Skip to main content

Full text of "The creeds of Christendom : with a history and critical notes"

See other formats 


§rom  1 0e  £,t6rar£  of 

(professor  TXKflfiam  genrg  (green 

QScqucaf^cb  fig  0im  to 
f#e  feifirarg  of 

(princeton  £0eofogtcaf  £JeminAr£ 


I 

- 


CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


33xhliatljcra  Itjinholira  €ukm  %nmmlw. 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM, 


WITH 


A  HISTORY  AND  CRITICAL  NOTES. 


BY 

PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

PROFESSOR   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE   IN   THE   UNION   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY,  N.  T. 


BT  THREE  VOLUMES. 

Volume  I. 

THE    HISTORY   OF    CREEDS. 


NEW    YORK: 

HARPER  &    BROTHERS,  PUBLISHERS, 

FRANKLIN     SQUARE. 

1877. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1877,  by 

Harper  &  Brothers, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


TO 
HIS  HONORED  AND  BELOVED    COLLEAGUES 

IN  THE   UNION  THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY, 

Rev.  WILLIAM  ADAMS,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Rev.  HENRY  B.  SMITH,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Rev.  ROSWELL  D.  HITCHCOCK,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Rev.  WILLIAM  G.  T.  SHEDD,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Rev.  GEORGE  L.  PRENTISS,  D.D., 

Rev.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D., 

THIS   WORK    IS 

ttespectfulln  Debicntcb 

BY 

THE  AUTHOR. 


PREFACE. 


A  'symbolical  library'  that  contains  the  creeds  and  confessions 
of  all  Christian  denominations  fills  a  vacuum  in  theological  and 
historical  literature.  It  is  surprising  that  it  has  not  been  supplied 
long  ago.  Sectarian  exclnsiveness  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  The- 
ology—  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  Arolume  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  Vat- 
ican 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 
aXnSeveiv  tv  ayainj  and  the  uycnrqv  tv  (i\t)%uq,  and  to  be  mindful 
of  the  golden  motto,  In  necessariis  unitas,  in  dubiis  libertas,  in 
omnibus  cariias.  Honest  and  earnest  controversy,  conducted  in  a 
Christian  and  catholic  spirit,  promotes  true  and  lasting  union.  Po- 
lemics looks  to  Irenics — the  aim  of  war  is  peace. 

The  Second  Volume  contains  the  Scripture  Confessions,  the  ante- 
Nicene  Rules  of  Faith,  the  (Ecumenical,  the  Greek,  and  the  Latin 
Creeds,  from  the  Confession  of  Peter  down  to  the  Vatican  Decrei  s. 
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,  Calvin- 
istic,  and  the  later  Protestant  Confessions  of  Faith.  The  documents 
of  the  Third  Part  (pp.  707-876)  have  never  been  collected  before. 


viil  PREFACE. 

The  creeds  and  confessions  are  given  in  the  original  languages 
from  the  best  editions,  and  are  accompanied  by  translations  for  the 
convenience  of  the  English  reader.1 

While  these  volumes  were  passing  through  the  press  several 
learned  treatises  on  the  ancient  creeds  by  Lumby,  Swainson,  Ilort, 
Caspar],  and  others  have  appeared,  though  not  too  late  to  be  no- 
ticed in  the  final  revision.  The  literature  has  been  brought  down 
to  the  close  of  1S7G.  I  trust  that  nothing  of  importance  has  es- 
caped my  attention. 

I  take  pleasure  in  acknowledging  my  obligation  to  several  dis- 
tinguished divines,  in  America  and  England,  for  valuable  informa- 
tion concerning  the  denominations  to  which  they  belong,  and  for 
several  contributions,  which  appear  under  the  writers'  names.2  In 
a  history  of  conflicting  creeds  it  is  wise  to  consult  representative 
men  as  well  as  books,  in  order  to  secure  strict  accuracy  and  im- 
partiality, 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  re- 
vealed 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  be- 
lievers of  different  creeds  approach  the  Christological  centre,  the 
better  they  will  understand  and  love  each  other. 


P.  S. 


Bible  House,  New  York, 
December,  187G. 


1  I  have  used,  e.  g.,  the  fac-simile  of  the  oldest  MS.  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  from  the 
'Utrecht  Psalter;'  the  ed.  princepa  of  the  Lutheran  Concordia  (formerly  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Dr.  Meyer,  the  well-known  commentator) ;  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma  Confessionum, 
ed.  1  Gf>4 ;  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  Cate- 
chisms, of  the  Savoy  Declaration,  etc. 

2  The  Rev.  Drs.  Jos.  Angus,  W.  W.  Andrews,  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  J.  R.  Brown,  E.  W.  Gilman, 
G.  Haven,  A.  A.  Hodge,  Alex.  F.  Mitchell,  E.  D.  Morris,  Chas.  P.  Kranth,  J.  R.  Lumby, 
G.  D.  Matthews,  II.  Osgood,  E.  von  Schweinitz,  II.  B.  Smith,  John  Stoughton,  E.  A.  Wash- 
burn, W.  P.  Williams.     See  Vol.  I.  pp.  GOO,  81 1,  839,  911 ;  Vol.  III.  pp.  3,  738,  777,  799. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

(Vol.  I.) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


FIRST  CHAPTER. 

ON    CREEDS    IN    GENERAL. 

PAflR 

§  1.  Name  and  Definition 3 

§  2.  Origin  of  Creeds 4 

§  3.  Authority  of  Creeds 7 

§  4.  Value  and  Use  of  Creeds 8 

§  5.  Classification  of  Creeds 9 

SECOND  CHAPTER. 

THE    (ECUMENICAL    CREEDS. 

§  6.  General  Character  of  the  (Ecumenical  Creeds.     .     .     .12 

§  V.  The  Apostles'  Creed 14 

§  8.  The  Nicene  Creed 24 

§  9.  The  Creed  of  Chalcedon 29 

§  10.  The  Athanasian  Creed 34 

THIRD  CHAPTER. 

THE  CREEDS  OF  THE  GREEK  CHURCH. 

§11.  The  Seven  (Ecumenical  Councils 43 

§  12.  The  Confessions  of  Gennadius,  A.D.  1453 40 

§  13.  The  Answers  of  the  Patriarch  Jeremiah  to  the  Luther- 
ans, A.D.  1570 50 

§  14.  The  Confession  of  Metrophanes  Critopulus,  A.D.  1625     .  52 

§  15.  The  Confession  of  Cyril  Lucar,  A.D.  1031 54 

8  10.  The  Orthodox  Confession  of  Mogilas,  A.D.  1043  .     .     .     .53 


X  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


I>AGE 


§17.  The  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  Confession  of  Dosi- 

theus,  A.D.  1672 CI 

§  18.  The  Synods  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  1672  and  1691.  .  .  67 
§  19.  The  Doctrinal  Standards  of  the  Russo-Greek  Church  .  68 
§  20.  Anglo -Catholic  Correspondence  with  the  Russo-Greek 

Church 74 

§  21.  The  Eastern  Sects:  Nestorians,  Jacobites,  Copts,  Arme- 
nians     78 

FOURTH  CHAPTER. 

THE  CREEDS  OF  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH. 

§22.  Catholicism  and  Romanism 83 

§23.  Standard  Expositions  of  the  Roman  Catholic  System  .  85 
§  24.  The    Canons   and   Decrees    of   the   Council    of   Trent, 

A.D.  1563 ' 90 

§  25.  The  Profession  of  the  Tridentine  Faith,  A.D.  1584   .     .     96 

§  26.  The  Roman  Catechism,  A.D.  1566 100 

§27.  The  Papal  Bulls  against  the  Jansenists,  A.D.  1653, 1713.  102 

Note  on  the  Old  Catholics  in  Holland,  107. 
§  28.  The  Papal  Definition  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of 

the  Virgin  Mary,  A.D.  1854 108 

§  29.  The  Argument  for  the  Immaculate  Conception      .     .     .113 

§  30.  The  Papal  Syllabus,  A.D.  1864 128 

§  31.  The  Vatican  Council,  A.D.  1870 134 

§  32.  The  Vatican  Decrees.     The  Constitution  on  the  Cath- 
olic Faith 147 

§  33.  The  Vatican  Decrees,  continued.     The  Papal  Infallibil- 
ity Decree 150 

§  34.  Papal  Infallibility  Explained,  and  Tested  by  Scripture 

and  Tradition 163 

§  35.  The  Liturgical  Standards  of  the  Roman  Church  .  .  .189 
§  36.  The  Old  Catholics 191 

FIFTH  CHAPTER. 

THE  CREEDS  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  PROTESTANT  CHURCHES. 

§  37.  The  Reformation.     Protestantism  and  Romanism    .     .     .  203 

§  38.  The  Evangelical  Confessions  of  Faith 209 

8  39.  The  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Confessions 211 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  xi 

SIXTH  CHAPTER. 

THE  CREEDS  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 

PAOB 

§  40.  The  Lutheran  Confessions 220 

§  41.  The  Augsburg  Confession,  A.D.  1530 225 

§  42.  The  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  A.D.  1530   .  243 

§  43.  Luther's  Catechisms,  A.D.  1529 245 

§  44.  The  Articles  of  Smalcald,  A.D.  1537 253 

§  45.  The  Formula  of  Concord,  A.D.  1577 258 

§  46.  The  Formula  of  Concord,  concluded 312 

§47.  Superseded  Lutheran  Symbols.     The  Saxon  Confession, 

and  the  wtjrtemberg  confession,  a.d.  1551    .    .    .    .  340 

§  48.  The  Saxon  Visitation  Articles,  A.D.  1592 345 

§  49.  An  Abortive  Symbol  against  Syncretism,  A.D.  1G55 .     .     .  349 

SEVENTH  CHAPTER. 

THE  CREEDS  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  REFORMED  CHURCHES. 

§  50.  The  Reformed  Confessions 354 

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  ....  360 

§52.  Zwingli's  Distinctive  Doctrines 369 

§  53.  The  Confession  of  Basle,  A.D.  1534 385 

§  54.  The  First  Helvetic  Confession,  A.D.  1536 388 

§  55.  The  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  A.D.  1566 390 

§  56.  John  Calvin.     His  Life  and  Character 421 

§57.  Calvin's  Work.     His  Theology  and  Discipline    ....  444 

§  58.  The  Catechism  of  Geneva,  A.D.  1541 467 

§  59.  The  Zurich  Consensus,  A.D.  1549 471 

§  60.  The  Geneva  Consensus,  A.D.  1552 474 

§61.  The  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula,  A.D.  1675 477 

II  Reformed  Confessions  of  France  and  the  Netherlands. 

§  62.  The  Gallican  Confession,  A.D.  1559 490 

§  63.  The  French  Declaration  of  Faith,  A.D.  1872 49S 

§  64.  The  Belgic  Confession,  A.D.  1561 502 


xji  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

§  65.  The  Arminian  Controversy  and  the  Synod  of  Dort,  A.D. 

1604-1619. 508 

§  66.  The  Remonstrance,  A.D.  1610  . .  516 

§  67.  The  Canons  of  Port,  A.I).  1619 .519 

III.  The  Reformed  Confessions  of  Germany. 

§  68.  The  Tetrapolitan  Confession,  A.D.  1530 524 

§  69.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  A.D.  1563 529 

§  TO.  The  Brandenburg  Confessions 554 

The  Confession  of  Sigismund  (1614),  555. 

The  Colloquy  at  Leipzig  (1G31),  558. 

The  Declaration  of  Thorn  (1615),  560. 
§  VI.  The  Minor  German  Reformed  Confessions 563 

IV.  The  Reformed  Confessions  of  Bohemia,  Poland,  and  Hungary. 
§  72.  The  Bohemian  Brethren  and  the  Waldenses  before  the 

Reformation. 565 

§  73.  The  Bohemian  Confessions  after  the  Reformation,  A.D. 

1535  and  1575 5<6 

§  74,  The  Reformation  in  Poland  and  the  Consensus  of  Sen- 

domir,  A.D.  1570 581 

§  75.  The  Reformation   in   Hungary  and  the   Confession  of 

Czenger,  A.D.  1557 589 

V.   The  Anglican  Articles  of  Religion. 

§  76.  The  English  Reformation 592 

§  77.  The  Doctrinal  Position  of  the  Anglican  Church  and  her 

Relation  to  other  Churches 598 

§  78.  The  Doctrinal  Formularies  of  Henry  VIII .611 

§  79.  The  Edwardine  Articles,  A.D.  1553 613 

§  80.  The  Elizabethan  Articles,  A.D.  1563  and  1571 615 

§  81.  Interpretation  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles 622 

§  82.  Revision  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  by  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, A.D.  1801 650 

§  83.  The  Anglican  Catechisms,  A.D.  1549  and  1662 654 

§  84.  The  Lambeth  Articles,  A.D.  1595  .     . 658 

§  85.  The  Irish  Articles,  A.D.  1615 662 

§  86.  The  Articles  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  A.D. 

1875 665 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  xj[j 


VI.  Tlie  Presbyterian  Confessions  of  Scotland. 

87.  The  Reformation  ix  Scotlaxd GG9 

88.  Joiix  Kxox G73 

89.  The  Scotch  Coxfessiox,  A.D.  1560 680 

90.  The  ScoTcn  Covenants  and  the  Scotch  Kirk 685 

91.  The  Scotch  Catechisms 69G 

VII.   The  Westminster  Standards. 

92.  The  Puritan  Conflict 701 

93.  The  "Westminster  Assembly 727 

94.  The  Westminster  Confession 753 

95.  Analysis  of  the  Confession 760 

96.  The  Westminster  Catechisms 783 

97.  Criticism  of  the  Westminster  System  of  Doctrine  .     .     .  788 

98.  The  Westminster  Standards  in  America 804 

99.  The    Westminster    Standards    among    the    Cumberland 

Presbyterians 813 


EIGHTH  CHAPTER. 

THE  CREEDS  OF  MODERN  EVANGELICAL  DENOMINATIONS. 

100.  General  Survey 817 

101.  The  Coxgregationalists 820 

102.  English  Coxgregatioxal  Creeds 829 

103.  Americax  Coxgregatioxal  Creeds 835 

104.  axabaptists  axd  mexxoxites 840 

105.  The  Calvixistic  Baptists 844 

106.  The  Armixiax  Baptists 856 

107.  The  Society  of  Friends  (Quakers) 859 

108.  The  Moravians 874 

109.  Methodism 882 

110.  Methodist  Creeds 890 

111.  Arminian  Methodism 893 

112.  Calvinistic  Methodism 901 

113.  The  Catholic  Apostolic  Church  (Tbvingites) 905 

114.  The  Evangelical  Alliance 915 

115.  The  Consensus  and  Dissensus  of  Christendom    ....  919 


A  HISTORY  OF  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


FIRST  CHAPTER. 

OF   CREEDS   IN   GENERAL. 

General  Literature. 

Wm.  Dirjji.or  (Prof,  of  Church  Hist,  at  Edinburgh,  d.  1720) :  Account  of  all  the  Ends  and  Ute»  of  Creeds  and 
Confessions  of  Faith,  a  Defense  of  their  Justice,  Reasonableness,  and  Necessity  as  a  Public  Standard  cf  Ortho- 
dozy,  2d  ed.  Lond.  1724.  Comp.  the  lengthy  Preface  to  [Dunlop's]  Collection  of  Confessions  in  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  Edinb.  1719  sq.,  Vol.  I.  pp.  v.-cxlv.    (Both  are  probably  the  same.    I  have  only  the  latter.) 

J.  Caspar  Kociier:  Bibliotheca  theologian  symbolical  et  catechetical;  itemque  liturgicce,  Wolfeub.  and 
Jena,  1751-G9,  2  parts  Svo. 

Cur.  G.  Fr.  Wai.oii  :  Bibliotheca  symbolica  vetus,  Lemgo,  1770. 

[Charles  Bdtler,  R.  C,  d.  1832] :  An  Historical  and  Literary  Account  of  the  Formularies,  Confessions 
of  Faith,  or  Symbolic  Books  of  the  Boman  Catholic,  Greek,  and  principal  Protestant  Churches.  By  the 
Author  of  the  Horce  Biblical,  London,  1S16  (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  1S57),  Cambridge,  1858. 

The  introductions  to  the  works  on  Symbolics  by  Marueinf.ke,  Winer,  Mohi.er,  Kollner,  Gi'ericke, 
Matthes,  Hofmann,  contain  some  account  of  symbols,  as  also  the  Prolegomena  to  the  Collections  of  the 
Symbols  of  the  various  Churches  by  Waloh,  Muller,  Niemever,  Kim.mel,  etc.,  which  will  be  noticed  in 
their  respective  places  below. 

§  1.  Name  and  Definition. 
A  Creed,1  or  Rule  of  Faith,2  or  Symbol,3  is  a  confession  of  faith  for 
public  use,  or  a  form  of  words  setting  forth  with  authority  certain  arti- 

1  From  the  beginning  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  (Credo,  I  believe),  to  which  the  term  is  applied 
more  particularly. 

2  Kaviov  rijs  irioriioc  or  rjjc  aXnSeiag,  regula  fidei,  regula  veritatis.  These  are  the  oldest 
terms  used  by  the  ante-Nicene  fathers,  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  etc. 

3  SvfifioXov,  symbolum,  mark,  badge,  watchword,  test,  shibboleth  (from  ovpfiaXXi ti',  to  throw 
together,  to  compare),  was  first  used  in  a  theological  sense  by  Cyprian,  A.D.  2.">0  (Kp.  76,  al. 
(>'.),  ad  Magnum,  where  it  is  said  of  the  schismatic  Novatianus,  '  eodem  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  he  known  and  distin- 
guished from  Jews,  heathen,  and  heretics,  in  the  sense  of  a  military  signal  or  watchword  (tes- 
sera inilitaris) ;  the  Christians  being  regarded  as  soldiers  of  Christ  fighting  under  the  banner 
of  the  cross.  Ambrose  (d.  307)  calls  it  '  cordis  signaculurn  et  nostrw  militirr  aacramentum.' 
Rufinus,  in  his  Exjwsitio  in  Symb.  Apost.,  uses  the  word  likewise  in  the  military  sense,  but 
gives  it  also  the  meaning  collatio,  contributio  (confounding  triftfioXov  with  avpfioXt)),  with 
reference  to  the  legend  of  the  origin  of  the  creed  from  contributions  of  the  twelve  apostles 
('  quod  plures  in  unum  coti/trunt;  id  enim  J'ecerunt  a postal i, '  etc.).  Others  take  the  word  in 
the  sense  of  a  compact,  or  agreement  (so  ISuicer,  Then.  eccl.  II.  1084  :  lDicen  posnamu,  sym- 
bolum non  a  tnilitari,  sed  a  contractuum  tessera  nomen  id  aceepistt ;  est  euim  tessera  pacti, 
quod  in  bajitismo  inimus  cum  Deo').  Still  others  derive  it  (with  King,  History  <;/' the  Apoitlti 
Creed,  p.  S)  from  the  signs  of  recognition  among  the  heathen  in  their  mysteries.     Luther  and 


4  THE  CKEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

cles  of  belief,  which  are  regarded  by  the  framers  as  necessary  for  salva- 
tion, or  at  least  for  the  well-being  of  the  Christian  Church. 

A  creed  may  cover  the  whole  ground  of  Christian  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice, or  contain  only  snch  points  as  are  deemed  fundamental  and  suffi- 
cient, 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  his- 
torical 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  knowl- 
edge. They  are  mile-stones  and  finger-boards  in  the  history  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine.  They  embody  the  faith  of  generations,  and  the  most 
valuable  results  of  religious  controversies.  They  still  shape  and  regu- 
late 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  possi- 
bility of  future  harmony. 

§  2.  Oeigin  of  Ckeeds. 
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  conjiteor).  There  is  also  an 
express  duty,  when  we  are  received  into  the  membership  of  the  Chris- 
tian 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.1 

Melancthon  first  applied  it  to  Protestant  creeds.  A  distinction  is  made  sometimes  between 
Symbol  and  Symbolical  Book,  as  also  between  symbota  publico,  and  symbola  jirivata.  The 
term  thcologiu  symbolira  is  of  more  recent  origin  than  the  term  libri  symbolici. 

1  Comp.  Matt.  x.  32,  33  :  '  Every  one  who  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  con- 
fess 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.  0, 10  :  '  If  thou  shalt  confess  with 
thy  mouth  the  Lord  J^sus  [Jesus  as  Lord],  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath 


§  2.  ORIGIN  OF  CREEDS.  5 

This  is  the  origin  of  Christian  symbols  or  creeds.     They  never  pre- 
cede 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.1     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  an- 
swer 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  Xew  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  Disc/plum  arcani  prevailed,  the  summary 
of  the  apostolic  doctrine,  called  'the  rule  of  faith,'  was  kept  confi- 
dential among  Christians,  and  withheld  even  from  the  catechumens 
till  the  last  stage  of  instruction ;  and  hence  we  have  only  fragmentary 

raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.     For  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  [-0 
as  to  obtain]  righteousness;  and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  Balvation.' 

1  Semisch,  Das  apostolisrhe  Glaabensbrkenntniss  (Berlin,  1872,  p.  7) :  tBekenntniue,  an 
toekhen  rich  das  aeistige  Leben  ganzer  Vblkrr  auferbaut,  in  bin-  langen  Jahrhunderlen  die 
hochsten  Zicle.  11ml  bratimme.ndcn  Krafto  Hires  Handelns  vorzeichnen,  rind  nicht  Noth-  and 
Flickwerke  des  Angenblicks  .  .  .  es  sind  Thaten  d<s  1. 1  bms,  Puissehldge  der  rich  ulbst  /><- 
zeugenden  Kirche.' 


6  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

accounts  of  it  in  the  writings  of  the  ante-Nicene  fathers.  When  con- 
troversies arose  concerning  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  it  be- 
came 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. 
N  The  first  Christian  confession  or  creed  is  that  of  Peter,  when  Christ 
^  asked  the  apostles,  '  Who  say  ye  that  I  am  V  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).1  This  became  naturally  the 
substaiice  of  the  baptismal  confession,  since  Christ  is  the  chief  object  of 
\the  Christian  faith.  Philip  required  the  eunuch  simply  to  profess  the 
Nbelief  that  'Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God.'  In  conformity  with  the  bap- 
tismal 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  Protest- 
ant Church,  as  a  separate  organization,  dates  from  1517,  but  it  was  not 
till  1530  that  its  faith  was  properly  formularized  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. 

A  symbol  may  proceed  from  the  general  life  of  the  Church  in  a  par- 
ticular age  without  any  individual  authorship  (as  the  Apostles'  Creed) ; 
or  from  an  (Ecumenical  Council  (the  Kicene  Creed ;  the  Creed  of  Chal- 
cedon) ;  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  Ilel- 


1  The  similar  confession,  John  vi.  G9,  is  of  a  previous  date.  It  reads,  according  to  the 
early  authorities, '  Thou  art  the  Holy  One  of  God'  (av  t7  6  uyiog  Stov).  A  designation  of  the 
Messiah.  This  text  coincides  with  the  testimony  of  the  demoniacs,  Marc.  I.  2G,  who,  with 
ghostlike  intuition,  perceived  the  supernatural  character  of  Jesus. 


§  3.  AUTHORITY  OF  CREEDS.  7 

vetic  Confession  by  Bullinger).  "What  gives  them  symbolical  or  au- 
thoritative 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  con- 
fession 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  Ceeeds.1 

1.  In  the  Protestant  system,  the  authority  of  symbols,  as  of  all  hu- 
man 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.2  The 
Bible  is  the  norma  no r mans ;  the  Confession  the  norma  normata. 
The  Bible  is  the  rule  of  faith  (regula  fidei) ;  the  Confession  the  rule 
of  doctrine  (pegula  doctrines).  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  rcgy4&te  the  public  teaching  of 
the  officers  of  the  ClmrjcJi,  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  es- 
sentially Romanizing.  Symbololatry  is  a  species  of  idolatry,  and  sub- 
stitutes the  tyranny  of  a  printed  book  for  that  of  a  living  pope.     It  is 

1  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), 
Kollner  (1847),  Genzken  (1851),  Bretschneider  (1830),  Johannsen  (1833),  and  others,  all  with 
special  reference  to  the  Lutheran  State  Churches  in  Germany.  See  the  literature  in  Midler. 
Die  syuib.  Burlier  der  evang.  luth.  Kirche,  p.  xv. ,  and  older  works  in  Winer's  Handbuch  der 
theol.  Literatur,  3d  ed.Vol.  I.  p.  334.     Comp.  also  Swainson  and  Dunlop,  cited  in  §  1. 

3  For  this  reason  a  creed  ought  to  use  language  different  from  that  of  the  Bible.  A  Btring 
of  Scripture  passages  would  be  no  creed  at  all,  as  little  as  it  would  be  a  prayer  or  a  hymn. 
A  creed  is,  as  it  were,  a  doctrinal  poem  written  under  the  inspiration  of  divine  truth.  This 
may  be  said  at  least  of  the  oecumenical  creeds. 

Yol.  I.— B 


8  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

apt  to  produce  the  opposite  extreme  of  a  rejection  of  all  creeds,  and  to 
promote  rationalism  and  infidelity. 

2.  The  Greek  Church,  and  still  more  the  Roman  Church,  regarding 
the  Bible  and  tradition  as  two  co-ordinate  sources  of  truth  and  rules  of 
faith,  claim  absolute  and  infallible  authority  for  their  confessions  of 
faith.1 

The  Greek  Church  confines  the  claim  of  infallibility  to  the  seven 
oecumenical  Councils,  from  the  first  Council  of  Nicsea,  325,  to  the  sec- 
ond of  Kiesea,  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  1S54,  and  the  dog- 
ma of  Papal  Infallibility  proclaimed  by  the  Vatican  Council  in  1870. 
Since  that  time  the  Pope  is  regarded  by  orthodox  Romanists  as  the  or- 
gan of  infallibility,  and  all  his  official  decisions  on  matters  of  faith  and 
morals  must  be  accepted  as  final,  without  needing  the  sanction  of  an 
oecumenical  council. 

It  is  clear  that  either  the  Greek  or  the  Roman  Church,  or  both,  must 
be  wrong  in  this  claim  of  infallibility,  since  they  contradict  each  other 
on  some  important  points,  especially  the  authority  of  the  pope,  which  in 
the  Roman  Church  is  an  artlculus  stantis  et  cadentis  ecclesice,  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  de- 
nomination. In  all  these  respects  they  are  still  valuable  and  indispen- 
sable in  the  present  order  of  things.     Every  well-regulated  society,  sec- 


1  Tertullian  already  speaks  of  the  regulafidei  immobilis  et  irreformabilis  (Be  virg.  vel.  C.  1); 
but  he  applied  it  only  to  the  simple  form  which  is  substantially  retained  in  the  Apostles' Creed. 


§  5.  CLASSIFICATION  OF  CREEDS.  9 

ular  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  con- 
science and  the  right  of  private  judgment;  that  they  engender  hypoc- 
risy, intolerance,  and  bigotry ;  that  they  produce  division  and  distrac- 
tion ;  that  they  perpetuate  religious  animosity  and  the  curse  of  secta- 
rianism ;  that,  by  the  law  of  reaction,  they  produce  dogmatic  indiffer- 
entism, 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.1  The  objections  have  some  force  in 
those  State  Churches  which  allow  no  liberty  for  dissenting  organiza- 
tions, 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  ex- 
posed to  controversy,  division,  and  change,  as  churches  with  formal 
creeds.  Keither  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  Ckeeds. 

The  Creeds  of  Christendom  may  be  divided  into  four  classes,  corre- 
sponding 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  (Ecumenical  Symbols  of  the  Ancient  Catholic  Church.    They 


1  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. 


10  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

'"contain  chiefly  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  God  and  of  Christ,  or  the  fun- 
damental dogmas  of  the  Holy  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation.  They  are 
Nthe  common  property  of  all  churches,  and  the  common  stock  from 
vvvhich  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  Lu- 
caris  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  Protest- 
antism. 

3.  The  Symbols  of  the  Roman  Church,  from  the  Council  of  Trent  to 
the  Council  of  the  Vatican  (15G3  to  1870).  They  sanction  the  distinc- 
tive 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  sev- 
enteenth 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  pro- 
founder  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. 


4 


§  5.  CLASSIFICATION  OF  CREEDS.  1 1 

The  former  were  all  made  in  Germany  from  A. D.  1530  to  1577;  the 
latter  arose  in  different  countries — Germany,  Switzerland,  France,  Hol- 
land, Hungary,  Poland,  England,  Scotland,  wherever  the  influence  of 
Zwingli  and  Calvin  extended.  The  Lutheran  and  Reformed  confes- 
sions 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  heretical  sects  connected  with  Protestantism  mostly  reject  sym- 
bolical 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  Concep- 
tion of  the  Virgin  Mary  (1S54),  and  the  Infallibility  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  (IS 70). 

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. 


12  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


SECOND  CHAPTER. 

THE    (ECUMENICAL   CREEDS. 

Literature  on  the  three  (Ecumenical  Creeds. 
Gerh.  Joan.  Voss  (Dutch  Reformed,  b.  near  Heidelberg  1577,  d.  at  Amsterdam  1649) :  De  tribus  Sym- 
bolis,  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  Athauasian  Creed. 

James  Ussher  (Lat.  Usserius,  Protestant  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  d.  1655) :  De  Romance  ecclesice  Sym- 
bolo  Apostolico  vetere,  aliisque  fldei  formulis,  turn  ab  Occidcntalibus  turn  ab  Orientalibus  in  prima  catcchesi 
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) :  Oriyines  Ecclesiastici ;  or  the  Antiquities 
of  the  Christian  Church  (first  publ.  1710-22  in  10  vols.,  aud  often  since  in  Engl,  and  in  the  Latin  trausl. 
of  Grischovius),  Book  X.  ch.  4. 

C.  G.  F.  Walch  (a  Lutheran,  d.  at  Gottiugen  in  17S4) :  Bibliotheca  SymbolAca  vctus,  Lemgo,  1770.  (A 
more  complete  collection  than  the  preceding  ones,  but  defective  in  the  texts.) 

E.  Kollner:  Symbolik  alter  christlichen  Confessionen,  Hamburg,  1S37  sqq.,Vol.  I.  pp.  1-92. 

Aug.  Hahn:  Bibliothek  der  Symbole  und  Glaubensreyeln  der  Apostolisch-katholischen  Kirche,  Breslau, 
1842.     (The  most  critical  edition  of  the  symbols  of  the  first  five  centuries.) 

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  Mediceval  English  Church.  Oxford,  1S58.  The 
same :  De  Fide  et  Symbolo.    Oxon.  et  Loud.  1869. 

C.  P.Caspari  (Prof,  in  Christiania) :  Ungedruckte,  unbeachtete  und  wenig  beachtete  Quellen  zur  Geschichte 
des  Taufsymbols  und  der  Glaubensrcgel.    Christiania,  1S66  to  1875,  3  vols. 

J.  Rawson  Lumby  (Prof,  at  Cambridge) :  The  History  of  the  Creeds.    Cambridge,  1S73. 

C.  A.  Swainson  (Prof,  of  Divinity,  Cambridge) :  The  Mcene  and  Apostles'  Creeds.  Their  Literary  His- 
tory; together  with  anAccount  of  the  Groioth  and  Reception  of 'the  Creed  of  St.Athanasius.'    Lond.lS75. 

F.  Joun  Anthony  Hort  (Prof,  in  Cambridge) :  Two  Dissertations  on  fiovoyevi]?  3eo9  and  on  the  '  Constan- 
tinopolitan''  Creed  and  other  Eastern  Creeds  of  the  Fourth  Century.    Cambridge  aud  London,  1876. 

§  6.  General  Character  of  the  (Ecumenical  Creeds. 

NBy  oecumenical  or  general  symbols  {symbola  cecumenica,  s.  catliolicctf 

-we  understand  the  doctrinal  confessions  of  ancient  Christianity, which 

"We  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  Kicene,  and  the  Athana- 
sian Creed.  The  first  is  the  simplest ;  the  other  two  are  fuller  develop- 
ments and  interpretations  of  the  same.  The  Apostles'  Creed  is  the 
most  popular  in  the  Western,  the  Nicene  in  the  Eastern  Churches. 

To  them  may  be  added  the  christological  statement  of  the  oecumenical 
Council  of  Chalcedon  (451).     It  has  a  more  undisputed  authority  than 

1  The  term  oiKovpsviKoc  (from  olKovp'tvn,  sc.  y»J,  orbis  tcrrarum,  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  ofNicsea  (32.">),  Constantinople  (381),  Eph- 
esus  (431),  and  Chalcedon  (451),  also  of  patriarchs,  bishops,  and  emperors,  and,  at  a  later 
period,  of  the  ancient  general  symbols,  to  distinguish  them  from  the  confessions  of  particular 
churches.  In  the  Protestant  Church  the  term  so  used  occurs  first  in  the  Lutheran  Book  of 
Concord  (oecumenica  seu  catholica). 


§  G.  GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  (ECUMENICAL  CREEDS.  13 

the  Athanasian  Creed  (to  which  the  term  oecumenical  applies  only  in  a 
qualified  sense),  but,  as  it  is  seldom  used,  it  is  generally  omitted  from 
the  collections. 

These  three  or  four  creeds  contain,  in  brief  popular  outline,  the  fun- 
damental articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  as  necessary  and  sufficient  for 
salvation.     They  embody  the  results  of  the  great  doctrinal  controvert 
sies  of  the  Kicene  and  post-Xicene  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  li- 
turgical use. 

'  The  Lutheran  and  Anglican  Churches  have  formally  recognized  and 
embodied  the  three  oecumenical  symbols  in  their  doctrinal  and  liturgical 
standards.1  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.2  This,  together  with  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, was  incorporated  in  the  Lutheran,  the  Genevan,  the  Heidelberg, 
and  other  standard  Catechisms. 

1  The  Lutheran  Form  of  Concord  (p.  i)G9)  calls  them  '  catholica  et  generalia  summce.  auc- 
toritalis  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 
(  hurch  of  England,  in  the  8th  of  her  30  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  wan  ants  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture.' 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. 

2  The  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  art.  11,  the  Gallican  Confession,  art.  :>,  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  Apostles1 
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  Ap- 
pendix, as  'a  brief  sum  of  the  Christian  faith,  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  (Jod,  and  anciently 
received  in  the  churches  of  Christ.' 


14:  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


§  7.  The  Apostles'  Creed. 

Literature. 

I.  See  the  Gen.  Lit.  ou  the  (Ecum.  Creeds,  §  6,  p.  12,  especially  Haiin,  Heurtley,  Lumby,  Swainson, 
and  Caspari  (the  third  vol.  1S75). 

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  pre- 
vailing 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  146S,  then  at  Rome 
1470,  at  Basle  1519,  etc. ;  also  in  the  Appendix  to  John  Fell's  ed.  of  Ciipriaris  Opera  (Oxon.  16S2,  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.  Oreed,  p.  11, 
but  without  good  reason. 

Ambrosius  (bishop  of  Milan,  d.  397) :  Tractatus  in  Sij7nbohmi  Apostolorum  (also  sub  tit.  Be  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,  1.  c.  p.  16,  defends  the  Ambrosiau  author- 
ship 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  Vete- 
rtimNova  Collectio,  Rom.  1833,  Vol.  VII.  pp.  156-15S,  and  by  Caspari,  in  the  work  quoted  above,  II.  4S  sq. 

Venant.  Fortunatus  (d.  about  600) :  Exp>ositio  Symboli  (Opera,  ed.  Aug.  Luchi,  Rom.  17S6). 

Augustinus  (bishop  of  Hippo,  d.  430) :  De  Fide  et  Symbolo  liber  unus.  Opera,  ed.  Bened.,  Tom.  XI. 
505-522.  Serino  de  Syvibolo  ad  catechumenos,  Tom. VIII.  1591-1610.  Sermones  de  traditione Symboli,  Tom. 
VIII.  936  sq. 

Mos.  A.MYRAT.DDS  (Amyraut,  Prof,  at  Saumur,  d.  1604) :  Exercitationes  in  Symb.  Apvst.  Salmur.  1663. 

Isaac  Barrow  (Master  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  d.  1677) ;  Sermons  on  the  Creed  (Theulog.  Works, 
8  vols.,  Oxf.  lS30,Vol.  IV.-VL). 

John  Pearson  (Bishop  of  Chester,  d.  16S6) :  An  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  1659,  3d  ed.  1669  fol.  (and  sev- 
eral 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  Ob- 
servations, London,  1702.    (The  same  in  Latin  by  Olearius,  Lips.  1706.) 

H.  Witsius  (Prof,  in  Leydeu,  d.  170S) :  Exereitationes  sacrce  in  Symbolum  quod  Ajiostolorum  dicitur, 
Amstel.  1700 ;  Basil.  1739.    English  translation  by  Fraser,  Edinb.  1823,  2  vols. 

J.  E.  Im.Walcii  (Professor  in  Jena,  d.  177S) :  Antiquitates  symbolicce,  quibus  Symboli  Apostolici  historia 
illustratur,  Jena,  1772,  8vo. 

A.  G.  Rudelbaoii  (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,  5S5.    An  exposition  of  the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Creed. 

Michel  Nicolas  :  Le  symbole  des  apotres,  Paris,  1S67.    Rationalistic. 

G.  Lisoo  (jun.) :  Das  ap>ostolischc  Glaubensbekenntniss,  Berlin,  1S72.  In  opposition  to  its  obligatory  use 
in  the  church. 

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

Carl  Semisoii  (Prof,  of  Church  History  in  Berlin):  Das  apostolische  Glaubensbekenntniss,  Berlin,  1S72 
(31  pp.). 

A.  Muoke:  Das  apostulische  Glaubensbckcnntnis8  der  cichte  Ausdruck  apostoUschcn  Glaubcns,  Berlin, 
1S73  (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  ad- 
mirable popular  summary  of  the  apostolic  teaching,  and  in  full  harmo- 
ny 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 
\>eed  of  creeds.     It  contains  all  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith  necessary  to  salvation,  in  the  form  of  facts,  in  simple  Scrip- 


§  7.  THE  APOSTLES'  CREED.  i^A 

ture  language,  and  in  the  most  natural  order — the  order  of  revelation — 
from  God  and  the  creation  down  to  the  resurrection  and  life  everlast- 
ing. 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  sim- 
ple 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.'1  It  is  by  far  the  best  popular  summary 
of  the  Christian  faith  ever  made  within  so  brief  a  space.  It  still  sur- 
passes all  later  symbols  for  catechetical  and  liturgical  purposes,  espe- 
cially as  a  profession  of  candidates  for  baptism  and  church  member- 
ship. It  is  not  a  logical  statement  of  abstract  doctrines,  but  a  profes- 
sion 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  super- 
seded for  popular  use  in  church  and  school.2 

1  This  change  was  observed  already  by  Rufinus  (1.  c.  §  3G),  who  says  :  'Non  dicit  "In  Sane- 
tarn  Ecclesiam,"  nee  "  In  remissionem  peccatorum,"  nee  "In  carnis  resurrectionem."  Si  enim 
addidissetiii~s"prttpositionem,unaeademquevisfirissetcumsuperioribus.  .  .  .  Hacprcepo- 
sitionis  sijllaba  Creator  a  creaturis  secernitur,  et  divina  separantur  ab  humanis.'  The  Roman 
Catechism  (T.  I.  c.  10,  qu.  19)  also  marks  this  distinction,  'Nunc  autem,  mutata  dicendi forma, 
"  sanctum,"  et  non  "in  sanctum"1  ecclesiam  credere  projitcmur.' 

3  Augustine  culls  the  Apostolic  Symbol  iregulajidei  brevis  et  grandis;  art '.vis  numcro  vcrbo- 
rum,  grandis  ponder e.  sententiarum.'  Luther  says  :  '  Christian  truth  could  not  possibly  be  put 
into  a  shorter  and  clearer  statement.'  Calvin  (Inst.,  Lib.  II.  c.  1(5,  §  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  i  '/</  extra  controversion!  posi- 
tum  hubemus,  totam  in  co  [Symbolo  Ap.~]Jidci  nostra-  historiam  succincte  distinctoque  online 
recenseri,  nihil  autem  contineri,  quod  solidis  Scriptural  testimoniis  nun  sit  consionatum.'  J.T. 
Midler  (Lutheran,  Die  Symb.  Biicher  do-  Evang.  Luth.  A'.,p.  xvi.):  'It  retains  the  doable 
significance  of  being  the  bond  of  union  of  the  universal  Christian  Church,  and  the  seed  (Venn 
which  all  other  creeds  have  grown.'     Dr.  Semisch  (Erang.  United,  successor  of  Dr.  N'cander 


16  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

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  arid  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  scien- 
tific mind  of  the  Church.  Thus  the  Nicene  Creed  gives  clearer  and 
^stronger  expression  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity  against  the  Ari- 
aiis.,  the  Athanasian  Creed  to  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and  of 
Christ's  person  against  the  various  heresies  of  the  posi^icjene  age. 
The  Reformation  Creeds  are  more  explicit  on  the  authority  and  inspi- 
ration 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  orig- 
inally and  essentially  a  baptismal  confession,  growing  out  of  the  inner 
life  and  practical  needs  of  early  Christianity.1     It  was  explained  to  the 

in  Berlin)  concludes  his  recent  essay  on  the  Creed  (p.  28)  with  the  words  :  '  It  is  in  its  primi- 
tive form  the  most  genuine  Christianity  from  the  mouth  of  Christ  himself  (das  dchteste  Chris- 
tenthum  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  im- 
mediate 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. 

1  Tertullian,  De  corona  militum,  c.  3 :  'Dehinc  ter  wergitamur,  amplius  ALIQUID  UESPON- 
dentes,  quam  Dominus  in  Evangelio  determinavit.'    The  amplim  respondentes  refers  to  the 


§  7.  THE  APOSTLES'  CREED.  17 

catechumens  at  the  last  stage  of  their  preparation,  professed  by  them 
at  baptism,  often  repeated,  with  the  Lord's  Prayer,  for  private  devotion, 
and  afterwards  introduced  into  public  service.1  It  was  called  by  the 
ante-Xicene  fathers 'the  rule  of  faith/  'the  rule  of  truth,'  'the  apostolic 
tradition,'  '  the  apostolic  preaching,'  afterwards  '  the  symbol  of  faith.'2 
But  this  baptismal  Creed  was  at  lirst  not  precisely  the  same.  It  as- 
sumed different  shapes  and  forms  in  different  congregations.3  Some 
were  longer,  some  shorter ;  some  declarative,  some  interrogative  in  the 
form  of  questions  and  answers.4     Each  of  the  larger  churches  adapted 


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. 

1  Augustine  (0/*.,  ed.  Bened.,VI.  Serm.  58):  iQuando  surgitis,  quando  vos  ad  soumum  col- 
locatis,  reddite  Symbol um  vestrum;  reddite  Domino.  .  .  .  Ne  dicatis,  Dixi  lieri,  dixi  hodie, 
quotidie  dico,  teneo  Mud  bene.  Commemora  Jidem  tuam :  inspice  te.  Sit  tanquam  speculum 
tibi  Symbolum  tuum.  Ibi  te  vide  si  credis  omnia  quce  te  credere  conjiteris,  et  gaude  quotidie 
in  fide  tua.' 

2  Kavuju  ti'iq  Triarewe,  K.  rijg  aXifttiac,  irapa^oaic  aTrooroXiKt) ,  to  dpxalov  r»/c  tKK\nciaQ,  av- 
arnfia,  regula  fidei,  reg.  veritatis,  traditio  a/>ostolica,  prcedicatio  ap.,  fides  cc.tholica,  etc.  Some- 
times these  terms  are  used  in  a  wider  sense,  and  embrace  the  whole  course  of  catechetical 
instruction. 

3  See  the  older  reguhr  fidei  mentioned  by  Irenseus  :  Contra  ha>r.,  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  prcB- 
scrijit.  hceret.,  c.  13;  Novatianus:  De  triuitate  s.  de  regula  fidei  (Bibl.  P.  P.,  ed.  Galland.  III. 
287);  Cyprian:  Ep.  ad  Magnum,  and  Ep.  ad  Januarium,  etc.  ;  Origen  :  De  principiis,  I. 
praef.  §  4-10 ;  Const.  Apost.  VI.  11  and  14.  They  are  given  in  Vol.  II.  pp.  11-40;  also 
by  Bingham,  Walch,  llahn,  and  Heurtley.  I  select,  as  a  specimen,  the  descriptive  ac- 
count 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  Monta- 
nist),  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 
1'nktm  Dki'.m  ohkifotbntem,  mundi  conditorem,  et  Filium  ejus Jesum  Christum,  natum 
ex  virgine  Maria,  crucifixum  sun  Pontio  Filato,  tertia  die  rescscitati.m  a  hortuis, 

RECEPTUM  IN  ClELIS,  SEDENTEM  NUNC  AD  DEXTERAM  FaTRIS,  VENTURUM  JUDIOARE  VIVOS  ET 

MORTUOS,  per  carnis  etiam  resurrectionem.  JIac  lege  fidei  manente  cetera  jam  disciplines 
et  conversationis  admittunt  novitatem  correctionis,  operante  scilicet  etprofidente  usque  in  finem 
gratia  Dei.'  In  his  tract  against  Fraxeas  (cap.  2)  he  mentions  also,  as  an  object  of  the  rule 
of  faith,  '  Sjnritum  Sanctum,  paracletum,  sanctificatorem  fidei  eorum  qui  crcdunt  in  Patrem  et 
Filium  et  Sjnritum  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  (  reed  may  he 
found  in  Ignatius,  Epistola  ml  Trallianos,  c.  9  (ed.  Ilefele,  p.  192),  where  he  says  of  Christ  that 
he  was  truly  bom  'of  the  Virgin  Mary'  (too  iic  Mapiag,  og  uXifiwc  iyivi't'iSn),  'suffered  under 
Pontius  Pilate'  («\>/3u)c  iCuoxSn  ini  UovtIov  UtXarov),  '  was  crucified  and  died'  (dA»}&wc 
ioravpiozi]  Kai  {'nriSaviv), and  'was  raised  from  the  dead'  (3c  icai  a\nd&c  >)yif>~n  <'"<>  VtKpSv, 
iytipavToc  abrav  too  7rarpoc,  avrov).  The  same  articles,  with  a  few  others,  can  he  traced  in 
Justin  Martyr's  Apol.  I.  c.  10, 13,  21,  42,  46,  50. 

4  Generally  distributed  under  three  heads:  1.  Credis  in  Dcum  Patrem  omnipotentem,  etc? 
Resp.  Credo.    2.  Credis  ct  in  Jesum  Christum,  etc.  ?     Resp.  Credo.     3.  Credis  et  in  Spiritum 


18  THE  CKEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  nucleus  of  the  apostolic  faith  to  its  peculiar  circumstances  and 
wants ;  but  they  all  agreed  in  the  essential  articles  of  faith,  in  the  gen- 
eral 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  par- 
ticular 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  frag- 
mentary. The  ante-Nicene  fathers  give  us  not  the  exact  and  full  for- 
mula, but  only  some  articles  with  descriptions,  defenses,  explications, 
and  applications.  The  creeds  were  committed  to  memory,  but  not  to 
writing.1  This  fact  is  to  be  explained  from  the  '  Secret  Discipline'  of 
the  ante-Nicene  Church.  From  fear  of  profanation  and  misconstruc- 
tion 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  com- 
municant members  until  the  Church  triumphed  in  the  Eoman  Empire.2 

The  first  writer  in  the  West  who  gives  us  the  text  of  the  Latin  creed, 
with  a  commentary,  is  Eufinus,  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.3 

Sanctum,  etc.?  Eesp.  Credo.  See  the  interrogative  Creeds  in  Martene,  De  antiquis  ecclesice 
ritibus,  1. 1,  c.  1,  and  in  Heurtley,  1.  c.  pp.  103-1 10. 

1  Hieronymns,  Ep.  01 ,  adPammach. :  iSymbolumJidei  et  spei  nostra,  quod  ab  apostolis  trad- 
itum,non  scribitur  in  charta  et  atramento,  sed  in  tabulis  cordis  carnalibus.'  Augustine,  Semi. 
ccxii,  2  :  lAudiendo  syrribolum  disciltir,  nee  in  tabulis  vel  in  aliqua  materia,  sed  in  corde  scrib- 
itur. ' 

2  On  the  Disciplina  arcani  comp.  my  Church  History,  1.384  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. 

3  See  these  Nicene  and  post-Xicene  Creeds  in  Hahn,  1.  c.  pp.  8  sqq.,  and  in  Heurtley,  1.  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,  1.  c.  II.  2(>4  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  (yitam  ceter- 
nam  per  sanctam  ecclesiam).     We  have  also,  from  the  Nicene  and  post-Nicene  age,  several 


§  7.  THE  APOSTLES'  CREED.  ly 

Among  these,  again,  the  Roman  formula  gradually  gained  general  ac- 
ceptance 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  (33G- 
341).  The  Greek  text  is  usually  regarded  as  a  translation,  but  is  prob- 
ably older  than  the  Latin,  and  may  date  from  the  second  century, 
when  the  Greek  language  prevailed  in  the  Roman  congregation.1 

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  Ra- 
venna and  Antioch).2  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  com- 
plete whole,  we  can  hardly  trace  it  beyond  the  sixth,  certainly  not  be- 
yond the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  and  its  triumph  over  all  the  other 
forms  in  the  Latin  Church  was  not  completed  till  the  eighth  ceuturv, 
or  about  the  time  when  the  bishops  of  Rome  strenuously  endeavored 
to  conform  the  liturgies  of  the  Western  churches  to  the  Roman  order.3 

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). 

1  See  Caspari,  Vol.  III.  pp.  28-1G1. 

*  The  last  clause  occurs  in  the  Greek  text  of  Marcellus  and  in  the  baptismal  creed  of  Anti- 
och (cat  t/c  (i^iapTiCjv  atyioiv  kci'i  tlq  viicpwv  avaa-aotv  cat  tig  £ui)v  atwvtov).  See  Caspari, 
Vol.  I.  pp.  83  sqq. 

3  Heurtley  says  (1.  c.  p.  120):  '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.I).  786,  there  is  one  remarkable  example  of  a  creed,  then 
in  use,  which  retains  much  of  the  incompleteness  of  the  formula  of  earlier  times,  the  Creel  of 
Etherius  Uxamensis.'  The  oldest  known  copies  of  our  present  tutus  rtceptut  arc  found  in 
manuscripts  of  works  which  can  not  be  traced  beyond  the  eighth  or  ninth  century,  viz.,  in  a 
iPs(tlterium  Grcecum  Gregorii  Magni,'  preserved  in  the  Library  of  Corpus  Christ!  College, 


20  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

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  en- 
tire 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).1 
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.2 


Cambridge,  and  first  published  by  Abp.  Usher,  1G47  (also  by  Heurtley,  1.  c.  p.  S2),  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. 

1  The  same  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  is  held  by  the  latest  writers  on  the 
subject,  as  Hahn,  Heurtley,  Caspari,  Zockler,  Semisch.  Zockler  says  (1.  c.  p.  18)  :  ''Das  Apos- 
tolicum  ist  hinsichtlich  seiner  jetzigen  Form  sowohl  nachapostolisch,  a!s  selbst  nachaugustinisch, 
aber  hinsichtlich  seines  Inhalts  ist  es  ?iicht  nur  i-oraugusthtisch,  sondern  ganz  unci  gar  apos- 
tolisch  —  in  diesen  einfachen  Satz  lasst  die  Suvime  der  einschldgigen  kritisch  patristischen 
Forschungsergebnisse  sich  kurzerhand  zusammendrdngen.  Und  die  Wahrheit  dieses  Satzes, 
soiveit  er  die  Apostolicitdt  des  Inhalts  behauptet,  lusst  sich  beziiglich  jedes  einzelnen  Gliedcs 
oder  Sdtzchens,  die  am  spdtesten  hinzugekommenen  nicht  ausgenommen,  mit  gleicher  Sichcrhcit 
erhdrten.'  Semisch  traces  the  several  articles,  separately  considered,  up  to  the  third  and 
second  centuries,  and  the  substance  to  the  first.  Er.  Spanheim  and  Calvin  did  the  same. 
Calvin  says :  lNeque  mihi  dubium  est,  quin  a  prima  statim  ecc/esice  origine,  adeoque  ab  ipso 
Apostolorum  seculo  instar  publicce  et  omnium  calculis  receptee  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.  1-1  Gl ). 

-  It  is  characteristic  that,  while  the  Church  of  England  is  agitated  by  the  question  of  dis- 
continuing simply  the  obligatory  use  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  the  Protestant  Churches  on 
the  Continent  are  disturbed  by  the  more  radical  question  of  setting  aside  the  Apostles'  Creed 
for  teaching  what  is  said  to  be  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  age.  Lisco  and  Sydow,  in  Berlin, 
have  taken  special  exception  to  the  clause  '  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,'  and  maintain,  in  the  face  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  that  Jesus  was  '  the  legitimate 
son  of  Joseph  and  Mary.'  On  the  other  hand,  several  valuable  treatises  have  been  written  in 
defense  of  the  Creed  by  Semisch,  Zockler,  Riggenbach,  and  others  (1872).  In  the  Canton 
Zurich  it  is  left  optional  with  the  ministers  to  use  the  Creed  in  the  baptismal  and  confirma- 
tion services,  or  not.  It  is  a  singular  fact  that  in  the  non-Episcopal  Churches  of  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States  the  Apostles'  Creed  is  practically  far  less  used,  but  much  more  gener- 
ally believed  than  in  some  State  Churches,  where  it  is  part  of  the  regular  worship,  like  the 
Lord's  Prayer.  The  Anglo-American  race  has  retained  the  doctrinal  substance  of  old  Cath- 
olic and  evangelical  Christianity,  while  the  Churches  of  the  Continent  have  been  shaken  to 
the  very  base  by  Rationalism. 


§  7.  THE  APOSTLES'  CREED.  21 

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.  33C-341),  and  the  received  form 
of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  came  into  general  nse  in  the  seventh  or 
eighth  century.     The  additions  are  inclosed  in  brackets. 

The  oi.n  Roman  Form.  The  Received  Fobm. 

1.  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty.1      1.  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty 

[Maker  of  heaven  and  earth].'1 

2.  And  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  Son,  our       2.  And  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  Son,  our 

Lord;  Lordj 

3.  Who  was  born  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the       3.  Who  was  {conceived"]  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 

Virgin  Mary  ;s  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ;4 

4.  Was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate  and      4.  [Suffered]*  under  Pontius  Pilate,was  cru- 

ras buried;  cihed  [dead],  and  buried 

[He  descended  into  Hell  {Hades)]  ;6 
;*).  The  third  day  he  rose  from  the  dead  ;  5.  The  third  day  he  rose  from  the  dead ; 

G.  lie  ascended  into  heaven  ;  and  sitteth  on       6.  He  ascended  into  heaven  ;  and  sitteth  on 
the  right  hand  of  the  Father ;  the   right  hand   of  [God]   the  Father 

[Almighty]? 

7.  From  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the       7.  From  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the 

quick  and  the  dead.  quick  and  the  dead. 

8.  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  8.  [/  believe]9  in  the  Holy  Ghost  ; 


1  The  Creed  of  Aquileja  has,  after  Patrem  omnipotentem,  the  addition  :  '  invisibilem  et  im- 
]>as$ibilem,'  in  opposition  to  Sabellianism  and  Patripassianism.  The  Oriental  creeds  insert 
one  before  God.     Marcellus  omits  Father,  and  reads  e«c  Stbv  nairoKparopa. 

2  'Creatorem  cceli  et  terroz  appears  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  from  the  close  of  the  seventh 
century,  but  was  extant  long  before  in  ante-Xicene  rules  of  faith  (Irenams,  Adv.  lurr.  I.  c.  10, 
1 :  Tertullian,  De  vel.  virg.  c.  \,itnundi  conditorem  ;'  De  prcescr.  ho?ret.  c.  13),  in  the  Nicene 
Creed  (7roo;r>)i'  ovpavov  Kai  yi/c,  k.t.X.),  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). 

3  lQui  not  us  est  de  Spiritu  Sancto  ex  (or  et)  Maria  virgine.' 

4  'Qui  coxceptus  est  de  S/iiritu  Sancto,  natus  ex  Maria  virgine.'  The  distinction  between 
conception  and  birth  first  appears  in  the  Sermones  de  Tempore,  falsely  attributed  to  Augus- 
tine. 

s  'Passus,'  perhaps  from  the  Nicene  Creed  (iraSovra,  which  there  implies  the  crucifixion). 
In  some  forms  ' crucijixus,'  in  others  lmarttuu?  is  omitted. 

6  From  the  Aquilejan  Creed:  'Descendit  ad  inferna,'  or,  as  the  Athanasian  Creed  lias  it, 
1  ad  inferos,' to  the  inhabitants  of  the  spirit-world.  Some  Eastern  (Ai Ian )  creeds  :  BOr</3q 
ti'c  rov  actjv  (also  tig  ra  KaraySovia,  or  U£  ra  Kartorara).  Augustine  says  (Pj>.  '.>'•>,  al.  104, 
§  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,  how- 
ever, misunderstood  it  by  making  it  to  mean  the  same  as  buried  (§  18  :  '  vie  verbi  eadem  vi- 
detur  esse  in  eo  quod  sepultus  dicitur"). 

'  The  additions  'Dei'  and  '  omnipoten/is,'  made  to  conform  to  article  first,  are  traced  to  the 
Spanish  version  of  the  Creed  as  given  by  Ktherius  (Jxamensis  (bishop  of  Osma),  A.D.  786, 
but  occur  already  in  earlier  Gallican  creeds.     See  Heurtley,  pp.  60,  <17. 

8  'Credo,'  in  common  use  from  the  time  of  Petrus  Chrysologus,  d.  460.  Bat  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. 


22  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  old  Roman  Form.  The  Received  Form. 

9.  The  Holy  Church  ;  0.  The  Holy  [Catholic]1  Church 

\_The  communion  of  saints]  ;2 

10.  The  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  1 0.  The  forgiveness  of  sins  ; 

11.  The  resurrection  of  the  body  (flesh).3  11 .  The  resurrection  of  the  body  (flesh)  ; 

12.  [And  the  life  everlasting].* 

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  Christen- 
dom 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).5 
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 
7iostri'),  and  falsely  derives  from  this  supposed  joint  authorship  the  name  symbolon  (from 
<jv/.tf3d\\eiv,  in  the  sense  to  contribute);  confounding  GvpftoXoi',  sign,\\\\\\  trvppoXr],  contribu- 
tion QSymbolum  Greece  et  indicium  did  potest  et  collatio,  hoc  est,  quod  plures  in  unum  confe- 
runt1).  The  same  view  is  expressed,  with  various  modifications,  by  Ambrosius  of  Milan  (d.  3'J7), 
in  his  Explanatio  Symboli  ad  initiandos,  where  he  says:  lApostoli  sancti  convenient  es  fece- 
runt  symbolum  breviter ;'  by  John  Cassianus  (about  424),  De  incarnat.  Dom.YI.  3;  Leo  M., 
Ep.  27  ad  Pulcheriam  ;  Venantius  Fortunatus,  Expos,  brevis  Symboli  Ap. ;  Isidores  of  Seville 
(d.  63G).  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 


1  lCatholicain  (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  Smyrnicos,  cap.  8  :  i6(T7rep  ottou  av  y  Xpiaruc  'lr/voiie,  tKtl  i)  naSoXiio) 
iKieXnoia),  and  in  the  Martyrium  Poly  carpi  (inscription,  and  cap.  8:  airaai]Q  rijc  Kara.  ti)v 
oiKovfiivnv  KaSo\iKi]c  tiacXriaiae,  comp.  c.  19,  where  Christ  is  called  noipt)v  r//c  Kara  oikov- 
fiiv7]v  /ca3oXi(c/)c  tiacXnaiac.). 

2  The  article  '  Commumonem  sanctorum,'  unknown  to  Augustine  (Enchir.  c.  G4,  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  eai-lier  Latin  creeds.  See  the  note  of  Pearson  On  the  Creed, 
Art.  IX.  sub  ''The  Communion  of  Saints'  (p.  525,  ed.  Dobson).     Heurtley,  p.  14G,  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  de- 
parted. 

3  The  Latin  reads  carnis,  the  Greek  oapicoc,  flesh ;  the  Aquilejan  form  hujus  carnis,  of  mis 
flesh  (which  is  still  more  realistic,  and  almost  materialistic), '  ut  possit  caro  vel  jmdica  coro- 
nari,  vel  impudica  punirV  (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. 

4  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  resurrec- 
tionem  in  vitam  aternam.  The  Greek  Creed  of  Marcellus,  which  otherwise  agrees  with  the 
old  Roman  form,  ends  with  £w»}i>  aiwviov. 

s  The  old  Roman  form  has  only  eleven  articles,  unless  art.  G  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. 


§  7.  THE  APOSTLES'  CREED.  23 

Sermones  de  Sgmbolo,  in  Hahn,  1.  c.  p.  24,  and  another  from  a  Sacramentarium  Galllcanum  of 
the  seventh  century,  in  Heurtley,  p.  <>7. 

The  Roman  Catechism  gives  ecclesiastical  sanction,  as  far  as  the  Roman  Church 
cerned,  to  the  fiction  of  a  direct  apostolic  anthorship.1  Meyers,  I.  c  advocates  it  at  length, 
and  Abbe  Martigny,  in  his  'Dictionnaire  des  antiquities  Chritiennes,'  Paris,  1865  (art.  Sym- 
bole  des  apStres,  p.  023),  boldly  asserts,  without  a  shadow  of  proof:  iFidelement  attache  a  la 
tradition  de  V Eg  Use  catkoKque,  nuns  tenons,  non-seulement  qu'il  est  I'ceuvre  des  apdtres,  mail 
encore  qu'il  fut  compose  par  eux,  alors  que  r€unis  it  Jerusalem,  Us  allaient  se  dtsperser  dans 
I'univers  entier ;  et  qu'ils  volurent,  avant  de  se  se'parer.jixer  une  riffle  defoi  vraiment  unijorme 
et  catholique,  destine'e  a  etre  livr€e,  partout  la  mime,  aux  cat€chumenes.' 

Even  among  Protestants  the  old  tradition  has  occasionally  found  advocates,  such  as  Les- 
sing(l  77St,  Delbriick(1826),  Rudelbach  (1844), and  especially  Grundtvig  (d.  |872).  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  Lau- 
rentius  Valla,  Erasmus, Calvin5) has  been  so  clearly  disproved  long  since  by  Vossius,  Rivetos, 
Voetius,  Usher,  Bingham,  Pearson,  King,  Welch,  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  pro- 
duction 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  7e  Dewtn,  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,'  Ileb.  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  ex- 
plained without  such  assumption. 

3.  The  silence  of  the  apostolic  fathers  and  all  the  ante-Xicene  and  Xicene  fathers  and 
synods.  Even  the  oecumenical  Council  of  Nicrea  knows  nothing  of  a  symbol  of  strictly  apos- 
tolic 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  varia- 
tions 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.'3 

5.  The  tact  that  the  Apostles'  Creed  never  had  any  general  currency  in  the  East,  where  the 
Xicene  Creed  occupies  its  place,  with  an  almost  equal  claim  to  apostolicity  as  far  as  the  sub- 
stance is  concerned. 

1  Pars  prima,  cap.  1,  qu.  2  ( Libri  Si/mbolici  Eccl.  Cath.,  ed.  Streitwolf  and  Klener.  Tom.  I. 
p.  1 1 1)  :  'Qua  iffitur  primum  Christiani  homines  tenere  debent,  ilia  sunt,  quajidei  duces,  doe- 
toresque  sancti  Apostoli,  divino  "Spiritu  afflati,  duoderim  Symboli  articulis  disliuxcrunt.  A  am, 
cum  mandatum  a  Domino  accepissent,  vet.  pro  ipso  legation?  fungentes,  in  universum  mundi 
proficiscerentur,  atque  omni  creaturrr  Evangelium  pradicarent :  Christiana'  jidri  formnlt 
componendam  censuerunt,  ut  scilicet  id  omnes  sentirent  ac  dicerent,  neque  ulla  essent  inter  60S 
schismata,'  etc.  Ibid.  qu.  3  :  'JIanr  autem  Christiana*  fidei  et  spei  professiom  m  a  u  composi- 
tam  Apostoli  Symbolum  appellarunt;  sire  quia  ex  variis  sententiis,  quas  singuU  in  commum 
contulerunt,  conftata  est ;  sir,>  quia  ea  veluti  nota,  et  tessera  quadam  uterentur,  qua  desertores 
et  subinlroductos  falsos  fratn  s,  qui  Evangelium  adulterabant,  ab  Us,  qui  vera  C/tristi  militia 
Sacramento  se  obi igarent,  facile  jiossent  internoscere.' 

2  In  his  Catechism,  Calvin  says  that  the  formula  of  the  common  Christian  faith  is  called 
symbolum  apostolorum,  quod  vel  ab  ore  apostolorum  excepta  /unit,  pel  ex  eorum  scriptis  fide- 
liter  collecta. 

3  Dr.  Nevin  (1.  c.  p.  107),  who  otherwise  puts  the  highest  estimate  on  the  Creed.  Sec  the 
comparative  tables  on  the  gradual  growth  of  the  Creed  in  the  second  volume  of  this  work. 

Vol.  I.— C 


a  in 

milium 


24  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


§  S.  The  Nicene  Creed. 

Literature. 

I.  See  the  works  on  the  oecumenical  Creeds  noticed  p.  12,  and  the  extensive  literature  on  the  Council 
of  Nicaea,  mentioned  in  my  Church  History,  Vol.  III.  pp.  610,  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  Nicsea 
is  more  or  less  fully  discussed  in  the  historical  works,  general  or  particular,  of  Tillemont,  Walch, 
Schrockh,  Gibbon,  A.  de  Broglie,  Neander,  Gieseler,  Baur  {Hist,  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity),  Dorner 
(History  of  Christoloyy),  Hefele  (History  of  Councils),  Stanley  (History  of  the  Eastern  Church). 

II.  Special  treatises  on  the  Nicene  symbol : 

Ph.  Melanchtuon  :  Explicatio  Symb.  Nicceni,  ed.  a  J.  Sturione,N\teb.  1501,  8vo. 

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

J.  H.  Heidegger  (d.  1098) :  De  Symbolo  Nicceno-Constantinopolitano  (Tom.  Il.Disput.select.pp.no  sqq., 
Turici,  1675-97). 

J.  G.  Baier  :  De  Cone.  Nicceni  primi  et  cecum,  auctoritate  atque  integritatc,  Jen.  1695  (in  Disputat.  theol. 
decad.  I.). 

T.  Feout:  Innocentia  Concilii  et  Symboli  Nico?ni,  Rostock,  1711. 

T.  Caspar  Scicer  (d.  1684) :  Symbolum  Nicceno-Constant.  expositum  et  ex  antiquitate  ecclcsiastica  illus- 
tratum,  Traj.  ad  Rh.  1718, 4to. 

George  Bull  (d.  1710) :  Defetisio  Fidei  Niccence,  Oxon.  16S7,  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  Symbolem  Niceno-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'  (b/uoovmog  to>  Trarpi), '  begotten  be- 
fore all  worlds'  (717)0  iravTwv  twv  aluvuv), '  very  God  of  very  God'  (Stbg 
aXrjSivbg  Ik  Stov  a\r}Sivov), '  begotten,  not  made'  (ytvvrj^dg,  ov  Tronfttig), 
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  under- 
gone again  some  changes.1 

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.2 

We  must  distinguish  two  independent  or  parallel  creed  formations, 


1  Compare  the  symbols  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  the  church  of  Alexandria,  and  the 
creed  of  Cassarea,  which  Eusebius  read  at  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  in  Usher,  1.  c.  pp.  7, 8  ;  more 
fully  in  Vol.  II.  pp.  11  sqq.,  and  in  Ilahn,  BUdiothch  der  Symhole,  pp.  40  sqq.,  91  sqq. 

2  Eusebius,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  people  of  Ca?sarea,  says  of  the  creed  which  he  had  proposed 
to  the  Council  of  Nictra  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.  20.  The 
shorter  creed  of  Jerusalem  used  at  baptism,  as  given  by  Cyril,  Catev.h.  xix.  9,  is  simply  the 
baptismal  formula  put  interrogatively;  see  Ilahn,  pp.  51  sqq. 


§  8.  THE  NICENE  CREED.  25 

an  Eastern  and  a  Western ;  the  one  resulted  in  the  Nicene  Creed  as 
completed  by  the  Synod  of  Constantinople,  the  other  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed  in  its  Eoman  form.  The  Eastern  creeds  were  more  metaphys- 
ical, polemical,  flexible,  and  adapting  themselves  to  the  exigencies  of  the 
Church  in  the  maintenance  of  her  faith  and  conflict  with  heretics ;  the 
Western  were  more  simple,  practical,  and  stationary.  The  former  were 
controlled  by  synods,  and  received  their  final  shape  and  sanction  from 
two  oecumenical  Councils ;  the  latter  were  left  to  the  custody  of  the 
several  churches,  each  feeling  at  liberty  to  make  additions  or  altera- 
tions within  certain  limits,  until  the  Eoman  form  superseded  all  others, 
and  was  quietly,  and  without  formal  synodical  action,  adopted  by  West- 
ern Christendom. 

In  the  Nicene  Creed  we  must  distinguish  three  forms — the  original 
Nicene,  the  enlarged  Constantinopolitan,  and  the  still  later  Latin. 

1.  The  original  Nicene  Creed  dates  from  the  first  oecumenical  Coun- 
cil, which  was  held  at  Nicsea,  A.D.  325,  for  the  settlement  of  the  Arian 
controversy,  and  consisted  of  318  bishops,  all  of  them  from  the  East 
(except  Ilosius  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  Nicseno-  Constantinopolitan  Creed,  besides  some  minor 
changes  in  the  first  two  articles,1  adds  all  the  clauses  after  'Holy 
Ghost,'  but  omits  the  anathema.  It  gives  the  text  as  now  received  in 
the  Eastern  Church.  It  is  usually  traced  to  the  second  oecumenical 
Council,  which  was  convened  by  Theodosius  in  Constantinople,  A.D. 
381,  against  the  Macedonians  or  Pneumatomachians  (so  called  for  de- 
nying the  deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit),  and  consisted  of  150  bishops,  all 
from  the  East.  There  is  no  authentic  evidence  of  an  oecumenical 
recognition  of  this  enlarged  Creed  till  the  Council  at  Chalcedon,  451, 
where  it  was  read  by  Aetius  (a  deacon  of  Constantinople)  as  the 
'Creed  of  the  150  fathers,' and  accepted  as  orthodox,  together  with 
the  old  Nicene  Creed,  or  the  '  Creed  of  the  31S  fathers.'  But  the  ad- 
ditional clauses  existed  in  374-,  seven  years  before  the  Constantino- 
politan Council,  in  the  two  creeds  of  Epiphanius,  a  native  of  Pales- 

1  The  most  remarkable  change  in  the  first  article  is  the  omission  of  the  words  rovrioriv  Ik  r/Jc 
oixn'ac  tov  Ilarpiic,  ctov  Ik  Ziov,  on  which  great  stress  was  laid  by  t lie  Athana>ian  party  against 
the  Arians,  who  maintained  that  the  Son  was  not  of  the  essence,  but  of  the  xcill  of  the  Father. 


26  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

tine,  and  most  of  them  as  early  as  350,  in  the  creed  of  Cyril  of  Je- 
rusalem.1 

The  Nicene  Creed  comes  nearest  to  that  of  Eusebius  of  Csesarea, 
which  likewise  abruptly  closes  with  Trvtv/ua  ayiov;  the  Constantino- 
politan  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  (tKiropfvaii;)  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  (nt/uiipig)  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  cur- 
rency 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.  S09,  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.  (S58),  and  was  gradually  adopted  in  the  entire  Latin 
Church.     From  this  it  passed  into  the  Protestant  Churches.2 

Another  addition  in  the  Latin  ioww,'- Deus  de  Deo]  in  article  II.,  cre- 

1  See  Vol.  II.  pp.  31-38,  and  the  Comparative  Table,  p.  40;  Luraby,  p.  G8;  and  Hort, 
pp.  72-150.  Dr.  Ilort  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  3G2-3(<4,  when  he  adopted  the  Nicene  Iiomoousia,  and  may  have 
been  read  by  him  at  the  Council  of  Constantinople  in  vindication  of  his  orthodoxy.  Ffonlkes 
(in  Smith's  Diet,  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. 

s  Comp.  Vol.  II.,  at  the  close. 


§  8.  THE  NICENE  CREED.  27 

ated  no  difficulty,  as  it  was  in  the  original  Nicene  Creed,  but  it  is  use- 
less on  account  of  the  following  iDext-s  verus  de  Deo  vero,1  and  hence 
was  omitted  in  the  Constantinopolitan  edition. 

The  Nicene  Creed  (without  these  Western  additions)  is  more  high- 
ly 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.1  It  was  adopted  by  the  Council  of  Trent  as  the 
fundamental  Symbol,  and  embodied  in  the  Profession  of  the  Triden- 
tine  Faith  by  Pius  IV.  It  is  therefore  more  strictly  an  oecumenical 
Creed  than  the  Apostles'  and  the  Athanasian,  which  have  never  been 
fully  naturalized  in  the  Oriental  Churches. 

.  .  .  '  The  faith  of  the  Trinity  lies, 
Shrined  for  ever  and  ever,  in  those  grand  old  words  and  wise ; 
A  gem  in  a  beautiful  setting ;  still,  at  matin-time, 
The  service  of  Holy  Communion  rings  the  ancient  chime ; 
Wherever  in  marvelous  minster,  or  village  churches  small, 
Men  to  the  Man  that  is  God  out  of  their  misery  call, 
Swelled  by  the  rapture  of  choirs,  or  borne  on  the  poor  man's  word, 
Still  the  glorious  Nicene  confession  unaltered  is  heard ; 
Most  like  the  song  that  the  angels  are  singing  around  the  throne, 
With  their  "Holy!  holy!  holy!"  to  the  great  Three  in  One.'2 

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 J  believe3  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  Jescs  Christ,  his  only  Son,  our      2.  And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 

Lord;  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God, 

Begotten  of  the  Father  before  all  worlds  | 

[God  of  God], 

Light  of  Light, 

Very  God  of  very  God, 


1  In  the  Reformed  Churches,  except  the  Episcopal,  the  Nicene  Creed  is  little  used.  Calvin. 
who  had  a  very  high  opinion  of  the  Apostles'  (iced,  depreciates  the  Nicene  Creed,  as  a  '  <•-//■- 
men  catitillando  magis  aptum,  quam  confessionis  formula'  (De  Reform.  Eccles."). 

2  From  'A  Legend  of  the  Council  of  Nice,' by  Cecil  Frances  Alexander,  in  iThe  Contem- 
porary Review1  for  February,  1867,  pp.  17(i-l  "'.). 

3  The  Greek  reads  the  plural  (irioTivofiii'),  but  the  Latin  and  Fnglish  versions  have  substi- 
tuted  for  it  the  singular  (credo,  I  believe),  in  accordance  with  the  Apostles'  Creed  and  the 
more  subjective  character  of  the  Western  churches. 


28 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


The  Apostles'  Creed  ;  Keceived  Text. 


The  Nicene  Creed,  as  enlarged  A.D.  381. 
Begotten,  not  made, 

Being  of  one  substance  with  the  Father ; 
By  whom  all  things  were  made  ; 

3.  Who,  for  us  men,  and  for  our  salvation, 
came  down  from  heaven, 

And  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of 

the  Virgin  Mary, 
And  was  made  man ; 

4.  He  was  crucified  for  us   under  Pontius 
Pilate ; 

And  suffered  and  was  buried  ; 

***** 

5.  And  the  third  day  he  rose  again, 
According  to  the  Scriptures ; 

G.  And  ascended  into  heaven, 

And  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Fa- 
ther ; 

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  Hoi/sr  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  ; 
WTho  spake  by  the  Prophets. 

9.  And  [I  believe]  in1  one  holy  catholic  and 
apostolic  Church ; 

***** 

10.  We  [I]  acknowledge2  one  baptism  for  the 
remission  of  sins ; 

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  Constantinopolitan  Creed  of  3S1.* 
We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Al- 
mighty, Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  of 
all  things  visible  and  invisible. 


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


4.  [Suffered]  under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  cru- 

cified [dead],  and  buried ; 

[He  descended  into  Hades]  ; 

5.  The  third  day  he  rose  again  from  the  dead ; 

6.  He  ascended  into  heaven, 

And  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  [God] 
the  Father  [Almighty] ; 

7.  From  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the 

quick  and  the  dead. 

8.  And  [I  believe]  in  the  Holy  Ghost- 


9.  The  holy  [catholic]  Church  ; 

[The  communion  of  saints]  ; 

10.  The  forgiveness  of  sins; 

11.  The  resurrection  of  the  flesh  [body]  ; 


The  Nicene  Creed  of  325.3 
We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Al- 
mighty, Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  in- 
visible. 


1  The  Greek  reads  tic  fiiav  .  .  .  k/cX/;<Tia^,but  the  Latin  and  English  versions,  in  conformity 
with  the  Apostles'  Creed,  mostly  omit  in  before  eccleslam ;  see  p.  1 5. 

2  Here  and  in  art.  11  the  singular  is  substituted  in  Western  translations  for  ufioXoyoT^ui' 
and  TTpocSoKujiiiv. 

3  The  Greek  original  is  given,  together  with  the  similar  Palestinian  confession,  by  Eusebius 
in  his  Ejnstola  ad  Cnsareenses,  which  is  preserved  by  Athanasius  at  the  close  of  his  Ejnstola 
de  decretis  Synodi  Niccence  (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,  //.  E.  I. 
12  ;  Socrates,  //.  E.  I.  8;  Gelasius,  //.  Cone.  Nir.  1.  II.  c.  3.">.  See  the  literature  and  varia- 
tions in  Walch,  1.  c.  pp.  75  and  87  sqq. ;  also  in  Ilahn,  1.  c.  pp.  105  sqq. 

4  The  Greek  text  in  the  acts  of  the  second  oecumenical  Council  (Mansi,  Tom.  III.  p.  5G5  ; 
IIardouin,VoI.  I.  p.  814),  and  also  in  the  acts  of  the  fourth  oecumenical  Council.  See  Vol.  II. 
p.  35  ;  Ilahn,  1.  c.  p.  1 1 1  ;  and  my  Church  Hist.  Vol.  III.  pp.  GG7  sqq. 


§  9.  THE  CREED  OF  CHALCEDON. 


-.' 


The  Nioene  Creed  or  325. 
And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Chkist,  the  Son 
of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father  [the  only-be- 
gotten ;  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  (iipoovaiov)  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  lie  rose  again,  ascended  into  heaven  ; 
from  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick 
and  the  dead. 


And  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 


The  Conbtantinop.h.itan  Cans  • 
And  in  one  Lord  Jebub  Chribt,  the  only- 
begotten  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father 
before  all  worlds  (aeons),  Light  of  Light,  very 
God  of  very  God,  begotten,  not  made,  being 
of  one  substance  with  the  Father;  by  whom 
all  things  were  made;  who  for  US  men,  and  for 
our  salvation,  came  down  from  heaven,  and 
was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  and  was  made  man  ;  he  wot  crucifii  d 
for  us  under  Pontius  Pilttti ,  and  Buffered,  (ind 
ivus  buried,  and  the  third  day  he  rose  again, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  tin- 
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  Holt  Ghost,  the  Lord  and 
Giver  of  life,  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father, 
who  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  together  is 
worshiped  and  glorified,  icho  spake  by  the 
prophets.  In  one  holy  catholic  and  apostoKc 
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   con- 
demned by  the  holv  catholic   and  apostolic 

Church.]  " 

§  9.  The  Greed  of  Chalcedon. 

Literature. 

The  Acta  Coneilii  in  the  collections  of  Manbi,  Tom.VII.,  and  of  Hardouin,  Tom.  II. 

Evaouius:  Historia  eccl.  lib.  II.  c.  2,4, 18. 

Faoitnucs  (Bishop  of  Hermiaue,  iu  Africa) :  Pro  de/ens.  trium  capitulorum,  lib.V.  c.  3,  4;  lib.VIII.  c.  4 
(see  Gallandi,  Bibl.  PP.  Tom.  XI.  pp.  713  sqq.). 

Liueratus  (Archdeacon  of  Carthage) :  Breviarium  causa?  Kestoriancrum  et  Butychianorum,  c.  13  (Gal- 
landi, Tom.  XII.  pp.  142  sqq.). 

Baronics:  Annal.  ad  ami.  451,  No.  55  sqq. 

Edm.  Richer:  Hist,  concil.  mneralium,  Paris,  1CS0  (Amst.  1GSC,  3  vols.),  lib.  I.  c.  S. 

Tii.i.kmont:  Memoires,  etc.  Tom.  XV.  pp.  C28  sqq.  (iu  the  article  ou  Leo  the  Great). 

Natai.is  Alexander  :  Hist,  eccles.  sec.  V.  Tom.  V.  pp.  64  sqq.  and  pp.  209  sqq. 

Quesnei.:  Synopsis  actorum  Cone.  Chalcedon.,  in  his  Dissertat.  de  vita,  etc.,  S.  Leonis  (see  the  Ballcrini 
edition  of  the  works  of  Leo  the  Great,  Tom.  II.  pp.  501  sqq.). 

IIui.semann:  Exercit.  ad  Concil.  Chalcedon.  Lips.  1C51. 

Cave:  Hist  literaria,  etc.  pp.  311  sqq.  ed.  Geuev.  1705. 

Walob  :  hitzcrhwtorie,\'o\.\'l.  p.  329  sq.  •  and  his  Historic  der  Ktrchmtersommlungen,  p.  307  sq. 

Aue.npt:  Papst  Leo  der  Grosse,  Mainz,  1880)  pp.  267-322. 

Dorner:  History  of  the  Development  of  the  Doctr.  of  the  Person  of  Christ  (2d  Germ.  ed.\  Part  II.  99-150. 

Uf.fei.e  :  History  of  the  Councils,  Freiburg, Vol.  II.  (1S56).  p.  392  sq. 

Sohafk  :  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  N.Y.  1S67,  Vol.  III.  pp.  740  sqq.  Comp.  the  literature  there  on 
pp.  703sq.,7l4sq.,722. 

The  Creed  of  Chalcedon  was  adopted  at  the  fourth  and  fifth  ses- 
sions of  the  fourth  oecumenical  Council,  held  at  Chalcedon,  opposite 
Constantinople,  A.D.  451  (Oct.  2 2d  and  25th).  It  embraces  the  Nicceno- 
Constantinopolitan  Creed,  and  the  christological  doctrine  set   forth  in 


30  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  classical  Epistola  Dogmatica  of  Pope  Leo  the  Great  to  Flavian, 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  and  martyr  of  diophysitic  orthodoxy 
at  the  so-called  Council  of  Eobbers  (held  at  Ephesus  in  449).1 

While  the  first  Council  of  Nicsea  had  established  the  eternal,  pre-ex- 
istent  Godhead  of  Christ,  the  Symbol  of  the  fourth  oecumenical  Council 
relates  to  the  incarnate  Logos,  as  he  walked  upon  earth  and  sits  on  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father.     It  is  directed  against  the  errors  of  Nestorius 
and  Eutyches,  who  agreed  with  the  Nicene  Creed  as  opposed  to  Arian- 
ism,  but  put  the  Godhead  of  Christ  in  a  false  relation  to  his  humanity, 
•sit  substantially   completes  the    orthodox  Christology  of  the  ancient 
^Church ;  for  the  definitions  added  during  the  Monophysite  and  Mono- 
-  thelite  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  be- 
tween Nestorianism  and  Eutychianism. 

The  following  are  the  leading  ideas  of  the  Chalcedonian  Christology 
as  embodied  in  this  symbol  :2 

1.  A  true  incarnation  of  the  Logos,  or  the  second  person  in  the  God- 
head (tvavSpioirri<jiQ  Seov,  IvaapKuxxig  tov  \6yov,  incarnatio  Verhi)? 
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  {upacnq,  ovyyyaiq)  of  the  two;  nor,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  mere  indwelling  ilvo'iK^mg,  inhabitatio)  of  the  one  in  the 
other,  nor  an  outward,  transitory  connection  (avvcupua,  conjunctio)  of 
the  two  factors,  but  an  actual  and  abiding  union  of  the  two  in  one  per- 
sonal life. 

2.  The  precise  distinction  between  nature  and  person.  Nature  or 
substance  (essence,  ovala)  denotes  the  totality  of  powers  and  qualities 
which  constitute  a  being;  while  person  (vTroaraatg,  irpoato-rrov)  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. 


J  Comp.  my  Chwch  Hist.Vol  III.  p.  738.  ^ 

2  Abridged,  in  part,  from  my  Church  History,  Vol.  III.  pp.  747  sqq. 

3  The  diametrical  opposite  of  the  ivavSpwiiijaic.  Siov  is  the  heathen  cnroStwots  diSpioirov. 


§  9.  THE  CREED  OF  CIIALCEDOX.  31 

3.  The  God-man  as  the  result  of  the  incarnation.  Christ  is  not  a 
(Xestorian)  double  being,  with  two  persons,  nor  a  compound  (Apollina- 
rian  or  Monophysite)  middle  being,  a  tertium  quid,  neither  divine  nor 
human  ;  but  he  is  one  person  loth  divine  and  human. 

4.  The  duality  of  the  natubes.  The  orthodox  doctrine  maintains, 
against  Entychianism.  the  distinction  of  nature  even  after  the  act  of 
incarnation,  without  confusion  or  conversion  (acrvy\vT(jjg,  inoonjkbse^ 
and  urpiirrwq,  immutabiliter),  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  without  division 
or  separation  (aSiaiptruyg,  indirise,  and  axtopt<nwG,in8eparabiliter),  bo 
that  the  divine  will  ever  remain  divine,  and  the  human  ever  human,1 
and  yet  the  two  have  continually  one  common  life,  and  interpenetrate 
each  other,  like  the  persons  of  the  Trinity.2 

5.  The  unity  OF  the  FERSON  (tviooic  •"»$"'  vttugtcutiv,  svioctiq  viroaTaTiKii, 
unio  hypostatics  or  unio  personalis).  The  union  of  the  divine  and 
human  nature  in  Christ  is  a  permanent  state  resulting  from  the  incar- 
nation, 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  be- 
liever 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.  .  .  .  Be- 
cause 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 


1  'Tenet,'  says  Leo,  in  his  Fpist.  28  ad  Flavian.,  'sine  defectu  proprietatem  swim  utraque 
natura,  ct  sicut  formam  servi  Lie  i  forma  non  adimit,  itaformam  Dei  servi  forma  non  minuit. 
.  .  .  At/it  utraque  forma  cum  alterius  communione  quod  proprium  est ;  Verbo  scilicet  operante 
quod  Verbi  est,  et  came  exsequente  quod  carnis  est.  Unum  horum  corvscat  miraculis,  aliud 
Bucctanbit  iujuriis.  Et  sicut  Verbum  ab  (rqualitate  }>aternit  yhrio?  non  reccdit,  tla  caro  natu- 
ram  nostri  generis  non  rel'inqui^' 

3  Here  belongs,  in  further  explanation,  the  scholastic  doctrine  of  the  Trtpix<l>pi]ntc,  per- 
meatio,  circummeatio,  circulatio,  circumincessio,  intercommunio,  or  reciprocal  indwelling  and 
pervasion,  which  has  relation,  not  merely  to  the  Trinity,  but  also  to  Christology.  The 
verb  Trtpix^ptiv  is  first  applied  by  Gregory  of  Xyssa  (Contra  Apollinariuni)  to  the  interpene- 
tration  and  reciprocal  pervasion  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ.  On  this  rested  abo  the  doc- 
trine of  the  exchange  or  communication  of  attributes,  dvrifloffif,  a  vn/ttroffnwiCjKOivwvfa  Wiw- 
finrwv,  communicatio  idiomatum.  The  avTiutrciaracnc  twv  oyo^iuTwv,  nlso  avTifi^iaraatc, 
transmutatio proprietatum,  transmutation  of  attributes,  is,  strictly  speaking,  not  identical  with 
di'Ticofftc,  but  a  deduction  from  it,  and  the  rhetorical  expression  for  it. 


32  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Son  of  God  was  crucified  and  buried,"1  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  wtork  of  Christ  is  to  be  attributed  to  his  person,  and 
not  to  the  one  or  the  other  nature  exclusively.  The  person  is  the  act- 
ing 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  human- 
ity alone  that  made  him  capable  of,  and  liable  to,  toil,  temptation,  suf- 
fering, and  death,  and  renders  him  an  example  for  our  imitation. 

7.  The  aniiypostasia,  impersonality,  oi1,  to  speak  more  accurately, 
the  eniiypostasia,  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ ; 2  for  aniiypostasia  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.3 

There  is,  no  doubt,  a  serious  difficulty  in  the  old  orthodox  Christol- 
ogy,  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, 

1  Comp.  1  Cor.  ii.  8 :  '  They  would  not  have  crucified  the  Lord  of  glory. ' 
8  'Avvttootcitoc  is  that  which  has  no  personality  in  itself,  ivinroararoQ  that  which  subsists 
in  another  personality,  or  partakes  of  another  hypostasis. 

3  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  (Dc  orthodoxa  Jide,  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.  Com]).  1'etavius,  De  inmrnatione,  lib. V.  c.  5-8 
(Tom.  IV.  pp.  421  sqq. ) ;  Thomasius,  Christol.  II.  108-1 10 ;  Rothe,  Dogmatik;  II.  51  and  147. 


§  9.  THE  CREED  OF  CHALCEDON.  33 

moreover,  Christ  appears  as  a  full  human  personality,  thinking,  speak- 
ing, acting,  suffering  like  a  man  (only  without  Bin), distinguishing  him- 
self 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.1  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  he  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  es- 
sence.2 In  one  word,  he  makes  the  impression  of  a  theanthrojnc,  divine- 
human  person.3  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  con- 
trolled by  it  in  every  stage  of  its  development. 

The  Chalcedonian  Christology  has  latterly  been  subjected  to  a  rigor- 
ous 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  neutral- 
ize each  other,  like  the  imputations  of  tritheism  and  modalism,  which 
may  be  made  against  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  when  cither 


1  He  calls  himself  a  '  man,'  uvSpunroc;  (John  viii.  40  ;  comp.  xix.  5),  anil  very  often  '  the  Son 
of  man,'  and  other  men  his  '  brethren'  (John  xx.  17). 

2  John  viii.  58 ;  xvii.  5,  24  ;  iii.  1 1-13 ;  v.  37  ;  vi.  38,  G2  ;  viii.  42  ;  x.  30,  and  many  other 

-  in  the  Gospels.  Dr.  K.  Rothe,  who  rejects  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and 
the  Incarnation,  yet  expressly  admits  (Dogmatlk,  II.  88)  :  '■Ebenso  bestimmt,  wie  seine  wahre 
Menachheit,  tritt  im  Neuen  Testament  auch  die  wahre  Gottiieit  des  ErlSsers  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  (c*6"£aa6v  pt  ov,  irdrip,  irapu  otavr<>>  tij  Su£y,rj  ilxov  7rpo  tov  riv  koOUOV 
ih-ai  izapa  aoi);  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-con- 
scious 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  ! 

3  A  persona  ovvSiror,  in  the  language  of  the  old  Protestant  divines.  lDivina  it  humana 
nature'  (says  Ilollaz),  'in  una  ]>ersona  (wvSirip  Filii  Dei  existentes,  unam  eandemque  habent 
vnixjTaaiv,  moilo  tamen  habendi  diversam,  Naiura  enim  divina  earn  hal/i  t  primario,  y<  r  se  1  ( 
independenter,  natura  autem  humana  secundario,  proptt  r  unionem  personah  m,  adeoqut  partici- 
pative,' The  divine  nature,  therefore,  is,  in  the  orthodox  system,  that  which  forms  and  con- 
stitutes  the  personality  (das  personbildende  Prinrip.). 


34  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  tri-personality  or  the  consubstantiality  is  taken  alone.  This,  indeed, 
is  the  peculiar  excellence  of  the  Creed  of  Chalcedon,  that  it  exhibits  so 
sure  a  tact  and  so  wise  a  circumspection  in  uniting  the  colossal  anti- 
thesis 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-lim- 
itation 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  theo- 
logical speculation  may  safely  and  freely  move,  and  bring  us  to  clearer 
conceptions ;  but  in  this  world,  where  we  'know  only  in  part  (k-  ntpovq)] 
and  'see  through  a  mirror  obscurely  (St'  lao-n-Tpov  Iv  alvlypaTi),''  it  will 
never  fully  comprehend  the  great  central  mystery  of  the  theanthropic 
life  of  our  Lord. 

§  10.  The  Athanasian  Ceeed. 

Literature. 

I.  Comp.  the  general  literature  of  the  Three  Creeds  noticed  p.  12,  especially  Lumby  and  Swainson. 

II.  Special  treatises  on  the  Athanasian  Creed : 

[Vkn  antius  Foetdnatus  (Bishop  of  Poitiers,  d.  about  A.D.  GOO)] :  Expositio  Fidei  Catholicce  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  Water- 
land's  treatise  (see  below).  But  the  authorship  ofVen.Fort.  is  a  mere  conjecture  of  Muratori,  from  the 
name  Fortunatus,  and  is  denied  by  modern  critics. 

Dav.  Pabkus  (Ref.) ;  Symbolum  Athanasii  breviter  declaratum.    Hcidelb.  1G1S. 

J.  II.  Heidkggee  (Kef.) :  De  Symbolo  Athanasiano.    Tur.  1680. 

W.  E.  Tkntzel  (Luth.) :  Judicia  eruditorum  de  Symb.  Athanasiano.    Gothoe,  16S7. 

Jos.  Antiiklmi  (R.  C) :  Disquisitio  de  Symb.  A  than.    Paris,  1693. 

Montfatjoon  (R.  C):  Diatribe  de  Symbolo  Qiiicunque,  in  his  edition  of  the  works  of  St.  Athauasius. 
Paris,  1698,  Tom.  II.  pp.  719-735. 

Ban.  Watkri.and  (Anglican) :  A  Critical  History  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  etc.  Cambridge,  1724, 2d  ed. 
1728  (iu  Waterland's  works,  Vol.  III.  pp.  97-270,  Oxf.  ed.  1S43),  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.  Mama  Spkeoni  (R.  C.) :  De  Symbolo  vulgo  S.  Athanasii,  two  dissertations.     Patav.  1750  sq. 

John  Rauoliffe:  The  Creed  of  St.  Athanasius,  illustrated  from  the  Old  and  Mew  Test.,  Passages  of  the 
Fathers,  etc.    Loud.  1844. 


§  10.  THE  ATHANASIAN  CREED.  35 

Philip  Sobatf:  The  Athanaaian  Creed,  in  the  'Aniericau  Presbyterian  Review,'  New  York,  fur  1868, 
pp.  5S4-025 ;  Church  History,  Vol.  III.  pp.  CS9  sqq. 

A.  P.  Stanley  (Dean  of  Westminster) :  The  Athananian  Creed.    Lond.  1871. 

E.  S.  Ffoulkes  (B.  D.) :   The  A  thanaxian  Creed :  By  whom  Written  and  by  whom  Published.    Lond.  1S72. 

en.  A.  Heckti.f.v  :  The  Athanaaian  Creed.    Oxford,  1878.    (Against  Ffonlkea.) 

Comp.  the  foe-simile  edition  of  the  Utrecht  Psalter  (Lond.  1876),  and  Sir  Tnos.  II  akhv  (Deputy-Keeper  of 
the  Public  Records),  two  Reports  on  the  Athanas.  Creed  in  Connection  with  the  Utrecht  Psalter.    Lond.  1-7:;. 

The  Athanabiam  Ceeed  is  also  called  Symboltjm  Quictonque,  from 
the  first  word,  iQuicunque  vult  salvus  esse.''1 

I.  Its  origin  is  involved  in  obscurity,  like  that  of  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
the  Gloria  in  Excelsis,  and  the  Te  Denm.  It  furnishes  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  examples  of  the  extraordinary  influence  which  works  of 
unknown  or  doubtful  authorship  have  exerted.  Since  the  ninth  cen- 
tury 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).2  The  great  name  of  '  the  father  of  orthodoxy'  secured 
for  it  an  almost  oecumenical  authority,  notwithstanding  the  solemn  pro- 
hibition of  the  third  and  fourth  oecumenical  Councils  to  compose  or 
publish  any  other  creed  than  the  Nicene.3 

Since  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  Athanasian  author- 
ship 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  eulo- 
gists. The  General  Synods  of  Constantinople  (3Sl),Ephesus  (431),  and 
Chalcedon  (451)  make  no  allusion  to  it  whatever.  It  seems  to  presup- 
pose the  doctrinal  controversies  of  the  fifth  century  concerning  the I 
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 

1  It  first  bears  the  title, ' Fides  sunctte  Trinitalis,'  or  'Fides  Catholica  Sanctaz  Trinitatis;' 
then  (in  the  'Cod.  Usserius  secundus')  '  Fides  Sancti  Athanasii  Alexandria!.'  Ilincmar  of 
Kheims,  about  A.D.  852,  calls  it  ' Sermonem  Athanasii  de  Jide,  cujus  initium  est:  "Qui- 
cunque  vult  salvus  esse."' 

3  According  to  the  mediaeval  legend,  Athanasius  composed  it  during  his  exile  in  Rome,  and 
offered  it  to  1'ope  Julius  as  his  confession  of  faith.  So  Baronius,  Petavius,  Bellarmin,  etc. 
This  tradition  was  first  opposed  and  refuted  by  Gerhard  Vossius  (1G42)  and  Ussher  (1G47). 

3  Cone.  Ephcs.  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  (ir'ipav  iclortv  ftnisvi  i^tivat 
irpo<pipnv  yyovv  avyypaftiv  >;  avvTizi vai),  besides  that  which  was  settled  by  the  holy  fathers 
who  assembled  in  the  city  of  Nictea,  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  those  who  shall  dare  to  com- 
pose any  other  Creed,  or  to  exhihit  or  produce  any  such,  if  they  are  bishops  or  clergymen, 
they  shall  be  deposed,  but  if  they  are  of  the  laity,  they  shall  lie  anathematised.'  The  Council 
of  Chalcedon  (451),  although  setting  forth  a  new  definition  of  faith,  repeated  the  same  pro- 
hibition (after  the  D'jin.  Fidei). 


36  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

did  not  know  it  till  the  eleventh  century,  and  afterwards  rejected  or 
modified  it  on  account  of  the  Occidental  clause  on  the  procession  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  The  Greek  texts,  more- 
over, 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  fa- 
thers.1 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.2  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.3 

1  See  the  parallel  passages  in  Waterland's  treatise  and  in  my  Church  History,  Vol.  III.  pp. 
690  sqq. 

a  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:  l  Est  ergo  fides  recta  ut  credamus  et  confitemur  quia  Dominus  ihesus 
christus  Dei  filius,  deus  par  iter  et  homo  est,'  etc.;  and  it  ends:  lHcec  est  fides  sancta  etCa- 
tholica.  quam  omnes  \omnis~]  homo  qui  ad  uitam  ceternam  peruenire  desiderat  scire  integral 
[integre']  debet,  et  fideliter  custodire.'  The  compiler  of  the  two  parts  intensified  the  damna- 
tory clause  by  changing  it  into  '  quam  nisi  qirisque  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. 

3  The  authorship  of  the  Symbolum  Quicunque  is  a  matter  of  mere  conjecture.  The  opinions 
of  scholars  are  divided  between  Hilary  of  Aries  (420-431),  Vigilius  of  Tapsus  (484),  Vincen- 
tius  Lirinensis  (450),Venantius  Fortunatus  of  Poitiers  (570),  Pope  Anastasius  (3i)8),Victricius 
of  Rouen  (401),  Patriarch  Paulinus  of  Aquileja  (Charlemagne's  favorite  theologian,  d.  804). 
Waterland  learnedly  contends  for  Hilary  of  Aries;  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 


§  10.  THE  ATHANASIAN  CREED.  37 

II.  Character  and  Contents. — The  Symbol  11m  Quicunque  is  a  re- 
markably clear  and  precise  summary  of  tbe  doctrinal  decisions  of  the 
first  four  oecumenical  Councils  (from  A.D.  325  to  A.D.  451),  and  the 
Augustinian  speculations  on  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation.  Its  brief 
sentences  are  artistically  arranged  and  rhythmically  expressed.  It  is  a 
musical  creed  or  dogmatic  psalm.  Dean  Stanley  calls  it  'a  triumphant 
poean'  of  the  orthodox  faith.  It  resembles,  in  this  respect,  the  older 
Te  Deum,  but  it  is  much  more  metaphysical  and  abstruse,  and  its  har- 
mony 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  orNicreno-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 

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  un- 
known writer  of  the  age  of  Charlemagne  (d.  814)  and  Alcuin  (d.  804),  or  to  the  period  be- 
tween 813  and  SoO. 

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,  ami  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  ma- 
jority of  scholars  who  investigated  it,  Drs.  Vermuelen,  Heurtley,  Ffoulkes,  Lumby,  Swainson, 
contend  against  Hardy,  West  wood,  and  Baron  van  Westreenen),  since,  among  other  reasons, 
it  contains  also  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  its  final  form  of  7.~>0.  The  authorship  of  Venantius 
Fortunatus  (570)  was  simply  inferred  by  Muratori  from  the  common  name  'Fortunatus'  at 
the  head  of  a  MS.  (Expositio  Field  Catholica  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,  .".17  sqq.).  The 
internal  evidence  for  an  earlier  date  is  equally  inconclusive.  The  absence  of  Mater  Dei 
(Sforwcoc)  no  more  proves  an  ante-Nestorian  origin  (before  431,  as  Waterland  contended) 
than  the  absence  of  consubstanlialis  (itpoovcrioc)  proves  an  ante-Nicene  origin. 

So  far,  then,  we  have  no  proof  that  the  pseudo-Athanasian  Creed  in  its  present  i->»nplcte 
ghape  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  ( lharlemagne. 
In  a  Frayer-Book  of  Charles  the  Maid,  written  about  A.D.  S70,  we  find  the  Athanasian  (reel 
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  '->!),  187G)  that  he  is  still  inclined  to  trace  this  Creed  to  the  fifth  century, 
between  450  and  000,  and  that  he  found,  and  will  publish  in  due  time,  some  did  symbols 
which  bear  a  resemblance  to  it,  and  may  cast  some  light  upon  its  obscure  origin.  Adhuc 
sub  judice  lis  est. 


38  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Nicene  Creed  and  the  Apostles'  Creed;  for  these  do  not  state  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  form,  but  only  indirectly  by  teaching  the 
Deity  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  leave  room  for  a  certain 
subordination  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  to  both. 
The  post-Athanasian  formula  states  clearly  and  unmistakably  both  the 
absolute  unity  of  the  divine  being  or  essence,  and  the  tri-personality  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  God  is  one  in  three  persons 
or  hypostases,  each  person  expressing  the  whole  fullness  of  the  God- 
head, with  all  his  attributes.  The  term  persona  is  taken  neither  in  the 
old  sense  of  a  mere  personation  or  form  of  manifestation  (irpocrojirov, 
face,  mask),  nor  in  the  modem  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,  andJTntheism  on  the 
other.  The  divine  persons  are  in  one  another,  and  form  a  perpetual 
intercommunication  and  motion  within  the  divine  essence.1  Each 
person  has  all  the  divine  attributes  which  are  inherent  in  the  divine 
essence,  but  each  has  also  a  characteristic  individuality  or  property,2 
which  is  peculiar  to  the  person,  and  can  not  be  communicated ;  the 
Father  is  unbegotten,  the  Son  begotten,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  proceed- 
ing. In  this  Trinity  there  is  no  priority  or  posteriority  of  time,  no  su- 
'%  '  periority  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.'3 

1  The  later  scholastic  terms  for  this  indwelling  and  interpenetration  are  ntpix^piiatc,  inex- 
istentia.  permeatio,  circumincessio,  etc.     See  my  Church  History,  Vol.  HI.  p.  G80. 

2  Called  by  the  Greeks  u>i6rj?c  or  idiov,  by  the  Latins  proprietas personalis  or  character  hj- 
postaticus. 

3  '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  Chnrch  (died 
1G77),  in  his  Defense  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  (a  sermon  preached  on  Trinity  Sunday,  1668), 
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  meth- 
ods 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 


XN 


§  10.  T'lE  ATHANASIAN  CREED.  39 

The  second  part  (ver.  29-44)  contains  a  succinct  statement  of  the 
orthodox  doctrine  concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  as  settled  by  the 
general  Councils  of  Ephesus  431  and  Chalcedon  451,  and  in  this  respect 
it  is  a  valuable  supplement  to  the  Apostles'  and  Nicene  ('reeds.  It  as- 
serts that  Christ  had  a  rational  soul  (vovg,  wtiifia.),  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  teach- 
es the  proper  relation  between  the  divine  and  human  nature  of  Christ, 
and  excludes  the  Neatorian  and  Eutychian  or  Monophysite  heresies,  in 
essential  agreement  with  the  Chalcedonian  Symbol.1 

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  indis- 
pensable 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  anath- 
ema, in  its  natural  historical  sense,  is  not  merely  a  solemn  warning 
against  the  great  danger  of  heresy,2  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  does  it  de- 
mand, as  a  condition  of  salvation,  a  full  knowledge  of,  and  assent  to, 
the  logical  statement  of  the  doctrines  set  forth  (for  this  would  condemn 


are  so  bound  to  mind  it  as  to  exercise  our  faith,  and  express  our  humility,  in  willingly  believ- 
ing, in  submissively  adoring  those  high  mysteries  which  are  revealed  in  "the  holy  oracles  con- 
cerning it  by  that  Spirit  itself  which  searcheth  the  depths  of  God.  .  .  .  That  there"  is  one  Divine 
Nature  or  Essence,  common  unto  three  Persons,  incomprehensihly  united,  and  ineffably  dis- 
tinguished—united in  essential  attributes,  distinguished  by  peculiar  idioms  and  relation-;:  all 
equally  infinite  in  every  divine  perfection,  each  different  from  the  other  in  order  and  manner 
of  subsistence  ;  that  there  is  a  mutual  inexistenee  of  one  in  all,  and  all  in  one  ;  a  communica- 
tion without  any  deprivation  or  diminution  in  the  communicant ;  an  eternal  generation,  and 
an  eternal  procession,  without  precedence  or  succession,  without  proper  causality  or  depend- 
ence; a  Father  imparting  his  own,  and  the  Son  receiving  his  Father's  life,  ami  a  Spirit  issuing 
from  both,  wirhout  any  division  or  multiplication  of  essence— these  are  notions  which  max- 
well puzzle  our  reason  in  conceiving  how  they  agree,  but  should  not  stagger  our  faith  in  assent 
ing  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.' 

1  See  the  preceding  section. 

'  So  a  majority  of  the  '  Ritual  Commission  of  the  Church  of  England,  appointed  in  L867  i 
'The  condemnations  in  this  Confession  of  Faith  are  to  he  no  otherwise  understood  than  a-  a 
solemn  warning  of  the  peril  of  those  who  willfully  reject  tin-  <  iatholic  faith.'  Such  a  warning 
would  be  innocent  and  unobjectionable,  indeed,  hut  fall  far  short  of  the  spirit  <>f  an  age  which 
abhorred  hcrcsv  as  the  greatest  of  crimes,  to  he  punished  by  death 

Vol.  I.— D 


40  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  great  mass  even  of  Christian  believers) ;  bi't  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.  Sal- 
vation and  damnation  depend  exclusively  on  the  grace  of  God  as  appre- 
hended by  a  living  faith,  or  rejected  in  ungrateful  unbelief.  The  orig- 
inal 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  confes- 
sions of  faith  and  thanks  to  God  for  his  mighty  works.1 

IV.  Introduction  and  Use. — The  Athanasian  Creed  acquired  great 
authority  in  the  Latin  Church,  and  during  the  Middle  Ages  it  was  al- 
most daily  used  in  the  morning  devotions.2 

The  Reformers  inherited  the  veneration  for  this  Symbol.  It  was  for- 
mally 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.3 


1  '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  presump- 
tuous.' 

s  J.  Bona,  De  divina  Psalmodia,  c.  1G,  §  18,  p.  8G3  (as  quoted  by  KGllner,  Si/mbolik,  I.  85) : 
lJllud  Symbolum  olim,  teste  Honorio,  quotidie  est  decantatum,jam  vero  diebus  Dominicis  in 
totius  eoctus  frequentia  recitatur,  ut  sanctcr  Jidei  confessio  ea  die  apertius  celebretur.' 

3  It  is  printed,  with  the  two  other  oecumenical  Creeds,  in  all  the  editions  of  the  Lutheran 
'Book  of  Concord,'  and  as  an  appendix  to  the  doctrinal  formulas  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  in  America.  It  was  received  into  the  '  Provisional  Liturgy  of  the  German  Reformed 
Church  in  the  United  States,'  published  Philadelphia,  1858,  but  omitted  in  the  revised  edition 
of  18G7. 


§  10.  THE  ATHANASIAN  CREED.  4! 

Luther  was  disposed  to  regard  it  as  '  the  most  important  and  glorious 
composition  since  the  days  of  the  apostles.'1 

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  ex- 
pounded.' 

In  the  Church  of  England  it  is  still  sung  or  recited  in  the  cathedrals 
and  parish  churches  on  several  festival  days,2  but  this  compulsory  pub- 
lic use  meets  with  growing  opposition,  and  was  almost  unanimously 
condemned  in  1S67  by  the  royal  commission  appointed  to  consider  cer- 
tain changes  in  the  Anglican  Ritual.3 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  when,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  American  Revolution,  it  set  up  a  separate  organization 
in  the  Convention  of  1TS5  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  bish- 
ops 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.'4    In  the  Convention  held  at  Wilmington,  Del.,  October  10, 

1  iEs  ist  also  ge/asset,  dass  ich  nicht  weiss,  ob  seit  der  Apostel  Zeit  in  der  Kirche  des  Neuen 
Testamentes  etivas  Wichtigeres  und  Herrlicheres  geschrieben  set"  (Luther,  Werle,  ed.  Walch, 
VL  2315). 

s  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.  Jade,  St.  Andrew,  and  upon  Trinity  Sunday.' 

3  By  nineteen  out  of  the  twenty-seven  members  of  the  Ritual  Commission.  See  their  opin- 
ions in  Stanley,  I.  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.  Pnsey  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  re- 
vision of  the  English  translation,  e.  g.  by  rendering  <■„//  talotu  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. 

4  Bishop  White  (of  Philadelphia) :  Memoirs  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  Stales  of  America,  New  York,  2d  ed.  1836,  pp.  30.1,  306. 


42  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

1786,  the  request  of  the  English  prelates,  as  to  the  first  two  points,  was 
acceded  to, but  'the  restoration  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  was  negatived.' 
As  the  opposition  to  this  Creed  was  quite  determined,  especially  on  ac- 
count of  the  damnatory  clauses,  the  mother  Church  acquiesced  in  the 
omission,  and  granted  the  desired  Episcopal  ordination.1 

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.2 

1  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  un- 
easy 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'  (1.  c.  117, 118). 

2  Some  Greeks  say  that  the  words  et  Filio  (ver.  23)  are  a  Latin  interpolation,  others  that 
Athanasius  was  drunk  when  he  wrote  them.  Most  Greek  copies  omit  them,  and  read  only 
d-KO  tov  TrarpoQ.     Montfaucon,  Athan.  Opera,  II.  728. 


§  11.  THE  SEVEN  (ECUMENICAL  COUNCILS.  43 


THIKD  CHAPTER. 

THE  CREEDS  OF  THE  GREEK  CHURCH. 

General  Literature. 

Orthodoxa  Confessio  catholics  atquc  apostol.  ecclemm  oricntalis  a  Pet.  Mogii.a  compos.,  a  Mei.f.tio  Svrigo 
aucta,  et  mutata,  gr.  c.  pro?/.  Neotarii  curat.  Panagiotta,  Amst.  1062  ;  cum  interpret,  lat.  ed.  Lack.  Nob- 
mann,  Leipz.  1695,  Svo  ;  c.  interpret,  lat.  et  vers,  german.  ed.  K.  Glo.  Hokmann,  Breslau,  1751,  8vo.  Also  iu 
Russian  :  Moscow,  1G96 ;  Germau  by  J.  Leonh.  Frisou,  Frankfurt  and  Leipzig,  172T,  4to ;  Dutch  by  J.  A. 
Seuier,  Haarlem,  1722 ;  in  Kirumel's  Monumenta,  P.  1. 1S43. 

Clypeus  orthodoxa?  fidei,  sire  Apologia  ('Act™  opiodo^iat,  h  uwoXcy/u  ku<  ?Xe->x<")  <*&  Synodo  Hiero- 
solymitana  (A.D.  1672)  sub  Hierosolymorum  Patriarcha  Dositheo  compoxita  adver-sus  Calvinistan  hosreticos, 
etc.  Published  at  Paris,  Greek  and  Latin,  1676  and  1678  :  then  in  Harduini  Acta  Conciliorum,  Par.  1715, 
Tom.  XI.  fol.  179-274  ;  also  in  Kimmei.'s  Monum.  P.  I.  325-4S8.  Comp.  also  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  of  Con- 
stantinople, held  in  the  same  year  (1672),  and  publ.  iu  Hard.  1.  c.  274-2S4,  and  iu  Kimmel,  P.  II.  214-227. 

Confessio  cathol.  et  apostolica  in  oriente  ecclesia?,  conscripta  compendiosc  per  Metroi-hanem  Ceitopcltjm. 
Ed.  et.  lat.  redd.  J.  Hornejcs,  Helmst.  1661,  4to  (the  title-page  has  erroneously  the  date  1561). 

CvErixi  Luoaris:  Confessio  christ.  fidei  graca  cum  additam.  Cyrilli,  Geneva,  1633 :  grsec.  et  lat.  (Con- 
demned as  heretical.) 

Acta  et  scripta  theologorum  Wirtembergensium  et  patriarcha  Constantinop.  Hiebemi.e,  quce  utrique  aba. 
1576  usque  ad  a.  15S1  de  Augustana  Confessione  inter  se  miserunt,  gr.  et  lat.  ab  iisdem  theologis  edita,  Wit- 
teub.  15S4,  fol.  This  work  contains  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  Greek,  three  epistles  of  Patriarch  Jere- 
miah, criticising  the  Augsb.  Conf.,  and  the  answers  of  the  Tubingen  divines,  all  in  Greek  and  Latin. 

E.  J.  Kimmel  and  H.  Weissenborn  :  Monumenta  fidei  ecclesia?  orientalis.  Primum  in  unum  corpus  col- 
Icjit,  rariantes  lectiones  adnotavit,  prolegomena  addidit,  etc.,  2  vols.,  Jenae,  1S43-1S50.  The  first  part  con- 
tains the  two  Confessions  of  Gennadius,  the  Confession  of  Cyrillus  Lucarie,  the  Confessio  Orthodoxa, 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem.  The  secoud  part,  whieh  is  added  by  Weissenborn,  contains  the 
Confessio  Metrophauis  Critopuli,  and  the  Decretum  Synodi  Constantinopolitanae,  1672.    Kimmel  d.  1S46. 

W.  Gass  :  Gennadius  und  Plctho,  A ristotelismus  urn!  Platonismus  in  der  gricchischcn  Kirche,  nebst  einer 
Abhandlung  uber  die  Bestreitung  des  Islam  im  Mittelalter,  Breslau,  1S44,  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  griethtichen  Kirche,  Berlin,  1S72. 

R.W.  Blaokmore:  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  tfw  Slavono-Russia.7i 
Originals,  Aberdeen,  1845. 

§  11.  The  Seven  (Ecumenical  Councils. 
The  entire  Orthodox  Greek  or  Oriental  Church,1  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  member- 
ship of  about  eighty  millions,  adopts,  in  common  with  the  Roman  com- 
munion, the  doctrinal  decisions  of  the  seven  oldest  oecumenical  Coun- 
cils, laying  especial  stress  on  the  Nicene  Council  and  Xicene  Creed. 
These  Councils  were  all  summoned  by  Greek  emperors,  and  controlled 
by  Greek  patriarchs  and  bishops.     They  are  as  follows : 


1  The  full  name  of  the  Greek  Church  is  'the  Holy  Oriental  Orthodox  Catholic  Apostolic 
Church.'1  The  chief  stress  is  laid  on  the  title  orthodox.  The  name  VpaiKuc,  used  by  Polybius 
and  since  as  equivalent  to  the  Latin  Grcrcus,  was  by  the  Greeks  themselves  always  regarded 
as  an  exotic.  Homer  has  three  standing  names  for  the  Greeks  :  Danaoi,  Argeioi,  ami  Achaioi; 
also  Panhellencs  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  culled  Romaic. 


44  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

I.  The  first  Council  of  Nicaea,  A.D.  325  ;  called  by  Constantine  M. 

II.  The  first  Council  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  381 ;  called  by  Theo- 
dosius  M. 

III.  The  Council  of  Ephesus,  A.D.  431 ;  called  by  Theodosius  II. 

IV.  The  Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451 ;  called  by  Emperor  Mar- 
cian  and  Pope  Leo  I. 

V.  The  second  Council  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  553;  called  by  Jus- 
tinian I. 

VI.  The  third  Council  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  GSO ;  called  by  Con- 
stantine Pogonatus. 

VII.  The  second  Council  of  Nlcsea,  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  Coun- 
cil, which  condemned  the  Three  (Nestorian)  Chapters,  is  a  mere  sup- 
plement to  the  third  and  fourth.  The  sixth  condemned  Monothelitism. 
The  seventh  sanctioned  the  use  and  worship  of  images.1 

To  these  the  Greek  Church  adds  the  Concilium  Quinisextum,2  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  S69  (the  fourth  of  Constantinople),  which  deposed  Photius  and  con- 
demned the  Iconoclasts,  as  the  eighth  oecumenical  Council.  But  these 
conflicting  Councils  refer  only  to  discipline  and  the  rivalry  between  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople  and  the  Pope  of  Rome. 

The  Greek  Church  celebrates  annually  the  memory  of  the  seven  holy 
Synods,  held  during  the  palmy  days  of  her  history,  on  the  first  Sunday 
in  Lent,  called  the  '  Sunday  of  Orthodoxy,5  when  the  service  is  made  to 


1  Worship  in  a  secondary  sense,  or  SovXila,  including  asiraoi-ibs  km  n/rtjrtio)  TrpoaKvvrjaiq, 
but  not  that  adoration  or  a\r)$iv>)  \arptia,  which  belongs  only  to  God.  See  Ilefele,  Con- 
cilicngeschichte,  Bd.  III.  p.  440. 

2  This  Synod  is  called  Quinisexta  or  irtvStKrr),  because  it  was  to  be  a  supplement  to  the 
fifth  and  sixth  oecumenical  Councils,  which  had  passed  doctrinal  decrees,  but  no  canons  of 
discipline.  It  is  also  called  the  second  Trullan  Synod,  because  it  was  held  'in  Trullo,'  a 
saloon  of  the  imperial  palace  in  Constantinople.  The  Greeks  regard  the  canons  of  this  Synod 
as  the  canons  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  oecumenical  Councils,  but  the  Latins  never  acknowledged 
the  Quinisexta,  and  called  it  mockingly  '  erratica.'  As  the  dates  of  the  Quinisexta  are  vari- 
ously given  G8G,  091,  092,  712.  Comp.  Baronius,  Annal  ad  ann.  092,  No.  7,  and  Hefele,  1.  c. 
III.  pp.  298  sqq. 


§  11.  THE  SEVEN  (ECUMENICAL  COUNCILS.  45 

reproduce  a  dramatic  picture  of  an  oecumenical  Council,  with  an  em- 
peror, the  patriarchs,  metropolitans,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  in  sol- 
emn deliberation  on  the  fundamental  articles  of  faith.  She  looks  for- 
ward to  an  eighth  oecumenical  Council,  which  is  to  settle  all  the  con- 
troversies 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  cen- 
tury, 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  Do- 
sitheus,  1672. 

To  the  latter  may  be  added  the  similar  but  less  important  decisions 
of  the  Synods  of  Constantinople,  1672  {Resjionsio  Dionysii),  and  1691 
(on  the  Eucharist). 

(e)  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  Rus- 
sia 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  Patri- 
arch and  the  Sultan,  is  spurious,  and  the  other  has  nothing  character- 
istic of  the  Greek  system. 

(b)  The  Confession  of  Metrophanes  Critopulus,  subsequently  Patri- 


46  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

arch  of  Alexandria,  composed  during  his  sojourn  in  Germany,  1625. 
It  is  more  liberal  than  the  primary  standards. 

III.  Different  from  both  classes  is  the  Confession  of  Cyril  Lucar,1629, 
which  was  repeatedly  condemned  as  heretical  (Calvinistie),  but  gave  oc- 
casion 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  Gabs,  quoted  p.  43,  on  Gennadius  and  Pletho  (1S44),  and  an  article  of  Prof.  Otto  on 
the  Dialogue  ascribed  to  Gennadius,  in  (Niedner's)  Zeitschri/t  fur  historisclic  Theologie  for  1S50, 111.399^17. 

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  import- 
ance, 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  Em- 
peror John  VII.,  Paloeologus,  and  the  Patriarch  Joasaph,  when  they,  in 
compliance  with  an  invitation  of  Pope  Engenius  IV.,  attended  the  Coun- 
cil 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  ad- 
vocated 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,  Gen- 
nadius being  an  Aristotelian,  Pletho  a  Platonist.  The  union  party  tri- 
umphed, especially  through  the  influence  of  Cardinal  Bessarion  (Arch- 
bishop of  Nicaea),  who  at  last  acceded  to  the  Latin  Filioque,  as  con- 
sistent with  the  Greek  per  Filium} 

But  when  the  results  of  the  Council  were  submitted  to  the  Greek 
Church  for  acceptance,  the  popular  sentiment,  backed  by  a  long  tradi- 
tion, 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  inconsist- 

1  See,  on  the  transactions  of  this  Council,  Mansi,  Tom.  XXXI.,  and  Werner:  Geschichte 
der  apologedscken  und polemischen  Literatur,\o\.  III.  pp.  f>7  sqq. 


§  12.  THE  CONFESSIONS  OF  GENNADIUS.  47 

ency  to  a  change  of  conviction,  some  to  policy ;  while  other?,  without 
good  reason,  doubt  the  identity  of  the  anti-Latin  monk  Scholariua  with 
the  Latinizing  Gennadius.1 

Immediately  after  the  conquest  in  1453, Scholariua  was  elected  Patri- 
arch 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  pas- 
toral staff,  and  authorized  him  to  assure  the  Greek  Christians  of  free- 
dom in  the  exercise  of  their  religion.2 

This  *  Confession'  of  Gennadius,3  or  '  Homily  on  the  true  faith  of  the 
Christians,'  was  written  in  Greek,  and  translated  into  the  Turko-Arabie 
(the  Turkish  with  Arabic  letters)  for  the  use  of  the  Sultan.4     It  treats,  in 

1  Karyophilus,  Allatius,  and  Kimmel  deny  the  identity  of  the  two  persons ;  Robert  Creyg- 
thon,  Benaadot  (1704),  Richard  Simon,  Spanheim,  and  Gass  defend  it.  Spanheim,  however, 
regards  the  unionistic  writings  as  interpolations.  Allatius  and  Kimmel  maintain  that  Genna- 
dius continued  friendly  to  the  union  as  Patriarch,  but  Karyophilus  supposes  that  the  union- 
istic Scholarius  died  before  the  conquest  of  Constantinople,  and  never  was  Patriarch.  Sec  Kim- 
mel, Monument  a,  etc.,  Prolegomena,  p.  vi. ;  Gass,  1.  c.  Vol.  I.  pp.  5  sqq.,  and  Werner,  1.  c.  Vol. 
III.  pp.  G7  sqq.  Scholarius  was  a  fertile  writer  of  homilies,  hymns,  philosophical  and  theo- 
logical essays.  Four  of  these  are  edited  in  Greek  by  W.  Gass,  viz.,  bis  Confession,  the  Dia- 
logue De  via  salutis,  the  book  Contra  Automatistas  et  Hellenistas,  and  the  book  De  providi  ntia 
et  prcBdestinatUme  (1.  c.Vol.  II.  pp.  3-1 4C>). 

2  An  account  of  the  interview  is  given  in  the  Historia  patriarcharum  qui  sederunt  in  hoc 
magna  catholkaque  ecdesia  Constantinopolitanensi  postquam  cepit  cam  Sultanus  Mechemeta, 
written  in  modern  Greek  by  Emmanuel  Malaxas,  a  Peloponnesian,  and  sent  by  him  to  Prof. 
M.Crusius,  in  Tubingen,  who  translated  and  published  it  in  his  Turco-Graxia,  1684.  Crusius 
and  Chytrseus  were  prominent  in  a  fruitless  effort  to  convert  the  Greek  Church  to  Lutheranism. 

3  Kimmel  calls  it  the  second  Confession,  counting  the  Dialogue  (which  is  of  questionable 
authenticity;  see  below)  as  the  first.  Put  Gass  more  appropriately  prints  the  Confession 
first,  and  the  Dialogue  afterwards,  under  its  own  proper  title,  he  Via  Salutis. 

4  The  title  of  the  Vienna  MS.  as  published  by  Otto  is:  ToS  alleaipmraTOV  Trarpidpxov 
KwvaravrivovTroXtwg  |  rENNAAIOV  SXOAAPIOY  |  KifiXiov  Tripi  nvuv  Ki<paXaiuv  rfc 
t'tpirtpac  I  manioc.  The  title  as  given  by  Gass  from  a  MS.  in  Munich  reads  :  Tot  iiynordrov 
Kai  Trarpidpxov  <ca«  QiXoaixpov  |  I'KNNAAIOV  |  bpiXia  Trtpi  t>~ic  6p$ijc  gal  <i\ti$ov<;  | 
iriortuic  tQv  Xpiariavwv.  In  other  titles  it  is  called  bpoXoyia  or  6po\6ynai(.  This 
Confession  (together  with  the  Dialogue  on  the  Way  of  Life)  was  first  published  in  Greek  at 
Vienna  by  Prof.  John  Alex.  Brassicanus  (KoMburger),  in  1680;  then  in  Latin  by  .1.  Herald 
(in  bis Haresiologia,  Basil.  1666,  from  which  it  passed  into  the  Patristic  Libraries,  Dill.  P.P. 


48  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

twenty  brief  sections,  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  on  God,  the  Trinity, 
the  two  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ,  his  work,  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is 
thus  stated :  '  We  believe  that  there  are  in  the  one  God  three  peculiari- 
ties (Iditopara  rpia),  which  are  the  principles  and  fountains  of  all  his  other 
peculiarities  .  .  .  and  these  three  peculiarities  we  call  the  three  subsist- 
ences {vwoGTaaug).  .  .  .  We  believe  that  out  of  the  nature  (ek  rrjg  ipvatiog) 
of  God  spring  the  Word  (Xoyog)  and  the  Spirit  (-n-vivpa),  as  from  the  fire 
the  light  and  the  heat  (uxnrep  dirb  rod  wvpbg  <pwg  nai  Stppi)).  .  .  .  These 
three,  the  Mind,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit  (vovg,  \6yog,  irvtvpa),  are  one 
God,  as  in  the  one  soul  of  man  there  is  the  mind  (vovg),  the  rational 
word  (\6yog  vorjTog),  and  the  rational  will  (%t\r)mg  voi]tv)  ;  and  yet  these 
three  are  as  to  essence  but  one  soul  (pta  xpvxv  Kara  n)v  ove'iav).'1  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.  :2 

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. 

Luffdun.Tom.  XXVI.  55G,  also  B.  P.  P.  Colon.Tom.  XIV.  376,  and  B.  P.  P.  Par. Tom.  IV.); 

then  in  Greek  and  Latin  by  David  Chytrams  (in  his  Oratio  de  static  ecclesiarum  hoc  tempore  in 
Grcecia,Asia,  Bcemia,  etc.,Frankf.  1583,  pp.  173  sqq.);  and  soon  afterwards  in  Greek,  Latin, 
and  Turkish  by  Mart.  Crusius  of  Tubingen  (in  his  Turco-Grcecia,  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,  Cygnene  (Zwickau), 
1677  (Ilieronymi  theologi  Grceci  dialorjus  de  Trinitate,  etc.).  Kimmcl  followed  the  text  of 
Chy  tragus,  compared  with  that  of  Crusius  and  the  different  readings  in  the  Bib!.  Pair.  Luc/dun. 
See  his  Proleg.  p.  xx.  The  last  and  best  editions  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  Confession  are  by 
Gass,  1.  c.  II.  3-15,  who  used  three  MSS.,  and  compared  older  Greek  editions  and  Latin  ver- 
sions; 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. 

1  Compare,  on  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  of  Gennadius  and  its  relation  to  Latin  Scholasticism, 
the  exposition  of  Gass,  I.  82  sqq.  Kimmel  and  Otto  (1.  c.  p.  400)  make  him  a  Platonist,  but 
there  are  also  some  Aristotelian  elements  in  him. 

2  This  apologetic  appendix  is  omitted  in  the  editions  of  Brassicanus  and  Fuchten,  and  is 
rejected  by  Otto  as  a  later  addition  (1.  c.  pp.  5-11). 


§  12.  THE  CONFESSIONS  OF  GENNADIUS.  49 

3.  The  acceptance  of  the  gospel  by  the  greatest  and  best  men  among 
all  nations. 

4.  The  spiritual  character  and  tendency  of  the  Christian  faith,  aiming 
at  divine  and  eternal  ends. 

5.  The  ennobling  effect  of  Christ's  religion  on  the  morals  of  his 
followers. 

6.  The  harmony  of  revealed  truth  with  sound  reason,  and  the  refuta- 
tion of  all  objections  which  have  been  raised  against  it. 

7.  The  victory  of  the  Church  over  persecution  and  its  indestructi- 
bility. 

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  o/Zife.n 
The  Sultan  is  represented  as  asking  a  number  of  short  questions,  such 
as :  '  What  is  God  V  '  Why  is  he  called  God  (Sto'c)  V  '  How  many  Gods 
are  there  V  '  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 ; 


The  tract  w 
Vienna 


De  Via  Sahhs.     The  full  title,  as  given  by  Gass,  1.  c.  II.  16,  and  Otto,  1.  c.  p.  409,  reads  : 
Too  aiSecnftioruTov  irarpidpXov  KovffTavnvovmXtiuc 
I'EWAAIOY  2X0AAPI0T 
Pfkiov  ovvrofiov  rs  ™,  aa<piC  «pi  nvuv  «0«\a,W  rfc  meripag  wricjg,  nepi  uv  ,)  Stdke&Q 
yiyove  pcra  Afxoipa  rov  Maxovnirov,  S  Kai  iTnytypairrai 

irepi  Trie  oSov  rrJQ  (TUTtjpLac  (t&v)  dvSpwTrcov. 
t  was  published  three  times  in  Greek  in  the  seventeenth  century- by  Brassicanus, 
1d30;  by  Joh.  von  Fuchten,  Helmstiidt,  1011  (or  1612);  and  by  Daum,  Zwickau, 
1677;  but  each  of  these  editions  is  exceedingly  rare.  The  Latin  version  was  repeated  in  sev- 
eral patristic  collections,  but  with  more  or  less  omissions  or  additions  (occasional^  in  favor 
of  the  Kom.sh  system).  We  have  now  two  correct  editions  of  the  Greek  text,  one  bv  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  ong.nal  (Proleff.  p.xx.),  andseems  to  confound  the  special  title  with  the  joint 
title  for  both  Confessions  ;  see  Bibl  P.  P.  CI,,,,.  X I V.  878  :  Werner,  1.  c.  I II.  68,  note.  The 
Dialogue  has  also  found  its  way  into  the  writings  of  Athanasius  (0Pm,,Tom.  II.  280,  Patav. 
17/  7,  or  II.  ,-53.-,,  ed.  Paris,  1098),  but  without  a  name  or  an  allusion  to  the  Sultan,  rfmplj 
as  a  dialogue  between  a  Christian  bishop  and  a  catechumen,  and  with  considerable  enlarge- 
ments and  adaptations  to  the  standard  of  Greek  orthodoxv.  Comp.  Gass,  I.  pp.  89  Mq  II 
pp.  16-30,  and  Otto,  p.  407.  " 


50  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  the  internal  evidence  is  against  it.  There  was  no  need  of  two 
Confessions  for  the  same  occasion.  There  is  nothing  characteristic  of 
a  Mohammedan,  in  the  questions  of  the  Sultan.  The  text  is  more  loose 
and  prolix  in  style  than  the  genuine  Confession ;  it  contains  some  absurd 
etymologies  unworthy  of  Gennadius  ;l  and  it  expressly  teaches  the  Latin 
doctrine  of  the  double  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit.2  For  these  rea- 
sons, we  must  either  deny  the  authorship  of  Gennadius,  or  the  integrity 
of  the  received  text.3  At  all  events,  it  can  not  be  regarded  in  its  pres- 
ent form  even  as  a  secondary  standard  of  Greek  orthodoxy. 

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

Acta  et  Scrrpta  theolog.  Wiirtemberg.  et  Patriarchce  Constant.  Hieremi^e,  quoted  p.  43. 
Martin  Crusiub:  Turco-Grcecia,  Basil.  1584. 

Mouraviefp:  History  of  the  Church  of  Russia,  translated  by  Blackmore,  pp.  289-324. 
Hefele  (now  Bishop  of  Rottenbnrg) :  Ueber  die  alten  und  neuen  Versuche,  den  Orient  zu  protestantisi- 
ren,  in  the  Tubinger  Theol.  Quartatechrift,  1843,  p.  544. 
Art.  Jeremias  II.,  in  Herzog's  Encyklop.  Vol.  VI.  pp.  491-93.    Gabs  :  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  corre- 
spondence 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  Tubingen,  Jacob  Andreas,  one  of  the  authors  of  the  Lu- 
theran '  Form  of  Concord'  (d.  1590),  and  Martin  Crnsius,  a  rare  Greek 
scholar  (d.  1607),4  on  occasion  of  the  ordination  of  Stephen  Gerlach  for 

1  The  word  Sioc,  is  derived  from  Sswpuv  (cnrb  too  Seujpt7v  rd  rrdvra  oiovu  Stwpoc.),  and  also 
from  Sttiv,  percurrere  (o  yap  Sibg  ad  icai  Tzavraxov  irdpeariv) ;  rrarqp  is  derived  from  rnpiiv 
(dnb  rov  rd  Travra  njpuv),  v'ioq  from  oIoq,  talis  (qualis  cnim  Pater,  talis  Films),  rrvev/xa  from 
voeu),  intelligo  (Travra  yap  6%,'aog  i-nivou). 

2  In  the  Latin  Version  (Kimmel,  p.  3) :  '  Quemadmodum  substantia  soils  producit  radios,  et 
a  sole  et  radiis  procedit  lumen :  ita  Pater  generat  Filium  sen  Verbum  ejus,  et  A  Patre  et 
Filio  procedit  Spiritus  Sanctus.'  In  the  Greek  text  (Gass,  II.  19) :  "ilo-jrip  6  Sianog  6 
t'lXiaKOQ  yivva  rf\v  atcrlva,  icai  irapd  rov  ifkiov  icai  rCJv  dicrivwv  itciropivtrai  to  0wc  •  ovrw  o 
■&tdc  Krai  Trarijp  yti'vp  rov  I'iov  Kai  Xbyov  avrov,Kai  k  rov  irarpog  icai  viov  iKiroptvtrat.  rd 
irvivfia  rb  iiyiov.  A  Greek  Patriarch  coidd  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. 

3  See  Gass,  I.  p.  100,  and  Synth,  der  griech.  Kirche,  p.  38  ;  Otto,  p.  405.  Both  reject  the 
authenticity  of  the  Dialogue. 

4  He  was  able  to  take  Andrea's  sermons  down  in  Greek  as  they  were  delivered  in  German. 


§  13.  ANSWERS  OF  PATRIARCH  JEREMIAH  TO  THE  LUTHERANS.     51 

the  Lutheran  chaplaincy  of  the  German  legation  at  the  Sublime  Porte, 
forwarded  to  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  commendatory  letters, 
and  soon  afterwards  several  copies  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  Greek 
(printed  at  Basle,  1559),  together  with  a  translation  of  some  sermons  of 
Andreas,  and  solicited  an  official  expression  of  views  on  the  Lutheran 
doctrines,  which  they  thought  were  in  harmony  with  those  of  the  East- 
ern Church. 

At  that  time  Jeremiah  II.  was  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  (from 
1572-91),  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.1 

After  considerable  delay,  Jeremiah  replied  to  the  Lutheran  divines 
at  length,  in  1576,  and  subjected  the  Augsburg  Confession  to  an  unfa- 
vorable criticism,  rejecting  nearly  all  its  distinctive  doctrines,  and  com- 
mending only  its  indorsement  of  the  early  oecumenical  Synods  and  its 
view  on  the  marriage  of  priests.2  The  Tubingen  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.3 

The  documents  of  both  parties  were  published  at  Wittenberg,  15  SI. 

The  Answers  of  Jeremiah  received  the  approval  of  the  Synod  of  Je- 

1  MouravieflF  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.' 

2  This  third  letter  of  Jeremiah  is  called  Censura  Orientalis  Ecclerim,  and  covers  nearly 
ninety  pages  folio.     His  first  two  letters  are  brief,  and  do  not  enter  into  doctrinal  discussions. 

3  Vitus  Myller,  in  his  funeral  discourse  on  Crusius,  complains  of  the  Greeks  as  being  proud- 
er and  more  superstitious  than  the  Papists  (pont\ficiia  long*  magis  svperstitioti).  Crusius 
edited  also  a  Greek  translation  of  four  volumes  of  Lutheran  sermons  {Corona  anni,  or'npavos 
tov  iviavTov,  Wittenb.  1G03)  for  the  benefit  of  the  Greek  people,  but  with  no  better  success. 


52  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

rnsalem  in  1672,1  and  may  be  regarded,  therefore,  as  truly  expressing 
the  spirit  of  the  Eastern  Communion  towards  Protestantism.  It  is  evi- 
dent 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  or- 
thodox Christendom.2 

§  14-.  The  Confession  of  Metropiianes  Critopulus,  A.D.  1625. 

Kimmei.,Vo1.  II.  pp.  1-213. 

Diktelmaiek:  De  Mvtrophane,  Crit&pulo,  etc.,  Altdorf,  1769. 
Fabrioics:  Biblioth.  Grceca,  ed.  Harless.Vol.  XI.  pp.  597-599. 
Gabs  :  Art.  M.  K.  in  Herzog's  Encykhp.  Vol.  IX.  pp.  499-502. 

Next  in  chronological  order  comes  the  Confession  of  Metropiianes 
Critopulus,  once  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  which  was  written  in  1625, 
though  not  published  till  1661. 

Meteophanes  Critopulus  was  a  native  of  Beroea,  in  Macedonia,  and 
educated  at  Mount  Athos.  Cyril  Lucar,  then  Patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
sent  him  to  England,  Germany,  and  Switzerland  (1616),  with  a  recom- 
mendation 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.3  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  1820  Metropiianes  visited  the  Uni- 
versities of  Wittenberg,  Tubingen,  Altdorf,  Strasburg,  and  Helmstadt. 
lie  acquired  good  testimonials  for  his  learning  and  character.  He  en- 
tered 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  Metropiianes 
prepared  a  work  on  the  faith  and  worship  of  the  orthodox  Greek 
Church.    He  also  wrote  a  number  of  philological  essays.    After  spend- 

1  In  Kimmel's  Monumenta,  Vol.  I.  p.  378. 
8  See  beyond,  §  20. 

3  See  the  letter  in  Kimmel,  Preface  to  Vol.  II.  p.  vii.,  and  in  Colomesii,  Opera,  quoted  there. 
On  Cvril  Lucar,  see  the  next  section. 


§  14.  THE  CONFESSION  OF  METROPHANES  CRITOPULUS.  53 

ing  some  time  in  Venice  as  teacher  of  the  Greek  language,  he  returned 
to  the  East,  and  became  successor  of  Cyril  Lucar  in  Alexandria.  But 
he  disappointed  the  hopes  of  his  patron,  and,  as  a  member  of  the  Synod 
of  Constantinople,  1638,  he  even  took  part  in  his  condemnation.  The 
year  of  his  death  is  unknown. 

The  Confession  of  Metrophanes1  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  truth- 
fell  account  of  the  Greek  faith,  but  betrays  the  influence  of  the  Protest- 
ant 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 
Helmstadt,  where  it  was  written.2  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.3  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. 


1  'OfioXoyia  rijc  dvaroXiKng  tKuXtjffiac  rfjc  KaSoXiKrig  Kai  cnrooToXirfe,  avyypa<j>ilaa  iv  l-iropy 
Sii  MiirpoQtvove  'Iepo[wvdXov  UarpiapXiKov  re  UputrotrvyyiXXov  row  Kptro  ttovXov. 
Con/essio  catholicce  et  apostolicm  in  Orienti  ecclesice,  conscripta  compendiose  per  Metro. 
phankm  CKlTOPtruJH,  Hieromonachum  et  Patriarchakm  Protosyngellum.  It  was  first  pub- 
lished in  Greek,  with  a  Latin  translation,  by  J.  Hornejus,  at  IIelmstii.lt.  1661.  Kitnmel  com- 
pared with  this  ed.  the  MS.  which  is  preserved  in  the  library  at  Wolfenbiittel,  but  he  died  be- 
fore his  edition  appeared,  with  a  preface  of  Weissenhorn  (1850). 

3  Nicolaus  Comnenus  called  Metrophanes  a  Graco-Lutheranus,  but  without  good  reason. 

3  See  below,  §  17. 


54  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


§  15.  The  Confession  of  Cykil  Lucar,  A.D.  1G31. 

Literature. 

Cyeilt.i  Lcoaris  Confessio  Christiana  fidei,  Latin,  1629;  c.  additam.  Cyrilli,  Gr.  et  Lat,  Geuev.  1633  ; 
(?  Amst.)  1645,  and  often  ;  also  in  Kimmel's  Monumenta  fidei  Ecclesice  Orient.  P.  I.  pp.  24-44.  Compare 
Proleg.  pp.  xxi.-l.  (de  vita  Cyrilli). 

Tuom.  Smitu  :  Collectanea  de  Cyrillo  Lucari,  London,  1707.  Comp.  also,  in  Th.  Smith's  Miscellanea,  his 
Narratio  de  vita,  stiuliis,  gestis  et  martyrio  C.  Lucaris. 

Leo  Ali.atius  (d.  at  Rome,  1669) :  De  Ecclcsia?.  Occidentalis  atque  Orientalis  perpctua  consensione,  libri 
tres  (TIL  11),  Gr.  et  Lat.  Colon.  1648.    Bitter  and  slanderous  against  Cyril. 

J.  H.  Hottingeb  :  Analecta  hist,  theol.  Dissert.  VIII.,  Appendix,  Tignr.  1653  (al.  1652).  Against  him,  L. 
Allatius  :  J.  II.  Ilottingerus,  fraudis  et  imposturce  manifesto?  convictus,  Rom.  1661. 

J.  Aymon  :  Lettres  anecdotes  de  Cyrille  Lucaris,  Amsterd.  171S. 

Bounstkdt:  De  Cyrillo  Lucari,  Halle,  1724. 

Moiinike:  On  Cyril,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1S32,  p.  560. 

Several  articles  on  Cyril  Lucar,  in  the  British  Magazine  for  Sept.  1S42,  Dec.  1843,  Jan.  and  June,  1844. 

Twesten  :  On  Cyril,  in  the  Deutsche  Zeitschr.  f.  christl.  Wissensch.  u.  chr.  Leben,  Berl.  1S50,  No.  39,  p.  305, 

W.  Gass  :  Article  'Lucaris,'  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklop.Ylll.  (1857),  538  sqq. ;  and  Symbolik,  pp.  50  sqq. 

Aloysius  Piciiler  (Rom.  Cath.) :  Der  Patriarch  Cyrillus  Lucaris  und  seine  Zeit.,  Miinchen,  1862,  Svo. 
(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  heret- 
ical ;  but  as  it  gave  rise  to  the  later  authentic  definitions  of  the  '  Ortho- 
dox Faith,'  in  opposition  to  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  Romanism  and 
Protestantism,  it  must  be  noticed  here. 

Cyrillus  Lucaris  (Kyrillos  Loukaris1),  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.  lie  is  the  counterpart  of  his  more  learned  and  successful, 
but  less  noble,  antagonist,  Leo  Allatius  (1586-1669),  who  openly  aposta- 
tized 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  learn- 
ing. 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  Re- 
formed Church,  and  embraced  its  faith.  Subsequently  he  openly  pro- 
fessed it  in  a  letter  to  the  Professors  of  Geneva  (1636),  through  Leger, 


1  Properly  'the  son  of  Lucar,'  hence  rov  AovicapEwr.     The  word  Xovxap  in  later  Greek  is 
the  Latin  lucar,  or  lucrum,  stipend,  pay,  profit,  whence  the  French  and  English  lucre. 


§  15.  THE  CONFESSION  OF  CYRIL  LUCAR.  55 

a  minister  from  Geneva,  who  had  been  sent  to  Constantinople.  lie 
conceived  the  bold  plan  of  ingrafting  Protestant  doctrines  on  the  old 
oecumenical  creeds  of  the  Eastern  Church,  and  thereby  reforming  the 
same.  lie  was  unanimously  elected  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  in  16<  >2  |  i  1. 
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  Con- 
fession 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 
in  a  wJii //?,'  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  Bercea,  crying,  '  Pilate,  give  us  the  dead,  that  we 
may  bury  him.'1  The  corpse  was  washed  ashore,  but  it  was  only  ob- 
tained 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  Bercea  and  a  Synod  of  Constantinople  (Sept.,1638),2  then  again 
by  the  Synods  of  Jassy,  in  Moldavia,  164-3,  and  of  Jerusalem,  1672  ;  but 

1  UiXctTt,  Su£  iiyuv  rbv  vtKpov,  'iva  avrbv  3ai//w/»i'. 

-  Cyril  of  Bercea  seemed  to  assume  the  authenticity  of  Cyril's  Confession.  lie  was,  how- 
ever, himself  afterwards  deposed  and  anathematized  on  the  charge  of  extortion  and  embezzle- 
ment of  ecclesiastical  funds,  and  for  the  part  he  took  in  procuring  the  death  of  Cyril  Lncar 
by  preferring  false  accusation  against  him  to  the  Turks.  Sec  .Mouraviett-,  His/,  of  the  Church 
of  Russia,  translated  by  Blackmore,  p.  300.  Blackmorc,  however,  gives  there  a  wrong  date, 
assigning  the  death  of  Cvril  to  1G28  instead  of  1638. 

Yol.  I.— E 


56  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

on  the  last  two  occasions  the  honor  of  his  name  and  the  patriarchal 
dignity  were  saved  by  boldly  denying  the  authenticity  of  his  Confes- 
sion, and  contradicting  it  by  written  documents  from  his  pen.1 

This  Cyril  was  the  same  who  sent  the  famous  uncial  Codex  Alexan- 
drinus  of  the  Bible  (A)  to  King  Charles  I.  of  England,2  and  who  trans- 
lated the  New  Testament  into  the  modern  Greek  language.3 

The  Confession  of  Cyril  was  first  written  by  him  in  Latin,  1529,  and 
then  in  Greek,  with  an  addition  of  four  questions  and  answers,  1631,  and 
published  in  both  languages  at  Geneva,  1633.4  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  forti- 
fied with  Scripture  references;  eight  chapters  contain  the  common 
old  Catholic  doctrine,  while  the  rest  bear  a  distinctly  Protestant  char- 
acter. 

In  Chapter  I.  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity  is  plainly  stated  in  agree- 
ment with  the  oecumenical  creeds,  the  procession  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
conciliatory  terms  of  the  Council  of  Florence.5  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 


1  The  Synods  of  Jassy  and  Jerusalem  intimate  that  Cyril's  Confession  was  a  Calvinistic 
forgerv,  and  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  quotes  largely  from  his  homilies  to  prove  his  orthodoxy. 
Mouravieff,  1.  c.  p.  IS0*,  adopts  a  middle  view,  Saying :  '  Cyril,  although  he  had  condemned  the 
new  doctrine  of  Calvin,  nevertheless  had  not  stood  up  decidedly  and  openly  to  oppose  it,  and 
for  his  neglect  he  was  himself  delivered  over  to  an  anathema  by  his  successor,  Cyril  of  Beroea.' 

2  Not  to  James  I.  (who  died  1G25),  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  1G28,  where  it  passed  from  the  king's  library  into  the  British  Mu- 
seum, 17.13.  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, 
fob,  and  in  ordinary  Greek  type  by  Cowper,  Lond.  1800. 

3  Published  at  Geneva  or  Leyden,  1638;  and  at  London,  1703. 

*  The  Latin  edition  was  first  published  in  1529,  either  at  the  Hague  (by  the  Dutch  embas- 
sador Cornelius  Van  der  Haga)  or  at  Geneva,  or  at  both  places ;  the  authorities  I  have  con- 
sulted diner.  The  subscription  to  the  Gra:co-Latin  edition  before  me  reads:  '■Datum  Con- 
stantinopoli  mense  Januario  1681  Cyrillus  Patriarcha  Constantinopoleos.'  Another  edition 
(perhaps  by  Hugo  Grotius)  was  published  1645,  without  indication  of  place  (perhaps  at  Am- 
sterdam).    I  have  used  Kimmel's  edition,  which  gives  the  text  of  the  edition  of  1G45. 

i  'S/iiritus  Sanrtus  a  Patre  ter  Filium  procedens,'  Ik  tov  7r«rpoc  cV  vlou. 


§  15.  THE  CONFESSION  OF  CYRIL  LUCAR.  57 

Ruler  of  his  Church  (status  exinanitionis  and  st.  exaltationis) ;  Chapter 
IX.,  of  faith  in  general ;  Chapter  XV I.,  of  baptismal  regeneration. 

The  remaining  ten  chapters  breathe  the  Reformed  spirit.  Chapter 
II.  asserts  that  '  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  is  superior  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church,'  since  the  Scriptures  alone,  being  divinely  in- 
spired, can  not  err.1  In  the  appendix  to  the  second  (the  Greek)  edition, 
Cyril  commends  the  general  circulation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  main- 
tains 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  (afiapravctv),  and 
to  choose  the  error  instead  of  the  truth  (dvA  rf/e  d\r)Ziiatj  to  \f,tvcog 
tuXtytaSai) ;  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.  Ami  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  ami 
testimonies  of  our  faith,  and  a  confirmation  of  our  calling.  But,  as  human  frailty  bears  wit- 
ness, 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.).2  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  fru- 
ition of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  by  believers  only  (Ch.  XVI  I.). 
In  the  last  chapter  he  rejects  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  and  of  the  pos- 
sibility of  repentance  after  death. 

1  'Credimus  Scripturam  sarram  esse  StocicaKTov  (i.  e.,  a  Deo  trad! tain)  habereque  auctorem 
Spiritum  Sanctum,  non  alium,  rui  habere  debemus  Jidem  induhitnm.  .  .  .  Propterta  ejus  aitc- 
toritatem  esse  superiorem  Ecchria  avctoritate ;  nimis  enim  different  est,  loqui  Spiritum  Sanc- 
tum ct  linguam  kumanam,  auitui  ista  possii  per  ignorantiam  errare,fallere  it  full  i,  Scriptvra 
vero  divina  nee  fall ilur,  nee  errare  potest,  sed  est  infallibilis  s<  injur  it  certa.' 

3  HiOTtvopiv  iv  role  ovk  avayivvnStiai  ri>  ai>TtZ,oimiov  vtKpbv  rival.  This  is  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  traditional  doctrine  of  the  Greek  (  lunch,  which  emphasises  the  liU'nini  arbiti  iuni 
even  more  than  the  Roman,  and  was  never  affected  by  the  Angustinian  anthropology. 


58  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

§  16.  The  Orthodox  Confession  of  Mogilas,  A.D.  1643. 
The  Orthodox  Confession  of  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Eastern 
Church1  was  originally  drawn  up  about  the  year  1640  by  Peter  Mo- 
gilas (or  Mogila),  Metropolitan  of  Kieff,  and  father  of  Russian  the- 
ology (died  1647),  in  the  form  of  a  Catechism  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Eussian  Church.2  It  was  revised  and  adopted  by  a  Provincial  Synod 
at  Kieff  for  Eussia,  then  again  corrected  and  purged  by  a  Synod  of 
the  Greek  and  Eussian  clergy  at  Jassy,  in  1643,  where  it  received  its 
present  shape  by  Meletius  Syeiga,  or  Striga,  the  Metropolitan  of  Ni- 
ccea,  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  o/ioXoyia, 
rjv  fot'saro  tcai  Sf^trai  cnra&aTrXiog  Tcaaa  i)  avaroXinrj  EKieXqo'ta).  Ill  this 
way  it  became  the  Creed  of  the  entire  Greek  and  Eussian  Church.  It 
has  been  the  basis  of  several  later  Catechisms  prepared  by  Eussian 
divines. 


1  'OpS68o£,og  6/joXoyia  rijg  raS-oAi/ci/c  icai  airoaroXiKtjg  liacXricriag  rijg  dvaroXiierjg.  It  is  un- 
certain whether  it  was  first  written  in  Greek  or  in  Russ.  First  published  in  Greek  by  Pana- 
giotta,  Amst.  1G62  ;  then  in  Greek  and  Latin  by  Bishop  Normann,  of  Gothenburg  (then  Pro- 
fessor at  Upsala),  Leipz.  1G95 ;  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 
Monum.  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  Rus- 
sian Catechism  by  the  same  author  (Peter  Mogilas). 

8  The  following  account  of  Mogilas  is  translated  from  the  Russian  of  Bolchofsky  by  Black- 
more  {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,  casu- 
istical, 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,  trans- 
lated by  Blackmore  (Oxford,  1 842),  pp.  1 86-1 89.  It  is  there  stated  that  he  received  his  edu- 
cation in  the  University  of  Paris.  This  accounts  for  the  tinge  of  Latin  scholasticism  in  his 
Confession. 


§  16.  THE  ORTHODOX  CONFESSION  OF  MOGILAS.  59 

The  Orthodox  Confession  was  a  defensive  measure  againgt  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.1 

It  is  preceded  by  a  historical  account  of  its  composition  and  publica- 
tion, a  pastoral  letter  of  Nectarius,  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  dated  Nov. 
20, 1662 ;  and  by  a  letter  of  indorsement  of  the  Greek  text  from  Par- 
thenius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  dated  March  11, 1613,2  followed 
by  the  signatures  of  twenty-six  Patriarchs  and  prelates  of  the  Eastern 
Church. 

The  letter  of  Parthenius  is  as  follows : 

1  Parthenius,  by  the  mercy  of  God,  Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  New  Rome,  and  (Ecu- 
menical Patriarch.  Our  mediocrity,3  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  [Xiceue]  Symbol ;  Love  into  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  such  other  nec- 
essary 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  16-13,  11th  day  of  March.' 

The  Confession  itself  begins  with  three  preliminary  questions  and 
answers.  Question  first:  'What  must  an  orthodox  and  Catholic  Chris- 
tian man  observe  in  order  to  inherit  eternal  life?'     Answer:  'Right 


1  See  §  15.  Mouravieff,  in  his  nist.  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  I. near.  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,' hail  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  (  '/'/"  /J'-rtrinc  of  the 
Russian  Church,  p.  xx.),  thinks  that  Mogilas  wrote  against  the  Lutherans  rather  than  the  Cal- 
vinists; adding,  however,  that  it  is  chiefly  directed  against  the  Papists,  from  whom  danger 
was  most  apprehended. 

s  This  is  the  date  (.axuy)  given  by  Kimnicl.  1'.  I.  p,  .">.">,  and  the  date  of  the  Synod  of  Jassj, 
where  the  Confession  was  adopted.  Butler  {Hist  .1"'.  ofConf.  if  Faith,  p.  101)  Kix,'s  the 
year  !('.(;:$;  but  the  Confession  was  already  published  in  1662, with  the  letters  of  the  two 
Patriarchs.     See  Kimmel,  Prolerj.  p.  lxii. 

3  »)  pirpioTijc  t)  pwv,  a  title  of  proud  humility,  like  the  papal  '  scrvus  servorum  Iki,'  which 
dates  from  Gregory  I. 


(JO  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

faith  and  good  works  (iriariv  dpZy)v  koi  tpya  KaXa) ;  for  be  who  observes 
these  is  a  good  Christian,  and  has  the  hope  of  eternal  salvation,  accord- 
ing 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  {inp\  moTswg),  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  Niceea  and  Constantinople]  un- 
derstood 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  (rrepl  tXiri^og),  and  contains  an  exposi- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  (nine)  Beatitudes  (Matt.  v.  3-11). 

3.  Part  third  treats  of  Zove  to  God  and  man  (-rrtpX  Ti~tg  tig  Stbv  koi 
tov  rrXnalov  ayairrjg),  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,  forni- 
cation, 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 


§  17.  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM  AND  CONFESSION  OF  DOSITHEUS.      Gl 

Churches,  which  follow  the  less  natural  division  of  Augustine  by  merg- 
ing the  second  commandment  in  the  first,  and  then  dividing  the  tenth. 

§  17.  The  Synod  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Confession  of  Dositheus, 
A.D.  1672. 

Hakpocin  :  Acta  Conciliorum  (Paris,  1715),  Tom.  XI.  pp.  179-274. 

Ki.m.mei.  :  Monumenta  Fidei  Eeeteaim  Oriental  is,  P.  I.  pp.  820-488;  Prolegomena,  pp.  Ixxv.-xcii. 

On  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  comp.  also  lino:  Dissert,  de  Actis  Synodi  Hieros,  a.  1072  sub  J'atr.  Triers. 
Dosithco  adv.  Catcinistas  habitce,  Lips.  1696.  Aymon  :  Monuments  avtlimtiquee  de  la  religion  dea  Grecs, 
a  la  Haye,  170S.  Basnaoe:  Hist,  de  la  religion  dee  eglises  refornues,  P.  I.  ch.  xxxii.  J.  Covel:  Account 
of  the  present  Greek  Church,  Bk.  I.  ch.  v.  Soukoeckh  :  Kirehengesehiehtc  scit  der  Reformation,  Bd.  ix.  (by 
Tzsciiieneh),  pp.  90-96.    Uass  :  Sgmb.  der  griech.  Kirche,  pp.  79-84. 

The  Synod  convened  at  Jerusalem  in  March,  1672,  by  Patriarch  Do- 
sitiieus, for  the  consecration  of  the  restored  Church  of  the  Holy  Nativity 
in  Bethlehem,1  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  Pales- 
tine (otherwise  little  known),  and  by  sixty-eight  Eastern  bishops  and  ec- 
clesiastics, including  some  from  Russia.2 

This  Synod  is  the  most  important  in  the  modern  history  of  the  East- 
ern 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  hier- 
archical 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  CalvinistB  in 
France  fiercely  disputed  about  the  Eucharist,  and  were  anxious  to  se- 
cure the  support  of  the  Greek  Church.  But  although  the  Synod  was 
chiefly  aimed  against  Protestantism,  and  has  no  direct  polemical  ref- 

1  Hence  it  is  sometimes  called  the  Synod  of  Bethlehem,  but  it  was  actually  held  atJerusalem. 

2  Its  title  is  Aff7r!c  6p$o£o£iac  »"/  a7ro\oy/a  cai  Atyync  irpo<:  rorc  diaovpovrac  ti)v  oi'aroXi- 
o)v  keXjjffiov  cuatTiKujc  typovtiv  iv  rote  nipt  Seov  cai  r&v  Seiwv,  K.r.X.  Clt/petu  orthodoxa 
fidei  rive  Apologia  adverstu  Calvinistaa  heereticos,  Orientalem  eccleaiam  <!*■  !)<•>  rebvsque 
diriuis  haretice  mm  ipsis  sentlre  mentientea.  The  first  edition,  Greek  and  Latin,  was  pub- 
lished at  Taris,  IOTi!  ;   then  revised,  1678  ;   also  by  Hardonin,  and  Kiinmcl.  1.  c. 


62  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

erence  to  the  Latin  Church,  it  did  not  give  up  any  of  the  distinctive 
Greek  doctrines,  or  make  any  concessions  to  the  claims  of  the  Papacy. 

The  acts  of  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  consist  of  six  chapters,  and  a 
confession  of  Dositheus  in  eighteen  decrees.  Both  are  preceded  by  a 
pastoral  letter  giving  an  account  of  the  occasion  of  this  public  confes- 
sion in  opposition  to  Calvinism  and  Lutheranism,  which  are  condemned 
alike  as  being  essentially  the  same  heresy,  notwithstanding  some  appa- 
rent differences.1  The  Answers  of  Patriarch  Jeremiah  given  to  Martin 
Crusius,  Professor  in  Tubingen,  and  other  Lutherans,  in  1572,  are  ap- 
proved by  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  as  they  were  by  the  Synod  of  Jassy, 
and  thus  clothed  with  a  semi-symbolical  authority.  The  Orthodox  Con- 
fession 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,2  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  with- 
out 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  quali- 
fications,3 showing  that,  after  all,  the  Russian   branch   of  the  Greek 


1  "AScXfd  (ppovel  AovSfipoc  Kakovivy,  ti  kcii  tv  nai  Sia<j>ipuv  SokoTxtiv.  lNon  alia  est  Lu- 
theri  hceresis  atque  Calvini,  quamquam  nonnihil  videtur  interesse'  (Kimmel,  P.  I.  p.  335). 

*  "Opoc,  decree,  decision.     It  is  translated  eapitulum  in  Hardouin,  decretum  in  Kimmel. 

3  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,  1.  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 


§  17.  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM  AND  CONFESSION  OF  DOSIT1IKUS.      63 

Church  reserves  to  itself  a  certain  freedom  of  further  theological  de- 
velopment. "We  give  them  here  in  a  condensed  summary  from  the 
original  Greek : 

Article  I. — The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  with  the  single  pro- 
cession of  the  Spirit.  (llvtvfia  uyiov  Ik  tov  Trarfjog  IKWOpevofJLSVOV. 
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  accept- 
ing 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  peti- 
tions before  him,  and  give  them  greater  effect. 

Article  IX. — !STo  one  can  be  saved  without  faith,  which  is  a  certain 
persuasion,  and  works  by  love  (i.  e.  the  observance  of  the  divine  com- 
mandments). It  justifies  before  Christ,  and  without  it  no  one  can 
please  God. 

Article  X. — The  holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  comprehends 


Lord,'  in  answer  to  letters  of  two  Non-Jurors  and  two  Scotch  Bishops  seeking  communion 
with  the  Eastern  Church.     Comp.  §  20. 


64:  TOE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

all  true  believers  in  Christ,  and  is  governed  by  Christ,  the  only  head, 
through  duly  ordained  bishops  in  unbroken  succession.  The  doctrine 
of  Calvinists,  that  bishops  are  not  necessary,  or  that  priests  (presbyters) 
may  be  ordained  by  priests,  and  not  1  y  bishops  only,  is  rejected. 

Article  XI — Members  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  all  the  faithful, 
who  firmly  hold  the  faith  of  Christ  as  delivered  by  him,  the  apostles, 
and  the  holy  synods,  although  some  of  them  may  be  subject  to  various 
sins. 

Article  XII — The  Catholic  Church  is  taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
through  prophets,  apostles,  holy  fathers,  and  synods,  and  therefore  can 
not  err,  or  be  deceived,  or  choose  a  lie  for  the  truth.  (Against  Cyril ; 
comp.  Art.  II.) 

Article  XIII. — Man  is  justified,  not  by  faith  alone, but  also  by  works. 

Article  XIV. — Man  has  been  debilitated  by  the  fall,  and  lost  the 
perfection  and  freedom  from  suffering,  but  not  his  intellectual  and 
moral  nature.  He  has  still  the  free  will  (to  avTtZovmov)  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  (crioTrfpiag  a£,iov  ttoiutcii  tov  IvepyovvTct). 

Article  XV. — Teaches,  with  the  Roman  Church,  the  seven  sacra- 
ments or  mysteries  (jivarijpia),  viz.,  baptism  (to  ayiov  fiaTrTtapa,  Matt, 
xxviii.  19),  confirmation  (fiefiaiwoig  or  y^piajxa,  Luke  xxiv.  49  ;  2  Cor.  i. 
21 ;  and  Dionysius  Areop.),  ordination  (hpoavvri,  Matt,  xviii.  IS),  the  un- 
bloody sacrifice  of  the  altar  (r)  iivaipaKTOQ  Sva'ia,  Matt.  xxvi.  26,  etc.), 
matrimony  (yapog,  Matt.  xix.  6 ;  Eph.  v.  32),  penance  and  confession 
(ptTavoia  Kai  l%opo\6yr]cng,  John  xx.  23 ;  Luke  xiii.  3,  5),  and  holy  unc- 
tion (to  ayiov  tXaiov  or  ty^Aotoi',  Mark  vi.  13 ;  James  v.  14).  Sacra- 
ments are  not  empty  signs  of  divine  promises  (as  circumcision),  but 
they  necessarily  (t£  avayKtio)  confer  grace  (as  opyava  Spastica  xapiTog). 

Article  XVI — Teaches  the  necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation,  bap- 
tismal 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. 


§  17.  SYNOD  OF  JERUSALEM  AND  CONFESSION  OF  DOSITHEUS.      G5 

Article  XVII. — The  Eucharist  is  both  a  sacrament  and  a  sacrifice, 
in  which  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  and  really  (aXnSwc 
k-ai  TrpayiuaTiKwg)  present  under  the  figure  and  type  (iv  tlSti  kcu  tvttio)  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 

(vTTip    TTIIVTIOV    tCjV    IVGifiwV    L,U)VTWV    KOI    TtZl'l U)TlOv),  ilU(l    OVQ    received   1)V 

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  (/uEra/3oXn,  fiiToualwaic;)  is 
taught  as  strongly  as  words  can  make  it;1  but  it  is  disclaimed  to  give 
an  explanation  of  the  mode  in  which  this  mysterious  and  miraculous 
change  of  the  elements  takes  place.2 

Article  XVIII— The  souls  of  the  departed  are  either  at  rest  or  in 
torment,3  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  (^raiW/o-ai/Ttc),  without  having  brought  forth 
fruits  of  repentance,  or  satisfactions  (iKavoiroir^cng),  depart  into  Hades 
(inrtfj\ta^ai  tig  (fiov),  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 

1  Deer.  17  (Kimmel,  P.  I.  p.  4.V7):  wirrf  fiiTa  rov  ay lan/iuv  tov  uprov  Kai  tov  o'ivov  /i«ra- 
PdWioSai  (to  be  translated),  ^itrovaiova^ai  (transubstantiated),  fitTairoifTffSai  (re- 
fashioned, transformed),  niTapovSiiiZtoSai  (changed, reformed),  rov  fitv  dprov  tie  aura  to 
a\i)3iq  tov  Kvpiov  ow^a,  oirip  iytvvlftr)  iv  Br/5\tf/«  t/c  ri/c  dinrapSivov,  i/3a7rr<<r3;;  iv'Iopi&Vjf, 
inaSiv,  iTc't(pj],  avion],  dvt\i\(pzi),  KuSrjTat  ik  Se'Ciwv  tov  Qiov  Kai  Trartpoc,  julXXci  iXSttv  iir't  twv 
v«pt\iuv  tov  ovpavov — tov  d"  o'ivov  /xeTcnroitToSai  Kai  fitTOV oiovoSai  tic  (ii'rii  to  dXndig 
tov  Kvpiov  alpa,  oirtp  Kptfiafiivov  iici  tov  aTavpov  iyvSrn  virip  r§£  tov  Koapov  £u»ijfc.  Mosbeim 
thinks  that  the  Greeks  first  adopted  in  this  period  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  but  Ries- 
ling (Hist,  concert  at.  GrcBCorvm  Latinorumque  cle  tranasubstantiatione,  pp.  :i">l  180,  as  quoted 
by  Tzschirner,  in  Vol.  IX.  of  his  continuation  of  Schroeckh's  Chunk  Hist,  since  the  Reformor 
tion,  p.  102)  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  sym- 
pathizers brought  the  Greek  Church  to  a  clearer  and  fuller  expression  on  this  point. 

3  Ibid.  (p.  461):  in  ry  ptTovaiiooig  Xi^ei  oi>  tov  rpoirov  morivofuv  SnXevoSrai,  ko$'  ov 
6  dprog  Kai  6  olvog  piTairotovvTai  lie  to  owpa  Kai  to  aipa  tov  Kvpiov — tovto  yap  d\tiTTTOV 
-di'Ti]  Kai  devvarov  tt\i)v  avrov  tov  Stov.  In  the  Lat.  Version  :  'Praterea  oerbo  TbaHSSUB- 
stantiatiosis  moclum  Ulum,  quo  in  corpus  it  tangvinem  Domini pania  it  vinum  convertcntur, 
explicori  minime  credimus — id  mini  penittu  incotnprekensibile,'  etc.  titrownutetc  (not  given 
in  the  Classical  Diet.,  nor  in  Sophocles's  Byzantine  Greek  Diet.,  nor  in  Suicers  '/'/usuunis) — 
from  the  classical  ovoiout,  to  call  into  being  (ovaia)  or  existence,  and  the  patristic  nvaiwatg,  a 
calling  into  existence — must  be  equivalent  t<>  the  Latin  transsubstantiatio,  or  change  of  the 
elemental  substance  of  bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 

3  iv  avian,  lit.  in  relaxation,  recreation,  ;"/  iv  68bvy,  or  in  pain,  di-ti 


66  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

(juayaXa  Swa/uivriQ  fxakiGTa  tjJc  avai/nctKrov  Svcriag),  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  gen- 
eral 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.1 

To  these  eighteen  decrees  are  added  four  questions  and  answers, 
with  polemic  reference  to  the  similar  questions  at  the  close  of  the  en- 
larged edition  of  Cyril's  Confession.2  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.3  The  fourth  teaches  the 
worship  of  saints,  especially  the  Mother  of  God  (who  is  the  object  of 

1  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,  Si/mb.  pp.  158, 15'.))  that  the  Greek  Church  rejects  the  Romish  purgatory.  Winer 
quotes  the  Conf.  Metrophanis  Critopuli,  c.  20 ;  hut  this  has  no  ecclesiastical  authority,  and, 
although  it  rejects  the  word  irvp  tcaSaprijpiov  (ignis  purgatorius),  and  all  idea  of  material  or 
physical  pain  (t>)v  ikuvuv  -koiv>)v  p)  IXucrjv  iivai,  drovg  6pyaviKi]v,  /a)  did  irvpoQ,  fi))re  Si 
dWrjc  vXr/g),  it  asserts,  nevertheless,  a  spiritual  pain  of  conscience  in  the  middle  state  (d\\d 
Sid  SXixptwQ  teal  dviag  tTjq  avi'iiSijatwg'),  from  which  the  sufferers  may  be  released  by  prayers 
and  the  sacrifice  of  the  altar.  The  Conf.  Orthodoxa  (P.  I.  Qu.  46)  speaks  vaguely  of  a  irpo- 
cKaipog  KoXaatQ  icaBctpTiict)  twv  ipvx&V)  '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  Prot- 
estant eschatology,  which  rejects  the  idea  of  a  third  or  middle  place  altogether,  and  assigns 
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. 

2  Comp.  §  15,  p.  57. 

3  The  following  Apocrypha  are  expressly  mentioned  (Vol.  I.  p.  4G7)  :  The  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon, Judith,  History  of  the  Dragon,  History  of  Susan,  the  books  of  the  Maccabees,  the  Wis- 
dom 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,  Raruch,  and 
the  Maccabees.  The  Russian  Catechism  of  Philaret  omits  the  Apocrypha  in  enumerating 
the  hooks  of  the  Old  Test.,  for  the  reason  that  '  they  do  not  exist  in  Hebrew,'  but  adds  that 
1  they  have  been  appointed  by  the  fathers  to  be  read  by  proselytes  who  are  preparing  for  ad- 
mission into  the  Church.'     (See  Blackmore's  translation,  pp.  38,  39.) 


§  18.  THE  SYNODS  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE,  A.D.  1G72  AND  1691.        Qf 

hyperdulia,  as  distinct  from  the  ordinary  dulia  of  saints,  and  the  latria 
or  worship  proper  due  to  God),  as  also  the  worshipful  veneration  of  the 
cross,  the  holy  Gospels,  the  holy  vessels,  the  holy  places,1  and  of  the 
images  of  Christ  and  of  the  saints.2 

In  all  these  important  points  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  again  essen- 
tially agrees  with  the  Church  of  Koine,  and  radically  dissents  from 
Protestantism. 

§  18.  The  Synods  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  1GT2  and  1G91. 

Three  months  previous  to  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  a  Synod  was  held 
at  Constantinople  (January,  1672),  which  adopted  a  doctrinal  statement 
signed  by  Dionysils,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  forty-three  dig- 
nitaries belonging  to  his  patriarchate.3  It  is  less  complete  than  the 
Confession  of  Dositheus,  but  agrees  with  it  on  all  points,  as  the  author- 
ity and  infallibility  of  the  Church,  the  extent  of  the  canon,  the  seven 
mysteries  (sacraments),  the  real  sacrifice  of  the  altar,  and  the  miracu- 
lous transformation4  of  the  elements. 

Another  Synod  was  held  in  Constantinople  nineteen  years  after- 
wards, in  1691,  under  Patriarch  Callinicus,  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
renewed  sanction  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  in  opposi- 
tion 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  East- 
ern Church  had  always  taught  a  change  (/u£ro/3oX/;)  of  the  elements  in 
the  sense  of  a  transubstantiation  (jusTovcr'nomg),  or  an  actual  transforma- 
tion of  their  essence  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.5 


1  TrpooKvvovptv  Kai  TtpoJpev  to  £u\ov  tov  Tipiov  tov  l,wottoiov  <JTCtVpoi>,  K.  T.  X. 

2  t>)v  iiKova  tov  Kvpiov  i)pwv  'Irjaov  Xp.  Kai  jijc  V7ripayiae  Siotokov  Kai  ttuvtwv  toiv  ay'nov 
TrpoaKuvoufitv  Kai  Tijiwpiv  Kai  aana^opica. 

3  It  is  called  Dionysii,  Pair.  Const.,  sujier  Calvini  star  inn  ermribus  ac  reali  imprimis  pro-, 
sentia  responsio,  and  is  published  in  some  editions  of  the  Confession  of  the  Synod  of  Jerusa- 
lem; in  Harduini  Acta  Conci/iorum,  Tom.  XI.  pp.  274-282;  and  in  the  second  volume  of 
Kimmel's  Monumenta,  pp.  214-227. 

*  On  this  the  document  teaches  (Kimmel,  P.  II.  p.  218;  that  when  the  priest  prays,  '  Make 
(woiiitoi')  this  bread  the  precious  blood  of  thy  Christ,'  then,  by  the  mysterious  and  ineffable 
operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  6  fiiv  aprog  fiirairoulrai  (transmutatur)  iir  airrb  ictTvo  r4  iftov 
aw/xa  tov  moTijpoc  Xpwrov  TrpaypariKwc  Kai  dXq&wc  Kai  KVpiuc  I  rettliter,  it  re,  ac  propric),  o 
Si  olvoq  tic,  to  'CuioTTOtov  alpa  aiirov. 

5  I  have  not  been  able  to  procure  the  proceedings  of  this  Synod ;  they  are  omitted  both  by 
Ilardouin  and  Kimmel.     They  were  first  printed  at  Jassy,  1698  :  then  In  Greek  and  Latin  by 


C8  Till-:  CBEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

§  19.  The  Doctrinal  Stahdakdh  of  the  Russo-Greex  Church. 

Literature. 

dm  Doctrine  uid  Theology: 

I  PnitABiT  (see  below). 
B  w    Bi  li  mow     The  /<■-"<  ins  >■/  the  Russian  Church,  etc.,  Aberdeen,  1S45. 

Priest  and  Doctor  of  Divinity) :  Exposition  de  la  doctrine  de  Veglisc  cathohquc 

orthodox- 

,,  Christiana  orthodoxa, Kfoigsberg,  1773-1775,  5  vols,  (abridged, 

Moscow . 
Btag  Kibfimski  :  C&mpemHum  orthodoxce  thculogio?,  Lips.  liso. 
II    Worship  and  Ritual: 

S  .Joes  Chbtsostom  it  he  Liturgy  used  in  the  Orthodox  Eastern  Church),  Greek 

i  Tom.  I V.  P.  II  p.  887,  etc. ;  by  J.  M.  Neale,  in  Primitive  Liturgies,  2d  edition, 

-      BogUsh  translations  by  Kim,,  Nkai.e,  BbbTT,  CoVEL,  J.  Freeman  Yoc.no  (the  last  publ. 

.  i  of  the  '  Papers  ofthe  Rosso-Greek  Committee').    Comp.  also  the  entire  fourth 

Liturg.  (which  gives  the  Oriental  Liturgies),  and  'Sf.xi.e's  Primitive  Liturgies, 

•.  it -i  i  Eastern  Church  (Lond.1850). 

isplain  at  St.  l'etersburg):  The  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Greek  Church 
:.  Lond.  1779.    Very  instructive. 
in.  ii  ~-.,r\  and  Preeenl  Condition  of  the  Russian  Church: 

ant  tur  la  doctrine  et  I'esprit  de  Veglise  orthodoxe, Weimar,  1S16. 
Contributions  to  Russian  Church  History,  Halle,  1S27;  and  History  of  the  Russian  Church, 

arch  of  Russia,  St.  Petersburg,  1S40;  translated  by  Blackmore,  Oxford, 
:  two  to  1781. 
1'iM.  .  London,  1838. 

Hai  i-  i  on  Russia,  German  and  French,  1S47-52, 3  vols. 

Tana  B  rche  Sutebmde,  1863. 

II  .1  Bcntm  rn ■u- in'eehischen  und  dcr  russischen  Kirche,  Mainz,  2d  ed.  1854. 

Li  ..  i;  vi.n/is  :  Vigliat  Qraco-Russe,  Paris,  1861. 

•  tret  on  the  Hist  ryofthe  Eastern  Church,  Lond.  and  N.T.1SG2,  Lect.  IX.-XII. 
Paris,  1807, 2  vols. 
I'mt.ir.r.T  (Archbishop  ofTscheroigow)  \  Geschichte  der  Kirche  Russlands,  transl.by  Blumenthal,lST2. 
Uabai  ■/     •  i-  Kirche.    EinUmrissihrerEntsUhungu.ihresLebens, Stuttgart,  1873. 

I   /■•  rt  of  the  '  Eastern  Church  Associations1  <>f  the  Church  of  England  and  the 
Protenlant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  publ.  in  Lond.  (Riviugtou's),  and  N.  York,  since  1864. 

The  latest  doctrinal  standards  oft  rreefc  Christianity  are  the  authorized 
I  hi8m8  and  <  Ihnrch-books  of  tlie  orthodox  Cliurch  of  Russia,  hy  far 
the  tnoet  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,  trans- 
lated the  Scriptures1  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 
.  !  >.  802),  and  Buoceeded  by  half  a  century  the  founding  ofthe 

i  with  tome  other  Greek  writings  on  the  Eucharist,  Paris,  1709- 
in  '■■■■■  lieineccius,  in  his  Abbildung  der  alt**  und  n<  <«  n  Griechischen  Kirche,  2  Tarts 
:;|1'  Append!  ,p   10,  etc.     Bo  says  Rud.  Hofmann  (in  his  Symbolik,  Leipz.  1867, 
•  trefn]  attention  to  the  <  rreek  I  Ihuroh. 

i  nt,  with  the  exception  ofthe  Apocalypse. 


§  19.  DOCTRINAL  STANDARDS  OF  THE  RUSSO-GREEK  CHURCH.      G9 

German  Empire  under  Charlemagne,  in  close  connection  with  Rome 
(A.D.  800).  As  the  latter  was  a  substitute  for  the  Western  Roman 
Empire,  so  the  former  was  destined  to  take  the  place  of  the  Eastern 
Roman  Empire,  and  looks  forward  to  the  reconquest  of  Constantinople, 
as  its  natural  capital.  The  barbarous  Russians  submitted,  in  the  tenth 
century,  without  resistance,  to  Christian  baptism  by  immersion,  at  the 
command  of  their  Grand  Duke,  Vladimir,  who  himself  was  brought 
over  to  Christianity  by  a  picture  on  the  last  judgment,  and  his  marriage 
to  a  sister  of  the  Greek  Emperor  Basil.  In  this  wholesale  conversion 
every  thing  is  characteristic :  the  influence  of  the  picture,  the  effect  of 
marriage,  the  power  of  the  civil  ruler,  the  military  command,  the  pas- 
sive 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  mis- 
fortunes. 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  (14G1),  and  a  century 
later  (January,  15S9)  he  was  raised  by  Patriarch  Jeremiah  II.  of  Con- 
stantinople, then  on  a  collecting  tour  in  Russia,  to  the  dignity  of  a 
Patriarch  of  equal  rank  with  the  other  four  (of  Constantinople,  Alex- 
andria, Antioch,  Jerusalem).1  Moscow  was  henceforward  the  holy  city, 
the  Rome  of  Russia. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Peter  the  Great,  a  sec- 
ond 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  Syn- 
od,' with  the  Czar  as  the  head  (1721).2  This  organic  change  was  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Eastern  Patriarchs  (1723),  who  look  upon  the  emperor- 
pope  of  Russia  as  their  future  deliverer  from  the  intolerable  yoke  of 
the  Turks. 

The  Empire  of  Russia,  by  its  vast  conquests  in  Europe  and  Asia, 
embraces  a  variety  of  religions,  even  the  Mohammedan  and  heathen. 
Other  forms  of  Christianity  enjoy  toleration,  but  not  liberty;  they  are 


1  Mouravieff,  1.  c.  pp.  303-320,  gives  a  circumstantial  description  of  the  election  and  install- 
ation of  the  first  Russian  Patriarch  (Job)  at  Moscow  in  the  presence  of  the  Czar  and  the 
Russian  Synod,  and  of  the  very  gorgeous  festivities  which  followed. 

5  Mouravieff,  1.  c.  pp.  283  sqq. 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

strictly  forbidden  to  propagate  their  faith,  while  secession  from  the 
national  (  fourch  i,  severely  punished.1     The  Greek  Church,  as  the  re- 
ligion of  the  State,  is  protected  by  special  legislation,  endowed  with 
.  interwoven  with  all  the  political  interests,  and  in 
[on  of  the  right  of  missionary  labor  and  progress  in  this 
ever-progressing  Asiatic-European  Empire,  which  seems  mainly,  though 
Qeans  exclusively,  intrusted  with  the  future  of  Eastern  Christian- 
ity and  the  civilization  of  Northern  and  Central  Asia.     The  Grseco- 
i  Church  now  numbers  over  50,000,000  of  members,  about  90 
bishops,  and  nearly  40,000  priests.    Its  most  hopeful  feature  is  the  com- 
paratively free  circulation  of  the  Scriptures,  which  is  more  highly  es- 
i  and  more  widely  read  there  than  in  other  parts  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  or  b  the  Church  of  Rome.2 
The  present  and  prospective  condition  of  Russia  gives  considerable 

1  There  i>  B  vast  difference  between  religious  liberty— as  an  inherent  and  inalienable  right 
of  the  rational  creature  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  a 
right  which  the  civil  government  is  bound  to  respect  and  to  protect  as  much  as  the  property 
and  life  lit'  its  subjects — and  religious  toleration,  as  a  concession  of  the  government  made  from 
.  of  from  policy,  and  subject  to  its  supervision,  control,  and  curtailment.    Old  Rome 
tut  towards  foreign  modes  of  worship,  and  yet  persecuted  Christianity.    Turkey  tol- 
erates  all  forms  of  Christianity,  yet  despises  them,  and  forbids  them  to  touch  Mohammedan- 
itm.     Russia,  however,  is  making  progress  in  the  direction  of  liberty.    The  emancipation  of 
fa  by  the  sovereign  will  of  Alexander  II.  (in  18G3)  is  certainly  one  of  the 
i  renl  -  i  if  tin'  century.     On  the  state  of  religious  liberty  in  Russia,  see  my  Report  of 
tin  Deputation  of  the  American  Branch  <>f  the  Evanyelical  Alliance  appointed  to  memorialize 
ih>  Emi  '  i,i  behalf  of  Religious Z»6erty,New York,  1871. 
'  Dr.  Pinkerton,  an  English  Independent,  who  for  many  years  resided  and  traveled  in 
■;:  of  the   British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  in  his  work  on  Russia,  p.  56, 
makes  the  following  statement,  which  is  confirmed  by  other  travelers:  'I  shall  never  forget 
the  impression  made  on  my  mind  on  entering  Russia  in  180.r>.     Without  any  farther  knowl- 
the  service,  people,  and  principles  of  the  Greek  Church,  the  traveler  must  at  once 
the  conclusion  that  the  Eastern  Church  is,  in  all  respects,  as  corrupt  in  doctrine,  and 
titioui  in  practice,  as  the  ('lunch  of  Home.     On  obtaining  better  information,  how- 
Bnds  this  a  bast;  conclusion,  and  not  borne  out  by  facts;  for  the  Church  that  per- 
mits every  oi f  it-  members  to  read  the  Scriptures  in  a  language  which  he  understands, 

and  acknowledges  this  Word  as  tie-  highest  tribunal  in  matters  of  faith  on  earth,  is  possessed 

•t  the  I"-  i  reformer  of  all  superstition.'    Alexander  I., who  was  brought  into  experimental 

with  evangelical  piety  through  Moravians,  Madame  dc  Kriidener  and  others,  per- 

■   British  and   Foreign  Bible  Society,   in   1813,   to  establish  a  branch  in  Russia. 

I  lie'  old  orthodox  party,  withdrew  the  permission  in  1825,  but  Alexan- 

B in  the  path  of  Alexander  I.,  has  partially  restored  it,  as  far  as  the 

mi  population  i>  concerned.    The  printing  and  publication  of  the  Russian  translation, 

iin  the  Orthodox  Church,  is  under  the  control  of  the  Holy  Synod.     Hepworth  Dixon 

thai  the  Russians,  next  to  the  Scotch  and  New  Englanders, are 

le  readers.     But  it  should  he  considered  that  probably  not  more  than  one  out 

1  at  ull. 


§  ID.  DOCTRINAL  STANDARDS  OF  THE  RUSSO-GREEK  CHURCH.      71 

importance  to  educational  books,  which  have  the  official  sanction  of  her 
highest  ecclesiastical  court,  and  mould  the  religious  views  and  habits 
of  her  rising  youth. 

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.1  He  was  the  favorite  of  the  Empress  Catherine  II. 
(died  1796),  and,  for  a  time,  of  her  savage  son,  the  Emperor  Paul  (as- 
sassinated 1801),  and  at  the  end  of  his  life  he  encouraged  the  Emperor 
Alexander  I.  in  the  terrible  year  of  the  French  invasion  and  the  de- 
struction of  Moscow.  When  the  French  atheist  Diderot  began  a  con- 
versation 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  ortho- 
doxy, not  disinclined  to  commune  with  the  outside  world.  His  Cate- 
chism 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.2 

1  '  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  (1-  c.  p.  vii.)  speaks  of  three  Cate- 
chisms of  Platon,  which  probably  differ  only  in  size. 

2  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,  lA  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  Black- 
more,  Aberdeen,  1845).  Most  of  the  German  works  on  Symbolics  ignore  Philaret  altogether. 
Even  Hofmann  (p.  1 3G)  and  Gass  (p.  440)  barely  mention  him.  Wc  give  his  Larger  Catechism 
in  the  second  volume. 

Vol.  I.— F 


-.,  THE  CREEDS  OE  CHRISTENDOM. 

Phihuct  (born  L782,died  1867)  was  for  forty-seven  years  (1820-67) 
politon  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.1 

Hia  longer  Catechism  (called  a.  full  catechism)  is,  upon  the  whole, 
the  ablest  and  clearest  summary  of  Eastern  orthodoxy,  and  shows  a  dis- 
position  to  Bupport  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  cate- 
chism, the  nature  and  necessity  of  right  faith  and  good  works,  divine 
ition,  the  holy  tradition  and  Holy  Scripture  (as  the  two  channels 
of  the  divine  revelation  and  the  joint  rule  of  faith  and  discipline),  the 
('alien  of  the  Scriptures  (exclusiveof  the  Apocrypha,  because  'not  writ- 
ten in  Hebrew'),  with  sonic  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 1  Cor.  xiii.  13). 

First  Part:  On  Faith.  An  Exposition  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  ar- 
ranged  in  twelve  articles.  In  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  the  Protest- 
ant distinction  <>f  the  visible  and  invisible  Church  is,  in  a  modified 
Benae,  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,  An- 
tioch,  Alexandria,  Constantinople,  Russia  (Rome,  Wittenberg,  Geneva, 
and  Canterbury  are  ignored),  does  not  hinder  them  from  being  spirit- 
ually members  'of  the  one  body  of  the  Universal  Church,  from  having 
one  I  fead,  ( Ihrist,  and  one  spirit  of  faith  and  of  grace.' 

Stanley,  who  saw  bun  in  Moscow  in  is.,7,  praises  his  striking  and  impressive  man- 
preacher,  his  gentleness,  his  dignified  courtesy  and  affability,  and  associates  him 
with  a  1  revival  of  medieval  sanctity,  which  had  its  parallel  in  the  Pnsevism  of  the 

Church  ol  England.    The  Scottish  Bishop  of  Moray  ami  Ross,  who  called  on  him  in  behalf 
Of  tli-    I  iation  in  I  B66,  describes  him  as  the  most  venerated  and  beloved 

'"•'"'  In  1  ipire,  and  as  'gentle,  humble,  ami  pious.'    Cum]).  Souchkow,  Memoirs 

1  "  l  Sermons  of  Philaret,  transl,  from  the  Russian,  London 

i-7.:. 


§  10.  DOCTRINAL  STANDARDS  OF  THE  RUSSO-GREEK  CHURCH.     73 

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  serv- 
ants ;  we  have  done  that  which  was  our  duty  to  do"  (Luke  xvii.  10).' 

3.  Finally,  we  may  mention,  as  secondary  standards  of  Russian  ortho- 
doxy and  discipline,  the  Primer  or  Spelling- Book,  and  a  Treatise  on 
The  Duty  of  Parish  Priests.1 

The  Primer  contains  the  rudiments  of  religious  learning  for  chil- 
dren 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  Com- 
mandments (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  Mogilefr*  (died  1795),  aided  by  Par- 
thenius  Sopkofsky,  Bishop  of  Smolensk,  and  first  printed  at  St.  Peters- 
burg 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  doc- 
trine 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.2 


1  Both  translated  by  Blackmore,  1.  c. 

2  See  Part  I.  No. VIII. -XIII.  pp.  160-lG-t  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  Testa- 
ments. .  .  .  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.' 


-4  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


8  90.  Anglo-Catholic  Correspondence  with  the  Kusso-Greek 
Church. 

The  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  proceeded  entirely  from 
tin-  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  antago- 
nism of  the  Greek  Communion  to  Western  innovations,  especially  to 
the  claims  of  the  Papacy,  seemed  to  open  the  prospect  of  possible  inter- 
communion 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.1 

•J.  <  H  a  different  kind  was  Cyril's  movement,  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, to  protestantize  the  Eastern  Church  from  within,  which  resulted 
in  a  stronger  condemnation  of  Calvinism  and  Lutheranism.2 

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.3 
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  Boveral  yours,  the  Patriarchs,  under  date,  Constanti- 
nople, September,  L723,  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 


above,  §  18. 
L& 

of  the  bar  Bishop  signing  themselves  'Jbbemias,  Primus  AngliceEplmopus; 
B  itannia  Episcoput;  J ACOBVB,  Scoto-Britannice  Episcopus;  Thomas, 
n  by  Lathbary,  in  his  History  of  the  Non-Jurors,  pp.  SO0-3G1, 
'    f  their  doctrinal  Btatns,  but  the  answers  are  omitted. 


§  20.  ANGLO-CATHOLIC  CORRESPONDENCE.  75 

with  us  in  the  Divine  doctrines  of  the  Orthodox  faith  must  necessarily 
follow  and  submit  to  what  has  been  defined  and  determined  by  ancient 
Fathers  and  the  Holy  (Ecumenical  Synods  from  the  time  of  the  Apos- 
tles 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  1072. 

The  Russians  were  more  polite.  The  '  Most  Holy  Governing  Synod' 
of  St.  Petersburg,  in  transmitting  the  ultimatum  of  the  Eastern  Patri- 
archs, 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.1 

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,  repre- 
sents them  as  being  infected  with  the  same  '  German  heresy,'  which  had 
been  previously  condemned  by  the  Orthodox  Church.2 

4.  A  far  more  serious  and  respectable  attempt  to  effect  intercommu- 
nion 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  multipli- 

1  The  two  letters  of  the  Holy  Synod,  the  one  signed  Moscow,  February,  1 723,  the  other 
without  date,  are  given  by  Blaekmore,  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  Rus- 
sia from  personal  inspection  of  the  archives  of  the  Holy  Synod,  at  a  visit  to  St.  Petersburg, 
April,  1864. 

3  History  of  the  Church  of  Russia,  translated  by  Blaekmore,  pp.  286  sq.,  407  sqq. 


76  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

oation  of  Rosso-Greeks  on  the  Pacific  coast,  and  by  the  desirableness 
of  Becnring  decent  burial  fur  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  II.  Newman,  seceded 
i,,  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. 
Posey's  Ein  nicon,  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  T\ew  York,  October,  1862,  a  joint  committee 
was  appointed  '  to  consider  the  expediency  of  opening  communication 
witli  the  Russo-Greek  Church,  to  collect  authentic  information  upon 
the  subject,  and  to  report  to  the  next  General  Convention.'  Soon  after- 
wards, July  1,  1863,  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury  appointed  a  simi- 
lar 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 
oommnnion  of  their  own  Church.'  The  Episcopal  Church  in  Scotland 
likewise  Cell  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,  lor  the  publication  of  interesting  information  on  the 
doctrines  ami  worship  of  the  Russo-Greek  Church.  Visits  were  made 
t"  Russia,  fraternal  letters  and  Christian  courtesies  were  exchanged, 
and  informal  conferences  between  Anglican  and  Russian  dignitaries 
were  held  in  London,  St  Petersburg,  and  Moscow.1 


ie  detail!  in  the  <  tacasional  Papers  of  the  t«..  Eastern  Church  Associations,  published 
'•l  in  London  (Rivington'e)  ami  in  New  York,  and  the  Reports  in  theJournal  of  the 

' >f  tke Prvtutcmi  Efntcopql  Church  in  tin-  United  States,  held  in  New 

fork,  1868,  Append.  IV.  p.  427, and  append.  XI.  p. 480,. and  of  the  Convention  in  Baltimore, 

i-:i.  Append.  VI.  pp.  56  ■  -  ..     These  reports  are  signed  by  Bishops  Whittingham,  White- 

I  *denheimer,  <  '..\.-.  Young,  and  others.     A  curious  incident  in  this  correspondence,  not 


§  20.  ANGLO-CATHOLIC  CORRESPONDENCE.  77 

The  Russo-G  reeks  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  for- 
get 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  will- 
ing 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  essen- 
tial 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  Parker'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  fxiag  yvvaiKog 
avSpa,  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 
Filioqiie,-which.  is  their  main  objection  to  Rome;  the  recognition  of  the 
seventh  oecumenical  Council ;  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Virgin  and 
the  Saints ;  the  veneration  of  icons ;  prayers  for  the  departed ;  seven 
sacramental  mysteries;  trine  immersion;  a  mysterious  transformation 
(jli£tov<tiio<jiq)  of  the  eucharistic  elements ;  the  eucharistic  sacrifice  for 
the  living  and  the  dead.1 

5.  The  latest  phase  of  the  Anglo-Greek  movement  is  connected  with 
the  Old  Catholic  reunion  Conferences  in  Bonn,  1874  and  1875.2    Here  the 

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,  18G5. 

1  See  the  documents  in  the  Journal  0/ the  General  Convention  for  1871,  pp.  5G7-577,  viz., 
the  answers  of  Gregory,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  dated  Sept.  2G,  18G9,  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  En- 
gland (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  dis- 
cussed in  a  friendly  Christian  spirit,  but  without  result. 

3  See  the  results  of  the  Bonn  Conferences,  at  the  close  of  Vol.  II.  pp.  545-55L 


fg  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

FUioqxu  was  Bonendered  as  a  peace-offering  to  the  Orientals;  but  the 
Orientals  made  DO  concession  on  their  part.  It  is  not  likely  that  the 
Anglican  Church  will  sacrifice  her  own  peace,  the  memory  of  her  re- 
formers and  martyrs,  and  a  Protestant  history  and  literature  of  three 
centuries  to  an  uncongenial  union  with  the  Eusso-Greek  Church  in  her 

at  anreformed  state. 
§  21,  The  Eastern  Sects:  Nestorians,  Jacobites,  Cor-TS,  Armenians. 

Literature. 

I.  The  Nfstokianb: 

sl orlan,  d.  131S) :  Liber  Margarita  de  veritate  fulei,  in  Angelo  Mai's  Script,  vcter.  A'ova  Col- 

zn.p.m. 

■.  Asskmam  (R.  C,  (1. 16TS) :  De  Sgris  Xestorianis,  in  his  Bill.  Or.,  Rom.  1719-28,  Tom.  III.  Pt.  II. 
QtnOM  :  Decline  and  Fail  <f  the  Roman  Empire,  chap,  xlvii.  near  the  end. 

B,  Smihi  and  EL  G.  C  Dwi«bt:  Researches  in  Armenia,  with  a  Visit  to  the  Xestorian  and  Chaldean 
Christians  »f  Oormiah,  etc,  S  vols.  Boston,  1833. 
Jmrnt  Pujcihb:  .1  Residence  of  Eight  Tears  in  Persia,  Andover,  1843. 

w.  Kuinti ::  The  Syrian  Churches,  their  Early  History,  Liturgies,  and  Literature,  Loud.  1846. 

;..  i  Baossk:  Ths  Kestorians  and  tluir  Rituals,  Illustrated  (with  colored  plates),  2  vols.  Loud. 

II.  New  •    m  /  Missions,  New  York,  1S5C,  p.  553  sq. 

>  r  s  :  Article  NestorUmer,  Herzog'a  Theol.  EneyUop.  Vol.  X.  (185S),  pp.  279-2S8. 
IlKdbmou  (late  For.  Sec.  Am.  Board  of  C.  For.  Missions:   Republication  of  the  Gospel  in  Bible 
•  the  Missions  <f  the  Amer.  Board  of  Comm.for  For.  Miss,  to  the  Oriental  Churches,  Bos- 
ton, I8T8,  . 

on  the  Nestortan  controversy  which  gave  rise  to  the  Nestorian  sect,  see  my  Church  History,  Vol.  III. 
p.  715  iq.,and  the  works  quoted  there;  also  p.  729. 
II.  The  MOMOFUYBrraa  (Jacobites,  Copts,  Abyssinians,  Armenians,  Maronites) : 

Bi  nai  dot  (R.C.,  il.  1720) :   Historia  Patriarcharum  Alexandrinorum  Jacobitarum  a  D.  Marco 
tec,  xiii.,  Par.  1713.    Also  by  the  same:  Liturgiarum  Orientalium  Collectio,  Par.  1716, 
I  rota.  4to. 

i  ua  (R.  C.) :  Bibliotheca  orientalis,  Rom.  1719  sqq.,  Tom.  II.,  which  treats  De  scriptoribus 
Vonophysitis. 
Mi.  mi-  i!  Quran   R.  C,  d.  1738) :  Oriens  Chnstianus,  Par.  1740, 3  vols. folio  (Vols. II.  and  HI.). 

■I  di  i  \  Caozs:  Histoiredu  Christianisme  d'Ethiope  et  d'Armenie,  La  Hay e,  1739. 
I  u  ni''i  Fail  if  tiu-  Roman  Empire,  chap,  xlvii. 

Mohammedan,  an   historian  and  jurist  at  Cairo,  died  1441):  Historia  Coptorum  Christia- 
\  tabic  and  Latin),  ed,  //. ./.  Wetzer,  Sulzbach,  1S2S ;  a  better  edition  by  F.  Wiistenfeld,  with  trans- 
lation and  annotations,  (i.'.ttiiigen,  L84& 
.1.  K.  T.  Wilis,  ii :  Kirchliche  Statistik,  Berlin,  1846,  Bd.  I.  p. 225  sq. 

■  i  us  ( Anu'lii -an) :  The  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria,  London,  1847,  2  vols.    Also,  A  His- 
Bath  rn  Church,  Loudon,  1850,  2  vols.  (Vol.  II.  contains  among  other  things  the  Arme- 
!  Coptc-Jacobite  liturgies.) 
R  i"1  i  B         tfdogmss,  traditions,  et  liturgiede  Viglise  Armenians,  Par.  1869. 

\  i-i  in  u  I'imiiv.  Si  im.iv:  Lectures  "n  the  History  <fthe  Eastern  Church,  New  York,  1862,  p.  92. 
B.P.  B  m  Church,     With  Appendix  by  S.C.Malan,  London,  1S72. 

I:.  1 1  -  '  ubUeation  of  the  Gospel  in  Bible  Lands,  quoted  above. 

,h  History, Vol  III.  pp.884  sqq.  and  770  sqq. 
<  ompare  acconnts  in  nnmerons  works  of  Baatern  travel,  and  in  missionary  periodicals,  especially  the 
//.  raid,  and  tin'  Annual  Reports  of  the  American  Board  of  Foreign  Missions. 

lee  the  <  Orthodox  Greek  Church  there  are  scattered  in  the  East, 
mostly  under  Mohammedan  and  Russian  rule,  ancient  Christian  sects, 
tin-  Nestorians  and   Monophysites.    They  represent  petrified  chapters 

arch  history,  but  at  the  same  time  fruitful  fields  for  Roman 
Catholic  and  Protestant  Missions.  Tlieyowc  their  origin  to  the  Chris- 
tological  controversies  -f  the  fifth  century,and  perpetuate, the  one  the 


§  21.  THE  EASTERN  SECTS.  79 

Nestorian,  the  other  the  Eutychian  heresy,  though  no  more  as  living 
issues,  but  as  dead  traditions.  They  show  the  tenacity  of  Ghristological 
error.  The  Nestorians  protest  against  the  third  oecumenical  Council 
(431),  the  Monophysites  against  the  fourth  (451).  In  these  points  of 
dispute  the  Latin  and  the  orthodox  Protestant  Churches  agree  with  the 
Orthodox  Greek  Church  against  the  schismatics. 

In  other  respects  the  Xestorians  and  Monophysites  betray  their  Ori- 
ental 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  F'dloque  ; 
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  Byzan- 
tine 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,  un- 
changed to  this  day,  doubtless  for  wise  purposes.  They  may  prove 
entering  wedges  for  the  coming  regeneration  of  the  East  and  the  con- 
version of  the  Mohammedans. 

I.  The  Xestorians,  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'  (SeoroKog,  Deijiara),  and  he  died  in  exile  about 
440.  His  followers  call  themselves  Chaldean  or  Syrian  Christians. 
They  flourished  for  several  centuries,  and  spread  far  into  Arabia,  In- 
dia, 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 


g0  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

have  been  greatly  reduced.  The  Thomas  Christians  of  East  India  are 
a  brancb  of  them,  Mid  so  called  from  the  Apostle  Thomas,  who  is  sup- 
posed to  have  preached  on  the  coast  of  Malabar. 

The  Nestorians  bold  East  to  the  dyophysite  Christology  of  their  mas- 
ter and  protest  against  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  for  teaching  virtually 
the  Eutychian  heresy,  and  unjustly  condemning  ISestorius.  They  can 
Dot  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  hu- 
man, 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  "lit-  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  <  rreek  ( Ihurch  by  greater  simplicity  of  worship.  They  are  sub- 
ject  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  patrian-h  and  the  bishops  eat  no  flesh.  The  patriarch  is 
chosen  always  from  the  same  family;  he  is  ordained  by  three  metro- 
politan-. Tin-  ecclesiastical  books  of  the  Nestorians  are  written  in  the 
Byriac  language. 

II.  The    M0NOPHY8ITE8,  taken  together,  outnumber  the  Kestorians, 

and  are  scattered  over  the  mountains,  villages,  and  deserts  of  Armenia, 

Syria,  Egypt,  and   Ahyssinia.      They  are  divided    into   four  distinct 

the  Jacobites  in  Syria;  the  Copts  in  Egypt,  with  their  eccle- 

il  descendants  in  Abyssinia;1  the  Ajemenians,  and  the  ancient 

MAEONrn     -.ii   Mount   Lebanon  (who  were  Monothelites,  but  have  been 

into  the  Roman  Church). 


Ian  I  hnroh  receives  ita  Patriarch  (Abulia,  i.  e.  Our  Father)  from  the  Copts, 
m«  peculiar  customs,  and  presents  a  strange  mixture  of  Christianity  with  super- 
stition and  barbarism.     Bee  my  Church  History,  Vol  III.  p.  778. 


§  21.  THE  EASTERN  SECTS.  §1 

The  Armenians  (numbering  about  three  millions  and  a  half)  excel 
all  the  rest  in  numbers,  intelligence,  and  enterprise,  and  are  most  ac- 
cessible to  Protestant  missionaries. 

The  Monophysites  have  their  name  from  their  distinctive  doctrine, 
that  Christ  had  but  one  nature  (jiovi)  (pixrig),  •which  was  condemned  by 
the  fourth  oecumenical  Council  of  Chalcedon.  They  are  the  antipodes 
of  the  Nestorians,  whom  they  call  Dyophy sites.  They  agree  with  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  (-±31)  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  (fiia  fyvmq  avvStrog  or  n'ia 
QvoiQ  Sim')).  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  na- 
tures necessarily  leads  to  that  of  two  persons,  and  thereby  severs  the 
one  Christ  into  two  sons  of  God.  They  regarded  the  nature  as  some- 
thing common  to  all  individuals  of  a  species  (koivov),  yet  as  never 
existing  simply  as  such,  but  only  in  individuals.  Their  liturgical  shib- 
boleth was,  God  has  been  crucified,  which  they  introduced  into  the  tri- 
sagion,  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  Filiooue ;  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  pol- 
ity ;  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  Eomans.  According  to  their 
doctrine,  all  men  after  death  go  into  Hades,  a  place  alike  without  sor- 
row or  joy ;  after  the  general  judgment  they  enter  into  heaven,  or  are 


g2  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

east  into  hell ;  and  meanwhile  the  intercessions  and  pious  works  of  the 
living  have  an  influence  on  the  final  destiny  of  the  departed. 

N s  Bl  SSIAK  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  indi- 
viduals or  lay-commanities,  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  R  18KOUOKJ  (i.  e.  Separatists,  Apostates),  or,  as  they  call  themselves,  the  Star- 
,,NM;,  (Old  Believera).  They  date  from  the  time  of  Nicon,  Patriarch  of  Moscow,  and 
■gainst  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 
Boas  in  the  Ben  ice-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  to- 
ln  mgh  not  of  whisky),  and,  till  quite  recently,  also  the  eating  of  the  potato  (as  the  sup- 
apple  of  the  devil,  the  forbidden  fruit  of  paradise).  They  are  again  divided  into  sev- 
eral parties. 

Por  information  about  these  and  other  Russian  Non-conformists,  see  Strahl:  History  of 
and  Schisms  in  the  Greek-Russian  Church,  and  his  Contributions  to  Russian  Church 
History  ( I.  250  sqq.);  Hepwobth  Dixon:  Free  Russia  (1870),  and  the  literature  mentioned 
in  Berzog's  Encyklop.,  Art.  Raskolniken,  Vol.  XII.  p.  533. 


§  22.  CATHOLICISM  AND  ROMANISM. 


FOURTH  CHAPTER. 

THE  CREEDS  OF  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH. 
General  Literature. 

L  Collections  of  Roman  Catholic  Creeds: 

J.  Tro.  Lbr.  Danz  :  Libri  Symbolici  Ecclesice  Romano- Catholicce,  Weimar,  1835. 

Fb.  W.  Strf.it wolf  and  K.  E.  Ki.f.ner :  Libri  Symbolici  Ecclesice  Catholics,  conjuncti,  atque  notis,  prole- 
gomenta  indieibuaque  instructs,  Gutting.  183S,  2  vols.  Contains  the  Cone.  Trid.,  the  Prof.  Fidei  Trid.,  and 
the  Catech.  Rom. 

IIenr.  Denzinger  (R.  C,  d.  1862) :  Enchiridion  Symbolorum  et  Definitionum,  quce  de  rebus  fidei  ct  morum 
a  Coneiliis  (Ecumenicis  et  Summia  Pontificibus  emanarunt,  edit,  quarta,  Wireeburgi,  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  : 

Bei.i.armin's  DUputationes,  Bossuet'b  Exposition,  Mojiler's  Symbolik,  Perrone'b  rrceleetiones  Theo- 
logical.   See  §  23. 

III.  Protestant  Expositions  of  the  Roman  Catholic  system  (exclusive  of  polemical  works): 

Pn.  C.  Marueineke  (Prof,  in  Berlin,  d.  1S46) :  Christliche  Symbolik  oder  historisch-kritische  und  dogma- 
tisch-comparative  Darstellung  des  kathol.,  luther.,  reform,  und  socinian.  Lehrbcgriffs,  Heidelb.  1S10-13. 
The  first  3  vols,  (the  only  ones  which  appeared)  are  devoted  to  Catholicism. 

W.  II.  D.  Ed.  Kullner  (Prof,  at  Giessen) :  Symbolik  der  heil.  apost.  kathol.  romischen  Kirche,  Hamb. 
1S44.     (Part  II.  of  his  unfinished  Symbol ik  aller  christlichen  Confessionen.) 

A.  H.  Baier  (Prof,  at  Greifswald) :  Symbolik  der  romisch-katholischen  Kirche,  Leipz.  1S54.  (The  first 
volume  of  an  unfinished  Symbolik  der  christlichen  Religionen  und  Iteligionspartheien.) 

§  22.  Catholicism  and  Romanism. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  embraces  over  180  millions  of  members, 
or  more  than  one  half  of  nominal  Christendom.1  It  is  spread  all  over  the 
earth,  but  chiefly  among  the  Latin  races  in  Southern  Europe  and  Amer- 
ica.2 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  sys- 
tem. There  is  a  vast  difference  between  Catholicism  and  Romanism. 
The  former  embraces  all  Christians,  whether  Roman,  Greek,  or  Protest- 

1  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  100,  the  Greek  Church  80,  the  Protestant  Church  100  mill- 
ions.    But  the  estimates  of  the  Roman  Catholic  population  vary  from  180  to  200  millions. 

a  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. 


g  j  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

got ;  the  latter  is  in  its  very  name  local,  sectarian,  and  exclusive.  The 
boly  Catholic  Church  is  an  article  of  faith;  the  Koman  Church  is  not 
even  named  in  the  ancient  creeds.  Catholicism  extends  through  all 
Christian  centuries;  Romanism  proper  dates  from  the  Council  of 
Trent.  Mediaeval  Catholicism  looked  towards  the  Keformation ;  Ro- 
manism  excludes  and  condemns  the  Reformation.  So  ancient  Juda- 
ism  as  represented  by  Abraham,  Moses,  and  the  Prophets,  down  to  John 
the  1  laptist,  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  Roman- 
inn  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  abso- 
lution 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  accord- 
ingly be  divided  into  three  classes: 

1.  The  CEcdmenical  Creeds,  which  the  Roman  Church  holds  in  com- 
mon with  the  Greek,  excepting  the  Filioque  clause,  which  the  Greek 
reject-  a-  an  unauthorized,  heretical,  and  mischievous  innovation.1 

•_'.  The  Roman  or  Tuidkntim;  Creeds,  in  opposition  to  the  evangelical 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  Here  belong  the  Council  of  Trent,  the 
Profession  of  Pius  IV..  and  the  Roman  Catechism.  They  sanction  a 
number  of  doctrines,  which  were  prepared  in  part  by  patristic  and 
scholastic  theology,  papal  decrees,  and  mediaeval  councils,  but  had  al- 
ways been  nmrc  or  le>>  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, 

•  l.unli  i-  a-  much  opposed  to  this  Latin  interpolation  as  ever.     The  Encyc- 

lical  Epistle  of  the  Eastern  Patriarchs  and  other  prelates,  in  reply  to  the  Epistle  of  Tins  IX., 

led  Jan.  B,  1848,  urges  no  less  than  fifteen  arguments  against  the  Filioque,  and  reminds 

i   as  ..i'  tli.-  testimony  <>t'  his  predecessors,  Leo  III.  and  John  VIII.,  'those  glorious 

Leo,  when  appealed  t..  by  tin-  delegates  of  Charlemagne,  in  809, 

inal  Nicene  Creed  to  be  engraved  on  two  tablets  of  silver,  on  the  one  in  Greek, 

""  '' '"'r  '"  '"llm-  •""l  then  to  be  suspended  in  the  Basilica  of  St.  Peter,  to  bear  perpetual 

""""•  '  "''  the  Filioque.     This  fact,  contrasted  with  the  reverse  action 

.  f  later  Popes,  u  one  among  the  mans  prooft  against  papal  infallibility. 


§  23.  STANDARD  EXPOSITIONS  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  SYSTEM.    85 

justification  by  works  as  well  as  by  faith,  meritorious  works,  seven  sacra- 
ments, transubstantiation,  the  withdrawal  of  the  cup,  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass  for  the  living  and  the  dead,  auricular  confession  and  priestly  abso- 
lution, 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  im- 
maculate conception  of  Mary,  and  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  These 
were  formerly  open  questions  in  the  Roman  Church,  but  are  now  bind- 
ing 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  Prot- 
estantism. 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  begin- 
ning of  the  Protestant  controversy,  and  about  thirty  years  after  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  by  Robert  Bellarmin  (Roberto  Bellarmino).  lie  was  born 
1542,  in  Tuscany,  entered  the  order  of  the  Jesuits  in  1560,  became  Pro- 
fessor 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  '  Disputation*  on  the 
Controversies  of  the  Christian  Faith"1  are  the  most  elaborate  polemic 
theology  of  the  Roman  Church  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Protest- 
ant Reformation.1     They  abound  in  patristic  and  scholastic  learning, 


1  The  Disputationet  de  controversies  Christiana?  Jidei  adversus  kujtu  temporis  hereticos  were 
first  published  at  Ingolstadt,  1587-00,  3  vols,  folio;  then  at  Venice  (but  with  many  errors); 
at  Cologne,  1620  ;  at  Paris,  1G88  ;  at  Prague,  1721 ;  again  at  Venice,  1721-27  ;  at  Mayence, 
1812,  and  at  Rome,  1832-40,  in  4  vols.  4to.     They  are  usually  quoted  by  the  titles  of  the  dif- 


&G  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

1,  gical  acumen  and  dialectical  ability.  The  differences  between  Roman- 
ian and  Protestantism  are  clearly  and  accurately  stated  without  any 
attempt  to  weaken  them.  And  yet  the  book  was  placed  on  the  Index 
Expurgatoriufl  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  con- 
trary even  this  doctrine  of  the  indirect  temporal  supremacy  was  con- 
sidered 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  store- 
house of  Roman  controversialists,  and  can  not  be  ignored  by  Protestants, 
although  many  arguments  are  now  antiquated,  and  many  documents 
used  a-  -'liuine  are  rejected  even  by  Catholics. 

2.  Nearly  a  century  elapsed  before  another  champion  of  Romanism 
appeared,  less  learned,  but  more  eloquent  and  popular,  Jacques  Benigne 
B0S8UET.  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  1  697,  and  died  at  Paris  1704:.  The  'Eagle  of  Meaux'  was  the  great- 
est 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.  lie  is 
called  '  the  last  of  the  fathers  of  the  Church.'  While  the  hypocritical 
and  licentious  Louis  XIV.  tried  to  suppress  Protestantism  in  his  king- 
dom by  cruel  persecution,  Bossuet  betook  himself  to  the  nobler  and 
more  successful  task  of  convincing  the  opponents  by  argument. 

This  lie  did  in  two  works,  the  first  apologetic,  the  second  polemical. 

(a)  l-'.i J \otition  di  ladoctrim  de  Veglise  catholique  sur  les  matures 
>/■    controverts?     This  hook   is  a  luminous,  eloquent,  idealizing,  and 


/-.    Verbo   />>i.  De  ChrUtO,  1>,    Romano  Pontijicc,  De  Conciliis  et  Ecchsia, 
/'    HfonachtSf   De  Purgatorio,  etc.     The  contemporary  Annals  of  Baronius 
I  a..-  the  mosl  learned  historical  vindication  of  Romanism  in  opposition  to  Protest- 
antism  and  11  e  '  Magdeburg  <  lenturies.' 

published  In  Paris  L671,aixthed.  1686,  and  often  since  in  French,  German,  English, 
•  lango  lr  v.as  approved  and  commended  by  the  French  clergy,  even  by  Tope 

lini1   :,!  '•  ■■"  '' •  :""l  attained  almost  the  authority  of  a  symbolical  book.    But  the 

Maimboorg  disapproved  it. 


§  23.  STANDARD  EXPOSITIONS  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  SYSTEM.    S7 

plausible  defense  of  the  characteristic  doctrines  of  Romanism.  It  dis- 
tinguishes 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)  Ilistoire  des  variations  des  eglises  protestantes.1  This  is  an  at- 
tempt 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  me- 
diaeval, from  mediaeval  to  Tridentine,  and  from  Tridentine  to  Vatican 
Romanism.  Truth  in  God,  or  objectively  considered,  is  unchangeable ; 
but  truth  in  man,  or  the  apprehension  of  it,  grows  and  develops  with 
man  and  with  history.  Change,  if  it  be  consistent,  is  not  necessarily  a 
mark  of  heresy,  but  may  be  a  sign  of  life  and  growth,  as  the  want  of 
change,  on  the  other  hand,  is  by  no  means  always  an  indication  of  or- 
thodoxy, but  still  more  frequently  of  stagnation. 

Bossuet,  with  all  his  strong  Roman  Catholic  convictions,  was  no  in- 
fallibilist  and  no  ultramontanist,  but  a  champion  of  the  Gallican  liber- 
ties. He  was  the  presiding  genius  of  the  clerical  assembly  of  16S2, 
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.3  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  gen- 

1  Paris,  1G88,  and  often  since  in  several  languages.  Compare  also  his  Defense  de  Fhistoire 
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  attract- 
ive.' 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  con- 
tradictions 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  in- 
fallible truth.     I  read,  approved,  and  believed.' 

*  Defensio  declarationis  celeberrimo',  quam  de  potestale  ecclesiastica  sanxit  clerus  Gallicanus 
1G82,  ex  specialijiuw  Ludovici  M.  scripta.  Luxemb.  1730,  2  vols. ;  in  French,  Paris,  1735, 
2  vols. 

Vol.  I.— G 


gg  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

eral  council  in  which  Protestants  should  have  a  deliberative  vote.  Al- 
r,  although  he  sanctioned  the  infamous  revocation  of  the  edict 
of  Nanus  (as  '  le  plus  bel  usage  de  Vautorite  royaU),  and  secured  the 
papal  condemnation  of  the  noble  Fenelon  (a  man  more  humble  and 
eaint-like  than  himself),  Bossuet  can  no  longer  be  regarded  as  sound 
and  orthodox,  if  judged  by  the  standard  of  the  Vatican  Council.1 

3.  The  same  may  be  said  of  John  Adam  Moiiler,  the  greatest  Ger- 
man divine  of  the  Koman  Church,  a  man  of  genius,  learning,  and  ear- 
nest piety.  He  was  bora  1796,  at  Igersheim,  in  the  Kingdom  of 
Wiirtemberg ;  was  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University  of  Tubingen 
since  1822,  at  Munich  since  1835,  where  he  died  in  1838.  The  great 
work  of  his  life  is  his  Symbolics.2  It  is  at  once  defensive  and  offen- 
sive, a  vindication  of  Romanism  and  an  attack  upon  Protestantism,  and 
written  with  much  freshness  and  vigor.  It  made  a  profound  impres- 
sion in  Germany  at  a  time  when  Romanism  was  believed  to  be  intel- 
lectually  dead  or  unable  to  resist  the  current  of  Protestant  culture. 
M.  .111. ir  was  well  acquainted  with  Protestant  theology, and  was  influenced 
by  the  lectures  and  writings  of  Schleierinacher  and  Neander.3  He  di- 
Romanism  of  its  gross  superstitions,  and  gives  it  an  ideal  and 
spiritual  character.  He  deals,  upon  the  whole,  fairly  and  respectfully 
with  hi>  opponents,  but  makes  too  much  argumentative  use  of  the  private 
writings  and  unguarded  utterances  of  Luther.     He  ignores  the  post- 


1  Dollinger  (Lecture*  on  the  Reunion  of  Churches,  1872,  Engl,  translation,  p.  90)  says: 
•  BoMuel  put-  aside  tlic  question  of  infallibility,  as  a  mere  scholastic  controversy,  having  no 
relation  to  faith;    and  thifl  was  approved  at  Rome  at  the  time.     Now,  of  course,  he  is  no 
longer  regarded  in  bis  nun  country  as  the  classical  theologian  and  most  eminent  doctor  of 
modern  times  :   bat  as  a  man  who  devoted  his  most  learned  and  comprehensive  work,  the  la- 
1  .■  V-"  •■  to  the  establishment  and  defense  of  a  fundamental  error,  and  spent  many 
•  Us  life  in  the  perversion  cf  facts  and  distortion  of  authorities.    For  that  must  be  the 
rerdicl  of  every  infallibilist  on  Bossuet.' 
-  •  Synbolik,  Oder  DanU  Hung  tier  <l»>/matischen  Ger/ensatze  der  Katholilcen  und  Protcstanten 
nach  ihren  Bffentliehen  /.'.  h  nntnist-Schriften.'  It  appeared  first  in  1832,  at  Mayencc;  the  sixth 
edition  in  1848,  and  was  translated  into  French,  English,  and  Italian.    The  English  transla- 
tion i^  by  JAMB*    I'.i  BTOK    ROBBBTBOK,  and  bears  the  title,  Symbolism ;   or,  Exposition  of 
difference*  between  Catholic*  and  Protestants,  a*  evidenced  in  their  symbolical 
writing*    Lond.  1848,  in 2  vols,  j  republished  in  1  vol.,  New  York,  1844).     It  is  preceded  by  a 
Of  Mobler,  and  a  superficial  historical  sketch  of  recent  German  Church  history. 
11  told  me  that  Mohler,  when  a  student  at  Berlin,  occasionally  called  on  him,  and 

"'"  '  to  him  i lest,  earnest,  and  inquiring  after  the  truth,     llase  calls  him  a  'deli- 

!  relates  that  when  he  began  his  academic  career  in  Tubingen  with 
him,  Mohlei  was  filled  with  youthful  ideals,  and  regarded  by  Catholics  as  heterodox.  (Hand- 
l.u  I,  ,l.i   /'/.  Pol  ,„,/  .  l',,.|'.  p.  iv) 


§  23.  STANDARD  EXPOSITIONS  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  SYSTEM.    89 

Tridentine  deliverances  of  Rome,  says  not  a  word  about  papal  infalli- 
bility, and,  although  not  a  Galilean,  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  pro- 
ceeded, deplores  the  corruptions  in  the  Church,  sends  many  ungodly 
popes  and  priests  to  hell,  and  talks  of  a  feast  of  reconciliation,  pre- 
ceded by  a  common  humiliation  and  confession  that  all  have  sinned 
and  gone  astray,  the  Church  alone  [meaning  the  institution]  is  without 
spot  or  wrinkle.1  His  work  called  forth  some  very  able  Protestant  re- 
plies, especially  from  Baur  and  Nitzsch.2 

4.  Gioyaxxi  Perroxe,  born  in  Piedmont,  1794,  Professor  of  Theol- 
ogy 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.3  Perrone  defends  the 
immaculate  conception  of  Man-,  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  con- 
troversy. 

1  Symbolik  (6th  edition,  p.  353)  :  '  Unstrcitig  liesscn  es  audi  oft  genug  Priester,  Bischbfe 
unci  Pa'pste,  gewissenlos  unci  unverantwortlich,  selbst  dort  fehlen,  wo  es  nur  von  i/inen  abfiing. 
ein  schoneres  Leben  zu  begriinden  ;  oder  sie  loschten  gar  noch  durch  argerliches  Leben  unci  Stre- 
ben  den  glimmenden  Docht  aus,  welchensie  anfachen  soil ten:  die  Nolle  hat  sie  verschlungen.  .  .  . 
Beide  [Katholiken  unci  Protestanteti]  miissen  schuldbewusst  ausrufen :  Wir  Alle  haben  ge- 
fehlt,  nur  die  Kirche  ist's,  die  nicht  fehlen  kann ;  wir  Alle  haben  gesiindigt,  nur  sie  ist  un- 
befleckt  aufErden.'  Incidentally  Mohler  denies  the  papal  infallibility,  when  he  says  (p.  336) : 
' Keinem  einzelnen  als  solchen  kommt  diese  Unverirrlichkeit  zu.' 

2  Baur's  Gegensatz  des  Katholicismus  und  Protestantismus  (Tubingen,  1833,  2d  ed.  183G), 
in  learning,  grasp,  and  polemical  dexterity,  is  fully  equal  or  superior  to  Mohler's  Symbolik,  but 
not  orthodox,  and  elicited  a  lengthy  and  rather  passionate  defense  from  his  Catholic  colleague 
{Neue  Untersuchungen,  Mainz,  1834).  Nitzsch's Protestantisrhe  Beantwortung  der  Miihlerschen 
Symbolik  (Ilamb.  1835)  is  sound,  evangelical,  calm,  and  dignified.  It  is  respectfully  men- 
tioned, but  not  answered,  by  Mohler.  Marheineke  and  Sartorius  wrote,  likewise,  able  replies. 
A  counterpart  of  Mohler's  Symbolik  is  Hase's  Hundbuch  der  Protestantischen  Polemik  gegen  die 
Romisch-Katholische  Kirche,  Leipz.  18G2  ;  3d  ed.  1871 .  Against  this  work  Dr.  F.  Speil  wrote 
Die  Le/tren  der  Katholischen  Kirche,  gegeniiber  der  Protestantischen  Polemik,  Freiburg,  1865, 
which,  compared  with  Mohler's  book,  is  a  feeble  defense. 

3  Preelections  theologicce  quas  in  Collegio  Romano  Societatis  Jesu  habebat  J.  P.  They  ap- 
peared first  at  Home,  1835  sqq.,  in  0  vols.  8vo ;  also  at  Turin  (31st  ed.  1865  sqq.  in  9  vols.) ; 
at  Paris  (1870,  in  4  vols.);  at  Brussels,  and  Ratisbon.  His  compend,  Preelections  theolo- 
gicce in  Compendium  redactcc,  has  been  translated  into  several  languages.  Perrone  wrote  also 
separate  works, De  Jesu  Christi  Divinitate  (Turin,  1870,  3  vols.);  Be  virtutibus  Jidei,  spei  et 
caritatis  (Tur.  1867,2  vols.);  De  Matrimonii)  Christiana  (Lond.  1861),  and  on  the  Immaculate 
Conception  of  Mary. 


90 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


N,,-m:.— Ekolish  Works  OH  Komaxi-m.— England  and  the  United  States  have  not  pro- 
lasaical  theological  work  on  Romanism,  such  as  those  above  mentioned,  but  a  number 
lations  and  popular  defenses.     We  mention  the  following:  The  Faith  of  Catholics 
,  paints  of  Controversy,  confirmed  by  Scripture  and  attested  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church  during  the  jive  jirst  centuries  of  the  Church,  compiled  by  Rev.  Jos.  Berington  and 
i.     .  Johk  Kirk,  Lond.  1812,  1  vol.;  2d  ed.  1830;  3d  ed.,  revised  and  greatly  enlarged,  by 
l;  -..  .1  uu  a  W  mi. i;  worth,  1846,  in  3  vols,     the  End  of  Religious  Controversy  (Lond.  1818, 
since),  a  series  of  letters  by  the  RtBev.  John  MiLNEB(borninLondon,1752,cL1826). 
on  the  Principal  Doctrines  and  Practices  of  the  Catholic  Church,  delivered  in  Lon- 
16,  by  Cardinal  Nicholas  Wiseman  (born  in  Spain,  1 802,  died  in  London,  1865). 
At  present  the  ablest  champions  of  Romanism  in  England  are  ex-Anglicans,  especially 
Dr.  .Ions  11.  Newmas  (born  in  London,  1801)  and  Archbishop  Henry  Edwakd  Manning 
(born  in  London,  1809,  Wiseman's  successor),  who  use  the  weapons  of  Protestant  culture 
:  he  i  'lunch  of  their  fathers  and  the  faith  of  their  early  manhood.     Manning  is  an  en- 
tic  infallibilist,but  Newman  acquiesced  only  reluctantly  in  the  latest  dogmatic  develop- 
ment.1 

The  principal  apologists  of  the  Romish  Church  in  America  are  Archbishops  Kenrick  and 
Spaoxdino,  Bishop  Ent.i.axi),  Dr.  Orestes  Brownson  (in  his  Review),  and  more  recently 
irs,  chiefly  ex-Protestants,  of  the  monthly  '  Catholic  World.'    We  mention  Francis 
Patrick  Kenrick  (Archbishop  of  Baltimore,  born  in  Dublin,  1797,  died  1863):  The  Primacy 
[postolic  See  Vindicated,  4th  ed.  Bait.  1855,  and  A  Vindication  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
-    its  of  I.'  iti  rs  to  the  lit.  H>  v.  J.  II.  Hopkins,  Bait.  1855.     His  brother,  Peter  Rich- 
aki.  Kenrick,  Archbishop  of  St.  Louis,  was  an  opponent  of  the  infallibility  dogma  in  the 
Vatican  <  krancil,  but  has  since  submitted,  like  the  rest  of  the  bishops.     In  a  lengthy  and  re- 
markable 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  Cathciic 
Emancipation  bill.2 

§  2±.  The  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 

Literature. 
I.  Latin  Editions. 
I'  vn  .  M  vsr-nrs  (d.  1574) :  Canones  et  Den-eta  CEcum.  et  Generalis  Cone.  Tridentini,  jussu Pontifieis  Ro- 
il una,  1064,  ful.,  4 to,  and  Svo. 

■  |    ttm.  if  Qeneralia  Cone  Trident  .  .  .  Index  dogm.  et  reformationum,  etc.,  Lovau. 

/     /■  ta  ')■'.<  a  in.  'I  QeneraUs  Cone.  Trident,  additis  declarationibus  cardinal.   Ex  ultima  recog- 

I .  m  i.i  m  \t-.r  et  ottationtbus  J.  Sotealli  et  Hob.  Lctii,  nee  non  remissionib.  Aost.  Bakuos.e 

(Cologne,  HBO;  Lynns,  1660, 8vo),  <iu ihu*  tun ii h nt  mhl it ;<„„•$ Bi.o,  Audiimae,  etc.,  Cologne  (1664),  1712,  Svo. 

I'ii.  (  i i  r :  fif.  Concttii  Trid.  Canones  et  Decreta  cum  preefatione,  Antw.  164,0,  Svo. 

Jcuot.Li  l'i  v  i  (or  Li  elat;  a  very  learned  and  moderate  Catholic,  d.lSlO) :  Concilii  Tridentini  Canones 
•  ■I.  in  phi  ran  tin  ntim  „/,  Roma  1664  edit  u  m,  mm  variantibus  lectionibus,  notis  Chiffletii,  etc., 
-    m  idrid,  IT86.    The  most  complete  Cath.  edition. 

I    ■hut.  it    l'i:in.  Srin  in  :    Canones  et  Decreta  Concilii  Tridentini  ex  editione  Romana  a. 
etc,  Ldps.  1868.     Best  Protestant  ed. 
'        '<     >■■■    meti  Q  Hi 'Tridentini,  etc.,  Romoe,  ed.  stereotypa  VII.,  Leipz. 

saerosaneU  oxumenici  et  generalis,  Paulo  III.,  Julio  III.,  Pio  IV.,  Pon- 

l  the  older  English  Romanists  are  compiled  and  classified  by  Samuel  C.\r- 

.  in  the  work.  The  Acknowledged  Doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome  .  .  .  as  set 

ed  doctors  "/the  smd  Church.  Lond.  I860  (pp.  608).     It  consists  mostly  of 

from  the  comments  in  the  Dona]  version  of  the  Scriptures.    Camp,  an  article  in  the 

i  Dec.  1878,  on 'Catholic Literature  inEngland  since  the  Reformation.' 

habenda,at  non  habita  in  Priedrich's  Documenta,!.  18D-22G, 


§  24.  THE  CANONS  AND  DECREES  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT.   91 

tificibus  Maximis,  celebrati,  Canones  et  Decreta.     Latin  and  German,  with  a  German  introduction,  5th  ed. 
Bielefeld,  1859. 
The  doctrinal  decrees  and  canons  are  also  given  in  Denzinger's  Enchiridion. 

II.  English  Translations. 

J.  Waterwoetu  (R.  C.) :  The  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Sacred  and  (Ecumenical  Council  of  Trent  (with 
Bteayt  m  the  External  and  Internal  History  of  the  Council),  London,  1S4S.    (From  Le  Plat's  edition.) 

Tu.  A.  Buckley  (Chaplain  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford) :  The  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
London,  1S51. 

There  are  also  translations  in  French,  German,  Greek,  Arabic,  etc 

III.  History  of  the  Council. 

Harpouin:  Acta  Conciliorum  (Paris,  1714),  Tom.  X.  1-435. 

Jonov.  Le  Plat:  Monumentorum  ad  hiatoriam  Concilii  Trid.  potissimum  illvstrandtnn  spectantium 
amplissima  collectio,  Lovan.  1761-87,  Tom.  VII.  4to.    The  most  complete  documentary  collection. 

Fra  Paolo  Sakpi  (liberal  Catholic,  d.  1623)  :  Istoria  del  concilio  Tridentino,  nella  quale  si  scoprono 
tulti  gVartificii  delta  corte  di  Roma,  per  impedire,  che  ne  la  verita  di  dogmi  si  palesasse,  ne  la  riforma  del 
papato  e  dclla  chiesa  si  trattasse,  Loud.  1619,  fol.  ;  Geneva,  1629,  1660.  Latin  transl.,  Lond.  1020  j  Frankf. 
1621  ;  Amst.  1694;  Leipz.  1699.  French  translation  by  Peter  Francis  Courayer,  with  valuable  historical 
notes,  Lond.  1T36,  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  Eugland,  and  joined  the  Anglican  Church  ; 
d.  1776.)  English  translation  by  Sir  Nathaniel  Brent,  Loud.  1676,  fol.  German  translations  by  Rambach 
(with  Courayer's  notes),  Halle,  1701,  and  by  Winterer,  Mergentheim  and  Leipz.  2d  ed.  1844 

Card.  Sfokza  Pai.lavicini  (strict  Catholic,  d.  1607) :  Istoria  del  concilio  di  Trento,  Uoma,  105G-57,  2 
vols,  fol.,  and  other  editions,  original  and  translated.  Written  in  opposition  to  Paul  Sarpi.  Comp. 
Brisciiak:  Beurtheilung  der  Controversen  Sarpi's  und  Pallavic.'s,  Tubing.  1S43,  2  vols. 

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

Cub.  Aug.  Sai.ig  (Luth.) :  Vollstdndige  Uistorie  des  Trident.  Conciliums,  Halle,  1741-45,  3  vole.  4to. 

Jos.  Menpuam:  Memoirs  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  principally  derived  from  manuscript  and  unpublished 
Records,  etc.,  Lond.  1834 ;  with  a  Supplement,  1846. 

J.  GiiscuL:  Geschichte  des  Cone.  z.  Tr.,  Regensburg,  1840,  2  vols. 

J.  H.  von  Wessenberg  (a  liberal  R.  C.  and  Bishop  of  Constance,  d.  1860) :  Geschichte  der  grossen  Kirchen- 
versammlungen  des  15  und  16  ten  Jahrlu,  Constance,  1S40,  Vol.  III.  and  IV. 

Card.  Gabr.  Paleotto:  Acta  Concilii  Trid.  ab  a  1562  descr.,  ed.  Mendham,  Lond.  1S42. 

En.  Kollnek:  Symbolik  der  rihn.  Kirche,  Hamb.  1S44,  pp.  7-140. 

J.  T.  L.  Danz  :  Gesch.  des  Trid.  Cone.,  Jena,  1S46. 

Tu.  A.  Buckley  :  History  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  London,  1S52. 

Felix  Bunoener:  Histoire  du  Concile  de  Trente,  Paris,  2d  edition,  1S54.  English  translation,  Edin- 
burgh, 1S52,  and  New  York,  1S55.    Also  in  German,  Stuttg.  1861, 2  vols. 

A.  Basoiiet  :  Journal  tfw  Concile  de  Trente,  redige  par  un  secretaire  venitien  present  aux  sessions  de  1562 
d  1563,  avec  d'autres  documents  diplomatiques  relatifs  d  la  mission  des  Ambassadeurs  de  France,  Par.  1870. 

Tu.  Siokel:  Zur  Geschichte  des  Concils  von  Trient.  Actenstiicke  aus  osUrrcichischcn  Archiven,Wieu, 
1S72  (650  pp.).    Mostly  letters  to  the  German  Emperor,  in  Latin  and  Italian,  from  1559  to  1563. 

Acgustin  Theinee  (Priest  of  the  Oratory,  d.lS74) :  Acta  genuina  SS.  (Ecumenici  Concilii  Tridentini  .  .  . 
nunc  primum  integra  edita.    Zagrabise  (Croatia)  et  Lipsiae,  1S74,  2  Tom.  4to  (pp.  722  and  701). 

Jos.  von  Dollingkb  :  L'ngedruckte  Berichte  und  Tagebucher  zur  Geschichte  des  Cone,  von  Trient,  Nord- 
liugen,  1S76. 

The  principal  source  and  the  highest  standard  of  the  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Koman  Church  are  the  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Trent,  first  published  in  15G4,  at  Rome,  by  authority  of  Pius  IV.1 

The  Council  of  Trent  (1543-63)  is  reckoned  by  the  Roman  Church 
as  the  eighteenth  (or  twentieth)  oecumenical  Council.2     It  is  also  the 

1  The  editor  of  this  rare  authentic  edition  was  the  learned  PATJLXJ8  BCanutioS  (Paolo  Manu- 
zio),  Professor  of  Eloquence  and  Director  of  the  Prin  ting-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  Manu- 
zio, the  younger  (1547-1597),  likewise  a  printer  and  writer,  and  Professor  of  Eloquence. 

a  There  is  a  dispute  about  the  reformatory  Councils  of  Pisa  (1 40'.)), Constance  (1414-18),  and 
Basle  (1431),  which  are  acknowledged  by  the  Galileans, but  rejected  by  the  Ultramontanists,  or 
accepted  only  in  part,  i.  e.,  as  far  as  they  condemned  and  punished  heretics  (IIus  and  Jerome 


q2  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

last,  with  the  exception  of  the  Vatican  Council  of  1870,  which,  having 
proclaimed  the  Pope  infallible,  supersedes  the  necessity  and  use  of  any 
future  councils,  except  for  unmeaning  formalities.  It  was  called  forth 
by  the  Protestant  Reformation,  and  convened  for  the  double  purpose 
of  settling  the  doctrinal  controversies,  which  then  agitated  and  divided 
Western  Christendom,  and  of  reforming  discipline,  which  the  more  se- 
rions  <  latholics  themselves,  including  even  an  exceptional  Pope  (Adrian 
VI.  i.  desired  and  declared  to  be  a  crying  necessity.1  The  Popes,  jeal- 
ous of  deliberative  assemblies,  which  might  endanger  their  absolute 
authority,  and  afraid  of  reform  movements,  which  might  make  conces- 
sions to  heretics,  pursued  a  policy  of  evasion  and  intrigue,  and  post- 
poned 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  coun- 
cil- had  erred  (e.g., the  Council  of  Constance  in  condemning  IIus),  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 
(  hailo  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  lunging  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  de- 
crees  and  scholastic  opinions,  which  had  always  found  opposition  in  the 

of  Pragne  .    The  <  lonndl  of  Ferrara  and  Florence  (1439)  is  regarded  as  a  continuation  of,  or  a 

lubstitute  for,  the  I  ounci]  of  Basle.    There  is  also  a  dispute  among  Roman  historians  about  the 

di  .il  character  of  tin;  Council  of  Sardica  (843),  the  Quinisexta  ((!!)2),  the  Council  of 

Vienna  (1811  I, and  the  fifth  Lateran  (1512  1 7 ).  SeeHefele,  Cona'fren^escAi'cAfe,  Vol.  I.  r>0sqq. 

•  Adrian  VI..  from  Holland,  the  teacher  of  Charles  V.,  ami  the  last  non-Italian  Pope,  suc- 

Leo  X.  in  1632,  bat  ruled  only  one  year.    '  He  died  of  the  papacy.'   He  was  a  man  of 

■i ■-.  and  openly  confessed,  through  his  legate  Chieregati,  at  the  Diet  of  Nurnberg, 

that  the  <  lunch  was  corrupt  ami  diseased,  from  the  Pope  and  the  papal  court  to  the  members; 

bat  at  the  tame  tunc  he  demanded  the  sharpest  measures  against  Luther  as  a  second  Moham- 

""'''•      Cwelve  yean  lain-,  Paul  [11.(1584   49)  appointed  a  reform  commission  of  nine  pious 

prelates,  who  in  a  memorial  declared  that  the  Pope's  absolute  dominion  over  the 

whole  <  liunli  was  the  source  of  all  this  corruption  ;  but  he  found  it  safer  to  introduce  the  In- 

quisitioi  reformation. 


§  24.  THE  CANONS  AND  DECREES  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT.   93 

Church.  The  council  promised  by  the  Pope  -would  be  neither  free  nor 
Christian,  nor  oecumenical,  nor  ruled  by  the  Word  of  God  ;  it  would 
only  confirm  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  on  whom  it  was  depending,  and 
prove  a  new  compulsion  of  conscience.'  The  result  shows  that  these 
apprehensions  were  well  founded.1 

After  long  delays  the  Council  was  opened  by  order  of  Pope  Paul  III., 
in  the  Austrian  City  of  Trent  (in  the  Italian  part  of  Tyrol),  on  the  13th 
December,  1545,  and  lasted,  with  long  interruptions,  till  the  4th  of  De- 
cember, 1563.  The  attendance  varied  in  the  three  periods :  under  Paul 
III.  the  number  of  prelates  never  exceeded  57,  under  Julius  III.  it 
rose  to  62,  under  Pius  IV.  it  was  much  larger,  but  never  reached  the 
number  of  the  first  oecumenical  Council  (318).  The  decrees  were 
signed  by  255  members,  viz.,  4  legates  of  the  Pope,  2  Cardinals,  3 
Patriarchs,  25  Archbishops,  168  Bishops,  39  representatives  of  absent 
prelates,  7  Abbots,  and  7  Generals  of  different  orders.  Two  thirds  of 
them  were  Italians.  From  France  and  Poland  only  a  few  dignitaries 
were  present ;  the  greater  part  of  the  German  Bishops  were  prevented 
from  attendance  by  the  war  between  the  Emperor  and  the  Prot- 
estants 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.2 

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  pre- 


1  At  the  second  period  of  the  Council,  1552,  a  number  of  Protestant  divines  from  "Wurttem- 
berg,  Strasburg,  and  Saxony,  arrived  in  Trent,  or  were  on  the  way,  but  they  demanded  a  re- 
vision of  the  previous  decrees  and  free  deliberation,  which  were  refused. 

2  The  overruling  influence  of  the  papal  court  over  the  Council  rests  not  only  on  the  author- 
ity 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  1 551  to  '52,  and  gave  minute 
information  to  Granvella.  See  Lettres  et  Me'moires  de  Fn.  DE  Vargas,  de  Pierre  deMalvenda 
et  des  quelques  eveqnes  d'Espafjne,  trad,  par  Michel  le  Vassor,  Amst.  1699  ;  also  in  Latin,  by 
Schramm,  Brunswick,  1704.  Le  Plat  pronounced  this  correspondence  fictitious,  but  its  authen- 
ticity has  been  sufficiently  established  (see  Kollner,  1.  c.  pp.  40,  41). 


$±  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

sided.  They  were  then  first  discussed,  often  with  considerable  differ- 
ence of  opinion,  in  the  private  sessions  of  the  'Congregations,'  and  after 
being  Becretly  reported  to,  and  approved  by,  the  court  of  Koine,  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  disci- 
pline. The  former  are  divided  again  into  Decrees  {decreta),  which 
contain  the  positive  statement  of  the  Koman  dogma,  and  into  short 
Canons  (canones),  which  condemn  the  dissenting  views  with  the  con- 
cluding '■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.1 

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

Sessio        III.  Decretum  de  Symbolo  Fidei  (accepting  the  Niceno  Constantinopolitan  Creed 
as  a  basis  of  the  following  decrees  (Febr.  4, 1546). 
"  IV.  Decretum  de  Canonicis  Scripturis  (Apr.  8,  1546). 

"  V.  De  Feccato  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). 
"         XIII.  De  Eucharistioc  Sacramento  (Oct.  11, 1551). 

XIV.  De  S.  Pcenitentiae  et  Extremal  Unctionis  Sacramento  (Nov.  25,  1551). 
XXI.  De  Communione  sub  utraque  Specie  et  Parvulorum  (July  16, 1562). 
"        XXII.  Doctrina  de  Sacrificio  Missse  (Sept.  17,  1562). 
"      XXIII.  Vera  et  Catholics  de  Sacramento  Ordinis  doctrina  (July  15,  1563). 
"       XX  I  V.    Doctrina  de  Sacramento  Matrimonii  (Nov.  11,  1563). 

X  X  V.  Decretum  de  PurgatOrio,  Doctrina  de  Invocatione,  Veneratione  et  Reliquiis 
Sanctorum,  et  Bacris  Imaginibus.  Decreta  de  Indulgentiis,  de  Delectu  Ci- 
borom,  Jejuniis  et  Dicbus  Festis,  de  Indice  Librorum,  Catechismo,  Brevi- 
ario  et  Missali  (Dec.  8  and  4,  1563). 

The  last  act  of  the  Council  was  a  double  curse  upon  all  heretics.2 
The  decrees,  signed  by  ~.">5  fathers,  were  solemnly  confirmed  by  a 
bull  of  Pin-  IV.  |  II  nedtotueDevs  et  Pater 'Domini  nostri,  etc.)  on  the 
26th  January,  1564,  with  the  reservation  of  the  exclusive  right  of  ex- 
planation to  the  Pope. 


JvuflftcatioM  (Sees.  VI.)  reject  Pelagianism  and  Semi-Pelagianism, 
n<  «<-ii  ai  Bolifldianism  and  Antinomianina. 

' '""'  Cardinal  of  Lorraine  said,  'Anathema  cunctis  ha:rcticis.'    To  this  the  fathers  re- 
thi  ma,  Anathema.' 


§  24.  THE  CANONS  AND  DECREES  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT.  95 

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  in- 
troduce 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  Scot- 
land, but  without  effect.1 

The  Council  of  Trent,  far  from  being  truly  oecumenical,  as  it  claimed 
to  be,  is  simply  a  Roman  Synod,  where  neither  the  Protestant  nor  the 
Greek  Church  was  represented ;  the  Greeks  were  never  invited,  and 
the  Protestants  were  condemned  without  a  hearing.  But  in  the  history 
of  the  Latin  Church,  it  is  by  far  the  most  important  clerical  assembly, 
unless  the  unfinished  Vatican  Council  should  dispute  with  it  that 
honor,  as  it  far  exceeded  it  in  numbers.  It  completed,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  few  controverted  articles,  the  doctrinal  system  of  mediaeval 
Catholicism,  and  stamped  upon  it  the  character  of  exclusive  Romanism. 
It  settled  its  relation  to  Protestantism  by  thrusting  it  out  of  its  bosom 
with  the  terrible  solemnities  of  an  anathema.  Papal  diplomacy  and 
intrigue  outmanaged  all  the  more  liberal  elements.  At  the  same  time 
the  Council  abolished  various  crying  abuses,  and  introduced  wholesome 
disciplinary  reforms,  as  regards  the  sale  of  indulgences,  the  education 
and  morals  of  the  clergy,  the  monastic  orders,  etc.  Thus  the  Protest- 
ant 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  secre- 
tary, Bishop  Angelo  Massarelli,  in  six  large  folio  volumes,  are  depos- 
ited 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  six- 
teenth 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  Dollinger. 
The  genuine  acts,  but  only  in  part,  were  edited  by  Theiner  (1S74). 

The  history  of  the  Council  was  written   chiefly  by  two  able  and 

1  On  the  reception,  see  the  seventh  volume  of  Le  Plat's  Collection  of  Documents,  Couray- 
er's  Histoire  de  la  reception  du  Concil  de  Trente,  dans  les  differens  Mats  cat/10/iques,  Amst. 
175G  (Paris,  17GG),  and  Kullner,  1.  c.  pp.  121-129. 


9G  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

learned  Catholics  of  very  different  spirit :  the  liberal,  almost  semi-Prot- 
estant monk  IYa  Paolo  Sabw,  of  Venice  (first,  1619) ;  and,  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  papacy,  by  Cardinal  Sforza  Pallayicini  (1656),  who  had 
i, i  all  the  archives  of  Rome.  Both  accounts  must  be  compared. 
The  first  learned  and  comprehensive  criticism  of  the  Tridentine  doc- 
trine, from  a  Protestant  point  of  view,  was  prepared  by  an  eminent 
Lutheran  theologian,  Maktin  Chemnitz  (d.  1586),  in  his  Examen  Con- 
cilii  Trid(  ntini  (1565-73,1  Parts),  best  ed.,Frankf.,1707;  republished, 
Berlin,  1861.1 

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

G.  CF.  Moiimkk:  UrkundHche  GeschichtedersogenanntenProfessioFidei  Tridentince und einiger  andern 
rmn.  httholisehm  Glaubensbekenntnisse,  Greifswald,  1822  (310  pp.). 

01  r  a  Ki.knek:  Libri  Sipnbolici Ecclesice  Catholicce,GM.  1S3S,  Tom.  I.  pp.  xlv.-li.  and  98-100. 
K..1.1.NKK :  SymbolUc  der  rum.  Kirche,  pp.  141-165. 
The  older  literature  see  In  Walob  :  BibUotheea  theol.  sel,  I.  p.  410 ;  and  in  Kollnek,  1.  c.  p.  141. 

Next  in  authority  to  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  or  virtually 
Buperior  to  it,  stands  the  Pkofessio  Fidei  Tridentina,  or  the  Ceeed  of 
Ptus  IV.2 

It  was  suggested  by  the  Synod  of  Trent,  which  in  its  last  two  sessions 
declared  the  necessity  of  a  binding  formula  of  faith  { formula jprqfes- 
Btorm  et  juramenti)  for  all  dignitaries  and  teachers  of  the  Catholic 
Chnrch.3  It  was  prepared  by  order  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  in  1564,  by  a 
college  of  ( 'anlinals. 

It  consists  of  twelve  articles  :  the  first  contains  the  Nicene  Creed  in 
full,  the  remaining  eleven  are  a  clear  and  precise  summary  of  the  spe- 

1  Tin-  editor,  Ed.  l'rcuss,  has  since  become  a  Romanist  at  St.  Louis  (1871). 
1  The  original  name  was  Forma  juramenti  professions  Jidei.    In  the  two  papal  bulls  which 
published  and  enjoined  the  creed,  it  is  called  Forma  professions  Jidei  catliolicre,  or  orthodoxa 
fidt  i.     The  nana]  name  is  Prof 'essio  Jidei  Tridentina  (or  P.  f  Tridentina,  which  is  properly  a 
mianomer).    See  Kiohnike,  1.  c.  p. :?,  and  Kollner,  1.  c.  p.  150. 

XXV.  cap.  2  De  Keformatione  (p.  4:30,  ed.  Richter)  :  '  Cogit  temporum  calarnitas  et 

invalt  tci  ntium  haresum  malitia,  ui  nihil  sit  prcetermittendum,  quod  ad populorum  crdijicationem 

iea  fidi  i  /nnsidinm  ridruhir  posse  perlinrre.     Prcecipit  itjitur  sancta  synodus patri- 

nr>  An,  primatibui,  archiepiscopis,  epi$copis,  ( /  omnibus  aliis,  qui  dejure  vel  consuetudine  in  con- 

cilio  provinciali  interests  debent,  ut  in  ipsa  prima  synodo  provinciali,postJinempraesentis  conci/ii 

nabenda  |  nngula,qua  <ih  hue  sancta  synodo  definita  et  statuta  sunt,  palam  recipi- 

iedientiam  summo  Romano  Pontijici  spondeant  et  projiteantur,  simutque 

•    ii  ris  canonibut  •  i  >i<  neralibus  conciliis,prasertimqueab  hac  eadme  si/nodo  dam- 

natas,  public*  detestentur  et  anathematizent.'    Comp.  Sess.  XXIV.  De  lieformatione,  cap.  12, 

where  an  examination  and  profession  (orthodoxas  Jidei  publico  prof  essio)  is  required  from  the 

ei  with  a  vow  to  remain  obedient  to  the  Roman  Church  (in  ecclesicc  Romanm 

■s  tpondeani  acjurent). 


§  25.  THE  PROFESSION  OF  THE  TRIDENTINE  FAITH.  97 

ciiic  Roman,  doctrines  as  settled  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  together  with 
the  important  additional  declaration  that  the  Roman  Church  is  the 
mother  and  teacher  of  all  the  rest,  and  with  an  oath  of  obedience  to 
the  Pope,  as  the  successor  of  the  Prince  of  the  apostles,  and  the  vicar 
of  Christ.1     The  whole  is  put  in  the  form  of  an  individual  profession 

('  Ego, ,  firma  fide  credo  et  profiteer),  and  of  a  solemn  vow  and 

oath  ('  spondeo,  voveo  ac  juro.  Sic  me  Deus  adjuvet,  et  hcec  sancta 
Evan  gelid). 

This  formula  was  made  binding,  in  a  double  bull  of  Nov.  13, 1564 
i^Injunctum  nobis1),  and  Dec.  9,  1564  ('In  sacrosancta  beati  Petri, 
prindpis  apostolorum,  cathedra]  etc.),  upon  the  whole  ecclesia  docens, 
i.  e.,  upon  all  Roman  Catholic  priests  and  public  teachers  in  Catholic  sem- 
inaries, 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  Con- 
verts.'2    For  both  purposes  it  is  far  better  adapted  than  the  Decrees 

1  'Sanctum  catholicam  et  apostoliram  Romanam  ecchsiam  omnium  ecclesiarum  matrem  et  ma- 
gistram  agnosco,  Romanoque  Pontijici,  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  Cone. 
ix.423):  '  Item  definimus,  sanctam  apostoliram  sedem  et  Romanian  Pontijicevi  in  universum 
orbem  tenere  primatum,  et  ipsum  Pontijicem  Romanian  successorem  esse  beati  Petri  }>rinci/>is 
Apostolorum,  et  verum  Christi  vicariurn,  totiusque  ecclesia  caput  et  omnium  Christianorum  pa- 
trem  et  doctorem  existere.'  But  the  integrity  of  the  text  of  this  famous  union  formula  is  dis- 
puted, and  the  Greeks  and  Latins  charge  each  other  with  corruption.  Some  Greek  copies 
omit  the  proud  words  rbv  'PwpaiKov  ap\tepia  fig  iruaav  n)v  otKovuivnv  to  Trpiortlov  Kar'txuv. 
Comp.  Theod.  Frommann  :  Zur  Kritik  des  Florentiner  Unionsdecrets  vnd  seiner  dogma- 
tischen  Verwerthung  beim  Vaticanischen  Concil,  Leipz.  1870,  pp.  40  sqq. 

2  For  converts  from  the  Greek  Church  the  form  was  afterwards  (1575)  modified  by  a  ref- 
erence to  the  compromise  of  the  Council  of  Florence.  See  the  Professio  Fidei  Grcecis  prce- 
scripta  a  Gregorio  XIII. ,  in  Denzinger's  Enchir.,  p.  294,  and  the  Professio  Fidei  Orieu tali- 
bus  prascripta  ab  UrbanoVIII  et  Benedicto  XIV.,  ibid. ,  p.  29G.  For  Protestants  other  forms 
of  abjuration  were  occasionally  used,  without  official  sanction.  The  infamous  Hungarian 
formula  for  Protestant  converts  (Con/essio  novorum  Catholicorum  in  Hung  aria,  fivtt  published 
1<»74)  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  Bo- 
hemia 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  nos- 
tros,'  etc.),  and  on  the  evangelical  faith,  with  the  promise  to  persecute  this  faith  in  every  pos- 
sible way,  even  by  the  sword  ('  Juramus  etiam,  donee  una  gutta  sanguinis  in  corpore  nostro 
exstiterit,  doctrinam  maledictum  ilium  evangelicam  nos  omnimodo,  clam  et  aperte,  violenter  et 
fraudulenter,  verbo  et  facto  persecuturos,  ense  quoque  non  excluso).  See  the  formula  in  Moh- 
nike,  1.  c.  pp.  88-92,  in  Streitwolf  and  Klener,  II.  pp.  343-31G  ;  and  an  account  of  the  contro- 


93  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  are  too  learned  and  extensive  for  pop- 
ular use. 

Afl  this  Pr<  (fesrion  of  Pius  IV.  is  the  most  concise  and,  practically,  the 
most  important  summary  of  the  doctrinal  system  of  Home,  we  give  it 
in  full,  and  arrange  it  in  three  parts,  so  that  the  difference  between  the 
ancient  ( fctholic  faith,  the  later  Tridentine  faith,  and  the  oath  of  obedi- 
ence  to  the  Pope  as  the  vicar  of  Christ,  may  be  more  clearly  seen.  It 
Bhonld  hi'  remembered  that  the  Nicene  Creed  was  regarded  by  the 
ancient  Church  as  final,  and  that  the  third  and  fourth  oecumenical 
( lonncils  solemnly,  and  on  the  pain  of  deposition  and  excommunication, 
forbade  the  setting  forth  of  any  new  creed.1  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.2 

I.  Tin:  Nicexe  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  Gor>  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  of  all  things 
visible  and  invisible. 

And  in  one  Lord  Jr.srs  Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father 
before  all  worlds  \  Cud  of  Cod,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God,  begotten,  not  made, 
being  <>f  one  substance  with  the  Father;  by  whom  all  things  were  made; 

Who,  for  u>  men,  and  fur  our  salvation,  came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  incarnate  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  made  man; 

Be  was  crucified  for  ns  under  Pontius  Pilate;  suffered  and  was  buried; 

And  the  third  day  he  rose  again,  according  to  the  Scriptures; 

And  ascended  into  heaven;  Bitteth  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  DO  end. 

And  in  the  HOLT  GHOST,  the  Lord,  and  Giver  of  life;  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father 
and  tl«  Son;  who  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  together  is  worshiped  and  glorified;  who 
the  Prophets. 

And  one  holy  catholic  and  apostolic  Church  ; 

I  ai  knowledge  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. 


concerning  it  in  Eollner,  I.  c  pp.  169   L65,and  especially  the  monograph  of  Mohnike: 
hh  det  UngarUcken  Flvehformulan  (an  Appendix  to  his  History  of  the  Profes- 
sion of  the  Tridentine  Faith  >.  Greiftwald,  1828,  264  pages.     A  copy  of  this  rare  book  is  in 
the  library  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  of  New  York. 

'   ..„„,  \  ii.  |  OoncChalced.  (451),  after  the  definition  of  faith. 

ilc  two  bolls  of  Pius  IV.  above  mentioned,  also  in  Mohnike,  1.  c. 
rand  Klener,  Libri  Symb.  I.  'JS-lOO  (with  the  various  readings),  and 
in  Denxinger,  Enchir.  pp.  292-94, 


§  25.  THE  PROFESSION  OF  THE  TRIDENTINE  FAITH.  99 

II.  Summary  of  the  Tiudextine  Creed  (15G3). 

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  (Jtata  unanimem  consensum  Patrum).1 

4.  I  also  profess  that  there  are  truly  and  properly  seven  sacraments  of  the  new  law,  insti- 
tuted 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,  confirma- 
tion, and  ordination  can  not  be  reiterated  without  sacrilege.  I  also  receive  and  admit  the  re- 
ceived 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  de- 
clared in  the  holy  Council  of  Trent  concerning  original  sin  and  justification,  s/ 

6.  I  profess  likewise  that  in  the  mass  there  is  offered  to  God  a  true,  proper,  and  propitia- 
tory 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  substantia/iter)  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 
(conuersionem  totius  substantia)  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 
utque  invocandos  esse),  and  that  they  offer  up  prayers  to  God  for  us ;  and  that  their  relics 
are  to  be  held  in  veneration  (esse  venerandas).* 

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  vener- 
ation 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.3 

III.  Additional  Articles  axd  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  de- 
clared by  the  sacred  Canons  and  oecumenical  Councils,  and  particularly  by  the  holy  Council 
of  Trent ;  and  I  condemn,  reject,  and  anathematize  all  things  contrary  thereto,  and  all  here- 
sies 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  con- 
stantly to  retain  and  confess  the  same  entire  and  inviolate,4  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. 

1  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. 

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

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

*  For  inviolatam  the  Roman  Bullaria  read  immaculatam. 


100  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


§  26.  Tin:  Roman  Catechism,  15G6. 

Latin  Edition?. 
CmmMsmm  ex  decreto  Cons.  Trident  Pii  V.  jussu  editus,  Romse  ap.  Paulum  Manutium,  1506,  in  editions 
Of  different  Bliee,  very  often  reprinted  all  over  Europe. 

mua  ad  Parochos,  ex  decreto  Coneilii  Tridentini  editus.  Ex  PU  V.  Pont.  Max.  jussu  promulgates. 

et  integer,  mendisque  itervm  repurgatus  operd  P.D.L.H.P.    A  quo  est  additus  apparatus  ad 

tium,  in  quo  ratio,  auetores,  approbatores,  et  usus  declarantur,  Lngduni,  1659  ;  Paris,  16T1 ;  Lovan. 

l«T8-  Paris,  1684;  Colon.  16S9,  lti'JS,  1731 ;  Aug.  Vindel.  1762 ;  Lugdun.  1S29;  Mechlin,  1831 ;  Ratisb.  1S56 

(730  pp.). 

rniiU  ex  decreto  Cone.  Tridentini  ad  Parochos  Pii  Quinti  Pont.  Max.  jumi  editus.     Ad  editionem 
D.  IBM  juris  publiei  factum  acmralixsime  expressus,  ed.  stereotypa  VI.,  Lipsise  (Tauchnitz), 
1S69,  8vo. 

