Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis.




















The Creeds of Christendom

Copyright, 1877, by Harper & Brothers

Copyright, 1905, 1919, by David S. Schaff

Printed in the United States of America


























Respectfully Dedicated








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 ἀληθεύειν ἐν ἀγάπῃ and the ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, 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.11   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.

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.22   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. 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.




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 Jahrbüher für Deutsche Theologie, 1877, p. 682) expresses a surprise that the idea of such an œcumenical 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.






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.




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 Encyclopædia." 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.




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 Müller, 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 xquite 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



(Vol. I.)






§ 1.
Name and Definition
§ 2.
Origin of Creeds
§ 3.
Authority of Creeds
§ 4.
Value and Use of Creeds
§ 5.
Classification of Creeds


§ 6.
General Character of the Œcumenical Creeds
§ 7.
The Apostles' Creed
§ 8.
The Nicene Creed
§ 9.
The Creed of Chalcedon
§ 10.
The Athanasian Creed


§ 11.
The Seven Œcumenical Councils
§ 12.
The Confessions of Gennadius, A.D. 1453
§ 13.
The Answers of the Patriarch Jeremiah to the Lutherans, A.D. 1576
§ 14.
The Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, A.D. 1625
§ 15.
The Confession of Cyril Lucar, A.D. 1631
§ 16.
The Orthodox Confession of Mogilas, A.D. 1643
§ 17.
The Synod of Jerusalem, and the Confession of Dositheus, A.D. 1672
§ 18.
The Synods of Constantinople, A.D. 1672 and 1691
§ 19.
The Doctrinal Standards of the Russo-Greek Church
§ 20.
Anglo-Catholic Correspondence with the Russo-Greek
§ 21.
The Eastern Sects: Nestorians, Jacobites, Copts, Armenians


§ 22.
Catholicism and Romanism
§ 23.
Standard Expositions of the Roman Catholic System
§ 24.
The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, A.D. 1563
§ 25.
The Profession of the Tridentine Faith, A.D. 1564
§ 26.
The Roman Catecism, A.D. 1566
§ 27.
The Papal Bulls against the Jansenists, A.D. 1653, 1713
  Note on the Old Catholics in Holland, 107.  
§ 28.
The Papal Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, A.D. 1854
§ 29.
The Argument for the Immaculate Conception
§ 30.
The Papal Syllabus, A.D. 1864
§ 31.
The Vatican Council, A.D. 1870
§ 32.
The Vatican Decrees. The Constitution on the Catholic Faith
§ 33.
The Vatican Decrees, Continued. The Papal Infallibility Decree
§ 34.
Papal Infallibility Explained, and Tested by Scripture and Tradition
§ 35.
The Liturgical Standards of the Roman Church
§ 36.
The Old Catholics


§ 37.
The Reformation. Protestantism and Romanism
§ 38.
The Evangelical Confessions of Faith
§ 39.
The Lutheran and Reformed Confessions


§ 40.
The Lutheran Confessions
§ 41.
The Augsburg Confession, A.D. 1530
§ 42.
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, A.D. 1530
§ 43.
Luther's Catechisms, A.D. 1529
§ 44.
The Articles of Smalcald, A.D. 1537
§ 45.
The Formula of Concord, A.D. 1577
§ 46.
The Formula of Concord, Concluded
§ 47.
Superseded Lutheran Symbols. The Saxon Confession, and the Würtemberg Confession, A.D. 1551
§ 48.
The Saxon Visitation Articles, A.D. 1592.
§ 49.
An Abortive Symbol against Syncretism, A.D. 1655


§ 50.
The Reformed Confessions.
I. Reformed Confessions of Switzerland.
§ 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

§ 52.
Zwingli's Distinctive Doctrines
§ 53.
The Confession of Basle, A.D. 1534
§ 54.
The First Helvetic Confession, A.D. 1536
§ 55.
The Second Helvetic Confession, A.D. 1566
§ 56.
John Calvin. His Life and Character
§ 57.
§ 58.
The Catechism of Geneva, A.D. 1541
§ 59.
The Zurich Consensus, A.D. 1549
§ 60.
The Geneva Consensus, A.D. 1552
§ 61.
The Helvetic Consensus Formula, A.D. 1675
II. Reformed Confessions of France and the Netherlands.
§ 62.
The Gallican Confession, A.D. 1559
§ 63.
The French Declaration of Faith, A.D. 1872
§ 64.
The Belgic Confession, A.D. 1561
§ 65.
The Arminian Controversy and the Synod of Dort, A.D. 1604-1619.
§ 66.
The Remonstrance, A.D. 1610
§ 67.
The Canons of Dort, A.D. 1619
III. The Reformed Confessions of Germany.
§ 68.
The Tetrapolitan Confession, A.D. 1530
§ 69.
The Heidelberg Catechism, A.D. 1563
§ 70.
The Brandenburg Confessions

The Confession of Sigismund (1614), 555.

The Colloquy at Leipzig (1631), 558.

The Declaration of Thorn (1645), 560.

§ 71.
The Minor German Reformed Confessions. . .
IV. The Reformed Confessions of Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary.
§ 72.
The Bohemian Brethern and the Waldenses before the Reformation
§ 73.
The Bohemian Confessions after the Reformation, A.D. 1535 and 1575
§ 74.
The Reformation in Poland and the Consensus of Sendomir, A.D. 1570
§ 75.
The Reformation in Hungary and the Confession of Czenger, A.D. 1557
V. The Anglican Articles of Religion.
§ 76.
The English Reformation.
§ 77.
The Doctrinal Position of the Anglican Church and her Relation to other Churches
§ 78.
The Doctrinal Formularies of Henry VIII.
§ 79.
The Edwardine Articles, A.D. 1553.
§ 80.
The Elizabethan Articles, A.D. 1563 and 1571
§ 81.
Interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles
§ 82.
Revision of the Thirty-nine Articles by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, A.D. 1801
§ 83.
The Anglican Catechisms, A.D. 1549 and 1662
§ 84.
The Lambeth Articles, A.D. 1595
§ 85.
The Irish Articles, A.D. 1615
§ 86.
The Articles of the Reformed Episcopal Church, A.D. 1875
VI. The Presbyterian Confessions of Scotland.
§ 87.
The Reformation in Scotland
§ 88.
John Knox
§ 89.
The Scotch Confession, A.D. 1560.
§ 90.
The Scotch Covenants and the Scotch Kirk
§ 91.
The Scotch Catechisms
VII. The Westminster Standards.
§ 92.
The Puritan Conflict
§ 93.
The Westminster Assembly.
§ 94.
The Westminster Confession .
§ 95.
Analysis of the Confession .
§ 96.
The Westminster Catechisms .
§ 97.
Criticism of the Westminster System of Doctrine
§ 98.
The Westminster Standards in America
§ 99.
The Westminster Standards among the Cumberland Presbyterians


§ 100.
General Survey
§ 101.
The Congregationalists
§ 102.
English Congregational Creeds
§ 103.
American Congregational Creeds
§ 104.
Anabaptists and Mennonites
§ 105.
The Calvinistic Baptists
§ 106.
The Arminian Baptists
§ 107.
The Society of Friends (Quakers).
§ 108.
The Moravians
§ 109.
§ 110.
Methodist Creeds
§ 111.
Arminian Methodism
§ 112.
Calvinistic Methodism
§ 113.
The Catholic Apostolic Church (Irvingites)
§ 114.
The Evangelical Alliance.
§ 115.
The Consensus and Dissensus of Creeds
§ 116.
The Disciples of Christ
§ 117.
The Universalists.
§ 118.
The Unitarians


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. Müller: Die symb. Bücker der ev. luth. Kirche, deutsch und latein., 12th ed., 1928.— E. F. Karl Müller: Die Bekenntnisschriften der reform. Kirche, Leip., 1903.—For papal decrees: Acta, sedis sanctae, Rome.—Mirbt: Quellen zur Gesch. des Papsttums und des röm. 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.— Künstle: 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 œcum. 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.—Frère: 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.xviiHecker (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.—Döllinger-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 Päpste, vol. vii.—The Ch. Histories of Hergenröther-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.—Döllinger-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 röm. 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.—Döllinger: Akad. Vorträge, 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: Sämmtliche Werke, ed. by Egli, Köhler, etc., 1904, sqq.—Karl Müller: 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 Stähelin, 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 röm. Lehre, ed. by Kügelgen, 1906.—Art., "Helvetische Konfessionen," by Karl Müller in Herzog Encycl., vol. vii and "Helvetische Konfessionsformeln" by Egli, vol. vii.

Page 421.

Choisy: L’état chr. à Génève au temps de Th. de Bèze, Paris, 1903.—Borgeau: Hist. de l’université de Génève, Paris, 1903.—Lives of Calvin by Schaff in "Hist. of Chr. Ch.," vol. vii.; Kampfschulte, xviiied. 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 Lützow, 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. Müller 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 Frère, 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 Frère, 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 Hübmaier, 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.
















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 Köcher: Bibliotheca theologiæ symbolicæ et catechetiæ itemque liturgicæ, 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 Horæ Biblicæ, 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 Chaponnière (University of Geneva): La Question des Confessions de Foi au sein du Protestantisme contemporain, Genève, 1867. (Pt. I. Examen des Faits. Pt II. Discussion des Principes.)

Karl Leohler: Die Confessionen in ihrem Verhältniss zu Christus, Heilbronn, 1877.

The introductions to the works on Symbolics by Marheineke, Winer, Möhler, Köllner, 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, Müller, Niemeyer, Kimmel, etc., which will be noticed in their respective places below.

§ 1. Name and Definition.

A Creed,33    From the beginning of the Apostles' Creed (Credo, I believe), to which the term is applied more particularly. or Rule of Faith,44     Κανών τῆς πίστεως or τῆς άληθείας, regula fidei, regula veritatis. These are the oldest terms used by the ante-Nicene fathers, Irenæus, Tertullian, etc. or Symbol,55     Σύμβολον, symbolum (from συμβάλλειν, 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 nostræ militiæ 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 σύμβολον with συμβολη), 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. is a confession of faith for public use, or a form of words setting forth with authority certain articles 4of 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.

§ 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.66    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.'


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.77    Semisch, Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss (Berlin, 1872, p. 7): ' Bekenntnisse, an welchen sich das geistige Leben ganzer Völker auferbaut, welche langen Jahrhunderten die höchsten Ziele und bestimmenden Kräfte ihres Handelns vorzeichnen, sind nicht Noth- und Flickwerke des Augenblicks . . . es sind Thaten des Lebens, Pulsschläge der sich selbst bezeugenden Kirche. ' 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 6accounts 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).88    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' (σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος θεοῦ). 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. 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 œcumenical 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 7Confession 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.

§ 3. Authority of Creeds.99    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), Köllner (1847), Genzken (1851), Bretschneider (1830), Johannsen (1833), and others, all with special reference to the Lutheran State Churches in Germany. See the literature in Müller, Die symb. Bücher 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 Chaponnière (Part II.), cited in § 1.

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.1010    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 œcumenical creeds. 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 doctrinæ). 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 8apt 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.1111    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.

The Greek Church confines the claim of infallibility to the seven œcumenical Councils, from the first Council of Nicæa, 325, to the second of Nicæa, 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 œcumenical 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 ecclesiæ, and is expressly taught in the Creed of Pius V. and the Vatican Decrees.

§ 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, 9secular 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.1212    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. 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.

§ 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 Œcumenical Symbols of the Ancient Catholic Church. They 10contain 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. 11The 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.




Literature on the three Œcumenical 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 Romanæ ecclesiæ 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 Göttingen in 1784): Bibliotheca Symbolica vetus, Lemgo, 1770. (A more complete collection than the preceding ones, but defective in the texts.)

