)]; [36] 5. The third day he rose from the dead; 5. The third day he rose from the dead; 6. He ascended into heaven; and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; 6. He ascended into heaven; and sitteth on the right hand of [God] the Father [Almighty]; [37] 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 8. And in the HOLY GHOST; 8. [I believe] [38] in the Holy Ghost; 9. The Holy Church; 9. The Holy [Catholic] [39] Church [The communion of saints]; [40] 10. The forgiveness of sins; 10. The forgiveness of sins; 11. The resurrection of the body (flesh). [41] 11. The resurrection of the body (flesh); 12. [And the life everlasting]. [42] Note on the Legend of the Apostolic Origin of the Creed.--Till the middle of the seventeenth century it was the current belief of Roman Catholic and Protestant Christendom that the Apostles' Creed was 'membratim articulatimque' composed by the apostles in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, or before their separation, to secure unity of teaching, each contributing an article (hence the somewhat arbitrary division into twelve articles). [43] Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, commenced: 'I believe in God the Father Almighty;' Andrew (according to others, John) continued: 'And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord;' James the elder went on: 'Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost;' then followed John (or Andrew): 'Suffered under Pontius Pilate;' Philip: 'Descended into Hades;' Thomas: 'The third day he rose again from the dead;' and so on till Matthias completed the work with the words 'life everlasting. Amen.' The first trace of this legend, though without the distribution alluded to, we find at the close of the fourth century, in the Expositio Symboli of Rufinus of Aquileja. He mentions an ancient tradition concerning the apostolic composition of the Creed ('tradunt majores nostri'), and falsely derives from this supposed joint authorship the name symbolon (from sumballein, in the sense to contribute); confounding sumbolon, sign, with sumbole, contribution ('Symbolum Graece et indicium dici potest et collatio, hoc est, quod plures in unum conferunt'). The same view is expressed, with various modifications, by Ambrosius of Milan (d. 397), in his Explanatio Symboli ad initiandos, where he says: 'Apostoli sancti convenientes fecerunt symbolum breviter;' by John Cassianus (about 424), De incarnat. Dom. VI. 3; Leo M., Ep. 27 ad Pulcheriam; Venantius Fortunatus, Expos. brevis Symboli Ap.; Isidorus of Seville (d. 636). The distribution of the twelve articles among the apostles is of later date, and there is no unanimity in this respect. See this legendary form in the pseudo-Augustinian Sermones de Symbolo, in Hahn, l.c. p. 24, and another from a Sacramentarium Gallicanum of the seventh century, in Heurtley, p. 67. The Roman Catechism gives ecclesiastical sanction, as far as the Roman Church is concerned, to the fiction of a direct apostolic authorship. [44] Meyers, l.c., advocates it at length, and Abbe Martigny, in his 'Dictionnaire des antiquitees Chretiennes,' Paris, 1865 (art. Symbole des apotres, p. 623), boldly asserts, without a shadow of proof: 'Fidelement attache `a la tradition de l'Eglise catholique, nous tenons, non-seulement qu'il est l'oeuvre des apotres, mais encore qu'il fut compose par eux, alors que reunis `a Jerusalem, ils allaient se disperser dans l'univers entier; et qu'ils volurent, avant de separer, fixer une regle de foi vraiment uniforme et catholique, destinee `a etre livree, partout la meme, aux catechumenes.' Even among Protestants the old tradition has occasionally found advocates, such as Lessing (1778), Delbrueck (1826), Rudelbach (1844), and especially Grundtvig (d. 1872). The last named, a very able but eccentric high-church Lutheran bishop of Denmark, traces the Creed, like the Lord's Prayer, to Christ himself, in the period between the Ascension and Pentecost. The poet Longfellow (a Unitarian) makes poetic use of the legend in his Divine Tragedy (1871). On the other hand, the apostolic origin (after having first been called in question by Laurentius Valla, Erasmus, Calvin [45] ) has been so clearly disproved long since by Vossius, Rivetus, Voetius, Usher, Bingham, Pearson, King, Walch, and other scholars, that it ought never to be seriously asserted again. The arguments against the apostolic authorship are quite conclusive: 1. The intrinsic improbability of such a mechanical composition. It has no analogy in the history of symbols; even when composed by committees or synods, they are mainly the production of one mind. The Apostles' Creed is no piece of mosaic, but an organic unit, an instinctive work of art in the same sense as the Gloria in Excelsis, the Te Deum, and the classical prayers and hymns of the Church. 2. The silence of the Scriptures. Some advocates, indeed, pretend to find allusions to the Creed in Paul's 'analogy' or 'proportion of faith,' Rom. xii. 7; 'the good deposit,' 2 Tim. i. 14; 'the first principles of the oracles of God,' Heb. v. 12; 'the faith once delivered to the saints,' Jude, ver. 3; and 'the doctrine,' 2 John, ver. 10; but these passages can be easily explained without such assumption. 3. The silence of the apostolic fathers and all the ante-Nicene and Nicene fathers and synods. Even the oecumenical Council of Nicaea knows nothing of a symbol of strictly apostolic composition, and would not have dared to supersede it by another. 4. The variety in form of the various rules of faith in the ante-Nicene churches, and of the Apostolic Symbol itself down to the eighth century. This fact is attested even by Rufinus, who mentions the points in which the Creed of Aquileja differed from that of Rome. 'Such variations in the form of the Creed forbid the supposition of any fixed system of words, recognized and received as the composition of the apostles; for no one, surely, would have felt at liberty to alter any such normal scheme of faith.' [46] 5. The fact that the Apostles' Creed never had any general currency in the East, where the Nicene Creed occupies its place, with an almost equal claim to apostolicity as far as the substance is concerned. __________________________________________________________________ [16] This change was observed already by Rufinus (l.c. S: 36), who says: 'Non dicit "In Sanctam Ecclesiam," nec "In remissionem peccatorum," nec "In carnis resurrectionem." Si enim addidisset "in" praepositionem, una eademque vis fuisset cum superioribus. . . . Hac praepositionis syllaba Creator a creaturis secernitur, et divina separantur ab humanis.' The Roman Catechism (P. I. c. 10, qu. 19) also marks this distinction, 'Nunc autem, mutata dicendi forma, "sanctam," et non "in sanctam" ecclesiam credere profitemur.' [17] Augustine calls the Apostolic Symbol 'regula fidei brevis et grandis; brevis numero verborum, grandis pondere sententiarum.' Luther says: 'Christian truth could not possibly be put into a shorter and clearer statement.' Calvin (Inst., Lib. II. c. 16, S: 18), while doubting its strictly apostolic composition, yet regards it as an admirable and truly scriptural summary of the Christian faith, and follows its order in his Institutes, saying: 'Id extra controversiam positum habemus, totam in eo [Symbolo Ap.] fidei nostrae historiam succincte distinctoque ordine recenseri, nihil autem contineri, quod solidis Scripturae testimoniis non sit consignatum.' J. T. Mueller (Lutheran, Die Symb. Buecher der Evang. Luth. K., p. xvi.): 'It retains the double significance of being the bond of union of the universal Christian Church, and the seed from which all other creeds have grown.' Dr. Semisch (Evang. United, successor of Dr. Neander in Berlin) concludes his recent essay on the Creed (p. 28) with the words: 'It is in its primitive form the most genuine Christianity from the mouth of Christ himself (das aechteste Christenthum aus dem Munde Christi selbst).' Dr. Nevin (Germ. Reformed, Mercersb. Rev. 1849, p. 204): 'The Creed is the substance of Christianity in the form of faith . . . the direct immediate utterance of the faith itself.' Dr. Shedd (Presbyterian, Hist. Christ. Doctr., II. 433): 'The Apostles' Creed is the earliest attempt of the Christian mind to systematize the teachings of the Scripture, and is, consequently, the uninspired foundation upon which the whole after-structure of symbolic literature rests. All creed development proceeds from this germ.' Bishop Browne (Episcopalian, Exp. 39 Art., p. 222): 'Though this Creed was not drawn up by the apostles themselves, it may well be called Apostolic, both as containing the doctrines taught by the apostles, and as being in substance the same as was used in the Church from the times of the apostles themselves.' It is the only Creed used in the baptismal service of the Latin, Anglican, Lutheran, and the Continental Reformed Churches. In the Protestant Episcopal and Lutheran Churches the Apostles' Creed is a part of the regular Sunday service, and is generally recited between the Scripture lessons and the prayers, expressing assent to the former, and preparing the mind for the latter. [18] Tertullian, De corona militum. c. 3: 'Dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid respondentes, quam Dominus in Evangelio determinavit.' The amplius respondentes refers to the Creed, not as something different from the Gospel, but as a summary of the Gospel. Comp. De bapt., c. 6, where Tertullian says that in the baptismal Creed the Church was mentioned after confessing the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. [19] Augustine (Op., ed. Bened., VI. Serm., 58): 'Quando surgitis, quando vos ad somnum collocatis, reddite Symbolum vestrum; reddite Domino. . . . Ne dicatis, Dixi heri, dixi hodie, quotidie dico, teneo illud bene. Commemora fidem tuam: inspice te. Sit tanquam speculum tibi Symbolum tuum. Ibi te vide si credis omnia quae te credere confiteris, et gaude quotidie in fide tua.' [20] Kanon tes pisteos, k. tes aletheias, paradosis apostolike, to archaion tes ekklesias, sustema, regula fidei, reg. veritatis, traditio apostolica, praedicatio ap., fides catholica, etc. Sometimes these terms are used in a wider sense, and embrace the whole course of catechetical instruction. [21] See the older regulae fidei mentioned by Irenaeus: Contra haer., lib. I. c. 10, S: 1; III. c. 4, S: 1, 2; IV. c. 33, S: 7; Tertullian: De velandis virginibus, c. 1; Adv. Praxeam, c. 2; De praescript. haeret., c. 13; Novatianus: De trinitate s. de regula fidei (Bibl. P. P., ed. Galland. III. 287); Cyprian: Ep. ad Magnum, and Ep. ad Januarium, etc.; Origen: De principiis, I. praef. S: 4-10; Const. Apost. VI. 11 and 14. They are given in Vol. II. pp. 11-40; also by Bingham, Walch, Hahn, and Heurtley. I select, as a specimen, the descriptive account of Tertullian, who maintained against the heretics very strongly the unity of the traditional faith, but, on the other hand, also against the Roman Church (as a Montanist), the liberty of discipline and progress in Christian life. De velandis virginibus, c. 1: 'Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobolis et irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem, mundi conditorem, et Filium ejus Jesum Christum, natum ex virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in caelis, sedentem nunc ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos, per carnis etiamresurrectionem. Hac lege fidei manente caetera jam disciplinae et conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, operante scilicet et proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei.' In his tract against Praxeas (cap. 2) he mentions also, as an object of the rule of faith, 'Spiritum Sanctum, paracletum, sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum.' We may even go further back to the middle and the beginning of the second century. The earliest trace of some of the leading articles of the Creed may be found in Ignatius, Epistola ad Trallianos, c. 9 (ed. Hefele, p. 192), where he says of Christ that he was truly born 'of the Virgin Mary' (tou ek Marias, hos alethos egennethe), 'suffered under Pontius Pilate' (alethos ediochthe epi Pontiou Pilatou), 'was crucified and died' (alethos estaurothe kai apethanen,) and 'was raised from the dead' (hos kai alethos egerthe apo nekron, egeirantos auton tou patros, autou.) The same articles, with a few others, can be traced in Justin Martyr's Apol. I. c. 10, 13, 21, 42, 46, 50. [22] Generally distributed under three heads: 1. Credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, etc.? Resp. Credo. 2. Credis et in Jesum Christum, etc.? Resp. Credo. 3. Credis et in Spiritum Sanctum, etc.? Resp. Credo. See the interrogative Creeds in Martene, De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus, 1. I. c. 1, and in Heurtley, l.c. pp. 103-116. [23] Hieronymus, Ep. 61, ad Pammach.: 'Symbolum fidei et spei nostrae, quod ab apostolis traditum, non scribitur in charta et atramento, sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus.' Augustine, Serm. ccxii, 2: 'Audiendo symbolum discitur, nec in tabulis vel in aliqua materia, sed in corde scribitur.' [24] On the Disciplina arcani comp. my Church History, I. 384 sq., and Semisch, On the Ap. Creed, p. 17, who maintains, with others, that the Apostles' Creed existed in full as a part of the Secret Discipline long before it was committed to writing. [25] See these Nicene and post-Nicene Creeds in Hahn, l.c. pp. 3 sqq., and in Heurtley, l.c. 43 sqq. Augustine (and pseudo-Augustine) gives eight expositions of the Symbol, and mentions, besides, single articles in eighteen passages of his works. See Caspari, l.c. II. 264 sq. He follows in the main the (Ambrosian) form of the Church of Milan, which agrees substantially with the Roman. Twice he takes the North African Symbol of Carthage for a basis, which has additions in the first article, and puts the article on the Church to the close (vitam aeternam per sanctam ecclesiam). We have also, from the Nicene and post-Nicene age, several commentaries on the Creed by Cyril of Jerusalem, Rufinus, Ambrose, and Augustine. They do not give the several articles continuously, but it is easy to collect and to reconstruct them from the comments in which they are expounded. Cyril expounds the Eastern Creed, the others the Western. Rufinus takes that of the Church of Aquileja, of which he was presbyter, as the basis, but notes incidentally the discrepancy between this Creed and that of the Church of Rome, so that we obtain from him the text of the Roman Creed as well. He mentions earlier expositions of the Creed, which were lost (In Symb. S: 1). [26] See Caspari, Vol. III. pp. 28-161. [27] The last clause occurs in the Greek text of Marcellus and in the baptismal creed of Antioch (kai eis hamartion aphein kai eis nekron anastasin kai eis zoen aionion). See Caspari, Vol. I. pp. 83 sqq. [28] Heurtley says (l.c. p. 126): 'In the course of the seventh century the Creed seems to have been approaching more and more nearly, and more and more generally, to conformity with the formula now in use; and before its close, instances occur of creeds virtually identical with that formula. The earliest creed, however, which I have met with actually and in all respects identical with it, that of Pirminius, does not occur till the eighth century; and even towards the close of the eighth, A.D. 785, there is one remarkable example of a creed, then in use, which retains much of the incompleteness of the formula of earlier times, the Creed of Etherius Uxamensis.' The oldest known copies of our present textus receptus are found in manuscripts of works which can not be traced beyond the eighth or ninth century, viz., in a 'Psalterium Graecum Gregorii Magni,' preserved in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and first published by Abp. Usher, 1647 (also by Heurtley, l.c. p. 82), and another in the 'Libellus Pirminii [who died 758] de singulis libris canonicis scarapsus' (=collectus), published by Mabillon (Analecta, Tom. IV. p. 575). The first contains the Creed in Latin and Greek (both, however, in Roman letters), arranged in two parallel columns; the second gives first the legend of the Creed with the twelve articles assigned to the twelve apostles, and then the Latin Creed as used in the baptismal service. See Heurtley, p. 71. [29] The same view of the origin of the Apostles' Creed is held by the latest writers on the subject, as Hahn, Heurtley, Caspari, Zoeckler, Semisch. Zoeckler says (l.c. p. 18): 'Das Apostolicum ist hinsichtlich seiner jetzigen Form sowohl nachapostolisch, als selbst nachaugustinisch, aber hinsichtlich seines Inhalts ist es nicht nur voraugustinisch, sondern ganz und gar apostolisch--in diesen einfachen Satz laesst die Summe der einschlaegigen kritisch patristischen Forschungsergebnisse sich kurzerhand zusammendraengen. Und die Wahrheit dieses Satzes, soweit er die Apostolicitaet des Inhalts behauptet, laesst sich bezueglich jedes einzelnen Gliedes oder Saetzchens, die am spaetesten hinzugekommenen nicht ausgenommen, mit gleicher Sicherheit erhaerten.' Semisch traces the several articles, separately considered, up to the third and second centuries, and the substance to the first. Fr. Spanheim and Calvin did the same. Calvin says: 'Neque mihi dubium est, quin a prima statim ecclesiae origine, adeoque ab ipso Apostolorum seculo instar publicae et omnium calculis receptae confessionis obtinuerit' (Inst. lib. II. c. 16, S: 18). The most elaborate argument for the early origin is given by Caspari, who derives the Creed from Asia Minor in the beginning of the second century (Vol. III. pp. 1-161). [30] The discussion of the Apostles' Creed entered a stage of great warmth after Dr. Schaff's death, 1893. The work by Kattenbusch, the most extensive and exhaustive on the subject, was followed by treatments from the pens of Harnack, Cremer, Zahn, Loofs, Kunze, and others in Germany, Burn, and Badcock, 1930, in England and McGiffert in the United States. The early Roman baptismal formula is carried by Harnack and Mirbt to 150 or earlier, and by Kattenbusch and Zahn to 120 or earlier. A. Seeberg found the clauses in the New Testament writings and held that a creedal formula was in use in Apostolic times. McGiffert, who was followed by Krueger, proposed the theory that the formula was a reply to the heresies of Marcion about 160. Badcock opposes the view of Kattenbusch, Harnack, and Burn on the origin of the Apostles' Creed, relying in part upon Irenaeus's recently found treatise, "The teaching of the Apostles." The renewed study of the Apostles' Creed was followed by a new study of the doctrine of the Virgin birth of Christ in view of the omission of the clause "conceived by the Holy Ghost" in the forms of the Rule of Faith known to us and the statement of the early Roman baptismal formula, "born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary." The most recent treatise on the Virgin birth is by Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ, N. Y., 1930.--Ed. [31] The Creed of Aquileja has, after Patrem omnipotentem, the addition: 'invisibilem et impassibilem,' in opposition to Sabellianism and Patripassianism. The Oriental creeds insert one before God. Marcellus omits Father, and reads eis theon pantokratora. [32] 'Creatorem coeli et terrae' appears in the Apostles' Creed from the close of the seventh century, but was extant long before in ante-Nicene rules of faith (Irenaeus, Adv. hoer. I. c. 10, 1; Tertullian, De vel. virg. c. l, 'mundi conditorem;' De proescr. haeret. c. 13), in the Nicene Creed (poieten ouranou kai ges, k.t.l.), and all other Eastern creeds, in opposition to the Gnostic schools, which made a distinction between the true God and the Maker of the world (the Demiurge). [33] 'Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex (or et) Maria virgine.' [34] 'Qui CONCEPTUS est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine.' The distinction between conception and birth first appears in the Sermones de Tempore, falsely attributed to Augustine. [35] 'Passus,' perhaps from the Nicene Creed (pathonta, which there implies the crucifixion). In some forms 'crucifixus,' in others 'mortuus' is omitted. [36] From the Aquilejan Creed: 'Descendit ad inferna,' or, as the Athanasian Creed has it, 'ad inferos,' to the inhabitants of the spirit-world. Some Eastern (Arian) creeds: katebe eis ton haden (also eis ta katachthonia, or eis ta katotata). Augustine says (Ep. 99, al. 164, S: 3) that unbelievers only deny 'fuisse apud inferos Christum.' Venantius Fortunatus, A.D. 570, who had Rufinus before him, inserted the clause in his creed. Rufinus himself, however, misunderstood it by making it to mean the same as buried (S: 18: 'vis verbi eadem videtur esse in eo quod sepultus dicitur'). [37] The additions 'Dei' and 'omnipotentis,' made to conform to article first, are traced to the Spanish version of the Creed as given by Etherius Uxamensis (bishop of Osma), A.D. 785, but occur already in earlier Gallican creeds. See Heurtley, pp. 60, 67. [38] 'Credo,' in common use from the time of Petrus Chrysologus, d. 450. But And, without the repetition of the verb, is no doubt the primitive form, as it grew immediately out of the baptismal formula, and gives clearer and closer expression to the doctrine of the Trinity. [39] 'Catholicam' (universal), in accordance with the Nicene Creed, and older Oriental forms, was received into the Latin Creed before the close of the fourth century (comp. Augustine: De Fide et Symbolo, c. 10). The term catholic, as applied to the Church, occurs first in the Epistles of Ignatius (Ad Smyrnaeos, cap. 8: hosper hopou an e Christos Iesous, ekei he katholike ekklesia and in the Martyrium Polycarpi (inscription, and cap. 8: hapases tes kata ten oikoumenen katholikes ekklesias, comp. c. 19, where Christ is called poimen tes kata oikoumenen katholikes ekklesias. [40] The article 'Commumionem sanctorum,' unknown to Augustine (Enchir. c. 64, and Serm. 213), appears first in the 115th and 118th Sermons De Tempore, falsely attributed to him. It is not found in any of the Greek or earlier Latin creeds. See the note of Pearson On the Creed, Art. IX. sub 'The Communion of Saints' (p. 525, ed. Dobson). Heurtley, p. 146, brings it down to the close of the eighth century, since it is wanting in the Creed of Etherius, 785. The oldest commentators understood it of the communion with the saints in heaven, but afterwards it assumed a wider meaning: the fellowship of all true believers, living and departed. [41] The Latin reads carnis, the Greek sarkos, flesh; the Aquilejan form hujus carnis, of this flesh (which is still more realistic, and almost materialistic), 'ut possit caro vel pudica coronari, vel impudica puniri' (Rufinus, S: 43). It should be stated, however, that there are two other forms of the Aquilejan Creed given by Walch (xxxiv. and xxxv.) and by Heurtley (pp. 30-32), which differ from the one of Rufinus, and are nearer the Roman form. [42] Some North African forms (of Carthage and Hippo Regius) put the article of the Church at the close, in this way: 'vitam eternam per sanctam ecclesiam.' Others: carnis resurrectionem in vitam aeternam. The Greek Creed of Marcellus, which otherwise agrees with the old Roman form, ends with zoen aionion. [43] The old Roman form has only eleven articles, unless art. 6 be divided into two; while the received text has sixteen articles, if 'Maker of heaven and earth,' 'He descended into Hades,' 'the communion of saints,' and 'the life everlasting,' are counted separately. [44] Pars prima, cap. 1, qu. 2 (Libri Symbolici Eccl. Cath., ed. Streitwolf and Klener, Tom. I. p. 111): 'Quae igitur primum Christiani homines tenere debent, illa sunt, quae fidei duces, doctoresque sancti Apostoli, divino Spiritu afflati, duodecim Symboli articulis distinxerunt. Nam, cum mandatum a Domino accepissent, ut pro ipso legatione fungentes, in universum mundum proficiscerentur, atque omni creaturae Evangelium praedicarent: Christianae fidei formulam componendam censuerunt, ut scilicet id omnes sentirent ac dicerent, neque ulla essent inter eos schismata,' etc. Ibid. qu. 3: 'Hanc autem Christianae fidei et spei professionem a se compositam Apostoli Symbolum appellarunt; sive quia ex variis sententiis, quas singuli in commune contulerunt, conflata est; sive quia ea veluti nota, et tessera quandam uterentur, qua desertores et subintroductos falsos fratres, qui Evangelium adulterabant, ab iis, qui verae Christi militiae sacramento se obligarent, facile possent internoscere.' [45] In his Catechism, Calvin says that the formula of the common Christian faith is called symbolum apostolorum, quod vel ab ore apostolorum excepta fuerit, vel ex eorum scriptis fideliter collecta. [46] Dr. Nevin (l.c. p. 107), who otherwise puts the highest estimate on the Creed. See the comparative tables on the gradual growth of the Creed in the second volume of this work. __________________________________________________________________ S: 8. The Nicene Creed. Literature. I. See the works on the oecumenical Creeds noticed p. 12, and the extensive literature on the Council of Nicaea, mentioned in my Church History, Vol. III. pp. 616, 617, and 622. The acts of the Council are collected in Greek and Latin by Mansi, Collect. sacr. Concil., Tom. II. fol. 635-704. The Council of Nicaea is more or less fully discussed in the historical works, general or particular, of Tillemont, Walch, Schroeckh, Gibbon, A. de Broglie, Neander, Gieseler, Baur (Hist. of the Doctrine of the Trinity), Dorner (History of Christology), Hefele (History of Councils, Stanley (History of the Eastern Church). II. Special treatises on the Nicene symbol: Ph. Melanchthon: Explicatio Symb. Nicaeni, ed. a J. Sturione, Viteb. 1561, 8vo. Casp. Cruciger: Enarrationis Symboli Nicaeni articuli duo, etc., Viteb. 1548, 4to, and Symboli Nicaeni enarratio cum praefatione Ph. Melanchthonis, acc. priori editioni plures Symboli partes, Basil (without date). J. H. Heidegger (d. 1698): De Symbolo Nicaene-Constantinopolitano (Tom. II. Disp. select. pp. 716 sqq., Turici, 1675-97). J. G. Baier: De Conc. Nicaeni primi et OEcum. auctoritate atque integritate, Jen. 1695 (in Disputat. theol. decad. I.). T. Fecht: Innocentia Concilii et Symboli Nicaeni, Rostock, 1711. T. Caspar Suicer (d. 1684): Symbolum Nicaeno-Constant. expositum et ex antiquitate ecclesiastica illustratum, Traj. ad Eh. 1718, 4to. George Bull (d. 1710): Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, Oxon. 1687, in his Latin works ed. by Grabe, 1703; by Burton, 1827, and again 1846; English translation in the Anglo-Catholic Library, Oxf. 1851, 2 vols. The Nicene Creed, or Symbolum Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum, is the Eastern form of the primitive Creed, but with the distinct impress of the Nicene age, and more definite and explicit than the Apostles' Creed in the statement of the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost. The terms 'coessential' or 'coequal' (homoousios to patri), 'begotten before all worlds' (pro panton ton aionon), 'very God of very God' (theos alethinos ek theou alethinou), 'begotten, not made' (gennetheis, ou poietheis), are so many trophies of orthodoxy in its mighty struggle with the Arian heresy, which agitated the Church for more than half a century. The Nicene Creed is the first which obtained universal authority. It rests on older forms used in different churches of the East, and has undergone again some changes. [47] The Eastern creeds arose likewise out of the baptismal formula, and were intended for the baptismal service as a confession of the faith of the catechumen in the Triune God. [48] We must distinguish two independent or parallel creed formations, an Eastern and a Western; the one resulted in the Nicene Creed as completed by the Synod of Constantinople, the other in the Apostles' Creed in its Roman form. The Eastern creeds were more metaphysical, polemical, flexible, and adapting themselves to the exigencies of the Church in the maintenance of her faith and conflict with heretics; the Western were more simple, practical, and stationary. The former were controlled by synods, and received their final shape and sanction from two oecumenical Councils; the latter were left to the custody of the several churches, each feeling at liberty to make additions or alterations within certain limits, until the Roman form superseded all others, and was quietly, and without formal synodical action, adopted by Western Christendom. In the Nicene Creed we must distinguish three forms--the original Nicene, the enlarged Constantinopolitan, and the still later Latin. 1. The original Nicene Creed dates from the first oecumenical Council, which was held at Nicaea, A.D. 325, for the settlement of the Arian controversy, and consisted of 318 bishops, all of them from the East (except Hosius of Spain). This Creed abruptly closes with the words 'and in the Holy Ghost,' but adds an anathema against the Arians. This was the authorized form down to the Council of Chalcedon. 2. The Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, besides some minor changes in the first two articles, [49] adds all the clauses after 'Holy Ghost,' but omits the anathema. It gives the text as now received in the Eastern Church. It is usually traced to the second oecumenical Council, which was convened by Theodosius in Constantinople, A.D. 381, against the Macedonians or Pneumatomachians (so called for denying the deity of the Holy Spirit), and consisted of 150 bishops, all from the East. There is no authentic evidence of an oecumenical recognition of this enlarged Creed till the Council at Chalcedon, 451, where it was read by Aetius (a deacon of Constantinople) as the 'Creed of the 150 fathers,' and accepted as orthodox, together with the old Nicene Creed, or the 'Creed of the 318 fathers.' But the additional clauses existed in 374, seven years before the Constantinopolitan Council, in the two creeds of Epiphanius, a native of Palestine, and most of them as early as 350, in the creed of Cyril of Jerusalem. [50] The Nicene Creed comes nearest to that of Eusebius of Caesarea, which likewise abruptly closes with pneuma hagion; the Constantinopolitan Creed resembles the creeds of Cyril and Epiphanius, which close with 'the resurrection' and 'life everlasting.' We may therefore trace both forms to Palestine, except the Nicene homoousion. 3. The Latin or Western form differs from the Greek by the little word Filioque, which, next to the authority of the Pope, is the chief source of the greatest schism in Christendom. The Greek Church, adhering to the original text, and emphasizing the monarchia of the Father as the only root and cause of the Deity, teaches the single procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit from the Father alone, which is supposed to be an eternal inner-trinitarian process (like the eternal generation of the Son), and not to be confounded with the temporal mission (pempsis) of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son. The Latin Church, in the interest of the co-equality of the Son with the Father, and taking the procession (processio) in a wider sense, taught since Augustine the double procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, and, without consulting the East, put it into the Creed. The first clear trace of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed we find at the third Council of Toledo in Spain, A.D. 589, to seal the triumph of orthodoxy over Arianism. During the eighth century it obtained currency in England and in France, but not without opposition. Pope Leo III., when asked by messengers of a council held during the reign of Charlemagne at Aix la Chapelle, A.D. 809, to sanction the Filioque, decided in favor of the double procession, but against any change in the Creed. Nevertheless, the clause gained also in Italy from the time of Pope Nicholas I. (858), and was gradually adopted in the entire Latin Church. From this it passed into the Protestant Churches. [51] Another addition in the Latin form, 'Deus de Deo,' in article II., created no difficulty, as it was in the original Nicene Creed, but it is useless on account of the following 'Deus verus de Deo vero,' and hence was omitted in the Constantinopolitan edition. The Nicene Creed (without these Western additions) is more highly honored in the Greek Church than in any other, and occupies the same position there as the Apostles' Creed in the Latin and Protestant Churches. It is incorporated and expounded in all the orthodox Greek and Russian Catechisms. It is also (with the Filioque) in liturgical use in the Roman (since about the sixth century), and in the Anglican and Lutheran Churches. [52] It was adopted by the Council of Trent as the fundamental Symbol, and embodied in the Profession of the Tridentine Faith by Pius IV. It is therefore more strictly an oecumenical Creed than the Apostles' and the Athanasian, which have never been fully naturalized in the Oriental Churches. . . 'The faith of the Trinity lies, Shrined for ever and ever, in those grand old words and wise; A gem in a beautiful setting; still, at matin-time, The service of Holy Communion rings the ancient chime; Wherever in marvelous minster, or village churches small, Men to the Man that is God out of their misery call, Swelled by the rapture of choirs, or borne on the poor man's word, Still the glorious Nicene confession unaltered is heard; Most like the song that the angels are singing around the throne, With their "Holy! holy! holy!" to the great Three in One.' [53] The relation of the Nicene Creed to the Apostles' Creed may be seen from the following table: The Apostles' Creed; Received Text. The Nicene Creed, as Enlarged A.D. 381. (The clauses in brackets are the later additions.) (The words in brackets are Western changes.) 1. I believe in God the Father Almighty, 1. We [I] believe [54] in one God the Father Almighty, [Maker of heaven and earth]. Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible. 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord; 2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all worlds; [God of God], Light of Light. Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made; 3. Who was [conceived] by the Holy Ghost, 3. Who, for us men, and for our salvation, Born of the Virgin Mary; came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man 4. [Suffered] under Pontius Pilate, was crucified [dead], and buried; 4. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; And suffered and was buried; [He descended into Hades]; * * * * * 5. The third day he rose again from the dead; 5. And the third day he rose again, According to the Scriptures; 6. He ascended into heaven, 6. And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of [God] the Father [Almighty]; And sitteth on the right hand of the Father; 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 7. And he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end. 8. And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost; 8. And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets. 9. The holy [catholic] Church; 9. And [I believe] in [55] one holy catholic and apostolic Church; [The communion of saints]; * * * * * 10. The forgiveness of sins; 10. We [I] acknowledge [56] one baptism for the remission of sins; 11. The resurrection of the flesh [body]; 11. And we [I] look for the resurrection of the dead; 12. [And the life everlasting]. 12. And the life of the world to come. We give also, in parallel columns, the original and the enlarged formulas of the Nicene Creed, italicizing the later additions, and inclosing in brackets the passages which are omitted in the received text: The Nicene Creed of 325. [57] The Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. [58] We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. 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 Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousion) with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (aeons), 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 incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together 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. Amen. [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'--they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.] __________________________________________________________________ [47] Compare the symbols of the church of Jerusalem, the church of Alexandria, and the creed of Caesarea, which Eusebius read at the Council of Nicaea, in Usher, l.c. pp. 7, 8; more fully in Vol. II. pp. 11 sqq., and in Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, pp. 40 sqq., 91 sqq. [48] Eusebius, in his Epistle to the people of Caesarea, says of the creed which he had proposed to the Council of Nicaea for adoption, that he had learned it as a catechumen, professed it at his baptism, taught it in turn as presbyter and bishop, and that it was derived from our Lord's baptismal formula. It resembles the old Nicene Creed very closely; see Vol. II. p. 29. The shorter creed of Jerusalem used at baptism, as given by Cyril, Catech. xix. 9, is simply the baptismal formula put interrogatively; see Hahn, pp. 51 sqq. [49] The most remarkable change in the first article is the omission of the words poutestin ek tes ousias tou Patros, theon ek theou on which great stress was laid by the Athanasian party against the Arians, who maintained that the Son was not of the essence, but of the will of the Father. [50] See Vol. II. pp. 31-38, and the Comparative Table, p. 40; Lumby, p. 68; and Hort, pp. 72-150. Dr. Hort tries to prove that the 'Constantinopolitan' or Epiphanian Creed is not a revision of the Nicene Creed at all, but of the Creed of Jerusalem, and that it dates probably from Cyril, about 362-364, when he adopted the Nicene homoousia, and may have been read by him at the Council of Constantinople in vindication of his orthodoxy. Ffoulkes (in Smith's Dict. of Christ. Antiq. Vol. I. p. 438) conjectures that it was framed at Antioch about 372, and adopted at the supplemental Council of Constantinople, 382. [51] Comp. Vol. II., at the close. [52] In the Reformed Churches, except the Episcopal, the Nicene Creed is little used. Calvin, who had a very high opinion of the Apostles' Creed, depreciates the Nicene Creed, as a 'carmen cantillando magis aptum, quam confessionis formula' (De Reform. Eccles.). [53] From 'A Legend of the Council of Nice,' by Cecil Frances Alexander, in 'The Contemporary Review' for February, 1867, pp. 176-179. [54] The Greek reads the plural (pisteuomen), but the Latin and English versions have substituted for it the singular (credo, I believe), in accordance with the Apostles' Creed and the more subjective character of the Western churches. [55] The Greek reads eis mian . . . ekklesian, but the Latin and English versions, in conformity with the Apostles' Creed, mostly omit in before ecclesiam; see p. 15. [56] Here and in art. 11 the singular is substituted in Western translations for homologoumen and prosdokomen. [57] The Greek original is given, together with the similar Palestinian confession, by Eusebius in his Epistola ad Caesareenses, which is preserved by Athanasius at the close of his Epistola de decretis Synodi Nicaenae (Opera, ed. Montfaucon, I. 239); also, with some variations, in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Act. II. in Mansi, Tom. VII.); in Theoderet, H. E. I. 12; Socrates, H. E. I. 8; Gelasius, H. Conc. Nic. 1. II. c. 35. See the literature and variations in Walch, l.c. pp. 75 and 87 sqq.; also in Hahn, l.c. pp. 105 sqq. [58] The Greek text in the acts of the second oecumenical Council (Mansi, Tom. III. p. 565; Hardouin, Vol. I. p. 814), and also in the acts of the fourth oecumenical Council. See Vol. II p. 35; Hahn, l.c. p. 111; and my Church Hist. Vol. III. pp. 667 sqq. __________________________________________________________________ S: 9. The Creed of Chalcedon. Literature. The Acta Concilii in the collections of Mansi, Tom. VII., and of Hardouin, Tom. II. Evagrius: Historia eccl. lib. II. c. 2, 4, 18. Facundus (Bishop of Hermiane, in Africa): Pro defens. trium capitulorum, lib. V. c. 3, 4; lib. VIII. c. 4 (see Gallandi, Bibl. PP. Tom. XI. pp. 713 sqq.). Liberatus (Archdeacon of Carthage): Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, c. 13 (Gallandi, Tom. XII. pp. 142 sqq.). Baronius: Annal. ad ann. 451, No. 55 sqq. Edm. Richer: Hist. concil. generalium, Paris, 1680 (Amst. 1686, 3 vols.), lib. I. c. 8. Tillemont: Memoires, etc. Tom. XV. pp. 628 sqq. (in the article on Leo the Great). Natalis Alexander: Hist. eccles. sec. V. Tom. V. pp. 64 sqq. and pp. 209 sqq. Quesnel: Synopsis actorum Conc. Chalcedon., in his Dissertat. de vita, etc., S. Leonis (see the Ballerini edition of the works of Leo the Great, Tom. II. pp. 501 sqq.). Hulsemann: Exercit. ad Concil. Chalcedon. Lips. 1651. Cave: Hist. literaria, etc. pp. 311 sqq. ed. Genev. 1705. Walch: Ketzerhistorie, Vol. VI. p. 329 sq.; and his Historie der Kirchenversammlungen, p. 307 sq. Arendt: Papst Leo der Grosse, Mainz, 1835, pp. 267-322. Dorner: History of the Development of the Doctr. of the Person of Christ (2d Germ. ed.), Part II. 99-150. Hefele: History of the Councils, Freiburg, Vol. II. (1856). p. 392 sq. Schaff: History of the Christian Church, N. Y. 1867, Vol. III. pp. 740 sqq. Comp. the literature there on pp. 708 sq., 714 sq., 722. The Creed of Chalcedon was adopted at the fourth and fifth sessions of the fourth oecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople, A.D. 451 (Oct. 22d and 25th). It embraces the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the christological doctrine set forth in the classical Epistola Dogmatica of Pope Leo the Great to Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople and martyr of diophysitic orthodoxy at the so-called Council of Robbers (held at Ephesus in 449). [59] While the first Council of Nicaea had established the eternal, pre-existent Godhead of Christ, the Symbol of the fourth oecumenical Council relates to the incarnate Logos, as he walked upon earth and sits on the right hand of the Father. It is directed against the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, who agreed with the Nicene Creed as opposed to Arianism, but put the Godhead of Christ in a false relation to his humanity. It substantially completes the orthodox Christology of the ancient Church; for the definitions added during the Monophysite and Monothelite controversies are few and comparatively unessential. As the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity stands midway between Tritheism and Sabellianism, so the Chalcedonian formula strikes the true mean between Nestorianism and Eutychianism. The following are the leading ideas of the Chalcedonian Christology as embodied in this symbol: [60] 1. A true incarnation of the Logos, or the second person in the Godhead (enanthropesis theou, ensarkosis tou logou, incarnatio Verbi).) [61] This incarnation is neither a conversion or transmutation of God into man, nor a conversion of man into God, and a consequent absorption of the one, or a confusion (krasis, sunchusis) of the two; nor, on the other hand, a mere indwelling (enoikesis, inhabitatio) of the one in the other, nor an outward, transitory connection (sunapheia, conjunctio) of the two factors, but an actual and abiding union of the two in one personal life. 2. The precise distinction between nature and person. Nature or substance (essence, ousia) denotes the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being; while person (hupostasis, prosopon) is the Ego, the self-conscious, self-asserting and acting subject. The Logos assumed, not a human person (else we would have two persons, a divine and a human), but human nature which is common to us all; and hence he redeemed, not a particular man, but all men as partakers of the same nature. 3. The God-Man as the result of the incarnation. Christ is not a (Nestorian) double being, with two persons, nor a compound (Apollinarian or Monophysite) middle being, a tertium quid, neither divine nor human; but he is one person both divine and human. 4. The duality of the natures. The orthodox doctrine maintains, against Eutychianism, the distinction of nature even after the act of incarnation, without confusion or conversion (asunchutos, inconfuse, and atreptos, immutabiliter), yet, on the other hand, without division or separation (adiairetos, indivise, and achoristos, inseparabiliter), so that the divine will ever remain divine, and the human ever human, [62] and yet the two have continually one common life, and interpenetrate each other, like the persons of the Trinity. [63] 5. The unity of the person (henosis kath' hupostasin, henosis hupostatike, unio hypostatica or unio personalis). The union of the divine and human nature in Christ is a permanent state resulting from the incarnation, and is a real, supernatural, personal, and inseparable union--in distinction from an essential absorption or confusion, or from a mere moral union; or from a mystical union such as holds between the believer and Christ. The two natures constitute but one personal life, and yet remain distinct. 'The same who is true God,' says Leo, 'is also true man, and in this unity there is no deceit; for in it the lowliness of man and the majesty of God perfectly pervade one another. . . . Because the two natures make only one person, we read on the one hand: "The Son of Man came down from heaven" (John iii. 13), while yet the Son of God took flesh from the Virgin; and on the other hand: "The Son of God was crucified and buried," [64] while yet he suffered, not in his Godhead as coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature.' The self-consciousness of Christ is never divided; his person consists in such a union of the human and the divine natures, that the divine nature is the seat of self-consciousness, and pervades and animates the human. 6. The whole work of Christ is to be attributed to his person, and not to the one or the other nature exclusively. The person is the acting subject, the nature the organ or medium. It is the one divine-human person of Christ that wrought miracles by virtue of his divine nature, and that suffered through the sensorium of his human nature. The superhuman effect and infinite merit of the Redeemer's work must be ascribed to his person because of his divinity; while it is his humanity alone that made him capable of, and liable to, toil, temptation, suffering, and death, and renders him an example for our imitation. 7. The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ; [65] for anhypostasia is a purely negative term, and presupposes a fictitious abstraction, since the human nature of Christ did not exist at all before the act of the incarnation, and could therefore be neither personal nor impersonal. The meaning of this doctrine is that Christ's human nature had no independent personality of its own, besides the divine, and that the divine nature is the root and basis of his personality. [66] There is, no doubt, a serious difficulty in the old orthodox Christology, if we view it in the light of our modern psychology. We can conceive of a human nature without sin (for sin is a corruption, not an essential quality, of man), but we can not conceive of a human nature without personality, or a self-conscious and free Ego; for this distinguishes it from the mere animal nature, and is man's crowning excellency and glory. To an unbiased reader of the Gospel history, moreover, Christ appears as a full human personality, thinking, speaking, acting, suffering like a man (only without sin), distinguishing himself from other men and from his heavenly Father, addressing him in prayer, submitting to him his own will, and commending to him his spirit in the hour of death. [67] Yet, on the other hand, be appears just as clearly in the Gospels as a personality in the most intimate, unbroken, mysterious life-union with his heavenly Father, in the full consciousness of a personal pre-existence before the creation, of having been sent by the Father from heaven into this world, of living in heaven even during this earthly abode, and of being ever one with him in will and in essence. [68] In one word, he makes the impression of a theanthropic, divine-human person. [69] His human personality was completed and perfected by being so incorporated with the pre-existent Logos-personality as to find in it alone its full self-consciousness, and to be permeated and controlled by it in every stage of its development. The Chalcedonian Christology has latterly been subjected to a rigorous criticism (by Schleiermacher, Baur, Dorner, Rothe, and others), and has been charged with a defective psychology, and now with dualism, now with docetism, according as its distinction of two natures or of the personal unity has most struck the eye. But these imputations neutralize each other, like the imputations of tritheism and modalism, which may be made against the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity when either the tri-personality or the consubstantiality is taken alone. This, indeed, is the peculiar excellence of the Creed of Chalcedon, that it exhibits so sure a tact and so wise a circumspection in uniting the colossal antithesis in Christ, and seeks to do justice alike to the distinction of the natures and to the unity of the person. In Christ all contradictions are reconciled. The Chalcedonian Creed is far from exhausting the great mystery of godliness, 'God manifest in flesh.' It leaves much room for a fuller appreciation of the genuine, perfect, and sinless humanity of Christ, of the Pauline doctrine of the Kenosis, or self-renunciation and self-limitation of the Divine Logos in the incarnation and during the human life of our Lord, and for the discussion of other questions connected with his relation to the Father and to the world, his person and his work. But it indicates the essential elements of Christological truth, and the boundary-lines of Christological error. It defines the course for the sound development of this central article of the Christian faith so as to avoid both the Scylla of Nestorian dualism and the Charybdis of Eutychian monophysitism, and to save the full idea of the one divine-human personality of our Lord and Saviour. Within these limits theological speculation may safely and freely move, and bring us to clearer conceptions; but in this world, where we 'know only in part (ek merous),' and 'see through a mirror obscurely (di esoptrou en ainigmati)' it will never fully comprehend the great central mystery of the theanthropic life of our Lord. __________________________________________________________________ [59] Comp. my Church Hist. Vol. III. p. 738. [60] Abridged, in part, from My Church History, Vol. III. pp. 747 sqq. [61] The diametrical opposite of the enanthropesis theou is the heathen apotheosis anthropou. [62] 'Tenet,' says Leo, in his Epist. 28 ad Flavian., 'sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura, et sicut formam servi Dei forma non adimit, ita formam Dei servi forma non minuit. . . . Agit utraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium est; Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est, et carne exsequente quod carnis est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit injuriis. Et sicut Verbum ab aequalitate paternae gloriae non recedit, ita caro naturam nostri generis non relinquit.' [63] Here belongs, in further explanation, the scholastic doctrine of the perichoresis, permeatio, circummeatio, circulatio, circumincessio, intercommunio, or reciprocal indwelling and pervasion, which has relation, not merely to the Trinity, but also to Christology. The verb perichorein is first applied by Gregory of Nyssa (Contra Apollinarium) to the interpenetration and reciprocal pervasion of the two natures in Christ. On this rested also the doctrine of the exchange or communication of attributes, antidosis, antimetastasis, koinonia idiomaton, communicatio idiomatum. The antimetastasis ton onomaton, also antimedistasis, transmutatio proprietatum, transmutation of attributes, is, strictly speaking, not identical with antidosis, but a deduction from it, and the rhetorical expression for it. [64] Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8: 'They would not have crucified the Lord of glory.' [65] Anupostatos is that which has no personality in itself, enupostatos that which subsists in another personality, or partakes of another hypostasis. [66] The doctrine of the impersonality of the human nature of Christ may already be found as to its germ in Cyril of Alexandria, and was afterwards more fully developed by John of Damascus (De orthodoxa fide, lib. III.), and by the Lutheran scholastics of the seventeenth century, who, however, did not, for all this, conceive Christ as a mere generic being typifying mankind, but as a concrete human individual. Comp. Petavius, De incarnatione, lib. V. c. 5-8 (Tom. IV. pp. 421 sqq.); Thomasius, Christol. II. 108-110; Rothe, Dogmatik, II. 51 and 147. [67] He calls himself a 'man,' anthropos (John viii. 40; comp. xix. 5), and very often 'the Son of man,' and other men his 'brethren' (John xx. 17). [68] John viii.58; xvii. 5, 24; iii. 11-13; v. 37; vi. 38, 62; viii. 42; x. 30, and many other passages in the Gospels. Dr. R. Rothe, who rejects the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation, yet expressly admits (Dogmatik, II. 88): 'Ebenso bestimmt, wie seine wahre Menschheit, tritt im Neuen Testament auch die wahre GOTTHEIT des Erloesers hervor.' To escape the orthodox inference of an incarnation of a divine hypostasis, Rothe must resort (p. 100) to the Socinian interpretation of John xvii. 5, where the Saviour asserts his pre-existence with the Father (doxason me su, pater, para seauto te doxe, he eichon pro tou ton kosmon einai para soi); thereby distinguishing himself from the hypostasis of the Father, and yet asserting coeternity. The Socinians and Grotius find here merely an ideal glory in the divine counsel; but it must be taken, in analogy with similar passages, of a real, personal, self-conscious pre-existence, and a real glory attached to it; otherwise it would be nothing peculiar and characteristic of Christ. How absurd would it be for a man to utter such a prayer! [69] A persona sunthetos, in the language of the old Protestant divines. Divina et humana naturae' (says Hollaz), 'in una persona suntheto Filii Dei existentes, unam eandemque habent hupostasin, modo tamen habendi diversam. Natura enim divina eam habet primario, per se et independenter, natura autem humana secundario, propter unionem personalem, adeoque participative. The divine nature, therefore, is, in the orthodox system, that which forms and constitutes the personality (das personbildende Princip.). __________________________________________________________________ S: 10. The Athanasian Creed. Literature. I. Comp. the general literature of the Three Creeds noticed p. 12, especially Lumby and Swainson. II. Special treatises on the Athanasian Creed: [Venantius Fortunatus (Bishop of Poitiers, d. about A.D. 600)]: Expositio Fidei Catholicae Fortunati. The oldest commentary on the Athanasian Creed, published from a MS. in the Ambrosian Library at Milan by Muratori, 1698, in the second vol. of his Anecdota, p. 228, and better in an Appendix to Waterland's treatise (see below). But the authorship of Ven. Fort. is a mere conjecture of Muratori, from the name Fortunatus, and is denied by modern critics. Dav. Pareus (Ref.): Symbolum Athanasii breviter declaratum. Heidelb. 1618. J. H. Heidegger (Ref.): De Symbolo Athanasiano. Tur. 1680. W. E. Tentzel (Luth.): Judicia eruditorum de Symb. Athanasiano. Gothae, 1687. Jos. Anthelmi (R. C.): Disquisitio de Symb. Athan. Paris, 1693. Montfaucon (R. C.): Diatribe de Symbolo Quicunque, in his edition of the works of St. Athanasius. Paris, 1698, Tom. II. pp. 719-735. Dan. Waterland (Anglican): A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, etc. Cambridge, 1724, 2d ed. 1728 (in Waterland's works, Vol. III. pp. 97-270, Oxf. ed. 1843), also re-edited by J. R. King. Lond. 1871. The fullest and most learned treatise on the subject, but in part superseded by recent investigations. Dom. Maria Speroni (R. C.): De Symbolo vulgo S. Athanasii, two dissertations. Patav. 1750 sq. John Radcliffe: The Creed of St. Athanasius, illustrated from the Old and New Test., Passages of the Fathers, etc. Lond. 1844. Philip Schaff: The Athanasian Creed, in the 'American Presbyterian Review,' New York, for 1866, pp. 584-625; Church History, Vol. III. pp. 689 sqq. A. P. Stanley (Dean of Westminster): The Athanasian Creed. Lond. 1871. E. S. Ffoulkes (B. D.): The Athanasian Creed: By whom Written and by whom Published. Lond. 1872. Ch. A. Heurtley: The Athanasian Creed. Oxford, 1872. (Against Ffoulkes.) Comp. the fac-simile edition of the Utrecht Psalter (Lond. 1875), and Sir Thos. Hardy (Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records), two Reports on the Athanas. Creed in Connection with the Utrecht Psalter. Lond. 1873. The Athanasian Creed is also called Symbolum Quicunque, from the first word, 'Quicunque vult salvus esse.' [70] I. Its origin is involved in obscurity, like that of the Apostles' Creed, the Gloria in Excelsis, and the Te Deum. It furnishes one of the most remarkable examples of the extraordinary influence which works of unknown or doubtful authorship have exerted. Since the ninth century it has been ascribed to Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the chief defender of the divinity of Christ and the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (d. 373). [71] The great name of 'the father of orthodoxy' secured for it an almost oecumenical authority, notwithstanding the solemn prohibition of the third and fourth oecumenical Councils to compose or publish any other creed than the Nicene. [72] Since the middle of the seventeenth century the Athanasian authorship has been abandoned by learned Catholics as well as Protestants. The evidence against it is conclusive. The Symbol is nowhere found in the genuine writings of Athanasius or his contemporaries and eulogists. The General Synods of Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) make no allusion to it whatever. It seems to presuppose the doctrinal controversies of the fifth century concerning the constitution of Christ's person; at least it teaches substantially the Chalcedonian Christology. And, lastly, it makes its first appearance in the Latin Churches of Gaul, North Africa, and Spain: while the Greeks did not know it till the eleventh century, and afterwards rejected or modified it on account of the Occidental clause on the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. The Greek texts, moreover, differ widely, and betray, by strange words and constructions, the hands of unskilled translators. The pseudo-Athanasian Creed originated in the Latin Church from the school of St. Augustine, probably in Gaul or North Africa. It borrows a number of passages from Augustine and other Latin fathers. [73] It appears first in its full form towards the close of the eighth or the beginning of the ninth century. Its structure and the repetition of the damnatory clause in the middle and at the close indicate that it consists of two distinct parts, which may have been composed by two authors, and afterwards welded together by a third hand. The first part, containing the Augustinian doctrine of the Trinity, is fuller and more metaphysical. The second part, containing a summary of the Chalcedonian Christology, has been found separately, as a fragment of a sermon on the Incarnation, at Treves, in a MS. from the middle of the eighth century. [74] The fact that Athanasius spent some time in exile at Treves may possibly have given rise to the tradition that the great champion of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity composed the whole. [75] II. Character and Contents.--The Symbolum Quicunque is a remarkably clear and precise summary of the doctrinal decisions of the first four oecumenical Councils (from A.D. 325 to A.D. 451), and the Augustinian speculations on the Trinity and the Incarnation. Its brief sentences are artistically arranged and rhythmically expressed. It is a musical creed or dogmatic psalm. Dean Stanley calls it 'a triumphant paean' of the orthodox faith. It resembles, in this respect, the older Te Deum, but it is much more metaphysical and abstruse, and its harmony is disturbed by a threefold anathema. It consists of two parts. The first part (ver. 3-28) sets forth the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity, not in the less definite Athanasian or Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan, but in its strictest Augustinian form, to the exclusion of every kind of subordination of essence. It is therefore an advance both on the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed; for these do not state the doctrine of the Trinity in form, but only indirectly by teaching the Deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and leave room for a certain subordination of the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. The post-Athanasian formula states clearly and unmistakably both the absolute unity of the divine being or essence, and the tri-personality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God is one in three persons or hypostases, each person expressing the whole fullness of the Godhead, with all his attributes. The term persona is taken neither in the old sense of a mere personation or form of manifestation (prosopon, face, mask), nor in the modern sense of an independent, separate being or individual, but in a sense which lies between these two conceptions, and thus avoids Sabellianism on the one hand, and Tritheism on the other. The divine persons are in one another, and form a perpetual intercommunication and motion within the divine essence. [76] Each person has all the divine attributes which are inherent in the divine essence, but each has also a characteristic individuality or property, [77] which is peculiar to the person, and can not be communicated; the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Holy Ghost is proceeding. In this Trinity there is no priority or posteriority of time, no superiority or inferiority of rank, but the three persons are coeternal and coequal. If the mystery of the Trinity can be logically defined, it is done here. But this is just the difficulty: the infinite truth of the Godhead lies far beyond the boundaries of logic, which deals only with finite truths and categories. It is well always to remember the saying of Augustine: 'God is greater and truer in our thoughts than in our words; he is greater and truer in reality than in our thoughts.' [78] The second part (ver. 29-44) contains a succinct statement of the orthodox doctrine concerning the person of Christ, as settled by the general Councils of Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451, and in this respect it is a valuable supplement to the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. It asserts that Christ had a rational soul (nous, neuma), in opposition to the Apollinarian heresy, which limited the extent of his humanity to a mere body with an animal soul inhabited by the divine Logos. It also teaches the proper relation between the divine and human nature of Christ, and excludes the Nestorian and Eutychian or Monophysite heresies, in essential agreement with the Chalcedonian Symbol. [79] III. The Damnatory Clauses.--The Athanasian Creed, in strong contrast with the uncontroversial and peaceful tone of the Apostles' Creed, begins and ends with the solemn declaration that the catholic faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation herein set forth is the indispensable condition of salvation, and that those who reject it will be lost forever. The same damnatory clause is also wedged in at the close of the first and at the beginning of the second part. This threefold anathema, in its natural historical sense, is not merely a solemn warning against the great danger of heresy, [80] nor, on the other hand, does it demand, as a condition of salvation, a full knowledge of, and assent to, the logical statement of the doctrines set forth (for this would condemn the great mass even of Christian believers); but it does mean to exclude from heaven all who reject the divine truth therein taught. It requires every one who would be saved to believe in the only true and living God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in essence, three in persons, and in one Jesus Christ, very God and very Man in one person. The damnatory clauses, especially when sung or chanted in public worship, grate harshly on modern Protestant ears, and it may well be doubted whether they are consistent with true Christian charity and humility, and whether they do not transcend the legitimate authority of the Church. They have been defended by an appeal to Mark xvi. 16; but in this passage those only are condemned who reject the gospel, i.e., the great facts of Christ's salvation, not any peculiar dogma. Salvation and damnation depend exclusively on the grace of God as apprehended by a living faith, or rejected in ungrateful unbelief. The original Nicene Symbol, it is true, added a damnatory clause against the Arians, but it was afterwards justly omitted. Creeds, like hymns, lose their true force and miss their aim in proportion as they are polemical and partake of the character of manifestoes of war rather than confessions of faith and thanks to God for his mighty works. [81] IV. Introduction and Use.--The Athanasian Creed acquired great authority in the Latin Church, and during the Middle Ages it was almost daily used in the morning devotions. [82] The Reformers inherited the veneration for this Symbol. It was formally adopted by the Lutheran and several of the Reformed Churches, and is approvingly mentioned in the Augsburg Confession, the Form of Concord, the Thirty-nine Articles, the Second Helvetic, the Belgic, and the Bohemian Confessions. [83] Luther was disposed to regard it as 'the most important and glorious composition since the days of the apostles.' [84] Some Reformed divines, especially of the Anglican Church have commended it very highly; even the Puritan Richard Baxter lauded it as 'the best explication [better, statement] of the Trinity,' provided, however, 'that the damnatory sentences be excepted, or modestly expounded.' In the Church of England it is still sung or recited in the cathedrals and parish churches on several festival days, [85] but this compulsory public use meets with growing opposition, and was almost unanimously condemned in 1867 by the royal commission appointed to consider certain changes in the Anglican Ritual. [86] The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, when, in consequence of the American Revolution, it set up a separate organization in the Convention of 1785 at Philadelphia, resolved to remodel the Liturgy (in 'the Proposed Book'), and, among other changes, excluded from it both the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds, and struck out from the Apostles' Creed the clause, 'He descended into hell.' The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, before consenting to ordain bishops for America, requested their brethren to restore the clause of the Apostles' Creed, and 'to give to the other two Creeds a place in their Book of Common Prayer, even though the use of them should be left discretional.' [87] In the Convention held at Wilmington Del., October 10, 1786, the request of the English prelates, as to the first two points, was acceded to, but 'the restoration of the Athanasian Creed was negatived.' As the opposition to this Creed was quite determined, especially on account of the damnatory clauses, the mother Church acquiesced in the omission, and granted the desired Episcopal ordination. [88] In the Greek Church it never obtained general currency or formal ecclesiastical sanction, and is only used for private devotion, with the omission of the clause on the double procession of the Spirit. [89] __________________________________________________________________ [70] It first bears the title, 'Fides sanctae Trinitatis,' or 'Fides Catholica Sanctae Trinitatis;' then (in the 'Cod. Usserius secundus') 'Fides Sancti Athanasii Alexandrini.' Hincmar of Rheims, about A.D. 852, calls it 'Sermonem Athanasii de fide, cujus initium est: "Quicunque vult salvus esse."' [71] According to the mediaeval legend, Athanasius composed it during his exile in Rome, and offered it to Pope Julius as his confession of faith. So Baronius, Petavius, Bellarmin, etc. This tradition was first opposed and refuted by Gerhard Vossius (1642) and Ussher (1647). [72] Conc. Ephes. Can. VII. 'The holy Synod has determined that no person shall be allowed to bring forward, or to write, or to compose any other Creed (heteran pistin medeni exeinai propherein egoun sungraphein e suntithenai), besides that which was settled by the holy fathers who assembled in the city of Nicaea, with the Holy Spirit. But those who shall dare to compose any other Creed, or to exhibit or produce any such, if they are bishops or clergymen, they shall be deposed, but if they are of the laity, they shall be anathematized.' The Council of Chalcedon (451), although setting forth a new definition of faith, repeated the same prohibition (after the Defin. Fidei). [73] See the parallel passages in Waterland's treatise and in my Church History, Vol. III. pp. 690 sqq. [74] Now known as the Colbertine MS., in Paris, which is assigned to about A.D. 730-760, but is derived in part from older MSS. This fragment was first published consecutively by Professor Swainson in 1871, and again in his larger work, 1875 (p. 262), also by Lumby, p. 215. It begins thus: 'Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confitemur quia Dominus ihesus christus Dei filius, deus pariter et homo est,' etc.; and it ends: 'Haec est fides sancta et Catholica, quam omnes [omnis] homo qui ad uitam aeternam peruenire desiderat scire integrae [integre] debet, et fideliter custodire.' The compiler of the two parts intensified the damnatory clause by changing it into 'quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.' The passages quoted by Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, A.D. 852, are all taken from the first part. [75] The authorship of the Symbolum Quicunque is a matter of mere conjecture. The opinions of scholars are divided between Hilary of Arles (420-431), Vigilius of Tapsus (484), Vincentius Lirinensis (450), Venantius Fortunatus of Poitiers (570), Pope Anastasius (398), Victricius of Rouen (401), Patriarch Paulinus of Aquileja (Charlemagne's favorite theologian, d. 804). Waterland learnedly contends for Hilary of Arles; Quesnel, Cave, Bingham, and Neander for Vigilius Tapsensis of North Africa. Gieseler traces the Quicunque to the Councils of Toledo in Spain (633, 638, 675, etc.), which used to profess the Nicene Creed with additional articles (like the Filioque) against Arianism. Ffoulkes (who seceded to Rome, and returned, a better Protestant, to the Church of England) and Dean Stanley maintain that it arose in France, simultaneously with the forgery of the pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, for controversial purposes against the Greeks, to set up a fictitious antiquity for Latin doctrine (the Filioque), as the Decretals did for Latin polity. Swainson and Lumby assign the Creed to an unknown writer of the age of Charlemagne (d. 814) and Alcuin (d. 804), or to the period between 813 and 850. The latest investigations since the rediscovery of the oldest (the Cotton) MS. in the 'Utrecht Psalter' (which was exposed for inspection at the British Museum in 1873, and has since been photographed) are unfavorable to an early origin; for this MS., which Ussher and Waterland assigned to the sixth century, dates probably from the ninth century (as the majority of scholars who investigated it, Drs. Vermuelen, Heurtley, Ffoulkes, Lumby, Swainson, contend against Hardy, Westwood, and Baron van Westreenen), since, among other reasons, it contains also the Apostles' Creed in its final form of 750. The authorship of Venantius Fortunatus (570) was simply inferred by Muratori from the common name 'Fortunatus' at the head of a MS. (Expositio Fidei Catholicae Fortunati) which contains a commentary on the Athanasian Creed, but which is not older than the eleventh century, and quotes a passage from Alcuin. Two other MSS. of the same commentary, but without a title, have been found, one at Florence, and one at Vienna (Lumby, p. 208; Swainson, pp. 317 sqq.). The internal evidence for an earlier date is equally inconclusive. The absence of Mater Dei (theotokos) no more proves an ante-Nestorian origin (before 431, as Waterland contended) than the absence of consubstantialis (homoousios) proves an ante-Nicene origin. So far, then, we have no proof that the pseudo-Athanasian Creed in its present complete shape existed before the beginning of the ninth century. And yet it may have existed earlier. At all events, two separate compositions, which form the groundwork of our Quicunque, are of older date, and the doctrinal substance of it, with the most important passages, may be found in the works of St. Augustine and his followers, with the exception of the damnatory clauses, which seem to have had their origin in the fierce contests of the age of Charlemagne. In a Prayer-Book of Charles the Bald, written about A. D. 870, we find the Athanasian Creed very nearly in the words of the received text. I may add that the indefatigable investigator, Dr. Caspari, of Christiania, informs me by letter (dated April 29, 1876) that he is still inclined to trace this Creed to the fifth century, between 450 and 600, and that he found, and will publish in due time, some old symbols which bear a resemblance to it, and may cast some light upon its obscure origin. Adhuc sub judice lis est. [76] The later scholastic terms for this indwelling and interpenetration are perichoresis, inexistentia, permeatio, circumincessio, etc. See my Church History, Vol. III. p. 680. [77] Called by the Greeks idiotes or idion, by the Latins proprietas personalis or character hypostaticus. [78] 'Verius cogitatur Deus quam dicitur, verius est quam cogitatur,' De Trinitate, lib. VII. c. 4, S: 7. Dr. Isaac Barrow, one of the intellectual giants of the Anglican Church (died 1677), in his Defense of the Blessed Trinity (a sermon preached on Trinity Sunday, 1663), humbly acknowledges the transcendent incomprehensibility, while clearly stating the facts, of this great mystery: 'The sacred Trinity may be considered either as it is in itself wrapt up in inexplicable folds of mystery, or as it hath discovered itself operating in wonderful methods of grace towards us. As it is in itself, 'tis an object too bright and dazzling for our weak eye to fasten upon, an abyss too deep for our short reason to fathom; I can only say that we are so bound to mind it as to exercise our faith, and express our humility, in willingly believing, in submissively adoring those high mysteries which are revealed in the holy oracles concerning it by that Spirit itself which searcheth the depths of God. . . . That there is one Divine Nature or Essence, common unto three Persons, incomprehensibly united, and ineffably distinguished--united in essential attributes, distinguished by peculiar idioms and relations; all equally infinite in every divine perfection, each different from the other in order and manner of subsistence; that there is a mutual inexistence of one in all, and all in one, a communication without any deprivation or diminution in the communicant; an eternal generation, and an eternal procession, without precedence or succession, without proper causality or dependence; a Father imparting his own, and the Son receiving his Father's life, and a Spirit issuing from both, without any division or multiplication of essence--these are notions which may well puzzle our reason in conceiving how they agree, but should not stagger our faith in assenting that they are true; upon which we should meditate, not with hope to comprehend, but with dispositions to admire, veiling our faces in the presence, and prostrating our reason at the feet, of Wisdom so far transcending us.' [79] See the preceding section. [80] So a majority of the 'Ritual Commission of the Church of England,' appointed in 1867: 'The condemnations in this Confession of Faith are to be no otherwise understood than as a solemn warning of the peril of those who willfully reject the Catholic faith.' Such a warning would be innocent and unobjectionable, indeed, but fall far short of the spirit of an age which abhorred heresy as the greatest of crimes, to be punished by death. [81] 'It seems very hard,' says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, 'to put uncharitableness into a creed, and so to make it become an article of faith.' Chillingworth: 'The damning clauses in St. Athanasius's Creed are most false, and also in a high degree schismatical and presumptuous.' [82] J. Bona, De divina Psalmodia, c. 16, S: 18, p. 863 (as quoted by Koellner, Symbolik, I. 85): 'Illud Symbolum olim, teste Honorio, quotidie est decantatum, jam vero diebus Dominicis in totius coetus frequentia recitatur, ut sanctae fidei confessio ea die apertius celebretur.' [83] It is printed, with the two other oecumenical Creeds, in all the editions of the Lutheran 'Book of Concord,' and as an appendix to the doctrinal formulas of the Reformed Dutch Church in America. It was received into the 'Provisional Liturgy of the German Reformed Church in the United States,' published Philadelphia, 1858, but omitted in the revised edition of 1867. [84] 'Es ist also gefasset, dass ich nicht weiss, ob seit der Apostel Zeit in der Kirche des Neuen Testamentes etwas Wichtigeres and Herrlicheres geschrieben sei' (Luther, Werke, ed. Walch, VI. 2315). [85] The rubric directs that the Athanasian Creed 'shall be sung or said at Morning Prayer, instead of the Apostles' Creed, on Christmas-day, the Epiphany, St. Matthias, Easter-day, Ascension-day, Whitsunday, St. John the Baptist, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Simon and St. Jude, St. Andrew, and upon Trinity Sunday.' [86] By nineteen out of the twenty-seven members of the Ritual Commission. See their opinions in Stanley, l.c. pp. 73 sqq. Dean Stanley on that occasion urged no less than sixteen reasons against the public use of the Athanasian Creed. On the other hand, Dr. Pusey has openly threatened to leave the Established Church if the Athanasian Creed, and with it the doctrinal status of that Church, should be disturbed. Brewer's defense is rather feeble. Bishop Ellicott proposed, in the Convocation of Canterbury, to relieve the difficulty by a revision of the English translation, e.g. by rendering vult salvus esse, 'desires to be in a state of salvation,' instead of 'will be saved.' Others suggest an omission of the damnatory clauses. But the true remedy is either to omit the Athanasian Creed altogether from the Book of Common Prayer, or to leave its public use optional. [87] Bishop White (of Philadelphia): Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, New York, 2d ed. 1836, pp 305, 306. [88] White's Memoires, 26, 27. Bishop White himself was decidedly opposed to the Creed, as was Bishop Provost, of New York. The Archbishop of Canterbury told them afterwards: 'Some wish that you had retained the Athanasian Creed; but I can not say that I feel uneasy on the subject, for you have retained the doctrine of it in your Liturgy, and as to the Creed itself, I suppose you thought it not suited to the use of a congregation' (l.c. 117, 118). [89] Additional Lit. on the Athan. Creed.--Swainson: The Nic. and App. Creeds, with an Account of the Creed of St. Athanasius, London, 1894.--Burn in Robinson's Texts and Studies, 1896.--Ommanney, London, 1897, is inclined to ascribe it to Vincens of Lerins about 450.--Bp. Gore, Oxf., 1897.--J. B. Smith in Contemp. Rev., Apr., 1901.--Oxenham, London, 1902.--J. A. Robinson, London, 1905.--Bp. Jayne, 1905.--W. S. Bishop: Devel. of Trin. Doctr. in the Nic. and Athanas. Creeds, 1910.--H. Brewer (S.J.), Das sogenannte Athanas. Glaubensbekenntniss, 1909.--Burkitt, 1912.--Loofs in Herzog, ii, 177-194, who places its probable origin in Southern France, 450-600.--Badcock inclines to the Ambrosian authorship and calls it a hymn to be memorized. The Abp. of Canterbury, following a resolution of the Lambeth Conference, 1908, appointed a commission of seven, including Bp. Wordsworth of Salisbury, Prof. Swete and Dean Kilpatrick, to prepare a revision of the English translation of the Athanas. Creed. Their report proposed thirteen minor changes. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer prescribed that the Creed be said or sung at morning prayer on thirteen feasts, including Christmas, Easter, Ascension day, and Trinity Sunday. By the order of both Convocations it was omitted and a new rubric inserted, making its use optional on Trinity Sunday. In the "Revised" Book of Common Prayer, recommended by the House of Bishops and rejected by Parliament, 1928, the following rubrics are printed side by side, making the use of the creed optional: "may be sung or said at morning or evening prayer" on the first Sunday after Christmas, the feast of the Annunciation, and Trinity Sunday. 2. On Trinity Sunday, the recitation beginning with clause 3, "The Catholic faith is this," etc., and closing with clause 28. 3. On the Sunday after Christmas and Ascension day, the recitation being from clause 30 to clause 41. 4. On all the thirteen festivals mentioned in the original Book of Common Prayer. A "revised translation is added" which differs from the translation of 1909. See the Translation of 1909 with Latin Text, by H. Turner, London, 1910, 15 pp. and 1918, 23 pp. Also the Book of Com. Prayer with the Additions and Deviations Proposed in 1928, with Pref., Cambr. Press, 1928. By Roman Cath. usage the creed is prescribed for Trinity Sunday and at prime on all Sundays except Easter and such other feasts for which a special service is provided.--Ed. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ THIRD CHAPTER. THE CREEDS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. General Literature. Orthodoxa Confessio catholicae atque apostol. ecclesiae orientalis a Pet. Mogila compos., a Meletio Syrigo aucta et mutata, gr. c. praef. Nectarii curav. Panagiotta, Amst. 1662; cum interpret. lat. ed. Laur. Normann, Leipz. 1695, 8vo; c. interpret. lat. et vers. german, ed. K. Glo. Hofmann, Breslau, 1751, 8vo. Also in Russian: Moscow, 1696; German by J. Leonh. Frisch, Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1727, 4to; Dutch by J. A. Senier, Haarlem, 1722; in Kimmel's Monumenta, P. I. 1843. Clypeus orthodoxae fidei, sive Apologia (Asphis orthodoxias, e apologia kai elenchos) ab Synodo Hierosolymitana (A.D. 1672) sub Hierosolymorum Patriarcha Dositheo composita adversus Calvinistas haereticos, etc. Published at Paris, Greek and Latin, 1676 and 1678: then in Harduini Acta Conciliorum, Par. 1715, Tom. XI. fol. 179-274; also in Kimmel's Monum. P. I. 325-488. Comp. also the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople, held in the same year (1672), and publ. in Hard. l.c. 274-284, and in Kimmel, P. II. 214-227. Confessio cathol. et apostolica in oriente ecclesiae, conscripta compendiose per Metrophanem Critopulum. Ed. et. lat. redd. J. Hornejus, Helmst. 1661, 4to (the title-page has erroneously the date 1561). Cyrilli Lucaris: Confessio christ. fidei graeca cum additam. Cyrilli, Geneva, 1633: graec. et lat. (Condemned as heretical.) Acta et scripta theologorum Wirtembergensium et patriarchae Constantinop. Hieremiae, quae utrique ab a. 1576 usque ad a. 1581 de Augustana Confessione inter se miserunt, gr. et lat. ab iisdem theologis edita, Wittenb. 1584, fol. This work contains the Augsburg Confession in Greek, three epistles of Patriarch Jeremiah, criticising the Augsb. Conf., and the answers of the Tuebingen divines, all in Greek and Latin. E. J. Kimmel and H. Weissenborn: Monumenta fidei ecclesiae orientalis. Primum in unum corpus collegit, variantes lectiones adnotavit, prolegomena addidit, etc., 2 vols., Jenae, 1843-1850. The first part contains the two Confessions of Gennadius, the Confession of Cyrillus Lucaris, the Confessio Orthodoxa, and the Acts of the Synod of Jerusalem. The second part, which is added by Weissenborn, contains the Confessio Metrophanis Critopuli, and the Decretum Synodi Constantinopolitanae, 1672. Kimmel d. 1846. W. Gass: Gennadius und Pletho, Aristotelismus und Platonismus in der griechischen Kirche, nebst einer Abhandlung ueber die Bestreitung des Islam im Mittelalter, Breslau, 1844, in two parts. The second part contains, among other writings of Gennadius and Pletho, the two Confessions of Gennadius (1453) in Greek. By the same: Symbolik der griechischen Kirche, Berlin, 1872. H. W. Blackmore: The Doctrine of the Russian Church, being the Primer or Spelling-book, the Shorter and Longer Catechisms, and a Treatise on the Duty of Parish Priests. Translated from the Slavono-Russian Originals, Aberdeen, 1845. __________________________________________________________________ S: 11. The Seven OEcumenical Councils. The entire Orthodox Greek or Oriental Church, [90] including the Greek Church in Turkey, the national Church in the kingdom of Greece, and the national Church of the Russian Empire, and embracing a membership of about eighty millions, adopts, in common with the Roman communion, the doctrinal decisions of the seven oldest oecumenical Councils, laying especial stress on the Nicene Council and Nicene Creed. These Councils were all summoned by Greek emperors, and controlled by Greek patriarchs and bishops. They are as follows: I. The first Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325; called by Constantine M. II. The first Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381; called by Theodosius M. III. The Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431; called by Theodosius II. IV. The Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451; called by Emperor Marcian and Pope Leo I. V. The second Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553; called by Justinian I. VI. The third Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680; called by Constantine Pogonatus. VII. The second Council of Nicaea, A.D. 787; called by Irene and her son Constantine. The first four Councils are by far the most important, as they settled the orthodox faith on the Trinity and the Incarnation. The fifth Council, which condemned the Three (Nestorian) Chapters, is a mere supplement to the third and fourth. The sixth condemned Monothelitism. The seventh sanctioned the use and worship of images. [91] To these the Greek Church adds the Concilium Quinisextum, [92] held at Constantinople (in Trullo), A.D. 691 (or 692), and frequently also that held in the same city A.D. 879 under Photius the Patriarch; while the Latins reject these two Synods as schismatic, and count the Synod of 869 (the fourth of Constantinople), which deposed Photius and condemned the Iconoclasts, as the eighth oecumenical Council. But these conflicting Councils refer only to discipline and the rivalry between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome. The Greek Church celebrates annually the memory of the seven holy Synods, held during the palmy days of her history, on the first Sunday in Lent, called the 'Sunday of Orthodoxy,' when the service is made to reproduce a dramatic picture of an oecumenical Council, with an emperor, the patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, priests, and deacons in solemn deliberation on the fundamental articles of faith. She looks forward to an eighth oecumenical Council, which is to settle all the controversies of Christendom subsequent to the great schism between the East and the West. Since the last of the seven Councils, the doctrinal system of the Greek Church has undergone no essential change, and become almost petrified. But the Reformation, especially the Jesuitical intrigues and the crypto-Calvinistic movement of Cyril Lucar in the seventeenth century, called forth a number of doctrinal manifestoes against Romanism, and still more against Protestantism. We may divide them into three classes: I. Primary Confessions of public authority: (a) The 'Orthodox Confession,' or Catechism of Peter Mogilas, 1643, indorsed by the Eastern Patriarchs and the Synod of Jerusalem. (b) The Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, or the Confession of Dositheus, 1672. To the latter may be added the similar but less important decisions of the Synods of Constantinople, 1672 (Responsio Dionysii), and 1691 (on the Eucharist). (c) The Russian Catechisms which have the sanction of the Holy Synod, especially the Longer Catechism of Philaret (Metropolitan of Moscow), published by the synodical press, and generally used in Russia since 1839. (d) The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to certain Lutheran divines, in condemnation of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, 1576 (published at Wittenberg, 1584), were sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem, but are devoid of clearness and point, and therefore of little use. II. Secondary Confessions of a mere private character, and hence not to be used as authorities: (a) The two Confessions of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 1453. One of them, purporting to give a dialogue between the Patriarch and the Sultan, is spurious, and the other has nothing characteristic of the Greek system. (b) The Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, subsequently Patriarch of Alexandria, composed during his sojourn in Germany, 1625. It is more liberal than the primary standards. III. Different from both classes is the Confession of Cyril Lucar, 1629, which was repeatedly condemned as heretical (Calvinistic), but gave occasion for the two most important expositions of Eastern orthodoxy. We shall notice these documents in their historical order. __________________________________________________________________ [90] The full name of the Greek Church is 'the Holy Oriental Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church.' The chief stress is laid on the title orthodox. The name Graikos, used by Polybius and since as equivalent to the Latin Graecus, was by the Greeks themselves always regarded as an exotic. Homer has three standing names for the Greeks: Danaoi, Argeioi, and Achaioi; also Panthellenes and Panachaioi. The ancient (heathen) Greeks called themselves Hellenes, the modern (Slavonic) Greeks, till recently, Romans, in distinction from the surrounding Turks. The Greek language, since the founding of the East Roman empire, was called Romaic. [91] Worship in a secondary sense, or douleia, including aspasmos kai timetike proskunesis, but not that adoration or alethine latreia, which belongs only to God. See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Bd. III. p. 440. [92] This Synod is called Quinisexta or penthekte, because it was to be a supplement to the fifth and sixth oecumenical Councils, which had passed doctrinal decrees, but no canons of discipline. It is also called the second Trullan Synod, because it was held 'in Trullo,' a saloon of the imperial palace in Constantinople. The Greeks regard the canons of this Synod as the canons of the fifth and sixth oecumenical Councils, but the Latins never acknowledged the Quinisexta, and called it mockingly 'erratica.' As the dates of the Quinisexta are variously given 686, 691, 692, 712. Comp. Baronius, Annal. ad ann. 692, No. 7, and Hefele, l.c. III. pp. 298 sqq. __________________________________________________________________ S: 12. The Confessions of Gennadius, A.D. 1453. J. C. T. Otto: Des Patriarchen Gennadios von Konstantinopel Confession, Wien, 1864 (35 pp.). See also the work of Gass, quoted p. 43, on Gennadius and Pletho (1844), and an article of Prof. Otto on the Dialogue ascribed to Gennadius, in (Niedner's) Zeitschrift fuer historische Theologie for 1850, III. 399-417. The one or two Confessions which the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Gennadius handed to the Turkish Sultan Mahmoud or Mahomet II., in 1453, comprise only a very general statement of the ancient Christian doctrines, without entering into the differences which divide the Oriental Church from the Latin Communion; yet they have a historical importance, as reflecting the faith of the Greek Church at that time. Georgius Scholarius, a lawyer and philosopher, subsequently called Gennadius, was among the companions and advisers of the Greek Emperor John VII., Palaeologus, and the Patriarch Joasaph, when they, in compliance with an invitation of Pope Eugenius IV., attended the Council of Ferrara and Florence (A.D. 1438 and '39), to consider the reunion of the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches. Scholarius, though not a member of the Synod (being a layman at the time), strongly advocated the scheme, while his more renowned countryman, Georgius Gemistus, commonly called Pletho (d. 1453), opposed it with as much zeal and eloquence. Both were also antagonists in philosophy, Gennadius being an Aristotelian, Pletho a Platonist. The union party triumphed, especially through the influence of Cardinal Bessarion (Archbishop of Nicaea), who at last acceded to the Latin Filioque, as consistent with the Greek per Filium. [93] But when the results of the Council were submitted to the Greek Church for acceptance, the popular sentiment, backed by a long tradition, almost universally discarded them. Scholarius, who in the mean time had become a monk, was compelled to give up his plans of reunion, and he even wrote violently against it. Some attribute this inconsistency to a change of conviction, some to policy; while others, without good reason, doubt the identity of the anti-Latin monk Scholarius with the Latinizing Gennadius. [94] Immediately after the conquest in 1453, Scholarius was elected Patriarch of Constantinople, but held this position only a few years, as he is said to have abdicated in 1457 or 1459, and retired to a convent. This elevation is sufficient proof of his Greek orthodoxy, but may have been aided by motives of policy, inspired by the vain hope of securing, through his influence with the Latin church dignitaries, the assistance of the Western nations against the Turkish invasion. At the request of the Mohammedan conqueror, Gennadius prepared a Confession of the Christian faith. The Sultan received it, invested Gennadius with the patriarchate by the delivery of the crozier or pastoral staff, and authorized him to assure the Greek Christians of freedom in the exercise of their religion. [95] This 'Confession' of Gennadius, [96] or 'Homily on the true faith of the Christians,' was written in Greek, and translated into the Turko-Arabic (the Turkish with Arabic letters) for the use of the Sultan. [97] It treats, in twenty brief sections, of the fundamental doctrines on God, the Trinity, the two natures in the person of Christ, his work, the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body. The doctrine of the Trinity is thus stated: 'We believe that there are in the one God three peculiarities (?diomata tria), which are the principles and fountains of all his other peculiarities . . . and these three peculiarities we call the three subsistences (hupostaeis). . . . We believe that out of the nature (ek tes phuseos) of God spring the Word (logos) and the Spirit (pneuma), as from the fire the light and the heat (hosper apo tou puros phos kai therme). . . . These three, the Mind, the Word, and the Spirit (nous, logos, pneuma), are one God, as in the one soul of man there is the mind (nous), the rational word (logos noetos), and the rational will (thelesis noete); and yet these three are as to essence but one soul (mia psuche kata ten ousian).' [98] The difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit is not touched in this Confession. The relation of the divine and human nature in Christ is illustrated by the relation of the soul and the body in man, both being distinct, and yet inseparably united in one person. At the end (S: 14-20) are added, for the benefit of the Turks, seven arguments for the truth of the Christian religion, viz.: [99] 1. The concurrence of Jewish prophecies and heathen oracles in the pre-announcement of a Saviour. 2. The internal harmony and mutual agreement of the different parts of the Scriptures. 3. The acceptance of the gospel by the greatest and best men among all nations. 4. The spiritual character and tendency of the Christian faith, aiming at divine and eternal ends. 5. The ennobling effect of Christ's religion on the morals of his followers. 6. The harmony of revealed truth with sound reason, and the refutation of all objections which have been raised against it. 7. The victory of the Church over persecution and its indestructibility. The other Confession, ascribed to Gennadius, and generally published with the first, is written in the form of a Dialogue ('Sermocinatio') between the Sultan and the Patriarch, and entitled 'The Way of Life.' [100] The Sultan is represented as asking a number of short questions, such as: 'What is God?' 'Why is he called God (theos)' 'How many Gods are there?' 'How, if there is but one God, can you speak of three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?' 'Why is the Father called Father?' 'Why is the Son called Son?' 'Why is the Holy Spirit called Spirit?' To these the Patriarch replies at some length, dwelling mainly on the doctrine of the Trinity, and illustrating it by the analogy of the sun, light, and heat, and by the trinity of the human mind. But there is no external evidence for the authorship of Gennadius; and the internal evidence is against it. There was no need of two Confessions for the same occasion. There is nothing characteristic of a Mohammedan in the questions of the Sultan. The text is more loose and prolix in style than the genuine Confession; it contains some absurd etymologies unworthy of Gennadius; [101] and it expressly teaches the Latin doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit. [102] For these reasons, we must either deny the authorship of Gennadius, or the integrity of the received text. [103] At all events, it can not be regarded in its present form even as a secondary standard of Greek orthodoxy. __________________________________________________________________ [93] See, on the transactions of this Council, Mansi, Tom. XXXI., and Werner: Geschichte der apologetischen and polemischen Literatur, Vol. III. pp. 57 sqq. [94] Karyophilus, Allatius, and Kimmel deny the identity of the two persons; Robert Creygthon, Renaudot (1704), Richard Simon, Spanheim, and Gass defend it. Spanheim, however, regards the unionistic writings as interpolations. Allatius and Kimmel maintain that Gennadius continued friendly to the union as Patriarch, but Karyophilus supposes that the unionistic Scholarius died before the conquest of Constantinople, and never was Patriarch. See Kimmel, Monumenta, etc., Prolegomena, p. vi.; Gass, l.c. Vol. I. pp. 5 sqq., and Werner, l.c. Vol. III. pp. 67 sqq. Scholarius was a fertile writer of homilies, hymns, philosophical and theological essays. Four of these are edited in Greek by W. Gass, viz., his Confession, the Dialogue De via salutis, the book Contra Automatistas et Hellenistas, and the book De providentia et praedestinatione (l.c. Vol. II. pp. 3-146). [95] An account of the interview is given in the Historia patriarcharum qui sederunt in hac magna catholicaque ecclesia Constantinopolitanensi postquam cepit eam Sultanus Mechemeta, written in modern Greek by Emmanuel Malaxas, a Peloponnesian, and sent by him to Prof. M. Crusius, in Tuebingen, who translated and published it in his Turco-Graecia, 1584. Crusius and Chytraeus were prominent in a fruitless effort to convert the Greek Church to Lutheranism. [96] Kimmel calls it the second Confession, counting the Dialogue (which is of questionable authenticity; see below) as the first. But Gass more appropriately prints the Confession first, and the Dialogue afterwards, under its own proper title, De Via Salutis. [97] The title of the Vienna MS. as published by Otto is: Tou aidesimotatou patriarchou Konstantinoupoleos | GENNADIOU SChOLARIOU | Biblion peri tinon kephalaion tes hemeteras | pisteos. The title as given by Gass from a MS. in Munich reads: Tou agiotatou kai patriarchou kai philosophou | GENNADIOU | homilia peri tes orthes kai alethous | pisteos ton Christianon. In other titles it is called homlogia or homologesis. This Confession (together with the Dialogue on the Way of Life) was first published in Greek at Vienna by Prof. John Alex. Brassicanus (Kohlburger), in 1530; then in Latin by J. Harold (in his Haeresiologia, Basil. 1556, from which it passed into the Patristic Libraries, Bibl. P. P. Lugdun. Tom. XXVI. 556, also B. P. P. Colon. Tom. XIV. 376, and B. P. P. Par. Tom. IV.); then in Greek and Latin by David Chytraeus (in his Oratio de statu ecclesiarum hoc tempore in Graecia, Asia, Boemia, etc., Frankf. 1583, pp. 173 sqq.); and soon afterwards in Greek, Latin, and Turkish by Mart. Crusius of Tuebingen (in his Turco-Graecia, Basil. 1584, lib. II. 109 sqq.). The text of Crusius differs from the preceding editions. He took it from a copy sent to him, together with the Sultan's answer, by Emmanuel Malaxas. Two other editions of the Greek text were published by J. von Fuchten, Helmst. 1611, and by Ch. Daum, Cygneae (Zwickau), 1677 (Hieronymi theologi Graeci dialogus de Trinitate, etc.). Kimmel followed the text of Chytraeus, compared with that of Crusius and the different readings in the Bibl. Patr. Lugdun. See his Proleg. p xx. The last and best editions of the Greek text of the Confession are by Gass, l.c. II. 3-15, who used three MSS., and compared older Greek editions and Latin versions; and by Otto (1864), who (like Brassicanus) reproduced the text of the Vienna Codex after a careful re-examination, and added the principal variations of Brassicanus and Gass. [98] Compare, on the Trinitarian doctrine of Gennadius and its relation to Latin Scholasticism, the exposition of Gass, I. 82 sqq. Kimmel and Otto (l.c. p. 400) make him a Platonist, but there are also some Aristotelian elements in him. [99] This apologetic appendix is omitted in the editions of Brassicanus and Fuchten, and is rejected by Otto as a later addition (l.c. pp. 5-11). [100] De Via Salutis. The full title, as given by Gass, l.c. II. 16, and Otto, l.c. p. 409, reads: Tou aidesimotatou patriarchou Konstantinoupoleos GENNADIOU SChOLARIOU Biblion suntomon te kai saphes peri tinon kephalaion tes hemeteras pisteos, peri on he dialexis gegone meta Amoira tou Machoumetou, ho kai epigegraptai peri tes odou tes soterias (ton) anthropon. The tract was published three times in Greek in the seventeenth century--by Brassicanus, Vienna, 1530; by Joh. von Fuchten, Helmstaedt, 1611 (or 1612); and by Daum, Zwickau, 1677; but each of these editions is exceedingly rare. The Latin version was repeated in several patristic collections, but with more or less omissions or additions (occasionally in favor of the Romish system). We have now two correct editions of the Greek text, one by Gass (1844), and another by Otto (1850; the latter was originally intended for an Appendix to Kimmel's collection). Kimmel gives only the Latin version, having been unable to obtain the Greek original (Proleg. p. xx.), and seems to confound the special title with the joint title for both Confessions; see Bibl. P. P. Colon. XIV. 378; Werner. l.c. III. 68. note. The Dialogue has also found its way into the writings of Athanasius (Opera, Tom. II. 280. Patav. 1777, or II. 335, ed. Paris, 1698), but without a name or an allusion to the Sultan, simply as a dialogue between a Christian bishop and a catechumen, and with considerable enlargements and adaptations to the standard of Greek orthodoxy. Comp. Gass, I. pp. 89 sqq., II. pp. 16-30, and Otto, p. 407. [101] The word theos, is derived from theorein (apo tou theorein ta panta hoionei theoros), and also from theein, percurrere (ho gar theos aei kai pantachou parestin); pater is derived from terein (apo tou ta panta terein), huios from hoios, talis (qualis enim Pater, talis Filius), pneuma from noeo, intelligo (panta gar oxeos epinoei). [102] In the Latin Version (Kimmel, p. 3): 'Quemadmodum substantia solis producit radios, et a sole et radiis procedit lumen: ita Pater generat Filium seu Verbum ejus, et a Patre et Filio Procedit Spiritus Sanctus.' In the Greek text (Gass, II. 19): Hosper ho diskos ho heliakos genna ten aktina, kai para tou heliou kai ton aktinon ekporeuetai to phos ; houto ho theos kai pater genna ton huion kai logon autou, kai ek tou patros kai huiou ekporeuetai to pneuma to hagion. A Greek Patriarch could not have maintained himself with such an open avowal of the Latin doctrine. The text of Pseudo-Athanasius urges the processio a solo Patre, and removes all other approaches to the Latin dogma. [103] See Gass, I. p. 100, and Symb. der griech. Kirche, p. 38; Otto, p. 405. Both reject the authenticity of the Dialogue. __________________________________________________________________ S: 13. The Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah to the Lutherans, A.D. 1576. Acta et Scripta theolog. Wuertemberg. et Patriarchae Constant. Hieremiae, quoted p. 43. Martin Crusius: Turco-Graecia, Basil. 1584. Mouravieff: History of the Church of Russia, translated by Blackmore, pp. 289-324. Hefele (now Bishop of Rottenburg): Ueber die alten und neuen Versuche, den Orient zu protestantisiren, in the Tuebinger Theol. Quartalschrift, 1843, p. 544. Art. Jeremias II., in Herzog's Encyklop. 2d ed. Vol. VI. pp. 530-532. Gass: Symbolik d. gr. K. pp. 41 sqq. Melanchthon, who had the reunion of Christendom much at heart, especially in the later part of his life, first opened a Protestant correspondence with the Eastern Church by sending, through the hands of a Greek deacon, a Greek translation (made by Paul Dolscius) of the Augsburg Confession to Patriarch Joasaph II. of Constantinople, but apparently without effect. Several years afterwards, from 1573-75, two distinguished professors of theology at Tuebingen, Jacob Andreae, one of the authors of the Lutheran 'Form of Concord' (d. 1590), and Martin Crusius, a rare Greek scholar (d. 1607), [104] on occasion of the ordination of Stephen Gerlach for the Lutheran chaplaincy of the German legation at the Sublime Porte, forwarded to the Patriarch of Constantinople commendatory letters, and soon afterwards several copies of the Augsburg Confession in Greek (printed at Basle, 1559), together with a translation of some sermons of Andreae, and solicited an official expression of views on the Lutheran doctrines, which they thought were in harmony with those of the Eastern Church. At that time Jeremiah II. was Patriarch of Constantinople (from 1572-94), a prelate distinguished neither for talent or learning, but for piety and misfortune, and for his connection with the Russian Church at an important epoch of its history. He was twice arbitrarily deposed, saw the old patriarchal church turned into a mosque, and made a collecting tour through Russia, where he was received with great honor, and induced to confer upon the Metropolitan of Moscow the patriarchal dignity over Russia (1589), and thus to lay the foundation of the independence of the Russian Church. [105] After considerable delay, Jeremiah replied to the Lutheran divines at length, in 1576, and subjected the Augsburg Confession to an unfavorable criticism, rejecting nearly all its distinctive doctrines, and commending only its indorsement of the early oecumenical Synods and its view on the marriage of priests. [106] The Tuebingen professors sent him an elaborate defense (1577), with other documents, but Jeremiah, two years afterwards, only reaffirmed his former position, and when the Lutherans troubled him with new letters, apologetic and polemic, he declined all further correspondence, and ceased to answer. [107] The documents of both parties were published at Wittenberg, 1584. The Answers of Jeremiah received the approval of the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, [108] and may be regarded, therefore, as truly expressing the spirit of the Eastern Communion towards Protestantism. It is evident from the transactions of the Synod of Jerusalem that the Greek Church rejects Lutheranism and Calvinism alike as dangerous heresies. The Anglican Church has since made several attempts to bring about an intercommunion with the orthodox East, especially with the Russo-Greek Church, during the reign of Peter the Great, and again in our own days, but so far without practical effect beyond the exchange of mutual courtesies and the expression of a desire for the reunion of orthodox Christendom. [109] __________________________________________________________________ [104] He was able to take Andreae's sermons down in Greek as they were delivered in German. [105] Mouravieff gives an interesting account of this visit of Jeremiah, who styled himself 'by the grace of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, which is new Rome, and Patriarch of the whole universe.' He made his solemn entry into the Kremlin seated on an ass, and presented to the Czar several rich relics, among which are mentioned 'a gold Panagia [picture of the Virgin Mary], with morsels of the life-giving Cross, of the Robe of the Lord, and of that of the Mother of God, incased within it, as well as portions of the instruments of our Lord's Passion, the Spear, the Reed, the Sponge, and the Crown of Thorns.' [106] This third letter of Jeremiah is called Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae, and covers nearly ninety pages folio. His first two letters are brief, and do not enter into doctrinal discussions. [107] Vitus Myller, in his funeral discourse on Crusius, complains of the Greeks as being prouder and more superstitious than the Papists (pontificiis longe magis superstitiosi). Crusius edited also a Greek translation of four volumes of Lutheran sermons (Corona anni, stephanos tou eniautou, Wittemb. 1603) for the benefit of the Greek people, but with no better success. [108] In Kimmel's Monumenta, Vol. I. p. 378. [109] See beyond, S: 20. __________________________________________________________________ S: 14. The Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, A.D. 1625. Kimmel, Vol. II. pp. 1-213. Dietelmaier: De Metrophane Critopulo, etc., Altdorf, 1769. Fabricius: Biblioth. Graeca, ed. Harless, Vol. XI. pp. 597-599. Gass: Art. M. K. in Herzog's Encylop. Vol. 2d ed. Vol. IX pp. 726-729. Next in chronological order comes the Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, once Patriarch of Alexandria, which was written in 1625, though not published till 1661. Metrophanes Critopulus was a native of Beroea, in Macedonia, and educated at Mount Athos. Cyril Lucar, then Patriarch of Alexandria, sent him to England, Germany, and Switzerland (1616), with a recommendation to the Archbishop of Canterbury (George Abbot), that he might be thoroughly educated to counteract, in behalf of the Greek Church, the intrigues of the Jesuits. [110] The Archbishop kindly received him, and, with the consent of King James I., secured him a place in one of the colleges of Oxford. In 1620 Metrophanes visited the Universities of Wittenberg, Tuebingen, Altdorf, Strasburg, and Helmstaedt. He acquired good testimonials for his learning and character. He entered into close relations with Calixtus and a few like-minded Lutheran divines, who dissented from the exclusive confessionalism and scholastic dogmatism of the seventeenth century, and labored for Catholic union on the basis of the primitive creeds. At their request Metrophanes prepared a work on the faith and worship of the orthodox Greek Church. He also wrote a number of philological essays. After spending some time in Venice as teacher of the Greek language, he returned to the East, and became successor of Cyril Lucar in Alexandria. But he disappointed the hopes of his patron, and, as a member of the Synod of Constantinople, 1638, he even took part in his condemnation. The year of his death is unknown. The Confession of Metrophanes [111] discusses, in twenty-three chapters, all the leading doctrines and usages of the Eastern Church. It is a lengthy theological treatise rather than a Confession of faith. It has never received ecclesiastical sanction, and is ignored by the Synod of Jerusalem; hence it ought not to be quoted as an authority, as is done by Winer and other writers on Symbolics. Nevertheless, as a private exposition of the Greek faith, it is of considerable interest. Although orthodox in the main, it yet presents the more liberal and progressive aspect of Eastern theology. It was intended to give a truthful account of the Greek faith, but betrays the influence of the Protestant atmosphere in which it was composed. It is strongly opposed to Romanism, but abstains from all direct opposition to Protestantism, and is even respectfully dedicated to the Lutheran theological faculty of Helmstaedt, where it was written. [112] In this respect it is the counterpart or complement of the Confession of Dositheus, which, in its zeal against Protestantism, almost ignores the difference from Romanism. [113] Thus Metrophanes excludes the Apocrypha from the canon, denies in name (though maintaining in substance) the doctrine of purgatory, and makes a distinction between sacraments proper, viz., baptism, eucharist, and penance, and a secondary category of sacramental or mystical rites, viz., confirmation (or chrisma), ordination, marriage, and unction. __________________________________________________________________ [110] See the letter in Kimmel, Preface to Vol. II. p. vii., and in Colomesii, Opera, quoted there. On Cyril Lucar, see the next section. [111] Homologia tes anatolikes ekklesias tes katholikes kai apostolikes, sungrapheisa en epitome dia Metrophanous Hieromonachou Patriarchikou te Protosungellou tou Kritopoulou. Confessio catholicae et apostolicae in Orienti ecclesiae, conscripta compendiose per Metrophanem Critopulum, Hieromonachum et Patriarchalem Protosyngellum. It was first published in Greek, with a Latin translation, by J. Hornejus, at Helmstaedt. 1661. Kimmel compared with this ed. the MS. which is preserved in the library at Wolfenbuettel, but he died before his edition appeared, with a preface of Weissenborn (1850). [112] Nicolaus Comnenus called Metrophanes a Graeco-Lutheranus, but without good reason. [113] See below, S: 17. __________________________________________________________________ S: 15. The Confession of Cyril Lucar, A.D. 1631. Literature. Cyrilli Lucaris Confessio Christianae fidei, Latin, 1629; c. additam. Cyrilli, Gr. et Lat., Genev. 