Also  in  Strf.itwoi.f  et  Ki.ener  :  Libri  Symb.  eccl.  cath.,  Tom.  I.  pp.  101-712.    A  critical  edition,  indi- 
cating the  different  divisions,  the  quotations  from  the  Scriptures,  the  Councils,  and  other  documents. 

Translations. 
The  Oateeh  tern  fat  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. 

//,,  Cat  i   ,<nicil  of  Trent,  translated  into  English  by  J.  Donovan,  Baltimore,  1829. 

•  f  the  Council  of  Trent,  translated  into  English,  with  Notes,  by  T.  A.  Buckley,  B.A.,  Lon- 
don, 1868,  mm. 
German  translations,  first,  by  Paul  Hoffuus,  Dillingen,  156S,  1576  •  another  at  Wieu,  1763  ;  one  by  T.  W. 

n,  GSttingen,  1844  ;  and  by  Ad.  llu.se,  Bielefeld,  (with  the  Lat.  text),  3d  ed.  1867,  2  vols. 
French  translations,  published  at  Bordeaux,  1508  ;  Paris,  157S,  1650  (by  P.  de  la  Haye),  1673,  etc. 

History. 
.T i  i  ii  Pooiaot  Sim  ssis  (d.  1507)  :  Epistolcp  et  Orationcs  olim  collector,  ab  Antonio  Maria  Gratiano,  nunc 
imn  I.agomarsinio  e  Societate  Je.su  advocationibus  illustratoe  ac  primum  editce,  Rom.,  Vol.  I. 
17.V.';   II.17.Vi:  III.  1757;  IV.  175S. 

Out  ud  Catechismum,  etc.,  mentioned  above,  by  an  anonymous  author  (perhaps  Anton.  Reginal- 
-'  published  in  the  edition  of  the  Catechism,  Lugd.1659.    The  chief  source  of  information. 
■  I   i  .  K...1011:  Catrr.h.  Gcsehichte  der  Pdbstlichen  Kirche,  Jen.  1753. 
Iv.i  i.mi:  :  SymboUk  der  rim.  Kirche,  pp.  166-190.    K.  gives  a  list  of  other  works  on  the  subject. 

The  Rom  us  (  Iatechism  was  proposed  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  which 
entered  upon  some  preparatory  labors,  but  at  its  last  session  committed 
the  execution  to  the  Pope.1  The  object  was  to  regulate  the  impor- 
tant work  of  popular  religious  instruction,  and  to  bring  it  into  harmony 
with  the  decisions  of  the  Council.2  Pius  IV.  (J.  1565),  under  the  ad- 
virc  of  Cardinal  Carlo  Borromeo  (Archbishop  of  Milan),  intrusted  the 
work  to  f«>ur  eminent  divines,  viz., Leonardo  Marlni  (afterwards  Arch- 
bishop  of  Lanciano),  Egidio  Foscarari  (Bishop  of  Modena),  Muzio 

■  \XI\ '.  //,   Re/ormatione,  cap.  7  (ed.  Richter,  p.  344),  the  Bishops  are  directed 

to  proi  [de  for  the  instruction  of  <  latholics,  'juxtaformam  a  sartcta  synodo  in  eatechesi  singulis 

%tit  prascribt  ndam,  qvam  episcopi  in  vulgarem  linguam  fideliter  verti,  atque  aparochis 

omnibus  populo  i  xponi  curabunt.1    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, 1503),  the 

S.N '  intrusted  the  Pope(Piua  I  V.)  with  the  pi-equation  of  an  index  of  prohibited  books,  a 

catechism,  and  an  edition  of  the  liturgical  hooks  ('idemque  de  catechismo  a  Patribus,  quibus 
Mud  mandatum fuerat,  >/  </<■  missali,  et  breviariojieri  mandatf  p.  471). 

I  catechisms,  not  property  authorized,  had  appeared  before  and  during  the  Council 
ofTrem  to  countered  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Catechisms,  which  did  so  much  to  spread 
and  p-i.nl.oi/-  the  Reformation.  See  a  list  of  them  in  Streitwolf  and  Klener,  I.  p.  i.-iv.,  and 
in  K. .liner,  p,  160. 


§  2G.  THE  ROMAN  CATECHISM.  101 

Calini  (Archbishop  of  Jadera-Zara,  in  Dalmatia),  and  Francesco  Fu- 
keiro  (of  Portugal).  Three  of  them  were  Dominicans  (as  was  the  Pope 
himself).  This  explains  the  subsequent  hostility  of  the  Jesuits.  Bor- 
romeo  superintended  the  preparation  with  great  care,  and  several 
accomplished  Latin  scholars,  especially  Jul.  Pogianus,  aided  in  the 
style  of  composition.1  The  Catechism  was  begun  early  in  1564,  and 
substantially  finished  in  December  of  the  same  year,  but  subjected  for 
revision  to  Pogianus  in  15G5,  and  again  to  a  commission  of  able  divines 
and  Latinists.  It  was  finally  completed  in  July,  15G6,  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  indi- 
cates), 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  Symholo  apostol- 
ico ;  2,  de  Sacramentis  ;  3,  de  Decalogo ;  4,  de  Oratione  Dominica. 
It  was  originally  written  and  printed  without  divisions.2  Its  theology 
belongs  to  the  school  of  Augustine  and  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  hence  it 
di.-pleased  the  Jesuits.  While  it  passes  by  certain  features  of  the  Eo- 
man system,  as  the  indulgences  and  the  rosary,  it  treats  of  others  which 
were  not  touched  upon  by  the  Fathers  of  Trent,  as  the  Umhus  pat  rum, 
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 

:  Winer,  Guericke,  Mbhler,  and  others,  ascribe  the  Latinity  of  the  Catechism  to  Paulas 
Manatius,  the  printer  of  the  same :  but  he  himself,  in  his  epistles,  where  lie  mentions  all  his 
literary  labors,  says  nothing  about  it. 

2  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. 


IQ2  THE  CREEDS  01  CHRISTENDOM. 

pupils,  1566);  the  Catechism  of  Cardinal  Dellarmin  (1603),  which 
Clement  \'II1.  and  later  Popee  commended  as  an  authentic  and  useful 

ition  of  the  Roman  Catechism,  and  which  is  much  used  by  mis- 
trionaries;  and  the  Catechism  of  Bossuet  for  the  diocese  of  Meaux 
I  L687).  The  R<  man  Church  allows  an  endless  multiplication  of  such 
educational  books  with  adaptations  to  different  nationalities,  ages,  de- 

of  culture,  local  wants  and  circumstances,  provided  they  agree 
with  the  doctrinal  system  set  forth  by  the  Council  of  Trent.  Most  of 
these  hooks,  however,  must  now  be  remodeled  and  adjusted  to  the 
Council  of  the  Vatican.1 

8  l;7.  The  Papal  Bulls  against  the  Jansenists,  1653  and  1713. 

Cokri  i .ii  -  JAmzmus  (Eplscopl  Iprensis,  1585-1638):  Augustinus,  seu  doctrina  Augustini  de  humanm 
•  fHtudtna,  et  ms&ieina,  adv.  Pelagianos  et  Massilienses,  Lovan.  1640,  3  vols. ;  Paris,  1641; 
Ronen,  1648  (with  a  Synopsis  vita  Jansenii).    Prohibited,  together  with  the  Jesuit  antitheses,  by  Pope 
Urban  VIII..  1649. 

Bt.Cybah  (Di  Vi :i:«hi:r,  d.  1643):  Aurelius,  1633 ;  again, Paris,  1646.  A  companion  to  Jansen's  'Augus- 
tinu«,'  :inil  called  after  the  other  name  of  the  great  Bishop  of  Hippo. 

Amtbomt  ,\i:m I  loctor  of  the  Sorbonne,  d.  at  Brussels,  1694) :  (Euvres,  Paris,  1775-81,  49  vols,  in  44. 

9,  ascetic  treatises,  controversial  books  against  Jesuits  (Maimbourg,  Annat),  Protestants 
(Jnrii-u,  Anbertln),  and  philosophers  (Descartes,  Malebranche). 
It  i    row  kxb  (Ref.  Prof,  at  Utrecht,  d.  1721) :  Ilistoria  Jansenism  i,  Utr.  1698. 
(.i  iir.i.uos  :  Histoire  ffim  rati-  (/*•  Jansctiiume,  Amst.  1700. 
Ii  ■ .  in  ~im  :  Hist,  polem.  Jansenismi,  Home,  1711, 3  vols. 

mm:   \h  moires  pour  servir  a  Phistoire  de  Port-Royal  (Utrecht),  1738,  2  vols. 
ova  actorum  Comtit.  Unigenitus,  ed.  R.J.  Dubois,  Lugd.  1725. 
Don.  he  Coloni  a  :  Diction,  des  Here*  Jansenistes,  Lyons,  1732, 4  vols. 

II   Ki  i .  ii i.i s:  (kschichte  von  Port-Royal,  Harab.  1S39-44, 2  vols.     Comp.  his  monograph  on  Pascal,  and 
hi-  art.  /onsen  and  Jansenismus  in  Herzog's  Encyklop.  Vol.  VI.  pp.  423  sqq. 
C.  vsimi  -Bi  i  \  i  :  Port-Boyal,  Paris,  1840-42, 2  vols. 

Abbe  i  ;i  i  1 1 1  i  :  Jansenisms  et  Jesuitisms,  un  examen  des  accusations  de  Jans.,  etc.,  Paris,  1S57.    Com- 
pare  hit  B  list  de  France,  compose  sur  les  documents  originaux  et  authentiques,  Paris,  1S47-56, 

IStoIs.    Placed  on  the  index  of  prohibited  books,  1S52.    The  author  has  since  passed  from  the  Roman 
t.>  the  Oreek  Chnrch. 
W.  II    Kin  Jtan  is:  The  Oallican  Church:  A  History  of  the  Church  of  France  from  1516  to  the  Revo- 
mi.  ]s72,  2  vols.    On  Jansenism,  see  Vol.  I.  chaps.  xi.-xiv.,aud  Vol.  II.  chaps,  v.,  vi.,  and  viii. 
J'i:\  -..  i  -  M  vim-. :  .1  ngelique  Arnauld,  A  bbeSS  of  Port-Royal,  London,  1873. 

'Tin-  controversial  literature  on  Jansenism  in  the  national  library  at  Paris  amouuts  to  more  than 
.  mil  volumes.) 

On  the  Jansenists,  or  Old  Catholics,  in  Holland. 
Dopaodi  Bi  u.r..\r.i.r:  H.de  Viglise  metropoL  <PUtreehtt'Utr.  1784, 3d  ed.  1852. 
Wau  <;■  sehiehto,  Vol.  VI.  pp.  S2  sqq. 

T i. ','!  m:i  Lii  111:11  1, Tnli.  1826. 

Dos  Brzbtsthum  Utreeht,  Bonn,  M88. 
s-  P>  1  <       Jansenists:  their  Rise, Persecutions  by  the  Jesuits,  and  existing  Remnant,Lou- 

u  portrait*  of  Jansenlns,  Bl  Cyran,  and  the  More  Angelique). 

1  Thus,  for  instance,  in  Keenan's  Controversial  Catechism,  as  published  by  the  'Catholic 

im.'  New  Bond  Street,  London,  the  pretended  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility 

nied  bi  'a  Protestant  Invention;  it  is  no  article  of  the  Catholic  faith ;  no 

lot  of  the  Pope  can  oblige  trader  para  of  heresy,  unless  it  be  received  and  enforced  by  the 

body,  that  is.  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Church.'    But  since  1871  the  leaf  containing  this 

'"  "ml  "'  been  canceled  and  another  substituted.    So  says  Oxenham,  in  his 

lion  ..f  I),. li;„p. ,-  on  the  Ronton  of  Churches,  p.  126,  note.    The  same  is  true  of  many 

I  rent  l>  Catholic  Catechisms. 


§  27.  THE  PAPAL  BULLS  AGAINST  THE  JANSENISTS,  1G53  AND  1713.  103 

J.  M.  Neale  :  A  History  of  the  so-called  Jansenist  Church  of  Holland,  etc.,  London,  1S5T.  Neale  visited 
the  Old  Catholics  in  Holland  in  1S51,  and  predicted  for  them  happier  days. 

Fk.  Niiu-old:  Die  altkatholisclie  Kirche  des  Erzbtithums  Utrecht.  Geschichtl.  Parallele  zur  altkathol.  Ge- 
meindebUdung  in  Deutaehiand,  Heidelberg,  1S72. 

The  remaining  doctrinal  decrees  of  the  Roman  Church  relate  to  in- 
ternal controversies  among  different  schools  of  Roman  Catholics. 

Jansenism,  so  called  after  Cornelius  Jausenius  (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,  Kicole,  Pas- 
cal, 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  doc- 
trinal and  disciplinary  reformation  in  the  Roman  Church  by  reviving 
the  Augustinian  views  of  sin  and  grace,  against  the  semi-Pelagian  doc- 
trines and  practices  of  Jesuitism,  and  made  a  near  approach  to  evangel- 
ical Protestantism,  though  remaining  sincerely  Roman  Catholic  in  its 
churchl  v,  sacerdotal,  and  sacramental  spirit,  and  legalistic,  ascetic  piety. 
It  was  most  violently  opposed  and  almost  totally  suppressed  by  the  com- 
bined 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.1 

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

1  The  book  is  called  after  the  great  African  Church  Father,  whose  doctrines  it  reproduced, 
and  was  published  by  friends  of  the  author  in  1G40,  two  years  after  his  death.  On  Jansen, 
comp.  the  Dutch  biography  of  Heesek  :  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  1G3">,  and 
died  1G38.  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  Pnpacv. 

Vol.  I.— H 


lu4  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

(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  mt  /•<  nd >nn  ,  t  d,  rru  nudum  in  statu  natural  lapsm,  non  requiritur 
m  homvM  Ubertas  a  necessitate,  aed  mffidt  libertas  a  coactione—th&t 
is,  from  violence  and  natural  necessity). 

(1.,  The  Semi-Pelagians  admitted  the  necessity  of  prevenient  interior 

grace  for  every  action,  even  for  the  beginning  of  faith;  but  they  were 

sal  {m  to  crant  hceretici)  in  believing  this  grace  to  be  such  as 

cuu Id  be  resisted,  or  obeyed  by  the  human  will  (earn  gratiam  talem 

■  m  .  <  ui  posset  Jiumana  voluntas  resistere,vel  obternperare). 

(5.)  It  is  semi-Pelagian  to  say  that  Christ  died  and  shed  his  blood 
wholly  (altogether)  for  all  men.1 

The  Jansenists  maintained  that  these  propositions  were  not  taught 
by  .lansenius,  at  least  not  in  the  sense  in  which  they  were  condemned  ; 
that  this  was  a  historical  question  of  fact  {question  de  fait),  not  a  dog- 
matic 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  Inno- 
cent X.,  with  the  declaration  that  the  five  propositions  were  taught  in 
the  book  of  Cornelius  Jansen  in  the  sense  in  which  they  were  con- 
demned by  the  previous  Pope.2 

The  Jansenists,  including  the  nuns  of  Port-Royal,  refused  to  submit. 
Many  tied  to  the  Netherlands.  The  Pope  abolished  their  famous  con- 
vent (1709),  the  building  was  destroyed  by  order  of  Louis  XIY.  (1710), 
even  the  corpses  of  the  illustrious  Tillemonts,  Arnaulds,  Nicoles,  De 
and  ..t hers,  were  disinterred  with  gross  brutality  (1711),  and  the 
church  itself  was  demolished  (1713).    No  wonder  that  such  barbarous 

'  Semptlagianum  at  dicere,  Christum  pro  omnibus  omnino  mortuum  esse  aut  sanquinem 
This  Bupralapsariaji  proposition  is  condemned  as/aha,  te?neraria,scandalos(i,impia, 
i,  el  /•'/-  ii<„.    Bee  the  five  propositions  of  Jansen  in  Denzineer's  Enchir.,  pp.  31G. 

::i7.  fa  H 

titutioni  apostoKca  Innocentii  X.,data  die  Zl.Maji  1653,  et  eonstitutioni 

hi  I  II.tdata  ,/;,  LQ.Oetobris  L665,  summorum  Pontijicum, me  subjicio,et  quinquepro- 

rnelii  Janssnii  libro,  cui  7to„nn  Aupustinus,  exeerptas,  et  in  sensu  ab  eodem 

■  ■.  provt  ilia*  ,„  ,■  dictas  constitutional  Sedes  Apostalica  danmavit,  sincero  animo 

rrj„,„  ,„■  ,/„,„„„, , ,  itajuro.     sir  ,,„■  /,,„,•  adjwet,  et  hose  sancta  Dei  evangelia.' 


§  27.  THE  PAPAL  BULLS  AGAINST  THE  JANSENISTS,  1G53  AND  1713.    105 

tyranny  and  cruelty,  perpetrated  in  the  holy  name  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  bred  a  generation  of  skeptics  and  infidels,  who  at  last  banished 
the  Church  and  religion  itself  from  the  territory  of  France.  Cardinal 
Xoailles,  who  from  weakness  had  lent  his  high  authority  to  these  out- 
rages, made  afterwards,  in  bitter  repentance,  a  pilgrimage  to  the  ruins 
of  Port-Royal,  and,  looking  over  the  desecrated  burial-ground,  he  ex- 
claimed :  '  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!'1 

II.  The  more  important  bull  '  Unigenitus  (Dei  Filius)',  issued  by 
Pope  Clement  XI.,  Sept.,  1713,  condemns  one  hundred  and  one  sen- 
tences of  the  Jansenist  Pasquiek  Quesnel  (d.  1719),  extracted  from  his 
moral  reflections  on  the  New  Testament.2 

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. 

1  Gregoire  :  Les  mines  de  Port-Royal,  Par.  1709.  Me'moires  sur  la  destruction  de  P.  R.  des 
Champs,  1711.  Jervis,  1.  c.  Vol.  II.  pp.191  sqq.  Tregelles  says,  1.  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  influ- 
ence of  the  same  evil-minded  and  pharisaical  woman  (Madame  de  Maintenon),  persecuting 
not  only  Protestants,  but  also  such  men  as  Fe'nelon,  among  the  brightest  and  holiest  of  those 
who  owned  the  authority  of  Rome.  Thus  was  the  train  laid  which  led  to  the  fearful  explo- 
sion 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.' 

2  Pasquier  or  Paschasius  Quesnel  was  born  at  Paris,  1G34,  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.  (lG7f>,  with  dissertations)  in  defense  of  the  Gallican  Church  against 
the  Ultramontane  Papacy  (hence  the  edition  was  condemned  by  the  Congregation  of  the  In- 
dex), was  exiled  from  France  1084,  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  iLe  Novo.  Testament  enfrancois  avec 
des  reyiexions  morales  sur  chaque  vers,  et  pour  en  rendre  la  lecture  plus  utile,  et  la  meditation 
plus  ais(fe,'  Paris,  1G87,  2  vols.;  lf>94  ;  Amsterd.  173G,  8  vols.;  also  in  Latin  and  other 
languages;  Engl.  ed.  London,  1819-2;">,  4  vols.  The  Gospels  were  repeatedly  published, 
with  an  introductory  essay  by  Bishop  Daniel  Wilson,  London  and  New  York.  Comp.  Causa 
Quesnelliuna,  Brussels,  1 704. 


10g  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  following  arc  the  most  important  of  these  propositions:1 

•      /,  M  ( 'krtati  gratia,  prindpium  efficax  boni  cujuscunque  generis,  necessaria  est  ad  omne 

m;  absque  ilia  non  solum  nihil  Jit,  sed  nee  Jien  potest. 

I    Vanlm^Domine,  pra>cipis,  si  tu  ij.se  non  das,  quod  prompts       Compare  the  similar 

sentence  of  Augostine,  which  was  so  offensive  to  Pelagius:  Da  quodjubes,  et  jube  quod  vis) 

I  ,   |  Tta  Domine  ;  mnnia possibilia  sunt  e»,  cui  omnia posstbiha  facts,  eadem  operando  inillo. 

.,<  operatio  manus  omnipotent  Dei,  quam  nihil  impedire  potest  out  retardare. 

Ill  Gratia  non  est  aliud  quam  voluntas  omnipotent  Dei  jubentis  etfacientis,  quodjubet. 

Quando  Deus  mil  animam  sal  ram  facere,  et  earn  tangit  inter iori  gratia ■  suee  manu, 

.maun  li  nsistit. 

. .  rbi,  'ju.nl  manus  Dei  irrigat,  semper  ajfert  f rue  turn  suum. 
,  atia  Jesu  Christi  est  gratia  fortis,  potens,  suprema,  invincibiiis,  utpotc  qiice  est 
luntatis  omnipoU  ntis,  sequela  et  imitatio  operations  Dei  incamantis  et  resuscitanlis 

■""""■  .  ,.  ,„   „    .     ,     o   \ 

/,,/,  i  est  prima  gratia  etfons  omnium  aharum.    (.-'  1  et.  1.  a.) 
Prima  gratia,  quam  Deus  cam-edit  percatori,  est  peccatorum  remissio. 

■  .■■I,  Ham  nulla  eonceditur  gratia.1 
Omnes,  quos  Deus  vult  salvareper  Christum,  salvantur  infallibiliter. 

,,■  mat  isl  IH"  r,  nisi  ad  malum,  sine  gratia  JJberatoris. 
Voluntas,  quam  gratia  nan  pravenit,  nihil  habet  luminis,  nisi  ad  aberranelum,  ardoris, 
nisi  a. I  st  praxipitandum,  virium  nisi  ad  se  vulnerandum ;  est  capax  omnis  malt  et  incapax  ad 

amii'    h,, num. 

in     Sim  gratia  nihil  amare possumus,  nisi  ad  nostrum  condemnationein. 

\, .  1 1.  us  est  nee  n  Ugio,  ubi  nan  est  charitas.    (1  John  iv.  8.) 

Oratio  impiorum  est  novum  peccatum;  et  quod  Deus  Wis  concedit,est  novum  in  eos 
judicium. 

Fides,  usus,  augnientum  et  pramiumjidei,  totum  est  donum  puree  liberalitatis  Dei. 
Vota  ecclesia  i  'hristiana  est,  quod  sit  catholica,  comjirehendens  et  omnes  angelos  cccli, 
■  i  omnes  electOS  et jUStOS  terra  et  omnium  sarulorum. 

75.    Ecclesia  est  unus  solus  homo  compositus  ex  pluribus  membris,  quorum  Christus  est  ca- 
put, vita,  subsistentia  et  persona  ;  unus  solus  Christus  compositus  ex  pluribus  Sanctis,  quorum 
-  inctificator. 

Nihil spatiosius  Ecclesia  Dei;  quia  omnes  electi  etjusti  omnium  secidorum  illam  com- 
Eph.  ii.  22).  , 

?:      >pti  non  ducit  vitam  dignamjilio  Dei  et  membro  Christi,  cessat  interim  habere  Deum 
pro  Patrt  et  Christum  pro  capite. 

I  'til,  ,  t  necessarum  est  omni  tempore^  omni  loco,  et  omni personarum  generi,  studere  et 
cognoscere  spiritum,  pietatem  et  mysteria  sacrce  Scriptural. 

80     Lectio  sacra  Sariptura  est  pro  omnibus.    (John  v.  SO  ;  Acts  xvii.  11.) 

Obscuritat  saneti  verbi  Dei  nan  est  laicis  ratio  dispensandi  se  ipsos  ab  ejus  lectione. 
Dies  Dominicus  a  Christianis  debet  sanctificari  leetionibus  pietatis  et  super  omnia 
sanctorum  Scripturarum.    Damnosum  est,  relic  Christianum  ab  hac  lectione  retrahere. 

-I      Abripere  e  Christianorum  manibus  novum  Testamentum  seu  eis  illud  claumm  tenere 
auferendoeis  modum  istml  intelligendi,  est  illis  Christi  os  obturare. 

(*.">.)  Tnterdxeere  Christianis   lectionem  sacree  Scriptural,  prevsertim  Evangelii,  est  interdi- 
•im  luminis  jiliis  lucis  it  fan  re,  ut  patiantur  speciem  quamdani  excommunicationis. 

I'ati  potius  in  parr  excommunication!  m  rt  anathema  injustum,  quam prodere  veritatem, 
lari  sanctum  Paulum;  tantum  abest,  ut  sit  erigere  se  contra  auctoritatem  aut  scindere 

latitat,  m. 
I  100.  I  Tempus  deplorabile,  quo  creditur  honorari  Deus  persequendo  veritatem  ejusque  disci- 
.  .  Frequenter  credimus  sacrificart,  Deo  impium,  et  sacrijicamus  diabolo  Dei  servum. 

These  and  similar  propositions,  some  of  them  one-sided  and  exagger- 
ated, many  of  them  clearly  patristic  and  biblical,  are  indiscriminately 

1 1  Enchir.,  pp.  ::.".l   861. 

lenial  of  this  proposition  implies  the  assertion  that  there  is  grace  outside  of  the  Church, 
though  ii.,i  sufficient  I'm-  salvation;  else  it  would  he  inconsistent  with  the  Roman  Catholic doe- 

•  Ir.iinm  mill,,  xulns.' 


§  27.  THE  PAPAL  BULLS  AGAINST  THE  JANSENISTS,  1653  AND  1713.    107 

condemned  by  the  bull  (Inigrnitus,  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  Xoailles,  who  repented  of  his  part  in  the  destruction 
of  Port-Royal,  protested  against  the  bull,  and  appealed  from  the  Pope 
to  a  future  council.  Put  'when  Pome  has  spoken,  the  cause  is  finished.' 
The  bull  Unigenitus  was  repeatedly  confirmed  by  the  same  Clement  XL, 
A.D.  1718  (in  the  bull  'Pastorcdis  Officii'),  Innocent  XIII,  1722, Bene- 
dict XIII.  and  a  Roman  Synod,  1725,  Benedict  XIV.,  1756;  it  was  ac- 
cepted by  the  Gallican  clergy  1730,  and,  as  Denzinger  says,  by  '  the  whole 
Catholic  world'  (lab  universo  mundo  catlwlico'1).  Even  the  miracles 
on  the  grave  of  a  Jansenist  saint  (Francois  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.1 

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  Catho- 
lics 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  hulls  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  with- 
in 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,  2~>  con- 
gregations, and  about  G000  members.  They  live  very  quietly,  surrounded  by  Pomanists 
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  18.">;5,  five  new  bishop- 
rics 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 

1  The  Jesuits,  of  course,  ascribed  the  Jansenist  miracles,  visions,  and  ecstatic  convulsions 
to  the  devil. 


1Q3  THE  CKEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

three  Old  Catholic  Bishops  issued  a  pastoral  letter,  in  which  they  reject  the  new  dogma  as 
contrary  to  the  Scriptures  and  early  tradition,  and  as  lacking  the  threefold  test  of  catholicity 
(  ft  ,„)„  r,  ubujue,  ah  omnibus ).  The  Vatican  decree  of  Papal  Infallibility,  and  the  Old  Catholic 
moremenl  in  Germany  have  brought  this  long  afflicted  and  persecuted  remnant  of  Jansenism 

I  notice.     The  <  fld  <  atholics  of  Germany,  holding  fast  to  an  unbroken  episcopal  suc- 

, ;,,„_  looked  to  their  brethren  in  Holland  for  aid  in  effecting  an  organization  when  it  should 

Mi  v.     At  their  invitation,  Archbishop  Loos,  of  Utrecht  (a  venerable  and  aniia- 

rentleman),  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 
■pared  for  happier  days.  After  his  death  the  Bishop  of  Deventer  consecrated  Prof.  Reinkens 
Bishop  for  the  <  lid  Catholics  in  Germany,  Aug.  11,  1873.  The  Old  Catholics  of  Holland  agree 
u  ith  those  in  ( iermany  :  1.  In  maintaining  the  doctrinal  basis  of  Tridentine  Romanism  ;  2.  In 
protesting  against  all  subsequent  papal  decisions,  more  particularly  the  bull  Uniyenitus,  the 
decree  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  (1854),  and  the  Vatican  decree  of  Papal  Infallibility 
i  1870).  But  the  <  >ld  Catholics  of  Germany  are  in  a  transition  state,  and  will  very  probably 
be  driven  further  away  from  Roman  Catholicism  by  the  irresistible  logic  of  events. 

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

Literature. 

I.  In  (aver  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  Mary: 

The  papal  bull  of  Pins  I X.,  'Ineffabilis  Deux,'  Dec.  8  (10),  1S54. 

Joan  Pi  bboni  (Professor  of  the  Jesuit  College  in  Home,  and  one  of  the  chief  advisers  ot  Pius  IX.  in 
(Taming  hi*  decree) :  Can  the  Tm  maculate  Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  be  defined  by  a  Dogmatic 
■    In  Latin,  Borne,  1847,  dedicated  to  Pius  IX.,  with  a  letterof  thanks  by  the  Pope;  German  trans- 
lation, l>y  Dietl  and  Scheie,  Regenebnrg,  184!).    (I  used  the  German  edition.)    See  also  Perrone's  Prcelec- 
■ .  append,  to  Tom.  VI.,  ed.  Ratisb.  1854. 
t  .  Pabbaglia:  /'•  immaculato  Deiparce  semper  Virginia  conceptu,  Rom.  1S54  sqq.,  Tom.  III.  4to.    (The 
author  has  since  become  half  heretical,  at  least  as  regards  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope,  and  was 
to  dee  from  Home.    See  his  pamphlet  on  the  subject,  1861,  which  was  placed  on  the  Index.) 
II   DlNzneXB  (d.  1862):  DieLehre  von  der  unbefleckten  Empfdngniss  dcr  seligsten  Jungfrau,\\ 'iirzb.  1S55. 
A 1 1..  in.  Boskotahy  (Eplse.  Nitriensis) :  Leata  Virgo  Maria  in  suo  conceptu  immaculata  ex  monumentis 
nin nium  secidorum  demuwtrata,  Budapest,  18T4,  6  vols. 

II.  Against  the  Immaculate  Conception: 

•  I i  \n  i>]  Ti  cm.  bkmata:  TractatUS  il<-  irritate  conceptiom's  beatissimce  virginis,  etc,  Rome,  1547, 4to  ; 
newly  edited  l>y  Dr.  K.  B.  Pobxy,  with  a  preface  and  notes,  London,  1SG9.  Card.  Joh.  de  Turrecremata, 
or  Torqoemada  (not  to  be  confounded  with  the  Great  Inquisitor  Thomas  de  T.),  attended  as  magister 
taeri  palatH  the  General  Councils  of  Basle  and  Ferrara,  and,  although  a  faithful  champion  of  Popery, 
lie-  opposed,  as  a  Dominican,  the  Immaculate  Conception.    He  died,  14CS,  at  Rome. 

■'■  M  ii  i  •-  "V  (ot  Launolas,  a  learned  Jansenlst  and  Doctor  of  the  Sorboune,  d.  1C78) :  Prcescriptiones 
■  <  /..  Maria  I 'irginit,  'J<1  ed.  1677;  also  in  the  first  volume  of  his  Opera  omnia,  Colouii  Allobro- 
ITB1,  pp.  B  IS,  in  French  and  Latin. 

•  ■  I    si, ,,/. .  .\rt.  Maria,  Mutter  ies  Horn,  In  Herzog's  Eneyklop.Voh  IX. pp. 94  sqq. 

B   Pan  von  der  unbefleckten  Empfdngniss.  Aus  den  Quellen  dargestellt  und  axis 

rlegt,  Berlin,  1865.    The  same,  translated  into  English  by  Geo.  Gladstone,  Edinburgh, 
1867.    The  author  hat  since  become  a  Romanist,  and  recalled  his  booh,  Dec.  1871. 
II.  It  Smith    Professor  in  the  I'niou  Theological  Seminary,  N.Y.) :  The  Dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Con- 

.  in  the  MtfhoduU  Quarterly  Review,  New Tork, for  1866, pp.  275-311. 
Dr.  Pi  /  n  ■   ■■  n,  Part  II.,  Lond.  186T. 

■  mi  lumurmbraneer  for  Oct  1866;  Jan.  1866;  July,  1808. 
l>.  Basi     Hamlin,.!,  ,i,r  Protest.  I'ui.  auk  gtgen  die  rbm.  hath.  Kirche,  3d  ed.  Lcipz.  1871,  pp.  334-344. 

The  first  Btep  towards  the  proclamation  of  the  dogma  of  the  Immacu- 

nos  hi   the  Virgin  Maby,  which  exempts  her  from  all 

contact  with  sin  und  guilt,  Mas  taken  by  Tope  Pius  IX.,  himself  a  most 

devoul  worshiper  of  Man-,  during  his  temporary  exile  at  Gae'ta.    In 

mi  encyclical  letter,  dated  Feb.  2,  L849,  he  invited  the  opinion  of  the 

pa  on  the  alleged  ardent  desire  of  the  Catholic  world  that  the 


§  28.  PAPAL  DEFINITION  OF  THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION.     109 

Apostolic  See  should,  by  some  solemn  judgment,  define  the  Immaculate 
Conception,  and  thus  secure  signal  blessings  to  the  Church  in  these 
evil  times.  For,  he  added, '  You  know  full  well,  venerable  brethren,  that 
the  whole  ground  of  our  confidence  is  placed  in  the  most  holy  Virgin,' 
since  '  God  has  vested  in  her  the  plenitude  of  all  good,  so  that  hence- 
forth, 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  gratice,  si  quid  salutis),\ve 
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  inextrica- 
ble, difficulties.'  But  this  opposition  was  drowned  in  the  general  current.1 

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, 1S54,  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  con- 
cluding formula  of  the  bull  iIneffabilis  Deus,'  declaring  it  to  be  a  di- 
vinely 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  sjiecial 
grace  and  privilege  of  Almighty  God,  in  virtue  of  the  merits  of  Christ, 
was  preserved  immaculate  from  all  stain  of  original  sin?2 

1  Perrone  says :  Vix  quatunr  resj>onderunt  negative  quoad  definitionetn,  et  ex  hie  ipsis  ires 
brevi  mutarunt  sententiam.  These  letters,  with  others  from  sovereigns,  monastic  orders,  and 
Catholic  societies,  are  printed  in  nine  volumes. 

3  lPostr]innn  numqmm  intermisimus  in  humilitate  et  jejttnio  priratas  nostras  et  publicum  F.r- 
clesice  preces  Deo  Patri  per  Filium  ejus  offerre,  ut  Spiritus  Sancti  virtute  mentem  nostram 


110  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  shouts  of  the  assembled  multitude,  the  cannons  of  St.  Angelo, 
the  chime  of  all  the  bells,  the  illumination  of  St.  Peter's  dome,  the 
Bplendor  of  gorgeous  feasts,  responded  to  the  decree.  Rome  was  in- 
toxicated 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  Sth  of  December,  1854, 
oclaimed  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  t\\e  Dei- 
para  Virgo  Maria,  and  thereby  fulfilled  the  desire  of  the  whole 
Catholic  world  (totius  orbis  cathollci  desideria),  and  a  pompous  mar- 
ble  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.1  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,  1  863,  and  contains  the  prayer :  '  O  God,  who,  by  the  immacu- 
late conception  of  the  Virgin,  didst  prepare  a  worthy  dwelling  for  thy 
Son:  giant,  we  beseech  thee,  that,  as  thou  didst  preserve  her  from 
every  Btain,  in  anticipation  of  the  death  of  thy  Son,  so  we  also  may, 
through  her  intercession,  appear  purified  before  thy  presence.' 

The  dogma  lacks  the  sanction  of  an  oecumenical  Council,  and  rests 

dirigert  ei  confirmare  dignaretur,  implorato  universal  calestis  curia prcesidio,  et  advocato  cum 
genitibut  ParacKto  Spiritu,  eoque  sir  aspirante,  ad  honorem  Sanct(c  ct  Individual  Trinitatis, 
ml  //.  o/.s  ei  omamentum  Virginia  Deiparce,  ad  exaltationem  fidei  catholicce  et  christians  re- 
tigionu  augmentum,  auctoritate  J)«mini  nostri  Jem  Christi,  beatorum  Apostolorum  Petri  et 
I'linll,  ac  nostra  declaramtu,  pronuntiamus  <t  dejinimus,  doctrinam,  qua  tenet,  beatissimam 

V 1M  M  M\I:I\M   is    PBIMO   INSlwri  SI    i;  (  !0W<  1.1 TIONIS  FDI88E  8INGULARI  OMNIPOTENTIS 

D«l  «.i:  vii  \  ii  PHI!  ILBOIO,  imi  in  MEKITOBOM  CHRISTI  JeSU  SALVATOHIS  HUMANI  GENE- 
OMltl  OBIOINALIS  I  i  mi  i  M'i.  PBE8ERA  iTAW  1 H  mini'.m,  esse  a  Deo  revelatam  atque 
b  omnibus  fidelibus  Jirmiter  constanterque  credendam.  Quapropter  si  qui  secus  ac  a 
Unitumest,  >/'«"/  Deus  avertat,  prcesumpeerini  corde  sentire,  ii  noverint  ac  porro  sciant, 
x,  propriojudit  to  condemnatos,  naufragium  circa  Jidem  ]>assos  esse,  et  ab  imitate  Ecclesiee  de- 
*■■  praterca  facto  ipso  sue  semet  poenis  a  jure  statutis  subjicere,  si,  quod  corde,  sen- 
ium/, verba  aui  tcripto,  vel  aUo  quovit  externa  mode  significant  ausi  fuerint,' 

The  itatne  of  ihe  Virgin  is  Baid  to  have  come  out  of  the  Roman  fabric  with  a  hideous 
nuilj  patched  op.     See  Hase,  Protest.  Pofanifc,  3d  cd.  p.  841,  and 
d'wh  edition). 


§  28.  PAPAL  DEFINITION  OF  THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION,     m 

solely  on  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  who,  in  its  proclamation,  virtually 
anticipated  his  own  infallibility;  but  it  has  been  generally  accepted  by 
subsequent  assent,  and  must  be  considered  as  an  essential  and  undoubted 
part  of  the  Roman  faith,  especially  since  the  Vatican  Council  has  de- 
clared 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  re- 
veal 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  legiti- 
mate fruit  of  the  genuine  spirit  of  modern  Romanism.  It  only  com- 
pletes 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  myth- 
ical 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  cither  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  be- 
liever. 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 


x  j  2  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

honr,  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 
ia  the  favorite  subject  of  Roman  painters,  who  represent  her  as  blend- 
in-  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  lift.-,  known  or  unknown,  even  her  alleged  bodily  assumption  to 
heaven,  is  celebrated  with  special  zeal  by  a  public  festival.1  It  is  al- 
most 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 
nnt.)  our  lady,  ye  sons  of  God,  praise  and  reverence !'  In  St.  Liguori's 
much  admired  and  commended  'Glories  of  Mary]  she  is  called  'our 
lift-.'  the  'hope  of  sinners,'  'an  advocate  mighty  to  save  all,'  a  'peace- 
maker between  sinners  and  God.'  There  is  scarcely  an  epithet  of 
Christ  which  is  nut  applied  to  her.  According  to  Pope  Pius  IX., 
1  Mary  lias  crushed  the  head  of  the  serpent,'  i.  e.,  destroyed  the  power 
of  Satan, '  with  her  immaculate  foot !'  Around  her  name  clusters  a  mul- 
titude of  pious  and  blasphemous  legends,  superstitions,  and  impostures 
of  wi  Mulcr-working  pictures,  eye-rotations,  and  other  unnatural  marvels ; 
even  the  cottage  in  which  she  lived  was  transported  by  angels  through 
the  aii-,  across  land  and  sea,  from  Nazareth  in  Galilee  to  Loretto  in 
Italy  ;  and  Buch  a  silly  legend  was  soberly  and  learnedly  defended  even 
in  our  days  by  a  Roman  Archbishop.2 

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. 

1  Whyshould  the  fiction  of  the  Assumption  of  Mary  to  heaven  (as  it  is  called  in  distinction  from 
1  '    '  of  Christ)  not  be  proclaimed  a  divinely  revealed  fact  and  a  binding  dogma,  as 

well  a*  the  fmmacnlate  Conception  ?  The  evidence  is  about  the  same.   If  Mary  was  free  from 
•11  contact  wiili  sin,  ihecan  QOt  have  been  subject  to  death  and  corruption,  which  are  the  wages 
'.f  -iii.     The  lilence  of  the  Bible  concerning  her  end  might  be  turned  to  good  account.    Tra- 
dition, also,  can  I"'  produced  in  favor  of  the  assumption.     St.  Jerome  was  inclined  to  believe 
ii,  and  even  the  great  Augustine  'feared  to  Bay  that  the  blessed  body,  in  which  Christ  had 
mate,  could  become  food  for  tin- worms.'    The  festival  of  the  Assumption,  which  pre- 
the  popular  superstition,  is  older  than  the  festival  of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  and 
tne  to  the  fifth  or  sixth  century. 
:  Dr.  Kenrii );.  of  St  Louis,  In  his  work  on  the  'Holy  House,'  a  book  which  is  said  to  be  too 
Hula  known.    Bee  Bmith,  1.  c.  p.  '.'7:'. 


§  29.  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION.      113 

§  29.  The  Argument  for  the  Immaculate  Conception. 

The  importance  of  the  subject  justifies  and  demands  a  brief  examina- 
tion of  the  arguments  in  favor  of  this  novel  dogma,  which  is  one  of  the 
most  characteristic  features  of  modern  Romanism,  and  forms  an  im- 
passable 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  wiscrijptural, 
and  even  arUiscriptural. 

(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  protevangeliu?n,  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  insidiaheris  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.1  And  it  is  in- 
ferred that  the  divinely  constituted  enmity  between  Mary  and  Satan 
must  be  unconditional  and  eternal,  which  wvould  not  be  the  case  if  she 
had  ever  been  subject  to  hereditary  sin.2  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 

1  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. 

2  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  Kirvhe,  18Gf>,  p.  163). 


U±  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

based,  is  contrary  to  the  original  Hebrew,  which  uses  the  masculine 
form  of  the  verb,  m:  (or  it,  the  seed  of  the  woman),  i.  e.,  Christ,  shall 
lr»;,,;nV  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) 
hceV  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.1 

(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:  lTota  jmlchra  es,  arnica  mm,  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. :  ihortus 
conclu8U8,  fon8  8ignatu8>)12ioA  the  closed  gate  in  the  east  of  the  tem- 
ple 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  [srael,  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  mir- 
acle  of  a  birth  clauso  utero?    Jerome  and  other  Fathers  followed,  and 


1  The  Hebrew  text  admits  of  no  doubt ;  for  the  verb  "SViJ^  in  the  disputed  clause,  is  mas- 
■    in  shall  bruin ,  or  crush),  and  N'n  naturally  refers  to  the  preceding  IWTf  {her  seek), 
i    •  ■..  r-;;x  ;-_t  (the  woman's  skid),  and  not  to  the  more  remote  ti^X  (woman).     In  the 
Pentateuch  the  persona]  pronoun  X'H  (he)  is  indeed  generis  communis,  and  stands  also  for  the 
feminine  IW1  |  $ht  ),  \\  nich  (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  Rift,  to  sig- 
nify that  it  onght  to  be  read  x^n  (she).      The  Peshito,  the  Septuagint  (ai>r6c,  aoi  r>jp»><x« 
l  other  ancient  rontons,  are  all  right.     Even  some  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate  read 
ind  Jerome  himself,  the  anthor  of  the  Vulgate,  in  his  'Hebrew  Questions; and 
I       mdemn  the  translation  ipsa.     Bnt  the  blunder  was  favored  by  other  Fathers 
(Ambn  Gregory  [.),  who  knew  no  Bebrew,  and  by  the  monastic  asceticism 

»nd  fanciful  chivalric  Mariolatry  of  the  Middle  Ages.    To  the  same  influence  must  be  traced 
tin- arbitrary  change  of  the  Vulgate  in  the  rendering  of  C)«!ttj  from  eonteret  {shall  bruise)  into 
intuHaberis  (shall  lie  in  wait, assail, pursue),  so  as  to  exempt  the  Virgin  from  the  least  injury. 
■  Epist  IS  ad  Siri  ium;  De  itut.  Virn.,  c.  8,  and  in  his  hymn  A  so/is  ortus  cardine.    The 


§  21).  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION.       115 

drew  a  parallel  between  the  closed  womb  of  the  Virgin,  from  which 
Christ  was  born  to  earthly  life,  and  the  sealed  tomb  from  which  he 
arose  to  heavenly  life.  But  none  of  the  Fathers  thought  of  making 
this  prophecy  prove  the  Immaculate  Conception.  Such  exposition,  or 
imposition  rather,  is  an  insult  to  the  Bible,  as  well  as  to  every  principle 
of  hermeneutics. 

(4)  Sap.  i.  4 :  '  Into  a  malicious  soul  wisdom  shall  not  enter ;  nor 
dwell  in  the  body  that  is  subject  unto  sin.'  This  passage  (quoted  by 
Speil  and  others),  besides  being  from  an  apocryphal  book,  has  nothing 
to  do  with  Mary. 

(5)  Luke  i.  28  :  the  angelic  greeting, '  Hail  (Mary),  full  of  grace  {gra- 
tia plentt)]  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  use- 
less to  refer  to  single  passages,  such  as  Rom.  iii.  10,  23 ;  v.  12,  IS ; 
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  en- 
tire 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  ex- 
ception 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  under- 
stood, they  would  call  in  question  even  the  immaculate  birth  of  Maiy, 
and  her  freedom  from  actual  sin  as  well,  which  is  contrary  to  the  Catho- 
lic faith  j1  hence  the  Council  of  Trent  has  deprived  these  passages  of  all 
force  {omnem  vim  ademit)  of  application  to  the  blessed  Virgin  !     This 

earlier  Fathers  thought  differently  on  the  suhject.  Tertullian  calls  Mary  'a  virgin  as  to  a 
man,  hut  not  a  virgin  as  to  birth'  (non  virgo,  quantum  a  partu)  ;  and  Epiphaoias  speaks  of 
Christ  as  '  opening  the  mother's  womb'  (avoiyutv  fxi)Tpai>  finrpoc).  See  my  History  of  the 
Christian  Church,  Vol.  II.  p.  417. 

'  L.  c.  p.  276.    In  the  same  manner  he  disposes  of  the  innumerable  patristic  passages  which 
the  universal  sinfulness  of  men,  and  make  Christ  the  only  exception. 


11G  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

is  putting  tradition  above  and  against  the  Word  of  the  holy  and  om- 
niscient 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:  lir\ 
t,:.  ':.<:<  r<{,  (noTvp't  fiov\  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,  Kixapirtvpivr},  highly 
/.  >  mlued  with  grace  (die  begnadigte),  the  one  who  received, 
and  therefore  needed,  grace  (non  ut  mater  gratice,  sed  utjUia  gratice, 
ae  Bengel  well  observes);  comp.  ver.  30,  tvptg  \apiv  irapa  t$  $■«£,  thou 
hast  found  grace  with  God;  and  Epli.  i.  6,  lxaP^T(,)arev  nn<*g,he  bestowed 
grace  upon  us.  Bnt  the  Vulgate  changed  the  passive  meaning  into  the 
active  :  gratia  plena,  full  of  grace,  and  thus  furnished  a  spurious  argu- 
ment 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  Je- 
sus, 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  (nXi'ip^c  \dptTog,  not  KtxaptTw/iivog)  and  of  truth.' 

2.  The  dogma  of  the  sinlessness  of  Mary  is  also  uncatholic.  It 
[acta  every  one  of  the  three  marks  of  true  catholicity,  according  to 
the  canon  of  Yincentius  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  unani- 
mous 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  con- 
timicd  to  be  .prosed  till  1854  by  many  of  the  greatest  saints  and 
divines  of  the  I  Ionian  Church,  including  St.  Bernard  and  St.  Thomas 
A.mina-,  and  Beveral  Popes. 

The  ante-Nicene  Fathers,  far  from  teaching  that  Mary  was  free  from 


§  29.  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION.       \\f 

hereditary  sin,  do  not  even  expressly  exempt  her  from  actual  sin,  cer- 
tainly not  from  womanly  weakness  and  frailty.  Irenseus  (d.  202),  who 
first  suggested  the  fruitful  parallel  of  Eve  as  the  mother  of  disobedi- 
ence, 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  (John  ii.  4) ;]  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  occa- 
sion.2 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  un- 
belief of  the  brethren  of  Jesus.3  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  cru- 
cifixion.' Gregory  of  ISTazianzen,  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.4  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  commen- 
taries.5 

1  Iren.  Adv.  hcer.  iii.  c.  16,  §  7:  Dominus,repellens  intempestivamfestinationem,  dixit:  '  Quid 
mihi  et  tibi  est,  mulier? 

1  Chrys.  Horn.  XXL  al.  XX.  in  Joh.  Opera,  ed.  Bened.  Tom.  VIII.  p.  122.  Compare  his 
Horn,  in  Matth.  XLIV.  al.  XLV.,  where  he  speaks  of  Mary's  ambition  (0iXon//i'a)  and 
thoughtlessness  (a-rrovoia),  when  she  desired  to  speak  with  Christ  while  he  yet  talked  to  the 
people  (Matt.  xii.  46  sqq.). 

3  De  carne  Christi,  c.  7 :  Fratres  Domini  non  crediderant  in  ilium.  Mater  a>que  non  de- 
monstratur  adhasisse  illi,  cum  Martha>  et  Maricp.  alien  in  commercio  ejus  frequententur. 

*  Compare  the  convenient  digest  of  this  apocryphal  history  of  Mary  and  the  holy  family  in 
R.  Hoffmann's  Leben  Jesu  narh  den  Apocryphcn,  Leipz.  1851,  pp.  5-117,  and  Tischendorf: 
De  evangeliorum  apocryphorum  origine  et  u&u,  Hagae,  1851. 

6  It  must  be  remembered  that  Mohammed  derived  his  defective  knowledge  of  Christianity 
from  Gnostic  and  other  heretical  sources.  Gibbon  and  Stanley  trace  the  Immaculate  Con- 
ception 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  puri- 
fied thee,  and  chosen  thee  above  the  women  of  the  world. "'     But  this  does  not  necessarily 


I  |£  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Mariolatry  preceded  the  Romish  Mariology.  Each  successive  step 
i„  the  veneration  (hyperdulia)  of  the  Virgin,  and  each  fes- 

tival 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. 

Hie  Mariology  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  passed  through 
three  stages:  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary,  her  freedom  from 
art  mil  sin  (first  from  the  time  of  the  supernatural  conception  of 
Christ,  afterwards  from  her  own  birth),  and  her  freedom  from  heredi- 
tary 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.  Ry-and-by  we  find  outlines  of  the  mother  and 
the  child.     In  an  after-age  the  Son  is  sitting  upon  a  throne,  with  the 

I I  ii  it  her  erowned,  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 
[ntercessor  interposing,  pleading,  by  significant  attitude,  her  maternal 
rights,  and  redeeming  the  world  from  his  vengeance.  Such  was,  in 
fait,  the  progress  of  Virgin-worship.  First  the  woman  reverenced  for 
the  Si  hi  V  Kike;  then  the  woman  reverenced  above  the  Son,  and  adored.'1 

mean  more  than  Lake  i.  28.  By  a  glaring  chronological  blunder,  Mohammed  identifies  Mary 
w  nil  Mil  i. mi,  the  sister  of  Aaron  and  Moses,  as  he,  by  an  equally  gross  grammatical  blunder, 
confonndfl  tin'  name  of  Paraclettu  with  Pcriciytus,  i.  e.,  the  Illustrious,  and  so  identifies  him- 
self |  Ahmad  the  Illustrious)  with  the  Holy  Ghost  promised  by  Christ.  He  also  misrepresents 
Jehovah,  Man,  and  Jesus,  as  the  three  Gods  of  the  Christians,  and  profanely  argued  that,  since 
God  baa  DO  «it".  he  can  have  no  son.  This  caricature  of  the  false  prophet  presupposes  al- 
ready an  excessive  trorsbip  of  Mary,  such  as  was  charged  by  Epiphanius  on  the  Collyridianai 
in  Arabia. 

I  rom  a  lermon  on  the  First  Miracle  (John  ii.  11)  by  Fred.  W.  Robinson  (Harper's  ed. 

rhare  Bfl  andaavon  to  show  that  the  only  cure  of  Mariolatry  is  the  full  recognition  and 

!  appreciation  of  the  true  humanity  of  Christ.     The  earliest  pictures  of  the  Virgin  in 

man  I  atacomba  keep  within  the  limits  of  the  canonical  Gospels;  the  later  represent 

the  apocrypha]  legends.     In  the  former  her  cA»7d  is  adored  by  the  Magi ;  while  in  a  mosaic 

picture  of  the  twelfth  century  the  is  adored,  as  the  crowned  queen  of  heaven,  by  Pope  Calix- 

IV.  kneeling  at  her  feet.     See  these  pictures  in  W.  B.  Marriott's 

I  v  of  the  '  'atacambt  mi<l  of  other  Monuments  of  Christian  Art,  London,  1870,  pp.  21', 

..."..     The  In. i  pan  ..I"  this  1 k  is  devoted  t<>  the  Cultus  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  its  rise  and 

and  contradicts  soma  assertions  of  Northcote,  in  his  Roma  sotteranea  (an  epitome 
"*"  '  '"*■'■•  aTeal  archaeological  work,  with  unwarranted  theological  inferences). 


§  29.  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION.      119 

(1)  The  idea  of  the  perpetual  Virginity  of  Mary  was  already  cur- 
rent 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  re- 
ligious 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  Ilelvidius  and  Jovinian)  was  already  treat- 
ed 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  Collyridiance, 
a  company  of  women  in  Arabia,  in  the  last  part  of  the  fourth  century, 
who  sacrificed  to  Mary  little  cakes  or  loaves  of  bread  (tcoWvpig,  hence 
the  name  KoXXvpiSiavol),  and  paid  her  divine  honor  with  festive  rites 
similar  to  those  connected  with  the  cult  of  Cybele,  the  magna  mater 
deum,  in  Arabia  and  Phrygia. 

(2)  The  freedom  of  Mary  from  actual  sin  was  first  clearly  taught  in 
the  fifth  century  by  Augustine  and  Pelagius,  who,  notwithstanding  their 
antagonism  on  the  doctrines  of  sin  and  grace,  agreed  in  this  point,  as 
they  did  also  in  their  high  estimate  of  asceticism  and  monasticism. 
Augustine,  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  honor,  exempted  Mary  from  willful 
contact  with  actual  sin  ;J  but  he  expressly  included  her  in  the  fall  of 
Adam  and  its  hereditary  consequences.2    Pelagius,  who  denied  heredit- 

1  Be  natura  et  gratia,  c.  36,  §  42  (ed.  Bened.  Tom.  X.  p.  144)  :  'Excepta  sanrta  Yirgine 
Maria,  de  qua  propter  honorem  Domini  nullam  prorsus,  cum  de  peccatis  agitur, 
haberi  volo  QTLESTIONEM  .  .  .  hac  ergo  Virgine  excepta,  si  omnes  illos  sanctos  et  sanctas 
.  .  .  congregare  possemus  et  interrogare,  utrum  essent  sine  peccato,  quid  fuisse  resjionsuros 
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  srimus  quid  ei 
[  Maria]  jilus  gratice  collatum  fuerit  ad  vincendum  omni  ex  parte  peecatum  quce  concipere  ac 
parere  meruit,  quern  constat  nullum  habuisse  peecatum?  For  how  do  we  know  what  more  of 
grace  for  the  overcoming  of  sin  in  every  respect  was  bestowed  vpon  her  who  was  found  wor- 
thy to  conceive  and  give  birth  to  him  who,  it  is  certain,  Mas  without  sin  ?'  This  implies 
that  in  Mary  sin  was,  if  not  a  developed  act,  at  least  a  power  to  be  conquered. 

a  Sermo  2  in  Psalm.  34  :  Maria  ex  Adam  mortua  propter  peecatum,  et  caro  Domini  ex  Ma- 
ria 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 

Vol.  I.— I 


10q  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

an-  Bin,  went  further,  and  exempted  Mary  (with  several  other  saints  of 
the  Old  Testament)  from  sin  altogether;1  and,  if  he  were  not  a  con- 
demned heretic,  he  might  be  quoted  as  the  father  of  the  modern 
do<nna.a  The  view  which  came  to  prevail  in  the  Catholic  Church 
was  that  Mary,  though  conceived  in  sin,  like  David  and  all  men,  was 
Banctified  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  Banctified  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 
hnhj  and  immaculate  (iravdyia,  immaculata  and  immaculatissima), 
refer  only  to  her  spotless  purity  of  character  after  her  sanctification, 

(ed.  Bcned.  X.  1208),  Augustine  speaks  of  the  grace  of  regeneration  (gratia  renascendi)  which 
Man  experienced.  He  also  says  explicitly  that  Christ  alone  was  without  sin,  Be  peccat. 
m  r.  >  t  remiss.,  II.  c.  24,  §  38  (ed.  Bened.  X.  Gl :  Solus  ille,  homo /actus,  manens  Deus,  pec- 
catum  nullum  habtdi  unquam,  nee  sumpsit  carnem peccati,  quamvis  de  materna  came  peccati); 
ill.  C  .">•">,  §  67  (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  peccato) ;  De 
(Jenesi  ad  lit.,  c.  18,  §  32;  c.  20,  §  35.  These  and  other  passages  of  Augustine  clearly  prove, 
...  oae  the  words  of  Ten-one  (1.  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 
:  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,  Fulgen- 
.  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.' 

1  He  say. :  '  Piety  must  confess  that  the  mother  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  was  sinless'  (as 
quoted  by  Augustine,  /><  nat  <  I  gratia,  c.  30,  §  42:  lquam  dicit  sine  peccato  conjiteri  necesse  esse 
pit  tatV).  Pelagins  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, 

hut  also  lived  a  righto -  life'    Julian,  his  ablest  follower,  objected  to  Augustine  that,  by  his 

doctrine  of  hereditary  idn  and  universal  depravity,  he  handed  even  Mary  over  to  the  power 
Of  the  del  il  (ipmm  Mariam  diabolo  nascendi  conditione  transcrilns) ;  to  which  Augustine  re- 
plied {Oput  imperf.  contra  Jul.  1.  IV.  c.  122):  iNon  transscrilnmus  diabolo  Mariam  con- 
ditione  natet  mil.  m  <l  idt  <<  '/>u>i  ipsa  conditio  toltntur  gratia  renascendi,'  i.  e.,  because  this  con- 
dition (of  sinful  birth  I  is  solved  or  sel  aside  by  the  grace  of  the  second  birth.  When  this 
took  plan-,  he  does  not  state. 

3  It  i-  characteristic  thai  the  Dominicans  and  Jansenists,  who  sympathized  with  the  Au- 
gUStinian  anthropology,  opposed  the  Immaculate  Conception;  while  the  Franciscans  and 
•  i  it,  have  a  more  or  less  decided  inclination  towards  Pelagianizing  the- 
ories, and  reduce  original  tin  to  b  loss  of  supernatural  righteousness,  i.e.,  something  merely 
negative,  M  thai  it  is  much  easier  to  make  an  exception  in  favor  of  Mary.  The  Jesuits,  at 
h'-i-t.  ban  an  Into  n  ••  hatred  of  Augustinian  views  on  sin  and  grace,  and  have  shown  it  in  the 
Jansenisl  controversy. 


§  29.  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION.      121 

but  not  to  her  conception.1  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.2 

(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  con- 
nection with  the  festival  of  the  Conception  of  Mary,  which  was  fixed 
upon  Dec.  8,  nine  months  before  the  older  festival  of  her  birth  (cele- 
brated 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  Im- 
maculate Conception,  since  every  ecclesiastical  solemnity  acknowledges 
the  sanctity  of  its  object. 

For  this  reason,  Bernard  of  Clairvaux, '  the  honey-flowing  doctor'  (doc- 
tor mdlifluus),  and  greatest  saint  of  his  age,  who,  by  a  voice  mightier 
than  the  Pope's,  roused  Europe  to  the  second  crusade,  opposed  the  fes- 
tival 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.3  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  dis- 
covered 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.'4  It  does  not  diminish, 
but  rather  increases  (for  the  Romish  stand-point)  the  weight  of  his  pro- 
test, that  he  was  himself  an  enthusiastic  eulogist  of  Mary,  and  a  believer 


1  The  predicate  immaculate  was  sometimes  applied  to  other  holy  virgins,  e.  g.,  to  S.  Cath- 
arine of  Siena,  who  is  spoken  of  as  la  immaculata  vergine,  in  a  decree  of  that  city  as  late  as 
1462.    See  Hase,  1.  c.  p.  336. 

3  See  A.  V.  Mouravieff  on  the  dogma,  in  Neale's  Voices  from  the  East,  1859,  pp.  117- 
155. 

3  '  Virgo  regiafalso  non  eget  honore,  veris  cumulata  honorum  titulis.  .  .  .  Non  est  hoc  Vir- 
ginem  honorare  ted  honori  detraher.  .  .  .  Prasumjita  novitas  mater  temeritatis,  soror  supertti- 
tionis,jilia  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.Vo\.  II.  pp.  1 160, 
1162. 

*  .  .  .  '  et  sic  tenderetur  in  infinitum,  etfestorum  non  esset  numerus  (Ep.  174,  p.  334  sq.). 


l.,.t  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

in  her  riulesfl  birth.    He  put  her  in  this  respect  on  a  par  with  Jeremiah 
and  John  the  Baptist1 

The  same  ground  was  taken  substantially  by  the  greatest  schoolmen 
of  the  Middle  Ages  till  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century:  An- 
Belm  of  Canterbury  (d.  1100),  who  closely  followed  Augustine;2  Peter 
the  Lombard, 'the  Master  of  Sentences'  (d.  1161);  Alexander  of  Hales, 
•  the  irrefragable  doctor'  (d.  1245) ;  St.  Bonaventura, '  the  seraphic  doc- 
1274);  Albcrtus  Magnus,  'the  wonderful  doctor'  (d.  1280)  ; 
St.  Thomas  Aquinas, 'the  angelic  doctor'  (d.  1274),  and  the  very  cham- 
pion of  orthodoxy,  followed  by  the  whole  school  of  Thomists  and  the 
order  of  the  Dominicans.  St.  Thomas  taught  that  Mary  was  conceived 
{rum  Hnf'ul  flesh  in  the  ordinary  way,  seevmdum  carnis  concupiscen- 
tiam  ex  rummixtione  maris,  and  was  sanctified  in  the  womb  after  the 
infusion  of  the  soul  (which  is  called  the  passive  conception);  for  other- 
wise .-lie  would  not  have  needed  the  redemption  of  Christ,  and  so  Christ 
would  oot  be  the  Saviour  of  all  men.  lie  distinguishes,  however, 
three  grades  in  the  sanctification  of  the  Blessed  Virgin:  first,  the  sanc- 
tifkatio  in  utero,  by  which  she  was  freed  from  the  original  guilt  (culpa 
originaM.i)\  secondly,  the  sanctijieatio  in  eonceptu  Domini, when  the 
Holy  Ghost  overshadowed  her,  whereby  she  was  totally  purged  (totaliter 
m  undata)  from  the  fuel  or  incentive  to  sin  (fomespeccati);  and,  thirdly, 
the  8anctificaHo  in  morte,  by  which  she  was  freed  from  all  consequences 
of  sin  (liberate  ah  muni  miseria).  Of  the  festival  of  the  Conception,  he 
say.-  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 
totatih  r  reprobamda).3  The  University  of  Paris,  which  during  the  Mid- 

'  lSi  i'/ii'ir  ante  cotictptwn  sui  sanctificari  minimi,  potuit,  qnoniam  non  erat;  sed  nee  in  ipso 

mceptu,  propter  peccatum  quod  inerat:  restat  ut  post  conceptum  in  utero  jam  existens 

atiom  in  accepisee  credatur,  i/iue  cxrliiso  peccato  sanctam  fecerit  nativitatem,  non  tamen 

■  i  ■,,,,,  eptiom  ,„'    |.  ,-.  p.  886  l. 

3  Anselm,  who  it  sometimes  wrongly  quoted  on  the  other  side,  says,  Cur  Deus  Homo,  ii.  1C 

Op,  <•'!.  Migne,  I.  p.  IU',):   '  Virgo  ipsa  .  .  .  est  in  iniquitatibus  eoncepta,  et  in peccatis  con- 

m  mater  <j>is,  et  cum  original*  peccato  nata  est,  quoniam  et  ipsa  in  Adam  peccavit,  in 

averunV     To  these  words  of  Boso,  Anselm  replies  that  '  Christ,  though  taken 

■  rinful  mass  <-/•  matsa  peccatrice  assumptus),  had  no  sin.'    Then  he  speaks  of  Mary 

it  being  purified  from  sin  (mundata  a  peccatis)  !>y  the  future  death  of  Christ  (c.  lti, 

Hii  pupil  and  biographer,  Eadmer,  in  his  book  Dc  excellent,  beatai  Virg.  Maria,  c.  3 

'    '■  ed.  Migne,  II.  pp.  560  62),  Bays  thai  the  blessed  Virgin  was  freed  from  all  reinain- 

"i  hereditary  and  actual  Bin  when  she  consented  to  the  announcement  of  the  mystery 

incarnation  by  the  angel.'    Quoted  also  by  Pen-one,  pp.  47-ti>. 

1  8nmma  Thtologia,  1'..  in.  n„   27  ,  //,   sanctificatione  B.  Virg.),  Art.  I-.".;  in  Libr.  I. 


§  29.  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION.       123 

die  Ages  was  regarded  as  the  third  power  in  Europe,  gave  the  weight 
of  its  authority  for  a  long  time  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Maculate  Concep- 
tion. 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  L,  and  Innocent  III.1 

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.  lie  was 
the  first  schoolman  of  distinction  who  advocated  the  Immaculate  Con- 
ception, first  at  Oxford,  though  very  cautiously,  as  a  possible  and  prob- 
able fact.3  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.3  At  all  events,  he 
made  it  a  distinctive  tenet  of  his  order. 

Henceforward  the  Immaculate  Conception  became  an  apple  of  dis- 


Sentent.  Dist.  44,  Qu.  1,  Art.  3.  Nevertheless,  Perrone  (pp.  231  sqq.)  thinks  that  St.  Ber- 
nard 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  re- 
garded 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  dis- 
sent from  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception. 

1  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  Lau- 
noy,  Pr  ascriptions,  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 ! 

3  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. 

3  Related  by  Wadding,  in  his  Annal.  Minorum,  Lugd.  1635,  Tom.  III.  p.  37,  but  rejected  by 
Natalia  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.' 


^  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

oord  between  rival  schools  of  Thomists  and  Scotists,  and  the  rival 
orders  of  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans.  They  charged  each  other 
with  heresy,  and  even  with  mortal  sin  for  holding  the  one  view  or  the 
other.  Visions,  marvelous  fictions,  weeping  pictures  of  Mary,  and  let- 
ters from  heaven  were  called  in  to  help  the  argument  for  or  against  a 
fad  which  in.  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  Dome,  on  the  eve  of  the  Reformation.  The  Swedish  prophet- 
ess, St.  Birgitte,  was  assured  in  a  vision  by  the  Mother  of  God  that  she 
was  conceived  without  sin;  while  St.  Catharine  of  Siena  prophesied 
tor  the  Dominicans  that  Mary  was  sanctified  in  the  third  hour  after 
her  conception.  So  near  came  the  contending  parties  that  the  differ- 
ence,  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  Im- 
maculate Conception,  but  threatened  with  excommunication  all  those 
of  hnth  parties  who  branded  the  one  or  the  other  doctrine  as  a  heresy 
and  mortal  sin,  since  the  Roman  Church  had  not  yet  decided  the  ques- 
tion iUTO  and  1483). 

The  Council  of  Trent  (June  17,1546)  confirmed  this  neutral  posi- 
tion, 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 
thi-  decree  the  blessed  and  immaculate  Virgin  Mary.'1  Pius  Y.  (1570), 
.i  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 
ami  energy  by  the  Jesuits.     At  first  they  felt  their  way  cautiously. 

'  Declarat  S.  Synodtu,  non  esse  sua  inlentionis,  comprehendere  in  hoc  decreto, 
nti  ./.  ,,..,,,!,,  originali  agitur,  beatam  ei  immaeulatam  Virginem  Ulariam,  Dei  genitricem; 
nttitutiones /( lit  is  recordations  Sixti  Papoz  IV.  sub  panis  in  eis  con- 
ititvtionibut  contentit,  mtat  innovat.' 


§  29.  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION.      125 

Bellarmin  declared  the  Immaculate  Conception  to  be  a  pious  and  prob- 
able opinion,  more  probable  than  the  opposite.  In  1593  the  fifth  gen- 
eral 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.  (1G1G)  still  left  both  parties  the 
liberty  to  advocate  their  opinion ;  but  a  decree  of  the  Congregation  of 
the  Holy  Inquisition  and  Gregory  XY.  (1G22)  prohibited  the  publication 
of  the  doctrine  that  Mary  was  conceived  in  sin,  and  removed  from  the 
liturgy  the  word  sand  iji cat  ion  with  reference  to  Mary.  Then  a  new 
controversy  arose  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  term  immaculate ;  whether 
it  referred  to  the  Yirgin  or  to  her  conception  ?  To  make  an  end  to 
all  dispute,  Alexander  YIL,  urged  on  by  the  King  of  Spain,  issued  a 
constitution,  Dec.  S,  1661,  which  recommends  the  Immaculate  Concep- 
tion, defining  it  almost  in  the  identical  words  of  the  dogma  of  Pius  IX.1 
Nothing  was  left  but  the  additional  declaration  that  belief  in  this  doc- 
trine was  necessary  to  salvation.  'From  this  time,'  says  Perrone,2  '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 

1  'Ejus  (sc.  Marice),'  says  Alexander  VII.,  in  the  bull  Sollicitudo  Omnium  Ecckmanun 
(Hullar.  Horn.  ed.  Coquelines,  Tom.  VI.  p.  182),  '  animam  in  prima  instanti  crcationis  atque 
in/usionis  in  corpus  fuisse  speciali  Dei  gratia  et  privilegio,  intuitu  meritorum  Christi,  ejus  Filii, 
humani  generis  Redetnptoris,  a  macula  peccati  originalis  pra-serratam  immuutm.,  Compare 
the  decree  of  Pius  IX.  p.  1 10,  which  substitutes  sua-  conceptionia  for  creationis  atque  in/usionis 
(anima>)  in  cor/>us,  and  ab  omni  originalis  culpa:  lube  for  a  macula  peccati  originalis. 

J  L.  c.  p.  33. 


!-,,;  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

learning  and  research;  the  voice  of  the  ablest  remaining  Catholic  schol- 
ar, was  unheeded ;  the  snbmissiveness  of  the  Bishops,  and  the  ignorance, 
superstition,  and  indifference  of  the  people  united  in  securing  the  tri- 
umph of  the  dogma, 

:;.  The  only  dogmatic  argument  adduced  is  that  of  congruity  or  fit- 
■  dew  of  the  peculiar  relations  which  Mary  sustains  to  the  per- 
Bons  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.1 

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  Eedeemer  of  the  fallen  race. 
Besides,  the  argument  of  congruity  can  at  best  only  prove  the  possibil- 
ity 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  <>f  the  race. 

<  )n  the  ether  hand,  the  new  dogma,  viewed  even  from  the  stand-point 
of  the  .Roman  Catholic  system,  involves  contradictory  elements. 

In  the  firsl  place,  it  is  inconsistent  with  any  proper  view  of  original 
.-in.  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.  Bui  Etonian  divines  usually  distinguish  between  the  active  con- 
ception,  i.  e.,  the  marital  act  by  which  the  seed  of  the  body  is  formed  by 
the  agency  of  the  parents,  and  the  jwssive  conception,  i.  e.,  the  infusion 
of  the  soul  into  the  body  by  a  creative  act  of  God  (according  to  the 
theory  of  creationism).9  The  meaning  of  the  new  dogma  is  that  Mary, 
pedal  -race  and  privilege,  was  exempt  from  original  sin  in  her 

Perrono,  ch.  \iv.  pp.  102  iqq. 

the  "n"1  of  the  creation  and  infusion  of  the  soul,  whether  it  took  place  simultanc- 
onalj  "Hi.  the  generation  of  the  body,  01  on  the  fortieth  day  (as  was  formerly  supposed),  there 
i-  no  Axed  opinion  among  Roman  divines. 


§  29.  THE  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION.      127 

passive  conception,  that  is,  in  that  moment  when  her  soul  was  created 
by  God  for  the  animation  of  her  body.1  Kow  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  blas- 
phemous ;  if  from  both,  then  we  have  a  combination  of  both  these  in- 
extricable difficulties.  Kor  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  sin- 
ful disposition.2  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.  Eome  must 
either  deny  original  sin  altogether  (as  Pelagius  did),  or  take  the  further 
step  of  making  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  Mary  a  strictly  miracu- 
lous event,  like  the  conception  of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  sine  virili 
complexic  and  sine  concupiscentia  carnis. 

Secondly,  the  dogma,  by  exempting  Mary  from  original  sin  in  conse- 
quence of  the  merits  of  Christ,3  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  di- 


1  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  itifusionis  in  cor- 
pus, etc.),  see  p.  125. 

a  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  Mohler, 
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. 

3  .  .  .  'intuitu  meritorum  Christi  Jesu,  Salcatoris  humani  generis.' 


128  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

vine  revelation,  and  is  so  declared  in  the  papal  decree.'  Now  it  must 
have  li(.(I1  Sealed  to  the  mind  of  Pius  IX.,  or  not.  If  not,  he  had 
no  ri,rht  in  ^  absence  of  Scripture  proof,  and  the  express  dissent  of 
the  Father,  and  the  greatest  schoolmen,  to  declare  the  Immaculate 
(,iM1  tion  .  divinely  revealed  fact  and  doctrine.  If  it  was  revealed 
to  him  he  had  no  need  of  first  consulting  all  the  Bishops  of  the  Eoman 
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  pro- 
claim any  dogma  of  faith  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  uni- 
versal Episcopate. 

§  30.  The  Papal  Syllabus,  A.D.  1864. 

Literature. 
^     r,       7-     „„,i  Q„iinh„j,  of  Ttpc  S  ISM  are  published  in  Pii  IX.  Epistola  encycl,  etc.,  Regensb. 

,,,,,,, hIMM:/*  Irrthumer  der  Xeuzeit  gerichtet  durch  den  heil.  SUM,  1805. 

5  "rptpstlichen  Encjclica  v.  8  Dec.  1864,  und  das  Verzeickniss  der  modernen  Irrthumer  (by  a 

top*  Pirn  IX.  turn  8  Dec.  1864.    Stimmen  am  Maria-Laach  (B.  C.),  Freib.  1SG0-69.     (By 

SSSSL (R.C.), several ««^^^^  ^^^^S^Ti^i 

r.^.ln.t'rof.onheFreeTheol.Scm.atGeneva.lSTS^^ 

W   B  Qi  u -...M  :  The  Vatican  Decreet:  a  Political  Expostulation,  London  and  New  1  oik ,18.4    I  ati- 

::,.    rjorap.  the  Unman  Catholic  Replies  of  Monsign.  Capei,  J.  H.  Newman,  and  Archbishop 

In  defense  of  the  Vatican  Decrees;  see  below,  §  31. 

( )„  the  8th  of  December,  1864,  just  ten  years  after  the  proclamation 
of  the  Binlessness  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  Pope  Pius  IX.  issued  an  en- 
cyclical Inter  '  Quanta  cam;  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  gov- 
ernment 'to  protect  the  Church;1  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.'2  In 
the  Barae  letter  the  Pope  offers  to  all  the  faithful  a  complete  in- 

1  .  .  .  'doctrinam  .  .  .  mm  "  Deo  reWafam,'  etc, 

'  These  and  similar  sentences  are  inserted  from  letters  of  mediaeval  Popes,  who  from  their 

il iraiic  stand  point  claimed  supreme  jurisdiction  over  the  states  and  princes  of  Europe. 

lik«-  the  Stuarts  and  the  Bourbons,  neter  forget  and  never  learn  any  thing. 


§  30.  THE  PAPAL  SYLLABUS,  1864.  129 

diligence  for  one  month  during  the  year  1S65,1  and  expresses,  in  con- 
clusion, his  unbounded  confidence  in  the  intercession  of  the  immacu- 
late 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.2 

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  declara- 
tion of  war  against  modern  civilization  and  the  course  of  history  for 
the  last  three  hundred  years.  Like  the  papal  bulls  against  the  Jansen- 
ists,  it  is  purely  negative,  but  it  implies  the  assertion  of  doctrines  the 
very  opposite  to  those  which  are  rejected  as  errors.3  It  expressly  con- 
demns 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  hier- 
archy 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 

1  .  .  .  ' plenariam  indulgent iam  ad  instar  jubilm  concedimus  intra  unius  tantuin  mensis  spa- 
tium  usque  ad  totum  futurum  annum  18(io  et  non  ultra.' 

2  '  Quo  vero  facilius  Deus  Nostris,  Vestrisque,  et  omnium  Jidelium  precibus,  votisque  annual, 
cum  omnifiducia  deprecatricem  ajtud  Earn  adhibcamus  Immaculatam  Sanctissimamquc  Deipa- 
ram  Virginem  Mariam,  qure  cunctas  hereses  intermit  in  universo  mundo,  quaque  omnium 
nostrum  amantissima  Mater  "  tota  suavis  est  .  .  .  ac  plena  misericordiaz  .  .  .  omnibus  sese 
exorabilem,  omnibus  clementunmam  jn-abit,  (minium  necessitates  amplissimo  quodam  miseratur 
affectu"  [quoted  from  St.  Bernard],  atque  utpoteRegina  adstans  a  dextru  I  rnigeniti  Filii  Sui, 
Domini  Nostri  Jesu  C/iristi,  in  vestitu  deaurato  circumamicta  varietate,  nihil  est  quod  ab  Eo 
impetrare  non  valeat.  Suffragia  quoque  jietamus  Beatissitni  Petri  A/>oslolorum  Prineipis,  rt 
Coupostoli  ejus  Pauli,  omniumque  Sanctorum  Calititm,  qui  facti  jam  amici  Dei  pervenerunt 
ad  cailestiaregna,  et  coronali  possident  palmam,  ac  dc  sua  immortalitate  securi,  de  nostra  sunt 
salute  solliciti.' 

3  A  learned  Jesuit,  Clemens  Schrader,  translated  them  into  a  positive  form. 


130  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

1  ta  />  .^hm^v  Medichie-Chest,  furnishes  antidotes  for  the  poison  of 
no  less  than  eighty  heresies  (including  twenty  before  Christ),  probably 
with  a  mystic  reference  to  the  octoginta  concuMwB  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  Kationalism,  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  ( Jhristian  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.1 

II.  Moderate  Kationalism,  No.  8-14. 
Among  these  errors  are : 

( 1 2.)  The  decrees  of  the  Eoman  See  hinder  the  progress  of  science. 
(13.)  The  scholastic  method  of  theology  is  nnsuited  to  our  age.2 
(14.)  Philosophy  must  be  treated  without  regard  to  revelation. 

III.  Immifkukntism,  Latitudinarianism,  No.  15-18. 

i  L5.)  Every  man  may  embrace  and  profess  that  religion  which  com- 
mends itself  to  his  reason.3 

i  L6.)  Men  may  be  saved  under  any  religion.4 

i  1  T.i  We  may  at  least  be  hopeful  concerning  the  eternal  salvation  of 
all  non-Catholics.8 

1  •./. sii.i  Chritttu  est  mjfthica  fictioj1  I  am  not  aware  that  any  sane  infidel  has  ever  gone 
M  far.  Stranss  and  Renan  resolve  the  miracles  of  the  gospel  history  into  myths  or  legends, 
bnl  admit  the  historical  existence  and  extraordinary  character  of  Jesus,  as  the  greatest  re- 
i   genius  who  ever  lived. 

'  No.  I 8.  '  Mi  thodvs  <  i  principia,  quibus  antiqui  Doctores  scholastici  theologiam  exeoluerunt, 
temporum  noitrorwn  necessitatibus  scientiarvmque  progressui  minime  rongruunt.' 

1  No.  IS.  iIAberum  caique  homini  est  earn  amplecti  <«•  prqfiteri  religionem,  quam  rationis 
limine  quit  ductus  veram  pvtaverit.' 

*  No.  16.  l  Homines  in  cvjusvis  reUgionis  ealtu  viatn  teterna  salutis  reperire  aternamque 
salute*  asssqui  passant.' 

'  No.  17.  l Saltern  bene  sperandvm  est  de  aterna  illorum  omnium  salute,  qui  in  vera  Christi 

1  ntur.' 


§30.  THE  PAPAL  SYLLABUS,  1S64.  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.1 

IV.  Socialism,  Communism,  Secret  Societies,  Bible  Societies,  Cler- 

ICO-LIBERAL  SOCIETIES. 

Under  this  head  there  are  no  specifications,  but  the  reader  is  referred 
to  previous  Encyclicals  of  1818, 1849, 1854, 1S63,  in  which  ' ejusmodi 
pestes  scepe  gravissimisque  verborum  formulis  reprobemtiur?  The 
Bible  Societies,  therefore,  are  put  on  a  par  with  socialism  and  com- 
munism, as  pestilential  errors  worthy  of  the  severest  reprobation  ! 

V.  Errors  respecting  the  Church  and  her  Rights. 

Twenty  errors  (19-3S),  such  as  these :  the  Church  is  subject  to  the 
State ;  the  Church  has  no  right  to  exercise  her  authority  without  the 
leave  and  assent  of  the  State ;  the  Church  has  not  the  power  to  define 
dogmatically  that  the  religion  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  the  only  true 
religion ;  Roman  Pontiffs  and  oecumenical  Councils  have  exceeded 
the  limits  of  their  power,  usurped  the  rights  of  princes,  and  have 
erred  even  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals  ;2  the  Church  has  no  power 
to  avail  herself  of  force,  or  any  temporal  power,  direct  or  indirect  ;3 
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  the- 
ology ;  nothing  forbids  a  general  council,  or  the  will  of  the  people,  to 
transfer  the  supreme  Pontiff  from  Borne  to  some  other  city ;  national 
Churches,  independent  of  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  may  be 
established  ;4  the  Eoman  Pontiffs  have  contributed  to  the  Greek  schism.5 

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

1  No.  18.  '  Protestantismus  non  aliud  est  quam  diversa  vera  ejusdem  christians,  reliyionis 
forma,  in  qua  ceque  ac  in  Ecclesia  catholica  Deo  placer -e  datum  est.' 

2  No.  23.  '  Homani  pontijices  et  concilia  acumenica  a  limitibus  sua;  potcstatis  recesserunt, 
jura  principum  usurparunt,  atque  etiam  in  rebus  fidei  et  morum  dejiniendis  errarunt.' 

3  No.  24.  'Ecclesia  vis  inferendct  potestatem  non  habet,  neque  jiotestatem  ullam  temporakm 
directam  vel  indirectam.'  , 

*  No.  37.  iInstitui  possunt  nationales  Ecclesia:  ab  auctoritate  Romani  Pontijicis  subducts 
planeque  divisa?. ' 

5  No.  38.  ll}ivisioni  ecclesia  in  orientalem  atque  occidentalem  nimia  Romanorum  Pontijicum 
arbitria  contulerunt.' 


j 32  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

(44.)  -Civil  authority  may  meddle  in  things  pertaining  to  religion, 
morale,  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  Beminaries,  can  and  must  be  assigned  to  the  civil  authority.'1 

i  16.)  '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.'2 

VII.  Errors  in  Natural  and  Christian  Ethics,  No.  56-64. 

Here  among  other  things  are  condemned  the  principle  of  non-inter- 
vention, and  rebellion  against  legitimate  princes. 

VIII.  Errors  on  Christian  Matrimony,  No.  65-74. 

Here  the  Pope  condemns  not  only  loose  views  on  marriage  and  di- 
vorce, but  also  civil  marriage,  and  any  theory  which  does  not  admit  it 
to  be  a  sacrament.3 

IX.  Errors  regarding  the  Civil  Principality  of  the  Roman  Pontiff, 
N.  ..75,  76. 

(75.)  Concerning  the  compatibility  of  the  temporal  reign  with  the 
Bpiritnal,  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  the  sons  of  the  Chris- 
tian 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-SO. 

Under  this  head  are  condemned  the  principles  of  religious  liberty  as 

1  Nn.  46.  '  Totum  scholarum  publicarum  regimen,  in  quibus  juventus  christianm  alicujus 
Reipublica  itutitidtur,  epwccpalibua  dumtaxat  seminariis  aliqua  ratione  exceptis,  potest  ac 
debet  attribw  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. 

*  No.  (56,  '  /■'. ,  A  tia  <i  Statu,  Statusque  ab  Ecclesia  sejungendus  est.'  Compare  AWoc.Acer- 
bistimmm  27  Sept  1852. 

N"-  ':;-  '  l  '  contractus  mere  civiUs  potest  inter  Christianos  constare  veri  notninis  matri- 
contractum  matrimonii  inter  Christianos  semper  esse  sacramen- 
ium,  ,u,i  nullum  <  m  contraetum,  si  sacr amentum  excludatur.' 


§  30.  THE  PAPAL  SYLLABUS,  18G4.  133 

they  have  come  to  prevail  in  the  most  enlightened  States  of  Christen- 
dom. 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  Pome  before  1870) ;  and  he  refuses  to  make  any  terms 
with  modern  civilization.1 

The  Syllabus,  though  resting  solely  on  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
must  be  regarded  as  an  integral  portion  of  the  Boman  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  be- 
tween 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  (1ST2), '  is  folly :  a  little 
stone  [Dan.  ii.  45]  will  break  the  colossus  [of  the  new  German  em- 
pire] 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  in- 
terference 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  Eoman  hierarchy,  and  claims 
this  even  in  those  countries  where  the  State  supports  the  Church,  and 

1  (77.)  'sEtate  hac  nostra  non  amplius  e.rpedit,  religionem  catholicam  habcri  tamquam  unl- 
earn status  religionem,  ceteris  quihusrumque  cultibus  exclusis.' 

(78.)  iHinc  laudabiliter  in  quibusdam  cat/tolici  nominis  regionibus  lege  cautum  est,  ut  lio- 
ininibus  iliac  immigrant ibus  Ueeat  publicum  }>roprii  cujusque  cultus  exercitium  habere.' 

(79.)  i  Enimvero  fal sum  est,  civi/em  cujusque  cultus  libertatem,  itemque  jdenam  potestatem 
omnibus  attributam  quaslibet  opiniones  cogitationesque  palam  publiceque  manifestandi  con- 
ducere  ad  populorum  mores  animosque  facilius  corrumpendos  ac  indifferentismi  pestcm  propa- 
gandam.' 

(80.)  'Bomanus  Pontifex  potest  ac  debet  cum  progressu,  cum  liberalismo  et  cum  recenti 
cirilitate  sese  reconciliare  ct  componere.' 


234  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

has  therefore  a  right  to  a  share  in  its  government.  Self-government  is 
conditioned  by  self-support;  State-support  implies  State-control.  Pop- 
ery accepts  and  utilizes  indifferently  all  forms  of  government  and  all 
political  parties,  and  assails  and  undermines  them  all  if  they  are  no 
more  serviceable  to  its  hierarchical  interests.  American  Romanists 
mnst  be  disloyal  either  to  the  fundamental  institutions  of  their  country, 
or  to  those  parts  of  the  Syllabus  which  condemn  these  institutions. 

§  31.  The  Vatican  Council,  1870. 

Literature. 

I.    WOKKS   PRECEDING   TUK   COUKOIL. 

Ojflnelle  Actenstucke,  zti  dem  von  Sr.  Heiligkeit  dem  Papste  Pius  IX.  nach  Rom  berufenen  Oekumenisehen 

Coned, Berlin,  1868  (pp.  189).    This  work  contains  the  Papal  Encyclica  of  1864,  and  the  various  papal 

■  1  official  documents  preparatory  to  the  Council,  in  Latin  and  German. 

Chroniqut  eonctrnani  le  Proehain  Coneile.    Traduction  revue  et  approuvee  de  la  Civiltd  cattolica  par  la 

Rome,  Vol.  I.    Avant  le  Coneile.  Rome,  Deuxieme  ed.  1S69,  fid.  (pp.  192).  Begius  with 

the  Papal  letter  of  June  2C,  L867. 

llisuv  Edwasd  Hamming  (Archbishop  of  Westminster):  The  Centenary  of  St.  Peter  and  the  General 
Council.    A  Pastoral  Letter.    London,  1867.    The  (Ecumenical  Council  and  the  Infallibility  of  the  Roman 
Uer.    Loudon,  1S69.    In  favor  of  Infallibility. 
(.11.  A.  I'i.antifh  (Bishop  of  Nimes) :  Sur  les  Conciles  generaux  d  Voecasion  de  celui  que  Sa  Saintete  Pie 
tr  U  9  di rembre proehain,  Nimes  et  Paris,  1869.     The  same  in  German:  Ueber  die  allge- 
I  ,-. -hi  nverea mmlungm,  translated  by  Th.  von  Lamezan,  Freiburg  im  Breisgan,  1S69.    Infallibilist. 
M  \..i:.  \  i<  i.  An;.  D  ecu  amps  (Archbishop of  Maliues):  L'infaillibilite  et  I e  Coneile  general,  2d  ed.,  Paris 
ct  Malines,  1809.    German  translation:  Die  Unfehlbarkeit  desPapstes  und  das  Allgemeine  Concil,  Mainz, 
ong  Infallibilist. 
II.  It.  M  uu  r  (Dean  of  the  Theol.  Faculty  of  Paris):  Du  Coneile  general  et  de  la  paix  religieuse,  Paris, 
1889,  !  vole.    Against  Infallibility.    Has  since  recanted. 

U  .  Bwuin  EL  Pbiuubb  von  Kettei.er  (Bishop  of  Mayence) :  Das  Allgemeine  Concil  und  seine  Bedcu- 
tunof&r  unter*  Zett,  4th  ed.  Mainz,1S69.    First  against,  now  in  favor  of  Infallibility. 
Dr.  J  «]  in  1'issui:  (Bishop  of  St.  I'i'.lten  and  Secretary  of  the  Vatican  Council,  d.  1872) :  Das  letzteund 

I  Ug,  ,,,,  ine  Concil,  Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  1869. 
I  .  In  ivM.n  r  (Bishop  of  Orleans):  Lettre  sur  le  futur  Coneile  (Ectimenique,  in  French,  German,  and 
other  languages,  1809.    The  same  on  the  Infallibility  ofthePope.   First  against,  then  in  favor  of  the  new 

\p*t  rind  das  Concil,  von  Janus,  Leipzig,  1869  (pseudonymous).     The  same  in  English:  The  Pope 

bj  Jr.i  s,  London,  1869.     In  opposition  to  the  Jesuit  programme  of  the  Council,  from 

ihe  liberal  (old)  Catholic  stand-point;  probably  the  joint  production  of  Profs.  Dolltnger,  Fkiedricu, 

and  Hi  in  a,  of  the  University  of  Munich. 

Dr.  .1.  I  In:.,  i  >!'.;. th  f.r  (R.  C):  Anti- Janus,  Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  1S70.    Also  in  English,  by  J.  B.  Rou- 

Dnblln,  1870. 

.'.  m,  Kfrchl  in  Haupt  mid  Gliedem  Avfgabe  des  bevorstehenden  Rom.  Conci'Js,  Leipz.  1869. 
Liberal  Catholic. 

Bi  ■■■'  m  ■  [Prot.) :  Boms  and  the  Council  in  th,'  Nineteenth  Century.    Translated  from  the  French, 
a  Uh  addition*  by  th*  .1  nth.r.  Bdinb.  1870.  « Jonjectures  as  to  what  the  Council  will  be,  to  judge  from  the 
fyllabai  and  the  past  history  of  the  Papacy.) 

II.  Reports  ddrino  the  Council. 
•    Oca,  of  Bone,  for  1809  and  1S70.    Chief  organ  of  the  Jesuits  and  Infallibilists. 
■  M  i..i  :  Ram*  pendant  U  ConeOe,  Paris,  1870,  2  vols.     Collection  of  his  correspondence  to 
talejon  ol  Pwto.    Dltra-Infalllbilist  and  utterly  unscrupulous. 

»ai(  n  (Prof,  of  Church  History  in  Munich,  lib.  Cath.) :  TagebuchwahrmddeeVaticaniechenCon- 
llDgen,  WT1  ;  2.1  ed.  1879.    A  journal  kept  during  the  Council,  and  noting  the  facts, 
.-  ihry  came  to  the  surface.    The  author,  a  colleague  and  intimate  friend  of  Dol- 
en  excommunicated. 

•   ithollc)  i  Zur  Guehiehte  de*  Vatican.  Coneila,  first  published  in  the  North  British 
October.1870  (under  the  title,  Th*  Vatican  Council,  dd.  95-190  of  the  Amerrrnnnn  tmnaiabui 


bl.al  M  inlcb,181 


'  buncfl,  pp.  95-120  of  the  Amer.  reprint),  translated 


§  31.  THE  VATICAN  COUNCIL,  1870.  135 

Quinines :  Letters  from  Rome  on  the  Council,  first  in  the  Angst).  Allgemeine  Zeitung,  and  then  in  a  sep- 
arate volume,  Munich,  1S70 ;  also  in  English,  London,  1870  (pp.  S56).  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 
frieud  in  Germany  for  publication  in  the  Augsburg  General  Gazette. 

Compare  against  Quirinus:  Die  Unwahrheiten  der  Rdmiechen  Brief e  vom  Concil  in  der  Ally.  Zeitung, 
von  W.  Emmanuel  Fkeiiieren  von  Kettei.eu  (Itishop  of  Mayence),  1S70. 

Ce  qui  se  passe  arc  Concile.    Dated  April  1C,  1ST0.    Troisieme  ed.    Paris,  1S70.     [By  Jules  Gaillard.] 

La  derniere  heure  du  Concile,  Paris,  1870.  [By  a  member  of  the  Council.]  The  last  two  works  were 
denounced  as  a  calumny  by  the  presiding  Cardinals  in  the  session,  July  16, 1870. 

Also  the  Reports  during  the  Council  in  the  Giornale  di  Roma,  the  Turin  Unitd  catholica,  the  London 
Times,  the  London  (R.  C.)  Tablet,  the  Dublin  Review,  the  New  York  Tribune,  and  other  leading  period- 
icals. 

III.  The  Acts  and  Proceedings  of  me  Council. 

(1.)  Roman  Catholic  (Infallibilist)  Sources. 

Acta  et  Decreta  sacrosa?ieti  et  aecumenici  Concilii  Vaticani  die  8  Dec.  1S69  a  ss.  D.  X.  Pio  IX.  inchoati. 
Cum  permissions  superiorum,  Friburgi  Brisgovise,  1S71,  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. 

Acte8  et  histoire  du  Concile  cecumenique  de  Rome,  premier  du  Vatican,  ed.  under  the  auspices  of  Victor 
Frond,  Paris,  1S69  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, 
chanoint  d'Orleans.    Each  vol.  costs  100  francs. 

Atti  ufficialli  del  Concilio  ecumenico,  Turino,  pp.  6S2  (?  1870). 

Offieielle  Actenstiicke  zu  dem  von  Sr.  Heiligkeit  dem  Papst  Pius  IX.  nach  Rom  bervfenen  Oekumenischen 
Concil,  Ziceite  Sammlung,  Berlin,  1870. 

Das  Oekumenische  Concil.  Stimmen  aus  Maria-Laach,  XeueFolge.  Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  1S70.  A  se- 
ries 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  Let- 
ters, London,  1871. 

Bp.  Jos.  Fessler  (Secretary  of  the  Vatican  Council) :  Das  Vaticanische  Concil,  dessen  uussere  Dedeutung 
und  innercr  Verlauf,  Wien,  1S71. 

Eugen  Cecconi  (Canon  at  Florence) :  Geschichte  der  allg.  Kirchenversammlung  im  Vatican.  Transl.  from 
the  Italian  by  Dr.  W.  Molitor.   Regeusb.  1S73  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  Vat- 
ican. 

(2.)  Old  Catholic  (anti-Infallibilist). 

Jon.  Friedrioh:  Documenta  ad  illuxtrandum  Concilium  Vaticanum  anni  1S70,  Niirdlingeu,  1S71,  in  2 
Parts.  Contains  official  and  unofficial  documents  bearing  on  the  Council  and  the  various  schemata  de 
fide,  de  ecclesia,  etc.  Compare  his  Tagebuch  wahrend  des  Vaticanischcn  Concils  gefiihrt,  above  quoted, 
aud  his  Zur  Vertheidigung  vieines  Tagebicchs.  Offener  Brief  an  P.  R.  Comely,  Priester  der  Gesellschaft 
Jesu,  NordL  1872. 

Jon.  Friedrich  Ritter  von  Sciiulte  (Prof,  of  Canon  Law  in  the  University  of  Prague,  now  in  Bonn) : 
Das  Unfehlbarkeitsdecret  vom  IS  Juli  1S70  .  .  .  gepriifl,  Prag,  1S71.  Also,  Die  Macht  der  Bom.  Pupate  fiber 
Fi'irMen,  Lander,  Volker,  Individual,  etc.,  Prag,  2d  ed.  1871. 

Stimmen  aus  der  katholischen  Kirche  fiber  die  Kirchenfragen  der  Gcgenvart,  Munchen,1870  sqq.  2  vols. 
A  series  of  discussions  against  the  Vatican  Council,  by  DOllinger,  Hubee,  Soiimitz,  Fkieduich,  Rbin- 
kens,  aud  IliiizL. 

(3.)  Protestant. 

Dr.  E.mii.  Friedberg  (Prof,  of  Ecclesiastical  Law  in  Leipzig):  Sammlung  der  Actenstiicke  znm  ersten 
Vaticanischen  Concil,  mit  einem  Grundriss  der  Geschichte  desselben,  Tubingen,  1S72  (pp.  954).  Very  valu- 
able ;  contains  all  the  important  documents,  and  a  full  list  of  works  on  the  Council. 

TiiEon.  Feo.mmann  {Privatdocent  in  Berlin):  Geschichte  und  Kritik  des  Vaticanisclien  Concils  von  18C9 
und  1870,  Gotha,  1872  (pp.  529). 

E.  de  Presbense  (Ref.  Pastor  in  Paris) :  Le  Concile  du  Vatican,  son  histoire  et  ses  consequences politiqttes 
et  religieuses,  Paris,  1S72.    Also  in  German,  by  Fabarius,  Nilrdlingen,  1872. 

L.  W.  Bacon  :  An  Inside  View  of  the  Vatican  Council,  New  York,  1S72  (Amer.  Tract  Society).  Contains 
a  translation  of  Archbishop  Kenrick's  speech  against  Infallibility,  with  a  sketch  of  the  Council. 

G.  Uuluorn:  Das  Vaticanische  Concil  (Vermischte  Vortrage).    Stuttgart,  1S75,  pp.  235-350. 

An  extensive  criticism  on  the  Infallibility  decree  in  the  third  edition  of  Dr.  Hasf.'s  Handbuch  der  Prot- 
estant. Polemik  gegen  die  ri'musch-katholische  Kirche,  Leipz.  1871,  pp.  155-200.     Comp.  pp.  24-37. 

[The  above  are  only  the  most  important  works  of  the  large  aud  increasing  literature,  historical,  apol- 
ogetic, and  polemic,  on  the  Vatican  Council.  A.  Erlecke,  in  a  pamphlet,  Die  Literatur  des  r'&m.  Concils, 
gives  a  list  of  over  200  books  and  pamphlets  which  appeared  in  Germany  alone  before  1S71.  Friedberg 
notices  1041  writings  on  the  subject  till  June  1S72.  Since  then  the  Gladstone  Expostulation  on  the  po- 
litical aspects  of  the  Vatican  Decrees,  Lond.  1S74,  and  his  Vaticanism,  1875,  have  called  forth  a  newspaper 
and  pamphlet  war,  and  put  Dr.  J.  II.  Newman  and  Archbishop  Manning  on  the  defensive.] 

Vol.  I.— K 


13(J  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

More  than  three  hundred  years  after  the  close  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  Pope  Pins  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  mdehit  annos  PetrV),  resolved  to 
convoke  a  new  ^ecumenical  Council,  which  was  to  proclaim  his  own  in- 
fallibility in  all  matters  of  faith  and  discipline,  and  thus  to  put  the 
top-stone  to  the  pyramid  of  the  Roman  hierarchy. 

lie  first  intimated  his  intention,  June  2G,  1S67,  in  an  Allocution  to 
five  hundred  Bishops  who  were  assembled  at  the  eighteenth  centen- 
ary of  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Peter  in  Rome.  The  Bishops,  in  a  most 
humble  and  obsequious  response,  July  1,  18G7,  approved  of  his  he- 
mic 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.1  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  \>>  destroy  alone  all  the  heresies  of  the  wTorld.2 

1  lSummo  igitur  gattaio,'  said  the  five  hundred  Bishops,  irepletus  est  animus  noster,  dum 
taenia  <>rr  Tuo  intelleximus,  tot  inter  prcesentis  temjwris  discrimina  eo  Te  esse  consdio,  ut 
"maximum,"  prout  aiebai  inclitus  Tuus  predecessor  Paulas  III.,  "in  maxi.nis  rei  christi- 
nini  periculil  i-i'medium,''  Concilium  wcumenicum  convoces.  Annuat  Deus  liuic  Tuo  proposito, 
ruins  ipn  lilii  mentem  iuspiruvit ;  habeantque  tandem  ccvi  nostri  homines,  qui  infirmi  in  fide, 
temper  ditcentei  >t  nunquam  ad  veritatis  agnitionem  pervenientes  omni  vento  doctrince  circum- 
feruntur,  in  tacrosancta  hacSynodo  novam,  prcesentissimamque  occasionem  accedendi  ad  sanc- 
1,1,11  Ecclesiam  columnam  ac  firmamentum  veritatis,  cognoscendi  salutiferamjidem,perniciosos 
reiiciendi  erroret;  ac  fiat,  Deo  propitio,  et  conciliatrice  Deipara  Immaculata,  hcec  Synodus 
•ifindr  oput  unitatit,  tanclificationit  et  pacis,  unde  novus  in  Ecclesiam  splendor  redundet,  novus 
1 1. 1  triumph**  contequatur.  Et  hoc  ipso  Tuw  procidentia  opere  denuo  exibeatur  viundo 
i  ' ,  nefi  i<t.  /"  r  Pont\ficatum  romanum  humana  societati  asserta.  Patent  cunctis, Eccle- 
liani  ">  '/'""I  taper  toliditrima  I',  trafundetur,  tantum  valere,  ut  errores  depellat,  mores  corri- 
aat,  barbariem  competcat,  civilieque  humanitatis  mater  dicatur  et  sit.  Pateat  mundo,  quod 
aHoinat  auctoritatit  et  <l<liia  eidem  obediential  manifest issimo  specimine,  in  divina Pontifica- 
r./<  inttitutione  data,  <a  omnia  ttabilita  et  tacrata  sin/,  qua  societatum  fundamenta  ac  diutur- 
nitati  ut  tolidt 

■   votum  apertiua  etiam  te  prmlit  in  eo  communi  Concilii  cecumenici  desiderio, 

auodomnet  noH  modoperutile,  ted  >i  necetearium  arbitramiiii.     Superbia  enim  humana,  vete- 

tauratura,  jamdiu  per  commenticium  progression  civitatem  et  turrem  extruere 

"""'"'• '  "J"'  culmen  pertingat  ad  calum,  unde  demum  Deus  ipse  detrain  possit.     At  is  de- 

ridetmr  intpecturut  oput,  <t  ndificantium  Ungual  ita  confusurus,  ut  non  audiat  unus- 


§  31.  THE  VATICAN  COUNCIL,  1870.  137 

The  call  was  issued  by  an  Encyclical,  commencing  JEterni  Patris 
Unigenitus  Filius,  in  the  twenty-third  year  of  his  Pontificate,  on  the 
feast  of  St.  Peter  and  Paul,  June  29, 1S6S.  It  created  at  once  a  uni- 
versal commotion  in  the  Christian  world,  and  called  forth  a  multitude 
of  books  and  pamphlets  even  before  the  Council  convened.  The  high- 
est 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.1  It  was 
even  hoped  that  the  Council  might  become  a  general  feast  of  recon- 
ciliation of  divided  Christendom :  and  hence  the  Greek  schismatics, 


quisque  rocem  proximi  sui :  id  enim  animo  ohjiciunt  Ecclesim  vexationes,  miseranda  civilis  con- 
sortia conditio,  perturbatio  rerum  omnium,  in  qua  versamur.  Cui  sane  gravissim<c  calamitati  sola 
certe  objici  potest  divina  Ecclesim  virtus,  quo?  tunc  maxime  se  prodit,  cum  Episcopi  a  Sum- 
mo  Pontijice  convocati,  eo  preside,  conveniunt  in  nomine  Domini  de  Ecclesim  rebus  acturi. 
Et  gaudemus  omnino,  pravertisse  vos  hac  in  re  propositum  jamdiu  a  nobis  conceptual,  com- 
mendandi  sacrum  hunc  coetum  ejus  patrocinio,  cujus  pedi  a  rerum  exordio  serpentis  caput  sub- 
jection fiut,  quo?que  deinde  universas  hozreses  sola  interemit.  Satisfacturi  propterea  communi 
desideriojam  nunc  nunciamus,  futurum  quandocunque  Concilium  sub  ausjnciis  Deiparce  Virgi- 
nis  ab  omni  labe  immunis  esse  constituendum,  et  eo  aperiendum  die,  quo  insignis  hujus  privilegii 
ipsi  collati  memoria  recolitur.  Eaxit  Deus,Jaxit  Immaculata  Virgo,  ut  amplissimos  e  saluber- 
rimo  isto  Conciliofructus  perciperc  valcamus.''  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  assump- 
tion of  infallibility,  i.  e.,  a  predicate  of  the  Almighty  by  a  mortal  man,  is  the  consummation 
of  spiritual  pride. 

1  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  re- 
serve concerning  the  desired  dogma  of  Infallibility,  defines  the  objects  of  the  Council  in  these 
words  :  '  In  ozcumenico  hoc  Concilio  ea  omnia  accuralissime  examine  sunt  perpendenda  ac  sta- 
tuenda,  qiuc  hisce  prwscrtim  asperrimis  temporibus  majorem  Dei  gloriam,  etjidei  integritatem, 
divinique  cultus  decorem,  semjiiternamque  hominum  salutem,  et  utriusque  Cleri  discijdinam 
ejusque  salutarem  solidamque  culturam,  atque  ecclesiasticarum  legum  observantiam,  morumque 
emendationem,  et  christianam  juvcntutis  institutionem,  et  communem  omnium  pacem  et  concor- 
diam  in  jirimis  resjnciunt.  Atque  etiam  intent issimo  studio  curandum  est,  ut,  Deo  bene  ju- 
vante,  omnia  ab  Ecclesia  et  civili  societate  amoveantur  mala,  ut  miseri  crrantes  ad  rectum 
veritatis,  justitim  salutisque  tramitem  reducantur,ut  vitiis  erroribusque  eliminatis,  augusta  nos- 
tra religio  ejusque  salutifera  doctrina  ubique  terrarum  reviviscat,  et  quotidie  magis  propagetur 
et  dominetur,  atque  ila  pietas,  honestas,  probitas,  justitia,  caritas  omnesque  Christiana:  vir- 
tutes  cum  maxima  humana:  societatis  utilitate  vigeant  et  ejflorescant.' 


133  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  the  Protestant  heretics  and  other  non-Catholics,  were  invited  by 
two  special  letters  of  the  Tope  (Sept.  8,  and  Sept.  13, 1868)  to  return 
on  this  auspicious  occasion  to  '  the  only  sheepfold  of  Christ,'  for  the 
salvation  of  their  souls.1 

But  the  Eastern  Patriarchs  spurned  the  invitation,  as  an  insult  to 
their  time-honored  rights  and  traditions,  from  which  they  could  not 
depart.-  The  Protestant  communions  either  ignored  or  respectfully 
declined  it.3 

Thus  the  Vatican  Council,  like  that  of  Trent,  turned  out  to  be  sim- 
ply 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  dis- 
appointment, 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  Ultra- 
montane or  Jesuitical  party,  was  nothing  less  than  the  proclamation  of 

1  '  Omnes  Christianos  etiam  atqice  etiam  hortamur  et  obsecramus,  ut  ad  unicum  Christi  ovile 
ledirefestinent.'  And  at  the  end  again, '  unum  ovile  et  unus  pastor;'  according  to  the  false  and 
mischievous  translation  of  John  x.  10  in  the  Vulgate  (followed  by  the  authorized  English 
Version),  instead  of  '  one  flock1  {pia  ■Ko'mvr],  not  au\i)).  There  may  be  many  folds,  and  yet 
one  flock  under  one  Shepherd,  as  there  are  'many  mansions'  in  heaven  (John  xiv.  2). 

2  The  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  declined  even  to  receive  the  Papal  letter  from  the  Papal 
messenger,  for  the  reasons  that  it  had  already  been  published  in  the  Giornale  di  Roma;  that 
it  contained  principles  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  the  doctrines  of  the  oecumenical 
Councils,  and  the  holy  Fathers;  that  there  was  no  supreme  Bishop  in  the  Church  except 
Christ;  mid  that  the  Bishop  of  Old  Rome  had  no  right  to  convoke  an  oecumenical  Council 
without  first  consulting  the  Eastern  Patriarchs.  The  other  Oriental  Bishops  either  declined 
<.r  returned  the  Papal  letter  of  invitation.  See  the  documents  in  Friedberg,  1.  c.  pp.  233-253  ; 
in  Officielle  ActenstUcke,  etc.,  pp.  127-135  ;  and  in  the  Chronique  concernant  le  Prochain  Con- 
'  il> \  Vol.  I.  pp.  .".  Bqq.,  103  sqq. 

■  The  Evangelical  OberMrchenrcUh  of  Berlin,  the  Kirchentag  of  Stuttgart,  18G9,  the  Paris 

Branch  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  'The  Venerable  Company  of  Pastors  of  Geneva,'  the 

Professor)  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 

aing  tin-  principles  of  the  Protestant  Reformation.    The  Presbyterian  Dr.  dimming, 

Of  London,  seemed  frilling  to  accept  the  invitation  if  the  Pope  would  allow  a  discussion  of  the 

of  tin-  separation  from  Rome,  but  was  informed  by  the  Pope,  through  Archbishop 

Manning,  In  two  letters  (Sept.  1,  and  Oct.  80,  1869),  that  such  discussion  of  questions  long 

settled  would  be  entirely  inconsistent  ■with  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  and  the  supremacy 

of  the  Holy  Bee.    Bee  the  documents  in  Friedberg,  pp.  '.':;.",  257  ;   comp.  pp.  1G,  17,  and  Oj/ic. 

.■■  I-"--*   176.     The  Chronique  concernant  !<■  Prochain  Concile,  p.  1GD,  criticises 

h  the  American  Presbyterian  letter  signed  by  Jacobus  and  Fowler  (Moderators  of  the 

Genera]  Assembly  I,  and  mo  In  it>  reasons  for  declining  a  proof  of  'heretical  obstinacy  and 

Ignorance.' 


§  31.  THE  VATICAN  COUNCIL,  1870.  139 

the  personal  Infallibility  of  the  Pope,  as  a  binding  article  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  faith  for  all  time  to  come.1  Herein  lies  the  whole  im- 
portance 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  innu- 
merable 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, 1S69,  in  the  Basilica  of  the  Vatican.2  It  reached 
its  height  at  the  fourth  public  session,  July  IS,  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 

1  So  the  Civilta  cattolica  (a  monthly  Review  established  lSr>0,  at  Rome,  the  principal  organ 
of  the  Jesuits,  and  the  Moniteur  of  the  Papal  Court)  defined  the  programme,  Feb.  6, 1869 ;  add- 
ing to  it  also  the  adoption  of  the  Syllabus  of  18G4,  and,  perhaps,  the  proclamation  of  the  as- 
sumption of  the  Virgin  Mary  to  heaven.  The  last  is  reserved  for  the  future.  The  Archbishop 
<if  Westminster  (Manning)  and  the  Archbishop  of  Mechlin  (Dechamps)  predicted,  in  pastoral 
letters  of  1867  and  18G!>,  the  proclamation  of  the  Papal  Infallibility  as  a  certain  event.  To 
avert  this  danger,  the  Bishop  of  Orleans  (Dupanloup),  Pere  Gratry  of  the  Oratory,  Pete 
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. 

2  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,  1.  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  Ro- 
man oecumenical  Councils  were  held  in  the  Lateral!  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  urhis  e.t  orbis  ecclesiarum  mater  et  caput').  There  are  five  Lateran  Coun- 
cils :  the  first  was  held,  1128,  under  Calixtus  II. ;  the  second.  1139,  under  Innocent  II. ;  the 
third,  1179,  under  Alexander  III. ;  the  fourth  and  largest,  1216,  under  Innocent  III.  ;  the 
fifth,  1512-1517,  under  Leo  X.,  on  the  eve  of  the  Reformation.  The  basilica  of  the  Late- 
ran 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  Apos- 
tles upon  the  Fathers  of  the  Council. 


140  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

name  of  King  Victor  Emanuel,  took  possession  of  Borne,  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  Infallibil- 
ity of  the  Pope,  it  made  all  future  oecumenical  Councils  unnecessary 
for  the  definition  of  dogmas  and  the  regulation  of  discipline,  so  that 
hereafter  they  will  be  expensive  luxuries  and  empty  ritualistic  shows. 
The  acts  of  the  Vatican  Council,  as  far  as  they  go,  are  irrevocable. 

The  attendance  was  larger  than  that  of  any  of  its  eighteen  predeces- 
sors,1 and  presented  an  imposing  array  of  hierarchical  dignity  and 
power  such  as  the  world  never  saw  before,  and  as  the  Eternal  City  itself 
ia  not  likely  ever  to  see  again.  What  a  contrast  this  to  the  first  Coun- 
cil of  the  apostles,  elders,  and  brethren  in  an  upper  chamber  in  Jerusa- 
lem !  The  whole  number  of  prelates  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
who  are  entitled  to  a  seat  in  an  oecumenical  Council,  is  one  thousand 
and  thirty -seven.2  Of  these  there  were  present  at  the  opening  of  the 
Council  719,  viz.,  49  Cardinals,  9  Patriarchs,  4  Primates,  121  Arch- 
bishops, 479  Bishops,  57  Abbots  and  Generals  of  monastic  orders.3 
This  number  afterwards  increased  to  764,  viz.,  49  Cardinals,  10  Pa- 
triarchs,  4  Primates,  105  diocesan  Archbishops,  22  Archbishops  in  parti- 
bus  infidelium,  424  diocesan  Bishops,  98  Bishops  in  partibus,  and  52 
Abbots,  and  Generals  of  monastic  orders.4  Distributed  according  to  con- 


1  As  the  oecumenical  character  of  two  or  three  Councils  is  disputed,  the  Vatican  Council  is 
variously  reckoned  as  the  L9th  or  20th  or  21st  oecumenical  Council;  by  strict  Romanists  (as 
Manning)  as  the  19th.     Compare  note  on  p.  91. 

B  lull  li-t,  with  all  the  titles,  in  the  Lexicon  geoc/raphicum  added  to  the  second  part 
of  tin-  Acta  it  Decreta  aacroeancti  et  acum.  Cone.  Vaticani,  Friburgi,  1871.  The  Prelates 
•  i/uihiis  (tut  jus  uut  priviletjium  fuit  sedendi  in  acumenica  synodo  Vaticana,'  are  arranged  as 
follows  : 

i  l.j  Enunentuumi  el  reverendissimi  Domini  S.E.  Rom.  Cardinales  :  (a)  ordinis  Episco- 
poTum,  (I')  ordinis  Presbyterorum,  (<■)  ordinis  diaconorum — 51. 
Reverendissimi  Domini  Patbiabchje — 11. 
■..    Reverendissimi  DD.  Primates — 10. 
i     Reverendissimi  I>1>.  Abohiepiscop] — l(j(i. 
Reverendissimi  DD.  Episoopi — 740. 
r.\ m  Qulliai  dioceseos — 6. 
.-.'II-  i .i  m  balm  ordinum  monasticornm — 23. 

WBALMel  Vi<  inn  Gbvebaleb  congregationum  clericorum  regularium,  ordinum 
monasticontm,  ordinum  mendicantium— 29.     In  all,  lo:i7. 
•  li-t  of  names  in  Friedberg,  \>\>.  876  894. 

4  s'''  (l Ocial  Catalogo  alfabetico  dei  Padri  prcsenti  al  Concilio  ecumenko  Yaticano, 

Roma,  1870. 


§  31.  THE  VATICAN  COUNCIL,  1870.  141 

tinents,  541  of  these  belonged  to  Europe,  83  to  Asia,  14  to  Africa,  113  to 
America,  13  to  Oceanica.  At  the  proclamation  of  the  decree  of  Papal 
Infallibility,  July  18, 1S70,  the  number  was  reduced  to  535,  and  after- 
wards it  dwindled  down  to  200  or  ISO. 

Among  the  many  nations  represented,1  the  Italians  had  a  vast  ma- 
jority of  276,  of  whom  1-43  belonged  to  the  former  Papal  States  alone. 
France,  with  a  much  larger  Catholic  population,  had  only  S4,  Austria 
and  Hungary  48,  Spain  41,  Great  Britain  35,  Germany  19,  the  United 
States  48,  Mexico  10,  Switzerland  8,  Belgium  G,  Holland  4,  Portugal 
2,  Russia  1.  The  disproportion  between  the  representatives  of  the  dif- 
ferent nations  and  the  number  of  their  constituents  was  overwhelm- 
ingly 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  In- 
fallibility of  their  sovereign  would  bring  to  the  Eternal  City  and  tho 
impoverished  Papal  treasury.2  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.3 
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  in- 
trigues 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.4 


1  Manning  says,  '  some  thirty  nations' — probably  an  exaggeration. 

2  Quirinus,  pp.480,  481  (English  translation). 

3  They  had  to  promise  and  swear  to  observe  '  mviolabilem  secret*  fidem?  with  regard  to  the 
discussions,  the  opinions,  and  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  Council.  Sec  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. 

*  Among  the  irresponsible  but  well-informed  reporters  and  correspondents  must  be  men- 


U2  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  subject-matter  for  deliberation  was  divided  into  four  parts :  on 
Faith,  Discipline,  Religious  Orders,  and  on  Rites,  including  Missions. 
Each  part  was  assigned  to  a  special  Commission  (Congregatlo  or  De- 
putatio),  consisting  of  24  Prelates  elected  by  ballot  for  the  whole  pe- 
riod of  the  Council,  with  a  presiding  Cardinal  appointed  by  the  Pope. 
These  <  lomraissions  prepared  the  decrees  on  the  basis  of  schemata  pre- 
viously drawn  np  by  learned  divines  and  canonists,  and  confidentially 
submitted  to  the  Bishops  in  print.1  The  decrees  were  then  discussed, 
revised,  and  adopted  in  secret  sessions  by  the  General  Congregation 
(Congregations  generates),  including  all  the  Fathers,  with  five  pre- 
siding 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  sol- 
emnly promulgated  in  public  sessions  in  the  presence  and  by  the  au- 
thority 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.  S,  1SG9,  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  -imply  professed  each  one  before  the  Pope  the  Nicene 
Creed  and  the  Profession  of  the  Tridentine  Faith;  the  third  session, 
April  24,  L870,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  In- 
fallibility of  the  Pope  was  adopted  with  two  dissenting  votes. 

The  management  of  the  Council  was  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the 
and  his  dependent  Cardinals  and  Jesuitical  advisers.     lie  origi- 

tioned  especially  the  writers  in  the  Civilta  cattolica,  and  the  Paris  Univers,  on  the  part  of 
illibilists;   and   the  pseudonymous  Quirinus,  Prof.  Friedrich,  and  the  anonymous 
French  authors  of  <'<  out  se  passe  «"  Concile,  and  of  La  derniere  heure  du  Concile,  on  the 
part  ut'  the  anti-Infallibilists. 

1  There  were  in  all  forty-five  schemata,  divided  into  four  classes:  (l)  circa  Jidem,  (2)  circa 
tKsdplinam  ■  i  ordine*  regvlares,  (4)  circa  res  ritus  orientalis  et  apostolicas 

missiones.     Bee  a  list  in  Friedberg,  pp.482  484.     Only  a  part  of  the  schemata  were  submit- 
i  only  the  first  two  schemata  defide  were  acted  upon.     Friedrich,  in  the  Second  Part 
of  bis  Documenta,  gives  the  schemata,  as  far  as  they  were  distributed  among  the  Bishops,  to- 
gether «itii  the  revisions  ami  criticisms  of  the  Bishops, 


§  31.  THE  VATICAN  COUNCIL,  1S70.  143 

nated  the  topics  which  were  to  be  acted  on ;  lie  selected  the  prepara- 
tory committees  of  theologians  (mostly  of  the  Ultramontane  school) 
who,  during  the  winter  of  1SGS-G9,  drew  np  the  schemata  ;.  he  ap- 
pointed the  presiding  officers  of  the  four  Deputations,  and  of  the  Gen- 
eral Congregation ;  and  he  proclaimed  the  decrees  in  his  own  name, 
'  with  the  approval  of  the  Council.'1  lie  provided,  by  the  bull '  Cum 
Iiomanis  Pont  {fie  thus,''  of  Dec.  4, 1S09,  for  the  immediate  suspension 
and  adjournment  of  the  Council  in  case  of  his  death,  lie  even  person- 
ally interfered  during  the  proceedings  in  favor  of  his  new  dogma  by 
praising  Infallibilists,  and  by  ignoring  or  rebuking  anti-Infallibiliste.2 
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, 1S70,  departed  even  from  the  old  rule 
requiring  absolute  or  at  least  moral  unanimity  in  definitions  of  faith 
(according  to  the  celebrated  canon  quod  sotijjer,  quod  ubique,  quod  ah 
omnibus  creditum  est),  and  substituted  for  it  a  mere  numerical  major- 
ity, in  order  to  secure  the  triumph  of  the  Infallibility  decree  in  spite  of 
a  powerful  minority.  Nothing  could  be  printed  in  Rome  against  In- 
fallibility, while  the  organs  of  Infallibility  had  full  freedom  to  print 

1  Under  the  title :  Pius  episcopus,  servus  servormn  Dei,  sacro  approbante  Concilia,  ad  per- 
petuam  rei  memoriam.  The  order  prescribed  for  voting  was  this  :  The  Pope,  through  the  Sec- 
retary, asked  the  members  of  the  Council  first  in  general :  Reoerendissimi  Putres,  placentne 
vobis  Decreta  et  Canones  qui  in  hac  Conslitutione  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  Tope,  he  announced  the  result  by  this  formula :  Decreta  et  Canones  qui  in  Constitu- 
tione  modo  lecta  continentur,  placuerunt  omnibus  Patribus,  nemine  dissentiente  [if  there  were 
dissenting  votes  the  Pope  stated  their  number]  ;  Nosque,  sacro  approbante  Concilio,  ilia 
[sc.  decreta']  et  illos  [canones],  ita  ut  lecta  sunt,  dejinimus,  et  Apostolica  Auctoritate  conjir- 
mamus.     See  the  Monitum  in  the  Giornale  di  Roma,  April  18, 1870;  Friedberg,  pp.  4G2-4G4. 

3  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  col- 
lected 100,000  francs  for  the  Vicar  of  Christ  (May  30,  1870).  On  the  other  hand,  he  is  re- 
ported to  have  rebuked  in  conversation  Cardinal  Schwarzenberg  by  the  remark:  'I,  John 
Maria  Mastai,  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the  l'ope.  As  Pope  I  have  nothing  to  ask  from 
the  Council.  The  Holy  Ghost  will  enlighten  it.'  He  even  attacked  the  memory  of  the  elo- 
quent French  champion  of  Catholic  interests,  the  Count  Montalembert,  who  died  during  the 
Council  ("March  13,  1^7<>),  by  saving,  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  Bqq. 


244  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  publish  what  they  pleased.1  Such  prominence  of  the  Pope  is  char- 
acteristic of  a  Council  convoked  for  the  very  purpose  of  proclaiming 
his  personal  infallibility,  but  is  without  precedent  in  history  (except  in 
some  mediaeval  Councils);  even  the  Council  of  Trent  maintained  its 
own  dignity  and  comparative  independence  by  declaring  its  decrees  in 
it.-  own  name.2 

This  want  of  freedom  of  the  Council — not  to  speak  of  the  strict 
police  surveillance  over  the  members — was  severely  censured  by  lib- 
eral ( Jatholics.  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  Ro- 
man 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  pronun- 
ciation proved  a  great  inconvenience,  and  the  Continentals  complained 

it  minority  documents,  as  Kenrick's  speech  against  Infallibility,  and  the  Latin  edi- 
tion of  Ik-tele's  tract  on  Honorius,  were  printed  in  Naples  ;  the  German  in  Tubingen.  But 
the  ( 'ivilta  cattolica,  the  irresponsible  organ  of  the  Jesuits  and  the  Pope,  was  provided  with  a 
ipecia]  building  and  income,  and  every  facility  for  obtaining  information.  See  Acton,  Quiri- 
iins,  and  Frommann  (I.e.  p.  13). 

roaancta  Tridentina  Synodus,  in  Spiritu  Sancto  legitime  congregata  .  .  .  declarat.' 
Sec  the  order  of  the  Council  of  Trent  as  republished  in  Friedrich's  Documenta,  I.  pp.  2G5  sqq. 
3  'III  null  in,  juod  spirtnt  ml  numenwi  suffragiorum  requisitum,  ut  quevstiones  dogmaticce 
§olvantur,  in  I/mi  i/iiiiliin  rei  eumma  est  totiusque  Concilii  cardo  vertitur,  ita  grave  est,  ut  nisi 
mliiiittiri  tur.  quod  rrrrri  titer  et  enixe  postulamus,  conscicntia  nostra  intolcrabili  pondere  preme- 
iitur:  liimii  nuts,  ne  Concilii  acumenid  character  in  dubium  vocari  posset ;  ne  ansa  hostibus 
praberetur  Sanctam  Sedem  •/  Concilium  impetendi,  sicque  demum  apud  populum  Christianum 
Inijii.i  Concilii  auctoritcu  labe/actaretur,  quasi  veritate  et  libertate  caruerit :  quod  bis  turba- 
timmit  ti  mporibus  tanta  em  /  ealamitaa,  ut  pejor  excogitari  nulla  possit.'  See  the  remarkable 
ii  Friedberg,  pp.417  *22.    Also  Dollinger's  critique  of  the  order  of  business,  ib.  422- 

hbiihop  Kenrick's  famous  eoneio  habenda  at  non  habita,  published  in  Naples,1870 
(and  republished  in  Friedrich's  Docum.);  the  work  La  liberie  du  Concile  et  VinfaiUibilitv, 
which  w.i-  either  written  or  inspired  by  Archbishop  Darboy,  of  Paris  (in  Friedrich's  Docum. 
'•  IT-  '-"■'  mm-  Ii  «nd  iln'  tame  Prelate's  Bpeech  in  the  General  Congregation,  May  20, 1870 
{ibidem,  11.  pp.  1 1:,  iqq.  j.  Archbishop  Manning,  sublimely  ignoring  all  these  facts  and  docu- 
ments, ami  referring  us  to  the  inaccessible  Archives  of  the  Vatican,  assures  us  (Petri  Privil 
as  tree  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  won- 
der  i-,  nut  that  the  opposition  failed  of  its  object,  but  that  the  Council  so  long  held  its  peace. 


§  31.  THE  VATICAN  COUNCIL,  1870.  145 

that  they  could  not  understand  the  English  Latin.  The  Council  had 
a  full  share  of  ignorance  and  superstition,1  and  was  disgraced  by  in- 
trigues and  occasional  outbursts  of  intolerance  and  passion  such  as  are, 
alas!  not  unusual  in  deliberative  assemblies  even  of  the  Christian 
Church.2  But  it  embraced  also  much  learning  and  eloquence,  espe- 
cially 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  Eoman  Councils,  and  must  be 

1  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  down- 
ward ;  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  Span- 
iards 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  XL  VI.  p.  534. 

2  The  following  characteristic  episode  (ignored,  of  course,  in  Manning's  eulogy)  is  well  au- 
thenticated by  the  concurrent  and  yet  independent  reports  of  Lord  Acton  (X.  Brit.  Rev.), 
Quirinus  {Letter  XXXII.),  Friedrich  (Tayebuch,  pp.  271,  272),  and  the  author  of  Ce  qui  se 
passe  au  Concile  (p.  69);  comp.  Friedherg  (pp.  104-106).  "When  Bishop  Strossmayer,  the 
boldest  member  of  the  opposition  and  an  eloquent  Latinist,  in  a  session  of  the  General  Con- 
gregation (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'  ('/licre  non  est  locus  laudundi  Protestantes' ' )!  Very  true,  for  the  Coun- 
cil-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 !  Ihereticus .'  Hcereticusl  Jjani- 
namus  cum  '.  Damnamns!')  '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  dam.no  V  the  cry  was  raised  with  increased  fury:  '  0 nines, 
omnes  ilium  damnamus!  damnamns  !'  Strossmayer  was  forced  by  the  uproar  and  the  con- 
tinued 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  Gari- 
baldians  had  broken  in ;  others  that  Infallibility  had  been  proclaimed,  and  shouted,  accord- 
ing 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  oecumen- 
ical Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  but  Christian  civilization  ought  to  have  made  some 
progress  since  the  fifth  century. 


llt;  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

regarded  as  the  greatest  event  in  the  history  of  the  Papacy  since  the 
Council  of  Trent. 

The  chief  importance  of  the  Council  of  the  Vatican  lies  in  its  decree 
on  Papal  supremacy  and  Infallibility.  It  settled  the  internal  dissen- 
sions between  Ultramontanism  and  Gallicanism,  which  struck  at  the 
root  of  the  fundamental  principle  of  authority ;  it  destroyed  the  inde- 
pendence  of  the  Episcopate,  and  made  it  a  tool  of  the  Primacy;  it 
crashed  liberal  Catholicism;  it  completed  the  system  of  Papal  abso- 
lutism ;  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  sorf  to), but  also, 'I  am  the  Church'  {JDeglise 
v,st  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  tend- 
encies 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  writh  any  degree  of  self- 
respect  <;m  treat  with  a  sovereign  wTho  claims  infallibility,  and  there- 
fore 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  oecumen- 
ical than  that  of  Trent,  and  has  only  intensified  the  antagonism.  Its 
oecumenicity  is  also  denied  by  the  Old  Catholic  scholars  —  Dol- 
linger,  von  Schulte,  and  Reinkcns  —  because  it  lacked  the  two  fun- 
damental conditions  of  liberty  of  discussion,  and  moral  unanimity 
of  suffrage.1  lint  the  subsequent  submission  of  all  the  Bishops  who 
had  voted  against  Papal  Infallibility,  supplies  the  defect  as  far  as  the 


See  the  Old  Catholic  protests  of  the  Professors  in  Munich  and  Breslau  in  Friedberg, 
I!'.  152  1 64,  and  the  literature  On  the  re<  option  of  the  Council,  ib.  53-5G;  also  the  discussion 
mann,  pp.826  sqq.  164  sqq.  Dollinger,  in  his  lain,, us  censure  of  the  new  order  of  the 
Count  il.  takes  the  ground  thai  the  oecumenicity  of  a  Council  depends  upon  an  authority  out- 
itaelf,  viz  .  the  public  opinion  as  expressed  in  the  subsequent  approval  of  the  whole 
Church ;  and  I'ater  Hotel  laid  down  the  principle  thai  no  Council  is  oecumenical  which  is  not 
approved  and  adopted  as  such  by  the  Church.  Admitting  this,  the  condition  is  now  fulfilled 
i"  the  case  of  the  Vatican  Council  to  the  whole  extent  of  the  Roman  Episcopate,  which  con- 
•""""'^  ''' /""  ofoceiw,  the  laity  having  nothing  to  do  but  to  submit. 


§  32.  THE  VATICAN  DECREES.  147 

Roman  Church  is  concerned.  There  was  nothing  left  to  them  but 
either  to  submit  or  to  be  expelled.  They  chose  the  former,  and  thus 
destroyed  the  legal  and  moral  force  of  their  protest,  although  not  the 
power  of  truth  and  the  nature  of  the  facts  on  which  it  was  based. 
Henceforward  Romanism  must  stand  or  fall  with  the  Vatican  Council. 
Rut  (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.1 

I.  The  Dogmatic  Constitution  on  the  Catholic  Faith  (constitutio 

DOGMATIC  A  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  chap- 
ters— 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 

1  Cardinal-Archbishop  Matthieu  of  Besancon,  who  voted  Non  Placet,  is  reported  by  Quirinus 
to  have  said  on  this  occasion:  'On  veut  jeter  VOjlise,  dans  Valiine,nous  y  jeterons plutot  nos 
cadavres. '     Comp.  Frommann,  1.  c.  p.  1 60. 


148  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

grace ;  but  was  laid  aside.1     Archbishop  Connolly,  of  Halifax,  recom- 
mended that  it  should  be  decently  buried.2 

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.  IY. 
of  faith  and  reason.  Then  follow  18  canons,  in  which  the  errors  of 
Pantheism  Naturalism,  and  Eationalism  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  Supernatnralism  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 
4  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers.'  Hence  a  liberal  member  of  the 
Council,  in  the  course  of  discussion,  declared  the  schema  dejlde  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  pro- 
mute  among  the  nations  liberty,  light,  and  true  prosperity.'3  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Univers  calls  the  schema  a  'masterpiece  of  clearness 
and  force;'  the  Civilta  cattolica  sees  in  it  'a  reliex  of  the  wisdom  of 
God;"1  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  Material- 
ism.''    Whatever  be  the  value  of  the  positive  principles  of  the  schema, 

1  Friedricb,  l>n,nm.  II.  pp.  3-23. 
'Cenwo  schema  nun  lmW,re  esse  scpeliendum '  (Quirinus,  p.  1 22).     Rauscher  also  spoke 
the  Bchema, which  made  much  impression,  because  he  had  brought  its  chief  author, 
the  Jesuil  Schrader,  to  the  University  of  Vienna. 

1  in  Latin  by  Lord  Acton  in  the  North  British  Review,  Oct.1870,  p.  112,  and  in 
\<ioii  attributes  tlii<  Bpeech,  not  to  Strossmayer  (as  Friedberg  says, I.e.; 
camp,  pp.  28  and  102  I,  bnl  to  a  'Swiss  prelate,'  whom  he  does  not  name. 

♦  •  /  i,  rim  rbt  ra  ,/.  //„  tapiewm  di  Dio,'  VII.  10,  p.  523,  quoted  by  Frommann,  1.  c.  p.  383. 
'  P**ri  I  111  pp.  49,  ;,o. 


§  32.  THE  VATICAN  DECREES.  149 

its  Popish  head  and  tail  reduce  it  to  a  hrutum  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  con- 
demned by  the  Council  of  Trent — that  is,  from  the  Protestant  Refor- 
mation ;  in  the  face  of  the  fact,  patent  to  every  scholar,  that  Protestant 
theology  has  been  in  the  thickest  of  the  fight  with  unbelief,  and,  not- 
withstanding all  its  excesses,  has  produced  a  far  richer  exegetical  and 
apologetic  literature  than  Romanism  during  the  last  three  hundred 
years.1  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  Ration- 
alism existed  in  the  Catholic  Church  before  the  Reformation,  especially 
in  the  humanism  which  was  nourished  in  the  very  sanctuary  by  the 
highest  dignitaries,2  and  bore  its  worst  fruits  in  the  midst  of  a  Catholic 
nation  at  the  time  of  Yoltaire  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  posi- 
tive truths  and  monuments  of  divine  grace.3  Although  this  speech 
was  greeted  with  execrations  (see  page  145),  it  had  at  least  the  effect 
that  the  objectionable  preamble  was  somewhat  modified.4 

1  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  magisterial!!  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  re- 
visions of  the  schema  de  fide  in  Friedrich's  Monv.m.  Ft.  II.  pp.  ."»,  G.">,  7:5. 

3  Allusion  to  Fope  Leo  X. 

3  See  the  principal  part  of  Strossmayer's  speech  in  Latin  in  Lord  Acton's  article  in  the 
North  British  lteview,Oct.  1870,  pp.  115, 1 IG,  and  in  Friedberg,  pp.  1G4-10G. 

*  The  words  in  the  first  revision  (Friedr.  Docum,  II.  p.  G~>),  si/stematum  moiistra,  mythismi, 
rationalismi,  indifferentismi  nomine  desiynata,  etc.,  together  with  some  other  offensive  ex- 


150  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  supplement  of  the  decree  binds  all  Catholics  to  observe  also 
those  constitutions  and  decrees  by  which  such  erroneous  opinions  as 
are  not  here  specifically  enumerated  have  been  proscribed  and  con- 
den  met  1  by  the  Holy  See.  Tin's  can  be  so  construed  as  to  include 
all  the  eighty  errors  of  the  Syllabus.  The  minority  who  in  the  Gen- 
eral 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  66S  fa- 
thers 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.1 

§  33.  The  Vatican  Deckees,  continued.     The  Infallibility  Decree. 
II.  The  First  Dogmatic  Constitution  on  the  Church  of  Christ  (con- 

BTITUTTO  DOGMATICA  PRIMA  DE  ECCLESIA  CHRISTl). 

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 

prcssions,  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 
A  Will,  p,  39 1  Bq.  Political  influence  was  also  brought  to  bear  indirectly  upon  the  Coun- 
i  il.  .is  appeared  afterwards  from  Italian  papers.  Bismarck  directed  the  German  Embas- 
sador at  Borne,  Count  Amim,  to  inform  Cardinal  Antonelli  that,  unless  the  charge  against 
Protestantism  was  withdrawn,  he  would  not  allow  the  Prussian  Bishops  on  their  return  to 
re  mne  their  functions  in  a  country  whose  faith  they  had  insulted.  Friedrich,  Tagebuck,  pp. 
275,292;  Prommann,  Getchichte  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  com- 
plaini  of  the  Council,  Antonelli  makes  three  bows,  and  all  remains  as  before;  but  if  Prussia 
comes  With  ber  mustache  and  cavalry  boots,  Rome  understands  that  the  word  is  quickly  fol- 
lowed bj  the  deed,  and  wisely  yields.     Strossmayer  and  von  Amim  were  in  doubt  which  one 

!"'"'  h:Ml  ' '»  ■'">*<  instrumental  in  saving  the  Council  from  an  impropriety.' 

aid,  '/•';•<///■.-. i  cortMtmt,  quam  bonum  sit  etjucundum  ambulare  in  domo  Dei 

isii,  ambulare  cum  pace.     Sic  ambuletis  semper.    Et  quoniam  hac  die  Dominus  Noster 

i  ChrUtut  dedii  pacem  Apoatolit  auit,ei  ego,  Vicarius  ejus  indignus,  nomine  suo  do  vobis 

'  >.  prout  s.iiis, ,  tpeUit  timorem.     Par  ista,prout  scitis,  claudit  aures  sermo- 

l  imperitu.     Ah  !  lata  pa  t  voa  comiU  tur  omnibus  diebua  vita  vestra:;  sit  ista  pax  vis  in 

U  gaudium  eempiternum  in  calis.' 


§  33.  THE  VATICAN  DECREES,  CONTINUED.  151 

of  the  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff;  (4)  on  the  Infallibility  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff. 

The  new  features  are  contained  in  the  last  two  chapters,  which  teach 
Papal  Absolutism  and  Pajxd  Infallibility.  The  third  chapter  vindi- 
cates to  the  Roman  Pontiff  a  superiority  of  ordinary  episcopal  (not 
simply  an  extraordinary  prhnatial)  power  over  all  other  Churches,  and 
an  immediate  jurisdiction,  to  which  all  Catholics,  both  pastors  and  peo- 
ple, are  bound  to  submit  in  matters  not  only  of  faith  and  morals,  but 
even  of  discipline  and  government.1  lie  is,  therefore,  the  Bishop  of 
Bishops,  over  every  single  Bishop,  and  over  all  Bishops  put  together ; 
he  is  in  the  fullest  sense  the  Yicar  of  Christ,  and  all  Bishops  are  sim- 
ply 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  them- 
selves, and  not  in  consequence  of  the  consent  of  the  Church.2 

1  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:  lDocemus  et 
declaramus,  Ecclesiam  Romanam,  disponente  Domino,  sujier  omnes  alias  ordinaries  potestatis 
obtinere  principatum,  et  hanc  Romani  Pontijicis  jurisdictionis  potestatcm,  qua?  vere  episco- 
palis  est,  immediatam  esse,  erga  quam  cujuscunque  ritus  et  dignitatis  pastores  atque  fideles, 
tarn  seorsum  singuli  quam  simid  o?n/ies,  officio  hierarchies  sid)ordinationis  veraque  obedienti(e 
obstringuntur,  non  solum  in  rebus,  qua.  adjidem  et  mores,  sed  etiam  in  Us,  quo?  ad  disciplinam 
et  regimen  Ecclesice  per  totum  orbem  diffusa?  pertinent ;  ita  ut,custodita  cum  Romano  Pontijice 
tarn  communionis  quam  ejusdem  fidei  professions  unitate,  Ecclesice  Christi  sit  unus  grex  sub 
uno  summo pastore.  Htcc  est  catholicoz  veritatis  doctrina,a  qua  deviare  salvajide  atque  salute 
nemo  potest.  .  .  .  Si  quis  itaque  dixerit,  Romanian  Pontijicem  habere  tantummodo  officium 
inspectionis  vel  directionis,  non  autem  plenam  et  supremam  potestatem  jurisdictionis  in  uni- 
versam  Ecclesiam,  non  solum  in  rebus,  qua}  adjidem  et  mores,  sed  etiam  in  Us,  qua?  ad  discipli- 
nam et  regimem  Ecclesia:  per  totum  orbem  diffusa?  pertinent ;  out  eum  habere  tantum  potiores 
partes,  non  vero  totum  plcnitudinem  hujus  supremo?,  potestatis;  aut  hanc  ejus  potestatem  non 
esse  ordinariam  et  immediatam  sive  in  omnes  ac  singulas  ecclesias,  sive  in  omnes  et  singulos 
pastores  etjideles;  anathema  sit.' 

a  lItaque  Nos  traditioiri  a  fidei  Christiana?  exordio  perceptte  fideliter  inharendo,  ad  Dei 
Salvatoris  nostri  gloriam,  religionis  Catholica?  exaltationem  et  Christianorum  populorum  salu- 
tem,  sacro  approbante  Concilia,  docemus  et  divinitus  revelatum  dogma  esse  declaramus :  Ro- 

MANUM  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  ASSIS- 
TENTIAM  DIVINAM,  IPSI  IN  BEATO  PeTRO  PROMISSAM,  EA  INFALLIBILITATE  POLLERE,  QUA 
DIVINUS  ReDEMPTOR  ECCLESIAM  8UAM  IN  DEFINIENDA  DOCTRINA  DE  FIDE  VEL  MORIBUS 
INSTRUCTAM  ESSE  VOLUIT  J  IDEOQUE  EJUSMODI  RoMANI  PoNTIFICIS  DEFINITIONES  EX  SESE, 
NOV  AUTEM  EX  CONSENSU  ECCLESI.E,  IRREFORMABILES  ESSE. 

'.S't  quis  autem  huic  Nostra:  definitioni  eontradicere,  quod  Deus  avertat,  pro?sumpserit ; 
anathema  sit.' 

Vol.  I.— L 


152  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

To  appreciate  the  value  and  bearing  of  this  decree,  we  must  giye  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  in- 
side 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.1  The  Italians  and  the  Spaniards  circulated  similar  peti- 
tions separately.  Archbishop  Spalding,  of  Baltimore,  formerly  an  anti- 
[Dfallibilistj  prepared  an  address  offering  some  compromise  to  the 
effect  that  an  appeal  from  the  Pope  to  an  oecumenical  Council  should 
be  reproved.*  But  five  counter-petitions,  signed  by  very  weighty 
names,  in  all  137,  representing  various  degrees  of  opposition,  but 
agreed  as  to  the  inojpportunity  of  the  definition,  were  sent  in  during 
the  Bame  month  (Jan.  12  to  18)  by  German  and  Austrian,  Hungarian, 
French,  American,  Oriental,  and  Italian  Bishops.3 

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,3  says  a  well-informed  Catholic,  'and  belief  in  a  constant 
and  Bpecial  communication  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  form  the  basis  of 
the  character  of  Pius  IX.'4  In  the  Council  itself,  Archbishop  Manning, 
the  Anglican  convert,  was  the  most  zealous,  devout,  and  enthusiastic 
[nf allibilist ;  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.  Pnsey,  feared  that  the  new 

1  Friedberg,  pp.  465  Co.     Comp.  Frommanu,  p.  59  sq. 

3  Friedberg,  pp.  I7<>  Bqq. ;   Frommann,  pp;  G1-G3. 

[berg,  pp.  171'  ITS.  The  American  petition  against  Infallibility  was  signed  by  Pur- 
•■'■II.  of  Cincinnati;  Kenrick,  of  St  Louis;  McCloskey,  of  New  York ;  Connolly,  of  Halifax ; 
Bayley,  of  Newark  I  now  Archbishop  of  Baltimore),  and  several  others. 

4  '  '<  qui  m  paste  mi  GoncUe,  p.  180.  The  writer  adds  that  some  of  the  predecessors  of  Pius 
hare  bold  big  doctrines,  bul  none  has  been  so  ardently  convinced,  none  has  professed  them 

.  nthowicute,  ce  diiain  pom-  let  remontrances  des  savants  et  des  sages, 

Hanoi  impassible.     Qm  I  que  soli  U  jugemeht  de  Vkistoire,  personne  ne  pourra  nier  que 

di  ne  lul  oil  <■/•..  dan*  It  dix-m  uvieme  Steele  une  personnalite'  d'une puissance  et 

it  unt  majettt  incomparable*,  doni  Viclat  grandit  encore  tin  pontifical  deja  si  remarquable par 

unt  <l„n;,  .1.  i  vertuttt  ,/■  i  mal/n  urt  rraiwrnt  except  Sonne/*.'   Comp.  the  Discourses  of  Pius  IX., 

"'  -  *•"'-■•  l:" i  '878,  and  the  review  of  Gludstone  in  the  Quarterly  Review  for  Jan.  1S75. 


§  33.  THE  VATICAN  DECREES,  CONTINUED.  153 

dogma  would  make  the  breach  between  Oxford  and  Rome  wider  than 
ever.  Manning  is  'more  Catholic  than  Catholics'  to  the  manor  born, 
as  the  English  settlers  in  Ireland  were  more  Irish  than  Irishmen,1  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  dis- 
obey without  fatal  consequences,  the  Infallibilists  had  the  great  advan- 
tage of  perfect  unity  of  sentiment  and  aim  ;  while  the  anti-Infallibilists 
were  divided  among  themselves,  many  of  them  being  simply  inoppor- 
tunists.  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.2  This  qualified  opposition  had  no  weight 
whatever  with  the  Pope,  who  was  as  fully  convinced  of  the  opportu- 
nity and  necessity  of  the  definition  as  he  was  of  the  dogma  itself.3 
And  even  the  most  advanced  anti-Infallibilists,  as  Kenrick,  Ilefele,  and 
Strossmayer,  were  too  much  hampered  by  Romish  traditionalism  to  plant 
their  foot  firmly  on  the  Scriptures,  which  after  all  must  decide  all  ques- 
tions 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  Dollinger,  Gratry, 
Hyacinthe,  Montalembert,  and  others,  mixed  in  the  fight,  and  strcngth- 


1  So  Archbishop  Kenrick,  of  St.  Louis,  characterized  him  in  his  Coneio  halenda  at  non 
habita.  Quirinus  (Appendix  I.  p.  832)  quotes  from  a  sermon  of  Manning,  preached  at  Ken- 
sington, 1 8G9,  in  the  Tope'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.' 

3  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,  Tar/ebuch,  p.  1 2G ;  and  Frommann,  (ieschichte,  p.  62. 

3  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. 


1-4:  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ened  the  minority.1  A  confidential  communication  of  the  intellectual 
leader  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  secession  revealed  the  remarkable  fact  that 
-Mine  of  the  most  serious  minds  were  at  that  time  oscillating  between 
infallibiliam  and  skepticism,  and  praying  to  the  spirits  of  the  fathers  to 
deliver  the  Church  from  'the  great  calamity'  of  a  new  dogma.2 

:  Sec  the  literature  in  the  next  section,  and  in  Friedberg,  pp.  33-44.  Comp.  Frommann, 
pp.  GG  sqq. 

-  I  >r.  John  1  Ienry  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  com- 
plaint against  those  ultra-zealous  infallibilists  who  'have  stated  truths  in  the  most  paradoxical 
forma  and  stretched  principles  till  they  were  close  upon  snapping,  and  who  at  length,  having 
ir  best  to  set  the  house  on  fire,  leave  to  others  the  task  of  putting  out  the  flame.'  (See 
hiii  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. 
.  lie  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  in- 
spire 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  Civilta  (the  Armonia),  the  Univers,  and  the  Tablet,  little  else  than  fear 
.ml  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  clear- 
est 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. 
ft  this  the  proper  work  for  an  oecumenical  Council?  As  to  myself  personally,  please  God, 
1  do  not  expect  any  trial  at  all;  but  I  can  not  help  suffering  with  the  many  souls  who  are 
sajFering.  and  1  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  tacts.  What  have  we  done  to  be  treated  as  the  faithful  never  were 
treated  before?  When  has  a  definition  defide  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  pive  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 
Look  like  Jamu  Bays;"  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  Bee  for  listening  to  "the  (lattery  of  a  clique  of  Jesuits,  Redemptorists, 
■  it-.  '  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 
tanl  traveling  preacher  |  inflicted  upon  us  in  one  way,  Mr.Veuillot  is  indirectly  bring- 
in  another.  And  then,  again,  the  blight  which  is  falling  upon  the  multitude  of  Angli- 
can Ritualists,  etc,  who  themselves,  perhaps— at  least  their  leaders— may  never  become  Cath- 
U)  S,  but  who  are  leavening  the  various  English  denominations  and  parties  (far  beyond  their 
lh  principles  and  sentiments  tending  towards  their  ultimate  absorption  into  the 
<  atholic  ( Iborch.  With  these  thoughts  ever  before  me,  I  am  continually  asking  myself  wheth- 
er I  ought  not  to  make  my  feelings  public;  but  all  I  do  is  to  pray  those  early  do'ctors  of  the 
Church,  whose  aid  decide  the  matter  (AuguBtine,  Ambrose,  and  Jerome,  A tha- 


§  33.  THE  VATICAN  DECREES,  CONTINUED.  155 

After  preliminary  skirmishes,  the  formal  discussion  began  in  earnest 
in  the  50th  session  of  the  General  Congregation,  May  13,  1870,  and 
lasted  to  the  86th  General  Congregation,  July  16.  About  eighty  Latin 
speeches1  were  delivered  in  the  general  discussion  on  the  schema  de 
Romano  Pontifice,  nearly  one  half  of  them  on  the  part  of  the  oppo- 
sition, which  embraced  less  than  one  fifth  of  the  Council.  When  the 
arguments  and  the  patience  of  the  assembly  were  pretty  well  exhaust- 
ed, 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  speak- 
ing; but  one  of  them,  Archbishop  Kenrick,  of  St.  Louis,  published  his 
strong  argument  against  Infallibility  in  Naples.2  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.'3 

When  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  whole  four  chapters  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Church,  July  13, 1870,  in  the  S5th  secret  session  of  the 
General  Congregation  (601  members  being  present),  451  voted  Placet, 
88  N~on  Placet,  62  Placet  juxia  modum,  over  80  (perhaps  91),  though 
present  in  Rome  or  in  the  neighborhood,  abstained  for  various  reasons 
from  voting.4     Among  the  negative  votes  were  the  Prelates  most  dis- 

nasius,  Chrysostom,  and  Basil),  to  avert  this  great  calamity.  If  it  is  God's  will  that  the  Pope's 
infallibility  he  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  my- 
self. .  .  .'  Sec  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  t lie  English 
original  as  given  here  from  the  Standard,  April  7, 1870. 

1  According  to  Manning,  but  only  G5  according  to  Friedberg,  p.  47. 

-  Hence  the  title  'Concio  habenda  at  non  habita' — prepared  for  sjieahing,  but  not  spoken. 
See  the  prefatory  note,  dated  Pome,  June  8, 1870. 

3  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  Pauscher.  and  protested  ''con- 
tra violationem  nostri  juris,'  but  without  effect.  See  the  protest,  with  eighty-one  signatures, 
in  Friedrich,  Doc.  II.  p.  379  ;  comp.  Frommann,  Geschirhte,  p.  174. 

4  See  the  list  in  Friedberg,  pp.  1 40-149  ;  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  G01.  There  were  in  all  from  080  to  092  members  present 
in  Pome  at  the  time.    See  Fessler,  p.  89  (who  states  the  number  of  absentees  to  be  'over  80'), 


156  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

tinguished  for  learning  and  position,  as  Schwarzenberg,  Cardinal 
Prince-Archbishop  of  Prague;  Rattscheb, Cardinal  Prince-Archbishop 
of  Vienna;  Dabboy,  Archbishop  of  Paris;  Matthieu,  Cardinal-Arch- 
bishop  of  Besangon;  Ginoulhiac,  Archbishop  of  Lyons ;  Dupanlotjp, 
Bishop  of  Orleans;  Mabet,  Bishop  of  Sura  (i.  p.) ;  Simor,  Archbishop 
of  Gran  and  Primate  of  Hungary;  IIaynald,  Archbishop  of  Ivaloc- 
,:i:  I ',,i> ii;k,  Prince-Bishop  of  Breslau;  Schere,  Archbishop  of  Mu- 
ni.-h;  Ketteleb,  Bishop  of  Mayence;  IIefele,  Bishop  of  Kottenburg; 
Steossmateb,  Bishop  of  Bosnia  and  Sirmium;  MacIIale,  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  posses- 
sion of  all  ecclesiastical  powers,  and  for  the  insertion,  in  the  fourth 
chapter,  of  a  clause  limiting  his  infallibility  to  those  decisions  which 
he  pronounces  iinnixus  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.'1  He 
requested  Darboy,  the  spokesman  of  the  deputation,  to  hand  him  the 
pet  it  ion  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  be- 
fore 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  conces- 

aihl  I'lc.mmann,  p.  201 .     The  protest  of  the  minority  to  the  Pope,  July  1 7,  states  the  number 

in  the  lame  way,  except  that  70,  instead  of  Ul  or  85,  is  given  as  the  number  of  absen- 

\tvm  .  ./  Sanctitati  Featra,  88  Patres  fuisse,  qui,  ronsrientia  urgente  et  omore  s.Ec- 

■i     uffiragium  roum  per  verba  non-  placet  emiserunt;  62  alios,  qui  stiffragati  sunt 

ci  i  jdxta  mom  u,denique  70  circiter  qui  a  congregatione  abfuerunt  atque  a 

tuffragio  emittendo  abttinuerunt.     W<-  accedunt  et  alii,  qui,  infirmitatibus  aut  gravioribus 

ratiombut  ducti,  ad  mat  dioceses  reversi  sun/.' 

poke  in  French  :   'Jeferai  mon  possible,  mes  chersjils,  maisje  n'<n*  pas  encore  lu  le 
1 1  j'  u  nil  pas  et  qu'il eontient.'    Quirinus,  Letter  LXIX.  p.  800. 


§  33.  THE  VATICAN  DECREES,  CONTINUED.  157 

sion  for  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church.1  This  prostration  of  the 
proudest  of  the  German  prelates  made  some  impression.  Pius  dis- 
missed the  deputation  in  a  hopeful  temper.  But  immediately  after- 
warda  Manning  and  Senestrey  (Bishop  of  Regensburg)  strengthened  his 
faith,  and  frightened  him  by  the  warning  that,  if  he  made  any  conces- 
sion, he  would  be  disgraced  in  history  as  a  second  Honorius. 

In  the  secret  session  on  the  16th  of  July,  on  motion  of  some  Spanish 
Bishops,  an  addition  was  inserted  '  non  autem  ex  consensu  ecclesice] 
which  makes  the  decree  still  more  obnoxious.2  On  the  same  day  Car- 
dinal Rauscher,  in  a  private  audience,  made  another  attempt  to  induce 
the  Pope  to  yield,  but  was  told, '  It  is  too  late.' 

On  the  17th  of  July  fifty-six  Bishops  sent  a  written  protest  to  the 
Pope,  declaring  that  nothing  had  occurred  to  change  their  conviction 
as  expressed  in  their  negative  vote ;  on  the  contrary,  they  were  con- 
tinued in  it ;  yet  filial  piety  and  reverence  for  the  holy  Father  would 
not  permit  them  to  vote  JV~on  Placet,  openly  and  in  his  face,  in  a  matter 
which  so  intimately  concerned  his  person,  and  that  therefore  they  had 


1  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  "  tot  us  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  fur  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,  uij>so  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.' 

3  Quirinus,  p.  804 :  'Thus  the  Infallibilist  decree,  as  it  is  now  to  be  received  under  anathema 
by  the  Catholic  world,  is  an  eminently  Spanish  production,  as  is  fitting  for  a  doctrine  which 
was  born  and  reared  under  the  shadow  of  the  Inquisition.' 


158  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

resolved  to  return  forthwith  to  their  flocks,  which  had  already  too  long 
been  deprived  of  their  presence,  and  were  now  filled  with  apprehensions 
of  war.  Schwarzenberg,  Matthieu,  Siraor,  and  Darboy  head  the  list 
of  signers.1  On  the  evening  of  the  same  day  not  only  the  fifty-six 
signers,  but  sixty  additional  members  of  the  opposition  departed  from 
Rome,  promising  to  each  other  to  make  their  future  conduct  dependent 
on  mutual  understanding. 

This  was  the  turning-point:  the  opposition  broke  down  by  its  own 
act  of  cowardice.  They  ought  to  have  stood  like  men  on  the  post  of 
duty,  and  repeated  their  negative  vote  according  to  their  honest  convic- 
tions. They  could  thus  have  prevented  the  passage  of  this  momentous 
(Uric..',  or  at  all  events  shorn  it  of  its  oecumenical  weight,  and  kept  it 
open  for  future  revision  and  possible  reversal.  But  they  left  Rome  at 
the  very  moment  when  their  presence  was  most  needed,  and  threw  an 
easy  victory  into  the  lap  of  the  majority. 

When,  therefore,  the  fourth  public  session  was  held,  on  the  memora- 
ble 18th  of  July  (Monday),  there  were  but  535  Fathers  present,  and  of 
t!k--<-  all  voted  Placet,  with  the  exception  of  two,  viz.,  Bishop  Riccio,  of 
Cajazzo,  in  Sicily,  and  Bishop  Fitzgerald,  of  Little  Rock,  Arkansas,  who 
had  the  courage  to  vote  JVo?i  Placet,  but  immediately,  before  the  close 
of  the  session,  submitted  to  the  voice  of  the  Council.  In  this  way  a 
moral  unanimity  was  secured  as  great  as  in  the  first  Council  of  Nicrea, 
where  likewise  two  refused  to  subscribe  the  Xicene  Creed.  'What  a 
wise  direction  of  Providence,'  exclaimed  the  Civilta  cattolica, '  535  yeas 
againsi  2  nays.  Only  two  nays,  therefore  almost  total  unanimity;  and 
yel  two  nays,  therefore  full  liberty  of  the  Council.  How  vain  are  all 
attacks  against  the  oecumenical  character  of  this  most  beautiful  of  all 
( 'oiinciU !' 

After  the  vote  the  Pope  confirmed  the  decrees  and  canons  on  the 
Constitution  <>f  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  added  from  his  own  inspira- 
tion the  assurance  that  the  Bupreme  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  did 
not  Buppress  hut  aid,  not  destroy  but  build  up,  and  formed  the  best  pro- 
tect ion  of  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  Episcopate.2 

the  protest  in  Friedberg,  p.  622.     Comp.  Frommann,  ]».  207. 
'  Summa  i  tta  Romani  Pont{ficit  auctoriku,  Penerabilea  Fratres,  non  opprimit  sed  adjuvat, 
rpissime  confirmai  in  dignitate,  unit  in  charitate,  et  Fratrum, 

■rum.  jura  Jirm.it  atjue  tuetur.     Ideoque  Mi,  qui  nuncjudicant  in  commotione, 


§  33.  THE  VATICAN  DECREES,  CONTINUED.  159 

The  days  of  the  two  most  important  public  sessions  of  the  Vatican 
Council,  namely  the  first  and  the  last,  were  the  darkest  and  stormiest 
which  Rome  saw  from  Dec.  8, 1869,  to  the  ISth  of  July,  1870.  The 
Episcopal  votes  and  the  Papal  proclamation  of  the  new  dogma  were 
accompanied  by  flashes  of  lightning  and  claps  of  thunder  from  the  skies, 
and  so  great  was  the  darkness  which  spread  over  the  Church  of  St.  Peter, 
that  the  Pope  could  not  read  the  decree  of  his  own  Infallibility  without 
the  artificial  light  of  a  candle.1     This  voice  of  nature  was  variously  in- 

sciant,  non  esse  in  commotione  Dominion.  Meminerint,  quod  paucis  abhinc  annis,  oppositam 
tenentes  sententiam,  abundaverunt  in  sensu  Nostro,  et  in  sensu  majoris  partis  hujus  amplissimi 
Consessus,  sed  tunc  judicaverunt  in  spiritu  aura;  lenis.  Numquid  in  eodem  judicio  judicando 
dutr  apposite  possunt  existere  conscient'ue  ?  Absit.  Illuminet  ergo  Deus  sensus  et  eorda ;  et 
quoniam  Ipsefacit  mirabilia  magna  so/us,  illuminet  sensus  et  corda,  ut  omnes  accedere  jwssint 
ad  sinum  Patris,  Christi  Jesu  in  terris  indigni  Vicarii,  qui  eos  amat,  eos  diligit,  et  exoptat 
unum  esse  cum  Mis;  et  ita  simul  in  vinculo  charitatis  conjuncti  prccliare  possimus  prcelia 
Domini,  ut  non  solum  non  irrideant  nos  inimici  nostri,  sed  timeant  potius,  et  aliquando  anna 
malitiai  cedant  in  conspectu  veritatis,  sicque  omnes  cum  D.  Augustino  dicere  va leant:  "Tu 
vocasti  me  in  admirabile  lumen  tuum,  et  ecce  video."  ' 

1  Quirinus,  Letter  LXIX.  p.  809.  A  Protestant  eye-witness,  Prof.  Ripley,  thus  described 
the  scene  in  a  letter  from  Rome,  published  in  the  New  York  Tribune  (of  which  he  is  one  of 
the  editors)  for  Aug.  11,  1870  :  '  Rome,  July  19. —Before  leaving  Rome  I  send  you  a  report 
of  the  last  scene  of  that  absurd  comedy  called  the  CEcumenical  Vatican  Council.  ...  It  is 
at  least  a  remarkable  coincidence  that  the  opening  and  closing  sessions  of  the  Council  were 
inaugurated  with  fearful  storms,  and  that  the  vigil  of  the  promulgation  of  the  dogma  was  cele- 
brated with  thunder  and  lightning  throughout  the  whole  of  the  night.  On  the  8th  of  last 
December  I  was  nearly  drowned  by  the  floods  of  rain,  which  came  down  in  buckets  ;  yester- 
day morning  I  went  down  in  rain,  and  under  a  frowning  sky  which  menaced  terrible  storms 
later  in  the  day.  .  .  .  Kyrie  eleison  we  heard  as  soon  as  the  mass  was  said,  and  the  whole 
multitude  joined  in  singing  the  plaintive  measure  of  the  Litany  of  the  Saints,  and  then  with 
equal  fervor  was  sung  Veni  Creator,  which  was  followed  by  the  voice  of  a  secretary  reading 
in  a  high  key  the  dogma.  At  its  conclusion  the  names  of  the  Fathers  were  called  over,  and 
Placet  after  Placet  succeeded  ad  nauseam.  But  what  a  storm  burst  over  the  church  at  this 
moment !  The  lightning  flashed  and  the  thunder  pealed  as  we  have  not  heard  it  this  season 
before.  Every  Placet  seemed  to  be  announced  by  a  flash  and  terminated  by  a  clap  of  thun- 
der. Through  the  cupolas  the  lightning  entered,  licking,  as  it  were,  the  very  columns  of  the 
Baldachino  over  the  tomb  of  St.  Peter,  and  lighting  up  large  spaces  on  the  pavement.  Sure, 
God  was  there — but  whether  approving  or  disproving  what  was  going  on,  no  mortal  man  can 
say.  Enough  that  it  was  a  remarkable  coincidence,  and  so  it  struck  the  minds  of  all  who 
were  present.  And  thus  the  roll  was  called  for  one  hour  and  a  half,  with  this  solemn  accom- 
paniment, and  then  the  result  of  the  voting  was  taken  to  the  Pope.  The  moment  had  arrived 
when  he  was  to  declare  himself  invested  with  the  attributes  of  God — nay.  a  Cud  upon  earth. 
Looking  from  a  distance  into  the  hall,  which  was  obscured  by  the  tempest,  nothing  was  visible 
but  the  golden  mitre  of  the  Pope,  and  so  thick  was  the  darkness  that  a  servitor  was  compelled 
to  bring  a  lighted  candle  and  hold  it  by  his  side  to  enable  him  to  read  the  formula  by  which 
he  deified  himself.  And  then— what  is  that  indescribable  noise?  Is  it  the  raging  of  the  storm 
above? — the  pattering  of  hail-stones ?  It  approaches  nearer,  and  for  a  minute  I  most  seri- 
ously say  that  I  could  not  understand  what  that  swelling  sound  was  until  I  saw  a  cloud  of 
white  handkerchiefs  waving  in  the  air.     The  Fathers  had  begun  with  clapping— they  were 


160  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

terpreted,  either  as  a  condemnation  of  Gallicanism  and  liberal  Cathol- 
icism,  or  as  a  divine  attestation  of  the  dogma  like  that  which  accom- 
panied  the  promulgation  of  the  law  from  Mount  Sinai,  or  as  an  evil 
omen  of  impending  calamities  to  the  Papacy. 

And  behold, the  day  after  the  proclamation  of  the  dogma, Napoleon 
1  [L  the  political  ally  and  supporter  of  Pius  IX.,  unchained  the  furies  of 
war,  which  in  a  few  weeks  swept  away  the  Empire  of  France  and  the 
temporal  throne  of  the  infallible  Pope.  His  own  subjects  forsook  him, 
and  almost  unanimously  voted  for  a  new  sovereign,  whom  he  had  ex- 
communicated as  the  worst  enemy  of  the  Church.  A  German  Empire 
arose  from  victorious  battle-fields,  and  Protestantism  sprung  to  the  po- 
litical and  military  leadership  of  Europe.  About  half  a  dozen  Prot- 
ectant Churches  have  since  been  organized  in  Rome,  where  none  was 
tolerated  before,  except  outside  of  the  walls  or  in  the  house  of  some 
foreign  embassador;  a  branch  of  the  Bible  Society  was  established, 
which  the  Pope  in  his  Syllabus  denounces  as  a  pest;  and  a  public  de- 
hate  was  held  in  which  even  the  presence  of  Peter  at  Rome  was  called 
in  question.  History  records  no  more  striking  example  of  swift  retri- 
bntion  of  criminal  ambition.  Once  before  the  Papacy  was  shaken  to 
its  base  at  the  very  moment  when  it  felt  itself  most  secure :  Leo  X.  had 
hardly  concluded  the  fifth  and  last  Lateran  Council  in  March,  1517, 
with  a  celebration  of  victory,  when  an  humble  monk  in  the  North  of 
Europe  Bounded  the  key-note  of  the  great  Reformation. 

"What  did  the  Bishops  of  the  minority  do  ?  They  all  submitted,  even 
those  who  had  been  most  vigorous  in  opposing,  not  only  the  opportu- 
nity of  the  definition,  but  the  dogma  itself.  Some  hesitated  long,  but 
yielded  at  last  to  the  heavy  pressure.  Cardinal  Rauscher,  of  Vienna, 
published  the  decree  already  in  August,  and  afterwards  withdrew  his 
powerful  'Observations  on  the  Infallibility  of  the  Church'  from  the 
market ;  regarding  this  as  an  act  of  glorious  self-denial  for  the  wel- 
fare of  the  Church.  Cardinal  Schwarzenberg,  of  Prague,  waited  with 
the  publication  till  Jan.  11,1871,  and  shifted  the  responsibility  upon  his 


the  fuglemen  to  t  1 1 *■  crowd  who  took  up  the  notes  and  signs  of  rejoicing  until  the  church  of 
God  w;i^  converted  into  a  theatre  fur  the  exhibition  of  human  passions.  "  Viva  Pio  Nono  /" 
Papa  TnfaUibihl"  "  Viva  il  trionfo  dei  Cattolici!"  were  shouted  by  this  priestly 
Uaembl]  :  and  again  another  round  they  had  ;  and  yet  another  was  attempted  as  soon  as  the 
I    Dt    ■■<  li"l  been  rang  and  the  benediction  had  been  given.' 


§  33.  THE  VATICAN  DECREES,  CONTINUED.  Ifll 

theological  advisers.  Bishop  Ilefele,  of  Rottenburg,  who  has  forgotten 
more  about  the  history  of  Councils  than  the  infallible  Pope  ever  knew, 
after  delaying  till  April  10, 1S71,  submitted,  not  because  lie  had  changed 
his  conviction,  but,  as  he  says,  because  '  the  peace  and  unity  of  the 
Church  is  so  great  a  good  that  great  and  heavy  personal  sacrifices  may 
be  made  for  it ;'  i.  e.,  truth  must  be  sacrificed  to  peace.  Bishop  Maret. 
who  wrote  two  learned  volumes  against  Papal  Infallibility  and  in  de- 
fense of  Gallicanism,  declared  in  his  retractation  that  he  '  wholly  re- 
jects every  thing  in  his  work  which  is  opposed  to  the  dogma  of  the 
Council,'  and  '  withdraws  it  from  sale.'  Archbishop  Kenrick  yielded, 
but  has  not  refuted  his  Concio  habenda  at  11011  habita,  which  remains 
an  irrefragable  argument  against  the  new  dogma.  Even  Strossmayer, 
the  boldest  of  the  bold  in  the  minority,  lost  his  courage,  and  keeps 
his  peace.  Darboy  died  a  martyr  in  the  revolt  of  the  communists  of 
Paris,  in  April,  1871.  In  a  conversation  with  Dr.  Midland,  Vicar  of 
St.  Madeleine,  who  since  seceded  from  Pome,  he  counseled  external 
and  official  submission,  with  a  mental  reservation,  and  in  the  hope  of 
better  times.  His  successor,  Msgr.  Guibert,  published  the  decrees  a 
year  later  (April,  1872),  without  asking  the  permission  of  the  head  of 
the  French  Republic.  Of  those  opponents  who,  though  not  members 
of  the  Council,  carried  as  great  weight  as  any  Prelate,  Montalembert 
died  during  the  Council;  Newman  kept  silence;  Pcre  Gratry,  who 
had  declared  and  proved  that  the  question  of  Honorius  '  is  totally  gan- 
grened by  fraud,'  wrote  from  his  death-bed  at  Montreux,  in  Switzer- 
land (Feb.  1872),  to  the  new  Archbishop  of  Paris,  that  he  submitted  to 
the  Vatican  Council,  and  effaced  'every  thing  to  the  contrary  he  may 
have  written.'1 

It  is  said  that  the  adhesion  of  the  minority  Bishops  was  extorted  by 
the  threat  of  the  Pope  not  to  renew  their  'quinquennial  faculties' 
(facilitates  quinquennales),  that  is,  the  Papal  licenses  renewed  every 
five  years,  permitting  them  to  exercise  extraordinary  episcopal  func- 
tions which  ordinarily  belong  to  the  Pope,  as  the  power  of  absolving 
from  heresy,  schism,  apostasy,  secret  crime  (except  murder),  from  vows, 
duties  of  fasting,  the  power  of  permitting  the  reading  of  prohibited 

1  See  details  on  the  reception  and  publication  of  the  Vatican  decrees  in  Friedberg,  pp.  53 
sqq.,  77.">  sqq.  ;  Frommann,  pp.  215-230  ;  on  Gratry,  the  Annates  dc  Philosophic  Chretienne, 
Sept.  1871,  p.  236. 


1C2  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM, 

books  (for  the  purpose  of  refutation),  marrying  within  prohibited  de- 
grees, etc.1 

I  (at,  aside  f  r<  >m  this  pressure,  the  following  considerations  sufficiently 
explain  the  fact  of  submission. 

1.  Many  of  the  dissenting  Bishops  were  professedly  anti-Infallibilists, 
not  from  principle,  but  only  from  subordinate  considerations  of  expe- 
diency. 1  iccausc  they  apprehended  that  the  definition  would  provoke 
the  hostility  of  secular  governments,  and  inflict  great  injury  on  Catholic 
interests,  especially  in  Protestant  countries.  Events  have  since  proved 
that  their  apprehension  was  well  founded. 

2.  All  Roman  Bishops  are  under  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Pope, 
which  binds  them  '  to  preserve,  defend,  increase,  and  advance  the  rights, 
honors,  privileges,  and  authority  of  the  holy  Roman  Church,  of  our  lord 
the  Pope,  and  his  successors.' 

3.  The  minority  Bishops  defended  Episcopal  infallibility  against  Pa- 
pal infallibility.  They  claimed  for  themselves  what  they  denied  to  the 
Pope.  Admitting  the  infallibility  of  an  oecumenical  Council,  and  for- 
feit ing  by  their  voluntary  absence  on  the  day  of  voting  the  right  of 
their  protest,  they  must  either  on  their  own  theory  accept  the  decision 
of  the  Council,  or  give  up  their  theory,  cease  to  be  Roman  Catholics, 
and  run  the  risk  of  a  new  schism. 

At  the  same  time  this  submission  is  an  instructive  lesson  of  the  fear- 
ful spiritual  despotism  of  the  Papacy,  which  overrules  the  stubborn 
tact-  of  history  and  the  sacred  claims  of  individual  conscience.  For 
the  facts  so  clearly  and  forcibly  brought  out  before  and  during  the 
Council  by  BUch  men  as  Kenrick,  Ilefele,  Rauscher,  Maret,  Sehwarzen- 
berg,  and  Dupanlonp,  have  not  changed,  and  can  never  be  undone.  On 
the  one  hand  we  find  the  results  of  a  life-long,  conscientious,  and  thor- 
ough .study  of  the  most  learned  divines  of  the  Roman  Church,  on 
the  other  ignorance,  prejudice,  perversion,  and  defiance  of  Scripture 
and  tradition;  on  the  one  hand  we  have  history  shaping  theology,  on 

'1 ther  theology  ignoring  0r  changing  history;  on  the  one  hand  the 

JUBI  exercise  of  reason,  on  the  other  blind  submission,  which  destroys 
and  conscience.     But  truth  must  and  will  prevail  at  last. 

lee  the  article  Focufttften,  in  Wktzer  und  Welte's  Kirchenkxikon  oder  Encyklop.  der 
katkoliichen  Thtologit,Vo\.  III.  pp.  bl'J  sqq. 


84.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  1G3 


§  34.  Papal  Infallibility  explained,  and  tested  by  Tradition  and 
Scripture. 

Literature. 
I.  Foe  Infallibility. 

The  older  defenders  of  Infallibility  are  chiefly  Bellabmin,  Ballkrini,  Litta,  Ai.piions  de  Liguori 
(whom  the  Pope  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  doctor  ecclemce,  March  11, 18T2),  Card.  Orsi,  Perrone,  aud  Jo- 
seph Count  de  Maistee  (Sardinian  statesman,  d.  at  Turin  Feb.  26, 1821,  author  of  Du  Pape,  1S19  ;  new 
edition,  Paris,  1S43,  with  the  Homeric  motto:  els  noipavor  tWw). 

During  and  after  the  Vatican  Council :  the  works  of  Archbishops  Manning  and  Decuamps,  already 
quoted,  pp.  134, 135. 

Jos.  Cakdo.ni  (Archbishop  of  Edessa,  in  partibus) :  Elucubratio  de  dogmatica  Romani  Pontificis  Infal- 
libilitate  ejusqite  Definibilitate,  Romse  (typis  Civilitatis  Cattolic*),  1S70  (May,  174  pp.).  The  chief  work 
on  the  Papal  side,  clothed  with  a  semi-official  character. 

Hermann  Kimi':  Die  Unfehlbarkeit  de*  Papstes  und  die  Stellung  der  in  Dcutschland  verbreitctcn  theolo- 
gixchen  Lehrbucher  zu  dieser  Lehre,  Miinster,  1S70  (173  pp.). 

Franz  Frieihioff  (Prof,  at  Miinster) :  Gegen-Erwdgungen  iiber  die  pupstlichc  Unfehlbarkeit,  Miinster, 
1SG9  (21  pp.).    Superficial. 

Fi.or.  Riebs  and  Karl  von  Weber  (Jesuits) :  Das  Oekum.  Condi.  Stimmen  aus  Maria-Laach,  Xeue  Folge, 
No.  X.    Die  pupstliche  Unfehlbarkeit  und  der  alte.  Glaube  der  Kirc.he,  Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  1870  (110pp.). 

G.  Bickel:  Griinde  fur  die  Unfehlbarkeit  des  Kirchenoberhauptes  nebst  Widerlegwng  der  Einwurfe,  Miin- 
ster, 1S70. 

Rev.  P.  Weningeb  (Jesuit) :  L'infaillibilite  du  Pape  devant  la  raison  et  Vecriture,  les  papes  et  les  con- 
ciles,  les  peres  et  les  theologiens,  les  rois  et  les  empereurs.  Translated  from  the  German  into  French  by 
P.  Belet.  (Highly  spoken  of  by  Pius  IX.  in  a  brief  to  Abbe  Belet,  Nov.  17, 1869  ;  see  Friedberg,  1.  c. 
p.4S7.  Weuinger  wrote  besides  several  pamphlets  on  Infallibility  in  German,  Innsbruck,  1S41 ;  Graz, 
1S53  ;  in  English,  New  York  aud  Cincinnati,  1S6S.  Archbishop  Kenrick,  in  his  Concio,  speaks  of  him  as 
'a  pious  aud  extremely  zealous  but  ignorant  man,'  whom  he  honored  with  '  the  charity  of  silence'  when 
requested  to  recommend  one  of  his  books.) 

Widerlegung  der  vier  unter  die  Vdter  des  Concils  verthcilten  Brochiiren  gegen  die  Unfehlbarkeit  (transl. 
of  Animadversiones  in  quatuor  contra  Romani  Pontificis  infallibilitatevi  editos  libellos),  Miinster,  1S70. 

Bishop  Jos.  Fessler:  Die  wahre  und  die  falsche  Unfehlbarkeit  der  Papste  (against  Prof,  von  Schulte), 
Wien,  1871. 

Bishop  Ketteler:  Das  unfehlbare  Lchramt  des  Papstes,  naeh  der  Entscheidung  des  Vaticanischen  Con- 
cils, Mainz,  1S71, 3te  Aufl. 

M.  J.  Soueeben  :  Schulte  und  D'lllinger,  gegen  das  Concil.  Kritische  Beleuchtung,  etc.,  Regeusburg,  1871. 

Amedee  de  Margerie  :  Lettre  au  R.  P.  Gratry  sur  le  Pape  Honorius  et  le  Breviaire  Romain,  Nancy,  1870. 

Paul  Bottala  (S.  J.) :  Pope  Honorius  before  the  Tribunal  of  Reason  and  History,  London,  1808. 
II.  Against  Infallibility. 
(a)  By  Members  of  the  Council. 

Mgr.  n.  L.  C.  Maret  (Bishop  of  Sura,  in  part.,  Canon  of  St.  Denis  and  Dean  of  the  Theological  Faculty 
in  Paris) :  Du  Concile  general  et  de  la  paix  religievse,  Paris,  1S69,  2  Tom.  (pp.  554  and  555).  An  elaborate 
defense  of  Gallicanism  ;  since  revoked  by  the  author,  and  withdrawn  from  sale. 

Pktf.r  Rioiiard  Kenrick  (Archbishop  of  St.  Louis) :  Concio  in  Concilio  Vaticano  habenda  at  rum  habita, 
Neapoli  (typis  fratrum  de  Angelis  in  via  Pellegrini  4>,  1S70.  Reprinted  in  Friedrich,  Documenta,  I.  pp.  1S7- 
226.   An  English  translation  in  L.  \V.  Bacon's  -4  n  Inside  View  of  the  Vatican  Council,  New  York,  pp.  90-166. 

Qu>estio  (no  place  or  date  of  publication).  A  very  able  Latin  dissertation  occasioned  and  distributed 
(perhaps  partly  prepared)  by  Bishop  Ketteler,  of  Mayence,  during  the  Council.  It  was  printed  but  not 
published  in  Switzerland,  in  1870,  and  reprinted  in  Friedrich,  Documenta,  I.  pp.  1-128. 

La  liberie  du  Concile  et  l'infaillibilite.  Written  or  inspired  by  Darboy,  Archbishop  of  Paris.  Only  fifty 
copies  were  printed,  for  distribution  among  the  Cardinals.  Reprinted  in  Friedrich,  Documenta,  I.  pp. 
129-186. 

Card.  Rauscuee:  Observationcs  qu&dam  de  infallibilitatis  ecclesiov  itubjccto,  Neapoli  and  Vindobonoe, 
1S70  (S3  pp.). 

De  Svmmi  Pontificis  infallibilitate  personali, Neapoli,  1870  (32  pp.).  Written  by  Prof.  Salebius  Mayer, 
and  distributed  in  the  Council  by  Cardinal  Schwarzenberg. 

Jos.  de  Hefele  (Bishop  of  Rottenburg,  formerly  Prof,  at  Tiibingen):  Causa  Honorii  Papa,  Neap.  1S70 
(pp.28).  The  same:  Honorius  und  das  sechste  allgemeine  Concil  (witli  an  appendix  against  Pennachi, 
43  pp.),  Tubingen,  1870.  English  translation,  with  introduction,  by  Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith,  in  the  Presby- 
terian Quarterly  and  ]*rinceton  Review,  New  York,  for  April,  1872,  pp.  273  sqq.  Against  Hefele  comp. 
Jos.  Penmacui  (Prof,  of  Church  History  in  Rome) :  De  Honorii  I.  Pontificis  Romani  causa  in  Coiicilio  VI. 


L64 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


(b)  By  Catholics,  not  Members  of  the  Council. 
.Km-,-   The  Pope  and  the  Council,  1869.     See  above,  p.  134. 

ngm  fur  die  BiaeW*  dee  Concilium*  fiber  die  Frage  der  pdpstlichen  Un/ehlbarkeit,  Oct.  1869. 
||  Muncb.cn.    [By  J.  von  Doi.lingf.r.] 
.1   vov  Dolmkobb:  Binige  WorUuber  die  Unfehlbarkeitsadresse,  etc.,  Munchen,  1S70. 
Job.  II.  Kf.inkf.ns  (Prof,  of  Church  History  in  Breslau)  :  Ueber  pdpstliche  Un/ehlbarkeit,  Miiuchen,  1ST0. 
-  Sohmitz  (Cath.  Priest) :  1st  der  Papst  unfehlbart   Aus  Deutschlands  und  des  P.  Deharbe  Cate- 
ehismen  beanhoortet,  Munchen,  1S70. 

.1.  1  r..  Kutkk  von  Schclte  (Prof,  in  Prague,  now  in  Bonn):  Das  Unfchlbarkeits-Dccret  vom  IS  Juli 

l-^To  avf  tetne  FerbindliehkeU  geprvft,  Prague,  1870.    Die  Macht  der  rbm.  Piipste  uber  Fiirsten,  Lander, 

Qrt  got  VII.  zur  Wurdigung  ihrer  L'nfehlbarkeit  beleuchtet,  etc.,  2d  edition,  Prague.    The 

same,  translated  into  English  (The  Power  of  the  Roman  Popes  over  Princes,  etc.),  by  Alfred  Somers  [a 

brother  of  Schulte],  Adelaide,  1S71. 

\  Qbj  rev  (Priest  of  the  Oratoire  and  Member  of  the  French  Academy) :  Four  Letters  to  the  Bishop  of 
Mnpanlonp)  and  the  Archbishop  of  Malines  (Dechamps),  in  French,  Paris,  1870;  several  editions, 
islated  into  German,  English,  etc.    These  learned  and  eloquent  lettei-6  gave  rise  to  violent  con- 
troversies.   They  were  denounced  by  several  Bishops,  and  prohibited  in  their  dioceses;  approved  by 
Others,  and  by  Montalembert.    The  Pope  praised  the  opponents.    Against  him  wrote  Dechamps  (Three 
Letters  to  Gratry,  in  French ;  German  translation,  Mayeuce,  1870)  and  A.  de  Margerie.    Gratry  recanted 
on  his  death-bed. 
P.  Lf.  Pagf.  Renottf:  The  Condemnation  of  Pope  Honorius,  London,  1S68. 
Antonio  Magrassi  :  Lo  Schema  sulV  infallibilitd  personate  del  Romano  Pontefice,  Alessandria,  1S70. 

1 1  b  M  tttfallibUitd  personate  del  Romano  Pontefice,  2d  ed.  Firenze,lS70  (anonymous,  SO  pp.). 
.1 .  A  I :.  I.cttf.ubeck :  Die  Clementinen trad  ihr  VerhdltnisszumUnfehlbarkeitsdogma,  Giessen,  1872  (pp. S5). 
Joseph  I.angf.n  (Old  Catholic  Prof,  in  Bonn) :  Das  Vaticanische  Dogmavondem  Universal-Episcopat und 
i/,  r  UnfehXbarkeit  des  Papstes  in  s.  Verh.  zur  exeg.  Ueberlieferung  vom  1  bis  zum  \3ten  Jahrh.    3  Parts. 
Bonn,  1S71-73. 

The  sinlessness  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  personal  infallibility  of 
the  Pope  are  the  characteristic  dogmas  of  modern  Bomanism,  the  two 
test  dogmas  which  must  decide  the  ultimate  fate  of  this  system.  Both 
were  enacted  under  the  same  Fope,  and  both  faithfully  reflect  his  char- 
acter. Both  have  the  advantage  of  logical  consistency  from  certain 
premises,  and  seem  to  be  the  very  perfection  of  the  Bomish  form  of 
piety  and  the  Bomish  principle  of  authority.  Both  rest  on  pious  fiction 
and  fraud;  both  present  a  refined  idolatry  by  clothing  a  pure  humble 
woman  and  a  mortal  sinful  man  with  divine  attributes.  The  dogma 
of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  which  exempts  the  Virgin  Mary  from 
sin  and  guilt,  perverts  Christianism  into  Marianism ;  the  dogma  of  In- 
fallibility, which  exempts  the  Bishop  of  Borne  from  error,  resolves 
Catholicism  into  Papalism,  or  the  Church  into  the  Pope.  The  wor- 
ship <»f  a  woman  is  virtually  substituted  for  the  worship  of  Christ,  and 
a  man-god  in  Rome  for  the  God-Man  in  heaven.  This  is  a  severe 
judgment,  but  a  closer  examination  will  sustain  it. 

The  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  being  confined  to  the 
of  devotion,  passed  into  the  modem  Boman  creed  without  seri- 
ous difficulty;  but  the  dogma  of  Papal  Infallibility,  which  involves  a 
question  "f  absolute  power,  forms  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  Boman- 
i.-m,  and  created  the  greatest  commotion  and  a  new  secession.  It  is 
in  its  very  nature  the  most  fundamental  and  most  comprehensive  of 


§  34.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  165 

of  all  dogmas.  It  contains  the  -whole  system  in  a  nutshell.  It  con- 
stitutes a  new  rule  of  faith.  It  is  the  article  of  the  standing  or  fall- 
ing Church.  It  is  the  direct  antipode  of  the  Protestant  principle  of  the 
absolute  supremacy  and  infallibility  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  estab- 
lishes a  perpetual  divine  oracle  in  the  Vatican.  Every  Catholic  may 
hereafter  say,  I  believe — not  because  Christ,  or  the  Bible,  or  the  Church, 
but — because  the  infallible  Pope  has  so  declared  and  commanded. 
Admitting  this  dogma,  we  admit  not  only  the  whole  body  of  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Tridentine  standards,  but  all  the  official  Papal  bulls, 
including  the  mediaeval  monstrosities  of  the  Syllabus  (1864),  the  con- 
demnation of  Jansenism,  the  bull  lUnam  Sanctum3  of  Boniface  VIII. 
(1302),  which,  under  pain  of  damnation,  claims  for  the  Pope  the  double 
sword,  the  secular  as  well  as  the  spiritual,  over  the  whole  Christian 
world,  and  the  power  to  depose  princes  and  to  absolve  subjects  from 
their  oath  of  allegiance.1  The  past  is  irreversibly  settled,  and  in  all 
future  controversies  on  faith  and  morals  we  must  look  to  the  same 
unerring  tribunal  in  the  Vatican.  Even  oecumenical  Councils  are 
superseded  hereafter,  and  would  be  a  mere  waste  of  time  and 
strength. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  dogma  is  false,  it  involves  a  blasphemous 
assumption,  and  makes  the  nearest  approach  to  the  fulfillment  of 
St.  Paul's  prophecy  of  the  man  of  sin,  who  '  as  God  sitteth  in  the 
temple  of  God,  showing  himself  off  that  he  is  God'  (2  Thess.  ii.  4). 

Let  us  first  see  what  the  dogma  does  not  mean,  and  what  it  does 
mean. 

It  does  not  mean  that  the  Pope  is  infallible  in  his  private  opinions 
on  theology  and  religion.  As  a  man,  he  may  be  a  heretic  (as  Liberius, 
Honoring,  and  John  XXII.),  or  even  an  unbeliever  (as  John  XXIIL, 


1  This  bull  has  been  often  disowned  by  Catholics  (e.  g.,  by  the  Universities  of  Sorbonne, 
Louvain,  Alcala.  Salamanca,  when  officially  asked  by  Mr.  Pitt,  Prime  Minister  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, 1788,  also  by  Martin  John  Spalding,  Archbishop  of  Baltimore,  in  his  Lectures  on 
Evidences,  18C6),  and,  to  some  extent,  even  by  Pius  IX.  (see  Friedberg,  p.  718),  but  it  is 
unquestionably  official,  and  was  renewed  and  approved  by  tbe  fifth  Lateran  Council,  Dec. 
19,  lolG.  Paul  III.  and  Pius  V.  acted  upon  it,  the  former  in  excommunicating  and  depos- 
ing Henry  VIII.  of  England,  tbe  latter  in  deposing  Queen  Elizabeth,  exciting  her  subjects 
to  rebellion,  and  urging  Philip  of  Spain  to  declare  war  against  bet  (see  the  Bullarium  Rom., 
Camden,  Burnet,  Froude,  etc.).  The  Papal  Syllabus  sanctions  it  by  implication,  in  \n.  23, 
which  condemns  as  an  error  the  opinion  that  Roman  Pontiffs  have  exceeded  the  limits  of 
their  power. 


lt30  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and,  perhaps,  Leo  X.),  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  infallible  as  Pope, 
after  the  fashion  of  Balaam  and  Kaiphas. 

Nor  does  it  mean  that  infallibility  extends  beyond  the  proper  sphere 
of  religion  and  the  Church.  The  Pope  may  be  ignorant  of  science  and 
literature,  and  make  grave  mistakes  in  his  political  administration,  or 
be  misinformed  on  matters  of  fact  (unless  necessarily  involved  in  doc- 
trinal decisions),  and  yet  be  infallible  in  defining  articles  of  faith.1 

Infallibility  does  not  imply  impeccability.  And  yet  freedom  from 
error  and  freedom  from  sin  are  so  nearly  connected  in  men's  minds 
that  it  seems  utterly  impossible  that  such  moral  monsters  as  Alexander 
VI.  and  those  infamous  Popes  who  disgraced  humanity  during  the 
Poman  pornocracy  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries,  should  have 
been  vicars  of  Jesus  Christ  and  infallible  organs  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
If  the  inherent  infallibility  of  the  visible  Church  logically  necessitates 
the  infallibility  of  the  visible  head,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  same 
logic  should  not  with  equal  conclusiveness  derive  the  personal  holiness 
of  the  head  from  the  holiness  of  the  body. 

( >n  the  other  hand,  the  dogma  does  mean  that  all  official  utterances 
of  the  Roman  Pontiff  addressed  to  the  Catholic  Church  on  matters  of 
Christian  faith  and  duty  are  infallibly  true,  and  must  be  accepted  with 
the  .-anie  faith  as  the  word  of  the  living  God.  They  are  not  simply 
final  in  the  sense  in  which  all  decisions  of  an  absolute  government  or 
a  supreme  court  of  justice  are  final  until  abolished  or  superseded  by 
other  decisions,2  but  they  are  irreformable,  and  can  never  be  revoked. 
This  infallibility  extends  over  eighteen  centuries,  and  is  a  special  privi- 
lege conferred  by  Christ  upon  Peter,  and  through  him  upon  all  his  legiti- 
mate successors.  It  belongs  to  every  Pope  from  Clement  to  Pius  IX., 
and  to  every  Papal  bull  addressed  to  the  Catholic  world.     It  is  per- 


Pope  l'ius  IX.  started  as  a  political  reformer,  and  set  in  motion  that  revolution  which, 
notwithstanding  bia  subsequent  reactionary  course,  resulted  in  the  unification  of  Italy  and 
the  Iom  of  the  States  of  the  ( "liurcli,  against  which  he  now  so  bitterly  protests. 

3  In  this  general  Bense  Joseph  de  Maistre  explains  infallibility  to  "be  the  same  in  the  spir- 
itual order  that  sovereignty  means  in  the  civil  order:   'L'v.n  et  V  autre  expriment  cette  haute 
,  ui  /•  i  domine  toutes,  dont  toutea  Ua  autres  dirivent,  qui  gouverne  et  nest  pas  gou- 
ii  >•<•/•  et  n'ett  pax  jug,;-.     Quand  nous  disons  que  VEglise  est  infaillible,  nous  ne  de- 
!■■"'■  •  lie,  il  , st  bit  n  euentiel  de  iohsnnr.  aiicun privilege particulier;  nous demandons 
dement  qu  ellejouiue  dv  droit  commun  it  toutes  lea  aouverainete's  possible  qui  toutes  agissent 
comma  infailKblea ;  r„r  tout  gouvernement  est  absolu;  et  du  moment  oil  A>n  pent 
Ah  rttUttr  sow  pr/tei  te  cferretir  on  tTinjuatice,  il  n' exist e  plus.'    Du  Pope,  ch.  i.,  pp.  15, 1G. 


§  34.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  107 

sonal,  i.  e.,  inherent  in  Peter  and  the  Popes ;  it  is  independent,  and 
needs  no  confirmation  from  the  Church  or  an  oecumenical  Council, 
either  preceding  or  succeeding;  its  decrees  are  binding,  and  can  not  be 
rejected  without  running  the  risk  of  eternal  damnation.1 

Even  within  the  narrow  limits  of  the  Vatican  decision  there  is  room 
for  controversy  on  the  precise  meaning  of  the  figurative  term  ex  cathe- 
dra logui,  and  the  extent  of  faith  and  morals,  viz.,  whether  Infallibil- 
ity includes  only  the  supernatural  order  of  revealed  truth  and  duty,  or 
also  natural  and  political  duties,  and  questions  of  mere  history,  such  as 
Peter's  residence  in  Eome,  the  number  of  oecumenical  Councils,  the 
teaching  of  Jansen  and  Quesnel,  and  other  disputed  facts  closely  con- 
nected with  dogmas.  But  the  main  point  is  clear  enough.  The  Ultra- 
montane theory  is  established,  Gallicanism  is  dead  and  buried. 

Ultramontanism  and  Gallicanism. 

The  Vatican  dogma  is  the  natural  completion  of  the  Papal  polity,  as 
the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  Mary  is  the  completion 
of  the  Papal  cultus. 

If  we  compare  the  Papal  or  Ultramontane  theory  wTith  the  Episcopal 
or  Gallican  theory,  it  has  the  undeniable  advantage  of  logical  consist- 
ency. The  two  systems  are  related  to  each  other  like  monarchy  and 
aristocracy,  or  rather  like  absolute  monarchy  and  limited  monarchy. 
The  one  starts  from  the  divine  institution  of  the  Primacy  (Matt.  xvi.  IS), 

1  Archbishop  Manning  (Petri  Privil.  III.  pp.  112, 113)  defines  the  doctrine  of  Infallibility 
in  this  way : 

'  1.  The  privilege  of  infallibility  is  personal,  inasmuch  as  it  attaches  to  the  Roman  Pontiff, 
the  successor  of  Peter,  as  a  public  person,  distinct  from,  but  inseparably  united  to,  the  Church ; 
but  it  is  not  personal,  in  that  it  is  attached,  not  to  the  private  person,  but  to  the  primacy 
which  he  alone  possesses. 

*  2.  It  is  also  independent,  inasmuch  as  it  does  not  depend  upon  either  the  Eeclesia  doeens 
or  the  Eeclesia  discens ;  but  it  is  not  independent,  in  that  it  depends  in  all  things  upon  the 
divine  head  of  the  Church,  upon  the  institution  of  the  primacy  by  him,  and  upon  the  assist- 
ance of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

'3.  It  is  absolute,  inasmuch  as  it  can  be  circumscribed  by  no  human  or  ecclesiastical  law; 
it  is  not  absolute,  in  that  it  is  circumscribed  by  the  office  of  guarding,  expounding,  and  de- 
fending the  deposit  of  revelation. 

'  4.  It  is  separate  in  no  sense,  nor  can  be,  nor  can  be  so  called,  without  manifold  heresy, 
unless  the  word  be  taken  to  mean  distinct.  In  this  sense,  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  distinct  from 
the  Episcopate,  and  is  a  distinct  subject  of  infallibility;  and  in  the  exercise  of  his  supreme 
doctrinal  authority,  or  magistcrium,  he  does  not  depend  for  the  infallibility  of  his  definitions 
upon  the  consent  or  consultation  of  the  Episcopate,  but  only  on  the  divine  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.' 

Vol.  I.— M 


16g  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  teaches  the  infallibility  of  the  head;  the  other  starts  from  the  di- 
vine institution  of  the  Episcopate  (Matt,  xviii.  18),  and  teaches  the  infal- 
libility of  the  body  and  the  superiority  of  an  oecumenical  Council  over 
the  Tope.  Conceding  once  the  infallibility  of  the  collective  Episcopate, 
we  must  admit,  as  a  consequence,  the  infallibility  of  the  Primacy,  which 
represents  the  Episcopate,  and  forms  its  visible  and  permanent  centre.  If 
the  body  of  the  teaching  Church  can  never  err,  the  head  can  not  err;  and, 
vice  versa,  if  the  head  is  liable  to  error,  the  body  can  not  be  free  from 
error.  The  Gallican  theory  is  an  untenable  via  media.  It  secures  only 
a  periodic  and  intermittent  infallibility,  which  reveals  itself  in  an  oecu- 
menical Council,  and  then  relapses  into  a  quiescent  state ;  but  the  Ultra- 
montane theory  teaches  an  unbroken,  ever  living,  and  ever  active  infalli- 
bility, which  alone  can  fully  answer  the  demands  of  an  absolute  authority. 
To  refute  Papal  infallibility  is  to  refute  also  Episcopal  infallibility ; 
for  the  higher  includes  the  lower.  The  Vatican  Council  is  the  best  argu- 
ment against  the  infallibility  of  oecumenical  Councils,  for  it  sanctioned 
a  fiction,  in  open  and  irreconcilable  contradiction  to  older  oecumenical 
Councils,  which  not  only  assumed  the  possibility  of  Papal  fallibility, 
but  actually  condemned  a  Pope  as  a  heretic.  The  fifth  Lateran  Coun- 
cil (1512)  declared  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Pisa  (1409)  null  and 
void ;  the  Council  of  Florence  denied  the  validity  of  the  Council  of 
Basic,  and  this  denied  the  validity  of  the  former.  The  Council  of  Con- 
stance  condemned  and  burned  JolmHus  for  teaching  evangelical  doc- 
trine; and  this  fact  forced  upon  Luther,  at  the  disputation  with  Eck  at 
Leipzig,  the  conviction  that  even  oecumenical  Councils  may  err.  Pome 
itself  has  rejected  certain  canons  of  Constantinople  and  Chalcedon, 
which  put  the  Pope  on  a  par  with  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople ;  and 
a  Btrici  construction  of  the  Papal  theory  would  rule  out  the  old  oecu- 
menical ( 'ouncils,  because  they  were  not  convened  nor  controlled  by  the 
Pope ;  while  the  Greek  Church  rejects  all  Councils  which  were  purely 
Latin. 

The  Bible  makes  no  provision  and  has  no  promise  for  an  oecumenical 
( 'onncil.1  The  Church  existed  and  flourished  for  more  than  three  hun- 
dred yean  before  Mich  a  Council  was  heard  of.     Large  assemblies  are 


1  The  Synod  of  Jernsalem,  composed  of  Apostles,  Elders,  and  brethren,  and  legislating  in 
favor  of  Christian  liberty,  differs  very  widely  from  a  purely  hierarchical  Council,  which  ex- 
clude! Eldera  and  Brethren,  and  imposes  new  burdens  upon  the  conscience. 


§  34.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  169 

often  ruled  by  passion,  intrigue,  and  worldly  ambition  (remember  the 
complaints  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  on  the  Synods  of  theNicene  age). 
Majorities  are  not  necessarily  decisive  in  matters  of  faith.  Christ  prom- 
ised to  be  even  with  two  or  three  who  are  gathered  in  his  name  (Matt. 
xviii.  20).  Elijah  and  the  seven  thousand  who  had  not  bowed  the 
knee  to  Baal  were  right  over  against  the  great  mass  of  the  people  of 
Israel.  Athanasius  versus  mundum  represented  the  truth,  and  the 
world  versus  Athanasium  was  in  error  during  the  ascendency  of 
Arianism.  In  the  eighteenth  century  the  Church,  both  Catholic  and 
Protestant,  was  under  the  power  of  infidelity,  and  true  Christianity 
had  to  take  refuge  in  small  communities.  Augustine  maintained  that 
one  Council  may  correct  another,  and  attain  to  a  more  perfect  knowl- 
edge of  truth.  The  history  of  the  Church  is  unintelligible  without  the 
theory  of  progressive  development,  which  implies  many  obstructions 
and  temporary  diseases.  All  the  attributes  of  the  Church  are  subject 
to  the  law  of  gradual  expansion  and  growth,  and  will  not  be  finally 
complete  till  the  second  coming  of  our  Lord. 

Papal  Infallibility  and  Personal  Responsibility. 

The  Christian  Church,  as  a  divine  institution,  can  never  fail  and 
never  lose  the  truth.  Christ  has  pledged  his  Spirit  and  life-giving 
presence  to  his  people  to  the  end  of  time,  and  even  to  two  or  three  of 
his  humblest  disciples  assembled  in  his  name ;  yet  they  are  not  on 
that  account  infallible.  He  gave  authority  in  matters  of  discipline  to 
every  local  Church  (Matt,  xviii.  17) ;  and  yet  no  one  claims  infallibility 
to  every  congregation.  The  Holy  Spirit  will  always  guide  believers  into 
the  truth,  and  the  unerring  "Word  of  God  can  never  perish.  But  local 
churches,  like  individuals,  may  fall  into  error,  and  be  utterly  destroyed 
from  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  true  Church  of  Christ  always  makes 
progress,  and  will  go  on  conquering  and  to  conquer  to  the  end  of  the 
world.  But  the  particular  churches  of  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Alexan- 
dria, Constantinople,  Asia  Minor,  and  North  Africa,  where  once  the 
Apostles  and  St.  Augustine  taught,  have  disappeared,  or  crumbled  into 
ruin,  or  have  been  overrun  by  the  false  prophet. 

The  truth  will  ever  be  within  the  reach  of  the  sincere  inquirer 
wherever  the  gospel  is  preached  and  the  sacraments  are  rightly  admin- 
istered.    God  has  revealed  himself  plainly  enough  for  all  purposes  of 


170  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

salvation  ;  and  yet  not  so  plainly  as  to  supersede  the  necessity  of  faith, 
and  to  resolve  Christianity  into  a  mathematical  demonstration.  He 
has  given  us  a  rational  mind  to  think  and  to  judge,  and  a  free  will  to 
accept  or  to  reject.  Christian  faith  is  no  blind  submission,  but  an  intel- 
ligent assent.  It  implies  anxiety  to  inquire  as  well  as  willingness  to 
receive.  We  are  expressly  directed  to  '  prove  all  things,  and  to  hold  fast 
that  which  is  good'  (1  Thess.  v.  21);  to  try  the  spirits  whether  they  are 
of  God  (1  John  iv.  1),  and  to  refuse  obedience  even  to  an  angel  from 
heaven  if  he  preach  a  diiferent  gospel  (Gal.  i.  8).  The  Bercean 
Jews  are  commended  as  being  more  noble  than  those  of  Thessalonica, 
because  they  received  the  Word  with  all  readiness  of  mind,  and  yet 
searched  the  Scriptures  daily,  whether  those  things  were  so  (Acts  xvii. 
11).  It  was  from  the  infallible  Scriptures  alone,  and  not  from  tra- 
dition, that  Paul  and  Apollos  reasoned,  after  the  example  of  Christ, 
who  appeals  to  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  and  speaks  disparagingly  of 
the  traditions  of  the  elders  as  obscuring  the  Word  of  God  or  destroy- 
ing its  true  effect.1 

In  opposition  to  all  this  the  Vatican  dogma  requires  a  wholesale 
daughter  of  the  intellect  and  will,  and  destroys  the  sense  of  personal 
responsibility.  The  fundamental  error,  the  irpCjTov  iltv^og  of  Pome  is 
that  she  identifies  the  true  ideal  Church  of  Christ  with  the  empirical 
Ohurch,  and  the  empirical  Church  with  the  Eomish  Church,  and  the 
Romish  Church  with  the  Papacy,  and  the  Papacy  with  the  Pope,  and 
at  last  substitutes  a  mortal  man  for  the  living  Christ,  who  is  the  only 
and  ever  present  head  of  the  Church,  'which  is  his  body,  the  fullness  of 
hi  in  who  iillcth  all  in  all.'  Christ  needs  no  vicar,  and  the  very  idea 
of  :i  vicar  implies  the  absence  of  the  Master.2 


1  It  is  remarkable  that  Christ  always  uses  napaSoaig  in  an  unfavorable  sense:  see  Matt. 
■.'..  '-'.  :;.  6;  .Mark  vii.  :'.,  6,  8,  '.»,  13.  So  also  Paul:  Gal.  i.  14;  Col.  ii.  8;  while  in  1  Cor.xi. 
'J.  and  -  Thess.  ii.  15;  iii.  <i,  he  uses  the  term  in  a  good  sense,  as  identical  with  the  gospel  he 
preached. 

3  I  add  here  what  Dr.  Bodge,  of  Princeton,  says  on  the  Papal  theory  of  Infallibility  (System- 
\  i iw  Voi -k,  1 872,  Vol.  I.  pp.  1  :J0, 150)  :  '  There  is  something  simple  and  grand  in 
this  theory.  It  is  wonderfully  adapted  to  the  tastes  and  wants  of  men.  It  relieves  them  of  per- 
sonal responsibility.  Every  thing  is  decided  for  them.  Their  salvation  is  secured  by  merely 
submitting  to  he  saved  by  an  infallible,  sin-pardoning,  and  grace-imparting  Church.  Many 
I  inclined  to  think  that  it  would  have  been  a  great  blessing  had  Christ  left  on  earth  a 

risible  representative  of  himself,  clothed  with  his  authority  to  teach  and  govern,  and  an  order 
Of  men  dispersed  through  the  world  endowed  with  the  gifts  of  the  original  Apostles— men 
every  where  accessible,  to  whom  we  could  resort  in  all  times  of  difficulty  and  doubt,  and  whose 


§  34.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  171 

Papal  Infallibility  tested  by  Tradition. 

The  dogma  of  Papal  Infallibility  is  mainly  supported  by  an  infer- 
ential dogmatic  argument  derived  from  the  Primacy  of  Peter,  who,  as 
the  Vicar  of  Christ,  must  also  share  in  his  infallibility ;  or  from  the 
nature  and  aim  of  the  Church,  which  is  to  teach  men  the  way  of  salva- 
tion, and  must  therefore  be  endowed  with  an  infallible  and  ever  avail- 
able organ  for  that  purpose,  since  God  always  provides  the  means  to- 
gether with  an  end.  A  full-blooded  Infallibilist,  whose  piety  consists 
in  absolute  submission  and  devotion  to  his  lord  the  Pope,  is  per- 
fectly satisfied  with  this  reasoning,  and  cares  little  or  nothing  for  the 
Bible  and  for  history,  except  so  far  as  they  suit  his  purpose.  If  facts 
disagree  with  his  dogmas,  all  the  worse  for  the  facts.  All  you  have  to 
do  is  to  ignore  or  to  deny  them,  or  to  force  them,  by  unnatural  inter- 
pretations, into  reluctant  obedience  to  the  dogmas.1    But  after  all,  even 

decisions  could  be  safely  received  as  the  decisions  of  Christ  himself.  God's  thoughts,  how- 
ever, are  not  as  our  thoughts.  We  know  that  when  Christ  was  on  earth  men  did  not  believe 
or  obey  him.  We  know  that  when  the  Apostles  were  still  living,  and  their  authority  was 
still  confirmed  by  signs,  and  wonders,  and  divers  miracles  and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
Church  was  distracted  by  heresies  and  schisms.  If  any  in  their  sluggishness  are  disposed  to 
think  that  a  perpetual  body  of  infallible  teachers  would  be  a  blessing,  all  must  admit  that  the 
assumption  of  infallibility  by  the  ignorant,  the  erring,  and  the  wicked,  must  be  an  evil  incon- 
ceivably great.  The  Romish  theory,  if  true,  might  be  a  blessing;  if  false,  it  must  be  an  aw- 
ful curse.  That  it  is  false  may  be  demonstrated  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  who  do  not  wish  it 
to  be  true,  and  who,  unlike  the  Oxford  tractarian,  are  not  determined  to  believe  it  because 
they  love  it.  .  .  .  If  the  Church  be  infallible,  its  authority  is  no  less  absolute  in  the  sphere  of 
social  and  political  life.  It  is  immoral  to  contract  or  to  continue  an  unlawful  marriage,  to 
keep  an  unlawful  oath,  to  enact  unjust  laws,  to  obey  a  sovereign  hostile  to  the  Church.  The 
Church,  therefore,  has  the  right  to  dissolve  marriages,  to  free  men  from  the  obligations  of 
their  oaths,  and  citizens  from  their  allegiance,  to  abrogate  civil  laws,  and  to  depose  sovereigns. 
These  prerogatives  have  not  only  been  claimed,  but  time  and  again  exercised  by  the  Church 
of  Rome.  They  all  of  right  belong  to  that  Church,  if  it  be  infallible.  As  these  claims  aro 
enforced  by  penalties  involving  the  loss  of  the  soul,  they  can  not  be  resisted  by  those  who  ad- 
mit the  Church  to  be  infallible.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  where  this  doctrine  is  held  there 
can  be  no  liberty  of  opinion,  no  freedom  of  conscience,  no  civil  or  political  freedom.  As  the 
recent  oecumenical  Council  of  the  Vatican  has  decided  that  this  infallibility  is  vested  in  the 
Pope,  it  is  henceforth  a  matter  of  faith  with  Romanists,  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  the  abso- 
lute sovereign  of  the  world.  All  men  are  bound,  on  the  penalty  of  eternal  death,  to  believe 
what  he  declares  to  be  true,  and  to  do  whatever  he  decides  is  obligatory. ' 

1  Archbishop  Manning  (III.  p.  1 18)  speaks  of  history  as  'a  wilderness  without  guide  or  path.' 
and  says:  'Whensoever  any  doctrine  is  contained  in  the  divine  revelation  of  the  Church' 
[the  very  point  which  can  not  be  proved  in  the  case  before  us],  'all  difficulties  from  human 
history  are  excluded,  as  Tertullian  lays  down,  by  prescription.  The  only  source  of  revealed 
truth  is  God;  the  only  channel  of  his  revelation  is  the  Church.  No  human  history  can  de- 
clare what  is  contained  in  that  revelation.  The  Church  alone  can  determine  its  limits,  and 
therefore  its  contents.' 


172  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

according  to  the  Roman  Catholic  theory,  Scripture  and  history  or  tra- 
dition are  the  two  indispensable  tests  of  the  truth  of  a  dogma.  It  has 
always  been  held  that  the  Pope  and  the  Bishops  are  not  the  creators 
and  judges,  but  the  trustees  and  witnesses  of  the  apostolic  deposit  of 
faith,  and  that  they  can  define  and  proclaim  no  dogma  which  is  not 
well  founded  in  primitive  tradition,  written  or  unwritten.  According 
to  the  famous  rule  of  Vincentius  Lirinensis,  a  dogma  must  have  three 
marks  of  catholicity:  the  catholicity  of  time  (semper),  of  space  (ubique), 
and  of  number  (ab  omnibus).  The  argument  from  tradition  is  abso- 
lutely essential  to  orthodoxy  in  the  Roman  sense,  and,  as  hitherto  held, 
more  essential  than  Scripture  proof.1  The  difference  between  Roman- 
ism and  Protestantism  on  this  point  is  this :  Romanism  requires  proof 
from  tradition  first,  from  Scripture  next,  and  makes  the  former  indis- 
pensable, the  latter  simply  desirable ;  while  Protestantism  reverses  the 
order,  and  with  its  theory  of  the  Bible  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  and  as  an  inexhaustible  mine  of  truth  that  yields  precious  ore 
to  every  successive  generation  of  miners,  it  may  even  dispense  wTith 
traditional  testimony  altogether,  provided  that  a  doctrine  can  be  clearly 
derived  from  the  Word  of  God. 

Now  it  can  be  conclusively  proved  that  the  dogma  of  Papal  In- 
fallibility, like  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  Mary, 
lacks  every  one  of  the  three  marks  of  catholicity.  It  is  a  compara- 
tively modern  innovation.  It  was  not  dreamed  of  for  more  than  a 
thousand  years,  and  is  unknown  to  this  day  in  the  Greek  Church, 
the  oldest  in  the  world,  and  in  matters  of  antiquity  always  an  im- 
portant witness.  The  whole  history  of  Christianity  would  have  taken 
a  different  course,  if  in  all  theological  controversies  an  infallible  tri- 
bunal in  Rome  could  have  been  invoked.2     Ancient  Creeds,  Councils, 


1  This  Archbishop  Kenrick,  in  his  Concio,  frankly  admits  :  iIrena>i,  Tertulliani,  Augustini, 
Vincmtii  Lirinentii  exempla  secuttu,  Jidei  Catholicce  probationes  ex  traditione  potius  quam 
•  r  Scriptwrarum  interpretation*  qucerendas  duxi;  qua  iuterpretatio,  juxta  Tertullianum  ma- 
gis  aptn  e$i  ad  veritatem  obumbitandvm  quam  demonstra^idinn.' 

'  Dit  ganxe  Geschichte  dee  ersten  Jahrtausends  der  Kirche  ware  eine  andere  gewesen,  wenn 
in  dm  Bucho/von  Rom  dot  Bewutstaein,  in  der  Kirche  auch  nur  eineAhnung  davon  gewesen 
m  dart  rin  Quell  unfehtharer  Wahrheit  jliesse.     Statt  all  der  bittern,  verstorenden 
K&wpfi  gegen  unrkUche  oder  vermeintliche  B^retiker,  oegen  die  man  Biicher  schrieb  und  Sy- 
■  vereammelte,  warden  alle  Wohhneinende  rich  au/den  un/ehlbaren  Spruch  des 
1  «  haben,  und  mehr  ah  einst  das  Orakel  des  Apollo  zu  Delphi  wiirde  das  zu 

Rom  befrfi  vord*  „  mix.    Dagegen  war  es  in  jenen  Jahrhunderten,  ah  alles  Christenthum  auf 


§  34.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  173 

Fathers,  and  Popes  can  be  summoned  as  witnesses  against  the  Vatican 
dogma. 

1.  The  four  (ecumenical  Creeds,  the  most  authoritative  expressions 
of  the  old  Catholic  faith  of  the  Eastern  and  "Western  Churches,  contain 
an  article  on  the  'holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,'  but  not  one 
word  about  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  or  any  other  local  Church.  How 
easy  and  natural,  yea,  in  view  of  the  fundamental  importance  of  the 
Infallibility  dogma,  how  necessary  would  have  been  the  insertion  of  Ro- 
man after  the  other  predicates  of  the  Church,  or  the  addition  of  the 
article :  '  The  Pope  of  Rome,  the  successor  of  Peter  and  infallible  vicar 
of  Christ.'  If  it  had  been  believed  then  as  now,  it  would  certainly  ap- 
pear at  least  in  the  Roman  form  of  the  Apostles'  Creed ;  but  this  is  as 
silent  on  this  point  as  the  Aquilejan,  the  African,  the  Gallican,  and 
other  forms. 

And  this  uniform  silence  of  all  the  oecumenical  Creeds  is  strength- 
ened by  the  numerous  local  Creeds  of  the  Nicene  age,  and  by  the  vari- 
ous ante-Nicene  rules  of  faith  up  to  Tertullian  and  Irenseus,  not  one  of 
which  contains  an  allusion  to  such  an  article  of  faith. 

2.  The  oecumenical  Councils  of  the  first  eight  centuries,  which  are 
recognized  by  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches  alike,  are  equally  silent 
about,  and  positively  inconsistent  with,  Papal  Infallibility.  They  were 
called  by  Greek  Emperors,  not  by  Popes ;  they  were  predominantly, 
and  some  of  them  exclusively,  Oriental ;  they  issued  their  decrees  in 
their  own  name,  and  in  the  fullness  of  authority,  without  thinking  of 
submitting  them  to  the  approval  of  Rome ;  they  even  claimed  the  right 
of  judging  and  condemning  the  Roman  Pontiff,  as  well  as  any  other 
Bishop  or  Patriarch. 

In  the  first  Nicene  Council  there  was  but  one  representative  of  the 
Latin  Church  (Ilosius  of  Spain) ;  and  in  the  second  and  the  fifth  oecu- 
menical Councils  there  was  none  at  all.  The  second  oecumenical  Coun- 
cil (381),  in  the  third  canon,  put  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  on  a  par 
with  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  assigning  to  the  latter  only  a  primacy  of 
honor;  and  the  fourth  oecumenical  Council  (451)  confirmed  this  canon 
in  spite  of  the  energetic  protest  of  Pope  Leo  I. 

die  Spitze  eines  Dogmas  gestellt  wurde,  nichts  unerhortes,  dass  auch  ein  Papst  vor  der  sub- 
tilen  Bestimmung  des  siegenden  Dogma  zum  llaretiker  wurde.'  Hase,  Polemik,  Buch  I. 
civ.  p.  1G1. 


l~±  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

But  more  than  this :  the  sixth  oecumenical  Council,  held  680,  pro- 
nounced the  anathema  on  Honorius,  '  the  former  Pope  of  old  Home,' 
for  teaching  officially  the  Monothelite  heresy ;  and  this  anathema  was 
signed  by  all  the  members  of  the  Council,  including  the  three  delegates 
of  the  Pope,  and  was  several  times  repeated  by  the  seventh  and  eighth 
Councils,  which  were  presided  over  by  Papal  delegates.  But  we  must 
return  to  this  famous  case  again  in  another  connection. 

3.  The  Fathers,  even  those  who  unconsciously  did  most  service  to 
Rome,  and  laid  the  foundation  for  its  colossal  pretensions,  yet  had  no 
idea  of  ascribing  absolute  supremacy  and  infallibility  to  the  Pope. 

Clement  of  Pome,  the  first  Roman  Bishop  of  whom  we  have  any 
authentic  account,  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Church  at  Corinth — not  in  his 
name,  but  in  the  name  of  the  Roman  Congregation;  not  with  an  air 
of  superior  authority,  but  as  a  brother  to  brethren — barely  mentioning 
Peter,  but  eulogizing  Paul,  and  with  a  clear  consciousness  of  the  great 
difference  between  an  Apostle  and  a  Bishop  or  Elder. 

Ignatius  of  Antioch,  who  suffered  martyrdom  in  Rome  under  Tra- 
jan, highly  as  he  extols  Episcopacy  and  Church  unity  in  his  seven  Epis- 
tles, one  of  which  is  addressed  to  the  Roman  Christians,  makes  no  dis- 
tinction of  rank  among  Bishops,  but  treats  them  as  equals. 

Irenams  of  Lyons,  the  champion  of  the  Catholic  faith  against  the 
Gnostic  heresy  at  the  close  of  the  second  century,  and  the  author  of 
the  famous  and  variously  understood  passage  about  the  potentior  prin- 
dpalitas  (irpoTtia)  ecclesice  Romance,  sharply  reproved  Victor  of  Rome 
when  he  ventured  to  excommunicate  the  Asiatic  Christians  for  their 
different  mode  of  celebrating  Easter,  and  told  him  that  it  was  contrary 
to  Apostolic  doctrine  and  practice  to  judge  brethren  on  account  of  eat- 
ing and  drinking,  feasts  and  new  moons.  Cyprian,  likewise  a  saint  and 
:t  martyr,  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  in  his  zeal  for  visible  and 
tangible  unity  against  the  schismatics  of  his  diocese,  first  brought  out 
the  fertile  doctrine  of  the  Roman  See  as  the  chair  of  Peter  and  the 
centre  of  Catholic  unity;  yet  with  all  his  Romanizing  tendency  he  was 
thr  great  champion  <>f  the  Episcopal  solidarity  and  equality  system,  and 
always  addressed  the  Roman  Bishop  as  his  'brother'  and  'colleague;' 
he  even  Btoutly  opposed  Pope  Stephen's  view  of  the  validity  of  heret- 
ical baptism,  charging  him  with  error,  obstinacy,  and  presumption. 
Ee  never  yielded,  and  the  African  Bishops,  at  the  third  Council  at 


§  34.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  175 

Cartilage  (256),  emphatically  indorsed  his  opposition.  Firmilian, 
Bishop  of  Csesarea,  and  Dionysins,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  likewise  bit- 
terly condemned  the  doctrine  and  conduct  of  Stephen,  and  told  him 
that  in  excommunicating  others  he  only  excommunicated  himself. 

Augustine  is  often  quoted  by  Infallibilists  on  account  of  his  famous 
dictum,  Roma  locuta  est,  causa  finita  est}  But  he  simply  means  that, 
since  the  Councils  of  Mileve  and  Carthage  had  spoken,  and  Pope  Inno- 
cent I.  had  acceded  to  their  decision,  the  Pelagian  controversy  was 
finally  settled  (although  it  was,  after  all,  not  settled  till  after  his  death, 
at  the  Council  of  Ephesus).  Had  he  dreamed  of  the  abuse  made  of 
this  utterance,2  he  would  have  spoken  very  differently.  For  the  same 
Augustine  apologized  for  Cyprian's  opposition  to  Pope  Stephen  on  the 
ground  that  the  controversy  had  then  not  yet  been  decided  by  a  Coun- 
cil, and  maintained  the  view  of  the  liability  of  Councils  to  correction 
and  improvement  by  subsequent  Councils.  He  moreover  himself  op- 
posed Pope  Zosimus,  when,  deceived  by  Pelagius,  he  declared  him 
sound  in  the  faith,  although  Pope  Innocent  I.  had  previously  excom- 
municated him  as  a  dangerous  heretic.  And  so  determined  were  the 
Africans,  under  the  lead  of  Augustine  (417  and  418),  that  Zosimus 
finally  saw  proper  to  yield  and  to  condemn  Pelagianism  in  his  '  Epis- 
tola  Tractoria? 

Gregory  I.,  or  the  Great,  the  last  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  and  the 
first  of  the  mediaeval  Popes  (590-604),  stoutly  protested  against  the 
assumption  of  the  title  oecumenical  or  universal  Bishop  on  the  part  of 
the  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  and  Alexandria,  and  denounced  this 
whole  title  and  claim  as  blasphemous,  anti- Christian,  and  devilish, 
since  Christ  alone  was  the  Head  and  Bishop  of  the  Church  universal, 
while  Peter,  Paul,  Andrew,  and  John,  were  members  under  the  same 
Head,  and  heads  only  of  single  portions  of  the  whole.  Gregory  would 
rather  call  himself  '  the  servant  of  the  servants  of  God,'  which,  in  the 
mouths  of  his  successors,  pretending  to  be  Bishops  of  bishops  and  Lords 
of  lords,  has  become  a  shameless  irony.3 

1  Or  in  a  modified  form:  '  Causa  finita  est,  utinam  aliquando  finiatur  error  T  Serm.  131, 
c.  10.  See  Janus,  Kauscher,  von  Schulte  versus  Cardoni  and  Ilergcnrijthcr,  quoted  by  From- 
mann,  p.  4'_'4. 

2  As  well  as  some  other  of  his  sententious  sayings.  His  explanation  of  ror/e  intrare  was 
made  to  justify  religious  persecutions,  from  which  his  heart  would  have  shrank  in  horror. 

3  The  passages  of  Gregory  on  this  subject  are  well  known  to  every  scholar.     And  yet  the 


276  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

As  to  the  Greek  Fathers,  it  would  be  useless  to  quote  them,  for  the 
entire  Greek  Church  in  her  genuine  testimonies  has  never  accepted  the 
doctrine  of  Papal  supremacy,  much  less  of  Papal  Infallibility. 

±.  Heretical  Popes.— We  may  readily  admit  the  rock-like  stability 
of  the  Roman  Church  in  the  early  controversies  on  the  Trinity  and  the 
Divinity  of  ( 'hrist,  as  compared  with  the  motion  and  changeability  of  the 
Greek  churches  during  the  same  period,  when  the  East  was  the  chief 
theatre  of  dogmatic  controversy  and  progress.  Without  some  founda- 
tion in  history,  the  Vatican  dogma  could  not  well  have  arisen.  It  would 
be  impossible  to  raise  the  claim  of  infallibility  in  behalf  of  the  Patri- 
archs of  Jerusalem,  or  Antioch,  or  Alexandria,  or  Constantinople,  among 
win »in  were  noted  Arians,  Nestorians,  Monophysites,  Monothelites,  and 
other  heretics.  Yet  there  are  not  a  few  exceptions  to  the  rule ;  and  as 
many  Popes,  in  their  lives,  flatly  contradicted  their  title  of  holiness,  so 
many  departed,  in  their  views,  from  Catholic  truth.  That  the  Popes 
after  the  Reformation  condemned  and  cursed  Protestant  truths  well 
founded  in  the  Scriptures,  we  leave  here  out  of  sight,  and  confine  our 
reasoning  to  facts  within  the  limits  of  Roman  Catholic  orthodoxy. 

The  canon  law  assumes  throughout  that  a  Pope  may  openly  teach 
heresy,  or  contumaciously  contradict  the  Catholic  doctrine ;  for  it  de- 
clares that,  while  he  stands  above  all  secular  tribunals,  yet  he  can  be 
judged  and  deposed  for  the  crime  of  heresy.1  This  assumption  was  so 
interwoven  in  the  faith  of  the  Middle  Ages  that  even  the  most  power- 
ful of  all  Popes,  Innocent  III.  (d.  1216),  gave  expression  to  it  when  he 
said  that,  though  he  was  only  responsible  to  God,  he  may  sin  against 
the  faith,  and  thus  become  subject  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church.2 
I  mi*  tcent  IV.  (d.  1254)  speaks  of  heretical  commands  of  the  Pope,  which 
need  not  be  obeyed.  When  Boniface  VIII.  (d.  1303)  declared  that 
every  creature  must  obey  the  Pope  at  the  loss  of  eternal  salvation,  he 
was  charged  with  having  a  devil,  because  he  presumed  to  be  infallible, 


\  Itican  decree,  in  ch.  iii.,  by  omitting  the  principal  part,  makes  him  say  almost  the  very 
opposite. 

Deeret,  Gratian.  Dist.  xl.  c.  0,  in  conformity  with  the  sentence  of  Hadrian  II.:  'Cwictos 

l/MM  jHiln-nturus   [Papa],  a  nemine    est  judiccuidus,  NISI    DKPREHKNDATUU   A   FIDE    DEVIUS. 

Bee  on  tin-  point  especially  von  Bchulte,<7oact7fen,pp.  188  sqq. 

>om.  //.,/,   consecrat.  Pontificis :   'In  tantum  mihi  fides  necessaria  est,  cum  de  cateris 
h,  urn  judicem  habeam,  ut  propter  solum  peccatum  quod  injidem  committitur,  possim 
a>>  Ee\  lesia  judicari.' 


§  34.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  177 

which  was  impossible  without  witchcraft.  Even  Hadrian  VI.,  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  expressed  the  view,  which  he  did  not  recant  as  Pope, 
that  '  if  by  the  Roman  Church  is  understood  its  head,  the  Pope,  it  is 
certain  that  he  can  err  even  in  matters  of  faith.' 

This  old  Catholic  theory  of  the  fallibility  of  the  Pope  is  abundantly 
borne  out  by  actual  facts,  which  have  been  established  again  and  again 
by  Catholic  scholars  of  the  highest  authority  for  learning  and  candor. 
AVe  need  no  better  proofs  than  those  furnished  by  them. 

Zephyrinus  (201-219)  and  Callistus  (219-223)  held  and  taught  (ac- 
cording to  the  'Philosophumena'  of  Ilippolytus,  a  martyr  and  saint) 
the  Patripassian  heresy,  that  God  the  Father  became  incarnate  and 
suffered  with  the  Son. 

Pope  Liberius,  in  358,  subscribed  an  Arian  creed  for  the  purpose  of 
regaining  his  episcopate,  and  condemned  Athanasius, '  the  father  of  or- 
thodoxy,' who  mentions  the  fact  with  indignation. 

During  the  same  period,  his  rival,  Felix  II.,  was  a  decided  Arian  ;  but 
there  is  a  dispute  about  his  legitimacy;  some  regarding  him  as  an  anti- 
Pope,  although  he  has  a  place  in  the  Romish  Calendar  of  Saints,  and 
Gregory  XIII.  (1582)  confirmed  his  claim  to  sanctity,  against  which 
Baronius  protested. 

In  the  Pelagian  controversy,  Pope  Zosimus  at  first  indorsed  the  or- 
thodoxy of  Pelagius  and  Celestius,  whom  his  predecessor,  Innocent  I., 
had  condemned ;  but  he  yielded  afterwards  to  the  firm  protest  of  St. 
Augustine  and  the  African  Bishops. 

In  the  Three-Chapter  controversy,  Pope  Vigili us  (538-555)  showed  a 
contemptible  vacillation  between  two  opinions:  first  indorsing;  then,  a 
year  afterwards,  condemning  (in  obedience  to  the  Emperor's  wishes)  the 
Three  Chapters  (i.  e.,  the  writings  of  Theodore,  Theodoret,  and  Ibas) ; 
then  refusing  the  condemnation ;  then,  tired  of  exile,  submitting  to  the 
fifth  oecumenical  Council  (553),  which  had  broken  off  communion  with 
him  ;  and  confessing  that  he  had  unfortunately  been  the  tool  of  Satan, 
who  labors  for  the  destruction  of  the  Church.  A  long  schism  in  the 
West  was  the  consequence.  Pope  Pelagius  II.  (585)  significantly  ex- 
cused this  weakness  by  the  inconsistency  of  St.  Peter  at  Antioch. 

John  XXII.  (d.  1334)  maintained,  in  opposition  to  Nicholas  III.  and 
Clement  V.  (d.  1314),  that  the  Apostles  did  not  live  in  perfect  pov- 
erty, and  branded  the  opposite  doctrine  of  his  predecessors  as  heretical 


j  -3  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  dangerous.  He  also  held  an  opinion  concerning  the  middle  state 
of  the  righteous,  which  was  condemned  as  heresy  by  the  University  of 
Paris. 

Contradictory  opinions  were  taught  by  different  Popes  on  the  sacra- 
ments, on  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary  (see  p.  123), 
on  matrimony,  and  on  the  subjection  of  the  temporal  power  to  the 
( 'hurch.1 

But  the  most  notorious  case  of  an  undeniably  official  indorsement  of 
heresy  by  a  Pope  is  that  of  Honorius  I.  (625-63S),  which  alone  is  suffi- 
cient to  disprove  Papal  Infallibility,  according  to  the  maxim :  Falsus 
in  uno,  falsus  in  omnibus.2  This  case  has  been  sifted  to  the  very  bot- 
tom before  and  during  the  Council,  especially  by  Bishop  Hefele  and 
Pere  Gratry.  The  following  decisive  facts  are  established  by  the  best 
documentary  evidence : 

(1.)  Honorius  taught  ex  cathedra  (in  two  letters  to  his  heretical  col- 
league, Sergius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople)  the  Monothelite  heresy, 
which  was  condemned  by  the  sixth  oecumenical  Council,  i.  e.,  the  doc- 
trine that  Christ  had  only  one  will,  and  not  two  (corresponding  to  his 
two  natures).3 

(•2.)  An  oecumenical  Council,  universally  acknowledged  in  the  East 
and  in  the  West,  held  in  Constantinople,  680,  condemned  and  excom- 

1  See  examples  under  this  head  in  James,  pp.  54  sqq.  (Ii-rthumer  und  Wtderspruche  der 
Pa/>ste),  p.  51  of  the  London  ed. 

-  <  >r,  a-  Perrone,  himself  an  Infallibilist,  who  in  his  Dogmatic  Theology  characteristically 
treats  of  the  Tope  before  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  tradition,  puts  it:  'Si  vel  unicus  ejusmodi 
error  deprehenderetur,  qppareret  omiies  adductas  probationes  in  nihilum  redactum  iri.' 

3  Honorius  prescribed  the  technical  term  of  the  Monothelites  as  a  dogma  to  the  Church 
(dogma  ecclesiasticum).  In  a  reply  to  the  Monothelite  Patriarch  Sergius  of  Constantinople, 
which  is  still  extant  in  Greek  and  Latin  (Mansi,  Coll.  Concil.Tom.  XL  pp.  538  sqq.),  he  ap- 
prove* of  his  heretical  view,  and  says  as  clearly  as  words  can  make  it :  '  Therefore  we  confess 

:|1 '"  will  i  M'.y  Ai//ir<)  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  since  the  Godhead  has  assumed  our  nature, 

bat  not  our  guilt.'  In  a  second  letter  to  Sergius,  of  which  we  have  two  fragments  (Mansi, 
1.  e,  p.  .">7'.i),  Honorius  rejects  the  orthodox  term  two  energies  (Svo  tvipyuai,  drue  operationes), 
which  ui  need  alongside  with  two  wills  ($ud  $(\>inara,  voluntates).     Christ,  he  reasons,  as- 

sm 1  human  nature  as  it  was  before  the  fall,  when  it  had  not  a  law  in  the  members  which 

tl  ■•  (aw  Of  the  Spirit.      He  knew  only  a  sinful  human  will.      The  Cathclic  Church  re- 

inothelitism,  or  the  doctrine  of  one  will  of  Christ,  as  involving  or  necessarily  leading 

to  tlonophyskism,  i.e.,  the  doctrine  that  Christ  had  but  one  nature;  for  will  is  an  attribute 

■  of  the  person.     The  Godhead  has  three  persons,  but  only  one  nature,  and  only 

mfl  will.     <  lui-t  has  two  wills,  because  be  lias  two  natures.     The  compromise  formula  of  Em- 

wlio    and  Patriarch  Sergius  of  Constantinople  endeavored  to  reconcile  the  Mono- 

l','^i"'    with  l1"'  orthodox  Church  by  teaching  that  Christ  had  two  natures,  but  only  one 

will  and  one  energy. 


§  34.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  179 

municated  Honorius, '  the  former  Pope  of  Old  Rome,'  as  a  heretic,  who 
with  the  help  of  the  old  serpent  had  scattered  deadly  error.1  The  sev- 
enth oecumenical  Council  (787)  and  the  eighth  (869)  repeated  the  anath- 
ema of  the  sixth. 

(3.)  The  succeeding  Popes  down  to  the  eleventh  century,  in  a  solemn 
oath  at  their  accession,  indorsed  the  sixth  oecumenical  Council,  and  pro- 
nounced 'an  eternal  anathema'  on  the  authors  of  the  Monothelite  her- 
esy, together  with  Pope  Honorius,  because  he  had  given  aid  and  com- 
fort to  the  perverse  doctrines  of  the  heretics.2  The  Popes  themselves, 
therefore,  for  more  than  three  centuries,  publicly  recognized,  first,  that 
an  oecumenical  Council  may  condemn  a  Pope  for  open  heresy,  and, 
secondly,  that  Pope  Honorius  was  justly  condemned  for  heresy.  Pope 
Leo  II.,  in  a  letter  to  the  Emperor,  strongly  confirmed  the  decree  of  the 
Council,  and  denounced  his  predecessor  Honorius  as  one  who  'endeav- 
ored by  profane  treason  to  overthrow  the  immaculate  faith  of  the  Ro- 
man Church.'3  The  same  Pope  says,  in  a  letter  to  the  Spanish  Bishops : 
'  With  eternal  damnation  have  been  punished  Theodore,  Cyrus,  Ser- 
gius — together  with  Honorius,  who  did  not  extinguish  at  the  very  be- 
ginning the  flame  of  heretical  doctrine,  as  was  becoming  to  his  apostolic 
authority,  but  nursed  it  by  his  carelessness.'1 

This  case  of  Honorius  is  as  clear  and  strong  as  any  fact  in  Church 
history.5  Infallibilists  have  been  driven  to  desperate  efforts.  Some 
pronounce  the  acts  of  the  Council,  which  exist  in  Greek  and  Latin, 
downright  forgeries  (Baronius) ;  others,  admitting  the  acts,  declare  the 

1  Sessio  XVI. :  'Sergio  hceretico  anathema,  Cyro  hatretico  anathema,  Honorio  hmretico 
anathema.'  .  .  .  Sessio  XVIII.  :  'Honorius,  qui  fuit  Papa  antiqum  Ronue  .  .  .  non  vaca- 
vit  .  .  .  Ecclesim  erroris  scandalum  suscitare  unius  voluntatis,  et  u/iius  operationis  in  duabus 
naturis  unius  Christi,'  etc.     See  Mansi,  Cone.  Tom.  XI.  pp.  622,  G3.">,  G.">,  GGG. 

2  'Quia  pravis  hareticorum  assertioitibus  fumentum  impendit.'  This  Papal  oath  was  proba- 
bly prescribed  by  Gregory  II.  (at  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century),  and  is  found  in  the 
Liber  Jjiurnus  (the  book  of  formularies  of  the  Roman  chancery  from  the  fifth  to  the  eleventh 
century),  edited  by  Eugene  de  Roziere,  Paris,  1869,  No.  84.  The  Liber  Pontijicalis  agrees 
with  the  Liber  Diurnus.  Editions  of  the  Roman  Breviary  down  to  the  sixteenth  century  re- 
iterated the  charge  against  Honorius,  since  silently  dropped. 

3  'Nee  non  et  Honorium  [anathematizamus],  qui  hanc  apostolicam  ecclesiam  non  apostoliccc 
traditionis  doctrina  lustrarit,  sed  profana  proditione  immaculatam  jidem  subvertere  conatus 
est.'   Mansi,  Tom.  XL  p.  731. 

*  'Cum  Honorio,  qui  Jlammam  haretici  dogmatis,  non  ut  decuit  apostolicam  auctoritaton, 
incipientem  extinxit,  sed  negligendo  confovit.'     Mansi.  p.  IO.VJ. 

5  Comp.  especially  the  tract  of  Bishop  Hefele,  above  quoted.  The  learned  author  of  the 
History  of  the  Councils  has  proved  the  case  as  conclusively  as  a  mathematical  demonstration. 


lg0  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

letters  of  Ilonorius  forgeries,  so  that  lie  was  unjustly  condemned  by  the 
Council  (Bellarmin)— both  without  a  shadow  of  proof;  still  others,  being 
forced  at  last  to  acknowledge  the  genuineness  of  the  letters  and  acts, 
distort  the  former  into  an  orthodox  sense  by  a  non-natural  exegesis,  and 
thus  unwillingly  fasten  upon  oecumenical  Councils  and  Popes  the  charge 
of  either  dogmatic  ignorance  and  stupidity,  or  malignant  representa- 
tion.1 Yet  in  every  case  the  decisive  fact  remains  that  both  Councils 
and  Popes  for  several  hundred  years  believed  in  the  fallibility  of  the 
Pope,  in  flat  contradiction  to  the  Vatican  Council.  Such  acts  of  vio- 
lence upon  history  remind  one  of  King  James's  short  method  with 
Dissenters :  '  Only  hang  them,  that's  all.' 

5.  The  idea  of  Papal  absolutism  and  Infallibility,  like  that  of  the 
sinlessncss  of  Mar}-,  can  be  traced  to  apocryphal  origin.  It  is  found 
first,  in  the  second  century,  in  the  pseudo-Clementine  Homilies,  which 
contain  a  singular  system  of  speculative  Ebionism,  and  represent  James 
of  Jerusalem,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  as  the  Bishop  of  Bishops,  the 
centre  of  Christendom,  and  the  general  Yicar  of  Christ ;  he  is  the  last 
arbiter,  from  whom  there  is  no  appeal ;  to  him  even  Peter  must  give 
an  account  of  his  labors,  and  to  him  the  sermons  of  Peter  were  sent 
for  safe  keeping.2 

In  the  Catholic  Church  the  same  idea,  but  transferred  to  the  Bishop 
of  Pome,  is  first  clearly  expressed  in  the  pseudo-Isidorian  Decretals, 
that  huge  forgery  of  Papal  letters,  which  appeared  in  the  middle  of  the 
ninth  century,  and  had  for  its  object  the  completion  of  the  independ- 
ence of  the  Episcopal  hierarchy  from  the  State,  and  the  absolute  power 
of  the  Popes,  as  the  legislators  and  judges  of  all  Christendom.  Here 
the  most  extravagant  claims  are  put  into  the  mouths  of  the  early  Popes, 
from  Clement  (01)  to  Damasus  (384),  in  the  barbarous  French  Latin  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  and  with  such  numerous  and  glaring  anachronisms  as 
to  force  the  conviction  of  fraud  even  upon  Roman  Catholic  scholars. 


Bo  Perrone,  in  bis  Dogmatics,  and  Pennachi,  in  his  Liber  dellonorii  I.  Rom.  Pont,  causa, 
1^70,  which  is  effectually  disposed  of  by  Hefele  in  an  Appendix  to  the  German  edition  of  his 
rvertheless,  Archbishop  Manning,  sublimely  ignoring  all  but  Infallibilist  authorities 
"ii  tlonorias,  has  the  face  toasserl  (III.  p.  228)  that  the  case  of  Ilonorius  is  doubtful;  that  he 
defined  no  doctrine  whatever;  and  that  Ins  two  epistles  arc  entirely  orthodox  !  Is  Manning 
more  infallible  than  the  infallible  Pope  Leo  II.,  who  denounced  Ilonorius  ex  cathedra  as 
•  heretic? 

h  ffiafory,  Vol.  I.  §  69,  p.  210,  and  the  tract  of  Lutterbeck  above  quoted. 


§  84.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AM)    TESTED.  181 

One  of  these  sayings  is :  '  The  Roman  Church  remains  to  the  end  free 
from  stain  of  heresy.'  Soon  afterwards  arose,  in  the  same  hierarchical 
interest,  the  legend  of  the  donation  of  Constantino  and  his  baptism  by 
Pope  Silvester,  interpolations  of  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  especially 
Cyprian  and  Augustine,  and  a  variety  of  fictions  embodied  in  the  Gesta 
Liber  Li  and  the  Liber  Poniijicalis,  and  sanctioned  by  Gratianus  (about 
1150)  in  his  Deeretum,  or  collection  of  canons,  which  (as  the  first  part 
of  the  Corpus  juris  canoiiici)  became  the  code  of  laws  for  the  whole 
Western  Church,  and  exerted  an  extraordinary  influence.  By  this 
series  of  pious  frauds  the  mediaeval  Papacy,  which  was  the  growth  of 
ages,  was  represented  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  as  a  primitive  institu- 
tion of  Christ,  clothed  with  absolute  and  perpetual  authority. 

The  Popes  since  Nicholas  I.  (858-867),  who  exceeded  all  his  prede- 
cessors in  the  boldness  of  his  designs,  freely  used  what  the  spirit  of  a 
hierarchical,  superstitious,  and  uncritical  age  furnished  them.  They 
quoted  the  fictitious  letters  of  their  predecessors  as  genuine,  the  Sardican 
canon  on  appeals  as  a  canon  of  Nicaea,  and  the  interpolated  sixth  canon 
of  Nica?a, '  the  Roman  Church  always  had  the  primacy,'  of  which  there 
is  not  a  syllable  in  the  original;  and  nobody  doubted  them.  Papal 
absolutism  was  in  full  vigor  from  Gregory  VII.  to  Boniface  VIII. 
Scholastic  divines,  even  Thomas  Aquinas,  deceived  by  these  literary 
forgeries,  began  to  defend  Papal  absolutism  over  the  whole  Church, 
and  the  Councils  of  Lyons  (1274)  and  of  Florence  (1439)  sanctioned  it, 
although  the  Greeks  soon  afterwards  rejected  the  false  union  based 
upon  such  assumption. 

But  absolute  power,  especially  of  a  spiritual  kind,  is  invariably  intox- 
icating and  demoralizing  to  any  mortal  man  who  possesses  it.  God 
Almighty  alone  can  bear  it,  and  even  he  allows  freedom  to  his  rational 
creatures.  The  reminiscence  of  the  monstrous  period  when  the  Papacy 
was  a  football  in  the  hands  of  bold  and  dissolute  women  (904-962),  or 
when  mere  boys,  like  Benedict  IX.  (1033),  polluted  the  Papal  crown 
with  the  filth  of  unnatural  vices,  could  not  be  quite  forgotten.  The 
scandal  of  the  Papal  schism  (1378  to  1409),  when  two  and  even  three 
rival  Popes  excommunicated  and  cursed  each  other,  and  laid  all  West- 
ern Christendom  under  the  ban,  excited  the  moral  indignation  of  all 
good  men  in  Christendom,  and  called  forth,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  the  three  Councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basle, 


182  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

which  loudly  demanded  a  reformation  of  the  Church,  in  the  head  as 
well  as  in  the  members,  and  asserted  the  superiority  of  a  Council  over 

the  Tope. 

The  Council  of  Constance  (1414-1418),  the  most  numerous  ever  seen 
in  the  West,  deposed  two  Popes— John  XXIII.  (the  infamous  Balthasar 
Cossa,  who  had  been  recognized  by  the  majority  of  the  Church),  on  the 
charge  of  a  series  of  crimes  (May  29, 1415),  and  Benedict  XIII.,  as  a 
heretic  who  sinned  against  the  unity  of  the  Church  (July  2G,  1117),1 
and  elected  a  new  Pope,  Martin  Y.  (Nov.  11, 1517),  who  had  given  his 
adhesion  to  the  Council,  though  after  his  accession  to  power  he  found 
ways  and  means  to  defeat  its  real  object,  i.  e.,  the  reformation  of  the 
Church. 

This  Council  was  a  complete  triumph  of  the  Episcopal  system,  and 
the  Papal  absolutists  and  Infallibilists  are  here  forced  to  the  logical  di- 
lemma of  either  admitting  the  validity  of  the  Council,  or  invalidating 
the  election  of  Martin  Y.  and  his  successors.  Either  course  is  fatal  to 
their  system.  Hence  there  has  never  been  an  authoritative  decision 
on  the  oecumenicity  of  this  Council,  and  the  only  subterfuge  is  to  say 
that  the  whole  case  is  an  extraordinary  exception ;  but  this,  after  all, 
involves  the  admission  that  there  is  a  higher  power  in  the  Church  over 
the  Papacy. 

The  Reformation  shook  the  whole  Papacy  to  its  foundation,  but 
could  not  overthrow  it.  A  powerful  reaction  followed,  headed  by  the 
Jesuits.  Their  General,  Lainez,  strongly  advocated  Papal  Infallibility 
in  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  declared  that  the  Church  could  not  err 
«»nly  because  the  Pope  could  not  err.  But  the  Council  left  the  question 
undecided,  and  the  Roman  Catechism  ascribes  infallibility  simply  to 
k  the  Catholic  Church,'  without  defining  its  seat.  Bellarmin  advocated 
and  formularized  the  doctrine,  stating  it  as  an  almost  general  opinion 
that  the  Pope  could  not  publicly  teach  a  heretical  dogma,  and  as  a 
probable  and  pious  opinion  that  Providence  will  guard  him  even 
against  private  heresy.  Yet  the  same  Bellarmin  was  witness  to  the 
innumerable  blunders  of  the  edition  of  the  Latin  Yulgate  prepared  by 
Bixtue  V.,  corrected  by  his  own  hand,  and  issued  by  him  as  the  only  true 
and  authentic  text  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  with  the  stereotyped  forms 

1  The  third  nnti-Pope,  Gregory  XII.,  resigned. 


§  34.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  1S3 

of  anathema  upon  all  who  should  venture  to  change  a  single  word ; 
and  Bellarmin  himself  gave  the  advice  that  all  copies  should  be  called 
in,  and  a  new  edition  printed  with  a  lying  statement  in  the  preface 
making  the  printers  the  scape-goats  for  the  errors  of  the  Pope!  This 
whole  business  of  the  Vulgate  is  sufficient  to  explode  Papal  Infallibil- 
ity ;  for  it  touches  the  very  source  of  divine  revelation.  Other  Italian 
divines,  like  Alphonsus  Liguori,  and  Jesuitical  text-books,  unblushingly 
use  long-exploded  medieval  fictions  and  interpolations  as  a  groundwork 
of  Papal  absolutism  and  Infallibility. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  follow  the  progress  of  the  controversy  between 
the  Episcopal  and  the  Papal  systems  during  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  greatest  Catholic 
divines  of  France  and  Germany,  including  Bossuet  and  Mohler,  togeth- 
er with  many  from  other  countries,  down  to  the  8S  protesting  Bishops 
in  the  Vatican  Council,  were  anti-Infallibilists ;  and  that  popular  Cate- 
chisms of  the  Koman  Church,  extensively  used  till  1S70,  expressly  de- 
nied the  doctrine,  which  is  now  set  up  as  an  article  of  faith  necessary 
to  eternal  salvation.1 

Papal  Infallibility  and  the  Bible. 

The  Old  Testament  gives  no  tangible  aid  to  the  Infallibilists.  The 
Jewish  Church  existed  as  a  divine  institution,  and  served  all  its  pur- 
poses, from  Abraham  to  John  the  Baptist,  without  an  infallible  tribu- 
nal in  Jerusalem,  save  the  written  law  and  testimony,  made  effective 
from  time  to  time  by  the  living  voice  of  inspired  prophecy.  Pious  Israel- 
ites found  in  the  Scriptures  the  way  of  life,  notwithstanding  the  con- 
tradictory interpretations  of  rabbinical  schools  and  carnal  perversions 
of  Messianic  prophecies,  fostered  by  a  corrupt  hierarchy.     The  Urim 

1  So  Overberg's  Katechismus,  III.  Hauptstiick,  Fr.  349:  iMiissen  icir  auch  glauben,  dass 
derPapst  unfehlbar  ist?  Neix,  dies  1ST  kein  Glaubensartikel.'  Kecnan's  Controversial 
Catechism,  in  the  editions  before  1871,  declared  Papal  Infallibility  to  be  'a  Protestant  in- 
vention.' The  Irish  Bishops — Doyle,  Murray,  Kelly — affirmed  under  oath,  before  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  English  Parliament  in  1825,  that  the  Papal  authority  is  limited  by  Councils, 
that  it  does  not  extend  to  civil  affairs  and  the  temporal  rights  of  princes,  and  that  Papal  de- 
crees are  not  binding  on  Catholics  without  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church,  either  dispersed 
or  assembled  in  Council.  See  the  original  in  the  Appendix  to  Archbishop  Kenrick's  Con- 
cio  in  Friedrich's  Documenta,  I.  pp.  228-242.  But  the  Irish  Catholics,  who  almost  believe 
in  the  infallibility  of  their  priests,  can  be  very  easily  taught  to  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the 
Pope. 

Vol.  I.— N 


1S±  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  Thummim1  of  the  High-Priest  has  no  doubt  symbolical  reference 
to  some  kind  of  spiritual  illumination  or  oracular  consultation,  but  it 
is  of  too  uncertain  interpretation  to  furnish  an  argument. 

The  passages  of  the  New  Testament  which  are  used  by  Roman  di- 
vines in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  Infallibility  may  be  divided  into 
two  classes :  those  which  seem  to  favor  the  Episcopal  or  Gallican,  and 
those  which  are  made  to  prove  the  Papal  or  Ultramontane  theory.  It 
is  characteristic  that  the  Papal  Infallibilists  carefully  avoid  the  former. 

1.  To  the  first  class  belong  John  xiv.  16  sq. ;  xvi.  13-16,  where  Christ 
promises  the  Holy  Ghost  to  his  disciples  that  he  may  '  abide  with  them 
forever,'  teach  them  'all  things,'  bring  to  their  remembrance  all  he 
had  said  to  them,2  and  guide  them  '  into  the  whole  truth ;' 3  John 


xx. 


21 :  'As  the  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you.  .  .  .  Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost;'4  Matt,  xviii.  18:  'Whatever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven,' etc. ;  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20:  'Go  and  disciple 
all  nations  .  .  .  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world.' 

These  passages,  which  are  addressed  to  all  Apostles  alike,  to  doubt- 
ing Thomas  as  well  as  to  Peter,  prove  indeed  the  unbroken  presence  of 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Church  to  the  end  of  time,  which  is  one 
of  the  most  precious  and  glorious  truths  admitted  by  every  true  Chris- 
tian. But,  in  the  first  place,  the  Church,  which  is  here  represented  by 
tin-  A.postles,  embraces  all  true  believers,  laymen  as  well  as  Bishops. 


1  That  is,  Srjkwnc  Kai  a\n$ua,dortrina  et  Veritas,  Exod.  xxviii.  15-30  ;  Dent,  xxxiii.  8,  9  ; 
I  Sam.  xxviii.  0.  The  dim  and  Thummim  were  inserihed  on  the  garment  of  Aaron.  Some 
interpreters  identify  them  with  the  twelve  stones  on  which  the  names  of  the  tribes  of  Israel 
were  engraved ;  others  regard  them  as  a  plate  of  gold  with  the  sacred  name  of  Jehovah ; 
still  others  as  polished  diamonds,  in  form  like  dice,  which,  being  thrown  on  the  table  or  Ark 
of  the  Covenant,  were  consulted  as  an  oracle.  See  the  able  article  of  riumptre,  in  Smith's 
Bible  Dictionary,Yo\,  IV.  pp.3353  sqq.  (Am.  ed.). 
3  The  jravra  implies  a  strong  argument  for  the  completeness  of  Christ's  revelation  in  the 

l  lament  against  the  Romish  doctrine  of  addition. 
a  The  phrase  ti'c  rijv  <i\!ftnai>  izaaav  (John  xvi.  13),  or,  according  to  another  reading,  tv 
rp  aXndtta  iraey  (test.  rec.  hc  ircutav  t>)v  StXijSeiav),  expresses  the  truth  as  taught  by  Christ 
in  its  completeness— the  whole  truth — and  proves  likewise  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures. 
The  AY.  and  its  predecessors  ('info  all  truth'),  also  Luther  (in  alle  Wahrheit,  instead  of 
-I-  voile  Wahrheit),  miss  tin-  true  sense  by  omitting  the  article,  and  conveying  the 
false  idea  that  the  Holy  Ghost  would  impart  to  all  the  apostles  a  kind  of  omniscience.  Comp. 
my  annotations  to  Lange's  John  <>n  the  passages  (pp.  445,  478,  etc.). 

Literally  :  ■  Receive  Holy  Spirit' — \afitTt  Tn>tvpa  iiyiov.    The  absence  of  the  article  may 
indicate  a  partial  or  preparatory  inspiration  as  distinct  from  the  full  Pentecostal  effusion. 


§  34.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  1§5 

Secondly,  the  promise  of  Christ's  presence  implies  no  infallibility,  for 
the  same  promise  is  given  even  to  the  smallest  number  of  true  believ- 
ers (Matt,  xviii.  20).  Thirdly,  if  the  passages  prove  infallibility  at  all, 
they  would  prove  individual  infallibility  by  continued  inspiration  rather 
than  corporate  infallibility  by  official  succession;  for  every  Apostle 
was  inspired,  and  so  far  infallible;  and  this  no  Roman  Catholic  Bishop, 
though  claiming  to  be  a  successor  of  the  Apostles,  pretends  to  be. 

2.  The  passages  quoted  by  the  advocates  of  the  Papal  theory  are 
three,  viz.,  Luke  xxii.  31 ;  Matt.  xvi.  18  ;  John  xxi.  15.1 

We  admit,  at  the  outset,  that  these  passages  in  their  obvious  meaning, 
which  is  confirmed  by  the  history  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  assign  to 
Peter  a  certain  primacy  among  the  Apostles :  he  was  the  leader  and 
spokesman  of  them,  and  the  chief  agent  of  Christ  in  laying  the  foun- 
dations of  his  Church  among  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles.  This  is  signifi- 
cantly prophesied  in  the  new  name  of  Peter  given  to  him.  The  his- 
tory of  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.)  and  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  (Acts  x.) 
are  the  fulfillment  of  this  prophecy,  and  furnish  the  key  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  passages  in  the  Gospels. 

This  is  the  truth  which  underlies  the  colossal  lie  of  the  Papacy.  For 
there  is  no  Romish  error  which  does  not  derive  its  life  and  force  from 
some  truth.2  But  beyond  this  we  have  no  right  to  go.  The  position 
which  Peter  occupied  no  one  can  occupy  after  him.  The  foundation 
of  the  Church,  once  laid,  is  laid  for  all  time  to  come,  and  the  gates  of 
Hades  can  not  prevail  against  it.  The  New  Testament  is  its  own  best 
interpreter.  It  shows  no  single  example  of  an  exercise  of  jurisdiction 
of  Peter  over  the  other  Apostles,  but  the  very  reverse.  He  himself,  in 
his  Epistles,  disowns  and  prophetically  warns  his  fellow-presbyters 
against  the  hierarchical  spirit;  exhorting  them,  instead  of  being  lords 
over  God's  heritage,  to  be  ensamples  to  his  flock  (1  Pet.  v.  1-4).  Paul 
and  John  were  perfectly  independent  of  him,  as  the  Acts  and  Epistles 
prove.     Paul  even  openly  administered  to  him  a  rebuke  at  Antioch.3 

1  Perrone  and  the  Vatican  decree  on  Infallibility  confine  themselves  to  these  passages. 

2  Augustine  says  somewhere:  ' Xitlla  falsa  doctrina  est,  qua-  non  aliquid  veri  perrni- 
sceat.' 

3  This  fact  is  so  obnoxious  to  Papists  that  some  of  them  doubt  or  deny  that  the  Cephas 
of  Galatians  ii.  1 1  was  the  Apostle  Peter,  although  the  New  Testament  knows  no  other.  So 
Perrone,  who  also  asserts,  from  his  own  preconceived  theory,  not  from  the  text,  that  Paul 
withstood  Peter  from  respectful  love  as  an  inferior  to  a  superior,  but  not  as  a  superior  to  an 


1S6  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

At  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  James  seems  to  have  presided,  at  all 
events  he  proposed  the  compromise  which  was  adopted  by  the  Apos- 
tles, Elders,  and  Brethren ;  Peter  was  indeed  one  of  the  leading  speakers, 
but  he  significantly  advocated  the  truly  evangelical  principle  of  salva- 
tion by  faith  alone,  and  protested  against  human  bondage  (Acts  xv. ; 
comp.  Gal.  ii.). 

The  great  error  of  the  Papacy  is  that  it  perverts  a  primacy  of  honor 
into  a  supremacy  of  jurisdiction,  a  personal  privilege  into  an  official 
prerogative,  and  a  priority  of  time  into  a  permanent  superiority  of 
rank.  And  to  make  the  above  passages  at  all  available  for  such  pur- 
pose, it  must  take  for  granted,  as  intervening  links  of  the  argument, 
that  which  can  not  be  proved  from  the  New  Testament  nor  from  his- 
tory, viz.,  that  Peter  was  Bishop  of  Eome ;  that  he  was  there  as  Paul's 
superior ;  that  he  appointed  a  successor,  and  transferred  to  him  his  pre- 
rogatives. 

As  to  the  passages  separately  considered,  Matt,  xvi., '  Thou  art  rock,' 
and  John  xxi.,  '  Feed  my  flock,'  could  at  best  only  prove  Papal  abso- 
lutism, but  not  Papal  Infallibility,  of  which  they  do  not  treat.1  The 
former  teaches  the  indestructibility  of  the  Church  in  its  totality  (not  of 
any  individual  congregation),  but  this  is  a  different  idea.  The  Council 
of  Trent  lays  down  '  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers'  as  the  norm 
and  rule  of  all  orthodox  interpretation,  as  if  exegetical  wisdom  had 
began  and  ended  with  the  divines  of  the  first  six  centuries.  But  of 
the  passage  Matt,  xvi.,  which  is  more  frequently  quoted  by  Popes  and 
Papists  than  any  other  passage  in  the  Bible,  there  are  no  less  than  five 
different  patristic  interpretations;  the  rock  on  which  Christ  built  his 
Church  being  referred  to  Christ  by  sixteen  Fathers  (including  Augus- 
tine) ;  to  the  faith  or  confession  of  Peter  by  forty-four  (including 
Chrysostom,  Ambrose,  Hilary,  Jerome,  and  Augustine  again);  to  Peter 
professing  the  faith  by  seventeen;  to  all  the  Apostles,  whom  Peter 
represented  by  his  primacy,  by  eight;  to  all  the  faithful,  who,  believ- 
ing in  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  are  constituted  the  living  stones  of  the 

Inferior]     Lot  any  Bishop  try  the  same  experiment  against  the  Pope,  and  he  will  soon  be 
tent  i"  perdition. 

1  For  B  full  discussion  of  Hirpoc  and  Trirpct,  see  my  edition  of  Lange's  Comm.  on  Matt.  xvi. 
18,  pp.208  sqq.;  and  on  the  Romish  perversion  of  the  (16<jkuv  and  iroipaivtxv  ra  dpvia, 
trp6f3ara  and  npoftdna  into  a  KaraKvpuunv,  and  even  withdrawal  of  nourishment,  see  my  ed. 
of  Lange  on  John,  pp.  688  sqq. 