E. Köllner: 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 Mediæval 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 μονογενὴς θεός and on the 'Constantinopolitan' Creed and other Eastern Creeds of the Fourth Century. Cambridge and London, 1876.

§ 6. General Character of the Œcumenical Creeds.

By œcumenical or general symbols (symbola œcumenica, s. catholica)1313   The term οἰκουμενικός (from οἰκουμένη, sc. γῆ, 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 Nicæa (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 (œcumenica seu catholica). 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 œcumenical Council of Chalcedon (451). It has a more undisputed authority than 13the Athanasian Creed (to which the term œcumenical 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 œcumenical symbols in their doctrinal and liturgical standards.1414   The Lutheran Form of Concord (p. 569) calls them 'catholica et generalia summæ 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. 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.1515   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.' This, together with the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, was incorporated in the Lutheran, the Genevan, the Heidelberg, and other standard Catechisms.



§ 7. The Apostles' Creed.


I. See the Gen. Lit. on the Œcum. Creeds, § 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 sacræ 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 symbolicæ, 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 apôtres, Paris, 1867. Rationalistic.

G. Lisco (jun.): Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, Berlin, 1872. In opposition to its obligatory use in the church.

O. Zöckler: Das apostolische Symbolum, Güterslohe, 1872 (40 pp.). In defense of the Creed.

Carl Semisch (Prof. of Church History in Berlin): Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, Berlin, 1872 (31 pp.).

A. Mücke: Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss der ächte 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 15language, 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.'1616   This change was observed already by Rufinus (l.c. § 36), who says: 'Non dicit "In Sanctam Ecclesiam," nec "In remissionem peccatorum," nec "In carnis resurrectionem." Si enim addidisset "in" præpositionem, una eademque vis fuisset cum superioribus. . . . Hac præpositionis 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.' 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.1717   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, § 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 nostræ historiam succincte distinctoque ordine recenseri, nihil autem contineri, quod solidis Scripturæ testimoniis non sit consignatum.' J. T. Müller (Lutheran, Die Symb. Bücher 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 ächteste 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.


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.1818   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. It was explained to the 17catechumens 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.1919   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 quæ te credere confiteris, et gaude quotidie in fide tua.' 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.'2020    Κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κ. τῆς ἀληθείας, παράδοσις ἀποστολική, τό ἀρχαῖον τῆς ἐκκλησίας, σύστημα, regula fidei, reg. veritatis, traditio apostolica, prædicatio ap., fides catholica, etc. Sometimes these terms are used in a wider sense, and embrace the whole course of catechetical instruction. But this baptismal Creed was at first not precisely the same. It assumed different shapes and forms in different congregations.2121   See the older regulæ fidei mentioned by Irenæus: Contra hær., lib. I. c. 10, § 1; III. c. 4, § 1, 2; IV. c. 33, § 7; Tertullian: De velandis virginibus, c. 1; Adv. Praxeam, c. 2; De præscript. hæret., 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. præf. § 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 cælis, sedentem nunc ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos, per carnis etiamresurrectionem. Hac lege fidei manente cætera jam disciplinæ 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' (τοῦ ἐκ Μαρίας, ὃς ἀληθῶς ἐγεννήθη), 'suffered under Pontius Pilate' (ἀληθῶς ἐδιώχθη ἐπί Ποντίου Πιλάτου), 'was crucified and died' (ἀληθῶς ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ἀπέθανεν,) and 'was raised from the dead' (ὃς καὶ ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ νεκρῶν, ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν τοῦ πατρὸς, αὐτοῦ.) The same articles, with a few others, can be traced in Justin Martyr's Apol. I. c. 10, 13, 21, 42, 46, 50. Some were longer, some shorter; some declarative, some interrogative in the form of questions and answers.2222   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 ecclesiæ ritibus, 1. I. c. 1, and in Heurtley, l.c. pp. 103–116. Each of the larger churches adapted 18the 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.2323   Hieronymus, Ep. 61, ad Pammach.: 'Symbolum fidei et spei nostræ, 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.' 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.2424   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.

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.2525   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 æternam 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. § 1). 19Among 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.2626   See Caspari, Vol. III. pp. 28–161.

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).2727   The last clause occurs in the Greek text of Marcellus and in the baptismal creed of Antioch (καὶ εἰς ἁμαρτιῶν ἄφειν καὶ εἰς νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον). See Caspari, Vol. I. pp. 83 sqq. 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.2828   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 Græcum 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. 20 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).2929   The same view of the origin of the Apostles' Creed is held by the latest writers on the subject, as Hahn, Heurtley, Caspari, Zöckler, Semisch. Zöckler 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 lässt die Summe der einschlägigen kritisch patristischen Forschungsergebnisse sich kurzerhand zusammendrängen. Und die Wahrheit dieses Satzes, soweit er die Apostolicität des Inhalts behauptet, lässt sich bezüglich jedes einzelnen Gliedes oder Sätzchens, die am spätesten hinzugekommenen nicht ausgenommen, mit gleicher Sicherheit erhärten.' 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 ecclesiæ origine, adeoque ab ipso Apostolorum seculo instar publicæ et omnium calculis receptæ confessionis obtinuerit' (Inst. lib. II. c. 16, § 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).

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.3030   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 Krüger, 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.


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 Almighty3131   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 εἰς θεὸν παντοκράτορα.

1. I believe in God the Father Almighty [Maker of heaven and earth].3232   'Creatorem cœli et terræ' appears in the Apostles' Creed from the close of the seventh century, but was extant long before in ante-Nicene rules of faith (Irenæus, Adv. hœr. I. c. 10, 1; Tertullian, De vel. virg. c. l, 'mundi conditorem;' De prœscr. hæret. c. 13), in the Nicene Creed (ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, κ.τ.λ.), 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).

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;3333   'Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex (or et) Maria virgine.'

3. Who was [conceived] by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary;3434   '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.

4. Was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried;

4. [Suffered]3535   'Passus,' perhaps from the Nicene Creed (παθόντα, which there implies the crucifixion). In some forms 'crucifixus,' in others 'mortuus' is omitted. under Pontius Pilate, was crucified [dead], and buried


[He descended into Hell (Hades)];3636   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: κατέβη εἰς τὸν ᾅδην (also εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια, or εἰς τὰ κατώτατα). Augustine says (Ep. 99, al. 164, § 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 (§ 18: 'vis verbi eadem videtur esse in eo quod sepultus dicitur').

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];3737   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.

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]3838   '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. in the Holy Ghost;
9. The Holy Church; 9. The Holy [Catholic]3939   '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 Smyrnæos, cap. 8: ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ᾖ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία and in the Martyrium Polycarpi (inscription, and cap. 8: ἁπάσης τῆς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, comp. c. 19, where Christ is called ποιμὴν τῆς κατὰ οἰκουμένην καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. Church

[The communion of saints];4040   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.

10. The forgiveness of sins; 10. The forgiveness of sins;
11. The resurrection of the body (flesh).4141   The Latin reads carnis, the Greek σαρκός, 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, § 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. 11. The resurrection of the body (flesh);
  12. [And the life everlasting].4242   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 æternam. The Greek Creed of Marcellus, which otherwise agrees with the old Roman form, ends with ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

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).4343   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. 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 συμβάλλειν, in the sense to contribute); confounding σύμβολον, sign, with συμβολή, contribution ('Symbolum Græce 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 23Sermones 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.4444   Pars prima, cap. 1, qu. 2 (Libri Symbolici Eccl. Cath., ed. Streitwolf and Klener, Tom. I. p. 111): 'Quæ igitur primum Christiani homines tenere debent, illa sunt, quæ 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 creaturæ Evangelium prædicarent: Christianæ fidei formulam componendam censuerunt, ut scilicet id omnes sentirent ac dicerent, neque ulla essent inter eos schismata,' etc. Ibid. qu. 3: 'Hanc autem Christianæ 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 veræ Christi militiæ sacramento se obligarent, facile possent internoscere.' Meyers, l.c., advocates it at length, and Abbé Martigny, in his 'Dictionnaire des antiquitées Chrétiennes,' Paris, 1865 (art. Symbole des apôtres, p. 623), boldly asserts, without a shadow of proof: 'Fidèlement attaché à la tradition de l’Église catholique, nous tenons, non-seulement qu’il est l’œuvre des apôtres, mais encore qu’il fut composé par eux, alors que réunis à Jérusalem, ils allaient se disperser dans l’univers entier; et qu’ils volurent, avant de séparer, fixer une règle de foi vraiment uniforme et catholique, destinée à être livrée, partout la même, aux catéchumènes.'

Even among Protestants the old tradition has occasionally found advocates, such as Lessing (1778), Delbrück (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, Calvin4545   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.) has been so clearly disproved long since by Vossius, Rivetus, Voëtius, 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 œcumenical Council of Nicæa 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.'4646   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.

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.



§ 8. The Nicene Creed.


I. See the works on the œcumenical Creeds noticed p. 12, and the extensive literature on the Council of Nicæa, 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 Nicæa is more or less fully discussed in the historical works, general or particular, of Tillemont, Walch, Schröckh, 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. Nicæni, ed. a J. Sturione, Viteb. 1561, 8vo.

Casp. Cruciger: Enarrationis Symboli Nicæni articuli duo, etc., Viteb. 1548, 4to, and Symboli Nicæni enarratio cum præfatione Ph. Melanchthonis, acc. priori editioni plures Symboli partes, Basil (without date).

J. H. Heidegger (d. 1698): De Symbolo Nicæne-Constantinopolitano (Tom. II. Disp. select. pp. 716 sqq., Turici, 1675–97).

J. G. Baier: De Conc. Nicæni primi et Œcum. auctoritate atque integritate, Jen. 1695 (in Disputat. theol. decad. I.).

T. Fecht: Innocentia Concilii et Symboli Nicæni, Rostock, 1711.

T. Caspar Suicer (d. 1684): Symbolum Nicæno-Constant. expositum et ex antiquitate ecclesiastica illustratum, Traj. ad Eh. 1718, 4to.

George Bull (d. 1710): Defensio Fidei Nicænæ, 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 Nicæno-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' (ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί), 'begotten before all worlds' (πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων), 'very God of very God' (θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ), 'begotten, not made' (γεννηθείς, οὐ ποιηθείς), 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.4747   Compare the symbols of the church of Jerusalem, the church of Alexandria, and the creed of Cæsarea, which Eusebius read at the Council of Nicæa, 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.

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.4848   Eusebius, in his Epistle to the people of Cæsarea, says of the creed which he had proposed to the Council of Nicæa 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.

We must distinguish two independent or parallel creed formations, 25an 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 œcumenical 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 œcumenical Council, which was held at Nicæa, 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 Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed, besides some minor changes in the first two articles,4949   The most remarkable change in the first article is the omission of the words πουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ 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. 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 œcumenical 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 œcumenical recognition of this enlarged Creed till the Council at Chalcedon, 451, where it was read by Aëtius (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, 26and most of them as early as 350, in the creed of Cyril of Jerusalem.5050   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.

The Nicene Creed comes nearest to that of Eusebius of Cæsarea, which likewise abruptly closes with πνεῦμα ἅγιον; 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 (ἐκπόρευσις) 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 (πέμψις) 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.5151   Comp. Vol. II., at the close.

Another addition in the Latin form, 'Deus de Deo,' in article II., created 27no 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.5252   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.). 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 œcumenical 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.'5353   From 'A Legend of the Council of Nice,' by Cecil Frances Alexander, in 'The Contemporary Review' for February, 1867, pp. 176–179.