1633; (? Amst.) 1645, and often; also in Kimmel's Monumenta fidei Ecclesiae Orient. P. I. pp. 24-44. Compare Proleg. pp. xxi.-l. (de vita Cyrilli). Thom. Smith: Collectanea de Cyrillo Lucari, London, 1707. Comp. also, in Th. Smith's Miscellanea (Hal. 1724), his Narratio de vita, studiis, gestis et martyrio C. Lucaris. Leo Allatius (d. at Rome, 1669): De Ecclesiae Occidentalis atque Orientalis perpetua consensione, libri tres (III. 11), Gr. et Lat. Colon. 1648. Bitter and slanderous against Cyril. J. H. Hottinger: Analecta hist. theol. Dissert. VIII., Appendix, Tigur. 1653 (al. 1652). Against him, L. Allatius: J. H. Hottingerus, fraudis et imposturae manifestae convictus, Rom. 1661. J. Aymon: Lettres anecdotes de Cyrille Lucaris, Amsterd. 1718. Bohnstedt: De Cyrillo Lucari, Halle, 1724. Mohnike: On Cyril, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1832, p. 560. Several articles on Cyril Lucar, in the British Magazine for Sept. 1842, Dec. 1843, Jan. and June, 1844. Twesten: On Cyril, in the Deutsche Zeitechr. f. christl. Wissensch. u. chr. Leben, Berl. 1850, No. 39, p. 305. W. Gass: Article 'Lukaris,' in Herzog's Encyklop. 2d ed. Vol. IX. pp. 5 sqq.; and Symbolik, pp. 50 sqq. Aloysius Pichler (Rom. Cath.): Der Patriarch Cyrillus Lucaris und seine Zeit, Muenchen, 1862, 8vo. (The author has since joined the Greek Church.) The Confession of Cyril Lucar was never adopted by any branch or party of the Eastern Church, and even repeatedly condemned as heretical; but as it gave rise to the later authentic definitions of the 'Orthodox Faith,' in opposition to the distinctive doctrines of Romanism and Protestantism, it must be noticed here. Cyrillus Lucaris (Kyrillos Loukaris [114] ), a martyr of Protestantism within the orthodox Greek Church, occupies a remarkable position in the conflict of the three great Confessions to which the Reformation gave rise. He is the counterpart of his more learned and successful, but less noble, antagonist, Leo Allatius (1586-1669), who openly apostatized from the Greek Church to the Roman, and became librarian of the Vatican. His work is a mere episode, and passed away apparently without permanent effect, but (like the attempted reformations of Wyclif, Huss, and Savonarola) it may have a prophetic meaning for the future, and be resumed by Providence in a better form. Cyril Lucar was born in 1568 or 1572 in Candia (Crete), then under the sovereignty of Venice, and the only remaining seat of Greek learning. He studied and traveled extensively in Europe, and was for a while rector and Greek teacher in the Russian Seminary at Ostrog, in Volhynia. In French Switzerland he became acquainted with the Reformed Church, and embraced its faith. Subsequently he openly professed it in a letter to the Professors of Geneva (1636), through Leger, a minister from Geneva, who had been sent to Constantinople. He conceived the bold plan of ingrafting Protestant doctrines on the old oecumenical creeds of the Eastern Church, and thereby reforming the same. He was unanimously elected Patriarch of Alexandria in 1602 (?), and of Constantinople in 1621. While occupying these high positions he carried on an extensive correspondence with Protestant divines in Switzerland, Holland, and England, sent promising youths to Protestant universities, and imported a press from England (1629) to print his Confession and several Catechisms. But he stood on dangerous ground, between vacillating or ill-informed friends and determined foes. The Jesuits, with the aid of the French embassador at the Sublime Porte, spared no intrigues to counteract and checkmate his Protestant schemes, and to bring about instead a union of the Greek hierarchy with Rome. At their instigation his printing-press was destroyed by the Turkish government. He himself--in this respect another Athanasius 'versus mundum,' though not to be compared in intellectual power to the 'father of orthodoxy'--was five times deposed, and five times reinstated. At last, however--unlike Athanasius, who died in peaceful possession of his patriarchal dignity--he was strangled to death in 1638, having been condemned by the Sultan for alleged high-treason, and his body was thrown into the Bosphorus. His friends surrounded the palace of his successor, Cyril of Beroea, crying, 'Pilate, give us the dead, that we may bury him.' [115] The corpse was washed ashore, but it was only obtained by Cyril's adherents after having been once more cast out and returned by the tide. The next Patriarch, Parthenius, granted him finally an honorable burial. Cyril left no followers able or willing to carry on his work, but the agitation he had produced continued for several years, and called forth defensive measures. His doctrines were anathematized by Patriarch Cyril of Beroea and a Synod of Constantinople (Sept., 1638), [116] then again by the Synods of Jassy, in Moldavia, 1643, and of Jerusalem, 1672; but on the last two occasions the honor of his name and the patriarchal dignity were saved by boldly denying the authenticity of his Confession, and contradicting it by written documents from his pen. [117] This Cyril was the same who seat the famous uncial Codex Alexandrinus of the Bible (A) to King Charles I. of England, [118] and who translated the New Testament into the modern Greek language. [119] The Confession of Cyril was first written by him in Latin, 1629, and then in Greek, with an addition of four questions and answers, 1631, and published in both languages at Geneva, 1633. [120] It expresses his own individual faith, which he vainly hoped would become the faith of the Greek Church. It is divided into eighteen brief chapters, each fortified with Scripture references; eight chapters contain the common old Catholic doctrine, while the rest bear a distinctly Protestant character. In Chapter I. the dogma of the Trinity is plainly stated in agreement with the oecumenical creeds, the procession of the Spirit in the conciliatory terms of the Council of Florence. [121] Chapters IV. and V. treat of the doctrines of creation and divine government; Chapter VI., of the fall of man; Chapters VII. and VIII., of the twofold state of Christ, his incarnation and humiliation, and his exaltation and sitting on the right hand of the Father, as the Mediator of mankind and the Ruler of his Church (status exinanitionis and st. exaltationis); Chapter IX., of faith in general; Chapter XVI., of baptismal regeneration. The remaining ten chapters breathe the Reformed spirit. Chapter II. asserts that 'the authority of the Scriptures is superior to the authority of the Church,' since the Scriptures alone, being divinely inspired, can not err. [122] In the appendix to the second (the Greek) edition, Cyril commends the general circulation of the Scriptures, and maintains their perspicuity in matters of faith, but excludes the Apocrypha, and rejects the worship of images. He believes 'that the Church is sanctified and taught by the Holy Spirit in the way of life,' but denies its infallibility, saying: 'The Church is liable to sin (hamartanein), and to choose the error instead of the truth (anti tes aletheias to pseudos eklegesthai); from such error we can only be delivered by the teaching and the light of the Holy Spirit, and not of any mortal man' (Ch. XII.). The doctrine of justification (Chapter XIII.) is stated as follows: 'We believe that man is justified by faith, not by works. But when we say "by faith," we understand the correlative of faith, viz., the Righteousness of Christ, which faith, fulfilling the office of the hand, apprehends and applies to us for salvation. And this we understand to be fully consistent with, and in no wise to the prejudice of, works; for the truth itself teaches us that works also are not to be neglected, and that they are necessary means and testimonies of our faith, and a confirmation of our calling. But, as human frailty bears witness, they are of themselves by no means sufficient to save man, and able to appear at the judgment-seat of Christ, so as to merit the reward of salvation. The righteousness of Christ, applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the believer.' The freedom of will before regeneration is denied (Ch. XIV.). [123] In the doctrine of decrees, Cyril agrees with the Calvinistic system (Ch. III.), and thereby offended Grotius and the Arminians. He accepts, with the Protestants, only two sacraments as being instituted by Christ, instead of seven, and requires faith as a condition of their application (Ch. XV.). He rejects the dogma of transubstantiation and oral manducation, and teaches the Calvinistic theory of a real but spiritual presence and fruition of the body and blood of Christ by believers only (Ch. XVII.). In the last chapter he rejects the doctrine of purgatory and of the possibility of repentance after death. __________________________________________________________________ [114] Properly 'the son of Lucar,' hence tou Loukareos. The word loukar in later Greek is the Latin lucar, or lucrum, stipend, pay, profit, whence the French and English lucre. [115] Pilate, dos hemin ton nekron, hina auton thapsomen. [116] Cyril of Beroea seemed to assume the authenticity of Cyril's Confession. He was, however, himself afterwards deposed and anathematized on the charge of extortion and embezzlement of ecclesiastical funds, and for the part he took in procuring the death of Cyril Lucar by preferring false accusation against him to the Turks. See Mouravieff, Hist. of the Church of Russia, translated by Blackmore, p. 396. Blackmore, however, gives there a wrong date, assigning the death of Cyril to 1628 instead of 1638. [117] The Synods of Jassy and Jerusalem intimate that Cyril's Confession was a Calvinistic forgery, and the Synod of Jerusalem quotes largely from his homilies to prove his orthodoxy. Mouravieff, l.c. p. 189, adopts a middle view, saying: 'Cyril, although he had condemned the new doctrine of Calvin, nevertheless had not stood up decidedly and openly to oppose it, and for his neglect he was himself delivered over to an anathema by his successor, Cyril of Beroea.' [118] Not to James I. (who died 1625), as Kimmel and Gass wrongly state. Cyril brought the Codex with him from Alexandria, or, according to another report, from Mount Athos, and sent it to England in 1628, where it passed from the king's library into the British Museum, 1753. It dates from the fifth century, and contains the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, the whole New Testament, with some chasms, and, as an Appendix, the only MS. copy extant of the first Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, with a fragment of a second Epistle. The New Test. has been edited in quasi-fac-simile, by Woide, Lond. 1786, fol., and in ordinary Greek type by Cowper, Lond. 1860. [119] Published at Geneva or Leyden, 1638, and at London, 1703. [120] The Latin edition was first published in 1529, either at the Hague (by the Dutch embassador Cornelius Van der Haga) or at Geneva, or at both places; the authorities I have consulted differ. The subscription to the Graeco-Latin edition before me reads: 'Datum Constantinopoli mense Januario 1631 Cyrillus Patriarcha Constantinopoleos.' Another edition (perhaps by Hugo Grotius) was published 1645, without indication of place (perhaps at Amsterdam). I have used Kimmel's edition, which gives the text of the edition of 1645. [121] 'Spiritus Sanctus a Patre Per Filium procedens,' ek tou patros di huiou. [122] 'Credimus Scripturam sacram esse theodidakton (i. e., a Deo traditam) habereque auctorem Spiritum Sanctum, non alium, cui habere debemus fidem indubitam. . . . Propterea ejus auctoritatem esse superiorem Ecclesiae auctoritate; nimis enim differens est, loqui Spiritum Sanctum et linguam humanam, quum ista possit per ignorantiam errare, fallere et falli, Scriptura vero divina nec fallitur, nec errare potest, sed est infallibilis semper et certa.' [123] Pisteuomen en tois ouk anagennetheisi to autexousion nekron einai. This is in direct opposition to the traditional doctrine of the Greek Church, which emphasizes the liberum arbitrium even more than the Roman, and was never affected by the Augustinian anthropology. __________________________________________________________________ S: 16. The Orthodox Confession of Mogilas, A.D. 1643. The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church [124] was originally drawn up about the year 1640 by Peter Mogilas (or Mogila), Metropolitan of Kieff, and father of Russian theology (died 1647), in the form of a Catechism for the benefit of the Russian Church. [125] It was revised and adopted by a Provincial Synod at Kieff for Russia, then again corrected and purged by a Synod of the Greek and Russian clergy at Jassy, in 1643, where it received its present shape by Meletius Syriga, or Striga, the Metropolitan of Nicaea, and exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople. As thus improved, it was sent to, and signed by, the four Eastern Patriarchs. The Synod of Jerusalem gave it a new sanction in 1672 (declaring it a homologia, hen edexato kai dechetai hapaxaplos pasa he anatolike ekklesia). In this way it became the Creed of the entire Greek and Russian Church. It has been the basis of several later Catechisms prepared by Russian divines. The Orthodox Confession was a defensive measure against Romanism and Protestantism. It is directed, first, against the Jesuits who, under the protection of the French embassadors in Constantinople, labored to reconcile the Greek Church with the Pope; and, secondly, against the Calvinistic movement, headed by Cyril Lucar, and continued after his death. [126] It is preceded by a historical account of its composition and publication, a pastoral letter of Nectarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, dated Nov. 20, 1662; and by a letter of indorsement of the Greek text from Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople, dated March 11, 1643, [127] followed by the signatures of twenty-six Patriarchs and prelates of the Eastern Church. The letter of Parthenius is as follows: 'Parthenius, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and OEcumenical Patriarch. Our mediocrity, [128] together with our sacred congregation of chief bishops and clergy present, has diligently perused a small book, transmitted to us from our true sister, the Church of Lesser Russia, entitled "The Confession of the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ," in which the whole subject is treated under the three heads of Faith, Love, and Hope, in such a manner that Faith is divided into twelve articles, to wit, those of the sacred [Nicene] Symbol; Love into the Ten Commandments, and such other necessary precepts as are contained in the sacred and divinely inspired books of the Old and New Testaments; Hope into the Lord's Prayer and the nine Beatitudes of the holy Gospel. 'We have found that this book follows faithfully the dogmas of the Church of Christ, and agrees with the sacred canons, and in no respect differs from them. As to the other part of the book, that which is in the Latin tongue, on the side opposite to the Greek text, we have not perused it, so that we only formally confirm that which is in our vernacular tongue. With our common synodical sentence, we decree, and we announce to every pious and orthodox Christian subject to the Eastern and Apostolic Church, that this book is to be diligently read, and not to be rejected. Which, for the perpetual faith and certainty of the fact, we guard by our subscriptions. In the year of salvation 1643, 11th day of March.' The Confession itself begins with three preliminary questions and answers. Question first: 'What must an orthodox and Catholic Christian man observe in order to inherit eternal life?' Answer: 'Right faith and good works (pistin orthen kai erga kala); for he who observes these is a good Christian, and has the hope of eternal salvation, according to the sacred Scriptures (James ii. 24): "Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only;" and a little after (v. 26): "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." The divine Paul adds the same in another place (1 Tim. i. 19): "Holding faith and a good conscience; which some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck;" and, in another place, he says (1 Tim. iii. 9): "Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience."' This is essentially the same with the Roman Catholic doctrine. It is characteristic that no passage is cited from the Romans and Galatians, which are the bulwark of the evangelical Protestant view of justification by faith. The second Question teaches that faith must precede works, because it is impossible to please God without faith (Heb. xi. 6). The third Question treats of the division of the Catechism according to the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity. The Catechism is therefore divided into three parts. 1. Part first treats of Faith (peri pisteos), and explains the Nicene Creed, which is divided into twelve articles, and declared to contain all things pertaining to our faith so accurately 'that we should believe nothing more and nothing less, nor in any other sense than that in which the fathers [of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople] understood it' (Qu. 5). The clause Filioque is, of course, rejected as an unwarranted Latin interpolation and corruption (Qu. 72). 2. Part second treats of Hope (peri elpidos), and contains an exposition of the Lord's Prayer and the (nine) Beatitudes (Matt. v. 3-11). 3. Part third treats of Love to God and man (peri tes eis theon kai ton plesion agapes), and gives an exposition of the Decalogue; but this is preceded by forty-five questions on the three cardinal virtues of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, and the four general virtues which flow out of them (prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance), on mortal and venial sins, on the seven general mortal sins (pride, avarice, fornication, envy, gluttony, desire of revenge, and sloth), on the sins against the Holy Ghost (presumption or temerity, despair, persistent opposition to the truth, and renouncing of the Christian faith), and on venial sins. In the division of the Ten Commandments the Greek Confession agrees with the Reformed Church in opposition to the Roman and Lutheran Churches, which follow the less natural division of Augustine by merging the second commandment in the first, and then dividing the tenth. __________________________________________________________________ [124] Orthodoxos homologia tes katholikes kai apostolikes ekklesias tes anatolikes. It is uncertain whether it was first written in Greek or in Russ. First published in Greek by Panagiotta, Amst. 1662; then in Greek and Latin by Bishop Normann, of Gothenburg (then Professor at Upsala), Leipz. 1695; in Greek, Latin, and German by C. G. Hofmann, Breslau, 1751; by Patriarch Adrian in Russian, Moscow, 1696, and again in 1839, etc.; in Kimmel's Momum. I. 56-324 (Greek and Latin, with the letters of Nectarius and Parthenius). Comp. Kimmel's Proleg. pp. lxii. sqq. The Confession must not be confounded with the Short Russian Catechism by the same author (Peter Mogilas). [125] The following account of Mogilas is translated from the Russian of Bolchofsky by Blackmore (The Doctrine of the Russian Church, p. xviii.): 'Peter Mogila belonged by birth to the family of the Princes of Moldavia, and before he became an ecclesiastic had distinguished himself as a soldier. After having embraced the monastic life, he became first Archimandrite of the Pechersky, and subsequently, in 1632, Metropolitan of Kieff, to which dignity he was ordained by authority of Cyril Lucar [then Patriarch of Constantinople], with the title of Eparch, or Exarch of the Patriarchal See. He sat about fifteen years, and died in 1647. Besides the Orthodox Confession, he put out, in 1645, in the dialect of Little Russia, his Short Catechism; composed a Preface prefixed to the Patericon; corrected, in 1646, from Greek and Slavonic MSS., the Trebnik, or Office-book, and added to each Office doctrinal, casuistical, and ceremonial instructions. He also caused translations to be made from the Greek Lives of the Saints, by Metaphrastus, though this work remained unfinished at his death; and, lastly, he composed a Short Russian Chronicle, which is preserved in MS., but has never yet been printed. He was the founder of the first Russian Academy at Kieff.' It was called, after him, the Kievo-Mogilian Academy. He also founded a library and a printing-press. See a fuller account of Peter Mogilas in Mouravieff's History of the Church of Russia, translated by Blackmore (Oxford, 1842), pp. 186-189. It is there stated that he received his education in the University of Paris. This accounts for the tinge of Latin scholasticism in his Confession. [126] See S: 15. Mouravieff, in his Hist. of the Church of Russia, p. 188, distinctly asserts that the Confession was directed both against the Jesuits and against 'the Calvinistic heresy,' which, 'under the name of Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople,' had been disseminated in the East by 'crafty teachers.' As Cyril and the Calvinists are not mentioned by name in the Orthodox Confession, another Russian writer, quoted by Blackmore (The Doctrine of the Russian Church, p. xx.), thinks that Mogilas wrote against the Lutherans rather than the Calvinists; adding, however, that it is chiefly directed against the Papists, from whom danger was most apprehended. [127] This is the date (achmg') given by Kimmel, P. I. p. 53, and the date of the Synod of Jassy, where the Confession was adopted. Butler (Hist. Acc. of Conf. of Faith, p. 101) gives the year 1663; but the Confession was already published in 1662 with the letters of the two Patriarchs. See Kimmel, Proleg. p. lxii. [128] he metriotes he mon, a title of proud humility, like the papal 'servus servorum Dei,' which dates from Gregory I. __________________________________________________________________ S: 17. The Synod of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus, A.D. 1672. Hardouin: Acta Conciliorum (Paris, 1715), Tom. XI. pp. 179-274. Kimmel: Monumenta Fidei Ecclesiae Orientalis, P. I. pp. 325-488; Prolegomena, pp. lxxv.-xcii. On the Synod of Jerusalem, comp. also Ittig: Dissert. de Actis Synodi Hieros. a. 1672 sub Patr. Hiers. Dositheo adv. Calvinistas habitae, Lips. 1696. Aymon: Monuments authentiques de la religion des Grecs, `a la Haye, 1708. Basnage: Hist. de la religion des eglises reformees, P. I. ch. xxxii. J. Covel: Account of the present Greek Church, Bk. I. ch. v. Schroeckh: Kirchengeschichte seit der Reformation, Bd. ix. (by Tzschirner), pp. 90-96. Gass: Symb. der griech. Kirche, pp. 79-84. The Synod convened at Jerusalem in March, 1672, by Patriarch Dositheus, for the consecration of the restored Church of the Holy Nativity in Bethlehem, [129] issued a new Defense or Apology of Greek Orthodoxy. It is directed against Calvinism, which was still professed or secretly held by many admirers of Cyril Lucar. It is dated Jerusalem, March 16, 1672, and signed by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Palestine (otherwise little known), and by sixty-eight Eastern bishops and ecclesiastics, including some from Russia. [130] This Synod is the most important in the modern history of the Eastern Church, and may be compared to the Council of Trent. Both fixed the doctrinal status of the Churches they represent, and both condemned the evangelical doctrines of Protestantism. Both were equally hierarchical and intolerant, and present a strange contrast to the first Synod held in Jerusalem, when 'the apostles and elders,' in the presence of 'the brethren,' freely discussed and adjusted, in a spirit of love, without anathemas, the great controversy between the Gentile and the Jewish Christians. The Synod of Jerusalem has been charged by Aymon and others with subserviency to the interests of Rome; Dositheus being in correspondence with Nointel, the French embassador at Constantinople. The Synod was held at a time when the Romanists and Calvinists in France fiercely disputed about the Eucharist, and were anxious to secure the support of the Greek Church. But although the Synod was chiefly aimed against Protestantism, and has no direct polemical reference to the Latin Church, it did not give up any of the distinctive Greek doctrines, or make any concessions to the claims of the Papacy. The acts of the Synod of Jerusalem consist of six chapters, and a confession of Dositheus in eighteen decrees. Both are preceded by a pastoral letter giving an account of the occasion of this public confession in opposition to Calvinism and Lutheranism, which are condemned alike as being essentially the same heresy, notwithstanding some apparent differences. [131] The Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah given to Martin Crusius, Professor in Tuebingen, and other Lutherans, in 1572, are approved by the Synod of Jerusalem, as they were by the Synod of Jassy, and thus clothed with a semi-symbolical authority. The Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogilas is likewise sanctioned again, but the Confession of Cyril Lucar is disowned as a forgery. The Six Chapters are very prolix, and altogether polemical against the Confession which was circulated under the name of Cyril Lucar, and give large extracts from his homilies preached before the clergy and people of Constantinople to prove his orthodoxy. One anathema is not considered sufficient, and a threefold anathema is hurled against the heretical doctrines. The Confessio Dosithei presents, in eighteen decrees or articles, [132] a positive statement of the orthodox faith. It follows the order of Cyril's Confession, which it is intended to refute. It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the controverted articles. It was formally transmitted by the Eastern Patriarchs to the Russian Church in 1721, and through it to certain Bishops of the Church of England, as an ultimatum to be received without further question or conference by all who would be in communion with the Orthodox Church. The eighteen decrees were also published in a Russian version (1838), but with a number of omissions and qualifications, [133] showing that, after all, the Russian branch of the Greek Church reserves to itself a certain freedom of further theological development. We give them here in a condensed summary from the original Greek: Article I.--The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, with the single procession of the Spirit. (Pneuma hagion ek tou patros ekporeuomenon. Against the Latins.) Article II.--The Holy Scriptures must be interpreted, not by private judgment, but in accordance with the tradition of the Catholic Church, which can not err, or deceive, or be deceived, and is of equal authority with the Scriptures. (Essentially Romish, but without an infallible, visible head of the Church.) Article III.--God has from eternity predestinated to glory those who would, in his foreknowledge, make good use of their free will in accepting the salvation, and has condemned those who would reject it. The Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional predestination is condemned as abominable, impious, and blasphemous. Article IV.--The doctrine of creation. The triune God made all things, visible and invisible, except sin, which is contrary to his will, and originated in the Devil and in man. Article V.--The doctrine of Providence. God foresees and permits (but does not foreordain) evil, and overrules it for good. Article VI.--The primitive state and fall of man. Christ and the Virgin Mary are exempt from sin. Article VII.--The doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God, his death, resurrection, ascension, and return to judgment. Article VIII.--The work of Christ. He is the only Mediator and Advocate for our sins; but the saints, and especially the immaculate Mother of our Lord, as also the holy angels, bring our prayers and petitions before him, and give them greater effect. Article IX.--No one can be saved without faith, which is a certain persuasion, and works by love (i.e. the observance of the divine commandments). It justifies before Christ, and without it no one can please God. Article X.--The holy Catholic and Apostolic Church comprehends all true believers in Christ, and is governed by Christ, the only head, through duly ordained bishops in unbroken succession. The doctrine of Calvinists, that bishops are not necessary, or that priests (presbyters) may be ordained by priests, and not by bishops only, is rejected. Article XI.--Members of the Catholic Church are all the faithful, who firmly hold the faith of Christ as delivered by him, the apostles, and the holy synods, although some of them may be subject to various sins. Article XII.--The Catholic Church is taught by the Holy Ghost, through prophets, apostles, holy fathers, and synods, and therefore can not err, or be deceived, or choose a lie for the truth. (Against Cyril; comp. Art. II.) Article XIII.--Man is justified, not by faith alone, but also by works. Article XIV.--Man has been debilitated by the fall, and lost the perfection and freedom from suffering, but not his intellectual and moral nature. He has still the free will (to autexousion) or the power to choose and do good or to flee and hate evil (Matt. v. 46, 47; Rom. i. 19; ii. 14, 15). But good works done without faith can not contribute to our salvation; only the works of the regenerate, done under grace and with grace, are perfect, and render the one who does them worthy of salvation (soterias axion poieitai ton energounta). Article XV.--Teaches, with the Roman Church, the seven sacraments or mysteries (musteria), viz., baptism (to hagion baptisma, Matt. xxviii. 19), confirmation (bebaiosis or chrisma, Luke xxiv. 49; 2 Cor. i. 21; and Dionysius Areop.), ordination (hierosune, Matt. xviii. 18), the unbloody sacrifice of the altar (he anaimaktos thusia, Matt. xxvi. 26, etc.), matrimony (gamos, Matt. xix. 6; Eph. v. 32), penance and confession (metanoia kai exomologesis, John xx. 23; Luke xiii. 3, 5), and holy unction (to hagion elaion or euchelaion, Mark vi. 13; James v. 14). Sacraments are not empty signs of divine promises (as circumcision), but they necessarily (ex anankes) confer grace (as organa drastika charitos). Article XVI.--Teaches the necessity of baptism for salvation, baptismal regeneration (John iii. 5), infant baptism, and the salvation of baptized infants (Matt. xix. 12). The effect of baptism is the remission of hereditary and previous actual sin, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It can not be repeated; sins committed after baptism must be forgiven by priestly absolution on repentance and confession. Article XVII.--The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, in which the very body and blood of Christ are truly and really (alethos kai pragmatikos) present under the figure and type (en eidei kai tupo) of bread and wine, are offered to God by the hands of the priest as a real though unbloody sacrifice for all the faithful, whether living or dead (huper panton ton eusebon zonton kai tethneoton), and are received by the hand and the mouth of unworthy as well as worthy communicants, though with opposite effects. The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (metabole, metousiosis) is taught as strongly as words can make it; [134] but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place. [135] Article XVIII.--The souls of the departed are either at rest or in torment, [136] according to their conduct in life; but their condition will not be perfect till the resurrection of the body. The souls of those who die in a state of penitence (metanoesantes), without having brought forth fruits of repentance, or satisfactions (hikanopoiesis), depart into Hades (aperchesthai eis adou), and there they must suffer the punishment for their sins; but they may be delivered by the prayers of the priests and the alms of their kindred, especially by the unbloody sacrifice of the mass (magala dunamenes malista tes anaimaktou thusias), which individuals offer for their departed relatives, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church daily offers for all alike. The liberation from this intervening state of purification will take place before the resurrection and the general judgment, but the time is unknown. This is essentially the Romish doctrine of purgatory, although the term is avoided, and nothing is said of material or physical torments. [137] To these eighteen decrees are added four questions and answers, with polemic reference to the similar questions at the close of the enlarged edition of Cyril's Confession. [138] The first question discourages and even prohibits the general and indiscriminate reading of the Holy Scriptures, especially certain portions of the Old Testament. The second denies the perspicuity of the Scriptures. The third defines the extent of the canon including the Apocrypha. [139] The fourth teaches the worship of saints, especially the Mother of God (who is the object of hyperdulia, as distinct from the ordinary dulia of saints, and the latria or worship proper due to God), as also the worshipful veneration of the cross, the holy Gospels, the holy vessels, the holy places, [140] and of the images of Christ and of the saints. [141] In all these important points the Synod of Jerusalem again essentially agrees with the Church of Rome, and radically dissents from Protestantism. __________________________________________________________________ [129] Hence it is sometimes called the Synod of Bethlehem, but it was actually held at Jerusalem. [130] Its title is Aspis orthdoxias e apologia kai elenchos pros tous diasurontas ten anatoliken ekklesian hairetikos phronein en tois peri theou kai ton theion, k.t.l. Clypeus orthodoxae fidei sive Apologia adversus Calvinistas haereticos, Orientalem ecclesiam de Deo rebusque divinis haeretice cum ipsis sentire mentientes. The first edition, Greek and Latin, was published at Paris, 1676; then revised, 1678; also by Hardouin, and Kimmel, l.c. [131] Adelpha phronei Loutheros Kalouino, ei kai en tisi diapherein dokousin . 'Non alia est Lutheri haeresis atque Calvini, quamquam nonnihil videtur interesse' (Kimmel, P. I. p. 335). [132] Horos, decree, decision. It is translated capitulum in Hardouin, decretum in Kimmel. [133] Under the title 'Imperial and Patriarchal Letters on the Institution of the Most Holy Synod, with an Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church of the East.' See Blackmore, l.c. p. xxviii. Blackmore (pp. xxvi. and xxvii.) gives also two interesting letters of 'the Most Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church to the Most Reverend the Bishops of the Remnant of the Catholic Church in Great Britain, our Brethren most beloved in the Lord, 'in answer to letters of two Non-Jurors and two Scotch Bishops seeking communion with the Eastern Church. Comp. S: 20. [134] Decr. 17 (Kimmel, P. I. p. 457): hoste meta ton hagiasmon tou artou kai tou oinou metaballesthai (to be translated) metousiousthai (transubstantiated), metapoieisthai (refashioned, transformed), metarrhuthmizesthai (changed, reformed), ton men arton eis auto to alethes tou kuriou soma, hoper egennethe en Bethleem ek tes aeiparthenou, ebaptisthe en Iordane, epathen, etaphe, aneste, anelephthe, kathetai ek dezion tou Theou kai pateros, mellei elthein epi ton nephelon tou ouranou--ton d? oinon metapoieisthai kai metousiousthai eis auto to alethes tou kuriou aima, hoper kremamenou epi tou staurou echuthe huper tes tou kosmou xoes. Mosheim thinks that the Greeks first adopted in this period the doctrine of transubstantiation, but Kiesling (Hist. concertat. Graecorum Latinorumque de transsubstantiatione, pp. 354-480, as quoted by Tzschirner, in Vol. IX. of his continuation of Schroeckh's Church Hist. since the Reformation, p. l02) has shown that several Greeks taught this theory long before or ever since the Council of Florence (1439). Yet the opposition to the Calvinistic view of Cyril and his sympathizers brought the Greek Church to a clearer and fuller expression on this point. [135] Ibid. (p. 461): eti te metousiosis lexei ou ton tropon pisteuomen delousthai, kath? hon ho artos kai ho oinos metapoiountai eis to soma kai to haima tou kuriou--touto gar alepton pante kai adunaton plen autou tou theou. In the Lat. Version: 'Praeterea verbo Transsubstantiationis modum ilium, quo in corpus et sanguinem Domini panis et vinum convertantur, explicari minime credimus--id enim penitus incomprehensibile,' etc. Metousiosis (not given in the Classical Dict., nor in Sophocles's Byzantine Greek Dict., nor in Suicer's Thesaurus)--from the classical ousioo, to call into being (ousia) or existence, and the patristic ousiosis, a calling into existence--must be equivalent to the Latin transsubstantiatio, or change of the elemental substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. [136] en anesei, lit. in relaxation, recreation, e en odune, or in pain, distress. [137] The same doctrine is taught in the Longer Russian Catechism of Philaret (on the 11th article of the Nicene Creed). It is often asserted (even by Winer, who is generally very accurate, Symb. pp. 158, 159) that the Greek Church rejects the Romish purgatory. Winer quotes the Conf. Metrophanis Critopuli, c. 20; but this has no ecclesiastical authority, and, although it rejects the word pur katharterion (ignis purgatoris), and all idea of material or physical pain (ten ekeinon poinen me huliken einai, eitous organiken, me dia puros, mete di alles hules), it asserts, nevertheless, a spiritual pain of conscience in the middle state (alla dia thlipseos kai anias tes suneideseos), from which the sufferers may be released by prayers and the sacrifice of the altar. The Conf. Orthodoxa (P. I. Qu. 66) speaks vaguely of a proskairos kolasis kathartike ton psuchon, 'a temporary purifying (disciplinary) punishment of the souls.' The Roman Church, on her part, does not require belief in a material fire. The Greek Church has no such minute geography of the spirit world as the Latin, which, besides heaven and hell proper, teaches an intervening region of purgatory for imperfect Christians, and two border regions, the Limbus Patrum for the saints of the Old Testament now delivered, and the Limbus Infantum for unbaptized children; but it differs much more widely from the Protestant eschatology, which rejects the idea of a third or middle place altogether, and assign all the departed either to a state of bliss or a state of misery; allowing, however, different degrees in both states corresponding to the different degrees of holiness and wickedness. [138] Comp. S: 15, p. 57. [139] The following Apocrypha are expressly mentioned (Vol. I. p. 467): The Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, History of the Dragon, History of Susannah, the books of the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Sirach. The Confession of Mogilas, though not formally sanctioning the Apocrypha, quotes them frequently as authority, e.g. Tobit xii. 9, in P. III. Qu. 9, on alms. On the other hand, the less important Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, c. 7 (Kimmel, P. II. p. 104 sq.), mentions only twenty-two canonical books of the Old Test., and excludes from them the Apocrypha, mentioning Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch, and the Maccabees. The Russian Catechism of Philaret omits the Apocrypha in enumerating the books of the Old Test., for the reason that 'they do not exist in Hebrew,' but adds that 'they have been appointed by the fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church.' (See Vol. II. 451, and Blackmore's translation, pp.38, 39.) [140] proskunoumen kai timomen to xulon tou timiou tou zoopoiou staurou, k.t.l. [141] ten eikona tou Kuriou hemon Iesou Chr. kai tes huperagias theotokou kai panton ton hagion proskunoumen kai timomen kai aspazometha. __________________________________________________________________ S: 18. The Synods of Constantinople, A.D. 1672 and 1691. Three months previous to the Synod of Jerusalem a Synod was held at Constantinople (January, 1672), which adopted a doctrinal statement signed by Dionysius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and forty-three dignitaries belonging to his patriarchate. [142] It is less complete than the Confession of Dositheus, but agrees with it on all points, as the authority and infallibility of the Church, the extent of the canon, the seven mysteries (sacraments), the real sacrifice of the altar, and the miraculous transformation [143] of the elements. Another Synod was held in Constantinople nineteen years afterwards, in 1691, under Patriarch Callinicus, for the purpose of giving renewed sanction to the orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist, in opposition to Logothet John Caryophylus, who had rejected the Romish theory of transubstantiation, and defended the Calvinistic view of Cyril Lucar. The Synod condemned him, and declared that the Eastern Church had always taught a change (metabole) of the elements in the sense of a transubstantiation (metousiosis), or an actual transformation of their essence into the body and blood of Christ. [144] __________________________________________________________________ [142] It is called Dionysii, Patr. Const., super Calvinistarum erroribus ac reali imprimis praesentia responsio, and is published in some editions of the Confession of the Synod of Jerusalem; in Harduini Acta Conciliorum, Tom. XI. pp. 274-282; and in the second volume of Kimmel's Monumenta, pp. 214-227. [143] On this the document teaches (Kimmel, P. II. p. 218) that when the priest prays, 'Make (poieson) this bread the precious blood of thy Christ,' then, by the mysterious and ineffable operation of the Holy Ghost, ho men artos metapoieitai (transmutatur) eis auto ekeino to idion soma tou soteros Christou pragmatikos kai alethos kai kurios (realiter, vere, ac proprie), ho de oinos eis to zoopoion haima autou. [144] I have not been able to procure the proceedings of this Synod; they are omitted both by Hardouin and Kimmel. They were first printed at Jassy, 1698; then in Greek and Latin by Eusebius Renaudot, together with some other Greek writings on the Eucharist, Paris, 1709; in German by Heineccius, in his Abbildung der alten und neuen Griechischen Kirche, 2 Parts, Leipz. 1711. Appendix. p. 40. etc. So says Rud. Hofmann (in his Symbolik, Leipz. 1857, p. 135), who has paid careful attention to the Greek Church. __________________________________________________________________ S: 19. The Doctrinal Standards of the Russo-Greek Church. Literature. I. Russian Doctrine and Theology: The Catechisms of Platon and Philaret (see below). R. W. Blackmore: The Doctrine of the Russian Church, etc., Aberdeen, 1845. W. Guettee (Russian Priest and Doctor of Divinity): Exposition de la doctrine de l'eglise catholique orthodoxe de Russie, Paris, 1866. Theophanes Procopowicz: Theologia Christiana orthodoxa, Koenigsberg, 1773-1775, 5 vols. (abridged, Moscow, 1802). Hyac. Kirpinski: Compendium orthodoxae theologiae, Lips. 1786. II. Worship and Ritual: The divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (the Liturgy used in the Orthodox Eastern Church), Greek ed. by Daniel, Cod. Liturg. Tom. IV. P. II. p. 327, etc.; by J. M. Neale, in Primitive Liturgies, 2d edition, London, 1868; English translations by King, Neale, Brett, Covel, J. Freeman Young (the last publ. New York, 1865, as No. VI. of the 'Papers of the Russo-Greek Committee'). Comp. also the entire fourth volume of Daniel's Codex Liturg. (which gives the Oriental Liturgies), and Neale's Primitive Liturgies, and his Introd. to the History of the Holy Eastern Church (Lond. 1850). John Glen King (Anglican Chaplain at St. Petersburg): The Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia, Lond. 1772. Very instructive. III. History and Present Condition of the Russian Church: Alex. de Stourdza: Considerations sur la doctrine et l'esprit de l'eglise orthodoxe, Weimar, 1816. Strahl: Contributions to Russian Church History, Halle, 1827: and History of the Russian Church, Halle, 1830. Mouravieff: History of the Church of Russia, St. Petersburg, 1840; translated by Blackmore, Oxford, 1842. Comes down to 1721. Pinkerton: Russia, London, 1833. Haxthausen: Researches on Russia, German and French, 1847-52, 3 vols. Theiner: Die Staats-Kirche Russlands, 1853. H. J. Schmitt: Kritische Geschichte der neugriechischen und der russischen Kirche, Mainz, 2d ed. 1854. Prince Aug. Galitzin: L'eglise Graeco-Russe, Paris, 1861. Dean Stanley: Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, Lond. and N. Y. 1862, Lect. IX.-XII. Boissard: L'eglise de Russie, Paris, 1867, 2 vols. Philaret (Archbishop of Tschernigow): Geschichte der Kirche Russlands, transl. by Blumenthal, 1872. Basaroff: Russische orthodoxe Kirche. Ein Umriss ihrer Entstehung u. ihres Lebens, Stuttgart, 1873. Also the Occasional Papers of the 'Eastern Church Associations' of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, publ. in Lond. (Rivington's), and N. York, since 1864. The latest doctrinal standards of Greek Christianity are the authorized Catechisms and Church-books of the orthodox Church of Russia, by far the most important and hopeful branch of the Eastern Communion. Russia received Christianity from the Byzantine Empire. Cyril and Methodius, two monks of Constantinople, preached the gospel to the Bulgarians on the Danube after the middle of the ninth century, translated the Scriptures [145] into the Slavonic language (creating the Slavonic alphabet in quaint Greek characters), and thus laid the foundation of Slavonic literature and civilization. This event was contemporary with the founding of the Russian Empire by Ruric, of the Norman race (A.D. 862), and succeeded by half a century the founding of the German Empire under Charlemagne, in close connection with Rome (A.D. 800). As the latter was a substitute for the Western Roman Empire, so the former was destined to take the place of the Eastern Roman Empire, and looks forward to the reconquest of Constantinople, as its natural capital. The barbarous Russians submitted, in the tenth century, without resistance, to Christian baptism by immersion, at the command of their Grand Duke, Vladimir, who himself was brought over to Christianity by a picture on the last judgment, and his marriage to a sister of the Greek Emperor Basil. In this wholesale conversion every thing is characteristic: the influence of the picture, the effect of marriage, the power of the civil ruler, the military command, the passive submission of the people. Since that time the Greek Church has been the national religion of the Slavonic Russians, and identified with all their fortunes and misfortunes. For a long time they were subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But after the fall of this city (1453) the Metropolitan of Moscow became independent (1461), and a century later (January, 1589) he was raised by Patriarch Jeremiah II. of Constantinople, then on a collecting tour in Russia, to the dignity of a Patriarch of equal rank with the other four (of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem). Moscow was henceforward the holy city, the Rome of Russia. In the beginning of the eighteenth century, Peter the Great, a second Constantine, founded St. Petersburg (1703), made this city the political and ecclesiastical capital of his Empire, and created, in the place of the Patriarchate of Moscow, the 'Most Holy Governing Synod,' with the Czar as the head (1721). This organic change was sanctioned by the Eastern Patriarchs (1723), who look upon the emperor-pope of Russia as their future deliverer from the intolerable yoke of the Turks. [Note.--Since the revolution of 1917 and the assassination of the Czar, the position of the Russian Church has undergone a radical change. The Soviet government has passed from a law abolishing the union of Church and State to a relentless war against all religion and religious exercises, the confiscation of Church property, the suppression of religious liberty, the imprisonment and execution of clerical personages, and even to a policy of active atheistic propaganda. Conforming to the new civil order, the Holy Sober--council--met, August, 1917, with 564 delegates present, of whom 278 were laymen, and constituted Tikhon (1866-1925) Most holy Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, thus re-establishing the patriarchate after an interval of two centuries. Tikhon resisted the Soviet acts instituting civil marriage and disestablishing the Church, and placed the state officials under excommunication. The government replied by further legislation hostile to the Church, and Tikhon was put under arrest and resigned the patriarchate, 1922. In the mean time a 'reforming' organization, calling itself the 'Living Church,' was effected, which acknowledged the Soviet revolution and made the 'white clergy'--in contrast to the monks--eligible to the episcopal office. The Sober of April, 1924, received greetings from Dr. Blake of the Methodist Episcopal Church, disavowed Tikhon's anti-Soviet deliverances, endorsed the separation of Church and State, and granted to widowed and divorced priests the right of remarriage. A third Sober affirmed that supreme ecclesiastical authority resided in itself and not in the patriarch, a declaration accepted by Gregory VII, oecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, other Eastern patriarchs dissenting. The Tikhon wing was continued under Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsky, whom Tikhon had designated as his successor. Peter was banished for anti-Soviet policies, and his place filled by Abp. Sergius, who himself was imprisoned but released, 1927, after promising to support the existing civil government. The emigre bishops, with Serbia as a rallying-place, have favored the restoration of the empire, and June 30, 1930, Sergius deposed Eulogius from the post of so-called supreme bishop of the Russian Church outside of Russia. Soviet legislation, 1930, confirmed all previous acts calculated to blot out religious convictions and ritual. It forbids the teaching of religion to persons under eighteen, the organization of meetings of women and children for purposes of prayer and biblical and literary study or for sewing, the organization under Church influence of libraries and reading-rooms, and even measures intended to give sanitary and medical assistance. It prohibits the teaching of any form of religious belief in educational establishments, and the formation of all boys' and girls' clubs in church buildings. Religious teaching is treated as "anti-revolutionary activity." The secret propaganda of religion among the masses is forbidden, and ministers of religion, including rabbis and nuns, who continue to follow their religion are disfranchised and made ineligible for public office. Bibles and prayer-books are confiscated. Church buildings are put at the State's disposal. Articles of gold and silver and precious stones are to be given up upon the discontinuance of a house of worship, and places of worship having a historic or artistic value pass to the State. Processions on festival days are forbidden, as also is the observance of Christmas, Easter, and other Church feasts. In addition to such laws, the Soviet has carried out its destructive policy by films and posters ridiculing and blaspheming Christianity. By governmental order or the populace, multitudes of icons have been destroyed and pretended bodies of saints dishonored and shown to be made of wax or straw. The treatment of the Russian Church and clergy has called forth from the pope and the Church of England resolutions against the government's policy, and letters of sympathy. Since 1914, friendly gestures have been made from Rome calculated to win favor for the Roman Church. In 1920, Ephraem of Edessa was enrolled among the doctors of the Church. The Oriental College in Rome has been enlarged. In 1921, Benedict XV. addressed the Russians as 'our distant children who, though separated from us by the barriers of centuries, are all the nearer our paternal heart, the greater their misfortunes are.' In 1929, Pius XI. issued an appeal in Italian for prayer for 'our brethren in Russia,' which spoke of 'the sacrilege heaped upon the priests and believers, and the violence done to the conscience by the Soviets.' The pontiff appointed a solemn mass to be celebrated over St. Peter's tomb, March 19, 1930, and called for the help of 'the Immaculate Virgin, Mother of God, her most chaste spouse, St. Joseph, patron of the Church universal, John Chrysostom and other patron saints of the Russians, and of all saints, especially St. Therese of the Cradle of Jesus, the sweet thaumaturge of Lisieux.' In the form of prayer which Pius added for general use, the petition was made that the Russians may return 'to the one fold and the communion of the Catholic Church,' and an indulgence of 300 days offered to all making the prayer piously. Resolutions passed by the Convocations Canterbury and York, 1930, called for special prayers in the churches at the morning and evening services, March 16.--Ed.] We have already seen that the 'Orthodox Confession,' or the first systematic and complete exhibition of the modern Greek faith, is the product of a Russian prelate, Peter Mogilas of Kieff. It was followed, and practically superseded, by other catechisms, which are much better adapted to the religious instruction of the young. 1. The Catechism of Platon, Metropolitan of Moscow (died 1812), one of the very few Russian divines whose name is known beyond their native land. [146] He was the favorite of the Empress Catherine II. (died 1796), and, for a time, of her savage son, the Emperor Paul (assassinated 1801), and at the end of his life he encouraged the Emperor Alexander I. in the terrible year of the French invasion and the destruction of Moscow. When the French atheist Diderot began a conversation with the sneering remark, 'There is no God,' Platon instantly replied, 'The fool says in his heart, There is no God.' He was a great preacher and the leader of a somewhat milder type of Russian orthodoxy, not disinclined to commune with the outside world. His Catechism was originally prepared for his pupil, the Grand Duke Paul Petrovitsch, and shows some influence of the evangelical system by its tendency to go directly to the Bible. 2. The Catechism of Philaret, revised, authorized, and published by the Holy Synod of St. Petersburg. It is translated into several languages, and since 1839 generally used in the schools and churches of Russia. It was sent to all the Eastern Patriarchs, and unanimously approved by them. [147] Philaret (born 1782, died 1867) was for forty-seven years (1820-67) Metropolitan of Moscow. He was intrusted with the important State secret of the will of Alexander I., and crowned his two successors (Nicholas I. and Alexander II.). He represents, in learning, eloquence, and ascetic piety, the best phase of the Russian State Church in the nineteenth century. [148] His longer Catechism (called a full catechism) is, upon the whole, the ablest and clearest summary of Eastern orthodoxy, and shows a disposition to support every doctrine by direct Scripture testimony. It follows the plan and division of the Orthodox Confession of Mogilas, and conforms to its general type of teaching, but it is more clear, simple, evangelical, and much better adapted for practical use. In a number of introductory questions it discusses the meaning of a catechism, the nature and necessity of right faith and good works, divine revelation, the holy tradition and Holy Scripture (as the two channels of the divine revelation and the joint rule of faith and discipline), the Canon of the Scriptures (exclusive of the Apocrypha, because 'not written in Hebrew'), with some account of the several books of the Old and New Testaments, and the composition of the Catechism. This is divided into three parts, like the Confession of Mogilas, according to the three cardinal virtues (1 Cor. xiii. 13). First Part: On Faith. An Exposition of the Nicene Creed, arranged in twelve articles. In the doctrine of the Church the Protestant distinction of the visible and invisible Church is, in a modified sense, adopted; Christ is declared to be the only and ever-abiding Head of the Church, and it is stated that the division of the Church into many particular and independent organizations, as those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Russia (Rome, Wittenberg, Geneva, and Canterbury are ignored); does not hinder them from being spiritually members 'of the one body of the Universal Church, from having one Head, Christ, and one spirit of faith and of grace.' Second Part: On Hope. An Exposition of the Lord's Prayer (in seven petitions), and of the nine Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount. Third Part: On Love or Charity. An Exposition of the Decalogue as teaching, in two tables, love to God and love to our neighbor. The last question is: 'What caution do we need when we seem to ourselves, to have fulfilled any commandment? A. We must then dispose our hearts according to the words of Jesus Christ: "When ye have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke xvii. 10).' 3. Finally, we may mention, as secondary standards of Russian orthodoxy and discipline, the Primer or Spelling-Book, and a Treatise on The Duty of Parish Priests. [149] The Primer contains the rudiments of religious learning for children and the common people, viz., daily prayers (including the Lord's Prayer, and the 'Hail Mary, Virgin Mother of God,' yet without the 'Pray for us' of the Latin formula), the Nicene Creed, the Ten Commandments (the second and fourth abridged), with brief explanations and short moral precepts. The Treatise on The Duty of Parish Priests was composed by George Konissky, Archbishop of Mogileff (died 1795), aided by Parthenius Sopkofsky, Bishop of Smolensk, and first printed at St. Petersburg in 1776. All candidates for holy orders in the Russian Seminaries are examined on the contents of this book. It is mainly disciplinary and pastoral, a manual for the priests, directing them in their duties as teachers, and as administrators of the mysteries or sacraments. But doctrine is incidentally touched, and it is worthy of remark that this Treatise approaches more nearly to the evangelical principle of the supremacy of the Bible in matters of Christian faith and Christian life than any deliverance of the Eastern Church. [150] __________________________________________________________________ [145] The Psalms and the New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse. [146] 'Orthodox Doctrine, or Summary of Christian Divinity;' first published 1762 in Russian, and translated into eight languages: in English, ed. by R. Pinkerton, Edinb. 1814; German ed., Riga, 1770; Latin ed., Moscow, 1774. Blackmore (l.c. p. vii.) speaks of three Catechisms of Platon, which probably differ only in size. [147] Philaret wrote two Catechisms--a shorter one, called 'Elements of Christian Learning; or, a Short Sacred History and a Short Catechism,' St. Petersburg, at the Synodical Press, 1840 (only about twelve pages), and a longer one under the title, 'A Full Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, examined and approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod, and published for the Use of Schools and of all Orthodox Christians, by order of His Imperial Majesty,' Moscow, at the Synodical Press, 1839 (English translation of Blackmore, Aberdeen, 1845). Most of the German works on Symbolics ignore Philaret altogether. Even Hofmann (p. 136) and Gass (p. 440) barely mention him. We give his Larger Catechism in the second volume. [148] Dean Stanley, who saw him in Moscow in 1857, praises his striking and impressive manner as a preacher, his gentleness, his dignified courtesy and affability, and associates him with a reactionary revival of mediaeval sanctity, which had its parallel in the Puseyism of the Church of England. The Scottish Bishop of Moray and Ross, who called on him in behalf of the Eastern Church Association in 1866, describes him as the most venerated and beloved man in the Russian Empire, and as 'gentle, humble, and pious.' Comp. Souchkow, Memoirs of Philaret, Moscow, 1868; Select Sermons of Philaret. transl. from the Russian, London (Jos. Masters), 1873. [149] Both translated by Blackmore, l.c. [150] See Part I. No. VIII.-XIII. pp. 160-164 in Blackmore's version: 'All the articles of the faith are contained in the Word of God, that is, in the books of the Old and New Testaments. . . . The Word of God is the source, foundation, and perfect rule, both of our faith and of the good works of the law. . . . The writings of the holy Fathers are of great use . . . but neither the writings of the holy Fathers nor the traditions of the Church are to be confounded or equaled with the Word of God and his Commandments.' __________________________________________________________________ S: 20. Anglo-Catholic Correspondence with the Russo-Greek Church. The Reformation of the sixteenth century proceeded entirely from the bosom of Latin or Western Catholicism. The Greek or Eastern Church had no part in the great controversy, and took no notice of it, until it was brought to its attention from without. The antagonism of the Greek Communion to Western innovations, especially to the claims of the Papacy, seemed to open the prospect of possible intercommunion and co-operation. But, so far, all the approaches to this effect on the part of Protestants have failed 1. The first attempt was made by Lutheran divines in the sixteenth century, and ended in the condemnation of the Augsburg Confession. [151] 2. Of a different kind was Cyril's movement, in the seventeenth century, to protestantize the Eastern Church from within, which resulted in a stronger condemnation of Calvinism and Lutheranism. [152] 3. The correspondence of the Anglican Non-Jurors with Russia and the East, 1717-1723, had no effect whatever. Two high-church English Bishops; called 'Non-Jurors' (because they refused to renounce their oath of allegiance to King James II., and to transfer it to the Prince of Orange), in connection with two Scottish Bishops, assumed, October, 1717, the responsibility of corresponding with the Russian Czar, Peter the Great, and the Eastern Patriarchs. [153] They were prompted to this step by a visit of an Egyptian Bishop to England, who collected money for the impoverished patriarchal see of Alexandria, and probably still more by a desire to get aid and comfort from abroad in their schismatical isolation. They characteristically styled themselves 'The Catholic Remainder in Britain.' After a delay of several years, the Patriarchs, under date, Constantinople, September, 1723, sent their ultimatum, requiring, as a term of communion, absolute submission of the British to all the dogmas of the Greek Church. 'Those,' they wrote, 'who are disposed to agree with us in the Divine doctrines of the Orthodox faith must necessarily follow and submit to what has been defined and determined by ancient Fathers and the Holy OEcumenical Synods from the time of the Apostles and their Holy Successors, the Fathers of our Church, to this time. We say they must submit to them with sincerity and obedience, and without any scruple or dispute. And this is a sufficient answer to what you have written.' With this answer they forwarded the decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672. The Russians were more polite. The 'Most Holy Governing Synod' of St. Petersburg, in transmitting the ultimatum of the Eastern Patriarchs, proposed, in the name of the Czar, 'to the Most Reverend the Bishops of the Remnant of the Catholic Church in Great Britain, our Brethren most beloved in the Lord,' that they should send two delegates to Russia to hold a friendly conference, in the name and spirit of Christ, with two members to be chosen by the Russians, that it may be more easily ascertained what may be yielded and given up by one to the other; what, on the other hand, may and ought for conscience' sake to be absolutely denied. [154] But such a conference was never held. The death of Peter (1725) put an end to negotiations. Archbishop Wake, of Canterbury, wrote a letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, in which he exposed the Non-Jurors as disloyal schismatics and pretenders. The Eastern Patriarchs accused the Anglicans of being 'Lutherano-Calvinists,' and the Russian Church historian, Mouravieff, in speaking of the correspondence, represents them as being infected with the same 'German heresy,' which had been previously condemned by the Orthodox Church. [155] 4. A far more serious and respectable attempt to effect intercommunion between the Anglican and Russo-Greek Churches was begun in 1862, with the high authority of the Convocation of Canterbury, and the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. The ostensible occasion was furnished by the multiplication of Russo-Greeks on the Pacific coast, and by the desirableness of securing decent burial for Anglican travelers in the East, but the real cause lies much deeper. It is closely connected with the powerful Anglo-Catholic movement, which arose in Oxford in 1833, and has ever since been aiming to de-protestantize the Anglican Church. Hundreds of her priests and laymen, headed by Dr. John H. Newman, seceded to Rome; while others, less logical or more loyal to the Church of their fathers, are afraid of the charms or corruptions of the Papacy, and look hopefully to intercommunion with the Holy Catholic Orthodox and Apostolic Mother Church of the East to satisfy their longing for Catholic unity, and to strengthen their opposition to Protestantism and Romanism. The writings of the late Dr. John Mason Neale, and Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon, contributed not a little towards creating an interest in this direction. In the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, held in New York, October, 1862, a joint committee was appointed 'to consider the expediency of opening communication with the Russo-Greek Church, to collect authentic information upon the subject, and to report to the next General Convention.' Soon afterwards, July 1, 1863, the Convocation of Canterbury appointed a similar committee, looking to 'such ecclesiastical intercommunion with the Orthodox East as should enable the laity and clergy of either Church to join in the sacraments and offices of the other without forfeiting the communion of their own Church.' The Episcopal Church in Scotland likewise fell in with the movement. These committees corresponded with each other, and reported from time to time to their authorities. Two Eastern Church Associations were formed, one in England and one in America, for the publication of interesting information on the doctrines and worship of the Russo-Greek Church. Visits were made to Russia, fraternal letters and Christian courtesies were exchanged, and informal conferences between Anglican and Russian dignitaries were held in London, St. Petersburg, and Moscow. [156] The Russo-Greeks could not but receive with kindness and courtesy such flattering approaches from two of the most respectable Churches of Christendom, but they showed no disposition whatever either to forget or to learn or to grant any thing beyond the poor privilege of burial to Anglicans in consecrated ground of the Orthodox (without, however, giving them any right of private property). Some were willing to admit that the Anglican Church, by retaining Episcopacy and respect for Catholic antiquity, 'attached her back by a strong cable to the ship of the Catholic Church; while the other Protestants, having cut this cable, drifted out at sea.' Yet they could not discover any essential doctrinal difference. They found strange novelties in the Thirty-nine Articles; they took especial offense at Art. 19, which asserts that the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred; they expressed serious scruples about the validity of Anglican orders, on account of a flaw in Archbishop Barker's ordination, and on account of the second marriage of many Anglican priests and bishops (which they consider a breach of continency, and a flagrant violation of Paul's express prohibition, according to their interpretation of mias gunaikos andra, 1 Tim. iii. 2); they can not even recognize Anglican baptism, because it is not administered by trine immersion. On the other hand, the Russo-Greeks insist on the expulsion of the Filioque, which is their main objection to Rome; the recognition of the seventh oecumenical Council; the invocation of the Holy Virgin and the Saints; the veneration of icons; prayers for the departed; seven sacramental mysteries; trine immersion; a mysterious transformation (metousiosis) of the eucharistic elements; the eucharistic sacrifice for the living and the dead. [157] 5. The latest phase of the Anglo-Greek movement is connected with the Old Catholic reunion Conferences in Bonn, 1874 and 1875. [158] Here the Filioque was surrendered as a peace-offering to the Orientals; but the Orientals made no concession on their part. It is not likely that the Anglican Church will sacrifice her own peace, the memory of her reformers and martyrs, and a Protestant history and literature of three centuries to an uncongenial union with the Russo-Greek Church in her present unreformed state. __________________________________________________________________ [151] See above, S: 13. [152] See S:S: 15-18. [153] The letters of the four Bishops signing themselves 'Jeremias, Primus Angliae Episcopus; Archibaldus, Scoto-Britanniae Episcopus; Jacobus, Scoto-Britanniae Episcopus; Thomas, Angliae Episcopus,' are given by Lathbury, in his History of the Non-Jurors, pp. 309-361, as documentary proof of their doctrinal status, but the answers are omitted. [154] The two letters of the Holy Synod, the one signed Moscow, February, 1723, the other without date, are given by Blackmore, Doctrine of the Russian Church, Pref. pp. xxvi.-xxviii. The anonymous author (probably Dr. Young, now Bishop in Florida) of No. II. of the Papers of 'the Eastern Church Association' supplies the signatures of nine Church dignitaries of Russia from personal inspection of the archives of the Holy Synod, at a visit to St. Petersburg, April, 1864. [155] History of the Church of Russia, translated by Blackmore, pp. 286 sq., 407 sqq. [156] See the details in the Occasional Papers of the two Eastern Church Associations, published since 1864 in London (Rivington's) and in New York, and the Reports in the Journal of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, held in New York, 1868, Append. IV. p. 427, and Append. XI. p. 480, and of the Convention in Baltimore, 1871, Append. VI. pp. 565-85. These reports are signed by Bishops Whittingham, Whitehouse, Odenheimer, Coxe, Young, and others. A curious incident in this correspondence, not mentioned in these documents, was the celebration of Greek mass, by a Russian ex-priest of doubtful antecedents, in the Episcopal Trinity Chapel of New York, on the anniversary of the Czar Alexander II., March 2, 1865. [157] See the documents in the Journal of the General Convention for 1871, pp. 567-577, viz., the answers of Gregory, Patriarch of Constantinople, dated Sept. 26, 1869, to a letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury, accompanied by a Greek copy of the English Liturgy; the report of the Greek Archbishop of Syra to the Holy Synod of Greece, concerning his visit to England (1870); also the report of an interesting conference between the Greek Archbishop of Syra and the Anglican bishop of Ely (Dr. Browne, the author of a Commentary on the Thirty-nine Articles), held February 4, 1870, where all the chief points of difference were discussed in a friendly Christian spirit, but without result. [158] See the results of the Bonn Conferences, at the close of Vol. II. pp. 545-554. __________________________________________________________________ S: 21. The Eastern Sects: Nestorians, Jacobites, Copts, Armenians. Literature. I. The Nestorians: Ebedjesu (Nestorian, d. 1318): Liber Margarita de veritate fidei, in Angelo Mai's Script. veter. Nova Collectio, Vol. XII. p. 317. Jos. Sim. Assemani (R. C., d. 1678): De Syris Nestorianis, in his Bibl. Or., Rom. 1719-28, Tom. III. Pt. II. Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap, xlvii. near the end. E. Smith and H. G. C. Dwight: Researches in Armenia, with a Visit to the Nestorian and Chaldean Christians of Oormiah, etc., 2 vols. Boston, 1833. Justin Perkins: A Residence of Eight Years in Persia, Andover, 1843. W. Etheridge : The Syrian Churches, their Early History, Liturgies, and Literature, Lond. 1846. Geo. Percy Badger: The Nestorians and their Rituals, Illustrated (with colored plates), 2 vols. Lond. 1852. H. Newcomb: A Cyclopaedia of Missions, New York, 1856, p. 553 sq. Petermann: Article Nestorianer, Herzog's Theol. Encyklop. Vol. X. (1858), pp. 279-288. Rufus Anderson (late For. Sec. Am. Board of C. For. Missions: Republication of the Gospel in Bible Lands; History of the Missions of the Amer. Board of Comm. for For. Miss. to the Oriental Churches, Boston, 1872, 2 vols. On the Nestorian controversy which gave rise to the Nestorian sect, see my Church History, Vol. III. p. 715 sq., and the works quoted there; also p. 729. II. The Monophysites (Jacobites, Copts, Abyssinians, Armenians, Maronites): Euseb. Renaudot (R. C., d. 1720): Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum Jacobitarum a D. Marco usque ad finem saec. xiii., Par. 1713. Also by the same: Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio, Par. 1716, 2 vols. 4to. Jos. Sim. Assemani (R. C.): Bibliotheca orientalis, Rom. 1719 sqq., Tom. II., which treats De scriptoribus Syris Monophysitis. Michael le Quien (R. C., d. 1733): Oriens Christianus, Par. 1740, 3 vols. folio (Vols. II. and III.). Veyssiere de la Croze: Histoire in Christianisme d'Ethiope et d'Armenie, La Haye, 1739. Gibbon: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap, xlvii. Makrizi (Mohammedan, an historian and jurist at Cairo, died 1441): Historia Coptorum Christianorum (Arabic and Latin), ed. H. J. Wetzer, Sulzbach, 1828; a better edition by F. Wuestenfeld, with translation and annotations, Goettingen, 1845. J. E. T. Wiltsch: Kirchliche Statistik, Berlin, 1846, Bd. I. p. 225 sq. John Mason Neale (Anglican): The Patriarchate of Alexandria, London, 1847, 2 vols. Also, A History of the Holy Eastern Church, London, 1850, 2 vols. (Vol. II. contains among other things the Armenian and Copto-Jacobite Liturgies.) E. Dulaurier : Histoire, dogmes, traditions, et liturgie de l'eglise Armeniane, Par. 1859. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley: Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, New York, 1862, p. 92. E. F. K. Fortescue: The Armenian Church. With Appendix by S. C. Malan, London, 1872. Rufus Anderson: Republication of the Gospel in Bible Lands, quoted above. Schaff: Church History, Vol. III. pp. 334 sqq. and 770 sqq. Compare accounts in numerous works of Eastern travel, and in missionary periodicals, especially the Missionary Herald, and the Annual Reports of the American Board of Foreign Missions. Besides the Orthodox Greek Church there are scattered in the East, mostly under Mohammedan and Russian rule, ancient Christian sects, the Nestorians and Monophysites. They represent petrified chapters of Church history, but at the same time fruitful fields for Roman Catholic and Protestant Missions. They owe their origin to the Christological controversies of the fifth century, and perpetuate, the one the Nestorian, the other the Eutychian heresy, though no more as living issues, but as dead traditions. They show the tenacity of Christological error. The Nestorians protest against the third oecumenical Council (431), the Monophysites against the fourth (451). In these points of dispute the Latin and the orthodox Protestant Churches agree with the Orthodox Greek Church against the schismatics. In other respects the Nestorians and Monophysites betray their Oriental character and original affinity with the Greek Church. They regard Scripture and tradition as co-ordinate sources of revelation and rules of faith. They accept the Nicene Creed without the Filioque; they have an episcopal and patriarchal hierarchy, and a ritualistic form of worship, only less developed than the orthodox. They use in their service their ancient native languages, although these have become obsolete and unintelligible to them, since they mostly speak now the Arabic. They honor pictures and relics of saints, but not to the same extent as the Greeks and Russians. The Bible is not forbidden, but practically almost unknown among the people. Their creeds are mostly contained in their liturgies. They supported the Arabs and Turks in the overthrow of the Byzantine Empire, and in turn were variously favored by them, and upheld in their separation from the Orthodox Greek Church. They are sunk in ignorance and superstition, but, owing to their prejudice against the Greek Church, they are more accessible to Western influence. Providence has preserved these Eastern sects, like the Jews, unchanged to this day, doubtless for wise purposes. They may prove entering wedges for the coming regeneration of the East and the conversion of the Mohammedans. I. The Nestorians, in Turkey and Persia, are called after Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. He was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, 431, for so teaching the doctrine of two natures in Christ as virtually to deny the unity of person, and for refusing to call Mary 'the Mother of God' (theotokos, Deipara), and he died in exile about 440. His followers call themselves Chaldaean or Syrian Christians. They flourished for several centuries, and spread far into Arabia, India, and even to China and Tartary. Mohammed is supposed to have derived his imperfect knowledge of Christianity from a Nestorian monk, Sergius. But by persecution, famine, war, and pestilence, they have been greatly reduced. The Thomas Christians of East India are a branch of them, and so called from the Apostle Thomas, who is supposed to have preached on the coast of Malabar. The Nestorians hold fast to the dyophysite Christology of their master, and protest against the Council of Ephesus, for teaching virtually the Eutychian heresy, and unjustly condemning Nestorius. They can not conceive of a human nature without a human personality, and infer two independent hypostases from the existence of two natures in Christ. They object to the orthodox view, that it confounds the divine and human, or that it teaches a contradiction, viz., two natures and one person. The only alternative to them seems either two natures and two persons, or one person and one nature. From their Christology it follows that Mary was only the mother of the man Jesus. They therefore repudiate the worship of Mary as the Mother of God; also the use of images (though they retain the sign of the cross), the doctrine of purgatory (though they have prayers for the dead), and transubstantiation (though they hold the real presence of Christ in the eucharist); and they differ from the Greek Church by greater simplicity of worship. They are subject to a peculiar hierarchical organization, with eight orders, from the catholicus or patriarch to the sub-deacon and reader. The five lower orders, including the priests, may marry; in former times even the bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs had this privilege. Their fasts are numerous and strict. Their feast-days begin with sunset, as among the Jews. The patriarch and the bishops eat no flesh. The patriarch is chosen always from the same family; he is ordained by three metropolitans. The ecclesiastical books of the Nestorians are written in the Syriac language. II. The Monophysites, taken together, outnumber the Nestorians, and are scattered over the mountains, villages, and deserts of Armenia, Syria, Egypt, and Abyssinia. They are divided into four distinct sects: the Jacobites in Syria; the Copts in Egypt, with their ecclesiastical descendants in Abyssinia; [159] the Armenians, and the ancient Maronites on Mount Lebanon (who were Monothelites, but have been mostly merged into the Roman Church). The Armenians (numbering about three millions and a half) excel all the rest in numbers, intelligence, and enterprise, and are most accessible to Protestant missionaries. The Monophysites have their name from their distinctive doctrine, that Christ had but one nature (mone phusis), which was condemned by the fourth oecumenical Council of Chalcedon. They are the antipodes of the Nestorians, whom they call Dyophysites. They agree with the Council of Ephesus (431) which condemned Nestorius, but reject the Council of Chalcedon (451). They differ, however, somewhat from the Eutychean heresy of an absorption of the human nature by the divine, as held by Eutyches (a monk of Constantinople, died after 451), and teach that Christ had one composite nature (mia phusis sunthetos or mia phusis ditte). They make the humanity of Christ a mere accident of the immutable divine substance. Their main argument against the orthodox or Chalcedonian Christology is that the doctrine of two natures necessarily leads to that of two persons, and thereby severs the one Christ into two sons of God. They regarded the nature as something common to all individuals of a species (koinon), yet as never existing simply as such, but only in individuals. Their liturgical shibboleth was, God has been crucified, which they introduced into the trisagion, and hence they were also called Theopaschites. With the exception of the Chalcedonian Christology, the Monophysite sects hold most of the doctrines, institutions, and rites of the Orthodox Greek Church, but in simpler and less pronounced form. They reject, or at least do not recognize, the Filioque; they hold to the mass, or the eucharistic sacrifice, with a kind of transubstantiation; leavened bread in the Lord's Supper; baptismal regeneration by trine immersion; seven sacraments (yet not explicitly, since they either have no definite term for sacrament, or no settled conception of it); the patriarchal polity; monasticism; pilgrimages and fasting; the requisition of a single marriage for priests and deacons (bishops are not allowed to marry); the prohibition of the eating of blood or of things strangled. On the other hand, they know nothing of purgatory and indulgences, and have a simpler worship than the Greeks and Romans. According to their doctrine, all men after death go into Hades, a place alike without sorrow or joy; after the general judgment they enter into heaven, or are cast into hell; and meanwhile the intercessions and pious works of the living have an influence on the final destiny of the departed. Note on Russian Schismatics.--The dissenting sects of the Russo-Greek Church are very numerous, but not organized into separate communions like the older Oriental schismatics; the Russian government forbidding them freedom of public worship. They are private individuals or lay-communities, without churches and priests. They have no definite creeds, and differ from the national religion mostly on minor ceremonies. The most important among them are the Raskolniki (i.e. Separatists, Apostates), or, as they call themselves, the Starovers (Old Believers). They date from the time of Nicon, Patriarch of Moscow, and protest against the ritualistic innovations introduced by this remarkable man in the latter part of the seventeenth century, and afterwards by the Czar Peter the Great; they denounce the former as the false prophet, and the latter as the antichrist. They reject the benediction with three fingers instead of two, the pronouncing of the name of Jesus with two syllables instead of three, processions from right to left instead of the opposite course, the use of modern Russ in the service-books, the new mode of chanting, the use of Western pictures, the modern practice of shaving (unknown to the patriarchs, the apostles, and holy fathers), the use of tobacco (though not of whisky), and, till quite recently, also the eating of the potato (as the supposed apple of the devil, the forbidden fruit of paradise). They are again divided into several parties. For information about these and other Russian Non-conformists, see Strahl: History of Heresies and Schisms in the Greek-Russian Church, and his Contributions to Russian Church History (I. 250 sqq.); Hepworth Dixon: Free Russia (1870), and the literature mentioned in Herzog's Encyklop., Art. Raskolniken, Vol. XII. p. 533. __________________________________________________________________ [159] The Abyssinian Church receives its Patriarch (Abuna. i.e. Our Father) from the Copts, but retains some peculiar customs, and presents a strange mixture of Christianity with superstition and barbarism. See my Church History, Vol. III. p. 778. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ FOURTH CHAPTER. THE CREEDS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. General Literature. I. Collections of Roman Catholic Creeds: J. Trg. Lbr. Danz: Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Romano-Catholicae, Weimar, 1885. Fr. W. Streitwolf and R. E. Klener: Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Catholicae, conjuncti, atque notis, prolegomenis indicibusque instructi, Goetting. 1838, 2 vols. Contains the Conc. Trid., the Prof. Fidei Trid., and the Catech. Rom. Henr. Denzinger (R. C., d. 1862): Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, quae de rebus fidei et morum a Conciliis OEcumenicis et Summis Pontificibus enumarunt, edit. quarta, Wirceburgi, 1865 (pp. 548). A convenient collection, including the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (1854), and the Papal Syllabus (1864). II. Roman Catholic Expositions and Defenses of the Roman Catholic System: Bellarmin's Disputationes, Bossuet's Exposition, Moehler's Symbolik, Perrone's Praelectiones Theologicae. See S: 23. III. Protestant Expositions of the Roman Catholic system (exclusive of polemical works): Ph. C. Marheineke (Prof. in Berlin, d. 1846): Christliche Symbolik oder historisch-kritische und dogmatisch-comparative Darstellung des kathol., luther., reform., und socinian. Lehrbegriffs, Heidelb. 1810-13. The first 3 vols. (the only ones which appeared) are devoted to Catholicism. W. H. D. Ed. Koellner (Prof. at Giessen): Symbolik der heil. apost. kathol. roemischen Kirche, Hamb. 1844. (Part II. of his unfinished Symbolik aller christlichen Confessionen.) A. H. Baier (Prof. at Greifswald): Symbolik der roemisch-katholischen Kirche, Leipz. 1854. (The first volume of an unfinished Symbolik der christlichen Religionen und Religionspartheien.) __________________________________________________________________ S: 22. Catholicism and Romanism. The Roman Catholic Church embraces over 180 millions of members, or more than one half of nominal Christendom. [160] It is spread all over the earth, but chiefly among the Latin races in Southern Europe and America. [161] It reaches in unbroken succession to the days of St. Peter and Paul, who suffered martyrdom in Rome. It is more fully developed and consolidated in doctrine, worship, and polity than any other Church. Its hierarchy is an absolute spiritual monarchy culminating in the Bishop of Rome, who pretends to be nothing less than the infallible Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. It proudly identifies itself with the whole Church of Christ, and treats all other Christians as schismatics and heretics, who are outside of the pale of ordinary salvation. But this unproved assumption is the fundamental error of the system. There is a vast difference between Catholicism and Romanism. The former embraces all Christians, whether Roman, Greek, or Protestant; the latter is in its very name local, sectarian, and exclusive. The holy Catholic Church is an article of faith; the Roman Church is not even named in the ancient creeds. Catholicism extends through all Christian centuries; Romanism proper dates from the Council of Trent. Mediaeval Catholicism looked towards the Reformation; Romanism excludes and condemns the Reformation. So ancient Judaism, as represented by Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets, down to John the Baptist, prepared the way for Christianity, as its end and fulfillment; while Judaism, after the crucifixion of the Messiah, and the destruction of Jerusalem, has become hostile to Christianity. 'Catholicism is the strength of Romanism; Romanism is the weakness of Catholicism.' In Romanism, again, a distinction must be made between the Romanism of the Council of Trent, and the Romanism of the Council of the Vatican. The 'Old Catholics' of Holland and Germany adhere to the former, but reject the latter as a new departure. But the papal absolutism has triumphed, and there is no room any longer for a moderate and liberal Romanism within the reign of the Papacy. The doctrinal standards of the Roman Catholic Church may accordingly be divided into three classes: 1. The OEcumenical Creeds, which the Roman Church holds in common with the Greek, excepting the Filioque clause, which the Greek rejects as an unauthorized, heretical, and mischievous innovation. [162] 2. The Roman or Tridentine Creeds, in opposition to the evangelical doctrines of the Reformation. Here belong the Council of Trent, the Profession of Pius IV., and the Roman Catechism. They sanction a number of doctrines, which were prepared in part by patristic and scholastic theology, papal decrees, and mediaeval councils, but had always been more or less controverted, viz., tradition as a joint rule of faith, the extent of the canon including the Apocrypha, the authority of the Vulgate, the doctrine of the primitive state and original sin, justification by works as well as by faith, meritorious works, seven sacraments, transubstantiation, the withdrawal of the cup, the sacrifice of the mass for the living and the dead, auricular confession and priestly absolution, extreme unction, purgatory, indulgences, and obedience to the authority of the Pope as the successor of Peter and vicar of Christ. 3. The modern Papal and Vatican decisions in favor of the immaculate conception of Mary, and the infallibility of the Pope. These were formerly open questions in the Roman Church, but are now binding dogmas of faith. __________________________________________________________________ [160] It is estimated that there are about 370 millions of Christians in the world, which is not much more than one fourth of the human family (1,370,000,000). Of these 370 millions the Roman Church may claim about 190, the Greek Church 80, the Protestant Church 100 millions. But the estimates of the Roman Catholic population vary from 180 to 200 millions. [161] Geographically speaking, the Roman Church may be called the Church of the South, the Greek Church the Church of the East, the Protestant Church the Church of the West. [162] The Greek Church is as much opposed to this Latin interpolation as ever. The Encyclical Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs and other prelates, in reply to the Epistle of Pius IX., dated Jan. 6, 1848, urges no less than fifteen arguments against the Filioque, and reminds Pope Pius of the testimony of his predecessors, Leo III. and John VIII., 'those glorious and last orthodox Popes.' Leo, when appealed to by the delegates of Charlemagne, in 809, caused the original Nicene Creed to be engraved on two tablets of silver, on the one in Greek, on the other in Latin, and these to be suspended in the Basilica of St. Peter, to bear perpetual witness against the insertion of the Filioque. This fact, contrasted with the reverse action of later Popes, is one among the many proofs against papal infallibility. __________________________________________________________________ S: 23. Standard Expositions of the Roman Catholic System. Italy, France, and Germany have successively furnished the ablest champions of the doctrinal system of Romanism in opposition to Protestantism. Their authority is, of course, subordinate to that of the official standards. But as faithful expounders of these standards they have great weight. In Romanism, learning is concentrated in a few towering individuals; while in Protestantism it is more widely diffused, and presents greater freedom and variety of opinion. 1. The first commanding work in defense of Romanism, after many weak attempts of a purely ephemeral character, was written towards the close of the sixteenth century, more than fifty years after the beginning of the Protestant controversy, and about thirty years after the Council of Trent, by Robert Bellarmin (Roberto Bellarmino). He was born 1542, in Tuscany, entered the order of the Jesuits in 1560, became Professor of Theology at Louvain in 1570, and afterwards at Rome, was made a Cardinal in 1599, Archbishop of Capua in 1602, Librarian of the Vatican in 1605, and died at Rome Sept. 17, 1621, nearly eighty years old. Although the greatest controversialist of his age, he had a mild disposition, and was accustomed to say that 'an ounce of peace was worth more than a pound of victory.' His 'Disputations on the Controversies of the Christian Faith' are the most elaborate polemic theology of the Roman Church against the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. [163] They abound in patristic and scholastic learning, logical acumen and dialectical ability. The differences between Romanism and Protestantism are clearly and accurately stated without any attempt to weaken them. And yet the book was placed on the Index Expurgatorius by Sixtus V. for two reasons; first, because Bellarmin introduces the doctrines of the Reformers in their own words, which it was feared might infect Romish readers with dangerous heresies; and, secondly, because he taught merely an indirect, not a direct, authority of the Pope in temporal matters. In France and Venice, on the contrary, even this doctrine of the indirect temporal supremacy was considered too ultramontane, and hence Bellarmin was never a favorite among the Gallicans. After the death of Sixtus V., the inhibition was removed. The work has ever since remained the richest storehouse of Roman controversialists, and can not be ignored by Protestants, although many arguments are now antiquated, and many documents used as genuine are rejected even by Catholics. 2. Nearly a century elapsed before another champion of Romanism appeared, less learned, but more eloquent and popular, Jacques Benigne Bossuet. He was born at Dijon, 1627, was educated by the Jesuits, tutor of the Dauphin 1670-81, Bishop of Meaux since 1681, Counselor of State 1697, and died at Paris 1704. The 'Eagle of Meaux' was the greatest theological genius of France, and the oracle of his age, a man of brilliant intellect, untiring industry, magnificent eloquence, and equally distinguished as controversialist, historian, and pulpit orator. He is called 'the last of the fathers of the Church.' While the hypocritical and licentious Louis XIV. tried to suppress Protestantism in his kingdom by cruel persecution, Bossuet betook himself to the nobler and more successful task of convincing the opponents by argument. This he did in two works, the first apologetic, the second polemical. (a) Exposition de la doctrine de l'eglise catholique sur les matieres de controverse. [164] This book is a luminous, eloquent, idealizing, and plausible defense of the characteristic doctrines of Romanism. It distinguishes between dogmas and theological opinions; presenting the former in a light that is least objectionable to reason, and disowning the latter when especially objectionable to Protestants. 'Bossuet assumes,' says Gibbon, 'with consummate art, the tone of candor and simplicity, and the ten-horned monster is transformed, by his magic touch, into a milk-white hind, who must be loved as soon as seen.' (b) Histoire des variations des eglises protestantes. [165] This is an attempt to refute Protestantism, by presenting its history as a constant variation and change; while the Roman Catholic system remained the same, and thus proves itself to be the truth. The argument is plausible, but not conclusive. It would prove more for the Greek Church than for the Latin, which has certainly itself developed from patristic to mediaeval, from mediaeval to Tridentine, and from Tridentine to Vatican Romanism. Truth in God, or objectively considered, is unchangeable; but truth in man, or the apprehension of it, grows and develops with man and with history. Change, if it be consistent, is not necessarily a mark of heresy, but may be a sign of life and growth, as the want of change, on the other hand, is by no means always an indication of orthodoxy, but still more frequently of stagnation. Bossuet, with all his strong Roman Catholic convictions, was no infallibilist and no ultramontanist, but a champion of the Gallican liberties. He was the presiding genius of the clerical assembly of 1682, which framed the famous four Gallican propositions; and he wrote a book in their defense, which was, however, not published till some time after his death. [166] He carried on a useless correspondence with the great Leibnitz for a reunion of the Catholic and Protestant churches, and proposed to this end a suspension of the anathemas of Trent and a general council in which Protestants should have a deliberative vote. Altogether, although he sanctioned the infamous revocation of the edict of Nantes (as 'le plus bel usage de l'autorite royale'), and secured the papal condemnation of the noble Fenelon (a man more humble and saint-like than himself), Bossuet can no longer be regarded as sound and orthodox, if judged by the standard of the Vatican Council. [167] 3. The same may be said of John Adam Moehler, the greatest German divine of the Roman Church, a man of genius, learning, and earnest piety. He was born 1796, at Igersheim, in the Kingdom of Wuertemberg; was Professor of Theology in the University of Tuebingen since 1822, at Munich since 1835, where he died in 1838. The great work of his life is his Symbolics. [168] It is at once defensive and offensive, a vindication of Romanism and an attack upon Protestantism, and written with much freshness and vigor. It made a profound impression in Germany at a time when Romanism was believed to be intellectually dead or unable to resist the current of Protestant culture. Moehler was well acquainted with Protestant theology, and was influenced by the lectures and writings of Schleiermacher and Neander. [169] He divests Romanism of its gross superstitions, and gives it an ideal and spiritual character. He deals, upon the whole, fairly and respectfully with his opponents, but makes too much argumentative use of the private writings and unguarded utterances of Luther. He ignores the post-Tridentine deliverances of Rome, says not a word about papal infallibility, and, although not a Gallican, he represents the antagonism of the episcopal and papal systems as a wholesome check upon extremes. He recognizes the deep moral earnestness from which the Reformation proceeded, deplores the corruptions in the Church, sends many ungodly popes and priests to hell, and talks of a feast of reconciliation, preceded by a common humiliation and confession that all have sinned and gone astray, the Church alone [meaning the institution] is without spot or wrinkle. [170] His work called forth some very able Protestant replies, especially from Baur and Nitzsch. [171] 4. Giovanni Perrone, born in Piedmont, 1794, Professor of Theology in the Jesuit College at Rome, wrote a system of dogmatics which is now most widely used in the Roman Church, and which most fully comes up to its present standard of orthodoxy. [172] Perrone defends the immaculate conception of Mary, and the infallibility of the Pope, and helped to mould the decrees of the Vatican Council. His method is scholastic and traditional, but divested of the wearisome and repulsive features of old scholasticism, and adapted to the modern state of controversy. Note.--English Works on Romanism.--England and the United States have not produced a classical theological work on Romanism, such as those above mentioned, but a number of compilations and popular defenses. We mention the following: The Faith of Catholics on certain points of Controversy, confirmed by Scripture and attested by the Fathers of the Church during the five first centuries of the Church, compiled by Rev. Jos. Berington and Rev. John Kirk, Lond. 1812, 1 vol.; 2d ed. 1830; 3d ed., revised and greatly enlarged, by Rev. James Waterworth, 1846, in 3 vols. The End of Religious Controversy (Lond. 1818, and often since), a series of letters by the Rt. Rev. John Milner (born in London, 1752, d. 1826). Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church, delivered in London, 1836, by Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman (born in Spain, 1802, died in London, 1865). At present the ablest champions of Romanism in England are ex-Anglicans, especially Dr. John H. Newman (born in London, 1801) and Archbishop Henry Edward Manning (born in London, 1809, Wiseman's successor), who use the weapons of Protestant culture against the Church of their fathers and the faith of their early manhood. Manning is an enthusiastic infallibilist, but Newman acquiesced only reluctantly in the latest dogmatic development. [173] The principal apologists of the Romish Church in America are Archbishops Kenrick and Spaulding, Bishop England, Dr. Orestes Brownson (in his Review), and more recently the editors, chiefly ex-Protestants, of the monthly 'Catholic World.' We mention Francis Patrick Kenrick (Archbishop of Baltimore, born in Dublin 1797, died 1863): The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated, 4th ed. Balt. 1855, and A Vindication of The Catholic Church, in a Series of Letters to the Rt. Rev. J. H. Hopkins, Balt. 1855. His brother, Peter Richard Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis, was an opponent of the infallibility dogma in the Vatican Council, but has since submitted, like the rest of the bishops. In a lengthy and remarkable speech, which he had prepared for the Vatican Council, but was prevented from delivering by the sudden close of the discussion, June 3, 1870, he shows that the doctrine of papal infallibility was not believed either in Ireland, his former home, or in America; on the contrary, that it was formally and solemnly disowned by British bishops prior to the Catholic Emancipation bill. [174] __________________________________________________________________ [163] The Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis hereticos were first published at Ingolstadt, 1587-90, 3 vols. folio; then at Venice (but with many errors); at Cologne, 1620; at Paris, 1688; at Prague, 1721; again at Venice, 1721-27; at Mayence, 1842, and at Rome, 1832-40, in 4 vols. 4to. They are usually quoted by the titles of the different sections, De Verbo Dei, De Christo, De Romano Pontifice, De Conciliis et Ecclesia, Die Clericis, De Monachis, De Purgatorio, etc. The contemporary Annals of Baronius (d. 1607) are the most learned historical vindication of Romanism in opposition to Protestantism and the 'Magdeburg Centuries.' [164] First published in Paris 1671, sixth ed. 1686, and often since in French, German, English, and other languages. It was approved and commended by the French clergy, even by Pope and Cardinals at that time, and attained almost the authority of a symbolical book. But the Jesuit father Maimbourg disapproved it. [165] Paris, 1688, and often since in several languages. Compare also his Defense de l'histoire des variations contre M. Basnage. Sir James Stephen says of the Variations, that they bring to the religious controversy 'every quality which can render it either formidable or attractive.' The famous historian of the Decline and Fall of Rome was converted by this work to Romanism, but ended afterwards in infidelity. 'Bossuet shows,' says Gibbon in his Memoirs, 'by a happy mixture of reasoning and narration, the errors, mistakes, uncertainties, and contradictions of our first Reformers, whose variations, as he learnedly maintains, bear the marks of error, while the uninterrupted unity of the Catholic Church is a sign and testimony of infallible truth. I read, approved, and believed.' [166] Defensio declarationis celeberrimae, quam de potestate ecclesiaslica sanxit clerus Gallicanus 1682, ex speciali jussu Ludovici M. scripta, Luxemb. 1730, 2 vols.; in French, Paris, 1735, 2 vols. [167] Doellinger (Lectures on the Reunion of Churches, 1872, Engl. translation, p. 90) says: 'Bossuet puts aside the question of infallibility, as a mere scholastic controversy, having no relation to faith; and this was approved at Rome at the time. Now, of course, he is no longer regarded in his own country as the classical theologian and most eminent doctor of modern times; but as a man who devoted his most learned and comprehensive work, the labor of many years, to the establishment and defense of a fundamental error, and spent many years of his life in the perversion of facts and distortion of authorities. For that must be the present verdict of every infallibilist on Bossuet.' [168] 'Symbolik, oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensaetze der Katholiken und Protestanten nach ihren oeffentlichen Bekenntniss-Schriften.' It appeared first in 1832, at Mayence; the sixth edition in 1843, and was translated into French, English, and Italian. The English translation is by James Burton Robertson, and bears the title, Symbolism; or, Exposition of the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants, as evidenced in their symbolical writings (Lond. 1843, in 2 vols.; republished in 1 vol., New York, 1844). It is preceded by a memoir of Moehler, and a superficial historical sketch of recent German Church history. [169] Neander told me that Moehler, when a student at Berlin, occasionally called on him, and seemed to him very modest, earnest, and inquiring after the truth. Hase calls him a 'delicate and noble mind,' and relates that when he began his academic career in Tuebingen with him, Moehler was filled with youthful ideals, and regarded by Catholics as heterodox. (Handbuch der Prot. Polemik, Pref. p. ix.) [170] Symbolik (6th edition, p. 353): 'Unstreitig liessen es auch oft genug Priester, Bischoefe und Paepste, gewissenlos und unverantwortlich, selbst dort fehlen, wo es nur von ihnen abhing, ein schoeneres Leben zu begruenden; oder sie loeschten gar noch durch aergerliches Leben und Streben den glimmenden Docht aus, welchen sie anfachen sollten: die Hoelle hat sie verschlungen. . . . Beide [Katholiken und Protestanten] muessen schuldbewusst ausrufen: Wir Alle haben gefehlt, nur die Kirche ist's, die nicht fehlen kann; wir Alle haben gesuendigt, nur sie ist unbefleckt auf Erden.' Incidentally Moehler denies the papal infallibility, when he says (p. 336): 'Keinem einzelnen als solchen kommt diese Unverirrlichkeit zu.' [171] Baur's Gegensatz des Katholicismus and Protestantismus (Tuebingen, 1833, 2d ed. 1836), in learning, grasp, and polemical dexterity, is fully equal or superior to Moehler's Symbolik, but not orthodox, and elicited a lengthy and rather passionate defense from his Catholic colleague (Neue Untersuchungen, Mainz, 1834). Nitzsch's Protestantische Beantwortung der Moehlerschen Symbolik (Hamb. 1835) is sound, evangelical, calm, and dignified. It is respectfully mentioned, but not answered, by Moehler. Marheineke and Sartorius wrote, likewise, able replies. A counterpart of Moehler's Symbolik is Hase's Handbuch der Protestantischen Polemik gegen die Roemisch-Katholische Kirche, Leipz. 1862; 3d ed. 1871. Against this work Dr. F. Speil wrote Die Lehren der Katholischen Kirche, gegenueber der Protestantischen Polemik, Freiburg, 1865, which, compared with Moehler's book, is a feeble defense. [172] Praelectiones theologicae quas in Collegio Romano Societatis Jesu habebat J. P. They appeared first at Rome, 1835 sqq., in 9 vols. 8vo; also at Turin (31st ed. 1865 sqq. in 9 vols.); at Paris (1870, in 4 vols.); at Brussels, and Ratisbon. His compend, Praelectiones theologicae in Compendium redactae, has been translated into several languages. Perrone wrote also separate works, De Jesu Christi Divinitate (Turin, 1870, 3 vols.); De virtutibus fidei, spei et caritatis (Tur. 1867, 2 vols.); De Matrimonio Christiano (Lond. 1861), and on the Immaculate Conception of Mary. [173] The views of the older English Romanists are compiled and classified by Samuel Capper (a Quaker), in the work, The Acknowledged Doctrines of the Church of Rome . . . as set forth by esteemed doctors of the said Church, Lond. 1850 (pp. 608). It consists mostly of extracts from the comments in the Douay version of the Scriptures. Comp. an article in the (N.Y.) Catholic World for Dec. 1873, on 'Catholic Literature in England since the Reformation.' [174] See Kenrick's Concio habenda, at non habita in Friedrich's Documenta, I. 189-226. __________________________________________________________________ S: 24. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Literature. I. Latin Editions. Paul. Manutius (d. 1574): Canones et Decreta OEcum. et Generalis Conc. Tridentini, jussu Pontificis Romani, Rome, 1564, fol., 4to, and 8vo. Canones et Decreta OEcum. et Generalis Conc. Trident. . . . Index dogm. et reformationum, etc., Lovan. 1567, fol. Canones et Decreta OEcum. et Generalis Conc. Trident. additis declarationibus cardinal. Ex ultima recognitione J. Gallemart et citationibus J. Sotealli et Hor. Luth, nec non remissionib. Agst. Barbosae (Cologne, 1620; Lyons, 1650, 8vo), quibus accedunt additiones Blo. Andraeae, etc., Cologne (1664), 1712, 8vo. Ph. Chifflet: S. Concilii Trid. Canones et Decreta cum praefatione, Antw. 1640, 8vo. Judov. le Plat (or Leplat; a very learned and moderate Catholic, d. 1810): Concilii Tridentini Canones et Decreta, juxta exemplar authenticum, Romae 1564 editum, cum variantibus lectionibus, notis Chiffletii, etc., Antwerp, 1779; Madrid, 1786. The most complete Cath. edition. AEm. Lud. Richter et Frid. Schulte: Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini ex editione Romana a. 1834, repetiti, etc., Leipz. 1853. Best Protestant ed. Canones et Decreta sacrosancti OEcumenici Concilii Tridentini, etc., Romae, ed. stereotypa VII., Leipz. (Tauchnitz), 1854. W. Smets: Concilii Tridentini sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis, Paulo III., Julio III., Pio IV., Pontificibus Maximis, celebrati, Canones et Decreta. Latin and German, with a German introduction, 5th ed. Bielefeld, 1859. The doctrinal decrees and canons are also given in Denzinger's Enchiridion. II. English Translations. J. Waterworth (R.C.): The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and OEcumenical Council of Trent (with Essays on the External and Internal History of the Council), London, 1848. (From Le Plat's edition.) Th. A. Buckley (Chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford): The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, London, 1851. There are also translations in French, German, Greek, Arabic, etc. III. History of the Council. Hardouin: Acta Conciliorum (Paris, 1714), Tom. X. 1-435. Jodov. Le Plat: Monumentorum ad historiam Concilii Trid. potissimum illustrandum spectantium amplissima collectio, Lovan. 1781-87, Tom. VII. 4to. The most complete documentary collection. Fra Paolo Sarpi (liberal Catholic, d. 1623): Istoria del concilio Tridentino, nella quale si scoprono tutti gl'artificii della corte di Roma, per impedire, che ne la verita di dogmi si palesasse, ne la riforma del papato e della chiesa si trattasse, Lond. 1619, fol.; Geneva, 1629, 1660. Latin transl., Lond. 1620; Frankf. 1621; Amst. 1694; Leipz. 1699. French translation by Peter Francis Courayer, with valuable historical notes, Lond. 1736, 2 vols. fol.; Amst. 1736, 2 vols. 4to; Amst. 1751, 3 vols. (Courayer was a liberal Roman Catholic divine, but, being persecuted, he fled from France to England, and joined the Anglican Church; d. 1776.) English translation by Sir Nathaniel Brent, Lond. 1676, fol. German translations by Rambach (with Courayer's notes), Halle, 1761, and by Winterer, Mergentheim and Leipz. 2d ed. 1844. Card. Sforza Pallavicini (strict Catholic, d. 1667): Istoria del concilio di Trento, Roma, 1656-57, 2 vols. fol., and other editions, original and translated. Written in opposition to Paul Sarpi. Comp. Brischar: Beurtheilung der Controversen Sarpi's und Pallavic.'s, Tuebing. 1843, 2 vols. L. El. Du Pin (R.C.): Histoire du concile de Trente, Brussels, 1721, 2 vols. 4to. Chr. Aug. Salig (Luth.): Vollstaendige Historie des Trident. Conciliums, Halle, 1741-45, 3 vols. 4to. Jos. Mendham: Memoirs of the Council of Trent, principally derived from manuscript and unpublished Records, etc., Lond. 1834; with a Supplement, 1846. J. Goeschl: Geschichte des Conc. z. Tr., Regensburg, 1840, 2 vols. J. H. von Wessenberg (a liberal R.C. and Bishop of Constance, d. 1860): Geschichte der grossen Kirchenversammlungen des 15 und 16 ten Jahrh., Constance, 1840, Vol. III. and IV. Card. Gabr. Paleotto: Acta Concilii Trid. ab a 1562 descr., ed. Mendham, Lond. 1842. Ed. Koellner: Symbolik der roem. Kirche, Hamb. 1844, pp. 7-140. J. T. L. Danz: Gesch. des Trid. Conc., Jena, 1846. Th. A. Buckley: History of the Council of Trent, London, 1852. Felix Bungener: Histoire du Concile de Trente, Paris, 2d edition, 1854. English translation, Edinburgh, 1852, and New York, 1855. Also in German, Stuttg. 