§  31.  PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY  EXPLAINED  AND  TESTED.  187 

Church.1  But  not  one  of  the  Fathers  finds  Papal  Infallibility  in  this 
passage,  nor  in  John  xxi.  The  'unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers' 
is  a  pure  fiction,  except  in  the  most  general  and  fundamental  prin- 
ciples held  by  all  Christians;  and  not  to  interpret  the  Bible  except 
according  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers,  would  strictly 
mean  not  to  interpret  it  at  all.2 

There  remains,  then,  only  the  passage  recorded  by  Luke  (xxii.  31,  32) 
as  at  all  bearing  on  the  disputed  question  :  'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan 
desired  to  have  you  (or,  obtained  you  by  asking),  that  he  may  sift  you 
as  wheat ;  but  I  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not ;  and  thou,  when 
once  thou  art  converted  (or,  hast  turned  again),  strengthen  thy  breth- 
ren.' But  even  this  does  not  prove  infallibility,  and  has  not  been  so 
understood  before  Popes  Leo  I.  and  Agatho.  For  (1)  the  passage  re- 
fers, as  the  context  shows,  to  the  peculiar  personal  history  of  Peter 
during  the  dark  hour  of  passion,  and  is  both  a  warning  and  a  comfort 
to  him.  So  it  is  explained  by  the  Fathers,  who  frequently  quote  it. 
(2)  Faith  here,  as  nearly  always  in  the  New  Testament,  means  personal 
trust  in,  and  attachment  to,  Christ,  and  not,  as  the  Komish  Church  mis- 
interprets it,  orthodoxy,  or  intellectual  assent  to  dogmas.  (3)  If  the  pas- 
sage refers  to  the  Popes  at  all,  it  would  prove  too  much  for  them,  viz., 
that  they,  like  Peter,  denied  the  Saviour,  were  converted  again,  and 
strengthened  their  brethren — which  may  be  true  enough  of  some,  but 
certainly  not  of  all.3 

The  constant  appeal  of  the  Eoman  Church  to  Peter  suggests  a  sig- 
nificant parallel.     There  is  a  spiritual  Peter  and  a  carnal  Simon,  who 

1  This  patristic  dissensus  was  brought  out  during  the  Council  in  the  Questio  distributed 
by  Bishop  Ketteler  with  all  the  proofs ;  see  Friedrich,  Docum.  I.  pp.  6  sqq.  Kenrick  in  his 
speech  makes  use  of  it.    Comp.  also  my  annotations  to  Lange's  Comm.  on  ^[atthew  in  loco. 

2  Even  Kenrick  confesses  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  instance  of  that  unanimous  con- 
sent can  be  found  (in  his  Concio,  seeFriedr.  Docum.  I.  p.l9.r>)  :  ' Rer/ula  interpetrandi  Scripturas 
nobis  imposita,  hire,  est:  ens  contra  unanimem  Patrum  consensum  non  interpe.tr -ari.  Si  un- 
quam  delur  consensus  iste  unanimis  dubitari  possit.  Eo  tamen  de/iciente,  regula  ista  videtur 
nobis  legem  imponere  majorevi,  qui  ad  unanimitatem  accedere  videretur,  patrum  numerum,  in 
suis  Scriptur<r  interpre.tationibus  scqucn<{i.' 

2  This  logical  inference  is  also  noticed  by  Archbishop  Kenrick  (Concio,  in  Friedrich's 
Docum.  I.  p.  200):  'Praterea  sinyula  verba  in  ista  Christ  i  ad  Pet  rum  a/locutione  de  Petri 
successoribus  intelligi  nequeunt,  quin  aliquid  maxime  absurdi  exinde  sequi  videretur.  "  Tu 
autem  conversus,"  respiciunt  certe  conversionem  Petri.  Si  priora  verba  ;  ilorari  pro  te,"  et 
posteriora:  " conjirma  fratres  tuos,"  ad  successores  Petri  en  f>  stem  rim,  et  munus  transiisse 
probent,  non  videtur  quarenam  intermedia  verba:  "tu  autem  conversus,"  ad  eosetiam  pertinere, 
et  aliquali  sensu  de  eis  intelligi,  non  debeant.' 


188  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

are  separated,  indeed,  by  regeneration,  yet,  after  all,  not  so  completely 
that  the  old  nature  does  not  occasionally  re-appear  in  the  new  man. 

It  was  the  spiritual  Peter  who  forsook  all  to  follow  Christ ;  who  first 
confessed  him  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  hence  was  called  Eock ;  who  after 
hi.-  terrible  fall  wept  latterly;  was  re-instated  and  intrusted  with  the  care 
of  ( Jurist's  Bheep;  who  on  the  birthday  of  the  Church  preached  the  first 
missionary  sermon,  and  gathered  in  the  three  thousand  converts;  who 
in  the  Apostles'  Council  protested  against  the  narrow  bigotry  of  the 
Judaizers,  and  stood  up  with  Paul  for  the  principle  of  salvation  by 
grace  alone  through  faith  in  Christ;  who,  in  his  Epistles,  warns  all 
ministers  against  hierarchical  pride,  and  exhibits  a  wonderful  meek- 
ness, gentleness,  and  humility  of  spirit,  showing  that  divine  grace  had 
overruled  and  sanctified  to  him  even  his  fall ;  and  who  followed  at 
la>t  his  Master  to  the  cross  of  martyrdom. 

It  was  the  carnal  Simon  who  presumed  to  divert  his  Lord  from  the 
path  of  suffering,  and  drew  on  him  the  rebuke, '  Get  thee  behind  me, 
Satan ;  thou  art  a  stumbling-block  unto  me,  for  thou  mindest  not  the 
things  of  God,  but  the  things  of  men ;'  the  Simon,  who  in  mistaken  zeal 
used  the  sword  and  cut  off  the  ear  of  Malchus;  who  proudly  boasted 
of  his  unswerving  fidelity  to  his  Master,  and  yet  a  few  hours  afterwards 
denied  him  thrice  before  a  servant- woman ;  who  even  after  the  Pente- 
costal  illumination  was  overcome  by  his  natural  weakness,  and,  from 
policy  or  fear  of  the  Judaizing  party,  was  untrue  to  his  better  convic- 
tion, so  as  to  draw  on  him  the  public  rebuke  of  the  younger  Apostle 
of  the  ( ieutiles.  The  Romish  legend  of  Domine  quo  vadis  makes  him 
relapse  into  his  inconstancy  even  a  day  before  his  martyrdom,  and 
memorializes  it  in  a  chapel  outside  of  Rome. 

The  reader  may  judge  whether  the  history  of  the  Popes  reflects  more 
the  character  of  the  spiritual  Peter  or  the  carnal  Simon.  If  the  Apos- 
tolic Church  prophetically  anticipates  and  foreshadows  the  whole 
course  of  Christian  history,  the  temporary  collision  of  Peter,  the  Apos- 
tle ,,f  the  circumcision,  and  Paul,  the  Apostle  of  the  uncircumcision, 
at  Antioch,  is  a  significant  type  of  the  antagonism  between  Romanism 
ami  Protestantism,  between  the  Church  of  the  binding  law  and  the 
Church  of  the  free  gospel. 


§  35.  THE  LITURGICAL  STANDARDS  OF  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH.     189 


§  35.  The  Liturgical  Standards  of  the  Eoman  Church. 

Literature. 

Missat-e  Romanum,  ex  decreto  sacro-sancti  Concilii  Tridentini  restitutum,  S.  Pii  V.,  Pontificis  Maximi, 
junta  edition,  dementia  VIII.  et  Urboni  VIII.  auctoritate  recognition ;  in  quo  miasm  novissimce  sanctoruvi 
accurate  sunt  dispositee.    (Inuumerable  editions.) 

Bkkviaridm  Romanum,  ex  decreto  SS.  Concilii  Tridentini  restitutum,  8.  Pii  V.,  Pontificis  Maximi,  jussn 
edition,  dementia  VIII.  et  Urbcmi  VIII.  auctoritate  recognition,  cum  OJfrciis  Sanctorum  novissime  per 
Summos  Pontifices  risque  ad  hunc  diem  concessis.  (The  Paris  and  Lyons  edition  before  me  has  over  1200 
pp.,  with  a  Supplement  of  127  pp.    The  Mechlin  ed.  of  1S6S  is  in  4  vols.) 

Pontificals  Romanum,  dementis  VIII.  ac  Urboni  VIII.jussu  editum,inde  vero  a  Benedicto  XIV.  re- 
eognitum  et  eaatigatnm.  Cum  Additionibus  a  Sacra  Rituum  Congregatione  approbatts.  (The  Mechlin  ed. 
of  1845  is  in  three  parts,  with  all  the  rules  and  directions  printed  in  red;  hence  the  word  Rubrics.) 

Gkoroe  Lltwia:  The  Bible,  the  Missal,  and  the  Breviary;  or,  Ritualism  self-illustrated  in  the  Liturgical 
Books  of  Rome.    Edinburgh,  1S53,  2  vols. 

A  secondary  symbolical  authority  belongs  to  those  Latin  liturgical 
works  of  the  Roman  Church  which  have  been  sanctioned  by  the  Pope 
for  use  in  public  and  private  worship.  They  contain,  in  the  form  of 
devotion,  nearly  all  the  articles  of  faith,  especially  those  referring  to 
the  sacraments  and  the  cultus  of  saints  and  of  the  holy  Virgin,  and 
are,  in  a  practical  point  of  view,  even  of  greater  importance  than  the 
doctrinal  standards,  inasmuch  as  they  are  interwoven  with  the  daily 
religious  life  of  the  priests. 

Among  these  works  the  most  important  is  the  Missale  Romanum, 
as  issued  by  Pius  V.  in  1570,  in  compliance  with  a  decree  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent.  It  was  subsequently  revised  again  under  Clement  VIII. 
in  1604,  and  under  Urban  VIII.  in  1634.  The  substance  goes  back  to 
the  early  eucharistic  services  of  the  Latin  Church,  among  which  the 
principal  ones  are  ascribed  to  Popes  Leo  I.  {Sacramentarium  Leoni- 
anum,  probably  from  483-492),  Gelasius  I.  {Sacramentarium  Gelasi- 
anu?n),  and  Gregory  I.  {Sacramentarium  Gregorianum).  But  con- 
siderable diversity  and  confusion  prevailed  in  provincial  and  local 
churches.  Hence  the  Council  of  Trent  ordered  a  new  revision,  under 
the  direction  of  the  Pope,  with  a  view  to  secure  uniformity.  The  Mis- 
sal consists  of  three  parts,  besides  Introduction  and  Appendix,  viz.: 
{a)  The  Prqprium Missarum  de  Tempore,  or  the  services  for  the  Sun- 
days of  the  Christian  year,  beginning  with  the  first  Sunday  in  Advent, 
and  closing  with  the  last  after  Whitsuntide,  all  clustering  around  the 
great  festivals  of  Christmas,  Easter,  and  Pentecost,  {b)  The  Pro- 
prium  Missarum  de  Sanctis  contains  the  forms  for  the  celebration  of 
mass  on  saints'  days  and  other  particular  feasts,  arranged  according  to 


190  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  months  and  days  of  the  civil  year;  the  annually  recurring  death- 
days  of  saints  being  regarded  as  their  celestial  birth-days,  (c)  The 
Commune  Sanctorum  is  supplementary  to  the  second  part,  and  de- 
voted to  the  celebration  of  the  days  of  those  saints  for  whom  there  is 
no  special  service  provided  in  the  Projprium.  The  Appendix  to  the 
Missal  contains  various  masses  and  benedictions. 

Xext  comes  the  Bkeviaeium  Romancm,  revised  by  order  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  under  Pius  V.,  1568,  and  again  under  Clement  VIII., 
1602,  and  finally  brought  into  its  present  shape  under  Urban  VIII., 
1631.  Since  that  time  it  has  undergone  no  material  changes,  but  re- 
ceived occasional  additions  of  new  festivals.  The  Breviary '  contains 
the  prayers,  psalms,  hymns,  Scripture  lessons,  and  patristic  comments 
not  only  for  every  Sunday,  but  for  every  day  of  the  ecclesiastical  year, 
together  with  the  legends  of  saints  and  martyrs,  presenting  model 
characters  and  model  devotions  for  each  day,  some  of  them  good  and 
harmless,  others  questionable,  superstitious,  and  childish.  The  Breviary 
is  a  complete  thesaurus  of  Romish  piety,  the  private  liturgy  of  the 
Romish  priest,  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes  his  Bible.  It  regulates 
his  whole  religious  life.  It  is  divided  into  four  parts,  according  to 
the  four  seasons ;  each  part  has  the  same  four  sections :  the  Psalteri- 
um,  the  Projprium  de  Tempore,  the  Projprium  Sanctorum,  and  the 
Commune  Sanctorum.  The  Introduction  contains  the  ecclesiastical  cal- 
endar. The  office  of  each  day  consists  of  the  seven  or  eight  canonical 
hours  of  devotion,  which  are  brought  into  connection  with  the  history 
of  the  passion.2  The  Breviary  is  the  growth  of  many  ages.  In  the  early 
Church  great  liberty  and  diversity  prevailed  in  the  forms  of  devotion, 
but  the  Popes  Leo  I.,  Gelasius  I.,  Gregory  I.,  Gregory  VII.,  Nicholas 

1  The  term  Breviary  is  derived  from  the  abridgments  of  the  Scriptures  and  lives  of  saints 
contained  therein,  as  distinct  from  the plenarium  officium;  by  others  from  the  fact  that  later 
editions  uf  the  work  are  abridgments  of  former  editions. 

■  Mating,  Lauds  (:!  A.M.),  Prime  (G  A.M.),  Tierce  (!)  A.M.),  Sext(12  M.),  Nones  (3  P.M.), 

6  I'M. ),  and  ( lomplina  (midnight  devotion).    The  Nocturn  is  a  night  service.    The 

custom  of  saying  prayers  at  these  hours  goes  back  to  the  third  century,  and  partly  to  Jewish 

tradition.     Tertuffian  (De  jejun.  c.  10)  speaks  of  the  tertia,  sixta,  and  nona  as  apostolical 

'  prayer.    On  the  mystical  reference  to  Christ's  passion,  comp.  the  old  memorial  verse: 

'  Bee  sunt,  septenis  propter  qurc  psallimus  horis 
Katutina  llgat  Christum,  qui  crlmlna  purgat. 

a  replct  pputis.    Dat  causam  tertia  mortis. 
S.rta  cruel  QOCtit.     I.atns  ejus  iwtia  bipcrtit. 
I  tap  mi  depouit.    Tumulo  complcta  leonq'lctorium]  reponit.t 


§  36.  THE  OLD  CATHOLICS.  191 

III.,  and  others,  labored  to  unify  the  priestly  devotions,  and  this  work 
was  completed  after  the  Council  of  Trent. 

Besides  the  Missale  Romanian  and  the  Breviarium  Roma?ium, 
there  is  a  Kituale  Romanum,  or  Book  of  Priests'  Rites ;  an  Episcopale 
Romahum,  containing  the  Episcopal  ceremonies,  and  a  Pontificals 
Romanum,  or  the  Pontifical.  They  contain  the  offices  for  sacramental 
and  other  sacred  acts  and  ceremonies,  such  as  baptism,  confirmation, 
ordination,  matrimony,  dedication  of  churches,  altars,  bells,  etc.,  bene- 
diction of  crosses,  sacred  vestures,  cemeteries,  etc. 

§  3G.  The  Old  Catholics. 

Literature. 

I.  By  Old  Catholic  Authors. 

The  writings  of  Dollinger.Reinkkns,  von  Schulte,  FitiEnmcir,  Hcber,  Retook,  Langen,  Mioiiei.is, 
II  yacinthe  Loyson,  MiciiADD,  bearing  on  the  Vatican  Council  aud  the  Old  Catholic  movement  since  1S70. 
See  Literature  in  §5  31  and  34. 

The  Reports  of  the  Oi.i>  Catholic  Congresses,  held  at  Munich,  September,  1ST1 ;  at  Cologne,  Septem- 
ber, 13T2 ;  at  Constance,  September,  18T3 ;  at  Freiburg,  1874.  Published  at  Munich,  Cologne,  Leipzig,  and 
Bonn. 

JosF.rn  Hubert  Rkinkkns:  Katholiseher  Bischof,den  im  cdten  Kathnl.  Glauben  vcrharrenden  Priestern 
und  Laien  des  dcutschen  Reiches.    Dated  August  11, 1S73  (the  day  of  his  consecration). 

The  Letter  of  the  Old  Catholic  Congress  op  Constance  (signed  by  Bishop  Reinkens,  President  von 
Schulte,  and  the  Vice-Presidents  Cornelius  aud  Keller)  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Evanoel- 
ioal  Alliance,  held  at  New  York,  October,  1S73.   In  the  Proceedings  of  the  Conference,  New  York,18T4 

F.  II.  Rettscii  :  Bericht  fiber  die  am  14,  15,  und  16  Sept.  1874,  zu  Bonn  gehaltencn  Unions-Cotifcrenzen,  im 
Avftrag  Dr.v.  D'dlinger  heraimgegeben,  Bonn,  1S75  p!  pp.). 

Deutsoiier  Merkcr,  Organ  far  die  Katholische  Reformbeicegung,  ed.  by  Hirsciiwalder,  Wvltpriester. 
The  popular  aud  official  weekly  organ  since  1871. 

TnEOLO(iisoHF.s  LiTEEATORULATT,  cd.  by  Prof.  Reusch,  Bonn.  The  literary  organ  of  the  Old  Catholics 
(10th  year,  1S75). 

II.  By  Protestant  Authors. 

Friedberg:  Sammlung  der  Actenstucke  zum  ersten  Vatic.  Concil.    Tubingen,  1872,  pp.  53-63,  625-731, 


Frommann  :  Geschichte  und  Kritik  des  Vatic.  Coneils.     Gotha,  1ST?,  pp.  250-272. 

.J.  Williamson  Nevin  (of  Lancaster,  Pa.):  The  Old  Catholic  Movement,  in  the  'Mercersburg  Review' 
for  April,  1S73,  pp.  240-294. 

The  A  It-Catholic  Movement  (anonymous),  in  the  (Amer.  Episc.)  '  Church  Review,'  New  York,  July,  1873. 

W.  Kuafft  (Professor  of  Church  History  in  Bonn):  The  Vatican  Council  and  the  Old  Catholic  Move- 
ment, read  before,  and  published  in  the  Proceedings  of,  the  General  Conference  of  the  Evangelical  Alli- 
ance in  New  York,  October,  1873. 

Cesar  Pronif.r  (late  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Free  Church  Seminary  at  Geneva,  perished  in  the 
shipwreck  of  the  Ville  du  Havre,  Nov.  22, 1S73,  on  his  return  from  the  General  Conference  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Alliance) :  Roman  Catholicism  in  Switzerland  since  tlie  Proclamation  of  the  Syllabus,  1S73  (in  the 
Proceedings  of  the  Alliance  Conference,  New  York,  1S74). 

III.  By  Roman  Catholics. 
Besides  many  controversial  writings  since  the  year  1S70  (quoted  in  part  in  5«  31  and  34,  and  articles  in 
Roman  Catholic  reviews   (as  the  Dublin  Review,  the  Civiltd  Cattolica,  the  Catholic  World)  aud  news- 
papers (as  the  Paris  L'Univers,  the  London  Tablet,  the  Berlin  Qermania, etc.),  see  especially  the  Papal 
Encyclical  of  Nov.  21, 1873,  in  condemnation  of  the  '  new  heretics,'  miscalled  '  Old  Catholics.' 

The  Old  Catholic  movement  —  the  most  important  in  the  Latin 
Church  since  the  Reformation,  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  Jan- 
senism—began during  the  Vatican  Council,  and  was  organized  into 


292  THE  CEEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

a  distinct  Church  three  years  afterwards  (1873),  at  Constance,  in  the 
very  hall  where,  three  hundred  and  sixty  years  before,  an  cecumen- 
ical  Council  was  held  which,  by  deposing  two  rival  Popes  and  electing 
another,  asserted  its  superiority  over  the  Papacy,  but  which,  by  burning 
John  Huss  for  teaching  evangelical  doctrines,  defeated  its  own  pro- 
fessed object  of  a  '  Reformation  of  the  Church  in  the  head  and  the 
members.'  This  strange  coincidence  of  history  brings  to  mind  Luther's 
poem  on  the  Belgian  martyrs : 

' Die  Ascke  will  nicht  lassen  ah, 
Sie  stiiubt  in  alien  Landen ; 
Hier  hi/ft  kein  Loch,  noch  Grub,  nock  Grab, 
Sie  macht  den  Feind  zu  Schanden.' 

The  God  of  history  has  his  horas  et  moras,  but  he  always  carries  out 
his  designs  at  last.  The  Old  Catholic  secession  would  have  assumed 
far  more  formidable  proportions,  and  cut  off  from  the  dominion  of  the 
Pope  the  most  intelligent  and  influential  dioceses,  if  the  eighty-eight 
Bishops  who  in  the  Vatican  Council  voted  against  Papal  Infallibil- 
ity, had  carried  out  their  conviction,  instead  of  making  their  submis- 
sion for  the  sake  of  a  hollow  peace.  But  next  to  the  Pope,  Bishops, 
from  an  instinctive  fear  of  losing  power,  have  always  been  most  hostile 
to  any  serious  reform.  The  old  story  of  the  Jewish  hierarchy,  in  deal- 
ing with  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  is  repeated  again  and  again  in  the 
history  of  the  Church,  though  also  with  the  honorable  exceptions  of  a 
Nicodemus  and  Gamaliel. 

(Ecumenical  Councils  are  very  apt  to  give  rise  to  secessions.  A  con- 
scientious minority  will  not  yield,  in  matters  of  faith,  to  a  mere  major- 
ity vote.  Thus  the  Council  of  Nicoea  (325)  was  only  the  signal  for  a 
new  and  more  serious  war  between  orthodoxy  and  the  Arian  heresy, 
and,  even  after  the  triumph  of  the  former  at  Constantinople  (381),  the 
latter  lingered  for  centuries  among  the  newly  converted  German  races. 
The  Council  of  Ephesus  (431)  gave  rise  to  the  Nestorian  schism,  and 
the  ( Jouncil  of  Chalcedon  (451)  to  the  several  Monophysite  sects,  which 
continue  in  the  East  to  this  day  with  almost  as  much  tenacity  of  life  as 
the  orthodox  Greek  Church.  From  the  sixth  oecumenical  Council  (6S0) 
dates  the  Blonothelite  schism.  The  Council  of  Florence  (1439)  failed  to 
effect  a  union  between  the  Latin  and  the  Greek  communions.  The 
Council  of  Trent  (1563),  instead  of  healing  the  split  caused  by  the  Eef- 


§  36.  THE  OLD  CATHOLICS.  I93 

ormation,  only  deepened  and  perpetuated  it  by  consolidating  Roman- 
ism and  anathematizing  evangelical  doctrines.  The  nearest  parallel  to 
the  case  in  hand  is  the  schism  of  the  Bishops  and  clergy  of  Utrecht, 
which  originated  in  a  protest  against  the  implied  Papal  Infallibility  of 
the  anti-Jansenist  bull  Unigenit us,  and  which  recently  made  common 
cause  with  the  Old  Catholics  of  Germany  by  giving  them  the  Epis- 
copal succession.1 

The  Old  Catholic  Church  in  Germany  and  Switzerland  arose  from  a 
protest,  in  the  name  of  conscience,  reason,  and  honest  learning,  against 
the  Papal  absolutism  and  infallibilism  of  the  Vatican  Council,  and 
against  the  obsolete  medievalism  of  the  Papal  Syllabus.  It  lifts  its 
voice  against  unscrupulous  Jesuitical  falsifications  of  history,  and  against 
that  spiritual  despotism  which  requires,  as  the  highest  act  of  piety,  the 
slaughter  of  the  intellect  and  will,  and  thereby  destroys  the  sense  of  per- 
sonal responsibility.  It  has  in  its  favor  all  the  traditions  of  Gallican- 
ism  and  liberal  Catholicism,  which  place  an  oecumenical  Council  or 
the  whole  representative  Church  above  the  Pope,  the  testimony  of  the 
ancient  Grasco-Latin  Church,  which  knew  nothing  of  Papal  Infallibility, 
and  even  condemned  some  Popes  as  heretics,  and  the  current  of  his- 
tory, which  can  not  be  turned  backward. 

The  leaders  of  the  new  Church  are  eminent  for  learning,  ability, 
moral  character,  and  position,  and  were  esteemed,  before  the  Vatican 
Council,  pillars  and  ornaments  of  the  Roman  Church — viz.,  Dollixger,2 

'Comp^ST,  pp.  107, 108. 

3  Dr.  John  Jos.  Ignat.  von  Dollinger,  of  Munich  (born  1799),  the  Nestor  of  Old  Catholi- 
cism, is  the  author  of  an  unfinished  Church  History  (Lehrbuch  der  Kirehenyeschichte,  Re- 
genshurg,  second  edition,  1843,  to  Leo  X.),  a  polemic  work  against  the  Reformation  {Die 
Reformation,  ihre  inner e  Entwickelung  und  Hire  Wirkunyen,  1846-48,3  vols.),  a  Sketch  of 
Luther  (1851),  Judaism  and  Heathenism  in  Relation  to  Christianiti/  (1867),  The  Church  und 
the  Churches  (1 860),  Fables  of  Popes  and  Prophecies  of  the  Middle  Ayes  (186:5 ;  English  trans- 
lation, with  a  Preface  by  Prof.  Henry  B.  Smith,  New  York,  1872),  and  a  number  of  essays  and 
pamphlets.  He  also  edited  the  miscellaneous  writings  of  Miihler,  after  whose  death  he  was 
regarded  as  the  foremost  Roman  Catholic  Church  historian.  Since  his  excommunication  he 
delivered,  in  the  great  hall  of  the  Museum  at  Munich,  seven  interesting  lectures  On  the  Reunion 
of  the  Churches  (English  translation,  with  Preface  by  II.  N.  Oxenham,  of  Oxford ;  republished, 
New  York,  1872).  He  was  Rector  of  the  University  of  Munich  during  its  Jubilee  year,  1871- 
72,  and  at  the  celebration  of  the  Jubilee,  in  July,  1872,  he  acquitted  himself  with  marked 
ability  and  scholarly  dignity,  and  received  from  the  University,  the  King  of  Bavaria,  and 
foreign  scholars,  the  highest  honors.  With  all  his  hatred  of  Jesuitism  and  Ultramontanisni, 
he  is  a  conservative  Catholic,  and  has  not  taken  a  very  active  part  in  the  organization  of  the 
Old  Catholic  schism,  although  he  approved  of  the  organization,  as  a  necessary  consequence 
of  the  treachery  and  intolerance  of  the  Episcopal  hierarchy. 


19^  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Ekinkkxs,1   Feiedricii,2  Htjber,3   Michelis,4  Keusch,6   Langen,6  von 
SoHUi/ns,7  and  ex-Pere  Hyacinthe  Lotson.8 

The  centres  of  Old  Catholicism  are  Munich  and  Bonn  in  Germany, 
and  Geneva  and  Soleure  (also  Olten)  in  Switzerland.  Beyond  these 
two  countries  it  has  many  isolated  sympathies,  but  no  organized  form, 
and  no  hold  upon  the  people.9  In  September,  1873,  the  Old  Catholics 
in  the  German  Empire  numbered  about  one  hundred  congregations 
(mostly  in  Prussia,  Baden,  and  Bavaria),  forty  priests,  and  fifty  thou- 
sand professed  members.  Since  their  more  complete  organization  they 
will  probably  make  more  rapid  progress.  Heretofore  the  movement 
in  Germany  has  been  more  scholastic  than  popular.  It  has  enlisted 
the  sympathies  of  the  educated,  but  not  to  an  equal  extent  the  enthu- 

1  Formerly  Catholic  Professor  of  Church  History  in  the  University  of  Breslau,  now  Bishop 
of  the  Old  Catholic  Church  in  Germany.  He  resides  at  Bonn,  and  is  a  gentleman  of  great 
popular  eloquence  and  winning  manners. 

-  Professor  of  Church  History  in  Munich,  editor  of  the  Documenta  ad  illustrandum  Cone. 
Vaticanum  (2  vols.),  and  of  the  Diary  {Tagebuch  wdhrend  des  Vatic.  Concils),  which  gives 
an  inside  view  of  the  Council  from  his  intimate  connection  with  members. 

3  Professor  of  Philosophy  at  Munich,  and  author  of  works  on  the  Philosophy  of  the  Fathers, 
on  Jesuitism,  and  against  the  last  book  of  Strauss  on  The  Old  and  Neiv  Faith. 

4  Formerly  professor  at  Braunsberg,  and  once  Catholic  member  of  the  Prussian  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  now  pastor  of  the  Old  Catholic  congregation  at  Zurich,  an  elderly  gentleman  of 
much  learning  and  eloquence. 

5  Professor  of  Theology  in  Bonn,  editor  of  the  literary  organ  of  the  Old  Catholics,  and 
Acting  Secretary  of  Bishop  Keinkens. 

c  Likewise  Professor  of  Theology  in  Bonn,  and  author  of  a  learned  work  on  the  Vatican 
decrees  examined  in  the  light  of  Catholic  tradition  (1873). 

"  The  first  canonist  of  Europe,  the  lay  leader  of  Old  Catholicism,  and  able  president  of  its 
Congresses,  formerly  Professor  of  Canon  Law  in  Prague,  now  in  the  University  of  Bonn.  Be- 
fore the  Council  he  received  many  letters  and  tokens  of  respect  from  Pope  Pius  IX. 

8  Born  at  <  hrleane,  1827,  priest  and  monk  of  the  order  of  the  Carmelites,  formerly  esteemed 
the  most  eloquent  preacher  in  France.  He  broke  with  his  order  and  with  Rome  in  1800,  and 
is  now  settled  at  Geneva  as  pastor  of  an  Old  Catholic  congregation.  His  marriage  to  an 
American  widow  (1872)  created  almost  as  much  sensation  as  Luther's  marriage  to  a  nun. 
lie  has  recently  withdrawn  from  state  control,  and  established  an  independent  Church  (1874). 

5  The  German  origin  of  the  movement  operates  against  it  in  France,  which,  with  all  its 
Gallican  traditions,  has,  for  political  reasons,  since  the  war  of  1870,  become  more  Romish  than 
it  ever  was  before.  When  Volk,  at  the  Old  Catholic  Congress  in  Constance,  alluded  to  the 
uprising  of  the  Deutachthtim  versus  the  Wdschthum,  and  the  intrigues  of  French  Jesuits, 
Hyacinthe  and  Presscnse  left  the  hall.  Yet  the  Old  Catholic  priests,  who  were  elected  pas- 
ion  •>!  i  ieneva  by  the  Catholic  part  of  the  population  in  October,  1873 — Loyson,  Hurtault, 
and  Charard  -are  all  Frenchmen.  Once  more  Geneva  seems  to  become  the  centre  and 
starting  point  of  a  new  reformation,  which  sooner  or  later  will  react  upon  France.  Abbe 
Midland,  formerly  of  the  Madeleine  iii  Paris,  so  far  is  the  only  prominent  Old  Catholic  in 
France.  Among  the  Irish  Catholics  there  is  not  the  least  indication  of  sympathy  with  Old 
Catholicism,  not  even  in  free  America.  Spain  and  Italy  ought  to  sympathize  with  it,  for 
■  i-  tin-  implacable  enemy  of  Italian  unity  and  the  Spanish  republic;  but  they  have 
kepi  aloof  so  t'.u  from  any  progressive  religious  movement;  and  Spain  has  once  more  sur- 


§  36.  THE  OLD  CATHOLICS.  195 

siasm  of  the  people.  The  question  of  Papal  Infallibility  has  no  such 
direct  practical  bearing  as  the  question  of  personal  salvation  and  peace 
of  conscience,  which  made  the  Reformation  spread  with  such  irresisti- 
ble power  over  all  Western  Christendom.  The  masses  of  Roman  Cath- 
olics are  either  too  ignorant  or  too  indifferent  to  care  much  whether  an- 
other dogma  is  added  to  the  large  number  already  adopted,  and  have  no 
more  difficulty  to  believe  blindly  in  Papal  Infallibility  than  in  the  daily 
miracle  of  transubstantiation  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass.1  On  the  oth- 
er hand,  however,  the  Old  Catholics  are  powerfully  aided  by  the  wide- 
spread indignation  against  priestcraft,  and  the  serious  conflict  of  the 
German  Empire  and  the  Swiss  Republic  with  the  Papacy,  which  was 
provoked  by  the  Papal  Syllabus  and  the  Vatican  Council,  and  may 
lead  to  a  thorough  revision  of  the  ecclesiastical  status  of  the  Continent. 
Their  ultimate  success  as  a  Church  must  chiefly  depend  upon  the  con- 
tinued ascendency  of  the  positive  Christian  element  over  the  negative 
and  radical  (which  raised  and  ruined  the  'German  Catholic'  or  Rouge 
movement  of  1844) ;  for  only  the  enthusiasm  of  faith  has  constructive 
power,  and  that  spirit  of  sacrifice  and  endurance  which  is  necessary 
for  the  establishment  of  permanent  institutions. 

The  Old  Catholic  movement  was  foreshadowed  in  the  liberal  Catholic 
literature  preceding  the  Vatican  Council,  especially  Janus;  it  gathered 
strength  during  the  Council ;  it  uttered  itself  in  a  united  protest  against 
the  decrees  of  the  Council  at  a  meeting  of  distinguished  Catholic  schol- 
ars at  Nuremberg  in  August,  1870 ;  and  it  came  to  an  open  rupture  with 
Rome  by  the  excommunication  of  Dollinger  and  his  sympathizers. 

Being  called  upon  by  the  Archbishop  of  Munich  (his  former  pupil,  and 
at  first  an  anti-Infallibilist)  to  submit  to  the  new  dogma  of  Papal  abso- 
lutism and  Infallibility,  Dr.  Dollinger,  in  an  open  answer  dated  Munich, 
March  28, 1871,  declared  that,  as  a  Christian,  as  a  theologian,  as  a  his- 
torian, and  as  a  citizen,  he  could  not  accept  the  Vatican  decrees,  for  the 

rendered  herself  to  the  rule  of  a  Bourbon  and  the  Tope  (1875).  In  England,  the  famous 
pamphlet  of  Gladstone  on  the  Vatican  Decrees  (1874)  has  brought  to  light  the  Old  Catholic 
sympathies  of  Lord  Acton  and  other  prominent  English  Catholics. 

]  When  in  Cologne,  July,  1873, 1  asked  a  domestic  of  one  of  the  first  hotels  where  the  Old 
Catholics  worshiped.  He  promptly  replied, '  You  mean  the  New  Protestants.  I  have  nothing  to 
do  with  sects;  I  am  a  true  Catholic,  and  mean  to  die  one.'  This  seemed  to  me  characteristic  of 
the  popular  feeling  in  Cologne.  The  Dome  was  well  filled  with  worshipers  all  Sunday,  while 
the  Old  Catholics  had  a  small  though  intelligent  and  respectable  congregation  in  the  Garrison 
Church,  and  in  the  small  chapel  at  the  City  Hall.  Dr.  Tangermann  read  Latin  mass  like  a 
Romish  priest,  but  preached  an  evangelical  sermon  in  German  which  would  do  credit  to  any 
Protestant  pastor. 


IQQ  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

reasons  that  they  are  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel  and  the 
clear  teaching  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  ;  that  they  contradict  the  whole 
genuine  tradition  of  the  Church;  that  the  attempt  to  carry  out  the 
Papal  absolutism  had  been  in  times  past  the  cause  of  endless  blood- 
shed, confusion,  and  corruption ;  and  that  a  similar  attempt  now  must 
lead  to  an  irreconcilable  conflict  of  the  Church  with  the  State,  and  of 
the  clergy  with  the  laity.1  Whereupon  Dollinger  was  excommunica- 
ted April  17,  1871,  as  being  guilty  of  'the  crime  of  open  and  formal 
heresy.'2 

Ilis  colleague,  Professor  Friedrich,  incurred  the  same  fate.  Other 
Bishops,  forgetting  their  recent  change  of  conviction,  proceeded  with 
the  same  rigor  against  refractory  priests.  Cardinal  Rauseher  suspended 
the  Lent  preacher  Pederzani ;  Cardinal  Schwarzenberg,  Professor  Pel- 
leter  (who  afterwards  became  a  Protestant);  Bishop  Forster  (whose 
offer  to  resign  was  refused  by  the  Pope)  suspended  Professors  Rein- 
kens,  Baltzer,  and  Weber,  of  Breslau;  the  Bishop  of  Ermeland,  Profess- 
or- Michelis  and  Menzel,  and  Dr.  Wollmann,  in  Braunsberg ;  the 
Archbishop  of  Cologne  deposed  the  priest  Dr.  W.  Tangermann,  of  Co- 
logne, and  suspended  Professors  Hilgers,  Reusch,  Langen,  and  Knoodt, 
of  Bonn,  who,  however,  supported  by  the  Prussian  Government,  retained 
their  official  positions  in  the  University. 

1  The  following  is  the  memorable  protest  of  this  aged  divine,  which  reminds  one  of  Luther's 
more  bold  and  defiant  refusal  at  Worms  to  recant  his  writings  unless  convicted  of  error  from 
Scripture  and  reason:  'Als  Christ,  als  Theologe,  als  Geschichtskundiger,  als 
Burger  kann  ich  DIESB  Lehre  nicht  annehjien.  Nickt  als  Christ  :  denn  sie  ist  unver- 
trdglich  vat  dem  Geiste  des  Evangeliums  und  mit  den  klaren  Ausspriichen  Christi  und  der 
Apostel ;  sie  will  gerade  das  Imperium  dieser  Welt  aufrichten,  icelches  Christus  ablehnte,  will 
</i>  Herrachaft  iiber  die  Gemeinden,  welche  Petrus  alien  und  sich  selbst  verbot.  Nicht  als 
'I'm  OLOOE  :  denn  die  (jesammte  cchte  Tradition  der  Kirche  steht  ihr  unversohnlich  entgegen. 
Nicht  als  Ge8CHICHTSKENNER  kann  ich  sie  annehnen,  denn  als  solcher  weiss  ich,  dass  das  be- 
harrliche  Streben,  diese  Theorie  der  Weltherrschaft  zu  verwirklichen,  Europa  Strome  von  Blut 
gekostet,  game  Lander  verwirrt  und  heruntergebracht,  den  schonen  organischen  Verfassungs- 
Ikiu  dir  ii/hrin  Kirche  zerriittct  und  die  argsten  Missbrduche  in  der  Kirche  erzeugt,  genahrt 
und  festgehaltetl  hut.  Als  BtJRGER  endlich  muss  ich  sie  von  mir  iceisen,  well  sie  mit  ihren 
Ampruchen  auf  Unterwerfung  der  Staaten  und  Monarchen  und  der  ganzen  politischen  Ord- 
nung  unter  die  pSpstliche  Gewalt  und  durch  die  eximirte  Stellung,  welche  sie  fur  den  Klerus 
fordertf  din  Grand  legt  zu  endloser  verderblicher  Zwietracht  zivischen  Staat  und  Kirche, 
zwischen  Geiitlichen  und  Laien.  Denn  das  kann  ich  mir  nicht  verbergen,  dass  diese  Lehre, 
an  dt  ren  /'•'.</<  u  das  'ill'  deuts  -he  /.'<  (''7*  zu  Grunde  gegangen  ist,  falls  sie  bei  dem  katholischen 
'1  luil  (I,  r  ,1,  utschen  Nation  herrschend  wiirde,  sofort  audi  den  Keim  eines  unheilbaren  Siech- 
thums  in  dai  eben  erbaute  neue  Reich  verpflanzen  rviirde.' — J.  von  Dollinger's  Erkldrung 
an  'In  Er  bishofvon  M'dnchen-Vr eking,  Miinchen,  1871,  p.  17  sq. 
''  '  Crinu  n  hareteoi  externa:  etformalis., 


§  3G.  THE  OLD  CATHOLICS.  197 

In  spite  of  these  summary  proceedings  of  the  Bishops,  the  Old  Cath- 
olic party,  aided  by  the  sympathies  of  the  educated  classes,  made  steady 
progress,  organizing  congregations,  holding  annual  meetings,  and  en- 
listing the  secular  and  religious  press.  With  great  prudence  the  lead- 
ers avoided  or  postponed  reforms,  till  they  could  be  inaugurated  and 
sanctioned  by  properly  constituted  authorities,  and  moved  cautiously 
between  a  timid  conservatism  and  a  radical  liberalism  ;  thus  retaining 
a  hold  on  both  wings  of  the  nominal  Catholic  population. 

In  the  year  1873  the  Old  Catholics  effected  a  regular  Church  organ- 
ization, and  secured  a  legal  status  in  the  German  Empire,  with  the  pros- 
pect of  support  from  the  national  treasury.  Professor  Joseph  Hubert 
Reinkens  was  elected  Bishop  by  the  clergy  and  the  representatives  of 
the  laity,  and  was  consecrated  at  Rotterdam  by  the  Old  Catholic  Bishop 
Heykamp,  of  Deventer  (Aug.  11, 1873). '  He  was  recognized  in  his  new 
dignity  by  the  King  of  Prussia,  and  took  the  customary  oath  of  alle- 
giance at  Berlin  (Oct.  7).  Other  governments  of  Germany  followed 
this  example.  (The  Empire  as  such  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Church.) 
To  complete  the  organization,  the  Congress  at  Constance  adopted  a 
synodical  and  parochial  constitution,  which  makes  full  provision  for 
an  equal  share  of  the  laity  with  the  clergy  in  the  government  of  the 
Church ;  the  synodical  representation  {Synodal-Reprcisentanz),  or  execu- 
tive committee,  being  composed  of  five  laymen  and  five  clergymen, 
including  the  Bishop.2  This  implies  the  Protestant  principle  of  the  gen- 
eral priesthood  of  believers,  and  will  prevent  hierarchical  abuses.  Cer- 
tain changes  in  the  cultus,  such  as  the  simplification  of  the  mass  as  a 
memorial  service  of  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ,  the  substitution  of 

1  In  his  Pastoral  Letter,  Bishop  Beinkens  disclaims  all  hierarchical  ambition,  vain  show, 
and  display,  and  promises  to  exercise  his  office  in  the  spirit  of  apostolic  simplicity  as  a 
pastor  of  the  flock.  He  lays  great  stress  on  the  primitive  Catholic  mode  of  his  election  by 
the  clergy  and  the  people,  as  contrasted  with  the  modern  election  by  the  Pope.  He  claims 
to  stand  in  the  rank  of  Cyprian,  Hilary,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  and  those  thousands  of  Bish- 
ops who  never  were  elected  by  the  Pope,  or  were  even  known  to  the  Pope,  and  yet  are  recog- 
nized as  truly  Catholic  Bishops.  Consecration  by  one  Bishop  is  canonically  valid,  though 
two  or  more  assistant  Bishops  are  usually  present.  The  late  Archbishop  Loos  of  Utrecht 
would  have  performed  the  act,  had  he  not  died  a  few  months  before.  Home,  of  course,  con- 
siders this  election  and  consecration  by  excommunicated  priests  as  a  mere  farce  and  a  damna- 
ble rebellion.     See  the  Pope's  Encyclical  of  Nov.  21,  1872,  quoted  below. 

2  See  the  Entwurf  einer  Synodal-  und  Gemeinde-Ordnung,  Sect.  III.  §§  13  and  14  :  '  In  der 
Leitung  dea  altlcatholischen  Gemeinwesens  steht  dim  Bischof  cine,  von  der  Synode  gewalilte 
Synodal-Rfjirascntanz  zur  Seite.  Die  Synodal- Reprasentanz  besteht  aus  vier  Geistlichen  und 
jiin/Laien.' 


298  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  vernacular  language  for  the  Latin,  the  restoring  of  the  cup  to  the 
laity,  the  introduction  of  more  preaching,  and  the  abolition  of  various 
abuses  (including  the  forced  celibacy  of  the  clergy),  will  inevitably  fol- 
low sooner  or  later. 

The  doctrinal  status  of  the  Old  Catholic  denomination  was  at  first 
simply  Tridentine  Romanism  versus  Vatican  Romanism,  or  the  Creed 
of  Pius  IV.  against  the  Creed  of  Pius  IX.1  This  is  the  ground  taken 
by  the  Old  Catholics  in  Holland,  and  adhered  to  by  them  to  this  day. 
But  the  logic  of  the  protest  against  modern  Popery  will  hardly  allow 
the  Old  Catholics  of  Germany  and  Switzerland  long  to  remain  in  this 
position.  Their  friendly  attitude  towards  Protestants,  as  officially  shown 
in  their  letter  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance, 
is  inconsistent  with  the  Tridentine  anathemas.  Tridentine  Romanism, 
moreover,  is  as  much  an  innovation  on  oecumenical  Catholicism  as  the 
Vatican  Romanism  is  an  innovation  on  that  of  Trent,  and  both  are  in- 
novations in  the  same  line  of  consolidation  of  the  one-sided  principle 
of  authority.  There  is  no  stopping  at  half-way  stations.  "We  must 
go  back  to  the  fountain-head,  the  Word  of  God,  which  is  the  only  final 
and  infallible  authority  in  matters  of  faith,  and  furnishes  the  best  cor- 
rective against  all  ecclesiastical  abuses. 

The  leaders  of  the  Old  Catholic  Church  are  evidently  on  this  road. 
They  still  adhere  to  Scripture  and  tradition,  as  the  joint  rule  of  faith ; 
but  they  confine  tradition  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  ancient  un- 
divided Church,  consequently  to  the  oecumenical  creeds,  which  are  held 
in  common  by  Greeks,  Latins,  and  orthodox  Protestants.     They  have 

1  Their  original  programme,  adopted  at  the  first  Congress  at  Munich,  September  21, 1871, 
probably  drawn  up  by  Dollinger,  was  very  conservative,  and  included  the  following  articles  : 

1 .  We  hold  fast  to  the  Catholic  faith  as  certified  by  Scriptures  and  tradition,  and  also  to 
the  ( )ld  Catholic  worship.  We  reject  from  this  stand-point  the  new  dogmas  enacted  under  the 
pontificate  of  Pius  IX.,  especially  that  regarding  the  infallibility  and  supreme  ordinary  and 
immediate  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope. 

'_'.  Wc  hold  fast  to  the  old  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  reject  every  attempt  to  deprive 
tbe  Bishops  of  their  diocesan  independence.  We  acknowledge  the  primacy  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  on  the  ground  of  the  Fathers  and  Councils  of  the  undivided  Church  of  antiquity ;  but 
ire  deny  the  right  of  the  Pope  to  define  any  article  of  faith,  except  in  agreement  with  the 
holy  Scriptures  and  the  ancient  and  unanimous  tradition  of  the  Church. 

8.  We  aim  at  a  reformation  of  various  abuses  of  the  Church,  and  a  restoration  of  the  rights 
of  tin-  laity  in  ecclesiastical  affairs. 

I.  We  hope  for  a  reunion  with  the  Greek  and  Orthodox  Russian  Church,  and  for  an  ulti- 
mate- fraternal  understanding  with  the  other  Christian  confessions,  especially  the  Episcopal 
churches  of  England  and  America. 


§  3G.  THE  OLD  CATHOLICS.  199 

been  forced  to  give  ap  their  belief  in  the  infallibility  of  an  oecumenical 
Council,  since  the  Vatican  Council,  which  is  as  oecumenical  (from  the 
Roman  point  of  view)  as  that  of  Trent,  has  sanctioned  what  they  re- 
gard as  fatal  error.  Moreover,  Bishop  Beinkens,  in  an  eloquent  speech 
before  the  Old  Catholic  Congress  at  Constance,  disowned  all  Romish 
prohibitions  of  Bible  reading,  and  earnestly  encouraged  the  laity  to  read 
the  Book  of  Life,  that  they  may  get  into  direct  and  intimate  commun- 
ion with  God.1  This  communion  with  God  through  Christ  as  the  only 
Mediator,  and  through  his  Word  as  the  only  rule  of  faith,  is  the  very 
soul  of  evangelical  Protestantism.  The  Scripture  principle,  consistent- 
ly carried  out,  must  gradually  rule  out  the  unscriptural  doctrines  and 
usages  sanctioned  by  the  Council  of  Trent. 

But  it  is  not  necessary  on  this  account  that  the  Old  Catholics  should 
ever  become  Protestants  in  the  historical  sense  of  the  term.  They  may 
retain  those  elements  of  the  Catholic  system  which  are  not  inconsistent 
with  the  spirit  of  the  Scriptures,  though  they  may  not  be  expressly  sanc- 
tioned by  the  letter.  They  may  occupy  a  peculiar  position  of  media- 
tion, and  in  this  way  contribute  their  share  towards  preparing  the  way 
for  an  ultimate  reunion  of  Christendom.  And  this  is  their  noble 
aim  and  desire,  openly  expressed  in  a  fraternal  letter  to  an  assembly 
of  evangelical  Christians  from  nearly  all  Protestant  denominations. 
They  declare:  'We  hope  and  strive  for  the  restoration  of  the  unity 


1  I  give  a  few  extracts  from  this  address,  which  was  delivered  in  the  famous  Council 
Hall  of  Constance,  and  received  with  great  applause  by  the  crowded  assembly:  'The  holy 
Scripture  is  the  reflection  of  the  sun  of  righteousness  which  appeared  in  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord.  I  say,  therefore,  Read  the  holy  Scriptures.  I  say  more:  For  the  Old  Catholics  who 
intrust  themselces  to  my  episcopal  direction,  there  exists  no  prohibition  of  the  reading  of  the 
Bible.  .  .  .  Let  nothing  hinder  you  from  approaching  the  Gospel,  that  you  may  hear  the 
voice  of  the  Bridegroom  (John  iii.  20).  Listen  to  his  voice,  and  remember  that,  as  the  flower 
turns  to  the  light,  and  never  unfolds  all  its  splendor  and  beauty  except  by  constantly  turning 
to  the  light  of  the  sun,  thus  also  the  Christian's  soul  can  not  represent  the  full  beauty  and  glory 
of  its  divine  likeness  except  by  constantly  turning  to  this  Gospel,  in  the  rays  of  which  its 
own  fire  is  kindled.  ...  Do  not  read  the  Scriptures  from  curiosity,  to  find  things  which  are 
not  to  be  revealed  in  this  world;  nor  presumptuously,  to  brood  over  things  which  can  not  be 
explained  by  men;  nor  for  the  sake  of  controversy,  to  refute  others;  but  read  the  Scriptures 
to  enter  into  the  most  intimate  communion  with  God,  so  that  you  may  be  able  to  say,  Noth- 
ing shall  separate  me  from  the  love  of  Christ.  ...  It  is  not  sufficient  to  have  the  Bible  in 
every  house,  and  to  read  it  at  certain  hours  in  a  formal  and  fragmentary  manner,  but  it  ought 
to  be  the  light  of  the  soul,  to  which  it  turns  again  and  again.  I  repeat  it  once  more :  For 
the  Old  Catholics,  no  injunction  exists  against  reading  the  Bible.  On  the  contrary,  I  admon- 
ish you  most  earnestly:  Bead  again  and  again  in  this  holy  book,  sitting  down  in  humility 
and  joy  at  the  feet  of  the  Lord,  for  He  alone  has  words  of  eternal  life.' 

Vol.  I.— O 


200  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  the  Christian  Church.  We  frankly  acknowledge  that  no  branch  of 
it  has  exclusively  the  truth.  We  hold  fast  to  the  ultimate  view  that 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  doctrines  of  the  Church 
grounded  upon  it,  and  upon  the  foundation  of  the  ancient,  undivided 
Church  a  union  of  all  Christian  confessions  will  be  possible  through 
a  really  oecumenical  Council.  This  is  our  object  and  intention  in  the 
movement  which  has  led  us  into  close  relations  with  the  Evangelical, 
the  Anglican,  the  Anglo-American,  the  Russian,  and  the  Greek  church- 
es. We  know  that  this  goal  can  not  easily  be  reached,  but  we  see  the 
primary  evidences  of  success  in  the  circumstance  that  a  truly  Chris- 
tian intercourse  has  already  taken  place  between  ourselves  and  other 
Christian  churches.  Therefore  we  seize  with  joy  the  hand  of  fellow- 
ship you  have  extended  to  us,  and  beg  you  to  enter  into  a  more  in- 
timate fellowship  with  us  in  such  a  way  as  may  be  agreed  upon  by 
both  parties.'1 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Old  Catholics  have  extended  the  hand  of  fel- 
lowship to  the  Greeks  and  Anglo-Catholics,  and  adopted,  at  a  Union 
Conference  held  in  Bonn,  Sept.,  1874,  an  agreement  of  fourteen  theses, 
as  a  doctrinal  basis  of  intercommunion  between  those  Churches  which 
recognize,  besides  the  holy  Scriptures,  the  binding  authority  of  the 
tradition  of  the  undivided  Church  of  the  first  six  centuries.  In  a  sec- 
ond Conference,  in  1875,  they  surrendered  the  doctrine  of  the  double 
procession  of  the  Spirit  as  a  peace-offering  to  the  Orientals.2 

In  the  mean  time  the  Pope  has  cut  off  all  prospect  of  reconciliation. 
In  his  Encyclical  of  November  21,  1873,  addressed  to  all  the  digni- 
taries of  the  Roman  Church,  Pius  IX.,  after  unsparingly  denouncing 
the  governments  of  Italy,  Switzerland,  and  Germany,  for  their  cruel 
persecution  of  the  Church,  speaks  at  length  of  '  those  new  heretics, 
who,  by  a  truly  ridiculous  abuse  of  the  name,  call  themselves  Old 
Catholics,'  and  launches  at  their  'pseudo-bishop'  and  all  his  abettors 
and  helpers  the  sentence  of  excommunication,  as  follows: 

'The  attempts  and  the  aims  of  these  unhappy  sons  of  perdition  appear  plainly,  both  from 
ler  writings  of  theirs  and  most  of  all  from  that  impious  and  most  impudent  of  documents 
which  has  lately  been  published  by  him  whom  they  have  set  up  for  themselves  as  their  so- 
died  bishop.     For  they  deny  and  pervert  the  true"  authority  of  jurisdiction  which  is  in  the 

of  the  Congress  of  Constance,  September,  1873,  to  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Evftn8e  in  Now  York.     Comp.  also  Dollinger's  Lectures  on  the  Reunion  of  the 

i  'hurchet,  and  Hyacinthe  Loyson'a  letter  to  the  General  Conference  in  New  York, 
documents  of  the  two  Bonn  Conferences,  at  the  close  of  Vol.  II. 


§  36.  THE  OLD  CATHOLICS.  201 

Roman  Pontiff  and  the  Bishops,  the  successors  of  the  Blessed  Peter  and  the  Apostles,  and 
transfer  it  to  the  populace,  or,  as  they  say,  to  the  community;  they  stubbornly  reject  and 
assail  the  infallible  teaching  authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  and  of  the  whole  Church  ;  and, 
contrary  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  has  been  promised  by  Christ  to  abide  in  his  Church  forever, 
thev  audaciously  affirm  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  and"  the  whole  of  the  Bishops,  priests,  and 
people  who  are  united  with  him  in  one  faith  and  communion,  have  fallen  into  heresy  by 
sanctioning  and  professing  the  definitions  of  the  oecumenical  Vatican  Council.  Therefore 
thev  denv  even  the  indefectibilitj  of  the  Church,  blasphemously  saying  that  it  has  perished 
throughout  the  world,  and  that  its  visible  head  and  its  Bishops  have  fallen  away;  and  that 
for  this  reason  it  has  been  necessary  for  them  to  restore  the  lawful  Episcopate  in  their  pseudo- 
bishop,  a  man  who,  entering  not  by  the  gate,  but  coming  up  by  another  way,  has  drawn  upon 
his  head  the  condemnation  of  Christ. 

'Nevertheless,  those  unhappy  men  who  would  undermine  the  foundations  of  the  Catholic 
religion,  and  destroy  its  character  and  endowments,  who  have  invented  such  shameful  and 
manifold  errors,  or,  rather,  have  collected  them  together  from  the  old  store  of  heretics,  are  not 
ashamed  to  call  themselves  Catholics,  and  Old  Catholics;  while  by  their  doctrine,  their  nov- 
eltv,  and  their  fewness  they  give  up  all  mark  of  antiquity  and  of  catholicity.  .  .  . 

'But  these  men,  going  on  more  boldly  in  the  way  of  iniquity  and  perdition,  as  by  a  just 
judgment  of  God  it  happens  to  heretical  sects,  have  wished  also  to  form  to  themselves  a  hie- 
rarchy, as  we  have  said,  and  have  chosen  and  set  up  for  themselves  as  their  pseudo-bishop  a 
certain  notorious  apostate  from  the  Catholic  faith,  Joseph  Hubert  Reinkens  ;  and,  that  noth- 
ing might  be  wanting  to  their  impudence,  for  his  consecration  they  have  had  recourse  to  those 
Jansenists  of  Utrecht  whom  they  themselves,  before  their  falling  away  from  the  Church,  re- 
garded with  other  Catholics  as  heretics  and  schismatics.  Nevertheless  this  Joseph  Hubert 
Reinkens  dares  to  call  himself  a  bishop,  and,  incredible  as  it  may  seem,  the  most  serene  Em- 
peror of  Germany  has  by  public  decree  named  and  acknowledged  him  as  a  Catholic  bishop, 
and  exhibited  him  to  all  his  subjects  as  one  w'ho  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  lawful  bishop,  and  as 
such  to  be  obeyed.  But  the  very  rudiments  of  Catholic  teaching  declare  that  no  one  can  be 
held  to  be  a  lawful  bishop  who  is*  not  joined  in  communion  of  faith  and  charity  to  the  rock  on 
which  the  one  Church  of  Christ  is  built ;  who  does  not  adhere  to  the  supreme  pastor  to  whom 
all  the  sheep  of  Christ  are  committed  to  be  fed ;  who  is  not  united  to  the  confirmer  of  the 
brotherhood  which  is  in  the  world.'  [This  cuts  off  all  Greek  Bishops  as  well.  Then  follow 
the  usual  patristic  texts  for  the  pretensions  of  Rome.] 

'We  therefore,  who  have  been  placed,  undeserving  as  we  are,  in  the  Supreme  See  of  Peter 
for  the  guardianship  of  the  Catholic  faith,  and  for  the  maintenance  of  the  unity  of  the  univer- 
sal Church,  according  to  the  custom  and  example  of  our  predecessors  and  their  holy  decrees, 
by  the  power  given  us  from  on  high,  not  only  declare  the  election  of  the  said  Joseph  Hubert 
Reinkens  to  be  contrary  to  the  holy  canons,  unlawful,  and  altogether  null  and  void,  and  de- 
nounce and  condemn  his  consecration  as  sacrilegious  :  but  by  the  authority  of  Almighty  God 
we  declare  the  said  Joseph  Hubert— together  with  those  who  have  taken  part  in  his  election 
and  sacrilegious  consecration,  and  whoever  adhere  to  and  follow  the  same,  giving  aid,  favor, 
or  consent — excommunicated  under  anathema,  separated  from  the  communion  of  the  Church, 
and  to  be  reckoned  among  those  whose  fellowship  has  been  forbidden  to  the  faithful  by  the 
Apostle,  so  that  they  are  not  so  much  as  to  say  to  them,  God  speed  you!' 

As  the  Pope's  letter  of  complaint  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany  (Au- 
gust, 1873),  in  which  he  claims  jurisdiction,  in  some  sense,  over  all 
baptized  Christians,  called  forth  a  courteous  and  pointed  reply  from 
the  Emperor  disclaiming  all  intention  of  persecuting  the  Catholic 
Church  while  defending  the  rights  of  the  civil  government  against 
the  encroachments  of  the  hierarchy,  and  informing  his  Infallibility 
that  Protestants  recognize  no  other  mediator  between  God  and  them- 
selves than  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  so  this  Encyclical  was  met  by  an 
able,  dignified,  and  manly  Pastoral  from  Bishop  Reinkens,  dated  Bonn, 
December  14,  1873,  in  which,  after  refuting  the  accusations  of  the 
Pope,  he  closes  with  the  following  words :  '  Brethren  in  the  Lord,  what 
shall  we  do  when  Pius  IX.  exhausts  the  language  of  reproach  and 


202  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

calumny,  and  calls  us  even  the  most  miserable  sons  of  perdition  (mi- 
serrimi  isti  perditionis  filii),  to  embitter  the  uninquiring  multitude 
against  us  ?  If  we  are  true  disciples  of  Jesus — as  we  trust — we  have 
that  peace  which  the  Lord  gives,  and  not  the  world,  and  our  "  heart 
will  not  be  troubled,  neither  be  afraid"  (John  xiv.  27).  O  how  sweetly 
sounds  the  exhortation:  "Bless  them  which  persecute  you:  bless, and 
curse  not ;"  "  Eecompense  to  no  man  evil  for  evil ;"  "  If  it  be  possible, 
as  much  as  lieth  in  you,  live  peaceably  with  all  men"  (Kom.  xii.  14, 17, 
IS) ;  "  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them 
that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despitef ully  use  you,  and  per- 
secute you ;  that  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in 
heaven :  for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good, 
and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust"  (Matt.  v.  44, 45).  Let 
us  look  up  to  Christ,  our  example, "  who,  when  he  was  reviled,  reviled 
not  again"  (1  Pet.  ii.  21-23).  "The  peace  of  God,  which  passeth  all 
understanding,  keep  your  hearts  and  minds  through  Jesus  Christ." ' 

The  Swiss  Federal  Government,  in  answer  to  the  charges  raised 
against  it  in  the  same  Encyclical,  has  broken  off  all  diplomatic  inter- 
course with  the  Papal  court.  In  a  new  Encyclical  of  March  23, 1875, 
addressed  to  the  Bishops  of  Switzerland,  Pious  IX.  confirmed  the 
condemnation  of  Nov.  21, 1873,  and  hurled  it  with  increased  severity 
against  the  Old  Catholics  of  that  country,  'who  attack  the  very  founda- 
tions of  the  Catholic  religion,  boldly  reject  the  dogmatic  definitions  of 
the  Council  of  the  Vatican,  and  by  every  means  labor  for  the  ruin  of 
souls.'  lie  calls  upon  the  faithful  to  '  avoid  their  religious  ceremonies, 
their  instructions,  their  chairs  of  doctrinal  pestilence,  which  they  have 
the  audacity  to  set  up  for  the  purpose  of  betraying  the  sacred  doc- 
trines, their  writings,  and  contact  with  them.  Let  them  have  no  part, 
no  relation  of  any  kind,  with  those  intruding  priests  and  the  apos- 
tates who  dare  exercise  the  functions  of  the  ecclesiastical  ministry, 
and  who  have  absolutely  no  jurisdiction  and  no  legitimate  mission  at 
all.  Let  them  hold  them  in  horror  as  strangers  and  thieves,  who  come 
only  to  steal,  assassinate,  and  destroy.' 

The  Old  Catholic  movement  in  Switzerland  is  more  radical  and  po- 
litical  than  the  German,  and  bears  a  similar  relation  to  it  as  the  Zwin- 
Lrli:m  Reformation  docs  to  the  Lutheran.  Edward  Ilerzog,  an  able  and 
worthy  priest  <>f  Olten,  was  elected  first  bishop  by  the  Swiss  Synod, 
and  consecrated  by  Bishop  Reinkens  at  ltheinfelden,  Sept.  18,1876. 


§  37.  THE  REFORMATION.     PROTESTANTISM  AND  ROMANISM.     203 


FIFTH  CHAPTER 

THE  CREEDS  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  CHURCHES. 

General  Literature. 

There  are  no  complete  collections  of  Protestant  Creeds,  but  several  separate  collections  of  the  Luther- 
an and  of  the  Reformed  Creeds,  which  will  be  noticed  below  under  the  proper  sections.  The  Corpus  et 
Syntagma  Confessionum  fidei,  Gencv.  1654,  is  chiefly  Calvinistic,  and  the  Oxford  Sj/Uoge  Confessionum  sub 
tempus  reformando?  ecclexice  editarum,  1827  (pp.  454),  contains  only  .-ix  confessions  (including  the  Prof. 
Fidei  Trid.  and  the  Confessio  Saxoniea). 

On  the  general  history  and  principles  of  the  Reformation,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  works,  corre- 
spondence, and  numerous  biographies  of  the  Reformers  (e.  jr.  the  Corpus  ite/ormatorum, ed.Bretscnneider 
and  Bindseil ;  Luther's  Letters,  by  De  Wette,  supplemented  by  Seidemanu  ;  Calvin's  Works,  new  edition 
by  Baum,  Cunitz,  and  Reuss  ;  his  Letters,  by  Bonnet ;  Herminjard's  Correspondance  des  Reformateurs  dans 
Us  pays  de  laii'iue  francuise ;  Strype's  Ecclesiastical  Memorials,  etc. ;  the  publications  of  the  Parker  So- 
ciety); and  the  historical  works  of  Si.eidan,  Seckenporf,  Sai.ig,  De  Thou,  Hottinger,  Hess,  Mar- 
iifineki:.  Ranke,  Meri.e  d'Auuigne,  Hagenuaoii  (fourth  edition,  1S70),  Geo.  P.  Fisher;  also  Sciiafk 
(Principle  of  Protestantism,  1S45),  Dorner  {Ges-hichte  der  Protest.  Theologie,  1SG7,  pp.  77-329,  Engl,  transl. 
Edinb.  1871,  2  vols.),  Kaiinis  (Die  Deutsche  Reformation,  Leipz.  1872).  See  lists  of  literature  in  Giesei.er, 
Church  History,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  9  sqq.  (Anglo-Amer.  edition),  and  Geo.  P.  Fisuer  (of  Yale  College),  The  Ref- 
ormation, New  York,  1S73,  Appendix  II.  pp.  567-591. 

§  37.  The  Reformation.     Protestantism  and  Romanism. 

Protestant  Christendom  has  a  nominal  membership  of  about  one 
hundred  millions,  chiefly  in  the  northern  and  western  parts  of  Europe 
and  America,  and  among  the  most  vigorous  and  hopeful  nations  of 
the  earth.  It  represents  modern  or  progressive  Christianity,  while 
Romanism  is  mediaeval  Christianity  in  conflict  with  modern  progress, 
and  the  Eastern  Church  ancient  Christianity  in  repose. 

We  must  first  of  all  distinguish  between  evangelical  or  orthodox 
Protestantism,  which  agrees  with  the  Greek  and  Roman  Church  in 
accepting  the  holy  Scriptures  and  the  oecumenical  faith  in  the  Trinity 
and  Incarnation,  and  heretical  or  radical  Protestantism,  which  dissents 
from  the  oecumenical  consensus,  and  makes  a  new  departure  either  in 
a  mystical  or  in  a  rationalistic  direction.  The  former  constitutes  the 
great  body  of  nominal  Protestantism,  and  is  the  subject  of  this  chap- 
ter. It  includes,  in  the  first  line,  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Con 
fessions,  or  the  various  national  churches  of  the  Reformation  in  Eu 
rope  and  their  descendants  in  America ;  and  then,  in  the  second  line 
all  those  denominations  which  have  proceeded  or  seceded  from  them 
mostly  on  cpiestions  of  government  or  minor  points  of  doctrine,  with 
out  departing  from  the  essential  articles  of  their  faith,  such  as  the 
Moravians,  Methodists,  Mennonites,  Baptists,  Quakers,  Irvingites,  and 
a  number  of  free  churches  holding  to  the  voluntary  principle. 


2<  ,4  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  various  Evangelical  Protestant  churches,  viewed  as  distinct, 
ecclesiastical  organizations  and  creeds,  take  their  rise  directly  or  in- 
directly from  the  sixteenth  century;  but  their  principles  are  rooted 
and  grounded  in  the  New  Testament,  and  have  been  advocated  more 
or  less  clearly,  in  part  or  in  full,  by  spiritual  and  liberal  minded  di- 
vines in  every  age  of  the  Church.  The  stream  of  Latin  or  Western 
Christianity  was  divided  in  the  sixteenth  century;  the  main  current 
moving  cautiously  and  majestically  in  the  old  mediaeval  channel,  the 
other  boldly  cutting  several  new  beds  for  the  overflowing  waters,  and 
rushing  forward,  at  first  with  great  rapidity  and  energy,  then  slack- 
ing its  speed,  and  then  resuming  its  forward  march  with  the  tide 
of  emigration  in  a  western  direction,  whither,  in  the  prophetic  lan- 
guage of  the  great  English  idealist,  'the  course  of  empire  takes  its 
way/ 

The  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  is,  next  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  Christianity,  the  greatest  event  in  history.  It  was  no  sudden 
revolution ;  for  what  has  no  roots  in  the  past  can  have  no  permanent 
effect  upon  the  future.  It  was  prepared  by  the  deeper  tendencies  and 
aspirations  of  previous  centuries,  and,  when  finally  matured,  it  burst 
forth  almost  simultaneously  in  all  parts  of  Western  Christendom.  It 
was  not  a  superficial  amendment,  not  a  mere  restoration,  but  a  regen- 
eration ;  not  a  return  to  the  Augustinian,  or  Nicene,  or  ante-Nicene 
age,  but  a  vast  progress  beyond  any  previous  age  or  condition  of  the 
Church  since  the  death  of  St.  John.  It  went,  through  the  intervening 
ages  of  ecclesiasticism,  back  to  the  fountain-head  of  Christianity  itself, 
as  it  came  from  the  lips  of  the  Son  of  God  and  his  inspired  Apostles, 
it  was  a  deeper  plunge  into  the  meaning  of  the  Gospel  than  even 
St.  Augustine  had  made.  It  brought  out  from  this  fountain  a  new 
phase  and  type  of  Christianity,  which  had  never  as  yet  been  fully  un- 
derstood and  appreciated  in  the  Church  at  large.  It  was,  in  fact,  a 
new  proclamation  of  the  free  Gospel  of  St.  Paul,  as  laid  down  in  the 
Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians.  It  was  a  grand  act  of  email- 
cipation  from  the  bondage  of  the  mediaeval  hierarchy,  and  an  assertion 
of  thai  freedom  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free.  It  inaugurated 
the  era  of  manhood  and  the  general  priesthood  of  believers.  It  taught 
the  direct  communion  of  the  believing  soul  with  Christ.  It  removed 
the  obstructions  of  legal ism,  sacerdotalism,  and  ceremonialism,  which, 


•   §  37.  THE  REFORMATION.     PROTESTANTISM  AND  ROMANISM.     205 

like  the  traditions  of  the  Pharisees  of  old,  had  obscured  the  genuine 
Gospel  and  made  void  the  Word  of  God.1 

We  do  not  depreciate  mediaeval  Catholicism,  the  womb  of  the  Ref- 
ormation, the  grandmother  of  modern  civilization.  It  was  an  in- 
estimable blessing  in  its  time.  When  we  speak  of  the  'dark  ages,'  we 
should  never  forget  that  the  Church  was  the  light  in  that  darkness. 
She  was  the  training-school  of  the  Latin,  Celtic,  and  Teutonic  (partly 
also  the  Sclavonic)  races  in  their  childhood  and  wild  youth.  She  gave 
them  Christianity  in  the  shape  of  a  new  theocracy,  with  a  priesthood, 
minute  laws,  rites,  and  ceremonies.  She  acted  as  a  bulwark  against 
the  despotism  of  the  civil  and  military  power,  and  she  defended  the 
moral  interests,  the  ideal  pursuits,  and  the  rights  of  the  people.  But 
the  discipline  of  law  creates  a  desire  which  it  can  not  satisfy,  and 
points  beyond  itself,  to  independence  and  self-government :  the  law  is 
a  schoolmaster  to  lead  men  to  the  freedom  of  the  Gospel.  When  the 
mediaeval  Church  had  fulfilled  her  great  mission  in  Christianizing  and 
civilizing  (to  a  certain  degree)  the  Western  and  Northern  barbarians, 
the  time  was  fulfilled,  and  Christianity  could  now  enter  upon  the  era 
of  evangelical  faith  and  freedom. 

And  this  is  Protestantism.  If  it  were  a  mere  negation  of  popery,  it 
would  have  vanished  long  since,  leaving  no  wreck  behind.  It  is  con- 
structive as  well  as  destructive ;  it  protests  from  the  positive  basis  of 
the  Gospel.  It  attacks  human  authority  from  respect  for  divine  au- 
thority ;  it  sets  the  Word  of  God  over  all  the  wisdom  of  men. 

The  Reformation  was  eminently  practical  in  its  motive  and  aim. 
It  started  from  a  question  of  conscience :  '  How  shall  a  sinner  be 
justified  before  God?'  And  this  is  only  another  form  of  the  older 
and  broader  question  :  '  What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  V  The  answer 
given  by  the  Reformers  (German,  Swiss,  French,  English,  and  Scotch), 
with  one  accord,  from  deep  spiritual  struggle  and  experience,  was: 
'  By  faith  in  the  all-sufficient  merits  of  Christ,  as  exhibited  in  the  holy 
Scriptures.'  And  by  faith  they  understood  not  a  mere  intellectual 
assent  to  the  truth,  or  a  blind  submission  to  the  outward  authority  of 

1  It  is  significant  that  Christ  uses  Trapacoaic,  tradition,  only  in  an  unfavorable  sense,  as 
opposed  to  the  Word  of  God,  viz.,  Matt.  xv.  3,  G  ;  Mark  vii.  5,  8,  0,  13.  Paul  employs  the 
term  in  a  bad  sense,  Gal.  i.  1-t  and  Col.  ii.  8 :  in  a  good  sense,  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel, 
1  Cor.  xi.  2;  2  Thcss.  ii.  15;  iii.  6 


206  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  Church,  but  a  free  obedience,  a  motion  of  the  will,  a  trust  of  the 
heart,  a  personal  attachment  and  unconditional  surrender  of  the  whole 
soul  to  Christ,  as  the  only  Saviour  from  sin  and  death.  The  abso- 
lute supremacy  and  sufficiency  of  Christ  and  his  Gospel  in  doctrine 
and  life,  in  faith  and  practice,  is  the  animating  principle,  the  beating 
heart  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  essential  unity  of  Protestantism  to 
this  day. 

Here  lies  its  vitality  and  constructive  power.  From  this  central 
point  the  whole  theology  and  Church  life  was  directly  or  indirectly 
affected,  and  a  new  impulse  given  to  the  history  of  the  world  in  every 
direction. 

The  Reformers  were  baptized,  confirmed,  and  educated,  most  of 
them  also  ordained,  in  the  Catholic  Church,  and  had  at  first  no  in- 
tention to  leave  it,  but  simply  to  purify  it  by  the  Word  of  God.  They 
shrank  from  the  idea  of  schism,  and  continued,  like  the  Apostles,  in 
the  communion  of  their  fathers  until  they  were  expelled  from  it. 
When  the  Pope  refused  to  satisfy  the  reasonable  demand  for  a  ref- 
ormation of  abuses,  and  hurled  his  anathemas  on  the  reformers,  they 
were  driven  to  the  necessity  of  organizing  new  churches  and  setting 
forth  new  confessions  of  faith,  but  they  were  careful  to  maintain  and 
express  in  them  their  consensus  with  the  old  Catholic  faith  as  laid 
down  in  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

The  doctrinal  principle  of  evangelical  Protestantism,  as  distinct  from 
Romanism,  is  twofold — objective  and  subjective. 

The  objective  (generally  called  the  formal)  principle  maintains  the 
absolute  sovereignty  of  the  Bible,  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  the 
Christian  faith  and  life,  in  opposition  to  the  Roman  doctrine  of  the 
Bible  <(/t<l  tradition,  as  co-ordinate  rules  of  faith.  Tradition  is  not 
set  aside  altogether,  but  is  subordinated,  and  its  value  made  to  depend 
upon  the  measure  of  its  agreement  with  the  Word  of  God. 

The  subjective  (commonly  called  the  material)  principle  is  the  doc- 
trine  <>f  justification  by  the  free  grace  of  God  through  a  living  faith 
in  Christ,  as  the  only  and  sufficient  Saviour,  in  opposition  to  the  Ro- 
man  doctrine  of  (progressive)  justification  by  faith  and  good  works, 
as  co-ordinate  conditions  of  justification.  Good  works  are  held  by 
Protc  tants  to  be  necessary,  not  as  means  and  conditions,  but  as  re- 
mits aid  evidences,  of  justification. 


§  37.  THE  REFORMATION.     PROTESTANTISM  AND  ROMANISM.     OQf 

To  these  two  principles  may  be  added,  as  a  third,  the  social  princi- 
ple, which  affects  chiefly  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Church, 
namely,  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers,  in  opposition  to  the  ex- 
clusive priesthood  of  the  clergy.  Protestantism  emancipates  the  laity 
from  slavish  dependence  on  the  teaching  and  governing  priesthood, 
and  gives  the  people  a  proper  share  in  all  that  concerns  the  interests 
and  welfare  of  the  Church ;  in  accordance  with  the  teaching  of  St. 
Peter,  who  applies  the  term  clergy  (k-Af/poc,  heritage,  1  Pet.  v.  3)  to  the 
congregation,  and  calls  all  Christians  'living  stones'  in  the  spiritual 
house  of  God,  to  offer  up  'spiritual  sacrifices,'  'a  chosen  generation, 
a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people,'  setting  forth  '  the 
praises  of  him  who  called  them  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvelous 
light'  (1  Pet.  ii.  5,  9  ;  comp.  v.  1-4 ;  Rev.  i.  6  ;  v.  10  ;  xx.  6). 

It  is  impossible  to  reduce  the  fundamental  difference  between  Prot- 
estantism and  Romanism  to  a  single  formula  without  doing  injustice 
to  the  one  or  the  other.  We  should  not  forget  that  there  are  evangel- 
ical elements  in  Romanism,  as  there  are  legalistic  and  Romanizing 
tendencies  in  certain  schools  of  Protestantism.  But  if  we  look  at  the 
prevailing  character  and  the  most  prominent  aspects  of  the  two  sys- 
tems, we  may  draw  the  following  contrasts : 

Protestantism  corresponds  to  the  Gentile  type  of  Apostolic  Chris- 
tianity, as  represented  by  Paul ;  Romanism,  to  the  Jewish  type,  as  rep- 
resented by  James  and  Peter,  though  not  in  Peter's  Epistles  (where  he 
prophetically  warns  against  the  fruitful  germ  of  the  Papacy,  viz.,  hie- 
rarchical pride  and  assumption),  but  in  his  earlier  stage  and  official 
position  as  the  Apostle  of  circumcision.  Paul  was  called  afterwards, 
somewhat  irregularly  and  outside  of  the  visible  succession,  as  the  rep- 
resentative of  a  new  and  independent  apostolate  of  the  Gentiles.  The 
temporary  collision  of  Paul  and  Peter  at  Antioch  (Gal.  ii.  11)  fore- 
shadows and  anticipates  the  subsequent  antagonism  between  Protest- 
antism and  Catholicism. 

Protestantism  is  the  religion  of  freedom  (Gal.  v.  1) ;  Romanism,  the 
religion  of  authority.  The  former  is  mainly  subjective,  and  makes 
religion  a  personal  concern ;  the  latter  is  objective,  and  sinks  the  in- 
dividual in  the  body  of  the  Church.  The  Protestant  believes  on  the 
ground  of  his  own  experience,  the  Romanist  on  the  testimony  of  the 
Church  (comp.  John  iv.  42). 


208  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Protestantism  is  the  religion  of  evangelism  and  spiritual  simplicity ; 
Romanism,  the  religion  of  legalism,  asceticism,  sacerdotalism,  and  cere- 
monialism. The  one  appeals  to  the  intellect  and  conscience,  the  other 
to  the  senses  and  the  imagination.  The  one  is  internal,  the  other  ex- 
ternal, and  comes  with  outward  observation. 

Protestantism  is  the  Christianity  of  the  Bible;  Eomanism,  the  Chris- 
tianity  of  tradition.  The  one  directs  the  people  to  the  fountain-head 
of  divine  revelation,  the  other  to  the  teaching  priesthood.  The  former 
freely  circulates  the  Bible,  as  a  book  for  the  people ;  the  latter  keeps  it 
for  the  use  of  the  clergy,  and  overrules  it  by  its  traditions. 

Protestantism  is  the  religion  of  immediate  communion  of  the  soul 
with  Christ  through  personal  faith ;  Eomanism  is  the  religion  of  me- 
diate communion  through  the  Church,  and  obstructs  the  intercourse 
of  the  believer  with  his  Saviour  by  interposing  an  army  of  subordi- 
nate mediators  and  advocates.  The  Protestant  prays  directly  to  Christ ; 
the  Romanist  usually  approaches  him  only  through  the  intercession  of 
the  blessed  Virgin  and  the  saints. 

Protestantism  puts  Christ  before  the  Church,  and  makes  Christliness 
the  standard  of  sound  churchliness  ;  Romanism  virtually  puts  the  Church 
before  Christ,  and  makes  churchliness  the  condition  and  measure  of 
piety.1  \ 

Protestantism  claims  to  be  only  one,  but  the  most  advanced  portion 
of  the  Church  of  Christ;  Eomanism  identifies  itself  with  the  whole 
Catholic  Church,  and  the  Church  with  Christianity  itself.  The  former 
claims  to  be  the  safest,  the  latter  the  only  way  to  salvation. 

Protestantism  is  the  Church  of  the  Christian  people ;  Eomanism  is 
the  Church  of  priests,  and  separates  them  by  education,  celibacy,  and 
even  by  their  dress  as  widely  as  possible  from  the  laity. 

Protestantism  is  the  Christianity  of  personal  conviction  and  inward 
experience ;  Eomanism,  the  Christianity  of  outward  institutions  and 
Bacramental  observances,  and  obedience  to  authority.     The  one  starts 

1  This  is  no  doubt  the  meaning  of  Schleiermaeher's  famous  formula  (Der  Christliche  Glaube, 
Vol.  [.§24):  '  Protestantism  makes  the  relation  of  the  individual  to  the  Church  dependent  on 
In.  relation  t..  Christ  ;  Catholicism,  vie  versa,  makes  the  relation  of  the  individual  to  Christ 
dependent  on  his  relation  to  the  Church.'  UU  pupil  and  successor,  Dr.  Twesten,  puts  the 
distinction  in  this  way:   'Catholicism  emphasizes  the  first,  Protestantism  the  second,  clause 

"ri1""  I'1'  ''  IrensBus:  "  Where  the  Church  is.  there  is  the  Spirit  of  God;  and  where  the 

FpMl  '•>' i  i»,  there  is  the  Church  and  all  grace."' 


§  38.  THE  EVANGELICAL  CONFESSIONS  OF  FAITH.  209 

from  Paul's,  the  other  from  James's  doctrine  of  justification.  The  one 
lays  the  main  stress  on  living  faith,  as  the  principle  of  a  holy  life ;  the 
other  on  good  works,  as  the  evidence  of  faith  and  the  condition  of 
justification. 

Protestantism  proceeds  from  the  invisible  Church  to  the  visible ; 
Borne,  trice  versa,  from  the  visible  to  the  invisible.1 

Protestantism  is  progressive  and  independent ;  Romanism,  conserva- 
tive and  traditional.  The  one  is  centrifugal,  the  other  centripetal.  The 
one  is  exposed  to  the  danger  of  radicalism  and  endless  division;  the 
other  to  the  opposite  danger  of  stagnation  and  mechanical  and  tyran- 
nical uniformity. 

The  exclusiveness  and  anti-Christian  pretensions  of  the  Papacy,  es- 
pecially since  it  claims  infallibility  for  its  visible  head,  make  it  im- 
possible for  any  Church  to  live  with  it  on  terms  of  equality  and  sincere 
friendship.  And  yet  we  should  never  forget  the  difference  between 
Popery  and  Catholicism,  nor  between  the  system  and  its  followers. 
It  becomes  Protestantism,  as  the  higher  form  of  Christianity,  to  be 
liberal  and  tolerant  even  towards  intolerant  Romanism. 

§  38.  The  Evangelical  Confessions  of  Faith. 

The  Evangelical  Confessions  of  faith  date  mostly  from  the  sixteenth 
century  (1530  to  1577),  the  productive  period  of  Protestantism,  and 
are  nearly  contemporaneous  with  the  Tridentine  standards  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  They  are  the  work  of  an  intensely  theological  and 
polemical  age,  when  religious  controversy  absorbed  the  attention  of  all 
classes  of  society.  They  embody  the  results  of  the  great  conflict  with 
the  Papacy.  A  smaller  class  of  Confessions  (as  the  Articles  of  Dort 
and  the  Westminster  Standards)  belongs  to  the  seventeenth  century, 
and  grew  out  of  internal  controversies  among  Protestants  themselves. 
The  eighteenth  century  witnessed  a  powerful  revival  of  practical  re- 
ligion and  missionary  zeal  through  the  labors  of  the  Pietists  and  Mo- 
ravians in  Germany,  and  the  Methodists  in  England  and  North  Amer- 
ica, but,  in  its  ruling  genius,  it  was  irreligious  and  revolutionary,  and 
undermined  the  authority  of  all  creeds.     In  the  nineteenth  century  a 


1  This  is  the  distinction  made  by  Mohler,  who  thereby  inconsistently  admits  the  essential 
truth  of  the  Protestant  distinction  between  the  visible  and  invisible  Church,  which  Bellarmin 
denies  as  an  empty  abstraction. 


210  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

new  interest  in  the  old  creeds  was  awakened,  and  several  attempts  were 
made  to  reduce  the  lengthy  confessions  to  brief  popular  summaries,  or 
to  formularizc  the  doctrinal  consensus  of  the  different  evangelical  de- 
nominations. The  present  tendency  among  Protestants  is  to  diminish 
rather  than  to  increase  the  number  of  articles  of  faith,  and  to  follow 
in  any  new  formula  the  simplicity  of  the  Apostles'  Creed;  while  Ro- 
manism pursues  the  opposite  course. 

The  symbols  of  the  Reformation  are  very  numerous,  but  several  of 
them  were  merely  provisional,  and  subsequently  superseded  by  maturer 
statements  of  doctrine.  Some  far  exceed  the  proper  limits  of  a  creed, 
and  are  complete  systems  of  theology  for  the  use  of  the  clergy.  It 
was  a  sad  mistake  and  a  source  of  incalculable  mischief  to  incorporate 
the  results  of  every  doctrinal  controversy  with  the  confession  of  faith, 
and  to  bind  lengthy  discussions,  with  all  their  metaphysical  distinc- 
tions and  subtleties,  upon  the  conscience  of  every  minister  and  teacher. 
There  is  a  vast  difference  between  theological  opinions  and  articles  of 
faith.  The  development  of  theology  as  a  science  must  go  on,  and  will 
go  on  in  spite  of  all  these  shackles. 

As  to  the  theology  of  the  confessions  of  orthodox  Protestantism,  we 
may  distinguish  in  them  three  elements,  the  oecumenical,  the  Augus- 
tinian,  and  the  evangelical  proper. 

1.  The  oecumenical  element.  In  theology  and  Christology  the  Prot- 
estant symbols  agree  with  the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches,  and  also  in 
the  other  articles  of  the  Apostles'  and  Nicene  Creeds  from  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 

2.  The  Augustinian  element  is  found  in  anthropology,  or  the  doc- 
trines of  sin  and  grace,  predestination,  and  perseverance.  Here  the 
Protestant  confessions  agree  with  the  system  of  Augustine,  who  had 
more  influence  upon  the  reformers  than  any  uninspired  teacher. 
The  Latin  Church  during  the  Middle  Ages  had  gradually  fallen  into 
Pelagian  and  semi-Pelagian  doctrines  and  practices,  although  these 
had  been  condemned  in  the  fifth  century.  The  Calvinistic  confes- 
sions, however,  differ  from  the  Lutheran  in  the  logical  conclusions 
derived  from  the  Augustinian  premises,  which  they  hold  in  common. 

•*:.  The  Evangelical  Protestant  and  strictly  original  element  is  found 
in  BOteriology,  and  in  all  that  pertains  to  subjective  Christianity,  or 
the  personal  appropriation  of  salvation.     Here  belong  the  doctrines 


§  39.  THE  LUTHERAN  AND  REFORMED  CONFESSIONS.  O^ 

of  the  rule  of  faith,  of  justification  by  faith,  of  the  nature  and  office 
of  faith  and  good  works,  of  the  assurance  of  salvation;  here  also  the 
protest  against  all  those  doctrines  of  Romanism  which  are  deemed  in- 
consistent with  the  Scripture  principle  and  with  justification  by  faith. 
The  papacy,  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  transubstantiation,  purgatory, 
indulgences,  meritorious  and  hypermeritorious  works,  the  worship  of 
saints,  images,  and  relics  are  rejected  altogether,  while  the  ductrine  of 
the  Church  and  the  Sacraments  was  essentially  modified. 

§  39.  The  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Confessions. 

Literature. 

Max.  GGbkl:  Die  religiose  Eigenthumlichkeit  der  luther.und  re/ormirtcn  Kirche.  Bonn,  1837.  (This 
book  started  a  good  deal  of  discussion  in  Germany  on  the  peculiar  genius  of  the  two  churches.) 

C.  B.  HuNDiBUAGxn  :  Die  Conflicte  des  Zwinglianismus,  Lutherthxims,  nnd  Calvinismtua  in  der  Der- 
nischen  Landcskirche  von  1522-15&9.    Berne,  1S43.    (The  esteemed  author  died  in  Bonn,  18T2.) 

Merle  d'Aubiq.ne'  (d.  1S72) :  Luther  and  Calvin,  translated  into  English,  New  York,  1S46. 

Alex.  Souweizek:  Glaubenslehre  der  re/ormirten  Kirche.    Zurich,  1S44,  Vol.  I.  pp.  7-S3. 

M.  ScuNEcKENiiCROEP.:  Vergleiehende  Darstellung  des  hither,  und  reform.  Lehrbegrifs.  Stuttgart,  1S55, 
2  vols,     (Very  acute  and  discriminating.)    Comp.  the  introduction  by  Guder,  the  editor. 

Philip  Sohaff:  Germany;  its  Universities,  Theology,  and  Religion.  Philadelphia,  1857,  Ch.  xviii.  and 
xx.,  Lutheranism  and  Reform  and  the  Evang.  Union,  pp.  1G7-1S5. 

Essays  on  the  same  subject  by  LL'cke,  in  the  Deutsche  Zeitsehrift,  Berlin,  for  1S53,  Nos.  3  sqq. ;  Haoen- 
bacu,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritikcn  lor  1S54,  Vol.  I.  pp.  23-34. 

Jol.  Ml'i.lek  (Professor  in  Halle) :  Lutheri  et  Calvini  sententim  de  Sacra  Ccena  inter  se  comparator, 
Halle,  1858.    Also  iu  his  Dogmatisehe  Abhandlungen,  Bremen,  1S70,  pp. 404-467. 

Catholicism  assumed  from  the  beginning,  and  retains  to  this  day, 
two  distinct  and  antagonistic  types,  the  Greek  and  the  Roman,  which 
represent  a  Christian  transformation  of  the  antecedent  and  underlying 
nationalities  of  speculative  Greece  and  world-conquering  Rome.  In 
like  manner,  but  to  a  much  larger  extent  (as  may  be  expected  from 
the  greater  liberty  allowed  to  national  and  individual  rights  and  pecu- 
liarities), is  Protestantism  divided  since  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century  into  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Confessions.  To  the 
former  belong  the  established  churches  in  most  of  the  German  States, 
in  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Norway,  and  all  others  which  call  them- 
selves after  Luther;  the  Reformed — in  the  historical  and  Continental 
sense  of  the  term1 — embraces  the  national  evangelical  churches  of 
Switzerland,  France,  Holland,  some  parts  of  Germany,  England,  Scot- 
land, with  their  descendants  in  America  and  the  British  colonies. 

The  designation  Reformed  is  insufficient  to  cover  all  the  denomi- 
nations and  sects  which  have  sprung  directly  or  indirectly  from  this 

1  As  used  in  all  Continental  works  on  Church  history  and  symbolics.  It  means  originally 
the  Catholic  Church  reformed  of  abuses,  or  regenerated  by  the  Word  of  God. 


212  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

family  since  the  Reformation,  especially  in  England  during  the  conflict 
of  the  Established  Church  with  Puritanism  and  nonconformity;  and 
hence  in  English  and  American  usage  it  has  given  way  to  sectional 
and  specific  titles,  such  as  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians,  Congrega- 
"sts,  Baptists,  Wesleyahs  or  Methodists,  etc.  The  term  Calvin- 
ism designates  not  a  church,  but  a  theological  school  in  the  Reformed 
Church,  which  in  some  sections  allows  also  Arminian  views.  Puri- 
tanism, likewise,  is  not  a  term  for  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion, but  for  a  tendency  and  party  which  exerted  a  powerful  influence 
in  the  Anglican  and  other  Reformed  Churches  on  questions  of  doc- 
trine, government,  discipline,  and  worship. 

Among  the  original  Reformed  Churches  the  Anglican  stands  out 
in  many  respects  distinctly  as  a  third  type  of  Protestantism:  it  is  the 
most  powerful  and  the  most  conservative  of  all  the  national  or  estab- 
lished churches  of  the  Reformation,  and  retains  the  entire  basis  of 
the  mediaeval  hierarchy,  without  the  papacy ;  it  is  a  compromise  be- 
tween Catholicism  and  Protestantism,  cemented  by  the  royal  suprem- 
acy, and  leaves  room  for  Romanizing  high-churchism  and  Puritanic 
low-chnrchism,  as  well  as  for  intervening  broad-churchism.  But  its 
original  doctrinal  status  was  moderately  Calvinistie,  and  for  a  time  it 
made  even  common  canse  with  the  ultra-Calvinistic  Synod  of  Dort. 

The  doctrinal  difference  between  Lutheranism  and  Reform  was 
originally  confined  to  two  articles,  namely,  the  nature  of  Christ's  pres- 
ence in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  and  the  extent  of  God's  sov- 
ereignty in  the  ante-historic  and  premundane  act  of  predestination. 
At  the  Conference  held  in  Marburg,  Luther  and  Zwingli  agreed  in 
fourteen  and  a  half  articles,  and  differed  only  in  the  other  half  of  the 
fifteenth  article,  concerning  the  real  presence.1  The  Swiss  reformer 
saw  in  this  difference  no  obstacle  to  fraternal  fellowship  with  the 
Wittenbergers,  with  whom,  he  said,  he  would  rather  agree  than  with 
any  people  on  earth,  and,  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  he  extended  his  hand 

'  The  fifteenth  and  last  of  the  Marburg  articles  treats  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  after 
Mating  the  points  of  agreement,  concludes  thus  :  'And  although  at  present  we  can  not  agree 
whether  the  true  body  and  the  true  blood  of  Christ  he  corporeally  present  in  the  bread  and 
wine  uh  ,/,  ,•  „•„/,,■,•  /., ;/,  „„,/  dag  wahreBlut  Christi  Uiblich  im  Hrode  und  Weine  gegenwar- 
■  "t  each  party  is  to  show  to  the  other  Christian  love,  as  far  as  conscience  permits  (so 
wmtadasGi  witit  n  ,<  rf<  m  gt  statu  i ),  and  both  parties  should  fervently  pray  to  Almighty  God 
ili.it  bj  hia  Spirit  he  may  strengthen  us  in  the  true  understanding.     Amen.' 


§  39.  THE  LUTHERAN  AND  REFORMED  CONFESSION'S.  0^3 

to  Luther;  but  the  great  man,  otherwise  so  generous  and  liberal,  who 
had  himself  departed  from  the  Catholic  Church  in  much  more  essen- 
tial points,  felt  compelled  in  his  conscience  to  withhold  his  hand  on 
account  of  a  general  difference  of  'spirit,"  which  revealed  itself  in 
subsequent  controversies,  and  defeated  many  attempts  at  reunion. 

The  internal  quarrels  among  Christian  brethren,  which  are  found 
more  or  less  in  all  denominations  and  ages,2  are  the  most  humiliating 
and  heart-sickening  chapters  in  Church  history,  but  they  are  overruled 
by  Providence  for  the  fuller  development  of  theology,  a  wider  spread 
of  Christianity,  and  a  deeper  divine  harmony,  which  will  ultimately, 
in  God's  own  good  time,  spring  out  of  human  discord. 

The  two  great  families  of  Protestantism  are  united  in  all  essential  ar- 
ticles of  faith,  and  their  members  may  and  ought  to  cultivate  intimate 
Christian  fellowship  without  sacrifice  of  principle  or  loyalty  to  their 
communion.  Yet  they  are  distinct  ecclesiastical  individualities,  and 
Providence  has  assigned  them  peculiar  fields  of  labor.  Their  differ- 
ences in  theology,  government,  worship,  and  mode  of  piety  are  rooted 
in  diversities  of  nationality,  psychological  constitution,  education,  ex- 
ternal circumstances,  and  gifts  of  the  Spirit. 

1.  The  Lutheran  Church  arose  in  monarchical  Germany,  and  bears 
the  impress  of  the  German  race,  of  which  Luther  was  the  purest  and 
strongest  type.  The  Reformed  Church  began,  almost  simultaneously, 
in  republican  Switzerland,  and  spread  in  France,  Holland,  England, 
and  Scotland.  The  former  extended,  indeed,  to  kindred  Scandinavia, 
and,  by  emigration,  to  more  distant  countries.  But  outside  of  Ger- 
many it  is  stunted  in  its  normal  growth,  or  undergoes,  with  the  change 
of  language  and  nationality,  an  ecclesiastical  transformation.3  The 
Reformed  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  while  it  originated  in  the  Ger- 
man cantons  of  Switzerland,  and  found  a  home  in  several  important 
parts  of  Germany,  as  the  Palatinate,  the  Lower  Rhine,  and  (through 

1  'Ihr  habt  dnen  andern  Grist,'  said  Luther  to  Zwingli. 

2  The  feuds  between  monastic  orders  and  theological  schools  in  the  Roman  and  Greek 
Churches,  and  the  quarrels  even  in  the  oecumenical  Councils,  from  the  Niccne  down  to  the 
Vatican,  are  fully  equal  in  violence  and  bitterness  to  the  Protestant  controversies  in  the  six- 
teenth and  seventeenth  centuries,  and  are  less  excusable  on  account  of  the  boasted  doctrinal 
unity  of  those  churches. 

3  This  is  the  case  with  the  great  majority  of  Anglicized  and  Americanized  Lutherans,  who 
adopt  Reformed  views  on  the  Sacraments,  the  observance  of  Sunday,  Church  discipline,  and 
other  points. 


214  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  influence  of  the  House  of  Hohenzollern  since  the  Elector  Sigis- 
mund,  1GH)  in  Brandenburg  and  other  provinces  of  Prussia,  was  yet 
far  more  fully  and  vigorously  developed  among  the  maritime  and 
freer  nations,  especially  the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  and  follows  its  on- 
ward march  to  the  West  and  the  missionary  fields  of  the  East.  The 
modern  Protestant  movements  among  the  Latin  races  in  the  South 
of  Europe  likewise  mostly  assume  the  Keformed,  some  even  a  strictly 
Calvinistic  type.  Converts  from  the  excessive  ritualism  of  Kome  are 
apt  to  swing  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  Puritan  simplicity. 

Germany  occupies  the  front  rank  in  sacred  learning  and  scientific 
theology,  hut  the  future  of  evangelical  Protestantism  is  mainly  in- 
trusted to  the  Anglo-American  churches,  which  far  surpass  all  others 
in  wealth,  energy,  liberality,  philanthropy,  and  a  firm  hold  upon  the 
heart  of  the  two  great  nations  they  represent. 

2.  The  Lutheran  Church,  as  its  name  indicates,  was  founded  and 
shaped  by  the  mighty  genius  of  Luther,  who  gave  to  the  Germans  a 
truly  vernacular  Bible,  Catechism,  and  hymn-book,  and  who  thus  meets 
them  at  every  step  in  their  public  and  private  devotions.  We  should, 
indeed,  not  forget  the  gentle,  conciliatory,  and  peaceful  genius  of  Me- 
lanchthon,  which  never  died  out  in  the  Lutheran  Confession,  and  forms 
the  connecting  link  between  it  and  the  Keformed.  He  represents  the 
very  spirit  of  evangelical  union,  and  practiced  it  in  his  intimate  friend- 
ship with  the  stern  and  uncompromising  Calvin,  who  in  turn  touch- 
ingly  alludes  to  the  memory  of  his  friend.  But  the  influence  of  the 
•  Prceceptor  Germanics?  was  more  scholastic  and  theological  than  prac- 
tical and  popular.  Luther  was  the  originating,  commanding  reformer, 
'born,'  as  he  himself  says,  'to  tear  up  the  stumps  and  dead  roots,  to 
cut  away  the  thorns,  and  to  act  as  a  rough  forester  and  pioneer;' 
while  'Melanchthon  moved  gently  and  calmly  along,  with  his  rich 
gifts  from  God's  own  hand,  building  and  planting,  sowing  and  water- 
ing.' Luther  was,  as  Melanchthon  called  him,  the  Protestant  Elijah. 
lb'  Bpoke  almost  with  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  a  prophet  and 
apostle,  and  his  word  shook  the  Church  and  the  Empire  to  the  base. 
lb-  can  be  to  no  nation  what  he  is  to  the  German,  as  little  as  Wash- 
ingtoD  -an  be  to  any  nation  what  he  is  to  the  American.1     And  yet, 

Luther  can  only  l>e  fully  understood  by  a  German,  while  a  Frenchman  or  an  Englishman 
(uiil.  iome  exceptions,  ns  Coleridge,  Hnre,  Carlyle)  is  likely  to  he  repelled  by  some  of  his 


§  39.  THE  LUTHERAN  AND  REFORMED  CONFESSIONS.  015 

strange  to  say,  with  all  the  overpowering  influence  of  Luther,  his  per- 
sonal views  on  the  canon1  and  on  predestination2  were  never  accepted 
by  his  followers ;  and  if  we  judge  him  by  the  standard  of  the  Form  of 
Concord,  he  is  a  heretic  in  his  own  communion  as  much  as  St.  Augus- 
tine, on  account  of  his  doctrines  of  sin  and  grace,  is  a  heretic  in  the 
Roman  Church,  revered  though  he  is  as  the  greatest  among  the  Fathers. 

writings,  e.  g.,  his  coarse  book  against  Henry  VIII.  Hence  the  unfavorable  judgments  of 
such  scholars  as  Ilallam,  Sir  William  Hamilton,  Fusey ;  while,  on  the  othei  hand,  even  lib- 
eral Catholics  among  German  scholars  can  not  but  admire  him  as  Germans.  Dr.  Bollinger, 
long  before  his  secession  from  Rome,  said  (in  his  book  Kirche  iind  Kirclien):  ' Lather  ist  der 
gewaltigste  Volksmann,  der  pojiularste  Charakter,  den  Deutscldand  je  besessen.  In  dem  Geiste 
dieses  Mantles,  desgrSssten  unter  den  Deutschen  seines  Zeitalters,  ist  dieprotestantische  Doctrin 
entsprvngen.  Vor  der  Ueberlegenheit  vnd  schopferischen  Energie  dieses  Geistes  bug  damals 
der  aufstrebende,  thatkrciftige  Theil  der  Nation  demuthsvoll  und  gldubig  die  K nice.'  The 
towering  greatness  of  Luther  is  to  the  Lutherans  a  constant  temptation  to  hero-worship,  as 
Napoleon's  brilliant  military  genius  is  a  misfortune  and  temptation  to  F ranee.  Lessing  ex- 
pressed his  satisfaction  at  the  discovery  of  some  defects  in  Luther's  character,  since  he  was, 
as  he  says,  '  in  imminent  danger  of  making  him  an  object  of  idolatrous  veneration.  The 
proofs  that  in  some  things  he  was  like  other  men  are  to  me  as  precious  as  the  most  dazzling 
of  his  virtues.'  There  are  not  a  few  Lutherans  who  have  more  liking  for  Luther's  faults 
than  for  his  virtues,  and  admire  his  conduct  at  Marburg  as  much,  if  not  more,  than  his  con- 
duct at  Worms.  A  very  respectable  Lutheran  professor  of  theology  resolved  the  difference 
between  Luther  and  Calvin  into  this:  that  the  one  was  human,  the  other  inhuman!  Calvin 
once  nobly  said,  'Though  Luther  should  call  me  a  devil,  I  would  still  revere  and  love  him  as 
an  eminent  servant  of  God.'  If  he  was  cruel,  according  to  our  modern  notions,  in  his  treat- 
ment of  Servetus,  he  acted  in  the  spirit  of  his  age,  and  was  approved  even  by  the  gentle  Me- 
lanchthon.  His  followers  need  fear  no  comparison  with  any  other  Christians  as  to  humanity 
and  liberality. 

1  He  irreverently  called  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  an  'epistle  of  straw,' and  had  objections  to 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Apocalypse,  and  the  Book  of  Esther.  He  was  as  thoroughly 
convinced  of  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Word  of  God  as  the  most  orthodox  divine 
can  be,  but  he  had  free  views  on  the  mode  of  inspiration  and  the  extent  of  the  traditional  canon. 

a  Luther,  in  his  work  De  servo  arbitrio,  against  Erasmus,  written  in  ir>2,r),  teaches  the 
slavery  of  the  human  will,  the  dualism  in  the  divine  will  (secret  and  revealed),  and  uncon- 
ditional predestination  to  salvation  and  damnation,  in  language  stronger  than  even  Calvin 
ever  used,  who  liked  the  views  of  that  book,  but  objected  to  some  of  its  hyperbolical  expres- 
sions (Ojiera,  Tom.  VII.  p.  142).  Melanchthon,  who  originally  held  the  same  Augustinian 
theory  (like  all  the  Reformers),  gradually  changed  it  (openly  since  15.T>)  in  favor  of  a  syner- 
gistic theory.  But  Luther  never  recalled  his  tract  against  Erasmus;  on  the  contrary,  he 
counted  it  among  his  best,  and  among  the  few  of  his  books  which  he  would  not  be  willing  'to 
swallow,  like  Saturn  his  own  children.'  He  never  made  this  a  point  of  difference  from  the 
Swiss.  In  the  Articles  of  Smalcald,  1537  (III.  i.  p.  318,  ed.  Ilase),  he  again  denied  the  free- 
dom of  the  will,  as  a  scholastic  error;  and  in  his  commentary  on  Genesis  (Ch.  vi.  G,  IS;  xxvi), 
one  of  his  last  works,  he  taught  the  same  view  of  the  secret  will  of  God  as  in  1625.  Comp. 
J.  Mi'Li.KK  :  Lutheri  dc  jtra'destinatione  et  libero  arbitrio  doctrina,  1882,  and  his  Dogmat. 
Abhandlungen,  1 870,  pp.  l  s7  sqq. ;  I.i  tkkns:  Luther's  Pr&destinationsU  lire  im  Zusammenhcmg 
mit  seiner  Lehre  vomfnim  \\'i/bn,  1858;  Kostlin  :  Luther's  T/teologie  in  Hirer  geschichtl. 
Entwicklung,  18G3,  Vol.  II.  pp.  :;l' -."..",,  800-881  ;  Schwkizkii  :  Die  protest.  Central  dog  men, 
18;j4,Vo1.  I.  pp.  ~>7  Bqq, ;  DORJTBB :  Geschichte  der  j>rotest.  T/teologie,  18G7,Vol.  I.  pp.  11)4  sqq. 

Vol.  I.— P 


216  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  Reformed  Church  had  a  large  number  of  leaders,  as  Zwingli, 
(Ecolampadius,  Bollinger,  Calvin,  Beza,  Cranmer,  Knox,  but  not  one 
of  them,  not  even  Calvin,  could  impress  his  name  or  his  theological 
system  upon  her.  She  is  independent  of  men,  and  allows  full  free- 
dom for  national  and  sectional  modifications  and  adaptations  of  the 
principles  of  the  Reformation. 

3.  The  Lutheran  Confession  starts  from  the  wants  of  sinful  man 
and  the  personal  experience  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  and  finds, 
in  this  '  article  of  the  standing  and  falling  Church,'  comfort  and  peace 
of  conscience,  and  the  strongest  stimulus  to  a  godly  life.  The  Re- 
formed Churches  (especially  the  Calvinistic  sections)  start  from  the 
absolute  sovereignty  of  God  and  the  supreme  authority  of  his  holy 
Word,  and  endeavor  to  reconstruct  the  whole  Church,  on  this  basis. 
The  one  proceeds  from  anthropology  to  theology ;  the  other,  from  the- 
ology to  anthropology.  The  one  puts  the  subjective  or  material  prin- 
ciple of  the  Reformation  first,  the  objective  or  formal  next ;  the  other 
reverses  the  order ;  yet  both  maintain,  in  inseparable  unity,  the  subject- 
ive and  objective  principles  of  the  Reformation. 

The  Augsburg  Confession,  which  is  the  first  and  the  most  important 
Lutheran  symbol,  does  not  mention  the  Bible  principle  at  all,  although 
it  is  based  upon  it  throughout;1  the  Articles  of  Smalcald  mention 
it  incidentally;2  and  the  Form  of  Concord  more  formally.3  But  the 
Reformed  Confessions  have  a  separate  article  de  Scriptura  Sacra,  as 
the  only  rule  of  faith  and  discipline,  and  put  it  at  the  head,  sometimes 
with  a  full  list  of  the  canonical  books.4 

1  The  Preface  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  declares  that  the  Confession  is  'drawn  from  the 
holy  Scriptures  and  the  pure  Word  of  God.' 

:  Part  IT.  (p.  809)  :  '  The  Word  of  God,  and  no  one  else,  not  even  an  angel,  can  establish 
articles  of  faith.'  (' Regulam  a/lam  habemus,  ut  videlicet  Verbum  Dei  condat  articulos  Jidei, 
ft  prceterea  nemo,  v.e  ange/us  quidem.') 

Form,  i '.»«»..  Pari  I.  or  Epifc,  at  the  beginning:  'We  believe,  teach,  and  confess  that  the 
niily  rule  and  standard  (unicam  regulam  et  normam),  according  to  which  all  doctrines  and 
teachers  alike  ought  to  be  tried  and  judged,  are  the  prophetic  and  apostolic  Scriptures  of  the 
<  >M  and  New  Testaments  alone.'     Comp.  Preface  to  the  Second  Tart. 

<  "it/.  I  llr.  II.  cli.  i.  (J),,  Scriptwa  sancta,  x-ero  Dei  verbo):  '  Credimus  et  confitemur 
Scripturas  canoniccu  saw/,, rum  Prophet  arum  et  Apostolorum  utriusque  Testamenti,  ipsum 

mm  ease  Verbum  Dei:  </  auctoritdtem  sufficientem  ex  semetipsis,  non  ex  hominibus  habere.' 
Oonf.  Helv.  [.(Basil.  II.)  art,  1  ;  Con/.  Gall.  art.  2-6;  Con/.  Scot.  art.  18,  19;  Con/.  Belg. 
int.  _•  ,  ;  art,  A  mil.  art.  (J  (Srnptura  sacra  continet  omnia  quce  ad  salutem  sunt  necessaria, 
etc.,  *  uli  a  list  of  the  canonical  books,  from  which  the  Apocrypha  are  carefully  distinguished); 
WettminsU  r  ( 'or,/  o/  Fait*,  ch.  i.  (more  fully),  etc.    The  exception  of  the  first  Confession  of 


§  39.  THE  LUTHERAN  AND  REFORMED  CONFESSIONS.  217 

4.  The  Lutheran  Church  lias  an  idealistic  and  contemplative,  the 
Reformed  Church  a  realistic  and  practical,  spirit  and  tendency.  The 
former  aims  to  harmonize  Church  and  State,  theology  and  philoso- 
phy, worship  and  art;  the  latter  draws  a  sharper  line  of  distinction 
between  the  Word  of  God  and  the  traditions  of  men,  the  Church  and 
the  world,  the  Church  of  communicants  and  the  congregation  of  hear- 
ers, the  regenerate  and  the  unregenerate,  the  divine  and  the  human. 
The  one  is  exposed  to  the  danger  of  pantheism,  which  shuts  God  up 
within  the  world ;  the  other  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  deism,  which 
abstractly  separates  him  from  the  world.  Hence  the  leaning  of  the 
Lutheran  Christology  to  Eutychianism,  the  leaning  of  the  Reformed  to 
Nestorianism. 

The  most  characteristic  exponent  of  this  difference  between  the  two 
confessions  is  found  in  their  antagonistic  doctrines  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per; and  hence  their  controversies  clustered  around  this  article,  as  the 
Nicene  and  post-Nicene  controversies  clustered  around  the  person  of 
Christ.  Luther  teaches  the  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood 
in,  with,  and  under  the  elements,  the  oral  manducation  by  unworthy 
as  well  as  worthy  communicants,  and  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body ; 
while  Zwingli  and  Calvin,  carefully  distinguishing  the  sacramental 
sign  from  the  sacramental  grace,  teach — the  one  only  a  symbolical, 
the  other  a  spiritual  real,  presence  and  fruition  for  believers  alone. 
The  Romish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  is  equally  characteristic  of 
the  magical  supernaturalism  and  asceticism  of  Romanism,  which  real- 
izes the  divine  only  by  a  miraculous  annihilation  of  the  natural  ele- 
ments. Lutheranism  sees  the  supernatural  in  the  natural,  Calvinism 
above  the  natural,  Romanism  without  the  natural. 

5.  Viewed  in  their  relations  to  the  mediaeval  Church,  Lutheranism 
is  more  conservative  and  historical,  the  Reformed  Church  more  pro- 
gressive and  radical,  and  departs  much  further  from  the  traditionalism, 
sacerdotalism,  and  ceremonialism  of  Rome.  The  former  proceeded  on 
the  principle  to  retain  what  was  not  forbidden  by  the  Bible;  the  latter, 
on  the  principle  to  abolish  what  was  not  commanded. 


Basle  is  only  apparent,  for  it  concludes  with  a  submission  of  all  its  articles  to  the  supreme  au- 
thority of  the  Scriptures  (Postrcmo,  hanc  nostram  confessionem  judicio  sacra-  biblical  Scripture? 
tubjicimus ;  eoque  pollicemur,  si  ex  pradictis  Scripturis  in  melioribus  instituamur,  nos  omni 
tempore  Deo  et  sacrosrincto  ipsius  Verbo  maxima  cum  gratiarum  actione  obsccuturos  esse'). 


213  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  Anglican  Church,  however,  though  moderately  Calvinistic  in  her 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  especially  in  the  doctrine  on  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Sacraments,  makes  an  exception  from  the  other  Eeformed  communions, 
since  it  retained  the  body  of  the  episcopal  hierarchy  and  the  Catholic 
worship,  though  purged  of  popery.  Hence  Lutherans  like  to  call  it  a 
'  Lutheranizing  Church ;'  but  the  conservatism  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland was  of  native  growth,  and  owing  to  the  controlling  influence  of 
the  English  monarchs  and  bishops  in  the  Reformation  period. 

0.  The  Lutheran  Confession,  moreover,  attacked  mainly  the  Juda- 
ism of  Rome,  the  Reformed  Church  its  heathenism.  'Away  with 
legal  bondage  and  work  righteousness !'  was  the  war-cry  of  Luther ; 
'Away  with  idolatry  and  moral  corruption!'  was  the  motto  of  Zwin- 
gli,  Farel,  Calvin,  and  Knox. 

7.  Luther  and  Melanchthon  were  chiefly  bent  upon  the  purification 
of  doctrine,  and  established  State  churches  controlled  by  princes,  theo- 
logians, and  pastors.  Calvin  and  Knox  carried  the  reform  into  the 
sphere  of  government,  discipline,  and  worship,  and  labored  to  found  a 
pure  and  free  church  of  believers.  Lutheran  congregations  in  the  old 
world  are  almost  passive,  and  most  of  them  enjoy  not  even  the  right 
of  electing  their  pastor;  while  well-organized  Reformed  congregations 
have  elders  and  deacons  chosen  from  the  people,  and  a  much  larger 
amount  of  lay  agency,  especially  in  the  Sunday-school  wrork.  Lu- 
ther first  proclaimed  the  principle  of  the  general  priesthood,  but  in 
practice  it  was  confined  to  the  civil  rulers,  and  carried  out  in  a  wrong 
way  by  making  them  the  supreme  bishops  of  the  Church,  and  reduc- 
ing the  Church  to  a  degrading  dependence  on  the  State. 

8.  Luther  and  his  followers  carefully  abstained  from  politics,  and  in- 
trusted the  secular  princes  friendly  to  the  Reformation  with  the  episco- 
pal rights;  Calvin  and  Knox  upheld  the  sole  headship  of  Christ,  and 
endeavored  to  renovate  the  civil  state  on  a  theocratic  basis.  This  led 
to  h  rious  conflicts  and  wars,  but  they  resulted  in  a  great  advance  of 
civil  and  religious  liberty  in  Holland,  England,  and  the  United  States. 

'in-,.  <,f  Calvinism  is  the  sense  of  the  absolute  sovereignty  of 
God  and  the  absolute  dependence  of  man  ;  and  this  is  the  best  school 
"I   moral  self-government,  which  is  true  freedom.     Those  who  feel 
their  dependence  on  God  are  most  independent  of  men.1 

The  principles  of  the  Republic  of  the  United  States  can  be  traced,  through  the  intervening 


§  39.  THE  LUTHERAN  AND  REFORMED  CONFESSIONS.  219 

9.  The  strength  and  beauty  of  the  Lutheran  Church  lies  in  its  pro- 
found theology,  rich  hymnology,  simple,  childlike,  trustful  piety;  the 
strength  and  beauty  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  in  aggressive  ener- 
gy and  enterprise,  power  of  self-government,  strict  discipline,  mis- 
sionary zeal,  liberal  sacrifice,  and  faithful  devotion,  even  to  martyrdom, 
for  the  same  divine  Lord.  From  the  former  have  proceeded  Pietism 
and  Moravianism,  a  minutely  developed  scholastic  orthodoxy,  specula- 
tive systems  and  critical  researches  in  all  departments  of  sacred  learn- 
ing, but  also  antinomian  tendencies,  and  various  forms  of  mysticism, 
rationalism,  ami  hypercritieism.  The  latter  has  produced  Puritanism, 
Congregationalism,  Methodism,  Evangelicalism  (in  the  Church  of  En- 
gland), the  largest  Bible,  tract,  and  missionary  societies,  has  built  most 
churches  and  benevolent  institutions,  but  is  ever  in  danger  of  multi- 
plying sectarian  divisions,  overruling  the  principle  of  authority  by 
private  judgment,  and  disregarding  the  lessons  of  history. 

10.  Both  churches  have  accomplished,  and  are  still  accomplishing, 
a  great  and  noble  work.  Let  them  wish  each  other  God's  speed,  and 
stimulate  each  other  to  greater  zeal.  A  noble  rivalry  is  far  better 
than  sectarian  envy  and  jealousy.  There  have  been  in  both  churches, 
at  all  times,  men  of  love  and  peace  as  well  as  men  of  war,  with  corre- 
sponding efforts  to  unite  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christians,  from  the 
days  of  Melanchthon  and  Bucer,  Calixtus  and  Baxter,  down  to  the 
Prussian  Evangelical  Union,  the  German  Church  Diet,  and  the  Evangel- 
ical Alliance.  Even  the  exclusive  Church  of  England  has  entered  into 
a  sort  of  alliance  with  the  Evangelical  Church  of  Prussia  in  jointly 
founding  and  maintaining  the  Bishopric  of  St.  James  in  Jerusalem.1 

The  time  for  ecclesiastical  amalgamation,  or  organic  union,  has  not 
yet  come,  but  Christian  recognition  and  union  in  essentials  is  quite  con- 
sistent, with  denominational  distinctions  in  non-essentials,  and  should  be 
cultivated  by  all  who  love  our  common  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  desire 
the  triumph  of  his  kingdom. 

link  of  Puritanism,  to  Calvinism,  which,  with  all  its  theological  rigor,  has  been  the  chief  edu- 
cator of  manly  characters  and  promoter  of  constitutional  freedom  in  modern  times.  The 
inalienable  rights  of  an  American  citizen  are  nothing  hut  the  Protestant  idea  of  the  general 
priesthood  of  believers  applied  to  the  civil  sphere,  or  developed  into  the  corresponding  idea 
of  the  general  kingship  of  free  men. 

1  Chiefly  the  work  of  Chevalier  Bunsen  and  his  congenial  friend,  Frederick  William  IV. 


220  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

SIXTH  CHAPTER. 

THE  CREEDS  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 
§  40.  The  Lutheran  Confessions. 

Literature. 

I.  Collections  of  the  Lutheran  Symbols. 

(1.)  Latin  Editions. 

CoNConinA.  Pia  H  unanimi  con  emu  repetita  Confessio  Fidei  et  Doctrines  Electorum,  Principum  et 
Ordinum  Imperii,  atquc  eorundem  Theologorum,  qui  Augustanam  Confessioncm  amplectuntur  et  nomina 
sua  huic  libru  subscripserunt.  Cui  ex  Sacra  Scriptura,  unica  ilia  veritatis  norma  et  regula  quorundam 
Articulorum,  qui  post  Doctoris  Martini  Lutheri  felicem  ex  hac  vita  exitum,  in  controversial  venerunt, 
SoHda  accessit  Declaratio,  etc.  (By  Selnecker.)  Lips  1580,  4to  ;  15S4.  The  second  ed.  'communi  consilio 
et  mandato  Electorum.'  Another  edition,  Lips.  1602,  Svo,  by  order  and  with  a  Preface  of  Christian  II., 
Elector  of  Saxony ;  repnblished,  Lips.  1600, 1612, 1618,  1626,  Svo ;  Stettin,  1054,  Svo ;  Lips.  1069,  Svo  ;  167T. 
The  second  ed.(T46  pages)  is  the  authentic  Latin  editio  prineeps. 

The  same  edition,  cum  Appendice  tripartita  Dr.  Adami  Recuenbergii,  Lips,  first,  1677,  167S,  1698, 
1712, 1725 ;  last,  1742.  Rechenberg's  edition  is  the  standard  of  reference,  followed  by  the  later  Latin 
editions  in  the  paging. 

Ecclksi.«  Evanoeho.e  libri  Svmbolici,  etc.  CM.  Pfaffius,  ex  editionibus  primis  et  prcest.  recensuit, 
varias  lectianea  adjunxit,  etc.    Tubing.  1730, 8vo. 

Libbi  Symuomoi  Ecolesi.f,  evangelioo-lutueran-e  accuratius  editi  variique  generis  animadvers.  ac 
Oi-yiut.  illvetrati  a  Miou.  Weuero.    Viteb.  1S09,  Svo. 

Limti  Sy.muolioi  Eoclksi.b  Evangelic.*1.  Ad  fidem  optim.  exemplorum  recens.  J.  A.  II.  Tittmann. 
Lipe.  1817,  Svo ;  1827. 

Liiiri  Sy.muolioi  Ecolf.si.e  Evangelic.e  sive  Concordia.  Recens.  C.  A.  Hase.  Lipsiae,  1827,  Svo; 
1S37, 1S45. 

Libki  Symiioi.uu  Eoclesi.e  Lutherans  ad  editt.  jmneipes  et  ecclesim  auctoritate probat.  rec,  prcecipuani 
h'cthnum  diversitatem  notavit,  Christ.  II.  ordinumque  evangelicor.  prcefationes,  artic.  Saxon,  visitator.  et 
Con/ut.  A.  C.  Pontific.  adj.  H.  A.  Gun..  Meyer.     Gotting.  1830,  Svo. 

Cunooriua.    Libri  Sgmbolici  Ecclesice  Evang.   Ad  edit.  Lipsiensem,  1584 ;  Berolin.  (Schlawitz),  1S57,  Svo. 

(2.)  German  Editions. 
ram  a.  nirP  Christliche,  Widerholete,  einmiitige  Bekenntntis  nachbenanttr  Churfursten,  F'ur- 
si,-, i  und  Stende  Augepurgischer  Confession,  und  de.rselben  zu  ende  des  Buchs  xmderschriebener  Theologen 
lore  "in!  Gflaubena,  Mit  angeheffter,  in  Gottes  wort,  als  der  einigen  Richtechnur,  icohlgegrundter  erklerung 
etlichcr  A  rtickel,  bei  wclchen  nach  D.  Martin  Luther's  seligen  absterben  disputation  und  streit  vorgef alien. 
.1  m  efnhelliger  rergleichung  und  bevehl  obgedachter  Churfursten,  Fiirsten  und  Stende,  derselben  Landen, 
Kitchen,  Schulen  und  NacMtom  men,  zum  underricht  und  warnung  in  Druck  verfertiget.  Mit  Chttrf.  Gnaden 
zu  Sachsen  befrefhung.    Dresden,  15S0,  fol.    (See  the  whole  title  in  Corp.  Ref.  Vol.  XXVI.  p.  443.) 

Comooema.  Magdeburg,  1880, 4to,  two  ed. ;  Tiibingeu,  1580,  fol. ;  Dresden,  15Sl,4to;  Frankfurt  a.  O., 
1581,  fol. ;  Magdeburg,  1581,  4to;  Heidelberg,  15S2,  fol.,  two  ed. ;  Dresden,  1598,  fol. ;  Tiibingeu,  1599, 4to  ; 
Leipzig,  l«08,4tO;  Stuttgart,  1611, 4to;  Leipzig,  1622,  4to  ;  Stuttgart,  1660,  4to;  1681, 4to. 

1  •'"  4-    Mit  Heine.  Piping's  Hist,  theol.  Einl.  zu  den  symb.  Schriften  der  Evang.  Luth.  Kirchen. 

Leipz.  1 703, 4to ;  2te  Ansg.  mit  Christ.  Weissen's  Schlussrede.    Leipz.  1739,  4to. 
CiiuisTLioiiKs  Conoouuienuuoii,  etc.,  von  Siegm.  Jac.  Bacmgartf.n.    Halle,  1747,  2  vols.  Svo. 
(  •iiristl.  Conoordienbwh  mit  der  Leipziger  Theol.  Facultaet  Vorrede.   Wittenberg,  1760,  Svo;  1766, 17S9. 
I  hi:  Si  mi;.  I!i  'iiii:  DIB  ev.  luth.  KiRciiK,  etc.,  von  J.  W.  Schupff.    Dresden,  1826-27,  Svo. 

dm.     Die  Symb.  Ditcher  der  ev.  luth.  Kirche,  etc.,  von  F.  A.  Koethe.    Leipzig,  1S30,  8vo. 
it  toaoOBDI  KNBUOH,  etc.,  von  J.  A.  Detzer.    Niirnberg,  1S30, 1842, 1S47. 
uCoNooBDiBHBnoB,etc.,von  Fi;.  W.Boi.emann.    Hanover.  1S43. 
«  iii;fsti.k;iie8  Cokooedienbuoh,  New  York,  1S54. 

(3.)  German-Latin  Editions. 
man  (so-  Latina  ad  optima  et  antiquisaima  exempla  recognita,  adjectis  fldeliter  allegator. 

Meter.   8.  Ser.  capUibm  et  vera,  et  teetimoniorum  i:  /'.  aliorumquc  Scriptorum  locis cum  approbatione 

FamlL  Theol  Ups.  Wittmb.et  Boetoeh.    studio  Cn.  Reineooii.    Lips.  i70S,4to;  1735. 

Iim.ll  BBS  COMOOBDIBMIK  I  EL     DeutBCh  und  LateinUch  mit  historischen  Einleitungen  J.  G.Wai.oh's. 
•J'  ii  i,  1 . '  J 

ibouw  in  *  Bl  .  mi:  i.,i:  m  wso.  i.utiif.r.  Kir.iie,  deutsch  und  lateinisch,  etc.,  voa  J.  F.Mui.ler 
[of  u  indabacb,  Bavaria),  kit  ;  3d  ed.  Stuttgart,  1869.    (A  very  useful  edition.) 


§  40.  THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSIONS.  221 

(4.)  Translations. 

Dutch:  Conoobiha  of  Later sche  Gelvo/s  Belydenis  in't  licht  gegeven  door  Zacii.  Dezics.  Rotterdam, 
1715,  8vo. 

Swedish :  Libri  Concori>i.e  Versio  Soeoioa,  Oiristei.iga,  Enuelliga,  ocu  Uprei-adk  ocu  Laeas,  etc. 
NorkOping,  1730, 4to. 

English:  The  Christian  Book  ofCovoorv, or  Symbolical  Booksof  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  trans- 
lated by  Ambrose  and  Soobatbs  Henkel  (two  Lutheran  clergymen  of  Virginia),  uith  the  assistance  of  sev- 
eral other  Lutheran  clergymen.  Newmarket,  Virginia,  1S51 ;  2d  ed.  revised,  1S64.  This  is  the  first  and 
only  complete  English  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord;  hut  the  translation  (made  from  the  German)  is 
not  sufficiently  idiomatic. 

II.  Historical  and  Critical  Works  on  tub  Lutheran  Symbols  in  General. 

Jo.  Benedict  Cabfzov  :  Isagoge  in  libros  ecclesiarum  Lutheranarum  symbolic*)*.  Opus  posthumum  a 
J.Oleario:  Continuatum  ed.  J.  B.  CaBPZOV  (filius).     Lipsiie,  1665, 4to;  1675, 1691, 1699, 1T26. 

Jo.  Georg  Wai.cii  :  Introductio  in  libros  Ecclesice  Lutherance  symbolieos,  observationibua  historicis  et  tlte- 
ologicis  iUustrato.    Jens,  17J2, 4to. 

J.  Ai.br.  Fabricius:  Centi/olium  Lutheranutn.    Hamb.  172S-30, 2  vols.  Svo. 

S.  J.  Bacmgaetkn  :  Erlevterungen  der  im  christlichen  Concordienbuch  enthaltencn  symbolischcn  Schriften 
der  evang.  luth.  Kirche,  nebst  einem  Anhange  von  den  iibrigen  Bekenntnissen  und  feierlichen  Lehrbuchern 
in  gedachter  Kirche.    Halle,  1747. 

J.  Chbibtoph.  Kcboueb  :  Bibliotheca  theologies  symbolical  et  catechetical.    Guelph.  et  Jena;,  1751-C9, 2  vols. 

Jac.  \V.  Feueri.in  :  Bibliotheca  symb.  evang.  Lutherana.  Accedunt  appendices  duo?:  I.  Ordinationes  et 
Agenda;  II.  Catechismus  ecclesiarum  nostrarum.  Gottiug.  1752.  Another  enlarged  edition  by  J.  Bar- 
tuoi.  Riedereb.     Niirnberg,  17GS,  2  vols.  Svo. 

J.  G.  Walch  :  Bibliotheca  theologica  selecta.    Jena,  1757-65,  4  vols.  Svo. 

Cue.  Gcil.  Fe.  Walch  :  Breviarium  theol.  symb.  eccles.  hither.     Gottiugen,  1765-17S1,  Svo. 

Eduard  KGllneb:  Symbolik  der  lutherischen  Kirche.    Hamburg,  1S37. 

J.  F.  MUi.ler:  Die  symb.  Biicher  der  evang.  luth.  Kirche.  Stuttgart,  1S47;  3d  ed.  1S69.  Introduction 
pp.  exxiv. 

Cuari.es  P.  Kracth  (Dr.  and  Prof,  of  Theology  in  the  Evang.  Theol.  Seminary  in  Philadelphia):  The 
Conservative  Reformation  and  its  Theology,  as  represented  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  in  the  History 
and  Literature  of  the  Evang.  Lutheran  Church.     Philadelphia,  1STL 

For  fuller  lists  of  editions  and  works,  see  Feuerliu  (ed.  Riederer),  J.  G.  Walch,  KGllner,  1.  c,  and  the 
26th  and  '27th  vols,  of  the  Corpus  Beformatorum,  ed.  Biudseil. 

The  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  in  whole  or  in  part,  acknowledges 
nine  symbolical  books :  three  of  them  are  inherited  from  the  Catholic 
Church,  viz.,  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Nicene  Creed  (with  the  Filioque), 
and  the  Athanasian  Creed ;  six  are  original,  viz.,  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, drawn  up  by  Melanchthon  (1530),  the  Apology  of  the  Confes- 
sion, by  the  same  (1530),  the  Articles  of  Smalcald,  by  Luther  (1537), 
the  two  Catechisms  of  Luther  (1529),  and  the  Form  of  Concord,  pre- 
pared by  six  Lutheran  divines  (1577). 

These  nine  symbols  constitute  together  the  Book  of  Concord  {Con- 
cordia, or  Liber  Concordia?,  Concordienbuch),  which  was  first  published 
by  order  of  Elector  Augustus  of  Saxony  in  1580,  in  German  and  Latin, 
and  which  superseded  older  collections  of  a  similar  character.1 

The  Lutheran  symbols  are  not  of  equal  authority.      Besides  the 

1  See  an  account  of  the  various  Corpora  Doctrine  in  Baumgartcn,  Erlauterungen,  etc.,  pp. 
217-2S2;  Kollner,  Symbolik,  I.  pp.  96  sqq. ;  and  Miiller,  Si/mb.  Biicher,  pp.  exxii.  sqq.  The 
oldest  was  the  Corpus  Doctrina  Christiana  Philippiewn,  or  Mtsnicum,  1560,  which  contained 
only  Melanchthonian  writings,  and  was  followed  by  several  other  collections  of  a  more  strictly 
Lutheran  character. 


222  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

three  oecumenical  Creeds,  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  most  highly  es- 
teemed, and  is  the  only  one  which  is  generally  recognized.  Next  to 
it  conies  the  Shorter  Catechism  of  Luther,  which  is  extensively  used 
in  catechetical  instruction.  His  Larger  Catechism  is  only  an  expan- 
sion of  the  Shorter.  The  Apology  is  valuable  in  a  theological  point 
of  view,  as  an  authentic  commentary  on  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
The  Smalcald  Articles  have  an  historical  significance,  as  a  warlike 
manifesto  against  Rome,  but  are  little  used.  The  Form  of  Concord 
was  never  generally  received,  but  decidedly  rejected  in  several  coun- 
tries, and  is  disowned  by  the  Melanchthonian  and  unionistic  schools 
in  the  Lutheran  Church. 

Originally  intended  merely  as  testimonies  or  confessions  of  faith, 
these  documents  became  gradually  binding  formulas  of  public  doc- 
trine, and  subscription  to  them  was  rigorously  exacted  from  all  clergy- 
men and  public  teachers  in  Lutheran  State  churches.1  The  rational- 
istic apostasy,  reacting  against  the  opposite  extreme  of  symbololatry 
and  ultra-orthodoxy,  swept  away  these  test-oaths,  or  reduced  them  to 
a  hypocritical  formality.  The  revival  of  evangelical  Christianity, 
since  the  tercentenary  jubilee  of  the  Reformation  in  1817,  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  partial  revival  of  rigid  Lutheran  confessionalism,  yet  not 
so  much  in  opposition  to  the  Reformed  as  to  the  Unionists  in  Prussia 
and  other  German  States,  where  the  two  Confessions  have  been  amal- 
gamated. The  meaning  and  aim  of  the  Evangelical  Union  in  Prus- 
sia, however,  was  not  to  set  aside  the  two  Confessions,  but  to  accom- 
modate them  in  one  governmental  household,  allowing  them  to  use 
either  the  Lutheran  or  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  as  before.  The  chief 
trouble  was  occasioned  by  the  new  liturgy  of  King  Frederick  Wil- 
liam III.,  which  was  forced  upon  the  churches,  and  gave  rise  to  the 
<  M<1  Lutheran  secession.  In  the  other  States  of  Germany,  and  in  Scan- 
dinavia and  Austria,  the  Lutheran  churches  have,  with  a  separate  gov- 
ernment,  also  their  own  liturgies  and  forms  of  ordination,  with  widely 
differing  modes  of  subscription  to  the  symbolical  books.2 


ly  as  1 5SS  a  statute  was  enacted  in  Wittenberg  by  Luther,  Jonas,  and  others,  which 

required  tin:  doctors  of  theology,  at  their  promotion,  to  swear  to  the  incorrupt  doctrine  of  the 

taught  in  die  symbols.     It  was  only  a  modification  of  the  oath  customary  in  the 

Soman  I  latholic  <  ihnrch.     After  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  subscription  began  to 

be  enforced,  on  pain  of  deposition  and  exile.     See  Kollner,  Symb.,  I.  pp.  100  sqq. 

'  Kollner,  I.  pp.121  Bqq.,  gives  a  number  of  VerpjUchtungsformeln  in  use  in  Europe. 


§  40.  THE  LUTHERAN  CONFESSIONS.  223 

In  the  United  States,  the  Lutherans,  left  free  from  the  control  of 
the  civil  government,  yet  closely  connected  with  the  doctrinal  and 
confessional  disputes  of  their  brethren  in  Germany,  are  chiefly  di- 
vided into  three  distinct  organizations,  which  hold  as  many  different 
relations  to  the  Symbolical  Books,  and  are,  in  fact,  three  denomina- 
tions under  a  common  name,  viz. :  the  General  Synod  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church  of  the  United  Statp:s,  organized  in  1820; 
the  Synodical  Conference  of  North  America,  organized  in  1872 ;' 
and  the  General  Council,  which,  under  the  lead  of  the  old  Synod  of 
Pennsylvania,  seceded  from  the  General  Synod,  and  met  first  at  Fort 
Wayne,  Indiana,  Nov.  20, 1867.  The  first  has  its  theological  and  lit- 
erary centre  in  Gettysburg,  the  second  at  St.  Louis  and  Fort  Wayne, 
the  third  in  Philadelphia.2 

The  '  General  Synod,'  which  is  composed  chiefly  of  English-speak- 
ing descendants  of  German  immigrants,  and  sympathizes  with  the 
surrounding  Reformed  denominations,  adopts  simply  '  the  Augsburg 
Confession  as  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  divine  Word,'  without  mentioning  the  other  symbolical  books  at 
all,  and  allows  a  very  liberal  construction  even  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, especially  the  articles  on  the  Sacraments.3     With  this  basis 

1  ' Synodal-Conferenz  von  Nord-Amerika.'  The  oldest  and  largest  member  of  this  body  is 
the  Synod  of  Missouri,  Ohio,  and  other  States,  which  arose  from  a  nucleus  of  zealous  seceders 
from  the  Lutheran  State  churches  of  Saxony  and  Prussia,  and  was  organized  in  1847  ;  hence 
this  entire  section  is  sometimes  popularly  called  the  Missourians  or  Missouri  Lutherans.  They 
are  little  known  among  English  Americans,  but  spread  very  fast  among  the  German  immi- 
grants, especially  in  the  Western  States.  They  are  the  strictest  Lutherans  in  the  world — 
unless  it  be  the  Buffalo  or  Grabau  Synod — and  regard  all  other  Lutheran  bodies  as  pseudo- 
Lutheran  and  heretical.  They  are  very  active  and  zealous,  and  insist  upon  order  and  dis- 
cipline in  church  and  school. 

■  The  statistics  of  these  bodies  for  the  year  1S7G,  as  I  have  gathered  them  from  three  Lu- 
theran Almanacs  for  1877,  are  as  follows  : 

CJknkrai.  Synod 741  1214  110,866 

Synodical  Confkeknck 1034  1751  204,935 

Gkkkbal  Council 567  114S  1M,.',51 

Besides,  there  is  a  General  Synod  of  the  Southern  States,  organized  during  the  Civil  War,  in 
1863,  and  numbering  !)4  ministers  and  164  churches;  and  half  a  dozen  or  a  dozen  independ- 
ent synods  of  various  names  and  colors,  summing  np  in  all  over  348  ministers,  694  congrega- 
tions, and  59,102  communicants.  And,  finally,  there  are  a  number  of  independent  ministers 
and  congregations  calling  themselves  Lutheran,  but  in  fact  rationalistic,  and  destitute  of  all 
discipline.  The  Evangelical  Alliance  Conference  in  October  suggested  the  idea  of  a  Lutheran 
Alliance,  but  its  formation  seems  yet  to  be  far  off. 

3  'We  receive  and  hold,  with  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  our  fathers,  the  Word 
of  God,  as  contained  in  the  canonical  .Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  the  only 


224  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  Lutheran  Synod  of  the  Southern  States,  which  was  organized  dur- 
ing the  civil  war,  is  substantially  agreed.1 

The  Lutheran  Synodical  Conference  of  North  America,  which  is  so 
far  almost  exclusively  German  as  to  language,  requires  its  ministers 
to  subscribe  the  whole  Book  of  Concord  (including  the  Form  of  Con- 
cord), 'as  the  pure,  unadulterated  explanation  and  exposition  of  the 
divine  "\V«.nl  and  will.'2 

With  the  Missourians  are  agreed  the  Buffalo  and  the  Iowa  Luther- 
ans, except  on  the  question  of  the  origin  and  nature  of  the  ministerial 
office,  which  has  been  the  subject  of  much  bitter  controversy  between 
them. 

The  'General  Council,'  which  is  nearly  equally  divided  as  to  lan- 
guage and  nationality,  stands  midway  between  the  General  Synod 
and  the  Synodical  Conference.  It  accepts,  primarily,  the  'Unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession  in  its  original  sense,'  and,  in  subordinate  rank, 
the  other  Lutheran  symbols,  as  explanatory  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, and  as  equally  pure  and  Scriptural.3 

infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  a  correct  exhibition  of 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Divine  Word,  and  of  the  faith  of  our  Church  founded  upon 
that  Word.'    (Constitution  of  General  Synod,  adopted  at  Washington,  1869,  Art,  II.  Sect.  3.) 

1  '  We  receive  and  hold  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  Word  of  God,  and  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  We  likewise  hold  that  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the 
Nicene  Creed,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  contain  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures  ;  and  we  receive  and  adopt  them  as  the  exponents  of  our  faith.' 

1  "  Teh  erkenne  die  drei  Hauptsymbole  der  [alten]  Kirche,  die  ungednderte  Augsburgische  Con- 
feesion  und  deren  Apologie,  die  Schmalcaldischen  Artikel,  die  bciden  Catechismen  Luther s  und 
du  i  'oncordienformelfur  die  reine,  ungefalschte  Erklarung  und  Darlegung  des got t lichen  Wortes 
und  Willens,  bekenne  mich  zu  dense/ben  als  zu  meinen  eigenen  Bekenntnissen  und  will  mein 
Ami  bis  an  mein  Ende  trevlich  und  fleissig  nach  denselben  ausrichten.  Dazu  stdrke  mich 
( loll  durch  seinen  heiligen  Geist  I  Amen.'  (Ordination  vow  in  the  Kirchen-Agende,  St.  Louis, 
1856,  p.  1  7.!.)  Here  the  Lutheran  system  of  doctrine  is  almost  identified  with  the  Bible,  ac- 
cording to  the  adage : 

'  Gotten  Wort,  und  Luther's  Lehr 
Vergehet  nun  und  nimmcrmehr.' 

1  '  We  accept  and  acknowledge  the  doctrines  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  in  its 

original  sense  as  throughout  in  conformity  with  the  pure  truth,  of  which  God's  Word  is  the 

only  rule   We  accept  its  statements  of  truth  as  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  canonical  Script- 

■  reject  the  errors  it  condemns,  and  believe  that  all  which  it  commits  to  the  liberty 

Of  the  ( Ihurcb,  of  righl  belongs  to  that  liberty.    In  thus  formally  accepting  and  acknowledging 

Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  we  declare  our  conviction  that  the  other  Confessions  of 

elical  Lutheran  Church,  inasmuch  as  they  set  forth  none  other  than  its  system  of 

""•  •»"!  articles  of  faith,  are  of  necessity  pure  and  Scriptural.      Pre-eminent  among  such 

accordant,  pure,  and  Scriptural  statements  of  doctrine,  by  their  intrinsic  excellence,  by  the 

great  andnecessarj  ends  forwhich  they  were  prepared,  by  their  historical  position,  and  by  the 

gen  >ral  judgment  of  Che  Church,  are  these:   the  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the 


§  41.  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  1530.  225 

§  41.  The  Augsburg  Confession,  1530. 

Literature. 

I.  Editions,  Latin  and  German.  In  the  general  collections  of  Lutheran  Symbols,  by  RaoniHBi  ito, 
Waloii,  Hase,  MUller,  etc.  (see  {  40). 

II.  Sm'auatf.  Editions  of  the  Augs.  Con f.— in  Latin  or  German,  or  both— by  Twesten  (1S1C),  Wis  in 
(1825),  Tittmann  (1S30),  SriEKF.n  (1880),  M.  Weker  (1880),  WieSIBa  (1S30),  Beysculag  (1880),  Fi  nk  (1830), 
Furstemann  (1S33),  Haetek  (1S3S).  The  best  critical  edition  of  the  Latin  and  German  texts,  with  all  the 
variations,  is  contained  in  the  Corpus  Reforrnatorvm,  ed.  Bret6ouneider  aud  Bindseii.,  Vol.  XXVI. 
(issued,  Bruusvigse,  185S),  pp.  2G3  sqq. 

For  lists  of  older  editions,  see  Kuli.neis,  Symbol  ik,l.  p. 344-353,  and  Bindseii.,  in  Corp. lief.  Vol.  XXVI. 
pp.  211-263. 

III.  English  Translations.  In  Henkel's  Book  of  Concord,  1S54,  aud  a  better  one  by  Dr.  Ciiari.es  P. 
Krautu:  The  Augsburg  Confession,  literally  translated  from  the  original  Latin,  with  the  most  important 
Additions  of  the  German  Text  ineorjjorated,  together  tilth  Introduction  and  Sotes.  Philadelphia,  1SG9.  The 
same,  revised  for  this  work.  Vol.  II.  pp.  1  sqq. 

IV.  Historical  and  Critical  documents  aud  works  on  the  Augsburg  Confession: 

Phiupfi  Melantiionis  Opera  in  the  second  and  twenty-sixth  volumes  of  the  Corpus  Rrformatorum, 
ed.  Bretscun eider  and  Bindseii..  Vol.  II.  (Halis  Saxonum,  1S35)  contains  the  Epistles  of  Melanchthon 
from  Jan.  1, 1530,  to  Dec.  25, 1535 ;  Vol.  XXVI.  (Brunsv.lS58,  pp.  7TG),  the  Augsburg  Confession  itself,  with 
all  the  preliminary  labors  and  important  documents  connected  therewith. 

Lctiier's  Ilriefe,  in  Dk  Wf.tte's  ed.,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  1-1S0. 

E.  Sal.  Cyprian  :  Historia  der  Axigsburyischen  Confession,  etc.     Gotha,  1730, 4to. 

Cuuist.  Aug.  Salig  :  VoUstundige  Historie  der  Augsburg.  Confession  und  derselben  Apologie,  etc.  3  Thlc. 
Halle,  1730-35,  4to. 

G.  G.  Weuer  :  Kritische  Geschichte  der  Augsb.  Conf.  aus  archivalischenXachrichten.  Frankf.  a.  M.  17S3-S4, 
2  vols. 

K.  Pfaff  :  Geschichte  des  Reichstags  zu  Augsburg,  im  Jahr  1530,  und  des  A ugsb.  Glaubensbeke/intnisses  bis 
avfdie  neueren  Zeiten.    Stuttgart,  1S30,  Svo ;  2  Parts. 

Carl  Edcard  Forstemann:  Urkundenbuch  zur  Geschichte  des  Reichstags  zu  Augsburg,  im  Jahr  1530, 
etc.,  2  vols.    Halle,  1833-35,  8vo. 

C.  Ed.  Forstemann  :  Xeues  Urknndenb.  zur  Gesch.  der  ev.  Kirehen-Reform.  Hamb.  1S42,  Vol.  I.  pp.  357- 
3S0.     Die  Apologie  der  Augsburg.  Confession  in  ihrem  ersten  Entwurfe. 

A.  G.  Rudf.i.haoh  :  Die  Aursb.  Conf.  aus  und  nach  den  Quellen,  etc.  Leipzig,  1829.  Bistor.  critisehe  Kin- 
leit.  in  die  A  ugsb.  Conf.,  etc.    Dresden,  1841. 

J.  R.  Calinicu  :  Luther  und  die  Augsb.  Confession  (gekrnnte  Preisschrift).     Leipz.  1S61. 

G.  Pi.itt  :  Kinleitung  in  die  Augustana.     Eilangen,  1SG7-GS,  2  Parts. 

O.  ZOcki.er:  Die  Augsburgisehe  Confession  al*  Lehrgrundlage  der  deutschen  Reformationakirche  histo- 
risch  uiut  exegetisch  untersucht.    Frankfurt  a.  M.  1870. 

Comp.  also  Ranke:  Deutsche  Geschichte  im  Zeitalter  der  Reformation,  III.  pp.  1SG  sqq.  (3d  ed.  1852),  and 
the  relevant  sections  in  Mariikineke,  Merle  i>'Aumgn£,  Hacenhach,  and  Fisuf.r,  on  the  History  of  the 
Reformation. 

See  lists  of  Literatuie  especially  in  Koi.i.ner,  Symb.  I.  pp.  150  sqq.,  345  sqq. ;  also  J.  T.  MCller,  Die 
Symb.  Bucher  der  evang.  luth.  Kirche,  XVII. ;  C.  P.  Kf.auth,  Select  Analytical  Bibliography  if  the  Augsb. 
Conf  (Phila.  185S) ;  and  ZooKUCB,  Die  Augsb.  Conf.  pp.  1,  8, 15,  21,  31,  35,  44,  52,  CI,  74,  65-88;  and  Corp. 
Ref.  Vol.  XXVI.  pp.  102  sqq. 

ORIGIN    AND    HISTORY. 

The  Augsburg  Confession,  at  first  modestly  called  an  Apology,  after 
the  manner  of  the  early  Church  in  the  ages  of  persecution,  was  occa:. 
sioned  by  the  German  Emperor  Charles  V.,  who  commanded  thc^jjU. 
theran  Princes  to  present,  at  the  Diet  to  be  held  in  the  Bavarian  city 
of  Augsburg,  an  explicit  statement  of  their  faith,  that  the   religious 


Smaleald  Articles,  the  Catechisms  of  Lather,  and  the  Formula  <>f  Concord,  all  of  which  are, 
with  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  perfect  harmony  of  o?ie  and  the  same  Script- 
ural faith.'  (Principles  of  Faith  and  Church  Polity  of  the  Gen.  Council,  adopted  Nov.  [867, 
Sections  VIII.  and  IX.) 


206  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

controversy  might  be  settled,  and  Catholics  and  Protestants  be  united 
in  a  war  against  the  common  enemies,  the  Turks.1  Its  deeper  cause 
must  be  sought  in  the  inner  necessity  and  impulse  to  confess  and  form- 
ularize  the  evangelical  faith,  which  had  been  already  attempted  before. 
It  was  prepared,  on  the  basis  of  previous  drafts,  and  with  conscientious 
care,  by  Philip  Melanchthon,  at  the  request  and  in  the  name  of  the 
Lutheran  States,  during  the  months  of  April,  May,  and  June,  1530,  at 
Coburg  and  Augsburg,  with  the  full  approval  of  Luther.  It  was  signed, 
August  23,  by  seven  German  Princes  (the  Elector  John  of  Saxony 
and  the  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  etc.)  and  the  deputies  of  two  free 
cities  (Nuremberg  and  Eeutlingen).  This  act  required  no  little  moral 
courage,  in  view  of  the  immense  political  and  ecclesiastical  power  of 
the  Roman  Church  at  that  time.  When  warned  by  Melanchthon  of 
the  possible  effects  of  his  signature,  the  Elector  John  of  Saxony  no- 
bly replied :  <  I  will  do  what  is  right,  unconcerned  about  my  electoral 
dignity;  I  will  confess  my  Lord,  whose  cross  I  esteem  more  highly 
than  all  the  power  of  the  earth.' 

On  the  25th  of  June,  1530,  the  Confession  was  read  aloud,  in  the 
German  language,2  before  the  assembled  representatives  of  Church 
and  State,  and  in  the  hearing  of  a  monarch  in  whose  dominions  the 
sun  never  set. 

This  formed  an  important  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  Reformation. 
The  deputies,  and  the  people  who  stood  outside,  listened  attentively 
for  two  hours  to  the  new  creed.  The  Papists  were  surprised  at  its 
moderation.  The  Bishop  of  Augsburg  is  reported  to  have  said  pri- 
vately that  it  contained  nothing  but  the  pure  truth.  Duke  William  of 
Bavaria  censured  Dr.  Eck  for  misrepresenting  to  him  the  Lutheran 
opinions;  and  when  the  Romish  doctor  remarked  that  he  could  refute 

The  imperial  letter,  convening  the  Diet  for  April  8  (although  it  did  not  meet  till  June), 
dated  Bologna,  Jan.  21,  15:10.  The  passage  expressing  the  hope  of  a  peaceful  settle- 
'  the  religious  controversies  is  embodied  in  the  Preface  to  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
r.  (  liristian  Baier,  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  after  some  introduc- 
tory remarks  of  Chancellor  Briick,  who  composed  the  Preface  and  the  Epilogue ;  see  below. 
The  Empei«»r  at  first  did  not  want  to  have  it  read  at  all,  but  simply  presented;  yielding  this 
point,  he  BOUgV^  to  diminish  its  effect  by  having  it  read  in  Latin,  but  the  Lutheran  Princes 
resisted,  and  carded  their  point.  'We  arc  on  German  soil,' said  the  Elector  John,  'and 
therefore  I  hope  \<><t  Majesty  will  allow  the  German  language.'  He  did  not  allow  it,  how- 
ever, to  be  read  in  a  |,,|,lir  session  of  the  Diet  in  the  large  City  Hall,  but  merely  before  a 
select  company  of  Prince's  counselors,  and  deputies  of  cities,  in  the  small  chapel  of  the  epis- 
copal palace,  where  he  reside^. 


§  41.  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  1530.  227 

them  with  the  Fathers,  though  not  with  the  Scriptures,  the  Duke  re- 
plied, '  I  am  to  understand,  then,  that  the  Lutherans  are  within  the 
Scriptures,  and  we  are  on  the  outside.'  The  Emperor  himself,  a 
bigoted  Spaniard,  a  master  in  shrewd  policy,  little  acquainted  with 
the  German  language  and  spirit,  and  still  less  with  theology,  after 
respectfully  listening  for  a  while,  fell  asleep  during  the  delivery,1 
but  graciously  received  the  Latin  copy  for  his  own  use,  and  handed 
the  German  to  the  Elector  of  Mayence  for  safe  keeping  in  the  im- 
perial archives,  yet  prohibited  the  publication  without  his  permission. 
Both  copies  are  lost. 

The  Diet  ordered  a  committee  of  about  twenty  Romish  theologians, 
among  whom  were  Eck,  Faber,  Cochlseus,  and  Wimpina,  to  prepare  a 
refutation  of  the  Confession  on  the  spot.  Their  scholastic  Confu- 
tation the  result  of  five  successive  drafts,  was  a  far  inferior  produc- 
tion, and  made  little  impression  upon  the  Diet,  but  it  fairly  ex- 
pressed the  views  of  the  Emperor  and  the  majority  of  the  States,  and 
was  accepted  as  a  satisfactory  refutation  of  the  Confession.2  Me- 
lanchthon  answered  it  by  his  'Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,' 
but  the  Diet  refused  even  to  receive  the  reply ;  and,  after  several 
useless  conferences,  resolved,  Sept.  22  and  Nov.  19,  1530,  to  proceed 
with  violent  measures  against  the  Protestants  if  they  should  not  re- 
turn to  the  Catholic  faith  before  the  15th  of  April  of  the  following 
year. 

The  Elector  John,  justly  styled  the  Constant,  with  all  his  loyalty 
to  the  Emperor  and  wish  for  the  peace  of  Germany,  refused  to  com- 
promise his  conscience,  and,  in  full  view  of  the  possible  ruin  of  his 
earthly  interest,  he  resolved  to  stand  by  '  the  imperishable  Word  of 
God.'3    The  heroic  spirit  of  the  Reformers  in  these  trying  times  found 


1  So  Brentius,  who  was  at  Augsburg  at  the  time,  reports  (cum  Confessio  legeretur,  obdormivit). 
Considering  the  length  of  the  document,  this  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  other  statement  of 
Jonas  and  Spalatin,  that  he,  like  most  of  the  other  Princes,  was  quite  attentive  (satis  attentat 
erat  C(esar).  Nor  must  his  drowsiness  be  construed  as  a  mark  of  disrespect  to  the  Luther- 
ans, for  he  was  likewise  soundly  asleep  on  the  third  of  August  when  the  Bomish  Confuta- 
tion was  read  before  the  Diet. 

s  The  best  text,  Latin  and  German,  of  the  Confutatio  Confessionit  Augtutance,  with  ample 
Prolegomena  and  the  Summary  of  Cochla;us,  see  in  the  27th  volume  of  the  Corjius  Reforma- 
tory.™ (1859),  pp.  1-243. 

3  See  the  masterly  delineation  of  this  1'rince  by  Banke,  in  his  Deutsche  (Jeschichte,  etc., 
Book  V.  Ch.  9  (Vol"  III.  pp.  21 1  sqq.). 


228  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

its  noblest  expression  in  the  words  and  time  of  Luther's  immortal  bat- 
tle-song, based  on  Psalm  xlvi. : 

'  A  tower  of  strength  our  God  is  still, 

A  mighty  shield  and  weapon ; 

He'll  help  us  clear  from  all  the  ill 

That  hath  us  now  o'ertaken. 


And  though  they  take  our  life — 
Goods,  honor,  children,  wife — 
Yet  is  their  profit  small; 
These  things  shall  vanish  all — 
The  Citv  of  God  remaineth.' 


luther's  share  in  the  composition.1 
Beino-  under  the  papal  excommunication  and  the  imperial  ban  since 
the  Diet  of  Worms  (1521),  Luther  could  not  safely  venture  to  Augsburg, 
but  he  closely  watched  the  proceedings  of  the  Diet  from  the  Castle  of 
( loburg  on  the  Saxon  frontier,  praying,  translating  the  prophets,  writing 
childlike  letters  to  his  children,  and  manly  letters  to  princes,  singing 
'Jii n  feste  Burg  ist  wiser  Gott]  giving  his  advice  at  every  important 
step,  and  encouraging  his  timid  and  desponding  friend  Melanchthon. 

lie  had  taken  the  leading  part  in  the  important  preparatory  labors, 
namely,  the  Fifteen  Articles  of  the  Marburg  Conference  (Oct.  3, 1529),2 
the  Seventeen  Articles  of  Schwabach  (Oct.  16, 1529),3  which  correspond 

1  ( !omp.  Kmkkkt:  Luther's  Verhcillniss  zum  Augsb.  Bek.,  Jena,  1854;  Calinich:  Luther 
unci  die  Awjsb.  Con/.,  Leipz.  1861  (against  Kiickert  and  Heppe);  Hefpe:  Entstehung  unci 
Fortbildung  da  Lutherthums,  Cassel,  1868,  pp.  234  sqq. ;  Knaake:  Luther's  Anthe.il  an  der 
Aii'/s/j.  Con/'.,  BerL  18C3;  Ratz  :  Was  hat  Luther  durch  Melanchthon  gewonnen?  in  the 
Ztitsr/triftf.  hist.  Thcol.,  Leipz.  1870,  No.  III. ;  Zockxer:  1.  c.  pp.  8  sqq. 

a  The  German  autograph  of  the  Marburg  Articles,  in  the  handwriting  of  the  Reformers,  was 
discovered  in  the  archives  of  Cassel  and  published  by  Prof.  H.  HEri'E,  of  Marburg,  Cassel, 
I  s  1 7,  mid  :il>o  by  Bindseil,  in  the  Corpus  Reform.  Vol.  XXVI.  pp.  122-127  (in  German),  with 
the  textual  variations.  The  Articles  are  signed  by  Luther,  Jonas,  Melanchthon,  Osiander, 
Agricola,  and  Brentius,  on  the  part  of  the  Lutherans,  and  by  CEcolampadius,  Zwingli,  Bucer, 
and  Medio  on  the  part  of  the  Reformed.  Fourteen  of  them  were  fully  approved  by  Zwingli 
and  his  friends,  and  in  the,  15th,  which  treats  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  agree  to  disagree  as 
to  the  mode  of  Christ's  presence. 

3  The  Artictdi  A'  VII.  Suobacences  (which  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  Twenty-two 
Articles  of  a  previous  convent  at  Schwabach,  near  Nuremberg,  A.D.  1528,  see  Corp.  Re/. 
Vol.  XXVI.  pp.  L82  sqq.)  were  composed  by  Luther,  with  the  aid  of  Melanchthon,  Jonas,  Osi- 
ander, Brentius,  and  Agricola.  They  are  only  a  Lutheran  revision  and  enlargement  of  the 
Marburg  Articles,  and  seem  to  have  been  drawn  up  in  that  town,  and  then  presented  before 
a  convent  of  Lutheran  princes  and  delegates  at  Schwabach,  Oct.  1G,  and  again  before  a  simi- 
lar convent  at  Smalcald,  Nov.29.  They  were  first  published  in  February  or  March,  1530, 
without  the  knowledge  of  Luther,  under  the  title:  '  Das  Bekenntniss  Martini  Lathers  anf  den 


§41.  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  1530.  229 

to  the  first  or  positive  part  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  the  so- 
called  Articles  of  T organ  (March  20,1530V  which  form  the  basis  of 
its  second  or  polemical  part.  But  in  all  respects  the  Confession,  espe- 
cially the  second  part,  is  so  much  enlarged  and  improved  on  these  pre- 
vious labors  that  it  may  be  called  a  new  work.2 

Luther  thus  produced  the  doctrinal  matter  of  the  Confession,  while 
Melanchthon's  scholarly  and  methodical  mind  freely  reproduced  and 
elaborated  it  into  its  final  shape  and  form,  and  his  gentle,  peaceful, 
compromising  spirit  breathed  into  it  a  moderate,  conservative  tone. 
In  other  words,  Luther  was  the  primary,  Melanchthon  the  secondary 
author,  of  the  contents,  and  the  sole  author  of  the  style  and  temper  of 
the  Confession.3 

Luther  himself  was  satisfied  that  his  friend  was  better  adapted  for 
the  task,  and  expressed  his  entire  satisfaction  with  the  execution. 
When  the  Confession  was  sent  to  him  from  Augsburg  for  revision, 
lie  wrote  to  the  Elector,  May  15,  1530 :  '  I  have  read  the  Apology 
[Confession]  of  Master  Philip ;  it  pleases  me  very  well,  and  I  know 
of  nothing  by  which  I  could  better  it  or  change  it,  nor  would  it  be 
becoming,  for  I  can  not  move  so  softly  and  gently.  May  Christ  our 
Lord  help,  that  it  may  bring  forth  much  and  great  fruit,  as  we  hope 
and  pray.     Amen."4     After  the  delivery  of  the  Confession,  he  wrote 

angestellten  Reichstag  zu  Augsburg  einzulegen,  in  17  Artikel  rerfasst ;'  then  by  Luther  him- 
self, Wittenb.  1530 ;  and  again  by  Frick,  in  his  edition  of  SeckendoiT s  Ausfuhrl.  Hislorie  vom 
Lutherthwn.     See  Corp.  Ref.  Vol.  XXVI.  pp.  129-160. 

1  The  Torgau  Articles  (Articuli  Torgavienses)  were  formerly  often  confounded  with  the 
Schwabach  Articles,  till  Fokstkm.vnn  first  discovered  them  in  the  archives  at  Weimar,  and 
brought  them  to  light,  in  183:5,  in  the  first  volume  of  his  '  Urk■undenbuch,,  republished  in  the 
Corp.  Ref.  Vol. XXVI.  pp.  1(11-200.  They  were  drawn  up  by  Luther,  Melanchthon,  Jonas, 
and  Bugenhagen,  at  the  command  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  (then  residing  at  Torgau),  for 
presentation  at  the  approaching  Diet  of  Augsburg,  and  discuss  the  controverted  articles  on 
the  marriage  of  priests,  the  communion  of  both  kinds,  the  mass,  the  confession,  the  episcopal 
jurisdiction,  ordination,  monastic  vows,  invocation  of  saints,  faith  and  works,  etc. 

a  Comp.  on  the  historical  details  of  the  sources  of  the  Augs.  Conf.  the  Corpus  Reform., 
V.l.  XXVI.  f/1858)  IT-  113-200;  Pr.nr:  Einleitung  in  die  Augustana  (1867  68  I,  I.  pp.  586 
sqq.,II.  pp.3  sqq.  ;   and  ZOCKLBB  :   hie  Augsh.  d>nf.  (1870),  pp.  8-15. 

3  Kahnis,  in  his  Luther.  Dogmatilc,  II.  p.  424,  says  :  ;  Luther  »•<(>•  >/<  r  M> li&ter  da  Inhalts, 
^felanrhthou  tier  Master  dor  Form.  .  .  .  Mel.  war  der  dfann,  »</<•//<>•  mit  Objektivitdt,  Fein- 
heit,  K/arheit,  Milde  zu  sehreiben  verstund.  Cud  trie  me  hut  <  r  <lies<  Gabt  in  dtesern  J-'n/l, 
verwerthet.'  Kollner  (Vol.  I.  p.  178),  Riickert,  and  Ileppe  give  all  the  credit  of  authorship 
to  Melanchthon.  This  is  true  as  far  as  the  spirit  and  the  literary  composition  are  concerned  ; 
but  as  to  the  doctrines,  Luther  had  a  right  to  say,  'The  Catechism,  the  Exposition  of  the 
Ten  Commandments,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession,  arc  mine.' 

*  iIch  hub  M.  Phi/ijipsm  Apologiam  Hberlesen:  die  g< fa! lit  mir  fust  (i.  e.,schr)  wold,  und 


230  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

to  Melanchthon,  Sept.  15,  in  an  enthusiastic  strain:  'You  have  con- 
fessed Christ,  you  have  offered  peace,  you  have  obeyed  the  Emperor, 
you  have  endured  injuries,  you  have  been  drenched  in  their  revilings, 
you  have  not  returned  evil  for  evil.  In  brief,  you  have  worthily  done 
God's  holy  work  as  becometh  saints.  Be  glad,  then,  in  the  Lord,  and 
exult,  ye  righteous.  Long  enough  have  ye  been  mourning  in  the 
world,  look  up  and  lift  up  your  heads,  for  your  redemption  draweth 
nigh.  I  will  canonize  you  as  faithful  members  of  Christ,  and  what 
greater  glory  can  you  desire  ?  Is  it  a  small  thing  to  have  yielded  Christ 
faithful  service,  and  shown  yourself  a  member  worthy  of  him?'1 

The  only  objection  which  Luther  ever  raised  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession was  that  it  was  too  gentle,  and  did  not  denounce  the  Pope  and 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory.2 


The  Augsburg  Confession  proper  (exclusive  of  Preface  and  Epi- 
logue) consists  of  two  parts — one  positive  and  dogmatic,  the  other 
negative  and  polemic,  or  rather  apologetic.  The  first  refers  chiefly  to 
doctrines,  the  second  to  ceremonies  and  institutions.  The  order  of  sub- 
jects is  not  strictly  systematic,  though  considerably  improved  upon  the 
arrangement  of  the  Schwabach  and  Torgau  Articles.     In  the  manu- 

weiss  nichts  daran  zu  bessern  noch  dndern,  wurde  sich  auch  nicht  schicken ;  derm  ich  so  sanft  und 
leise  nicht  treten  kann.  Christus  wiser  Herr  helfe,  dass  sie  viel  und  grosse  Fracht  schaffe, 
wie  wir  hoffien  bitten.  Amen.'  (De  Wette's  ed.  of  Luther's  Letters,  IV.  p.  17;  Luther's 
Works,  Erlang.  ed.  Vol.  LIV.  p.  145). 

1  '■Christ hiii  con/essi  estis,  pacem  obtulistis,  Ccesari  obedistis,  injurias  tolerastis,  blasphemiis 
taturati  esHs,  net  malum  jiro  mah  reddidistis:  summa,optis  sanctum  Dei,  ut  sanctos  decet, 
digne  tractaatis.  Latamini  etiam  aliquando  in  Domino  et  extdtate,  justi :  satis  diu  tristati 
i .//.  testatt)  estis  in  mundo :  resjneite  et  levate  capita  vestra,  appropinquat  redemtio  vestra.  Ego 
canonizabo  vos,  utjidelia  membra  Christi,  et  quid  amplius  quwritis  gloria;  f  etc.  (Brief e,  IV. 
p.  165.  Comp.  also  his  letter  of  July  15  to  Jonas,  Spalatin,  Melanchthon,  Agricola,  ib.  IV. 
p.  96.) 

a  In  a  letter  to  Justus  Jonas,  July  21,  1530 :  'Satan  adhuc  vivit,  et  bene  sensit  Apologiam 
Vi  stram  Leiaetreterin  [the  softly  stepping  Confession]  dissiimdasse  articidos  de  purgatorio,  de 
sanctorum  cultu,  et  maxime  de  AntichrUto  Papa  (Briefe,  IV.  p.  110).  Melanchthon  himself 
confessed  that  lie  wrote  the  Confession  with  more  leniency  than  the  malice  of  the  Papists  de- 
\n  I  yel  immediately  after  the  delivery,  which  "marks  the  height  of  his  usefulness, 
l  man  was  in  an  almost  desponding  state,  and  was  tormented  by  scruples  whether  he 
bad  not  been  conservative  enough  and  taken  too  much  liberty  with  the  venerable  Catholic 
' ''""''  ''■  He  was,  moreover,  hard  pressed  by  Romish  divines  and  politicians,  and  was  ready 
to  make  serious  concessions  for  the  sake  of  unity  and  peace.  Some  of  his  best  friends  began 
unjustly  to  doubl  his  loyalty  to  evangelical  truth,  and  Philip  of  Hesse,  one  of  the  signers  of 
the  Confession,  wrote  to  Zwingli,' Master  Philip  goes  backward  like  a  crab.' 


§  41.  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  1530.  231 

script  copies  and  oldest  editions  the  articles  arc  only  numbered;  the 
titles  were  subsequently  added. 

I.  The  first  part  presents,  in  twenty-one  articles — beginning  with  the 
Triune  God  and  ending  with  the  worship  of  saints — a  clear,  calm,  and 
condensed  statement  of  the  doctrines  held  by  the  evamgelical  Luther- 
ans, (1)  in  common  with  the  Roman  Catholics,  (2)  in  common  with  the 
Augustinian  school,  (3)  in  opposition  to  Rome,  and  (4)  in  distinction 
from  Zwinglians  and  Anabaptists.1 

(1.)  In  theology  and  Christology,  i.  e.,  the  doctrines  of  God's  unity 
and  trinity  (Art.  I.),  and  of  Christ's  divine-human  personality  (III.), 
the  Confession  strongly  reaffirms  the  ancient  Catholic  faith  as  laid  down 
in  the  oecumenical  Creeds,  and  condemns  {damnamus)  the  old  and  new 
forms  of  Unitarianism  and  Arianism  as  heresies. 

(2.)  In  anthropology,  i.  e.,  in  the  articles  on  the  fall  and  original 
sin  (II.),  the  slavery  of  the  natural  will  and  necessity,  of  divine  grace 
(XVIII.),  the  cause  and  nature  of  sin  (XIX.),  the  Confession  is  sub- 
stantially Augustinian,  in  opposition  to  the  Pelagian  and  semi-Pela- 
gian heresies.  The  Donatists  are  also  condemned  (VIII.)  for  denying 
the  objective  virtue  of  the  ministry  and  the  Sacraments,  which  Augus- 
tine defended  against  them. 

(3.)  The  general  Protestant  views  in  opposition  to  Rome  appear  in 
the  articles  on  justification  by  faith  (IV.),  new  obedience  (VI.),  the 
Gospel  ministry  (V.),  the  Church  (VII.,  VIII.),  repentance  (XII.), 
ordination  (XIV.),  ecclesiastical  rites  (XV.),  civil  government  (XVI.), 
good  works  (XIX.),  the  worship  of  saints,  and  the  exclusive  mediator- 
ship  of  Christ  (XX.).  Prominence  is  given  to  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
tion  by  faith,  which,  though  very  briefly  stated  in  its  proper  place 
(P.  I.  Art.  IV.),  is  elsewhere  incidentally  referred  to  as  the  essence  of 
the  Gospel.2 

(4.)  The  distinctive  Lutheran  views — mostly  retained  from  prevail- 
ing Catholic  tradition,  and  differing  in  part  from  those  of  other  Prot- 

1  For  other  divisions,  see  Ziickler,  1.  c.  p.  93  sqq. 

2  Part  II.  Art.  .">  (])e  discrimine  cibcrum) :  'Of  this  persuasion  concerning  traditions  many 
disadvantages  have  followed  in  the  Church.  For  first  the  doctrine  of  grace  is  obscured  by 
it,  and  the  righteousness  of  faith,  which  is  the  principal  part  of  the  (iospel  {doctrina  de 
gratia  et  justitia  Jidei,  qua:  est  prCBCtpua  pars  Evangelii),  and  which  it  hchoveth  most  of  all 
to  stand  forth  and  to  have  the  pre-eminence  in  the  Church,  that  the  merit  of  Christ  may  be 
well  known,  and  faith,  which  believeth  that  sins  are  remitted  for  Christ's  sake,  may  be  exalted 
far  above  works.' 

Vol.  L— Q 


232  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

estant  churches— are  contained  in  the  articles  on  the  Sacraments  (IX., 
X..  XIII.),  on  confession  and  absolution  (XI.),  and  the  millennium 
|  X  V  1 1.)-  The  tenth  article  plainly  asserts  the  doctrine  of  a  real  bodily 
presence  and  distribution  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist  to  all  communi- 
cants (without  determining  the  mode  of  the  presence  either  by  way 
of  consubstantiation  or  transubstantiation),1  and  disapproves  of  dis- 
senting views  (especially  the  Zwinglian,  although  it  is  not  named).2 
The  Anabaptists  are  expressly  condemned  (damnamus),  like  here- 
tics, for  their  views  on  infant  baptism  and  infant  salvation  (IX.),  the 
Church  (VIII.),  civil  offices  (XVI.),  the  millennium  and  final  resto- 
ration (XVII.).  These  articles,  however,  have  long  ceased  to  be  held 
by  all  Lutherans.  Melanchthon  himself  materially  changed  the  tenth 
article  in  the  edition  of  1540.  The  doctrine  of  the  second  advent 
and  the  millennium  (rejected  in  Art.  XVII.)  has  found  able  advo- 
cates among  sound  and  orthodox  Lutheran  divines,  especially  of  the 
school  of  Bengel. 

II.  The  second  part  rejects,  in  seven  articles,  those  abuses  of  Rome 
which  were  deemed  most  objectionable,  and  had  been  actually  cor- 


1  The  wording  of  the  article — quod  corpus  (in  German,  wahrer  Leib)  et  sanguis  Christi  vere 
(wahrhaftiglich)  adsint  et  distribuantur  vescentibus  in  Ca>na  Domini — leaves  room  for  both 
theories.  The  Papistical  Confutation,  while  objecting  to  the  articles  de  utraque  specie  and  de 
missa,  in  the  second  part  of  the  Augsb.  Conf.,  was  satisfied  with  Art.  X.  of  the  first  part,  pro- 
vided only  that  it  be  understood  as  teaching  the  presence  of  the  whole  Christ  under  the  bread 
as  well  as  the  wine.  (' Decimus  articulus  in  verbis  nihil  offendit,  quia  fatentur ,  in  eucharistia 
post  consecrationem  legitime  factum  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi  substantialiter  et  vere  adesse,  si 
modo  credant,  sub  qualibet  specie  integrum  Christum  adesse.')  In  the  Apology  of  the  Confes- 
sion (Art.  X.),  Melanchthon  asserts  the  corporalis  prasentia,  and  even  substitutes  for  vere 
adsint  the  stronger  terms  vere  et  substantialiter  adsint.  The  Lutheran  Church,  as  repre- 
sented in  Luther's  writings  and  in  the  Form  of  Concord  (R.  729),  rejects  transubstantiation, 
and  also  the  doctrine  of  impanation,  i.  e.,  a  local  inclusion  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the 
elements  I  localis  inclusio  in  pane),  or  a  permanent  and  ex/ra-sacramental  conjunction  of  the 
two  Bubstances  (durabilis  aliqua  conjunctio  extra  usum  sacrament i) ;  but  it  teaches  consub- 
stantiation in  the  sense  of  a  sacramental  conjunction  of  the  two  substances  effected  by  the 
consecration,  or  a  real  presence  of  Christ's  very  body  and  blood  in,  with,  and  under  (in,  Cum,  et 
sub)  bread  and  wine.  The  word  consubstantiation,  however,  is  not  found  in  the  Lutheran 
symbols,  and  is  rejected  by  Lutheran  theologians  if  used  in  the  sense  of  impanation.  The 
uical  foundation  of  this  dogma  is  the  ubiquity  (either  absolute  or  relative)  of  Christ's 
body,  which  is  a  part  of  the  Lutheran  Christology. 

•  Et  improbant  secus  docentes  (derhalben  wWd  auch  die  Gegenlehr  verworfen).  The  omis- 
sion of  Zwingli's  name  may  be  due  to  regard  for  his  friend,  the  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse, 
but  thai  lie  was  chiefly  intended  must  be  inferred  from  the  antecedent  controversies,  especially 
<>"•  >  '.ill  Artii  le  of  the  Marburg  Conference,  and  from  the  strong  opposition  of  Melanchthon 
t..  Zwingli's  the  »n  before  l.",;?G  or  1540,  when  he  modified  his  own  view  on  the  Eucharist. 
Bee  below. 


§  41.  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  1530.  233 

rccted  in  the  Lutheran  churches,  namely,  the  withdrawal  of  the  com- 
munion cup  from  the  laity  (I.),  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  (II.),  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass  (III.),  obligatory  auricular  confession  (IV.),  cere- 
monial feasts  and  fasts  (Y.i.  monastic  vows  (VI.),  and  the  secular 
power  of  the  bishops,  as  far  as  it  interferes  with  the  purity  and  spir- 
ituality of  the  Church  (VII.). 

The  style  of  the  Latin  edition  is  such  as  may  be  expected  from  the 
classic  culture  and  good  taste  of  Melanchthon,  while  the  order  and 
arrangement  might  be  considerably  improved. 

The  diplomatic  Preface  to  the  Emperor  is  not  from  his  pen,  but 
from  that  of  the  Saxon  Chancellor  Brack.1  It  is  clumsy,  tortuous, 
dragging,  extremely  obsequious,  and  has  no  other  merit  than  to  intro- 
duce the  reader  into  the  historical  situation.  The  brief  conclusion 
(Ejrilogus)  is  from  the  same  source,  and  is  followed  by  the  signatures 
of  seven  Princes  and  two  magistrates.2  Several  manuscript  copies 
omit  both  Preface  and  Epilogue,  as  not  belonging  properly  to  the 
Confession. 

CHARACTER   AND    VALUE. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  breathes  throughout  an  earnest  and  de- 
vout evangelical  Christian  spirit,  and  is  expressed  in  clear,  mild,  dig- 
nified language.  It  professes  to  be  both  Scriptural  and  churchly,  and 
in  harmony  even  with  the  Roman  Church  as  known  from  the  genuine 
tradition  of  antiquity.3  It  is  remarkably  moderate  and  conciliatory 
in  tone,  and  free  from  all  harsh  or  abusive  terms.     It  is  not  aggressive, 

1  Forstemann,  Urhmdenbvch,  etc..  I.  p.  4G0,  and  Bindseil,  Corp.  Ref.,Yo\.  XXVI.  p.  205, 
Chancellor  Briick  (Tontanus)  wrote  the  Preface  in  German,  and  Jonas  translated  it  into 
Latin.  A  copy  in  the  Seminary  Library  at  Wittenberg  has  the  remark,  probably  from  the 
hand  of  Jonas,  after  the  inscription,  iPra>fatio  ad  Cces.  Car.  V. :'  '  Reddita  e  Germanico  Pon- 
tani  tunc  per  Justum  Jonani.' 

3  There  was  considerable  controversy  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  signatures  of  two  of  seven 
Princes,  viz.,  John  Frederick  <>f  Saxony  (the  son  of  the  Elector  John;  and  Duke  Francis  of 
Liinebarg.     See  KdUner,  1.  c  pp.201  sqq. 

3  At  the  conclusion  of  the  Hist  part,  the  Confession  says:  '  Hoc  fere  nunma  est  doctrina 
apud  nos,  in  qua  cemi  potest,  nihil  incsse,  quod  DISCBEFET  a  BGBIPTUBIS,  vi.i.   \it  BCCLB8U 

CATHOMCA,  Vi:r.   Alt   ECCLBSIA    K'iMANA,  QUATEHU8    EX    SCRIPTORIBUS   NOTA    KST.'aild   ill   the 

Epilogus :  'A/iud  nos  nihil  esse  reeeptum  contra  scriptcram,  apt  kcci.ksiam  CATHOUOAM, 
quia  manifestum  est,  »"••■■  diligentissime  cavisse,  ne  qua  nova  ki  i.mpia  dogmata  in  ecclesiai 

nostras  ser/ierrnt.'  Hence  the  Confession  frequently  appeals  not  only  to  the  Scriptures,  but 
also  to  the  Fathers  (Augustine,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  etc.)  and  the  canon  law  (Decretum 
Gratiani,  vcteres  caiwnes,  and  the  exemplum  ecclesice). 


234  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

but  defensive  throughout.  Hence  its  original  modest  name  Apology} 
It  pleads  only  for  toleration  and  peace.  It  condemns  the  ancient 
heresies  (Arianism,  Manicheism,  Pelagianism,  Donatism),  which  were 
punishable  according  to  the  laws  of  the  German  Empire.  It  leaves 
the  door  open  for  a  possible  reconciliation  with  Rome.2  Popery  itself, 
and  many  of  its  worst  abuses,  are  not  even  touched,  at  least  not  ex- 
pressly. The  modest  and  peaceful  author  wrote  under  a  painful  sense 
of  responsibility,  with  a  strong  desire  for  the  restoration  of  the  unity 
of  faith,  and  hence  he  avoided  all  that  might  give  unnecessary  offense 
to  the  ruling  party.3 

But  the  same  motive  made  him  unjust  toward  his  fellow-Protestants, 
who  differed  from  him  far  less  than  both  differed  from  the  Eomanists. 
The  Lutheran  divines,  after  refusing  at  Marburg  all  connection  with 
the  Zwinglians,  yet,  being  unable  to  convince  the  Catholic  majority, 
felt  that  by  protesting  against  what  they  regarded  as  ultra-Protestant 
radicalism  they  would  better  succeed  in  securing  toleration  for  them- 
selves. One  of  their  leaders,  however,  Philip  of  Hesse,  openly  sym- 
pathized with  Zwingli,  and  had  to  be  specially  urged  by  Luther  to 
subscribe  the  Confession,  which  he  did  with  a  dissent  from  the  tenth 
article.  The  majority  of  the  citizens  of  Augsburg  likewise  adhered  to 
Zwingli  at  that  time.4 

The  Augsburg  Confession  is  the  fundamental  and  generally  received 
symbol  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  which  also  bears  the  name  of  '  the 
Church  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.'     It  is  inseparable  from  the  the- 

1  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther:  'Mittitur  tibi  Apologia  nostra,  quanquam  verius  Confes- 
sio  est.'  Afterwards  it  was  also  frequently  called  the  'Saxon  Confession'  and  the  iEvange- 
Ksche  AvgapfeV  (Prov.  vii.  2). 

-  Ranke,  1.  c.  III.  p.  201  :  '•Jn  diesem  Sinne  der  Annaherung,  dem  Gefiihh  des Nochnichtvoll- 
kom^nengetrenntseins,  dem  Wunsche,  eine  wie  im  tieferen  Grande  derDinge  waltende,  so  in  eini- 
Inheiten  des  Bekenntnisses  sichlbare  Verwandtsr.haft  geltend  zu  machen,  war  die  Con- 
fession gedacht  und  abge/asst.'  Zockler,  1.  c.  p.  318  :  ' Die  Augustana  ist  in  ihren  Antithesen, 
towohl  nacfi  der  rdmischen  wie  nach  der  reformirten  Seite  hin,  das  mildeste,  friedliebendste, 
gegnerischer  seits  am  leichtesten  zu  ertragende  aller  evangelisch-lutherisehen  Symbole.' 

(  imip.  the  Preface,  and  the  repeated  assurances  of  Melanchthon,  e.  g.,  in  a  letter  of  May 

21,  L680,  to  Joachim  Camerarius  (Corp.  Re/.  II.  p.  57)  :    ' Ego  Apologiam  paravi  scriptam 

Vtmma  oen  'undid,  neque  bis  de  rebus  did  >ni/ius  posse  arbitror.'    And  in  a  letter  to  the  same, 

dated  June  !'.>  (\h.  p.  1  19):  lNon  dubitabam  quin  Apologia  nostra  videreturfutura  lenior,  quam 

improbitas  adversariorum.' 

*  Bee  the  remarks  of  L.  Ranke,  III.  p.  220  sq.  Kahnis  also  (Lnth.  Dogm.  II.  p. 436)  ad- 
mits thai  'the  desire  for  an  understanding  with  the  Papists  made  Melanchthon  a  very  decided 
opponent  of  the  Swiss,  and  even  of  the  Strasburgers.' 


§  41.  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  1530.  235 

ology  and  history  of  that  denomination ;  it  best  exhibits  the  prevailing 
genius  of  the  German  Reformation,  and  will  ever  be  cherished  as  one 
of  the  noblest  monuments  of  faith  from  the  pentecostal  period  of  Prot- 
estantism.1 

But  its  influence  extends  far  beyond  the  Lutheran  Church.  It  struck 
the  key-note  to  other  evangelical  confessions,  and  strengthened  the 
cause  of  the  Reformation  every  where.  It  is,  to  a  certain  extent, 
also  the  Confession  of  the  Reformed  and  the  so-called  Union  Church- 
es, in  Germany,  namely,  with  the  explanations  and  modifications  of 
the  author  himself  in  the  edition  of  1540,  which  extended,  as  it  were, 
the  hand  of  fellowship  to  them  (see  below).  In  this  qualified  sense, 
either  expressed  or  understood,  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  fre- 
quently signed  by  Reformed  divines  and  Princes,  even  by  John  Cal- 
vin, while  ministering  to  the  Church  at  Strasburg,  and  as  delegate  to 
the  Conference  of  Ratisbon,  1541  ;2  by  Farel  and  Beza  at  the  Confer- 
ence in  Worms,  1557;  by  the  Calvinists  at  Bremen,  1562  ;  by  Frederick 
III.,  (the  Reformed)  Elector  of  the  Palatinate,  at  the  convent  of  Princes 
in  Naumburg,  1561,  and  again  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  1566 ;  by  John 
Sigismund,  of  Brandenburg,  in  1614.     It  is  true  that  till  the  close  of 

1  For  a  hearty  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  Confession  from  the  Lutheran  stand-point,  see 
Dr.  Krauth's  introduction  to  his  translation,  pp.  xlvii.  sqq.,  and  his  Conservative  Reformation, 
pp.  255  sqq.  :  'With  the.  Augsburg  Confession,'  he  says  in  both  places,  'begins  the  clearly 
recognized  life  of  the  Evangelical  Protestant  Church,  the  purified  Church  of  the  "West,  on 
which  her  enemies  fixed  the  name  Lutheran.  With  this  Confession  her  most  self-sacrificing 
struggles  and  greatest  achievements  are  connected.  It  is  hallowed  by  the  prayers  of  Luther, 
among  the  most  ardent  that  ever  burst  from  the  human  heart ;  it  is  made  sacred  by  the  tears 
of  Melanchthon,  among  the  tenderest  which  ever  fell  from  the  eyes  of  man.  It  is  embalmed 
in  the  living,  dying,  and  undying  devotion  of  the  long  line  of  the  heroes  of  our  faith,  who. 
through  the  world  which  was  not  worthy  of  them,  passed  to  their  eternal  rest.  The  greatest 
masters  in  the  realm  of  intellect  have  defended  it  with  their  labors  ;  the  greatest  Princes  have 
protected  it  from  the  sword  by  the  sword ;  and  the  blood  of  its  martyrs,  speaking  better 
things  than  vengeance,  pleads  forever,  with  the  blood  of  Him  whose  all-availing  love,  whose 
sole  and  all-atoning  sacrifice,  is  the  beginning,  middle,  and  end  of  its  witness.' 

3  Calvin  wrote  to  Rev.  Mart.  Schalling,  at  Ratisbon,  1557:  'Nee  vero  Augustanam  Confes- 
sionem  repudio,  eui  pridem  volens  ac  libens  subsrripsi,  sirut  cam  aurtor  ipse  interpretatua  est' 
(Epp.  p.  437).  Similarly  in  his  Ultima  Admonitio  ad  .loath.  Westphalum,  (ienev.  1567.  It 
is  not  quite  certain  whether  it  was  the  Altered  or  the  Unaltered  Confession  which  Calvin 
subscribed  at  Katisbon,  but  probably  it  was  the  former,  as  he  says  that  it  contained  nothing 
contrary  to  his  doctrine,  and  as  he  appealed  without  fear  to  Melanchthon  himself  as  the 
best  interpreter.  The  Altered  edition  had  appeared  a  year  before,  and  had  been  actually 
used  at  the  previous  Conference  at  Worms,  though  Eck  protested  against  it.  Sec  Kbllner. 
p.  241  ;  Zbckler,  pp.  40,  41  ;  Ebrard,  Dogma  vom  he'd.  Abcndmahl,  II.  p.  150  ;  Stahelin,  Joh. 
Calvin,  I.  p.  286  ;  G.  v.  Polentz,  (Jeschkhle  des  franzusisc/ten  Calvinismus,  Vol.  I.  p.  577; 
Vol.  II.  p.  62. 


236  THE  CKEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  Thirty- Years'  War  (164S)  the  Eeformed  were  tolerated  in  the 
German  Empire  only  as  allies  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,1  but  even 
afterwards  they  continued  their  friendly  relation  to  it,  and  maintain  it 
to  the  present  day  without  feeling  any  more  bound  by  it.2 

The  last,  and  the  most  memorable  occasion  since  1530,  on  which 
this  noble  Confession  was  publicly  acknowledged,  but  with  a  sav- 
ing clause  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  tenth  article  relating  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  at  the  German  Church  Diet  of 
Berlin,  1853,  composed  of  over  1100  clergymen,  of  four  denomina- 
tions—Lutheran, German  Eeformed,  Evangelical  Unionists,  and  Mo- 
ravians.3 


1  ' Augustance  Confessioni  addicti,'  '  Augsburgische  Confessionsvertcandte.'' 
-  In  the  electoral,  afterwards  royal,  house  of  Brandenburg,  the  Augsburg  Confession  and 
the  Heidelberg  Catechism  have  always  lived  in  peace  together.  The  Great  Elector,  Frederick 
William,  as  patron  of  the  German  Eeformed,  professed  in  their  name,  when  the  Westphalian 
Treaty  was  concluded,  their  cordial  adherence  to  the  Confession  of  1530  (Projitentur  dicti 
Rpjbrmati  Augustanam  Confessionem  augustissimo  Imp.  Carolo  V.  anno  1530  exhibitam  corde 
et  ore).  There  are,  however,  German  Reformed  congregations  of  a  more  strictly  Calvinistic 
type  (e.  g.,  in  Elberfeld),  which  would  rather  adopt  the  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  than  the 
Augsburg  Confession. 

3  The  unanimous  declaration  of  the  Berlin  Church  Diet  reads  thus:  'The  members  of  the 
German  Evangelical  Church  Diet  hereby  put  on  record  that  they  hold  and  profess  with  heart 
and  mouth  the  Confession  delivered,  A.D.  1530,  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  by  the  evangelical 
Princes  and  States  to  Emperor  Charles  V.,  and  hereby  publicly  testify  their  agreement  with  it, 
as  the  oldest,  simplest  common  document  of  publicly  recognized  evangelical  doctrine  in  Germany 
(  dass  sie  rich  eu  der  im  Jahr  1  530  an/ dent  Reichstage  zu  Augsburg  von  den  evant/elischen  Fur- 
si,  i,  und  Standen  Kaiser  Karl  V.  iiberreichten  Confession  mit  Herz  und  Mund  halten  und  be- 
kennen,  und  die  Uebereinstimmung  mit  ihr,  als  der  a/testen,  einfachsten  gemeinsamen  Urkunde 
Bffentlich  anerkannier  evangel  ischer  Lehre  in  Deutschland,  hiedurch  'dffentlich  bezeugen).'  So 
far  orthodox  Lutherans  might  agree.  But  now  follows  a  qualification  to  save  the  consciences 
of  the  Reformed  and  Unionists:  'With  this  we  connect  the  declaration  that  they  and  each 
one  of  them  adhere  to  the  particular  confessions  of  their  respective  churches,  and  the  Union- 
ists to  the  consensus  of  the  same;  and  that  they  do  not  mean  to  interfere  with  the  different 
positions  which  the  Lutherans,  Reformed,  and  Unionists  sustain  to  the  Tenth  Article  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  nor  with  the  peculiar  relations  of  those  Reformed  congregations  which 
never  held  the  Augustana  as  a  symbol  (Hiemit  verbinden  sie  die  ErMdrung,  dass  sie  jeder  in- 
tonderheit  an  den  besonderen  Bekenntniss-Schriften  Hirer  Kirchen,  und  die  Unirten  an  dent 
Consensus  derselbenjesthalten,  und  dass  der  verschiedenen  Stellung  der  Lutheraner,  Reformir- 
•  I  Unirten  zu  Artikel  X.  dieser  Confession,  und  den  eigenthuntlic/ten  Verbal  tnissen  der- 
:■  i, i'i>  u  Reformirten  Gemeinden,  welche  die  Augustana  niemals  als  Symbol gehabt  Itaben,  nirht 
Eintrag  geschehen  soliy  Sec  Evang.  Kirchenztg.  of  Berlin,  for  1853,  pp.  775  sqq.  While 
fully  recognizing  the  importance  of  this  testimony  in  opposition  to  rationalism  and  popery,  we 
Bhould  remember,  first,  that  it  has  no  official  or  ecclesiastical  character  (the  German  Kirchen- 
tag,  like  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  being  merely  a  voluntary  association  without  legislative  or 
disciplinary  power)  i  and.  Becondly,  that  it  is  a  compromise,  which  was  expressly  repudiated 
by  the  anti-Union  Lutherans  (the  professors  at  Erlangen,  Leipzig,  and  Rostock),  as  'a  frivo- 
loui  depreciation  of  the  most  precious  symbol  of  German  Evangelical  Christendom.' 


§  41.  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  1530.  037 

On  this  fact  and  the  whole  history  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
some  German  writers  of  the  evangelical  Unionist  school  have  based 
the  hope  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  may  one  day  become  the  united 
Confession  or  oecumenical  Creed  of  all  the  evangelical  churches  of 
Germany.1  This  scheme  stands  and  falls  with  the  dream  of  a  united 
and  national  Protestant  Church  of  the  German  Empire.  Aside  from 
other  difficulties,  the  Reformed  and  the  majority  of  Unionists,  to- 
gether with  a  considerable  body  of  Lutherans,  can  never  conscien- 
tiously subscribe  to  the  tenth  article  as  it  stands  in  the  proper  his- 
torical Confession  of  1530 ;  while  orthodox  Lutherans,  on  the  other 
hand,  will  repudiate  the  Altered  edition  of  1540.  The  Invariata  is, 
after  all,  a  purely  Lutheran,  that  is,  a  denominational  symbol ;  and 
the  Variata  is  a  friendly  approach  of  Lutheranism  towards  the  Re- 
formed communion,  which  had  no  share  in  its  original  production 
and  subsequent  modification,  although  it  responded  to  it.  Neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  edition  can  be  the  expression  of  a  union,  or 
confederation  of  two  distinct  denominations,  of  which  each  has  its 
own  genius,  history,  and  symbols  of  faith.  Such  an  expression  must 
proceed  from  the  theological  and  religious  life  of  both,  and  meet  the 
wants  of  the  present  age.  Great  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  is,  the 
Church  will  produce  something  greater  still  whenever  the  Spirit  of 
God  moves  it  to  a  new  act  of  faith  in  opposition  to  the  unbelief  and 
misbelief  of  modern  times.  Every  age  must  do  its  own  work  in  its 
own  way. 

THE   TEXT.      THE   INVARIATA    AND   THE   VARIATA.2 

The  Augsburg  Confession  was  first  completed  in  Latin,3  but  the 
German  text  was  read  before  the  Diet.  Both  copies  were  delivered 
in  manuscript  to  the  Emperor,  but  both  disappeared:  the  German 
copy,  first  deposited  in  the  imperial  archives  at  Mayence,  was  prob- 
ably sent  with  other  official  documents  to  the  Council  of  Trent  (1545), 

1  So  Dr.  W.  Hoffmann,  late  Court  Chaplain  of  the  Emperor  of  Germany  (Deutschland 
Einst  raid  Jelzt  im  Lichte  des  Rciches  Gottes,  Berlin,  1 808,  pp.  4  70  sqq.  and  .">  1 2  sqq. ) ;  Con- 
Bistorialrath  Leop.  Schultze  (Die  Augsb.  Confession  als  Gesammtbek&intniu  unscrer  evang. 
Landeskirche,  Bremen,  1869)  ;  to  some  extent  also  Prof.  ZiJckler  (1.  c.  p.  330),  who  proposes 
that  the  Augsburg  Confession  be  made,  not  indeed  the  Union  Symbol,  but  the  Confederation 
Symbol  of  German  Evangelical  Christendom. 

2  See  the  details  in  Weber,  Kbllner,  and  Bindseii 

3  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  XXVI.  p.  205. 


23S  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  then  to  Rome ;  the  Latin  copy  to  Brussels  or  Spain,  and  no  trace 
of  either  has  been  found.  For  two  hundred  years  the  opinion  pre- 
vailed that  the  '  Book  of  Concord '  contained  the  original  text,  until 
Pfaff  and  Weber,  by  a  thorough  investigation  on  the  spot,  dispelled 
this  error.1 

The  twenty-two  manuscript  copies,  still  extant  in  public  or  private 
libraries,  are  inaccurate,  defective,  and  represent  the  various  stages  of 
revision  through  which  the  Confession  passed  before  the  25th  of  Au- 
gust under  the  ever-improving  hands  of  the  author.  There  was  no 
time,  it  seems,  to  make  authentic  copies  of  the  final  revision. 

The  printed  editions  (six  in  German,  one  in  Latin),  which  were 
hastily  issued  during  the  Diet  by  irresponsible,  anonymous  publish- 
ers, are  full  of  errors  and  omissions,  and  were  condemned  by  Me- 
lanchthon. 

Consequently,  we  must  depend  entirely  upon  the  author's  own  print- 
ed editions ;  but  even  these  differ  very  much  among  themselves,  and 
the  German  text  differs  from  the  English.2  Fortunately  the  changes 
are  mostly  verbal  and  immaterial,  and  where  they  alter  the  sense  (as 
in  the  edition  of  1540),  they  can  be  traced  to  their  proper  origin. 

By  the  subscription  of  the  Lutheran  Princes  and  the  delivery  at  the 
Diet,  the  Confession  had  become  public  property,  and  should  have 
remained  unaltered.  But  at  that  time  neither  editors  nor  publishers 
were  careful  and  scrupulous  in  handling  official  documents.  Luther 
himself  changed  the  Articles  of  Smalcald  after  they  had  been  publicly 
acknowledged.     Melanchthon  regarded  the  Confession,  not  as  a  fixed 

1  The  Latin  text  of  the  Book  of  Concord  is  substantially  from  Melanchthon's  quarto 
edition  of  1531,  and  was  supposed  to  correspond  entirely  with  an  imaginary  Latin  manuscript 
in  Mayence.  The  German  text  purports  to  be  a  true  copy  of  the  original  manuscript  in 
Mayence,  but  is  derived  from  a  secondary  source,  viz.,  the  printed  text  in  the  Corpus  Bran- 
denburgicum,  1572,  which,  again,  was  based  upon  a  carelessly  written  copy  of  the  Confession 
before  its  final  revision.  Chancellor  Pfaff,  of  Tubingen,  first  discovered  at  Mayence  that  the 
original  German  copy  was  lost  long  ago,  and  he  published,  in  1730,  what  was  regarded  as  a 
true  copy  d' the  original;  but  he  was  fiercely  assailed  by  Adami,  Feuerlin,  and  others,  and  his 
discovery  traced  to  a  Jesuitical  lie.  In  1781  Georg  Gottlieb  Weber,  chief  pastor  at  Weimar, 
was  allowed  to  make  a  thorough  search  in  the  archives  of  Mayence,  and  found  to  his  surprise 
thai  the  copy  shown  him  as  the  original  was  the  printed  German  octavo  edition  of  1540, 
"  the  title-page  the  words  'Wittenberg,  M.D.XL.'  He  published  the  results  of  his 
patient  investigation  in  his  Krituche  Geschichte  der  Augsb.  Confession  aus  archival.  Nach- 
richten,  Frankf.a,  M.  1783-4,2  vols. 

■  The  various  readings  in  Bindseil's  edition,  in  the  Corpus  Reformatorum,  cover  as  much 
i>  ii  ■•  .1-  the  text  itself. 


§  41.  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  1530.  239 

and  binding  creed,  but  as  a  basis  for  negotiation  with  the  Papists, 
and  as  representing  a  movement  still  in  progress  toward  clearer  light.1 
lie  therefore  kept  improving  it,  openly  and  honestly,  in  every  new 
issue,  as  he  would  his  own  work,  and  in  the  edition  of  1540  he  even 
embodied  some  doctrinal  modifications  in  the  desire  of  promoting  the 
cause  of  truth  and  peace. 

The  editio  princess  was  issued  by  the  author  in  both  languages, 
together  with  the  Latin  Apology  and  a  German  translation  of  it  by 
Jonas,  at  Wittenberg  in  1531,  in  spite  of  the  imperial  prohibition,  yet 
with  the  consent  (though  not  by  order)  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony.2 
The  text  was  taken,  not  from  Melanchthon's  own  manuscript  copy 
(which  had  been  delivered  to  the  Emperor),  but,  as  he  says,  ex  exem- 
plari  bonce  fidei  (probably  the  private  copy  of  the  Landgrave  Philip 
of  Hesse),  and  contained  already  verbal  changes  and  improvements.3 

The  emendations  in  subsequent  editions  before  1540,  though  quite 
numerous,  do  not  materially  affect  the  sense,  and  seem  to  have  been 
approved ;  at  all  events,  they  were  acquiesced  in  by  the  Lutherans 
themselves.4 


1  Comp.  the  concluding  words:  'Si  quid  in  hac  confessione  desiderabitur,  parati  surma 
latiorem  informationem.  Deo  volente,  juxta  Script uras  exhibere.' 

-  Under  the  title:  'Coxfessio  Fidei  |  exhibit  a  invictiss.  Imp.  Carolo  V.  \  Ccesaris  Aug. 
in  Comiciis  \  Augusta',  \  Anno  \  M.D.XXX.  \  Addita  est  Apologia  Confessionis.  |  53cibe, 
Scilbfdj  |  uiiD  1'atinifd;.  |  Ps.  lit).  \  Et  loquebar  de  testimonies  tuis  in  conspectu  Regum,  et 
non  confundebar.  |  Witeberg.e.'  (In  4).  At  the  end:  ' Impressum  per  Georgium  Rhau.  \ 
M.D.XXXL'  This  is  the  title  of  the  copy  in  the  royal  library  at  Dresden,  which  Melanch- 
thon  gave  to  Luther,  with  the  words,  in  his  own  handwriting  (below  the  title):  '  D.  Doctori 
Martino.  Et  rogo  ut  legat  et  emendel.'  See  Corp.  Ref.  Vol.  XXVI.  p.  235.  Bindseil  (pp. 
246  sqq.)  shows  that  the  Confession  was  already  printed  (but  not  issued)  in  November,  1;')30, 
and  that  the  whole  volume,  with  the  Apology,  was  finished  in  April  or  May.  1531.  Some  copies 
of  the  printed  Confession  seem  to  have  reached  Augsburg  before  the  close  of  the  Diet. 

3  He  wrote  to  Joachim  Camerarius,  June  2G  (a  day  after  the  delivery  at  Augsburg):  '•Ego 
mutabam  et  rejiugebam  pleraque  quotidie,  plura  etiam  mutaturus,  si  nostri  muQpaSfiovq; 
[counselors]  jicrinisissent.'  Corp.  Ref.  II.  p.  140.  Kaiser  has  shown  that  Melanchthon 
made  a  number  of  changes  in  the  first  edition — Beitrag  :u  eincr  Kritischen  LiterSr-Gi  schichte 
der  Melanchthortischen  Original- Ausgabe  der  lot.  und  deutsch.  Avgsb.  Conf.  und  Apo/ogie, 
Niirnberg,  1830.     Comp.  Kollner,  1.  c.  I.  p.  340,  and  Corp.  Ref.  Vol.  XXVI.  pp.  261  Bqq. 

4  Luther,  who  took  similar  liberty  with  the  Smalcald  Articles,  expresses  DO  judgment,  in 
his  writings,  on  these  variations;  but  he  must  have  known  of  them,  and  tolerated  them  as 
unessential,  even  those  of  1540,  which  appeared  six  years  before  his  death.  The  sayings  attrib- 
uted to  him  on  this  subject  by  both  parties  are  apocryphal,  at  all  events  unreliable,  \iz..  the 
word  of  censure:  ''Philippe.  Philippe,  ihr  thut  nickl  recht,  dass  ihr  Augustanam  Cortfesaionem 
so  oft  dndert ;  derm  es  iat  nichl  euer,  sondern  der  Kirchtn  /huh  ,•'  and  the  word  of  indirect 
approval  (1546):  iLieber  Philipp,  i<lt  muss  en  bekennen,  der  Sache  vom  Abendmahl  ist  viel 
zu  viel  gcthan   (the  matter  of  the  Lord's  Supper  has  been  much  overdone).    The  latter  utter- 


2±fJ  TIIE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

But  the  edition  of  1540,  which  appeared  in  connection  with  an  im- 
proved edition  of  the  Apology,1  differs  so  widely  from  the  first  that 
it  was  subsequently  called  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession  ( Variata), 
in  distinction  from  the  Unaltered  (Invariata)  of  1530  or  1531.2  It 
attracted  little  attention  till  after  the  death  of  Melanchthon  (1560), 
when  it  created  as  much  trouble  as  the  insertion  of  the  Jilioque  clause 
in  the  Nicene  Creed.  The  Altered  Confession,  besides  a  large  num- 
ber of  valuable  additions  and  real  improvements  in  style  and  the 
order  of  subjects,3  embodies  the  changes  in  Melanchthon's  theology,4 
which  may  be  dated  from  the  new  edition  of  his  Loci  communes, 
1535,  and  his  personal  contact  with  Bucer  and  Calvin.  He  gave  up, 
on  the  one  hand,  his  views  on  absolute  predestination,  and  gradually 
adopted  the  synergistic  theory  (which  brought  him  nearer  to  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  system);  while  on  the  other  hand  (departing  further 
from  Romanism  and  approaching  nearer  to  the  Reformed  Church),  he 
modified  the  Lutheran  theory  of  the  real  presence,  at  least  so  far  as  to 
allow  the  Reformed  doctrine  the  same  right  in  the  evangelical  church- 
es, lie  never  liked  the  Zwinglian  view  of  a  symbolical  presence,  nor 
did  he  openly  adopt  the  Calvinistic  view  of  a  spiritual  real  presence, 
but  he  inclined  to  it,  and  regarded  the  difference  between  this  and  the 
Lutheran  view  as  no  bar  to  Christian  fellowship  and  church  com- 
munion. 

Hence  in  the  edition  of  1540  he  laid  greater  stress  on  the  necessity 

ance,  however,  which  Luther  is  reported  to  have  made  shortly  before  his  death,  has  received 
a  high  degree  of  probability  by  the  discovery  of  the  testimony  of  Pastor  Ilardenberg,  of  Bre- 
men (1547  1550),  who  publicly  and  solemnly  declared  to  have  heard  it,  together  with  another 
living  witness  (Canon  Herbert  von  Langen,  at  Bremen),  from  Melanchthon  s  own  lips.  See 
Erlanger  Reform.  Kirchenzeitung  for  1853,  No.  40.  The  first  Lutheran  divine  who  publicly 
censored  and  condemned  the  Variata  was  Flacius,  at  the  colloquy  of  Weimar,  15G0.  He  was 
followed  by  Miirlin,  Stiissel,  Wigand,  Chytraus,  Heshusius,  and  others. 

1  Under  the  title  (as  given  in  Corp.  Reform.  1.  c.  p.  243) :  '  Confessio  ]  Fidei  exhibita\ 
invictits.  imp.  Carolo  \  V.  Cwsari  Aug.  in  Comiciis  \  Augusta.  \  Anno.  M.D.XXX.  Addita 
>i  Apologia  Confetaionia  diligenter.  recognita.  |  P  sal  mo  CXIX.  \  Vitcberg<e,\~AQ.''  The 
words  diligenter  recognita  (in  the  German  edition,  mit  vleis  emendirt)  openly  indicate  the 

-  The  besl  t*'\t  of  the  Variata,  with  the  variations  of  later  editions,  is  given  in  Corp.  Reform. 
Vol.  XX  VI.  pp.  349  Bqq.  ;  the  history  in  Koi.i.ner,  I.  pp.  235-267,  and  the  books  there 
quoted;  also  in  ZOCKLER,  1.  C  pp. :::.  Bqq,  In  Vol.  II.  of  this  Symb.  Library  the  principal 
Changes  are  noted  in  foot-notes  under  the  text  of  the  Confession. 

I"  Art.  1,5,6,  18,  20, 21,  of  Part  First,  and  the  order  of  the  first  five  articles  in  Part 
Second. 

1  In  Art.  1..%  lo,  18,20. 


Edition  l.~>40. 
Ds  Cozna  Domini  docent,  quod  cum  tank 
et  vino   vera  exhibeantur  corpus  et   san- 


§  41.  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  1530.  241 

of  repentance  and  good  works,  and  softened  down  the  strong  expres- 
sions against  the  freedom  of  will.  The  other  and  mure  important 
change  which  gave  most  offense  to  orthodox  Lutherans,  is  in  the 
tenth  article,  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  where  the  clause  on  the 
real  presence,  and  the  disapproval  of  dissenting  views  are  omitted,  and 
the  word  exhibeantur  is  substituted  for  distribuantur.  In  other  words, 
the  article  is  so  changed  that  Calvin  could  give  it  his  hearty  consent, 
and  even  Zwingli — with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the  word  truly — 
might  have  admitted  it.1  The  difference  will  best  appear  from  the  fol- 
lowing comparison  : 

Editiox  1530.     Latin  Text. 
iDe  Ccena  Domini  docent,  quod  corpus  et 
sanguis  Christi  verb  adsixt,  et  distribu- 
antur vescentibus  in  Cana  Domini;  et  im-    guis  Christi  vescentibus  in  Ccena  Domini.' 

I'ROBAXT   SECUS   DOCEXTES.'2 

'Concerning  the  Lord's  Sapper,  they  teach         'Concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  teach 
that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly    that  with  bread  and  wine  are  truly  exhibited 
jiresent,  and  are  distributed  (communicated)    the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  to  those  that 
to  those  that  eat  in  the  Lord's  Supper.     And    eat  in  the  Lord's  Supper.' 
they  disapprove  of  those  that  teach  otherwise.'  : 

The  difference  between  the  two  editions  was  first  observed,  not  by 
Protestants,  but  by  the  Eoman  controversialist,  Dr.  Eck,  at  a  religious 
conference  in  Worms  early  in  the  year  1541.  Melanchthon  and  the 
Saxon  theologians  made  there  the  altered  edition  the  basis  of  negotia- 
tions, but  Eck  complained  of  changes,  especially  in  Art.  X.,  from  the 
original  copy  of  1530,  which  he  had  procured  from  the  archives  of 
Mayence.  Nevertheless,  the  Variata  was  again  used,  either  alone  or 
alongside  with  the  Invariata,  at  several  subsequent  conferences,  prob- 
ably at  Tiatisbon,  1541,  certainly  at  Itatisbon  in  1546,  and  at  "Worms, 
1557.  It  was  expressly  approved  by  the  Lutheran  Princes  at  a  con- 
vention in  Xaumburg,  1561,  as  an  innocent  and,  in  some  respects,  im- 


1  Zockler,  1.  c.  p.  38,  thinks  that  the  Calvinistic  view  would  require  credent ibus  instead  of 
vescentibus.  Tin's  would  be  true,  if  the  original  distribuantur  had  been  retained,  and  not  ex- 
changed for  the  more  indefinite  exhibeantur.  He  admits,  however,  that  the  tenth  article  is 
irah-inisiren<r  and  ' liucerianisirend'  in  the  sense  of  the  "Wittenberg  Concordia  of  1586, 
whereby  Bucer,  with  Melanehthon's  express  co-operation,  and  the  subsequent  consent  of  Cal- 
vin, endeavored  to  unite  the  Lutherans  and  the  Swiss. 

3  The  German  text  of  1530  (1531)  differs  from  the  Latin,  and  is  even  stronger :  '  Vom 
Abendmahl  des  Hem  Vtird  also  ge/ehret,  dass  WAHBBR  Leib  (the  true  body)  und  Blul  Christi 
wahrhaftiglich  (corresponding  to  the  vere  in  the  Latin  text)  inter  (der)  Gestalt  (under 
the  form)  des  Urals  und  We&ns  im  Abendmahl  gegenwartig  sei,  und  da  ausgethcilt  und  ge- 
nommen  wind  (distributed  and  received).     Derhalben  wird  auch  die  Gegenhhr  verwor/en.' 


942  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

proved  modification  and  authentic  interpretation  of  the  Invariata.  It 
was  introduced  into  many  Lutheran  churches  and  schools,  and  printed 
(with  the  title  and  preface  of  the  edition  of  1530)  in  the  first  collec- 
tion of  Lutheran  symbols,  called  Corpus  Doctrince  Pfulippicum,  or 
Misnicum  (1559).1 

But  after  1560,  strict  Lutheran  divines,  such  as  Flacins  and  Heshu- 
sius,  attacked  the  Invariata  as  heretical  and  treacherous,  and  over- 
whelmed it  with  coarse  abuse.  A  violent  theological  war  was  waged 
against  Melanchthonianism  and  Crypto-Calvinism,  and  ended  in  the 
triumph  of  genuine  Lutheranism  and  the  transition  of  some  Lutheran 
countries  to  the  Reformed  Church.  The  'Book  of  Concord'  (1580) 
gave  the  text  of  the  Invariata  in  the  happy  illusion  of  presenting  it, 
especially  the  German,  in  its  original  form.  The  Melanchthonians 
and  the  Reformed  still  adhered  to  the  Variata.  The  Westphalian 
Treaty,  in  1618,  formally  embraced  the  Eeformed,  together  with  the 
Roman  Catholics  and  Lutherans,  in  the  peace  of  the  German  Empire ; 
and  henceforth  subscription  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530  or 
1540  ceased  to  be  a  necessary  condition  of  toleration.2 

The  Confession,  as  delivered  before  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  in  1530, 
or,  in  the  absence  of  the  original  text,  the  edition  of  1531,  carefully 
prepared  by  Melanchthon  himself,  is  the  proper  historical  Confession 
of  Augsburg,  and  will  always  remain  so.  At  the  same  time,  the  altered 
edition  of  1510,  though  not  strictly  speaking  a  symbolical  book  of 
binding  authority  any  where,3  is  yet  far  more  than  a  private  document, 
and  represents  an  important  element  in  the  public  history  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  the  present  theological 
convictions  of  a  very  large  party  in  that  denomination. 


1  See  Weber,  1.  c.  II.  pp.  314-33G  ;  Kollner,  1.  c.  pp.  248  sqq. 

-  Ins/rum.  Pacts  Osnabr.  Art.  VII.  §  I  :  '  Unanimi  quoque  .  .  .  consensu  placuit,  ut  quicquid 
publico  hue  transactio,  in  eaque  decisio  gravarhinum  ceteris  Catholicis,  el  Augustan^e  Conf. 
M.nii  i  is  statibut  et  subditis  tribwnt,  it  etiam  its,  qui  inter  illos  Reformati  vocantur,  comj>e- 
tere  debeat.'  Quoted  by  Jacobson  in  art.  West/.  Friede,  in  Herzog's  Real-Encycl.  XVIII. 
p.  24.  Nevertheless,  some  interpreted  this  decree  as  including  only  such  of  the  Reformed  as 
subscribed  the  Invariata.  All  other  Christians  are  expressly  excluded  by  the  Treaty;  and 
yd  tin'  Popes  have  always,  though  vainly,  protested  in  the  strongest  terms  (damnamus,  repro- 
biimiis,  cassamus,  annullamus,  vacuamus)  even  against  this  partial  concession  to  the  principle 
Of  religious  freedom  ;  taking  the  ground  that  Papists  alone  have  a  legal  right  to  exist  on  Ger- 
man soil.     See  Gieseler,  Lehrbuch  der  K.  G.  III.  I.  p.  431  sq. 

3  An  attempt  was  made  in  the  Bavarian  Palatinate,  in  1853,  through  the  influence  of  Dr. 
Kbrard,  to  raise  the  Variata  to  the  dignity  of  a  symbolical  book,  but  it  proved  abortive. 


42.  THE  APOLOGY  OF  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  1530-1531.    243 


§  42.  The  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.     A.D.  1530-1531. 

The  Literature  in  55  40  and  41.  The  history  and  literature  of  the  Apology  are  usually  combined  with 
that  of  the  Confession.    So  in  J.  G.  Waloh,  Fkikiu.in-Rikdkkkk,  Koli.nkr,  etc. 

The  best  text  of  the  Apology,  and  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Confutation  of  the  Confession,  in  Latin 
and  German,  with  all  the  variations,  is  given  in  the  Cor/ms  !tybrmat0rum,Yol.  XX\'II.,ed.  Bindseil 
(Brunsviga?,  1850),  pp.  64C,  fol.  There  are  few  separate  editions  of  the  Apology.  Feuerlin  knew  only 
two,  one  nnder  the  singular  title:  Rtange&iaehm  Avijapfel*  (name  of  the  Augsb.  Conf.)  Brillen-Vutzer, 
Leipz.  1629. 

The  'Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  prepared  by  Melanch- 
thon  in  vindication  of  the  Confession  against  the  Roman  Catholic 
'  Confutation,'  which  the  Emperor  and  the  Diet  had  ordered  and  ac- 
cepted, August  3, 1530,  as  a  satisfactory  answer,  although,  in  the  eyes 
of  scholars,  it  did  the  cause  of  popery  more  harm  than  good. 

The  Confutation  follows  the  order  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
approves  eighteen  articles  of  the  first  part,  either  in  full  or  with  sun- 
dry restrictions  and  qualifications,  but  rejects  entirely  the  articles  on 
the  Church  (VII.),  on  faith  and  good  works  (XX.),  and  on  the  worship 
of  saints  (XXI.),  and  the  whole  second  part ;  nevertheless,  it  acknowl- 
edges at  the  close  the  existence  of  various  abuses,  especially  among 
the  clergy,  and  promises  a  reformation  of  discipline.  The  publication 
of  the  document  was  prohibited,  and  it  did  not  appear  till  many  years 
afterwards;  but  its  main  contents  were  known  from  manuscript  copies, 
and  through  those  who  heard  it  read.1 

The  Lutherans  urged  Melanchthon  to  prepare  at  once  a  Protestant 
refutation  of  the  Komish  refutation,  and  offered  the  first  draft  of  it  to 
the  Diet,  Sept.  22,  through  Chancellor  Brack,  but  it  was  refused.  On 
the  following  day  Melanchthon  left  Augsburg  in  company  with  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  and  re-wrote  the  Apology  on  the  journey,2  and 
completed  it  at  Wittenberg  in  April,  1531. 

The  Apology  is  a  triumphant  vindication  of  the  Confession.  It 
far  excels  the  Confutation  both  in  theological  and  literary  merit,  and 

1  The  Latin  text  of  the  Confutatio  was  first  published  by  Fabricius  Leodius  in  Hamumia 
Confess.,  1573  ;  the  German,  by  ( '.  Gr.  of  filler,  1808,  from  a  copy  of  the  original  in  the  archives 
of  Mayence,  which  Weber  had  previously  obtained.  Both  in  the  Corp.  Reform.  1.  c.  Comp. 
also  above,  p.  22<> ;  Weber's  Krit.  Getch.  der  A.  C.  II.  pp.  489  sqq. ;  and  Hugo  Lammer  (who 
afterwards  joined  the  Komish  Church):  Die  vor-TridentintBch  KathoHsche  Theo7ogie,  </<  ■ 
Reformations-Zeitalters,  Berlin,  18.">8,  pp.  3.']-4«. 

a  His  zeal  led  him  to  violate  even  the  law  of  rest  on  Sunday  when  at  Altenbnrg,  in  Spala- 
tin's  house.  Luther  took  the  pen  from  him,  and  told  him  to  serve  God  <>n  that  day  by  rest- 
ing from  literary  labor.     So  Salig  reports  in  his  Hist,  of  the  Awjsb.  Conf.  I.  p.  ::7.">. 


044  THE  CEEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

in  Christian  tone  and  spirit.  It  is  written  with  solid  learning,  clear- 
ness, and  moderation,  though  not  without  errors  in  exegesis  and  pa- 
tristic quotations.  It  is  seven  times  as  large  as  the  Confession  itself. 
It  is  the  most  learned  of  the  Lutheran  symbols.  It  greatly  strengthen- 
ed the  confidence  of  scholars  in  the  cause  of  Protestantism.  Its  chief 
and  permanent  value  consists  in  its  being  the  oldest  and  most  authen- 
tic interpretation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  by  the  author  himself. 

The  Apology,  though  not  signed  by  the  Lutheran  Princes  at  Augs- 
burg, was  recognized  first  in  1532,  at  a  convent  in  Schweinfurt,  as  a 
public  confession ;  it  was  signed  by  Lutheran  divines  at  Smalcald, 
1537;  it  was  used  at  the  religious  conference  at  Worms,  1540,  and 
embodied  in  the  various  symbolical  collections,  and  at  last  in  the  Book 
of  Concord. 

The  text  of  the  Apology  has,  like  that  of  the  Confession,  gone 
through  various  transformations.  The  original  draft  made  at  Augs- 
burg has  no  authority.1  The  first  Latin  edition  was  much  enlarged 
and  improved,  and  appeared  in  April,  1531,  at  Wittenberg,  together 
with  a  very  free  German  translation  by  Justus  Jonas,  assisted  by  Me- 
lanchthon.2  The  second  Latin  edition  of  the  same  year  was  again 
much  changed,  and  is  called  the  Variata?  The  German  text  was 
also  transformed,  especially  in  the  edition  of  1533.  The  Book  of 
Concord  took  both  texts  from  the  first  edition. 


1  .Manuscript  copies  of  this  i  Apologia  prior,'  which  was  based  on  an  imperfect  knowledge 
of  the  Romish  Confutatio,  still  exist.  The  Latin  text  of  it  was  published  forty-seven  years 
afterwards  by  Chytracus  (from  Spalatin's  copy),  1578,  better  by  Forstemann,  in  his  Neues 
Crkundenbuch  (1812),  pp.  35 7-380  (from  a  copy  written  partly  by  Spalatin  and  partly  by 
Melanchthon).  The  best  edition  is  by  Bindseil,  in  the  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  XXVII.  pp.  275 
Bqq.  in  Latin,  and  in  German,  pp.  322  sqq. 

-  Daring  the  preparation  of  the  editio  princeps  he  wrote  to  Brentius  (February,  1531) : 
•  Ego  retexo  Apologiam  <-t  edetur  longe  auctior  et  melius  micnita,'  and  to  Camerarius  (March  7): 
1 Apologia  mm  nondum  absoluta  est,  crescit  enim  opus  inter  scribeiidum.'  Quoted  by  Kollner, 
I.  ]>.  426.  Six  sheets  were  reprinted,  and  a  copy  of  the  first  print  is  preserved  in  the  library 
of  N  uremberg.     See  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  XXVII.  pp.  391  sqq. 

3  See  the  titles  of  the  various  editions  in  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  XXVI.  pp.  235-242,  and  the 
•  of  the  '  Apologia  a/tent'  of  1531,  with  the  changes  of  later  editions  till  1542  (viz., 
Of  the  ed.  11.  1681,  ed.  III.  1510,  ed.  IV.  1542),  in  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  XXVII.  pp.  419-G4G. 


§  43.  LUTHER'S  CATECHISMS,  1529.  045 


§  43.  Luther's  Catechisms.  A.D.  1529. 

Literature, 

I.  Epitions.     See  {  40.    We  only  mention  the  critical  editions. 

C.  Momkkbf.rg:  Die  erste  Ausgabe  v.  Lutheri  Klein.  Kutechismus.  Hamburg,  1S51.  (Reprint  of  the  Low- 
German  translation  of  the  first  edition,  1529.) 

K.  F.  T11.  Schneider:  Dr.  Martin  Luthers  Kleiner  Kateehismus.  Notch  den  OriginaUnugdben  kritisch 
bearbeitet.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  GeecMehtt  der  Katechetik.  Berlin,  1S53.  (Reprint  of  the  standard  edition 
of  15:51 ;  with  a  critical  introduction,  pp.  lxx.) 

TiiEonos.  Harnaok  :  Der  Kleine  Kateehismus  Dr.  ifartin  Luthers  in  seiner  Urgestalt.  Kritisch  vnter- 
sucht  vnd  heramgegeben.  Stuttgart,  1856,  4to.  (Reprint  of  two  editions  of  1529,  and  one  of  1539;  wilh 
lxiv.  pp.  of  introduction,  and  a  table  of  the  principal  variations  of  the  text  till  154'*.) 

The  popular  editions  of  the  Smaller  Catechism,  especially  in  German,  with  or  without  comments  and 
supplements,  are  innumerable. 

II.  Works  : 

A.  Faiikicii:  Axinmata  SeripturcB  Cateehitmo  Lutheri  accovimodata,  etc.    Isleb.  15S3. 

C.  Dikterici:  Instit.  catech.    Ulm,  1613;  often  reprinted. 

Pu.J.  Spener:  Tabula>  eatech.     Frf.  16S3, 1687, 1713. 

Greg.  Langemaok  :  Hist,  catechetical  oder  Oesammelte  Xachrichtcn  zu  einer  Catech.  Historic  Strals. 
1729-1740,  3  vols.     Part  II.,  1733,  treats  of  Lutheri  und  anderer  evang.  Lehrer  Catechismis. 

J.  C  KiicuER:  Einleitung  in  die  catech.  Theol.  Jena,  1752.  And  Diblioth.  theol.  sijmb.  catech.  P.  1. 1751 ; 
P.  II.  1769. 

J.  C.  W.  Ai:gi;6ti  :  Versuch  einer  hist,  kritischen  Einleitung  in  die  beiden  Haupt-Katechismen  der  Evang. 
Kirche.     Elberf.  1824. 

G.  Veese.nmeyer:  Liter,  bihliograph.  Kachrichten  von  einigen  evang.  katcchet.  Schrif ten  und  Katecftisvwn 
vor  und  nach  Luthers  Kat.,  etc.    Ulm,  1S30. 

G.  Moiinike  :  Das  sechste  Hauptstiick  im  Kateehismus.    Stralsund,  1S30. 

C.  A.  Gerii.  von  Zezschwitz:  System  der  christlich  kirchlichen  Katechetik.  Leipz.  1SC3-69,  2  vols.  Vol. 
II.  P.  I.  treats  of  Luther's  Catechism  very  fully. 

Comp.  the  Literature  in  Fauriou's,  Fecerlin,  Wai.cii,  Baumgarten,  Kuxxnkb,  Symbolik,  I.  p.  473. 

CATECHETICAL    INSTRUCTION. 

Religious  instruction  preparatory  to  admission  to  church  member- 
ship is  as  old  as  Christianity  itself,  but  it  assumed  very  different 
shapes  in  different  ages  and  countries.  In  the  first  three  or  four  cent- 
uries (as  also  now  on  missionary  ground)  it  always  preceded  baptism, 
and  was  mainly  addressed  to  adult  Jews  and  Gentiles.  In  length  and 
method  it  freely  adapted  itself  to  various  conditions  and  degrees  of 
culture.  The  three  thousand  Jewish  converts  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, having  already  a  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament,  were  baptized 
simply  on  their  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  after  hearing  the  senium 
of  St.  Peter.  Men  like  Cornelius,  the  Eunuch,  Apollos,  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  needed  but  little 
theoretical  preparation,  and  Cyprian  and  Ambrose  were  elected  bish- 
ops even  while  yet  catechumens.  At  Alexandria  and  elsewhere  there 
were  special  catechetical  schools  of  candidates  for  baptism.  The  basis 
of  instruction  was  the  traditional  rule  of  faith  or  A.postW  Creed,  but 
there  were  no  catechisms  in  our  sense  of  the  term ;  and  even  the  creed 
which  the  converts  professed  at  baptism  was  not  committed  to  writing, 


24G  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

but  orally  communicated  as  a  holy  secret.  Public  worship  was  accord- 
ingly divided  into  a  missa  catechumenorum  for  half-Christians  in  proc- 
ess of  preparation  for  baptism,  and  a  missa  fidelium  for  baptized  com- 
municants or  the  Church  proper. 

With  the  union  of  Church  and  State  since  Constantine,  and  the 
general  introduction  of  infant  baptism,  catechetical  instruction  began 
to  be  imparted  to  baptized  Christians,  and  served  as  a  preparation  for 
confirmation  or  the  first  communion.  It  consisted  chiefly  of  the  com- 
mittal and  explanation,  (1)  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  (2)  of  the 
Creed  (the  Apostles'  Creed  in  the  Latin,  the  Nicene  Creed  in  the 
Greek  Church),  sometimes  also  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  and  the  Te 
Deum ;  (3)  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  (Paternoster).  To  these  were  added 
sometimes  special  chapters  on  various  sins  and  crimes,  on  the  Sacra- 
ments, and  prayers.  Councils  and  faithful  bishops  enjoined  upon  par- 
ents, sponsors,  and  priests  the  duty  of  giving  religious  instruction,  and 
catechetical  manuals  were  prepared  as  early  as  the  eighth  and  ninth 
centuries,  by  Kero,  monk  of  St.  Gall  (about  720) ;  Notker,  of  St.  Gall 
(d.  912) ;  Otfried,  monk  of  Weissenbourg  (d.  after  870),  and  others.1 
But  upon  the  whole  this  duty  was  sadly  neglected  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
and  the  people  were  allowed  to  grow  up  in  ignorance  and  superstition. 
The  anti-papal  sects,  as  the  Albigenses,  Waldenses,  and  the  Bohemian 
Brethren,  paid  special  attention  to  catechetical  instruction.2 

The  Reformers  soon  felt  the  necessity  of  substituting  evangelical 
Catechisms  for  the  traditional  Catholic  Catechisms,  that  the  rising 
generation  might  grow  up  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  and 
the  true  faith.  Of  all  the  Protestant  Catechisms,  those  of  Luther  fol- 
low most  closely  the  traditional  method,  but  they  are  baptized  with  a 
new  spirit. 

1  ( >tfried's  <  Jatechism  was  newly  edited  by  ,T.  G.  Eccard  :  '  Incerti  Monachi  Weissenburgen- 
rit  Catechesis  Theotisca  Seculo  TX.  conscripta.'  Hanov.  1 7 1  J?.  It  contains:  1.  The  Lord's 
Prayer,  with  an  explanation  ;  2.  The  Deadly  Sins;  3.  The  Apostles'  Creed;  4.  The  Athanasian 
1  reed;  6.  The  Gloria. 

-  <  omp.  J.C.  Kocher:  Catechet.  Geschichte  der  Waldenser,  Bshmischen  Briider,  etc.  Amst. 
1  768.  And  ( '.  A.  G.  von  Zezschwitz :  Die  Catechismen  der  Waldenser  tmd  Bohmischen  Briider 
tin  i,i v  ihres  gegenscitigen  Lehraustuuschcs.     Erlangen,  1 863. 


§  43.  LUTHER'S  CATECHISMS,  1529.  047 

lutheb's  catechisms; 

After  several  preparatory  attempts,1  Luther  wrote  two  Catechisms, 
in  1529,  both  in  the  German  language — first  the  larger,  and  then  the 
smaller.  The  former  is  a  continuous  exposition  rather  than  a  Cate- 
chism, and  is  not  divided  into  questions  and  answers;  moreover,  it 
grew  so  much  under  his  hands  that  it  became  altogether  unsuitable  for 
the  instruction  of  the  young,  which  he  had  in  view  from  the  beginning. 
Hence  he  prepared  soon  afterwards  a  smaller  one,  or  Enchiridion,  as 
he  called  it.2  It  is  the  ripe  flower  and  fruit  of  the  larger  work,  and 
almost  superseded  it,  or  confined  its  use  to  pastors  and  teachers  and 
a  more  advanced  class  of  pupils.3 

lie  was  moved  to  this  work  by  the  lamentable  state  of  religious 
ignorance  and  immorality  among  the  German  people,  which  he  found 
out  during  his  visitations  of  the  churches  in  Saxony,  1527-29.4 

1  They  begun  in  151S  with  a  popular  evangelical  exposition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the 
Ten  Commandments.  See  Schneider,  1.  c.  pp.  xvii.  sqq.,  and  Zezschwitz,  1.  c.  II.  I,  pp.  31G 
sqq.  Nor  stood  he  alone  in  these  labors.  Urbanus  Regius  (author  of  three  Catechisms), 
Lonicer  (Strasburg,  152:5),  Melanchthon  (1524),  Brentius  (1527  or  1528),  Lachmann  (Cate- 
chesis,  1528),  Riirer,  Althamer,  Moiban,  Corviu,  Rhau,  Willich,  Chytrteus  (1555),  and  other 
Lutherans  of  the  Reformation  period,  wrote  books  for  the  religious  instruction  of  the  young. 

2  First  in  the  second  edition,  whose  title  (as  given  by  Riederer,  but  now  wanting  in  the 
Copy  rediscovered  by  Harnack,  1.  c.  p.  xxii.)  is  this:  ' Enchiridion.  Der  kleine  Catechismus 
fur  die  gemeine  Pfarher  und  Prediger,  gemehret  und  gebesscrt  durrh  Mart.  Luther.  Wit- 
tenberg,MDXXIX:  The  title  of  the  third  edition,  1531,  is:  'Enchiridion.  \  Der  kleine 
Catechismus  \fur  die  gemeine  Pfarher  und  Prediger.  \  Mart.  Lu.  MDXXXI.'  See  Schnei- 
der, 1.  c.  p.  1.  This  is  the  standard  edition,  from  which  the  editions  of  1539  and  1512  differ 
very  slightly. 

3  See,  on  the  relation  of  the  two,  Kollner,  1.  c.  p.  400.  He  says,  p.  520  :  'The  Large  Cate- 
chism has  entirely  gone  out  of  use.'  Comp.  also  Zezschwitz,  1.  c.  p.  324.  The  older  view  of 
the  priority  of  the  Small  Catechism  is  wrong. 

4  He  says,  in  his  characteristic  style  (Preface  to  the  Small  Catechism)  :  tIHesen  Katechis- 
ttium  oder  christliche  Lehre  in  solche  kleine,  srhleehte,  einfa'ltige  Farm  zu  stellen,  hat  mich  gc- 
zwungen  und  gcdrungen  die  klagliche  clende  Noth,  so  ich  neulich  erfahrcn  habe,  da  ich  auch  ein 
Visitator  war.  ll'df,  lieher  Gott,  wie  memchen  Jammer  habe  ich  gesehen,  dass  der  genu  ine  Mann 
doch  so  gar  nichts  u-eiss  von  der  christlichen  Lehre,  sonderlich  auf  den  DSrfemJ  Cnd  /eider 
viel  Pfarrherren  ganz  ungetchickt  und  untuchtig  sind  zu  lehren ;  und  sollen  doch  "lie  Christen 
heissen,  getauft  sein  und  der  he'd igen  Sacramente  genie ssen  ;  kdnnen  weder  VaterunSi  r,  noch  d<  u 
Glauben,  oder  Zehn  ('•<  bole ;  It  ben  d<dtin,  wie  das  Hebe  Vieh  und  unvernunflige  Saw  ;  und  nun 
das  Evangelium  kommen  is/,  dennoch/ein  gelernt  haben.  «//<;■  Freiheit  meisterlich  zu  missbrauch- 
en.  0  ihr  Bischiife,  was  wollt  ihr  doch  Chris  to  immer  mehr  antworten,  'lass  Uir  das  \~<>lk  so  schdnd- 
lich  habt  lassen  hingehen,  und  euer  Amt  nicht  einen  Augenblick  je  bewiesen  ?  Dass  each  alles 
XJngliick  fliehe!  Yerbietet  einerlci  (3 est  alt  und  treibet  auf  cure  M< '  uchengesetze,  fraget  aber 
deriveil  nichts  danach,  oh  sie  das  Vaterunser,  Glauben,  Zehn  (iebote  oder  einigts  G'otteswort 
kbnnen.     Acli  und  u-ehe  iiber  euren  Hals  twigUch  .'     Darvm  bitte  ich  mn  Gottes  willen  euch 

Vol.  I.— R 


24S  THE  CKEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

With  his  conservative  instinct,  he  retained  the  three  parts  on  the 
Decalogue  (after  the  Latin  division),  the  Creed,  and  the  Lord's  Prayer. 
To  these  he  added,  after  the  example  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  an 
instruction  on  the  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.1 

Luther's  Catechism  proper,  therefore,  has  five  parts:  1.  Decalogus; 
2.  Symbolum  Apostolicum;  3.  Okatio  Dominica;  4.  De  Baptismo; 
5.  De  Sacramento  Altakis.  So  the  Large  Catechism,  as  printed  in 
the  Book  of  Concord  (without  any  additions2),  and  the  Small  Cate- 
chism in  the  first  two  editions  (with  devotional  additions). 

THE   ADDITIONS    IN   THE   ENCHIRIDION. 

In  the  later  editions  of  the  Small  Catechism  (since  1564)  there  is  a 
sixth  part  on  Confession  and  Absolution,  or  the  Power  of  the  Keys? 
which  is  inserted  either  as  Part  V.,  between  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  or  added  as  Part  VI.,  or  as  an  Appendix.  The  precise  author- 
ship of  the  enlarged  form  or  forms  (for  they  vary)  of  this  Part,  with 
the  questions  'What  is  the  Power  of  the  Keys,'  etc.,  is  uncertain,4  but 
the  substance  of  it,  viz.,  the  questions  on  private  or  auricular  confession 
of  sin  to  the  minister  and  absolution  by  the  minister,  as  given  in  the 
'Book  of  Concord,'  date  from  Luther  himself,  and  appear  first  sub- 
stantially in  the  third  edition  of  1531,  as  introductory  to  the  fifth 
part  on  the  Lord's  Supper.5     He  made  much  account  of  private  con- 


alle  meine  lieben  Herren  und  Briider,  so  Pfarrherren  oder  Prediger  sind,  wollet  euch  eures  Amtes 
von  Ilerzen  annehmen,  euch  erbarmen  iiber  euer  Volk,  das  euch  befohlen  ist,  und  uns  helfen  den 
A  atechismus  in  die  Lcute,  sonderlich  in  das  junge  Volk  bringen ;  und  welche  es  nicht  besser  ver- 
mSgen,  diese  Ta/eln  undFormen  vor  sich  nehmen,  und  dem  Volke  von  Wort  zu  Wort  fiirbilden: 

1  The  Bohemian  Brethren,  or  Hussites,  had  Catechisms  long  before  Luther,  divided  into 
live  parts  :  1.  The  Decalogue;  2.  The  Creed;  3.  The  Lord's  Prayer;  4.  The  Sacraments; 
5.  The  House  Table.  They  sent  a  Latin  copy  to  Luther,  1523.  See  Kollner,  1.  c.  pp.  485, 
469. 

2  Luther  says,  in  the  Prolegomena  to  the  Large  Catechism,  '■Also  hatte  man  uberall  funf 
SmYkk  dee  ganzen  christlichen  Lehre,  die  man  immerdar  treiben  kann.' 

■  Vnm  Ami  </<■>■  Schlilssel.    De poteslate  clarium.'    It  is  usually  called  ' Das  scchsle  Haupt- 
stUck,' although  it  should  properly  be  an  appendix. 

*  It  is  variously  traced  to  Luther,  Brentius  (who  has  in  his  Catechism  a  sixth  part  '  On  the 
Bugenhagen,  Knipstrov,  but  with  greater  probability  to  the  popular  Catechetical  Ser- 
mons prepared  for  public  use  in  Nuremburg  and  Brandenburg,  1533  (probably  by  Brentius), 
and  translated  into  Latin  by  Justus  Jonas,  L539  (and  re-edited  by  Gerlach,  Berlin,  1839). 
See  Francke:  Eton  symbolici,  etc.  P.  II.  Proleg.  p.  xxiv. ;  Midler:  Die  Symbolischen  Ditcher, 
etc  p.  xcvii. ;  Kollner,  1.  c.  pp.  502  sqq. ;  Zezschwitz,  1.  c.  pp.  327  sqq. 

See  the  third  edition,  iis  republished  by  Schneider,  1.  c.  pp.  Hi.  and  45  sqq.     Those  ques- 
tion, appear  under  the  title  '  Wit  man  die  Einfeltigen  soil  lercn  bcichten:    An  admonition  to 


§  43.  LUTHER'S  CATECHISMS,  1529.  949 

fession  and  absolution,  while  the  Calvinists  abolished  the  same  as  a 
mischievous  popish  invention.  '  True  absolution,'  says  Luther, '  or  the 
power  of  the  keys,  instituted  in  the  Gospel  by  Christ,  affords  comfort 
and  support  against  sin  and  an  evil  conscience.  Confession  or  abso- 
lution shall  by  no  means  be  abolished  in  the  Church,  but  be  retained, 
especially  on  account  of  weak  and  timid  consciences,  and  also  on  ac- 
count of  untutored  youth,  in  order  that  they  may  be  examined  and 
instructed  in  the  Christian  doctrine.  But  the  enumeration  of  sins 
should  be  free  to  every  one,  to  enumerate  or  not  to  enumerate  such  as 
he  wishes.'  ' 

Besides  these  doctrinal  sections,  the  Smaller  Catechism,  as  edited 
by  Luther  in  1531  (partly,  also,  in  the  first  edition  of  1529),  has 
three  appendices  of  a  devotional  or  liturgical  character,  viz. :  1.  A 
series  of  short  family  prayers  (fwie  ein  Ilausvater  sein  Gesinde  soil 
lehren  Morgens  unci  Abends  sich  segnen^)',  2.  A  table  of  duties  (' Ilaus- 
tafeV)  for  the  members  of  a  Christian  household,  consisting  of  Scrip- 
ture passages  (1  Tim.  iii.  2  sqq. ;  Rom.  xiii.  1  sqq. ;  Col.  iii.  19  sqq. ; 
Eph.  vi.  1  sqq.,  etc.);  3.  A  marriage  manual  ('  Traubuchlin'') ;  and 
4.  A  baptismal  manual  ('  Ttmfb'ucldbi'). 

The  first  two  appendices,  which  are  devotional,  were  retained  in  the 
'Book  of  Concord;'  but  the  third  and  fourth,  which  are  liturgical  and 

confession  (' Vermahnung  zu  der  Beieht')  was  added  also  to  later  editions  of  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism since  1531,  hut  omitted  in  the  'Book  of  Concord,'  against  the  remonstrance  of  Chemnitz. 
1  Art.  Smalc  III.  p.  8.  The  Church  of  England  holds  a  similar  position  in  regard  to  the 
confessional,  and  hence  the  recent  revival  of  it  by  the  Ritualists,  though  under  the  strong  pro- 
test of  the  evangelical  party.  The  'Rook  of  Common  Prayer'  of  the  Church  of  England 
contains,  besides  two  different  forms  ofjmblic  confession  and  absolution  (one  for  Morning  and 
Evening  Prayer,  another  for  the  Communion  Service),  a  form  of  private  confession  and  abso- 
lution in  the  Order  for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick.  Tke  first  two  are  retained,  the  third  is 
omitted  in  the  Prayer  Rook  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States.  The 
third  form,  in  the  Visitation  Office,  retains  the  traditional  form  of  the  Latin  Church — 1AIjsoIvo 
te  in  Nomine  Patris,'  etc.  —  'I  absolve  thee  in  the  Name,'  etc.  Blunt,  in  his  Annotated  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  Part  II.  p.  283,  comments  largely  on  this  formula,  and  quotes  also  a  pas- 
sage from  the  first  exhortation  in  the  Communion  Office,  which  reads  as  follows :  '  There- 
fore, if  there  be  any  one  who  .  .  .  requireth  further  comfort  and  counsel,  let  him  come  to 
me,  or  to  some  other  discreet  and  learned  minister  of  God's  Word,  and  open  his  grief;  that 
by  the  ministry  of  God's  Holy  Word  he  may  receive  the  benefit  of  absolution  together  with 
ghostly  counsel  and  advice,  to  the  guiding  of  his  conscience,  and  avoiding  of  all  scruple  and 
doubtfulness.'  And  after  some  other  quotations,  he  says:  'Numberless  practical  writers 
speak  of  private  confession  as  a  recognized  habit  in  the  Church  of  England  since  the  Refor- 
mation  as  well  as  before.  Nearly  all  such  writers,  however,  protest  against  its  compulsory 
injunction,  and  it  does  not  seem  to  be  proved  that  frequent  and  habitual  confession  has  ever 
been  very  common  in  the  Church  of  England  since  the  Reformation.' 


250  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ceremonial,  were  omitted  because  of  the  great  diversity  in  different 
churches  as  to  exorcism  in  baptism,  and  the  rite  of  marriage. 

TRANSLATIONS    AND   INTRODUCTION. 

The  Smaller  Catechism  was  translated  from  the  German  original 
into  the  Latin  (by  Sanermann)  and  many  other  languages ;  even  into 
the  Greek,  Hebrew,  and  Syriae.  It  is  asserted  by  Lutheran  writers 
that  no  book,  except  the  Bible,  has  had  a  wider  circulation.  Thirty- 
seven  years  after  its  appearance  Matthesius  spoke  of  a  circulation  of 
over  a  hundred  thousand  copies. 

It  was  soon  introduced  into  public  schools,  churches,  and  families. 
It  became  by  common  consent  a  symbolical  book,  and  a  sort  of  '  Lay 
Bible'  for  the  German  people.  It  is  still  very  extensively  used  in 
Lutheran  churches,  though  mostly  with  supplements  or  in  connection 
with  fuller  Catechisms.  In  Southern  Germany  the  Catechism  of  Bren- 
tius  obtained  a  wide  currency. 

CHARACTER,  VALUE,  AND    DEFECTS. 

Luther's  Small  Catechism  is  truly  a  great  little  book,  with  as  many 
thoughts  as  words,  and  every  word  telling  and  sticking  to  the  heart  as 
well  as  the  memory.  It  bears  the  stamp  of  the  religious  genius  of 
Luther,  who  was  both  its  father  and  its  pupil.1  It  exhibits  his  almost 
apostolic  gift  of  expressing  the  deepest  things  in  the  plainest  language 
for  the  common  people.  It  is  strong  food  for  a  man,  and  yet  as  sim- 
ple as  a  child.  It  marks  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  religious  instruc- 
tion :  it  purged  it  from  popish  superstitions,  and  brought  it  back  to 
Scriptural  purity  and  simplicity.  As  it  left  far  behind  all  former 
catechetical  manuals,  it  has,  in  its  own  order  of  excellence  and  use- 
fulness, never  been  surpassed.  To  the  age  of  the  Information  it  was 
an  incalculable  blessing.  Luther  himself  wrote  no  better  book,  except- 
ing, of  course,  his  translation  of  the  Bible,  and  it  alone  would  have 
immortalized  him  as  one  of  the  sn-eat  benefactors  of  the  human  race. 


■  I  am  also  a  doctor  and  a  preacher,'  he  says  in  the  Preface  to  his  Larger  Catechism, 
'endowed  with  no  less  learning  and  experience  than  those  who  presume  so  much  on  their 
abilities  .  .  .  yet  I  am  like  a  child  who  is  taught  the  Catechism,  and  I  read  and  recite  word 
bj  word,  in  the  morning  and  when  I  have  leisure,  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  Articles  of 
the  <  'reed,  the  Lord's  Prayer,the  Psalms,  etc.  .  .  .  and  must  remain,  and  do  cheerfullv  remain, 
a  child  and  inn.il  of  the  Catechism.' 


§  43.  LUTHER'S  CATECHISMS,  1529.  251 

Few  books  have  elicited  snch  enthusiastic  praise,  and  have  even  to 
this  day  such  grateful  admirers.1 

But  with  all  its  excellences  it  has  some  serious  defects.  It  gives 
the  text  of  the  Ten  Commandments  in  an  abridged  form  (the  Larger 
Catechism  likewise),  and  follows  the  wrong  division  of  the  Romish 
Church,  which  omits  the  second  commandment  altogether,  and  cuts 
the  tenth  commandment  into  two,  to  make  up  the  number.2     It  al- 

1  I  quote  some  Lutheran  testimonies  which  show  the  impressions  of  early  childhood,  and 
seem  extravagant  to  members  of  other  denominations.  Matthesius :  'The  world  can  never  suf- 
ficiently thank  and  repay  Luther  for  his  little  Catechism. '  Justus  Jonas :  '  It  may  be  bought  for 
sixpence,  but  six  thousand  worlds  would  not  pay  for  it.'  Andr.  Fabricius :  'A  better  book,  next 
to  the  Bible,  the  sun  never  saw  ;  it  is  the  juice  and  the  blood,  the  aim  and  the  substance  of  the 
Bible.'  Seckendorf :  'I  have  received  more  consolation  and  a  firmer  foundation  for  my  salvation 
from  Luther's  little  Catechism  than  from  the  huge  volumes  of  all  the  Latin  and  Greek  fathers 
together.'  Lohe :  '  It  is,  of  all  Confessions,  that  which  is  most  suitable  and  best  adapted  to  the 
people.  It  is  a  fact,  which  no  one  denies,  that  no  other  Catechism  in  the  world  can  be  made 
a  prayer  of  but  this.  But  it  is  less  known  that  it  may  be  called  a  real  marvel  in  respect  of 
the  extraordinary  fullness  and  great  abundance  of  knowledge  expressed  in  it  in  so  few  words.' 
Leopold  Ranke :  '  The  Catechism  published  by  Luther  in  1 529,  of  which  he  himself  says 
that,  old  a  doctor  as  he  was,  he  used  it  himself  as  a  prayer,  is  as  childlike  as  it  is  profound, 
as  comprehensible  as  it  is  unfathomable,  simple,  and  sublime.  Happy  he  whose  soul  was  fed 
by  it,  who  clings  to  it.  He  possesses  at  all  times  an  imperishable  consolation  :  under  a  thin 
shell,  a  kernel  of  truth  sufficient  for  the  wisest  of  the  wise.'  (' Der  Katechismus,  den  Luther 
im  Jahr  1529,  herausgab,  von  dem  er  sagt,  er  bete  ihn  selbst,  so  ein  alter  Doctor  er  auch  sei,  ist 
ebenso  kindlich  icie  tiefsinnig,  sofasslich  wie  unergrundlich,  einfach  und  erhaben.  Gliickselig 
wer  seine  Seele  damit  ndhrte,  icer  daran  festhalt .'  Er  besitzt  einen  unverganglichen  Trost  in 
jedem  Momente:  nur  kinter  einer  leic/iten  Hullc  den  Kern  der  Wahrheit,  der  dem  Weisesten  der 
Weisen  genug  thut.'  Deutsche  Geschichte  im  Zeitalter  der  Reformation,  Vol.  II.  3d  edition, 
Berlin,  1852,  p.  357.)  To  add  an  American  testimony,  I  quote  from  Dr.  Ch.  P.  Krauth  : 
'  So  truly  did  the  Shorter  Catechism  embody  the  simple  Christian  faith,  as  to  become,  by  the 
spontaneous  acclamation  of  millions,  a  Confession.  It  was  a  private  writing,  and  yet,  beyond 
all  the  Confessions,  the  direct  pulsation  of  the  Church's  whole  heart  is  felt  in  it.  It  was 
written  in  the  rapture  of  the  purest  catholicity,  and  nothing  from  Luther's  pen  presents  him 
more  perfectly,  simply  as  a  Christian  ;  not  as  the  prince  of  theologians,  but  as  a  lowly  believer 
among  believers'  {The  Conservative  Reformation,  Philadelphia,  1872,  p.  285). 

2  The  Lutheran  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Catechisms,  following  the  lead  of  Augustine,  re- 
gard the  second  commandment  only  as  an  explanation  of  the  first ;  the  Reformed  and  the 
Greek  Catechisms,  following  the  division  of  the  Jews  (Joseph us  and  l'hilo)  and  the  early 
Christians  (e.  g.  Origen),  treat  it  as  a  separate  commandment,  which  prohibits  image  worship 
and  enjoins  the  true  worship  of  God,  while  the  first  prohibits  idolatry  and  enjoins  monothe- 
ism. Hence  the  different  modes  of  counting  from  the  second  to  the  ninth  commandment. 
The  division  of  the  tenth  commandment  follows  as  a  necessity  from  the  omission  of  the  sec- 
ond, but  is  decidedly  refuted  by  the  intrinsic  unity  of  the  tenth  commandment,  and  by  a  com- 
parison of  Exod.  xx.  17  with  Deut.  v.  21  ;  for  in  the  latter  passage  (as  also  in  the  Septuagint 
version  of  Exod.  xx.  17)  the  order  is  transposed,  and  the  neighbor's  wife  put  before  the  neigh- 
bor's house,  so  that  what  is  the  ninth  commandment  in  Exodus,  according  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  and  Lutheran  view,  would  be  the  tenth  according  to  Deuteronomy.  St.  Paul,  more- 
over, in  enumerating  the  commandments  of  the  second  table,  Rom.  xiii.  9  (comp.  also  vii.  7),  al- 
ludes to  the  tenth  with  the  words,  'Thou  shalt  not  covet,' without  intimating  any  such  division. 


252  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

lows  only  three  questions  and  answers  to  the  exposition  of  the  Creed. 
It  gives  undue  importance  to  the  Sacraments  by  making  them  co-or- 
dinate parts  with  the  three  great  divisions,  and  elevates  even  private 
confession  and  absolution,  as  a  sort  of  third  sacrament,  to  equal  dig- 
nity. It  omits  many  important  articles,  and  contains  no  express  in- 
struction on  the  Bible,  as  the  inspired  record  of  divine  revelation  and 
the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  Hence  it  is  found  neces- 
sary, where  it  is  used,  to  supplement  it  by  a  number  of  preliminary 
and  additional  questions  and  answers. 

THE    TEXT    OF    THE    ENCHIRIDION. 

The  critical  restoration  of  the  best  text  of  Luther's  Small  Catechism 
has  only  recently  been  accomplished  by  Monckeberg,  Schneider,  and 
Harnack.     The  text  of  the  '  Book  of  Concord '  is  unreliable. 

The  cditio princeps  of  1529  had  entirely  disappeared  until  Moncke- 
berg, 1851,  published  a  Low-German  translation  from  a  copy  in  the 
Hamburg  city  library;  and  five  years  later  (1856)  Professor  Harnack 
found  an  Erfurt  reprint  of  the  original  (without  date),  and  a  Marburg 
reprint  dated  1529. 

The  second  recension,  of  1529,  which  contains  several  improvements 
and  addenda,  was  described  by  Riederer,  in  1765,  from  a  copy  then  in 
the  university  library  at  Altdorf.  This  copy  was  supposed  to  have 
been  transferred  to  Erlangen,  but  was  discovered  by  Harnack  in  the 
German  Museum  at  Nuremburg,  and  republished  by  him,  1856,  to- 
gether with  a  reprint  of  the  editio  j??ii?iceps,  and  a  Wittenberg  edition 
of  1539,  a  valuable  critical  introduction,  and  a  table  of  the  principal 
variations  of  the  text  till  1542. 

The  third  recension,  of  1531,  was  brought  to  light  by  Dr.  Schneider, 
and  accurately  republished  (but  without  the  woodcuts  and  the  Trau- 
buchlin  and  Tai/fb'dchlin),lS53,  with  a  learned  introduction  and  critical 

|  !omp  also  Mark  x.  I'.).  The  Decalogue  consists  of  two  tables,  of  five  commandments  each. 
The  first  contains  the  duties  to  God  (prceeepta  jnetatis),  the  second  the  duties  to  men  (prce- 
eepta probitatis) ;  the  first  is  strictly  religious,  the  second  moral.  The  fifth  commandment 
belongs  to  the  first  table,  since  it  enjoins  reverence  to  parents  as  representing  God's  authoi'ity 
on  earth.  This  view  is  now  taken  not  only  by  Reformed,  but  also  by  many  of  the  ablest 
a  divines,  e.  g.,  Oehler,  Theohgie  det  Alien  Testaments  (Tubingen,  1873),  I.  pp.  287 
■qq.;  II.  Bchultz,  Alttestamentliche  Theologie  (Frankf.  a.  M.  1869), L  p. 429.  On  the  other 
hand,  Kurtz,  Kahnis,  and  Zezschwitz  defend  the  Lutheran  division.  The  main  thing,  of 
OOOrte,  ll  Dot  the  dividing,  but  the  keeping  of  the  commandments. 


§  44.  THE  ARTICLES  OF  SMALCALD,  1537.  253 

apparatus.1  It  gives  the  text  of  the  five  parts  substantially  as  it  has  re- 
mained since,  also  the  section  on  confession  ('  Wie  man  die  JEinfcUtigen 
soil  lekren  beichten'),  the  morning  and  evening  prayers,  the  Benedicite 
and  Gratiot,  the  Ilaustaj el,  the  TrattbucAltn  and  the  Taufb'dchlin. 

In  1535  (and  1536)  Luther  prepared  a  new  edition,  to  conform  the 
Scripture  texts  to  his  translation  of  the  Bible,  which  was  completed  in 
1534. 

The  edition  of  1542  i^avfs  neu  Ubersehen  toid  zufjcricht'1)  adds  the 
promise  to  the  fourth  (fifth)  commandment,  and  enlarges  the  'House 
Table.' 

§  44.  The  Articles  of  Smalcald.     A.D.  1537. 

Literature. 

CAKrzov:  Isagoge  in  Libros  Symbolicos,  etc.,  1675,  pp.  767  sqq. 

J.  C.  Bertram  :  Geschichte  des  symbol.  Anhangs  der  Sehmalk.  Artikel    Altdorf,  1770. 

M.  Meurer  :  Der  Tag  zu  Schmalkalderi  und  die  Schmalk.  Artikel.    Leipz.  1S37. 

Kollner  :  Symbolik  (1S37),  I.  pp.  439-472. 

G.  H.  Ki.irPEt.,  in  Herzog's  Real-Encykl.  Vol.  XIII.  (1SG0),  pp.  600  sqq. 

Cu.  P.  Krabtii:  The  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  Theology,  Phila.  1S72,  pp.  280-2S3. 

F.  Sander  :  Gcschichtliche  Einleitung  zu  den  Schmalkaldischen  A  rtikeln.  Iu  the  Jahrbiicher  far  Deutsche 
Theologie,  Gotha,  1S75,  pp.  475-439. 

The  older  literatme,  mostly  doctrinal  and  polemical,  is  given  by  Fabbioius,  Wai.cii,  Bacmgarten, 
Hase  (Libri  Symb.  Proleg.  cxl.),  and  Kollner. 

ORIGIN. 

Pope  Paul  III.,  yielding  at  last  to  the  request  of  the  German  Em- 
peror and  the  pressure  of  public  opinion,  convoked  a  general  Council, 
to  be  opened  May  23,  1537,  at  Mantua,2  and  extended,  through  his 
legate,  Peter  Paul  Yergerius  (who  subsequently  became  a  Protestant), 
an  invitation  also  to  the  Lutherans.3  Though  by  no  means  sanguine 
as  to  the  result,  Luther,  by  order  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  (Dec.  11, 

1  See  his  description,  I.  c.  pp.  l.-liv.     It  is  reprinted  in  the  second  volume  of  this  work. 

3  It  did  not  convene,  however,  till  1545,  in  Trent,  and  then  it  turned  out  an  exclusive  Ro- 
man Catholic  Council. 

3  Vergerius  had  a  fruitless  interview  with  Luther  in  the  electoral  castle  at  Wittenberg, 
which  was  characteristic  of  both  parties.  The  papal  nuncio  acted  the  proud  prelate  and 
shrewd  Italian  diplomatist;  the  Reformer,  the  plain,  free-spoken  German.  Lather  took  the 
matter  in  good  humor,  sent  for  the  barber,  and  put  on  his  best  dress  to  impress  the  nuncio 
with  his  youth  and  capacity  for  even  greater  mischief  to  the  Pope  than  he  had  done  already. 
He  scorned  his  tempting  offers,  and  told  him  frankly  that  he  cared  very  little  about  his  mas- 
ter and  his  Council  at  Mantua  or  elsewhere,  but  promised  to  attend  it,  and  there  to  defend  his 
heretical  Opinions  against  the  whole  world.  Vergerius,  in  his  report,  speaks  contemptuously 
of  Luther's  poor  Latin,  rude  manners,  obstinacy,  and  impudence;  but  some  years  afterwards 
he  renounced  Romanism,  and  became  the  Reformer  of  the  Grisons  in  Eastern  Switzerland. 
He  died  October  4, 15G5,  at  Tubingen,  where  he  spent  his  last  years,  without  office,  but  in  ex- 
tensive literary  activity  and  correspondence.  See  the  monograph  of  Sixt :  Petrus  Paulus  Ver- 
yerius,  Braunschweig,  1855,  pp.  115-45. 


254  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

153G),  prepared  a  Creed  as  a  basis  of  negotiations  at  the  Council,  sub- 
mitted it  to  Amsdorf,  Agricola,  Spalatin,  and  Melanchthon  for  ap- 
proval, and  sent  it  to  the  Elector,  Jan.  3, 1537. 

Melanchthon,  at  the  request  of  the  convent  assembled  at  Smalcald, 
prepared  an  Appendix  on  the  power  and  primacy  of  the  Pope,  about 
which  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Apology  are  silent 

SIGNATURE.      MELANCIITHOn's   POSITION. 