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] believe5454   The Greek reads the plural (πιστεύομεν), 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. 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] in5555   The Greek reads εἰς μίαν . . . ἐκκλησίαν, but the Latin and English versions, in conformity with the Apostles' Creed, mostly omit in before ecclesiam; see p. 15. one holy catholic and apostolic Church;

[The communion of saints];

          *             *            *            *           *
10. The forgiveness of sins;

10. We [I] acknowledge5656   Here and in art. 11 the singular is substituted in Western translations for ὁμολογοῦμεν and προςδοκῶμεν. 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 325.5757   The Greek original is given, together with the similar Palestinian confession, by Eusebius in his Epistola ad Cæsareenses, which is preserved by Athanasius at the close of his Epistola de decretis Synodi Nicænæ (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. The Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.5858   The Greek text in the acts of the second œcumenical Council (Mansi, Tom. III. p. 565; Hardouin, Vol. I. p. 814), and also in the acts of the fourth œcumenical Council. See Vol. II p. 35; Hahn, l.c. p. 111; and my Church Hist. Vol. III. pp. 667 sqq.

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 (ὁμοούσιον) 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 (æons), 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.]



§ 9. The Creed of Chalcedon.


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 causæ 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: Mémoires, 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 œcumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople, A.D. 451 (Oct. 22d and 25th). It embraces the Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the christological doctrine set forth in 30the 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).5959   Comp. my Church Hist. Vol. III. p. 738.

While the first Council of Nicæa had established the eternal, pre-existent Godhead of Christ, the Symbol of the fourth œcumenical 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:6060   Abridged, in part, from My Church History, Vol. III. pp. 747 sqq.

1. A true incarnation of the Logos, or the second person in the Godhead (ἐνανθρώπησις θεοῦ, ἐνσάρκωσις τοῦ λόγου, incarnatio Verbi).)6161   The diametrical opposite of the ἐνανθρώπησις θεοῦ is the heathen ἀποθέωσις ἀνθρώπου. 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 (κρᾶσις, σύγχυσις) of the two; nor, on the other hand, a mere indwelling (ἐνοίκησις, inhabitatio) of the one in the other, nor an outward, transitory connection (συνάφεια, 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, οὐσία) denotes the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being; while person (ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον) 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.

313. 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 (ἀσυγχύτως, inconfuse, and ἀτρέπτως, immutabiliter), yet, on the other hand, without division or separation (ἀδιαιρέτως, indivise, and ἀχωρίστως, inseparabiliter), so that the divine will ever remain divine, and the human ever human,6262   '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 æqualitate paternæ gloriæ non recedit, ita caro naturam nostri generis non relinquit.' and yet the two have continually one common life, and interpenetrate each other, like the persons of the Trinity.6363   Here belongs, in further explanation, the scholastic doctrine of the περιχώρησις, permeatio, circummeatio, circulatio, circumincessio, intercommunio, or reciprocal indwelling and pervasion, which has relation, not merely to the Trinity, but also to Christology. The verb περιχωρεῖν 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, ἀντίδοσις, ἀντιμετάστασις, κοινωνία ἰδιωμάτων, communicatio idiomatum. The ἀντιμετάστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων, also ἀντιμεδίστασις, transmutatio proprietatum, transmutation of attributes, is, strictly speaking, not identical with ἀντίδοσις, but a deduction from it, and the rhetorical expression for it.

5. The unity of the person (ἕνωσις καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν, ἕνωσις ὑποστατική, 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 32Son of God was crucified and buried,"6464   Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8: 'They would not have crucified the Lord of glory.' 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;6565   Ἀνυπόστατος is that which has no personality in itself, ἐνυπόστατος that which subsists in another personality, or partakes of another hypostasis. 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.6666   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.

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, 33moreover, 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.6767   He calls himself a 'man,' ἄνθρωπος (John viii. 40; comp. xix. 5), and very often 'the Son of man,' and other men his 'brethren' (John xx. 17). 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.6868    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 Erlösers 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 (δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ, ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί); 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! In one word, he makes the impression of a theanthropic, divine-human person.6969   A persona σύνθετος, in the language of the old Protestant divines. Divina et humana naturæ' (says Hollaz), 'in una persona συνθέτῳ Filii Dei existentes, unam eandemque habent ὑπόστασιν, 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.). 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 34the 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 (ἐκ μέρους),' and 'see through a mirror obscurely (δἰ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι)' it will never fully comprehend the great central mystery of the theanthropic life of our Lord.


§ 10. The Athanasian Creed.


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. Gothæ, 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.'7070   It first bears the title, 'Fides sanctæ Trinitatis,' or 'Fides Catholica Sanctæ 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."'

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).7171   According to the mediæval 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). The great name of 'the father of orthodoxy' secured for it an almost œcumenical authority, notwithstanding the solemn prohibition of the third and fourth œcumenical Councils to compose or publish any other creed than the Nicene.7272   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 (ἑτέραν πίστιν μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι προφέρειν ἤγουν συγγράφειν ἢ συντιθέναι), besides that which was settled by the holy fathers who assembled in the city of Nicæa, 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).

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 36did 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.7373   See the parallel passages in Waterland's treatise and in my Church History, Vol. III. pp. 690 sqq. 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.7474   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: 'Hæc est fides sancta et Catholica, quam omnes [omnis] homo qui ad uitam æternam peruenire desiderat scire integræ [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. 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.7575   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 Catholicæ 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 (θεοτόκος) no more proves an ante-Nestorian origin (before 431, as Waterland contended) than the absence of consubstantialis (ὁμοούσιος) 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.


II. Character and Contents.—The Symbolum Quicunque is a remarkably clear and precise summary of the doctrinal decisions of the first four œcumenical 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 pæan' 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 Nicæno-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 38Nicene 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 (πρόσωπον, 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.7676   The later scholastic terms for this indwelling and interpenetration are περιχώρησις, inexistentia, permeatio, circumincessio, etc. See my Church History, Vol. III. p. 680. Each person has all the divine attributes which are inherent in the divine essence, but each has also a characteristic individuality or property,7777   Called by the Greeks ἰδιότης or ἴδιον, by the Latins proprietas personalis or character hypostaticus. 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.'7878   'Verius cogitatur Deus quam dicitur, verius est quam cogitatur,' De Trinitate, lib. VII. c. 4, § 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.'

39The 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 (νοῦς, νεῦμα), 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.7979   See the preceding section.

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,8080   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. 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 40the 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.8181   '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.'

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.8282   J. Bona, De divina Psalmodia, c. 16, § 18, p. 863 (as quoted by Köllner, Symbolik, I. 85): 'Illud Symbolum olim, teste Honorio, quotidie est decantatum, jam vero diebus Dominicis in totius cœtus frequentia recitatur, ut sanctæ fidei confessio ea die apertius celebretur.'

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.8383   It is printed, with the two other œcumenical 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.

41Luther was disposed to regard it as 'the most important and glorious composition since the days of the apostles.'8484   '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).

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,8585   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.' 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.8686   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.

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.'8787   Bishop White (of Philadelphia): Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, New York, 2d ed. 1836, pp 305, 306. In the Convention held at Wilmington Del., October 10, 421786, 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.8888   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).

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.8989   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.




General Literature.

Orthodoxa Confessio catholicæ atque apostol. ecclesiæ orientalis a Pet. Mogila compos., a Meletio Syrigo aucta et mutata, gr. c. præf. 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 orthodoxæ fidei, sive Apologia (Ἀσπἱς ὀρθοδοξίας, ἠ ἀπολογία καὶ ἔλεγχος) ab Synodo Hierosolymitana (A.D. 1672) sub Hierosolymorum Patriarcha Dositheo composita adversus Calvinistas hæreticos, 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 ecclesiæ, 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 græca cum additam. Cyrilli, Geneva, 1633: græc. et lat. (Condemned as heretical.)

Acta et scripta theologorum Wirtembergensium et patriarchæ Constantinop. Hieremiæ, quæ 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 Tübingen divines, all in Greek and Latin.

E. J. Kimmel and H. Weissenborn: Monumenta fidei ecclesiæ orientalis. Primum in unum corpus collegit, variantes lectiones adnotavit, prolegomena addidit, etc., 2 vols., Jenæ, 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 Constantinopolitanæ, 1672. Kimmel d. 1846.

W. Gass: Gennadius und Pletho, Aristotelismus und Platonismus in der griechischen Kirche, nebst einer Abhandlung über 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.

§ 11. The Seven Œcumenical Councils.

The entire Orthodox Greek or Oriental Church,9090   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 Γραικός, used by Polybius and since as equivalent to the Latin Græcus, 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. 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 œcumenical 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 Nicæa, 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 Nicæa, 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.9191   Worship in a secondary sense, or δουλεία, including ἀσπασμὸς καὶ τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις, but not that adoration or ἀληθινὴ λατρεία, which belongs only to God. See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Bd. III. p. 440.

To these the Greek Church adds the Concilium Quinisextum,9292   This Synod is called Quinisexta or πενθέκτη, because it was to be a supplement to the fifth and sixth œcumenical 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 œcumenical 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. 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 œcumenical 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 45reproduce a dramatic picture of an œcumenical 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 œcumenical 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 46of 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.


§ 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 für 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., Palæologus, 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 Nicæa), who at last acceded to the Latin Filioque, as consistent with the Greek per Filium.9393   See, on the transactions of this Council, Mansi, Tom. XXXI., and Werner: Geschichte der apologetischen and polemischen Literatur, Vol. III. pp. 57 sqq.

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 47to 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.9494    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 prædestinatione (l.c. Vol. II. pp. 3–146).

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.9595   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 Tübingen, who translated and published it in his Turco-Græcia, 1584. Crusius and Chytræus were prominent in a fruitless effort to convert the Greek Church to Lutheranism.

This 'Confession' of Gennadius,9696   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. 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.9797   The title of the Vienna MS. as published by Otto is: Τοῦ αἰδεσιμωτάτου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως | ΓΕΝΝΑΔΙΟΥ ΣΧΟΛΑΡΙΟΥ | Βιβλίον περὶ τινων κεφαλαίων τῆς ἡμετέρας | πίστεως. The title as given by Gass from a MS. in Munich reads: Τοῦ ἀγιωτάτου καὶ πατριάρχου καὶ φιλοσόφου | ΓΕΝΝΑΔΙΟΥ | ὁμιλία περὶ τῆς ὀρθῆς καὶ ἀληθοῦς | πίστεως τῶν Χριστιανῶν. In other titles it is called ὁμλογία or ὁμολόγησις. 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 Hæresiologia, Basil. 1556, from which it passed into the Patristic Libraries, Bibl. P. P. 48Lugdun. 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 Chytræus (in his Oratio de statu ecclesiarum hoc tempore in Græcia, Asia, Bœmia, etc., Frankf. 1583, pp. 173 sqq.); and soon afterwards in Greek, Latin, and Turkish by Mart. Crusius of Tübingen (in his Turco-Græcia, 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, Cygneæ (Zwickau), 1677 (Hieronymi theologi Græci dialogus de Trinitate, etc.). Kimmel followed the text of Chytræus, 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. It treats, in 48twenty 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 (ỉδιώματα τρία), which are the principles and fountains of all his other peculiarities . . . and these three peculiarities we call the three subsistences (ὑποστάεις). . . . We believe that out of the nature (ἐκ τῆς φύσεως) of God spring the Word (λόγος) and the Spirit (πνεῦμα), as from the fire the light and the heat (ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς φῶς καὶ θέρμη). . . . These three, the Mind, the Word, and the Spirit (νοῦς, λόγος, πνεῦμα), are one God, as in the one soul of man there is the mind (νοῦς), the rational word (λόγος νοητός), and the rational will (θέλησις νοητή); and yet these three are as to essence but one soul (μία ψυχὴ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν).'9898   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. 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 (§ 14–20) are added, for the benefit of the Turks, seven arguments for the truth of the Christian religion, viz.:9999   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).