1861, 2 vols. A. Baschet: Journal du Concile de Trente, redige par un secretaire venitien present aux sessions de 1562 `a 1563, avec d'autres documents diplomatiques relatifs `a la mission des Ambassadeurs de France, Par. 1870. Th. Sickel: Zur Geschichte des Concils von Trient. Actenstuecke aus oesterreichischen Archiven, Wien, 1872 (650 pp.). Mostly letters to the German Emperor, in Latin and Italian, from 1559 to 1563. Augustin Theiner (Priest of the Oratory, d.1874): Acta genuina SS. OEcumenici Concilii Tridentini . . . nunc primum integra edita. Zagrabiae (Croatiae) et Lipsiae, 1874, 2 Tom. 4to (pp. 722 and 701). Jos. von Doellingke: Ungedruckte Berichte und Tagebuecher zur Geschichte des Conc. von Trient, Noerdlingen, 1876. The principal source and the highest standard of the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Church are the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, first published in 1564, at Rome, by authority of Pius IV. [175] The Council of Trent (1543-63) is reckoned by the Roman Church as the eighteenth (or twentieth) oecumenical Council. [176] It is also the last, with the exception of the Vatican Council of 1870, which, having proclaimed the Pope infallible, supersedes the necessity and use of any future councils, except for unmeaning formalities. It was called forth by the Protestant Reformation, and convened for the double purpose of settling the doctrinal controversies, which then agitated and divided Western Christendom, and of reforming discipline, which the more serious Catholics themselves, including even an exceptional Pope (Adrian VI.), desired and declared to be a crying necessity. [177] The Popes, jealous of deliberative assemblies, which might endanger their absolute authority, and afraid of reform movements, which might make concessions to heretics, pursued a policy of evasion and intrigue, and postponed the council again and again, until they were forced to yield to the pressure of public opinion. Pius IV. told the Venetian embassador that his predecessors had professed a wish for a council, but had not really desired it. In the early stages of the Reformation, Luther himself appealed to a general council, but he came to the conviction that even general councils had erred (e.g., the Council of Constance in condemning Hus), so that he had to trust exclusively to the Word of God and the Spirit of God in history. In deference to the special wish of the Emperor Charles V., the evangelical princes and divines were invited; but being refused a deliberative voice, they declined. 'They could not fail,' they replied, 'to appreciate the efforts of the Emperor, and they themselves were longing for an impartial council to be controlled by the supreme authority of the Scriptures, but they could not acknowledge nor attend a Roman council where their cause was to be judged after papal decrees and scholastic opinions, which had always found opposition in the Church. The council promised by the Pope would be neither free nor Christian, nor oecumenical, nor ruled by the Word of God; it would only confirm the authority of the Pope, on whom it was depending, and prove a new compulsion of conscience.' The result shows that these apprehensions were well founded. [178] After long delays the Council was opened by order of Pope Paul III., in the Austrian City of Trent (since 1917, belonging to Italy), on the 13th December, 1545, and lasted, with long interruptions, till the 4th of December, 1563. The attendance varied in the three periods: under Paul III. the number of prelates never exceeded 57, under Julius III. it rose to 62, under Pius IV. it was much larger, but never reached the number of the first oecumenical Council (318). The decrees were signed by 255 members, viz., 4 legates of the Pope, 2 Cardinals, 3 Patriarchs, 25 Archbishops, 168 Bishops, 39 representatives of absent prelates, 7 Abbots, and 7 Generals of different orders. Two thirds of them were Italians. >From France and Poland only a few dignitaries were present; the greater part of the German Bishops were prevented from attendance by the war between the Emperor and the Protestants in Germany. The theologians who assisted the members of the Synod belonged to the monastic orders most devoted to the Holy See. The pontifical party controlled the preliminary deliberations as well as the final decisions, in spite of those who maintained the rights of an independent episcopacy. [179] During a period of nearly twenty years twenty-five public sessions were held, of which about one half were spent in mere formalities. But the principal work was done in the committees or congregations. The articles of dispute were always fixed by the papal legates, who presided. They were then first discussed, often with considerable difference of opinion, in the private sessions of the 'Congregations,' and after being secretly reported to, and approved by, the court of Rome, the Synod, in public session, solemnly proclaimed the decisions. They are generally framed with consummate scholastic skill and prudence. The decisions of the Council relate partly to doctrine, partly to discipline. The former are divided again into Decrees (decreta), which contain the positive statement of the Roman dogma, and into short Canons (canones), which condemn the dissenting views with the concluding 'anathema sit.' The Protestant doctrines, however, are almost always stated in an exaggerated form, in which they would hardly be recognized by a discriminating evangelical divine, or they are mixed up with real heresies, which Protestants condemn as emphatically as the Church of Rome. [180] The doctrinal sessions, which alone concern us here, are the following: SESSIO III. Decretum de Symbolo Fidei (accepting the Niceno Constantinopolitan Creed as a basis of the following decrees (Febr. 4, 1546). " IV. Decretum de Canonicis Scripturis (Apr. 8, 1546). " V. De Peccato Originali (June 17, 1546). " VI. De Justificatione (Jan. 13, 1547). " VII. De Sacramentis in genere, and some Canones de Baptismo et Confirmatione (March 3, 1547). " VIII. De Eucharistiae Sacramento (Oct. 11, 1551). " XIV. De S. Poenitentiae et Extreme Unctionis Sacramento (Nov. 25, 1551). " XXI. De Communione sub utraque Specie et Parvulorum (July 16, 1562). " XXII. Doctrina de Sacrificio Missae (Sept. 17, 1562). " XXIII. Vera et Catholica de Sacramento Ordinis doctrina (July 15, 1563). " XXIV. Doctrina de Sacramento Matrimonii (Nov. 11, 1563). " XXV. Decretum de Purgatorio, Doctrina de Invocatione, Veneratione et Reliquiis Sanctorum, et sacris Imaginibus. Decreta de Indulgentiis, de Delectu Ciborum, Jejuniis et Diebus Festis, de Indice Librorum, Catechismo, Breviario et Missali (Dec. 3 and 4, 1563). The last act of the Council was a double curse upon all heretics. [181] The decrees, signed by 255 fathers, were solemnly confirmed by a bull of Pius IV. (Benedictus Deus et Pater Domini nostri, etc.) on the 26th January, 1564, with the reservation of the exclusive right of explanation to the Pope. The Council was acknowledged in Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, the Low Countries, Poland, and the Roman Catholic portion of the German Empire; but mostly with a reservation of the royal prerogatives. In France it was never published in form. No attempt was made to introduce it into England. Pius IV. sent the acts to Queen Mary of Scots, with a letter, dated June 13, 1564, requesting her to publish them in Scotland, but without effect. [182] The Council of Trent, far from being truly oecumenical, as it claimed to be, is simply a Roman Synod, where neither the Protestant nor the Greek Church was represented; the Greeks were never invited, and the Protestants were condemned without a hearing. But in the history of the Latin Church, it is by far the most important clerical assembly, unless the unfinished Vatican Council should dispute with it that honor, as it far exceeded it in numbers. It completed, with the exception of a few controverted articles, the doctrinal system of mediaeval Catholicism, and stamped upon it the character of exclusive Romanism. It settled its relation to Protestantism by thrusting it out of its bosom with the terrible solemnities of an anathema. Papal diplomacy and intrigue outmanaged all the more liberal elements. At the same time the Council abolished various crying abuses, and introduced wholesome disciplinary reforms, as regards the sale of indulgences, the education and morals of the clergy, the monastic orders, etc. Thus the Protestant Reformation, after all, had indirectly a wholesome effect upon the Church which condemned it. The original acts of the Council, as prepared by its general secretary, Bishop Angelo Massarelli, in six large folio volumes, are deposited in the Vatican, and have remained there unpublished for more than three hundred years. But most of the official documents and private reports bearing upon the Council were made known in the sixteenth century, and since. The most complete collection of them is that of Le Plat. New materials were brought to light by Mendham (from the manuscript history of Cardinal Paleotto), by Sickel, and by Doellinger. The genuine acts, but only in part, were edited by Theiner (1874). The history of the Council was written chiefly by two able and learned Catholics of very different spirit: the liberal, almost semi-Protestant monk Fra Paolo Sarpi, of Venice (first, 1619); and, in the interest of the papacy, by Cardinal Sforza Pallavicini (1656), who had access to all the archives of Rome. Both accounts must be compared. The first learned and comprehensive criticism of the Tridentine doctrine, from a Protestant point of view, was prepared by an eminent Lutheran theologian, Martin Chemnitz (d. 1586), in his Examen Concilii Tridentini (1565-73, 4 Parts), best ed., Frankf., 1707; republished, Berlin, 1861. [183] __________________________________________________________________ [175] The editor of this rare authentic edition was the learned Paulus Manutius (Paolo Manuzio), Professor of Eloquence and Director of the Printing-Press of the Venetian Academy, settled at Rome 1561, and died there 1574. Not to be confounded with his father, Aldo Manuzio, sen. (1447-1515), the editor of the celebrated editions of the classics; nor with his son, Aldo Manuzio, the younger (1547-1597), likewise a printer and writer, and Professor of Eloquence. [176] There is a dispute about the reformatory Councils of Pisa (1409), Constance (1414-18), and Basle (1431), which are acknowledged by the Gallicans, but rejected by the Ultramontanists, or accepted only in part, i.e., as far as they condemned and punished heretics (Hus and Jerome of Prague). The Council of Ferrara and Florence (1439) is regarded as a continuation of, or a substitute for, the Council of Basle. There is also a dispute among Roman historians about the oecumenical character of the Council of Sardica (343), the Quinisexta (692), the Council of Vienne (1311), and the fifth Lateran (1512-17). See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol. I. 50 sqq. [177] Adrian VI., from Holland, the teacher of Charles V., and the last non-Italian Pope, succeeded Leo X. in 1522, but ruled only one year. 'He died of the papacy.' He was a man of ascetic piety, and openly confessed, through his legate Chieregati, at the Diet of Nurnberg, that the Church was corrupt and diseased, from the Pope and the papal court to the members; but at the same time he demanded the sharpest measures against Luther as a second Mohammed. Twelve years later, Paul III. (1534-49) appointed a reform commission of nine pious Roman prelates, who in a memorial declared that the Pope's absolute dominion over the whole Church was the source of all this corruption; but he found it safer to introduce the Inquisition instead of a reformation. [178] At the second period of the Council, 1552, a number of Protestant divines from Wuerttemberg, Strasburg, and Saxony, arrived in Trent, or were on the way, but they demanded a revision of the previous decrees and free deliberation, which were refused. [179] The overruling influence of the papal court over the Council rests not only on the authority of Paolo Sarpi, but on many contemporary testimonies, e.g., the reports of Franciscus de Vargas, a zealous Catholic, who was used by Charles V. and Philip II. for the most important missions, who watched the proceedings of the Council at Trent from 1551 to '52 and gave minute information to Granvella. See Lettres et Memoires de Fr. de Vargas, de Pierre de Malvenda et des quelques ereques d'Espagne, trad. par Michel le Vassor, Amst. 1699; also in Latin, by Schramm, Brunswick. 1704. Le Plat pronounced this correspondence fictitious, but its authenticity has been sufficiently established (see Koellner, l.c. pp. 40, 41). [180] Thus the Canones de Justificatione (Sess. VI.) reject Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, as well as Solifidianism and Antinomianism. [181] The Cardinal of Lorraine said, 'Anathema cunctis hereticis.' To this the fathers responded, 'Anathema, Anathema.' [182] On the reception, see the seventh volume of Le Plat's Collection of Documents, Courayer's Histoire de la reception du Concil de Trente, dans les differens etats catholiques, Amst. 1756 (Paris, 1766), and Koellner, l.c. pp. 121-129. [183] The editor, Ed. Preuss, has since become a Romanist at St. Louis (1871). __________________________________________________________________ S: 25. The Profession of the Tridentine Faith, 1564. G. C. F. Mohnike: Urkundliche Geschichte der sogenannten Professio Fidei Tridentinae und einiger andern roem. katholischen Glaubensbekenntnisse, Greifswald, 1822 (310 pp.). Streitwolf et Klener: Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Catholicae, Goett. 1838, Tom. I. pp. xlv.-li. and 98-100. Koellner: Symbolik der roem. Kirche, pp. 141-165. The older literature see in Walch: Biblotheca theol. sel., I. p. 410; and in Koellner, l.c. p. 141. Next in authority to the decrees of the Council of Trent, or virtually superior to it, stands the Professio Fidei Tridentinae, or the Creed of Pius IV. [184] It was suggested by the Synod of Trent, which in its last two sessions declared the necessity of a binding formula of faith (formula professionis et juramenti) for all dignitaries and teachers of the Catholic Church. [185] It was prepared by order of Pope Pius IV., in 1564, by a college of Cardinals. It consists of twelve articles: the first contains the Nicene Creed in full, the remaining eleven are a clear and precise summary of the specific Roman doctrines as settled by the Council of Trent, together with the important additional declaration that the Roman Church is the mother and teacher of all the rest, and with an oath of obedience to the Pope, as the successor of the Prince of the apostles, and the vicar of Christ. [186] The whole is put in the form of an individual profession ('Ego, ----, firma fide credo et profiteor'), and of a solemn vow and oath ('spondeo, voveo ac juro. Sic me Deus adjuvet, et haec sancta Evangelia'). This formula was made binding, in a double bull of Nov. 13, 1564 ('Injunctum noblis'), and Dec. 9, 1564 ('In sacrosancta beati Petri, principis apostolorum, cathedra,' etc.), upon the whole ecclesia docens, i.e., upon all Roman Catholic priests and public teachers in Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities. Besides, it has come to be generally used, without special legislation, as a creed for Protestant converts to Romanism, and hence it is called sometimes the 'Profession of Converts.' [187] For both purposes it is far better adapted than the Decrees of the Council of Trent, which are too learned and extensive for popular use. As this Profession of Pius IV. is the most concise and, practically, the most important summary of the doctrinal system of Rome, we give it in full, and arrange it in three parts, so that the difference between the ancient Catholic faith, the later Tridentine faith, and the oath of obedience to the Pope as the vicar of Christ, may be more clearly seen. It should be remembered that the Nicene Creed was regarded by the ancient Church as final, and that the third and fourth oecumenical Councils solemnly, and on the pain of deposition and excommunication, forbade the setting forth of any new creed. [188] To bring the Tridentine formula up to the present standard of Roman orthodoxy, it would require the two additional dogmas of the immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. TRANSLATION OF THE PROFESSION. [189] I. The Nicene Creed of 381, with the Western Changes. (See p. 27.) 1. I, ----, with a firm faith, believe and profess all and every one of the things contained in the symbol of faith, which the holy Roman Church makes use of, viz.: I 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; God of God, 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 incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; suffered and was buried; And the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into heaven; sitteth on the right hand of the Father; And he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And one holy catholic and apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; And I look for the resurrection of the dead; And the life of the world to come. Amen. II. Summary of the Tridentine Creed (1563). 2. I most steadfastly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. 3. I also admit the holy Scriptures according to that sense which our holy Mother Church has held, and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers (juxta unanimem consensum Patrum). [190] 4. I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one, to wit: baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance and extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these, baptism, confirmation, and ordination can not be reiterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments. 5. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification. 6. I profess likewise that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead (verum, proprium, et propitiatorium sacrificium pro vivis et defunctis); and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially (vere, realiter, et substantialiter) the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a change of the whole essence (conversionem totius substantiae) of the bread into the body, and of the whole essence of the wine into the blood; which change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. 7. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament. 8. I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints reigning with Christ are to be honored and invoked (venerandos atque invocandos esse), and that they offer up prayers to God for us; and that their relics are to be held in veneration (esse venerandas). [191] 9. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ and of the perpetual Virgin, the Mother of God, and also of other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be given them. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. [192] III. Additional Articles and Solemn Pledges (1564). 10. I acknowledge the holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise and swear (spondeo ac juro) true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, and as the vicar of Jesus Christ. 11. I likewise undoubtingly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons and oecumenical Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent; and I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized. 12. I do at this present freely profess and truly hold this true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved (extra quam nemo salvus esse potest); and I promise most constantly to retain and confess the same entire and inviolate, [193] with God's assistance, to the end of my life. And I will take care, as far as in me lies, that it shall be held, taught, and preached by my subjects, or by those the care of whom shall appertain to me in my office. This I promise, vow, and swear--so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God. __________________________________________________________________ [184] The original name was Forma juramenti professionis fidei. In the two papal bulls which published and enjoined the creed, it is called Forma professionis fidei catholicae, or orthodoxae fidei. The usual name is Professio fidei Tridentinae (or P. f. Tridentina, which is properly a misnomer). See Mohnike, l.c. p. 3, and Koellner, 1.c. p. 150. [185] Sess. XXV. cap. 2 De Reformatione (p. 439, ed. Richter): 'Cogit temporum calamitas et invalescentium haeresum malitia, ut nihil sit praetermittendum, quod ad populorum aedificationem et catholicae fidei praesidium videatur posse pertinere. Praecipit igitur sancta synodus patriarchis, primatibus, archiepiscopis, episcopis, et omnibus aliis, qui de jure vel consuetudine in concilio provinciali interesse debent, ut in ipsa prima synodo provinciali, post finem praesentis concilii habenda, ea omnia et singula, quae ab hac sancta synodo definita et statuta sunt, palam recipiant, nec non veram obedientiam summo Romano Pontifici spondeant et profiteantur, simulque haereses omnes, a sacris canonibus et generalibus conciliis, praesertimque ab hac eadme synodo damnatas, publice detestentur et anathematizent.' Comp. Sess. XXIV. De Reformatione, cap. 12, where an examination and profession (orthodoxae fidei publica professio) is required from the clergy, together with a vow to remain obedient to the Roman Church (in ecclesiae Romanae obedientia se permansuros spondeant ac jurent). [186] 'Sanctum catholicam et apostolicam Romanam ecclesiam omnium ecclesiarum matrem et magistram agnosco, Romanoque Pontifici, beati Petri Apostolorum principis successori ac Jesu Christi vicario, veram obedientiam spondeo ac juro.' Here the 'catholic' Church is identified with the 'Roman' Church, and true obedience to the Pope is made a test of catholicity. The union decree of the Council of Florence makes a similar assertion (see Hardouin, Acta Conc. ix. 423): 'Item definimus, sanctam apostolicam sedem et Romanum Pontificem in universum orbem tenere primatum, et ipsum Pontificem Romanum successorem esse beati Petri principis Apostolorum, et verum Christi vicarium, totiusque ecclesiae caput et omnium Christianorum patrem et doctorem existere.' But the integrity of the text of this famous union formula is disputed, and the Greeks and Latins charge each other with corruption. Some Greek copies omit the proud words ton Rhomaikon archierea eis pasan ten oikoumenen to proteion katechein. Comp. Theod. Frommann: Zur Kritik des Florentiner Unionsdecrets and seiner dogmatischen Verwerthung beim Vaticanischen Concil, Leipz. 1870, pp. 40 sqq. [187] For converts from the Greek Church the form was afterwards (1575) modified by a reference to the compromise of the Council of Florence. See the Professio Fidei Graecis praescripta a Gregorio XIII., in Denzinger's Enchir., p. 294, and the Professio Fidei Orientalibus praescripta ab Urbano VIII. et Benedicto XIV., ibid., p. 296. For Protestants other forms of abjuration were occasionally used, without official sanction. The infamous Hungarian formula for Protestant converts (Confessio novorum Catholicorum in Hungaria, first published 1674) is disowned by liberal Catholics as a foul Protestant forgery, but seems to have been used occasionally by Jesuits during the cruel persecutions of Protestants in Hungary and Bohemia in the 17th century. It contains the most extravagant Jesuit views on the authority of the Pope, the worship of the Virgin, the power of the priesthood, and pronounces awful curses on Protestant parents, teachers, and relations ('maledictos pronuntiamus parentes nostros,' etc.), and on the evangelical faith, with the promise to persecute this faith in every possible way, even by the sword ('Juramus etiam, donec una gutta sanguinis in corpore nostro exstiterit, doctrinam maledictam illam evangelicam nos omnimodo, clam et aperte, violenter et fraudulenter, verbo et facto persecuturos, ense quoque non excluso'). See the formula in Mohnike, l.c. pp. 88-92, in Streitwolf and Klener, II. pp. 343-346; and an account of the controversies concerning it in Koellner, l.c. pp. 159-165, and especially the monograph of Mohnike: Zur Geschichte des Ungarischen Fluchformulars (an Appendix to his History of the Profession of the Tridentine Faith), Greifswald, 1823, 264 pages. A copy of this rare book is in the library of the Union Theological Seminary of New York. [188] Conc. Ephes. (431), Canon VII.; Conc. Chalced. (451), after the definition of faith. [189] See the Latin text in the two bulls of Pius IV. above mentioned, also in Mohnike, 1.c. pp. 46 sqq., in Streitwolf and Klener, Libri Symb. I. 98-100 (with the various readings), and in Denzinger, Enchir., p. 98. Also Mirbt, pp. 337-40. For additions to the oath, Vol. II. 210. [190] It is characteristic that the Scriptures are put after the traditions, and admitted only in a restricted sense, the Roman Church being made the only interpreter of the Word of God. Protestantism reverses the order, and makes the Bible the rule and corrective of ecclesiastical traditions. [191] This should properly be a separate article, but in the papal bulls it is connected with the eighth article. [192] This should likewise be a separate article, but is made a part of article 9. [193] For inviolatam the Roman Bullaria read immaculatam. __________________________________________________________________ S: 26. Roman Catechism, 1566. Latin Editions. Catechismus ex decreto Conc. Trident. Pii V. jussu editus, Romae ap. Paulum Manutium, 1566, in editions of different sizes, very often reprinted all over Europe. Catechismus ad Parochos, ex decreto Concilii Tridentini editus. Ex Pii V. Pont. Max. jussu promulgatus. Syncerus et integer, mendisque iterum repurgatus opera P. D. L. H. P. A quo est additus apparatus ad Catechismum, in quo ratio, auctores, approbatores, et usus declarantur, Lugduni, 1659: Paris, 1671; Lovan. 1678; Paris, 1684; Colon. 1689, 1698, 1731; Aug. Vindel. 1762; Lugdun. 1829; Mechlin, 1831; Ratisb. 1856 (730 pp.). Catechismus ex decreto Conc. Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. jussu editus. Ad editionem Romae A.D. 1566 juris publici factam accuratissime expressus, ed. stereotypa VI., Lipsiae (Tauchnitz), 1859, 8vo. Also in Streitwolf et Klener: Libri Symb. eccl. cath., Tom. I. pp. 101-712. A critical edition, indicating the different divisions, the quotations from the Scriptures, the Councils, and other documents. Translations. The Catechism for the Curates, composed by the Council of Trent, and published by command of Pope Pius the Fifth. Faithfully translated into English. Permissu superiorum. London, 1687. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, translated into English by J. Donovan, Baltimore, 1829. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, translated into English, with Notes, by T. A. Buckley, B.A., London, 1852, 8vo. German translations, first, by Paul Hoffaeus, Dillingen, 1568, 1576; another at Wien, 1763; one by T. W. Bodemann, Goettingen, 1844; and by Ad. Buse, Bielefeld, (with the Lat. text), 3d ed. 1867, 2 vols. French translations, published at Bordeaux, 1568; Paris, 1578, 1650 (by P. de la Haye), 1673, etc. History. Julii Pogiani Sunensis (d. 1567): Epistolae et Orationes olim collectae ab Antonio Maria Gratiano, nunc ab Hieronymo Lagomarsinio e Societate Jesu advocationibus illustratae ac primum editae, Rom., Vol. I. 1752; II. 1756; III. 1757; IV. 1758. Apparatus ad Catechismum, etc., mentioned above, by an anonymous author (perhaps Anton. Reginaldus), first published in the edition of the Catechism, Lugd. 1659. The chief source of information. J. C. Koecher: Catech. Geschichte der Puebstlichen Kirche, Jen. 1753. Koellner: Symbolik der roem. Kirche, pp. 166-190. K. gives a list of other works on the subject. The Roman Catechism was proposed by the Council of Trent, which entered upon some preparatory labors, but at its last session committed the execution to the Pope. [194] The object was to regulate the important work of popular religious instruction, and to bring it into harmony with the decisions of the Council. [195] Pius IV. (d. 1565), under the advice of Cardinal Carlo Borromeo (Archbishop of Milan), intrusted the work to four eminent divines, viz., Leonardo Marini (afterwards Archbishop of Lanciano), Egidio Foscarari (Bishop of Modena), Muzio Calini (Archbishop of Jadera-Zara, in Dalmatia), and Francesco Fureiro (of Portugal). Three of them were Dominicans (as was the Pope himself). This explains the subsequent hostility of the Jesuits. Borromeo superintended the preparation with great care, and several accomplished Latin scholars, especially Jul. Pogianus, aided in the style of composition. [196] The Catechism was begun early in 1564, and substantially finished in December of the same year, but subjected for revision to Pogianus in 1565, and again to a commission of able divines and Latinists. It was finally completed in July, 1566, and published by order of Pope Pius V., in September, 1566, and soon translated into all the languages of Europe. Several Popes and Bishops recommended it in the highest terms. The Dominicans and Jansenists often appealed to its authority in the controversies about free will and divine grace, but the Jesuits (Less, Molina, and others) took ground against it, and even charged it with heresy. The work is intended for teachers (as the title ad Parochos indicates), not for pupils. It is a very full popular manual of theology, based upon the decrees of Trent. It answers its purpose very well, by its precise definitions, lucid arrangement, and good style. The Roman Catechism treats, in four parts: 1, de Symbolo apostolico; 2, de Sacramentis; 3, de Decalogo; 4, de Oratione Dominica. It was originally written and printed without divisions. [197] Its theology belongs to the school of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and hence it displeased the Jesuits. While it passes by certain features of the Roman system, as the indulgences and the rosary, it treats of others which were not touched upon by the Fathers of Trent, as the limbus patrum, the doctrine of the Church, and the authority of the Pope. Notwithstanding the high character and authority of this production, it did not prevent the composition and use of many other catechisms, especially of a more popular kind and in the service of Jesuitism. The most distinguished of these are two Catechisms of the Jesuit Peter Canisius (a larger one for teachers, 1554, and a smaller one for pupils, 1566); the Catechism of Cardinal Bellarmin (1603), which Clement VIII. and later Popes commended as an authentic and useful exposition of the Roman Catechism, and which is much used by missionaries; and the Catechism of Bossuet for the diocese of Meaux (1687). The Roman Church allows an endless multiplication of such educational books with adaptations to different nationalities, ages, degrees of culture, local wants and circumstances, provided they agree with the doctrinal system set forth by the Council of Trent. Most of these books, however, must now be remodeled and adjusted to the Council of the Vatican. [198] __________________________________________________________________ [194] Sessio XXIV. De Reformatione, cap. 7 (ed. Richter, p. 344), the Bishops are directed to provide for the instruction of Catholics, 'juxta formam a sancta synodo in catechesi singulis sacramentis praescribendam, quam episcopi in vulgarem linguam fideliter verti, atque a parochis omnibus populo exponi curabunt.' According to Sarpi, a draft of the proposed Catechism was laid before the Synod, but rejected. In the 25th and last session (held Dec. 24, 1563), the Synod intrusted the Pope (Pius IV.) with the preparation of an index of prohibited books, a catechism, and an edition of the liturgical books ('idemque de catechismo a Patribus, quibus illud mandatum fuerat, et de missali, et breviario fieri mandat,' p. 471). [195] Several catechisms, not properly authorized, had appeared before and during the Council of Trent to counteract the Lutheran and Reformed Catechisms, which did so much to spread and popularize the Reformation. See a list of them in Streitwolf and Klener, I. p. i.-iv., and in Koellner, p. 169. [196] Winer, Guericke, Moehler, and others, ascribe the Latinity of the Catechism to Paulus Manutius, the printer of the same; but he himself, in his epistles, where he mentions all his literary labors, says nothing about it. [197] The division into four parts, and of these into chapters and questions, appeared first in the edition of Fabricius Lodius, Col. 1572, and Antw. 1574. Other editions vary in the arrangement. [198] Thus, for instance, in Keenan's Controversial Catechism, as published by the 'Catholic Publishing Company,' New Bond Street, London, the pretended doctrine of papal infallibility was expressly denied as 'a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of the Pope can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.' But since 1871 the leaf containing this question and answer has been canceled and another substituted. So says Oxenham, in his translation of Doellinger on the Reunion of Churches, p. 126, note. The same is true of many German and French Catholic Catechisms. __________________________________________________________________ S: 27. The Papal Bulls against the Jansenists, 1653 and 1713. Cornelius Jansenius (Episcopi Iprensis, 1585-1638): Augustinus, seu doctrina Augustini de humanae naturae sanitate, aegritudine, et medicina, adv. Pelagianos et Massilienses, Lovan. 1640, 3 vols.; Paris, 1641; Rouen, 1643 (with a Synopsis vitae Jansenii). Prohibited, together with the Jesuit antitheses, by Pope Urban VIII., 1642. St. Cyran (Du Vergier, d. 1643): Aurelius, 1633: again, Paris, 1646. A companion to Jansen's 'Augustinus', and called after the other name of the great Bishop of Hippo. Anthony Arnauld (Doctor of the Sorbonne, d. at Brussels, 1694): OEuvres, Paris, 1775-81, 49 vols. in 44. Letters, sermons, ascetic treatises, controversial books against Jesuits (Maimbourg, Annat), Protestants (Jurieu, Aubertin), and philosophers (Descartes, Malebranche). M. Leydecker (Ref. Prof. at Utrecht, d. 1721): Historia Jansenismi, Utr. 1695. Gerberon: Histoire generale de Jansenisme, Amst. 1700. Lucchesini: Hist. polem. Jansenismi, Rome, 1711, 3 vols. Fontaine: Memoires pour servir a l'histoire de Port-Royal (Utrecht), 1738, 2 vols. Collectio nova actorum Constit. Unigenitus, ed. R. J. Dubois, Lugd. 1725. Dom. de Colonia: Diction, des livres Jansenistes, Lyons, 1732, 4 vols. H. Reuchlin: Geschichte von Port-Royal, Hamb. 1839-44, 2 vols. Comp. his monograph on Pascal, and his art. Jansen and Jansenismus in Herzog's Encyklop. 2d ed. Vol. VI. pp. 481-493. C. A. Sainte-Beuve: Port-Royal, Paris, 1840-42, 2 vols. Abbe Guettee: Jansenisme et Jesuitisme, un examen des accusations de Jans., etc., Paris, 1857. Compare his Histoire de l'eglise de France, compose sur les documents originaux et authentiques, Paris, 1847-56, 12 vols. Placed on the index of prohibited books, 1852. The author has since passed from the Roman to the Greek Church. W. Henley Jervis: The Gallican Church: A History of the Church of France from 1516 to the Revolution, Lond. 1872, 2 vols. On Jansenism, see Vol. I. chaps. xi.-xiv., and Vol. II. chaps. v., vi., and viii. Frances Martin: Anglique Arnauld, Abbess of Port-Royal, London, 1873. (The controversial literature on Jansenism in the National Library at Paris amounts to more than three thousand volumes.) On the Jansenists, or Old Catholics, in Holland. Dupac de Bellegarde: H. de l'eglise metropol. d'Utrecht, Utr. 1784, 3d ed. 1852. Walch: Neueste Rel. Geschichte, Vol. VI. pp. 82 sqq. Theol. Quartalschrift, Tueb. 1826. Augusti: Das Erzbisthum Utrecht, Bonn, 1838. S. P. Tregelles: The Jansenists: their Rise, Persecutions by the Jesuits, and existing Remnant, London, 1851 (with portraits of Jansenius, St. Cyran, and the Mere Angelique). J. M. Neale: A History of the so-called Jansenist Church of Holland, etc., London, 1857. Neale visited the Old Catholics in Holland in 1851, and predicted for them happier days. Fr. Nippold: 'Die altkatholische Kirche des Erzbisthums Utrecht. Geschichtl. Parallele zur altkathol. Gemeindebildung in Deutschland, Heidelberg, 1872. The remaining doctrinal decrees of the Roman Church relate to internal controversies among different schools of Roman Catholics. Jansenism, so called after Cornelius Jansenius (or Jansen), Bishop of Ypres, and supported by the genius, learning, and devout piety of some of the noblest minds of France, as St. Cyran, Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal, Tillemont, the Mother Angelique Arnauld, and other nuns of the once celebrated Cistercian convent Port-Royal des Champs (a few miles from Versailles), was an earnest attempt at a conservative doctrinal and disciplinary reformation in the Roman Church by reviving the Augustinian views of sin and grace, against the semi-Pelagian doctrines and practices of Jesuitism, and made a near approach to evangelical Protestantism, though remaining sincerely Roman Catholic in its churchly, sacerdotal, and sacramental spirit, and legalistic, ascetic piety. It was most violently opposed and almost totally suppressed by the combined power of Church and State in France, which in return reaped the Revolution. It called forth two Papal condemnations, with which we are here concerned. I. The bull 'Cum Occasione' of Innocent X. (who personally knew and cared nothing about theology), A.D. 1653. It is purely negative, and condemns the following five propositions from a posthumous work of Jansenius, entitled Augustinus. [199] (1.) The fulfillment of some precepts of God is impossible even to just men according to their present ability (secundum praesentes quas habent vires), and the grace is also wanting to them by which they could be observed (deest illis gratia, qua possibilia fiant). (2.) Interior grace is never resisted in the state of fallen nature. (3.) For merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature man need not be exempt from all necessity, but only from coercion or constraint (Ad merendum et demerendum in statu naturae lapsae, non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a coactione--that is, from violence and natural necessity). (4.) The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of prevenient interior grace for every action, even for the beginning of faith; but they were heretical (in eo erant haeretici) in believing this grace to be such as could be resisted, or obeyed by the human will (eam gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana voluntas resistere, vel obtemperare). (5.) It is semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died and shed his blood wholly (altogether) for all men. [200] The Jansenists maintained that these propositions were not taught by Jansenius, at least not in the sense in which they were condemned; that this was a historical question of fact (question de fait), not a dogmatic question of right (droit); and, while conceding to the Pope the right to condemn heretical propositions, they denied his infallibility in deciding a question of fact, about which he might be misinformed, ignorant, prejudiced, or taken by surprise. But Pope Alexander VII., in a bull of 1665, commanded all the Jansenists to subscribe a formula of submission to the bull of Innocent X., with the declaration that the five propositions were taught in the book of Cornelius Jansen in the sense in which they were condemned by the previous Pope. [201] The Jansenists, including the nuns of Port-Royal, refused to submit. Many fled to the Netherlands. The Pope abolished their famous convent (1709), the building was destroyed by order of Louis XIV. (1710), even the corpses of the illustrious Tillemonts, Arnaulds, Nicoles, De Sacys, and others, were disinterred with gross brutality (1711), and the church itself was demolished (1713). No wonder that such barbarous tyranny and cruelty, perpetrated in the holy name of the Church of Christ, bred a generation of skeptics and infidels, who at last banished the Church and religion itself from the territory of France. Cardinal Noailles, who from weakness had lent his high authority to these outrages, made afterwards, in bitter repentance, a pilgrimage to the ruins of Port-Royal, and, looking over the desecrated burial-ground, he exclaimed: 'Oh! all these dismantled stones will rise up against me at the day of judgment! Oh! how shall I ever bear the vast, the heavy load!' [202] II. The more important bull 'Unigenitus (Dei Filius)', issued by Pope Clement XI., Sept., 1713, condemns one hundred and one sentences of the Jansenist Pasquier Quesnel, (d. 1719), extracted from his moral reflections on the New Testament. [203] This bull is likewise negative, but commits the Church of Rome still more strongly than the former against evangelical doctrines. Several of the passages selected are found almost literally in Augustine and St. Paul; they assert the total depravity of human nature, the loss of liberty, the renewing power of the free grace of God in Christ, the right and duty of all Christians to read the Bible. The following are the most important of these propositions: [204] (2.) Jesu Christi gratia, principium efficax boni cujuscunque generis, necessaria est ad omne opus bonum; absque illa non solum nihil fit, sed nec fieri potest. (3.) In vanum, Domine, praecipis, si tu ipse non das, quod praecipis. (Compare the similar sentence of Augustine, which was so offensive to Pelagius: Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis.) (4.) Ita, Domine; omnia possibilia sunt ei, cui omnia possibilia facis, eadem operando in illo. (10.) Gratia est operatio manus omnipotentis Dei, quam nihil impedire potest aut retardare. (11.) Gratia non est aliud quam voluntas omnipotentis Dei jubentis et facientis, quod jubet. (13.) Quando Deus vult animam salvam facere, et eam tangit interiori gratiae suae manu, nulla voluntas humana ei resistit. (18.) Semen verbi, quod manus Dei irrigat, semper affert fructum suum. (21.) Gratia Jesu Christi est gratia fortis, potens, suprema, invincibilis, utpote quae est operatio voluntatis omnipotentis, sequela et imitatio operationis Dei incarnantis et resuscitantis Filium suum. (27.) Fides est prima gratia et fons omnium aliarum. (2 Pet. 1. 3.) (28.) Prima gratia, quam Deus concedit peccatori, est peccatorum remissio. (29.) Extra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia. [205] (30.) Omnes, quos Deus vult salvare per Christum, salvantur infallibiliter. (38.) Peccator non est liber, nisi ad malum, sine gratia Liberatoris. (39.) Voluntas, quam gratia non praevenit, nihil habet luminis, nisi ad aberrandum, ardoris, nisi ad se praecipitandum, virium nisi ad se vulnerandum; est capax omnis mali et incapax ad omne bonum. (40.) Sine gratia nihil amare possumus, nisi ad nostram condemnationem. (58.) Nec Deus est nec religio, ubi non est charitas. (1 John iv. 8.) (59.) Oratio impiorum est novum peccatum; et quod Deus illis concedit, est novum in eos judicium. (69.) Fides, usus, augmentum et praemium fidei, totum est donum purae liberalitatis Dei. (72.) Nota ecclesiae Christianae est, quod sit catholica, comprehendens et omnes angelos coeli, et omnes electos et justos terrae et omnium saeculorum. (75.) Ecclesia est unus solus homo compositus ex pluribus membris, quorum Christus est caput, vita, subsistentia et persona; unus solus Christus compositus ex pluribus sanctis, quorum est Sanctificator. (76.) Nihil spatiosius Ecclesia Dei; quia omnes electi et justi omnium seculorum illam componunt (Eph. ii. 22). (77.) Qui non ducit vitam dignam filio Dei et membro Christi, cessat interius habere Deum pro Patre et Christum pro capite. (79.) Utile et necessarum est omni tempore, omni loco, et omni personarum generi, studere el cognoscere spiritum, pietatem et mysteria sacrae Scripturae. (80.) Lectio sacrae Scripturae est pro omnibus. (John v. 39; Acts xvii. 11.) (81.) Obscuritas sancti verbi Dei non est laicis ratio dispensandi se ipsos ab ejus lectione. (82.) Dies Dominicus a Christianis debet sanctificari lectionibus pietatis et super omnia sanctarum Scripturarum. Damnosum est, velle Christianum ab hac lectione retrahere. (84.) Abripere e Christianorum manibus novum Testamentum seu eis illud clausum tenere auferendo eis modum istud intelligendi, est illis Christi os obturare. (85.) Interdicere Christianis lectionem sacrae Scripturae, praesertim Evangelii, est interdicere usum luminis filiis lucis et facere, ut patiantur speciem quamdam excommunicationis. (92.) Pati potius in pace excommunicationem et anathema injustum, quam prodere veritatem, est imitari sanctum Paulum; tantum abest, ut sit erigere se contra auctoritatem aut scindere unitatem. (100.) Tempus deplorabile, quo creditur honorari Deus persequendo veritatem ejusque discipulos! . . . Frequenter credimus sacrificare Deo impium, et sacrificamus diabolo Dei servum. These and similar propositions, some of them one-sided and exaggerated, many of them clearly patristic and biblical, are indiscriminately condemned by the bull Unigenitus, as 'false, captious, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, rash, injurious, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy and savoring of heresy itself, near akin to heresy, several times condemned, and manifestly renewing various heresies, particularly those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansenius!' A large portion of the French clergy, headed by the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal de Noailles, who repented of his part in the destruction of Port-Royal, protested against the bull, and appealed from the Pope to a future council. But 'when Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.' The bull Unigenitus was repeatedly confirmed by the same Clement XI., A.D. 1718 (in the bull 'Pastoralis Officii'), Innocent XIII., 1722, Benedict XIII. and a Roman Synod, 1725, Benedict XIV., 1756; it was accepted by the Gallican clergy 1730, and, as Denzinger says, by 'the whole Catholic world' ('ab universo mundo catholico'). Even the miracles on the grave of a Jansenist saint (Franois Paris, who died 1727, after the severest self-denial, with a protest against the bull Unigenitus in his hand), could not save Jansenism from destruction in France. [206] But a remnant fled to the more liberal soil of Protestant Holland, and was there preserved as a perpetual testimony against Jesuitism, and, as it now seems, for an important mission in connection with the Old Catholic protest against the decisions of the Vatican Council. Note on the Jansenists in Holland.--The remnant of the Jansenists or the Old Catholics in Holland date their separate existence from the protest against the bull Unigenitus, but are properly the descendants of the original Catholics. They disown the name 'Jansenists,' on the ground of alleged error in the papal bulls concerning the true teaching of Jansen, and call themselves the 'Old Episcopal Clergy of the Netherlands;' but they are strongly opposed to the theology and casuistry of the Jesuits, and incline to the Augustinian views of sin and grace. In other respects they are good Catholics in doctrine, worship, and mode of piety; they acknowledge the decrees and canons of Trent, and even the supremacy of the Pope within the limits of the old Gallican theory. They inform him of the election of every new bishop, which the Pope as regularly declares illegitimate, null, and void. They say that the tyranny of a father does not absolve his children from the duty of obedience, and hope against hope that God will convert the Pope, and turn his heart towards them. They number at present one archbishopric of Utrecht and two bishoprics of Deventer and Haarlem, 25 congregations, and about 6000 members. They live very quietly, surrounded by Romanists and Protestants, and are much respected, like the Moravians, for their character and piety. The Pope, after condemning them over and over again, appointed, in 1853, five new bishoprics in Holland, with a rival archbishop at Utrecht, and thus consolidated and perpetuated the schism. When the decree of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated in 1854, the three Old Catholic Bishops issued a pastoral letter, in which they reject the new dogma as contrary to the Scriptures and early tradition, and as lacking the threefold test of catholicity (semper, ubique, ab omnibus). The Vatican decree of Papal Infallibility, and the Old Catholic movement in Germany have brought this long afflicted and persecuted remnant of Jansenism into new notice. The Old Catholics of Germany, holding fast to an unbroken episcopal succession, looked to their brethren in Holland for aid in effecting an organization when it should become necessary. At their invitation, Archbishop Loos, of Utrecht (a venerable and amiable old gentleman), made a tour of visitation in the summer of 1872, and confirmed about five hundred children in several congregations in Germany, blessing God that his little Church was spared for happier days. After his death the Bishop of Deventer consecrated Prof. Reinkens Bishop for the Old Catholics in Germany, Aug. 11, 1873. The Old Catholics of Holland agree with those in Germany: 1. In maintaining the doctrinal basis of Tridentine Romanism; 2. In protesting against all subsequent papal decisions, more particularly the bull Unigenitus, the decree of the Immaculate Conception (1854), and the Vatican decree of Papal Infallibility. [The Jansenist Abp. of Utrecht was excommunicated by Leo XIII., Feb. 28, 1893. See Mirbt, p. 488, and also the Old Catholic bishops of Germany and Switzerland.--Ed.] __________________________________________________________________ [199] The book is called after the great African Church Father, whose doctrines it reproduced, and was published by friends of the author in 1640, two years after his death. On Jansen, comp. the Dutch biography of Heeser: Historisch Verhaal van de Geboorte, Leven, etc., van Cornelius Jansenius, 1727. He was born near Leerdam, in Holland, 1585, studied in Paris, was Professor of Theology in the University of Louvain, Bishop of Ypres 1635, and died 1638. He read Augustine's works against Pelagius thirty times, the other works ten times. His book was finished shortly before his death, and advocates the Augustinian system on total depravity, the loss of free-will, irresistible grace, and predestination. In his will he submitted it to the Holy See. He resembles somewhat his countryman, Pope Adrian VI., who vainly endeavored to reform the Papacy. [200] 'Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.' This supralapsarian proposition is condemned as falsa, temeraria, scandalosa, impia, blasphema, et haeretica. See the five propositions of Jansen in Denzinger's Enchir., pp. 316, 317. [201] 'Ego N. constitutioni apostolicae Innocentii X., datae die 31. Maji 1653, et constitutioni Alexandri VII., datae die 16. Octobris 1665, summorum Pontificum, me subjicio, et quinque propositiones ex Cornelii Jansenii libro, cui nomen Augustinus, excerptas, et in sensu ab eodem auctore intento, prout illas per dictas constitutiones Sedes Apostalica damnavit, sincero animo rejicio ac damno, et ita juro. Sic me Deus adjuvet, et haec sancta Dei evangelia.' [202] Gregoire: Les ruines de Port-Royal, Par. 1709. Memoires sur la destruction de P. R. des Champs, 1711. Jervis, l.c. Vol. II. pp.191 sqq. Tregelles says, l.c. p. 47: 'The united acts of Louis XIV. and the Jesuits, in crushing alike Protestants, Quietists, and Jansenists, drove religion well-nigh out of France. What a spectacle! The same monarch, under the influence of the same evil-minded and pharisaical woman (Madame de Maintenon), persecuting not only Protestants, but also such men as Fenelon, among the brightest and holiest of those who owned the authority of Rome. Thus was the train laid which led to the fearful explosion in which altar and throne alike fell, and atheism was nationally embraced. How the mind of Voltaire was affected by the abominable deeds of men who professed the name of Christ, is shown by his juvenile verses, in which he speaks so indignantly of the destruction of Port-Royal that he was sent for a year to the Bastile.' [203] Pasquier or Paschasius Quesnel was born at Paris, 1634, studied at the Sorbonne, joined the Congregation of the Oratory, and was appointed director of the institution belonging to this order at Paris. He was a profound and devout student of the Scriptures and the Fathers, edited the works of Leo I. (1675, with dissertations) in defense of the Gallican Church against the Ultramontane Papacy (hence the edition was condemned by the Congregation of the Index), was exiled from France 1684, joined Arnauld at Brussels, and died at Amsterdam 1719. After the death of Arnauld he was considered the head of the Jansenists. His commentary is one of the most spiritual and reverent. It is entitled 'Le Nouv. Testament en franc,ois avec des reflexions morales sur chaque vers, et pour en rendre la lecture plus utile, et la meditation plus aisee,' Paris, 1687, 2 vols.; 1694; Amsterd. 1736, 8 vols.; also in Latin and other languages; Engl. ed. London, 1819-25, 4 vols. The Gospels were repeatedly published, with an introductory essay by Bishop Daniel Wilson, London and New York. Comp. Causa Quesnelliana, Brussels, 1704. [204] Denzinger's Enchir., pp. 351-361. [205] The denial of this proposition implies the assertion that there is grace outside of the Church, though not sufficient for salvation; else it would be inconsistent with the Roman Catholic doctrine 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' [206] The Jesuits, of course, ascribed the Jansenist miracles, visions, and ecstatic convulsions to the devil. __________________________________________________________________ S: 28. The Papal Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, 1854. Literature. I. In favor of the Immaculate Conception of Mary: The papal bull of Pius IX., 'Ineffabilis Deus,' Dec. 8 (10), 1854. John Perrone (Professor of the Jesuit College in Rome, and one of the chief advisers of Pius IX. in framing his decree): Can the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary be defined by a Dogmatic Decree? In Latin, Rome, 1847, dedicated to Pius IX., with a letter of thanks by the Pope; German translation, by Dietl and Schels, Regensburg, 1849. (I used the German edition.) See also Perrone's Praelectiones theologicae, Append. to Tom. VI., ed. Ratisb. 1854. C. Passaglia: De immaculato Deiparae semper virginis conceptu, Rom. 1854 sqq., Tom. III. 4to. (The author has since become half heretical, at least as regards the temporal power of the Pope, and was obliged to flee from Rome. See his pamphlet on the subject, 1861, which was placed on the Index.) H. Denzinger (d. 1862): Die Lehre von der unbefleckten Empfaengniss der seligsten Jungfrau, Wuerzb. 1868. Aug. de Roskovany (Episc. Nitriensis): Beata Virgo Maria in suo conceptu immaculata ex monumentis omnium seculorum demonstrata, Budapest, 1874, 6 vols. II. Against the Immaculate Conception: Juan de Turrecremata: Tractatus de veritate conceptionis beatissimae virginis, etc., Rome, 1547, 4to; newly edited by Dr. E. B. Pusey, with a preface and notes, London, 1869. Card. Joh. de Turrecremata, or Torquemada (not to be confounded with the Great Inquisitor Thomas de T.), attended as magister sacri palatii the General Councils of Basle and Ferrara, and, although a faithful champion of Popery, he opposed, as a Dominican, the Immaculate Conception. He died, 1468, at Rome. J. de Launoy (or Launoius, a learned Jansenist and Doctor of the Sorbonne, d. 1678): Praescriptiones de Conceptu B. Mariae Virginis, 2d ed. 1677; also in the first volume of his Opera omnia, Colonii Allobrogum, fol. 1731, pp. 9-43, in French and Latin. G. E. Steitz: Art. Maria, Mutter des Herrn, in Herzog's Encyklop. Vol. IX. pp. 94 sqq. E. Preuss: Die roemische Lehre von der unbefleckten Empfaegniss. Aus den Quellen dargestellt und aus Gottes Wort widerlegt. Berlin, 1865. The same, translated into English by Geo. Gladstone, Edinburgh, 1867. The author has since become a Romanist, and recalled his book, Dec. 1871. H. B. Smith (Professor in the Union Theological Seminary, N.Y.): The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in the Methodist Quarterly Review, New York, for 1855, pp. 275-311. Dr. Pusey: Eirenikon, Part II., Lond. 1867. Art. In Christian Remembrancer for Oct. 1855; Jan. 1866; July, 1868. K. Hase: Handbuch der Protest. Polemik gegen die roem. kath. Kirche, 3d ed. Leipz. 1871, pp. 334-344. The first step towards the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, which exempts her from all contact with sin and guilt, was taken by Pope Pius IX., himself a most devout worshiper of Mary, during his temporary exile at Gaaeta. In an encyclical letter, dated Feb. 2, 1849, he invited the opinion of the Bishops on the alleged ardent desire of the Catholic world that the Apostolic See should, by some solemn judgment, define the Immaculate Conception, and thus secure signal blessings to the Church in these evil times. For, he added, 'You know full well, venerable brethren, that the whole ground of our confidence is placed in the most holy Virgin,' since 'God has vested in her the plenitude of all good, so that henceforth, if there be in us any hope, if there be any grace, if there be any salvation (si quid spei in nobis est, si quid gratiae, si quid salutis), we must receive it solely from her, according to the will of him who would have us possess all through Mary.' More than six hundred Bishops answered, all of them, with the exception of four, assenting to the Pope's belief, but fifty-two, among them distinguished German and French Bishops, dissenting from the expediency or opportuneness of the proposed dogmatic definition. The Archbishop of Paris (Sibour) apprehended injury to the Catholic faith from the unnecessary definition of the Immaculate Conception, which 'could be proved neither from the Scriptures nor from tradition, and to which reason and science raised insolvable, or at least inextricable, difficulties.' But this opposition was drowned in the general current. [207] After the preliminary labors of a special commission of Cardinals and theologians, and a consistory of consultation, Pope Pius, in virtue of the authority of Christ and the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and his own authority, solemnly proclaimed the dogma on the Feast of the Conception, Dec. 8, 1854, in the Church of St. Peter, in the presence of over two hundred Cardinals, Bishops, and other dignitaries, invited by him, not to discuss the doctrine, but simply to give additional solemnity to the ceremony of proclamation. After the mass and the singing of the Veni Creator Spiritus, he read with a tremulous voice the concluding formula of the bull 'Ineffabilis Deus,' declaring it to be a divinely revealed fact and dogma, which must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful on pain of excommunication, 'that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first moment of her conception, by a special grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin.' [208] The shouts of the assembled multitude, the cannons of St. Angelo, the chime of all the bells, the illumination of St. Peter's dome, the splendor of gorgeous feasts, responded to the decree. Rome was intoxicated with idolatrous enthusiasm, and the whole Roman Catholic world thrilled with joy over the crowning glory of the immaculate queen of heaven, who would now be more gracious and powerful in her intercession than ever, and shower the richest blessings upon the Pope and his Church. To perpetuate the memory of the occasion, the Pope caused a bronze tablet to be placed in the wall of the choir of St. Peter's, with the inscription that, on the 8th of December, 1854, he proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Deipara Virgo Maria, and thereby fulfilled the desire of the whole Catholic world (totius orbis catholici desideria), and a pompous marble statue of the Virgin to be erected on the Piazza di Spagnia, facing the palace of the Propaganda, and representing the Virgin in the attitude of blessing, with Moses, David, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, as the prophetic witnesses of her conception, at the foot of the column. [209] He ordered, also, through the Congregation of Rites, the preparation of a new mass and a new office for the festival of the Conception, which was published Sept. 25, 1863, and contains the prayer: 'O God, who, by the immaculate conception of the Virgin, didst prepare a worthy dwelling for thy Son: grant, we beseech thee, that, as thou didst preserve her from every stain, in anticipation of the death of thy Son, so we also may, through her intercession, appear purified before thy presence.' The dogma lacks the sanction of an oecumenical Council, and rests solely on the authority of the Pope, who, in its proclamation, virtually anticipated his own infallibility; but it has been generally accepted by subsequent assent, and must be considered as an essential and undoubted part of the Roman faith, especially since the Vatican Council has declared the official infallibility of the Pope. This extraordinary dogma lifts the Virgin Mary out of the fallen and redeemed race of Adam, and places her on a par with the Saviour. For if she is really free from all hereditary as well as actual sin and guilt, she is above the need of redemption. Repentance, forgiveness, regeneration, conversion, sanctification are as inapplicable to her as to Christ himself. The definition of such a dogma implies nothing less than a Divine revelation; for only the omniscient God can know the fact of the immaculate conception, and only he can reveal it. He did not reveal it to the inspired Apostles, nor to the Fathers. Did he reveal it to Pope Pius IX., in 1854, more than eighteen centuries after it took place? Viewed from the Roman point of view, the new dogma is the legitimate fruit of the genuine spirit of modern Romanism. It only completes that Mariology, and fortifies that Mariolatry, which is the very soul of its piety and public worship. We may almost call Romanism the Church of the Virgin Mary--not of the real Virgin of the Gospels, who sits humbly and meekly at the feet of her and our Lord and Saviour in heaven, but of the apocryphal Virgin of the imagination, which assigns her a throne high above angels and saints. This mythical Mary is the popular expression of the Romish idea of the Church, and absorbs all the reverence and affection of the heart. Her worship overshadows even the worship of Christ. His perfect humanity, by which he comes much nearer to us than his earthly mother, is almost forgotten. She, the lovely, gentle, compassionate woman, stands in front; her Son, over whom she is supposed still to exercise the rights of her divine maternity, is either the stern Lord behind the clouds, or rests as a smiling infant on her supporting arms. By her powerful intercession she is the fountain of all grace. She is virtually put in the place of the Holy Spirit, and made the mediatrix between Christ and the believer. She is most frequently approached in prayer, and the 'Ave Maria' is to the Catholic what the Lord's Prayer is to the Protestant. If she hears all the petitions which from day to day, and from hour to hour, rise up to her from many millions in every part of the globe, she must, to all intents and purposes, be omnipresent and omniscient. She is the favorite subject of Roman painters, who represent her as blending in harmony the spotless beauty of the Virgin and the tender care of the mother, and as the crowned queen of heaven. Every event of her life, known or unknown, even her alleged bodily assumption to heaven, is celebrated with special zeal by a public festival. [210] It is almost incredible to what extent Romish books of devotion exalt the Virgin. In the Middle Ages the whole Psalter was rewritten and made to sing her praises, as 'The heavens declare thy glory, O Mary;' 'Offer unto our lady, ye sons of God, praise and reverence!' In St. Liguori's much admired and commended 'Glories of Mary,' she is called 'our life,' the 'hope of sinners,' 'an advocate mighty to save all,' a 'peacemaker between sinners and God.' There is scarcely an epithet of Christ which is not applied to her. According to Pope Pius IX., 'Mary has crushed the head of the serpent,' i.e., destroyed the power of Satan, 'with her immaculate foot!' Around her name clusters a multitude of pious and blasphemous legends, superstitions, and impostures of wonder-working pictures, eye-rotations, and other unnatural marvels; even the cottage in which she lived was transported by angels through the air, across land and sea, from Nazareth in Galilee to Loretto in Italy; and such a silly legend was soberly and learnedly defended even in our days by a Roman Archbishop. [211] Romanism stands and falls with Mariolatry and Papal Infallibility; while Protestantism stands and falls with the worship of Christ as the only Mediator between God and man, and the all-sufficient Advocate with the Father. __________________________________________________________________ [207] Perrone says: Vix quatuor responderunt negative quoad definitionem, et ex hic ipsis tres brevi mutarunt sententiam. These letters, with others from sovereigns, monastic orders, and Catholic societies, are printed in nine volumes. [208] Postquam numquam intermisimus in humilitate et jejunio privatas nostras et publicas Ecclesiae preces Deo Patri per Filium ejus offerre, ut Spiritus Sancti virtute mentem nostram dirigere et confirmare dignaretur, implorato universae coelestis curiae praesidio, et advocato cum genitibus Paraclito Spiritu, eoque sic aspirante, ad honorem Sanctae et Individuae Trinitatis, ad decus et ornamentum Virginis Deiparae, ad exaltationem fidei catholicae et christianae religionis augmentum, auctoritate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, ac nostra declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus, doctrinam, quae tenet, beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorium Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe preservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam. Quapropter si qui secus ac a Nobis definitum est, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserint corde sentire, ii noverint ac porro sciant, se proprio judicio condemnatos, naufragium circa fidem passos esse, et ab unitale Ecclesiae defeciise, ac praeterca facto ipso suo semet poenis a jure statutis subjicere, si, quod corde, sentiunt, verbo aut scripto, vel alio quovis externo modo significare ausi fuerint.' [209] The statue of the Virgin is said to have come out of the Roman fabric with a hideous crack, which was clumsily patched up. See Hase, Protest. Polemik, 3d ed. p. 341, and Preuss, l.c. p. 197 (English edition). [210] Why should the fiction of the Assumption of Mary to heaven (as it is called in distinction from the Ascension of Christ) not be proclaimed a divinely revealed fact and a binding dogma, as well as the Immaculate Conception? The evidence is about the same. If Mary was free from all contact with sin, she can not have been subject to death and corruption, which are the wages of sin. The silence of the Bible concerning her end might be turned to good account. Tradition, also, can be produced in favor of the assumption. St. Jerome was inclined to believe it, and even the great Augustine 'feared to say that the blessed body, in which Christ had been incarnate, could become food for the worms.' The festival of the Assumption, which presupposes the popular superstition, is older than the festival of the Immaculate Conception, and is traced by some to the fifth or sixth century. [211] Dr. Kenrick, of St. Louis, in his work on the 'Holy House,' a book which is said to be too little known. See Smith, l.c. p. 279. __________________________________________________________________ S: 29. The Argument for the Immaculate Conception. The importance of the subject justifies and demands a brief examination of the arguments in favor of this novel dogma, which is one of the most characteristic features of modern Romanism, and forms an impassable gulf between it and Protestantism. It is a striking proof of Romish departure from the truth, and of the anti-Christian presumption of the Pope, who declared it to be a primitive divine revelation; while it is in fact a superstitious fiction of the dark ages, contrary alike to the Scriptures and to genuine Catholic tradition. 1. The dogma of the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary is unscriptural, and even anti-scriptural. (a) The Scripture passages which Perrone and other champions of the Immaculate Conception adduce are, with one exception, all taken from the Old Testament, and based either on false renderings of the Latin Bible, or on fanciful allegorical interpretation. (1) The main (and, according to Perrone, the only) support is derived from the protevangelium, Gen. iii. 15, where Jehovah Elohim says to the serpent, according to the Latin Bible (which the Romish Church has raised to an equality with the original): 'Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius; Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus' (i.e., she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt assail her heel). Here the ipsa is referred to the woman (mulier), and understood of the Virgin Mary. [212] And it is inferred that the divinely constituted enmity between Mary and Satan must be unconditional and eternal, which would not be the case if she had ever been subject to hereditary sin. [213] To this corresponds the Romish exegesis of the fight of the woman (i.e., the Church) with the dragon, Rev. xii. 4 sqq.; the woman being falsely understood to mean Mary. Hence Romish art often represents her as crushing the head of the dragon. But the translation of the Vulgate, on which all this reasoning is based, is contrary to the original Hebrew, which uses the masculine form of the verb, he (or it, the seed of the woman), i.e., Christ, shall bruise, or crush, the serpent's head, i.e., destroy the devil's power; it is inconsistent with the last clause, 'and thou shalt bruise his (i.e., Christ's) heel,' which contains a mysterious allusion to the crucifixion of the seed, not of the woman; and, finally, the Romish interpretation leads to the blasphemous conclusion that Mary, and not Christ, has destroyed the power of Satan, and saved the human race. [214] (2) An unwarranted reference of some poetic descriptions of the fair and spotless bride, in the Song of Solomon, to Mary, instead of the people of Jehovah or the Christian Church, Cant. iv. 7, according to the Vulgate: 'Tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te.' In any case, this is only a description of the present character. (3) An arbitrary allegorical interpretation of the 'garden inclosed, and fountain sealed,' spoken of the spouse, Cant. iv. 12 (Vulg.: 'hortus conclusus, fons signatus'), and the closed gate in the east of the temple in the vision of Ezekiel, xliv. 1-3, of which it is said: 'It shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because Jehovah, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. It is for the prince; the prince he shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord.' This is a favorite support of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity. Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) was perhaps the first who found here a type of the closed womb of the Virgin, by which Christ entered into the world, and who added to the miracle of a conception sine viro the miracle of a birth clauso utero. [215] Jerome and other Fathers followed, and drew a parallel between the closed womb of the Virgin, from which Christ was born to earthly life, and the sealed tomb from which he arose to heavenly life. But none of the Fathers thought of making this prophecy prove the Immaculate Conception. Such exposition, or imposition rather, is an insult to the Bible, as well as to every principle of hermeneutics. (4) Sap. i. 4: 'Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter; nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin.' This passage (quoted by Speil and others), besides being from an apocryphal book, has nothing to do with Mary. (5) Luke i. 28: the angelic greeting, 'Hail (Mary), full of grace (gratia plena),' according to the Romish versions, says nothing of the origin of Mary, but refers only to her condition at the time of the incarnation, and is besides a mistranslation (see below). (b) All this frivolous allegorical trifling with the Word of God is conclusively set aside by the positive and uniform Scripture doctrine of the universal sinfulness and universal need of redemption, with the single exception of our blessed Saviour, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost without the agency of a human father. It is almost useless to refer to single passages, such as Rom. iii. 10, 23; v. 12, 18; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15; Gal. iii. 22; Eph. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 10; Psa. li. 5. The doctrine runs through the whole Bible, and underlies the entire scheme of redemption. St. Paul emphasizes the actual universality of the curse of Adam, in order to show the virtual universality of the salvation of Christ (Rom. v. 12 sqq.; 1 Cor. xv. 22); and to insert an exception in favor of Mary would break the force of the argument, and limit the extent of the atonement as well. Perrone admits the force of these passages, but tries to escape it by saying that, if strictly understood, they would call in question even the immaculate birth of Mary, and her freedom from actual sin as well, which is contrary to the Catholic faith; [216] hence the Council of Trent has deprived these passages of all force (omnem vim ademit) of application to the blessed Virgin! This is putting tradition above and against the Word of the holy and omniscient God, and amounts to a concession that the dogma is extra-scriptural and anti-scriptural. Unfortunately for Rome, Mary herself has made the application; for she calls God her Saviour (Luke i. 47: epi to theo to soteri mou), and thereby includes herself in the number of the redeemed. With this corresponds also the proper meaning of the predicate applied to her by the angel, Luke i. 28, kecharitomene, highly favored, endued with grace (die begnadigte), the one who received, and therefore needed, grace (non ut mater gratiae, sed ut filia gratiae, as Bengel well observes); comp. ver. 30, heures charin para to theo, thou hast found grace with God; and Eph. i. 6, echaritosen hemas, he bestowed grace upon us. But the Vulgate changed the passive meaning into the active: gratia plena, full of grace, and thus furnished a spurious argument for an error. Nothing can be more truthful, chaste, delicate, and in keeping with womanly humility and modesty than both the words and the silence of the canonical Gospels concerning the blessed among women, whom yet our Lord himself, in prophetic foresight and warning against future Mariolatry, placed on a level with other disciples; emphatically asserting that there is a still higher blessedness of spiritual kinship than that of carnal consanguinity. Great is the glory of Mary--the mother of Jesus, the ideal of womanhood, the type of purity, obedience, meekness, and humility--but greater, infinitely greater is the glory of Christ--the perfect God-man--'the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace (pleres charitos not kecharitomenos) and of truth.' 2. The dogma of the sinlessness of Mary is also uncatholic. It lacks every one of the three marks of true catholicity, according to the canon of Vincentius Lirinensis, which is professedly recognized by Rome herself (the semper, the ubique, and the ab omnibus), and instead of a 'unanimous consent' of the Fathers in its favor, there is a unanimous silence, or even protest, of the Fathers against it. For more than ten centuries after the Apostles it was not dreamed of, and when first broached as a pious opinion, it was strenuously opposed, and continued to be opposed till 1854 by many of the greatest saints and divines of the Roman Church, including St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas, and several Popes. The ante-Nicene Fathers, far from teaching that Mary was free from hereditary sin, do not even expressly exempt her from actual sin, certainly not from womanly weakness and frailty. Irenaeus (d. 202), who first suggested the fruitful parallel of Eve as the mother of disobedience, and Mary as the mother of obedience (not justified by the true Scripture parallel between Adam and Christ), and thus prepared the way for a false Mariology, does yet not hesitate to charge Mary with 'unseasonable haste' or 'urgency,' which the Lord had to rebuke at the wedding of Cana (fcJohn ii. 4); [217] and even Chrysostom, at the close of the fourth century, ventured to say that she was immoderately ambitious, and wanting in proper regard for the glory of Christ on that occasion. [218] The last charge is hardly just, for in the words, 'Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it,' she shows the true spirit of obedience and absolute trust in her Divine Son. Tertullian implicates her in the unbelief of the brethren of Jesus. [219] Origen thinks that she took offense, like the Apostles, at our Lord's sufferings, else 'he did not die for her sins;' and, according to Basil, she, too, 'wavered at the time of the crucifixion.' Gregory of Nazianzus, and John of Damascus, the last of the great Greek Fathers, teach that she was sanctified by the Holy Ghost; which has no meaning for a sinless being. The first traces of the Romish Mariolatry and Mariology are found in the apocryphal Gospels of Gnostic and Ebionitic origin. [220] In marked contrast with the canonical Gospels, they decorate the life of Mary with marvelous fables, most of which have passed into the Roman Church, and some also into the Mohammedan Koran and its commentaries. [221] Mariolatry preceded the Romish Mariology. Each successive step in the excessive veneration (hyperdulia) of the Virgin, and each festival memorializing a certain event in her life, was followed by a progress in the doctrine concerning Mary and her relation to Christ and the believer. The theory only justified and explained a practice already existing. The Mariology of the Roman Catholic Church has passed through three stages: the perpetual virginity of Mary, her freedom from actual sin, and her freedom from hereditary sin. This progress in Mariolatry is strikingly reflected in the history of Christian art. 'The first pictures of the early Christian ages simply represent the woman. By-and-by we find outlines of the mother and the child. In an after-age the Son is sitting upon a throne, with the mother crowned, but sitting as yet below him. In an age still later, the crowned mother on a level with the Son. Later still, the mother on a throne above the Son. And lastly, a Romish picture represents the eternal Son in wrath, about to destroy the earth, and the Virgin Intercessor interposing, pleading, by significant attitude, her maternal rights, and redeeming the world from his vengeance. Such was, in fact, the progress of Virgin-worship. First the woman reverenced for the Son's sake; then the woman reverenced above the Son, and adored.' (1) The idea of the perpetual Virginity of Mary was already current in the ante-Nicene age, and spread in close connection with the ascetic overestimate of celibacy, and the rise of monasticism. It has a powerful hold even over many Protestant minds, on grounds of religious propriety. Tertullian, who died about 220, still held that Mary bore children to Joseph after the birth of Christ. But towards the close of the fourth century the denial of her perpetual virginity (by the Antidicomarianites, by Helvidius and Jovinian) was already treated as a profane and indecent heresy by Epiphanius in the Greek, and Jerome in the Latin Church. Hence the hypothesis that the brethren and sisters of Jesus, so often mentioned in the Gospels, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage (Epiphanius), or only cousins of Jesus (Jerome). On the other hand, however, the same Epiphanius places among his eighty heresies the Mariolatry of the Collyridianae, a company of women in Arabia, in the last part of the fourth century, who sacrificed to Mary little cakes or loaves of bread (kolluris, hence the name Kolluridianoi), and paid her divine honor with festive rites similar to those connected with the cult of Cybele, the magna mater deum, in Arabia and Phrygia. (2) The freedom of Mary from actual sin was first clearly taught in the fifth century by Augustine and Pelagius, who, notwithstanding their antagonism on the doctrines of sin and grace, agreed in this point, as they did also in their high estimate of asceticism and monasticism. Augustine, for the sake of Christ's honor, exempted Mary from willful contact with actual sin; [222] but he expressly included her in the fall of Adam and its hereditary consequences. [223] Pelagius, who denied hereditary sin, went further, and exempted Mary (with several other saints of the Old Testament) from sin altogether; [224] and, if he were not a condemned heretic, he might be quoted as the father of the modern dogma. [225] The view which came to prevail in the Catholic Church was that Mary, though conceived in sin, like David and all men, was sanctified in the womb, like Jeremiah (i. 5) and John the Baptist (Luke i. 15), and thus prepared to be the spotless receptacle for the Son of God and Saviour of mankind. Many, however, held that she was not fully sanctified till she conceived the Saviour by the Holy Ghost. The extravagant praise lavished on 'the Mother of God' by the Fathers after the defeat of Nestorianism (431), and the frequent epithets most holy and immaculate (panagia, immaculata and immaculatissima), refer only to her spotless purity of character after her sanctification, but not to her conception. [226] The Greek Church goes as far as the Roman in the practice of Mariolatry, but rejects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as subversive of the Incarnation. [227] (3) The third step, which exempts Mary from original sin as well, is of much later origin. It meets us first as a pious opinion in connection with the festival of the Conception of Mary, which was fixed upon Dec. 8, nine months before the older festival of her birth (celebrated Sept. 8). This festival was introduced by the Canons at Lyons in France, Dec. 8, 1139, and gradually spread into England and other countries. Although it was at first intended to be the festival of the Conception of the immaculate Mary, it concealed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, since every ecclesiastical solemnity acknowledges the sanctity of its object. For this reason, Bernard of Clairvaux, 'the honey-flowing doctor' doctor mellifluus), and greatest saint of his age, who, by a voice mightier than the Pope's, roused Europe to the second crusade, opposed the festival as a false honor to the royal Virgin, which she does not need, and as an unauthorized innovation, which was the mother of temerity, the sister of superstition, and the daughter of levity. [228] He urged against it that it was not sanctioned by the Roman Church. He rejected the opinion of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as contrary to tradition and derogatory to the dignity of Christ, the only sinless being, and asked the Canons of Lyons the pertinent question, 'Whence they discovered such a hidden fact? On the same ground they might appoint festivals for the conception of the parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents of Mary, and so on without end.' [229] It does not diminish, but rather increases (for the Romish stand-point) the weight of his protest, that he was himself an enthusiastic eulogist of Mary, and a believer in her sinless birth. He put her in this respect on a par with Jeremiah and John the Baptist. [230] The same ground was taken substantially by the greatest schoolmen of the Middle Ages till the beginning of the fourteenth century: Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109), who closely followed Augustine; [231] Peter the Lombard, 'the Master of Sentences' (d. 1161); Alexander of Hales, 'the irrefragable doctor' (d. 1245); St. Bonaventura, 'the seraphic doctor' (d. 1274); Albertus Magnus, 'the wonderful doctor' (d. 1280); St. Thomas Aquinas, 'the angelic doctor' (d. 1274), and the very champion of orthodoxy, followed by the whole school of Thomists and the order of the Dominicans. St. Thomas taught that Mary was conceived from sinful flesh in the ordinary way, secundum carnis concupiscentiam ex commixtione maris, and was sanctified in the womb after the infusion of the soul (which is called the passive conception); for otherwise she would not have needed the redemption of Christ, and so Christ would not be the Saviour of all men. He distinguishes, however, three grades in the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin: first, the sanctificatio in utero, by which she was freed from the original guilt (culpa originalis); secondly, the sanctificatio in conceptu Domini, when the Holy Ghost overshadowed her, whereby she was totally purged (totaliter mundata) from the fuel or incentive to sin (fomes peccati); and, thirdly, the sanctificatio in morte, by which she was freed from all consequences of sin (liberata ab omni miseria). Of the festival of the Conception, he says that it was not observed, but tolerated by the Church of Rome, and, like the festival of the Assumption, was not to be entirely rejected (non totaliter reprobanda). [232] The University of Paris, which during the Middle Ages was regarded as the third power in Europe, gave the weight of its authority for a long time to the doctrine of the Maculate Conception. Even seven Popes are quoted on the same side, and among them three of the greatest, viz., Leo I. (who says that Christ alone was free from original sin, and that Mary obtained her purification through her conception of Christ), Gregory I., and Innocent III. [233] But a change in favor of the opposite view was brought about, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, by Duns Scotus, 'the subtle doctor' (d. 1308), who attacked the system of St. Thomas and the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who delighted in the most abstruse questions and the most intricate problems, to show the skill of his acute dialectics, and who could twist a disagreeable text into its opposite meaning. He was the first schoolman of distinction who advocated the Immaculate Conception, first at Oxford, though very cautiously, as a possible and probable fact. [234] He refuted, according to a doubtful tradition, the opposite theory, in a public disputation at Paris, with no less than two hundred arguments, and converted the University to his view. [235] At all events, he made it a distinctive tenet of his order. Henceforward the Immaculate Conception became an apple of discord between rival schools of Thomists and Scotists, and the rival orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans. They charged each other with heresy, and even with mortal sin for holding the one view or the other. Visions, marvelous fictions, weeping pictures of Mary, and letters from heaven were called in to help the argument for or against a fact which no human being, not even Mary herself, can know without a divine revelation. Four Dominicans, who were discovered in a pious fraud against the Franciscan doctrine, were burned, by order of a papal court, in Berne, on the eve of the Reformation. The Swedish prophetess, St. Birgitte, was assured in a vision by the Mother of God that she was conceived without sin; while St. Catharine of Siena prophesied for the Dominicans that Mary was sanctified in the third hour after her conception. So near came the contending parties that the difference, though very important as a question of principle, was practically narrowed down to a question of a few hours. The Franciscan view gradually gained ground. The University of Paris, the Spanish nation, and the Council of Basle (1439) favored it. Pope Sixtus IV., himself a Franciscan, gave his sanction and blessing to the festival of the Immaculate Conception, but threatened with excommunication all those of both parties who branded the one or the other doctrine as a heresy and mortal sin, since the Roman Church had not yet decided the question (1476 and 1483). The Council of Trent (June 17, 1546) confirmed this neutral position, but with a leaning to the Franciscan side, by adding to the dogma on original sin the caution that it was not intended 'to comprehend in this decree the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary.' [236] Pius V. (1570), a Dominican, condemned Baius (De Bay, Professor at Louvain, and a forerunner of the Jansenists), who held that Mary had actual as well as original sin; but soon afterwards he ordered that the discussion of this delicate question should be confined to scholars in the Latin tongue, and not be brought to the pulpit or among the people. In the mean time the Franciscan doctrine was taken up and advocated with great zeal and energy by the Jesuits. At first they felt their way cautiously. Bellarmin declared the Immaculate Conception to be a pious and probable opinion, more probable than the opposite. In 1593 the fifth general assembly of the order directed its teachers to depart from St. Thomas in this article, and to defend the doctrine of Scotus, 'which was then more common and more accepted among theologians.' It is chiefly through their influence that it gained ground more and more, yet under constant opposition. Paul V. (1616) still left both parties the liberty to advocate their opinion; but a decree of the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition and Gregory XV. (1622) prohibited the publication of the doctrine that Mary was conceived in sin, and removed from the liturgy the word sanctification with reference to Mary. Then a new controversy arose as to the meaning of the term immaculate; whether it referred to the Virgin or to her conception? To make an end to all dispute, Alexander VII., urged on by the King of Spain, issued a constitution, Dec. 8, 1661, which recommends the Immaculate Conception, defining it almost in the identical words of the dogma of Pius IX. [237] Nothing was left but the additional declaration that belief in this doctrine was necessary to salvation. 'From this time,' says Perrone, [238] 'every controversy and opposition to the mystery ceased, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception attained to full and quiet possession in the whole Catholic Church. No sincere Catholic ventured hereafter to utter even a sound against it, with the exception of some irreligious innovators, among whom Launoy occupies the first place, and, in these last years, George Hermes.' Thus he disposes of the powerful protest of Launoy, issued in 1676, fifteen years after the bull of Alexander VII., with irrefragable testimonies of Fathers and Popes; to which may be added the anonymous treatise 'Against Superstition,' written by Muratori, 1741, one of the most learned antiquarians and historians of the Roman Church. But Jansenism was crushed; Jesuitism, though suppressed for a while, was restored to greater power; Ultramontanism and Papal Absolutism made headway over the decay of independent learning and research; the voice of the ablest remaining Catholic scholars was unheeded; the submissiveness of the Bishops, and the ignorance, superstition, and indifference of the people united in securing the triumph of the dogma. 3. The only dogmatic argument adduced is that of congruity or fitness, in view of the peculiar relations which Mary sustains to the persons of the Holy Trinity. Being eternally chosen by the Father to be 'the bride of the Holy Ghost,' and 'the mother of the Son of God,' it was eminently proper that, from the very beginning of her existence, she should be entirely exempt from contact with sin and the dominion of Satan. [239] To this it is sufficient to answer that the Word of God is the highest and only infallible standard of religious propriety; and this standard concludes all men under the power of sin and death, with the only exception of the God-man, the sinless Redeemer of the fallen race. Besides, the argument of congruity can at best only prove the possibility of a fact, not the fact itself. And, finally, it would prove too much in this case; for, if propriety demands a sinless mother for a sinless Son, it demands also (as St. Bernard suggested) a sinless grandmother, great-grandmother, and an unbroken chain of sinless ancestors to the beginning of the race. On the other hand, the new dogma, viewed even from the stand-point of the Roman Catholic system, involves contradictory elements. In the first place, it is inconsistent with any proper view of original sin, no matter whether we adopt the theory of traducianism, or that of creationism (which prevails among Roman divines), or that of pre-existence. The bull of 1854 speaks indefinitely of the 'conception' of Mary. But Roman divines usually distinguish between the active conception, i.e., the marital act by which the seed of the body is formed by the agency of the parents, and the passive conception, i.e., the infusion of the soul into the body by a creative act of God (according to the theory of creationism). [240] The meaning of the new dogma is that Mary, by a special grace and privilege, was exempt from original sin in her passive conception, that is, in that moment when her soul was created by God for the animation of her body. [241] Now original sin must come either from the body, or from the soul, or from both combined. If from the body, then Mary must have inherited it from her parents, since the dogma does not exclude these from sin; if from the soul, then God, who creates the soul, is the author of sin, which is blasphemous; if from both, then we have a combination of both these inextricable difficulties. Nor is the matter materially relieved if we take the superficial semi-Pelagian view of hereditary sin, which makes it a mere privation or defect, namely, the absence of the supernatural endowment of original righteousness and holiness (the similitudo Dei, as distinct from the imago Dei), instead of a positive disorder and sinful disposition. [242] For even in this case the same dilemma returns, that this original defect must have been there from the parents, or must be ordinarily derived from God, as the author of the soul, which alone can be said to possess or to lose righteousness and holiness. Rome must either deny original sin altogether (as Pelagius did), or take the further step of making the Immaculate Conception of Mary a strictly miraculous event, like the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost, sine virili complexu and sine concupiscentia carnis. Secondly, the dogma, by exempting Mary from original sin in consequence of the merits of Christ, [243] virtually puts her under the power of sin; for the merits of Christ are only for sinners, and have no bearing upon sinless beings. Perrone, following Bellarmin, virtually concedes this difficulty, and vainly tries to escape it by an unmeaning figure, that Mary was delivered from prison before she was put into it, or that her debt was paid which she never contracted! Finally, the dogma is inconsistent with the Vatican decree of Papal Infallibility. The hidden fact of Mary's Immaculate Conception must, in the nature of the case, be a matter of divine omniscience and divine revelation, and is so declared in the papal decree. [244] Now it must have been revealed to the mind of Pius IX., or not. If not, he had no right, in the absence of Scripture proof, and the express dissent of the Fathers and the greatest schoolmen, to declare the Immaculate Conception a divinely revealed fact and doctrine. If it was revealed to him, he had no need of first consulting all the Bishops of the Roman Church, and waiting several years for their opinion on the subject. Or if this consultation was the necessary medium of such revelation, then he is not in himself infallible, and has no authority to define and proclaim any dogma of faith without the advice and consent of the universal Episcopate. __________________________________________________________________ [212] Pope Pius IX. has given his infallible sanction to this misapplication of the protevangelium to Mary in the gallant phrase already quoted (p. 112) from his Encyclical on the dogma. [213] Speil, in his defense of Romanism against Hase, argues in this way: The woman, whom God will put in enmity against the devil, must be a future particular woman, over whom the devil never had any power--that is, a woman who, by the grace of God, was free from original sin (Die Lehren der katholischen Kirche, 1865, p. 165). [214] The Hebrew text admits of no doubt; for the verb ?yshvph, in the disputed clause, is masculine (he shall bruise, or crush), and hv' naturally refers to the preceding zrh (her seed), i.e., zrts 'sh (the woman's seed), and not to the more remote 'sh (woman). In the Pentateuch the personal pronoun hv' (he) is indeed generis communis, and stands also for the feminine hy' (she), which (according to the Masora on Gen. xxxviii. 25) is found but eleven times in the Pentateuch; but in all these cases the masoretic punctuators wrote hv', to signify that it ought to be read hy' (she). The Peshito, the Septuagint (autos soi teresei kephalen), and other ancient versions, are all right. Even some MSS. of the Vulgate read ipse for ipsa, and Jerome himself, the author of the Vulgate, in his 'Hebrew Questions,' and Pope Leo I., condemn the translation ipsa. But the blunder was favored by other Fathers (Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory I.), who knew no Hebrew, and by the monastic asceticism and fanciful chivalric Mariolatry of the Middle Ages. To the same influence must be traced the arbitrary change of the Vulgate in the rendering of shvph from conteret (shall bruise) into insidiaberis (shall lie in wait, assail, pursue), so as to exempt the Virgin from the least injury. [215] Epist. 42 ad Siricium; De inst. Virg., c. 8, and in his hymn A solis ortus cardine. The earlier Fathers thought differently on the subject. Tertullian calls Mary 'a virgin as to a man, but not a virgin as to birth' (non virgo, quantum a partu); and Epiphanius speaks of Christ as 'opening the mother's womb' (anoigon metran metros). See my History of the Christian Church, Vol. II. p. 417. [216] L.c. p. 276. In the same manner he disposes of the innumerable patristic passages which assert the universal sinfulness of men, and make Christ the only exception. [217] Iren. Adv. hoer. iii. c. 16, S: 7: Dominus, repellens intempestivam festinationem, dixit: 'Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier!' [218] Chrys. Hom. XXI. al. XX. in Joh. Opera, ed. Bened. Tom. VIII. p. 122. Compare his Hom. in Matth. XLIV. al. XLV., where he speaks of Mary's ambition (philotimia) and thoughtlessness (aponoia), when she desired to speak with Christ while he yet talked to the people (Matt. xii. 46 sqq.). [219] De carne Christi, c. 7: Fratres Domini non crediderant in illum. Mater aeque non demonstratur adhaesisse illi, cum Marthae et Mariae aliae in commercio ejus frequententur. [220] Compare the convenient digest of this apocryphal history of Mary and the holy family in E. Hoffmann's Leben Jesu nach den Apocryphen, Leipz. 1851, pp. 5-117, and Tischendorf's De evangeliorum apocryphorum origine et usu, Hagae, 1851. [221] It must be remembered that Mohammed derived his defective knowledge of Christianity from Gnostic and other heretical sources. Gibbon and Stanley trace the Immaculate Conception directly to the Koran, III. pp. 31, 37 (Rodwell's translation, p. 499), where it is said of Mary: 'Remember when the angel said: "Mary, verily has God chosen thee, and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of the world."' [Pius IX., March 24, 1877, spoke of Mary as divinarum potentissima conciliatrix gratiarum. If possible, Leo XIII. in encyclicals on the rosary and other deliverances, and Pius X., went further in exalting Mary. Leo, Sept. 1, 1883, pronounced her 'the safest guide to reach the gracious hand of God,' and, Sept., 1891, affirmed that 'except through the Mother, it is hardly possible for any one to reach Christ.' On the fiftieth anniversary of the dogma of the immaculate conception, Oct. 17, 1904, Pius X. made astounding use of the Old Testament to substantiate her alleged virtues. Calling her the Spouse of the Holy Ghost, he announced that 'already Adam saw her in the distance as the destroyer of the serpent's head, and at the sight of her dried up his tears over the curse which had struck him'; Noah recalled her as he was preparing the ark; Abraham was estopped from sacrificing his son as he thought of her; Jacob saw her in the ladder on which the angels ascended and descended; Moses looked up to her at the burning bush; etc. Pius invoked her aid as the 'glorious helper against all heresies,' as Leo XIII. before had acclaimed her 'the glorious victor over all heretics,' and Pius XI. in his encyclical on Church Union, 1928. Mary, in accordance with the petition of the Provincial Baltimore Council, 1843, has been made by papal decree the 'heavenly guardian of the United States,' as Pius XI. took occasion to remind the world when the Peace Conference met in Washington, 1921. And in his apostolic letter recommending the Catholic University in Washington, he made the petition that 'the immaculate conception may bestow on all America the gifts of wisdom and salvation.' Cardinal Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers, p. 167, Bishop Gilmour in his Bible History for Catholic Schools, pp. 11, 130, and also the recent Italian version of the Pentateuch, issued with papal approval, repeat the false translation of Gen. III:15, that Mary should bruise the serpent's head.--ED.] [222] De natura et gratia, c. 36, S: 42 (ed. Bened. Tom. X. p. 144): 'Excepta sancta Virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quaestionem . . . hac ergo Virgine excepta, si omnes illos sanctos et sanctas . . . congregare possemus et interrogare, utrum essent sine peccato, quid fuisse responsuros putamus, utrum hoc quod iste [namely, Pelagius] dicit, an quod Joannes Apostolus (1 John i. 8)?' This is the only passage in Augustine which at all favors the Romanists; and the force even of this is partly broken by the parenthetical question: 'Unde enim scimus quid ei [Mariae] plus gratiae collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum quae concipere ac parere meruit, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum? For how do we know what more of grace for the overcoming of sin in every respect was bestowed upon her who was found worthy to conceive and give birth to him who, it is certain, was without sin?' This implies that in Mary sin was, if not a developed act, at least a power to be conquered. [223] Sermo 2 in Psalm. 34: Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua propter delenda peccata; i.e., Mary died because of inherited sin, but Christ died for the destruction of sin. In his last great work, Opus imperf. contra Julian. IV. c. 122 (ed. Bened. X. 1208), Augustine speaks of the grace of regeneration (gratia renascendi) which Mary experienced. He also says explicitly that Christ alone was without sin, De peccat. mer. et remiss., II. c. 24, S: 38 (ed. Bened. X. 61: Solus ille, homo factus, manens Deus, peccatum nullum habuit unquam, nec sumpsit carnem peccati, quamvis de materna carne peccati); ib. c. 35, S: 57 (X. 69: Solus unus est qui sine peccato natus est in similitudine carnis peccati, sine peccato vixit inter aliena peccata, sine peccato mortuus est propter nostra peccata); De Genesi ad lit., c. 18, S: 32; c. 20, S: 35. These and other passages of Augustine clearly prove, to use the words of Perrone (l.c. pp. 42, 43 of the Germ. ed.), that 'this holy Father evidently teaches that Christ alone must be exempt from the general pollution of sin; but that the blessed Virgin, being conceived by the ordinary cohabitation of parents, partook of the general stain, and her flesh, being descended from sin, was sinful flesh, which Christ purified by assuming it.' The pupils of Augustine were even more explicit. One of them, Fulgentius (De incarn. c. 15, S: 29, also quoted by Perrone), says: 'The flesh of Mary, which was conceived in unrighteousness in a human way, was truly sinful flesh.' [224] He says: 'Piety must confess that the mother of our Lord and Saviour was sinless' (as quoted by Augustine, De nat. et gratia, cc. 36, S: 42: 'quam dicit sine peccato confiteri necesse esse pietati'). Pelagius also excludes from sin Abel, Enoch, Melchisedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, Ezekiel, John the Baptist, Deborah, Anna, Judith, Esther, Elisabeth, and Joseph, the husband of Mary, who 'have not only not sinned, but also lived a righteous life.' Julian, his ablest follower, objected to Augustine that, by his doctrine of hereditary sin and universal depravity, he handed even Mary over to the power of the devil (ipsam Mariam diabolo nascendi conditione transcribis); to which Augustine replied (Opus imperf. contra Jul. 1. IV. c. 122): 'Non transscribimus diabolo Mariam conditione nascendi, sed ideo quia ipsa conditio solvitur gratia renascendi,' i.e., because this condition (of sinful birth) is solved or set aside by the grace of the second birth. When this took place, he does not state. [225] It is characteristic that the Dominicans and Jansenists, who sympathized with the Augustinian anthropology, opposed the Immaculate Conception; while the Franciscans and Jesuits, who advocated it, have a more or less decided inclination towards Pelagianizing theories, and reduce original sin to a loss of supernatural righteousness, i.e., something merely negative, so that it is much easier to make an exception in favor of Mary. The Jesuits, at least, have an intense hatred of Augustinian views on sin and grace, and have shown it in the Jansenist controversy. [226] The predicate immaculate was sometimes applied to other holy virgins, e.g., to S. Catharine of Siena, who is spoken of as la immaculata vergine, in a decree of that city as late as 1462. See Hase, l.c. p.S:336. [227] See A. V. Mouravieff on the dogma, in Neale's Voices from the East, 1859, pp. 117-155. [228] 'Virgo regia falso non eget honore, veris cumalata honorum titulis. . . . Non est hoc Virginem honorare sed honori detraher. . . . Praesumpta novitas mater temeritatis, soror superstitionis, filia levitatis.' See his Epistola 174, ad Canonicos Lugdunenses, De conceptione S. Mar. (Op. ed. Migne, I. pp. 332-336). Comp. also Bernard's Sermo 78 in Cant., Op. Vol. II. pp.1160, 1162. [229] . . . 'et sic tenderetur in infinitum, et festorum non esset numerus' (Ep. 174, p. 334 sq.). [230] 'Si igitur ante conceptum sui sanctificari minime potuit, quoniam non erat; sed nec in ipso quidem conceptu, propter peccatum quod inerat: restat ut post conceptum in utero jam existens sanctificationem accepisse credatur, quae excluso peccato sanctam fecerit nativitatem, non tamen et conceptionem' (l.c. p. 336). [231] Anselm, who is sometimes wrongly quoted on the other side, says, Cur Deus Homo, ii. 16 (Op. ed. Migne, I. p. 416): 'Virgo ipsa . . . est in iniquitatibus concepta, et in peccatis concepit eam mater ejus, et cum originali peccato nata est, quoniam et ipsa in Adam peccavit, in quo omnes peccaverunt.' To these words of Boso, Anselm replies that 'Christ, though taken from the sinful mass (de massa peccatrice assumptus), had no sin.' Then he speaks of Mary twice as being purified from sin (mundata a peccatis) by the future death of Christ (c. 16, 17). His pupil and biographer, Eadmer, in his book De excellent. beatae Virg. Mariae, c. 3 (Ans. Op. ed. Migne, II. pp. 560-62), says that the blessed Virgin was freed from all remaining stains of hereditary and actual sin when she consented to the announcement of the mystery of the Incarnation by the angel.' Quoted also by Perrone, pp. 47-49. [232] Summa Theologiae, Pt. III. Qu. 27 (De sanctificatione B. Virg.), Art. 1-5; in Libr. I. Sentent. Dist. 44, Qu. 1, Art. 3. Nevertheless, Perrone (pp. 231 sqq.) thinks that St. Bernard and St. Thomas are not in the way of a definition of the new dogma, 'because they wrote at a time when this view was not yet made quite clear, and because they lacked the principal support, which subsequently came to its aid; hence they must in this case be regarded as private teachers, propounding their own particular opinions, but not as witnesses of the traditional meaning of the Church.' He then goes on to charge these doctors with comparative ignorance of previous Church history. This may be true, but does not help the matter; since the fuller knowledge of the Fathers in modern times reveals a still wider dissent from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. [233] The other Popes, who taught that Mary was conceived in sin, are Gelasius I., Innocent V., John XXII., and Clement VI. (d. 1352). The proof is furnished by the Jansenist Launoy, Proescriptions, Opera I. pp. 17 sqq., who also shows that the early Franciscans, and even Loyola and the early Jesuits, denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Perrone calls him an 'irreligious innovator' (p. 34), and an 'impudent liar' (p. 161), but does not refute his arguments, and evades the force of his quotations from Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory by the futile remark that they would prove too much, viz., that Mary was even born in sin, and not purified before the Incarnation, which would be impious! [234] Duns Scotus, Opera, Lugd. 1639, Tom. VII. Pt. I. pp. 91-100. One of his arguments of probability is that, as God blots out original sin by baptism every day, he can as well do it in the moment of conception. Compare Perrone, pp. 18 sqq. [235] Related by Wadding, in his Annal. Minorum, Lugd. 1635, Tom. III. p. 37, but rejected by Natalis Alexander, in his Church History, as a fiction, and doubted even by Perrone (p. 163), who says, however, that Duns Scotus refuted all the arguments of his opponents 'in a truly astounding manner.' [236] Sessio V.: 'Declarat S. Synodus, non esse suae intentionis, comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, beatam et immaculatam Virginem Mariam, Dei genitricem; sed observandas esse constitutiones felicis recordationis Sixti Papae IV. sub poenis in eis constitutionibus contentis, quas innovat.' [237] 'Ejus (sc. Mariae),' says Alexander VII., in the bull Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum (Bullar. Rom. ed. Coquelines, Tom. VI. p. 182), 'animam in primo instanti creationis atque infusionis in corpus fuisse speciali Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi, ejus Filii, humani generis Redemptoris, a macula peccati originalis praeservatam immunem.' Compare the decree of Pius IX. p. 110, which substitutes suae conceptionis for creationis atque infusionis (animae) in corpus, and ab omni originalis culpae labe for a macula peccati originalis. [238] L.c. p. 33. [239] Perrone, ch. xiv. pp. 102 sqq. [240] As to the time of the creation and infusion of the soul, whether it took place simultaneously with the generation of the body, or on the fortieth day (as was formerly supposed), there is no fixed opinion among Roman divines. [241] So the matter is explained by Perrone at the beginning of his Treatise, pp. 1-4; and this accords with the bull of Alexander VII. (in primo instanti creationis atque infusionis in corpus, etc.), see p. 125. [242] The profounder schoolmen, however, represented by St. Thomas, had a deeper view of original sin, nearer to that of Augustine and the Reformers. The same is true of Moehler, who speaks of a 'deep vulneration of the soul in all its powers,' and a 'perverse tendency of the will,' as a necessary consequence of the Fall. [243] . . . 'intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu, Salvatoris humani generis.' [244] . . . 'doctrinam . . . esse a Deo revelatam,' etc. __________________________________________________________________ S: 30. The Papal Syllabus, A.D. 1864. Literature. The Enyclica and Syllabus of Dec. 8, 1864, are published in Pii IX. Epistola encycl., etc., Regensb. 1865; in Officielle Actenstuecke zu dem v. Pius IX. nach Rom. berufenen Oekum. Concil, Berlin, 1869, pp. 1-35, in Acta et Decreta S. oecum. Conc. Vatic. Frib. 1871, Pt. I. pp. 1-21, etc. J. Tosi (R.C.): Vorlesungen ueber den Syllabus errorum der paepstl. Encyclica, Wien, 1865 (251 pp.). J. Hergenroether (R.C.): Die Irrthuemer der Neuzeit gerichtet durch den heil. Stuhl, 1865. Beleuchtung der paepstlichen Encyclica v. 8 Dec. 1864, und das Verzeichniss der modernen Irrthuemer (by a R.C.), Leipz. 1865. Die Encyclica Papst Pius IX. vom 8 Dec. 1864. Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (R.C.), Freib. 1866-69. (By Riess, Schneemann, and others.) Der Papst und die modernen Ideen (R.C.), several numbers, Wien, 1865-67. [By Cl. Schrader, a Jesuit.] C. Pronier (Prof. of the Free Theol. Sem. at Geneva, 1873): La liberte: religieuse et le Syllabus, Geneve, 1870. W. E. Gladstone: The Vatican Decrees: a Political Expostulation, London and New York, 1874; Vaticanism, 1875. Comp. the Roman Catholic Replies of Monsign. Capel, J. H. Newman, and Archbishop Manning in defense of the Vatican Decrees; see below, S: 31. On the 8th of December, 1864, just ten years after the proclamation of the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, Pope Pius IX. issued an encyclical letter 'Quanta cura,' denouncing certain dangerous heresies and errors of the age, which threatened to undermine the foundations of the Catholic religion and of civil society, and exhorting the Bishops to counteract these errors, and to teach that 'kingdoms rest on the foundation of the Catholic faith;' that it is the chief duty of civil government 'to protect the Church;' that 'nothing is more advantageous and glorious for rulers of States than to give free scope to the Catholic Church, and not to allow any encroachment upon her liberty.' [245] In the same letter the Pope offers to all the faithful a complete indulgence for one month during the year 1865, [246] and expresses, in conclusion, his unbounded confidence in the intercession of the immaculate and most holy Mother of God, who has destroyed all the heresies in the whole world, and who, being seated as queen at the right hand of her only begotten Son, can secure any thing she asks from him. [247] To this characteristic Encyclical is added the so-called Syllabus, i.e., a catalogue of eighty errors of the age, which had been previously pointed out by Pius IX. in Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other Apostolic Letters, but are here conveniently brought together, and were transmitted by Cardinal Antonelli to all the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. This extraordinary document presents a strange mixture of truth and error. It is a protest against atheism, materialism, and other forms of infidelity which every Christian must abhor; but it is also a declaration of war against modern civilization and the course of history for the last three hundred years. Like the papal bulls against the Jansenists, it is purely negative, but it implies the assertion of doctrines the very opposite to those which are rejected as errors. [248] It expressly condemns religious and civil liberty, the separation of Church and State; and indirectly it asserts the Infallibility of the Pope, the exclusive right of Romanism to recognition by the State, the unlawfulness of all non-Catholic religions, the complete independence of the Roman hierarchy from the civil government (yet without allowing, a separation), the power of the Church to coerce and enforce, and its supreme control over public education, science, and literature. The number of errors was no doubt suggested by the example of Epiphanius, the venerable father of heresy-hunters (d. 403), who, in his Panarion, or Medicine-Chest, furnishes antidotes for the poison of no less than eighty heresies (including twenty before Christ), probably with a mystic reference to the octoginta concubinae in the Song of Solomon (vi. 8). The Pope divides the eighty errors of the nineteenth century into ten sections, as follows: I. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism, No. 1-7. Under this head are condemned the following errors: (1.) The denial of the existence of God. (2.) The denial of his revelation. (3 and 4.) The sufficiency of human reason to enlighten and to guide men. (5.) Divine revelation is imperfect, and subject to indefinite progress. (6.) The Christian faith contradicts human reason, and is an obstacle to progress. (7.) The prophecies and miracles of the Bible are poetic fictions, and Jesus himself is a myth. [249] II. Moderate Rationalism, No. 8-14. Among these errors are: (12.) The decrees of the Roman See hinder the progress of science. (13.) The scholastic method of theology is unsuited to our age. [250] (14.) Philosophy must be treated without regard to revelation. III. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism, No. 15-18. (15.) Every man may embrace and profess that religion which commends itself to his reason. [251] (16.) Men may be saved under any religion. [252] (17.) We may at least be hopeful concerning the eternal salvation of all non-Catholics. [253] (18.) Protestantism is only a different form of the same Christian religion, in which we may please God as well as in the Catholic Church. [254] IV. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Bible Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies. Under this head there are no specifications, but the reader is referred to previous Encyclicals of 1848, 1849, 1854, 1863, in which 'ejusmodi pestes saepe gravissimisque verborum formulis reprobantur.' The Bible Societies, therefore, are put on a par with socialism and communism, as pestilential errors worthy of the severest reprobation! V. Errors respecting the Church and her Rights. Twenty errors (19-38), such as these: the Church is subject to the State; the Church has no right to exercise her authority without the leave and assent of the State; the Church has not the power to define dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion; Roman Pontiffs and oecumenical Councils have exceeded the limits of their power, usurped the rights of princes, and have erred even in matters of faith and morals; [255] the Church has no power to avail herself of force, or any temporal power, direct or indirect; [256] besides the inherent power of the Episcopate, there is another temporal power conceded expressly or tacitly by the civil government, which may be revoked by the same at its pleasure; it does not exclusively belong to the jurisdiction of the Church to direct the teaching of theology; nothing forbids a general council, or the will of the people, to transfer the supreme Pontiff from Rome to some other city; national Churches, independent of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, may be established; [257] the Roman Pontiffs have contributed to the Greek schism. [258] VI. Errors concerning Civil Society, considered as well in itself as in its relations to the Church. Seventeen errors (39-55). (44.) 'Civil authority may meddle in things pertaining to religion, morals, and the spiritual government.' (45.) 'The whole government of public schools, in which the youth of a Christian commonwealth is trained, with the exception of some Episcopal seminaries, can and must be assigned to the civil authority.' [259] (46.) 'The method of study even in the seminaries of the clergy is subject to the civil authority.' (52.) 'The lay government has the right to depose Bishops from the exercise of pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in those things which pertain to the institution of bishoprics and bishops.' (55.) 'The Church is to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.' [260] VII. Errors in Natural and Christian Ethics, No. 56-64. Here among other things are condemned the principle of non-intervention, and rebellion against legitimate princes. VIII. Errors on Christian Matrimony, No. 65-74. Here the Pope condemns not only loose views on marriage and divorce, but also civil marriage, and any theory which does not admit it to be a sacrament. [261] IX. Errors regarding the Civil Principality of the Roman Pontiff, No. 75, 76. (75.) Concerning the compatibility of the temporal reign with the spiritual, there is a difference of opinion among the sons of the Christian and Catholic Church. (76.) The abrogation of the civil government of the Apostolic See would be conducive to the liberty and welfare of the Church. X. Errors referring to Modern Liberalism, No. 77-80. Under this head are condemned the principles of religious liberty as they have come to prevail in the most enlightened States of Christendom. The Pope still holds that it is right to forbid and exclude all religions but his own, where he has the power to do so (as he had and exercised in Rome before 1870); and he refuses to make any terms with modern civilization. [262] The Syllabus, though resting solely on the authority of the Pope, must be regarded as an integral portion of the Roman Creed; the Pope having since been declared infallible in his official utterances. The most objectionable as well as the least objectionable parts of it have been formally sanctioned by the Vatican Council. The rest may be similarly sanctioned hereafter. The Syllabus expresses the genuine spirit of Popery, to which may be applied the dictum of the General of the Jesuits: 'Aut sit ut est, aut non sit.' It can not change without destroying itself. In the mean time the politico-ecclesiastical doctrines of the Syllabus, together with the Infallibility decree, have provoked a new conflict between the Pope and the Emperor. Pius IX. looks upon the State with the same proud contempt as Gregory VII. 'Persecution of the Church,' he said after the recent expulsion of the Jesuits (1872), 'is folly: a little stone [Dan. ii. 45] will break the colossus [of the new German empire] to pieces.' But Bismarck, who is made of sterner stuff than Henry IV., protests: 'We shall not go to Canossa.' American Protestants and European Free Churchmen reject all interference of the civil government with the liberty and internal affairs of the Church as much as the Pope, but they do this on the basis of a peaceful separation of Church and State, and an equality of all forms of Christianity before the law; while the Syllabus claims absolute freedom and independence exclusively for the Roman hierarchy, and claims this even in those countries where the State supports the Church, and has therefore a right to a share in its government. [The Syllabus of Pius IX. was substantially confirmed by Leo XIII., Nov. 1, 1885, June 1, 1889, and Feb. 1, 1890, and Pius XI. in pascendi gregis, 1907. It is pronounced infallible by Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., II., 780, Straub, de eccles., II., 398-402, and Leitner, Hdbuch. des kath. Kirchenrechts, 2nd ed., p. 15. Other documents pronounced by Lehmkuhl, II., 726-88, infallible, are Leo X.'s bull against Luther, 1520, Innocent X.'s against Jansen, Innocent XI.'s against the Laxists, etc.--Ed.] __________________________________________________________________ [245] These and similar sentences are inserted from letters of mediaeval Popes, who from their theocratic stand-point claimed supreme jurisdiction over the states and princes of Europe. Popes, like the Stuarts and the Bourbons, never forget and never learn any thing. [246] . . . 'plenariam indulgentiam ad instar jubilaei concedimus intra unius tantum mensis spatium usque ad totum futurum annum 1865 et non ultra.' [247] 'Quo vero facilius Deus Nostris, Vestrisque, et omnium fidelium precibus, votisque annuat, cum omni fiducia deprecatricem apud Eum adhibeamus Immaculatam Sanctissimamque Deiparam Virginem Mariam, quae cunctas hereses interemit in universo mundo, quaeque omnium nostrum amantissima Mater "tota suavis est . . . ac plena misericordiae . . . omnibus sese exorabilem, omnibus clementissimam proebet, omnium necessitates amplissimo quodam miseratur affectu" [quoted from St. Bernard], atque utpote Regina adstans a dextris Unigeniti Filii Sui, Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, in vestitu deaurato circumamicta varietate, nihil est quod ab Eo impetrare non valeat. Suffragia quoque petamus Beatissimi Petri Apostolorum Principis, et Coapostoli ejus Pauli, omniumque Sanctorum Coelitum, qui facti jam amici Dei pervenerunt ad coelestia regna, et coronati possident palmam, ac de sua immortalitate securi, de nostra sunt salute solliciti.' [248] A learned Jesuit, Clemens Schrader, translated them into a positive form. [249] 'Jesus Christus est mythica fictio.' I am not aware that any sane infidel has ever gone so far. Strauss and Renan resolve the miracles of the gospel history into myths or legends, but admit the historical existence and extraordinary character of Jesus, as the greatest religions genius who ever lived. [250] No. 13. 'Methodus et principia, quibus antiqui Doctores scholastici theologiam excoluerunt, temporum nostrorum necessitatibus scientiarumque progressui minime congruunt.' [251] No. 15. 'Liberum cuique homini est eam amplecti ac profiteri religionem, quam rationis lumine quis ductus veram putaverit.' [252] No. 16. 'Homines in cujusvis religionis cultu viam aeternae salutis reperire aeternamque salutem assequi possunt.' [253] No. 17. 'Saltem bene sperandum est de aeterna illorum omnium salute, qui in vera Christi Ecclesia nequaquam versantur.' [254] No. 18. 'Protestantismus non aliud est quam diversa verae ejusdem christianae religionis forma, in qua aeque ac in Ecclesia catholica Deo placere datum est.' [255] No. 23. 'Romani pontifices et concilia oecumenica a limitibus suae potestatis recesserunt, jura principum usurparunt, atque etiam in rebus fidei et morum definiendis errarunt.' [256] No. 24. 'Ecclesia vis inferendae potestatem non habet, neque potestatem ullam temporalem directam vel indirectam.' [257] No. 37. 'Institui possunt nationales Ecclesiae ab auctoritate Romani Pontificis subductae planeque divisae.' [258] No. 38. 'Divisioni ecclesiae in orientalem atque occidentalem nimia Romanorum Pontificum arbitria contulerunt.' [259] No. 45. 'Totum scholarum publicarum regimen, in quibus juventus christianae alicujus Reipublicae instituitur, episcopalibus dumtaxat seminariis aliqua ratione exceptis, potest ac debet attribui auctoritati civili,' etc. Compare Nos. 47 and 48. Hence the irreconcilable hostility of the Romish clergy to public schools, especially where the Protestant Bible is read. [260] No. 55. 'Ecclesia a Statu, Statusque ab Ecclesia sejungendus est.' Compare Alloc. Acerbissimum 27 Sept. 1852. [261] No. 73. 'Vi contractus mere civilis potest inter Christianos constare veri nominis matrimonium; falsumque est, aut contractum matrimonii inter Christianos semper esse sacramentum, aut nullum esse contractum, si sacramentum excludatur.' [262] (77.) 'AEtate hoc nostra non amplius expedit, religionem catholicam haberi tamquam unicam status religionem, ceteris quibuscumque cultibus exclusis.' (78.) 'Hinc laudabiliter in quibusdam catholici nominis regionibus lege cautum est, ut hominibus illuc immigrantibus liceat publicum proprii cujusque cultus exercitium habere.' (79.) 'Enimvero falsum est, civilem cujusque cultus libertatem, itemque plenam potestatem omnibus attributam quaslibet opiniones cogitationesque palam publiceque manifestandi conducere ad populorum mores animosque facilius corrumpendos ac indifferentismi pestem propagandam.' (80.) 'Romanus Pontifex potest ac debet cum progressu, cum liberalismo et cum recenti civilitate sese reconciliare et componere.' __________________________________________________________________ S: 31. The Vatican Council, 1870. Literature. I. Works Preceding the Council. Officielle Actenstuecke zu dem von Sr. Heiligkeit dem Papste Pius IX. nach Rom berufenen Oekumenischen Concil, Berlin, 1869 (pp. 189). This work contains the Papal Encyclica of 1864, and the various papal letters and official documents preparatory to the Council, in Latin and German. Chronique concernant le Prochain Concile. Traduction revue et approuvee de la Civilt`a cattolica par la correspondance de Rome, Vol. I. Avant le Concile. Rome, Deuxieme ed. 1869, fol. (pp. 192). Begins with the Papal letter of June 26, 1867. Henry Edward Manning (Archbishop of Westminster): The Centenary of St. Peter and the General Council. A Pastoral Letter. London, 1867. The OEcumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. A Pastoral Letter. London, 1869. In favor of Infallibility. C. H. A. Plantier (Bishop of Nimes): Sur les Conciles generaux `a l'occasion de celui que Sa Saintete Pie IX. a convoque pour le 8 decembre prochain, Nimes et Paris, 1869. The same in German: Ueber die allgemeinen Kirchenversammlungen, translated by Th. von Lamezan, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1869. Infallibilist. Magr. Vict. Aug. Dechamps (Archbishop of Malines): L'infaillibilite et le Concile general, 2d ed., Paris et Malines, 1869. German translation: Die Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes und das Allgemeine Concil, Mainz, 1869. Strong Infallibilist. H. L. C. Maret (Dean of the Theol. Faculty of Paris): Du Concile general et de la paix religieuse, Paris, 1869, 2 vols. Against Infallibility. Has since recanted. W. Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler (Bishop of Mayence): Das Allgemeine Concil und seine Bedeutung fuer unsere Zeit, 4th ed. Mainz, 1869. First against, now in favor of Infallibility. Dr. Joseph Fessler (Bishop of St. Poelten and Secretary of the Vatican Council, d. 1872): Das letzte und das naechste Allgemeine Concil, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1869. F. Dupanloup (Bishop of Orleans): Lettre sur le futur Concile OEcumenique, in French, German, and other languages, 1869. The same on the Infallibility of the Pope. First against, then in favor of the new dogma. Der Papst und das Concil, von Janus, Leipzig, 1869 (pseudonymous). The same in English: The Pope and the Council, by Janus, London, 1869. In opposition to the Jesuit programme of the Council, from the liberal (old) Catholic stand-point; probably the joint production of Profs. Doellinger, Friedrich, and Huber, of the University of Munich. Dr. J. Hergenroether (R.C.): Anti-Janus, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870. Also in English, by J. B. Robertson, Dublin, 1870. Reform der Roem. Kirche in Haupt und Gliedern Aufgabe des bevorstehenden Roem. Concils, Leipz. 1869. Liberal Catholic. Felix Bungener (Prot.): Rome and the Council in the Nineteenth Century. Translated from the French, with additions by the Author. Edinb. 1870. (Conjectures as to what the Council will be, to judge from the Papal Syllabus and the past history of the Papacy.) II. Reports During the Council. The Civilt`a catholica, of Rome, for 1869 and 1870. Chief organ of the Jesuits and Infallibilists. Louis Veuillot: Rome pendant le Concile, Paris, 1870, 2 vols. Collection of his correspondence to his journal, l'Univers, of Paris. Ultra-Infallibilist and utterly unscrupulous. J. Friedrich (Prof. of Church History in Munich, lib. Cath.): Tagebuch waehrend des Vaticanischen Concils gefuehrt, Noedlingen, 1871; 2d ed. 1872. A journal kept during the Council, and noting the facts, projects, and rumors as they came to the surface. The author, a colleague and intimate friend of Doellinger, has since been excommunicated. Quirinus: letters from Rome on the Council, first in the Augsb. Allgemeine Zeitung, and then in a separate volume, Munich, 1870; also in English, London, 1870 (pp. 856). Letters of three liberal Catholics, of different nations, who had long resided in Rome, and, during the Council, communicated to each other all the information they could gather from members of the Council, and sent their letters to a friend in Germany for publication in the Augsburg General Gazette. Compare against Quirinus: Die Unwahrheiten der Roemischen Briefe vom Concil in der Allg. Zeitung, Von W. Emmanuel Freiherrn von Ketteler (Bishop of Mayence), 1870. Ce qui se passe au Concile. Dated April 16, 1870. Troisieme ed. Paris, 1870. [By Jules Gaillard.] La derniere heure du Concile, Paris, 1870. [By a member of the Council.] The last two works were denounced as a calumny by the presiding Cardinals in the session, July 16,1870. Also the Reports during the Council in the Giornale di Roma, the Turin Unit`a catholica, the London Times, the London (R.C.) Tablet, the Dublin Review, the New York Tribune, and other leading periodicals. III. The Acts and Proceedings of the Council. (1.) Roman Catholic (Infallibilist) Sources. Acta et Decreta sacrosancti et oecumenici Concilii Vaticani die 8 Dec. 1869 a ss. D. N. Pio IX. inchoati. Cum permissione superiorum, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1871, in 2 Parts. The first part contains the Papal Encyclica with the Syllabus and the acts preparatory to the Council; the second, the public acts of the Council itself, with a list of the dioceses of the Roman Church and the members of the Vatican Council. Actes et histoire du Concile oecumenique de Rome, premier du Vatican, ed. under the auspices of Victor Frond, Paris, 1869 sqq. 6 vols. Includes extensive biographies of Pope Pius IX. and his Cardinals, etc., with portraits. Vol. VI. contains the Actes, decrets et documents reccuillis et mis en ordre par M. Pelletier, chanoine d'Orleans. Each vol. costs 100 francs. Atti ufficialli del Concilio ecumenico, Turino, pp. 682 (? 1870). Officielle Actenstuecke zu dem von Sr. Heiligkeit dem Papst Pius IX. nach Rom berufenen Oekumenischen Concil, Zweite Sammlung, Berlin, 1870. Das Oekumemische Concil. Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Neue Folge. Freiburg im Breisgau, l870. A series of discussions in defense of the Council by Jesuits (Florian Riess, and K. v. Weber). Henry Edward Manning (R.C. Archbishop of Westminster): Petri Privilegium. Three Pastoral Letters, London, 1871. The True Story of the Vatican Council, London, 1877. Bp. Jos. Fessler (Secretary of the Vatican Council): Das Vaticanische Concil, dessen aeussere Bedeutung und innerer Verlauf, Wien, 1871. Eugen Cecconi (Canon at Florence): Geschichte der allg. Kirchenversammlung im Vatican. Trans. from the Italian by Dr. W. Molitor. Regensb. 1873 sqq. (Vol. I. contains only the history before the Council.) The stenographic reports of the speeches of the Council are still locked up in the archives of the Vatican. (2.) Old Catholic (anti-Infallibilist). Joh. Friedrich: Documenta ad illustrandum Concilium Vaticanum anni 1870, Noerdlingen, 1871, In 2 parts. Contains official and unofficial documents bearing on the Council and the various schemata de fide, de ecclesia, etc. Compare his Tagebuch waehrend des Vaticanischen Concils gefuehrt, above quoted. By the same: Geschichte des Vaticanischen Concils, Bonn, 1877. Vol. I. (contains the preparatory history to 1869); Vol. II. 1883. Joh. Friedrich Ritter von Schulte (Prof. of Canon Law in the University of Prague, now in Bonn): Das Unfehlbarkeitsdecret vom 18 Juli 1870 . . . geprueft, Prag, 1871. Also, Die Macht der Roem. Paepste ueber Fuersten, Laender, Voelker, Individuen, etc., Prag, 2d ed. 1871. Stimmen aus der katholischen Kirche ueber die Kirchenfragen der Gegenwart, Muenchen, 1870 sqq. 2 vols. A series of discussions against the Vatican Council, by Doellinger, Huber, Schmitz, Friedrich, Reinkens, and Hoetzl. (3.) Protestant. Dr. Emil Friedberg (Prof. of Ecclesiastical Law in Leipzig): Sammlung der Actenstuecke zum ersten Vaticanischen Concil, mit einem Grundriss der Geschichte desselben, Tuebingen, 1872 (pp. 954). Very valuable; contains all the important documents, and a full list of works on the Council. Theod. Frommann (Privatdocent in Berlin): Geschichte und Kritik des Vaticanischen Concils von 1869 und 1870, Gotha, 1872 (pp. 529). E. de Pressense (Ref. Pastor in Paris): Le Concile du Vatican, son histoire et ses consequences politiques et religieuses, Paris, 1872. Also in German, by Fabarius, Noerdlingen, 1872. L. W. Bacon: An Inside View of the Vatican Council, New York, 1872 (Amer. Tract Society). Contains a translation of Archbishop Kenrick's speech against Infallibility, with a sketch of the Council. G. Uhlhorn: Das Vaticanische Concil (Vermischte Vortraege). Stuttgart, 1875, pp. 235-350. An extensive criticism on the Infallibility decree in the third edition of Dr. Hase's Handbuch der Protestant. Polemik gegen die roemisch-katholische Kirche, Leipz. 1871, pp. 155-200. Comp. pp. 24-37. The above are only the most important works of the large and increasing literature, historical, apologetic, and polemic, on the Vatican Council. A. Erlecke, in a pamphlet, Die Literatur des roem. Concils, gives a list of over 200 books and pamphlets which appeared in Germany alone before 1871. Friedberg notices 1041 writings on the subject till June 1872. Since then the Gladstone Expostulation on the political aspects of the Vatican Decrees, Lond. 1874, and his Vaticanism, 1875, have called forth a newspaper and pamphlet war, and put Dr. J. H. Newman and Archbishop Manning on the defensive.] More than three hundred years after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX., who had proclaimed the new dogma of the Immaculate Conception, who in the presence of five hundred Bishops had celebrated the eighteenth centennial of the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and who was permitted to survive not only the golden wedding of his priesthood, but even--alone among his more than two hundred and fifty predecessors--the silver wedding of his popedom (thus falsifying the tradition 'non videbit annos Petri'), resolved to convoke a new oecumenical Council, which was to proclaim his own infallibility in all matters of faith and discipline, and thus to put the top-stone to the pyramid of the Roman hierarchy. He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an Allocution to five hundred Bishops who were assembled at the eighteenth centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. The Bishops, in a most humble and obsequious response, July 1, 1867, approved of his heroic courage, to employ, in his old age, an extreme measure for an extreme danger, and predicted a new splendor of the Church, and a new triumph of the kingdom of God. [263] Whereupon the Pope announced to them that he would convene the Council under the special auspices of the immaculate Virgin, who had crushed the serpent's head and was mighty to destroy alone all the heresies of the world. [264] The call was issued by an Encyclical, commencing AEterni Patris Unigenitus Filius, in the twenty-third year of his Pontificate, on the feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at once a universal commotion in the Christian world, and called forth a multitude of books and pamphlets even before the Council convened. The highest expectations were suspended by the Pope and his sympathizers on the coming event. What the Council of Trent had effected against the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, the Council of the Vatican was to accomplish against the more radical and dangerous foes of modern liberalism and rationalism, which threatened to undermine Romanism itself in its own strongholds. It was to crush the power of infidelity, and to settle all that belongs to the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Church, and the eternal salvation of souls. [265] It was even hoped that the Council might become a general feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the Greek schismatics, and the Protestant heretics and other non-Catholics, were invited by two special letters of the Pope (Sept. 8, and Sept. 13, 1868) to return on this auspicious occasion to 'the only sheepfold of Christ,' for the salvation of their souls. [266] But the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation, as an insult to their time-honored rights and traditions, from which they could not depart. [267] The Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined it. [268] Thus the Vatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out to be simply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the prospect of a reunion of Christendom farther off than ever before. While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX. were doomed to disappointment, the chief object of the Council was attained in spite of the strong opposition of the minority of liberal Catholics. This object, which for reasons of propriety is omitted in the bull of convocation and other preliminary acts, but clearly stated by the organs of the Ultramontane or Jesuitical party, was nothing less than the proclamation of the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to come. [269] Herein lies the whole importance of the Council; all the rest dwindles into insignificance, and could never have justified its convocation. After extensive and careful preparations, the first (and perhaps the last) Vatican Council was solemnly opened amid the sound of innumerable bells and the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies and a pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Dec. 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the Vatican. [270] It reached its height at the fourth public session, July 18, 1870, when the decree of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly existence till October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till Nov. 11, 1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the extraordinary change in the political situation of Europe. For on the second of September the French Empire, which had been the main support of the temporal power of the Pope, collapsed with the surrender of Napoleon III., at the old Huguenot stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William of Prussia, and on the twentieth of September the Italian troops, in the name of King Victor Emanuel, took possession of Rome, as the future capital of united Italy. Whether the Council will ever be convened again to complete its vast labors, like the twice interrupted Council of Trent, remains to be seen. But, in proclaiming the personal Infallibility of the Pope, it made all future oecumenical Councils unnecessary for the definition of dogmas and the regulation of discipline, so that hereafter they will be expensive luxuries and empty ritualistic shows. The acts of the Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable. The attendance was larger than that of any of its eighteen predecessors, [271] and presented an imposing array of hierarchical dignity and power such as the world never saw before, and as the Eternal City itself is not likely ever to see again. What a contrast this to the first Council of the apostles, elders, and brethren in an upper chamber in Jerusalem! The whole number of prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, who are entitled to a seat in an oecumenical Council, is one thousand and thirty-seven. [272] Of these there were present at the opening of the Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 121 Archbishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals of monastic orders. [273] This number afterwards increased to 764, viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in partibus infidelium, 424 diocesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibus, and 52 Abbots, and Generals of monastic orders. [274] Distributed according to continents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to Africa, 113 to America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of the decree of Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number was reduced to 535, and afterwards it dwindled down to 200 or 180. Among the many nations represented, [275] the Italians had a vast majority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal States alone. France, with a much larger Catholic population, had only 84, Austria and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain 35, Germany 19, the United States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland 8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal 2, Russia 1. The disproportion between the representatives of the different nations and the number of their constituents was overwhelmingly in favor of the Papal influence. Nearly one half of the Fathers were entertained during the Council at the expense of the Pope. The Romans themselves were remarkably indifferent to the Council, though keenly alive to the financial gain which the dogma of the Infallibility of their sovereign would bring to the Eternal City and the impoverished Papal treasury. [276] It is well known, how soon after the Council they voted almost in a body against the temporal power of the Pope, and for their new master. The strictest secresy was enjoined upon the members of the Council. [277] The stenographic reports of the proceedings were locked up in the archives. The world was only to know the final results as proclaimed in the public sessions, until it should please the Roman court to issue an official history. But the freedom of the press in the nineteenth century, the elements of discord in the Council itself, the enterprise or indiscretion of members and friends of both parties, frustrated the precautions. The principal facts, documents, speeches, plans, and intrigues leaked out in the official schemata, the controversial pamphlets of Prelates, and the private reports and letters of outside observers who were in intimate and constant intercourse with their friends in the Council. [278] The subject-matter for deliberation was divided into four parts: on Faith, Discipline, Religious Orders, and on Rites, including Missions. Each part was assigned to a special Commission (Congregatio or Deputatio), consisting of 24 Prelates elected by ballot for the whole period of the Council, with a presiding Cardinal appointed by the Pope. These Commissions prepared the decrees on the basis of schemata previously drawn up by learned divines and canonists, and confidentially submitted to the Bishops in print. [279] The decrees were then discussed, revised, and adopted in secret sessions by the General Congregation (Congregationes generales), including all the Fathers, with five presiding Cardinals appointed by the Pope. The General Congregation held eighty-nine sessions in all. Finally, the decrees thus matured were voted upon by simple yeas or nays (Placet or Non Placet), and solemnly promulgated in public sessions in the presence and by the authority of the Pope. A conditional assent (Placet juxta modum) was allowed in the secret, but not in the public sessions. There were only four such public sessions held during the ten months of the Council, viz., the opening session (lasting nearly seven hours), Dec. 8, 1869, which was a mere formality, but of a ritualistic splendor and magnificence such as can be gotten up nowhere on earth but in St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome; the second session, Jan. 6, 1870, when the Fathers simply professed each one before the Pope the Nicene Creed and the Profession of the Tridentine Faith; the third session, April 24, 1870, when the dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith was unanimously adopted; and the fourth session, July 18, 1870, when the first dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ and the Infallibility of the Pope was adopted with two dissenting votes. The management of the Council was entirely in the hands of the Pope and his dependent Cardinals and Jesuitical advisers. He originated the topics which were to be acted on; he selected the preparatory committees of theologians (mostly of the Ultramontane school) who, during the winter of 1868-69, drew up the schemata; he appointed the presiding officers of the four Deputations, and of the General Congregation; and he proclaimed the decrees in his own name, 'with the approval of the Council.' [280] He provided, by the bull 'Cum, Romanis Pontificibus,' of Dec. 4, 1869, for the immediate suspension and adjournment of the Council in case of his death. He even personally interfered during the proceedings in favor of his new dogma by praising Infallibilists, and by ignoring or rebuking anti-Infallibilists. [281] The discussion could be virtually arrested by the presiding Cardinals at the request of only ten members; we say virtually, for although it required a vote of the Council, a majority was always sure. The revised order of business, issued Feb. 22, 1870, departed even from the old rule requiring absolute or at least moral unanimity in definitions of faith (according to the celebrated canon quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est), and substituted for it a mere numerical majority, in order to secure the triumph of the Infallibility decree in spite of a powerful minority. Nothing could be printed in Rome against Infallibility, while the organs of Infallibility had full freedom to print and publish what they pleased. [282] Such prominence of the Pope is characteristic of a Council convoked for the very purpose of proclaiming his personal infallibility, but is without precedent in history (except in some mediaeval Councils); even the Council of Trent maintained its own dignity and comparative independence by declaring its decrees in its own name. [283] This want of freedom of the Council--not to speak of the strict police surveillance over the members--was severely censured by liberal Catholics. More than one hundred Prelates of all nations signed a strong protest (dated Rome, March 1, 1870) against the order of business, especially against the mere majority vote, and expressed the fear that in the end the authority of this Council might be impaired as wanting in truth and liberty--a calamity so direful in these uneasy times, that a greater could not be imagined. But this protest, like all the acts of the minority, was ignored. The proceedings were, of course, in the official language of the Roman Church, which all Prelates could understand and speak, but very few with sufficient ease to do justice to themselves and their subjects. The acoustic defects of the Council-hall and the difference of pronunciation proved a great inconvenience, and the Continentals complained [284] that they could not understand the English Latin. The Council had a full share of ignorance and superstition, [285] and was disgraced by intrigues and occasional outbursts of intolerance and passion such as are, alas! not unusual in deliberative assemblies even of the Christian Church. [286] But it embraced also much learning and eloquence, especially on the part of the French and German Episcopate. Upon the whole, it compares favorably, as to intellectual ability, moral character, and far-reaching effect, with preceding Roman Councils, and must be regarded as the greatest event in the history of the Papacy since the Council of Trent. The chief importance of the Council of the Vatican lies in its decree on Papal supremacy and Infallibility. It settled the internal dissensions between Ultramontanism and Gallicanism, which struck at the root of the fundamental principle of authority; it destroyed the independence of the Episcopate, and made it a tool of the Primacy; it crushed liberal Catholicism; it completed the system of Papal absolutism; it raised the hitherto disputed opinion of Papal Infallibility to the dignity of a binding article of faith, which no Catholic can deny without loss of salvation. The Pope may now say not only, 'I am the tradition' (La tradizione son' io), but also, 'I am the Church' (L'eglise c'est moi)! But this very triumph of absolutism marks also a new departure. It gave rise to a secession headed by the ablest divines of the Roman Church. It put the Papacy into direct antagonism to the liberal tendencies of the age. It excited the hostility of civil government in all those countries where Church and State are united on the basis of a concordat with the Roman See. No State with any degree of self-respect can treat with a sovereign who claims infallibility, and therefore unconditional submission in matters of moral duty as well as of faith. In reaching the summit of its power, the Papacy has hastened its downfall. For Protestants and Greeks the Vatican Council is no more oecumenical than that of Trent, and has only intensified the antagonism. Its oecumenicity is also denied by the Old Catholic scholars--Doellinger, von Schulte, and Reinkens --because it lacked the two fundamental conditions of liberty of discussion, and moral unanimity of suffrage. [287] But the subsequent submission of all the Bishops who had voted against Papal Infallibility, supplies the defect as far as the Roman Church is concerned. There was nothing left to them but either to submit or to be expelled. They chose the former, and thus destroyed the legal and moral force of their protest, although not the power of truth and the nature of the facts on which it was based. Henceforward Romanism must stand or fall with the Vatican Council. But (as we have before intimated) Romanism is not to be confounded with Catholicism any more than the Jewish hierarchy which crucified our Saviour, is identical with the people of Israel, from which sprang the Apostles and early converts of Christianity. The destruction of the infallible and irreformable Papacy may be the emancipation of Catholicism, and lead it from its prison-house to the light of a new Reformation. __________________________________________________________________ [263] 'Summo igitur gauaio,' said the five hundred Bishops, 'repletus est animus noster, dum sacrato ore Tuo intelleximus, tot inter praesentis temporis discrimina eo Te esse consilio, ut "maximum," prout aiebat inclitus Tuus praedecessor Paulus III., "in maximis rei Christianae periculis remedium," Concilium oecumenicum convoces. Annuat Deus huic Tuo proposito, cuius ipse Tibi mentem inspiravit; habeantque tandem oevi nostri homines, qui infirmi in fide, semper discentes et nunquam ad veritatis agnitionem pervenientes omni vento doctrinae circumferuntur, in sacrosancta hac Synodo novam, praesentissimamque occasionem accedendi ad sanctam Ecclesiam columnam ac firmamentum veritatis, cognoscendi salutiferam fidem, perniciosos reiiciendi errores; ac fiat, Deo propitio, et conciliatrice Deipara Immaculata, haec Synodus grande opus unitatis, sanctificationis et pacis, unde novus in Ecclesiam splendor redundet, novus regni Dei triumphus consequatur. Et hoc ipso Tuae providentiae opere denuo exibeatur mundo immensa beneficia, per Pontificatum romanum humanae societati asserta. Pateat cunctis, Ecclesiam eo quod super solidissima Petra fundetur, tantum valere, ut errores depellat, mores corrigat, barbariem compescat, civilisque humanitatis mater dicatur et sit. Pateat mundo, quod divinae auctoritatis et debitae eidem obedientiae manifestissimo specimine, in divina Pontificatus institutione dato, ea omnia stabilita et sacrata sint, quae societatum fundamenta ac diuturnitatem solident.' [264] 'Quod sane votum apertius etiam se prodit in eo communi Concilii oecumenici desiderio, quod omnes non modo perutile, sed et necessarium arbitramini. Superbia enim humana, veterem ansum instauratura, jamdiu per commenticium progressum civitatem et turrem extruere nititur, cujus culmen pertingat ad coelum, unde demum Deus ipse detrahi possit. At is descendisse videtur inspecturus opus, et aedificantium linguas ita confusurus, ut non audiat unusquisque vocem proximi sui: id enim animo objiciunt Ecclesiae vexationes, miseranda civilis consortii conditio, perturbatio rerum omnium, in qua versamur. Cui sane gravissimae calamitati sola certe objici potest divina Ecclesiae virtus, quae tunc maxime se prodit, cum Episcopi a Summo Pontifice convocati, eo praeside, conveniunt in nomine Domini de Ecclesiae rebus acturi. Et gaudemus omnino, proevertisse vos hac in re propositum jamdiu a nobis conceptum, commendandi sacrum hunc coetum ejus patrocinio, cujus pedi a rerum exordio serpentis caput subjectum fuit, quoeque deinde universas haereses sola interemit. Satisfacturi propterea communi desiderio jam nunc nunciamus, futurum quandocunque Concilium sub auspiciis Deiparae Virginis ab omni labe immunis esse constituendum, et eo aperiendum die, quo insignis hujus privilegii ipsi collati memoria recolitur. Faxit Deus, faxit Immaculata Virgo, ut amplissimos e saluberrimo isto Concilio fructus percipere valeamus.' While the Pope complains of the pride of the age in attempting to build another tower of Babel, it did not occur to him that the assumption of infallibility, i.e., a predicate of the Almighty by a mortal man, is the consummation of spiritual pride. [265] After describing, in the stereotyped phrases of the Roman Court, the great solicitude of the successors of Peter for pure doctrine and good government, and the terrible tempests and calamities by which the Catholic Church and the very foundations of society are shaken in the present age, the Pope's Encyclical comprehensively but vaguely, and with a prudent reserve concerning the desired dogma of Infallibility, defines the objects of the Council in these words: 'In oecumenico hoc Concilio ea omnia accuratissime examine sunt perpendenda ac statuenda, quae hisce praesertim asperrimis temporibus majorem Dei gloriam, et fidei integritatem, divinique cultus decorem, sempiternamque hominum salutem, et utriusque Cleri disciplinam ejusque salutarem solidamque culturam, atque ecclesiasticarum legum observantiam, morumque emendationem, et christianam juventutis institutionem, et communem omnium pacem et concordiam in primis respiciunt. Atque etiam intentissimo studio curandum est, ut, Deo bene juvante, omnia ab Ecclesia et civili societate amoveantur mala, ut miseri errantes ad rectum veritatis, justitiae salutisque tramitem reducantur, ut vitiis erroribusque eliminatis, augusta nostra religio ejusque salutifera doctrina ubique terrarum reviviscat, et quotidie magis propagetur et dominetur, atque ita pietas, honestas, probitas, justitia, caritas omnesque Christianae virtutes cum maxima humanae societatis utilitate vigeant et efflorescant.' [266] 'Omnes Christianos etiam atque etiam hortamur et obsecramus, ut ad unicum Christi ovile redire festinent.' And at the end again, 'unum ovile et unus pastor;' according to the false and mischievous translation of John x. 16 in the Vulgate (followed by the authorized English Version), instead of 'one flock' (mia poimne, not aule). There may be many folds, and yet one flock under one Shepherd, as there are 'many mansions' in heaven (John xiv. 2). [267] The Patriarch of Constantinople declined even to receive the Papal letter from the Papal messenger, for the reasons that it had already been published in the Giornale di Roma; that it contained principles contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, the doctrines of the oecumenical Councils, and the holy Fathers; that there was no supreme Bishop in the Church except Christ; and that the Bishop of Old Rome had no right to convoke an oecumenical Council without first consulting the Eastern Patriarchs. The other Oriental Bishops either declined or returned the Papal letter of invitation. See the documents in Friedberg, l.c. pp. 233-253; in Officielle Actenstuecke, etc., pp. 127-135; and in the Chronique concernant le Prochain Concile, Vol. I. pp. 3 sqq., 103 sqq. [268] The Evangelical Oberkirchenrath of Berlin, the Kirchentag of Stuttgart, 1869, the Paris Branch of the Evangelical Alliance, 'The Venerable Company of Pastors of Geneva,' the Professors of the University of Groningen, the Hungarian Lutherans assembled at Pesth, and the Presbyterians of the United States, took notice of the Papal invitation, all declining it, and reaffirming the principles of the Protestant Reformation. The Presbyterian Dr. Cumming, of London, seemed willing to accept the invitation if the Pope would allow a discussion of the reasons of the separation from Rome, but was informed by the Pope, through Archbishop Manning, in two letters (Sept. 4, and Oct. 30, 1869), that such discussion of questions long settled would be entirely inconsistent with the infallibility of the Church and the supremacy of the Holy See. See the documents in Friedberg, pp. 235-257; comp. pp. 16, 17, and Offic. Actenstuecke, pp. 158-176. The Chronique concernant le Prochain Concile, p. 169, criticises at length the American Presbyterian letter signed by Jacobus and Fowler (Moderators of the General Assembly), and sees in its reasons for declining a proof of 'heretical obstinacy and ignorance.' [269] So the Civilt`a cattolica (a monthly Review established 1850, at Rome, the principal organ of the Jesuits, and the Moniteur of the Papal Court) defined the programme, Feb. 6, 1869; adding to it also the adoption of the Syllabus of 1864, and, perhaps, the proclamation of the assumption of the Virgin Mary to heaven. The last is reserved for the future. The Archbishop of Westminster (Manning) and the Archbishop of Mechlin (Dechamps) predicted, in pastoral letters of 1867 and 1869, the proclamation of the Papal Infallibility as a certain event. To avert this danger, the Bishop of Orleans (Dupanloup), Pere Gratry of the Oratory, Pere Hyacinthe, Bishop Maret (Dean of the Theological Faculty of Paris), Montalembert, John Henry Newman, the German Catholic laity (in the Coblenz Address), in part the German Bishops assembled at Fulda, and especially the learned authors of the Janus, lifted their voice, though in vain. See the literature on the subject in Friedberg, pp. 17-21. [270] Hence the name. The right cross-nave of St. Peter's Church, which itself is a large church, was separated by a painted board wall, and fitted up as the council-hall. See a draught of it in Friedberg, p. 98. The hall was very unsuitable for hearing, and had to be repeatedly altered. The Pope, it is said (Hase, l.c. p. 26), did not care that all the orators should be understood. The Vatican Palace, where the Pope now resides, adjoins the Church of St. Peter. Councils were held there before, but only of a local character. Formerly the Roman oecumenical Councils were held in the Lateran Palace, the ancient residence of the Popes, which is connected with the Church of St. John in the Lateran or Church of the Saviour ('omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput'). There are five Lateran Councils: the first was held, 1123, under Calixtus II.; the second, 1139, under Innocent II.; the third, 1179, under Alexander III.; the fourth and largest, 1215, under Innocent III.; the fifth, 1512-1517, under Leo X., on the eve of the Reformation. The basilica of the Lateran contains the head, the basilica of St. Peter the body, of St. Peter. The Pope expressed the hope that a special inspiration would proceed from the near grave of the prince of the Apostles upon the Fathers of the Council. [271] As the oecumenical character of two or three Councils is disputed, the Vatican Council is variously reckoned as the 19th or 20th or 21st oecumenical Council; by strict Romanists (as Manning) as the 19th. Compare note on p. 91. [272] See a full list, with all the titles, in the Lexicon geographicum added to the second part of the Acta et Decreta sacrosancti et oecum. Conc. Vaticani, Friburgi, 1871. The Prelates 'quibus aut jus aut privilegium fuit sedendi in oecumenica synodo Vaticana,' are arranged as follows: (1.) Eminentissimi et reverendissimi Domini S.E. Rom. Cardinales: (a) ordinis Episcoporum, (b) ordinis Presbyterorum. (c) ordinis diaconorum--51. (2.) Reverendissimi Domini Patriarchae--11. (3.) Reverendissimi DD. Primates--10. (4.) Reverendissimi DD. Archiepiscopi--166. (5.) Reverendissimi DD. Episcopi--740. (6.) Abbates nullius dioceseos--6. (7.) Abbates Generales ordinum monasticorum--23. (8.) Generales et Vicarii Generales congregationum clericorum regularium, ordinum monasticorum, ordinum mendicantium--29. In all, 1037. [273] See the list of names in Friedberg, pp. 376-394. [274] See the official Catalogo alfabetico dei Padri presenti al Concilio ecumenico Vaticano, Roma, 1870. [275] Manning says, 'some thirty nations'--probably an exaggeration. [276] Quirinus, pp. 480, 481 (English translation). [277] They had to promise and swear to observe ' inviolabilem secreti fidem' with regard to the discussions, the opinions, and all matters pertaining to the Council. See the form of the oath in Friedberg, p. 96. In ancient Councils the people are often mentioned as being present during the deliberations, and manifesting their feelings of approval and disapproval. [278] Among the irresponsible but well-informed reporters and correspondents must be mentioned especially the writers in the Civilt`a cattolica, and the Paris Univers, on the part of the Infallibilists; and the pseudonymous Quirinus, Prof. Friedrich, and the anonymous French authors of Ce qui se passe au Concile, and of La derniere heure du Concile, on the part of the anti-Infallibilists. [279] There were in all forty-five schemata, divided into four classes: (1) circa fidem, (2) circa disciplinam ecclesiae, (3) circa ordines regulares, (4) circa res ritus orientalis et apostolicas missiones. See a list in Friedberg, pp. 432-434. Only a part of the schemata were submitted, and only the first two schemata de fide were acted upon. Friedrich, in the Second Part of his Documenta, gives the schemata, as far as they were distributed among the Bishops, together with the revisions and criticisms of the Bishops. [280] Under the title: Pius episcopus, servus servorum Dei, sacro approbante Concilio, ad perpetuam rei memoriam. The order prescribed for voting was this: The Pope, through the Secretary, asked the members of the Council first in general: Reverendissimi Patres, placentne vobis Decreta et Canones qui in hac Constitutione continentur? Then each one was called by name, and must vote either placet or non placet. When the votes were collected and brought to the Pope, he announced the result by this formula: Decreta et Canones qui in Constitutione modo lecta continentur, placuerunt omnibus Patribus, nemine dissentiente [if there were dissenting votes the Pope stated their number]; Nosque, sacro approbante Concilio, illa [sc. decreta] et illos [canones], ita ut lecta sunt, definimus, et Apostolica Auctoritate confirmamus. See the Monitum in the Giornale di Roma, April 18, 1870; Friedberg, pp. 462-464. [281] See the laudatory letters of Pius to several advocates of Infallibility, in Friedberg, pp. 487-495; comp. pp. 108-111. To Archbishop Dechamps, of Mechlin, he wrote that, in his tract on Papal Infallibility, he had proved the harmony of the Catholic faith with human reason so convincingly as to force even the Rationalists to see the absurdity of the opposite views. He applauded the indefatigable and abusive editor of the Paris Univers, Veuillot, who had collected 100,000 francs for the Vicar of Christ (May 30, 1870). On the other hand, he is reported to have rebuked in conversation Cardinal Schwarzenberg by the remark: 'I, John Maria Mastai, believe in the infallibility of the Pope. As Pope I have nothing to ask from the Council. The Holy Ghost will enlighten it.' He even attacked the memory of the eloquent French champion of Catholic interests, the Count Montalembert, who died during the Council (March 13, 1870), by saying, in the presence of three hundred persons: 'He had a great enemy, pride. He was a liberal Catholic, i.e., a half Catholic.' Ce qui se passe au Concile, 154 sqq. [282] Several minority documents, as Kenrick's speech against Infallibility, and the Latin edition of Hefele's tract on Honorius, were printed in Naples; the German in Tuebingen. But the Civilt`a cattolica, the irresponsible organ of the Jesuits and the Pope, was provided with a special building and income, and every facility for obtaining information. See Acton, Quirinus, and Frommann (1.c. p. 13). [283] ' Sacrosancta Tridentina Synodas, in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata . . . declarat.' See the order of the Council of Trent as republished in Friedrich's Documenta, I. pp. 265 sqq. [284] 'Id autem, quod spectat ad numerum suffragiorum requisitum, ut quaestiones dogmaticae solvantur, in quo quidem rei summa est totiusque Concilii cardo vertitur, ita grave est, ut nisi admitteretur, quod reverenter et enixe postulamus, conscientia nostra intolerabili pondere premeretur: timeremus, ne Concilii oecumenici character in dubium vocari posset; ne ansa hostibus proeberetur Sanctam Sedem et Concilium impetendi, sicque demum apud populum Christianum hujus Concilii auctoritas labefactaretur, quasi veritate et libertate caruerit: quod his turbatissimis temporibus tanta esset calamitas, ut pejor excogitari nulla possit.' See the remarkable protest in Friedberg, pp. 417-422. Also Dollinger's critique of the order of business, ib. 422-432; Archbishop Kenrick's famous concio habenda at non habita, published in Naples, 1870 (and republished in Friedrich's Docum.); the work La liberte du Concile et l'infaillibilite, which was either written or inspired by Archbishop Darboy, of Paris (in Friedrich's Docum. I. pp. 129 sqq.), and the same Prelate's speech in the General Congregation, May 20, 1870 (ibidem. II. pp. 415 sqq.). Archbishop Manning, sublimely ignoring all these facts and documents, and referring us to the inaccessible Archives of the Vatican, assures us (Petri Privil. III. 32) that the Council was as free as the Congress of the United States, and that the wonder is, not that the opposition failed of its object, but that the Council so long held its peace. [285] Some amusing examples are reported by the well-informed Quirinus. Bishop Pie, of Poitiers, supported the Papal Infallibility in a session of the General Congregation (May 13) by an entirely original argument derived from the legend that Peter was crucified downward; for as his head bore the whole weight of the body, so the Pope, as the head, bears the whole Church; but he is infallible who bears, not he who is borne! The Italians and Spaniards applauded enthusiastically. Unfortunately for the argument, the head of Peter did not bear his body, but the cross bore both; consequently the cross must be infallible. A Sicilian Prelate said the Sicilians first doubted the infallibility of Peter when he visited the island, and sent a special deputation of inquiry to the Virgin Mary, but were assured by her that she remembered well having been present when Christ conferred this prerogative on Peter; and this satisfied them completely. Quirinus adds: 'The opposition Bishops see a proof of the insolent contempt of the majority in thus putting up such men as Pie and this Sicilian to speak against them.' Letter XLVI. p. 534. [286] The following characteristic episode (ignored, of course, in Manning's eulogy) is well authenticated by the concurrent and yet independent reports of Lord Acton (N. Brit. Rev.), Quirinus (Letter XXXII.), Friedrich (Tagebuch, pp. 271, 272), and the author of Ce qui se passe au Concile (p. 69); comp. Friedberg (pp. 104-106). When Bishop Strossmayer, the boldest member of the opposition and an eloquent Latinist, in a session of the General Congregation (March 22), spoke favorably of the great Leibnitz, and paid Protestants the poor compliment of honesty (quoting from St. Augustine: 'Errant, sed bona fide errant'), he was interrupted by the bell of the President (De Angelis) and his rebuke, 'This is no place for praising Protestants' ('hicce non est locus laudandi Protestantes')! Very true, for the Council-hall was only a hundred paces from the Palace of the Inquisition. When, resuming, the speaker ventured to attack the principle of deciding questions of faith by mere majorities, he was more loudly interrupted from all sides by confused exclamations: 'Shame! shame! down with the heretic!' ('Descendat ab ambone! Descendat! Haereticus! Haereticus! Damnamus eum! Damnamus!') 'Several Bishops sprang from their seats, rushed to the tribune, and shook their fists in the speaker's face' (Quirinus, p. 387). When one Bishop (Place, of Marseilles) interposed, 'Ego non damno!' the cry was raised with increased fury: 'Omnes, omnes illum damnamus! damnamus!' Strossmayer was forced by the uproar and the continued ringing of the bell to quit the tribune, but did so with a triple 'Protestor.' The noise was so great that it could be heard in the interior of St. Peter's. Some thought the Garibaldians had broken in; others that Infallibility had been proclaimed, and shouted, according to their opposite views, either 'Long live the infallible Pope!' or 'Long live the Pope, but not the infallible one' (comp. Quirinus, and Ce qui se passe, p. 69). Quirinus says that the scene, 'for dramatic force and theological significance, exceeded almost any thing in the past history of Councils' (p. 386), and that a Bishop of the United States said afterwards, 'not without a sense of patriotic pride, that he knew now of one assembly still rougher than the Congress of his own country' (p. 388). Similar scenes of violence occurred in the oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, but Christian civilization ought to have made some progress since the fifth century. [287] See the Old Catholic protests of the Professors in Munich and Breslau in Friedberg, pp. 152-154, and the literature on the reception of the Council, ib. 53-56; also the discussion of Frommann, pp. 325 sqq. 454 sqq. Doellinger, in his famous censure of the new order of the Council, takes the ground that the oecumenicity of a Council depends upon an authority outside of itself, viz., the public opinion as expressed in the subsequent approval of the whole Church; and Pater Hoetzl laid down the principle that no Council is oecumenical which is not approved and adopted as such by the Church. Admitting this, the condition is now fulfilled in the case of the Vatican Council to the whole extent of the Roman Episcopate, which constitutes the ecclesia docens, the laity having nothing to do but to submit. __________________________________________________________________ S: 32. The Vatican Decrees. The Constitution on the Catholic Faith. Three schemes on matters of faith were prepared for the Vatican Council--one against Rationalism, one on the Church of Christ, and one on Christian Matrimony. The first two were revised and adopted; the third was indefinitely postponed. There was also much discussion on the preparation of a small popular Catechism adapted to the present doctrinal status of the Roman Church, and intended to supersede the numerous popular Catechisms now in use; but the draft, which assigned the whole teaching power of the Church to the Pope, to the exclusion of the Episcopate, encountered such opposition (57 Non Placet, 24 conditional Placet) in the provisional vote of May 4, that it was laid on the table and never called up again. [288] I. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (Constitutio Dogmatica de Fide Catholica). It was unanimously adopted in the third public session, April 24 (Dominica in albis), 1870. The original draft laid before the Council embraced eighteen chapters--on Pantheism, Rationalism, Scripture and tradition, revelation, faith and reason, the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the primitive state, original sin, the Christian redemption, the supernatural order of grace; but was laid aside. [289] Archbishop Connolly, of Halifax, recommended that it should be decently buried. [290] In its present form, the Constitution on the Catholic faith is reduced to four chapters, with a proemium and a conclusion. Chap. I. treats of God as the Creator; Chap. II. of revelation; Chap. III. of faith; Chap. IV. of faith and reason. Then follow 18 canons, in which the errors of Pantheism, Naturalism, and Rationalism are condemned in a manner substantially the same, though more clearly and fully, than had been done in the first two sections of the Syllabus. The decree asserts, in the old scholastic terminology, the well-known principles of Supernaturalism as held by orthodox Christians in all ages, but it completely ignores the freedom and progress of theological and philosophical science and learning since the Council of Trent, and it forbids (in Chap. II.) all interpretation of the Scriptures which does not agree with the Romish traditions, the Latin Vulgate, and the fictitious 'unanimous consent of the Fathers.' Hence a liberal member of the Council, in the course of discussion, declared the schema de fide a work of supererogation. 'What boots it,' he said, 'to condemn errors which have been long condemned, and tempt no Catholic? The false beliefs of mankind are beyond the reach of your decrees. The best defense of Catholicism is religious science. Encourage sound learning, and prove by deeds as well as words that it is the mission of the Church to promote among the nations liberty, light, and true prosperity.' [291] On the other hand, the Univers calls the schema a 'masterpiece of clearness and force;' the Civilt`a cattolica sees in it 'a reflex of the wisdom of God;' [292] and Archbishop Manning thinks that its importance 'can not be overestimated,' that it is 'the broadest and boldest affirmation of the supernatural and spiritual order ever yet made in the face of the world, which is now more than ever sunk in sense and heavy with Materialism.' [293] Whatever be the value of the positive principles of the schema, its Popish head and tail reduce it to a brutum fulmen outside of the Romish Church, and even the most orthodox Protestants must apply to it the warning, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. The preamble, even in its present modified form, derives modern Rationalism and infidelity, as a legitimate fruit, from the heresies condemned by the Council of Trent--that is, from the Protestant Reformation; in the face of the fact, patent to every scholar, that Protestant theology has been in the thickest of the fight with unbelief, and, notwithstanding all its excesses, has produced a far richer exegetical and apologetic literature than Romanism during the last three hundred years. [294] The boldest testimony heard in the Council was directed against this preamble by Bishop Strossmayer, from the Turkish frontier (March 22, 1870). He characterized the charge against Protestantism as neither just nor charitable. Protestants, he said, abhorred the errors condemned in the schema as much as Catholics. The germ of Rationalism existed in the Catholic Church before the Reformation, especially in the humanism which was nourished in the very sanctuary by the highest dignitaries, [295] and bore its worst fruits in the midst of a Catholic nation at the time of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists. Catholics had produced no better refutation of the errors enumerated in the schema than such men as Leibnitz and Guizot. There were multitudes of Protestants in Germany, England, and North America who loved our Lord Jesus Christ, and had inherited from the shipwreck of faith positive truths and monuments of divine grace. [296] Although this speech was greeted with execrations (see page 145), it had at least the effect that the objectionable preamble was somewhat modified. [297] The supplement of the decree binds all Catholics to observe also those constitutions and decrees by which such erroneous opinions as are not here specifically enumerated have been proscribed and condemned by the Holy See. This can be so construed as to include all the eighty errors of the Syllabus. The minority who in the General Congregation had voted Non Placet or only a conditional Placet, were quieted by the official assurance that the addition involved no new dogma, and had a disciplinary rather than a didactic character. 'Some gave their votes with a heavy heart, conscious of the snare.' Strossmayer stayed away. Thus a unanimous vote of 667 or 668 fathers was secured in the public session, and the Infallibility decree was virtually anticipated. The Pope, after proclaiming the dogma, gave the Bishops his benediction of peace, and gently intimated what he next expected from them. [298] __________________________________________________________________ [288] Cardinal-Archbishop Matthieu of Besanc,on, who voted Non Placet, is reported by Quirinus to have said on this occasion: 'On veut jeter l'eglise dans I'abime, nous y jeterons plutot nos cadavres.' Comp. Frommann, l.c. p. 160. [289] Friedrich, Docum. II. pp. 3-23. [290] 'Censeo schema cum honore esse sepeliendum' (Quirinus, p. 122). Rauscher also spoke against the schema, which made much impression, because he had brought its chief author, the Jesuit Schrader, to the University of Vienna. [291] Quoted in Latin by Lord Acton in the North British Review, Oct. 1870, p. 112, and in Friedberg, p. 102. Acton attributes this speech, not to Strossmayer (as Friedberg says, l.c.; comp. pp. 28 and 102), but to a 'Swiss prelate,' whom he does not name. [292] 'Un riverbero della sapienza di Dio,' VII. 10, p. 523, quoted by Frommann, l.c. p. 383. [293] Petri Privilegium, III. pp. 49, 50. [294] The objectionable passage, as finally adopted, reads thus: 'No one is ignorant that the heresies proscribed by the Fathers of Trent, by which the divine magisterium of the Church was rejected, and all matters regarding religion were surrendered to the judgment of each individual, gradually became dissolved into many sects, which disagreed and contended with one another, until at length not a few lost all faith in Christ. Even the Holy Scriptures, which had previously been declared the sole source and judge of Christian doctrine, began to be held no longer as divine, but to be ranked among the fictions of mythology. Then there arose, and too widely overspread the world, that doctrine of Rationalism which opposes itself in every way to the Christian religion as a supernatural institution.' See the different revisions of the schema de fide in Friedrich's Monum. Pt. II. pp. 3, 65, 73. [295] Allusion to Pope Leo X. [296] See the principal part of Strossmayer's speech in Latin in Lord Acton's article in the North British Review, Oct. 1870, pp. 115, 116, and in Friedberg, pp. 104-106. [297] The words in the first revision (Friedr. Docum. II. p. 65), systematum monstra, mythismi, rationalismi, indifferentismi nomine designata, etc., together with some other offensive expressions, were omitted; but, after all, the substance remained. Lord Acton relates that the German Jesuit Kleutgen hastily drew up the more moderate form. Comp. Quirinus, Letter XXXIII. p. 394 sq. Political influence was also brought to bear indirectly upon the Council, as appeared afterwards from Italian papers. Bismarck directed the German Embassador at Rome, Count Arnim, to inform Cardinal Antonelli that, unless the charge against Protestantism was withdrawn, he would not allow the Prussian Bishops on their return to resume their functions in a country whose faith they had insulted. Friedrich, Tagebuch, pp. 275, 292; Frommann, Geschichte des Vat. Concils, p. 145; Hase, Polem. p. 34. The latter overestimates the influence of Prussia on the Papal court when he says: 'If France complains of the Council, Antonelli makes three bows, and all remains as before; but if Prussia comes with her mustache and cavalry boots, Rome understands that the word is quickly followed by the deed, and wisely yields. Strossmayer and von Arnim were in doubt which one of them had been most instrumental in saving the Council from an impropriety.' [298] 'Videtis,' he said, 'Fratres carissimi, quam bonum sit et jucundum ambulare in domo Dei cum consensu, ambulare cum pace. Sic ambuletis semper. Et quoniam hac die Dominus Noster Jesus Christus dedit pacem Apostolis suis, et ego, Vicarius ejus indignus, nomine suo do vobis pacem. Pax ista, prout scitis, expellit timorem. Pax ista, prout scitis, claudit aures sermonibus imperitis. Ah! ista pax vos comitetur omnibus diebus vitae vestrae; sit ista pax vis in morte, sit ista pax vobis gaudium sempiternum in coelis.' __________________________________________________________________ S: 33. The Vatican Decrees, Continued. The Infallibility Decree. II. The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (constitutio dogmatica prima de ecclesia Christi). It was passed, with two dissenting votes, in the fourth public session, July 18, 1870. It treats, in four chapters--(1) on the institution of the Apostolic Primacy in the blessed Peter; (2) on the perpetuity of St. Peter's Primacy in the Roman Pontiff; (3) on the power and nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff; (4) on the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. The new features are contained in the last two chapters, which teach Papal Absolutism and Papal Infallibility. The third chapter vindicates to the Roman Pontiff a superiority of ordinary episcopal (not simply an extraordinary primatial) power over all other Churches, and an immediate jurisdiction, to which all Catholics, both pastors and people, are bound to submit in matters not only of faith and morals, but even of discipline and government. [299] He is, therefore, the Bishop of Bishops, over every single Bishop, and over all Bishops put together; he is in the fullest sense the Vicar of Christ, and all Bishops are simply Vicars of the Pope. The fourth chapter teaches and defines, as a divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman Pontiff, when speaking from his chair (ex cathedra), i.e., in his official capacity, to the Christian world on subjects relating to faith or morals, is infallible, and that such definitions are irreformable (i.e., final and irreversible) in and of themselves, and not in consequence of the consent of the Church. [300] To appreciate the value and bearing of this decree, we must give a brief history of it. The Infallibility question was suspended over the Council from the very beginning as the question of questions, for good or for evil. The original plan of the Infallibilists, to decide it by acclamation, had to be abandoned in view of a formidable opposition, which was developed inside and outside of the Council. The majority of the Bishops circulated, early in January, a monster petition, signed by 410 names, in favor of Infallibility. [301] The Italians and the Spaniards circulated similar petitions separately. Archbishop Spalding, of Baltimore, formerly an anti-Infallibilist, prepared an address offering some compromise to the effect that an appeal from the Pope to an oecumenical Council should be reproved. [302] But five counter-petitions, signed by very weighty names, in all 137, representing various degrees of opposition, but agreed as to the inopportunity of the definition, were sent in during the same month (Jan. 12 to 18) by German and Austrian, Hungarian, French, American, Oriental, and Italian Bishops. [303] The Pope received none of these addresses, but referred them to the Deputation on Faith. While in this he showed his impartiality, he did not conceal, in a private way, his real opinion, and gave it the weight of his personal character and influence. 'Faith in his personal infallibility,' says a well-informed Catholic, 'and belief in a constant and special communication with the Holy Ghost, form the basis of the character of Pius IX.' [304] In the Council itself, Archbishop Manning, the Anglican convert, was the most zealous, devout, and enthusiastic Infallibilist; he urged the definition as the surest means of gaining hesitating Anglo-Catholics and Ritualists longing for absolute authority; while his former teacher and friend, Dr. Pusey, feared that the new dogma would make the breach between Oxford and Rome wider than ever. Manning is 'more Catholic than Catholics' to the manor born, as the English settlers in Ireland were more Irish than Irishmen, [305] and is altogether worthy to be the successor of Pius IX. in the chair of St. Peter. Both these eminent and remarkable persons show how a sincere faith in a dogma, which borders on blasphemy, may, by a strange delusion or hallucination, be combined with rare purity and amiability of character. Besides the all-powerful aid of the Pope, whom no Bishop can disobey without fatal consequences, the Infallibilists had the great advantage of perfect unity of sentiment and aim; while the anti-Infallibilists were divided among themselves, many of them being simply inopportunists. They professed to agree with the majority in principle or practice, and to differ from them only on the subordinate question of definability and opportunity. [306] This qualified opposition had no weight whatever with the Pope, who was as fully convinced of the opportunity and necessity of the definition as he was of the dogma itself. [307] And even the most advanced anti-Infallibilists, as Kenrick, Hefele, and Strossmayer, were too much hampered by Romish traditionalism to plant their foot firmly on the Scriptures, which after all must decide all questions of faith. In the mean time a literary war on Infallibility was carried on in the Catholic Church in Germany, France, and England, and added to the commotion in Rome. A large number of pamphlets, written or inspired by prominent members of the Council, appeared for and against Infallibility. Distinguished outsiders, as Doellinger, Gratry, Hyacinthe, Montalembert, and others, mixed in the fight, and strengthened the minority. [308] A confidential communication of the intellectual leader of the Anglo-Catholic secession revealed the remarkable fact that some of the most serious minds were at that time oscillating between infallibilism and skepticism, and praying to the spirits of the fathers to deliver the Church from 'the great calamity' of a new dogma. [309] After preliminary skirmishes, the formal discussion began in earnest in the 50th session of the General Congregation, May 13, 1870, and lasted to the 86th General Congregation, July 16. About eighty Latin speeches [310] were delivered in the general discussion on the schema de Romano Pontifice, nearly one half of them on the part of the opposition, which embraced less than one fifth of the Council. When the arguments and the patience of the assembly were pretty well exhausted, the President, at the petition of a hundred and fifty Bishops, closed the general discussion on the third day of June. About forty more Bishops, who had entered their names, were thus prevented from speaking; but one of them, Archbishop Kenrick, of St. Louis, published his strong argument against Infallibility in Naples. [311] Then five special discussions commenced on the proemium and the four chapters. 'For the fifth or last discussion a hundred and twenty Bishops inscribed their names to speak; fifty of them were heard, until on both sides the burden became too heavy to bear; and, by mutual consent, a useless and endless discussion, from mere exhaustion, ceased.' [312] When the vote was taken on the whole four chapters of the Constitution of the Church, July 13, 1870, in the 85th secret session of the General Congregation (601 members being present), 451 voted Placet, 88 Non Placet, 62 Placet juxta modum, over 80 (perhaps 91), though present in Rome or in the neighborhood, abstained for various reasons from voting. [313] Among the negative votes were the Prelates most distinguished for learning and position, as Schwarzenberg, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop of Prague; Rauscher, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop of Vienna; Darboy, Archbishop of Paris; Matthieu, Cardinal-Archbishop of Besanc,on; Ginoulhiac, Archbishop of Lyons; Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans; Maret, Bishop of Sura (i. p.); Simor, Archbishop of Gran and Primate of Hungary; Haynald, Archbishop of Kalocsa; Foerster, Prince-Bishop of Breslau; Scherr, Archbishop of Munich; Ketteler, Bishop of Mayence; Hefele, Bishop of Rottenburg; Strossmayer, Bishop of Bosnia and Sirmium; MacHale, Archbishop of Tuam; Connolly, Archbishop of Halifax; Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis. On the evening of the 13th of July the minority sent a deputation, consisting of Simor, Ginoulhiac, Scherr, Darboy, Ketteler, and Rivet, to the Pope. After waiting an hour, they were admitted at 9 o'clock in the evening. They asked simply for a withdrawal of the addition to the third chapter, which assigns to the Pope the exclusive possession of all ecclesiastical powers, and for the insertion, in the fourth chapter, of a clause limiting his infallibility to those decisions which he pronounces 'innixus testimonio ecclesiarum.' Pius returned the almost incredible answer: 'I shall do what I can, my dear sons, but I have not yet read the scheme; I do not know what it contains.' [314] He requested Darboy, the spokesman of the deputation, to hand him the petition in writing. Darboy promised to do so; and added, not without irony, that he would send with it the schema which the Deputation on Faith and the Legates had with such culpable levity omitted to lay before his Holiness, exposing him to the risk of proclaiming in a few days a decree he was ignorant of. Pius surprised the deputation by the astounding assurance that the whole Church had always taught the unconditional Infallibility of the Pope. Then Bishop Ketteler of Mayence implored the holy Father on his knees to make some concession for the peace and unity of the Church. [315] This prostration of the proudest of the German prelates made some impression. Pius dismissed the deputation in a hopeful temper. But immediately afterwards Manning and Senestrey (Bishop of Regensburg) strengthened his faith, and frightened him by the warning that, if he made any concession, he would be disgraced in history as a second Honorius. In the secret session on the 16th of July, on motion of some Spanish Bishops, an addition was inserted 'non autem ex consensu ecclesiae, which makes the decree still more obnoxious. [316] On the same day Cardinal Rauscher, in a private audience, made another attempt to induce the Pope to yield, but was told, 'It is too late.' On the 17th of July fifty-six Bishops sent a written protest to the Pope, declaring that nothing had occurred to change their conviction as expressed in their negative vote; on the contrary, they were confirmed in it; yet filial piety and reverence for the holy Father would not permit them to vote Non Placet, openly and in his face, in a matter which so intimately concerned his person, and that therefore they had resolved to return forthwith to their flocks, which had already too long been deprived of their presence, and were now filled with apprehensions of war. Schwarzenberg, Matthieu, Simor, and Darboy head the list of signers. [317] On the evening of the same day not only the fifty-six signers, but sixty additional members of the opposition departed from Rome, promising to each other to make their future conduct dependent on mutual understanding. This was the turning-point: the opposition broke down by its own act of cowardice. They ought to have stood like men on the post of duty, and repeated their negative vote according to their honest convictions. They could thus have prevented the passage of this momentous decree, or at all events shorn it of its oecumenical weight, and kept it open for future revision and possible reversal. But they left Rome at the very moment when their presence was most needed, and threw an easy victory into the lap of the majority. When, therefore, the fourth public session was held, on the memorable 18th of July (Monday), there were but 535 Fathers present, and of these all voted Placet, with the exception of two, viz., Bishop Riccio, of Cajazzo, in Sicily, and Bishop Fitzgerald, of Little Rock, Arkansas, who had the courage to vote Non Placet, but immediately, before the close of the session, submitted to the voice of the Council. In this way a moral unanimity was secured as great as in the first Council of Nicaea, where likewise two refused to subscribe the Nicene Creed, 'What a wise direction of Providence,' exclaimed the Civilt`a cattolica, '535 yeas against 2 nays. Only two nays, therefore almost total unanimity; and yet two nays, therefore full liberty of the Council. How vain are all attacks against the oecumenical character of this most beautiful of all Councils!' After the vote the Pope confirmed the decrees and canons on the Constitution of the Church of Christ, and added from his own inspiration the assurance that the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff did not suppress but aid, not destroy but build up, and formed the best protection of the rights and interests of the Episcopate. [318] The days of the two most important public sessions of the Vatican Council, namely the first and the last, were the darkest and stormiest which Rome saw from Dec. 8, 1869, to the 18th of July, 1870. The Episcopal votes and the Papal proclamation of the new dogma were accompanied by flashes of lightning and claps of thunder from the skies, and so great was the darkness which spread over the Church of St. Peter, that the Pope could not read the decree of his own Infallibility without the artificial light of a candle. [319] This voice of nature was variously interpreted, either as a condemnation of Gallicanism and liberal Catholicism, or as a divine attestation of the dogma like that which accompanied the promulgation of the law from Mount Sinai, or as an evil omen of impending calamities to the Papacy. And behold, the day after the proclamation of the dogma, Napoleon III., the political ally and supporter of Pius IX., unchained the furies of war, which in a few weeks swept away the Empire of France and the temporal throne of the infallible Pope. His own subjects forsook him, and almost unanimously voted for a new sovereign, whom he had excommunicated as the worst enemy of the Church. A German Empire arose from victorious battle-fields, and Protestantism sprung to the political and military leadership of Europe. About half a dozen Protestant Churches have since been organized in Rome, where none was tolerated before, except outside of the walls or in the house of some foreign embassador; a branch of the Bible Society was established, which the Pope in his Syllabus denounces as a pest; and a public debate was held in which even the presence of Peter at Rome was called in question. History records no more striking example of swift retribution of criminal ambition. Once before the Papacy was shaken to its base at the very moment when it felt itself most secure: Leo X. had hardly concluded the fifth and last Lateran Council in March, 1517, with a celebration of victory, when an humble monk in the North of Europe sounded the key-note of the great Reformation. What did the Bishops of the minority do? They all submitted, even those who had been most vigorous in opposing, not only the opportunity of the definition, but the dogma itself. Some hesitated long, but yielded at last to the heavy pressure. Cardinal Rauscher, of Vienna, published the decree already in August, and afterwards withdrew his powerful 'Observations on the Infallibility of the Church' from the market; regarding this as an act of glorious self-denial for the welfare of the Church. Cardinal Schwarzenberg, of Prague, waited with the publication till Jan. 11, 1871, and shifted the responsibility upon his theological advisers. Bishop Hefele, of Rottenburg, who has forgotten more about the history of Councils than the infallible Pope ever knew, after delaying till April 10, 1871, submitted, not because he had changed his conviction, but, as he says, because 'the peace and unity of the Church is so great a good that great and heavy personal sacrifices may be made for it;' i.e., truth must be sacrificed to peace. Bishop Maret, who wrote two learned volumes against Papal Infallibility and in defense of Gallicanism, declared in his retractation that he 'wholly rejects every thing in his work which is opposed to the dogma of the Council,' and 'withdraws it from sale.' Archbishop Kenrick yielded, but has not refuted his Concio habenda at non habita, which remains an irrefragable argument against the new dogma. Even Strossmayer, the boldest of the bold in the minority, lost his courage, and keeps his peace. Darboy died a martyr in the revolt of the communists of Paris, in April, 1871. In a conversation with Dr. Michaud, Vicar of St. Madeleine, who since seceded from Rome, he counseled external and official submission, with a mental reservation, and in the hope of better times. His successor, Msgr. Guibert, published the decrees a year later (April, 1872), without asking the permission of the head of the French Republic. Of those opponents who, though not members of the Council, carried as great weight as any Prelate, Montalembert died during the Council; Newman kept silence; Pere Gratry, who had declared and proved that the question of Honorius 'is totally gangrened by fraud,' wrote from his death-bed at Montreux, in Switzerland (Feb. 1872), to the new Archbishop of Paris, that he submitted to the Vatican Council, and effaced 'every thing to the contrary he may have written.' [320] It is said that the adhesion of the minority Bishops was extorted by the threat of the Pope not to renew their 'quinquennial faculties' (facultates quinquennales), that is, the Papal licenses renewed every five years, permitting them to exercise extraordinary episcopal functions which ordinarily belong to the Pope, as the power of absolving from heresy, schism, apostasy, secret crime (except murder), from vows, duties of fasting, the power of permitting the reading of prohibited books (for the purpose of refutation), marrying within prohibited degrees, etc. [321] But, aside from this pressure, the following considerations sufficiently explain the fact of submission. 1. Many of the dissenting Bishops were professedly anti-Infallibilists, not from principle, but only from subordinate considerations of expediency, because they apprehended that the definition would provoke the hostility of secular governments, and inflict great injury on Catholic interests, especially in Protestant countries. Events have since proved that their apprehension was well founded. 2. All Roman Bishops are under an oath of allegiance to the Pope, which binds them 'to preserve, defend, increase, and advance the rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the holy Roman Church, of our lord the Pope, and his successors.' 3. The minority Bishops defended Episcopal infallibility against Papal infallibility. They claimed for themselves what they denied to the Pope. Admitting the infallibility of an oecumenical Council, and forfeiting by their voluntary absence on the day of voting the right of their protest, they must either on their own theory accept the decision of the Council, or give up their theory, cease to be Roman Catholics, and run the risk of a new schism. At the same time this submission is an instructive lesson of the fearful spiritual despotism of the Papacy, which overrules the stubborn facts of history and the sacred claims of individual conscience. For the facts so clearly and forcibly brought out before and during the Council by such men as Kenrick, Hefele, Rauscher, Maret, Schwarzenberg, and Dupanloup, have not changed, and can never be undone. On the one hand we find the results of a life-long, conscientious, and thorough study of the most learned divines of the Roman Church, on the other ignorance, prejudice, perversion, and defiance of Scripture and tradition; on the one hand we have history shaping theology, on the other theology ignoring or changing history; on the one hand the just exercise of reason, on the other blind submission, which destroys reason and conscience. But truth must and will prevail at last. __________________________________________________________________ [299] After quoting, in a mutilated form, the definition of the Council of Florence, whose genuineness is disputed (compare p. 97, note 1), the third chapter goes on: 'Docemus et declaramus, Ecclesiam Romanam, disponente Domino, super omnes alias ordinariae potestatis obtinere principatum, et hanc Romani Pontificis jurisdictionis potestatem, quae vere episcopalis est, immediatam esse, erga quam cujuscunque ritus et dignitatis pastores atque fideles, tam seorsum singuli quam simul omnes, officio hierarchicae subordinationis veraeque obedientiae obstringuntur, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; ita ut, custodita cum Romano Pontifice tam communionis quam ejusdem fidei professionis unitate, Ecclesiae Christi sit unus grex sub uno summo pastore. Haec est catholicae veritatis doctrina, a qua deviare salva fide atque salute nemo potest. . . . Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem jurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimem Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem hujus supremae potestatis; aut hanc ejus potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.' [300] ' Itaque Nos traditioni a fidei Christianae exordio perceptae fideliter inhoerendo, ad Dei Salvatoris nostri gloriam, religionis Catholicae exaltationem et Christianorum populorum salutem, sacro approbante Concilia, docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esse declaramus: Romanum Pontificem, cum ex Cathedra loquitur, id est, cum omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque ejusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles esse. 'Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit.' [301] Friedberg, pp. 465-470. Comp. Frommann, p. 59 sq. [302] Friedberg, pp. 470 sqq.; Frommann, pp. 61-63. [303] Friedberg, pp. 472-478. The American petition against Infallibility was signed by Purcell, of Cincinnati; Kenrick, of St. Louis; McCloskey, of New York; Connolly, of Halifax; Bayley, of Newark (now Archbishop of Baltimore), and several others. [304] Ce qui se passe au Concile, p. 130. The writer adds that some of the predecessors of Pius have held his doctrines, but none has been so ardently convinced, none has professed them 'avec ce mysticisme enthousiaste, ce dedain pour les remontrances des savants et des sages, cette confiance impassible. Quel que soit le jugement de l'histoire, personne ne pourra nier que cette foi profonde ne lui ait cree dans le dix-neuvieme siecle une personnalite d'une puissance et d'une majeste incomparables, dont l'eclat grandit encore un pontificat dej`a si remarquable par une duree, des vertus et des malheurs vraiment exceptionnels.' Comp. the Discourses of Pius IX., in 2 vols., Rome, 1873, and the review of Gladstone in the Quarterly Review for Jan. 1875. [305] So Archbishop Kenrick, of St. Louis, characterized him in his Concio habenda at non habita. Quirinus (Appendix I. p. 832) quotes from a sermon of Manning, preached at Kensington, 1869, in the Pope's name, the following passage: 'I claim to be the Supreme Judge and director of the consciences of men--of the peasant that tills the field, and the prince that sits on the throne; of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the Legislature that makes laws for kingdoms. I am the sole last Supreme Judge of what is right and wrong.' [306] Only the address of the German Bishops took openly the ground that it would be difficult from internal reasons (viz., the contradiction of history and tradition) to proclaim Infallibility as a dogma of revelation. See Friedrich, Tagebuch, p. 126; and Frommann, Geschichte, p. 62. [307] On being asked whether he considered the definition of the dogma opportune, Pius IX. resolutely answered, 'No! but necessary.' He complained of the opposing Bishops, that, living among Protestants, they were infected by their freedom of thought, and had lost the true traditional feeling. Hase, p. 180. [308] See the literature in the next section, and in Friedberg, pp. 33-44. Comp. Frommann, pp. 66 sqq. [309] Dr. John Henry Newman has, after long silence, retracted in 1875 his letter of 1870, which, though confidential, found its way into public 'by permission,' and has given in his adherence to the Vatican decrees, yet with minimizing qualifications, and in a tone of sadness and complaint against those ultra-zealous infallibilists who 'have stated truths in the most paradoxical forms and stretched principles till they were close upon snapping, and who at length, having done their best to set the house on fire, leave to others the task of putting out the flame.' (See his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, on occasion of Gladstone's Expostulation, Lond. 1875, p. 4.) Nevertheless that document deserves to be remembered for its psychological interest, and as a part of the inner history of the infallibility dogma a few months before its birth. 'Rome,' he wrote to Bishop Ullathorne, 'ought to be a name to lighten the heart at all times, and a Council's proper office is, when some great heresy or other evil impends, to inspire hope and confidence in the faithful; but now we have the greatest meeting which ever has been, and that at Rome, infusing into us by the accredited organs of Rome and of its partisans, such as the Civilt`a (the Armonia), the Univers, and the Tablet, little else than fear and dismay. When we are all at rest, and have no doubts, and--at least practically, not to say doctrinally--hold the Holy Father to be infallible, suddenly there is thunder in the clearest sky, and we are told to prepare for something, we know not what, to try our faith, we know not how. No impending danger is to be averted, but a great difficulty is to be created. Is this the proper work for an oecumenical Council? As to myself personally, please God, I do not expect any trial at all; but I can not help suffering with the many souls who are suffering, and I look with anxiety at the prospect of having to defend decisions which may not be difficult to my own private judgment, but may be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts. What have we done to be treated as the faithful never were treated before? When has a definition de fide been a luxury of devotion, and not a stern, painful necessity? Why should an aggressive, insolent faction be allowed to "make the heart of the just sad, whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful?" Why can not we be let alone when we have pursued peace and thought no evil? I assure you, my lord, some of the truest minds are driven one way and another, and do not know where to rest their feet--one day determining "to give up all theology as a bad job," and recklessly to believe henceforth almost that the Pope is impeccable, at another tempted to "believe all the worst which a book like Janus says;" others doubting about "the capacity possessed by Bishops drawn from all corners of the earth to judge what is fitting for European society," and then, again, angry with the Holy See for listening to "the flattery of a clique of Jesuits, Redemptorists, and converts." Then, again, think of the store of Pontifical scandals in the history of eighteen centuries, which have partly been poured forth, and partly are still to come. What Murphy [a Protestant traveling preacher] inflicted upon us in one way, Mr.Veuillot is indirectly bringing on us in another. And then, again, the blight which is falling upon the multitude of Anglican Ritualists, etc., who themselves, perhaps--at least their leaders--may never become Catholics, but who are leavening the various English denominations and parties (far beyond their own range) with principles and sentiments tending towards their ultimate absorption into the Catholic Church. With these thoughts ever before me, I am continually asking myself whether I ought not to make my feelings public; but all I do is to pray those early doctors of the Church, whose intercession would decide the matter (Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Basil), to avert this great calamity. If it is God's will that the Pope's infallibility be defined, then is it God's will to throw back "the times and moments" of that triumph which he has destined for his kingdom, and I shall feel I have but to bow my head to his adorable, inscrutable Providence. You have not touched upon the subject yourself, but I think you will allow me to express to you feelings which, for the most part, I keep to myself. . . .' See an excellent German translation of this letter in Quirinus (p. 274, Germ. ed.) and in Friedberg (p. 131). The English translator of Quirinus has substituted the English original as given here from the Standard, April 7, 1870. [310] According to Manning, but only 65 according to Friedberg, p. 47. [311] Hence the title 'Concio habenda at non habita'--prepared for speaking, but not spoken. See the prefatory note, dated Rome, June 8, 1870. [312] Manning, Petri Privil. III. pp. 31, 32. He gives this representation to vindicate the liberty of the Council; but the minority complained of an arbitrary close of the discussion. They held an indignation meeting in the residence of Cardinal Rauscher, and protested 'contra violationem nostri juris,' but without effect. See the protest, with eighty-one signatures, in Friedrich, Doc. II. p. 379; comp. Frommann, Geschichte, p. 174. [313] See the list in Friedberg, pp. 146-149; also in Friedrich, Docum. II. pp. 426 sqq.; and Quirinus, Letter LXVI. pp. 778 sqq. Quirinus errs in counting the 91 (according to others, 85 or only 70) absentees among the 601. There were in all from 680 to 692 members present in Rome at the time. See Fessler, p. 89 (who states the number of absentees to be 'over 80'), and Frommann, p. 201. The protest of the minority to the Pope, July 17, states the number of voters in the same way, except that 70, instead of 91 or 85, is given as the number of absentees: 'Notum est Sanctitati Vestrae, 88 Patres fuisse, qui, conscientia urgente et amore s. Ecclesiae permoti, suffragium suum per verba non placet emiserunt; 62 alios, qui suffragati sunt per verba placet juxta modum, denique 70 circiter qui a congregatione abfuerunt atque a suffragio emittendo abstinuerunt. Hic accedunt et alii, qui, infirmitatibus aut gravioribus rationibus ducti, ad suas dioeceses reversi sunt.' [314] He spoke in French: 'Te ferai mon possible, mes chers fils, mais je n'ai pas encore lu le schema; je ne sais pas ce qu'il contient.' Quirinus, Letter LXIX. p. 800. [315] Quirinus, Letter LXIX. p. 801, gave, a few days afterwards, from direct information, the following fresh and graphic description of this interesting scene: 'Bishop Ketteler then came forward, flung himself on his knees before the Pope, and entreated for several minutes that the Father of the Catholic world would make some concession to restore peace and her lost unity to the Church and the Episcopate. It was a peculiar spectacle to witness these two men, of kindred and yet widely diverse nature, in such an attitude--the one prostrate on the ground before the other. Pius is "totus teres atque rotundus," firm and immovable, smooth and hard as marble, infinitely self-satisfied intellectually, mindless and ignorant; without any understanding of the mental conditions and needs of mankind, without any notion of the character of foreign nations, but as credulous as a nun, and, above all, penetrated through and through with reverence for his own person as the organ of the Holy Ghost, and therefore an absolutist from head to heel, and filled with the thought, "I, and none beside me." He knows and believes that the Holy Virgin, with whom he is on the most intimate terms, will indemnify him for the loss of land and subjects by means of the Infallibility doctrine, and the restoration of the Papal dominion over states and peoples as well as over churches. He also believes firmly in the miraculous emanations from the sepulchre of St. Peter. At the feet of this man the German Bishop flung himself, "ipso Papa papalior," a zealot for the ideal greatness and unapproachable dignity of the Papacy, and, at the same time, inspired by the aristocratic feeling of a Westphalian nobleman and the hierarchical self-consciousness of a Bishop and successor of the ancient chancellor of the empire, while yet he is surrounded by the intellectual atmosphere of Germany, and, with all his firmness of belief, is sickly with the pallor of thought, and inwardly struggling with the terrible misgiving that, after all, historical facts are right, and that the ship of the Curia, though for the moment it proudly rides the waves with its sails swelled by a favorable wind, will be wrecked on that rock at last.' [316] Quirinus, p. 804: 'Thus the Infallibilist decree, as it is now to be received under anathema by the Catholic world, is an eminently Spanish production, as is fitting for a doctrine which was born and reared under the shadow of the Inquisition.' [317] See the protest in Friedberg, p. 622. Comp. Frommann, p. 207. [318] ' Summa ista Romani Pontificis auctoritas, Venerabiles Fratres, non opprimit sed adjuvat, non destruit sed aedificat, et saepissime confirmat in dignitate, unit in charitate, et Fratrum, scilicet Episcoporum, jura firmat atque tuetur. Ideoque illi, qui nunc judicant in commotione, sciant, non esse in commotione Dominum. Meminerint, quod paucis abhinc annis, oppositam tenentes sententiam, abundaverunt in sensu Nostro, et in sensu majoris partis hujus amplissimi Consessus, sed tunc judicaverunt in spiritu aurae lenis. Numquid in eodem judicio judicando duae oppositae possunt existere conscientiae? Absit. Illuminet ergo Deus sensus et corda; et quoniam Ipse facit mirabilia magna solus, illuminet sensus et corda, ut omnes accedere possint ad sinum Patris, Christi Jesu in terris indigni Vicarii, qui eos amat, eos diligit, et exoptat unum esse cum illis; et ita simul in vinculo charitatis conjuncti proeliare possimus proelia Domini, ut non solum non irrideant nos inimici nostri, sed timeant potius, et aliquando arma malitiae cedant in conspectu veritatis, sicque omnes cum D. Augustino dicere valeant: "Tu vocasti me in admirabile lumen tuum, et ecce video."' [319] Quirinus, Letter LXIX. p. 809. A Protestant eye-witness, Prof. Ripley, thus described the scene in a letter from Rome, published in the New York Tribune (of which he is one of the editors) for Aug. 11, 1870: 'Rome, July 19.--Before leaving Rome I send you a report of the last scene of that absurd comedy called the OEcumenical Vatican Council. . . . It is at least a remarkable coincidence that the opening and closing sessions of the Council were inaugurated with fearful storms, and that the vigil of the promulgation of the dogma was celebrated with thunder and lightning throughout the whole of the night. On the 8th of last December I was nearly drowned by the floods of rain, which came down in buckets; yesterday morning I went down in rain, and under a frowning sky which menaced terrible storms later in the day. . . . Kyrie eleison we heard as soon as the mass was said, and the whole multitude joined in singing the plaintive measure of the Litany of the Saints, and then with equal fervor was sung Veni Creator, which was followed by the voice of a secretary reading in a high key the dogma. At its conclusion the names of the Fathers were called over, and Placet after Placet succeeded ad nauseam. But what a storm burst over the church at this moment! The lightning flashed and the thunder pealed as we have not heard it this season before. Every Placet seemed to be announced by a flash and terminated by a clap of thunder. Through the cupolas the lightning entered, licking, as it were, the very columns of the Baldachino over the tomb of St. Peter, and lighting up large spaces on the pavement. Sure, God was there--but whether approving or disproving what was going on, no mortal man can say. Enough that it was a remarkable coincidence, and so it struck the minds of all who were present. And thus the roll was called for one hour and a half, with this solemn accompaniment, and then the result of the voting was taken to the Pope. The moment had arrived when he was to declare himself invested with the attributes of God--nay, a God upon earth. Looking from a distance into the hall, which was obscured by the tempest, nothing was visible but the golden mitre of the Pope, and so thick was the darkness that a servitor was compelled to bring a lighted candle and hold it by his side to enable him to read the formula by which he deified himself. And then--what is that indescribable noise? Is it the raging of the storm above?--the pattering of hail-stones? It approaches nearer, and for a minute I most seriously say that I could not understand what that swelling sound was until I saw a cloud of white handkerchiefs waving in the air. The Fathers had begun with clapping--they were the fuglemen to the crowd who took up the notes and signs of rejoicing until the church of God was converted into a theatre for the exhibition of human passions. "Viva Pio Nono!" "Viva il Papa Infallibile!" "Viva il trionfo dei Cattolici!" were shouted by this priestly assembly; and again another round they had; and yet another was attempted as soon as the Te Deum had been sung and the benediction had been given.' [320] See details on the reception and publication of the Vatican decrees in Friedberg, pp. 53 sqq., 775 sqq.; Frommann, pp. 215-230; on Gratry, the Annales de Philosophie Chretienne, Sept. 1871, p. 236. [321] See the article Facultaeten, in Wetzer und Welte's Kirchenlexikon oder Encyklop. der katholischen Theologie, Vol. III. pp. 879 sqq. __________________________________________________________________ S: 34. Papal Infallibility Explained, and Tested by Tradition and Scripture. Literature. I. For Infallibility. The older defenders of Infallibility are chiefly Bellarmin, Ballerini, Litta, Alphons de Liguori (whom the Pope raised to the dignity of a doctor ecclesiae, March 11, 1872), Card. Orsi, Perrone, and Joseph Count du Maistre (Sardinian statesman, d. at Turin Feb. 26, 1821, author of Du Pape, 1819; new edition, Paris, 1843, with the Homeric motto: eis koiranos esto. During and after the Vatican Council: the works of Archbishops Manning and Dechamps, already quoted, pp. 134, 135. Jos. Cardoni (Archbishop of Edessa, in partibus): Elucubratio de dogmatica Romani Pontificis Infallibilitate ejusque Definibilitate, Romae (typis Civilitatis Cattolicae), 1870 (May, 174 pp.). The chief work on the Papal side, clothed with a semi-official character. Hermann Rump: Die Unfehlbarkeit den Papstes und die Stellung der in Deutschland verbreiteten theologischen Lehrbuecher zu dieser Lehre, Muenster, 1870 (173 pp.). Franz Friedhoff (Prof. at Muenster): Gegen-Erwaegungen ueber die paepstliche Unfehlbarkeit, Muenster, 1869 (21 pp.). Superficial. Flor. Riess and Karl von Weber (Jesuits): Das Oekum. Concil. Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Neue Folge, No. X. Die paepstliche Unfehlbarkeit und der alte Glaube der Kirche, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870 (110pp.). G. Bickel: Gruende fur die Unfehlbarkeit des Kirchenoberhauptes nebst Widerlegung der Einwuerfe, Muenster, 1870. Rev. P. Weninger (Jesuit): L'infaillibilite du Pape devant la raison et l'ecriture, les papes et les conciles, les peres et les theologiens, les rois et les empereurs. Translated from the German into French by P. Belet. (Highly spoken of by Pius IX. in a brief to Abbe Belet, Nov. 17, 1869; see Friedberg, l.c. p. 487. Weninger wrote besides several pamphlets on Infallibility in German, Innsbruck, 1841; Graz, 1853; in English, New York and Cincinnati, 1868. Archbishop Kenrick, in his Concio; speaks of him as 'a pious and extremely zealous but ignorant man,' whom he honored with 'the charity of silence' when requested to recommend one of his books.) Widerlegung der vier unter die Vaeter des Concils vertheilten Brochueren gegen die Unfehlbarkeit (transl. of Animadversiones in quatuor contra Romani Pontificis infallibilitatem editos libellos), Muenster, 1870. Bishop Jos. Fessler: Die wahre und die falsche Unfehlbarkeit der Paepste (against Prof. von Schulte), Wien,1871. Bishop Ketteler: Das unfehlbare Lehramt des Papstes, nach der Entscheidung des Vaticanischen Concils, Mainz, 1871, 3te Aufl. M. J. Scheeben: Schulte und Doellinger, gegen das Concil. Kritische Beleuchtung, etc., Regensburg, 1871. Amedee de Margerie: Lettre au R. P. Gratry sur le Pape Honorius et le Breviaire Romain, Nancy, 1870 Paul Bottala (S.J.): Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History, London, 1868. II. Against Infallibility. (a) By Members of the Council. Mgr. H. L. C. Maret (Bishop of Sura, in part., Canon of St. Denis and Dean of the Theological Faculty in Paris): Du Concile general et de la paix religieuse, Paris, 1869, 2 Tom. (pp. 554 and 555). An elaborate defense of Gallicanism; since revoked by the author, and withdrawn from sale. Peter Richard Kenrick (Archbishop of St. Louis): Concio in Concilio Vaticano habenda at non habita, Neapoli (typis fratrum de Angelis in via Pellegrini 4), 1870. Reprinted in Friedrich, Documenta, I. pp. 187-226. An English translation in L. W. Bacon's An Inside View of the Vatican Council, New York, pp. 90-166. Quaestio (no place or date of publication). A very able Latin dissertation occasioned and distributed (perhaps partly prepared) by Bishop Ketteler, of Mayence, during the Council. It was printed but not published in Switzerland, in 1870, and reprinted in Friedrich, Documenta, I. pp. 1-128. La liberte du Concile et l'infaillibilite. Written or inspired by Darboy, Archbishop of Paris. Only flfty copies were printed, for distribution among the Cardinals. Reprinted in Friedrich, Documenta, I. pp. 129-186. Card. Rauscher: Observationes quaedam de infallibilitatis ecclesiae subjecto, Neapoli and Vindobonae, 1870 (83 pp.). De Summi Pontificis infallibilitate personali, Neapoli, 1870 (32 pp.). Written by Prof. Salesius Mayer, and distributed in the Council by Cardinal Schwarzenberg. Jos. de Hefele (Bishop of Rottenburg, formerly Prof. at Tuebingen): Causa Honorii Papae, Neap. 1870 (pp. 28). The same: Honorius und das sechste allgemeine Concil (with an appendix against Pennachi, 43 pp.), Tuebingen, 1870. English translation, with introduction, by Dr. Henry B. Smith, in the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, New York, for April, 1872, pp. 273 sqq. Against Hefele comp. Jos. Pennachi (Prof. of Church History in Rome): De Honorii I. Pontificis Romani causa in Concilio VI. (b) By Catholics, not Members of the Council. Janus: The Pope and the Council, 1869. See above, p. 134. Erwaegungen fuer die Bischoefe del Conciliums ueber die Frage der paepstlichen Unfehlbarkeit, Oct. 1869. Dritte Aufl. Muenchen. [By J. von Doellinger.] J. von Doellinger: Einige Worte ueber die Unfehlbarkeitsadresse, etc., Muenchen, 1870. Jos. H. Reinkens (Prof. of Church History in Breslau): Ueber paepstliche Unfehlbarkeit, Muenchen, 1870. Clemens Schmitz (Cath. Priest): Ist der Papst unfehlbart? Aus Deutschlands und des P. Deharbe Catechismen beantwortet, Muenchen, 1870. J. Fr. Ritter von Schulte (Prof. in Prague, now in Bonn): Das Unfehlbarkeits-Decret vom 18 Juli 1870 auf seine Verbindlichkeit geprueft, Prague, 1870. Die Macht der roem. Paepste ueber Fuersten, Laender, Voeker, etc. seit Gregor VII. zur Wuerdigung ihrer Unfehlbarkeit beleuchtet, etc., 2d edition, Prague. The same, translated into English (The Power of the Roman Popes over Princes, etc.), by Alfred Somers [a brother of Schulte], Adelaide, 1871. A. Gratry (Priest of the Oratoire and Member of the French Academy): Four Letters to the Bishop of Orleans (Dupanloup) and the Archbishop of Malines (Dechamps), in French, Paris, 1870; several editions, also translated into German, English, etc. These learned and eloquent letters gave rise to violent controversies. They were denounced by several Bishops, and prohibited in their dioceses; approved by others, and by Montalembert. The Pope praised the opponents. Against him wrote Dechamps (Three letters to Gratry, in French; German translation, Mayence, 1870) and A. de Margerie. Gratry recanted on his death-bed. P. Le Page Renouf: The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, London, 1868. Antonio Magrassi: Lo Schema sull' infallibilit`a personale del Romano Pontefice, Alessandria, 1870. Della pretesa infallibilit`a personale del Romano Pontefice, 2d ed. Firenze, 1870 (anonymous, 80 pp.). J. A. B. Lutterbeck: Die Clementinen und ihr Verhaeltniss zum Unfehlbarkeitsdogma, Giessen, 1872 (pp. 85). Joseph Langen (Old Catholic Prof. in Bonn): Das Vaticanische Dogma von dem Universal-Episcopat und der Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes in s. Verh. zur exeg. Ueberlieferung vom 7 bis zum 13ten Jahrh. 3 Parts. Bonn, 1871-73. The sinlessness of the Virgin Mary and the personal infallibility of the Pope are the characteristic dogmas of modern Romanism, the two test dogmas which must decide the ultimate fate of this system. Both were enacted under the same Pope, and both faithfully reflect his character. Both have the advantage of logical consistency from certain premises, and seem to be the very perfection of the Romish form of piety and the Romish principle of authority. Both rest on pious fiction and fraud; both present a refined idolatry by clothing a pure humble woman and a mortal sinful man with divine attributes. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which exempts the Virgin Mary from sin and guilt, perverts Christianism into Marianism; the dogma of Infallibility, which exempts the Bishop of Rome from error, resolves Catholicism into Papalism, or the Church into the Pope. The worship of a woman is virtually substituted for the worship of Christ, and a man-god in Rome for the God-Man in heaven. This is a severe judgment, but a closer examination will sustain it. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, being confined to the sphere of devotion, passed into the modern Roman creed without serious difficulty; but the dogma of Papal Infallibility, which involves a question of absolute power, forms an epoch in the history of Romanism, and created the greatest commotion and a new secession. It is in its very nature the most fundamental and most comprehensive of of all dogmas. It contains the whole system in a nutshell. It constitutes a new rule of faith. It is the article of the standing or falling Church. It is the direct antipode of the Protestant principle of the absolute supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. It establishes a perpetual divine oracle in the Vatican. Every Catholic may hereafter say, I believe--not because Christ, or the Bible, or the Church, but--because the infallible Pope has so declared and commanded. Admitting this dogma, we admit not only the whole body of doctrines contained in the Tridentine standards, but all the official Papal bulls, including the mediaeval monstrosities of the Syllabus (1864), the condemnation of Jansenism, the bull 'Unam Sanctam' of Boniface VIII. (1302), which, under pain of damnation, claims for the Pope the double sword, the secular as well as the spiritual, over the whole Christian world, and the power to depose princes and to absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance. [322] The past is irreversibly settled, and in all future controversies on faith and morals we must look to the same unerring tribunal in the Vatican. Even oecumenical Councils are superseded hereafter, and would be a mere waste of time and strength. On the other hand, if the dogma is false, it involves a blasphemous assumption, and makes the nearest approach to the fulfillment of St. Paul's prophecy of the man of sin, who 'as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself off that he is God' (2 Thess. ii. 4). Let us first see what the dogma does not mean, and what it does mean. It does not mean that the Pope is infallible in his private opinions' on theology and religion. As a man, he may be a heretic (as Liberius, Honorius, and John XXII.), or even an unbeliever (as John XXIII., and, perhaps, Leo X.), and yet, at the same time, infallible as Pope, after the fashion of Balaam and Kaiphas. Nor does it mean that infallibility extends beyond the proper sphere of religion and the Church. The Pope may be ignorant of science and literature, and make grave mistakes in his political administration, or be misinformed on matters of fact (unless necessarily involved in doctrinal decisions), and yet be infallible in defining articles of faith. [323] Infallibility does not imply impeccability. And yet freedom from error and freedom from sin are so nearly connected in men's minds that it seems utterly impossible that such moral monsters as Alexander VI. and those infamous Popes who disgraced humanity during the Roman pornocracy in the tenth and eleventh centuries, should have been vicars of Jesus Christ and infallible organs of the Holy Ghost. If the inherent infallibility of the visible Church logically necessitates the infallibility of the visible head, it is difficult to see why the same logic should not with equal conclusiveness derive the personal holiness of the head from the holiness of the body. On the other hand, the dogma does mean that all official utterances of the Roman Pontiff addressed to the Catholic Church on matters of Christian faith and duty are infallibly true, and must be accepted with the same faith as the word of the living God. They are not simply final in the sense in which all decisions of an absolute government or a supreme court of justice are final until abolished or superseded by other decisions, [324] but they are irreformable, and can never be revoked. This infallibility extends over eighteen centuries, and is a special privilege conferred by Christ upon Peter, and through him upon all his legitimate successors. It belongs to every Pope from Clement to Pius IX., and to every Papal bull addressed to the Catholic world. It is personal, i.e., inherent in Peter and the Popes; it is independent, and needs no confirmation from the Church or an oecumenical Council, either preceding or succeeding; its decrees are binding, and can not be rejected without running the risk of eternal damnation. [325] Even within the narrow limits of the Vatican decision there is room for controversy on the precise meaning of the figurative term ex cathedra loqui, and the extent of faith and morals, viz., whether Infallibility includes only the supernatural order of revealed truth and duty, or also natural and political duties, and questions of mere history, such as Peter's residence in Koine, the number of oecumenical Councils, the teaching of Jansen and Quesnel, and other disputed facts closely connected with dogmas. But the main point is clear enough. The Ultramontane theory is established, Gallicanism is dead and buried. Ultramontanism and Gallicanism. The Vatican dogma is the natural completion of the Papal polity, as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is the completion of the Papal cultus. If we compare the Papal or Ultramontane theory with the Episcopal or Gallican theory, it has the undeniable advantage of logical consistency. The two systems are related to each other like monarchy and aristocracy, or rather like absolute monarchy and limited monarchy. The one starts from the divine institution of the Primacy (Matt. xvi. 18), and teaches the infallibility of the head; the other starts from the divine institution of the Episcopate (Matt. xviii. 18), and teaches the infallibility of the body and the superiority of an oecumenical Council over the Pope. Conceding once the infallibility of the collective Episcopate, we must admit, as a consequence, the infallibility of the Primacy, which represents the Episcopate, and forms its visible and permanent centre. If the body of the teaching Church can never err, the head can not err; and, vice versa, if the head is liable to error, the body can not be free from error. The Gallican theory is an untenable via media. It secures only a periodic and intermittent infallibility, which reveals itself in an oecumenical Council, and then relapses into a quiescent state; but the Ultramontane theory teaches an unbroken, ever living, and ever active infallibility, which alone can fully answer the demands of an absolute authority. To refute Papal infallibility is to refute also Episcopal infallibility; for the higher includes the lower. The Vatican Council is the best argument against the infallibility of oecumenical Councils, for it sanctioned a fiction, in open and irreconcilable contradiction to older oecumenical Councils, which not only assumed the possibility of Papal fallibility, but actually condemned a Pope as a heretic. The fifth Lateran Council (1512) declared the decrees of the Council of Pisa (1409) null and void; the Council of Florence denied the validity of the Council of Basle, and this denied the validity of the former. The Council of Constance condemned and burned John Hus for teaching evangelical doctrines; and this fact forced upon Luther, at the disputation with Eck at Leipzig, the conviction that even oecumenical Councils may err. Rome itself has rejected certain canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon, which put the Pope on a par with the Patriarch of Constantinople; and a strict construction of the Papal theory would rule out the old oecumenical Councils, because they were not convened nor controlled by the Pope; while the Greek Church rejects all Councils which were purely Latin. The Bible makes no provision and has no promise for an oecumenical Council. [326] The Church existed and flourished for more than three hundred years before such a Council was heard of. Large assemblies are often ruled by passion, intrigue, and worldly ambition (remember the complaints of Gregory of Nazianzum on the Synods of the Nicene age). Majorities are not necessarily decisive in matters of faith. Christ promised to be even with two or three who are gathered in his name (Matt. xviii. 20). Elijah and the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal were right over against the great mass of the people of Israel. Athanasius versus mundum represented the truth, and the world versus Athanasium was in error during the ascendency of Arianism. In the eighteenth century the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, was under the power of infidelity, and true Christianity had to take refuge in small communities. Augustine maintained that one Council may correct another, and attain to a more perfect knowledge of truth. The history of the Church is unintelligible without the theory of progressive development, which implies many obstructions and temporary diseases. All the attributes of the Church are subject to the law of gradual expansion and growth, and will not be finally complete till the second coming of our Lord. Papal Infallibility and Personal Responsibility. The Christian Church, as a divine institution, can never fail and never lose the truth. Christ has pledged his Spirit and life-giving presence to his people to the end of time, and even to two or three of his humblest disciples assembled in his name; yet they are not on that account infallible. He gave authority in matters of discipline to every local Church (Matt. xviii. 17); and yet no one claims infallibility to every congregation. The Holy Spirit will always guide believers into the truth, and the unerring Word of God can never perish. But local churches, like individuals, may fall into error, and be utterly destroyed from the face of the earth. The true Church of Christ always makes progress, and will go on conquering and to conquer to the end of the world. But the particular churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Asia Minor, and North Africa, where once the Apostles and St. Augustine taught, have disappeared, or crumbled into ruin, or have been overrun by the false prophet. The truth will ever be within the reach of the sincere inquirer wherever the gospel is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. God has revealed himself plainly enough for all purposes of salvation; and yet not so plainly as to supersede the necessity of faith, and to resolve Christianity into a mathematical demonstration. He has given us a rational mind to think and to judge, and a free will to accept or to reject. Christian faith is no blind submission, but an intelligent assent. It implies anxiety to inquire as well as willingness to receive. We are expressly directed to 'prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good' (1 Thess. v. 21); to try the spirits whether they are of God (1 John iv. 1), and to refuse obedience even to an angel from heaven if he preach a different gospel (Gal. i. 8). The Beroean Jews are commended as being more noble than those of Thessalonica, because they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and yet searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts xvii. 11). It was from the infallible Scriptures alone, and not from tradition, that Paul and Apollos reasoned, after the example of Christ, who appeals to Moses and the Prophets, and speaks disparagingly of the traditions of the elders as obscuring the Word of God or destroying its true effect. [327] In opposition to all this the Vatican dogma requires a wholesale slaughter of the intellect and will, and destroys the sense of personal responsibility. The fundamental error, the proton pseudos of Rome is that she identifies the true ideal Church of Christ with the empirical Church, and the empirical Church with the Romish Church, and the Romish Church with the Papacy, and the Papacy with the Pope, and at last substitutes a mortal man for the living Christ, who is the only and ever present head of the Church, 'which is his body, the fullness of him who filleth all in all.' Christ needs no vicar, and the very idea of a vicar implies the absence of the Master. [328] Papal Infallibility tested by Tradition. The dogma of Papal Infallibility is mainly supported by an inferential dogmatic argument derived from the Primacy of Peter, who, as the Vicar of Christ, must also share in his infallibility; or from the nature and aim of the Church, which is to teach men the way of salvation, and must therefore be endowed with an infallible and ever available organ for that purpose, since God always provides the means together with an end. A full-blooded Infallibilist, whose piety consists in absolute submission and devotion to his lord the Pope, is perfectly satisfied with this reasoning, and cares little or nothing for the Bible and for history, except so far as they suit his purpose. If facts disagree with his dogmas, all the worse for the facts. All you have to do is to ignore or to deny them, or to force them, by unnatural interpretations, into reluctant obedience to the dogmas. [329] But after all, even according to the Roman Catholic theory, Scripture and history or tradition are the two indispensable tests of the truth of a dogma. It has always been held that the Pope and the Bishops are not the creators and judges, but the trustees and witnesses of the apostolic deposit of faith, and that they can define and proclaim no dogma which is not well founded in primitive tradition, written or unwritten. According to the famous rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, a dogma must have three marks of catholicity: the catholicity of time (semper), of space (ubique), and of number (ab omnibus). The argument from tradition is absolutely essential to orthodoxy in the Roman sense, and, as hitherto held, more essential than Scripture proof. [330] The difference between Romanism and Protestantism on this point is this: Romanism requires proof from tradition first, from Scripture next, and makes the former indispensable, the latter simply desirable; while Protestantism reverses the order, and with its theory of the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, and as an inexhaustible mine of truth that yields precious ore to every successive generation of miners, it may even dispense with traditional testimony altogether, provided that a doctrine can be clearly derived from the Word of God. Now it can be conclusively proved that the dogma of Papal Infallibility, like the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, lacks every one of the three marks of catholicity. It is a comparatively modern innovation. It was not dreamed of for more than a thousand years, and is unknown to this day in the Greek Church, the oldest in the world, and in matters of antiquity always an important witness. The whole history of Christianity would have taken a different course, if in all theological controversies an infallible tribunal in Rome could have been invoked. [331] Ancient Creeds, Councils, Fathers, and Popes can be summoned as witnesses against the Vatican dogma. 1. The four oecumenical Creeds, the most authoritative expressions of the old Catholic faith of the Eastern and Western Churches, contain an article on the 'holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,' but not one word about the Bishops of Rome, or any other local Church. How easy and natural, yea, in view of the fundamental importance of the Infallibility dogma, how necessary would have been the insertion of Roman after the other predicates of the Church, or the addition of the article: 'The Pope of Rome, the successor of Peter and infallible vicar of Christ.' If it had been believed then as now, it would certainly appear at least in the Roman form of the Apostles' Creed; but this is as silent on this point as the Aquilejan, the African, the Gallican, and other forms. And this uniform silence of all the oecumenical Creeds is strengthened by the numerous local Creeds of the Nicene age, and by the various ante-Nicene rules of faith up to Tertullian and Irenaeus, not one of which contains an allusion to such an article of faith. 2. The oecumenical Councils of the first eight centuries, which are recognized by the Greek and Latin Churches alike, are equally silent about, and positively inconsistent with, Papal Infallibility. They were called by Greek Emperors, not by Popes; they were predominantly, and some of them exclusively, Oriental; they issued their decrees in their own name, and in the fullness of authority, without thinking of submitting them to the approval of Rome; they even claimed the right of judging and condemning the Roman Pontiff, as well as any other Bishop or Patriarch. In the first Nicene Council there was but one representative of the Latin Church (Hosius of Spain); and in the second and the fifth oecumenical Councils there was none at all. The second oecumenical Council (381), in the third canon, put the Patriarch of Constantinople on a par with the Bishop of Rome, assigning to the latter only a primacy of honor; and the fourth oecumenical Council (451) confirmed this canon in spite of the energetic protest of Pope Leo I. But more than this: the sixth oecumenical Council, held 680, pronounced the anathema on Honorius, 'the former Pope of old Rome,' for teaching officially the Monothelite heresy; and this anathema was signed by all the members of the Council, including the three delegates of the Pope, and was several times repeated by the seventh and eighth Councils, which were presided over by Papal delegates. But we must return to this famous case again in another connection. 3. The Fathers, even those who unconsciously did most service to Rome, and laid the foundation for its colossal pretensions, yet had no idea of ascribing absolute supremacy and infallibility to the Pope. Clement of Rome, the first Roman Bishop of whom we have any authentic account, wrote a letter to the Church at Corinth--not in his name, but in the name of the Roman Congregation; not with an air of superior authority, but as a brother to brethren--barely mentioning Peter, but eulogizing Paul, and with a clear consciousness of the great difference between an Apostle and a Bishop or Elder. Ignatius of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Trajan, highly as he extols Episcopacy and Church unity in his seven Epistles, one of which is addressed to the Roman Christians, makes no distinction of rank among Bishops, but treats them as equals. Irenaeus of Lyons, the champion of the Catholic faith against the Gnostic heresy at the close of the second century, and the author of the famous and variously understood passage about the potentior principalitas (proteia) ecclesiae Romanae, sharply reproved Victor of Rome when he ventured to excommunicate the Asiatic Christians for their different mode of celebrating Easter, and told him that it was contrary to Apostolic doctrine and practice to judge brethren on account of eating and drinking, feasts and new moons. Cyprian, likewise a saint and a martyr, in the middle of the third century, in his zeal for visible and tangible unity against the schismatics of his diocese, first brought out the fertile doctrine of the Roman See as the chair of Peter and the centre of Catholic unity; yet with all his Romanizing tendency he was the great champion of the Episcopal solidarity and equality system, and always addressed the Roman Bishop as his 'brother' and 'colleague;' he even stoutly opposed Pope Stephen's view of the validity of heretical baptism, charging him with error, obstinacy, and presumption. He never yielded, and the African Bishops, at the third Council at Carthage (256), emphatically indorsed his opposition. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, and Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, likewise bitterly condemned the doctrine and conduct of Stephen, and told him that in excommunicating others he only excommunicated himself. Augustine is often quoted by Infallibilists on account of his famous dictum, Roma locuta est, causa finita est. [332] But he simply means that, since the Councils of Mileve and Carthage had spoken, and Pope Innocent I. had acceded to their decision, the Pelagian controversy was finally settled (although it was, after all, not settled till after his death, at the Council of Ephesus). Had he dreamed of the abuse made of this utterance, [333] he would have spoken very differently. For the same Augustine apologized for Cyprian's opposition to Pope Stephen on the ground that the controversy had then not yet been decided by a Council, and maintained the view of the liability of Councils to correction and improvement by subsequent Councils. He moreover himself opposed Pope Zosimus, when, deceived by Pelagius, he declared him sound in the faith, although Pope Innocent I. had previously excommunicated him as a dangerous heretic. And so determined were the Africans, under the lead of Augustine (417 and 418), that Zosimus finally saw proper to yield and to condemn Pelagianism in his 'Epistula Tractoria.' Gregory I., or the Great, the last of the Latin Fathers, and the first of the mediaeval Popes (590-604), stoutly protested against the assumption of the title oecumenical or universal Bishop on the part of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, and denounced this whole title and claim as blasphemous, anti-Christian, and devilish, since Christ alone was the Head and Bishop of the Church universal, while Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John, were members under the same Head, and heads only of single portions of the whole. Gregory would rather call himself 'the servant of the servants of God,' which, in the mouths of his successors, pretending to be Bishops of bishops and Lords of lords, has become a shameless irony. [334] As to the Greek Fathers, it would be useless to quote them, for the entire Greek Church in her genuine testimonies has never accepted the doctrine of Papal supremacy, much less of Papal Infallibility. 4. Heretical Popes.--We may readily admit the rock-like stability of the Roman Church in the early controversies on the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, as compared with the motion and changeability of the Greek churches during the same period, when the East was the chief theatre of dogmatic controversy and progress. Without some foundation in history, the Vatican dogma could not well have arisen. It would be impossible to raise the claim of infallibility in behalf of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Alexandria, or Constantinople, among whom were noted Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and other heretics. Yet there are not a few exceptions to the rule; and as many Popes, in their lives, flatly contradicted their title of holiness, so many departed, in their views, from Catholic truth. That the Popes after the Reformation condemned and cursed Protestant truths well founded in the Scriptures, we leave here out of sight, and confine our reasoning to facts within the limits of Roman Catholic orthodoxy. The canon law assumes throughout that a Pope may openly teach heresy, or contumaciously contradict the Catholic doctrine; for it declares that, while he stands above all secular tribunals, yet he can be judged and deposed for the crime of heresy. [335] This assumption was so interwoven in the faith of the Middle Ages that even the most powerful of all Popes, Innocent III. (d. 1216), gave expression to it when he said that, though he was only responsible to God, he may sin against the faith, and thus become subject to the judgment of the Church. [336] Innocent IV. (d. 1254) speaks of heretical commands of the Pope, which need not be obeyed. When Boniface VIII. (d. 1303) declared that every creature must obey the Pope at the loss of eternal salvation, he was charged with having a devil, because he presumed to be infallible, which was impossible without witchcraft. Even Hadrian VI., in the sixteenth century, expressed the view, which he did not recant as Pope, that 'if by the Roman Church is understood its head, the Pope, it is certain that he can err even in matters of faith.' This old Catholic theory of the fallibility of the Pope is abundantly borne out by actual facts, which have been established again and again by Catholic scholars of the highest authority for learning and candor. We need no better proofs than those furnished by them. Zephyrinus (201-219) and Callistus (219-223) held and taught (according to the 'Philosophumena' of Hippolytus, a martyr and saint) the Patripassian heresy, that God the Father became incarnate and suffered with the Son. Pope Liberius, in 358, subscribed an Arian creed for the purpose of regaining his episcopate, and condemned Athanasius, 'the father of orthodoxy,' who mentions the fact with indignation. During the same period, his rival, Felix II., was a decided Arian; but there is a dispute about his legitimacy; some regarding him as an anti-Pope, although he has a place in the Romish Calendar of Saints, and Gregory XIII. (1582) confirmed his claim to sanctity, against which Baronius protested. In the Pelagian controversy, Pope Zosimus at first indorsed the orthodoxy of Pelagius and Celestius, whom his predecessor, Innocent I., had condemned; but he yielded afterwards to the firm protest of St. Augustine and the African Bishops. In the Three-Chapter controversy, Pope Vigilius (538-555) showed a contemptible vacillation between two opinions: first indorsing; then, a year afterwards, condemning (in obedience to the Emperor's wishes) the Three Chapters (i.e., the writings of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas); then refusing the condemnation; then, tired of exile, submitting to the fifth oecumenical Council (553), which had broken off communion with him; and confessing that he had unfortunately been the tool of Satan, who labors for the destruction of the Church. A long schism in the West was the consequence. Pope Pelagius II. (585) significantly excused this weakness by the inconsistency of St. Peter at Antioch. John XXII. (d. 1334) maintained, in opposition to Nicholas III. and Clement V. (d. 1314), that the Apostles did not live in perfect poverty, and branded the opposite doctrine of his predecessors as heretical and dangerous. He also held an opinion concerning the middle state of the righteous, which was condemned as heresy by the University of Paris. Contradictory opinions were taught by different Popes on the sacraments, on the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary (see p. 123), on matrimony, and on the subjection of the temporal power to the Church. [337] But the most notorious case of an undeniably official indorsement of heresy by a Pope is that of Honorius I. (625-638), which alone is sufficient to disprove Papal Infallibility, according to the maxim: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. [338] This case has been sifted to the very bottom before and during the Council, especially by Bishop Hefele and Pere Gratry. The following decisive facts are established by the best documentary evidence: (1.) Honorius taught ex cathedra (in two letters to his heretical colleague, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople) the Monothelite heresy, which was condemned by the sixth oecumenical Council, i.e., the doctrine that Christ had only one will, and not two (corresponding to his two natures). [339] (2.) An oecumenical Council, universally acknowledged in the East and in the West, held in Constantinople, 680, condemned and excommunicated Honorius, 'the former Pope of Old Rome,' as a heretic, who with the help of the old serpent had scattered deadly error. [340] The seventh oecumenical Council (787) and the eighth (869) repeated the anathema of the sixth. (3.) The succeeding Popes down to the eleventh century, in a solemn oath at their accession, indorsed the sixth oecumenical Council, and pronounced 'an eternal anathema' on the authors of the Monothelite heresy, together with Pope Honorius, because he had given aid and comfort to the perverse doctrines of the heretics. [341] The Popes themselves, therefore, for more than three centuries, publicly recognized, first, that an oecumenical Council may condemn a Pope for open heresy, and, secondly, that Pope Honorius was justly condemned for heresy. Pope Leo II., in a letter to the Emperor, strongly confirmed the decree of the Council, and denounced his predecessor Honorius as one who 'endeavored by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman Church.' [342] The same Pope says, in a letter to the Spanish Bishops: 'With eternal damnation have been punished Theodore, Cyrus, Sergius--together with Honorius, who did not extinguish at the very beginning the flame of heretical doctrine, as was becoming to his apostolic authority, but nursed it by his carelessness.' [343] This case of Honorius is as clear and strong as any fact in Church history. [344] Infallibilists have been driven to desperate efforts. Some pronounce the acts of the Council, which exist in Greek and Latin, downright forgeries (Baronius); others, admitting the acts, declare the letters of Honoring forgeries, so that he was unjustly condemned by the Council (Bellarmin)--both without a shadow of proof; still others, being forced at last to acknowledge the genuineness of the letters and acts, distort the former into an orthodox sense by a non-natural exegesis, and thus unwillingly fasten upon oecumenical Councils and Popes the charge of either dogmatic ignorance and stupidity, or malignant representation. [345] Yet in every case the decisive fact remains that both Councils and Popes for several hundred years believed in the fallibility of the Pope, in flat contradiction to the Vatican Council. Such acts of violence upon history remind one of King James's short method with Dissenters: 'Only hang them, that's all.' 5. The idea of Papal absolutism and Infallibility, like that of the sinlessness of Mary, can be traced to apocryphal origin. It is found first, in the second century, in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which contain a singular system of speculative Ebionism, and represent James of Jerusalem, the brother of the Lord, as the Bishop of Bishops, the centre of Christendom, and the general Vicar of Christ; he is the last arbiter, from whom there is no appeal; to him even Peter must give an account of his labors, and to him the sermons of Peter were sent for safe keeping. [346] In the Catholic Church the same idea, but transferred to the Bishop of Rome, is first clearly expressed in the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, that huge forgery of Papal letters, which appeared in the middle of the ninth century, and had for its object the completion of the independence of the Episcopal hierarchy from the State, and the absolute power of the Popes, as the legislators and judges of all Christendom. Here the most extravagant claims are put into the mouths of the early Popes, from Clement (91) to Damasus (384), in the barbarous French Latin of the Middle Ages, and with such numerous and glaring anachronisms as to force the conviction of fraud even upon Roman Catholic scholars. One of these sayings is: 'The Roman Church remains to the end free from stain of heresy.' Soon afterwards arose, in the same hierarchical interest, the legend of the donation of Constantine and his baptism by Pope Silvester, interpolations of the writings of the Fathers, especially Cyprian and Augustine, and a variety of fictions embodied in the Gesta Liberii, and the Liber Pontificalis, and sanctioned by Gratianus (about 1150) in his Decretum, or collection of canons, which (as the first part of the Corpus juris canonici) became the code of laws for the whole Western Church, and exerted an extraordinary influence. By this series of pious frauds the mediaeval Papacy, which was the growth of ages, was represented to the faith of the Church as a primitive institution of Christ, clothed with absolute and perpetual authority. The Popes since Nicholas I. (858-867), who exceeded all his predecessors in the boldness of his designs, freely used what the spirit of a hierarchical, superstitious, and uncritical age furnished them. They quoted the fictitious letters of their predecessors as genuine, the Sardican canon on appeals as a canon of Nicaea, and the interpolated sixth canon of Nicaea,' the Roman Church always had the primacy,' of which there is not a syllable in the original; and nobody doubted them. Papal absolutism was in full vigor from Gregory VII. to Boniface VIII. Scholastic divines, even Thomas Aquinas, deceived by these literary forgeries, began to defend Papal absolutism over the whole Church, and the Councils of Lyons (1274) and of Florence (1439) sanctioned it, although the Greeks soon afterwards rejected the false union based upon such assumption. But absolute power, especially of a spiritual kind, is invariably intoxicating and demoralizing to any mortal man who possesses it. God Almighty alone can bear it, and even he allows freedom to his rational creatures. The reminiscence of the monstrous period when the Papacy was a football in the hands of bold and dissolute women (904-962), or when mere boys, like Benedict IX. (1033), polluted the Papal crown with the filth of unnatural vices, could not be quite forgotten. The scandal of the Papal schism (1378 to 1409), when two and even three rival Popes excommunicated and cursed each other, and laid all Western Christendom under the ban, excited the moral indignation of all good men in Christendom, and called forth, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, the three Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle, which loudly demanded a reformation of the Church, in the head as well as in the members, and asserted the superiority of a Council over the Pope. The Council of Constance (1414-1418), the most numerous ever seen in the West, deposed two Popes--John XXIII. (the infamous Balthasar Cossa, who had been recognized by the majority of the Church), on the charge of a series of crimes (May 29, 1415), and Benedict XIII., as a heretic who sinned against the unity of the Church (July 26, 1417), [347] and elected a new Pope, Martin V. (Nov. 11, 1517), who had given his adhesion to the Council, though after his accession to power he found ways and means to defeat its real object, i.e., the reformation of the Church. This Council was a complete triumph of the Episcopal system, and the Papal absolutists and Infallibilists are here forced to the logical dilemma of either admitting the validity of the Council, or invalidating the election of Martin V. and his successors. Either course is fatal to their system. Hence there has never been an authoritative decision on the oecumenicity of this Council, and the only subterfuge is to say that the whole case is an extraordinary exception; but this, after all, involves the admission that there is a higher power in the Church over the Papacy. The Reformation shook the whole Papacy to its foundation, but could not overthrow it. A powerful reaction followed, headed by the Jesuits. Their General, Lainez, strongly advocated Papal Infallibility in the Council of Trent, and declared that the Church could not err only because the Pope could not err. But the Council left the question undecided, and the Roman Catechism ascribes infallibility simply to 'the Catholic Church,' without defining its seat. Bellarmin advocated and formularized the doctrine, stating it as an almost general opinion that the Pope could not publicly teach a heretical dogma, and as a probable and pious opinion that Providence will guard him even against private heresy. Yet the same Bellarmin was witness to the innumerable blunders of the edition of the Latin Vulgate prepared by Sixtus V., corrected by his own hand, and issued by him as the only true and authentic text of the sacred Scriptures, with the stereotyped forms of anathema upon all who should venture to change a single word; and Bellarmin himself gave the advice that all copies should be called in, and a new edition printed with a lying statement in the preface making the printers the scape-goats for the errors of the Pope! This whole business of the Vulgate is sufficient to explode Papal Infallibility; for it touches the very source of divine revelation. Other Italian divines, like Alphonsus Liguori, and Jesuitical text-books, unblushingly use long-exploded mediaeval fictions and interpolations as a groundwork of Papal absolutism and Infallibility. It is not necessary to follow the progress of the controversy between the Episcopal and the Papal systems during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is sufficient to say that the greatest Catholic divines of France and Germany, including Bossuet and Moehler, together with many from other countries, down to the 88 protesting Bishops in the Vatican Council, were anti-Infallibilists; and that popular Catechisms of the Roman Church, extensively used till 1870, expressly denied the doctrine, which is now set up as an article of faith necessary to eternal salvation. [348] Papal Infallibility and the Bible. The Old Testament gives no tangible aid to the Infallibilists. The Jewish Church existed as a divine institution, and served all its purposes, from Abraham to John the Baptist, without an infallible tribunal in Jerusalem, save the written law and testimony, made effective from time to time by the living voice of inspired prophecy. Pious Israelites found in the Scriptures the way of life, notwithstanding the contradictory interpretations of rabbinical schools and carnal perversions of Messianic prophecies, fostered by a corrupt hierarchy. The Urim and Thummim [349] of the High-Priest has no doubt symbolical reference to some kind of spiritual illumination or oracular consultation, but it is of too uncertain interpretation to furnish an argument. The passages of the New Testament which are used by Roman divines in support of the doctrine of Infallibility may be divided into two classes: those which seem to favor the Episcopal or Gallican, and those which are made to prove the Papal or Ultramontane theory. It is characteristic that the Papal Infallibilists carefully avoid the former. 1. To the first class belong John xiv. 16 sq.; xvi. 13-16, where Christ promises the Holy Ghost to his disciples that he may 'abide with them forever,' teach them 'all things,' bring to their remembrance all he had said to them, [350] and guide them 'into the whole truth;' [351] John xx. 21: 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. . . . Receive ye the Holy Ghost;' [352] Matt. xviii. 18: 'Whatever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' etc.; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20: 'Go and disciple all nations . . . and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.' These passages, which are addressed to all Apostles alike, to doubting Thomas as well as to Peter, prove indeed the unbroken presence of Christ and the Holy Ghost in the Church to the end of time, which is one of the most precious and glorious truths admitted by every true Christian. But, in the first place, the Church, which is here represented by the Apostles, embraces all true believers, laymen as well as Bishops. Secondly, the promise of Christ's presence implies no infallibility, for the same promise is given even to the smallest number of true believers (Matt. xviii. 20). Thirdly, if the passages prove infallibility at all, they would prove individual infallibility by continued inspiration rather than corporate infallibility by official succession; for every Apostle was inspired, and so far infallible; and this no Roman Catholic Bishop, though claiming to be a successor of the Apostles, pretends to be. 2. The passages quoted by the advocates of the Papal theory are three, viz., Luke xxii. 31; Matt. xvi. 18; John xxi. 15. [353] We admit, at the outset, that these passages in their obvious meaning which is confirmed by the history of the Apostolic Church, assign to Peter a certain primacy among the Apostles: he was the leader and spokesman of them, and the chief agent of Christ in laying the foundations of his Church among the Jews and the Gentiles. This is significantly prophesied in the new name of Peter given to him. The history of Pentecost (Acts ii.) and the conversion of Cornelius (Acts x.) are the fulfillment of this prophecy, and furnish the key to the interpretation of the passages in the Gospels. This is the truth which underlies the colossal lie of the Papacy. For there is no Romish error which does not derive its life and force from some truth. [354] But beyond this we have no right to go. The position which Peter occupied no one can occupy after him. The foundation of the Church, once laid, is laid for all time to come, and the gates of Hades can not prevail against it. The New Testament is its own best interpreter. It shows no single example of an exercise of jurisdiction of Peter over the other Apostles, but the very reverse. He himself, in his Epistles, disowns and prophetically warns his fellow-presbyters against the hierarchical spirit; exhorting them, instead of being lords over God's heritage, to be ensamples to his flock (1 Pet. v. 1-4). Paul and John were perfectly independent of him, as the Acts and Epistles prove. Paul even openly administered to him a rebuke at Antioch. [355] At the Council of Jerusalem James seems to have presided, at all events he proposed the compromise which was adopted by the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren; Peter was indeed one of the leading speakers, but he significantly advocated the truly evangelical principle of salvation by faith alone, and protested against human bondage (Acts xv.; comp. Gal. ii.). The great error of the Papacy is that it perverts a primacy of honor into a supremacy of jurisdiction, a personal privilege into an official prerogative, and a priority of time into a permanent superiority of rank. And to make the above passages at all available for such purpose, it must take for granted, as intervening links of the argument, that which can not be proved from the New Testament nor from history, viz., that Peter was Bishop of Rome; that he was there as Paul's superior; that he appointed a successor, and transferred to him his prerogatives. As to the passages separately considered, Matt. xvi., 'Thou art rock,' and John xxi., 'Feed my flock,' could at best only prove Papal absolutism, but not Papal Infallibility, of which they do not treat. [356] The former teaches the indestructibility of the Church in its totality (not of any individual congregation), but this is a different idea. The Council of Trent lays down 'the unanimous consent of the Fathers' as the norm and rule of all orthodox interpretation, as if exegetical wisdom had begun and ended with the divines of the first six centuries. But of the passage Matt. xvi., which is more frequently quoted by Popes and Papists than any other passage in the Bible, there are no less than five different patristic interpretations; the rock on which Christ built his Church being referred to Christ by sixteen Fathers (including Augustine); to the faith or confession of Peter by forty-four (including Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, and Augustine again); to Peter professing the faith by seventeen; to all the Apostles, whom Peter represented by his primacy, by eight; to all the faithful, who, believing in Christ as the Son of God, are constituted the living stones of the Church. [357] But not one of the Fathers finds Papal Infallibility in this passage, nor in John xxi. The 'unanimous consent of the Fathers' is a pure fiction, except in the most general and fundamental principles held by all Christians; and not to interpret the Bible except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, would strictly mean not to interpret it at all. [358] There remains, then, only the passage recorded by Luke (xxii. 31, 32) as at all bearing on the disputed question: 'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan desired to have you (or, obtained you by asking), that he may sift you as wheat; but I prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, when once thou art converted (or, hast turned again), strengthen thy brethren.' But even this does not prove infallibility, and has not been so understood before Popes Leo I. and Agatho. For (1) the passage refers, as the context shows, to the peculiar personal history of Peter during the dark hour of passion, and is both a warning and a comfort to him. So it is explained by the Fathers, who frequently quote it. (2) Faith here, as nearly always in the New Testament, means personal trust in, and attachment to, Christ, and not, as the Romish Church misinterprets it, orthodoxy, or intellectual assent to dogmas. (3) If the passage refers to the Popes at all, it would prove too much for them, viz., that they, like Peter, denied the Saviour, were converted again, and strengthened their brethren--which may be true enough of some, but certainly not of all. [359] The constant appeal of the Roman Church to Peter suggests a significant parallel. There is a spiritual Peter and a carnal Simon, who are separated, indeed, by regeneration, yet, after all, not so completely that the old nature does not occasionally re-appear in the new man. It was the spiritual Peter who forsook all to follow Christ; who first confessed him as the Son of God, and hence was called Rock; who after his terrible fall wept bitterly; was re-instated and intrusted with the care of Christ's sheep; who on the birthday of the Church preached the first missionary sermon, and gathered in the three thousand converts; who in the Apostles' Council protested against the narrow bigotry of the Judaizers, and stood up with Paul for the principle of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ; who, in his Epistles, warns all ministers against hierarchical pride, and exhibits a wonderful meekness, gentleness, and humility of spirit, showing that divine grace had overruled and sanctified to him even his fall; and who followed at last his Master to the cross of martyrdom. It was the carnal Simon who presumed to divert his Lord from the path of suffering, and drew on him the rebuke, 'Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto me, for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men;' the Simon, who in mistaken zeal used the sword and cut off the ear of Malchus; who proudly boasted of his unswerving fidelity to his Master, and yet a few hours afterwards denied him thrice before a servant-woman; who even after the Pentecostal illumination was overcome by his natural weakness, and, from policy or fear of the Judaizing party, was untrue to his better conviction, so as to draw on him the public rebuke of the younger Apostle of the Gentiles. The Romish legend of Domine quo vadis makes him relapse into his inconstancy even a day before his martyrdom, and memorializes it in a chapel outside of Rome. [In 1868, Cardinal Manning and Bishop Senestry of Regensburg, while in Rome, made a vow "to do all in our power to bring about the definition of papal infallibility," the vow being attested by the Jesuit father Liberatore. See Purcell: Life of Manning, II., 420. Commer, theological professor in Vienna, in an address on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Leo XIII.'s pontificate, announced that the Roman pontiff had properly been called by Catherine of Siena another Christ--alter Christus. The Manual of the Catechism of Pius X. quotes with approval that the pope is Jesus Christ on earth--il papa e Gesu Cristo sulla terra.--Ed.] __________________________________________________________________ [322] This bull has been often disowned by Catholics (e.g., by the Universities of Sorbonne, Louvain, Alcala, Salamanca, when officially asked by Mr. Pitt, Prime Minister of Great Britain, 1788, also by Martin John Spalding, Archbishop of Baltimore, in his Lectures on Evidences, 1866), and, to some extent, even by Pius IX. (see Friedberg, p. 718), but it is unquestionably official, and was renewed and approved by the fifth Lateran Council, Dec. 19, 1516. Paul III. and Pius V. acted upon it, the former in excommunicating and deposing Henry VIII. of England, the latter in deposing Queen Elizabeth, exciting her subjects to rebellion, and urging Philip of Spain to declare war against her (see the Bullarium Rom., Camden, Burnet, Froude, etc.). The Papal Syllabus sanctions it by implication, in No. 23, which condemns as an error the opinion that Roman Pontiffs have exceeded the limits of their power. [323] Pope Pius IX. started as a political reformer, and set in motion that revolution which, notwithstanding his subsequent reactionary course, resulted in the unification of Italy and the loss of the States of the Church, against which he now so bitterly protests. [324] In this general sense Joseph de Maistre explains infallibility to be the same in the spiritual order that sovereignty means in the civil order: 'L'un et l'autre expriment cette haute puissance qui les domine toutes, dont toutes les autres derivent, qui gouverne et n'est pas gouvernee, qui juge et n'est pas jugee. Quand nous disons que l'Eglise est infaillible, nous ne demandons pour elle, il est bien essentiel de l'observer, aucun privilege particulier; nous demandons seulement qu'elle jouisse du droit commun `a toutes les souverainetes possible qui toutes agissent nessairement comme infaillibles; car tout gouvernement est absolu; et du moment ou l'on peut lui resister sous pretexte d'erreur ou d'injustice, il n'existe plus.' Du Pape, ch. i., pp. 15, 16. [325] Archbishop Manning (Petri Privil. III. pp. 112, 113) defines the doctrine of Infallibility in this way: '1. The privilege of infallibility is personal, inasmuch as it attaches to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, as a public person, distinct from, but inseparably united to, the Church; but it is not personal, in that it is attached, not to the private person, but to the primacy which he alone possesses. '2. It is also independent, inasmuch as it does not depend upon either the Ecclesia docens or the Ecclesia discens; but it is not independent, in that it depends in all things upon the divine head of the Church, upon the institution of the primacy by him, and upon the assistance of the Holy Ghost. '3. It is absolute, inasmuch as it can be circumscribed by no human or ecclesiastical law; it is not absolute, in that it is circumscribed by the office of guarding, expounding, and defending the deposit of revelation. '4. It is separate in no sense, nor can be, nor can be so called, without manifold heresy, unless the word be taken to mean distinct. In this sense, the Roman Pontiff is distinct from the Episcopate, and is a distinct subject of infallibility; and in the exercise of his supreme doctrinal authority, or magisterium, he does not depend for the infallibility of his definitions upon the consent or consultation of the Episcopate, but only on the divine assistance of the Holy Ghost.' [326] The Synod of Jerusalem, composed of Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, and legislating in favor of Christian liberty, differs very widely from a purely hierarchical Council, which excludes Elders and Brethren, and imposes new burdens upon the conscience. [327] It is remarkable that Christ always uses paradosis in an unfavorable sense: see Matt. xv. 2, 3, 6; Mark vii. 3, 5, 8, 9, 13. So also Paul: Gal. i. 14; Col. ii. 8; while in 1 Cor. xi. 2, and 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6, he uses the term in a good sense, as identical with the gospel he preached. [328] I add here what Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, says on the Papal theory of Infallibility (Systematic Theology, New York, 1872, Vol. I. pp. 130, 150): 'There is something simple and grand in this theory. It is wonderfully adapted to the tastes and wants of men. It relieves them of personal responsibility. Every thing is decided for them. Their salvation is secured by merely submitting to be saved by an infallible, sin-pardoning, and grace-imparting Church. Many may be inclined to think that it would have been a great blessing had Christ left on earth a visible representative of himself, clothed with his authority to teach and govern, and an order of men dispersed through the world endowed with the gifts of the original Apostles--men every where accessible, to whom we could resort in all times of difficulty and doubt, and whose decisions could be safely received as the decisions of Christ himself. God's thoughts, however, are not as our thoughts. We know that when Christ was on earth men did not believe or obey him. We know that when the Apostles were still living, and their authority was still confirmed by signs, and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Church was distracted by heresies and schisms. If any in their sluggishness are disposed to think that a perpetual body of infallible teachers would be a blessing, all must admit that the assumption of infallibility by the ignorant, the erring, and the wicked, must be an evil inconceivably great. The Romish theory, if true, might be a blessing; if false, it must be an awful curse. That it is false may be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all who do not wish it to be true, and who, unlike the Oxford tractarian, are not determined to believe it because they love it. . . . If the Church be infallible, its authority is no less absolute in the sphere of social and political life. It is immoral to contract or to continue an unlawful marriage, to keep an unlawful oath, to enact unjust laws, to obey a sovereign hostile to the Church. The Church, therefore, has the right to dissolve marriages, to free men from the obligations of their oaths, and citizens from their allegiance, to abrogate civil laws, and to depose sovereigns. These prerogatives have not only been claimed, but time and again exercised by the Church of Rome. They all of right belong to that Church, if it be infallible. As these claims are enforced by penalties involving the loss of the soul, they can not be resisted by those who admit the Church to be infallible. It is obvious, therefore, that where this doctrine is held there can be no liberty of opinion, no freedom of conscience, no civil or political freedom. As the recent oecumenical Council of the Vatican has decided that this infallibility is vested in the Pope, it is henceforth a matter of faith with Romanists, that the Roman Pontiff is the absolute sovereign of the world. All men are bound, on the penalty of eternal death, to believe what he declares to be true, and to do whatever he decides is obligatory.' [329] Archbishop Manning (III. p. 118) speaks of history as 'a wilderness without guide or path,' and says: 'Whensoever any doctrine is contained in the divine revelation of the Church' [the very point which can not be proved in the case before us], 'all difficulties from human history are excluded, as Tertullian lays down, by prescription. The only source of revealed truth is God; the only channel of his revelation is the Church. No human history can declare what is contained in that revelation. The Church alone can determine its limits, and therefore its contents.' [330] This Archbishop Kenrick, in his Concio, frankly admits: 'Irenaei, Tertulliani, Augustini, Vincentii Lirinensis exempla secutus, fidei Catholicae probationes ex traditione potius quam ex Scripturarum interpretatione quaerendas duxi; quae interpretatio, juxta Tertullianum magis apta est ad veritatem obumbitandum quam demonstrandum.' [331] 'Die ganze Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends der Kirche waere eine andere gewesen, wenn in dem Bischof von Rom das Bewusstsein, in der Kirche auch nur eine Ahnung davon gewesen waere, dass dort ein Quell unfehlbarer Wahrheit fliesse. Statt all der bittern, verstoerenden Kaempfe gegen wirkliche oder vermeintliche Haeretiker, gegen die man Buecher schrieb und Synoden aller Art versammelte, wuerden alle Wohlmeinende sich auf den unfehlbaren Spruch des Papstes berufen haben, und mehr als einst das Orakel des Apollo zu Delphi wuerde das zu Rom befragt worden sein. Dagegen war es in jenen Jahrhunderten, als alles Christenthum auf die Spitze eines Dogmas gestellt wurde, nichts unerhoertes, dass auch ein Papst vor der subtilen Bestimmung des siegenden Dogma zum Haeretiker wurde.' Hase, Polemik, Buch I. c.iv. p. 161. [332] Or in a modified form: 'Causa finita est, utinam aliquando finiatur error!' Serm. 131, c. 10. See Janus, Rauscher, von Schulte versus Cardoni and Hergenroether, quoted by Frommann, p. 424. [333] As well as some other of his sententious sayings. His explanation of coge intrare was made to justify religious persecutions, from which his heart would have shrunk in horror. [334] The passages of Gregory on this subject are well known to every scholar. And yet the Vatican decree, in ch. iii., by omitting the principal part, makes him say almost the very opposite. [335] Decret. Gratian. Dist. xl. c. 6, in conformity with the sentence of Hadrian II.: 'Cunctos ipsos judicaturus [Papa], a nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius.' See on this point especially von Schulte, Concilien, pp. 188 sqq. [336] Serm. II. de consecrat. Pontificis: 'In tantum mihi fides necessaria est, cum de caeteris peccatis Deum judicem habeam, ut propter solum peccatum quod in fidem committitur, possim ab Ecclesia judicari.' [337] See examples under this head in Janus, pp. 54 sqq. (Irrthuemer and Widersprueche der Paepste), p. 51 of the London ed. [338] Or, as Perrone, himself an Infallibilist, who in his Dogmatic Theology characteristically treats of the Pope before the Holy Scriptures and tradition, puts it: 'Si vel unicus ejusmodi error deprehenderetur, appareret omnes adductas probationes in nihilum redactum iri.' [339] Honorius prescribed the technical term of the Monothelites as a dogma to the Church (dogma ecclesiasticum). In a reply to the Monothelite Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, which is still extant in Greek and Latin (Mansi, Coll. Concil. Tom. XI. pp. 538 sqq.), he approves of his heretical view, and says as clearly as words can make it: 'Therefore we confess also one will (hen thelema) of our Lord Jesus Christ, since the Godhead has assumed our nature, but not our guilt.' In a second letter to Sergius, of which we have two fragments (Mansi, l.c. p. 579), Honorius rejects the orthodox term two energies (duo energeiai, duae operationes), which is used alongside with two wills (duo thelemata, voluntates). Christ, he reasons, assumed human nature as it was before the fall, when it had not a law in the members which resists the law of the Spirit. He knew only a sinful human will. The Catholic Church rejects Monothelitism, or the doctrine of one will of Christ, as involving or necessarily leading to Monophysitism, i.e., the doctrine that Christ had but one nature; for will is an attribute of nature, not of the person. The Godhead has three persons, but only one nature, and only one will. Christ has two wills, because he has two natures. The compromise formula of Emperor Heraclius and Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople endeavored to reconcile the Monophysites with the orthodox Church by teaching that Christ had two natures, but only one will and one energy. [340] Sessio XVI.: 'Sergio haeretico anathema, Cyro haeretico anathema, Honorio haeretico anathema.' . . . Sessio XVIII.: 'Honorius, qui fuit Papa antiquae Romae . . . non vacavit . . . Ecelesiae erroris scandalum suscitare unius voluntatis, et unius operationis in duabus naturis unius Christi,' etc. See Mansi, Conc. Tom. XI. pp. 622, 635, 655, 666. [341] 'Quia pravis haereticorum assertionibus fomentum impendit.' This Papal oath was probably prescribed by Gregory II. (at the beginning of the eighth century), and is found in the Liber Diurnus (the book of formularies of the Roman chancery from the fifth to the eleventh century), edited by Eugene de Roziere, Paris, 1869, No. 84. The Liber Pontificalis agrees with the Liber Diurnus. Editions of the Roman Breviary down to the sixteenth century reiterated the charge against Honorius, since silently dropped. [342] ' Nec non et Honorium [anathematizamus], qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est.' Mansi, Tom. XI. p. 731. [343] 'Cum Honorio, qui flammam haeeretici dogmatis, non ut decuit apostolicam auctoritatem, incipientem extinxit, sed negligendo confovit.' Mansi, p. 1052. [344] Comp. especially the tract of Bishop Hefele, above quoted. The learned author of the History of the Councils has proved the case as conclusively as a mathematical demonstration. [345] So Perrone, in his Dogmatics, and Pennachi, in his Liber de Honorii I. Rom. Pont. causa, 1870, which is effectually disposed of by Hefele in an Appendix to the German edition of his tract. Nevertheless, Archbishop Manning, sublimely ignoring all but Infallibilist authorities on Honorius, has the face to assert (III. p. 223) that the case of Honorius is doubtful; that he defined no doctrine whatever; and that his two epistles are entirely orthodox! Is Manning more infallible than the infallible Pope Leo II., who denounced Honorius ex cathedra as a heretic? [346] See my Church History, Vol. I. S: 69, p. 219, and the tract of Lutterbeck above quoted. [347] The third anti-Pope, Gregory XII., resigned. [348] So Overberg's Katechismus, III. Hauptstueck, Fr. 349: 'Muessen wir auch glauben, dass der Papst unfehlbar ist? Nein, dies ist kein Glaubensartikel.' Keenan's Controversial Catechism, in the editions before 1871, declared Papal Infallibility to be 'a Protestant invention.' The Irish Bishops--Doyle, Murray, Kelly--affirmed under oath, before a Committee of the English Parliament in 1825, that the Papal authority is limited by Councils, that it does not extend to civil affairs and the temporal rights of princes, and that Papal decrees are not binding on Catholics without the consent of the whole Church, either dispersed or assembled in Council. See the original in the Appendix to Archbishop Kenrick's Concio in Friedrich's Documenta, I. pp. 228-242. But the Irish Catholics, who almost believe in the infallibility of their priests, can be very easily taught to believe in the infallibility of the Pope. [349] That is, delosis kai aletheia, doctrina et veritas, Ex. xxviii. 15-30; Deut. xxxiii. 8, 9; 1 Sam. xxviii. 6. The Urim and Thummim were inscribed on the garment of Aaron. Some interpreters identify them with the twelve stones on which the names of the tribes of Israel were engraved; others regard them as a plate of gold with the sacred name of Jehovah; still others as polished diamonds, in form like dice, which, being thrown on the table or Ark of the Covenant, were consulted as an oracle. See the able article of Plumptre, in Smith's Bible Dictionary, Vol. IV. pp. 3356 sqq. (Am. ed.). [350] The panta implies a strong argument for the completeness of Christ's revelation in the New Testament against the Romish doctrine of addition. [351] The phrase eis ten aletheian pasan (John xvi. 13), or, according to another reading, en te aletheia pase (test. rec. eis pasan ten aletheian), expresses the truth as taught by Christ in its completeness--the whole truth--and proves likewise the sufficiency of the Scriptures. The A.V. and its predecessors ('into all truth'), also Luther (in alle Wahrheit, instead of die ganze or volle Wahrheit), miss the true sense by omitting the article, and conveying the false idea that the Holy Ghost would impart to all the apostles a kind of omniscience. Comp. my annotations to Lange's John on the passages (pp. 445, 478, etc.). [352] Literally: 'Receive Holy Spirit'--labete pneuma hagion. The absence of the article may indicate a partial or preparatory inspiration as distinct from the full Pentecostal effusion. [353] Perrone and the Vatican decree on Infallibility confine themselves to these passages. [354] Augustine says somewhere: 'Nulla falsa doctrina est, quae non aliquid veri permisceat.' [355] This fact is so obnoxious to Papists that some of them doubt or deny that the Cephas of Galatians ii. 11 was the Apostle Peter, although the New Testament knows no other. So Perrone, who also asserts, from his own preconceived theory, not from the text, that Paul withstood Peter from respectful love as an inferior to a superior, but not as a superior to an inferior! Let any Bishop try the same experiment against the Pope, and he will soon be sent to perdition. [356] For a full discussion of Petros and petra, see my edition of Lange's Comm. on Matt. xvi. 18, pp. 203 sqq.; and on the Romish perversion of the boskein and poimainein ta arnia, probata and probatia into a katakureiuein, and even withdrawal of nourishment, see my ed. of Lange on John, pp. 638 sqq. [357] This patristic dissensus was brought out during the Council in the Questio distributed by Bishop Ketteler with all the proofs; see Friedrich, Docum. I. pp. 6 sqq. Kenrick in his speech makes use of it. Comp. also my annotations to Lange's Comm. on Matthew in loco. [358] Even Kenrick confesses that it is doubtful whether any instance of that unanimous consent can be found (in his Concio, see Friedr. Docum. I. p.195): 'Regula interpetrandi Scripturas nobis imposita, haec est: eas contra unanimem Patrum consensum non interpetrari. Si unquam detur consensus iste unanimis dubitari possit. Eo tamen deficiente, regula ista videtur nobis legem imponere majorem, qui ad unanimitatem accedere videretur, patrum numerum, in suis Scripturae interpretationibus sequendi.' [359] This logical inference is also noticed by Archbishop Kenrick (Concio, in Friedrich's Docum. I. p. 200): 'Praeterea singula verba in ista Christi ad Petrum allocutione de Petri successoribus intelligi nequeunt, quin aliquid maxime absurdi exinde sequi videretur. "Tu autem conversus," respiciunt certe conversionem Petri. Si priora verba; "orari pro te," et posteriora: "confirma fratres tuos," ad successores Petri coelestem vim, et munus transiisse probent, non videtur quarenam intermedia verba: "tu autem conversus," ad eos etiam pertinere, et aliquali sensu de eis intelligi, non debeant.' __________________________________________________________________ S: 35. The Liturgical Standards of the Roman Church. Literature. Missale Romanum, ex decreto sacro-sancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum, S. Pii V., Pontificis Maximi, jussu editum, Clementis VIII. et Urbani VIII. auctoritate recognitum; in quo missae novissimae sanctorum accurate sunt dispositae. (Innumerable editions.) Breviarium Romanum, ex decreto SS. Concilii Tridentini restitutum, S. Pii V., Pontificis Maximi, jussu editum, Clementis VIII. et Urbani VIII. auctoritate recognitum, cum Officiis Sanctorum novissime per Summos Pontifices usque ad hunc diem concessis. (The Paris and Lyons edition before me has over 1200 pp., with a Supplement of 127 pp. The Mechlin ed. of 1868 is in 4 vols.) Pontificale Romanum, Clementis VIII. ac Urbani VIII. jussu, editum, inde vero a Benedicto XIV. recognitum et castigatum. Cum Additionibus a Sacra Rituum Congregatione approbatis. (The Mechlin ed. of 1845 is in three parts, with all the rules and directions printed in red; hence the word Rubrics.) George Lewis: The Bible, the Missal, and the Breviary; or. Ritualism self-illustrated in the Liturgical Books of Rome. Edinburgh, 1863, 2 vols. A secondary symbolical authority belongs to those Latin liturgical works of the Roman Church which have been sanctioned by the Pope for use in public and private worship. They contain, in the form of devotion, nearly all the articles of faith, especially those referring to the sacraments and the cultus of saints and of the holy Virgin, and are, in a practical point of view, even of greater importance than the doctrinal standards, inasmuch as they are interwoven with the daily religious life of the priests. Among these works the most important is the Missale Romanum, as issued by Pius V. in 1570, in compliance with a decree of the Council of Trent. It was subsequently revised again under Clement VIII. in 1604, and under Urban VIII. in 1634. The substance goes back to the early eucharistic services of the Latin Church, among which the principal ones are ascribed to Popes Leo I. (Sacramentarium Leonianum, probably from 483-492), Gelasius I. (Sacramentarium Gelasianum), and Gregory I. (Sacramentarium Gregorianum). But considerable diversity and confusion prevailed in provincial and local churches. Hence the Council of Trent ordered a new revision, under the direction of the Pope, with a view to secure uniformity. The Missal consists of three parts, besides Introduction and Appendix, viz.: (a) The Proprium Missarum de Tempore, or the services for the Sundays of the Christian year, beginning with the first Sunday in Advent, and closing with the last after Whitsuntide, all clustering around the great festivals of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. (b) The Proprium Missarum de Sanctis contains the forms for the celebration of mass on saints' days and other particular feasts, arranged according to the months and days of the civil year; the annually recurring death-days of saints being regarded as their celestial birth-days, (c) The Commune Sanctorum is supplementary to the second part, and devoted to the celebration of the days of those saints for whom there is no special service provided in the Proprium. The Appendix to the Missal contains various masses and benedictions. Next comes the Breviarum Romanum, revised by order of the Council of Trent, under Pius V., 1568, and again under Clement VIII., 1602, and finally brought into its present shape under Urban VIII., 1631. Since that time it has undergone no material changes, but received occasional additions of new festivals. The Breviary [360] contains the prayers, psalms, hymns, Scripture lessons, and patristic comments not only for every Sunday, but for every day of the ecclesiastical year, together with the legends of saints and martyrs, presenting model characters and model devotions for each day, some of them good and harmless, others questionable, superstitious, and childish. The Breviary is a complete thesaurus of Romish piety, the private liturgy of the Romish priest, and to all intents and purposes his Bible. It regulates his whole religious life. It is divided into four parts, according to the four seasons; each part has the same four sections: the Psalterium, the Proprium de Tempore, the Proprium Sanctorum, and the Commune Sanctorum. The Introduction contains the ecclesiastical calendar. The office of each day consists of the seven or eight canonical hours of devotion, which are brought into connection with the history of the passion. [361] The Breviary is the growth of many ages. In the early Church great liberty and diversity prevailed in the forms of devotion, but the Popes Leo I., Gelasius I., Gregory I., Gregory VII., Nicholas III., and others, labored to unify the priestly devotions, and this work was completed after the Council of Trent. Besides the Missale Romanum and the Breviarium Romanum, there is a Rituale Romanum, or Book of Priests' Rites; an Episcopale Romanum, containing the Episcopal ceremonies, and a Pontificale Romanum, or the Pontifical. They contain the offices for sacramental and other sacred acts and ceremonies, such as baptism, confirmation, ordination, matrimony, dedication of churches, altars, bells, etc., benediction of crosses, sacred vestures, cemeteries, etc. __________________________________________________________________ [360] The term Breviary is derived from the abridgments of the Scriptures and lives of saints contained therein, as distinct from the plenarium officium; by others from the fact that later editions of the work are abridgments of former editions. [361] Matins, Lauds (3 A.M.), Prime (6 A.M.), Tierce (9 A.M.), Sext (12 M.), Nones (3 P.M.), Vespers (6 P.M.), and Compline (midnight devotion). The Nocturn is a night service. The custom of saying prayers at these hours goes back to the third century, and partly to Jewish tradition. Tertullian (De jejun. c. 10) speaks of the tertia, sixta, and nona as apostolical hours of prayer. On the mystical reference to Christ's passion, comp. the old memorial verse: 'Haec sunt, septenis propter quae psallimus horis Matutina ligat Christum, qui crimina purgat. Prima replet sputis. Dat causam tertia mortis. Sexta cruci nectit. Latus ejus nona bipertit. Vespera deponit. Tumulo completa [completorium] reponit.' __________________________________________________________________ S: 36. The Old Catholics. Literature. I. By Old Catholic Authors. The writings of Doellinger, Reinkens, von Schulte, Friedrich, Huber, Reusch, Langen, Michelis, Hyacinthe Loyson, Michaud, bearing on the Vatican Council and the Old Catholic movement since 1870. See Literature in S:S: 31 and 34. The Reports of the Old Catholic Congresses, held at Munich, September, 1871; at Cologne, September, 1872; at Constance, September, 1873; at Freiburg, 1874. Published at Munich, Cologne, Leipzig, and Bonn. Joseph Hubert Reinkens: Katholischer Bischof, den im alten Kathol. Glauben verharrenden Priestern und Laien des deutschen Reiches. Dated August 11, 1873 (the day of his consecration). The Letter of the Old Catholic Congress of Constance (signed by Bishop Reinkens, President von Schulte, and the Vice-Presidents Cornelius and Keller) to the General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance, held at New York, October, 1873. In the Proceedings of the Conference, New York, 1874. P. H. Reusch: Bericht ueber die am 14, 15, und 16 Sept. 1874, zu Bonn gehaltenen Unions-Conferenzen, im Auftrag Dr. v. Doellinger herausgegeben, Bonn, 1875 (75 pp.). Deutscher Merkur, Organ fuer die Katholische Reformbewegung, ed. by Hirschwaelder, Weltpriester. The popular aud official weekly organ since 1871. Theologisches Literaturblatt, ed. by Prof. Reusch, Bonn. The literary organ of the Old Catholics (10th year, 1875). II. By Protestant Authors. Friedberg: Sammlung der Actenstuecke zum ersten Vatic. Concil. Tuebingen, 1872, pp. 53-63, 625-731, 775-898. Frommann: Geschichte und Kritik des Vatic. Concils. Gotha, 1872, pp. 250-272. J. Williamson Nevin (of Lancaster, Pa.): The Old Catholic Movement, in the 'Mercersburg Review' for April, 1873, pp. 240-294. The Alt-Catholic Movement (anonymous), in the (Amer. Episc.) 'Church Review,' New York, July, 1873. W. Krafft (Professor of Church History in Bonn): The Vatican Council and the Old Catholic Movement, read before, and published in the Proceedings of, the General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance in New York, October, 1873. Caesar Pronier (late Professor of Theology in the Free Church Seminary at Geneva, perished in the shipwreck of the Ville du Havre, Nov. 22, 1873, on his return from the General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance): Roman Catholicism in Switzerland since the Proclamation of the Syllabus, 1873 (in the Proceedings of the Alliance Conference, New York, 1874). III. By Roman Catholics. Besides many controversial writings since the year 1870 (quoted in part in S:S: 31 and 34, and articles in Roman Catholic reviews (as the Dublin Review, the Civilt`a Cattolica, the Catholic World) and newspapers (as the Paris L'Univers, the London Tablet, the Berlin Germania, etc.), see especially the Papal Encyclical of Nov. 21, 1873, in condemnation of the 'new heretics,' miscalled 'Old Catholics.' The Old Catholic movement--the most important in the Latin Church since the Reformation, with the exception, perhaps, of Jansenism--began during the Vatican Council, and was organized into a distinct Church three years afterwards (1873), at Constance, in the very hall where, three hundred and sixty years before, an oecumenical Council was held which, by deposing two rival Popes and electing another, asserted its superiority over the Papacy, but which, by burning John Huss for teaching evangelical doctrines, defeated its own professed object of a 'Reformation of the Church in the head and the members.' This strange coincidence of history brings to mind Luther's poem on the Belgian martyrs: 'Die Asche will nicht lassen ab, Sie staeubt in allen Landen; Hier hilft kein Loch, noch Grab, noch Grab, Sie macht den Feind zu Schanden.' The God of history has his horas et moras, but he always carries out his designs at last. The Old Catholic secession would have assumed far more formidable proportions, and cut off from the dominion of the Pope the most intelligent and influential dioceses, if the eighty-eight Bishops who in the Vatican Council voted against Papal Infallibility, had carried out their conviction, instead of making their submission for the sake of a hollow peace. But next to the Pope, Bishops, from an instinctive fear of losing power, have always been most hostile to any serious reform. The old story of the Jewish hierarchy, in dealing with Christ and the Apostles, is repeated again and again in the history of the Church, though also with the honorable exceptions of a Nicodemus and Gamaliel. OEcumenical Councils are very apt to give rise to secessions. A conscientious minority will not yield, in matters of faith, to a mere majority vote. Thus the Council of Nicaea (325) was only the signal for a new and more serious war between orthodoxy and the Arian heresy, and, even after the triumph of the former at Constantinople (381), the latter lingered for centuries among the newly converted German races. The Council of Ephesus (431) gave rise to the Nestorian schism, and the Council of Chalcedon (451) to the several Monophysite sects, which continue in the East to this day with almost as much tenacity of life as the orthodox Greek Church. From the sixth oecumenical Council (680) dates the Monothelite schism. The Council of Florence (1439) failed to effect a union between the Latin and the Greek communions. The Council of Trent (1563), instead of healing the split caused by the Reformation, only deepened and perpetuated it by consolidating Romanism and anathematizing evangelical doctrines. The nearest parallel to the case in hand is the schism of the Bishops and clergy of Utrecht, which originated in a protest against the implied Papal Infallibility of the anti-Jansenist bull Unigenitus, and which recently made common cause with the Old Catholics of Germany by giving them the Episcopal succession. The Old Catholic Church in Germany and Switzerland arose from a protest, in the name of conscience, reason, and honest learning, against the Papal absolutism and infallibilism of the Vatican Council, and against the obsolete mediaevalism of the Papal Syllabus. It lifts its voice against unscrupulous Jesuitical falsifications of history, and against that spiritual despotism which requires, as the highest act of piety, the slaughter of the intellect and will, and thereby destroys the sense of personal responsibility. It has in its favor all the traditions of Gallicanism and liberal Catholicism, which place an oecumenical Council or the whole representative Church above the Pope, the testimony of the ancient Graeco-Latin Church, which knew nothing of Papal Infallibility, and even condemned some Popes as heretics, and the current of history, which can not be turned backward. The leaders of the new Church are eminent for learning, ability, moral character, and position, and were esteemed, before the Vatican Council, pillars and ornaments of the Roman Church--viz., Doellinger, [362] Reinkens, [363] Friedrich, [364] Huber, [365] Michelis, [366] Reusch, [367] Langen, [368] von Schulte, [369] and ex-Pere Hyacinthe Loyson. [370] The centres of Old Catholicism are Munich and Bonn in Germany, and Geneva and Soleure (also Olten) in Switzerland. Beyond these two countries it has many isolated sympathies, but no organized form, and no hold upon the people. [371] In September, 1873, the Old Catholics in the German Empire numbered about one hundred congregations (mostly in Prussia, Baden, and Bavaria), forty priests, and fifty thousand professed members. Since their more complete organization they will probably make more rapid progress. Heretofore the movement in Germany has been more scholastic than popular. It has enlisted the sympathies of the educated, but not to an equal extent the enthusiasm of the people. The question of Papal Infallibility has no such direct practical bearing as the question of personal salvation and peace of conscience, which made the Reformation spread with such irresistible power over all Western Christendom. The masses of Roman Catholics are either too ignorant or too indifferent to care much whether another dogma is added to the large number already adopted, and have no more difficulty to believe blindly in Papal Infallibility than in the daily miracle of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass. [372] On the other hand, however, the Old Catholics are powerfully aided by the widespread indignation against priestcraft, and the serious conflict of the German Empire and the Swiss Republic with the Papacy, which was provoked by the Papal Syllabus and the Vatican Council, and may lead to a thorough revision of the ecclesiastical status of the Continent. Their ultimate success as a Church must chiefly depend upon the continued ascendency of the positive Christian element over the negative and radical (which raised and ruined the 'German Catholic' or Ronge movement of 1844); for only the enthusiasm of faith has constructive power, and that spirit of sacrifice and endurance which is necessary for the establishment of permanent institutions. The Old Catholic movement was foreshadowed in the liberal Catholic literature preceding the Vatican Council, especially Janus; it gathered strength during the Council; it uttered itself in a united protest against the decrees of the Council at a meeting of distinguished Catholic scholars at Nuremberg in August, 1870; and it came to an open rupture with Rome by the excommunication of Doellinger and his sympathizers. Being called upon by the Archbishop of Munich (his former pupil, and at first an anti-Infallibilist) to submit to the new dogma of Papal absolutism and Infallibility, Dr. Doellinger, in an open answer dated Munich, March 28,1871, declared that, as a Christian, as a theologian, as a historian, and as a citizen, he could not accept the Vatican decrees, for the reasons that they are inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel and the clear teaching of Christ and the Apostles; that they contradict the whole genuine tradition of the Church; that the attempt to carry out the Papal absolutism had been in times past the cause of endless bloodshed, confusion, and corruption; and that a similar attempt now must lead to an irreconcilable conflict of the Church with the State, and of the clergy with the laity. [373] Whereupon Doellinger was excommunicated April 17, 1871, as being guilty of 'the crime of open and formal heresy.' [374] His colleague, Professor Friedrich, incurred the same fate. Other Bishops, forgetting their recent change of conviction, proceeded with the same rigor against refractory priests. Cardinal Rauscher suspended the Lent preacher Pederzani; Cardinal Schwarzenberg, Professor Pelleter (who afterwards became a Protestant); Bishop Foerster (whose offer to resign was refused by the Pope) suspended Professors Reinkens, Baltzer, and Weber, of Breslau; the Bishop of Ermeland, Professors Michelis and Menzel, and Dr. Wollmann, in Braunsberg; the Archbishop of Cologne deposed the priest Dr. W. Tangermann, of Cologne, and suspended Professors Hilgers, Reusch, Langen, and Knoodt, of Bonn, who, however, supported by the Prussian Government, retained their official positions in the University. In spite of these summary proceedings of the Bishops, the Old Catholic party, aided by the sympathies of the educated classes, made steady progress, organizing congregations, holding annual meetings, and enlisting the secular and religions press. With great prudence the leaders avoided or postponed reforms, till they could be inaugurated and sanctioned by properly constituted authorities, and moved cautiously between a timid conservatism and a radical liberalism; thus retaining a hold on both wings of the nominal Catholic population. In the year 1873 the Old Catholics effected a regular Church organization, and secured a legal status in the German Empire, with the prospect of support from the national treasury. Professor Joseph Hubert Reinkens was elected Bishop by the clergy and the representatives of the laity, and was consecrated at Rotterdam by the Old Catholic Bishop Heykamp, of Deventer (Aug. 11, 1873). [375] He was recognized in his new dignity by the King of Prussia, and took the customary oath of allegiance at Berlin (Oct. 7). Other governments of Germany followed this example. (The Empire as such has nothing to do with the Church.) To complete the organization, the Congress at Constance adopted a synodical and parochial constitution, which makes full provision for an equal share of the laity with the clergy in the government of the Church; the synodical representation (Synodal-Repraesentanz), or executive committee, being composed of five laymen and five clergymen, including the Bishop. [376] This implies the Protestant principle of the general priesthood of believers, and will prevent hierarchical abuses. Certain changes in the cultus, such as the simplification of the mass as a memorial service of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the substitution of the vernacular language for the Latin, the restoring of the cup to the laity, the introduction of more preaching, and the abolition of various abuses (including the forced celibacy of the clergy), will inevitably follow sooner or later. The doctrinal status of the Old Catholic denomination was at first simply Tridentine Romanism versus Vatican Romanism, or the Creed of Pius IV. against the Creed of Pius IX. [377] This is the ground taken by the Old Catholics in Holland, and adhered to by them to this day. But the logic of the protest against modern Popery will hardly allow the Old Catholics of Germany and Switzerland long to remain in this position. Their friendly attitude towards Protestants, as officially shown in their letter to the General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance, is inconsistent with the Tridentine anathemas. Tridentine Romanism, moreover, is as much an innovation on oecumenical Catholicism as the Vatican Romanism is an innovation on that of Trent, and both are innovations in the same line of consolidation of the one-sided principle of authority. There is no stopping at half-way stations. We must go back to the fountain-head, the Word of God, which is the only final and infallible authority in matters of faith, and furnishes the best corrective against all ecclesiastical abuses. The leaders of the Old Catholic Church are evidently on this road. They still adhere to Scripture and tradition, as the joint rule of faith: but they confine tradition to the unanimous consent of the ancient undivided Church, consequently to the oecumenical creeds, which are held in common by Greeks, Latins, and orthodox Protestants. They have been forced to give up their belief in the infallibility of an oecumenical Council, since the Vatican Council, which is as oecumenical (from the Roman point of view) as that of Trent, has sanctioned what they regard as fatal error. Moreover, Bishop Reinkens, in an eloquent speech before the Old Catholic Congress at Constance, disowned all Romish prohibitions of Bible reading, and earnestly encouraged the laity to read the Book of Life, that they may get into direct and intimate communion with God. [378] This communion with God through Christ as the only Mediator, and through his Word as the only rule of faith, is the very soul of evangelical Protestantism. The Scripture principle, consistently carried out, must gradually rule out the unscriptural doctrines and usages sanctioned by the Council of Trent. But it is not necessary on this account that the Old Catholics should ever become Protestants in the historical sense of the term. They may retain those elements of the Catholic system which are not inconsistent with the spirit of the Scriptures, though they may not be expressly sanctioned by the letter. They may occupy a peculiar position of mediation, and in this way contribute their share towards preparing the way for an ultimate reunion of Christendom. And this is their noble aim and desire, openly expressed in a fraternal letter to an assembly of evangelical Christians from nearly all Protestant denominations. They declare: 'We hope and strive for the restoration of the unity of the Christian Church. We frankly acknowledge that no branch of it has exclusively the truth. We hold fast to the ultimate view that upon the foundation of the Gospel, and the doctrines of the Church grounded upon it, and upon the foundation of the ancient, undivided Church, a union of all Christian confessions will be possible through a really oecumenical Council. This is our object and intention in the movement which has led us into close relations with the Evangelical, the Anglican, the Anglo-American, the Russian, and the Greek churches. We know that this goal can not easily be reached, but we see the primary evidences of success in the circumstance that a truly Christian intercourse has already taken place between ourselves and other Christian churches. Therefore we seize with joy the hand of fellowship you have extended to us, and beg you to enter into a more intimate fellowship with us in such a way as may be agreed upon by both parties.' [379] On the other hand, the Old Catholics have extended the hand of fellowship to the Greeks and Anglo-Catholics, and adopted, at a Union Conference held in Bonn, Sept., 1874, an agreement of fourteen theses, as a doctrinal basis of intercommunion between those Churches which recognize, besides the holy Scriptures, the binding authority of the tradition of the undivided Church of the first six centuries. In a second Conference, in 1875, they surrendered the doctrine of the double procession of the Spirit as a peace-offering to the Orientals. [380] In the mean time the Pope has cut off all prospect of reconciliation. In his Encyclical of November 21, 1873, addressed to all the dignitaries of the Roman Church, Pius IX., after unsparingly denouncing the governments of Italy, Switzerland, and Germany, for their cruel persecution of the Church, speaks at length of 'those new heretics, who, by a truly ridiculous abuse of the name, call themselves Old Catholics,' and launches at their 'pseudo-bishop' and all his abettors and helpers the sentence of excommunication, as follows: 'The attempts and the aims of these unhappy sons of perdition appear plainly, both from other writings of theirs and most of all from that impious and most impudent of documents which has lately been published by him whom they have set up for themselves as their so-called bishop. For they deny and pervert the true authority of jurisdiction which is in the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops, the successors of the Blessed Peter and the Apostles, and transfer it to the populace, or, as they say, to the community; they stubbornly reject and assail the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church; and, contrary to the Holy Spirit, who has been promised by Christ to abide in his Church forever, they audaciously affirm that the Roman Pontiff and the whole of the Bishops, priests, and people who are united with him in one faith and communion, have fallen into heresy by sanctioning and professing the definitions of the oecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny even the indefectibility of the Church, blasphemously saying that it has perished throughout the world, and that its visible head and its Bishops have fallen away; and that for this reason it has been necessary for them to restore the lawful Episcopate in their pseudo-bishop, a man who, entering not by the gate, but coming up by another way, has drawn upon his head the condemnation of Christ. 'Nevertheless, those unhappy men who would undermine the foundations of the Catholic religion, and destroy its character and endowments, who have invented such shameful and manifold errors, or, rather, have collected them together from the old store of heretics, are not ashamed to call themselves Catholics, and Old Catholics; while by their doctrine, their novelty, and their fewness they give up all mark of antiquity and of catholicity. . . . 'But these men, going on more boldly in the way of iniquity and perdition, as by a just judgment of God it happens to heretical sects, have wished also to form to themselves a hierarchy, as we have said, and have chosen and set up for themselves as their pseudo-bishop a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith, Joseph Hubert Reinkens; and, that nothing might be wanting to their impudence, for his consecration they have had recourse to those Jansenists of Utrecht whom they themselves, before their falling away from the Church, regarded with other Catholics as heretics and schismatics. Nevertheless this Joseph Hubert Reinkens dares to call himself a bishop, and, incredible as it may seem, the most serene Emperor of Germany has by public decree named and acknowledged him as a Catholic bishop, and exhibited him to all his subjects as one who is to be regarded as a lawful bishop, and as such to be obeyed. But the very rudiments of Catholic teaching declare that no one can be held to be a lawful bishop who is not joined in communion of faith and charity to the rock on which the One Church of Christ is built; who does not adhere to the supreme pastor to whom all the sheep of Christ are committed to be fed; who is not united to the confirmer of the brotherhood which is in the world.' [This cuts off all Greek Bishops as well. Then follow the usual patristic texts for the pretensions of Rome.] 'We therefore, who have been placed, undeserving as we are, in the Supreme See of Peter for the guardianship of the Catholic faith, and for the maintenance of the unity of the universal Church, according to the custom and, example of our predecessors and their holy decrees, by the power given us from on high, not only declare the election of the said Joseph Hubert Reinkens to be contrary to the holy canons, unlawful, and altogether null and void, and denounce and condemn his consecration as sacrilegious; but by the authority of Almighty God we declare the said Joseph Hubert--together with those who have taken part in his election and sacrilegious consecration, and whoever adhere to and follow the same, giving aid, favor, or consents--excommunicated under anathema, separated from the communion of the Church, and to be reckoned among those whose fellowship has been forbidden to the faithful by the Apostle, so that they are not so much as to say to them, God speed you!' As the Pope's letter of complaint to the Emperor of Germany (August, 1873), in which he claims jurisdiction, in some sense, over all baptized Christians, called forth a courteous and pointed reply from the Emperor disclaiming all intention of persecuting the Catholic Church while defending the rights of the civil government against the encroachments of the hierarchy, and informing his Infallibility that Protestants recognize no other mediator between God and themselves than the Lord Jesus Christ; so this Encyclical was met by an able, dignified, and manly Pastoral from Bishop Reinkens, dated Bonn, December 14, 1873, in which, after refuting the accusations of the Pope, he closes with the following words: 'Brethren in the Lord, what shall we do when Pius IX. exhausts the language of reproach and calumny, and calls us even the most miserable sons of perdition (miserrimi isti perditionis filii), to embitter the uninquiring multitude against us? If we are true disciples of Jesus--as we trust--we have that peace which the Lord gives, and not the world, and our "heart will not be troubled, neither be afraid" (John xiv. 27). O how sweetly sounds the exhortation: "Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not;" "Recompense to no man evil for evil;" "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (Rom. xii. 14, 17, 18); "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matt. v. 44, 45). Let us look up to Christ, our example, "who, when he was reviled, reviled not again" (1 Pet. ii. 21-23). "The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds through Jesus Christ."' The Swiss Federal Government, in answer to the charges raised against it in the same Encyclical, has broken off all diplomatic intercourse with the Papal court. In a new Encyclical of March 23, 1875, addressed to the Bishops of Switzerland, Pious IX. confirmed the condemnation of Nov. 21, 1873, and hurled it with increased severity against the Old Catholics of that country, 'who attack the very foundations of the Catholic religion, boldly reject the dogmatic definitions of the Council of the Vatican, and by every means labor for the ruin of souls.' He calls upon the faithful to 'avoid their religious ceremonies, their instructions, their chairs of doctrinal pestilence, which they have the audacity to set up for the purpose of betraying the sacred doctrines, their writings, and contact with them. Let them have no part, no relation of any kind, with those intruding priests and the apostates who dare exercise the functions of the ecclesiastical ministry, and who have absolutely no jurisdiction and no legitimate mission at all. Let them hold them in horror as strangers and thieves, who come only to steal, assassinate, and destroy.' The Old Catholic movement in Switzerland is more radical and political than the German, and bears a similar relation to it as the Zwinglian Reformation does to the Lutheran. Edward Herzog, an able and worthy priest of Olten, was elected first bishop by the Swiss Synod, and consecrated by Bishop Reinkens at Rheinfelden, Sept. 18, 1876. __________________________________________________________________ [362] Dr. John Jos. Ignat. von Doellinger, of Munich (born 1799), the Nestor of Old Catholicism, is the author of an unfinished Church History (Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, Regensburg, second edition, 1843, to Leo X.), a polemic work against the Reformation (Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwickelung und ihre Wirkungen, 1846-48, 3 vols.), a Sketch of Luther (1851), Judaism and Heathenism in Relation to Christianity (1857), The Church and the Churches (1860), Fables of Popes and Prophecies of the Middle Ages (1863; English translation, with a Preface by Prof. Henry B. Smith, New York, 1872), and a number of essays and pamphlets. He also edited the miscellaneous writings of Moehler, after whose death he was regarded as the foremost Roman Catholic Church historian. Since his excommunication he delivered, in the great hall of the Museum at Munich, seven interesting lectures On the Reunion of the Churches (English translation, with Preface by H. N. Oxenham, of Oxford; republished, New York, 1872). He was Rector of the University of Munich during its Jubilee year, 1871-72, and at the celebration of the Jubilee, in July, 1872, he acquitted himself with marked ability and scholarly dignity, and received from the University, the King of Bavaria, and foreign scholars, the highest honors. [Doellinger, d. 1890, unreconciled to the papal government. For his later judgment on Luther and the Prot. Reformation, see his Akad. Vortr. I., 76, and Schaff: Our Fathers' Faith and Ours, pp. 108, 635. Works not given above: Beitraege zur Sektengesch. des M. A., 1890, Akad. Vortraege, 3 vols., pp. 188-91, and, in connection with Prof. Reusch, Selbstbiographie des Kard. Bellarmin, 1887.--Ed.] [363] Formerly Catholic Professor of Church History in the University of Breslau, now Bishop of the Old Catholic Church in Germany. He resides at Bonn, and is a gentleman of great popular eloquence and winning manners. [364] Professor of Church History in Munich, editor of the Documenta ad illustrandum Conc. Vaticanum (2 vols.), and of the Diary (Tagebuch waehrend des Vatic. Concils), which gives an inside view of the Council from his intimate connection with members. [365] Professor of Philosophy at Munich, and author of works on the Philosophy of the Fathers, on Jesuitism, and against the last book of Strauss on The Old and New Faith. [366] Formerly professor at Braunsberg, and once Catholic member of the Prussian Chamber of Deputies, now pastor of the Old Catholic congregation at Zurich, an elderly gentleman of much learning and eloquence. [367] Professor of Theology in Bonn, editor of the literary organ of the Old Catholics, and Acting Secretary of Bishop Reinkens. [368] Likewise Professor of Theology in Bonn, and author of a learned work on the Vatican decrees examined in the light of Catholic tradition (1873). [369] The first canonist of Europe, the lay leader of Old Catholicism, and able president of its Congresses, formerly Professor of Canon Law in Prague, now in the University of Bonn. Before the Council he received many letters and tokens of respect from Pope Pius IX. [370] Born at Orleans, 1827, priest and monk of the order of the Carmelites, formerly esteemed the most eloquent preacher in France. He broke with his order and with Rome in 1869, and is now settled at Geneva as pastor of an Old Catholic congregation. His marriage to an American widow (1872) created almost as much sensation as Luther's marriage to a nun. He has recently withdrawn from state control, and established an independent Church (1874). [371] The German origin of the movement operates against it in France, which, with all its Gallican traditions, has, for political reasons, since the war of 1870, become more Romish than it ever was before. When Voelk, at the Old Catholic Congress in Constance, alluded to the uprising of the Deutschthum versus the Welschthum, and the intrigues of French Jesuits, Hyacinthe and Pressense left the hall. Yet the Old Catholic priests, who were elected pastors of Geneva by the Catholic part of the population in October, 1873--Loyson, Hurtault, and Charard--are all Frenchmen. Once more Geneva seems to become the centre and starting-point of a new reformation, which sooner or later will react upon France. Abbe Michaud, formerly of the Madeleine in Paris, so far is the only prominent Old Catholic in France. Among the Irish Catholics there is not the least indication of sympathy with Old Catholicism, not even in free America. Spain and Italy ought to sympathize with it, for the Pope is the implacable enemy of Italian unity and the Spanish republic; but they have kept aloof so far from any progressive religious movement; and Spain has once more surrendered herself to the rule of a Bourbon and the Pope (1875). In England, the famous pamphlet of Gladstone on the Vatican Decrees (1874) has brought to light the Old Catholic sympathies of Lord Acton and other prominent English Catholics. [372] When in Cologne, July, 1873, I asked a domestic of one of the first hotels where the Old Catholics worshiped. He promptly replied, 'You mean the New Protestants. I have nothing to do with sects; I am a true Catholic, and mean to die one.' This seemed to me characteristic of the popular feeling in Cologne. The Dome was well filled with worshipers all Sunday, while the Old Catholics had a small though intelligent and respectable congregation in the Garrison Church, and in the small chapel at the City Hall. Dr. Tangermann read Latin mass like a Romish priest, but preached an evangelical sermon in German which would do credit to any Protestant pastor. [373] The following is the memorable protest of this aged divine, which reminds one of Luther's more bold and defiant refusal at Worms to recant his writings unless convicted of error from Scripture and reason: 'Als Christ, als Theologe, als Geschichtskundiger, als Buerger kann ich diese Lehre nicht annehmen. Nicht als Christ: denn sie ist unvertraeglich mit dem Geiste des Evangeliums and mit den klaren Ausspruechen Christi und der Apostel; sie will gerade das Imperium dieser Welt aufrichten, welches Christus ablehnte, will die Herrschaft ueber die Gemeinden, welche Petrus allen und sich selbst verbot. Nicht als Theologe: denn die gesammte echte Tradition der Kirche steht ihr unversoehnlich entgegen. Nicht als Geschichtskenner kann ich sie annehmen, denn als solcher weiss ich, dass das beharrliche Streben, diese Theorie der Weltherrschaft zu verwirklichen, Europa Stroeme van Blut gekostet, ganze Laender vewirrt und heruntergebracht, den schoenen organischen Verfassungsbau der aelteren Kirche zerruettet und die aergsten Missbraeuche in der Kirche erzeugt, genaehrt und festgehalten hat. Als Buerger endlich muss ich sie von mir weisen, well sie mit ihren Anspruechen auf Unterwerfung der Staaten und Monarchen und der ganzen politischen Ordnung unter die paepstliche Gewalt und durch die eximirte Stellung, welche sie fuer den Klerus fordert, den Grund legt zu endloser verderblicher Zwietracht zwischen Staat und Kirche, zwischen Geistlichen und Laien. Denn das kann ich mir nicht verbergen, dass diese Lehre, an deren Folgen das alte deutsche Reich zu Grunde gegangen ist, falls sie bei dem katholischen Theil der deutschen Nation herrschend wuerde, sofort auch den Keim eines unheilbaren Siechthums in das eben erbaute neue 'Reich verpflanzen wuerde.'--J. von Doellinger's Erklaerung an den Erzbishof von Muenchen-Freising, Muenchen, 1871, p. 17 sq. [374] 'Crimen haereseos externae et formalis.' [375] In his Pastoral Letter, Bishop Reinkens disclaims all hierarchical ambition, vain show, and display, and promises to exercise his office in the spirit of apostolic simplicity as a pastor of the flock. He lays great stress on the primitive Catholic mode of his election by the clergy and the people, as contrasted with the modern election by the Pope. He claims to stand in the rank of Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and those thousands of Bishops who never were elected by the Pope, or were even known to the Pope, and yet are recognized as truly Catholic Bishops. Consecration by one Bishop is canonically valid, though two or more assistant Bishops are usually present. The late Archbishop Loos of Utrecht would have performed the act, had he not died a few months before. Rome, of course, considers this election and consecration by excommunicated priests as a mere farce and a damnable rebellion. See the Pope's Encyclical of Nov. 21, 1872, quoted below. [376] See the Entwurf einer Synodal- und Gemeinde-Ordnung, Sect. III. S:S: 13 and 14: 'In der Leitung des altkatholischen Gemeinwesens steht dem Bischof eine von der Synode gewaehlte Synodal-Repraesentanz zur Seite. Die Synodal-Repraesentanz besteht aus vier Geistlichen und fuenf Laien.' [377] Their original programme, adopted at the first Congress at Munich, September 21, 1871, probably drawn up by Doellinger, was very conservative, and included the following articles: 1. We hold fast to the Catholic faith as certified by Scriptures and tradition, and also to the Old Catholic worship. We reject from this stand-point the new dogmas enacted under the pontificate of Pius IX., especially that regarding the infallibility and supreme ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope. 2. We hold fast to the old constitution of the Church, and reject every attempt to deprive the Bishops of their diocesan independence. We acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, on the ground of the Fathers and Councils of the undivided Church of antiquity; but we deny the right of the Pope to define any article of faith, except in agreement with the holy Scriptures and the ancient and unanimous tradition of the Church. 3. We aim at a reformation of various abuses of the Church, and a restoration of the rights of the laity in ecclesiastical affairs. 4. We hope for a reunion with the Greek and Orthodox Russian Church, and for an ultimate fraternal understanding with the other Christian confessions, especially the Episcopal churches of England and America. [378] I give a few extracts from this address, which was delivered in the famous Council Hall of Constance, and received with great applause by the crowded assembly: 'The holy Scripture is the reflection of the sun of righteousness which appeared in Jesus Christ our Lord. I say, therefore, Read the holy Scriptures. I say more: For the Old Catholics who intrust themselves to my episcopal direction, there exists no prohibition of the reading of the Bible. . . . Let nothing hinder you from approaching the Gospel, that you may hear the voice of the Bridegroom (John iii. 29). Listen to his voice, and remember that, as the flower turns to the light, and never unfolds all its splendor and beauty except by constantly turning to the light of the sun, thus also the Christian's soul can not represent the full beauty and glory of its divine likeness except by constantly turning to this Gospel, in the rays of which its own fire is kindled. . . . Do not read the Scriptures from curiosity, to find things which are not to be revealed in this world; nor presumptuously, to brood over things which can not be explained by men; nor for the sake of controversy, to refute others; but read the Scriptures to enter into the most intimate communion with God, so that you may be able to say, Nothing shall separate me from the love of Christ. . . . It is not sufficient to have the Bible in every house, and to read it at certain hours in a formal and fragmentary manner, but it ought to be the light of the soul, to which it turns again and again. I repeat it once more: For the Old Catholics, no injunction exists against reading the Bible. On the contrary, I admonish you most earnestly: Read again and again in this holy book, sitting down in humility and joy at the feet of the Lord, for He alone has words of eternal life.' [379] Letter of the Congress of Constance, September, 1873, to the General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance in New York. Comp. also Doellinger's Lectures on the Reunion of the Churches, and Hyacinthe Loyson's letter to the General Conference in New York. [380] See the documents of the two Bonn Conferences, at the close of Vol. II. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ FIFTH CHAPTER THE CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL CHURCHES. General Literature. There are no complete collections of Protestant Creeds, but several separate collections of the Lutheran and of the Reformed Creeds, which will be noticed below under the proper sections. The Corpus et Syntagma, Confessionum fidei, Genev. 1654, is chiefly Calvinistic, and the Oxford Sylloge Confessionum sub tempus reformandae ecclesiae editarum, 1827 (pp. 454), contains only six confessions (including the Prof. Fidei Trid. and the Confessio Saxonica). On the general history and principles of the Reformation, the reader is referred to the works, correspondence, and numerous biographies of the Reformers (e.g. the Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bretschneider and Bindseil: Luther's Letters, by De Wette, supplemented by Seidemann: Calvin's Works, new edition by Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss; his Letters, by Bonnet; Herminjard's Correspondance des Reformateurs dans les pays de langue franc,aise; Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, etc.; the publications of the Parker Society); and the historical works of Sleidan, Seckendorf, Salig, De Thou, Hottinger, Hess, Marheineke, Ranke, Merle D'aubigne, Hagenbach (fourth edition, 1870), Geo. P. Fisher; also Schaff (Principle of Protestantism, 1845), Dorner (Geschichte der Protest. Theologie, 1867, pp. 77-329, Engl. transl. Edinb. 1871, 2 vols.), Kahnis (Die Deutsche Reformation, Leipz. 