The  Articles,  including  the  Appendix,  were  laid  before  the  convent 
of  Lutheran  Princes  and  theologians  held  in  the  town  of  Smalcald 
(Schmalkalderi),  in  Thuringia,  which  lent  its  name  to  the  political 
league  of  those  Princes  for  mutual  protection,  and  also  to  this  new 
Creed.1  They  were  signed  by  the  theologians  (but  not  by  the  Princes) 
without  being  publicly  discussed.2 

Melanchthon  signed  the  Articles  with  the  following  remarkable 
qualification:  'I,  Philip  Melanchthon,  approve  the  foregoing  Articles 
as  pious  and  Christian.  But  in  regard  to  the  Pope,  I  hold  that,  if 
he  would  admit  the  Gospel,  we  might  also  permit  him,  for  the  sake  of 
peace  and  the  common  concord  of  Christendom,  to  exercise,  by  human 
right,  his  present  jurisdiction  over  the  bishops,  who  are  now  or  may 
hereafter  be  under  his  authority.'3 

This  remarkable  concession  strongly  contrasts  with  the  uncompro- 
mising anti-popery  spirit  of  the  Articles,  and  exposed  Melanchthon 
to  much  suspicion  and  abuse.  It  is  self-contradictory  and  impractica- 
ble, since  the  Pope  and  his  hierarchy  will  never  allow  the  free  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel  in  the  Protestant  sense.     But  the  author's  motive 

1  iSchmalkaldi8che  Artikel,  Articuli  Smalcaldici,'  so  called  since  1553.  The  original  title 
is:  'ARTIKEL  CHRISTLICHER  Lehre,  so  da  hdtten  sollen  aufs  Concilium  zu  Mantua,  oder  wo 
es  sonst  worde.n  ware,  iiberantwortet  werdcn  von  unse.rs  T/iei/s  ivegen,  und  was  wir  annehmen 
oder  nachgeben  kOnnten  oder  nicht,  dun-It  />.  Martin  Luthern  geschrieben,  Anno  1537.' 

2  The  Princes  on  that  occasion  required  their  theologians  to  sign  also  the  Augshurg  Confes- 
sion and  Apology,  hut  they  resolved  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Pope's  Council.  The 
Appendix  has  thirty-two  signatures,  the  Articles  have  forty-two,  obtained  partly  at  Smalcald 
and  partly  on  the  journey.  The  principal  signers  are  Luther,  Melanchthon,  Jonas,  Spalatin, 
Bngenhagen,  Amsdorf,  I?ucer,  and  Brentius.  Sec  Kollner,  pp.  445  sqq.,  and  Tlitt,  De  aucto- 
ritate  Irticulorum  Smalcaldicorum  (Erlang.  1862),  with  the  strictures  of  Ileppe,  Kutstehung 
und  Fortbildung  des  Lutherthumt  (Cassel,  1868),  pp.  252  sqq. 

'  De  pontifice  autem  stu/uo,  si  evangelium  adinitteret  (so  er  das  Evangelism  u-olhe  zidasseii), 
ei  propter  pacefh  <i  communem  tranquillitatem  Christianorum,  qui  iam  sub  i/>so  sunt  et  in  post e- 
riim  tub  ipso  i  r n at,  superioritatem  in  episeojios,  quam  alioqui  habet,  jure  humano  etiam  a  nobis 
permitti.'  Sander  (p.  488)  thinks  that  Melanchthon  did  not  mean  this  authority  to  apply  to 
Protestants,     Bnl  tins  id  inconsistent  with  the  words  'etiam  a  nobis.1 


§  44.  THE  ARTICLES  OF  SMALCALD,  1537.  255 

•was  a  noble  desire  for  a  more  independent  and  dignified  position  of 
the  Church.  lie  feared — and  not  without  good  reason — a  worse  than 
papal  tyranny  from  rapacious  Protestant  Princes,  who  now  exercised 
the  power  of  supreme  bishops  and  little  popes  in  their  territories.  He 
sincerely  regretted  the  loss,  not  of  the  episcopal  domination,  but  of  the 
episcopal  administration,  as  a  check  upon  secular  despotism.1 

CONTENTS. 

The  Articles  of  Smalcald  consist  of  three  parts. 

The  first  reaffirms,  very  briefly  in  four  articles,  the  doctrines  of  the 
Apostles'  and  Athanasian  Creeds,  about  which  there  was  no  dispute 
with  the  Papists.  It  corresponds  to  Articles  I.  and  III.  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession. 

The  second  and  principal  part,  concerning  'the  office  and  work  of 
Christ,  or  our  redemption,'  is  polemical  against  the  mass,  purgatory, 
the  invocation  of  saints,  monasticism,  and  popery,  which  interfere  and 
set  aside  the  true  doctrine  of  redemption.  Justification  by  faith  alone 
is  emphasized  as  the  chief  article  of  faith,  '  upon  which  depends  all 
that  we  teach  and  do  against  the  Pope,  the  devil,  and  all  the  world. 
We  must,  therefore,  be  entirely  certain  of  this,  and  not  doubt  it,  other- 
wise all  will  be  lost,  and  the  Pope,  and  the  devil,  and  our  opponents 
will  prevail  and  obtain  the  victory.'  The  mass  is  denounced  as  'the 
greatest  and  most  horrible  abomination,'2  purgatory  as  a  'satanic  de- 
lusion,' the  Pope  as  'the  true  Antichrist'  predicted  by  Paul  (2  Thess. 
ii.  4),  because  'he  will  not  permit  Christians  to  be  saved  without  his 
power.' 

The  third  part  treats,  in  fifteen  articles,  of  sin,  of  the  law,  of  repent- 
ance, of  the  sacraments,  and  other  doctrines  and  ordinances,  concerning 

1  lUtinam,  vthiain—he,  wrote  to  his  friend,  Joach.  Camerarius,  Aug.  31,  1530—  '■possim 
non  quidem  dominationem  conjlrmare,  sed  administrationem  restituere  episcojwnon.  I  ideo  enim, 
qualem  simus  habituri  Eccksiam,  dixsoluta  iroXiTtia  ecclestastica.  Video  posted  mullo  inlolc- 
rabilioremfuluram  tyrannidem,  quam  antea  unquamftnt '  ( Corp.  Reform.Yol.  II.  p.  334.  Comp. 
his  letter  of  Sept.  4,  1530,  to  the  same,  p.  341).     Kollner  defends  Melanchthon's  course. 

2  Luther  calls  it  also  'the  dragon's  tail  (Drachctischwmiz),  which  has  produced  a  multi- 
plicity of  abominations  and  idolatries'  (multiplices  abominationes  et  idololatrias.  In  German: 
viel  Ungeziefers  und  Gcsrhmeiss  mancherlei  Abrjotterei),  P.  II.  Art.  2.  He  says  that  the 
ma'--  will  be  the  chief  tiling  in  the  proposed  Council,  and  will  never  be  yielded  by  the  Pa- 
pists. Cardinal  Oampeius  had  told  him  at  Augsburg  he  would  rather  be  torn  to  pieces  than 
allow  the  mass  to  be  discontinued.  So  would  he  (Luther)  rather  be  reduced  to  ashes  than 
allow  a  performer  of  the  mass  to  be  equal  to  our  Lord  and  Saviour. 


256  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

which  Protestants  may  dispute  either  among  themselves  or  with  'learned 
and  sensible  men'  (i.  e.,  Catholics  in  the  Council,  but  not  with  the  Pope, 
who  is  said  to  have  no  conscience,  and  to  care  only  about  '  gold,  honor, 
and  power').  In  the  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  transubstantiation  is 
expressly  excluded,  but  otherwise  the  Lutheran  doctrine  is  asserted 
even  in  stronger  terms  than  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  (viz.,  that 
'  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  administered  and  received,  not 
only  by  pious,  but  also  by  impious  Christians.' 1  Luther  concludes  with 
spicy  remarks  against  the  juggling  tricks  of  the  Pope. 

The  Appendix  of  Melanchthon  is  a  theological  masterpiece  for  his 
age,  written  in  a  calm,  moderate,  and  scholarly  tone ;  and  refutes,  from 
the  Bible  and  from  the  history  of  the  early  Church,  these  three  assump- 
tions of  the  Pope,  as  'false,  impious,  tyrannical,  and  pernicious  in  the 
extreme,'  viz. :  1.  That  the  Pope,  as  the  Yicar  of  Christ,  has  by  divine 
right  supreme  authority  over  the  bishops  and  pastors  of  the  whole 
Christian  world;  2.  That  he  has  by  divine  right  both  swords,  that  is, 
the  power  to  enthrone  and  dethrone  kings,  and  to  regulate  civil  affairs ; 
3.  That  Christians  are  bound  to  believe  this  at  the  risk  of  eternal  sal- 
vation. He  also  shows  from  Scripture  and  from  Jerome  that  the  power 
and  jurisdiction  of  bishops,  as  far  as  it  differs  from  that  of  other  min- 
isters, is  of  human  origin,  and  has  been  grossly  abused  in  connection 
with  the  papal  tyranny. 

CHARACTER  AND  AUTHORITY. 

It  is  clear  from  this  outline  that  the  Articles  of  Smalcald  mark  a 
considerable  advance  in  the  final  separation  of  the  Lutheran  body  from 
the  Church  of  Rome.  Luther  left  Smalcald  in  bad  health  (he  suffered 
much  of  the  stone),  with  the  prayer  that  God  may  fill  his  associates 
with  hatred  of  the  Pope,  and  wrote  as  his  epitaph, 

''Pestls  eram  vivus,  moriejis  tua  mors  ero,  Papa.'' 

The  Articles  themselves  differ  from  the  Augsburg  Confession  as 
much  as  Luther  differs  from  Melanchthon.  They  are  more  fresh, 
vigorous,  and  original,  but  less  cautions,  wise,  circumspect,  and  sym- 

1  Ileppc  (1.  c.  p.  2f>3  sq.)  says  that  Luther  in  his  first  draft  used  simpler  language,  viz., 
that  'the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  offered  with  the  bread  and  with  the  wine;'  but  that 
Amsdorf  insisted  on  a  stronger,  anti-Melanchthonian  statement. 


§  44.  THE  ARTICLES  OF  SMALCALD,  1687.  257 

metrical.  They  are  not  defensive,  but  aggressive;  not  an  overture 
of  peace,  but  a  declaration  of  war.  They  scorn  all  compromises,  and 
made  a  reconciliation  impossible.  They  were,  therefore,  poorly  calcu- 
lated to  be  a  basis  of  negotiation  at  a  general  Council,  and  were,  in 
fact,  never  used  for  that  purpose.  The  Convent  at  Smalcald  resolved 
not  to  send  any  delegates  to  the  Council.  But  the  Smalcald  Articles 
define  the  position  of  Lutheranism  towards  the  Papacy,  and  give  the 
strongest  expression  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  They 
accordingly  took  their  place,  together  with  the  Appendix,  among  the 
symbolical  books  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  were  received  into  vari- 
ous Corpora  Doctrince,  and  at  last  into  the  '  Book  of  Concord.' ' 

TEXT.2 

Luther  prepared  the  Smalcald  Articles  at  "Wittenberg  in  the  German 
language,  and  edited  them,  in  153S,  with  a  preface  and  considerable 
changes  and  additions,  but  without  the  signatures,  and  without  the 
Appendix  of  Melanchthon.  In  1543  and  1545  he  issued  new  editions 
with  slight  changes.  The  first  draft,  as  copied  by  Spalatin,  and  signed 
at  Smalcald,  was  published  from  the  archives  of  Weimar  in  1553,  to- 
gether with  Luther's  additions  and  Melanchthon's  Appendix,  and  em- 
bodied in  the  'Book  of  Concord.'3 

The  Latin  text,  as  it  appeared  in  the  first  edition  of  the  'Book  of 
Concord,'  was  a  poor  translation,  but  was  much  improved  in  the  edition 
of  1584. 

Melanchthon  wrote  the  Appendix  at  Smalcald  in  Latin,  but  a  Ger- 
man translation  by  Dietrich  was  signed  there,  and  passed,  as  the  sup- 
posed original,  into  the  works  of  Luther  and  the  first  edition  of  the 
'Book  of  Concord'  (1580).  The  corrected  Latin  edition  of  1584  gave 
the  Latin  original,  but  as  the  work  of  all  the  theologians  convened  at 
Smalcald.4  This  error  prevailed  nearly  two  hundred  years,  until  the 
careful  researches  of  Bertram  dispelled  it. 


1  Comp.  Plitt  and  Ileppe,  above  quoted  (p.  2f>4). 

2  See  the  minor  particulars  in  Bertram,  1.  c,  and  Kollner,  pp.  4.">4  sqq. 

3  The  original  MS.  of  Luther,  from  which  Spalatin  made  his  copy  before  Luther  added  his 
changes,  was  discovered  in  the  Palatinate  Library  at  Heidelberg  in  1817,  and  edited  by  Mar- 
heineke,  with  notes,  Berlin,  1 81 7. 

4  Under  the  title  ' De  Potestatc  et  Primatu  Pujhc.  Tractatus  per  Theolorjos  Smalcaldia 
con<jre<jatu$  conscript  us.' 


258  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


§  45.  The  Form  of  Concord.     A.D.  1577. 

Literature. 

I.  The  text  of  the  'Form  of  Concord'  is  found  in  all  the  editions  of  the  '  Book  of  Concord'  (Concordien- 
lueh),  see  p.  220. 

Hkinb.  I.iipiv.  Jul.  Hkppe  (Professor  in  Marburg,  an  indefatigable  investigator  of  the  early  history  of 
German  Protestantism  in  the  interest  of  Melanchthonianism):  Der  Text  der  Bcrgischen  Concordienformel, 
verglichen  mit  dent  Text  der  Schwdbischen  Concordie,  der  Schwdbiich-Sachsischen  Concordie  und  des  Tor- 
gauer  Baches.    Marburg,  1857,  2d  ed.  1860. 

II.  Jacoii  Andre.e:  Seeks  christlicher  Predig  von  den  Spaltungen,  so  sich  zwischen  den  Theologen  Augs- 
purgischer  Confession  von  Anno  154S  bis  auf  diess  1573  Jar,  nach  und  nach  erhoben,  etc.  Tubingen,  1573. 
Republished  by  Professor  Heppe  in  Appendix  I.  to  the  third  volume  of  his  History  of  German  Prot- 
estantism (see  below).  In  the  same  volume  Heppe  published  also  'the  Swabian  and  Saxon  Form  of  Con- 
cord,' the  'Maulbronn  Formula,'  and  other  important  documents. 

Apologia  Oder  Verantuortung  des  christl.  Concordienbuchs,  etc.  (usually  called  the  Erfurt  Book,  an  offi- 
cial Apology,  prepared  at  Erfurt  and  Qnedlinburg  by  Kiroiineh,  Selneoker,  Chemnitz,  and  other  Lu- 
theran divines).    Heidelb.  1583;  Dresden,  15S4,  etc. 

Rod.  Hobi-inian  (Reformed,  d.  at  Zurich  1026) :  Concordia  diboor9 ;  7i.  e.  de  origine  et  progressu  Formulas 
Bergensi8,  etc.,  ex  aetis  turn  publicis,  turn  privatis  .  .  .  Tig.  1607;  Genev.  167S,  folio.  (The  chief  work 
against  the  'Form  of  Concord.') 

Leonh.  Hctter  (Lutheran,  d.  at  Wittenberg  1616) :  Concordia  concors  ;  de  origine  et  progressu  Formula? 
Concordia?  ecclesiarum  Conf.  Aug.  .  .  .  in  quo  ems  ortuodoxia  .  .  .  demonstratur :  et  Bud.  Hospiniani 
Ti'inrini  Helretii  convitia,  mendacia,et  wanifesta  crimina  falsi  deteguntur  ac.  solide  refutantur  .  .  .  ex  actis 
publicis.  Vitemb.  1614;  Fraucof.  and  Lips.  1690.  (This  is  the  most  elaborate  defense  of  the  'Form  of 
Concord'  called  forth  by  Hospinian's  Cone,  discors,  and  covers  1460  pp.,  exclusive  of  Proleg.) 

J.  Mcs.eus :  Prcelectiones  in  Epitom.  Form.  Cone.    Jen.  1701. 

Vat..  Losoher:  Ilistoria  motuum,  etc.    Leipz.  1723,  Tom.  III.  Lib.  VI.  c.  5  and  9. 

Jac.  H.  Bai.tiiasar:  Historic  des  Torgischen  Bnchs  als  des  ndchsten  Entwurfs  des  Bcrgischen  Concordien- 
buchs, etc.    Greifswald,  1741-56.    (In  nine  parts  or  dissertations.) 

.1.  Nio.  Anton  :  Geschichte  der  Concordienformel.     Leipz.  1779. 

G.  J.  Planck:  Geschichte  der  Entstehung,  etc.,  unsei-es  Protest.  Lehrbegriffs  .  .  .  bis  zur  Einfiihrung 
der  Concordienformel.  Leipz.  1791-1800.  Vols.  IV. -VI.  A  work  of  thorough  learning,  independent 
judgment,  but  without  proper  appreciation  of  the  doctrinal  differences. 

Gottpr.  Tiio.masils  (Lutheran):  Das  Bekcnntniss  der  evangel,  hither.  Kirchc  in  der  Conscquenz  seines 
Prineips.    Niirnberg,  184S. 

K.  Kii.  Gosouel  (Lutheran) :  Die  Concordienformel  nach  ihrcr  Geschichte,  Lchrc  und  kirchlichen  Bedeu- 
tung.     Leipz.  1S58. 

II.  L.  J.  IIkit-e  (Reformed) :  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Protestantismns  in  den  Jahren  1555-81.  Marburg, 
1S52-58.  4  vols.  (The  last  two  volumes  contain  the  history  of  the  'Form  of  Concord'  and  of  the  'Book 
of  Concord,'  und  are  also  published  under  the  separate  title  '  Geschichte  der  lutherischen  Concordienformel 
und  Concordie.') 

Qibbi  ikk  :  Text-Book  of  Church  History.  American  edition,  by  H.  B.  Smith,  Vol.  IV.  (New  York,  1S62), 
pp.  4J3-490;  German  edition,  Vol.  III.  P.  II.  (Bonn,  1853),  pp.  1S7-310.  (A  condensed,  careful,  and  im- 
partial statement  of  the  controversies,  with  citations  from  the  original  authorities.) 

I)  vs.  S.  iiKNKJ'.r.:  Art.  Concordienformel,  in  Herzog's  Real- Eneykl.,  Vol.  III.  (1S55),  pp.  87-105. 

W'ii.ii.  Oaks:  Geschichte  der  Protest.  Dogmatik  in  ihrem  Zurammenhang  mit  der  Thcologie  uberhaupt. 
Berlin,  1854-67,  4  vols.     Vol.  I.  pp.  21-SO. 

(it  stav  Frank  (of  Jena) :  Geschichte  der  Protest.  Theologie.     Leipz.  1S62.     Vol.  I.  pp.  92-290. 

F.  II.  R.  Frank  (Lutheran) :  Die  Theologie  der  Concordienformel  hist,  dogmatisch  entwichelt  und  beleuch- 
tet.     Kilangen,  1S5S-65.     4  vols.     (Chiefly  doctrinal.) 

II.  K  A.  Kahnik  (Lutheran) :  Die  Luther.  Dogmatik, Vol.  II.  (Leipzig,  1864),  pp.  515-560. 

K  A.  DmiNF.it:  Geschichte  der  protestantischen  'l'lic<ih,:iir  (Miinchen,  1S67),  pp.  330-374. 

Ciua  P.  Kkautii  (Lutherau):  The  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  Theology  (Philadelphia,  1872),  pp. 


NAME.       ORIGIN    AND    OCCASION. 

The  Form  of  Concord  {Formula  Concordice),  the  last  of  the  Lu- 
theran Confessions,  completed  in  1577  and  first  published  in  1580,  is 
named  from  its  aim  to  give  doctrinal  unity  and  peace  to  the  Lutheran 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  259 

Church,  after  long  and  bitter  contention.1  The  work  was  occasioned 
by  a  series  of  doctrinal  controversies,  which  raged  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  for  thirty  years  with  as  much  passion  and  violence  as  the 
trinitarian  and  christological  controversies  in  the  Nicene  age.  They 
form  a  humiliating  and  unrefreshiug,  yet  instructive  and  important 
chapter  in  the  history  of  Protestantism.  The  free  spirit  of  the  Ref- 
ormation, which  had  fought  the  battles  against  the  tyranny  of  the 
Papacy  and  brought  to  light  the  pure  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  gave 
way  to  bigotry  and  intolerance  among  Protestants  themselves.  Cal- 
umny, abuse,  intrigue,  deposition,  and  exile  were  unsparingly  employed 
as  means  to  achieve  victory.  Religion  was  confounded  with  theology, 
piety  with  orthodoxy,  and  orthodoxy  with  an  exclusive  confessionalism. 
Doctrine  was  overrated,  and  the  practice  of  Christianity  neglected. 
The  contending  parties  were  terribly  in  earnest,  and  as  honest  and 
pious  in  their  curses  as  in  their  blessings ;  they  fought  as  if  the  salva- 
tion of  the  world  depended  on  their  disputes.  Yet  these  controversies 
were  unavoidable  in  that  age,  and  resulted  in  the  consolidation  and 
completion  of  the  Lutheran  system  of  doctrine.  All  phases  and  types 
of  Christianity  must  develop  themselves,  and  God  overrules  the  wrath 
of  theologians  for  the  advancement  of  truth. 

LUTHER    AND    MELANCHTHON. 

The  seeds  of  these  controversies  lay  partly  and  chiefly  in  the  theo- 
logical differences  between  Luther  and  Melanchthon  in  their  later 
years,  partly  in  the  relations  of  Lutheranism  to  Romanism  and  Cal- 
vinism. 

Luther  the  Reformer,  and  Melanchthon  the  Teacher  of  Germany, 
essentially  one  and  inseparable  in  mind  and  heart,  in  doctrine  and  life, 
represented  in  their  later  period,  which  may  be  dated  from  the  year 
1533,  two  types  of  Lutheranism,  the  one  the  conclusive  and  exclusive, 
the  other  the  expansive  and  unionistic  type.  Luther,  at  first  more  he- 
roic and  progressive,  became  more  cautious  and  conservative ;  while 

1  The  name  was  chosen  after  older  formularies  (e.  g.,  the  Henoticon  of  Emperor  Zeno,  the 
Formula  Concordia;  Wittenbergensis,  153U,  the  Formula  Concordim  inter  Suevicas  et  Saxo- 
nicas  ecclesias,  157G,  etc.),  and  occurs  first  in  the  edition  of  Heidelberg,  1582.  In  the  editio 
princeps  (1580)  the  book  is  called  '  Das  Buck  der  Concordien,'  but  this  title  was  afterwards  re- 
served for  the  collection  of  all  the  Lutheran  symbols  {'■Concordia,'  or  'Liber  Concordia!,''  '  Book 
of  Concord").     It  was  also  called  the  Barouche- Buck,  from  the  place  of  its  composition. 


260  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Mclanchthon,  at  first  following  the  lead  of  the  older  and  stronger 
Luther,  became  more  independent  and  liberal. 

Luther,  as  the  Reformer  of  the  Romish  Church,  acted  in  the  gen- 
eral interest  of  evangelical  religion,  and  enjoys  the  admiration  and 
gratitude  of  all  Protestants;  Luther,  as  the  leader  of  a  particular  de- 
nomination, assumed  a  hostile  attitude  towards  other  churches,  even 
such  as  rested  on  the  same  foundation  of  the  renewed  gospel.  After 
his  bold  destructive  and  constructive  movements,  which  resulted  step 
by  step  in  the  emancipation  from  popery,  he  felt  disposed  to  rest  in 
his  achievements.  His  disgust  with  the  radicalism  and  fanaticism  of 
Carlstadt  and  Miinzer,  his  increasing  bodily  infirmities,  and  his  dis- 
satisfaction with  affairs  in  Wittenberg  (which  he  threatened  to  leave 
permanently  in  1544),  cast  a  cloud  over  his  declining  years.  He  had 
so  strongly  committed  himself,  and  was  so  firm  in  his  convictions,  that 
lie  was  averse  to  all  further  changes  and  to  all  compromises.  He  was 
equally  hostile  to  the  Pope,  whom  he  hated  as  the  very  antichrist,  and 
to  ZwiDgli,  whom  he  regarded  as  little  better  than  an  infidel.1 


1  The  deepest  ground  of  Luther's  aversion  to  Zwingli  must  be  sought  in  his  mysticism  and 
veneration  for  what  he  conceived  to  be  the  unbroken  faith  of  the  Church.  He  strikingly 
expressed  this  in  his  letter  to  Duke  Albrecht  of  Prussia  (which  might  easily  be  turned  into  a 
powerful  argument  against  the  Reformation  itself).  He  went  so  far  as  to  call  Zwingli  a 
non-Christian  (U/tehrist),  and  ten  times  worse  than  a  papist  (March,  1528,  in  his  Great  Con- 
fession on  the  Lord's  Supper).  His  personal  interview  with  him  at  Marburg  (October,  1529) 
produced  no  change,  but  rather  intensified  his  dislike.  He  saw  in  the  heroic  death  of  Zwingli 
and  the  defeat  of  the  Zurichers  at  Cappel  (1531)  a  righteous  judgment  of  God,  and  found 
fault  with  the  victorious  Papists  for  not  exterminating  his  heresy  (  Wider  etliche  Rottengeister, 
Letter  to  Albrecht  of  Prussia,  April,  1532,  in  De  Wette's  edition  of  L.  Briefe,  Vol.  IV.  pp. 
352,  353).  And  even  shortly  before  his  death,  unnecessarily  offended  by  a  new  publication 
of  Zwingli's  works,  he  renewed  the  eucharistic  controversy  in  his  Short  Confession  on  the 
Lord's  Supper  (1544,  in  Watch's  edition,  Vol.  XX.  p.  2195),  in  which  he  abused  Zwingli  and 
Oecolampadius  as  heretics,  liars,  and  murderers  of  souls,  and  calls  the  Reformed  generally 
•<  iniji  /< mfelte  [IvSiapoXioSevrse.'],  durchteufelte,  iibertevfelte  lasterliche  Ilerzen  und  Liigen- 
maulr!-.'  No  wonder  that  even  the  gentle  Mclanchthon  called  this  a  'most  atrocious  book,' 
and  gave  up  all  hope  for  union  (letter  to  Bullinger,  Aug.  30,  1544,  in  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  V. 
p  17.".:  'Atrocisrimum  Lutheri  scriptum,  in  quo  helium  ntpi  Seiirvov  Kvpiatcov  instaurat;'  comp. 
alsfl  his  letter  to  Bucer,  Aug.  28,  1544,  in  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  V.  p.  474,  both  quoted  also  by 
Gicseler,  Vol.  IV.  p.  412,  note  38,  and  p.  434,  note  37).  But  it  should  in  justice  be  added, 
I  Luther's  heart  was  better  than  his  temper,  and,  secondly,  that  he  never  said  a  word 
against  Calvin  ;  on  the  contrary,  be  seems  to  have  had  great  regard  for  him,  to  judge  from 
hil  BCanty  utterances  concerning  him  (quoted  by  Gicseler,  Vol.  IV.  p.  414,  note  43).  Calvin 
behaved  admirably  on  that  occasion  ;  he  warned  Bullinger  (Nov.  25,  1544)  not  to  forget  the 
extraordinary  ^if'ts  and  services  of  Luther,  and  said:  'Even  if  he  should  call  me  a  devil,  I 
would  nevertheless  honor  him  as  a  chosen  servant  of  God.'  And  to  Melanchthon  he  wrote 
Mime  28,  1546  I :  '  I  confesB  that  wc  all  owe  the  greatest  thanks  to  Luther,  and  I  should  cheer- 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  2G1 

Melanchthon,  on  the  other  hand,  with  less  genius  but  more  learning, 
with  less  force  but  more  elasticity,  with  less  intuition  but  more  logic 
and  system  than  Luther,  and  with  a  most  delicate  and  conscientious 
regard  for  truth  and  peace,  yet  not  free  from  the  weakness  of  a  com- 
promising and  temporizing  disposition,  continued  to  progress  in  the- 
ology, and  modified  his  views  on  two  points — the  freedom  of  the  will 
and  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist ;  exchanging  his  Augus- 
tinianism  for  Synergism,  and  relaxing  his  Lutheranism  in  favor  of  Cal- 
vinism ;  in  both  instances  he  followed  the  ethical,  practical,  and  union- 
istic  bent  of  his  mind.  A  minor  difference  on  the  human  right  of  the 
papacy  and  episcopacy  appeared  in  private  letters  and  in  his  qualified 
subscription  to  the  Smalcald  Articles  (1537),  but  never  assumed  a  seri- 
ous, practical  aspect,  except  indirectly  in  the  adiaphoristic  controversy.1 

These  changes  were  neither  sudden  nor  arbitrary,  but  the  result  of 
profound  and  constant  study,  and  represented  a  legitimate  and  neces- 
sary phase  in  the  development  of  Protestant  theology,  which  was  pub- 
licly recognized  in  various  ways  before  the  formation  of  the  '  Form  of 
Concord.'  If  there  ever  was  a  modest,  cautious,  and  scrupulously  con- 
scientious scholar,  it  was  Melanchthon.  '  There  is  not  a  day  nor  a  night 
for  the  last  ten  years,'  he  assures  an  intimate  friend,  '  that  I  did  not 
meditate  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.' 2 


fully  concede  to  him  the  highest  authority,  if  he  only  knew  how  to  control  himself.  Good 
God !  what  jubilee  we  prepare  for  the  Papists,  and  what  sad  example  do  we  set  to  posterity !' 
Melanchthon  entirely  agreed  with  him. 

1  Kahnis  (Luth.  Dogm. Vol.  II.  p.  520)  traces  the  changes  of  Melanchthon  to  'a  truly  evan- 
gelical search  after  truth,  to  a  practical  trait,  which  easily  breaks  off  the  theological  edges  to 
bring  the  doctrine  nearer  to  life,  and  to  the  endeavor  to  reconcile  opposites.'  Krauth  {Con- 
servative Reformation,  p.  280),  who  sympathizes  with  strict  Lutheranism,  says  :  '  Melanch- 
thon's  vacillations  were  due  to  his  timidity  and  gentleness  of  character,  tinged  as  it  was  with 
melancholy  ;  his  aversion  to  controversy  ;  his  philosophical,  humanistic,  and  classical  cast  of 
thought,  and  his  extreme  delicacy  in  matters  of  style ;  his  excessive  reverence  for  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Church,  and  of  her  ancient  writers;  his  anxiety  that  the  whole  communion  of 
the  West  should  be  restored  to  harmony;  or  that,  if  this  were  impossible,  the  Protestant  ele- 
ments, at  least,  should  be  at  peace.'  Comp.  on  this  whole  subject  the  works  of  Galle  : 
Characteristik Melanchthon 's  als  Theologen  und Enticicldung  seines  Lehrbegriffs  (Halle,  1840), 
pp.  217  sqq.  and  363  sqq.;  Matthes  :  Phil.  Melanchthon  (Altenb.  184]  i;  Khkakd:  Das 
Dogma  vom  heil.  Abendmahl  (Frankf.  1840),  Vol.  II.  pp.  434  sqq.  ;  GlESELBR  :  Church  His- 
tory, Vol.  IV.  p] ).  423  sqq. ;  IIeppe:  Die  confession?) 7e  Ent  wide  lung  dcr  altprotestantischen 
Kirche  Deutschlunds  (Marburg,  1854).  pp.  05  sqq.  ;  Caiu.  Schmidt:  Philipp  Melanchthon 
(Elberfeld,  1861),  pp.  300  sqq.  ;  Kahnis,  1.  c.  pp.  515  sqq. 

2  Ep.ad  Vitum  Theodorum,  May  24, 1538  (in  Corp.  Reform.Vol  III.  p.  537)  :  ' Scias,  am- 
plius  decennio  nullum  diem,  nullam  noctem  abiisse,  quin  hac  de  re  cogitarim.' 


262  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

As  to  human  freedom,  Melanelithon  at  first  denied  it  altogether,  like 
Luther  and  the  other  Reformers,  and  derived  all  events  and  actions, 
good  and  bad,  from  the  absolute  will  of  God.1  Then  he  avoided  the 
doctrine  of  predestination,  as  an  inscrutable  mystery,  and  admitted 
freedom  in  the  sphere  of  natural  life  and  morality,  but  still  denied  it 
in  the  spiritual  sphere  or  the  order  of  grace.2  At  last  (after  1535)  he 
openly  renounced  determinism  or  necessitarianism,  as  a  Stoic  and 
Manichrean  error,  and  taught  a  certain  subordinate  co-operation  of 
the  human  will  in  the  work  of  conversion ;  maintaining  that  conver- 
sion is  not  a  mechanical  or  magical,  but  a  moral  process,  and  is  brought 
about  by  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  Word  of  God,  with  the  consent, 
yet  without  any  merit  of  man.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  the  primary,  the 
Word  of  God  the  secondary  or  instrumental  agent  of  conversion,  and 
the  human  will  allows  this  action,  and  freely  yields  to  it.3 

1  Loci  theol.  first  ed.  1521,  A.  7:  '  Quandoquidem  omnia,  qua?  eveniunt,  necessario  juxta 
divinam  prcedestinationem  eveniunt,  nulla  est  voluntatis  nostrce  libertas.'  In  the  edition  of 
1525  he  says:  'Omnia  necessario  evenire  Scripturoz  docent.  .  .  .  Nee  in  extcrnis  nee  in  in- 
ternis  operibus  ulla  est  libertas,  sed  eveniunt  omnia  juxta  destinationem  divinam.  .  .  .  Tollit 
omnem  libertatem  voluntatis  nostra;  pra>destinatio  divina/  (Mel.  0/>era  in  Corp.  Reform.  Vol. 
XXI.  pp.  88,  93,  95.)  In  his  Commentary  on  the  Romans,  published  1524  (cap.  8),  Melaneli- 
thon calls  the  power  of  choice  a  iridiculum  commentum,'  and  derives  all  things,  ltam  bona  quam 
7iiala,'  from  the  absolute  will  of  God,  even  the  adultery  of  David  (lDavidis  adulterium ')  and  the 
treason  of  Judas  ('  Judie  proditio'),  which  are  the  proper  work  of  God  ('ejus  proprium  opus') 
as  much  as  the  vocation  of  Paul ;  for  he  does  all  things  not  'permissive,  sed  potenter.'  He 
saw  this  doctrine  so  clearly  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  other  portions  of  Scripture  that 
passages  like  1  Tim.  ii.  4  (all  men,  e.  g.,  all  sorts  of  men)  must  be  adjusted  to  it.  See  Galle, 
pp.  252  s<|q.,  and  Ileppe,  Dogmatik  des  deutschen  Protestantismus  in  IGten  Jahrh.  (Gotha, 
1857)  Vol.  I.  pp.  434  sqq.  In  December,  1525,  Luther  expressed  the  same  views  in  his  book 
against  Erasmus,  which  he  long  afterwards  (1537)  pronounced  one  of  his  best  works.  Comp. 
]>.  215,  and  Kostlin,  Luther  s  Theol.  Vol.  II.  pp.  37,  323.  But  on  Melanelithon  the  reply  of 
Erasmus  (1526)  had  some  effect  (as  we  may  infer  from  the  tone  of  his  letter  to  Luther,  Oct.  2, 
1527,  Corp.  Reform.Vol  I.  p.  893). 

3  So  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  (1530),  Art.  XVIII. :  '  Be  libero  arbitrio  docent,  quod 
humana  voluntas  habeat  aliquant  libertatem  ad  efficiendam  civilem  justitiam  et  diligendas  res 
rationi  sulijectas.  Sed  non  habet  vim  sine  Spiritu  Sancto  efficiendoz  justitite  spirUualis,  quia 
animatis  homo  non  percipit  ea,  qttCB  sunt  Spiritus  Dei.'  In  Art.  XIX.  the  cause  of  sin  is  traced 
to  the  will  of  man  and  the  devil. 

3  First  in  a  new  edition  of  his  Commentary  to  the  Romans,  1532,  and  then  in  the  edition 
of  the  lLoci  communes  theolpgici  recogniti,'  1535.  Here  he  declares  that  God  is  not  the 
C«ue  of  sin,  but  the  '  voluntas  DiabolV  and  the  l voluntas  hominis  sunt  causae,  peccati ;'  that 
we  should  keep  clear  of  the  ' deliramenta  de  Stoico  fato  out  nipi  rfjc  dvdymjc;'  that  the  hu- 
man will  can  lsuis  viribus  sine  renovatione  aliquo  modo  externa  legis  opera  facere,'  but  that  it 
can  not  'sine  Spiritu  Saw/,,  officer*  spiriiuales  affectus,  quos  Deus  requirit.  .  .  .  Dens  ante- 
vertit  not,  vocat,  movet,  adjuvat;  sed  nos  viderimus  ne  repugnemus.  Constat  enini  peccatum 
oriri  a  nobis,  non  a  voluntate  I'd.  Chrusostomus  inquit :  6  de  i'Xicwv  rbv  /SotAo/mw  t\Kti.  Id 
apU  dicitur  auspicanti  a  verbo,  ne  adverselur,  ne  repvgnet  verbo.'     (See  Mel.  Opera  in  Corp. 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  263 

This  is  the  amount  of  his  Synergism,  so  called  by  his  opponents.  It 
resembles,  indeed,  semi-Pelagiaiiism  in  maintaining  a  remnant  of  free- 
dom after  the  fall,  and  furnished  a  basis  for  negotiations  with  mod- 
erate Romanists,  but  it  differs  from  it  materially  in  ascribing  the  initia- 
tive and  the  whole  merit  of  conversion  to  God's  grace.  He  never 
gave  up  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the  free  grace  and  sole  merit 
of  Christ  through  faith,  but  in  his  later  years  he  laid  greater  stress 
on  the  responsibility  of  man  in  accepting  or  rejecting  the  gospel,  and 
on  the  necessity  of  good  works  as  evidences  of  justifying  faith. 

As  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  at  first  fully  agreed  with  Luther's  view, 
under  the  impression  that  it  was  substantially  the  old  Catholic  doctrine 
held  by  the  fathers,  for  whom  he  had  great  regard,  especially  in  matters 
of  uncertain  exegesis.1  He  also  shared  his  dislike  of  Zwingli's  theo- 
logical radicalism,  and  was  disposed  to  trace  it  to  a  certain  insanity.2 
But  his  deeper  and  long-continued  study  of  the  subject,  and  his  cor- 
respondence and  personal  intercourse  with  Bucer  and  Calvin,  gradually 
convinced  him  that  St.  Augustine  and  other  fathers  favored  rather  a 

Reform.Vol.  XXI.  pp.  371-376.)  In  a  new  revision  of  his  Loci,  which  appeared  in  1548, 
two  years  after  Luther's  death,  and  in  all  subsequent  editions,  he  traces  conversion  to  three 
concurrent  causes — the  Spirit  of  God,  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  will  of  man ;  and  states 
that  the  will  may  accept  or  reject  God's  grace.  '  Veteres  aliqui,'  he  says  (Corp.  Reform.YcA. 
XXI.  pp.5f>7,  G59),  '■sic  dixerunt :  Liberum  avbitrium  in  homine  facultatem  esse  applicandi 
SE  ad  gratiam,  i.  e. ,  audit  promissionem  et  assenliri  conatur  et  abjicit  peccata  contra  conscien- 
tious .  .  .  Cum  promissio  sit  universalis,  nee  sint  in  Deo  contradictorice  voluntates,  necesse  est 
in  nobis  esse  aliquant  discriminis  causam,  cur  Saul  abjiciatur,  David  recipiatur,  i.  e.,  necesse 
est,  aliquam  esse  actionem  dissimilem  in  his  duobus.  Haze  dextre  intellecta  vera  sunt,  et  vsus  in 
exercitiisjidei  et  in  vera  consolatione,  cum  a'quieseunt  animi  in  Filio  Dei  monstrato  in  promis- 
sione,  illustrabit  hanc  copulationem  causardm,  Verbi  Dei,  Spiritus  Sancti,  et  volun- 
tatis.' This  is  the  chief  passage,  which  was  afterwards  (1 553)  assailed  as  synergistic.  Comp. 
Galle,  pp.  314  sqq. ;  Gieseler,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  42G  and  434 ;  Heppe,  1.  c.  pp.  434  sqq.,  and  Die  con- 
J'essionelle  Entwicklung  der  alt  jtrotest.  Kirche  Deutschlands,  pp.  107  and  130;  Kahnis,  1.  c. 
Vol.11,  p.  505. 

1  He  says  (1559)  :  '  Exist into  ad  conjirmandas  mentes  consensum  Vctitstatis  plurimum  condu- 
cere'1  (quoted  by  Galle,  p.  452).  He  endeavored  to  prove  the  agreement  of  the  fathers  with 
Luther  in  Sentential  Patrum  de  Ciena  Domini,  March,  1530.  He  there  quotes  Cyril,  Chrysos- 
tom,  Theophylactus.  Hilary,  Cyprian,  Irenanis,  Ambrose,  and  John  of  Damascus,  and  labors  also 
to  bring  Augustine  on  his  side,  but  with  difficulty  (as  he  says  that  the  body  of  Christ  in  uno 
loco  esse),  and  he  admits  that  some  passages  of  Jerome,  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  and  Basil  might 
be  quoted  against  Luther.     See  Galle,  pp.  390  sqq. 

2  He  wrote  to  Luther  from  Augsburg,  July  14, 1530  (Cor/>.  Reform.  Vol.  II.  p.  193) :  'Zwin- 
(jlius  mirit  hue  confessionem  impressam  typia.  /Jieus  simpliciter  mente  captum  esse.  De  pec- 
cato  originali,  de  usu  sacramentorum  veteres  errores  palam  renovat.  De  ceremouiis  loquitur 
valde  helvetiee,  hoc  est  barbarissimr,  velle  se  omnes  ceremonias  esse  abolitas.  Stiam  causam  de 
sacra  cozna  vehementer  urget.     Ejiiscopos  omnes  vult  de/etos  esse.1 

Vol.  I.— S 


264  T1IE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

figurative  or  symbolical  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution,1  and 
that  the  Scriptures  taught  a  more  simple,  spiritual,  and  practical  doc- 
trine than  either  transubstantiation  or  consubstantiation.  Owing  to  his 
characteristic  modesty  and  caution,  and  his  deep  sense  of  the  difficulties 
surrounding  the  problem,  he  did  not  set  forth  a  fully  developed  theory  or 
definition  of  the  mode  of  Christ's  presence,  but  he  substantially  agreed 
with  Bucer  and  Calvin.  He  gave  up  the  peculiar  features  of  Luther's 
doctrine,  viz.,  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution,  and 
the  oral  manducation  of  the  body  of  Christ.2  He  also  repeatedly  reject- 
ed (as,  in  fact,  he  never  taught)  the  Lutheran  dogma  of  the  ubiquity  of 
Christ's  body,  as  being  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  a  body  and  with 
the  fact  of  Christ's  asceiasion  to  heaven  and  sitting  in  heaven,  whence 
he  shall  return  to  judgment.3     But  he  never  became  a  Zwinglian  ;  he 

1  In  this  respect  the  learned  Dialogus  of  Oecolampadius  (1530),  directed  against  his  Sen- 
tential, made  a  decided  impression  on  his  mind.  See  Galle,  p.  407,  and  Gieseler,  Vol.  IV. 
p.  428.  He  found  a  great  diversity  of  views  among  the  fathers  ('mira  dissimilitudo,''  see  let- 
ter to  Bucer,  153"),  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  II.  p.  842),  but  strong  proofs  for  the  figurative  inter- 
pretation in  Augustine,  Tertullian,  Origen,  and  all  those  who  speak  of  the  eucharistic  ele- 
ments zsjigures,  symbols,  types,  and  antitypes  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  (see  his  letter 
to  Crato  of  Breslau,  1 559,  quoted  by  Galle,  p.  452). 

!  He  first  renounced  Luther's  view,  after  an  interview  with  Bucer  at  Cassel,  in  a  letter  to 
Camerarius,  Jan.  10,  1535  {Corp.  Ref'orm.Vol.  II.  p.  822  :  ' Meant  sententiam  noli  nunc  requi- 
rere,fui  enim  nuncius  alice,1  i.e.,  Luther's),  and  in  a  confidential  letter  toBrentius,  Jan.  12, 1535 
(lb.  Vol.  II.  p.  824,  where  he  speaks  in  a  Greek  sentence  of  the  typical  interpretation  of  many 
of  the  ancients).  Then  more  fully  in  the  revision  of  his  Loci  Theol.,  1535  (de  cazna  Domini,  in 
Corp.  Reform.  V  ol.  XXI.  p.  478  sq.).  In  the  Wittenberg  Concordia  ( 1 53G)  he  and  Bucer  yield- 
ed too  much  to  Luther  for  the  sake  of  peace  (compare,  however.  Dorner,  p.  325),  but  in  1540 
he  introduced  his  new  conviction  into  the  tenth  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  (see  above, 
p.  241),  and  adhered  to  it.  In  his  subsequent  deliverances  he  protested  against  ubiquity  and 
apToXarpiia,  and  the  fanatical  intolerance  of  the  ultra-Lutherans,  who  denounced  him  as  a 
traitor.  Calvin  publicly  declared  that  he  and  Melanchthon  were  inseparably  united  on  this 
point :  'Confirmo,  non  magis  a  me  Philippum  quam  a  propriis  visceribus  in  hac  causa  jiosse  di- 
vellV  (Admonitio  ultima  ml  Westphalum,  Opp.  VIII.  p.  687).  Galle  maintains  that  Melanch- 
thon stood  entirely  on  Calvin's  side  (1.  c.  p.  415).  So  does  Ebrard,  who  says:  'Melanchthon 
kam,  ohne  avf  Calvin  Rucksicht  zu  nehmen,jd  ohne  von  dessen  Lehre  ivissen  zu  kbnnen,  auf 
selbstdndif/em  Wege  zu  derselben  A  nsicht,  wekhe  bei  Calvin  sich  ausyebildet  hatte  (Deis  Dogma 
v.  heil.  Abendmahl,  Vol.  II.  p.  437).  Yet  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination  they  were  wide 
apart.  A  beautiful  specimen  of  harmony  of  spirit  with  diversity  in  theology!  After  his 
death  Calvin  appealed  to  the  sainted  spirit  of  Melanchthon  now  resting  with  Christ:  ' Dixisti 
a  nties,  cumfessus  laborious  et  molestiis  o/>pressus  caput  familiariter  in  sinum  meum  deponeres: 
I  tinam,  utinam  moriar  in  hoc  sinu  !  Ego  vero  millies  postea  optavi  nobis  contingere,  ut  simui 
east  tuns'  (  Opp.  VIII.  p.  724). 

Dorner,  1.  e.  p.  .".51  :  'Melanchthon  hat  Luther's  christologisehe  Ansichten  aus  derZeit  des 
Abendmahlsstreites  /«'<  getheilt.  Die  Menschwerdung  beste'ht  ihm  in  der  Aufnahme  der  men- 
schlichen  Natur  in  die  I'i  RSOM  des  Logos,  nicht  aber  in  der  Einigung\unio)  der  Natuk  des  Lo- 
yos  wit  der  Menschheit  in  realer  Mittheilung  der  Predicate  der  ersteren  an  die  letztere.    Die 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCOKD,  1577.  265 

held  fast  to  a  spiritual  real  presence  of  the  person  (rather  than  the 
body)  of  Christ,  and  a  fruition  of  his  life  and  benefits  by  faith.  In 
one  of  his  last  utterances,  shortly  before  his  death,  he  represented  the 
idea  of  a  vital  union  and  communion  with  the  person  of  Christ  as  the 
one  and  only  essential  thing  in  this  sacred  ordinance.1 

Luther  no  doubt  felt  much  grieved  at  these  changes,  and  was  strong- 
ly pressed  by  contracted  and  suspicious  minds  to  denounce  them  openly, 
but  he  was  too  noble  and  generous  to  dissolve  a  long  and  invaluable 
friendship,  which  forms  one  of  the  brightest  chapters  in  his  life  and  in 
the  history  of  the  German  Reformation.2     lie  kept  down  the  rising 

communicatio  idiomatum  ist  ihm  nur  eine  dialektische,  i^erbale:  die  Person  des  Logos  ist  Per- 
son des  ganzen  Christus  und  trdgt  die  Menschheit  als  ihr  Organon.' 

1  'Resjionsio  Phil.  Mel.  ad  quiestionem  de  controversiaHeidelbergensi  {Corp.  Reform.Vol.  IX. 
p.  961):  Non  difficile,  sed  periculosum  est  respondere.  .  .  .  In  hac  controversia  optimum  esset 
retinere  verba  Pauli:  "  Panis,  quern  frangimus,  Koiviovia  tori  tov  aw/uaroQ."  Et  copiose  de 
fructu  Coznaz  dicendum  est,  ut  invitentur  homines  ad  amorem  hujus  pignoris  et  crehrum  vsurn. 
Jit  vocabulum  Koivwvia  declarandum  est.  Non  dicit,  mutari  naturam  panis,  ut  Papists  dicunt ; 
non  dicit,  ut  Bremenses,  panem  esse  substantial  corpus  Christi;  non  dicit,  ut  Heshusius,  pa- 
nem  esse  verum  corpus  Christi:  sed  esse  Koivu)viav,i.e.,  hoc,  quo  Jit  consociatio  cu?n  corpore 
Christi,  qua' Jit  in  usu,  et  quidem  non  sine  cogitatione,  ut  cum  mures  panem  rodunt.  .  .  .  Adest 
Filius  Dei  in  ministerio  Evangelii,  et  ibi  certo  est  efficax  in  credentibus,  ac  adest  non  propter 
panem,  sed  propter  hominem,  sicut  in  quit :  "  Manete  in  vie,  et  ego  in  vobis.1"  Comp.  on  the 
whole  eucharistic  doctrine  of  Melanchthon  the  learned  exposition  of  Heppe,  in  the  third  vol- 
ume of  his  Dogma tik  des  deutschen  Protestantismus  im  IGten  Jahrh.  pp.  143  sqq.  He  says, 
p.  150,  with  reference  to  the  passage  just  quoted  :  '  1 miner  und  uberall  betont  es  Melanchthon, 
dass  Christ i  Leib  und  Blut  im  Abendmahle  mifgetheilt  ivird,  inwiefern  daselbst  eine  Mitthei- 
lung  des  lehendigen  Leibes,  der  gottmentchlichcn  Person  Christi  slattjindet,  dass  die  Ver- 
einigung  Christi  und  der  Glaubigen,  filr  welche  das  Abendmahl  gestiftet  ist,  eine  ]>ersonliche 
GemeineschaJ't,  persdnlickes,  lebendiges,  icirksames  Einwohnen  des  Gottmenschen  in  dem  Glau- 
bigen ist.'    See  also  Ebrard,  Vol.  II.  pp.  434  sqq. 

2  Their  friendship  was,  indeed,  seriously  endangered,  and  for  some  time  suspended,  but 
fully  restored  again  ;  for  it  rested  on  their  union  with  Christ.  Luther  wrote  to  Melanchthon, 
June  18,  1510  (Drie/e,  Vol.  V.  p.  293):  iNos  tecum,  et  tu  nobiscum,  et  Christus  hie  et  ibi 
nobiscum.1  He  spoke  very  highly  of  Melanchthon 's  Loci  in  March,  1545,  and  in  January, 
1546,  he  called  him  a  true  man,  who  must  be  retained  in  Wittenberg,  else  half  the  university 
would  go  off"  with  him  (Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  VI.  p.  10 ;  Gieseler,  Vol.  IV  pp.  432-435).  Dor- 
ner  justly  remarks  (1.  c.  p.  3.'!2  Bq.){.  '  Worn  zu  dem  Edelsten  in  Luther  auch  die  ihn  zum 
Reformator  befdhigende  W either zigkeit  und  Dernuth  gehorte,  womit  er  die  eigenthiimlichen 
Gaben  Anderer,  vor  allem  Melanchthoiis  anerkannte,  so  war  es  das  Bestreben  jener  engherzi- 
gen  Freunde,  Luthcrn  auj'  sich  selbst  zu  beschrdnken,  der  ErganzungsbedurJ'tigkeit  auch  dieser 
vielleicht  grussten  nachapostolischen  Personlichke.it  zu  vergessen  und,  was  ihnen  jedoch  nicht 
gelang,  auch  ihn  selbst  derselben  vergessen  zu  machen.'  Melanchthon,  on  his  part,  although  he 
complained  at  times  of  Luther's  <pi\ovania  (as  a  TraSoc,  not  a  crimen),  and  overbearing  vio- 
lence of  temper,  and  thought  once  (1544)  seriously  of  leaving  Wittenberg  as  a  'prison,'  ad- 
mired and  loved  him  to  the  end,  as  the  Elijah  of  the  Reformation  and  as  his  spiritual  father.  In 
announcing  to  his  students  the  death  of  Luther  (Feb.  1 S,  1 54(1)  on  the  day  following,  he  paid 
him  this  noble  and  just  tribute  :  '  Obiit  aMriga  ft  currus  Israel,  qui  rexit  ccc/csiam  in  hue  ultima 


266  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

antagonism  by  the  weight  of  his  personal  authority,  although  he  foresaw 
the  troubles  to  come.1  After  his  death  (1546)  the  war  broke  out  with 
unrestrained  violence.  Melanchthon  was  too  modest,  peaceful,  and 
gentle  for  the  theological  leadership,  which  now  devolved  upon  him", 
he  kept  aloof  from  strife  as  far  as  possible,  preferring  to  bear  injury 
and  insult  with  Christian  meekness,  and  longed  to  be  delivered  from 
the  'fury  of  the  theologians'  {a  rabie  theologorum),  which  greatly  em- 
bittered his  declining  years.2  He  left  the  scene  of  discord  April  19, 
1560,  fourteen  years  after  Luther.  His  last  wish  and  prayer  was  'that 
the  churches  might  be  of  one  mind  in  Jesus  Christ.'  He  often  repeat- 
ed the  words,  '  Let  them  all  be  one,  even  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me, 
and  I  in  thee.'  He  died  with  the  exclamation,  '  O  God,  have  mercy 
upon  me  for  the  sake  of  thy  Son  Jesus  Christ !  In  thee,  O  Lord,  have 
I  put  my  trust;  I  shall  not  be  confounded  forever  and  ever.'  The 
earthly  remains  of  the  'Prceceptor  Germanic  were  deposited  beneath 
the  castle  church  of  Wittenberg  alongside  of  Luther's :  united  in  life, 
they  sleep  together  in  death  till  the  morning  of  the  resurrection  to  ever- 
lasting life. 

LUTHERANS    AND   PHILIPPISTS. 

The  differences  between  Luther  the  second  and  Melanchthon  the 
second,  if  we  may  use  this  term,  divided  the  theologians  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  into  two  hostile  armies. 

The  rigid  Lutheran  party  was  led  by  Amsdorf,  Flacius,  Wigand, 
Gallus,  Judex,  Morlin,  Heshus,  Timann,and  Westphal,  and  had  its  head- 
quarters first  at  Magdeburg,  then  at  the  University  of  Jena,  and  at  last 
in  Wittenberg  (after  1574).  They  held  fast  with  unswerving  fidelity  to 
the  anti-papal  and  anti-Zwinglian  Luther,  as  representing  the  ultimate 
form  of  sound  orthodoxy.    They  swore  by  the  letter,  but  had  none  of 


tenecta  iitundi,'  and  added,  'Amemtts  igitur  hujus  viri  memoriam  et  genus  doctrines  ab  ipso 
tradition,  ft  rimus  modestiores  et  consideremus  ingentes  calamitates  et  mutationes  magnas,  quce 
hunt  casum  sunt  eecuturce.'    Comp.  Planck,  1.  c.  Vol.  IV.  pp.  71-77. 

1  While  sick  at  Smalcaltl,  l.r>:$7,  lie  told  the  Elector  of  Saxony  that  after  his  death  discord 
would  break  out  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg,  ami  his  doctrine  would  be  changed.  Seck- 
'■ii.li.it'.  Com.  de  Lutheranismo,  III.  p.  165. 

'  Ego  aquisnmo  ammo,'  he  wrote  to  Camerarius,  Feb.  24,  1545  {Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  V. 
p.  684 ),  vet  potius  avaia$rfir<oc  fero  insohntiam  Kai  'q3pug  multorum,  et  dum  vivam  moderate 
faciam  officiwn  ineum.' 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1677.  2G7 

the  free  spirit  of  their  great  master.1  They  outluthered  Luther,  made 
a  virtue  of  his  weakness,  constructed  his  polemic  extravagances  into 
dogmas,  aud  contracted  the  catholic  expansiveness  of  the  Reformation 
into  sectarian  exclusiveness.  They  denounced  every  compromise  with 
Rome,  and  every  approach  to  the  Reformed  communion,  as  cowardly 
treachery  to  the  cause  of  evangelical  truth. 

Among  these  Lutherans,  however,  we  must  distinguish  three  classes 
— the  older  friends  of  Luther  (Jonas,  his  colleague,  and  Amsdorf, 
whom  he  had  consecrated  Bishop  of  Naumburg  '  without  suet  or 
grease  or  coals'),  the  younger  and  stormy  generation  headed  by  Fla- 
cius,  and  the  milder  framers  of  the  'Form  of  Concord'  (Andrea?, 
Chemnitz,  Selnecker,  and  Ghytraeus),  who  stood  mediating  between 
ultra-Lutheranism  and  Melanchthonianism. 

The"  Melanchthonians,  nicknamed  Philippists  and  Ckypto-Calvin- 
ists,2  prominent  among  whom  were  Camerarius,  Bugenhagen,  Eber, 
Crell,  Major,  Cruciger,  Strigel,  Pfeffinger,  Peucer  (physician  of  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  and  Melanchthon's  son-in-law),  had  their  strong- 
hold in  the  Universities  of  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig  (till  1574),  and 
maintained,  with  less  force  of  will  and  conviction,  but  with  more  lib- 
erality and  catholicity  of  spirit,  the  right  of  progressive  development 
in  theology,  and  sought  to  enlarge  the  doctrinal  basis  of  Lutheran  ism 
for  a  final  reconciliation  of  Christendom,  or  at  least  for  a  union  of 
the  evangelical  churches.3 

Both  parties  maintained  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Bible,  but  the 

1  Melanchthon  applies  to  them  a  saying  of  Polybius,  that  lvolentes  videri  similes  ?nm/nis 
viris, '  and  being  unable  to  imitate  the  works  (i'pya)  of  Luther,  they  imitated  his  by-works 
(Trapipya),  ' et producunt  in  theatrtim  stuhitiam  suam.'  Calvin  more  severely  but  not  unjustly 
remarks  (in  his  second  defense  against  Westphal,  1556)  :  '  0  Luthere,  quam  paucos  tuae  />nr- 
stantice  imitatores,  quam  7tttdtas  vero  sanctce  turn  jartnntice  simias  reliquisti '/'  See  Gieseler, 
Vol.  IV.  p.  435,  and  especially  Planck,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  79  sqq. 

2  The  term  Philippists  (from  the  Christian  name  of  Melanchthon,  who  was  usually  called 
Dr.  Fhilippus)  is  wider,  and  embraced  the  Synergists,  while  the  term  Crypto-Calvinists  ap- 
plies properly  only  to  those  who  secretly  held  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  on  the  eucharist,  but 
not  on  predestination.  Some  of  the  strict  Lutherans — as  Flacius,  Amsdorf,  and  Heshus — 
held  fast  to  the  original  views  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon  on  predestination,  and  taught  that 
man  was  purely  passive  and  even  repugnant  (repugnative)  in  the  work  of  conversion.  Comp. 
Landerer  in  Herzog,  Vol.  XI.  p.  538. 

3  Kahnis  (Vol.  II.  p.  520)  thus  characterizes  the  two  parties :  ' Dort  [among  the  strict  Lu- 
therans] das  Prinr.ip  des  Festhaltens,  hier  [among  the  Philippists]  das  Princip  des  Fort- 
schreitens;  dort  scharfe  Ausschliesslichkeit,  hier  Weite,  Milde,  Vermittelung, Union  ;  dortfer- 
tiye,feste  Doctrin,  hier  praktische  Elasticitdt.' 


26S  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Lutherans  went  with  the  Bible  as  understood  by  Luther,  the  Philippists 
with  the  Bible  as  explained  by  Melanchthon ;  with  the  additional 
difference  that  the  former  looked  up  to  Luther  as  an  almost  inspired 
apostle,  and  believed  in  his  interpretation  as  final,  while  the  latter  re- 
vered Melanchthon  simply  as  a  great  teacher,  and  reserved  a  larger 
margin  for  reason  and  freedom.1 

Both  parties  set  forth  new  confessions  of  faith  and  bulky  collections 
of  doctrine  {Corpora  Doctrince),  which  were  clothed  with  symbolical 
authority  in  different  territories,  and  increased  the  confusion  and  in- 
tensified the  antagonism.2 

THE    THEOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSIES    IN    THE    LUTHERAN    CHURCH. 

The  controversies  which  preceded  the  composition  of  the  'Form  of 
Concord,'  centred  in  the  soteriological  doctrines  of  the  Beformation, 
concerning  sin  and  grace,  justification  by  faith,  and  the  use  of  good 
works,  but  they  extended  also  to  the  encharist  and  the  person  and  work 
of  Christ.     We  notice  them  in  the  order  of  the  'Form  of  Concord.' 

I.   THE   FLACIAN    CONTROVERSY   ON   ORIGINAL    SIN,   1560-15S0.3 

This  controversy  involved  the  question  whether  original  sin  is  essen- 
tial or  accidental — in  other  words,  whether  it  is  the  nature  of  man  itself 


1  In  the  Preface  to  the  Magdeburg  Confession,  1550,  Luther  is  called  'the  third  Elijah,' 
'the  prophet  of  God,'  and  Luther's  doctrine,  without  any  qualification,  'the  doctrine  of  Christ.' 
See  Heppe  :  Die  Entstehung  und  Fortbildung  des  Lutherthums,  pp.  42,  43.  In  the  Reussische 
<  'onfession  of  1567  (Heppe,  p.  7G)  it  is  said :  'We  quote  chiefly  the  writings  of  Luther  as  our 
prophet  (als  unseres  Projtheten),  and  prefer  them  to  the  writings  of  Philippus  and  others,  who 
are  merely  children  of  the  prophet  (Prophetenkinder)  and  his  disciples.'  The  overestimate 
of  Luther  is  well  expressed  in  the  lines — 

'  Gottes  Wort  und  Luther's  Lehr 
Vergehet  nun  und  nimniermehr.'1 

3  Prof.  Heppe,  in  his  Die  Entstehuny  und  Fortbildung  des  Lutherthums  und  die  kirchlichen 
Bekenntniss-Schriften  desselben  von  1548-1 576  (Cassel,  1863),  gives  extracts  from  twenty 
Lutheran  Confessions  which  appeared  during  this  period  of  twenty-eight  years. 

'J  Disputatio  dc  originali  peccato  et  libero  arbitrio  inter  Matthiam  Plagium  ILLTRICCM 
et  VlCTOHlHTTO  Strigelium,  1563;  Flacius:  De  peccato  orig.,  in  the  second  part  of  his 
(  7a»t«  Scriptures  Sacrm,1567 ;  Til.  Heskusius:  Antidoton  contra  impium  et  blasphemum  dogma 
M.  /■'/.  III.  1672,  8d  ed.  1679;  J.  Wigand:  De  Manichirismo  renovato,  1587;  Schi.Vsskl- 
Bl  KG  :  Cat.  hear.  1597,  Lib.  II.  ;  Planck,  Vol.  V.  pp.  1,  285;  Dollinger:  Die  Beforma- 
tion, etc.  Vol.  III.  (1848),  p.  484;  Ed.  Schmid:  Det  Flacim  Erbsiindestreit,  in  Niedner's 
ZeitaehriJifUr  hist.  Theol.  1849,  Nos.  I.  and  II.  ;  Frank  :  Die  Theologie  der  Concordienfor- 
mel,  Vol.  I .  p.  60  ;  Dokner,  p.  361 ,  and  the  monograph  of  Pregkr  on  Flacius  and  his  Age, 
Vol.  [I.  p.  810. 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  2G9 

or  merely  a  corruption  of  nature.  It  arose,  in  close  connection  with  the 
Synergistic  controversy,  from  a  colloquy  at  Weimar  between  Flacius 
and  Strigel  (1560),  extended  from  Saxony  as  far  as  Austria,  and  con- 
tinued till  the  death  of  Flacius  (1575),  and  even  after  the  completion 
of  the  'Form  of  Concord.'1 

Matthias  Flacius  lllyricus,  the  impetuous  and  belligerent  champion 
of  rigid  Lutheranism,  a  man  of  vast  learning,  untiring  zeal,  unyielding 
firmness,  and  fanatical  intolerance,  renewed  apparently  the  Manichean 
heresy,  and  thereby  ruined  himself.2  From  an  over-intense  conviction 
of  total  depravity,  he  represented  original  sin  as  the  Aery  substance  or 
essence  of  the  natural  man,  who  after  the  fall  ceased  to  be  in  any  sense 
the  image  of  God,  and  became  tlfe  very  image  of  Satan,  lie  made, 
however,  a  distinction  between  two  substances  in  man — a  physical  and 
ethical — and  did  not  mean  to  teach  an  evil  matter  in  the  sense  of 

1  About  forty  adherents  of  Flacius,  driven  to  German  Austria  (Opitz,  Irensens,  Colestin, 
etc.),  issued  in  1581  a  declaration  against  the  'Form  of  Concord,' as  inconsistent  with  Lu- 
ther's pure  doctrine  on  original  sin  ;  but  in  1 582  they  fell  out  among  themselves.  As  late  as 
1004  there  were  large  numbers  of  Flacianists  in  German  Austria.    Dollinger,  Vol.  III.  p.  492  sq. 

2  This  remarkable  man,  born  1520,  at  Albona,  Istria  (in  Illyria,  hence  called  lllyricus),  was 
a  convert  from  Romanism ;  studied  at  Basle,  Tubingen,  and  Wittenberg  under  Luther  and 
Melanchthon,  and  became  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg.  Luther 
attended  his  wedding,  and  raised  him  from  a  state  of  mental  depression  almost  bordering  on 
despair.  In  consequence  of  his  opposition  to  the  Augsburg  and  Leipzig  Interim,  Flacius 
removed  to  Magdeburg  (April,  1549),  where  he  opened  his  literary  batteries  against  Me- 
lanchthon and  the  Interim,  and  undertook  with  several  others  the  first  Protestant  Church  his- 
tory, under  the  title  of  'The  Magdeburg  Centuries.'  In  1557  he  was  elected  Professor  in  the 
newly  founded  University  of  Jena,  but  was  deposed  (15(J2),  persecuted,  and  forsaken  even  by  his 
former  friends.  He  spent  the  remainder  of  his  life  in  poverty  and  exile  at  Ratisbon,  Antwerp, 
Strasburg,  and  died  in  a  hospital  in  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  March  11,  1575.  Many  of  his 
contemporaries,  and  the  learned  historian  Planck,  represent  him  merely  as  a  violent,  pugna- 
cious, obstinate  fanatic;  but  more  recently  his  virtues  and  merits  have  been  better  appreciated 
by  Twesten  {Matthias  Flacius  lllyricus,  Berlin,  1844),  Kling  (who  calls  him  one  of  those  wit- 
nesses of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy,  in  Herzog,  Vol.  IV.  p.  410),  and  W.  Preger  {M.  Fl, 
lllyr.  nnd  seine  Zeit,  Erlangen,  1859-61,  2  vols.).  Heppe,  from  his  Melanchthonian  stand- 
point, judges  him  more  unfavorably,  and  thus  characterizes  him  (in  his  Confvssionelle 
Entwickluny,  etc.,  p.  138)  :  '  M.  Flac.  lllyricus  war  ein  fanatischer  Verehrer  Luther's,  der  von 
alien  Parteiyenossen  durch  Kraft,  Consequenz,  Kh.rh.eit  und  Sicherheit  seiner  theologischen 
Speculation  und  durch  Encryie  des  Willens  ivie  des  Denkens  hervorrayend,  kein  Opfer  und 
kein  Mittel — auch  nicht  den  schdiuUichsten  Vcrrath  am  Vertrauen  Melanchthon  s — scheute,um 
scin  lelar  erkanntes  Ziel,  namlich  die  Vernichtung  Melanchthon1  s  und  der  bisheriyen  Tradition 
des  Protest  antismus  zu  erreichen  und  dem  Dckenntniss  der  Ki  re  he  einen  yanz  andcren  Charak- 
ter  au/zi/prdycn  als  der  war,  in  dem  es  sich  bisher  entwickelt  hatte.'  The  library  of  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  possesses  a  rare  collection  of  the  numerous  polemical  tracts 
ft'  Elacias.  He  has  undoubted  merits  in  Church  history  and  exegesis.  His  best  works,  besides 
the  'Magdeburg  Centuries,'  are  his  Cataloyus  testiurn  veritatis,  Basil.  155G,  and  his  Clavis 
Scripturce  Sacrce,  2  P.  Basil.  15G7. 


270  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Gnostic  and  Manicliean  dualism,  but  simply  an  entire  moral  corrup- 
tion of  the  moral  nature,  which  must  be  replaced  by  a  new  and  holy 
nature.  He  departed  not  so  much  from  the  original  Protestant  doc- 
trine of  sin  as  from  the  usual  conception  of  the  Aristotelian  terms 
substance  and  accidens.1  He  quoted  many  strong  passages  from  Lu- 
ther, but  he  found  little  favor  and  bitter  opposition  even  among  his 
friends,  and  was  deposed  and  exiled  with  forty -seven  adherents.  The 
chief  argument  against  him  was  the  alternative  that  his  doctrine 
either  makes  Satan  the  creator  of  man,  or  God  the  author  and  pre- 
server of  sin. 

II.  THE    SYNERGISTIC    CONTROVERSY  ( 1550-1 5G  7). 2 

It  extended  over  the  difficult  subject  of  man's  freedom  and  his  re- 
lation to  the  converting  grace  of  God.  It  was  a  conflict  between  the 
original  Augustinianism  of  the  Reformers  and  the  later  Melanchtho- 
nian  Synergism,  or  a  refined  evangelical  modification  of  semi-Pela- 
gianism.3 

Pfeffinger,  Professor  in  Leipzig,  who  opened  the  controversy  by  an 
academic  dissertation  (1550),  and  then  wrote  a  book  on  the  freedom  of 
the  will  (1555),  Major,  Eber,  and  Crell,  in  Wittenberg,  and  Victorin 
Strigel,  in  Jena,  advocated  a  limited  freedom  in  fallen  man,  as  a 
rational  and  responsible  being,  namely,  the  power  of  accepting  the 
prevenient  grace  of  God,4  with  the  corresponding  power  of  reject- 
ing it.  They  accordingly  assigned  to  man  a  certain  though  very  small 
share  in  the  work  of  conversion,  which  Pfeffinger  illustrated  by  the 
contribution  of  a  penny  towards  the  discharge  of  a  very  large  debt. 

Amsdorf,  Flacius,  Wigand,  and  Heshusius,  on  the  other  hand,  appeal- 

1  By  to  m>iil3tpt)K6c  Aristotle  means  a  separable  property  or  quality,  which  does  not  essen- 
tially belong  to  a  thing.  In  this  sense  Flacius  denied  the  accidental  character  of  sin,  and 
maintained  that  it  entered  into  the  inmost  constitution,  just  as  holiness  is  inherent  and  essen- 
tial in  the  regenerate. 

2  For  fuller  information,  see  Pfeffinger:  Prbposit.  de  libero  arbitrio,  1555;  Flacius: 
De  orig.  jircrato  rt  libero  arbitrio,  two  disputations,  1558  and  1559  ;  Sciilusselburg  :  Catal. 
I  hurt.  \:,'J*(\Ab.V.deSt/ner(/istis);  Planck,  Vol.  IV.  p.  553;  Galle,  p.  326;  Dollinger, 
Vol.  III. p.  437;  Gust.  Frank  :  Gesch.  der  Prot.  Theol.  Vol.  I.  p.  125,  and  his  art.  Syner- 
gistic in  Berzog,  Vol.  XV.  p.  S26  ;  Fr.  H.  R.  Frank  :  Theol.  der  Cone.  F.  Vol.  I.  p.  113; 
Dobni  Et,  p.  361  ;  and  also  the  literature  on  the  Flacian  controversy,  especially  Schmid  and 
I'm  QBB  (quoted  p.  2G8). 

3  Sec  above,  p.  262. 

4  '  Facultas  sc  applicandi  ad  gratiam.' 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  271 

ing  to  the  teaching  of  Luther,1  maintained  that  man,  being  totally  cor- 
rupt, can  by  nature  only  resist  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  is  converted 
against  and  in  spite  of  his  perverse  will,  or  must  receive  a  new  will 
before  he  can  accept.  God  converts  a  man  as  the  potter  moulds  the 
clay,  as  the  sculptor  carves  a  statue  of  wood  or  stone.  They  also  ad- 
vocated, as  a  logical  consequence,  Luther's  original  theory  of  an  uncon- 
ditional predestination  and  reprobation.  But  the  'Form  of  Concord' 
rejected  it  as  well  as  Synergism,  without  attempting  to  solve  the  diffi- 
culty. 

Both  parties  erred  in  not  making  a  proper  distinction  between  re- 
generation and  conversion,  and  between  receptive  and  spontaneous 
activity.  In  regeneration,  man  is  passive,  in  conversion  he  is  active  in 
turning  to  God,  but  in  response  to  the  preceding  action  of  divine 
grace,  which  Augustine  calls  the  gratia  prceveniens.  Conversion  cer- 
tainly is  not  a  compulsory  or  magical,  but  an  ethical  process.  God 
operates  upon  man,  not  as  upon  a  machine  or  a  dead  stone  (as  Flacius 
and  also  the  'Form  of  Concord'  maintain),  but  as  a  responsible,  ration- 
al, moral,  and  religiously  susceptible  though  very  corrupt  being ;  break- 
ing his  natural  hostility,  making  willing  the  unwilling,  and  preparing 
him  at  every  step  for  corresponding  action.  So  far  Melanchthon  was 
right.  But  the  defect  of  the  Synergistic  theory  is  the  idea  of  a  part- 
nership between  God  and  man,  and  a  corresponding  division  of  work 
and  merit.  Synergism  is  less  objectionable  than  semi-Pelagianism,  for 
it  reduces  co-operation  before  conversion  to  a  minimum,  but  even  that 
minimum  is  incompatible  with  the  absolute  dependence  of  man  on  God. 

III.  THE   OSIANORIC  CONTROVERSY  (1 549-1 566). 2 

It  touched  the  central  doctrine  of  Evangelical  Luther unism,  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  whether  it  is  a  mere  declarator}',  forensic  art  of  acquittal 
from  sin  and  guilt,  or  an  actual  infusion  of  righteousness. 

1  Especially  his  book  de  servo  arbitrio.  Luther  calls  the  voluntas  of  the  natural  man 
noluntas,  and  compares  him  to  the  column  of  salt,  Lot's  wife,  a  block  and  stone.  Similar 
terms  are  used  in  the  'Form  of  Concord.' 

2  Osiandkk  :  Dis/mtationes  dua ':  una  de  Lege  et  Evangelio  (1540),  altera  de  Justijicatione 
(1550),  Regiom.  1550;  De  unieo  Media  tore  Jes.  Chr.  et  Justijicatione  Jidei  confessio  A.  Osian- 
dri,  Regiom.  1551  ;  Schmeckbier,  Konigsberg,  1552  ;  Widerlegung  der  Antwort  Melqnchthon's, 
1552.  Anton*  Otto  Hkuzijekckr  :  Wider  die  tiefgesurhtcn  und  scharfgesjiitzten,  aber  doc/i 
nichtigen  Ursachen  Osiandn-s,  Magdeburg,  1552;  Gallus:  Probe  des  Geistes  Osiandri, 
Magdeb.  1552;  Men  I  us:  Die  Gerechtigfceit,  die  fur  Got  t  gilt,  wider  die  neue  alcumistische  The- 


272  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Luther  and  the  other  Reformers  made  a  clear  distinction  between 
justification  as  an  external  act  of  God  for  man,  and  sanctification  as 
an  internal  act  of  God  in  man ;  and  yet  viewed  them  as  inseparable, 
sanctification  being  the  necessary  effect  of  justification.  Faith  was 
to  them  an  appropriation  of  the  whole  Christ,  a  bond  of  vital  union 
with  his  person  first,  and  in  consequence  of  this  a  participation  of  his 
benefits.1 

In  the  Osiandric  controversy,  justification  and  sanctification  were 
either  confounded  or  too  abstractedly  separated,  and  the  person  of 
Christ  was  lost  sight  of  in  his  work  or  in  one  of  his  two  natures. 

Andrew  Osiander  (149S-1552),  an  eminent  Lutheran  minister  and  re- 
former at  Nuremberg  (since  1522),  afterwards  Professor  at  Konigsberg 
(15-A9),  a  man  of  great  learning  and  speculative  talent,  but  conceited 
and  overbearing,  created  a  great  commotion  by  a  new  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication, which  he  brought  out  after  the  death  of  Luther.2  He  assailed 
the  forensic  conception  of  justification,  and  taught  instead  a  medicinal 
and  creative  act,  whereby  the  sinner  is  made  just  by  an  infusion  of  the 
divine  nature  of  Christ,  which  is  our  righteousness.  This  view  was  de- 
nounced as  Romanizing,  but  it  is  rather  mystical.  He  did  not  make  justi- 
fication a  gradual  process,  like  the  Roman  system,  but  a  single  and  com- 
plete act,  by  which  Christ  according  to  his  divine  nature  enters  the  soul 
of  man  through  the  door  of  faith.3  He  meant  justification  by  faith 
alone  without  works,  but  an  effective  internal  justification  in  the  ety- 

ologia  Osianders,  Erfurt,  1552;  Jo.  Wjgand  :  De  Osiandrismo,  Jena,  1583  and  l.r)86; 
SCHLitesELBURG  :  Catal.  Hazret.  Lib.  VI. ;  Planck,  Vol.  IV.  p.  249  ;  Baur  :  Disqu.  in  Osian- 
dri  de  just  if  doctrinam.  Tub.  1831;  Lehnerdt  :  De  Osiandri  vita  et  doctr.  Berol.  1835; 
11.  WlLKEN:  Osianders  Leben,  Stralsund,  1844  ;  Heberle  :  Os.  Lehre  in  ihrer  fruhsten 
Gestalt  (Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1844,  p.  386)  ;  Ritschl:  Rechtfertigungslehre  des  A.  Os.  (in 
Jahrh.fSr  D.  Theol.  1857,  p.  795);  R.  T.  Grau:  De  Os.  doctrina,  Marb.  I860;  Gieseler, 
Vol.  IV.  p.  409;  GASS.Vol.I.p.Ol;  Heppe.VoI.  I.  p.  81 ;  G.  Frank, Vol.  I.  p.  150;  J.  II.  R. 
Frank,  Vol.  II.  p.  1-47  ;  Dorner,  p.  344.  Among  Roman  Catholic  divines,  Dollinger  in 
his  Tteformation,ihreEntwicMungund  Wirkungen,Vol.IlI.  pp.  397-437,  gives  the  best  account 
of  the  Osiandric  controversy. 

'  See  KOstlin:  Luther s  TAeologie,Vo\.  II.  pp.  444  sqq. 

5  He  thought  that  'after  the  death  of  the  lion  he  could  easily  dispose  of  the  hares  and  foxes.' 
Bat  the  germ  of  his  doctrine  was  already  in  his  tract,  LEin  gut  Unterricht  und  getreuer  Rathschlag 
mis  /nil.  gUttlicher  Schrift,'  1524.  At  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  1530,  he  requested  Melanch- 
thon,  in  the  presence  of  Brentins  and  Urban  Regius,  to  introduce  into  the  new  confession  of 
faith  the  passage  dor.  xxiii.  0,  'The  Lord  our  Righteousness,'  which  he  understood  to  mean 
thai  (  In  i-t  dwells  in  us  by  faith,  and  works  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do.  See  Wilkens,  p.37; 
Dollinger,  p.  898. 

3  'Christus  secundum  suam  veratn  divinam  essentiam  in  vere  credentials  habitat/ 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  273 

mological  sense  of  the  term,  lie  was  Protestant  in  this  also,  that 
he  excluded  human  merit  and  represented  faith  which  apprehends 
Christ,  as  the  gift  of  God.  In  connection  with  this  he  held  peculiar 
views  on  the  image  of  God,  which  he  made  to  consist  in  the  essen- 
tial union  of  the  human  nature  with  the  divine  nature,  and  on  the 
necessity  of  the  incarnation,  which  in  his  opinion  would  have  taken 
place  even  without  the  fall,  in  order  that  through  Christ's  humanity 
we  might  become  partakers  of  the  essential  righteousness  of  God.1  He 
appealed  to  Luther,  but  denounced  Melanchthon  as  a  heretic  and  pest- 
ilential man. 

Osiander  was  protected  by  Duke  Albrecht  of  Prussia,  whom  he  had 
converted,  but  opposed  from  every  quarter  by  Morlin,  Staphylus,  Stan- 
carus,  Melanchthon,  Amsdorf,  Menius,  Flacius,  Chemnitz.  Between 
the  two  parties  stood  the  Swabian  divines  Brentius  and  Binder.  The 
controversy  was  carried  on  with  a  good  deal  of  misunderstanding,  and 
with  such  violence  that  the  Professors  in  Ivonigsberg  carried  fire-arms 
into  their  academic  sessions.  It  was  seriously  circulated  and  believed 
that  the  devil  wrote  Osiander's  books,  while  he  enjoyed  his  meals. 

After  Osiander's  death  (1552),  his  son-in-law,  John  Funck,  chaplain 
of  the  Duke,  became  the  leader  of  his  small  party ;  but  he  was  executed 
on  the  scaffold  (1566)  as  a  heretic  and  disturber  of  the  public  peace. 
Morlin  was  recalled  from  exile  and  made  Bishop  of  Samland.  The 
Prussian  collection  of  Confessions  {Corpus  Doctrince  Pruthenicum,  or 
Borussicum,  Ivonigsberg,  1567)  condemned  the  doctrines  of  Osiander. 

In  close  connection  with  the  Osiandric  controversy  on  justification 
was  the  Stancakian  dispute,  introduced  by  Francesco  Stancaro  (or 
Stancarus),  an  Italian  ex-priest,  and  for  a  short  time  Professor  in 
Ivonigsberg  (d.  1574  in  Poland).  He  asserted,  against  Osiander  and 
in  agreement  with  Peter  the  Lombard,  that  Christ  was  our  Mediator 
and  Redeemer  according  to  his  human  nature  only  (since  lie,  being 
God  himself,  could  not  mediate  between  God  and  God).2  He  called 
his  opponents  and  all  the  Reformers  ignoramuses.3 

Another  collateral  controversy,  concerning  the  obedience  of  Christ, 

1  i  Per  humanitatem  devenit  in  nos  dirinitas.' 

2  ' Nemo  potest  esse  mediator  sui  ijisius.'  Petrus  Lombardus  says  :  '  Christus  mediator  di- 
citur  secundum  humanitatem,  non  secundum  divitlitaU  in.' 

3  Wigand:   De  Stancarismo,  Lips.  1583;   Scm.i'ssi.i.iuiu:,  Lib.  IX.;  Planck, Vol.  IV. 

p.  449;    GlESELER,Vol.  IV.  p.  ISO;    G.  FltAXK,  Vol.  I.  p.  15G. 


v»74  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

was  raised,  A.D.  1563,  by  Parsimonitts,  or  Karg,  a  Lutheran  minister 
in  Bavaria.1  He  derived  our  redemption  entirely  from  our  Lord's 
passive  obedience,  and  denied  that  his  active  obedience  had  any  vicari- 
ous merit,  since  Christ  himself,  as  man,  owed  active  obedience  to  God. 
lie  also  opposed  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  and  resolved  justification 
into  the  idea  of  remission  of  sins. 

Karg  was  opposed  by  Ketzmann  in  Ansbach,  by  Heshusius,  and  the 
Wittenberg  divines.  Left  without  sympathy,  and  threatened  with  depo- 
sition and  exile,  he  recanted  his  theses  in  1570,  and  confessed  that 
the  obedience  of  Christ,  his  righteousness,  merit,  and  innocence  are 
the  ground  of  our  justification  and  our  greatest  comfort.2 

The  'Form  of  Concord'  teaches  that  Christ  as  God  and  man  in  his 
one,  whole,  and  perfect  obedience,  is  our  righteousness,  and  that  his 
whole  obedience  unto  death  is  imputed  to  us. 

IV.  THE   MAJOEISTIC    CONTROVERSY   (1552-1577. )3 

It  is  closely  connected  with  the  Synergistic,  Osiandric,  and  Antino- 
mian  controversies,  and  refers  to  the  use  of  good  worJcs. 

The  Beformers  derived  salvation  solely  from  the  merits  of  Christ 
through  the  medium  of  faith,  as  the  organ  of  reception,  in  accordance 
with  the  Scripture, '  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved.'  But  faith  was  to  them  a  work  of  God,  a  living  apprehension 
of  Christ,  and  the  fruitful  parent  of  good  works.  Luther  calls  faith  a 
'  lively,  busy,  mighty  thing,'  which  can  no  more  be  separated  from  love 

1  Georg  Karg  was  born  1512,  studied  at  Wittenberg,  was  ordained  by  Luther  and  Me- 
lanchthon,  became  pastor  at  Oettingen,  afterwards  at  Ansbach,  and  died  1576.  He  was  a 
rigid  Lutheran  in  the  Interimistic  controversies,  but  otherwise  more  a  follower  of  Melanch- 
thon. 

3  Thomasius:  Hist,  dogmatis  de  obedientia  Christi  actum,  Erl.  1845-46;  G.  Frank, 
Vol.  I.  ]..  158  ;  Dorner,  p.  345;  Dollinger,  Vol.  III.  pp.  564-74  (together  with  the  acts 
from  MS.  sources  in  the  Appendix,  pp.  15  sqq.,  the  best  account).  Karg's  view  was  after- 
wards defended  by  the  Reformed  divines  John  Piscator  of  Herborn  and  John  Camero  of 
Saumur,  perhaps  also  by  Ursinus  (according  to  a  letter  of  Tossanus  to  Piscator).  See  Dol- 
linger, Vol.  III.  p.  573;  Schweizer:  Centraldogmen,  Vol.  II.  p.  16. 

:  1).  <;.  Major:  Opera,  Viteb.  1569,  3  vols.;  N.  vox  Amsdorf  :  Dass  die  Propositio: 
'  Gute  11  -  rke  rind  zur  Scligkeit  sehadlich,'  eine  rechte  wahre  christliche  Propositio  sei,  durch 
die  heiUgen  Paulas  mid  Luther  gepredigt,  1559;  several  tracts  of  Flacius,  Wigand,  and 
Responsa  and  Letters  of  Miu.anchthon  on  this  subject  from  1553  to  1559,  in  Corp.  Reform. 
Vols.  VIII.  and  IX.;  Schmjssklbuko,  Lib.  VII. ;  Planck,  Vol.  IV.  p.  469  ;  D5llingbr, 
Vul-  1 1  '•  !'•  |,,:; ;  THOMA8IU8  :  Das  Bek.  der  ev.  luth.  Kirche  in  der  Consequenz  seines  Prin- 
cips,  p.  100;  IlKii  k.  Vol.  II.  p.  264;  G.  Frank,  Vol.  I.p.122;  Fk.  H.  R.  Frank,  Vol.  II. 
p.U9;    Hi  i:/-.,..  Vol.  VIII.  p.  733;  Dorner,  p.  339. 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  275 

than  fire  from  heat  and  light.1  Melanchthon,  in  his  later  period,  laid 
greater  stress  on  good  works,  and  taught  their  necessity  as  fruits  of 
faith,  but  not  as  a  condition  of  salvation,  which  is  a  free,  unmerited 
gift  of  God.2 

Georg  Major  (Professor  at  Wittenberg  since  1539,  died  1574),  a 
pupil  of  Melanchthon,  and  one  of  the  framers  of  the  Leipzig  Interim, 
declared  during  his  sojourn  at  Eisleben  (1552)  that  good  works  are 
necessary  to  salvation.3  He  pronounced  the  anathema  on  every  one 
who  taught  otherwise,  though  he  were  an  angel  from  heaven.  He  meant, 
however,  the  necessity  of  good  works  as  a  negative  condition,  not  as 
a  meritorious  cause,  and  he  made,  moreover,  a  distinction  between  sal- 
vation and  justification.4 

This  proposition  seemed  to  be  inconsistent  with  Luther's  solifidian- 
ism,  and  was  all  the  more  obnoxious  for  its  resemblance  to  a  clause  in 
the  Romanizing  Leipzig  Interim  (1548).5 

Hence  it  was  violently  opposed  from  every  direction.  Nicolas  von 
Amsdorf  (1483-1565),  appealing  to  St.  Paul  and  Dr.  Luther,  con- 

1  See  his  classical  description  of  faith  in  the  Preface  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (Walch, 
Vol.  XIV.  p.  114,  quoted  also  in  the  'Form  of  Concord,'  p.  G2G,  ed.  Midler)  :  '  Der  Glaube  ist 
ein  gijttlich  Werk  in  uns,  das  tens  verwandelt  und  neu  tjebiert  aus  Gott  und  tiidtet  den  alten 
Adam,  macht  uns  ganz  andere  Menschen  .  .  .  und  bringet  den  heiligen  Geist  mit  sich.  0  !  es 
ist  ein  lebendig,  geschd/tig,  thdtig,  machtig  Ding  urn  den  Glaubeu,  dass  es  unmoglich  ist,  dass  er 
nicht  oline  Unterlass  sollte  Gutes  wirken;  erfragt  auch  nicht,  ob  gnte  Werke  zu  thun  sind,son- 
dern  ehe  man  f'raat,  hat  er  sie  get/tan,  und  ist  itnmer  im  Thun.  Weraber  nicht  solche  Werke 
thut,  der  ist  ein  glaubloser  Mensch.  .  .  .  Werke  vom  Glauben  scheiden  is  so  unmoglich  als  bren- 
nen  und  leuchten  vom  Feuer  mag  geschieden  werden.'  In  another  place  Luther  says  :  lSo  wenig 
dasFeuer  ohne  Hitze  und  Ranch  ist,  so  wenig  ist  der  Glaube  ohne  Liebe.' 

2  Loci  theol.  ed.  1535  (the  edition  dedicated  to  King  Henry  VIII.):  '  Obedientia  nostra, 
hoc  est,  justitia  bonce  conscientice  seu  operum,  quoz  Dens  nobis  prcecipit,  necessario  sequi  debet 

rcconciliationem.  .  .  .  Si  vis  in  vitam  ingredi,  serva  mandata  (Matt.  xix.  17) Justijicamur 

ut  nova  et  spirituals  vita  vivamus.  .  .  .  Ij>sius  opus  sumus,  conditi  ad  bona  opera  (Eph.  ii.  10). 
.  .  .  Acceptatio  ad  vitam  (eternam  seu  donatio  vitoz  aternce  conjuncta  est  cum  justijicatione, 
i.  e.,  cum  remissione  peccatorum  et  reconciliatione,  quae,  fide  contingit.  .  .  .  Itaque  non  datur  vita 
aterna  propter  dignitatem  bonorum  operum,  sed  gratis  propter  Christum.  Et  tamen  bona  opera 
ita  necessaria  sunt  ad  vitam  atei-iunn,  quia  sequi  reconciliationem  necessario  debent'  (Corp. 
Re/orm.Yol  XXI.  p.  429). 

3  '  Bona  opera  necessaria  esse  ad  salutem.1 

4  He  found  it  necessary  afterwards  to  qualify  his  proposition,  especially  since  Melanchthon, 
to  his  surprise,  did  not  quite  approve  it.  He  assigned  to  good  works  a  necessitas  debiti,  as 
commanded  by  God,  a  necessitas  conjunctions,  as  connected  with  faith,  but  no  necessitas  meriti. 
Our  whole  confidence  is  in  Christ.  '  Hominem,'  he  said,  ' sola  fide  essejustum,  sed  non  sola 
fide  salrum.' 

5  Viz.,  the  words, ' Es  ist  gewisslich  wahr,  dass  die  Tugenden  Glaube,  Liebe,  Hojfnung,  und 
andere  in  uns  scin  miissen  und  zur  Seligkeit  noting  seien.'  In  Pezel's  edition  of  Melanc  litlion's 
'Bedenken'  the  words  zur  Seligkeit  are  omitted.     Dollinger,  Vol.  III.  p.  496. 


276  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

denined  it  as  '  the  worst  and  most  pernicious  heresy,'  and  boldly  advo- 
cated even  the  counter-proposition,  that  good  works  are  dangerous  to 
salvation  (1559).1  Flacins  denounced  Major's  view  as  popish,  godless, 
and  most  dangerous,  because  it  destroyed  the  sinner's  comfort  on  the 
death-bed  and  the  gallows,  made  the  salvation  of  children  impossible, 
confounded  the  gospel  with  the  law,  and  weakened  the  power  of 
Christ's  death.2  Wigand  objected  that  the  error  of  the  necessity  of 
good  works  was  already  condemned  by  the  Apostles  in  Jerusalem 
(Acts  xv.),  that  it  was  the  pillar  of  popery  and  a  mark  of  Antichrist, 
and  that  it  led  many  dying  persons  unable  to  find  good  works  in 
themselves,  to  despair.  Justus  Men i us,  Superintendent  of  Gotha,  tried 
to  mediate  by  asserting  the  necessity  of  good  works  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  faith ;  but  this  was  decidedly  rejected  as  indirectly  amounting 
to  the  same  error.  A  synod,  held  at  Eisenach  in  1556,  decided  in 
seven  theses  that  Major's  proposition  was  true  only  in  abstracto  and  in 
foro  legis,  but  not  inforo  evangelii,  and  should  be  avoided  as  liable 
to  be  misunderstood  in  a  popish  sense.  Christ  delivered  us  from  the 
curse  of  the  law,  and  faith  alone  is  necessary  both  for  justification  and 
salvation,  which  are  identical.3  The  theses  were  subscribed  by  Ams- 
dorf,  Strigel,  Morlin,  Hugel,  Stossel,  and  even  by  Menius  (although 
the  fifth  was  directed  against  him).  But  now  there  arose  a  contro- 
versy on  the  admission  of  the  abstract  and  legal  necessity  of  good 
works,  which  was  defended  by  T*lacius, "Wigand,  and  Morlin;  opposed 
by  Amsdorf  and  Aurifaber  as  semi-popish.  The  former  view  pre- 
vailed. 

Melanchthon  felt  that  the  necessity  of  good  works  for  salvation 
might  imply  their  meritoriousness,  and  hence  proposed  to  drop  the 
words  for  salvation,  and  to  be  contented  with  the  assertion  that  good 
works  are  necessary  because  God  commanded  them,  and  man  is  bound 
to  obey  his  Creator.4    This  middle  course  was  adopted  by  the  TVitten- 


1  '  "Bona  opera  perniciosa  (noxia)  esse  [not  in  themselves,  but]  ad  salutem.'  Whoever  held 
the  opposite  view  was  denounced  by  Amsdorf  as  a  Pelagianer,  Mameluk,  zweifaltiger  Papist 
and  I  erl&ugner  C/iristi. 

■  Sec  the  extracts  from  Flacins,  in  Dullinger,  Vol.  III.  pp.503  sqq. 
Bee  the  theses  in  Dollinger,  Vol.  III.  p. 511  sq. 

1  Bee  his  brief  Judicium  on  the  Majoristie  controversy,  1553,  Corp.  Re/orm.Vol.  VIII. 
p.  I'.H,  and  his  more  lengthy  German  letter  ad  Sejtatum  Northusanum  (Nordhausen),  Jan.  13, 
1/565;  ///..  pp.  HO  fi:;.  lDieae  Dea*«n0,,hesays(p.412)1  'ist  zujiiehen:  gute  Werkesind 
VSRDIBKSI   •/  r  Seligkeii  :  und  muss  der  Glaub  und  Trost  Jest  al/ein  avf  dem  Herrn  Christo 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  lo77.  277 

berg  Professors  and  by  the  Diet  of  Princes  at  Frankfort  (1558),  bnt 
was  rejected  by  the  strict  Lutherans. 

Major  consented  (in  155S)  no  longer  to  use  his  phrase,  and  revoked 
it  in  his  last  will  (1570),  but  he  was  still  assailed,  and  the  Professors  at 
Jena  prayed  for  the  conversion  of  the  poor  old  man  (1571)  with  little 
hope  of  success.  Flacius  prayed  that  Christ  might  crush  also  this  ser- 
pent. Ileshusius  publicly  confessed  that  he  had  committed  a  horrible 
sin  in  accepting  the  Doctor's  degree  from  Major,  who  was  a  disgrace 
to  the  theological  profession. 

The  'Form  of  Concord'  settled  the  controversy  by  separating  good 
works  both  from  justification  and  salvation,  yet  declaring  them  neces- 
sary as  effects  of  justifying  faith.1 

V.   THE   AKTINOMIAN    CONTROVERSY   ( 1 527-1 560). 2 

Protestantism  in  its  joyful  enthusiasm  for  the  freedom  and  all- 
sufficiency  of  the  gospel  was  strongly  tempted  to  antinomianism,  but 
restrained  by  its  moral  force  and  the  holy  character  of  the  gospel 
itself.3     Luther,  in  opposition  to  Romish  legalism,  put  the  gospel  and 

ste/ten,  dass  wir  geicisslich  (lurch  ihn  allein,  j>roj>ter  earn  et  per  eum,  haben  Vergebung  der  Siin- 
den,  Zurchnung  der  Gerechtigkeit,  heiligen  Geist,  und  Erbschaft  der  ewigen  Seligkeit.  Dieses 
Fundament  ist  gewiss.  Es  folget  auch  eben  aus  diesem  Fundament,  dass  diese  andere  Proposi- 
tion recht  und  nothig  ist :  gute  Werke  oder  neuer  Gehorsam  ist  nothig  von  wegen  gottlicher,  un- 
wandelbarer  Ordnung,dass  die  verniinftige  Creatur  Gott  Gehorsam  schuldig  ist,  und  dazu  er- 
srhaffen,  undjetzund  wiedergeboren  ist,  dass  sie  ihm  gleichfonnig  werde.'  Melanchthon  heard 
from  an  Englishman  that  this  controversy  created  great  astonishment  in  England,  where  no 
one  douhted  the  necessity  of  good  works  to  salvation,  nor  failed  to  see  the  difference  be- 
tween necessity  and  merit. 

1  In  accordance  with  the  word  of  Augustine:  '  Opera  scquuntur  justification, non  pmeedunt 
jiistifirandinn.'  Three  or  four  of  the  framers  of  the  'Form  of  Concord'  were  inclined  to 
Major's  view,  and  endeavored  at  first  to  prevent  its  condemnation  ;  but  the  logic  of  the  Lu- 
theran principle  triumphed. 

2  Luther's  Werke,  Vol.  XX.  p.  201  4  (ed.  Walch)  ;  WlGAND  :  De  antinomia  vcteri  et  nova, 
Jen.  1571 ;  ScHLt'ssKMiLuo,  Lib.  IV. ;  Forstemann:  Neties  Urkundenbwh  (Hamburg,  1842), 
Vol.  I.  p.  291 ;  J.  G.  Schulzics  :  Historia  Antinomorum,Yiteb.  1708;  Flanck,  Vol.  II. 
p.  399,  Vol.  V.  I.  1 ;  Thomasius,  p.  40  ;  Dollinger,  Vol.  III.  p.  372;  GlESELER,  Vol.  IV. 
p.897j  IIei-pi:,Vo1.  I.  p.  80;  Gass,Vo1.  I.  p.57;  G.Frank, Vol.  I.  p.  146;  Fk.  II.  It.  Frank, 
Vol.  II.  pp.  240.  262  ;  Dorner,  p.  3:50;  Ei.wkrt  :  De  Antinomia  Agricolai  Islebii,  Tur.  1836; 
K.  J.  Nitzsch  :  Die  Gesammterscheinung  des  Antinomismus,  in  the  Sludicn  u.  Kritikcn,  1846, 
Nos.  I.  and  II. 

3  Grass  says  (Vol.  I.  p..r>7):  '  Die  lieformation  tear  selbst  Antinomismus,  insofern  sie  mil  dent 
rverkheiligen  auch  das  gesetz/iche  Princip,  ivenn  es  die  Seligkeit  dee  Menschen  bewirken  will, 
verwarf.  Afelanchtlion  hatte  Gesetz  und  Evangelium  u-ie  Schreck-  und  Trostmittel  einander 
entgegengestellt  und  nur  auf  das  letzere  die  Rechtfertigung  gebaut,  uiihrend  er  doch  unter  dent 
Gesetz  den  bleibenden  Inhalt  des  gSltlichen  Wit/ens  zusaMmetifasst.' 


278  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  law  as  wide  apart  as  'heaven  and  earth,'  and  said,  'Moses  is  dead.'1 
Xevertheless  he  embodied  in  his  Catechism  an  excellent  exposition  of 
the  Decalogue  before  the  Creed  ;  and  Melanchthon,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  laid  more  and  more  stress  on  the  moral  element  and  good  works 
in  opposition  to  the  abuses  of  solifidianism  and  carnal  security. 

The  antinomian  controversy  has  two  stages.  The  first  touches  the 
office  of  the  law  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  and  its  relation  to 
repentance ;  the  second  the  necessity  of  good  works,  which  was  the 
point  of  dispute  between  Major  and  Amsdorf,  and  has  already  been 
discussed. 

John  Agricola,  of  Eisleben,  misunderstood  Luther,  as  Marcion,  the 
antinomian  Gnostic,  misunderstood  St.  Paul.3  He  first  uttered  anti- 
nomian principles  in  1527,  in  opposition  to  Melanchthon,  who  in  his 
Articles  of  Visitation  urged  the  preaching  of  the  law  unto  repent- 
ance.3 He  was  appeased  in  a  conference  with  the  Reformers  at  Tor- 
gau  (December,  1527).  But  when  Professor  at  Wittenberg,  he  re- 
newed the  controversy  in  1537,  in  some  arrogant  theses,  and  was  de- 
feated by  Luther  in  six  public  disputations  (1538  and  1540).  He  made 
a  severe  attack  on  Luther,  which  involved  him  in  a  lawsuit,  but  he 
removed  to  Berlin,  and  sent  from  there  a  recantation,  Dec.  6,  1510. 
Long  afterwards  (1562)  he  reasserted  his  views  in  a  published  sermon 
on  Luke  vii.  37.     He  was  neither  clear  nor  consistent. 

Agricola  taught  with  some  truth  that  genuine  repentance  and  re- 

1  Many  of  his  utterances,  as  quoted  by  Dollinger,  Vol.  III.  pp.  45  sqq.,  sound  decidedly 
antinomian,  but  must  be  understood  cum  grano  sa/is,  and  in  connection  with  his  whole  teach- 
ing. Some  of  the  most  objectionable  are  from  his  'Table  Talk,'  as  when  he  calls  Moses  'the 
master  of  all  hangmen'  and  'the  worst  of  heretics.' 

2  Agricola  (Schnitter,  Kornschneider;  Luther  called  him  Grickl)  was  born  at  Eisleben,  1492 
(hence  Magister  Islebius),  and  studied  at  Wittenberg,  where  he  boarded  with  Luther.  He 
was  a  popular  preacher  at  Eisleben,  and  became  Professor  of  Theology  at  Wittenberg,  1536, 
and  chaplain  of  Elector  Joachim  II.  at  Berlin,  1540.  In  1548  he  took  a  leading  part  in  the 
Augsburg  Interim,  and  denied  the  essential  principles  of  Protestantism,  but  protested  afterwards 
from  the  pulpit  against  the  necessity  of  good  works  (1558).  He  died  at  Berlin,  1566.  La- 
ther was  more  vexed  by  him,  as  he  said,  than  by  any  pope;  he  charged  him  with  excessive 
vanity  and  ambition,  and  declared  him  unfit  to  teach,  and  fit  only  for  the  profession  of  a 
jester  (Kriefe,  Vol.  V.  p.  821).  He  refused  to  see  him  in  1545,  and  said, '  Grickl  wird  in  alio. 
Ewigkeit  Grickl  bleiben.'  Bretschneider  and  Gieseler  suppose  that  Melanchthon  incurred 
Agricola's  displeasure  by  not  helping  him  to  a  theological  chair  in  Wittenberg.  He  must 
have  had,  however,  considerable  administrative  capacity.  Dollinger  charges  the  Keformers 
with  misrepresenting  him  and  his  doctrine. 

'  iPradicatio  legit  ad  peenitentiam.'  C/iursachsische  Yisitations-Artikel,  1527  and  1528, 
Latin  and  German,  cd.  by  Strobel,  1777. 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  279 

mission  of  sin  could  only  be  secured  under  the  gospel  by  the  contem- 
plation of  Christ's  love.  In  this  Luther  (and  afterwards  Calvin)  agreed 
with  him.  But  he  went  much  further.  The  law  in  his  opinion  was  su- 
perseded by  the  gospel,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  repentance  and  con- 
version. It  works  only  wrath  and  death;  it  leads  to  unbelief  and  de- 
spair, not  to  the  gospel.  He  thought  the  gospel  was  all-sufficient  both 
for  the  office  of  terror  and  the  office  of  comfort.  Luther,  on  the  con- 
trary, maintained,  in  his  disputations,  that  true  repentance  consists  of 
two  things — knowledge  and  sorrow  of  sin,  and  resolution  to  lead  a  better 
life.  The  first  is  produced  by  the  law,  the  second  by  the  gospel.  The 
law  alone  would  lead  to  despair  and  hatred  of  God ;  hence  the  gospel 
is  added  to  appease  and  encourage  the  terrified  conscience.  The  law 
can  not  justify,  but  must  nevertheless  be  taught,  that  by  it  the  impious 
may  be  led  to  a  knowledge  of  their  sin  and  be  humbled,  and  that  the 
pious  may  be  admonished  to  crucify  their  flesh  with  its  sinful  lusts, 
and  to  guard  against  security. 

The  'Form  of  Concord'  teaches  a  threefold  use  of  the  law:  (a)  A 
political  or  civil  use  in  maintaining  outward  discipline  and  order; 
(b)  An  elenchtic  ov  pedagogic  use  in  leading  men  to  a  knowledge  of  sin 
and  the  need  of  redemption ;  (c)  A  didactic  or  normative  use  in  regu- 
lating the  life  of  the  regenerate.  The  Old  and  New  Testaments  are 
not  exclusively  related  as  law  and  gospel,  but  the  Old  contains  gospel, 
and  the  New  is  law  and  gospel  complete. 

VI.  THE  CRYPTO-CALVINISTIC  OR  EUCHARISTIC  CONTROVERSY  (1549-1574). ' 

The  eucharistic  controversy  between  Luther  and  Zwingli,  although 
it  alienated  the  German  and  Swiss  branches  of  the  Reformation,  did 

1  Westphal  :  Farrago  confusanearum  et  inter  se  dissidentium  opinionum  de  Ciena  Domini 
ex  Sacrarnenlariorum  lilris  congesta,  Magdeb.  1552  (chiefly  against  Calvin,  Bnllinger,  Peter 
Martyr,  and  John  a  Lasco)  ;  Recta  Fides  de  Cana  Domini  ex  verbis  Ap.  Pauli  et  Evangt  lista- 
rum  demonstrata,  1 553 ;  a  tract  on  Augustine's  view  of  the  eucharist,  1 555 ;  another  on  Mt  lanch- 
thons  view,  1557;  then  Jusla  Defensio  against  John  a  Lasco;  and,  finally,  Apologia  contra 
corruptelas  et  calumnias  Johannis  Calvini,  1558.  Calvin  :  Defensio  sanw  et  orthodox^  doc- 
trine/ de  sacramentis,  Gen.  and  Tiguri,  1555  ;  Secunda  Defensio  plana;  et  orthod.  de  saeram. 
Jidei  contra  Joach.  Westphali  calumnias,  1 55(1 ;  Ultima Admonitio  ad  Jbach.  Westphalwn,  1 557 ; 
Dihtcida  F.xpliratio  same  doctr.  de  vera  participatione  carnis  et  sanguinis  Christ i  in  sacra 
Caina,  against  Ileshnshts,  166L  (All  these  tracts  of  Calvin  in  his  0pera,V6l.  IX.  ed.Banm, 
Canitz,  and  Renss,  Brunsv.  1870.)  Minor  eucharistic  tracts  on  the  Lutheran  side  by  Bbehjs, 
Schnepf,  Alisek,  Timaxx,  Hesiiusius  ;  on  the  Calvinistic  side  by  Bullinger,  Peter  Mar- 
tyr, Reza,  and  Hardexiieug.     Wigaxd  :  De  Sacraynentariismo,  Lips.  1584  ;  De  UOiquilate, 

Vol.  I.-T 


280  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

not  destroy  all  intercourse,  nor  discourage  new  attempts  at  reconcilia- 
tion. Calvin's  theory,  which  took  a  middle  course,  retaining,  on  the 
basis  of  Zwingli's  exegesis,  the  religious  substance  of  Luther's  faith, 
and  giving  it  a  more  intellectual  and  spiritual  form,  triumphed  in 
Switzerland,  gained  much  favor  in  Germany,  and  opened  a  fair  pros- 
pect for  union.  But  the  controversy  of  Westphal  against  Calvin,  and 
the  subsequent  overthrow  of  Melanchthonianism,  completed  and  con- 
solidated the  separation  of  the  two  Confessions. 

Melanchthon's  later  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  essentially 
agreed  with  that  of  Calvin,  was  for  a  number  of  years  entertained  by 
the  majority  of  Lutheran  divines  even  at  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig,  and 
at  the  court  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  It  was  also  in  various  ways 
officially  recognized  with  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1540,  which  was 
long  regarded  as  an  improved  rather  than  an  altered  edition. 

But  the  Princes  and  the  people  held  fast  to  the  heroic  name  of  Lu- 
ther against  any  rival  authority,  and  when  the  alternative  was  pre- 
sented to  choose  between  him  and  Melanchthon  or  Calvin,  the  issue 
could  not  be  doubtful.  Besides,  the  old  traditional  view  of  the  mys- 
terious power  and  magical  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  had  a  firm  hold 
upon  the  minds  and  hearts  of  German  Christians,  as  it  has  to  this  day. 

Joachim  Westphal,  a  rigid  Lutheran  minister  at  Hamburg,  renewed, 
in  1552,  the  sacramental  war  in  several  tracts  against  the  '  Zurich  Con- 
sensus' (issued  1549),  and  against  Calvin  and  Peter  Martyr;  aiming 
indirectly  against  the  Philippists,  and  treating  all  as  sacramentarians 
and  heretics  who  denied  the  corporeal  presence,  the  oral  manducation, 
and  the  literal  eating  of  Christ's  body  even  by  unbelievers.  He  made 
no  distinction  between  Calvin  and  Zwingli,  spoke  of  their  godless  per- 
version of  the  Scriptures,  and  even  their  satanic  blasphemies.  About 
the  same  time  John  a,  Lasco,  a  Polish  nobleman  and  minister  of  a 
foreign  Reformed  congregation  in  London,  and  one  hundred  and  sev- 
enty-live Protestants,  who  were  driven  from  England  under  the  bloody 

Regiom.1588;  ScHLtfssEtBORG,  Lib.  III. ;  Flanck.VoI.V.II.  1  ;  Galbe,  p.  436 ;  Eisrard: 
Das  Jjor/ma  vom  heil.  A bendmahl,  Vol.  II.  pp.  525-744 ;  Gieseler,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  43i),  454  ; 
Heppe,Vo1.  II.  p.884;  Stahelin:  Cabin, Vol.  II. pp.  112,198;  Schmidt:  Melanchlhon, 
pp.680, 689  ;  (i.  Fbakk,Vo1.  Lpp.  132,  164;  Fr.  II.  11.  Frank, Vol.  III. pp.  1-1G4;  Moncke- 
i'.i.kc:  Joach.  Westphal  undJoh.  Calvin,  1865;  Dorner,  p.  400;  also  Art.  Kryptocahinismus 
in  Herzog,  Vol.  VIII.  p.  122  j  and  the  Prolegomena  to  the  ninth  volume  of  the  new  edition  of 
( Iftlnn'a  "/"  ''"  (in  Corp.  Reform.). 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  281 

Mary  (1553),  sought  and  were  refused  in  cold  winter  a  temporary  ref- 
uge in  Denmark,  Rostock,  Llibcck,  and  Hamburg  (though  they  found 
it  at  last  in  East  Friesland).  Westphal  denounced  them  as  martyrs  of 
the  devil,  enraged  the  people  against  them,  and  gloried  in  this  cruelty 
as  an  act  of  faith.1 

This  intolerance  roused  the  Swiss,  who  had  kept  silence  for  some 
time,  to  a  defense  of  their  doctrine.  Calvin  took  up  his  sharp  and 
racy  pen,  indignantly  rebuking  '  the  no  less  rude  and  barbarous  than 
sacrilegious  insults'  to  persecuted  members  of  Christ,  and  triumphant- 
ly vindicating,  against  misrepresentations  and  objections,  his  doctrine 
of  the  spiritual  real  presence  of  Christ,  and  the  sealing  communication 
of  the  life-giving  virtue  of  his  body  in  heaven  to  the  believer  through 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.2  He  claimed  to  agree  with  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  as  understood  and  explained  by  its  author,  and  ap- 
pealed to  him.  Melanchthon,  for  reasons  of  prudence  and  timidity, 
declined  to  take  an  active  part  in  the  strife  '  on  bread- worship,'  but 
never  concealed  his  essential  agreement  with  him.3  His  enemies  re- 
published his  former  views.  His  followers  were  now  stigmatized  as 
1  Crypto-Calvinists.' 

1  See  Utenhoven's  Simplex  et  Jidelis  narratio,  etc.,Bas.  15G0,  and  the  extracts  from  it  by 
Salig,  Vol.  II.  pp.  1090  sqq.,  and  Ebrard,Vol.  II.  pp.  536  sqq.  Mijnckeberg  attempts  to  apol- 
ogize for  Westphal,  but  without  effect.     Compare  the  remarks  of  Dorner,  p.  401. 

2  'Fatemur,'  he  says  in  his  Fii-st  Defense,  '  Christum,  quod  panis  et  vini  symbolis  figurat, 
vere  prcestare,  ut  animus  nostras  carnis  suee  esu  et  sanguinis  potione  alat.  .  .  .  Hujus  rei  non 
faUarem  oculis  proponi  figuram  dicimus,sed  pignus  nobis  porrigi,  cui  res  ipsa  et  Veritas  con- 
juncta  est:  quod  scilicet  Christi  came  et  sanguine  animce  nostras  pascantur'  (in  the  new  edi- 
tion of  his  Opera,  Vol.  IX.  p.  30).  In  the  Second  Defense :  'Christum  corpore  absentem  doceo 
mhilominus  non  tantum  divina  sua  virtute,  qua?,  ubique  diffusa  est,  nobis  adesse.sed  etiam  facere 
ut  nobis  vicijica  sit  sua  caro  (Vol.  IX.  p.  7G).  .  .  .  Coenam  plus  centies  dici  sacrum  esse  vin- 
culum nostra;  cum  Christo  unitatis  (p.  77).  .  .  .  Spiritus  sui  virtute  Christus  locorum  distan- 
tiatn  sujierat  ad  vitam  nobis  e  sua  came  inspirandam'  (p.  77).  .  .  .  And  in  his  Last  Admoni- 
tion :  ' Hfec  nostra*,  dortr'uur  summa  est,  carnem  Christi  panem  esse  vivijicum,  quia  dum  fide 
in  earn  coalescimus,  vere  animas  nostras  alit  et  pascit.  Hoc  nonnisi  spiritualiter  fieri  docemus, 
quia  hujus  sacra;  unitatis  vinculum  arcana  est  et  incomprehensibilis  Spiritus  Sancti  virtus' 
(Vol.  IX.  p.  162). 

3  He  wrote  to  Calvin,  Oct.  14, 1554  {Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  VIII.  p.  362) :  '  Quod  in  proximis 
Uteris  hortaris,  ut  reprimam  ineruditos  clamores  illorum,  qiri  renovant  certamen  iripi  dproXa- 
rpiiae,  scito,  qtiosdam  prozcipue  odio  mei  earn  disputationem  moverc,  ut  habeant  plausibilem  cau- 
sam  ad  me  opprimendum.'  To  Hardenberg,  in  Bremen,  May  <),  1557  :  '  Crescit,  ut  vides,  non 
inodo  certamen,  sed  etiam  rabies  in  senptoribus,  qui  apToXarpaav  sta/iiliunt.'  And  to  Mord- 
eisen,  Nov.  15,  1557  (Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  IX.  p.  374)  :  'Si  mihi  concedatis,  ut  in  alio  loco  vi- 
vam,res]wndebo  illis  indoctis  sip-nphantis  et  vere  et  graviler,  et  dicam  utilia  ecclest^.'  He 
gave,  however,  his  views  pretty  clearly  and  dispassionately  shortly  before  his  death  in  his  vota 
on  the  Breslau  and  Heidelberg  troubles  (155'J  and  1560). 


282  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  controversy  gradually  spread  over  all  Germany,  and  was  con- 
ducted with  an  incredible  amount  of  bigotry  and  superstition. 

In  Bremen,  John  Timann  fought  for  the  real  presence,  and  insisted 
upon  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body  as  a  settled  dogma  (1555),  while 
Albert  Ilardenberg  opposed  it,  and  was  banished  (1560) ;  but  a  reaction 
took  place  afterwards  in  favor  of  the  Reformed  Confession. 

In  Heidelberg,  Tilemann  Heshusius,1  General  Superintendent  since 
155S,  attacked  the  Melanchthonian  Klebitz  openly  at  the  altar  by  try- 
ing to  wrest  from  him  the  cup.  The  Elector  Frederick  III.  dismissed 
both  (1559),  ordered  the  preparation  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and 
introduced  the  Reformed  Confession  in  the  Palatinate  (1563). 

In  Wiirtemberg  the  ubiquity  doctrine  triumphed  (at  a  synod  in 
Stuttgart,  1559),  chiefly  through  the  influence  of  Brentius,  who  had 
formerly  agreed  with  Melanchthon,  but  now  feared  that '  the  devil  in- 
tended through  Calvinism  to  smuggle  heathenism,  Talmudism,  and 
Mohammedanism  into  the  Church.'2  A  colloquy  at  Maulbronn  (1561) 
between  the  Wiirtemberg  and  the  Palatinate  divines  on  ubiquity  led  to 
no  result. 

Ducal  Saxony,  under  the  lead  of  the  Flacianist  Professors  of  Jena, 
was  violently  arrayed  against  Electoral  Saxony  with  the  Crypto-Cal- 
vinist  faculty  at  Wittenberg.  The  Elector  Augustus,  strongly  preju- 
diced against  Flacianism,  deceived  by  the  Consensus  Dresdensis  (1571), 
and  controlled  by  his  physician,  Caspar  Pencer,  the  active  and  influen- 
tial lay-leader  of  the  Crypto-Calvinists,  unwittingly  maintained  for 
some  time  Calvinism  under  the  disguise  of  sound  Lutheranism.  When 
he  became  Regent  of  the  Thuringian  Principalities  (1573),  he  banished 
Heshusius  and  Wigand  from  Jena,  and  all  the  Flacianists  of  that  dis- 
trict. 

Thus  Philippism  triumphed  in  all  Saxony,  but  it  was  only  for  a 
short  season. 

Elector  Augustus  was  an  enthusiastic  admirer  of  Luther,  and  would 
iint  tolerate  a  drop  of  Calvinistic  blood  in  his  veins.  When  he  found 
out  the  deceptive  policy  of  the  Crypto-Calvinists,  he  suppressed  them 


Hi*  German  name  was  Hesshuscn.  He  was  one  of  the  most  pugnacious  divines  of  his 
age  :  bora  1627  at  Nieder-Wcsel,  died  1588  at  Helmstiidt.  See  Leuckfeld's  biography,  flw- 
toria  Heshuriana  (1716),  and  Ilenke,  in  Herzog,  Vol.  VI.  p.  4!>. 

•  In  his  last  book  against  Bullinger  (15G4).     See  Hartmann,  Brenz,  p.  2">2. 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  283 

by  force,  1574.  *  The  leaders  were  deposed,  imprisoned,  and  exiled, 
among  them  four  theological  Professors  at  Wittenberg.2  Fencer  was 
confined  in  prison  for  twelve  years,  while  his  children  were  wandering 
about  in  misery.3  Thanks  were  offered  in  all  the  churches  of  Saxony 
for  the  triumph  of  genuine  Lutheranism.  A  memorial  coin  exhibits 
the  Elector  with  the  sword  in  one  hand,  and  a  balance  in  the  other: 
one  scale  bearing  the  child  Jesus  ;  the  other,  high  up,  the  four  Witten- 
berg Philippists  with  the  devil,  and  the  title  'reason.' 

After  the  death  of  Augustus  (15S6),  Calvinism  again  raised  its  head 
under  Christian  I.  and  the  lead  of  Chancellor  Nicolas  Crell,  but  after 
another  change  of  ruler  (1591)  it  was  finally  overthrown  :  the  protest- 
ing Professors  in  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig  were  deposed  and  exiled ; 
the  leading  ministers  at  Dresden  (Salmuth  and  Pierius)  were  im- 
prisoned ;  Crell,  who  had  offended  the  nobility,  after  suffering  for  ten 
years  in  prison,  was,  without  an  investigation,  beheaded  as  a  traitor  to 
his  country  (Oct.  9, 1601),  solemnly  protesting  his  innocence,  but  for- 
giving his  enemies.4  Since  that  time  the  name  of  a  Calvinist  became 
more  hateful  in  Saxony  than  that  of  a  Jew  or  a  Mohammedan. 


1  lie  was  undeceived  by  a  new  deception.  The  crisis  was  brought  about  by  the  discovery 
of  a  confidential  correspondence  with  the  Keformed  in  the  Palatinate,  and  especially  by  the 
appearance  in  Leipzig  of  the  anonymous  Exegesis  perspicua  controversies  de  Cwna  Domini, 
1574  (newly  edited  by  Scheft'er,  Marburg,  1853),  which  openly  rejected  the  manducatio  oralis, 
and  defended  Calvin's  view  of  the  eucharist  (though  without  naming  him),  while  the  Con- 
sensus Dresdensis  (1571)  had  concealed  it  under  Lutheran  phraseology.  This  work  was  gen- 
erally attributed  to  Peucer  and  the  "Wittenberg  Professors,  in  spite  of  their  steadfast  denial, 
but  it  was  the  product  of  a  Silesian  physician,  Joachim  Cureus.  See  the  proof  in  Ileppe,  Vol. 
II.  pp.  468  sqq. 

■  Ciuciger,  Moller,  Wiedebram,  and  Pezel  (whom  the  Lutherans  called  Beelzebub)  refused 
to  recant.  The  first  went  to  Hesse,  the  second  to  Hamburg,  the  other  two  to  Nassau.  The 
old  and  weak  Major  yielded  to  the  condemnation  of  Melanchthon's  view.  Several  other 
Wittenberg  Professors  were  likewise  deposed. 

3  Peucer  was  released  in  158G,  at  the  intercession  of  the  beautiful  Princess  Agnes  Iledwig 
of  Anlialt,  and  became  physician  of  the  Prince  of  Dessau,  where  he  died,  1602.  lie  wrote 
the  history  of  his  prison  life,  Historia  carcerum  et  liberations  divina',  ed.  by  Pezel,  Tig. 
1G05.  On  his  theory  of  the  real  presence,  see  Galle,  pp.  4GO  sqq.  He  rejected  the  Lutheran 
view  much  more  strongly  than  his  father-in-law,  Melanchthon,  and  thought  it  had  no  more 
foundation  in  the  Bible  than  the  popish  transubstantiation.  Comp.  Henke:  Cusp.  Peucer 
und  Nic.  Crell,  Marburg.  1 865. 

4  He  was  charged  with  intermeddling  in  matters  of  religion,  and  advising  a  dangerous 
treaty  with  the  Reformed  Henry  IV.  of  France  against  Austria.  The  suit  was  referred  to 
an  Austrian  court  of  appeals  at  Prague,  and  decided  in  the  political  interest  of  Austria  with 
a  violation  of  all  justice.  His  confession  of  guilt  before  his  heavenly  Judge  was  distorted  by 
bis  fanatical  opponents  into  a  confession  of  guilt  before  his  human  judges.  It  is  often  stated 
that  he  was  not  beheaded  for  religion  ('non  ob  religionem,  sed  ob  perjidiam  multiplicem,f  aa 


284  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  spirit  of  the  age  and  the  doctrine  of  con- 
substantiation  that  they  gave  rise  to  all  sorts  of  idle,  curious,  and  un- 
wittingly irreverent  speculations  about  the  possible  effect  of  the  con- 
secrated elements  upon  things  for  which  they  never  were  intended. 
The  schoolmen  of  the  Middle  Ages,  in  the  interest  of  transubstan- 
tiation,  seriously  disputed  the  question  whether  the  eating  of  the  eu- 
charistic  bread  would  kill  or  sanctify  a  mouse,  or  (as  the  wisest 
thought)  have  no  effect  at  all,  since  the  mouse  did  not  receive  it  sac- 
ramentaliter,  but  only  accidentaliter.  Orthodox  Lutherans  of  the 
sixteenth  century  went  even  further.  Brentius  decidedly  favored  the 
opinion  that  the  consecrated  bread,  if  eaten  by  a  mouse,  was  fully  as 
much  the  body  of  Christ  as  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God  in  the  moth- 
er's womb  and  on  the  back  of  an  ass.  The  sacrament,  he  admitted, 
was  not  intended  for  animals,  but  neither  was  it  intended  for  unbe- 
lievers, who  nevertheless  received  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 
An  eccentric  minister  in  Rostock  required  the  communicants  to  be 
shaved  to  prevent  profanation.  Licking  the  blood  of  Christ  from  the 
beard  was  supposed  to  be  punished  with  instant  death  or  a  monstrous 
growth  of  the  beard.  Sarcerius  caused  the  earth  on  which  a  drop  of 
Christ's  blood  fell,  instantly  to  be  dug  up  and  burned.  At  Hildesheim 
it  was  customary  to  cut  off  the  beard  or  the  piece  of  a  garment  which 
was  profaned  by  a  drop  of  wine ;  and  the  Superintendent,  Kongius, 
was  expelled  from  the  city,  simply  because  he  had  taken  up  from  the 
earth  a  wafer  and  given  it  to  a  communicant,  without  first  kneeling 
before  it,  kissing,  and  reconsecrating  it,  as  his  colleagues  thought  he 
should  have  done.  The  Lutherans  in  Ansbach  disputed  about  the 
question  whether  the  body  of  Christ  were  actually  swallowed,  like  other 
food,  and  digested  in  the  stomach.  When  the  Eev.  John  Musculus,  in 
-Frankfort-on-the-Oder,  inadvertently  spilled  a  little  wine  at  the  com- 

Jlutter  says,  Concordia  concors,  pp.  448  and  12."8).  But  his  Calvinism,  or  rather  his  Melanch- 
thonianism  (for  he  never  read  a  line  of  Calvin),  was  the  only  crime  which  could  be  proved 
■gainst  him ;  he  always  acted  under  the  direction  and  command  of  the  Elector,  and  he  had 
accepted  the  chancellorship  with  a  clear  confession  of  his  views,  and  the  assurance  of  his 
Prince  that  lie  should  be  protected  in  it,  and  never  be  troubled  with  subscribing  to  the  'Form 
of  Concord.'  As  judge,  he  was  admitted,  even  by  his  enemies,  to  have  been  impartial  and  just  to 
the  poor  ns  well  as  the  rich.  Com]).  Hassk  :  Ueber  den  CrelVschen  Process,  in  Niedner's  Zeit- 
tehri/t  fur  hist.  Theol  1848,  No.  2;  Voot  in  Herzog,  Vol.  III.  p.  183;  Richard  :  Dr.  Nic. 
Krell,  Dresden,  1858;  (i.  Kkank,  Vol.  I.  pp.296  sqq.  ;  Henke  :  C.  Peucer  und  N.  Crell, 
Marburg,  1865. 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  285 

munion,  he  was  summoned  before  a  Synod,  and  Elector  John  Joachim 
of  Brandenburg  declared  that  deposition,  prison,  and  exile  were  too 
mild  a  punishment  for  such  a  crime,  and  that  the  offender,  who  had 
not  spared  the  blood  of  Christ,  must  suffer  blood}'  punishment,  and 
have  two  or  three  ringers  cut  off.1 

There  was  also  a  considerable  dispute  among  Lutheran  divines  about 
the  precise  time  and  duration  of  the  corporeal  presence.  John  Saliger 
(Beatus)  of  Liibeck  and  his  friend  Fredeland  (followers  of  Flacius,  and 
of  his  doctrine  on  original  sin)  maintained  that  the  bread  becomes 
the  body  of  Christ  immediately  after  the  consecration  and  before  the 
use  {ante  usum),  and  called  those  who  denied  it  sacramentarians ;  while 
they  in  turn  were  charged  with  the  Romish  error  of  transubstantia- 
tion.  Deposed  ■  at  Liibeck,  Saliger  renewed  the  controversy  from 
the  pulpit  at  Bostock  (15G8).  Chytraeus  decided  that  this  was  a  ques- 
tion of  idle  curiosity  rather  than  piety,  and  that  it  was  sufficient  to 
attach  the  blessing  of  the  sacrament  to  the  transaction,  without  time- 
splitting  distinctions  (1569).  The  usual  Lutheran  doctrine  confines 
the  union  of  the  bread  with  the  body  to  the  time  of  the  use,  and  hence 
the  term  consubstantiation  was  rejected,  if  thereby  be  understood  a 
durabilis  inclusio,  or  permanent  conjunction  of  the  sacramental  bread 
and  body  of  Christ.3 

VII.  THE  CIIRISTOLOGICAL   OR  UBIQUITARIAN   CONTROVERSY.3 

The  Lutheran  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  implies  the  ubiquity,  i.  e., 
the  illocal  omnipresence,  or  at  all  events  the  multipresence  of  Christ's 
body.  And  this  again  requires  for  its  support  the  theory  of  the  com- 
municatio  idiomatum,  or  the  communication  of  the  attributes  of  the 
two  natures  of  Christ,  whereby  his  human  nature  becomes  a  partaker 


1  Such  details  are  recorded  by  Salig,  Vol.  III.  p.  4G2  ;  Hartmann  and  Jager  :  Brenz, 
Vol.  II.  p.  371;  Gallk  :  Melanchthon,  p.  449  sq.  ;  Ebrard:  Abendmahl,Yo\.  II.  pp.  592, 
694;  DbOTBBK:  G eschichte'der  Preuss.Politik,  Vol.  II.  p.  261 ;  Sudhof:  Olevianus  tmd  Ur- 
sinus,  p.  239  ;  G.  Frank,  Vol.  I.  p.  1G4. 

•  .1.  Wiggkrs  :  Der  Saliyersche  Abendmahlsstreit,  in  Kiedner's  Zeitschri/t  fur  hist.  Theol. 
1848,  No.  4,  p.  613. 

3  Dorner:  Entwicldungsrjeschichte  der  Lehre  von  der  Person  Chritsti,  2d  ed.  Vol.  II.  pp.  665 
Bqq.i  Hkit-e:  Gesch.  desD.Prot.  Vol.  II.  pp.75  sqq. ;  G.E.Steitz:  Art.  Ubiquitdt, in  Ilerzog's 
Eneykl.Yol  XVI.  pp.  658-616,  with  an  addition  by  Herzog,Vol.  XXI.  p.  383;  Gikseler, 
Vol!  IV.  pp.  452,  4G2  ;  G.  Frank,  Vol.  I.  p.  161 ;  Fr.  II.  R.  Fkank,  Vol.  III.  pp.  1 65-396. 
Connp.  also  the  literature  on  the  eucharistic  controversy,  p.  27'.'. 


286  '-THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  the  omnipresence  of  his  divine  nature.  A  considerable  amount 
of  interesting  speculation  was  spent  on  this  subject  in  the  sixteenth 
century. 

All  Christians  believe  in  the  real  and  abiding  omnipresence  of 
Christ's  divine  nature,  and  of  Christ's  pevson  (which  resides  in  the 
divine  nature  or  the  pre-existing  Logos),  according  to  Matt,  xxviii.  20 ; 
xviii.  20.  But  the  omnipresence  of  his  human  nature  was  no  article 
of  any  creed  before  the  Reformation,  and  was  only  held  by  a  few 
fathers  and  schoolmen  of  questionable  orthodoxy,  as  a  speculative 
opinion.1  The  prevailing  doctrine  was  that  Christ's  glorified  body, 
though  no  more  grossly  material  and  sensuous,  and  not  exactly  de- 
finable in  its  nature,  was  still  a  body,  seated  on  a  throne  of  majesty  in 
heaven,  to  which  it  visibly  ascended,  and  from  which  it  will  in  like 
manner  return  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.  This  was  the  view 
even  of  Gregory  Nazianzen  and  John  of  Damascus,  who  otherwise 
approach  very  nearly  the  Lutheran  dogma  of  the  communicatio  idio- 
matum  (the  genus  majestatieum).  The  mediaeval  scholastics  ascribed 
omnipresence  only  to  the  divine  nature  and  the  person  of  Christ,  uni- 
presence  to  his  human  nature  in  heaven,  multipresence  to  his  body  in 
the  sacrament ;  but  they  derived  the  eucharistic  multipresence  from 
the  miracle  of  transubstantiation,  and  not  from  an  inherent  specific 
quality  of  the  body.  Even  William  Occam  (who  was  inclined  to  eon- 
substantiation  rather  than  transubstantiation,  and  had  considerable  in- 
fluence upon  Luther)  ventured  only  upon  the  paradox  of  the  hypothet- 
ical possibility  of  an  absolute  ubiquity. 

Luther  first  clearly  taught  the  absolute  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body,  as 
a  dogmatic  support  of  the  real  presence  in  the  eucharist.2     He  based 

1  Oiigen  first  taught  the  ubiquity  of  the  body  of  Christ,  in  connection  with  his  docetistic 
idealism,  but  without  any  regard  to  the  eucharist,  and  was  followed  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
Orat.  lo,  and  Adv.  Apollinar.  c.  50).  They  held  that  Christ's  body  after  the  resurrection  was 
bo  spiritualized  and  deified  as  to  lay  aside  all  limitations  of  nature,  and  to  be  in  all  parts  Of 
the  world  as  well  as  in  heaven.  See  Gieseler's  Commentatio  qua  dementis  Alex,  ct  Origenis 
doctrines  de  eor/>ore  Christi  exponuntur,  Gott.  1837,  and  Neander's  Dogmengcschichtc,  Vol.  I. 
pp.  217,  384.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  held  a  similar  view  (Christ's  body  is  'every  where,'  irav- 
raxov),  bat  in  connection  with  an  almost  monophysitic  Christology.  Scotus  Erigena  revived 
Origan's  ubiquity,  gave  it  a  pantheistic  turn,  and  made  it  subservient  to  his  view  of  the  cu- 
chariBtic  presence,  which  he  regarded  merely  as  a  symbol  of  the  every  where  present  Christ. 
Neander,  Vol  II.  p.  43. 

:  On  Luther's  Christology  and  ubiquity  doctrine,  see  IIeite  (Rcf.):  Dogmatik.desD.  Prot- 
est, i'm  Wten.Tahrh.Vol  II.  pp.98 sqq., and KBstlin (Luth.):  Luther sTheol. Vol. II. pp.  118, 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  287 

it  exegetically  on  Eph.  i.  23  ('  which  is  his  body,  the  fullness  of  him 
that  filleth  all  in  all')  and  John  iii.  13  ('the  Son  of  man  who  is  in 
heaven'),  and  derived  it  directly  from  the  personal  union  of  the  di- 
vine and  human  natures  in  Christ  (not,  as  his  followers,  from  the 
communication  of  the  attributes).  He  adopted  the  scholastic  distinc- 
tion of  three  kinds  of  presence:  1.  Local  or  circumscriptive  (material 
and  confined — as  water  is  in  the  cup) ;  2.  Definitive  (local,  without  lo- 
cal inclusion  or  measurable  quantity — as  the  soul  is  in  the  body,  Christ's 
body  in  the  bread,  or  when  it  passed  through  the  closed  door) ;  3.  Ile- 
jpletive  (supernatural,  divine  omnipresence).  lie  ascribed  all  these  to 
Christ  as  man,  so  that  in  one  and  the  same  moment,  when  he  instituted 
the  holy  communion,  he  was  circumscriptive  at  the  table,  definitive  in 
the  bread  and  wine,  and  repletive  in  heaven,  i.  e.,  every  where.1  Where 
God  is,  there  is  Christ's  humanity,  and  where  Christ's  humanity  is,  there 
is  inseparably  joined  to  it  the  whole  Deity.  In  connection  with  this, 
Luther  consistently  denied  the  literal  meaning  of  Christ's  ascension  to 
heaven,  and  understood  the  right  hand  of  God,  at  which  he  sits,  to 
be  only  a  figurative  term  for  the  omnipresent  power  of  God  (Matt, 
xxviii.  IS).2  Here  he  resorted  to  a  mode  of  interpretation  which  he  so 
strongly  condemned  in  Zwingli  when  applied  to  the  word  is. 

153,  1G7,  172,512.  Kdstlin,  without  adopting  Luther's  views  of  ubiquity,  finds  in  them 
tgrossartige,  tiefe,  geist-  und  kbensvolle  Anschauungen  vom  gSttlichen  Sein  vnd  Leben'  (Vol. 
II.  p.  151). 

1  In  his  Grosse  Belcenntniss  vomAbendmahl,  published  1528  (in  Watch's  ed.  Vol.  XX. ;  in  the 
Erlangen  ed. Vol.  XXX.),  he  says:  ''Kami  Christus'  Leib  ilber  Tisch  sitzen  vnd  dennoch  im 
Brot  sein,  so  kann  er  auch  im  Himmel  vnd  wo  er  will  sein  und  dennoch  im  Brot  sein;  es  ist 
Li  in  Untenanted  fern  oder  nah  bei  dem  Tische  sein,  dazu  dass  er  zugleich  im  Brot  sei.  .  .  .  Es 
sollte  mir  ein  schlechter  Christus  b/eiben,  der  nicht  mehr,  denn  an  einem  einzelnen  Orte  zugleich 
tine  gdtlliche  und  menschliche  Person  ware,  und  an  alien  anderen  Orten  musste  er  all*  in  (in 
blosser  abgesonderter  Gott  und  gdttliche  Person  sein  ohne  Menschseit.  Nein,  Geselle,  wo  du 
mir  Gott  hinsetzest,  da  must  du  7iiir  die  Menschheit  mil  hinsetzen.  Die  lassen  sich  nicht  sondem 
und  von  einander  trennen;  es  ist  Bine  Person  worden  tind  srheidet  die  3lcii.se/tsti/  nicht  so 
von  sich,  wie  Meister  Hans  seincn  Rock  avszieht  und  von  sich  leg/,  wenn  er  schlafen  geht. 
Denn,  dass  ich  den  Einfaltigen  ein  grob  Gleic.hniss  gebe,  die  Mensehheit  ist  naher  vereinigt  7>tit 
Gott,  denn  unsere  Haut  mi/  unserm  Fleische,ja  naher  denn  Leib  und  Seele.' 

=  lie  ridicules  the  popular  conception  of  heaven  and  the  throne  of  God  as  childish :  'Die 
"Rechte  fiattes,'  he  says,  1.  c. , '  ist  nicht  ein  sonderlicher  Ort,  da  ein  Leib  solle  odcr  miige  sein,  nicht 
i  in  Gaukelhimmel,  wie  man  ihn  den  Kindern  pflegt  vorzubilden,  darin  ein  gulden  Stuhlstehe  und 
Christus  neben  dem  Voter  sitze  in  einer  Chorkappen  und  gulden  Krone.  .  .  .  Die  Rechte  Gottes 
ist  an  alien  Enden,  so  ist  sie  gewisslich  auch  im  Brot  und  Wein  ilber  Tische.  .  .  .  Wo  nun  die 
Rechte  Gottes  ist,  da  muss  Christi  Leib  und  P>hil  auch  sein ;  denn  die  Rechte  G'ottes  ist  nicht  zu 
theilen  in  viele  Stiicke,  sondem  ein  einiges  einfaltigen  Wesen.'  If  this  prove  any  thing,  it 
proves  the  absolute  omnipresence  of  Christ's  body.     And  so  Brentius  taught. 


288  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

It  is  very  plain  that  such  an  absolute  omnipresence  of  the  body 
proves  much  more  than  Luther  intended  or  needed  for  his  eucharistic 
theory ;  hence  he  made  no  further  use  of  it  in  his  later  writings,  and 
rested  the  real  presence  at  last,  as  he  did  at  first,  exclusively  on  the 
literal  (or  rather  synecdochieal)  interpretation  of  the  words, '  This  is  my 
body.'  His  earlier  Christology  was  much  more  natural,  and  left  room 
for  a  real  development  of  Christ's  humanity. 

Melanchthon,  in  his  later  period,  decidedly  opposed  the  ubiquity 
of  Christ's  body,  and  the  introduction  of  'scholastic  disputations'  on 
this  subject  into  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist.  He  wished  to  know 
only  of  a  personal  presence  of  Christ,  which  does  not  necessarily  in- 
volve bodily  presence.1  He  also  rejected  the  theory  of  the  commimi- 
catio  idiomatum  in  a  real  or  physical  sense,  because  it  leads  to  a  con- 
fusion of  natures,  and  admitted  with  Calvin  only  a  dialectic  or  verbal 
communication.2  Luther's  Christology  leaned  to  the  Entychian  con- 
fusion, Melanchthon's  to  the  Nestorian  separation  of  the  two  natures. 

The  renewal  of  the  eucharistic  controversy  by  Westphal  led  to  a 
fuller  discussion  of  ubiquity.  The  orthodox  Lutherans  insisted  upon 
ubiquity  as  a  necessary  result  of  the  real  communication  of  the  prop- 
erties of  the  two  natures  in  Christ ;  while  the  Philippists  and  Calvin- 
ists  rejected  it  as  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  a  body,  with  the  real- 
ness  of  Christ's  ascension,  and  with  the  general  principle  that  the  infi- 
nite can  not  be  comprehended  or  shut  up  in  the  finite.3 

Tun  Colloquy  at  Maulbkonn. — These  conflicting  Christologies  met 
face  to  face  at  a  Colloquy  in  the  cloister  of  Maulbronn,  in  the  Duchy 
of  Wurtemberg,  April  10-15, 1564.4     It  was  arranged  by  Duke  Chris- 


1  De  inhahitatione  Dei  in  Sanctis  ad  Osiandrum,  1551  (Consil.  Lat.  Vol.  II.  p.  156):  '  Tota 
antiquitas  declarans  hanc  proj>ositionem :  Christus  est  ubique,  sic  declaral:  C/tristus  est  ubique 
PBEBONAL1TEB.  Et  verissimum  est,  Filiuvi  Dei,  Deum  et  hominem  habitarc  in  Sanctis.  Sed 
antiquitas  hanc  propositionem  rejicit:  Christus  cori-oraliter  est  ubique.  Qiria  nattira  quat- 
libet  retinet  sua  iSuopara.  Uncle  Augustinus  et  alii  dicunt :  Christi  corpus  est  in  certo  loco. 
.  .  .  Cavendum  est,  ne  ita  astruamus  divinitatem  hominis  Christi,  ut  veritatem  corporis  anfera- 
tinis.'  Iii  a  new  edition  of  his  lectures  on  the  Colossians  (lf>5G  and  1559),  he  maintains  the 
literal  meaning  of  the  ascension  of  Christ,  'i.e.,  in  locum  cmlcstcm.  .  .  .  Ascensiofuit  visibilis 
et  corporalis,  et  s<rpc  ita  scripsit  tota  antiquitas,  Christum  corporali  locatione  in  aliquo  loco  esse, 
ubtcunque  mlt.  Corpus  localiter  alicubi  est  secundum  verum  corporis  modum,  ut  Augustinus 
inquit.'     Bee  Galle,  p.  448. 

n  hia  Christology  chiefly  Heppe,Vol.  II.  pp.  9'.)  sqq. 

J  lFinitum  non  capax  est  infinitV 

*  Both  parties  published  an  account— the  Lutherans  at  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  the  Re- 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  o»9 

topher  of  Wiirtemberg  and  Elector  Frederick  III.  of  the  Palatinate. 
Olevianus,  Ursinus  (the  authors  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism),  and 
Boquin  defended  the  Reformed,  the  Swabian  divines,  Andrea?,  Brenz, 
Schnepf,  Bidenbach,  and  Lucas  Osiander  the  Lutheran  view.  Five 
days  Mere  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of  ubiquity,  and 
one  day  to  the  interpretation  of  the  words, '  This  is  my  body.'  The 
Lutherans  regarded  ubiquity  as  the  main  pillar  of  their  view  of  the 
eucharistic  presence.  Andreae  proposed  three  points  for  the  debate — 
the  incarnation,  the  ascension,  and  the  right  hand  of  God. 

The  Lutheran  reasoning  was  chiefly  dogmatic  :  The  incarnation  is 
the  assumption  of  humanity  into  the  possession  of  the  divine  fullness 
with  all  its  attributes,  and  the  right  hand  of  God  means  his  almighty 
and  omnipresent  power ;  from  these  premises  the  absolute  ubiquity  of 
Christ's  body  necessarily  follows.1 

The  Reformed  based  their  argument  chiefly  on  those  Scripture  pas- 
sages which  imply  Christ's  presence  in  a  particular  place,  and  his  ab- 
sence from  other  places,  as  when  he  says, '  I  leave  the  world ;'  '  I  go  to 
prepare  a  place  for  you.  ...  I  will  come  again ;'  '  I  have  not  yet  as- 
cended to  my  Father;'  or  when  the  angels  say,  'He  is  not  here," Jesus 
is  taken  up  from  you  into  heaven,'  etc.  (John  xiv.  2-4,  2S ;  xvi.  3, 7, 16; 
xx.  17;  Acts  i.  11;  iii.  21).2  They  urged  the  difference  between  the 
divine  and  human,  and  between  the  state  of  humiliation  and  the  state 
of  exaltation.  In  the  appeal  to  the  fathers  and  the  Creed  of  Chalcedon 
they  had  also  decidedly  the  advantage.  Nevertheless,  the  Colloquy 
had  no  other  effect  than  to  confirm  the  two  parties  in  their  opinions.3 


formed  at  Heidelberg.  The  latter  is  more  full,  and  bears  the  title:  Protorollum,  h.  e.Acta 
Colloquii  inter  Palatinos  et  Wirtebergicos  Theologos  de  Ubiquitate  sive  Omniprcesentia  corpo- 
ris Christi.  .  . .  A.  1504  Maulbrunni  habiti  (Heidelb.1566).  See  a  full  resume  of  the  Colloquy 
in  Ebrabo  :  Abendmahl,  Vol.  II.  pp.  GGG-G85 ;  Sudhoff  :  Olevian  und  Ursin,  pp.  2G0-290;  in 
IIaktmann:  Job.  Brenz,  pp.  258-256,  and  in  the  larger  work  of  IIaktmann  and  Jager  on 
Brenz,  1840-42,  Vol.  II. 

1  Andreas  asserted  that  Christ's  body,  when  in  Mary's  womb,  was  omnipresent  as  to  pos- 
session (/>ossessione),  though  not  as  to  manifestation  (non patefactione).  Sudhoff,  p.  27'J.  This 
is  the  Tubingen  doctrine  of  the  Kpvxptc.     See  below. 

2  The  same  Lutherans,  who  so  strenuously  insisted  on  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  tori, 
outdid  the  Reformed  in  the  figurative  interpretation  of  all  tbese  passages,  and  explained  the 
ascension  and  heaven  itself  out  of  the  Bible. 

3  Ebrard  says  (Vol.11,  p. 685):  lSo  endete  das  ifaulbronner  Gespr&ch  mit  eincr  vollstandi- 
gen  Niederlage  der  Lul/ieraner.'  Sudhoff  (p.  290) :  '/-*.■>•  kunn  von  niemandem  in  Abrede 
gestellt  werden,  dass  die  Pfiilzer  ah  Sieger  uus  diesem  Streite  hcrvorgegangen,'  and  he  pub- 


290  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  Consensus  Dbesdensis. — The  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig  Profess- 
ors and  other  Philippists  in  Saxony  openly  rejected  ubiquity  in  the 
Consensus  Dresdensis  (October,  1571),  which  satisfied  even  the  Elector 
Augustus.  This  document  teaches  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
was  after  the  resurrection  glorified  and  transfigured,  but  not  deified, 
ami  still  remains  human  nature  with  its  essential  properties,  flesh  of 
our  flesh ;  that  the  ascension  of  Christ  must  be  understood  literally,  and 
not  as  a  mere  spectacle ;  that  Christ's  sitting  at  the  right  hand  means 
the  elevation  of  both  natures  to  the  priestly  and  kingly  office ;  that  the 
sacramental  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  must  be  something  special 
and  altogether  distinct  from  omnipresence.1 

Absolute  and  Relative  Ubiquity.  Brenz  and  Chemnitz. — -There 
was  a  very  material  difference  among  the  advocates  of  ubiquity  them- 
selves as  to  its  nature  and  extent,  viz. :  whether  it  were  absolute,  or  rela- 
tive, that  is  to  say,  an  omnipresence  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  or 
merely  a  m?^'presence  depending  on  the  will  of  Christ  (hence  also 
called  volijprcEsentia,  or,  by  combination,  multivoliprcesentia).  The 
Swabians,  under  the  lead  of  Brenz  and  Andreae,  held  the  former ;  the 
Saxon  divines,  under  the  lead  of  Chemnitz,  the  latter  view. 

John  Brenz,  or  Brentius  (1499-1570),  the  Reformer  of  the  Duchy 
of  Wiirtemberg,  and  after  Melanchthon's  death  the  most  prominent 
German  divine,  developed,  since  1559,  with  considerable  speculative 
talent,  a  peculiar  Christology.2     It  rests  on  the  Chalcedonian  distinc- 

lishes  several  manuscript  letters  giving  the  impressions  of  the  Colloquy  on  those  present. 
The  Swabians  returned  discontented,  but  without  change  of  conviction.  Dorner,  although 
a  Lutheran,  and  a  Swabian  by  descent,  gives  the  Reformed  Christology  in  many  respects  the 
preference  before  the  Lutheran,  and  says  (Vol.  II.  p.  724):  lEs  ist  unbestreitbar,  dass  die  re- 
formirte  christologische  Literatur,  die  um  die  Zeit  der  Concordienformel  ihren  Bliithcpunkt 
erreicht,  durch  deist,  Scharfsinn,  Gelehrsamheit  und  philosophische  Bildung  der  lutherischen 
Theologie  volllcommen  ebenburtig,ja  in  manchen  Beziehungen  iiberlegen  ist.'  He  then  gives  a 
line-  analysis  of  tiie  Christology  of  Beza,  Danacus,  Sadeel,  and  Ursinus. 

1  Hee  Gieseler,  Vol.  IV.  p.  466  sq. 

s  In  a  series  of  tracts  :  De  personali  unione  duarum  naturarum  in  C/iristo,  1561  (written  in 
15G0);  Sententia  de  libello  Bullingeri,  1561  ;  De  Divina  majestate  Domini  nostri  J.  Christi 
ad  d,  ,  t,  ram  I'atris  ct  de  vera  prcesentia  vorjmris  ct  sanguinis  ejus  in  cozna,  1 502 ;  and  Recogni- 
ta prophetical  et  apost.  doctrince  de  vera  Majestate  Dei,  1564.  In  Brentii  Ojicra,  1500,  T. 
VIII.  pp.  881-1108.  Against  Brenz  wrote  BcLLINGER:  Tractatio  verborum  Domini  Jolt. 
A  I\  .  2,  Tiguri,  1561  ;  Responsio,  qua  ostenditur,  sententiam  de  ccelo  et  dcxtera  Dei  Jirmitcr 
adhuc  perstare,  L562;  also  Peter  Martyr  and  Beza.  The  Roman  Catholics  sided  with  the 
Reformed  againsl  the  Lutheran  ubiquity.  On  the  Christology  of  Brenz,  comp.  Doknkk  :  Entw. 
Geachichte  der  Christologxe,  VoL  II.  pp.  668  sqq. ;  Ebkakd:  Abendmahl, Yo\.  II.  pp. GIG  sqq. 
(Brenz  und  die  UbiquitSt)  ;  and  STEIT2  in  Berzog,  Vol.  XVI.  pp.  584  sqq. 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  091 

tion  between  two  natures  and  one  person,  but  implies  at  the  same 
time,  as  he  felt  himself,  a  considerable  departure  from  it,  since  he  car- 
ried the  theanthropic  perfection  of  the  exalted  Saviour  to  the  very  be- 
ginning of  his  earthly  life,  lie  took  up  Luther's  idea  of  ubiquity,  and 
developed  it  to  its  legitimate  consequences  in  the  interest  of  the  eucha- 
ristic  presence.  According  to  his  system,  the  incarnation  is  not  only  a 
condescension  of  the  eternal  Logos  to  a  personal  union  with  human 
nature,  but  at  the  same  time  a  deification  of  human  nature,  or  an  infu- 
sion of  the  divine  substance  and  fullness  into  the  humanity  of  Christ  at 
the  first  moment  of  its  existence.  Consequently  the  man  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was  omnipotent,  omniscient,  and  omnipresent  in  the  Virgin's 
womb,  in  the  manger,  and  on  the  cross,  as  well  as  he  is  now  in  the  state 
of  glory.1  The  only  difference  is,  that  these  divine  attributes  were  con- 
cealed during  his  earthly  life,  and  were  publicly  revealed  to  his  dis- 
ciples at  the  ascension  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  i.  e.,  to  the  omnipotent 
and  omnipresent  power  of  God.2  The  states  of  humiliation  and  ex- 
altation are  not  successive  states,  but  co-existed  during  the  earthly  life 
of  Christ.  "While  Christ's  humanity  was  poor,  weak,  suffering,  and 
dying  on  earth,  it  was  simultaneously  almighty  and  omnipresent  in 
heaven.  He  ascended  in  his  humanity  invisibly  to  heaven  even  at 
his  incarnation,  and  remained  there  (John  iii.  13).  The  visible  ascen- 
sion from  Mount  Olivet  would  have  been  impossible  without  the  pre- 
ceding invisible  exaltation.  Heaven  is  no  particular  place,  but  a  state 
of  entire  freedom  from  space,  or  absolute  existence  in  God.  Space 
and  time,  with  their  limitations,  belong  only  to  the  earthly  mode  of  ex- 
istence. Wherever  the  divinity  is,  there  is  also  Christ's  humanity,3  i.  e., 
every  where ;  not,  indeed,  in  the  way  of  local  extension  and  diffusion, 
but  in  a  celestial,  supernatural  manner,  by  virtue  of  the  hypostatic 
union  and  the  real  communication  of  the  properties  of  the  divine  nat- 
ure to  the  human. 

This  is  the  most  consistent,  though  also  the  most  objectionable  form 


1  l Majestatem  divinam  tempore  carnis  sum  in  hoc  seculo  dissimu/arit  seu  ea  scse  (ut  Paulus 
loquitur)  exinanivit,  tamen  numquam  ea  caruit.  .  .  .  Texit  et  obduxit  mam  majestatem  forma 
servi.' 

2  iEum  tunc  manifesto  spectaculo  voluisse  testifcari  et  declarare,  se  verum  Deum  et  homi- 
nem,  hoc  est,  una  cum  divinitate  et  humanitate  sua  jam  hide  ab  initio  sum  incamationis  omnia 
implevisse. ' 

3  '  Ubicunque  est  Deitas,  ibi  etium  est  humanilas  C/iristi.' 


292  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  the  ubiquity  dogma.  It  virtually  resolves  the  earthly  life  of  Christ 
into  a  Gnostic  delusion,  or  establishes  a  double  humanity  of  Christ — 
one  visible  aud  real,  and  the  other  invisible  and  fantastic.1 

Martin  Chemnitz  (1522-1586),  the  chief  author  of  the  'Formula  of 
Concord,'  next  to  Andreas,  less  original  and  speculative  than  Brenz,  but 
superior  in  patristic  learning  and  sound  judgment,  elaborated  a  Chris- 
tology  which  mediates  between  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  and  taught  only 
a  relative  or  restricted  ubiquity,  i.  e.,  a  multipresence,  which  depends 
upon  the  will  of  Christ.2  lie  was  followed  by  Selnecker,  Chy trseus,  and 
most  of  the  Saxon  divines.  He  opposes  the  Swabian  doctrine  of  a 
physical,  natural  communication  and  transfusion  of  idiomata,  and  of 
the  capacity  of  the  finite  for  the  infinite,  except  in  the  sense  that  God 
may  dwell  and  reveal  himself  in  man.  He  calls  the  absolute  ubiquity 
a  monstrosity  (monstrum,  portentum),  as  Selnecker  called  it  a  Satanic 
fiction  (Jigmentum  Satance).  Christ  is  an  incarnate  God,  not  a  deified 
man.  But  the  Logos  may  temporarily  communicate  a  divine  attribute 
to  the  human  nature  in  a  supernatural  manner  as  a  donum  sujperad- 
ditum,  without  thereby  setting  aside  the  abiding  limitations  of  human- 
ity; just  as  fire  may  give  heat  and  brightness  to  iron  without  turning 
the  iron  into  fire.  Chemnitz  agrees  with  the  Reformed,  as  he  express- 
ly says,  in  adopting  the  'simple,  literal,  and  natural  signification'  of 
the  ascension  of  Christ  as  related  by  the  Evangelists,  i.  e.,  that '  he  was, 
by  a  visible  motion,  lifted  up  on  high  in  a  circumscribed  form  and  lo- 
cation of  the  body,  and  departed  further  and  farther  from  the  presence 
of  the  Apostles,'  and  is,  consequently,  in  this  sense  withdrawn  from  us 
who  are  on  earth,  until  he  shall  in  like  manner  '  descend  from  heaven 
in  glory  in  a  visible  and  circumscribed  form.'     Even  in  glory  Christ's 

1  Brenz  was  followed  by  Jacob  Andrea;,  Schegck,  and  the  Swabians  generally,  who  have 
shown  a  good  deal  of  speculative  genius  (down  to  Schelling,  Hegel,  and  Baur),  and  also  by  a 
few  divines  of  North  Germany,  as  Andreas  Musculus,  John  Wigand,  and  for  a  time  by  Heshu- 
sius,  who  afterwards  opposed  absolute  ubiquity.  Leonhard  Hutter  and  JEgidius  Hunnius,  who 
were  Swabians  by  birth,  likewise  took  substantially  the  Swabian  view,  though  more  for  the  pur- 
pose of  maintaining  the  authority  of  the  '  Formula  of  Concord.'  See  Dorner,  Vol.  II.  p.  775. 
In  his  important  work  :  De  duabus  naturis  in  C'firisto,  de  hypostatica  carum  unione,  de 
communiedtione  idiomatum  et  aliis  qucestionibus  inde  dependentitms,  Jct\xs,W7Q,  ami  often  re- 
printed. ( !omp.  Steitz,  1.  c.  pp.  592-597;  and  Dorner,  Vol.  II.  pp.  G95  sqq.  Heppe  says 
{Dogm,  Vol.  II.  p.  131):  lUer  Gegensatz  der  mclanchthonischcn  und  der  u-urtembergisch- 
•  n  <  'hristohgie  ist  sonnenklar.  Jcne  erbaut  sick  aufdem  Gedanken,  dass  Golf  wirk- 
Ucher  Menach  geworden  is/,  wd/irend  diese  sich  urn  den  Gedanken  lagert,  dass  ein  ftfensch  Gott 
geworden  ist.' 


§  i:>.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1STT.  293 

body  is  finite  and  somewhere  (alicubi).  Nevertheless,  while  seated  at 
the  right  hand  of  God,  he  may  be  present  where  he  chooses  to  be,  and 
he  is  present  where  his  Word  expressly  indicates  such  presence ;  as  in 
the  eucharist  (according  to  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  words  of 
institution),  or  when  he  appeared  to  dying  Stephen,  or  to  Paul  on  the 
way  to  Damascus.1 

Chemnitz  escaped  sonic  difficulties  of  the  Swabian  theory,  but  by 
endeavoring  to  mediate  between  it  and  the  Melanchthonian  and  Swiss 
theory,  he  incurred  the  objections  to  both.  Christ's  glorified  body  is 
indeed  not  confined  to  any  locality,  and  may  be  conceived  to  move 
with  lightning  speed  from  place  to  place,  but  its  simultaneous  pres- 
ence in  many  places,  wherever  the  eucharist  is  celebrated,  involves  the 
chief  difficulty  of  an  omnipresence,  and  is  just  as  inconsistent  with  the 
nature  of  a  body. 

Of  subordinate  interest  was  the  incidental  question,  disputed  mainly 
between  Wigand  and  Ileshusius,  whether  the  flesh  of  Christ  were  al- 
mighty and  adorable  only  in  concrete?,  or  also  in  abstracto  {extra  j)er- 
sonani).  Chemnitz  declared  this  to  be  a  mere  logomachy,  and  advised 
the  combatants  to  stop  it,  but  in  vain. 

The  first  creed  which  adopted  the  ubiquity  dogma  was  the  Wiir- 
temberg  Confession  drawn  up  by  Brenz,  and  adopted  by  a  Synod  at 
Stuttgart,  Dec.  19, 1559.2 

The  Formula  Concordia?  on  this  subject  is  a  compromise  between 
the  Swabian  absolute  ubiquitarianism  represented  by  Andrea?  and  ex- 
pressed in  the  Ejntomc,  and  the  Saxon  hypothetical  ubiquitarianism 
represented  by  Chemnitz  and  expressed  in  the  Sollda  Dedaratlo.  The 
compromise  satisfied  neither  party.  The  Helmstlidt  divines — Tilemaim 
Ileshusius,  Daniel  Hoffmann,  and  Basilius  Sattler — who  had  signed 

1  ' Prcesentia  h<vc  assumtic  nalurcr  in  Clirista  non  est  naturalis,  vel  essentialis,sed  voluntaria 
et  Uberrima,  dependens  a  voluntate  et  potcntia  F'dii  Dei,  h.  e.  ubi  se  humivui  natura  adesse  velle 
certo  verbo  tradidit,  promisit  et  asseveravit.' 

2  Confessio  et  doctrina  t/ieohgorum  in  Ducatu  Wurtembergensi  de  vera  prrrsentia  corporis 
et  sanguinis  J.  Chr.  in  Ciena  dominica.  Here  the  absolute  ubiquity  is  taught,  not,  indeed, 
in  the  way  of  a  ldiffusio  humana  7iatur(e'  or  idistractio  membrontm  Christi,'  hut  so  that 
'homo  Christus  quoque  implet  omnia  viodo  ccelesti  et.  humaiur,  natura'  imperscrutabili.' 
See  the  German  in  Heppe  :  iJic  Entttekung  tmd  Fortbildung  des  Lutherthums  und  die  kirc/d. 
Bekenntniss-Schriften  dessc/ben,  p.  G3.  Melanchthon  concealed  his  grief  over  this  ehange  of 
Brenz  beneath  a  facetious  remark  to  a  friend  on  the  poor  Latinity  of  this  confession  ('Hechin- 
gense  Latimnn  :'  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  IX.  p.  103G  ;  comp.  Gieselcr,  Vol.  IV.  p.  454  ;  J.  Hart- 
mann  :  Joh.  Brenz,  p.  249). 


294  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  written  Formula  in  1577,  refused  to  sign  the  printed  copy  in  1580, 
because  it  contained  unauthorized  concessions  to  the  Swabian  view.  A 
colloquy  was  held  in  Quedlinburg,  1583,  at  which  the  ubiquity  question 
was  discussed  for  several  days  without  result.1  Chemnitz  was  in  a 
difficult  position,  as  he  nearly  agreed  with  the  Helmstadtians,  and  con- 
ceded that  certain  expressions  had  been  wrested  from  him,  but  he 
signed  the  Formula  for  the  sake  of  peace,  with  the  reservation  that  he 
understood  it  in  the  sense  of  a  hypothetical  or  limited  ubiquity. 

The  Giessen  and  Tubingen  Conteoveesy  about  the  Kenosis  and 
Krypsis.2 — The  ubiquity  question  was  revived  under  a  new  shape,  on 
the  common  basis  of  the  'Formula  of  Concord'  and  the  dogma  of  the 
communicatio  idiomatum,  in  the  controversy  between  the  Kenoticism 
of  the  theologians  of  Giessen,  which  followed  in  the  track  of  Chem- 
nitz, and  the  Krypticism  of  the  theologians  of  Tubingen,  which  was 
based  upon  the  theory  of  Brenz  and  Andrese.  The  controversy  forms 
the  last  phase  in  the  development  of  the  orthodox  Lutheran  Christology ; 
it  continued  from  1616-1625,  and  was  lost  in  the  Thirty- Years'  War. 

Both  parties  agreed  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  from  the  mo- 
ment of  the  incarnation,  even  in  the  mother's  womb  and  on  the  cross, 
was  in  full  j>ossessio?i  (Krf/crtc)  of  the  divine  attributes  of  omnipresence, 
omnipotence,  omniscience,  etc. ;  but  they  differed  as  to  their  use  (xpij- 
<7<c)-  The  Giessen  divines — Balthazar  Mentzer  (d.  1627),  his  son-in- 
law,  Justus  Feuerborn  (d.  1656),  and  John  Winckelmann — taught  a 
real  self-renunciation  (KEi/wo-tc,  evacuatio,  exinanitio),3  i.  e.,  that  Christ 


1  Heshusius  wrote  concerning  this  Colloquy :  '  Constanter  rejicio  uhiquilatem.  Chem- 
nitzius,Kirchnerus,Chytrwus  antea  rejecerunt  earn:  nunc  in  gratiam  Tubingensium  cum  magna 
ccclesue  scandalo  ejus  patrocinium  suscijiiunt,  ij>sorum  igitur  constant ia  ]>otius  accusanda  est." 
Comp.  Ada  disput.  Quedlinb.;  Dorner,Vol.  II.  p.  773;  Heppe,Vol.  IV.  p.  316  ;  and  G.  Frank, 
Vol.  I.  p.  259  (Helmstadt  und  die  Ubiquitat). 

2  The  Saxon  Solida  decisio,  1G24,  and  an  Apologia  decisionis,  1G25 ;  Feuerborn:  Scia- 
graphia  de  div.Jes.  Christo  juxta  humanit.  communicatee  majeslatis  usurpatione,  1G21 ;  Ktvw- 
oiypcHpia  xpurroXoyidj, Marburg,  1G27;  Mentzer:  Juxta  defensio  against  the  Tubingen  di- 
vines, (ii.->.  1624;  Thummids:  Majestas  J.  Christi  SiavSpwnov,  Tub.  1021;  Acta  Mentze- 
i  until,  1625;  Tcnriunoaiypatyia  sacra,  h.  e.  Repelitio  sanee  et  orlhod.  doctrince  de  humiliatione 
dr.su  ( 'hrisli,  Tiili.  1 623  (900  pp.  4to).  On  the  Romish  side :  Bellum  ubiquisticum  vetus  et  novum, 
Dilling.  1G27;  Alter  undneuer  lutherischer  Katzenkrieg  v.d.  Ubiquitat,  Ingolst.  1G29;  Cotta: 
Hittoria  doctrince  de  duplici  statu  Christi  (in  his  edition  of  Gerhard's  Loci  theologici, Y  o\.l\ . 
pp.  60sqq.);  Wai.ch:  Religionsstreitigkeiten,  Vbl.I.p.206;  Vol.  IV.  p.  551 ;  Baur:  Gesch. 
der  />.  v.  ■/.  Dreieinigkeit,V6l.  III.  p.  4f>0;  Thomasius:  Christi  Person  und  ]Verk,Vol.  II. 
pp.891    150;   Dornbr,  Vol.  II.  pp.  788-809;  G.  Frank,  Vol.  I.  p.33G. 

'  HeilCG  they  were  called  Kenotiker,  Kenoticists. 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  995 

voluntarily  laid  aside  the  actual  use  of  the  divine  attributes  and  func- 
tions, except  in  the  working  of  miracles ;  while  the  Tubingen  divines — 
Lucas  Osiander  II.  (d.l63S),  Theodor  Thumm,or  Thummius  (d.1630), 
and  Melchior  Nicolai  (d.  1G59) — taught  that  he  made  a  secret  use  of 
them  (k-pu^tc,  occulta  usurjMtio)} 

The  Giessen  divines,  wishing  chiefly  to  avoid  the  reproach  of  a  por- 
tentosa  uliquitas,  represented  the  omnipresence  of  Christ's  humanity, 
not  as  an  all-pervading  existence,2  but  as  an  all-controlling  power,  or 
as  an  element  of  omnipotence.3  The  Tubingen  school  taught,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  unio  hyjwstatica,  an  absolute  omnipresence  of  Christ's 
humanity,  as  a  quiescent  quality,  which  consists  in  filling  all  the  spaces 
of  the  universe,  even  from  the  conception  to  the  death  on  the  cross.4 

A  theological  commission  at  Dresden,  with  Hoe  von  lloenegg  at  the 
head,  decided  substantially  in  favor  of  the  Giessen  theory  (1525),  and 
against  the  Tubingen  doceticism,  without,  however,  advancing  the  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  or  feeling  its  real  difficulty. 

The  Giessen  theory  is  more  consistent  with  the  realness  of  Christ's 
human  life,  but  less  consistent  with  itself,  since  it  admits  an  occasional 
interruption  of  it  by  the  use  of  the  inherent  powers  of  the  divinity ; 
the  Tubingen  theory,  on  the  other  hand,  virtually  destroys  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  state  of  humiliation  and  the  state  of  exaltation,  and 
resolves  the  life  of  Christ  into  a  magical  illusion. 

The  modem  Tubingen  school  of  Baur  and  Strauss  forms  a  strange 
parallel  and  contrast  to  that  of  the  seventeenth  century :  it  starts  from 
the  same  principle  that '  the  finite  is  capable  of  the  infinite,'  but  extends 
it  pantheistically  to  humanity  at  large,  and  denies  its  applicability  to 
Christ,  on  the  ground  that  the  divine  fullness  can  not  be  emptied  into 
a  single  individual.5    Therefore,  while  the  old  Tubingen  school  in  effect, 

1  Hence  their  name,  Kryptiker,  Krypticists. 

2  Indlstantia,  ntula  adeueutia  ad  rreaturas,  prevsentia  simjdex. 

3  Actio,  operatio,  preesentia  modijicata.  This  amounts  to  pretty  much  the  same  thing  with 
the  omniprtcsentia  ene.rrjetica  of  the  Calvinists. 

4  The  same  applies  to  omnipotence.  The  Tubingen  divines  gave  an  affirmative  answer  to 
the  question,  'An  homo  Christus  in  Deum  assum/>tits  in  statu  exinanitli'nh  f<uii</n<nii  rex prce- 
sens  cuncta,  licet  latenter,  r/ubernarit  ?'  They  made,  however,  an  apparent  concession  to  their 
opponents  by  assuming  a  brief  suspension  of  the  use  of  the  divine  majesty  during  the  agony  in 
Gethsemane  and  the  crucifixion,  in  order  that  Christ  might  really  sutler  as  high-priest.  See 
Dorner,Vol.  II.  p.799. 

5  'In  an  individual,'  says  Strauss,  in  the  dogmatic  conclusion  of  his  first  Leben  Jcsu  (Vol. 
II.  p.  710),  '  in  one  God-man,  the  properties  and  functions  which  the  Church  doctrine  ascribes 

Vol.  I.— U 


296  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

though  not  in  intention,  destroys  the  real  humanity  of  Christ,  the  mod- 
ern Tubingen  school  consistently  denies  his  divinity,  and  resolves  ali 
the  supernatural  and  miraculous  elements  of  the  gospel  history  into  a 
mythic  poem  or  fiction. 

In  the  modern  revival  of  orthodox  Lutheranism,  the  ubiquity  of  the 
body  of  Christ  is  either  avoided,  or  advocated  only  in  the  hypothetical 
form,  and  mostly  with  a  leaning  towards  a  more  literal  acceptation  of 
the  Kivwcng  (Phil.  ii.  7)  than  the  Giessen  divines  contended  for.1 

VIII.  THE   HADES    CONTROVERSY.2 

This  controversy,  which  is  discussed  in  the  ninth  article  of  the 
'  Formula  of  Concord,'  referred  to  the  time,  manner,  extent,  and  aim 
of  Christ's  mysterious  descent  into  the  world  of  departed  spirits.  It 
implied  the  questions  whether  the  descent  took  place  before  or  after 
the  death  on  the  cross ;  whether  it  were  confined  to  the  divine  nature, 
or  to  the  soul,  or  extended  to  the  body ;  whether  it  belonged  to  the 
state  of  humiliation,  or  to  the  state  of  exaltation;  whether  it  were  a  con- 
tinuation of  suffering  and  a  tasting  of  the  second  death,  or  a  triumph 
over  hell.  The  answer  to  these  questions  depended  in  part  on  the  dif- 
ferent views  of  the  communication  of  idiomata  and  the  ubiquity  of  the 
body,  as  also  on  llades,  or  Sheol,  itself,  which  some  identified  witli  hell 
proper  (Gehenna),  while  others  more  correctly  understood  it  in  a  wider 
sense  of  the  whole  realm  of  the  dead.    Luther  himself  had  at  different 


to  Christ  contradict  themselves ;  in  the  idea  of  the  race  the;'  agree.  Humanity  is  the  union 
of  the  two  natures— the  incarnate  God— the  infinite  externalizing  itself  in  the  finite,  and  the 
finite  spirit  rememhering  its  infinitude.' 

1  So  Thomasius,  Liebner,  Gess.  But  the  absolute  ubiquity  also  has  found  an  advocate  in 
PhiUppi  (Kirchl.  (;iuubenslehre,Vo\.  IV.  I.  pp.  394).  Dr.  Stahl,  the  able  theological  lawyer, 
in  his  Die  fatherische  Kirche  und  die  Union  (Berlin,  1859,  pp.185  sqq.),  admits  that  the  ubiq- 
uity question  lias  no  religious  interest  except  as  a  speculative  basis  for  the  possibility  of  the 
eucharistic  presence,  and  approaches  Ebrard's  view  of  an  'extra-spacial,  central  communica- 
tion of  the  virtue'  of  Christ's  body  to  the  believer.  Dr.  Krauth  defends  Chemnitz's  view, 
and  what  lie  would  rather  style  '  the  personal  omnipresence  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ' 
(1.  <■•  l'.  496).  Hut  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  impersonal,  and  simply  taken  up  into  union 
viih  the  pie-existent  personality  of  the  Divine  Logos. 

1  flSpiwi  s  :  Comment,  in  Psa.  xvt.  Frcf.  1 544,  and  Enarratio  Psalmi  lxviii.,\\\\\\  an  appen- 
dix de  deacenau  Christi  ad  inferna,  Frcf.  L553.  A.  Guevius  :  Memoria  J.^Epini  instawata, 
Hum!,.  I  736  |  DlEXJBLMAIER  :  Historia  d<,;/,na(is  de  descensu  Christi,  Norimb.  1741,  Alt.  17G2  ; 
Plaw  k-  v">-  V*.  I.  pp.  251-284;  Konig  :  Die  Lehre  von  Christi  Htillenfahrt,  pp.  152  sqq.; 
GthM  i-  Die  l.<hn  ,/,<■  Erscheinung  Christi  unter  den  Todten,  Bern,  1*853,  pp.  222  sqq.; 
<;.  F..ANK.  Vol.  I.  p.  160  sq. :  Fa.  II.  It.  Frank,  Vol.  III.  p.  897  sqq. 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  097 

times  very  different  opinions  of  the  descent,  but  regarded  it  chiefly  as 
a  victory  over  the  kingdom  of  Satan. 

John  ./Epiims,1  a  Lutheran  minister  in  Hamburg,  started  the  contro- 
versy. He  taught,  first  in  154-i  and  afterwards  more  fully,  that  Christ 
descended  with  his  spirit  into  the  region  of  the  lost,  in  order  to  suffer 
the  pains  of  hell  for  men,  and  thus  to  complete  his  humiliation  or  the 
work  of  redemption.  So  he  explained  Psalm  xvi.  10  (com p.  Acts  ii.  27, 
31).  Luther  himself  had  at  one  time  (1524)  given  a  similar  exposition 
of  this  passage.  Flacius  sided  with  /Epinns.  But  this  theory  was  more 
Reformed  than  Lutheran,  and  was  opposed  by  his  colleagues,  who  car- 
ried the  dispute  into  the  pulpit  and  excited  the  people.  Matsberger  in 
Augsburg  represented  the  descent,  according  to  the  usual  view,  as  a 
local  change,  but  had  to  suffer  three  years'  imprisonment  for  it.  Brenz 
condemned  such  locomotion  as  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  and  ubiq- 
uity of  Christ,  and  denied  the  locality  of  hell  as  well  as  of  heaven. 
This  accords  with  his  view  of  the  ascension.  Melanchthon,  being  ap- 
pealed to  by  the  magistrate  of  Hamburg,  answered  with  caution,  and 
warned  against  preaching  on  subjects  not  clearly  revealed.  He  re- 
ferred to  a  sermon  of  Luther,  preached  at  Torgau,  1533,  in  which  he 
graphically  describes  the  descent  as  a  triumphant  march  of  Christ 
through  the  dismayed  infernal  hosts,  so  that  no  believer  need  here- 
after be  afraid  of  the  devil  and  damnation.  Melanchthon  thought 
this  view  was  more  probable  than  that  of  ^Epinus;  at  all  events, 
Christ  manifested  himself  as  a  conqueror  in  hell,  destroyed  the  power 
of  the  devil,  raised  many  dead  to  life  (Matt,  xxvii.  53),  and  proclaimed 
to  them  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Messiah ;  to  ask  more  is  unnecessary. 
He  advised  the  magistrate  to  exclude  the  controversy  from  the  pulpit" 


1  A  Hellenized  form  (Aiimvoc,  high,  lofty)  for  his  German  name  Hock,  or  Ilocli.  He  was 
born,  1400,  at  Ziegesar,  Brandenburg;  studied  at  Wittenberg,  became  pastor  at  St.  Peter's, 
Hamburg,  1520,  Superintendent  in  1532,  introduced  the  Reformation  into  that  city,  signed  the 
Articles  of  Smalcald,  1537,  stood  in  high  esteem,  and  died  1553.  He  was  a  colleague  of 
Westphal,  and  opposed  with  Flacius  the  Leipzig  Interim. 

s  Sept.  1 550,  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  VII.  p.  6G5.  Comp.  Schmidt,  Melanchthon,  p.  554  sq.  In 
his  Loci,  Melanchthon  passes  by  the  descensus  as  unessential.  In  a  letter  to  Spalatin,  March 
20,  1531  (Corp.  Reform.Vv\.  II.  p. 400),  he  expresses  his  inability  to  explain  the  dark  pas- 
sage, 1  Pet.  iii.  10,  20.  He  was  pleased  with  Luther's  sermon  at  Torgau,  but  added,  in  a  pri- 
vate letter  to  Anton  Musa  (.March  12,  151::.  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  V.  p.  68),  that  Christ  proba- 
bly preached  the  gospel  to  the  heathen  in  the  spirit  world,  and  converted  such  men  as  Scipio 
and  Fabius.  (Zwingli  likewise  believed  in  the  salvation  of  the  nobler  heathen.)  He  wrote 
to  JEpinus,  April  20,  154G  (Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  VI.  p.  1  Hi),  to  preach  the  necessary  doctrines 


298  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Several  of  the  most  violent  opponents  of  iEpinus  were  deposed  and 
expelled.  The  dispute  was  lost  in  more  serious  controversies.  It  was 
almost  confined  to  Hamburg. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  sanctioned  substantially  the  view  of  Lu- 
ther and  Melanchthon,  without  entering  into  the  minor  questions. 

IX.   THE  ADIAPIIOKISTIC   (OE  INTEKIMISTIc)   CONTROVERSY   (154S-1555).1 

This  controversy  is  the  subject  of  the  tenth  article  of  the  'Formula 
of  Concord,'  but  was  the  first  in  the  order  of  time  among  the  disputes 
which  occasioned  this  symbol.  It  arose,  soon  after  Luther's  death,  out 
of  the  unfortunate  Smalcald  war,  which  resulted  in  the  defeat  of  the 
Lutheran  states,  and  brought  them  for  a  time  under  the  ecclesiastical 
control  of  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  and  his  Romish  advisers. 

Ecclesiastical  rites  and  ceremonies,  which  are  neither  commanded 
nor  forbidden  in  the  Word  of  God,  are  in  themselves  indifferent 
(a^ici(j)opa,  media,  res  medice,  Mitteldinge),  but  the  observance  or  non- 
observance  of  them  may,  under  testing  circumstances,  become  a  matter 
of  principle  and  of  conscience.  The  Augsburg  Confession  and  Apol- 
ogy (Art.  VII.)  declare  that  agreement  in  doctrine  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments  is  sufficient  for  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and 
may  co-exist  with  diversity  in  usages  and  rites  of  human  origin.  Lu- 
ther himself  desired  to  retain  many  forms  of  the  Catholic  worship 
which  he  considered  innocent  and  beautiful,  provided  only  that  no 
merit  be  attached  to  them  and  no  burden  be  imposed  upon  the  con- 
science.2    But  there  is  a  great  difference  between  retaining  old  forms 

of  faith,  repentance,  prayer,  good  works,  rather  than  speculations  on  things  which  even  the 
most  learned  did  not  know. 

1  Comp. FLACIUS :  Von  .wahren  undfalschcn  Mitt  el  din  gen,  etc.;  Entschuldigiulg  geschrieben 
an  die  Universitdt  zu  Wittenberg  der  Mittelding  halben,  etc.;  Wider  ein  rccht  heidnisch,ja 
Epicurisch  Buck  der  Adiaphoristen,  darin  das  Leipzischc  Interim  vertheidigt  tvird,  etc. ;  and 
other  pamphlets,  printed  at  Magdeburg  (as  the  '  Kanzlei  Gottes'),  1549  ;  Wig  and  :  Be  neu- 
tralibus  et  mediis,  Frcf.  1500  ;  Schlusselburg  :  Cat.  Hceret.  Lib.  XIII.  {de  Adiaphoristis  et 
Inhrimistis);  BiEK:Z>rtS(i7-ei7«c/ie7n<cmn,Leipz.l725,l>LANCK, Vol.  IV.  pp.  85-248;  II.  Ros- 
si::. :  Mil.  vnd  das  Interim  (at  the  close  of  Twesten's  monograph  on  Flacius,  Berlin,  1844) ; 
Ranks:  Deutsche  Gesnh.,  atc.Yol  V. ;  Gieseler,Vo1.  IV.  p. 435;  Herzog  :  EneyM.Yol.l. 
p.  I'-'l  ;  Vol.  VIII.  p.  288;  Schmidt  :  Mel.  pp.  491, 495, 524  ;  G.Frank,  Vol.  I.  pp.  113,110; 
Fa.  II.  l;.  Frank, Vol.  IV. pp.  1-120;  Dorner,  p.  331. 

1  See  his  humorous  letter  to  Buchholzer  in  Berlin,  Dec.  4, 1 539  ( BrtV*e,Vol.V.  p.  235),  which 
might  have  considerably  embarrassed  the  anti-Adiaphorists  had  they  known  it.  He  advises 
Elector  Joachim  II.  that  in  introducing  the  Reformation  he  may,  if  he  desired  it,  put  on  one 
or  three  priestly  garments,  like  Aaron ;  may  hold  one  or  even  seven  processions,  like  Joshua 


§  io.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  299 

and  restoring  them  after  they  have  been  abolished,  as  also  between  a 
voluntary  and  a  compulsory  observance.  When  circumcision  was  yet 
lawful  and  practiced  by  Jewish  Christians,  Paul  resisted  it,  and  saved 
the  principle  of  Christian  liberty  against  the  Judaizing  error  which 
made  circumcision  a  condition  of  salvation.  Some  of  the  Romish 
ceremonies,  moreover,  especially  those  connected  with  the  canon  of  the 
mass,  involve  doctrine,  and  affect  the  whole  idea  of  Christian  worship. 

When  the  Emperor,  with  the  aid  of  the  treasonable  Elector  Maurice 
of  Saxony,  had  broken  up  the  Lutheran  League  of  Smalcald,  he  re- 
quired the  Protestants  to  submit  to  a  doctrinal  and  ceremonial  com- 
promise till  the  final  settlement  of  the  religious  controversy  by  an 
oecumenical  Council. 

The  first  compromise  was  the  so-called  Augsburg  Interim,  enacted 
by  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  (May,  154S)  for  the  whole  empire.  It  was 
essentially  Romish,  and  yielded  to  the  Protestants  only  the  marriage 
of  priests  and  the  cup  of  the  laity.  It  was  rigidly  executed  in  the 
Southern  and  prevailingly  Roman  Catholic  states,  where  about  four 
hundred  Lutheran  preachers  were  expelled  or  dismissed  for  non-con- 
formity. 

The  second  compromise,  called  the  Leipzig  Interim,  was  enacted 
by  the  Elector  Maurice  (December,  154S),  with  the  aid  of  Melanchthon 
and  other  leading  Lutheran  divines,  for  his  Protestant  dominion,  where 
the  Augsburg  Interim  could  not  be  carried  out.  It  was  much  milder, 
saved  the  evangelical  creed  in  its  essential  features — as  justification  by 
the  sole  merits  of  Christ  through  a  living  faith — but  required  con- 
formity to  the  Romish  ritual,  including  confirmation,  episcopal  ordina- 
tion, extreme  unction,  and  even  the  greater  part  of  the  canon  of  the 
mass,  and  such  ceremonies  as  fasts,  processions,  and  the  use  of  images 
in  churches.1 

The  Protestants  were  forced  to  the  alternative  of  either  submitting 
to  one  of  these  temporary  compromises,  or  risking  the  fate  of  martyrs. 

Melanchthon,  in  the  desire  to  protect  churches  from  plunder  and 

before  Jerielio ;  and  may  dance  before  it,  as  David  danced  before  the  ark,  provided  only  such 
things  were  not  made  necessary  for  salvation. 

1  See  the  text  of  the  two  Interims  in  Gieseler,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  193-100  and  201-203;  the 
Interim  Lipsiense,  also,  in  Corp.  /vV/orm.  Vol.  VII.  The  term  gave  rise  to  sarcastic  conun- 
drums, as  Interimo,  interitus,  I/interim,  der  Schallc  ist  hinter  ihm  (the  villain  is  behind  it).  On 
the  political  aspects  of  the  Interim,  see  the  fifth  volume  of  Hanke. 


300  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ministers  from  exile,  and  in  the  hope  of  saving  the  cause  of  the  Ref- 
ormation for  better  times,  yet  not  without  blamable  weakness,  gave 
his  sanction  to  the  Leipzig  Interim,  and  undertook  to  act  as  a  mediator 
between  the  Emperor,  or  his  Protestant  ally  Maurice,  and  the  Prot- 
testant  conscience.1  It  was  the  greatest  mistake  in  his  life,  yet  not 
without  plausible  excuses  and  incidental  advantages.  He  advocated 
immovable  steadfastness  in  doctrine,  but  submission  in  every  thing 
else  for  the  sake  of  peace.  He  had  the  satisfaction  that  the  University 
of  Wittenberg,  after  temporary  suspension,  was  restored,  and  soon  fre- 
quented again  by  two  thousand  students;  that  no  serious  attempt  was 
made  to  introduce  the  Interim  there,  and  that  matters  remained  pretty 
much  as  before.  But  outside  of  Wittenberg  and  Saxony  his  conduct 
appeared  treasonable  to  the  cause  of  the  Reformation,  and  acted  as  an 
encouragement  to  an  unscrupulous  and  uncompromising  enemy.  Hence 
the  venerable  man  was  fiercely  assailed  from  every  quarter  by  friend 
and  foe.  He  afterwards  frankly  and  honorably  confessed  that  he  had 
gone  too  far  in  this  matter,  and  ought  to  have  kept  aloof  from  the  in- 
sidious counsels  of  politicians.2  He  fully  recovered  his  manhood  in 
the  noble  Saxon  Confession  which  he  prepared  in  1551  for  the  Council 
of  Trent,  and  which  is  not  merely  a  repetition  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, but  also  a  refutation  of  the  theology,  worship,  and  government 
of  the  papal  Church. 

Flacius  chose  the  second  alternative.  Escaping  from  Wittenberg 
to  the  free  city  of  Magdeburg,  he  opened  from  this  stronghold  of  rigid 
Lutheranism,  with  other  '  exiles  of  Christ,'  a  fierce  and  effective  war 
against  Melanchthon  and  the  'dangerous  rabble  of  the  Adiaphorists.' 
He  charged  his  teacher  and  benefactor  with  superfluous  mildness, 
weakness,  want  of  faith,  treason  to  truth ;  and  characterized  the  Leipzig 

1  To  the  Augsburg  Interim  lie  was  decidedly  opposed,  and  he  had  also  sundry  objections  to 
the  ceremonial  part  of  the  Leipzig  Interim.  He  is  only  responsible  for  its  doctrinal  part. 
Sec  his  letters  from  this  period  in  Corp.  Reform.  Vols.  VI.  and  VII.,  and  Schmidt's  Mel.  pp. 
507  and  r>24. 

*  In  a  letter  to  his  enemy,  M.  Flacius,  dated  Sept.  5, 155G,  he  was  not  ashamed  to  confess, 
after  some  slight  reproaches, '  Vinci te  !  Cedo ;  nihil  pugno  de  ritibus  Hits,  et  maximc  oplo,  vt 
dulcis  sit  eccleriarvm  coticordia.  Fateor  etiam  hac  in  re  a  me  peccatum  esse,  et  a  Deo  veniam 
peto,  quod  non  proculfugi  insidiosas  Mas  deliberationes.  Sed  ilia  qua  mihxfalso  a  te  et  a 
Call,,  objiciuntur,  refutabo.'  Corp.  Reform. Vol. VIII.  p.  8+1  sq.  And  to  the  Saxon  pastors  he 
wrote,  Jan.  17,  1 :"».")  7  (Vol.  IX.  p.  61)  :  '  Per tr actus  sum  ad  aularum  deliberationes  insidiosas. 
Quare  sicubi  vel  lapsus  sum,  vel  languidius  aliquid  egi,peto  a  Deo  et  ab  Ecclesia  veniam,  et 
judiciis  Ecclesia  obtemj>erabo.' 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  301 

Interim  as  an  undisguised  '  union  of  Christ  and  Belial,  of  light  and 
darkness,  of  sheep  and  wolf,  of  Christ  and  Antichrist,'  aiming  at  the 
'reinstatement  of  popery  and  Antichrist  in  the  temple  of  God.'1  His 
chief  text  was  1  Cor.  x.  20-23.  lie  had  upon  the  whole  the  Lest  of 
the  argument,  although  in  form  he  violated  all  the  laws  of  courtesy 
and  charity,  and  continued,  even  long  afterwards,  to  persecute  Melanch- 
thon  as  an  abettor  of  Antichrist. 

In  a  milder  tone  the  best  friends  of  Melanchthon  remonstrated  with 
him.  Brenz  preferred  exile  and  misery  to  the  Interim,  which  he  called 
interUus.  Bucer  of  Strasburg  did  the  same,  and  accepted  a  call  to 
England.  Calvin  on  this  question  sided  with  the  anti-Adiaphorists, 
and  wrote  a  letter  to  Melanchthon  (June  18, 1550),  which  is  a  model 
of  brotherly  frankness  and  reproof.  '  My  present  grief,'  he  says  in 
substance,  '  renders  me  almost  speechless.  ...  In  openly  admonishing 
you,  I  am  discharging  the  duty  of  a  true  friend;  and  if  I  employ  a 
little  more  severity  than  usual,  do  not  think  it  is  owing  to  any  diminu- 
tion of  my  old  affection  and  esteem  for  you.  ...  I  know  you  love  noth- 
ing better  than  open  candor.  I  am  truly  anxious  to  approve  all  your 
actions,  both  to  myself  and  to  others.  But  at  present  I  accuse  you  be- 
fore yourself,  that  I  may  not  be  forced  to  join  those  who  condemn  you 
in  your  absence.  This  is  the  sum  of  your  defense :  That  provided 
purity  of  doctrine  be  retained,  externals  should  not  be  pertinaciously 
contended  for.  .  .  .  But  you  extend  the  adiaphora  too  far.  .  .  .  Some  of 
them  contradict  the  Word  of  God.  .  .  .  When  we  are  in  the  thick  of 
the  fight,  we  must  fight  all  the  more  manfully;  the  hesitation  of  the 
general  brings  more  disgrace  than  the  flight  of  a  whole  herd  of  com- 
mon soldiers.  All  will  blame  you  if  you  do  not  set  the  example  of 
unflinching  steadfastness.  ...  I  had  rather  die  with  you  a  hundred 
times  than  see  you  survive  the  doctrines  surrendered  by  you.     I  have 

1  Thus  he  concisely  states  the  case  on  the  long  title-page  of  his  Apology,  or  Entsr/uddigung, 
etc.,  addressed  to  the  University  of  Wittenberg,  with  a  letter  to  Melanchthon,  Magdeburg, 
1549.  The  concluding  words  of  the  title  state  the  aim  of  the  Interim  thus:  ' Das Ende  ist 
die  Einsetzung  des  Pap.stt/unns  und  Einstellung  des  Antichrists  in  den  Tempel  C/tristi,  Slar- 
kung  dor  (iutt/osen,  dass  sie  iiher  de.r  Kirc.he  Christi  sto/ziren,  lietriibung  der  Gottfurchtigen, 
item  Schwachvng,  Einfiihrung  in  Zweifid,  Trennung  und  unzaldige  Aergerniss.'  He  relates 
of  Melanchthon  that  he  derived  from  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  in  1548  the  vain  hope  of  the  near 
death  of  the  Emperor,  which  would  end  these  troubles.  He  also  published  several  confiden- 
tial letters  of  Luther  to  Melanchthon,  written  during  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  1530,  upbraiding 
him  for  his  philosophy  and  timidity. 


302  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

no  fear  for  the  truth  of  God,  nor  do  I  distrust  your  steadfastness.  .  .  . 
Pardon  me,  dear  Philip,  for  loading  your  breast  with  these  groans. 
May  the  Lord  continue  to  guide  you  by  his  Spirit  and  sustain  you  by 
his  might.' ' 

The  defeat  of  the  Emperor  by  Elector  Maurice,  who  now  turned 
against  him,  as  he  had  turned  before  against  his  fellow-Protestants,  and 
the  consequent  Peace  of  Augsburg,  1555,  made  an  end  to  the  Interim 
troubles,  and  secured  freedom  to  the  Lutheran  Churches.  But  among 
theologians  the  controversy  continued  till  the  death  of  Melanchthon. 

The  conduct  of  Melanchthon  weakened  his  authority  and  influence, 
which  had  been  rising  higher  and.  higher  before  and  after  Luther's 
death,  especially  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg.  Before  this  unfor- 
tunate controversy  he  was  universally  regarded  as  the  theological  head 
of  the  evangelical  Church  in  Germany,  but  now  a  large  number  of 
Lutherans  began  to  look  upon  him  with  distrust. 

X.    THE    STRASBURG    CONTROVERSY    ON    PREDESTINATION    BETWEEN    ZANCHI 
AND   MARBACII    (15G1-15G3).2 

This  is  the  last  specific  doctrine  discussed  in  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord (Art.  XL).     The  German  and  Swiss  Reformers  alike  renewed, 

1  Opera,  Vol.  IX.  p.  54,  and  Letters  of  Calvin,  by  J.  Bonnet,  English  translation,  Vol.  II. 
p.  257.  A  letter  of  similar  spirit  and  import  to  Melanchthon,  by  his  friend  Anton  Corvinus 
(Rabener),  a  distinguished  reformer  in  Hesse  and  Gottingen,  who  suffered  imprisonment  for 
his  opposition  to  the  Interim,  was  recently  discovered  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Hanover  by 
I  wan  Franz,  and  published  in  Kahnis,  Zeitschrift  fur  die  hist.  Theol.  1874,  pp.105  sqq., 
from  which  I  quote  the  following  passages :  '  0  Philippe,  o  inquani  Philippe  noster,  redi  per 
immortalem  Christum  ad  pristinum  candorem,  ad  pristinam  tuatn  sinccritatem  !  non  languefa- 
cito  ista  tua  formidine,  pusillanimitate  et  inepta  moderatione  nostrorum  animos  tantopere! 
Non  aperito  hue  ratione  ad  Papatus  recurrentem  impietatem  acldolomaniasfenestramacja- 
nuam !  Non  sis  tantorum  in  Ecclesia  offendicidorum  autor !  Ne  sinas  tua  tarn  egregia 
scrip ta,  dicta,  facta,  quibus  mirifice  de  Ecclesia  hactenus  meritus  es,  isto  condonationis,  mode- 
rationis,  novationis  n<evo  ad  eum  modum  deformari !  Cogita,  quantum  animi  ista  nostra  car- 
nis  ac  rationis  consilia  et  adversariis  addant  et  nostris  adimant !  Pcrpende,  quam  placari 
etiam  is/is  condonationibus  adversarii  nostri  non  queant,  qui  totitts  Papatus  doctrinam  et  om- 
nes  ex  wquo  itnpios  cultus  reposcunt  et  ex  nostra  levitate  spem  concipiunt  se  hac  in  re  facile  voti 
compotes  futuros.  Delestatur  Dominus  apud  Jeremiam  eos,  qui  manus  pessimorum  confortant, 
ut  non  convertatur  unusquisque  a  malitia  sua.  Cur  igitur  in  tarn  ardua  causa  non  tales  nos 
gerimus  ut  hujiumodi  detestatio  competere  in  nos  haud  possit  ?  qua  perversitate  arundo  hue  illuc 
n  ntis  in/it, it, t  did  quam  Johannis  constantiam  imitari  malumus  !  .  .  .  Proinde  Te,  o  noster 
Philippe,  it,  ruin  atque  ilerum  per  ilium  ipsum  Christum  redemptorem  nostrum  et  brevifuturum 
judicem  rogamus,  ut  professionis  tuce  memor  talem  te  cum  reliquis  Vitebergensibus  jam  geras, 
qualem  Te  <ih  initio  Inijux  causa  ad  Electoris  captivitatem  usque  gessisti,  hoc  est,  ut  ea  sentias, 
dims,  sr,  il„is,  at/, is.  ,/inr  I' liili ppinn,  Christianum  Doctorem  decent,  non  aulicum  Phi/oso/ihuni.' 
-  Plan*  K,VoLVI.  pp.809  sqq.;  ROhrich:  Geschichte  der  Reform,  im  Elsass,bes.  in  Strass- 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  303 

as  an  impregnable  fortress  in  their  war  against  the  Pelagian  corrup- 
tions of  Rome,  the  Augustinian  system,  with  its  two  closely  connected 
doctrines  of  the  absolute  spiritual  shivery  or  inability  of  the  unregen- 
erate  will  of  man,  and  the  absolute  predestination  of  God ;  though 
with  the  characteristic  difference  that  Luther  and  Melanchthon  empha- 
sized the  servum  arbitrium,  Zwingli  the  provident ia,  Calvin  thejwve- 
deatinatio.  In  other  words,  the  German  Reformers  started  from  the 
anthropological  premise,  and  inferred  from  it  the  theological  conclu- 
sion;  while  Calvin  made  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  the  corner- 
stone of  his  system.  Luther  firmly  adhered  to  the  servum  arbitrium, 
but  was  more  cautious,  in  his  later  years,  on  the  mystery  of  the prccdesti- 
natio.1  Melanchthon  gave  up  both  for  his  synergism  and  the  univer- 
sality of  grace,  though  he  continued  in  friendly  correspondence  with 
Calvin,  who  on  his  part  put  the  mildest  construction  on  this  depart- 
ure. The  rigid  Lutherans  all  retained  Luther's  view  of  total  depravity 
in  opposition  to  synergism,  and  some  of  them  (namely,  Amsdorf,  Fla- 
cius,  Brenz,  Wigand,  and,  for  a  time,  Ileshusius)  were  also  strict  predes- 


burg,  3  Theile,  Strasburg,  1 830-1 832 ;  Schweizeu  :  Ccntraldogmen  der  Reform.  Kirdie,  Vol. 
I.  pp.  418-470  (a  very  full  and  able  account);  Heppb:  Dogmatik  des  D.  Protest.  Vol.  II. 
pp.  44-47  ;  G.  Frank,  Vol.  I.  pp.  178-184;  Fr.  H.  R.  Frank,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  121-344. 

1  The  Philippist  Lasius  first  asserted  (1568)  that  Luther  had  recalled  his  book  De  servo 
arbitrio  (1525),  but  this  was  indignantly  characterized  by  Flacius  and  Westphal  as  a  wretched 
lie  and  an  insult  to  the  evangelical  church.  The  fact  is  that  Luther  emphatically  reaffirmed 
this  book,  in  a  letter  to  Capito,  1537,  as  one  of  his  very  best  ('nullum  enim  agnosco  meumjus- 
tum  Ubrum  nisi  forte  De  servo  arbitrio,  et  Catechismum').  And,  indeed,  it  is  one  of  his  most 
powerful  works.  Luthardt  (Die  Lehre  vomfreien  Will  en,  Leipz.  18G3,  p.  122)  calls  it  'eine 
machtige  Schrift,  stolz,  wahrheitsgeu-iss,  liilm  in  Gedanken  und  Wort,  roll  heiligen  Eifers, 
gewaltigen  Ernstes,  aus  innerstcr  Seclc  hcrausgesehrieben.  .  .  .  Kaum  irgendivo  sonst  ergiesst  sich 
gleich  machtig  undreich  der  Strom  seines  Geistes.'  Only  in  regard  to  predestination  Luther 
may  be  said  to  have  moderated  his  view  somewhat,  although  he  never  recalled  it,  that  is,  he 
still  taught  in  his  later  writings  (in  his  Com.  on  Genesis,  Oh.  VI.  6,  18;  Ch.  XXVI.)  the  dis- 
tinction and  antagonism  between  the  revealed  will  of  God,  which  sincerely  calls  all  to  repent- 
ance and  salvation,  and  the  inscrutable  secret  will  which  saves  only  apart  of  the  race;  but  he 
laid  the  main  stress  practically  on  the  former  and  the  means  of  grace,  and  thus  prepared  the 
way  for  the  11  th  Article  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  '  S<-rij>si, '  he  wrote  in  1 536, '  esse  omnia 
absoluta  et  necessaria,  sed  simul  addidi,  quod  adspiciendus  sit  Dens  revelatus'  (Opera  ext.g. 
Vol.  VI.  p.  300).  Luthardt  (1.  c.  p.  14G)  correctly  says  (in  opposition  both  to  Liitkeus  and  Fbl- 
lippi)  that  Luther  never  recalled,  but  retained  his  earlier  views  on  predestination  and  the  ne- 
cessity of  all  that  happens,  and  only  guarded  them  against  ahuse.  The  result  of  Kostlin's  in- 
vestigation is  this,  that  Luther  never  attempted  a  solution  of  the  contradiction  between  the 
secret  and  the  revealed  will  of  God.  '  Das  eben  ist  seine  Lehre,  dass  unser  Erkennen  nicht  so 
u-iil  reicht,  mid  dass  >rir  uus  aw/i  dot  Unbegreijlulw  uud  l.'nn rstandlivlie  g> fallen  lassen  miis- 
sen.  .  .  .  Er  selhat  spricht  aus,  dass  riii  Widi  rsjirurh  f'iir  una  stehen  bleibe,  den  wir  nicht  losen 
kijnnen  noch  sullen.'     Luther's  Theologie,  Vol.  II.  p.  828. 


30 1  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

tioarians.1  But  the  prevailing  Lutheran  sentiment  became  gradually 
averse  to  a  particular  predestination,  all  the  more  since  it  was  a  prom- 
inent doctrine  of  the  hated  Calvinists.  The  Formula  of  Concord  sanc- 
tioned a  compromise  between  Augustinianism  and  universalism,  or 
between  the  original  Luther  and  the  later  Melanchthon,  by  teaching 
both  the  absolute  inability  of  man  and  the  universality  of  divine  grace, 
without  an  attempt  to  solve  these  contradictory  positions.  In  regard 
to  the  slavery  of  the  human  will,  the  Formula  of  Concord,  following 
Luther,  went  even  further  than  Calvin,  and  compared  the  natural 
man  with  a  dead  statue,  or  clod,  and  stone ;  while  Calvin  always  (so 
far  agreeing  with  the  later  Melanchthon)  insisted  on  the  spontaneity 
and  responsibility  of  the  will  in  sinning,  and  in  accepting  or  rejecting 
the  grace  of  God. 

The  discussion  of  this  subject  was  opened  by  the  fierce  polemic  Tile- 
mann  Ileshusins,  who,  in  his  defense  of  the  corporeal  presence  against 
the  Sacramentarians  (Jena,  1560),  first  attacked  also  Calvin's  doctrine 
of  predestination,  as  Stoic  and  fatalistic,  although  a  year  afterwards, 
in  opposition  to  synergism,  he  returned  to  his  former  view  of  an  abso- 
lute and  particular  predestination.  Beza  answered  his  attack  with 
superior  ability.2 

Of  more  importance  was  the  controversy  between  Marbach  (a  friend 
of  Ileshusins)  and  Zanchi  within  the  Lutheran  denomination  itself. 
It  decided  its  position  on  the  question  of  predestination  and  persever- 
ance. 

The  Church  of  Strasburg  had  received  from  its  reformer,  Martin 
Bucer  (who  on  account  of  the  Interim  followed  a  call  to  the  Univer- 
sity of  Cambridge,  1549,  and  died  there,  1551),  a  unionistic  type,  and 
acted  as  mediator  between  the  Swiss  and  German  churches.  The 
Reformed  Tetrapolitan  Confession,  the  Lutheran  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, and  the  Wittenberg  Concordia  (a  compromise  between  the  Lu- 
theran and  Zwinglian  views  on  the  eucharist),  were  held  in  great 
esteem.  Calvin  and  Peter  Martyr,  who  preached  and  taught  there, 
made  a  deep  impression.     The  celebrated  historian  Sleidanus,  and  the 

'  Sec  the  proof  passages  in  Frank's  Theol.  der  Concord.  formel,Vo\.  IV.  pp.  2.'j4-2G1  ;  Lu- 
thardt,  pp.  240-244  ;  Planck,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  Gi>  1-712;  and  Schweizer,  1.  c. 

3  See  Schweizer,  1.  e.  pp.  402  sqq.  Ileshnsius  and  Westphal  invented  the  name  Calvinists, 
which  henceforth  was  used  by  Lutherans  for  the  Reformed,  as  the  term  Zwintjlians  had  been 
before.     The  term  sacramentarians  was  applied  to  both  without  distinction. 


§  45.  TUE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  305 

learned  founder  and  rector  of  the  academy,  John  Sturm,  labored  in 
the  same  spirit. 

Jerome  Zanchi  (Zanchius,  1516-1590),  a  converted  Italian,  and  pu- 
pil of  Peter  Marty]-,  became  his  successor  as  Professor  of  Theology  at 
Strasburg  in  1553.  lie  was  one  of  the  most  learned  Calvinistic  di- 
vines of  the  age,  and  labored  for  some  time  with  great  acceptance. 
He  taught  that  in  the  eucharist  Christ's  true  body  broken  for  us,  and 
his  blood  shed  for  us,  are  received  in  the  sacrament,  but  not  with  the 
mouth  and  teeth,  but  by  faith,  and  consequently  only  by  believers. 
This  was  approved  by  his  superiors,  since  the  communion  was  not  a 
cibus  ventris  sed  mentis,  and  the  same  view  had  been  taught  by  Bucer, 
Capito,  Iledio,  Zell,  and  Martyr.  He  opposed  ubiquity,  and  the  use 
of  images  in  churches.  He  taught  unconditional  predestination,  and 
its  consequence,  the  perseverance  of  saints,  in  full  harmony,  as  he  be- 
lieved, with  Augustine,  Luther,  and  Bucer.  He  reduced  his  ideas  to 
four  sentences :  1.  The  elect  receive  from  God  the  gift  of  true  saving 
faith  only  once ;  2.  Faith  once  received  can  never  be  totally  and  finally 
lost,  partly  on  account  of  God's  promise,  partly  on  account  of  Christ's 
intercession  ;  3.  In  every  elect  believer  there  are  two  men,  the  external 
and  the  internal — if  he  sin,  he  sins  according  to  the  external,  but 
against  the  internal  man,  consequently  he  sins  not  with  the  whole  heart 
and  will ;  4.  When  Peter  denied  Christ,  the  confession  of  Christ  died  in 
his  mouth,  but  not  his  faith  in  his  heart. 

Several  years  before  Zanchi's  call  to  Strasburg,  a  Lutheran  counter- 
current  had  been  set  in  motion,  which  ultimately  prevailed.  It  was 
controlled  by  John  Marbach  (1521-1581),  a  little  man  with  a  large 
beard,  incessant  activity,  intolerant  and  domineering  spirit,  who  had 
been  called  from  Jena  to  the  pulpit  of  Strasburg  (1515).  Inferior  in 
learning,1  lie  was  superior  to  Zanchi  in  executive  ability  and  popular 
eloquence.  He  delighted  to  be  called  Superintendent,  and  used  his 
authority  to  the  best  advantage.  He  abolished  Bucer's  Catechism  and 
introduced  Luther's,  taught  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body,  undermined 
the  authority  of  the  Tetrapolitan  Confession,  crippled  the  church  of 
French  refugees,  to  which  Calvin  had  once  ministered,  weakened  dis- 

1  Melanchthon  called  him  mediocriter  doctus,  but  his  own  estimate  was  much  higher,  and 
in  hie  inaugural  he  spoke  with  such  arrogance  that  Bucer  feared  he  would  prove  a  great  mis- 
fortune for  the  Church  at  Strasburg.     See  Rohrich  and  Schweizer,  p.  420. 


306  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

cipline,  introduced  pictures  into  churches,  including  those  of  Luther, 
and  began  to  republish -at  Strasburg  the  fierce  polemical  book  of 
Ileshusius  on  the  eucharist.     This  brought  on  the  controversy. 

Zanchi  persuaded  the  magistrate  to  suppress  the  publication  of  this 
book,  because  of  its  gross  abuse  of  Melanchthon  and  a  noble  German 
Prince,  the  Elector  Frederick  III.  of  the  Palatinate,  and  because  it 
denounced  all  who  differed  from  his  views  of  the  corporeal  presence 
as  heretics.  From  this  time  Marbach  refused  to  greet  Zanchi  on  the 
street,  and  gathered  from  the  notes  of  his  students  material  for  accu- 
sation that  he  taught  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
He  objected,  however,  not  so  much  to  predestination  itself  as  to  Zanchi's 
method  of  teaching  it  a  priori  rather  than  a  posteriori. 

The  controversy  lasted  over  two  years.  Zanchi  visited  and  con- 
sulted foreign  churches  and  universities.  The  answers  differed  not  so 
much  on  predestination  as  on  perseverance.1 

The  theologians  of  Marburg  (Hyperius,  Lonicer,  Gamier,  Orth,  Ro- 
ding,  Pincier,  and  Pistorius),  Zurich  (Bullinger,  Martyr,  Gualter,  Lava- 
ter,  Simler,  Haller,  Zwingli  Jr.),  and  Heidelberg  (Boquinus,  Tremellius, 
Olevianus,  and  Diller)  decided  in  favor  of  the  theses  of  Zanchi.  The 
ministers  of  Basel  counseled  peace  and  compromise;  the  divines  of 
Tubingen  approved  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  but  dissented 
from  the  theses  on  perseverance ;  even  Brenz  thought  the  matter  might 
be  amicably  settled.  The  divines  of  Saxony  decided  according  to  their 
different  attitudes  towards  Melanchthon :  the  Melanchthonians  liked 
Zanchi's  doctrine  of  the  eucharist,  but  disliked  his  view  of  predestina- 
tion ;  the  anti-Melanchthonians  hated  the  former,  but  were  favorable 
to  the  latter,  because  it  was  so  strongly  taught  by  Luther  himself  (De 
servo  arbitrio). 

At  last  the  'Strasburg  Formula  of  Concord'  was  adopted  (15G3), 
which  prescribed  the  Wittenberg  Concordia  of  1536  as  the  rule  of 
doctrine  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  asserted  the  possibility  of  the  loss 
of  faith,  yet  without  denying  predestination.2  Calvin  judged  that  it 
only  threw  a  veil  over  the  truth.  Predestination  was  with  Calvin  and 
Luther  an  independent  and  central  dogma ;  the  later  Lutherans  assigned 

1  Zanchii  Opera,  Pt.  VII.  pp.  65  sqq.,  and  Pt.  VIII.  pp.  114  sqq. ;  Schweizer,  pp.  418-470. 
3  Printed  in  the  Strasbnrger  Kirchennrdnung  of  1508,  and  in  Loscher's  Historia  nwtuum, 
Vol.  1 1,  p.  L"_".i  sq.     Sec  Schweizer,  pp.  440  sqq. 


§  43.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1377.  307 

it  a  subordinate  and  subsidiary  position,  and  denied  its  logical  conse- 
quence, the  perseverance  of  saints.  This  was  also  the  position  of  Mar- 
bach. 

Zanchi  subscribed  the  Strasburg  Formula  with  a  restriction,  but  for 
the  sake  of  peace  he  soon  followed  a  call  to  a  Reformed  Italian  church 
at  Chiavenna,  and,  being  driven  away  by  a  pestilence  to  a  mountain, 
he  wrote  a  full  account  of  the  Strasburg  troubles.1  lie  was  supported 
in  his  position  by  the  worthy  Sturm  and  several  professors,  but  had 
the  disadvantage  of  being  a  foreigner  unacquainted  with  the  German 
tongue.  The  pastors,  backed  by  the  people,  triumphed  over  the  pro- 
fessors. What  Marbach  had  begun,  his  pupil  Pappus  completed. 
Strasburg  was  thoroughly  Lutheranized,  the  Tetrapolitan  Confession 
formally  abolished  as  '  Zwinglian,'  and  the  Formula  Concordia?  intro- 
duced (1597).2 

Yet,  after  all,  the  spirit  of  Bucer  never  died  out.  From  Strasburg 
proceeded  Spener,  with  his  blessed  revival  of  practical  piety  and  a 
better  appreciation  of  the  Reformed  Confession  ;3  and  from  the  theo- 
logical faculty  of  Strasburg  hail  more  recently  the  appreciating  biog- 
raphies of  Beza,  Bucer,  and  Capito  (by  Baum),  and  Melanchthon  (by 
Carl  Schmidt),  and  the  best  edition  of  the  works  of  Calvin  (by  Baum, 
Cunitz,  and  Reuss).  Thus  history  slowly  but  surely  rectifies  its  own 
mistakes. 

The  Preparation  of  the  Formula  or  Concord.4 
These  controversies  turned  the  Lutheran  churches  in  Germany  into 
a  camp  of  civil  war,  exposed  them  to  the  ridicule  and  obloquy  of  the 


1  It  is  addressed  to  Philip  of  Hesse  (Oct.  1, 1365),  and  given  by  Schweizer,  pp.  425-43G. 
Zanchi  accepted  afterwards  a  call  to  a  professorship  at  the  Reformed  University  of  Heidel- 
berg, where  he  died,  1390.  He  received  also  calls  to  England.  Lausanne,  Geneva,  Zurich, 
and  Leyden,  and  was  justly  esteemed  for  his  learning  and  character.  A  complete  edition  of 
his  works  appeared  at  Geneva  in  eight  parts,  in  3  vols,  folio. 

a  Comp.  Heppe,  Gesc/i.  des  D.  Protest.  Vol.  IV.  pp.  312-315. 

3  Spener  was  born  at  Rappoltsweiler,  in  Upper  Alsace,  but  his  parents  were  from  Strasburg, 
and  he  was  educated  there,  and  called  himself  a  Strasburger.  Kliefoth  (as  quoted  by  Heppe, 
Vol.  IV.  p.  399),  from  his  own  rigid  Lutheran  stand-point,  says,  not  without  good  reason: 
'  Mit  Sjtcner  beginrtt  jener  grosse  Eroberungszuy  dcr  rrformirten  Kirclte  gegen  die  lutherische, 
der  seitdem  verschiedene  Namen,  erst  Frommiykiit,  dann  Tolcranz,  dann  Union,  dann  Confede- 
ration auf  sein  Punier  gesehrieben  hat.' 

*  For  the  fullest  account,  see  the  sixth  volume  of  Planck's,  and  the  third  volume  of  Heppe's 
history. 


308  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Papists,  and  threatened  to  end  in  ntter  confusion  and  dissolution.  The 
danger  was  increased  by  the  endless  territorial  divisions  of  Germany, 
where  every  Prince  and  magistrate  acted  a  little  pope,  and  'every  fox 
looked  to  his  own  pelt." 

The  best  men  in  the  Lutheran  communion  deeply  deplored  this  state 
of  things,  and  labored  for  peace  and  harmony.  Augustus,  Elector  of 
Saxony  (1533-1588),  a  pious  and  orthodox,  though  despotic  Prince, 
controlled  the  political  part,  and  paid  the  heavy  expenses  of  the  move- 
ment.2 Jacob  Andee^e,  Professor  of  Theology  and  Chancellor  of  the 
University  at  Tubingen  (1528-1590),  a  pupil  and  friend  of  Brentius,  a 
man  of  rare  energy,  learning,  eloquence,  and  diplomatic  skill,  managed 
the  theological  negotiations,  made  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
six  journeys,  and  sacrificed  the  comforts  of  home  and  family  (he  had 
twelve  children)  to  the  pacification  of  the  Lutheran  Church.3     Next 


1  As  Brenz  says  :  ^  Es  luge  tin  jeglicher  Fuchs  seines  Balges.'1 

2  80,000  gulden.  Augustus  was  a  zealous  Lutheran  without  knowing  the  difference  be- 
tween Lutheranism  and  Philippism,  and  supported  or  punished  the  champions  of  both  parties 
as  he  happened  to  be  led  or  misled  by  his  courtiers  and  the  theologians. 

3  On  tliis  remarkable  man,  see  Planck,  Vol.  VI.  pp.  372  sqq. ;  Heppe,Vol.  IV.  pp.  376  sqq. ; 
(!.  Frank,  Vol.  I.  p.  210;  Hartmann  in  Herzog,Vol.  I.  p.  312;  Johannsen,  Jacob  Andreas 
Concordistische  Thdtigkeit,  in  Niedner's  Zeitschrift  fur  hist.  Tkeol.  18f>3,  No.  3.  Andrea; 
has  often  been  too  unfavorably  judged.  His  contemporary  opponents  called  him  'Schmidlin' 
(with  reference  to  his  father's  trade),  'Dr.  Jacobellus,  the  Pope  of  Saxony,  the  planet  of 
Swabia,  the  apostle  of  ubiquity,  allotrio-episcopus,  a  worshiper  of  Bacchus  and  Mammon,' 
etc.  He  no  doubt  had  a  considerable  share  of  vanity,  ambition,  and  theological  passion 
(which  he  displayed,  e.  g.,  against  poor  Flacius,  even  after  his  death).  But  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  the  general  purity  of  his  motives,  and,  compared  with  some  other  orthodox  Luther- 
ans of  his  age,  he  was  even  liberal,  at  least  in  his  earlier  years.  At  a  later  period  he  de- 
nounced the  alterations  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  compared  Melanchthon  to  Solomon, 
who  at  first  wrote  glorious  things,  but  was  afterwards  so  far  led  astray  that  the  Bible  leaves 
it  doubtful  whether  he  were  saved  ('  ob  er  zu  unserm  Ilerrgott  oder  zu  dem  Tevfel  gefahren 
sei').  He  seemed  to  be  predestinated  for  the  work  of  his  life.  Planck  gives  a  masterly 
(though  not  altogether  just)  analysis  of  his  character,  from  which  I  quote  a  specimen,  as  it 
fairly  represents  the  spirit  and  style  of  his  celebrated  history  (Vol.  VI.  p.  274):  '/«  halb 
Deutschland  herumzureisen,und  an  jedem  neuen  Ort  mil  neuen  Menschen  zu  unterhandlen — hier 
wit  demMinisterio  einer  Reichsstadt,  und  dart  viit  ciner  kleincn  Synode  von  Superintcndenten, 
welche  die  Geistlichkeit  einer  ganzen  Grafschaft  oder  eines  Fiirstenthums  reprascntiren — heute 
mil  Flacianern  und  morgen  mit  Anhangern  der  Wi/tcnhn-gischen  Sc/iule  und  Verehrcrn  Me- 
lanchthoru—jetzi  mit  dm  Hauptpersonen,  die  an  dem  gelehrten  Streit  den  vorziiglichsten  An- 
theil  genommen,  und  jetzt  mit  den  Schreiern,  die  bloss  dm  Ldrm  vermehrt,  und  dazivischen 
law  In  mit  einem  oder  dem  andern  Stillen  im  Lande,  die  bisher  im  Verborgenen  iiber  den  Streit 
geseufzl  flatten — und  alien  diasen  Menschen  alles  zu.  werden,  um  sie  zu  gewinnen — es  gab  wirk- 
lnli  I;  in  Geschdft  in  der  Welt,  das  fiir  ihn  so  gemacht  tear,  wie  dieses,  so  wie  es  auch  umgc- 
kehrt  »•,  „/,/,  Menschen  gab,  die  fib-  das  GeschSft  so  gemacht  waren,  wie  er.  Nimmt  man  aber 
noch  diet  da  i  u,  dost  rich  unci,  der  gute  Andrea-  selbst  dazufiir  gemacht  hielt,  dass  in  die  natiir- 
licht  ThStigheit  seines  Geistes  auch  zuweilen  ein  kleiner  Windzug  von  Ehrgeiz  und  Eitelkeit 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1677.  309 

to  him,  and  at  a  later  period,  Martin  Chemnitz  (1522-1586),  the 
greatest  pupil  of  Melanchthon  and  the  prince  among  the  Lutheran 
divines  of  his  age,1  and  Nicholas  Selnecxeb  (1530-1 592),2  originally 
likewise  a  Melanchthonian,  took  the  most  important  part  in  the  move- 
ment, and  formed  with  Andrea;  the  theologieal  'triumvirate,'  which 
finally  completed  the  Form  of  Concord.3 

kineinblies,  dass  er  auch  fur  den  Reiz  der  bedeutenden  Rolle,  die  er  dabei  spielen,  und  des  Aufse- 
hens,  das  er  crregen  wurde,  nicht  unfilhlbar  war.ja  dass  selbst  der  Gedanke  an  das  [den']  Verkehr, 
in  das  er  dabei  mit  so  manclien  Fiirsten  und  Ilerrn  kommen,  an  die  Ehrenbezeugungcn,  die  man 
ihm  hier  und  da  erweisen,  an  die  Raths-Depulationen,  die  ihn  in  so  mancher  kleinen  Reichsstadt 
beu>illkommen,an  die  Gastpredigten,die  man  ihm  avftragen,  und  an  die  Ehrfurcht,  womit  dann 
die  ehrliclie  Burger  einer  sole/ten  Stadt,  die  noch  keinen  Kanzler  von  Tubingen  gesehen  hatten, 
mit  Fingern  aufihn  u-eisen  wiirden-dass  auch  der  Gedanke  daran  den  heiteren  und  offenherzi- 
gen  Mann,  der  es  mit  seiiten  kleinen  Schwachheilen  nicht  so  genau  nahm  und  sie  eben  so  leicht 
sich  selbst  as  andern  vergab,  auf  geivisse  Augenblicke  seltr  stark  anziehen  konnte — nimmt  man 
alles  diess  zusamrnen,  so  wird  man  auch  hinreichend  erkld/t  haben,  wie  es  kommen  konnte,  dass 
er  vor  den  Schwierigkeiten  seines  iibernommenen  Geschdfts  nicht  erschrak,  die  sich  ihm  doch 
eben  falls  bei  seiner  Klugheit,  bet  seiner  Weltkenntniss,  und  bei  seiner  besondern  durch  manche 
Erf'ahrung  erkauften  Kenntniss  der  Menschen,  die  er  dabei  zu  bearbeiten  hatle,  lebhafter  als 
hundert  andern  darstellcn  mussten.  Gewiss  standen  auch  diese  Schwierigkeiten  lebhaft  genug 
vor  seiner  Seele,  aber  der  Reiz,  durch  den  er  in  das  Geschd/t  hineingezogen  wurde,  war  so 
stark,  dass  er  ihm  schwerlich  hdtte  widerstehen  konnen,  wenn  er  nicht  nur  die  Millie  und  Ar- 
beit, die  es  ihn  kostcn,  sondern  auch  den  tausendfachen  Verdruss,  den  es  ihm  machen,  die  zahl- 
losen  Krdnkungen,  die  es  ihm  zuziehen,  und  selbst  a/le  die  stechenden  Erinnerungen,  durch  die  es 
ihm  sein  Alter  verbittern  sollte,  vorausgesehen  hdtte.''  Andrea?,  in  connection  with  Vergerius, 
founded  the  first  Bible  Society,  for  Sclavonic  nations  (1 555).  His  grandson,  Johann  Valentin 
Andrea1  (1586-1654),  was  a  man  of  genius  and  more  liberal  views,  and  a  great  admirer  of  the 
order  and  discipline  of  the  Reformed  Cburch  in  Geneva,  which  he  sadly  missed  in  Germany. 

1  Author  of  Loci  theologici;  Examen  Conci/ii  Trident ini ;  Harmonia  Evangel 'iorum  (com- 
pleted by  Polycarp  Leyser  and  John  Gerhard);  De  dunbus  in  Christo  naturis,  and  other 
works  of  vast  learning.  The  Romanists  called  him  a  second  Martin  Luther,  and  said:  lSi 
jioslcrior  non  fuisset,  prior  non  stetisset.'  This  reminds  one  of  the  line, '  Si  Lyra  non  fi/ras- 
set,  I.ntherus  7ion  sallasset.' 

2  He  prepared  the  second  Latin  translation  of  the  Form  of  Concord,  and  is  best  known  by 
one  of  his  hymns  (lAch  bleib  bei  uns,  Ilcrr  Jesu  Christ,'  etc.;  although  it  is  only  in  part 
from  him).  His  numerous  theological  writings  are  forgotten.  He  was  a  little  man  with 
short  legs,  at  first  a  Philippist,  thou  a  rigid  Lutheran  ('parvus  Flacius');  hence  in  turn  at- 
tacked by  all  parties.  ' Die  Reformirten,  gegen  die  er  den  Vers  wandte:  kiErhalt  uns  llnr 
bei  diinem  wort  und  steur  der  Zwinglianer  Mord !''  und  denen  er  die  Schdndung  seiner 
Tochter  in  letzler  Instanz  zuchreiben  zu  miissen  glaubte,  nannten  ihn  das  iiLutherafflein"  bei 
den  streugen  L.utheranern  hiess  er :  "  Schelmlecker,  Seelhenker,  Seelnecator ;"  bei  dm  Melanch' 
thonianern:  "  Judas  alter  in  suspensus."  Auch  mit  seinem  Freund  Andrew  ist  er  zuli/zt  z<  r- 
fallen.  .  .  .  /'in  Jahrhvndert  spdter  wurde  er  unter  die  deutschen  Prppheten  g<  n  timet.'  G. 
Frank.  Vol.  I.  p.  221. 

3  The  remaining  three  authors  were  David  Chytrseus,  Professor  in  Rostock  (d.  1600),  who 
remained  a  faithful  Melanchthonian,  and  met  the  violent  abuse  of  the  zealots  with  silence; 
Andreas  Musculus.  Professor  in  IYankfort-on-the-Oder  (d.  1581),  who  denounced  Melanch- 
thon  as  a  patriarch  of  all  heretics,  and  praised  Luther  as  the  sun  among  the  dim  stars  of  the 
old  fathers ;  and  Christopher  Korner,  Professor  in  Frankfoi  t-on-the-(  )der,  a  friend  of  Chytrajus, 
but  unfortunate  in  his  children,  who  sunk  into  the  lowest  vices  (G.  Frank,  Vol.  I.  p.  222). 


310  THE  CKEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  first  attempts  at  union  were  made  at  the  conferences  in  Frank- 
fort, 1558 ;  Naumbnrg,  1561 ;  Altenburg,  1568 ;  Wittenberg,  1569  ; 
Zerbst,1570;  Dresden,  1571 ;  but  they  utterly  failed  and  increased  the 
dissension. 

After  the  violent  suppression  of  Crypto-Calvinism  in  Electoral  Sax- 
ony (1574),  and  the  death  of  Flacius  (1575)  and  some  other  untracta- 
ble  extremists,  the  work  was  resumed  by  the  Elector  and  other  Princes. 
Theological  conferences  were  again  held  at  Maulbronn  (1575),  Lich- 
tenberg  (1576),  and  Torgau  (1576).  Three  forms  of  agreement  were 
prepared,  which,  though  not  satisfactory,  served  as  a  basis  for  the 
Formula  of  Concord.  The  first  is  the  Swabian  and  Saxo?i  Formula, 
written  by  Andrese  (1574),  and  revised  by  Chemnitz  and  Chytrasus 
(1575).1  The  second  is  the  Maulbronn  Formula,  prepared  by  the 
Swabian  divines  Lucas  Osiander  and  Balthasar  Bidembach  (Nov.  14, 
1575),  and  approved  by  a  convent  of  Lutheran  Princes  in  the  Cloister 
of  Maulbronn  (Jan.  19, 1576).2  The  former  was  found  too  lengthy, 
the  latter  too  brief.  Hence  on  the  basis  of  both  a  third  form  was 
prepared  which  combined  their  merits,  but  omitted  the  honorable 
mention  of  the  name  of  Melanchthon.  This  is  the  '  Torgau  Booh] 
consisting  of  twelve  articles.3  It  was  mainly  the  work  of  Andreas  and 
Chemnitz,  and  completed  by  a  convention  of  eighteen  Lutheran  di- 
vines at  the  Castle  of  Hartenfels,  at  Torgau,  June  7,  1576.  It  was 
sent  by  the  Elector  Augustus  to  all  the  Lutheran  Princes  for  exami- 
nation and  revision.  It  was  closely  scrutinized  by  twenty  conventions 
of  theologians  held  within  three  months,  and  elicited  twenty-five  vota, 
mostly  favorable ;  even  Heshusius  and  Wigand,  the  oracles  of  ortho- 
doxy, were  pleased,  except  that  they  wished  an  express  condemnation 
of  Melanchthon  and  other  '  authors  and  patrons  of  corruptions.' 

At  last  the  present  Formula  of  Concord  was  completed,  on  the  basis 


1  Schwtibisch-Sdchsische  Concordie,  Formula  Suevica  ct  Saxonica,  or  Formula  Concordia. 
iutir  Suevicaa  ct  Saxonicas  Ecclesias,  published  from  MS.,  in  the  original  and  revised  form, 
by  Ileppe,  (tcsrldckte  des  Deulschen  Frotest.Yol.  III.,  Beilagen,  pp.  75-1GG,  and  1GG-325. 
They  were  preceded  by  six  sermons  of  Andrea:  (1573).     Likewise  republished  by  Heppe. 

'-'  See  Heppe,  Vol.  III.  pp.  7G  sqq. 

3  The  'T0BGI8CHB  Buch,'  or  '  Torgisch  Bedenkcn,  welchergestalt  oder  mussen  vermiigc 
Gottea  Worts  die  eingcrissene  Spaltungen  zvrischen  den  Theologen  Augsburgischer  Confession 
chrittlich  verglichen  und  beigelegt  werden  mOchten,  anno  1576.'  It  was  republished  by  Sem- 
ler,  with  Preface  and  notes,  Halle,  17G0,  but  much  better  by  Ileppe,  Marburg,  1857;  second 
edition.  I860. 


§  45.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  1577.  31 1 

of  the  Torgau  Boo*k,  by  six  learned  divines — Andreas  (of  Tubingen), 
Chemnitz  (of  Brunswick),  Selnecker  (of  Leipzig),  Musculus  (of  Frank- 
fort-on-the-Oder),  Cornerus,  or  Korner  (also  of  Frankfort),  and  Chy- 
trseus  (of  Kostock)—  who  met  in  March  and  May,  1577,  in  the  Cloister 
of  Bergen,  near  Magdeburg,  by  order  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  Hence 
it  is  also  called  'The  Bergen  Formula.'1  x  The  Preface  was  written  two 
years  later  by  the  same  authors,  in  the  name  of  the  Lutheran  Princes, 
in  two  conventions  at  Jiiterbock,  January  and  June,  1570.  Three  years 
elapsed  before  the  new  symbolical  book  was  signed  and  solemnly  pub- 
lished, by  order  of  Augustus,  at  Dresden,  June  25,  1580,  the  fiftieth 
anniversary  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  together  with  the  other  Lu- 
theran symbols,  in  one  volume,  called  the  '  Book  or  Concord,'  which 
superseded  all  similar  collections.2  The  Elector  Augustus  celebrated 
the  completion  of  the  work,  which  cost  him  so  much  trouble  and 
money,  by  a  memorial  coin  representing  him  in  full  armor  on  the 
storm-tossed  ship  of  the  church.3 

The  Formula  of  Concord,  like  the  three  preparatory  drafts  on  which 
it  is  based,  was  first  composed  in  the  German  language,  and  published, 
with  the  whole  Book  of  Concord,  at  Dresden,  15S0.  The  Latin  text 
was  imperfectly  prepared  by  Lucas  Osiander,  and  appeared  in  the  Latin 
Concordia,  at  Leipzig,  15S0 ;  then  it  was  materially  improved  by  Sel- 
necker for  his  separate  German-Latin  edition  of  the  Formula  (not  the 
Book)  of  Concord,  Leipzig,  15S2 ;  and  was  again  revised  by  a  convent 
of  Lutheran  divines  at  Quedlinburg,  1583,  under  the  direction  of  Mar- 
tin Chemnitz.  In  this  last  revision  it  was  published  in  the  first  au- 
thentic Latin  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  Leipzig,  1584,  and  has 

1  Or,  Das  Bcn/ische  Buck.  English  writers  usually  call  it  'Form  of  Concord,'  though 
'Formula'  is  more  correct. 

3  See  the  titles  on  p.  220,  and  literary  notices  in  Kbllner,  pp.  502  sqq.  Andrere  directed  the 
editing  of  the  Oerman  Book  of  Concord,  Glaser  and  Fuger  read  the  proof.  The  manuscript 
was  deposited  in  the  library  of  the  chief  church  at  Dresden,  and  burned  up  with  it  July  19, 
17(50.  The  first  Latin  Concordia  ( 1 580)  was  superintended  and  edited,  though  without  proper 
authority,  by  Selnecker;  the  second  edition  (1584)  was  issued  by  authority  of  the  Electors. 
There  are  few  separate  editions  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  the  first  by  Selnecker,  Lipz.  1582. 
See  Kollner,  p.  501. 

3  See  a  description  in  Penzel's  Saxon.  Numism.  as  quoted  by  Planck,  Vol.  VI.  p.  689. 
Augustus  dismissed  Andreie  (1580),  ostensibly  with  great  honor  and  rich  presents,  but  in 
fact  much  displeased  with  the  garrulus  Sucvus,  who  had  spoken  disrespectfully  of  his  theo- 
logical ignorance,  had  fallen  out  with  Chemnitz  and  Selnecker,  and  made  many  enemies.  See 
a  full  account  in  Heppe,Vol.  IV.  pp.  25G-270. 

Vol.  I.— X 


312  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

been  recognized  ever  since  as  the  received  Latin  text.  It  was  also 
translated  into  the  Dutch,  Swedish,  and  English  languages,  but  seldom 
separately  published.1 

§  46.  The  Form  of  Concord,  concluded. 
Analysis  and  Criticism. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  consists  of  two  parts — the  Epitome  and  the 
Solida  Itepetitio  et  Declaratio.  Both  treat,  in  twelve  articles,  of  the 
same  matter — the  first  briefly,  the  other  extensively.  They  begin  with 
the  anthropological  doctrines  of  original  sin  and  freedom  of  the  will ; 
next  pass  on  to  the  soteriological  questions  concerning  justification,  good 
works,  the  law  and  the  gospel,  the  third  use  of  the  law ;  then  to  the 
eucharist  and  the  person  of  Christ;  and  end  with  foreknowledge  and 
election.  This  order  is  characteristic  of  the  Lutheran  system,  as  dis- 
tinct from  the  Calvinistic,  which  begins  with  the  Scriptures,  or  with 
God  and  the  eternal  decrees.  The  most  important  articles  are  those 
on  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  Person  of  Christ,  which  teach  the  pe- 
culiar features  of  the  Lutheran  creed,  viz.,  consubstantiation,  the  com- 
munication of  the  properties  of  the  divine  nature  to  the  human  nature 
of  Christ,  and  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body. 

The  Epitome  contains  all  that  is  essential.  It  first  states  the  con- 
troversy {status  controversial),  then  the  true  doctrine  {a-ffirmativa),  and, 
last,  it  condemns  the  error  (negativa).  In  the  Solid  Repetition  and 
Declaration  this  division  is  omitted ;  but  the  articles  are  more  fully 
explained  and  supported  by  ample  quotations  from  tlje  Scriptures,  the 
fathers,  the  older  Lutheran  Confessions,  and  the  private  writings  of 
Dr.  Luther,  which  swell  it  to  about  five  times  the  size  of  the  Epitome. 

Each  part  is  preceded  by  an  important  introduction,  which  lays 
down  the  fundamental  Protestant  principle  that  the  Canonical  Scrip- 
tures are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  doctrine,2  and  fixes  the  number 
of  (nine)  symbolical  books  to  be  hereafter  acknowledged  in  the  Lu- 

1  See  the  authorized  Latin  text  of  the  Epitome,  with  a  new  English  translation,  in  Vol.  III. 
pp. :»::  Bqq.  An  English  Version  of  the  Formula  from  the  German  text  appeared  in  The 
Christian  Book  of  Concord;  or,  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  New 
Market, Va.,  1851,  '_'d  ed.,1854.     It  professes  to  be  literal,  but  is  very  stiff  and  unidiomatic. 

1  '  iJir  einige  Regel  unci  Richtschnur  (unica  regula  et  norma),  nach  welcher  alle  Lchren  unci 
L>  In;  r  u<  richtet  unci  geurtheilt  werclen  sollen.'  Comp.  Fsa.  cxix.  105  ;  Gal.  i.  8.  The  extent 
of  the  Canon,  however,  is  not  defined,  as  in  several  Reformed  Confessions,  and  the  question  of 
ih"  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament  is  left  open. 


§  46.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         313 

theran  Church,  not  as  judges,  but  as  witnesses  and  expositions  of  the 
Christian  faith ;  namely,  the  three  oecumenical  Symbols  (the  Apostles', 
the  Nicene,  and  the  Athanasian),  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,1 
the  Apology  of  the  Confession,  the  Articles  of  Smalcald,  the  Smaller 
and  Larger  Catechisms  of  Luther,2  and  the  Formula  of  Concord.  The 
Scriptures  contain  the  crede?ida,  the  things  to  be  believed ;  the  Sym- 
bols the  credita,  the  things  that  are  believed.  Yet  the  second  part  of 
the  Formula  quotes  Dr.  Luther,  'jyice  sanctceque  memorial  as  freely, 
and  with  at  least  as  much  deference  to  his  authority,  as  Roman  Catho- 
lics quote  the  fathers.  Melanchthon,  the  author  of  the  fundamental 
Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  is  never  named,  but  indirectly  con- 
demned ;  and  as  to  poor  Zwingli,  he  is  indeed  mentioned,  but  only  to 
be  held  up  to  pious  horror  for  his  ' blasphemous  allceosis?2  Thus  the 
supremacy  of  the  Bible  is  maintained  in  principle,  but  Luther  is  re- 
garded as  its  regulative  and  almost  infallible  expounder. 

We  now  proceed  to  give  a  summary  of  the  Formula. 

Art.  I.  Of  Original  Sin. — It  is  not  the  moral  essence,  or  substance, 
or  nature  of  man  (as  Flacius  taught  with  the  old  Manichseans),  but  a 
radical  corruption  of  that  nature,  which  can  never  be  entirely  eradi- 
cated in  this  world  (against  the  Pelagian  and  semi-Pelagian  heresies). 

Art.  II.  Of  Feee  Will. — Man,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  fall,  has 
lost  the  divine  image,  is  spiritually  blind,  disabled,  dead,  and  even 
hostile  to  God,  and  can  contribute  nothing  towards  his  conversion, 
which  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  alone,  through  the  means  of 
grace.  The  Formula,  following  Luther,  uses  stronger  terms  on  the 
slavery  of  the  will  and  total  depravity  than  the  Calvinistic  Confessions. 
It  compares  the  unconverted  man  to  a  column  of  salt,  Lot's  wife,  a 
statue  without  mouth  or  eyes,  a  dead  stone,  block  and  clod,4  and  de- 

1  ''Die  erste  unqednderte  Augsb.  Confession'  (Auyustanam  Mam  primam  et  7io?i  mutatam 
Confessionem).  The  Preface  (pp.  13, 14)  rejects  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession  (of  1540), 
if  it  be  understood  as  teaching  another  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

2  These  are  called  the  '  LaienbibeV  (laicorum  hiblia,  the  layman's  Bible),  ldarin  alles 
begriffen,was  in  heiliger  Schrift  iceitlduftig  gehandelt,und  einem  Cltristenmenschen  zu  wissen 
vonnbthen  ist.' 

3  Sol.  Deri.  Art.  VIII.  p.  G78  (ed.  Midler)  :  ' Die  gotteslasterliche  alheosis  Zwiwjlii,'  which 
Dr.  Luther  condemned  'n/s  drs  Tenfels  Larve  bis  in  den  Abgrund  der  lliilb  n.' 

*  Solida  Deelaratio,  Art.  II.  §  24  (p.  GG2  ed.Rech.,  p.  .r.!)4  ed.  Midler):  ' Antequam  homo 
per  Spiritum  Sanctum  illuminatur,convertitur,  regenerator  et  tra/iitur  .  .  .  ad  conversionem  atit 
regenerationem  moan  nihil  inchoare,operari,  out  coSperari  potest,  nee  plus  quam  lapis,  truncus, 
ant  limus  (so  wenig  als  ein  Stein  oder  Block  oder  I'hon)'.    Thomasius  and  .Staid  disapprove  of 


314  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

nies  to  him  the  least  spark  of  spiritual  power.1  lie  can  not  even  ac- 
cept the  gospel  (which  is  the  work  of  pure  grace),  but  he  may  reject  it, 
and  thereby  incur  damnation. 

This  article  condemns  the  fatalism  of  the  Stoics  and  Manicheeans, 
the  anthropological  heresies  of  the  Pelagians  and  Semi-Pelagians,  but 
also  and  especially  the  Synergism  of  Melanchthon  and  the  Philippists. 
The  chief  framers  of  the  Formula — Andreas,  Chemnitz,  Selnecker, 
and  Chytrseus — were  at  first  in  favor  of  Synergism,  which  would  have 
been  more  consistent  with  Article  XI. ;  the  Swabian-Saxon  Concordia, 
drawn  up  by  Chemnitz  and  Chytraeus,  and  the  Torgau  Book  actually 
contained  synergistic  passages.2  But  they  were  omitted  or  exchanged 
for  others,  and  consistency  was  sacrificed  to  veneration  for  Luther. 

There  is  an  obvious  and  irreconcilable  antagonism  between  Art.  II. 
and  Art.  XI.  They  contain  not  simply  opposite  truths  to  be  recon- 
ciled by  theological  science,  but  contradictory  assertions,  which  ought 
never  to  be  put  into  a  creed.  The  Formula  adopts  one  part  of  Luther's 
book  De  servo  aroitrio  (1525),  and  rejects  the  other,  which  follows 
with  logical  necessity.  It  is  Augustinian — yea,  hyper-Augustinian  and 
hyper-Calvmistic  in  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity,  and  anti- Augus- 
tinian in  the  doctrine  of  divine  predestination.  It  indorses  the  anthro- 
pological premise,  and  denies  the  theological  conclusion.  If  man  is  by 
nature  like  a  stone  and  block,  and  unable  even  to  accept  the  grace  of 

these  expressions,  and  Luthardt  (Lehre  v.  freien  Willen,  p.  272)  admits,  at  least,  that  they 
are  unfortunately  chosen  (ungliicklich  gewahlt).     Fr.  H.  R.  Frank  defends  them. 

1  Ibid.  Art.  II.  §  7  (p.  G56  ed.  Rech. ,  p.  589  ed.  Midler) :  .  .  . '  homo  ad  bonum prorsus  corruptus 
et  mortuus  sit,  ita  ut  in  hominis  natura  post  lapsum  ante  reyenerationem  ne  scintillula  quidem 
spiritualium  virium  (nicht  ein  Filnklein  der  geistlichen  Krafte)  reliqua  manserit  aut  restet, 
qnibus  i/le  ex  se  ad  gratiam  Dei  proeparare  se  aut  oblatam  gratiam  apprehendere,  aut  eius 
gratia  (ex  sese  et  per  se)  capax  esse  possit,  aut  se  ad  gratiam  applicare  aut  accommodare,  aut 
viribus  sxds  propriia  aliquid  ad  conversionem  suam  vel  ex  toto  vel  ex  dimidia  vel  ex  minima 
parte  ronferre,  agere,  operari  aut  cooperari  (ex  se  ipso  tanquam  ex  semet  ipso)  possit  (oder  aus 
seinen  eigenen  Kraften  etwas  zu  seiner  Bekehrung,  weder  zum  ganzen  noch  zum  halben  oder 
zu  einigem  dem  ivenigsten  oder  geringsten  Theil,  helfen,  thun,  wir/cen  oder  mitwirken  vermoge, 
ran  ihm  sell/st,  als  von  ihm  selbst).  .  .  .  Inde  adeo  naturale  liberum  arbitrium,  ratione  cor- 
ruptarum  virium  et  natural  sum  depravata;  duntaxat  ad  ea,  quce  Deo  displicent  et  adversan- 
tur,  activum  et  efficax  est.'  This  and  similar  statements  are  followed  by  quotations  from 
Dr.  Luther,  where  he  compares  the  natural  man  to  'a  column  of  salt,  Lot*s  wife,  a  clod  and 
stone,  a  dead  statue  without  eyes  or  mouth.'  All  he  said  against  Erasmus,  and  later,  in  his 
Commentary  on  Genesis,  about  free  will,  is  indorsed.  Flacius  inferred  from  the  same  teacher 
lii>  Mauiclucan  error,  which  the  Formula  condemns  in  Art.  I. 

3  Sec  these  passages  in  Gieselcr,Vol.  IV.  p.  486,  note  24  ;  Heppe,  Der  Text  der  Bergisehen 
<  'oncordii  nformel  verglichen,  etc. ;  Luthardt,  Lehre  vom  freien  Willen,  pp.  202  sqq.  Comp. 
also  the  remarks  of  Planck, Vol. VI.  pp.  718  sqq. 


§  46.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         315 

God  (as  Art.  II.  teaches),  lie  can  only  be  converted  by  an  act  of  al- 
mighty power  and  irresistible  grace  (which  Art.  XI.  denies).  If  some 
men  are  saved,  without  any  co-operation  on  their  part,  while  others, 
with  the  same  inability  and  the  same  opportunities,  are  lost,  the  differ- 
ence points  to  a  particular  predestination  and  the  inscrutable  decree  of 
God.  On  the  other  hand,  if  God  sincerely  wills  the  salvation  of  all 
men  (as  Art.  XI.  teaches),  and  yet  only  a  part  are  actually  saved,  there 
must  be  some  difference  in  the  attitude  of  the  saved  and  the  lost  to- 
wards converting  grace  (which  is  denied  in  Art.  II.). 

The  Lutheran  system,  then,  to  be  consistent,  must  rectify  itself,  and 
develop  either  from  Art.  II.  in  the  direction  of  Augustinianism  and 
Calvinism,  or  from  Art.  XI.  in  the  direction  of  Synergism  and  Ar- 
minianism.  The  former  would  be  simply  returning  to  Luther's  orig- 
inal doctrine,  which  he  never  recalled,  though  he  may  have  modified 
it  a  little ;  the  latter  is  the  path  pointed  out  by  Melanchthon,  and 
adopted  more  or  less  by  some  of  the  ablest  modern  Lutherans.1  In 
either  case  the  second  article  needs  modification.  It  uses  the  language 
of  feeling  rather  than  sober  reflection,  and  gives  the  rhetorical  ex- 
pressions of  subjective  experience  the  dignity  of  symbolical  statement. 
We  can,  indeed,  not  feel  too  strongly  the  sinfulness  of  sin  and  the 
awful  corruption  of  our  hearts.  Nevertheless,  God's  image  in  man  is 
not  lost  or  exchanged  for  Satan's  image,  but  only  disfigured,  disabled, 
and  lying  in  ruins.  Man  is,  indeed,  in  his  prevailing  inclination,  a 
slave  of  sin,  yet  susceptible  of  the  influences  of  divine  grace,  and  re- 
mains moral  and  responsible  in  accepting  or  rejecting  the  gospel,  be- 
fore as  well  as  after  conversion.  His  reason,  his  conscience,  his  sense 
of  sin,  his  longing  for  redemption  and  for  peace  with  God,  his  prayers, 
his  sacrifices,  and  all  the  '  testimonia  animce  naturaliter  Christiana?] 
bear  witness  with  one  voice  to  his  divine  origin,  his  divine  destina- 
tion, and  his  adaptation  to  the  Christian  salvation.2  But  on  the  other 
hand  there  are  innumerable  mysteries  of  Providence  in  the  order  of 
nature  as  well  as  of  grace,  and  inequalities  in  the  distribution  of  gifts 

1  As  Thomasius,  Stahl,  Harless,  Hofmann,  Luthardt,  Kahnis.  See  Luthardt,  Die  Lehre 
com  freien  Willen,  pp.  378  sqq. 

2  Well  says  Goethe — 

'War'1  nicht  das  Avgc  sonncnhaft, 

WU  feBflflfe  ci  das  Light  erblickm* 
LebV  nicht  in  una  des  QottM  eigne  Kraft, 
H'te  ki'mnV  wis  Odttlichet  cntziickenV 


316  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  opportunities,  which  baffle  solution  in  this  present  world,  and  can 
only  be  traced  to  the  inscrutable  wisdom  of  God.  The  human  mind 
has  not  been  able  as  yet  satisfactorily  to  set  forth  the  harmony  of  God's 
sovereignty  and  man's  responsibility. 

Art.  III.  Of  Justification  by  Faith. — Christ  is  our  righteousness, 
not  according  to  the  divine  nature  alone  (Andrew  Osiander),  nor  ac- 
cording to  the  human  nature  alone  (Stancar),  but  the  whole  Christ. 
God  justifies  us  out  of  pure  grace,  without  regard  to  antecedent,  pres- 
ent, or  subsequent  works  or  merit,  by  imputing  to  us  the  righteousness 
of  the  obedience  of  Christ.  Faith  alone  is  the  medium  and  instrument 
by  which  we  apprehend  Christ.  Justification  is  a  declaratory  or  foren- 
sic act — a  sentence  of  absolution  from  sin,  not  an  infusion  of  righteous- 
ness (Osiander). 

Art.  IV.  Of  Good  Works. — Good  works  must  always  follow  true 
faith,  but  they  are  neither  necessary  to  salvation  (Major),  nor  dangerous 
or  injurious  to  salvation  (Amsdorf).  Salvation  is  of  free  grace  alone, 
apprehended  by  faith. 

Art.  V.  Of  the  Law  and  the  Gospel. — The  object  of  the  law  is  to 
reprove  sin  and  to  preach  repentance ;  the  gospel  (in  its  specific  sense) 
is  a  joyful  message,  the  preaching  of  Christ's  atonement  and  satisfac- 
tion for  all  sins. 

Art.  VI.  Of  the  Third  Use  of  the  Law — i.  e.,  its  obligation  to  be- 
lievers, as  distinct  from  its  civil  or  political,  and  its  paedagogic  or  moral 
use  in  maintaining  order,  and  leading  to  a  conviction  of  sin.  Believers, 
though  redeemed  from  the  curse  and  restraint  of  the  law,  are  bound  to 
obey  the  law  with  a  free  and  willing  spirit.  Antinomianism  is  re- 
jected. 

Art.  VII.  Of  the  Lord's  Supper. — The  most  important  controversy 
and  chief  occasion  of  the  Formula — hence  the  length  of  this  Article  in 
the  second  part.  It  sets  forth  clearly  and  fully  the  doctrine  of  con- 
substantiation  (as  it  is  usually  called,  in  distinction  from  the  Romish 
transubstantiation),  i.  e.,  of  the  co-existence  of  two  distinct  yet  insep- 
arable substances  in  the  sacrament.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  real  and 
substantial  presence  of  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in,  with, 
and  tmder  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  (in,  cum,  et  sub  pane  et 
vino),  and  the  oral  manducation  of  both  substances  by  unbelieving  as 
well  as  believing  communicants,  though  with  opposite  effects.     The 


§  4G.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         317 

sacramental  union  of  Christ's  real  body  and  blood  with  the  element? 
is  not  an  impanation  or  local  inclusion,  nor  a  mixture  of  two  sub- 
stances, nor  a  permanent  (extra-sacramental)  conjunction,  but  it  is  il- 
local,  supernatural,  unmixed,  and  confined  to  the  sacramental  transac- 
tion or  actual  use.1  Nor  is  it  effected  by  priestly  consecration,  but  by 
the  omnipotent  power  of  God,  and  the  word  and  institution  of  Christ. 
The  body  of  Christ  is  eaten  with  the  mouth  by  all  communicants,  but 
the  notion  of  a  Capernaitic  or  physical  eating  with  the  teeth  is  indig- 
nantly rejected  as  a  malignant  and  blasphemous  slander  of  the  sac- 
ramentarians.2 

The  Formula  condemns  the  Eomish  dogma  of  transubstantiation, 
the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  the  withdrawal  of  the  cup  from  the  laity, 
but  with  equal  or  greater  emphasis  the  Reformed  and  Melanchthonian 
(Crypto-Calvinistic)  theory  of  a  spiritual  real  presence  and  fruition  of 
Christ  by  faith,  or  by  believers  only,  without  making  a  distinction  be- 
tween Zwinglians  and  Calvinists,  except  that  the  latter  are  called  '  the 
most  pernicious  of  all  sacramentarians.' 3 

Art.  VIII.  Of  the  Person  of  Christ. — This  article  gives  scholastic 
support  to  the  preceding  article  on  the  eucharistic  presence,  and  con- 
tains an  addition  to  the  Lutheran  creed.  It  teaches  the  communicatio 
idiomatum  and  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body.     It  raised  the  private 

1  'Nihil  habet  rationem  sacramenti  extra  usum,seu  actionem  divinitus  institutam'  (Sol.  Decl. 
p.  C63).  Gerhard  and  the  later  Lutheran  theologians  describe  the  presence  as  sacramental  is, 
vera  et  realis,  substantialis,  m;/stica,  supernaturalis  et  incomprehensibilis,  and  distinguish  it 
from  the  prasentia  gloriosa  (in  heaven),  hi/postatica  (of  the  \6yoe.  in  the  human  nature), 
sjnritualis  (operativa,  or  virtualis),  Jigurativa  (jmaginativa,  symbolical.  It  is  a  Trapovoia, 
not  an  airovoia  (absence),  nor  ivovcria  (inexistence),  nor  avvovaia  (co-existence  in  the  sense 
of  coalescence),  nor  nerovaia  (transubstantiation).  They  reject  the  term  consubstantiation  in 
the  sense  of  impanation  or  incorporation  into  bread,  or  physical  coalescence  and  fusion.  The 
Formula  itself  does  not  use  the  term. 

3  And  yet  Dr.  Luther  himself  unequivocally  taught  the  literal  mastication  of  Christ's  body. 
He  gave  it  as  the  sum  of  his  belief,  to  which  he  'would  adhere  though  the  world  should  col- 
lapse,' that  Christ's  body  was  '  ausgetheilt,  gegessen  una1  mit  pen  Zahnen  zerbissen  '  (Letter 
to  Jonas,  Dec.  1G,  1534,  J3r  <>/'<>,  Vol.  IV.  p.  569).  He  instructed  Melanchthon  to  insist  on 
this  in  the  conference  he  had  with  Bucer  in  Cassel,  Dec.  1534  ;  but  Melanchthon,  though  not 
emancipated  from  Luther's  view  at  that  time,  declined  to  shoulder  it  as  his  own,  and  began 
to  change  his  ground  on  the  eucharistic  question.  Corp.  Ref.  Vol.  II.  p.  822.  Comp.  Schmidt, 
Mel.  p.  31!)  ;   Ebrard,  Abendmahl,Yo\.  II.  pp.  375  sqq. 

1  Planck  (Vol. VI.  pp.  732  sqq.)  charges  the  Formula  with  willful  misrepresentation  of 
Calvin's  view,  which  he  had  so  clearly,  distinctly,  and  repeatedly  set  forth,  especially  in  his 
tracts  against  Westphal,  and  which  had  since  been  embodied  in  the  Confessions  of  the  Re- 
formed  churches.  Thomasius,  Stahl,  and  other  orthodox  Lutherans,  freely  admit  the  mate- 
rial difference  between  Calvin  and  Zwingli  in  the  theory  of  the  cucharist. 


318  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

opinions  and  speculations  of  Luther,  Brentius,  and  Chemnitz  on  these 
topics  to  the  authority  of  a  dogma.  Some  regard  this  as  the  crowning 
excellence  of  the  Formula;1  others,  even  in  the  Lutheran  communion, 
as  its  weakest  and  most  assailable  point.2  It  was  certainly  very  unwise, 
as  history  has  shown,  to  introduce  the  scholastic  subtleties  of  meta- 
phvsical  theology  into  a  public  confession  of  faith. 

The  Formula  derives  from  the  personal  union  of  the  two  natures  in 
Christ  (unio  hypostatiea,  or  personalis)  the  communion  of  natures  (com- 
munio  naturarum),  from  the  communion  of  natures  the  communica- 
tion of  properties  or  attributes  {eommunicatio  idiomatum, &  term  used 
first  by  the  scholastics),  and  from  the  communication  of  properties  the 
omnipresence  or  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body.  The  controversy  between 
the  Lutheran  and  Reformed,  who  both  professedly  stand  on  the  com- 
mon theanthropic  Christology  of  Chalcedon,  refers  to  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  communication  of  properties,  and  especially  to  the  ubiq- 
uity of  Christ's  body  derived  therefrom. 

The  Formula  (in  the  Second  Part)  distinguishes  three  kinds  of  the 
eommunicatio  idiomatum,  which  were  afterwards  more  fully  ana- 
lyzed, defined,  and  designated  by  the  Lutheran  scholastics  of  the  sev- 
enteenth century.3 

1  My  friend,  Dr.  Krauth,  goes  so  far  as  to  say  (1.  c.  p.  31 G) :  '  The  doctrine  of  the  person 
of  Christ  presented  in  the  Formula  rests  upon  the  sublimest  series  of  inductions  in  the  history 
of  Christian  doctrine.  In  all  confessional  history  there  is  nothing  to  be  compared  with  it  in 
the  combination  of  exact  exegesis,  of  dogmatic  skill,  and  of  fidelity  to  historical  development. 
Fifteen  centuries  of  Christian  thought  culminate  in  it.'  But  in  his  lengthy  exposition  he 
does  not  even  mention  the  important  difference  between  the  Swabian  and  Saxon  schools,  nor 
the  various  forms  of  the  eommunicatio  idiomatum,  and  evades  the  renl  difficulty  by  resolving, 
apparently  (p.  318),  the  communication  of  divine  properties  into  an  efficacious  manifestation 
of  the  Godhead  in  and  through  the  assumed  humanity  of  Christ — which  has  never  been  dis- 
puted by  Reformed  divines. 

3  Even  Luthardt  admits  at  least  the  artificial  construction  of  the  Christology  of  the  Formula, 
and  its  inconsistency  with  the  historical  realness  of  the  picture  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels  (Com- 
pend.  der  Dogmatik,  p.  144  ;  comp.  also  Kahnis,  Luth.  Dogmatik,Vo\.  III.  p.  338  sq.).  The 
modern  Lutheran  Kenoticists,  Thomasius,  Hofmann  (Luthardt  inclines  to  them,  p.  155) — not 
to  speak  of  the  extreme  form  to  which  Gess  carried  the  kevugiq — virtually  depart  from  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  which  pronounces  it  a  'blasphemous  perversion'  to  explain  Matt, 
xxviii.  18  ('all  power  is  given  to  me,'  etc.)  in  the  sense  that  Christ  had  ever  laid  aside  or 
abandoned  his  almighty  power  in  the  state  of  humiliation  (E/rit.,  at  the  close  of  Art.  VIII.). 

J  We  anticipate,  for  the  sake  of  clearness,  from  the  later  orthodox  writers  the  names  of  the 
three  genera.  The  substance  is  already  in  the  Formula,  and  in  the  treatise  of  Chemnitz,  De, 
duabus  naturis  in  Christo,  1580.  For  a  fuller  exposition,  with  ample  quotations  from  Chem- 
nitz, John  Gerhard,  Hafenreffer,  Hotter,  Calov,  Quenstedt,  Konig,  Baier,  Hollnz,  see  Hein- 
rksh  Schmid's  Dogmatik  der  evemg.  lutherischen  Kirchc  (2d  ed.  1847),  pp.  252  sqq. ;  comp.  also 
Luthardt,  pp,  l  1 1  Bqq.,and  Kahnis,  Vol.  II.  pp.  335  sqq. 


§  4G.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         3^9 

1.  The  genus  idiomaticum,  by  which  the  attributes  of  one  or  the 
other  nature  are  communicated  to  the  whole  person.  Thus  it  is  said 
that  '  the  Son  of  God  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David,  according  to 
the  flesh'  (Rom.  i.  3),  that  'Christ  was  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,'  and 
that  'lie  suffered  in  the  flesh'  (1  Pet.  iii.  IS;  iv.  I).1  Here  Luther's 
warning  is  quoted  against  Zwingli's  alloeosis,  as  'a  mask  of  the  devil.' 

2.  The  genus  apotelesmaticum,  or  the  KOivtavta  inroTiXzaficiTOJi;2  which 
has  reference  to  the  execution  of  the  office  of  Christ :  the  communica- 
tion of  redeeming  acts  of  the  whole  person  to  one  of  the  two  natures. 
Christ  always  operates  in  and  through  both.  Thus  Christ,  neither  as 
God  nor  man  alone,  but  as  God-man,  is  our  Mediator,  Redeemer,  King, 
High-Priest,  Shepherd,  etc.  He  shed  his  blood  according  to  his  hu- 
man nature,  but  the  divine  nature  gave  it  infinite  value  (1  Cor.  xv.  3 : 
'Christ  died  for  our  sins;'  Gal.  i.  4;  iii.  17;  1  John  iii.  8  ;  Luke  ix.  5G). 