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. 49The 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.'100100   De Via Salutis. The full title, as given by Gass, l.c. II. 16, and Otto, l.c. p. 409, reads:     Τοῦ αἰδεσιμωτάτου πατριάρχου Κονσταντινουπόλεως

    Βιβλίον σύντομόν τε καὶ σαφὲς περὶ τινων κεφαλαίων τῆς ἡμετέρας πίστεως, περὶ ὦν ἡ διάλεξις γέγονε μετὰ Ἀμοιρᾶ τοῦ Μαχουμέτου, ὃ καὶ ἐπιγέγραπται

   περὶ τῆς ὀδοῦ τῆς σωτηρίας (τῶν) ἀνθρώπων.

   The tract was published three times in Greek in the seventeenth century—by Brassicanus, Vienna, 1530; by Joh. von Fuchten, Helmstädt, 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.
The Sultan is represented as asking a number of short questions, such as: 'What is God?' 'Why is he called God (θεός)' '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; 50and 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;101101   The word θεός, is derived from θεωρεῖν (ἀπὸ τοῦ θεωρεῖν τὰ πάντα οἱονεὶ θεωρός), and also from θέειν, percurrere (ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἀεὶ καὶ πανταχοῦ πάρεστιν); πατήρ is derived from τηρεῖν (ἀπὸ τοῦ τὰ πάντα τηρεῖν), υἱός from οἷος, talis (qualis enim Pater, talis Filius), πνεῦμα from νοέω, intelligo (πάντα γὰρ ὀξέως ἐπινοεῖ). and it expressly teaches the Latin doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit.102102   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): Ὥσπερ ὁ δίσκος ὁ ἡλιακὸς γεννᾷ τὴν ἀκτῖνα, καὶ παρὰ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῶν ἀκτίνων ἐκπορεύεται τὸ φῶς · οὕτω ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ γεννᾷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ λόγον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. 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. For these reasons, we must either deny the authorship of Gennadius, or the integrity of the received text.103103    See Gass, I. p. 100, and Symb. der griech. Kirche, p. 38; Otto, p. 405. Both reject the authenticity of the Dialogue. At all events, it can not be regarded in its present form even as a secondary standard of Greek orthodoxy.

§ 13. The Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah to the Lutherans, A.D. 1576.

Acta et Scripta theolog. Würtemberg. et Patriarchæ Constant. Hieremiæ, quoted p. 43.

Martin Crusius: Turco-Græcia, 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 Tübinger 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 Tübingen, Jacob Andreæ, one of the authors of the Lutheran 'Form of Concord' (d. 1590), and Martin Crusius, a rare Greek scholar (d. 1607),104104   He was able to take Andreæ's sermons down in Greek as they were delivered in German. on occasion of the ordination of Stephen Gerlach for 51the 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 Andreæ, 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.105105   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.'

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 œcumenical Synods and its view on the marriage of priests.106106   This third letter of Jeremiah is called Censura Orientalis Ecclesiæ, and covers nearly ninety pages folio. His first two letters are brief, and do not enter into doctrinal discussions. The Tübingen 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.107107    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, στέφανος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, Wittemb. 1603) for the benefit of the Greek people, but with no better success.

The documents of both parties were published at Wittenberg, 1584.

The Answers of Jeremiah received the approval of the Synod of Jerusalem 52in 1672,108108   In Kimmel's Monumenta, Vol. I. p. 378. 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.109109   See beyond, § 20.


§ 14. The Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, A.D. 1625.

Kimmel, Vol. II. pp. 1–213.

Dietelmaier: De Metrophane Critopulo, etc., Altdorf, 1769.

Fabricius: Biblioth. Græca, 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 Berœa, 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.110110   See the letter in Kimmel, Preface to Vol. II. p. vii., and in Colomesii, Opera, quoted there. On Cyril Lucar, see the next section. 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, Tübingen, Altdorf, Strasburg, and Helmstädt. 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 53some 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 Metrophanes111111    Ὁμολογία τῆς ἀνατολικῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς, συγγραφεῖσα ἐν ἐπιτομῇ διὰ Μητροφάνους Ἱερομονάχου Πατριαρχικοῦ τε Πρωτοσυγγέλλου τοῦ Κριτοπούλου. Confessio catholicæ et apostolicæ in Orienti ecclesiæ, conscripta compendiose per Metrophanem Critopulum, Hieromonachum et Patriarchalem Protosyngellum. It was first published in Greek, with a Latin translation, by J. Hornejus, at Helmstädt. 1661. Kimmel compared with this ed. the MS. which is preserved in the library at Wolfenbüttel, but he died before his edition appeared, with a preface of Weissenborn (1850). 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 Helmstädt, where it was written.112112   Nicolaus Comnenus called Metrophanes a Græco-Lutheranus, but without good reason. 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.113113    See below, § 17. 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.


§ 15. The Confession of Cyril Lucar, A.D. 1631.


Cyrilli Lucaris Confessio Christianæ fidei, Latin, 1629; c. additam. Cyrilli, Gr. et Lat., Genev. 1633; (? Amst.) 1645, and often; also in Kimmel's Monumenta fidei Ecclesiæ 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 Ecclesiæ 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 imposturæ manifestæ 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, München, 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 Loukaris114114   Properly 'the son of Lucar,' hence τοῦ Λουκάρεως. The word λοῦκαρ in later Greek is the Latin lucar, or lucrum, stipend, pay, profit, whence the French and English lucre.), 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, 55a minister from Geneva, who had been sent to Constantinople. He conceived the bold plan of ingrafting Protestant doctrines on the old œcumenical 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 Berœa, crying, 'Pilate, give us the dead, that we may bury him.'115115    Πίλατε, δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν νεκρόν, ἵνα αὐτὸν θάψωμεν. 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 Berœa and a Synod of Constantinople (Sept., 1638),116116   Cyril of Berœa 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. then again by the Synods of Jassy, in Moldavia, 1643, and of Jerusalem, 1672; but 56on 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.117117    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 Berœa.'

This Cyril was the same who seat the famous uncial Codex Alexandrinus of the Bible (A) to King Charles I. of England,118118   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. and who translated the New Testament into the modern Greek language.119119    Published at Geneva or Leyden, 1638, and at London, 1703.

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, 1633.120120   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 Græco-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. 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 œcumenical creeds, the procession of the Spirit in the conciliatory terms of the Council of Florence.121121   'Spiritus Sanctus a Patre Per Filium procedens,' ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς δἰ υἱοῦ. 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 57Ruler 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.122122   'Credimus Scripturam sacram esse θεοδίδακτον (i. e., a Deo traditam) habereque auctorem Spiritum Sanctum, non alium, cui habere debemus fidem indubitam. . . . Propterea ejus auctoritatem esse superiorem Ecclesiæ 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.' 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 (ἁμαρτάνειν), and to choose the error instead of the truth (ἀντὶ τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ ψεῦδος ἐκλέγεσθαι); 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.).123123    Πιστεύομεν ἐν τοῖς οὐκ ἀναγεννηθεῖσι τὸ αὐτεξούσιον νεκρὸν εἶναι. 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. 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.


§ 16. The Orthodox Confession of Mogilas, A.D. 1643.

The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church124124     Ὀρθόδοξος ὁμολογία τῆς καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἀνατολικῆς. 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). 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.125125    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. 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 Nicæa, 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 ὁμολογία, ἣν ἐδέξατο καὶ δέχεται ἁπαξαπλῶς πᾶσα ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία). 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.126126    See § 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.

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, 1643,127127    This is the date (αχμγ́) 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. 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 Œcumenical Patriarch. Our mediocrity,128128     ἡ μετριότης ἡ μῶν, a title of proud humility, like the papal 'servus servorum Dei,' which dates from Gregory I.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 60faith and good works (πίστιν ὀρθὴν καὶ ἔργα καλά); 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 (περὶ πίστεως), 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 Nicæa 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 (περὶ ἐλπίδος), 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 (περὶ τῆς εἰς θεὸν καὶ τὸν πλησίον ἀγάπης), 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 61Churches, which follow the less natural division of Augustine by merging the second commandment in the first, and then dividing the tenth.


§ 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 Ecclesiæ 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 habitæ, Lips. 1696. Aymon: Monuments authentiques de la religion des Grecs, à la Haye, 1708. Basnage: Hist. de la religion des églises réformées, 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,129129    Hence it is sometimes called the Synod of Bethlehem, but it was actually held at Jerusalem. 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.130130    Its title is Ασπὶς ὀρθδοξίας ἢ ἀπολογία καὶ ἔλεγχος πρὸς τοὺς διασύροντας τὴν ἀνατολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν αἱρετικῶς φρονεῖν ἐν τοῖς περὶ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν θείων, κ.τ.λ. Clypeus orthodoxæ fidei sive Apologia adversus Calvinistas hæreticos, Orientalem ecclesiam de Deo rebusque divinis hæretice 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.

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 62to 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.131131     Ἄδελφὰ φρονεῖ Λουθῆρος Καλουνῳ, εἰ καὶ ἐν τισι διαφέρειν δοκοῦσιν . 'Non alia est Lutheri hæresis atque Calvini, quamquam nonnihil videtur interesse' (Kimmel, P. I. p. 335). The Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah given to Martin Crusius, Professor in Tübingen, 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,132132     Ὅρος, decree, decision. It is translated capitulum in Hardouin, decretum in Kimmel. 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,133133    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. § 20. showing that, after all, the Russian branch of the Greek 63Church 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. (Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον. 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 64all 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 (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον) 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 (σωτηρίας ἄξιον ποιεῖται τὸν ἐνεργοῦντα).

Article XV.—Teaches, with the Roman Church, the seven sacraments or mysteries (μυστὴρια), viz., baptism (τὸ ἅγιον βάπτισμα, Matt. xxviii. 19), confirmation (βεβαίωσις or χρίσμα, Luke xxiv. 49; 2 Cor. i. 21; and Dionysius Areop.), ordination (ἱεροσύνη, Matt. xviii. 18), the unbloody sacrifice of the altar (ἡ ἀναίμακτος θυσία, Matt. xxvi. 26, etc.), matrimony (γάμος, Matt. xix. 6; Eph. v. 32), penance and confession (μετάνοια καὶ ἐξομολόγησις, John xx. 23; Luke xiii. 3, 5), and holy unction (τὸ ἅγιον ἔλαιον or εὐχέλαιον, Mark vi. 13; James v. 14). Sacraments are not empty signs of divine promises (as circumcision), but they necessarily (ἐξ ἀνάγκης) confer grace (as ὄργανα δραστικὰ χάριτος).

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.