1872). See lists of literature in Gieseler, Church History, Vol. IV. pp. 9 sqq. (Anglo-Amer. edition), and Geo. P. Fisher (of Yale College), The Reformation, New York, 1873, Appendix II. pp. 567-591. __________________________________________________________________ S: 37. The Reformation. Protestantism and Romanism. Protestant Christendom has a nominal membership of about one hundred millions, chiefly in the northern and western parts of Europe and America, and among the most vigorous and hopeful nations of the earth. It represents modern or progressive Christianity, while Romanism is mediaeval Christianity in conflict with modern progress, and the Eastern Church ancient Christianity in repose. We must first of all distinguish between evangelical or orthodox Protestantism, which agrees with the Greek and Roman Church in accepting the holy Scriptures and the oecumenical faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, and heretical or radical Protestantism, which dissents from the oecumenical consensus, and makes a new departure either in a mystical or in a rationalistic direction. The former constitutes the great body of nominal Protestantism, and is the subject of this chapter. It includes, in the first line, the Lutheran and the Reformed Confessions, or the various national churches of the Reformation in Europe and their descendants in America; and then, in the second line, all those denominations which have proceeded or seceded from them, mostly on questions of government or minor points of doctrine, without departing from the essential articles of their faith, such as the Moravians, Methodists, Mennonites, Baptists, Quakers, Irvingites, and a number of free churches holding to the voluntary principle. The various Evangelical Protestant churches, viewed as distinct ecclesiastical organizations and creeds, take their rise directly or indirectly from the sixteenth century; but their principles are rooted and grounded in the New Testament, and have been advocated more or less clearly, in part or in full, by spiritual and liberal minded divines in every age of the Church. The stream of Latin or Western Christianity was divided in the sixteenth century; the main current moving cautiously and majestically in the old mediaeval channel, the other boldly cutting several new beds for the overflowing waters, and rushing forward, at first with great rapidity and energy, then slacking its speed, and then resuming its forward march with the tide of emigration in a western direction, whither, in the prophetic language of the great English idealist, 'the course of empire takes its way.' The Reformation of the sixteenth century is, next to the introduction of Christianity, the greatest event in history. It was no sudden revolution; for what has no roots in the past can have no permanent effect upon the future. It was prepared by the deeper tendencies and aspirations of previous centuries, and, when finally matured, it burst forth almost simultaneously in all parts of Western Christendom. It was not a superficial amendment, not a mere restoration, but a regeneration; not a return to the Augustinian, or Nicene, or ante-Nicene age, but a vast progress beyond any previous age or condition of the Church since the death of St. John. It went, through the intervening ages of ecclesiasticism, back to the fountain-head of Christianity itself, as it came from the lips of the Son of God and his inspired Apostles. It was a deeper plunge into the meaning of the Gospel than even St. Augustine had made. It brought out from this fountain a new phase and type of Christianity, which had never as yet been fully understood and appreciated in the Church at large. It was, in fact, a new proclamation of the free Gospel of St. Paul, as laid down in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. It was a grand act of emancipation from the bondage of the mediaeval hierarchy, and an assertion of that freedom wherewith Christ has made us free. It inaugurated the era of manhood and the general priesthood of believers. It taught the direct communion of the believing soul with Christ. It removed the obstructions of legalism, sacerdotalism, and ceremonialism, which, like the traditions of the Pharisees of old, had obscured the genuine Gospel and made void the Word of God. [381] We do not depreciate mediaeval Catholicism, the womb of the Reformation, the grandmother of modern civilization. It was an inestimable blessing in its time. When we speak of the 'dark ages,' we should never forget that the Church was the light in that darkness. She was the training-school of the Latin, Celtic, and Teutonic (partly also the Sclavonic) races in their childhood and wild youth. She gave them Christianity in the shape of a new theocracy, with a priesthood, minute laws, rites, and ceremonies. She acted as a bulwark against the despotism of the civil and military power, and she defended the moral interests, the ideal pursuits, and the rights of the people. But the discipline of law creates a desire which it can not satisfy, and points beyond itself, to independence and self-government: the law is a schoolmaster to lead men to the freedom of the Gospel. When the mediaeval Church had fulfilled her great mission in Christianizing and civilizing (to a certain degree) the Western and Northern barbarians, the time was fulfilled, and Christianity could now enter upon the era of evangelical faith and freedom. And this is Protestantism. If it were a mere negation of popery, it would have vanished long since, leaving no wreck behind. It is constructive as well as destructive; it protests from the positive basis of the Gospel. It attacks human authority from respect for divine authority; it sets the Word of God over all the wisdom of men. The Reformation was eminently practical in its motive and aim. It started from a question of conscience: 'How shall a sinner be justified before God?' And this is only another form of the older and broader question: 'What shall I do to be saved?' The answer given by the Reformers (German, Swiss, French, English, and Scotch), with one accord, from deep spiritual struggle and experience, was: 'By faith in the all-sufficient merits of Christ, as exhibited in the holy Scriptures.' And by faith they understood not a mere intellectual assent to the truth, or a blind submission to the outward authority of the Church, but a free obedience, a motion of the will, a trust of the heart, a personal attachment and unconditional surrender of the whole soul to Christ, as the only Saviour from sin and death. The absolute supremacy and sufficiency of Christ and his Gospel in doctrine and life, in faith and practice, is the animating principle, the beating heart of the Reformation, and the essential unity of Protestantism to this day. Here lies its vitality and constructive power. From this central point the whole theology and Church life was directly or indirectly affected, and a new impulse given to the history of the world in every direction. The Reformers were baptized, confirmed, and educated, most of them also ordained, in the Catholic Church, and had at first no intention to leave it, but simply to purify it by the Word of God. They shrank from the idea of schism, and continued, like The Apostles, in the communion of their fathers until they were expelled from it. When the Pope refused to satisfy the reasonable demand for a reformation of abuses, and hurled his anathemas on the reformers, they were driven to the necessity of organizing new churches and setting forth new confessions of faith, but they were careful to maintain and express in them their consensus with the old Catholic faith as laid down in the Apostles' Creed. The doctrinal principle of evangelical Protestantism, as distinct from Romanism, is twofold--objective and subjective. The objective (generally called the formal} principle maintains the absolute sovereignty of the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith and life, in opposition to the Roman doctrine of the Bible and tradition, as co-ordinate rules of faith. Tradition is not set aside altogether, but is subordinated, and its value made to depend upon the measure of its agreement with the Word of God. The subjective (commonly called the material) principle is the doctrine of justification by the free grace of God through a living faith in Christ, as the only and sufficient Saviour, in opposition to the Roman doctrine of (progressive) justification by faith and good works, as co-ordinate conditions of justification. Good works are held by Protestants to be necessary, not as means and conditions, but as results and evidences, of justification. To these two principles may be added, as a third, the social principle, which affects chiefly the government and discipline of the Church, namely, the universal priesthood of believers, in opposition to the exclusive priesthood of the clergy. Protestantism emancipates the laity from slavish dependence on the teaching and governing priesthood, and gives the people a proper share in all that concerns the interests and welfare of the Church; in accordance with the teaching of St. Peter, who applies the term clergy ( kleros, heritage, 1 Pet. v. 3) to the congregation, and calls all Christians 'living stones' in the spiritual house of God, to offer up 'spiritual sacrifices,' 'a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people,' setting forth 'the praises of him who called them out of darkness into his marvelous light' (1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; comp. v. 1-4; Rev. i. 6; v. 10; xx. 6). It is impossible to reduce the fundamental difference between Protestantism and Romanism to a single formula without doing injustice to the one or the other. We should not forget that there are evangelical elements in Romanism, as there are legalistic and Romanizing tendencies in certain schools of Protestantism. But if we look at the prevailing character and the most prominent aspects of the two systems, we may draw the following contrasts: Protestantism corresponds to the Gentile type of Apostolic Christianity, as represented by Paul; Romanism, to the Jewish type, as represented by James and Peter, though not in Peter's Epistles (where he prophetically warns against the fruitful germ of the Papacy, viz., hierarchical pride and assumption), but in his earlier stage and official position as the Apostle of circumcision. Paul was called afterwards, somewhat irregularly and outside of the visible succession, as the representative of a new and independent apostolate of the Gentiles. The temporary collision of Paul and Peter at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11) foreshadows and anticipates the subsequent antagonism between Protestantism and Catholicism. Protestantism is the religion of freedom (Gal. v. 1); Romanism, the religion of authority. The former is mainly subjective, and makes religion a personal concern; the latter is objective, and sinks the individual in the body of the Church. The Protestant believes on the ground of his own experience, the Romanist on the testimony of the Church (comp. John iv. 42). Protestantism is the religion of evangelism and spiritual simplicity; Romanism, the religion of legalism, asceticism, sacerdotalism, and ceremonialism. The one appeals to the intellect and conscience, the other to the senses and the imagination. The one is internal, the other external, and comes with outward observation. Protestantism is the Christianity of the Bible; Romanism, the Christianity of tradition. The one directs the people to the fountain-head of divine revelation, the other to the teaching priesthood. The former freely circulates the Bible, as a book for the people; the latter keeps it for the use of the clergy, and overrules it by its traditions. Protestantism is the religion of immediate communion of the soul with Christ through personal faith; Romanism is the religion of mediate communion through the Church, and obstructs the intercourse of the believer with his Saviour by interposing an army of subordinate mediators and advocates. The Protestant prays directly to Christ; the Romanist usually approaches him only through the intercession of the blessed Virgin and the saints. Protestantism puts Christ before the Church, and makes Christliness the standard of sound churchliness; Romanism virtually puts the Church before Christ, and makes churchliness the condition and measure of piety. [382] Protestantism claims to be only one, but the most advanced portion of the Church of Christ; Romanism identifies itself with the whole Catholic Church, and the Church with Christianity itself. The former claims to be the safest, the latter the only way to salvation. Protestantism is the Church of the Christian people; Romanism is the Church of priests, and separates them by education, celibacy, and even by their dress as widely as possible from the laity. Protestantism is the Christianity of personal conviction and inward experience; Romanism, the Christianity of outward institutions and sacramental observances, and obedience to authority. The one starts from Paul's, the other from James's doctrine of justification. The one lays the main stress on living faith, as the principle of a holy life; the other on good works, as the evidence of faith and the condition of justification. Protestantism proceeds from the invisible Church to the visible; Rome, vice versa, from the visible to the invisible. [383] Protestantism is progressive and independent; Romanism, conservative and traditional. The one is centrifugal, the other centripetal. The one is exposed to the danger of radicalism and endless division; the other to the opposite danger of stagnation and mechanical and tyrannical uniformity. The exclusiveness and anti-Christian pretensions of the Papacy, especially since it claims infallibility for its visible head, make it impossible for any Church to live with it on terms of equality and sincere friendship. And yet we should never forget the difference between Popery and Catholicism, nor between the system and its followers. It becomes Protestantism, as the higher form of Christianity, to be liberal and tolerant even towards intolerant Romanism. __________________________________________________________________ [381] It is significant that Christ uses paradosis, tradition, only in an unfavorable sense, as opposed to the Word of God, viz., Matt. xv. 3, 6; Mark vii. 5, 8, 9, 13. Paul employs the term in a bad sense, Gal. i. 14 and Col. ii. 8: in a good sense, of the doctrines of the Gospel, 1 Cor. xi. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6. [382] This is no doubt the meaning of Schleiermacher's famous formula (Der Christliche Glaube, Vol. I. S: 24): 'Protestantism makes the relation of the individual to the Church dependent on his relation to Christ; Catholicism, vice versa, makes the relation of the individual to Christ dependent on his relation to the Church.' His pupil and successor, Dr. Twesten, puts the distinction in this way: 'Catholicism emphasizes the first, Protestantism the second, clause of the passage of Irenaeus: "Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace."' [383] This is the distinction made by Moehler, who thereby inconsistently admits the essential truth of the Protestant distinction between the visible and invisible Church, which Bellarmin denies as an empty abstraction. __________________________________________________________________ S: 38. The Evangelical Confessions of Faith. The Evangelical Confessions of faith date mostly from the sixteenth century (1530 to 1577), the productive period of Protestantism, and are nearly contemporaneous with the Tridentine standards of the Church of Rome. They are the work of an intensely theological and polemical age, when religious controversy absorbed the attention of all classes of society. They embody the results of the great conflict with the Papacy. A smaller class of Confessions (as the Articles of Dort and the Westminster Standards) belongs to the seventeenth century, and grew out of internal controversies among Protestants themselves. The eighteenth century witnessed a powerful revival of practical religion and missionary zeal through the labors of the Pietists and Moravians in Germany, and the Methodists in England and North America, but, in its ruling genius, it was irreligious and revolutionary, and undermined the authority of all creeds. In the nineteenth century a new interest in the old creeds was awakened, and several attempts were made to reduce the lengthy confessions to brief popular summaries, or to formularize the doctrinal consensus of the different evangelical denominations. The present tendency among Protestants is to diminish rather than to increase the number of articles of faith, and to follow in any new formula the simplicity of the Apostles' Creed; while Romanism pursues the opposite course. The symbols of the Reformation are very numerous, but several of them were merely provisional, and subsequently superseded by maturer statements of doctrine. Some far exceed the proper limits of a creed, and are complete systems of theology for the use of the clergy. It was a sad mistake and a source of incalculable mischief to incorporate the results of every doctrinal controversy with the confession of faith, and to bind lengthy discussions, with all their metaphysical distinctions and subtleties, upon the conscience of every minister and teacher. There is a vast difference between theological opinions and articles of faith. The development of theology as a science must go on, and will go on in spite of all these shackles. As to the theology of the confessions of orthodox Protestantism, we may distinguish in them three elements, the oecumenical, the Augustinian, and the evangelical proper. 1. The oecumenical element. In theology and Christology the Protestant symbols agree with the Greek and Roman Churches, and also in the other articles of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds from the creation of the world to the resurrection of the body. 2. The Augustinian element is found in anthropology, or the doctrines of sin and grace, predestination, and perseverance. Here the Protestant confessions agree with the system of Augustine, who had more influence upon the reformers than any uninspired teacher. The Latin Church during the Middle Ages had gradually fallen into Pelagian and semi-Pelagian doctrines and practices, although these had been condemned in the fifth century. The Calvinistic confessions, however, differ from the Lutheran in the logical conclusions derived from the Augustinian premises, which they hold in common. 3. The Evangelical Protestant and strictly original element is found in soteriology, and in all that pertains to subjective Christianity, or the personal appropriation of salvation. Here belong the doctrines of the rule of faith, of justification by faith, of the nature and office of faith and good works, of the assurance of salvation; here also the protest against all those doctrines of Romanism which are deemed inconsistent with the Scripture principle and with justification by faith. The papacy, the sacrifice of the mass, transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, meritorious and hypermeritorious works, the worship of saints, images, and relics are rejected altogether, while the doctrine of the Church and the Sacraments was essentially modified. __________________________________________________________________ S: 39. The Lutheran and Reformed Confessions. Literature. Max. Goebel : Die religioese Eigenthuemlichkeit der luther. und reformirten Kirche. Bonn, 1837. (This book started a good deal of discussion in Germany on the peculiar genius of the two churches.) C. B. Hundeshagen : Die Conflicte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums, und Calvinismus in der Bernischen Landeskirche von 1522-1558. Berne, 1843. (The esteemed author died in Bonn, 1872.) Merle D'aubigne (d. 1872): Luther and Calvin, translated into English, New York, 1846. Alex. Schweizer : Glaubenslehre der reformirten Kirche. Zuerich, 1844, Vol. I. pp. 7-83. M. Schneckenburger : Vergleichende Darstellung des luther. und reform. Lehrbegriffs. Stuttgart, 1855, 2 vols. (Very acute and discriminating.) Comp. the introduction by Gueder, the editor. Philip Schaff: Germany; its Universities, Theology, and Religion. Philadelphia, 1857, Ch. xviii. and xx., Lutheranism and Reform and the Evang. Union, pp. 167-185. Essays on the same subject by Luecke, in the Deutsche Zettschrift, Berlin, for 1853, Nos. 3 sqq.; Hagenbach, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1854, Vol. I. pp. 23-34. Jul. Mueller (Professor in Halle): Lutheri et Calvini sententiae de Sacra Coena inter se comparatae, Halle, 1858. Also in his Dogmatische Abhandlungen, Bremen, 1870, pp. 404-467. Catholicism assumed from the beginning, and retains to this day, two distinct and antagonistic types, the Greek and the Roman, which represent a Christian transformation of the antecedent and underlying nationalities of speculative Greece and world-conquering Rome. In like manner, but to a much larger extent (as may be expected from the greater liberty allowed to national and individual rights and peculiarities), is Protestantism divided since the middle of the sixteenth century into the Lutheran and the Reformed Confessions. To the former belong the established churches in most of the German States, in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, and all others which call themselves after Luther; the Reformed--in the historical arid Continental sense of the term [384] --embraces the national evangelical churches of Switzerland, France, Holland, some parts of Germany, England, Scotland, with their descendants in America and the British colonies. The designation Reformed is insufficient to cover all the denominations and sects which have sprung directly or indirectly from this family since the Reformation, especially in England during the conflict of the Established Church with Puritanism and nonconformity; and hence in English and American usage it has given way to sectional and specific titles, such as Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Wesleyans or Methodists, etc. The term Calvinism designates not a church, but a theological school in the Reformed Church, which in some sections allows also Arminian views. Puritanism, likewise, is not a term for a distinct ecclesiastical organization, but for a tendency and party which exerted a powerful influence in the Anglican and other Reformed Churches on questions of doctrine, government, discipline, and worship. Among the original Reformed Churches the Anglican stands out in many respects distinctly as a third type of Protestantism: it is the most powerful and the most conservative of all the national or established churches of the Reformation, and retains the entire basis of the mediaeval hierarchy, without the papacy; it is a compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism, cemented by the royal supremacy, and leaves room, for Romanizing high-churchism and Puritanic low-churchism, as well as for intervening broad-churchism. But its original doctrinal status was moderately Calvinistic, and for a time it made even common cause with the ultra-Calvinistic Synod of Dort. The doctrinal difference between Lutheranism and Reform was originally confined to two articles, namely, the nature of Christ's presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the extent of God's sovereignty in the ante-historic and premundane act of predestination. At the Conference held in Marburg, Luther and Zwingli agreed in fourteen and a half articles, and differed only in the other half of the fifteenth article, concerning the real presence. [385] The Swiss reformer saw in this difference no obstacle to fraternal fellowship with the Wittenbergers, with whom, he said, he would rather agree than with any people on earth, and, with tears in his eyes, he extended his hand to Luther; but the great man, otherwise so generous and liberal, who had himself departed from the Catholic Church in much more essential points, felt compelled in his conscience to withhold his hand on account of a general difference of 'spirit,' [386] which revealed itself in subsequent controversies, and defeated many attempts at reunion. The internal quarrels among Christian brethren, which are found more or less in all denominations and ages, [387] are the most humiliating and heart-sickening chapters in Church history, but they are overruled by Providence for the fuller development of theology, a wider spread of Christianity, and a deeper divine harmony, which will ultimately, in God's own good time, spring out of human discord. The two great families of Protestantism are united in all essential articles of faith, and their members may and ought to cultivate intimate Christian fellowship without sacrifice of principle or loyalty to their communion. Yet they are distinct ecclesiastical individualities, and Providence has assigned them peculiar fields of labor. Their differences in theology, government, worship, and mode of piety are rooted in diversities of nationality, psychological constitution, education, external circumstances, and gifts of the Spirit. 1. The Lutheran Church arose in monarchical Germany, and bears the impress of the German race, of which Luther was the purest and strongest type. The Reformed Church began, almost simultaneously, in republican Switzerland, and spread in France, Holland, England, and Scotland. The former extended, indeed, to kindred Scandinavia, and, by emigration, to more distant countries. But outside of Germany it is stunted in its normal growth, or undergoes, with the change of language and nationality, an ecclesiastical transformation. [388] The Reformed Church, on the other hand, while it originated in the German cantons of Switzerland, and found a home in several important parts of Germany, as the Palatinate, the Lower Rhine, and (through the influence of the House of Hohenzollern since the Elector Sigismund, 1614) in Brandenburg and other provinces of Prussia, was yet far more fully and vigorously developed among the maritime and freer nations, especially the Anglo-Saxon race, and follows its onward march to the West and the missionary fields of the East. The modern Protestant movements among the Latin races in the South of Europe likewise mostly assume the Reformed, some even a strictly Calvinistic type. Converts from the excessive ritualism of Rome are apt to swing to the opposite extreme of Puritan simplicity. Germany occupies the front rank in sacred learning and scientific theology, but the future of evangelical Protestantism is mainly intrusted to the Anglo-American churches, which far surpass all others in wealth, energy, liberality, philanthropy, and a firm hold upon the heart of the two great nations they represent. 2. The Lutheran Church, as its name indicates, was rounded and shaped by the mighty genius of Luther, who gave to the Germans a truly vernacular Bible, Catechism, and hymn-book, and who thus meets them at every step in their public and private devotions. We should, indeed, not forget the gentle, conciliatory, and peaceful genius of Melanchthon, which never died out in the Lutheran Confession, and forms the connecting link between it and the Reformed. He represents the very spirit of evangelical union, and practiced it in his intimate friendship with the stern and uncompromising Calvin, who in turn touchingly alludes to the memory of his friend. But the influence of the 'Praeceptor Germaniae' was more scholastic and theological than practical and popular. Luther was the originating, commanding reformer, 'born,' as he himself says, 'to tear up the stumps and dead roots, to cut away the thorns, and to act as a rough forester and pioneer;' while 'Melanchthon moved gently and calmly along, with his rich gifts from God's own hand, building and planting, sowing and watering.' Luther was, as Melanchthon called him, the Protestant Elijah. He spoke almost with the inspiration and authority of a prophet and apostle, and his word shook the Church and the Empire to the base. He can be to no nation what he is to the German, as little as Washington can be to any nation what he is to the American. [389] And yet, strange to say, with all the overpowering influence of Luther, his personal views on the canon [390] and on predestination [391] were never accepted by his followers; and if we judge him by the standard of the Form of Concord, he is a heretic in his own communion as much as St. Augustine, on account of his doctrines of sin and grace, is a heretic in the Roman Church, revered though he is as the greatest among the Fathers. The Reformed Church had a large number of leaders, as Zwingli, OEcolampadius, Bullinger, Calvin, Beza, Cranmer, Knox, but not one of them, not even Calvin, could impress his name or his theological system upon her. She is independent of men, and allows full freedom for national and sectional modifications and adaptations of the principles of the Reformation. 3. The Lutheran Confession starts from the wants of sinful man and the personal experience of justification by faith alone, and finds, in this 'article of the standing and falling Church,' comfort and peace of conscience, and the strongest stimulus to a godly life. The Reformed Churches (especially the Calvinistic sections) start from the absolute sovereignty of God and the supreme authority of his holy Word, and endeavor to reconstruct the whole Church on this basis. The one proceeds from anthropology to theology; the other, from theology to anthropology. The one puts the subjective or material principle of the Reformation first, the objective or formal next; the other reverses the order; yet both maintain, in inseparable unity, the subjective and objective principles of the Reformation. The Augsburg Confession, which is the first and the most important Lutheran symbol, does not mention the Bible principle at all, although it is based upon it throughout; [392] the Articles of Smalcald mention it incidentally; [393] and the Form of Concord more formally. [394] But the Reformed Confessions have a separate article de Scriptura Sacra, as the only rule of faith and discipline, and put it at the head, sometimes with a full list of the canonical books. [395] 4. The Lutheran Church has an idealistic and contemplative, the Reformed Church a realistic and practical, spirit and tendency. The former aims to harmonize Church and State, theology and philosophy, worship and art; the latter draws a sharper line of distinction between the Word of God and the traditions of men, the Church and the world, the Church of communicants and the congregation of hearers, the regenerate and the unregenerate, the divine and the human. The one is exposed to the danger of pantheism, which shuts God up within the world; the other to the opposite extreme of deism, which abstractly separates him from the world. Hence the leaning of the Lutheran Christology to Eutychianism, the leaning of the Reformed to Nestorianism. The most characteristic exponent of this difference between the two confessions is found in their antagonistic doctrines of the Lord's Supper; and hence their controversies clustered around this article, as the Nicene and post-Nicene controversies clustered around the person of Christ. Luther teaches the real presence of Christ's body and blood in, with, and under the elements, the oral manducation by unworthy as well as worthy communicants, and the ubiquity of Christ's body; while Zwingli and Calvin, carefully distinguishing the sacramental sign from the sacramental grace, teach--the one only a symbolical, the other a spiritual real, presence and fruition for believers alone. The Romish doctrine of transubstantiation is equally characteristic of the magical supernaturalism and asceticism of Romanism, which realizes the divine only by a miraculous annihilation of the natural elements. Lutheranism sees the supernatural in the natural, Calvinism above the natural, Romanism without the natural. 5. Viewed in their relations to the mediaeval Church, Lutheranism is more conservative and historical, the Reformed Church more progressive and radical, and departs much further from the traditionalism, sacerdotalism, and ceremonialism of Rome. The former proceeded on the principle to retain what was not forbidden by the Bible; the latter, on the principle to abolish what was not commanded. The Anglican Church, however, though moderately Calvinistic in her Thirty-nine Articles, especially in the doctrine on the Scriptures and the Sacraments, makes an exception from the other Reformed communions, since it retained the body of the episcopal hierarchy and the Catholic worship, though purged of popery. Hence Lutherans like to call it a 'Lutheranizing Church;' but the conservatism of the Church of England was of native growth, and owing to the controlling influence of the English monarchs and bishops in the Reformation period. 6. The Lutheran Confession, moreover, attacked mainly the Judaism of Rome, the Reformed Church its heathenism. 'Away with legal bondage and work righteousness!' was the war-cry of Luther; 'Away with idolatry and moral corruption!' was the motto of Zwingli, Farel, Calvin, and Knox. 7. Luther and Melanchthon were chiefly bent upon the purification of doctrine, and established State churches controlled by princes, theologians, and pastors. Calvin and Knox carried the reform into the sphere of government, discipline, and worship, and labored to found a pure and free church of believers. Lutheran congregations in the old world are almost passive, and most of them enjoy not even the right of electing their pastor; while well-organized Reformed congregations have elders and deacons chosen from the people, and a much larger amount of lay agency, especially in the Sunday-school work. Luther first proclaimed the principle of the general priesthood, but in practice it was confined to the civil rulers, and carried out in a wrong way by making them the supreme bishops of the Church, and reducing the Church to a degrading dependence on the State. 8. Luther and his followers carefully abstained from politics, and intrusted the secular princes friendly to the Reformation with the episcopal rights; Calvin and Knox upheld the sole headship of Christ, and endeavored to renovate the civil state on a theocratic basis. This led to serious conflicts and wars, but they resulted in a great advance of civil and religious liberty in Holland, England, and the United States. The essence of Calvinism is the sense of the absolute sovereignty of God and the absolute dependence of man; and this is the best school of moral self-government, which is true freedom. Those who feel most their dependence on God are most independent of men. [396] 9. The strength and beauty of the Lutheran Church lies in its profound theology, rich hymnology, simple, childlike, trustful piety; the strength and beauty of the Reformed Churches, in aggressive energy and enterprise, power of self-government, strict discipline, missionary zeal, liberal sacrifice, and faithful devotion, even to martyrdom, for the same divine Lord. From the former have proceeded Pietism and Moravianism, a minutely developed scholastic orthodoxy, speculative systems and critical researches in all departments of sacred learning, but also antinomian tendencies, and various forms of mysticism, rationalism, and hypercriticism. The latter has produced Puritanism, Congregationalism, Methodism, Evangelicalism (in the Church of England), the largest Bible, tract, and missionary societies, has built most churches and benevolent institutions, but is ever in danger of multiplying sectarian divisions, overruling the principle of authority by private judgment, and disregarding the lessons of history. 10. Both churches have accomplished, and are still accomplishing, a great and noble work. Let them wish each other God's speed, and stimulate each other to greater zeal. A noble rivalry is far better than sectarian envy and jealousy. There have been in both churches, at all times, men of love and peace as well as men of war, with corresponding efforts to unite Lutheran and Reformed Christians, from the days of Melanchthon and Bucer, Calixtus and Baxter, down to the Prussian Evangelical Union, the German Church Diet, and the Evangelical Alliance. Even the exclusive Church of England has entered into a sort of alliance with the Evangelical Church of Prussia in jointly founding and maintaining the Bishopric of St. James in Jerusalem. [397] The time for ecclesiastical amalgamation, or organic union, has not yet come, but Christian recognition and union in essentials is quite consistent with denominational distinctions in non-essentials, and should be cultivated by all who love our common Lord and Saviour, and desire the triumph of his kingdom. __________________________________________________________________ [384] As used in all Continental works on Church history and symbolics. It means originally the Catholic Church reformed of abuses, or regenerated by the Word of God. [385] The fifteenth and last of the Marburg articles treats of the Lord's Supper, and after stating the points of agreement, concludes thus: 'And although at present we can not agree whether the true body and the true blood of Christ be corporeally present in the bread and wine (ob der wahre Leib und das wahre Blut Christi leiblich im Brode und Weine gegenwaertig sei), yet each party is to show to the other Christian love, as far as conscience permits (so weit es das Gewissen jedem gestattet), and both parties should fervently pray to Almighty God that by his Spirit he may strengthen us in the true understanding. Amen.' [386] ' Ihr habt einen andern Geist, ' said Luther to Zwingli. [387] The feuds between monastic orders and theological schools in the Roman and Greek Churches, and the quarrels even in the oecumenical Councils, from the Nicene down to the Vatican, are fully equal in violence and bitterness to the Protestant controversies in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and are less excusable on account of the boasted doctrinal unity of those churches. [388] This is the case with the great majority of Anglicized and Americanized Lutherans, who adopt Reformed views on the Sacraments, the observance of Sunday, Church discipline, and other points. [389] Luther can only be fully understood by a German, while a Frenchman or an Englishman (with some exceptions, as Coleridge, Hare, Carlyle) is likely to be repelled by some of his writings, e.g., his coarse book against Henry VIII. Hence the unfavorable judgments of such scholars as Hallam, Sir William Hamilton, Pusey; while, on the other hand, even liberal Catholics among German scholars can not but admire him as Germans. Dr. Doellinger, long before his secession from Rome, said (in his book Kirche und Kirchen): 'Luther ist der gewaltigste Volksmann, der populaerste Charakter, den Deutschland je besessen. In dem Geiste dieses Mannes, des groessten unter den Deutschen seines Zeitalters, ist die protestantische Doctrin entsprungen. Vor der Ueberlegenheit und schoepferischen Energie dieses Geistes bog damals der aufstrebende, thatkraeftige Theil der Nation demuthsvoll und glaeubig die Kniee.' The towering greatness of Luther is to the Lutherans a constant temptation to hero-worship, as Napoleon's brilliant military genius is a misfortune and temptation to France. Lessing expressed his satisfaction at the discovery of some defects in Luther's character, since he was, as he says, 'in imminent danger of making him an object of idolatrous veneration. The proofs that in some things he was like other men are to me as precious as the most dazzling of his virtues.' There are not a few Lutherans who have more liking for Luther's faults than for his virtues, and admire his conduct at Marburg as much, if not more, than his conduct at Worms. A very respectable Lutheran professor of theology resolved the difference between Luther and Calvin into this: that the one was human, the other inhuman! Calvin once nobly said, 'Though Luther should call me a devil, I would still revere and love him as an eminent servant of God.' If he was cruel, according to our modern notions, in his treatment of Servetus, he acted in the spirit of his age, and was approved even by the gentle Melanchthon. His followers need fear no comparison with any other Christians as to humanity and liberality. [390] He irreverently called the Epistle of St. James an 'epistle of straw,' and had objections to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, and the Book of Esther. He was as thoroughly convinced of the inspiration and authority of the Word of God as the most orthodox divine can be, but he had free views on the mode of inspiration and the extent of the traditional canon. [391] Luther, in his work De servo arbitrio, against Erasmus, written in 1525, teaches the slavery of the human will, the dualism in the divine will (secret and revealed), and unconditional predestination to salvation and damnation, in language stronger than even Calvin ever used, who liked the views of that book, but objected to some of its hyperbolical expressions (Opera, Tom. VII. p. 142). Melanchthon, who originally held the same Augustinian theory (like all the Reformers), gradually changed it (openly since 1535) in favor of a synergistic theory. But Luther never recalled his tract against Erasmus; on the contrary, he counted it among his best, and among the few of his books which he would not be willing 'to swallow, like Saturn his own children.' He never made this a point of difference from the Swiss. In the Articles of Smalcald, 1537 (III. i. p. 318, ed. Hase), he again denied the freedom of the will, as a scholastic error; and in his commentary on Genesis (Ch. vi. 6, 18; xxvi), one of his last works, he taught the same view of the secret will of God as in 1525. Comp. J. Mueller: Lutheri de praedestinatione et libero arbitrio doctrina, 1832, and his Dogmat. Abhandlungen, 1870, pp. 187sqq.; Luetkens: Luther's Praedestinationslehre im Zusammenhang mit seiner Lehre vom freien Willen, 1858; Koestlin: Luther's Theologie in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung, 1863, Vol. II. pp. 32-55, 300-331; Schweizer: Die protest. Centraldogmen, 1854, Vol. I. pp. 57 sqq.; Dorner: Geschichte der protest. Theologie, 1867, Vol. I. pp. 194 sqq. [392] The Preface of the Augsburg Confession declares that the Confession is 'drawn from the holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God.' [393] Part II. (p. 309): 'The Word of God, and no one else, not even an angel, can establish articles of faith.' ('Regulam aliam habemus, ut videlicet Verbum Dei condat articulos fidei, et praeterea nemo, ne angelus quidem.') [394] Form. Conc., Part I. or Epit., at the beginning: 'We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and standard (unicam regulam et normam), according to which all doctrines and teachers alike ought to be tried and judged, are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments alone.' Comp. Preface to the Second Part. [395] Conf. Helv. II. ch. i. (De Scriptura sancta, vero Dei verbo): ' Credimus et confitemur Scripturas canonicas sanctorum Prophetarum et Apostolorum utriusque Testamenti, ipsum verum esse Verbum Dei: et auctoritatem sufficientem ex semetipsis, non ex hominibus habere. ' Conf. Helv. I. (Basil. II.) art. 1; Conf. Gall. art. 2-5; Conf. Scot. art. 18, 19; Conf. Belg. art. 2-7; art. Angl. art. 6 (Scriptura sacra continet omnia quae ad salutem sunt necessaria, etc., with a list of the canonical books, from which the Apocrypha are carefully distinguished); Westminster Conf. of Faith, ch. i. (more fully), etc. The exception of the first Confession of Basle is only apparent, for it concludes with a submission of all its articles to the supreme authority of the Scriptures (Postremo, hanc nostrum confessionem judicio sacrae biblicae Scripturae subjicimus; eoque pollicemur, si ex praedictis Scripturis in melioribus instituamur, nos ommi tempore Deo et sacrosancto ipsius Verbo maxima cum gratiarum actione obsecuturos esse'). [396] The principles of the Republic of the United States can be traced, through the intervening link of Puritanism, to Calvinism, which, with all its theological rigor, has been the chief educator of manly characters and promoter of constitutional freedom in modern times. The inalienable rights of an American citizen are nothing but the Protestant idea of the general priesthood of believers applied to the civil sphere, or developed into the corresponding idea of the general kingship of free men. [397] Chiefly the work of Chevalier Bunsen and his congenial friend, Frederick William IV. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ SIXTH CHAPTER THE CREEDS OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH. __________________________________________________________________ S: 40. The Lutheran Confessions. Literature. I. Collections of the Lutheran Symbols. (1.) Latin Editions. Concordia. Pia et unanimi con ensu repetita Confessio Fidei et Doctrinae Electorum, Principum et Ordinum Imperii, atque eorundem Theologorum, qui Augustanam Confessionem amplectuntur et nomina sua huic libro subscripserunt. Cui ex Sacra Scriptura, unica illa veritatis norma et regula quorundam Articulorum, qui post Doctoris Martini Lutheri felicem ex hac vita exitum, in controversiam venerunt, solida accessit Declaratio, etc. (By Selnecker.) Lips. 1580, 4to; 1584. The second ed. 'communi consilio et mandato Electorum.' Another edition, Lips. 1602, 8vo, by order and with a Preface of Christian II., Elector of Saxony; republished, Lips. 1606, 1612, 1618, 1626, 8vo; Stettin, 1654, 8vo; Lips. 1669, 8vo; 1677. The second ed. (746 pages) is the authentic Latin editio princeps. The same edition, cum Appendice tripartita Dr. Adami Rechenbergii, Lips. first, 1677, 1678, 1698, 1712, 1725; last, 1742. Rechenberg's edition is the standard of reference, followed by the later Latin editions in the paging. Ecclesiae Evangelicae Libri Symbolici, etc. C. M. Pfaffius, ex editionibus primis et praest. recensuit, varias lectiones adjunxit, etc. Tubing. 1730, 8vo. Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Evangelico-Lutheranae accuratius editi variique generis animadvers. ac disput. illustrati a Mich. Webero. Viteb. 1809, 8vo. Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Evangelicae. Ad fidem optim. exemplorum recens. J. A. H. Tittmann. Lips. 1817, 8vo; 1827. Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Evangelicae sive Concordia. Recens. C. A. Hase. Lipsiae, 1827, 8vo; 1837, 1845. Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae ad editt. principes et ecclesiae auctoritate probat. rec., praecipuam lectionum diversitatem notavit, Christ. II. ordinumque evangelicor. praefationes, artic. Saxon. visitator. et Confut. A. C. Pontific. adj. H. A. Guil. Meyer. Gotting. 1830, 8vo. Concordia. Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Evang. Ad edit. Lipsiensem, 1584; Berolin. (Schlawitz), 1857, 8vo. (2.) German Editions. Concordia. yhvh Christliche, Widerholete, einmuetige Bekenntnues nachbenanter Churfuersten, Fuersten und Stende Augspurgischer Confession, und derselben zu ende des Buchs underschriebener Theologen Lere und Glaubens. Mit angeheffter, in Gottes wort, als der einigen Richtschnur, wohlgegruendter erklerung etlicher Artickel, bei welchen nach D. Martin Luther's seligen absterben disputation und streit vorgefallen. Aus einhelliger vergleichung und bevehl obgedachter Churfuersten, Fuersten und Stende, derselben Landen, Kirchen, Schulen und Nachkommen, zum underricht und warnung in Druck verfertiget. Mit Churf. Gnaden zu Sachsen befreihung. Dresden, 1580, fol. (See the whole title in Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. p. 443.) Concordia. Magdeburg, 1580, 4to, two ed.; Tuebingen, 1580, fol.; Dresden, 1581, 4to; Frankfurt a. O., 1581, fol.; Magdeburg, 1581, 4to; Heidelberg, 1582, fol., two ed.; Dresden, 1598, fol.; Tuebingen, 1599, 4to; Leipzig, 1603, 4to; Stuttgart, 1611, 4to; Leipzig, 1622, 4to; Stuttgart, 1660, 4to; 1681, 4to. Concordia. Mit Heinr. Pipping's Hist. theol. Einl. zu den symb. Schriften der Evang. Luth. Kirchen. Leipz. 1703, 4to; 2te Ausg. mit Christ. Weissen's Schlussrede. Leipz. 1739, 4to. Christliches Concordienbuch, etc., von Siegm. Jac. Baumgarten. Halle, 1747, 2 vols. 8vo. Christl. Concordienbuch mit der Leipziger Theol. Facultaet Vorrede. Wittenberg, 1760, 8vo; 1766, 1789. Die Symb. Buecher der Ev. Luth. Kirche, etc., von J. W. Schoepff. Dresden, 1826-27, 8vo. Concordia. Die Symb. Buecher der ev. luth. Kirche, etc., von F. A. Koethe. Leipzig, 1830, 8vo. Evangel. Concordienbuch, etc., von J. A. Detzer. Nuernberg, 1830, 1842, 1847. Evangel. Concordienbuch, etc., von Fr. W. Bodemann. Hanover, 1843. Christliches Concordienbuch, New York, 1854. (3.) German-Latin Editions. Concordia. Germanico-Latina ad optima et antiquissima exempla recognita, adjectis fideliter allegator. dictor. S. Scr. capitibus et vers. et testimoniorum P. P. aliorumque Scriptorum locis. . . . cum approbatione Facult. Theol. Lips. Wittenb. et Rostoch. Studio Ch. Reineccii. Lips. 1708, 4to; 1735. Christliches Concordienbuch. Deutsch und Lateinisch mit historischen Einleitungen J. G. Walch's. Jena, 1750, 8vo. Die Symbolischen Buecher der Evang. Luther. Kirche, deutsch und lateinisch, etc., von J. F. Mueller (of Windsbach, Bavaria), 1847; 3d ed. Stuttgart, 1869. (A very useful edition.) (4.) Translations. Dutch: Concordiaof Lutersche Geloofs Belydenis in't licht gegeven door Zach. Dezius. Rotterdam, 1715, 8vo. Swedish: Libri Concordiae Versio Suecica, Christeliga, Enhelliga, och Uprepade och Laeras, etc. Norkoeping, 1730, 4to. English: The Christian Book of Concord, or Symbolical Book of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, translated by Ambrose and Socrates Henkel (two Lutheran clergymen of Virginia), with the assistance of several other Lutheran clergymen. Newmarket, Virginia, 1851; 2d ed. revised, 1854. This is the first and only complete English edition of the Book of Concord; but the translation (made from the German) is not sufficiently idiomatic. II. Historical and Critical Works on the Lutheran Symbols in General. Jo. Benedict Carpzov: Isagoge in libros ecclesiarum Lutheranarum symbolicos. Opus posthumum a J. Oleario: Continuatum ed. J. B. Carpzov (filius). Lipsiae, 1665, 4to; 1675, 1691, 1699, 1725. Jo. Georg Walch: Introductio in libros Ecclesiae Lutheranae symbolicos, observationibus historicis et theologicis illustrata. Jenae, 1732, 4to. J. Albr. Fabricius: Centifolium Lutheranum. Hamb. 1728-30, 2 vols. 8vo. S. J. Baumgarten: Erleuterungen der im christlichen Concordienbuch enthaltenen symbolischen Schriften der evang. luth. Kirche, nebst einem Anhange von den uebrigen Bekenntnissen und feierlichen Lehrbuechern in gedachter Kirche. Halle, 1747. J. Christoph. Koecher: Bibliotheca theologiae symbolicae et catecheticae. Guelph. et Jenae, 1751-69, 2 vols. Jac. W. Feuerlin: Bibliotheca symb. evang. Lutherana. Accedunt appendices duae: I. Ordinationes et Agenda; II. Catechismus ecclesiarum nostrarum. Gotting. 1752. Another enlarged edition by J. Barthol. Riederer. Nuernberg, 1768, 2 vols. 8vo. J. G. Walch: Bibliotheca theologica selecta. Jena, 1757-65, 4 vols. 8vo. Chr. Guil. Fr. Walch: Breviarium theol. symb. eccles. luther. Goettingen, 1765-1781, 8vo. Eduard Koellner: Symbolik der lutherischen Kirche. Hamburg, 1837. J. F. Mueller: Die symb. Buecher der evang. luth. Kirche. Stuttgart, 1847; 3d ed. 1869. Introduction pp. cxxiv. Charles P. Krauth (Dr. and Prof. of Theology in the Evang. Theol. Seminary in Philadelphia): The Conservative Reformation and its Theology, as represented in the Augsburg Confession and in the History and literature of the Evang. Lutheran Church. Philadelphia, 1871. For fuller lists of editions and works, see Feuerlin (ed. Riederer), J. G. Walch, Koellner, l.c., and the 26th and 27th vols. of the Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bindseil. The Evangelical Lutheran Church, in whole or in part, acknowledges nine symbolical books: three of them are inherited from the Catholic Church, viz., the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed (with the Filioque), and the Athanasian Creed; six are original, viz., the Augsburg Confession, drawn up by Melanchthon (1530), the Apology of the Confession, by the same (1530), the Articles of Smalcald, by Luther (1537), the two Catechisms of Luther (1529), and the Form of Concord, prepared by six Lutheran divines (1577). These nine symbols constitute together the Book of Concord (Concordia, or Liber Concordiae, Concordienbuch), which was first published by order of Elector Augustus of Saxony in 1580, in German and Latin, and which superseded older collections of a similar character. [398] The Lutheran symbols are not of equal authority. Besides the three oecumenical Creeds, the Augsburg Confession is most highly esteemed, and is the only one which is generally recognized. Next to it comes the Shorter Catechism of Luther, which is extensively used in catechetical instruction. His Larger Catechism is only an expansion of the Shorter. The Apology is valuable in a theological point of view, as an authentic commentary on the Augsburg Confession. The Smalcald Articles have an historical significance, as a warlike manifesto against Rome, but are little used. The Form of Concord was never generally received, but decidedly rejected in several countries, and is disowned by the Melanchthonian and unionistic schools in the Lutheran Church. Originally intended merely as testimonies or confessions of faith, these documents became gradually binding formulas of public doctrine, and subscription to them was rigorously exacted from all clergymen and public teachers in Lutheran State churches. [399] The rationalistic apostasy, reacting against the opposite extreme of symbololatry and ultra-orthodoxy, swept away these test-oaths, or reduced them to a hypocritical formality. The revival of evangelical Christianity, since the tercentenary jubilee of the Reformation in 1817, was followed by a partial revival of rigid Lutheran confessionalism, yet not so much in opposition to the Reformed as to the Unionists in Prussia and other German States, where the two Confessions have been amalgamated. The meaning and aim of the Evangelical Union in Prussia, however, was not to set aside the two Confessions, but to accommodate them in one governmental household, allowing them to use either the Lutheran or the Heidelberg Catechism as before. The chief trouble was occasioned by the new liturgy of King Frederick William III., which was forced upon the churches, and gave rise to the Old Lutheran secession. In the other States of Germany, and in Scandinavia and Austria, the Lutheran churches have, with a separate government, also their own liturgies and forms of ordination, with widely differing modes of subscription to the symbolical books. [400] In the United States, the Lutherans, left free from the control of the civil government, yet closely connected with the doctrinal and confessional disputes of their brethren in Germany, are chiefly divided into three distinct organizations, which hold as many different relations to the Symbolical Books, and are, in fact, three denominations under a common name, viz.: the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the United States, organized in 1820; the Synodical Conference of North America, organized in 1872; [401] and the General Council, which, under the lead of the old Synod of Pennsylvania, seceded from the General Synod, and met first at Fort Wayne, Indiana, Nov. 20, 1867. The first has its theological and literary centre in Gettysburg, the second at St. Louis and Fort Wayne, the third in Philadelphia. The 'General Synod,' which is composed chiefly of English-speaking descendants of German immigrants, and sympathizes with the surrounding Reformed denominations, adopts simply 'the Augsburg Confession as a correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of the divine Word,' without mentioning the other symbolical books at all, and allows a very liberal construction even of the Augsburg Confession, especially the articles on the Sacraments. [402] With this basis the Lutheran Synod of the Southern States, which was organized during the civil war, is substantially agreed. [403] The Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, which is so far almost exclusively German as to language, requires its ministers to subscribe the whole Book of Concord (including the Form of Concord), 'as the pure, unadulterated explanation and exposition of the divine Word and will.' [404] With the Missourians are agreed the Buffalo and the Iowa Lutherans, except on the question of the origin and nature of the ministerial office, which has been the subject of much bitter controversy between them. The 'General Council,' which is nearly equally divided as to language and nationality, stands midway between the General Synod and the Synodical Conference. It accepts, primarily, the 'Unaltered Augsburg Confession in its original sense,' and, in subordinate rank, the other Lutheran symbols, as explanatory of the Augsburg Confession, and as equally pure and Scriptural. [405] __________________________________________________________________ [398] See an account of the various Corpora Doctrinae in Baumgarten, Erlaeuterungen, etc., pp. 247-282; Koellner, Symbolik, I. pp. 96 sqq.; and Mueller, Symb. Buecher, pp. cxxii. sqq. The oldest was the Corpus Doctrinae Christianae Philippicum, or Misnicum, 1560, which contained only Melanchthonian writings, and was followed by several other collections of a more strictly Lutheran character. [399] As early as 1533 a statute was enacted in Wittenberg by Luther, Jonas, and others, which required the doctors of theology, at their promotion, to swear to the incorrupt doctrine of the Gospel as taught in the symbols. It was only a modification of the oath customary in the Roman Catholic Church. After the middle of the sixteenth century, subscription began to be enforced, on pain of deposition and exile. See Koellner, Symb., I. pp. 106 sqq. [400] Koellner, I. pp. 121 sqq., gives a number of Verpflichtungsformeln in use in Europe. [401] [The statements must be modified in view of the organic unions and Church federations which have recently been formed within the Lutheran communions--movements encouraged by the 400th anniversaries of the XCV Theses, 1917, and the Augsburg Confession, 1930. To follow a statement furnished by the Rev. G. L. Kieffer, Statistician and Librarian of the National Luth. Council--the Luth. churches of the U. S. and Canada, 1930, had a membership of 2,852,843 communicants. Two-thirds of the number are embraced in three corporate groups, namely, The United Luth. Ch. of Am., formed 1918, with 971,187 members; The Am. Luth. Ch., formed 1930 with 340,809 members; The Evang. Luth. Synod of Missouri, formed 1847, with 702,056 members. Two cooeperative federations exist, namely: 1. The Am. Luth. Conference with 926,009 members, formed 1930, consisting of five bodies, The Am. Luth. Ch., The Augustana Synod with 234,434 members, the Norwegian Luth. Ch., with 303,358 members, The Luth. Free Ch. and the United Danish Churches with 47,408 members. 2. The Evang. Synod. Luth. Conference of N. Am., founded 1873, having 873,484 members, and consisting of five groups of which the Missouri Synod is much the largest. In addition to the United Luth. Ch. of Am. and the groups joined in the federations there are seven independent synods with 75,397 members. The groups are not to be regarded "as separate denominations, their main difference being in a gradual gradation from the freedom of the universal priesthood of believers to a more or less highly developed legalistic control of the individual." They cooeperate in certain general movements through a National Luth. Council and some of the independent synods support the missions of the larger groups.--Ed.] [402] 'We receive and hold, with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of our fathers, the Word of God, as contained in the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and the Augsburg Confession, as a correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of the Divine Word, and of the faith of our Church founded upon that Word.' (Constitution of General Synod, adopted at Washington, 1869, Art. II. Sect. 3.) [403] 'We receive and hold that the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We likewise hold that the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Augsburg Confession contain the fundamental doctrines of the sacred Scriptures; and we receive and adopt them as the exponents of our faith.' [404] 'Ich erkenne die drei Hauptsymbole der [alten] Kirche, die ungeaenderte Augsburgische Confession und deren Apologie, die Schmalcaldischen Artikel, die beiden Catechismen Luthers und die Concordienformel fuer die reine, ungefaelschte Erklaerung und Darlegung des goettlichen Wortes and Willens, bekenne mich zu denselben als zu meinen eigenen Bekenntnissen und will mein Amt bis an mein Ende treulich und fleissig nach denselben ausrichten. Dazu staerke mich Gott durch seinen heiligen Geist! Amen.' (Ordination vow in the Kirchen-Agende, St. Louis, 1856, p. 173.) Here the Lutheran system of doctrine is almost identified with the Bible, according to the adage: 'Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr Vergehet nun und nimmermehr.' [405] 'We accept and acknowledge the doctrines of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession in its original sense as throughout in conformity with the pure truth, of which God's Word is the only rule. We accept its statements of truth as in perfect accordance with the canonical Scriptures; we reject the errors it condemns, and believe that all which it commits to the liberty of the Church, of right belongs to that liberty. In thus formally accepting and acknowledging the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, we declare our conviction that the other Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, inasmuch as they set forth none other than its system of doctrine and articles of faith, are of necessity pure and Scriptural. Pre-eminent among such accordant, pure, and Scriptural statements of doctrine, by their intrinsic excellence, by the great and necessary ends for which they were prepared, by their historical position, and by the general judgment of the Church, are these: the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Catechisms of Luther, and the Formula of Concord, all of which are, with the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, in the perfect harmony of one and the same Scriptural faith.' (Principles of Faith and Church Polity of the Gen. Council, adopted Nov. 1867, Sections VIII. and IX.) __________________________________________________________________ S: 41. The Augsburg Confession, 1530. Literature. I. Editions, Latin and German. In the general collections of Lutheran Symbols, by Rechenberg, Walch, Hase, Mueller, etc. (see S: 40). II. Separate Editions of the Augs. Conf.--in Latin or German, or both--by Twesten (1816), Winer (1825), Tittmann (1830), Spieker (1830), M. Weber (1830), Wiggers (1830), Beyschlag (1830), Funk (1830), Foerstemann (1833), Haerter (1838). The best critical edition of the Latin and German texts, with all the variations, is contained in the Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bretschneider and Bindseil, Vol. XXVI. (issued, Brunsvigae, 1858), pp. 263 sqq. For lists of older editions, see Koellner, Symbolik, I. p. 344-353, and Bindseil, in Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. pp. 211-263. III. English Translations. In Henkel's Book of Concord, 1854, and a better one by Dr. Charles P. Krauth: The Augsburg Confession, literally translated from the original Latin, with the most important Additions of the German Text incorporated, together with Introduction and Notes. Philadelphia, 1869. The same, revised for this work, Vol. II. pp. 1 sqq. IV. Historical and Critical documents and works on the Augsburg Confession: Philippi Melanthonis Opera in the second and twenty-sixth volumes of the Corpus Reformatorum, ed. Bretschneider and Bindseil. Vol. II. (Halis Saxonum, 1835) contains the Epistles of Melanchthon from Jan. 1, 1530, to Dec. 25, 1535; Vol. XXVI. (Brunsv. 1858, pp. 776), the Augsburg Confession itself, with all the preliminary labors and important documents connected therewith. Luther's Briefe, in De Wette's ed., Vol. IV. pp. 1-180. E. Sal. Cyprian: Historia der Augsburgischen Confession, etc. Gotha, 1730, 4to. Christ. Aug. Salig: Vollstaendige Historie der Augsburg. Confession und derselben Apologie, etc. 3 Thle. Halle, 1730-35, 4to. G. G. Weber: Kritische Geschichte der Augsb. Conf. aus archivalischen Nachrichten. Frank. a. M. 1783-84, 2 vols. K. Pfaff: Geschichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg, im Jahr 1530, und des Augsb. Glaubensbekenntnisses bis auf die neueren Zeiten, Stuttgart, 1830, 8vo; 2 Parts. Carl Eduard Foerstemann: Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg, im Jahr 1530, etc., 2 vols. Halle, 1833-35, 8vo. C. Ed. Foerstemann: Neues Urkundenb. zur Gesch. der ev. Kirchen-Reform. Hamb. 1842, Vol. I. pp. 357-380. Die Apologie der Augsburg. Confession in ihrem ersten Entwurfe. A. G. Rudelbach: Die Augsb. Conf. aus und nach den Quellen, etc. Leipzig, 1829. Histor. critische Einleit. in die Augsb. Conf., etc. Dresden, 1841. J. E. Calinich: Luther und die Augsb. Confession (gekroente Preisschrift). Leipz. 1861. G. Plitt: Einleitung in die Augustana. Erlangen, 1867-68, 2 Parts. O. Zoeckler: Die Augsburgische Confession als Lehrgrundlage der deutschen Reformationskirche historisch und exegetisch untersucht. Frankfurt a. M. 1870. Comp. also Ranke: Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, III. pp. 186 sqq. (3d ed. 1852), and the relevant sections in Marheineke, Merle D'Aubigne, Hagenbach, and Fisher, on the History of the Reformation. See lists of Literature especially in Koellner, Symb. I. pp. 150 sqq., 345 sqq.; also J. T. Mueller, Die Symb. Buecher der evang. luth. Kirche, XVII.; C. P. Krauth, Select Analytical Bibliography of the Augsb. Conf. (Phila. 1858); and Zoeckler, Die Augsb. Conf. pp. 1, 8, 15, 21, 31, 35, 44, 52, 61, 74, 85-88; and Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. pp. 102 sqq. ORIGIN AND HISTORY. The Augsburg Confession, at first modestly called an Apology, after the manner of the early Church in the ages of persecution, was occasioned by the German Emperor Charles V., who commanded the Lutheran Princes to present, at the Diet to be held in the Bavarian city of Augsburg, an explicit statement of their faith, that the religious controversy might be settled, and Catholics and Protestants be united in a war against the common enemies, the Turks. [406] Its deeper cause must be sought in the inner necessity and impulse to confess and formularize the evangelical faith, which had been already attempted before. It was prepared, on the basis of previous drafts, and with conscientious care, by Philip Melanchthon, at the request and in the name of the Lutheran States, during the months of April, May, and June, 1530, at Coburg and Augsburg, with the full approval of Luther. It was signed, August 23, by seven German Princes (the Elector John of Saxony and the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, etc.) and the deputies of two free cities (Nuremberg and Reutlingen). This act required no little moral courage, in view of the immense political and ecclesiastical power of the Roman Church at that time. When warned by Melanchthon of the possible effects of his signature, the Elector John of Saxony nobly replied: 'I will do what is right, unconcerned about my electoral dignity; I will confess my Lord, whose cross I esteem more highly than all the power of the earth.' On the 25th of June, 1530, the Confession was read aloud, in the German language, [407] before the assembled representatives of Church and State, and in the hearing of a monarch in whose dominions the sun never set. This formed an important epoch in the history of the Reformation. The deputies, and the people who stood outside, listened attentively for two hours to the new creed. The Papists were surprised at its moderation. The Bishop of Augsburg is reported to have said privately that it contained nothing but the pure truth. Duke William of Bavaria censured Dr. Eck for misrepresenting to him the Lutheran opinions; and when the Romish doctor remarked that he could refute them with the Fathers, though not with the Scriptures, the Duke replied, 'I am to understand, then, that the Lutherans are within the Scriptures, and we are on the outside.' The Emperor himself, a bigoted Spaniard, a master in shrewd policy, little acquainted with the German language and spirit, and still less with theology, after respectfully listening for a while, fell asleep during the delivery, [408] but graciously received the Latin copy for his own use, and handed the German to the Elector of Mayence for safe keeping in the imperial archives, yet prohibited the publication without his permission. Both copies are lost. The Diet ordered a committee of about twenty Romish theologians, among whom were Eck, Faber, Cochlaeus, and Wimpina, to prepare a refutation of the Confession on the spot. Their scholastic Confutatio, the result of five successive drafts, was a far inferior production, and made little impression upon the Diet, but it fairly expressed the views of the Emperor and the majority of the States, and was accepted as a satisfactory refutation of the Confession. [409] Melanchthon answered it by his 'Apology of the Augsburg Confession,' but the Diet refused even to receive the reply; and, after several useless conferences, resolved, Sept. 22 and Nov. 19, 1530, to proceed with violent measures against the Protestants if they should not return to the Catholic faith before the 15th of April of the following year. The Elector John, justly styled the Constant, with all his loyalty to the Emperor and wish for the peace of Germany, refused to compromise his conscience, and, in full view of the possible ruin of his earthly interest, he resolved to stand by 'the imperishable Word of God.' [410] The heroic spirit of the Reformers in these trying times found its noblest expression in the words and tune of Luther's immortal battle-song, based on Psalm. xlvi.: 'A tower of strength our God is still, A mighty shield and weapon; He'll help us clear from all the ill That hath us now o'ertaken. . . . . . . . . . 'And though they take our life-- Goods, honor, children, wife-- Yet is their profit small; These things shall vanish all-- The City of God remaineth.' LUTHER'S SHARE IN THE COMPOSITION. [411] Being under the papal excommunication and the imperial ban since the Diet of Worms (1521), Luther could not safely venture to Augsburg, but he closely watched the proceedings of the Diet from the Castle of Coburg on the Saxon frontier, praying, translating the prophets, writing childlike letters to his children, and manly letters to princes, singing Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, giving his advice at every important step, and encouraging his timid and desponding friend Melanchthon. He had taken the leading part in the important preparatory labors, namely, the Fifteen, Articles of the Marburg Conference (Oct. 3, 1529), [412] the Seventeen Articles of Schwabach (Oct. 16, 1529), [413] which correspond to the first or positive part of the Augsburg Confession, and the so-called Articles of Torgau (March 20, 1530), [414] which form the basis of its second or polemical part. But in all respects the Confession, especially the second part, is so much enlarged and improved on these previous labors that it may be called a new work. [415] Luther thus produced the doctrinal matter of the Confession, while Melanchthon's scholarly and methodical mind freely reproduced and elaborated it into its final shape and form, and his gentle, peaceful, compromising spirit breathed into it a moderate, conservative tone. In other words, Luther was the primary, Melanchthon the secondary author, of the contents, and the sole author of the style and temper of the Confession. [416] Luther himself was satisfied that his friend was better adapted for the task, and expressed his entire satisfaction with the execution. When the Confession was sent to him from Augsburg for revision, he wrote to the Elector, May 15, 1530: 'I have read the Apology [Confession] of Master Philip; it pleases me very well, and I know of nothing by which I could better it or change it, nor would it be becoming, for I can not move so softly and gently. May Christ our Lord help, that it may bring forth much and great fruit, as we hope and pray. Amen.' [417] After the delivery of the Confession, he wrote to Melanchthon, Sept. 15, in an enthusiastic strain: 'You have confessed Christ, you have offered peace, you have obeyed the Emperor, you have endured injuries, you have been drenched in their revilings, you have not returned evil for evil. In brief, you have worthily done God's holy work as becometh saints. Be glad, then, in the Lord, and exult, ye righteous. Long enough have ye been mourning in the world, look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh. I will canonize you as faithful members of Christ, and what greater glory can you desire! Is it a small thing to have yielded Christ faithful service, and shown yourself a member worthy of him?' [418] The only objection which Luther ever raised to the Augsburg Confession was that it was too gentle, and did not denounce the Pope and the doctrine of purgatory. [419] CONTENTS. The Augsburg Confession proper (exclusive of Preface and Epilogue) consists of two parts--one positive and dogmatic, the other negative and polemic, or rather apologetic. The first refers chiefly to doctrines, the second to ceremonies and institutions. The order of subjects is not strictly systematic, though considerably improved upon the arrangement of the Schwabach and Torgau Articles. In the manuscript copies and oldest editions the articles are only numbered; the titles were subsequently added. I. The first part presents, in twenty-one articles--beginning with the Triune God and ending with the worship of saints--a clear, calm, and condensed statement of the doctrines held by the evangelical Lutherans, (1) in common with the Roman Catholics, (2) in common with the Augustinian school, (3) in opposition to Rome, and (4) in distinction from Zwinglians and Anabaptists. [420] (1.) In theology and Christology, i.e., the doctrines of God's unity and trinity (Art. I.), and of Christ's divine-human personality (III.), the Confession strongly reaffirms the ancient Catholic faith as laid down in the oecumenical Creeds, and condemns (damnamus) the old and new forms of Unitarianism and Arianism as heresies. (2.) In anthropology, i.e., in the articles on the fall and original sin (II.), the slavery of the natural will and necessity of divine grace (XVIII.), the cause and nature of sin (XIX.), the Confession is substantially Augustinian, in opposition to the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies. The Donatists are also condemned (VIII.) for denying the objective virtue of the ministry and the Sacraments, which Augustine defended against them. (3.) The general Protestant views in opposition to Rome appear in the articles on justification by faith (IV.), new obedience (VI.), the Gospel ministry (V.), the Church (VII., VIII.), repentance (XII.), ordination (XIV.), ecclesiastical rites (XV.), civil government (XVI.), good works (XIX.), the worship of saints, and the exclusive mediatorship of Christ (XX.). Prominence is given to the doctrine of justifition by faith, which, though very briefly stated in its proper place (P. I. Art. IV.), is elsewhere incidentally referred to as the essence of the Gospel. [421] (4.) The distinctive Lutheran views--mostly retained from prevailing Catholic tradition, and differing in part from those of other Protestant churches--are contained in the articles on the Sacraments (IX., X., XIII.), on confession and absolution (XI.), and the millennium (XVII.). The tenth article plainly asserts the doctrine of a real bodily presence and distribution of Christ in the eucharist to all communicants (without determining the mode of the presence either by way of consubstantiation or transubstantiation), [422] and disapproves of dissenting views (especially the Zwinglian, although it is not named). [423] The Anabaptists are expressly condemned (damnamus), like heretics, for their views on infant baptism and infant salvation (IX.), the Church (VIII.), civil offices (XVI.), the millennium and final restoration (XVII.). These articles, however, have long ceased to be held by all Lutherans. Melanchthon himself materially changed the tenth article in the edition of 1540. The doctrine of the second advent and the millennium (rejected in Art. XVII.) has found able advocates among sound and orthodox Lutheran divines, especially of the school of Bengel. II. The second part rejects, in seven articles, those abuses of Rome which were deemed most objectionable, and had been actually corrected in the Lutheran churches, namely, the withdrawal of the communion cup from the laity (I.), the celibacy of the clergy (II.), the sacrifice of the mass (III.), obligatory auricular confession (IV.), ceremonial feasts and fasts (V.), monastic vows (VI.), and the secular power of the bishops, as far as it interferes with the purity and spirituality of the Church (VII.). The style of the Latin edition is such as may be expected from the classic culture and good taste of Melanchthon, while the order and arrangement might be considerably improved. The diplomatic Preface to the Emperor is not from his pen, but from that of the Saxon Chancellor Brueck. [424] It is clumsy, tortuous, dragging, extremely obsequious, and has no other merit than to introduce the reader into the historical situation. The brief conclusion (Epilogus) is from the same source, and is followed by the signatures of seven Princes and two magistrates. [425] Several manuscript copies omit both Preface and Epilogue, as not belonging properly to the Confession. CHARACTER AND VALUE. The Augsburg Confession breathes throughout an earnest and devout evangelical Christian spirit, and is expressed in clear, mild, dignified language. It professes to be both Scriptural and churchly, and in harmony even with the Roman Church as known from the genuine tradition of antiquity. [426] It is remarkably moderate and conciliatory in tone, and free from all harsh or abusive terms. It is not aggressive, but defensive throughout. Hence its original modest name Apology. [427] It pleads only for toleration and peace. It condemns the ancient heresies (Arianism, Manicheism, Pelagianism, Donatism), which were punishable according to the laws of the German Empire. It leaves the door open for a possible reconciliation with Rome. [428] Popery itself, and many of its worst abuses, are not even touched, at least not expressly. The modest and peaceful author wrote under a painful sense of responsibility, with a strong desire for the restoration of the unity of faith, and hence he avoided, all that might give unnecessary offense to the ruling party. [429] But the same motive made him unjust toward his fellow-Protestants, who differed from him far less than both differed from the Romanists. The Lutheran divines, after refusing at Marburg all connection with the Zwinglians, yet, being unable to convince the Catholic majority, felt that by protesting against what they regarded as ultra-Protestant radicalism they would better succeed in securing toleration for themselves. One of their leaders, however, Philip of Hesse, openly sympathized with Zwingli, and had to be specially urged by Luther to subscribe the Confession, which he did with a dissent from the tenth article. The majority of the citizens of Augsburg likewise adhered to Zwingli at that time. [430] The Augsburg Confession is the fundamental and generally received symbol of the Lutheran Church, which also bears the name of 'the Church of the Augsburg Confession.' It is inseparable from the theology and history of that denomination; it best exhibits the prevailing genius of the German Reformation, and will ever be cherished as one of the noblest monuments of faith from the pentecostal period of Protestantism. [431] But its influence extends far beyond the Lutheran Church. It struck the key-note to other evangelical confessions, and strengthened the cause of the Reformation every where. It is, to a certain extent, also the Confession of the Reformed and the so-called Union Churches, in Germany, namely, with the explanations and modifications of the author himself in the edition of 1540, which extended, as it were, the hand of fellowship to them (see below). In this qualified sense, either expressed or understood, the Augsburg Confession was frequently signed by Reformed divines and Princes, even by John Calvin, while ministering to the Church at Strasburg, and as delegate to the Conference of Ratisbon, 1541; [432] by Farel and Beza at the Conference in Worms, 1557; by the Calvinists at Bremen, 1562; by Frederick III., (the Reformed) Elector of the Palatinate, at the convent of Princes in Naumburg, 1561, and again at the Diet of Augsburg, 1566; by John Sigismund, of Brandenburg, in 1614. It is true that till the close of the Thirty-Years' War (1648) the Reformed were tolerated in the German Empire only as allies of the Augsburg Confession, [433] but even afterwards they continued their friendly relation to it, and maintain it to the present day without feeling any more bound by it. [434] The last, and the most memorable occasion since 1530, on which this noble Confession was publicly acknowledged, but with a saving clause as to the interpretation of the tenth article relating to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, was at the German Church Diet of Berlin, 1853, composed of over 1400 clergymen, of four denominations--Lutheran, German Reformed, Evangelical Unionists, and Moravians. [435] On this fact and the whole history of the Augsburg Confession some German writers of the evangelical Unionist school have based the hope that the Augsburg Confession may one day become the united Confession or oecumenical Creed of all the evangelical churches of Germany. [436] This scheme stands and falls with the dream of a united and national Protestant Church of the German Empire. Aside from other difficulties, the Reformed and the majority of Unionists, together with a considerable body of Lutherans, can never conscientiously subscribe to the tenth article as it stands in the proper historical Confession of 1530; while orthodox Lutherans, on the other hand, will repudiate the Altered edition of 1540. The Invariata is, after all, a purely Lutheran, that is, a denominational symbol; and the Variata is a friendly approach of Lutheranism towards the Reformed communion, which had no share in its original production and subsequent modification, although it responded to it. Neither the one nor the other edition can be the expression of a union, or confederation of two distinct denominations, of which each has its own genius, history, and symbols of faith. Such an expression must proceed from the theological and religious life of both, and meet the wants of the present age. Great as the Augsburg Confession is, the Church will produce something greater still whenever the Spirit of God moves it to a new act of faith in opposition to the unbelief and misbelief of modern times. Every age must do its own work in its own way. THE TEXT. THE INVARIATA AND THE VARIATA. [437] The Augsburg Confession was first completed in Latin, [438] but the German text was read before the Diet. Both copies were delivered in manuscript to the Emperor, but both disappeared: the German copy, first deposited in the imperial archives at Mayence, was probably sent with other official documents to the Council of Trent (1545), and then to Rome; the Latin copy to Brussels or Spain, and no trace of either has been found. For two hundred years the opinion prevailed that the 'Book of Concord' contained the original text, until Pfaff and Weber, by a thorough investigation on the spot, dispelled this error. [439] The twenty-two manuscript copies, still extant in public or private libraries, are inaccurate, defective, and represent the various stages of revision through which the Confession passed before the 25th of August under the ever-improving hands of the author. There was no time, it seems, to make authentic copies of the final revision. The printed editions (six in German, one in Latin), which were hastily issued during the Diet by irresponsible, anonymous publishers, are full of errors and omissions, and were condemned by Melanchthon. Consequently, we must depend entirely upon the author's own printed editions; but even these differ very much among themselves, and the German text differs from the English. [440] Fortunately the changes are mostly verbal and immaterial, and where they alter the sense (as in the edition of 1540), they can be traced to their proper origin. By the subscription of the Lutheran Princes and the delivery at the Diet, the Confession had become public property, and should have remained unaltered. But at that time neither editors nor publishers were careful and scrupulous in handling official documents. Luther himself changed the Articles of Smalcald after they had been publicly acknowledged. Melanchthon regarded the Confession, not as a fixed and binding creed, but as a basis for negotiation with the Papists, and as representing a movement still in progress toward clearer light. [441] He therefore kept improving it, openly and honestly, in every new issue, as he would his own work, and in the edition of 1540 he even embodied some doctrinal modifications in the desire of promoting the cause of truth and peace. The editio princeps was issued by the author in both languages, together with the Latin Apology and a German translation of it by Jonas, at Wittenberg in 1531, in spite of the imperial prohibition, yet with the consent (though not by order) of the Elector of Saxony. [442] The text was taken, not from Melanchthon's own manuscript copy (which had been delivered to the Emperor), but, as he says, ex exemplari bonae fidei (probably the private copy of the Landgrave Philip of Hesse), and contained already verbal changes and improvements. [443] The emendations in subsequent editions before 1540, though quite numerous, do not materially affect the sense, and seem to have been approved; at all events, they were acquiesced in by the Lutherans themselves. [444] But the edition of 1540, which appeared in connection with an improved edition of the Apology, [445] differs so widely from the first that it was subsequently called the Altered Augsburg Confession (Variata), in distinction from the Unaltered (Invariata) of 1530 or 1531. [446] It attracted little attention till after the death of Melanchthon (1560), when it created as much trouble as the insertion of the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. The Altered Confession, besides a large number of valuable additions and real improvements in style and the order of subjects, [447] embodies the changes in Melanchthon's theology, [448] which may be dated from the new edition of his Loci communes, 1535, and his personal contact with Bucer and Calvin. He gave up, on the one hand, his views on absolute predestination, and gradually adopted the synergistic theory (which brought him nearer to the Roman Catholic system); while on the other hand (departing further from Romanism and approaching nearer to the Reformed Church), he modified the Lutheran theory of the real presence, at least so far as to allow the Reformed doctrine the same right in the evangelical churches. He never liked the Zwinglian view of a symbolical presence, nor did he openly adopt the Calvinistic view of a spiritual real presence, but he inclined to it, and regarded the difference between this and the Lutheran view as no bar to Christian fellowship and church communion. Hence in the edition of 1540 he laid greater stress on the necessity of repentance and good works, and softened down the strong expressions against the freedom of will. The other and more important change which gave most offense to orthodox Lutherans, is in the tenth article, concerning the Lord's Supper, where the clause on the real presence, and the disapproval of dissenting views are omitted, and the word exhibeantur is substituted for distribuantur. In other words, the article is so changed that Calvin could give it his hearty consent, and even Zwingli--with the exception, perhaps, of the word truly--might have admitted it. [449] The difference will best appear from the following comparison: Edition 1530. Latin Text. Edition 1540. 'De Caena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint, et distribuantur vescentibus in Caena Domini; et improbant secur docentes.' [450] 'De Coena Domini docent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus in Caena Domini.' 'Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed (communicated) to those that eat in the Lord's Supper. And they disapprove of those that teach otherwise.' 'Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that with bread and wine are truly exhibited the body and blood of Christ to those that eat in the Lord's Supper.' The difference between the two editions was first observed, not by Protestants, but by the Roman controversialist, Dr. Eck, at a religious conference in Worms early in the year 1541. Melanchthon and the Saxon theologians made there the altered edition the basis of negotiations, but Eck complained of changes, especially in Art. X., from the original copy of 1530, which he had procured from the archives of Mayence. Nevertheless, the Variata was again used, either alone or alongside with the Invariata, at several subsequent conferences, probably at Ratisbon, 1541, certainly at Ratisbon in 1546, and at Worms, 1557. It was expressly approved by the Lutheran Princes at a convention in Naumburg, 1561, as an innocent and, in some respects, improved modification and authentic interpretation of the Invariata. It was introduced into many Lutheran churches and schools, and printed (with the title and preface of the edition of 1530) in the first collection of Lutheran symbols, called Corpus Doctrinae Philippicum, or Misnicum (1559). [451] But after 1560, strict Lutheran divines, such as Flacius and Heshusius, attacked the Variata, as heretical and treacherous, and overwhelmed it with coarse abuse. A violent theological war was waged against Melanchthonianism and Crypto-Calvinism, and ended in the triumph of genuine Lutheranisrn and the transition of some Lutheran countries to the Reformed Church. The 'Book of Concord' (1580) gave the text of the Invariata in the happy illusion of presenting it, especially the German, in its original form. The Melanchthonians and the Reformed still adhered to the Variata. The Westphalian Treaty, in 1648, formally embraced the Reformed, together with the Roman Catholics and Lutherans, in the peace of the German Empire; and henceforth subscription to the Augsburg Confession of 1530 or 1540 ceased to be a necessary condition of toleration. [452] The Confession, as delivered before the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, or, in the absence of the original text, the edition of 1531, carefully prepared by Melanchthon himself, is the proper historical Confession of Augsburg, and will always remain so. At the same time, the altered edition of 1540, though not strictly speaking a symbolical book of binding authority any where, [453] is yet far more than a private document, and represents an important element in the public history of the Lutheran Church in the sixteenth century, and the present theological convictions of a very large party in that denomination. __________________________________________________________________ [406] The imperial letter convening the diet, dated Bologna, Jan. 21, 1530, was purchased by J. P. Morgan, 1911, for $25,000 and presented to William II., who, in turn, decorated Mr. Morgan with the order of the Black Eagle.--Ed. [407] By Dr. Christian Baier, Vice-Chancellor of the Elector of Saxony, after some introductory remarks of Chancellor Brueck, who composed the Preface and the Epilogue; see below. The Emperor at first did not want to have it read at all, but simply presented; yielding this point, he sought to diminish its effect by having it read in Latin, but the Lutheran Princes resisted, and carried their point. 'We are on German soil,' said the Elector John, 'and therefore I hope your Majesty will allow the German language.' He did not allow it, however, to be read in a public session of the Diet in the large City Hall, but merely before a select company of Princes, counselors, and deputies of cities, in the small chapel of the episcopal palace, where he resided. [408] So Brentius, who was at Augsburg at the time, reports (cum Confessio legeretur, obdormivit). Considering the length of the document, this is not inconsistent with the other statement of Jonas and Spalatin, that he, like most of the other Princes, was quite attentive (satis attentus erat Caesar). Nor must his drowsiness be construed as a mark of disrespect to the Lutherans, for he was likewise soundly asleep on the third of August when the Romish Confutation was read before the Diet. [409] The best text, Latin and German, of the Confutatio Confessionis Augustanae, with ample Prolegomena and the Summary of Cochlaeus, see in the 27th volume of the Corpus Reformatorum (1859), pp. 1-243. [410] See the masterly delineation of this Prince by Ranke, in his Deutsche Geschichte, etc., Book V. Ch. 9 (Vol. III. pp. 211 sqq.). [411] Comp. Rueckert: Luther's Verhaeltniss zum Augsb. Bek., Jena, 1854; Calinich: Luther und die Augsb. Conf., Leipz. 1861 (against Rueckert and Heppe); Heppe: Entstehung and Fortbildung des Lutherthums, Cassel, 1863, pp. 234 sqq.; Knaake: Luther's Antheil an der Augsb. Conf., Berl. 1863; Ratz: Was hat Luther durch Melanchthon gewonnen? in the Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol., Leipz. 1870, No. III.; Zoeckler: l.c. pp. 8 sqq. [412] The German autograph of the Marburg Articles, in the handwriting of the Reformers, was discovered in the archives of Cassel and published by Prof. H. Heppe, of Marburg, Cassel, 1847, and also by Bindseil, in the Corpus Reform. Vol. XXVI. pp. 122-127 (in German), with the textual variations. The Articles are signed by Luther, Jonas, Melanchthon, Osiander, Agricola, and Brentius, on the part of the Lutherans, and by OEcolampadius, Zwingli, Bucer, and Hedio on the part of the Reformed. Fourteen of them were fully approved by Zwingli and his friends, and in the 15th, which treats of the Lord's Supper, they agree to disagree as to the mode of Christ's presence. [413] The Articuli XVII. Suobacences (which must not be confounded with the Twenty-two Articles of a previous convent at Schwabach, near Nuremberg. A.D. 1528, see Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. pp. 132 sqq.) were composed by Luther, with the aid of Melanchthon, Jonas, Osiander, Brentius, and Agricola. They are only a Lutheran revision and enlargement of the Marburg Articles, and seem to have been drawn up in that town, and then presented before a convent of Lutheran princes and delegates at Schwabach, Oct. 16, and again before a similar convent at Smalcald, Nov. 29. They were first published in February or March, 1530, without the knowledge of Luther, under the title: 'Das Bekenntniss Martini Luthers auf den angestellten Reichstag zu Augsburg einzulegen, in 17 Artikel verfasst;' then by Luther himself, Wittenb. 1530; and again by Frick, in his edition of Seckendorf's Ausfuehrl. Historie vom Lutherthum. See Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. pp. 129-160. [414] The Torgau Articles (Articuli Torgavienses) were formerly often confounded with the Schwabach Articles, till Foerstemann first discovered them in the archives at Weimar, and brought them to light, in 1833, in the first volume of his 'Urkundenbuch,' republished in the Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. pp. 161-200. They were drawn up by Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, and Bugenhagen, at the command of the Elector of Saxony (then residing at Torgau), for presentation at the approaching Diet of Augsburg, and discuss the controverted articles on the marriage of priests, the communion of both kinds, the mass, the confession, the episcopal jurisdiction, ordination, monastic vows, invocation of saints, faith and works, etc. [415] Comp. on the historical details of the sources of the Augs. Conf. the Corpus Reform., Vol. XXVI 1858) pp. 113-200; Plitt: Einleitung die Augustana (1867-68), I. pp. 536 sqq., II. pp.3 sqq.; and Zoeckler: Die Augsb. Conf. (1870), pp. 8-15. [416] Kahnis, in his Luther. Dogmatik, II. p. 424, says: 'Luther war der Meister des Inhalts, Melanchthon der Meister der Form. . . . Mel. war der Mann, welcher mit Objektivitaet, Feinheit, Klarheit, Milde zu schreiben verstand. Und wie nie hat er diese Gabe in diesem Falle verwerthet.' Koellner (Vol. I. p. 178), Rueckert, and Heppe give all the credit of authorship to Melanchthon. This is true as far as the spirit and the literary composition are concerned; but as to the doctrines, Luther had a right to say, 'The Catechism, the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the Augsburg Confession, are mine.' [417] 'Ich hab M. Philippsen Apologiam ueberlesen: die gefaellet mir fast (i.e., sehr) wohl, und weiss nichts daran zu bessern noch aendern, wuerde sich auch nicht schicken; denn ich so sanft und leise nicht treten kann. Christus unser Herr helfe, dass sie viel and grosse frucht schaffe, wie wir hoffen bitten. Amen.' (De Wette's ed. of Luther's Letters, IV. p. 17; Luther's Works, Erlang. ed. Vol. LIV. p. 145). [418] 'Christum confessi estis, pacem obtulistis, Caesari obedistis, injurias tolerastis, blasphemiis saturati estis, nec malum pro malo reddidistis: summa, opus sanctum Dei, ut sanctos decet, digne tractastis. Laetamini etiam aliquando in Domino et exultate, justi: satis diu tristati (al. testati) estis in mundo: respicite et levate capita vestra, appropinquat redemtio vestra. Ego canonizabo vos, ut fidelia membra Christi, et quid amplius quaeritis gloriae?' etc. (Briefe, IV. p. 165. Comp. also his letter of July 15 to Jonas, Spalatin, Melanchthon, Agricola, ib. IV. p. 96.) [419] In a letter to Justus Jonas, July 21, 1530: 'Satan adhuc vivit, et bene sensit Apologiam vestram Leisetreterin [the softly stepping Confession] dissimulasse articulos de purgatorio, de sanctorum cultu, et maxime de Antichristo Papa' (Briefe, IV. p. 110). Melanchthon himself confessed that he wrote the Confession with more leniency than the malice of the Papists deserved. And yet immediately after the delivery, which marks the height of his usefulness, the good man was in an almost desponding state, and was tormented by scruples whether he had not been conservative enough and taken too much liberty with the venerable Catholic Church. He was, moreover, hard pressed by Romish divines and politicians, and was ready to make serious concessions for the sake of unity and peace. Some of his best friends began unjustly to doubt his loyalty to evangelical truth, and Philip of Hesse, one of the signers of tie Confession, wrote to Zwingli, 'Master Philip goes backward like a crab.' [420] For other divisions, see Zoeckler, l.c. p. 93 sqq. [421] Part II. Art. 5 (De discrimine ciborum): 'Of this persuasion concerning traditions many disadvantages have followed in the Church. For first the doctrine of grace is obscured by it, and the righteousness of faith, which is the principal part of the Gospel (doctrina de gratia et justitia fidei, quae est praecipua pars Evangelii), and which it behoveth most of all to stand forth and to have the pre-eminence in the Church, that the merit of Christ may be well known, and faith, which believeth that sins are remitted for Christ's sake, may be exalted far above works.' [422] The wording of the article--quod corpus (in German, wahrer Leib) et sanguis Christi vere (wahrhaftiglich) adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in Caena Domini--leaves room for both theories. The Papistical Confutation, while objecting to the articles de utraque specie and de missa, in the second part of the Augsb. Conf., was satisfied with Art. X. of the first part, provided only that it be understood as teaching the presence of the whole Christ under the bread as well as the wine. ('Decimus articulus in verbis nihil offendit, quia fatentur, in eucharistia post consecrationem legitime factam corpus et sanguis Christi substantialiter et vere adesse, si modo credant, sub qualibet specie integrum Christum adesse.') In the Apology of the Confession (Art. X.), Melanchthon asserts the corporalis praesentia, and even substitutes for vere adsint the stronger terms vere et substantialiter adsint. The Lutheran Church, as represented in Luther's writings and in the Form of Concord (R. 729), rejects transubstantiation, and also the doctrine of impanation, i.e., a local inclusion of Christ's body and blood in the elements (localis inclusio in pane), or a permanent and extra-sacramental conjunction of the two substances (durabilis aliqua conjunctio extra usum sacramenti); but it teaches consubstantiation in the sense of a sacramental conjunction of the two substances effected by the consecration, or a real presence of Christ's very body and blood in, with, and under (in, cum, et sub) bread and wine. The word consubstantiation, however, is not found in the Lutheran symbols, and is rejected by Lutheran theologians if used in the sense of impanation. The philosophical foundation of this dogma is the ubiquity (either absolute or relative) of Christ's body, which is a part of the Lutheran Christology. [423] Et improbant secus docentes (derhalben wird auch die Gegenlehr verworfen). The omission of Zwingli's name may be due to regard for his friend, the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, but that he was chiefly intended must be inferred from the antecedent controversies, especially the l5th Article of the Marburg Conference, and from the strong opposition of Melanchthon to Zwingli's theory before 1536 or 1540, when he modified his own view on the Eucharist. See below. [424] Foerstemann, Urkundenbuch, etc., I. p. 460, and Bindseil, Corp. Ref., Vol. XXVI. p. 205. Chancellor Brueck (Pontanus) wrote the Preface in German, and Jonas translated it into Latin. A copy in the Seminary Library at Wittenberg has the remark, probably from the hand of Jonas, after the inscription, 'Praefatio ad Caes. Car. V.:' 'Reddita e Germanico Pontani tunc per Justum Jonam. [425] There was considerable controversy as to the genuineness of the signatures of two of seven Princes, viz., John Frederick of Saxony (the son of the Elector John) and Duke Francis of Lueneburg. See Koellner, l.c. pp. 201 sqq. [426] At the conclusion of the first part, the Confession says: 'Haec fere summa est doctrinae apud nos, in qua cerni potest, nihil inesse, quod discrepet a scripturis, vel ab ecclesia catholica, vel ab ecclesia romana, quatenus ex scriptoribus nota est,' and in the Epilogus: 'Apud nos nihil esse receptum contra scripturam, aut ecclesiam catholicam, quia manifestum est, nos diligentissime cavisse, ne qua nova et impia dogmata in ecclesias nostras serperent.' Hence the Confession frequently appeals not only to the Scriptures, but also to the Fathers (Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, etc.) and the canon law (Decretum Gratiani, veteres canones, and the exemplum ecclesiae). [427] Melanchthon wrote to Luther: 'Mittitur tibi Apologia nostra, quanquam verius Confessio est.' Afterwards it was also frequently called the 'Saxon Confession' and the 'Evangelische Augapfel' (Prov. vii. 2). [428] Ranke, l.c. III. p. 201: 'In diesem Sinne der Annaeherung, dem Gefuehle des Nochnichtvollkommengetrenntseins, dem Wunsche, eine wie im tieferen Grunde der Dinge waltende, so in einigen Einzelnheiten des Bekenntnisses sichtbare Verwandtschaft geltend zu machen, war die Confession gedacht und abgefasst.' Zoeckler, l.c. p. 318: 'Die Augustana ist in ihren Antithesen, sowohl nach der roemischen wie nach der reformirten Seite hin, das mildeste, friedliebendste, gegnerischer seits am leichtesten zu ertragende aller evangelisch-lutherischen Symbole. [429] Comp. the Preface, and the repeated assurances of Melanchthon, e.g., in a letter of May 21, 1530, to Joachim Camerarius (Corp. Ref. II. p. 57): 'Ego Apologiam paravi scriptam summa verecundia, neque his de rebus dici mitius posse arbitror.' And in a letter to the same, dated June 19 (ib. p. 119): 'Non dubitabam quin Apologia nostra videretur futura lenior, quam mereatur improbitas adversarioram.' [430] See the remarks of L. Ranke, III. p. 220 sq. Kahnis also (Luth. Dogm. II. p. 436) admits that 'the desire for an understanding with the Papists made Melanchthon a very decided opponent of the Swiss, and even of the Strasburgers.' [431] For a hearty estimate of the value of the Confession from the Lutheran stand-point, see Dr. Krauth's introduction to his translation, pp. xlvii. sqq., and his Conservative Reformation, pp. 255 sqq.: 'With the Augsburg Confession,' he says in both places, 'begins the clearly recognized life of the Evangelical Protestant Church, the purified Church of the West, on which her enemies fixed the name Lutheran. With this Confession her most self-sacrificing struggles and greatest achievements are connected. It is hallowed by the prayers of Luther, among the most ardent that ever burst from the human heart; it is made sacred by the tears of Melanchthon, among the tenderest which ever fell from the eyes of man. It is embalmed in the living, dying, and undying devotion of the long line of the heroes of our faith, who, through the world which was not worthy of them, passed to their eternal rest. The greatest masters in the realm of intellect have defended it with their labors; the greatest Princes have protected it from the sword by the sword; and the blood of its martyrs, speaking better things than vengeance, pleads forever, with the blood of Him whose all-availing love, whose sole and all-atoning sacrifice, is the beginning, middle, and end of its witness.' [432] Calvin wrote to Rev. Mart. Schalling, at Ratisbon, 1557: 'Nec vero Augustanam Confessionem repudio, cui pridem volens ac libens subscript, sicut eam auctor ipse interpretatus est' (Epp. p. 437). Similarly in his Ultima Admonitio ad Joach. Westphalum, Genev. 1557. It is not quite certain whether it was the Altered or the Unaltered Confession which Calvin subscribed at Ratisbon, but probably it was the former, as he says that it contained nothing contrary to his doctrine, and as he appealed without fear to Melanchthon himself as the best interpreter. The Altered edition had appeared a year before, and had been actually used at the previous Conference at Worms, though Eck protested against it. See Koellner, p. 241; Zoeckler, pp. 40, 41; Ebrard, Dogma vom hell. Abendmahl, II. p. 450; Staehelin, Joh. Calvin, I. p. 236; G. v. Polentz, Geschichte des franzoesischen Calvinismus, Vol. I. p. 577; Vol. II. p. 62. [433] 'Augustanae Confessioni addicti,' 'Augsburgische Confessionsverwandte.' [434] In the electoral, afterwards royal, house of Brandenburg, the Augsburg Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism have always lived in peace together. The Great Elector, Frederick William, as patron of the German Reformed, professed in their name, when the Westphalian Treaty was concluded, their cordial adherence to the Confession of 1530 (Profitentur dicti Reformati Augustanam Confessionem augustissimo Imp. Carolo V. anno 1530 exhibitam corde et ore). There are, however, German Reformed congregations of a more strictly Calvinistic type (e.g., in Elberfeld), which would rather adopt the Canons of the Synod of Dort than the Augsburg Confession. [435] The unanimous declaration of the Berlin Church Diet reads thus: 'The members of the German Evangelical Church Diet hereby put on record that they hold and profess with heart and mouth the Confession delivered, A.D. 1530, at the Diet of Augsburg, by the evangelical Princes and States to Emperor Charles V., and hereby publicly testify their agreement with it, as the oldest, simplest common document of publicly recognized evangelical doctrine in Germany (dass sie sich zu der im Jahr 1530 auf dem Reichstags zu Augsburg von den evangelischen Fuersten und Staenden Kaiser Karl V. ueberreichten Confession mit Herz und Mund halten und bekennen, und die Uebereinstimmung mit ihr, als der aeltesten, einfachsten gemeinsamen Urkunde oeffentlich anerkannter evangelischer Lehre in Deutschland, hiedurch oeffentlich bezeugen).' So far orthodox Lutherans might agree. But now follows a qualification to save the consciences of the Reformed and Unionists: 'With this we connect the declaration that they and each one of them adhere to the particular confessions of their respective churches, and the Unionists to the consensus of the same; and that they do not mean to interfere with the different positions which the Lutherans, Reformed, and Unionists sustain to the Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession, nor with the peculiar relations of those Reformed congregations which never held the Augustana as a symbol (Hiemit verbinden sie die Erklaerung, dass sie jeder insonderheit an den besonderen Bekenntniss-Schriften ihrer Kirchen, und die Unirten an dem Consensus derselben festhalten, und dass der verschiedenen Stellung der Lutheraner, Reformirten und Unirten zu Artikel X. dieser Confession, und den eigenthuemlichen Verhaeltnissen derjenigen Reformirten Gemeinden, welche die Augustana niemals als Symbol gehabt haben, nicht Eintrag geschehen soll).' See Evang. Kirchenztg. of Berlin, for 1853, pp. 775 sqq. While fully recognizing the importance of this testimony in opposition to rationalism and popery, we should remember, first, that it has no official or ecclesiastical character (the German Kirchentag, like the Evangelical Alliance, being merely a voluntary association without legislative or disciplinary power); and, secondly, that it is a compromise, which was expressly repudiated by the anti-Union Lutherans (the professors at Erlangen, Leipzig, and Rostock), as 'a frivolous depreciation of the most precious symbol of German Evangelical Christendom.' [436] So Dr. W. Hoffmann, late Court Chaplain of the Emperor of Germany (Deutschland Einst und Jetzt im Lichte des Reiches Gottes, Berlin, 1868, pp. 476 sqq. and 512 sqq.); Consistorialrath Leop. Schultze (Die Augsb. Confession als Gesammtlbekenntniss unserer evang. Landeskirche, Bremen, 1869); to some extent also Prof. Zoeckler (l.c. p. 330), who proposes that the Augsburg Confession be made, not indeed the Union Symbol, but the Confederation Symbol of German Evangelical Christendom. [437] See the details in Weber, Koellner, and Bindseil. [438] Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVI. p. 205. [439] The Latin text of the Book of Concord is substantially from Melanchthon's quarto edition of 1531, and was supposed to correspond entirely with an imaginary Latin manuscript in Mayence. The German text purports to be a true copy of the original manuscript in Mayence, but is derived from a secondary source, viz., the printed text in the Corpus Brandenburgicum, 1572, which, again, was based upon a carelessly written copy of the Confession before its final revision. Chancellor Pfaff, of Tuebingen, first discovered at Mayence that the original German copy was lost long ago, and he published, in 1730, what was regarded as a true copy of the original; but he was fiercely assailed by Adami, Feuerlin, and others, and his discovery traced to a Jesuitical lie. In 1781 Georg Gottlieb Weber, chief pastor at Weimar, was allowed to make a thorough search in the archives of Mayence, and found to his surprise that the copy shown him as the original was the printed German octavo edition of 1540, bearing on the title-page the words 'Wittenberg, M.D.X.L.' He published the results of his patient investigation in his Kritische Geschichte der Augsb. Confession aus archival. Nachrichten, Frankf. a. M. 1783-4, 2 vols. [440] The various readings in Bindseil's edition, in the Corpus Reformatorum, cover as much space as the text itself. [441] Comp. the concluding words: 'Si quid in hoc confessione desiderabitur, parati sumus latiorem informationem, Deo volente, juxta Scripturas exhibere.' [442] Under the title: 'Confessio Fidei | exhibita invictiss. Imp. Carolo V. | Caesaris Aug. in Comiciis | Augustae, | Anno | M.D.X.X.X. | Addita est Apologia Confessionis. | Beide, Deutsch | und Latinisch. | Ps. 119. | Et loquebar de testimoniis tuis in conspectu Regum, et non confundebar. | Witebergae.' (In 4). At the end: 'Impressum per Georgiam Rhau. | M.D.X.X.X.I.' This is the title of the copy in the royal library at Dresden, which Melanchthon gave to Luther, with the words, in his own handwriting (below the title): 'D. Doctari Martino. Et rogo ut legat et emendet.' See Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. p. 235. Bindseil (pp. 246 sqq.) shows that the Confession was already printed (but not issued) in November, 1530, and that the whole volume, with the Apology, was finished in April or May, 1531. Some copies of the printed Confession seem to have reached Augsburg before the close of the Diet. [443] He wrote to Joachim Camerarius, June 26 (a day after the delivery at Augsburg): 'Ego mutabam et refingebam pleraque quotidie, plura etiam mulaturus, si nostri sumphradmones [counselors] permisissent.' Corp. Ref. II. p. 140. Kaiser has shown that Melanchthon made a number of changes in the first edition--Beitrag zu einer Kritischen Literaer-Geschichte der Melanchthonischen Original-Ausgabe der lat. und deutsch. Augsb. Conf. und Apologie, Nuernberg, 1830. Comp. Koellner, l.c. I. p. 340, and Corp. Ref. Vol. XXVI. pp. 251 sqq. [444] Luther, who took similar liberty with the Smalcald Articles, expresses no judgment, in his writings, on these variations; but he must have known of them, and tolerated them as unessential, even those of 1540, which appeared six years before his death. The sayings attributed to him on this subject by both parties are apocryphal, at all events unreliable, viz., the word of censure: 'Philippe, Philippe, ihr thut nicht recht, dass ihr Augustanam Confessionem so oft aendert; denn es ist nicht euer, sondern der Kirchen Buch;' and the word of indirect approval (1546): 'Lieber Philipp, ich muss es bekennen, der Sache vom Abendmahl ist viel zu viel gethan' (the matter of the Lord's Supper has been much overdone). The latter utterance, however, which Luther is reported to have made shortly before his death, has received a high degree of probability by the discovery of the testimony of Pastor Hardenberg, of Bremen (1547-1550), who publicly and solemnly declared to have heard it, together with another living witness (Canon Herbert von Langen, at Bremen), from Melanchthon's own lips. See Erlanger Reform. Kirchenzeitung for 1853, No. 40. The first Lutheran divine who publicly censured and condemned the Variata was Flacius, at the colloquy of Weimar, 1560. He was followed by Moerlin, Stoessel, Wigand, Chytraeus, Heshusius, and others. [445] Under the title (as given in Corp. Reform. l.c. p. 243): 'Confessio | Fidei exhibita | invictiss. imp. Carolo | V. Caesari Aug. in Comiciis | Augustae. | Anno. M.D.X.X.X. Addita et Apologia Confessionis diligenter recognita. | Psalmo CXIX. | Vitebergae, 1540.' The words diligenter recognita (in the German edition, mit vleis emendirt) openly indicate the changes. [446] The best text of the Variata, with the variations of later editions, is given in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVI. pp. 349 sqq.; the history in Koellner, I. pp. 235-267, and the books there quoted; also in Zoeckler, l.c. pp. 35 sqq. In Vol. II. of this Symb. Library the principal changes are noted in foot-notes under the text of the Confession. [447] In Art. 4, 5, 6, 18, 20, 21, of Part First, and the order of the first five articles in Part Second. [448] In Art. 4, 5, 10, 18, 20. [449] Zoeckler, l.c. p. 38, thinks that the Calvinistic view would require credentibus instead of vescentibus. This would be true, if the original distribuantur had been retained, and not exchanged for the more indefinite exhibeantur. He admits, however, that the tenth article is 'calvinisirend' and 'bucerianisirend' in the sense of the Wittenberg Concordia of 1536, whereby Bucer, with Melanchthon's express co-operation, and the subsequent consent of Calvin, endeavored to unite the Lutherans and the Swiss. [450] The German text of 1530 (1531) differs from the Latin, and is even stronger: 'Vom Abendmahl des Herrn wird also gelehret, dass wahrer Leib (the true body) und Blut Christi wahrhaftiglich (corresponding to the vere in the Latin text) unter (der) gestalt (under the form) des Brots und Weins im Abendmahl gegenwaertig sei, und da ausgetheilt und genommen wird (distributed and received). Derhalben wird auch die Gegenlehr verworfen.' [451] See Weber, l.c. II. pp. 214-336; Koellner, l.c. pp. 248 sqq. [452] Instrum. Pacis Osnabr. Art. VII. S: 1: 'Unanimi quoque . . . consensu placuit, ut quicquid publica haec transactio, in eaque decisio gravaminum ceteris Calholicis, et Augustanae Conf. Addictis statibus et subditis tribuunt, it etiam iis, qui inter illos Reformati vocantur, competere debeat.' Quoted by Jacobson in art. Westf. Friede, in Herzog's Real-Encycl. XVIII. p. 24. Nevertheless, some interpreted this decree as including only such of the Reformed as subscribed the Invariata. All other Christians are expressly excluded by the Treaty; and yet the Popes have always, though vainly, protested in the strongest terms (damnamus, reprobamus, cassamus, annullamus, vacuamus) even against this partial concession to the principle of religious freedom; taking the ground that Papists alone have a legal right to exist on German soil. See Gieseler, Lehrbuch der K. G. III. I. p. 431 sq. [453] An attempt was made in the Bavarian Palatinate, in 1853, through the influence of Dr. Ebrard, to raise the Variata to the dignity of a symbolical book, but it proved abortive. __________________________________________________________________ S: 42. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, A.D. 1530-1531. The Literature in S:S: 40 and 41. The history and literature of the Apology are usually combined with that of the Confession. So in J. G. Walch, Feuerlin-Riederer, Koellner, etc. The best text of the Apology, and of the Roman Catholic Confutation of the Confession, in Latin and German, with all the variations, is given in the Corpus Reformatorum, Vol. XXVII., ed. Bindseil (Brunsvigae, 1859), pp. 646, fol. There are few separate editions of the Apology. Feuerlin knew only two, one under the singular title: Evangelischen Augapfels (name of the Augsb. Conf.) Brillen-Butzer, Leipz. 1629. The 'Apology of the Augsburg Confession' was prepared by Melanchthon in vindication of the Confession against the Roman Catholic 'Confutation,' which the Emperor and the Diet had ordered and accepted, August 3, 1530, as a satisfactory answer, although, in the eyes of scholars, it did the cause of popery more harm than good. The Confutation follows the order of the Augsburg Confession, approves eighteen articles of the first part, either in full or with sundry restrictions and qualifications, but rejects entirely the articles on the Church (VII.), on faith and good works (XX.), and on the worship of saints (XXI.), and the whole second part; nevertheless, it acknowledges at the close the existence of various abuses, especially among the clergy, and promises a reformation of discipline. The publication of the document was prohibited, and it did not appear till many years afterwards; but its main contents were known from manuscript copies, and through those who heard it read. [454] The Lutherans urged Melanchthon to prepare at once a Protestant refutation of the Romish refutation, and offered the first draft of it to the Diet, Sept. 22, through Chancellor Brueck, but it was refused. On the following day Melanchthon left Augsburg in company with the Elector of Saxony, and re-wrote the Apology on the journey, [455] and completed it at Wittenberg in April, 1531. The Apology is a triumphant vindication of the Confession. It far excels the Confutation both in theological and literary merit, and in Christian tone and spirit. It is written with solid learning, clearness, and moderation, though not without errors in exegesis and patristic quotations. It is seven times as large as the Confession itself. It is the most learned of the Lutheran symbols. It greatly strengthened the confidence of scholars in the cause of Protestantism. Its chief and permanent value consists in its being the oldest and most authentic interpretation of the Augsburg Confession by the author himself. The Apology, though not signed by the Lutheran Princes at Augsburg, was recognized first in 1532, at a convent in Schweinfurt, as a public confession; it was signed by Lutheran divines at Smalcald, 1537; it was used at the religious conference at Worms, 1540, and embodied in the various symbolical collections, and at last in the Book of Concord. The text of the Apology has, like that of the Confession, gone through various transformations. The original draft made at Augsburg has no authority. [456] The first Latin edition was much enlarged and improved, and appeared in April, 1531, at Wittenberg, together with a very free German translation by Justus Jonas, assisted by Melanchthon. [457] The second Latin edition of the same year was again much changed, and is called the Variata. [458] The German text was also transformed, especially in the edition of 1533. The Book of Concord took both texts from the first edition. __________________________________________________________________ [454] The Latin text of the Confutatio was first published by Fabricius Leodius in Harmonia Confess., 1573; the German, by C. G. Mueller, 1808, from a copy of the original in the archives of Mayence, which Weber had previously obtained. Both in the Corp. Reform. l.c. Comp. also above, p. 226; Weber's Krit. Gesch. der A. C. II. pp. 439 sqq.; and Hugo Laemmer (who afterwards joined the Romish Church): Die vor-Tridentinisch-Katholische Theologie, des Reformations-Zeitalters, Berlin, 1858, pp. 33-46. [455] His zeal led him to violate even the law of rest on Sunday when at Altenburg, in Spalatin's house. Luther took the pen from him, and told him to serve God on that day by resting from literary labor. So Salig reports in his Hist. of the Augsb. Conf. I. p. 375. [456] Manuscript copies of this 'Apologia prior,' which was based on an imperfect knowledge of the Romish Confutatio, still exist. The Latin text of it was published forty-seven years afterwards by Chytraeus (from Spalatin's copy), 1578, better by Foerstemann, in his Neues Urkundenbuch (1842), pp. 357-380 (from a copy written partly by Spalatin and partly by Melanchthon). The best edition is by Bindseil, in the Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVII. pp. 275 sqq. in Latin, and in German, pp. 322 sqq. [457] During the preparation of the editio princeps he wrote to Brentius (February, 1531): 'Ego retexo Apologiam et edetur longe auctior et melius munita,' and to Camerarius (March 7): 'Apologia mea nondum absoluta est, crescit enim opus inter scribendum.' Quoted by Koellner, I, p. 426. Six sheets were reprinted, and a copy of the first print is preserved in the library of Nuremberg. See Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVII. pp. 391 sqq. [458] See the titles of the various editions in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVI. pp. 235-242, and the best text of the 'Apologia altera' of 1531, with the changes of later editions till 1542 (viz., of the ed. II. 1531, ed. III. 1540, ed. IV. 1542), in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXVII. pp. 419-646. __________________________________________________________________ S: 43. Luther's Catechisms. A.D. 1529. Literature. I. Editions. See S: 40. We only mention the critical editions. C. Moenckeberg: Die erste Ausgabe v. Luthers Klein. Katechismus. Hamburg, 1851. (Reprint of the Low-German translation of the first edition, 1529.) K. F. Th. Schneider: Dr. Martin Luthers Kleiner Katechismus. Nach den Originalausgaben kritisch bearbeitet. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Katechetik. Berlin, 1853. (Reprint of the standard edition of 1531; with a critical introduction, pp. lxx.) Theodos. Harnack: Der Kleine Katechismus Dr. Martin Luthers in seiner Urgestalt. Kritisch untersucht und herausgegeben. Stuttgart, 1856, 4to. (Reprint of two editions of 1529, and one of 1539; with lxiv. pp. of introduction, and a table of the principal variations of the text till 1542.) The popular editions of the Smaller Catechism, especially in German, with or without comments and supplements, are innumerable. II. Works: A. Fabricii: Axiomata Scripturae Catechismo Lutheri accommodata, etc. Isleb. 1583. C. Dieterici: Instit. catech. Ulm, 1613; often reprinted. Ph. J. Spener: Tabulae catech. Frf. 1683, 1687, 1713. Greg. Langemack: Hist. catecheticae oder Gesammelte Nachrichten zu einer Catech. Historie. Strals. 1729-1740, 3 vols. Part II., 1733, treats of Lutheri und anderer evang. Lehrer Catechismis. J. C. Koecher: Einleitung in die catech. Theol. Jena, 1752. And Biblioth. theol. symb. catech. P. I. 1751; P. II. 1769. J. C. W. Augusti: Versuch einer hist. kritischen Einleitung in die beiden Haupt-Katechismen der Evang. Kirche. Elberf. 1824. G. Veesenmeyer: Liter. bibliograph. Nachrichten von einigen evang. katechet. Schriften und Katechismen vor und nach Luthers Kat., etc. Ulm, 1830. G. Mohnike: Das sechste Hauptstueck im Katechismus. Stralsund, 1830. C. A. Gerh. von Zezschwitz: System der christlich kirchlichen Katechetik. Leipz. 1863-69, 2 vols. Vol. II. P. I. treats of Luther's Catechism very fully. Comp. the Literature in Fabricius, Feuerlin, Walch, Baumgarten, Koellner, Symbolik, I. p. 473. CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTION. Religious instruction preparatory to admission to church membership is as old as Christianity itself, but it assumed very different shapes in different ages and countries. In the first three or four centuries (as also now on missionary ground) it always preceded baptism, and was mainly addressed to adult Jews and Gentiles. In length and method it freely adapted itself to various conditions and degrees of culture. The three thousand Jewish converts on the day of Pentecost, having already a knowledge of the Old Testament, were baptized simply on their profession of faith in Christ, after hearing the sermon of St. Peter. Men like Cornelius, the Eunuch, Apollos, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, needed but little theoretical preparation, and Cyprian and Ambrose were elected bishops even while yet catechumens. At Alexandria and elsewhere there were special catechetical schools of candidates for baptism. The basis of instruction was the traditional rule of faith or Apostles' Creed, but there were no catechisms in our sense of the term; and even the creed which the converts professed at baptism was not committed to writing, but orally communicated as a holy secret. Public worship was accordingly divided into a missa catechumenorum for half-Christians in process of preparation for baptism, and a missa fidelium for baptized communicants or the Church proper. With the union of Church and State since Constantine, and the general introduction of infant baptism, catechetical instruction began to be imparted to baptized Christians, and served as a preparation for confirmation or the first communion. It consisted chiefly of the committal and explanation, (1) of the Ten Commandments, (2) of the Creed (the Apostles' Creed in the Latin, the Nicene Creed in the Greek Church), sometimes also of the Athanasian Creed and the Te Deum; (3) of the Lord's Prayer (Paternoster). To these were added sometimes special chapters on various sins and crimes, on the Sacraments, and prayers. Councils and faithful bishops enjoined upon parents, sponsors, and priests the duty of giving religious instruction, and catechetical manuals were prepared as early as the eighth and ninth centuries, by Kero, monk of St. Gall (about 720); Notker, of St. Gall (d. 912); Otfried, monk of Weissenbourg (d. after 870), and others. [459] But upon the whole this duty was sadly neglected in the Middle Ages, and the people were allowed to grow up in ignorance and superstition. The anti-papal sects, as the Albigenses, Waldenses, and the Bohemian Brethren, paid special attention to catechetical instruction. [460] The Reformers soon felt the necessity of substituting evangelical Catechisms for the traditional Catholic Catechisms, that the rising generation might grow up in the knowledge of the Scriptures and the true faith. Of all the Protestant Catechisms, those of Luther follow most closely the traditional method, but they are baptized with a new spirit. LUTHER'S CATECHISMS. After several preparatory attempts, [461] Luther wrote two Catechisms, in 1529, both in the German language--first the larger, and then the smaller. The former is a continuous exposition rather than a Catechism, and is not divided into questions and answers; moreover, it grew so much under his hands that it became altogether unsuitable for the instruction of the young, which he had in view from the beginning. Hence he prepared soon afterwards a smaller one, or Enchiridion, as he called it. [462] It is the ripe flower and fruit of the larger work, and almost superseded it, or confined its use to pastors and teachers and a more advanced class of pupils. [463] He was moved to this work by the lamentable state of religious ignorance and immorality among the German people, which he found out during his visitations of the churches in Saxony, 1527-29. [464] With his conservative instinct, he retained the three parts on the Decalogue (after the Latin division), the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. To these he added, after the example of the Bohemian Brethren, an instruction on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. [465] Luther's Catechism proper, therefore, has five parts: 1. Decalogus; 2. Symbolum Apostolicum; 3. Oratio Dominica; 4. De Baptismo; 5. De Sacramento Altaris. So the Large Catechism, as printed in the Book of Concord (without any additions [466] ), and the Small Catechism in the first two editions (with devotional additions). THE ADDITIONS IN THE ENCHIRIDION. In the later editions of the Small Catechism (since 1564) there is a sixth part on Confession and Absolution, or the Power of the Keys, [467] which is inserted either as Part V., between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, or added as Part VI., or as an Appendix. The precise authorship of the enlarged form or forms (for they vary) of this Part, with the questions 'What is the Power of the Keys,' etc., is uncertain, [468] but the substance of it, viz., the questions on private or auricular confession of sin to the minister and absolution by the minister, as given in the 'Book of Concord,' date from Luther himself, and appear first substantially in the third edition of 1531, as introductory to the fifth part on the Lord's Supper. [469] He made much account of private confession and absolution, while the Calvinists abolished the same as a mischievous popish invention. 'True absolution,' says Luther, 'or the power of the keys, instituted in the Gospel by Christ, affords comfort and support against sin and an evil conscience. Confession or absolution shall by no means be abolished in the Church, but be retained, especially on account of weak and timid consciences, and also on account of untutored youth, in order that they may be examined and instructed in the Christian doctrine. But the enumeration of sins should be free to every one, to enumerate or not to enumerate such as he wishes.' [470] Besides these doctrinal sections, the Smaller Catechism, as edited by Luther in 1531 (partly, also, in the first edition of 1529), has three appendices of a devotional or liturgical character, viz.: 1. A series of short family prayers ('wie ein Hausvater sein Gesinde soll lehren Morgens und Abends sich segnen); 2. A table of duties ('Haustafel') for the members of a Christian household, consisting of Scripture passages 1 Tim. iii. 2 sqq.; Rom. xiii. 1 sqq.; Col. iii. 19 sqq.; Eph. vi. 1 sqq., etc.); 3. A marriage manual ('Traubuechlin'); and 4. A baptismal manual ('Taufbuechlin'). The first two appendices, which are devotional, were retained in the 'Book of Concord;' but the third and fourth, which are liturgical and ceremonial, were omitted because of the great diversity in different churches as to exorcism in baptism, and the rite of marriage. TRANSLATIONS AND INTRODUCTION. The Smaller Catechism was translated from the German original into the Latin (by Sauermann) and many other languages; even into the Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac. It is asserted by Lutheran writers that no book, except the Bible, has had a wider circulation. Thirty-seven years after its appearance Matthesius spoke of a circulation of over a hundred thousand copies. It was soon introduced into public schools, churches, and families. It became by common consent a symbolical book, and a sort of 'Lay Bible' for the German people. It is still very extensively used in Lutheran churches, though mostly with supplements or in connection with fuller Catechisms. In Southern Germany the Catechism of Brentius obtained a wide currency. CHARACTER, VALUE, AND DEFECTS. Luther's Small Catechism is truly a great little book, with as many thoughts as words, and every word telling and sticking to the heart as well as the memory. It bears the stamp of the religious genius of Luther, who was both its father and its pupil. [471] It exhibits his almost apostolic gift of expressing the deepest things in the plainest language for the common people. It is strong food for a man, and yet as simple as a child. It marks an epoch in the history of religious instruction: it purged it from popish superstitions, and brought it back to Scriptural purity and simplicity. As it left far behind all former catechetical manuals, it has, in its own order of excellence and usefulness, never been surpassed. To the age of the Reformation it was an incalculable blessing. Luther himself wrote no better book, excepting, of course, his translation of the Bible, and it alone would have immortalized him as one of the great benefactors of the human race. Few books have elicited such enthusiastic praise, and have even to this day such grateful admirers. [472] But with all its excellences it has some serious defects. It gives the text of the Ten Commandments in an abridged form (the Larger Catechism likewise), and follows the wrong division of the Romish Church, which omits the second commandment altogether, and cuts the tenth commandment into two, to make up the number. [473] It allows only three questions and answers to the exposition of the Creed. It gives undue importance to the Sacraments by making them co-ordinate parts with the three great divisions, and elevates even private confession and absolution, as a sort of third sacrament, to equal dignity. It omits many important articles, and contains no express instruction on the Bible, as the inspired record of divine revelation and the infallible rule of faith and practice. Hence it is found necessary, where it is used, to supplement it by a number of preliminary and additional questions and answers. THE TEXT OF THE ENCHIRIDION. The critical restoration of the best text of Luther's Small Catechism has only recently been accomplished by Moenckeberg, Schneider, and Harnack. The text of the 'Book of Concord' is unreliable. The editio princeps of 1529 had entirely disappeared until Moenckeberg, 1851, published a Low-German translation from a copy in the Hamburg city library; and five years later (1856) Professor Harnack found an Erfurt reprint of the original (without date), and a Marburg reprint dated 1529. The second recension, of 1529, which contains several improvements and addenda, was described by Riederer, in 1765, from a copy then in the university library at Altdorf. This copy was supposed to have been transferred to Erlangen, but was discovered by Harnack in the German Museum at Nuremburg, and republished by him, 1856, together with a reprint of the editio princeps, and a Wittenberg edition of 1539, a valuable critical introduction, and a table of the principal variations of the text till 1542. The third recension, of 1531, was brought to light by Dr. Schneider, and accurately republished (but without the woodcuts and the Traubuechlin and Taufbuechlin), 1853, with a learned introduction and critical apparatus. [474] It gives the text of the five parts substantially as it has remained since, also the section on confession ('Wie man die Einfaeltigen soll lehren beichten'), the morning and evening prayers, the Benedicite and Gratias, the Haustafel, the Traubuechlin and the Taufbuechlin. In 1535 (and 1536) Luther prepared a new edition, to conform the Scripture texts to his translation of the Bible, which was completed in 1534. The edition of 1542 ('aufs neu uebersehen und zugericht') adds the promise to the fourth (fifth) commandment, and enlarges the 'House Table.' __________________________________________________________________ [459] Otfried's Catechism was newly edited by J. G. Eccard: 'Incerti Monachi Weissenburgensis Catechesis Theotisca Seculo IX. conscripta.' Hanov. 1713. It contains: 1. The Lord's Prayer, with an explanation; 2. The Deadly Sins; 3. The Apostles' Creed; 4. The Athanasian Creed; 5. The Gloria. [460] Comp. J. C. Koecher: Catechet. Geschichte der Waldenser, Boehmischen Brueder, etc. Amst. 1768. And C. A. G. von Zezschwitz: Die Catechismen der Waldenser und Boehmischen Brueder als Documente ihres gegenseitigen Lehraustausches. Erlangen, 1863. [461] They began in 1518 with a popular evangelical exposition of the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. See Schneider, l.c. pp. xvii. sqq., and Zezschwitz, l.c. II. I. pp. 316 sqq. Nor stood he alone in these labors. Urbanus Regius (author of three Catechisms), Lonicer (Strasburg, 1523), Melanchthon (1524), Brentius (1527 or 1528), Lachmann (Catechesis, 1528), Ruerer, Althamer, Moiban, Corvin, Rhau, Willich, Chytraeus (1555), and other Lutherans of the Reformation period, wrote books for the religious instruction of the young. [462] First in the second edition, whose title (as given by Riederer, but now wanting in the copy rediscovered by Harnack, l.c. p. xxii.) is this: ' Enchiridion. Der kleine Catechismus fuer die gemeine Pfarher und Prediger, gemehret and gebessert durch Mart. Luther. Wittenberg, MDXXIX.' The title of the third edition, 1531, is: 'Enchiridion. | Der kleine Catechismus fuer die gemeine Pfarher und Prediger. | Mart. Lu. MDXXXI.' See Schneider, l.c. p. 1. This is the standard edition, from which the editions of 1539 and 1542 differ very slightly. [463] See, on the relation of the two, Koellner, l.c. p. 490. He says, p. 520: 'The Large Catechism has entirely gone out of use.' Comp. also Zezschwitz, l.c. p. 324. The older view of the priority of the Small Catechism is wrong. [464] He says, in his characteristic style (Preface to the Small Catechism): 'Diesen Katechismum oder christliche Lehre in solche kleine, schlechte, einfaeltige Form zu stellen, hat mich gezwungen und gedrungen die klaegliche elende Noth, so ich neulich erfahren habe, da ich auch ein Visitator war. Hilf, lieber Gott, wie manchen Jammer habe ich gesehen, dass der gemeine Mann doch so gar nichts weiss von der christlichen Lehre, sonderlich auf den Doerfern! Und leider viel Pfarrherren ganz ungeschickt und untuechtig sind zu lehren; und sollen doch alle Christen heissen, getauft sein und der heiligen Sacramente geniessen; koennen weder Vaterunser, noch den Glauben, oder Zehn Gebote; leben dahin, wie das liebe Vieh und unvernuenftige Saeue; und nun das Evangelium kommen ist, dennoch fein gelernt haben, aller Freiheit meisterlich zu missbrauchen. O ihr Bischoefe, was wollt ihr doch Christo immer mehr antworten, dass ihr das Volk so schaendlich habt lassen hingehen, und euer Amt nicht einen Augenblick je bewiesen? Dass euch alles Unglueck fliehe! Verbietet einerlei Gestalt und treibet auf eure Menchengesetze, fraget aber derweil nichts danach, ob sie das Vaterunser, Glauben, Zehn Gebote oder einiges Gotteswort koennen. Ach und wehe ueber euren Hals ewiglich! Darum bitte ich um Gottes willen euch alle meine lieben Herren und Brueder, so Pfarrherren oder Prediger sind, wollet euch eures Amtes von Herzen annehmen, euch erbarmen ueber euer Volk, das euch befohlen ist, und uns helfen den Katechismus in die Leute, sonderlich in das junge Volk bringen; und welche es nicht besser vermoegen, diese Tafeln und Formen vor sich nehmen, und dem Volke von Wort zu Wort fuerbilden' [465] The Bohemian Brethren, or Hussites, had Catechisms long before Luther, divided into five parts: 1. The Decalogue; 2. The Creed; 3. The Lord's Prayer; 4. The Sacraments; 5. The House Table. They sent a Latin copy to Luther, 1523. See Koellner, l.c. pp. 485, 469. [466] Luther says, in the Prolegomena to the Large Catechism, 'Also haette man ueberall Fuenf Stuecke der Ganzen Christlichen Lehre, die man immerdar treiben kann.' [467] 'Vom Amt der Schluessel. De potestate clavium.' It is usually called 'Das sechste Hauptstueck,' although it should properly be an appendix. [468] It is variously traced to Luther, Brentius (who has in his Catechism a sixth part 'On the Keys'), Bugenhagen, Knipstrov, but with greater probability to the popular Catechetical Sermons prepared for public use in Nuremburg and Brandenburg, 1533 (probably by Brentius), and translated into Latin by Justus Jonas, 1539 (and re-edited by Gerlach, Berlin, 1839). See Francke: Libri symbolici, etc. P. II. Proleg. p. xxiv.; Mueller: Die Symbolischen Buecher, etc. p. xcvii.; Koellner, l.c. pp. 502 sqq.; Zezschwitz, l.c. pp. 327 sqq. [469] See the third edition, as republished by Schneider, l.c. pp. lii. and 45 sqq. Those questions appear under the title 'Wie man die Einfeltigen soll leren beichten.' An admonition to confession ('Vermahnung zu der Beicht') was added also to later editions of the Larger Catechism since 1531, but omitted in the 'Book of Concord,' against the remonstrance of Chemnitz. [470] Art. Smalc. III. p. 8. The Church of England holds a similar position in regard to the confessional, and hence the recent revival of it by the Ritualists, though under the strong protest of the evangelical party. The 'Book of Common Prayer' of the Church of England contains, besides two different forms of public confession and absolution (one for Morning and Evening Prayer, another for the Communion Service), a form of private confession and absolution in the Order for the Visitation of the Sick. The first two are retained, the third is omitted in the Prayer Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. The third form, in the Visitation Office, retains the traditional form of the Latin Church--'Absolvo te in Nomine Patris,' etc.--'I absolve thee in the Name,' etc. Blunt, in his Annotated Book of Common Prayer, Part II. p. 283, comments largely on this formula, and quotes also a passage from the first exhortation in the Communion Office, which reads as follows: 'Therefore, if there be any one who . . . requireth further comfort and counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God's Holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the guiding of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.' And after some other quotations, he says: 'Numberless practical writers speak of private confession as a recognized habit in the Church of England since the Reformation as well as before. Nearly all such writers, however, protest against its compulsory injunction, and it does not seem to be proved that frequent and habitual confession has ever been very common in the Church of England since the Reformation.' [471] 'I am also a doctor and a preacher,' he says in the Preface to his Larger Catechism, 'endowed with no less learning and experience than those who presume so much on their abilities . . . yet I am like a child who is taught the Catechism, and I read and recite word by word, in the morning and when I have leisure, the Ten Commandments, the Articles of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Psalms, etc. . . . and must remain, and do cheerfully remain, a child and pupil of the Catechism.' [472] I quote some Lutheran testimonies which show the impressions of early childhood, and seem extravagant to members of other denominations. Matthesius: 'The world can never sufficiently thank and repay Luther for his little Catechism.' Justus Jonas: 'It may be bought for sixpence, but six thousand worlds would not pay for it.' Andr. Fabricius: 'A better book, next to the Bible, the sun never saw; it is the juice and the blood, the aim and the substance of the Bible.' Seckendorf: 'I have received more consolation and a firmer foundation for my salvation from Luther's little Catechism than from the huge volumes of all the Latin and Greek fathers together.' Loehe: 'It is, of all Confessions, that which is most suitable and best adapted to the people. It is a fact, which no one denies, that no other Catechism in the world can be made a prayer of but this. But it is less known that it may be called a real marvel in respect of the extraordinary fullness and great abundance of knowledge expressed in it in so few words.' Leopold Ranke: 'The Catechism published by Luther in 1529, of which he himself says that, old a doctor as he was, he used it himself as a prayer, is as childlike as it is profound, as comprehensible as it is unfathomable, simple, and sublime. Happy he whose soul was fed by it, who clings to it. He possesses at all times an imperishable consolation: under a thin shell, a kernel of truth sufficient for the wisest of the wise.' ('Der Katechismus, den Luther im Jahr 1529, herausgab, von dem er sagt, er bete ihn selbst, so ein alter Doctor er auch sei, ist ebenso kindlich wie tiefsinnig, so fasslich wie unergruendlich, einfach and erhaben. Glueckselig wer seine Seele damit naehrte, wer daran festhaelt! Er besitzt einen unvergaenglichen Trost in jedem Momente: nur hinter einer leichten Huelle den Kern der Wahrheit, der dem Weisesten der Weisen genug that.' Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, Vol. II. 3d edition, Berlin, 1852, p. 357.) To add an American testimony, I quote from Dr. Ch. P. Krauth: 'So truly did the Shorter Catechism embody the simple Christian faith, as to become, by the spontaneous acclamation of millions, a Confession. It was a private writing, and yet, beyond all the Confessions, the direct pulsation of the Church's whole heart is felt in it. It was written in the rapture of the purest catholicity, and nothing from Luther's pen presents him more perfectly, simply as a Christian; not as the prince of theologians, but as a lowly believer among believers' (The Conservative Reformation, Philadelphia, 1872, p. 285). [473] The Lutheran and the Roman Catholic Catechisms, following the lead of Augustine, regard the second commandment only as an explanation of the first; the Reformed and the Greek Catechisms, following the division of the Jews (Josephus and Philo) and the early Christians (e. g. Origen), treat it as a separate commandment, which prohibits image worship and enjoins the true worship of God, while the first prohibits idolatry and enjoins monotheism. Hence the different modes of counting from the second to the ninth commandment. The division of the tenth commandment follows as a necessity from the omission of the second, but is decidedly refuted by the intrinsic unity of the tenth commandment, and by a comparison of Exod. xx. 17 with Deut. v. 21; for in the latter passage (as also in the Septuagint version of Exod. xx. 17) the order is transposed, and the neighbor's wife put before the neighbor's house, so that what is the ninth commandment in Exodus, according to the Roman Catholic and Lutheran view, would be the tenth according to Deuteronomy. St. Paul, moreover, in enumerating the commandments of the second table, Rom. xiii. 9 (comp. also vii. 7), alludes to the tenth with the words, 'Thou shalt not covet,' without intimating any such division. Comp. also Mark x. 19. The Decalogue consists of two tables, of five commandments each. The first contains the duties to God (praecepta pietatis), the second the duties to men (praecepta probitatis); the first is strictly religious, the second moral. The fifth commandment belongs to the first table, since it enjoins reverence to parents as representing God's authority on earth. This view is now taken not only by Reformed, but also by many of the ablest Lutheran divines, e.g., Oehler, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Tuebingen, 1873), I. pp. 287 sqq.; H. Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie (Frankf. a. M. 1869), I. p. 429. On the other hand, Kurtz, Kahnis, and Zezschwitz defend the Lutheran division. The main thing, of course, is not the dividing, but the keeping of the commandments. [474] See his description, l.c. pp. l.-liv. It is reprinted in the second volume of this work. __________________________________________________________________ S: 44. The Articles of Smalcald. A.D. 1537. Literature. Carpzov: Isagoge in Libras Symbolicos, etc., 1675, pp. 767 sqq. J. C. Bertram: Geschichte des symbol. Anhangs der Schmalk. Artikel. Altdorf, 1770. M. Meurer: Der Tag zu Schmalkalden und die Schmalk. Artikel. Leipz. 1837. Koellner: Symbolik (1837), I. pp. 439-472. G. H. Klippel, in Herzog's Real-Encykl. Vol. XIII. (1860), pp. 600 sqq. Ch. P. Krauth: The Conservative Reformation and its Theology, Phila. 1872, pp. 280-283. F. Sander: Geschichtliche Einleitung zu den Schmalkaldischen Artikeln. In the Jahrbuecher fuer Deutsche Theologie, Gotha, 1875, pp. 475-489. The older literature, mostly doctrinal and polemical, is given by Fabricius, Walch, Baumgarten, Hase (Libri Symb. Proleg. cxl.), and Koellner. ORIGIN. Pope Paul III., yielding at last to the request of the German Emperor and the pressure of public opinion, convoked a general Council, to be opened May 23, 1537, at Mantua, [475] and extended, through his legate, Peter Paul Vergerius (who subsequently became a Protestant), an invitation also to the Lutherans. [476] Though by no means sanguine as to the result, Luther, by order of the Elector of Saxony (Dec. 11, 1536), prepared a Creed as a basis of negotiations at the Council, submitted it to Amsdorf, Agricola, Spalatin, and Melanchthon for approval, and sent it to the Elector, Jan. 3, 1537. Melanchthon, at the request of the convent assembled at Smalcald, prepared an Appendix on the power and primacy of the Pope, about which the Augsburg Confession and Apology are silent. SIGNATURE. MELANCHTHON'S POSITION. The Articles, including the Appendix, were laid before the convent of Lutheran Princes and theologians held in the town of Smalcald (Schmalkalden), in Thuringia, which lent its name to the political league of those Princes for mutual protection, and also to this new Creed. [477] They were signed by the theologians (but not by the Princes) without being publicly discussed. [478] Melanchthon signed the Articles with the following remarkable qualification: 'I, Philip Melanchthon, approve the foregoing Articles as pious and Christian. But in regard to the Pope, I hold that, if he would admit the Gospel, we might also permit him, for the sake of peace and the common concord of Christendom, to exercise, by human right, his present jurisdiction over the bishops, who are now or may hereafter be under his authority.' [479] This remarkable concession strongly contrasts with the uncompromising anti-popery spirit of the Articles, and exposed Melanchthon to much suspicion and abuse. It is self-contradictory and impracticable, since the Pope and his hierarchy will never allow the free preaching of the Gospel in the Protestant sense. But the author's motive was a noble desire for a more independent and dignified position of the Church. He feared--and not without good reason--a worse than papal tyranny from rapacious Protestant Princes, who now exercised the power of supreme bishops and little popes in their territories. He sincerely regretted the loss, not of the episcopal domination, but of the episcopal administration, as a check upon secular despotism. [480] CONTENTS. The Articles of Smalcald consist of three parts. The first reaffirms, very briefly in four articles, the doctrines of the Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds, about which there was no dispute with the Papists. It corresponds to Articles I. and III. of the Augsburg Confession. The second and principal part, concerning 'the office and work of Christ, or our redemption,' is polemical against the mass, purgatory, the invocation of saints, monasticism, and popery, which interfere and set aside the true doctrine of redemption. Justification by faith alone is emphasized as the chief article of faith, 'upon which depends all that we teach and do against the Pope, the devil, and all the world. We must, therefore, be entirely certain of this, and not doubt it, otherwise all will be lost, and the Pope, and the devil, and our opponents will prevail and obtain the victory.' The mass is denounced as 'the greatest and most horrible abomination,' [481] purgatory as a 'satanic delusion,' the Pope as 'the true Antichrist' predicted by Paul (2 Thess. ii. 4), because 'he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power.' The third part treats, in fifteen articles, of sin, of the law, of repentance, of the sacraments, and other doctrines and ordinances, concerning which Protestants may dispute either among themselves or with 'learned and sensible men' (i.e., Catholics in the Council, but not with the Pope, who is said to have no conscience, and to care only about 'gold, honor, and power'). In the article on the Lord's Supper, transubstantiation is expressly excluded, but otherwise the Lutheran doctrine is asserted even in stronger terms than in the Augsburg Confession (viz. that 'the true body and blood of Christ are administered and received, not only by pious, but also by impious Christians.' [482] Luther concludes with spicy remarks against the juggling tricks of the Pope. The Appendix of Melanchthon is a theological masterpiece for his age, written in a calm, moderate, and scholarly tone; and refutes, from the Bible and from the history of the early Church, these three assumptions of the Pope, as 'false, impious, tyrannical, and pernicious in the extreme,' viz.: 1. That the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ, has by divine right supreme authority over the bishops and pastors of the whole Christian world; 2. That he has by divine right both swords, that is, the power to enthrone and dethrone kings, and to regulate civil affairs; 3. That Christians are bound to believe this at the risk of eternal salvation. He also shows from Scripture and from Jerome that the power and jurisdiction of bishops, as far as it differs from that of other ministers, is of human origin, and has been grossly abused in connection with the papal tyranny. CHARACTER AND AUTHORITY. It is clear from this outline that the Articles of Smalcald mark a considerable advance in the final separation of the Lutheran body from the Church of Rome. Luther left Smalcald in bad health (he suffered much of the stone), with the prayer that God may fill his associates with hatred of the Pope, and wrote as his epitaph, 'Pestis eram vivus, moriens tua mors ero, Papa.' The Articles themselves differ from the Augsburg Confession as much as Luther differs from Melanchthon. They are more fresh, vigorous, and original, but less cautions, wise, circumspect, and symmetrical. They are not defensive, but aggressive; not an overture of peace, but a declaration of war. They scorn all compromises, and made a reconciliation impossible. They were, therefore, poorly calculated to be a basis of negotiation at a general Council, and were, in fact, never used for that purpose. The Convent at Smalcald resolved not to send any delegates to the Council. But the Smalcald Articles define the position of Lutheranism towards the Papacy, and give the strongest expression to the doctrine of justification by faith. They accordingly took their place, together with the Appendix, among the symbolical books of the Lutheran Church, and were received into various Corpora Doctrinae, and at last into the 'Book of Concord.' [483] TEXT. [484] Luther prepared the Smalcald Articles at Wittenberg in the German language, and edited them, in 1538, with a preface and considerable changes and additions, but without the signatures, and without the Appendix of Melanchthon. In 1543 and 1545 he issued new editions with slight changes. The first draft, as copied by Spalatin, and signed at Smalcald, was published from the archives of Weimar in 1553, together with Luther's additions and Melanchthon's Appendix, and embodied in the 'Book of Concord.' [485] The Latin text, as it appeared in the first edition of the 'Book of Concord,' was a poor translation, but was much improved in the edition of 1584. Melanchthon wrote the Appendix at Smalcald in Latin, but a German translation by Dietrich was signed there, and passed, as the supposed original, into the works of Luther and the first edition of the 'Book of Concord' (1580). The corrected Latin edition of 1584 gave the Latin original, but as the work of all the theologians convened at Smalcald. [486] This error prevailed nearly two hundred years, until the careful researches of Bertram dispelled it. __________________________________________________________________ [475] It did not convene, however, till 1545, in Trent, and then it turned out an exclusive Roman Catholic Council. [476] Vergerius had a fruitless interview with Luther in the electoral castle at Wittenberg, which was characteristic of both parties. The papal nuncio acted the proud prelate and shrewd Italian diplomatist; the Reformer, the plain, free-spoken German. Luther took the matter in good humor, sent for the barber, and put on his best dress to impress the nuncio with his youth and capacity for even greater mischief to the Pope than he had done already. He scorned his tempting offers, and told him frankly that he cared very little about his master and his Council at Mantua or elsewhere, but promised to attend it, and there to defend his heretical opinions against the whole world. Vergerius, in his report, speaks contemptuously of Luther's poor Latin, rude manners, obstinacy, and impudence; but some years afterwards he renounced Romanism, and became the Reformer of the Grisons in Eastern Switzerland. He died October 4, 1565, at Tuebingen, where he spent his last years, without office, but in extensive literary activity and correspondence. See the monograph of Sixt: Petrus Paulus Vergerius, Braunschweig, 1855, pp. 35-45. [477] 'Schmalkaldische Artikel, Articuli Smalcaldici,' so called since 1553. The original title is: 'Artikel christlicher Lehre, so da haetten sollen aufs Concilium zu Mantua, oder wo es sonst worden waere, ueberantwortet werden von unsers Theils wegen, und was wir annehmen oder nachgeben koennten oder nicht, durch D. Martin Luthern geschrieben, Anno 1537.' [478] The Princes on that occasion required their theologians to sign also the Augsburg Confession and Apology, but they resolved to have nothing to do with the Pope's Council. The Appendix has thirty-two signatures, the Articles have forty-two, obtained partly at Smalcald and partly on the journey. The principal signers are Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, Spalatin, Bugenhagen, Amsdorf, Bucer, and Brentius. See Koellner, pp. 445 sqq., and Plitt, De auctoritate Articuloram Smalcaldicorum (Erlang. 1862), with the strictures of Heppe, Entstehung und Fortbildung des Lutherthums (Cassel, 1863), pp. 252 sqq. [479] ' De pontifice autem statuo, si evangelium admitteret (so er das Evangelium woltte zulassen), ei propter pacem et communem tranquillitatem Christianorum, qui iam sub ipso sunt et in posterum sub ipso erunt, superioritatem in episcopos, quam alioqui habet, jure humano etiam a nobis permitti.' Sander (p. 488) thinks that Melanchthon did not mean this authority to apply to Protestants. But this is inconsistent with the words 'etiam a nobis.' [480] ' Utinam, utinam'--he wrote to his friend, Joach. Camerarius, Aug. 31, 1530--'possim non quidem dominationem confirmare, sed administrationem restituere episcoporum. Video enim, qualem simus habituri Ecclesiam, dissoluta politeia ecclesiastica. Video postea multo intolerabiliorem futuram tyrannidem, quam antea unquam fuit' (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 334. Comp. his letter of Sept. 4, 1530, to the same, p. 341). Koellner defends Melanchthon's course. [481] Luther calls it also 'the dragon's tail (Drachenschwanz), which has produced a multiplicity of abominations and idolatries' (multiplices abominationes et idololatrias. In German: viel Ungeziefers und Geschmeiss mancherlei Abgoetterei), P. II Art. 2. He says that the mass will be the chief thing in the proposed Council, and will never be yielded by the Papists. Cardinal Campeius had told him at Augsburg he would rather be torn to pieces than allow the mass to be discontinued. So would he (Luther) rather be reduced to ashes than allow a performer of the mass to be equal to our Lord and Saviour. [482] Heppe (l.c. p. 253 sq.) says that Luther in his first draft used simpler language, viz., that 'the body and blood of Christ are offered with the bread and with the wine;' but that Amsdorf insisted on a stronger, anti-Melanchthonian statement. [483] Comp. Plitt and Heppe, above quoted (p. 254). [484] See the minor particulars in Bertram, l.c., and Koellner, pp. 454 sqq. [485] The original MS. of Luther, from which Spalatin made his copy before Luther added his changes, was discovered in the Palatinate Library at Heidelberg in 1817, and edited by Marheineke, with notes, Berlin, 1817. [486] Under the title 'De Potestate et Primatu Papae. Tractatus per Theologos Smalcaldiae congregatos conscriptus.' __________________________________________________________________ S: 45. The Form of Concord. A.D. 1577. Literature. I. The text of the 'Form of Concord' is found in all the editions of the 'Book of Concord' (Concordienbuch), see p. 220. Heinr. Ludw. Jul. Heppe (Professor in Marburg, an indefatigable investigator of the early history of German Protestantism In the interest of Melanchthonianism): Der Text der Bergischen Concordienformel, verglichen mit dem Text der Schaebischen Concordie, der Schwaebisch-Saechsischen Concordie und des Torgauer Buches. Marburg, 1857, 2d ed. 1860. II. Jacob Andrkae: Sechs christlicher Predig von den Spaltungen, so sich zwischen den Theologen Augspurgischer Confession von Anno 1548 bis auf diess 1573 Jar, nach und nach erhoben, etc. Tuebingen, 1573. Republished by Professor Heppe in Appendix I. to the third volume of his History of German Protestantism (see below). In the same volume Heppe published also 'the Swabian and Saxon Form of Concord,' the 'Maulbronn Formula,' and other important documents. Apologia oder Verantwortung des christl. Concordienbuchs, etc. (usually called the Erfurt Book, an official Apology, prepared at Erfurt and Quedlinburg by Kirchner, Selnecker, Chemnitz, and other Lutheran divines). Heidelb. 1583; Dresden, 1584, etc. Rud. Hospinian (Reformed, d. at Zurich 1626): Concordia Discors; h. e. de origine et progressu Formulae Bergensis, etc., ex actis tum publicis, tum privatis . . . Tig. 1607; Genev. 1678, folio. (The chief work against the 'Form of Concord.') Leonh. Hutter (Lutheran, d. at Wittenberg 1616): Concordia Concors; de origine et progressu Formulae Concordiae ecclesiarum Conf. Aug. . . . in quo eius orthodoxia . . . demonstratur: et Rud. Hospiniani Tigurini Helvetii convitia, mendacia, et manifesta crimina falsi deteguntur ac solide refutantur . . . ex actis publicis. Vitemb. 1614; Francof. and Lips. 1690. (This is the most elaborate defense of the 'Form of Concord' called forth by Hospinian's Conc. discors, and covers 1460 pp., exclusive of Proleg.) J. Musaeus: Praelectiones in Epitom. Form. Conc. Jen. 1701. Val. Loescher: Historia motuum, etc. Leipz. 1723, Tom. III. Lib. VI. c. 5 and 9. Jac. H. Balthasar: Historie des Torgisehen Buchs als des naechsten Entwurfs des Bergischen Concordienbuchs, etc. Greifswald, 1741-56. (In nine parts or dissertations.) J. Nic. Anton: Geschichte der Concordienformel. Leipz. 1779. G. J. Planck: Geschichte der Entstehung, etc., unseres Protest. Lehrbegrifs . . . bis zur Einfuehrung der Concordienformel. Leipz. 1791-1800. Vols. IV.-VI. A work of thorough learning, independent judgment, but without, proper appreciation of the doctrinal differences. Gottfr. Thomasius (Lutheran): Das Bekenntniss der evangel. luther. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips. Nuernberg, 1848. K. Fr. Goeschel (Lutheran): Die Concordienformel nach ihrer Geschichte, Lehre und kirchlichen Bedeutung. Leipz. 1858. H. L. J. Heppe (Reformed): Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus in den Jahren 1555-81. Marburg, 1852-58. 4 vols. (The last two volumes contain the history of the 'Form of Concord' and of the 'Book of Concord,' and are also published under the separate title 'Geschichte der lutherischen Concordienformel und Concordie.') Gieseler: Text-Book of Church History. American edition, by H. B. Smith, Vol. IV. (New York, 1862), pp. 423-490; German edition, Vol. III. P. II. (Bonn, 1853), pp. 187-310. (A condensed, careful, and impartial statement of the controversies, with citations from the original authorities.) Dan. Schenkel: Art. Concordienformel, in Herzog's Real-Encykl., Vol. III. (1855), pp. 87-105. Wilh. Gass: Geschichte der Protest. Dogmatik in ihrem Zurammenhang mit der Theologie ueberhaupt. Berlin, 1854-67, 4 vols. Vol. I. pp. 21-80. Gustav Frank (of Jena): Geschichte der Protest. Theologie. Leipz. 1862. Vol. I. pp. 94-290. F. H. R. Frank (Lutheran): Die Theologie der Concordienformel hist. dogmatisch entwichelt und beleuchtet. Erlangen, 1858-65. 4 vols. (Chiefly doctrinal.) H. F. A. Kahnis (Lutheran): Die Luther. Dogmatik, Vol. II. (Leipzig, 1864), pp. 515-560. Is. A. Dorner: Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie (Muenchen, 1867), pp. 330-374. Chas. P. Krauth (Lutheran). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology (Phila. 1872), pp. 288-328. Denkmal der dritten Jubelfeier der Concordienformel, 1877. St. Louis, 1877. NAME. ORIGIN AND OCCASION. The Form of Concord (Formula Concordiae), the last of the Lutheran Confessions, completed in 1577 and first published in 1580, is named from its aim to give doctrinal unity and peace to the Lutheran Church, after long and bitter contention. [487] The work was occasioned by a series of doctrinal controversies, which raged in the Lutheran Church for thirty years with as much passion and violence as the trinitarian and christological controversies in the Nicene age. They form a humiliating and unrefreshing, yet instructive and important chapter in the history of Protestantism. The free spirit of the Reformation, which had fought the battles against the tyranny of the Papacy and brought to light the pure doctrines of the Gospel, gave way to bigotry and intolerance among Protestants themselves. Calumny, abuse, intrigue, deposition, and exile were unsparingly employed as means to achieve victory. Religion was confounded with theology, piety with orthodoxy, and orthodoxy with an exclusive confessionalism. Doctrine was overrated, and the practice of Christianity neglected. The contending parties were terribly in earnest, and as honest and pious in their curses as in their blessings; they fought as if the salvation of the world depended on their disputes. Yet these controversies were unavoidable in that age, and resulted in the consolidation and completion of the Lutheran system of doctrine. All phases and types of Christianity must develop themselves, and God overrules the wrath of theologians for the advancement of truth. LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON. The seeds of these controversies lay partly and chiefly in the theological differences between Luther and Melanchthon in their later years, partly in the relations of Lutheranism to Romanism and Calvinism. Luther the Reformer, and Melanchthon the Teacher of Germany, essentially one and inseparable in mind and heart, in doctrine and life, represented in their later period, which may be dated from the year 1533, two types of Lutheranism, the one the conclusive and exclusive, the other the expansive and unionistic type. Luther, at first more heroic and progressive, became more cautions and conservative; while Melanchthon, at first following the lead of the older and stronger Luther, became more independent and liberal. Luther, as the Reformer of the Romish Church, acted in the general interest of evangelical religion, and enjoys the admiration and gratitude of all Protestants; Luther, as the leader of a particular denomination, assumed a hostile attitude towards other churches, even such as rested on the same foundation of the renewed gospel. After his bold destructive and constructive movements, which resulted step by step in the emancipation from popery, he felt disposed to rest in his achievements. His disgust with the radicalism and fanaticism of Carlstadt and Muenzer, his increasing bodily infirmities, and his dissatisfaction with affairs in Wittenberg (which he threatened to leave permanently in 1544), cast a cloud over his declining years. He had so strongly committed himself, and was so firm in his convictions, that he was averse to all further changes and to all compromises. He was equally hostile to the Pope, whom he hated as the very antichrist, and to Zwingli, whom he regarded as little better than an infidel. [488] Melanchthon, on the other hand, with less genius but more learning, with less force but more elasticity, with less intuition but more logic and system than Luther, and with a most delicate and conscientious regard for truth and peace, yet not free from the weakness of a compromising and temporizing disposition, continued to progress in theology, and modified his views on two points--the freedom of the will and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist; exchanging his Augustinianism for Synergism, and relaxing his Lutheranism in favor of Calvinism; in both instances he followed the ethical, practical, and unionistic bent of his mind. A minor difference on the human right of the papacy and episcopacy appeared in private letters and in his qualified subscription to the Smalcald Articles (1537), but never assumed a serious, practical aspect, except indirectly in the adiaphoristic controversy. [489] These changes were neither sudden nor arbitrary, but the result of profound and constant study, and represented a legitimate and necessary phase in the development of Protestant theology, which was publicly recognized in various ways before the formation of the 'Form of Concord.' If there ever was a modest, cautious, and scrupulously conscientious scholar, it was Melanchthon. 'There is not a day nor a night for the last ten years,' he assures an intimate friend, 'that I did not meditate upon the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.' [490] As to human freedom, Melanchthon at first denied it altogether, like Luther and the other Reformers, and derived all events and actions, good and bad, from the absolute will of God. [491] Then he avoided the doctrine of predestination, as an inscrutable mystery, and admitted freedom in the sphere of natural life and morality, but still denied it in the spiritual sphere or the order of grace. [492] At last (after 1535) he openly renounced determinism or necessitarianism, as a Stoic and Manichaean error, and taught a certain subordinate co-operation of the human will in the work of conversion; maintaining that conversion is not a mechanical or magical, but a moral process, and is brought about by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God, with the consent, yet without any merit of man. The Spirit of God is the primary, the Word of God the secondary or instrumental agent of conversion, and the human will allows this action, and freely yields to it. [493] This is the amount of his Synergism, so called by his opponents. It resembles, indeed, semi-Pelagianism in maintaining a remnant of freedom after the fall, and furnished a basis for negotiations with moderate Romanists, but it differs from it materially in ascribing the initiative and the whole merit of conversion to God's grace. He never gave up the doctrine of justification by the free grace and sole merit of Christ through faith, but in his later years he laid greater stress on the responsibility of man in accepting or rejecting the gospel, and on the necessity of good works as evidences of justifying faith. As to the Lord's Supper, he at first fully agreed with Luther's view, under the impression that it was substantially the old Catholic doctrine held by the fathers, for whom he had great regard, especially in matters of uncertain exegesis. [494] He also shared his dislike of Zwingli's theological radicalism, and was disposed to trace it to a certain insanity. [495] But his deeper and long-continued study of the subject, and his correspondence and personal intercourse with Bucer and Calvin, gradually convinced him that St. Augustine and other fathers favored rather a figurative or symbolical interpretation of the words of institution, [496] and that the Scriptures taught a more simple, spiritual, and practical doctrine than either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Owing to his characteristic modesty and caution, and his deep sense of the difficulties surrounding the problem, he did not set forth a fully developed theory or definition of the mode of Christ's presence, but he substantially agreed with Bucer and Calvin. He gave up the peculiar features of Luther's doctrine, viz., the literal interpretation of the words of institution, and the oral manducation of the body of Christ. [497] He also repeatedly rejected (as, in fact, he never taught) the Lutheran dogma of the ubiquity of Christ's body, as being inconsistent with the nature of a body and with the fact of Christ's ascension to heaven and sitting in heaven, whence he shall return to judgment. [498] But he never became a Zwinglian; he held fast to a spiritual real presence of the person (rather than the body) of Christ, and a fruition of his life and benefits by faith. In one of his last utterances, shortly before his death, he represented the idea of a vital union and communion with the person of Christ as the one and only essential thing in this sacred ordinance. [499] Luther no doubt felt much grieved at these changes, and was strongly pressed by contracted and suspicious minds to denounce them openly, but he was too noble and generous to dissolve a long and invaluable friendship, which forms one of the brightest chapters in his life and in the history of the German Reformation. [500] He kept down the rising antagonism by the weight of his personal authority, although he foresaw the troubles to come. [501] After his death (1546) the war broke out with unrestrained violence. Melanchthon was too modest, peaceful, and gentle for the theological leadership, which now devolved upon him; he kept aloof from strife as far as possible, preferring to bear injury and insult with Christian meekness, and longed to be delivered from the 'fury of the theologians' (a rabie theologorum), which greatly embittered his declining years. [502] He left the scene of discord April 19, 1560, fourteen years after Luther. His last wish and prayer was 'that the churches might be of one mind in Jesus Christ.' He often repeated the words, 'Let them all be one, even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee.' He died with the exclamation, 'O God, have mercy upon me for the sake of thy Son Jesus Christ! In thee, O Lord, have I put my trust; I shall not be confounded forever and ever.' The earthly remains of the "Praeceptor Germamiae" were deposited beneath the castle church of Wittenberg alongside of Luther's: united in life, they sleep together in death till the morning of the resurrection to everlasting life. LUTHERANS AND PHILIPPISTS. The differences between Luther the second and Melanchthon the second, if we may use this term, divided the theologians of the Augsburg Confession into two hostile armies. The rigid Lutheran party was led by Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, Gallus, Judex, Moerlin, Heshus, Timann, and Westphal, and had its headquarters first at Magdeburg, then at the University of Jena, and at last in Wittenberg (after 1574). They held fast with unswerving fidelity to the anti-papal and anti-Zwinglian Luther, as representing the ultimate form of sound orthodoxy. They swore by the letter, but had none of the free spirit of their great master. [503] They outluthered Luther, made a virtue of his weakness, constructed his polemic extravagances into dogmas, and contracted the catholic expansiveness of the Reformation into sectarian exclusiveness. They denounced every compromise with Rome, and every approach to the Reformed communion, as cowardly treachery to the cause of evangelical truth. Among these Lutherans, however, we must distinguish three classes--the older friends of Luther (Jonas, his colleague, and Amsdorf, whom he had consecrated Bishop of Naumburg 'without suet or grease or coals'), the younger and stormy generation headed by Flacius, and the milder framers of the 'Form of Concord' (Andreae, Chemnitz, Selnecker, and Chytraeus), who stood mediating between ultra-Lutheranism and Melanchthonianism. The Melanchthonians, nicknamed Philppists and Crypto-Calvinists, [504] prominent among whom were Camerarius, Bugenhagen, Eber, Crell, Major, Cruciger, Strigel, Pfeffinger, Peucer (physician of the Elector of Saxony, and Melanchthon's son-in-law), had their stronghold in the Universities of Wittenberg and Leipzig (till 1574), and maintained, with less force of will and conviction, but with more liberality and catholicity of spirit, the right of progressive development in theology, and sought to enlarge the doctrinal basis of Lutheranism for a final reconciliation of Christendom, or at least for a union of the evangelical churches. [505] Both parties maintained the supreme authority of the Bible, but the Lutherans went with the Bible as understood by Luther, the Philippists with the Bible as explained by Melanchthon; with the additional difference that the former looked up to Luther as an almost inspired apostle, and believed in his interpretation as final, while the latter revered Melanchthon simply as a great teacher, and reserved a larger margin for reason and freedom. [506] Both parties set forth new confessions of faith and bulky collections of doctrine (Corpora Doctrinae), which were clothed with symbolical authority in different territories, and increased the confusion and intensified the antagonism. [507] THE THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH. The controversies which preceded the composition of the 'Form of Concord,' centred in the soteriological doctrines of the Reformation, concerning sin and grace, justification by faith, and the use of good works, but they extended also to the eucharist and the person and work of Christ. We notice them in the order of the 'Form of Concord.' I. THE FLACIAN CONTROVERSY ON ORIGINAL SIN, 1560-1580. [508] This controversy involved the question whether original sin is essential or accidental--in other words, whether it is the nature of man itself or merely a corruption of nature. It arose, in close connection with the Synergistic controversy, from a colloquy at Weimar between Flacius and Strigel (1560), extended from Saxony as far as Austria, and continued till the death of Flacius (1575), and even after the completion of the 'Form of Concord.' [509] Matthias Flacius Illyricus, the impetuous and belligerent champion of rigid Lutheranism, a man of vast learning, untiring zeal, unyielding firmness, and fanatical intolerance, renewed apparently the Manichean heresy, and thereby ruined himself. [510] From an over-intense conviction of total depravity, he represented original sin as the very substance or essence of the natural man, who after the fall ceased to be in any sense the image of God, and became the very image of Satan. He made, however, a distinction between two substances in man--a physical and ethical--and did not mean to teach an evil matter in the sense of Gnostic and Manichean dualism, but simply an entire moral corruption of the moral nature, which must be replaced by a new and holy nature. He departed not so much from the original Protestant doctrine of sin as from the usual conception of the Aristotelian terms substance and accidens. [511] He quoted many strong passages from Luther, but he found little favor and bitter opposition even among his friends, and was deposed and exiled with forty-seven adherents. The chief argument against him was the alternative that his doctrine either makes Satan the creator of man, or God the author and preserver of sin. II. THE SYNERGISTIC CONTROVERSY (1550--1567). [512] It extended over the difficult subject of man's freedom and his relation to the converting grace of God. It was a conflict between the original Augustinianism of the Reformers and the later Melanchthonian Synergism, or a refined evangelical modification of semi-Pelagianism. [513] Pfeffinger, Professor in Leipzig, who opened the controversy by an academic dissertation (1550), and then wrote a book on the freedom of the will (1555), Major, Eber, and Crell, in Wittenberg, and Victorin Strigel, in Jena, advocated a limited freedom in fallen man, as a rational and responsible being, namely, the power of accepting the prevenient grace of God, [514] with the corresponding power of rejecting it. They accordingly assigned to man a certain though very small share in the work of conversion, which Pfeffinger illustrated by the contribution of a penny towards the discharge of a very large debt. Amsdorf, Flacius, Wigand, and Heshusius, on the other hand, appealing to the teaching of Luther, [515] maintained that man, being totally corrupt, can by nature only resist the Spirit of God, and is converted against and in spite of his perverse will, or must receive a new will before he can accept. God converts a man as the potter moulds the clay, as the sculptor carves a statue of wood or stone. They also advocated, as a logical consequence, Luther's original theory of an unconditional predestination and reprobation. But the 'Form of Concord' rejected it as well as Synergism, without attempting to solve the difficulty. Both parties erred in not making a proper distinction between regeneration and conversion, and between receptive and spontaneous activity. In regeneration, man is passive, in conversion he is active in turning to God, but in response to the preceding action of divine grace, which Augustine calls the gratia praeveniens. Conversion certainly is not a compulsory or magical, but an ethical process. God operates upon man, not as upon a machine or a dead stone (as Flacius and also the 'Form of Concord' maintain), but as a responsible, rational, moral, and religiously susceptible though very corrupt being; breaking his natural hostility, making willing the unwilling, and preparing him at every step for corresponding action. So far Melanchthon was right. But the defect of the Synergistic theory is the idea of a partnership between God and man, and a corresponding division of work and merit. Synergism is less objectionable than semi-Pelagianisrn, for it reduces co-operation before conversion to a minimum, but even that minimum is incompatible with the absolute dependence of man on God. III. THE OSIANDRIC CONTROVERSY (1549-1566). [516] It touched the central doctrine of Evangelical Lutheranism, justification by faith, whether it is a mere declaratory, forensic art of acquittal from sin and guilt, or an actual infusion of righteousness. Luther and the other Reformers made a clear distinction between justification as an external act of God for man, and sanctification as an internal act of God in man; and yet viewed them as inseparable, sanctification being the necessary effect of justification. Faith was to them an appropriation of the whole Christ, a bond of vital union with his person first, and in consequence of this a participation of his benefits. [517] In the Osiandric controversy, justification and sanctification were either confounded or too abstractedly separated, and the person of Christ was lost sight of in his work or in one of his two natures. Andrew Osiander (1498-1552), an eminent Lutheran minister and reformer at Nuremberg (since 1522), afterwards Professor at Koenigsberg (1549), a man of great learning and speculative talent, but conceited and overbearing, created a great commotion by a new doctrine of justification, which he brought out after the death of Luther. [518] He assailed the forensic conception of justification, and taught instead a medicinal and creative act, whereby the sinner is made just by an infusion of the divine nature of Christ, which is our righteousness. This view was denounced as Romanizing, but it is rather mystical. He did not make justification a gradual process, like the Roman system, but a single and complete act, by which Christ according to his divine nature enters the soul of man through the door of faith. [519] He meant justification by faith alone without works, but an effective internal justification in the etymological sense of the term. He was Protestant in this also, that he excluded human merit and represented faith which apprehends Christ, as the gift of God. In connection with this he held peculiar views on the image of God, which he made to consist in the essential union of the human nature with the divine nature, and on the necessity of the incarnation, which in his opinion would have taken place even without the fall, in order that through Christ's humanity we might become partakers of the essential righteousness of God. [520] He appealed to Luther, but denounced Melanchthon as a heretic and pestilential man. Osiander was protected by Duke Albrecht of Prussia, whom he had converted, but opposed from every quarter by Moerlin, Staphylus, Stancarus, Melanchthon, Amsdorf, Menius, Flacius, Chemnitz. Between the two parties stood the Swabian divines Brentius and Binder. The controversy was carried on with a good deal of misunderstanding, and with such violence that the Professors in Koenigsberg carried fire-arms into their academic sessions. It was seriously circulated and believed that the devil wrote Osiander's books, while he enjoyed his meals. After Osiander's death (1552), his son-in-law, John Funck, chaplain of the Duke, became the leader of his small party; but he was executed on the scaffold (1566) as a heretic and disturber of the public peace. Moerlin was recalled from exile and made Bishop of Samland. The Prussian collection of Confessions (Corpus Doctrinae Pruthenicum, or Borussicum, Koenigsberg, 1567) condemned the doctrines of Osiander. In close connection with the Osiandric controversy on justification was the Stancarian dispute, introduced by Francesco Stancaro (or Stancarus), an Italian ex-priest, and for a short time Professor in Koenigsberg (d. 1574 in Poland). He asserted, against Osiander and in agreement with Peter the Lombard, that Christ was our Mediator and Redeemer according to his human nature only (since he, being God himself, could not mediate between God and God). [521] He called his opponents and all the Reformers ignoramuses. [522] Another collateral controversy, concerning the obedience of Christ, was raised, A.D. 1563, by Parsimonius, or Karg, a Lutheran minister in Bavaria. [523] He derived our redemption entirely from our Lord's passive obedience, and denied that his active obedience had any vicarious merit, since Christ himself, as man, owed active obedience to God. He also opposed the doctrine of imputation, and resolved justification into the idea of remission of sins. Karg was opposed by Ketzmann in Ansbach, by Heshusius, and the Wittenberg divines. Left without sympathy, and threatened with deposition and exile, he recanted his theses in 1570, and confessed that the obedience of Christ, his righteousness, merit, and innocence are the ground of our justification and our greatest comfort. [524] The 'Form of Concord' teaches that Christ as God and man in his one, whole, and perfect obedience, is our righteousness, and that his whole obedience unto death is imputed to us. IV. THE MAJORISTIC CONTROVERSY (1552-1577.) [525] It is closely connected with the Synergistic, Osiandric, and Antinomian controversies, and refers to the use of good works. The Reformers derived salvation solely from the merits of Christ through the medium of faith, as the organ of reception, in accordance with the Scripture, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.' But faith was to them a work of God, a living apprehension of Christ, and the fruitful parent of good works. Luther calls faith a 'lively, busy, mighty thing,' which can no more be separated from love than fire from heat and light. [526] Melanchthon, in his later period, laid greater stress on good works, and taught their necessity as fruits of faith, but not as a condition of salvation, which is a free, unmerited gift of God. [527] Georg Major (Professor at Wittenberg since 1539, died 1574), a pupil of Melanchthon, and one of the framers of the Leipzig Interim, declared during his sojourn at Eisleben (1552) that good works are necessary to salvation. [528] He pronounced the anathema on every one who taught otherwise, though he were an angel from heaven. He meant, however, the necessity of good works as a negative condition, not as a meritorious cause, and he made, moreover, a distinction between salvation and justification. [529] This proposition seemed to be inconsistent with Luther's solifidianism, and was all the more obnoxious for its resemblance to a clause in the Romanizing Leipzig Interim (1548). [530] Hence it was violently opposed from every direction. Nicolas von Amsdorf (1483-1565), appealing to St. Paul and Dr. Luther, condemned it as 'the worst and most pernicious heresy,' and boldly advocated even the counter-proposition, that good works are dangerous to salvation (1559). [531] Flacius denounced Major's view as popish, godless, and most dangerous, because it destroyed the sinner's comfort on the death-bed and the gallows, made the salvation of children impossible, confounded the gospel with the law, and weakened the power of Christ's death. [532] Wigand objected that the error of the necessity of good works was already condemned by the Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts xv.), that it was the pillar of popery and a mark of Antichrist, and that it led many dying persons unable to find good works in themselves, to despair. Justus Menius, Superintendent of Gotha, tried to mediate by asserting the necessity of good works for the preservation of faith; but this was decidedly rejected as indirectly amounting to the same error. A synod, held at Eisenach in 1556, decided in seven theses that Major's proposition was true only in abstracto and in foro legis, but not in foro evangelii, and should be avoided as liable to be misunderstood in a popish sense. Christ delivered us from the curse of the law, and faith alone is necessary both for justification and salvation, which are identical. [533] The theses were subscribed by Amsdorf, Strigel, Moerlin, Hugel, Stoessel, and even by Menius (although the fifth was directed against him). But now there arose a controversy on the admission of the abstract and legal necessity of good works, which was defended by Flacius, Wigand, and Moerlin; opposed by Amsdorf and Aurifaber as semi-popish. The former view prevailed. Melanchthon felt that the necessity of good works for salvation might imply their meritoriousness, and hence proposed to drop the words for salvation, and to be contented with the assertion that good works are necessary because God commanded them, and man is bound to obey his Creator. [534] This middle course was adopted by the Wittenberg Professors and by the Diet of Princes at Frankfort (1558), but was rejected by the strict Lutherans. Major consented (in 1558) no longer to use his phrase, and revoked it in his last will (1570), but he was still assailed, and the Professors at Jena prayed for the conversion of the poor old man (1571) with little hope of success. Flacius prayed that Christ might crush also this serpent. Heshusius publicly confessed that he had committed a horrible sin in accepting the Doctor's degree from Major, who was a disgrace to the theological profession. The 'Form of Concord' settled the controversy by separating good works both from justification and salvation, yet declaring them necessary as effects of justifying faith. [535] V. THE ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY (1527-1560). [536] Protestantism in its joyful enthusiasm for the freedom and all-sufficiency of the gospel was strongly tempted to antinomianism, but restrained by its moral force and the holy character of the gospel itself. [537] Luther, in opposition to Romish legalism, put the gospel and the law as wide apart as 'heaven and earth,' and said,' Moses is dead.' [538] Nevertheless he embodied in his Catechism an excellent exposition of the Decalogue before the Creed; and Melanchthon, as we have already seen, laid more and more stress on the moral element and good works in opposition to the abuses of solifidianism and carnal security. The antinomian controversy has two stages. The first touches the office of the law under the gospel dispensation, and its relation to repentance; the second the necessity of good works, which was the point of dispute between Major and Amsdorf, and has already been discussed. John Agricola, of Eisleben, misunderstood Luther, as Marcion, the antinomian Gnostic, misunderstood St. Paul. [539] He first uttered antinomian principles in 1527, in opposition to Melanchthon, who in his Articles of Visitation urged the preaching of the law unto repentance. [540] He was appeased in a conference with the Reformers at Torgau (December, 1527). But when Professor at Wittenberg, he renewed the controversy in 1537, in some arrogant theses, and was defeated by Luther in six public disputations (1538 and 1540). He made a severe attack on Luther, which involved him in a lawsuit, but he removed to Berlin, and sent from there a recantation, Dec. 6, 1540. Long afterwards (1562) he reasserted his views in a published sermon on Luke vii. 37. He was neither clear nor consistent. Agricola taught with some truth that genuine repentance and remission of sin could only be secured under the gospel by the contemplation of Christ's love. In this Luther (and afterwards Calvin) agreed with him. But he went much further. The law in his opinion was superseded by the gospel, and has nothing to do with repentance and conversion. It works only wrath and death; it leads to unbelief and despair, not to the gospel. He thought the gospel was all-sufficient both for the office of terror and the office of comfort. Luther, on the contrary, maintained, in his disputations, that true repentance consists of two things--knowledge and sorrow of sin, and resolution to lead a better life. The first is produced by the law, the second by the gospel. The law alone would lead to despair and hatred of God; hence the gospel is added to appease and encourage the terrified conscience. The law can not justify, but must nevertheless be taught, that by it the impious may be led to a knowledge of their sin and be humbled, and that the pious may be admonished to crucify their flesh with its sinful lusts, and to guard against security. The 'Form of Concord' teaches a threefold use of the law: (a) A political or civil use in maintaining outward discipline and order; (b) An elenchtic or pedagogic use in leading men to a knowledge of sin and the need of redemption; (c) A didactic or normative use in regulating the life of the regenerate. The Old and New Testaments are not exclusively related as law and gospel, but the Old contains gospel, and the New is law and gospel complete. VI. THE CRYPTO-CALVINISTIC OR EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY (1549-1574). [541] The eucharistic controversy between Luther and Zwingli, although it alienated the German and Swiss branches of the Reformation, did not destroy all intercourse, nor discourage new attempts at reconciliation. Calvin's theory, which took a middle course, retaining, on the basis of Zwingli's exegesis, the religious substance of Luther's faith, and giving it a more intellectual and spiritual form, triumphed in Switzerland, gained much favor in Germany, and opened a fair prospect for union. But the controversy of Westphal against Calvin, and the subsequent overthrow of Melanchthonianism, completed and consolidated the separation of the two Confessions. Melanchthon's later view of the Lord's Supper, which essentially agreed with that of Calvin, was for a number of years entertained by the majority of Lutheran divines even at Wittenberg and Leipzig, and at the court of the Elector of Saxony. It was also in various ways officially recognized with the Augsburg Confession of 1540, which was long regarded as an improved rather than an altered edition. But the Princes and the people held fast to the heroic name of Luther against any rival authority, and when the alternative was presented to choose between him and Melanchthon or Calvin, the issue could not be doubtful. Besides, the old traditional view of the mysterious power and magical efficacy of the sacraments had a firm hold upon the minds and hearts of German Christians, as it has to this day. Joachim Westphal, a rigid Lutheran minister at Hamburg, renewed, in 1552, the sacramental war in several tracts against the 'Zurich Consensus' (issued 1549), and against Calvin and Peter Martyr; aiming indirectly against the Philippists, and treating all as sacramentarians and heretics who denied the corporeal presence, the oral manducation, and the literal eating of Christ's body even by unbelievers. He made no distinction between Calvin and Zwingli, spoke of their godless perversion of the Scriptures, and even their satanic blasphemies. About the same time John `a Lasco, a Polish nobleman and minister of a foreign Reformed congregation in London, and one hundred and seventy-five Protestants, who were driven from England under the bloody Mary (1553), sought and were refused in cold winter a temporary refuge in Denmark, Rostock, Luebeck, and Hamburg (though they found it at last in East Friesland). Westphal denounced them as martyrs of the devil, enraged the people against them, and gloried in this cruelty as an act of faith. [542] This intolerance roused the Swiss, who had kept silence for some time, to a defense of their doctrine. Calvin took up his sharp and racy pen, indignantly rebuking 'the no less rude and barbarous than sacrilegious insults' to persecuted members of Christ, and triumphantly vindicating, against misrepresentations and objections, his doctrine of the spiritual real presence of Christ, and the sealing communication of the life-giving virtue of his body in heaven to the believer through the power of the Holy Ghost. [543] He claimed to agree with the Augsburg Confession as understood and explained by its author, and appealed to him. Melanchthon, for reasons of prudence and timidity, declined to take an active part in the strife 'on bread-worship,' but never concealed his essential agreement with him. [544] His enemies re-published his former views. His followers were now stigmatized as 'Crypto-Calvinists.' The controversy gradually spread over all Germany, and was conducted with an incredible amount of bigotry and superstition. In Bremen, John Timann fought for the real presence, and insisted upon the ubiquity of Christ's body as a settled dogma (1555), while Albert Hardenberg opposed it, and was banished (1560); but a reaction took place afterwards in favor of the Reformed Confession. In Heidelberg, Tilemann Heshusius, [545] General Superintendent since 1558, attacked the Melanchthonian Klebitz openly at the altar by trying to wrest from him the cup. The Elector Frederick III. dismissed both (1559), ordered the preparation of the Heidelberg Catechism, and introduced the Reformed Confession in the Palatinate (1563). In Wuertemberg the ubiquity doctrine triumphed (at a synod in Stuttgart, 1559), chiefly through the influence of Brentius, who had formerly agreed with Melanchthon, but now feared that 'the devil intended through Calvinism to smuggle heathenism, Talmudism, and Mohammedanism into the Church.' [546] A colloquy at Maulbronn (1564) between the Wuertemberg and the Palatinate divines on ubiquity led to no result. Ducal Saxony, under the lead of the Flacianist Professors of Jena, was violently arrayed against Electoral Saxony with the Crypto-Calvinist faculty at Wittenberg. The Elector Augustus, strongly prejudiced against Flacianism, deceived by the Consensus Dresdensis (1571), and controlled by his physician, Caspar Peucer, the active and influential lay-leader of the Crypto-Calvinists, unwittingly maintained for some time Calvinism under the disguise of sound Lutheranism. When he became Regent of the Thuringian Principalities (1573), he banished Heshusius and Wigand from Jena, and all the Flacianists of that district. Thus Philippism triumphed in all Saxony, but it was only for a short season. Elector Augustus was an enthusiastic admirer of Luther, and would not tolerate a drop of Calvinistic blood in his veins. When he found out the deceptive policy of the Crypto-Calvinists, he suppressed them by force, 1574. [547] The leaders were deposed, imprisoned, and exiled, among them four theological Professors at Wittenberg. [548] Peucer was confined in prison for twelve years, while his children were wandering about in misery. [549] Thanks were offered in all the churches of Saxony for the triumph of genuine Lutheranism. A memorial coin exhibits the Elector with the sword in one hand, and a balance in the other: one scale bearing the child Jesus; the other, high up, the four Wittenberg Philippists with the devil, and the title 'reason.' After the death of Augustus (1586), Calvinism again raised its head under Christian I. and the lead of Chancellor Nicolas Crell, but after another change of ruler (1591) it was finally overthrown: the protesting Professors in Wittenberg and Leipzig were deposed and exiled; the leading ministers at Dresden (Salmuth and Pierius) were imprisoned; Crell, who had offended the nobility, after suffering for ten years in prison, was, without an investigation, beheaded as a traitor to his country (Oct. 9, 1601), solemnly protesting his innocence, but forgiving his enemies. [550] Since that time the name of a Calvinist became more hateful in Saxony than that of a Jew or a Mohammedan. It is characteristic of the spirit of the age and the doctrine of consubstantiation that they gave rise to all sorts of idle, curious, and unwittingly irreverent speculations about the possible effect of the consecrated elements upon things for which they never were intended. The schoolmen of the Middle Ages, in the interest of transubstantiation, seriously disputed the question whether the eating of the eucharistic bread would kill or sanctify a mouse, or (as the wisest thought) have no effect at all, since the mouse did not receive it sacramentaliter, but only accidentaliter. Orthodox Lutherans of the sixteenth century went even further. Brentius decidedly favored the opinion that the consecrated bread, if eaten by a mouse, was fully as much the body of Christ as Christ was the Son of God in the mother's womb and on the back of an ass. The sacrament, he admitted, was not intended for animals, but neither was it intended for unbelievers, who nevertheless received the very body and blood of Christ. An eccentric minister in Rostock required the communicants to be shaved to prevent profanation. Licking the blood of Christ from the beard was supposed to be punished with instant death or a monstrous growth of the beard. Sarcerius caused the earth on which a drop of Christ's blood fell, instantly to be dug up and burned. At Hildesheim it was customary to cut off the beard or the piece of a garment which was profaned by a drop of wine; and the Superintendent, Kongius, was expelled from the city, simply because he had taken up from the earth a wafer and given it to a communicant, without first kneeling before it, kissing, and reconsecrating it, as his colleagues thought he should have done. The Lutherans in Ansbach disputed about the question whether the body of Christ were actually swallowed, like other food, and digested in the stomach. When the Rev. John Musculus, in Frankfort-on-the-Oder, inadvertently spilled a little wine at the communion, he was summoned before a Synod, and Elector John Joachim of Brandenburg declared that deposition, prison, and exile were too mild a punishment for such a crime, and that the offender, who had not spared the blood of Christ, must suffer bloody punishment, and have two or three fingers cut off. [551] There was also a considerable dispute among Lutheran divines about the precise time and duration of the corporeal presence. John Saliger (Beatus) of Luebeck and his friend Fredeland (followers of Flacius, and of his doctrine on original sin) maintained that the bread becomes the body of Christ immediately after the consecration and before the use (ante usum), and called those who denied it sacramentarians; while they in turn were charged with the Romish error of transubstantiation. Deposed at Luebeck, Saliger renewed the controversy from the pulpit at Rostock (1568). Chytraeus decided that this was a question of idle curiosity rather than piety, and that it was sufficient to attach the blessing of the sacrament to the transaction, without time-splitting distinctions (1569). The usual Lutheran doctrine confines the union of the bread with the body to the time of the use, and hence the term consubstantiation was rejected, if thereby be understood a durabilis inclusio, or permanent conjunction of the sacramental bread and body of Christ. [552] VII. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL OR UBIQUITARIAN CONTROVERSY. [553] The Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper implies the ubiquity, i.e., the illocal omnipresence, or at all events the multipresence of Christ's body. And this again requires for its support the theory of the communicatio idiomatum, or the communication of the attributes of the two natures of Christ, whereby his human nature becomes a partaker of the omnipresence of his divine nature. A considerable amount of interesting speculation was spent on this subject in the sixteenth century. All Christians believe in the real and abiding omnipresence of Christ's divine nature, and of Christ's person (which resides in the divine nature or the pre-existing Logos), according to Matt. xxviii. 20; xviii. 20. But the omnipresence of his human nature was no article of any creed before the Reformation, and was only held by a few fathers and schoolmen of questionable orthodoxy, as a speculative opinion. [554] The prevailing doctrine was that Christ's glorified body, though no more grossly material and sensuous, and not exactly definable in its nature, was still a body, seated on a throne of majesty in heaven, to which it visibly ascended, and from which it will in like manner return to judge the quick and the dead. This was the view even of Gregory Nazianzen and John of Damascus, who otherwise approach very nearly the Lutheran dogma of the communicatio idiomatum (the genus majestaticum). The mediaeval scholastics ascribed omnipresence only to the divine nature and the person of Christ, unipresence to his human nature in heaven, multipresence to his body in the sacrament; but they derived the eucharistic multipresence from the miracle of transubstantiation, and not from an inherent specific quality of the body. Even William Occam (who was inclined to consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation, and had considerable influence upon Luther) ventured only upon the paradox of the hypothetical possibility of an absolute ubiquity. Luther first clearly taught the absolute ubiquity of Christ's body, as a dogmatic support of the real presence in the eucharist. [555] He based it exegetically on Eph. i. 23 ('which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all') and John iii. 13 ('the Son of man who is in heaven'), and derived it directly from the personal union of the divine and human natures in Christ (not, as his followers, from the communication of the attributes). He adopted the scholastic distinction of three kinds of presence: 1. Local or circumscriptive (material and confined--as water is in the cup); 2. Definitive (local, without local inclusion or measurable quantity--as the soul is in the body, Christ's body in the bread, or when it passed through the closed door); 3. Repletive (supernatural, divine omnipresence). He ascribed all these to Christ as man, so that in one and the same moment, when he instituted the holy communion, he was circumscriptive at the table, definitive in the bread and wine, and repletive in heaven, i.e., every where. [556] Where God is, there is Christ's humanity, and where Christ's humanity is, there is inseparably joined to it the whole Deity. In connection with this, Luther consistently denied the literal meaning of Christ's ascension to heaven, and understood the right hand of God, at which he sits, to be only a figurative term for the omnipresent power of God (Matt. xxviii. 18). [557] Here he resorted to a mode of interpretation which he so strongly condemned in Zwingli when applied to the word is. It is very plain that such an absolute omnipresence of the body proves much more than Luther intended or needed for his eucharistic theory; hence he made no further use of it in his later writings, and rested the real presence at last, as he did at first, exclusively on the literal (or rather synecdochical) interpretation of the words, 'This is my body.' His earlier Christology was much more natural, and left room for a real development of Christ's humanity. Melanchthon, in his later period, decidedly opposed the ubiquity of Christ's body, and the introduction of 'scholastic disputations' on this subject into the doctrine of the eucharist. He wished to know only of a personal presence of Christ, which does not necessarily involve bodily presence. [558] He also rejected the theory of the communicatio idiomatum in a real or physical sense, because it leads to a confusion of natures, and admitted with Calvin only a dialectic or verbal communication. [559] Luther's Christology leaned to the Eutychian confusion, Melanchthon's to the Nestorian separation of the two natures. The renewal of the eucharistic controversy by Westphal led to a fuller discussion of ubiquity. The orthodox Lutherans insisted upon ubiquity as a necessary result of the real communication of the properties of the two natures in Christ; while the Philippists and Calvinists rejected it as inconsistent with the nature of a body, with the realness of Christ's ascension, and with the general principle that the infinite can not be comprehended or shut up in the finite. [560] The Colloquy at Maulbronn.--These conflicting Christologies met face to face at a Colloquy in the cloister of Maulbronn, in the Duchy of Wuertemberg, April 10-15, 1564. [561] It was arranged by Duke Christopher of Wuertemberg and Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate. Olevianus, Ursinus (the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism), and Boquin defended the Reformed, the Swabian divines, Andreae, Brenz, Schnepf, Bidenbach, and Lucas Osiander the Lutheran view. Five days were devoted to the discussion of the subject of ubiquity, and one day to the interpretation of the words, 'This is my body.' The Lutherans regarded ubiquity as the main pillar of their view of the eucharistic presence. Andreae proposed three points for the debate--the incarnation, the ascension, and the right hand of God. The Lutheran reasoning was chiefly dogmatic: The incarnation is the assumption of humanity into the possession of the divine fullness with all its attributes, and the right hand of God means his almighty and omnipresent power; from these premises the absolute ubiquity of Christ's body necessarily follows. [562] The Reformed based their argument chiefly on those Scripture passages which imply Christ's presence in a particular place, and his absence from other places, as when he says, 'I leave the world;' 'I go to prepare a place for you. . . . I will come again;' 'I have not yet ascended to my Father;' or when the angels say, 'He is not here,' 'Jesus is taken up from you into heaven,' etc. (John xiv. 2-4, 28; xvi. 3, 7, 16; xx. 17; Acts i. 11; iii. 21). [563] They urged the difference between the divine and human, and between the state of humiliation and the state of exaltation. In the appeal to the fathers and the Creed of Chalcedon they had also decidedly the advantage. Nevertheless, the Colloquy had no other effect than to confirm the two parties in their opinions. [564] The Consensus Dresdensis.--The Wittenberg and Leipzig Professors and other Philippists in Saxony openly rejected ubiquity in the Consensus Dresdensis (October, 1571), which satisfied even the Elector Augustus. This document teaches that the human nature of Christ was after the resurrection glorified and transfigured, but not deified, and still remains human nature with its essential properties, flesh of our flesh; that the ascension of Christ must be understood literally, and not as a mere spectacle; that Christ's sitting at the right hand means the elevation of both natures to the priestly and kingly office; that the sacramental presence of the body of Christ must be something special and altogether distinct from omnipresence. [565] Absolute and Relative Ubiquity. Brenz and Chemnitz.--There was a very material difference among the advocates of ubiquity themselves as to its nature and extent, viz.: whether it were absolute, or relative, that is to say, an omnipresence in the strict sense of the term, or merely a multipresence depending on the will of Christ (hence also called volipraesentia, or, by combination, multivolipraesentia). The Swabians, under the lead of Brenz and Andreae, held the former; the Saxon divines, under the lead of Chemnitz, the latter view. John Brenz, or Brentius (1499-1570), the Reformer of the Duchy of Wuertemberg, and after Melanchthon's death the most prominent German divine, developed, since 1559, with considerable speculative talent, a peculiar Christology. [566] It rests on the Chalcedonian distinction between two natures and one person, but implies at the same time, as he felt himself, a considerable departure from it, since he carried the theanthropic perfection of the exalted Saviour to the very beginning of his earthly life. He took up Luther's idea of ubiquity, and developed it to its legitimate consequences in the interest of the eucharistic presence. According to his system, the incarnation is not only a condescension of the eternal Logos to a personal union with human nature, but at the same time a deification of human nature, or an infusion of the divine substance and fullness into the humanity of Christ at the first moment of its existence. Consequently the man Jesus of Nazareth was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in the Virgin's womb, in the manger, and on the cross, as well as he is now in the state of glory. [567] The only difference is, that these divine attributes were concealed during his earthly life, and were publicly revealed to his disciples at the ascension to the right hand of God, i.e., to the omnipotent and omnipresent power of God. [568] The states of humiliation and exaltation are not successive states, but co-existed during the earthly life of Christ. While Christ's humanity was poor, weak, suffering, and dying on earth, it was simultaneously almighty and omnipresent in heaven. He ascended in his humanity invisibly to heaven even at his incarnation, and remained there (John iii. 13). The visible ascension from Mount Olivet would have been impossible without the preceding invisible exaltation. Heaven is no particular place, but a state of entire freedom from space, or absolute existence in God. Space and time, with their limitations, belong only to the earthly mode of existence. Wherever the divinity is, there is also Christ's humanity, [569] i.e., every where, not, indeed, in the way of local extension and diffusion, but in a celestial, supernatural manner, by virtue of the hypostatic union and the real communication of the properties of the divine nature to the human. This is the most consistent, though also the most objectionable form of the ubiquity dogma. It virtually resolves the earthly life of Christ into a Gnostic delusion, or establishes a double humanity of Christ--one visible and real, and the other invisible and fantastic. [570] Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), the chief author of the 'Formula of Concord,' next to Andreae, less original and speculative than Brenz, but superior in patristic learning and sound judgment, elaborated a Christology which mediates between Luther and Melanchthon, and taught only a relative or restricted ubiquity, i.e., a multipresence, which depends upon the will of Christ. [571] He was followed by Selnecker, Chytraeus, and most of the Saxon divines. He opposes the Swabian doctrine of a physical, natural communication and transfusion of idiomata, and of the capacity of the finite for the infinite, except in the sense that God may dwell and reveal himself in man. He calls the absolute ubiquity a monstrosity (monstrum, portentum), as Selnecker called it a Satanic fiction (figmentum Satanae). Christ is an incarnate God, not a deified man. But the Logos may temporarily communicate a divine attribute to the human nature in a supernatural manner as a donum superadditum, without thereby setting aside the abiding limitations of humanity; just as fire may give heat and brightness to iron without turning the iron into fire. Chemnitz agrees with the Reformed, as he expressly says, in adopting the 'simple, literal, and natural signification' of the ascension of Christ as related by the Evangelists, i.e., that 'he was, by a visible motion, lifted up on high in a circumscribed form and location of the body, and departed further and further from the presence of the Apostles,' and is, consequently, in this sense withdrawn from us who are on earth, until he shall in like manner 'descend from heaven in glory in a visible and circumscribed form.' Even in glory Christ's body is finite and somewhere (alicubi). Nevertheless, while seated at the right hand of God, he may be present where he chooses to be, and he is present where his Word expressly indicates such presence; as in the eucharist (according to the literal interpretation of the words of institution), or when he appeared to dying Stephen, or to Paul on the way to Damascus. [572] Chemnitz escaped some difficulties of the Swabian theory, but by endeavoring to mediate between it and the Melanchthonian and Swiss theory, he incurred the objections to both. Christ's glorified body is indeed not confined to any locality, and may be conceived to move with lightning speed from place to place, but its simultaneous presence in many places, wherever the eucharist is celebrated, involves the chief difficulty of an omnipresence, and is just as inconsistent with the nature of a body. Of subordinate interest was the incidental question, disputed mainly between Wigand and Heshusius, whether the flesh of Christ were almighty and adorable only in concreto, or also in abstracto (extra, personam). Chemnitz declared this to be a mere logomachy, and advised the combatants to stop it, but in vain. The first creed which adopted the ubiquity dogma was the Wuertemberg Confession drawn up by Brenz, and adopted by a Synod at Stuttgart, Dec. 19, 1559. [573] The Formula Concordiae on this subject is a compromise between the Swabian absolute ubiquitarianism represented by Andreae and expressed in the Epitome, and the Saxon hypothetical ubiquitarianism represented by Chemnitz and expressed in the Solida Declaratio. The compromise satisfied neither party. The Helmstaedt divines--Tilemann Heshusius, Daniel Hoffmann, and Basilius Sattler--who had signed the written Formula in 1577, refused to sign the printed copy in 1580, because it contained unauthorized concessions to the Swabian view. A colloquy was held in Quedlinburg, 1583, at which the ubiquity question was discussed for several days without result. [574] Chemnitz was in a difficult position, as he nearly agreed with the Helmstaedtians, and conceded that certain expressions had been wrested from him, but he signed the Formula for the sake of peace, with the reservation that he understood it in the sense of a hypothetical or limited ubiquity. The Giessen and Tuebingen Controversy about the Kenosis and Krypsis. [575] --The ubiquity question was revived under a new shape, on the common basis of the 'Formula of Concord' and the dogma of the communicatio idiomatum, in the controversy between the Kenoticism, of the theologians of Giessen, which followed in the track of Chemnitz, and the Krypticism of the theologians of Tuebingen, which was based upon the theory of Brenz and Andreae. The controversy forms the last phase in the development of the orthodox Lutheran Christology; it continued from 1616-1625, and was lost in the Thirty-Years' War. Both parties agreed that the human nature of Christ from the moment of the incarnation, even in the mother's womb and on the cross, was in full possession (ktesis) of the divine attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.; but they differed as to their use (chresis). The Giessen divines--Balthazar Mentzer (d. 1627), his son-in-law, Justus Feuerborn (d. 1656), and John Winckelmann--taught a real self-renunciation (kenosis, evacuatio, exinanitio), [576] i.e., that Christ voluntarily laid aside the actual use of the divine attributes and functions, except in the working of miracles; while the Tuebingen divines--Lucas Osiander II. (d. 1638), Theodor Thumm, or Thummius (d. 1630), and Melchior Nicolai (d. 1659)--taught that he made a secret use of them (krupsis, occulta usurpatio). [577] The Giessen divines, wishing chiefly to avoid the reproach of a portentosa ubiquitas, represented the omnipresence of Christ's humanity, not as an all-pervading existence, [578] but as an all-controlling power, or as an element of omnipotence. [579] The Tuebingen school taught, in consequence of the unio hypostatica, an absolute omnipresence of Christ's humanity, as a quiescent quality, which consists in filling all the spaces of the universe, even from the conception to the death on the cross. [580] A theological commission at Dresden, with Hoe von Hoenegg at the head, decided substantially in favor of the Giessen theory (1525), and against the Tuebingen doceticism, without, however, advancing the solution of the problem or feeling its real difficulty. The Giessen theory is more consistent with the realness of Christ's human life, but less consistent with itself, since it admits an occasional interruption of it by the use of the inherent powers of the divinity; the Tuebingen theory, on the other hand, virtually destroys the distinction between the state of humiliation and the state of exaltation, and resolves the life of Christ into a magical illusion. The modern Tuebingen school of Baur and Strauss forms a strange parallel and contrast to that of the seventeenth century: it starts from the same principle that 'the finite is capable of the infinite,' but extends it pantheistically to humanity at large, and denies its applicability to Christ, on the ground that the divine fullness can not be emptied into a single individual. [581] Therefore, while the old Tuebingen school in effect, though not in intention, destroys the real humanity of Christ, the modern Tuebingen school consistently denies his divinity, and resolves all the supernatural and miraculous elements of the gospel history into a mythic poem or fiction. In the modern revival of orthodox Lutheranism, the ubiquity of the body of Christ is either avoided, or advocated only in the hypothetical form, and mostly with a leaning towards a more literal acceptation of the kenosis (Phil. ii. 7) than the Giessen divines contended for. [582] VIII. THE HADES CONTROVERSY. [583] This controversy, which is discussed in the ninth article of the 'Formula of Concord,' referred to the time, manner, extent, and aim of Christ's mysterious descent into the world of departed spirits. It implied the questions whether the descent took place before or after the death on the cross; whether it were confined to the divine nature, or to the soul, or extended to the body; whether it belonged to the state of humiliation, or to the state of exaltation; whether it were a continuation of suffering and a tasting of the second death, or a triumph over hell. The answer to these questions depended in part on the different views of the communication of idiomata and the ubiquity of the body, as also on Hades, or Sheol, itself, which some identified with hell proper (Gehenna), while others more correctly understood it in a wider sense of the whole realm of the dead. Luther himself had at different times very different opinions of the descent, but regarded it chiefly as a victory over the kingdom of Satan. John AEpinus, [584] a Lutheran minister in Hamburg, started the controversy. He taught, first in 1544 and afterwards more fully, that Christ descended with his spirit into the region of the lost, in order to suffer the pains of hell for men, and thus to complete his humiliation or the work of redemption. So he explained Psalm xvi. 10 (comp. Acts ii. 27, 31). Luther himself had at one time (1524) given a similar exposition of this passage. Flacius sided with AEpinus. But this theory was more Reformed than Lutheran, and was opposed by his colleagues, who carried the dispute into the pulpit and excited the people. Matsberger in Augsburg represented the descent, according to the usual view, as a local change, but had to suffer three years' imprisonment for it. Brenz condemned such locomotion as inconsistent with the dignity and ubiquity of Christ, and denied the locality of hell as well as of heaven. This accords with his view of the ascension. Melanchthon, being appealed to by the magistrate of Hamburg, answered with caution, and warned against preaching on subjects not clearly revealed. He referred to a sermon of Luther, preached at Torgau, 1533, in which he graphically describes the descent as a triumphant march of Christ through the dismayed infernal hosts, so that no believer need hereafter be afraid of the devil and damnation. Melanchthon thought this view was more probable than that of AEpinus; at all events, Christ manifested himself as a conqueror in hell, destroyed the power of the devil, raised many dead to life (Matt. xxvii. 53), and proclaimed to them the true doctrine of the Messiah; to ask more is unnecessary. He advised the magistrate to exclude the controversy from the pulpit. [585] Several of the most violent opponents of AEpinus were deposed and expelled. The dispute was lost in more serious controversies. It was almost confined to Hamburg. The Formula of Concord sanctioned substantially the view of Luther and Melanchthon, without entering into the minor questions. IX. THE ADIAPHORISTIC (OR INTERIMISTIC) CONTROVERSY (1548-1555). [586] This controversy is the subject of the tenth article of the 'Formula of Concord,' but was the first in the order of time among the disputes which occasioned this symbol. It arose, soon after Luther's death, out of the unfortunate Smalcald war, which resulted in the defeat of the Lutheran states, and brought them for a time under the ecclesiastical control of the Emperor Charles V. and his Romish advisers. Ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies, which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God, are in themselves indifferent (adiaphora, media, res mediae, Mitteldinge), but the observance or non-observance of them may, under testing circumstances, become a matter of principle and of conscience. The Augsburg Confession and Apology (Art. VII.) declare that agreement in doctrine and the administration of the sacraments is sufficient for the unity of the Church, and may co-exist with diversity in usages and rites of human origin. Luther himself desired to retain many forms of the Catholic worship which he considered innocent and beautiful, provided only that no merit be attached to them and no burden be imposed upon the conscience. [587] But there is a great difference between retaining old forms and restoring them after they have been abolished, as also between a voluntary and a compulsory observance. When circumcision was yet lawful and practiced by Jewish Christians, Paul resisted it, and saved the principle of Christian liberty against the Judaizing error which made circumcision a condition of salvation. Some of the Romish ceremonies, moreover, especially those connected with the canon of the mass, involve doctrine, and affect the whole idea of Christian worship. When the Emperor, with the aid of the treasonable Elector Maurice of Saxony, had broken up the Lutheran League of Smalcald, he required the Protestants to submit to a doctrinal and ceremonial compromise till the final settlement of the religious controversy by an oecumenical Council. The first compromise was the so-called Augsburg Interim, enacted by the Diet of Augsburg (May, 1548) for the whole empire. It was essentially Romish, and yielded to the Protestants only the marriage of priests and the cup of the laity. It was rigidly executed in the Southern and prevailingly Roman Catholic states, where about four hundred Lutheran preachers were expelled or dismissed for non-conformity. The second compromise, called the Leipzig Interim, was enacted by the Elector Maurice (December, 1548), with the aid of Melanchthon and other leading Lutheran divines, for his Protestant dominion, where the Augsburg Interim could not be carried out. It was much milder, saved the evangelical creed in its essential features--as justification by the sole merits of Christ through a living faith--but required conformity to the Romish ritual, including confirmation, episcopal ordination, extreme unction, and even the greater part of the canon of the mass, and such ceremonies as fasts, processions, and the use of images in churches. [588] The Protestants were forced to the alternative of either submitting to one of these temporary compromises, or risking the fate of martyrs. Melanchthon, in the desire to protect churches from plunder and ministers from exile, and in the hope of saving the cause of the Reformation for better times, yet not without blamable weakness, gave his sanction to the Leipzig Interim, and undertook to act as a mediator between the Emperor, or his Protestant ally Maurice, and the Protestant conscience. [589] It was the greatest mistake in his life, yet not without plausible excuses and incidental advantages. He advocated immovable steadfastness in doctrine, but submission in every thing else for the sake of peace. He had the satisfaction that the University of Wittenberg, after temporary suspension, was restored, and soon frequented again by two thousand students; that no serious attempt was made to introduce the Interim there, and that matters remained pretty much as before. But outside of Wittenberg and Saxony his conduct appeared treasonable to the cause of the Reformation, and acted as an encouragement to an unscrupulous and uncompromising enemy. Hence the venerable man was fiercely assailed from every quarter by friend and foe. He afterwards frankly and honorably confessed that he had gone too far in this matter, and ought to have kept aloof from the insidious counsels of politicians. [590] He fully recovered his manhood in the noble Saxon Confession which he prepared in 1551 for the Council of Trent, and which is not merely a repetition of the Augsburg Confession, but also a refutation of the theology, worship, and government of the papal Church. Flacius chose the second alternative. Escaping from Wittenberg to the free city of Magdeburg, he opened from this stronghold of rigid Lutheranism, with other 'exiles of Christ,' a fierce and effective war against Melanchthon and the 'dangerous rabble of the Adiaphorists.' He charged his teacher and benefactor with superfluous mildness, weakness, want of faith, treason to truth; and characterized the Leipzig Interim as an undisguised 'union of Christ and Belial, of light and darkness, of sheep and wolf, of Christ and Antichrist,' aiming at the 'reinstatement of popery and Antichrist in the temple of God.' [591] His chief text was 1 Cor. x. 20-23. He had upon the whole the best of the argument, although in form he violated all the laws of courtesy and charity, and continued, even long afterwards, to persecute Melanchthon as an abettor of Antichrist. In a milder tone the best friends of Melanchthon remonstrated with him. Brenz preferred exile and misery to the Interim, which he called interitus. Bucer of Strasburg did the same, and accepted a call to England. Calvin on this question sided with the anti-Adiaphorists, and wrote a letter to Melanchthon (June 18, 1550), which is a model of brotherly frankness and reproof. 