3.  The  genus  majestaticum,  or  aucAematicum,3  i.  e.,  the  communica- 
tion of  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature  to  the  assumed  humanity  of 
Christ.  'The  human  nature  of  Christ,'  says  the  Formula,  'over  and 
above  its  natural,  essential,  and  permanent  human  properties,  has  also 
received  special,  high,  great,  supernatural,  inscrutable,  ineffable,  heav- 
enly prerogatives  and  pre-eminence  in  majesty,  glory,  power,  and  might, 
above  all  that  can  be  named  (Eph.  i.  21).' 4  .  .  .  'This  majesty  of  the 
human  nature  was  hidden  and  restrained  in  the  time  of  the  humilia- 
tion. Put  now,  since  the  form  of  a  servant  is  laid  aside,  the  majesty 
of  Christ  appears  fully,  efficiently,  and  manifestly  before  all  the  saints 
in  heaven  and  on  earth,  and  we  also  in  the  life  to  come  shall  see  his 

:  This  genus  was  subsequently  subdivided  into  three  species,  corresponding  to  the  con- 
cretum  of  the  divine  nature,  the  concretum  of  the  human  nature,  and  the  concrctum  of  both 
natures,  of  which  the  idiomata  are  predicated,  viz.,  (a)  iSionoinaic,  or  01'ttiWic,  i.  e.,'  appro- 
priatio,  quando  idiomata  humana  de  conc.reto  divinoz  natural  enuntiantur,'  Acts  iii.  15;  xx.  28; 
1  Cor.  ii.  8;  Gal.  ii.  20;  Psa.  xlv.  8.  (b)  Kotvwvia  twv  Siiwv,1  communic.  divinorum  idioma- 
tum,  quando  de  persona  verbi  inrarnali,  ab  humana  natura  denominata,  idiomata  divina  oh 
vnionem  personalem  enunlianturj  John  vi.  62;  viii.  f>8  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  47.  (r)  'AiniooaiQ,  or 
ovpaptioTipuj/ior,1  alternatio  s.  reciprocatio,  qua  tarn  divina  quam  humana  idiomata  de  con- 
creto  persona;  sive  de  Christo,  ab  utraque  natura  denominate,  prcedicantur,'  Ileb.  xiii.  8; 
Rom.  ix.  5  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  4  ;    1  Pet.  iii.  18.     Fee  Schmid,  p.  268. 

2  The  expression  is  borrowed  from  John  of  Damascus.  iTCOTtktopa  means  properly  com- 
pletion of  the  work  (consummatio  operis),  effect,  result ;  but  it  is  here  used  for  each  action  in 
the  threefold  office  of  Christ. 

3  From  ai<xnfta,  gloria.  This  genus  is  also  called  (3t\riu<rtCt  i'TTtpvipaxrtc,  pirucoaig,  Siuoig, 
aTToSiooia,  Stoiroinaic,  unctio. 

*  Sol.  Decl.  Art.  VIII.  p.  686  Ted.  Mailer). 


320  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

glory  face  to  face  (John  xvii.  24).  For  this  reason,  there  is  and  re- 
mains in  Christ  only  one  divine  omnipotence,  power,  majesty,  and 
glory,  which  is  the  property  of  the  divine  nature  alone;  but  this 
shines  forth,  exhibits,  and  manifests  itself  fully,  yet  spontaneously,  in, 
with,  and  through  the  assumed,  exalted  human  nature  in  Christ ;  pre- 
cisely as  to  shine  and  to  burn  are  not  two  properties  of  iron,  but  the 
power  to  shine  and  to  burn  is  the  property  of  the  fire — but  since  the 
fire  is  united  with  the  iron,  it  exhibits  and  manifests  its  power  to  shine 
and  to  burn  in,  with,  and  through  this  red-hot  iron ;  so  that  also  the 
red-hot  iron,  through  this  union,  has  the  power  to  shine  and  to  burn, 
without  a  change  of  the  essence  and  of  the  natural  properties  of  the 
fire  or  of  the  iron.' l 

The  Lutheran  scholastics  make  here  a  distinction  between  the  opera- 
tive attributes  (omnipotence,  omniscience,  omnipresence)  and  the  quies- 
cent attributes  (eternity,  infinitude) :  all  were  communicated  to  Christ 
for  inhabitation  and  possession,  but  only  the  operative  for  use — xpnaig, 
usurpatio  (Matt,  xxviii.  18;  John  xvii.  2,  5,  27 ;  Col.  ii.  3). 

4.  Strict  logic  would  require  a  fourth  genus  {genus  rairuvwTiKov), 
namely,  the  communication  of  the  attributes  of  the  human  nature  to 
the  divine  nature.  But  this  is  rejected  by  the  Formula  and  the  Lu- 
theran scholastics,  on  the  ground  that  the  divine  nature  is  unchange- 
able, and  received  no  accession  nor  detraction  from  the  incarnation.2 
This  is  a  palpable  inconsistency,3  and  is  fatal  to  the  third  genus.  For 
if  there  is  any  real  communication  of  the  properties  of  the  two  natures, 
it  must  be  mutual ;  the  one  is  the  necessary  counterpart  of  the  other. 
If  the  human  nature  is  capable  of  the  divine,  the  divine  nature  must 
be  capable  of  the  human ;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  divine  nature 
is  incapable  of  the  human,  the  human  nature  must  be  incapable  of 
the  divine.  Luther  felt  this,  and  boldly  uses  such  expressions  as  'God 
suffered,'  'God  died,'  which  were  familiar  to  the  Monophysites.4 

1  P.  68!). 

1  Sol.  Deri.  p.  684  :  '  Was  die  gottlirhe  Natur  in  C/iristo  anlanget,  iveil  bei  Gott  keine  Veran- 
derung  ist  {.Juc.  1, 17),  ist  seiner  guttlkhen  Natur  durch  die  Menschwerdung  an  ihrem  Wesen 
und  Eigensrhaften  nic.hts  ab-oder  zugegangen,  ist  in  oder  fur  sich  dadurch  weder  gemindert 
noch  gemehret.'  This  raises  the  question  how  far  the  unchangeableness  of  God  is  affected  by 
the  incarnation,  about  which  Dr.  Dorner  has  written  some  profound  articles  in  the  Jahrbucher 
fQr  Deutsche  Theologie,1856  and  1858. 

J  As  Thomasiua  and  Kahnis  (Vol.  III.  p.  339)  admit. 

*  'HVi7  Gottheit  und  Menschheit,'  he  says  (Vol.  XXX.  p.  204,  Erl.  ed.),'/une  Person  ist, 


§  46.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         321 

The  battle-ground  between  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  is  the 
genus  majestaticum,  for  which  John  of  Damascus  had  prepared  the 
way.  But  just  here  the  Formula  is  neither  quite  clear  nor  consist- 
ent. It  was  unable  to  harmonize  the  two  different  Lutheran  Chris- 
tologies  represented  among  the  authors  by  Andrea}  and  Chemnitz.1 
It  teaches,  on  the  one  hand  (to  guard  against  the  charge  of  Eutychian- 
ism  and  Monophysitism),  that  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature  (as 
omnipotence,  eternity,  infinitude,  omnipresence,  omniscience)  'can  never 
become  (intrinsically  and  per  se)  the  attributes  of  the  human  nature,' 
and  that  the  attributes  of  the  human  nature  (as  corporeality,  limita- 
tion, circumscription,  passibility,  mortality,  hunger,  thirst)  'can  never 
become  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature.'2  (This  quite  agrees  with 
the  doctrine  of  Chemnitz  and  of  the  Reformed  theologians.)  But,  on 
the  other  hand  (in  opposition  to  Nestorianism  and  the  '  sacramentarians,' 
as  the  Reformed  are  called),  the  Formula  asserts  that,  by  virtue  of  the 
hypostatic  or  personal  union  of  the  two  natures  and  the  communion 
of  natures,  one  nature  may,  nevertheless  (by  derivation  and  depend- 
ency), partake  of  the  properties  of  the  other,  or  at  least  that  the  human 
nature,  while  retaining  its  inherent  properties,  may  and  does  receive 
(as  peculiar  prerogatives,  or  as  dona  superadditd)  the  attributes  of 
divine  glory,  majesty,  power,  omniscience,  and  omnipresence.3  Thus 
God  is  really  man,  and  man  is  really  God ;  Mary  is  truly  the  mother 
of  God,  since  she  conceived  and  brought  forth  the  Son  of  God ;  the 

so  giebt  die  Schrift  um  solcher  personlichen  Einigkeit  willen  auch  alles,  was  der  Menschheit 
widerfdhrt,  der  Gottheit,  und  wiederum.  Und  ist  auch  also  in  der  Wahrheit.  Denn  da  musst 
du  ja  sagen:  Die  Person  leidet,  stirbt ;  nun  ist  die  Person  walirhaf tiger  Gott:  durum  ist's 
recht  geredet :  Gottes  So/in  leidet.' 

1  See  above,  pp.  290-294. 

2  Epit.  VIII.  (p.  645,  ed.  Miiller)  :  '  Wir  glduben,  lehren  und  bekennen,  dass  die  gottliche  und 
menschliche  Nutur  nicht  in  ein  Wesen  vermengct,  keine  in  die  andere  verwandelt,  sondern  ein 
jede  ihre  wesentliche  Eigenschaften  behalte,  welche  der  andern  Natur  Eigenschaften 
nimmermehr  werden.  Die  Eigenschaften  gottlicher  Natur  sind:  allmdchtig,  eicig,  etc., 
sein,  well  he  der  menschlichen  Natur  Eigenschaften  nimmermehr  uerden.  Die  Eigenschaften 
menschlicher  Natur  sind:  ein  leiblich  Ge.schSpf oder  Creatur  sein,  etc.,  welche  der  guttlichen 
Natur  Eigenschaften  nimmermehr  werden.'     Comp.  the  Sol.Decl.  Art.  VIII. 

3  Epit.  VIII.  (p-  546)  :  '  Sondern  hie  ist  die  hdchste  Gemeinschaft,  welche  Gott  mit  dem  Men- 
schen  wahrhaftig  hat,  aus  iceliher  personlic/ien  Vereinigung  und  der  daraus  erfolgenden  hochsten 
und  unaussprechlichen  Gtmeinschaft  alles  herjleusst,  was  menschlich  von  Gott,  und  gSttlich 
vom  Menschen  Christo  gesaget  und  gegldubet  wird;  wie  solche  Vereinigung  und  Gemeinschaft 
der  Naturen  die  a/ten  Kirchenlehrer  durch  die  Gleichniss  eines  feurigen  Eisens,  wie  auch  der 
Vereinigung  Leibes  und  der  Seelen  im  Menschen  erhldret  haben.'  The  Sol.  Decl.  repeats  the 
same  at  greater  length. 


322  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Son  of  God  truly  suffered,  though  according  to  the  property  of  his 
human  nature ;  Christ  as  man,  not  only  as  God,  knows  all  things,  is 
able  to  do  all  things,  is  present  to  all  creatures,  and  was  so  from  the 
moment  of  the  incarnation.  For  (as  the  Solid  Declaration  expressly 
states)  Christ,  according  to  his  humanity,  received  his  divine  Majesty 
'  when  he  Mas  conceived  in  the  womb  and  became  man,  and  when  the 
divine  and  human  natures  were  united  with  each  other.'  That  is  to 
say,  the  incarnation  of  God  was  at  the  same  time  a  deification  of  man 
in  Christ.     (This  was  the  Swabian  theory  of  Brentius  and  Andrea?.) 

As  regards  the  ubiquity  in  particular,  the  Formula  is  again  incon- 
sistent. The  Epitome  favors  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  ubiquity  of 
Christ's  body  in  all  creatures  (as  taught  by  Luther,  Brentius,  Andrea?), 
and  says  that  Christ,  'not  only  as  God,  but  also  as  man,  is  present  to 
all  creatines  ...  is  omnipresent,  and  all  things  are  possible  and  known 
to  him ;'  the  Solid  Declaration,  on  the  contrary,  asserts  only  the  relative 
ubiquity  or  multivolipresence  (as  taught  by  Chemnitz);  but  neutralizes 
this  again  by  quoting,  with  full  approbation,  Luther's  strongest  passages 
in  favor  of  absolute  ubiquity.1  Hence  there  arose  a  fruitless  contro- 
versy on  the  subject  among  the  orthodox  Lutherans  themselves,  as  has 
been  already  stated. 

The  Formula,  therefore,  is  not  a  real  union  of  the  Swabian  and 
Saxon  types,  but  only  a  series  of  concessions  and  counter-concessions, 
and  a  mechanical  juxtaposition  of  discordant  sentences  from  both  par- 
ties.2 The  later  orthodoxy  did  not  settle  the  question,  and  both  the- 
ories continued  to  find  their  advocates.  Moreover,  the  Formula  does 
not  answer  and  refute,  but  simply  denies  the  objections  of  the  Reformed 
divines,  and  falls  back  upon  the  incomprehensibility  of  the  mystery  of 

1  The  words  '  class  Christus  auch  nach  und  vrit  seiner  assumirten  Menscliheit  gegenwdrtig 
sent  konne  und  auch  sei,  wo  er  will,' clearly  express  the  muJtivolijircvsentla  of  Chemnitz 
and  the  Saxons.  Nevertheless,  Chemnitz,  to  his  own  regret,  could  not  prevent  the  wholesale 
indorsement  and  quotation  of  Luther's  views — that  wherever  Christ's  divinity  is,  there  is  also 
his  humanity ;  that  lie  may  be  and  is  in  all  places  wherever  God  is ;  that  the  ascension  is 
figurative  ;  that  the  right  hand  of  God  is  every  where,  etc.  Hence  it  is  scarcely  correct  when 
Kahilis  says  (Vol.  II.  p.  581)  that  the  compromise  of  the  Formnla  leans  to  the  side  of  Chem- 
nitz. Compare  the  thorough  discussion  of  Dorner,  Entwicklungsgcschichtc,  Vol.  II.  pp.  710 
sqq.,  who  dearly  shows  that  Chemnitz  made  several  fatal  concessions  to  the  Swabian  Chris- 
tology.     Hence  the  opposition  of  Heshusius  and  the  Ilelmstadt  Lutherans  (see  p.  293). 

Dorner,  Vol.  II.  p.  771,  ' Die  Vermitt/.ungsversuche  des  I.  Andrem  und  Chemnitz  erreich- 
ten  in  Betreffdes  eigentlichen  (,'cgensatzes  zwischen  den  Schwahcn  und  Niederdeutschen  keine 
Him  ri  Einigung,  sondern  nur  einc  Vereinigung  von  disharmonischen  Salzen  von  beiden  Seiten 
lur  in  inn,,,  Buck.     It',,:  Folge  rear  daber  nicht  Eintracht,  sondern  vielseitige  Zwietracht.' 


§  4G.  THE  FOKM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.  323 

the  hypostatic  union,  which  is  declared  to  be  the  highest  mystery  next 
to  the  Trinity,  and  the  one  '  on  which  our  whole  consolation,  life,  and 
salvation  depend.' 

As  regards  the  states  of  humiliation  {exinanitio)  and  exaltation 
(exaltatio),  the  Formula,  in  the  passages  already  quoted,  teaches  the 
full  possession  (kti)oic)j  and  a  partial  or  occult  use  (xpri(Tig),  of  the 
divine  attributes  by  Christ  from  the  moment  of  his  existence  as  a 
man.  His  human  nature,  and  not  the  divine  pre-existent  Logos,  is 
understood  to  be  the  subject  of  the  humiliation  in  the  classical  pas- 
sage Phil.  ii.  7,  on  which  the  distinction  of  two  states  is  based.  Con- 
sequently the  two  states  refer  properly  only  to  the  human  nature,  and 
consist  in  a  difference  of  outward  condition  and  visible  manifestation. 
The  humiliation  is  a  partial  concealment  of  the  actual  use  (a  Kpv^ig 
Xptioiuc)  of  the  divine  attributes  communicated  to  the  human  nature 
at  the  incarnation ;  the  exaltation  is  a  full  manifestation  of  the  same. 
As  to  the  extent  of  the  concealment  or  actual  use,  there  arose  after- 
wards, as  we  have  seen  already,  a  controversy  between  the  Giessen 
and  Tubingen  divines,  but  was  never  properly  settled,  nor  can  it  be 
settled  on  the  christological  basis  of  the  Formula.1  The  modern 
school  of  Lutheran  Kenoticists  depart  from  it  by  assuming  a  real  self- 
renunciation  ((Cf'vwffjf)  of  the  divine  Logos  in  the  incarnation,  but  there- 
by they  endanger  the  immutability  of  the  Deity,  and  interrupt  the 
continuity  of  the  divine  government  of  the  world  through  the  Logos 
during  the  state  of  humiliation. 

We  add  some  general  remarks  on  the  Christology  of  the  Formula, 
as  far  as  it  differs  from  the  Reformed  Christology.  After  renewed 
investigation  of  this  difficult  problem,  I  have  been  confirmed  in  the 
conviction  that  the  exegetical  argument,  which  must  ultimately  decide 
the  case,  is  in  favor  of  the  Reformed  and  against  the  Lutheran  theory ; 
but  I  cheerfully  admit  that  the  latter  represents  a  certain  mystical  and 

1  The  Formula  teaches  the  /cr;/<ric  with  a  partial  kiviooic  xpi)oiut£,  and  so  far  seems  to  favor 
the  later  Giessen  view,  although  the  issue  was  not  yet  fairly  before  the  authors.  Sol.  Decl. 
Art.  VIII.  (p.  707  ed.  Bech.,  p.  080  ed.  Miiller) :  ' Earn  vero  majestatem  statim  in  sua  con- 
ceptione  etiam  in  ute.ro  matrix  habuit,  sed  ut  apostolus  loquitur  (Phil.  ii.  7),  se  ij>sum  exinanivit, 
eamque,  ut  1).  Lutherus  doeet,  in  statu  sucr,  humiliationis  BBCBETO  habuit,  ner/ue  earn  semper, 
sed  quotiks  ii'Si  visum  flit,  usurpavit.'  An  occasional  use  of  the  divine  attributes  during 
the  state  of  humiliation  was  expressly  conceded  by  the  Giessen  divines  ;  they  only  denied  the 
constant  and  full  (though  secret)  use  contended  for  by  the  Tubingen  school.  See  above,  p. 
!".)."».      The  Lutheran  scholastics  were  more  on  the  side  of  the  Giessen  divines. 


324:  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

speculative  element,  which  is  not  properly  appreciated  in  the  Calvinistic 
theology,  and  may  act  as  a  check  upon  Nestorian  tendencies. 

1.  The  scholastic  refinements  of  the  doctrine  of  the  communicatio 
idiomatum,  and  especially  the  ubiquity  of  the  body,  have  no  intrinsic 
religious  importance,  and  owe  their  origin  to  the  Lutheran  hypothesis 
of  the  corporeal  presence.1  They  should,  therefore,  never  have  been 
made  an  article  of  faith.     A  surplus  of  orthodoxy  provokes  skepticism. 

2.  The  great  and  central  mystery  of  the  union  of  the  divine  and 
human  in  Christ,  which  the  Formula  desires  to  uphold,  is  overstated 
and  endangered  by  its  doctrine  of  the  genus  majestaticum,  or  the  com- 
munication of  the  divine  attributes  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ. 
This  doctrine  runs  contrary  to  the  oo-uy^urwc  and  aTpiTVTO)Q  of  the 
Chalcedonian  Creed.  It  leads  necessarily — notwithstanding  the  sol- 
emn protest  of  the  Formula — to  a  Eutychian  confusion  and  sequation 
of  natures ;  for,  according  to  all  sound  philosophy,  the  attributes  are 
not  an  outside  appendix  to  the  nature  and  independent  of  it,  but  in- 
herent qualities,  and  together  constitute  the  nature  itself.  Or  else  it 
involves  the  impossible  conception  of  a  double  set  of  divine  attributes — 
one  that  is  original,  and  one  that  is  derived  or  transferred. 

3.  The  genus  majestaticum  can  not  be  carried  out,  and  breaks  down 
half-way.  The  divine  attributes  form  a  unit,  and  can  not  be  separated. 
If  one  is  communicated,  all  are  communicated.  But  how  can  eternity 
ah  ante  {cmfangslose  Existenz),  which  is  a  necessary  attribute  of  the 
divine  nature  of  Christ,  be  really  communicated  to  a  being  born  in 
time,  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth  undoubtedly  was  ?  How  can  immensity  be 
transferred  to  a  finite  man  ?  The  thing  is  impossible  and  contradic- 
tory. An  appeal  to  God's  omnipotence  is  idle,  for  God  can  not  sin, 
nor  err,  nor  die,  nor  do  any  thing  that  is  inconsistent  with  his  rational 
and  holy  nature. 

4.  The  doctrine  has  no  support  in  the  Scriptures ;  for  the  passages 
quoted  in  its  favor  speak  of  the  divine  human  person,  not  of  the  hu- 
man nature  of  Christ;  as,'/  am  with  you  alway ;'  'all  power  is  given 
to  me?2   'in  Christ  are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowl- 

1  This  is  admitted,  in  part  at  least,  by  Dr.  Stahl,  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  clear-headed 
modern  champions  of  orthodox  Lutheranism,  when  he  says  :  lDie  Lehre  von  cier  Allgegemoart 
des  Lcibes  Chrisli  ist,abgesehcn  von  der  Anwendung  auf  das  Abendmahl,  von  gar  keinem 
REL1GI08ES  I RTERESSE '  {Die  lutheriscke  Kircfie  und  die  Union,  Berlin,  1859,  p.  18.5). 

2  It  is  objected  that  omnipotence  could  not  be  given  to  the  divine  person  of  Christ,  who  had 


§  4G.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         325 

edge;'  'in  Christ  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.' 
And  as  to  the  state  of  humiliation,  such  passages  as  Luke  ii.  52 ;  Mark 
xiii.  32  ;  Ileb.  v.  8,  0,  are  inconsistent  with  the  teaching  of  the  Formula 
that  he  was  omniscient  as  man  from  the  mothers  womb. 

5.  The  Christology  of  the  Formula  makes  it  impossible  to  construct 
a  truly  human  life  of  our  Lord  on  earth,  and  turns  it  into  a  delusive 
Christophany,  or  substitutes  a  crypto-pantheistic  Christ  for  a  personal, 
historical  Christ. 

6.  The  familiar  illustrations  of  the  iron  and  fire,  and  body  and  soul, 
used  by  the  Formula,  favor  the  Reformed  rather  than  the  Lutheran 
theory ;  for  the  iron  does  not  transfer  its  properties  to  the  fire,  nor  the 
fire  to  the  iron  ;  neither  are  the  spiritual  qualities  of  the  soul,  as  cogni- 
tion and  volition,  communicated  to  the  body,  nor  the  material  proper- 
ties and  functions  of  the  body,  as  weight  and  extension,  eating  and 
drinking,  to  the  soul :  both  are  indeed  most  intimately  and  insepara- 
bly connected — the  soul  dwells  in  the  body,  and  the  body  is  the  organ 
of  the  soul — but  both  remain  essentially  distinct.  The  same  is  the  case 
with  the  other  illustration  which  is  borrowed  from  the  intercommuni- 
cation or  inhabitation  {-irepixu>pnaig,immanentia,j)ermcatw,  circumin- 
cessio)  of  the  persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity ;  for  the  peculiar  properties 
(i§ui,  tStorrjrec)  of  the  persons  are  not  communicated  or  transferred — 
paternity  and  being  unbegotten  (ayevvrjaia)  belongs  to  the  Father  alone, 
sonship  (ytwnoia,  filtatid)  to  the  Son  alone,  and  procession  (}K-n6pi.vaiq, 
processio)  to  the  Holy  Ghost  alone. 

7.  The  ubiquity  of  the  body  is  logically  necessary  for  the  hypothesis 
of  consubstantiation,  and  both  stand  and  fall  together.  For  the  eu- 
charistic  multipresence  must  be  derived  either  from  a  perpetual  mira- 
cle (performed  through  the  priestly  consecration,  or  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  both  of  which  the  Lutherans  reject),1  or  from  an  ill- 
it  from  eternity  essentially  and  of  necessity,  but  only  to  his  human  nature.  But  this  reason- 
ing implies  a  virtual  denial  of  the  d vujoiq,  or  laying  aside  of  the  pre-existent  glory  which 
Christ  had  as  God,  and  was  going  to  take  possession  of  again  as  God-man  at  his  exaltation, 
John  xvii.  5  (SuKatrov  /.it  .  .   .  ry  ci>$y  ?}  u\ov  irpb  tov  tov  koo^iov  uvai  irapa  ooi). 

1  According  to  the  Romish  liturgy,  the  elements  are  literally  changed  or  transubstantiated 
into  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ  by  the  consecration  of  the  priest  when  he  repeats  the 
words  of  institution,  Hoc  est  corpus  mcum;  and  hence  the  priest  is  blasphemously  said  to  create 
the  body  of  Christ.  But,  according  to  the  Oriental  and  Greek  liturgies,  the  presence  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  effected  by  the  Benediction  or  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  follows  the  recital  of  the  words  of  institution.      Calvin  and  the  Reformed  liturgies 


326  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

herent  quality  of  the  body  itself,  which  enables  it  to  be  present  wher- 
ever and  whenever  it  is  actually  partaken  of  by  the  mouth  of  the  com- 
municants. 

8.  But  ubiquity  proves  too  much  for  consubstautiation  by  extending 
the  eating  of  Christ  to  every  meal  (though  this  is  inconsistently  denied), 
and  depriving  the  eucharistic  presence  of  all  specific  value.  Yea,  it  is 
fatal  to  it,  and  leads,  we  will  not  say  to  the  Calvinistic,  but  rather  to  a 
crypto-pantheistic  theory  of  the  eucharist ; '  for  a  body  which  is  intrin- 
sically and  perpetually  omnipresent  must  be  so  spiritual  that  it  can 
only  be  spiritually  present  and  spiritually  be  partaken  of  by  faith.2 

9.  Ubiquity  is  not  only  unscriptural,  but  antiscriptural,  and  conflicts 
with  the  facts  of  Christ's  local  limitations  while  on  earth,  his  descent 
into  Hades,  his  forty  days  after  the  resurrection,  his  ascension  to  heaven, 
his  visible  return  to  judgment.  We  freely  admit  that  Christ's  glorified 
body  is  not  subject  to  the  laws  of  earthly  substances  or  confined  to  a 
particular  locality;  it  is  a  'spiritual'  body  (comp.  1  Cor.  xv.),  with  its 
own  laws  of  rest  and  locomotion,  which  transcend  our  present  knowl- 
edge ;  nevertheless  it  is  and  ever  remains  a  body,  as  real  as  the  resur- 
rection body  of  saints  which  will  be  fashioned  like  unto  it  {avfifxop<pov 
toI  aio/xciTi  Tiig  $6%r)g  avrov),  and  as  heaven  itself  is  real,  from  which 
Christ  will  return  'in  like  manner'  as  the  apostles  'saw  him  go  into 
heaven.'  The  ubiquitarian  exegesis  here  runs  into  an  ultra-Zwinglian 
spiritualism  to  save  the  literalism  with  which  it  started.  But,  feeling 
its  own  weakness,  it  falls  back  again  at  last  upon  the  literal  understand- 
ing of  the  ierri  in  the  words  of  institution. 

10.  This  first  and  last  resort  of  consubstantiation  is  given  up  by  the 


likewise  bring  in  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  simply  for  conveying  the  energy  or  the 
power  and  effect  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  heaven  to  the  believing  communicant. 

1  The  Roman  Catholic  Bellarmin  (see  below)  and  Reformed  polemics  (also  Steitz  on 
Ubiquity,  in  Herzog's  Encykl.)  argue  that  the  ubiquity  dogma  destroys  the  Lutheran  corpo- 
real presence,  and  logically  ends  in  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  the  spiritual  real  presence.  But 
we  would  rather  say  that  it  ends  in  a  crypto-panchristism,  which  is  quite  foreign  to  Calvin. 
The  doctrine  of  ubiquity  was,  before  Luther,  always  connected  with  a  leaning  to  Gnosticism 
and  Pantheism,  as  in  Origen  and  Scotua  Erigena. 

-  The  Lutherans  exclude  all  ideas  of  local  extension  or  expansion  from  the  body  of  Christ, 
and  describe  it  just  as  the  scholastics  and  the  ancient  philosophers  (Plato,  Aristotle,  Philo) 
describe  the  presence  of  incorporeal  substances,  and  especially  of  the  Deity  itself,  which  is 
'  nnextended,'  '  indistant,'  '  devoid  of  magnitude,'  not  part  of  it  here  and  part  of  it  there,  but 
whole  and  undivided  every  where  and  nowhere.  See  Cudworth's  Intellectual  Systeyn  0/  the 
Universe,  Harrison's  cd.  (Lond.  184")),  Vol.  III.  p.  248. 


§  4G.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         327 

ablest  modern  exegetes,1  who  agree  in  the  following  decisive  results : 
(a)  That  the  disputed  word  iari  was  not  even  spoken  by  our  Lord,  in 
Aramaic,  and  can  have  no  conclusive  weight,  (b)  That  the  substantive 
verb  may  designate  a  symbolical  as  well  as  a  real  relation  between  the 
subject  and  the  predicate,  as  is  evident  from  the  nature  of  the  case  and 
from  innumerable  passages  of  Scripture,  (c)  That  in  this  case  the  lit- 
eral interpretation  would  lead  to  transubstantiation  rather  than  the  semi- 
figurative  (synecdochical)  consubstantiation ;  since  Christ  does  not  say 
what  the  Lutheran  hypothesis  would  require :  '  This  is  my  body  and 
bread,''  '  This  is  my  blood  and  wine  (or  in,  with,  and  under  the  bread 
and  wine).'  id)  That  the  figurative  or  metaphorical  interpretation 
(whether  in  the  Zwinglian  or  Calvinistic  sense)  is  made  necessary  in 
connection  with  the  tovto  for  ovrog,  Troriipiov  for  oTvoc,  or  ai/ua,  as  well 
as  by  the  surroundings  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  viz. :  the 
nature  of  the  typical  passover,  the  living,  personal  presence  of  our  Lord, 
with  his  body  still  unbroken  and  his  blood  still  unshed,  which  could  not 
be  literally  eaten  and  drunk  by  his  disciples. 

This,  of  course,  only  settles  the  exegetical  basis,  and  still  leaves  room 
for  different  doctrinal  views  of  this  sacred  ordinance,  into  which  we 
can  not  here  enter.2 

1  Including  such  unbiased  philological  commentators  as  De  Wette  and  Meyer.  See  es- 
pecially Meyer  on  Matthew  xxvi.  2G  (pp.  548  sqq.  of  the  5th  ed.),  and  my  annotations  to 
Lange  on  Matthew,  Am.  ed.,  pp.  470-474.  Kahnis,  who  formerly  wrote  an  elaborate  his- 
torical work  in  defense  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  (Die  Lehre  vom  Abendmahl,  Lipz.  I8.J1),  has 
more  recently  (18G1)  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  '  the  Lutheran  interpretation  of  the  icords 
of  institution  must  be  given  up,' though  he  thinks  that  this  affects  only  the  Lutheran  theol- 
ogy, not  the  Lutheran  faith. 

2  I  have  briefly  expressed  my  own  view  in  Com.  on  ^^atthew,  p.  471 :  .  .  .  '  But  we  firm- 
ly believe  that  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  views  can  be  essentially  reconciled,  if  subordi- 
nate differences  and  scholastic  subtleties  are  yielded.  The  chief  elements  of  reconciliation 
are  at  hand  in  the  Mclanchthonian-Calvinistic  theory.  The  Lord's  Supper  is:  (1.)  A  com- 
memorative ordinance,  a  memorial  of  Christ's  atoning  death,  and  a  renewed  application  of  the 
virtue  of  his  broken  body  and  shed  blood.  (This  is  the  truth  of  the  Zwinglian  view,  which  no 
one  can  deny  in  the  face  of  the  words  of  the  Saviour:  '  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me.')  (2.)  A 
feast  of  living  union  of  believers  with  the  ever-living,  exalted  Saviour,  whereby  we  truly, 
though  spiritually,  receive  Christ  with  all  his  benefits,  and  are  nourished  by  his  life  unto 
life  eternal.  (This  was  the  substance  for  which  Luther  contended  against  Zwingli,  and  which 
Calvin  retained,  though  in  a  different  scientific  form,  and  in  a  sense  rightly  confined  to  be- 
lievers.) (3.)  A  communion  of  believers  with  one  another  as  members  of  the  same  mystical 
body  of  Christ.  ...  It  is  a  sad  reflection  that  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper— this  feast 
of  the  unio  mystica  and  communio  sanctorum,  which  should  bind  all  pious  hearts  to  Christ  and 
each  other,  and  fill  them  with  the  holiest  and  tendercst  affections — has  been  the  innocent  oc- 
casion of  the  bitterest  and  most  violent  passions  and  the  most  uncharitable  abuse.  The  eu- 
charistic  controversies  are  among  the  most  unrefreshing  and  apparently  fruitless  in  church  his- 

Vol.  L— Y 


328  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

11.  The  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  eucharist  overlooks  the  omnipres- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  substitutes  for  it  the  corporeal  presence  of 
Christ.  It  is  the  Holy  Spirit  who  brings  the  believer  in  and  out  of  the 
sacrament  into  a  living  union  and  communion  with  the  whole  Christ, 
and  makes  the  perpetual  virtue  and  efficacy  of  his  crucified  body  on 
the  cross,  i.  e.,  his  atoning  sacrifice,  and  of  his  glorified  body  in  heaven, 
available  for  our  spiritual  benefit. 

12.  Finally,  as  regards  the  two  states  of  Christ,  the  Reformed  Chris- 
tology  is  right  in  making  the  pre-existent  Logos  (Ao'yoc  acrapKog)  the 
subject  of  the  Ktviomg,  or  self-humiliation,  instead  of  the  human  nature 
(or  the  A070C  tvaapKog),  which  was  never  before  lv  fxop^y  Szov,  and 
consequently  could  not  renounce  it  in  any  way.  The  incarnation  it- 
self is  the  beginning  of  the  humiliation.  In  this  interpretation  of 
Phil.  ii.  7  the  Reformed  Church  is  sustained  not  only  by  Chrysostom 
and  other  fathers,  but  also  by  the  best  modern  exegetes  of  all  denom- 
inations, including  Lutherans.1 

tory.  Theologians  will  have  much  to  answer  for  at  the  judgment-day  for  having  perverted 
the  sacred  feast  of  divine  love  into  an  apple  of  discord.  No  wonder  that  Melanchthon's  last 
wish  and  prayer  was  to  be  delivered  from  the  rabies  theologorum.  Fortunately,  the  blessing 
of  the  holy  communion  does  not  depend  upon  the  scientific  interpretation  and  understanding 
of  the  words  of  institution,  but  upon  the  promise  of  the  Lord,  and  upon  childlike  faith  which 
receives  it,  though  it  may  not  fully  understand  the  mystery  of  the  ordinance.  Christians  cele- 
brated it  with  most  devotion  and  profit  before  they  contended  about  the  true  meaning  of  those 
words,  and  obscured  their  vision  by  all  sorts  of  scholastic  theories  and  speculations.  For- 
tunately, even  now  Christians  of  diflferent  denominations  and  holding  different  opinions  can 
unite  around  the  table  of  their  common  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  feel  one  with  him  and  in 
him  who  died  for  them  all,  and  feeds  them  with  his  life  once  sacrificed  on  the  cross,  but 
now  living  forever.  Let  them  hold  fast  to  what  they  agree  in,  and  charitably  judge  of  their 
differences ;  looking  hopefully  forward  to  the  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb  in  the  kingdom 
of  glory,  when  we  shall  understand  and  adore,  in  perfect  harmony,  the  infinite  mystery  of  the 
love  of  God  in  his  Son  our  Saviour.' 

1  See,  especially,  Meyer  (who  ably  defends  the  patristic  and  Reformed  exegesis  against  the 
objections  of  De  Wette  and  Philippi),  and  Braune  on  Phil.  ii.  (i  sqq.  (Am.  ed.  of  Lange).  The 
latter  says:  'iJc  has  for  its  antecedent  Xpianji  'It]aov,  and  points  to  his  ante-mundane  state, 
as  verses  7  and  8  refer  to  his  earthly  existence,  and  verses  9-11  refer  to  his  subsequent  glorified 
condition.  The  subject  is  the  Ego  of  the  Lord,  which  is  active  in  all  the  three  modes  of 
existence.  It  is  the  entire  summary  of  the  history  of  Jesus,  including  his  ante-human  state.' 
Among  the  dogmatic  theologians  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  Liebner,  Thomasius,  Kahnis,  Gess, 
and  others,  give  up  the  old  Lutheran  exegesis  of  the  passage.  Kahnis  (in  the  third  volume 
ol  his  /.Hi/,.  Dogmatik,  1868,  p.  :il  I  )  makes,  as  the  result  of  his  earnest  investigation,  the  fol- 
lowing clear  and  honest  statement:  '(a)  Dass  Paul  us  in  der  OffenbarungsgeschichU  Jesu 
Christi  drei  Stadien  untersc.heidct :  das  Stadium  der  Gottesgesta.lt,  da  der  Logos  beim  Voter 
war}  dot  Stadium  der  fcnechtsgestalt,  <las  vat  der  Selbstrerleugnung  Christi  in  der  Mansch- 
werdung  begann  und  zur  Erniedrigm'g  am  Krauze,  fortging ;  das  Stadium  der  Erhohung,  da 
im  Namen  Christi  sir/,  alls  Kjiie  beugen  und  ihn  afs  Hcrrn  bekennen.     (b)  Dass  das  Subjckt 


§  46.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.  329 

Art.  IX.  Of  Christ's  Descent  into  Hell. — The  fact  of  a  real  de- 
scent of  the  whole  person  of  Christ,  the  God-man,  after  his  death,  into 
the  real  hell  (not  a  metaphorical  hell,  nor  the  grave,  nor  the  limbus 
jxifnnn)  is  affirmed,  and  its  object  defined  to  be  the  defeat  of  Satan 
and  the  deliverance  of  believers  from  the  power  of  death  and  the 
devil ;  but  all  curious  questions  about  the  mode  are  deprecated  and 
left  for  the  world  to  come. 

Art.  X.  Of  Church  Usages  and  Ceremonies,  called  Adiaphora. 
— The  observance  of  ceremonies  and  usages  neither  commanded  nor 
forbidden  in  the  Word  of  God,  should  be  left  to  Christian  freedom,  but 
should  be  firmly  resisted  when  they  are  forced  upon  us  as  a  part  of 
divine  service  (Gal.  ii.  4,  5  ;  v.  1 ;  Acts  xvi.  3 ;  Kom.  xiv.  6  ;  1  Cor.  vii. 
18;  Col.ii.  16). 

This  article  was  a  virtual  condemnation  of  Melanchthon's  course  in 
the  Interim  controversy. 

Art.  XI.  Of  God's  Foreknowledge  and  Election. — No  serious  con- 
troversy took  place  on  this  doctrine  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  except  at 
Strasburg  between  Zanchi  and  Marbach  (1561).  The  rigid  predestina- 
rianism  of  Luther  and  the  Flacianists  quietly  gave  way  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  universality  of  divine  grace,  while  yet  the  anthropological  pre- 
mises of  the  Augnstinian  system  were  retained  (in  Art.  I.  and  II.). 

The  Formula  teaches  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  foreknowl- 
edge (prcescientia,  pmvisio,  Vorsehu?ig,  Matt.  x.  29 ;  Psa.  exxxix.  16 ; 
Isa.  xxxvii.  28)  and  foreordination  (prcedestinatio,  electio,  ewige  Wahly 
Eph.  i.  5) ;  that  foreknowledge  pertains  alike  to  the  good  and  the  evil, 
and  is  not  the  cause  of  sin  and  destruction  ;  that  foreordination  refers 
only  to  the  children  of  God;  that  this  predestination  of  the  elect  is 
'eternal,  infallible,  and  unchangeable,' and  is  the  ultimate  and  uncon- 
ditional cause  of  their  salvation;  that  God,  though  he  elects  only  a 
portion,  sincerely  desires  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  invites  them  by  his 
Word  to  the  salvation  in  Christ;  that  the  impenitent  perish  by  their 

der  Erniedrigung  der  \6yoc  avapicoc  ist,  wie  sr/ion  die  alte  Kirche  in  ihren  namhaftesten  Lehr- 
ern  sah,  die  re/ormirten  Theo/ogen  richtig  erkannten  und  aurh  die  bedeutendsten  neueren 
Ausleger  alter  Confessionen  zugestehen,  das  Svbjekt  der  Erhiihung  aber  der  \6yog  tvoapicoc. 
(c)  Dass  die  Entausserung  (tavrov  tKcvoxre)  darin  besteht,  dass  der  Logos  sich  der  (Jottesge- 
stalt  (ftopipi)  $iov~)  d.  h.  des Hcrrliehkeitsstandcs  btlin  Vatcr  begnh,  nut  Kiiccldsgestalt  (jiopQi) 
SovXov)  anzunehmen,  d.  h.  ein  Meateh  wie  uir  zu  ioerden,ja  alsMenaeh  sich  zum  Kreuzestode 
zu  erniedrinen  (travfivioatv  icwtov):  Entausserung  alto  gleic/t  Alensrhwerdiing  ist.  iJarnarh 
fordert  dieses  Leltrstiick  eine  andere  Fassitng,  als  die  alte  [Luther.']  Dogmatik  ihm  gab.' 


330  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

own  guilt  iu  rejecting  the  gospel;  that  Christians  should  seek  the 
eternal  election,  not  in  the  secret  but  in  the  revealed  will  of  God,  and 
avoid  presumptuous  and  curious  questions. 

Thus  the  particularism  of  election  and  the  universalism  of  vocation, 
the  absolute  inability  of  fallen  man  (Art.  II.),  and  the  guilt  of  the 
unbeliever  for  rejecting  what  he  can  not  accept,  are  illogically  com- 
bined. The  obvious  contradiction  between  this  article  and  the  second 
has  already  been  pointed  out.1 

The  authors  felt  the  speculative  difficulties  of  this  dogma,  and  em- 
phasized the  practical  side,  which  amounts  to  this :  that  believers  are 
saved  by  the  free  grace  of  God,  while  unbelievers  are  lost  by  their  own 
guilt  in  rejecting  the  grace  sincerely  offered  to  them.  Later  Lutheran 
divines,  like  John  Gerhard,  labored  hard  to  show  that  God  not  only 
sincerely  desires  the  salvation  of  all  men  alike,  but  that  he  also  actually 
gives  an  opportunity  to  all  men  even  in  this  present  life.3  But  the  ar- 
gument fails  with  regard  to  the  heathen,  who  form  the  greatest  part  of 
the  race  even  to  this  day  (not  to  speak  of  the  world  before  Christ) ;  and 
hence  the  Lutheran  view  of  the  actual  universality  of  the  offer  of  grace 
necessitates  an  essential  change  of  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  middle 
state,  as  far  as  those  are  concerned  who  never  heard  of  the  gospel  in 
this  world. 

Art.  XII.  Of  Several  Heresies  and  Sects. — This  article  rejects  the 
peculiar  tenets  of  the  Anabaptists,  Schwenkfeldians,  New  Arians,  and 
Antitrinitarians,  who  never  embraced  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

To  the  second  part  of  the  Formula  there  is  added  a  Catalogue  of 
Testimonies  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  fathers  (Athanasius,  Greg- 
ory Nazianzen,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  John  of  Damascus)  concerning 
the  divine  majesty  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  in  support  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  communicatio  idiomatum,  as  taught  in  Art.  VIII. 
This  Appendix  was  prepared  by  Andrete  and  Chemnitz;  but  it  has 

1  See  above,  p.  .'514.  Comp.  also  Dorner,  Gesch.  der  Prot.  Theol.  pp.  3GG  sqq.  Planck 
!  Vol.  VI.  p.  814)  charges  this  article  with  a  confusion  not  found  in  the  other  parts  of  the 
Formula,  and  Gicseler  (Vol.  IV.  p.  488)  with  putting  together  contradictory  positions  ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  Thomasius  {Das  Bekenntniss  der  ev.  luth.  Kirche,  etc.  p.  222)  sees  here 
only  supplementary  truths  to  be  reconciled  by  theological  science,  and  Guericke  (in  his  Kir- 
ehengetehichte,Yo\.  III.  p.  419)  calls  the  logical  inconsistency  of  the  Formula  'divinely  ne- 
cessitated' (etne  g&ttlich  nothwendige  Verstandes-Inconsequenz). 

-  Loc.  Theol.  Tom.  IV.  pp.  18D  sqq.  (de  Electione  et  Reprob.  §  7;  de  Universalitate  Vo- 
cationis,  §  13"»). 


§  46.  THE  FORMULA  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.        331 

no  symbolical  authority,  and  is  often  omitted  from  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord.' 

RECEPTION,  AUTHORITY,  AND    INTRODUCTION.2 

The  Form  of  Concord,  as  it  is  the  last,  is  also  the  most  disputed  of 
the  Lutheran  symbols.  It  never  attained  general  authority,  like  the 
Augsburg  Confession  or  Luther's  Catechism,  although  far  greater  ex- 
ertions were  made  for  its  introduction. 

It  was  adopted  by  the  majority  of  the  Lutheran  principalities  and 
state  churches  in  Germany  ;3  also  by  the  state  church  of  Sweden,  the 
Lutherans  in  Hungary,  and  several  Lutheran  synods  in  the  United 
States.4 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  rejected  by  a  number  of  Lutheran  Princes 
and  cities  of  the  empire,5  and  by  King  Frederick  II.  of  Denmark.6 

Some  countries  of  Germany,  where  it  had  been  first  introduced,  re- 
jected it  afterwards,  but  remained  Lutheran  ;7  while  others,  in  conse- 

1  Tittmann  and  Hase  omit  it ;  Miiller  gives  it  (pp.  731-7G7). 

2  Comp.  among  recent  works  especially  the  third  volume  of  Heppe's  Geschichte  des  D. 
Protest,  pp.  215-322,  and  the  whole  fourth  volume.  The  chief  data  are  also  given  by  Gie- 
seler,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  489-493,  and  by  Kollner,  1.  c.  pp.  573-583. 

3  The  Preface  of  the  Book  of  Concord  is  signed  by  eighty-six  names  representing  the  Lu- 
theran state  churches  in  the  German  empire  ;  among  them  are  three  Electors  (Louis  of  the 
Palatinate,  Augustus  of  Saxony,  and  John  George  of  Brandenburg),  twenty  Dukes  and 
Princes,  twenty-four  Counts,  thirty-five  burgomasters  and  counselors  of  imperial  cities.  The 
Formula  was  also  signed  by  about  8000  pastors  and  teachers  under  their  jurisdiction,  includ- 
ing a  large  number  of  ex-Philippists  and  Crypto-Calvinists,  who  preferred  their  livings  to  their 
theology ;  hence  1 1  utter  was  no  doubt  right  when  he  admitted  that  many  subscribed  mala 
conscientia.  Yet  no  direct  compulsion  seems  to  have  been  used.  See  Kollner,  p.  551,  and 
Johannsen,  Ueber  die  Unterschriften  des  Concordienbuehes,  in  Niedner's  Zeitschrifl  fiir  liistor. 
TWo^'e,  1817,No.  1. 

*  It  was  adopted  in  Sweden  at  a  Council  of  Upsala,  1593;  in  Hungary,  1507.  In  America 
it  is  held  by  the  Lutheran  Synodical  Conference,  and  by  the  General  Council,  but  rejected  by 
the  General  Synod  (see  p.  221). 

5  The  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  the  Palatinate  John  Casimir,  the  Prince  of  Anhalt,  the  Duke 
of  Pomerania  (where,  however,  the  symbol  afterwards  came  into  authority),  the  Duke  of 
Holstein,  the  Duke  of  Saxe-Luneburg,  the  Counts  of  Nassau  and  Hanau,  the  cities  of  Stras- 
burg,  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  Spires,  Worms,  Nuremberg,  Magdeburg,  Bremen,  Danzig, 
Nordhausen. 

6  Frederick  II.  strictly  prohibited,  on  pain  of  confiscation  and  deposition,  the  importation 
and  publication  of  the  Form  of  Concord  in  Denmark  (July  21,  L580),  and  threw  the  two  su- 
perbly bound  copies  sent  to  him  by  his  sister,  the  wife  of  Augustus  of  Saxony,  unceremoniously 
into  the  chimney-fire.  See  Kollner,  p.  575  sq.  ;  Gieseler,  Vol.  IV.  p.  493,  note  51 ;  and 
Heppe,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  275  sqq.  Nevertheless  the  document  afterwards  gained  considerable 
currency  in  Denmark. 

7  So  the  Duchy  of  Brunswick  recalled  the  subscription  in  1583.     Duke  Julius,  one  of  the 


332  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

quence  of  the  doctrinal  innovations  and  exclusiveness  of  the  Formula, 
passed  over  to  the  Eeformed  Confession.1  It  is  a  significant  fact,  that 
the  successors  of  the  three  Electors,  who  were  the  chief  patrons  and 
signers  of  the  Formula,  left  the  Lutheran  Church :  two  became  Re- 
formed, and  one  (the  King  of  Saxony)  a  Roman  Catholic. 

OPPOSITION    AND    DEFENSE.2 

The  Formula  gave  rise  to  much  controversy.    It  was  assailed  from  dif- 
ferent quarters  by  discontented  Lutherans  and  Philippists,3  Calvinists,4 

most  zealous  promoters  of  the  Form  of  Concord,  became  alienated  for  personal  reasons,  because 
he  was  severely  blamed  by  Chemnitz  and  several  Princes  for  allowing  one  of  his  sons  to  receive 
Romish  consecration  (Dec.  5, 1578),  and  two  others  the  tonsure,  to  the  great  scandal  of  Prot- 
estantism. He  was  afterwards  strengthened  by  the  doctrinal  opposition  of  Heshusius  and 
the  Helmstadt  Professors,  who  rejected  the  Formula  for  teaching  absolute  ubiquity.  The 
Corpus  doctrince  Julium  was  retained  in  Brunswick  and  Wolfenbiittel.  See  Planck,  Vol.  VI. 
pp.  667  sqq.,  and  especially  Heppe,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  203  sqq.  These  Brunswick  troubles  brought 
about  an  alienation  between  Andrea?  (who  labored  to  reconcile  the  Duke)  and  Chemnitz  (who 
was  deposed  by  the  Duke).  In  a  widely  circulated  letter  of  April  8,1580,  Chemnitz  compared 
Andrea?  to  a  fawning  and  scratching  cat  ('cum  coram  longe  aliud  mihi  dicas,  wie  die  Katzen, 
die  vorne  lecken  und  hinten  krtitzen').     Heppe,  p.  211. 

1  So  the  Palatinate,  which,  after  a  short  Lutheran  interregnum  of  Louis,  readopted  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  under  John  Casimir  (1583),  Anhalt  (1588),  Zweibriicken  (1588),  Hanau 
(1500),  Hesse  (1601),  and  especially  Brandenburg  under  John  Sigismund  (1614).  In  this 
respect  the  Formula  of  Concord  inflicted  great  territorial  loss  upon  the  Lutheran  denomina- 
tion. The  greatest  loss  was  the  Palatinate  and  the  Electoral,  afterwards  the  royal  house  of 
Brandenburg  and  Prussia. 

2  See  lists  of  controversial  works  for  and  against  the  Formula  of  Concord  in  Walch,  Feuer- 
lin,  and  Kollner.  Comp.  also  Hutter,  Cone.  cone.  Ch.  XXXVII.  (p.  958),  Ch.  XLI.  (p.  976), 
Ch.  XLV.  (p.  1033),  and  Ch.  XLV.  (p.  1038) ;  Heppe,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  270  sqq. ;  and  G.  Frank, 
Vol.  I.  pp.  251-266.  Hutter  sees  in  the  general  attack  of  'the  devil  and  his  organs,  the  here- 
tics,' against  the  Formula,  a  clear  proof  that  it  was  composed  instinctu  Spiritus  Sane.ti,  and  is 
in  full  harmony  with  the  infallible  Word  of  God  (p.  976). 

3  The  rigidly  orthodox  Heshusius  and  the  Helmstadt  divines  (in  the  Quedlinburg  Colloqui- 
um, 1583),  Christopher  Irenseus  (an  exiled  Flacianist,  formerly  court  chaplain  at  Weimar, 
1581),  Ambrosius  Wolff  (or  Cyriacus  Herdesianus,  of  Nuremberg,  1580),  the  Bremen  preach- 
ers (1581),  the  Anhalt  theologians  (1580, 1581),  and  the  Margrave  of  Baden  (in  the  Stafford 
Book,\~>'M). 

*  Ursinus  (in  connection  with  Zanchius,  Tossanus,  and  other  deposed  Heidelberg  Professors, 
who,  under  John  Casimir  and  during  the  rule  of  Lutheranism  in  Heidelberg,  founded  and 
conducted  a  flourishing  theological  school  at  Neustadt  an  der  IIardt,1576  to  1583):  Admonitio 
Christiana  de  libro  Conrord'ue  (or  Christliche  Erinnerung  vom  Concordienbur/i),  Neostadadii  in 
Palatinatu,  Latin  and  German,  1581  (also  in  Urs.  Opera,  Heidelberg,  1612,  Vol.  II.  pp.  486 
sqq.).  It  consists  of  twelve  chapters,  and  is  very  able.  Extract  in  Sudhoff,  Olevianus  und 
(/minus,  pp.  432-452  ;  comp.  Schweizer  in  Herzog,  Vol.  X.  pp.  263-205.  Ursinus  and  some 
of  his  pupils  defended  this  work  against  the  Lutberan  'Apology,'  in  Defensio  Admonitionis 
Xnist.  contra  Apologia  Erfordensis  sophismata,  Neost.  1584.  Beza  wrote  Refutatio  dog- 
iiiutis  de  ficticia  carnis  Christi  omnipnrsentia ;  Dansens  an  Examen  of  Chemnitz's  book 
De  duabus  in  Christo  naturis,  Genev.  1581 ;    Sadeel,  a  very  able  tract,  De  veritate  humante 


§  4G.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         333 

and  Romanists.1  The  chief  objection  was  to  the  new  dogma  of  ubiq- 
uity. 

The  Lutherans  attacked,  according  to  their  stand-point,  either  the 
concessions  to  the  Swabian  scheme  of  absolute  ubiquity,  or  the  absence 
of  a  direct  condemnation  of  Melanchthon  and  other  heretics,  or  the  re- 
jection of  the  Flacian  theory  of  original  sin,  or  the  condemnation  of 
Synergism.  The  last  point  could  be  made  very  plausible,  since  the 
chief  authors  of  the  Formula,  Andrea?,  Chemnitz,  and  Selnecker,  had 
at  first  been  decided  synergists.  Chy  trams  remained  true  at  least  to 
his  love  and  admiration  for  Melanchthon,  which  subjected  him  to  the 
suspicion  of  Crypto-Philippism  and  Calvinism.2 

The  Reformed,  led  by  Ursinus  (chief  author  of  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism),  justly  complained  of  the  misrepresentations  and  unfair  con- 
demnation of  their  doctrine  under  the  indiscriminate  charge  of  sacra- 
mentarianism,3  and  explained  the  qualified  sense  in  which  the  Reformed 
signed  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the  sense  of  its  author,  with  whole- 
some strictures  on  the  unprotestant  overestimate  of  the  authority  of 
Luther.  They  exposed  with  rigid  logic  the  doctrinal  contradiction  be- 
tween Arts.  II.  and  XL,  quoted  Luther's  views  on  predestination  against 
the  Formula,  and  refuted  with  clear  and  strong  arguments  the  new 
dogma  of  ubiquity,  which  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  the  oecumenical 
creeds,  and  sound  reason,  and  destructive  of  the  very  nature  of  the  sac- 
rament as  a  communion  of  the  hody  of  Christ ;  for  if  the  body  is  omni- 
present, and  there  can  be  but  one  omnipresence,  it  must  be  present  like 
God  himself,  i.  e.  like  a  spirit,  every  where  whole  and  complete,  without 

natural  Christi,  1585  (in  his  Opera,  Genev.  ir>!)2).  Of  later  Reformed  writings  must  be  men- 
tioned the  Emdensche  Buch  (1591),  and  especially  Hospinian's  Concordia  discors(lGQT),  which 
called  forth  Hutter's  Concordia  concors  (1614). 

1  The  ablest  Roman  assailant  was  Robert  Bellarmin :  Judicium  de  libro  quern  Lutherani 
Meant  Concordiic,  Ingolst.  1587,  1589,  etc.  (in  his  Opera,  Col.  Ag.  1020,  Vol.  VII.  p.  576). 
Against  him  Hoe  ab  Hoenegg  wrote  Apol.  contra  R.  B.  impium  et  stolidum  judicium,  Frcf. 
1605.  Bellarmin  also  repeatedly  notices  the  Christology  of  the  Formula  in  his  great  contro- 
versial work  against  Protestantism.     £ee  below. 

2  See  Schutz,Pifa  Chytrai,  and  Heppe,Vol.  IV.  pp.  395  sqq. 

3  This  complaint  the  Erfurt  Apology  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  admitted  to  be  just,  at  least 
in  part.  The  Formula  makes  no  distinction  between  Zwingli  and  Calvin;  condemns  Zwin- 
gli's  ;  allaosu '  (by  which  he  meant  only  to  guard  against  a  confusio  and  wquatio  naturarum)  as 
a  mask  of  the  devil ;  charges  the  Reformed  generally  with  a  Nestorian  separation  of  the  two 
natures  in  Christ)  and  a  denial  of  all  communion  between  them  ;  with  childish  literalism  eon- 
cerning  the  right  hand  of  God  and  the  throne  of  glory ;  with  shutting  Christ  up  in  heaven,  as 
if  he  had  no  more  to  do  with  us,  etc. 


334  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

parts  and  members,  and  thus  the  lineaments  and  concrete  image  of 
Christ  are  lost.  Sadeel  pointed  out  the  palpable  inconsistency  between 
the  hypcrphysical  and  ultrasupernatnral  outfit  of  Christ's  body  for  the 
eucliaristic  presence,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  emphasizing  of  a  corpo- 
real presence  and  oral  manducation  on  the  other,  as  if  this  were  the 
main  thing  in  the  sacrament,  while  the  communion  of  the  believing 
soul  with  the  person  of  Christ  was  almost  lost  sight  of.1 

Strange  to  say,  the  Roman  Catholics  were  just  as  decidedly  opposed 
to  ubiquity,  though  otherwise  much  nearer  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the 
sacraments.  Bellarmin,  the  greatest  controversialist  of  Rome,  exposes 
the  absurdity  of  a  dogma  which  would  destroy  the  human  nature  of 
Christ,  and  involve  the  presence  of  his  body  in  uteris  omnium  femina- 
rum,  tmo  etiam  virorum,  and  the  presence  extra  uterum  from  the  mo- 
ment of  conception,  and  in  utero  after  the  nativity.  In  his  polemic 
work  against  Protestantism  he  urges  five  arguments  against  ubiquity,2 
viz. :  (1.)  It  abolishes  the  sacramental  character  of  the  eucharist.  (2.) 
It  leads  to  the  Calvinistic  spiritual  presence  and  spiritual  eating  by 
faith — the  very  error  of  the  sacramentarians  which  this  Lutheran  dogma 
was  to  overthrow.3  (3.)  It  destroys  the  specific  effect  of  the  eucharist, 
and  makes  it  useless.  (4.)  It  is  refuted  by  the  other  Lutheran  doctrine 
which  confines  the  presence  to  the  time  of  the  use  of  the  sacrament.4 


1  Dorner,  in  his  History  of  Christologg  (Vol.  II.  pp.71 8-7r>0),  gives  an  admirable  and  im- 
partial summary  of  the  Reformed  argument.  Dr.  Kahnis,  of  Leipzig,  from  his  Lutheran  stand- 
point, thus  fairly  and  liberally  characterizes  the  Reformed  opposition  to  the  Form  of  Concord 
(Luth.  Dogm.Vol.  II.  p.  590)  :  lDie  Reformirten  vertraten  den  Standpunkt  des  Yerstandes, 
welcher  zwischen  Endlichem  und  Unendlichem  abstract  (?)  scheide?id  (finitum  non  est  capax 
infiniti)  der  menschlichen  Natur  Christi  keinen  Antheil  an  den  gbttlichen  Eigenschaften  ein- 
raumt ;  den  Standpunkt  der  Realitdt,  welcher  in  der  Betrachtung  der  Person  Christi,  von 
dem  Wandel  auf  Erden  ausgehead,  der  rein  menschlichen  Entwicklung  Christi  freien  Raum 
schaffen  will;  den  Stand/nmkt  des  Pralctischen,  der  bei  den  sicheren  Thatsachen  der  person- 
lichen  Vereinigung  Beruhigung  fasste,  ohne  sich  in  gnoslisch-scholastisc/te  Theorien  vcrspinnen 
zu  wollen.' 

2  Lib.  III.  de  Sacramento  Eucharistia>,  cap.  1 7.  Comp.  also  cap.  7,  and  Lib.  III.  de  Christo 
(where  he  refers  to  the  views  of  Luther,  Brentius,  Wigand,  Heshusius,  and  Chemnitz  on 
ubiquity). 

3  His  reasoning  is  curious :  '  Quod  est  ubique,  non  potest  moveri,  nee  transire  de  loco  ad  locum ; 
ergo  licet  corpus  Christi  sit  in  pane,  tamen  non  manducatur,  cum  panis  manducatur,  quia  non 
movetur,  nee  transit  cum  pane  e  manu  ad  os,  et  ab  ore  ad  stomaehum  ;  nam  etiam  antea  crat 
in  ore  et  in  stomacho,  priusquam  panis  eo  veniret.  .  .  .  Sequitur  aut  esse  inanem  canam  Domi- 
ni, aut  saltan  spititualiter  sumi  per  energiam  et  perjidem,  et  solum  a  piis,  qui  habent  Jidem,  et 
hoc  est,  quod  i-ohmt  Calvinistce.' 

*  lSi  enim  vorjnis  Christi  ubique  est,erit  etiam  ante  usum  in  ]>ane.' 


§  4G.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         335 

(5.)  It  is  a  makeshift  to  evade  the  power  of  priestly  consecration  which 
creates  the  eucharistic  presence.1 

Outside  of  Germany  and  Switzerland  the  Formula  of  Concord  ex- 
cited little  or  only  passing  polemical  interest.  Queen  Elizabeth  en- 
deavored to  prevent  its  adoption  because  it  condemned  the  Reformed 
doctrine,  and  threatened  to  split  and  weaken  the  Protestants  in  their 
opposition  to  the  united  power  of  Rome.  She  sent  delegates  to  a 
convention  of  Reformed  Princes  and  delegates  held  at  Frankfort-on- 
the-Main,  Sept.  157T.2  The  Anglican  divines  of  the  sixteenth  century 
rejected  ubiquity  as  decidedly  as  the  Continental  Calvinists.3  Evan- 
gelical Episcopalians  hold  the  Reformed  view  of  the  sacraments ;  and 
as  to  modern  Anglo-Catholic  and  Ritualistic  Episcopalians,  they  greatly 
prefer  the  Romish  or  Greek  dogma  of  transubstantiation  to  the  Luther- 
an consubstantiation.4 

The  attacks  upon  the  Formula,  especially  those  proceeding  from 
Lutherans  and  the  Palatinate  divines,  could  not  be  ignored  in  silence. 


1  Bellarmin  (De  Sacr.  Euch.  Lib.  III.  c.  7),  after  quoting  Augustine  against  the  sententia 
ubiquistarum  Lutheranorum,  thus  defines  the  Roman  view:  ' Nos  fatemur  C/iristi  corpus  non 
esse  uhique  diffusum;  et  ubieunque  est.  habere  suam  formam  et  partium  si  turn,  ac  dispositionem; 
quamvis  hac  jic/ura,  forma,  disjiositio  partium  in  cwlo  conspiciatur,  ubi  locum  replet ;  in  Sacra- 
mento aidem  sit  quidem,  sed  non  repleat  locum,  nee  videri  a  nobis  jiossit.' 

2  Comp.  on  Elizabeth's  action  and  the  Convent  of  Frankfort,  Hatter's  Concordia  concors, 
Cap.  XVI.  and  XVII.  (pp.  513-523)  ;  Planck,  Vol.  VI.  pp.  591-GU  ;  Heppe,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  5 
sqq.,  1G  sqq.,and  72  sqq. 

a  Cranmer  was  at  first  inclined  to  the  Lutheran  theory,  but  gave  it  up  afterwards.  His  fel- 
low-Reformers held  the  Zwinglian  or  Calvinistic  view.  Bishop  Hooper  thus  speaks  of  ubiq- 
uity :  '  Such  as  say  that  heaven  and  the  right  hand  of  God  is  in  the  articles  of  our  faith  taken 
for  God's  power  and  might,  which  is  every  where,  they  do  wrong  to  the  Scripture  and  unto 
the  articles  of  our  faith.  They  make  a  confusion  of  the  Scripture,  and  leave  nothing  cer- 
tain. They  darken  the  simple  and  plain  verity  thereof  with  intolerable  sophisms.  They 
make  heaven  hell,  and  hell  heaven,  turn  upside  down  and  pervert  the  order  of  God.  If  the 
heaven  and  God's  right  hand,  whither  our  Saviour's  body  is  ascended,  be  every  where,  and 
noteth  no  certain  place,  as  these  uncertain  men  teach,  I  will  believe  no  ascension.  What 
needeth  it  ? — seeing  Christ's  body  is  every  where  with  his  Godhead.  I  will  interpret  this 
article  of  my  creed  thus:  Chrislus  ascendit  ad  dextram  Patris.  Patris  dextra  est  ubi  que : 
eryo  Chrislus  ascendit  ad  ubique.  See  what  erroneous  doctrine  followeth  their  imaginations !' 
Early  Writing*  of  John  Hooper,  D.D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Worcester,  Martyr, 
1555;  ed.  by  the  Parker  Society,  Cambridge,  1S43,  p.  GG.  The  '  Declaration  of  Christ  and 
his  Office,'  from  which  this  passage  is  taken,  was  first  published  at  Zurich,  1547,  in  the  early 
stage  of  the  ubiquitarian  controversy.  Sec  also  the  lit  mains  of  Archbishoji  (,'rindal,  Canib. 
1843,  p. 46. 

4  Comp.  the  eucharistic  works  of  Posey  (1855),  Philip  Freeman  (18G2),  Thomas  L.  Vogan 
(1871),  and  John  Harrison  (against  l'usey,  1871). 


336  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

patrons  of  the  work,  convened  at  Erfurt,1  Oct.  23, 1581  (afterwards  at 
Braunschweig  and  Qucdlinburg),  and  prepared,  with  much  labor  and 
trouble,  an  elaborate  'Apology,'  called  the  ^  Erf  art  Bool','  in  four 
parts.2  It  called  forth  new  attacks,  which  it  is  unnecessary  here  to 
follow. 

LATER  FORTUNES. 

During  the  palmy  period  of  Lutheran  scholasticism  the  Formula  of 
Concord  stood  in  high  authority  among  Lutherans,  and  was  even  re- 
garded as  inspired.3  Its  first  centennial  (1680)  was  celebrated  with 
considerable  enthusiasm.4  But  at  the  close  of  another  century  it  was 
dead  and  buried.  The  Pietists,  and  afterwards  the  nationalists,  rebelled 
against  symbololatry  and  lifeless  orthodoxy.  One  stone  after  another 
was  taken  down  from  the  old  temple,  until  it  was  left  a  venerable  ruin. 
Those  very  countries  where  subscription  to  creeds  had  been  most  rig- 
orously enforced,  suffered  most  from  the  neological  revolution. 

Then  followed  a  period  of  patient  research  and  independent  criti- 
cism, which  led  to  a  more  impartial  estimate.  Planck,  the  ablest  Lu- 
theran historian  of  the  Formula,  with  complete  mastery  of  the  sources, 
followed  the  leading  actors  into  all  the  ramifications  and  recesses  of 
their  psychological  motives,  political  intrigues,  and  theological  passions, 
and  represents  the  work  as  the  fabrication  of  a  theological  triumvirate, 
which  upon  the  whole  did  more  harm  than  good,  and  which  produced 
endless  confusion  and  controversy.5  Kollner,  another  learned  and  im- 
partial Lutheran,  concedes  to  it  higher  merit  for  the  past,  but  no  dog- 
matic significance  for  the  present,  except  in  the  article  on  predestina- 
tion.6   lleppe,  the  indefatigable  historian  of  the  German  post-Refor- 

1  In  the  Gasthofzum  griinen  Weivfasse.     This  gave  rise  to  some  joke  and  mockery. 

2  The  first  part  was  directed  against  the  Neustadt  Admonition  of  Ursinns  and  his  colleagues, 
the  second  against  the  Bremen  pastors,  the  third  against  Irenreus,  the  fourth  against  Wolf. 
Timothy  Kirchner,  of  the  Palatinate,  prepared  the  first  three  parts,  Selnecker  and  Chemnitz 
the  last.  They  were  published  singly,  and  then  jointly  at  Dresden,  1584,  and  distributed  by 
the  Elector  Augustus  among  all  the  churches  of  Saxony.  See  Hutter,  pp.  1)78  sqq.  and  1038 
Bqq.  (  De  Apol.  Libri  Concord,  et  de  Colloqido  QuedlinLurgcnsi);  Heppe,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  284-311. 

3  Hutter  (Cone.  cone.  p.  97(5),  Deutschmann,  and  others,  who  called  it  SioTrrivoToe. 

1  Anton,  1.  c.  Ch.  X.  Erste  Concordien-Jubelfreude,  pp.  134  sqq.  J.  G.  Walch,  in  his  la- 
trod.  1782,  represents  the  last  stage  of  orthodox  veneration  before  the  revolution  of  sentiment 
took  place. 

;'  See  his  judgment,  Vol.  VI.  pp.  GOO  sqq.  ;  81G  sqq.  and  passim.  Planck's  history  is,  even 
more  than  Hospinian's  Concordia  discors,  a  chroinque  scandaleuse  of  Lutheran  pugnacity  and 
bigotry  in  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

0  St/mb.  Vol.  I.  p.  .r>'JG  :    l  Die  Concordicn/ormel  liat  dogmatisch  nur  insofern  noch  Werth,  als 


§  46.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         337 

mation  period,  from  a  vast  amount  of  authentic  information,  carries  out 
the  one-sided  idea  that  the  Lutheranism  of  the  Formula  is  an  apostasy 
from  the  normal  development  of  German  Protestantism,  by  which 
he  means  progressive,  semi-Reformed,  unionistie  Melanchthonianism.1 
Even  Kahnis  thinks  that  the  Lutheran  theology  of  the  future  must  be 
built  on  the  Melanehthonian  elements  which  were  condemned  by  the 
Formula.2 

With  the  modern  revival  of  orthodoxy,  the  Formula  enjoyed  a  par- 
tial resurrection  among  Lutherans  of  the  high  sacramentarian  type, 
who  regard  it  as  the  model  of  pure  doctrine  and  the  best  summary  of 
the  Bible.  By  this  class  of  divines  it  is  all  the  more  highly  esteemed, 
since  they  make  doctrine  the  corner-stone  of  the  Church  and  the  in- 
dispensable condition  of  Christian  fellowship.  In  America,  too,  the 
Formula  has  recently  found  at  least  one  able  and  scholarly  advocate  in 
the  person  of  Dr.  Krauth,  of  Philadelphia.3 

Yet  the  great  body  of  the  Lutheran  Church  will  never  return  to  the 
former  veneration  for  this  symbol.  History  never  repeats  itself.  Each 
age  must  produce  its  own  theology.  Even  modern  Lutheran  ortho- 
doxy in  its  ablest  champions  is  by  no  means  in  full  harmony  with  the 
Formula,  but  departs  from  its  anthropology  and  Christology,  and  makes 
concessions  to  Melanchthon  and  the  Reformed  theology,  or  attempts  a 
new  solution  of  the  mighty  problems  which  were  once  regarded  as 
finally  settled.4 

sie  mit  den  fruheren  Symholen  iihereinstimmt.  .  .  .  Allein  die  Lehre  von  der  Predestination 
ausgenommen,  kann  ihr  fiir  das  Dogma  wie  fur  die  ausseren  Verhdltnisse  der  Kirehe  nttr  der 
wenigste  eigenthiimlirhe  Werth  unter  alien  Symbolen  der  Kirehe  zugestanden  werden.  Eigen- 
thiimlich  ist  nur  die  Ausbildung  und  mehr  si/stematische  Gestaltting  des  Lehrbegriffa  der 
Kirehe  als  eines  Sy sterns.'  This  is  too  low  an  estimate  of  the  whole  document,  and  too  high 
an  estimate  of  Art.  XI. 

1  In  his  numerous  works,  so  often  quoted. 

2  Dogm.  Vol.  II.  p.  ">  1 7  :  '  Man  darf .  .  .  mit  Zuversieht  aussprechen,  dass  die  Zukunft  der 
thcologischen  Forschung  an  dem  Fortschreitcn  auf  dem  von  Melanchthon  eingeschlagenen  Wege 
hdngt. ' 

3  Dr.  Krauth  calls  the  Formula  '  the  amplest  and  clearest  confession  in  which  the  Chris- 
tian Church  has  ever  embodied  her  faith,'  and  he  goes  so  far  as  to  say  :  '  But  for  the  For- 
mula of  Concord,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  Protestantism  could  have  been  saved  to  the 
world'  (Conservative  Reform,  p.  302).  And  this  in  full  view  of  the  independent  Protestant- 
ism in  Switzerland,  France,  Holland,  England,  and  Scotland,  which  materially  differs  from 
the  distinctive  theology  of  this  book,  and  was  in  vain  condemned  by  it! 

*  We  can  simply  «llude  to  the  internal  differences  of  the  Erlangen,  Leipzig,  and  Rostock 
schools  of  Lutherans;  to  Luthardt  on  the  freedom  of  the  will;  to  Thomasius  on  the  Kenosis; 
to  Kahnis  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  inspiration,  and  the  canon  of  the  Scripture;  to  the  Ilofmann 


338  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

AN   IMPARTIAL    ESTIMATE. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  is,  next  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the 
most  important  theological  standard  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  dif- 
fers from  it  as  the  sectarian  symbol  of  Lutheranism,  while  the  other  is 
its  catholic  symbol.  Hence  its  authority  is  confined  to  that  communion, 
and  is  recognized  only  by  a  section  of  it.  It  is  both  conclusive  and  ex- 
clusive, a  Formula  of  Concord  and  a  Formula  of  Discord,  the  end  of 
controversy  and  the  beginning  of  controversy.  It  completed  the  separa- 
tion of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches,  it  contracted  the  territory 
and  the  theology  of  Lutheranism,  and  sowed  in  it  the  seed  of  discord 
by  endeavoring  to  settle  too  much,  and  yet  leaving  unsettled  some  of 
the  most  characteristic  dogmas.  It  is  invaluable  as  a  theological  docu- 
ment, but  a  partial  failure  as  a  symbol,  just  because  it  contains  too 
much  theology  and  too  little  charity.  It  closes  the  productive  period 
of  the  Lutheran  reformation  and  opens  the  era  of  scholastic  formalism. 

The  Formula  is  the  fullest  embodiment  of  genuine  Lutheran  ortho- 
doxy, as  distinct  from  other  denominations.  It  represents  one  of  the 
leading  doctrinal  types  of  Christendom.  It  is  for  the  Lutheran  system 
what  the  Decrees  of  Trent  are  for  the  Roman  Catholic,  the  Canons 
of  Dort  for  the  Calvinistic.  It  sums  up  the  results  of  the  theolog- 
ical controversies  of  a  whole  generation  with  great  learning,  ability,  dis- 
crimination, acumen,  and,  we  may  add,  with  comparative  moderation. 
It  is  quite  probable  that  Luther  himself  would  have  heartily  indorsed 
it,  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  a  part  of  the  eleventh  article.  The 
Formula  itself  claims  to  be  merely  a  repetition  and  explication  of  the 


ami  Philippi  controversy  on  the  atonement;  to  Hengstenberg's  articles  on  justification  and 
the.  Epistle  of  James  ;  to  the  disputes  on  the  millenarian  question  ;  and  to  the  controversy  on 
Church  government  and  the  relation  of  the  ministry  to  the  general  priesthood  of  helievers,  in 
which  Iluschke,  Stahl,  Klicfoth,Vilmar,  and  Lohe  take  High-Church  ground  against  the  Low- 
Church  views  of  Hulling,  Harless,  Diedrich,  etc.  Some  of  these  controversies,  especially  the 
question  of  the  ministerial  office  (Amisfrage),  are  also  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  orthodox 
Lutherans  in  America,  and  divide  them  into  hostile  synods  (the  Missouri  Synod  versus  the 
Graban  Synod,  Iowa  Synod,  and  portions  of  the  General  Council,  not  to  mention  several  sub- 
divisions). The  cschatological  controversy  separates  the  Iowa  Synod  from  Grabau  and  the 
Missourians,  who  denounce  millenarianism  as  a  heresy.  The  smallest  doctrinal  difference 
among  orthodox  Lutherans  in  America  is  considered  sufficient  to  justify  the  formation  of  a 
new  synod  with  close-communion  principles.  And  yet  all  these  Lutherans  adopt  the  Form- 
ula Concordia  as  the  highest  standard  of  pure  Scripture  orthodoxy.  Is  this  Concordia  con- 
cors,  or  Concordia  discors  T 


§  46.  THE  FORM  OF  CONCORD,  CONCLUDED.         339 

genuine  sense  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  disclaims  originality  in 
the  substance  of  doctrine.1  But  there  were  two  diverging  tendencies 
proceeding  from  the  same  source.  The  author  of  the  Confession  him- 
self understood  and  explained  it  differently,  and  the  Formula  added 
new  dogmas  which  he  never  entertained.  It  excludes,  indeed,  certain 
extravagances  of  the  Flacian  wing  of  Lutheranism,  but,  upon  the 
whole,  it  is  a  condemnation  of  Philippism  and  a  triumph  of  exclusive 
Lutheranism.2 

The  spirit  of  Melanchthon  could  be  silenced,  but  not  destroyed,  for 
it  meant  theological  progress  and  Christian  union.  It  revived  from 
time  to  time  in  various  forms,  in  Calixtus,  Spener,  Zinzendorf,  Xeander, 
and  other  great  and  good  men,  who  blessed  the  Lutheran  Church  by 
protesting  against  bigotry  and  the  overestimate  of  intellectual  ortho- 
doxy, by  insisting  on  personal,  practical  piety,  by  widening  the  hori- 
zon of  truth,  and  extending  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  other  sections  of 
Christ's  kingdom.  The  minority  which  at  first  refused  the  Formula 
became  a  vast  majority,  and  even  the  recent  reaction  of  Lutheran  con- 


1  See  the  Preface.  An  able  argument  for  this  agreement  is  presented  by  Prof.  Thomasius, 
of  Erlangen,  in  his  Das  Bekenntniss  der  evanr/elisch-lutherischen  Kirche  in  di  r  Consequenz 
seines  Princi/>s,  Nuraberg,  1848.  He  develops  the  doctrines  of  the  Formula  from  Luther's 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  as  the  organic  life-principle  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  But 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  eucharist  with  the  communicatio  idiomatum  and  ubiquity  of  the 
body  have — as  the  creeds  of  the  Reformed  churches  prove — no  necessary  connection  with 
justification  by  faith;  and  on  these  points,  which  constitute  the  peculiar  features  of  the  For- 
mula, the  author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  himself  represented,  even  before  Luther's  death, 
a  different  line  of  development. 

-  Andres,  in  a  letter  to  Heshusius  and  Wigand,  of  July  24, 1  576,  giving  an  account  of  the 
results  of  the  Torgau  Convention  (quoted  by  Heppe,  Vol.  III.  p.  Ill),  thus  characteristically 
sets  forth  the  object  of  the  whole  movement  in  which  he  and  the  Elector  Augustus  were  the 
chief  leaders:  ' Hoc  enim  sancte  vobia  affirmare  et polliceri  ausim,  I/lust.  Electorem  Saxoniaz  in 
hoc  unice  intentum,  ut  Lutheri  doctrina  partim  ohscurata,  partim  vitiata,  partim  aperte  vel 
occulte  damnata,  pura  et  sincera  in  scholis  et  Ecclesiis  restituatur,  adeoque  LuTHERUS,  hoc 
est  (  'hkisti  18,  cuius  fide/is  minister  T.utherusfuit,  vivat.  Quid  vultis  amplius  ?  Xihilhicfuca- 
tum,  nihil palliatum,  nihil  tectum  est,  sed  juxta  spiritum  Lutheri,  qui  Christi  est.'  And 
Chemnitz  wrote,  June  29,  L676  :  iMentio  librorum  Philippi  expvncta  est,  et  responsionc  hac  in 
parte  retulimus  nos  ad  LichtenOeraense  decretum.'  Some  zealots,  like  Heshusius,  desired  that 
Melanchthon  should  be  condemned,  by  name,  in  the  Formula,  but  Andres  thought  it  better 
'to  cover  the  shame  of  Noah,'  and  to  be  silent  about  the  apostasy  of  the  Lutheran  Solomon. 
Dr.  Krauth,  too,  says  (Conservative  Reform,  p.  327) :  '  The  Book  of  Concord  treats  Melanch- 
thon as  the  Bible  treats  Solomon.  It  opens  wide  the  view  of  his  wisdom  and  glory,  and 
draws  the  veil  over  the  record  of  his  sadder  days.'  In  the  Formula  itself  he  is  nowhere 
named,  but  in  the  Preface  to  the  'Book  of  Concord'  his  writings  are  spoken  of  as  'utilia  neque 
repudianda  ac  damnanda,  quatenus  cum  ea  norma,  qua;  Concordi<c  libro  expressa  est,  per  omnia 
consentiunt.' 


340  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

fessionalism  against  rationalism,  latitudinarianism,  and  unionism  will 
be  unable  to  undo  the  work  of  history,  and  to  restore  the  Lutheran 
scholasticism  and  exclusivism  of  the  seventeenth  century.  The  Luther- 
an Church  is  greater  and  wider  than  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  and,  by 
its  own  principle  of  the  absolute  supremacy  of  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of 
faith,  it  is  bound  to  follow  the  onward  march  of  Biblical  learning. 

The  great  length  of  this  section  may  be  justified  by  the  intrinsic  im- 
portance of  the  Formula  Concordise,  and  the  scarcity  of  reliable  in- 
formation in  English  works.1 

§  47.  Superseded    Lutheran    Symbols.     The    Saxon    Confession. 
The  AVurtemberg  Confession.     1551. 

Literature. 

nEiNRicn  IlEPrr :  Die  Bekcnntniss-Schriften  der  altprotestantischen  Kirche  Deutschlands,  Cassel,  1855. 
This  collection  contains  (besides  the  oecumenical  Creeds,  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530,  the  Altered 
Augsburg  Confession  of  1540)  the  Confessio  Saxonica,  pp.  40T-4S3,  and  the  Confessio  Wurtembergiea,  pp. 
491-554. 

1'iui..  Mfxanoiitiionis  Opera  qtice  supersunt  omnia,  or  Corpus  Reformatorum,  ed.  Bretschueider  and 
Bindseil.Vol.  XXVIII.  (Brunsvigae,  1800),  pp.  329-568.  This  vol.  coutains  the  Latin  and  German  texts 
of  the  Conf.  Saxonica  with  critical  Prolegomena. 

The  Book  of  Concord  embraces  all  the  Lutheran  symbols  which  are 
still  in  force ;  but  two  other  Confessions  deserve  mention  for  their 
historical  importance,  viz.,  the  Saxon  Confession  and  the  Wiirtemberg 
Confession. 

Both  were  written  in  1551,  twenty-one  years  after  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg  and  twenty-six  years  before  the  Formula  of  Concord,  in 
full  agreement  with  the  former  as  understood  by  its  author,  and  with- 
out the  distinctive  and  exclusive  features  of  the  latter.  Both  were  in- 
tended (like  the  Articles  of  Smalcald)  for  the  Roman  Catholic  Council, 
and,  although  they  failed  in  accomplishing  their  direct  object,  they 
exhibit  the  doctrinal  status  of  the  Lutheran  or  the  entire  Evangelical 
Church  of  Germany  at  that  period.    It  is  this  Protestantism  which  re- 

1  There  is  no  full  and  satisfactory  account  of  the  history  and  character  of  the  Form  of  Con- 
cord in  the  English  language,  except  in  Dr.  Krauth's  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  The- 
°lorJ!l)  PP-  288-328;  and  this,  in  accordance  with  the  aim  of  this  learned  and  able  author,  is 
apologetic  and  polemic  rather  than  historical.  Dr.  Shedd,  in  his  valuable  History  of  Christian 
Doctrine  (Vol.  II.  p. 458),  devotes  only  a  few  lines  to  it.  Dr.  Fisher,  in  his  excellent  work  on 
the  Reformation  (N.  Y.  1 873),  disposes  of  it  in  a  foot-note  (p.  481 ).  In  Dr.  Blunt's  Dictionary 
of  Sects,  etc.  (London,  1874),  it  has  no  place  among  the  Protestant  Confessions,  and  the  brief 
allusion  to  it  sub  'Lutherans,'  p.  2G0,  only  exposes  the  ignorance  of  the  writer.  The  doctrines 
"'  ,llr  Form  of  Concord  are  frequently,  though  mostly  polemically,  noticed  in  Dr.  Hodge's 
Systematic  Theology  (N.Y.1878,  3  vols.). 


§  47.  SUPERSEDED  LUTHERAN  SYMBOLS,  ETC.  341 

Delved  legal  toleration  and  recognition  in  the  German  Empire  by  the 
Treaty  of  Passau,  1552,  and  three  years  afterwards,  without  the  re- 
striction as  to  time,  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg.1  But  in  the  succeeding 
generation  the  exclusive  and  more  energetic  school  of  Lutheranism 
prevailed,  and  found  its  expression  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  which 
superseded  those  interimistic  Confessions. 

1.  The  Saxon  Confession  (Confessio  Saxonica)  was  drawn  up  by 
Melanchthon  for  the  Council  of  Trent,  which,  after  a  brief  transfer  to 
Bologna  by  Paul  III.,  in  March,  1547,  was  again  convened  at  Trent  by 
Julius  III.,  May  1,1551.  The  German  Emperor  had  previously  (Feb. 
13)  invited  the  Protestant  States  to  send  delegates,  promising  them  full 
protection,  and  his  best  endeavor  to  secure  'a  Christian,  useful  reforma- 
tion, and  abrogation  of  improper  doctrines  and  abuses.'  Melanchthon 
expected  nothing  from  a  conference  with  Bishops  and  Cardinals,  but 
considered  it  wise  and  politic  to  accept  the  Emperor's  invitation,  pro- 
vided he  would  secure  to  the  Protestant  delegates  a  hearing  before  the 
Council.  His  advice  was  the  best  that  could  be  given  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, and  was  accepted  by  Elector  Maurice  of  Saxony.2  He  was 
requested  to  prepare  a  ' Repetition  and  Exposition  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession]  usually  called  the  ' Saxon  Confession?3     To  finish  this 

1  Heppe,  I.e.  p.  xxix. :  iDe.r  in  der  Conf.  Saxonica  undin  derConf.  Wiirte?nbergica  entfaltete 
Lehrbegriff  der  Augsburgischcn  Confession  ist  es,  welcher  t.  J.  1555  zu  kirchenst  aafsrechtlicher 
Geltung  ham.  Dieses  erhellt  schon  aus  den  Beschliissen  der  im  Mai  1554  zur  Vorbereituwj  der 
Reichstagsverhandlungen  gehaltenen  evangelischen  Conferenz,  in  dem  die  daselbst  versammel- 
ten  chursdschsischen,  hessisc/ien  und  strassburgischen  Uejtutirtcn  erklartcn :  Avf  bevorstchen- 
dem  Reichstage  habe  man  als  einziges  Bekenntniss  die  Augsburgische  Confession  festzu- 
halten.  Da  aber  die  sdchsische  und  die  wurtembergische  Confession  mit  derselben  durchaus 
iibereinstimmten,  so  habe  man  entiveder  jene  oiler  eine  von  diesen  dem  Kaiser  zu  ubergeben., 

2  See  several  letters  from  February  to  April,  1551,  in  the  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  VII.  (1840), 
especially  pp.  736-739,  where  Melanchthon  gives  his  views  on  the  Council  of  Trent;  and 
Schmidt,  Melanchthon,  pp.  534  sqq. 

3  It  appeared  first  in  Latin  at  Basle,  1552,  under  the  title:  'Confessio  Do|ctrinvE 
Saxonica  rim  I  ECCLEBIARUM  Synodo  Tridenlir.ee  ob\lata,  A.D.  1551,  in  qua,'  etc.  The 
original  MS.,  with  the  title  Tli.i'ETiTioCoNFESSiONisAuGUSTANjE^ln.  1551, Witeberga- scripta,' 
etc.,  and  witli  corrections  from  Melanchthon's  own  hand,  is  preserved  in  the  library  of  the 
Thomaskirche  in  Leipzig,  to  which  Selnecker  presented  it  in  1580.  From  this  Ileppe  and 
Bindseil  have  derived  their  text ;  the  latter  with  a  critical  apparatus  from  eight  printed  edi- 
tions. It  was  translated  into  German  by  John  Mactspcrger,  1 552,  and  by  Georg  Major,  1555. 
The  Latin  text  was  often  republished  separately  at  Leipzig,  Wittenberg,  Frankfort,  etc.,  and 
in  the  Melanchthonian  Corpora  Doctrine;  also  in  the  Corpus  el  Syntagma  Confessionum, 
Genev.  1612  and  1654,  in  the  Sylloge  Confessionum,  Oxf.  1804  and  1827  (pp.  237^-328)  ;  and 
more  recently  by  II.  Ileppe,  1.  c,  and  by  Bindseil,  who  gives  also  Major's  German  translation, 
in  Corp.  Reform.Yol  XXVIII.  pp.  370  sqq.    On  the  various  editions,  see  Bindseil,  pp.  347  sqq. 


342  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

work  with  more  leisure,  he  went  with  his  friend  Camerarius  to  the 
Prince  of  Anhalt  at  Dessau. 

The  document  is  not  merely  a  repetition  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, but  an  adaptation  of  it  to  the  changed  condition  of  affairs.  In 
1530  Melanchthon  still  hoped  for  a  reunion  with  Rome,  and  wrote  in 
an  apologetic  tone,  avoiding  all  that  might  irritate  the  powerful  enemy; 
now  all  hope  of  reunion  had  departed,  and  Protestantism  had  made  a 
decided  progress  in  ecclesiastical  consolidation  and  independence.  Al- 
though the  Confession  was  composed  after  the  defeat  of  the  Protestant 
Princes  by  the  Emperor,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  Adiaphoristic  troubles, 
it  shows  no  disposition  whatever  to  recede  from  the  doctrinal  positions 
taken  at  Augsburg ;  on  the  contrary,  the  errors  and  abuses  of  Rome, 
which  made  separation  an  imperative  duty,  are  freely  exposed  and  re- 
futed. The  Scriptures,  as  understood  by  the  ancient  Church  in  the 
oecumenical  Creeds,  are  declared  to  be  the  only  and  unalterable  foun- 
dation of  the  Evangelical  faith.1  The  distinctive  Evangelic  doctrines 
and  usages  in  opposition  to  Rome  are  comprehended  under  the  two 
articles  of  the  Apostles'  Creed :  '  I  believe  the  forgiveness  of  sins,'  and 
'  one  holy  Catholic  Church.'  The  former  excludes  human  merit  and 
justification  by  works;  the  latter  the  political  and  secular  conceptions 
and  corruptions  of  the  Church,  which  is  represented  to  be  a  spiritual 
though  visible  communion  of  believers  in  Christ.  The  controverted 
articles  are  considered  in  twenty -three  sections,  in  the  order  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  namely :  Original  Sin,  Forgiveness  and  Justifi- 
cation, Free  Will,  Good  Works,  New  Obedience,  the  Church,  the  Sac- 
raments, Satisfaction,  Marriage,  Monastic  Life,  Invocation  of  Saints, 
Civil  Magistrate.  The  Saxon  Confession  is  signed,  not  by  Princes,  as 
the  Augsburg  Confession  was,  but,  as  Melanchthon  suggested,  only  by 
theologians,  viz.,  Bugenhagen,  Pfeffinger,  Camerarius,  Major,  Eber,  Me- 
lanchthon, and  the  Superintendents  of  Electoral  Saxony,  who  con- 
vened at  Wittenberg,  July  9,  for  the  purpose,  and  unanimously  adopt- 
ed the  work  of  their  dear  and  venerable  '  Preceptor,'  as  the  clear  ex- 
pression of  their  own  faith  in  full  harmony  with  his  Confession  of 
1530.     It  was  a  beautiful  moment  in  Melanchthon's  life,  for  which  he 

1  Art  I.  De  doctrina  :  '  Affirmumus  dare  coram  Deo  et  universa  Ecclesia  in  ccclo  et  in  terra, 
nos  vera  fide  amplecti  omnia  Sckii'Ta  Prophktakum  et  Apostolordm  :  et  quidem  in  hac 
ipsa  nativa  sentcntia  quoz  expressa  est  in  Symbolis,  Ai'OSTOLlCO,  NiCJENO  et  Athanasiano.' 


§  47.  SUPERSEDED  LUTHERAN  SYMBOLS,  ETC.  343 

felt  very  grateful  to  God.'  The  danger  was  now  much  greater  than 
in  1530,  for  the  Elector  Maurice  was  in  league  with  the  victorious  Em- 
peror. The  theologians  of  Brandenburg,  Ansbach,  Baireuth,  Mansfeld, 
Pomerania,  Palatinate,  IIesse,AViirtemburg,  and  Strasburg  likewise  sent 
in  their  consent  to  this  Confession.2 

The  Council  convened  in  May,  1551,  was  adjourned  to  October,  and 
again  to  January  next.  Melanchthon  was  ordered  to  proceed  to  Trent, 
but  to  stop  at  Nuremberg  for  further  instructions.  While  at  Nurem- 
berg, in  January,  1552,  he  wrote  a  preface  to  Luther's  Commentary  on 
Genesis,  and  expressed  himself  very  decidedly  against  the  preceding 
acts  of  the  Council.3  In  the  mean  time  the  Saxon  and  Wiirtemberg 
lay-embassadors  received  a  hearing  at  Trent,  not,  indeed,  before  the 
whole  Council  in  public  session,  but  before  a  private  congregation. 
They  requested  that  the  members  of  the  Council  be  released  of  their 
oath  of  obedience  to  the  Pope,  and  be  free  to  decide  the  questions  by 
the  rule  of  the  Scriptures  alone.  A  few  prelates  were  inclined  to  ac- 
cede, but  the  majority  would  never  have  sacrificed  the  principle  of  tra- 
dition, nor  reconsidered  the  decrees  already  adopted.  The  Saxon  em- 
bassadors urged  Melanchthon  to  proceed  on  his  journey,  but  he  delayed 
on  account  of  the  rumors  of  war.  The  treacherous  Elector  Maurice 
of  Saxony  cut  the  Gordian  knot  by  making  war  upon  his  ally,  the  Em- 
peror, in  the  spring,  1552,  drove  him  from  Innspruck,  scared  the  fathers 
of  Trent  to  their  homes,  and  achieved,  in  the  Treaty  of  Passau  (Aug. 
2,1552),  ratified  at  Augsburg  (1555),  the  first  victory  for  liberty  of  con- 
science to  Protestants,  to  which  the  Emperor  reluctantly  yielded,  and 
against  which  the  Pope  never  ceases  to  protest. 

II.  The   WuKTEMBERG  CONFESSION   (CoNFESSIO  WuRTEMBERGICA)4  waS 

1  See  his  letter  to  Prince  George  of  Anhalt,  July  11, 1551,  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  VII.  p.  806 
sq.,and  the  letter  of  Major  to  J<m;is.  July  14,  ibid.  p.  809. 

2  See  Ileppe,  1.  c.  p.  xxvii.,  and  especially  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma  Con/.,  which  gives  after 
the  subscriptions  the  assenting  judgments  of  the  churches  above  mentioned. 

3  Jan.  25,  1552,  Corp.  Reform.  Vol.  VII.  pp.  918-927. 

4  The  full  title,  as  given  by  Heppe  and  Bindseil,  is  'Confes|sio  nm  uoctri|n^:,  qua; 
nomine  i//u'strissimi  Prinripis  ac  Domini  CHBl|sTOPHOBI  Dun's  Wirtembergen\sis  et  Teccen- 
sis,  ac  Comitia  Montiebe  ligardi,  per  hgntos  ejus  Die  XXIIII.  \  mensis  Januarij,  Anno 
MDLIT.  Con\gregationi  Tridentini  Conci\!ii  proposita  est.'  It  was  first  printed  at  Tubingen, 
1551  •  then  in  1556,  1559,  1501,  etc.  It  is  also  embodied  in  the  Opera  Brentii,  Tubingen, 
1590,  Tom.  VIII.  pp.  1-34,  in  Corpus  et  Syntagma  Conf.  (from  a  Frankfort  ed.  of  15G1),  and 
in  Ileppe,  1.  c.  pp.  491-554.  It  is  frequently  quoted  in  part  under  different  heads,  together 
with  the  Saxon  Confession,  in  the  Kefoimcd  Harmonia  Confessionum,  Genev.  1581.     Comp. 

Vol.  I.— Z 


344  TUB  CEEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

prepared  for  the  same  purpose,  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  spirit, 
by  Brentius,  the  Reformer  of  the  Duchy  of  Wiirtemberg,  in  the  name 
of  his  Prince,  Duke  Christopher,  who  likewise  resolved  to  send  dele- 
gates to  the  Council  of  Trent.  For  Brentius,  like  Melanchthon,  had 
no  confidence  in  this  partial  popish  Council,  but  advised,  nevertheless, 
compliance  with  the  Emperor's  request,  since  a  refusal  might  be  con- 
strued as  disobedience  and  contempt,  or  as  an  act  of  cowardice.  The 
Confession  was  approved  by  a  commission  of  ten  Swabian  divines, 
and  by  the  City  of  Strasburg.  It  was  also  approved  at  Wittenberg,  as 
agreeing  with  Melanchthon's  Confession.  It  was  found  best  to  send 
two  Confessions,  one  representing  the  Evangelical  Churches  of  the 
North,  the  other  those  of  the  South  of  Germany,  to  avoid  the  appear- 
ance of  a  conspiracy. 

The  Wiirtemberg  Confession  contains  a  preface  of  Duke  Christopher, 
and  restates,  in  thirty-five  articles,  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  other  controverted  points,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
the  Evangelical  Churches  agree  with  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  apostles, 
and  of  the  catholic  and  orthodox  Church.1  On  the  Lord's  Supper  this 
Confession  goes  a  little  beyond  the  Saxon ;  but  there  is  no  trace  of  the 
ubiquity  of  Christ's  body,  of  which  Brentius,  ten  years  afterwards,  be- 
came a  zealous  advocate. 

Brentius  was  among  the  Wiirtemberg  and  Strasburg  delegates  to 
Trent,  and  actually  arrived  there,  March  18,  1552,  but  only  to  return 
in  April  without  accomplishing  any  thing.2  It  is  very  doubtful  whether 
he  and  Melanchthon  would  have  made  a  deep  impression  upon  the  Coun- 
cil, which  was  already  committed  to  the  cause  of  popery  and  had  sanc- 
tioned some  of  its  most  obnoxious  doctrines. 


Pfaff,  Acta  et  scri/>ta  publica  Ecclesim  Wirtembergico?,Tiib.  1720;  Salig,  Historie  der  Augsb. 
Conf.  Tom.  I.  pp.  673  sqq.;  and  Hartmann,  Johannes  Brentz.  Leben  und  ausgewahlte  Schriften 
(Elberfeld,  1802),  pp.  211-221. 

1  Prefat.  :  '  In  nostris  ecclesiis  non  nisi  vercc  aposto/icce,  catholics,  et  orthodoxy  doctrinal 
locum  datum  esse.' 

2  See  Sleidanus,  De  statu  relig.  et  reipublicce  Carolo  V.  Cwsare  commentar.  Tom.  III.  pp.  317- 
883  ;  i 'orp.  Reform.  Vol.  XXVTII.  p.  334,  and  Hartmann,  1.  c.  p.  215.  The  other  theological 
delegates  to  Trent  were  Beurlin,  Hcerbrand,  Vannius  (Wanner),  of  Wiirtemberg,  and  Mar- 
bach  and  Sellius,  of  Strasburg.     Sleidanus  was  one  of  the  lay-delegates  from  Strasburg. 


§  48.  THE  SAXON  VISITATION  ARTICLES,  1592.  345 


§  4S.  The  Saxon  Visitation  Articles,  1592. 

Literature. 

Artict/li  VistTATORii,  A  nno  Chrixti  1592  in  Eleetoratu  ct  Provinciis  miperioris  Saxonice publicati,  et  Judi- 
cibus  Con^istoriorum,  Superintendentibus,  Hinihtris  eeclesiarum  ct  scholarum,  nee  11011  Administratoribus 
botwrum  eeclemasticorum,  quin  et  (puis  Ptttronis  et  Collatoribus  ad  subscribendum  et  servandum  propositi 
et  demandati.  They  are  printed  in  Corp.  juris  eccles.  Saxonici,  Dresden,  1773,  p.  ii5(j,  and  added  to  Hase'a 
edition  of  the  Lutheran  Symbols,  pp.  S62-S6C,  the  Berlin  edition  of  the  Concordia  (1857),  pp.  849-S54,  and 
Muller's  Symb.  Buc/icr,  pp.  779-784. 

Griindlicke  Verantwortung  der  vier  streitigen  Artikcl,  etc.     Leipzig,  1593. 

A.  Hunnius:  Widerlegung  des  Calvinisclien  Bi'/chleins  wider  die  vier  Artikel,  1593. 

Comp.  SoiiitoEKii :  Kirchengeschichte  scit  der  Reformation,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  660  sqq.  j  IIenke  :  Art.  IluiuiiuS 
iullerzog,  Vol. VI. pp. 316-321;  Muli.ek:  Symb.Biicher,pp.cxx\.  (Iutrod.)  sqq.;  G. Fkank:  Geschichte  der 
Protest.  Theologie  (1S64),  Vol.  I.  pp.  290  eqq. 

The  Four  Articles  of  Visitation  of  Electoral  Saxony  owe  their  ori- 
gin to  the  revival  and  second  overthrow  of  Crypto-Calvinism,  and  reflect 
the  fierceness  and  bitterness  of  this  contest.1  They  continued  in  force 
till  the  present  century,  but  never  extended  their  authority  beyond  Sax- 
ony. They  are  strongly  anti-Calvinistic,  and  may  be  regarded  as  an 
Appendix  to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  with  which  they  fully  agree. 

They  were  written  in  1592,  and  first  published  in  German  in  1593.2 
Their  object  was  to  perpetuate  the  reign  of  exclusive  Lutheranism. 
They  are  based  on  the  articles  of  a  Colloquy  between  Andreas  and  Beza 
at  Mompelgard  (1586).  The  chief  author  was  Dr.  Aegidius  Hunnius, 
one  of  the  foremost  Lutheran  divines  of  his  age,  a  native  of  Winnen- 
den  in  the  Duchy  of  Wiirtemberg,  professor  of  theology  at  Marburg 
(1576-1592),  and  afterwards  at  Wittenberg  (d.  1603).3  He  was  com- 
missioned with  several  others  to  visit  the  churches  and  schools  of  Sax- 
ony for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  every  trace  of  Crypto-Calvinism. 
All  clergymen  and  teachers,  and  even  the  civil  officers,  were  required 
to  subscribe  the  four  Articles  or  lose  their  places.  A  great  feast  of 
thanksgiving  closed  the  visitation. 

The  hardest  fate  was  reserved  for  Chancellor  Crell,  who,  after  ten 
years'  imprisonment,  was  executed  (1601),  ostensibly  for  political  of- 

1  See  above,  p.  283. 

3  Under  the  title:  'Visitation- Artikel  im  gantzen  C/iurkreiss  Sac/isen.  Sampt  derer  Cal- 
rinisten  Negativa  und  Gegenhhr,  und  die  Form  der  Subscription,  welcfiergestalt  dieselbe  bey- 
den  Parlheien  sich  zu  untersehreiben  sind  vorgelegt  warden.1 

3  He  was  aided  in  the  composition  by  Mart.  Minis,  George  Mylius,  and  Joshua  Lonnerus. 
Minis  was  called  by  Hospinian  ' Inquisitor  Saxonitc,'  because,  as  the  Lutherans  explained 
this  term  of  reproach,  he  cleaned  the  Lord's  vineyard  of  cunning  foxes  and  wild  hogs.  His 
last  wish  was  to  die  an  enemy  of  Calvinists  and  Papists.     Frank,  1.  c.  Vol.  I.  p.  L"J0. 


34:6  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

fenses,  but  really  for  opinions  which  were  once  honored  by  the  name 
of  Philip  Melanchthon.  The  preachers  who  attended  this  auto-da-fe 
of  hyper-Lutheran  orthodoxy  told  Crell  that  by  his  wicked  Calvinism 
he  had  caused  in  many  cases  a  dangerous  delay  of  infant  baptism,  un- 
dermined the  authority  of  the  ministry,  and  deserved  the  fire  of  hell. 
They  laughed  at  his  prayer  on  the  scaffold ;  whereupon  he  prayed  to 
God  not  to  change  their  laughter  into  weeping.  The  executioner,  hold- 
ing the  severed  head  high  up  in  the  air,  said:  'This  was  a  Calvinistic 
stroke.' 1 

The  four  Articles  give  a  very  clear  and  explicit  summary  of  those 
peculiar  doctrines  which  distinguish  the  Lutheran  creed  from  those  of 
all  other  Protestant  churches.  The  first  refers  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  teaches  the  real  presence  and  oral  fruition  of  the  true  and  natural 
body  of  Christ  by  all  communicants.  The  second  treats  of  the  Person 
of  Christ,  and  teaches,  in  support  of  the  eucharistic  omnipresence,  the 
communication  of  the  attributes  whereby  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
became  partaker  of  the  whole  majesty,  honor,  power,  and  glory  of  his 
divine  nature.  The  third  teaches  baptismal  regeneration  and  the  ordi- 
nary necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation.2  The  fourth  teaches  the  uni- 
versal atonement,  and  the  vocation  of  all  men  to  salvation,  with  the 
possibility  of  a  total  andjlnal  fall  from  grace. 

In  the  negative  part  the  opposite  doctrines  of  the  Calvinists  are  re- 
jected. These  were  henceforth  held  in  perfect  abhorrence  in  Saxony, 
and  it  was  a  common  proverb, '  Rather  a  Papist  than  a  Calvinist.'3 

1  See  Frank,  Vol.  I.  p.  297,  and  Henke's  monograph  on  Casp.  Peuccr  und  Nic.  Crell,  18G5. 

-  Baptism  was  performed  with  exorcism  in  Lutheran  churches,  and  it  was  counted  one  of 
the  chief  crimes  of  the  Crypto-Calvinists  that  they  abolished  this  rite.  A  Saxon  pastor  who 
baptized  without  exorcism  gave  great  offense  to  the  peasants,  who  cried  after  him :  '  The 
naughty  priest  has  not  expelled  the  devil'  (Der  lose  Pfaffe  hat  den  Teufel  nicht  ausgetrieben). 

3  It  is  almost  incredible  to  what  extent  the  Lutheran  bigotry  of  those  days  carried  its  hatred 
of  Zwinglianism  and  Calvinism.  We  give  a  few  characteristic  specimens.  Schliisselburg 
(Superintendent  of  Ratzeburg),  one  of  the  most  learned  champions  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy, 
in  his  Theologies  Calvinistarum  Libri  Tres,  Francoforti  ad  Mcenum,  1592,  tries  to  prove  that 
the  Calvinists  are  unsound  in  almost  every  article  of  the  Christian  faith  (' Sacramentarios  de 
nullofere  doctrince  Christiana;  articulo  recte  senlire'),  and  has  a  special  chapter  to  show  that 
the  <  lalvinistic  writings  overflow  with  mendaciis,  calumniis,  conviciis,  maledictis,  et  contumcliis. 
He  regards  many  of  their  doctrines  as  downright  blasphemy.  Philip  Nikolai,  a  pious  Lutheran 
pastor  at  Unna,  afterwards  at  Hamburg,  and  author  of  two  of  the  finest  German  hymns  ('  Wie 
tehBn  leuchtet  der  Mort/enstern,'  and  '  Wachet  auf!  ruft  uns  die  Slimme'),  called  the  God  of 
the  Calvinists  'a  roaring  bull  (  Wucherstier  und  Br'ullochs),  a  bloodthirsty  Moloch,  a  hellish 
Behemoth  and  Leviathan,  a  fiend  of  men!'  (Kartzer  Bericht  von  der  Calvinisten  Gott  und 
ihrer  Religion,  Frkf.  1597;  Die  erst  Victoria,  Triumph  und  Freudenjubel  iiber  des  Calvin. 


§  48.  TIIE  SAXON  VISITATION  ARTICLES,  1592.  347 

As  the  Articles  are  a  very  clear  and  succinct  statement  of  the  spe- 
cific doctrines  of  Lutheran  ism  as  opposed  to  Calvinism,  and  not  easy 
of  access,  they  are  here  given  in  full : 

AbTICUIiUS   I. 

De  Sacra  Own  a. 

PURA    ET   VERA    DOCTRIXA    NOSTKAKIM    IXC  I.ESI  ARUM    DE    SACRA    CCENA. 

I.  Quod,  verba  Christi :  lAccipite  et  comcdite,  hoc  est  corpus  meant:  Llibite,  hie  est  sanguis 
mens,'  simpliciter,  et  secundum  literam,  sicut  sonant,  inteUigenda  sint. 

II.  Quod  in  Sacramento  dure  res  sint,  qua:  exhibentur  et  simul  accipiuntur :  una  terrena, 
qua?  est  panis  et  vinum ;   et  una  ccelestis,  quae  est  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi. 

III.  Quod  luce  Unio,  Exhibitio  et  Sumptio  fiat  hie  inferius  in  terris,  non  superius  in  coelis. 

IV.  Quod  exhibeatur  et  accipiatur  varum  et  naturale  corpus  Christi,  quod  in  cruce  pepen- 
dit,  et  verus  ac-  naturalis  sanguis,  qui  ex  Christi  latere  fluxit. 

V.  Quod  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi  non  fide  tantum  spiritualiter,  quod  etiam  extra  Ccenam 
fieri  potest,  sed  cum  pane  et  vino  oraliter,  modo  tamen  imperscrutabili  et  supernaturali,  illic 
in  Coena  accipiantur,  idque  in  pignus  et  certificationem  resuneetionis  nostrorum  corporum  ex 
mortuis. 

VI.  Quod  oralis  perceptio  corporis  et  sanguinis  Christi  non  solum  fiat  a  dignis,  verum  etiam 
ab  indignis,  qui  sine  pcenitentia  et  vera  fide  accedunt;  eventu  tamen  diverso.  A  dignis  enim 
percipitur  ad  salutem,  ab  indignis  autem  ad  judicium. 

Articulus  II. 

De  Persona  Christi. 

PURA    ET    VERA    DOCTRIXA    NOSTRARUM    ECCLESIARUM    DE     HOC     ARTICULO,    DE    PERSONA 

CHRISTI. 

I.  In  Christo  sunt  dure  distinctae  Naturae,  divina  et  humana.  Hae  manent  in  a-ternum  in- 
confnsse  et  inseparables  (sen  indivisae). 

II.  Hoe  duoe  Naturae  personaliter  ita  sunt  invicem  unitoe,  ut  unus  tantum  sit  Christus,  et 
una  Persona. 

III.  Propter  hanc  personalem  Unionem  recte  dicitur,  atque  in  re  et  veritate  ita  se  habet, 
quod  Deus  Homo,  et  Homo  Deus  sit,  quod  Maria  Filium  Dei  genuerit,  et  quod  Deus  nos  per 
proprium  suum  sanguinem  redeinerit. 

Geistes  Niederlag,  1000 ;  Calvinischer  Vitzliputzli,  etc.  See  Frank,  Vol.  I.  p.  280.  Provost 
Magirus,  of  Stuttgart,  thought  that  the  Calvinists  imitated  at  times  the  language  of  Luther,  as 
the  hyena  the  human  voice,  for  the  destruction  of  men.  John  Modest  wrote  a  book  to  prove 
that  the  Sacramentarians  are  no  Christians,  but  baptized  Jews  and  Mohammedans  ('  Beweis 
a  us  der  heiligcn  Schrift  dass  die  Sacramentirer  nicht  Christen  sind,  sondern  (jetaufte  Juden  und 
Muhometisten,  Jena,  lf>8(»).  John  Priitorius,  in  a  satire  (Calvinisch  Gasthaus  zur  Narren- 
kayffen,  etc.),  distinguishes  open  Calvinists,  who  have  no  more  sense  than  a  horse  or  an  ass ; 
secret  Calvinists,  who  fish  in  the  dark;  and  several  other  classes  (see  Frank,  Vol.  I.  p.  282  sq.). 
The  second  Psalm,  speaking  of  the  rebellion  against  Jehovah  and  his  Anointed,  was  applied 
to  the  Calvinists,  and  their  condemnation  was  embodied  in  catechisms,  hymns,  and  popular 
rhymes,  of  which  the  following  are  fair  specimens: 

'  Erhatt  tins,  Ilerr,  bei  deinem  Wort 

Und  wehr  der  Calvinisten  Mord,1 
'  Wean  ein  Cafotntat  spricht,  Gott  griins  dich, 

So  wumcht  sein  Herz,  der  Tod  hoi  dich.' 
'  Gottes  Wort  und  Luther's  Le.hr 

Vergehet  nun  und  nimmermehr, 

Und  ob'8  gleich  bisxe  noch  so  schr 

Die  Calvinisten  an  Hirer  Ehr.' 
'Gottes  Wort  und  Lutheri  8ehHft 

Sind  des  Papsts  itnd  Calvini  Gift.' 


34S  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

IV.  Per  banc  Unionem  personalem,  et  qua;  earn  secuta  est,  exaltationem,  Christus  secun- 
dum carnem  ad  dexteram  Dei  collocatus  est,  et  accepit  omnem  potestatem  in  coelo  et  in  terra, 
factusque  est  particeps  omnis  divinse  majestatis,  honoris,  potential  et  gloriae. 

Articulus  III. 

Be  S.  Bajptismo. 

PURA  ET  VESA  DOCTRINA  NOSTRARUM  ECCLESIARUM   DE  HOC  ARTICULO  S.  BAPTI8MATI8. 

I.  Quod  unum  tantum  Baptisma  sit,  et  una  ablutio,  non  qua;  sordes  corporis  tollere  solet, 
sed  quss  nos  a  peccatis  abluit. 

II.  Per  Baptismum  tanquam  lavacrum  illud  regenerationis  et  renovationis  Spiritus  Sancti 
salvos  nos  tacit  Dens  et  ope  rat  ur  in  nobis  talem  justitiam  et  purgationem  a  peccatis,  ut  qui  in 
eo  foedere  et  fiducia  usque  ad  finem  perseverat,  non  pereat,  sed  habeat  vitam  aeternam. 

III.  Omnes,  qui  in  Christum  Jesum  baptizati  sunt,  in  mortem  ejus  baptizati  sunt,  et  per 
Baptismum  cum  ipso  in  mortem  ejus  consepulti  sunt,  et  Christum  induerunt. 

IV.  Baptismus  est  lavacrum  illud  regenerationis,  prop terea,  quia  in  eo  renascimur  denuo  et 
Spiritu  Adoptionis  obsignamur  ex  gratia  (sive  gratis). 

V.  Nisi  quis  renatus  fuerit  ex  aqua  et  Spiritu,  non  potest  introire  in  regnum  ccelorum. 
Casus  tamen  necessitatis  hoc  ipso  non  intenditur. 

VI.  Quicquid  de  carne  nascitur,  caro  est,  et  natura  sumus  omnes  filii  irse  divinae :  quia  ex 
semine  peccaminoso  sumus  geniti,  et  in  peccatis  concipimur  omnes. 

Articulus  IV. 

Be  Prcedestinatione  et  ceterna  Providentia  Bei. 

PURA  ET  VERA  DOCTRINA  NOSTRARUM  ECCLESIARUM  DE  HOC  ARTICULO. 

I.  Quod  Christus  pro  omnibus  hominibus  moi  tuus  sit,  et  ceil  Agnus  Dei  totius  mundi  pec- 
cata  sustulerit. 

II.  Quod  Deus  neminem  ad  condemnationem  condiderit,  sed  velit,  ut  omnes  homines  salvi 
fiant  et  ad  agnitionem  veritatis  perveniant,  propterea  omnibus  mandat,  ut  Filiura  suum  Chri- 
stum in  Evangelio  audiant,  et  per  hunc  auditum  promittit  virtutem  et  operationem  Spiritus 
Sancti  ad  conversionem  et  salutem. 

III.  Quod  mulci  homines  propria  culpa  pereant :  alii,  qui  Evangelium  de  Christo  nolunt 
audire,  alii,  qui  iterum  excidunt  gratia,  sive  per  errores  contra  fundamentum,  sive  per  peccata 
contra  conscientiam. 

IV.  Quod  omnes  peccatores  pcenitentiam  agentes  in  gratiam  recipiantur,  et  nemo  excluda- 
tur,  etsi  peccata  ejus  rubeant  ut  sanguis ;  quandoquidem  Dei  misericordia  major  est,  quam 
peccata  totius  mundi,  et  Deus  omnium  suorum  operum  miseretur. 

Sequitur  Falsa  et  Erronea  Doctrina  Calvinistarum 

Be  Sacra  Ccena. 

I.  Quod  supra  posita  verba  Christi  figurate  intelligenda  sint,  et  non  secundum  literam, 
sicut  sonant. 

II.  Quod  in  Ccena  tantum  nuda  signa  sint,  corpus  autem  Christi  tam  procul  a  pane,  quam 
supremum  ccelum  a  terra. 

III.  Quod  Christus  illic  prtesens  sit  tantum  virtute  et  operatione  sua,  et  non  corpore  suo. 
Quemadmodum  sol  splendore  et  operatione  sua  in  terris  prassens  et  efficax  est,  corpus  autem 
solare  superius  in  coelo  existit. 

IV.  Corpus  Christi  esse  typicum  corpus,  quod  pane  et  vino  tantum  significetur  et  prsefigu- 
retur. 

V.  Quod  sola  fide,  qute  in  coelum  se  elevet,  et  non  ore,  accipiatur. 

VI.  Quod  soli  digni  illud  accipiant,  indigni  autem,  qui  talem  fidem  evolantem  sursum  in 
ccelos  non  habent,  nihil  prater  j)anem  et  vinum  accipiant. 

Falsa  et  Erronea  Doctrina  Calvinistarum 

Be  Persona  Christi, 

Ql :.E    POTI88IMUM    III.   ET    IV.   ARTICULO    PURIORIS    DOCTRINE    REPUGNAT. 

I.  Qui  id  I  tens  Homo,  et  Homo  Deus  est,  esse  figuratam  locutionem. 

[I.  Quod  hutnana  Natura  cum  divina  non  in  re  et  veritnte,  sed  tantum  nomine  et  verbis 
commnnionem  habeat. 


§  49.  AN  ABORTIVE  SYMBOL  AGAINST  SYNCRETISM,  1655.  349 

III.  Quod  Deo  impossible  sit  ex  tota  omnipotentia  sua  prsestare,  ut  corpus  Christ!  naturals 
simul  et  instantanee  in  pluribus,  quam  in  nnico  loco  sit. 

IV.  Quod  Christus  secunduin  liimianam  Naturam  per  exaltationem  suam  tantum  creata 
dona  et  finitam  potentiam  acceperit,  non  omnia  sciat  aut  possit. 

V.  Quod  Christus  secundum  llumanitatem  absens  regnet,  sicut  Kex  Hispania:  novas  In- 
sulas  regit. 

VI.  Quod  damnabilis  idololatria  sit,  si  fiducia  et  fides  cordis  in  Christum  non  solum  se- 
cundum divinam,  sed  etiam  secunduin  Inimanam  ipsius  Naturam  collocetur,  et  honor  adora- 
tionis  ad  atramque  dirigatur. 

Falsa  et  Erronea  Doctrina  Calvinistauim 

De  Sacro  Baj)tismo. 

I.  Baptismum  esse  externum  lavacrum  aqua?,  per  quod  interna  qtisedam  ablutio  a  peccatis 
tantum  signincetur. 

II.  Baptismum  non  operari,  neque  conferre  regenerationem,  fidem,  gratiam  Dei  et  salutem, 
sed  tantum  signiticare  et  obsignare  ista. 

III.  Non  omnes,  qui  aqua  baptizantur,  consequi  eo  ipso  gratiam  Cliristi  aut  donum  fidei, 
sed  tantum  electos. 

IV.  Kegenerationem  non  fieri  in,  vel  cum  Baptismo,  sed  postea  demum  crescente  aetate, 
imo  et  multis  in  senectute  demum  contingere. 

V.  Salutem  non  dependere  a  Baptismo,  atque  ideo  Baptismum  in  causa  necessitatis  non 
permittendum  esse  in  Ecclesia,  sed  in  defectu  ordinarii  Ministri  Ecclesite  permittendum  esse, 
ut  infans  sine  Baptismo  moriatur. 

VI.  Chrislianorum  infantes  jam  ante  Baptismum  esse  sanctos,  ab  utero  matris,  imo  adhuc 
in  utero  materno  constitutos  esse  in  fcedere  vitae  reternae  caeteroqui  Sacrum  Baptisma  ipsis 
conferri  non  posse. 

Falsa  et  Erronea  Doctrina  Calvinistarum 

De  PrcEdestinatione   et  Proviclentia  Dei. 

I.  Christum  non  pro  omnibus  hominibus,  sed  pro  solis  electis  mortuum  esse. 

II.  Deum  potissimam  partem  hominum  ad  damnationem  a^ternam  creasse,  et  nolle,  ut 
potissima  pars  convertatur  et  vivat. 

III.  Electos  et  regenitos  non  posse  fidem  et  Spiritum  Sanctum  amittere,  aut  damnari, 
quamvis  omnis  generis  grandia  peccata  et  flagitia  committant. 

IV.  Eos  vero,  qui  electi  non  sunt,  necessario  damnari,  nee  posse  pervenire  ad  salutem, 
etiamsi  millies  baptizarentur,  et  quotidie  ad  Eucharistiam  accederent,  praterea  vitam  tam 
sancte  atque  inculpate  ducerent,  quantum  unquam  fieri  potest. 

§  49.  An  Abortive  Symbol  against  Syncretism,  1655. 

Finally,  we  must  briefly  notice  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  increase 
the  number  of  Lutheran  symbols  which  was  made  during  the  Syn- 
cretistic  controversies  in  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century.1 

George  Calixtus  (1586  to  1656),  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Ilelmstudt  (since  1614),  which  had  previously  protested  against 

1  H.  Schmid  :  Geschichte  der  Sgnkretistischen  Streitigkeiten  in  der  Zeit  des  Georg  Calixt, 
Erlangen,  1840.  W.  Gass:  G.  Calixt  und  der  Synkretismus,  Breslau,  1846;  and  his  Ge- 
schichte  der  Protest.  Dogmatik,Vo\.  II.  p.  68.  Baur  :  Ueber  den  Charakter  und  die  Bedeu. 
tung  des  calixtin.  Synkretismtu,  in  the  Theol.  Jahrbwher  for  1848,  p.  163.  E.  L. Th.  Henkk  : 
G.  Calixtus  und  seine  Zeit,  Halle,  1853-1860,  2  vols. ;  and  his  Art.  Synkrelismus  and  Si/n- 
kretistische  Streitigkeiten,  in  Herzog, Vol.  XV.  (1802),  pp.  342  and  346.  G.  Frank:  Ge- 
schichte  der  Protest.  Theologie,  Leipz.  Vol.  II.  1865,  p.  4. 


350  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  ubiquity  dogma  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  was  disgusted  with  the 
exclusive  and  pugnacious  orthodoxy  of  his  day,  and  advocated,  in  the 
liberal  and  catholic  spirit  of  Melanchthon,  peace  and  conciliation 
among  the  three  great  Confessions — the  Lutheran,  Catholic,  and  Re- 
formed. He  went  back  to  the  Apostles'  Creed  and  the  oecumenical 
consensus  of  the  first  five  centuries  {consensus  quinqxiesecularis)  as  a 
common  basis  for  all,  claiming  for  the  Lutheran  Church  only  a  supe- 
rior purity  of  doctrine,  and  surrendering  as  unessential  its  distinctive 
peculiarities.  This  reaction  against  sectarian  exclusiveness  and  in 
favor  of  Catholic  expansion  within  the  Lutheran  communion  was  de- 
nounced by  the  orthodox  divines  of  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig  as  Syn- 
cretism, i.  e.,  as  a  Babylonian  mixture  of  all  sorts  of  religions,  or  a 
Samaritan  compound  of  Popish,  Calvinistic,  Synergistic,  Arminian, 
and  even  atheistic  errors.  A  war  to  the  knife  was  waged  against  it, 
and  lasted  from  1645  to  1686.  Calixtus  had  expressed  a  hope  to 
meet  many  Calvinists  in  heaven,  but  this  was  traced  directly  to  an 
inspiration  of  the  devil. 

The  chief  opponent  of  Syncretism  was  Abraham  Calovius,  the 
fearless  champion  of  an  infallible  orthodoxy,  admired  by  some  as 
the  Lutheran  Athanasius,  abhorred  by  others  as  the  Lutheran  Torque- 
mada;  in  his  own  estimation  a  strenuus  Ghristi  athleta,  certainly  a 
veritable  malleus  hcereticorum ;  of  vast  learning  and  a  herculean 
working  power,  which  no  amount  of  domestic  affliction  could  break 
down.1     His  daily  prayer  was,  ' lieple  me,  Deus,  odio  hcereticormn.'1 

1  Abraham  Calov  (properly  Kalau)  was  born  in  1G12  at  Mohrungen,  Prussia  (the  birth- 
place of  the  great  Herder — 'Esau  and  Jacob  from  one  womb'),  and  labored  with  untiring 
industry  as  Professor  and  General  Superintendent  at  Wittenberg  from  1G50  to  his  death, 
1G86.  He  stood  in  high  esteem,  and  controlled  the  whole  faculty,  except  Meisner,  who  fell 
out  with  him  in  1075,  so  that  they  no  more  greeted  each  other,  not  even  at  the  communion 
altar.  The  Elector,  George  II.,  always  stayed  at  his  house  when  he  was  at  Wittenberg. 
Calovius  wrote  a  system  of  theology,  in  twelve  volumes  (Systema  locorum  theolog.  1G55-1G77), 
a  Commentary  on  the  whole  Bible  against  Grotius,  in  four  folios  (Biblia  illustrata,  1G72), 
and  an  endless  number  of  polemical  works  against  ancient  and  modern  heretics,  some  of 
which  bad  to  be  prohibited.  His  domestic  history  is  perhaps  without  a  parallel.  He  buried 
no  less  than  thirteen  children  and  five  wives  in  succession.  At  the  death-bed  of  the  fourth 
he  sang  with  all  his  might  the  hymn,  '  Wie  schon  leuchtet  der  Morgenstern^  especially  (as 
Tholuck  relates)  the  last  stanza,  '  Wie  bin  ich  dock  so  herzlic.h  froh,1  etc.  He  asked  her 
whether  she  were  willing  to  go  to  her  Lord ;  she  replied  :  i  llerr  Jesu,  dir  leb'  ich,  Herr  Jesu, 
dir  sin/;  ich.'  A  few  months  after  the  death  of  his  fifth  partner,  when  seventy-two  years 
of  age  (  senili  amorc,  morbo  nequaquam  senili,  vehementer  laborans,'  and  '  maxima  cum  multorum 
offensione1),  he  led  to  the  altar  the  youthful  daughter  of  his  colleague,  Quenstadt.    A  friend 


§  49.  AN  ABORTIVE  SYMBOL  AGAINST  SYNCRETISM,  1655.  351 

lie  excluded  Calixtus,  as  well  as  Bellarmin,  Calvin,  and  Socinus,  from 
heaven.  As  the  best  means  of  suppressing  this  complex  syncretistic 
heresy,  and  of  preventing-  a  schism  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  he  prepared 
in  1655  a  Repeated  Consensus  of  the  truly  Lutheran  Faith,  which  was 
finally  published  in  Latin  and  German  at  Wittenberg  in  1GG4.1 

This  creed  first  professes  and  teaches,  in  the  order  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  the  orthodox  doctrine,  and  then  rejects  and  condemns  no 
less  than  eighty-eight  syncretistic  heresies,  proved  from  the  writings  of 
Calixtus,  Ilornejus,  Latermann,  and  Dreier.  The  first  fundamental 
section  anathematizes  the  Calixtine  concession  of  the  imperfection  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  the  relative  recognition  of  Catholics  and  Calvinists 
as  Christian  brethren,  and  the  assertion  of  the  necessity  of  Church  tradi- 
tion alongside  of  the  Scriptures.  The  following  doctrines  are  rejected, 
not  simply  as  doubtful,  erroneous,  or  dangerous  opinions  (which  some 
of  them  are),  but  as  downright  heresies :  That  the  article  of  the  Trinity 
is  not  clearly  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament ;  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
dwells  in  believers  as  a  gift,  not  as  an  essence;  that  theology  need 
not  prove  the  existence  of  God,  since  it  is  already  certain  from  phi- 

of  Spener  wrote  to  the  latter,  May  10,  1G8I  (fas  quoted  by  Tholuck) :  'The  septuagenarian 
senex  consularls  has  prostituted  himself  strongly  intra  and  extra  eccksiam.  What  is  the  use 
of  all  learning,  if  one  can  not  control  his  appetites  ?  He  is  said  to  be  so  debilitated  that  he 
can  not  walk  five  steps  sine  lassitudine.'  Calovius  enjoyed  his  sixtli  marriage  only  two  years. 
For  a  full  account  of  him,  see  Tholuck,  Wittenberger  Theologen,  1852,  pp.  185-211,  and  his 
Art.  Calov,  in  Herzog,  Vol.  II.  p.  50G ;  also  Gass,  Geschichte  der  protest.  Dogm.  Vol.  I.  p. 
382;  and  G.  Frank,  Vol.  II.  p.  2G.  Tholuck  characterizes  him  thus  (IF.  T/ieol.  p.  207): 
'  Gemuthlose  Zdhigkett  bet  innerlich  kochender  Leidenschaftlichkeit  erscheint  als  Grundzuq 
dieses  t/teologischen  Charakters ;  weder  auf  der  Kanzel,  noch  in  vertraulichen  Bricfen,  noch 
in  den  theologischen  Schriften  ein  Lebenshauch  christlicher,  se/ten  audi  nur  menschlicher 
Wdrute.  Die  ^fenschen  erscheinen  ihm  wie  Zahlen,  und  unter  den  dogmatischen  Problemen 
bewegt  er  sich  wie  unter  Rechenexempeln.' 

1  '  Consensus  repetitus  Jidei  vere  Lutherans  in  Hit's  doctrintc  capitibus,  qua;  contra  puram  et 
invariatam  Augustanam  Confessionem  aliosque  libros  symbolicos  in  Libro  Concordia;  compre- 
Itensos,  scriptis  publicis  im/iugnant  D.  G.  Calixtus,  ejusque  complices.'  First  published  in  the 
Const/ ia  Thcologira  Wiltebergensia,  1 GGI,  then  often  separately  by  Calovius.  A  new  edition 
by  the  late  Prof.  Hlnkk  of  Marburg:  Consensus  repetitus  Jidei  vera;  Lutherana;  MDCLV. 
Librorum  crrlesiic  evangelictc  symbolicorum  supjdementum,  Marburg,  1847  (pp.  viii.  and  70). 
For  a  summary,  see  II.  Schmid,  I.e.  pp.376  sqq.,  and  Frank,  1.  c.  Vol.  II.  pp.  12  sqq.  Calo- 
vius wrote  no  less  than  twenty-eight  books  against  the  Syncretists,  the  principal  of  which  are 
Syncretismus  Calixtinus,  1653;  Synopsis  controversiarum  .  .  .  cum  hecreticis  et  sc/tismaticis 
modernis  Socinianis,  Anabaptistis,  Weigelianis,  Rernonstrantibus,  Pontijiciis,  Calcinianis, 
Cidixtinis, etc.  1G52;  and  Harmonia  Calixtino-fttcretica,  etc.,  1655.  See  II.  Schmid,  1.  c.  p. 
237,  who  with  all  his  orthodox  sympathies  complains  of  the  endless  repetitions  and  prolixity 
of  these  controversial  writings.  They  are  almost  unreadable.  I  have  before  me  a  defense  of 
the  Co?tsensus  Repetitus,  by  Aegidius  Straucher,  Wittenb.  1GG8  (551  pp.),  the  mere  title  of 
which  covers  twenty-nine  lines. 


352  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

losophy  ;  that  Jews  and  Mohammedans  are  not  idolaters ;  that  original 
sin  is  simply  a  carentia  justitice ;  that  souls  are  created  by  God  (crea- 
tionism) ;  that  Christ's  body  is  not  omnipresent ;  that  sanctifieation  en- 
ters in  any  way  into  the  idea  of  justification  ;  that  the  true  Church  em- 
braces also  Calvinists,  Papists,  and  Greeks  ;  that  infants  have  no  faith  ; 
that  John  vi.  treats  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  that  man  is  active  in  his 
conversion ;  that  symbolical  books  are  to  be  only  conditionally  sub- 
scribed quatenu%  Scriptures,  S.  consentiunt ;  that  the  symbols  contain 
many  things  as  necessary  to  salvation, which  God  has  not  fixed  as  such; 
that  unbaptized  infants  are  only  negatively  punished ;  that  good  works 
are  necessary  to  obtain  eternal  life.  A  prayer  that  God  may  avert  all 
innovations  and  corruptions  from  the  Orthodox  Church,  and  preserve 
it  in  this  repeated  consensus,  forms  the  conclusion. 

This  new  symbol  goes  far  beyond  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and 
would  have  so  contracted  Lutheranism  as  to  exclude  from  it  all  inde- 
pendent thought  and  theological  progress.  It  prolonged  and  intensified 
the  controversy,  but  nowhere  attained  ecclesiastical  authority.  It  was 
subscribed  only  by  the  theological  faculties  of  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig, 
and  rejected  by  the  theologians  of  Jena,  who  were  pupils  of  the  cele- 
brated John  Gerhard,  and  occupied  a  milder  position.  With  the  death 
of  Calovius  the  controversy  died  out,  and  his  symbol  was  buried  be- 
yond the  hope  of  a  resurrection.  Orthodoxy  triumphed,  but  it  was 
only  a  partial  victory,  and  the  last  which  it  achieved. 

During  these  violent  controversies  and  the  awful  devastations  of  the 
Thirty -Years'  War,  there  arose  among  a  few  divines  in  the  Lutheran, 
Reformed,  and  Catholic  Churches  an  intense  desire  for  the  reunion  of 
Christendom,  which  found  its  expression  in  the  famous  adage  so  often 
erroneously  attributed  to  St.  Augustine :  '  In  necessariis  unitas,  in 
dubiis  libertas,  in  omnibus  caritas? 1  It  had  no  practical  effect,  but 
sounds  like  a  prophecy  of  better  times. 

Soon  afterwards  arose  a  second  and  more  successful  reaction  in  the 
Pietism  of  Spener  and  Francke,  which  insisted  on  the  claims  of  practi- 
cal piety  against  a  dead  orthodoxy  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  just  as  the 
school  of  Coccejus  did  in  the  Reformed  Church  of  Holland,  and  the 

1  Dr.  LUcke  (in  a  special  treatise,  Gottingen,  18;">0)  traces  the  authorship  with  some  de- 
gree of  certainty  to  Rupert  Mcldenius,  who  belonged  to  the  irenical  school  of  the  seventeenth 
century.     Comp.  Klose,  in  Herzog,  Vol.  IX.  p.  304. 


§  49.  AN  ABORTIVE  SYMBOL  AGAINST  SYNCRETISM,  1653.  353 

Methodism  of  Wesley  and  Whiteficld  in  the  Church  of  England.  Then 
followed,  toward  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  far  more  radi- 
cal reaction  of  Rationalism,  which  broke  down,  stone  by  stone,  the 
venerable  building  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy,  and  the  whole  traditional 
system  of  Christian  doctrine.  Rationalism,  in  its  various  forms  and 
phases,  laid  waste  whole  sections  of  Germany,  especially  those  where 
once  a  rigorous  orthodoxy  had  most  prevailed ;  it  affected  also  the  Re- 
formed churches  of  the  Continent,  and,  in  a  less  degree,  those  of  En- 
gland and  America.  Fortunately  the  power  of  this  great  modern  apos- 
tasy has  been  broken,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  by  an  extensive  revival 
of  the  principles  of  the  Reformation,  with  a  better  appreciation  of  its 
Confessions  of  Faith,  not  so  much  in  their  subordinate  differences  as 
in  their  essential  harmony. 


35±  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


SEVENTH  CHAPTER 

THE  CREEDS  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  REFORMED  CHURCHES. 

§  50.  The  Reformed  Confessions. 

Literature. 
I.  Collections  op  Reformed  Symiiols. 

Harmonia  I  Confessionum  |  Fidei  |  Orthodoxarum,  et  Reformatarum  Ecclesiarum,  |  quce  in  prce- 
cipuis  quibusque  Europce.  Regnis,  Nationibus,  ct  Provinciis,  sacram  Evangclii  doctrinam  pure,  profitentur : 
qaarum  catalogum  et  ordinem  sequentes  pagince  indieabunt.  \  Additce  sunt  ad  calcem  brevissimce  observa- 
tions :  quibus  turn  illustrantur  obscura,  turn  quce  in  speciem  pugnare  inter  se  videri  possunt,  perspicue 
atque  modestissime  conciliantur :  et  si  quce  ad  hue  controversa  nianent,  syncere  indicantur.  \  Quce  omnia, 
Ecclesiarum  Gallicarum,  et  Relgicarum  nomine,  subjiciuntur  libero  et  prudenti  reliquarum  omnium  ju- 
dicio.    Genevte  apud  Petrum  Santandreanum.    MDLXXXI.  (4to). 

This  is  the  first  attempt  at  comparative  Dogmatics  or  Symbolics.  It  grew  out  of  a  desire  for  one 
common  Creed,  which  was  modified  into  the  idea  of  a  selected  harmony.  In  this  shape  it  was  proposed 
by  the  Protestants  of  Zurich  and  Geneva,  intrusted  to  Beza,  Daneau,  and  Salnar  (or  Saluard,  or  Salvart, 
minister  of  the  Church  of  Castres),  and  chiefly  executed  by  the  last  of  the  three.  It  was  intended  as  a 
defense  of  Protestant,  and  particularly  Reformed,  doctrine  against  the  constant  attacks  of  Romanists 
and  Lutherans.  It  does  not  give  the  Confessions  in  full,  but  extracts  from  them  on  the  chief  articles  of 
faith,  which  are  classified  under  nineteen  sections.  It  anticipates  Winer's  method,  but  for  harmonistic 
purposes.  Besides  the  principal  Reformed  Confessions,  three  Lutheran  Confessions  are  also  used,  viz., 
the  Augsburg,  the  Saxon,  and  the  Wiirtemberg  Confessions.  The  work  appeared  almost  simultaneously 
with  the  Lutheran  Formula  of  Concord,  and  may  be  called  a  Reformed  Formula  of  Concord,  though 
differing  from  the  former  in  being  a  mere  compilation  from  previous  symbols.  (I  imported  a  well- 
bound  copy,  which  seems  to  have  been  the  property  of  the  Elector  John  Casimir,  whose  likeness  and 
escutcheon  are  impressed  on  the  cover.    He  suggested  the  preparation  of  such  a  work.) 

An  English  translation  of  this  irenic  work  appeared  first  at  Cambridge,  15S6  (12mo),  and  then  again  in 
London,  1(543  (4to), under  the  title:  'An  Harmony  of  tue  Confessions  of  Faith  of  tue  Christian  and 
Reformed  Churches,  which  purely  profess  the  holy  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  in  all  the  chief  kingdoms,  na- 
tions, and  provinces  of  Europe,  etc.  A 11  which  things,  in  the  names  of  the  Churches  of  France  and  Belgia, 
are  submitted  to  the  free  and  discreet  judgment  of  all  the  Churches.  Newly  translated  out  of  Latin  into 
English,  etc.  Allowed  by  public  authority.'  According  to  Strype  {Annals  of  the  Reformation,  ad  a.  15SG), 
Archbishop  Whitgift,  owing  to  some  jealousy  among  publishers,  first  forbade  the  publication  of  the 
Harmony,  but  afterwards  allowed  it. 

A  new  edition  by  Rev.  Peter  Hall  (Rector  of  Milston, Wilts),  under  the  modified  title:  The  Harmony 
of  Protestant  Confessions:  exhibiting  the  Faith  of  the  Churches  of  Christ,  Reformed  after  the  pure  and 
holy  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  throughout  Europe.  Translated  from  the  Latin.  A  new  edition,  revised  and 
considerably  enlarged.    London,  1S42  (640  pages,  large  Svo). 

Corpus  et  Syntagma  |  Confessionum  |  Fidei,  |  quce  in  diversis  regnis  ei  nationibus,  ccclesiarum  nomine 
fuerunt  authentice  editce:  in  celebcrrimis  conventions  exhibitce,  publicaque  auctoritate  comprobatce,  etc. 
(first  ed.  Aurelia?  Allobrog.  1612).    Editio  nova,  Genevce,  sumptibus  Petri  Chouet,  1C54. 

The  first  edition  of  this  rare  aud  valuable  book  was  probably  compiled  by  Gaspar  Laurcntius,  who  is 
not  named  on  the  title-page,  but  who  signs  himself  in  the  dedicatory  Epistle  to  Elector  Frederick  III. 
of  the  Palatinate,  before  the  '  Orthodox  Consensus'  (in  Part  III.),  and  says,  in  the  '  General  Preface,'  that 
he  edited  this  Consensus  a.  1595,  and  now  (1612)  in  a  much  improved  form.  His  object  was  the  same  as  that 
of  the  Harmony,  viz.,  to  show  the  essential  unity  of  the  evangelical  faith  in  the  multiplicity  aud  variety 
of  Confessions  which,  as  the  Preface  says,  in  the  absence  of  conspiracy,  only  strengthen  the  harmony,  and 
mutually  illustrate  and  supplement  each  other,  like  many  orthodox  expositions  of  the  Scriptures.  The 
second  edition,  of  which  I  have  a  copy,  is  a  large  quarto  volume,  consisting  of  three  main  parts,  the  sev- 
eral documents  being  paged  separately.  It  contains  the  principal  Reformed  Confessions  down  to  the 
Synod  of  Dott,  three  Lutheran  Confessions,  and  several  other  documents,  as  follows:  1.  The  Harmonia 
sire  Concordantia  Confessionum  Fidei  per  (xiii.)  Articulos  digesta,  with  the  Symbolum  Apostolicum,  as  the 
basis  or  a  general  consensus,  supported  by  Scripture  texts  and  references  to  the  various  Confessions  of 
the  collection  (S  pp.) ;  2.  Confessio  Helvetica  posterior,  reprinted  from  a  Zurich  edition  of  1651 :  3.  Confessio 
Helvetica  prior  (or  Rasileensis  II.),  1536  ;  4.  Confessio  Rasileensis  I.  (or  Mylhusiana),  1532  ;  5.  Confessio  Gal- 
lica,  fn mi  the  Latin  edition  of  1566 ;  6.  Confessio  A  nglicana,  1502 ;  ".  Confessio  Scotica  of  1560,  and  the  second 
of  1580  ;  8.  Confessio  Ecclesiarum  Relgicarum,  1559 ;  9.  Confessio  Czengerina,  the  Hungarian  Confession, 
1570;  10.  Confessio  Poloniea,  or  Consensus  Polonice  (.Sendomirensis),\5~0;  11.  Confessio  Argentimnsis  S.  Te- 
trapolitana,  1531  ;  12,  Confessio  Augustana,  from  the  Wittenberg  edition  of  1540;  13.  Confessio  Saxonica, 
s.  Misnica,  1551 ;  14.  Confessio  Wirtembcrgica,  1552 ;  15.  Confessio  I llustrissimi  Electoris  Palatini,  Friderici 


§  50.  THE  REFORMED  CONFESSIONS.  355 

77/.,  1576;  16.  Confessio  Bohemica  (the  first  of  the  two  Bohemian  Confessions,  which  was  presented  to 
King  Ferdinand  in  1535.  It  contains  a  Preface  by  Luther.  The  second  was  compiled  1575) ;  17.  Con- 
MHIH  Ecclegiarum  Majoris  et  Minoris  Polemics,  Lithuania,  etc.,  15S3.  Appended:  Acta  et  Conolusiones 
Synodi  Generalis  Thoruniensis  ;  IS.  Articuli  Confessionis  BasUeensis  of  the  year  1C47;  19.  Canones  Synodi 
Dordrechtance,1619 ;  20.  Confessio  Cyrilli  PatriarchcB  Constantinop.,  1831 ;  21.  Catholicus  Consensus,  viz., 
A  Harmony  of  Christian  Doctrine,  compiled  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  under 
the  following  heads  :  (a)  On  the  Word  of  God  as  the  Rule  of  Faith  ;  (b)  On  God,  the  Trinitarian  and  Chris- 
tological  Doctrines;  (<•)  On  Divine  Providence;  (d)  On  the  Head  of  the  Church;  (.)  On  Justification; 
(/)  On  Free  Will,  Original  Sin,  Election  and  Predestination;  (g)  On  the  Sacraments;  (h)  On  Idolatry, 
the  Worship  of  Images,  etc.;  (i)  On  the  True  Way  of  Worshiping  and  Serving  God;  (A.)  On  the  Church 
and  the  Ministry;  (0  Resurrection  and  the  Future  State. 

Confessiones  Fipei  EocLEsiAKLM  Rkfokmataki :.m.  Grsece  et  Lat.  Ecclesiarum  Belyicarum  Cam- 
fessio,  interpr.  Jao.  Rkvio,  et  Catechesis  interpr.  F.  Syi.kcrgio.  Ltigd.  Bat.  Elzev.  1635, 12mo ;  Amstel. 
103S,  12mo.  Ultrajecti,  1660,  and  often.  (This  little  volume  contains  a  Greek  translation  of  the  Belgic 
Confession  by  Revius,  and  a  Greek  translation  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  by  Sylburg,  both  with  the 
Latin  text  in  the  second  column,  for  the  use  of  schools  in  Holland.) 

A  COLLECTION  OF  CONFESSIONS  OF  FaITII,  CaTF.CI11S.M8,  DIRECTORIES,  BOOKS  OF  DlBCiri.INE,  etc.,  Of Pllb- 

lick  Authority  in  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Together  with  all  the  Acts  of  the  Assembly  which  are  Stand- 
ing Rules  concerning  the  Doctrine,  Worship,  Government,  and  Discipline  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 
[By  William  Dunlop.]  Edinburgh,  1719, 1722,  in  2  vols.  (A  third  volume  was  promised,  but  never  ap- 
peared, as  far  as  I  know.)  This  rare  and  valuable  collection  contains,  in  the  first  volume,  the  Westmin- 
ster Standards;  in  the  second  volume,  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  English  Congregation  at  Geneva, 
the  Scotch  Confession  of  1560,  the  Scotch  Confession  of  15S0,  the  National  Coveuaut  of  163S,  Calvin's 
Catechism,  the  Heidelberg,  and  some  other  Catechisms  and  Books  of  Discipline.  The  first  volume  has 
also  a  long  Preface  (153  pp.)  on  the  Purpose  and  Use  of  Creeds. 

Syli.oge  C'onfessionum  nub  tempos  Beformandce  Ecelesim  editarum.  Oxon.  1804.  Ed.  altera  et  auc- 
tior  (under  the  revision  of  Bishop  Lloyd).  Oxon.1827.  No  editor  mentioned.  This  Collection  (suggest- 
ed by  Bishop  Cleaver)  is  very  elegautly  priuted  in  the  Clarendon  Press,  but  has  no  critical  value,  and 
is  incomplete.  It  contains:  The  Profession  of  the  Trideutine  Faith,  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession, 
the  Basle  Confession  (1532),  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession  of  1540  (to  which,  in  the  second  edition 
only,  was  added  the  Augustana  of  1530),  the  Saxon  Confession,  the  Belgic  Confession,  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  and  the  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Doit,  all  in  Latin,  and  without  a  translation  or  introduction. 

Corpus  Liiskorum  Symbolioorum  qui  in  Ecclesia  Reformatorum  auctoritatem  publicum  obtinuerunt, 
Ed.  J.  Cur.  G.  At/gusti.  Elberfeldi,  1S27,  Svo.  Contains  three  Helvetic,  the  Gallic,  the  Anglican,  the  Scotch, 
the  Belgic,  the  Hungarian,  Polish,  and  Bohemian  Confessions,  the  Canons  of  Dort,  the  Consensus  Ilel- 
veticus,  and  the  Geneva  and  Heidelberg  Catechisms,  with  an  historical  and  literary  dissertation. 

Die  Symboliscuen  Bucuer  der  evangf.lisch-reformirten  Kircue.  Zum  ersten  Male  aus  dem  Latein- 
ischen  vollstdndig  ubersetzt  und  mit  histor.  Einleitungen  und  Anmerkungen  begleitet.  .  .  .  Fur  Freunde 
der  Union  und  fur  alle,  die  fiber  Entstehung,  Inhalt  und  Zweck  der  Rekenntniss-Schriften  sich  zu  belehrcn 
wunschen.  (By  Friedricu  Anoi.ru  Beck.)  2  Theile.  Neustadt  a.  d.Orla,lS30;  2te  wohlfeile  Ausg.lS45. 
A  good  edition,  with  brief  introductions  and  notes.  The  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Creed  of  Pius 
IV.  are  appended  to  the  Second  Vol.,  pp.  350-410. 

Sammi.ing  Symuoi-isciier  BuoiiER  df.u  evano.-refoi'.mirten  Kircue  fur  Presbytericn,  Schullehrer,  Con- 
firmanden,und  alle  welche  eine  Union  auf  dem  Grunde  der  heilsamen  Lehre  und  in  der  Einheit  der  alien 
wahren  Kirche  Christi  wunschen.  llerausgeg.  von  J.  J.  Mess.  3  Theile.   Neu wied,  1S2S,  1830,  and  1S46,  Svo. 

II.  A.  Nif.meyer:  Coi.i.ectioConfessionu.m  in Ecclfsiis Reform atib publicatarum.  Lips.lsiO  (851  pages 
large  octavo,  with  SS  pages  of  Introductory  Preface),  and  Collectionis  Confessianum  Appendix,  qua  eon- 
tinentur  Puritanorum  Lfbri  Symbolici.  Lipsiw,  1S40  (pp.  113).  This  is  the  most  complete  Latin  collection 
of  Reformed  Symbols,  and  contains  thirty-one  in  all,  including  the  Zwinglian  and  early  Swiss  Confes- 
sions. It  is,  however,  poorly  edited,  without  an  index  and  table  of  contents.  Niemeyer  had  completed 
the  large  volume  before  he  had  seen  a  single  copy  of  the  Westminster  Standards,  and  he  published  them 
Dine  months  afterwards  in  an  Appendix. 

Die  Bkkenntniss-schriftf.n  DKB  F.VANGF.i.iscn-RFFORMir.TEN  Kircue.  Mit  Einleitungen  und  Anmer- 
kungen, herausgegeben  von  E.  G.  Adolf  Buokf.i.  (Oberhofprediger  and  General  Superintendent  in  Olden- 
burg). Leipzig,  1S47  (S84  large  octavo  pages).  The  best  German  collection,  containing  thirty-two  Re- 
formed Symbols,  including  the  Anglican  Catechism  and  the  Arminian  Confessions,  which  Niemeyer 
omits. 

Die  BEKENNTNiRS-sciir.iFTEN  i>er  REf  OR.MiRTF.N  KiROiiF.N  DF.rTBCui.ANns.  Herausgegeben  von  Dr.  Hf.in- 
rioii  Hr.iTE.  Elberfeld,  1S60  (310  pp.).  Contains  the  Confession  of  Elector  Frederick  III.  of  the  Pala- 
tinate (1577),  the  Repetitio  Anhaltina  (15S1),  Anfrichtige  Rechemchaft  von  Ij-hr  und  Ceremonien  (1593), 
Consensus  Ministerii  Bremensis  Boelteia  (1595),  the  Confession  of  the  General  Synod  held  at  Cased  (1608), 
a  Report  on  the  Faith  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Germany  (1G07),  the  Confession  of  Jo/in  Bigismund 
of  Brandenburg  (1614),  another  Confession  of  the  same  (1615),  and  the  Emden  Catechism  (1554),  all  In 
German. 

J.  Rawson  Lcmby  (Cambridge) :  The  Confessions  of  the  Sixteenth  Century,  with  Special  Reference  to 
the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  (in  preparation;  to  be  published  in  Cambridge  and  London,  1S75). 


356  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

II.  Historical  as»  Doctrinal  Works  hearing  on  the  Reformed  Confessions. 

1.  The  doctrinal  works  of  Zwingli,  Cai.vin,  Beza,  CEooi.ampai>ius,  Bullinger,  Urbincs,  Oi.evianits, 
Knox,  Cranmek,  Ripley,  Latimer,  Hooper,  Grinpal,  Jewell,  Hooker,  and  other  Reformers  aud  stand- 
ard divines  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

2.  Leben  und  ausgewdklU  Sehriften  der  V&ter  und  Begrunder  der  reformirten  Kirche.  Biographies  of 
Zwingli.  Calvin,  CEcolampadius,  and  the  other  Reformers,  by  Battm,  Christoffel,  Hagenbacii,  Heppe, 
Pestai.ozzi,  Schmidt,  Staiiei.in,  Sddhoff,  etc.  Elberfeld,  1857-1802.  Ten  Parts.  One  volume  of  this  se- 
ries— Christoffel's  Life  of  Zwingli— is  translated  iuto  English,  but  without  the  extracts  from  his  writings. 

3.  Older  Controversial  Works  of  Reformed  Divines: 

J.  Hoornbeek  :  Summa  controversiarum  rcligionis  cum  infidelibas,  hcercticis,  schismaticis.  Utrecht,  1653. 
1676, 16S9 ;  Francf.  a.  0. 1G9T,  8vo. 

Fn.  Turrktin  :  Inst,  theologice  ele.nchticce.    Geneva,  1682, 1688,  3  vols.  4to ;  Utrecht,  1701,  4  vols.  4to,  etc. 

B.  Pictet  :  De  consensu  et  dissensu  inter  Reformatos  et  Augustance  Confessionis  fratres.    Genev.  1700. 

F.  Spanheim:  Controversiarum  de  religione  cum  dissidentibus  elenchus  hist,  theol.  Leyd.  10S7 ;  fifth 
edition,  Leyd.  1757, 4to. 

Du  Gekdfs :  Elenchus  veritatum,  circa  quas  defendendas  versatur  theol.  elenchthica.  Griiuiugen,  1740, 4to. 

J.  F.  Stapker  :  Institutiones  theologicce  polem,    Zurich,  1743-47, 5  vols.  8vo. 

Do  Wyttenbach  :  Theol.  elenchtiece  initio.    Francf.  a.  M.  1763, 1765,  2  vols.  8vo. 

Comp.  also  the  list  of  older  dogmatic  works  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  Heppe's  Dogmatik  der  evang.- 
reform.  Kirche,  at  the  end  of  Preface,  and  in  Sciiweizer's  Glaubenslehre  der  evang.-reform.  Kirche,  Vol.  I. 
pp.  xxi.-xxiii. 

4.  Recent  Historico-Dogmatic  Works: 

H.  Heppe  (Marburg) :  Dogmatik  der  evang.-reform.  Kirche  dargestellt  und  aus  den  Quellen  belegt,  Elber- 
feld, 1S61 ;  aud  his  Dogmatik  des  Deutschen  Protestantismus  im  \%ten  Jahrh.    Gotha,  1857,  3  vols. 

Alex.  Sciiweizee  (Zurich):  Die  Protestantischen  Centraldogmen  in  ihrer  Enlwicklung  innerhalb  der 
Reformirten  Kirche.  Zurich,  1S54-56, 2  vols.  Also  his  Glaubenslehre  der  evang.-reform.  Kirche  dargestellt 
und  aics  den  Quellen  belegt.    Zurich,  1844-47,  2  vols. 

Acg.  Ebrard  (Erlangen) :  Das  Dogma  vom  heil,  Abendmahl  und  seine  Geschichtc  (Frankfurt  a.  M.  1S4G), 
the  second  vol. ;  and  also  his  Christliche  Dogmatik.    Konigsberg,  1S51, 1S52,  2  vols. 

Charles  Hodge  (Princeton):  Systematic  Theology.    New  York,  1S73,  3  vols. 

J.  J.  van  Oosterzee  (Utrecht) :  Christian  Dogmatics.  Translated  from  the  Dutch  by  Watson  and  Evans. 
London  and  New  York,  1874,  2  vols. 

The  Reformed  Confessions  are  much  more  numerous  than  the  Lu- 
theran, because  they  represent  a  larger  territory  and  several  nationali- 
ties— Swiss,  German,  French, Dutch,  English,  and  Scotch — each  of  which 
produced  its  own  doctrinal  and  disciplinary  standards,  since  the  geo- 
graphical and  political  divisions  and  the  close  relations  to  the  civil  gov- 
ernment determined  also  the  number  of  ecclesiastical  organizations. 
The  productive  period  of  the  Reformed  movement,  moreover,  extended 
far  into  the  seventeenth  century,  especially  in  England,  and  some  of  the 
most  important  confessions,  as  the  Canons  of  Dort  and  the  Westmin- 
ster Standards,  were  made  long  after  the  symbolic  development  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  had  reached  its  culmination  and  rest  in  the  Formula 
of  Concord.  Finally  the  Reformed  Church  departs  further  from  the 
authority  of  ecclesiastical  traditionalism  than  the  Lutheran,  and  allows 
more  freedom  for  the  development  of  various  types  of  doctrine  and 
schools  of  theology  within  the  limits  of  the  "Word  of  God,  to  which  it 
more  rigidly  adheres. 

But  with  all  this  variety,  the  Reformed  symbols  are  as  much  agreed 
in  the  essential  articles  of  faith  as  the  Lutheran,  and  differ  even  less 


§  50.  THE  REFORMED  CONFESSIONS.  357 

than  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  explained  by  its  author  and  his 
school,  differs  from  the  Formula  of  Concord.1  They  exhibit  substan- 
tially the  same  system  of  doctrine,  and  are  only  variations  of  one  theme 
according  to  the  wants  of  the  national  Churches  for  which  they  were 
intended.  The  Reformed  Churches  were  never  organically  united  un- 
der one  form  of  government,  and  even  every  little  canton  in  Switzerland 
(as  every  Lutheran  principality  in  Germany)  has  its  own  ecclesiastical 
establishment  ;a  but  they  recognized  each  other  as  branches  of  the  same 
family,  and  kept  up  a  lively  intercommunion.  Even  the  leading  di- 
vines and  dignitaries  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  England,  during  the 
sixteenth  century,  freely  corresponded  with  the  Reformed  Churches 
of  Switzerland,  Fiance,  and  Holland,  and  the  difference  in  church  pol- 
ity was  no  bar  to  church  fellowship. 

There  are  in  all  over  thirty  Reformed  creeds.  But  many  of  them 
had  never  more  than  local  authority,  or  were  superseded  by  later  and 
maturer  forms.  None  of  them  has  the  same  commanding  position  as 
the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  Those  which  have 
been  most  widely  accepted  and  are  still  most  in  use  are  the  Heidelberg 
or  Palatinate  Catechism,  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  and  the  Westminster 
Confession.  The  second  Helvetic  Confession  and  the  Canons  of  Dort 
are  equal  to  them  in  authority  and  theological  importance,  but  less 
adapted  for  popular  use.  All  the  rest  have  now  little  more  than  his- 
torical significance. 

As  to  origin  and  theological  character,  the  Reformed  Confessions 
may  be  divided  into  Zwinglian  and  Calvinistic.  The  earlier  were  the 
product  of  Zwingli  and  his  Swiss  coadjutors,  the  later  date  from  Cal- 
vin or  his  pupils  and  successors,  and  exhibit  a  more  advanced  and  ma- 
tured state  of  doctrine,  with  a  difference,  however,  as  to  the  extent  to 
which  they  are  committed  to  the  Calvinistic  system;  some  accepting  it 
in  full,  while  others  maintain  a  reserve  in  regard  to  its  angular  points 
and  rigorous  logical  consequences. 

As  to  the  country  in  which  they  originated  and  for  which  they  were 


1  Tins  doctrinal  consensus  of  the  Reformed  Creeds  has  been  shown  as  early  as  1">S1  in 
the  Harmonia  Confessionum  above  quoted. 

2  In  this  respect  the  Churches  of  the  United  States,  being  free  from  government  control, 
are  much  better  organized,  according  to  creeds,  without  allowing  the  State  boundaries  to  in- 
terfere with  their  organic  unity. 


358  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

chiefly  intended,  we  may  divide  them  into  Swiss,  German,  French, 
Dutch,  English,  and  Scotch  Confessions. 

To  the  Swiss  family  belong  the  Confessions  which  proceeded  from 
the  Churches  of  Zurich,  Basle,  Berne,  and  Geneva,  partly  of  Zwinglian 
and  partly  of  Calvinistic  origin. 

The  German  family  embraces  the  Tetrapolitan  Confession,  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  the  Brandenburg  and  Anhalt  Confessions,  and  a 
few  others.  They  are  less  pronounced  in  their  Calvinism,  and  mediate 
between  it  and  the  Lutheran  Creed. 

To  France  and  the  Netherlands  belong  the  French  and  the  Belgic 
Confessions,  the  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  also  the  Arminian 
Articles,  which  differ  from  the  Calvinistic  creeds  in  five  points. 

The  English  family  embraces  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  the  old  Scotch 
Confessions,  and  the  later  Westminster  Standards. 

Besides,  there  are  Bohemian,  Polish,  and  Hungarian  Confessions  of 
lesser  importance. 

Note. — We  take  the  term  Reformed  here  in  its  catholic  and  historical  sense  for  all  those 
Churches  which  were  founded  by  Zwingli  and  Calvin  and  their  fellow-reformers  in  the  six- 
teenth century  on  the  Continent,  and  in  England  and  Scotland,  and  which  agreed  with  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  opposition  to  the  Roman  Catholic,  but  differed  from  it  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  real  presence,  afterward  also  in  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  By  their  opponents  they 
were  first  called  in  derision  Zwinglians  and  Calvinists,  also  Sacramentarians  or  Sacra- 
ment schwarmer  (by  Luther  and  in  the  Formula  of  Concord),  and  in  France  Huguenots.  But 
they  justly  repudiated  all  such  sectarian  names,  and  used  instead  the  designations  Christian 
or  Evangelical  or  Reformed,  or  Evangelical  Reformed  or  Reformed  Catholic.  The  term  Re- 
formed assumed  the  ascendency  in  Switzerland,  France,  and  elsewhere.  Beza,  e.  g.,  uses  it 
constantly.  Queen  Elizabeth,  in  sundry  letters  to  the  Protestant  courts  of  Germany  in  1577, 
speaks  throughout  of  ecclesue  reformatce,  and  once  calls  the  non-Lutheran  Churches  ecclesue 
reformatiores,  more  Reformed,  implying  that  the  Lutheran  is  Reformed  also. 

The  Lutherans,  before  the  last  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century,  called  themselves  likewise 
Christian  and  Evangelical,  sometimes  Reformed,  and  since  1530  the  Church  or  Churches  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  or  Verwandte  der  Angsburglschen  Confession.  For  a  long  time  they 
disowned  the  terms  Lutheranus,  Luthericus,  Luther anismus,  which  were  first  used  by  Dr.  Eck, 
Cochlseus,  Erasmus,  and  other  Romanists  with  the  view  to  stigmatize  their  religion  as  a  re- 
cent innovation  and  human  invention.  (A  Papist  once  asked  a  Lutheran, '  Where  was  your 
(Munch  before  Luther?'  The  Lutheran  answered  by  asking  another  question,  'Where  was 
your  face  this  morning  before  it  was  washed  ?')  Erasmus  speaks  of  Lvtkerana  tragwdia, 
in  gui  in  in  Lutheranum,  f actio  Lutherana.  Hence  the  Lutheran  symbols  never  use  the  term 
I. a i In  run,  except  once,  and  then  by  way  of  complaint  that  the  'dear,  holy  Gospel  should  be 
called  Lutheran.'1    Luther  himself  complained  of  this  use  of  his  name;  nevertheless  he  had 


1  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Art.  XV.  (VIII.  p.  213  ed.  Midler):  'Das  Hebe, 
heilige  Evangelium  nennen  sie  [the  Papists]  Lutherisch.'  The  name  of  Luther,  however,  is 
often  honorably  mentioned,  especially  in  the  Formula  of  Concord. 


§  80.  THE  REFORMED  CONFESSIONS.  359 

no  objection  that  it  should  be  duly  honored  in  connection  with  the  Word  of  God,  and  thought 
that  his  followers  need  not  be  ashamed  of  him. '  They  thought  so,  too ;  and,  forgetting  St.  Paul's 
warning  against  sectarian  names,  they  gradually  themselves  appropriated  the  term  Lutheran, 
at  Evangelical  Lutheran,  as  the  official  title  of  their  Church,  since  about  158"),  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Jacob  Andreas,  the  chief  author  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  iEgidius  Ilunnius, 
and  in  connection  with  the  faith  in  Lather  as  a  special  messenger  of  God  for  the  restoration 
of  Christianity  in  its  doctrinal  purity.  Sec  the  proof  in  the  little  book  of  Dr.  Ileiurich  Heppe, 
Ursprung  und  Geschkhte  der  Bezcichnungen  'reformirte'  und  '  lutherische'  Kirche,  Gotha, 
1859,  pp.  28,  3."),  55. 

The  negative  term  Protestant  was  used  after  152!)  for  both  Confessions  by  friend  and  foe, 
and  is  so  used  to  this  day ;  but  it  must  be  explained  from  the  historical  occasion  which  gave 
rise  to  it,  and  be  connected  with  the  positive  faith  in  the  Word  of  God,  on  the  ground  of 
which  the  evangelical  members  of  the  Diet  of  Spires  protested  against  the  decision  of  the 
papal  majority,  as  an  encroachment  on  the  rights  of  conscience  and  an  enforcement  of  the 
traditions  of  men. 

On  the  Continent  of  Europe  it  is  still  customary  to  divide  orthodox  Christendom  into  three 
Confessions  or  Creeds — the  Catholic  (Greek  and  Roman),  the  Lutheran,  and  the  Reformed — 
and  to  embrace  under  the  Reformed  all  other  Protestant  bodies,  such  as  Methodists  and 
Baptists,  or  to  speak  of  them  as  mere  sects.  But  this  will  not  do  in  England  and  America, 
where  these  sects,  so  called,  have  become  powerful  Churches.  Reformed  is  sometimes  used 
among  us  in  a  more  general  sense  of  all  Protestant  Churches,  sometimes  in  a  restricted  sense 
of  a  particular  branch  of  the  Reformed  Church.  The  Continental  terminology  suits  the 
ecclesiastical  statistics  of  the  sixteenth  century,  but  must  be  considerably  enlarged  and  modi- 
fied in  view  of  the  greater  number  of  Anglo-American  Churches.  We  shall  devote  a  separate 
chapter  to  those  Protestant  evangelical  bodies  which  have  taken  their  rise  since  the  Refor- 


1  '  Wahr  ist's,"  he  says  (Works,  Erl.  ed.Vol.  XXVIII.  p.  3 If.),  'dass  da  bei  Leib  und  Seele 
nicht  sollst  sagen :  ich  Inn  Lutherisch  oder  Papstisch  ;  denn  derselben  ist  keiner  fur  dich 
geslorben,  noch  dein  Meister,  sondern  allein  Christus,  und  sollst  dich  (a  Is)  Christen  bekennen. 
Aber  iceun  du  es  dafiir  ha/tst,  dass  des  Luthcrs  Lehre  evangelisch  und  des  Papslcs  unevan- 
gelisclt  sei,  so  musst  du  den  Luther  nicht  so  gar  hinwerfen.  Du  wirfst  sonst  seine  Dehre  auch 
mit  hin,  die  du  doch  fur  Christi  T^ehre  erkennest ;  sondern  also  musst  du  sagen :  der  Luther 
sei  ein  liube  oder  heilig,  da  liegt  mir  nichts  an;  seine  Lehre  aber  ist  nicht  sein,  sondern  Christi 
sellist.'  And  in  another  place  (Vol.  XL.  p.  127)  :  'Und  wiewohl  ich's  nicht  gem  habe,  dass 
man  die  L.ehre  und  Leute  Lutherisch  nennt,  und  tnuss  von  ihnen  leiden,  dass  sie  O'ottes  Wort 
mit  meinem  Namen  also  schdnden,  so  sollen  sie  doch  den  Luther,  die  Lutherischen  Lehre  und 
L^eute  lassen  bleiben  und  zu  Ehren  kommen.' 

Vol.  I.— A  a 


360  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


I.   SWISS    REFORMED    CONFESSIONS. 
§  51.  Zwinglian  Confessions. 

Literature. 

II.  Zwingi.ii  Opera  ed.  Gualther  (Zwingli's  son-in-law),  Tig.  1545  and  15S1, 4  Tom. ;  ed.  M.  Schuler  und 
J.  Sckutthas,  Tig.  1S28^2, 8  Tom.  The  last  and  only  complete  edition  contains  the  German  and  Latin 
works,  with  a  supplemental  volume  of  tracts  and  letters,  published  1S61.  A  judicious  selection  from  his 
writings,  in  German,  for  popular  use,  was  edited  by  Christoffel,  Zurich,  1S43-4C,  in  fifteen  small  volumes, 
also  in  the  second  part  of  his  biography  of  Zwingli. 

Biographies  of  Zwingli  by  Myconius,  Nusohei.er,  Hess,  Rotermuni>,  Schuler,  Hottingee,  R6der, 
Ticiii.ee,  Christokfel  (Elberfeld,  185T),  and  especially  Morikoker  :  Ulrich  Zwingli  nach  den  urkundlichen 
Quellen,  Leipzig,  1867-69,  2  vols.  Hottinger  and  Christoffel  are  translated  into  English,  but  the  latter 
without  the  valuable  extracts  from  Zwingli's  writings.  Guder's  art.  on  Zwingli,  in  Herzog's  Encykl. 
Vol.  XVIII.  pp.  701-766,  is  a  condensed  biography.    Bobbins,  Life  of  Zwingli,  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1851. 

Also  A.  Ebrard  :  Das  Dogma  vom  heil.  Abendmahl  und  seine  Geschichte  (Fraucf.  1S46),  Vol.  II.  pp.  1-112 
(an  able  vindication  of  Zwingli  against  misrepresentations).  En.  Zeli.er  :  Das  theologische  System  Zwin- 
glfs^ab.  1853.  Cn.  Sig wart :  Ulrich  Zwingli,  der  Charakter  seiner  Theologie,  mit  besonde>-er  Ri'tcksicht  avf 
Ficus  von  Mirandula,  Stuttg.  1S55.  H.  Sporri  :  Zwingli studien,  Leipz.  1S66.  Meri.e  b'Aubigne  :  History 
of  the  Reformation,  4th  vol.  (French,  English,  and  German).  Hagenbach  :  Geschichte  der  Reform.,  4th  ed. 
Leipz.  1870,  pp.  183  sqq.    G.  P.  Fisher  :  The  Reformation,  New  York,  1S73,  pp.  137  sqq. 

Zwingli  (14S4-1531)  represents  the  first  stage  of  the  Reformed 
Church  in  Switzerland.  He  began  what  Calvin  and  others  completed. 
He  died  in  the  prime  of  life,  a  patriot  and  martyr,  on  the  battle-field, 
when  his  work  seemed  to  be  but  half  done.  His  importance  is  histor- 
ical rather  than  doctrinal.  He  was  the  most  clear-headed  and  liberal 
among  the  reformers,  but  lacked  the  genins,  depth,  and  vigor  of  Luther 
and  Calvin.  He  held  opinions  on  the  sacraments,  original  sin  (as  a  dis- 
order rather  than  a  state  of  guilt),  and  on  the  salvation  of  all  infants 
(unbaptized  as  well  as  baptized)  and  the  nobler  heathen,  which  then 
appeared  radical,  dangerous,  and  profane.  He  could  conceive  of  a 
broad  and  free  Christian  union,  consistent  with  doctrinal  differences 
and  denominational  distinctions.  He  was  a  patriotic  republican,  frank, 
honorable,  incorruptible,  cheerful,  courteous,  and  affable.  He  took  an 
active  part  in  all  the  public  affairs  of  Switzerland,  and  labored  to  free 
it  from  foreign  influence,  misgovernment  and  immorality.  He  began  at 
Einsiedcln  (1516),  and  more  effectively  at  Zurich  (since  1519),  to  preach 
Christ  from  the  pure  fountain  of  the  New  Testament,  and  to  set  him 
forth  as  the  only  Mediator  and  all-sufficient  Saviour.  Then  followed 
liis  attacks  upon  the  corruptions  of  Rome,  and  the  Reformation  was 
introduced  step  by  step  in  Zurich,  where  he  exercised  a  controlling  in- 
fluence, and  in  the  greater  part  of  German  Switzerland,  until  its  prog- 
ress was  suddenly  checked  by  the  catastrophe  at  Cappel,  1531. 


§  51.  ZWINGLIAN  CONFESSIONS.  3G1 

Zwingli  was  scarcely  two  months  younger  than  Luther,  who  sur- 
vived him  fifteen  years.  Both  were  educated  and  ordained  in  the 
Roman  Church,  and  became  innocently  and  providentially  reform- 
ers of  that  Church.  Both  were  men  of  strong  mind,  heroic  char- 
acter, fervent  piety,  and  commanding  influence  over  the  people. 
Both  were  good  scholars,  great  divines,  and  fond  of  poetry  and  mu- 
sic.1 Both  labored  independently  for  the  same  great  cause  of  evan- 
gelical Protestantism — the  one  on  a  smaller,  the  other  on  a  larger 
field.  But  their  endowment,  training,  and  conversion  were  different. 
Zwingli  had  less  prejudice,  more  practical  common-sense,  clear  dis- 
crimination, sober  judgment,  self-control,  courtesy,  and  polish — Luther 
more  productive  genius,  poetic  imagination,  overpowering  eloquence, 
mystic  depth,  fire,  and  passion ;  and  was  in  every  way  a  richer  and 
stronger,  though  rougher  and  wilder  nature.  Zwingli's  eyes  were 
opened  by  the  reading  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  he  carefully 
copied  with  his  own  hand,  and  the  humanistic  learning  of  his  friend 
Erasmus ;  while  Luther  passed  through  the  ascetic  struggles  of  monastic 
life,  till  he  found  peace  of  conscience  in  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  alone.  Zwingli  broke  more  rapidly  and  more  radically  with 
the  Roman  Church  than  Luther.  He  boldly  abolished  all  doctrines 
and  usages  not  taught  in  the  Scriptures ;  Luther  piously  retained  what 
was  not  clearly  forbidden.  He  aimed  at  a  reformation  of  government 
and  discipline  as  well  as  theology ;  Luther  confined  himself  to  such 
changes  as  were  directly  connected  with  doctrine.  He  was  a  Swiss 
and  a  republican ;  Luther,  a  German  and  a  monarchist.  He  was  a 
statesman  as  well  as  a  theologian  ;  Luther  kept  aloof  from  all  political 
complications,  and  preached  the  doctrine  of  passive  obedience  to  estab- 
lished authority.  They  met  but  once  in  this  world,  and  then  as  antag- 
onists, at  Marburg,  two  years  before  Zwingli's  death.  They  could  not 
but  respect  each  other  personally,  though  Luther  approached  the  Swiss 


1  See  Zwingli's  poems,  written  during  the  pestilence,  in  Hagenbach,  1.  c.  p.  21(!,  and  another, 
p.  4itl.  He  published  a  moral  poem,  under  the  title  The  Labyrinth,  as  early  as  1510,  while 
priest  at  Glarus  (Opera,  Tom.  II.  B.  pp.  243  sqq. ;  Morikofer,  Vol.  I.  pp.  13  sqq.).  His 
preference  for  Puritanic  simplicity  in  public  worship  gave  rise  to  the  fiction  of  his  hostility  to 
music.  He  was,  on  the  contrary,  singularly  skilled  in  that  art.  and  was  called  in  derision  by  the 
Papists  'the  evangelical  lute-player.'  A  contemporary  says  that  he  never  knew  a  man  who 
could  play  on  so  many  musical  instruments— the  lute,  the  harp,  the  violin,  etc.  See  Myconius, 
Vita  II.  Zwinglii;  Ebrard,  1.  c.  Vol.  II.  pp.  5'J  sijq. ;  and  Hagenbach,  1.  c.  p.  184. 


3G2  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

with  the  strongest  prejudice,  looking  upon  him  as  a  fanatic  and  semi- 
infidel.1  They  came  to  an  agreement  on  every  article  of  faith  except 
the  real  presence  in  the  encharist.  Zwingli  proposed,  with  tears,  peace 
and  union,  notwithstanding  this  difference,  but  Luther  refused  the  hand 
of  Christian  fellowship,  because  he  made  doctrinal  agreement  the 
boundary -line  of  brotherhood.2 

1  Once,  at  least,  Luther  speaks  kindly  of  Zwingli,  in  a  letter  to  Bullinger,  of  Zurich,  May  1  i, 
1538  (De  Wette,  Vol.  V.  p.  1 1 2) :  lLibere  enim  dicam:  Zwinglium,  postquam  Marpurgi  mihi 
visits  et  auditus  est,  virum  optimum  esse  judicavi,  sicut  et  (Ecolampadium.'  In  the  same 
letter  he  says  that  Zwingli's  death  caused  him  much  pain.  But  this  personal  respect  did 
not  prevent  him  from  using  the  most  violent  language  against  his  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  which  he  held  in  utter  abhorrence  to  the  last,  and  this  all  the  more  because  his  fanat- 
ical colleague  Carlstadt,  who  gave  him  infinite  trouble,  had  first  proposed  and  defended  it  by 
an  untenable  exegesis.  This  accounts  also  for  his  absurd  charge  of  fanaticism  against  the 
clear,  sober-minded,  jejune  Zwingli.  LEs  ist  fast  lackerlich,'  says  the  mild  and  impartial  Ha- 
genbach  (p.  280),  '  wenn  Luther  mitten  in  seiner  schwdrmerisch  tobenden  Leidenscltaft  den  ehr- 
fichen  Zwingli  einen  Schicdrmer  nennt,  ihn,  der  von  aller  Schwdrmerei  so  fern  war.  Es  sei 
denn,  dass  man  den  idealistischen  Zug  in  ihm  (und  der  war  allerdings  dent  derben  Realismus 
Luther s  zuwidev)  mit  diesem  Namen  bezeichnen  wolle.  Man  betrachte  auch  nur  sein  Bi/dnissf 
Dieser  energische,  feste,  satte  Kopf,  diese  in  Stein  gehauene,  markante  Physiognomie,  diese 
breite  Stirn,  dieses  voile  hlare  Auge,  diesen  geschlussenen  ft  fund  mit  runden  Li/ijien — genug  ! 
ich  iiberlasse  einem  Lavater  die  vollendete  Deutung  des  Bildes  {der  in  ihm  ilErnst,  Nachden- 
ken,  mdnnliche  Entschlossenheit,  eine  sich  zusammenziehende  Thatkraft,  einen  schauenden, 
durchdringenden  VerstamV  erlcennt),  und  bervfe  mich  allein  auf  die  Geschichte,  welche  den 
lebendigen  Commentar  zu  diesem  Bildniss  ausmacht.'' 

2  On  the  relation  of  Luther  and  Zwingli,  see  Ebrard,  Vol.  IT.  pp.  214  sqq. ;  Hagenbach, 
pp.  278  sqq. ;  and  an  essay  of  Hundesbagen  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1802.  Zwingli 
himself  thus  described  his  relation  to  Luther  in  1T>23,  when  the  German  Papists  began  to 
denounce  his  doctrine  as  a  Lutheran  heresy :  lIch  habe,  ehe  noch  ein  Mensch  in  unserer  Ge- 
gend  etivas  von  Luther  s  Namen  gewusst  hat,  angefangen  das  Evangelium  Christi  zu  predigen, 
im  Jahr  1516.  Wer  sehalt  mich  damals  lutherisch?  .  .  .  L^uthers  Name  ist  mir  noch  zwei 
Jahre  unbelcannt  gewesen,  nachdem  ich  mich  allein  an  die  Bibel  gehalten  habe.  Aber  es  ist, 
wie  gesagt,  nur  Hire  Schlauheit,  dass  die  Pdpstler  mich  und  Anderc  mit  solchem  Namen  beladen. 
S/irechen  sie :  Du  musst  wold  lutherisch  sein,  du  predigest  ja,  wie  Luther  schreibt ;  so  ist 
meine  Antwort :  Lch  predigeja  auch  wie  Paulus ;  warum  nennst  du  mich  nicht  vielmehr  einen 
Paulistcn  ?  .  .  .  Meines  Erachtens  ist  Luther  ein  trefflicher  Streiter  Gottes,  der  da  mit  so 
grossem  Ernste  die  Schrift  durchforscht,  ah  seit  tausend  Jahren  irgend  ciner  auf  Erden  ge- 
wesen ist.  Mit  dem  mdnnlichen,  itnbewegten  Gemiilhe,  womit  er  den  Papst  von  Rom  ange- 
griffen  hat,  ist.  Htm  keiner  rtie  gleic.h  geworden,  so  lange  das  Papstthum  geud/tret  hat,  alle 
Andern  ungescholten.  Wessen  alter  ist  solche  That?  Gottes  oder  Luthers?  Frage  den 
Luther  sr/l/st,  gewiss  sagt  er  dir:  Gottes.  Warum  schreibst  du  denn  anderer  Mcnschen  Lehre 
dem  Luther  zu,  da  er  sie  selbst  Gott  zuschreibt,  und  nichts  Neues  hervorbringt,  sondern  was  in 
dem  ewigen,  unverdnderlichen  Worte  Gottes  enthalten  ist?  Fromme  Christen  I  gebet  nicht  zu, 
duss  der  ehrliche  Name  Christi  verwandelt  werde  in  den  Namen  Luthers;  denn  Luther  ist 
fur  wis  nicht  gcstorben,  sondern  er  lehrt  uns  den  erkennen,  von  dem  wir  allein  alles  lit  il  halt  n. 
J'rt'.li;//  Luther  Christum,  so  thut  er's  grade  wie  ich  ;  wicwohl,  Gott  sei  Dank.'  ditrch  ihn  eine 
unzdhlbare  Me.nge  mehr  als  durch  mich  und  Andere,  denen  Gott  ihr  Mass  grosser  oder  hleiner 
macht,  zu  Gott  t/efii/irt  wird.  Ich  will  Iceinen  Namen  tragen,  als  meines  Hauptmannes  Jesn 
Christi.  dessen  Sin  iter  ich  bin.  .  .  .  Es  fcann  Icein  Mensch  sein,  der  Luther  holier  achtct,  als 


§  61.  ZWISGLIAN  CONFESSIONS.  303 

Zwingli  wrote  four  dogmatic  works  of  a  semi-symbolic  character, 
which  are  closely  interwoven  with  the  history  of  the  Reformation  in 
German  Switzerland,  and  present  a  clear  exhibition  of  the  Reformed 
faith  in  the  first  stage  of  its  development.  These  are  the  Sixty -seven 
Articles  of  Zurich  (A.D.  1523),  the  Ten  Theses  of  Berne  (1528),  the 
Confession  of  Faith  to  the  German  Emperor  Charles  V.  (1530),  and  the 
Exposition  of  the  Christian  Faith  to  King  Francis  I.  of  France  (1531).1 

1.  The  Sixty-seven  Articles,  or  Conclusions.2 
They  were  prepared  for  a  public  disputation  held  January  29, 1523, 
in  the  city  of  Zurich,  where  Zwingli  was  chief  pastor  from  1519,  and 
were  victoriously  defended  by  him,  in  the  presence  of  the  civil  magistrate 
and  about  six  hundred  persons,  against  Dr.  Faber,  the  General  Yicar 
of  the  Bishop  of  Constance,  who  appeared  to  superintend  the  meet- 
ing rather  than  to  defend  the  old  doctrines,  and  was  unwilling  or  un- 
able to  answer  the  arguments  of  a  learned  and  powerful  opponent.  The 
magistrate  passed  a  resolution  on  the  same  day  approving  of  Zwingli's 
position,  and  requiring  all  the  ministers  of  the  canton  to  preach  noth- 
ing but  what  they  could  prove  from  the  holy  gospel.  A  second  dis- 
putation followed  in  October,  on  the  use  of  images  and  the  mass,  be- 
fore about  nine  hundred  persons,  including  three  hundred  priests  and 
delegates  from  different  cantons;  a  third  disputation  took  place  in 
January,  1524.     The  result  was  the  emancipation  from  popery,  and 

ir.h.  Dennoch  bezeuge  ich  vor  Gott  und  alien  Menschen,  dass  ich  all'  meine  Tage  nie  einen 
Buchstaben  an  ihn  gcschriebcn  habe,  noch  er  an  mich,  nock  rersrhafft,  dass  geschrieben  tvevde. 
Ich  habe  es  untevlassen,  nicht  dass  ich  jemand  dessivegen  gefurchtet,  sondern  weil  ich  damit 
alien  Mi  nschi  n  habe  zeigen  wollen,  icie  gleichformig  do-  deist  Gottes  sei,  da  ivir  so  iveit  von 
einander  entfernt  und  doch  einmiithig  rind,  aber  ohne  alle  Verabredung,  wiewohl  ich  ihm  nicht 
zuzuzahlen  bin  ;  dennjeder  thut,  soviet  ihm  Gott  weiset.' 

1  They  are  all  embodied  in  the  Collections  of  Niemeyer  and  Boekel.  Niemeyer  (Collectiq, 
pp.  3-77)  gives  the  first  two  in  Swiss-German  and  in  Latin,  the  last  two  in  Latin  only.  Bockel 
(Bekenntniss-Schriften,  pp.  5-107)  gives  them  in  High-German,  and  adds  the  'Brief  Chris- 
tian Instruction'  which  Zwingli  wrote  in  the  name  of  the  Magistrate  of  Zurich;  Sept.  1523, 
for  the  preachers  and  pastors,  treating  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Law,  of  Images,  and  of  the  Mass 
(pp.  13-34). 

2  Articdli  biyb  Covu-nionks  LXYIF.  11.  Zwingi.ii,  a.  1523.  They  were  published  by 
Zwingli  himself  before  the  disputation,  with  the  title:  'The  following  (!7  Articles  and  opin- 
ions I.  Ulrich  Zwingli,  confess  to  have  preached  in  the  honorable  city  of  Zurich,  on  the 
ground  of  the  Scripture  which  is  called  theopneustos  [i.  e.  inspired  by  God],  and  I  offer  to 
defend  them.  And  should  I  not  correctly  understand  the  said  Scripture,  I  am  ready  to  In- 
instructed  and  corrected,  but  only  by  the  Scripture.'  On  the  different  editions,  see  the  no- 
tices of  Niemeyer,  Pnrfatio,  pp.  xvi  sqq. 


364  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  orderly  and  permanent  establishment  of  the  Reformed  Church  in 
the  city  and  canton  of  Zurich. 

These  Articles  resemble  the  Ninety-five  Theses  of  Luther,  which 
opened  the  drama  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  October  31, 1517, 
but  they  mark  a  considerable  advance  in  Protestant  conviction.  They 
are  full  of  Christ,  as  the  only  Saviour  and  Mediator,  and  clearly  recog- 
nize the  Word  of  God  as  the  only  rule  of  faith.  They  attack  the  pri- 
macy of  the  Pope,  the  mass,  the  invocation  of  saints,  the  meritorious- 
ness  of  human  works,  fasts,  pilgrimages,  celibacy,  and  purgatory,  as  un- 
scriptural  traditions  of  men.  They  are  short,  and,  in  this  respect,  like 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  better  adapted  for 
a  creed  than  the  lengthy  confessions  of  that  age.  But  they  never  had 
more  than  local  authority.     We  give  a  few  specimens : 

1.  All  who  say  that  the  gospel  is  nothing  without  the  approbation  of  the  Church,  err  and 
cast  reproach  upon  God. 

2.  The  sum  of  the  gospel  is  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  true  Son  of  God,  has  made 
known  to  us  the  will  of  his  heavenly  Father,  and  redeemed  us  by  his  innocence  from  eternal 
death,  and  reconciled  us  to  God. 

3.  Therefore  Christ  is  the  only  way  to  salvation  for  all  who  were,  who  are,  and  who  shall  be. 

4.  Whosoever  seeks  or  shows  another  door,  errs — yea,  is  a  murderer  of  souls  and  a  robber. 

7.  Christ  is  the  Head  of  all  believers. 

8.  All  who  live  in  this  Head  are  his  members  and  children  of  God.  And  this  is  the  true 
Catholic  Church,  the  communion  of  saints. 

15.  Who  believes  the  gospel  shall  be  saved ;  who  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.  For  in 
the  gospel  the  whole  truth  is  clearly  contained. 

16.  From  the  gospel  we  learn  that  the  doctrines  and  traditions  of  men  are  of  no  use  to  sal- 
vation. 

17.  Christ  is  the  one  eternal  high-priest. 

1 8.  Christ,  who  offered  himself  once  on  the  cross,  is  the  sufficient  and  perpetual  sacrifice 
for  the  sins  of  all  believers.  Therefore  the  mass  is  no  sacrifice,  but  a  commemoration  of  the 
one  sacrifice  of  the  cross  and  a  seal  of  the  redemption  through  Christ. 

10.  Christ  is  the  only  Mediator  between  God  and  us. 

22.  Christ  is  our  righteousness.  From  this  it  follows  that  our  works  are  good  so  far  as 
they  are  Christ's,  but  not  good  so  far  as  they  are  our  own. 

24.  Christians  are  not  bound  to  any  works  which  Christ  has  not  commanded. 

26.  Nothing  is  more  displeasing  to  God  than  hypocrisy. 

27.  All  Christians  are  brethren. 

34.  The  power  of  the  Pope  and  the  Bishops  has  no  foundation  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  and 
the  doctrine  of  Christ. 

49.  I  know  of  no  greater  scandal  than  the  prohibition  of  lawful  marriage  to  priests,  while 
they  are  permitted  for  money  to  have  concubines.     Shame !  (Pfui  der  Schande  !) 

50,  God  alone  forgives  sins,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  alone. 
57.  The  Holy  Scripture  knows  nothing  of  a  purgatory  after  this  life. 

2.  The  Ten  Theses  of  Berne. 
After  the  Conference  between  the  Reformed  and  the  Roman  di- 
vines (headed  by  Dr.  Eck),  held  at  Baden,  in  Aargau,  May,  152G, 
which  formed  a  turning-point  in  the  history  of  the  Swiss  Reformation 
(more  decided  than  the  similar  disputation  between  Luther  and  Eck  in 


l 


§  51.  ZWINGLIAN  CONFESSIONS.  3G5 

Leipzig,  1519),  the  Reformation  triumphed  in  Berne,  the  most  conserva- 
tive and  aristocratic  as  -well  as  most  influential  canton  of  the  confeder- 
acy. Three  ministers,  Berthold  Ilaller,  Francis  Kolb,  and  Sebastian 
Meyer,  friends  of  Zwingli,  and  a  gifted  layman,  Nicolas  Manuel,  who 
was  a  statesman,  poet,  and  painter,  had  previously  prepared  the  way 
under  great  opposition.  The  magistrate  convened  a  convocation  of 
the  clergy  and  laity,  which  continued  nineteen  days,  from  January  G  to 
26, 1528,  discussing  ten  theses  which  Zwingli  had  revised  and  published 
at  the  request  of  Ilaller.  Delegates  appeared  from  other  cantons  (ex- 
cept the  Roman  Catholic),  and  the  South  German  cities  of  Constance, 
Tim,  Lindau,  and  Strasburg.  The  Bishops  of  Constance,  Basle,  Lau- 
sanne, and  Sion  were  also  invited,  but  declined  to  attend,  except  the 
Bishop  of  Lausanne,  who  sent  a  few  doctors.  Dr.  Eck,  who  had  fig- 
ured as  the  champion  of  Romanism  in  Baden  (as  well  as  previously  at 
Leipzig),  prudently  disdained  at  this  time  to  follow  '  the  heretics  into 
their  corners  and  dens.'  The  principal  champions  of  the  Reformed 
cause  were  Zwingli  (who  also  preached  two  very  effective  sermons  on 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  against  the  mass),  (Eeolampadius,  Ilaller,  Kolb, 
Pellican,  Megander,  Bucer,  and  Capito.  They  carried  a  complete  vic- 
tory, and  hereafter  Berne,  Zurich,  and  Basle — the  three  most  enlight- 
ened and  influential  German  cantons — were  closely  linked  together  in 
the  Reformed  faith.1 

The  Bernese  Theses  are  as  follows : 

1 .  The  holy  Christian  Church,  whose  only  Head  is  Christ,  is  born  of  the  Word  of  God,  and 
abides  in  the  same,  and  listens  not  to  the  voice  of  a  stranger. 

2.  The  Church  of  Christ  makes  no  laws  and  commandments  without  the  Word  of  God. 
Hence  human  traditions  are  no  more  binding  on  us  than  they  are  founded  in  the  Word  of 
God. 

3.  Christ  is  the  only  wisdom,  righteousness,  redemption,  and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world.  Hence  it  is  a  denial  of  Christ  when  we  confess  another  ground  of  salvation 
and  satisfaction. 

4.  The  essential  and  corporeal  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  can  not  be  demon- 
strated from  the  Holy  Scripture. 

;">.  The  mass  as  now  in  use,  in  which  Christ  is  offered  to  God  the  Father  for  the  sins  of  the 

1  See  Samuel  Fischer,  Geschichte  der  Disputation  zu  Bern,  Berne,  1S28;  Melch.  Kirch- 
hofer,  Berthold  Ilaller,  oiler  die  Reformation  in  Bern,  Zurich,  1828 ;  C.  Pestalozzi,  B. 
Haller,  nac/i  handschriftlichen  und  gleichzeit'ujen  Quellen,  Elberfeld,  18G1,  pp.  3f>  sqq.  (in 
Vol.  IX.  of  the  Lives  and  Writings  of  the  Fathers  and  Founders  of  the  Reformed  Church); 
Zwingli's  Werke,  ed.  Schiller  and  Schulthess,  Vol.  II.  I.  pp.  C30  sqq.  Luther  was  not  well 
pleased  with  this  triumph  of  Zwinglianism,  and  wrote  to  Gabriel  Zwilling,  March  7  (De 
Wette,  Vol.  III.  No.  d~>U)  :  '  Bernaz  in  Helvetia  jinita  disputatio  est ;  nihil  factum,  nisi  quod 
missa  abrogata  et  pueri  in  plateia  content,  sc  esse  a  Deo  pisto  liberates.1  He  also  prophesied 
an  evil  end  to  Zwingli. 


3G6  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

living  and  the  dead,  is  contrary  to  the  Scripture,  a  blasphemy  against  the  most  holy  sacrifice, 
passion,  and  death  of  Christ,  and  on  account  of  its  abuses  an  abomination  before  God. 

G.  As  Christ  alone  died  for  us,  so  he  is  also  to  be  adored  as  the  only  Mediator  and  Advo- 
cate between  God  the  Father  and  the  believers.  Therefore  it  is  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God 
to  propose  and  invoke  other  mediators. 

7.  Scripture  knows  nothing  of  a  purgatory  after  this  life.  Hence  all  masses  and  other  of- 
fices for  the  dead  are  useless. 

8.  The  worship  of  images  is  contrary  to  the  Scripture.  Therefore  images  should  be  abol- 
ished when  they  are  set  up  as  objects  of  adoration. 

9.  Matrimony  is  not  forbidden  in  the  Scripture  to  any  class  of  men,  but  permitted  to  all. 

10.  Since,  according  to  the  Scripture,  an  open  fornicator  must  be  excommunicated,  it  follows 
that  unchastity  and  impure  celibacy  are  more  pernicious  to  the  clergy  than  to  any  other  class. ' 

Iii  his  farewell  sermon,  Zwingli  thus  addressed  the  Bernese:  'Vic- 
tory has  declared  for  the  truth,  but  perseverance  alone  can  complete 
the  triumph.  Christ  persevered  unto  death.  Ferendo  vincitur  for- 
tuna.  Behold  these  idols,  behold  them  conquered,  mute,  and  scattered 
before  us.  The  gold  you  have  spent  upon  these  foolish  images  must 
henceforth  be  devoted  to  the  comfort  of  the  living  images  of  God  in 
their  poverty.  In  conclusion,  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ 
has  made  us  free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage 
(Gal.  v.  1).  Fear  not !  the  God  who  has  enlightened  you,  will  enlighten 
also  your  confederates;  and  Switzerland,  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  shall  flourish  in  righteousness  and  peace.' 

3.  The  Confession  of  Faith  to  Emperor  Charles  V.2 
Zwingli  took  advantage  of  the  meeting  of  the  famous  Diet  at  Augs- 
burg, held  A.D.  1530,  to  send  a  Confession  of  his  faith  addressed  to  the 
German  Emperor  Charles  Y.,  shortly  after  the  Lutheran  Princes  had 
presented  theirs  (June  25).  It  is  dated  Zurich,  July  3,  and  was  deliver- 
ed by  his  messenger  at  Augsburg  on  the  Sth  of  the  same  month,  but  it 
shared  the  same  fate  as  the '  Tetrapolitan  Confession'  of  Bucer  and  Capito : 
it  was  never  laid  before  the  Diet,  and  was  treated  with  undeserved  con- 
tempt. Dr.  Eck  wrote  in  three  days  a  refutation,3  slanderously  charging 
Zwingli  that  for  ten  years  he  had  labored  to  root  out  from  the  people  of 

1  The  German  copy  adds :   '  AU.es  Gott  und  seinem  heiligen  Wort  zu  Ehren.' 

2  Ad  Varolum  Horn.  Itnperatorcm  Germanic  comitia  Augvstoz  celebrant 'em  Jidci  Huldrychi 
Zwinglii  rath  (Rechenschaft).  Anno  MDXXX.  Mense  Julio.  Vincat  Veritas  (Zurich).  In 
the  same  year  a  German  translation  appeared  in  Zurich,  and  in  1543  an  English  translation. 
See  Nicmeyer,  p.  xxvi.  Comp.  also  Bucket,  pp.  40  sqq.  ;  Morikofer,  Vol.  II.  pp.  2'J7  sqq. ; 
and  Christoft'el,  Vol.  II.  pp.  237  sqq. 

3  Repulsio  Articulorum  Zwinglii.  Zwingli  replied  in  Ad  illustrissimos  Germanics principei 
Augusta  congregates,  de  convitiis  Eekii  {Opera,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  19  sqq.). 


§51.  ZWIXGLIAN  CONFESSIONS.  367 

Switzerland  all  faith  and  all  religion,  and  to  stir  them  up  against  the 
magistrate ;  that  he  had  caused  greater  devastation  among  them  than 
the  Turks,  Tartars,  and  Huns ;  that  he  had  turned  the  churches  and 
convents  founded  by  the  Hapsburgers  (the  Emperor's  ancestors)  into 
temples  of  Venus  and  Bacchus;  and  that  he  now  completed  his  crime 
by  daring  to  appear  before  the  Emperor  with  such  an  impudent  piece 
of  writing.  The  Lutherans  (with  the  exception  of  Philip  of  Hesse,  who 
sympathized  with  Zwingli)  were  scarcely  less  indignant,  and  much  more 
anxious  to  conciliate  the  Catholics  than  to  appear  in  league  with  Zwin- 
glians  and  Anabaptists.  They  felt  especially  offended  that  the  Swiss 
Reformer  took  strong  ground  against  the  corporeal  presence,  and  inci- 
dentally alluded  to  them  as  persons  who  '  were  looking  back  to  the  flesh- 
pots  of  Egypt.'1  Melanchthon,  who  was  at  that  time  not  yet  eman- 
cipated from  the  Catholic  tradition  on  that  article,  judged  him  in- 
sane.2 

Zwingli,  having  had  no  time  to  consult  with  his  confederates,  offered 
the  Confession  in  his  own  name,  and  submitted  it  to  the  judgment  of 
the  whole  Church  of  Christ,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Word  of  God 
and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  the  first  sections  he  declares,  as  clearly  and  even  more  explicitly 
than  the  Lutheran  Confession,  his  faith  in  the  orthodox  doctrines  of 
the  Trinity  and  the  Person  of  Christ,  as  laid  down  in  the  Nicene  and 
Athanasian  Creeds  (which  are  expressly  named).  He  teaches  the  elec- 
tion by  free  grace,  the  sole  and  sufficient  satisfaction  of  Christ,  and  jus- 
tification by  faith,  in  opposition  to  all  human  mediators  and  meritorious 
works.  He  distinguishes  between  the  internal  or  invisible,  and  the  ex- 
ternal or  visible  Church  ;  the  former  is  the  company  of  the  elect  believ- 
ers and  their  children,  and  is  the  bride  of  Christ ;  the  latter  embraces 
all  nominal  Christians  and  their  children,  and  is  beautifully  described 
in  the  parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins,  of  whom  five  were  foolish.  Church 
may  also  designate  a  single  congregation,  as  the  church  in  Pome,  in 
Augsburg,  in  Leyden.  The  true  Church  can  never  err  in  the  founda- 
tion of  faith.     Purgatory  he  rejects  as  an  injurious  fiction  which  sets 

1  'Quod  Christ i  corpus,'  s:iy.s  Zwingli,  ' per  csscntlam  et  realiter,  hoc  est  corpus  ipsum  na- 
turale  in  caua  nut  adsit  aut  ore  dentibusque  nostris  m<mducatur,  qucmadmodum  Pajnstov,  et 
quiDAH  qui  ad  OLLAS  Egtptiacas  RESPKCTAxt,  pcrhibent,  id  non  tanturn  neijamus,  sed  er- 
rorem  esse  qui  verbo  Dei  adversatur,  constanter  assevera7nus.' 

3  See  his  letter  to  Luther  of  July  14,  l.r»30,  quoted  on  p.  2G3. 


368  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Christ's  merits  at  naught.  On  original  sin,  the  salvation  of  unbaptized 
infants,  and  the  sacraments,  he  departs  much  further  from  the  tradi- 
tional theology  than  the  Lutherans.  He  goes  into  a  lengthy  argument 
against  the  corporeal  presence  in  the  eucharist.  On  the  other  hand, 
however,  he  protests  against  being  confounded  with  the  Anabaptists, 
and  rejects  their  views  on  infant  baptism,  civil  offices,  the  sleep  of  the 
soul,  and  universal  salvation. 

The  document  is  frank  and  bold,  yet  dignified  and  courteous,  and 
concludes  thus:  'Hinder  not,  ye  children  of  men,  the  spread  and 
growth  of  the  Word  of  God — ye  can  not  forbid  the  grass  to  grow.  Ye 
must  see  that  this  plant  is  richly  blessed  with  rain  from  heaven.  Con- 
sider not  your  own  wishes,  but  the  demands  of  the  age  concerning  the 
free  course  of  the  gospel.  Take  these  words  kindly,  and  show  by  your 
deeds  that  you  are  children  of  God.' 

4.  The  Exposition  of  the  Christian  Faith  to  King  Fkancis  I.1 
This  is,  as  Bullinger  says,  the  swan  song  of  Zwingli,  in  which  he  sur- 
passed himself.  He  wrote  it  in  July,  1531,  three  months  before  his 
death,  at  the  request  of  his  friend  Maigret,  the  French  embassador  to 
Switzerland,  and  sent  it  in  manuscript  to  Francis  I.,  King  of  France 
(1515-1547),  who,  from  political  motives,  showed  himself  favorable  to 
the  Protestants  in  Germany  and  Switzerland,  while  he  persecuted  them 
at  home.  A  few  years  before  he  had  dedicated  to  him  his  '  Commen- 
tary on  the  true  and  false  Religion'  (1525),  and  a  few  years  afterwards 
(1536)  Calvin  dedicated  to  him  his  Institutes,  with  a  most  eloquent  and 
powerful  letter;  but  the  frivolous  monarch  probably  never  read  these 
voices  of  warning,  which,  if  properly  heeded,  might  have  changed  the 
whole  history  of  France. 

This  last  document  of  Zwingli  is  clear,  bold,  spirited,  full  of  faith 

1  Christians  Fidei  ab  II.  Zwinglio  prwdicatai  brevis  et  clara  Extositio  ab  ipso  Zicin- 
gliapaulo  ante  mortem  ejtis  ad  lieijem  Christianum  srripta.  Under  this  title  Bullinger  edited 
the  work,  with  some  omissions  and  changes,  from  the  author's  MS.,  with  a  preface,  l.r)3G. 
He  calls  Zwingli  fidelissim.ua  evangelii  jiraco  et  Christiana:  libertatis  assertor  constantis- 
shims.  Leo  Judas  prepared  a  free  German  translation :  Eine  kurze,  Mare  Surnine  und  Er- 
hlarung  dee  ehristl.  Claubens,  etc.,  Zurich  (no  date).  Niemeyer  took  his  text  directly  from 
a  copy  of  the  manuscript  made  by  Bibliander,  in  the  library  at  Zurich  (pp.  xxviii.  and  3G  sqq.). 
Christoffel  (Vol.  I.  p.  3G8)  states  that  the  original  MS.  of  Zwingli  is  still  in  the  public  library 
of  Paris.     A  High-German  translation  in  Bockel,  pp.  G3  sqq.,  and  Christoffel,  Vol.  II.  pp. 

262  sqq. 


§  52.  ZWINGLI'S  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES.  3G9 

and  hope.  In  a  brief  preface  he  warns  the  most  Christian  King  of 
France  against  the  lies  and  slanders  circulated  against  the  Protestants. 
He  first  treats  of  God,  the  ultimate  ground  of  our  faith  and  only  object 
of  worship.  We  do  not  despise  the  saints  and  sacraments,  we  only 
guard  them  against  abuse ;  we  honor  Mary  as  the  perpetual  Virgin 
and  Mother  of  God,1  but  we  do  not  worship  her  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  term,  which  we  know  she  herself  would  never  tolerate.  The  sac- 
raments we  honor  as  signs  or  symbols  of  holy  things,  but  not  as  the 
holy  things  themselves.  Then  he  speaks  of  the  holy  Trinity,  and  the 
incarnation  of  the  eternal  Son  of  God  for  our  salvation,  who  made  a 
full  satisfaction  for  all  our  sins.  lie  gives  an  able  exposition  of  the 
two  natures  in  the  one  person  of  Christ,  his  death,  resurrection,  ascen- 
sion, and  return  to  judgment.  He  rejects  purgatory  as  a  papal  fiction. 
He  dwells  very  fully  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments,  especially  the 
eucharistic  presence  (rejecting  ubiquity).  The  remaining  chapters  are 
devoted  to  the  Church,  the  Magistrate,  the  remission  of  sins,  faith  and 
works,  eternal  life,  and  an  attack  on  the  Anabaptists,  with  whom  the  Prot- 
estants were  often  confounded  in  France.  In  conclusion,  he  entreats 
the  king  to  give  the  gospel  free  course  in  his  kingdom ;  to  imitate  the 
example  of  some  pious  princes  in  Germany;  to  judge  by  the  fruits  of 
the  Reformed  faith  wherever  it  was  fairly  established ;  and  to  forgive 
the  boldness  with  which  he  approached  his  majesty.  The  urgency  of 
the  case  demanded  it.  An  appendix  is  devoted  to  the  mass,  with  proofs 
from  the  fathers,  especially  from  Augustine,  in  favor  of  his  view  on  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

§  52.  Zwingli's  Distinctive  Doctrines. 

Zwingli's  doctrines  are  laid  down  chiefly  in  his  two  Confessions  to  Charles  V.  and  Francis  I.  (5  51), 
his  Commentaritu  de  vera  et  falsa  religione  (1525),  and  his  sermon  De  Providentia  Dei  (1530). 

Of  secondary  doctrinal  importance  are  the  Explanation  of  his  Articles  and  Conclusions  (1523);  his 
Shepherd  (a  sort  of  pastoral  theology);  several  tracts  and  letters  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  on  Baptism  and 
re-Baptism ;  and  his  Commentaries  on  Genesis,  Exodus,  the  Gospels,  the  Romans,  and  Corinthians 
(edited,  from  his  lectures  and  sermons,  hy  Leo  Judii,  Megandcr,  and  others). 

Zwingli's  theological  system  contains,  in  germ,  the  main  features  of 
the  Reformed  Creed,  as  distinct  from  the  Lutheran,  and  must  be  here 
briefly  considered. 

1.  Zwingli  begins  with  the  objective  (or  formal)  principle  of  Protest- 

1  Zwingli  retained  this  term,  but  with  a  restriction  to  the  human  nature  united  to  the 
Logos. 


370  THE  CEEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

autism,  namely,  the  exclusive  and  absolute  authority  of  the  Bible  in  all 
matters  of  Christian  faith  and  practice.  The  Reformed  Confessions 
do  the  same ;  while  the  Lutheran  Confessions  start  with  the  subjective 
(or  material)  principle  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  and  make  this 
'  the  article  of  the  standing  and  falling  Church.'  This  difference,  how- 
ever, is  more  a  matter  of  logical  order  and  relative  importance.  "Word 
and  faith  are  inseparable,  and  proceed  from  the  same  Holy  Spirit. 
In  both  denominations  a  living  faith  in  Christ  is  the  first  and  last 
principle.  Without  this  faith  the  Bible  may  be  esteemed  as  the  best 
book,  but  not  as  the  inspired  word  of  God  and  rule  of  faith. 

2.  Zwingli  teaches  the  doctrine  of  unconditional  election  or  predes- 
tination to  salvation  (constitutio  de  beandis,  as  he  defines  it),  and  finds 
in  it  the  ultimate  ground  of  our  justification  and  salvation;  faith  be- 
ing only  the  organ  of  appropriation.  God  is  the  infinite  being  of  be- 
ings, in  whom  and  through  whom  all  other  beings  exist ;  the  supreme 
cause,  including  as  dependent  organs  the  finite  or  middle  causes ;  the 
infinite  and  only  good  (Luke  xviii.  18),  and  every  thing  else  is  good 
(Gen.  i.  31)  only  through  and  in  him.  It  is  a  fundamental  canon  that 
God  by  his  providence,  or  perpetual  and  unchangeable  rule  and  admin- 
istration,1 controls  and  disposes  all  events,  the  will  and  the  action  ;  oth- 
erwise he  would  not  be  omnipotent  and  omnipresent.  There  can  be 
no  accident.  The  fall,  with  its  consequences,  likewise  comes  under  his 
foreknowledge  and  fore-ordination,  which  can  be  as  little  separated  as 
intellect  and  will.  But  God's  agency  in  respect  to  sin  is  free  from  sin, 
since  he  is  not  bound  by  law,  and  has  no  bad  motive  or  affection  ;  so 
the  magistrate  may  take  a  man's  life  without  committing  murder.2 
But  only  those  who  hear  the  Gospel  and  reject  it  in  unbelief  are  fore- 
ordained to  eternal  punishment.  Of  those  without  the  reach  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine  we  can  not  judge,  as  we  know  not  their  relation  to  elec- 
tion. There  may  be  and  are  elect  persons  among  the  heathen  ;  and  the 
fate  of  Socrates  and  Seneca  is  no  doubt  better  than  that  of  many  popes. 

Zwingli,  however,  dwells   mainly  on  the  positive  aspect  of  God's 


;  Zwingli  defines  providentia  to  be  perpctuum  et  immutabile  rerum  v.niversarimi  regnum  et 
administratio, 

3  This  illustration  is  used  by  Myconius  in  defending  the  Zwinglian  view  of  Providence. 
Bee  Schweizer,  Centraldogmen,  Vol.  I.  p.  133.  The  illustration  of  Zwingli,  Opp.  IV.  p.  112, 
concerning  the  udullerium  Davidis  and  the  taunts,  is  less  happy. 


§  52.  ZWINGLTS  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES.  371 

providence — the  election  to  salvation.  Election  is  free  and  independ- 
ent. It  embraces  also  infants  before  they  have  any  faith.  It  does 
not  follow  faith,  but  precedes  it.  Faith  is  itself  the  work  of  free  grace 
and  the  Hgn  and  fruit  of  election  (Rom.  viii.  29,  30 ;  Acts  xiii.48).  We 
are  elected  in  order  that  avc  may  believe  in  Christ  and  bring  forth  the 
fruits  of  holiness.  Faith  is  trust  and  confidence  in  Christ,  the  union  of 
the  sonl  with  him,  and  full  of  good  works.  Hence  it  is  preposterous  to 
charge  this  doctrine  with  dangerous  tendency  to  carnal  security  and 
immorality.1 

This  is  substantially  Zwingli's  doctrine,  as  he  preached  it  during  the 
Conference  in  Marburg  (1529),  and  taught  it  in  his  book  on  Providence? 

1  As  a  matter  of  history,  it  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  the  strongest  predestinarians  (wheth- 
er Augustinians  or  Calvinists  or  Puritans)  have  been  the  most  earnest,  energetic,  and  per- 
severing Christians.  Edward  Zeller  (a  cool  philosopher  and  critic  of  the  Tubingen  school) 
clearly  explains  this  connection  in  his  book  on  the  Theological  System  ofZwingli,  pp.  17-1!): 
lGerade  die  Lehre  von  der  Erwa'hlung,  der  man  so  oft  vorgeworfen  hat,  dass  sie  die  sittliche 
Kraft  la/une,  dass  sie  zu  Tragheit  und  Sorglosigheit  hinfiihre,  gerade  diese  Lehre  ist  es,  aits 
welcher  der  lief ormirte  jene  riicksichts-  und  zweifellose,  bis  zur  lldrte  und  Leidenschaftlichkeit 
dttrchgreifende  prahtische  Energie  schiipft,  icie  voir  sie  an  den  Helden  dieses  Glaubens,  eincm 
Zwingli,  einem  Calvin,  einem  Farel,  eincm  Knox,  einem  Cromwell,  beicundern,  icelche  ihn  wi- 
den Zweifeln  und  Anfechtungen  bewahrt,  die  dem  weicheren,  tiefer  mit  sich  selbst  beschuft- 
igten  Gemiith  so  viel  zu  schaffen  machen,  von  denen  selbst  der  grosse  deutsche  Glaubensheld 
Luther  noch  in  spaten  Jahren  heimgesucht  ivurde.  Die  icesentliehe  religiose  Bedeutung  dieser 
L^ehre,  Hire  Bedeutung  fur  das  innere  Leben  der  Gldubigen,  liegt  nicht  in  der  Ueberzeuzung 
von  der  Cnbedingtheit  des  gottlichen  Wirkens  als  solchen,  sondern  in  dem  Glauben  an  seine 
Unbedingtheit  in  seiner  Kichtung  ait  dieses  BESTIMMTE  Scujkict,  in  jener  person- 
i.ichen  Gewisshuit  der  Ericahlung,  welche  den  Unterschied  der  reformirten  Erwahlungs- 
lehre  von  der  augustinischen  ausmaeht,  und  eben  darauf  beruht  es  aueh,  dass  die  theoretisch 
ganz  richtigen  Konsequenzcn  des  Prwlestinatianismus  in  Beziehung  avf  die  Nutzlosiglceit  und 
Gleichgiilligkeit  des  eigenen  Thuns  den  Reformirten  nicht  bios  nicht  stvren,  sondern  gar  nicht 
fur  ihn  vorhanden  stud.  Was  er  in  den  Siitzen  von  der  eivigen  Vorherbestimmung  alii  r  Dinge, 
von  dem  unwaudelbaren  Rathschluss  der  Ericahlung  und  derYericccfung.  Jar  sich  selbst  findet, 
das  ist  nur  die  unzweiflhafte  Gewissheit,  personiich  zum  Dieust  Gottes  berufen  zu  sein,  und 
vermoge  dieser  Berufung  in  alien  seinen  Angelegenheiten  untcr  dem  unmittilbarsten  Schutz 
Gottes  zu  stehen,  als  Werkzeug  Gottes  zu  handeln,  der  Scliglccit  gewiss  zu  sein.  Die  Ileils- 
gewissheit  ist  hier  von  der  sitllich  religiSsen  Anforderung  nicht  gctrennt,  der  Einzelne  hat  das 
Bewusstscin  seiner  Berufung  nur  in  scinem  Glauben,  und  dm  Glauben  nur  in  der  Krdftigkeit 
seines  go/tliesciltin  Willens,  er  ist  sich  nicht  seiner  Ericahlung  zur  Seligkeit  ohne  alle  weitere 
Bestinimung,  sondern  tvesent/ich  nur  seiner  Erwdh/ung  zu  der  Seligkeit  des  christlichen  /.- 
bens  bewusst ;  die  Ericahlung  ist  hier  nur  die  Unterlage  fur  das  praktisehc  Vi  rhalten  des  Erom- 
men,  der  Mensrh  verzichtet  nur  desshalb  im  Dogma  auf  die  Kraft  und  Freiheit  siincs  W'i/hns, 
urn  sie  fur  das  wirkliche  Leben  und  Handeln  von  der  Got  t  licit,  an  die  er  sich  Hirer  entaus- 
sert  hat,  als  eine  absolute,  als  die  Kraft  des  gottlichen  (,'cistes,  als  die  uui  rschiittt  cliche  Selbst- 
geirisshi  it  des  Erirali/tin  zuriickzuerha/tcn.' 

2  Zwingli,  being  requested  by  Philip  of  Ilesse  (Jan.  25,  1530)  to  send  him  a  copy  of  his 
sermon,  which  he  had  preached  without  manuscript,  reproduced  the  substance  of  it,  and  sent 
it  to  him,  Aug.  L'O,  lf>;50,  under  the  title,  Ad  i/lustrissimum  Cattorum  principem  Philijipvm 


372  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

It  was  afterwards  more  fully  and  clearly  developed  by  the  powerful 
intellect  of  Calvin,1  who  made  it  the  prominent  pillar  of  his  theology, 
and  impressed  it  upon  the  majority  of  the  Reformed  Confessions,  al- 
though several  of  them  simply  teach  a  free  election  to  salvation,  with- 
out saying  a  word  of  the  decree  of  reprobation. 

On  this  subject,  however,  as  previously  stated,  there  was  no  contro- 
versy among  the  early  Reformers.  They  were  all  Augustinians.  Luther 
heard  Zwingli's  sermon  on  Providence  in  Marburg,  and  made  no  objec- 
tion to  it,  except  that  he  quoted  Greek  and  Hebrew  in  the  pulpit.  He 
had  expressed  himself  much  more  strongly  on  the  subject  in  his  famous 
book  against  Erasmus  (1525).  There  was,  however,  this  difference,  that 
Luther,  like  Augustine,  from  his  denial  of  the  freedom  of  the  human 
will,  was  driven  to  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination,  as  a  logical 
consequence ;  while  Zwingli,  and  still  more  Calvin,  started  from  the 
absolute  sovereignty  of  God,  and  inferred  from  it  the  dependence  of 
the  human  will;  yet  all  of  them  were  controlled  by  their  strong  sense 
of  sin  and  free  grace  much  more  than  by  speculative  principles.  The 
Lutheran  Church  afterwards  dropped  the  theological  inference  in  part — 
namely,  the  decree  of  reprobation — and  taught  instead  the  universality 
of  the  offer  of  saving  grace ;  but  she  retained  the  anthropological  pre- 
mise of  total  depravity  and  inability,  and  also  the  doctrine  of  a  free 
election  of  the  saints,  or  predestination  to  salvation ;  and  this  after  all 
is  the  chief  point  in  the  Calvinistic  system,  and  the  only  one  which  is 
made  the  subject  of  popular  instruction.  In  the  Lutheran  Church, 
morever,  the  election  theory  is  moderated  by  the  sacramental  princi- 
ple of  baptismal  regeneration  (as  was  the  case  with  Augustine),  while 
in  the  Reformed  Church  the  doctrine  of  election  controls  and  modifies 
the  sacramental  principle,  so  that  the  efficacy  of  baptism  is  made  to 
depend  upon  the  preceding  election. 

3.  The  most  original  and  prominent  doctrine  of  Zwingli  is  that  of  the 
sacraments,  and  especially  of  the  Lord 's  Supper, 

lie  adopts  the  general  definition  that  the  sacrament  is  the  visible 
sign  of  an  invisible  grace,  but  draws  a  sharp  distinction  between  the 


sermonis  de  Providentia  Dei    anamnema.      Ojiera  IV.  pp.  79-144.     See   a   full   extract   in 
Schweizer's  Oentraldogmen,V6l.  I.  pp.  102  sqq.     Ebrard  makes  too  little  account  of  this  tract. 
1  In  the  later  editions  of  his  Institutes ;  for  in  the  first  edition  he  confines  himself  to  a  very 
brief  and  indefinite  statement  of  this  doctrine. 


§  52.  ZWINGLI'S  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES.  373 

sacramental  sign  {signum)  and  the  thing  signified  {res  sacramenti), 
and  allows  no  necessary  and  internal  connection  between  them.  The 
baptism  by  water  may  take  place  without  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  (as 
in  the  case  of  Ananias  and  Simon  Magus),  and  the  baptism  by  the 
Spirit,  or  regeneration,  without  the  baptism  by  water  (for  the  apostles 
received  only  John's  baptism ;  the  penitent  thief  was  not  baptized  at 
all,  and  Cornelius  was  baptized  after  regeneration).  Communion  with 
Christ  is  not  confined  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  neither  do  all  who  partake 
of  this  ordinance  really  com  mime  with  Christ.  The  Spirit  of  God  is 
free  and  independent  of  all  outward  ceremonies  and  observances. 

As  to  the  effect  of  the  sacraments,  Zwingli  rejects  the  whole  scholas- 
tic theory  of  the  opus  operatum,  and  makes  faith  the  necessary  medium 
of  sacramental  efficacy.  lie  differs  here  not  only  from  the  Romish,  but 
also  from  the  Lutheran  theory.  He  regards  the  sacraments  only  as 
signs  and  seals,  and  not  strictly  as  means  or  instrumentalities  of  grace, 
except  in  so  far  as  they  strengthen  it.  They  do  not  originate  and 
confer  grace,  but  presuppose  it,  and  set  it  forth  to  our  senses,  and 
confirm  it  to  our  faith.  As  circumcision  sealed  the  righteousness 
of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  which  he  had  before  in  a  state  of  uncir- 
cumcision  (Rom.  iv.  11),  so  baptism  seals  the  remission  of  sin  by  the 
cleansing  blood  of  Christ,  and  our  incorporation  in  Christ  by  faith, 
which  is  produced  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  infant  baptism  (which  he 
strongly  defended  against  the  Anabaptists,  not  indeed  as  necessary  to 
salvation,  but  as  proper  and  expedient),  we  have  the  divine  promise 
which  extends  to  the  offspring,  and  the  profession  of  the  faith  of  the 
parents  with  their  pledge  to  bring  up  their  children  in  the  same. 
The  Lord's  Supper  signifies  and  seals  the  fact  that  Christ  died  for 
us  and  shed  his  blood  for  our  sins,  that  he  is  ours  and  we  are  his,  and 
that  we  are  partakers  of  all  his  benefits.  Zwingli  compares  the  sacra- 
ment also  to  a  wedding-ring  which  seals  the  marriage  union. 

He  fully  admits,  however,  that  the  sacraments  are  divinely  insti- 
tuted and  necessary  for  our  twofold  constitution ;  that  they  are  sig- 
nificant and  efficacious,  not  empty,  signs  ;  that  they  aid  and  strengthen 
our  faith  {'auxilium  opemgue  adferunt  fideV),  and  so  far  confer  spir- 
itual blessing  through  the  medium  of  appropriating  faith.  In  this  wider 
sense  they  may  be  called  means  of  grace.  He  also  gives  them  the 
character  of  public  testimonies,  by  which  we  openly  profess  our  faith 


374  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

before  God  and  the  world,  pledge  our  obedience  to  him,  and  express 
our  gratitude  for  mercies  received.  Hence  the  name  eucharist,  or 
gratiarum  actio. 

Concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  Zwingli  teaches,  in  opposition  to  the 
Romish  mass,  that  it  is  a  commemoration,  not  a  repetition,  of  the  aton- 
ing sacrifice  of  Christ,  who  offered  himself  once  for  all  time,  and  can 
not  be  offered  by  any  other ;  that  bread  and  wine  signify  or  represent, 
but  are  not  really,  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood  of  our  Lord ;  that 
he  is  present  only  according  to  his  divine  nature  and  by  his  Spirit  to 
the  eye  of  faith  {jidei  contemjylatione),  but  not  according  to  his  human 
nature,  which  is  in  heaven  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  can  not  be 
present  every  where  or  in  many  places  at  the  same  time ;  that  to  eat  his 
flesh  and  to  drink  his  blood  is  a  spiritual  mandncation,  or  the  same  as  to 
believe  in  him  (John  vi.),  and  no  physical  mandncation  by  mouth  and 
teeth,  which,  even  if  it  were  possible,  would  be  useless  and  unworthy  ? 
and  would  establish  two  ways  of  salvation — one  by  faith,  the  other  by 
literal  eating  in  the  sacrament ;  finally,  that  the  blessing  of  the  ordi- 
nance consists  in  a  renewed  application  of  the  benefits  of  the  atone- 
ment by  the  worthy  or  believing  communicants,  while  the  unworthy 
receive  only  the  outward  signs  to  their  own  judgment. 

He  therefore  rejects  every  form  of  a  local  or  corporeal  presence, 
whether  by  transubstantiation,  impanation,  or  consubstantiation,  as  con- 
trary to  the  Bible,  to  the  nature  of  faith,  and  to  sound  reason.  He 
supports  the  figurative  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution1  by  a 
large  number  of  passages,  where  Christ  is  said  to  he  the  door,  the 
lamb,  the  rock,  the  vine,  etc. ;  also  by  such  passages  as  Gen.  xli.  26,  27 
(the  seven  good  kine  are  seven  years),  Matt.  xiii.  31-37  (the  field  is  the 
world;  the  tares  are  the  children  of  the  wicked  one;  the  reapers  are 
the  angels),  and  especially  Luke  xxii.  20 ;  1  Cor.  xi.  25  (the  cup  is  the 
New  Testament  in  my  blood).  He  proves  the  local  absence  of  Christ's 
body  by  the  fact  of  his  ascension  to  heaven,  his  future  visible  return  to 


1  That  is,  of  the  verbal  copula  ivri,  cst=si<;nificaf,  not  of  tovto  (Carlstadt),  nor  aio^ia  —Jif/ura 
corporis  ((Ecolampadius,  on  the  ground  that  Christ  probably  did  not  use  the  verb  at  all  in  the 
original  Aramaic).  Zwingli  was  always  inclined  to  a  tropical  interpretation,  and  averse  to 
the  notion  of  a  carnal  presence,  but  was  led  to  his  exegesis  in  1522  by  a  tract  of  l.onius 
(Iluenj,  a  lawyer  of  Holland,  De  eucharistia,  which  taught  him  in  qua  voce  tropus  hteret. 
See  Ebrard,  Vol.  II.  p.  !)7.  His  controversy  with  Luther  began  when  he  wrote  a  letter  to 
Matth.  Alher,  at  Rcutlingen,  Nov.  1G,  1524. 


§  52.  ZWINGLI'S  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTKINES.  375 

judgment,  and  by  such  passages  as, 'I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you ;' 
'The  poor  you  have  always  with  you, but  me  you  have  not  always;'  'I 
go  to  my  Father;'  'The  heaven  must  receive  him  until  the  times  of 
restitution  of  all  things.'  He  also  points  out  the  inconsistency  of  Luther 
in  maintaining  the  literal  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  and  yet 
refusing  the  adoration  ;  for  wherever  Christ  is  he  must  be  adored. 

I  add  his  last  words  on  the  subject  from  the  Confession  sent  to  King 
Francis  I.  shortly  before  his  death :  '  We  believe  that  Christ  is  truly 
present  in  the  Lord's  Supper;  yea,  we  believe  that  there  is  no  com- 
munion without  the  presence  of  Christ.1  This  is  the  proof:  "Where 
two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst 
of  them"  (Matt,  xviii.  20).  How  much  more  is  he  present  where  the 
whole  congregation  is  assembled  to  his  honor !  But  that  his  body  is  liter- 
ally eaten  is  far  from  the  truth  and  the  nature  of  faith.  It  is  contrary  to 
the  truth,  because  he  himself  says :  "  I  am  no  more  in  the  world"  (John 
xvii.  11), and  "The  flesh  profiteth  nothing"  (John  vi.  63),  that  is  to  eat, 
as  the  Jews  then  believed  and  the  Papists  still  believe.  It  is  contrary 
to  the  nature  of  faith  (I  mean  the  holy  and  true  faith),  because  faith 
embraces  love,  fear  of  God,  and  reverence,  which  abhor  such  carnal 
and  gross  eating,  as  much  as  any  one  would  shrink  from  eating  his  be- 
loved son.  .  .  .  We  believe  that  the  true  body  of  Christ  is  eaten  in  the 
communion  in  a  sacramental  and  spiritual  manner  by  the  religious,  be- 
lieving, and  pious  heart  (as  also  St.  Chrysostom  taught).  And  this  is  in 
brief  the  substance  of  what  we  maintain  in  this  controversy,  and  what 
not  we,  but  the  truth  itself  teaches.'  To  this  he  adds  the  communion 
service,  which  he  introduced  in  Zurich,  that  his  Majesty  may  see  how 
devoutly  the  sacrament  is  celebrated  there  in  accordance  with  the  in- 
stitution of  Christ.  This  service  is  much  more  liturgical  than  the  later 
Calvinistic  formulas,  and  includes  the  'Gloria  in  Excelsis,'  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed,  and  responses. 

Closely  connected  with  the  eucharistic  controversy  are  certain  christo- 
logical  differences  concerning  ubiquity  and  the  commxinicatio  id'toma- 
tum,  which  we  have  already  discussed  in  the  section  on  the  Formula  of 
Concord. 

Zwingli's  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  is  unquestionably  the  simplest, 

1  'Christum  credimus  vere  esse  in  cana,  immo  non  credimus  esse  Domini  coenam  nisi  Chri- 
stus  adsit. '     Niemever,  p.  7 1 . 

Vol.  I.— B  b 


376  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

clearest,  and  most  intelligible  theory.  It  removes  the  supernatural 
mystery  from  the  ordinance,  and  presents  no  obstacles  to  the  under- 
standing. Exegetically,  it  is  admissible,  and  advocated  even  by  some 
of  the  ablest  Lutheran  scholars,  who  freely  concede  that  the  literal  in- 
terpretation of  the  words  of  institution,  to  which  Luther  appealed  first 
and  last  against  the  arguments  of  Zwingli,  is  impossible,  or,  if  consist- 
ently carried  out,  must  lead  to  the  Romish  dogma.1  Philosophically 
and  dogmatically,  it  labors  under  none  of  the  difficulties  of  transub- 
stantiation  and  consubstantiation,  both  of  which  imply  the  simultaneous 
multipresence  of  a  corporeal  substance,  and  a  physical  manducation  of 
Christ's  crucified  body  and  blood — in  direct  contradiction  to  the  essen- 
tial properties  of  a  body,  and  the  testimony  of  four  of  our  senses.  It 
has  been  adopted  by  the  Arminians,  and  it  extensively  prevails  at  pres- 
ent even  among  orthodox  Protestants  of  all  denominations,  especially 
in  England  and  America.2 

Zwingli  is  no  doubt  right  in  his  protest  against  every  form,  however 
refined  and  subtle,  of  the  old  Capernaitic  conception  of  a  carnal  pres- 
ence and  carnal  appropriation  (John  vi.  63).  He  is  also  right  in  his 
positive  assertion  that  the  holy  communion  is  a  commemoration  of  the 
all-sufficient  sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  cross,  and  a  spiritual  feeding  on 
Christ  by  faith.  But  he  falls  short  of  the  whole  truth ;  he  does  not  do 
justice  to  the  strong  language  of  our  Lord,  especially  in  John  vi.  53-5S, 
concerning  the  eating  of  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man  (whether  this 
be  referred  directly  or  indirectly  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  not).  After 
all  deduction  of  carnal  misconceptions,  there  remains  the  mystery  of  a 
vital  union  of  the  believer  with  the  whole  Christ,  including  his  human- 
ity, viewed  not,  indeed,  as  material  substance,  but  as  a  principle  of  life 
and  power. 

This  Calvin  felt.  Hence  he  endeavored  to  find  a  via  media  between 
Zwingli  and  Luther,  and  assumed,  besides  the  admitted  real  presence 


1  See  above,  p.  327. 

3  Dr.  Hodge,  e.  g.,  does  not  rise  above  the  Zwinglian  view.  He  denies  that  Christ  is  pres- 
ent in  any  other  way  than  spiritually,  and  that  believers  receive  any  other  benefit  than  'the 
sacrificial  virtue  and  effects  of  the  death  of  Christ  on  the  cross,'  which  he  maintains  was  re- 
ceived already  by  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  disciples  at  the  first  Supper,  before 
the  glorified  body  of  Christ  had  any  existence.  '  The  efficacy  of  this  sacrament,  as  a  means 
of  grace,  is  not  in  the  signs,  nor  in  the  service,  nor  in  the  minister,  nor  in  the  word,  but  in  the 
attending  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.' — System.  Tfieol.  Vol.  III.  pp.  G4G,  647,  630. 


§  62.  ZWIXGLIS  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES.  377 

of  the  Divine  Lord,  a  dynamic  presence  and  influence  of  his  glorified 
and  ever-living  humanity,  and  an  actual  communication  of  its  life- 
giving  power  (not  the  matter  of  the  body  and  blood)  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  the  worthy  communicant  through  the  medium  of  faith — as  the 
sun  is  in  the  heavens,  and  yet  with  his  light  and  heat  present  on  earth. 
This  theory  passed  substantially  into  the  most  authoritative  confessions 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  ortho- 
dox doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church. 

On  three  other  points — namely,  original  sin,  the  salvation  of  infants, 
and  the  salvation  of  the  heathen — Zwingli  had  peculiar  views,  which 
were  in  advance  of  his  age,  and  gave  great  offense  to  some  of  his 
friends  as  well  as  to  Luther,  but  were  afterwards  adopted  by  the  Ar- 
minians. 

4.  The  Reformation  was  born  of  an  intense  conviction  of  the  sinful- 
ness of  man  and  the  absolute  need  of  a  radical  regeneration.  Zwingli 
makes  no  exception,  and  describes  the  corruption  and  slavery  of  the 
natural  man  almost  as  strongly  as  Luther,  although  he  never  passed 
through  such  terrors  of  conscience  as  the  monk  in  Erfurt,  nor  had  he 
such  hand-to-hand  fights  with  the  devil.1  He  derives  sin  from  the  fall 
of  Adam,  brought  about  by  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  and  finds  its  es- 
sence in  selfishness  as  opposed  to  the  love  of  God.  He  goes  beyond 
the  Augustinian  infralapsarianism,  which  seems  to  condition  the  eter- 
nal counsel  of  God  by  the  first  self-determination  of  man,  and  he  boldly 
takes  the  supralapsarian  position  that  God  not  only  foresaw,  but  foreor- 
dained the  fall,  together  witli  the  redemption,  that  is,  as  a  means  to  an 
end,  or  as  the  negative  condition  for  the  revelation  of  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation. He  fully  admits  the  distinction  between  original  or  hereditary 
sin  and  actual  transgression,  but  he  describes  the  former  as  a  moral 
disease,  or  natural  defect,  rather  than  punishable  sin  and  guilt.2  It  is 
a  miserable  condition  {conditio  misera).     He  compares  it  to  the  mis- 

1  Dorner  (in  his  History  of  German  Theology,  p.  287)  says  that  Zwingli  retained  from  his 
humanistic  culture  a  certain  disposition  to  'an  aesthetic  consideration  of  sin,'  i.  e.,  to  see  in  it 
something  disgraceful,  unworthy,  hestial  rather  than  diabolical. 

3  Defectus  naturalis,  or,  as  he  often  calls  it  in  his  Swiss-German,  a  Brest,  i.  e.  Gcbrechen. 
iDieErbsi'md,'  he  says  in  his  book  on  Baptism,'  ist  nuts  (nichts)  anders  weder  (als)  der  Brest 
von  Adam  her.  .  .  .  Wir  verstond  (rerstehen)  durch  das  Wort  Krest  einen  Mangel,  den  einer 
ohn  sin  Schuld  von  der  Geburt  her  hat  oder  sust  (sonst)  von  Xu  fallen.'  He  distinguishes  it 
from  Laster  and  Freed,  vice  and  crime.  lie  explains  his  view  more  fully  in  his  tract  De 
peccato  originali  ad  Urbanum  Regium,  1536,  and  also  in  his  Confession  to  Charles  V.,  1530. 


378  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

fortune  of  one  born  in  slavery.1  But  if  not  sin  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  term,  it  is  an  inclination  or  propensity  to  sin  {propensio  ad  pec- 
candicm),  and  the  fruitful  germ  of  sin,  which  will  surely  develop  itself 
in  actual  transgression.  Thus  the  young  wolf  is  a  rapacious  animal 
before  he  actually  tears  the  sheep. 

5.  Zwingli  was  the  first  to  emancipate  the  salvation  of  children  dy- 
ing in  infancy  from  the  supposed  indispensable  condition  of  water- 
baptism,  and  to  extend  it  beyond  the  boundaries  of  the  visible  Church. 
This  is  a  matter  of  very  great  interest,  since  the  unbaptized  children 
far  outnumber  the  baptized,  and  constitute  nearly  one  half  of  the  race. 

He  teaches  repeatedly  that  all  elect  children  are  saved  whether  bap- 
tized or  not,  whether  of  Christian  or  heathen  parentage,  not  on  the 
ground  of  their  innocence  (which  would  be  Pelagian),  but  on  the 
ground  of  Christ's  atonement.  He  is  inclined  to  the  belief  that  all 
children  dying  in  infancy  belong  to  the  elect;  their  early  death  being 
a  token  of  God's  mercy,  and  hence  of  their  election.  A  part  of  the 
elect  are  led  to  salvation  by  a  holy  life,  another  part  by  an  early  death. 
The  children  of  Christian  parents  belong  to  the  Church,  and  it  would 
be  'impious'  to  condemn  them.  But  from  the  parallel  between  the 
first  and  the  second  Adam,  he  infers  that  all  children  are  saved  from 
the  ruin  of  sin,  else  what  Paul  says  would  not  be  true,  that  'as  in 
Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive'  (1  Cor.  xv.  22). 
At  all  events,  it  is  wrong  to  condemn  the  children  of  the  heathen,  both 
on  account  of  the  restoration  of  Christ  and  of  the  eternal  election  of 
God,  which  precedes  faith,  and  produces  faith  in  due  time;  hence  the 
absence  of  faith  in  children  is  no  ground  for  their  condemnation.2     As 


1  '  Peccatum  originate  non  proprie  peccatum  est,  non  enim  est  facinus  contra  legem.  Mor- 
bus igitur  est  proprie  et  conditio.'     Fidei  Ratio  ad  Carol.  V.  Cap.  IV.  (Niemeyer,  p.  20). 

2  Fidei  Ratio,  Cap.V.  (Niemeyer,  p.  21):  i  Hinc  constat,  si  in  Christo  secundo  Adam  vita 
restituimur,  quemadmodum  in  primo  Adam  sumus  morti  traditi,  quod  temere  damnamus  Chri- 
st ianis  par  en  ti  bus  natos  puero's,  imo  GENTIUM  quoque  pueros.  Adam  enim  si  perderere  univer- 
suin  genus  peccando  potuit,  et  Christus  moriendo  non  vivijicavit  et  redemit  universum  genus  a 
clade  per  islum  data,  jam  non  est  par  salus  reddita  per  Christum,  et  perinde  (quod  absit.')  nee 
verum,  " Sicut  in  Adam  omnes  moriuntur,  ita  in  Christo  omncs  vita  restituuntur."  Verum  quo- 
modocunque  de  gentilium  infantibus  statuendum  sit,  hoc  certe  adseveramus,  propter  virtutem 
salutis  per  Christum  prastitce,  prater  rem  pronunciare  qui  eos  (tternce  maledictioni  addicunt, 
mm  propter  dictam  reparatioms  causam,  turn  propter  electionem  Dei  libcram,  quas  no7i  sequitur 
fidem,  sed fides  electionem  sequitur.'  In  another  passage  against  the  Catabaptists  he  says: 
'  Electi  eligebantur  antequam  in  utero  conciperentur :  mox  igitur  ut  sunt,  jilii  Dei  sunt,  etiamsi 
moriantur  antequam  credant  aut  ad  Jidetn  vocentur.     Comp.  Zeller,  1.  c.  p.  1G2. 


§  52.  ZWIXGLI'S  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES.  379 

he  believed  in  the  salvation  of  many  adult  heathen,  he  had  the  less 
difficulty  in  believing  that  heathen  children  are  saved  ;  for  they  have 
not  yet  committed  actual  transgression,  and  of  hereditary  sin  they  have 
been  redeemed  by  Christ.  We  have  therefore  much  greater  certainty 
of  the  salvation  of  departed  infants  than  of  any  adults. 

This  view  was  a  bold  step  beyond  the  traditional  orthodoxy.  The 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  keeping  with  her  doctrine  of  original  sin 
and  guilt,  and  the  necessity  of  water-baptism  for  salvation  (based  upon 
Mark  xvi.  1G  and  John  iii.  5),  teaches  the  salvation  of  all  baptized,  and 
the  condemnation  of  all  unbaptized  children ;  assigning  the  latter  to 
the  Umbus  infantum  on  the  border  of  hell,  where  they  suffer  the  mild- 
est kind  of  punishment,  namely,  the  negative  penalty  of  loss  {poena 
damni  or  carentia  beatifical  visionis),  but  not  the  positive  pain  of  feel- 
ing (poena  sensus).1  St.  Augustine  first  clearly  introduced  this  whole- 
sale exclusion  of  all  unbaptized  infants  from  heaven — though  Christ 
expressly  says  that  to  children  emphatically  belongs  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  He  ought  consistently  to  have  made  the  salvation  of  infants, 
like  that  of  adults,  depend  upon  their  election ;  but  the  churchly  and 
sacramental  principle  checked  and  moderated  his  predestination  theory, 
and  his  Christian  heart  induced  him  to  soften  the  frightful  dogma  as 
much  as  possible.2  As  he  did  not  extend  election  beyond  the  bound- 
aries of  the  Catholic  Church  (although  he  could  not  help  seeing  the 
significance  of  such  holy  outsiders  as  Melchizedek  and  Job  under  the 
old  dispensation),  he  secured  at  least,  by  his  high  view  of  the  regener- 
ative efficacy  of  water-baptism,  the  salvation  of  all  baptized  infants 
dying  in  infancy.  To  harmonize  this  view  with  his  system,  he  must 
have  counted  them  ajl  among  the  elect. 

The  Lutheran  Creed  retains  substantially  the  Catholic  view  of  bap- 


1  The  Umbus  infantum  is,  so  to  speak,  the  nursery  of  hell,  on  the  top  floor  and  away  from 
the  fire,  as  Bellarmin  says,  in  loco  inferni  alliori,  ita  ut  ad  eum  ignis  non  perveniat.  In  a 
still  higher  region  was  the  Umbus  patruin,  the  temporary  ahode  of  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  this  was  vacated  at  the  descent  of  Christ  into  Hades,  when  those  6aints  were 
freed  from  prison  and  translated  into  Paradise. 

2  'Parvulos  non  baptizatos  in  damnatione  omnium  lenissima  futuros'  (Contra  Jul.  lib.  V. 
c.  11);  'Infantes  non  baptizati  lenissimk  quidem,  sed  tamen  damnantur.  Potest  proinde 
rertc  did,  parvulos  sine  baptismo  de  corpore  exeitntes  in  damnatione  omnium  mitissim\  Jvt ft- 
ros'  (De  pecc.  mer.  et  rem.  cap.  1G).  Pelagius  was  more  liberal,  and  assumed  a  middle  state 
of  half-blessedness  for  unbaptized  infants  between  the  heaven  of  the  baptized  and  the  hell  of 
the  ungodly.     See  particulars  in  my  Church  History,Vol.  III.  pp.  835  sqq. 


380  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

tismal  regeneration,  and  hence  limits  infant  salvation  to  those  who  en- 
joy this  means  of  grace;1  allowing,  however,  some  exceptions  within 
the  sphere  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  making  the  damnation  of  un- 
baptized  infants  as  mild  as  the  case  will  permit.2  At  present,  however, 
there  is  scarcely  a  Lutheran  divine  of  weight  who  would  be  willing  to 
confine  salvation  to  baptized  infants. 

The  Reformed  Church  teaches  the  salvation  of  all  elect  infants  dying 
in  infancy,  whether  baptized  or  not,  and  assumes  that  they  are  regen- 
erated before  their  death,  which,  according  to  Calvinistic  principles,  is 
possible  without  water-baptism.3  The  second  Scotch  Confession,  of 
15 SO,  expressly  rejects,  among  other  errors  of  popery, '  the  cruel  judg- 
ment against  infants  departing  without  the  sacrament.'4  Beyond  this 
the  Confessions  do  not  go,  and  leave  the  mysterious  subject  to  private 
opinion.  Some  of  the  older  and  more  rigid  Calvinistic  divines  of  the 
supralapsarian  type  carried  the  distinction  between  the  elect  and  the 
reprobate  into  the  infant  world,  though  always  securing  salvation  to 
the  offspring  of  Christian  parents,  on  the  ground  of  inherited  Church 
membership  before  and  independent  of  the  baptismal  ratification  ; 
while  others  more  wisely  and  charitably  kept  silence,  or  left  the  non- 
elect  infants — if  there  are  such,  whicli  nobody  knows — to  the  tin  cov- 
enanted mercies  of  God.  But  we  may  still  go  a  step  further,  within 
the  strict  limits  of  the  Reformed  Creed,  and  maintain,  as  a  pious 
opinion,  that  all  departed  infants  belong  to  the  number  of  the  elect. 
Their  early  removal  from  a  world  of  sin  and  temptation  may  be  taken 


1  Conf.  August.  Art.  IX. :  ' Damnant  Anabaptistas  qui  .  .  .  affirmant  pueros  sine  baptismo 
salvos  fieri.'     In  the  German  edition  the  last  clause  is  omitted. 

2  Calovius  (in  the  consensus  repetitus  fidei  vere  Lutherana,  16;V>),  in  the  name  of  the  strict 
Lutherans,  rejected  the  milder  view  of  a  merely  privative  punishment  of  unbaptized  infants,  as 
held  by  Calixtus  (see  Henke,  Georg  Calixtus,  Vol.  II.  Pt.  II.  p.  295),  but  it  was  defended  by 
others.  Fr.  Buddanis,  one  of  the  most  liberal  among  the  orthodox  Lutherans,  describes  the  con- 
dition of  heathen  infants  as  admodum  tolerabilis,  though  they  are  exclusi  a  beatitudine  (Instit. 
Theol.  dogm.  Lips.  1723,  p.  631).  Others  leave  the  children  to  the  mercy  of  God.  See  V. 
E.  Loscher's  Auserlesene  Sammlung  der  besten  neueren  Schri/ten  vom  Zustand  der  Seek  nach 
dem  Tode,  1735;  republished  by  Hubert  Becker,  1835. 

3  Westminster  Conf.  chap.  x.  §  3 :  '  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and 
saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when  and  where  and  how  he  pleaseth. 
So  also  are  all  other  elect  persons  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  minis- 
try of  the  word.'  The  last  sentence  may  be  fairly  interpreted  as  teaching  the  election  and 
salvation  of  a  portion  of  heathen  adults. 

*  '  Abhorremus  et  detestamur  .  .  .  crudele  judicium  contra  in/antes  sine  baptismo  morientes, 
bapti.sini  absolutam  quam  asserit  necessitatem.'     Niemeyer,  pp.  357,  358. 


§  52.  ZWIXGLIS  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES.  381 

as  an  indication  of  God's  special  favor.  From  this  it  would  follow 
that  the  majority  of  the  human  race  will  be  saved.  The  very  doctrine 
of  election,  which  is  unlimitable  and  free  of  all  ordinary  means,  at  all 
events  widens  the  possibility  and  strengthens  the  probability  of  general 
infant  salvation ;  while  those  Churches  which  hold  to  the  necessity  of 
baptismal  regeneration  must  either  consistently  exclude  from  heaven 
all  unbaptized  infants  (even  those  of  Christian  Baptists  and  Quakers), 
or,  yielding  to  the  instinct  of  Christian  charity,  they  must  make  excep- 
tions so  innumerable  that  these  would  become,  in  fact,  the  rule,  and 
overthrow  the  principle  altogether. 

In  the  seventeenth  century  the  Arminians  resumed  the  position  of 
Zwingli,  and  with  their  mild  theory  of  original  sin  (which  they  do  not 
regard  as  responsible  and  punishable  before  and  independent  of  actual 
transgression),  they  could  consistently  teach  the  general  salvation  of 
infants.  The  Methodists  and  Baptists  adopted  the  same  view.  Even 
in  the  strictly  Calvinistic  churches  it  made  steady  progress,  and  is  now 
silently  or  openly  held  by  nearly  all  Reformed  divines.1 

Whether  consistent  or  not,  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation  is  cer- 
tainly cruel  and  revolting  to  every  nobler  and  better  feeling  of  our 
nature.  It  can  not  be  charged  upon  the  Bible  except  by  logical  in- 
ference from  a  few  passages  (John  iii.  5  ;  Mark  xvi.  16 ;  Rom.  v.  12), 
which  admit  of  a  different  interpretation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  gen- 
eral salvation  of  infants,  though  not  expressly  taught,  is  far  more  con- 
sistent with  the  love  of  God,  the  genius  of  Christianity,  and  the  spirit 
and  conduct  of  him  who  shed  his  precious  blood  for  all  ages  of  man- 
kind, who  held  up  little  children  to  his  own  disciples  as  models  of  sim- 
plicity and  trustfulness,  and  took  them  to  his  bosom,  blessing  them, 
and  saying  (unconditionally  and  before  Christian  baptism  did  exist), 
;Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  and  'Whosoever  shall  not  re- 
ceive the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  in  nowise  enter 
therein.' 

1  Dr.  Hodge,  the  most  orthodox  Calvinistic  divine  of  the  age,  very  positively  teaches  (Syst. 
Theol.  Vol.  I.  p.  26)  the  salvation  of  all  infants  dying  in  infancy,  and  represents  this  as  the 
'common  doctrine  of  evangelical  Protestants.'  This  may  be  true  of  the  present  generation, 
and  we  hope  it  is,  though  it  is  evidently  inapplicable  to  the  period  of  scholastic  orthodoxy, 
both  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic.  lie  supports  his  view  by  three  arguments:  1.  The  analogy 
between  Adam  and  Christ  (Rom.  v.  18,  19,  where  we  have  no  right  to  restrict  the  free  gift  of 
Christ  upon  all  more  than  the  Bible  itself  restricts  it);  2.  Christ's  conduct  towards  children  : 
3.  The  general  nature  of  God  to  bless  and  to  save,  rather  than  to  curse  and  destroy. 


3S2  THE  CKEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

0.  Salvation  of  adult  heathen.  This  is  a  still  darker  problem. 
Before  Zwingli  it  was  the  universal  opinion  that  there  can  be  no  sal- 
vation outside  of  the  visible  Church  {extra  ecclesiam  nulla  salus). 
Dante,  the  poet  of  medieval  Catholicism,  assigns  even  Homer,  Aris- 
totle, Virgil,  to  hell,  which  bears  the  terrible  inscription — 

'Let  those  who  enter  in  dismiss  all  hope.' 

But  the  Swiss  Reformer  repeatedly  expressed  his  conviction,  to  which 
he  adhered  to  the  last,  that  God  had  his  elect  among  the  Gentiles  as 
well  as  the  Jews,  and  that,  together  with  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment from  the  redeemed  Adam  down  to  John  the  Baptist,  we  may 
expect  to  find  in  heaven  also  such  sages  as  Socrates,  Plato,  Aristides, 
Pindar,  Numa,  Cato,  Scipio,  Seneca;  in  short,  every  good  and  holy  man 
and  faithful  soul  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  the  end.1- 

For  this  liberality  he  was  severely  censured.  The  great  and  good 
Luther  was  horrified  at  the  idea  that  even  '  the  godless  Xuma'  (!)  should 
be  saved,  and  thought  that  it  falsified  the  whole  gospel,  without  which 
there  can  be  no  salvation.2 

Zwingli,  notwithstanding  his  abhorrence  of  heathen  idolatry  and  every 
relic  of  paganism  in  worship,  retained,  from  his  classical  training  in  the 

1  His  last  and  fullest  utterance  on  this  subject  occurs  towards  the  close  of  his  Expositio 
Chr.  Fidei,  where,  speaking  of  eternal  life,  he  thus  addresses  the  French  king :  '  Deinde 
sperandum  est  tibi  visurum  esse  sanctorum,  prudentium,fidelium,  canstaniium,fortium,  virtu- 
osorum  omnium,  quicunque  a  condito  mundo  fuerunt,  sodalitatem,  catum  el  contubernium.  Hie 
duos  Adam,  redemptum  ac  Redemplorem :  hie  Abelum,  Enochum,  Noam,  Abrahamum,  Isaacum, 
Jacobum,  Judam,  Mosen,  Josuam,  Gedeonem,  Samuelem,  Pinhen,  Heliam,  Helisetim,  Isaiam, 
ac  deiparam  Virginem  de  qua  ille  prcecinuit,  Davidem,  Ezekiam,  Josiam,  Baptistam,  Petrum, 
Paulum :  hie  Herculem,  Theseum,  Socratem,  Aristidem,  Antigoncm,  Numam,  Camil- 
i.tm,  ('atones,  Scipiones  :  hie  Ludovichum  pium  antecessoresque  tuos  Ludovicos,  Philippos, 
Pipinnos,  et  quotquot  in  fide  hinc  migrarunt  maiores  tuos  videbis.  Et  summatim,  non/uit  vir 
bonus,  non  erit  mens  sancta,  non  est  fidelis  anima,  ab  ipso  mundi  exordio  usque  ad  eius  con- 
summationem,  quern  non  sis  isthic  cum  Deo  visurus.  Quo  spectaculo  quid  hctius,  quid  amanius, 
quid  denique  honorificentius  vel  cogitari  poterit?  Aut  quo  iustius  omnes  animi  vires  intendimus 
quam  ad  huiuscemodi  vit<e  lucrum  f  Fee  Niemeyer,  p.  61.  Similar  passages  occur  in  his  Epis- 
tles, Commentaries,  and  tract  on  Providence.     Comp.  Zeller,  p.  1G3. 

2  '  Hoc  si  verum  est,  totum  evangelium  falsum  est.'  Luther  denied  the  possibility  of  salva- 
tion outside  of  the  Christian  Church.  In  his  Catech.  Major,  Pars  II.  Art.  III.  (ed.  Kechenb. 
p.  503,  ed.  Milller,  p.  4G0),  he  says :  '  Quicunque  extra  Christianitatern  (attsser  der  Christen- 
heit)  sunt,  sive  Gentiles  sive  Turcae  sive  Judusi  aut  falsi  etiam  Christiani  et  hypocrite,  quan- 
quatn  unum  tantum  et  verum  Detim  esse  credant  et  invoccnt  {ob  sie  gleich  nur  Einen  wahrhafti- 
gen  Golt  glauben  und  anbelen),  neque  tamen  certum  habent,  quo  erga  eos  animatus  sit  animo, 
neque  quidquamjavoris  aut  gratia-  de  Deo  sibi  polliceri  audent  et  possunt,  quamobrcm  in  PER- 
i  in  \  manknt  IRA  et  damnatione  (darum  sie  iiii  eivigen  Zorn  und  Verdammniss  bleiben').' 


§  52.  ZWINGLFS  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES.  3S3 

school  of  Erasmus,  a  great  admiration  for  the  wisdom  and  the  manly 
virtues  of  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  was  somewhat  un- 
guarded in  his  mode  of  expression.  But  he  had  no  idea  of  sending 
any  one  to  heaven  without  the  atonement,  although  he  does  not  state 
when  and  how  it  was  applied  to  those  who  died  before  the  incarnation. 
In  his  mind  the  eternal  election  was  inseparably  connected  with  the 
plan  of  the  Christian  redemption.  lie  probably  assumed  an  uncon- 
scious Christianity  among  the  better  heathen,  and  a  secret  work  of 
grace  in  their  hearts,  which  enabled  them  to  exercise  a  general  faith 
in  God  and  to  strive  after  good  works  (comp.  Rom.  ii.  7, 10,  14, 15). 
All  truth,  he  says,  proceeds  from  the  Spirit  of  God.  He  might  have 
appealed  to  Justin  Martyr  and  other  ancient  fathers,  who  traced  all 
that  was  true  and  good  among  the  Greek  philosophers  and  poets  to 
the  working  of  the  Logos  before  his  incarnation  (John  i.  5, 10).1 


1  Dr.  Dorner,  with  his  usual  fairness  .and  fine  discrimination,  vindicates  Zwingli  against 
misrepresentations  (Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Thcol.  p.  284) :  l  Man  hat  daratis  eine  Gleichgiiltigkeit 
gegen  den  historischen  Christies  und  sein  Werk  erschliessen  wollen,  dass  er  [_Zwingli]  auch  von 
Heiden  sagt :  sie  seien  selig  geworden;  was  die  Ileiden  Weisheil  nennen,  das  netmen  die  Chri- 
sten Glauben.  Allein  er  sieht  in  allem  Wahren  vor  Christo  mit  manchen  KirchenvStem  eine 
Wvrkung  und  Offenbarung  des  Logos,  ohne  jedoch  so  weit  zu  gehen,  mit  Justin  die  Weisen  des 
Altcrthums,  ivelche  nach  dern  Logos  gelebt  haben,  Christen  zu  nennen.  Er  sagt  nur,  sie  seien 
nach  dein  Tode  selig  geworden,  dhnlich  wie  auch  die  Kirche  dasselbe  von  den  Vdtern  des  Alten 
Testaments  annimmt.  Er  konnte  dabei  wohl  diese  Seligkeit  als  durch  Christ  us  gewirkt  und 
erworben  denken  und  hat  dieselbe  jedcnfalls  nur  a/s  in  der  Gemeinschaft  mit  Christus  bestehend 
gedacht.  1st  ihm  doch  durch  den  ewigen  Ralhschfuss  der  Versohnung  Christus  nicht  bloss  ewig 
gewiss,  sondern  auch  gegenwdrlig  fur  alle  Zeiten.  So  sind  ihm  jene  Heiden  doch  selig  nur 
durch  Christus.  Freilich  das  sagt  er  nicht,  dass  sie  erst  im  Jenseits  sich  bekehren;  auch  er 
schneidet  mit  dem  Diesseits  die  Bekehrung  ah.  Er  Icisst  ihre  im  Diesseits  bewahrte  Treue 
gegen  das  ihnen  vom  Logos  anverlraute  Pfund  wahrer  Erkentniss  die  Stelle  des  Glaubens  ver- 
treten.  Aber  es  ist  wohl  kein  Zweifel,dass  er  sie  im  Jenseits  zur  Erkentniss  und  Gemeinschajl 
Christi  gelangend  denkt.  Bei  den  Frommen  Alten  Testaments fordert  auch  die  Kirche  zu  ihrem 
He'd  nicht  eine  bestimmtere  Erkenntniss  Christi  im  Diesseits,  die  sie  hiichstens  den  Projiheten1  zu- 
schreiben  konnte.'  Ebrard  (in  his  History  of  the  Dogma  of  the  Lord's  Su)>)>er,Y<A.  II.  p.  77) 
fully  adopts  Zwingli's  view  :  lJetzt  ivird  ihm  icohl  Niemand  mehr  daraus  ein  Verbrechen  machen. 
Wir  wissen,  dass  Rom.  ii.  7 :  '  iI)enen,  die  in  lieharrlickkeit  des  GuJesthuns  nach  unverganglickem 
Wesen  thachtkx,"  eiciges  Leben  verheissen  ist,  wir  wissen  dass  nur  der  positive  Unglaube  an 
das  angebotene  Heil  weder  hier  noch  dort  vergeben  ivird,  dass  nur  auf  ihn  die  Strafe  des  ewigen 
Todes  gesetzt  ist;  wir  icissen,  dass  auf  die  erste  Auferstehung  der  in  Christo  Entsch/afenen 
noch  eine  zteeite  der  ganzen  ubrigen  Menschheit  folgen  sol/,  die  alsdann  gericktei  werden  so/len 
nach  ihren  Werken,  und  dass  im  neuen  Jerusalem  sclbcr  die  Blatter  des  Lcbensbaumes  dienen 
sollen  zur  Genesung  der  Heiden  (Apok.  xxii.  2).  Zwingli  hat  also  an  der  Hand  der  heiligen 
Schrift  das  Heidenthum  ebenso  wie  das  Judenthum  als  zu  den  (rroi^f/ocf  too  koo/xov  gehbrig 
(Gal.  it.  1-.'?)  angeschen,  und  mit  vollem  Rechte  einen  Socrates  neben  einen  Abraham  gestellt. 
Lhm  besteht  die  Seligkeit  darin,  dass  das  gauze  Wunderwerk  der  giittlichen  WeltpSdagogik  in 
seinen  Friichten  klar  und  herrlich  vor  den  Blicken  der  crstuunten  Scligen  da  liegt.' 