65Article XVII.—The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, in which the very body and blood of Christ are truly and really (ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς) present under the figure and type (ἐν εἴδει καὶ τύπῳ) 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 (ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν εὐσεβῶν ζώντων καὶ τεθνεώτων), 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 (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it;134134    Decr. 17 (Kimmel, P. I. p. 457): ὥστε μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ οἴνου μεταβάλλεσθαι (to be translated) μετουσιοῦσθαι (transubstantiated), μεταποιεῖσθαι (refashioned, transformed), μεταῤῥυθμίζεσθαι (changed, reformed), τὸν μὲν ἄρτον εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ ἀληθὲς τοῦ κυρίου σῶμα, ὅπερ ἐγεννήθη ἐν Βηθλεὲμ ἐκ τῆς ἀειπαρθένου, ἐβαπτίσθη ἐν Ἰορδάνῃ, ἔπαθεν, ἐτάφη, ἀνέστη, ἀνελήφθη, κάθηται ἐκ δεζιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατέρος, μέλλει ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ—τὸν δ̉ οἶνον μεταποιεῖσθαι καὶ μετουσιοῦσθαι εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ ἀληθὲς τοῦ κυρίου αἶμα, ὅπερ κρεμαμένου ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐχύθη ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ξωῆς. Mosheim thinks that the Greeks first adopted in this period the doctrine of transubstantiation, but Kiesling (Hist. concertat. Græcorum 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. but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place.135135    Ibid. (p. 461): ἔτι τῇ μετουσίωσις λέξει οὐ τὸν τρόπον πιστεύομεν δηλοῦσθαι, καθ̉ ὃν ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος μεταποιοῦνται εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ κυρίου—τοῦτο γὰρ ἄληπτον πάντη καὶ ἀδύνατον πλὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. In the Lat. Version: 'Præterea verbo Transsubstantiationis modum ilium, quo in corpus et sanguinem Domini panis et vinum convertantur, explicari minime credimus—id enim penitus incomprehensibile,' etc. Μετουσίωσις (not given in the Classical Dict., nor in Sophocles's Byzantine Greek Dict., nor in Suicer's Thesaurus)—from the classical οὐσιόω, to call into being (οὐσία) or existence, and the patristic οὐσίωσις, 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.

Article XVIII.—The souls of the departed are either at rest or in torment,136136     ἐν ἀνέσει, lit. in relaxation, recreation, ἢ ἐν ὀδύνῃ, or in pain, distress. 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 (μετανοήσαντες), without having brought forth fruits of repentance, or satisfactions (ἱκανοποίησις), depart into Hades (ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς ᾄδου), 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 66(μαγάλα δυναμένης μάλιστα τῆς ἀναιμάκτου θυσίας), 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.137137   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 πῦρ καθαρτήριον (ignis purgatoris), and all idea of material or physical pain (τὴν ἐκείνων ποινὴν μὴ ὑλικὴν εἶναι, εἴτους ὀργανικήν, μὴ διὰ πυρός, μήτε δἰ ἄλλης ὕλης), it asserts, nevertheless, a spiritual pain of conscience in the middle state (ἀλλὰ διὰ θλίψεως καὶ ἀνίας τῆς συνειδήσεως), 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 πρόσκαιρος κόλασις καθαρτικὴ τῶν ψυχῶν, '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.

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.138138    Comp. § 15, p. 57. 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.139139    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.) The fourth teaches the worship of saints, especially the Mother of God (who is the object of 67hyperdulia, 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,140140    προσκυνοῦμεν καὶ τιμῶμεν τὸ ξύλον τοῦ τιμίου τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ σταυροῦ, κ.τ.λ. and of the images of Christ and of the saints.141141    τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χρ. καὶ τῆς ὑπεραγίας θεοτόκου καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων προσκυνοῦμεν καὶ τιμῶμεν καὶ ἀσπαζόμεθα.

In all these important points the Synod of Jerusalem again essentially agrees with the Church of Rome, and radically dissents from Protestantism.

§ 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.142142    It is called Dionysii, Patr. Const., super Calvinistarum erroribus ac reali imprimis præsentia 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. 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 transformation143143   On this the document teaches (Kimmel, P. II. p. 218) that when the priest prays, 'Make (ποίησον) this bread the precious blood of thy Christ,' then, by the mysterious and ineffable operation of the Holy Ghost, ὁ μὲν ἄρτος μεταποιεῖται (transmutatur) εἰς αὐτό ἐκεῖνο τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ πραγματικῶς καὶ ἀληθῶς καὶ κυρίως (realiter, vere, ac proprie), ὁ δὲ οἶνος εἰς τὸ ζωοποιὸν αἷμα αὐτοῦ. 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 (μεταβολή) of the elements in the sense of a transubstantiation (μετουσίωσις), or an actual transformation of their essence into the body and blood of Christ.144144    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.



§ 19. The Doctrinal Standards of the Russo-Greek Church.


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. Guettée (Russian Priest and Doctor of Divinity): Exposition de la doctrine de l’église catholique orthodoxe de Russie, Paris, 1866.

Theophanes Procopowicz: Theologia Christiana orthodoxa, Königsberg, 1773–1775, 5 vols. (abridged, Moscow, 1802).

Hyac. Kirpinski: Compendium orthodoxæ theologiæ, 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: Considérations sur la doctrine et l’esprit de l’église 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’église Græco-Russe, Paris, 1861.

Dean Stanley: Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, Lond. and N. Y. 1862, Lect. IX.–XII.

Boissard: L’église 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 Scriptures145145    The Psalms and the New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse. 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 69German 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 70the 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, œcumenical 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 émigré 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. Therèse 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 71Church,' 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.146146    '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. 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.147147    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.


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.148148    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 mediæval 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.

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.149149    Both translated by Blackmore, l.c.

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.150150   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.'


§ 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.151151    See above, § 13.

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.152152    See §§ 15–18.

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.153153    The letters of the four Bishops signing themselves 'Jeremias, Primus Angliæ Episcopus; Archibaldus, Scoto-Britanniæ Episcopus; Jacobus, Scoto-Britanniæ Episcopus; Thomas, Angliæ 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. 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 75with 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 Œcumenical 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.154154    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.

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.155155    History of the Church of Russia, translated by Blackmore, pp. 286 sq., 407 sqq.

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 76of 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.156156    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.


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 μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, 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 œcumenical 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 (μετουσίωσις) of the eucharistic elements; the eucharistic sacrifice for the living and the dead.157157    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.

5. The latest phase of the Anglo-Greek movement is connected with the Old Catholic reunion Conferences in Bonn, 1874 and 1875.158158    See the results of the Bonn Conferences, at the close of Vol. II. pp. 545–554. Here the 78Filioque 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.


§ 21. The Eastern Sects: Nestorians, Jacobites, Copts, Armenians.


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 Cyclopædia 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 sæc. 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.).

Veyssière de la Croze: Histoire in Christianisme d'Ethiope et d'Armenie, La Haye, 1739.

Gibbon: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap, xlvii.

Makrîzi (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. Wüstenfeld, with translation and annotations, Göttingen, 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’église 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 79Nestorian, 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 œcumenical 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' (θεοτόκος, Deipara), and he died in exile about 440. His followers call themselves Chaldæan 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 80have 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;159159    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. 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 (μονὴ φύσις), which was condemned by the fourth œcumenical 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 (μία φύσις σύνθετος or μία φύσις διττή). 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 (κοινόν), 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 82cast 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.




General Literature.

I. Collections of Roman Catholic Creeds:

J. Trg. Lbr. Danz: Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ Romano-Catholicæ, Weimar, 1885.

Fr. W. Streitwolf and R. E. Klener: Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, conjuncti, atque notis, prolegomenis indicibusque instructi, Götting. 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, quæ de rebus fidei et morum a Conciliis Œcumenicis 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, Möhler's Symbolik, Perrone's Prælectiones Theologicæ. See § 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. Köllner (Prof. at Giessen): Symbolik der heil. apost. kathol. römischen Kirche, Hamb. 1844. (Part II. of his unfinished Symbolik aller christlichen Confessionen.)

A. H. Baier (Prof. at Greifswald): Symbolik der römisch-katholischen Kirche, Leipz. 1854. (The first volume of an unfinished Symbolik der christlichen Religionen und Religionspartheien.)


§ 22. Catholicism and Romanism.

The Roman Catholic Church embraces over 180 millions of members, or more than one half of nominal Christendom.160160   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. It is spread all over the earth, but chiefly among the Latin races in Southern Europe and America.161161   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. 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; 84the 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. Mediæval 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 Œcumenical 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.162162   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.

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 mediæval 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, 85justification 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.

§ 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.163163   The Disputationes de controversiis Christianæ 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.' They abound in patristic and scholastic learning, 86logical 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 Bénigne 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’église catholique sur les matières de controverse.164164   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. This book is a luminous, eloquent, idealizing, and 87plausible 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 églises protestantes.165165   Paris, 1688, and often since in several languages. Compare also his Défense 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.' 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 mediæval, from mediæval 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.166166    Defensio declarationis celeberrimæ, quam de potestate ecclesiaslica sanxit clerus Gallicanus 1682, ex speciali jussu Ludovici M. scripta, Luxemb. 1730, 2 vols.; in French, Paris, 1735, 2 vols. 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 88council 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’autorité royale'), and secured the papal condemnation of the noble Fénelon (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.167167   Döllinger (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.'

3. The same may be said of John Adam Möhler, 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 Würtemberg; was Professor of Theology in the University of Tübingen since 1822, at Munich since 1835, where he died in 1838. The great work of his life is his Symbolics.168168    'Symbolik, oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensätze der Katholiken und Protestanten nach ihren öffentlichen 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 Möhler, and a superficial historical sketch of recent German Church history. 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. Möhler was well acquainted with Protestant theology, and was influenced by the lectures and writings of Schleiermacher and Neander.169169   Neander told me that Möhler, 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 Tübingen with him, Möhler was filled with youthful ideals, and regarded by Catholics as heterodox. (Handbuch der Prot. Polemik, Pref. p. ix.) 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 89deliverances 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.170170   Symbolik (6th edition, p. 353): 'Unstreitig liessen es auch oft genug Priester, Bischöfe und Päpste, gewissenlos und unverantwortlich, selbst dort fehlen, wo es nur von ihnen abhing, ein schöneres Leben zu begründen; oder sie löschten gar noch durch ärgerliches Leben und Streben den glimmenden Docht aus, welchen sie anfachen sollten: die Hölle hat sie verschlungen. . . . Beide [Katholiken und Protestanten] müssen schuldbewusst ausrufen: Wir Alle haben gefehlt, nur die Kirche ist's, die nicht fehlen kann; wir Alle haben gesündigt, nur sie ist unbefleckt auf Erden.' Incidentally Möhler denies the papal infallibility, when he says (p. 336): 'Keinem einzelnen als solchen kommt diese Unverirrlichkeit zu.' His work called forth some very able Protestant replies, especially from Baur and Nitzsch.171171   Baur's Gegensatz des Katholicismus and Protestantismus (Tübingen, 1833, 2d ed. 1836), in learning, grasp, and polemical dexterity, is fully equal or superior to Möhler'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 Möhlerschen Symbolik (Hamb. 1835) is sound, evangelical, calm, and dignified. It is respectfully mentioned, but not answered, by Möhler. Marheineke and Sartorius wrote, likewise, able replies. A counterpart of Möhler's Symbolik is Hase's Handbuch der Protestantischen Polemik gegen die Römisch-Katholische Kirche, Leipz. 1862; 3d ed. 1871. Against this work Dr. F. Speil wrote Die Lehren der Katholischen Kirche, gegenüber der Protestantischen Polemik, Freiburg, 1865, which, compared with Möhler's book, is a feeble defense.

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.172172   Prælectiones theologicæ 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, Prælectiones theologicæ in Compendium redactæ, 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. 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.173173   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.'

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.174174   See Kenrick's Concio habenda, at non habita in Friedrich's Documenta, I. 189–226.

§ 24. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent.


I. Latin Editions.

Paul. Manutius (d. 1574): Canones et Decreta Œcum. et Generalis Conc. Tridentini, jussu Pontificis Romani, Rome, 1564, fol., 4to, and 8vo.

Canones et Decreta Œcum. et Generalis Conc. Trident. . . . Index dogm. et reformationum, etc., Lovan. 1567, fol.

Canones et Decreta Œcum. et Generalis Conc. Trident. additis declarationibus cardinal. Ex ultima recognitione J. Gallemart et citationibus J. Sotealli et Hor. Luth, nec non remissionib. Agst. Barbosæ (Cologne, 1620; Lyons, 1650, 8vo), quibus accedunt additiones Blo. Andræae, etc., Cologne (1664), 1712, 8vo.