'My present grief,' he says in substance, 'renders me almost speechless. . . . In openly admonishing you, I am discharging the duty of a true friend; and if I employ a little more severity than usual, do not think it is owing to any diminution of my old affection and esteem for you. . . . I know you love nothing better than open candor. I am truly anxious to approve all your actions, both to myself and to others. But at present I accuse you before yourself, that I may not be forced to join those who condemn you in your absence. This is the sum of your defense: That provided purity of doctrine be retained, externals should not be pertinaciously contended for. . . . But you extend the adiaphora too far. . . . Some of them contradict the Word of God. . . . When we are in the thick of the fight, we must fight all the more manfully; the hesitation of the general brings more disgrace than the flight of a whole herd of common soldiers. All will blame you if you do not set the example of unflinching steadfastness. . . . I had rather die with you a hundred times than see you survive the doctrines surrendered by you. I have no fear for the truth of God, nor do I distrust your steadfastness. . . Pardon me, dear Philip, for loading your breast with these groans. May the Lord continue to guide you by his Spirit and sustain you by his might.' [592] The defeat of the Emperor by Elector Maurice, who now turned against him, as he had turned before against his fellow-Protestants, and the consequent Peace of Augsburg, 1555, made an end to the Interim troubles, and secured freedom to the Lutheran Churches. But among theologians the controversy continued till the death of Melanchthon. The conduct of Melanchthon weakened his authority and influence, which had been rising higher and higher before and after Luther's death, especially in the University of Wittenberg. Before this unfortunate controversy he was universally regarded as the theological head of the evangelical Church in Germany, but now a large number of Lutherans began to look upon him with distrust. X. THE STRASBURG CONTROVERSY ON PREDESTINATION BETWEEN ZANCHI AND MARBACH (1561-1563). [593] This is the last specific doctrine discussed in the Formula of Concord (Art. XI.). The German and Swiss Reformers alike renewed, as an impregnable fortress in their war against the Pelagian corruptions of Rome, the Augustinian system, with its two closely connected doctrines of the absolute spiritual slavery or inability of the unregenerate will of man, and the absolute predestination of God; though with the characteristic difference that Luther and Melanchthon emphasized the servum arbitrium, Zwingli the providentia, Calvin the praedestinatio. In other words, the German Reformers started from the anthropological premise, and inferred from it the theological conclusion; while Calvin made the absolute sovereignty of God the cornerstone of his system. Luther firmly adhered to the servum arbitrium, but was more cautious, in his later years, on the mystery of the praedestinatio. [594] Melanchthon gave up both for his synergism and the universality of grace, though he continued in friendly correspondence with Calvin, who on his part put the mildest construction on this departure. The rigid Lutherans all retained Luther's view of total depravity in opposition to synergism, and some of them (namely, Amsdorf, Flacius, Brenz, Wigand, and, for a time, Heshusius) were also strict predestinarians. [595] But the prevailing Lutheran sentiment became gradually averse to a particular predestination, all the more since it was a prominent doctrine of the hated Calvinists. The Formula of Concord sanctioned a compromise between Augustinianism and universalism, or between the original Luther and the later Melanchthon, by teaching both the absolute inability of man and the universality of divine grace, without an attempt to solve these contradictory positions. In regard to the slavery of the human will, the Formula of Concord, following Luther, went even further than Calvin, and compared the natural man with a dead statue, or clod, and stone; while Calvin always (so far agreeing with the later Melanchthon) insisted on the spontaneity and responsibility of the will in sinning, and in accepting or rejecting the grace of God. The discussion of this subject was opened by the fierce polemic Tilemann Heshusius, who, in his defense of the corporeal presence against the Sacramentarians (Jena, 1560), first attacked also Calvin's doctrine of predestination, as Stoic and fatalistic, although a year afterwards, in opposition to synergism, he returned to his former view of an absolute and particular predestination. Beza answered his attack with superior ability. [596] Of more importance was the controversy between Marbach (a friend of Heshusius) and Zanchi within the Lutheran denomination itself. It decided its position on the question of predestination and perseverance. The Church of Strasburg had received from its reformer, Martin Bucer (who on account of the Interim followed a call to the University of Cambridge, 1549, and died there, 1551), a unionistic type, and acted as mediator between the Swiss and German churches. The Reformed Tetrapolitan Confession, the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, and the Wittenberg Concordia (a compromise between the Lutheran and Zwinglian views on the eucharist), were held in great esteem. Calvin and Peter Martyr, who preached and taught there, made a deep impression. The celebrated historian Sleidanus, and the learned founder and rector of the academy, John Sturm, labored in the same spirit. Jerome Zanchi (Zanchius, 1516-1590), a converted Italian, and pupil of Peter Martyr, became his successor as Professor of Theology at Strasburg in 1553. He was one of the most learned Calvinistic divines of the age, and labored for some time with great acceptance. He taught that in the eucharist Christ's true body broken for us, and his blood shed for us, are received in the sacrament, but not with the mouth and teeth, but by faith, and consequently only by believers. This was approved by his superiors, since the communion was not a cibus ventris sed mentis, and the same view had been taught by Bucer, Capito, Hedio, Zell, and Martyr. He opposed ubiquity, and the use of images in churches. He taught unconditional predestination, and its consequence, the perseverance of saints, in full harmony, as he believed, with Augustine, Luther, and Bucer. He reduced his ideas to four sentences: 1. The elect receive from God the gift of true saving faith only once; 2. Faith once received can never be totally and finally lost, partly on account of God's promise, partly on account of Christ's intercession; 3. In every elect believer there are two men, the external and the internal--if he sin, he sins according to the external, but against the internal man, consequently he sins not with the whole heart and will; 4. When Peter denied Christ, the confession of Christ died in his mouth, but not his faith in his heart. Several years before Zanchi's call to Strasburg, a Lutheran counter-current had been set in motion, which ultimately prevailed. It was controlled by John Marbach (1521-1581), a little man with a large beard, incessant activity, intolerant and domineering spirit, who had been called from Jena to the pulpit of Strasburg (1545). Inferior in learning, [597] he was superior to Zanchi in executive ability and popular eloquence. He delighted to be called Superintendent, and used his authority to the best advantage. He abolished Bucer's Catechism and introduced Luther's, taught the ubiquity of Christ's body, undermined the authority of the Tetrapolitan Confession, crippled the church of French refugees, to which Calvin had once ministered, weakened discipline, introduced pictures into churches, including those of Luther, and began to republish at Strasburg the fierce polemical book of Heshusius on the eucharist. This brought on the controversy. Zanchi persuaded the magistrate to suppress the publication of this book, because of its gross abuse of Melanchthon and a noble German Prince, the Elector Frederick III. of the Palatinate, and because it denounced all who differed from his views of the corporeal presence as heretics. From this time Marbach refused to greet Zanchi on the street, and gathered from the notes of his students material for accusation that he taught doctrines contrary to the Augsburg Confession. He objected, however, not so much to predestination itself as to Zanchi's method of teaching it a priori rather than a posteriori. The controversy lasted over two years. Zanchi visited and consulted foreign churches and universities. The answers differed not so much on predestination as on perseverance. [598] The theologians of Marburg (Hyperius, Lonicer, Garnier, Orth, Roding, Pincier, and Pistorius), Zurich (Bullinger, Martyr, Gualter, Lavater, Simler, Haller, Zwingli Jr.), and Heidelberg (Boquinus, Tremellius, Olevianus, and Diller) decided in favor of the theses of Zanchi. The ministers of Basel counseled peace and compromise; the divines of Tuebingen approved of the doctrine of predestination, but dissented from the theses on perseverance; even Brenz thought the matter might be amicably settled. The divines of Saxony decided according to their different attitudes towards Melanchthon: the Melanchthonians liked Zanchi's doctrine of the eucharist, but disliked his view of predestination; the anti-Melanchthonians hated the former, but were favorable to the latter, because it was so strongly taught by Luther himself (De servo arbitrio). At last the 'Strasburg Formula of Concord' was adopted (1563), which prescribed the Wittenberg Concordia of 1536 as the rule of doctrine on the Lord's Supper, and asserted the possibility of the loss of faith, yet without denying predestination. [599] Calvin judged that it only threw a veil over the truth. Predestination was with Calvin and Luther an independent and central dogma; the later Lutherans assigned it a subordinate and subsidiary position, and denied its logical consequence, the perseverance of saints. This was also the position of Marbach. Zanchi subscribed the Strasburg Formula with a restriction, but for the sake of peace he soon followed a call to a Reformed Italian church at Chiavenna, and, being driven away by a pestilence to a mountain, he wrote a full account of the Strasburg troubles. [600] He was supported in his position by the worthy Sturm and several professors, but had the disadvantage of being a foreigner unacquainted with the German tongue. The pastors, backed by the people, triumphed over the professors. What Marbach had begun, his pupil Pappus completed. Strasburg was thoroughly Lutheranized, the Tetrapolitan Confession formally abolished as 'Zwinglian,' and the Formula Concordiae introduced (1597). [601] Yet, after all, the spirit of Bucer never died out. From Strasburg proceeded Spener, with his blessed revival of practical piety and a better appreciation of the Reformed Confession; [602] and from the theological faculty of Strasburg hail more recently the appreciating biographies of Beza, Bucer, and Capito (by Baum), and Melanchthon (by Carl Schmidt), and the best edition of the works of Calvin (by Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss). Thus history slowly but surely rectifies its own mistakes. THE PREPARATION OF THE FORMULA OF CONCORD. [603] These controversies turned the Lutheran churches in Germany into a camp of civil war, exposed them to the ridicule and obloquy of the Papists, and threatened to end in utter confusion and dissolution. The danger was increased by the endless territorial divisions of Germany, where every Prince and magistrate acted a little pope, and 'every fox looked to his own pelt.' [604] The best men in the Lutheran communion deeply deplored this state of things, and labored for peace and harmony. Augustus, Elector of Saxony (1533--1588), a pious and orthodox, though despotic Prince, controlled the political part, and paid the heavy expenses of the movement. [605] Jacob Andreae, Professor of Theology and Chancellor of the University at Tuebingen (1528-1590), a pupil and friend of Brentius, a man of rare energy, learning, eloquence, and diplomatic skill, managed the theological negotiations, made no less than one hundred and twenty-six journeys, and sacrificed the comforts of home and family (he had twelve children) to the pacification of the Lutheran Church. [606] Next to him, and at a later period, Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), the greatest pupil of Melanchthon and the prince among the Lutheran divines of his age, [607] and Nicholas Selnecker (1530-1592), [608] originally likewise a Melanchthonian, took the most important part in the movement, and formed with Andreae the theological 'triumvirate,' which finally completed the Form of Concord. [609] The first attempts at union were made at the conferences in Frankfort, 1558; Naumburg, 1561; Altenburg, 1568; Wittenberg, 1569; Zerbst, 1570; Dresden, 1571; but they utterly failed and increased the dissension. After the violent suppression of Crypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony (1574), and the death of Flacius (1575) and some other untractable extremists, the work was resumed by the Elector and other Princes. Theological conferences were again held at Maulbronn (1575), Lichtenberg (1576), and Torgau (1576). Three forms of agreement were prepared, which, though not satisfactory, served as a basis for the Formula of Concord. The first is the Swabian and Saxon Formula, written by Andreae (1574), and revised by Chemnitz and Chytraeus (1575).' [610] The second is the Maulbronn Formula, prepared by the Swabian divines Lucas Osiander and Balthasar Bidembach (Nov. 14, 1575), and approved by a convent of Lutheran Princes in the Cloister of Maulbronn (Jan. 19, 1576). [611] The former was found too lengthy, the latter too brief. Hence on the basis of both a third form was prepared which combined their merits, but omitted the honorable mention of the name of Melanchthon. This is the 'Torgau Book,' consisting of twelve articles. [612] It was mainly the work of Andreae and Chemnitz, and completed by a convention of eighteen Lutheran divines at the Castle of Hartenfels, at Torgau, June 7, 1576. It was sent by the Elector Augustus to all the Lutheran Princes for examination and revision. It was closely scrutinized by twenty conventions of theologians held within three months, and elicited twenty-five vota, mostly favorable; even Heshusius and Wigand, the oracles of orthodoxy, were pleased, except that they wished an express condemnation of Melanchthon and other 'authors and patrons of corruptions.' At last the present Formula of Concord was completed, on the basis of the Torgau Book, by six learned divines--Andreae (of Tuebingen), Chemnitz (of Brunswick), Selnecker (of Leipzig), Musculus (of Frankfort-on-the-Oder), Cornerus, or Koerner (also of Frankfort), and Chytraeus (of Rostock)--who met in March and May, 1577, in the Cloister of Bergen, near Magdeburg, by order of the Elector of Saxony. Hence it is also called 'The Bergen Formula.' [613] The Preface was written two years later by the same authors, in the name of the Lutheran Princes, in two conventions at Jueterbock, January and June, 1579. Three years elapsed before the new symbolical book was signed and solemnly published, by order of Augustus, at Dresden, June 25, 1580, the fiftieth anniversary of the Augsburg Confession, together with the other Lutheran symbols, in one volume, called the 'Book of Concord,' which superseded all similar collections. [614] The Elector Augustus celebrated the completion of the work, which cost him so much trouble and money, by a memorial coin representing him in full armor on the storm-tossed ship of the church. [615] The Formula of Concord, like the three preparatory drafts on which it is based, was first composed in the German language, and published, with the whole Book of Concord, at Dresden, 1580. The Latin text was imperfectly prepared by Lucas Osiander, and appeared in the Latin Concordia, at Leipzig, 1580; then it was materially improved by Selnecker for his separate German-Latin edition of the Formula (not the Book) of Concord, Leipzig, 1582; and was again revised by a convent of Lutheran divines at Quedlinburg, 1583, under the direction of Martin Chemnitz. In this last revision it was published in the first authentic Latin edition of the Book of Concord, Leipzig, 1584, and has been recognized ever since as the received Latin text. It was also translated into the Dutch, Swedish, and English languages, but seldom separately published. [616] __________________________________________________________________ [487] The name was chosen after older formularies (e.g., the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno, the Formula Concordiae Wittenbergensis, 1536, the Formula Concordiae inter Suevicas et Saxonicas ecclesias, 1576, etc.), and occurs first in the edition of Heidelberg, 1582. In the editio princeps (1580) the book is called 'Das Buch der Concordien,' but this title was afterwards reserved for the collection of all the Lutheran symbols ('Concordia,' or 'Liber Concordiae,' 'Book of Concord'). It was also called the Bergische-Buch, from the place of its composition. [488] The deepest ground of Luther's aversion to Zwingli must be sought in his mysticism and veneration for what he conceived to be the unbroken faith of the Church. He strikingly expressed this in his letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia (which might easily be turned into a powerful argument against the Reformation itself). He went so far as to call Zwingli a non-Christian (Unchrist), and ten times worse than a papist (March, 1528, in his Great Confession on the Lords Supper). His personal interview with him at Marburg (October, 1529) produced no change, but rather intensified his dislike. He saw in the heroic death of Zwingli and the defeat of the Zurichers at Cappel (1531) a righteous judgment of God, and found fault with the victorious Papists for not exterminating his heresy (Wider etliche Rottengeister, Letter to Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532, in De Wette's edition of L. Briefe, Vol. IV. pp. 352, 353). And even shortly before his death, unnecessarily offended by a new publication of Zwingli's works, he renewed the eucharistic controversy in his Short Confession on the Lord's Supper (1544, in Walch's edition, Vol. XX. p. 2195), in which he abused Zwingli and Oecolampadius as heretics, liars, and murderers of souls, and calls the Reformed generally 'eingeteufelte [endiabolisthentes], durchteufelte, ueberteufelte laesterliche Herzen und Luegenmaeuler.' No wonder that even the gentle Melanchthon called this a 'most atrocious book,' and gave up all hope for union (letter to Bullinger, Aug. 30, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 475: 'Atrocissimum Lutheri scriptum, in quo bellum peri deipnou kuriakou instaurat;' comp. also his letter to Bucer, Aug. 28, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 474, both quoted also by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 412, note 38, and p. 434, note 37). But it should in justice be added, first, that Luther's heart was better than his temper, and, secondly, that he never said a word against Calvin; on the contrary, he seems to have had great regard for him, to judge from his scanty utterances concerning him (quoted by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 414, note 43). Calvin behaved admirably on that occasion; he warned Bullinger (Nov. 25, 1544) not to forget the extraordinary gifts and services of Luther, and said: 'Even if he should call me a devil, I would nevertheless honor him as a chosen servant of God.' And to Melanchthon he wrote (June 28, 1545): 'I confess that we all owe the greatest thanks to Luther, and I should cheerfully concede to him the highest authority, if he only knew how to control himself. Good God! what jubilee we prepare for the Papists, and what sad example do we set to posterity!' Melanchthon entirely agreed with him. [489] Kahnis {Luth. Dogm. Vol. II. p. 520) traces the changes of Melanchthon to 'a truly evangelical search after truth, to a practical trait, which easily breaks off the theological edges to bring the doctrine nearer to life, and to the endeavor to reconcile opposites.' Krauth (Conservative Reformation, p. 289), who sympathizes with strict Lutheranism, says: 'Melanchthon's vacillations were due to his timidity and gentleness of character, tinged as it was with melancholy; his aversion to controversy; his philosophical, humanistic, and classical cast of thought, and his extreme delicacy in matters of style; his excessive reverence for the testimony of the Church, and of her ancient writers; his anxiety that the whole communion of the West should be restored to harmony; or that, if this were impossible, the Protestant elements, at least, should be at peace.' Comp. on this whole subject the works of Galle: Characteristik Melanchthon's als Theologen und Entwicklung seines Lehrbegriffs (Halle, 1840), pp. 247 sqq. and 363 sqq.; Matthes: Phil. Melanchthon (Altenb. 1841); Ebrard: Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl (Frankf. 1846), Vol. II. pp. 434 sqq.; Gieseler: Church History, Vol. IV. pp. 423 sqq.; Heppe: Die confessionelle Entwicklung der altprotestantischen Kirche Deutschlands (Marburg, 1854), pp. 95 sqq.; Carl Schmidt: Philipp Melanchthon. (Elberfeld, 1861), pp. 300 sqq.; Kahnis, l.c. pp. 515 sqq. [490] Ep. ad Vitum Theodorum, May 24, 1538 (in Corp. Reform. Vol. III. p. 537): 'Scias, amplius decennio nullum diem, nullam noctem abiisse, quin hac de re cogitarim.' [491] Loci theol. first ed. 1521, A. 7: 'Quandoquidem omnia, quae eveniunt, necessario juxta divinam praedestinationem eveniunt, nulla est voluntatis nostrae libertas.' In the edition of 1525 he says: 'Omnia necessario evenire Scripturae docent. . . . Nec in externis nec in internis operibus ulla est libertas, sed eveniunt omnia juxta destinationem divinam. . . . Tollit omnem libertatem voluntatis nostrae praedestinatio divina.' (Mel. Opera in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 88, 93, 95.) In his Commentary on the Romans, published 1524 (cap. 8), Melanchthon calls the power of choice a 'ridiculum commentum,' and derives all things, 'tam bona quam mala,' from the absolute will of God, even the adultery of David ('Davidis adulterium') and the treason of Judas ('Judae proditio'), which are the proper work of God ('ejus proprium opus') as much as the vocation of Paul; for he does all things not 'permissive, sed potenter.' He saw this doctrine so clearly in the Epistle to the Romans and other portions of Scripture that passages like 1 Tim. ii. 4 (all men, e.g., all sorts of men) must be adjusted to it. See Galle, pp. 252 sqq., and Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus in 16ten Jahrh. (Gotha, 1857) Vol. I. pp. 434 sqq. In December, 1525, Luther expressed the same views in his book against Erasmus, which he long afterwards (1537) pronounced one of his best works. Comp. p. 215, and Koestlin, Luther's Theol. Vol. II. pp. 37, 323. But on Melanchthon the reply of Erasmus (1526) had some effect (as we may infer from the tone of his letter to Luther, Oct. 2, 1527, Corp. Reform. Vol. I. p. 893). [492] So in the Augsburg Confession (1530), Art. XVIII.: 'De libero arbitrio docent, quod humana voluntas habeat aliquam libertatem ad efficiendam civilem justitiam et diligendas res rationi subjectas. Sed non habet vim sine Spiritu Sancto efficiendae justitiae spiritualis, quia animalis homo non percipit ea, quae sunt Spiritus Dei.' In Art. XIX. the cause of sin is traced to the will of man and the devil. [493] First in a new edition of his Commentary to the Romans, 1532, and then in the edition of the 'Loci communes theologici recogniti,' 1535. Here he declares that God is not the cause of sin, but the 'voluntas Diaboli' and the 'voluntas hominis sunt causae peccati;' that we should keep clear of the 'deliramenta de Stoico fato aut peri tes anankes,' that the human will can 'suis viribus sine renovatione aliquo modo externa legis opera facere,' but that it can not 'sine Spiritu Sancto efficere spirituales affectus, quos Deus requirit. . . . Deus antevertit nos, vocat, movet, adjuvat; sed nos viderimus ne repugnemus. Constat enim peccatum oriri a nobis, non a voluntate Dei. Chrysostomus inquit: ho de helkon ton boulomenon helkei. Id apte dicitur auspicanti a verbo, ne adversetur, ne repugnet verbo.' (See Mel. Opera in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 371-376.) In a new revision of his Loci, which appeared in 1548, two years after Luther's death, and in all subsequent editions, he traces conversion to three concurrent causes--the Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the will of man; and states that the will may accept or reject God's grace. 'Veteres aliqui,' he says (Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. pp. 567, 659), 'sic dixerunt: Liberum arbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gr tiam, i.e., audit promissionem et assentiri conatur et abjicit peccata contra conscientiam. . . . Cum promissio sit universalis, nec sint in Deo contradictoriae voluntates, necesse est in nobis esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abjiciatur, David recipiatur, i.e., necesse est, aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in his duobus. Haee dextre intellecta vera sunt, et usus in exercitiis fidei et in vera consolatione, cum aequiescunt animi in Filio Dei monstrato in promissione, illustrabit hanc copulationem causarum, verbi dei, spiritus sancti, et voluntatis.' This is the chief passage, which was afterwards (1553) assailed as synergistic. Comp. Galle, pp. 314 sqq.; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 426 and 434; Heppe, l.c. pp. 434 sqq., and Die confessionelle Entwicklung der alt protest. Kirche Deutschlands, pp. 107 and 130; Kahnis, l.c. Vol. II. p. 505. [494] He says (1559): 'Existimo ad confirmandas mentes consensum Vetustatis plurimum conducere' (quoted by Galle, p. 452). He endeavored to prove the agreement of the fathers with Luther in Sententiae Patrum de Caena Domini, March, 1530. He there quotes Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Hilary, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Ambrose, and John of Damascus, and labors also to bring Augustine on his side, but with difficulty (as he says that the body of Christ in uno loco esse), and he admits that some passages of Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Basil might be quoted against Luther. See Galle, pp. 390 sqq. [495] He wrote to Luther from Augsburg, July 14,1530 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 193): 'Zwinglius misit huc confessionem impressam typis. Dicas simpliciter mente captum esse. De peccato originali, de usu sacramentorum veteres errores palam renovat. De ceremoniis loquitur valde helvetice, hoc est barbarissime, velle se omnes ceremonias esse abolitas. Suam causam de sacra coena vehementer urget. Episcopos omnes vult deletes esse.' [496] In this respect the learned Dialogus of Oecolampadius (1530), directed against his Sententiae, made a decided impression on his mind. See Galle, p. 407, and Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 428. He found a great diversity of views among the fathers ('mira dissimilitudo,' see letter to Bucer, 1535, Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 842), but strong proofs for the figurative interpretation in Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, and all those who speak of the eucharistic elements as figures, symbols, types, and antitypes of the body and blood of Christ (see his letter to Crato of Breslau, 1559, quoted by Galle, p. 452). [497] He first renounced Luther's view, after an interview with Bucer at Cassel, in a letter to Camerarius, Jan. 10, 1535 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 822: 'Meam sententiam noli nunc requirere, fui enim nuncius aliae,' i.e., Luther's), and in a confidential letter to Brentius, Jan. 12, 1535 (Ib. Vol. II. p. 824, where he speaks in a Greek sentence of the typical interpretation of many of the ancients). Then more fully in the revision of his Loci Theol., 1585 (de caena Domini, in Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. p. 478 sq.). In the Wittenberg Concordia (1536) he and Bucer yielded too much to Luther for the sake of peace (compare, however, Dorner, p. 325), but in 1540 he introduced his new conviction into the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession (see above, p. 241), and adhered to it. In his subsequent deliverances he protested against ubiquity and artolatreia, and the fanatical intolerance of the ultra-Lutherans, who denounced him as a traitor. Calvin publicly declared that he and Melanchthon were inseparably united on this point: 'Confirmo, non magis a me Philippum quam a propriis visceribus in hac causa posse divelli' (Admonitio ultima ad Westphalum, Opp. VIII. p. 687). Galle maintains that Melanchthon stood entirely on Calvin's side (l.c. p. 445). So does Ebrard, who says: 'Melanchthon kam, ohne auf Calvin Ruecksicht zu nehmen, ja ohne von dessen Lehre wissen zu koennen, auf selbstaendigem Wege zu derselben Ansicht, welche bei Calvin sich ausgebildet hatte' (Das Dogma u. heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. p. 437). Yet in the doctrine of predestination they were wide apart. A beautiful specimen of harmony of spirit with diversity in theology! After his death Calvin appealed to the sainted spirit of Melanchthon now resting with Christ: 'Dixisti centies, cum fessus laboribus et molestiis oppressus caput familiariter in sinum meum deponeres: Utinam, utinam moriar in hoc sinu! Ego vero millies postea optavi nobis contingere, ut simul essemus' (Opp. VIII. p. 724). [498] Dorner, l.c. p. 354: 'Melanchthon hat Luther's christologische Ansichten aus der Zeit des Abendmahlsstreites nie getheilt. Die Menschwerdung besteht ihm in der Aufnahme der menschlichen Natur in die Person des Logos, nicht aber in der Einigung (unio) der Natur des Logos mit der Menschheit in realer Mittheilung der Praedicate der ersteren an die letztere. Die communicatio idiomatum ist ihm nur eine dialektische, verbale: die Person des Logos ist Person des ganzen Christus und traegt die Menschheit als ihr Organon.' [499] 'Responsio Phil. Mel. ad quaestionem de controversia Heidelbergensi (Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. p. 961): Non difficile, sed periculosum est respondere. . . . In hac controversia optimum esset retinere verba Pauli: "Panis, quem frangimus, koinonia esti tou somatos." Et copiose de fructu Caenae dicendum est, ut invitentur homines ad amorem hujus pignoris et crebrum usum. Et vocabulum koinonia declarandum est. Non dicit, mutari naturam panis, ut Papistae dicunt; non dicit, ut Bremenses, panem esse substantiale Corpus Christi; non dicit, ut Heshusius, panem esse verum corpus Christi: sed esse koinonian, i.e., hoc, quo fit consociatio cum corpore Christi, quae fit in usu, et quidem non sine cogitatione, ut cum mures panem rodunt. . . . Adest Filius Dei in ministerio Evangelii, et ibi certo est efficax in credentibus, ac adest non propter panem, sed propter hominem, sicut inguit: "Manete in me, et ego in vobis."' Comp. on the whole eucharistic doctrine of Melanchthon the learned exposition of Heppe, in the third volume of his Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im 16ten Jahrh. pp. 143 sqq. He says, p. 150, with reference to the passage just quoted: 'Immer und ueberall betont es Melanchthon, dass Christi Leib und Blut im Abendmahle mitgetheilt wird, inwiefern daselbst eine Mittheilung des Lebendigen Leibes, der gottmenschlichen Person Christi stattfindet, dass die Vereinigung Christi und der Glaeubigen, fuer welche das Abendmahl gestiftet ist, eine persoenliche Gemeineschaft, persoenliches, lebendiges, wirksames Einwohnen des Gottmenschen in dem Glaeubigen ist.' See also Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 434 sqq. [500] Their friendship was, indeed, seriously endangered, and for some time suspended, but fully restored again; for it rested on their union with Christ. Luther wrote to Melanchthon, June 18, 1540 (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 293): 'Nos tecum, et tu nobiscum, et Christus hic et ibi nobiscum.' He spoke very highly of Melanchthon's Loci in March, 1545, and in January, 1546, he called him a true man, who must be retained in Wittenberg, else half the university would go off with him (Corp. Reform. Vol. VI. p. 10; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 432-435). Dorner justly remarks (l.c. p. 332 sq.): 'Wenn zu dem Edelsten in Luther auch die ihn zum Reformator befaehigende Weitherzigkeit und Demuth gehoerte, womit er die eigenthuemlichen Gaben Anderer, vor allem Melanchthon's anerkannte, so war es das Bestreben jener engherzigen Freunde, Luthern auf sich selbst zu beschraenken, der Ergaenzungsbeduerftigkeit auch dieser vielleicht groessten nachapostolischen Persoenlichkeit zu vergessen und, was ihnen jedoch nicht gelang, auch ihn selbst derselben vergessen zu machen.' Melanchthon, on his part, although he complained at times of Luther's philoneikia (as a pathos, not a crimen), and overbearing violence of temper, and thought once (1544) seriously of leaving Wittenberg as a 'prison,' admired and loved him to the end, as the Elijah of the Reformation and as his spiritual father. In announcing to his students the death of Luther (Feb. 18, 1546) on the day following, he paid him this noble and just tribute: 'Obiit auriga et currus Israel, qui rexit ecclesiam in hac ultima senecta mundi,' and added, 'Amemus igitur hujus viri memoriam et genus doctrinae ab ipso traditum, et simus modestiores et consideremus ingentes calamitates et mutationes magnas, quae hunc casum sunt secuturae.' Comp. Planck, l.c. Vol. IV. pp. 71-77. [501] While sick at Smalcald, 1537, he told the Elector of Saxony that after his death discord would break out in the University of Wittenberg, and his doctrine would be changed. Seckendorf, Com. de Lutheranismo,' III. p. 165. [502] 'Ego aequissimo animo,' he wrote to Camerarius, Feb 24, 1545 (Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p.684), 'vel potius anaisthetos fero insolentiam kai hubreis multorum, et dum vivam moderate faciam officium meum.' [503] Melanchthon applies to them a saying of Polybius, that 'volentes videri similes magnis viris,' and being unable to imitate the works (erga) of Luther, they imitated his by-works (parerga), 'et producunt in theatrum stultitiam suam.' Calvin more severely but not unjustly remarks (in his second defense against Westphal, 1556): 'O Luthere, quam paucos tuae praestantiae imitatores, quam multas vero sanctae: tuae jactantiae simias reliquisti!' See Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 435, and especially Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 79 sqq. [504] The term Philippists (from the Christian name of Melanchthon, who was usually called Dr. Philippus) is wider, and embraced the Synergists, while the term Crypto-Calvinists applies properly only to those who secretly held the Calvinistic doctrine, on the eucharist, but not on predestination. Some of the strict Lutherans--as Flacius, Amsdorf, and Heshus--held fast to the original views of Luther and Melanchthon on predestination, and taught that man was purely passive and even repugnant (repugnative) in the work of conversion. Comp. Landerer in Herzog, Vol. XI. p. 538. [505] Kahnis (Vol. II. p. 520) thus characterizes the two parties: 'Dort [among the strict Lutherans] das Princip des Festhaltens, hier [among the Philippists] das Princip des Fortschreitens; dort scharfe Ausschliesslichkeit, hier Weite, Milde, Vermittelung, Union; dort fertige, faste Doctrin, hier praktische Elasticitaet.' [506] In the Preface to the Magdeburg Confession, 1550, Luther is called 'the third Elijah,' 'the prophet of God,' and Luther's doctrine, without any qualification, 'the doctrine of Christ.' See Heppe: Die Entstehung and Fortbildung des Lutherthums, pp. 42, 43. In the Reussische Confession of 1567 (Heppe, p. 76) it is said: 'We quote chiefly the writings of Luther as our prophet (als unseres Propheten), and prefer them to the writings of Philippus and others, who are merely children of the prophet (Prophetenkinder) and his disciples.' The overestimate of Luther is well expressed in the lines-- 'Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr, Vergehet nun und nimmermehr.' [507] Prof. Heppe, in his Die Entstehung und Fortbildung des Lutherthums und die kirchlichen Bekenntniss-Schriften desselben von 1548-1576 (Cassel, 1863), gives extracts from twenty Luthern Confessions which appeared during this period of twenty-eight years. [508] Disputatio de originali peccato et libero arbitrio inter Matthiam Flacium Illyricum et Victorinum Strigelium, 1563; Flacius: De peccato orig., in the second part of his Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 1567; Til. Heshusius: Antidoton contra impium et blasphemum dogma M. Fl. III. 1572, 3d ed. 1579; Wigand: De Manichaeismo renovato, 1587; Schluesselburg: Cat. haer. 1597, Lib. II.; Planck, Vol. V. pp. 1, 285; Doellinger: Die Reformation, etc. Vol. III. (1848), p. 484; Ed. Schmid: Des Flacius Erbsuendestreit, in Niedner's Zeitschrift fuer hist. Theol. 1849, Nos. I. and II.; Frank: Die Theologie der Concordienformel, Vol. I. p. 60; Dorner, p. 361, and the monograph of Preger on Flacius and his Age. Vol. II. p. 310. [509] About forty adherents of Flacius, driven to German Austria (Opitz, Irenaeus, Coelestin, etc.), issued in 1581 a declaration against the 'Form of Concord,' as inconsistent with Luther's pure doctrine on original sin; but in 1582 they fell out among themselves. As late as 1604 there were large numbers of Flacianists in German Austria. Doellinger, Vol. III. p. 492 sq. [510] This remarkable man, born 1520, at Albona, Istria (in Illyria, hence called Illyricus), was a convert from Romanism; studied at Basle, Tuebingen, and Wittenberg under Luther and Melanchthon, and became Professor of Hebrew in the University of Wittenberg. Luther attended his wedding, and raised him from a state of mental depression almost bordering on despair. In consequence of his opposition to the Augsburg and Leipzig Interim, Flacius removed to Magdeburg (April, 1549), where he opened his literary batteries against Melanchthon and the Interim, and undertook with several others the first Protestant Church history, under the title of 'The Magdeburg Centuries.' In 1557 he was elected Professor in the newly founded University of Jena, but was deposed (1562), persecuted, and forsaken even by his former friends. He spent the remainder of his life in poverty and exile at Ratisbon, Antwerp, Strasburg, and died in a hospital in Frankfort-on-the-Main, March 11, 1575. Many of his contemporaries, and the learned historian Planck, represent him merely as a violent, pugnacious, obstinate fanatic; but more recently his virtues and merits have been better appreciated by Twesten (Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Berlin, 1844), Kling (who calls him one of those witnesses of whom the world was not worthy, in Herzog. Vol. IV. p. 410), and W. Preger (M. Fl. Illyr. und seine Zeit, Erlangen. 1859-61, 2 vols.). Heppe, from his Melanchthonian standpoint, judges him more unfavorably, and thus characterizes him (in his Confessionelle Entwicklung, etc., p. 138): 'M. Flac. Illyricus war ein fanatischer Verehrer Luther's, der von allen Parteigenossen durch Kraft, Consequenz, Klarheit und Sicherheit seiner theologischen Speculation und durch Energie des Willens wie des Denkens hervorragend, kein Opfer und kein Mittel--auch nicht den schaendlichsten Verrath am Vertrauen Melanchthon's--scheute, um sein klar erkanntes Ziel, naemlich die, Vernichtung Melanchthon's and der bisherigen Tradition des Protestantisimus zu erreichen und dem Bekenntniss der Kirche einen ganz anderen Charakter aufzupraegen als der war, in dem es sich bisher entwickelt hatte.' The library of the Union Theological Seminary, New York, possesses a rare collection of the numerous polemical tracts of Flacius. He has undoubted merits in Church history and exegesis. His best works, besides the 'Magdeburg Centuries,' are his Catalogus testium veritatis, Basil. 1556, and his Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 2 P. Basil. 1567. [511] By to sumbebekos Aristotle means a separable property or quality, which does not essentially belong to a thing. In this sense Flacius denied the accidental character of sin, and maintained that it entered into the inmost constitution, just as holiness is inherent and essential in the regenerate. [512] For fuller information, see Pfeffinger: Proposit. de libero arbitrio, 1555; Flacius; De orig. peccato et libero arbitrio, two disputations, 1558 and 1559; Schuesselburg: Catal. Haeret. 1598 (Lib. V. de Synergistis); Planck, Vol. IV. p. 553; Galle, p. 326; Doellinger, Vol. III. p. 437; Gust. Frank: Gesch. der Prot. Theol. Vol. I. p. 125, and his art. Synergismus in Herzog, Vol. XV. p. 326; Fr. H. R. Frank: Theol. der Conc. F. Vol. I. p. 113; Dorner, p. 361; and also the literature on the Flacian controversy, especially Schmid and Preger (quoted p. 268). [513] See above, p. 262. [514] 'Facultas se applicandi ad gratiam.' [515] Especially his book de servo arbitrio. Luther calls the voluntas of the natural man noluntas, and compares him to the column of salt, Lot's wife, a block and stone. Similar terms are used in the 'Form of Concord.' [516] Osiander: Disputationes duae: una de Lege et Evangelio (1549), altera de Justifications (1550), Regiom. 1550; De unico Mediatore Jes. Chr. et Justificatione fidei confessio A. Osiandri, Regiom, 1551; Schmeckbier, Koenigsberg, 1552; Widerlegung der Antwort Melanchthon's, 1552. Anton Otto Herzberger: Wider die tiefgesuchten und scharfgespitzten, aber doch nichtigen Ursachen Osianders, Magdeburg, 1552; Gallus: Probe des Geistes Osiandri, Magdeb. 1552; Menius: Die Gerechtigkeit, die fuer Gott gilt, wider die neue alcumistische Theologia Osianders, Erfurt, 1552; Jo. Wigand: De Osiandrismo, Jena, 1583 and 1586; Schluesselburg: Catal. Haeret. Lib. VI.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 249; Baur: Disqu. in Osiandri de justif. doctrinam. Tueb. 1831; Lehnerdt: De Osiandri vita et doctr. Berol. 1835; H. Wilken: Osianders Leben, Stralsund, 1844; Heberle: Os. Lehre in ihrer fruehsten Gestalt (Studien u. Kritiken, 1844, p. 386); Ritschl: Rechtfertigungslehre des A. Os. (in Jahrb. fuer D. Theol. 1857, p. 795); R. T. Grau: De Os. doctrina, Marb. 1860; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 469; Gass, Vol. I. p. 61; Heppe, Vol. I. p. 81; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 150; J. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. p. 1-47; Dorner, p. 344. Among Roman Catholic divines, Doellinger in his Reformation, ihre Entwicklung and Wirkungen, Vol. III. pp. 397-437, gives the best account of the Osiandric controversy. [517] See Koestlin: Luther's Theologie, Vol. II. pp. 444 sqq. [518] He thought that 'after the death of the lion he could easily dispose of the hares and foxes.' But the germ of his doctrine was already in his tract, 'Ein gut Unterricht und getreuer Rathschlag aus heil. goettlicher Schrift,' 1524. At the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, he requested Melanchthon, in the presence of Brentius and Urban Regius, to introduce into the new confession of faith the passage Jer. xxiii. 6, 'The Lord our Righteousness,' which he understood to mean that Christ dwells in us by faith, and works in us both to will and to do. See Wilkens, p. 37; Doellinger, p. 398. [519] 'Christus secundum suam veram divinam essentiam in vere credentibus habitat.' [520] 'Per humanitatem devenit in nos divinitas.' [521] 'Nemo potest esse mediator sui ipsius.' Petrus Lombardus says: 'Christus mediator dicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum divinitatem.' [522] Wigand: De Stancarismo, Lips. 1583; Schluesselburg, Lib. IX.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 449; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 480; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 156. [523] Georg Karg was born 1512, studied at Wittenberg, was ordained by Luther and Melanchthon, became pastor at Oettingen, afterwards at Ansbach, and died 1576. He was a rigid Lutheran in the Interimistic controversies, but otherwise more a follower of Melanchthon. [524] Thomasius: Hist. dogmatis de obedientia Christi activa, Erl. 1845-46; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 158; Dorner, p. 345; Doellinger, Vol. III. pp. 564-74 (together with the acts from MS. sources in the Appendix, pp. 15 sqq., the best account). Karg's view was afterwards defended by the Reformed divines John Piscator of Herborn and John Camero of Saumur, perhaps also by Ursinus (according to a letter of Tossanus to Piscator). See Doellinger, Vol. III. p. 573; Schweizer: Centraldogmen, Vol. II. p. 16. [525] D. G. Major: Opera, Viteb. 1569, 3 vols.; N. von Amsdorf: Dass die Propositio: 'Gute Werke sind zur Seligkeit schaedlich,' eine rechte wahre christliche Propositio sei, durch die heiligen Paulas und Luther gepredigt, 1559; several tracts of Flacius, Wigand, and Responsa and Letters of Melanchthon on this subject from 1553 to 1559, in Corp. Reform. Vols. VIII. and IX.; Schluesselburg, Lib. VII.; Planck, Vol. IV. p. 469; Doellinger, Vol. III. p. 493; Thomasius: Das Bek. der ev. luth. Kirche in der Consequenz seines Princips, p. 100; Heppe, Vol. II. p. 264; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 122; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. p. 149; Herzog, Vol. VIII. p. 733; Dorner, p. 339. [526] See his classical description of faith in the Preface to the Epistle to the Romans (Walch, Vol. XIV. p. 114, quoted also in the 'Form of Concord,' p. 626, ed. Mueller): 'Der Glaube ist ein goettlich Werk in uns, das uns verwandelt und neu gebiert aus Gott und toedtet den alten Adam, macht uns ganz andere Menschen . . . und bringet den heiligen Geist mit sich. O! es ist ein lebendig, geschaeftig, thaetig, maechtig Ding um den Glauben, dass es unmoeglich ist, dass er nicht ohne Unterlass sollte Gutes wirken; er fragt auch nicht, ob gute Werke zu thun sind, sondern ehe man fragt, hat er sie gethan, und ist immer im Thun. Weraber nicht solche Werke thut, der ist ein glaubloser Mensch. . . . Werke vom Glauben scheiden is so unmoeglich als brennen und leuchten vom Feuer mag geschieden werden.' In another place Luther says: 'So wenig das Feuer ohne Hitze und Rauch ist, so wenig ist der Glaube ohne Liebe.' [527] Loci theol. ed. 1535 (the edition dedicated to King Henry VIII.): 'Obedientia nostra, hoc est, justitia bonae conscientiae seu operum, quae Deus nobis praecipit, necessario sequi debet reconciliationem. . . . Si vis in vitam ingredi, serva mandata (Matt. xix. 17). . . . Justificamur ut nova et spirituali vita vivamus. . . . Ipsius opus sumus, conditi ad bona opera (Eph. ii. 10). . . . Acceptatio ad vitam aeternam seu donatio vitae aeternae conjuncta est cum justificatione, i.e., cum remissione peccatorum et reconciliatione, quae fide contingit. . . . Itaque non datur vita aeterna propter dignitatem bonorum operum, sed gratis propter Christum. Et tamen bona opera ita necessaria sunt ad vitam aeternam, quia sequi reconciliationem necessario debent' (Corp. Reform. Vol. XXI. p. 429). [528] 'Bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem.' [529] He found it necessary afterwards to qualify his proposition, especially since Melanchthon, to his surprise, did not quite approve it. He assigned to good works a necessitas debiti, as commanded by God, a necessitas conjunctionis, as connected with faith, but no necessitas meriti. Our whole confidence is in Christ. 'Hominem,' he said, 'sola fide esse justum, sed non sola fide salvum.' [530] Viz., the words, 'Es ist gewisslich wahr, dass die Tugenden Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung, und andere in uns sein muessen und zur Seligkeit noethig seien.' In Pezel's edition of Melanchthon's 'Bedenken' the words zur Seligkeit are omitted. Doellinger, Vol. III. p. 496. [531] 'Bona opera perniciosa (noxia) esse [not in themselves, but] ad salutem.' Whoever held the opposite view was denounced by Amsdorf as a Pelagianer, Mameluk, zweifaeltiger Papist and Verlaeugner Christi. [532] See the extracts from Flacius, in Doellinger, Vol. III. pp. 503 sqq. [533] See the theses in Doellinger, Vol. III. p. 511 sq. [534] See his brief Judicium on the Majoristic controversy, 1553, Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII. p. 194, and his more lengthy German letter ad Senatum Northusanum (Nordhausen), Jan. 13, 1555; Ibid., pp. 410-413. 'Diese Deutung, 'he says (p. 412), 'ist zu fliehen: gute Werke sind Verdienst der Seligkeit; und muss der Glaub und Trost fest allein auf dem Herrn Christo stehen, dass wir gewisslich durch ihn allein, propter eum et per eum, haben Vergebung der Suenden, Zurchnung der Gerechtigkeit, heiligen Geist, und Erbschaft der ewigen Seligkeit. Dieses Fundament ist gewiss. Es folget auch eben aus diesem Fundament, dass diese andere Proposition recht und noethig ist: gute Werke oder neuer Gehorsam ist noethig von wegen goettlicher, unwandelbarer Ordnung, dass die vernuenftige Creatur Gott Gehorsam schuldig ist, und dazu erschaffen, und jetzund wiedergeboren ist, dass sie ihm gleichfoermig werde.' Melanchthon heard from an Englishman that this controversy created great astonishment in England, where no one doubted the necessity of good works to salvation, nor failed to see the difference between necessity and merit. [535] In accordance with the word of Augustine: 'Opera sequuntur justificatam, non praecedunt justificandum.' Three or four of the framers of the 'Form of Concord' were inclined to Major's view, and endeavored at first to prevent its condemnation; but the logic of the Lutheran principle triumphed. [536] Luther's Werke, Vol. XX. p. 2014 (ed. Walch); Wigand: De antinomia veteri et nova, Jen. 1571; Schluesselburg, Lib. IV.; Foerstemann: Neues Urkundenbuch (Hamburg, 1842), Vol. I. p. 291; J. G. Schulzius: Historia Antinomorum, Viteb. 1708; Planck, Vol. II. p. 399, Vol. V. I. 1; Thomasius, p. 46; Doellinger, Vol. III. p. 372; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p.397; Heppe, Vol. I. p. 80; Gass, Vol. I. p.57; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 146; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. II. pp. 246, 262; Dorner, p. 336; Elwert: De Antinomia Agricolae Islebii, Tur. 1836; K. J. Nitzsch: Die Gesammterscheinung des Antinomismus, in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1846, Nos. I. and II. [537] Gass says (Vol. I. p. 57): 'Die Reformation war selbst Antinomismus, insofern sie mit dem werkheiligen auch das gesetzliche Princip, wenn es die Seligkeit des Menschen bewirken will, verwarf. Melanchthon hatte Gesetz und Evangelium wie Schreck- und Trostmittel einander entgegengestellt und nur auf das letzere die Rechtfertigung gebaut, waehrend er doch unter dem Gesetz den bleibenden Inhalt des goettlichen Willens zusammenfasst.' [538] Many of his utterances, as quoted by Doellinger, Vol. III. pp. 45 sqq., sound decidedly antinomian, but must be understood cum grano salis, and in connection with his whole teaching. Some of the most objectionable are from his 'Table Talk,' as when he calls Moses 'the master of all hangmen' and 'the worst of heretics.' [539] Agricola (Schnitter, Kornschneider; Luther called him Grickl) was born at Eisleben, 1492 (hence Magister Islebius), and studied at Wittenberg, where he boarded with Luther. He was a popular preacher at Eisleben, and became Professor of Theology at Wittenberg, 1536, and chaplain of Elector Joachim II. at Berlin, 1540. In 1548 he took a leading part in the Augsburg Interim, and denied the essential principles of Protestantism, but protested afterwards from the pulpit against the necessity of good works (1558). He died at Berlin, 1566. Luther was more vexed by him, as he said, than by any pope; he charged him with excessive vanity and ambition, and declared him unfit to teach, and fit only for the profession of a jester (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 321). He refused to see him in 1545, and said, 'Grickl wird in alle Ewigkeit Grickl bleiben.' Bretschneider and Gieseler suppose that Melanchthon incurred Agricola's displeasure by not helping him to a theological chair in Wittenberg. He must have had, however, considerable administrative capacity. Doellinger charges the Reformers with misrepresenting him and his doctrine. [540] 'Praedicatio legis ad paenitentiam.' Chursaechsische Visitations-Artikel, 1527 and 1528, Latin and German, ed. by Strobel, 1777. [541] Westphal: Farrago confusanearum et inter se dissidentium opiniomum de Caena Domini ex Sacramentariorum libris congesta, Magdeb. 1552 (chiefly against Calvin, Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and John `a Lasco); Recta Fides de Caena Domini ex verbis Ap. Pauli et Evangelistarum demonstrata, 1553; a tract on Augustine's view of the eucharist, 1555; another on Melanchthon's view, 1557; then Justa Defensio against John `a Lasco; and, finally, Apologia contra corruptelas et calumnias Johannis Calvini, 1558. Calvin: Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de sacramentis, Gen. and Tiguri, 1555; Secunda Defensio planae et orthod. de sacram. fidei contra Joach. Westphali calumnias, 1556; Ultima Admonitio ad Joach. Westphalum, 1557; Dilucida Explicatio sanae doctr. de vera participatione carnis et sanguinis Christi in sacra Caena, against Heshusius, 1561. (All these tracts of Calvin in his Opera, Vol. IX. ed. Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss, Brunsv. 1870.) Minor eucharistic tracts on the Lutheran side by Brenz, Schnepf, Alber, Timann, Heshusius; on the Calvinistic side by Bullinger, Peter Martyr, Beza, and Hardenberg. Wigand: De Sacramentariismo, Lips. 1584; De Ubiquitate, Regiom. 1588; Schluesselburg, Lib. III.; Planck, Vol. V. II. 1; Galle, p. 436; Ebrard: Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 525-744; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 439, 454; Heppe, Vol. II. p. 384; Staehelin: Calvin, Vol. II. pp. 112, 198; Schmidt: Melanchthon, pp.580, 639; G. Frank, Vol. I. pp. 132, 164; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. III. pp. 1-164; Moenckeberg: Joach. Westphal und Joh. Calvin, 1865; Dorner, p. 400; also Art. Kryptocalvinismus in Herzog, Vol. VIII. p. 122; and the Prolegomena to the ninth volume of the new edition of Calvin's Opera (in Corp. Reform.). [542] See Utenhoven's Simplex et fidelis narratio, etc., Bas. 1560, and the extracts from it by Salig, Vol. II. pp. 1090 sqq., and Ebrard, Vol. II. pp. 536 sqq. Moenckeberg attempts to apologize for Westphal, but without effect. Compare the remarks of Dorner, p. 401. [543] 'Fatemur,' he says in his First Defense, 'Christum, quod panis et vini symbolis figurat, vere praestare, ut animas nostras carnis suae esu et sanguinis potione alat. . . . Hujus rei non fallacem oculis proponi figuram dicimus, sed pignus nobis porrigi, cui res ipsa et veritas conjuncta est: quod scilicet Christi carne et sanguine animae nostrae pascantur' (in the new edition of his Opera, Vol. IX. p. 30). In the Second Defense: 'Christum corpore absentem doceo nihilominus non tantum divina sua virtute, quae ubique diffusa est, nobis adesse, sed etiam facere ut nobis vivifica. sit sua caro (Vol. IX. p. 76). . . . Caenam plus centies dici sacrum esse vinculum nostrae cum Christo unitatis (p. 77). . . . Spiritus sui virtute Christus locorum distantiam superat ad vitam nobis e sua carne inspirandam' (p. 77). . . . And in his Last Admonition: 'Haec nostrae doctrinae summa est, carnem Christi panem esse vivificum, quia dum fide in eam coalescimus, vere aninas nostras alit et pascit. Hoc nonnisi spiritualiter fieri docemus, quia hujus sacrae unitatis vinculum arcana est et incomprehensibilis Spiritus Sancti virtus' (Vol. IX. p. 162). [544] He wrote to Calvin, Oct. 14, 1554 (Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII. p. 362): 'Quod in proximis literis hortaris, ut reprimam ineruditos clamores illorum, qui renovant certamen peri artolatreias, scito, quosdam p&acelig;cipue odio mei eam disputationem movere, ut habeant plausibilem causam ad me opprimendum.' To Hardenberg, in Bremen, May 9, 1557: 'Crescit, ut vides, non modo certamen, sed etiam rabies in scriptoribus, qui artolatreian stabiliunt.' And to Mordeisen, Nov. 15, 1557 (Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. p. 374): 'Si mihi concedatis, ut in alia loco vivam, respondebo illis indoctis sycophantis et vere et graviter, et dicam utilia ecclesiae.' He gave, however, his views pretty clearly and dispassionately shortly before his death in his vota on the Breslau and Heidelberg troubles (1559 and 1560). [545] His German name was Hesshusen. He was one of the most pugnacious divines of his age; born 1527 at Nieder-Wesel, died 1588 at Helmstaedt. See Leuckfeld's biography, Historia Heshusiana (1716), and Henke, in Herzog, Vol. VI. p. 49. [546] In his last book against Bullinger (1564). See Hartmann, Brenz, p. 252. [547] He was undeceived by a new deception. The crisis was brought about by the discovery of a confidential correspondence with the Reformed in the Palatinate, and especially by the appearance in Leipzig of the anonymous Exegesis perspicua controversiae de Caena Domini, 1574 (newly edited by Scheffer, Marburg, 1853), which openly rejected the manducatio oralis, and defended Calvin's view of the eucharist (though without naming him), while the Consensus Dresdensis (1571) had concealed it under Lutheran phraseology. This work was generally attributed to Peucer and the Wittenberg Professors, in spite of their steadfast denial, but it was the product of a Silesian physician, Joachim Cureus. See the proof in Heppe, Vol. II. pp. 468 sqq. [548] Cruciger, Moller, Wiedebram, and Pezel (whom the Lutherans called Beelzebub) refused to recant. The first went to Hesse, the second to Hamburg, the other two to Nassau. The old and weak Major yielded to the condemnation of Melanchthon's view. Several other Wittenberg Professors were likewise deposed. [549] Peucer was released in 1586, at the intercession of the beautiful Princess Agnes Hedwig of Anhalt, and became physician of the Prince of Dessau, where he died, 1602. He wrote the history of his prison life, Historia carcerum et liberationis divinae, ed. by Pezel, Tig. 1605. On his theory of the real presence, see Galle, pp. 460 sqq. He rejected the Lutheran view much more strongly than his father-in-law, Melanchthon, and thought it had no more foundation in the Bible than the popish transubstantiation. Comp. Henke: Casp. Peucer und Nic. Crell, Marburg, 1865. [550] He was charged with intermeddling in matters of religion, and advising a dangerous treaty with the Reformed Henry IV. of France against Austria. The suit was referred to an Austrian court of appeals at Prague, and decided in the political interest of Austria with a violation of all justice. His confession of guilt before his heavenly Judge was distorted by his fanatical opponents into a confession of guilt before his human judges. It is often stated that he was not beheaded for religion ('non ob religionem, sed ob perfidiam multiplicem,' as Hutter says, Concordia concors, pp. 448 and 1258). But his Calvinism, or rather his Melanchthonianism (for he never read a line of Calvin), was the only crime which could he proved against him; he always acted under the direction and command of the Elector, and he had accepted the chancellorship with a clear confession of his views, and the assurance of his Prince that he should be protected in it, and never be troubled with subscribing to the 'Form of Concord.' As judge, he was admitted, even by his enemies, to have been impartial and just to the poor as well as the rich. Comp. Hasse: Ueber den Crell'schen Process, in Niedner's Zeitschrift fuer hist. Theol. 1848, No. 2; Vogt in Herzog, Vol. III. p. 183; Richard: Dr. Nic. Krell. Dresden, 1859; G. Frank, Vol. I. pp. 296 sqq.; Henke: C. Peucer und N. Crell, Marburg, 1865. [551] Such details are recorded by Salig, Vol. III. p. 462; Hartmann and Jaeger: Brenz, Vol. II. p. 371; Galle: Melanchthon, p. 449 sq.; Ebrard: Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 592, 694; Droysen: Geschichte der Preuss. Politik, Vol. II. p. 261; Sudhof: Olevianus und Ursinus, p. 239; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 164. [552] J. Wiggers: Der Saligersche Abendmahlsstreit, in Niedner's Zeitschrift fuer hist. Theol. 1848, No. 4, p. 613. [553] Dorner: Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, 2d ed. Vol. II. pp. 665 sqq.; Heppe: Gesch. des D. Prot. Vol. II. pp.75 sqq.; G. E. Steitz: Art. Ubiquitaet, in Herzog's Encykl. Vol. XVI. pp. 558-616, with an addition by Herzog, Vol. XXI. p. 383; Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 452, 462; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 161; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. III. pp. 165-396. Comp. also the literature on the eucharistic controversy, p. 279. [554] Origen first taught the ubiquity of the body of Christ, in connection with his docetistic idealism, but without any regard to the eucharist, and was followed by Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. 40, and Adv. Apollinar. c. 59). They held that Christ's body after the resurrection was so spiritualized and deified as to lay aside all limitations of nature, and to be in all parts of the world as well as in heaven. See Gieseler's Commentatio qua Clementis Alex. et Origenis doctrinae de corpore Christi exponuntur, Gott. 1837, and Neander's Dogmengeschichte, Vol. I. pp. 217, 834. Cyril of Alexandria held a similar view (Christ's body is 'every where,' pantachou), but in connection with an almost monophysitic Christology. Scotus Erigena revived Origen's ubiquity, gave it a pantheistic turn, and made it subservient to his view of the eucharistic presence, which he regarded merely as a symbol of the every where present Christ. Neander, Vol. II. p. 43. [555] On Luther's Christology and ubiquity doctrine, see Heppe (Ref.): Dogmatik, des D. Protest. im 16ten Jahrh. Vol. II. pp. 93 sqq., and Koestlin (Luth.): Luther's Theol. Vol. II. pp. 118, 153, 167, 172, 512. Koestlin, without adopting Luther's views of ubiquity, finds in them 'grossartige, tiefe, geist- und lebensvolle Anschauungen vom goettlichen Sein und Leben' (Vol. II. p. 154). [556] In his Grosse Bekenntniss vom Abendmahl, published 1528 (in Walch's ed. Vol. XX.; in the Erlangen ed. Vol. XXX.), he says: 'Kann Christus' Leib ueber Tisch sitzen and dennoch im Brot sein, so kann er auch im Himmel und wo er will sein und dennoch im Brot sein; es ist kein Unterschied fern oder nah bei dem Tische sein, dazu dass er zugleich im Brot sei. . . . es sollte mir ein schlechter Christus bleiben, der nicht mehr, denn an einem einzelnen Orte zugleich eine goettliche and menschliche Person waere, und an allen anderen Orten muesste er allein ein blosser abgesonderter Gott und goettliche Person sein ohne Menschseit. Nein, Geselle, wo du mir Gott hinsetzest, da must du mir die Menschheit mit hinsetzen. Die lassen sich nicht sondern und von einander trennen; es ist Eine Person worden und scheidet die Menschseit nicht so von sich, wie Meister Hans seinen Rock auszieht und von sich legt, wenn er schlafen geht. Denn, dass ich den Einfaeltigen ein grob Gleichniss gebe, die Menschheit ist naeher vereinigt mit Gott, denn unsere Haut mit unserm Fleische, ja naeher denn Leib und Seele.' [557] He ridicules the popular conception of heaven and the throne of God as childish: 'Die Rechte Gottes,' he says, l.c., 'ist nicht ein sonderlicher Ort, da ein Leib solle oder moege sein, nicht ein Gaukelhimmel, wie man ihn den Kindern pflegt vorzubilden, darin ein guelden Stuhl stehe und Christus neben dem Vater sitze in einer Chorkappen und guelden Krone. . . . Die Rechte Gottes ist an allen Enden, so ist sie gewisslich auch im Brot und Wein ueber Tische. . . . Wo nun die Rechte Gottes ist, da muss Christi Leib und Blut auch sein; denn die Rechte Gottes ist nicht zu theilen in viele Stuecke, sondern ein einiges einfaeltiges Wesen.' If this prove any thing, it proves the absolute omnipresence of Christ's body. And so Brentius taught. [558] De inhabitatione Dei in Sanctis ad Osiandrum, 1551 (Consil. Lat. Vol. II. p. 156): 'Tota antiquitas declarans hanc propositionem: Christus est ubique, sic declarat: Christus est ubique personaliter. Et verissimum est, Filium Dei, Deum et hominem habitare in sanctis. Sed antiquitas hanc propositionem rejicit: Christus corporaliter est ubique. Quia natura quaelibet retinet sua idiomata. Unde Augustinus et alii dicunt: Christi corpus est in certo loco. . . Cavendum est, ne ita astruamus divinitatem hominis Christi, ut veritatem corporis auferamus.' In a new edition of his lectures on the Colossians (1556 and 1559), he maintains the literal meaning of the ascension of Christ, 'i.e., in locum coelestem. . . . Ascensio fuit visibilis et corporalis, et saepe ita scripsit tota antiquitas, Christum corporali locatione in aliquo loco esse, ubicunque vult. Corpus localiter alicubi est secundum verum corporis modum, ut Augustinus inquit.' See Galle, p. 448. [559] See on his Christology chiefly Heppe, Vol. II. pp. 99 sqq. [560] 'Finitum non capax est infiniti.' [561] Both parties published an account--the Lutherans at Frankfort-on-the-Main, the Reformed at Heidelberg. The latter is more full, and bears the title: Protocollum, h. e. Acta Colloquii inter Palatinos et Wirtebergicos Theologos de Ubiquitate sive Omnipraesentia corporis Christi. . . . A. 1564 Maulbrunni habiti (Heidelb. 1566). See a full resume of the Colloquy in Ebrard: Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 666-685; Sudhoff: Olevian und Ursin, pp.260-290; in Hartmann: Joh. Brenz, pp. 253-256, and in the larger work of Hartmann and Jaeger on Brenz, 1840-42, Vol. II. [562] Andreae asserted that Christ's body, when in Mary's womb, was omnipresent as to possession (possessione), though not as to manifestation (non patefactione). Sudhoff, p. 279. This is the Tuebingen doctrine of the krupsis. See below. [563] The same Lutherans, who so strenuously insisted on the literal interpretation of the esti, outdid the Reformed in the figurative interpretation of all these passages, and explained the ascension and heaven itself out of the Bible. [564] Ebrard says (Vol. II. p. 685): 'So endete das Maulbronner Gespraech mit einer vollstaendigen Niederlage der Lutheraner.' Sudhoff (p. 290): 'Es kann von niemandem in Abrede gestellt werden, dass die Pfaelzer als Sieger aus diesem Streite hervorgegangen,' and he publishes several manuscript letters giving the impressions of the Colloquy on those present. The Swabians returned discontented, but without change of conviction. Dorner, although a Lutheran, and a Swabian by descent, gives the Reformed Christology in many respects the preference before the Lutheran, and says (Vol. II. p. 724): 'Es ist unbestreitbar, dass die reformirte christologische Literatur, die um die Zeit der Concordienformel ihren Bluethepunkt erreicht, durch Geist, Scharfsinn, Gelehrsamkeit und philosophische Bildung der lutherischen Theologie vollkommen ebenbuertig, ja in manchen Beziehungen ueberlegen ist.' He then gives a fine analysis of the Christology of Beza, Danaeus, Sadeel, and Ursinus. [565] See Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 466 sq. [566] In a series of tracts: De personali unione duarum naturarum in Christo, 1561 (written in 1560); Sententia de libello Bullingeri, 1561; De Divina majestate Domini nostri J. Christi ad dexteram Patris et de vera praesentia corporis et sanguinis ejus in caena, 1562; and Recognitio propheticae et apost. doctrinae de vera Majestate Dei, 1564. In Brentii Opera, 1590, T. VIII. pp. 831-1108. Against Brenz wrote Bullinger: Tractatio verborum Domini Joh. XIV. 2, Tiguri, 1561; Responsio, qua ostenditur, sententiam de caelo et dextera Dei firmiter adhuc perstare, 1562; also Peter Martyr and Beza. The Roman Catholics sided with the Reformed against the Lutheran ubiquity. On the Christology of Brenz, comp. Dorner: Entw. Geschichte der Christologie, Vol. II. pp. 668 sqq.; Ebrard: Abendmahl, Vol. II. pp. 646 sqq. (Brenz und die Ubiquitaet); and Steitz in Herzog, Vol. XVI. pp. 584 sqq. [567] 'Majestatem divinam tempore carnis suae in hoc seculo dissimulavit seu ea sese (ut Paulus loquitur) exinanivit, tamen numquam ea caruit. . . . Texit et obduxit suam majestatem forma servi.' [568] 'Eum tunc manifesto spectaculo voluisse testificari et declarare, se verum Deun et hominem, hoc est, una cum divinitate et humanitate sua jam inde ab initio suae incarnationis omnia implevisse.' [569] 'Ubicunque est Deitas, ibi etiam est humanitas Christi.' [570] Brenz was followed by Jacob Andreae, Schegck, and the Swabians generally, who have shown a good deal of speculative genius (down to Schelling, Hegel, and Baur), and also by a few divines of North Germany, as Andreas Musculus, John Wigand, and for a time by Heshusius, who afterwards opposed absolute ubiquity. Leonhard Hutter and AEgidius Hunnius, who were Swabians by birth, likewise took substantially the Swabian view, though more for the purpose of maintaining the authority of the 'Formula of Concord.' See Dorner, Vol. II. p. 775. [571] In his important work: De duabus naturis in Christo, de hypostatica earum unione, de communicatione idiomatum et aliis quaestionibus inde dependentibus, Jenae, 1570, and often reprinted. Comp. Steitz, l.c. pp. 592-597; and Dorner, Vol. II. pp. 695 sqq. Heppe says (Dogm. Vol. II. p. 131): 'Der Gegensatz der melanchthonischen und der wuertembergisch-brenzischen Christologie ist sonnenklar. Jene erbaut sich auf dem Gedanken, dass Gott wirklicher Mensch geworden ist, waehrend diese sich um den Gedanken lagert, dass ein Mensch Gott geworden ist.' [572] 'Praesentia haec assumtae naturae in Christo non est naturalis, vel essentialis, sed voluntaria et liberrima, dependens a voluntate et potentia Filii Dei, h. e. ubi se hmnana natura adesse velle certo verbo tradidit, promisit et asseveravit.' [573] Confessio et doctrina theologorum in Ducatu Wurtembergensi de vera praesentia corporis et sanguinis J. Chr. in Caena dominica. Here the absolute ubiquity is taught, not, indeed, in the way of a 'diffusio humanae naturae' or 'distractio membroram Christi,' but so that 'homo Christus quoque implet omnia modo caelesti et humanae naturae imperscrutabili.' See the German in Heppe: Die Entstehung and Fortbildung des Lutherthums und die kirchl. Bekenntniss-Schriften desselben, p. 63. Melanchthon concealed his grief over this change of Brenz beneath a facetious remark to a friend on the poor Latinity of this confession ('Hechingense Latinum:' Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. p. 1036; comp. Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 454; J. Hartmann: Joh. Brenz, p. 249). [574] Heshusius wrote concerning this Colloquy: 'Constanter rejicio ubiquitatem. Chemnitzius, Kirchnerus, Chytraeus antea rejecerunt eam: nunc in gratiam Tubingensium cum magno ecclesiae scandalo ejus patrocinium suscipiunt, ipsorum igitur constantia potius accusanda est.' Comp. Acta disput.Quedlinb.; Dorner, Vol. II. p. 773; Heppe, Vol. IV. p. 316; and G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 259 (Helmstaedt und die Ubiquitaet). [575] The Saxon Solida decisio, 1624, and an Apologia decisionis, 1625; Feuerborn: Sciagraphia de div. Jes. Christo juxta humanit. communicatae majestatis usurpatione, 1621; Kenosigraphia christologike, Marburg, 1627; Mentzer: Juxta defensio against the Tuebingen divines, Giss. 1624; Thummius: Majestas J. Christi theanthropou, Tueb. 1621; Acta Mentzeriana, 1625; Tapeinosigraphia sacra, h. e. Repetitio sanae et orthod. doctrinae de humiliatione Jesu Christi, Tueb. 1623 (900 pp. 4to). On the Romish side: Bellum ubiquisticum vetus et novum, Dilling. 1627; Alter und neuer lutherischer Katzenkrieg v. d. Ubiquitaet, Ingolst. 1629; Cotta: Historia doctrinae de duplici statu Christi (in his edition of Gerhard's Loci theologici, Vol. IV. pp. 60sqq.); Walch: Religionsstreitigkeiten, Vol. I. p. 206; Vol. IV. p. 551; Baur: Gesch. der L. v. d. Dreieinigkeit, Vol. III. p. 450; Thomasius: Christi Person und Werk, Vol. II. pp. 391-450; Dorner, Vol. II. pp. 788-809; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 336. [576] Hence they were called Kenotiker, Kenoticists. [577] Hence their name, Kryptiker, Krypticists. [578] Indistantia, nuda adessentia ad creaturas, praesentia simplex. [579] Actio, operatio, praesentia modificata. This amounts to pretty much the same thing with the omimpraesentia energetica of the Calvinists. [580] The same applies to omnipotence. The Tuebingen divines gave an affirmative answer to the question, 'An homo Christus in Deum assumptus in statu exinanitionis tamquam rex praesens cuncta, licet latenter, gubernarit?' They made, however, an apparent concession to their opponents by assuming a brief suspension of the use of the divine majesty during the agony in Gethsemane and the crucifixion, in order that Christ might really suffer as high-priest. See Dorner, Vol. II. p. 799. [581] 'In an individual,' says Strauss, in the dogmatic conclusion of his first Leben Jesu (Vol. II. p. 710}. 'in one God-man, the properties and functions which the Church doctrine ascribes to Christ contradict themselves; in the idea of the race they agree. Humanity is the union of the two natures--the incarnate God--the infinite externalizing itself in the finite, and the finite spirit remembering its infinitude.' [582] So Thomasius, Liebner, Gess. But the absolute ubiquity also has found an advocate in Philippi (Kirchl. Glaubenslehre, Vol. IV. I. pp. 394). Dr. Stahl, the able theological lawyer, in his Die lutherische Kirche und die Union (Berlin, 1859, pp.185 sqq.), admits that the ubiquity question has no religious interest except as a speculative basis for the possibility of the eucharistic presence, and approaches Ebrard's view of an 'extra-spacial, central communication of the virtue' of Christ's body to the believer. Dr. Krauth defends Chemnitz's view, and what he would rather style 'the personal omnipresence of the human nature of Christ' (l.c. p. 496). But the human nature of Christ is impersonal, and simply taken up into union with the pre-existent personality of the Divine Logos. [583] AEpinus: Comment, in Psa. xvi. Frcf. 1544, and Enarratio Psalmi lxviii., with an appendix de descensu Christi ad inferna, Frcf. 1553. A. Grevius: Memoria J. AEpini instaurata, Hamb. 1736; Dietelmaier: Historia dogmatis de descensu Christi, Norimb. 1741, Alt. 1762; Planck, Vol. V. I. pp. 251-264; Koenig: Die Lehre von Christi Hoellenfahrt, pp. 152 sqq.; Gueder: Die Lehre der Erscheinung Christi unter den Todten, Bern, 1853, pp. 222 sqq.; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 160 sq.; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. III. p. 397 sqq. [584] A Hellenized form (Aipeinos, high, lofty) for his German name Hoeck, or Hoch. He was born, 1499, at Ziegesar, Brandenburg; studied at Wittenberg, became pastor at St. Peter's, Hamburg, 1529, Superintendent in 1532, introduced the Reformation into that city, signed the Articles of Smalcald, 1537, stood in high esteem, and died 1553. He was a colleague of Westphal, and opposed with Flacius the Leipzig Interim. [585] Sept. 1550, Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. p. 665. Comp. Schmidt, Melanchthon, p. 554 sq. In his Loci, Melanchthon passes by the descensus as unessential. In a letter to Spalatin, March 20,1531 (Corp. Reform. Vol. II. p. 490), he expresses his inability to explain the dark passage, 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20. He was pleased with Luther's sermon at Torgau, but added, in a private letter to Anton Musa (March 12, 1543, Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 58), that Christ probably preached the gospel to the heathen in the spirit world, and converted such men as Scipio and Fabius. (Zwingli likewise believed in the salvation of the nobler heathen.) He wrote to AEpinus, April 20, 1546 (Corp. Reform. Vol. VI. p. 116), to preach the necessary doctrines of faith, repentance, prayer, good works, rather than speculations on things which even the most learned did not know. [586] Comp. Flacius: Von wahren und falschen Mitteldingen, etc.; Entschuldigung geschrieben an die Universitaet zu Wittenberg der Mittelding halben, etc.; Wider ein recht heidnisch, ja Epicurisch Buch der Adiaphoristen, darin das Leipzische Interim vertheidigt wird, etc.; and other pamphlets, printed at Magdeburg (as the 'Kanzlei Gottes'), 1549; Wigand: De neutralibus et mediis, Frcf. 1560; Schluesselburg: Cat. Haeret. Lib. XIII. (de Adiaphoristis et Interimistis); Biek: Das dreifache Interim, Leipz. 1725, Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 85-248; H. Rossel: Mel. und das Interim (at the close of Twesten's monograph on Flacius, Berlin, 1844); Ranke: Deutsche Gesch., etc. Vol. V.; Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 435; Herzog: Encykl. Vol. I. p. 124; Vol. VIII. p. 288; Schmidt: Mel. pp. 491, 495, 524; G. Frank, Vol. I. pp. 113, 116; Fr. H. R. Frank, Vol. IV. pp. 1-120; Dorner, p. 331. [587] See his humorous letter to Buchholzer in Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539 (Briefe, Vol. V. p. 235), which might have considerably embarrassed the anti-Adiaphorists had they known it. He advises Elector Joachim II. that in introducing the Reformation he may, if he desired it, put on one or three priestly garments, like Aaron; may hold one or even seven processions, like Joshua before Jericho; and may dance before it, as David danced before the ark, provided only such things were not made necessary for salvation. [588] See the text of the two Interims in Gieseler, Vol. IV. pp. 193-196 and 201-203; the Interim Lipsiense, also, in Corp. Reform. Vol. VII. The term gave rise to sarcastic conundrums, as Interimo, interitus, Hinterim, der Schalk ist hinter ihm (the villain is behind it). On the political aspects of the Interim, see the fifth volume of Ranke. [589] To the Augsburg Interim he was decidedly opposed, and he had also sundry objections to the ceremonial part of the Leipzig Interim. He is only responsible for its doctrinal part. See his letters from this period in Corp. Reform. Vols. VI. and VII., and Schmidt's Mel. pp. 507 and 524. [590] In a letter to his enemy, M. Flacius, dated Sept. 5, 1556, he was not ashamed to confess, after some slight reproaches, 'Vincite! Cedo; nihil pugno de ritibus illis, et maxime opto, ut dulcis sit ecclesiarum concordia. Fateor etiam hac in re a me peccatum esse, et a Deo veniam peto, quod non procul fugi insidiosas illas deliberationes. Sed illa quae mihi falsa a te et a Gallo objiciuntur, refutabo.' Corp. Reform. Vol. VIII. p. 841 sq. And to the Saxon pastors he wrote, Jan. 17, 1557 (Vol. IX. p. 61): 'Pertractus sum ad aularum deliberationes insidiosas. Quare sicubi vel lapsus sum, vel languidius aliquid egi, peto a Deo et ab Ecclesia veniam, et judiciis Ecclesiae obtemperabo.' [591] Thus he concisely states the case on the long title-page of his Apology, or Entschuldigung, etc., addressed to the University of Wittenberg, with a letter to Melanchthon, Magdeburg, 1549. The concluding words of the title state the aim of the Interim thus: 'Das Ende ist die Einsetzung des Papstthums und Einstellung des Antichrists in den Tempel Christi, Staerkung der Gottlosen, dass sie ueber der Kirche Christi stolziren, Betruebung der Gottfuerchtigen, item Schwaechung, Einfuehrung in Zweifel, Trennung und unzaehlige Aergerniss.' He relates of Melanchthon that he derived from an eclipse of the moon in 1548 the vain hope of the near death of the Emperor, which would end these troubles. He also published several confidential letters of Luther to Melanchthon, written during the Diet at Augsburg, 1530, upbraiding him for his philosophy and timidity. [592] Opera, Vol. IX. p. 51, and Letters of Calvin, by J. Bonnet, English translation, Vol. II. p. 257. A letter of similar spirit and import to Melanchthon, by his friend Anton Corvinus (Raebener), a distinguished reformer in Hesse and Goettingen, who suffered imprisonment for his opposition to the Interim, was recently discovered in the Royal Library at Hanover by Iwan Franz, and published in Kahnis, Zeitschrift fur die hist. Theol. 1874, pp. 105 sqq., from which I quote the following passages: 'O Philippe, o inquam Philippe noster, redi per immortalem Christum ad pristinum candorem, ad pristinam tuam sinceritatem! non languefacito ista tua formidine, pusillanimitate et inepta moderatione nostrorum animos tantopere! Non aperito hac ratione ad Papatus recurrentem impietatem ac Idolomanias fenestram ac januam! Non sis tantorum in Ecclesia offendiculorum autor! Ne sinas tua tam egregia scripta, dicta, facta, quibus mirifice de Ecclesia hactenus meritus es, isto condonationis, moderationis, novationis naevo ad eum modum deformari! Cogita, quantum animi ista nostra carnis ac rationis consilia et adversariis addant et nostris adimant.! Perpende, quam placari etiam istis condonationibus adversarii nostri non queant, qui totius Papatus doctrinam et omnes ex cequo impios cultus reposcunt et ex nostra levitate spem concipiunt se hac in re facile voti compotes futuros. Detestatur Dominus apud Jeremiam eos, qui manus pessimormn confortant, ut non convertatur unusquisque a malitia sua. Cur igitur in tam ardua causa non tales nos gerimus ut hujusmodi detestatio competere in nos haud possit? qua perversitate arundo huc illuc ventis agitata dici quam Johannis constantiam imitari malumus! . . . Proinde Te, o noster Philippe, iterum atque iterum per ilium ipsum Christum redemptorem nostrum et brevi futurum judicem rogamus, ut professionis tuae memor talem te cum reliquis Vitebergensibus jam geras, qualem Te ab initio hujus causae ad Electoris captivitatem usque gessisti, hoc est, ut ea sentias, dicas, scribas, agas, quae Philippum, Christianum Doctorem decent, non aulicum Philosophum.' [593] Planck, Vol. VI. pp.809 sqq.; Roehrich: Geschichte der Reform. im Elsass, bes. in Strassburg, 3 Theile, Strasburg, 1830-1882; Schweizer: Centraldogmen der Reform. Kirche, Vol. I. pp. 418-470 (a very full and able account); Heppe: Dogmatik des D. Protest. Vol. II. pp. 44-47; G. Frank, Vol. I. pp. 178-184; Fr. H. E. Frank, Vol. IV. pp. 121-344. [594] The Philippist Lasius first asserted (1568) that Luther had recalled his book De servo arbitrio (1525), but this was indignantly characterized by Flacius and Westphal as a wretched lie and an insult to the evangelical church. The fact is that Luther emphatically reaffirmed this book, in a letter to Capito, 1537, as one of his very best ('nullum enim agnosco meum justum librum nisi forte De servo arbitrio, et Catechismum'). And, indeed, it is one of his most powerful works. Luthardt (Die Lehre vom freien Willen, Leipz. 1863, p. 122) calls it 'eine maechtige Schrift, stoltz, wahrheitsgewiss, kuehn in Gedanken und Wort, voll heiligen Eifers, gewaltigen Ernstes, aus innerster Seele herausgeschrieben. . . . Kaum irgendwo sonst ergiesst sich gleich maechtig und reich der Strom seines Geistes.' Only in regard to predestination Luther may be said to have moderated his view somewhat, although he never recalled it, that is, he still taught in his later writings (in his Com. on Genesis, Ch. VI. 6, 18; Ch. XXVI.) the distinction and antagonism between the revealed will of God, which sincerely calls all to repentance and salvation, and the inscrutable secret will which saves only a part of the race; but he laid the main stress practically on the former and the means of grace, and thus prepared the way for the 11th Article of the Formula of Concord. 'Scripsi,' he wrote in 1536, 'esse omnia absoluta et necessaria, sed simul addidi, quod adspiciendus sit Deus revelatus' (Opera exeg. Vol. VI. p. 300). Luthardt (l.c. p. 146) correctly says (in opposition both to Luetkens and Philippi) that Luther never recalled, but retained his earlier views on predestination and the necessity of all that happens, and only guarded them against abuse. The result of Koestlin's investigation is this, that Luther never attempted a solution of the contradiction between the secret and the revealed will of God. 'Das eben ist seine Lehre, dass unser Erkennen nicht so weit reicht, und dass wir uns auch das Unbegreifliche und Unverstaendliche gefallen lassen muessen. . . . Er selbst spricht aus, dass ein Widerspruch fuer uns stehen bleibe, den wir nicht loesen koennen noch sollen.' Luther's Theologie, Vol. II. p. 328. [595] See the proof passages in Frank's Theol. der Concord. formel, Vol. IV. pp. 254-261; Luthardt, pp. 240-244; Planck, Vol. IV. pp. 691-712; and Schweizer, l.c. [596] See Schweizer, l.c. pp. 402 sqq. Heshusius and Westphal invented the name Calvinists, which henceforth was used by Lutherans for the Reformed, as the term Zwinglians had been before. The term sacramentarians was applied to both without distinction. [597] Melanchthon called him mediocriter doctus, but his own estimate was much higher, and in his inaugural he spoke with such arrogance that Bucer feared he would prove a great misfortune for the Church at Strasburg. See Roehrich and Schweizer, p. 420. [598] Zanchii Opera, Pt. VII. pp. 65 sqq., and Pt. VIII. pp. 114 sqq.; Schweizer, pp. 448-470. [599] Printed in the Strasburger Kirchenordnung of 1598. and in Loescher's Historia motuum, Vol. II. p. 229 sq. See Schweizer, pp. 440 sqq. [600] It is addressed to Philip of Hesse (Oct. 1, 1565), and given by Schweizer, pp. 425-436. Zanchi accepted afterwards a call to a professorship at the Reformed University of Heidelberg, where he died, 1590. He received also calls to England, Lausanne, Geneva, Zurich, and Leyden, and was justly esteemed for his learning and character. A complete edition of his works appeared at Geneva in eight parts, in 3 vols. folio. [601] Comp. Heppe, Gesch. des D. Protest. Vol. IV. pp.312-315. [602] Spener was born at Rappoltsweiler, in Upper Alsace, but his parents were from Strasburg, and he was educated there, and called himself a Strasburger. Kliefoth (as quoted by Heppe, Vol. IV. p. 399), from his own rigid Lutheran stand-point, says, not without good reason: 'Mit Spener beginnt jener grosse Eroberungszug der reformirten Kirche gegen die lutherische, der seitdem verschiedene Namen, erst Froemmigkeit, dann Toleranz, dann Union, dann Confoederation auf sein Panier geschrieben hat.' [603] For the fullest account, see the sixth volume of Planck's, and the third volume of Heppe's history. [604] As Brenz says: 'Es luge ein jeglicher Fuchs seines Balges.' [605] 80,000 gulden. Augustus was a zealous Lutheran without knowing the difference between Lutheranism and Philippism, and supported or punished the champions of both parties as he happened to be led or misled by his courtiers and the theologians. [606] On this remarkable man, see Planck, Vol. VI. pp. 372 sqq.; Heppe, Vol. IV. pp. 376 sqq.; G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 219; Hartmann in Herzog, Vol. I. p. 312; Johannsen, Jacob Andreae's Concordistische Thaetigkeit, in Niedner's Zeitschrift fuer hist. Theol. 1853, No. 3. Andreae has often been too unfavorably judged. His contemporary opponents called him 'Schmidlin' (with reference to his father's trade), 'Dr. Jacobellus, the Pope of Saxony, the planet of Swabia, the apostle of ubiquity, allotrio-episcopus, a worshiper of Bacchus and Mammon,' etc. He no doubt had a considerable share of vanity, ambition, and theological passion (which he displayed, e.g., against poor Flacius, even after his death). But there is no reason to doubt the general purity of his motives, and, compared with some other orthodox Lutherans of his age, he was even liberal, at least in his earlier years. At a later period he denounced the alterations of the Augsburg Confession, and compared Melanchthon to Solomon, who at first wrote glorious things, but was afterwards so far led astray that the Bible leaves it doubtful whether he were saved ('ob er zu unserm Herrgott oder zu dem Teufel gefahren sei'). He seemed to be predestinated for the work of his life. Planck gives a masterly (though not altogether just) analysis of his character, from which I quote a specimen, as it fairly represents the spirit and style of his celebrated history (Vol. VI. p. 274): 'In halb Deutschland herumzureisen, und an jedem neuen Ort mit neuen Menschen zu unterhandlen--hier mit dem Ministerio einer Reichsstadt, und dort mit einer kleinen Synode von Superintendenten, welche die Geistlichkeit einer ganzen Grafschaft oder eines Fuerstenthums repraesentiren--heute mit Flacianern und morgen mit Anhaengern der Wittenbergischen Schule und Verehrern Melanchthons--jetzt mit den Hauptpersonen, die an dem gelehrten Streit den vorzueglichsten Antheil genommen, und jetzt mit den Schreiern, die bloss den Laerm vermehrt, und dazwischen hinein mit einem oder dem andern Stillen im Lande, die bisher im Verborgenen ueber den Streit geseufzt hatten--und allen diesen Menschen alles zu werden, um sie zu gewinnen--es gab wirklich kein Geschaeft in der Welt, das fuer ihn so gemacht war, wie dieses, so wie es auch umgekehrt wenige Menschen gab, die fuer das Geschaeft so gemacht waren, wie er. Nimmt man aber noch dies dazu, dass sich auch der gute, Andreae selbst dazu fuer gemacht hielt, dass in die natuerliche Thaetigkeit seines Geistes auch zuweilen ein kleiner Windzug von Ehrgeiz und Eitelkeit hineinblies, dass er auch fuer den Reiz der bedeutenden Rolle, die er dabei spielen, und des Aufsehens, das er erregen wuerde, nicht unfuehlbar war, ja dass selbst der Gedanke an das [den] Verkehr, in das er dabei mit so manchen Fuersten und Herrn kommen, an die Ehrenbezeugungen, die man ihm hier und da erweisen, an die Raths-Deputationen, die ihn in so mancher kleinen Reichsstadt bewillkommen, an die Gastpredigten, die man ihm auftragen, und an die Ehrfurcht, womit dann die ehrliche Buerger einer solchen Stadt, die noch keinen Kanzler von Tuebingen gesehen hatten, mit Fingern auf ihn weisen wuerden--dass auch der Gedanke daran den heiteren und offenherzigen Mann, der es mil seinen kleinen Schwachheiten nicht so genau nahm und sie eben so leicht sich selbst as andern vergab, auf gewisse Augenblicke sehr stark anziehen konnte--nimmt man alles diess zusammen, so wird man auch hinreichend erklaert haben, wie es kommen konnte, dass er vor den Schwierigkeiten seines uebernommenen Geschaefts nicht erschrak, die sich ihm doch ebenfalls bei seiner Klugheit, bei seiner Weltkenntniss, und bei seiner besondern durch manche Erfahrung erkauften Kenntniss der Menschen, die er dabei zu bearbeiten hatte, lebhafter als hundert andern darstellen mussten. Gewiss standen auch diese Schwierigkeiten lebhaft genug vor seiner Seele, aber der Reiz, durch den er in das Geschaeft hineingezogen wurde, war so stark, dass er ihm schwerlich haette widerstehen koennen, wenn er nicht nur die Muehe und Arbeit, die es ihn kosten, sondern auch den tausendfachen Verdruss, den es ihm machen, die zahllosen Kraenkungen, die es ihm zuziehen, und selbst alle die stechenden Erinnerungen, durch die es ihm sein Alter verbittern sollte, vorausgesehen haette.' Andreae, in connection with Vergerius, founded the first Bible Society, for Sclavonic nations (1555). His grandson, Johann Valentin Andreae (1586-1654), was a man of genius and more liberal views, and a great admirer of the order and discipline of the Reformed Church in Geneva, which he sadly missed in Germany. [607] Author of Loci theologici; Examen Concilii Tridentini; Harmonia Evangeliorum (completed by Polycarp Leyser and John Gerhard); De duabus in Christo naturis, and other works of vast learning. The Romanists called him a second Martin Luther, and said: 'Si posterior non fuisset, prior non stetisset.' This reminds one of the line, 'Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset.' [608] He prepared the second Latin translation of the Form of Concord, and is best known by one of his hymns ('Ach bleib bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ,' etc.; although it is only in part from him). His numerous theological writings are forgotten. He was a little man with short legs, at first a Philippist, then a rigid Lutheran ('parvus Flacius'); hence in turn attacked by all parties. 'Die Reformirten, gegen die er den Vers wandte: "Erhalt uns Herr bei deinem wort und steur' der Zwinglianer Mord!" und denen er die Schaendung seiner Tochter in letzter Instanz zuchreiben zu muessen glaubte, nannten ihn das "Lutheraefflein;" bei den strengen Lutheranern hiess er: "Schelmlecker, Seelhenker, Seelnecator;" bei den Melanchthonianern: "Judas alter in suspensus," Auch mit seinem Freund Andreae ist er zuletzt zerfallen. . . . Ein Jahrhundert spaeter wurde er unter die deutschen Propheten gerechnet.' G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 221. [609] The remaining three authors were David Chytraeus, Professor in Rostock (d. 1600), who remained a faithful Melanchthonian, and met the violent abuse of the zealots with silence; Andreas Musculus, Professor in Frankfort-on-the-Oder (d. 1581), who denounced Melanchthon as a patriarch of all heretics, and praised Luther as the sun among the dim stars of the old fathers; and Christopher Koerner, Professor in Frankfort-on-the-Oder, a friend of Chytraeus, but unfortunate in his children, who sunk into the lowest vices (G. Frank, Vol. I. p. 222). [610] Schwabisch-Saechsische Concordie, Formula Suevica et Saxonica, or Formula Concordiae inter Suevicas et Saxonicas Ecclesias, published from MS., in the original and revised form, by Heppe, Geschichte des Deutschen Protest. Vol. III., Beilagen, pp. 75-166, and 166-325. They were preceded by six sermons of Andreae (1573). Likewise republished by Heppe. [611] See Heppe, Vol. III. pp. 76 sqq. [612] The 'Torgische Buch' or 'Torgisch Bedenken, welchergestalt oder massen vermoege Gottes Worts die eingerissene Spaltungen zwischen den Theologen Augsburgischer Confession christlich verglichen und beigelegt werden moechten, anno 1576.' It was republished by Semler, with Preface and notes, Halle, 1760, but much better by Heppe, Marburg, 1857; second edition, 1866. [613] Or, Das Bergische Buch. English writers usually call it 'Form of Concord,' though 'Formula' is more correct. [614] See the titles on p. 220, and literary notices in Koellner, pp. 562 sqq. Andreae directed the editing of the German Book of Concord, Glaser and Fuger read the proof. The manuscript was deposited in the library of the chief church at Dresden, and burned up with it July 19, 1700. The first Latin Concordia (1580) was superintended and edited, though without proper authority, by Selnecker; the second edition (1584) was issued by authority of the Electors. There are few separate editions of the Formula of Concord, the first by Selnecker, Lipz. 1582. See Koellner, p. 561. [615] See a description in Penzel's Saxon. Numism. as quoted by Planck, Vol. VI. p. 689. Augustus dismissed Andreae (1580), ostensibly with great honor and rich presents, but in fact much displeased with the garrulus Suevus, who had spoken disrespectfully of his theological ignorance, had fallen out with Chemnitz and Selnecker, and made many enemies. See a full account in Heppe. Vol. IV. pp. 256-270. [616] See the authorized Latin text of the Epitome, with a new English translation, in Vol. III. pp. 93 sqq. An English Version of the Formula from the German text appeared in The Christian Book of Concord; or, Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, New Market, Va., 1851, 2d ed., 1854. It professes to be literal, hut is very stiff and unidiomatic. __________________________________________________________________ S: 46. The Form of Concord, Concluded. Analysis and Criticism. The Formula of Concord consists of two parts--the Epitome and the Solida Repetitio et Declaratio. Both treat, in twelve articles, of the same matter--the first briefly, the other extensively. They begin with the anthropological doctrines of original sin and freedom of the will; next pass on to the soteriological questions concerning justification, good works, the law and the gospel, the third use of the law; then to the eucharist and the person of Christ; and end with foreknowledge and election. This order is characteristic of the Lutheran system, as distinct from the Calvinistic, which begins with the Scriptures, or with God and the eternal decrees. The most important articles are those on the Lord's Supper and the Person of Christ, which teach the peculiar features of the Lutheran creed, viz., consubstantiation, the communication of the properties of the divine nature to the human nature of Christ, and the ubiquity of Christ's body. The Epitome contains all that is essential. It first states the controversy (status controversiae), then the true doctrine (affirmativa), and, last, it condemns the error (negativa). In the Solid Repetition and Declaration this division is omitted; but the articles are more fully explained and supported by ample quotations from the Scriptures, the fathers, the older Lutheran Confessions, and the private writings of Dr. Luther, which swell it to about five times the size of theEpitome. Each part is preceded by an important introduction, which lays down the fundamental Protestant principle that the Canonical Scriptures are the only rule of faith and doctrine, [617] and fixes the number of (nine) symbolical books to be hereafter acknowledged in the Lutheran Church, not as judges, but as witnesses and expositions of the Christian faith; namely, the three oecumenical Symbols (the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian), the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, [618] the Apology of the Confession, the Articles of Smalcald, the Smaller and Larger Catechisms of Luther, [619] and the Formula of Concord. The Scriptures contain the credenda, the things to be believed; the Symbols the credita, the things that are believed. Yet the second part of the Formula quotes Dr. Luther, 'piae sanctoeque memoriae,' as freely, and with at least as much deference to his authority, as Roman Catholics quote the fathers. Melanchthon, the author of the fundamental Confession of the Lutheran Church, is never named, but indirectly condemned; and as to poor Zwingli, he is indeed mentioned, but only to be held up to pious horror for his 'blasphemous allaeosis.' [620] Thus the supremacy of the Bible is maintained in principle, but Luther is regarded as its regulative and almost infallible expounder. We now proceed to give a summary of the Formula. Art. I. Of Original Sin.--It is not the moral essence, or substance, or nature of man (as Flacius taught with the old Manichaeans), but a radical corruption of that nature, which can never be entirely eradicated in this world (against the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies). Art. II. Of Free Will.--Man, in consequence of Adam's fall, has lost the divine image, is spiritually blind, disabled, dead, and even hostile to God, and can contribute nothing towards his conversion, which is the work of the Holy Spirit alone, through the means of grace. The Formula, following Luther, uses stronger terms on the slavery of the will and total depravity than the Calvinistic Confessions. It compares the unconverted man to a column of salt, Lot's wife, a statue without mouth or eyes, a dead stone, block and clod, [621] and denies to him the least spark of spiritual power. [622] He can not even accept the gospel (which is the work of pure grace), but he may reject it, and thereby incur damnation. This article condemns the fatalism of the Stoics and Manichaeans, the anthropological heresies of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, but also and especially the Synergism of Melanchthon and the Philippists. The chief framers of the Formula--Andreae, Chemnitz, Selnecker, and Chytraeus--were at first in favor of Synergism, which would have been more consistent with Article XI.; the Swabian-Saxon Concordia, drawn up by Chemnitz and Chytraeus, and the Torgau Book actually contained synergistic passages. [623] But they were omitted or exchanged for others, and consistency was sacrificed to veneration for Luther. There is an obvious and irreconcilable antagonism between Art. II. and Art. XI. They contain not simply opposite truths to be reconciled by theological science, but contradictory assertions, which ought never to be put into a creed. The Formula adopts one part of Luther's book De servo arbitrio (1525), and rejects the other, which follows with logical necessity. It is Augustinian--yea, hyper-Augustinian and hyper-Calvinistic in the doctrine of human depravity, and anti-Augustinian in the doctrine of divine predestination. It indorses the anthropological premise, and denies the theological conclusion. If man is by nature like a stone and block, and unable even to accept the grace of God (as Art. II. teaches), he can only be converted by an act of almighty power and irresistible grace (which Art. XI. denies). If some men are saved, without any co-operation on their part, while others, with the same inability and the same opportunities, are lost, the difference points to a particular predestination and the inscrutable decree of God. On the other hand, if God sincerely wills the salvation of all men (as Art. XI. teaches), and yet only a part are actually saved, there must be some difference in the attitude of the saved and the lost towards converting grace (which is denied in Art. II.). The Lutheran system, then, to be consistent, must rectify itself, and develop either from Art. II. in the direction of Augustinianism and Calvinism, or from Art. XI. in the direction of Synergism and Arminianism. The former would be simply returning to Luther's original doctrine, which he never recalled, though he may have modified it a little; the latter is the path pointed out by Melanchthon, and adopted more or less by some of the ablest modern Lutherans. [624] In either case the second article needs modification. It uses the language of feeling rather than sober reflection, and gives the rhetorical expressions of subjective experience the dignity of symbolical statement. We can, indeed, not feel too strongly the sinfulness of sin and the awful corruption of our hearts. Nevertheless, God's image in man is not lost or exchanged for Satan's image, but only disfigured, disabled, and lying in ruins. Man is, indeed, in his prevailing inclination, a slave of sin, yet susceptible of the influences of divine grace, and remains moral and responsible in accepting or rejecting the gospel, before as well as after conversion. His reason, his conscience, his sense of sin, his longing for redemption and for peace with God, his prayers, his sacrifices, and all the 'testimonia animae naturaliter christianae,' bear witness with one voice to his divine origin, his divine destination, and his adaptation to the Christian salvation. [625] But on the other hand there are innumerable mysteries of Providence in the order of nature as well as of grace, and inequalities in the distribution of gifts and opportunities, which baffle solution in this present world, and can only be traced to the inscrutable wisdom of God. The human mind has not been able as yet satisfactorily to set forth the harmony of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Art. III. Of Justification by Faith.--Christ is our righteousness, not according to the divine nature alone (Andrew Osiander), nor according to the human nature alone (Stancar), but the whole Christ. God justifies us out of pure grace, without regard to antecedent, present, or subsequent works or merit, by imputing to us the righteousness of the obedience of Christ. Faith alone is the medium and instrument by which we apprehend Christ. Justification is a declaratory or forensic act--a sentence of absolution from sin, not an infusion of righteousness (Osiander). Art. IV. Of Good Works.--Good works must always follow true faith, but they are neither necessary to salvation (Major), nor dangerous or injurious to salvation (Amsdorf). Salvation is of free grace alone, apprehended by faith. Art. V. Of the Law and the Gospel.--The object of the law is to reprove sin and to preach repentance; the gospel (in its specific sense) is a joyful message, the preaching of Christ's atonement and satisfaction for all sins. Art. VI. Of the Third Use of the Law--i.e., its obligation to believers, as distinct from its civil or political, and its paedagogic or moral use in maintaining order, and leading to a conviction of sin. Believers, though redeemed from the curse and restraint of the law, are bound to obey the law with a free and willing spirit. Antinomianism is rejected. Art. VII. Of the Lord's Supper.--The most important controversy and chief occasion of the Formula--hence the length of this Article in the second part. It sets forth clearly and fully the doctrine of consubstantiation (as it is usually called, in distinction from the Romish transubstantiation), i.e., of the co-existence of two distinct yet inseparable substances in the sacrament. It is the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of the true body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine (in, cum, et sub pane et vino), and the oral manducation of both substances by unbelieving as well as believing communicants, though with opposite effects. The sacramental union of Christ's real body and blood with the elements is not an impanation or local inclusion, nor a mixture of two substances, nor a permanent (extra-sacramental) conjunction, but it is illocal, supernatural, unmixed, and confined to the sacramental transaction or actual use. [626] Nor is it effected by priestly consecration, but by the omnipotent power of God, and the word and institution of Christ. The body of Christ is eaten with the mouth by all communicants, but the notion of a Capernaitic or physical eating with the teeth is indignantly rejected as a malignant and blasphemous slander of the sacramentarians. [627] The Formula condemns the Romish dogma of transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, and the withdrawal of the cup from the laity, but with equal or greater emphasis the Reformed and Melanchthonian (Crypto-Calvinistic) theory of a spiritual real presence and fruition of Christ by faith, or by believers only, without making a distinction between Zwinglians and Calvinists, except that the latter are called 'the most pernicious of all sacramentarians.' [628] Art. VIII. Of the Person of Christ.--This article gives scholastic support to the preceding article on the eucharistic presence, and contains an addition to the Lutheran creed. It teaches the communicatio idiomatum and the ubiquity of Christ's body. It raised the private opinions and speculations of Luther, Brentius, and Chemnitz on these topics to the authority of a dogma. Some regard this as the crowning excellence of the Formula; [629] others, even in the Lutheran communion, as its weakest and most assailable point. [630] It was certainly very unwise, as history has shown, to introduce the scholastic subtleties of metaphysical theology into a public confession of faith. The Formula derives from the personal union of the two natures in Christ (unio hypostatica, or personalis) the communion of natures (communio naturarum), from the communion of natures the communication of properties or attributes (communicatio idiomatum, a term used first by the scholastics), and from the communication of properties the omnipresence or ubiquity of Christ's body. The controversy between the Lutheran and Reformed, who both professedly stand on the common theanthropic Christology of Chalcedon, refers to the nature and extent of the communication of properties, and especially to the ubiquity of Christ's body derived therefrom. The Formula (in the Second Part) distinguishes three kinds of the communicatio idiomatum, which were afterwards more fully analyzed, defined, and designated by the Lutheran scholastics of the seventeenth century. [631] 1. The genus idiomaticum, by which the attributes of one or the other nature are communicated to the whole person. Thus it is said that 'the Son of God was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh' (Rom. i. 3), that 'Christ was put to death in the flesh,' and that 'he suffered in the flesh' (1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 1). [632] Here Luther's warning is quoted against Zwingli's alloeosis, as 'a mask of the devil.' 2. The genus apotelesmaticum, or the koinonia apotelesmaton, [633] which has reference to the execution of the office of Christ: the communication of redeeming acts of the whole person to one of the two natures. Christ always operates in and through both. Thus Christ, neither as God nor man alone, but as God-man, is our Mediator, Redeemer, King, High-Priest, Shepherd, etc. He shed his blood according to his human nature, but the divine nature gave it infinite value (1 Cor. xv. 3: 'Christ died for our sins;' Gal. i. 4; iii. 17; 1 John iii. 8; Luke ix. 56). 3. The genus majestaticum, or auchematicum, [634] i.e., the communication of the attributes of the divine nature to the assumed humanity of Christ. 'The human nature of Christ,' says the Formula, 'over and above its natural, essential, and permanent human properties, has also received special, high, great, supernatural, inscrutable, ineffable, heavenly prerogatives and pre-eminence in majesty, glory, power, and might, above all that can be named (Eph. i. 21).' [635] . . . 'This majesty of the human nature was hidden and restrained in the time of the humiliation. But now, since the form of a servant is laid aside, the majesty of Christ appears fully, efficiently, and manifestly before all the saints in heaven and on earth, and we also in the life to come shall see his glory face to face (John xvii. 24). For this reason, there is and remains in Christ only one divine omnipotence, power, majesty, and glory, which is the property of the divine nature alone; but this shines forth, exhibits, and manifests itself fully, yet spontaneously, in, with, and through the assumed, exalted human nature in Christ; precisely as to shine and to burn are not two properties of iron, but the power to shine and to burn is the property of the fire--but since the fire is united with the iron, it exhibits and manifests its power to shine and to burn in, with, and through this red-hot iron; so that also the red-hot iron, through this union, has the power to shine and to burn, without a change of the essence and of the natural properties of the fire or of the iron.' [636] The Lutheran scholastics make here a distinction between the operative attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence) and the quiescent attributes (eternity, infinitude): all were communicated to Christ for inhabitation and possession, but only the operative for use--chresis, usurpatio (Matt. xxviii. 18; John xvii. 2, 5, 27; Col. ii. 3). 4. Strict logic would require a fourth genus (genus tapeinotikon, namely, the communication of the attributes of the human nature to the divine nature. But this is rejected by the Formula and the Lutheran scholastics, on the ground that the divine nature is unchangeable, and received no accession nor detraction from the incarnation. [637] This is a palpable inconsistency, [638] and is fatal to the third genus. For if there is any real communication of the properties of the two natures, it must be mutual; the one is the necessary counterpart of the other. If the human nature is capable of the divine, the divine nature must be capable of the human; and if, on the other hand, the divine nature is incapable of the human, the human nature must be incapable of the divine. Luther felt this, and boldly uses such expressions as 'God suffered,' 'God died,' which were familiar to the Monophysites. [639] The battle-ground between the Lutheran and the Reformed is the genus majestaticum, for which John of Damascus had prepared the way. But just here the Formula is neither quite clear nor consistent. It was unable to harmonize the two different Lutheran Christologies represented among the authors by Andreae and Chemnitz. [640] It teaches, on the one hand (to guard against the charge of Eutychianism and Monophysitism), that the attributes of the divine nature (as omnipotence, eternity, infinitude, omnipresence, omniscience) 'can never become (intrinsically and per se) the attributes of the human nature,' and that the attributes of the human nature (as corporeality, limitation, circumscription, passibility, mortality, hunger, thirst) 'can never become the attributes of the divine nature.' [641] (This quite agrees with the doctrine of Chemnitz and of the Reformed theologians.) But, on the other hand (in opposition to Nest