384  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

During  the  period  of  rigorous  scholastic  orthodoxy  which  followed 
the  Reformation  in  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran  Churches,  Zwingli's 
view  could  not  be  appreciated,  and  appeared  as  a  dangerous  heresy. 
In  the  seventeenth  century  the  Romanists  excluded  the  Protestants, 
the  Lutherans  the  Calvinists,  the  Calvinists  the  Arminians,  from  the 
kingdom  of  heaven ;  how  much  more  all  those  who  never  heard  of 
Christ.  This  wholesale  damnation  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  human 
race  should  have  stirred  up  a  burning  zeal  for  their  conversion  ;  and 
yet  during  that  whole  period  of  intense  confessionalism  and  exclusive 
orthodoxism  there  was  not  a  single  Protestant  missionary  in  the  field 
except  among  the  Indians  in  the  wilderness  of  North  America.1 

But  in  modern  times  Zwingli's  view  has  been  revived  and  applauded 
as  a  noble  testimony  of  his  liberality,  especially  among  evangelical  di- 
vines in  Germany,  and  partly  in  connection  with  a  new  theory  of 
Hades  and  the  middle  state. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  a  point  which,  in  the  absence  of 
clear  Scripture  authority,  does  not  admit  of  symbolical  statement.  The 
future  fate  of  the  heathen  is  wisely  involved  in  mystery,  and  it  is  un- 
safe and  useless  to  speculate  without  the  light  of  revelation  about  mat- 
ters which  lie  beyond  the  reach  of  our  observation  and  experience. 
But  the  Bible  consigns  no  one  to  final  damnation  except  for  rejecting 
Christ  in  unbelief,2  and  gives  ns  at  least  a  ray  of  hope  by  significant 
examples  of  faith  from  Melchizedek  and  Job  down  to  the  wise  men 
from  the  East,  and  by  a  number  of  passages  concerning  the  working 
of  the  Logos  among  the  Gentiles  (John  i.  5, 10 ;  Rom.  i.  19  ;  ii.  14, 15, 
18, 19 ;  Acts  xvii.  23,  28  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  19  ;  iv.  6).  We  certainly  have  no 
right  to  confine  God's  election  and  saving  grace  to  the  limits  of  the 
visible  Church.  We  are  indeed  bound  to  his  ordinances  and  must 
submit  to  his  terms  of  salvation ;  but  God  himself  is  free,  and  can  save 
whomsoever  and  howsoever  he  pleases,  and  he  is  infinitely  more  anx- 
ious and  ready  to  save  than  we  can  conceive. 

1  John  Eliot,  the  'Apostle  of  the  Indians,'  labored  among  the  Indians  in  that  polemical 
age.  He  died  1GD0,  eighty-six  years  of  age,  at  Roxbury,  Massachusetts.  David  Brainerd 
(d.  at  Northampton,  Mass.,  1747)  likewise  labored  among  the  Indians  before  any  missionary 
zeal  was  kindled  in  the  Protestant  churches  of  Europe. 

2  John  iii.  18,  36:  xii.  48:  Mark  xvi.  1G. 


53.  THE  FIRST  CONFESSION  OF  BASLE,  1534.  355 


§  53.  The  Fikst  Confession  of  Basle.     A.D.  1534. 

Literature. 

Jac.  Chri8t.  Beck:  Disscrtatio  historico-theologica  de  Confessione  Fidei  Basileensis  Ecclesia?,  Basil.  1744. 

Mklch.ok  Kihoiiiiofkb:  Oswald  Myconius,  Antistee  der  Basleriscken  Kin-he,  Ziirich,  1818. 

Bcrckiiakdt:  Reformations<jesehichte  von  Hand,  Basel,  IMS. 

K.  It.  Hagknuacu  :  Kritisehe  QeechiehU  dor  Bntetehvng  und  der  Schick.sale  der  ersten  Easier  Confesrion 
tend  der  avf  sie  gegrundetcn  Kirchenlehre,  Basel,  1S27  (title  ed.  1828). 

J.  J.  IIkkzou  :  Leben  Juh.  (Ebolampads  und  die  Reformation  der  Kirche  von  Basel,  Basel,  1S43, 2  vols. 

Hasxnbaob  :  Leben  (Ekolavipads  und  Myconius,  Elberfeld,  1S59.  (Pan  II.  of  Pater  und  Bergrunder  dcr 
reform.  Kirche.) 

Escuek,  in  Ersch  und  Gruber's  Encyklop.    Art.  Uelvet.  Confess.  Sect.  II.  Part  V. 

Beck  :  Syvib.  Bucher  der  ev.  reform.  Kirche,  Vol.  I.  pp.  28  sqq. 

The  two  Confessions  of  Basle  are  published  in  German  and  Latin  by  Niemeyer,  Coll.  pp.  7S-122;  in 
German  alone  by  Beck  and  Bockel  in  their  collections.  The  best  reprint  of  the  First  Confession  of 
Basle,  in  the  Swiss  dialect,  with  the  Scripture  proofs  on  the  margin,  is  given  by  Ilageubaeh  at  the  close 
of  his  biography  of  (Ekolampad  und  Myconius,  pp.  405-470. 

The  First  and  Second  Confessions  of  Basle  belong  to  the  Zwinglian 
family,  and  preceded  the  age  of  Calvin,  but  are  a  little  nearer  the  Ger- 
man Lutheran  type  of  Protestantism. 

The  rich  and  venerable  city  of  Basle,  on  the  frontier  of  Switzerland, 
France,  and  South  Germany,  since  1501  a  member  of  the  Swiss  Con- 
federacy, renowned  for  the  reformatory  CEcumenical  Council  of  1430, 
and  the  University  founded  by  Pius  II.,  became  a  centre  of  liberal 
learning  before  the  Reformation.  Thomas  Wyttenbach,  the  teacher 
of  Zwingli,  attacked  the  indulgences  as  early  as  1502.  In  1516  Eras- 
mus of  Rotterdam,  at  that  time  esteemed  as  the  greatest  scholar  of 
Europe,  took  up  his  permanent  residence  in  Basle,  and  published  the 
first  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  and  other  important  works, 
though,  after  the  peasant  war  and  Luther's  violent  attack  on  him,  he 
became  disgusted  with  the  Reformation,  which  he  did  not  understand. 
He  desired  merely  a  quiet  literary  illumination  within  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  formed  a  bridge  between  two  ages.  He  died,  like  Moses, 
in  the  land  of  Moab  (1536).1  Wolfgang  Capito  (Kopfli),  an  Alsacian, 
labored  in  Basle  as  preacher  and  professor  from  1512  to  1520,  in 
friendly  intercourse  with  Erasmus,  and  was  followed  by  Caspar  Iledio 
(Ileid),  who  continued  in  the  same  spirit,  and  corresponded  with  Lu- 
ther.    Another  preacher  in  Basle,  Wilhelra  Roublin,  carried   on  the 


1  Erasmus  turned  bis  keen  wit  first  against  the  obscurantism  of  the  monks,  but  afterwards 
against  the  light  of  the  Reformation.  He  said  to  Frederick  the  Wise  at  Cologne,  before  the 
Diet  of  Worms  (within  the  hearing  of  Spalatin)  :  '  Lutherus  peccavit  in  duobus,  newpt>  <jw<,1 
tetigit  coronam  ponitficis  et  ventres  monachorum.'  But  when  Luther,  Zwingli,  (Ecolampadius 
took  wives,  he  called  the  Information  a  comedy  which  ended  always  in  a  marriage. 


386  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Corpus  Christi  festival  a  large  Bible  through  the  city,  with  the  inscrip- 
tion, '  This  is  the  true  sanctuary ;  the  rest  are  dead  men's  bones.' 

The  principal  Reformer  of  Basle  is  John  (Ecolampadius  (Ilaussehein, 
b.  1482,  d.  1531),  who  stood  to  Zwingli  in  a  similar  relation  as  Melanch- 
thon  to  Luther:  inferior  to  him  in  originality,  boldness,  and  energy,  but 
superior  in  learning,  modesty,  and  gentleness  of  spirit.  lie  was  his 
chief  support  in  the  defense  of  his  doctrine  on  the  eucharist,  and  took  a 
prominent  part  in  the  Conference  with  Luther  at  Marburg.  Born  at 
Weinsberg,  he  studied  philology,  scholastic  philosophy,  law,  and  the- 
ology with  unusual  success  at  Heilbronn,  Bologna,  Heidelberg,  and 
Tubingen.  When  twelve  years  old  he  wrote  Latin  poems,  and  at 
fourteen  he  graduated  as  bachelor  of  arts.  He  excelled  especially  as 
a  Greek  and  Hebrew  scholar,  and  published  afterwards  learned  com- 
mentaries on  the  prophets  and  other  books  of  the  Bible.  He  aided 
Erasmus  in  the  edition  of  his  Greek  Testament,  1516.  He  was  well- 
read  in  the  fathers,  and  promoted  a  critical  study  of  their  writings. 
After  having  labored  as  preacher  for  some  time  in  different  places,  and 
taken  some  part  in  the  reformatory  movements  of  Germany,  he  settled 
permanently  at  Basle,  in  1522,  as  pastor  of  St.  Martin  and  as  professor 
of  theology.  Here  he  introduced,  with  the  consent  of  the  citizens,  the 
German  service,  the  communion  under  both  kinds,  and  other  changes. 
But  it  was  only  after  the  transition  of  Berne  that  Basle  came  out  de- 
cidedly for  the  Reformation.  It  was  formally  introduced  Feb.  9, 1529, 
according  to  the  model  of  Zurich,  but  in  a  rather  violent  style,  by  the 
breaking  of  images  and  the  dissolution  of  convents,  yet  without  shed- 
ding of  blood.  In  other  respects  the  Reformed  Church  of  Basle  is 
conservative,  and  occupies  a  middle  position  between  Zwinglianism 
and  Lutheranism.  CEcolampadius  died  Nov.  24,  1531,  a  few  weeks 
after  his  friend  Zwingli.  He  communed  with  his  family,  and  took  an 
affecting  farewell  of  his  wife,  his  three  children  (Eusebius,  Irene,  and 
Aletheia),  and  the  ministers  of  Basle.  His  last  words  were :  '  Shortly 
I  shall  be  with  the  Lord  Christ.  .  .  .  Lord  Jesus  save  me !' ' 

1  See  the  particulars  in  Herzog's  (Ekolani]>.\o\.  II.  pp.  248  sqq.  He  was  buried  with  all 
the  honors  of  the  city  in  the  Minster.  But  the  mouth  of  slander  spread  the  lie  that  he  had 
committeil  suicide,  to  which  even  Luther,  blinded  by  dogmatic  prejudice,  was  not  ashamed  to 
give  car.  Mclanchthon  had  great  respect  for  (Ecolampadius,  stood  in  friendly  correspond- 
ence with  him,  and  derived  from  him  a  better  knowledge  of  the  patristic  doctrine  of  the 
eucharist. 


§  53.  THE  FIRST  CONFESSION  OF  BASLE,  1534.  337 

The  First  Confession  of  Basle  {Confessio  Fidel  Basileensis prior) 
■was  prepared  in  its  first  draft  by  CEcolampadius,  1531, '  brought  into 
its  present  shape  by  his  successor,  Oswald  Myconius,2  1532,  and  first 
published  by  the  magistrate  with  a  preface  of  Adelberg  Meyer,  burgo- 
master of  Basle,  Jan.  21,1534.3  Two  or  three  years  afterwards  it  was 
adopted  and  issued  by  the  confederated  city  of  Miihlhausen,  in  the  Al- 
sace; bence  it  is  also  called  the  Confessio Miihlhusana  (or Mylhxisiana). 

It  is  very  simple  and  moderate.  It  briefly  expresses,  in  twelve  arti- 
cles, the  orthodox  evangelical  doctrines  of  God,  the  fall  of  man,  the 
divine  providence,  the  person  of  Christ,  the  Church  and  the  sacraments, 
the  Lord's  Supper  (Christ  the  food  of  the  soul  to  everlasting  life), 
Church  discipline,  the  civil  magistrate,  faith  and  works,  the  judgment, 
ceremonies  and  celibacy,  and  against  the  views  of  the  Anabaptists,  who 
were  then  generally  regarded  as  dangerous  radicals,  not  only  by  Lu- 
ther, but  also  by  the  Swiss  and  English  Eeformers.  This  is  the  only 
Eeformed  Confession  which  does  not  begin  with  the  assertion  of  the 
Bible  principle,  but  it  concludes  with  this  noteworthy  sentence :  '  We 
submit  this  our  Confession  to  the  judgment  of  the  divine  Scriptures, 
and  hold  ourselves  ready  always  thankfully  to  obey  God  and  his  Word 
if  we  should  be  corrected  out  of  said  holy  Scriptures.' 4 

1  See  Herzog,  1.  c.  Vol.  II.  pp.  217-221,  and  Hagenbach,  Joh.  (Ekol.  unci  Oswald  Myron. 
pp.  350  sqq.  CEcolampadius,  in  his  last  address  to  the  Synod  of  Basle,  Sept.  2G,  1531, 
added  a  brief,  terse  confession  of  faith,  and  a  paraphrase  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  But 
the  assertion  that  he  composed  the  Confession  of  Basle  in  its  present  shape,  and  sent  it  to  the 
Augsburg  Diet,  1530,  rests  on  a  mistake,  and  has  no  foundation  in  any  contemporary  report. 

2  His  proper  name  was  Geisshussler.  He  was  born  at  Luzerne,  1488  ;  taught  and  preached 
at  Zurich;  after  Zwingli's  death  he  moved  to  Basle,  was  elected  Antistes  or  first  preacher, 
died  1552,  and  was  buried  in  the  Minster.  He  must  not  be  confounded  with  Friedrich  Myco- 
nius, or  Mecum,  the  Lutheran  reformer  of  Thuringia,  and  court  chaplain  at  Gotha  (d.  154G). 

3  Under  the  title,  '  Bekanntnuss  unseres  heiligen  Christlichen  Glaubens  wie  es  die  Kylch 
(Kirche)  zu  Basel  halt.'  It  is  signed  by  ' Heinrich  Rhyner,  Rathsrhreiber  der  Statt  Basel.' 
See  the  German  text,  with  the  marginal  notes,  at  the  close  of  Hagenbach 's  biography  of  (Eco- 
lampadius  and  Myconius.  A  Latin  edition  appeared  15G1  and  1581,  which  was  reproduced 
in  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma  Confess.,  under  the  title  ' Basiliensis  vel  Mylhusiana  Confessio 
Fidei,  anno  M.I). XXXII.  Scri/>ta  Germanice.  Latine  excusa  1561  et  1581.'  Here  the  date 
of  composition  (1532)  is  given  instead  of  the  date  of  publication  (1534).  The  more  usual 
spelling  is  Basileensis  and  Miihlhusana.  A  better  Latin  edition  was  issued,  1G47,  by  the  Basle 
Professors — Theod.  Zwinger,  Sebastian  Beck,  and  John  Buxtorf — for  the  use  of  academic 
disputations ;  and  this  Niemeyer  has  reprinted,  pp.  85  sqq. 

*  '  Postremo,  hanc  nostram  Confessionem  judicio  SACKS  Biblice  Scripturje  subjicimus : 
eoque  pollicemur,  si  ex  prozdictis  Scripturis  in  melioribus  instituamur  (etwas  besseren  berichtet), 
nos  omni  tempore  Deo  et  SACROSANCTO  irsius  verbo,  7naxima  cum  gratiarum  actione,  obse- 
cuturos  esse.' 


3S8  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

'  This  Confession,'  says  the  late  Professor  Ilagenbach  of  Basle,1  '  has 
remained  the  public  Confession  of  the  Church  of  Basle  to  this  day.  It 
is,  indeed,  no  longer  annually  read  before  the  congregation  as  formerly 
(on  Maundy-Thursday  at  the  ante-communion  service),  but  ministers  at 
their  ordination  are  still  required  to  promise  "  to  teach  according  to  the 
direction  of  God's  Word  and  the  Basle  Confession  derived  therefrom." 
A  motion  was  made  in  the  city  government  in  1826  to  change  it,  fyut  the 
Church  Council  declared  such  change  inexpedient.  Another  motion  in 
1859  to  abolish  it  altogether  was  set  aside.  But  the  political  significance 
of  the  Confession  can  no  longer  be  sustained,  in  view  of  the  change  of 
public  sentiment  in  regard  to  the  liberty  of  faith  and  conscience.' 

§  54.  The  First  Helvetic  Confession,  A.D.  1536. 

See  Literature  in  §  53.     Comp.  also  Pebtai.ozzi  :  Ifeinrich  Bullinger,  pp.  1S3  sqq. 

The  First  Helvetic  Confession  {Confessio  Helvetica  prior),  so  called 
to  distinguish  it  from  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  of  1566,  is  the  same 
with  the  Second  Confession  of  Basle  (Basileensis  posterior),  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  First  of  1534.2  It  owes  its  origin  partly  to  the  renewed 
efforts  of  the  Strasburg  Reformers,  Bucer  and  Capito,  to  bring  about  a 
union  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Swiss,  and  partly  to  the  papal 
promise  of  convening  a  General  Council.  A  number  of  Swiss  divines 
were  delegated  by  the  magistrates  of  Zurich,  Berne,  Basle,  Schaff- 
hausen,  St.  Gall,  Miihlhausen,  and  Biel,  to  a  Conference  in  the  Augus- 
tinian  convent  at  Basle,  January  30, 1536.  Bucer  and  Capito  also  ap- 
peared. Bullinger,  Myconius,  Grynseus,  Leo  Judce,  and  Megander  were 
selected  to  draw  up  a  Confession  of  the  faith  of  the  Helvetic  Churches, 
which  might  be  used  before  the  proposed  General  Council.  It  was  exam- 
ined and  signed  by  all  the  clerical  and  lay  delegates,  February,  1536,  and 
first  published  in  Latin.3  Leo  Judas  prepared  the  German  translation, 
which  is  fuller  than  the  Latin  text,  and  of  equal  authority. 

1  Joh.  Glkohmpad  und  Oswald  Myconius,  p.  353 ;  comp.  his  History  of  the  Conf.  pp.  190  sqq. 

2  Ilagenbach,  1.  c.  p.  357  :  'Baslek  Confession  heisst  diese  Confession  nur  weil  sie  in,  nicht 
weil  sie  fur  Basel  verfasst  ist  (ahnlich  wie  die  Augsburger  Confession  von  dem  Ort  derUeber- 
gabe  den  Namen  hat).  Bezeichnender  ist  daher  der  Name  erste  Helvetische  Confession,  weil 
sir  das  Gesamtntbekenntniss  der  reformirten  Schweizerkirchen  ist.7 

3  Sub  titulo  :  ' Eeclcsiarum  per  Helvetian  Confessio  Fidei  summaria  et  generalis,' etc.  The 
German  is  inscribed,  ' Eine  kurze  und  gemeine  Bekenntniss  des  heiligen,  wahren  und  uraltcn 
christlichen  Glaubens  der  Kirrhen,  etc.,  Zurich,  Bern,  Basel,  Strassburg,  Constanz,  St.Gallen, 
Schaffhansen,  Miihlhausen,  Biel,  etc.,  153G,  Februariy.' 


§  54.  THE  FIRST  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  153G.  389 

Luther,  to  whom  a  copy  was  sent  through  Bucer,  expressed  unex- 
pectedly, in  two  remarkable  letters,  his  satisfaction  with  the  earnest 
Christian  character  of  this  document,  and  promised  to  do  all  he  could 
to  promote  union  and  harmony  with  the  Swiss.1  He  was  then  under 
the  hopeful  impressions  of  the  'Wittenberg  Concordia,'  which  Bucer 
had  brought  about  by  his  elastic  diplomacy,  May,  153G,  but  which 
proved  after  all  a  hollow  peace,  and  could  not  be  honestly  signed  by 
the  Swiss. 

The  Helvetic  Confession  is  the  first  Reformed  Creed  of  national 
authority.  It  consists  of  twenty-seven  articles,  is  fuller  than  the  first 
Confession  of  Basle,  but  not  so  full  as  the  second  Helvetic  Confession, 
by  which  it  was  afterwards  superseded.  The  doctrine  of  the  sacra- 
ments and  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  essentially  Zwinglian,  yet  empha- 
sizes the  significance  of  the  sacramental  signs  and  the  real  spiritual 
presence  of  Christ,  who  gives  his  body  and  blood — that  is,  himself — to 
believers,  so  that  he  more  and  more  lives  in  them  and  they  in  him. 

It  seems  that  Bullinger  and  Leo  Judae  wished  to  add  a  caution 
against  the  binding  authority  of  this  or  any  other  confession  that 
might  interfere  with  the  supreme  authority  of  the  "Word  of  God  and 
with  Christian  liberty.2 


1  See  his  letter  to  Jacob  Meyer,  burgomaster  of  Basle,  Feb.  17,  1535,  and  his  response  to 
the  Reformed  Cantons,  Dec.  1,  1537  (in  De  Wette,  Vol.  V.  pp.  54  and  S3).  Luther  kept  the 
peace  with  the  Swiss  churches  only  for  a  few  years.  In  his  book  against  the  Turks.  1541, 
he  calumniated  without  provocation  the  memory  of  Zwingli ;  in  August,  1543,  he  acknowl- 
edged the  present  of  the  Zurich  translation  of  the  Bible  sent  to  him  by  Froscliauer.  the  pub- 
lisher, but  scornfully  declined  to  accept  any  further  works  from  preachers  'with  whom  neither 
he  nor  the  Church  of  God  could  have  any  communion,  and  who  were  driving  people  to  hell' 
(see  his  letter  in  De  Wette,  Vol.  V.  p.  587)  ;  in  1544  he  violently  renewed,  to  the  great  grief 
of  Melanchthon,  the  sacramental  war  in  his  ''Short  Confession  of  the  Sacrament ;'  and  shortly 
before  his  death  he  was  not  ashamed  to  travesty  the  first  Psalm  thus:  ' Beatus  vir,  qui  non 
abiit  in  consilio  Sacramentariorum :  nee  stetit  in  via  Cinglianorum,  nee  sedet  in  cathedra  Ti- 
ffurinontm.'  (See  his  letter  to  Jac.  Probst  of  Bremen,  Jan.  17, 154C,  in  De  Wette.  Vol.  V. 
p.  778.  Comp.  also  on  this  whole  subject  Hagenbach,  1.  c.  p.  358,  and  Pestalozzi,  1.  c.  pp.  216 
sqq.).  Myconius  was  not  disturbed  by  these  outbursts  of  passion,  and  continued  to  respect 
Luther  without  departing  from  the  doctrine  of  his  friend  Zwingli.  He  judged,  not  without 
some  reason,  that  the  two  Reformers  never  understood  each  other;  that  Luther  stubbornly 
believed  that  Zwingli  taught  the  sacrament  to  be  an  empty  sign,  ami  Zwingli  that  Luther  taught 
a  gross  Capernaitic  eating.  See  his  letter  of  Sept.  7,  1538,  to  Bibliander,  in  Simmler's  Col- 
lection, Vol.  NLV.,  and  Hagenbach,  p.  350. 

3  This  addition,  which  is  not  found  in  any  copy,  is  thus  stated  bj  Hagenbach  and  Niemeyer 
(Proleg.  p.  xxxvi.)  :  ' Durch  diese  Artikel  wollen  wir  keincswegs  alien  Kirchen  cine  cinzigc 
Glaubcnsregel  i-orschreiben.  Denn  wir  crlcennen  keine  andere  G'/aubensregcl  an  ah  die  heilige 
Schrift.      Wer  also  mit  dieser  ubercinstimrnt.  7nit  dem  sind  wir  cinstimmig,  obgleich  er  andere 


}9Q  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


§  55.  The  Second  Helvetic  Confession.     A.D.  1566. 

Literature. 

Confessio  Helvetica  Posterior.  The  Latin  text,  Zurich,  156C,  156S,  160S,  1C51,  etc. ;  recent  editions 
by  J.  P.  Kindler,  with  Preface  of  Winer,  Sulzbach,  1825;  by  Fritzsche,  Turici,  1839;  and  by  Ed.  Dbhl, 
Vienna,  18G6;  also  in  the  Collections  of  Corpus  et  Syntag.  Con/ess.,  Oxford  Sylloge,  Augusti,  and  Niemeyer ■. 
The  German  text  appeared  frequently— Zurich,  1566 ;  Basle,  1054  j  Berne,  1676,  etc.,  and  in  the  Collections  of 
Deck,  Mess,  and  Docket.  French  ed.  Geneva,  1566,  etc.  English  translations  in  Hall's  Harmony  of  Protest- 
ant Confessions  (not  complete);  another  by  Owen  Jones:  The  Church  of  the  Living  God;  also  the  Swiss 
and  Delgian  Confessions  and  Expositions  of  the  Faith,  translated  into  the  English  language  in  1S6'2.  London 
(Caryl  Book  Society),  1865  (complete,  but  inaccurate),  and  a  third  by  Prof.  Jerem.  H.  Goon  (of  Tiffin,  O.)  in 
Bomberger's  Reformed  Church  Monthly  (Ursinus  College,  Pa.),  for  Sept.  1872,  to  Dec.  1S73  (good,  but  made 
from  the  German  translation). 

Jou.  Jak.  Hottinger  :  Helvetische  Kirchengeschichte,  Zurich,  1708,  Part  III.  pp.  S94  sqq. 

Hagenjiaou:  Kritische  Geschichte  der  EnUtchuwj  und  Schicksale  der  ersten  Dasler  Confession.  Basel, 
1827  (1828),  pp.  85  sqq. 

Niemeyer:  Collect.,  Prolegomena,  pp.  lxiii.-lxviii. 

L.  Thomas  :  La  Confession  Helvetique,  etudes  historico-dogynatiqties  sur  le  xvi'.  siecle.    Geneve,  1S53. 

K.  Scpuoff:  Art.  Helvetische  Confession,  in  Herzog's  Theol.  Encyklop.  Vol.  V.  (1S56),  pp.  712-719. 

Caui.  Pestai.ozzi  :  Heinrich  Eullinger.  Leben  und  ansgewahlte  Schriften.  Nach  handschriftlichen  und 
gleichzeitigen  Quellen.    Elberfeld,  1S58  (5th  Part  of  Vtiter  und  Degriinder  der  reform.  Kirche),  pp.  413^21. 

Before  we  proceed  to  the  Calvinistic  Confessions,  we  anticipate  the 
Second  Helvetic  Confession,  the  last  and  the  best  of  the  Zwinglian 
family. 

btjllinger. 

It  is  the  wrork  of  Henry  Bullinger  (1504-1575),  the  pupil,  friend, 
and  successor  of  Zwingli,  to  whom  he  stands  related  as  Beza  does 
to  Calvin.  He  was  a  learned,  pious,  wise,  and  faithful  man,  and  the 
central  figure  in  the  second  period  of  the  Reformation  in  German 
Switzerland.  Born  at  Bremgarten,  in  Aargau,1  educated  in  Holland 
and  Cologne,  where  he  studied  patristic  and  scholastic  theology,  and 
read  with  great  interest  the  writings  of  Luther  and  the  Loci  of  Me- 
lanchthon,  he  became  on  his  return  intimately  acquainted  with  Zwin- 
gli, accompanied  him  to  the  Conference  at  Berne  (1528),  and  after 
laboring  for  some  years  at  Cappel  and  Bremgarten,  he  was  chosen 
his  successor  as  chief  pastor  (Antistes)  at  Zurich,  Dec.  9, 1531.     This 

von  unserer  Confession  verscliiedene  Redensartm  brauchte.  Denn  auf  die  Sarhe  selbst  und 
die  Wahrheit,  nicht  auf  die  Worte  soil  man  sehen.  Wir  stellen  also  jedem  frei,  diejenigen 
Redensarten  zu  gebrattr.hen,  ivelche  er  fur  seine  Kirche  am  passendsten  glaubt,  und  icerden  wis 
auch  dergleichen  Freiheit  bedienen,  gegen  Verdvehung  des  wahren  Sinnes  dieser  Confession  uns 
aber  zu  vertheidigen  wissen.  Dieser  Ansdriic/ce  liaben  wir  unsjetzt  bedient,  urn  unsere  Ueber- 
zeugung  darzustel/en.'     Pestalozzi,  p.  180,  gives  the  same  declaration  more  fully. 

1  He  was  one  of  five  sons  of  Dean  Bullinger,  who,  like  many  priests  of  those  days,  in  open 
violation  of  the  laws  of  celibacy,  lived  in  regular  wedlock,  but  was  much  respected  and  be- 
loved even  by  his  bishop  of  Constance.  He  opposed  Samson's  traffic  in  indulgences,  and 
became  afterwards  a  Protestant  through  the  influence  of  his  son. 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  15GG.  391 

was  shortly  after  the  catastrophe  at  Cappel,  in  the  darkest  period  of 
the  Swiss  Reformation. 

Bullinger  proved  to  be  the  right  man  in  the  right  plaee.  lie 
raised  the  desponding  spirits,  preserved  and  completed  the  work  of 
his  predecessor,  and  exerted,  by  his  example  and  writings,  a  com- 
manding influence  throughout  the  Reformed  Church  inferior  only 
to  that  of  Calvin.  He  was  in  friendly  correspondence  with  Calvin, 
Bucer,  Melanchthon,  Laski,  Beza,  Cranmer,  Hooper,1  Lady  Jane  Grey,2 
and  the  leading  Protestant  divines  and  dignitaries  of  England.  Some 
of  them  had  found  an  hospitable  refuge  in  his  house  and  with  his 
friends  during  the  bloody  reign  of  Mary  (1553-5S),  and  after  their 
return,  when  raised  to  bishoprics  and  other  positions  of  influence 
under  Queen  Elizabeth,  they  asked  his  counsel,  and  kept  him  informed 
about  the  progress  of  reform  in  their  country.  This  correspondence 
is  an  interesting  testimony  not  only  to  his  personal  worth,  but  also  to 
the  fraternal  communion  which  then  existed  between  the  Anglican 
and  the  Swiss  Reformed  Churches.3     Episcopacy  was  then  not  yet 

1  Bishop  Hooper  wrote  from  prison  shortly  before  his  martyrdom,  May  and  December, 
1554,  to  Bullinger,  as  'his  revered  father  and  guide,'  and  the  best  friend  he  had  ever  found,  and 
commended  to  him  his  wife  and  two  children  (Pestalozzi,  1.  c.  p.  445). 

a  Three  letters  of  this  singularly  accomplished  and  pious  lady,  the  great-granddaughter  of 
Henry  VII.,  to  Bullinger,  full  of  affection  and  gratitude,  are  still  preserved  as  jewels  in  the 
City  Library  of  Zurich,  but  his  letters  to  her  are  lost.  She  translated  a  part  of  his  book  on 
Christian  marriage  into  Greek,  and  asked  his  advice  about  learning  Hebrew.  Edward  VI. , 
against  the  will  of  Henry  VIII.,  bequeathed  his  crown  to  Lady  Jane  Grey  to  save  the  Prot- 
estant religion,  and  this  led  to  her  execution  at  the  Tower  of  London,  Feb.  12,  1554,  by  order 
of  Queen  Mary.  She  met  her  fate  with  the  spirit  of  a  martyr,  and  sent,  as  a  last  token  of 
friendship,  her  gloves  to  Bullinger,  which  were  long  preserved  in  his  family  (Pestalozzi,  1.  c. 
p.  445). 

3  See  the  Zurich  Letters,  published  by  'The  Parker  Society,'  Cambridge,  second  edition 
(chronologically  arranged  in  one  series),  184G.  They  contain,  mostly  from  the  archives  of 
Zurich  (the  Simmler  Collection),  Geneva,  and  Berne,  letters  of  Bishops  John  Jewel,  John 
Parkhurst,  Edmund  Grindal,  Edwin  Sandys,  Horn,  John  Foxe,  Sir  A.  Cook,  and  others  to 
Bullinger,  as  alsotoGualter(Zwingli"s  son-in-law),  Peter  Martyr,  Simmler,  Lavater,  Calvin,  and 
Beza.  The  news  of  Bullinger 's  death  was  received  in  England  with  great  grief.  W.  Barlow 
wrote  to  J.  Simmler  (Bullinger's  son-in-law),  March  13, 1576  (p.  494):  'How  great  a  loss  your 
Church  has  sustained  by  the  death  of  the  elder  Bullinger,  of  most  happy  memory,  yea,  and 
our  Church  also,  towards  which  I  have  heard  that  he  always  entertained  a  truly  fraternal  and 
affectionate  regard,  and  indeed  all  the  Churches  of  Christ  throughout  Europe.'  Bishop  Cox 
wrote  to  Gualter  in  the  same  year  (p.  49G):  'My  sorrow  was  excessive  for  the  death  of  Henry 
Bullinger,  whom,  by  his  letters  and  learned  and  pious  writings,  I  had  .  .  .  known  intimately  for 
many  years,  although  he  was  never  known  personally  to  me.  Who  would  not  be  made  sor- 
rowful by  the  loss  of  such  and  so  great  a  man,  and  so  excellent  a  friend  ?  not  to  mention  that 
the  whole  Christian  Church  is  disquieted  with  exceeding  regret  that  so  bright  a  star  is  for- 
bidden any  longer  to  shine  upon  earth.' 

Vol.  I—  C  c 


392  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

deemed  the  only  valid  form  of  the  Christian  ministry.  He  opened 
his  house  also  to  Italian  Protestants,  and  treated  even  the  elder  Sozino, 
who  died  at  Zurich,  with  great  kindness  and  liberality,  endeavoring  to 
restrain  his  heretical  tendency.  In  the  latter  years  of  his  life  he  was 
severely  tried  by  the  death  of  his  best  friends  (Bibliander,  Froschauer, 
Peter  Martyr,  Pellican,  Gessner,  Blaarer,  Calvin,  Hyperius),  and  by  a 
fearful  pestilence  which  deprived  him  of  his  beloved  wife  and  three 
daughters,  and  brought  him  to  the  brink  of  the  grave.  He  bore  all 
with  Christian  resignation,  recovered  from  disease,  and  continued 
faithfully  to  labor  for  several  years  longer,  until  he  was  called  to  his 
reward,  after  taking  affectionate  farewell  of  all  the  pastors  and  pro- 
fessors of  Zurich,  thanking  them  for  their  devotion,  assuring  them  of 
his  love,  and  giving  each  one  of  them  the  hand  with  his  blessing.  He 
assumed  the  care  of  the  Church  of  Zurich  when  it  was  in  a  dangerous 
crisis ;  he  left  it  firmly  and  safely  established. 

COMPOSITION. 

Bullinger  was  one  of  the  principal  authors  of  the  First  Helvetic 
Confession,  and  the  sole  author  of  the  Second.  In  the  intervening 
thirty  years  Calvin  had  developed  his  amazing  energy,  while  .Roman- 
ism had  formularized  its  dogmas  in  the  Council  of  Trent. 

Bullinger  composed  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  in  1562,  in 
Latin,  for  his  own  use,  as  an  abiding  testimony  of  the  faith  in  which 
he  had  lived  and  in  which  he  wished  to  die.  He  showed  it  to  Peter 
Martyr,  who  fully  consented  to  it,  shortly  before  his  death  (Nov.  12, 
15G2).  Two  years  afterwards  he  elaborated  it  more  fully  during  the 
raging  of  the  pestilence,  and  added  it  to  his  will,  which  was  to  be 
delivered  to  the  magistrate  of  Zurich  after  his  death,  which  he  then 
expected  every  day.1 

TUBLICATION. 

But  events  in  Germany  gave  it  a  public  character.  The  pious 
Elector  of  the  Palatinate,  Frederick  III.,  beino;  threatened  by  the  Lu- 


1  See  Bullinger's  notes  to  the  list  of  his  writings  ;  J.  II.  Hottinger,  Schola  Tigurina,  p.  7G; 
J.  J.  Simmler,  Oratio  de  historia  Confessionis  Helvetica,  in  Simmler's  Collection,  as  quoted 
l>y  Pcstalozzi,  1.  c.  pp.  41G  sq.  and  G41.  Also  J.  J.  Hottinger,  Helvet.  Kirchengesch.  Pt.  III. 
p.  894. 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  15G6.  393 

therans  with  exclusion  from  the  treaty  of  peace  on  account  of  his 
secession  to  the  Keformed  Church  and  publication  of  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism  (1563),  requested  Bullinger  (1565)  to  prepare  a  clear  and 
full  exposition  of  the  Keformed  faith,  that  he  might  answer  the  charges 
of  heresy  and  dissension  so  constantly  brought  against  the  same.  Bul- 
linger sent  him  a  manuscript  copy  of  his  Confession.  The  Elector  was 
so  much  pleased  with  it  that  he  desired  to  have  it  translated  and  published 
in  Latin  and  German  before  the  meeting  of  the  Imperial  Diet,  which  was 
to  assemble  at  Augsburg  in  1566,  to  act  on  his  alleged  apostasy. 

In  the  mean  time  the  Swiss  felt  the  need  of  such  a  Confession  as  a 
closer  bond  of  union.  The  First  Helvetic  Confession  was  deemed  too 
short,  and  the  Zurich  Confession  of  1545,  the  Zurich  Consensus  of 
1519,  and  the  Geneva  Consensus  of  1552  touched  only  the  articles  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  and  predestination.  Conferences  were  held,  and 
Beza  came  in  person  to  Zurich  to  take  part  in  the  work.  Bullinger 
freely  consented  to  a  few  changes,  and  prepared  also  the  German  ver- 
sion. Geneva,  Berne,  Schaffhausen,  Biel,  the  Grisons,  St.  Gall,  and 
Muhlhausen  expressed  their  agreement.  Basle  alone,  which  had  its 
own  Confession,  declined  for  a  long  time,  but  ultimately  acceded. 

The  new  Confession  appeared  at  Zurich,  March  12,  1566,  in  both 
languages,  at  public  expense,  and  was  forwarded  to  the  Elector  and  to 
Philip  of  Hesse.1  A  Erench  translation  appeared  soon  afterwards  in 
Geneva  under  the  care  of  Beza. 

In  the  same  month  the  Elector  Frederick  made  such  a  manly  and 
noble  defense  of  his  faith  before  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  that  even  his 
Lutheran  opponents  were  filled  with  admiration  for  his  piety,  and 
thought  no  longer  of  impeaching  him  for  heresy. 

1  The  full  title  is :  '  Confessio  et  Expositio  simplex  Orthodoxy  Fidei,  et  Dogmatum  Catho- 
licorum  syncerai  Religionis  Christiana.  Concorditer  ab  Ecclesiaz  Ckristi  Ministris,  qui  sunt 
in  Ilelcelia,  Tiguri,  Bernaz  [Glarona',  Basileaf\,  Scaphusii  [Abbatiscellce],  Sangalli,  Curia; 
Rhetorum,  et  apud  Confwderatus,  Mi/lhusii  item,  et  Biennce:  qiribus  tidjunxerunt  se  et  Genevensis 
\et  Neocomensis]  Ecclesiai  Minis tri  [tina  cum  aliis  Evangelii  Prwconibus  in  Polonia,  Hungaria, 
et  Scotia} ;  edita  in  hoc,  ut  universis  testentur  jidelibus,  quod  in  unitate  vera:  et  antiquoz 
Christi  Ecclesice  perstent,  neque  ulla  nova,  aut  erronea  dogmata  spargant,  atque  ideo  etiam 
nihil  consortii  cum  ullis  Sectis  aut  Haresibus  habeant.  Ad  Rom.  cap.  X.  vers.  10.  Corde 
creditur  ad justitiam,  ore  autem  confessio  Jit  ad  salutem.  Tiguri:  Excudebat  Christophorus 
Froschoverus,  Mcnse Martio,  MDLXVI.'1  Glarus,  Basle,  Appenzell,  Ncufehatel,  Poland,  Hun- 
gary, and  Scotland,  which  we  have  included  in  brackets,  approved  the  Confession  at  a  later 
period,  and  hence  are  not  mentioned  in  the  first  edition,  but  partly  in  the  second  edition  of 
1563,  and  more  folly  in  those  of  1G44  and  1051. 


394  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

AUTHORITY. 

The  Helvetic  Confession  is  the  most  widely  adopted;,  and  hence  the 
most  authoritative  of  all  the  Continental  Reformed  symbols,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  Besides  the  Swiss  Cantons 
and  the  Palatinate,  in  whose  name  it  was  first  issued,  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  Neufchatel  (1568),  Basle,  France  (at  the  Synod  of  La 
Rochelle,  1571),  Hungary  (at  the  Synod  of  Debreczin,  1567),  Poland 
(1571  and  1578),  and  Scotland  (1566) x  gave  it  their  sanction.  It  was 
well  received  also  in  Holland  and  England.2 

It  was  translated  not  only  into  German,  French,  and  English,  but 
also  into  Dutch,  Magyar,  Polish,  Italian,  Arabic,  and  Turkish.3 

CHARACTER   AND   VALUE. 

Like  most  of  the  Confessions  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  Helvetic 
Confession  is  expanded  beyond  the  limits  of  a  popular  creed  into  a 
lengthy  theological  treatise.  It  is  the  matured  fruit  of  the  preceding 
symbolical  labors  of  Bullinger  and  the  Swiss  Churches.  It  is  in  sub- 
stance a  restatement  of  the  First  Helvetic  Confession,  in  the  same 
order  of  topics,  but  with  great  improvements  in  matter  and  form.  It 
is  scriptural  and  catholic,  wise  and  judicious,  full  and  elaborate,  yet 
simple  and  clear,  uncompromising  towards  the  errors  of  Rome,  moder- 
ate in  its  dissent  from  the  Lutheran  dogmas.     It  proceeds  on  the  con- 


1  The  ministers  of  Scotland  wrote  to  Beza,  September,  15GG :  '  Subscripsiimis  omnes,  qui  in 
hoc  coztu  interfuiinus,  et  hujus  Academioz  sigilfo  publico  obsignmnmus.'  This  is  stated  after 
the  Preface  in  the  edition  of  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma,  and  in  Niemeyer,  p.  4G5,  but  without 
naming  the  cwtus  and  Academia. 

2  I  find  no  evidence  of  a  formal  sanction  by  the  Anglican  Church  ;  but  that  the  Confession 
was  well  received  there  may  be  inferred  from  the  high  esteem  in  which  Bullinger  was  held 
(see  p.  3!)1),  and  still  more  from  the  fact  that  his  Decades  (a  popular  compend  of  theology  in 
five  series  of  sermons,  each  containing  ten  sermons)  were,  next  to  Calvin's  Institutes,  the  high- 
est theological  authority  in  England,  and  were  recommended,  as  late  as  158G,  to  the  study  of 
young  curates  along  with  the  Bible.  See  Ch.  Ilardwick  :  A  History  of  the  Christian  Church 
during  the  Reformation  (third  edition,  London,  1873,  p.  2-11),  where  the  following  order  of  the 
Southern  Convocation  is  quoted  from  Wilkins,  IV.  321  :  'Every  minister  having  cure,  and 
being  under  the  degrees  of  master  of  arts  and  bachelor  of  law,  and  not  licensed  to  be  a  public 
preacher,  shall,  before  the  second  day  of  Eebruary  next,  provide  a  Bible,  and  Bullinger  s  De- 
cades in  Latin  and  English,  and  a  paper  book,'  etc.  On  Bullinger's  Decades,  and  his  abridg- 
ment of  the  same  in  the  Handbook  of  the  Christian  Reliqion  (15,7-5),  see  Bestalozzi,  pp.  38G, 
469,  505  sqq. 

3  See  Niemeyer,  Proleg.  p.  lxvii.  sq. 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  15GG.  395 

viction  that  the  Reformed  faith  is  in  harmony  with  the  true  Catholic 
faith  of  all  ages,  especially  the  ancient  Greek  and  Latin  Church. 

Hence  it  is  preceded  by  the  Imperial  edict  of  3S0  (from  the 
recognized  Justinian  code),  which  draws  the  line  between  orthodoxy 
and  heresy,  and  excludes  as  heresies  only  the  departures  from  the 
Apostolic  and  Nicene  faith.  It  inserts  also  the  brief  Trinitarian  creed 
ascribed  to  the  Roman  Pope  Damasus  (from  the  writings  of  Jerome), 
and  referred  to  in  said  decree  as  a  standard  of  orthodoxy.1  Harmony 
in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  ancient  Church  is  declared  suffi- 
cient, and  brotherly  union  consistent  with  variety  in  unessentials,  such 
as  in  fact  always  has  existed  in  the  Christian  Church.  As  in  former 
Confessions,  so  also  in  this,  Bullinger  distinctly  recognizes,  in  the  spirit 
of  Christian  liberty  and  progress,  the  constant  growth  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  consequent  right  of  improvement 
in  symbolical  statements  of  the  Christian  faith. 

Upon  the  whole,  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  as  to  theological 
merit,  occupies  the  first  rank  among  the  Reformed  Confessions,  while 
in  practical  usefulness  it  is  surpassed  by  the  Heidelberg  and  Westmin- 
ster Shorter  Catechisms,  and  in  logical  clearness  and  precision  by  the 
Westminster  Confession,  which  is  the  product  of  a  later  age,  and  of  the 
combined  learning  and  wisdom  of  English  and  Scotch  Calvinism.2 

1  Several  creeds  bear  the  name  of  Damasus,  and  are  given  by  Ilahn,  Bibliothek  der  Sym- 
bole,  pp.  179-190.  The  form  inserted  in  the  Confession  is  from  a  letter  to  Jerome  {Opera, 
ed.  Vallarsi,  Tom.  XI.  p.  1 46),  and  is  thus  referred  to  in  the  Imperial  edict :  '  Cunctos  populos 
.  .  .  in  ea  volumus  rellgione  versari  quam  divinum  Petrum  Apostolum  tradidisse  Romanis  .  .  . 
quamque  Poxtificem  Damasum  sequi  claret,  et  Petrum  Alexandrite  Episcopum,  virum  Apo- 
stolicce  sanctitatis.* 

3  I  add  some  testimonies  on  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession.  Hagenbach  (1.  c.  p.  8G) :  'In 
ihrer  ganzen  Anlage  und  in  der  Durehfulirung  einzelner  Punkte,  namcntlich  in  praktischer 
Beziehung  (in  der  Scheidung  des  Geisllichen  und  Welt  lichen,  u.  s.  w.)  ist  sie  ein  wahres  dogma- 
tischesKunstwerk  zu  nennen.'  Pestalozzi  (Bullinger,  p.  422) :  'Diese  Confession,  zu  der  Bullinger 
zweimal  Angesichts  des  Todes  sich  bekannte,  erscheint  als  das  reife  Ergebniss  seines  Glaubens- 
lebens,  seiner  reichen  inneren  und  dusseren  Erfahrung,  als  der  Inbegriff  seiner  theologischen 
Ueberzeugung  ivie  seiner  kircbliehen  Grundsatze,  als  die  ac/ite,  wahrhafte  Entiricklung  und 
Eortbildung  seiner  fruheren  Bekenntnisse,  zumal  der  ersten  helvetischen  Confession  (von  1536). 
Sie  ist  ein  Muster  von  Klarhcit  und  Einfachheit,  wie  selbst  hervorragende  Gegner  anerkennen, 
ausgezcichnet  durch  den  Ueberblick,  der  dasGanze  der  christlichen  Leftrc  umfasst,der  vBllige 
Ausdruck  von  Bul/ingers  Gesinnung,  scharf ausgeprdgt  gegenuber  den  Verirrungen  des  riimisch- 
katholischen  Kirchenthums,  milde  in  Bezug  auf  die  lutherischen  Besonderheiten,  ohne  doch  der 
eigenen  Ueberzewjung  irgend  Eintrag  zu  thun.  Was  aber  vorne/imlirh  beachtenswerth,  sie  ist 
durchaus  getraqen  von  dem  vol/en,  klaren  und  ruhigen  Bewusstsein,  das  mit  so  durchgreifender 
Kraftiqkeit  Bullinger  beseelte,  der  achten  apostolisclu  n  und  katholischen  Kirrhe  anzuge/ioren,  der 
wahrhnft  berec/itiglen  und  rechtgldubigen  Kirche  C/iristi.     Sie  ist  fern  davon,  bloss  mit  der 


396  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

CONTENTS. 

In  view  of  the  importance  of  this  Confession,  I  give  here  a  con- 
densed translation  of  the  original.1  It  consists  of  thirty  chapters, 
which  cover  in  natural  order  all  the  articles  of  faith  and  discipline 
which  then  challenged  the  attention  of  the  Church. 

Chap.  I.  The  Holt  Scriptures. — This  chapter  lays  down  the  evan- 
gelical rule  of  faith,  or  the  objective  principle  of  Protestantism. 

We  believe  and  confess  that  the  Canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  are  the  true  Word  of  God,  and  have  sufficient 
authority  in  and  of  themselves,  and  not  from  men ;  since  God  himself 
through  them  still  speaks  to  us,  as  he  did  to  the  Fathers,  the  Prophets, 
and  Apostles.  They  contain  all  that  is  necessary  to  a  saving  faith  and 
a  holy  life ;  and  hence  nothing  should  be  added  to  or  taken  from  them 
(Deut.  iv.  2 ;  Rev.  xxii.  18, 19). 

From  the  Scriptures  must  be  derived  all  true  wisdom  and  piety,  and 
also  the  reformation  and  government  of  the  Churches,  the  proof  of 
doctrines,  and  the  refutation  of  errors  (2  Tim.  iii.  16, 17;  1  Tim.  iii.  15 ; 
1  Thess.  ii.  13 ;  Matt.  x.  20).  God  may  illuminate  men  directly  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  without  the  external  ministry ;  yet  he  has  chosen  the 
Scriptures  and  the  preaching  of  the  Word  as  the  usual  method  of  in- 
struction. 

The  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  though  they  may  be  read 
for  edification,  are  not  to  be  used  as  an  authority  in  matters  of  faith.2 

Bibel  in  der  Hand  alles  das  zu  verwerfen,  was  nicht  ausdrikldich  in  der  heiligen  Schrif't 
qelehrt  und  geboten  ist,  wiewohl  ilir  diese  von  huckster  Geltung  ist,  als  oberste  Richtschnur  der 
christlichen  Wahrheit.  Sie  bricht  nicht  mit  dem  geschichtlich  Gewordenen  (der  Ueberliefe- 
rtmg),  ausser  sofern  dieses  der  Schrift  nicht  gemass  ist.  Die  ganze  EntwicMung  der  christ- 
lichen Kirche  seit  den  Tagen  der  Apostel  bis  auf  die  Gegenwart  ist  ihr  von  hohem  Wert  he  und 
Jindet  ihre  ernste  Beriicksichtigung,  nur  dass  sie  sich  nach  der  obersten  Norm  muss  richten 
lassen.  Insofern  steht  sie  mit  ihrer  evangelise/ten  Schtvesterkirche  lutherischen  Bekenntnisses 
ganz  avf  demselben  Boden  und  kann  ihr  stets  die  Hand  reichen  zur  Anndherung,  mbglicher 
Weise  auch  zu  einer  Einigung,  wenn  gleich  die  Auffassung  der  christlichen  Wahrheit  nach 
gewissen  Richtungen  hin  sich  unterscheidcn  und  deshalb  die  Entscheidung  iiber  diese  oder  jene 
einzelnen  Lehrpunkte  und  Gebrduche  verschieden  ausfallen  mag.'  Dr.  Hodge  (Syst.  Theol. 
Vol.  III.  p.  63-t) :  'The  Second  Helvetic  Confession  is,  on  some  accounts,  to  be  regarded  as 
the  most  authoritative  symbol  of  the  Reformed  Church,  as  it  was  more  generally  received  than 
any  other,  and  was  sanctioned  by  different  parties."' 

1  The  full  Latin  text  will  be  found  in  Vol.  III. 

2  This  is  the  first  symbolical  exclusion  of  the  Apocrypha  from  the  Canon.  The  Lutheran 
symbols  leave  this  question  open. 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  1S66.  397 

"We  condemn  the  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics  and  Manichaeans,  and  all 
others  who  reject  the  Scriptures  in  whole  or  in  part, 

Chap.  II.  The  Interpretation  of  the  Scriptures;  the  Fathers, 
Councils,  and  Traditions. — "We  acknowledge  only  that  interpretation 
as  true  and  correct  which  is  fairly  derived  from  the  spirit  and  lan- 
guage of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  in  accordance  with  the  circum- 
stances, and  in  harmony  with  other  and  plainer  passages  (2  Pet.  i. 
20,  21). 

"We  do  not  despise  the  interpretation  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers 
and  the  teaching  of  Councils,  but  subordinate  them  to  the  Scriptures ; 
honoring  them  as  far  as  they  agree  with  the  Scriptures,  and  modestly 
dissenting  from  them  when  they  go  beyond  or  against  the  Scriptures. 
In  matters  of  faith  we  can  not  admit  any  other  judge  than  God  him- 
self, who  through  his  Word  tells  us  what  is  true  and  what  is  false, 
what  is  to  be  followed,  and  what  is  to  be  avoided. 

"We  reject  traditions  which  contradict  the  Scriptures,  though  they 
may  claim  to  be  apostolical.  For  the  Apostles  and  their  disciples 
could  not  teach  one  thing  by  writing,  and  another  by  word  of  mouth. 
St.  Paul  preached  the  same  doctrine  to  all  the  churches  (1  Cor.  iv.  17 ; 
2  Cor.  i.  13;  xii.  18).  The  Jews  likewise  had  their  traditions  of  the 
elders,  but  they  were  refuted  by  our  Lord  as  'making  void  the  "Word 
of  God'  (Matt.  xv.  8,  9 ;  Mark  vii.  6,  7). 

Chap.  III.  Of  God,  his  Unity  and  Trinity. — "We  believe  and  teach 
that  God  is  one  in  essence  (Deut.  vi.  4 ;  Exod.  xx.  2,  3,  etc.),  and  three 
in  persons — Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  The  Father  hath  begotten 
the  Son  from  eternity ;  the  Son  is  begotten  in  an  unspeakable  man- 
ner ;  the  Holy  Ghost  eternally  proceeds  from  both,  and  is  to  be  wor- 
shiped with  both  as  one  God.  There  are  not  three  Gods,  but  three 
persons — consubstantial,  coeternal,  distinct  as  to  person  and  order,  yet 
without  any  inequality.  The  divine  essence  or  nature  is  the  same  in 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit  (Luke  i.  35  ;  Matt.  iii.  IT;  xxviii. 
19 ;  John  i.  32 ;  xiv.  26 ;  xv.  26). 

In  short,  we  accept  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  delivers  to  us  the 
true  faith. 

"We  therefore  condemn  the  Jews  and  Mohammedans,  and  all  who 
blaspheme  this  holy  and  adorable  Trinity.  "We  also  condemn  all  here- 
tics, who  deny  the  Deity  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 


398  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Chap.  IV.  Of  Idols,  Images  of  God  and  of  Saints. — As  God  is  a 
spirit,  lie  can  not  be  represented  by  any  image  (John  iv.  24 ;  Isa.  xl. 
18  ;  xliv.  9, 10  ;  Jer.  xvi.  19  ;  Acts  xvii.  29,  etc.). 

And  although  Christ  assumed  man's  nature,  yet  he  did  so  not  in 
order  to  afford  a  model  for  sculptors  and  painters.  He  instituted  for 
the  instruction  of  the  people  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  the 
sacraments,  but  not  images.  Epiphanius  tore  down  an  image  of  Christ 
and  some  saint  in  a  church,  because  he  regarded  it  contrary  to  the 
Scriptures. 

Chap.  V.  The  Adoration  and  Invocation  of  God  through  the 
only  Mediator  Jesus  Christ. — God  is  the  only  object  of  worship 
(Matt.  iv.  10).  And  he  is  to  be  worshiped  'in  spirit  and  in  truth' 
(John  iv.  24),  and  through  our  only  and  sufficient  Mediator  and  Advo- 
cate Jesus  Christ  (1  Tim.  ii.  5  ;  1  John  ii.  1). 

Hence  we  neither  adore  nor  invoke  the  departed  saints,  and  give 
no  one  else  the  glory  that  belongs  to  God  alone  (Isa.  xlii.  8 ;  Acts 
iv.  12). 

Nevertheless,  we  neither  despise  nor  undervalue  the  saints,  but  honor 
them  as  the  members  of  Christ  and  the  friends  of  God,  who  have  glo- 
riously overcome  the  flesh  and  the  world ;  we  love  them  as  brethren, 
and  hold  them  up  as  examples  of  faith  and  virtue,  desiring  to  dwell 
with  them  eternally  in  heaven,  and  to  rejoice  with  them  in  Christ. 

Much  less  do  we  believe  that  the  relics  of  saints  should  be  worshiped. 
Nor  do  we  swear  by  saints,  since  it  is  forbidden  to  swear  by  the  name 
of  strange  gods  (Exod.  xxiii.  13 ;  Dent.  x.  20). 

Chap.  VI.  The  Providence  of  God.  — We  believe  that  the  wise, 
eternal,  and  almighty  God  by  his  providence  preserves  and  rules  all 
things  in  heaven  and  earth  (Psa.  cxiii.  4-6;  cxxxix.  3-4;  Acts  xvii. 
28  ;  Kom.  xi.  36). 

We  therefore  condemn  the  Epicureans,  who  blasphemously  affirm 
that  God  neither  sees  nor  cares  for  men  (Psa.  xciv.  3-9). 

We  do  not  despise  as  unnecessary  the  means  whereby  divine  Provi- 
dence works,  but  make  use  of  them  as  far  as  they  are  commended  to 
us  in  the  Word  of  God.  We  disapprove  of  the  rash  words  of  those 
who  say  that  our  efforts  and  endeavors  are  vain. 

St.  Paul  well  knew  that  he  was  sailing  under  the  providence  of  God, 
who  had  assured  him  that  he  must  bear  witness  at  Rome  (Acts  xxiii. 


§  SB.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  1566.  399 

11),  and  that  not  a  soul  should  perish  (xxvii.  21, 34);  nevertheless,  when 
the  sailors  were  seeking  flight,  he  said  to  the  centurion  and  the  soldiers: 
'  Unless  these  abide  in  the  ship,  ye  can  not  be  saved'  (ver.  31).  For 
God  has  appointed  the  means  by  which  we  attain  to  the  end.1 

Chap.  VII.  Of  the  Ckeation  of  all  Things  ;  of  Angels,  the 
Devil,  and  Man. — This  good  and  almighty  God  created  all  things, 
visible  and  invisible,  by  his  eternal  Word,  and  preserves  them  by  his 
coeternal  Spirit  (Psa.  xxxiii.  6 ;  John  i.  3).  He  made  all  things  very 
good  and  for  the  use  of  man  (Gen.  i.  31). 

We  condemn  the  Maniclueans  who  impiously  imagine  two  coeternal 
principles,  the  one  good,  the  other  evil,  and  two  antagonistic  gods. 

Angels  and  men  stand  at  the  head  of  all  creatures.  Angels  are 
ministers  of  God  (Psa.  civ.  4),  and  ministering  spirits  sent  for  them  who 
shall  be  heirs  of  salvation  (Ileb.  i.  14). 

The  devil  was  a  murderer  and  liar  from  the  beginning  (John  viii.  44). 

Some  angels  persevered  in  obedience,  and  are  ordained  unto  the 
faithful  service  of  God  and  men ;  but  others  fell  of  their  own  accord 
and  ran  into  destruction,  and  have  become  enemies  of  God  and  men. 

Man  was  made  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God,  and  placed  by 
God  in  paradise  as  ruler  over  the  earth  (Gen.  i.  27,  28  ;  ii.  8).  This  is 
celebrated  by  David  in  the  8th  Psalm.  Moreover,  God  gave  him  a 
wife  and  blessed  them  (Gen.  ii.  22  sqq.). 

Man  consists  of  two  diverse  substances  in  one  person — of  an  immortal 
soul,  which,  when  separated  from  the  body,  neither  sleeps  nor  dies,  and 
of  a  mortal  body,  which  at  the  last  judgment  shall  be  raised  again  from 
the  dead. 

We  condemn  those  who  deny  the  immortality,  or  affirm  the  sleep  of 
the  soul,  or  teach  that  it  is  a  part  of  God. 

Chap.  VIII.  Of  Man's  Fall,  Sin,  and  the  Cause  of  Sin. — Man 
was  created  according  to  the  image  of  God,  in  true  righteousness  and 
holiness,  good  and  upright.     But  by  the  instigation  of  the  serpent,  and 

1  Here  we  have  a  clear  recognition  of  secondary  causes  in  opposition  to  fatalism  and  de- 
terminism which  has  sometimes  been  charged  upon  Calvinism.  The  Westminster  Confession 
(Chap.  III.)  is  still  more  explicit:  'God  from  all  eternity  did  by  the  most  wise  and  holy 
counsel  of  his  own  will  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass ;  yet  so  as 
thereby  neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin ;  nor  is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatures, 
nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather  established  (Acts  ii. 
23;  iv.  27,  28;  xvii.  23,  24,  comp.  with  30;  Matt.  xvii.  12;  John  xix.  II  ;   l'rov.  xvi.  83).' 


400  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

through  his  own  guilt,  he  fell  from  goodness  and  rectitude,  and  became, 
with  all  his  offspring,  subject  to  sin,  death,  and  various  calamities. 

Sin  is  that  inborn  corruption  of  man,  derived  and  propagated  from 
our  first  parents,  whereby  we  are  immersed  in  depraved  lusts,  averse  to 
goodness  and  prone  to  all  evil,  and  unable  of  ourselves  to  do  or  think 
any  thing  that  is  good.  And  as  years  roll  on,  we  bring  forth  evil 
thoughts,  words,  and  deeds,  as  corrupt  trees  bring  forth  corrupt  fruits 
(Matt.  xii.  33).  Therefore  we  are  all  by  nature  under  the  wrath  of 
God,  and  subject  to  just  punishment. 

By  death  we  understand  not  only  the  dissolution  of  the  body,  but 
also  the  eternal  punishments  of  sin  (Eph.  ii.  1,  5  ;  Kom.  v.  12). 

We  therefore  acknowledge  that  there  is  original  sin  in  all  men,  and 
that  all  other  sins,  whether  mortal  or  venial,  also  the  unpardonable  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  spring  from  this  same  source.  We  acknowl- 
edge also  that  sins  are  not  equal,  but  some  are  more  grievous  than 
others  (Matt.  x.  14, 15  ;  xi.  24 ;  1  John  v.  16, 17). 

We  condemn  the  Pelagians,  who  deny  original  sin  ;  the  Jovinianists, 
who  with  the  Stoics  declare  all  sins  to  be  equal ;  and  those  who  make 
God  the  author  of  sin  against  the  express  teaching  of  Scriptures  (Psa. 
v.  5-7 ;  John  viii.  44). 

When  God  is  said  to  blind  or  harden  men,  or  to  give  them  over  to  a 
reprobate  mind  (Exod.  vii.  13 ;  John  xii.  40),  it  is  to  be  understood  as  a 
righteous  judgment.  Moreover,  God  overrules  the  wickedness  of  men 
for  good,  as  he  did  in  the  case  of  the  brethren  of  Joseph. 

Chap.  IX.  Of  Fkee  Will  and  Man's  Ability.  —  The  will  and 
moral  ability  of  man  must  be  viewed  under  a  threefold  state. 

First,  before  the  fall,  he  had  freedom  to  continue  in  goodness,  or  to 
yield  to  temptation. 

Secondly,  after  the  fall,  his  understanding  was  darkened  and  his 
will  became  a  slave  to  sin  (1  Cor.  ii.  14 ;  2  Cor.  iii.  5 ;  John  viii.  34 ; 
Pom.  viii.  7).  But  he  has  not  been  turned  into  '  a  stone  or  stock ; '  nor 
is  his  will  (voluntas)  a  non-will  (noluntas)}  He  serves  sin  willingly, 
not  unwillingly  (servit  peccato  non  nolens,  sed  volens).     In  external 

'  Expressions  used  by  Luther,  Flacius,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord.  The  Helvetic  and 
other  Reformed  Confessions  are  much  more  guarded  on  this  point,  and  teach  that  man, 
though  totally  depraved,  remains  a  moral  and  responsible  being  in  the  act  of  sinning.  Me- 
lanchthon,  in  his  later  period,  came  to  the  same  view,  but  went  beyond  it  into  synergism. 
Comp.  above,  pp.  2G2,  270. 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  1566.  401 

and  worldly  matters  man  retains  his  freedom  even  after  the  fall,  under 
the  general  providence  of  God. 

Thirdly,  in  the  regenerate  state,  man  is  free  in  the  true  and  proper 
sense  of  the  term.  His  intelleet  is  enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
understand  the  mysteries  and  the  will  of  God  ;  and  the  will  is  changed 
by  the  Spirit  and  endowed  with  the  power  freely  to  will  and  to  do 
what  is  good  (Rom.  viii.  5,  6  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  33 ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  26 ;  John  viii. 
36 ;  Phil.  i.  6,  29  ;  ii.  13). 

In  regeneration  and  conversion  men  are  not  merely  passive,  but  also 
active.  They  are  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  do  of  themselves 
what  they  do.  But  even  in  the  regenerate  there  remains  some  infirm- 
ity. The  flesh  strives  against  the  spirit  to  the  end  of  life  (Rom.  vii. 
14;  Gal.  v.  17). 

We  condemn  the  Manichceans,  who  deny  that  evil  originated  in  the 
free  will  of  man,  and  the  Pelagians,  who  teach  that  fallen  man  has 
sufficient  freedom  to  keep  God's  commandments.  The  former  are  re- 
futed by  Gen.  i.  27 ;  Eccles.  vii.  29  ;  the  latter  by  John  viii.  36. 

Chap.  X.  The  Predestination  of  God  and  the  Election  of 
Saints. — God  has  from  eternity  predestinated  or  freely  chosen,  of  his 
mere  grace,  without  any  respect  of  men,  the  saints  whom  he  will  save 
in  Christ  (Eph.  i.  4;  2  Tim.  i.  9, 10). 

God  elected  us  in  Christ  and  for  Christ's  sake,  so  that  those  who  are 
already  implanted  in  Christ  by  faith  are  chosen,  but  those  out  of  Christ 
are  rejected  (2  Cor.  xiii.  5).1 

Although  God  knows  who  are  his,  and  a  'small  number  of  the 
elect'  is  spoken  of,  yet  we  ought  to  hope  well  of  all,  and  not  rashly 
count  any  one  among  the  reprobate  (2  Tim.  ii.  19  ;  Matt.  xx.  16 ;  Phil, 
i.  3  sqq.). 

We  reject  those  who  seek  out  of  Christ  whether  they  are  chosen,  and 
what  God  has  decreed  concerning  them  from  eternity.  We  are  to 
hear  the  gospel  and  believe  it,  and  be  sure  that  if  we  believe  and  are 
in  Christ,  we  are  chosen.  We  must  listen  to  the  Lord's  invitation, 
'Come  unto  me'  (Matt.  xi.  2S),  and  believe  in  the  unbounded  love  of 
God,  who  gave  his  own  Son  for  the  salvation  of  the  world,  and  will 


1  '  Ergo  non  sine  medio,  licet  non  propter  ullum  meritum  nostrum,  sed  in  Christo  et  pro/>tcr 
Christum  nos  elegit  Deus,  ttt  qui  jam  sunt  in  Christo  insiti  per  Jidem,  illi  ij/si  etium  sint  electi, 
reprobi  vero,  qui  sunt  extra  Christum,' 


402  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

not  that  *  one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish'  (John  iii.  16 ;  Matt, 
xviii.  14). » 

Let,  therefore,  Christ  be  the  mirror  in  which  we  behold  our  predes- 
tination. We  shall  have  a  sufficiently  evident  and  sure  testimony  of 
being  written  in  the  book  of  life  if  we  live  in  communion  with  him, 
and  if  in  true  faith  he  is  ours  and  we  his. 

And  if  we  are  tempted  concerning  our  predestination,  let  this  be  our 
comfort — that  God's  promises  are  general  to  believers,  as  he  himself 
says:  'Seek,  and  ye  shall  find,  and  whosoever  asketh  shall  receive' 
(Matt.  vii.  8  sq.).  We  pray  with  the  whole  Church, '  Our  Father  which 
art  in  heaven ;'  by  baptism  we  are  ingrafted  into  the  body  of  Christ, 
and  we  are  often  fed  in  the  Church  by  his  flesh  and  blood  unto  life 
everlasting.  Thus  strengthened,  let  us  '  work  out  our  own  salvation 
with  fear  and  trembling,  for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  us  both  to  will 
and  to  do  according  to  his  good  pleasure'  (Phil.  ii.  12. 13).2 

CuAr.  XI.  Jesus  Chkist  true  God  and  Man,  and  the  only  Sav- 
iour of  the  World. — We  believe  and  teach  that  the  Son  of  God,  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  was  from  eternity  predestinated  by  the  Father  to  be 
the  Saviour  of  the  world ;  that  he  was  begotten  of  the  Father  from  all 
eternity  in  an  ineffable  manner  (Isa.  liii.  8;  Micah  v.  2;  John  i.  1). 
Therefore  the  Son,  according  to  his  Divinity,  is  coequal  and  consnb- 
stantial  with  the  Father ;  true  God,  not  merely  by  name  or  adoption  or 
by  conferring  of  a  dignity,  but  in  essence  and  nature  (1  John  v.  20 ; 
Phil.  ii.  6  ;  Heb.  i.  2,  3 ;  John  v.  18  ;  xvii.  5). 

We  abhor  the  blasphemous  doctrine  of  Arius  and  Servetus  in  op- 
position to  the  Sou  of  God. 

We  also  believe  and  teach  that  the  same  eternal  Son  of  God  became 
the  Son  of  Man,  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  David,  not  through  the 
will  of  man  (Ebionites),  but  he  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
born  of  the  ever -Virgin  Mary  (ex  Maria  semper  virgine),  as  taught  in 
the  gospel  history  and  the  Epistles  (Matt.  i.  18  ;  Luke  i.  3-1,  35  ;  1  John 
iv.  3;  Heb.  ii.  16).  The  body  of  Christ  was  therefore  neither  a  mere 
appearance,  nor  brought  down  from  heaven  (the  Gnostics,  Valentinus 

1  Comp.  ver.  10  and  11.  A  very  strong  passage  for  the  doctrine  of  infant  salvation,  and 
so  understood  by  Zwingli  and  Bullinger. 

a  This  Tenth  Article  is  moderately  Calvinistic  or  Augustinian,  and  neither  Arminian  nor 
Melancluhonian  (synergistic),  as  has  sometimes  been  claimed.  Comp.  Schweizer,  Central- 
du(/men,Vo\.  I.  p.  47G  ;  also  Sudhof's  art.  in  Herzog. 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  1566.  403 

and  Marcion).  Moreover  his  soul  was  not  without  reason  (Apollinaris), 
nor  his  flesh  without  a  soul  (Eunomius) ;  but  he  had  a  rational  soul, 
and  a  flesh  with  senses  capable  of  true  suffering  (Matt.  xxvi.  36 ;  John 
xii.  27). 

Hence  we  acknowledge  in  one  and  the  same  Lord  Jesus  Christ  two 
natures,  a  divine  and  a  human,  which  are  conjoined  and  united  in  one 
person  without  absorption  or  confusion  and  mixture. 

"We  worship  one  Lord  Christ,  not  two ;  one  true  God-Man,  coequal 
(or  of  one  substance,  consubstantialis,  o/btoovaiog)  with  the  Father  as 
regards  his  divine  nature,  and  coequal  with  us  men,  sin  only  excepted 
(Heb.  iv.  15),  as  regards  his  human  nature. 

We  therefore  abominate  Nestorianism,  which  dissolves  the  unity  of 
person,  and  Eutychianism,  Monothelitism,  and  Monophysitism,  wrhich 
destroy  the  proper  character  of  the  human  nature. 

We  do  not  teach  that  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  did  suffer,  nor  that 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  every  where  present.  The  true  body  of 
Christ  was  not  deified  so  as  to  put  off  its  properties  and  to  be  absorbed 
into  the  divine  substance.  But  we  believe  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
did  truly  suffer  for  us  in  the  flesh  (1  Pet.  iii.  IS ;  iv.  1),  and  that  the 
Lord  of  glory  was  crucified  for  us  (1  Cor.  ii.  8).  Eor  we  accept  be- 
lievingly  and  reverently  the  '  communication  of  properties,'  which  is 
deduced  from  the  Scriptures  and  employed  by  the  ancient  Church  in 
explaining  and  harmonizing  seemingly  contradictory  passages.1 

We  believe  and  teach  that  Christ,  in  the  same  flesh  in  which  he 
died,  rose  from  the  dead  (Luke  xxiv.  30),  and  ascended  to  the  right 
hand  of  God  in  the  highest  heaven  (Eph.  iv.  10),  which  signifies  his 
elevation  to  the  divine  majesty  and  power,  but  also  a  definite  place 
(John  xiv.  2 ;  Acts  iii.  21). 

The  same  Christ  will  come  again  to  judgment,  when  the  wickedness 

1  'Natn  communicat lone m  idiomatum  ex  Scripturis  petitam  et  ab  universa  vetustate  in  ex- 
plicandis  componendisque  Scripturarum  locis  in  speciem  pugnantibus  usurpatam,  religiose  et 
reverenter  recipimus  et  usurpamus. '  It  is  an  error,  therefore,  to  charge  the  Reformed  Church 
with  rejecting  the  communicatio  idiomatum.  It  admits  the  communication  of  the  properties 
of  one  nature  to  the  whole  person,  but  denies  the  communication  of  the  properties  of  one 
nature  to  the  other,  viz.,  the  genus  majestaticum,  so  called,  whereby  the  infinite  attributes  of 
the  divine  nature  (as  omnipresence  and  omnipotence)  arc  ascribed  to  the  human  nature,  and 
the  genus  tapeinotkon,  whereby  the  finite  attributes  of  the  human  nature  are  ascribed  to  the 
divine.  Either  of  these  forms  leads  necessarily  to  a  Eutychian  confusion  of  natures.  The 
Lutheran  Church  teaches  the  genus  mnjestaticwn,  as  a  support  to  its  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist, 
but  rejects  the  genus  tapeinoticon. 


404  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  the  world  shall  have  reached  the  highest  point,  and  Antichrist  cor- 
rupted the  true  religion.  He  will  destroy  Antichrist,  and  judge  the 
quick  and  the  dead  (2  Thess.  ii.  8 ;  Acts  xvii.  51,  52 ;  1  Thess.  iv.  17). 
The  believers  will  enter  into  the  mansions  of  the  blessed ;  the  unbe- 
lievers, with  the  devil  and  his  angels,  will  be  cast  into  everlasting 
torment  (Matt,  xxv.  41 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  11 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  7). 

"We  reject  all  who  deny  the  real  resurrection ;  who  teach  the  ulti- 
mate salvation  of  all  the  godless,  and  even  the  devil.  We  also  reject 
the  Jewish  dream  of  a  millennium,  or  golden  age  on  earth,  before  the 
last  judgment. 

We  believe  and  teach  that  Christ  is  the  only  Redeemer  of  the  whole 
world,  in  whom  all  are  saved  that  were  saved  before  the  law,  under 
the  law,  and  under  the  gospel,  or  will  yet  be  saved  to  the  end  of  the 
world  (John  x.  1,  7 ;  Acts  iv.  12 ;  xv.  11 ;  1  Cor.  x.  1, 4 ;  Rev.  xiii.  8). 

We  therefore  confess  and  teacli  with  a  loud  voice :  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  only  Saviour  of  the  world,  the  King  and  High-priest,  the  true 
Messiah,  whom  all  the  shadows  and  types  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
did  prefigure  and  promise.  God  did  send  him  to  us,  and  we  need  not 
look  for  another.  There  remains  nothing  but  that  we  should  give  all 
glory  to  him,  believe  in  him,  and  rest  in  him  alone. 

And,  to  say  much  in  a  few  words,  we  sincerely  believe  and  loudly 
confess  all  that  has  been  determined  out  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  con- 
cerning the  mystery  of  the  incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
is  contained  in  the  creeds  and  decrees  of  the  first  four  oecumenical 
Councils  held  in  Niceae,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon,  in 
the  Creed  of  St.  Athanasius,  and  all  similar  creeds ;  and  we  reject  all 
contrary  to  the  same.  In  this  manner  we  retain,  unchanged  and  entire, 
the  Christian,  orthodox,  and  catholic  faith ;  knowing  that  nothing  is 
contained  in  the  aforesaid  creeds  which  does  not  correspond  with  the 
Word  of  God  and  aid  in  setting  forth  the  true  faith.1 

1  An  express  and  emphatic  indorsement  of  the  oecumenical  Creeds,  on  the  ground  of  their 
agreement  with  the  Scriptures:  iEt  ut  paucis  multa  hi  jus  causes  dicamus,  quaicunque  de  in- 
carnationis  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  mysterio  definita  sunt  ex  Scripturis  Sanctis,  et  compre- 
kensa  symbolis  ac  sententiis  quatuor  prhnarum  et  jtra'stantissimarum  Synodorutn  celebratarum 
Nicea-,  Constantinopoli,  Epliesi,  et  Chalcedone,  una  cum  bead  Athanasii  Symbolo,  et  omnibus 
his  similibus  symbolis,  credimus  cordc  syncero,  et  ore  libero  ingenue  projitemur,  condemnantes 
omnia  his  contraria,  Atque  ad  Itunc  modum  retinemus  inviolatam  sive  integrant  Jidem  Chri- 
stianam,  orthodoxam  atque  catholicam :  scientes,  symbolis  prcedictis  nihil  contineri,  quod  non 
sit  conforme  Verbo  Dei,  et  prorata  faciat  ad  synceram  fidei  expKcationem.' 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  1566.  405 

Chap.  XII.  The  Law  of  God. — The  law  of  God  explains  the  will  of 
God  and  the  difference  between  what  is  good  and  bad,  just  and  unjust 
It  is  therefore  good  and  holy.  It  is  twofold:  the  law  of  nature  in- 
scribed on  the  hearts  of  men  (Rom.  ii.  15),  and  the  written  law  of 
Moses.  The  latter  we  divide  for  perspicuity's  sake  into  the  moral  law, 
comprehended  in  the  two  tables  of  the  Decalogue  (Exod.  xx.*;  Deut. 
v.);  the  ceremonial  law,  concerning  worship  and  sacred  rites;  and  the 
judicial,  concerning  polity  and  economy. 

The  law  of  God  is  complete,  and  allows  no  addition  nor  subtraction 
(Deut.  iv.  2 ;  Isa.  xxx.  21).  It  is  given  to  us,  not  that  by  keeping  it  we 
might  be  justified,  but  that  we  may  be  led  to  a  knowledge  of  sin  and 
guilt,  and,  despairing  of  our  own  strength,  turn  by  faith  to  Christ 
(Rom.  iv.  15  ;  iii.  20  ;  viii.  3  ;  Gal.  iii.  21-24).  Christ  is  the  end  of  the 
law,  and  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law  (Rom.  x.  4 ;  Gal.  iii. 
13).  He  enables  us  to  fulfill  the  law,  and  his  righteousness  and  obe- 
dience are  imputed  to  us  through  faith. 

The  law  is  abolished  inasmuch  as  it  no  more  condemns  and  works 
wrath  in  them  that  believe,  who  are  under  grace,  and  not  under  the 
law.  Besides,  Christ  has  fulfilled  all  the  tj'pes  of  the  law,  and  put  the 
substance  in  the  place  of  the  shadows;  in  him  we  have  all  fullness. 
Nevertheless,  the  law  is  useful  in  showing  us  all  virtues  and  vices,  and 
in  regulating  the  life  of  new  obedience.  Christ  did  not  come  to  de- 
stroy, but  to  fulfill  the  law  (Matt.  v.  17). 

We  therefore  condemn  old  and  modern  Antinomianism. 

Chap.  XIII.  The  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ. — The  law  works  wrath 
and  announces  the  curse  (Rom.  iv.  15 ;  Deut.  xxvii.  2G) ;  the  gospel 
announces  grace  and  blessing  (John  i.  17).  Nevertheless,  those  who 
lived  before  and  under  the  law  were  not  deprived  altogether  of  the 
gospel,  but  had  great  promises  (Gen.  iii.  15  ;  xxii.  IS  ;  xlix.  10).  The 
promises  were  partly  temporal,  partly  spiritual  and  eternal.  By  the 
gospel  promises  the  fathers  obtained  salvation  in  Christ. 

In  the  strict  sense  of  the  term  the  gospel  is  the  glad  tidings  of  sal- 
vation by  Christ,  in  whom  we  have  forgiveness,  redemption,  and  ever- 
lasting life.  Hence  the  history  of  Christ  recorded  by  the  four  Evan- 
gelists is  justly  called  the  gospel. 

Compared  with  the  legalism  of  the  Pharisees  the  gospel  appeared  to 
be  a  new  doctrine,  as  it  is  even  now  called  new  by  the  Papists ;  but  in 


406  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

fact  it  is  the  oldest  doctrine,  for  God  foreordained  from  eternity  to 
save  the  world  through  Christ,  and  has  revealed  this  plan  in  the  gospel 
(2  Tim.  i.  9, 10).  It  is  therefore  a  grave  error  to  call  our  evangelical 
faith  a  recent  innovation. 

Chap.  XIV.  Of  Repentance  and  Conversion. — Repentance  (jura- 
voia)  is  a  change  of  heart  produced  in  a  sinner  by  the  word  of  the  gos- 
pel and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  includes  a  knowledge  of  native  and  actual 
depravity,  a  godly  sorrow  and  hatred  of  sin,  and  a  determination  to 
live  hereafter  in  virtue  and  holiness.  True  repentance  is  turning  to 
God  and  all  good,  and  turning  away  from  the  devil  and  all  evil.  It  is 
the  free  gift  of  God,  and  not  the  result  of  our  own  strength  (2  Tim. 
ii.  25). 

We  have  examples  of  true  repentance  in  the  woman  that  was  a  sin- 
ner (Luke  vii.  38),  in  Peter  after  his  fall  (xxii.  62),  in  the  prodigal  son 
(xv.  18),  and  the  publican  in  the  temple  (xviii.  13). 

It  is  sufficient  to  confess  our  sins  to  God  in  private  and  in  the  pub- 
lic service ;  it  is  not  necessary  to  confess  to  a  priest,  for  this  is  nowhere 
commanded  in  the  Scriptures ;  although  we  may  seek  counsel  and 
comfort  from  a  minister  of  the  gospel  in  time  of  distress  and  trial 
(comp.  James  v.  16). 

The  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  out  of  which  the  Papists  forge 
swords,  sceptres,  and  crowns,  are  given  to  all  legitimate  ministers  of 
the  Church  in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  and  the  maintenance  of  dis- 
cipline (Matt.  xvi.  19 ;  John  xx.  23 ;  Mark  xvi.  15 ;  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19). 
We  condemn  the  profitable  popish  doctrine  of  penance  and  of  indul- 
gences, and  apply  to  them  Peter's  wTord  to  Simon  Magus :  '  Thy  money 
perish  with  thee'  (Acts  viii.  20). 

CiiAr.  XV.  Of  True  Justification  of  Believers.  —  'To  justify' 
means,  with  the  Apostle  when  treating  of  this  subject,  to  remit  sins, 
to  absolve  from  guilt  and  punishment,  to  receive  into  grace,  and  to 
pronounce  just  (Rom.  viii.  33 ;  Acts  xiii.  3S  ;  Deut.  xxv.  1 ;  Isa.  v.  23). 

By  nature  we  are  all  sinners  and  guilty  of  death  before  the  tribunal 
of  God,  and  we  can  be  justified  only  by  the  merits  of  Christ  crucified 
and  risen  again.  For  his  sake  God  is  reconciled,  and  imputes  to  us  not 
our  sins,  but  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  our  own,  so  that  we  are 
purged  and  absolved  from  sin,  death  and  damnation,  and  heirs  of 
eternal  life.     Properly  speaking,  God  alone  justifies  and  justifies  only 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  15CG.  407 

for  Christ's  sake,  not  imputing  to  us  our  sins,  but  the  righteousness  of 
Christ. 

We  therefore  teach  and  believe,  with  the  Apostle,  that  the  sinner  is 
justified  by  faith  alone  in  Christ  {sola  fide  in  Christum),  not  by  the  law, 
nor  by  any  works  (Rom.  iii.  28  ;  iv.  2  sqq. ;  Eph.  ii.  8,  9).  Righteous- 
ness is  imputed  to  faith  because  it  receives  Christ  as  our  righteousness 
and  ascribes  all  to  the  grace  of  God,  but  not  because  it  is  our  work :  it 
is  the  gift  of  God.  As  we  receive  food  by  eating,  so  faith  appropri- 
ates Christ. 

We  do  not  divide  justification  by  ascribing  it  partly  to  the  grace  of 
God  or  to  Christ,  and  partly  to  our  works  or  merits,  but  solely  and 
exclusively  to  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  through  faith.  We  must  first 
be  justified  before  we  can  do  good  works.  Love  is  derived  from  faith 
(1  Tim.  i.  5  ;  Gal.  v.  6). 

Therefore  we  speak  here  not  of  a  false,  dead  faith,  but  of  a  living 
and  vivifying  faith  which  lives  in  Christ,  our  life,  and  proves  its  life  by 
living  works.  Even  James  (chap,  ii.)  does  not  contradict  our  doctrine, 
for  he  speaks  of  a  dead  faith  which  even  demons  have,  and  he  shows 
that  Abraham  proved  his  living  and  justifying  faith  by  works. 

Chap.  XVI.  Faith  and  Good  Wokks,  their  Reward  and  the 
Merit  of  Man. — Christian  faith  is  not  a  human  opinion  and  persua- 
sion, but  a  most  firm  confidence  and  clear  and  steady  assent  of  the 
mind,  a  most  certain  apprehension  of  the  truth  of  God  as  laid  down  in 
the  Scriptures  and  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  therefore  of  God  himself 
as  the  highest  good,  and  especially  of  the  divine  promise  and  of  Christ, 
who  is  the  crown  of  all  promises.  Such  a  faith  is  a  free  gift  of  God, 
who  of  his  grace  grants  it  to  his  elect  through  his  Holy  Spirit  by  means 
of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  and  believing  prayer  when  and  in  what 
measure  he  pleases.  This  faith  has  degrees  and  is  subject  to  growth ; 
hence  the  prayer  of  the  Apostles:  'Lord,  increase  our  faith'  (Luke 
xvii.  5).  [Then  follow  a  number  of  Scripture  proofs :  Ileb.  xi.  1 ;  2 
Cor.  i.  20 ;  Phil.  i.  29 ;  Rom.  xii.  3 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  3 ;  Rom.  x.  1G ;  Acts 
xiii.  4S  ;  Gal.  v.  6,  etc.] 

We  teach  that  good  works  proceed  from  a  living  faith,  through  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  are  done  by  believers  according  to  the  will  and  rule 
of  the  Word  of  God  (2  Pet.  i.  5  sqq. ;  1  Thess.  iv.  3,  6,  23). 

Good  works  must  be  done,  not  to  merit  thereby  eternal  life,  which  is 

Vol.  I.— D  d 


408  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

a  free  gift  of  God  (Rom.  vi.  23),  nor  for  ostentation  or  from  selfishness, 
which  the  Lord  rejects  (Matt.  vi.  2  ;  xxiii.  5),  but  for  the  glory  of  God, 
to  adorn  our  calling  and  to  show  our  gratitude  to  God,  and  for  the 
good  of  our  neighbor  (Matt.  v.  16 ;  Eph.  iv.  1 ;  Col.  iii.  17;  Phil.  ii.  4; 
Tit.  iii.  14).  Although  we  teach  that  man  is  justified  by  faith  of 
Christ  and  not  by  any  works,  we  do  not  condemn  good  works.  Man  is 
created  and  regenerated  by  faith  in  order  to  work  unceasingly  what  is 
good  and  useful.  'Every  good  tree  bringeth  forth  good  fruit'  (Matt, 
vii.  17).  'lie  that  abideth  in  me,  the  same  bringeth  forth  much  fruit' 
(John  xv.  5).  'We  are  God's  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus 
unto  good  works,  which  God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk 
in  them'  (Eph.  ii.  10). 

We  condemn,  therefore,  all  who  despise  good  works  or  declare  them 
useless ;  at  the  same  time  we  do  not  deem  them  necessary  to  salva- 


saved  by  Christ  alone ;  but  good  works  are  necessarily  born  of  faitl 


and  improperly  salvation  may  be  ascribed  to  them  which  properly  is 
ascribed  to  grace  (Rom.  xi.  6). 

God  is  well  pleased  and  approves  of  works  which  are  done  by  us 
through  faith  (Acts  x.  35  ;  Col.  i.  9, 10).  He  also  richly  rewards  them 
(Jer.  xxxi.  16  ;  Matt.  v.  12 ;  x.  42).  But  we  ascribe  this  reward  not  to 
the  merits  of  man  who  receives  it,  but  to  the  goodness  and  faithfulness 
of  God  who  promises  and  grants  it,  although  he  owes  nothing  to  his 
creatures.  Even  if  we  have  done  all,  we  are  unprofitable  servants 
(Luke  xvii.  10).  We  say  with  Augustine,  that  God  crowns  and  rewards 
in  us,  not  our  merits,  but  the  gifts  of  his  grace.  It  is  a  reward  of 
grace,  not  of  merit.  We  have  nothing  but  what  we  have  received 
(comp.  1  Cor.  iv.  7). 

We  therefore  condemn  those  who  so  defend  the  merits  of  men  as  to 
set  at  naught  the  grace  of  God. 

Chap.  XVII.  Of  the  Catholic  and  Holy  Church  of  God,  and  of 
the  only  Head  of  the  Church. — Since  God  willed  from  the  begin- 
ning that  men  should  be  saved  and  come  to  the  knowledge  of  truth,  it 
follows  of  necessity  that  there  always  was,  and  now  is,  and  shall  be  to 
the  end  of  time,  a  Church  or  an  assembly  of  believers  and  a  communion 
of  saints,  called  and  gathered  from  the  world,  who  know  and  worship 
the  true  God  in  Christ  our  Saviour,  and  partake  by  faith  of  all  the 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  15GG.  409 

benefits  freely  offered  through  Christ.  They  are  fellow-citizens  of  the 
same  household  of  God  (Eph.  ii.  10).  To  this  refers  the  article  in  the 
Creed  :  'I  believe  the  holy  catholic  Church,  the  communion  of  saints.' 

And  as  there  is  but  one  God,  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man, 
Jesus  the  Messiah,  one  pastor  of  the  whole  flock,  one  head  of  this  body, 
one  Spirit,  one  salvation,  one  faith,  one  testament  or  covenant,  there 
must  needs  be  but  one  Church,  which  we  call  catholic,  that  is,  universal, 
spread  throughout  all  parts  of  the  world  and  all  ages. 

We  therefore  condemn  the  Donatists,  who  confined  the  Church  to 
some  corners  of  Africa,  and  also  the  Roman  exclusiveness,  which  pre- 
tends that  the  Roman  Church  alone  is  the  catholic  Church. 

The  Church  is  divided,  not  in  itself,  but  on  account  of  the  diversity 
of  its  members.  There  is  a  Church  militant  on  earth  struggling 
against  the  flesh,  the  world,  and  the  devil,  and  a  Church  triumphant 
in  heaven  rejoicing  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord ;  nevertheless  there  is 
a  communion  between  the  two.  The  Church  militant  is  again  divided 
into  particular  Churches.  It  was  differently  constituted  among  the 
Patriarchs,  then  under  Moses,  then  under  Christ  in  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation ;  but  there  is  only  one  salvation  in  the  one  Messiah,  in  whom 
all  are  united  as  members  of  one  body,  partaking  of  the  same  spiritual 
food  and  drink.  We  enjoy  a  greater  degree  of  light  and  more  perfect 
liberty. 

This  Church  is  called  the  house  of  the  living  God  (1  Tim.  iii.  15), 
built  of  lively  and  spiritual  stones  (1  Pet.  ii.  5),  resting  on  an  immova- 
ble rock,  the  only  foundation  (1  Cor.  iii.  11),  the  ground  and  pillar  of 
the  truth  (1  Tim.  iii.  15).  It  can  not  err  as  long  as  it  rests  on  the  rock 
Christ,  on  the  foundation  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles;  but  it  errs 
as  often  as  it  departs  from  him  who  is  the  truth.1  The  Church  is  also 
called  a  virgin,  the  bride  of  Christ,  the  only  and  beloved  (2  Cor.  xi.  2), 
and  the  body  of  Christ,  because  the  believers  are  living  members  of 
Christ  under  him  the  head  (Eph.  i.  23,  etc.). 

The  Church  can  have  no  other  head  than  Christ.  He  is  the  one 
universal  pastor  of  his  flock,  and  has  promised  his  presence  to  the  end 
of  the  world.     lie  needs,  therefore,  no  vicar;  for  this  would  imply 


1  'Non  errat  ilia,  quamdiu  innitltur  petrm  Christo  et  fundamento  Prophetarum  et  Aposto- 
lorum.    Nee  mirum,  si  ervet,  quoties  deserit  ilium,  qui  solus  est  Veritas.' 


410  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

his  absence.  [Those  who  introduce  a  double  headship  and  govern- 
ment in  the  Church  plainly  belong  to  the  errorists  condemned  by  the 
Apostles  (2  Pet.  ii. ;  Acts  xx. ;  2  Cor.  xi. ;  2  Thess.  ii.).] J 

But  by  rejecting  the  Roman  head  we  do  not  introduce  disorder 
and  confusion  into  the  Church  of  Christ,  since  we  adhere  to  the  gov- 
ernment delivered  by  the  Apostles  before  there  was  any  Pope.  The 
Roman  head  preserves  the  tyranny  and  corruption  in  the  Church,  and 
opposes  and  destroys  all  just  reformation. 

They  object  that  since  our  separation  from  Rome  all  sorts  of  con- 
troversies and  divisions  have  arisen.  As  if  there  had  never  been  any 
sects  and  dissensions  in  the  Roman  Church,  in  the  pulpits,  and  among 
the  people !  God  is  indeed  a  God  of  order  and  peace  (1  Cor.  xiv.  33) ; 
nevertheless  there  were  parties  and  divisions  even  in  the  Apostles' 
Church  (Acts  xv. ;  1  Cor.  iii. ;  Gal.  ii.).  God  overrules  these  divisions 
for  his  glory  and  for  the  illustration  of  truth. 

Communion  with  the  true  Church  of  Christ  we  highly  esteem,  and 
deny  that  those  who  separate  from  it  can  live  before  God.  As  there 
was  no  salvation  out  of  the  ark  of  Noah,  so  there  is  no  certain  sal- 
vation out  of  Christ,  who  exhibits  himself  to  the  elect  in  the  Church 
for  their  nourishment.2 

But  we  do  not  so  restrict  the  Church  as  to  exclude  those  who  from 
unavoidable  necessity  and  unwillingly  do  not  partake  of  the  sacra- 
ments, or  who  are  weak  in  faith,  or  still  have  defects  and  errors.    God 


1  The  passage  in  brackets,  according  to  the  Zurich  MS.,  was  substituted  by  Bullinger  on 
the  margin  for  the  following  sentence,  which  he  wished  to  have  canceled  (see  note  in  Nie- 
meyer,  p.  501):  'We  reject  the  Romish  fiction  concerning  an  official  head  and  title  of  the 
servant  of  the  servants  of  Christ;  for  experience  proves  that  this  is  an  empty  boast,  and  that 
the  Pope  makes  himself  an  enemy  of  Christ,  and  exalts  himself  above  God,  sitting  in  the 
temple  of  God,  and  showing  himself  that  he  is  God'  (2  Thess.  ii.  4). 

*  lUt  extra  arcam  Not'  non  erat  ulla  salus,  pereunte  mundo  in  diluvio,  ita  credimus,  extra 
Christum,  qui  se  elertis  in  Ecclesia  fruendum  prabet,  nullum  esse  salutem  certain:  et  proinde 
doc  emus,  viv  ere  volentes  non  oportere  separari  a  vera  Cliristi  Ecclesia.'  This  high  estimate 
of  the  Church  reminds  one  of  Cyprian's  ' Extra  ecclesiam  nulla  salus,'  of  Tertullian's  iQtd 
ecclesiam  non  habet  matrem,  Deum  non  habet  patrem,'  and  of  Augustine's  '  Eijo  evangelio  non 
crederem,  nisi  me  commoveret  ecclesio3  auctoritas.'  Calvin,  in  his  Institutes  (lib.  IV.  c.  1), 
uses  similar  language.  But  we  must  remember  that  the  Calvinistic  system  does  not  bind 
election  to  the  visible  means  of  grace,  and  admits  the  possibility  of  salvation  without  baptism. 
Bullinger  denies  only  the  certainty  of  salvation  (salutem  certain)  outside  of  the  Church  (comp. 
above  what  follows) ;  and  so  must  be  understood  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
Ch.  XXV.  2,  when  it  asserts  that  out  of  the  visible  catholic  or  universal  Church  '  there  is  no 
ordinary  possibility  of  salvation.' 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  15CG.  4H 

had  friends  even  outside  of  the  Jewish  people.  We  know  what  hap- 
pened to  Peter,  and  to  chosen  believers  from  day  to  day,  and  we  know 
that  the  Apostle  censured  the  Christians  in  Galatia  and  Corinth  for 
grave  offenses,  and  yet  calls  them  holy  churches  of  Christ.  Yea,  God 
may  at  times  by  a  righteous  judgment  allow  the  Church  to  be  so  ob- 
scured and  shaken  as  to  appear  almost  annihilated,  as  in  the  days  of 
Elijah  (1  Kings  xix.  18;  comp.  Rev.  vii.  4,  9);  but  even  then  he  has 
his  true  worshipers,  even  seven  thousand  and  more ;  for  '  the  founda- 
tion of  God  standeth  sure,  having  this  seal,  the  Lord  knoweth  them  that 
are  his'  (2  Tim.  ii.  19).  Hence  the  Church  may  be  called  invisible, 
not  that  the  men  composing  it  are  invisible,  but  because  they  are 
known  only  to  God,  while  we  are  often  mistaken  in  our  judgment. 
There  are  also  many  hypocrites  in  the  Church,  who  outwardly  conform 
to  all  the  ordinances,  but  will  ultimately  be  revealed  in  their  true  char- 
acter and  be  cut  off  (1  John  ii.  19 ;  Matt.  xiii.  24,  47). 

The  true  unity  of  the  Church  is  not  to  be  sought  in  ceremonies  and 
rites,  but  in  the  truth  and  in  the  catholic  faith,  as  laid  down  in  the 
Scriptures  and  summed  up  in  the  Apostles'  Creed.  Among  the  an- 
cients there  was  a  great  diversity  of  rites  without  dissolving  the  unity 
of  the  Church. 

Chap.  XVIII.  On  the  Ministers  of  the  Church,  their  Institution 
and  Offices. — God  always  used  ministers  for  gathering  and  govern- 
ing the  Church  (Rom.  x.  14, 17 ;  John  xiii.  20 ;  Acts  xvi.  9 ;  1  Cor. 
iii.  9,  etc.). 

God  employed  the  Patriarchs,  Moses,  and  the  Prophets  as  teachers 
of  their  age.  At  last  he  sent  his  only-begotten  Son,  filled  with  infinite 
wisdom,  to  be  our  infallible  guide.  Christ  chose  the  Apostles,  and 
these  ordained  pastors  in  all  the  Churches  (Acts  xiv.  23),  whose  suc- 
cessors have  taught  and  governed  the  Church  to  this  day. 

The  ministers  of  the  New  Testament  are  called  Apostles,  prophets, 
evangelists,  bishops,  presbyters,  pastors,  and  teachers  (1  Cor.  xii.  28; 
Eph.  iv.  11).  In  subsequent  times  other  names  were  introduced,  aa 
patriarchs,  archbishops,  metropolitans,  archpresbyters,  deacons,  and  sub- 
deacons,  etc.  But  we  are  satisfied  with  the  offices  instituted  by  the 
Apostles  for  the  teaching  and  governing  of  the  Church. 

A  minister  should  be  lawfully  called  and  chosen  by  the  Church,  and 
excel  in  sacred  learning,  pious  eloquence,  prudence,  and  unblemished 


412  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

character  (1  Tim.  iii.  2  ;  Tit.  i.  5).  "When  elected,  a  minister  should  be 
ordained  of  the  elders  by  public  prayer  and  the  laying  on  of  hands. 
We  reject  arbitrary  intruders  and  incompetent  pastors.  But  we  ac- 
knowledge that  innocent  simplicity  may  be  more  useful  than  haughty 
learning. 

A  minister  of  the  New  Testament  is  not  a  priest,  as  in  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  offering  sacrifices  for  the  living  and  the  dead.  Christ  is 
our  eternal  High-priest,  who  fulfilled  and  abolished  typical  sacrifices 
by  his  one  perfect  sacrifice  on  the  cross ;  and  all  believers  are  priests 
offering  spiritual  sacrifices — namely,  thanksgiving  and  praise  to  God 
continually. 

All  ministers  are  equal  in  power  and  commission.  Bishops  and 
presbyters  were  originally  the  same  in  office,  and  governed  the  Church 
by  their  united  services,  mindful  of  the  words  of  the  Lord  :  '  He  who 
will  be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  servant'  (Luke  xxii.  26). 
Jerome  {Com.  on  Titus)  says :  '  Before,  by  the  instigation  of  the  devil, 
party  spirit  and  sectarianism  arose,  the  churches  were  governed  by  the 
common  counsel  of  the  presbyters ;  but  afterwards,  when  every  one 
thought  that  those  whom  he  had  baptized  belonged  to  him,  not  to  Christ, 
it  was  decreed  that  one  of  the  presbyters  should  by  election  be  placed 
over  the  rest,  and  be  intrusted  with  the  care  of  the  whole  Church,  and 
thus  the  seed  of  schisms  be  destroyed.'  But  Jerome  does  not  present 
this  decree  as  divine,  for  he  soon  adds  that  presbyters  and  bishops 
know  that  this  distinction  is  based  on  ecclesiastical  custom,  and  not  on 
divine  command.  Therefore  no  one  can  be  lawfully  forbidden  to  re- 
turn from  human  custom  to  the  ancient  constitution  of  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

The  chief  duties  of  ministers  are  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments,  the  care  of  souls,  and  the  maintenance 
of  discipline.  To  do  this  effectually  they  must  live  in  the  fear  of  God, 
pray  constantly,  study  the  Scriptures  diligently,  be  always  watchful, 
and  shine  before  all  by  purity  of  life.  In  the  exercise  of  discipline, 
they  should  remember  that  the  power  was  given  to  them  for  edifica- 
tion and  not  for  destruction  (2  Cor.  x.  8  ;  comp.  Matt.  xiii.  29). 

We  reject  the  error  of  the  Donatists,  who  make  the  efficacy  of  the 
preaching  and  the  sacraments  to  depend  on  the  moral  character  of  the 
minister.     The  voice  of  Christ  must  be  heard  and  obeyed  even  out  of 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  15CG.  413 

the  mouth  of  an  unworthy  servant  (Matt,  xxiii.  3) ;  and  the  sacraments 
are  efficacious  to  the  worthy  recipient  by  virtue  of  their  divine  appoint- 
ment and  the  Word  of  Christ.  On  these  things  St.  Augustine  has 
much  disputed  from  the  Scriptures  against  the  Donatists. 

Nevertheless,  proper  control  and  discipline  should  be  exercised  over 
the  doctrine  and  conduct  of  ministers  in  synods.  False  or  immoral 
teachers  should  not  be  tolerated,  but  warned  or  deposed.  We  do  not 
disapprove  general  or  oecumenical  councils  if  they  are  conducted,  ac- 
cording to  the  apostolic  example  (Acts  xv.),  for  the  welfare,  and  not 
for  the  corruption  of  the  Church. 

As  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  reward,  the  minister  is  entitled  to  the 
maintenance  of  himself  and  family  from  the  congregation  he  serves 
(1  Cor.  ix.  9  sqq. ;  1  Tim.  v.  18,  etc.).  Against  the  Anabaptists,  who 
denounce  ministers  living  off  their  ministry. 

Chap.  XIX.  The  Sacraments  of  the  Church  of  Christ. — With 
the  preaching  of  the  Word  are  joined  sacraments  or  sacred  rites  insti- 
tuted by  God  as  signs  and  seals  of  his  promises  for  the  strengthening 
of  our  faith,  and  as  pledges  on  our  part  for  our  consecration  to  him. 

The  sacraments  of  the  Jewish  dispensation  were  circumcision  and 
the  paschal  lamb;  the  sacraments  of  the  Christian  dispensation  are 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  Papists  count  seven  sacraments.  Of  these  we  acknowledge  re- 
pentance, ordination  of  ministers,  and  marriage  as  useful  institutions 
of  God,  but  not  as  sacraments.  Confirmation  and  extreme  unction  are 
inventions  of  men,  which  may  be  abolished  without  any  loss.  We  ab- 
hor all  merchandise  carried  on  with  the  sacraments  by  Romish  priests. 

The  supreme  benefit  of  the  sacraments  is  Christ  the  Saviour,  that 
Lamb  of  God  slain  for  our  sins  from  the  foundation  of  the  Avorld,  and 
that  Rock  of  which  all  our  fathers  drank.  So  far  the  sacraments  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  same.     But  we  have  the  abiding 

o 

substance. 

Sacraments  consist  of  the  Word,  the  sign,  and  the  thing  signified. 
By  the  Word  of  God  and  institution  of  Christ  they  become  sacraments 
and  are  sanctified.  The  sign  in  baptism  is  water,  the  thing  signified  is 
regeneration  or  the  washing  from  sins.  The  sign  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  bread  and  wine,  the  thing  signified  is  the  veritable  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  sacrificed  for  us.     The  signs  are  not  changed  into  the 


414:  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

things  signified;  for  then  they  would  cease  to  be  sacramental  signs, 
representing  the  things  signified ;  but  they  are  sacred  and  efficacious 
signs  and  seals.  For  he  who  instituted  baptism  and  the  Supper  intend- 
ed that  we  should  receive  not  the  outward  form  only,  but  the  inward 
blessing,  that  we  should  be  truly  washed  from  all  our  sins  through 
faith,  and  be  made  partakers  of  Christ. 

The  truth  and  power  of  the  sacraments  depend  neither  on  the  wor- 
thiness of  the  minister  nor  that  of  the  receiver,  but  on  the  faithfulness 
of  God.  Unbelievers  do  not  receive  the  things  offered  ;  but  the  fault  is 
in  men,  whose  unbelief  doth  not  annul  the  faith  of  God  (Rom.  iii.  3). 

Chap.  XX.  Of  Holy  Baptism.  —  Baptism  is  instituted  by  Christ 
(Matt,  xxviii.  19 ;  Mark  xvi.  15).  There  is  only  one  baptism  in  the 
Church ;  it  lasts  for  life,  and  is  a  perpetual  seal  of  our  adoption.  To 
be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ  is  to  be  enrolled,  initiated,  and  re- 
ceived into  the  covenant,  into  the  family  and  the  inheritance  of  the 
sons  of  God,  that,  cleansed  from  our  sins  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  we 
may  lead  a  new  and  innocent  life.  We  are  internally  regenerated 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  we  receive  publicly  the  seal  of  these  blessings 
by  baptism.  "Water  washes  away  filth,  and  refreshes  and  comforts  the 
body ;  the  grace  of  God  inwardly  and  invisibly  cleanses  the  soul. 

By  baptism  we  are  separated  from  the  world  and  consecrated  to 
God.  In  baptism  we  confess  our  faith  and  pledge  obedience  to  God. 
"We  are  enrolled  into  the  holy  army  of  Christ  to  fight  against  the 
world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil. 

Later  human  additions  to  the  primitive  form  of  baptism,  such  as  ex- 
orcism, the  use  of  burning  light,  oil,  salt,  spittle,  we  judge  to  be  un- 
necessary. 

Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  by  women  or  by  midwives,  but  by 
the  ministers  of  the  Church. 

We  condemn  those  who  deny  that  children  of  believers  should  be 
baptized.  For  to  children  belongs  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  they  are 
in  covenant  with  God — why  then  should  not  the  sign  of  the  covenant 
be  given  to  them  ?  "We  are  therefore  no  Anabaptists,  and  have  no 
communion  with  them. 

Chap.  XXI.  Of  the  Holy  Supper  of  our  Lord. — The  Lord's  Sup- 
per, or  Eucharist,  is  a  grateful  commemoration  of  the  benefits  of  re- 
demption, and  a  spiritual  feast  of  believers  instituted  by  Christ,  wherein 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  15GG.  41 5 

he  nourishes  11s  with  his  own  flesh  and  blood  by  true  faith  unto  eternal 
life.  It  signifies  and  seals  to  us  the  greatest  benefit  and  blessing  ever 
conferred  on  the  raee  of  mortals,  that  he  truly  delivered  his  body  and 
shed  his  blood  for  the  remission  of  our  sins.  In  it  we  eat  his  flesh 
which  is  meat  indeed,  and  drink  his  blood  which  is  drink  indeed  (Matt, 
xxvi.  20  sqq. ;  Luke  xxii.  19  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  21  sqq. ;  John  vi.  51  sqq.). 

This  eating  is  not  corporeal  and  Capernaitic,  by  the  mouth  and  the 
stomach,  but  spiritual,  i.  e.,  by  the  Holy  Ghost  through  faith.  '  The 
flesh,'  corporeally  eaten,  'profiteth  nothing;  it  is  the  spirit  that  quick- 
eneth '  (John  vi.  63).  '  I  am  the  bread  of  life ;  he  that  cometh  unto 
me  shall  never  hunger;  and  he  that  belie  veth  on  me  shall  never  thirst' 
(John  vi.  51).  So  that  eating  and  drinking  here  means  to  come  unto 
Christ  and  to  believe  in  him.  As  Augustine  says:  'Why  preparest 
thou  the  tooth  and  the  stomach  ?     Believe,  and  thou  hast  eaten.' 

Besides  the  spiritual  eating,  in  the  daily  communion  of  the  soul  with 
Christ,  there  is  also  a  sacramental  eating,  whereby  the  believer  not  only 
inwardly  partakes  of  Christ,  but  also  receives  the  visible  signs  and 
seals  of  his  body  and  blood  at  the  Lord's  table.1  And  with  the  signs 
he  receives  the  thing  itself.2  lie  is  nourished  and  strengthened  by 
spiritual  food.  The  signs  are  also  sure  pledges  that  Christ  died  not 
only  for  men  in  general,  but  also  individually  for  every  believing  com- 
municant. Besides,  in  partaking  of  this  ordinance  we  obey  the  com- 
mand of  our  Lord,  celebrate  his  atoning  death,  give  thanks  for  the 
great  redemption,  and  openly  profess  our  faith  before  the  congregation. 

But  those  who  commune  unworthily  and  without  faith  receive  only 
the  visible  signs  to  their  own  condemnation  or  judgment  (1  Cor.  xi. 
27  sqq.). 

We  therefore  do  not  so  conjoin  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  with 

1  '■Prater  superiorem  manducationem  spiritualem  est  et  sacramentalis  manducatio  corporis 
Domini,  qua  Jidelis  non  tantum  sjiiritualiter  et  interne  participat  vero  corpore  et  sanguine 
Domini,  sed  /oris  etiam  accedendo  ad  mensam  Domini  acripit  visibile  corporis  et  sangui- 
nis Domini  sacramentum.'  This  is  strangely  mistranslated  by  Owen  Jones  (1.  c.  p.  173): 
'Moreover,  also,  the  sacramental  eating  of  the  body  of  the  Lord  is  a  superior  spiritual  eat- 
ing,' etc.  Bullinger  rightly  distinguishes  between  the  purely  spiritual  communion  with 
Christ's  flesh  and  blood  (i.  e.,  his  real  humanity),  spoken  of  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  and 
the  sacramental  communion  in  the  Eucharist,  which  includes  all  the  benefit  of  the  former 
with  the  additional  blessing  of  the  visible  signs  and  seals  of  Christ's  body  broken  for  us,  and 
Christ's  blood  shed  for  us. 

2  '  Qui  /oris  vera  fide  sacramentum  percipit,  idem  ille  non  signum  duntaxat  percipit,  sed  re 
ij>sa  quoque,  ut  diximus,fruitur.' 


416  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

bread  and  wine  as  to  say  that  the  bread  itself  is  the  body  (except 
sacramental  ly),  or  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  corporeally  hid  under  the 
bread,  and  should  be  adored  under  the  form  of  bread,  or  that  whosoever 
receives  the  signs  receives  also  necessarily  the  thing  itself.  [Against 
the  Lutheran  theory.]  The  body  of  Christ  is  in  heaven  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father  (Mark  xvi.  19 ;  Heb.  viii.  1 ;  xii.  2) ;  and  hence  we 
must  raise  our  hearts  to  heaven. 

And  yet  he  is  not  absent  from  his  people  when  they  celebrate  his 
communion.  For  as  the  sun  in  heaven  is  efficaciously  present  with  us,  so 
much  more  is  Christ  the  sun  of  righteousness  with  us,  not,  indeed,  cor- 
poreally, but  spiritually  by  his  enlivening  and  vivifying  operation,  even 
as  he  in  the  Last  Supper  explained  that  he  himself  would  be  present 
with  us  (John  xiv.-xvi.).  Hence  we  have  not  a  Supper  without  Christ, 
but  an  unbloody  and  mystical  Supper,  as  universal  antiquity  called  it. 

Moreover,  the  Lord's  Supper  reminds  us  that  we  are  members  of  his 
body,  and  should  live  peaceably  with  all  our  brethren,  and  grow  and 
persevere  in  holiness  of  life. 

Therefore  it  is  very  proper  that  we  should  duly  prepare  ourselves  by 
self-examination  in  regard  to  our  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ  (1  Cor. 
xi.  28). 

As  to  the  external  celebration,  we  adhere  to  the  original  form,  con- 
sisting in  the  annunciation  of  the  Word  of  God,  devout  prayers,  the 
Lord's  action,  and  its  repetition  in  breaking  bread,  and  distributing  it 
together  with  the  wine,  in  eating  the  body  and  drinking  the  blood  of 
our  Lord,  in  grateful  remembrance  of  his  death,  in  thanksgiving,  and 
in  holy  reunion  of  the  brethren  as  one  body. 

We  disapprove  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  cup  contrary  to  the  express 
command  of  our  Lord :  '  Drink  ye  all  of  it'  (Matt.  xxvi.  27). 

The  mass — whatever  it  may  have  been  in  ancient  times — has  been 
turned  from  a  salutary  institution  into  a  vain  show,  and  surrounded 
with  various  abuses,  which  justify  its  abolition. 

Chap.  XXII.  Of  Sacred  and  Ecclesiastical  Assemblies.  —  It  is 
lawful  and  right  for  all  men  privately  to  read  the  Scriptures  for  edifi- 
cation. At  the  same  time  the  maintenance  of  religion  demands  regu- 
lar public  services.  These  should  be  conducted  decently,  in  order,  and 
for  edification,  in  the  language  understood  by  the  people. 

Chap.  XXIII.  Of  Church  Prayers,  Singing,  and  Canonical  Hours. 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  156G.  417 

— Public  prayers  in  sacred  assemblies  should  be  made  in  the  vulgar 
tongue  understood  by  all.  Every  prayer  is  to  be  offered  to  God  alone, 
through  the  sole  mediation  of  Christ,  not  to  saints  or  through  them. 
Churches  are  at  liberty  to  vary  from  the  usual  forms.  Prayers  are  not 
superstitiously  to  be  confined  to  particular  places  or  hours.  Long  and 
tedious  prayers  in  public  assemblies  should  be  avoided.  Singing  is  not 
indispensable,  but  lawful  and  desirable.  Canonical  hours  are  not  pre- 
scribed in  the  Scriptures,  and  are  unknown  to  antiquity. 

Chap.  XXIV.  Of  Feasts,  Fasts,  and  toe  Choice  of  Meats. — The 
Lord's  day  is  consecrated,  from  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  to  the  wor- 
ship of  God  and  to  sacred  rest.  But  we  observe  it  in  Christian  free- 
dom, not  with  Jewish  superstition,  neither  do  we  believe  that  one  day 
is  in  itself  holier  than  another. 

If  congregations  in  addition  commemorate  the  Lord's  nativity,  cir- 
cumcision, crucifixion,  resurrection,  and  ascension,  and  the  outpouring 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  greatly  approve  of  it.  But  feasts  instituted  by 
men  in  honor  of  saints  we  reject,  though  the  memory  of  the  saints  is 
profitable,  and  should  be  commended  to  the  people  with  exhortations 
to  follow  their  virtues. 

True  Christian  fasting  consists  in  temperance,  abstinence,  watchful- 
ness, self-government,  and  chastisement  of  our  flesh,  that  we  may  the 
easier  obey  the  Spirit.     Such  fasting  is  a  help  to  prayer  and  all  virtues. 

There  are  also  public  fasts  appointed  in  times  of  affliction  and  ca- 
lamity, when  people  abstain  from  food  altogether  till  evening,  and 
spend  all  time  in  prayer  and  repentance.  Such  fasts  are  mentioned 
by  the  Prophets  (Joel  ii.  12  sq.),  and  should  be  observed  when  the 
Church  is  afflicted  and  oppressed.  Private  fasts  are  observed  by  each 
of  us  as  we  may  judge  it  profitable  to  our  souls. 

All  fasts  ought  to  proceed  from  a  free  and  willing  mind,  and  be  ob- 
served in  a  spirit  of  true  humility,  in  order  to  vanquish  the  flesh  and 
to  serve  God  more  fervently,  but  not  in  order  to  gain  the  favor  of 
men  or  the  merit  of  righteousness. 

The  fast  of  forty  days  (Lent)  has  the  testimony  of  antiquity,  but  is 
not  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures,  and  ought  not  to  be  imposed  upon  the 
conscience  of  the  faithful.  There  was  great  diversity  and  freedom  in 
the  early  Church  as  to  the  time  of  fasting,  as  we  learn  from  Irena3us, 
and  Socrates  the  historian. 


418  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

As  to  the  choice  of  meats,  we  hold  that  in  fasts  we  should  abstain 
from  all  such  food  or  drink  as  stimulates  the  carnal  desires.  But  oth- 
erwise we  know  that  all  the  creatures  of  God  are  good  (Gen.  i.  31),  and 
may  be  used  without  distinction,  but  with  moderation  and  thanksgiving 
(1  Cor.  x.  25  ;  Tit.  i.  15).  Paul  calls  the  prohibition  of  meats  a  doctrine 
of  the  demons  (1  Tim.  iv.  1  sqq.),  and  reproves  those  who  by  excessive 
abstinence  wish  to  acquire  the  fame  of  sanctity. 

Chap.  XXV.  Of  Catechizing,  and  of  the  Visitation  and  Conso- 
lation of  the  Sick. — The  greatest  care  is  to  be  bestowed  on  the  re- 
ligious instruction  of  the  youth,  especially  in  the  Ten  Commandments, 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  nature  of  the  sacra- 
ments. Churches  should  see  to  it  that  children  receive  catechetical 
instruction. 

It  is  one  of  the  chief  duties  of  Christian  pastors  to  visit,  comfort,  and 
strengthen  the  sick,  and  pray  for  them  in  private  and  in  public.  But 
the  extreme  unction  of  the  Papists  we  disapprove. 

Chap.  XXVI.  Of  the  Burial  of  the  Faithful,  the  Care  of  the 
Dead,  of  Purgatory,  and  the  Apparition  of  Spirits. — The  bodies 
of  believers,  which  are  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  will  rise 
again  in  the  last  day,  should  be  honorably  committed  to  the  earth, 
without  superstition,  and  their  relatives,  widows,  and  orphans  should 
be  tenderly  cared  for. 

We  believe  that  the  faithful  after  death  go  directly  to  Christ,  and 
need  not  the  prayers  of  the  living.  Unbelievers  are  cast  into  hell, 
from  which  there  is  no  escape. 

The  doctrine  of  purgatory  is  opposed  to  the  Scriptures,  and  to  the 
plenary  expiation  and  cleansing  through  Christ  (comp.  John  v.  24; 
xiii.  10). 

The  tales  about  the  souls  of  the  departed  appearing  to  the  living  and 
requesting  their  services  for  deliverance  we  judge  to  be  mockeries  or 
deceptions  of  the  devil.  The  Lord  forbids  necromancy  (Deut.  xviii. 
10) ;  and  the  rich  man  was  told  that  if  his  brethren  on  earth  hear  not 
Moses  and  the  Prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  one 
rose  from  the  dead  (Luke  xvi.  30). 

Chap.  XXVII.  Of  Rights  and  Ceremonies. — The  ceremonial  law 
of  the  Jews  was  a  schoolmaster  and  guardian  to  lead  them  to  Christ, 
the  true  Liberator,  who  abrogated  it  so  that  believers  are  no  more  un- 


§  55.  THE  SECOND  HELVETIC  CONFESSION,  1566.  419 

der  the  law,  but  under  the  gospel  freedom.  The  Apostles  would  not 
lay  the  burden  of  Jewish  ceremonies  on  the  new  converts  (Acts  xv.  28). 
The  more  of  human  rites  arc  accumulated  in  the  Church,  the  more  it 
is  drawn  away  from  Christian  liberty  and  from  Christ  himself,  while 
the  ignorant  seek  in  ceremonies  what  they  should  seek  in  Christ 
through  faith.  A  few  pure  and  moderate  rites  consistent  with  the 
Word  of  God  are  sufficient. 

Difference  in  ceremonies,  such  as  existed  in  the  ancient  Church,  and 
exists  now  among  us,  need  not  to  interfere  with  union  and  harmony 
in  doctrine  and  faith.  In  things  indifferent,  which  are  neither  good 
nor  evil,  the  Church  has  always  used  liberty  (1  Cor.  viii.  10  ;  x.  27  sqq.). 

Chap.  XXVIII.  Of  Church  Peoperty. — The  wealth  of  the  Church 
should  be  used  for  the  maintenance  of  public  worship  and  schools,  the 
support  of  ministers  and  teachers,  and  especially  also  for  the  benefit 
of  the  poor. 

Misapplication  and  abuse  of  Church  property  through  ignorance  or 
avarice  is  a  sacrilege,  and  calls  for  reformation. 

Chap.  XXIX.  Of  Celibacy,  Marriage,  and  Economy. — Those  who 
have  the  gift  of  celibacy  from  heaven,  so  as  to  be  pure  and  continent 
from  their  whole  heart,  may  serve  the  Lord  in  that  vocation  in  simplic- 
ity and  humility,  without  exalting  themselves  above  others.  If  not, 
they  should  remember  the  apostolic  word :  '  It  is  better  to  marry  than 
to  burn'  (1  Cor.  vii.  9). 

Marriage  (the  remedy  for  incontinence,  and  continence  itself)  was 
instituted  by  God,  who  blessed  it  richly,  and  inseparably  joined  man 
and  woman  to  live  together  in  intimate  loYe  and  harmony  (Matt.  xix. 
5).  Marriage  is  honorable  in  all,  and  the  bed  is  iindefilcd  (Ileb.  xiii. 
4;  1  Cor.  vii.  28). 

"\Ye  condemn  polygamy,  and  those  who  reject  second  marriages. 

Marriage  should  be  contracted  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  with  the  con- 
sent of  parents  or  their  representatives,  and  for  the  end  for  which  it 
was  instituted. 

Children  should  be  brought  up  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  properly  sup- 
ported by  their  parents  (1  Tim.  v.  8),  and  be  taught  honest  arts  or 
trades. 

We  condemn  the  doctrine  which  forbids  marriage,  or  indirectly 
slights  it  as  unholy  and  unclean  (1  Tim.  iv.  1).     "We  execrate  unclean 


420  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

celibacy,  secret  and  open  fornications,  and  the  pretended  continency  of 
hypocrites. 

Chap.  XXX.  Of  the  Magistrate.  —  The  civil  magistrate  is  ap- 
pointed by  God  himself  (Rom.  xiii.)  for  the  peace  and  tranquillity  of 
the  human  race.  If  opposed  to  the  Church,  he  can  do  much  harm :  if 
friendly,  he  can  do  the  Church  most  useful  service. 

The  duty  of  the  magistrate  is  to  preserve  peace  and  public  order; 
to  promote  and  protect  religion  and  good  morals ;  to  govern  the  people 
by  righteous  laws;  to  punish  the  offenders  against  society,  such  as 
thieves,  murderers,  oppressors,  blasphemers,  and  incorrigible  heretics 
(if  they  are  really  heretics).1 

Wars  are  justifiable  only  in  self-defense,  and  after  all  efforts  at  peace 
have  been  exhausted. 

We  condemn  the  Anabaptists,  who  maintain  that  a  Christian  should 
not  hold  a  civil  office,  that  the  magistrate  has  no  right  to  punish  any 
one  by  death,  or  to  make  war,  or  to  demand  an  oath. 

All  citizens  owe  reverence  and  obedience  to  the  magistrate  as  the 
minister  of  God  in  all  righteous  commands,  and  even  their  lives  when 
the  public  safety  and  welfare  require  it.  Therefore  we  condemn 
the  despisers  of  the  magistrate,  rebels  and  enemies  of  the  common- 
wealth, and  all  who  openly  or  artfully  refuse  to  perform  their  duties 
as  citizens. 

We  pray  to  God,  our  merciful  heavenly  Father,  to  bestow  his  bless- 
ing upon  princes  and  rulers,  upon  us,  and  upon  all  his  people,  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  only  Lord  and  Saviour :  to  whom  be  praise,  and  glory, 
and  thanksgiving,  forever  and  ever.     Amen. 

1  '  Coerceat  et  hwreticos  (qui  vere  heeretici  sunt)  incorrigibiles,  Dei  majestatcm  blasphcmare 
et  Eccle&iam  Dei  eonturbaj-e,  adeoque  perdere  non  desinentes.'  The  same  view  of  the  right 
and  duty  of  the  civil  government  to  punish  heretics  is  expressed  in  other  Confessions.  The 
Reformers  differed  from  the  Roman  Catholics,  not  so  much  in  the  principle  of  persecution  as 
in  the  definition  of  heresy  and  the  degree  of  punishment.  Nevertheless,  the  Reformation  in- 
augurated the  era  of  religious  toleration  and  freedom. 


§  56.  JOHN  CALVIN.  421 


§  56.  John  Calvin.     His  Life  and  Character. 

Literature. 
I.  Works  and  Correspondence  of  Calvin. 

Joanms  Cai.vini  Opera  qitoe  supersunt  omnia,  ed.  G.  Raum,  E.  Cunitz,  E.  Rcuss,  theologi  Argcntora- 
tcuses.  Brunsvigae,lS63  sqq.  (in  the  Corp.  Reform.).  So  far  (1S75)  15  vols.  4to.  The  most  complete  and 
most  critical  edition. 

Older  Latin  ed.,  Geneva,  1617,  in  12  vols,  folio,  and  Amstelod.  1C71,  9  vols.  foL 

An  English  edition  of  Calvin's  Works,  by  the  'Calvin  Translation  Society,'  Edinburgh,  1S42-1S53,  in 
52  vols. 

Convenient  editions  of  Calvin's  Institutes,  by  Tholnck  (Berol.  1S34  and  1S46);  the  Commentaries  on 
Genoa's,  by  Heugstenberg  (Berol.  1838),  on  the  Psalms  (Berol.  1S30-34),  on  the  Xeiv  Testament  (except  the 
Apocalypse,  1833-38,  in  7  vols.),  by  Tholuck. 

His  most  important  works  were  also  written  in  French. 

A  German  translation  of  his  Institutes,  by  Fr.  Ad.  Krtimmachcr  (1S34),  of  his  Comment.,  by  C.  F.  L.  Mat- 
thieu(lS59sqq.). 

The  extensive  correspondence  of  Calvin  was  first  edited  in  part  by  Beza  and  Jonvilleus  (Calvin's  sec- 
retary), Geneva?,  1575,  and  other  editions;  by  Bretsciineider  (the  Gotha  Letters),  Lips.  1835;  byA.CROT- 
TET.Gencve,  1S50 ;  then  much  more  completely  by  Jci.es  Bonnet,  Lcttres  Francoises,  Paris,  1S54,  2  vols. ; 
an  English  translation  (from  the  French  and  Latin)  by  D.  Constable  and  M.  R.  Gilchrist,  Edinburgh 
and  Philadelphia  (Presbyt.  Board  of  Publ.),  1S55-5S,  in  three  vols,  (the  4th  has  not  appeared),  giving  the 
letters  in  chronological  order  (till  1558).  The  last  and  best  edition  is  by  the  Strasburg  Professors  in 
Calvini  Opera,  Vol.  X.  Part  II.  to  Vol.  XV.,  with  ample  Prolegomena  on  the  previous  editions  of  Calvin's 
Letters  and  the  manuscript  sources. 

Compare,  also,  A.  L.  Herminjarp:  Correspondence  des  Reformateurs  dans  le  pays  de  langue  franeaise, 
Geneve  and  Paris,  1866-72,  so  far  4  vols,  (beginning  with  1512).  A  most  important  work,  with  many  new 
letters  from  and  to  the  Reformers,  illustrated  by  historical  and  biographical  notes ;  the  correspondence 
of  Calvin  begins  Tome  II.  p.  278. 

II.  BiOGRArniES  of  Calvin. 

Tii.  t>e  Beze:  LTistoire  de  la  vie  et  la  mort  de  J.  Calvin,  Geneve,  1564;  second  French  cd.  enlarged  and 
improved  by  Nic.  Colladon,  1565,  recently  republished  by  A.  Franklin,  Paris,  1S64  ;  Latin  ed.  by  Beza, 
as  an  introduction  to  Calvin's  Letters,  1575,  reprinted  in  Tholuck's  ed.  of  Calvin's  Commentaries.  There 
are  also  German,  English,  and  Italian  translations.  The  second  French  and  the  Latin  editions  should 
be  consulted.  This  work  of  Beza,  together  with  Calvin's  Letters  and  Works,  furnishes  the  chief  mate- 
rial for  an  authentic  biography. 

Hieron.  Bolsec  (a  Carmelite  monk,  then  physician  at  Geneva,  expelled  on  account  of  Pelagian  views 
and  opposition  to  Calvin,  1551,  returned  to  the  Roman  Church  1563):  Histoire  de  la  vie  de  Jean  Calvin, 
Paris,  1577  (Geneve,  1S35) ;  then  in  Latin  :  De  J.  Calvini  magni  quondam  Gcnevenshim  ministri  vita,  mori- 
bu«,  rebus  gestis,  studiis  ac  denique  morte,  Colonioe,  15S0.  '  A  mean  and  slanderous  libel,'  inspired  by  feel- 
ings of  hatred  and  revenge.    See  Schweizer,  Centraldogmen,Vo\.  I.  p.  205. 

Jacques  Le  Vasseur  (R.  C.) :  A  nnales  de  I'eglise  cathedrale  de  Xoyon,  Paris,  1633.  Contains  some  notices 
on  the  youth  of  Calvin. 

Jacques  Desmay  (R  C.) :  Remarqucs  sur  la  vie  de  J.  Calvin  heresiarque  tirees  des  Registres  de  Xoyon, 
Rouen,  1657. 

Drelinoou rt  :  La  dt'fense  de  Calvin  contrc  Voutrage  fait  d  sa  memoire,  Genove,  1667 ;  in  German,  Ilanau, 
1671.    A  refutation  of  the  slanders  of  Bolsec. 

Paul  Henry  (pastor  of  a  French  Reformed  Church  in  Berlin):  Das  Leben  Johann  Calvins  des  grossen 
Reformators,  etc.,  Hamburg,  1S35-44,  3  vols. ;  also  abridged  in  one  vol.,  Hamburg,  1S46.  English  trans- 
lation by  Stf.hhino,  London  and  New  York,  1S54,  in  2  vols.  The  large  work  is  a  valuable  collection 
rather  than  digestion  of  material  for  a  full  biography  by  a  sincere  admirer. 

E.  Staiiei.in  (Reformed  minister  at  Basle) :  Johannes  Calvin;  Leben  und  ausgewdhlte  Sehn'ften,  Elber- 
feld,  1S63,  2  vols,  (in  Viiter  und  Regriinder  der  reform.  Kirche,Vo\.  IV.  hi  two  parts).  Upon  the  whole 
the  best  biography,  though  not  as  complete  as  Heury'6,  and  in  need  of  modification  and  additions  from 
more  recent  researches. 

Dyer:  Life  of  Calvin,  London,  1850.     'Valuable  and  impartial'  (Fisher). 

Felix  Bungenf.r:  Calvin,  sa  vie,  son  ceuvre  et  set  icrits,  Paris,  1862;   English  translation,  Edinb.  1863. 

F  W.  Kami'schi-lte  (a  liberal  Roman  Catholic,  Professor  of  History  at  Bonn,  died  an  Old  Catholic, 
1S71) :  Jch.  Calvin,  seine  Kin  he  und  sein  Staat  in  Gnif,  Leipzig,  1809,  Vol.  I.  (Vols.  II.  and  III.  have  not 
appeared).  A  most  able,  critical,  and,  for  a  Catholic,  remarkably  fair  and  liberal  work,  drawn  in  part 
from  unpublished  sources. 

Guizot  (the  great  historian  and  statesman,  a  descendant  of  the  Huguenots,  d.  at  Val  Richer,  Sept.  12, 
1874) :  St.  Louis  and  Calvin,  London,  1868.     Comp.  also  his  sketch  in  the  Muttt  its  prOteStaMS  o'h'brcs. 

The  work  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Aidin  :  Histoire  de  la  vie,  etc.,  de  Calvin,  Paris,  1S41,  5th  ed.,  1S51,  in 
2  vols,  (also  in  English  and  German),  is  mostly  a  slanderous  caricature,  based  upon  Bolsec. 


422  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

III.  BiOGKArnioAL  Sketches  and  Essays. 

M.  Mignet:  Memoire  sur  Vetablissement  de  la  reforme  et  stir  la  constitution  du  Calvinisme  d  Geneve, 
Paris,  1834. 

J.  J.  Heezog  :  Joh.  Calvin,  Basel,  1S43 ;  and  in  his  Real-Encyklop.  Vol.  II.  p.  511. 

E.  Renan:  Jean  Calvin,  in  Etudes  d'histoire  religieuse,  5th  ed.,  Paris,  1S62;  English  translation  by 
O.  B.  Frothiugham  (Studies  of  Religions  History  and  Criticism,  New  York,lS64,  pp.  2S5-297). 

Philip  Sohaff:  John  Calvin,  in  the  Dibliotheca  Sacra,  Andover,  1S57,  pp.  125-140. 

IIj:m:v  B.  Smith:  John  Calvin,  in  Appleton's  American  Cyclopcedia,Hev/  York,  Vol.  IV.  (1S59)  pp.  2S1- 
2SS. 

James  Anthony  Froude:  Calvinism,  an  Address  delivered  to  the  Students  of  St.  Andrew's,  March  17, 1S71 
(in  his  Short  Studies  on  Great  Subjects,  Second  Scries,  New  York,  1873,  pp.  9-53). 

A.  A.  Hodge  (of  Alleghany,  son  of  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  of  Princeton):  Calvinism,  in  Johnson's  Uni- 
versal Cyclopcedia  (New  York,  1S75  sqq.),  Vol.  I.  pp.  727-734. 

Lyman  H.  Atwatee:  Calvinism  in  Doctrine  and  Life,  in  the  Presbyt.  Quarterly  and  Princeton  Review, 
New  York,  Jan.  1S75,  pp.  73-106. 

IV.  Histories  of  the  Reformation  in  Geneva. 

Aim.  Ruciiat  (Professor  in  Lausanne) :  Histoire  de  la  reformation  de  la  Suisse,  Geneve,  1727  sqq.  6  vols. ; 
new  edition,  with  appendices,  by  Prof.  Vulliemin,  Nyon,  Giral.  1835-1838, 7  vols. 

C.  B.  Hcndeshagen  (Professor  in  Berne,  afterwards  in  Bonn,  d.  1872) :  Die  Conflicte  des  Zwinglianismus, 
Lutherthuvis  und  Calvinismus  in  der  Dernischen  Landeskirche  von  1532-1558.  Nach  meist  ungedruckten 
Quellen.     Bern,  1S42. 

J.  Gabeuel  (aucien  pastenr) :  Histoire  de  I'eglise  de  Geneve  depuis  le  commencement  de  la  reforme 
jusqu'en  1S15.    Geneve,  1855-63,  3  vols. 

P.  Chakpenne  :  Histoire  de  la  reforme  et  de  reformateurs  de  Geneve.    Paris,  1S61. 

Am  ad.  Roget:  L'eglise  et  Vetat  d  Geneve  du  vivant  Calvin,  1867;  and  Histoire  du  peuple  de  Geneve  depuis 
la  reforme  jusqu'd  Vescalade.    Geneve,  1870. 

Merle  d'Auisigne  (Professor  of  Church  History  at  Geneva,  d.  1872) :  History  of  the  Reformation  in 
Europe  in  the  Time  of  Calvin  (from  the  French).  New  York,  1S63-1S76,  6  vols,  (the  second  division  of 
his  general  history  of  the  Reformation).  The  author  left  two  more  volumes  in  manuscript,  which  will 
extend  to  the  death  of  Calvin,  1564. 

G.  P.  Fisher  :  The  Reformation.    New  York,  1S73,  Ch.  VII.  pp.  192-241. 

For  the  political  history  of  Geneva  preceding  and  during  the  time  of  Calvin  are  to  be  compared 
Fr.  Bonnivard:  Les  Chroniques  de  Geneve,  edited  by  Dunant  (Gen.  1831,4  vols.);  Galiffe:  Materiaux 
pour  Vhistoire  de  Geneve;  J.  P.  B^renger:  Histoire  de  Geneve  jusqu'en  1761  (1772,  6  vols.) ;  and  the  Me- 
moires  et  documents  publies  par  la  Societe  d'histoire  et  d'archeologie  de  Geneve  (1S40  sqq.). 


CALVIN  S   LIFE. 

After  the  death  of  Zwingli  and  the  treaty  of  Cappel  (1531),  the 
progress  of  the  Reformation  was  checked  in  German  Switzerland,  but 
only  to  make  a  more  important  conquest  in  French  Switzerland,  and 
from  thence  with  the  course  of  empire  to  move  westward  to  France, 
Holland,  beyond  the  Channel,  and  beyond  the  seas. 

The  supremacy  passed  from  Zurich  to  Geneva.  Providence  had 
silently  prepared  the  person  and  the  place.  The  'little  corner'  on  the 
borders  of  Switzerland  and  France,  known  since  the  days  of  Julius 
Csesar,  was  predestinated,  by  its  location  and  preceding  history,  for  a 
great  international  mission,  and  has  nobly  fulfilled  it,  not  only  in  the 
period  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church,  but  also  in  the  nineteenth 
century  on  the  field  of  international  law  and  peaceful  arbitration. 
After  varying  fortunes,  Geneva  became  an  independent  asylum  of 
civil  and  religious  freedom,  and  furnished  the  best  base  of  operation 


§  5C.  JOHN  CALVIN.  423 

for  John  Calvin,  who,  though  a  Frenchman  by  birth  and  a  Swiss  by  adop- 
tion,was  a  cosmopolitan  in  spirit,  and  acted  as  the  connecting  link  between 
the  Germanic  and  Latin  races  in  the  work  of  reform.  Fare],  Viret,  and 
Froment  had  destroyed  the  power  of  Popery,  but  to  Calvin  was  left  the 
more  difficult  task  of  reconstruction  and  permanent  organization. 

John  Calvin,1  the  greatest  theologian  and  disciplinarian  of  the  giant 
race  of  the  Reformers,  and  for  commanding  intellect,  lofty  charac- 
ter, and  far-reaching  influence  one  of  the  foremost  leaders  in  the 
history  of  Christianity,  was  born  at  Noyon,  in  Picardy,  July  10, 1509. 
His  father,  Gerard  Chauvin,  a  man  of  severe  morals,  was  secretary  to 
the  Bishop  of  Noyon ;  his  mother,  a  beautiful  and  devout,  but  otherwise 
not  remarkable  woman.  He  received  his  first  training  with  the  chil- 
dren of  a  noble  family  (de  Mommor),  to  which  he  was  gratefully  at- 
tached. His  ambitious  father  destined  him  for  the  clerical  profession, 
and  secured  him  even  in  his  twelfth  year  the  benefice  of  a  chaplaincy 
of  the  cathedral — an  abuse  not  infrequent  in  those  days  of  decay  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline.  lie  received  the  tonsure,  but  not  the  ordina- 
tion for  the  priesthood ;  while  Zwingli  and  Knox  were  once  priests,  and 
Luther  both  priest  and  doctor,  in  the  Church  they  were  called  to  re- 
form. His  elder  brother,  Charles,  became  a  priest  at  Noyon,  and  died 
a  libertine  and  an  infidel  in  the  same  year  in  which  John  proclaimed 
his  faith  to  the  world  (1536) — as  if  to  repeat  the  startling  contrast  of 
Esau  and  Jacob,  reprobation  and  election,  from  the  same  womb.2 
Another  remarkable  coincidence  is  the  fact  that  the  Reformer  studied 
scholastic  philosophy  under  the  same  Spanish  instructor  of  the  College 
de  Montaigu  at  Paris  in  which  a  few  years  afterwards  Ignatius  Loyola, 

1  The  Latinized  form  of  the  French  Chauvin  or  Cuuvin.  He  sunk,  even  in  name,  his  nation- 
ality in  his  catholicity. 

2  Guizot  (pp.  153,  15.5)  :  '  Evidently  Charles  Calvin  lived  and  died  a  dissolute  man  and  an 
unbeliever,  and  at  the  same  time  remained  chaplain  of  the  Catholic  church  of  his  native  town. 
The  sixteenth  century  abounds  in  similar  instances.  .  .  .  The  same  thing  was  going  on  every 
•where ;  unbelievers  and  fervent  Christians,  libertines  and  men  of  the  most  austere  lives,  were 
springing  up  and  living  side  by  side.  Two  contrary  winds  were  blowing  over  Europe  at  that 
period,  one  carrying  with  it  skepticism  and  licentiousness,  while  the  other  breathed  only  Chris- 
tian faith  and  the  severest  morality.  One  of  these  arose  chiefly  from  the  revival  of  the  ancient 
literature  and  philosophy  of  Greece  and  Rome  ;  the  other  sprang  from  the  struggles  made  in 
the  Church  itself,  and  in  its  councils,  to  arrive  at  a  reform  which  was  at  the  same  time  greatly 
desired  and  fiercely  opposed.  ...  It  was,  in  short,  the  age  which  produced  Erasmus  and  Lu- 
ther in  Germany,  and  Montaigne  and  Calvin  in  France.'  Merle  d'Aubigne  (Vol.  V.  p.  455) 
conjectures  that  Charles  Calvin  became  a  convert  to  Protestantism  on  his  death-bed,  for 
which  the  infuriated  priests  had  him  buried  by  night  between  the  four  pillars  of  a  gibbet. 

Yol.  I.— E  E 


424:  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  famous  founder  of  Jesuitism — the  very  opposite  pole  of  Calvinism 
—laid  the  foundation  of  his  counter-reformation.1 

Calvin  received  the  best  education  which  France  could  afford,  in  the 
Universities  of  Orleans,  Bourges,  and  Paris,  first  for  the  priesthood, 
then,  at  the  request  of  his  father,  for  the  law.2  He  early  distinguished 
himself  by  excessive  industry,  which  undermined  his  constitution,  se- 
vere self-discipline,  and  a  certain  censoriousness,  for  which  he  was  called 
by  his  fellow-students  '  the  Accusative  Case.' 3  He  made  rapid  prog- 
ress. Even  as  a  student  of  nineteen  he  was  often  called  to  the  chair 
of  an  absent  professor,  so  that  (as  Beza  says)  he  was  considered  a  doc- 
tor rather  than  an  auditor.  When  he  left  the  university  he  was  the 
most  promising  literary  man  of  the  age.  He  might  have  attained  the 
highest  position  in  France,  had  not  his  religious  convictions  undergone 
a  radical  change. 

Protestant  ideas  were  then  pervading  the  atmosphere  and  agitating 
the  educated  classes  of  France  even  at  the  court,  which  was  divided 
on  the  question  of  religion.  Two  of  Calvin's  teachers,  Cordier  (or 
Corderius,  who  afterwards  followed  him  to  Geneva)  and  Wolmar, 
were  friendly  to  reform,  and  one  of  his  relatives,  Oliv&an,  became 
soon  afterwards  (1534)  the  first  Protestant  translator  of  the  Bible  into 
French.  He  seems,  however,  to  have  exerted  as  much  influence  on 
them  as  they  exerted  on  him.4 

His  first  work  was  a  commentary  on  Seneca's  book  on  Mercy,  which 
lie  published  at  his  own  expense,  April,  1532.5     It  moves  in  the  circle 

'  Kampschulte,Vol.  I.  p.  223. 

2  It  seems  (according  to  Jacques  Le  Vasseur,  1.  c.  1153  sqq.,  as  quoted  by  Kampschulte, 
Vol.  I.  p.  226)  that  Gerard  Chauvin  became  involved  in  difficulty  with  his  ecclesiastical  su- 
periors, and  was  even  excommunicated.  Kampschulte  conjectures  that  this  was  probably  the 
reason  why  be  ordered  his  son  to  exchange  the  study  of  theology  for  that  of  law.  But  Cal- 
vin himself  (in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms)  assigns  a  different  motive  :  ' Mon  pere  m'avoit 
destine  a  la  The'ologie;  mais  puis  apres,  d'autant  quil  conside'roit  que  la  science  des  Loix 
commune' rnent  enrichit  ceux  qui  la  sui/vent,  ceste  esperance  luyfait  incontinent  changer  d'avis.' 
The  study  of  the  law  was  of  great  use  to  Calvin  in  the  organization  and  control  of  Church 
and  State  in  Geneva. 

3  A  notice  of  Jacques  Le  Vasseur,  which  agrees  with  Reza's  statement  that  he  was  'tenera 
letate  mirum  in  modum  rcligiosus'  and  '  sever us  omnium  in  suis  sodalibus  vitiorum  censor.' 

*  According  to  Beza  and  Stiihelin  (Vol.  I.  p.  88),  Calvin  took  part  even  in  the  first  edition 
of  Olive'tan's  French  New  Testament  (1584).  But  this  seems  to  be  an  error;  see  Reuss, 
Re'cue  de  Theologie,  1 8GG,  No.  III.  p.  3IS,  and  Kampschulte,  p.  247.  He  revised,  however,  the 
second  edition,  which  included  the  Old  Testament  (1535),  and  wrote  the  preface  (see  Stahelin, 
pp.89  sq.). 

5  'L.  A  unci  Se-  |  necw,  Romani  Senato-  J  ris,  ac  j>hilosophi  clarissi-  j  mi,  lilri  duo  de  Cle- 


§  56.  JOHN  CALVIN.  425 

of  classical  philology  and  moral  philosophy,  and  reveals  a  character- 
istic love  for  the  nobler  type  of  Stoicism,  great  familiarity  with  Greek 
and  Roman  literature,  masterly  Latin ity,  rare  exegetical  skill,  clear 
and  sound  judgment,  and  a  keen  insight  into  the  evils  of  despotism 
and  the  defects  of  the  courts  of  justice,  but  makes  no  allusion  to 
Christianity.  Hence  it  is  quite  improbable  that  it  was  an  indirect 
plea  for  toleration  and  clemency  intended  to  operate  on  the  King  of 
France  in  dealing  witli  his  Protestant  subjects.1  His  earliest  letters, 
from  1530  to  1532,  are  likewise  silent  on  religious  subjects,  and  re- 
fer to  humanistic  studies,  and  matters  of  friendship  and  business.2 

His  conversion  to  the  cause  of  the  Reformation  seems  to  have  taken 
place  in  the  latter  part  of  1532,  about  one  year  after  the  death  of 
Zwingli.3    The  precise  date  and  circumstances  are  unknown.    It  was, 

mentia,  ad  Ne-  \  ronem  Cirsarem:  |  Joannis  Calvini  Novioduncei  commentariis  illustrati.\ 
Parisiis  .  .  .  1532.'  Reprinted  from  the  ed.  princeps  in  the  new  edition  of  the  Oj>era,  Vol.  V. 
(1806),  pp.  G-1G2.  The  commentary  is  preceded  by  a  dedicatory  epistle,  and  a  sketch  of  the 
life  of  Seneca. 

1  As  is  asserted  by  Henry,  Herzog,  Dorner  (p.  375),  and  also  by  Guizot  (p.lG2),  but  justly 
denied  by  Suihelin  (Vol.  I.  pp.  14  sqq.)  and  Kampschulte  (p.  238).  The  work  is  not  dedi- 
cated to  Francis  I.,  but  to  Claude  de  Hangest,  the  Abbot  of  St.  Eloy  (Eligius),  afterwards 
Bishop  of  Noyon,  his  former  schoolmate;  and  the  implied  comparison  of  the  French  king 
with  Nero,  and  the  incidental  mention  of  the  Neronian  persecution  ('quum  Nero  diris  su/>pli- 
ciis  impotenter  s<rviret  in  Christ ianos,'  Opera,Vo\.V.  p.  10),  would  have  been  fatal  to  such  an 
apologetic  aim.  Calvin  sent  a  copy  to  Erasmus,  and  called  him  'the  honor  and  the  chief 
delight  of  the  world  of  letters' — literarum  alterum  decus  ac  prima?,  delicice  (see  his  letter  to 
Claude  de  Hangest,  April  4,  1532,  in  Herminjard,  Tom.  II.  p.  411). 

-  They  were  recently  brought  to  light  by  Jules  Bonnet  and  Herminjard.  They  are  chiefly 
addressed  to  his  fellow-student,  Francis  Daniel,  an  advocate  of  Orleans,  who  acknowledged 
the  necessity  of  the  Reformation,  but  remained  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  See  the  Edinburgh 
edition  of  Calvin's  Letters,  by  Bonnet,  Vol.  I.  p.  3;  Herminjard,  Vol.  II.  pp.  278  sqq.;  and 
Opera,  Vol.  X.  Ft.  II.  pp.  3  sqq.  His  first  letter  to  Daniel  is  dated  'Melliani  (i.  e.  Meillant, 
south  of  Bourges,  not  Meaux,  as  the  Edinburgh  edition  misunderstands  it),  8  Idas  Septcmbr.,' 
and  is  pat  by  Herminjard  and  the  Strasburg  editors  in  the  year  1530  (not  152'J). 

3  Stahelin  puts  his  conversion  in  the  year  1533  (Vol.  I.  p.  21).  But  we  have  a  familiar  let- 
ter from  Calvin  to  Martin  Bucer,  dated  Noyon,  lpridie  nonas  Septembres,'  probably  of  the 
year  1532,  in  which  he  recommends  a  French  refugee,  falsely  accused  of  holding  the  opinions 
of  the  Anabaptists,  and  says  :  'I  entreat  of  you,  Master  Bucer,  if  my  prayers,  if  my  tears  are 
of  any  avail,  that  you  would  compassionate  and  help  him  in  his  wretchedness.  The  poor  is 
left  in  a  special  manner  to  your  care— you  are  the  helper  of  the  orphan.  .  .  .  Most  learned 
Sir,  farewell;  Thine  from  my  heart  {Tuns  ex  amino):  Calvin'  (J.  Bonnet's  Letters, Vol.  I. 
pp.  9-1 1 ;  the  Latin  in  Opera, Vol.  X.  Ft.  II.  p.  24).  Kampschulte  (Vol.  I.  p.  231)  infers  even 
an  earlier  acquaintance  of  Calvin  with  Bucer,  from  a  letter  of  Bucer  to  Farel,  May  1, 1528, 
in  which  he  mentions  a  juvenis  Noviodunensis  studying  Greek  and  Hebrew  in  Strasburg 
(Herminjard,  Vol.  II.  p.  131,  and  Opera,  Vol.  X.  Ft.  II.  p.  1);  but  this  youth  was  probably 
his  relative  Olive'tan,  who  was  likewise  a  native  of  Noyon  (Herminjard,  Vol.  II.  p.  451).  Be- 
sides, there  were  several  places  in  France  of  the  name  Noviodunum.     In  a  letter  of  Oct., 


426  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

as  he  himself  characterizes  it,  a  sudden  change  {suhita  conversio) 
from  Papal  superstition  to  the  evangelical  faith,  yet  not  without  pre- 
vious struggles.  He  tenaciously  adhered  to  the  Catholic  Church  until 
he  was  able  to  disconnect  the  true  idea  and  invisible  essence  of  the 
Church  from  its  outward  .organization.  Like  Luther,  he  strove  in  vain 
to  attain  peace  of  conscience  by  the  methods  of  Romanism,  and  was 
driven  to  a  deeper  sense  of  sin  and  guilt.  '  Only  one  haven  of  salva- 
tion is  left  for  our  souls,'  he  says, '  and  that  is  the  mercy  of  God  in 
Christ.  We  are  saved  by  grace — not  by  our  merits,  not  by  our  works.' 
After  deep  and  earnest  study  of  the  Scriptures,  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  like  a  bright  light  from  heaven,  burst  upon  his  mind  with  such 
force  that  there  was  nothing  left  for  him  but  to  abjure  his  sins  and 
errors,  and  to  obey  the  will  of  God.  He  consulted  not  with  flesh  and 
blood,  and  burned  the  bridge  after  him.1 

There  never  was  a  change  of  conviction  purer  in  motive,  more  rad- 
ical in  character,  more  fruitful  and  permanent  in  result.  It  bears  a 
striking  resemblance  to  that  still  greater  event  near  Damascus,  which 
transformed  a  fanatical  Pharisee  into  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ.  And 
indeed  Calvin  was  not  unlike  St.  Paul  in  his  intellectual  and  moral 
constitution ;  and  the  apostle  of  sovereign  grace  and  evangelical  free- 
dom never  had  a  more  sympathetic  expounder  than  the  Reformer  of 
Geneva. 

With  this  step  Calvin  renounced  all  prospects  of  a  brilliant  career, 
upon  which  he  had  already  entered,  and  exposed  himself  to  the  danger 
of  persecution  and  death.2  Though  naturally  bashful  and  retiring, 
and  seeking  one  quiet  hiding-place  after  another,  he  was  forced  to 
come  forward.  lie  exhorted  and  strengthened  the  timid  believers, 
usually  closing  with  the  words  of  St. Paul:  'If  God  be  for  us,  who  can 


1533,  to  Francis  Daniel  (Bonnet,  Vol.  I.  p.  12,  and  Opera,  Vol.  X.  Pt.  II.  p.  27),  Calvin  first 
speaks  openly  of  the  Reformation  in  Paris,  the  rage  of  the  Sorbonne,  and  the  satirical  comedy 
against  the  Queen  of  Navarre. 

1  lie  alludes  to  his  conversion  only  twice,  and  briefly,  namely,  in  the  remarkable  Preface  to 
his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  and  in  his  answer  to  Cardinal  Sadolet  (Opera,  Vol.  V. 
pp.  389-411  sq.).     In  the  latter  he  describes  his  mental  conflicts  and  terrors  of  conscience. 

2  He  says  (Ad  Sudoleti  Epistolam,  Opera,  Vol.  V.  p.  389)  that  if  he  had  consulted  his  per- 
sonal interest  he  would  never  have  left  the  Roman  Church,  where  the  way  to  honor  would 
have  been  very  easy  to  him.  Audin,  in  tracing  Calvin's  conversion  to  wounded  ambition, 
exposes  (as  Kampschulte  justly  observes,  p.  212)  his  utter  ignorance  of  Calvin's  character, 
whose  only  ambition  was  to  serve  God  most  faithfully. 


§  5G.  JOHN  CALVIN.  427 

be  against  us?'  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  was  ordained  by 
human  hands  to  the  ministry  of  the  gospel ;  but  he  had  an  extraor- 
dinary call,  like  that  of  the  prophets  of  old,  and  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles.  This  was  felt  by  his  brethren,  and  about  a  year  after  his 
conversion  he  was  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  Protestant  party 
in  France. 

For  a  while  matters  seemed  to  take  a  favorable  turn  at  the  court. 
His  friend,  Nicholas  Cop,  a  learned  physician,  was  even  elected  Rector 
of  the  University  of  Paris.1  At  his  request  Calvin  prepared  for  him 
an  inaugural  address  on  Christian  philosophy,  which  Cop  delivered  on 
All-Saints'  Day,  in  1533,  in  the  Church  of  the  Mathurins,  before  a 
large  assembly.  He  embraced  this  public  occasion  to  advocate  the 
reform  of  the  Church  on  the  basis  of  the  pure  gospel.2  Such  a  prov- 
ocation Catholic  France  had  never  before  received.  The  Sorbonne 
ordered  the  address  to  be  burned.  Cop  was  warned,  and  fled  to 
Basle ;  Calvin — as  tradition  says — escaped  in  a  basket  from  a  win- 
dow, and  left  Paris  in  the  garb  of  a  vine-dresser,  scarcely  knowing 
whither  he  was  going.  A  few  months  afterwards  the  king  himself 
took  a  decided  stand  against  the  Reformation,  and  between  Nov.  10, 
1534,  and  May  3, 1535,  twenty-four  Protestants  were  burned  alive  in 
Paris,  while  many  more  were  condemned  to  less  cruel  sufferings.3 

For  more  than  two  years  Calvin  wandered  a  fugitive  evangelist, 
under  assumed  names,  from  place  to  place.  We  find  him  at  Angou- 
lenic  with  his  learned  friend,  the  young  canon  Louis  du  Tillet,  using 
his  excellent  library,  and  probably  preparing  his  '  Institutes ;'  then  at 
the  court  of  Queen  Margaret  of  Navarre,,  the  sister  of  Francis  I., 
where  he  met  Le  Fcvre  d'Estaples  (Faber  Stapulensis),  the  aged  patri- 
arch of  French  Protestantism,  and  Gerard  Roussel,  her  chaplain,  who 

1  BuUens,  Ilisloria  universitatis  Parisiensis,\  o\,\l.  p.  238;   Kampschulte,  Vol.  I.  p.  243. 

2  The  incomplete  draft  of  this  address  has  recently  been  discovered  by  J.  Bonnet  among 
the  manuscripts  of  the  Geneva  library.  In  it  Calvin  explains  the  great  difference  between 
the  law  and  the  gospel,  and  charged  the  Sophists,  as  he  called  the  scholastic  theologians, 
'Nihil  de  jide,  nihil  de  amore  Dei,  nihil  de  remissione  peccatorum,  nihil  de  gratia,  nihil  de 
justijicatione,  nihil  de  veris  o/>eri/jus  disserunt ;  aut  si  certe  disserunt,  omnia  calumniantur, 
omnia  labe/actant,  omnia  suis  Itt/i/jus,  hoc  est  sophisticis  cocrcent.  Vos  rogo,  qnotquot  hie 
adestis,  ut  has  hicreses,  has  in  Ileum  contumelias  numquam  aquo  animo  ftratis.'  bee  Kamp- 
schulte, p.  24+. 

3  This  is  recorded  with  some  satisfaction  by  a  Catholic  writer  in  the  Journal  du  Bourgeois 
de  I'aris,  quoted  by  Gnizot,  p.  168.  That  Francis  I.  was  present  at  these  horrible  execu- 
tions is  denied  by  Michclet,  Martin,  and  (Juizot. 


428  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

advised  him  'to  purify  the  house  of  God,  but  not  to  destroy  it;'  at 
Noyon  (May,  1534),  where  he  parted  with  his  ecclesiastical  benefices; 
at  Poictiers,  where  he  celebrated,  with  a  few  friends,  for  the  first  time, 
the  Lord's  Supper  according  to  the  evangelical  rite,  in  a  cave  near  the 
town,  called  to  tin's  day  'Calvin's  Cave  ;'  at  Orleans,  where  he  published 
his  first  theological  work,  a  tract  against  the  Anabaptist  doctrine  of 
the  sleep  of  the  soul  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  using  exclu- 
sively Scriptural  arguments  with  rare  exegetical  and  polemical  skill;1 
again  (towards  the  close  of  1534)  at  Paris,  where  he  met  for  the  first 
time  the  unfortunate  Michael  Servetus,  and  challenged  him  to  a  dis- 
putation on  the  Trinity.  But  the  persecution  then  breaking  out  against 
the  Protestants  forced  him  to  forsake  the  soil  of  France.  With  his 
friend  Du  Tillet  he  fled  to  Strasburg,  where  he  arrived  utterly  desti- 
tute, having  been  robbed  by  an  unfaithful  servant,  and  formed  an  in- 
timate friendship  with  Bucer.  Thence  lie  went  to  Basle,  where  he 
quietly  studied  Hebrew  with  Capito  and  Grynreus,  and  published  the 
first  edition  of  his  'Institutes'  (1536).  In  the  spring  of  1536  he  spent 
a  short  time  at  the  court  of  the  Duchess  Hence  of  Ferrara,  the  daughter 
of  Louis  XII.,  a  little,  deformed,  but  highly  intelligent,  noble,  and  pious 
lady,  who  gathered  around  her  a  circle  of  friends  of  the  Reformation, 
and  continued  to  correspond  with  him  as  her  guide  of  conscience.2 
Returning  from  Italy,  where  he  was  threatened  by  the  Inquisition,3  he 
paid  a  flying  visit  to  Noyon,  and  had  the  pleasure  to  gain  his  only 
remaining  younger  brother  Anthony  and  his  sister  Mary  to  the  Re- 

1  Psychopannijchia,  in  Opera,  Vol.  V.  pp.  1G5-232.  The  Preface  is  dated  lAureli;e,  1534.' 
The  second  edition  appeared  in  Basle,  1535.  This  work  forms  a  contrast  to  his  commentary 
on  Seneca  as  great  as  exists  between  the  classics  and  the  Bible.  In  matters  relating  to  the 
future  world,  Calvin  allows  no  weight  to  reason  and  philosophy,  but  only  to  the  Word  of  God. 
On  the  merits  of  this  book,  see  Stahelin,  Vol.  I.  pp.  36  sqq. 

s  Gtiizot,  speaking  at  some  length  of  this  correspondence,  makes  the  remark  (p.  207) :  '  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  the  great  Catholic  bishops,  who  in  the  seventeenth  century  di- 
rected the  consciences  of  the  mightiest  men  in  France,  did  not  fulfill  the  difficult  task  with 
more  Christian  firmness,  intelligent  justice,  and  knowledge  of  the  world  than  Calvin  displayed 
in  his  intercourse  with  the  Duchess  of  Ferrara.  And  the  Duchess  was  not  the  only  person 
towards  whom  lie  fulfilled  this  duty  of  a  Christian  pastor.  His  correspondence  shows  that 
he  exercised  a  similar  influence,  in  a  spirit  equally  lofty  and  judicious,  over  the  consciences 
of  many  Protestants.' 

3  He  took  the  route  of  Aosta  and  the  Great  St.  Bernard.  His  short  labors  and  persecu- 
tion in  Aosta  were,  five  years  later  (1541),  commemorated  by  a  monumental  cross  and  in- 
scription—' Calvini  fu(jn — which  was  restored  in  1741,  and  again  in  1841,  and  stands  to  this 
day.  See  Gaberel.Vol.  I.  p.  100;  Stahelin,  Vol.  I.  p.  110;  Guizot,  p.  20!);  and  Merle  d'Au- 
bigno,  Vol.  V.  p.  454. 


§  56.  JOHN  CALVIN.  429 

formed  faith.  With  them  he  proceeded  to  Switzerland,  intending  to 
settle  at  Basle  or  Strasburg,  and  to  lead  the  quiet  life  of  a  scholar  and 
an  author,  without  the  slightest  inclination  to  a  public  career.  But  God 
had  decreed  otherwise. 

Passing  through  Geneva  in  August,  1530,  where  he  expected  to 
spend  only  a  night,  Calvin  was  held  fast  by  William  Fare],  the  fear- 
less evangelist,  who  threatened  him  with  the  curse  of  God  if  he  pre- 
ferred his  studies  to  the  work  of  the  Lord.  '  These  words,'  says 
Calvin  (in  the  Preface  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms),  'terrified 
and  shook  me,  as  if  God  from  on  high  had  stretched  out  his  hand  to 
stop  me,  so  that  I  renounced  the  journey  which  I  had  undertaken.' l 
Farel,  a  French  nobleman,  twenty  years  older  than  Calvin,  and  like 
him  driven  by  persecution  to  Switzerland,  where  he  destroyed  the 
strongholds  of  idolatry  with  the  zeal  of  a  prophet,  did  a  great  work 
when  'he  gave  Geneva  to  the  Reformation,'  but  a  still  greater  one 
when  'he  gave  Calvin  to  Geneva.' 

This  was  the  turning-point  in  Calvin's  life.  Once  resolved  to  obey 
the  voice  from  heaven,  the  timid  and  delicate  youth  shrunk  from  no 
danger.  Geneva  was  then  a  city  of  only  twelve  or  fifteen  thousand 
inhabitants,  but  within  its  narrow  limits  it  was  to  become  '  the  scene 
of  every  crisis  and  every  problem,  great  or  small,  which  can  agitate 
human  society.'2  It  then  represented  'a  tottering  republic,  a  wavering 
faith,  a  nascent  Church.'  Calvin  felt  that  a  negative  state  of  free- 
dom from  the  tyranny  of  Savoy  and  Popery  was  far  worse  than  Popery 
itself,  and  that  positive  faith  and  order  alone  could  save  the  city  from 
political  and  religious  anarchy.  He  insisted  on  the  abolition  of  im- 
moral habits,  the  adoption  of  an  evangelical  confession  of  faith  and 
catechism,  the  introduction  of  a  strict  discipline,  Psalm  singing,  and 
monthly  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  with  the  right  of  excluding 
unworthy  communicants.3 


1  According  to  Beza  (  Vita),  Farel  used  these  words :  'At  ego  til>i  stadia  prcetexenti  denun- 
lio,  omnipotentia  Dei  nomine,  futurum,  ut,  nisi  in  oj>us  istud  Domini  nobiacum  ineumbcu,  tibi 
non  tain  Christum  guana  te  ipsum  qiuerenti  JJominus  maledicat.'  I'eza  adds  that  Calvin  was 
'territw  hue  terribili  dtuuntiatione.'  Merle  d'Aubignii  gives  a  very  dramatic  account  of  this 
scene,  Vol.  V.  pp.  4;">G  sqq. 

3  Guizot,  p.  210. 

3  Me'moire  do  Caloin  it  Farel  sur  V organisation  de  I'e'glisc  de  Geneve,  recently  brought  to 
light  by  Gaberel  (Hist,  de  i'iglise  de  Geneve,  18J8,  Tom.  I.  p.  102),  and  in  the  Strasburg 


430  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  magistrate  refused  to  comply,  and  forbade  Calvin  and  Farel 
the  pulpit;  but  they,  preferring  to  obey  God  rather  than  men, 
preached  at  Easter,  153S,  to  an  armed  crowd,  and  declared  their  de- 
termination not  to  administer  the  holy  communion,  lest  it  be  dese- 
crated. On  the  following  day  they  were  deposed  and  expelled  from 
the  city  by  the  great  Council  of  the  Two  Hundred. 

Calvin,  again  an  exile,  though  now  for  the  principle  of  authority 
and  discipline  rather  than  doctrine,  spent  three  quiet  and  fruitful 
years  (1538-41)  with  Bucer  at  Strasburg,  as  teacher  of  theology  and 
preacher  to  a  congregation  of.several  hundred  French  refugees.1  Here 
he  became  acquainted  with  the  German'  Reformation,  for  Strasburg 
was  the  connecting  link  between  Germany  and  France,  as  also  be- 
tween Lutheranism  and  Zwinglianism.  But  he  was  disagreeably  im- 
pressed with  the  want  of  Church  discipline,  and  the  slavish  dependence 
of  the  German  clergy  on  the  secular  rulers.  His  French  congregation 
was  admired  for  its  activity  and  order.  In  Strasburg  he  wrote  his  tract 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  his  Commentary  on  the  Romans,  his  masterly 
answer  to  Cardinal  Sadolet's  letter  to  the  Genevese,  and  his  revision 
of  Olivetan's  French  translation  of  the  Bible.  Some  of  these  books 
attracted  the  favorable  notice  of  Luther,  whom  he  never  met  in  this 
world,  but  always  esteemed,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  his  faults,  as  one 
of  the  greatest  servants  of  Christ.2 

In  September,  1540,  he  married  Idelette  de  Buren  (a  little  town 
in  Gueldres),  a  grave,  pious,  modest,  amiable,  and  cultivated  widow, 
with   three    children,  whose    first  husband  he    had    converted   from 

edition  of  the  Opera,  Vol.  X.  Pt.  I.  pp.  5-14.  See  a  summary  in  Kampschulte,  Vol.  I. 
pp.  287  sqq. 

1  Guizot  says  fifteen  hundred.  On  Calvin's  life  and  labors  in  Strasburg,  see  especially  the 
full  accounts  of  Stahelin,  Vol.  I.  pp.  168-318,  and  Kampschulte,  Vol.  I.  pp.  320-368. 

3  Luther  wrote  to  Bucer:  'Greet  Calvin,  whose  little  works  I  have  read  witli  remarkable 
pleasure ; '  and  Melanchthon  wrote :  '  Calvin  is  in  high  favor  here  (magnmn  gratiam  iniil). '  See 
Calvin  to  Farel,  Dec.  12, 1539  ;  Stahelin,  Vol.  I.  p.  226  ;  and  De  Wette's  edition  of  Luther's 
Letters,  Vol.  V.  p.  210.  Calvin  wrote  to  Bullinger,  when  the  latter  was  provoked  by  the  last 
rude  assault  of  Luther  upon  the  Zwinglians  (1544) :  '  I  implore  you  never  to  forget  how  great 
a  man  Luther  is,  and  by  what  extraordinary  gifts  he  excels.  Think  with  what  courage,  what 
constancy,  what  power  and  success  he  has  devoted  himself  to  this  day  to  the  overthrow  of  the 
reign  of  Antichrist  and  the  spreading  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation  far  and  near.  As  for  me, 
I  have  often  said,  and  I  say  it  again,  though  he  should  call  me  a  devil,  I  would  still  give  him 
due  honor,  and  recognize  him,  in  spite  of  the  great  faults  which  obscure  his  extraordinary  vir- 
tues, as  a  mighty  servant  of  the  Lord.'  See  Henry,  Vol.  II.  p.  351 ;  Stahelin,  Vol.  I.  p.  204  ; 
Guizot,  p.  213  ;  Opera,  Vol.  XL  p.  774. 


§  58,  JOHN  CALVIN.  431 

Anabaptism  to  the  orthodox  faith.  She  was  in  delicate  health,  but 
very  devoted  to  him,  and  satisfied  all  his  desires.  He  lived  with  her 
in  perfect  harmony  nine  years,  and  she  bore  him  three  children,  all 
of  whom  died  in  infancy.  He  seldom  alludes  to  her  in  his  corre- 
spondence, but  always  in  terms  of  respect  and  love ;  and  in  inform- 
ing his  friend  Yiret  of  her  departure,  he  calls  her  '  the  best  compan- 
ion, who  would  cheerfully  have  shared  with  me  exile  and  poverty, 
and  followed  me  unto  death;  during  her  life  she  was  to  me  a  faith- 
ful assistant  in  all  my  labors ;  she  never  dissented  from  my  wishes 
even  in  the  smallest  things.'  Seven  years  afterwards,  in  a  letter  of 
consolation  to  a  friend  (Rev.  Richard  de  Yaleville,  of  Frankfort),  he 
says:  'I  know  from  my  own  experience  how  painful  and  burning 
is  the  wound  which  the  death  of  thy  wife  must  have  inflicted  upon 
you.  How  difficult  it  was  for  me  to  become  master  of  my  grief. 
.  .  .  Our  chief  comfort,  after  all,  is  the  wonderful  providence  of 
God,  which  overrules  our  affliction  for  our  spiritual  benefit,  and  sep- 
arates us  from  our  beloved  only  to  reunite  us  in  his  heavenly  king- 
dom.' His  grief  at  her  death,  and  at  the  death  of  his  children,  reveals 
a  hidden  spring  of  domestic  affection  which  is  rare  in  men  of  his  aus- 
terity of  character  and  absorption  in  public  duty.  lie  remained  a 
widower  the  rest  of  his  life.1 

From  the  Strasburg  period  dates  also  his  intimate  friendship  with 
Melanchthon,  which  was  not  broken  by  death,  and  is  the  more  remark- 
able in  view  of  their  difference  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of  predesti- 
nation and  free-will.  lie  met  him  at  religious  conferences  with  Ro- 
manists, at  Frankfort  (1539),  at  Worms  (1540),  and  at  Regensbui-g 
(Ratisbon,  1541),  which  he  attended  as  delegate  from  Strasburg. 
Their  correspondence  is  a  noble  testimony  to  the  mind  and  heart  of 
these  great  men,  so  widely  different  in  nationality,  constitution,  and 
temper — the  one  as  firm  as  a  rock,  the  other  as  timid  as  a  child — and 
yet  one  in  their  deepest  relations  to  Christ  and  his  salvation.  They 
represent  the  higher  union  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed,  the  Teu- 
tonic and  the  Romanic  types  of  Protestantism.  This  truly  Christian 
friendship  was  touchingly  expressed  by  Calvin  a  year  after  the  death 

1  Comp.  the  beautiful  tribute  to  Idclcttc  de  Barer),  by  Julc>  Bonnet,  in  tlie  fourth  volume 
of  the  Bulletin  pour  ridstoire  du  protestantisme  frangais  (1SG0),  and  Stiihelin,  Vol.  I.  pp.  274- 
283. 


432  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  the  Preceptor  of  Germany  (1561):  'O  Philip  Melanchthon !  for  it 
is  upon  thee  that  I  call,  upon  thee,  who  now  livest  with  Christ  in  God, 
and  art  there  waiting  for  us,  until  we  shall  also  be  gathered  with  thee 
to  that  blessed  rest !  A  hundred  times,  worn  out  with  fatigue  and 
overwhelmed  with  care,  thou  didst  lay  thy  head  upon  my  breast,  and 
say,  "Would  to  God  that  I  might  die  here,  on  thy  breast!"  And  I, 
a  thousand  times  since  then,  have  earnestly  desired  that  it  had  been 
granted  us  to  be  together.  Certainly  thou  wouldst  have  been  more 
valiant  to  face  danger,  and  stronger  to  despise  hatred,  and  bolder  to 
disregard  false  accusations.  Thus  the  wickedness  of  many  would 
have  been  restrained,  whose  audacity  of  insult  was  increased  by  what 
they  called  thy  weakness.' 1 

'  It  would  be  difficult,'  says  Guizot,  '  to  reconcile  truth,  piety,  and 
friendship  more  tenderly.' 

In  the  mean  time  the  Genevese  had  been  brought  by  sad  experience 
to  repent  of  the  expulsion  of  the  faithful  pastors,  and  to  feel  that  the 
Reformed  faith  and  discipline  alone  could  put  their  commonwealth 
on  a  firm  and  enduring  foundation.  The  magistrate  and  people  united 
in  an  urgent  and  repeated  recall  of  Calvin.  He  reluctantly  yielded  at 
last,  and  in  September,  1541,  after  passing  a  few  days  with  Farel  at 
Keufchatel,  he  made  a  triumphant  entry  into  the  beautiful  city  on 
Lake  Leman.2  The  magistrate  provided  for  him  a  house  and  garden 
near  the  Cathedral  of  St.  Pierre,  broadcloth  for  a  coat,  and,  in  con- 
sideration of  his  generous  hospitality  to  strangers  and  refugees,  an  an- 
nual salary  of  five  hundred  florins,3  twelve  measures  of  wheat,  and  two 

1  This  passage  occurs  on  the  first  page  of  his  book  against  the  fanatical  Lutheran, 
Heshusius  ( Opera,  Vol.  IX.  p.  4G1)  :  '  0  Philippe  Melanchthon  !  Te  enim  apjiello,  qui  apud 
Deum  cum  Christo  vivis,  nosque  illic  expectas,  donee  tecum  in  beatam  quietem  colligamur. 
Jjixisti  centies,  quum  fessus  laborlbus  ct  molestiis  oppressus  caput  familiar  iter  in  sinum  meum 
deponeres:  Utinam,  utinam  moriar  in  hoc.  sinu.  Eyo  vero  millies  postea  optavi  nobis  con- 
tiitgere,  ut  simul  essemus.  Certe  animosior  fuisses  ad  obeunda  certamina,  et  ad  spernen- 
dam  invidiam,  falsasque  criminationes  pro  nihilo  ducendas  fortior.  Hoc  quoque  inodo  co- 
hibita  fuisset  multorum  improbitas,  quibus  ex  tua  mollitie,  quam  vocabant,  crevit  insultandi 
audacia.'  Comp.  on  the  relation  of  Calvin  to  Melanchthon,  the  full  discussion  of  Stiihelin, 
Vol.  I.  pp.  230-254  ;  also  Guizot,  p.  246. 

3  The  date  is  variously  given — Sept.  10  by  Roget,  Sept.  12  by  Guizot,  Sept.  13  by  Kamp- 
Ecbulte  (following  Beza). 

a  'Worth  about  8660  francs,  or  £150  at  the  present  time.' — Guizot,  p.  257.  A  syndic  re- 
ceived only  one  fifth  of  this  sum;  but  Calvin's  house  was  a  home  for  poor  refugees  of  faith 
from  France  and  other  lands,  the  widows  and  orphans  of  martyrs,  so  that  he  had  often  not 
apenny  left.     See  Stiihelin,  Vol.  II.  p.  391,  and  Hagenbach,  Kirchengeseh.  Vol.  III.  p.  581. 


§  56.  JOHN  CALVIN.  433 

tubs  of  wine.  The  rulers  of  Strasburg,  says  Beza,  stipulated  that  he 
should  always  remain  a  burgess  of  their  city,  and  requested  him  to 
retain  the  revenues  of  a  prebend  which  had  been  assigned  as  the  sal- 
ary of  his  professorship  in  theology,  but  they  could  not  persuade 
him  to  accept  so  much  as  a  single  farthing. 

rThis  second  settlement  was  final.  Geneva  was  now  wedded  to 
Calvin,  and  had  to  sink  or  swim  with  his  principles.1  He  continued 
to  labor  there,  without  interruption,  for  twenty-three  years,  till  his 
death,  May  27,  1564:  fighting  a  fierce  spiritual  war  against  Roman- 
ism and  superstition,  but  still  more  against  infidelity  and  immorality 5 
establishing  a  model  theocracy  on  the  basis  of  Moses  and  Christ; 
preaching  and  teaching  from  day  to  day;  writing  commentaries,  the- 
ological and  polemical  treatises ;  founding  an  academy,  which  in  the 
first  year  attracted  more  than  eight  hundred  students,  and  flourishes 
to  this  day ;  attending  the  sessions  of  the  consistory  and  the  senate ; 
entertaining  and  counselling  strangers  from  all  parts  of  the  world ; 
and  corresponding  in  every  direction.  lie  was,  in  fact,  the  spiritual 
head  of  the  Church  and  the  republic  of  Geneva,  and  the  leader  of  the 
Reformed  movement  throughout  Europe.  And  yet  lie  lived  all  the 
time  in  the  utmost  simplicity.  It  is  reported  that  Cardinal  Sadolet, 
when  passing  through  Geneva  incognito,  and  calling  on  Calvin,  was 
surprised  to  find  him  residing,  not  in  an  episcopal  palace,  with  a  reti- 
nue of  servants,  as  he  expected,  but  in  a  little  house,  himself  opening 
the  door.  The  story  may  not  be  sufficiently  authenticated,  but  it  cor- 
responds fully  with  all  we  know  about  his  ascetic  habits.2     For  years 

1  Well  says  Kampschulte  (Vol.1,  pp.  385  sq.)  :  '  Gen/  war  imHerbst  1541  dm  geistlichen 
Tendenzen  Calvins  dienstbar  geworden,  es  ivar  an  den  Siegeswagen  des  Re/ormators  ge/esselt 
und  musste  ihm  folgen  trotz  alien  Straubens,  trotz  alter  Aufiehnungsversuche,  die  spater  nichl 
ausgeblieben  sind.  Nicht  under s /asste  Culvin  selbst  seine  Stellung  von  vorne  herein  au/.  Fur 
ihn  ergab  sirh  sein  Herrscherreckt  tiber  Gen/ aus  dein  wunderbaren  Gauge  der  letzten  JCreig- 
nisse  mit  der  Zweifellosigkeit  eines  von  Gott  selbst  erklarten  Glaubenssatzes.  Schimpflich 
vor  drei  Jahren  vertrieben,  sah  er  sich  mit  den  griissten  Ehren  an/  den  Schauplatz  zuruekge* 
/uhrt,den  ihm  Farel  einst  in  ernstcr  Stunde  "/wi  Nainen  des  allmachtigen  Gottes"  angcwie- 
sen:  mit  Jubel  wurde  er  von  demselben  Volke  begriisst,  </<is  ihm  unversiihnlichen  Hass  geschico- 
ren  !  .  .  .  Calvin  fdhhe  sich/ast  nur  noeh  als  Werkzeug  in  der  Hand  Gottes,  durch  den  ewigen 
giittlichcn  RathschluU,ohnejedeaperBBnJicheZuthtin,/iir  Gm/bestimmt,  urn  ties  Herrn  Willen, 
u-ie  er  ihn  erkannt,  au/ diesem  urichtigen  Fleck  der  Erde  ohne  Furcht  und  Scheu  zu  oerkiindi- 
gen,jenes  Programm,  welches  er  in  der  christlichen  Institution  niedergelegt,  hier  zur  Aiisfiih- 
ruiv)  zu  bringen,dem  Herrn  hier  ein  christliches  Geschlecht  zu  savum  In,  das  do-  iibriffen  Well 
als  Leuchte  diene.' 

2  This  fact  is  related  by  Drelincoort  in  liis  De/ense  de  Calvin  (IGG7),  and  Uungener  (p. 


434  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

lie  took  but  one  meal  a  day.1  lie  refused  an  increase  of  salary  and 
presents  of  every  description,  except  for  the  poor  and  the  refugees, 
whom  he  was  always  ready  to  aid.  He  left,  besides  his  library,  only 
about  two  hundred  dollars,  which  he  bequeathed  to  his  younger  brother 
Anthony  and  his  children.2  When  Pope  Pius  IY.  heard  of  his  death, 
he  paid  him  this  high  compliment :  '  The  strength  of  that  heretic  con- 
sisted in  this,  that  money  never  had  the  slightest  charm  for  him.  If  I 
had  such  servants,  my  dominions  would  extend  from  sea  to  sea.'2 

His  immense  labors  and  midnight  studies,4  the  care  of  all  the 
churches,  and  bodily  infirmities — such  as  headaches,  asthma,  fever, 
gravel — gradually  wore  out  his  delicate  body.  He  died,  in  full  pos- 
session of  his  mental  powers,  in  the  prime  of  manhood  and  useful- 
ness, not  quite  forty-five  years  of  age,  leaving  his  Church  in  the  best 
order  and  in  the  hands  of  an  able  and  faithful  successor,  Theodore 
Beza.  Like  a  patriarch,  he  assembled  first  the  syndics  of  Geneva, 
and  afterwards  the  ministers,  around  his  dying  bed,  thanked  them 
for  their  kindness  and  devotion,  asked  humbly  their  pardon  for  occa- 
sional outbursts  of  violence  and  wrath,  and  affected  them  to  tears  by 
words  of  wisdom  and  counsel  to  persevere  in  the  pure  doctrine  and 
discipline  of  Christ.  It  was  a  sublime  scene,  worthily  described  by 
Beza,5  and  well  represented  by  a  painter's  skill.6 

The  Reformer  died  with  the  setting  sun.  'Thus,'  says  Beza, 'God 
withdrew  into  heaven  that  most  brilliant  light,  which  was  a  lamp  of 
the  Church.  In  the  following  night  and  day  there  was  immense  grief 
and  lamentation  in  the  whole  city ;  for  the  republic  had  lost  its  wisest 
citizen,  the  Church  its  faithful  shepherd,  the  academy  an  incompara- 
ble teacher — all  lamented  the  departure  of  their  common  father  and 

503),  and  is  believed  in  Geneva,  but  doubted  by  Guizot,  p.  237,  for  chronological  reasons 
which  are  not  conclusive  (Sadolet  died  1549).     '<Se  non  e  vero,  e  ben  trovato.' 

1  Beza:  ''Per  decern  minimum  annos  prandio  abstinuit,  tit  nullum  omnino  cibuni  extra  sta- 
tam  ccence  horatn  sumeret.'     Sometimes  he  abstained  for  thirty-six  hours  from  all  food, 

2  See  his  testament  in  Beza's  Vita. 

3  Quoted  by  Guizot,  p.  3G1. 

*  iSomnipene  nullius,'  says  Beza  in  his  closing  remarks. 

5  With  Beza's  account  of  his  parting  addresses  (in  the  French  and  Latin  edition  of  the 
Vii<i  i  should  be  compared  the  official  copy,  which  Bonnet  published  in  the  Appendix  to  the 
French  Letters,  Tom.  II.  p.  573,  and  the  Strasburg  editors  at  the  close  of  the  9th  vol.  of  the 
Qp<  i  a  (  Discours  d' adieu  aux  memhres  du  Petit  Conseil,  pp.  887-81M),  and  Discours  d 'adieu  aux 
ministres,  pp.  891-894).     Comp.  also  Stahelin,  Vol.  II.  pp.  4G2-4G8. 

6  Hornung's  picture  of  Calvin  on  his  death-bed. 


§  56.  JOHN  CALVIN.  435 

best  comforter  next  to  God.  A  multitude  of  citizens  streamed  to 
the  death-chamber,  and  could  scarcely  be  separated  from  the  corpse. 
Among  them  also  were  several  foreigners,  as  the  distinguished  English 
embassador  to  France,  "who  had  come  to  Geneva  to  make  the  ac- 
quaintance of  the  celebrated  man.  On  the  Lord's  day,  in  the  after- 
noon, the  remains  were  carried  to  the  common  graveyard  on  Plain- 
palnis,  followed  by  all  the  patricians,  pastors,  professors,  and  teachers, 
and  nearly  the  whole  city,  in  sincere  mourning.' 

Calvin  expressly  forbade  the  erection  of  any  monument  over  his 
grave.1  The  stranger  asks  in  vain  even  for  the  spot  which  covers  his 
mortal  remains  in  the  cemetery  of  Geneva.  Like  Moses,  he  was  buried 
out  of  the  reach  of  idolatry.  The  Reformed  Churches  of  both  hemi- 
spheres are  his  monument,  more  enduring  than  marble.  On  the  third 
tercentenary  of  his  death  (1S64),  his  friends  in  Geneva,  aided  by  gifts 
from  foreign  lands,  erected  to  his  memory  the  Salle  de  la  Reforma- 
tion— a  noble  building,  founded  on  the  principles  of  the  Evangelical 
Alliance,  and  dedicated  to  the  preaching  of  the  pure  gospel  and  the 
advocacy  of  every  good  cause. 

calvin's  personal  character. 
Calvin  was  of  middle,  or  rather  small  stature  (like  David  and  Paul), 
of  feeble  health,  courteous,  kind,  grave  and  dignified  in  deportment. 
He  had  a  meagre  and  emaciated  frame,  a  thin,  pale,  finely  chiseled 
face,  a  well-formed  mouth,  a  long,  pointed  beard,  black  hair,  a  promi- 
nent nose,  a  lofty  forehead,  and  flaming  eyes.  He  was  modest,  plain, 
and  scrupulously  neat  in  dress,  orderly  and  methodical  in  all  his  hab- 
its, temperate  and  even  abstemious,  allowing  himself  scarcely  nourish- 
ment and  sleep  enough  for  vigorous  work.  His  physical  tent  barely 
covered  the  mighty  spirit  within.  Conscience  and  logic,  a  command- 
ing mind  and  will,  shone  through  the  thin  veil  of  mortality.2 


1  Beza,  however,  wrote  a  suitable  poem,  in  Latin  and  French,  which  might  have  been  in- 
scribed on  the  tomb.  See  his  Vita,  at  the  close,  and  Opera,  Vol.  V.  pp.  xxvi.  sqq.  (with 
three  other  French  sonnets);  a  German  translation  in  Stiihelin,  Vol.  II.  p.  470. 

3  See  different  portraits  of  Calvin— in  Henry  (small  biography),  in  first  volume  of  the  Opera, 
in  Stiihelin,  in  first  volume  of  Merle  d'Aubigne  ;  also  Hornung's  Calvin  on  his  death-bed, 
and  the  medallion  portrait  made  at  the  fptirnl  of  the  Geneva  Reformation.  Ary  Scheffer's 
picture  (his  last  work),  which  Stiihelin  put  as  frontispiece  to  his  first  volume,  is  the  most 
pleasing,  but  somewhat  modernized  and  idealized. 


436  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

How  different  Luther  and  Zwingli,  with  their  strong  animal  foundation, 
and  their  abundance  of  flesh  and  blood !  Calvin  seemed  to  be  all  bone  and 
nerve.    Beza  says  he  looked  in  death  almost  the  same  as  alive  in  sleep.1 

His  intellectual  endowments  were  of  the  highest  order  and  thor- 
oughly disciplined.  He  had  more  constructive,  systematizing,  and 
organizing  genius  than  any  other  Reformer,  and  was  better  adapted 
to  found  a  solid,  compact,  and  permanent  school  of  theology.  He 
was  not  a  speculative  or  intuitive  philosopher,  but  a  consummate  lo- 
gician and  dialectician.  Luther  and  Zwingli  cut  the  stones  from  the 
quarry ;  Calvin  gave  them  shape  and  polish,  and  erected  a  magnifi- 
cent cathedral  of  ideas  with  the  skill  of  a  master  architect.  His 
precocity  and  consistency  were  marvelous.  He  did  not  grow  before 
the  public,  like  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  and  pass  through  contra- 
dictions and  retractations,  but  when  a  mere  youth  of  twenty-six  he 
appeared  fully  armed,  like  Minerva  from  the  head  of  Jupiter,  and  never 
changed  his  views  on  doctrine  or  discipline.  He  had  an  extraordinary 
and  well-stored  memory,  a  profound,  acute,  and  penetrating  intellect, 
a  clear,  sound,  and  almost  unerring  judgment,  a  perfect  mastery  over 
the  Latin  and  French  tongues.  His  Latin  is  as  easy  and  elegant,  and 
certainly  as  nervous  and  forcible,  as  Cicero's,  yet  free  from  the  pe- 
dantic and  affected  purism  of  a  Bembo  and  Castalio.2  He  is  one  of 
the  fathers  of  modern  French,  as  Luther  is  the  father  of  modern  Ger- 
man. His  eloquence  is  logic  set  on  fire  by  intense  conviction.  His 
Preface  to  the  '  Institutes,'  addressed  to  the  King  of  France,  is  reck- 
oned as  one  of  the  three  immortal  prefaces  in  literature  (to  which 
only  that  of  President  De  Thou  to  his  French  History  and  that  of 


1  Beza  thus  tersely  describes  him  (at  the  close  of  the  Vita)  :  '  Statura  fuit  mediocri,  colore 
subpallido  et  nigricante,  ocu/is  ad  mortem  usque  limpidis,  quiqne  ingenii  sagac.itatem  testaren- 
tur :  cultu  corporis  neque  culto  neque  snrdido,  scd  qui  singularem  modestiam  deceret :  victu  sic 
temperato,  ut  a  sordibus  et  ab  ottuii  tit.ru  longis&ime  abesset :  cibi  parcissimi,  ut  qid  midtos 
annos  semel  quotidie  cibum  sumpserit,  vintricidi  imbecillitatem  causatus:  somni  pane  nullius: 
memorial  incredibilis,  ut  quos  semel  aspexisset  multis post  annis  statim  agnosceret,  et  inter  dic- 
tandum  saspe  aliquot  horas  interturbatus  statim  ad  dictata  mdlo  commonefaciente  7-ediret,  et 
corum,  qiae  ipsum  nosse  muneris  sui  causa  interesset,  quantumvis  multiplicilnis  et  infinitis  ne- 
gotiis  op/ircssus,  nunquam  tamen  oblivisceretur.  Jtidicii,  quibuscunque  de  rebus  consuleretur, 
tarn  puri  et  exacli,  ut  pane  vaticinari  sape  sit  visits,  nee  aberasse  meminerhn,  qui  consilium 
ipsius  esset  sequutus.  Facund'ur.  c.ontemptor  et  verborum  parcxts,  sed  iniiiime  ineptus  srnptor, 
et  quo  nu/lus  ad  /tunc  diem  theologus  (absit  verbo  imiidia)  purius,  gravius,  judiciosius  denique 
scrijtsit,  quum  tamen  tarn  multa  scripscrit,  quam  nemo  vel  nostra  vel patrum  memoria.' 

3  Who  would  substitute  respublica  for  ecc/esia,  genius  for  angelus,  lotto  for  ba/ttismus,  etc. 


§  66.  JOHN  CALVIN.  437 

Casaubon  to  Polybius  can  be  compared);  and  his  'Institutes'  them- 
selves, as  has  been  well  said,  are  'in  truth  a  continuous  oration,  in 
which  the  stream  of  discussion  rolls  onward  with  an  impetuous  cur- 
rent, yet  always  keeps  within  its  defined  channel.'1 

He  surpassed  all  other  Reformers  (except  Beza)  in  classical  culture 
and  social  refinement.  He  was  a  patrician  by  education  and  taste, 
and  felt  more  at  ease  among  scholars  and  men  of  high  rank  than 
among  the  common  people.  Yet  he  was  cpiite  free  from  aristocratic 
pride,  despised  all  ostentation  and  display,  and  esteemed  every  man  ac- 
cording to  his  real  worth. 

History  furnishes,  perhaps,  no  example  of  a  man  who  with  so  little 
personal  popularity  had  such  influence  upon  the  people,  and  who 
with  such  natural  timidity  and  bashfulness  combined  such  strength 
and  control  over  his  age  and  future  generations.  Constitutionally 
a  retiring  scholar  and  a  man  of  thought,  he  became  providentially  a 
mighty  man  of  action  and  an  organizer  of  churches. 

His  moral  and  religious  character  is  impressed  with  a  certain  maj- 
esty which  keeps  the  admirer  at  a  respectful  distance.2  He  has  often 
been  compared  to  an  old  Roman  Censor  or  Stoic ;  but  he  resembles 
much  more  a  Hebrew  Prophet.  Severe  against  others,  he  was  far 
more  severe  against  himself,  and  was  always  guided  by  a  sense  of  duty. 
Fear  of  God,  purity  of  motive,  spotless  integrity,  single  devotion  to 
truth  and  duty,  unswerving  fidelity,  sincere  humility  are  the  promi- 
nent traits  of  his  character.  Soaring  high  above  the  earth,  he  was 
absorbed  in  God — who  alone  is  great — and  looked  down  upon  man  as 
a  fleeting  shadow.  The  glory  of  the  Lord  and  the  reformation  of  the 
Church  constituted  the  single  passion  of  his  life.  His  appropriate 
symbol  was  a  hand  offering  the  sacrifice  of  a  bleeding  heart  to  God.3 

It  must  be  admitted  that  this  kind  of  greatness,  while  it  commands 
our  admiration  and  respect,  does  not  of  itself  secure  our  affection  and 
love.  There  is  a  censoriousness  and  austerity  about  Calvin  and  his 
creed  which  repelled  many  good  men,  even  among  his  contemporaries.4 

1  Fisher,  The  Reformation,  p.  198. 

2  This  was  the  judgment  of  the  magistrate  of  Geneva,  expressed  in  these  words  (June  8, 
15G4)  :  lJjieu  lui  avait  imjirime  un  charactere  cTune  si  yrande  majesty.' 

3  'Cor  meum  velut  mactatum  Domino  in  sacri/icium  offero.'  Subscribed  below  his  auto- 
graph in  the  frontispiece  of  Henry's  smaller  biography. 

*  His  ungrateful  enemy,  Baldwin,  started  the  snying  among  the  Gcnevcse, '  Rather  with  Beza  in 


438  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

He  looked  more  to  the  holiness  than  to  the  love  of  God.  His  piety 
bears  more  the  stamp  of  the  Old  Testament  than  that  of  the  New. 
He  represents  the  majesty  and  severity  of  the  law  rather  than  the 
sweetness  and  loveliness  of  the  gospel,  the  obedience  of  a  servant  of 
Jehovah  rather  than  the  joy  fulness  of  a  child  of  our  heavenly  Father. 

Yet  even  this  must  be  qualified.  He  sympathized  with  the  spirit 
of  David  and  Paul  as  much  as  with  the  spirit  of  Moses  and  Elijah, 
and  had  the  strongest  sense  of  the  freedom  of  the  gospel  salvation. 
Moreover,  behind  his  cold  marble  frame  there  was  beating  a  noble, 
loving,  and  faithful  heart,  which  attracted  and  retained  to  the  last 
the  friendship  of  such  eminent  servants  of  God  as  Farel,  Viret,  Beza, 
Bucer,  Bullinger,  Knox,  and  Melanchthon.  '  He  obtained,'  says  Gui- 
zot, '  the  devoted  affection  of  the  best  men  and  the  esteem  of  all,  with- 
out ever  seeking  to  please  them.'1  John  Knox,  his  senior  in  years,  sat 
at  his  feet  as  a  humble  pupil,  and  esteemed  him  the  greatest  man 
after  the  Apostles.  Farel,  in  his  old  age,  hastened  on  foot  from  Neuf- 
chatel  to  Geneva  to  take  leave  of  his  sick  friend,  and  desired  to  die 
in  his  place.  Beza,  who  lived  sixteen  years  on  terms  of  personal  in- 
timacy with  him,  revered  and  loved  him  as  a  father.  And  even 
Melanchthon  wished  to  repose  and  to  die  on  his  bosom.  His  familiar 
correspondence  shows  him  in  the  most  favorable  light,  and  is  a  suffi- 
cient refutation  of  all  the  calumnies  and  slanders  of  his  enemies. 

He  lacked  the  good-nature,  the  genial  humor,  the  German  Gemilth- 
UchJceit,  the  overflowing  humanity  of  Luther,  who  for  this  reason  will 
always  be  more  popular  with  the  masses ;  but  he  surpassed  him  in  cult- 
ure, refinement,  consistency,  and  moral  self-control.  Both  were  equally 
unselfish  and  unworldly.  Both  were  headstrong  and  will-strong ;  but 
Calvin  was  more  open  to  argument  and  less  obstinate.  Both  had, 
like  St.  Paul,  a  fiery  and  violent  temper,  which  was  the  propelling 
force  in  their  hard  work,  and  in  fierce  battles  with  the  pope  and  the 


hell  than  with  Calvin  in  heaven.'  And  yet  they  oheyed  and  revered  him.  Beza,  it  should 
he  remembered,  was  the  perfection  of  a  French  gentleman;  yet- his  theological  system  was 
even  more  severe  than  that  of  Calvin,  and  he  carried  the  dogma  of  predestination  to  the  ex- 
treme of  supralapsarianism.  I  have  met  with  not  a  few  French,  Scotch,  and  American  Chris- 
tians who,  in  the  combination  of  severity  and  purity,  gravity  and  kindliness  of  character, 
reminded  me  strongly  of  Calvin  and  Beza.  I  may  mention  Gaussen,  Malan,  Merle  d'Aubigne, 
Pronier,  Adolph  Monod,  and  Guizot. 
1  Page  362. 


§  56.  JOHN  CALVIN.  439 

devil.  Hegel  says  somewhere  that  'nothing  great  can  be  done  with- 
out passion.' l  It  is  only  men  of  intense  convictions  and  fearless  cour- 
age that  make  deep  and  lasting  impressions  upon  others.  But  temper 
is  a  force  of  nature,  which  must  be  controlled  by  reason  and  regulated 
by  justice  and  charity.  Luther  came  down  like  a  thunder-storm  upon 
his  opponents,  and  used  the  crushing  sledge-hammer  indiscriminately 
against  Eck,  Cochlreus,  Henry  VIII.,  Erasmus,  the  Sacramentarians, 
and  Zwinglians;  while  Calvin  wielded  the  sharp  sword  of  irony,  wit, 
scorn,  and  contempt  in  defense  of  truth,  but  never  from  personal 
hatred  and  revenge.  '  Even  a  dog  barks,'  he  says,  '  when  his  master 
is  attacked ;  how  could  I  be  silent  when  the  honor  of  my  Lord  is 
assailed  ?'2  He  confessed,  however,  in  a  letter  to  Bueer,  and  on  his 
death-bed,  that  he  found  it  difficult  to  tame  'the  wild  beast'  of  his 
wrath,  and  humbly  asked  forgiveness  for  his  weakness.  He  had  no 
children  to  write  to,  and  to  play  with  around  the  Christmas-tree,  like 
Luther,  but  he  appears  to  better  advantage  in  his  relations  with  men 
and  women.  He  treated  them,  even  the  much  younger  Beza,  as 
equals,  overlooked  minor  differences,  and  in  correcting  their  faults  ex- 
pected the  same  manly  frankness  from  them  in  return ;  while  Luther, 
growing  more  irritable  and  overbearing  with  advancing  years,  made 
even  Melanchthon  tremble  and  fear.  But  we  should  charitably  re- 
member that  the  faults  of  these  truly  great  and  good  men  were  only 
the  long  shadows  of  their  extraordinary  virtues.3 

It  may  be  found  strange  that  Calvin  never  alludes  to  the  paradise 
of  nature  by  which  he  Mas  surrounded  on  the  lovely  shores  of  Lake 


1  ' Nichts  Grosses  f/esrhie/it  o/ine  Leidensc/iaf't.' 

2  The  strongest  terms  of  Calvin  against  ferocious  enemies  are  canes,  porci,  bestir,  nebulones 
(with  reference,  no  doubt,  to  Scripture  usage — Isa.  lvi.  10;  Matt.  vii.  C> ;  Phil.  iii.  2 ;  Rev. 
xxii.  15);  but  they  are  mild  compared  to  the  coarse  and  vulgar  epithets  with  which  Luther 
overwhelmed  his  opponents,  without  expressing  any  regret  afterwards,  except  in  the  case  of 
Henry  VIII.,  where  it  was  least  needed,  and  made  the  matter  worse. 

3  Calvin,  though  fully  aware  of  the  defects  of  Luther,  often  expressed  his  admiration  for 
him  (see  p.  430),  and  in  January,  1  ."> 4 ;">  (a  year  before  Luther's  death),  he  sent  him  a  letter 
(which  Melanchthon  was  afraid  to  hand  to  the  old  lion  on  account  of  his  excited  state  of 
feeling  against  the  Swiss),  closing  with  these  touching  words:  'If  I  could  only  fly  to  you 
and  enjoy  your  society,  even  for  a  few  hours!  .  .  .  But  since  this  privilege  is  not  granted  to 
me  on  earth,  I  hope  I  may  soon  enjoy  it  in  the  kingdom  above.  Farewell,  most  illustrious 
man,  most  excellent  minister  of  Christ  and  father  [pater,  aLJrater],  forever  venerable  to  me. 
May  the  Lord  continue  to  guide  you  by  his  Spirit  to  the  end  for  the  common  good  of  his 
Church.'    Opera,  Vol.  XII.  p.  8. 

Vol.  I.— F  f 


440  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Leman,  in  sight  of  the  lofty  Alps  that  pierce  the  skies  in  silent  adora- 
tion of  their  Maker.  But  we  look  in  vain  for  descriptions  of  natural 
scenery  in  the  whole  literature  of  the  sixteenth  century ;  and  the 
proper  appreciation  of  the  beauties  of  Switzerland,  as  well  as  of  other 
countries,  is  of  more  recent  date.  Calvin  had  no  special  organ  nor 
time  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  beautiful  either  in  nature  or  in  art,  but 
he  appreciated  poetry  and  music.1  He  insisted  on  the  introduction  of 
congregational  singing  in  Geneva,  and  wrote  himself  a  few  poetic 
versions  of  the  Psalms,  and  a  hymn  of  praise  to  Christ,  which  are 
worthy  of  Clement  Marot  and  reveal  an  unexpected  vein  of  poetic 
fervor  and  tenderness.2     The  following  specimen  must  suffice : 

'1  greet  thee,  who  my  sure  Redeemer  art, 
My  only  trust,  and  Saviour  of  my  heart! 
Who  so  much  toil  and  woe 
And  pain  didst  undergo, 
For  my  poor,  worthless  sake: 
We  pray  thee,  from  our  hearts, 
All  idle  griefs  and  smarts 
And  foolish  cares  to  take. 

'Thou  art  the  true  and  perfect  gentleness, 
No  harshness  hast  thou,  and  no  bitterness: 
Make  us  to  taste  and  prove, 
Make  us  adore  and  love, 
The  sweet  grace  found  in  thee ; 
With  longing  to  abide 
Ever  at  thy  dear  side, 
In  thy  sweet  unity. 


1  Guizot  says  (p.  1G4):  'Although  Calvin  was  devoted  to  the  severe  simplicity  of  evangel- 
ical worship,  he  did  not  overlook  the  inherent  love  of  mankind  for  poetry  and  art.  He 
himself  had  a  taste  for  music,  and  knew  its  power.  He  feared  that,  in  a  religious  service 
limited  to  preaching  and  prayer  only,  the  congregation,  having  nothing  else  to  do  than  to  play 
the  part  of  audience,  would  remain  cold  and  inattentive.  For  this  reason  he  attached  great 
importance  to  the  introduction  and  promotion  of  the  practice  of  Psalm-singing  in  public  wor- 
ship. "If  the  singing,"  he  said, "is  such  as  befits  the  reverence  which  we  ought  to  feel  when 
we  sing  before  God  and  the  angels,  it  is  an  ornament  which  bestows  grace  and  dignity  upon 
our  worship ;  and  it  is  an  excellent  method  of  kindling  the  heart,  and  making  it  burn  with 
great  ardor  in  prayer.  But  we  must  at  all  times  take  heed  lest  the  ear  should  be  more 
attentive  to  the  harmony  of  the  sound  than  the  soul  to  the  hidden  meaning  of  the  words" 
(Instit.  Ch.  XX.).  With  this  pious  warning,  he  strongly  urged  the  study  of  singing,  and  its 
adaptation  to  public  worship.'     Comp.  Gaberel,  Vol.  I.  p.  353. 

2  These  poetic  pieces  were  recently  discovered,  and  published  in  the  sixth  volume  of  the 
new  edition  of  his  Opera  (18(>7),  pp.  212-224.  His  Salutation  a  Jesus- Christ  was  trans- 
lated into  German  by  Stiihelin,  and  into  English  by  Mrs.  Smith,  of  New  York,  for  Schaff's  Christ 
in  Song,  London  edition,  p.  54!).  His  Epinicion  Christo  cantatum  is  a  polemic  poem  in  Latin 
hexameters  and  pentameters,  composed  during  the  Conference  at  Worms,  1541,  in  which  he 
describes  the  Romish  polemics  Eck,  Cochlants,  Nausea,  and  Pelargus  as  dragged  after  the 
chariot  of  the  victorious  Redeemer.      Opera,  Vol.  V.  pp.  41 7-428. 


§  56.  JOHN  CALVIN.  441 

'Poor,  banished  exiles,  wretched  sons  of  Eve, 
Full  of  all  sorrows,  unto  thee  we  grieve; 
To  thee  we  bring  our  sighs, 
Our  groanings,  and  our  cries : 
Thy  pity,  Lord,  we  crave ; 
We  take  the  sinner's  place, 
And  pray  thee,  of  thy  grace, 
To  pardon  and  to  save.' 

TRIBUTES    TO    CALVIX. 

I  add  some  estimates  of  Calvin's  character,  which  represent  very 
different  stand-points.1 

Beza,  who  knew  Calvin  best  and  watched  at  his  death-bed,  concludes 
his  biography  with  these  words  : 

'  Having  been  an  observer  of  Calvin's  life  for  sixteen  years,  I  may  with  perfect  right  testify 
that  we  have  in  this  man  a  most  beautiful  example  of  a  truly  Christian  life  and  death,  which 
it  is  easy  to  calumniate  but  difficult  to  imitate.'2 

Bungener,  a  pastor  of  the  national  Church  of  Geneva,  and  author  of 
several  historical  works,  says:3 

'  Let  us  not  give  him  praise  which  he  would  not  have  accepted.  God  alone  creates ;  a 
man  is  great  only  because  God  thinks  fit  to  accomplish  great  things  by  his  instrumentality. 
Never  did  any  great  man  understand  this  better  than  Calvin.  It  cost  "him  no  effort  to  refer 
all  the  glory  to  God;  nothing  indicates  that  he  was  ever  tempted  to  appropriate  to  himself 
the  smallest  portion  of  it.  Luther,  in  many  a  passage,  complacently  dwells  on  the  thought 
that  a  petty  monk,  as  he  says,  has  so  well  made  the  Tope  to  tremble,  and  so  well  stirred 
the  whole  world.  Calvin  will  never  say  any  such  thing  ;  he  never  even  seems  to  say  it.  even 
in  the  deepest  recesses  of  his  heart :  every  where  you  perceive  the  man,  who  applies  to  all  things 
— to  the  smallest  as  to  the  greatest — the  idea  that  it  is  God  who  does  all  and  is  all.  Read  again, 
from  this  point  of  view,  the  very  pages  in  which  he  appeared  to  you  the  haughtiest  and  most 
despotic,  and  see  if,  even  there,  he  is  any  thing  other  than  the  workman  referring  all,  and  in 
all  sincerity,  to  his  Master.  .  .  .  But  the  man,  in  spite  of  all  his  faults,  has  not  the  less  re- 
mained one  of  the  fairest  types  of  faith,  of  earnest  piety,  of  devotedness.  and  of  courage. 
Amid  modern  laxity,  there  is  no  character  of  whom  the  contemplation  is  more  instructive; 
for  there  is  no  man  of  win  mi  it  has  been  said  with  greater  justice,  in  the  words  of  an  apostle, 
"Ae  endured  as  seeing  him  who  is  invisible."  ' 


'Among  the  martyrs,  with  whom  Calvin  constantly  conversed  in  spirit,  he  became  a  martyr 
himself ;  he  felt  and  lived  like  a  man  before  whom  the  whole  earth  disappears,  and  who  times 
his  last  Psalm,  his  whole  eye  fixed  upon  the  eye  of  God,  because  he  knows  that  on  the  follow- 
ing morning  he  may  have  to  ascend  the  stake.' 


1  We  omit  Henry  and  Stiihelin,  from  whom  it  would  be  difficult  to  select  passages  in 
praise  of  Calvin.  See  especially  the  entire  Seventh  Book  of  Stiihelin,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  .'5*1".  303  ; 
Call-in  (i/s  Mensch  wad  ah  Christ. 

-  lEgo  historian  vita  et  obitus  ipsius,cujus  spectator  sedecim  annosfui,  bona  jide  perscqu- 
nlus  testari  mihi  optimo  jure  posse  videor,  longe  pulcherrimum  vere  Christiana  turn  vita  turn 
mortis  exemplum  in  hue  komine  cunctit  proposition  fuisse,  quod  tarn  facile  sit  calumuiari,  quum 
difficile  fuerit  ccmulari. ' 

3  Calvin,  etc.     English  translation,  pp.  .338,  3+9. 

4  in  his  Histoire  de  France  au  seizieme  siicle,  quoted  by  Stiihelin,  Vol.  I.  p.  276. 


442  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Ernest  Renan,  once  educated  for  the  Romish  priesthood,  then  a 
skeptic,  with  all  his  abhorrence  of  Calvin's  creed,  pays  the  following- 
striking  tribute  to  his  character : l 

'  Calvin  was  one  of  those  absolute  men,  cast  complete  in  one  mould,  who  is  taken  in  wholly 
at  a  single  glance :  one  letter,  one  action  suffices  for  a  judgment  of  him.  There  were  no 
folds  in  that  inflexible  soul,  which  never  knew  doubt  or  hesitation.  .  .  .  Careless  of  wealth, 
of  titles,  of  honors,  indifferent  to  pomp,  modest  in  his  life,  apparently  humble,  sacrificing 
every  thing  to  the  desire  of  making  others  like  himself,  I  hardly  know  of  a  man,  save  Ignatius 
Loyola,  who  could  match  him  in  these  terrible  transports.  ...  It  is  surprising  that  a  man 
who  appears  to  us  in  his  life  and  writings  so  unsympathetic  should  have  been  the  centre  of 
an  immense  movement  in  his  generation,  and  that  this  harsh  and  severe  tone  should  have 
exerted  so  great  an  influence  on  the  minds  of  his  contemporaries.  How  was  it,  for  example, 
that  one  of  the  most  distinguished  women  of  her  time,  Rene'e  of  France,  in  her  court  at  Fer- 
rara,  surrounded  by  the  flower  of  European  wits,  was  captivated  by  that  stern  master,  and  by 
him  drawn  into  a  course  that  must  have  been  so  thickly  strewn  with  thorns?  This  kind  of 
austere  seduction  is  exercised  by  those  only  who  work  with  real  conviction.  Lacking  that 
vivid,  deep,  sympathetic  ardor  which  was  one  of  the  secrets  of  Luther's  success,  lacking  the 
charm,  the  perilous,  languishing  tenderness  of  Francis  of  Sales,  Calvin  succeeded,  in  an  age 
and  in  a  country  which  called  for  a  reaction  towards  Christianity,  simply  because  he  was  the 

MOST  CHRISTIAN  MAN  OF  HIS  GENERATION.' 

Guizot,  a  very  competent  judge  of  historical  and  moral  greatness, 
thus  concludes  his  biography:2 

'  Calvin  is  great  by  reason  of  his  marvelous  powers,  his  lasting  labors,  and  the  moral  height 
and  purity  of  his  character.  .  .  .  Earnest  in  faith,  pure  in  motive,  austere  in  his  life,  and  mighty 
in  his  works,  Calvin  is  one  of  those  who  deserve  their  great  fame.  Three  centuries  separate 
us  from  him,  but  it  is  impossible  to  examine  his  character  and  history  without  feeling,  if  not 
affection  and  sympathy,  at  least  profound  respect  and  admiration  for  one  of  the  great  Re- 
formers of  Europe  and  of  the  great  Christians  of  France.' 

Prof.  Kahnis,  of  Leipzig,  whose  personal  and  theological  sympathies 
are  with  Luther,  nevertheless  asserts  the  moral  superiority  of  Calvin 
above  the  other  Reformers:3 

'  The  fear  of  God  was  the  sold  of  his  piety,  the  rock-like  certainty  of  his  election  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  was  his  power,  and  the  doing  of  the  will  of  God  his  single  aim,  which 
lie  pursued  with  trembling  and  fear.  ...  No  other  Reformer  has  so  well  demonstrated  the 
truth  of  Christ's  word  that,  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  dominion  is  service.  No  other  had  such 
an  energy  of  self-sacrifice,  such  an  irrefragable  conscientiousness  in  the  greatest  as  well  as  the 
smallest  things,  such  a  disciplined  power.  This  man,  whose  dying  body  was  only  held  to- 
gether by  the  will  flaming  from  his  eyes,  had  a  majesty  of  character  which  commanded  the 
veneration  of  his  contemporaries.' 

Prof.  Dorner,  of  Berlin,  the  first  among  the  theologians  of  the  age, 
distinguished  by  profound  learning,  penetrating  thought,  rare  catho- 
licity of  spirit,  and  nice  sense  of  justice  and  discrimination,  says: 

'  Calvin  was  equally  great  in  intellect  and  character,  lovely  in  social  life,  full  of  tender  sym- 
pathy and  faithfulness  to  friends,  yielding  and  forgiving  towards  personal  offenses,  but  in- 
exorably severe  when  he  saw  the  honor  of  God  obstinately  and  malignantly  attacked.  He 
combined  French  fire  and  practical  good  sense  with  German  depth  and  soberness.    He  moved 

1  In  his  article  on  Jean  Calvin,  above  quoted,  pp.  2SG,  etc.  The  translation  is  by  O.  B. 
Frothingham,  a  radical  Unitarian  in  New  York. 

2  St.  Louis  and  Calvin,  pp.  3d  and  302. 

3  Die  Lutherische  Dogmatik,  Vol.  II.  pp.  400,  401. 


§  56.  JOHN  CALVIN.  443 

.as  freely  in  the  world  of  ideas  as  in  the  husiness  of  Chureh  government.  He  was  an  archi- 
tectonic genius  in  science  and  practical  life,  always  with  an  eye  to  the  holiness  and  maj- 
esty of  God.'1 

Prof.  G.  T.  Fisher,  of  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  gives  the  following 
fair  and  impartial  estimate  of  Calvin:2 

'When  we  look  at  his  extraordinary  intellect,  at  his  culture — which  opponents,  like  Bos- 
suet,  have  been  forced  to  commend — at  the  invincible  energy  which  made  him  endure  with 
more  than  stoical  fortitude  infirmities  of  body  under  which  most  men  would  have  sunk,  and 
to  perform,  in  the  midst  of  them,  an  incredible  amount  of  mental  labor  j  when  we  see  him.  a 
scholar  naturally  fond  of  seclusion,  physically  timid,  and  recoiling  from  notoriety  and  strife, 
abjuring  the  career  that  was  most  to  his  taste,  and  plunging,  with  a  single-hearted,  disinter- 
ested zeal  and  an  indomitable  will,  into  a  hard,  protracted  contest;  and  when  we  follow  his 
steps,  and  see  what  things  he  effected,  we  can  not  deny  him  the  attributes  of  greatness.  .  .  . 
His  Last  days  were  of  a  piece  with  his  life.  His  whole  course  has  been  compared  by  Vinet 
to  the  growth  of  one  rind  of  a  tree  from  another,  or  to  a  chain  of  logical  sequences.  He  was 
endued  with  a  marvelous  power  of  understanding,  although  the  imagination  and  sentiments 
were  less  roundly  developed.  His  systematic  spirit  fitted  him  to  be  the  founder  of  an  en- 
during school  of  thought.  In  this  characteristic  he  may  be  compared  with  Aquinas.  He 
has  been  appropriately  styled  the  Aristotle  of  the  Reformation.  He  was  a  perfectly  honest 
man.  He  subjected  his  will  to  the  eternal  rule  of  right,  as  far  as  he  could  discover  it.  His 
motives  were  pure.  He  felt  that  God  was  near  him,  and  sacrificed  every  thing  to  obey  the 
direction  of  Providence.  The  fear  of  God  ruled  in  his  soul;  not  a  slavish  fear,  but  a  prin- 
ciple such  as  animated  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Covenant.  The  combination  of  his  qualities 
was  such  that  he  could  not  fail  to  attract  profound  admiration  and  reverence  from  one  class 
of  minds,  and  excite  intense  antipathy  in  another.  There  is  no  one  of  the  Reformers  who  is 
spoken  of,  at  this  late  day,  with  so  much  personal  feeling,  either  of  regard  or  aversion.  But 
whoever  studies  his  life  and  writings,  especially  the  few  passages  in  which  he  lets  us  into  his 
confidence  and  appears  to  invite  our  sympathy,  will  acquire  a  growing  sense  of  his  intellectual 
and  moral  greatness,  and  a  tender  consideration  for  his  errors.' 

1  Geschichte  der  Protest.  Theologie,  pp.  874  and  37G.  I  add  his  considerate  judgment  of 
Calvin  in  full:  l Die  nach  Zwingli's  und  (Ecolampad's  Totle  verwaiste  reformirte  Kirche 
crhielt  an  JoHAHN  Calvix,  gleich  gross  an  deist  und  Charakter,  einen  festen  Mittelpunkt 
und  eine  ordnende  Seek  fur  Lehre  und  Kirchenverfassung.  Durch  ihn  wurde  Genf  statt 
Ziirichs  die  niue  reformirte  Metropole ;  und  dieses  Gemeinwesen  beivies  cine  wunderbare, 
weithin  erobernde  Kraft.  .  .  .  Calvin's  personliche  Erscheinung  war  die  eines  allromischen 
Censors;  er  war  von  feinem  Wuchs,  blass,  Jtager,  mit  dem  Ausdruck  tiefen  Ernstes  und  ein- 
schneidender  Schdrfe.  Der  Senat  von  Genf  sagte  nach  seinem  Tode,  er  sei  ein  majestdtischer 
Charakter  gewesen.  Liebenswiirdig  im  socialen  Leben,  voll  zarter  Theilnahme  und  Freundes- 
treue,  nachsichtig  und  versohnlich  bei  persdnlichen  Beleidigungen,  war  er  unerbilllich  streng, 
wo  er  Gottes  Ehre  in  Hartnwk'tgkeit  oder  Bosheit  angegriffen  sah.  Unter  seinen  Collegen 
hatte  er  keine  Neider,  aber  viele  begeisterte  Verehrer.  Franzosisches  Feuer  und  praktischer 
Verstand  schienen  mit  deutscher  Tiefe  und  Besonnenheit  einen  Bund  geschlossen  zu  haben. 
War  er  audi  nicht  sjiekulaliven  oder  intuitiven  Geistes,  so  ivar  dagegen  sein  Verstand  und  sein 
Urtheil  urn  so  eindringender  und  schdrfer,  sein  Geddchtniss  umfassend ;  und  er  bewegte  sich 
ebenso  leicht  in  der  Welt  der  Ideen  und  der  Wissenschaft,  wie  in  den  Geschaften  des  Kirchen- 
reaiments.  Zwar  ist  er  nicht  ein  Mann  des  Volkes,  wie  Luther,  sondern  in  seiner  S/irache 
mehr  der  Gelehrte,  und  seine  Wirksarnkeit  als  J'rediger  und  Seelsorger  kann  daher  mit  der 
Lathers  nicht  verglichen  werden.  Dagegen  ist  er  mehr  ein  architektonischer  Geist  und  zwar 
sowohl  itn  Gebiete  der  Wissenschaft  als  des  Lebens.  Beide  sind  ihm  in  Hirer  Wurzel  tins,  und 
seine  dogmatischen  Constructionen,  so  kiihn  sie  in  der  Folgeiichtigkeit  Hirer  Gcdanken  sind,  be- 
hallen  ihm  doch  immer  zugleich  erbaulichen  Charakter.  Auch  wo  er  verwegen  in  die  giittlichcn 
Geheimnisse  der  Prddestination  einzudringen  sucht,  immer  hitet  ihn  der  praktische  Trieb,  drr 
Ileiligkeit  und  Majcstdt  Gottes  zu  dienen,  fiir  das  Gemulh  aber  den  ewigen  Ankergrund  zujin- 
den,  darin  es  im  Bewusstsein  der  Erwdhlung  durch  freie  Gnade  sicher  ruhen  konne.' 

2  The  Reformation,  pp.  20G  and  288. 


444  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

§  57.  Calvin's  "Work. 

Of  Calvin  it  may  be  said,  without  exaggeration,  that  he  'labored 
more'  than  all  the  other  Reformers. 

He  raised  the  little  town  of  Geneva  to  the  dignity  and  importance 
of  the  Protestant  Rome.1 

From  this  radiating  centre  he  controlled,  directly  or  indirectly, 
through  his  writings  and  his  living  disciples,  the  Reformed,  yea,  we 
may  say,  the  whole  Protestant  movement ;  for,  wherever  it  had  not 
already  taken  root,  as  in  Germany  and  Scandinavia,  Protestantism  as- 
sumed a  Calvinistic  or  semi-Calvinistic  character.2 

His  heart  continued,  indeed,  to  beat  warmly  for  his  native  land, 
which  he  reluctantly  left  to  share  the  fortunes  of  truth  exiled,  and  he 
raised  the  cry  which  is  to  this  day  the  motto  of  his  faithful  disciples : 
'  France  must  be  evangelized  to  be  saved.'  But  his  true  home  was  the 
Church  of  God.  He  broke  through  all  national  limitations.  There 
was  scarcely  a  monarch  or  statesman  or  scholar  of  his  age  with  whom 
he  did  not  come  in  contact.  Every  people  of  Europe  was  represented 
among  his  disciples.  He  helped  to  shape  the  religious  character  of 
churches   and  nations   yet  unborn.     The   Huguenots  of  France,  the 


1  The  eminent  French  historian,  H.  Martin  (in  his  Histoire  de  France  depuis  les  te?nj>s  les 
plus  recuk's  jusqu'en  1789,  Tom.  VIII.  p.  325  of  the  fourth  edition,  Far.  18G0),  thus  speaks 
of  what  Calvin  did  for  the  city  of  Geneva:  '  Calvin  ne  la  sauve  pas  settlement,  mats  conquievt  a 
ceAte  petite  ville  une  grandeur,  une  puissance  moral  immense.  II  en  fait  la  capitale  de  la  Rc- 
forme,  autant  que  la  Reforme  peut  avoir  une  capitale,  pour  la  moitie  du  monde  protestante, 
avec  une  vaste  influence,  acceptee  ou  subie,  sur  V  autre  moitie.  Geneve  nest  rien  par  la  popu- 
lation, par  les  amies,  par  le  territoire:  elle  est  tous  par  Vesprit.  Un  seul  avantage  materiel 
hi  garantit  tous  ses  avantages  moraux :  son  admirable  position,  qui  fait  d'elle  une  petite 
France  ripublicaine  et  protestante,  independante  de  la  monarchie  catholique  de  France  et  a 
I'abri  de  tabsorption  monarehiquc  et  catholique ;  la  Suisse  protestante,  alliee  necessaire  de  la 
rogaute  francaise  contre  Vempereur,  couvre  Geneve  par  la  politique  vis-u-vis  du  roi  et  par 
I'e'pee  contre  la  maison  d'Autriche  et  de  Savoie.' 

2  Kampschulte,  Vol.  I.  p.  xii. :  lDer  romanische  Reformator  zahlte  seine  Anhanger  in  der 
romanischen,  germanischen  und  slavischen  Welt  nnd  zeigte  sich  liberal/,  wo  nicht  das  Luther- 
thum  in  dem  deutschen  Character  eine  Stiitze  fund,  dicsem  iiberlegen.'  He  quotes  the  fact 
that  in  Bohemia,  which  borders  on  Germany,  the  Slavonian  Frotestants  nearly  all  profess 
Calvinism,  while  Lutheranism  is  confined  to  the  Germans.  The  same  is  still  more  the  case 
with  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  in  England,  America,  and  Australia,  and  in  the  mission  fields 
among  the  heathen.  In  Italy  and  Spain,  too,  the  Waldenscs  and  the  evangelical  Churches 
are,  both  in  doctrine  and  discipline,  much  more  Calvinistic  than  Lutheran;  but  so  far  Frot- 
estantism  has  a  very  feeble  hold  on  the  Latin  races,  which  are  more  apt  to  swing  from  popery 
to  infidelity,  and  from  infidelity  to  popery,  than  to  adopt  the  via  media  cither  of  Lutheranism 
Or  Calvinism  or  Anglicanism. 


§  57.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  445 

Protestants  of  Holland  and  Belgium,  the  Puritans  and  Independents 
of  England  and  New  England,  the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland  and 
throughout  the  world,  yea,  we  may  say,  the  whole  Anglo-Saxon  race, 
in  its  prevailing  religious  character  and  institutions,  bear  the  impress 
of  his  genius,  and  show  the  power  and  tenacity  of  his  doctrines  and 
principles  of  government.1 

From  him  proceeded  the  first  Protestant  missionary  colony  in  the 
newly  discovered  American  Continent.'- 

He  conceived  the  idea  of  a  general  Evangelical  Alliance  which, 
though  impracticable  in  his  age,  found  an  echo  in  Melanchthon  and 


1  'In  his  vast  correspondence  we  find  him  conversing  familiarly  with  the  Reformers — Farel, 
Viret,  Beza,  Bullinger,  Bucer,  Grynams,  Knox,  Melanchthon — on  the  most  important  religious 
and  theological  questions  of  his  age ;  counseling  and  exhorting  Prince  Conde,  Jeanne  D'Al- 
bret,  mother  of  Henry  IV.,  Admiral  Coligny,  the  Duchess  of  Ferrara,  King  Sigismund  of 
Poland,  Edward  VI.  of  England,  and  the  Duke  of  Somerset ;  respectfully  reproving  Queen 
Marguerite  of  Navarre;  withstanding  libertines  and  the  pseudo-Protestants;  strengthening  the 
martyrs,  and  directing  the  Reformation  in  Switzerland,  France,  Poland,  England,  and  Scot- 
land. He  belongs  to  the  small  number  of  men  who  have  exerted  a  moulding  influence,  not 
only  upon  their  own  age  and  country,  but  also  upon  future  generations  in  various  parts  of 
the  world ;  and  not  only  upon  the  Church,  but  indirectly  also  upon  the  political,  moral,  and 
social  life.  The  history  of  Switzerland,  Germany,  France,  the  Netherlands,  Great  Britain, 
and  the  United  States  for  the  last  three  hundred  years  bears  upon  a  thousand  pages  the  im- 
press of  his  mind  and  character.  He  raised  the  small  republic  of  Geneva  to  the  reputation 
of  a  Protestant  Rome.  He  gave  the  deepest  impulse  to  the  Reform  movement,  which  involved 
France,  his  native  land,  in  a  series  of  bloody  civil  wars,  which  furnished  a  host  of  martyrs  to 
the  evangelical  faith,  and  which  continues  to  live  in  that  powerful  nation  in  spite  of  the  horrid 
massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  and  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes,  the  dragoonades  and 
exile  of  hosts  of  Huguenots,  who,  driven  from  their  native  soil,  carried  their  piety,  virtue,  and 
industry  to  all  parts  of  Western  Europe  and  North  America.  He  kindled  the  religious  fire 
which  roused  the  moral  and  intellectual  strength  of  Holland,  and  consumed  the  dungeons  of 
the  Inquisition  and  the  fetters  of  the  political  despotism  of  Spain.  His  genius  left  a  stronger 
mark  on  the  national  character  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  and  the  Churches  of  Great  Britain 
than  their  native  Reformers.  His  theology  and  piety  raised  Scotland  from  a  semi-barbarous 
condition,  and  made  it  the  classical  soil  of  Presbyterian  Christianity,  and  one  of  the  most  en- 
lightened, energetic,  and  virtuous  countries  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  His  spirit  stirred  up 
the  Puritan  revolution  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  his  blood  ran  in  the  veins  of  Hampden 
and  Cromwell,  as  well  as  Baxter  and  Owen.  He  may  be  called,  in  some  sense,  the  spiritual 
father  of  New  England  and  the  American  republic.  Calvinism,  in  its  various  modifications 
and  applications,  was  the  controlling  agent  in  the  early  history  of  our  leading  colonies  (as 
Bancroft  has  shown) ;  and  Calvinism  is,  to  this  day,  the  most  powerful  element  in  the  re- 
ligious and  ecclesiastical  life  of  the  Western  world.' — From  the  author's  Essay  on  Calvin,  in 
the  Bill.  Sacra  for  1867. 

2  On  the  interesting  French  colony  in  Brazil,  1556,  consisting  of  two  clergymen  and  about 
two  hundred  members  of  the  Church  of  Geneva,  see  Stahelin,  Vol.  II.  pp.  284  Bqq.  The  col- 
ony was  broken  op  by  the  interference  of  the  French  government  and  by  Papal  intrigues.  But 
it  was  a  harbinger  of  the  later  emigrations  of  persecuted  Huguenots  in  several  parts  of  North 
America,  who  enriched  the  Presbyterian,  Dutch,  and  German  Reformed  and  other  Churches. 


446  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Cranmer,  and  was  revived  in  the  nineteenth  century  (1S4G)  to  be  real- 
ized at  no  distant  future.1 

His  work  and  influence  were  twofold,  theological  and  ecclesiastical. 
With  him  theory  and  practice,  theology  and  piety,  were  inseparably 
united.  Even  when,  soaring  beyond  the  limits  of  time,  he  dared  to  lift 
the  veil  of  the  eternal  decrees  of  the  omniscient  Jehovah,  he  aimed  at 
a  strong  motive  for  holiness,  and  a  firm  foundation  of  hope  and  com- 
fort. On  the  other  hand,  his  moral  reforms  are  all  based  upon  princi- 
ples and  ideas.    He  was  thoroughly  consistent  in  his  views  and  actions. 

HIS    THEOLOGY. 

As  a  scientific  theologian,  Calvin  stands  foremost  among  the  Re- 
formers, and  is  the  peer  of  Augustine  and  Thomas  Aquinas.  He 
has  been  styled  the  Aristotle  of  Protestantism.  Melanchthon,  'the 
Teacher  of  Germany,'  first  called  him  '  the  Theologian,'  in  the  em- 
phatic sense  in  which  this  title  was  given  to  Gregory  of  Nazianzen 
in  the  Nicene  age,  and  to  the  inspired  Apostle  John.  The  verdict  of 
history  has  confirmed  this  judgment.  Even  Rationalists  and  Roman 
Catholics  must  admit  his  pre-eminence  among  the  systematic  divines 
and  exegetes  of  all  ao-es.2 


1  Comp.  Stahelin,  Vol.  II.  pp.  108,  241. 

2  The  Strasburg  editors  of  Calvin's  Works,  though  belonging  to  the  modern  liberal  school 
of  theology,  thus  characterize  him  as  a  theologian  ( Opera,  Vol.  I.  p.  ix. ) :  lSi  Lutherum 
virum  maximum,  si  Zwinglium  civem  Christianum  nulli  secundum,  si  Melanthonem  prazcepto- 
rern  doctissimum  merito  appellaris,  Calvinum  jure  vocaris  theologorum  principkm  et  ante- 
signanum.  In  hoc  enim  quis  linguarum  et  literarum  prcesidia,  quis  disciplinarian  fere  omnium 
-non  miretur  orbem  ?  De  cujus  cojria  doctrince,  rerumque  disjwsitione  aptissime  concinnata,  et 
argumentorum  vi  ac  validitate  in  dogmaticis ;  de  ingenii  acumine  et  subtilitate,  atque  nunc  J  es- 
tiva nunc  mordaci  salsedine  in  polemicis,  de  felicissima  )>ersjncuitate,  sobrielate  ac  sagacitate 
in  exegeticis,  de  nervosa  eloquentia  et.  iibertate  in  parteneticis  ;  de  prudentia  sapientiaque  legis- 
latoria  in  ecclesiis  constituendis,  ordinandis  ac  regendis  incomparabili,  inter  omnes  vivos  doctos 
et  de  rebus  evangelicis  libere  sentientes  jam  aliunde  constat.  Imo  inter  ipsos  adversarios  ro- 
manos  nullus  hodie  est,  vel  mediocri  harum  rerum  cognitione  imbutus  vel  lantilla  judicii prceditus 
trquitate,  qid  argumentorum  et  sententiarum  ubertatem,  proprietatem  verborum  sermonemque 
castigatum,  stili  denique,  tarn  latini  quam  gattici,  gravitatem  et  luciditatem  non  adniiretur. 
Quoe  cuncta  quum  in  singulis  fere  ecriptis,  turn  jiraicipue  relucent  in  immortali  ilia  Institu- 
tione  religiords  Christiantr,  qu(e  omnes  ejusdem  generis  expositiones  hide  ab  apostolorum  tem- 
poribus  conscriptas,  adeoque  ipsos  Melanthonis  Locos  theologicos,  absque  omni  controversia 
longe  antecellit  atque  eruditum  et  ingenuum  lectorem,  etiamsi  alicubi  sec.us  senserit,  hodieque 
quasi  vinctum  trah.it  et  vel  invitum  rapit  in  admirationem.'  To  this  we  add  a  remarkable 
tribute  of  a  liberal  Roman  Catholic  historian  who  abhors  Calvin's  doctrine  of  absolute  pre- 
destination, and  yet  becomes  eloquent  when  he  speaks  of  the  literary  merits  of  his  'Institutes.' 
'  Sein  Lehrbuch   dcr   chris/lichen  Religion,1 says   Kampschulte   (Vol.  I.  p.  xiVi), ' bringt   die 


§  67.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  447 

The  appearance  of  his  Institutes  of  the  Christian  Religion1  (first 
in  Latin,  then  in  French)  marks  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  theology, 
and  has  all  the  significance  of  an  event.  This  book  belongs  to  those 
few  uninspired  compositions  which  never  lose  their  interest  and  power. 
It  has  not  only  a  literary,  but  an  institutional  character.  Considering 
the  youth  of  the  author,  it  is  a  marvel  of  intellectual  precocity.  The 
first  edition  even  contained,  in  brief  outline,  all  the  essential  elements 
of  his   system ;  and  the   subsequent  enlargements  to  five   times  the 


kirchSehe  Revolution  in  ein  System,  das  durch  logische  Schdrfe,  Klarheit  des  Gedankens,  riick- 
sichts/ose  Consequenz,  die  vor  nichts  zuriickbebt,  noc.h  heute  unser  Staunen  und  unsere  Bewun- 
derung  erregt.'  Ibid.  p.  274:  'Calvin's  Lehrbuch  der  christiichen  Religion  ist  o/ine  Frage 
das  Itervorragendste  und  bedeutendste  Erzeugniss,  welches  die  reformatorische  Literatur  des 
sechszehnten  Jahrhunderts  anf  dem  Gebiete  der  Dogma lik  aufzuiveisen  hat.  Schon  ein  ober- 
flachlicher  Vergleich  Idsst  wis  den  gewaltigen  Fortschritt  erkennen,  den  es  gegenuber  den  bis- 
herigen  Leistungen  auf  diesem  Gebiete  beztichnet.  Statt  der  unvollkommenen,  nach  der  einen 
oder  andern  Seite  unzuldng lichen  Versuche  Melanchthon's,  Zwingli's,  FareVs  erhalten  ivir  a  us 
Calvin's  Hand  das  Kunstwerk  eiues,  wenn  auch  nicht  harmonisch  in  sich  abgeschlossenen,  so 
dock  wohlgegliederlen,  durchgebi/deten  Systems,  das  in  alien  seinen  Theilen  die  leitenden 
Grundgedanken  widerspiegelt  und  von  vollstdndiger  Beherrschung  des  Stoffes  zeugt.  Es  hatte 
eine  unverkennbare  Berechtigung,  wenn  man  den  Verfasser  der  Institution  als  den  Arisloteles 
der  Reformation  bezeichnete.  Die  ausserordentliche  Belesenheit  in  der  biblischen  und  jiatris- 
tische7i  Literatur,  wie  sie  schon  in  den  f ruber  en  Ausgaben  des  Werkcs  hervortritt,  setzt  in  Er- 
staunen.  Die  Methode  ist  lichtvoll  und  klar,  der  Gedankengang  streng  logisch,  iiberall  durch- 
sichtig,  die  Eintheilung  und  Ordnung  des  Stoffes  dem  leitenden  Grundgedanken  ents/>rechend ; 
die  Darstellung  schreitet  ernst  und  gemesscn  vor  und  ninrwt,  obschon  in  den  spdteren  Ausgaben 
mehr  gelehrt  als  anziehend,  mehr  auf  den  Yerstand  als  auf  das  Gemiith  berechnet,  doch  zuweilt  n 
einen  huheren  Schwung  an.  Calvin's  Institution  entltdlt  Abschnitte,  die  dem  Schonsten,  was 
von  Pascal  und  Bossuet  geschrieben  worden  ist,  an  die  Seite  gestellt  tverden  kiinnen  :  Stellen, 
wiejene  fiber  die  Erhabenheit  der  heiligen  Schrift,  iiber  das  Elend  des  gefallenen  Mensrhen, 
iiber  die  Bedeutung  des  Gebetes,  tverden  nie  verfehlen,  auf  den  Leser  einen  tiefen  Eindruck  zu 
machen.  Auch  von  den  katholisc.hen  Gegnern  Calvin's  sind  diese  Vorziige  anerkannt  und 
?nanche  Abschnitte  seines  Werkes  sogar  benutzt  worden.  Man  bcgrei/'t  es  vollkommen,  wenn 
er  selbst  mit  dem  Gejuhl  der  Bffriedigung  und  des  Stolzes  auf  sein  Werk  blickt  und  in  seinen 
ubrigen  Schriften  gem  auf  das  "  Lehrbuch"  zuriickverweist.' 

'  The  full  title  of  the  first  edition  is  'Christia-  |  n,e  Religionis  Ixsti-  |  tutio  totamfere 
pietatis  summam  et  qtdc  \  quid  est  in  doctrina  salutis  cognitu  ne-  |  cessarium,  comjdectcns: 
omnibus  pie-  \  talis  sludiosis  lectu  digjiissi-  \  mum  ojms,  ac  re-  \  cens  edi-  \  turn.  \  I'k.kfatio 
ad  Chri-  I  STIAnissimum  Kkgkm  Fkanci^:,  qua  |  hie  ei  liber  j>ro  roufssione  Jidei  \  offertur.\ 
Joanne  Calvino  |  Nouiodunensi  authore.  \  Basile/E,  |  M.D.XXXVI.'  The  dedicatory 
Preface  is  dated  lX.  Call  ndas  Septembres'  (».  e.  August  28),  without  the  year ;  but  at  the  close 
of  the  book  the  month  of  March,  1586,  is  given  as  the  date  of  publication.  The  first  two 
French  editions  (1541  and  l.r>45)  supplement  the  date  of  the  Preface  COPrectlj  :  '  De  Basle 
le  vingt-troysiesme  d'Aoust  mil  cinq  cent  trente  cinq.'  The  manuscript,  then,  was  completed  in 
Aug.  1  ;">:3">,  but  it  took  nearly  a  year  to  print  it.  The  eighth  and  last  improved  edition  from 
the  pen  of  the  author  bean  the  title:  'Ixstiti:tio  Chbi-  |  stian;e  Religionis,  in  libras 
qua-  I  tuor  nunc  primum  digrsta,  certisque  distincta  capitibus,  ad  aptiisimam  \  methodutn  : 
aucta  eliam  tarn  magna  accessione  ut  propemodum  opus  \  novum  haberi  possit.  \  Joanne 
Calvino  althore.  I  Oliva  Roueuti  Stei-hani.  J  Geneiiv.  \  M.D.LIX.' 


448  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

original  size  were  not  mechanical  additions  to  a  building  or  changes 
of  conviction,1  but  the  natural  growth  of  a  living  organism  from 
within.2 

The  'Institutes'  are  by  far  the  clearest  and  ablest  systematic  and 
scientific  exposition  and  vindication  of  the  ideas  of  the  Reformation  in 
their  vernal  freshness  and  pentecostal  fire.  The  book  is  inspired  by  a 
heroic  faith  ready  for  the  stake,  and  a  glowing  enthusiasm  for  the 
saving  truth  of  the  gospel,  raised  to  a  new  life  from  beneath  the  rub- 
bish of  human  additions.  Though  freely  using  reason  and  the  fathers, 
especially  Augustine,  it  always  appeals  to  the  supreme  tribunal  of  the 
"Word  of  God,  to  which  all  human  wisdom  must  bow  in  reverent  obe- 
dience. It  abounds  in  Scripture-learning  thoroughly  digested,  and 
wrought  up  into  a  consecutive  chain  of  exposition  and  argument.  It 
is  severely  logical,  but  perfectly  free  from  the  dryness  and  pedantry 
of  a  scholastic  treatise,  and  flows  on,  like  a  Swiss  river,  through  green 

1  ' In  doctrina,'  says  Beza,  towards  the  close  of  his  Vita  Calv.,  lquam  initio  tradidit  ad 
extremum  constans  nihil  prorsus  immutavit,  quod  paucis  nostra  memoria  theologis  contiffit.' 
Bretschneider  was  quite  mistaken  when  he  missed  in  the  first  edition  the  doctrine  of  predes- 
tination, which  is  clearly  though  briefly  indicated,  pp.  91  and  138.    See  Kampschulte,  p.  256. 

2  The  Strasburg  editors  devote  the  first  four  volumes  to  the  different  editions  of  the  In- 
stitutes in  both  languages.  Yol.  I.  contains  the  editio  princeps  Latino,  of  Basle,  1536  (pp. 
10-247),  and  the  variations  of  six  editions  intervening  between  the  first  and  the  last,  viz., 
the  Strasburg  editions  of  1539,  1543,  1545,  and  the  Geneva  editions  of  1550,  1553,  1554 
(pp.  253-1152);  Vol.  II.  the  editio  postrema  of  1559  (pp.  1-1118);  Vol.  III.  and  IV.  the 
last  edition  of  the  French  translation,  or  free  reproduction  rather  (1560),  with  the  varia- 
tions of  former  editions.  The  question  of  the  priority  of  the  Latin  or  French  text  is  now 
settled  in  favor  of  the  former.  See  Jules  Bonnet,  in  the  Bidlelin  de  la  Socie'te'  de  Vhis- 
ioire  du  protest antisme  francais  for  1858,  Vol.  VI.  pp.  137  sqq.,  Stahelin,  Vol.  I.  p.  55,  and 
the  Strasburg  editors  of  the  Opera,  in  the  ample  Prolegomena  to  Vols.  I.  and  III.  Calvin 
himself  says  expressly  (in  the  Preface  to  his  French  ed.  1541)  that  he  first  wrote  the  Insti- 
tutes in  Latin  (' premierement  Vag  mis  en  latin')  for  readers  of  all  nations,  and  that  he  trans- 
lated them  afterwards  for  the  special  benefit  of  Frenchmen.  In  a  letter  to  his  friend,  Francis 
Daniel,  dated  Lausanne,  Oct.  13, 1536,  he  writes  that  he  began  the  French  translation  soon 
after  the  publication  of  the  Latin  {Letters,  ed.  Bonnet,  Vol.  I.  p.  21),  but  it  did  not  appear 
till  1541,  bearing  the  title  'Institution  de  la  religion  Chrestienne  composek  en  LATIN, par 
Jean  Calvin,  et  translate  en  francais  jiar  Ivymesmc.'  The  erroneous  assertion  of  a  French 
original,  so  often  repeated  (by  Bayle,  Maimbourg,  Basnage,  and  more  recently  by  Henry,  Vol. 
I.  p.  104 ;  III.  p.  177 ;  Dorner,  Gesch.  der  protest.  Theol.  p.  375  ;  II.  B.  Smith,  1.  c.  p.  283 ; 
and  Guizot,  p.  176,  who  assumes  that  the  first  French  ed.  was  published  anonymously),  arose 
from  confounding  the  date  of  the  Preface  in  the  French  editions  (23  Aug.  1535)  with  the  later 
date  of  publication  (1536).  It  is  quite  possible,  however,  that  the  dedication  to  Francis  I. 
was  first  written  in  French,  and  this  would  most  naturally  account  for  the  earlier  date  in  the 
French  editions.  On  the  difference  of  the  several  editions,  comp.  also  J.  Thomas,  Sistoire 
de  Vinstit.  chreticnne  de  J.  Calv.,  Strasb.  1859,  and  Ko'stlin,  Call-ins  Institutio  nach  Form 
und  Iidtalt,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritikcn  for  1868. 


§  57.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  449 

meadows  and  sublime  mountain  scenery.  It  overshadowed  all  pre- 
vious attempts  at  a  systematic  treatment  of  Protestant  doctrines,  not 
only  those  of  Zwingli  and  Farel,  but  even  Melanchthon's  Loci  thco- 
logici,  although  Calvin  generously  edited  them  twice  in  a  French 
translation  with  a  complimentary  preface  (lS-iC).1 

No  wonder  that  the  '  Institutes'  were  greeted  with  enthusiastic  praises 
by  Protestants,  which  are  not  exhausted  to  this  day.2  They  created 
dismay  among  Romanists,  were  burned  at  Paris  by  order  of  the  Sor- 
bonne,  and  hated  and  feared  as  the  very  'Talmud'  and  'Koran  of 
heresy.'3  In  spite  of  severe  prohibition,  they  were  translated  into  all 
the  languages  of  Europe,  and  passed  through  innumerable  editions. 
Among  the  Protestants  of  France  they  acquired  almost  as  much  au- 
thority as  Luther's  Bible  in  Germany,  and  comforted  the  martyrs  in 

1  See  the  Preface  in  Opera,  Vol.  IX.  pp.  847-850.  It  is  written  in  excellent  taste,  and 
with  profound  respect  and  affection  for  Melanchthon,  whose  work,  he  concludes, '  conduit  a 
la  pure  verite  de  Dieu,  a  laquelle  it  nous  convient  tenir,  nous  servant  des  homines  pour  nous 
aider  a  y  parvenir.' 

2  See  the  eulogies  of  Bucer,  Beza,  Sainte-Marthe,  Thurius,  Blunt,  Salmasius,  John  von  Midl- 
er, and  others,  quoted  by  Henry  and  Stahelin  (Vol.  I.  pp.  59  sqq.).  To  these  may  be  added 
some  more  recent  testimonies.  Guizot  says  (1.  c.  p.  173)  :  '  The  Institutes  were  and  are  still 
the  noblest  monument  of  the  greatness  of  mind  and  originality  of  idea  which  distinguished 
Calvin  in  his  own  century.  More  than  that,  I  believe  this  book  to  be  the  most  valuable  and 
enduring  of  all  his  labors ;  for  those  churches  which  are  specially  known  as  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  France,  Switzerland,  Holland,  Scotland,  and  the  United  States  of  America  re- 
ceived from  Calvin's  Institutes  the  doctrine,  organization,  and  discipline  which,  in  spite  of 
sharp  trials,  grave  mistakes,  and  claims  which  are  incompatible  with  the  progress  of  liberty, 
have  still,  for  more  than  three  centuries,  been  the  source  of  all  their  strength  and  vitality.' 
Hase  (in  his  Kirchengeschichte)  calls  the  Institutes  '  die  grossartigste  wissenscha/tliche 
Rechtfertigung  des  Augustinismus  roll  religiosen  Tiejsinns  in  unerbittlicher  Folgerichtigkeit 
der  Gedanken.1  G.  Frank  (Gesch.  der  Protest.  Theol.  Vol.  I.  p.  74)  :  '  Wie  Melanchthon  hat 
atieh  Calvin  seinen  Glauben  zusammengefasst  in  einem  besonderen  Werke,  der  Inst.  rel.  rhr., 
nur  rnethodischer,  folgerichtiger,  iiberlegncr,  die  grusste  Glaubenslthre  des  1G  Jahrh.  ist  sie 
wie  ein  hochgewolbter,  dunkler  Doui,  darin  der  Ernst  der  Religion  in  andachtigem  Schauer 
sich  iiber  die  Seek  legt.1  II.  B.  Smith  (1.  c.  p.  288):  'It  is  the  most  complete  system  [of 
theology]  which  the  lGth  century  produced,  nor  has  it  been  supplanted  by  any  single  work.' 
Baur  (Dogmengeschichte,  Vol.  III.  p.  27)  calls  it  '  in  every  respect  a  truly  classical  work, 
distinguished  in  a  high  degree  by  originality  and  acuteness  of  conception,  systematic  con- 
sistency, and  clear,  luminous  method.'  To  many  editions  of  the  Institutes  the  well-known 
distich  of  the  Hungarian  Paul  Thurius  is  affixed: 

'  Prater  apostolicas  post  Ckrinti  tempnra  chartas, 
Uuic  pepersre  libro  scecula  nxdla  pcarm.' 

3  Florimond  de  Esemond,  Hisloire  de  la  naissanre,  jirogrcz  et  decadence  de  Vhe're'sie  de  ce 
siccle,  pp.  8:38,  883,  quoted  by  Kampschulte  (p.  278),  who  adds  :  ' Keine  Schrift  des  Refor- 
mationszeitalters  ist  von  den  Katholiken  mehr  ge/iirchtet,  eifrigcr  bekampft  und  ver/olgt  wor- 
den,  als  Calvin's  Christlirhi:  Institution.'     See  his  own  judgment  quoted  on  pp.  44G  sq.,  note. 


450  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

prison.  In  England,  after  the  accession  of  Elizabeth,  they  were  long 
used  as  the  text-book  of  theology;  and  even  the  moderate  and  'ju- 
dicious' Hooker  prized  them  highly,  and  pronounced  Calvin  '-incom- 
parably the  wisest  man  that  ever  the  French  Church  did  enjoy.' 

This  remarkable  work  was  originally  a  defense  of  the  evangelical 
doctrines  against  ignorant  or  willful  misrepresentation,  and  a  plea  for 
toleration  in  behalf  of  his  scattered  fellow-Protestants  in  France,  who 
were  then  violently  persecuted  as  a  set  of  revolutionary  fanatics  and 
heretics.  Hence  the  dedicatory  Preface  to  Francis  I.  As  the  early 
Apologists  addressed  the  Roman  emperors  to  convince  them  that  the 
Christians  were  innocent  of  the  foul  charges  of  atheism,  immorality, 
and  hostility  to  Ccesar,  so  Calvin  appealed  to  the  French  monarch  in 
defense  of  his  equally  innocent  countrymen,  with  a  manly  dignity, 
frankness,  force,  and  pathos  never  surpassed  before  or  since.  It  is  a 
sad  reflection  that  such  a  voice  of  warning  should  have  had  so  little 
effect,  and  that  the  noble  French  nation  even  this  day  would  rather 
listen  to  the  revolutionary  'Marseillaise'  of  Voltaire  and  Rousseau  than 
to  the  reformatory  trumpet  of  Calvin. 

The '  Institutes,'  to  which  this  dedication  to  the  French  monarch  forms 
the  magnificent  portal,  consist  of  four  books  (each  divided  into  a  num- 
ber of  chapters),  and  treat,  after  the  natural  and  historical  order  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  first  of  the  knowledge  of  God  the  Creator  (theology) ; 
secondly,  of  the  knowledge  of  God  the  Redeemer  (christology) ;  thirdly, 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  application  of  the  saving  work  of  Christ 
(soteriology) ;  fourthly,  of  tke  external  means  of  salvation,  viz.,  the 
Church  and  the  Sacraments.1 

The  most  prominent  and  original  features  of  Calvin's  theological 
system,  which  have  left  their  impress  upon  the  Reformed  Creed,  are  the 
doctrine  of  Predestination  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  By 
the  first  he  widened  the  breach  between  the  Reformed  and  the  Lu- 
theran Church  ;  by  the  second  he  furnished  a  basis  for  reconciliation. 

1  The  first  edition  of  the  Institutes  contains  only  six  chapters:  1.  De  leye,  with  an  ex- 
planation of  the  Decalogue;  2.  De  fide,  with  an  exposition  of  the  Apostles'  Creed;  3.  De 
oratione,  with  an  exposition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer ;  4.  Of  the  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper;  5.  Of  the  other  so-called  Sacraments;  C.  Of  Christian  liberty,  Church- 
government,  and  discipline. 


§  57.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  451 

THE   DOCTRINE    OF    PREDESTINATION. 

All  the  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century,  including  even  the 
gentle  Melanchthon  and  the  compromising  Bucer,  under  a  controlling 
sense  of  human  depravity  and  saving  grace,  in  extreme  antagonism  to 
Pelagianism  and  self-righteousness,  and,  as  they  sincerely  believed,  in 
full  harmony  not  only  with  the  greatest  of  the  fathers,  but  also  with 
the  inspired  St.  Paul,  came  to  the  same  doctrine  of  a  double  predesti- 
nation which  decides  the  eternal  destiny  of  all  men.  Nor  is  it  possible 
to  evade  this  conclusion  on  the  two  acknowledged  premises  of  Prot- 
estant orthodoxy — namely,  the  wholesale  condemnation  of  men  in 
Adam,  and  the  limitation  of  saving  grace  to  the  present  world.  If  the 
Lutheran  theology,  after  the  Formula  of  Concord  (1577),  rejected 
Synergism  and  Calvinism  alike,  and  yet  continued  to  teach  the  total 
depravity  of  all  men  and  the  unconditional  election  of  some,  it  could 
only  be  done  at  the  expense  of  logical  consistency.1 

Yet  there  were  some  characteristic  differences  among  the  Reformers. 
Luther  started  from  the  servum  arhitrium,  Zwingli  from  the  idea  of 

1  Schleiennacher,  the  greatest  divine  of  the  nineteenth  century,  lias  defended  Calvinism 
as  the  only  consistent  system  on  the  basis  of  the  orthodox  anthropology  and  eschatology 
(though  he  runs  it  out  into  a  final,  unscriptural  universalis!!)) ;  and  his  pupil,  Alexander 
Schweizer,  of  Zurich  (in  his  Glaubenslehre  der  evang.  reform.  Kirche,  Vol.  I.  pp.  7'J  and  81), 
thus  clearly  and  sharply  states  the  logical  aspect  of  the  case:  '  Der  reformirte  Lehrbcgriff, 
consequent  gegrundet  auf  das  ifaterialjirincij)  srhlechthiniger  Abhangigkeit  von  Gott  und  von 
tin  aus  das  menschliche  Thun  beleuchtend,  ohne  dessen  willenstnassige  Natur  zu  verkleinern,  ist 
weniger  durch  seinen  Determinismus  anstossig  geivorden,  als  durcli  das  dualistisch  Particu- 
luristische  der  auf  die  Pra'desti  nation  angewandten  Weltansiclit.  Gerade  dieses  aber  gehort 
der  Weltansicht  aller  damaligen  Confessionen  gleich  sehr  an  und  folgt  wirklich  aus  der  Vor- 
stellung,  dass  unser  ewiges  Loos  beim  irdischen  Sterben  entschieden  sci,  uur  ltieniedtn  Erloste 
selig  werden,  ul/e  Andern  aber  verdammt  bleiben.  .  .  .  Das  Harte  am  reformirten  Lelirbe- 
griff  ist  der  duafistische  Particularismus,  der  aber  alien  Confessionen  gemein  dureh  die  re- 
formirte Conserpunz  nor  heller  ins  Liefit  gestellt  wird,  wodurch  allein,  falls  er  irrig  ware,  die 
Forderung  zur  Wahrheit  angebahnt  ist.  1.  Dualistisrher  Particularismus  ist  die  Idee,  dass 
in  der  Menschen-  und  Engelwclt  die  einen  selig  werden,  die  andern  eurig  verdammt.  Diess 
war  die  Ansicht  aller  kirchlichen  Confessionen,  indem  der  Universalismus,  die  Besellgung 
aller  rationalen  Kreaturen  in  alien  drei  Confessionen,  als  hasretische  Irrlehre  abgeiciesen 
wurde.  2.  Liegt  im  Particularismus  Hartes,  die  Giile  Gottes  Beschrankendes,  so  ist  es  un- 
gerecht,  dariiber  nur  die  reformirte  Confession  anzugetu  /',  die  weiter  nic/its  gethan,  als  gelehrt 
hat :  Das  Weltergebniss  miisse  dern  Weltj/lan  entsprechen,  somit  habe  Gott  eicig  grade  diese 
Welt  mil  diesem  Ergebniss  gewollt  und  eine  particularistische  Predestination  bei  sich  be- 
schlossen,  wovon  nun  alle  Weltentwicklung  einfach  die  Ansfiihrung  sei ;  denn  dass  alles 
anders  herauskomme,  als  Gott  es  gewollt,  heisse  Gott  von  den  Kreaturen  abhangig  machen, 
die  Kreaturen  :u  GOttern  machen,  Gott  aber  zum  L'ngott.'  Comp.  also  Baur,  Dogmcn- 
geschichte,Vo\.  III.  (1867),  pp.  144  s<jq. 


452  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

an  all-ruling ptwidentia,  Calvin  from  the  timeless  or  eternal  decretum 
absolutum.  Calvin  elaborated  the  doctrine  of  predestination  with 
greater  care  and  precision,  and  avoided  '  the  paradoxes'  of  his  prede- 
cessors. He  made  it,  moreover,  the  corner-stone  of  his  system,  and 
gave  it  undue  proportion.  He  set  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  over 
against  the  mock  sovereignty  of  the  Pope.  It  was  for  him  the  '  article 
of  the  standing  or  falling  Church ;'  while  Luther  always  assigned 
this  position  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone.  In  this 
estimate,  both  were  mistaken,  for  the  central  place  in  the  Christian 
system  belongs  only  to  the  person  and  work  of  Christ — the  incarna- 
tion and  the  atonement.  Finally,  the  Augustinian  and  Lutheran  pre- 
destinarianism  is  moderated  by  the  sacramentarian  principle  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration ;  while  the  Calvinistic  predestinarianism  confines 
the  sacramental  efficacy  to  the  elect,  and  turns  the  baptism  of  the 
non-elect  into  an  empty  form. 

Predestination,  according  to  Calvin,  is  the  eternal  and  unchangeable 
decree  of  God  by  which  he  foreordained,  for  his  own  glory  and  the 
display  of  his  attributes  of  mercy  and  justice,  a  part  of  the  human  race, 
without  any  merit  of  their  own,  to  eternal  salvation,  and  another  part, 
in  just  punishment  of  their  sin,  to  eternal  damnation.  The  decree  is, 
therefore,  twofold — a  decree  of  election  to  holiness  and  salvation,  and 
a  decree  of  reprobation  on  account  of  sin  and  guilt.1  The  latter  is 
the  negative  counterpart,  which  strict  logic  seems  to  demand,  but 
against  which  our  better  feelings  revolt,  especially  if  it  is  made  to 
include  multitudes  of  innocent  children,  for  their  unconscious  con- 
nection with  Adam's  fall.  Calvin  himself  felt  this,  and  characteristic- 
ally called  the  decree  of  reprobation  a  '  decree  horrible,  though  never- 
theless true.'2     All  he  could  say  was  that  God's  will  is  inscrutable, 

1  '  Pr^escientiam:  qinim  tribuimus  Deo,  si</nifica??ius  omnia  semper  fidsse  ac  perpetuo  ma- 
nere  sub  ejus  oculis ;  ut  ejus  notitice  nihil  futurum  out  pro>terilum,  scd  omnia  sint  prasentia, 
et  sie  quidem  prcesentia,  ut  non  ex  ideis  tantum  imagineiur  (qualiter  nobis  obversantur  ea 
quorum  memoriam  mens  nostra  retinet),  sed  tanquam  ante  se  posita  vere  intueatur  ac  cernat. 
Atque  hac prascientia  ad  universum  mundi  ambitum  et  ad  omncs  creaturas  extenditur.  Pr.edes- 
tinationem  vocamus  ceternum  Dei  decretum,  quo  ajntd  se  constitutum  habuit,  quid  de  unoquoque 
liomine  fieri  vellet.  Non  enim  pari  conditione  creantur  omnes ;  sed  aliis  vita  externa,  aliis  damna- 
tio  ceterna prceordinatur.  Ita  que,  prout  in  alterutrumfinem  quisque  conditusest,  ita  velad  vitam, 
vel  ad  mortem prcedestinatum  dicimus.''  Jnslit.  Lib.  III.  c.  21,  §  5  (0}>era, Vol.  II.  pp.  682,  683  I. 
Comp.  his  Articuli  de  proudest.,  first  published  from  an  autograph  of  Calvin,  Vol.  IX.  p.  713. 

'•'  '  Iterum  qutero,  unde  factum  est  ut  tot  gentes  una  cum  liberis  eorum  infantibus  aternai 
morti  involveret  lajisus  Ada,  absque  remedio,  nisi  quia  Deo  ita  visum  est  ?    Hie  obmutescere 


§  57.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  453 

but  always  holy  and  unblamable.  It  is  the  ultimate  ground  of  all 
things,  and  the  highest  rule  of  justice.  Foreordination  and  fore- 
knowledge are  inseparable,  and  the  former  is  not  conditioned  by  the 
latter,  but  God  foresees  what  he  foreordains.  If  election  were  de- 
pendent on  man's  faith  and  good  works,  grace  would  not  be  free, 
and  in  fact  would  cease  to  be  grace.  Man's  holiness  is  not  the  cause 
or  condition,  but  the  effect  of  God's  election.  The  unequal  distribu- 
tion of  gospel  privileges  can  be  traced  only  to  the  secret  will  of  God. 
All  men  are  alike  corrupt  and  lost  in  Adam ;  some  are  saved  by  free 
grace,  others,  who  are  no  worse  by  nature,  reject  the  gospel.  These 
are  undeniable  every-day  facts,  and  admit  of  no  other  explanation 
within  the  limits  of  the  present  life ;  and  as  to  the  future  world,  we 
know  nothing  but  what  God  has  revealed  to  us  in  the  Scriptures. 