Ph. Chifflet: S. Concilii Trid. Canones et Decreta cum præfatione, Antw. 1640, 8vo.

Judov. le Plat (or Leplat; a very learned and moderate Catholic, d. 1810): Concilii Tridentini Canones et Decreta, juxta exemplar authenticum, Romæ 1564 editum, cum variantibus lectionibus, notis Chiffletii, etc., Antwerp, 1779; Madrid, 1786. The most complete Cath. edition.

Æm. 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 Œcumenici Concilii Tridentini, etc., Romæ, ed. stereotypa VII., Leipz. (Tauchnitz), 1854.

W. Smets: Concilii Tridentini sacrosancti œcumenici et generalis, Paulo III., Julio III., Pio IV., Pontificibus 91Maximis, 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 Œcumenical 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, Tübing. 1843, 2 vols.

L. El. Du Pin (R.C.): Histoire du concile de Trente, Brussels, 1721, 2 vols. 4to.

Chr. Aug. Salig (Luth.): Vollständige 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. Göschl: 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. Köllner: Symbolik der röm. 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, redigé par un secrétaire vénitien present aux sessions de 1562 à 1563, avec d'autres documents diplomatiques relatifs à la mission des Ambassadeurs de France, Par. 1870.

Th. Sickel: Zur Geschichte des Concils von Trient. Actenstücke aus österreichischen 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. Œcumenici Concilii Tridentini . . . nunc primum integra edita. Zagrabiæ (Croatiæ) et Lipsiæ, 1874, 2 Tom. 4to (pp. 722 and 701).

Jos. von Döllingke: Ungedruckte Berichte und Tagebücher zur Geschichte des Conc. von Trient, Nördlingen, 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.175175   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.

The Council of Trent (1543–63) is reckoned by the Roman Church as the eighteenth (or twentieth) œcumenical Council.176176   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 œcumenical 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. It is also the 92last, 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.177177   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. 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 93Church. The council promised by the Pope would be neither free nor Christian, nor œcumenical, 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.178178   At the second period of the Council, 1552, a number of Protestant divines from Württemberg, 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.

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 œcumenical 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.179179   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 Mémoires de Fr. de Vargas, de Pierre de Malvenda et des quelques erèques 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 Köllner, l.c. pp. 40, 41).

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. 94They 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.180180   Thus the Canones de Justificatione (Sess. VI.) reject Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, as well as Solifidianism and Antinomianism.

The doctrinal sessions, which alone concern us here, are the following:


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 Eucharistiæ Sacramento (Oct. 11, 1551).
" XIV. De S. Pœnitentiæ et Extreme Unctionis Sacramento (Nov. 25, 1551).
" XXI. De Communione sub utraque Specie et Parvulorum (July 16, 1562).
" XXII. Doctrina de Sacrificio Missæ (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.181181   The Cardinal of Lorraine said, 'Anathema cunctis hereticis.' To this the fathers responded, 'Anathema, Anathema.'

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.182182   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 états catholiques, Amst. 1756 (Paris, 1766), and Köllner, l.c. pp. 121–129.

The Council of Trent, far from being truly œcumenical, 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 mediæval 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 Döllinger. The genuine acts, but only in part, were edited by Theiner (1874).

The history of the Council was written chiefly by two able and 96learned 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, 1861.183183   The editor, Ed. Preuss, has since become a Romanist at St. Louis (1871).

§ 25. The Profession of the Tridentine Faith, 1564.

G. C. F. Mohnike: Urkundliche Geschichte der sogenannten Professio Fidei Tridentinæ und einiger andern röm. katholischen Glaubensbekenntnisse, Greifswald, 1822 (310 pp.).

Streitwolf et Klener: Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, Gött. 1838, Tom. I. pp. xlv.–li. and 98–100.

Köllner: Symbolik der röm. Kirche, pp. 141–165.

The older literature see in Walch: Biblotheca theol. sel., I. p. 410; and in Köllner, l.c. p. 141.


Next in authority to the decrees of the Council of Trent, or virtually superior to it, stands the Professio Fidei Tridentinæ, or the Creed of Pius IV.184184   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 catholicæ, or orthodoxæ fidei. The usual name is Professio fidei Tridentinæ (or P. f. Tridentina, which is properly a misnomer). See Mohnike, l.c. p. 3, and Köllner, 1.c. p. 150.

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.185185   Sess. XXV. cap. 2 De Reformatione (p. 439, ed. Richter): 'Cogit temporum calamitas et invalescentium hæresum malitia, ut nihil sit prætermittendum, quod ad populorum ædificationem et catholicæ fidei præsidium videatur posse pertinere. Præcipit 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 præsentis concilii habenda, ea omnia et singula, quæ ab hac sancta synodo definita et statuta sunt, palam recipiant, nec non veram obedientiam summo Romano Pontifici spondeant et profiteantur, simulque hæreses omnes, a sacris canonibus et generalibus conciliis, præsertimque ab hac eadme synodo damnatas, publice detestentur et anathematizent.' Comp. Sess. XXIV. De Reformatione, cap. 12, where an examination and profession (orthodoxæ fidei publica professio) is required from the clergy, together with a vow to remain obedient to the Roman Church (in ecclesiæ Romanæ obedientia se permansuros spondeant ac jurent). 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 97Roman 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.186186   '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 ecclesiæ 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 τὸν Ῥωμαικὸν ἀρχιερέα εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην τὸ πρωτεῖον κατέχειν. Comp. Theod. Frommann: Zur Kritik des Florentiner Unionsdecrets and seiner dogmatischen Verwerthung beim Vaticanischen Concil, Leipz. 1870, pp. 40 sqq. 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 hæc 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.'187187   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 Græcis præscripta a Gregorio XIII., in Denzinger's Enchir., p. 294, and the Professio Fidei Orientalibus præscripta 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 Köllner, 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. For both purposes it is far better adapted than the Decrees 98of 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 œcumenical Councils solemnly, and on the pain of deposition and excommunication, forbade the setting forth of any new creed.188188   Conc. Ephes. (431), Canon VII.; Conc. Chalced. (451), after the definition of faith. 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.189189   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.

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).190190   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.

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 substantiæ) 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).191191   This should properly be a separate article, but in the papal bulls it is connected with the eighth article.

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.192192   This should likewise be a separate article, but is made a part of article 9.

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 œcumenical 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,193193   For inviolatam the Roman Bullaria read immaculatam. 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.



§ 26. Roman Catechism, 1566.

Latin Editions.

Catechismus ex decreto Conc. Trident. Pii V. jussu editus, Romæ 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 operâ 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 Romæ A.D. 1566 juris publici factam accuratissime expressus, ed. stereotypa VI., Lipsiæ (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.


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 Hoffäus, Dillingen, 1568, 1576; another at Wien, 1763; one by T. W. Bodemann, Göttingen, 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.


Julii Pogiani Sunensis (d. 1567): Epistolæ et Orationes olim collectæ ab Antonio Maria Gratiano, nunc ab Hieronymo Lagomarsinio e Societate Jesu advocationibus illustratæ ac primum editæ, 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. Köcher: Catech. Geschichte der Pübstlichen Kirche, Jen. 1753.

Köllner: Symbolik der röm. 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.194194   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 præscribendam, 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). The object was to regulate the important work of popular religious instruction, and to bring it into harmony with the decisions of the Council.195195   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 Köllner, p. 169. 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 101Calini (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.196196   Winer, Guericke, Möhler, 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. 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.197197   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. 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 102pupils, 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.198198   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 Döllinger on the Reunion of Churches, p. 126, note. The same is true of many German and French Catholic Catechisms.


§ 27. The Papal Bulls against the Jansenists, 1653 and 1713.

Cornelius Jansenius (Episcopi Iprensis, 1585-1638): Augustinus, seu doctrina Augustini de humanæ naturæ sanitate, ægritudine, et medicina, adv. Pelagianos et Massilienses, Lovan. 1640, 3 vols.; Paris, 1641; Rouen, 1643 (with a Synopsis vitæ 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): Œuvres, 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 générale de Jansenisme, Amst. 1700.

Lucchesini: Hist. polem. Jansenismi, Rome, 1711, 3 vols.

Fontaine: Mémoires 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.

Abbé Guettée: Jansénisme et Jésuitisme, un examen des accusations de Jans., etc., Paris, 1857. Compare his Histoire de l’église de France, composé 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’église metropol. d’Utrecht, Utr. 1784, 3d ed. 1852.

Walch: Neueste Rel. Geschichte, Vol. VI. pp. 82 sqq.

Theol. Quartalschrift, Tüb. 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 Mère 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.199199   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.

(1.) The fulfillment of some precepts of God is impossible even to just men according to their present ability (secundum præsentes 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.

104(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 naturæ lapsæ, 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 hæretici) 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.200200   'Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.' This supralapsarian proposition is condemned as falsa, temeraria, scandalosa, impia, blasphema, et hæretica. See the five propositions of Jansen in Denzinger's Enchir., pp. 316, 317.

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.201201   'Ego N. constitutioni apostolicæ Innocentii X., datæ die 31. Maji 1653, et constitutioni Alexandri VII., datæ 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 hæc sancta Dei evangelia.'

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 105tyranny 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!'202202   Gregoire: Les ruines de Port-Royal, Par. 1709. Mémoires sur la déstruction 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 Fénelon, 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.'

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.203203   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 françois avec des réflexions morales sur chaque vers, et pour en rendre la lecture plus utile, et la méditation plus aisée,' 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.

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.

106The following are the most important of these propositions:204204   Denzinger's Enchir., pp. 351–361.

(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, præcipis, si tu ipse non das, quod præcipis. (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 gratiæ suæ 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 quæ 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.205205   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.'

(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 prævenit, nihil habet luminis, nisi ad aberrandum, ardoris, nisi ad se præcipitandum, 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 præmium fidei, totum est donum puræ liberalitatis Dei.

(72.) Nota ecclesiæ Christianæ est, quod sit catholica, comprehendens et omnes angelos cœli, et omnes electos et justos terræ et omnium sæculorum.

(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 sacræ Scripturæ.

(80.) Lectio sacræ Scripturæ 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 sacræ Scripturæ, præsertim 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 107condemned 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.206206   The Jesuits, of course, ascribed the Jansenist miracles, visions, and ecstatic convulsions to the devil.

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 108three 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.]


§ 28. The Papal Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, 1854.


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 Prælectiones theologicæ, Append. to Tom. VI., ed. Ratisb. 1854.

C. Passaglia: De immaculato Deiparæ 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 Empfängniss der seligsten Jungfrau, Würzb. 1868.

Aug. de Roskovány (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 beatissimæ 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): Præscriptiones de Conceptu B. Mariæ 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 römische Lehre von der unbefleckten Empfägniss. 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 röm. 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 Gaäta. 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 109Apostolic 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 gratiæ, 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.207207   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.

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.'208208   Postquam numquam intermisimus in humilitate et jejunio privatas nostras et publicas Ecclesiæ preces Deo Patri per Filium ejus offerre, ut Spiritus Sancti virtute mentem nostram dirigere et confirmare dignaretur, implorato universæ cœlestis curiæ præsidio, et advocato cum genitibus Paraclito Spiritu, eoque sic aspirante, ad honorem Sanctæ et Individuæ Trinitatis, ad decus et ornamentum Virginis Deiparæ, ad exaltationem fidei catholicæ et christianæ religionis augmentum, auctoritate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, ac nostra declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus, doctrinam, quæ tenet, beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suæ conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorium Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpæ 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, præsumpserint corde sentire, ii noverint ac porro sciant, se proprio judicio condemnatos, naufragium circa fidem passos esse, et ab unitale Ecclesiæ defeciise, ac præterca facto ipso suo semet poenis a jure statutis subjicere, si, quod corde, sentiunt, verbo aut scripto, vel alio quovis externo modo significare ausi fuerint.'

110The 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.209209   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). 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 œcumenical Council, and rests 111solely 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 112hour, 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.210210   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. 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.211211   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.

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.



§ 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.212212   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. 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.213213   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). 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 114based, 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.214214   The Hebrew text admits of no doubt; for the verb יְשׁוּפְ, in the disputed clause, is masculine (he shall bruise, or crush), and הוּא naturally refers to the preceding זַרְעָהּ (her seed), i.e., זֶרַצ אִשָּׁה (the woman's seed), and not to the more remote אִשָּׁה (woman). In the Pentateuch the personal pronoun הוּא (he) is indeed generis communis, and stands also for the feminine הִיא (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 הִוא, to signify that it ought to be read הִיא (she). The Peshito, the Septuagint (αὐτός σοι τηρήσει κεφαλήν), 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 שׁוּף from conteret (shall bruise) into insidiaberis (shall lie in wait, assail, pursue), so as to exempt the Virgin from the least injury.

(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.215215   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' (ἀνοίγων μήτραν μητρός). See my History of the Christian Church, Vol. II. p. 417. Jerome and other Fathers followed, and 115drew 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;216216   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. hence the Council of Trent has deprived these passages of all force (omnem vim ademit) of application to the blessed Virgin! This 116is 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: ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου), 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, κεχαριτωμένη, highly favored, endued with grace (die begnadigte), the one who received, and therefore needed, grace (non ut mater gratiæ, sed ut filia gratiæ, as Bengel well observes); comp. ver. 30, εὗρες χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, thou hast found grace with God; and Eph. i. 6, ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς, 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 (πλήρης χάριτος not κεχαριτωμένος) 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 117hereditary sin, do not even expressly exempt her from actual sin, certainly not from womanly weakness and frailty. Irenæus (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);217217    Iren. Adv. hœr. iii. c. 16, § 7: Dominus, repellens intempestivam festinationem, dixit: 'Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier!' 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.218218   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 (φιλοτιμία) and thoughtlessness (ἀπόνοια), when she desired to speak with Christ while he yet talked to the people (Matt. xii. 46 sqq.). 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.219219    De carne Christi, c. 7: Fratres Domini non crediderant in illum. Mater æque non demonstratur adhæsisse illi, cum Marthæ et Mariæ aliæ in commercio ejus frequententur. 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.220220   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, Hagæ, 1851. 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.221221   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.]


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.'

119(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 Collyridianæ, a company of women in Arabia, in the last part of the fourth century, who sacrificed to Mary little cakes or loaves of bread (κολλυρίς, hence the name Κολλυριδιανοί), and paid her divine honor with festive rites similar to those connected with the cult of Cybele, the magna mater deûm, 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;222222   De natura et gratia, c. 36, § 42 (ed. Bened. Tom. X. p. 144): 'Excepta sancta Virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quæstionem . . . 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 [Mariæ] plus gratiæ collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum quæ 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. but he expressly included her in the fall of Adam and its hereditary consequences.223223   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, § 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, § 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, § 32; c. 20, § 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, § 29, also quoted by Perrone), says: 'The flesh of Mary, which was conceived in unrighteousness in a human way, was truly sinful flesh.' Pelagius, who denied hereditary 120sin, went further, and exempted Mary (with several other saints of the Old Testament) from sin altogether;224224   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, § 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. and, if he were not a condemned heretic, he might be quoted as the father of the modern dogma.225225   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. 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 (πανάγια, immaculata and immaculatissima), refer only to her spotless purity of character after her sanctification, 121but not to her conception.226226   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.§336. 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.227227   See A. V. Mouravieff on the dogma, in Neale's Voices from the East, 1859, pp. 117–155.

(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.228228   'Virgo regia falso non eget honore, veris cumalata honorum titulis. .  .  . Non est hoc Virginem honorare sed honori detraher.  .  .  . Præsumpta 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. 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.'229229   . . . 'et sic tenderetur in infinitum, et festorum non esset numerus' (Ep. 174, p. 334 sq.). 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 122in her sinless birth. He put her in this respect on a par with Jeremiah and John the Baptist.230230   '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, quæ excluso peccato sanctam fecerit nativitatem, non tamen et conceptionem' (l.c. p. 336).

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;231231   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. beatæ Virg. Mariæ, 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. 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).232232   Summa Theologiæ, 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. The University of Paris, which during the Middle 123Ages 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.233233   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, Prœscriptions, 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!

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.234234   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. 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.235235   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.' At all events, he made it a distinctive tenet of his order.

Henceforward the Immaculate Conception became an apple of discord 124between 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.'236236   Sessio V.: 'Declarat S. Synodus, non esse suæ intentionis, comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, beatam et immaculatam Virginem Mariam, Dei genitricem; sed observandas esse constitutiones felicis recordationis Sixti Papæ IV. sub pœnis in eis constitutionibus contentis, quas innovat.' 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. 125Bellarmin 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.237237   'Ejus (sc. Mariæ),' 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 præservatam immunem.' Compare the decree of Pius IX. p. 110, which substitutes suæ conceptionis for creationis atque infusionis (animæ) in corpus, and ab omni originalis culpæ labe for a macula peccati originalis.

Nothing was left but the additional declaration that belief in this doctrine was necessary to salvation. 'From this time,' says Perrone,238238   L.c. p. 33. '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 126learning 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.239239   Perrone, ch. xiv. pp. 102 sqq.

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).240240   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. The meaning of the new dogma is that Mary, by a special grace and privilege, was exempt from original sin in her 127passive conception, that is, in that moment when her soul was created by God for the animation of her body.241241   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. 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.242242   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 Möhler, 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. 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,243243   . . . 'intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu, Salvatoris humani generis.' 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 128revelation, and is so declared in the papal decree.244244   . . . 'doctrinam . . . esse a Deo revelatam,' etc. 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.


§ 30. The Papal Syllabus, A.D. 1864.


The Enyclica and Syllabus of Dec. 8, 1864, are published in Pii IX. Epistola encycl., etc., Regensb. 1865; in Officielle Actenstücke zu dem v. Pius IX. nach Rom. berufenen Oekum. Concil, Berlin, 1869, pp. 1–35, in Acta et Decreta S. œcum. Conc. Vatic. Frib. 1871, Pt. I. pp. 1–21, etc.

J. Tosi (R.C.): Vorlesungen über den Syllabus errorum der päpstl. Encyclica, Wien, 1865 (251 pp.).

J. Hergenröther (R.C.): Die Irrthümer der Neuzeit gerichtet durch den heil. Stuhl, 1865.

Beleuchtung der päpstlichen Encyclica v. 8 Dec. 1864, und das Verzeichniss der modernen Irrthümer (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 liberté: religieuse et le Syllabus, Genève, 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, § 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.'245245   These and similar sentences are inserted from letters of mediæval 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. In the same letter the Pope offers to all the faithful a complete indulgence 129for one month during the year 1865,246246   . . . 'plenariam indulgentiam ad instar jubilæi concedimus intra unius tantum mensis spatium usque ad totum futurum annum 1865 et non ultra.' 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.247247   'Quo vero facilius Deus Nostris, Vestrisque, et omnium fidelium precibus, votisque annuat, cum omni fiducia deprecatricem apud Eum adhibeamus Immaculatam Sanctissimamque Deiparam Virginem Mariam, quæ cunctas hereses interemit in universo mundo, quæque omnium nostrum amantissima Mater "tota suavis est . . . ac plena misericordiæ . . . omnibus sese exorabilem, omnibus clementissimam prœbet, 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 Cœlitum, qui facti jam amici Dei pervenerunt ad cœlestia regna, et coronati possident palmam, ac de sua immortalitate securi, de nostra sunt salute solliciti.'

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.248248   A learned Jesuit, Clemens Schrader, translated them into a positive form. 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 130his 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 concubinæ 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.249249   '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.

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.250250   No. 13. 'Methodus et principia, quibus antiqui Doctores scholastici theologiam excoluerunt, temporum nostrorum necessitatibus scientiarumque progressui minime congruunt.'

(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.251251   No. 15. 'Liberum cuique homini est eam amplecti ac profiteri religionem, quam rationis lumine quis ductus veram putaverit.'

(16.) Men may be saved under any religion.252252   No. 16. 'Homines in cujusvis religionis cultu viam æternæ salutis reperire æternamque salutem assequi possunt.'

(17.) We may at least be hopeful concerning the eternal salvation of all non-Catholics.253253   No. 17. 'Saltem bene sperandum est de æterna illorum omnium salute, qui in vera Christi Ecclesia nequaquam versantur.'

131(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.254254   No. 18. 'Protestantismus non aliud est quam diversa veræ ejusdem christianæ religionis forma, in qua æque ac in Ecclesia catholica Deo placere datum est.'

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 sæpe 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 œcumenical Councils have exceeded the limits of their power, usurped the rights of princes, and have erred even in matters of faith and morals;255255   No. 23. 'Romani pontifices et concilia œcumenica a limitibus suæ potestatis recesserunt, jura principum usurparunt, atque etiam in rebus fidei et morum definiendis errarunt.' the Church has no power to avail herself of force, or any temporal power, direct or indirect;256256   No. 24. 'Ecclesia vis inferendæ potestatem non habet, neque potestatem ullam temporalem directam vel indirectam.' 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;257257   No. 37. 'Institui possunt nationales Ecclesiæ ab auctoritate Romani Pontificis subductæ planeque divisæ.' the Roman Pontiffs have contributed to the Greek schism.258258   No. 38. 'Divisioni ecclesiæ in orientalem atque occidentalem nimia Romanorum Pontificum arbitria contulerunt.'

VI. Errors concerning Civil Society, considered as well in itself as in its relations to the Church. Seventeen errors (39–55).

132(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.'259259   No. 45. 'Totum scholarum publicarum regimen, in quibus juventus christianæ alicujus Reipublicæ 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.

(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.'260260   No. 55. 'Ecclesia a Statu, Statusque ab Ecclesia sejungendus est.' Compare Alloc. Acerbissimum 27 Sept. 1852.

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.261261   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.'

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 133they 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.262262   (77.) 'Ætate 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.'

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 134has 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.]


§ 31. The Vatican Council, 1870.


I. Works Preceding the Council.

Officielle Actenstücke 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 approuvée de la Civiltà cattolica par la correspondance de Rome, Vol. I. Avant le Concile. Rome, Deuxième 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 Œcumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. A Pastoral Letter. London, 1869. In favor of Infallibility.

C. H. A. Plantier (Bishop of Nîmes): Sur les Conciles généraux à l’occasion de celui que Sa Sainteté Pie IX. a convoqué pour le 8 décembre prochain, Nîmes 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’infaillibilité et le Concile général, 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 général 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 für unsere Zeit, 4th ed. Mainz, 1869. First against, now in favor of Infallibility.

Dr. Joseph Fessler (Bishop of St. Pölten and Secretary of the Vatican Council, d. 1872): Das letzte und das nächste Allgemeine Concil, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1869.

F. Dupanloup (Bishop of Orleans): Lettre sur le futur Concile Œcuménique, 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. Döllinger, Friedrich, and Huber, of the University of Munich.

Dr. J. Hergenröther (R.C.): Anti-Janus, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870. Also in English, by J. B. Robertson, Dublin, 1870.