Calvin  carried  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  decrees  beyond  the  Au- 
gustinian  infralapsarianism,  which  makes  the  fall  of  Adam  the  object 
of  a  permissive  or  passive  decree,  and  teaches  the  pretention  rather 
than  the  reprobation  of  the  wicked,  to  the  very  verge  of  supralap- 
sarianism,  which  traces  even  the  first  sin  to  an  efficient  or  positive 
decree,  analogous  to  that  of  election.  But  while  his  inexorable  logic 
pointed  to  this  abyss,  his  moral  and  religious  sense  shrunk  from  the 
last  inference  of  making  God  the  author  of  sin,  which  would  be  blas- 
phemous, and  involve  the  absurdity  that  God  abhors  and  justly  pun- 
ishes what  he  himself  decreed.  Hence  his  phrase,  which  vacillates 
between  infralapsarianism  and  supralapsarianism :  'Adam  fell,  God's 
providence  having  so  ordained  it;  yet  he  fell  by  his  own  guilt.'1 

oportet  tarn  dicaces  alioqui  linguas.  Decrefum  quidem  Iwrribile,  fateor ;  infitiari  tamen 
nemo  poterit  quin  provsciverit  Deus,  quern  exitum  esset  habiturus  homo,  antequam  ij/suvi  con- 
deret,  et  ideo  prcesciverit,  quia  decreto  suo  sic  ordinarat.  In  precscientiam  Dei  si  quis  hie  in- 
vehatur,  temere  et  inconsulte  imjiingit.  Quid  enim,  qua  so,  est  cur  reus  a;/atur  calestis  judex 
quia  non  ignoraverit  quod  futurum  erat?  In  prevdestinutionem  comjietit,  si  quid  est  veljustce 
vel  speciosos  querimonue.  Ncc  absurdum  videri  debet  quod  dico,  Jjeum  non  modo  jirimi  hominia 
casum,  et  in  eo  posterorum  ruinam  prtcvidisse,  sed  arbitrio  quoque  suo  dispensasse.  I 'l  enim 
ad  ejus  sapientiam  pertinet,  omnium  qua  futura  sunt  esse  prn?scium,  sic  ad  jwtentiam,  omnia 
manu  sua  regcre  ac  moderari.'     Instil.  Lib.  III.  c.  23,  §  7  (Vol.  II.  p.  7(H). 

1  'Lapsus  est  enim  jirimus  homo,  quia  iJominus  ita  expedire  censuerat ;  cur  censucrit,  nos 
latet.  Certnm  tamen  est  non  aliter  censuisse,  nisi  quia  videbat,  nominis  sui  gloriam  inde  tnerito 
illustrari.  Unde  mentionem  glor'ue  Dei  audis,  i/lic  justifiam  cogita.  Justum  enim  esse  oportet 
quod  laudem  meretur.  Cadit  igitur  homo,  Dei  providentia  sic  ordinante,  sed  suo  vitio  cadit.  .  .  . 
Propria  ergo  malitia,  quam  acceperat  a  Domino  puram  naturam  corru/iit;  sua  ruina  tot  am 
posteritateni  in  exitium  secum  attraxit.'  Instit.  Lib.  III.  c.  '23,  §  8  (Vol  II.  p.  706).  The 
difference  between  the  sapralapsarians  and  infralapsariana  was  not  agitated  at  the  time  of 


454  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Calvin  defended  this  doctrine  against  all  objections  with  consum- 
mate skill,  and  may  be  said  to  have  exhausted  the  subject  on  his  side 
of  the  question.  His  arguments  were  chiefly  drawn  from  the  Script- 
ures, especially  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans;  but 
he  unduly  stretched  passages  which  refer  to  the  historical  destiny  of 
individuals  and  nations  in  this  world,  into  declarations  of  their  eter- 
nal fate  in  the  other  world ;  and  he  escaped  the  proper  force  of  oppo- 
site passages  (such  as  John  i.  29;  iii.  16;  1  John  ii.  2;  iv.  14;  1  Tim. 
ii.  4 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  9)  by  a  distinction  between  the  secret  and  revealed  or 
declared  will  of  God  {voluntas  arcani  and  voluntas  heneplaciti),  which 
carries  an  intolerable  dualism  into  the  divine  will. 

The  motive  and  aim  of  this  doctrine  was  not  speculative,  but  prac- 
tical. It  served  as  a  bulwark  of  free  grace,  an  antidote  to  Pelagianism 
and  human  pride,  a  stimulus  to  humility  and  gratitude,  a  source  of 
comfort  and  peace  in  trial  and  despondency.  The  charge  of  favoring 
license  and  carnal  security  was  always  indignantly  repelled  by  the 
Pauline  '  God  forbid  !'  It  is  moreover  refuted  by  history,  which  con- 
nects the  strictest  Calvinism  with  the  strictest  morality. 

The  doctrine  of  predestination,  in  its  milder,  infralapsarian  form, 
was  incorporated  into  the  Geneva  Consensus,  the  Second  Helvetic,  the 
French,  Belgic,  and  Scotch  Confessions,  the  Lambeth  Articles,  the  Irish 
Articles,  the  Canons  of  Dort,  and  the  Westminster  Standards ;  while 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles,1  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  other  German 
Reformed  Confessions,  indorse  merely  the  positive  part  of  the  free 
election  of  believers,  and  are  wisely  silent  concerning  the  decree  of 
reprobation,  leaving  it  to  theological  science  and  private  opinion. 

Supralapsarianism,  which  makes  unfallen  man,  or  man  before  his 
creation  (i.  e.,  a  non  ens,  a  mere  abstraction  of  thought),  the  object  of 

Calvin,  but  afterwards  during  the  Arminian  controversy  in  Holland.  Both  schools  appealed 
to  him.  The  difference  is  more  speculative  than  moral  and  practical.  In  creating  man  free, 
God  created  him  necessarily  temptable  and  liable  to  fall,  but  the  fall  itself  is  man's  own  act 
and  abuse  of  freedom.  God  decreed  sin  not  efficiently  but  permissively,  not  as  an  actual  fact 
but  as  a  mere  possibility,  not  for  its  own  sake  but  for  the  sake  of  the  good  or  as  a  negative 
condition  of  redemption.  Besides,  sin  has  no  positive  character,  is  no  created  substance, 
but  it  is  privative  and  negative,  and  consists  simply  in  the  abuse  of  faculties  and  gifts  essen- 
tially good. 

1  There  is  a  dispute  about  the  precise  meaning  of  Art.  XVII.  ;  but,  as  Prof.  Fisher  says 
{The  Reform,  p.  885),  'the  article  can  not  fairly  be  interpreted  in  any  other  sense  than  that 
of  unconditional  election;  and  the  cautions  which  are  appended,  instead  of  being  opposed  to 
this  interpretation,  demonstrate  the  correctness  of  it.' 


§  o7.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  455 

God's  double  foreordination  for  the  manifestation  of  his  mercy  in  the 
elect,  and  his  justice  in  the  reprobate,  was  ably  advocated  by  Beza  in 
Geneva,  Gomarus  in  Holland,  Twisse  (the  Prolocutor  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly)  in  England,  Nathaniel  Emmons  (1745-1S40)  in  Kew 
England,  but  it  never  received  symbolical  authority,  and  was  virtually 
or  expressly  excluded  (though  not  exactly  condemned)  by  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and  even  the  '  Formula  Consensus 
Helvetica'  (1675).1  All  Calvinistic  Confessions,  without  exception, 
trace  the  fall  to  a  permissive  decree,  make  man  responsible  and  justly 
punishable  for  sin,  and  reject,  as  a  blasphemous  slander,  the  charge 
that  God  is  the  author  of  sin.  And  this  is  the  case  with  all  the  Cal- 
vinistic divines  of  the  present  day.2 

calvln's  doctrine  of  the  lord's  suiter. 

Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  on  which  he  spent  much  deep 
and  earnest  thought,  is  an  ingenious  compromise  between  the  realism 
and  mysticism  of  the  Lutheran,  and  the  idealism  and  spiritualism  of 
the  Zwinglian  theory.    It  aims  to  satisfy  both  the  heart  and  the  reason. 

He  retained  the  figurative  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution, 
and  rejected  all  carnal  and  materialistic  conceptions  of  the  eucharistic 
mystery ;  but  he  very  strongly  asserted,  at  the  same  time,  a  spiritual 
real  presence  and  fruition  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  for  the  nourish- 
ment of  the  soul.  He  taught  that  believers,  while  they  receive  with 
their  mouths  the  visible  elements,  receive  also  by  faith  the  spiritual 
realities  signified  and  sealed  thereby,  namely,  the  benefit  of  the  atoning 
sacrifice  on  the  cross,  and  the  life-giving  virtue  of  Christ's  glorified 

1  Can.  IV. :  '  Ita  Deus  gloriam  suam  illustrare  constituit,  ut  decreverit,  prima  quidem 
hominem  integrum  creare,  TDM  ejusdem  lapsum  termittere,  ac  demum  ex  lajisis  quorundam 
misereri,  adeoque  eosdem  eligere,  alios  vero  in  corrupta  massa  relinquere,  crternoque  tan- 
dem exitio  devovere.'  This  does  not  go  beyond  the  limits  of  Augustinianism.  Van  Oosterzee 
errs  when  he  says  {Christian  Dogmatics,Yo\.  I.  p.  452)  that  the  Form.  Cons.  Ilel.  asserts  the 
supralapsarian  view ;  while  Hodge  errs  on  the  other  side  when  he  says  (Sgst.  Theol.  Vol.  II. 
p.  317)  that  this  document  contains  'a  formal  repudiation  of  the  supralapsarian  view.' 

■  Dr:  Hodge,  who  best  represents  the  Old  School  Calvinism  in  America,  rejects  supralap- 
Barianism  and  defends  infralapsarianism,  which  he  defines  thus  (Sgst.  Theol.  VoL  II.  pp. 
319  and  320) :  'According  to  the  infralapsarian  doctrine,  God,  with  the  design  to  reveal  his 
own  glory — that  is,  the  perfections  of  his  own  nature — determined  to  create  the  world ;  sec- 
ondly, to  permit  the  fall  of  man  ;  thirdly,  to  elect  from  the  mass  of  fallen  men  a  multitude 
whom  no  man  could  number  as  "vessels  of  mercy;"  fourthly,  to  send  his  Son  for  their  re- 
demption ;  and,  fifthly,  to  leave  the  residue  of  mankind,  as  he  left  the  fallen  angels,  to  suffer 
the  just  punishment  of  their  sins.' 

Vol.  I.— G  g 


456  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

humanity  in  heaven,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  conveys  to  the  soul  in  a 
supernatural  manner;  while  unbelieving  or  unworthy  communicants, 
having  no  inward  connection  with  Christ,  receive  only  bread  and 
wine  to  their  own  judgment.  He  thus  sought  to  avoid  alike  the  posi- 
tive error  of  Luther  and  the  negative  error  of  Zwingli  (whose  view 
of  the  Eucharist  he  even  characterized  as  '  profane'),  and  to  unite  the 
elements  of  truth  advocated  by  both  in  a  one-sided  and  antagonistic 
way.  Luther  and  Zwingli  always  had  in  mind  a  corporeal  or  dimen- 
sional presence  of  the  material  substance  of  body  and  blood,  and  an 
oral  manducation  of  the  same  by  all  communicants — which  the  one 
affirmed,  the  other  denied ;  Calvin  substituted  for  this  the  idea  of  a 
virtual  or  dynamic  presence  of  the  psychic  life-power  and  efficacy  of 
Christ's  humanity,  and  a  spiritual  reception  and  assimilation  of  the 
same  by  the  organ  of  faith,  and  therefore  on  the  part  of  believing  com- 
municants only,  through  the  secret  mediation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.1 

Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  was  substantially  approved  by 
Melanchthon  in  his  later  period,  although  from  fear  of  Luther  and  the 
ultra-Lutherans  he  never  fully  committed  himself.  It  passed  into  all 
the  leading  Reformed  Confessions  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries,  and  must  be  regarded  as  the  orthodox  Reformed  doctrine. 
Zwingli's  theory,  which  is  more  simple  and  intelligible,  has  considera- 
ble popular  currency,  but  no  symbolical  authority.2 


1  Calvin  taught  his  view  of  the  Eucharist  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Institutes  (cap.  4,  De 
Sacramentis,  pp.  23G  sqq.,  in  the  new  ed.  of  the  Opera,  Vol.  I.  pp.  118  sqq. ;  comp.  Ebrard, 
Das  Dogma  v.  he'd.  Abendmahl,  Vol.  II.  p.  412),  and  in  the  Confessio  Jidei  de  eucharistia 
(1537);  then  more  fully  in  the  later  editions  of  the  Institutes,  1.  c.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  17,  18;  in 
his  two  Catechisms  (1538  and  1542)  ;  in  his  admirable  tract  De  Cazna  Domini  (first  in  French, 
1541,  then  in  Latin,  1545;  see  Opera,Vo\.V.  pp.  429-4G0);  in  the  Consensus  Tigurinus  (1549) ; 
and  he  defended  it  in  several  polemical  treatises  against  Westphal  (1555-1557)  and  Heshusius 
(15G1). 

2  See,  on  this  whole  subject,  the  very  elaborate  exposition  of  Ebrard,  Das  Dogma  v.  heil. 
Abendmahl,  Vol.  II.  pp.  402-525  ;  Baur,  Geschichte  der  christl.  Kirche,Yo\.  IV.  pp.  398-402; 
and  Nevin's  article  on  the  Reformed  Doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  Mercersburg  Re- 
view for  Sept.  1850,  pp.  421-548  (in  defense  of  his  'Mystical  Presence').  Dr.  Nevin  has 
clearly  and  correctly  stated  Calvin's  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  and  abundantly  fortified  it 
with  quotations  from  all  the  symbolical  standards,  in  entire  harmony  with  Ebrard  (who 
indorsed  him  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken).  After  rejecting  both  the  dogma  of  transub- 
stantiation  and  consubstantiation,  he  says  (p.  429)  :  '  In  opposition  to  this  view,  the  Re- 
formed Church  taught  that  the  participation  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  spiritual  only,  and  in  no  sense  corporal.  The  idea  of  a  local  presence  in  the  case  was 
utterly  rejected.  The  elements  can  not  be  said  to  comprehend  or  include  the  body  of  the 
Saviour  in  any  sense.     It  is  not  there,  but  remains  constantly  in  heaven,  according  to  the 


§  57.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  457 

Calvin  thus  combined  his  high  predestinarianism  with  a  high  view  of 
the  Church  and  the  Sacraments.  Augustine  and  Luther  did  the  same 
to  a  still  greater  extent,  with  more  prominence  given  to  the  sacramental 
idea.  It  is  the  prerogative  of  great  minds  to  maintain  apparently  op- 
posite truths  and  principles  which  hold  each  other  in  check  ;  while  with 
minds  less  strong  and  comprehensive,  the  one  principle  is  apt  to  rule 
out  the  other.  In  the  Catholic  and  Lutheran  Churches  the  sacramental 
principle  gradually  overruled  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination ; 
in  the  more  rigid  Calvinistic  school,  the  sacramental  principle  yielded 
to  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  But  the  authoritative  standards  are 
committed  to  both. 

CALVIN   AS   AN   EXEGETE. 

Among  the  works  which  have  more  or  less  influenced  the  Reformed 
Confessions  we  can  not  ignore  Calvin's  commentaries.  To  expound 
the  Scriptures  in  books,  from  the  chair,  and  from  the  pulpit,  was  his 

Scriptures.  It  is  not  handled  by  the  minister  and  taken  into  the  mouth  of  the  communicant. 
The  mandueation  of  it  is  not  oral,  but  only  by  faith.  It  is  present  in  fruition  accordingly  to 
believers  only  in  the  exercise  of  faith  ;  the  impenitent  and  unbelieving  receive  only  the  naked 
symbols,  bread  and  wine,  without  any  spiritual  advantage  to  their  own  souls.  Thus  we  have 
the  doctrine  defined  and  circumscribed  on  both  sides;  with  proper  distinction  from  all  that 
may  be  considered  a  tendency  to  Rationalism  in  one  direction,  and  from  all  that  may  be 
counted  a  tendency  to  Romanism  in  the  other.  It  allows  the  presence  of  Christ's  person  in 
the  sacrament,  including  even  his  flesh  and  blood,  so  far  as  the  actual  participation  of  the 
believer  is  concerned.  Even  the  term  real  presence  Calvin  tells  us  he  was  willing  to  employ, 
if  it  Mere  to  be  understood  as  synonymous  with  true  presence;  by  which  he  means  a  presence 
that  brings  Christ  truly  into  communion  with  the  believer  in  his  human  nature  as  well  as  in 
his  divine  nature.  The  word  real,  however,  was  understood  ordinarily  to  denote  a  local,  cor- 
poral presence,  and  on  this  account  was  not  approved.  To  guard  against  this,  it  may  be  quali- 
fied by  the  word  spiritual ;  and  the  expression  will  then  be  quite  suitable  to  the  nature  of  the 
doctrine  as  it  has  been  now  explained.  A  real  presence,  in  opposition  to  the  notion  that 
Christ's  flesh  and  blood  are  not  made  present  to  the  communicant  in  any  way.  A  spiritual 
real  presence,  in  opposition  to  the  idea  that  Christ's  body  is  in  the  elements  in  a  local  or  cor- 
poral manner.  Not  real  simply,  and  not  spiritual  simply,  but  real  and  yet  spiritual  at  the 
same  time.  The  body  of  Christ  is  in  heaven,  the  believer  on  earth  ;  but  by  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  nevertheless,  the  obstacle  of  such  vast  local  distance  if  fully  overcome,  so  that  in 
the  sacramental  act,  while  the  outward  symbols  are  received  in  an  outward  way,  the  very 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  at  the  same  time  inwardly  and  supernaturally  communicated  to 
the  worthy  receiver,  for  the  real  nourishment  of  his  new  life.  Not  that  the  material  particles 
of  Christ's  body  are  supposed  to  be  carried  over,  by  this  supernatural  process,  into  the  be- 
liever's person.  The  communion  is  spiritual,  not  material.  It  is  a  participation  of  the  Sav- 
iour's life ;  of  his  life,  however,  as  human,  subsisting  in  a  true  bodily  form.  The  living 
energy,  the  vivilic  virtue,  as  Calvin  styles  it,  of  Christ's  flesh,  is  made  to  flow  over  into  the 
communicant,  making  him  more  and  more  one  with  Christ  himself,  and  thus  more  and  more 
an  heir  of  the  same  immortality  that  is  brought  to  light  in  his  person.' 


458  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

favorite  occupation.  His  whole  theology  is  scriptural  rather  than  scho- 
lastic, and  distinguished  for  the  skillful  and  comprehensive  working 
up  of  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  as  the  only  pure  fountain  of  revealed 
truth  and  the  infallible  rule  of  the  Christian  faith.  As  it  is  system- 
atically comprehended  in  his  '  Institutes,'  and  defended  in  his  various 
polemical  tracts  against  Sadolet,  Pighius,  the  Council  of  Trent,'  Caroli, 
Bolsec,  Castallio,  Westphal,  Heshusius,  so  it  is  scattered  through  his 
Commentaries  on  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Epistles,  and  the  principal 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets. 
He  opened  this  important  series  of  works,  during  his  sojourn  at  Stras- 
burg,  by  an  exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Komans  (1539),  on  which 
his  theological  system  is  chiefly  based. 

He  could  assert  with  truth  on  his  death-bed  that  he  never  knowingly 
twisted  or  misinterpreted  a  single  passage  of  the  Scriptures,  that  he 
always  aimed  at  simplicity,  and  restrained  the  temptation  to  show 
acuteness  and  ingenuity.  He  regarded  it  as  the  chief  object  of  a 
commentator  to  adhere  closely  to  the  text,  and  to  bring  out  clearly  and 
briefly  the  meaning  of  the  writer.  He  detested  irrelevant  talk  and 
diffuseness,  and  avoided  allegorical  fancies,  which  substitute  pious  im- 
position for  honest  exposition.  He  combined  in  a  very  rare  degree  all 
the  necessary  hermeneutical  qualifications,  a  fair  knowledge  of  Greek 
and  Hebrew,  sound  grammatical  tact,  thorough  sympathy  with  the 
spirit  and  aim  of  the  Bible,  and  aptitude  for  fruitful  practical  applica- 
tion. He  could  easily  enter  into  the  peculiar  situation  of  the  Prophets 
and  Apostles,  as  though  he  had  been  with  them  in  their  trials,  and 
shared  their  varied  experience.  He  is  free  from  pedantry,  and  his 
exposition  is  an  easy,  continuous  flow  of  reproduction.  He  never 
evades  difficulties,  but  frankly  meets  and  tries  to  solve  them. 

With  all  his  profound  reverence  for  the  Word  of  God,  to  which  his 
reason  bows  in  cheerful  obedience,  he  is  not  swayed  by  a  peculiar 
theory  of  inspiration  or  dogmatic  prejudice,  but  shows  often  remarka- 
ble freedom  and  sagacity  in  discovering  the  direct  historical  import 
of  prophecies,  in  distinction  from  their  ulterior  Messianic  bearing.1    He 


1  In  his  exposition  of  Gen.  iii.  15,  he  understands  the  '  woman 's  seed'  collectively  of  the 
human  family  in  its  perpetual  struggle  with  Satan,  which  at  last  culminates  in  the  victory  of 
Christ,  the  head  of  the  race.  Comp.  also  his  remarks  on  Isa.  iv.  2  ;  vi.  3  ;  Tsa.  xxxiii.  G  ; 
Matt.  ii.  15;  Ileb.  ii.  G-8. 


§  67.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  459 

notices  the  difference  of  style  and  argument  in  the  Second  Epistle  of 
Peter  as  compared  with  the  first,  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
as  compared  with  the  undisputed  Pauline  Epistles.  He  never  ventured 
to  explain  the  mysteries  of  the  Apocalypse.  Luther,  with  an  equally 
profound  reverence  and  enthusiasm  for  the  Word  of  God,  was  even 
muci.  bolder,  and  passed  sweeping  judgments  on  whole  books  of  the 
canon  (as  the  Epistle  of  James,  the  book  of  Esther,  and  the  book  of 
Revelation),  because  he  could  not  find  enough  of  Christ  in  them.  Cal- 
vin and  his  followers  retained  the  Canon  in  full,  but  excluded  more 
rigidly  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  scholastic  Calvinism  and  Lutheranism  of  the  seventeenth  cent- 
ury departed  from  the  more  liberal  view  of  the  Reformers  on  the 
mode  and  degree  of  inspiration,  and  substituted  for  it  a  rigid  mechan- 
ical theory  which  ignored  the  human  and  historical  aspect  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  reduced  the  sacred  writers  to  mere  penmen  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  This  theory  found  symbolical  expression  in  the  '  Formula 
Consensus  Helvetica'  (1675),  which  advocates  even  the  inspiration  of 
the  Hebrew  vowel  points,  and  cuts  off  all  textual  criticism. 

Upon  the  whole,  Calvin  is  '  beyond  all  question  the  greatest  exegete 
of  the  sixteenth  century,'1  which  of  all  centuries  was  the  most  fruitful 
in  this  department  of  sacred  learning.  Luther  was  the  prince  of  trans- 
lators ;  Calvin,  the  prince  of  commentators.  Augustine  and  Luther 
had  occasionally  a  deeper  intuition  into  the  meaning  of  difficult  pas- 
sages, and  seized  on  the  main  idea  with  the  instinct  of  genius ;  but 
Calvin  was  more  accurate  and  precise,  and  more  uniformly  excellent. 
Modern  commentators  have  made  great  progress  in  textual  criticism 
and  grammatical  and  historical  exegesis,  but  do  not  attain  to  his  re- 
ligious depth  and  fervor.  His  commentaries  have  stood  the  test  of 
time,  and  will  always  be  consulted  with  profit.  Scaliger,  who  was  dis- 
pleased with  all  men,  said  that  no  scholar  had  penetrated  so  deeply  into 
the  meaning  of  the  Prophets  as  Calvin;  the  Roman  Catholic  critic 
Richard  Simon  admitted  that  his  commentaries  would  be  'useful  to 
the  whole  world,'  if  they  were  free  from  declamations  against  popery ; 
and  <  £  all  older  expounders  none  is  more  frequently  quoted  by  the 
best  modern  critical  scholars  than  John  Calvin.2 


Reuss:  Geschichte  der  II.  Schriften  tics  N.  T.,  4th  edition,  \>.  564. 

See  the   frequent  references  to  him  in  the  Commentaries   of  Tholuck,  Ilengsicnberg, 


4G0  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

calvin's  ciiUKcn  polity. 
The  practical  and  ecclesiastical  part  of  Calvin's  work  is  in  some 
respects  even  more  important  than  his  theology,  and  must  be  briefly 
considered  in  those  features  which  have  affected  the  Calvinistic  Con- 
fessions. These  are  the  duty  of  discipline,  the  principle  of  lay-repre- 
sentation, and  the  autonomy  of  the  Church  in  its  relation  to  the  State. 
In  these  points  Calvinism  differs  from  Lutheranism,  and  also  from 
Zwinglianism  and  Anglicanism.  Calvin  aimed  at  a  moral  and  social 
as  well  as  a  doctrinal  and  religious  reformation,  and  succeeded  in  es- 
tablishing a  model  Church,  which  excited  the  admiration  not  only  of 
sympathizing  contemporaries,  like  Farel  and  Knox,1  but  even  of  vis- 
itors of  other  creeds  long  after  his  death.2     During  the  eighteenth 


LUcke,  Bleek,  DeWette,  Meyer,  Alford ;  also  the  Essay  of  Tholnck,  'Die  Verdienste  Calvin's 
alsAuslegerderheil.  Schrift,' 1831  (reprinted in  his  Vermischte  Schriften,V  ol.  II.  pp.  330-3G0); 
Ed.  Reuss,  Calvin  conside're comme  exegete  {Revue,  Vol.  VI.  p.  223) ;  and  Stahelin,  Joh.  Calvin, 
Vol.  I.  pp.  182  sqq.  Stahelin  says  (p.  198):  '  Der  alttestamentliche  wie  der  neutestamentliche 
Bibelerkldrer,  der  Luther aner,  wie  der  Unirte  und  Reformirte,  der  wissenschaftliche  Exeget,  wie 
der  populdre  Schriftausleger  alle  schopften  und  soldi pf  en  immer  noch  aus  der  Arbeit  Calvins  bei 
weitem  das  Meiste  und  Besle,  was  sie  von  Schrifterkldrung  aus  dem  Reformat  ionszeitalter  bei- 
bringen.'    Comp.  also  Kahnis,  Dogmatik, Vol.  II.  p.  492,  and  Herzog,  Encykl.  Vol.  II.  p.  528. 

1  John  Knox,  the  Reformer  of  Scotland,  who  studied  at  the  feet  of  Calvin,  though  four 
years  his  senior,  in  a  letter  to  his  friend  Locke,  in  155G,  called  the  Church  of  Geneva  'the 
most  perfect  school  of  Christ  that  ever  was  in  the  earth  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  In 
other  places  I  confess  Christ  to  be  truly  preached  ;  but  manners  and  religion  to  be  so  sincerely 
reformed,  I  have  not  yet  seen  in  any  other  place  besides.'  Farel  wrote,  in  1557,  that  he 
never  saw  Geneva  in  such  excellent  condition  before,  and  that  he  would  rather  be  the  last 
there  than  the  first  any  where  else.  There,  it  was  said,  the  pure  gospel  is  preached  in  all 
temples  and  houses  (Calvin  himself  preached  daily,  every  other  week) ;  there  the  music  of 
psalms  never  ceases  ;  there  hands  are  folded  and  hearts  lifted  up  to  heaven  from  morning  till 
night  and  from  night  until  morning.  The  Italian  refugee,  Bernardino  Ochino,  gives  a  most 
favorable  description  of  the  moral  condition  of  Geneva.    £ee  his  Life  by  Benrath  (1 875),  p.  1G9. 

s  Dr.  Valentine  Andrea;  of  Wiirtemberg  (a  grandson  of  Jacob  Andrea;,  the  chief  author  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord),  a  great  and  shining  light  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Germany 
during  the  desolations  of  the  Thirty- Years'  War  (d.  1654),  visited  Geneva  in  the  early  part  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  and  held  it  up  as  a  model  of  moral  purity  well  worthy  of  imitation. 
'Als  ich  in  Gen/war,'  he  says  in  his  Respublica  Christianopolitana,  1G19,  ibemerkte  ich  etwas 
Grosses,  woran  die  Erinnerung,  ja  vielmehr,  ivonach  die  Sehnsucht  nur  mit  meinem  Leben  ab- 
sterben  wird.  NirM  nurjindet  sich  hier  das  vollkommene  Institut  einer  vollkommenen  Republik, 
sondern  als  eine  besondere  Zierde  und  Mittel  der  Disciplin  eine  Sittenzueht,  naeh  wclcher  iibcr 
die  Sitten  und  selbst  die  geringsten  Ueberschreitungen  der  Burger  wochentlich  Untersuc/unig 
angestellt  wird,  zuerst  durch  die  Viertelsinspectoren,  dann  durch  die  Senioren,  endliclt  durch  den 
Magistrat,  je  nachdem  der  Frevel  der  Sache  oder  die  Ver/idrtung  und  Verstockung  der  Sehul- 
digen  es  erfordern.  In  Folge  dessen  sind  denn  alle  Fluchworte,  al/es  Wurfel-  und  Knrtenspiel, 
Ueppigkeit,  Uebermuth,  Zank,  Hass,  Betrug,  Luxus,  u.  s.  w.,  geschweigc  denn  grossere  Verge- 
hungen,  die  fast  unerhort  sind,  untersagt.  Welche  herrliche  Zierde  fur  die  christliche  Religion 
solche  Sittenreinheit,  vor  der  wir  mit  alien  T/trdnen  beweinen  miisscn,  dass  sie  uns  fehlt  und 


§  57.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  4(}1 

century  his  severe  system  of  theology  and  discipline  gave  way  to  the 
prevailing  spirit  of  Socinianism  and  the  revolutionary  spirit  of  Jean 
Jacques  Rousseau — the  counterpart  of  Calvin  ;  but  revived  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  though  in  a  modified  form,  so  that  Geneva  has  become 
a  second  time  the  centre  of  evangelistic  labors  in  the  French-speaking 
world.1 

1.  Discipline. — Calvin's  zeal  for  discipline,  especially  for  the  honor  of 
the  Lord's  table,  in  excluding  unworthy  communicants,  was  the  cause 
of  his  expulsion  from  Geneva,  the  cause  of  his  recall  from  Strasburg, 
the  condition  of  his  acceptance,  the  struggle  and  triumph  of  his  life. 
He  had  a  long  and  fierce  conflict  with  the  ferocious  politico-religious 
party  of  the  Libertines,  or  '  Spirituals,'  as  they  called  themselves,  who 
combined  a  pantheistic  creed  with  licentiousness  and  free-lovism,  and 
anticipated  the  worst  forms  of  modern  infidelity  to  the  extent  of  de- 
claring the  gospel  a  tissue  of  lies  of  less  value  than  ^Esop's  Fables.2 
He  regarded  them  as  worse  enemies  of  God  and  the  truth  than  the 
Pope.  They  resorted  to  personal  indignities  and  every  device  of  in- 
timidation ;  they  named  the  very  dogs  of  the  street  after  him ;  they 
one  night  fired  fifty  shots  before  his  bedchamber ;  they  threatened  him 
in  the  pulpit ;  they  approached  the  communion  table  as  if  to  seize  the 
sacred  elements,  when  he  cried  out, 'You  may  break  these  limbs  and 
shed  my  blood,  I  would  rather  die  than  dishonor  the  table  of  my 
God,'  whereupon  they  left  the  church.  On  another  occasion  he 
walked  into  the  midst  of  an  excited  mob  and  offered  his  breast  to 


fast  ganz  vernachldssigt  tvird,  und  (die  Gutgesinnten  sich  anstrengen,  dass sie  ins  Leben  gervfen 
werde!  Mich,  ivofern  mich  die  Verschiedenheit  der  Religion  nicht  abgehalten,  ha'tte  die  sitt- 
liche  Uebercinstimmung  hier  auf  ewig  ge/esselt,  und  nut  allem  Eifer  habe  ich  von  da  an  ge- 
trachtt  /,  dass  etwas  Aehn/iches  auch  unserer  Kirehe  zu  Thei!  icurde.  Nicht  geringer  als  die 
SffentUche  Zucht  war  auch  die  hausliche  meines  Hausherrn  Scarron  ausgezeichnet  durch  ste- 
tige  Gebetsiibungen,  Lecture  der  heiligen  Schrift,  Gottesfurcht  in  Worten  und  Thaten,  Mass- 
halten  in  Speise  und  Kleidung,  dass  ich  eine  grossere  Sittenreinheit  selbst  im  vaterlichen 
House  nicht  gesehcn.' 

1  The  Haidanes  repaid  the  debt  of  Scotland  to  Geneva,  and,  in  connection  with  Cesar 
Malan,  gave  the  first  impulse  to  a  revival  which  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  a  Free 
Church,  and  a  school  of  theology  distinguished  by  the  labors  of  Gaussen,  Merle  d'Aubigne', 
Pronicr,  La  Harpe.  The  old  National  Church  which  Calvin  founded  has  likewise  undergone  a 
salutary  change,  though  the  old  rigor  can  never  be  restored.  In  point  of  literary  culture  and 
social  refinement,  Geneva  always  retained  the  first  rank  among  French  cities  next  to  Paris. 

2  See  Calvin's  Instructio  ado.  fanaticam  et  furiomm  sectam  Liber  ti  nor  urn,  qui  se  Spir- 
ituales  vocant,  written  first  in  French,  1544,  Opera,  Vol.  VII.  pp.  145-252.  Coinp. Trechsel's 
art.  Libertiner  in  Ilerzog's  Real-Encykl.,  and  Stahelin,  Vol.  I.  pp.  383  sqq. 


462  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

their  daggers.  It  seems  incredible  that  a  man  constitutionally  <un- 
warlike  and  timorous'  should  have  completely  overcome  at  last  such 
a  powerful  and  determined  opposition,  which  reached  its  height  in 
1553. 

The  system  of  discipline  which  he  established  saved  Geneva  from 
anarchy,  into  which  the  Libertines  would  have  plunged  it,  and  was  a 
training-school  of  self-government  for  other  Reformed  Churches ;  but 
it  was  carried  to  unwarrantable  excesses  in  the  punishment  of  religious 
and  civil  offenses,  and  even  innocent  amusements,  and  entered  too 
much  into  details  of  private  and  domestic  life. 

2.  Pkesbyteeian  and  Synodical  Chukch  Polity. — It  rests  on  the 
principle  of  ministerial  equality,  and  the  principle  of  lay-representation 
by  elders  or  seniors  in  the  government  of  the  Church.  This  polity, 
founded  by  Calvin,  was  consistently  carried  out  in  the  Presbyterian 
Churches  of  France,  Holland,  Scotland,  England,  and  the  United  States; 
but  in  German  Switzerland  and  Germany  it  succeeded  only  partially, 
while  the  Church  of  England  retained  the  Episcopal  hierarchy.  Calvin 
himself,  however,  was  not  an  exclusive  Presbyterian.  lie  allowed 
modifications  of  the  form  of  government  in  different  countries.  lie 
did  not  object  to  Episcopacy  or  the  liturgical  worship  in  England ;  he 
only  protested  against  the  ecclesiastical  supremacy  of  Henry  VIII.  and 
a  number  of  abuses. 

3.  The  Autonomy  of  the  Ciiukch. — The  German  Reformers,  in- 
cluding Zwingli,  yielded  too  much  authority  to  the  civil  rulers  in  mat- 
ters of  religion.  Calvin  theoretically  made  the  Church  independent 
in  her  own  sphere,  and  claimed  for  her  the  right  of  self-government. 
This  leads  consistently  to  a  separation  of  Church  and  State,  where  the 
latter  is  hostile  to  the  former,  as  was  the  case  in  France  and  to  some 
extent  in  Scotland.  In  recent  times  the  Calvinistic  Churches,  with- 
out changing  their  creed,  tend  naturally  towards  complete  freedom 
from  State  control.  Yet  in  practice  he  had  no  idea  of  such  a  separa- 
tion. He  regarded  the  civil  and  the  spiritual  power  as  the  two  arms  of 
God's  government  in  the  world,  which  should  co-operate  together  for 
the  same  end — the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  society:  the  Church 
by  infusing  a  religious  spirit  into  the  State,  the  State  by  protecting  and 
promoting  the  interests  of  the  Church.  He  established,  after  the 
model  of  the  Old  Testament,  a  theocracy  at  Geneva,  and  governed  it 


§  57.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  4(J3 

by  tacit  consent  as  long  as  lie  lived,  presiding  over  the  '  Venerable 
Company'  of  Pastors,  and  exerting  a  molding  influence  upon  the  civil 
legislation  of  the  little  republic  of  about  20,000  inhabitants.1 

Boesnet,  Mohler,  and  other  Roman  Catholic  divines  saw  in  this  a 
return  to  the  hierarchy,  with  Calvin  as  its  pope.  He  has  sometimes 
been  compared  to  Ilildebrand ;  and  Kampschulte  remarks  that  the 
dominion  of  the  spiritual  sovereignty  was  more  thoroughly  carried 
out  in  Geneva  than  by  the  Gregories  and  Innocenses  in  the  Middle 
Ages.  But  Calvin's  theocracy  differed  essentially  from  the  Roman 
Catholic  by  its  popular  (though  by  no  means  democratic)  basis :  it  was 
not  priestcraft  ruling  over  statecraft,  but  a  self-governing  Christian 
commonwealth.  Geneva  was  an  aristocratic  republic,  ruled  by  the 
clergy  and  the  people  in  orderly  representation  and  friendly  co-opera- 
tion. The  highest  civil  and  executive  power  was  lodged  in  the  'Little 
Council'  of  twenty-four  syndics,  the  highest  ecclesiastical  power  in 
the  '  Consistory,'  composed  (at  first)  of  six  pastors  and  double  that 
number  of  lay-elders.2 

RELIGIOUS    PERSECUTION    AND    RELIGIOUS   FREEDOM. 

Unfortunately  Calvin  inherited  from  the  Theodosian  Code  and  the 
Catholic  Church  the  worst  feature  of  the  theocratic  system,  name- 
ly, the  principle  of  appeal  to  the  secular  arm  for  the  temporal,  and, 
if  necessary,  capital  punishment  of  spiritual  offenses,  as  being  offenses 
against  the  order  and  peace  of  society.  This  principle  is  inconsistent 
with  liberty  of  conscience  (which  Beza  called  a  diabolical  dogma),  and 
justifies  all  manner  of  persecution,  as  duty  or  policy  may  suggest. 
With  his  intense  antagonism  to  the  papal  tyranny,  he  might  have 
thrown  off  this  relic  of  the  Middle  Ages,  if  it  had  not  been  for  his 

1  Kampschulte,  Vol.  I.  p.  471  :  '  Der  Grundgedanke,  von  dem  der  Gesetzgeler  Genfs  aus- 
geht,  ist  die  Theohratie.  Calvin  icill  in  Genf  den  Gottesstaat  herstellen.  NwEiner  in/  ihm 
Konig  vnd  Herr  in  Stunt  und  Kirche :  Gott  im  llimmeh  In  seinem  Namen  herrscht  jede  ir- 
dische  Gewalt.  Gottes  Herrecherruhm  zu  verkiindigen,  seine  Majestdt  zu  verherrlichen,  seinen 
hei/igen  Willen  zur  Ausfiihrung  zu  hringen  und  seine  Bekenner  zu  heiligen,  ist  die  genu  insame 
Aufgabe  von  Stunt  und  Kirche.''     Comp.  Stahelin,  Vol.  I.  pp.  3I!>  sqq. 

3  Guizot  says  of  this  ecclesiastical  organization  (p.  265)  :  'In  its  origin  it  was  a  profoundly 
Christian  and  evangelical  system;  it  was  republican  in  many  of  its  fundamental  principles 
and  practices,  and  at  the  same  time  it  recognized  the  necessity  of  authority  and  order,  ami 
originated  general  and  permanent  rules  of  discipline.'  Michelet  calls  the  Geneva  of  Calvin 
'the  city  of  the  spirit,  founded  by  Stoicism  on  the  rock  of  predestination ;'  and  Kampschulte 
(p.  430),  'the  metropolis  of  a  grand,  sublime,  and  terrible  idea.' 


464  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

conviction  of  the  perpetual  validity  of  the  Mosaic  civil  code  and  his 
theocratic  theory.  lie  thought  that  the  burning  of  innocent  people 
by  Romanists  was  no  good  reason  why  Protestants  should  spare  the 
guilty. 

It  was  the  misfortune  of  Calvin  that  this  false  theory,  which  con- 
founds two  distinct  spheres  and  ignores  the  spiritual  nature  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  was  brought  to  its  severest  test  and  explosion  under  his  own 
eye,  and  to  the  perpetual  injury  of  his  fair  fame.  We  mean,  of  course, 
the  terrible  theological  tragedy  of  the  Spanish  physician  Michael 
Servetus,  a  restless  fanatic,  a  pantheistic  pseudo-reformer,  and  the  most 
audacious  and  even  blasphemous  heretic  of  the  sixteenth  century,  who 
attacked  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  as  tritheistic  and  atheistic, 
as  the  greatest  monstrosity,  and  the  source  of  all  corruption  in  the 
Church.  After  being  condemned  to  death,  and  burned  in  effigy  by  the 
Roman  Catholic  authorities  in  France,1  he  fled  to  Geneva,  was  arrested, 
tried,  and  executed  at  the  stake,  for  heresy  and  blasphemy,  by  the  civil 
government,  with  the  full  consent  of  Calvin,  except  that  he  made  an 
ineffectual  plea  for  a  mitigation  of  the  punishment  (by  a  substitution 
of  the  sword  for  the  fagot).2 

Severely  as  we  must  condemn  the  great  Reformer,  from  the  stand- 
point of  our  modern  civilization,  for  this  the  saddest  mistake  of  his 
life,  it  is  evident  that  even  here  he  acted  consistently  and  conscien- 
tiously, and  that  the  blame  attaches  not  to  his  personal  character  (for 
towards  sincere  and  earnest  heretics,  like  Lselius  Socinus,  he  showed 


1  See  the  acts  of  the  process  of  Servetus  at  Vienne  and  Lyons  (first  published  by  the  Abbe' 
d'Artigny,  Paris,  1749),  in  Calvin's  Opera,  Vol.  VIII.  pp.  833  sqq. 

2  He  wrote  to  Farel,  Aug.  20,  1553,  several  weeks  before  the  execution :  '  Spero  capitate 
saltern  judicium  fore,  pmnas  vero  atrocitatem  remitti  cupio.'  A  year  afterwards  he  defend- 
ed the  death  penalty  for  blasphemy,  mostly  from  the  Old  Testament.  See  his  Defensio 
orthodoxa?  Jidei  de  sacra  trinitate  contra  prodirjiosos  errores  Mich.  Serveti  Hispani,  ubi 
ostenditur  lucreticos  jure  gladii  coercendos  esse,  1554.  This  tract,  together  with  the  official 
acts  of  the  process  of  Servetus,  thirty  letters  of  Servetus  to  Calvin,  and  other  documents,  are 
contained  in  the  new  edition  of  Calvin's  Opera,  Vol.  VIII.  pp.  453-872.  The  acts  were 
first  published  from  the  archives  of  Geneva  by  Rilliet :  Relation  du  proces  criminel  intente  a 
Geneve  en  1553  contre  M.  Servet,  in  the  Me'moires  de  la  Societe"  d'histoire  et  d ' archc'ologie  de 
(Jeneve,  Tom.  III.  1844.  Of  the  biographers  of  Calvin,  see  Henry,  Stahelin,  Bungener,  Dyer, 
and  Guizot,  who  are  pretty  full  on  this  subject.  Kampschulte  does  not  reach  it.  Comp.  also 
Mnslu'im,  Ketzoryeschichte,  1748,  and  Neue  Nachrichten  von  Serveto,  1750;  Einile  Saisset, 
in  the  Revue  des  deux  Mondes  for  1818;  Trechsel,  Die  Protestant.  Antitrinitarier,  Vol.  I. 
pp.  G8-150 ;  Banr,  DogmengescMchte,  Vol.  III.  pp.  80  sqq.;  Baur,  Kirchengeschichte,\o\. 
IV.  p.  427;  and  art.  'Servet'  in  Herzog's  Real-Encykl. 


§  57.  CALVIN'S  WORK.  4(55 

marked  courtesy  and  leniency),  but  to  his  system,  and  not  to  his  system 
alone,  but  to  the  inherited  system  of  his  age,  which  had  not  yet 
emerged  from  the  traditions  of  the  Romish  pseudo-theocracy.  The 
burning  of  Servetus  was  fully  approved  by  all  the  Reformers — Beza, 
Farel,  Bucer,  Bullinger,  even  the  mild  and  gentle  Melanchthon.1  If 
Romanists  condemned  Calvin,  they  did  it  from  hatred  of  the  man,  and 
condemned  him  for  following  their  own  example  even  in  this  particu- 
lar case.  The  public  opinion  of  Christendom  at  that  time  and  down  to 
the  eighteenth  century  justified  the  right  and  duty  of  civil  government 
not  only  to  protect  but  to  support  orthodoxy,  and  to  punish  heresy  by 
imprisonment,  exile,  and  death  ;  and  this  right  was  exercised,  with  more 
or  less  severity,  in  all  countries  of  Europe,  and  even  in  Puritan  New 
England  during  the  colonial  period.  Protestants  differed  from  Ro- 
manists only  in  their  definition  of  heresy,  and  by  greater  moderation 
in  its  punishment.  Protestants  complained  of  being  iiinocently  per- 
secuted in  France,  Spain,  Holland,  and  under  the  bloody  Mary  in 
England ;  and  Catholics  raised  the  same  complaint  against  the  sys- 
tematic cruelty  of  the  penal  code  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  which  looked 
to  the  utter  extermination  of  Romanism  and  Puritanism  alike. 

A  protest  against  the  principle  of  persecution,  first  raised  by  Jus- 
tin Martyr  and  Tertullian  in  the  early  Church,  but  forgotten  as  soon 
as  the  Church  ascended  the  throne  of  the  Csesars,  was  revived  by 
heretical  Anabaptists  and  Socinians,  who  themselves  suffered  from  it, 
without  having  a  chance  to  persecute  their  persecutors,  and  who  thus 
became  martyrs  of  religious  freedom.  All  honor  to  them,  even  to  Ser- 
vetus, for  the  service  they  rendered  under  this  view  to  future  genera- 
tions. Liberty  is  the  sweet  fruit  of  bitter  persecution.  During  the 
seventeenth  century  this  feeble  and  isolated  protest  was  considerably 
strengthened  by  Arminians,  Baptists,  and  Quakers  for  the  same  reason  : 
and  during  the  eighteenth  century  Christian  liberality  and  philanthro- 
py on  the  one  hand,  and  religious  indifferentism  and  infidelity  on  the 
other,  made  such  progress  that  the  doctrinal  foundations  of  persecu- 
tion were  gradually  undermined,  and  toleration  (as  it  was  first  pat* 

1  It  may  be  questioned  whether  Zwingli  nnd  Lather,  had  they  lived,  would  have  sanctioned 
the  execution;  their  impulses  at  least  were  more  liberal.  With  all  his  polemic  violence 
in  argument,  Luther  disapproved  of  the  shocking  cruelties  against  the  Anabaptists  in  Ger- 
many, and  said  that  'on  this  plan,  the  hangman  would  he  the  best  theologian.' 


±GQ  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ronizingly  and  condescendingly  called,  and  is  still  called  in  despotic 
countries)  became  the  professed  policy  of  civilized  governments.  But 
this  is  not  enough :  all  Christian  governments  should  legally  recognize 
and  protect  liberty  of  conscience,  as  an  inherent  and  inalienable  right 
of  every  immortal  soul ;  and  this  requires  for  its  full  realization  a 
peaceful  separation  of  Church  and  State,  or  an  equality  of  all  de- 
nominations before  the  law. 

In  view  of  this  radical  revolution  of  public  opinion  on  the  subject 
of  persecution,  it  becomes  a  practical  question  whether  those  sections 
of  the  Protestant  confessions  of  faith  which  treat  of  the  relation  of 
Church  and  State  should  not  be  reconstructed  and  adapted  to  the 
principle  of  religious  freedom,  all  the  more  since  the  Papal  Syllabus 
has  consistently  condemned  it,  as  being  one  of  the  errors  of  modern 
times.  Such  a  change,  at  all  events,  is  necessary  in  the  United  States, 
and  has  actually  been  made  in  the  American  revision  of  the  Thirty- 
Nine  Articles,  and  of  the  Westminster  Confession. 

The  principle  of  religious  liberty  does  not  necessarily,  as  was  for- 
merly supposed,  imply  indifference  to  truth  or  a  weakening  of  intensity 
of  conviction.  It  follows  legitimately  from  a  sharper  discrimination 
between  the  secular  and  spiritual  sphere,  between  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testaments,  between  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
and  from  the  spirit  and  example  of  Him  who  said, 'My  kingdom  is 
not  of  this  world,'  and  who  commanded  the  carnal-minded  Peter  to 
'put  up  his  sword  into  the  sheath.'  God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  con- 
science, and  allows  no  one  with  impunity  to  interfere  with  his  sov- 
ereign right.  Religion  flourishes  best  in  the  atmosphere  of  freedom, 
and  need  not  fear  error  as  long  as  truth  is  left  free  to  combat  it. 

It  is  nevertheless  true  that  Calvinism,  by  developing  the  power  of 
self-government  and  a  manly  spirit  of  independence  which  fears  no 
man,  though  seated  on  a  throne,  because  it  fears  God,  the  only  sover- 
eign, has  been  one  of  the  chief  agencies  in  bringing  about  this  prog- 
ress, and  that  civil  and  religious  liberty  triumphed  first  and  most 
completely  in  Calvinistic  countries.  'Calvin,'  says  Guizot, 'is  un- 
doubtedly one  of  those  who  did  most  towards  the  establishment  of 
religious  liberty.' 


58.  THE  CATECHISM  OF  GENEVA,  1536  AND  1541.  4G7 


§  5S.  The  Catechism  of  Geneva.     A.D.  1536  and  1541. 
Literature, 

Caj.vini  Opera,  ed.  Return,  Ciuiitz,  ami  Rcuss,  Vol.  V.  (1866),  pp.  818-862  (the  first  draft,  or  Catechismus 
prior,  153S) ;  Vol.  VI.  (1S67),  pp.  1-1G0  (the  second  catechism,  in  French  and  Latin). 

Nikmkyku,  pp.  123-190  (the  Latin  text  of  the  Larger  Catechism,  together  with  the  prayers  and  litur- 
gical forms) ;  comp.  his  Proleg.  pp.  xxxvii.-xli. 

The  German  text  of  the  Larger  Catechism  in  Bf.ok  (Vol.  I.  pp.  20S-292),  and  Bucket,  (pp.  127-172). 

An  English  translation,  probably  by  the  same  Marian  exiles  who  prepared  the  'Geneva  Bible,'  ap- 
peared first  at  Geneva,  155(5 ;  then  in  Edinburgh,  1504;  and  is  reprinted  in  Udni.op's  Confessions,  Vol.  II. 
pp.  139-272;  also  in  Hokatitjs  Bonae:  Catechisms  of  the  Scotch  lief urmation  (Loud.lSCO),  pp.  4-^8.  It  is 
divided  into  fifty-five  Sundays. 

Stauei.in  :  Joh.  Calvin,Xo\.  I.  pp.  124  sqq. 

The  commanding  influence  of  Calvin's  theology  and  Church  polity 
is  manifest  in  all  the  leading  confessions  of  the  Reformed  Churches, 
especially  the  French,  Dutch,  and  Scotch,  also  in  the  Lambeth  Arti- 
cles, the  Irish  Articles,  and  the  "Westminster  Standards.  But  the  con- 
fessions which  he  himself  prepared  were  intended,  like  those  of  Zwin- 
gli,  for  local  and  temporary  rather  than  general  purposes,  and  possess 
only  a  secondary  authority.  These  are  the  Geneva  Catechism,  the 
Zurich  Consensus,  and  the  Geneva  Consensus.1 

Calvin,  like  Luther  and  other  Reformers,  did  not  consider  it  beneath 
his  dignity,  but  rather  a  duty  and  a  privilege,  to  utilize  his  profound 
learning  for  the  benefit  of  children  by  adapting  it  to  their  simplicity. 
He  made  general  education  and  catechetical  instruction  the  basis  of 
the  republic.2 

During  his  first  residence  at  Geneva  (153G),  he  prepared  a  cate- 
chism, in  the  French  language,  together  with  a  form  of  discipline,  as 
a  basis  of  instruction  for  the  newly  reformed  Church  of  that  city.3  It 
is  a  brief  summary  of  the  Christian  religion,  a  popular  extract  from 
his  'Institutes.'  It  treats,  in  fifty-eight  sections  (but  not  in  the  form 
of  question  and  answer),  of  the  religious  constitution  of  man,  the  dis- 
tinction between  false  and  true  religion,  the  knowledge  of  God,  the 

1  They  were  not  included  in  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma  Confessionum.  which  appeared  in 
Geneva. 

a  George  Bancroft  calls  Calvin  'the  father  of  popular  education,  the  inventor  of  the  system 
of  free  schools.' — Liter,  and  Histov.  Miscellanies,  p.  400. 

3  The  Latin  translation  has  hecn  recently  republished  by  the  Strashurg  editors  from  a  Basle 
edition  :  tCaterhismus,sive  Christianas  Religionis  institutio,  communibus  rcnalie  nuper  in  Evan- 
gelio  Genevensis  Ecclenm  suffragiis  recepta  et  vul'jari  quidem  prius  idiomate,  nunc  vero  Latine 
eliam  .  .  .  in  lucem  edita.  Joanne  Calvino  autore.  Basilar,  A.  M.D.XXXVIU.1  See 
the  Prolegomena  to  Opera,  Vol.  V.  pp.  xli.  sqq.  The  French  original,  which  was  probably 
printed  at  Geneva,  1586,  seems  to  have  been  lost. 


468  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

original  state  of  man,  free-will,  sin  and  death,  the  way  of  salvation,  the 
law  of  God,  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  sum  of  the  law  (Matt.  xxii. 
37),  the  aim  of  the  law,  faith  in  Christ,  election  and  predestination,  the 
nature  of  faith,  justification  and  sanctification,  repentance  and  regener- 
ation, faith  and  good  works,  an  exposition  of  the  articles  of  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed,  and  the  petitions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  sacraments  of 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Church,  human  traditions,  excom- 
munication, and  the  civil  magistrate.  Then  follows  a  short  confession 
of  faith,  in  twenty-one  articles,  extracted  from  the  Catechism,  which 
was  to  be  binding  upon  all  the  citizens  of  Geneva — probably  the  first 
instance  of  a  formal  pledge  to  a  symbolical  book  in  the  history  of  the 
Reformed  Church.1 

After  his  return  from  Strasburg  Calvin  rewrote  the  Catechism  on 
a  larger  scale,  and  arranged  in  questions  and  answers:  the  catechist 
drawing  out  the  information,  and  the  pupil  or  child  seeming  to  teach 
the  master.  It  was  prepared  in  great  haste,  for  the  printer  demand- 
ed copy  without  giving  him  time  to  revise  it.  He  often  desired  to 
perfect  the  book,  but  found  no  time.2  It  appeared  in  French,  1541 
or  1542,3  in  Latin,  1545,4  and  very  often.  It  was  also  translated  into 
Italian  (1551  and  1556),  Spanish  (1550),  English  (1556),  German,  Dutch, 
Hungarian,  even  into  Greek  and  Hebrew.5     It  was  used  for  a  long 

1  '  Confessio  Fidei,  in  quam  jurare  cives  omnes  Genevenses  et  qui  sub  civitatis  ejus  dilione 
agunt,  jussi  sunt:  excerpta  e  Catechismo  quo  utitur  Ecclesia  Geneve/isis.'  It  begins  with  the 
Word  of  God  and  ends  with  the  magistrate.  It  seems  to  have  been  drawn  up  before  the 
Catechism,  immediately  after  the  disputation  at  Lausanne,  for  Deza  says :  '  Tunc  edita  est  a 
Caloino  Christiana;  doctrinal  qucedam  veluti  formula,  vixdum  emergenti  e  papatus  sordibus 
Gcnevensi  Ecclesia'  accommodata.     Addidit  etiam  Catechismum,'  etc. 

s  So  he  said  himself  on  his  death-bed;  see  Stahelin,  Vol.  II.  p.  4G7. 

3  'Ze  Cateckisme  de  VEglise  de  Geneve,  e'est  a  dire  le  Formulaire  d'instruire  les  enfans  en 
la  Chrestienti fail  en  maniere  de  dialogue  ou  le  ministre  interrogue  et  Fenfant  respond.'  The 
oldest  copy  extant  was  found  in  the  ducal  library  at  Gotlia,  printed  1545.  On  other  editions, 
see  the  Prolegomena  to  Opera,  Vol.  VI. 

4  'Catechismus  Ecclesia  Genevensis,  hoc  est,  Formula  erudiendi  pueros  in  doctrina 
Christi.  Autore  Joanne  Calviiw.'  The  Preface  to  the  Latin  edition  is  dated  'Geneva?, 
4  Calendas  Decembris,  1 515.'  The  Strasburg  editors  give  the  French  and  Latin  texts  of  1545 
in  parallel  columns,  Vol.  VI.  pp.  8-150.     In  many  editions  Calvin's  Liturgy  is  added. 

5  Eeza,  in  Vita,  ad  ann.  1541 :  '  Scrijtsit  Catechismuin  Gal/ice  et  Latine,  ab  illo  priore  mi- 
nitne  discrepantem,  sed  multo  auctiorem,  et  in  qua'stiones  ac  responsiones  distributum :  quern 
inert  to  nobis  liceat  admirandum  quoddam  opus  vocare,  tantopere  plurimis  eliarn  exleris  populis 
probation,  ut  non  modo  vernaculis plurimis  Unguis,  utpote  Germanica,  Anglica,  Scotica,  Belgica, 
Sispanica,  sed  etiam  Hebraice  ab  Tmmanuele  Tremellio  Judao  Christiano,  et  Greece  ab  Henrico 
Slephano  legatur  elegant  isshne  conversus.'  The  title  of  the  Greek  translation  is,  SrotxHWff'C 
rrjc  Xpiortavwv  irioreuc,  r)  Karrix^poc,  Kara  rt)v  iraXatav  ivopaoiav.     Greece  et  Latine,  15G3. 


§  58.  THE  CATECHISM  OF  GENEVA,  1586  AND  1341.  4G9 

time  in  Reformed  Churches  and  schools,  especially  in  France  and 
Scotland,  and  served  a  good  purpose  in  promoting  an  intelligent  piety 
and  virtue  on  the  solid  basis  of  systematic  Biblical  instruction.  Edu- 
cational religion,  which  grows  with  our  growth,  is  the  most  substantial, 
and  must  ever  be  the  main  reliance  of  the  Church. 

The  object  of  this  work,  as  explained  in  the  preface,  was  to  restore 
the  catechetical  instruction  of  the  ancient  Church,  so  sadly  neglected 
by  the  Papists,  who  substituted  for  it  the  ceremony  of  confirmation, 
and  to  secure  greater  unity  of  faith  and  doctrine  in  the  scattered  Re- 
formed congregations.  Calvin  showed  his  churchly  tact  in  making  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  the  Lord's  Prayer  the 
basis.  The  leading  idea  is  man's  relation  to  God,  and  his  heavenly 
destination.  The  whole  is  divided  into  five  parts,  as  follows:  1.  Of 
Faith — an  exposition  of  the  Creed  (which  here,  as  in  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  precedes  the  Ten  Commandments,  while  in  the  earlier 
Catechism  of  Calvin  the  opposite  order  was  observed) ;]  2.  Of  the  Law, 
or  the  Ten  Commandments;  3.  Of  Prayer;  4.  Of  the  Word  of  God; 
5.  Of  the  Sacraments.  In  the  French  edition  the  Catechism  is  divided 
into  fifty-five  lessons,  for  the  fifty-two  Sundays  of  the  year  and  the 
three  great  festivals — a  method  followed  in  the  later  editions  of  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism.2 

Calvin's  Catechism  is  fuller  than  Luther's,  but  less  popular  and 
childlike.  It  prepared  the  way  and  furnished  material  for  a  num- 
ber of  similar  works,  which  have  gradually  superseded  it,  especially 
the  Anglican  (Xowell's),  the  Ileidelberg,  and  the  Westminster  Cate- 
chisms. The  Anglican  Catechism  is  much  shorter  and  more  church- 
ly in  taking  its  starting-point  from  Baptism.  The  first  question  of 
the  Westminster  Catechism  makes  the  glory  of  God  'the  chief  end 
of  man,'  and  is  a  happy  condensation  of  the  first  three  questions  of 

1  He  made  the  Apostles'  Creed  the  basis  of  his  'Catechism' and  'Institutes,' not  because  he 
believed  it  to  be  literally  the  product  of  the  Apostles,  but  because  it  is  a  faithful  summary 
of  their  teaching  ('ex  eorum  scriptisfideliter  collecta,'  ltir€  de  la  pure  dd&titti  tipostoKqu*'\ 
and  a  formula  which  best  expresses  the  common  Christian  faith  {'formula  confession's,  quam 
inter-  se  communem  habent  C/iristiuni  otnnes'). 

3  The  distribution  into  Sundays  appeals  first  in  the  French  edition  of  1548,  which  has  a 
'  Table  pour  trouver  le  lint  du  CaUrldsme  que  le  Ministre  explique.  un  chasrun  Uimanche.'  See 
Opera,  Vol.  VI.  Prolerj.  p.  x.  The  First  Book  of  Discipline  of  Scotland  ( 1  .".Co),  eh.ll,  directs  the 
ministers  to  teach  the  children  Calvin's  Catechism— '  the  most  perfect  that  ever  yet  was  used 
in  the  Kirk'— every  Sunday  afternoon  in  the  presence  of  the  people.    See  Konar,  1.  c.  pp.  .3,  4. 


470  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Calvin.1  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  begins  more  subjectively  with 
'the  only  comfort  of  man  in  life  and  in  death/  herein  betraying  its 
German  origin ;  but  this  also  was  suggested  by  the  next  questions  of 
Calvin  concerning  the  highest  good  or  felicity  of  man  and  the  firm 
foundation  of  our  salvation.  Otherwise  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  ad- 
heres to  the  order  of  the  Genevan  more  closely  than  the  Westminster, 
by  retaining,  as  a  basis  of  the  dogmatic  section,  the  Apostles'  Creed 
(which  the  Westminster  Catechism  merely  adds  as  an  appendix).2 

Guizot  gives  the  preference  to  Calvin's  Catechism  over  those  modern 
ones  which  begin  with  speculative  questions  on  the  nature  and  exist- 
ence of  God.  '  Calvin,'  he  says,3 '  proceeds  in  a  very  different  maimer ; 
he  does  not  seek  God — he  knows  him,  possesses  him,  and  takes  God  as 
his  starting-point.  God  the  Creator,  man  his  creature,  and  the  relation 
of  man  to  God — these  form  the  fundamental  facts  and  natural  basis  of 
the  history,  doctrines,  and  laws  of  Christianity.  Calvin's  Catechism 
commences  thus:  "What  is  the  chief  end  of  human  life?"  "To  know 
God."  And  this  first  assertion  is  the  mainspring  of  all  the  principles 
and  religious  duties  which  are  afterwards  presented,  not  as  the  dis- 
coveries of  the  human  mind,  but  as  communications  made  by  God  in 
order  to  meet  man's  aspirations,  and  enable  him  to  regulate  his  life. 
It  is  neither  a  scientific  method,  nor  is  the  Catechism  a  philosophical 
work ;  it  contains  the  assertion  of  a  real,  immemorial,  universal,  and 
historical  fact,  and  explains  the  consequences  of  that  fact.     It  is  the 


Westminster  Shorter  Catechism. 
1st  Ques.  What  is  the  chief  end  of  man? 
Ans.  Mans  chief  end  is  to  glorify  God,  and 
to  enjoy  him  forever. 


1  Calvin's  Catechism. 
Min.  Quis  humanai  vita?  pra-ci/mus  est  finis? 
Puer.  Ut  Deum,  a  quo  conditi  sunt  ho- 
mines, IPSI  NOVERINT. 

Min.  Quid  causce  habes,  cur  hoc  dicas  ? 
Puer.  Quoniam  nos  it>eo  creavit  et  col- 

LOCAVIT  IN  HOC  MUNDO,  QUO  GLORIFICETUR 
IN  NOI1IS.  Et  SANE  VITAM  NOSTRAM,  CUJUS 
IPSE  EST  INITIUM,  JEQUUM  EST  IN  EJUS  GLO- 
RIAM  REFERRI. 

Min.  Quod  vero  est  suvimum  bonum  hominis? 

Puer.  Illud  ipsum. 

5  Comp.  Karl  Sudhof:  Olevianus  und  Ursinus  (1857),  pp.  88  sqq.  Calvin  is  also  respon- 
sible for  the  unhistorical  interpretation  of  Christ's  descent  into  Hades,  by  which  he  under- 
stood the  anticipation  of  the  sufferings  of  hell  in  Gethsemane  and  on  the  Cross.  This  is 
quite  inconsistent  with  the  position  of  this  article  between  the  burial  and  the  resurrection. 
The  Westminster  Catechism  falls  into  another  error  by  making  it  mean  simply,  'He  continued 
in  the  state  of  the  dead  and  under  the  power  of  death  till  the  third  day.' 

3  St.  Louis  and  Calvin,  p.  348. 


§  59.  THE  CONSENSUS  OF  ZURICH,  1549.  471 

natural  and  legitimate  method  of  imparting  religious  instruction,  in- 
herent in  the  very  first  principle  of  all  religion ;  it  is  especially  in  har- 
mony with  the  origin  and  history  of  Christianity,  and  no  one  has  ever 
recognized  its  power  or  proved  its  efficacy  more  fully  than  Calvin.' 

§  59.  The  Consensus  of  Zurich.     A.D.  1549. 

Literature. 

I.  Consensu)  Mctita  in  re  saoramentaria  nn'nistrorum  Tigfrin.e  Ecclesi.e  et  J.  Calvini  ministri 
Gf.nevensis  Eocliosi.e  jam  mine  ab  ipsis  avtoribus  edita.  Tiguri,  1549.  Iu  Qp0ra,Vdl.VII.  pp.  GS9-74S. 
Comp.  Prolog,  pp.  xliv.  sqq.     Defensio  sance  et  orthodoxee  de  sacramentis  eorumque  vi,  fine,  et  um,  et 

fntrtit  quam  pastures  et  ministri  Tigurince  eeelesiat  et  Genevensis  antehac  brevi  Consensiunis  mutuce 
formula  complexi  sunt  Johanne  Calvino  autore,  Tiguri,  1555,  iu  Opera,  Vol.  IX.  pp.  1-40.  The  same 
volume  contains  the  later  eucharistic  tracts  of  Calviu  agaiust  the  attacks  of  Joachim  Westphal  (155G 
aud  155")  and  Tilemann  Heshusius  (1561). 

The  Consensus  Tigurinus  with  Calvin's  Exposition  is  also  reprinted  iu  Niemeyer's  Collect,  pp.  191-217; 
a  German  translation  (in  part)  in  Beck  and  Biickel. 

II.  On  the  History  of  the  Zurich  Consensus,  see  Calvin's  correspondence  with  Bullinger,  154S  aud  1549, 
Opera,  Vols.  XII.  and  XIII.  Hitndesiiaoen  :  Confiicte  des  Ztcinglianismus,etc.;  Henry:  Calvin,  Vol.  II. 
pp.  12S  sqq.;  Ekrabd:  Das  Dogma  vom  heil.  A  bendmahl,  Vol.  II.  pp.  4S4-524 ;  Pestalozzi:  Bullinger, 
pp.  373-3b7;  Stauelin:  Calvin,  Vol.  II.  pp.  112-124. 

In  the  sacramental  controversy — the  most  violent,  distracting,  and 
unprofitable  in  the  history  of  the  Reformation — Calvin  stood  midway 
between  Luther  and  Zwingli,  and  endeavored  to  unite  the  elements  of 
truth  on  both  sides,  in  his  theory  of  a  spiritual  real  presence  and  frui- 
tion of  Christ  by  faith.1  This  satisfied  neither  the  rigid  Lutherans  nor 
the  rigid  Zwinglians.  The  former  could  see  no  material  difference 
between  Calvin  and  Zwingli,  since  both  denied  the  literal  interpreta- 
tion of  'this  is  my  body,'  and  a  corporeal  presence  and  manducation. 
The  latter  suspected  Calvin  of  leaning  towards  Lutheran  consubstan- 
tiation  and  working  into  the  hands  of  Bucer,  who  had  made  himself 
obnoxious  by  his  facile  compromises  and  ill-concealed  concessions  to 
the  Lutheran  view  in  the  Wittenberg  Concordia  (1536). 

The  wound  was  reopened  by  Luther's  fierce  attack  on  the  Zwin- 
glians (1545),  and  their  sharp  reply.  Calvin  was  displeased  with  both 
parties,  and  counselled  moderation.  It  was  very  desirable  to  harmo- 
nize the  teaching  of  the  Swiss  Churches.  Bullinger,  who  first  ad- 
vanced beyond  the  original  Zwinglian  ground,  and  appreciated  the 
deeper  theology  of  Calvin,  sent  him  his  book  on  the  Sacraments,  in 
manuscript  (1540),  with  the  request  to  express  his  opinion.  Calvin 
did  this  with  great  frankness,  and  a  degree  of  censure  which  at  first 


1  See  §  57,  pp.  ±00  sqq. 

Vol.  I.— II  11 


472  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

irritated  Bullinger.  Then  followed  a  correspondence  and  personal 
conference  at  Zurich,  which  resulted  in  a  complete  union  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  and  Zwinglian  sections  of  the  Swiss  Churches  on  this  vexed 
subject,  The  negotiations  reflect  great  credit  on  both  parties,  and 
reveal  an  admirable  spirit  of  frankness,  moderation,  forbearance,  and 
patience,  which  triumphed  over  all  personal  sensibilities  and  irrita- 
tions.1 

The  first  draft  of  the  Consensus  Tigurinus,  from  November,  1548, 
consists  of  twenty-four  brief  propositions  drawn  up  by  Calvin,  with 
annotations  by  Bullinger,  to  which  Calvin  responded  in  January,  1549. 
They  assert  that  the  Sacraments  are  not  in  and  of  themselves  effective 
and  conferring  grace,  but  that  God,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  acts 
through  them  as  means ;  that  the  internal  effect  appears  only  in  the 
elect ;  that  the  good  of  the  Sacraments  consists  in  leading  us  to  Christ, 
and  being  instruments  of  the  grace  of  God,  which  is  sincerely  offered 
to  all ;  that  in  baptism  we  receive  the  remission  of  sins,  although  this 
proceeds  primarily  not  from  baptism,  but  from  the  blood  of  Christ ; 
that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  we  eat  and  drink  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  not,  however,  by  means  of  a  carnal  presence  of  Christ's  hu- 
man nature,  which  is  in  heaven,  but  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  the  devout  elevation  of  our  soul  to  heaven.2 

In  the  month  of  March  Calvin  sent  twenty  Articles  to  the  Synod 
of  Berne,3  but  in  this  canton  there  was  strong  opposition  to  Calvin's 
rigorism,  which  subsided  only  after  his  death.4 

In  May,  1549,  he  had,  in  company  with  Farel,  a  personal  interview 
with  Bullinger  in  Zurich  at  his  cordial  invitation,  and  drew  up  the 
Consensus  as  it  now  stands,  in  Twenty-six  Articles.  It  was  published 
in  1551  at  Zurich  and  at  Geneva.5  It  contains  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine, adjusted  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  Zwinglian  in  its  advanced 
form,  but  with  a  disturbing  predestinarian  restriction  of  the  sacra- 


1  See  the  details  in  Ebrard,  Pestnlozzi,  and  Stahelin,  who  speak  in  the  highest  terms  of  the 
truly  Christian  spirit  which  characterized  the  two  leaders  of  the  Swiss  Reformation. 

2  Opera,  Vol.  VII.  pp.  093  sqq. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  717  sqq. 

4  See  Ilundeshagen,  and  Stahelin,  Vol.  II.  pp.  12o  sqq.     Calvin  complained  on  his  death- 
bed of  the  ill-treatment  he  had  repeatedly  received  from  the  government  of  Berne. 

6  Opera,  Vol.  VII.  pp.  733  sqq.     These  Twenty-six  Articles  alone  are  given,  with  Calvin's 
Exposition  of  1634,  in  Niemeyer's  Collectlo,  pp.  11)1-217. 


§  59.  THE  CONSENSUS  OF  ZURICH,  1549.  473 

mental  grace  to  the  elect.1  The  truth  of  the  Zwinglian  view  is  fully 
acknowledged  in  opposition  to  transubstantiation  and  consubstantia- 
tion,  but  the  real  life  union  with  Christ  in  the  sacrament  is  as  clearly 
asserted,  and  made  still  more  plain  in  the  'Exposition'  of  the  Consen- 
sus which  Calvin  wrote  four  years  afterwards  (1554:).  '  The  Sacra- 
ments,' he  declares,  'are  helps  and  media  {adminicula  et  media),  by 
which  we  are  either  inserted  into  the  body  of  Christ,  or  being  so  in- 
serted coalesce  with  it  more  and  more,  till  he  unites  us  with  himself 
in  full  in  the  heavenly  life.  .  .  .  The  Sacraments  are  neither  empty 
figures,  nor  outward  badges  merely  of  piety,  but  seals  of  the  promises 
of  God,  attestations  of  spiritual  grace  for  cherishing  and  confirming 
faith,  organs  also  by  which  God  efficaciously  works  in  his  elect.'2 

The  Consensus  was  adopted  by  the  Churches  of  Zurich,  Geneva, 
St.  Gall,  Schaffhausen,  the  Grisons,  Neuchatel,  and,  after  some  hesita- 
tion, by  Basle,  and  was  favorably  received  in  France,  England,  and  parts 
of  Germany.  Melanchthon  declared  to  Lavater  (Bullinger's  son-in-law) 
that  he  then  for  the  first  time  understood  the  Swiss,  and  would  never 
again  write  against  them ;  but  he  erased  those  passages  of  the  Con- 
sensus which  made  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  depend  on  election. 

"While  the  Consensus  brought  peace  and  harmony  to  the  Swiss 
Churches,  it  was  violently  assailed  by  Joachim  Westphal,  of  Hamburg 
(1552),  in  the  interest  of  the  ultra-Lutheran  party  in  Germany,  and 
became  the  innocent  occasion  of  the  second  sacramental  war,  which 
has  been  noticed  in  the  section  on  the  Formula  Concordia^.3 

'  Art.  XVI.  lPra>terea  sedulo  docemus,  Deum  non  promiscue  vim  suatn  exserere  in  omnibus 
qui  sacramenta  recipiunt:  sed  tantum  in  electis.  Nam  quemadmodum  non  alios  injidem  illu- 
minate quam  quos  prceordinavit  ad  vitam,  ita  arcana  Spiritus  sui  virtute  ej/icit,  ut  percipiant 
electi  quod  offerunt  sacramenta.'  Yet  this  is  qualified  in  Art.  XVIII.  'Cerium  quidem  est, 
offeri  communiter  omnibus  Christum  cum  suis  donis,  nee  hominum  injidelitate  labefactari  Dei 
veritatem,  quin  semper  vim  suam  retineant  sacramenta :  sed  non  omnes  Christi  et  donorum  ejus 
sunt  capaces.  Itaque  ex  Dei  parte  nihil  mutatur :  quantum  vero  ad  homines  sjiectat,  quisque 
profidei  suce  mensura  accipit.'  Sec  the  lengthy  discussion  of  Ebrard,  1.  c.  pp.  503  Bqq.  He 
fully  adopts  the  doctrine  of  the  Consensus  with  the  exception  of  the  predestinarian  restriction, 
which,  however,  is  inseparable  from  the  Calvinistic  system,  as  formerly  held  by  Ebrard  him- 
self. 

2  'Sacramenta  neque  inanes  cssefgnras  neque  externa  tantum  pietatis  insignia,  sed promis- 
sionum  Dei  sigi/la,  testimonia  spirit»alis  grat'ue  ad  fidem  fovendam  et  conjirmandam,  item 
organa  esse  quibus  efficaciter  agit  Deus  in  suis  electis,  ideoque,  licet  a  rebus  signatis  distincta 
sint  signa,  non  tamen  disjungi  ac  separari,'  etc.     Niemeyer,  p.  204. 

3  See  pp.  279  sqq.  A  full  account  of  the  controversy  of  Calvin  with  Westphal  is  given  by 
Ebrard,  Vol.  II.  pp.  525  sqq.,  and  by  Nevin  in  the  Mercersburg  Review  for  1850,  pp.  486  sqq. 


474  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


§  GO.  The  Consensus  of  Geneva.     A.D.  1552. 

Literature. 

I.  De  jetebwa  Dei  pk.kdestinatione  qua  in  salutem  alios  ex  hominibus  elegit,  alios  suo  exitio  reliquit; 
item  de  providentia  qua  res  humanaa  gubernat,  Consensus  pastorum  Genevensis  Eeclesioe  a  Jo.  Calviiio 
expositus.  Genevae,  1552.  Reprinted  in  the  Opera,  Vol.  VIII.  (1S70),  pp.  249-3GG.  Also  in  Niemeyek, 
pp.  21S-310.    The  German  text  in  Bookel  (Die  Genfer  Uebereinkunft),  pp.  182-2S0. 

II.  Alex.  Schweizek:  Die  Protest.  Centraldogmen  der  Reform.  Kirche,Yo\.  I.  (1854),pp.lS0-23S;  Henky, 
Vol.  II.  p.  285 ;  Vol.  III.  pp.  40  sqq. ;  Stahelin,  Vol.  II.  (1803),  pp.  2T1-30S,  and  Vol.  I.  pp.  411  sqq. 

Calvin's  doctrine  of  predestination1  met  with  strong  opposition,  which 
drew  from  him  some  able  defenses. 

The  first  assault  came  from  an  eminent  Roman  Catholic  divine, 
Albertus  Pighius,  1542,  who  taught  the  freedom  of  will  almost  to  the 
extent  of  Pelagianism,  and  conditioned  predestination  by  foreknowl- 
edge.2 Calvin  wrote  a  reply  to  the  first  part  (1543),  and  dedicated 
it  to  Melanchthon,  who  in  the  second  article  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession had  expressed  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  total  depravity.3 

A  more  troublesome  opponent  was  Jerome  Bolsec,  formerly  a  Car- 
melite monk  from  Paris,  then  a  fugitive  Protestant  and  physician  at 
Geneva  and  Lausanne,  a  restless  and  turbulent  spirit.  He  denounced 
Calvin's  doctrine  of  predestination  as  godless  and  blasphemous,  and 
tried  to  break  down  his  influence,  but  was  publicly  refuted  and  ad- 
monished, and  at  last  expelled  from  Geneva  (1551)  and  from  Berne 
(1555).  He  returned  to  France  and  to  the  Roman  Church  (1563),  and 
thirteen  years  after  Calvin's  death  he  took  cruel  revenge  by  a  shame- 
less and  malignant  libel  (1577  and  1588),  long  since  refuted.4 

These  attacks  were  the  occasion  of  the  Co?isensus  Genevensis,  which 

1  See  §  57,  pp.  450  sqq. 

-  Pighius  of  Campen  (d.  at  Utrecht,  Dec.  26,1542)  wrote  against  Luther  and  Calvin  De 
libera  hominis  arbitrio  et  divina  gratia,  Colon.  1542,  dedicated  to  Cardinal  Sadolet.  This 
book  was  first  greatly  lauded  by  the  Romanists,  but  after  the  Council  of  Trent  had  fixed  its 
more  cautious  doctrine  of  free-will  and  condemned  semi-Pelagianism,  it  was  put  by  the  Span- 
ish Inquisition  on  the  Index  of  forbidden  books. 

3  Defensio  sana;  et  orthodoxa.  doctrinal  de  servitute  et  liberatione  humani  arbitrii  adv. 
calumnias  A.  Pighii  Campensis,  Genevas,  1543.     0/>era,Vo\.  VI.  pp.  225-404. 

4  On  Bolsec,  see  Bayle,  Diet.;  Henry,  Calv.  Vol.  HI.  pp.  48  sqq. ;  Trechsel,  Antitrini- 
tarier,  Vol.  I.  pp.  185  sqq. ;  Baum,  Beza,  Vol.  I.  pp.  100  sqq. ;  and  especially  Schweizer,  1.  c. 
pp.  205-238.  It  is  a  sad  fact  that  the  blind  zeal  of  modern  Romanism  has  repeatedly  re- 
published the  libel  of  Bolsec,  with  its  wicked  and  absurd  charges  of  theft,  adultery,  unnat- 
ural crimes,  blasphemy,  insanity,  and  invocations  of  the  devil.  See  Audin's  biography  of 
Calvin,  which  has  gone  through  six  editions  in  French  (also  translated  into  German  and 
English),  and  several  popular  polemic  tracts,  published  by  the  Society  of  St.  Francis  of  Sales, 
of  which  Stahelin  gives  some  specimens,  Vol.  I.  p.  414. 


§  GO.  THE  CONSENSUS  OF  GENEVA,  1552.  475 

first  appeared  at  Geneva,  1552,  in  the  name  of  the  pastors  of  that  city. 
Calvin  contemptuously  alludes  in  the  preface  to  Bolsec,  but  without 
naming  him,  and  directs  his  attack  mainly  against  Pighius  (whose 
doctrine  of  predestination  he  had  not  noticed  in  the  previous  work), 
and  a  certain  Gcorgius  of  Sicily  (whom  he  calls  an  ignorant  monk, 
more  deserving  of  contempt  than  persecution).  The  Consensus  is,  in 
fact,  the  second  part  of  his  controversial  treatise  against  Pighius  (the 
first  being  devoted  to  free-will).  It  is  an  elaborate  theological  argument 
for  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination,  as  the  only  solid  ground  of 
comfort  to  the  believer,  but  is  disfigured  by  polemical  violence,  and 
hence  unsuited  for  a  public  confession.  It  received  the  signatures  of 
the  pastors  of  Geneva  on  account  of  the  disturbances  created  by  Bolsec, 
but  was  not  intended  to  be  binding  for  future  generations.  Beyond 
Geneva  it  accmired  no  symbolical  authority.  The  attempt  to  enlist  the 
civil  government  in  favor  of  this  dogma  created  dissatisfaction  and  op- 
position in  Berne,  Basle,  and  Zurich.  Several  of  Calvin's  old  friends 
withdrew ;  Bullinger  counseled  peace  and  moderation  ;  Fabri,  of  Keu- 
chatel,  declared  the  decree  of  reprobation  untenable ;  Melanchthon, 
who  in  the  mean  time  had  changed  his  view  on  free-will  and  predes- 
tination, wrote  to  Peucer  that  Geneva  attempted  to  restore  Stoic  fa- 
talism, and  imprisoned  men  for  not  agreeing  with  Zeno.1 

The  dissatisfaction  was  increased  and  the  matter  complicated  by  the 
trial  and  execution  of  Servet  which  soon  followed  (1553),  and  by  the 
controversy  with  Castellio,  which  involved  likewise  the  doctrine  of 
predestination,  together  with  the  question  of  inspiration  and  the  canon. 
Sebastian  Castellio2  (1515-1563),  a  convert  from  Romanism,  a  classical 
philologist  of  unusual  ability  and  learning,  an  advocate  of  toleration, 

1  Bullinger  prepared,  March,  ir>,"3,  for  an  English  friend  (Barthol.  Traheron),  a  tract,  whose 
title  indicates  his  partial  dissent  from  Calvin:  ' De provident ia  Dei  ej  usque  prcedestinatione,  rt 
quodDeus  non  sit  auctor peccati,  .  .  .  in  quo  qua;  in  Calvini formulis  loquendi  circa  hue  improh  t. 
candide  et  copiose  satis  exponit,  3  Mart.  lf>r)3.'  (Appended  by  mistake  to  Peter  Martyr's  /.«<•(' 
communes,  Gen.  l(!2(j.  See  the  extracts  of  Schweizer  from  a  MS.  copy  in  Zurich,  Central- 
dogmen,\o\.  I.  pp.  2(!6  sqq.).  Bullinger  disapproved  of  the  BupralapBarian  assertion,  '  />>  vm 
non  modo  ruinam  (Japsnm)  praridisse  sed  etiam  arbitrio  sua  dispensasse.'  Nevertheless,  he 
called  Peter  Martyr,  who  was  a  strict  predestinarian,  to  Zurich,  took  sides  with  Zanchi  in  the 
Strasburg  controversy,  and  expressed  the  infralapsarian  view  in  the  Second  Helvetic  Confes- 
sion, Art.  X.  See  J.  II.  Ilottinger,  llistor.  cedes.  Vol.  VIII.  p.  723  ;  Schweizer,  pp.  237  and 
255  Bqq. 

a  Also  written  Castallio  (by  Calvin) ;  in  French,  Cltateilhn  and  Chutillon,  probably  from 
his  birth-place  in  Savoy. 


476  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  a  forerunner  of  Soeinianism  and  Rationalism,  was  received  by  Cal- 
vin into  his  house  at  Strasburg  (1540),  and  called  by  him  to  the  head 
of  the  college  at  Geneva  (Sept.,  1541),  but  was  refused  admission  to 
the  clergy  on  account  of  his  'profane  view'  of  the  Canticles,  which  he 
regarded  as  a  sensual  love-song.1  These  and  other  theological  differ- 
ences caused  his  resignation  or  dismissal  from  the  school,  though 
with  an  honorable  letter  of  recommendation  from  Calvin  (Feb.  17, 
1545).  He  removed  with  his  family  to  Basle,  and  spent  there  the 
remainder  of  his  life— for  eight  years  in  great  poverty,  supporting 
himself  by  literary  and  manual  labor,  then  as  professor  of  Greek  in 
the  University  (since  1553).  His  principal  work  is  a  Latin  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible  (1551),  which  was  much  praised  and  censured  for  its 
pedantic  Ciceronian  elegance.  He  attacked  Calvin  and  the  Church 
of  Geneva  very  bitterly  in  anonymous  and  pseudonymous  books,  to 
which  Calvin  and  Beza  replied  with  equal  bitterness.  In  his  'Dia- 
logue on  Predestination,'  he  charges  Calvin  with  making  God  the 
author  of  sin,  and  dividing  the  will  of  God  into  two  contradictory 
wills.  His  own  view  is  that  all  men  are  alike  created  in  God's  image 
and  for  salvation,  and  are  by  nature  the  sons  and  heirs  of  God ;  but 
that  final  salvation  depends  upon  faith  and  perseverance.  God  loves 
even  his  enemies,  else  he  could  not  command  us  to  love  them,  and 
would  be  worse  than  the  wild  beast,  which  loves  its  own  offspring. 
God's  foreknowledge  involves  no  necessity  of  human  actions:  things 
happen,  not  because  God  foreknew  them,  but  God  foreknew  them  be- 
cause they  were  to  happen.  God  wills  a  thing  because  it  is  right,  and 
not  vice  versa.  He  reasons  as  if  there  were  an  established  moral 
order  outside  and  independent  of  God.  He  compares  God  to  a  mu- 
sician who  unites  two  tunes  because  they  harmonize.  Christ  came  as 
a  physician  to  heal  all  the  sick,  and  if  some  remain  sick  it  is  because 
they  refuse  the  medicine.  The  famous  passage  about  Jacob  and  Esau 
(Rom.  ix.)  does  not  refer  to  these  individuals  (for  Jacob  never  served 
Esau),  but  to  the  nations  which  proceeded  from  them ;  and  '  to  hate' 
means  only  'to  love  less;'  moreover, Esau  was  not  foreordained  to  sell 
his  birthright,  but  he  did  this  by  his  own  guilt.     Paul  himself  says 


1  '  Carmen  lascivum  et  obscanum,  quo  Sulomo  impudicos  sues  amoves  descripserit.'    Castellio 
doubted  the  verbal  inspiration,  and  called  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  impure. 


§  CI.  THE  HELVETIC  CONSENSUS  FORMULA,  107:..  477 

that  God  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  that  'he  concluded  all  in 
unbelief,  that  he  might  have  mercy  upon  all.'  Castellio  died  a  few 
months  before  Calvin,  without  leaving  a  school  behind  him  ;  but  his 
ideas  were  afterwards  more  fully  developed  by  the  Socinians  and 
Arminians.1 

Notwithstanding  these  difficulties,  the  doctrine  of  predestination 
made  headway  in  the  Reformed  Church.  It  was  strongly  advo- 
cated in  Zurich  by  Peter  Martyr.  His  opponent,  Thcodor  Biblian- 
der  (Buchmann),  a  distinguished  Orientalist,  '  the  father  of  cxegetical 
theology  in  Switzerland,'  and  a  forerunner  of  Anninianism,  was  re- 
moved from  his  professorship  of  HebrewT  on  account  of  his  advo- 
cacy of  free-will  (1560),  though  his  salary  was  continued  to  his  death 
(loG'i).2  The  dogma  of  predestination  consolidated  the  Calvini&tic 
creed,  as  the  dogma  of  consubstantiation  consolidated  the  Lutheran 
creed.  Both  these  distinctive  dogmas  maintained  their  hold  on  the 
two  Churches  until  the  theological  revolution  towards  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century  began  to  undermine  the  whole  fabric  of  Protest- 
ant orthodoxy  and  to  clear  the  way  for  new  creations. 

§  01.  The  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula.     A.D.  1075. 


I.  Formula  Consensus  Ecclesiatcum  Helvetioarim  Reformatarum,  circa  Doctrinam  dc  Gratia  uni- 
versali  et  conncxa,aliaque  nonnulla  capita  {Kinheltioe  Fm  111  ul  tier  reform,  eidg.  Kirchen,  betreffend  die  Lehre, 
von  der  allgemeinen  Gnad  und  was  derselben  anliangct,  sodann  axich  ctliche  andere  lleligionspunktcn) . 
Composed  A.D.  1675;  first  printed  at  Zurich,  1714,  as  au  appendix  to  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession ;  then 
171S,  1722,  etc.,  in  Latin  and  German.  The  official  copy,  in  both  languages,  is  in  the  archives  of  Zurich. 
The  Latin  text  has  a  place  in  Niemeyer's  Collectio,  pp.  729-739  ;  the  German  text  in  Buckel,  pp.  34S-3G0. 

The  writings  of  Amykact,  Cappel,  and  La  Place;  their  friends,  Taul  Testaud,  Jean  Daille,  and 
David  Blonde:.  ;  their  opponents,  Pieref.  do  Moulin,  Fb.  Spaniieim,  and  Andbe  Ritbt;  and  the  de- 
cisions of  the  Synods  of  Ai.encon,  Ciiakenton,  and  Loudon  (1037-1059).    See  below. 

II.  J.  Jao.  IIottinuer  (d.  1735) :  Succincta  et  solida  ac  gemiina  Formula  Consensus  .  .  .  historia,  Latin 
and  Germau,  1723.  By  the  same :  llelvetische  Kirchengcsehicltte,  Zurich,  Theil  III.  pp.  1080  sqq. ;  IV. 
pp.  258,  268  sqq. 

Bayi.e:  Diet.  art.  Amyraut. 

Cu.  M.  Peaff:  Dissertatio  histor.  theologica  de  Formula  Consensus  Ilelv.  Tubingen,  1723. 

J.  Rud.  Salciili  :  Strictures  et  obsenationes  in  Pfaffii  dissertationem  de  F.  C.     Bern,  1723. 

(Barnattd)  :  Memoires  pour  servir  d  Vhistoire  des  troubles  arrivi-es  en  Suisse  d  Voccasion  du  Coiwensus. 
Amsterd.  1726. 

Wai.ch  :  lieligionsstrcitiykeitcn  ausserlialb  dcr  luth.  Kirche,  Jena,  1733,  Vol.  I.  pp.  454  sqq. ;  III.  pp.  730 
sqq. 

Haoeniiacii  :  Kritische  Gcsch.  der  crstcn  Busier  Confession.   Basle,  1S27,  pp.  173  sqq. 

Alex.  Soawxizn:  Die  Protest.  Centraidogmen  in  Hirer  lpnticickltmg  tnnerhalb  der  Reformirtm  Kirche. 
Zireite  llalfte  (Zurich,  1S56),  pp.  439-563.    By  the  same :  Die  Enstehung  der  helvetischen  Co7isensus-Formel, 

1  On  Castellio,  see  Schweizer,  Centraldocpnen,  Vol.  I.  pp.  310-378,and  his  essay,  .9.  Castellio 
als  Bestrciter  der  culcinischcn  Prddestinutionslehre,  ill  the  TAeol.  Jahrbiieher  of  Baur  and 
Zeller,  1851. 

s  See  Schweizer,  pp.  276  sqq. 


•itS  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

aus  Zurich's  Specialgeschichte  ndher  beleuehtet,  in  Niedner's  Zcitsehrift  fur  histor.  Theologie  for  1SG0, 
pp.  122-148  (gives  an  extract  from  the  MS.  of  J.  H.  Heidegger's  GrUndliche  und  wahrhaftige  Historie). 
Comp.  also  Schweizer's  art.  Amyraut,  in  Herzog's  Real-Encykl.  Vol.  I.  pp.  292-297  ;  and  on  the  Life  and 
Writings  of  Amyraut,  in  the  Tiibinger  Theol.  Jahrbi'/cher  for  1852. 

F.  Tkeoiisel:  Helvetische  Consensus-Formel,  in  Ilerzog's  Real-Encykl.  Vol.  V.  (185C),  pp.  719-730  (partly 
based  on  MS.  sources). 

Gust.  Frank  :  Gesehichte  der  Protestant.  Theologie,  Leipz.  1865,  Vol.  II.  pp.  35  sqq. 

Aug.  Eisrard:  Kirchen-  und  Dogmengeschiehte,  Vol.  III.  (1SC6),  pp.  53S  sqq.  and  552  sqq.  Also  his  art. 
on  Amyraldism  (against  Schweizer),  in  the  Reform.  Kirchenzeitung  for  1S53,  No.  27  sqq. 

The  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula  (Formula  Consensus  Helvetica) 
is  the  last  doctrinal  Confession  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Switzer- 
land, and  closes  the  period  of  Calvinistic  creeds.  It  has  been  called 
a  'symbolical  after-birth.'  It  was  composed  in  1675,  one  hundred 
and  eleven  years  after  Calvin's  death,  by  Professor  John  Henry  Hei- 
degger, of  Zurich  (1 633-1 69S),1  at  the  recpest  and  with  the  co-opera- 
tion of  the  Rev.  Lucas  Gernler,  of  Basle  (d.  1675),  and  Professor 
Francis  Tcrretin,  of  Geneva  (1623-1687).2  It  never  extended  its 
authority  beyond  Switzerland,  but  it  is  nevertheless  a  document  of 
considerable  importance  and  interest  in  the  history  of  Protestant  the- 
ology. It  is  a  defense  of  the  scholastic  Calvinism  of  the  Synod  of 
Dort  against  the  theology  of  Saumur  (Salmurium),  especially  against 
the  universalism  of  Amyraldus.  Hence  it  may  be  called  a  Formula 
anti-Salmuriensis,  or  anti-Amyraldensis. 

TnE  SYNOD  OF  DORT  AND  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SAUMUR. 

The  Twenty-third  National  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church  in 
France,  held  at  Alais,  Oct.  1,  1620,  adopted  the  Canons  of  Dort 
(1619),  as  being  in  full  harmony  with  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
French  Confession  of  1559,  and  bound  all  ministers  and  elders  by  a 
solemn  oath  to  defend  them  to  the  last  breath.  The  Twenty-fourth 
National  Synod  at  Charenton,  September,  1623,  reaffirmed  this  adop- 
tion.3 

But  in  the  theological  academy  at  Saumur,  founded  by  the  cele- 

1  Author  of  Concilii  Tridentini  Anatomc  historico-theohgica ;  Enchiridion  Biblicum;  His- 
toria  sacra  patriarcharum  ;  and  Histoire  du  Pajnsme. 

3  Author  of  the  In.itit.utio  theological  e.lcnchthicw  ( 1  G79-8.~>),  which  still  keeps  its  phvee  among 
the  best  systems  of  Calvinistic  theology.  New  edition,  Edinburgh  and  New  York,  1847,  in 
four  volumes.  His  son,  John  Alphonsus  (1 071-1737),  Professor  of  Church  History  in  Geneva, 
was  inclined  to  Arminianism,  and  advocated  toleration.  See  Schweizer,  Centraldogmen,\o\. 
II.  pp.  784  sqq. 

3  Aymon,  Tons  les  Si/nodes  nationaux  des  e'glises  rcforme'es  de  France.  A  la  Have,  1710, 
Vol.  II.  pp.  183,  298  ;  Schweizer,  1.  c.  pp.  229  sqq. 


§  61.  THE  HELVETIC  CONSENSUS  FORMULA,  1G75.  479 

brated  Reformed  statesman  Da  Plessis  Mo-may  (1004),  there  arose 
a  more  liberal  school,  headed  by  three  contemporary  professors — 
Josue  de  la  Place  (Placeus,  1596-1655),  Louis  Cappel  (Capellub, 
15S5-165S),  and  Motse  Amyraut  (Moses  Amykaldus,  1596-1664)— 
which,  without  sympathizing  with  Arminianism,  departed  from  the 
rigid  orthodoxy  then  prevailing  in  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
Churches  on  three  points — the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
the  particular  predestination,  and  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin. 

Saumur  acquired  under  these  leaders  great  celebrity,  and  attracted 
many  students  from  Switzerland.  It  became  for  the  Reformed  Church 
of  France  what  Helmstadt,  under  the  lead  of  Calixtus,  was  for  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  Germany ;  and  the  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula 
of  Heidegger  may  be  compared  to  the  '  Consensus  repetitus'  of  Calo- 
vius  (1664),  which  was  intended  to  be  a  still  more  rigorous  symbolical 
protest  against  Syncretism,  although  it  failed  to  receive  any  public 
recognition.1 

The  further  development  of  the  Saumur  theology  was  arrested  by 
the  political  oppression  which  culminated  in  the  cruel  revocation  of 
the  Edict  of  Nantes  by  Louis  XIY.  (16S5),  and  aimed  at  the  utter 
annihilation  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  France.  But  its  ideas  have 
silently  made  progress,  and  were  independently  revived  in  more  recent 
times. 

VERBAL    INSPIRATION. 

Louis  Cappel,  the  most  distinguished  of  an  eminent  Huguenot  fam- 
ily, and  one  of  the  first  Biblical  scholars  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
made  the  history  of  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  his  special 
study,  and  arrived  at  conclusions  which  differed  from  the  orthodox 
theory  of  a  literal  inspiration.  He  discovered  and  proved  that  the 
Hebrew  system  of  vocalization  did  not  date  from  Adam,  nor  from 
Moses,  nor  from  Ezra  and  the  Great  Synagogue,  but  from  the  Jewish 
grammarians  after  the  completion  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud.2     This 

1  See  p.  851,  and  Schweizer's  comparison  of  the  two  documents,  Vol.  II.  pp.  .".12  sqq. 

2  'Arcanum  punctationit  revelatum,'  addod  to  liis  Commentarii  it  nota  critica  in  Veto* 
Testamentum,  Amst.  1689.  Cappel  wrote  this  tract  in  1C22,  and  sent  the  MS.  to  the  elder 
Buxtorf.  of  Basle  (d.  1G29),  who  returned  it  with  the  advice  to  keep  back  his  view.  It  was 
first  published  anonymously  by  Krpcuiiis  al  Leyden,  L624.  Twenty  years  afterwards  Bux- 
torf  the  younger  (d.1664)  attacked  it  in  his  Tractatus  de  pvnetorum  origins,  antiquitate  <t 
autoritate,  Basil.  1G48.     Against  this  Cappel  wrote  his  Vindicia  Arcani  punctat.  revel.,  but 


4S0  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

view  is  confirmed  by  the  absence  of  vowels  on  Jewish  coins,  on  the 
Phoenician  and  Punic  monuments,  on  the  inscription  of  the  Moabite 
stone  (discovered  1868),  and  by  the  analogy  of  the  other  Semitic  lan- 
guages. Cappel  unsettled  also  the  traditional  view  of  the  literal  in- 
tegrity and  sacredness  of  the  Masoretic  text,  and  showed  that  the 
different  readings  {Keri  and  Ktib),  while  they  had  no  bearing  on 
faith  and  morals,  and  therefore  could  not  undermine  the  authority  of 
the  Scriptures,  are  not  to  be  traced  to  willful  corruption,  but  must  be 
consulted,  together  with  the  ancient  translations,  in  ascertaining  the 
true  text.1 

These  views,  which  are  now  generally  accepted  among  Biblical  schol- 
ars, met  with  violent  opposition.  Even  the  Buxtorfs,  father  and  son, 
at  Basle,  who  immortalized  themselves  by  their  rabbinical  learning, 
advocated  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Hebrew  vowels.  The  Prot- 
estant orthodoxy  of  the  seventeenth  century,  both  Calvinistic  and  Lu- 
theran, was  very  sensitive  on  this  point,  because  it  substituted  an  in- 
fallible Bible  for  an  infallible  papacy ;  while  the  Roman  orthodoxy 
cared  much  more  for  the  divine  authority  of  the  Church  than  for  that 
of  the  Scriptures. 

UNIVERSAL    AND   PARTICULAR   PREDESTINATION. 

Moses  Amyraut,  originally  a  lawyer,  but  converted  to  the  study  of 
theology  by  the  reading  of  Calvin's  'Institutes,'  an  able  divine  and 
voluminous  writer,  developed  the  doctrine  of  hypothetical  or  con- 
ditional universalism,  for  which  his  teacher,  John  Cameron  (1580- 
1625),  a  Scotchman,  and  for  two  years  Professor  at  Saumur,  had 
prepared  the  way.  His  object  was  not  to  set  aside,  but  to  moderate 
and  liberalize  Calvinism  by  ingrafting  this  doctrine  upon  the  par- 
ticularism of  election,  and  thereby  to  fortify  it  against  the  objections 
of  Romanists,  by  whom  the  French  Protestants  were  surrounded  and 
threatened.     Being  employed  by  the  Reformed  Synod  in  important 


they  were  not  published  till  1G80,  by  his  son,  Jacques  C,  in  an  Appendix  to  his  Commen- 
tary. His  views  on  the  late  origin  of  the  Hebrew  vowels  were  anticipated  by  rabbinical 
scholars,  Abn-Ezra  (d.  1174)  and  Elias  Levita  (d.  1540). 

1  Critica  sacra,  etc.,  Paris,  1 G50,  folio;  another  edition,  by  Vogel,  in  three  volumes,  Halle, 
1 77/5-86.  The  work  was  finished  October,  1G34,  but  the  printing  was  delayed  by  the  op- 
position of  the  Protestants  until  his  son,  Jean  Cappel,  who  seceded  to  the  Roman  Church, 
procured  a  royal  privilege  for  its  publication  in  Paris. 


§  01.  THE  HELVETIC  CONSENSUS  FORMULA,  L675.  4S1 

diplomatic  negotiations  with  the  government,  lie  came  in  frequent 
contact  with  bishops,  and  with  Cardinal  Richelieu,  who  esteemed  him 
highly.  His  system  is  an  approach,  not  so  much  to  Arminianism, 
which  he  decidedly  rejected,  as  to  Lutheranism,  which  likewise  teaches 
a  universal  atonement  and  a  limited  election.1 

Amyraut  maintained  the  Calvinistic  premises  of  an  eternal  fore- 
ordination  and  foreknowledge  of  God,  whereby  he  caused  all  things 
inevitably  to  pass — the  good  efficiently,  the  bad  permissivelv.2  lie 
also  admitted  the  double  decree  of  election  and  reprobation.  But  in 
addition  to  this  he  taught  that  God  foreordained  a  universal  salvation 
through  the  universal  sacrifice  of  Christ  offered  to  all  alike  (tgalement 
pour  tons),  on  condition  of  faith,  so  that  on  the  part  of  God"s  will 
and  desire  (voluntas,  velleitas,  offectus)  the  grace  is  universal,  but  as 
regards  the  condition  it  is  particular,  or  only  for  those  who  do  not 
reject  it  and  thereby  make  it  ineffective.  The  universal  redemption 
scheme  precedes  the  particular  election  scheme,  and  not  vice  versa. 
He  reasons  from  the  benevolence  of  God  towards  his  creatures ;  Cal- 
vinism reasons  from  the  result,  and  makes  actual  facts  interpret  the 
decrees.  Amyraut  distinguished  between  objective  grace  which  is 
offered  to  all,  and  subjective  grace  in  the  heart  which  is  given  only 
to  the  elect.  He  also  makes  a  distinction  between  natural  ability 
and  moral  ability,  or  the  power  to  believe  and  the  willingness  to 
believe ;  man  possesses  the  former,  but  not  the  latter,  in  conse- 
quence of  inherent  depravity.3  He  was  disposed,  like  Zwingli,  to 
extend  the  grace  of  God  beyond  the  limits  of  the  visible  Church,  in- 
asmuch as  God  by  his  general  providence  operates  upon  the  heathen, 
and  may  produce  in  them  a  sort  of  unconscious  Christianity,  a  faith 
without  knowledge;  while  within  the  Church  he  operates  more  fully 


1  Amyraut's  writings  on  this  subject  are:  Traite  de  la  Predestination  (also  in  Latin),  Sau- 
mur,  1G34;  Echantillon  de  la  doctrine  de  Calvin  sur  la  Predestination,  1687;  De  la  justi- 
fication, 1038 ;  De  procidentia  Dei  in  main,  1638;  Defensio  doctrina  Calvini  de  absolute 
reprobationis  decreto,\i'A\  ;  Dissertationes  tficol.  quatuor,  1645;  Exerdtatio  de  gratia  uni- 
versal7,1 046;  Disputatio  de  libero  hominis  arbitrio,  n;47;  Sermons  sur  divers  textes  de  la 
Ste.  Ecriture,  l(!."i.'5 ;  Irenicum  sive  de  rationc  pads  in  r</i;/i»nis  negotio  inter  Evangelical, 
1G62.  Amyraut  wrote  besides  a  system  of  Christian  Ethics  (in  six  volumes),  and  a  number 
of  exegeticaJ  and  practical  works,     ^ee  a  list  in  Herzog,  VoL  I.  pp.  296  Bq. 

2  '  Ou  de  permettre  tellement  les  mauvaises,  que  I'ecenement  soil  cntiirement  unduliitahl,.' 

3  The  same  distinction  was  a  century  later  made  by  Now  England  Calvinists  under  the  lead 
of  Jonathan  Edwards,  who  knew  of  the  Sauinur  theology  through  the  works  of  Stopfer. 


482  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  clearly  through  the  means  of  grace.  Those  who  never  heard  of 
Christ  are  condemned  if  the}'  reject  the  general  grace  of  providence; 
but  the  same  persons  would  also  reject  Christ  if  he  were  offered  to 
them.  As  regards  the  result,  Amyraut  agreed  with  the  particularists. 
His  ideal  universalism  is  unavailable,  except  for  those  in  whom  God 
previously  works  the  condition  of  faith,  that  is,  for  those  who  are 
included  in  the  particular  decree  of  election.1 

Amyraut's  doctrine  created  a  great  commotion  in  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  France,  Holland,  and  Switzerland.  Jean  Daillc  (1594- 
1670),2  David  Blondel  (1591-1655),3  and  others  considered  it  innocent 
and  consistent  with  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  where  German 
Reformed  and  Anglican  delegates  professed  similar  views  against  the 
supralapsarianism  of  Gomarus.  But  Peter  du  Moulin  (Molinseus,  since 
1621  Professor  of  the  rival  theological  school  of  Sedan),  Frederick 
Spanheim  (1600-1649,  Professor  in  Leyden),  Andrew  Rivet  (1572- 
1651,  Professor  in  Leyden),  and  the  theologians  of  Geneva  opposed  it 
as  a  departure  from  the  orthodox  faith  and  a  compromise  between 
Calvinism  and  Arminianism.4 

The  friends  of  Amyraut  urged  the  love,  benevolence,  and  impartial 
justice  of  God,  and  the  numerous  passages  in  Scripture  which  teach  that 
God  loves  '  the  whole  world,'  that  he  will  have  '  all  men  to  be  saved,' 

1  ' Notre  salut  e'ternel  depend  de  cette  condition,  que  nous  appellons  lafoxj;  cette  foy  depend 
de  la  grace  de  Dieu  et  de  la  puissance  de  son  Esprit;  cette  grace,  cette  puissance  de  V Esprit 
depend  du  conseil  de  Selection  de  Dieu,  et  ce  conseil  nayant  autre  fondement  que  sa  volonte  est 
constant  et  irrevocable,  Ve'venement  sursuit  necessairement.  Ce  conseil  depend  de  la  libre  volonte" 
de  Dieu.'     Schweizer,  pp.  296  sq. 

2  Joh.  Dalian:  Apologia  pro  duabus  synodis  nationalists,  altera  Alensone  1G37,  altera  Ca- 
rentone  1G45  habitis  adv.  Fr.  Spanhemii  Exercitationes  de  gratia  universale  Amst.  1655 
(1227  pages),  and  Vindicim  Apologias  pro  duabus  synodis.  Amst.  lG5f.  See  extracts  in 
Schweizer,  pp.  390  sqq.  Daille'  is  best  known  by  his  work  Sur  Vusage  des  Peres  (De  Usu 
Patrum). 

3  Actes  autlientiques  touchant  la  paix  et  charite  fraternelle  area  les  Protestantes,  etc. 
Amst.  1655.  Blondel  is  best  known  by  his  De  la  primaute'  en  e"glise  (1641),  and  otber  his- 
torical works.  He  was  Secretary  of  the  French  Synod,  which  made  him  honorary  professor, 
with  a  salary  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  devote  himself  without  pastoral  care  to  bis  studies. 
He  had  an  enormous  memory,  and  when  blind  in  bis  old  age  he  dictated  two  folios  on  diffi- 
cult points  in  chronology. 

4  See  especially  Pierre  du  Moulin:  Exainen  de  la  doctrine  des  Messieurs  Amyraut  et 
Tetard  touchant  la  predestination  et  les  poins,  qxd  en  dependent,  Amsterd.  1G38  ;  and  Eclair- 
cissement  des  controverses  Salmuriennes,  ou  defense  de  la  doctrine  des  fylises  r(.forme"es  sur 
VimmutabiliU  des  decrets  de  Dieu,  etc.  Leyden,  1G48.  Spanheim  (the  elder)  :  Disputatio  de 
gratia  unirersali,  Lugd.  Bat.  1G44  ;  and  Exercitatioxtes  de  gratia  unirerscdi,  Lugd.  Bat.  1G4G 
(185G  pages).     Andre  Rivet:   Opera  omnia,  Lugd.  Bat.  1651-60,  Vol.  III.  pp.  828-878. 


§  61.  THE  HELVETIC  CONSENSUS  FORMULA,  1675.  4S3 

that  Christ  died  'not  for  our  sins  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,'  that  'he  shut  up  all  in  unbelief  that  he  might  have 
mercy  upon  all?  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  objected  that  God  could 
not  really  will  and  intend  what  is  never  accomplished ;  that  he  could 
not  purpose  an  end  without  providing  adequate  means ;  that,  in  point 
of  fact,  God  did  not  actually  offer  salvation  to  all ;  and  that  a  univer- 
salism  based  on  an  impossible  condition  is  an  unfruitful  abstraction.1 

The  national  Synods  at  Alencon,  1637 ;  at  Charenton,  ]  G-±5  ;  and  at 
Loudun,  1G59  (the  last  synod  permitted  by  the  French  Government), 
decided  wisely  and  moderately,  saving  the  orthodoxy  of  Amyraut, 
and  guarding  only  against  misconceptions.  He  gave  the  assurance 
that  lie  did  not  change  the  doctrine,  but  only  the  method  of  instruc- 
tion. And  his  opponents  were  forced  at  last  to  admit  that  the  idea 
of  a  universal  grace,  by  which  no  one  was  actually  saved  unless  in- 
cluded in  the  particular,  effective  decree  of  election,  was  quite  harm- 
less. In  this  way  universalism  and  particularism  were  equally  sanc- 
tioned, and  a  schism  in  the  French  Church  was  avoided.2  The  literary 
controversy  continued  for  several  years  longer,  and  developed  a  large 
amount  of  learning  and  ability,  until  it  was  brought  to  an  abrupt  close 
by  the  political  oppressions  of  the  Keformed  Church  in  France.3 

1  The  orthodox  Lutherans,  as  far  as  they  took  notice  of  this  controversy,  saw  in  Amyrald- 
ism  a  concealment  of  Calvinism,  a  mockery  on  the  part  of  God,  a  bridge  to  Syncretism,  and 
characterised  the  gratia  Amyrahlina  as  a  gratia  Calvina,  non  divina.  So  lieheboldus,  De 
natura  et  gratia  Mosi  Amyrahlo  opposite/,  Gissae,  1651  (quoted  by  G.  Frank,  Vol.  I.  p.  43). 
Among  American  divines,  Dr.  Hodge  notices  this  controversy  (Syst.  Theology,  Vol.  II. 
p.  322),  and  says  that  hypothetical  redemption  is  liable  to  the  objections  against  both  Au- 
gnstinianism  and  Arminianism.  'It  does  not  remove  the  peculiar  difficulties  of  Augustin- 
ianism,  as  it  asserts  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election.  Besides,  it  leaves  the  case  of  the 
heathen  out  of  view.  They,  having  no  knowledge  of  Christ,  could  not  avail  themselves  of 
this  decretum  hypotheticum,  and  must  therefore  be  considered  as  passed  over  by  a  decretum 
absolittum.'     But  Amyraut  does  notice  the  case  of  the  heathen  ;  see  above. 

3  Sehweizer,  pp.  307  sqq. ;  Ebrard,  p.  555. 

3  Sehweizer  gives  a  very  full  account  of  the  writings  on  both  sides,  pp.  320-439.  In  mod- 
ern times  the  great  Sehleiermacher  has  revived  Amyraldism  on  German  soil,  but  in  a  much 
bolder  form,  and  at  the  expense  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment.  He  widens 
Calvinism  (which  he  very  acutely  defends  against  Lutheranism  and  Arminianism)  into  a  real 
and  effective  universalism  of  salvation,  and  makes  the  particularism  of  election  and  reprobation 
merely  a  temporary  means  to  this  end.  Sehweizer,  one  of  his  ablest  pupils,  adopts  this  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  in  his  CkristRehe  (iliubenslehre,  Leipzig,  1872,  Vol.  II.  Part  II.  pp.  78  sqq. 
and  444  sqq.  But  this  solution  is  subject  to  all  the  objections  of  what  in  America  is  popu- 
larlv  called  the  system  of  Universalism  :  it  turns  conversion  into  a  process  of  nature  or  ne- 
cessity ;  it  dulls  the  edge  of  warning ;  freedom  implies  the  continued  power  of  resistance; 
repentance  becomes  more  and  more  difficult,  and  at  last  impossible,  especially  in  hell  and  in 
the  case  of  the  devil  and  diabolized  men. 


484  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

MEDIATE    AND    IMMEDIATE    IMPUTATION.1 

All  Augustinians  and  Calvinists  agree  in  the  doctrine  of  total  de- 
pravity and  original  sin  in  consequence  of  Adam's  fall ;  but  differ- 
ences arose  among  them  concerning  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin 
and  guilt  to  his  posterity.  The  majority  advocated  the  realistic  the- 
ory of  an  actual,  though  impersonal  and  unconscious,  participation  of 
the  whole  human  race  in  the  fall  of  Adam  as  their  natural  organic 
head,  who  by  his  individual  transgression  vitiated  the  generic  human 
nature,  and  transmitted  it  in  this  corrupt  state  by  physical  generation 
to  his  descendants.  This,  the  old  Augustinian  view,  was  renewed  by 
the  Reformers.  Others,  since  the  seventeenth  century,  adopted  the 
federal  theory  of  a  vicarious  legal  representation  of  mankind  by  Adam, 
in  virtue  of  an  assumed  covenant  of  works  made  with  him  by  the 
Sovereign  Creator,  to  the  effect  that  Adam  should  stand  a  moral  pro- 
bation in  behalf  of  all  his  descendants  (acting  like  a  guardian  for 
children  yet  unborn,  or  like  a  representative  for  future  constituents), 
and  that  his  act  of  obedience  or  disobedience,  with  all  its  consequences, 
should  be  judicially  imputed  to  them,  or  accounted  theirs  in  law.2 
Still  others  combined  the  two  theories  so  as  to  make  imputation  rest 
both  on  the  moral  ground  of  participation  and  on  the  legal  ground 
of  representation. 

In  connection  with  this  doctrine  of  hereditary  sin  there  arose  among 
the  Calvinists  of  the  seventeenth  century  a  controversy  about  imme- 
diate or  antecedent,  and  mediate   or  consequent  imputation.3     The 

1  Syntagma  thesium  theologicarum  in  academia  Sahnuriensi  disputatarum,  Ed.  II.  Sal- 
mur.  16G4.  Placeus:  De  statu  hominis  lapsi  ante  gratiam,  1640;  his  defense,  De  imputa- 
tions primi  peccati  Adami,  1G55,  in  his  Opera  omnia,  1G99  and  1702,  two  vols.  Against  him, 
A.  Rivet:  Decretum  Synodi  nationalis  Ecclesiarum  Reformatarum  Gallia;,  A.D.  1G45  de  im- 
putation primi  peccati  omnibus  Adami  posteris,  cum  Ecclesiarum  et  doctorum  protestantium 
consensu,  ex  scriptis  eorum  collecto,  in  the  Opera  Tlieol.  of  Rivet,  Rotterd.  1GG0,  Tom.  III. 
pp.  71)8-827,  translated  in  part  in  the  Princeton  Review  for  1839,  pp.  553-579.  Comp.  also 
Schweizer's  art.  Placeus,  in  Herzog,  Vol.  XI.  pp.  755-57,  and  several  American  treatises  on 
the  imputation  controversy  by  Hodge,  Baird,  Landis,  G.  P.  Fisher,  quoted  in  my  annotations 
to  Lange's  Com.  on  Rom.  v.  12  (pp.  191  sqq.),  where  the  exegetical  aspects  are  fully  discussed 
in  connection  with  the  classical  passage  trp'  qj  navrtc.  ijfiaprov. 

2  Fcedus  operum,  orfazdus  natural,  as  distinct  from  fwdus  gratia;.  The  only  Scripture  pas- 
sage which  the  Federalists  alleged  in  favor  of  this  primal  covenant  is  Hos.  vi.  7  :  '  For  they,  like 
Adam  [a^X3],have  broken  the  covenant;'  but  others  translate  with  the  Sept. :  'They  [are] 
like  men  [who]  break  a  covenant'  (ioq  ai'Bpunroe,  7rapa/3aiVwi/  diaSr)icni>). 

3  Turretin  (Instit.  Pars  I.  pp.  55G,  Loc.  ix.  de  peccato,  Qu.  X.)  charges  De  la  Place  with 


§  61.  THE  HELVETIC  CONSENSUS  FORMULA,  1G75.  4S5 

theory  of  immediate  imputation  makes  all  descendants  of  Adam  re- 
sponsible for  his  disobedience  as  participants  in  actu,  and  condemns 
them  independently  of,  and  prior  to,  native  depravity  and  personal 
transgression,  so  that  hereditary  guilt  precedes  hereditary  sin.  The 
theory  of  mediate  imputation  makes  inherent  depravity  derived  from 
Adam,  and  this  alone,  the  ground  of  imputation  and  condemnation 
(vitiositas p?'(ecedit  imjputationem).  The  school  of  Montauban,  Rivet 
of  Leyden,  the  elder  Turretin  of  Geneva,  Heidegger  of  Zurich,  Garis- 
sol,  Maresius,  and  the  supralapsarians  and  federalists  advocated  the 
former,  some  exclusively,  some  in  connection  with  mediate  imputa- 
tion. La  Place  (Placeus)  of  Saumur  denied  immediate  imputation  of 
a  foreign  sin  as  arbitrary  and  unjust,  and  allowed  only  a  mediate  im- 
putation, but  claimed  to  be  nevertheless  in  full  harmony  with  Calvin's 
teaching  on  this  subject. 

The  Reformed  national  Synod  at  Charenton,  near  Paris,  in  16-15,  re- 
jected the  theory  of  La  Place  (yet  without  calling  him  to  an  account  or 
naming  him),  at  least  so  far  as  it  restricts  the  nature  of  original  sin  to 
the  mere  hereditary  corruption  of  Adam's  posterity.  In  vindication 
of  the  decree  of  the  Synod,  Rivet  prepared  a  collection  of  passages  on 
imputation  (many  of  them  very  general  and  inconclusive)  from  Re- 
formed and  Lutheran  confessions  and  the  writings  of  Calvin,  Beza, 
Bollinger,  Melanchthon,  Chemnitz,  and  others. 

THE    CONSENSUS    FORMULA. 

Several  years  after  the  leaders  of  the  Saumur  theology  had  passed 
from  the  stage  of  history  it  was  thought  desirable  by  some  of  the 
prominent  divines  of  Switzerland  to  protect  their  Churches  against 
possible  danger  from  the  new  doctrines  of  Saumur,  which  were  im- 
ported through  writings  and  students,  and  met  with  considerable  sym- 
pathy, especially  in  Geneva.  It  was  feared — and  not  without  reason — 
that,  however  innocent  in  themselves,  they  might  lead,  by  legitimate 
logical  development,  to  an  ultimate  abandonment  of  the  system  of 
Calvinism. 

Hence  the  new  Formula  of  orthodoxy  which  forms  the  subject  of 
this  section,  was  agreed  upon  by  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  authorities 

inventing  this  distinction  to  evade  the  force  of  the  synodical  decision  of  Charenton,  1G4.5. 
Augustine  and  the  Reformers  did  not  use  the  terms,  and  hence  are  quoted  on  both  sides. 


4S6  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  Zurich,  Basle,  and  Geneva,  and  adopted  in  other  Beformed  cantons 
as  a  binding  rule  of  public  teaching  for  ministers  and  professors.  Its 
authority  was  confined  to  Switzerland,  and  even  there  it  could  not 
maintain  itself  longer  than  about  half  a  century.  French  ministers, 
who  fled  to  Lausanne  after  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes, 
refused  to  sign  it ;  the,  great  Elector  Frederick  William  of  Branden- 
burg (1686),  and  afterwards  the  Kings  of  Prussia  and  England,  and 
the  Corpus  Evangelicorum  at  Ratisbon  (1722),  urged  the  Reformed 
cantons,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and  union,  to  abandon  the  Formula. 
It  gradually  lost  its  hold  upon  the  Swiss  churches,  and  was  allowed  to 
die  and  be  buried  without  mourners.  Nevertheless  the  theology  which 
it  represents  continues  to  be  advocated  by  a  respectable  school  of  strict 
Calvinists  in  Europe,  and  especially  in  America. 

The  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula  was  not  so  much  intended  to 
be  a  new  confession  of  faith,  as  an  explanatory  appendix  to  the 
former  Confessions  (resembling  in  this  respect  the  Saxon  Visitation 
Articles,  which  were  an  appendix  to  the  Lutheran  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, to  guard  the  churches  of  Saxony  against  the  dangers  of  crypto- 
Calvinism).  The  document  does  not  breathe  the  fresh  and  bracing 
air  of  faith  and  religious  experience  which  characterize  the  Confes- 
sions of  the  Reformation  period.  It  is  the  product  of  scholasticism, 
which  formularized  the  faith  of  Calvin  into  a  stiff  doctrinal  system, 
and  anxiously  surrounded  it  with  high  walls  to  keep  out  the  light  of 
freedom  and  progress.  Nevertheless  it  is  more  liberal  than  is  generally 
represented  and  than  might  be  expected  from  the  bigotry  and  polem- 
ical violence  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Heidegger  was  personally 
mild  and  modest ;  he  spoke  the  truth  in  love,  and  resisted  the  pressure 
of  extremists  in  Switzerland  and  Holland,  who  suspected  even  him  of 
unsoundness,  and  desired  a  formal  condemnation  of  the  schools  not 
only  of  Saumur  but  also  of  Cocceius  and  Cartesius.  Instead  of  this, 
he  speaks  in  the  preface  of  the  Formula,  respectfully  and  kindly,  of 
the  Saumur  theologians,  and  calls  them  venerable  brethren  in  Christ, 
who  built  on  the  same  foundation  of  faith,  and  whose  peculiar  doc- 
trines are  not  condemned  as  heresies,  but  simply  disapproved.1 

1  '  Salvum  enim  utrinque  per  Dei  (jratiam  stat  fundament  um  fidei.  .  .  .  Salva  unit  as  cor- 
poris mystici  et  Spirilus.  .  .  .  Salvum  denique  apud  nos  semper  tenerrimoz  caritatis  vinculum,1 


§  CI.  THE  HELVETIC  CONSENSUS  FORMULA,  1675.  437 

The  Formula  consists  of  a  preface  and  twenty -six  canons  or  articles, 
which  clearly  state  the  points  of  difference  between  strict  Calvinism 
and  Salmurianism.     They  teach  the  following  points : 

1.  The  literal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  integrity  of  the 
traditional  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  including  the  vowels  as 
well  as  consonants ;  so  that  we  need  not  resort  to  manuscripts,  transla- 
tions, and  conjectures.1    Art.  1-3.     Against  Cappel. 

This  attempt  to  canonize  the  Hebrew  vowels  gave  great  offense  to 
Claude,  Daille,  and  other  French  Calvinists  ;  and  Heidegger  explained 
to  Turretin  that  the  object  of  the  Formula  was  only  to  guard  the 
authority  and  integrity  of  the  original  text,  and  not  to  decide  gram- 
matical and  critical  questions.  But  in  its  natural  effect  such  a  me- 
chanical theory  of  inspiration,  which,  to  be  of  any  practical  use,  re- 
quires a  perpetual  literary  miracle  in  the  preservation  of  the  text,  would 
supersede  all  textual  criticism,  and  make  the  Targums,  the  Septuagint, 
the  Vulgate,  and  other  ancient  versions,  worse  than  useless. 

2.  God  decreed  from  eternity,  first,  to  create  man  innocent ;  second, 
to  permit  ^ermittere)  the  fall ;  third,  to  elect  some  to  salvation,  and 
thus  to  reveal  in  them  his  mercy,  but  to  leave  the  rest  in  the  corrupt 
mass  {alios  vero  in  corrxqHa  massa  rellnquere),  and  to  devote  them 
to  eternal  perdition.  (This  is  clearly  the  Augustinian  infralapsarian- 
ism.)    In  the  gracious  decree  of  election  Christ  himself  is  included,  as 

etc.  The  original  draft  of  the  Formula  was  even  milder  and  much  shorter.  Schweizer  has, 
in  a  purely  historical  interest,  vindicated  the  memory  of  Heidegger  and  the  comparatively 
moderate  character  of  the  Consensus  Formula.  See  his  extracts  from  the  M.S.  of  Heidegger's 
Report,  in  Neidner's  Zeitschrift,  above  quoted,  and  his  art.  Heidegger,  in  Ilerzog's  Real- 
EnrijkL 

1  '■In  specie  autem  Hebraicus  Veteris  Testamenti  Codex,  quern  ex  traditione  Ecchsi<r  Jn- 
daicce,  cui  olim  Oracula  Dei  commissa  sunt,  accepimus  hodieque  retincinits,  turn  quoad  coxso- 
xvs,  Oi/ii  quoad  VOCA.LIA,  sive puncta  ipsa,  sire  punctorum  saltern  poleslatem,  <  t  turn  QUOAD  kes, 
turn  quoad  verba  Sioirvi vtJToe,  ut  Jidei  et  vita:  nostra,  una  cum  Codice  Novi  Testamenti  sit 
caxox  unicus  et  illibattu,  ad  cuius  normam,  ecu  Lydium  laj>idem,  vniversa,  qu<v.  extant,  Ver- 
siones,  sice  orientales,  sive  occidentals  exigendce,  et  sicubi  deflectunt,  revocanda-  sunt.''  The 
same  theory  of  plenary  inspiration  of  words  and  thoughts,  which  dates  from  Rabbinical  ortho- 
doxy, but  was  not  held  by  the  Reformers,  prevailed  in  the  Lutheran  Church  Bince  John  Ger- 
hard, and  is  even  now  extensively  held,  especially  in  England  and  America,  by  those  whose 
faith  in  the  Word  of  God  is  not  affected  by  modern  criticism.  It  was  most  ably  defended 
by  the  venerable  Dr.  Louis  Gaussen  (1  790  1863),  Professor  in  the  Free  Church  Theological 
School  of  Geneva,  in  his  works  on  Theopneusty  (1840;  second  edition,  1842),  and  on  the 
Canon  (1802,  two  vols.).  Dissent  from  him  led  to  the  resignation  of  his  colleague,  Scherer. 
Gaussen  admitted,  however,  the  individualities  of  the  sacred  writers,  and  compares  them  to 
the  keys  of  an  immense  organ,  on  which  the  Holy  Spirit  played. 

Vol.  I.— I  1 


48 S  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  Mediator  and  our  first-born  Brother.  The  doctrine  of  an  antece- 
dent hypothetical  will  or  intention  of  God1  to  save  all  men  on  con- 
dition of  faith  is  rejected  as  unscriptural  and  as  involving  God  in  im- 
perfection and  contradiction.     Art.  4-G.     Against  Amyraut. 

3.  The  covenant  of  works  made  by  God  with  Adam  before  the  fall, 
promising  to  him  eternal  life  (symbolized  by  the  tree  of  life  in  Para- 
dise), on  condition  of  perfect  obedience.    Art.  7-9.    Against  Amyraut. 

4.  Immediate  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  all  his  posterity  who  fell 
in  him,  their  representative  head  {in  ipso  ut  capite  et  stirpe),  and  for- 
feited the  promised  blessing  of  the  covenant  of  works.  Man  is  thus 
doubly  condemned,  for  his  participation  in  the  sin  of  Adam  and  for 
his  hereditary  depravity ;  to  deny  the  former  makes  the  latter  doubt- 
ful.2 Art.  10-12.  Against  La  Place,  not  because  he  asserted  mediate 
or  consequent  imputation  (which  the  Formula  likewise  teaches),  but 
because  he  excluded  the  other. 

5.  Limited  atonement.  Christ  died  only  for  the  elect,  and  not  indis- 
criminately for  all  men.3  The  infinite  value  and  inherent  sufficiency 
of  Christ's  satisfaction  is  not  denied,  but  the  divine  intention  and  the 
practical  efficiency  are  limited,  and  adjusted  to  the  particularism  of 
the  decree  of  election.     Art.  13-16.     Against  Amyraut. 

6.  The  actual  vocation  to  salvation  never  was  absolutely  general 
{numquam  absolute  universalis),  but  was  confined  to  Israel  in  the  old 
dispensation  and  to  Christians  in  the  new  (Matt.  xi.  25 ;  Eph.  i.  9). 
God's  revelation  in  nature  and  providence  (Rom.  i.  19,  20)  is  insuffi- 
cient for  purposes  of  salvation,  though  it  leaves  the  heathen  without 
excuse  for  rejecting  even  this  remnant  of  the  knowledge  of  God.    The 

1  Called  voluntas  conditionata,  velleitas,  misericordia  prima,  dcsiderium  inefficax. 

2  Art.  X.  '  Censemus  igitur  peccatum  Adami  omnibus  ejus  posteris  judicio  Dei  arcano  et 
justo  impulari'  (Rom.  v.  12, 19;  1  Cor.  xv.  21,22).  Art.  XI.  ' Duplici  igitur  nomine  post 
peccatum  homo  natura,  indeque  ah  ortu  suo,  untequam  ullum  actuate  peccatum  in  se  admit  tat, 
irte  ac  maledictioni  divince  obnoxius  est;  primum  quidem  ob  Traponrrwpa  et  inobedientiam, 
quam  in  Adami  lumbis  commisit ;  dcinde  ab  consequentem  in  ipso  conceptu  hereditariam  cor- 
ruptionem  insitam,  qua  tota  ejus  natura  depravata  et  spiritualiter  viortua  est,  adeo  quidem,  ut 
recte  peccatum  originate  statuatur  duplex  .  .  .  imputatum  videlicet,  et  hercditarium  inhcerens.' 

3  Art.  XIII.  ''Pro  soils  electis  ex  decretorio  Patris  consilio  propriuque  intent  tone  diram 
mortem  ojipetiit  [Christus],  solos  illos  in  sinum  paternal  grat'nv  resti/uit,  solos  Deo  Patri  offenso 
reconciliavit  et  a  maledictione  legis  liberavit.'  Art.  XVI.  ' Haud  probare  possumus  oppo- 
sitam  doctrinam  illorum  qui  statuunt,  Christum  propria  intentione  et  consilio  turn  suo  turn 
Patris  ipsum  mittentis,  mortuum  esse  pro  omnibus  et  singulis,  addita  conditione  impossibili,  si 
videlicet  credant. '  The  ablest  modern  advocate  of  this  limited  atonement  theory  is  Dr.  Hodge, 
S>/st.  Theol.  Vol.  II.  pp.  544  sqq. 


§  81.  THE  HELVETIC  CONSENSUS  FORMULA,  L675.  4$9 

external  call  of  God  through  his  Word  is  always  serious,  and  so  far  ef- 
fective that  it  works  salvation  in  the  elect,  and  makes  the  unbelief  of 
the  reprobate  inexcusable.1  Art.  17-20.  Against  Amyraut,  who  ex- 
tended the  vocation  beyond  the  limits  of  the  visible  Church  and  the 
ordinary  means  of  grace. 

7.  The  natural  as  well  as  moral  inability  of  man  to  believe  the  gos- 
pel of  himself.2  This  twofold  inability  has  its  ground  in  the  depravity 
of  our  nature,  from  which  only  the  omnipotent  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  can  deliver  us  (1  Cor.  ii.  14  ;  2  Cor.  iv.  G).  Art.  21,  22.  Against 
Amyraut. 

S.  A  twofold  covenant  of  God  with  man — the  covenant  of  works 
made  with  Adam  and  through  him  with  all  men,  but  set  aside  by  the 
fall,  and  the  covenant  of  grace  made  only  with  the  elect  in  Christ, 
which  is  forever  valid,  and  exists  under  two  economies,  the  Jewish 
and  the  Christian.  The  saints  of  the  Old  Testament  were  saved  by 
the  same  faith  in  the  Lamb  of  God  as  Ave  are  (Apoc.  xiii.  8 ;  Heb.  xiii. 
8  ;  John  xiv.  1) ;  for  out  of  Christ  there  is  no  salvation.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Trinity  is  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament  in  words,  figures, 
and  types,  sufficiently  for  salvation,  though  not  as  clearly  as  in  the 
New.  For  no  one  can  believe  in  Christ  without  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
third  person  in  the  Trinity.  Amyraut's  doctrine  of  three  essentially 
different  covenants — natural,  legal,  and  evangelical,  with  different  de- 
grees of  knowledge  and  piety — is  disapproved.     Art.  23-25. 

The  concluding  article  (the  2Gth)  prohibits  the  teaching  of  new 
or  doubtful  and  unauthorized  doctrines  which  are  contrary  to  the 
"Word  of  God,  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  the  Canons  of  the 
Svnod  of  Dort,  and  other  Reformed  svmbols. 


1  Art.  XIX.  '  Vocatio  externa  qua  per  preeconiwn  Evanrjclicum  Jit,  eliam  vocantis  Dei  re- 
spectu,  seria  et  sinrera  est.  .  .  .  Neque  voluntas  ilia  res/>ectu  corum,  qui  vocations  non  parent, 
inefficax  est,  quia  semper  Deus  id,  quod  volens  intendit,  asscquitur,'  etc. 

a  Art.  XXL  'Mobalis  ea  impotentia  dici  possit,  quatenua  scilicet  circa  suhjertum  et  ohjec- 
tum  morale  versatur :  HATUBALI8  tamen  esse  simul  et  dici  debet,  qua/nuts  homo  frvti,  nalura, 
adeoque  nascendi  lege,  inde  ab  ortu  est  Jilius  irie'  (Eph.  ii.  2).  Dr.  Hodge  likewise  defends 
this  doctrine  against  the  New  School  Calvinists,  who,  with  Amyraut,  claim  fur  man  the  nat- 
ural ability,  but  admit  his  moral  inability. 


490  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


II.  THE  REFORMED  CONFESSIONS  OF  FRANCE  AND  THE 
NETHERLANDS. 

§  62.  The  Gallican  Confession.     A.D.  1559. 

Literature. 
I.  Editions  or  the  Gallican  Confession. 

The  original  French  text  in  Theod.  de  Beza:  Histoire  ecclesiastique  des  egliscs  reformees  au  royaume 
de  France,  Antw.  15S0,  Tom.  II.  pp.  173-190 ;  in  Niemeyee's  Cpllectio  Con/,  in  eccles.  re/ormatis  public,  pp. 
311-326;  and  in  the  Zeitschrift  fi'ir  die  histor.  Theologie  for  1375,  pp.  506-544,  with  an  introduction  by  Dr. 
Heppe.  The  shorter  recension  in  the  new  edition  of  Calvin's  Opera,  Vol.  IX.  pp.  739  sqq.  The  text,  as 
revised  by  the  Synod  of  Rochelle  (1571),  was  often  printed  in  French  Bibles,  and  separately.  Comp.  the 
Toulouse  edition  of  1S64,  entitled  Confession  de  Foi  et  Discipline  ecclesiastique  des  eglises  reformees  de 
France  (Societe  des  livres  religieux,  pp.  9-35). 

The  Latin  translation :  Gallicarum  ecclesiarum  Confessio  Christianissimo  Carolo  IX.  regi  anno  MDLXI. 
cxhibita.  Nunc  vero  in  Latinum  conversa,  ut  omnino  consfet  eas  ab  omnibus  hmresibus  sive  sectis  esse 
prorsus  aliena.  Anno  Domini  156G— and  often  reprinted ;  also  in  Corpus  et  Syntagma  Conf.  1654,  pp.  77- 
88,  and  in  Niemeyee's  Collectio,  pp.  327-339. 

A  German  translation  appeared  first  at  Heidelberg,  1562  (see  Niemeyer,  Prcefat.  p.  1.) ;  also  in  BOckel's 
Bekenntniss-Schriften  der  evang.  reform.  Kirche,  pp.  461-474. 

An  English  translation  in  Joun  Quick's  Synodicon  in  Gallia  Rcformata,  Lond.1092,  Vol.  I.  pp.  vi.-xvi. 

II.  History  of  the  Reformation  and  the  Reformed  Church  in  France. 

See  partly  the  Literature  on  Calvin,  quoted  p.  421. 

Tiieod.  Beza  :  Histoire  eccles.  des  eglises  reformees  au  royaume  de  France  (1521-63),  Autw.  15S0,  3  vols. 

Jean  Crespin  (d.  1572) :  Livre  des  martyrs  (Acta  Martyr um),  depuis  Jean  Hus  jusqu'en  1554.  Geneva, 
1500 ;  enlarged  edition,  Geneve,  1617,  and  Amsterd.  16S4. 

Serranus  (Jean  de  Serres,  historiographer  of  France,  1540-9S) :  Commentarius  de  statu  religionis  et 
rcipublicce  in  regno  Gallice,  1571-73  (five  parts). 

Theod.  Agrippa  d'Aubigne  (Ai.mn.eu8,  a  Huguenot  in  the  service  of  Henry  IV. ;  d.  at  Geneva,  1630) : 
Histoire  universelle  de  mon  temps,  1616-20,  3  vols. 

Du  Plessis  Mornay  :  Memoires  et  correspondance.    Paris,  1824-25. 

John  Quick  (a  learned  Non-conformist,  d.  170b) :  Synodicon  in  Gallia  Reformata;  or,  the  Acts,  Decisions, 
Decrees,  and  Canons  of  the  National  Councils  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  France.  Loudon,  1692,  2  vols, 
fol.  (with  a  history  of  the  Church  till  16S5).    Much  more  accurate  than  Aymon. 

Aymon  :  Tous  les  synodes  nationaux  des  eglises  reformees  de  France.    La  Haye,  1710,  2  vols.  4to. 

E.  A.  Laval:  Compendious  History  of  the  Reformation  in  France .  .  .  to  the  Rep>ealing  of  the  Edict  of 
Nantes.    London,  1737-41,  7  vols. 

Smedi.ey  :  History  of  the  Reformed  Religion  in  France.    London,  1832,  3  vols. 

G.  de  Felice:  Histoire  des  Protestants  en  France.  Toulouse,  1S51 ;  Engl,  translation, by  Lobdel,  1851. 
By  the  same :  Histoire  des  synodes  nationaux  des  egliscs  reformees  de  France.    Paris. 

W.  G.  Soldan  :  Geschichte  des  Protestantismus  in  Frankreich  bis  zum  Tode  Karl's  IX.  Leipzig,  1S55, 
2  vols. 

G.  von  Polenz:  Geschichte  des  franzosischen  Calvinismus  bis  zur  Nationahersammlung  i.JA~SS,ZTtm 
Theil  aus  liandschriftl.  Quellen.    Gotha,  1857-04, 4  vols. 

E.  Stahelin  :  Der  Uebcrtritt  Heinrich's  IV.    Basle,  1856. 

Ath.  Coquerei,:  Histoire  des  eglises  du  desert.    Paris,  1S57,  2  vols. 

W.  Haag  :  La  France  protestante.    Paris,  1858  (biographies). 

Weiss:  Histoire  des  rcfugies  protcstants  de  France  depuis  la  revocation  de  Vedit  de  Nantes  jusqiCd  nos 
jours.    Paris,  1853;  English  translation,  London,  1854, 2  vols. 

Much  valuable  information  on  the  early  history  of  Calvinism  and  French  Protestantism  generally  is 
contained  in  Herminj  Aim's  Correspondance  des  Reformateurs  dans  les  pays  de  la  languc  francaise,  Geneve 
and  Paris,  1866  sqq.  (so  far  4  vols.),  and  in  the  Bulletin  de  la  SocUte  de  Vhistoire  du  Protestantisme  francais. 
Documents  historiques  inedits  et  vriginaux  XVI",  XVIIe,  et  XVIII'  siicles.  Paris  (3,  rue  Lafltte),  1S54- 
73  ;  so  far  22  vols. 

III.  General  Histories  of  France  touching  upon  the  Reformation  Period. 

Thuanus  (Jacques  Auouste  de  Thou— bom,  1553 ;  died,  1617) :  Ilistoriarum  sui  temporis  libri  13S,  from 
1546-1607  (several  editions  in  five,  seven,  and  sixteen  volumes).  The  author  was  a  moderate  Catholic, 
witnessed  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  and  helped  to  prepare  the  Edict  of  Nautes.  His  history  was 
put  in  the  Index  Expurg.  1609. 


§  G2.  THE  GALLICAN  CONFESSION,  1559.  491 

Lacreteli.e  :  Histoire  de  France  pendant  lea  guerres  de  la  religion.    Paris,  1S22, 4  vols. 

Bibmomdi  :  Histoire  des  Francois,  Var.  1821-44,  Bl  vols,  (from  vol.  16th). 

Jdi.es  Miouf.i.et  (born,  179S) :  Histoire  lie  France,  1833-62, 14  vols.  (vols.  8  and  9). 

Sir  James  Stephen  :  Lectures  on  the  History  qf  France,  lNr<7,  third  edition,  2  vols. 

Leop.  Ranke  :  Franzosische  Geschichte  namentlich  im  16.  und  IT.  Jahrh.  1S52-6S,  6  vols.  (English  trans- 
lation in  part,  Loudon,  1S52,  2  vols.) 

1Ii:nri  Martin  :  Histoire  de  France  depnis  les  temjw  les  plus  reculis  jusqu'en  17S9,  fourth  edition,  Paris, 
1S55-C0, 16  Tom.  (Vols.  VII.  to  X.). 

FRENCH    PROTESTANTISM. 

In  France  the  Reformation  seemed  to  be  better  prepared  than  even 
in  Germany,  if  we  look  only  at  the  surface  of  the  situation.  The  French 
Church  had  always  maintained  a  certain  independence  of  Home,  under 
the  name  of  Gallican  rights  or  liberties.  Paris  was,  it  is  true,  the 
chief  seat  of  orthodox  scholasticism,  and  the  Sorbonne  took  an  early 
opportunity  to  condemn  Luther  and  his  writings  (1521) ;  but  it  nursed 
also  the  spirit  of  mysticism  and  disciplinary  reform,  which  led  to  the 
Councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basle.  In  the  South  a  remnant  of 
the  Waldenses  had  survived  the  bloody  persecutions.  The  humanistic 
studies  flourished  greatly  at  Paris,  Orleans,  Bourges,  and  found  favor 
at  the  court  of  Francis  I.  (1494-1547),  who  invited  classical  scholars 
from  Italy,  thought  of  calling  Erasmus  and  even  Melanchthon  to  his 
capital,  and  aided,  for  political  reasons,  the  Protestants  in  Germany, 
while  yet  he  inflicted  imprisonment  and  death  upon  them  in  France. 

For  half  a  century,  and  amid  bloody  civil  wars,  three  conflicting 
tendencies,  represented  by  Calvin,  Eabelais,  and  Loyola — who  hap- 
pened to  be  in  Paris  at  about  the  same  period — struggled  for  the 
mastery :  Calvinism,  with  its  high  intelligence  and  uncompromising 
virtue ;  the  Renaissance,  with  its  elegant  culture  and  frivolous  skep- 
ticism ;  and  Jesuitism,  with  its  reactionary  and  unscrupulous  fanati- 
cism. Francis  I.  wavered  between  the  Renaissance,  which  suited  his 
natural  taste,  and  Romanism,  which  was  the  religion  of  the  masses  of 
Frenchmen ;  his  gifted  sister,  Queen  Margaret,  of  Navarre  (grandmother 
of  Henry  IV.),  protected  the  Reformation  and  the  Renaissance,  and 
harbored  at  one  time  Calvin,  and  at  another  the  Libertines.  Romanism 
triumphed  first  over  Protestantism,  and  afterwards  over  semi-evangel- 
ical Jansenism,  and  France  reaped  infidelity  and  the  Revolution. 

Calvinism,  always  in  the  minority,  and  too  stern  and  exacting  for 
the  national  character,  after  a  period  of  heroic  martyrdom,  gained  for 
a  time  a  limited  legal  existence  under  Henry  IV.  in  the  Edict  of 
Nantes  (159S),  but  was  expelled  under  Louis  XIV.  to  fertilize  other 


492  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

countries,  and  reduced  to  a  proscribed  sect  of  the  desert  at  home, 
where  nevertheless,  like  the  burning  bush,  it  could  not  be  consumed, 
and  was  providentially  preserved  for  better  days.1 

The  father  of  French  Protestantism  in  its  unorganized  form  is 
Jacques  Lefovre  d'Etaples  (Faber  Stapulensis,  1455-1537),  Professor 
of  the  Sorbonne  and  tutor  of  the  royal  princes.  He  translated  the 
Bible  from  the  Vulgate  (completed  1530) ;  he  taught,  even  before 
Luther  and  Zwingli,2  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  without 
human  works  or  merit,  and  the  supremacy  of  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of 
faith,  and  predicted  a  reformation,  saying  to  his  pupil,  Farel,  '  God 
will  renovate  the  world,  and  you  will  be  a  witness  of  it;'  but  he  had 
to  flee  to  Strasburg,  and  afterwards  to  the  court  of  Queen  Margaret. 

In  the  same  spirit  labored  his  friends  and  pupils — Brigonnet,  Bishop 
of  Meaux,  who  fostered  evangelical  doctrines  and  practices  in  his 
diocese,  but  afterwards  timidly  joined  in  the  condemnation  of  Lu- 
ther; Melchior  Wolmar,  a  native  of  Germany,  Professor  of  Greek 
in  Bourges  and  teacher  of  Calvin ;  Louis  de  Berquin  (1489-1529), 
a  royal  counselor,  who  was  burned  at  the  stake ;  Clement  Marot 
(1495-1544),  the  favorite  poet  of  his  age  and  translator  of  the  Psalms 
in  verse;  Peter  Robert  Olivetan  (d.  1538),  a  relative  of  Calvin  and 
translator  of  the  Bible  into  French  (printed  at  Neuchatel,  1535) ; 
William  Farel  (14S9-1565),  Peter  Viret,  Anton  Froment,  Calvin,  and 
Beza — who  were  driven  to  French  Switzerland.  The  radical  extrav- 
agances of  Anabaptists  and  anti-Trinitarians  also  spread  in  France, 
and  were  confounded  by  the  government  with  the  sound  evangelical 
doctrines,  and  made  a  pretext  for  persecution. 

But  it  was  only  after  Calvin,  himself  the  greatest  Protestant  of 
France,  had  taken  up  his  permanent  abode  in  Geneva,  that  the  Ref- 

1  'On  an  old  seal,  the  device  of  which  has  heen  preserved,  the  French  [Reformed]  Church 
may  be  seen  represented  under  the  image  of  the  burning  bush  of  Moses,  with  this  motto : 
"  Flagror,  sed  non  comburor.'"  These  words  sum  up  the  tragical  history  of  our  Church.  This 
Church  has  been  essentially  militant ;  she  has  known  better,  perhaps,  than  any  other  what  it 
is  to  fight  for  life.  .  .  .  Most  young  Frenchmen  are  brought  up  in  a  holy  horror  of  Protestant- 
ism ;  and  traces  of  this  early  impression  are  even  found  clinging  to  the  minds  of  men  of  inde- 
pendent thought — nay,  of  those  whose  boast  it  is  that  they  are  free-thinkers.' — A.  Decoppet, 
in  his  report  on  the  Reformed  Church  in  France,  at  the  General  Conference  of  the  Evangel- 
ical Alliance  in  New  York,  1873.  See  Proceedings,  p.  72.  The  synodical  seal,  with  the 
above  motto  and  the  date  1  559,  is  reproduced  on  the  title-page  of  the  first  volume  of  13cr- 
sier's  Ilistoire  du  Synode  Ge'ne'rale  de  Veglise  reform,  de  France  1872  (Paris,  1872). 

2  His  Commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  appeared  in  1512. 


§  G2.  THE  GALLICAN  CONFESSION,  1559.  493 

ormation  movement  was  organized  into  a  separate  Church,  and  ac- 
quired a  national  importance.  lie  therefore,  and  his  friend  and  suc- 
cessor Beza,  may  be  regarded  as  the  fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church 
of  France.  Geneva  became  an  asylum  for  their  persecuted  country- 
men, and  the  nursery  of  evangelists.  Henceforward  French  Protest- 
antism assumed  a  Cah  inistic  type  in  doctrine  and  discipline,  but,  ow- 
ing to  the  hostile  attitude  of  the  government,  it  was  kept  separate  and 
distinct  from  the  state.  Although  cruelly  persecuted,  and  numbering 
its  martyrs  by  thousands,  it  spread  rapidly  among  the  middle  and  higher 
classes,  and  in  1558  it  embraced  four  hundred  thousand  followers. 

The  first  national  Synod  was  held  in  Paris,  May  25-28, 1559,  under 
the  moderatorship  of  Francois  de  Morel,  then  pastor  of  Paris,  a  friend 
and  pupil  of  Calvin.1  It  gave  the  Reformed  Church  a  compact  or- 
ganization by  the  adoption  of  the  Gallican  Confession  of  Faith,  in 
connection  with  a  Presbyterian  form  of  government  and  discipline, 
which  remained  the  firm  basis  of  the  Church  as  long  as  she  was  al- 
lowed to  exist  and  to  hold  national  Synods,  twenty-nine  in  all,  the 
last  being  that  at  Loudun,  1G59. 

ANTOINE   DE   CUANDIEU. 

The  Gallican  Confession  is  the  work  of  John  Calvin,  who  prepared  the 
first  draft,  and  of  his  pupil,  Antoine  de  la  Roche  Chandieu,  who,  with 
the  Synod  of  Paris  in  1559,  brought  it  into  its  present  enlarged  shape.2 

Chandieu,  or,  as  he  is  also  called,  Sadeel,3  was  born  1531,  of  a  wealthy 
noble  family,  in  the  castle  Chabot,  in  Burgundy,  studied  law  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Toulouse,  was  converted  to  Protestantism  in  Paris,  renounced 
a  splendid  career,  studied  theology  at  Geneva,  was  ordained  155-1,  and 

1  An  account  of  this  Synod  in  Polenz,  Vol.  I.  pp.  435  sqq.  Owing  to  the  troubles  of  the 
times  there  were  only  eleven  congregations  represented — Dieppe,  Paris,  Angers,  Oilcans, 
Tours,  etc. 

2  Quick,  in  the  Synod.  Call.  lief.  (London,  1G92,  Vol.  I.  p.  xv.),  says  :  'Calvin  first  drew  up 
the  Confession  itself.'  But  Beza,  in  his  History,  connects  Chandieu  prominently  with  tho 
origin  of  the  Confession,  without  expressly  naming  him  as  the  author.  It  is  based,  in  part  at 
least,  on  a  shorter  Confession  to  the  King  (Au  Roy),  which  Calvin  probably  prepared,  1557, 
fur  the  congregation  of  Paris,  in  vindication  against  false  charges.  Sir  Bonnet,  Let  tret  de 
Calvin,  Tom.  IT.  p.  i:5I,  and  Opera,\\>l  IX.  p.  715  (comp.  Prohtf.  K  lix. ).  Calvin  also 
wrote  another  French  Confession  of  Faith,  in  the  name  of  the  French  Churches,  during  the 
war,  to  be  presented  to  the  Kmperor  Maximilian  and  the  German  Diet  at  Frankfort,  15G2. 
Reprinted  in  Ojiera,  Yo\.  IX.  pp.  75:;  77-'. 

3  The  Hebrew  name  for  Chandieu,  i.  e.  Champ  de  JJieu,  Field  of  God. 


494  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

elected  pastor  of  the  small  Reformed  congregation  in  Paris.  He  was 
imprisoned  1557,  escaped  under  the  name  Sadeel,  was  again  imprison- 
ed, but  delivered  by  the  hand  of  Anton  de  Bourbon  (the  father  of 
Henry  IT.),  engaged  in  mission  work  near  Poitiers,  and  returned  to 
his  congregation  in  Paris,  1559.  He  presided  over  the  third  National 
Reformed  Synod  at  Orleans,  1562,  attended  as  delegate  the  seventh 
National  Synod  at  La  Rochelle,  1571,  barely  escaped  the  massacre  of 
St.  Bartholomew  (Aug.  24),  fled  with  his  family  to  Geneva,  and  taught 
theology  at  Lausanne.  He  received  a  commission  in  1578  to  attend  a 
Protestant  Union  meeting  at  Frankfort,  suggested  by  the  Elector  John 
Casimir,  but  never  carried  out.  He  was  called  back  to  France  as  chap- 
lain of  King  Henry  of  Navarre  (afterwards  Henry  IV.),  returned  to 
Geneva,  1589,  and  labored  there  as  pastor  and  Professor  of  Hebrew 
till  his  death,  Feb.  23,  1591.  Beza  esteemed  him  very  highly.  De 
Thou  recommends  him  for  '  noble  birth,  fine  appearance,  elegant  man- 
ners, learning,  eloquence,  and  rare  modesty.' l  Sadeel  wrote  twenty- 
three  books  and  tracts,  mostly  in  Latin,  some  in  French,  relating  to 
Christian  doctrines  (especially  the  Word  of  God ;  the  priesthood  and 
sacrifice  of  Christ;  the  human  nature  of  Christ;  the  spiritual  mandu- 
cation  of  his  body),  Church  discipline,  and  the  history  of  martyrs.2 

THE   GALLICAN   CONFESSION. 

On  a  visit  to  the  mission  church  of  Poitiers,  after  the  holy  commu- 
nion, Chandieu  was  requested  by  the  brethren  to  suggest  to  the  church 
in  Paris  the  importance  of  preparing  a  common  confession  of  faith  and 
order  of  discipline.3  Calvin  was  consulted,  and  sent  three  delegates  with 
a  draft  of  a  confession  to  Paris.  This  was  enlarged  and  adopted  by  the 
Synod  at  Paris,  1559 ;  presented,  with  a  Preface,  to  King  Francis  II.  at 
Amboise,  15G0,  and  afterwards  by  Beza  to  Charles  IX.  at  the  religious 

1  Histor.  Lib.  XXIX.  (on  occasion  of  his  election  as  president  of  the  National  Synod  of 
Orleans,  15G2):  '  Ecclesicc  Parisiensis  pastor,  adolescens,  in  quo  prater  gentis  ?iobilitatem, 
oris  venusta  fades,  cruditio,  eloquentia  cum  singulari  modestia  certabant.' 

2  Ant.  Sadeelis  Opera  theologia,  edited  after  his  death  by  his  son  John,  and  dedicated  to 
Henry  of  Navarre,  Genev.  1502  ;  fifth  edition,  1G20.  He  also  wrote  three  sonnets  on  Calvin's 
death,  and  Octonaires  sur  la  vanite"  du  monde.  See  France  proteetante,  s.  v.  Chandieu,  Vol. 
III.  pp.  320-332  ;  Bulletin  de  la  socie'te  de  I'histoire  du protestantisme  francais,  1853,  p.  279  ; 
G.  von  Polenz,  Gesch,  des  franz.  Calv.,  Vol.  I.  p.  435  ;  Uorrel  (pastor  in  Nismes),  art.  Chan- 
dieu in  Hcrzog,  Real-Encykl.  Vol.  XIX.  p.  318.  On  Sadeel's  Christology,  see  Dorner,  Ent- 
ivicklungstjesch.  der  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi,Yo\.  II.  pp.  725,  733  sq.,  etc. 

3  Boza,.IIistoire,  etc.,  Tom.  I.  pp.  172  sq.,  quoted  in  Calv.  Opera,  Vol.  IX.  p.  lvii. 


§  62.  THE  GALLICAN  CONFESSION,  1559.  495 

conference  in  Poissy,  15G1.  It  was  revised  and  ratified  at  the  seventh 
National  Synod  held  at  La  Eochelle,  1571,  with  Beza  as  moderator,  in 
the  presence  of  the  Queen  of  Navarre  and  her  son  (Henry  IV.),  and 
Admiral  Coligny.  Hence  it  is  also  called  the  '  Confession  ofBoehdle? 
Three  copies  were  written  on  parchment — one  for  La  Roehelle,  one  for 
Geneva,  one  for  Beam — and  signed  by  the  ministers  and  elders  present.1 
As  to  the  text,  the  French  is  the  original,  but  it  exists  in  two  recen- 
sions :  the  shorter  contains  thirty-five  articles,  the  larger  forty  articles. 
The  latter  was  sanctioned  by  the  Synod  of  La  Roehelle.2  It  was  often 
printed  in  different  languages,  and  attached  to  many  French  Bibles. 

CONTENTS. 

The  Gallican  Confession  is  a  faithful  summary  of  the  doctrines  of 
Calvin.  It  begins  with  God  (art.  1),  his  revelation  (2),  and  the  Script- 
ures as  the  Word  of  God  and  certain  rule  of  our  faith,  which  is  above 
all  customs,  edicts,  decrees,  and  councils  (3-5).  The  three  oecumenical 
Symbols  are  adopted  (5),  because  they  agree  with  the  Word  of  God. 
The  Holy  Scripture  teaches  the  unity  of  essence  and  tripersonality  of 
God — the  Father,  who  is  the  first  cause,  principle,  and  origin  of  all 
things ;  the  Son,  his  eternal  Word  and  Wisdom,  eternally  begotten  by 
the  Father ;  the  Holy  Spirit,  his  virtue  and  power  eternally  proceed- 
ing from  both  (6).  God  in  three  co-working  persons  created  all 
things,  visible  and  invisible  (7);  and  governs  all  things,  even  sin  and 
evil,  yet  without  being  the  author  of  sin,  but  so  making  use  of  devils 
and  sinners  as  to  turn  to  good  the  evil  which  they  do,  and  of  which 
they  alone  are  guilty  (S).  Man  was  created  pure  and  perfect,  but 
fell  by  his  own  guilt,  and  became  totally  corrupt  and  a  slave  of  .-in, 
although  he  can  still  discern  good  and  evil  (9).  All  posterity  of 
Adam  is  in  bondage  to  original  sin,  which  is  an  inherited  evil  (not  an 

1  The  Geneva  copy  has  been  reproduced  in  fac-simile  by  Ed.  Pelcssert.    See  Ileppe,  p.  513. 

2  it>'autant  que  noslre  confession  de  foy  est  imprimee  de  differences  manieres,  le  Synode 
declare  que  celle-la  est  la  veritable  confession  de  nos  Eylises  reforme'es  de  France  qui  com- 
mence par  ces  paroles :  "  Nous  croyons  quily  a  un  scul  Dicu,"  e\c,  luquclle  a  este~  dresste  au 
premier  Synode  national  tcnu  a  Paris,  le'25  mai  de  Van  1559.'  Quoted  in  Calv.  Opera,  Vol.  IX. 
p.  lix..  from  Aymon.  The  shorter  edition  is  printed  in  Opera,  Vol  IX.  p.  789,  under  the  title 
Confession  de  Foy  faite  d'un  commun  accord  par  les  Eglises  qui  sont  disperses  en  France  et 
s'abstienent  des  idolatries  papules.  The  larger  edition  is  incorporated  in  the  third  volume 
of  this  work.  It  substitutes  in  the  title  for  'qui  sont,'  etc.,  the  words  'qui  de'sirent  virre  selon 
la  purele"  de  I'e'vanyile  de  nostre  Seiyneur  Jesus- Christ.'     Comp.  Ileppe.  pp.  509  sqq. 


496  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

imitation  merely),  and  sufficient  for  condemnation ;  even  after  bap- 
tism it  is  still  sin,  but  the  condemnation  of  it  is  abolished  out  of  free 
grace  (10, 11).  God,  according  to  his  eternal  and  immutable  purpose, 
calls  out  of  this  corrupt  mass  those  whom  he  has  chosen  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  without  regard  to  their  merit,  to  the  praise  of  his  glori- 
ous grace,  leaving  the  rest  in  their  corruption  and  condemnation,  to 
the  praise  of  his  eternal  justice  (12).1 

Jesus  Christ  is  our  all-sufficient  Saviour,  and  'made  unto  us  wisdom, 
and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  redemption'  (13).  lie  as- 
sumed our  human  nature,  being  God  and  man  in  one  person,  like  unto 
us  in  body  and  soul,  yet  without  sin.  We  detest  all  ancient  and  mod- 
ern heresies  on  the  person  of  Christ,  especially  that  of  Servetus  (14). 
The  two  natures  in  the  one  person  of  Christ  are  inseparably  united, 
and  yet  remain  distinct,  so  that  the  divine  nature  retains  its  attri- 
butes, being  uncreated,  infinite,  and  omnipresent,  and  the  human  nat- 
ure continues  finite  and  circumscribed  (15).  By  the  one  sacrifice  of 
Christ  on  the  cross  we  are  reconciled  to  God,  and  have  the  forgiveness 
of  all  our  sins  (16,17).  Our  justification  is  founded  on  the  remission 
of  sins  by  the  atoning  death  of  Christ,  without  any  merit  of  our  own, 
and  is  apprehended  and  appropriated  by  faith  alone  (18-20).  By  this 
faith  we  are  regenerated,  and  receive  grace  to  lead  a  holy  life,  ac- 
cording to  the  Holy  Spirit  dwelling  in  us.  Faith,  then,  of  necessity 
produces  good  works,  but  these  works  are  not  accounted  to  us  for 
righteousness,  which  must  rest  exclusively  on  the  satisfaction  of  Christ ; 
otherwise  we  would  never  have  peace  (21,  22).  Christ  is  our  only 
Advocate  before  the  Father.  We  therefore  reject  the  intercession 
of  saints,  and  all  other  devices  which  detract  from  the  all-sufficient 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  as  purgatory,  monastic  vows,  pilgrimages,  auricu- 
lar confession,  indulgences.  We  reject  them  not  only  on  account  of 
the  false  idea  of  merit  attached  to  them,  but  also  because  they  impose 
a  yoke  upon  the  conscience  (23,  21). 

The  Church,  with  the  ministry  and  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God, 
is  a  divine  institution,  and  must  be  respected  and  obeyed.  The  true 
Church  is  the  company  of  believers  who  agree  to  live  according  to  the 
Word  of  God,  and  to  advance  in  holiness.     Nevertheless  there  may  be 

1  'Laissant  les  autres  en  cette  meme  corruption  et  condamnation,  pour  de'montrer  en  eux  sa 
justice,  comme  aux  premiers  ilfait  luire  les  richesses  de  sa  mise'ricorde.' 


§  G2.  THE  GALLICAN  CONFESSION,  1550.  497 

hypocrites  and  reprobates  in  it,  who  can  not  destroy  its  character  and 
title.  We  reject  the  papacy  for  its  many  superstitions,  idolatries, 
and  corruptions  of  the  Word  and  Sacraments.  But  as  some  trace  of 
the  true  Church  is  left  in  the  papacy,  together  with  the  virtue  and 
efficacy  of  baptism,  and  as  the  efficacy  of  baptism  does  not  depend 
upon  the  personal  character  of  the  minister,  we  teach  that  those  who 
received  baptism  in  the  Romish  Church  do  not  need  a  second  baptism. 
The  true  Church  should  be  governed  by  pastors,  elders,  and  deacons. 
All  true  pastors  have  the  same  authority  and  power  under  one  head, 
the  only  sovereign  and  universal  bishop,  Jesus  Christ ;  and  consequent- 
ly no  Church  shall  claim  any  authority  or  dominion  over  the  other 
(25-33).1  The  Sacraments  are  added  to  the  Word  as  pledges  and  seals 
of  the  grace  of  God  to  aid  and  comfort  our  faith.  They  are  external 
signs  through  which  God  operates  by  the  power  of  his  Spirit.  Their 
substance  and  truth  is  in  Christ ;  separated  from  him  they  are  empty 
shadows.  There  are  but  two  Sacraments :  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Baptism  is  the  permanent  pledge  and  signature  of  our  adop- 
tion ;  by  it  we  are  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ,  so  as  to  be  cleansed 
by  his  blood  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Lord's  Supper  is 
the  witness  of  our  union  with  Christ,  who  truly  nourishes  ns  with  his 
broken  body  and  shed  blood  through  the  secret  and  incomprehensible 
power  of  his  Spirit.  We  hold  that  this  is  done  spiritually  and  by 
faith,  not  because  we  substitute  imagination  or  thought  for  reality  and 
truth,  but  because  this  great  mystery  surpasses  our  senses  and  the  order 
of  nature.  In  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  God  really  gives  us  what 
they  represent.  Those  who  approach  the  Lord's  table  with  true  faith, 
as  a  vessel,  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  nourish  the 
soul  no  less  than  bread  and  wine  nourish  the  body  (34-3S). 

God  has  instituted  kingdoms,  republics,  and  other  forms  of  govern- 
ment, whether  hereditary  or  elective,  for  the  order  and  peace  of  society. 
He  has  given  the  sword  to  the  magistrate  for  the  punishment  of  sin 
and  crime,  and  the  transgressions  of  the  first  as  well  as  the  second 
table  of  the  Decalogue.2     We  must  therefore  obey  the  magistrate, 

1  The  National  Synod  of  Gap,  1603,  inserted  an  article  (31)  declaring  the  pope  to  he  'the 
Antichrist  and  man  of  sin,'  but  the  Synod  of  La  Bochellfl  U,;U")  struck  it  out  on  account  of 
the  protest  of  the  king.     Heppe,  p.  687. 

s  'J7  «  mis  le  ylaive  en  la  main  des  iwtrjistrats  pour  re'primer  les  peche's  commis  non  settle- 
ment contre  la  seconde  table  des  commande meats  de  Dicu,  mais  aussi  contre  la  premiere.'  This 
clause  justifies  civil  punishment  of  heresy.     It  is  one  of  the  chief  causes  why  even  orthodox 


498  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

X^ay  tribute  and  taxes  with  a  good  and  free  will,  even  if  the  rulers  are 
unbelievers.  We  therefore  detest  those  who  would  resist  authority, 
establish  community  of  goods,  and  overthrow  the  order  of  justice 
(39,  40). 

§  63.  The  Declaration  of  Faith  of  the  Reformed  Church  in 
France.     A.D.  1872. 

Literature. 

JXJ«  Synode  general  de  1'E.glise  Re/ormee  de  Frame,  Premiere  session  tenue  d  Paris  dti  6  Juin  au 
10  Juillet,  1872.  Proces  verbaux  et  actes  publics  par  Vordre  du  Synode.  Paris,  1873.  (Comp.  also  the 
Compte  Rendu  of  the  secretaries,  and  the  discourses  of  Laurens,  Pecaut,  Ath.  Coquerel,  Fontaues,  Colani, 
and  Clamagerau,  which  appeared  during  the  session.) 

Do.  Second  session  tenue  a  Paris  du  20  Novembre  au  3  Decembre,  1S73.    Paris,  1873. 

Eogene  Beesier  :  Histoire  du  Synode  generate  de  VE-glise  Re/ormee  de  France,  Paris,  0  Juin  au  10  Juillet, 
1872.  Paris,  1S72, 2  vols.  (E.  B.  attended  the  Synod  of  1S72  in  person,  as  a  delegate  of  the  Free  Church 
of  France,  and  gave  an  account  of  it  in  the  Journal  de  Geneve.) 

The  thirtieth  meeting  of  the  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church 
in  France  forms  an  epoch  in  its  history.  It  resumed  the  series  of 
twenty-nine  National  Synods  after  an  interruption  of  two  hundred  and 
twelve  years.1  The  last  was  held  at  Loudun  (Anjou),  and  was  brought 
to  a  close  in  Jan.,  1660,  by  an  order  of  Louis  XIY.  prohibiting  such 
synods  in  future,  on  the  pretext  that  they  were  too  expensive  and 
troublesome,  and  that  their  business  could  be  transacted  in  provincial 
synods.  Daille,  the  moderator,  protested  in  vain.  This  act  of  injus- 
tice aimed  to  destroy  the  force  of  the  Reformed  communion  by  break- 
ing it  up  into  incoherent  sections,  and  was  crowned  by  the  sweeping 
Revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  (Oct.  22,  1685),  which  deprived 
France  of  a  million  of  her  best  citizens,  and  reduced  the  remnant  of 
Protestants  to  a  forbidden  sect.  The  history  of  this  dark  period  is 
full  of  touching  and  dramatic  interest.  '  The  Reformed  Church  of 
the  Desert,'  under  'the  most  Christian'  King  of  France,  like  the  primi- 
tive Church  under  the  sway  of  heathen  Rome,  had  to  hold  its  synodical 
meetings  in  the  open  fields,  in  mountain-passes,  and  caverns  of  the 
earth.2  In  those  meetings  the  Gallican  Confession  was  read,  and 
prayer  offered  for  the  persecuting  king.  The  spread  of  infidelity, 
which  followed  as  a  reaction  against  the  tyranny  of  superstition  and 

members  of  the  National  Synod  of  1872  were  opposed  to  the  re-adoption  of  this  Confession 
in  full. 

1  See  a  list  of  the  French  National  Synods  in  Bersier,Vol.  II.  pp.  429  sqq. 

8  Eight  of  these  forbidden  Synods  were  held  between  172G  and  17G3. 


§  63.  THE  FRENCH  CONFESSION  OF  1872.  499 

bigotry,  brought  first  an  edict  of  universal  toleration  under  Louis  XVI. 
(1787),  and  soon  afterwards  a  total  overthrow  of  Christianity  and 
social  order,  until  Napoleon,  in  1802,  restored  the  Roman  Church  as 
the  religion  of  the  majority  of  Frenchmen,  and  the  Reformed  Church 
as  the  religion  of  a  small  though  respectable  minority,  but  both  under 
the  pay  and  control  of  the  State,  and  without  the  right  of  synodical 
self-government  and  discipline.1 

This  right,  denied  by  the  Bourbon,  the  Napoleon,  and  the  Orleanist 
dynasties,  was  at  last  restored  to  the  Reformed  Church  by  the  Repub- 
lican government  under  Thiers,  who,  by  an  edict  of  Nov.  29, 1ST1,  au- 
thorized the  Consistories  in  France  and  Algiers  to  elect  delegates  to  a 
General  Synod.  Under  these  auspices  the  General  Synod  convened 
in  the  Temple  du  Saint-Esprit,  at  Paris,  from  June  Gth  to  July  10th, 
1872.  It  consisted  of  one  hundred  and  eight  delegates  (forty-nine 
ministers  and  fifty-nine  laymen),  the  legitimate  descendants  of  those 
few  humble  but  enthusiastic  and  heroic  pastors  and  elders  who  met  in 
the  same  city,  in  1559,  with  torture  and  death  staring  them  in  the  face. 
It  was  opened  by  a  sermon  of  pastor  Charles  Babut  of  Nimes  on  John 
viii.  14.  Charles  Edouard  Basti<5,  pastor  of  Bergerac  (Dordogne),  was 
elected  moderator.  The  object  of  the  Synod  was  to  again  effect  a 
complete  organization  on  the  basis  of  a  confession  of  faith  and  a  sys- 
tem of  discipline. 

But  the  preparation  and  adoption  of  a  confession  of  faith  is  a  more 
difficult  task  in  the  nineteenth  century  than  it  was  in  the  sixteenth. 
For,  like  all  other  Protestant  denominations,  the  French  Church  had 
during  the  eighteenth  century  undergone  a  theological  revolution,  and 
is  still  in  a  process  of  transition.  The  doctrinal  system  of  the  Gallican 
Confession  had  lost  its  hold  upon  a  large  portion  of  the  clergy  and 
laity  ;  and  even  the  most  orthodox  Protestants  could  not  subscribe  that 
article  which,  in  harmony  with  the  general  sentiment  of  the  sixteenth 


1  Napoleon's  motive  was  chiefly  of  a  political  character.  He  needed  religion  as  a  basis  of 
society,  and  Protestantism  u  a  check  upon  the  ambition  of  popery;  yet  be  professed  to  a 
number  of  Protestant  pastors  to  be  a  friend  of  the  liberty  of  conscience,  whose  'indefinite 
empire  begins  where  the  empire  of  law  ends,' and  he  authorized  them  to  brand  with  the 
name  of  Nero  any  one  of  his  saccesson  who  should  violate  this  liberty.  Napoleon  III.  pro- 
fessed the  same  policy,  but  threw  the  weight  of  his  power  into  the  scale  of  Romanism,  and 
made  a  distinction  between  the  private  liberty  of  conscience,  which  nobody  can  touch,  and 
the  public  liberty  of  worship,  which  reciuires  a  recognition  by  the  Male. 


500 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


century,  conceded  to  the  civil  government  (hostile  as  it  then  was  to 
the  Huguenots)  the  power  to  punish  heresy  by  the  sword.1  On  the 
other  hand,  that  venerable  document,  which  embodied  the  faith  of  the 
fathers  and  martyrs  of  the  French  Church,  could  not  be  ignored  with- 
out ingratitude  and  want  of  self-respect.  Under  these  circumstances 
the  General  Synod,  at  its  thirteenth  session,  June  20, 1872,  adopted  a 
middle  course  in  the  following  declaration  of  faith,  proposed  by  Charles 
Bois,  Professor  of  Church  History  at  Montauban  : 


'The  Reformed  Church  of  France,  on  re- 
suming her  synodical  action,  which  for  so 
many  years  had  been  interrupted,  desires,  be- 
fore all  things,  to  offer  her  thanks  to  God, 
and  to  testify  her  love  to  Jesus  Christ,  her 
Divine  Head,  who  has  sustained  and  comfort- 
ed her  during  her  successive  trials. 

'  She  declares,  through  the  organ  of  her  rep- 
resentatives, that  she  remains  faithful  to  her 
principles  of  faith  and  freedom  on  which  she 
was  founded. 

'With  her  fathers  and  her  martyrs  in  the 
Confession  of  Rochellk,2  and  with  all  the 
Churches  of  the  Reformation  in  their  respec- 
tive creeds,  she  proclaims  the  sovereign 
authority  of  the  holy  scriptures  in 
matters  of  faith,  and  salvation  by  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son 
of  God,  who  died  for  our  sins,  and  was 
raised  again  for  our  justification. 

'  She  preserves  and  maintains,  as  the  basis 
of  her  teaching,  of  her  worship  and  her  dis- 
cipline, the  grand  Christian  facts  represented 
in  her  religious  solemnities,  and  set  forth  in 
her  liturgies,  especially  in  the  Confession  of 
sins,  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  in  the  order 
for  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.' 


'  Au  moment  ou  elle  reprend  la  suite  de  ses 
Synodes,  interrompus  dejmis  tant  d'annees, 
I  Eglise  reforme'e  de  France  e'prouve,  avant 
toutes  choses,  le  besoin  de  rendre  graces  a  Dieu, 
et  de  temoigner  son  amour  a  Jesus-Christ,  son 
divin  Chef,  qui  Va  soutenue  et  console'e  durant 
le  cours  de  ses  <f/>reuves. 

'  Kile  declare  par  lorgane  de  ses  repre'sen- 
tants  qtielle  reste  fidele  aux  principes  de  J'oi 
et  de  liberte'  sur  lesquels  elle  a  e'tefonde'e. 

lAvec  sesjieres  et  ses  martyrs  dans  la  Con- 
fession de  la  Rochelle,  avec  toutes  les 
Eglises  de  la  Reformation  dans  leurs  symboles, 
elle  proclanie  l'autorite  souveraine  des 
Saintes  Ecritures  en  matiere  de  foi, 
et  le  salut  par  la  foi  en  jesus-christ, 
flls  unique  de  dleu,  mort  pour  nos  of- 
fenses et  ressuscite  pour  notre  justifi- 
CATION. 

'  Elle  conserve  done  et  elle  maintient,  a  la 
base  de  son  enseignement,  de  son  culte  et  de  sa 
discipline,  les  grands  faits  chretiens  represen- 
tes  dans  ses  solennite's  religieuses  et  erjirimes 
dans  ses  liturgies,  notamment  dans  la  Confession 
des  pe'ehe's,  dans  le  Symbole  des  Apotres, 
et  dans  la  liturgie  de  la  saint  Cine.' 


This  moderate  Confession  was  adopted  by  61  votes  against  45,  or  a 
majority  of  only  16  members.3  Among  the  affirmative  votes  are  those 
of  Babut,  Bois,  Breyton,  Dhombres,  Juillerat,  and  the  venerable  octo- 
genarian Guizot,  whose  last  public  act  was  a  testimony  of  faith  on  the 
floor  of  this  General  Synod  of  the  Church  of  his  fathers,  declaring  be- 
fore his  retirement  that  the  Church  must  affirm  its  faith  in  the  super- 


1  Art.  39 :  '  God  has  put  the  sword  into  the  hands  of  magistrates  to  suppress  crimes  against 
the  first  as  well  as  against  the  second  table  of  his  Commandments.'  It  was  on  that  ground 
that  Servet's  execution  in  Geneva  for  blasphemy  was  justified. 

2  That  is,  the  Gallican  Confession  as  revised  and  adopted  by  the  National  Synod  of  La 
Rochelle,  1571.     See  §  02. 

'Two  members  were  absent.  The  official  report  says:  ' Le  nombre  des  volants  est  de  106. 
Majority  ubsolue  5 1.    Le  depouillement  du  scruiin  donne  0 1  bulletins  blancs,  45  bulletins  bleus. ' 


§  G3.  THE  FRENCH  CONFESSION  OF  1872.  501 

natural  incarnation,  the  miracle?,  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  or  cease  to 
be  a  Church.  The  rationalistic  minority,  including  Colani,  Coquerel 
(Athanase  and  Etienne),  Pecaut,  Rivet,  protested  against  the  adoption 
of  any  creed,  and  asserted  the  right  of  each  pastor,  elder,  and  private 
member  of  the  Church  to  adhere  to  whatever  creed  he  may  think 
proper.  Nevertheless,  they  expressed  their  determination  to  hold  on 
to  the  National  Reformed  Church. 

The  French  Government  ratified  the  decision  of  the  Synod  (1S73). 
Subscription  to  its  Confession  will  be  hereafter  a  qualification  of  elec- 
tors. The  liberal  party  abstained  from  participation  in  the  second 
session  of  the  General  Synod  held  in  Nov.  and  Dec,  1S73,  and  sent  in 
a  request  to  agree  to  a  peaceful  separation ;  but  this  request  was  re- 
fused.1 

Hence  the  Rationalists,  if  they  have  sufficient  interest  in  positive 
Christianity,  will  be  obliged  to  secede  and  organize  a  new  society  sim- 
ilar to  the  Unitarian  body  in  England  and  the  United  States. 

A  separation  is  preferable  to  an  unnatural  alliance  at  the  expense 
of  truth  and  charity.  And  it  would  be  all  the  more  honorable  if  it  be 
done  with  an  equitable  division  of  Church  property. 

The  acts  of  the  General  Synod  of  the  National  Church  had  the 
double  effect  of  virtually  excluding  the  rationalistic  party,  and  of  at- 
tracting to  a  closer  fellowship  the  Free  Church,  which,  like  the  Free 
Churches  in  French  Switzerland,  represents  modern  evangelical  Cal- 
vinism, independent  of  state  support  and  state  control.2 

1  The  following  action  was  taken  by  the  Synod  in  reference  to  the  petition  of  the  minority: 
'  The  Assembly,  considering  that  the  General  Synod  is  the  high  court  of  the  Church,  and  so 
acknowledged  by  the  State ;  considering  that  the  decisions  arrived  at  in  reference  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith  reproduce  the  doctrines  on  which  the  Reformed  Church  of  France  was 
founded,  and  that,  therefore,  all  who  reject  them  are  ipso  /tic to  without  the  pale  of  the 
Church;  considering  that  none  can  be  constrained  to  remain  in  a  Church  the  creed  of  which 
he  rejects,  and  from  which  he  wishes  to  retire — every  man  having  entire  liberty  to  remain  or 
separate  himself,  according  to  the  dictation  of  his  conscience;  considering  that  the  Synod  lias 
taken  no  resolutions  to  restrict  the  liberty  of  any,  especially  none  to  prevent  the  retirement 
of  any  pastors  and  members  in  order  to  found  another  Church,  and  none  to  prevent  Bucfa  per- 
sons from  obtaining  the  recognition  of  the  State,  the  advantages  of  the  concordat,  and  an 
equitable  share  of  ecclesiastical  temporalities;  considering,  lastly,  that  it  is  not  the  business 
of  the  General  Synod  itself  to  inaugurate  the  formation  of  a  new  Chorcb,  its  mission  being  to 
construct,  and  not  to  rend  asunder,  passes  to  the  order  of  the  day.' 

3  The  Free  Church,  or  '  Union  of  the  Evangelical  Churches  in  France'  (/'  Union  de»  igliaea 
€oang€lique8  dn  France),  to  which  PresBense',  Fish,  and  Bersier  belong,  owes  its  existence  to 
the  rationalism  in  the  National  Church  which,  at  the  synodical  meeting  held  after  the  Febi  u- 


502  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

§  64.  The  Belgic  Confession.     A.D.  1561. 

Literature. 
I.  Editions  of  tiie  Confession. 

La  Confession  de  Foi  des  eglibes  reformers  Wai.lonnes  et  Fi.amandes  (Apoc.  ii.  10 ;  1  Pierre  iii.  15). 
Reimprimee  par  decision  de  la  Societe  Evangelique  Beige.  Bruxelles,  1S50  (Librairie  Chretienne  Evange- 
lique,  Rue  de  l'lmperatrice,  33).  The  authentic  French  text,  as  revised  by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  with  a  brief 
historical  and  critical  introduction. 

The  Latin  text  is  found  in  different  recensions,  in  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma  (1612  and  1G54) ;  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Synod  of  Dort;  the  Oxford  Sylloge;  Augusti's  Collect,  (the  text  of  Dort) ;  Nienieyer's  Collect,  (the 
translation  of  Hommius,  1518,  with  various  readings). 

English  translations,  likewise  differing  in  minor  details,  in  the  Harmony  o/Prot.  Conf. ;  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  of  North  America  (very  good) ;  and  a  new  one  made  in  1862  by 
Owen  Jones  :  Church  of  the  Living  God,  London,  1865,  pp.  203-237  (incomplete  and  inaccurate). 

German  translation  in  Beck  (Vol.  I.  pp.  293  sqq.),  and  Bockel  (pp.  4S0  sqq.). 

A  Greek  translation  by  Jac.  Revius  (Pastor  of  the  Church  at  Deventer) :  'Ekk\hct<u)i>  t7,i  BtXytKri?  ef  ojuoXo- 
7„<nc,Ultrajecti,1660. 

Comp.  Herzog  :  art.  Belgische  Confession,  in  his  Real-Encykl.  Vol.  II.  p.  10  ;  M.  Goehel  :  art.  Guido  de 
Bres,  ibid.  Vol.  V.  p.  412. 

II.  Historical. 

H.  Grotius  :  Annales  et  Hist,  de  rebus  Belgicis  (1556-1609).    Amstel.  1658. 

H.  Venema  :  Institutiones  historice  eccksice  V.  et  X.  T.  Tom.  VII.  p.  252  (ad  ann.  1563). 

J.  le  Long:  Kort  historisch  Vcrhaal  vanden  oorsprung der  Xedcrlandtschen  GereformeerdenKerkenondert 
Kruys,  bencffens  alle  derselver  Leeren  Dienst-Boeken.    Amst.  1741. 

Gerh.  Brandt  (Arminian) :  Historie  der  Reformatie  in  en  omtrent  de  Xederlanden.  Amst.  1671-74, 4  vols. 
(Also  in  French :  Histoire  de  la  Reformation  des  Pays-Bas,  1720,  and  in  English  by  Chamberlayne,  Lon- 
don, 1720-23,  4  vols.). 

Ypey  en  Dermoot  :  Geschiedenissen  der  Xedcrlandsche  Hervormde  Kcrk.    Breda,  1819-27, 4  vols 

Van  der  Kemp:  De  Eere  der  Xederlandsche  Hervormde  Kerk.     Rotterd.  1S30. 

Gaciiard:  Correspondance  de  Gtiillaume  le  Taciturne,  Prince  d' Orange,  1S47-5S,  6  vols. 

Groen  van  Prinsterer  :  Archives  ou  Correspondence  inedite  de  la  maison  d' Orange- Nassau  (1552-S4), 
1857-61, 10  vols. ;  second  series  (1584-168S),  6  vols.  1S57-61. 

Wm.  II.  Prescott  :  History  of  the  Reign  of  Philip  II.,  King  of  Spain.    New  York,  1855-58, 3  vols. 

A.  Henne  :  Hist,  du  regne  de  Charles  V.  en  Belgique.    Brux.  1S58  sqq.  10  Tom. 

J.  L.  Motley  :  The  Rise  of  the  Dtitc.h  Republic,  London  and  New  York,  1S56,  3  vols.  By  the  same :  His- 
tory of  the  United  Netherlands,  New  York,  1861,  4  vols. 

M.  Kocn :  Untersuch.  iiber  die  Emphrung  der  Xiederlande.    Leipz.  1S60. 

F.  Holzwartu  :  Abfall  der  Xiederlande.    Schaffhausen,  1S05-72, 3  vols. 

TIIE   REFORMATION   IN   THE   NETHERLANDS. 

The  Low  Countries,  conquered  from  the  sea  by  indomitable  energy — 
the  land  of  Erasmus,  of  free  cities,  of  inventions,  and  nourishing  com- 

ary  Revolution  of  1848  (without  government  sanction,  and  hence  without  legislative  effect),  re- 
fused to  acknowledge  the  divinity  of  Christ.  This  induced  Frederick  Monod  to  secede,while 
his  more  distinguished  and  equally  conscientious  brother  Adolph  remained,  to  the  benefit  of  the 
National  body,  which  since  that  time  has  become  more  orthodox.  The  Union  manifests  a  good 
deal  of  missionary  zeal  and  literary  activity,  and  reacts  favorable  on  the  Established  Church. 
Rersier,  in  his  History  of  the  General  Synod,  expresses  himself  satisfied  with  its  results  (close 
of  Introduction  to  Vol.  I.  p.  lvii.):  'iVos  sympathies  personnelles  sont  avec  la  droite  dans  les 
trois  grandes  questions  que  le  Synode  a  eu  a.  re'soudre :  celle  de  I'atttorite'  du  Synode,  celle  de 
la  declaration  de  foi,  celle  enjin  des  conditions  de  foi  et  de  doctrine  auxquelles  les  pastenrs  et 
les  e'lec.teitrs  devrout  de'sormais  souscrire.  Nous  estimona  que  par  ces  trois  votes  la  majoritc  a 
accompli  des  actes  ne'eessaires,  et  que  si,  par  un  abus  de  pouvoir  que  nous  ne  voulons  pas  prd- 
voir,  le  rjouvernement  refusait  de  ratijier  son  ccuire  [the  ratification  has  since  been  granted], 
elle  await  ntfanmoins  pose  les  fondations  futures  sur  lesquelles,  avec  ou  sans  appui  de  I'Etat, 
VEglise  rcfonnee  devra  de'sormais  sY/erer.' 


§  64.  THE  BELGIC  CONFESSION,  15C1.  503 

merce— was  flooded,  through  merchants,  soldiers,  and  books,  with  Prot- 
estant ideas  from  Germany  and  France,  as  with  waters  from  the  Rhine 
and  the  Meuse.  Already  in  1521  Charles  V.,  who  afterwards  regret- 
ted that  he  had  not  burned  Luther  at  Worms,  issued  from  that  city  an 
edict  for  the  suppression  of  heresy  in  this  the  most  valuable  of  his  in- 
herited dominions.  To  Belgium  belongs  the  honor  of  having  furnished 
the  first  martyrs  of  evangelical  Protestanism  in  Henry  Yoes  and  John 
Esch,  two  Augustinian  monks,  who  were  burned  at  the  stake  in  Brus- 
sels, July  1, 1523,  reciting  the  Apostles'  Creed  and  singing  the  Te  Deum, 
and  who  were  celebrated  by  Luther  in  a  stirring  hymn.1  This  was 
the  fiery  signal  of  a  fearful  persecution,  which  reached  its  height  under 
Philip  II.  of  Spain,  and  the  executor  of  his  bloody  designs,  the  Duke 
of  Alva,  but  resulted  at  last  in  the  establishment  of  national  independ- 
dence  and  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  a  large  part  of  the  Nether- 
lands. The  number  of  her  martyrs  exceeds  that  of  any  other  Protest- 
ant Church  during  the  sixteenth  century,  and  perhaps  that  of  the  whole 
primitive  Church  under  the  Roman  empire.2  During  the  ever-memor- 
able conflict  under  William  of  Orange,  who  was  assassinated  by  a  fa- 
natical papist  in  15S4,  and  his  second  son  Maurice — an  able  military 
commander  and  strict  Calvinist  (d.  1625) — the  Bible,  with  the  Belgic 
Confession  and  Heidelberg  Catechism,  was  the  spiritual  guide  and  com- 
forter of  the  Protestants,  and  fortified  them  against  the  assaults  of  the 
enemy.  Calvinism,  which  fears  God  and  no  body  else,  inspired  that 
heroic  courage  which  triumphed  over  the  political  and  religious  des- 
potism of  Spain,  and  raised  Holland  to  an  extraordinary  degree  of 
commercial  and  literary  eminence.3 


1  See  a  part  of  it,  in  English  and  German,  quoted  by  Gieseler,  Vol.  IV.  p.  31 1  (Am.  ed.). 

3Grotius  estimates  the  number  of  Protestant  martyrs  in  Holland,  under  one  reign,  at  one 
hundred  thousand.  Gibbon  {History  of  the  Decline,  etc.,  at  the  close  of  C'h.  XVI.)  confi- 
dently asserts  that  '  the  number  of  Protestants  who  were  executed  by  the  Spaniards  in  a  -in- 
gle province  and  a  single  reign,  far  exceeded  that  of  the  primitive  martyrs  in  the  Bpace  of 
three  centuries,  and  of  the  Roman  empire.'  And  Motley  (History  of  the  Rise  of  the  Dutch 
Republic,  Vol.  II.  p.  .r>04)  says  of  the  terrihle  reign  of  Alva:  'The  barbarities  committed  amid 
the  sack  and  ruin  of  those  blazing  and  starving  cities  are  almost  beyond  belief;  unborn  infants 
were  torn  from  the  living  bodies  of  their  mothers;  women  and  children  were  violated  by 
the  thousands,  and  whole  populations  bnrned  and  hacked  to  piece-  by  soldiers  in  every  mode 
which  cruelty  in  its  wanton  ingenuity  could  devise.' 

3  It  is  strange  that  Motley,  in  his  great  works  on  the  Pise,  and  the  History  of  the  Dutch 
Republic,  ignores  the  Belgic  Confession,  and  barely  mentions  the  name  of  Guido  de  Bres. 

Vol.  I.— K  k 


504:  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

GUIDO    DE    BEES. 

The  chief  author  of  the  Belgic  Confession  is  Guido  (or  Guy,Wido) 
de  Bees,  a  noble  evangelist  and  martyr  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
the  Netherlands.  He  was  born  about  1540  at  Mons,  in  llennegau, 
educated  in  the  Roman  Church,  and  by  diligent  reading  of  the  Script- 
ures converted  to  the  evangelical  faith.  Expelled  from  his  country, 
lie  sought  refuge  in  London  under  Edward  VI.,  where  he  joined  the 
Belgic  fugitives,  and  prepared  himself  for  the  ministry.  Afterwards 
he  studied  at  Lausanne,  and  became  a  traveling  evangelist  in  South- 
western Belgium  and  Northern  France — from  Dieppe  to  Sedan,  from 
Valenciennes  to  Antwerp.  After  the  conquest  of  French  Flanders  he 
was,  together  with  a  younger  missionary  from  Geneva,  Peregrin  de  la 
Grange,  taken  prisoner,  put  in  chains,  and  hanged  on  the  last  day  of 
May,  1567,  for  disobedience  to  the  commands  of  the  court  at  Brussels, 
and  especially  for  the  distribution  of  the  holy  communion  in  the  Re- 
formed congregations.  From  prison  the  youthful  martyr  wrote  letters 
of  comfort  to  his  brethren,  his  old  mother,  his  wife,  and  his  children, 
and  met  his  death  as  if  it  were  a  marriage-feast.1  In  his  proper  home 
Protestantism  was  completely  suppressed,  but  in  the  neighboring  conn- 
tries  of  Holland  and  the  Lower  Rhine  it  spread  and  flourished. 

THE    BELGIC    CONFESSION. 

The  Belgic  Confession  was  prepared  in  1561  by  Guido  de  Bres, 
with  the  aid  of  Adrien  de  Saravia  (professor  of  theology  in  Leyden, 
afterwards  at  Cambridge,  where  he  died,  1613),  II.  Modetus  (for  some 
time  chaplain  of  William  of  Orange),  and  G.  Wingen,  in  the  French 
language,  to  prove  the  Reformed  faith  from  the  Word  of  God.2  It 
was  revised  by  Francis  Junius,  of  Bourges  (1545-1602) — a  student  of 


1  See,  on  Guy  de  Bres,  the  enlarged  edition  of  Crespin's  Histoire  cles  Martyrs,  Geneve,  1617, 
pp.  731-7r>0,  and  the  Brussels  edition  of  the  Con/,  defoi,  p.  19. 

2  Saravia,  in  a  letter  to  Uy tenbogardus  (Apr.  13,  1 G 1 '_'),  quoted  by  Niemeyer  (Prolog,  p.  lii. ) 
and  Gieseler  (Ch.  Hist.  Vol.  IV.  p.  314,  Am.  ed.),  says :  '  Ego  me  Wins  confessionis  ex  pri- 
mis  unmn  fuisse  auctoribus  profiteor,  sicut  et  llcrmannus  Modetus:  nescio  an  plures  sint  su- 
perstites.  Ilia primo fuit  conscripta  Gallico  sermone  a  Vhristi  servo  et  martyre  Guidone  de  Bres, 
sed  anlequam  edcretur  ministris  verhi  Dei,  quos  potuit  nancisci,  Warn  communicavit :  et  emen- 
dandum  si  quid  displiceret,  addendum,  detrahendum  proposuit,  ut  unius  opus  censeri  non  de- 
beat.  Sed  nemo  eorum,  qui  manum  apjiosucrunt,  umquatn  co(jitavit  Jidei  canonem  edere,  veruin 
ex  canonicis  scriptis  Jidern  suam  probare.' 


§G4.  THE  BELGIC  CONFESSION,  1561.  50 


OUj 


Calvin,  pastor  of  a  Walloon  congregation  at  Antwerp,  and  afterwards 
professor  of  theology  at  Leyden — who  abridged  the  sixteenth  article, 
and  sent  a  copy  to  Geneva  and  other  churches  for  approval.  It  was 
probably  printed  in  156:2,  or  at  all  events  in  1566,  and  afterwards  trans- 
lated into  Dutch,  German,  and  Latin.  It  was  presented  to  the  bigoted 
Philip  II.,  1562,  in  the  vain  hope  of  securing  toleration,  and  with  an 
address  which  breathes  the  genuine  spirit  of  martyrdom.  The  peti- 
tioners protest  against  the  charge  of  being  rebels,  and  declare  that  not- 
withstanding they  number  more  than  a  hundred  thousand,  and  are  ex- 
posed to  the  most  cruel  oppression,  they  obey  the  Government  in  all 
lawful  things  ;  but  that  rather  than  deny  Christ  before  men  they  would 
'offer  their  backs  to  stripes,  their  tongues  to  knives,  their  mouths  to 
gags,  and  their  whole  bodies  to  the  fire,  well  knowing  that  those  who 
follow  Christ  must  take  his  cross  and  deny  themselves.'1 

The  Confession  was  publicly  adopted  by  a  Synod  at  Antwerp  (1566), 
then  at  Wesel  (1568),  more  formally  by  a  Synod  at  Emden  (1571)2,  by 
a  national  Synod  at  Dort  (1574),  another  at  Middelburg  (1581),  and 
again  by  the  great  Synod  of  Dort,  April  29, 1619.  But  inasmuch  as  the 
Arminians  had  demanded  partial  changes,  and  the  text  had  become 
confused,  the  Synod  of  Dort  submitted  the  French,  Latin,  and  Dutch 
texts  to  a  careful  revision.  Since  that  time  the  Belgic  Confession,  to- 
gether with  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  has  been  the  recognized  symbol 
of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Holland  and  Belgium.3  It  is  also  the 
doctrinal  standard  of  the  Reformed  (Dutch)  Church  in  the  United 
States,  which  holds  to  it  even  more  tenaciously  than  the  mother  Church 
in  the  Netherlands.4 


1  The  address  is  given  in  fidl  by  Biickel,  1.  c.  pp.  480-48+. 

5  The  Brussels  ed.  (p.  viii.)  says  :  '  Ze  5  Octobre,  en  1571 ,  il 'fit  statue  par  le  jiremier  synode 
national  des  Eglises  umllonnes  et  Jlamandes  te'nu  a  Embden,  que  cette  (Jonfetmon  Btrait  signfe 
par  tous  les  membres presents  uu  dit  synode  et  par  tons  ceux  qui  seraient  admit  an  saint  minis/in . ' 

3  The  Socie'te  euangdique  or  Eglise  Chre'tienne  missionnaire  beige  requires  from  its  ministers 
a  qualified  subscription  to  the  Belgic  Confession  with  '  une  reserve  prialabl  en  repoueetaU  cs 
qui  dans  la  Confession  beige  regarde  T exercise  <lu  pouvoir  dvU  en  matii  n  a\  fat.' 

4  The  following  formula  of  subscription  is  required  from  ministers  of  the  Dutch  Reformed 
Churchin  America:  '  We,  the  underwritten,  Ministers  of  the  Word  of  God,  residing  within  the 
bounds  of  theClassisof  X.  N\,  do  hereby  sincerely,  and  in  good  conscience  before  the  Lord,  de- 
clare by  this  our  subscription,  that  we  heartily  believe,  and  are  persuaded,  thai  all  the  articles 
and  points  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  [Belgic]  Confession  and  [  Heidelberg  |  Catechism  of  the 
Reformed  [Dutch]  Church,  together  with  the  explanation  of  some  points  of  the  aforesaid  doc- 
trine made  in  the  National  Synod  held  at  Dordrecht  in  the  year  1619,  do  fully  agree  witli  the 
Word  of  God.     We  promise,  therefore,  diligently  to  teach,  and  faithfully  to  defend  the  afore- 


506  TIIE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


The  Belgic  Confession  contains  thirty-seven  Articles,  and  follows 
the  order  of  the  Gallican  Confession,  but  is  less  polemical  and  more 
full  and  elaborate,  especially  on  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  the  Church, 
and  the  Sacraments.1  It  is,  upon  the  whole,  the  best  symbolical  state- 
ment of  the  Calvinistic  system  of  doctrine,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Westminster  Confession. 

THE   TEXT. 

The  text  has  undergone  several  modifications  as  regards  the  wording 
and  length,  but  not  as  regards  the  doctrine. 

The  French  text  must  be  considered  as  the  original.2  Of  the  first 
edition  of  1561  or  1562  no  copies  are  known.  The  Synod  of  Antwerp, 
in  Sept.,  1580,  ordered  a  precise  parchment  copy  of  the  revised  text  (of 
Junius)  to  be  made  for  its  archives,  which  copy  had  to  be  signed  by 
every  new  minister.  This  manuscript  has  always  been  regarded  in 
the  Belgic  churches  as  the  authentic  document.3  The  Synod  of  Dort 
ordered  a  new  revision,  with  a  view  to  bring  the  Latin,  French,  and 
Dutch  texts  into  harmony  on  the  basis  of  the  manuscript  copy  of  15S0. 
The  Leyden  edition  of  1669  gives  in  two  parallel  columns  the  original 

said  doctrine,  without  either  directly  or  indirectly  contradicting  the  same  hy  our  public  preach- 
ing or  writings.  We  declare,  moreover,  that  we  not  only  reject  all  errors  that  militate  against 
this  doctrine,  and  particularly  those  which  are  condemned  in  the  above-mentioned  Synod,  but 
that  we  are  disposed  to  refute  and  contradict  them,  and  to  exert  ourselves  in  keeping  the 
Church  pure  from  such  errors.  And  if  hereafter  any  difficulties  or  different  sentiments  re- 
specting the  aforesaid  doctrine  should  arise  in  our  minds,  we  promise  that  we  will  neither 
publicly  nor  privately  propose,  teach,  or  defend  the  same,  either  by  preaching  or  by  writing, 
until  we  have  first  revealed  such  sentiment  to  the  Consistory,  Classis,  or  Synod,  that  the  same 
may  be  there  examined,' etc. 

1  Ebrard  (Handbuch  der  Kirchen-  und  Doqmenqesch.Vol.  III.  p.  319)  says  that  besides  the 
Gallican  Confession  as  the  basis,  use  was  made  also  of  the  Friesian  Confession  of  Utenhoven, 
which  the  English  exiles  brought  with  them  to  Emden,  and  of  the  Catechism  of  Laski. 

2  It  is  entitled,  ''Confession  de  Foy  faicte  d'un  commun  accord  pour  les  fideles  qui  conver- 
sed es  Pays-Bas,  lesquels  de'sirent  vivre  selon  la  purete"  de  VEvangilc  de  nostre  Seii/neur 
Jesus-Christ.'  This  title  is  followed  by  two  mottoes — the  one  from  Apoc.  ii.  10:  '  Sois  fidele 
jusques  a  la  mort  et  je  te  donneray  ia  cmtronne  de  vie;'  the  other  from  1  Fet.  iii.  L5:  '  Soyez 
tousjours  appareil/ez  a  respondre  a  chactin  qui  vous  demande  raison  de  Vesperance  qui  est  en 
vons.'  On  the  second  leaf  there  is  over  the  head  of  the  first  article  the  brief  title,  '  Confession 
vrayement  Chretienne  contenant  le  sommaire  de  la  doctrine  de  Dieu  et  salut  e'ternel  de  lame. ' 

'J  The  Brussels  ed.  says  (p.  39) :  '  C'est  probablement  d'apres  la  copie  de  Junius  que  cetle 
Confession  a  €te'  imprimee  dans  le  litre  des  Martyrs  de  Crespin.  Le  text  de  Crespin  ne  differe 
pus  de  cdui  du  manuscrit  authentique.' 


§  G4.  THE  BELGIC  CONFESSION,  L5C1.  507 

text  and  the  revised  text  of  Dort.  A  Rotterdam  edition  of  the  Psalter, 
1 787, carefully  reprints  the  original  text  in  the  old  spelling  from  the  man- 
uscript, with  the  changes  of  Dort  in  notes.  The  Brussels  edition  of  1  B5<  I 
presents  the  ancient  text  of  1580,  as  revised  at  Dort,  in  modern  French.1 
Next  in  authority  is  the  Latin  text,  but  of  this  there  are  likewise 
several  recensions,  a  shorter  and  a  larger.  The  first  Latin  translation 
was  made  from  the  revised  French  copy  of  Francis  Junius,  probably 
by  Beza,  or  under  his  direction,  for  the  ITarmonia  Confessionum , 
Geneva,  15S1  (distributed  under  different  heads,  with  the  other  Con- 
fessions).2 The  same  passed  into  the  first  edition  of  the  Corpus  et 
Syntagma  Confessionum,  Geneva,  1G12.  Another  translation  was  pre- 
pared, 161S,  for  the  use  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  by  Festns  Ilommius, 
pastor  in  Leyden,  and  one  of  the  scribes  of  that  Synod.3  This  text 
was  revised  in  the  following  year  by  that  Synod,  and  thus  approved 
and  incorporated  with  its  acts  in  the  146th  session.4  The  revision  of 
Dort  was  reproduced  in  the  second  edition  of  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma 
Conf.,  1654.5     The  excellent  English  version  in  use  in  the  Reformed 

1  This  careful  edition,  issued  by  the  Evangelical  Society  of  Belgium,  is  reproduced  in  the 
third  volume  of  this  work,  together  with  the  English  version  now  used  by  the  Dutch  Reformed 
Church  in  America.     Both  agree,  sentence  for  sentence. 

2  See  Note  critique  at  the  close  of  the  Brussels  edition,  p.  30  :  '  Junius  envoya  une  copie  de 
cette  revision  a  Geneve.  Theodore  de  Beza  la  Jit  imprimer  [in  French  ?].  C'est  lui,  sans 
doute,  qui  la  traduisit  en  f<ain,  comme  elle  se  trouve  dans  "  VHarmonia  Confessionum.'' 
Geneva;  1581.'  That  this  was  the  first  Latin  translation  is  stated  in  the  Harmonia,  p.  3 : 
'  Belgica,  Gallice  omnium  Belgicarum  Ecclesiarum  nomine  anno  1506  edita,  ac  demum  anno 
K">79  [1571?]  in  publica  Belgii  Synodo  repetita  et  conjirmata,  Bclgiceque  versa.  Nunc 
denique  a  nobis  etiam  Batine  erpressa.' 

3  'Confessio  ecclesiarum  reformatarum  in  Belgio.  .  .  .  in  usum  futurce  synodi  nationaKt 
latine  edidit  et  collegit  Festus  Homtnius.'  Ludg.  Batav.  1G1S.  Nietneyer  (pp.  860  Bqq.)  gives 
this  translation,  which  more  nearly  agrees  with  the  older  version,  and  he  adds  some  read- 
ings from  the  first  edition  of  the  Corjnis  et  Syntagma. 

4  See  the  extracts  from  the  Acts  of  the  144th  Session,  April  29,  1G19,  in  Niemeyer,  p.  lv. 

5  Under  the  title  Ecclesiarum  Belgicarum  Christiana  atque  Orthodoxa  Confessio,  summem 
doctrino?  de  Deo  et  ceterna  animarum  salute  complectens,  prout  in  Synodo  Dortrechtana  fuit  n- 
cognita  et  approbata.  The  articles  are  numbered,  but  have  no  titles.  The  difference  between 
this  and  the  first  Latin  translation  may  be  judged  from  the  following  specimen: 

Courts  i;r  Stxtagma  C0HFB88IOWUM,  ed.  II., 
1G54  (p.  129). 

Art.  I.  Corde  eredimup,  </  art  confitemur 
OMNE8,  tmicam  esse  it  simplicem  essentiam 
spiritual!  m,  quam  /'unit  vocamus,  bumqux 
(eternum,  incomprehensibilem,  invisibilem,  in- 
finitum, OMSH'OTKNTI-.M.  SIJIMK    SAI'IKNTEM, 

.iistim  kt  bonum,  omniumquc  bonorum/ontem 
uberrimum. 


Harmonia  Confession!  m,  1581  (p.  30). 

Art.  I.  Corde  credimus,  et  ore  eonfitemur, 
unicam  esse  et  simplicem  esst  nlium  tpiritualem, 
quam  Dcum  VOCamUS,  (Sternum,  incomprehen- 
sibilem, inconspicuum,  immutabilem,  infinitum, 

qui  totus  est  sapiens,  fonsque  omnium  bonorum 
uberrimus. 


508  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Dutch  Church  of  America  is  made  from  the  Latin  text  of  the  Synod 
of  Dort. 

§  65.  The  Akminian  Controversy.     A.D.  1601-1619. 

Literature. 
I.  Arminian  Sources. 

Scripta  adversaria  Coi.i.ationis  Hagiensis.  In  Dutch,  Gravenhage,  1612  ;  in  Latin,  by  Petrus  Bertias, 
Leyden,  1616.    This  contains  the  authentic  text  of  the  Remonstrance. 

Remonstrantia,  or  the  Five  Articles  of  1610.  A  German  translation  in  Bockel's  Evang.  Reform. 
Bekenntniss-Schriften.    Leipzig,  1847,  pp.  545-553. 

Simon  Episoopius  (Prof,  at  Leyden,  1612 ;  expelled  by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  161S ;  Prof,  at  the  Remonstrant 
Seminary,  1634  ;  d.  1643) :  Confessio  seu  DeclaraHo  Pastorum  qui  Remonstr  antes  vocantur,  etc.,  Harderw. 
1621  in  Dutch,  1622  iu  Latin  (German  transl.  in  Bpckel,  1.  c.  pp.  572-640).  Also  his  Apologia  pro  Confes- 
sione  Remonstr.,  1629.  Both  are  included  in  the  works  of  Episcopius,  2d  ed.  London,  1678,  Vol.  II.  Part 
II.  pp.  69  sqq. ;  95  sqq. 

Acta  et  Soripta  Synodai.ia  Dordracena  ministrorum  Remonstrantium  in  fcederato  Belgio.  2  Cor. 
xiii.  8.  Harderwiici,  1620.  This  volume  (a  copy  of  which  is  iu  the  Union  Theol.  Seminary  Library)  con- 
tains the  official  acts  and  dogmatic  writings  of  the  Remonstrants  in  explanation  and  defense  of  their 
live  articles  against  the  decisions  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  including  a  lengthy  exposition  of  the  ninth 
chapter  of  Romans  and  other  Scripture  passages  quoted  against  them. 

Jao.  Arminius  (1500-1609) :  Disputationes  publicise  et  private.  Ludg.  Bat.  1614,  2d  ed.  (with  the  Oratio 
Petri  Bertii  de  vita  et  obituArminii.).  Armin.  Opera,  Lugd.  Bat.  1629,  and  other  editions.  English  trans- 
lation of  The  Works  of  James  Arminius,  by  James  Nichols  (Vols.  I.  and  II.  1825  and  1828),  and  by  W.  R.  Bag- 
nail  (Vol.  III.).    Auburn  and  Buffalo,lS53. 

Also  the  writings  of  Episoopius  (d.  1643) ;  Grottus  (d.  1645) ;  LmnoRoii  (d.  1714) ;  Clerious  (d.  1736) ; 
Wetstein  (d.  1754),  and  other  distinguished  Arminian  scholars.  Comp.  A.  van  Cattenuikgh  :  Bibli- 
otheca  Scriptorum  Remonstrantium.    Amst.  1728. 

II.  Anti-Armenian  or  Cai.vinistio  Sources. 

The  Acts  and  Proceedings  of  the  National  Synod  of  Dort  :  Acta  Synodi  Xationalis,  in  nomine  Domini 
nostri  Jesu  Christi,  autoritate  ordinum  gencralium  Fcedcrati  Belgii  provinciarum,  Dortrechti  habitce  anno 
181S  et  1619.  Accedunt  plenissima  de  quinque  articulis  theologorum  judicia.  Dord.  1620,  4to.  (The  judicia 
theol ogorum.&K  omitted  iu  the  Elzevir  folio  ed.  of  the  same  date.) 

The  Suffrage  of  the  Divines  of  Great  Britain  concerning  the  Articles  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  signed  by  them 
in  1619  [?  Lond.  1624]. 

Reports  of  Breitinger,  the  Hessian,  and  other  foreign  delegates. 

III.  Historical  and  Controversial. 

P.  Moi.in.eu8  (Calvinist) :  Anatome  Arminianismi.    Leyden,  1619,  etc. 

N.  Vedel  (Calv.) :  Arcana  Arminianismi.    Leyden,  1632-34,  4  Parts,  4to. 

Pf.ltius  :  Ilarmonia  Remonstrantium  et  Socinianorum.     Ludg.  1633. 

Byssen  :  De  preedestinatione  contra  Remonstrantes  et  Jesuitas.    Gorchum,  1600. 

Sam.  Riietorfort :  Examen  Arminianismi.    Utrecht,  1668. 

cTanus  Uytenbogaert  (Arminian) :  Kcrckelijcke  Historic,  etc.    Rotterdam,  1647. 

Jac.  Triglandius  (Calvinist) :  Kcrckelijcke  Geschiedenissen  van  de  vcreen.  Nederlanden.    Leyden,  1650. 

Jo.  Halesii  Historia  Concilii  Dordraceni ;  J.  L.  Moshemius  vertit,  variis  observationibus  et  vita  Halesii 
auxit.  Hamburg,  1724.  John  Hales  (15S4-1056),  Canon  of  Windsor— called  'the  Ever-memorable'— at- 
tended the  Synod  of  Dort,  by  which  he  became  a  convert  to  Arminianism,  and  wrote  Golden  Remains; 
Letters  from  the  Synod  of  Dort;  Acta  Synodi  Dordr. ;  Sententia  Arminii;  see  Works,  1765,  3  vols. 

Peter  Heylin  (a  friend  of  Laud  and  Arminian,  d.  1662):  Historia  Quinquarticularis ;  or,  a  Declara- 
tion of  the  Judgment  of  the  Western  Churches,  and  more  particularly  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  the  Five 
Controverted  Points,  reproached  in  these  last  times  by  the  name  of  Arminianism.    London,  1660,  in  3  Parts. 

Gerhard  Brandt  (Remonstrant  preacher  at  Amsterdam,  d.  16S5) :  Historic  der  Reformatie  {History  of 
the  Reformation  in  and  about  the  Low  Countries,  front  the  Eighth  Century  down  to  the  Synod  of  Dort),  Amst. 
1677-1704,  4  vols.  Very  full  on  the  Remonstrant  controversy.  An  English  translation,  by  Chambcrlayne, 
London,  1720-23,  4  vols.  fol.    (The  last  volume  gives  the  history  from  1600  to  1023.)    Also  in  French,  1726. 

Zei.tner  (d.  1738) :  Breviarium  controversiarum  cum  Remonstr  antibus  agitatarum.  Norimb.  and 
Altdorf,  1719. 

Jao.  Regenhooo  :  Hist,  der  Rcmonstranten,  in  Dutch,  Amsterd.  1774  sqq.,  3  vols. ;  in  German,  Lemgo, 
1741-84. 

G.  S.  Franks:  Historia  dogmatum  Arminianorum.     Kiel,  1814. 

Thomas  Soott:  The  Articles  of  the  Synod  of  Dort;  with  a  History  of  Events  ivhich  made  way  for  that 
Synod,  etc.    London,  1S18.    (Calviuistic.) 


§  05.  THE  ARMINIAN  CONTROVERSY,  1C04-1C19.  509 

James  Nichols  (Arminian):  Calvinism,  and  Arminianimn  compared  in  their  Principles  and  Tendency. 
Lond.  1S24, 2  vols.    (An  ill-digested  mass  of  materials.) 
M.  Graf:  Beitrage  zur  Gexchichte  der  Sunode  ron  Dordrecht.     Basle,  1825. 

D.  deBbav:  L'histoire  de  I'Egliae  Arminiemu:     Stnsburg,  1885. 

Joannes  Tii>e.man  (Remonstrant  preacher  at  Rotterdam) ;  De  Bemonstrantie  en  het  Remonatrantisme. 
Historiach  onderzoek.    Te  Haarlem,  1851  (pp.  131). 

H.  Him  (M elanchthouian) :  Hiatoria  Synodi  Sat.  Dordr.  in  Niedner's  '/.< iteehrift  fur  hist.  Theol. ,\S53, 
pp.  227-327.  Contains  the  Report  of  the  Hessian  deputies  to  Landgrave  Moritz,  with  Introduction  and 
Notes.    The  same :  Art.  Dortrecht  in  Herzog's  Beal-Kncykl.  Vol.  III.  p.  4SC. 

Alex.  Sciiweizer  :  Centraldogmtn.    Zurich,  Vol.  II.  (1S5G)  pp.  31-201. 

G.  Frank  :  Oeachichte  der  Protest.  Theol.     Leipz.  1SG2,  Vol.  I.  pp.  403  sqq. 

M.  s,  HNECKEMiuRGER  (independent,  d.  1^48) :  Forleoungm  ubcr  die  Lehrbeyrife  der  kleineren  proteat. 
Kirchenparteien,  ed.  by  Hnndeshagen.    Frankf.  a.  M.  1S63,  pp.  5-2C. 

William  Ci  nmngham  (CalvinisO  !   1 1 iato  r  ind  Theology.     Edinb.  1864,  Vol.  II.  ch.  xxv.  pp.  371-513. 

E.  Bonx  (Calvinist):  Blatter  der  Brinnerung  an  die  Dordrechter  Synode,  250  Jahre  nach  ihrem  Zu- 
■-iini in,  ntritt  alien  Frewndert  der  reform.  Lehre gewidmet.    Detmold,  1S6S  (41  pp.). 

John  L.  Motley  :  The  Life  and  Death  of  John  of  Barneveld,  Advocate  of  Holland.  N.  Y.  1874,  2  vols, 
ehs.  viii.  and  xiv.  Motley  gives  the  political  history  of  the  period,  but  barely  touches  on  the  Synod  of 
Dort,  and  with  strong  antipathy  to  Calvinism. 

Comp.  also  WiiF.iioN  (Methodist),  art.  Arminianiam,  and  A.  A.  Uoi.r.E  (Presbyterian),  Calvinism,  both 
in  Johnson's  Cyclop.Xol.  I.  (1874),  representing  both  sides.  Also  art.  Arminianiam,  in  M'Clintock  and 
Strong's  Cyclop.  Vol.  I.  p.  412  (Methodist). 

The  Arminian  controversy  is  the  most  important  which  took  place 
Within  the  Reformed  Church.  It  corresponds  to  the  Pelagian  and  the 
Jansenist  controversies  in  the  Catholic  Church.  It  involves  the  prob- 
lem of  ages,  which  again  and  again  has  baffled  the  ken  of  theolo- 
gians and  philosophers,  and  will  do  so  to  the  end  of  time:  the  re- 
lation of  divine  sovereignty  and  human  responsibility.  It  started 
with  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  turned  round  five  articles  or 
'knotty  points'  of  Calvinism;  hence  the  term  ' quinquarticular'  con- 
troversy. Calvinism  represented  the  consistent,  logical,  conservative 
orthodoxy;  Arminianism  an  elastic,  progressive,  changing  liberalism. 
Calvinism  triumphed  in  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  excluded  Arminian- 
ism. So,  in  the  preceding  generation,  strict  Lutheranism  had  tri- 
umphed over  Melanchthonianism  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  But 
in  both  Churches  the  spirit  of  the  conquered  party  rose  again  from 
time  to  time  within  the  ranks  of  orthodoxy,  to  exert  its  moderating 
and  liberalizing  influence  or  to  open  new  issues  in  the  progressive 
march  of  theological  science. 

ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS    OF    ARMINIANISM    TILL    1018. 

The  Arminian  controversy  arose  in  Holland  towards  the  close  of 
the  heroic  conflict  with  foreign  political  and  ecclesiastical  despotism. 
This  very  contest  of  forty-five  years'  duration,  so  full  of  trials  -and 
afflictions,  stimulated  the  intellectual  and  moral  energies  of  an  honest, 
earnest,  freedom-loving,  and  tenacious  people,  and  made  the  Protest- 


510  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ant  part  of  the  Netherlands  the  first  country  in  Christendom  for  in- 
dustry, commerce,  education,  and  culture.  The  Universities  of  Ley- 
den,  founded  in  1575,  as  the  city's  reward  for  its  heroic  resistance 
to  Spain,  Franecker  (15S5),  Groningen  (1612),  Utrecht  (1630),  and 
Ilarderwyk  (164S)  soon  excelled  older  schools  of  learning.  The  gen- 
eral prosperity  of  the  United  Provinces  excited  the  admiration  of  the 
foreign  delegates  to  the  Synod  of  Dorr,  where  they  found  clean  and 
stately  mansions,  generous  hospitality,  and  every  comfort  and  luxury 
which  commerce  could  bring  from  all  parts  of  the  earth.  This  was 
the  soil  on  which  the  Calvinistic  system  was  brought  to  its  severest  test. 
The  controversy  was  purely  theological  in  its  nature,  but  owing  to  the 
intimate  connection  of  Church  and  State  it  became  inevitably  entan- 
gled in  political  issues,  and  shook  the  whole  country.  The  Reformed 
Churches  in  France,  Switzerland,  Germany,  England,  and  Scotland 
took  a  deep  interest  in  it,  and  sided,  upon  the  whole,  with  the  Cal- 
vinistic party;  while  the  Lutheran  Church  sympathized  to  some  ex- 
tent with  the  Arminian. 

The  founder  of  Arminianism,  from  whom  it  derives  its  name,  is 
James  Arminius  (1560-1609). '  He  studied  under  Beza  at  Geneva, 
was  elected  minister  at  Amsterdam  (15SS),  and  then  professor  of  theol- 
ogy at  Leyden  (1603),  as  successor  of  Francis  Junius,  who  had  taken 
part  in  the  revision  of  the  Belgic  Confession.  He  was  at  first  a  strict 
Calvinist,  but  while  engaged  in  investigating  and  defending  the  Calvin- 
istic doctrines  against  the  writings  of  Dirik  Volckaerts  zoon  Koorn- 
heert,2  at  the  request  of  the  magistrate  of  Amsterdam,  he  found  the 
arguments  of  the  opponent  stronger  than  his  own  convictions,  and  be- 
came a  convert  to  the  doctrine  of  universal  grace  and  of  the  freedom 
of  will.  He  saw  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Eomans  the  description  of 
a  legalistic  conflict  of  the  awakened  but  unregenerate  man,  while  Au- 


1  II is  Dutch  name  is  Jacob  van  Hermanns  or  Hermanson,  Harmensen. 

2  Koornheert  was  Secretarius  at  Haarlem,  and  a  forerunner  of  the  Remonstrants  (<1.  151*0). 
lie  attacked  the  doctrine  of  Calvin  and  Beza  on  predestination  and  the  punishment  of  heretics 
(1578),  wrote  against  the  Heidelberg  Catecliism  (15SI?),  and  advocated  toleration  and  a  re- 
duction of  the  number  of  articles  of  faith.  His  works  were  published  at  Amsterdam,  1G30. 
See  Bayle,  art.  Koornheert,  and  Nchwcizer,  Vol.  II.  p.  40.  Another  forerunner  of  Arminian- 
ism was  Caspar  Koolhaas,  preacher  in  Leyden,  who  was  protected  by  the  civil  magistrate, 
but  excommunicated  by  a  provincial  Synod  at  Haarlem,  1582.  It  should  be  remembered 
also  that  Erasmus,  the  advocate  of  free-will,  against  Luther,  was  held  in  high  esteem  in  his 
native  country,  and  that  the  views  of  Castcllio,  Bolsec,  and  Iluber  had  made  some  impression. 


§  05.  THE  ARMINIAN  CONTROVERSY,  1G04-1G19.  511 

gustine  and  the  Reformers  referred  it  to  the  regenerate.  He  denied 
the  decree  of  reprobation,  and  moderated  the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 
He  advocated  a  revision  of  the  Belgic  Confession  and  Heidelberg 
Catechism.  He  came  into  open  conflict  with  his  supralapsarian  col- 
league, Francis  Gomar  (15G3-1G45),  who  had  conferred  on  him  the 
degree  of  doctor  of  divinity,  but  now  became  his  chief  antagonist. 
Hence  the  strict  Calvinists  were  called  'Gomarists.'  The  controversy 
soon  spread  over  all  Holland.  Arminine  applied  to  the  Government 
to  convoke  a  synod  (appealing,  like  the  Donatists,  to  the  very  power 
which  afterwards  condemned  him),  but  died  of  a  painful  disorder  he- 
fore  it  convened.1  He  was  a  learned  and  able  divine;  and  during 
the  controversy  which  embittered  his  life  he  showed  a  meek,  Christian 
spirit.  'Condemned  by  others,'  said  Grotius,  'he  condemned  none/ 
His  views  on  anthropology  and  soteriology  approached  those  of  the 
Melanchthonian  school  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  the  tendency  of 
his  theology  was  towards  a  latitndinarian  liberalism,  which  developed 
itself  in  his  followers.2 

After  his  death  the  learned  Simon  Episcopins  (Bisschop,  1583-1G44), 
his  successor  in  the  chair  of  theology  at  Le3'den,  afterwards  profees- 
or  in  the  Arminian  College  at  Amsterdam,3  and  the  eloquent  Janus 
Uytenbogaert  (1557-1644),  preacher  at  the  Hague,  and  for  some  time 
chaplain  of  Prince  Maurice,  became  the  theological  leaders  of  the 
Arminian  party.  The  great  statesman,  John  van  Olden  Barnevcldt 
(1549-1G19),  Advocate-General  of  Holland  and  Friesland,  and  Hugo 
Grotius  (15S3-1645),  the  most  comprehensive  scholar  of  his  age,  equally 
distinguished  as  statesman,  jurist,  theologian,  and  exegete,  sympathized 
with  the  Anninians,  gave  them  the  weight  of  their  powerful  inlhu  m-c, 

1  In  the  same  year  (1000)  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  of  New  England  arrived  in  Ley  den,  where 
they  enjoyed  religious  freedom  till  their  departure  for  America  (1620).  Arniinius  was  In  mi 
in  the  sume  year  in  which  Mehmchthon  died  (1560). 

-  Caspar  Brandt:  Hiatoria  vita  J.  Arminii,  ed.  by  Gerhard  Brandt  (son  of  the  author), 
with  additions  by  Mosheim,  17l'.">;  Engl,  transl.  by  Guthrie,  Lond.  1854.  Bangs'a  /.[/'<  of 
Arminius,  X.  York,  1843.  Mosheim  calls  him  'a  man  whom  oven  his  enemies  commend  for 
his  ingenuity,  acuteness,  and  piety.'  His  motto  was.  'A  good  conscience  is  a  paradise.1  In 
his  testament  (see  extract  in  Gieseler,  Vol.  IV.  p.  508,  note  7),  he  affirms  that  he  diligently 
labored  to  teach  nothing  hut  what  he  could  prove  from  the  Scriptures, and  what  tended  to 
edification  and  peace  among  Christians, excepting  popery,  'with  which,'  he  says,  'there  can 
be  no  unity  of  faith,  no  bond  of  piety  and  peace.'  Grotius  was  much  milder  towards  the 
Catholics. 

3  Limborch  :   Vita  E/iiscopil.     Amst.  1701. 


512  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  advocated  peace  and  toleration ;  but  they  favored  a  republican 
confederacy  of  States  rather  than  a  federal  State  tending  to  monarchy, 
against  the  ambitious  designs  of  Maurice,  the  Stadtholder  and  military 
leader  of  the  Republic,  who  wished  to  consolidate  his  power,  and  by 
concluding  a  truce  with  Spain  (1G09)  they  incurred  the  suspicion  of  dis- 
loyalty.1 The  Calvinists  were  the  national  and  popular  party,  and  em- 
braced the  great  majority  of  the  clergy.  They  stood  on  the  solid  basis 
of  the  recognized  standards  of  doctrine.  At  the  same  time  they  ad- 
vocated the  independent  action  of  the  Church  against  the  latitudinarian 
Erastianism  of  their  opponents. 

The  Arminians  formularized  their  creed  in  Five  Articles  (drawn  up 
by  Uytenbogaert),  and  laid  them  before  the  representatives  of  Holland 
and  West  Friesland  in  1610  under  the  name  of  Remonstrance,  signed 
by  forty-six  ministers.  The  Calvinists  issued  a  Counter-Remonstrance. 
Hence  the  party  names  Remonstrants  (Protestants  against  Calvinism), 
and  Counter-Remonstrants  (Calvinists,  or  Gomarists).  A  Conference 
was  held  between  the  two  parties  at  the  Hague  (Collatio  Ilagiensis)  in 
1611,  but  without  leading  to  an  agreement.  A  discussion  at  Delft,  1613, 
and  the  edict  of  the  States  of  Holland  in  favor  of  peace,  1614,  pre- 
pared by  Grotius,  had  no  better  result. 

THE    SYNOD    OF    DORT. 

At  last,  after  a  great  deal  of  controversy  and  complicated  prepara- 
tions, the  National  Synod  of  Dort2  was  convened  by  the  States-General, 
Nov.  13, 1618,  and  lasted  till  May  9, 1619.  It  consisted  of  eighty-four 
members  and  eighteen  secular  commissioners.  Of  these  fifty-eight  were 
Dutchmen,  the  rest  foreigners.  The  foreign  Reformed  Churches  were 
invited  to  send  at  least  three  or  four  divines  each,  with  the  right  to 
vote. 

James  I.  of  England  sent  Drs.  George  Carleton,  Bishop  of  Llan- 
daff  (afterwards  of  Chichester) ;  John  Davenant,  Bishop  of  Salisbury ; 
Samuel  Ward,  Professor  of  Cambridge ;  the  celebrated  Joseph  Hall, 
afterwards  Bishop  of  Exeter  and  Norwich  (who,  however,  had  to  leave 


1  On  Barneveldt,  see  the  work  of  Motley  ;  on  Hugo  Grotius,  the  monograph  of  Laden, 
Berlin,  180G. 

2  In  1  >utch,  Dordrecht  or  Dordtrccht ;  in  Latin,  Dordracum— an  old  fortified  town  in  which 
the  independence  of  the  United  Provinces  was  declared  in  1  j72. 


§  65.  THE  ARMINIAN  CONTROVERSY,  1C01-1G19.  513 

before  the  close,  and  was  replaced  by  Thomas  Goad),  and  Walter  Bal- 
canquall,  a  Scotchman,  and  chaplain  of  the  King.  The  Palatinate 
was  represented  by  Drs.  Abraham  Scnltetns,  Henry  Al ting,  Professors 
at  Heidelberg,  and  Paulas  Tossanus;  Hesse,  by  Dre.  George  Crnciger, 
Paul  Stein,  Daniel  Angelocrator,  and  Rudolph  Goclenins ;  Switzerland, 
by  Dr.  John  Jacob  Breitinger,  Antistes  of  Zurich,  Sebastian  Beet  and 
"Wolfgang  Meyer  of  Basle,  Marcus  Rutimeyer  of  Berne,  John  Conrad 
Koch  of  Schaft'hausen,  John  Deodatus  and  Theodor  Tronchin  of  Geneva; 
Bremen,  by  Matthias  Martinius,  Henry  Isselburg,  and  Lndwig  ( Irociua, 
The  Elector  of  Brandenburg  chose  delegates,  but  excused  their  absence 
on  account  of  age.  The  national  Synod  of  France  elected  four  dele- 
gates— among  them  the  celebrated  theologians  Chamier  and  D'u  Moulin 
— but  the  King  forbade  them  to  leave  the  country.  King  James  in- 
structed the  English  delegates  to  '  mitigate  the  heat  on  both  sides,'  and 
to  advise  the  Dutch  ministers  '  not  to  deliver  in  the  pulpit  to  the  peo- 
ple those  things  for  ordinary  doctrines  which  are  the  highest  points  of 
schools  and  not  fit  for  vulgar  capacity,  but  disputable  on  both  sides.' 

The  Synod  was  opened  and  closed  with  great  solemnity,  and  held 
one  hundred  and  fifty-four  formal  sessions,  besides  a  larger  number  of 
conferences.2  The  expenses  were  borne  by  the  States-General  on  a  very 
liberal  scale,  and  exceeded  100,000  guilders.3  The  sessions  were  public, 
and  crowded  by  spectators.  John  Bogerman,  pastor  at  Leu  warden, 
was  elected  President;  Festus  Hommius,  pastor  in  Leyden,  first  Sec- 
retary— both  strict  Calvinists.  The  former  had  translated  Beza's  tract 
on  the  punishment  of  heretics  into  Dutch ;  the  latter  prepared  a  new 
Latin  version  of  the  Belgic  Confession.  The  whole  Dutch  delegation 
was  orthodox.  Only  three  delegates  from  the  provincial  Synod  of 
Utrecht  were  Remonstrants,  but  these  had  to  yield  their  seats  to  the 
three  orthodox  members  elected  by  the  minority  in  that  province. 
Gomarus  represented  supralapsarian  Calvinism,  but  the  great  majority 
were  infralapsarians  or  sublapsarians. 

Thus  the  fate  of  the  Arminians  was  decided  beforehand.  Episcopins 
and  his  friends — thirteen  in  all — were  summoned  before  the  Synod 
simply  as  defendants,  and  protested  against  unconditional  submission. 

1  See  the  nine  instructions  of  James  to  the  delegates,  in  Fuller,  CA.  //.  of  Brit.VcLV.  p.  -1G2. 

2  The  Dutch  delegates  held  twenty-two  additional  sessions  on  Church  government. 

3  The  five  English  delegates  were  allowed  the  largest  sum,  viz.,  ten  pounds  sterling  per 
day— more  than  any  other  foreign  divines.— Fuller,  1.  c.  j>.  4G5. 


514:  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Orthodox  Calvinism  achieved  a  complete  triumph.  The  Five  Ar- 
ticles of  the  Remonstrance  were  unanimously  rejected,  and  five  Cal- 
vinistic  canons  adopted,  together  with  the  Belgic  Confession  and  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism.  A  thorough  and  most  excellent  revision  of  the 
Dutch  Bible  from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  was  also  ordered,  besides 
other  decisions  which  lie  beyond  our  purpose. 

The  victory  of  orthodoxy  was  obscured  by  the  succeeding  deposition 
of  about  two  hundred  Arminian  clergymen,  and  by  the  preceding 
though  independent  arrest  of  the  political  leaders  of  the  Remonstrants, 
at  the  instigation  of  Maurice.  Grotius  was  condemned  by  the  States- 
General  to  perpetual  imprisonment,  but  escaped  through  the  ingenuity 
of  his  wife  (1021).  Van  Olden  Barneveldt  was  unjustly  condemned 
to  death  for  alleged  high -treason,  and  beheaded  at  the  Hague  (May 
14,  1G19).  His  sons  took  revenge  in  a  fruitless  attempt  against  the 
life  of  Prince  Maurice. 

The  canons  of  Dort  were  fully  indorsed  by  the  Reformed  Church 
in  France,  and  made  binding  upon  the  ministers  at  the  Twenty-third 
National  Synod  at  Alais,  Oct.  1, 1020,  and  again  at  the  Twenty-fourth 
Synod  at  Charenton,  Sept.,  1023.  In  other  Reformed  Churches  they 
were  received  with  respect,  but  not  clothed  with  proper  symbolical 
authority.  In  England  there  arose  considerable  opposition.1  The  only 
Church  outside  of  Holland  where  they  are  still  recognized  as  a  public 
standard  of  doctrine  is  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  America. 

The  Synod  of  Dort  is  the  only  Synod  of  a  quasi-oecumenical  char- 
acter in  the  history  of  the  Reformed  Churches.  In  this  respect  it  is 
even  more  important  than  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines, 
which  was  confined  to  England  and  Scotland,  although  it  produced 
superior  doctrinal  standards.  The  judgments  of  the  Synod  of  Dort 
differ  according  to  the  doctrinal  stand-point.  It  was  undoubtedly  an 
imposing  assembly;  and,  for  learning  and  piety,  as  respectable  as  any 
ever  held  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  Breitinger,  a  great  light  of 
the  Swiss  Churches,  was  astonished  at  the  amount  of  knowledge  and 
talent  displayed  by  the  Dutch  delegates,  and  says  that  if  ever  the  Holy 
Spirit  were  present  in  a  Council,  he  was  present  at  Dort.  Scultetus,  of 
the  Palatinate,  thanked  God  that  he  was  a  member  of  that  Synod,  and 

1  See  Havdwick's  History  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  ch.  ix.,  and  Heylin's  Historia  Quin- 
quarticultiris. 


§  63.  THE  ARMENIAN  CONTROVERSY,  1G04-1G19.  ;,i;, 

placed  it  high  above  similar  assemblies.  Meyer,  a  delegate  of  Basle, 
whenever  afterwards  he  spoke  of  this  Synod,  uncovered  his  head  and 
exclaimed  * Sacrosancta  Synodwf  Even  Paolo  Sarpi,  the  liberal 
Catholic  historian,  in  a  letter  to  lleinsius,  spoke  very  highly  of  it.  A 
century  later,  the  celebrated  Dutch  divine,  Campcgius  Yitringa,  said: 
'So  much  learning  was  never  before  assembled  in  one  place,  not  even 
at  Trent.' ' 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Remonstrants,  who  had  no  fair  hearing,  ab- 
horred the  Synod  of  Dort  on  account  of  its  Calvinism  and  intolerance. 
The  Lutherans  were  averse  to  it  under  the  false  impression  that  the 
condemnation  of  Arminianism  was  aimed  at  their  own  creed.  Some 
secular  historians  denounce  it  as  a  Calvinistic  tribunal  of  incpiisition.2 

The  Canons  of  Dort  have  for  Calvinism  the  same  significance  which 
the  Formula  of  Concord  has  for  Lutheranism.  Both  betray  a  very  high 
order  of  theological  ability  and  care.  Both  are  consistent  and  neces- 
sary developments.  Both  exerted  a  powerful  conservative  influence  on 
these  Churches.  Both  prepared  the  way  for  a  dry  scholasticism  which 
runs  into  subtle  abstractions,  and  resolves  the  living  soul  of  divinity  into 
a  skeleton  of  formulas  and  distinctions.  Both  consolidated  orthodoxy 
at  the  expense  of  freedom,  sanctioned  a  narrow  confessionalism,  and 
widened  the  breach  between  the  two  branches  of  the  Reformation. 

ARMINIANISM   AFTER   THE    SYNOD    OF   DORT. 

The  banishment  of  the  Arminians  was  of  short  duration.  After  the 
death  of  Prince  Maurice  of  Nassau  (1625),  and  under  the  reign  of  his 
milder  brother  and  successor,  Frederick  Henry,  they  were  allowed  t«. 
return  and  to  establish  churches  and  schools  in  every  town  of  Holland, 
which  became  more  and  more  a  land  of  religious  toleration  and  liberty. 
In  this  respect  their  principles  triumphed  over  their  opponents.3    They 

1  Sch\veizer,Vol.  II.  pp.  2G,  143  sq.;  also,  Graf,  and  Buhl,  1.  c. 

5  Motley  (Life  and  Death  of  John  of  Barneveld,Vo\.  II.  p.  809)  caricatures  the  Synod  of  Dort 
in  a  manner  unworthy  of  an  impartial  historian.  'It  was  settled,'  Ik-  said.  '  that  one  portion 
of  the  Netherlands  and  of  the  rest  of  the  human  race  had  been  expressly  created  by  the  Deity 
to  be  forever  damned,  and  another  portion   to  he  eternally  blessed.  .  .  .  <  »n  the  80th  April 

and  1st  May  the  Netherland  Confession  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  were  declared  in/al&bie.' 

3  Hugo  Grotius  carried  the  principle  of  toleration  so  far  that  it  \\.i^  said  SoCUUU,  I.uthcr. 
Calvin,  Arminius,  the  Pope,  and  Arius  contended  for  his  religion  as  seven  cities  for  the  birth 
of  the  divine  Homer.  f?ee  the  verse  of  Menage,  quoted  by  G.  Frank,  GeichickU  der  Protest. 
Theohgie,Vo\.  I.  p.  410. 


516  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

founded  a  famous  Theological  College  at  Amsterdam  (1630),  which 
exists  to  this  day,  and  has  recently  been  removed  to  Leyden. 

Peace  was  not  so  favorable  to  their  growth  as  controversy.  They 
gradually  diminished  in  number,  and  are  now  a  very  small  sect  in 
Holland,  almost  confined  to  Rotterdam  and  Amsterdam. 

But  their  literary  and  religious  influence  has  gone  far  beyond  their 
organization.  Their  eminent  scholars,  Hugo  Grotius,  Episcopius,  Lim- 
boroh,  Cnrcellseus,  Clericus  (Le  Clerc),  and  Wetstein,  have  enriched 
exegetical  and  critical  learning,  and  liberalized  theological  opinions, 
especially  on  religious  toleration  and  the  salvation  of  unbaptized  in- 
fants. Arminianism,  in  some  of  its  advocates,  had  a  leaning  towards 
Socinianism,  and  prepared  the  way  for  Rationalism,  which  prevailed  to 
a  great  extent  in  the  Established  Churches  of  Holland,  Geneva,  and 
Germany  from  the  end  of  the  last  century  till  the  recent  reaction  in 
favor  of  orthodox  Calvinism  and  Lutheranism.  But  many  Arminians 
adhered  to  the  original  position  of  a  moderated  semi-Pelagian  ism. 

The  distinctive  Arminian  doctrines  of  sin  and  grace,  free-will  and 
predestination,  have  been  extensively  adopted  in  the  Episcopal  Church 
since  the  reign  of  Charles  L,  and  in  the  last  century  by  the  Methodists 
of  Great  Britain  and  America,  who  thereby  have  attained  a  larger 
territory  and  influence  than  they  ever  had  in  the  land  of  their  birth.1 
Methodism  holds  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  but  also 
to  the  five  points  of  Arminianism,  with  some  important  evangelical 
modifications. 

§  GQ.  The  Remonstrance. 

The  Arminian  or  quinquarticular  controversy  started  with  opposition 
to  the  doctrine  of  absolute  decrees,  and  moved  in  the  sphere  of  an- 
thropology and  soteriology.  The  peculiar  tenets  are  contained  in  the 
five  points  or  articles  which  the  Arminians  in  their  'Remonstrance'  laid 
before  the  estates  of  Holland  in  1610.  They  relate  to  predestination, 
the  extent  of  the  atonement,  the  nature  of  faith,  the  resistibility  of 
grace,  and  the  perseverance  of  saints. 

The  Remonstrance  is  first  negative,  and  then  positive.     It  rejects 


1  The  Wesleys  were  Arminians,  while  Whitefield  was  a  Cnlvinist.     They  separated  on  the 
question  of  predestination. 


§CG.  THE  REMONSTRANCE.  517 

five  Calvinistic  propositions,  and  then  asserts  the  live  Anninian  propo- 
sitions.    The  doctrines  rejected  are  thus  stated  : 

1.  That  God  has,  before  the  fall,  and  even  before  the  creation  of 
man,  by  an  unchangeable  decree,  foreordained  some  to  eternal  life  and 
others  to  eternal  damnation,  without  any  regard  to  righteousness  or  sin, 
to  obedience  or  disobedience,  and  simply  because  it  so  pleased  him,  in 
order  to  show  the  glory  of  his  righteousness  to  the  one  elass  and  his 
mercy  to  the  other.     (This  is  the  supralapsarian  view.) 

2.  That  God,  in  view  of  the  fall,  and  in  just  condemnation  of  our 
first  parents  and  their  posterity,  ordained  to  exempt  a  part  of  mankind 
from  the  consequences  of  the  fall,  and  to  save  them  by  his  free  grace, 
but  to  leave  the  rest,  without  regard  to  age  or  moral  condition,  to  their 
condemnation,  for  the  glory  of  his  righteousness.  (The  sublapsarian 
view.) 

3.  That  Christ  died,  not  for  all  men,  but  only  for  the  elect. 

4.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  works  in  the  elect  by  irresistible  grace,  so 
that  they  must  be  converted  and  be  saved ;  while  the  grace  necessary 
and  sufficient  for  conversion,  faith,  and  salvation  is  withheld  from  the 
rest,  although  they  are  externally  called  and  invited  by  the  revealed 
will  of  God. 

5.  That  those  who  have  received  this  irresistible  grace  can  never 
totally  and  finally  lose  it,  but  are  guided  and  preserved  by  the  same 
grace  to  the  end. 

These  doctrines,  the  Remonstrants  declare,  are  not  contained  in  the 
Word  of  God  nor  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  are  unedifying, 
yea  dangerous,  and  should  not  be  preached  to  Christian  people. 

Then  the  Remonstrance  sets  forth  the  five  positive  articles  as  fol- 
lows : 

ARTICLE    FIRST. 

Conditional  Predestination. — God  has  immutably  decreed,  from 
y,  to  save  those  men  who,  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit, be- 
lieve in  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  the  same  grace  persevere  in  the  obedience 
of  faith  to  the  end;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  condemn  the  unbelievers 
and  unconverted  (John  iii.  3G). 

Election  and  condemnation  are  thus  conditioned  by  foreknowledge, 
and  made  dependent  on  the  foreseen  faith  or  unbelief  of  men. 


51S  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

SECOND    ARTICLE. 

Universal  Atonement. — Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  died  for 
all  men  and  for  every  man,  and  his  grace  is  extended  to  all.  His 
atoning  sacrifice  is  in  and  of  itself  sufficient  for  the  redemption  of  the 
whole  world,  and  is  intended  for  all  by  God  the  Father.  But  its  in- 
herent sufficiency  does  not  necessarily  imply  its  actual  efficiency.  The 
grace  of  God  may  be  resisted,  and  only  those  who  accept  it  by  faith 
are  actually  saved.  He  who  is  lost,  is  lost  by  his  own  guilt  (John  iii. 
16  ;  1  John  ii.  2). 

The  Arminians  agree  with  the  orthodox  in  holding  the  doctrine  of 
a  vicarious  or  expiatory  atonement,  in  opposition  to  the  Socinians;  but 
they  soften  it  down,  and  represent  its  direct  effect  to  be  to  enable  God, 
consistently  with  his  justice  and  veracity,  to  enter  into  a  new  covenant 
with  men,  under  which  pardon  is  conveyed  to  all  men  on  condition  of 
repentance  and  faith.  The  immediate  effect  of  Christ's  death  was  not 
the  salvation,  but  only  the  salvability  of  sinners  by  the  removal  of  the 
legal  obstacles,  and  opening  the  door  for  pardon  and  reconciliation. 
They  reject  the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement,  which  is  connected 
with  the  supralapsarian  view  of  predestination,  but  is  disowned  by 
moderate  Calvinists,  who  differ  from  the  Arminians  in  all  other  points. 
Calvin  himself  says  that  Christ  died  snjficienter  jpro  omnibus,  efficaciter 
pro  elect  is. 

THIRD    ARTICLE. 

Saving  Faith. — Man  in  his  fallen  state  is  unable  to  accomplish  any 
thing  really  and  truly  good,  and  therefore  also  unable  to  attain  to 
saving  faith,  unless  he  be  regenerated  and  renewed  by  God  in  Christ 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  (John  xv.  5). 

FOURTH    ARTICLE. 

Resistible  Grace. — Grace  is  the  beginning,  continuation,  and  end  of 
our  spiritual  life,  so  that  man  can  neither  think  nor  do  any  good  or 
resist  sin  without  prevening,  co-operating,  and  assisting  grace.  But  as 
for  the  manner  of  co-operation,  this  grace  is  not  irresistible,  for  many 
resist  the  Holy  Ghost  (Acts  vii.). 


§  G7.  THE  CANONS  OF  DOUT.  519 

FIFTH    AIITICLE. 

The  Uncertainty  of  Perseverance. — Although  grace  is  sufficient  and 
abundant  to  preserve  the  faithful  through  all  trials  and  temptations  for 
life  everlasting,  it  has  not  yet  been  proved  from  the  Scriptures  that 
grace,  once  given,  can  never  be  lost. 

On  this  point  the  disciples  of  Arminius  went  further,  and  taught 
the  possibility  of  a  total  and  final  fall  of  believers  from  grace.  They 
appealed  to  such  passages  where  believers  are  warned  against  this  very 
danger,  and  to  such  examples  as  Solomon  and  Judas.  They  moreover 
denied,  with  the  Roman  Catholics,  that  any  body  can  have  a  certainty 
of  salvation  except  by  special  revelation. 

These  five  points  the  Remonstrants  declare  to  be  in  harmony  with 
the  Word  of  God,  edifying  and,  as  far  as  they  go,  sufficient  for  salva- 
tion. They  protest  against  the  charge  of  changing  the  Christian  Ee- 
formed  religion,  and  claim  toleration  and  legal  protection  for  their 
doctrine. 

§  67.  The  Canons  of  Dort. 
The  Canons  of  Dort  are  likewise  confined  to  five  points  or  '  Heads 
of  Doctrine,'  and  exhibit  what  is  technically  called  the  Calvinistic 
system — first  positively,  then  negatively,  in  the  rejection  of  the  Ar- 
mlnian  errors.1  Each  Head  of  Doctrine  (subdivided  into  Articles)  is 
subscribed  by  the  Dutch  and  foreign  delegates. 

FIRST    HEAD    OF    DOCTRINE. 

Of  Divine  Predestination. — Since  all  men  sinned  in  Adam  and 
lie  under  the  curse  [according  to  the  Augustinian  system  held  by  all 
the  Reformers],  God  would  have  done  no  injustice  if  he  hud  left  them 
to  their  merited  punishment;  but  in  his  infinite  mercy  he  provided  a 
salvation  through  the  gospel  of  Christ,  that  those  who  believe  in  him 
may  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life.  That  some  receive  the  gift  of 
faith  from  God  and  others  not,  proceeds  from  God's  eternal  decree  of 
election  and  reprobation. 


1  The  term  '  reject io  errorum,'  instead  of  the  condemnation  and  anathemas  of  the  Greek 
and  Koman  Churches  in  dealing  with  heresies,  indicates  that  Protestant  orthodoxy  is  more 
liberal  and  charitable  than  the  Catholic. 

Vol.  I. — L  l 


520  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Election  is  the  unchangeable  purpose  of  God  whereby,  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  he  has,  out  of  mere  grace,  according  to  the 
sovereign  good  pleasure  of  his  own  will,  chosen  from  the  whole  human 
race,  which  has  fallen  through  their  own  fault  from  their  primitive 
state  of  rectitude  into  sin  and  destruction,  a  certain  number  of  per- 
sons to  redemption  in  Christ,  whom  lie  from  eternity  appointed  the 
Mediator  and  Head  of  the  elect,  and  the  foundation  of  salvation. 
These  elect,  though  neither  better  nor  more  deserving  than  others, 
God  has  decreed  to  give  to  Christ  to  be  saved  by  him,  and  bestow 
upon  them  true  faith,  conversion,  justification  and  sanctification,  per- 
severance to  the  end,  and  final  glory  (Eph.  i.  4, 5,  6;  Rom.  viii.  30). 

Election  is  absolute  and  unconditional.  It  is  not  founded  upon  fore- 
seen faith  and  holiness,  as  the  prerequisite  condition  on  which  it  de- 
pended ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  fountain  of  faith,  holiness,  and  eter- 
nal life  itself.  God  has  chosen  us,  not  because  we  are  holy,  but  to  the 
end  that  we  should  be  holy  (Eph.  i.  4 ;  Rom.  ix.  11-13  ;  Acts  xiii.  38). 
As  God  is  unchangeable,  so  his  election  is  unchangeable,  and  the  elect 
can  neither  be  cast  away  nor  their  number  be  diminished.  The  sense 
and  certainty  of  election  is  a  constant  stimulus  to  humility  and  grati- 
tude. 

The  non-elect  are  simply  left  to  the  just  condemnation  of  their  own 
sins.  This  is  the  decree  of  reprobation,  which  by  no  means  makes 
God  the  author  of  sin  (the  very  thought  of  which  is  blasphemy),  but 
declares  him  to  be  an  awful,  irreprehensible,  and  righteous  judge  and 
avenger  {Cat.  Ch.  I.  Art.  15). 

SECOND    HEAD   OF   DOCTKINE. 

Of  the  Death  of  Christ.  [Limited  Atonement.]— According  to  the 
sovereign  counsel  of  God,  the  saving  efficacy  of  the  atoning  death  of 
Christ  extends  to  all  the  elect  [and  to  them  only],  so  as  to  bring  them 
infallibly  to  salvation.  But,  intrinsically,  the  sacrifice  and  satisfaction 
of  Christ  is  of  infinite  worth  and  value,  abundantly  sufficient  to  ex- 
piate the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  This  death  derives  its  infinite 
value  and  dignity  from  these  considerations ;  because  the  person  who 
submitted  to  it  was  not  only  really  man  and  perfectly  holy,  but  also 
the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  of  the  same  eternal  and  infinite  essence 
with  the  Father  and  Holy  Spirit,  which  qualifications  were  necessary 


§  67.  THE  CANONS  OF  DORT.  501 

to  constitute  liim  a  Saviour  for  us;  and  because  it  was  attended  with 
a  sense  of  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God  due  to  us  for  sin. 

Moreover  the  promise  of  the  gospel  is,  that  whosoever  beliereth  in 
Christ  crucified  shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  This  prom- 
ise, together  with  the  command  to  repent  and  believe,  ought  to  be 
declared  and  published  to  all  nations,  and  to  all  persona  promiscuously 
and  without  distinction,  to  whom  God  out  of  his  good  pleasure  sends 
the  gospel. 

And,  whereas  many  who  are  called  by  the  gospel  do  not  repent  nor 
believe  in  Christ,  but  perish  in  unbelief;  this  is  not  owing  to  any  de- 
fect or  insufficiency  in  the  sacrifice  offered  by  Christ  upon  the  cross, 
but  is  wholly  to  be  imputed  to  themselves.1 

THIRD    AND    FOURTH    HEADS    OF    DOCTRINE. 

Of  the  Corruption  of  Man,  his  Conversion  to  God,  and  the  Manner 
thereof. — Man  was  originally  formed  after  the  image  of  God.  His 
understanding  was  adorned  with  a  true  and  saving  knowledge  of  his 
Creator,  and  of  spiritual  things ;  his  heart  and  will  were  upright,  all 
his  affections  pure,  and  the  whole  Man  was  holy;  but  revolting  from 
God  by  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  and  abusing  the  freedom  of  his 
own  will,  he  forfeited  these  excellent  gifts,  and  on  the  contrary  en- 


1  The  advocates  of  a  limited  atonement  reason  from  the  effect  to  the  cause,  and  make  the 
divine  intention  co-extensive  with  the  actual  application;  but  they  can  give  no  satisfactory 
explanation  of  such  passages  as  John  iii.  1G  ('God  so  loved  the  world,'  which  never  means 
the  elect  only,  but  all  mankind);  1  John  ii.  2  ('Christ  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and 
not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole,  world')  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  4  ;  2  Pet  iii.  9.  All 
admit,  however,  witli  the  Articles  of  Dort,  that  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  atonement,  being 
the  act  of  the  God-man,  is  infinite  and  sufficient  to  cover  the  sins  of  all  men.  Dr.  W.  ( 'un- 
ningbam  says:  'The  value  or  worth  of  Christ's  sacrifice  of  himself  depends  upon,  and  is 
measured  by,  the  dignity  of  his  person,  and  is  therefore  infinite.  Though  many  fewer  of  the 
human  race  had  been  to  be  pardoned  and  saved,  an  atonement  of  infinite  value  would  have 
been  necessary,  in  order  to  procure  for  them  these  blessings:  and  though  many  more,  yea, 
all  men,  had  been  to  be  pardoned  and  saved,  the  death  of  Christ,  being  an  atonement  of  in- 
finite value,  would  have  been  amply  sufficient,  as  the  ground  or  basis  of  their  forgiveness  or 
salvation'  (Historical  T/teol.X<>\.  II.  p.  831).  Similarly,  Dr.  Hodge, 'Vol.  II.  pp.644  Bqq-. 
After  such  admissions  the  difference  of  the  two  theories  is  of  little  practical  account.  Full 
logical  consistency  would  require  us  to  measure  the  value  of  Christ's  atonement  by  the  ex- 
tent of  its  actual  benefit  or  availability,  and  either  to  expand  or  to  contract  it  according  to 
the  number  of  the  elect:  bol  SUCD  an  opinion  i<  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  Christ,  and  is 
held  by  very  few  extreme  Calvinists  of  little  or  no  influence.  Cunningham  says  (p.  :'..". I  1 : 
'There  is  no  doubt  that  all  the  most  eminent  Calvinistic  divines  hold  the  infinite  worth  or 
value  of  Christ's  atonement — its  full  sufficiency  for  expiating  all  the  sins  of  all  men.' 


522  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

tailed  on  himself  blindness  of  mind,  horrible  darkness,  vanity,  and  per- 
verseness  of  judgment;  became  wicked,  rebellious,  and  obdurate  in 
heart  and  will,  and  impure  in  [all]  his  affections. 

Man  after  the  fall  begat  children  in  his  own  likeness.  A  corrupt 
stock  produced  a  corrupt  offspring.  Hence  all  the  posterity  of  Adam, 
Christ  only  excepted,  have  derived  corruption  from  their  original  pa- 
rent, not  by  imitation,  as  the  Pelagians  of  old  asserted,  but  by  the  prop- 
agation of  a  vicious  nature  in  consequence  of  a  just  judgment  of  God. 
Therefore  all  men  are  conceived  in  sin,  and  are  by  nature  children 
of  wrath,  incapable  of  any  saving  good,  prone  to  evil,  dead  in  sin,  and 
in  bondage  thereto ;  and,  without  the  regenerating  grace  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  they  are  neither  able  nor  willing  to  return  to  God,  to  reform 
the  depravity  of  their  nature,  nor  to  dispose  themselves  to  reformation. 
What,  therefore,  neither  the  light  of  nature  nor  the  law  could  do, 
that  God  performs  by  the  operation  of  his  Holy  Spirit  through  the 
word  or  ministry  of  reconciliation :  which  is  the  glad  tidings  concern- 
ing the  Messiah,  by  means  whereof  it  hath  pleased  God  to  save  such 
as  believe,  as  well  under  the  Old  as  under  the  New  Testament. 

As  many  as  are  called  by  the  gospel  are  unfeignedly  called;  for 
God  hath  most  earnestly  and  truly  declared  in  his  Word  what  will  be 
acceptable  to  him,  namely,  that  all  who  are  called  should  comply  with 
the  invitation.  He,  moreover,  seriously  promises  eternal  life  and  rest 
to  as  many  as  shall  come  to  him,  and  believe  on  him. 

It  is  not  the  fault  of  the  gospel,  nor  of  Christ  offered  therein,  nor 
of  God,  who  calls  men  by  the  gospel,  and  confers  upon  them  various 
gifts,  that  those  who  are  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word  refuse  to 
come  and  be  converted.     The  fault  lies  in  themselves. 

But  that  others  who  are  called  by  the  gospel  obey  the  call  must  be 
wholly  ascribed  to  God,  who,  as  he  hath  chosen  his  own  from  eternity 
in  Christ,  so  he  calls  them  effectually  in  time,  confers  upon  them  faith 
and  repentance,  rescues  them  from  the  power  of  darkness,  and  trans- 
lates them  into  the  kingdom  of  his  own  Son,  that  they  may  show  forth 
the  praises  of  him  who  hath  called  them  out  of  darkness  into  his  mar- 
velous light ;  and  may  glory  not  in  themselves  but  in  the  Lord,  accord- 
ing to  the  testimony  of  the  Apostles  in  various  places. 

Faith  is  therefore  the  gift  of  God,  not  on  account  of  its  being  offer- 
ed by  God  to  man,  to  be  accepted  or  rejected  at  his  pleasure,  but  be- 


§  G7.  THE  CANONS  OF  DOKT.  523 

cause  it  is  in  reality  conferred,  breathed,  and  infused  into  him ;  nor 
even  because  God  bestows  the  power  or  ability  to  believe,  and  then  ex- 
pects that  man  should,  by  the  exercise  of  his  own  free  will,  consent  to 
the  terms  of  salvation,  and  actually  believe  in  Christ;  but  because  he 
who  works  in  man  both  to  will  and  to  do,  and  indeed  all  things  in  all, 
produces  both  the  will  to  believe  and  the  act  of  believing  also. 

II ITU    HEAD    OF    DOOTBINE. 

Of  the  Perseverance  of  the  Saints. — "Whom  God  calls,  according  to 
his  purpose,  to  the  communion  of  his  Sun  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
regenerates  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  delivers  also  from  the  dominion  and 
slavery  of  sin  in  this  life ;  though  not  altogether  from  the  body  of  sin  and 
from  the  infirmities  of  the  flesh,  so  long  as  they  continue  in  this  world. 

By  reason  of  these  remains  of  indwelling  sin,  and  the  temptations 
of  sin  and  of  the  world,  those  who  are  converted  could  not  persevere 
in  a  state  of  grace  if  left  to  their  own  strength.  But  God  is  faithful, 
who  having  conferred  grace,  mercifully  confirms  and  powerfully  pre- 
serves them  therein,  even  to  the  end. 

Of  this  preservation  of  the  elect  to  salvation,  and  of  their  persever- 
ance in  the  faith,  true  believers  for  themselves  may  and  do  obtain 
assurance  according  to  the  measure  of  their  faith,  whereby  they  arrive 
at  the  certain  persuasion  that  they  ever  will  continue  true  and  living 
members  of  the  Church ;  and  that  they  experience  forgiveness  of  sins, 
and  will  at  last  inherit  eternal  life. 

This  certainty  of  perseverance,  however,  is  so  far  from  exciting  in 
believers  a  spirit  of  pride,  or  of  rendering  them  carnally  secure,  that, 
on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  real  source  of  humility,  filial  reverence,  true 
piety,  patience  in  every  tribulation,  fervent  prayers,  constancy  in  suf- 
fering and  in  confessing  the  truth,  and  of  solid  rejoicing  in  God;  so 
that  the  consideration  of  this  benefit  should  serve  as  an  incentive  to 
the  serious  and  constant  practice  of  gratitude  and  good  works,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  testimonies  of  Scripture  and  the  examples  of  the  saints. 