Reform der Röm. Kirche in Haupt und Gliedern Aufgabe des bevorstehenden Röm. 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 Civiltà 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 während des Vaticanischen Concils geführt, Nödlingen, 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 Döllinger, 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 Römischen 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. Troisième ed. Paris, 1870. [By Jules Gaillard.]

La dernière 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 Unità 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 œcumenici Concilii Vaticani die 8 Dec. 1869 a ss. D. N. Pio IX. inchoati. Cum permissione superiorum, Friburgi Brisgoviæ, 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 œcuménique 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 Actenstücke 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 äussere 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, Nördlingen, 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 während des Vaticanischen Concils geführt, 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 . . . geprüft, Prag, 1871. Also, Die Macht der Röm. Päpste über Fürsten, Länder, Völker, Individuen, etc., Prag, 2d ed. 1871.

Stimmen aus der katholischen Kirche über die Kirchenfragen der Gegenwart, München, 1870 sqq. 2 vols. A series of discussions against the Vatican Council, by Döllinger, Huber, Schmitz, Friedrich, Reinkens, and Hötzl.

(3.) Protestant.

Dr. Emil Friedberg (Prof. of Ecclesiastical Law in Leipzig): Sammlung der Actenstücke zum ersten Vaticanischen Concil, mit einem Grundriss der Geschichte desselben, Tübingen, 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 conséquences politiques et religieuses, Paris, 1872. Also in German, by Fabarius, Nördlingen, 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 Vorträge). 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 römisch-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 röm. 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 œcumenical 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.263263   'Summo igitur gauaio,' said the five hundred Bishops, 'repletus est animus noster, dum sacrato ore Tuo intelleximus, tot inter præsentis temporis discrimina eo Te esse consilio, ut "maximum," prout aiebat inclitus Tuus prædecessor Paulus III., "in maximis rei Christianæ periculis remedium," Concilium œcumenicum convoces. Annuat Deus huic Tuo proposito, cuius ipse Tibi mentem inspiravit; habeantque tandem œvi nostri homines, qui infirmi in fide, semper discentes et nunquam ad veritatis agnitionem pervenientes omni vento doctrinæ circumferuntur, in sacrosancta hac Synodo novam, præsentissimamque occasionem accedendi ad sanctam Ecclesiam columnam ac firmamentum veritatis, cognoscendi salutiferam fidem, perniciosos reiiciendi errores; ac fiat, Deo propitio, et conciliatrice Deipara Immaculata, hæc Synodus grande opus unitatis, sanctificationis et pacis, unde novus in Ecclesiam splendor redundet, novus regni Dei triumphus consequatur. Et hoc ipso Tuæ providentiæ opere denuo exibeatur mundo immensa beneficia, per Pontificatum romanum humanæ 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 divinæ auctoritatis et debitæ eidem obedientiæ manifestissimo specimine, in divina Pontificatus institutione dato, ea omnia stabilita et sacrata sint, quæ societatum fundamenta ac diuturnitatem solident.' 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.264264   'Quod sane votum apertius etiam se prodit in eo communi Concilii œcumenici 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 cœlum, unde demum Deus ipse detrahi possit. At is descendisse videtur inspecturus opus, et ædificantium linguas ita confusurus, ut non audiat unusquisque vocem proximi sui: id enim animo objiciunt Ecclesiæ vexationes, miseranda civilis consortii conditio, perturbatio rerum omnium, in qua versamur. Cui sane gravissimæ calamitati sola certe objici potest divina Ecclesiæ virtus, quæ tunc maxime se prodit, cum Episcopi a Summo Pontifice convocati, eo præside, conveniunt in nomine Domini de Ecclesiæ rebus acturi. Et gaudemus omnino, prœvertisse vos hac in re propositum jamdiu a nobis conceptum, commendandi sacrum hunc cœtum ejus patrocinio, cujus pedi a rerum exordio serpentis caput subjectum fuit, quœque deinde universas hæreses sola interemit. Satisfacturi propterea communi desiderio jam nunc nunciamus, futurum quandocunque Concilium sub auspiciis Deiparæ 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.

137The call was issued by an Encyclical, commencing Æterni 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.265265   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 œcumenico hoc Concilio ea omnia accuratissime examine sunt perpendenda ac statuenda, quæ hisce præsertim 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, justitiæ 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 Christianæ virtutes cum maxima humanæ societatis utilitate vigeant et efflorescant.' It was even hoped that the Council might become a general feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the Greek schismatics, 138and 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.266266   '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' (μία ποίμνη, not αὐλή). There may be many folds, and yet one flock under one Shepherd, as there are 'many mansions' in heaven (John xiv. 2).

But the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation, as an insult to their time-honored rights and traditions, from which they could not depart.267267   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 œcumenical 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 œcumenical 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 Actenstücke, etc., pp. 127–135; and in the Chronique concernant le Prochain Concile, Vol. I. pp. 3 sqq., 103 sqq. The Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined it.268268   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. Actenstücke, 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.'

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 139the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to come.269269   So the Civiltà 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), Père Gratry of the Oratory, Père 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. 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.270270   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 œcumenical 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. 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 140name 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 œcumenical 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,271271   As the œcumenical character of two or three Councils is disputed, the Vatican Council is variously reckoned as the 19th or 20th or 21st œcumenical Council; by strict Romanists (as Manning) as the 19th. Compare note on p. 91. 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 œcumenical Council, is one thousand and thirty-seven.272272   See a full list, with all the titles, in the Lexicon geographicum added to the second part of the Acta et Decreta sacrosancti et œcum. Conc. Vaticani, Friburgi, 1871. The Prelates 'quibus aut jus aut privilegium fuit sedendi in œcumenica 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 Patriarchæ—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.
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.273273   See the list of names in Friedberg, pp. 376–394. 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.274274   See the official Catalogo alfabetico dei Padri presenti al Concilio ecumenico Vaticano, Roma, 1870. Distributed according to continents, 141541 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,275275   Manning says, 'some thirty nations'—probably an exaggeration. 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.276276   Quirinus, pp. 480, 481 (English translation). 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.277277   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. 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.278278   Among the irresponsible but well-informed reporters and correspondents must be mentioned especially the writers in the Civiltà 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 dernière heure du Concile, on the part of the anti-Infallibilists.

142The 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.279279   There were in all forty-five schemata, divided into four classes: (1) circa fidem, (2) circa disciplinam ecclesiæ, (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. 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 143the 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.'280280   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. 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.281281   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. 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 144and publish what they pleased.282282   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 Tübingen. But the Civiltà 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). 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 mediæval Councils); even the Council of Trent maintained its own dignity and comparative independence by declaring its decrees in its own name.283283   ' 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.

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 complained284284   'Id autem, quod spectat ad numerum suffragiorum requisitum, ut quæstiones dogmaticæ 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 œcumenici character in dubium vocari posset; ne ansa hostibus prœberetur 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 libertè du Concile et l’infaillibilité, 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. 145that they could not understand the English Latin. The Council had a full share of ignorance and superstition,285285   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. 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.286286   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! Hæreticus! Hæreticus! 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 œcumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, but Christian civilization ought to have made some progress since the fifth century. 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 146regarded 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’église 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 œcumenical than that of Trent, and has only intensified the antagonism. Its œcumenicity is also denied by the Old Catholic scholars—Döllinger, von Schulte, and Reinkens —because it lacked the two fundamental conditions of liberty of discussion, and moral unanimity of suffrage.287287   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. Döllinger, in his famous censure of the new order of the Council, takes the ground that the œcumenicity 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 Hötzl laid down the principle that no Council is œcumenical 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. But the subsequent submission of all the Bishops who had voted against Papal Infallibility, supplies the defect as far as the 147Roman 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.


§ 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.288288   Cardinal-Archbishop Matthieu of Besançon, who voted Non Placet, is reported by Quirinus to have said on this occasion: 'On veut jeter l’église dans I’abîme, nous y jeterons plutôt nos cadavres.' Comp. Frommann, l.c. p. 160.

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 148grace; but was laid aside.289289   Friedrich, Docum. II. pp. 3–23. Archbishop Connolly, of Halifax, recommended that it should be decently buried.290290   '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.

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.'291291   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. On the other hand, the Univers calls the schema a 'masterpiece of clearness and force;' the Civiltà cattolica sees in it 'a reflex of the wisdom of God;'292292   'Un riverbero della sapienza di Dio,' VII. 10, p. 523, quoted by Frommann, l.c. p. 383. 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.'293293   Petri Privilegium, III. pp. 49, 50. Whatever be the value of the positive principles of the schema, 149its 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.294294   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. 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,295295   Allusion to Pope Leo X. 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.296296   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. Although this speech was greeted with execrations (see page 145), it had at least the effect that the objectionable preamble was somewhat modified.297297   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.'

150The 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.298298   '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 vitæ vestræ; sit ista pax vis in morte, sit ista pax vobis gaudium sempiternum in cœlis.'


§ 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 151of 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.299299   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 ordinariæ potestatis obtinere principatum, et hanc Romani Pontificis jurisdictionis potestatem, quæ vere episcopalis est, immediatam esse, erga quam cujuscunque ritus et dignitatis pastores atque fideles, tam seorsum singuli quam simul omnes, officio hierarchicæ subordinationis veræque obedientiæ obstringuntur, non solum in rebus, quæ ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quæ ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiæ per totum orbem diffusæ pertinent; ita ut, custodita cum Romano Pontifice tam communionis quam ejusdem fidei professionis unitate, Ecclesiæ Christi sit unus grex sub uno summo pastore. Hæc est catholicæ 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, quæ ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quæ ad disciplinam et regimem Ecclesiæ per totum orbem diffusæ pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem hujus supremæ 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.' 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.300300   ' Itaque Nos traditioni a fidei Christianæ exordio perceptæ fideliter inhœrendo, ad Dei Salvatoris nostri gloriam, religionis Catholicæ 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 Ecclesiæ, irreformabiles esse.
   'Si quis autem huic Nostræ definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, præsumpserit; anathema sit.'

152To 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.301301   Friedberg, pp. 465–470. Comp. Frommann, p. 59 sq. 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 œcumenical Council should be reproved.302302   Friedberg, pp. 470 sqq.; Frommann, pp. 61–63. 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.303303   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.

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.'304304   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 dédain 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 créé dans le dix-neuvième siècle une personnalité d’une puissance et d’une majesté incomparables, dont l’éclat grandit encore un pontificat déjà si remarquable par une durée, 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. 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 153dogma 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,305305   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.' 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.306306   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. 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.307307   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. 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 Döllinger, Gratry, Hyacinthe, Montalembert, and others, mixed in the fight, and strengthened 154the minority.308308   See the literature in the next section, and in Friedberg, pp. 33–44. Comp. Frommann, pp. 66 sqq. 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.309309   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 Civiltà (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 œcumenical 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.

155After 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 speeches310310   According to Manning, but only 65 according to Friedberg, p. 47. 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.311311   Hence the title 'Concio habenda at non habita'—prepared for speaking, but not spoken. See the prefatory note, dated Rome, June 8, 1870. 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.'312312   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.

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.313313   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 Vestræ, 88 Patres fuisse, qui, conscientia urgente et amore s. Ecclesiæ 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 diœceses reversi sunt.' Among the negative votes were the Prelates most distinguished 156for learning and position, as Schwarzenberg, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop of Prague; Rauscher, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop of Vienna; Darboy, Archbishop of Paris; Matthieu, Cardinal-Archbishop of Besançon; 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; Förster, 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.'314314   He spoke in French: 'Te ferai mon possible, mes chers fils, mais je n’ai pas encore lu le schéma; je ne sais pas ce qu’il contient.' Quirinus, Letter LXIX. p. 800. 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 157for the peace and unity of the Church.315315   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.' This prostration of the p