In  opposition  to  the  Canons  of  Dort,  Episcopius  prepared  a  lengthy 
defense  of  the  Arminian  Articles  and  a  confession  of  faith  in  Dutch, 
1021,  and  in  Latin,  1G22.  It  claims  no  binding  symbolical  authority, 
and  advocates  liberty  and  toleration.1 

1  A  German  translation  in  Bucket's  Bekenntnisa-Schriften, pp.  646-610. 


524  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


III.  THE  REFORMED  CONFESSIONS  OF  GERMANY. 

§  68.  The  Tetkapolitan  Confession.     A.D.  1530. 

Literature. 

I.  Editions  of  the  Confessio  Tetrapolitana. 

The  Latin  text  was  first  printed  at  Strasburg  (Argentorati),  A.D.  1531,  Sept.  (21  leaves):  then  in  the 

Corpus  et  Syntagma  (1612  and  1054);  in  Augusti's  Corpus  libr.  symb.  (1S2T),  pp.  327  sqq. ;  and  in  Nie- 

meyek'b  Collect.  Confess.  (1S40),  pp.  740-770 ;  comp.  Proleg.  p.  lxxxiii. 

The  German  text  appeared  first  at  Strasburg,  Aug.  1531  (together  with  the  Apology,  72  leaves) ;  then 
again  1579,  ed.  by  John  Sturm,  but  suppressed  by  the  magistrate,  1580 ;  at  Zweibriicken,  1004 ;  in  Beck's 
Symbol.  Biicher,  Vol.  I.  pp.  401  sqq. ;  in  Bockel's  Bekenntniss-Schriften,  pp.  303  sqq. 

II.  History. 

Gottl.  Wernsdorff  :  Historia  Confcssionis  Tetrapolitana'.    Wittenb.  1094,  ed.  iv.  1721. 

J.  H.  Fels  :  Dissert,  de  varia  Confess.  Tetrapolitance  fortuna  prcesertim  in  civitate  Lindaviemi.  Gutting. 
1755. 

Planck  :  Geschichte  des  Protest.  Lehrbeyriffs,  Vol.  III.  Part  I.  (second  ed.  179G),  pp.  0S-94. 

J.  W.  Rohriou  :  Geschichte  der  evangel.  Kirche  des  Elsasses.    Strassburg,  1855, 3  vols. 

J.  W.  Baum :  Capito  und  Butter  (Elberf.  1S60),  pp. 406  sqq.  and  595. 

H.  Mallet,  in  Herzog's  Encykl.  Vol.  XV.  pp.  574-576. 

Comp.  also  the  literature  on  the  Augsburg  Diet  and  the  Augsburg  Confession,  especially  Salig  and 
Fiirsteiuann,  quoted  in  §  41,  p.  225. 

THE  REFORMED  CnURCH  IN  GERMANY. 

The  mighty  genius  of  Luther,  aided  by  the  learning  of  Melanch- 
thon, controlled  the  German  Reformation  at  first  to  the  exclusion  of 
every  other  influence ;  and  if  Lutheranism  had  not  assumed  a  hostile 
and  uncompromising  attitude  towards  Zwinglianism,  Calvinism,  and 
the  later  theology  of  Melanchthon,  it  would  probably  have  prevailed 
throughout  the  German  empire,  as  the  Reformed  creed  prevailed  in 
all  the  Protestant  cantons  of  Switzerland.  But  the  bitter  eucharistic 
controversies  and  the  triumph  of  rigid  Lutheranism  in  the  Formula 
of  Concord  over  Melanchthonianism  drove  some  of  the  fairest  por- 
tions of  Germany,  especially  the  Palatinate  and  Brandenburg,  into 
the  Reformed  communion. 

The  German  branch  of  the  Reformed  family  grew  up  under  the 
combined  influences  of  Zwingli,  Calvin,  and  Melanchthon.  Zwingli's 
reformation  extended  to  the  southern  portions  of  Germany  bordering 
on  Switzerland,  especially  the  free  imperial  cities  of  Strasburg,  Con- 
stance, Lindau,  Memmingen,  and  Ulm.  It  is  stated  that  the  majority 
of  the  Protestant  citizens  of  Augsburg  during  the  Diet  of  1530  sym- 
pathized with  him  rather  than  with  Luther.  Calvin  spent  nearly  three 
years  at  Strasburg  (1538-41),  and  exerted  a  great  influence  on  scholars 


§  CS.  THE  TETBAPOLITAN  CONFESSION,  1.530. 

through  his  writings.  Melanchthon  (who  was  a  native  of  the  Palatinate), 
in  his  later  period,  emancipated  himself  gradually  from  the  authority  of 
Luther,  and  sympathized  with  Calvin  in  the  sacramental  question,  while 
in  the  doctrines  of  divine  sovereignty  and  human  freedom  he  pursued 
an  independent  course,  lie  trained  the  principal  author  of  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism  (Ursinus),  reorganized  the  University  of  Heidelberg 
(1557),  which  became  the  Wittenberg  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  Ger- 
many, and  threw  on  several  occasions  the  weight  of  his  influence  against 
the  exclusive  type  of  Lutheranism  advocated  by  such  men  as  Flacioe, 
Heshusius,  and  Westphal.  He  impressed  upon  the  German  Reformed 
Church  his  mild,  conciliatory  spirit  and  tendency  towards  union,  Which, 
at  a  later  period,  prevailed  also  in  a  large  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 
The  German  Reformed  Church,  then,  occupies  a  mediating  position 
between  Calvinism  and  Lutheranism.  It  adopts  substantially  the  Cal- 
vinistic  creed,  but  without  the  doctrine  of  reprobation  (which  is  left 
to  private  opinion),  and  without  its  strict  discipline;  while  it  shares 
with  the  Lutheran  Church  the  German  language,  nationality,  hynmol- 
ogy,  and  mystic  type  of  piety.1  The  great  majority  of  German  Re- 
formed congregations  have,  since  1817,  under  the  lead  of  the  royal 
house  of  Prussia,  been  absorbed  in  what  is  called  the  Evangelical 
or  United  Evangelical  Church.  The  aim  of  this  union  was  originally 
to  substitute  one  Church  for  two,  but  the  result  has  been  to  add  a 
third  Church  to  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed,  since  these  still  continue 
their  separate  existence  in  Germany  and  among  the  German  emigrants 
in  other  countries.2 

BUCER. 

Among  the  framers  of  the  character  of  the  Reformed  Church  in 
Germany,  Martin  Bucer  (Butzer),3  Wolfgang  Fabricius  Capito,  and  Cas- 

1  Dr.  Ileppe,  in  his  numerous  and  learned  works  on  the  history  and  theology  of  the  Her- 
man Reformation  period,  endeavors  to  identify  the  German  Reformed  Church  with  Melanch- 
thonianism  (which  was  only  an  element  in  it),  and  Melanchthonianism  with  original  German 
Protestantism  (winch  was  prevailingly  Lutheran  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term),  thus  over- 
estimating the  influence  of  Melanehthon  and  underrating  the  influence  ofZwingli  and  Calvin. 
His  books  arc  very  valuable,  hut  one-sided,  and  must  he  supplemented  by  the  writings  of 
Alex.  Schweizer  {Die  Centraldognwn)  and  others  on  the  same  subject. 

3  The  large  German  Protestant  population  of  the  United  States  is  divided  among  Lutherans 
(the  most  numerous),  German  Reformed,  and  Evangelicals  (or  Unionists).     A  considerable 

number  is  connected  with  English  denominations,  especially  the  Methodists  and  l'lcshvtcrians. 
3  lie  wrote  his  name  in  German  Butzer  (i.  e.,  Cleanser,  from  jiutzen,  to  cleanse),  in  Latin 
Bucerus,  in  Greek  Bovicnpor.     ^ee  Baum,  1.  c.  p.  88. 


526  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

par  Hedio  occupy  the  next  place  after  Zwingli,  Calvin,  and  Melancli- 
thon.  Bucer  (1491-1511),  the  learned  and  devoted  reformer  of  Stras- 
burg,  and  a  facile  diplomatist,  was  a  personal  friend  of  Zwingli,  Lu- 
ther, and  Calvin,  and  a  mediator  between  the  Swiss  and  the  German 
Reformation,  as  also  between  Continental  and  Anglican  Protestantism. 
lie  labored  with  indefatigable  zeal  for  an  evangelical  union,  and 
hoped  to  attain  it  by  elastic  compromise  formulas  (like  the  Wittenberg 
Concordia  of  1536),  which  concealed  the  real  difference,  and  in  the  end 
satisfied  neither  party.  He  drew  up  with  Melanchthon  the  plan  of  a 
reformation  in  Cologne  at  the  request  of  the  archbishop.  During  the 
Interim  troubles  he  accepted  a  call  to  England,  aided  Cranmer  in  his 
reforms,  and  died  as  Professor  of  Theology  at  Cambridge,  universally 
lamented.  In  the  reign  of  Bloody  Mary  he  was  formally  condemned 
as  a  heretic,  his  bones  were  dug  up  and  publicly  burned  (Feb.  6, 1556) ; 
but  Elizabeth  solemnly  restored  the  'blessed'  memory  of  'the  dear 
martyrs  Martin  Bucer  and  Paul  Fagius.'  In  attainments  and  fertility 
as  a  writer  he  was  not  surpassed  in  his  age.1 

THE   CONFESSION    OF   THE    FOUR    CITIES. 

The  oldest  Confession  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  Germany  is  the 
Tetrapolitan  Confession,  also  called  the  Strasburg  and  the  Swabian 
Confession.2 

It  was  prepared  in  great  haste,  during  the  sessions  of  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg  in  1530,  by  Bucer,  with  the  aid  of  Capito  and  Iledio,  in  the 

1  See  a  chronological  list  of  his  very  numerous  printed  works  in  Baum,  pp.  586  sqq.  Baum 
says  :  '  An  Fruchtbarkeit  kommt  ihm  [Bucer]  kaum  Luther  gleich,  trotz  dem  dass  er  bei  wei- 
iem  mehr  als  Luther,  ja  in  seiner  letzten  L,ebens]>eriode  beinahe  bestdndig,  avf  Reisen,  Con- 
renten,  Reichstagen  und  Colloquien,  in  befreundeten  Stddten  und  Orten  als  Organisator  der 
Kirchenre formation  abwesend  und  in  Anspruch  genommen  war.  Mit  einer  beispiellosen  Elas- 
ticitat  des  (Jeistes  angethan,  nut  einem  Jieberhaftigen  Thatigkeitstriebe  behaftet,  schrieb  er, 
rermoge  des  ungemeinen  Reich t hums  seiner  Kenntnisse  mit  solrher  fabelhaflen  Leichtigkeit  und 
Unleserlichkeit,  dass  nicht  allein  zu  dem  Meisten  was  von  Anderen  gelesen  werden  sol  lie,  cin 
mit  seiner  die  Worte  bios  andeutenden  Sehrift  genau.  vertrauter  Amanuensis  nothwendig  war, 
sondern  dass  er  audi  neben  seinen  Amtsgesrhdften  norh  bei  weitem  mehr  forderte  als  zwei  der 
geiibtesten  Schreiber  in's  Reine  bringen  lconnten.  Er  hat  umfangreichc  Bucher  auf  seinen 
Reisen  geschrieben.'  His  best  amanuensis,  Conrad  I  Tuber,  began  a  complete  edition  of  his 
works,  of  which  the  first  volume  only  appeared  at  Basle,  1  T> 7 7  (959  pages,  folio).  It  is  called 
Tomus  Ang/icanus,  because  it  contains  mostly  the  books  which  Bucer  wrote  in  England. 
Many  of  his  MSS.  are  preserved  in  Strasburg  and  in  England. 

2  Confessio  Tetrapolitana,  C.  Quattior  Civitatum,  C.  Argentinensis  (Argentorati),  C.  Sue- 
vica,  die  Confession  der  vier  Stddte,  das  Vierstadte-Belcenntniss. 


§G8.  THE  TETRAPOLITAN  CONFESSION,  1580.  .,-7 

name  of  the  four  imperial  cities  (hence  the  name)  of  Strasburg,  Con- 
Btance,  Memmingen,  and  Lindan  which,  on  account  of  their  sympathy 
with  Zwmgliatnem,were  excluded  by  the  Lutherans  from  their  political 
and  theological  conferences,  and  from  the  Protestant  League.  They 
would  greatly  have  preferred  to  unite  with  the  Lutherans  in  a  com- 
mon confession;  but  at  that  time  even  Melanchthon  was  more  anx- 
ious to  conciliate  the  Papists  than  the  Zwinglians  and  Anabaptists; 
and  of  the  Lutheran  princes  the  Landgrave  Philip  of  Ilesse  was  the 
only  one  who,  from  a  broad,  statesman-like  view  of  the  critical  situa- 
tion, favored  a  solid  union  of  the  Protestants  against  the  common  foe, 
but  in  vain.  Ilence  after  the  Lutherans  had  presented  their  Confes- 
sion, June  25,  and  Zwingli  his  own,  July  8,  the  Four  Cities  handed 
theirs,  July  11,  to  the  Emperor,  in  German  and  Latin.  It  was  not 
read  before  the  Diet,  but  a  Confutation  full  of  misrepresentations  was 
prepared  by  Faber  and  Cochliius,  and  read  October  24  (or  17).  The 
Strasburg  divines  were  not  even  favored  with  a  copy  of  this  Confuta- 
tion, but  procured  one  secretly,  and  answered  it  by  a 'Vindication  and 
Defense'  (as  Melanchthon  wrote  his  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession during  the  Diet).  The  Confession  and  Apology,  after  being 
withheld  for  a  year  from  print  for  the  sake  of  peace,  were  officially 
published  in  both  languages  at  Strasburg  in  the  autumn  of  1531. l 

The  Tetrapolitan  Confession  consists  of  twenty -three  chapters,  be- 
sides Preface  and  Conclusion.  It  is  in  doctrine  and  arrangement 
closely  conformed  to  the  Lutheran  Confession  of  Augsburg,  and 
breathes  the  same  spirit  of  moderation.  The  Reformed  element,  how- 
ever, appears  in  the  first  chapter  (On  the  Matter  of  Preaching),  in  the 

1  Under  the  title,  '  33efanttnti|3  frcv  biet  Jyvett  unb  3icid>ftatt,  SttafjbUtg,  Gciiftaut?,  il'u'iii- 
mhtgen  »nb  Shtbaw,  in  beren  ftc  (e9f*9Ra jefiat,  uff  beta  9tei<b«tag  \u  Sugtyurg  im  jut.  3« 
gebatten,  trrt  gtanbene"  mtb  ftttbaben8,  bet  Religion  halb,  tecbenfdbdft  getbon  baben.—  &d)tift< 
Udic  ©efdjtrmung  unb  bertbebigtrng  berfeftngen  Betanbtmifj,  gegen  bet  Sonfutation  unb  SHbet 
fegurtg,  fc  ben  gefanbten  bet  Diet  Stfitten,  ufl  bemetbtem  9teid)8tage,  offentlidj  ffirgelefen,  unb  bio 
fldrcwltd?  ctiiflcbrartt  iff.'  At  the  end,  'Oetturft  $U  Strajjburg  bind'  3o6ann  2dMvcml<a\  lift 
ten  rrii.  Staguftt,  MDXXXL'  Shortly  after  the  appearance  of  the  German  original  there 
appeared  a  Latin  translation, which,  however, did  not  contain  the  Apology.  The  title  is  as 
follows:  lConftssio  Relxgionia  Christiana  Sacratissimo  Tmperatori  <'<ir<>l<>  V.Augusta,  in 
Comitiis  Augustanis  Anno  MDXXX,  per  legatas  Cioitatum  Argentorati,  Constantks,  Mem- 
mingw,ct  Lindavia  exhibita.  Si  quit  vol  writ  voluntati  ejus  obtemperare,  is  cognoscei  </'■  doc- 
trina  utrum  ex  Deo  sit  an  ego  a  me  ipso  loquar  Joh,  VII.'  At  the  end,  l Argentorati  Georgio 
Vhrichero  And/mm  Tmpressore  Amu,  MDXXXL,  mense  Septemb.' — These  titles  are  copied 
fromBanm,  1.  c.  p.  695.    Oomp.  Niemeyer,  I'm/,,;,  pp.  lxxxiv.  sq.    A  new  German  translation 

from  the  Latin  is  given  in  Walch'fl  edition  of  Luther's  Works.  Vol.  XX.  pp,  1966-  8008. 


528  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

declaration  that  nothing  should  be  taught  in  the  pulpit  but  what  was 
either  expressly  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  or  fairly  deduced 
therefrom.1  (The  Lutheran  Confession,  probably  from  prudential  and 
ironical  considerations,  is  silent  on  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Script- 
ures.) The  evangelical  doctrine  of  justification  is  stated  in  the  third 
and  fourth  chapters  more  clearly  than  by  Melanchthon,  namely,  that 
we  are  justified  not  by  works  of  our  own,  but  solely  by  the  grace 
of  God  and  the  merits  of  Christ  through  a  living  faith,  which  is  act- 
ive in  love  and  productive  of  good  works.  Images  are  rejected  in 
Ch.  XXII.  The  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  (Ch.  XVIII.)  is  couched 
in  dubious  language,  which  was  intended  to  comprehend  in  substance 
the  Lutheran  and  the  Zwinglian  theories,  and  contains  the  germ  of 
the  view  afterwards  more  clearly  and  fully  developed  by  Calvin.  In 
this  ordinance,  it  is  said,  Christ  offers  to  his  followers,  as  truly  now 
as  at  the  institution,  his  very  body  and  blood  as  spiritual  food  and 
drink,  whereby  their  souls  are  nourished  to  everlasting  life.2     Nothing 

1  '  Mandavimus  iis,  qui  concionandi  apud  nos  munere  fungebantur,  ut  nihil  aliud  quam  quas 
sacris  Uteris  aut  continentur,  aut  certe  nituntur,  e  suggestu  docerent.  Videbatur  namque  nobis 
haud  indignum,  eo  in  Mo  tanto  discrimine  confugere,  quo  confugerunt  olim  et  semper,  non  solum 
sanctissimi  Patres,  Episcopi,  et  Princij>es,  sed  quilibet  etiam  privati,  nenipe  ad  authoritatem 
Scriptural  arcana7..  Ad  quam  nobiliores  Thessa/onicensium  auditum  Christi  Evangelium  ex- 
plorasse,  divus  Lucas  cum  laude  illorum  niemorat,  in  qua  JPaulus  summo  studio  versari  suum 
Timotheum  voluit,  sine  cuius  authoritate,  nulli  Pontijices  suis  decretis  obedientiam,  nidli  patres 
suis  scriptis  Jidem,  nulli  denique  Princijies  suis  legibus  authoritatem  unquani  postularunt,  ex 
qua  dernum  ducendas  sacras  condones,  et  magnum  Sacri  Imperii  concilium  Nurembergo?,  anno 
Christi  M.D.  XXIII.  celebratum  sancivit.  Si  enim  verum  divus  Paulus  testatus  est,  per 
divinam  Scrijduram  hominem  Dei  penitus  absolci,  atque  ad  omne  opus  bonum  instrui,  nihil  po- 
terit  is  veritatis  Christiana?,  nihil  doctrinal  salutaris  desiderare,  Scri])turam  qui  consulere  re- 
ligiose studeat.' 

2  '  De  hoc  venerando  corporis  et  sanguinis  Christi  sacramento  omnia,  qua;  de  illo  Evange- 
listic, Paulus  et  sancti  Patres  scripta  reliquerunt,  nostri  fide  optima  docent,  commendant, 
inculcant.  Indeque  singulari  studio  hanc  Christi  in  suos  bonitatem,  semper  depredicant,  qua 
is  non  minus  hodie,  quam  in  novissima  ilia  ccena,  omnibus  qui  inter  illius  discipulos  ex  animo 
nomen  dederunt,  cum  hanc  ccenam,  ut  ipse  instituit  repetunt,  verum  suum  corpus,  verumque 
suum  sanguinem,  vere  edendum  et  bibendum,  in  cibum  potumque  animaru?n,  quo  illai  in  wter- 
nam  vitam  alantur,  dare  per  sacramenta  dignatur,  ut  jam  ipse  in  illis,  et  Mi  in  ipso  vivant  et 
permaneant,  in  die  novissimo,  in  novam  et  immortalem  vitam  per  ipsum  resuscitandi,  juxta  sua 
ilia  ceiemce  veritatis  verba:  "  Accipite  et  manducate,  hoc  est  corpus  meum," etc.  " Bibite  ex  eo 
omnes,  hie  calix  est  sanguis  ?neus,"  etc.  Prwci/ma  vero  diligentia  populi  animos,  nostri  eccle- 
siastce  ab  omni  turn  contentione,  turn  supervacanea  et  curiosa  disquisitione,  ad  Mud  revocant, 
quod  solum  )>rodest,  solumque  a  Christo  servatore  nostra  spectatum  est,  nempe  tit  ipso  pasti,  in 
ijiso  et  per  ipsum  vivamus,  vitam  Deo  placitam,  sanctam,  et  ideo  perennem  quoque  et  beatam, 
simusque  inter  nos  omnes  unus  panis,  unum  corpus,  qui  de  uno  pane  in  sacra  cwna  participamus. 
Quo  sane  factum  est,  ut  divina  sacramenta,  sacrosancta  Christi  cana,  quam  religiosissime, 
revercntiaque  singulari  apud  nos  et  administrentur,  et  sumantur.''     Ebrard  (Kirchcn-  und 


§  69.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  15C3.  529 

is  said  of  the  oral  manducation  and  the  fruition  of  unbelievers,  which 
are  the  distinctive  features  of  the  Lutheran  view.  Bncer,  who  had 
attended  the  Conference  at  Marburg  in  i:>i;!>,  labored  with  groat  zeal 
afterwards  to  bring  about  a  doctrinal  compromise  between  the  con- 
tending theories,  but  without  effect. 

^Ye  may  regard  the  Strasburg  Confession  as  the  first  attempt  at  an 
evangelical  union  symbol.  But  Bucer's  love  for  union  was  an  obstacle 
to  the  success  of  his  confession,  which  never  took  deep  root ;  for  in 
the  Reformed  Churches  it  was  soon  superseded  by  the  clearer  and  more 
logical  confessions  of  the  Calvinistic  type,  and  the  four  cities  after- 
wards signed  the  Lutheran  Confession  to  join  the  Smalcald  League. 
Bucer  himself  remained  true  to  his  creed,  and  reconfessed  it  in  his  last 
will  and  testament  (15-iS),  and  on  his  death-bed.1 

§  69.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism.     A.D.  15G3. 

Literature. 

I.  Standard  Editions  of  the  Catechism. 

Official  German  editions  of  15C3  (three),  15S5, 1595, 1CS4, 1724, 1S63  (American).    The  original  title  is 

'Catechismus  I  Dbcr  |  Gtyviillidicr  Unbevridtf,  |  ttneber  in  tftrdjen  unb  ©<&>  |  kit  bet  Gburfurftlirtni  I 

spfalfc  gettieben  |  ttitbt  |  ©ebrucft  in  bcr  EljurffirjUt*  |  djen  ©tab  $e$bettera,  butdj  |  3ob>nnem  SRaper.  | 

1563.'    With  the  Electoral  arms.    95  pages. 

There  is  but  one  copy  of  the  first  edition  known  to  exist,  and  this  did  not  come  into  public  notice  till 
1564.  It  belonged  to  Prof.  Hermann  Wilken,  of  Heidelberg,  whose  name  it  bears,  with  the  date  1563;  wis 
bought  by  Dr.  Treviranus,  of  Bremen,  in  1823,  given  by  him  to  Dr.  Menken,  bought  back  after  Menken's 
death,  1S32,  and  is  now  in  the  University  Library  at  Utrecht.  I  examined  it  In  October  and  Novem- 
ber, 1865,  at  Bremen.  It  has  the  remark, '  Diensee  ist  die  allererste  Edition,  in  irelcher  Pag.  55  die  80ste 
Frag  und  Antwort  nicht  gefunden  toirdt  Auff  Churfii  rstt  iehen  Befehl  eingezogen.  Liber  rartosimva.' 
The  Scripture  texts  are  quoted  iu  the  margin,  but  only  the  chapters,  since  the  versicular  division  (which 
first  appeared  iu  Stephens's  Greek  Testament  of  1551)  had  not  yet  come  into  general  use.  A  quasi  lac- 
simile  of  this  copy  was  issued  by  the  Rev.  Auirf.oiit  Woi.tef.s,  then  at  Bonn  (now  at  Halle),  under  the 
title,  'Der  Hridelberger  Katechiamus  in  seiner  urspr&nglichen  Ge.ttalt,  herauegegeben  nebat  der  Oeaehiehte 
seines  Textea  im  Jahre  1563.'    Bonn,  1864.    Comp.  his  art.  in  the  Studien  und  EritHeen  for  1S67,  pp.  1,  2. 

Niemever,  in  his  collection  of  Reformed  Confessions,  pp.  390  eqq.,  gives,  besides  the  Latin  text,  a 
faithful  reprint  of  the  third  German  edition,  with  the  eightieth  question  in  full. 

PmLIPF  Sciiakf:  Der  Ilcidelberger  Kateehismua.  Nach  der  erst<n  Ausgdbe  run  1563  reridirt  und  v\it 
hritiachen  Anmerkungen,  sowie  einer  Oeaehiehte  und  Charahterietik  iu  Katechiamus  veraehen.  Philadel- 
phia (J.  Kohler),  1S63;  second  edition,  revised  and  enlarged,  1S66.  This  edition  was  prepared  for  the 
tercentenary  celebration  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  gives  the  received  text  of  the  third  edition 
with  the  readings  of  the  first  and  second  editions,  and  the  Scripture  proofs  in  full. 

The  Latin  translation  was  published  in  1563,  and  again  in  1500,  under  the  title,  •(  i  n ■•  |<  ibi  BI8  l.'i  I .IOIO- 
nis  Christian.*:,  I  qum  troditur  in  Eccleaiia  et  Scholia  I'aln-  tinatua.  \  Heydi  lb  rgm,  Exeuavm  anno  pott 
Christum  I  nation  M.D.LXVI.'    I  saw  a  copy  of  this  erf.  Latino  iu  the  library  of  the  late  Dr.  Tre  vlranns, 

Dogmenrjeschichte,  Vol.  III.  p.  93)  says  of  Bucer,  that  lie  bad  the  theological  elements  for  a 
true  doctrinal  union  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  \  iews  of  the  eucharist.  '  In  der  richtigt  n 
exegetischn  Grundlage  v&llig  mil  Zwingli  einig,  brachte  er  das  Element,  welches  auch  in 
Zwingli  keimartig  vorhanden  gewesen,  aber  in  der  Hitze  dee  Streitet  ganz  zwUckgetreten 
war — die  Lebensgemeinscha/t  oder  unto  myatica  mil  der  Person  Chriati—itn  Sinne  dt  r  Te- 
trajwlilunu  (</.  i.  im  Sinne  der  nachherigen  calcinisch-mehtnc/tt/ionischen  Lchre)  zur  Entwiclc- 
lung. ' 
1  Baum,  pp.  569, 572. 


530  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

in  Bremeu  (1S66).  On  the  title-page  the  words  are  written,  'Editio  rara  et  originalis;'  also  the  name 
of  G.Menken,  the  former  owner.  The  Scripture  references  are  marked  on  the  margin,  including  the 
verses.  The  eightieth  question  is  complete  (with  'execranda  idololatria'),  pp.  62  and  63,  and  supported 
by  many  Scripture  texts  and  the  Can.  Missce.  The  questions  are  divided  into  fifty-two  Sundays.  'Pre- 
cationes  aliquot  privatm  et  publico?,'  a  'Precatio  scholastica,'  and  some  versified  prayers  of  Joachim 
Camerarius  (the  friend  and  biographer  of  Melanchthon),  are  added. 

The  best  English,  or  rather  American,  editioii  of  the  Catechism  is  the  stately  triglot  tercentenary 
edition  prepared  at  the  direction  of  the  German  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States,  by  a  committee 
consisting  of  E.  V.  Gerhart,  D.D.,  John  W.  Nevin,  D.D.,  Henry  Harbaugh,  D.D.,  John  S.  Kessler,  D.D., 
Daniel  Zacharias,  D.D.,  and  three  laymen,  and  issued  under  the  title,  'The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  in  Ger- 
man, Latin,  and  English;  with  an  Historical  Introduction  (by  Dr.  Kevin),  New  York  (Charles  Scribner), 
1S63.'  4to.  The  German  text  is  a  reprint  of  the  third  edition  after  Niemeyer,  with  the  German  in  mod- 
ern spelling  added  ;  the  English  translation  is  made  directly  from  the  German  original,  and  is  far  better 
than  the  one  in  popular  use,  which  was  made  from  the  Latin.  It  is  the  most  elegant  and  complete 
edition  of  the  Catechism  ever  published,  but  it  appeared  before  the  discovery  of  the  editio  princeps,  and 
repeats  the  error  concerning  the  eightieth  question  (see  Iutrod.  p.  38). 
II.  Commentaries. 

The  commentaries  and  sermons  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  are  exceedingly  numerous,  especially 
in  the  German  and  Dutch  languages.  The  first  and  most  valuable  is  from  the  chief  author,  Zaoh.  Ursi- 
nus:  Corpus  Dootrince  orthodoxce,  or  Commentary  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  ed.  by  his  pupil,  David 
Pareus,  and  repeatedly  published  at  Heidelberg  and  elsewhere— 1591, 161S,  etc.— in  Latin,  German,  Dutch, 
and  English.  An  American  edition,  on  the  basis  of  the  English  translation  of  Bishop  Dr.  H.  Pakry,  was 
issued  by  Dr.  Willi aed  (President  of  Heidelberg  College,  Tiffin,  O.),  Columbus,  0. 1S50.  Other  standard 
commentaries  are  by  Coooejtts  (1671),  d'Outrein  (1719),  Lampe  (1721),  Staiielin  (1724),  and  van  Alpen 
(1S00).    See  a  fuller  list  by  Harbaugh  in  '  Mercersb.  Bev.'  for  1S60,  pp.  601-625,  and  in  Bethuue's  Lectures. 

Of  more  recent  works  we  name— 

Karl  Suihioff :  Theologisches  Handbuch  zur  Auslegung  des  Heidelberger  Catechismus.   Francf.  a.  M.  1862. 

Geo.W.  Betiiune  (D.D.,and  minister  of  the  Pef.  Dutch  Ch.,N.Y. ;  d.lS02):  Expository  Lectures  on  the 
Heidelb.  Catech.    N.  York,  1864,  2  vols.,  with  an  alphabet,  list  of  works  by  Van  Nest  at  close  of  Vol.  II. 

Hermann  D ai.ton  (Ger.  Ref.  minister  at  St.  Petersb.) :  Immanuel.    Der  Heidelberger  Katechismus  als  Be- 

kenntniss-  und  Erbauungsbuch  der  evangel.  Kirche  erkldrt  und  an's  Herz  gelegt.   Wiesbaden,  1S70  (pp.  539). 

III.  Historical  Works  on  the  Catechism. 

II.  Alting  (Prof,  of  Theology  at  Heidelberg  and  Griiningeu,  d.  1644) :  Historia  Ecclesice  Palatines. 
Frankf.  a.  M.  1701. 

B.  G.  Struve:  Pfdlzischc  Kirchenhistorie.    Frankf.  1721,  Ch.  V.  sqq. 

D.  L.  Wundt:  Grundriss  der  pfdlzischen  Kirchengeschichte  bis  zum  Jahr  1742.    Heidelb.  179S. 

Jaques  Lenfant:  L'innocence  du  Catechisme  de  Heidelberg.    Heidelb.  16S8  (1723). 

J.  Ciir.  Kooiier:  Kaiechetische  Geschichte  der  Reformirten  Kirche,  sondcrlich  der  Schicksale  des  Heidel- 
berger Katechismi.    Jena,  1756,  pp.  237-444. 

G.  J.  Planck  :  Geschichte  der  protestantischen  Theologie  von  Luther's  Tode,  etc.  Vol.  II.  Part  II.  pp.  475-491. 
(This  is  Vol.  V.  of  his  great  work  on  the  Geschichte  der  Entstehung,  etc.,  unseres  protestant.  Lehrbegriffs.) 

Heinr.  Simon  van  Ali-en  :  Geschichte  u.  Literatur  des  Heidelb.  Katechismus.    Frankf.  a.  M.  1S00.    Vol. 

III.  Part  II.  (The  first  two  volumes  and  the  first  part  of  the  third  volume  of  this  catechetical  work  con- 
tain explanations  and  observations  on  the  Catechism,  which  are,  however,  semi-rationalistic.) 

Jon.  Ciir.  W.  Aogusti:  Versuch  einer  hist.-kritischen  Einleitung  in  die  bciden  Haupt-Katcchismen  (the 
Luth,  and  Heidelb.)  der  evangelischen  Kirche.    Elberfeld,  1824,  pp.  96  sqq. 
Rienacker:  Article  on  the  Heidelb.  Catechism  in  Ersch  und  Gruber,  Allgem.  Eneykhp.  Sect.  II.  Part 

IV.  pp.  386  sqq. 

Lunwio  Hausber:  Geschichte  der  Rhcin-Pfalz.    Heidelb.  1845.    Vol.11. 

D.  Seiben  :  Geschichte  der  Reformation  zu  Heidelberg,  von  ihrcn  ersten  Anfdngen  bis  zur  Abfassnng  des 
Heidelb.  Katechismus.  Eine  Denkschrift  zur  dreihundertjahrigen  Jubelfeier  dasclbst  am  3.  Jan.  1846. 
Heidelb.  1S46. 

Aug.  Eurard  :  Das  Dogma  vom  heil.  A  bendmahl  und  seine  Geschichte.    F.  a.  M.  1846.   Vol.  II.  pp.  575  sqq. 

K.  Fit.  Vierorpt:  Geschichte  der  Reformation  im  Grossherzogthum  Baden.  Xach  grossentheils  hand- 
schriftlichen  Qucllen.    Karlsruhe,  1847. 

John  W.  Nevin:  History  and  Genius  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  Chambersburg,  Pennsylvania,  1S47. 
(The  best  work  on  the  Catechism  in  English.)  Comp.  Dr.  Nevin's  able  Introduction  to  the  triglot  ter- 
centenary edition  of  the  II.  C.    New  York,  1S63,  pp.  11-127. 

Karl  Sudiioff:  C.  Olevianus  und  Z.  Ursinus.    Leben  und  ausgcwuhlte  Schriften.    Elberfeld,  1857. 

G.  I).  J.  Schotel:  History  of  the  Origin,  Introduction,  and  Fortunes  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  (in 
Dutch).    Amsterdam,  1863. 

Several  valuable  essays  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  by  Putt,  Sack,  and  Ullmann,  in  the  Studien 
und  Kritiken  for  1S63,  and  by  Woltfrs  and  Treciisel,  ibid,  for  1S67. 

Tercentenary  Monument.  In  Commemoration  of  the  Three  Hundredth  Anniversary  of  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism.     Published  by  the  German  Reformed  Church  of  the  United  States  of  North  America,  in 


§  CO.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  1563.  531 

Englieb  and  German.  The  German  ed.  by  Dr.  S<?haff,  with  an  historical  introduction.  Cbambenbnrg 
and  Philadelphia,  Pa.  1S63.  This  work  coutains  about  twenty  essays,  by  European  and  American  theo- 
logians, on  the  history  and  theology  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 

J.  I.  Dojdes  (Prof,  at  Utrecht):  I)e  Heidtlbmrgaeke  Cateehismus  in  zijne  eerste  Levensjaren  15G3-1507. 
Historische  en  Bibliografische  Saleziwj  met  '20  FasttmUm.  DtTOCht,  1S0T  (pp.  154).  Very  valuable  for  the 
early  literary  history  of  the  H.  C,  with  fac-similes  of  the  first  Germau,  Latiu,  and  Dutch  editions. 

THE    REFORMATION    IN    THE    PALATINATE. 

The  Palatinate,  one  of  the  finest  provinces  of  Germany,  on  both  sides 
of  the  upper  Rhine,  was  one  of  the  seven  electorates  {Kurfi'wsten- 
thiimer),  whose  rulers,  in  the  name  of  the  German  people,  elected  the 
Emperor  of  Germany.  After  the  dissolution  of  the  old  empire  (1S0C) 
it  ceased  to  be  a  politico-geographical  name,  and  its  territory  is  now 
divided  between  Baden,  Bavaria,  Hesse  Darmstadt,  Nassau,  and  Prus- 
sia. Its  capital  was  Heidelberg  (from  1231  till  1720),  famous  for  its 
charming  situation  at  the  foot  of  the  Konigsstuhl,  on  the  banks  of 
the  Swabian  river  Neckar,  for  its  picturesque  castle,  and  for  its  uni- 
versity (founded  in  1346). 

Luther  made  a  short  visit  to  Heidelberg  in  1518,  and  defended  cer- 
tain evangelical  theses.  In  1546,  the  year  of  Luther's  death,  the  Ref- 
ormation was  introduced  under  the  Elector  Frederick  II.  Melanch- 
thon,  who  was  a  native  of  the  Palatinate,  and  twice  received  a  call  to  a 
professorship  of  theology  at  Heidelberg  (1546  and  1557),  but  declined, 
acted  as  the  chief  counselor  in  the  work,  and  aided,  on  a  personal  visit 
in  1557,  in  reorganizing  the  university  on  an  evangelical  basis  under 
Otto  Henry  (1556-59).  lie  may  therefore  be  called  the  Reformer  of 
the  Palatinate.  He  impressed  upon  it  the  character  of  a  moderate 
Lutheranism  friendly  to  Calvinism.  The  Augsburg  Confession  was 
adopted  as  the  doctrinal  basis,  and  the  cultus  was  remodeled  (as  also 
in  the  neighboring  Duchy  of  Wiirtemberg)  after  Zwinglian  simplicity. 
Heidelberg  now  began  to  attract  Protestant  scholars  from  different 
countries,  and  became  a  battle-ground  of  Lutheran,  Philippist,  Cal- 
vinist,  and  Zwinglian  views.  The  conflict  was  enkindled  as  usual  by 
the  zeal  for  the  real  presence.  Tilemann  Heshusius,  whom  Melanch- 
thon,  without  knowing  his  true  character,  had  recommended  to  a  theo- 
logical chair  (155S),  introduced,  as  General  Superintendent,  exclusive 
Lutheranism,  excommunicated  Deacon  Klebitz  for  holding  the  Zwin- 
glian view,  and  even  fought  witli  him  at  the  altar  about  the  commu- 
nion cup.  This  public  scandal  was  the  immediate  occasion  of  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism. 


532  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

FREDERICK    III. 

During  this  controversy  Frederick  III.,  surnamed  the  Pious  (1515- 
1576),  became  Elector  of  the  Palatinate,  1559.  lie  made  it  the  chief 
object  of  his  reign  to  carry  out  the  reformation  begun  by  his  prede- 
cessors. He  tried  at  first  to  conciliate  the  parties,  and  asked  the  advice 
of  Melanchthon,  who,  a  few  months  before  his  death,  counseled  peace, 
moderation,  and  Biblical  simplicity,  and  warned  against  extreme  and 
scholastic  subtleties  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.1  He  deposed 
both  Heshusius  and  Klebitz,  arranged  a  public  disputation  (June,  1560) 
on  the  eucharist,  decided  in  favor  of  the  Melanchthon i an  or  Calvinistic 
view,  called  distinguished  foreign  divines  to  the  university,  and  in- 
trusted two  of  them  with  the  composition  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism, 
which  was  to  secure  harmony  of  teaching  and  to  lay  a  solid  founda- 
tion for  the  religious  instruction  of  the  rising  generation. 

Frederick  was  one  of  the  purest  and  noblest  characters  among  the 
princes  of  Germany.  He  was  to  the  Palatinate  what  King  Alfred  and 
Edward  VI.  were  to  England,  what  the  Electors  Frederick  the  Wise 
and  John  the  Constant  were  to  Saxony,  and  Duke  Christopher  to  Wur- 
temberg.  He  did  more  for  educational  and  charitable  institutions  than 
all  his  predecessors.  He  devoted  to  them  the  entire  proceeds  of  the 
oppressed  convents.  He  lived  in  great  simplicity  that  he  might  con- 
tribute liberally  from  his  private  income  to  the  cause  of  learning  and 
religion.  He  was  the  first  German  prince  who  professed  the  Re- 
formed Creed,  as  distinct  from  the  Lutheran.  For  this  he  suffered 
much  reproach,  and  was  threatened  witli  exclusion  from  the  benefits 
of  the  Augsburg  Treaty  of  Peace  (concluded  in  1555),  since  Zwin- 
glianism  and  Calvinism  were  not  yet  tolerated  on  German  soil.  But 
at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  in  1566,  he  made  before  the  Emperor  a 
manly  confession  of  his  faith,  and  declared  himself  ready  to  lose  his 
crown  rather  than  violate  his  conscience.  Even  his  opponents  could 
not  but  admire  his  courage,  and  the  Lutheran  Elector  Augustus  of 
Saxony  applauded  him,  saying, '  Fritz,  thou  art  more  pious  than  all  of 

1  Rcsponsio  Ph.  Mel.  nd  qunstionem  de  controversia  Heidelbergensi  (Nov.  1, 1559),  in  Corp. 
Re/orm.Yol.  IX.  pp.  960  sqq.  It  is  the  last  public  utterance  of  Melanchthon  on  the  cu- 
charistic  question,  and  agrees  substantially  with  the  doctrine  of  Calvin,  as  it  was  afterwards 
expressed  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 


§  69.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  1563.  533 

us.'  He  praised  God  on  his  death-bed  that  he  had  been  permitted  to 
see  such  a  reformation  in  Church  and  school  that  men  were  led  away 
from  human  traditions  to  Christ  and  his  divine  Word.  He  left  in 
writing  a  full  confession  of  his  faith,  which  may  be  regarded  as  an 
authentic  explanation  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism;  it  was  published 
after  his  death  by  his  son,  John  Casimir  (1577). 

UE6INU8    AND    OLEVIANUS. 

Frederick  showed  his  wisdom  by  calling  two  young  divines,  Ursinus 
and  Olevianus,  to  Heidelberg  to  aid  in  the  Reformation  and  to  prepare 
an  evangelical  catechism.  They  belong  to  the  reformers  of  the  second 
generation.  Theirs  it  was  to  nurture  and  to  mature  rather  than  to 
plant.  Both  were  Germans,  but  well  acquainted  with  the  Reformed 
Churches  in  Switzerland  and  France.  Both  suffered  deposition  and 
exile  for  the  Reformed  faith. 

Zacharias  Ursinus  (Bar),  the  chief  author  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism, was  born  at  Breslau,  July  18, 1534,  and  studied  seven  years  (1550- 
1557)  at  Wittenberg  under  Melanchthon,  who  esteemed  him  as  one  of 
his  best  pupils  and  friends.  He  accompanied  his  teacher  to  the  relig- 
ious conference  at  Worms,  1557,  and  to  Heidelberg,  and  then  proceeded 
on  a  literary  journey  to  Switzerland  and  France.  He  made  the  person- 
al acquaintance  of  Bullinger  and  Peter  Martyr  at  Zurich,  of  Calvin  and 
Beza  at  Geneva,  and  was  thoroughly  initiated  into  the  Reformed  Creed. 
Calvin  presented  him  with  his  works,  and  wrote  in  them  the  best  wishes 
for  his  young  friend.  On  his  return  to  Wittenberg  he  received  a  call 
to  the  rectorship  of  the  Elizabeth  College  at  Breslau.  After  the  death 
of  Melanchthon  he  went  a  second  time  to  Zurich  (Oct.,15G0),  intending 
to  remain  there.  In  the  following  year  he  was  called  to  a  theological 
chair  at  Heidelberg.  Here  he  labored  with  untiring  zeal  and  so 
till  the  death  of  Frederick  III.,  1576,  when,  together  witli  six  hundred 
steadfast  Reformed  ministers  and  teachers,  he  was  deposed  and  exiled 
by  Louis  VI.,  who  introduced  the  Lutheran  Creed.  Fi-sinus  found  a 
refuge  at  Neustadt  an  der  Hardt,  and  established  there,  with  other 
deposed  professors,  a  flourishing  theological  school  under  the  protec- 
tion of  John  Casimir,  the  second  son  of  Frederick  III.  He  died  in 
the  prime  of  his  life  and  usefulness,  March  6,1583,  leaving  a  widow 
and  one  son.    In  the  same  year  Casimir  succeeded  his  Lutheran  brother 


534  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

in  the  Electorate,  recalled  the  exiled  preachers,  and  re-established  the 
Reformed  Church  in  the  Palatinate. 

Ursinus  was  a  man  of  profound  classical,  philosophical,  and  theo- 
logical learning,  poetic  taste,  rare  gift  of  teaching,  and  fervent  piety. 
His  devotion  to  Christ  is  beautifully  reflected  in  the  first  question  of 
the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  in  his  saying  that  he  would  not  take  a 
thousand  worlds  for  the  blessed  assurance  of  being  owned  by  Jesus 
Christ.  He  was  no  orator,  and  no  man  of  action,  but  a  retired,  mod- 
est, and  industrious  student.1  His  principal  works,  besides  the  Cate- 
chism, are  a  Commentary  on  the  Catechism  (Corpus  doctrince  ortho- 
doxce)  and  a  defense  of  the  Eeformed  Creed  against  the  attacks  of 
the  Lutheran  Formula  of  Concord. 

Caspar  Olevianus  (Olewig),  born  at  Treves  Aug.  10, 1536,  studied 
the  ancient  languages  at  Paris,  Bourges,  and  Orleans,  and  theology  at 
Geneva  and  Zurich.  He  enjoyed,  like  Ursinus,  the  personal  instruc- 
tion and  friendship  of  the  surviving  reformers  of  Switzerland.  He 
began  to  preach  the  evangelical  doctrines  at  Treves,  was  thrown  into 
prison,  but  soon  released,  and  called  to  Heidelberg,  1560,  by  Frederick 
III.,  who  felt  under  personal  obligation  to  him  for  saving  one  of  his 
sons  from  drowning  at  the  risk  of  his  own  life.  He  taught  theology 
and  preached  at  the  court.  He  was  the  chief  counselor  of  the  Elect- 
or in  all  affairs  of  the  Church.  In  1576  he  was  banished  on  account 
of  his  faith,  and  accepted  a  call  to  Herborn,  1584,  where  he  died,  Feb. 
27, 1585.  His  last  word  was  a  triumphant  *  certissimusj  in  reply  to  a 
friend  who  asked  him  whether  he  were  certain  of  his  salvation.  Theo- 
dore Beza  lamented  his  death  in  a  Latin  poem,  beginning 

1  Eheu,  quibus  suspiriis, 
JEheti,  quibus  te  lacrymis 
Oleviane,  planxero?'' 

Olevianus  was  inferior  to  Ursinus  in  learning,  but  his  superior  in  the 
pulpit  and  in  church  government.  He  wrote  an  important  catechet- 
ical work  on  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  is  regarded  as  the  forerunner 
of  the  federal  theology  of  Coccejus  and  Lampe.  He  labored  earnestly, 
but  only  with  moderate  success,  for  the  introduction  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian form  of  government  and  a  strict  discipline,  after  the  model  of 

1  On  the  door  of  his  study  he  inscribed  the  warning,  'Amice,  quisquis  hue  venis,  aut  agita 
paucis,  aut  abi,  aut  me  laborantem  adjttva.' 


§  69.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  1503.  ;,.;;, 

Geneva.  Thomas  Erastus  (Lieber),  Professor  of  Medicine  at  Heidel 
berg,  and  afterwards  of  Ethics  at  Basle  (died  1583),  opposed  excom- 
munication, and  defended  the  supremacy  of  the  state  in  matters  of 
religion;  hence  the  term  '  Erastianism'  (equivalent  to  Ca:saropapism). 

PREPARATION    AND    PUBLICATION    OF    THE    CATECHISM. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  as  it  is  called  after  the  city  of  its  birth, 
or  the  Palatinate  (also  Palatine)  Catechism,  as  it  is  named  after  the 
country  for  which  it  was  intended,  was  prepared  on  the  basis  of  two 
Latin  drafts  of  Ursinus  and  a  German  draft  of  Olevianus.  The  pecul- 
iar gifts  of  both,  the  didactic  clearness  and  precision  of  the  one,  and 
the  pathetic  warmth  and  unction  of  the  other,  were  blended  in  beauti- 
ful harmony,  and  produced  a  joint  work  'which  is  far  superior  to  all 
the  separate  productions  of  either.  In  the  Catechism  they  surpassed 
themselves.  They  were  in  a  measure  inspired  for  it.  At  the  same 
time,  they  made  free  and  independent  use  of  the  Catechisms  of  Cal- 
vin, Lasky,  and  Bullinger.  The  Elector  took  the  liveliest  interest  in 
the  preparation,  and  even  made  some  corrections. 

In  December,  1562,  Frederick  submitted  the  work  to  a  general  synod 
of  the  chief  ministers  and  teachers  assembled  at  Heidelberg,  for  revis- 
ion and  approval.  It  was  published  early  in  1563,  in  German,  under  the 
title  '  Catechisinus,  or  Christian  Instruction,  as  conducted  in  the  Church- 
es and  Schools  of  the  Electoral  Palatinate.' '  It  is  preceded  by  a  short 
Preface  of  the  Elector,  dated  Tuesday,  January  19, 1563,  in  which  he 
informs  the  superintendents,  clergymen,  and  schoolmasters  of  the  Pala- 
tinate that,  with  the  counsel  and  co-operation  of  the  theological  faculty 
and  leading  ministers  of  the  Church,  he  had  caused  to  be  made  and 
set  forth  a  summary  instruction  or  Catechism  of  our  Christian  religion 
from  the  Word  of  God,  to  be  used  hereafter  in  churches  and  schools 
for  the  benefit  of  the  rising  generation. 

THE    THIRD    EDITION    AND    THE    EIGHTIETH    QUESTION. 

There  appeared,  in  the  year  1563,  three  official  editions  of  the  Cate- 
chism with  an  important  variation  in  the  eightieth  question,  which  de- 
nounces the  Poinish  mass  as  'a  denial  of  the  one  sacrifice  of  Christ, 

'  See  the  original  title  in  the  literature  above. 

Vol.  I.— M  m 


536  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  as  an  accursed  idolatry.'  In  the  first  edition  this  question  was 
wanting  altogether;  the  second  edition  has  it  in  part;  the  third  in 
full,  as  it  now  stands.1  This  question  was  inserted  by  the  express 
command  of  the  Elector,  perhaps  by  his  own  hand,  as  a  Protestant 
counter-blast  to  the  Romish  anathemas  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which 
closed  its  sessions  Dec.  4, 1563.  Hence  the  remark  at  the  end  of  the 
second  and  third  editions :  '  What  has  been  overlooked  in  the  first 
print,  as  especially  on  folio  55  [which  contains  the  eightieth  question], 
has  now  been  added  by  command  of  his  electoral  grace.    1563.' 

The  same  view  of  the  Romish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  and  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass  was  generally  entertained  by  the  Reformers,  and 
is  set  forth  as  strongly  in  the  Articles  of  Smalcald  and  other  symbol- 
ical books,  both  Lutheran  and  Reformed.  It  must  be  allowed  to  re- 
main as  a  solemn  protest  against  idolatry.  But  the  wisdom  of  inserting 
controversial  matter  into  a  catechism  for  the  instruction  of  the  youth 
has  been  justly  doubted.  The  eightieth  question  disturbs  the  peace- 
ful harmony  of  the  book,  it  rewards  evil  for  evil,  it  countenances  in- 
tolerance, which  is  un-Protestant  and  unevangelical.  It  provoked  much 
unnecessary  hostility,  and  led  even,  under  the  Romish  rule  of  the  Elect- 
or Charles  Philip,  in  1719,  to  the  prohibition  of  the  Catechism ;  but 
the  loud  remonstrance  of  England,  Prussia,  Holland,  and  other  Prot- 
estant states  forced  the  Elector  to  withdraw  the  tyrannical  decree 
within  a  year,  under  certain  conditions,  to  save  appearances. 

TRANSLATIONS. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  translated  into  all  the  European  and 
many  Asiatic  languages.  It  has  the  pentecostal  gift  of  tongues  in 
a  rare  degree.  It  is  stated  that,  next  to  the  Bible,  the  '  Imitation 
of  Christ,'  by  Thomas  a  Kempis,  and  Bunyan's  'Pilgrim's  Progress,' 
no  book  has  been  more  frequently  translated,  more  widely  circulated 
and  used.  Whole  libraries  of  paraphrases,  commentaries,  sermons, 
attacks,  and  defenses  were  written  about  it.  In  many  Reformed 
churches,  especially  in  Holland  (and  also  in  the  United  States),  it  was 
and  is  to  some  extent  even  now  obligatory  or  customary  to  explain  the 

1  Before  the  discovery  and  examination  of  the  only  remaining  copy  of  the  first  edition  (in 
1804)  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  on  the  origin  of  the  eightieth  question,  which  is  now 
satisfactorily  settled.  See  the  details  in  my  tercentenary  edition,  pp.  103-115,  also  the  note 
on  the  eightieth  question  in  Vol.  III.  p.  32G. 


§  GO.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  1668.  537 

Catechism  from  the  pulpit  every  Sunday  afternoon.  Hence  the  di- 
vision of  the  questions  into  fifty-two  Sundays,  in  imitation  of  the  ex 
ample  set  by  Calvin's  Catechism.1 

A  Latin  translation,  for  the  use  of  colleges,  was  made  by  order  of 
the  Elector,  by  Joshua  Lag  us  and  Lambert  Ludolpii  Pithoiheus,  and 
appeared  soon  after  the  German,  since  Olevianus  sent  a  copy  of  each 
to  Bullinger,  in  Zurich,  as  early  as  April,  15G3.2  It  is,  however,  much 
inferior  to  the  German  in  force  and  unction.  The  Latin  text  was 
often  edited  separately  as  well  as  in  the  works  of  Ursinus,  in  connec- 
tion with  his  commentary  and  other  Latin  commentaries,  and  in  col- 
lections of  Reformed  symbols.3 

There  are  three  Dutch  translations :  the  first  appeared  at  Emden, 
1563 ;  the  second,  by  Peter  Datiiexus,  in  connection  with  a  Dutch 
version  of  the  Psalter,  in  156G,  and  very  often  separately.* 

A  Greek  translation  was  prepared  by  a  distinguished  classical  schol- 
ar, D.  Turn.  Sylburg,  1597.5 

Besides  these  there  are  editions  in  modern  Greek,  in  Hebrew,  Ara- 
bic, etc.6 

Three  or  four  English  translations  were  made  from  the  Latin,  and 
obtained  a  wide  circulation  in  Scotland,  England,  and  America.7     A 

1  This  division  was  first  introduced  in  the  Latin  edition  of  156G,  perhaps  earlier.  Van  Al- 
pen,  Niemeyer,  and  others  are  wrong  in  dating  it  from  the  German  edition  of  1673  or  \~>7~>. 

2  Doedes  gives  a  fac-simile  of  the  title-page  of  the  Latin  edition  of  lf»G3,  from  a  copy  in 
the  University  Library  at  Utrecht.  It  is  nearly  the  same  as  the  title  of  the  edition  of  I. "-GO, 
given  in  the  literature  above. 

3  Niemeyer  (pp.  428  sqq.)  reproduces  the  edition  of  1584,  which  agrees  with  the  ed.  princepa 
of  1563  (as  far  as  I  can  judge  from  the  few  fac-simile  pages  given  by  Doedes),  and  with  the 
text  in  the  Oxford  Sylloi/e,  while  that  in  the  Grajco-Latin  edition  of  Sylburg  slightly  differs. 
Dr.  Louis  H.  Steiner,  of  Frederick  City,  Md.,  published  an  elegant  and  accurate  edition  under 
the  title  '  Cateckesis  Iieligionis  Christians  sen  Catechismus  Heidelbergensis.  Baltimore,  18G2.' 
He  gives  the  variations  of  three  Latin  editions:  of  Cambridge,  1585  ;  of  Geneva,  IGO'J  (for- 
merly in  the  possession  of  Chevalier  Bunsen) ;  and  the  Oxford  Sy//<>f/r,  1804. 

*  On  the  Dutch  translations,  see  especially  the  learned  work  of  i'rofessor  IXedcs,  of  Utrecht, 
pp.  74-128,  with  fac-similes  at  the  end  of  the  volume. 

5  I  have  before  me  a  Grazco-Latin  edition  of  the  Catechism  (Karnx>l<>"e  ™Jc  xpiajraytK^ 
SptioKiiac),  by  Sylburg,  and  of  the  Belgic  Confession  bf  Jac.  Kevius,  printed  at  Utrecht, 
1660.     Earlier  editions  I  see  noticed  in  catalogues. 

6  Niemeyer  {Proleg.  p.  lxii.)  mentions  a  Polish  translation  by  Prasmorius,  a  Hungarian  by 
Scarasius,  an  Arabic  by  CWius,  a  Singalesc  by  Koiiyer,  besides  French,  Italian,  Spanish, 
English,  Bohemian,  modern  Greek,  and  Hebrew  versions.  1  ionics  (p.  41)  adds  a  Persian  and 
a  Malayan  translation.     There  are  no  doubt  many  other  versions. 

'  An  English  edition,  without  the  name  of  the  translator,  appeared  A.l).  1601  at  Edin- 
burgh, 'by  publick  Authority,  for  the  Use  of  Scotland,' and  also  repeatedly  in  connection  with 


;3s 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


more  correct  one  from  the  German  original  was  prepared  for  the  ter- 
centenary celebration  of  the  Catechism,  by  a  learned  and  able  com- 
mittee appointed  by  the  German  Reformed  Synod  in  Pennsylvania, 
but  has  not  yet  come  into  public  use.1 

The  merits  of  the  Latin  and  English  translations,  and  their  relation 
to  the  German  original,  may  be  seen  from  the  following  specimens : 


The  German  Original,  1563. 

gfvfljje  l.  2Ba3  tjl  beta  einiger  Svojl  im  SeJett  mib 
im  ©tcrben  ? 

Safe  id)  mit  Seib  imb  ©cele,  beibe§  im  Sebett 
unb  im  ©terpen,  uid;t  mein,  fonbevn  metneS 
getreuen  §eitanbeS  Sefu  Ebrifit  ctrjen  tun,  bev 
mit  feinetn  tfyeuren  SJlutc  fitr  alle  meinc  ©itn* 
bcu  ijoUfommcu  bejat;ict,  unb  mid;  aitS  atlcr 
©ercalt  bc«  SEeufete  erlBfet  f;at ;  unb  alfo  fee* 
voa(;rct,  bafj  obne  ben  SBtUen  meineS  95ater« 
im  §innucl  tcin  §aav  fcon  meinem  §an^te 
fann  fatten,  ja  aud;  miv  attcs  ju  mciucr  ©eftg* 
leit  bieueu  uuifj.  ®avum  er  mid;  and;  burd; 
feinett  ^eiligen  ©eift  be§  ettrigen  ?eben§  i>er* 
fidjert,  unb'  ibnt  fortfyin  ju  lebeu  »on  §ergen 
ttrittig  unt)  beveit  mad;t. 

Sfvagc  2.  2Bic  Stele  ©tiicfe  finb  bir  nofljtg  ju 
Wtffen,  bap  bu  in  bicfem  Svo|"ie  fcltglta)  leben  unb 
ftevben  mogejl? 

2)rei  ©tftcfe :  Srftlid;,  roie  gro§  meinc  eitnbe 
unb  (Slenb  fet.  311111  Unbent,  nne  id;  toon  alien 
mcinen  ©iinben  unb  Slenb  erlBfet  tuevbe.  Unb 
jum  Written,  une  id;  ©ott  fiir  folcbc  ©vlofmig 
foil  bemfbar  fetn. 


The  Latin  Version,  1563. 

Qu.  1.  Quoz  est  unica  tua  consolatio  in  vita 
et  in  morte? 

Quod  amino  pariter  et  corpore,  sive  vivam, 
sive  moriar,  non  meus,  sed  fidissimi  Domini 
et  Servatoris  mei  Jesus  Cbristi  sum  proprius, 
qui  pretioso  sanguine  suo  pro  omnibus  pec- 
catis  meis  plenissime  satisfaciens,2  me  ab  omni 
potestate  diaboli  liberavit,  meque  ita  conservat, 
ut  sine  voluntate  Patris  mei  coelestis,  ne  pilus 
quidem  de  meo  capite  possit  cadere  :  imo  verb 
etiam  omnia  saluti  mea3  servire  oporteat.  Quo- 
circa  me  quoque  suo  Spiritu  de  vita  oeterna 
certum  facit,  utque  ipsi  deinceps  vivam  promp- 
tum  ac  paratum  reddit. 

Qu.  2.  Quot  sunt  tibi  scitu  necessaria,  ut 
ista2  consolutione  fruens,  beate  vivas  et  moria- 
ris  f 

Tria.  Primum,  quanta  sit  peccati  mei  et 
miseriae  meaj  magnitudo.  Secundum,4  quo 
pacto  ab  omni  peccato  et  miseria  liberer.  Ter- 
tium,  quam  gratiam  Deo  pro  ea  liberatione 
debeam. 


the  'Psalm-Rook  and  the  Rook  of  Common  Order.'  It  is  embodied  in  Dunlop's  Collection 
of  Confessions  of  Faith,  etc.,  ofpublick  authority  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  (Edinburgh,  1710- 
1722),  Vol.  II.  pp.  273-361,  and  reproduced  by  Dr.  Horatius  Ronar  in  his  Catechisms  of  the 
Scottish  Reformation  (London,  I860),  pp.  112-170.  Dr.  Ronar  says  (p.  171):  'There  are 
several  translations  of  the  Heidelberg  or  Palatine  Catechism  ;  and  our  Church  [the  Church 
of  Scotland]  seems  not  to  have  kept  to  one.  In  the  edition  of  the  Rook  of  Common  Order 
before  us  (1615),  the  Catechism  is  given  alone;  in  that  which  Dunlop  has  followed,  it  has 
the  *  Arguments  "and  "Uses  "of  Bastingius.'  Another  translation  by  Rishop  Henry  Parry, 
of  Worcester  (d.  1616),  appeared  (together  with  the  commentary  of  Ursinus)  at  Oxford,  1509 
and  1601.  It  was  often  republished — at  Edinburgh,  1615  (with  sundry  variations,  see  Ronar, 
p.  172),  again  in  London,  1633,  1645, 1728, 1851,  and  quite  recently  (from  the  Oxford  edition 
of  1 601 ,  with  the  variations  of  the  edition  of  1728)  by  Dr.  Gerhart  and  Dr.  Louis  Steiner  in  the 
' Mercersburg  Review'  for  1861,  pp.  74  sqq.  The  one  now  in  use  in  the  Dutch  and  German 
Reformed  Churches  in  America,  is  traced  (by  the  late  Dr.  De  Witt  of  New  York)  to  Dr.  Laid- 
lie,  originally  from  Scotland,  minister  at  Flushing,  Long  Island,  and  was  adopted,  1771,  by 
the  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  These  three  English  translations  seem  to  be  only 
different  recensions  of  one  translation  compared  with  the  Latin  text. 

1  See  the  tercentenary  triglot  edition  of  1863,  noticed  in  the  literature  above. 

2  So  also  the  Oxford  Sylloge.     The  ed.  Grceco-Latina  of  Sylburg  reads  instead :  pknissima 
sot  utione  facta. 

3  Al.  edd.  ilia. 

4  Al.  Aherum. 


§  GO.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  1563. 


;,:;«.. 


Scotch  Edition  of  1591. 
From  Dunlop's  Collection  (1722). 

Ques.  1.  What  is  thy  only  comfort  in  life 
and  in  death  ? 

That  in  soul  and  body,  whether  I  live  or 
die,  I  am  not  mine  own,  but  I  belong  unto  my 
most  faithful  Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ: 
who  by  his  precious  blood,  most  fully  satisfy- 
ing for  all  my  sins,  hath  delivered  me  from  the 
whole  power  of  the  Devil ;  and  doth  so  pre- 
serve me,  that  without  the  will  of  my  heav- 
enly Father,  not  so  much  as  a  hair  can  fall 
from  my  head :  yea,  all  things  are  made  to 
serve  for  my  salvation.  Wherefore  by  his 
Spirit  also,  he  assnreth  me  of  everlasting  life, 
and  maketh  me  ready  and  prepared,  that 
henceforth  I  may  live  unto  him. 

Ques.  2.  How  many  things  are  needful  for 
thee  to  know,  to  the  end  [that]  thou,  enjoying 
this  comfort,  mayest  live  and  die  an  happy  man  f 

Three  things.  First,  What  is  the  greatness 
of  my  sin,  and  of  my  misery.  Secondly,  By 
what  means  I  may  be  delivered  from  all  my 
sin  and  misery.  Thirdly,  What  thankfulness 
1  owe  to  God  for  that  deliverance. 

The  Received  American  Version,  1771. 

Ques.  1.  What  is  thy  only  comfort  in  life 
and  death  ? 

That  I  with  body  and  soul,  both  in  life  and 
death,  am  not  my  own,  but  belong  unto  my 
faithful  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  who,  with  his 
precious  blood,  hath  fully  satisfied  for  all  my 
sins,  and  delivered  me  from  all  the  power  of 
the  devil ;  and  so  preserves  me  that  without 
the  will  of  my  heavenly  Father,  not  a  hair  can 
fall  from  my  head  ;  yea,  that  all  things  must 
be  subservient  to  my  salvation  ;  and  therefore, 
by  his  Holy  Spirit,  he  also  assures  me  of  eter- 
nal life,  and  makes  me  sincerely  willing  and 
ready  henceforth,  to  live  unto  him. 

C^ues.  2.  How  many  things  are  necessary  for 
thee  to  know,  that  thou,  enjoying  this  comfort, 
mayest  lice  and  die  happily  f 

Three ;  the  first,  how  great  my  sins  and 
miseries  are ;  the  second,  how  I  may  be  de- 
livered from  all  my  sins  and  miseries ;  the 
third,  how  I  shall  express  my  gratitude  to 
God  for  such  deliverance. 


Bishop  Parry's  Translation  (1591). 
Oxford  Edition  of  1  GO  1 . 

Ques.  1.  What  is  thy  only  comfort  in  I  if, 
and  death? 

That  both  in  soul  and  body,  whether  I  live 
or  die,  I  am  not  mine  own,  but  belong  wholly ' 
unto  my  most  faithful  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  who  ly  his  precious  blood  most  fully 
satisfying  for  all  my  sins,  hath  delivered  me 
from  all  the  power  of  the  devil,  and  so  pre- 
serveth  me,  that  without  the  will  of  my  heav- 
enly Father  not  so  much  as  a  hair  may  fall 
from  my  head,  yea  all  things  must  serve  for 
my  safety.  Wherefore  by  his  Spirit  also  he 
assureth  me  of  everlasting  life,  and  maketh 
me  ready,  and  prepared,  that  henceforth  I  may 
live  to  him. 

Ques.  2.  How  many  things  are  necessary  for 
thee  to  know,  that  thou  enjoying  this  comfort 
mayest  live  and  die  happily? 

Three.  The  first,  what  is  the  greatness  of 
my  sin  and  misery.  The  second,  how  I  am  de- 
livered from  all  sin  and  misery.  The  third, 
what  thanks  I  owe  unto  God  for  this  deliv- 
ery. 

The  New  American  Version,  18G3. 

Ques.  1.   What  is  thy  only  comfort  in  life 

j  and  in  death  ? 

\  That  I,  with  body  and  soul,  both  in  life  and 
in  death,  am  not  my  own,  but  belong  to  my 
faithful  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  who  with  His 
precious  blood  has  fully  satisfied  for  all  my 
sins,  and  redeemed  me  "from  all  the  power  of 
the  devil ;  and  so  preserves  me,  that  without 
the  will  of  my  Father  in  heaven  not  a  hair 
can  fall  from  my  head  ;   yea,  that  all  things 

;  must  work  together  for  my  salvation.  Where- 
fore, by  His  Holy  Spirit,  He  also  assures  me  of 
eternal  life,  and  makes  me  heartily  willing  and 
ready  henceforth  to  live  unto  Him. 

Ques.  2.  How  many  things  are  necessary  for 
thee  to  know,  that  thou  in  this  comfort  mayest 
live  and  die  hapjnly? 

Three  things :  First,  the  greatness  of  my 
sin  and  misery.  Second,  how  I  am  redeemed 
from  all  my  sins  and  misery.  Third,  how  I 
am  to  be  thankful  to  God  for  such  redemp- 
tion. 


Note. — All  the  English  versions,  except  the  last,  follow  the  Latin  in  its  departures  from 
the  German,  as  'most  faithful  Lord'  (jidelissimi  Domini)  for  'faithful'  (getreuen),  'heavenly 
Father'  {Patris  cazlestis)  for  'Father  in  heaven'  {Voter  itn  Himuul).  The  dependence  on 
the  Latin  may  be  seen  also  in  the  words  'most  fully  satisfying'  (plenissime  tatisfaciens), 
'delivered'  (liberavit)  for  'redeemed'  (erldsct),  'delivery'  (liueratio)  for  'redemption'  (Er- 


1  The  redundant  'wholly'  occurs  also  in  the  Edinburgh  edition  of  1G 15,  which,  to  judge 
from  the  specimens  given  by  Horatius  Bonar  (in  Catechisms  of  the  Scottish  Reformation, 
p.  172),  is  a  reprint  of  Parry's  translation  with  a  few  variations. 


540  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

losunff),  and  in  the  omission  of  'heartily'  (von  Herzen),  for  which,  however,  the  common 
American  version  (which  seems  to  have  made  use  also  of  the  Dutch  version)  substitutes 
'  sincerely. ' 

CHARACTER    AND    AIM. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  answers  the  double  purpose  of  a  guide 
for  the  religious  instruction  of  the  youth  and  a  confession  of  faith  for 
the  Church. 

As  a  catechism  it  is  an  acknowledged  masterpiece,  with  few  to  equal 
and  none  to  surpass  it.  Its  only  defect  is  that  its  answers  are  mostly 
too  long  for  the  capacity  and  memory  of  children.  It  is  intended  for 
a  riper  age.  Hence  an  abridgment  was  made  as  early  as  1585,  but  no 
attempts  to  simplify  and  popularize  it  have  been  able  to  supersede  it. 

As  a  standard  of  public  doctrine  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  is  the 
most  catholic  and  popular  of  all  the  Reformed  symbols.  The  German 
Reformed  Church  acknowledges  no  other.  The  Calvinistic  system  is 
herein  set  forth  with  wise  moderation,  and  without  its  sharp,  angular 
points.  This  may  be  a  defect  in  logic,  but  it  is  an  advantage  in  re- 
ligion, which  is  broader  and  deeper  than  logic.  Children  and  the 
mass  of  the  people  are  unable  to  appreciate  metaphysical  distinctions 
and  the  transcendent  mysteries  of  eternal  decrees.  The  doctrine  of 
election  to  holiness  and  salvation  in  Christ  (or  the  positive  and  edify- 
ing  part  of  the  dogma  of  predestination)  is  indeed  incidentally  set 
forth  as  a  source  of  humility,  gratitude,  and  comfort  (Ques.  1,  31, 
53,  54),  but  nothing  is  said  of  a  double  predestination,  or  of  an  eter- 
nal decree  of  reprobation,  or  of  a  limited  atonement  (comp.  Ques.  37). 
These  difficult  questions  are  left  to  private  opinion  and  theological 
science.  This  reserve  is  the  more  remarkable  since  the  authors  (as 
well  as  all  other  Reformers,  except  Melanchthon  in  his  later  period) 
were  strict  predestinarians. 

PLAN  AND  ARRANGEMENT. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  follows  the  order  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  and  is  divided  into  three  parts.  The  first  two  questions  are 
introductory.  The  first  part  treats  of  the  sin  and  misery  of  man 
(Ques.  3-11;  comp.Rom.  i.  18-iii.  20);  the  second  of  the  redemption 
by  Christ  (Ques.  12-85 ;  comp.  Rom.  iii.  21-xi.  36) ;  the  third  of  the 
thankfulness  of  the  redeemed,  or  the  Christian  life  (Ques.  SG-129 ; 
comp.  Rom.  xii.-xvi.).     The  second  part  is  the  largest,  and  contains 


§  G9.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  1563.  541 

an  explanation  of  all  the  articles  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  under  the 
three  heads  of  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  is  rightly  incorporated  in 
this  part,  instead  of  being  treated  in  separate  sections,  as  in  the  Ro- 
man and  Lutheran  Catechisms.  The  third  part  gives  an  exposition 
of  the  Decalogue  (as  a  rule  of  obedience,  viewed  in  the  light  of  re- 
demption) and  of  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

This  order  corresponds  to  the  development  of  religious  life  and  to 
the  three  leading  ideas  of  repentance,  faith,  and  love.  The  conception 
of  Christian  life,  as  an  expression  of  gratitude  for  redeeming  grace,  is 
truly  evangelical.  In  older  catechisms  the  five  or  six  parts  of  a  cate- 
chism— namely,  the  Creed,  the  Decalogue,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Bap- 
tism, the  Lord's  Supper— are  mechanically  co-ordinated ;  here  they  are 
worked  up  into  an  organic  system. 

The  execution  is  admirable  throughout.  Several  answers  are  ac- 
knowledged gems  in  the  history  of  catechetical  literature  —  e.  g.,  the 
definition  of  faith  (Ques.  21),  on  providence  (Ques.  27  and  28),  on  the 
significance  of  the  Christian  name  (Ques.  31  and  32),  on  the  benefit 
of  the  ascension  (Ques.  49),  and  on  justification  by  faith  (Ques.  60). 

THE    SPIKIT    OF    THE    CATECHISM. 

The  genius  of  the  Catechism  is  brought  out  at  once  in  the  first 
question,  which  contains  the  central  idea,  and  strikes  the  key-note. 
It  is  unsurpassed  for  depth,  comfort,  and  beauty,  and,  once  committed 
to  memory,  can  never  be  forgotten.  It  represents  Christianity  in  its 
evangelical,  practical,  cheering  aspect,  not  as  a  commanding  law,  not 
as  an  intellectual  scheme,  not  as  a  system  of  outward  observances,  but 
as  the  best  gift  of  God  to  man,  as  a  source  of  peace  and  comfort  in 
life  and  in  death.  What  can  be  more  comforting,  what  at  the  same 
time  more  honoring  and  stimulating  to  a  holy  life  than  the  assurance 
of  being  owned  wholly  by  Christ  our  blessed  Lord  and  Saviour,  who 
sacrificed  his  own  spotless  life  for  us  on  the  cross  %  The  first  question 
and  answer  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  is  the  whole  gospel  in  a 
nutshell;  blessed  is  he  who  can  repeat  it  from  the  heart  and  hold 
it  fast  to  the  end.1 

1  Dr.  Nevin  (Tercentenary  Edition,  Introd.  p.  95)  says :  'No  question  in  the  whole  Cate- 
chism has  been  more  admired  than  this,  and  none  surely  is  more  worthy  of  admiration. 


542  THE  CEEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  more  evangelical  definition  of  faith 
than  in  Ques.  21 :  '  Faith  is  not  only  a  certain  knowledge,  whereby  I 
hold  for  truth  all  that  God  has  revealed  to  us  in  his  Word ;  but  also 
a  hearty  trust,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  works  in  me  by  the  gospel,  that 
not  only  to  others,  but  to  me  also,  forgiveness  of  sins,  everlasting 
righteousness,  and  salvation  are  freely  given  by  God,  merely  of  grace, 
only  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  merits.'  How  rich  and  consoling  is  the 
lesson  derived  from  God's  all-ruling  Providence  in  Ques.  28 !  '  That 
we  may  be  patient  in  adversity,  thankful  in  prosperity,  and  for  what 
is  future  have  good  confidence  in  our  faithful  God  and  Father,  that 
no  creature  shall  separate  us  from  his  love,  since  all  creatures  are  so 
in  his  hand  that  without  his  will  they  can  not  so  much  as  move.' 

The  Catechism  is  a  work  of  religious  enthusiasm,  based  on  solid 
theological  learning,  and  directed  by  excellent  judgment.  It  is  bap- 
tized with  the  pentecostal  fire  of  the  great  Reformation,  yet  remark- 
ably free  from  the  polemic  zeal  and  intolerance  which  characterized 
that  wonderfully  excited  period  —  by  far  the  richest  and  deepest  in 
Church  history  next  to  the  age  of  Christ  and  his  inspired  apostles. 
It  is  the  product  of  the  heart  as  well  as  the  head,  full  of  faith  and 
unction  from  above.  It  is  fresh,  lively,  glowing,  yet  clear,  sober,  self- 
sustained.  The  ideas  are  Biblical  and  orthodox,  and  well  fortified  by 
apt  Scripture  proofs.1  The  language  is  dignified,  terse,  nervous,  popu- 
lar, and  often  truly  eloquent.  It  is  the  language  of  devotion  as  well  as 
instruction.  Altogether  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  is  more  than  a  book, 
it  is  an  institution,  and  will  live  as  long  as  the  Reformed  Church. 

Where  shall  we  find,  in  the  same  compass,  a  more  beautifully  graphic,  or  a  more  impres- 
sively full  and  pregnant  representation  of  all  that  is  comprehended  for  us  in  the  grace  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  ?  For  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands,  during  the  past  three 
hundred  years,  it  has  been  as  a  whole  system  of  theology  in  the  best  sense  of  the  term,  their 
pole-star  over  the  sea  of  life,  and  the  sheet-anchor  of  their  hope  amid  the  waves  of  death. 
But  what  we  quote  it  for  now  is  simply  to  show  the  mind  that  actuates  and  rules  the  Cate- 
chism throughout.  We  have  here  at  once  its  fundamental  conception  and  the  reigning  law 
of  its  construction  ;  the  key-note,  we  may  say,  which  governs  its  universal  sense,  and  whose 
grandly  solemn  tones  continue  to  make  themselves  heard  through  all  its  utterances  from  be- 
ginning to  end.' 

1  Ques.  44  is  hardly  an  exception ;  for  the  idea  therein  expressed  is  no  error  per  se,  but 
only  a  false  interpretation  of  the  artjcle  on  Christ's  descent  into  hell  (Hades)  in  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed,  which  places  it,  as  an  actual  fact,  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Scriptures  (Luke  xxiii.  43  ;  Acts  ii.  27,  31 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  19  ;  iv.  G  ;  Eph.  iv.  9, 10) ; 
while  the  Catechism,  following  Calvin  and  Lasky,  understands  it  figuratively  of  Christ's  suf- 
fering on  the  cross. 


§  GO.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  1563.  543 

COMPARISON   WITH    THE   LUTHERAN    AND    WESTMINSTER    CATECHISMS. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  stands  mediating  between  Luther's  Small 
Catechism,  which  appeared  thirty-four  years  earlier  (1529),  and  the 
Shorter  Westminster  Catechism,  which  was  prepared  eighty-four  years 
later  (1647). 

These  are  the  three  most  popular  and  useful  catechisms  that  Prot- 
estantism has  produced,  and  have  still  the  strongest  hold  upon  the 
churches  they  represent.  They  have  the  twofold  character  of  cate- 
chisms and  symbolical  books.  They  are  alike  evangelical  in  spirit 
and  aim;  they  lead  directly  to  Christ  as  the  one  and  all-sufficient 
Saviour,  and  to  the  Word  of  God  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  the 
Christian's  faith  and  life. 

Luther's  Catechism  is  the  most  churchly  of  the  three,  and  adheres 
to  the  Catholic  tradition  in  its  order  and  arrangement.  It  assigns  a 
very  prominent  place  to  the  Sacraments,  treating  them  in  separate 
chapters,  co-ordinate  with  the  Decalogue,  the  Creed,  and  the  Lord's 
Prayer;  while  the  others  incorporate  them  in  the  general  exposition 
of  the  articles  of  faith.  Luther  teaches  baptismal  regeneration  and 
the  corporeal  presence,  and  even  retains  private  confession  and  abso- 
lution as  a  quasi-sacrament.  Heidelberg  and  Westminster  are  free 
from  all  remnants  of  sacerdotalism  and  sacramentalism,  and  teach 
the  Calvinistic  theory  of  the  sacraments,  which  rises,  however,  much 
higher  than  the  Zwinglian. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Lutheran  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechisms 
differ  from  the  Westminster  in  the  following  points :  1.  They  retain 
the  Apostles'  Creed  as  the  basis  of  doctrinal  exposition ;  while  the  West- 
minster Catechism  puts  it  in  an  appendix,  and  substitutes  a  new  log- 
ical scheme  of  doctrine  for  the  old  historical  order  of  the  Creed. 
2.  They  are  subjective,  and  address  the  catechumen  as  a  Church  mem- 
ber, who  answers  from  his  real  or  prospective  personal  experience ; 
while  the  Westminster  Catechism  is  objective  and  impersonal,  and 
states  the  answer  in  an  abstract  proposition.  3.  They  use  the  warm 
and  direct  language  of  life,  the  Westminster  the  scholastic  language  of 
dogma;  hence  the  former  two  are  less  definite  but  more  expansive  and 
suggestive  than  the  Presbyterian  formulary,  which,  on  the  other  hand, 
far  surpasses  them  in  brevity,  terseness,  and  accuracy  of  definition. 


544  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Upon  the  whole  we  prefer  the  catechetical  style  and  method  of  the 
creative  Reformation  period,  because  it  is  more  Biblical  and  fresh, 
to  that  of  the  seventeenth  century — the  age  of  scholastic  orthodoxy — 
although  we  freely  concede  the  relative  progress  and  peculiar  excel- 
lences of  the  Westminster  standard.1 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  differs  from  that  of  Luther — 1.  By  its 
fullness  and  thoroughness,  and  hence  it  is  better  adapted  to  a  maturer 
age ;  while  that  of  Luther  has  the  advantage  of  brevity  and  childlike 
simplicity,  and  adaptation  to  early  youth.  The  one  has  one  hundred 
and  twenty-nine,  the  other  only  forty  questions  and  answers,  and  of 
these  only  three  are  devoted  to  the  exposition  of  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
while  the  Sacraments  receive  disproportionate  attention.  2.  The  Hei- 
delberg Catechism  gives  the  words  of  the  Decalogue  in  full,  accord- 
ing to  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Exodus,  and  follows  the  old  Jewish 
and  Greek  division,  which  is  adopted  by  the  best  commentators ;  while 
Luther  presents  merely  an  abridgment,2  and  follows  the  Roman  di- 
vision by  omitting  the  second  commandment  and  splitting  the  tenth 
into  two.3  3.  The  former  gives  a  summary  of  the  law,  through  which 
comes  the  knowledge  of  sin,  in  the  first  part  (Ques.  3  and  4),  but  ex- 
plains the  Decalogue  in  the  third  division,  viewing  it  in  its  Christian 
aspect  as  a  permanent  rule  of  life;  while  Luther  regards  the  law 
in  its  Jewish  or  pedagogic  aspect,  as  a  schoolmaster  leading  men  to 
Christ,  and  hence  he  puts  it  as  the  first  head  before  the  Creed.  Ur- 
sinns  correctly  says:  'The  Decalogue  belongs  to  the  first  part  so  far 
as  it  is  a  mirror  of  our  sin  and  misery,  but  also  to  the  third  part  as 


1  'It  may  be  questioned,'  says  Dr.  Bonar,  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  'whether  the 
Church  gained  any  thing  by  the  exchange  of  the  Reformation  standards  for  those  of  the 
seventeenth  centuiy.  The  scholastic  mold  in  which  the  latter  are  cast  has  somewhat 
trenched  upon  the  ease  and  breadth  which  mark  the  former;  and  the  skillful  metaphysics 
employed  at  Westminster  in  giving  lawyer-like  precision  to  each  statement  have  imparted  a 
local  and  temporary  aspect  to  the  new  which  did  not  belong  to  the  more  ancient  standards. 
Or,  enlarging  the  remark,  we  may  say  that  there  is  something  about  the  theology  of  the 
Reformation  which  renders  it  less  likely  to  become  obsolete  than  the  theology  of  the  cove- 
nant. The  simpler  formulas  of  the  older  age  are  quite  as  explicit  as  those  of  the  later ;  while 
by  the  adoption  of  the  Biblical  in  preference  to  the  scholastic  mode  of  expression  they 
have  secured  for  themselves  a  buoyancy  which  will  bear  them  up  when  the  others  go  down. 
The  old  age  of  that  generation  is  likely  to  be  greener  than  that  of  their  posterity.'  {Cate- 
chisms of  the  Scottish  Reformation,  Preface,  p.  viii.) 

2  For  example,  the  fourth  (third)  commandment  is  thus  condensed:  'Z>«  sol/st  den  Feier- 
tag  heili()e.n,  (Thou  shalt  keep  holy  the  rest-day). 

3  Comp.  p.  251,  note  2. 


§  CO.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  1568.  545 

being  the  rule  of  our  new  obedience  and  Christian  life.'1  4.  In  the 
rendering  of  the  Creed,  besides  minor  verbal  differences,  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism  retains 'the  holy  catholic  Church,' with  the  addition  of 
'Christian'  (eine  heilige  allgemeine  chnstliche  Kirche);  while  Luther's 
omits  'catholic,'  and  substitutes  for  it  'Christian.'2  5.  In  the  Lord's 
Prayer  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  uses  the  modern  form  '  Our  Father' 
{Uaser  Vater),  while  Luther  in  his  Catechism  (though  not  in  his  trans- 
lation of  Matt.  vi.  9  and  Luke  xi.  2)  adheres  to  the  Latin  and  old  Ger- 
man form  of  '  Father  our'  (Vater  unser),  a  difference  tenaciously  main- 
tained by  German  Lutherans.  The  former  divides  the  Prayer  into  six 
petitions  (with  the  Greek  commentators),  and  renders  Ik  ttov^/jov  '  from 
the  evil  one'  (vom  Bbsen,  i.  e.,  from  the  devil) ;  while  Luther  (with 
Augustine)  numbers  seven  petitions,  and  translates  (herein  agreeing 
with  the  English  version)  'from  evil'  (vo?7i  JJebel). 

The  difference  between  the  Heidelberg  and  Westminster  Catechisms 
is  chiefly  one  of  nationality.  Where  the  choice  is  between  the  two,  the 
former  will  be  used  in  preference  by  Germans,  the  other  by  Scotch  and 
English  Presbyterians.  The  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism  has  the 
advantage  of  greater  condensation  and  precision.  It  is  not  impossible 
to  make  a  better  one  than  either  by  blending  the  excellences  of  both. 
They  represent  also  two  types  of  piety :  the  one  is  more  emotional  and 
hearty,  the  other  more  scholastic  and  intellectual.  This  appears  at 
once  in  the  first  question.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  asks :  '  What  is 
thy  only  comfort  in  life  and  in  death?'  The  Westminster:  'What  is 
the  chief  end  of  man  ?'  The  one  goes  at  once  into  the  heart  of  evan- 
gelical piety — the  mystical  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ ;  the  other 
goes  back  to  the  creation  and  the  gloiy  of  God ;  but  both  teach  the 
same  God  and  Christ,  and  the  same  way  of  salvation,  whereby  God  is 
glorified,  and  man  is  raised  to  everlasting  felicity  in  his  enjoyment. 


1  The  Germans  express  the  different  aspects  of  the  law  by  calling  it  a  SUndt  nitpiegi  I.  Sun- 
dinriciel,  and  Lebensregel,  a  mirror  of  sin,  a  bar  of  sin,  and  a  rule  of  life. 

2  Hence  in  Germany  the  term  'Catholic'  and  'Romanist'  arc  used  synonymously,  and  the 
proverb  lDas  ist  urn  leatholiach  zu  werden'  expresses  a  desperate  condition  of  things,  The 
English  Churches  have  properly  retained  the  term  'catholic'  in  its  good  old  sense,  instead  of 
allowing  Romanists  to  monopolize  it. 


546  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


IIISTOKY   OF   THE   CATECHISM. 

1.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  greeted  with  great  joy,  and  was  at 
once  introduced  into  the  churches  and  schools  of  the  Lower  Palatinate  ; 
while  the  Upper  Palatinate,  under  the  governorship  of  Louis  (the  eld- 
est son  of  Frederick  III.),  remained  strictly  Lutheran. 

But,  like  every  good  book,  it  had  to  pass  through  a  trial  of  proba- 
tion and  a  fire  of  martyrdom.  Even  before  it  was  printed  an  anon- 
ymous writer  attacked  the  Heidelberg  Synod  which,  in  December, 
1562,  had  adopted  the  Catechism  in  manuscript,  together  with  sundry 
measures  of  reform.1  After  its  publication  it  was  violently  assailed 
by  strict  Lutherans  for  its  alleged  Zwinglian  and  Calvinistic  heresies, 
and  by  Jesuits  on  account  of  the  condemnation  of  the  idolatry  of  the 
mass  in  the  eightieth  question.  The  first  opponents  were  Lutheran 
princes  (Margrave  Charles  II.  of  Baden,  Duke  Christopher  of  Wur- 
temberg,  the  Palatine  of  Zweibriicken),  and  Lutheran  divines,  such  as 
Heshusius,  Flacius,  Brentius,  and  Andrese.2  Ursinus  wrote  an  able 
apology  of  his  Catechism,  which  is  embodied  in  several  older  editions 
since  1584.  A  theological  colloquy  was  held  at  Maulbronn  in  April, 
1564,  where  the  theological  leaders  of  the  Lutheran  Duchy  of  Wiir- 
temberg  and  the  Reformed  Palatinate,  in  the  presence  of  their  princes, 
debated  for  six  clays  in  vain  on  the  eucharist  and  the  ubiquity  of 
Christ's  body.  Both  parties  were  confirmed  in  their  opinions,  though 
the  Reformed  had  the  best  of  the  argument.3 

Frederick  III.,  notwithstanding  his  appeal  to  Melanchthon  and  the 
Altered  Augsburg  Confession,  was  openly  charged  with  apostasy  from 
the  Lutheran  faith,  and  seriously  threatened  with  exclusion  from  the 
peac3  of  the  empire.    Even  the  liberal  Emperor  Maximilian  II.  wrote 

1  This  curious  document,  which  throws  light  upon  that  Synod  hitherto  little  known,  has 
been  recently  recovered  and  published  by  Wolters  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1867,  No.  1 , 
pp.  15  sqq.  The  Lutheran  author,  perhaps  a  dissenting  member  of  the  Synod,  gives  a  list 
of  the  measures  for  the  introduction  of  the  Catechism  and  the  abolition  of  various  abuses, 
and  accompanies  them  with  bitter  marginal  comments,  such  as:  'This  is  a  lie  and  against 
God's  Word ;'  '  This  is  the  Anabaptist  heresy ;'  '  To  spread  Zwinglianism ;'  '  Friss  Vogel  oder 
stirb;'  '  Ad  sparrjendam  ziza/riam;'  '  Ut  citius  imbibant  venerium;'  ' Evan<jelii  abrogatio ;' 
'  Hispanica  inquisitio. ' 

•  See  on  this  Lutheran  opposition  Wolters,  1.  c,  and  in  his  earlier  book,  Der  Heidelb.  Kate- 
chismus  in  seiner  Urgestalt  (1864),  pp.  141-196;  Nevin,  Introd.  to  the  Tercent.  Ed.  pp.  42 
sqq. ;  and  especially  SudhofF,  Olevianus  und  Ursinus,  pp.  140  sqq. 

3  See  above,  pp.  288  sqq. 


§  GO.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  1563.  .-,47 

hiin  a  letter  of  remonstrance.  His  fate  was  to  be  decided  at  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg,  15GG.  At  this  critical  juncture  the  pious  Elector  boldly 
defended  his  Catechism,  which,  he  said,  was  all  taken  from  the  Bible, 
and  so  well  fortified  with  marginal  proof-texts  that  it  could  not  be 
overthrown.  He  declared  himself  willing  to  yield  to  God's  truth,  if 
any  one  could  show  him  any  thing  better  from  the  Scripture,  which 
was  at  hand  for  the  purpose.  Altogether  he  made,  at  the  risk  of  his 
crown  and  his  life,  such  a  noble  and  heroic  confession  as  reminds  us 
of  Luther's  stand  at  the  Diet  of  Worms.  Even  his  Lutheran  oppo- 
nents were  filled  with  admiration  and  praise,  and  left  him  thereafter 
in  quiet  possession  of  his  faith.  'Why  do  ye  persecute  this  man?' 
said  the  Margrave  of  Baden ;  '  he  has  more  piety  than  the  whole  of 
us.'  The  Elector  Augustus  of  Saxony  gave  similar  testimony  on  this 
memorable  occasion.1 

Thus  the  Catechism  had  gained  a  sort  of  legal  existence  in  the  Ger- 
man empire,  although  it  was  not  till  after  the  Thirty-Years'  War,  in 
the  Treaty  of  Westphalia,  that  the  Reformed  Church,  as  distinct  from 
the  Lutheran,  was  formally  recognized  in  Germany. 

After  the  death  of  Frederick  it  had  to  pass  through  another  perse- 
cution in  the  home  of  its  birth.  His  successor,  Louis  VI.  (1576-15S3), 
exiled  its  authors,  and  replaced  it  by  Luther's  Catechism  and  the  Form- 
ula of  Concord.  But  under  the  regency  of  Frederick's  second  son, 
Prince  John  Casimir,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and  the  Reformed 
Church  were  restored  to  their  former  honor,  and  continued  to  flourish 
till  the  outbreak  of  the  Thirty-Years'  War. 

This  war  brought  terrible  devastation  and  untold  misery  upon  Hei- 
delberg and  the  Palatinate,  which  were  laid  waste  by  the  merciless 
Tilly  (1622).  Then  followed  the  repeated  invasions  of  Turenne, 
Melac,  and  Marshal  de  Lorges,  under  Louis  XIV.  The  Palatinate 
fell  even  into  the  hands  of  Roman  Catholic  rulers  (1GS5),  and  never 
again  rose  to  its  former  glory.  Thousands  of  Protestants  emigrated 
to  America,  and  planted  the  Catechism  in  Pennsylvania,  so  that  what 
it  lost  in  the  old  world  it  gained  in  the  new.    The  indifferentism  and 


1  Hundeshagen  says  of  Frederick  III. :  '  He  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  greatest  ruler 
which  the  evangelical  Palatinate  ever  had,  and  as  to  personal  piety  and  loyalty  to  his  faith 
the  shining  model  of  an  evangelical  prince.'  See  his  art.  on  the  City  and  University  of 
Heidelberg,  in  the  Gedenkbuch  der  30i)ja'Ar.  Jubelfeicr  des  Heidelb.  K<it.  pp.  58,  59. 


548  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

rationalism  of  the  eighteenth  century  allowed  all  creeds  to  go  into 
disuse  and  neglect.  In  the  nineteenth  century  faitli  revived,  and 
with  it  respect  for  the  Heidelberg  Catechism ;  but,  owing  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  union  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches  in  the 
Grand  Duchy  of  Baden,  to  which  Heidelberg  now  belongs,  it  was 
merged  into  a  new  catechism  compiled  from  it  and  from  that  of 
Luther.1 

2.  The  history  of  the  Palatinate  Catechism  extends  far  beyond  the 
land  of  its  birth.  It  took  deeper  root  and  acquired  greater  influence  in 
other  countries.  Soon  after  its  appearance  it  commended  itself  by  its 
intrinsic  excellences  to  all  Reformed  Churches  of  the  German  tongue. 
It  was  introduced  in  East  Friesland,  Jiilich  (Juliers),  Cleve  (Cleves), 
Berg,  the  Wupperthal,  Bremen,  Hesse  Cassel,  Anhalt,  Brandenburg, 
East  and  West  Prussia,  the  free  imperial  cities,  in  Hungary,  Poland, 
and  in  several  cantons  of  Switzerland,  as  St.  Gall,  Schaffhausen,  and 
Berne.2  In  the  royal  house  of  Prussia  it  is  still  used  in  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  princes,  even  after  the  introduction  of  the  union  of  the 
two  confessions.3 

It  was  surrounded  with  a  large  number  of  learned  works  which  fill 
an  important  place  in  the  history  of  Reformed  theology.  Eminent 
professors  made  it  the  basis  of  lectures  in  the  University. 

In  no  country  was  the  Catechism  more  honored  than  in  Holland 
and  her  distant  colonies  in  Asia  and  Africa.  It  soon  replaced  the 
catechisms  of  Calvin  and  Lasky.  The  synods  of  Wesel,  1568,  of 
Emden,  1571,  and  of  Dort,  1574,  recommended  and  enjoined  its  use; 
and  ministers  were  required  to  explain  it  to  the  people  in  fifty-two 
lessons  throughout  the  year  in  the  afternoon  service  of  the  Lord's  day. 
In  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  Arminians  called  for  a 

1  On  the  symbolical  status  of  the  Evangelical  Church  in  Baden,  see  two  essays  of  Dr.  Hun- 
deshagen,  L)ie  Bekenntnissgrundlagc  dcr  vereinigten  evangelischen  Kirche  im  Grossherzog- 
thum  Baden  (1851),  and  an  address  delivered  before  a  Pastoral  Conference  at  Durlach,  on 
the  same  subject,  J  851,  republished  in  his  Schriften  ztnd  Abhandlungen,  ed.  by  Dr.  Christlieb, 
Gotha,  1875,  Vol.  II.  pp.  119  sqq. 

2  The  editions  used  in  the  Canton  Berne  have  an  anti-supralapsarian  addition  to  Question  27 : 
'  Und  obwohl  die  Siinden  durch  Gottes  Fursehung  werden  regiert,  so  ist  doch  Gott  keine  Ur- 
sache  der  Siinde;  denn  das  Ziel  unterscheidet  die  Werke.  Siehe  Kxempel  an  Joseph  und 
seinen  Brudern,  an  David  und  Simei,  an  Christo  und  den  Juden.'  This  addition  is  found  as 
early  as  1007.     Noticed  by  Trechsel  in  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1807,  p.  574. 

3  So  I  was  informed  by  the  late  court  chaplain,  Dr.  Snethlage,  of  Berlin,  who  was  orig- 
inally Reformed,  and  who  confirmed  several  members  of  the  roval  familv. 


§  69.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  15G3.  549 

revision  of  it,  to  remove  certain  features  to  which  they  objected.  But 
the  famous  General  Synod  of  Dort,  after  a  careful  examination,  op- 
posed any  change,  and,  in  its  148th  Session,  May  1,  1619,  it  unani- 
mously delivered  the  judgment  that  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  'formed 
altogether  a  most  accurate  compend  of  the  orthodox  Christian  faith ; 
being,  with  singular  skill,  not  only  adapted  to  the  understanding  of 
the  young,  but  suited  also  for  the  advantageous  instruction  of  older 
persons;  so  that  it  could  continue  to  be  taught  with  great  edification 
in  the  Belgic  churches,  and  ought  by  all  means  to  be  retained.'  This 
judgment  was  agreed  to  by  all  the  foreign  delegates  from  Germany, 
Switzerland,  and  England,  and  has  thus  an  oecumenical  significance 
for  the  Reformed  communion. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  also  clothed  with  symbolical  author- 
ity in  Scotland,  and  was  repeatedly  printed  '  by  public  authority,'  even 
after  the  Westminster  standards  had  come  into  use.  It  seems  to  have 
there  practically  superseded  Calvin's  Catechism,  but  it  was  in  turn  su- 
perseded by  Craig's  Catechism,  and  Craig's  by  that  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly. 

3.  From  Holland  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  crossed  the  Atlantic  to 
Manhattan  Island  (1609),  with  the  discoverer  of  the  Hudson  River,  and 
was  the  first  Protestant  catechism  planted  on  American  soil.  A  hun- 
dred years  later,  German  emigrants,  driven  from  the  Palatinate  by 
Romish  persecution  and  tyrannjr,  carried  it  to  Pennsylvania  and  other 
colonies.  It  has  remained  ever  since  the  honored  symbol  of  the  Dutch 
and  German  Reformed  Churches  in  America,  and  will  continue  to  be 
used  as  long  as  they  retain  their  separate  denominational  existence,  el- 
even if  they  should  unite  with  the  larger  Presbyterian  body. 

One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  reunited  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States,  at  the  session  of  the  General  Assembly  in  Philadelphia, 
May,  1870,  was  the  formal  sanction  of  the  use  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism in  any  congregation  which  may  desire  it.1 

1  A  special  committee,  appointed  by  the  <  )ld  School  Assembly  of  I8G9,  reported  to  the  first 
reunited  Assembly  of  1870,  after  a  laudatory  description  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  the 
following  resolutions,  which  were  unanimously  adopted : 

1.  Resolved,  That  this  General  Assembly  recognizes  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  a  valua- 
ble Scriptural  compendium  of  Christian  doctrine  and  duty. 

2.  Resolved, 'rh-.a  if  any  churches  desire  to  employ  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  the  in- 
struction of  their  children,  they  may  do  so  with  the  approbation  of  this  Assembly. 

See  the  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 


550  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

4.  In  the  year  1S63,  three  centuries  after  its  first  publication,  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  witnessed  its  greatest  triumph,  not  only  in 
Germany  and  Holland,  but  still  more  in  a  land  which  the  authors 
never  saw,  and  in  a  language  the  sound  of  which  they  probably 
never  heard.  The  Reformation  was  similarly  honored  in  1817,  and 
the  Augsburg  Confession  in  1830,  but  no  other  catechism. 

In  Germany  the  tercentenary  celebration  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism was  left  to  individual  pastors  and  congregations,  and  called 
forth  some  valuable  publications.1 

The  German  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States  took  it  up  as 
a  body,  and  gave  it  a  wider  scope.  She  made  the  three-hundredth 
anniversary  of  her  confession  the  occasion  for  a  general  revival  of 
theological  and  religious  life,  the  publication  of  a  triglot  edition  of 
the  Catechism,  the  endowment  of  a  tercentenary  professorship  in  her 
seminary,  and  the  collection  of  large  sums  of  money  for  churches, 
missions,  and  other  benevolent  objects.  All  these  ends  were  accom- 
plished. The  celebration  culminated  in  a  general  convention  of  min- 
isters and  laymen  in  Philadelphia,  which  lasted  a  whole  week,  Janu- 
ary 17-23,  1863,  in  the  midst  of  the  raging  storm  of  the  civil  war. 
About  twenty  interesting  and  instructive  essays  on  the  Catechism  and 
connected  topics,  which  had  been  specially  prepared  for  the  occasion 
by  eminent  German,  Dutch,  and  American  divines,  were  read  in  two 
churches  before  crowded  and  attentive  assemblies.  Luther,  Calvin, 
Zwingli,  Melanchthon,  Frederick  III.,  Ursinus,  and  Olevianus  were 
called  from  their  graves  to  reproduce  before  an  American  audience 
the  ideas,  trials,  and  triumphs  of  the  creative  and  heroic  age  of  the 
Reformation.  Altogether  the  year  1863  marks  an  epoch  in  the  history 
of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and  of  the  German  Reformed  Church 
in  America.2 

America  for  1870,  p.  120,  and  the  Memorial  volume  on  Presbyterian  Reunion  (New  York, 
1870),  p.  4f>4. 

1  Among  these  we  mention  the  articles  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  by  Ullmann,  Sack, 
Plitt,  Hnndcshagen,  Wolters,  and  Trechsel,  in  the  Studien  una1  Kritiken  for  1803,  1804,  and 
1807,  the  discovery  and  reprint  of  the  ed.  princeps  by  Wolters  (1 804),  and  a  collection  of 
excellent  sermons  by  distinguished  Reformed  pulpit  orators,  under  the  title,  'Z>er  einzige 
Trost  im  Leben  und  Sterben,'  Elberfehl,  1803. 

2  See  the  Tercentenary  Monument  (574  pages),  and  the  Gedenklmch  der  dreihundert  jahrigen 
Jubclfeier  des  Heidelberg er  Kalcchismus  (449  pages),  both  published  at  Philadelphia,  1 8G3.    The 


§  CO.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  i;,G3.  551 

OPINIONS   ON   THE   CATECHISM. 

We  close  this  chapter  with  a  selection  from  the  many  warm  com- 
mendations which  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  lias  received  from  dis- 
tinguished divines  of  different  countries. 

Henry  Bullingek,  the  friend  and  successor  of  Zwingli,  himself  the 
author  of  a  catechism  (1559)  and  of  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession 
(15GG),  wrote  to  a  friend : 

'  The  order  of  the  book  is  clear ;  the  matter  true,  good,  and  beautiful ;  the  whole  is  lumi- 
nous, fruitful,  and  godly;  it  comprehends  many  and  great  truths  in  a  small  compass.  I 
believe  that  no  better  catechism  has  ever  been  issued.'1 

The  Hessian  divines  quoted  by  David  Parens : 

'There  is  no  catechism  more  thorough,  more  perfect,  and  better  adapted  to  the  capacity 
of  adults  as  well  as  the  young.' 

The  English  delegates  to  the  Synod  of  Dort,  George  Carleton  (Bishop 
of  Llandaff),  John  Davenant  (afterwards  Bishop  of  Salisbury),  Arch- 
deacon Samuel  Ward,  Dr.  Thomas  Goade,  and  Walter  Balcanqual,  said  : 

'That  neither  their  own  nor  the  French  Church  had  a  catechism  so  suitable  and  excellent; 
that  those  who  had  compiled  it  were  therein  remarkably  endowed  and  assisted  by  the  Spirit 
of  (iod  ;  that  in  several  of  their  works  they  had  excelled  other  theologians,  but  that  in  the 
composition  of  this  Catechism  they  had  outdone  themselves.'3 

The  favorable  judgment  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  itself  has  already 
been  quoted. 

Dr.  Ullmann  (d.  18G5),  formerly  Professor  at  Heidelberg,  and  one 
of  the  best  Church  historians  of  the  nineteenth  century:3 

'The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  more  systematically  executed  than  Luther's,  unfolds  upon  the 
fundamental  thoughts  of  sin,  redemption,  and  thankfulness,  the  Reformed  doctrine,  vet  with- 
out touching  upon  predestination,  with  rare  pithiness  and  clearness,  and  obtained  through 
these  excellences  not  only  speedy  and  most  extended  recognition  in  the  Reformed  ( Ihurches, 
but  is  to-day  still  regarded  by  all  parties  as  one  of  the  most  masterly  productions  in  this  de- 
partment.' 

German  edition  gives  the  correspondence  and  essays  of  Drs.  Ilerzog,  Ebrard,  Ullmann,  Ilun- 
deshagen,  Lange,  and  Schotel,  in  the  original  German,  together  with  a  history  of  the  Cate- 
chism by  the  editor.  The  Anglo-American  essays  and  addresses  of  Drs.  Nevin,  SchalV.  tier 
hart,  Harbaugb,  Wolff,  Bomberger,  Porter,  De  Witt,  Kietfer,  Theodor  and  Thomas  Appel, 
Schneck,  Russell,  Guns,  and  Baasmann,  arc  found  in  full  in  the  English  edition. 

1  tArhitror  meliorem  Catechimum  n<>n  editum  esse.  /><"  sit  glorio  qui  larffiatur  successum' 
(1563).     See  Ursinus,  ApoL  Cateeh.  in  the  Prcefatio, 

■  This  judgment  is  quoted  on  the  title-page  of  the  later  editions  of  Bishop  Barry's  transla- 
tion, London  ed.  1728  ;  reprinted,  London,  1851. 

3  In  Piper's  Evany.  Kalender  for  1862,  p.  191.     Comp.  also  his  art.  in  the  Siudien  uml 
Kritiken  for  I  si;:;,  and  in  the  Gedenkbuch,  etc. 
Vol.  I.— N  n 


552  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Dr.  Aug.  Ebrard,  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  prolific  German  Re- 
formed divines:1 

'For  wonderful  union  of  dogmatic  precision  and  genial  heartiness,2  of  lucid  perspicuity 
and  mysterious  depth,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  stands  alone  in  its  kind.  It  is  at  once  a 
system  of  theology  and  a  book  of  devotion ;  every  child  can  understand  it  at  the  first  read- 
ing, and  yet  the  catechist  finds  in  it  the  richest  material  for  profound  investigation.' 

Max  Go'bel,  the  author  of  an  excellent  history  of  Christian  life  in 
the  Reformed  Church  : 3 

'  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  ma}'  be  properly  regarded  as  the  flower  and  fruit  of  the  entire 
German  and  French  Reformation ;  it  has  Lutheran  fervor,  Melanchthonian  clearness,  Zwin- 
glian  simplicity,  and  Calvinistic  fire  blended  in  one,  and  therefore — notwithstanding  many  de- 
fects and  angles — it  has  been  (together  with  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession  of  1540),  and 
remains  to  this  day,  the  only  common  confession  and  doctrinal  standard  of  the  entire  German 
Reformed  Church  from  the  Palatinate  to  the  Netherlands,  and  to  Brandenburg  and  Prussia.' 

Karl  Sudhoff,  formerly  a  Roman  Catholic  priest,  then  pastor  of 
the  German  Reformed  Church  at  Frankf ort-on-the-Main  : i 

'A  peculiar  power  and  unction  pervades  the  whole  work, which  can  not  easily  be  mistaken 
by  any  one.  The  book,  therefore,  speaks  with  peculiar  freshness  and  animation  directly  to 
the  soul,  because  it  appears  as  a  confident,  joyous  confession  of  the  Christian  heart  assured 
of  salvation.  It  is  addressed  to  the  heart  and  will  as  much  as  to  the  head.  Keen  and  pop- 
ular unfolding  of  ideas  is  here  most  beautifully  united  with  the  deep  feeling  of  piety,  as  well 
as  with  the  earnest  spirit  of  revival  and  joyous  believing  confidence.  And  who  that  have 
read  this  Catechism  but  once  can  mistake  how  indissolubly  united  with  these  great  excellences 
is  the  powerful,  dignified,  and  yet  so  simple  style!  AVhat  a  true-hearted,  intelligible,  simple, 
and  yet  lofty  elocpience  speaks  to  us  even  from  the  smallest  questions !' 

Dr.  K.  13.  IIundesitagen,  Professor  of  Theology  at  Heidelberg,  after- 
wards in  Bonn  (d.  1873),  calls  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  a  '  witness 
of  Reformed  loyalty  to  the  Word  of  God,  of  Reformed  purity  and 
firmness  of  faith,  of  Reformed  moderation  and  sobriety,'  and  a  work 
'of  eternal  youth  and  never-ceasing  value.'5 

Dr.  Plitt,  formerly  Pastor  in  Heidelberg,  then  Professor  of  Theol- 
ogy in  Bonn  :6 

'The  Heidelberg  Catechism  still  lives  ;  it  has  not  died  in  three  hundred  years.  It  lives  in 
the  hearts  of  Christians.  How  many  catechisms  have  since  then  disappeared,  how  many  in 
the  last  thirty  or  forty  years,  and  have  been  so  long  sunk  in  the  "sea  of  oblivion,"  that  one 
scarcely  knows  their  tides.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  has  survived  its  tercentenary  jubi- 
lee, and  will,  God  willing,  see  several  such  jubilees.  It  will  not  die ;  it  will  live  as  long  as 
there  is  an  Evangelical  Church.' 

1  Das  Dogma  v.  he'd.  Abendmahl,Yo\.  II.  p.  004. 

2  Or,  fullness  of  soul  {gemuthliche  Innigkeit). 

3  Geschichte  des  christl.  Lebens,  Vol.  I.  p.  392. 

4  Theol.  Handhwh  zur  Auslegung  des  Ileid.  Kat.  p.  493. 

6  See  his  instructive  review  of  Sudhoff 's  Handbuch,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1804, 
pp.  1 53-180.  It  is  gratifying  to  me  that  this  distinguished  divine  fully  indorses,  on  p.  1G9,  the 
view  which  I  had  previously  given  of  the  theology  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and  its  rela- 
tion to  Calvinism  in  opposition  to  Sudhoff  on  the  one  hand  and  Heppe  on  the  other. 

1  In  the  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1803,  p.  2fi. 


§  GO.  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM,  1563.  553 

Dr.  Henry  Haebaugh,  late  Professor  of  Theology  at  Mercereburg 

(d.  1S67),  a  gifted  poet  and  the  author  of  several  popular  religious 

works : ' 

'It  is  worthy  of  profound  consideration,  that  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  which  has  always 
ruled  the  heart,  spirit,  and  body  of  the  Reformed  side  of  the  Reformation,  has  no  prototype 
in  any  of  the  Reformers.  Zwingli  and  Cahin  can  say.  it  is  not  of  me;  it  has  the  suavity  but 
not  the  compromising  spirit  of  Melanchthon.  It  has  nothing  of  the  dashing  terror  of  Luther. 
What  is  stranger  than  all,  it  is  farthest  possihle  removed  from  the  mechanical  scholasticism 
and  rigid  logie  of  Ursinns,  its  principal  author.  Though  it  lias  the  warm,  practical,  sacred. 
poetical  fervor  of  Olevianus,  it  has  none  of  lib  fire  and  flame.  It  is  greater  than  Reformers  ; 
it  is  purer  and  sounder  than  theologians.' 

Dr.  J.  W.  Xevix,  successively  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Presl  tjtei'iai  1 
Seminary  at  Alleghany,  in  the  German  Reformed  Seminary  at  Mercers- 
burg,  and  President  of  Franklin  and  Marshall  College,  Lancaster,  Pa.:2 

'In  every  view,  we  may  say,  the  Catechism  of  the  Palatinate,  now  three  hundred  years  old. 
is  a  hook  entitled,  in  no  common  degree,  to  admiration  and  praise,  It  comes  before  us  as  the 
ripe  product  of  the  proper  confessional  life  of  the  Reformed  Church,  in  the  full  bloom  of  its 
historical  development,  as  this  was  reached  at  the  time  when  the  work  made  its  appearance. 
Its  wide-spread  and  long-continued  popularity  proclaims  its  universal  significance  and  worth. 
It  must  have  heen  admirably  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  Church  at  large,  as  well  as  admira- 
bly true  to  the  inmost  sense  of  its  general  life,  to  come  in  this  way  into  such  vast  credit. 
Among  all  Protestant  symbols,  whether  of  earlier  or  later  date,  there  is  no  other  in  which  we 
find  the  like  union  of  excellent  qualities  combined  and  wrought  together  in  the  same  happy 
manner.  It  is  at  once  a  creed,  a  catechism,  and  a  confession  ;  and  all  this  in  such  a  manner, 
at  the  same  time,  as  to  be  often  a  very  liturgy  also,  instinct  with  the  full  spirit  of  worship  and 
devotion.  It  is  both  simple  and  profound  ;  a  fit  manual  of  instruction  for  the  young,  and  yet 
a  whole  system  of  divinity  for  the  old;  a  text-book,  suited  alike  for  the  use  of  the  pulpit  and 
the  family,  the  theological  seminary,  and  the  common  school.  It  is  pervaded  by  a  scientific- 
spirit,  beyond  what  is  common  in  formularies  of  this  sort;  but  its  science  is  always  earnestly 
and  solemnly  practical.  In  its  whole  constitution,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  more  a  great  deal 
than  doctrine  merely,  or  a  form  of  sound  words  for  the  understanding.  It  is  doctrine  appre- 
hended and  represented  continually  in  the  form  of  life.  It  is  for  the  heart  every  where  full 
as  much  as  for  the  head.  Among  its  characteristic  perfections  deserves  to  be  noted  always, 
with  particular  praise,  its  catholic  spirit,  and  the  rich  mystical  element  that  pervades  so  large- 
ly its  whole  composition.  .  .  .  Simple,  beautiful,  and  clear  in  its  logical  construction,  the  sym- 
bol moves  throughout  also  in  the  element  of  fresh  religious  feeling.  It  is  full  of  sensibility 
and  faith  and  joyous  childlike  trust.  Its  utterances  rise  at  times  to  a  sort  of  heavenly  pathos; 
and  breathe  forth  almost  lyrical  strains  of  devotion.' 

Dr.  Haoenbach,  the  well-known  historian  (d.  at  Basle,  IS 74)  :3 

'The  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  greeted  not  only  in  the  Palatinate  but  in  all  Reformed 
churches  as  the  correct  expression  of  the  Reformed  faith,  and  attained  the  authority  of  a 
genuine  symbolical  standard.  It  was  translated  into  nearly  all  languages,  and  has  continued 
to  be  the  basis  of  religions  instruction  to  this  day.  .  .  .  Its  tone,  notwithstanding  the  scholastic 
and  dogmatizing  or  (as  Ullmann  says)  constructive  tendency,  is  truly  popular  and  childlike.' 

Then  he  quotes  several  questions  as  models  of  the  catechetical  style. 

Dr.  Dalton,  of  St.  Petersburg:* 

'The  Heidelberg  Catechism  exhibits  the  harmonious  union  of  the  Calvinistic  and  the 
Melanchthonian  spirit.     It  is  the  ripe  fruit  of  the  whole  Reformation  ami  the  true  heir  of 


1  In  the  Merrershurfj  Review  for  1857,  p.  102. 

2  Tercentenary  Edition,  Introd.  pp.  120    122. 

3  Kirchengachickte,  Leips.  1870  (8d  edition),  Vol  IV.  p.  812. 

*  Immanucl.  Der  Heideib.  K<it..  etc.,  1  >7<».  p.  1.",. 


554  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  treasures  gathered,  not  in  ten  years,  but  during  that  entire  period.  It  is  thoroughly  Bib- 
lical, and  represents  its  particular  denominational  type  with  great  wisdom  and  moderation. 
We  feel  from  beginning  to  end  in  the  clear  and  expressive  word  the  warm  and  sound  pulse 
of  a  heart  that  was  baptized  by  the  fire  and  Spirit  from  above,  and  knows  what  it  believes.' 

It  is  gratifying  that  the  Lutheran  hostility  of  former  days  has  given 
way  to  a  sincere  appreciation.  Drs.  Guericke  and  Kurtz,  two  prom- 
inent champions  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
in  almost  the  same  words  praise  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  for  '  its 
signal  wisdom  in  teaching,  its  Christian  fervor,  theological  ability, 
and  mediating  moderation.'1  Dr.  Julius  Staiil,  an  eminent  jurist 
and  the  ablest  apologist  of  modern  Lutheranism  within  the  Prussian 
Union,  derived  the  religious  revival  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  his 
native  Bavaria  and  his  own  conversion  chiefly  from  the  late  venera- 
ble Eeformed  pastor  and  professor,  Dr.  J.  Chr.  G.  L.  Ivrafft,  in  Er- 
langen  (died  1S45).  'The  man,'  he  said,  before  the  General  Synod 
at  Berlin,  1846,  'who  built  up  the  Church  in  my  fatherland,  the  most 
apostolic  man  I  ever  met  in  my  life,  Pastor  Krafft,  was  a  strict  ad- 
herent of  the  Reformed  creed.  Whether  he  carried  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism  in  his  pocket  I  know  not,  but  this  I  know,  that  he  caused 
throughout  the  whole  land  a  spring  to  bloom  whose  fruits  will  ripen 
for  eternity.' 2 

§  70.  The  Brandenburg  Confessions. 
( Covfessiones  Marchicce) 

Literature. 

Hartknooii:  Prexissische  Kirchenhistorie.     Frankf.  16S6. 

Zokn  :  Historia  derer  zwischen  den  Lutherischen  und  Reformirten  Theologis  gehaltenen  Cvlloquiorum. 
Hamburg,  1705. 

D.  H.  Hering:  Ilistorische  Xachricht  von  dem  ersten  Anfang  der  evang. -reformirten  Kirehe  in  Bran- 
denburg und  Preussen  unter  dem  gott^eligen  Churfiirsten  Johann  Sigismund,  nebst  den  drei  Bekenntniss- 
Schriften  dieser  Kirehe.  Halle,  1T78.  The  same :  Neue  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  der  evangel.-re/orm.  Kirehe 
in  den  Preuss.  Brandenburg.  Lundern.    Berlin,  1787. 

C.  W.  Hering  :  Geschichte  der  kirchlichen  Unionsversuche  seit  der  Reformation.    Leipzig.  1S36, 1S37. 

Beck  :  Symbol.  Biicher  der  ev.-reform.  Kirehe,  Vol.  I.  pp.  472  sqq. ;  Vol.  II.  pp.  110  sqq.,  130  sqq. 

Niemeyek:  Collectio,  Proleg.  pp.  lxxiv.  sqq.  and  642-6S9. 

Bookei.:  Die  Bekenntniss-Schriften,  etc.,  pp.  425  sqq. 

Moi.i.kr  :  Joh.  Sigismund's  Uebertritt  zum  reform.  Bckenntniss,  in  the  Deutsche  Zeitschrift.  Berlin,  1S5S, 
pp.  189  sqq. 

Ai.ex.  Soiiweizer:  Die  Protest.  Centraldogmen,  Vol.  II.  pp.  0  sqq.,  525  sqq.,  531  sqq. 

Comp.  Herzog's  Encyklop.  articles:  Leipziger  Colloquium,Vo\.  VIII.  p.  2SC;  Joh.  Sigismund,  Vol.  XIV. 
p.  364 ;  aud  Thorn  (by  Heuke),  Vol.  XVI.  p.  101. 

Brandenburg,  the  central  province  of  Prussia,  with  Berlin  as  its 
capital,  ruled  since  1415  by  princes  of  the  house  of  Hohenzollern,  at 

1  Guericke,  Kirchengesehichte,  Vol.  III.  p.  G10  (7th  edition),  and  his  Symbollk:  Kurtz, 
Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengesehichte,  p.  .r>08  (5th  edition). 

2  See  art.  Krafft,  by  Goebel,  in  Ilcrzogs  EncyLl.  Vol.  VIII.  p.  :)7. 


§  70.  THE  CONFESSION  OF  SIGISMUND,  1GU.  555 

first  embraced  the  Lutheran  Reformation,  but  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century  the  Elector  became  Calvinistic,  drawing  with 
him  a  few  influential  ministers  and  congregations.  This  Reformed 
diaspora  received  an  accession  of  about  twenty  thousand  exiled  Hu- 
guenots under  the  liberal  policy  of  the  great  Elector  Frederick  Will- 
iam (1620-1688),  the  proper  founder  of  the  Prussian  monarchy,  who 
secured  the  legal  recognition  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  Treaty 
of  Westphalia  (1648). 

There  are  three  Reformed  Confessions  of  Brandenburg — namely, 
the  Confession  of  the  Elector  Sigismund  (1614),  the  Leipzig  Colloquy 
(1631),  and  the  Declaration  of  Thorn  (1645).  They  bear  a  moderate- 
ly Calvinistic,  we  may  say  a  Unionistic,  type,  and  had  a  certain  sym- 
bolical authority  in  Brandenburg  till  the  introduction  of  the  union  of 
the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches  in  1817.  The  great  Elector 
mentions  them  together  in  1664.  The  Canons  of  Dort  were  respect- 
fully received  but  never  adopted  by  the  Brandenburg  divines. 

THE    CONFESSION    OF    SIGISMUND.       A.I).  1614. 

See  the  original  German  text  in  the  collections  of  Beck,  Niemeyer,  Biickel,  and  also  in  Hepped  />- 
kcnntime-Schri/tcn  der  reform.  Kirehen  DeuUchlanda,  pp.  2S4-294. 

John  Sigismund  (or  Siegmund),  Elector  of  Brandenburg  (b.  1572, 
d.  1610)  and  ancestor  of  the  royal  line  of  Prussia,  was  brought  up  in 
the  rigorous  orthodoxy  of  the  Lutheran  Formula  of  Concord,  and  in 
his  twenty-first  year  a  solemn  pledge  was  exacted  from  him  by  his 
father  that  he  would  always  adhere  to  this  creed  (1593).  But  re- 
ligious compulsion  had  on  him  an  effect  directly  contrary  to  that  con- 
templated (as  is  often  the  case  with  independent  minds).  His  social  re- 
lations with  Holland,  Cloves,  and  the  Palatinate  gave  him  a  favorable 
impression  of  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  Calvinistic  Churches, 
In  1608  he  succeeded  to  the  throne.  At  Christmas,  1613,  he  publicly 
professed  the  Reformed  faith  by  receiving  the  holy  communion,  ac- 
cording to  the  Reformed  rite,  in  the  Dome  of  Berlin,  together  with 
fifty-four  others,  including  his  brother  John  George,  the  Count  of  Nas- 
sau, Ernst  Casimir,  and  the  English  embassador. 

This  act  was  the  result  of  conscientious  conviction.1     It  was  meant 

1  Some  writers,  including  Voltaire,  trace  the  change  to  political  motives — viz.,  that  Sigis- 
mund wished  to  secure  the  friendship  of  Holland  and  England — but  without  proof.     <>"  the 


556  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

to  be  not  so  much  a  change  of  creed  as  a  further  progress  in  Protest- 
antism, but  it  created  a  great  sensation,  and  called  forth  violent  pro- 
tests from  Lutheran  princes  and  pulpits.1  An  edict  forbidding  public 
denunciations  had  little  effect.  A  fanatical  mob  arose  in  rebellion 
against  the  Reformed  preachers,  and  plundered  their  houses  (1615). 
The  great  majority  of  the  Elector's  subjects  and  his  own  wife  re- 
mained Lutherans.2 

Nevertheless,  his  transition  was  of  great  prospective  importance, 
for  the  house  of  Brandenburg  was  destined  to  become,  by  extraordi- 
nary talents  and  achievements,  one  of  the  leading  dynasties  of  Europe, 
and  to  take  the  helm  of  the  new  Protestant  German  empire. 

In  May,  1614,  Sigismund  issued  a  personal  confession  of  faith, 
which  is  called  after  him  and  also  after  his  country.  It  was  drawn 
up  by  himself,  with  the  aid  of  Dr.  Pelargus,  General  Superintendent 
at  Franlvfort-on-the-Oder.  It  is  brief,  moderate,  conciliatory,  and  in- 
tended to  be  merely  supplementary  concerning  the  controverted  arti- 
cles. The  Elector  professes  faith  in  the  '  true,  infallible,  and  saving 
Word  of  God,  as  the  only  rule  of  the  pious  which  is  perfect,  sufficient 
for  salvation,  and  abides  forever.'  Then  he  accepts,  as  agreeing  with 
the  Bible,  the  oecumenical  creeds  (namely,  the  Apostles',  the  Nicene, 
the  Athanasian,  also  the  doctrinal  decisions  of  Ephesus,  431,  and  of 
Chalcedon,  451),  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530,  with  the  later 
improvements  of  Melanchthon. 

In  regard  to  the  controverted  articles,  Sigismund  rejects  the  Luther- 
an doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body,  and  exorcism  in  baptism 
as  a  superstitious  ceremony,  and  the  use  of  the  wafer  instead  of  the 
breaking  of  bread  in  the  communion.  lie  adopts  the  Reformed  doc- 
trine of  the  sacraments,  and  of  an  eternal  and  unconditional  election 
of  grace,  yet  with  the  declaration  that  God  sincerely  wished  the  salva- 
tion of  all  men,  and  was  not  the  author  of  sin  and  damnation. 

contrary,  it  was  bad  policy,  and  in  its  immediate  effect  rendered  the  Elector  very  unpopular 
among  his  German  fellow-sovereigns  and  his  own  people.  '  Kein  Wort,'  says  Bockel,  p.  427, 
' kein'e  Handlung  des  Kurfllrsten  Johann  Sigismund  verralh,  dass  ihn  irgend  eine  unreine  Ne- 
benabsicht  geleitet  hahe..'     See  also  Moller  and  Ilollenberg,  1.  c. 

1  See  Hutter's  Calvinista  au/ico-)>olitictis. 

"  Dr.  Tholuck  (Geist  der  father.  Tlieologen  Wittenbergs,  p.  118,  referring  to  Hartknoch's 
Prc?iss.  Kirchenhistorie,  p.  544)  mentions  the  fact  that  Anna,  the  wife  of  Sigismund,  in  her 
will  and  testament  ordered  her  chaplain  in  the  funeral  sermon  to  disown  the  Calvinistic  (?) 
heresy  that  Christ's  blood  and  death  are  meielv  a  mans  blood  and  death. 


§  70.  THE  CONFESSION  OF  SIGISMUND,  1014.  557 

In  conclusion  the  Elector  expresses  his  wish  and  prayer  that  God 
may  enlighten  his  faithful  subjects  with  his  truth,  hut  disclaims  all 
intention  to  coerce  their  conscience,  since  faith  was  the  free  gift  of 
God  (John  vi.  29  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  2  ;  Phil.  i.  20  ;  Eph.  iii.  S),  and  no  one 
should  presume  to  exercise  dominion  over  men's  religion  (2  Cor.  i.  2-i). 
lie  thus  freely  waived,  in  relation  to  his  Lutheran  subjects,  the  right 
of  reformation,  which  was  claimed  and  exercised  by  other  Protestant 
princes,  and  established  a  basis  for  religious  liberty  and  union. 

This  wise  toleration  was  in  advance  of  the  age,  and  contrasts  fa- 
vorably with  the  opposite  policy  of  the  Elector  Augustus  of  Saxony, 
who  forced  the  Formula  of  Concord  upon  his  people,  and  answered 
the  Emperor  Maximilian  II.,  when  he  interceded  for  the  release  from 
prison  of  Peucer  (Melanchthon's  son-in-law) :  '  I  want  only  such  serv- 
ants as  believe  and  confess  in  religion  neither  more  nor  less  than  I 
myself  believe  and  confess.'1  These  times  of  terrorism  over  men's 
consciences  are  happily  passed,  and  Sigismund's  toleration  has  become 
the  settled  policy  of  his  successors  to  this  day. 

The  conduct  of  Luther  and  Zwingli  at  Marburg  gave  tone  and  char- 
acter to  all  subsequent  union  conferences  of  the  two  confessions  they 
represent.  The  Reformed,  with  a  larger  charity,  were  always  willing 
to  commune  with  Lutherans  notwithstanding  minor  doctrinal  differ- 
ences ;  while  the  Lutherans,  with  a  narrower  conscience  and  a  more 
compact  system  of  theology,  refused  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  the  Re- 
formed, and  abhorred  as  a  syncretistic  heresy  all  union  that  was  not 
based  upon  perfect  agreement  in  dogma;  yea,  during  the  seventeenth 
century  they  would  rather  make  common  cause  with  Romanists  than 
Calvinists,  and  went  so  far  as  to  exclude  the  Calvinists  from  heaven.2 

1  The  Emperor  replied:  '  Das  wage  ich  von  meincn  Dienern  nlrht  zu  fordem.*  The  same 
Elector  Augustus  said  that  'if  lie  had  only  one  Calvinistic  vein  in  his  body,  he  wished  the 
devil  (sic  !)  would  pull  it  out.' 

3  Dr.  Hiilsemann  of  Wittenberg  traced  the  charitable  hope  of  Calixtus  that  he  would  meet 
many  Reformed  in  heaven  to  the  inspiration  of  the  devil  (lspea  dubioprocul  a  diaboh  inspi- 
ruta).  Calixtus  asked.  Who  inspired  this  opinion  of  Hulsemann  ?  Leyser  wrote  a  hook  to 
show  that  communion  witli  Papists  was  preferable  to  communion  with  Calvinists.  Another 
hook  of  that  age  professed  to  prove  that  'the  damned  Calvinistic  heretics  have  six  hundred 
and  sixty-six  theses  in  common  with  the  Turks.'  The  French  Reformed  Synod  ofCharenton 
in  I0:il  sanctioned  the  admission  of  Lutheran  sponsors  in  baptism  on  the  ground  of  essential 
agreement  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  with  the  Reformed  doctrine.  This  resolution  was 
pronounced  'atheistic'  by  Lutherans  as  well  as  Romanists.     The  spirit  of  Lutheran  bigotry 

in  that  classical  period  of  polemic  confessionalism  and  exclusivism  is  well  characterized  and 


558  tiii:  creeds  of  Christendom. 

Fortunately  Calixtus  and  his  school,  who  had  the  Melanchthonian 
spirit,  formed  an  honorable  exception,  and  the  exception,  after  much 
misrepresentation  and  persecution,  lias  become  the  rule  in  the  Lutheran 
Church. 

THE   COLLOQUY   AT   LEIPZIG.       A.D.  1631. 

See  the  German  test  of  the  Colloquium  Lipsiense  iu  Niemever,  pp.  653-G6S,  aud  in  Biickel,  pp.  443-456. 

In  the  midst  of  the  fierce  polemics  between  the  Churches  and  the 
horrors  of  the  Thirty-Years'  War  growing  out  of  it,  there  arose  from 
time  to  time  a  desire  for  union  and  peace,  which  was  strengthened  by 
the  common  danger.  In  1G29,  Ferdinand  II.,  a  pupil  of  the  Jesuits, 
issued  an  edict  aiming  at  the  destruction  of  Protestantism,  which  might 
have  been  accomplished  had  not  Gustavus  Adolphus  soon  afterwards 
appeared  on  German  soil.  It  was  during  this  period  that  the  classical 
union  sentence  (often  erroneously  attributed  to  Augustine), '  In  neces- 
sary things  unity,  in  doubtful  things  liberty,  in  all  things  charity,'  was 
first  uttered  as  a  prophetic  voice  in  the  wilderness  by  a  Lutheran  di- 
vine of  the  school  of  Calixtus,  and  re-echoed  in  England  by  Richard 
Baxter.1 

Under  the  operation  of  this  feeling  and  the  threatening  pressure 
of  liomanisin,  the  Elector  Christian  William  of  Brandenburg,  accom- 
panied by  his  chaplain,  John  Bergics,  and  the  Landgrave  William 
of  Hesse,  with  the  theological  Professor  Crocius  and  Chaplain  The- 
opiiiixs  Neuberger,  met  at  Leipzig  with  the  Elector  George  of  Saxony 
and  the  Lutheran  divines  Matthias  Hoe  of  IIoenegg,PolycarpLeyser, 
and  Henry  IIopfner,  to  confer  in  a  private  way  about  a  friendly  un- 
derstanding between  the  two  confessions,  hoping  to  set  a  good  exam- 
ple to  other  divines  of  Germany.  The  conference  lasted  from  March 
3  to  23, 1631,  and  each  session  continued  three  hours. 

illustrated  by  Dr.  Tholuck,  in  his  Geist  der  hither.  Theolor/en  Wittenberys  im  \lten  Jahrh. 
(1 852),  pp.  1 1 5, 1  GO,  211,  etc.  Comp.  also  above,  p.  310 ;  Gieseler,  KirchengescMchte,Yo\.  III. 
Pt.  II.  (1853),  p.  450  ;  Ilase,  Kirchciif/esch.  9th  ed.  p.  510. 

1  See  Liicke's  treatise,  Ueber  das  Alter,  den  Verfasser,  etc.,  des  kirchlichen  Friedensspruclies, 
etc.,  Gottingen,  1850.  He  traces  it  to  Rupertus  Meldenius,  the  ohscnve  author  of  Partmesis 
vol iva  pro  pace  ecclesice  ad  t/ieolor/os  Aufjicstan<r,  Corifessionis  (before  1(535),  directed  against 
the  <pi\oBo£ia  and  <pi\ovtiicia  of  the  theologians,  and  commending  humility  and  love  of  peace. 
Here  the  sentence  occurs, l  Si  nos  servaremus  in  necessaiuis  Unitatem,  in  non  necessa- 
riis  Lihektatem,  ix  utrisque  Cakitatem,  optimo  certe  loco  essent  res  nostra.'  A  copy 
of  the  first  edition  of  this  book,  though  without  date,  is  preserved  in  the  City  Library  of  Ham- 
burg. 


§  70.  THE  COLLOQUY  AT  LEIPZIG,  1631.  550 

The  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530,  with  Melanchthon'a  subsequent 
explanations,  was  made  the  basis  of  the  proceedings,  and  was  discussed 
article  by  article.  They  agreed  essentially  on  all  the  doctrines  except 
the  omnipresence  of  Christ's  human  nature,  the  oral  manducation  of 
his  body  in  the  eucharist  by  worthy  and  unworthy  communicants. 
The  Reformed  divines  were  willing,  notwithstanding  these  differences, 
to  treat  the  Lutherans  as  brethren,  and  to  make  common  cause  with 
them  against  the  Papists.  But  the  Lutherans  were  not  prepared  to 
do  more  than  to  take  this  proposal  into  serious  consideration. 

The  question  of  election  was  then  also  taken  up,  although  it  is  not 
expressly  mentioned  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  They  agreed  that 
only  a  portion  of  the  race  was  actually  saved.  The  Reformed  traced 
election  to  the  absolute  will  of  God,  and  reprobation  to  the  unbelief 
of  men ;  the  Lutherans  (adhering  to  the  happy  inconsistency  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord)  brought  in  God's  foreknowledge  of  the  faith  of 
the  elect,  but  they  derived  faith  itself  entirely  from  God's  free  elect- 
ing grace.  The  difference  was  therefore  very  immaterial,  and  simply 
a  matter  of  logic. 

In  conclusion,  the  theologians  declared  that  the  conference  was  in- 
tended not  to  compromise  the  Churches  and  sovereigns,  but  only  to 
find  out  whether  and  to  what  extent  both  parties  agreed  in  the 
Twenty-eight  Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  whether 
there  was  reason  to  hope  for  some  nearer  approach  in  the  future, 
whereby  the  true  Church  might  be  strengthened  against  the  Papists. 
In  the  mean  time  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  were  to  be  re- 
garded as  strictly  private,  and  not  to  be  published  by  either  party  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  other.  The  theologians  of  the  two  Churches 
were  to  show  each  other  Christian  love,  praying  that  'the  God  of 
truth  and  peace  grant  that  we  may  be  one  in  him,  as  he  is  one  with 
the  Son  (John  xvii.  21).  Amen,  Amen  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
Amen.' 

The  document  is  not  signed  by  the  princes  who  arranged  the  con- 
ference, but  only  by  the  theologians  —  namely,  Drs.  von  Hoenegg, 
Leyser,  Hopfner  (Lutherans),  and  Bergius,  Crocius,  Neuberger  (Re- 
formed).1 

1  The  proceedings  were  published  by  Hoc  of  Hoenegg,  and  by  Bergins,  1C3.".  See  literature 
in  Niemeyer,  Proleg.  p.  lxxix. 


560  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  proceedings  were  characterized  by  great  theological  ability  and 
an  excellent  Christian  temper,  and  showed  a  much  closer  harmony 
than  was  expected.  They  excited  considerable  sympathy  among  the 
Reformed  at  home  and  abroad.  But  the  Lutheran  members  were 
severely  taken  to  task  for  favoring  syncretism,  and  in  vindicating 
themselves  they  became  more  uncompromising  against  Calvinism  than 
before.  The  conference  was  in  advance  of  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and 
left  no  permanent  effect. 

THE   COLLOQUY  OF   THORN.      A.D.  1645. 

The  official  edition  of  the  Acts:  Acta  Conventus  Thomniensis  celebrati  a.  1645,  etc.,  Warsaw,  1046  (very 
incorrect).  The  Acts,  with  the  two  Protestant  Confessions  (which  were  excluded  from  the  official  Acts), 
in  Calovius,  Historia  Sijncretistica  (16S'2),1GS5,  pp.  199-5G0.  The  Reformed  Declaratio  1'horuniensis,  Latin, 
in  Niemeyer  (pp.  6G9-6S9) ;  German,  in  Bockel  (pp.  865-S84). 

The  Colloquy  of  Thorn,  in  "West  Prussia  {Colloquium  Thoruniense), 
was  likewise  a  well-meant  but  fruitless  union  conference  in  a  time  of 
sectarian  intolerance  and  the  suicidal  folly  of  the  Thirty- Years'  War. 

In  this  case  the  movement  proceeded  from  the  Roman  Catholic 
king,  Wladislaus  IV.,  of  Poland  (1632-1648).  In  this  country  moder- 
ate Lutherans,  Calvinists,  and  Moravians  had  formed  a  conservative 
union  in  the  Consensus  of  Sendomir  (1570),  and  a  treaty  of  peace 
secured  equal  civil  rights  to  Protestants  and  Romanists  {Pax  Dissi- 
dentium  in  1573).  But  this  peace  was  denounced  by  the  Pope  as  a 
league  of  Christ  with  Belial,  and  undermined  by  the  Jesuits,  who  ob- 
tained the  control  of  the  education  of  the  Polish  nobility,  and  are 
to  a  large  extent  responsible  for  the  ultimate  dismemberment  and 
ruin  of  that  unfortunate  kingdom. 

Wladislaus  made  a  patriotic  effort  to  heal  the  religious  discords  of 
his  subjects,  and  invited  Romanists  and  Dissenters  (Protestants)  to  a 
charitable  colloquy  {colloquium  caritativum,  ftaterna  collatio)  in  the 
city  of  Thorn,  which  was  then  under  the  protection  of  the  King  of 
Poland  (since  1454),  and  had  embraced  the  Lutheran  faith  (1557).  It 
began  April  18,  1645,  in  the  town-hall.  There  were  three  parties. 
The  twenty-eight  Roman  deputies,  including  eight  Jesuits,  were  deter- 
mined to  defeat  the  object  of  peace,  and  to  prevent  any  concessions 
to  Protestants.  The  Reformed  had  twenty-four  delegates,  chief  among 
them  the  electoral  chaplains  John  Bergirts  and  Fr.  Reichel,  of  Bran- 
denburg, and  the  Moravian  bishop  Amos  Comenius.     The  Lutheran 


§  70.  THE  COLLOQUY  OF  THORN,  1G4.1.  ;,,;i 

deputation  consisted  of  fifteen,  afterwards  of  twenty-eight  members; 
the  most  prominent  were  Calovius  of  Dantzio  and  llulsemann  of  'Wit- 
tenberg, the  champions  of  the  strictest  orthodoxy,  and  George  Calix- 
tus  of  Helmstadt,  the  leader  of  a  mild  and  comprehensive  union  theol- 
ogy.1 The  sessions  were  private  (^  jplebs  penitvs  arcenda).  The  king's 
chancellor,  Prince  George  Ossolinski,  presided. 

The  first  business,  called  l liquidation  was  to  be  the  preparation  of 
a  correct  statement  of  the  doctrinal  system  of  each  party.  The  Ro- 
man Catholic  Confession,  with  a  list  of  rejected  misrepresentations,  was 
ready  early  in  September,  and  read  in  the  second  public  session,  Sept. 
1G.  It  was  received  among  the  official  acts.  On  the  same  day  the 
Reformed  Confession  was  read,  under  the  title  Declaratio  doctrinal 
ecclesiarum  Reformatarum  catholica*.  But  the  Romanists  objected  to 
the  word  'catholic?  which  they  claimed  as  their  monopoly,  and  to  the 
antithetical  part  as  being  offensive  to  them,  and  excluded  the  docu- 
ment from  the  official  acts.  The  Lutheran  Confession  was  ready  the 
20th  of  September,  but  was  even  refused  a  public  reading.2 

The  Protestants  sent  a  deputation  to  the  king,  who  received  them 
and  their  confessions  with  courtesy  and  kindness ;  but  the  Romanists 
demanded  more  alterations  than  the  Protestants  were  willing  to  make, 
and  used  every  effort  to  prevent  the  official  publication  of  heresies. 
Unfortunately  the  dissensions  among  the  Lutherans,  and  between 
them  and  the  Reformed,  strengthened  the  Romish  party.  The  Col- 
loquy closed  Nov.  21,  imut u a  valedictione  ct  in  fraterna  caritatef 
but  without  accomplishing  its  end.  Calixtus  says :  '  The  Colloquy  was 
no  colloquy  at  all,  certainly  no  colloquium  caritativum,  but  irrita- 
tivum?  It  left  the  three  confessions  where  they  were  before,  and 
added  new  fuel  to  the  syncretistic  controversy  in  Germany.3  Calo- 
vius and  llulsemann  charged  Calixtus  with  aiding  the  Calvinists  in 
their  confession.     The  city  of  Thorn,  which  spent  50,000  guilders  for 


1  It  took  Calixtus  nearly  three  weeks  to  travel  from  Helmstadt  t"  Tliorn. 

2  The  Latin  text  in  Caloviua'fl  Hist,  syncret.  pp.  403  421  ;  the  German  ami  Latin  texts 
were  separately  issued  at  Leipzig,  1665,  and  at  Dantzic,  1  735.  See  oIbo  Scriptafacientia  ad 
Colloquium  Thoruniense ;  aecettit  G.  <'<ilisti  consideratio  et  iiriKpiatt,  Helmstadt,  1646,  and 
Calixti  Armotationes  <t  animadversiones  in  Co/fessionem  Reformat  or  um,  Wolfenbuttel,  1G55. 

8  Hence  the  distich  on  the  Synod  of  Thorn  : 

'Quid  wjrwdwit  nodus:  Pat  rum  chorus  integer  f  ceger: 
ConventicHf  ventus:  Gloriat  atramen.    Ameiu' 


5(52  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  conference,  suffered  much  from  the  Thirty- Years'  War,  also  by  a 
plague,  and  became  the  scene  of  a  dreadful  massacre  of  Protestants, 
Dec.  7, 1724,  stirred  up  by  the  Jesuits  in  revenge  for  an  attack  on  their 
college. 

The  Declaration  of  Thorn ]  is  one  of  the  most  careful  statements  of 
the  Reformed  Creed,  and  the  only  one  among  the  three  confessions  of 
this  Colloquy  which  acquired  a  practical  importance  by  its  adoption 
among  the  three  Brandenburg  Confessions.  It  is  divided  into  a  gen- 
eral part  (generalis  jprofessio)  and  a  special  declaration  ispeclalis  de- 
claraiio).  The  former  acknowledges  the  canonical  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  in  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek,  as  the 
only  perfect  rule  of  faith,  containing  all  that  is  necessary  for  our  sal- 
vation. It  adopts,  also,  in  a  subordinate  sense,  as  explanatory  sum- 
maries of  Scripture  doctrine,  the  oecumenical  Creeds,  and  doctrinal  de- 
cisions of  the  ancient  undivided  Church  in  opposition  to  the  trinitarian, 
christological,  and  Pelagian  heresies.2  Finally,  as  regards  the  contro- 
versy with  Pome,  it  accepts  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession  and  the 
Consensus  of  Sendomir  (1570)  as  correct  statements  of  the  Scripture 
doctrines,  differing  in  form,  but  agreeing  in  essence. 

The  'Special  Declaration'  states  the  several  articles  of  the  Reformed 

1  The  full  title  is  '  Professio  Doctrine  Ecclesiarum  Reformatarum  in  Regno  Polonice,  Magna 
Ducat u  Lithuania,  annexisque  Regni  Provinciis,  in  Conventu  Thoruniensi,  Anni  1G45,  ad  liqui- 
dationem  Controversiarum  maturandam,  exhibita  d.  1  Septembris.'  First  published  at  Berlin, 
1646,  under  the  title  '  Scripia  partis  Reformatce,  in  Colloquio  Thoruniensi,1  etc. 

2  In  the  expression  of  agreement  with  the  ancient  Church  the  Declaration  of  Thorn  is  more 
explicit  than  any  other  Protestant  confession,  Lutheran  or  Calvinistic  or  Anglican.  After 
saying  that  the  summary  of  Scripture  doctrine  is  contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Ten 
Commandments,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  Words  of  Institution  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  the  Declaration  proceeds  : 

'Si  quid  vero,  in  hi  see  Doctrince  Christiana  capitibus,  dubitationis  aut  controversion  de  genu- 
ino  eoruvi  sensu  exoriatur,  prqfitemur  porro,  nos  amplecti  cev,  interpretationem  Scripturarum 
certain  et  indubitatam,  Symbolum  Niccenum  et  Constantinopolitanum,  iisdetn  plane  verbis,  qui- 
bus  in  Synodi  Tridentinm  Sessione  tertia,  tanquam  Principium  illud,  in  quo  omnes,  qui  Jidem 
Christi  prqfitentur,  necessario  conveniunt,  et  Fundamentum  Jirmum  et  unicum,  contra  quod 
portai  inferorum  nunquam  prcevalebunt,  proponitur. 

lCui  etiam  consonare  Symbolum,  quod  (licit  ur  Athanasianum,  agnoscimus :  nee  non  Ephe- 
sinoE  prima,  et  Chalcedone/isis  St/nodi  Confessiones:  quinetiam,  quie  Quinta  et  Sexta  Synodi, 
Nestwianorum  et  Eutychianorum  reliquiis  opposuere :  quaque  adrersus  Pelagianos  olim 
Milevitana  Synodus  et  Araiisicana  secunda  ex  Scripturis  docuere.  Quinimo,  quit-quid  primi- 
tiva  Ecclesia  ab  ipsis  usque  Apostolorum  temporibus,  unanimi  deinceps  et  notorio  consensu,  tan- 
quam Articuhmi  Jidei  necessarium,  credidit,  docuit,  idem  nos  quaque  ex  Scripturis  credere  et 
docere  prqfitemur. 

'  liar  igitur  Fidei  nostra',  professione,  tanquam  Christiani  cere  Catholici,  ab  omnibus  vcte- 
ribus  et  recentibus  Htrresibus,  quas  prisca  universalis  Ecclesia  unanimi  consensu  ex  Scripturis 
rejecit  atque  damnctvit,  nos  nostrasque  Ecclesias  segrcgamus.' 


§  71.  MINOR  GERMAN  REFORMED  CONFESSIONS.  5G3 

system,  both  in  its  agreement  with,  and  in  its  departure  from,  the  creeds 
of  Romanists  and  Lutherans. 

The  document  is  signed  by  a  number  of  noblemen  and  clergymen 
from  Poland,  Lithuania,  and  Brandenburg. 

§  71.  Minor  German  Reformed  Confessions. 

nriNRicu  Ilri'iT.:  Die  Bekermtniaa-Sehiriften  der  reformirten  Kitchen  Deut*rhlands.    Elberfeld,  18C0. 
(Contains  niuc  confessions  of  secondary  importance,  most  of  which  are  not  found  in  other  collections.) 

The  remaining  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Germany 
have  only  a  local  importance,  and  may  be  briefly  disposed  of. 

1.  The  Confession  of  Elector  Frederick  III.  of  the  Palatinate, 
1577. — It  -was  his  last  will  and  testament,  and  was  published  after  his 
death  by  his  son,  John  Casimir.  It  may  be  regarded  as  an  explanatory 
appendix  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  It  is  a  clear  and  strong  testi- 
mony of  his  catholic  and  evangelical  faith,  and  contains  some  whole- 
some warnings  against  the  unchristian  intolerance  of  the  princes  and 
theologians  of  his  age.1 

2.  The  Confession  of  Anhalt,  or  Repetitio  Aniiai.tina  (i.e.,  a  Repe- 
tition of  the  Augsburg  Confession),  15S1.2 — It  was  prepared  chiefly  by 
"Wolfgang  Amling,  Superintendent  of  Anhalt,  and  laid  before  a  con- 
ference with  Hessian  divines  held  at  Cassel,  March,  1579. 

The  duchy  of  Anhalt,  on  the  banks  of  the  Elbe  and  Saale  (formerly 
divided  into  four  duchies,  called  after  the  principal  towns,  Anhalt- 
Dessau,  Anhalt -Zerbst,  Anhalt -Bernburg,  Anhalt -Cothen,  in  1S53 
united  into  two,  1S63  into  one)  embraced  the  Lutheran  reformation 
in  1534,  but  during  the  controversies  which  led  to  the  Formula  Con- 
cordia3  it  adhered  to  Melanchthon,  and  finally  passed  over  to  the 
Reformed  faith  in  1596.  Prince  John  George  married  a  daughter 
of  Prince  Casimir  of  the  Palatinate,  and  introduced  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism  and  a  simpler  form  of  worship.  At  a  later  period  (1644) 
Lutheranism  was  partly  re-established,  but  Dessau,  Bernbnrg,  and  Co- 
then  remained  Reformed. 

The  'Anhalt  Repetition'  can  scarcely  be  numbered  among  the  Ete- 


1  The  German  text  is  given  by  Ileppe,  pp.  1-18;  a.  Latin  translation  in  the  Corput 
tagma  Confessionum,  with  a  Preface  by  John  Casimir. 

a  The  German  text  in  Ileppe,  pp.  19-67,  the  Latin  in  Kiemeyer,  pp.  612-641.     Bockel  ex- 
eludes  it  from  his  collection  because  it  is  nut  strictly  Reformed. 


564  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

formed  Confessions.  It  belongs  to  the  Melanchthonian  transition  pe- 
riod, and  represents  simply  a  milder  type  of  Lutheranism  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Flacian  party.  It  recognizes,  along  with  the  Altered  Augs- 
burg Confession  and  the  Corpus  Doctrince  of  Melanchthon,  the  Smal- 
cald  Articles  and  Luther's  Catechisms,  and  professes  even  the  man- 
ducatio  oralis  and  the  manducatio  indignorum.x  This  is  clearly  in- 
compatible with  the  Reformed  system  of  doctrine. 

3.  The  Confession  of  Nassau,  1578,  prepared,  at  the  request  of 
Count  John  of  Nassau-Dillenburg,  by  the  Rev.  Christopher  Pezel,  who 
had  been  expelled  from  Saxony  for  Crypto-Calvinism.  It  was  adopted 
by  a  general  synod  of  that  country,  and  first  printed  in  1593.  It  is 
Melanchthonian  in  the  sense  of  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession  and 
the  Confession  of  Saxony,  and  rejects  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity  as  an 
unscriptural  innovation  and  fiction.2 

4.  The  Beemen  Confession  {Consensus  Ministerii  Jfremensis),  \>re- 
pared,  1598,  by  the  same  Pezel,  who  in  the  mean  time  had  removed  to 
Bremen,  and  signed  by  the  pastors  of  that  city.  It  is  more  decidedly 
Reformed,  and  adopts  the  Calvinistic  view  of  predestination.  Among 
the  books  herein  approved  and  recommended  to  the  study  of  the  pas- 
tors are  also  the  Geneva  Ilarmonia  Confessionum,  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  the  Decades  of  Bullinger,  and  the  Institutes  of  Calvin,  as 
well  as  the  works  of  Melanchthon.3 

5.  The  Hessian  Confession,  adopted  by  a  General  Synod  at  Cassel, 
A.D.  1607,  and  published  1608.4  It  treats  only  of  five  articles :  the  Ten 
Commandments,  the  abolition  of  popish  picture  idolatry,  the  Person  of 
Christ  (against  ubiquity),  the  eternal  election,  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
(against  the  manducatio  indignoruni).  The  Heidelberg  Catechism 
and  a  modification  of  Luther's  Small  Catechism  were  both  used  in 
Electoral  Hesse.5 


1  Ebrard  (Kirchen-  und Dogmengeschic/ttefVo\.  III.  p.  575)  is  certainly  wrong  when  he  says 
that  the  Rej>etitio  Anhaltina  proves  that  the  Anhalt  clergy  ' schon  damals  ganz  und  gar  re- 
formirt  fiber  die  Person  Christi  und  das  h.  Abicndmahl  dachte.1  It  expressly  asserts  in 
Art.  vii.  that  even  '  indigne  viscentes  non  quidem  nudum  aut  eommunem  panem  calivemque  man- 
dueant  et  bibunt,  sed  ipsum  corjms  et  sanguinem  Domini  in  Snc.ramento  Cicnte  manducantes  et 
bibentcs  .  .  .  reifiunt  corporis  et  sanguinis  Domini.'    See  Niemevcr,  p.  G28,  and  Heppe,  p.  40. 

"  Heppe,  pp.  68-146. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  147-243. 

4  Ibid.  pp.  2+4-249. 

5  Comp.  Ileppe,  Gesehichte  der  Ilessischen  Generalsi/noden  von  l">08-ir>82,  Kassel,  1847, 


§  72.  THE  BOHEMIAN  BRETHREN  AND  THE  WALDENSES.         5G5 

6.  The  Confession  of  the  Heidelberg  Theologians,  of  KJ07,  is  an 
exposition  of  what  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Germany  believe,  and 
what  they  reject.1 

7.  The  Catechism  of  Emden,  L554,  prepared,  after  the  model  of 
Calvin's  Catechism,  by  John  a  Lasko,  or  Laski  (1499-1560),  a  con- 
verted nobleman  and  reformer  of  Poland.  It  was  used  in  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  East  Friesland,  where  he  labored  several  years.  It 
was  afterwards  superseded  by  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  which  is 
partly  based  upon  it.2 


IV.  THE  CONFESSIONS  OF  BOHEMIA,  POLAND,  AND 
HUNGARY. 

§  72.  The  Bohemian  Brethren  and  the  Waldenses. 

Literature. 

Fr  \nz  Palaoky  (Historiographer  of  the  Kingdom  of  Bohemia) :  Qesehichte  von  Bohmen  grbssb  nthi  Us 

nach  Urkunden  und  Handschri/ten.  Prag.  (1S36  sqq.),  3d  ed.  1S64  sqq.  5  vols,  (the  5th  vol.  comes  down  to 
1520).  The  same :  Documenta  Mag.  Joannis  Hits,  vitam,  doctrinam,  causam  in  Constantii  ruti  ConcUio  actam 
.  .  .  illwtrantia.  Prag.  1SG9  (mostly  from  unpublished  sources).  The  same:  Die  Vorldufer  des  Hiusi- 
tenthums  in  Bohmen.  Prag.  1SC9  (new  ed.).  The  same :  Urhundliche  Beitrdge  znr  Gesch (elite  des  Husstten- 
krieges.  1S73,  2  vols.  Palacky  was  a  descendant  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  and  is  the  best  authority 
on  Bohemian  history.    He  died  May  27, 1S76. 

JOB.Al.RX.  von  Hki.kf.bt:  Hii.s  mid  HieronymUB,     Prag.lS53. 

Anton  Gindki.v  :  Bohmen  und  Mdhren  im  Zeitalter  der  Reformation.  Prag.  1S57, 1S5S,  2  vols,  (contain- 
ing the  History  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren  from  1450-160H).  The  same:  QueUen  zur  Geschichte  der  /.'  <hm, 
Br&der,  in  Pontes Rerwn  Awtriacarum,Yo).  XlX.Wicn,  1S5!».  Gindely  is  a  Roman  Catholic,  but  kindly 
disposed  to  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  and  thoroughly  at  home  in  their  literature. 

Cur.  ap.  Pksoiii-ck:  Geschichte  d,-,-  Gegenreformatioti  in  /:  ihmen.    Leipzig,  1850, 2d  ed.  2  vis. 

E.  H.  Gim.ett  (d.  1375,  in  New  York) :  Life  and  Times  of  John  Hun*;  or,  The  Bohemixn  U  formation 
of  the  \5th  Century.     Boston,  1S64,  2d  ed.  2  vols.,  3d  ed.  1871. 

W.  Bbboeb:  ./"/'.  Bits  und  Kaiser  Sigmwnd.    Augsb.  1871. 

L.  KuniMF.i. :  Utraquisten  und  TaborUen.    Gotba,  1871. 

Fr.  von  Bezoi.d:  Kdnig  Sigmund  und  die  Reiclmkriege  gegen  die  Hwitcn.  1S72.  By  the  sane:  Zur 
Geschichte  den  Hnaitenthums.     Munchen,  1874. 

nus3  and  the  nrssm:*. 
The  reformation  in  the  Kingdom  of  Bohemia  (now  a  political  di- 


2  vols.  The  vexed  question  whether  Ilessia  is  Lutheran  or  Calvinistic  lias  called  forth  a, 
large  controversial  literature,  in  which  the  numerous  works  of  this  indefatigable  investigator 
of  the  early  history  of  German  Protestantism  are  very  prominent. 

1  Heppe,  pp.  250  sqq. 

s  Ibid.  pp.  294-310.  Comp.  Bartels,  Johannes  a  Lasco,  in  the  ninth  volume  of  the  valuable 
series  of  Voter  und  Bogrunder  der  rejormirten  Kirche  (1861 ).  pp.  58  sq. 

3  I  Ins  (i.  e..  (loose)  and  Hussites  (from  the  Bohemian  genitive  Husses)  is  the  correct  spelling, 
followed  by  Palacky  and  Gindely,  instead  of  Huss  and  Husites. 


566  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

vision  of  the  Austro-Hungarian  Empire),  began  with  John  IIus  and 
Jerome  of  Prague,  who  were  influenced  by  the  doctrines  of  Wvcliffe, 
and  who  carried  with  them  the  greater  part  of  the  population,  the 
Slavic  Czechs.  They  were  condemned  by  the  oecumenical  Council  of 
Constance  as  heretics,  and  burned  at  the  stake,  the  former  July  6, 1415, 
the  latter  May  30,  1416.  But  their  martyrdom  provoked  the  Husite 
wars  which  would  have  resulted  in  the  triumph  of  the  Husites,  had 
not  internal  divisions  broken  their  strength. 

The  followers  of  IIus  were,  from  1420,  divided  into  two  parties,  the 
conservative  Calixtines,  so  called  from  their  zeal  for  the  chalice  (calix) 
of  the  laity,  or  Utraquists  (cornmimio  sub  utraque  specie),  and  the 
radical  Taborites,  so  named  from  a  steep  mountain  which  their  blind 
but  brave  and  victorious  leader,  Ziska  (d.  1424),  fortified  and  called 
Mount  Tabor.  The  Calixtines  accepted  the  compromise  of  commun- 
ion in  both  kinds,  which  the  Council  of  Basle  offered  to  them  (1433), 
and  mostly  returned  to  the  Roman  Church.  The  Taborites  rejected 
all  compromise  with  the  hated  papal  Antichrist,  and  demanded  a 
thorough  reformation,  but  they  were  defeated  by  the  allied  Romanists 
and  Calixtines  near  Prague,  1434,  and  subdued  by  George  Podiebrad, 
1453. 

THE    BOHEMIAN   BRETHREN. 

From  this  time  the  Taborites  disappeared  as  a  party,  but  from  their 
remnants  arose,  about  1457,  a  new  and  a  more  important  sect,  the 
Unitas  Fratrum  {Jcdnota  bratrsM),  as  they  called  themselves,  or.  the 
Bohemian  Brethren.1  They  adhered  to  the  rigid  discipline  of  the  Ta- 
borites, but  were  free  from  their  fanaticism  and  violence.  They  en- 
deavored to  reproduce,  in  peaceful  retirement  from  the  world,  the 
simplicity  and  spirituality  of  the  Apostolic  Church  as  they  understood 
it.  They  held  to  the  Bohemian  version  of  the  Bible  revised  by  IIus2 
as  their  only  standard  of  faith  and  conduct.  They  rejected  worldly 
amusements,  oaths,  military  service,  and  capital  punishment ;  they  op- 

1  This  name  applies  also  to  the  memhers  who  emigrated  to  Moravia,  Saxony,  and  Poland  ; 
but  the  name  Moravian  Brethren  does  not  occur  until  the  18th  century,  when  Zinzendorf 
incorporated  into  his  own  society  (the  Moravians,  properly  so  called)  the  last  survivors  of  the 
Bohemian  brotherhood,  who  had  come  from  Moravia  to  Saxony.  See  Gindely,  Vol.  I.  p.  ,"(>. 
They  were  also  called  Waldenses,  and  in  derision  Picards  (probably  the  same  as  Bet/hards) 
and  Grubenheimer,  Pit-dwellers  (because  they  held  divine  service  in  pits  and  caves). 

3  Another  Bohemian  version  or  revision  of  the  New  Testament  was  made  from  the  Greek  by 
Blahoslav,  a  member  of  the  Unitas  Fratrum  and  the  author  of  a  Bohemian  grammar  (d.  1571). 


§  72.  THE  BOHEMIAN  BRETHREN  AND  THE  WALDEXSKS.         507 

posed  the  secular  power  of  the  clergy,  and  denounced  the  Pope  of 
Rome  as  Antichrist.  At  first  they  received  the  sacraments  from  Ca- 
lixtine  and  Romish  priests  who  joined  them. 

In  1467  they  effected  an  independent  organization  at  a  synodical 
meeting  held  in  the  village  of  Lhota,  which  was  attended  by  about  fifty 
members,  priests  and  laymen,  scholars  and  pea-ants,  under  the  lead 
of  Michael,  formerly  a  Catholic  priest.  After  praying  and  fasting, 
they  elected  by  lot  (Acts  i.  20)  three  priests  out  of  their  number,  and 
laid  hands  on  them.  Then  they  were  all  solemnly  rebaptized.  But  not 
satisfied  with  this  independent  reconstruction  of  the  Church,  they 
sought  regular  ordination  from  a  Waldensian  bishop,  Stephen  of  Aus- 
tria, who  was  reported  to  have  been  ordained  by  a  Roman  bishop  in 
1434,  and  who  afterwards  suffered  martyrdom  in  Vienna.  Stephen  or- 
dained Michael ;  Michael  ordained  Matthias  of  Kunwald,and  then,  lay- 
ing down  his  dignity,  ashed  to  be  ordained  afresh  by  Matthias,  who  was 
the  first  of  the  three  elected  by  lot,  and  significantly  bore  the  name  of 
the  supplementary  apostle.  This  shows  the  vacillation  of  the  Brethren 
between  Presbyterianism  and  Episcopacy,  as  well  as  between  radical 
independency  and  historical  conservatism.1  But  they  retained,  or 
meant  to  retain,  an  unbroken  succession  of  the  episcopate,  and  trans- 
mitted it  afterwards  to  the  Moravian  Church.2 

The  Brethren  were  cruelly  persecuted ;  many  were  tortured  and 
burned ;  others  fled  to  neighboring  Moravia,  where  for  a  short  season 
they  were  unmolested.  In  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century 
they  numbered  in  Bohemia  about  200,000   members  with  400  par- 

1  Gindely  reports  this  from  the  scanty  ami  conflicting  sources,  and  adds  the  remark  (Vol. 
I.  p.  37) :  '  Es  zeigt  das  Schwanken  des  Gem&tht  und  den  Zweifel  an  die  Berechtigung  der 
gethanen  Schritte,  dass  die  Bruder  in  i/iren  Schriften  ghich  nach  der  Wahl  jedt  Differevz 
zwischen  prieaterlicher  uu<l  bischSflicher  Wiirde  venvarfen,  mil  aagstficher  Gewissenhojiigkeit 
aber  bei  sirh  die  Ictztere  einfuhrten.i 

2  The  last  bishop  of  the  old  Unitas  Fratrum  was  John  Amos  Comenius  (or  Komensky,  n 
Czech,  horn  in  Moravia,  1592,  died  at  Amsterdam.  1(171).  who  acquired  great  celehrity  by  his 
new  method  of  instruction  hy  pictures  and  illustrations,  and  hy  his  Janua  Linguarum  rtwtr- 
rata  and  his  Orbit  pictus.  His  nephew,  D.  E.  Jablonsky,  was  elected  and  ordained  bishop 
hy  a  Synod  of  Bohemian  Brethren  in  Poland,  1698,  and  he  ordained  David  Nitschmann,  the 
first  bishop  of  the  Moravians,  1 7:!">.  See  E.  von  Schweinitz,  '/'//<■  Moravian  Episcopate 
(Bethlehem,  Pa.,  1865 ;  comp.  his  art.  Moravian  Church,  in  Johnson's  Umv,  Cyclop.  Vol, 
III.),  and  Benham,  Origin  and  Episcopate  of  thi  Bohemian  Brethren  (Lond.  1867).  The 
Moravian  episcopate  depends  on  the  Bohemian,  and  the  Bohemian  on  the  Waldensian  episco- 
pate, which  in  the  thirteenth  century  did  not  claim  to  rc-t  on  apostolic  succession.  Comp. 
the  quotations  in  (Jieseler,  Kirchenoesh.  Vol.  II.  l't.  II.  pp.  640,  (111. 

Vol.  I.— O  o 


568  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ishes.  They  had  three  printing  establishments  in  1519,  while  the  Bo- 
manists  had  only  one,  and  the  TJtraquists  two.  They  made  valuable  con- 
tributions to  evangelical  hymnology.  Their  most  fruitful  author  was 
Lucas  of  Prague  (d.  152S),  who  did  more  for  the  organization  of  the 
society  than  its  founder  Gregor,  and  wrote  over  eighty  books.1 

THE    WALDENSES. 
Literature. 

I.  The  Waldensian  MSS.,  mostly  in  the  libraries  of  Geneva,  Cambridge,  Dublin,  and  Strasburg.  The 
older  prints  are  not  reliable.  See  a  description  of  these  MSS.  in  Herzog,  Die  romanischen  Waldcnser, 
pp.  46  sqq.    The  Morland  MSS.  of  Cambridge  were  brought  to  light  again  by  Henry  Bradshaw,  1S62. 

II.  The  accounts  of  mediaeval  Catholic  writers :  Bernard  Abhas  Fontis  Calidi  (Foute  Claude,  d.  1193) ; 
Alanus  de  Insults  (d.  1202) ;  Stepiianus  be  Borisone  (Etienne  de  Bourbon,  d.  1225) ;  Yvonet  (1275) ; 
Rainerius  (1250) ;  Pseddo-Rainerius;  Moneta  of  Cremona;  Gualter  Mapes,  of  Oxford. 

Roman  Catholic  historians  are  apt  to  confound  the  Waldenses  with  the  heretical  Albigenses  and  Ca- 
thari,  and  include  them  in  the  same  condemnation ;  while  some  of  the  older  Protestant  historians  re- 
verse the  process  to  clear  the  Albigenses  of  the  charge  of  Manicheism. 

III.  Historical  works,  mostly  in  the  interest  of  the  Waldenses : 

J.  P.  Perrin:  Histoire  des  Vaudois.  Geneva,  1019.  English  translation  with  additions  by  R.  Baird 
and  S.  Miller.    Philadelphia,  1S47. 

Pierre  Gilleb  :  llistoire  ecclesiastique  des  eglises  reformees— autrefois  appellees  eglises  Vaudoises.  Ge- 
neva, 1G55. 

Jean  Leoer  (pastor  and  moderator  of  the  Waldensian  churches,  afterwards  of  a  Walloon  church  at 
Leyden) :  Histoire  gertirale  des  eglises  evangeliques  des  vallees  de  Piemont  ou  Vaudoises.  Leyden,  1069, 
2  vols.  fol.    A  German  translation  by  Von  Schweiuitz.    Breslan,  1750. 

S.  Morland  :  History  of  the  Evangelical  Churches  of  the  Valleys  of  Piedmont.  London,  105S.  Morland 
was  sent  by  Cromwell  to  Piedmont ;  he  brought  back  a  number  of  Waldensian  MSS.,  and  deposited 
them  in  Cambridge. 

Jaoquics  Brez  (Waldensian) :  Histoire  des  Vaudois.    Paris,  Lausanne,  and  Utrecht,  1796. 

S.  R.  Maitland  :  Tracts  and  Documents  illustrative  of  the  History  of  the  Doctrines  and  rates  of  the  An- 
cient Albigenses  and  Waldenses.     London,  1832. 

Ant.  Monastier:  Histoire  de  Viglise  Vaudoise.    Paris  and  Toulouse,  1847,  2  vols. 

Alexis  Muston  (Waldensian) :  Histoire  des  Vaudois.  Paris,  1S34.  The  same:  V 'Israel  des  Alpes,  pre- 
miere histoire  complete  des  Vaudois.     Paris,  1S51, 4  vols. 

Ciir.  U.  Haiin  :  Geschichte  der  Waldcnser.  Stuttgart,  1S47.  (The  second  volume  of  his  learned  Geschichte 
der  Ketzer  im  MUtelalter.)    Contains  many  valuable  documents. 

A.  W.  Dieckhoff:  Die  Waldenser  im  MUtelalter.  Gottingen,  1851.  Marks  an  epoch  in  the  critical  sift- 
iug  of  the  documents,  but  is  too  negative,  and  unjust  to  the  Waldenses. 

Herzoo:  Die  romanischen  Waldenser.  Halle,  1S53.  Also  his  valuable  art.  Waldenser  in  his  Real-Ency- 
klop.  Vol.  XVII.  pp.  502  sqq.    Based  upon  a  careful  examination  of  the  Waldensian  MSS. 

C.  A.  G.  von  Zezsoiiwitz:  Die  Katechismen  der  Waldenser  und  Bi'ihmischen  Bruder  als  Documente  Hires 
wechselseitigen  Lehraustausches.  Kritische  Textausgabe,  etc.  Erlangen,  1SG3.  Compare  his  System  der 
christl.  kirchl.  Katechetik,  Leipz.  1863,  Vol.  I.  pp.  54S  sqq. 

Palacky  :  Verhdltniss  der  Waldenser  zu  den  bbhmischen  Secten.     Prag,  1S69.     (38  pp.) 

Edmund  de  SonwEimTz:  The  Catechism  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren.  Translated  from  the  Old  German. 
Bethlehem,  Pa.,  1869. 

G.  Leohi.er :  Johann  von  Wiclif  und  die  Vorgeschichte  der  Reformation.     Leipz.  1S73,  Vol.  I.  pp.  46-01!. 

F.  Waoenmann  :  Waldenser,  in  Schmidt's  Encyklop.  des  gesammtcn  Eiziehungs-  und  Unterrichtmccscns, 
Vol.  X.  (1875),  pp.  259-274. 

Soon  after  their  organization  the  Brethren  came  into  friendly  con- 
tact with  the  older  and  like-minded  Waldenses  (Vaudois),  so  called 
from  their  founder,  Peter  Waldo,  or  Waldus,  a  lay  evangelist  of  Lyons 
(about  1170),  who  gave  his  rich  possessions  to  the  poor.     They  called 

1  Gindely,  Vol.  I.  p.  200,  and  Von  Zezschwitz,  Lukas  von  Prag,  in  Herzog's  Ennjklop., 
Supplem.  Vol.  XX.  pp.  23  sqq.,  31.  Gindely,  however,  places  no  high  estimate  on  tlie  writ- 
ings of  Lucas,  and  charges  him  with  great  obscurity.     They  are  mostly  extant  in  manuscript. 


§  72.  THE  BOHEMIAN  BRETHREN  AND  THE  WALDENSE&         5G9 

themselves  originally  the  Poor  of  Lyons,  who  by  voluntary  poverty  ami 

celibacy  aimed  at  evangelical  perfection.1  The  early  confessional  and 
catechetical  books  of  the  two  sects  are  closely  connected.  The  Breth- 
ren derived,  as  already  noted,  their  episcopate  from  the  Waldenses, 
and  in  1497  they  sent  two  delegates,  Lncas  of  Prague  and  Thomas 
of  Landskron  (Germanus),  to  France  and  Italy,  who  reported  that  the 
Waldenses  in  those  countries  were  far  advanced  in  the  knowledge  of 
Scripture  truth,  while  elsewhere  they  found  nothing  but  false  doctrine, 
superstition,  loose  discipline,  and  corrupt  morals.2  On  the  other  hand, 
many  of  the  exiled  Waldenses,  who  spread  in  every  direction,3  emi- 
grated to  Bohemia,  attracted  by  the  religious  commotions  of  that 
country,  and  coalesced  with  the  Brethren  into  one  community. 

The  Bohemian  Brethren  and  the  Waldenses  made  a  near  approach  to 
evangelical  Protestantism,  and  are  the  only  mediaeval  sects  which  have 
maintained  their  existence  to  this  day.  But  we  must  distinguish  be- 
tween their  position  before  and  their  position  after  the  Reformation, 
which  marks  an  important  epoch  in  their  creed.  Much  confusion  (as 
Gieseler  observes)  has  been  introduced  into  their  history  both  by  friend 
and  foe. 

The  Waldenses  formed  at  first  no  separate  church,  but  an  ecclesiola 
in  ecclesia,  a  pious  lay  community  of  Bible-readers.  They  were  well- 
versed  in  Scripture,  and  maintained  its  supremacy  over  the  traditions 
of  men  ;  they  preached  the  gospel  to  the  poor,  allowing  women  also  to 
preach  ;  and  gradually  rejected  the  papal  hierarchy,  purgatory,  prayers 
for  the  dead,  the  worship  of  saints  and  relics,  the  mass,  transubstantia- 
tion,  the  oath,  and  capital  punishment.  Being  excommunicated  by 
Lucius  III.  (11S4)  and  other  popes  as  schismatics  and  heretics,  they 
seceded  and  became  a  persecuted  church.  They  had  a  clergy  of  their 
own  with  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.     The  origin  and  succession  of 

1  The  Dominican  Stephen  of  Borbone  says :  '  Incepit  hate  secta  circa  annum  ab  incarna- 
tione  Domini  1 170  .  .  .  Waldbhsba  dicti  sunt  a  primo  /alius  hceresii  auctore,  qui  nominates 
fuit  Waldentis.  Dicvntw  etiam  Pauperes  de  Lugtkino  quia  ibi  inceperunt  in  profetsione 
paupertatis.'  They  were  also  called  Lconistir,  from  Leona,  Lyons;  Sabatati,  from  their 
wooden  sandals  [sabo£)\  and  Humiliati,  from  their  humility. 

'Joachim  Camerarius, in  his  Historica  narratio  di  Fratrum  orthod.  tccleriis  in  Bohemia 
(ed.  by  his  grandson,  Heidelb.  1605),  gives  a  full  account  of  two  denotation!  of  the  Brethren 
to  the  Waldenses,  one  in  1 167,  and  the  other  in  I4:>7.  See  Herzog,  pp.290  sqq.,and  Gin- 
dely,  Vol.  I.  pp.  88  sq. 

3  Pseudo-Bainerins  :    '/ere  nulla  est  terra,  in  qua  hac  secta  non  sit.' 


570  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

their  orders  are  involved  in  obscurity.  They  survived  the  fierce  perse- 
cutions in  France  and  the  valleys  of  Piedmont,  and  extended  their  in- 
fluence through  emigrants  to  other  countries,  kindling  a  zeal  for  the 
study  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  vernacular,  and  strengthening  the  op- 
position to  the  papal  Church.  When  they  heard  the  glad  tidings  of 
the  Reformation,  they  sent  a  deputation — Morel  and  Masson — to  CEco- 
lampadins,  Bucer,  and  other  reformers,  in  1530,  and  derived  from  them 
clearer  views  of  the  distinction  between  canonical  and  apocryphal 
books,  justification  by  faith,  election  and  free-will,  the  marriage  of 
the  clergy,  and  the  nature  and  number  of  sacraments.  At  a  synod 
in  the  valley  of  Angrogne,  Sept.  12-18, 1532,  which  was  attended  also 
by  Farel  and  two  other  Eeformed  preachers  of  French  Switzerland, 
the  Eeformation  was  adopted  by  a  large  majority,  and  subsequently 
carried  out.  Since  that  time  the  Waldenses  became  and  remained  a 
regular  branch  of  the  Eeformed  Church.1 

In  the  course  of  time  the  consciousness  of  this  change  was  obscured, 
and  in  their  polemic  zeal  against  Eomanism  they  traced  the  Eeformed 
doctrines  to  their  fathers,  who  certainly  prepared  the  way  for  them. 
Their  manuscripts  were  interpolated  and  assigned  to  a  much  earlier 
date.2  Some  of  their  historians  even  constructed  an  imaginary  Wal- 
densian  succession  of  pure  evangelical  catholicity  up  to  the  apostolic 
age,  in  opposition  to  the  papal  succession  of  an  apostate  pseudo-catho- 
licity, which  they  dated  from  the  fictitious  donation  of  Constantino 
to  Pope  Sylvester  and  the  consequent  secularization  of  the  Church. 
This  is  the  Protestant  counterpart  of  the  Eomish  caricatures  of  the 
Eeformation,  and  deserves  equal  condemnation  in  the  name  of  com- 
mon honesty  and  historical  truth. 

A  critical  examination  and  comparison  of  the  Waldensian  manu- 
scripts and  the  reports  of  the  conferences  with  the  Eeformers  have 
exposed  these  literary  frauds,  and  produced  at  first  a  reaction  against 
the  Waldenses  and  in  favor  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  from  whom 
some  of  their  books  were  supposed  to  be  derived.  But  on  still  further 
examination  it  appears  that  there  was  a  mutual  exchange  of  views  and 
writings  between  the  two,  and  that  the  assertions  of  some  later  Bo- 

1  Herzog,  pp.  378  sqq. 

1  Leger  dates,  without  any  proof,  the  Nolla  Lei/rzon  and  the  Waldensian  Catechism  from 
the  year  1100;  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  tracts  on  Purgatory  and  the  Invocation  of 
Saints,  from  1120  ;  the  book  on  Antichrist  from  1126. 


§  72.  THE  BOHEMIAN  BRETHREN  AND  THE  WALDENSE&    ;,71 

hcmian  Brethren  concerning  their  independence  are  as  little  to  be 

trusted  and  as  clearly  unfounded  as  the  claims  of  the  Waldenses. 
Their  oldest  writings,  from  the  twelfth  to  the  fourteenth  century,  were 
popular  translations  of  the  Scriptures  and  extracts  from  the  fathers, 
followed  by  more  extended  works,  such  as  La  Nobla  Leyczon^  (i.e., 
lectio,  a  didactic  poem  on  Bible  history  and  an  exhortation  to  repent- 
ance), the  Cantica,  an  allegorical  exposition,  or  application  rather,  of 
the  Song  of  Songs,  and  several  poems  and  ascetic  tracts.  The  sec- 
ond class  embraces  the  writings  of  the  fifteenth  century  (on  Purga- 
tory, the  Invocation  of  Saints,  and  the  Sacraments),  which  are  more 
or  less  dependent  on  the  Confessio  Taboritarum  (1433),  and  other 
Hussite  documents.2  The  third  class  was  not  composed  or  put  into  its 
present  shape  till  after  the  adoption  of  the  Reformation  in  1532.  Their 
chief  confession  is  based  upon  the  Gallican  (1559),  and  was  issued  dur- 
ing the  fearful  massacre  of  1655.3 

The  indebtedness  of  the  Waldenses  to  the  Reformation  for  a  purer 
creed  does  not  deprive  them  of  a  claim  to  the  deep  sympathy  of  all 
Protestant  Christians,  which  in  the  period  of  their  fiercest  persecu- 
tion in  Piedmont  (1655)  provoked  the  threat  of  Cromwell  to  make 
the  thunder  of  English  cannon  resound  in  the  castle  of  St  Angelo, 
and  inspired  the  sublime  sonnet  of  Milton — 

'  Avenge,  O  Lord,  thy  slaughtered  saints,  whose  bones 

Lie  scattered  on  the  Alpine  mountains  cold ; 

Even  them  who  kept  thy  truth  so  pure  of  old, 
When  all  our  fathers  worshiped  stocks  and  stones. 
Forget  not :  in  thy  book  record  their  groans, 

Who  were  thy  sheep,  and  in  their  ancient  fold 

Slain  by  the  bloody  l'iedmontese,  that  rolled 
Mother  with  infant  down  the  rocks.     Their  moans 

The  vales  redoubled  to  the  hills,  ami  they 
To  heaven.     Tbeir  martyred  blood  and  ashes  sow 

O'er  all  the  Italian  fields,  where  still  doth  sway 
The  triple  tyrant ;  that  from  these  may  grow 

A  hundredfold, who  having  learnt  thy  way 
Early  may  fly  the  Babylonian  woe.' 


1  Given  in  the  original  by  Heraog,  pp.  1 1 1  457,  from  the  Geneva  MS.,  with  the  variations 
of  the  Dublin  text.  Herzog  assigns  it  to  the  year  1400.  Ebrard,  Ueber  dot  Alter  <i,r 
Nobla  Leyczon,  in  the  Zeitschrifl  fUr  histor.  Theologie,  18fi4,  and  in  his  Kirchengetck.  Vol. 
II.  p.  198,  traces  it  to  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  defends  the  date  of  tbe 
Geneva  MS.,  that  the  work  was  written  fully  eleven  hundred  years  after  St.  John  wrote,  'It 
is  the  last  time' (1  John  ii.  18),  i.  e.,  about  1200. 

2  See  the  comparison  in  DieckhoflF,  pp.  877  sqq.  !  Sec  Vol.  III.  pp.  757  »qq. 


572  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  last  lines  sound  like  a  prophecy ;  for  since  the  day  of  liberty 
dawned  on  Italy  (in  1848),  that  venerable  martyr  church  has,  from  its 
mountain  retreats  in  Piedmont,  with  youthful  vigor  established  mis- 
sions in  nearly  all  the  cities  of  the  peninsula. 

THE  WALDENSIAN   CATECHISM   (14S9)  AND    THE   BOHEMIAN    CATECHISM   (1521). 

The  doctrinal  affinity  of  the  Waldenses  and  the  Bohemian  Brethren 
appears  especially  in  their  Catechisms,  which  are  the  most  important 
of  all  their  writings  before  the  Reformation,  and  which  prove  their 
zeal  for  Christian  education  on  the  basis  of  the  Scriptures.  They  bear 
such  a  striking  resemblance  to  each  other  that  the  one  must  be  in  part 
a  copy  from  the  other.  The  Waldensian  Catechism  has  a  better  claim 
to  originality,  and,  although  not  nearly  as  old  as  was  formerly  sup- 
posed,1 must  have  been  written  before  1500 ;  while  the  Bohemian,  in 
the  form  in  which  it  was  presented  to  Luther,  first  appeared  in  print 
in  1521  or  1522,  and  was  probably  the  work  of  Lucas  of  Prague 
(d.  1528),  who  had  visited  the  Waldenses  in  Italy  and  France  (1489). 
But  both  rest  probably  on  older  sources.  Palacky  brought  to  light 
(1869)  a  similar  Catechism,  which  he  derives  from  Hus  before  1414.2 

The  Waldensian  Catechism,  called  'The  Smaller  Questions,'3  in- 
tended for  children,  is  a  remarkable  production  for  an  age  of  prevail- 
ing popular  superstition  and  ignorance.     It  consists  of  fifty-seven  ques- 

1  Leger,  Monastier,  and  Halin  trace  it  to  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century. 

-  Dieckhoff  (pp.  98-115),  from  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  Waldensian  Catechism  (as 
given  by  Perrin  and  Leger),  maintained  the  priority  of  the  Bohemian  Catechism,  and  charged 
the  Waldenses  with  gross  plagiarism.  Dr.  Herzog  (pp.  324  sq.)  inclined  to  the  same  opinion, 
but  with  some  qualification,  and  first  edited  the  original  text  of  the  Waldensian  Catechism 
from  the  Dublin  MSS.  in  the  Romance  language  (pp.  438-444).  Since  then  Prof.  Von  Zez- 
schwitz,  of  Erlangen,  has  published  (18G3)  both  Catechisms  in  their  authentic  form,  with  an 
elaborate  argument  for  the  priority  of  the  Waldensian  from  internal  evidence  and  from  its 
affinity  with  other  undoubted  Waldensian  documents.  Ebrard  (Vol.  II.  p.  491)  assents  to 
this  view,  and  says  :  '  The  Waldensian  Catechism  is  thoroughly  and  characteristically  Wal- 
densian.' Put  Palacky  traces  both  to  a  Bohemian  Catechism  (of  about  4  pages)  which  he 
found  in  the  imperial  library  of  Vienna,  and  published,  with  a  Latin  version,  in  his  Documenta 
relating  to  Hus  (pp.  703,  708).  The  authorship  of  Hus,  however,  is  a  mere  conjecture  ('cuius 
uutor  Hus  esse  videtur').  The  resemblance  extends  only  to  a  few  questions,  and  does  not 
settle  the  point  of  priority ;  for  Palacky  himself  admits  that  the  Waldenses  were  in  Prague 
as  early  as  1408,  and  known  to  Hus.  'The  Hussites,'  he  says  (Das  Verhdltiiiss  der  Waldenser, 
etc.,  p.  20),  were  both  disciples  and  teachers  of  the  Waldenses,  but  more  the  latter  than  the 
former. ' 

3  Las  interrogacions  menors.  The  more  extensive  work  on  Antichrist  was  likewise  arranged 
in  questions  and  answers. 


§  72.  THE  BOHEMIAN  BRETHREN  AND  THE  VVALDENSE3.         573 

tions  by  the  teacher  (lo  barla,  i.  e.,  uncle),  and  as  many  answers  by  the 
pupil  ^enfant).  It  embodies  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
and  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  is  divided  into  three  divisions- 
Faith  (Ques.  G),  Hope  (Ques.  32),  and  Love  (Ques.  47).  This  division 
was  suggested  by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xiii.  13)  and  Augustine  {Enchi- 
ridion), and  is  followed  also  in  the  Greek  Catechism  of  Mogila  and  the 
Russian  Catechism  of  Philaret.  Under  the  head  of  Faith  we  have  a 
practical  exposition  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  and  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, showing  their  subjective  bearing  on  a  living  faith.  In  the 
Second  Part  (Ques.  32),  Love  is  defined  to  be  a  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  an  intimate  union  of  the  human  will  with  the  divine  wilL 
In  the  Third  Part  (Ques.  48),  Hope  is  defined  to  be  a  certain  expecta- 
tion of  grace  and  future  glory.  The  Catechism  is  directed  against  the 
idolatry  and  superstition  of  the  anti-Christian  Church,  but  the  oppo- 
sition is  indirect  and  moderate.  The  characteristic  Waldensian  feat- 
ures are  the  distinction  between  a  living  and  a  dead  faith  (Ques.  8) ; 
the  six  evangelical  commandments  (Ques.  21);  the  seven  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  (Ques.  23) ;  the  distinction  between  the  true  or  essential 
(invisible)  Church  {la  gleisa  cle  la  part  tie  la  substancia),  which  con- 
sists of  all  the  elect  of  God  in  Christ,  known  only  to  him,  and  the  out- 
ward or  institutional  (visible)  church  {de  la  part  cle  li  menisteri),  i.e., 
the  ministers  and  the  people  subject  to  them  (Ques.  35) ;  and  the  rigid 
exposition  of  the  second  commandment  against  all  forms  of  idolatry 
(Ques.  29).  Of  the  sacraments  it  is  said  (Ques.  4G) :  '  Two  are  abso- 
lutely necessary  for  all ;  the  rest  are  less  necessary.'  This  clearly  in- 
dicates that  the  Catechism  was  written  before  the  Reformation  period, 
when  the  Waldenses  rejected  all  but  two  sacraments. 

The  Bohemian  Catechism  is  longer,  having  seventy-five  questions 
and  answers.  It  follows  the  "Waldensian  in  the  general  arrangement 
and  first  part,  and  introduces  also  (like  the  Greek  catechisms)  the 
Beatitudes  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Ques.  31);  it  has  more 
to  say  of  idolatry,  the  worship  of  Mary,  the  saints  and  martyrs,  and 
especially  on  the  Lord's  Supper;  but  these  additions  lack  perspicuity, 
and  arc  too  long  for  the  use  of  children. 

The  following  specimen  will  give  an  idea  of  these  Catechisms,  and 
the  relation  they  sustain  to  each  other  and  to  the  Catechism  ascribed 
to  II us: 


574 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


The    Waldexsian    Cate- 
chism. 

Las  interrogations  menors. 

1.  Si  tu  fosses  demanda 
qui  sies-tu  ?     Respont : 

Di.1  To  soy  creatura  de 
Bio  rational  e  mortal. 

2.  Dio  perque  te  ha  crca  ? 

Di.  Afin  que  yo  conoissa 
lui  meseyme  e  cola  e  havent 
la  soa  gratia  meseyme  sia 
salvd. 

3.  En  que  ista  la  toa 
salu? 

Di.  En  tres  vertiis  sub- 
stantials  de  necessitd  perte- 
nent  a  salil. 

4.  Quals  son  aquellas  ? 
Di.   Fe,  sperancza   e  ca- 

ritd. 

5.  Per  que  cosa  provares 
aiczo  ? 

Di.  Bapostol  scriv.  1 
Cor.  xiii. :  aquestas  cosas 
permanon,  fe,  sperancza  e 
caritd. 

6.  [Qual  es  la  prumiera 
vertu  substantial  ? 

Di.  La  fe.  Car  Vapiostol 
di :  7i0)i  possibla  cosa  es 
placzer  a  Dio  senza  la  fe. 
Mas  a  V appropiant  a  Dio 
conven  creyre,  car  el  es  e 
sere  reguiardonador  de  li 
cresent  en  si.] 

7.  Qual  cosa  es  la  fe  ? 
Di.  Segond  Vapostol  Heb. 

xi.  es  subsistencia  de  las  co- 
sas de  sperar  e  argument  de 
las  non  appareissent? 


The   Waldexsiax    Cate- 
chism 

Translated. 

1.  Lf  thou  art  asked,  Who 
art  thou?     Answer: 

I  am  a  creature  of  God, 
rational  and  mortal. 

2.  For  what  end  has  God 
made  you  ? 

That  I  may  know  and 
serve  him,  and  be  saved 
by  his  grace. 

3.  On  what  rests  thy  sal- 
vation ? 

On  three  fundamental 
virtues,  which  are  neces- 
sary to  salvation. 

4.  Which  are  they? 
Faith,  Hope,  and  Love. 

5.  How  do  you  prove  this? 

The  Apostle  writes,  1 
Cor.  xiii.,  '  Now  abideth 
faith,  hope,  love,  these 
three  ;  but  the  greatest  of 
these  is  love.' 

6.  Which  is  the  first  fun- 
damental virtue? 

Faith ;  for  the  Apostle 
says,  'It  is  impossible  to 
please  God  without  faith  : 
for  he  that  cometh  to  God 
must  believe  that  he  is,  and 
that  he  is  a  rewarder  of 
them  that  diligently  seek 
him  [Heb.  xi.  6]. 

7.  What  is  faith? 

According  to  the  Apos- 
tle, Heb.  xi.,  faith  is  the 
substance  of  things  hoped 
for,  the  evidence  of  things 
not  seen.3 


TnE    Bohemian    Cate- 
chism. 

(Von  Zezschwitz,  p.  41.) 

1.  Was  bistu  ?  Ant- 
wort  : 

A.  Ein  vernunfftige 
schopfung  Gottes  vnd  ein 
totliche. 

2.  Warumb  beschi'tff  dich 
Gott? 

A.  Das  ich  in  solt  ken- 
nen  und  liephaben  vnd 
habende  die  Hebe  gottes 
das  ich  sclig  wurdt. 

3.  Warauff  stent  dein  se- 
ligkayt  ? 

A.  Auff  drcyen  gottlich- 
en  tugenden. 

4.  Welche  seints? 

A.  Der  glaub,  die  lieb, 
die  hofnung. 

5.  Bewer  das. 

A.  S.  Paul'  spricht,  ytz- 
undt  bleyben  vns  disze  drey 
tugendt,  der  glaub,  die  lieb 
vnd  die  hofnung,  vnd  das 
grost  ausz  den  ist  die  lieb. 

6.  Welches  ist  die  erst 
grundtfest  deiner  selighayt? 

A.  Der  glaub. 


7.  Bewer  das. 

A.  S.  Paul'  sagt  zu  den 
Juden,  es  ist  vnmiiglich 
Gottzugefallen  on  den  glau- 
ben,  dann  d'zunhenen2  will 
zu  Gott,  der  musz  gelauben 
das  Gott  sey,  audi  das  er 
ein  belbncr  sey  der  die  in 
suchen.3 


1  That  is,  Discipulus.     In  other  copies,  Lcnfant.  "  That  is,  hinzunahen. 

1  1 1  us  begins  with  Ques.  7  (Quid  est  fides  ?    Respondet  S.  Pauhs  in  Ep.  ad  Heir. ,  etc.),  nnd 
gives  the  substance  of  Ques.  C,  but  omits  Ques.  1-5,  and  has  no  trace  of  a  threefold  division 


§72.  THE  BOHEMIAN  BRETHREN  AND  THE  WALDENSES. 


575 


8.  De  quanta  maniera  es 
la  ft?1 

Di.  De  doas  manieras,  czo 
es  viva  e 


[Hus  (third  Que?.):  Duplex  eat 
Jules,  altera  viva,  altera  mortua.] 

9.  Qual  cosa  cs  fe  viva  ? 
Di.     Lo   es    aquella,    la- 

qual  obra  per  caritd,  testi- 
ficant  I'apostol  Gal.  v. ;  [czo 
es  Vobserrancza  de  li  co- 
mandament  de  Dio.  Fe 
viva  es  creyre  en  Dio,  czo  es 
amar  luy  meseyme  e  gar- 
dar  li  sco  comandnment.  \ 

10.  Qual  cosa  cs  fe  morta  ? 
Di.   Segond  Sonet  Jaques, 

la  fe,  s'ilh  non  ha  obras,  es 
morta  en  si  meseyme ;  e  de- 
reco,  la  fe  es  ociosa  sencza 
las  obras.  0  f&  morta  es 
creire  esser  Dio,  creyre  a 
Dio,  creyre  de  Dio,  e  non 
creire  en  Dio* 

11.  De  laqual  fe  sies-tu  ? 

Di.  De  la  vera  fe  catho- 
lica  e  apostolica.3 

12.  Qual  es  aquella  i 


8.  Bom   nnnty   kinds   qf 

faith  arc  there?1 

Two  kinds,  a  living  faith 
and  a  dead  faith. 


9.  What  is  living  faith  f 

It  is  faith  active  in  love- 
fas  the  Apostle  testifies, 
Gal.  v.  6),  that  is,  by  keep- 
ing God's  commandments. 
Living  faith  is  to  believe 
in  God,  that  is,  to  love  him 
and  to  keep  his  command- 
ments. 

10.  What  is  dead  faith  f 
According  to  St.  James, 

faith  which  has  no  works 
is  dead  in  itself;  faith  is 
idle  without  works.  Or 
dead  faith  is  to  believe  that 
God  is,  to  believe  about 
God,  of  God,  but  not  to  be- 
lieve in  God.2 

11.  What  is  your  faith  f 


The    true    catholic 
apostolic  faith.3 
12.  Which  is  that? 


and 


Di.  Lo  es  aquella,  la  qual.     It  is  the  one  which   at 
al  conselh  de   li  apostol  es  the  Council  of  the  Apostles 
departid  en  docze  articles,      was    divided    into    twelve 
articles.* 


13.  Qual  es  aquella? 


13.  Which  is  it? 


Di.    To   creo   en  Dio    lo       I  believe  in  God  the  Fa- 
payre  tot  poissent.  ther  Almighty,  etc. 

[Now  follows  the  Apostles'  Creed 

in  full.] 


8.  Was  ist  der  glaub  t 

A.    S.  Paulus    sagt,   der 
glaub  ist  ein  grundfest  der 

ding  welcher  man  hat  zu- 
versicht,  vnd  ein  bewenmg 

der  vnmchtigen. 
',».  Wi  Iclu  t  glaubt  /is  bistu  t 

,     A.  Des  gemainen  christ- 
enlichen. 


10.  Welches  ist  der? 
A.    Ich   gelaub    in   Gott 
vatter  almechtigen,  etc. 

[The  Apostles'  Creed  iu  full.] 


11.  Welcher  tntersehaid 
ist  dieer  glaube? 

A.  Das  ein  glaub  ist  le- 
bendig,  der  ander  tod. 

12.  Was  ist  der  tod  glau- 
ben  ? 

A.  Esist  zu  glauben  Gott 
denherrn  zu  sein, Gott  dem 
herren,  vnd  von  Gott  dem 
berrn,  aber  nicht  in  Gott 
den  herrn.3 

13.  Was  ist  </</•  lebendig 
glauben  ? 

A.  Ms  ist  zu  glaubn  in 
Gott  den  rater,  den  sun. 
den  heylig  geyst. 


'The  Waldensian  Catechism  begins  with  the  suhjective  faith,  the  Bohemian  Catechism 
(Ques.  10)  with  the  objective  faith,  as  laid  down  in  the  Creed.     Hus  agrees  with  the  former. 

3  The  distinction  between  credere  /Mum,  credere  Deo,  and  credere  in  /'<  "»<  often  OCCOn  in 
the  writings  of  Hus  and  in  the  Catechism  ascribed  to  him  ( Palacky,  p.  710). 

3  This  is  fuller  than  'the  common  Christian  faith'  in  the  Bohemian  Catechism  (Qaes.9). 

*  According  to  the  mediaeval  tradition.  Hus  pats  the  names  of  the  apostles  before  each 
article,  and  adds  the  damnatory  clause  of  the  Athanasian  Creed. 


576  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

§  73.  The  Bohemian  Confessions  after  the  Reformation.    A.D.  1535 

AND  1575. 

THE  REFORMATION  AND  COUNTER-REFORMATION  IN  BOHEMIA. 

Comp.  the  work  of  Pubcueck,  quoted  p.  565 ;  aud  Redss  :  La  Destrxiction  du  Protestantisms  en  Bohevie. 
Strasburg,  1S67. 

The  Reformation  rekindled  the  fire  of  the  Husite  movement,  and 
made  rapid  progress  within  and  without  the  Catholic  Church.  The 
Bohemian  Brethren  sent,  from  1520,  several  delegations  to  Wittenberg 
to  confer  with  Luther.  They  received  new  light  in  doctrine,  but  pain- 
fully missed  discipline  in  the  churches  of  Germany.  Luther  was  at 
first  displeased  with  their  figurative  theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  their 
views  of  justification,  and  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  and  induced 
them  to  conform  them  to  his  teaching,  but  afterwards  he  treated  them 
with  a  degree  of  indulgence  and  forbearance  that  contrasts  favora- 
bly with  his  uncompromising  antagonism  to  the  Zwinglians.  Never- 
theless, the  Bohemian  Brethren,  like  the  Waldenses,  ultimately  passed 
in  a  body  to  the  Reformed  communion,  with  which  they  had  more 
sympathy  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  discipline.1  Besides  them  we  find 
in  Bohemia,  after  the  Reformation,  three  Protestant  parties,  Utraquists, 
Lutherans,  and  Calvinists. 

There  was  at  one  time,  during  the  reign  of  Maximilian  II.,  a  fair 
prospect  of  the  conversion  of  the  whole  Bohemian  nation,  as  also  of 
the  German  provinces  of  Austria,  to  Protestantism ;  but  before  the  work 
was  consolidated,  the  Jesuits,  backed  by  the  whole  power  of  the  Ilaps- 
burg  dynasty,  inaugurated  a  counter-reformation  and  a  series  of  cruel 
persecutions  which  crushed  the  evangelical  faith,  and  turned  that  king- 
dom into  a  second  Spain.  The  bloody  drama  of  the  Thirty- Years'  War 
began  at  Prague  (1618).  Emperor  Ferdinand  II.  (1619-1637),  a  fanat- 
ical pupil  of  the  Jesuits,  fulfilled  his  terrible  vow  to  exterminate  heresy 
by  all  possible  means,  though  he  should  have  to  reign  over  a  desert. 
The  execution  of  twenty-seven  of  the  most  distinguished  Protestants, 
in  June,  1621,  was  the  signal  for  this  war  of  extermination.  The  rich- 
est families  were  deprived  of  their  property.     Protestant  worship  was 

1  They  wrote  afterwards  to  Beza  (Dec.  3,  157")):  ' Lutherus  nostra  sic  fuit  interj>retatus, 
quasi  ipsins  sentential  sint  consent anea,  sua  quidem  ilk  culpa,  non  nostra.'  Zezschwitz,  p.  153: 
Ebrard,  Vol.  III.  p.  400.  They  had  sent  a  deputation  to  Bucer  and  Calvin  at  Strasburg  in 
1540,  who  were  well  received. 


§  73.  THE  BOHEMIAN  CONFESSIONS  AFTER  THE  REFORMATION.    .",77 

forbidden.  Protestant  churches,  schools,  and  hospitals  were  razed  to 
the  ground,  or  turned  into  Jesuit  churches  and  colleges.  All  Protest- 
ant preachers,  professors,  and  school-teachers  were  ordered,  in  1G24,  to 
leave  the  country  within  a  week,  under  pain  of  death.  Bohemian  and 
German  Bibles  and  all  Bohemian  works  published  after  1-il-i,  being 
suspected  of  heresy,  were  destroyed  in  immense  quantities  on  market- 
places and  beneath  the  gallows.  One  Jesuit,  Anton  Koniasch  (1G3T) 
boasted  that  he  had  burned  over  G0,000  books.  Thus  the  whole  Czech 
literature  and  civilization  was  overwhelmed  with  ruin,  and  ignorance 
as  dark  as  midnight  spread  over  the  land.1  Protestants  were  forbidden 
the  rights  of  citizens ;  they  could  not  carry  on  a  trade,  nor  contract 
marriage,  nor  make  a  will.  Even  light  and  air  were  denied  them. 
'  More  than  thirty  thousand  Bohemian  families,  and  among  them  five 
hundred  belonging  to  the  aristocracy,  went  into  banishment.  Exiled 
Bohemians  were  to  be  found  in  every  country  of  Europe,  and  were  not 
wanting  in  any  of  the  armies  that  fought  against  Austria.  Those  who 
could  or  would  not  emigrate  held  to  their  faith  in  secret.  Against 
them  dragonades  were  employed.  Detachments  of  soldiers  were  sent 
into  the  various  districts  to  torment  the  heretics  till  they  were  con- 
verted. The  "Converters"  (Seligmacher)  went  thus  throughout  all 
Bohemia,  plundering  and  murdering.  ...  A  desert  was  created ;  the 
land  was  crushed  for  a  generation.  Before  the  war  Bohemia  had 
4,000,000  inhabitants,  and  in  1G4S  there  were  but  700,000  or  S00,000. 
These  figures  appear  preposterous,  but  they  are  certified  by  Bohemian 
historians.' 2 


1  See,  on  this  wholesale  destruction  of  books,  Pescheek's  Geschichte  der  Gegenrrfvrmatinu 
in  Buhine>i,Vu].  II.  pp.  93  sqq.  Bohemian  works  published  from  1414  to  l<;:$r>  are  exceed- 
ingly rare,  or  are  to  be  found  only  outside  of  Bohemia  in  the  libraries  at  Ilerrnhut,  Dresden, 
and  Leipzig. 

3  Heusser,  The  Period  of  the  Reformation,  English  translation.  New  York,  1S74.  p.  4'_'<;. 
Dr.  Dollinger,  in  his  concluding  address  at  the  Bonn  Union  Conference  in  August,  ls7.">, 
speaking  of  the  suppression  of  the  Reformation  in  Austria,  made  the  following  remarks: 
iNach  romischer  Lehre  ist  cine  katlwlisehe  Regicrung  verpJUchtet,  <li<  Andertglauhigen  xu 
vnterdriirken.  Die  Pajiste  haben  die  Ilabsburger  durrh  die  Jesuit  en  ttttt  XW  Befolgung  dieter 
Lehre  angehalten.  In  der  zweilen  Ha/fte  des  techtzehnten  Jahrkundertt  war  du  /><  vOlkerung 
in  einigen  ubericiegend  deutsehen  Erbstuaten  fast  xu  neun  Zehntel  protestautiseh.  Dureh  dat 
System  der  Zwangsbekehrung  und  der  Austrribung  der  Protestattd  n  wurde  am  End*  <t<  1  16. 
Jahrhunderts  und  im  17.  der  romische  Katholieismus  wieder  herrschend.  Die  wenigen  Schriji- 
steller,  welche  Oesterreich  im  I7ien  Jahrhundert  halte,  klagcn  eintnuthig  Bber  dm  Schaden, 
den  die  Protestanten-Austreibung  dim  WoMttmd  Oetterreicht  gebracht.  Man  darf  eagen, 
es  macht  si<h  noch  heute  fiihlbur,  date  dumahder  beste  Theil  der ilSJtitchm  IWriUkcrung  ver- 


578  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  exiled  Bohemian  Brethren  became  the  nucleus  of  the  Moravian 
Brotherhood  (1722),  and  in  this  noble  little  Church,  so  distinguished  for 
its  missionary  zeal,  they  continue  to  this  day.  Their  last  and  worthy 
Bishop,  Amos  Comenius,  died  an  exile  in  Holland,  1671,  with  the  hope 
of  the  future  revival  of  his  persecuted  Church,  which  was  fulfilled 
through  the  labors  of  Count  Zinzendorf.  But  even  in  Bohemia  Prot- 
estantism could  not  be  utterly  annihilated.  It  began  again  to  raise 
its  feeble  head  when  Emperor  Joseph  II.  issued  the  Edict  of  Tolera- 
tion (1781).  The  recent  revival  of  Czech  patriotism  and  literature 
came  to  its  aid.  The  fifth  centenary  of  the  birth  of  Hus  was  cele- 
brated at  Prague,  1869,  and  his  works  and  letters  were  published. 
In  1875  there  were  forty-six  Reformed  congregations  in  Bohemia  and 
twenty-two  in  Moravia.  The  number  of  Lutheran  congregations  is 
smaller,  and  they  belong  almost  entirely  to  the  German  part  of  the 
population. 

THE   BOHEMIAN   CONFESSION  OF  1535. 

The  Latin  text  in  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma  Con/.,  and  in  Nie.meyer,  pp.  771-S1S;  the  German  text  in 
EooivEL,  pp.  7S0-S30. 

The  Bohemian  Brethren  surpass  all  Churches  in  the  number  of 
their  confessions  of  faith,  which  amount  to  no  less  than  thirty-four 
from  1467  to  1671,  in  the  Bohemian,  Latin,  and  German  languages.1 
But  they  were  all  superseded  by  two,  respectively  called  the  First  and 
the  Second  Bohemian  Confessions. 

The  first  of  these  confessions  was  prepared,  after  the  example  of 
the  Lutherans  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  in  proof  of  their  orthodoxy, 
signed  by  the  noblemen  belonging  to  the  Unitas,  and  laid  by  a  dep- 
utation before  King  Ferdinand  at  Vienna,  Nov.  14,  1535,  who  prom- 

triehen  wurde.  Eine  grosse  geistige  Versumpfung  ist  die  Folge  dcr  engen  Verbindung  der 
Habsburger  Dynastie  mit  der  Curie  geivesen.  Ich  sage :  der  Habsburgischen  Dynastie ;  die 
jetzige  Dynastie  ist  die  lothringische,  aus  welcher  gam  andere  Regenten  hervorgegangen  sind. 
Ikr  gelwrt  Joseph  II.  an,  aber  auch  die  andern  Kaiser  dieser  Dynastie  haben  nicht  Hire  Unler- 
thanen  um  der  Religion  willen  unterdruckt.  Oesterreich  leidet  noch  jetzt  an  den  schlimmen 
Fohjen  friiherer  Missregierungen,  aber  es  ist  ein  Staat,  der  noch  eine  Zukunft  hat,  und  sein 
neues  Emjtorbliihen  ist  von  grosser  W'tchtigkeit  fur  Europa.  Wenn  ivir  den  Satz  des  Harm: 
an  ihren  Friichten  sollt  ihr  sie  erkennen,  auf  das  Papalsystem  anwenden,  so  konnen  voir  nur 
ein  hartcs  Urtheil  iiber  dasselbe  fallen.  Das  jetzige  Verhalten  des  romischen  Stuhlcs  zcigt 
aber,  dass  er  aus  der  Well geschichte  nichts  gelernt  hat,  dass  sie  Htm  ein  mit  sieben  Siegeln  ver- 
sr.hlossenes  Bitch  ist. 

1  Ginclcly  enumerates  them  in  Fontes,  etc.,  pp.  453  sqq.  Comp.  Zezsehwitz,  in  llerzog's 
Real-Encyklop.  Vol.  XX.  p.  31. 


§  73.  THE  BOHEMIAN  CONFESSIONS  AFTER  THE  REFORMATION.     579 

ised  to  take  it  into  consideration.1  It  was  written  in  Latin  by  an 
unknown  author,  probably  by  John  Augusta,  Senior  of  the  Brethren, 
and,  after  the  death  of  Lucas  of  Prague,  their  most  influential  leader 
(d.  1572),  and  with  his  aid  it  was  translated  into  German.3 

The  confession  consists  of  a  long  apologetic  preface  against  the 
charges  of  heresy  and  immorality,  and  uf  twenty  articles.  It  closely 
resembles  in  form  and  contents  the  Augsburg  Confession.  In  Art. 
XII.,  on  Baptism,  it  is  stated  that  the  Brethren  had  formerly  rcl-ap- 
tized  converts,  but  that  they  had  given  up  this  practice  as  useless. 
Infant  baptism  is  acknowledged  (Matt.  xix.  14).  The  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  (Art.  XIII.)  is  accommodated  to  the  Lutheran  theory, 
though  framed  somewhat  vaguely.3 

The  Bohemians  sent  the  confession  with  a  deputation  to  the  lie- 
formers  at  Wittenberg  (1536).  Luther  disapproved  the  articles  on  cel- 
ibacy and  justification,  but  after  the  Brethren  had  made  some  correc- 
tions he  published  the  document,  at  their  request  and  expense,  in  1538, 
with  a  favorable  preface.  In  later  editions  the  Bohemians  made  many 
changes.4 

THE    SECOND    BOHEMIAN   CONFESSION.       A.D.   1">7">. 

The  Latin  text  in  Nif.meter,  pp.  819-S51 ;  the  German  text  in  Bucket.,  pp.  S'27-849. 

The  historical  notices  I  have  chiefly  derived  from  Pesciieok's  Oeschichte  Oer  Gegenreformation  in 
Bdhmen,  2d  ed.  Vol.  I.  pp.103  sqq.,  and  from  Gindkly'^  Qesehiehte  tier  Bfifrmiscken  BrBder,  Vol.  II. 
pp.  Ul  sqq. 

The  mild  and  liberal  Emperor  Maximilian  II.  (1561-1570)  was 
kindly  disposed  towards  his  Protestant  subjects,  and  had  a  certain 
degree  of  sympathy  with  their  creed.  "While  holding  a  diet  at  Prague 
he  allowed  the  non-Catholic  Bohemians  to  compose  a  united  confes- 
sion of  their  faith.  The  Utraquists,  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  and  Bo- 
hemian Brethren  laid  aside  their  disputes  and  agreed  upon  a  mod- 
erate doctrinal  statement,  which  is  more  particularly  called  the  Bo- 

1  Confessio  Fidel  ac  ReKgionis,  Boronum  ac  Nobilium  Regni  Bohemia,  wrtnismmo  "<•  in- 
victissimo  Romanorum,  Bohemia,  etc.,  Regi,  \'itiin<>  Austria,  sub  anno  Domini  L586  oblata. 

8  So  Gindely,  Vol.  I.  p.  L':'.:i,  238.  Niemeyer  (Proleg,  p.  Ixxxvi.  1  asserts  :  '  Prodiit  primmm 
lingua  Bohemica,  deinde  Latins  reddita  Vit&nberga  public*  juris  facta  est.1  Bui  Gindely  is 
a  much  better  authority  in  Bohemian  matters. 

3  iDocent  etiam,  quod  his  Christi  verbis,  quibus  ipse  jxmem  corpus  suum,  it  vimm  speciatim 
sanguincm  suum  esse  jironunr'mi.  nemo  </-  sikj  quidquam  affingat,  admisceai  «nt  detrahat,  sed 
timpliciter  his  Christi  verbis,  negus  "'/  dexteram  neque  ad  sinistrum  dir/inando  crcdat,' 

*  See  Niemeyer,  Proleg.  \>.  lxxxvii. 


580  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

hemian  Confession.1  It  was  prepared  in  the  Bohemian  language  by 
two  divines — Dr.  Paul  Pressius  and  M.  Krispin2 — and  adopted  with 
some  changes  by  the  Diet  of  Prague.3  It  was  presented  to  Maxi- 
milian, May  17, 1575.  lie  gave  the  delegates  the  verbal  promise  of 
protection  in  their  faith  and  worship.  It  was  afterwards  presented  to 
Maximilian's  son  and  successor,  Rudolph  II.,  1608,  who,  under  the  po- 
litical pressure  of  the  times,  in  an  imperial  letter,  or  charter,  granted 
the  Protestant  Bohemians  equal  rights  with  the  Roman  Catholics,  a 
separate  consistory  at  Prague,  and  the  control  of  the  university  (1609).4 
But  these  concessions  were  of  short  duration.  Emperor  Matthias  vio- 
lated the  compact,  and  Ferdinand  II.  annulled  it  by  his  Edict  of  Res- 
titution (1629),  which  gave  the  Romanists  full  power  to  suppress  Prot- 
estantism. 

The  Second  Bohemian  Confession  consists  of  an  address  to  Maxi- 
milian II.  and  twenty-five  articles  on  the  holy  Scriptures,  on  God,  the 
Holy  Trinity,  the  fall  and  original  sin,  free-will,  the  law,  justification, 
faith  and  good  works,  the  Church,  the  sacraments,  etc.  It  is  in  essen- 
tial agreement  with  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  older  Bohemian 
Confession.5  The  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  conformed  to  the 
later  Melanchthonian  view.  A  German  translation  was  transmitted 
to  the  divines  at  Wittenberg,  and  approved  by  them  Nov.  3, 1575.  A 
Latin  translation  appeared  in  161 9.6 

1  '  Confessio  Bohemica,  hoc  est,  Confessio  sanctce  el  Christiana?  Jidei,  omnium  trium  Ordinum 
Regni  Bohemia,  Corpus  et  Sanguinem  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  in  Ccena  sub  ulraque  specie 
acci/>ientium,'  etc. 

2  Gindely,  Vol.  II.  p.  HI. 

3  Gindely  (Vol.  II.  p.  142)  remarks  that  the  Lutherans  made  an  attempt  in  the  diet  to  con- 
demn in  the  preface  the  Arians,  Zwinglians,  Calvinists,  and  Anabaptists,  but  were  defeated 
by  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  who  would  not  at  any  price  consent  to  the  condemnation  of 
Calvin. 

4  Pescheek,  Vol.  I.  pp.  122  sqq.  and  137  sqq.  Gindely  gives  the  Majestat&brief  in  full, 
Vol.  II.  pp.  447  sqq.     Comp.  his  Geschichte  des  Majestiitsliriefs  (Prague,  1858). 

5  Gindely  (Vol.  II.  p.  1G0)  calls  it  'a  complete  compromise  between  the  Augustana  and 
the  dogma  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren.' 

6  Pescheek,  Vol.  I.  p.  10.1 


U.  THE  REFORMATION  IN  rOLAXD. 


581 


§  74.  The  Reformation  in  Poland  and  the  Consensus  of  Sendomir. 
A.D.  1570. 

Literature. 

Consensus  Sendomiriensis,  in  Nininvra,  pp.  ESI  Bqq.    The  German  text  in  Bbok,  Vol  II.  pp.  ST  sqq. 
Joannis  a  Lasoo:  Opera  tam  edita  quam  tnedita  reeensutt  ottam  awtortt  marrcnit  A.  K\  rras.    Am- 

stel.lSG6,  2  Tom.   The  tirst  volume  contains  ins  dogmatic  and  polemic  writings,  Including  Hi 
gto  adv.  illinium  (1550);  the  second  his  Confession,  Catechisms,  and  Letters,  including  a  few  from  Poland, 
1556-59  (Vol.  II.  pp.  746-765).     His  Letters  were  previously  published  by  Gerdesius,  in  his  Scrinitm 
antiquarium,  Groning.  1750. 

Dan.  Eun.  Jablonbki  :  Sistoria  consensus  Sendomiriensis  inter  eeangslieos  regni  Mania  et  M.  /'.  Lithu- 
ania in  synodo  generali  evangdicorum  utrivsque  partis  Sendomirice  A.D.  1570  die  14  Aprilis  initi.  Bero- 
liui,  1731. 

C.  G.  von  Fbixsi  :  Re/ormationsgeschichte  von  Polen  und  Lithauen,    Breslau,  17S6, 3  vols. 

Valerian  Krasinski  (an  exiled  Polish  Count) :  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Rise,  Progress,  and  Decline  of 
the  Reformation  in  Poland.  London,  1S3S  and  1S40,  2  vols.  German  translation  by  W.  Ai>.  Lindau. 
Leipz.  1S41.  Krasinski:  Sketch  of  the  Religious  History  of  the  Slavonic  Xations.  Edinburgh,  1S51.  The 
same  in  French  (Uistoire  religieuse  des  peuples  slaves),  Paris,  1S53,  with  an  introduction  by  Merle  d'Au- 
bigno. 

G.  W.  Th.  Fiscur.R:  Vcrsuch  eincr  Geschichte  der  Reformation  in  Polen.     Griitz,  1S55-56,  2  vols. 

P.  Bartels:  Johannes  a  Lasco.    Elberfeld,  1SG0.     In  Vol.  IX.  of  Lcbcn  der  Vater  der  reform.  Kirche. 

Dr.  Erbkam  :  Art.  Sendomir,  iu  Herzog's  Iteal-Encykl.  Vol.  XXI.  pp.  24-45.  Dr.  Erujiann  :  Art.  Polen, 
ibid.  Vol.  XII.  pp.  1  sqq. 

The  history  of  the  Reformation  in  Poland  is  as  sad  as  that  in  Bo- 
liemia.  It  started  with  fair  prospects  of  success,  but  was  suppressed 
by  the  counter-reformation  under  the  energetic  and  unscrupulous  lead- 
ership of  the  Jesuits,  who  took  advantage  of  the  dissensions  among 
Protestants,  the  weakness  of  the  court,  and  the  fickleness  of  the  no- 
bility, obtained  the  control  of  the  education  of  the  aristocracy  and 
clergy,  and  ultimately  brought  that  unfortunate  kingdom  to  the  brink 
of  internal  ruin  before  its  political  dismemberment  by  the  surround- 
ing powers. 

POLAND    IN    THE    SIXTEENTH    CENTURY. 

Poland  became  a  mighty  kingdom  by  the  union  with  Lithuania 
(138G)  and  the  successful  wars  with  the  Teutonic  order  in  Prussia. 
In  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  it  extended  from  the  shores 
of  the  Baltic  to  the  Black  Sea,  and  embraced  Great  Poland  (Posen), 
Little  Poland  (Warsaw),  Lithuania,  Samogitia  (Wilna),  Courland,  Li- 
vonia, Esthland,  Podlcsia,  Volhynia,  Podolia,  Ukraine,  and  the  Prus- 
sian territories  of  Dan tzic,  Culm,  and  Ermeland.  The  population  was 
Slavonic,  with  a  large  number  of  Germans  and  Jews.  It  originally 
received  Christianity  from  the  Greek  Church,  through  Bohemia,  but, 
owing  to  its  close  connection  with  the  German  empire,  it  became,  like 
Bohemia,  Roman  Catholic  during  the  tenth  century.    The  government 


582  THE  CKEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

was  in  the  hands  of  the  nobility,  which  controlled  the  king.  The 
power  of  the  Church  was  restricted  to  spiritual  affairs,  and  weakened 
by  the  immorality  of  the  clergy. 

THE  REFORMATION. 

Poland  never  showed  special  devotion  to  the  Roman  See,  and  dur- 
ing the  Council  of  Constance  manifested  some  sympathy  with  the 
reform  of  IIus.  "Waldenses,  Bohemians,  and  all  classes  of  Protest- 
ants, even  Socinians  and  Anabaptists,  found  hospitable  shelter. 

The  Lutheran  Reformation  was  introduced  by  Polish  students  re- 
turning from  Wittenberg,  and  by  Lutheran  tutors  employed  in  the 
families  of  the  nobles.  It  triumphed  in  the  German  cities  of  Dant- 
zic  (1525)  and  Thorn  (1530). 

Among  the  Slavonic  population  and  the  higher  nobility,  and  in 
the  University  of  Cracow,  Calvinism  made  rapid  progress.  It  was 
patronized  by  Prince  Nicholas  Radziwill,  the  Chancellor  of  Poland 
under  King  Sigismund  Augustus  II.  (1548-1572).  The  king  himself 
corresponded  with  Calvin,  and  read  his  '  Institutes'  with  great  zeal. 
Calvin  dedicated  to  him  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, and  in  some  remarkable  letters  solemnly  urged  him  to  use  the 
favorable  opportunity  for  the  introduction  of  the  pure  doctrine  and 
worship  of  Christ  before  the  door  might  be  forever  closed.  In  a 
large  kingdom  with  strongly  feudal  institutions  he  would  allow,  for 
the  sake  of  unity  and  order,  and  after  the  model  of  the  ancient 
Church,  the  episcopal  organization,  with  an  archbishop  and  a  regular 
succession ;  but  he  thought  that  under  the  circumstances  the  Refor- 
mation could  not  be  introduced  without  some  irregularity,  since  the 
papal  bishops  had  become  the  open  enemies  of  the  gospel.  lie  became 
at  last  discouraged  by  the  indecision  of  the  king, 'and  lost  confidence 
in  the  sincerity  of  the  nobles.     His  fears  were  only  too  well  realized.1 

Another  powerful  element  were  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  who,  driven 
from  their  native  land  in  154S,  emigrated  in  large  numbers  and  or- 
ganized forty  congregations  in  Great  Poland.2     They  were  well  re- 


1  On  Calvin's  relation  to  Poland,  see  Stiihelin,  Joh.  Calvin,  Vol.  II.  pp.  22  sqq. 

2  Vergerius  wrote,  1557,  to  Stanislaus  Ostrorog:  '  Esse  jam  in  Polonia  cirri ter  XL  ad 
eorum  normam  institutas  ecclesias,  quw  sane  jlorent,  multo  autem  plures  propediem  instituen- 
das.' 


§  74.  THE  REFORMATION  IN  POLAND.  533 

ceived,  and,  by  the  affinity  of  race  and  language,  their  purity,  sim- 
plicity, and  strict  discipline,  they  made  a  deep  impression  on  the  Sla- 
vonic Poles.  The  Brethren  united  with  the  Calvinists  at  the  first 
general  Protestant  Synod  held  at  Kosminek,  1555.  The  latter  adopt- 
ed the  confession,  liturgy,  and  episcopal  government  of  the  former. 
This  step  was  highly  approved  by  Calvin,  who  wrote  to  a  Polish 
nobleman,  Stanislaus  Krasinski :  'From  a  union  with  the  Waldenses 
[as  the  Brethren  were  sometimes  called]  I  hope  the  best,  not  only 
because  God  blesses  every  act  of  a  holy  union  of  the  members  of 
Christ,  but  also  because  at  the  present  crisis  the  experience  of  the 
Waldenses,  who  are  so  well  drilled  in  the  service  of  the  Lord,  will 
be  of  no  small  benefit  to  you.'  He  also  advocated  union  with  the 
adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  this  was  understood  and  ex- 
plained by  its  author.  He  was  invited  by  the  nobility  to  Poland,  but 
could  not  leave  Geneva. 

JOHN    A    I.ASCO. 

In  Calvin's  place  appeared,  by  his  advice  and  probably  at  the  invi- 
tation of  the  king,  John  a  Lasco,  or  Laski,  a  Polish  nobleman,  dis- 
tinguished among  the  Reformers  of  the  second  rank.  Born  at  War- 
saw, 1499,  and  educated  for  the  priesthood  by  his  nncle,  the  Archbishop 
of  Gnesen  and  Primas  of  Poland,  he  made  a  literary  journey  to  Hol- 
land and  Switzerland,  and  became  personally  accpiainted  with  Zwingli 
at  Zurich  (1524)  and  with  Erasmus  at  Basle  (1525),  who  shook  his 
faith  in  the  Roman  Church.1  On  his  return  to  Poland  he  endeavored 
to  introduce  a  moderate  reformation,  but  the  country  was  not  pre- 
pared for  it.  He  declined  an  offer  to  a  bishopric,  and  sacrificed 
bright  prospects  to  his  conviction,  preferring  to  be  in  a  foreign  land 
'a  poor  servant  of  Christ  crucified  for  him.'  He  labored  several 
years  as  Reformed  pastor  in  Emden,  East  Friesland,  until  the  Interim 
troubles  drove  him  and  his  friends  to  England.  He  organized  in  Lon- 
don three  congregations  of  Dutch,  German,  French,  and  Italian  emi- 
grants (eccles'ue peregrinorxifix)  on  a  Presbyterian  and  voluntary  basis, 
under  the  protection  of  Archbishop  Cranmer  and  Edward  VI.  The 
persecution   of  Queen  Mary  forced  him   again    to  wander   in   exile. 

1  Erasmus  spoke  of  Laski  in  the  highest  terms,  and  sold  liim  his  library  for  three  hundred 
crowns,  with  the  privilege  of  retaining  it  till  his  death.     Krasiuski,  1.  c.  p.  'J8  (German  cd. ). 

Vol.  L— P  p 


584  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

When  he  landed  with  a  hundred  and  seventy-five  members  of  his 
flock  in  Denmark,  1553,  lie  was  refused  shelter  in  cold  winter  because 
he  could  not  subscribe  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  real  pres- 
ence. He  fully  experienced  the  force  of  his  motto,  'The  pious  have 
no  home  on  earth,  for  they  seek  heaven.'  After  laboring  a  short  time 
in  a  congregation  of  English  and  other  pilgrims  in  Frankfort-on-the 
Main,  he  accepted  the  invitation  to  his  native  country  in  1556,  and 
was  made  General  Superintendent  of  Little  Poland.  Here  he  pre- 
pared, with  the  aid  of  other  scholars,  an  admirable  Polish  transla- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  published  after  his  death,  organized  Reformed 
Churches  (which  increased  in  his  time  to  the  number  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty-two),  and  confirmed  the  union  of  the  Calvinists  with  the 
Bohemian  Brethren,  although  he  himself  preferred  the  Presbyterian 
polity  with  lay  representation  to  the  Bohemian  episcopacy,  and  dif- 
fered from  their  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  other  articles  of  their 
confession.     He  died  Jan.  7, 15G0,  in  the  midst  of  work  and  care.1 

PETER   PAUL    VERGEKIO.2 

During  the  same  period  Poland  was  twice  visited  (1557  and  1559) 
by  another  remarkable  man  among  the  secondary  reformers — Peter 
Paul  Vergerio  (1498-1565),  formerly  papal  nuncio  to  Germany  and 
Bishop  of  Capo  d'lstria.2  In  the  attempt  to  refute  the  Lutheran 
writings  he  had  become  a  Protestant,  introduced  the  Reformation  in 
the  Italian  parts  of  the  Grisons  (Yaltellina,  Poschiavo,  and  Bregaglia), 
and  then  took  up  his  residence  in  Tubingen  under  the  protection  of 
Duke  Christopher  of  Wiirtemberg,  writing  many  books  and  making 
important  missionary  journeys.  He  was  well  received  in  Poland  by 
Prince  Radziwill  and  the  king.  He  associated  mainly  with  Luther- 
ans and  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  but  labored  for  the  cause  of  union, 
like  Laski.3 

1  He  wrote  to  Calvin,  Feb.  19, 1557  {Opera,  Vol.  II.  p.  74(!) :  lIta  nunc  obruor  curis  ac 
negotiis,  mi  Calvine  !  ut  nihil  possim  scribere.  Hinc  hostes,  Mine  falsi  fratres  nos  adoriun- 
tur,  ul  non  sit  quies  ulla,  sed  et  pios  inultos  habemus,  sit  Deo  gratia!  qui  nobis  sunt  et  adiu- 
mento  et  consolationi.' 

2  See  Chr.  II.  Sixt :  Petrus  Paulus  Vergerius,  .  .  .  einc  reformationsgeschichtliche  Monogra- 
phie  (Braunschweig,  1855),  pp.  391  sqq.  and  437  sqq.  Comp.  also  Herzog's  art.  Vergerius,  in 
his  Real-Encykl.  Vol.  XVII.  pp.  G5  sqq. 

3  He  thought  at  one  time  of  joining  the  Unitas  Fratrum,  being  disgusted  with  the  renewal 
of  the  sacramental  war.    Even  Melauchtlion  once  expressed  a  similar  desire,  'in  Valdensium 


§  74.  THE  KEFOKMATION  IN  POLAND. 


585 


He  aided  the  Reformation  by  his  able  pen,  and  the  Roman  histo- 
rian Raynaldus  says  that  'this  wretched  heretic  led  many  weak  Cath- 
olics into  the  camp  of  Satan.'  But  his  stay  in  Poland  was  too  short 
to  leave  permanent  results. 

Till:    PAPAL   REACTION    AND   TRIUMPH. 

In  the  mean  time  the  Roman  Catholic  party,  under  the  leadership 
of  Cardinal  Stanislaus  Hosius,  Bishop  of  Ermeland  (d.  1579),  was  very 
active.  Pope  Paul  IV.  sent  a  nuncio,  Lipomani,  to  Poland,  and  urged 
the  king  to  banish  Laski  and  Yergerio  from  the  country,  and  to  sup- 
press, with  every  power  at  his  command,  the  rising  heresy,  if  he  would 
save  his  honor,  his  crown,  and  his  soul.  The  weak  king  vacillated 
between  the  advice  of  Calvin  and  the  threats  of  the  Pope,  and  did 
nothing.  He  allowed  the  glorious  opportunity  to  pass,  and  died  in 
1572,  the  last  of  the  House  of  Jagellon.  The  nobles  were  likewise 
undecided,  and  many  of  them  were  carried  away  by  the  Unitarian 
heresy  which  began  to  spread  in  Poland  in  1558. 

During  the  interregnum  which  followed  the  death  of  Sigmund  Au- 
gustus, the  nobles,  before  electing  a  new  king,  concluded  in  1573  a  pat- 
riotic treaty  of  peace  for  the  protection  of  religious  freedom,  under  the 
name  of  Pax  Dissidentium — that  is,  of  the  Roman  Catholic  and  the 
three  evangelical  Churches.1  They  required  Duke  Henry  of  Anjou,  the 
brother  of  the  King  of  France  and  a  violent  enemy  of  the  Huguenots, 
to  accept  the  treaty  as  a  condition  of  the  crown,  hoping  to  break  it 
afterwards.  On  being  peremptorily  told  by  the  Great  Marshal,  in 
the  midst  of  the  act  of  coronation,  '  Si  non  jurabis  non  regnabisj  he 
took  the  oath  in  spite  of  the  remonstrance  of  the  Romish  party ;  but 
he  left  Poland  in  1574,  being  called  to  the  throne  of  France  after  the 
death  of  his  brother,  Charles  IX.  His  Protestant  successor,  Stephen 
Bathori  of  Transylvania  (1575-SG),  took  the  same  oath,  but  after- 
wards joined  the  Roman  Church  and  opened  the  door  to  the  Jesuits. 
This  was  the  turning-point. 

Under  Sigmund  III. — a  Swedish  prince,  who  had  been  educated 


ecclesiis  me  inserere  et  in  Mis  mori ;  jilacent  enim  mi/ti  suuimojicrc'     See  his  letter  to  V.  Die- 
trich, quoted  by  Hcrzo<,',  p.  71. 

1  The  Roman  Catholics  objected  to  being  called  Dissidcntes,  and  were  opposed  to  the  whole 
treaty. 


586  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  converted  by  Jesuits,  and  was  elected  king  in  15S7 — there  began 
a  series  of  vexations  and  oppressions  of  the  Protestants  which  grad- 
ually reduced  them  to  a  poor  remnant,  except  in  the  Prussian  part 
of  Poland  where  the  German  element  prevailed.  Even  Laski's  rela- 
tions and  the  four  sons  of  Kadziwill  returned  to  the  Roman  Church ; 
one  of  these  sons  became  a  cardinal ;  another  made  a  pilgrimage  to 
Jerusalem,  and  spent  five  thousand  ducats  for  the  purchase  and  de- 
struction of  Polish  Bibles  which  his  father  had  published  (1563)  at  his 
expense.1  Hence  the  great  scarcity  of  this  work.  It  was  an  essential 
part  of  the  Jesuit  counter-reformation  to  burn  the  whole  Protestant 
literature,  and  thus  to  suppress  all  independent  thought.  In  this  it 
succeeded  only  too  well.  The  Polish  nation,  after  the  light  of  the 
gospel  was  extinguished,  hastened  step  by  step  to  its  internal  and  ex- 
ternal ruin. 

THE    CONSENSUS    OF    SENDOMIK. 

After  the  death  of  Laski  (1560)  and  Prince  Eadziwill  (1567)  the 
Protestants  had  no  commanding  leader,  and  felt  the  more  the  neces- 
sity of  some  union  for  their  own  safety.  An  organic  union  would 
have  been  the  best,  and  would  perhaps  have  made  them  strong  enough 
to  carry  the  king  and  the  nobles  with  them.  But  for  such  a  step  they 
were  not  prepared.  Instead  of  this  the  Lutherans  (influenced  by  the 
liberal  advice  of  the  Melanchthonian  divines  of  Wittenberg),  the  Cal- 
vinists,  and  the  Bohemian  Brethren  effected  a  confederate  union  at 
the  Synod  of  Sendomir,2  April  14, 1570,  and  expressed  it  in  the  Con- 
sensus Sendomiriensis,  the  only  important  confessional  document  of 
the  evangelical  Churches  in  Poland.  It  was  published  by  authority, 
in  Latin  and  Polish,  in  1586,  with  a  preface  signed  by  Erasmus  Glicz- 
ner,  Lutheran  Superintendent  of  Great  Poland,  in  the  name  of  the 
ministers  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  by  John  Laurentius,  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Bohemian  Brethren  in  Great  Poland,  and  by  Paulus 
Gilovius,  Superintendent  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Little  Poland.3 

1  Krasinski,  p.  2!)7. 

2  A  town  on  the  Vistula  in  Little  Poland.     Krasinski  and  Gindely  call  it  Sandomir. 

3  The  full  title  is  '  Consensus  in  fide  et  religione  Christiana  inter  Ecclesias  Evangelicas 
Majoris  et  Minoris  Polonice,  Magnique  Ducntus  Lithuania  et  caterarum  ejus  regni  provin- 
ciarum,  primo  Sendomirim  Anno  MDLXX.  in  Si/nodo  gene.ra.li  sancitus,  et  deincejis  in  allis, 
uc  deinuin  in  Wlodishiviensi  generuli  Si/nodo  Anno  MDLXXXI1I.  coiifirmatus,  et  Serenis- 
simis  Polonice  Regiuus,  Augusto,  Henrico  ac  Stephano  oblatus,  nunc  autein  ex  decreto  Synodico 


§  74.  THE  REFORMATION  IN  POLAND.  557 

The  Consensus  sets  forth  that  the  three  orthodox  evangelical  Church- 
es are  agreed  in  the  doctrines  of  God,  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  1  near- 
nation,  the  person  of  Christ,  justification  by  faith,  and  other  funda- 
mental articles,  as  taught  in  the  Augsburg,  the  Bohemian,  and  Hel- 
vetic Confessions,  against  papists,  sectarians,  and  all  enemies  of  the 
gospel;  that  in  the  unfortunate  sacramentarian  controversy  they  adopt 
that  explanation  of  the  words  of  institution  which  distinguishes  (with 
Irenams)  between  the  earthly  form  and  the  heavenly  substance  in  the 
Lord's  Slipper,  and  regards  the  visible  elements  not  as  mere  signs, 
but  as  conveying  to  the  believer  truly  through  faith  that  which  they 
represent.1 

Then  follows  a  long  extract  on  the  sacraments  from  the  Repetition 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  or  Saxon  Confession,  which  Melanchthon 
prepared  in  1551  for  the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  Consensus  thus  adopts  the  later  Melanchthonian  or  Calvinistic 
theory ;  it  avoids  the  characteristic  Lutheran  terms  (manducatio  oralis, 
etc.),  and  demands  faith  as  the  medium  of  receiving  the  matter  rep- 
resented by  the  elements.  The  doctrine  of  predestination  was  not 
touched,  as  there  seems  to  have  been  no  controversy  about  it. 


in  publicum  ti/pis  editus.  Anno  Christi  MDLXXXVI.'  This  edition  contains  tlie  supple- 
mentary resolutions  of  the  Synods  of  Posen  (1670),  Cracow  (1"»73),  Petricow  (1578),  and 
Vladislav  (1583).  It  was  reprinted  at  Thorn,  1592  and  1596  (with  the  Acta  et  conclusionea 
synodi  generalis  Thoruniensis  anni  1595);  at  Heidelberg.  1605 ;  at  Geneva,  in  the  Corpus  et 
Syntagma  Con/.,  1G12  and  1G"i4  (from  the  Heidelberg  edition);  at  Frankfort-on-the-()der, 
1704  (with  a  Preface  and  German  translation  of  Dr.  Sam.  Strimesius);  and  at  Berlin,  1731, 
in  Jablonski's  Historia  cons.  Send.  Niemeyer  (1840)  gives  the  Latin  text  from  the  edition  of 
Thorn,  with  all  the  supplements  (pp.  651-591).  Bockel  excludes  the  Consensus  (as  not  being 
strictly  Reformed)  from  his  collection.  Beck  gives  the  German  text,  but  without  the  additions; 
and  s<>  also  Dr.  Nitzscb,  in  his  Vrkundenbuch  der Evangelischen  Union  (Ronn,  1858),  pp.  72  sqq. 
1  Niemeyer,  p.  554  :  '  Convenitnus  in  sententia  verborum  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi.  ut  ilia 
orthodoxe  intellecta  sunt  a  patribus,  ac  iiyirimis  Iren<eo,  qui  dualius  rebus,  scilicet  terrena  et 
ccclesti,  hoc  mysterium  constare  dixit ;  ncque  elementa  signave  nuda  et  vacua  ilia  esse  asseri- 
7/ius,  sed  simul  reipsa  credentiiius  exhibere  et  prcestare  fide,  quod  significant,  Jhniqtte  ut 
ex/iressius  clariusque  loquamur,  convenimus,  ut  credamus  et  conjitcaiiu/r,  sniSTANTlAi.EM  PRJBr 
si.ntiam  Christi  [not  COBFOSIB  et  sanguixis  Christi],  non  signijicari  duutaxnt,  ted  cere  in 
cozna  eo  [sc.  Christo]  vescentibus  ir/irascntari,  distribui,  <t  is hi/nri  <-oi:i,i  s  1 .1  s\s,.[  im  m 
Domini  symbolic  adjectie  ijisi  rei  minime  nudis,  secundum  Sacramentorum  naturam.'  The 
Lutheran  members  demanded  the  phrase  lprcetentiam  CORPORIS  Christi'  for  ' pram  ntiam 
Chkisti,' and  the  insertion  of  the  entire  article  <>f  the  Saxon  Confession  on  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. The  first  request  was  denied  by  the  Calvinists  and  Bohemian  Brethren;  the  second 
was  granted,  because  the  Saxon  Confession  uses  the  words  '  in  hoc  communion*  vert  ei  tub- 
ttantialiter  adesse  Chribtuh'  (not  CORPUS  Christi).  See  Gindely.  Getch.  der  BOhm,  BrUder, 
Vol.  II.  p.  86. 


588  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

In  conclusion  the  Consensus  acknowledges  the  orthodoxy  and  Chris- 
tian character  of  the  three  parties,  and  pledges  them  to  cultivate  peace 
and  charity,  and  to  avoid  strife  and  dissension,  which  greatly  hinder 
the  progress  of  the  gospel.  They  should  seal  this  compact  by  ex- 
change of  pulpits  and  of  delegates  to  general  synods,  and  by  frequent 
sacramental  intercommunion  ;  each  denomination  retaining  its  peculiar- 
ities in  worship  and  discipline  which  (according  to  the  Augsburg  and 
the  Saxon  Confessions)  are  consistent  with  the  unity  of  the  Church. 

Then  follow  the  signatures  of  noblemen  and  ministers. 

Great  joy  was  felt  at  this  happy  result,  and  was  expressed  by  mutual 
congratulations  and  united  praise  of  God. 

A  few  weeks  afterwards,  May  20,  1570,  a  synodical  meeting  was 
held  at  Posen  in  the  same  spirit  of  union,  and  twenty  brief  supple- 
mentary articles  were  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  confirming  and  pre- 
serving the  Consensus.1  One  of  the  articles  forbids  polemics  in  the 
pulpit.  When  the  people,  who  stood  outside  of  the  house  where  the 
meeting  was  held,  heard  the  happy  conclusion,  they  joined  in  the 
singing  of  the  Te  Deum,  with  tears  of  joy  and  gratitude  to  God. 
The  union  was  sealed  on  the  following  Sunday  by  two  united  serv- 
ices in  the  Lutheran  church  and  in  the  Bohemian  chapel. 

The  Consensus  was  again  confirmed  by  the  general  synods  at  Cra- 
cow, 1573 ;  Petricow,  1578 ;  Vladislav,  1583  ;  and  Thorn,  1595.  The 
last  was  the  largest  synod  ever  held  in  Poland.2 

The  Lutherans  who  adhered  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  (1580) 
withdrew  from  the  Consensus.  But  the  spirit  of  union  which  pro- 
duced it  passed  into  the  three  Brandenburg  Confessions  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  and  revived  in  the  Evangelical  Union  of  Prussia.3 

1  Consignatio  observationum  necessariarum  ad  confirmandum  et  conservandum  mutuum  Con- 
sensu™ Sendomiriaz  Anno  DN.  MDLXX.  die  14  April,  in  vera  religione  Christiana  ini- 
tuin  inter  Ministros  Augustancp  Confessionis  et  Fratrum  Bohemorum,  Posania  eodem  anno, 
Mali  20  facta,  et  a  Ministris  utriusque  catus  approbata  ac  recepta.  Printed  in  the  Corpus 
et  Syntagma  Conf.,  and  in  Niemeyer,  pp.  501-565. 

8  See  the  Acts  of  these  synods  relating  to  the  Consensus  and  to  matters  of  discipline,  in 
Niemeyer,  pp.  505-591. 

3  See  above,  pp.  545  sqq.  Comp.  also  Nitzsch,  Urkundenbuch  der  Evangelischen  Union, 
pp.  80  sqq. 


§  75.  THE  REFORMATION  IN  HUNGARY.  539 

75.  The  Reformation  in  Hungary  and  the  Confession  of  Czenger. 


I.  The  Latin  text  of  the  Oonfeaaio  Czengerina,  or  Bvngarieo,  in  the  Corpus  ct  Syntagma  Conf.,  and  iu 
Niemi:yi:k,  pp.  539-550;  the  German  text  in  Buckei.,  pp.  S51-S03. 

II.  P.Ejibkb  (Reform.):  Historia  ecclcsice  reform,  in  Ilungaria  et  Transylvania  (ed.Lampc).  Utrecht, 
1728. 

Ribini  (Lath.):  Memorabilia  Aug.  Conf.  in  regno  Hungarian.     17S7,  2  role. 

Geschichte  der  evang.  Kirehe  in  Uhgarn  vom  A  nfang  der  Reformation  bis  1S50  [by  Bauuofer,  not  named]. 
Hit  einer  Einleitung  von  Merle  d'Aubigne.     Berlin,  1S54. 
Giesei.er:  Church  History,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  253  sqq.  (Am.  ed.). 
Baur  :  Geschichte  der  christl.  Kirehe,  Vol.  IV.  (1803),  pp.  214  sqq.,  552  sqq. 
Ebraro:  Kirchen-  nnd  Dogmengeschichte,\'o\.  III.  (1800),  pp.  415-432. 

E.  L.  Tn.  Hknke  (d.  1S72) :  Xeuere  Kirchengeschichte  (ed.  by  W.  Gass).    Halle,  1S74,  Vol.  I.  pp.  352  sqq. 
Burgovszky  :  Art.  Uhgarn,  iu  Hcrzog's  Heal-Encykl.  Vol.  XVI.  pp.  030  gqq. 

Hungary,  an  extensive  and  fertile  country  on  the  banks  of  the 
lower  Danube,  once  an  independent  kingdom,  then  united  with  the 
empire  of  Austria,  and  containing  a  mixed  population  of  Magyars, 
Germans,  Slowaks,  Ruthenians,  Croats,  Serbs,  etc.,  received  the  tirst 
seeds  of  the  Christian  religion  from  Constantinople;  but  the  real 
apostle  of  the  Hungarians  was  Stephen  I.  (979-103S),  a  king  and  a 
saint,  who  by  persuasion  and  violence  overthrew  heathenism  and  bar- 
barism, gave  rich  endowments  to  the  churches  and  clergy,  and  brought 
his  country  into  close  contact  with  the  Roman  Church  and  the  Ger- 
man Empire. 

THE   REFORMATION. 

The  way  for  the  Reformation  was  prepared  by  Waldenses  and  Bohe- 
mian Brethren  who  sought  refuge  in  Hungary  from  persecution.  The 
writings  of  Luther  found  ready  access  among  the  German  population, 
and  were  read  with  avidity,  especially  the  one  on  the  Babylonian  Cap- 
tivity of  the  Church.  Many  young  Hungarians,  among  them  Matthias 
Dc'vay  (De  Vay),  called  'the  Hungarian  Luther,'1  and  Leonard  Stockel, 
studied  at  Wittenberg;  others,  as  John  Honter,  at  Basle  ;  and  on  their 
return  they  introduced  the  new  doctrines  at  Ofen,  Cronstadt,  and  other 
cities,  without  any  compulsion  or  aid  from  the  government.  It  was  a 
spontaneous  movement  of  the  people.  Even  some  bishops  and  other 
dignitaries  of  the  Roman  Church  became  Protestants  from  conviction. 


1  Dc'vay  lived  in  the  home  of  Luther,  who  calls  him  ;  vir  honestus,  gravit  <t  emditut,'    He 

sympathized,  however,  with  Melanchthon  in  the  euchaiistie  controversy,  and  inclined  to  the 
Calvinistic  view,  so  as  to  cause  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  strict  Lutherans  in  Hungary 
(1544).     See  Luther's  Letters,  Vol.  Vr.  p.  (i  1 1  (ed.  De  Wettc),  and  Ilenke,  p.  355. 


590  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

In  1545  a  meeting  of  twenty-nine  ministers  at  Erdod  adopted  a 
creed  of  twelve  articles  in  essential  agreement  with  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  Another  Lutheran  synod  at  Medwisch  (Medias),  in  154S, 
drew  up  the  Confessio  Pentapolitana,  which  represented  five  free 
cities  in  Upper  Hungary,  and  wras  declared  legal  in  1555.  The  Saxon 
or  German  population  of  Hungary  and  Transylvania  remained  mostly 
Lutheran. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  majority  of  the  Magyars  or  Hungarians 
proper  (the  ruling  race  in  that  country)  were  more  influenced  by  the 
Latin  writings  of  Melanchthon  and  Calvin  than  by  the  German  of 
Luther,  and  during  the  violent  eucharistic  controversies  in  Germany 
embraced  the  Calvinistic  creed,  which  they  formally  adopted  at  the 
Synod  of  Czenger,  1557,  and  which  they  nominally  profess  to  this 
day.1  A  large  number  of  Magyar  pastors  left  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sion and  embraced  Calvinism  in  1563.  The  Presbyterian  polity  and 
discipline  were  introduced  by  the  Synods  of  Tarczal,  Gontz,  and  De- 
breczin.  Thus  the  separation  of  the  two  evangelical  Churches  was 
completed. 

Protestantism  made  rapid  progress  under  Maximilian  II.  At  the 
close  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  larger  part  of  the  people  and  the 
whole  nobility,  with  the  exception  of  three  magnates,  had  accepted 
the  Reformation.  It  gave  a  vigorous  impulse  to  national  life  and 
literary  activity.  '  It  is  astonishing  to  see  the  amount  of  religious 
information  which  was  then  spread  among  the  citizens  and  the  lower 
classes,  and  the  fertility  of  the  press  in  places  where  now  not  even 
an  almanac  is  printed.'2 

But  under  the  reign  of  Rudolph  II.,  King  of  Hungary  from  1572 
to  160S,  began  the  counter-reformation  of  the  Jesuits  (among  whom 
Peter  Pazmany,  a  nobleman  of  Calvinistic  parents,  was  the  most  suc- 
cessful in  making  converts),  and  a  series  of  cruel  persecutions  by  the 
Ilapsburg  rulers,  urged  on  by  the  Popes,  which  continued  for  nearly 
two  centuries,  amid  reactions,  rebellions,  civil  wars,  and  wars  with 
the  Turks.     A  Jesuitical  formula  for  the   conversion  of  Hungarian 


1  We  say  nominally,  for  both  tlie  Reformed  and  Lutheran  Churches  of  Hungary  have  been 
much  affected  by  rationalism.  This  applies,  however,  to  nearly  all  the  State  Churches  of  the 
Continent. 

2  Burgovszky,  1.  c.  p.  643. 


§  To.  THE  REFORMATION  IN  HUNGARY.  59] 

Protestants  pronounces  awful  curses  on  the  evangelical  faith,  with 
the  promise  to  persecute  it  by  the  Bword.  Whether  genuine  or  not, 
it  shows  the  intense  bitterness  of  the  conflict.1  General  Oaraffa,  a 
cruel  papist,  erected  in  the  market-place  at  Epcrjes  a  bloody  scaf- 
fold, or  '  slaughter-bank,'  where  for  several  months  daily  tortures  and 
executions  by  fire  and  sword  took  place  (1657).2 

Protestantism  survived  these  trials.  Joseph  II,  by  his  famous  Edict 
of  Toleration,  Oct.  29, 1781,  secured  to  the  followers  of  the  Augsburg 
and  Helvetic  Confessions  liberty  of  conscience  and  public  worship. 
His  brother  and  successor,  Leopold,  confirmed  it  in  1701.  The  re- 
maining restrictions  were  removed  in  1S4S.  The  present  number  of 
Protestants  in  Hungary  is  about  three  millions,  or  one  fifth  of  the 
whole  population  (which  in  180'J  amounted  to  fifteen  millions  and  a 
half).  The  Lutheran  Confession  prevails  among  the  German  popula- 
tion ;  the  followers  of  the  Reformed  or  Helvetic  Confession  are  twice 
as  numerous,  and  are  mostly  Magyars. 

THE   1HNGAKIAN   CONFESSION. 

The  Hungarian  Confession,  or  Confessio  Czengerina,  was  prepared 
and  adopted  at  a  Reformed  Synod  held  at  Czenger  in  1557  or  1558,3 
and  printed  in  1570  at  Debreczin.4 

It  treats,  in  brief  articles  or  propositions,  of  the  Triune  God,  of  Jons 
Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Scripture  designations  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  rules  for  explaining  the  phrases  concerning  God,  the  law  and  the 
gospel,  the  rights  and  sacraments  of  the  Church,  Christian  liberty,  elec- 
tion, the  cause  of  sin,  and  the  only  mediator  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  pre- 
ceded by  a  strong  Biblical  argument  against  the  anti- Trinitarians 
and  Socinians,  who  had  spread  in  Transylvania.  It  vehemently  rejects 
the  Romish  transubstantiation  and  the  Lutheran  ' sari'nj'haqid^5  but 

1  See  aliovc.  p.  02,  note  1?. 

'*  Sismondi  and  Merle  d'Auhigne  (1.  c.  p.  ix.)  state  that  the  persecutions  of  the  Hungarian 
Protestants  surpassed  in  cruelty  the  persecutions  of  the  Huguenots  under  Louifl  XIV. 

3  The  date  is  uncertain. 

4  Debreczin  is  a  royal  free  city  in  the  northeastern  part  <>f  the  Hungarian  Lowland,  with 
about  fifty  thousand  inhabitants,  and  contains  the  principal  CalvinUtic  college  of  the  king- 
dom. In  1849  it  was  the  seat  of  the  revolutionary  government  of  Kossuth,  and  the  inde- 
pendence of  Hungary  was  there  declared  in  the  Reformed  Church. 

'-  lDamnamtu  Papisticum  delirium  .  .  .  ]<rinio  partem  tranuvbttantiari, et  <>[}'< >-ri  in  mista: 
deinde  sofa  accidentia  panis  manere.  .  .  .  Ita  et  eorvm  intatdam  damnamue,  qui  aaserunl 


592  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

also  the  'sacramentarian'  view  of  a  purely  symbolical  presence,  and 
teaches  that  Christ  is  truly  though  spiritually  present,  and  communi- 
cates himself  in  the  Lord's  Supper  as  the  living  bread  and  the  celes- 
tial drink,  with  all  his  gifts,  to  the  believer.1  It  defends  infant  bap- 
tism against  the  Anabaptists.  It  teaches  a  free  election,  but  is  silent 
about  reprobation,  and  denies  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin.  Later 
synods  professed  more  clearly  the  doctrine  of  predestination  and  the 
perseverance  of  saints. 

This  Confession  presents  some  original  and  vigorous  features,  but 
has  only  a  secondary  historical  importance.  It  was  practically  super- 
seded by  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  of  1566,  which  is  far  supe- 
rior, and  was  subscribed  by  the  entire  Reformed  clergy  of  Hungary 
convened  at  Debreczin  in  1507.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  also 
introduced. 


V.  THE  ANGLICAN  ARTICLES  OF  RELIGION. 

§  76.  The  English  Reformation. 

Literature. 

I.  WORKS   ON   THE   TlIIKTY-NINE   ARTICLES. 

(a)  Historical. 

Charles  Hardwick  (B.D.,  Archdeacon  of  Ely,  aud  Christian  Advocate  in  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge, d.  1S59):  A  History  of  the  Articles  of  Religion;  to  which  is  added  a  Series  of  Documents  from  A.  D. 
1536  to  A.D.  1615,  together  with  Illustrations  from  Contemporary  Sources.  Cambridge,  1S51  (reprinted  in 
Philadelphia,  1S52) ;  second  edition,  thoroughly  revised,  Cambridge,  1S59  (pp.  399). 

(b)  Commentaries. 

Thomas  R.  Jones:  An  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  by  the  Reformers;  being  Extracts  from  the 
Works  of  Latimer,  Ridley,  Cranmer,  Hooper,  Jewell,  Philpot,  Pilkington,  Coverdale,  Beam,  Bradford,  Sandys, 
Grindal,  Whitgift,  etc.    London,  1S49. 

Thomas  Rogers  (Chaplain  to  Archbishop  Bancroft) :  The  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
an  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  London,  1579,  15S5,  1G0T,  and  other  editions  (under  various 
titles).  Newly  edited  by  J.  J.  S.  Perowne,  for  '  The  Parker  Society,'  Cambridge,  1S54.  This  is  the  oldest 
commentary,  and  was  countenanced  by  Bancroft,  to  whom  it  was  dedicated. 

Sarcophagiam,  id  est,  ore  corporali  sumi  corpus  Christi  nalurale,  sangainolcntum,  sine  ulla 
mutatione  et  transsubstantiatione.'1 — Niemeyer,  pp.  544  sq.  The  severe  judgment  of  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  was  a  retaliation  for  the  condemnation  of  Zwingli  and  Calvin  as  sacra- 
mentarians  by  a  Lutheran  Synod  of  Ilermanstadt.     Ebrard,  Vol.  III.  p.  424. 

1  '  Rejiclmus  et  eorum  delirium,  qui  Citnam  Domini  vacuum  signum,  vcl  Christi  absentis 
tantum  memoriam  his  signis  recoil  docent.  Nam  sicut  Chrlstus  est  Amen,  testis  FIDELI8, 
VERAX,  Veritas  ET  vita  .  .  .  itci  Cmna  Domini  est  prcesentls  et  infinltl  aternique  Filii  Dei 
unigenitl  a  Patre  memorla:  qiu  se  et  sua  bona,  carnem  suam  et  sangulnem  suum,  id  est,  panem 
vivum  et  potum  calestem,  Spiritwt  Sanrti  ope  per  verbum  promissionis  grathc,  offert  et  exhibit 
electlsjide  vera  evangclium  Christi  aj>prehendentibus.' — Page  545. 


§  70.  THE  ENGLISH  REFORMATION.  593 

Gilbert  Bcrnet  (Bishop  of  Salisbury  :  b.  1643,  d.  171.',) :  An  Exposition  of  the  TJiirty-ninc  A 
the  Church  of  England.    Oxford,  lsu  (Clarendon  Press),  aud  other  editions.    Revised,  with  Doles,  by 
James  K.  Page. 

Richard  L.vrr.r.NCE,  LL.D.  (formerly  Reg.  Prof,  of  Hebrew  in  Oxford) :  An  Attempt  to  illustrate  those 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  which  the  Calrinists  improperly  consider  as  CalviniaticaL  Iu  eight  ser- 
mons (Bamptou  Lectures  for  1S34).    Oxford,  third  edition,  1S38. 

Edward  Ha  hold  Browne  (b.  1811,  Bishop  of  Winchester  since  1873,  formerly  of  Ely;:  An  Exposition 
of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles, Historical  and  Doctrinal.  London,  1850-58, iu  two  vols.:  since  often  repub- 
lished in  one  vol.  (ninth  edition,  18T1) ;  Amer.  edition,  with  notes  by  Bishop  Williams  of  Connecticut, 
New  York,  1S65. 

A.  P.  Fobbbb  (Bishop  of  Brechin) :  An  Explanation  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  with  an  Epistle  dedica- 
tory to  the  Res.  /:.  B.  Pussy,  D.K.    Oxford  and  London,  186T.    (High  (lunch.) 

R.W.  Jli.k  (Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford) :  The  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  ex- 
plained in  a  Series  of  Lectures.    Edited  by  J.  It.  King.    London,  18T8. 

II.  History  of  tue  Reformation  in  England. 

(a)  Documents  and  Contemporary  Sources. 

Works,  of  tue  English  Reformers,  published  by  'The  Parker  Society,' Cambridge,  1841-54,  fifty-four 

vols.    Contains  the  writings  of  Craumer,  Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Sandys, Coverdale,  Jewell,  Grindai, 

Whitgift,  the  Zurich  Letters,  etc. 

The  State  Calendars,  now  being  published  under  the  direction  of  the  Master  of  the  Rolls. 

John  Foxe  (one  of  the  Marian  exiles,  d.  15S7) :  Acts  and  Monuments  of  the  Church,  or  Book  of  Martyrs. 
London,  1503,  aud  often  in  three  or  more  volumes.    Not  accurate,  but  full  of  facts  told  in  a  forcible  style. 

Wilkins:  Concilia  Magnce  Brittanice  et  Hibernice  (440-1717).    Four  vols,  folio.    1736  sq. 

E.  Cardwell:  Documentary  A7inals  of  the  Church  of  England  (1546-1710),  Oxford,  1S44,  2  vols.;  fij  n,,- 
dalia  (1547-1717),  Oxford,  1S42,  2  vols. ;  Tlie  Reformation  of  the  Laics  in  the  Reigns  of  Henry  VIII.,  Edward 
VI.,  and  Elizabeth,  Oxford,  1S50. 

(b)  Historical  Works. 

Joiin  Strype  (a  most  laborious  and  valuable  contributor  to  the  Church  history  and  biography  of  the 
English  Reformation  period  ;  b.  1643,  d.  1737) :  Ecclesiastical  Memorials  .  .  .  of  the  Church  of  England 
■under  King  Henry  VI II.,  Edward  VI.,  and  Queen  Mary  (London,  1725-37 ;  Oxford,  1S22,  3  vols.):  Annals 
of  the  Reformation  .  .  .  in  the  Church  of  England  during  Queen  Elizabeth's  Happy  Reign  (London,  1738; 
Oxford,  1S24, 4  vols. ;  Memorials  of  A  rchbishops  Cranmer  (2  vols.),  Parker  (3  vols.),  Grindai  (1  vol.),  Whit- 
gift (3  vols.).    See  his  Complete  Works,  Oxford,  1S22-40,  in  twenty-seven  vols. 

Gilbert  Bcrnet:  The  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England.  Londou,1670  sqq.,  7  vols., 
and  other  editions.    New  edition  by  Pocock. 

C.  Hardwick:  History  of  the  Christian  Church  during  the  Reformation,  third  edition  (by  W.  Sttlbbs). 
London,  1S73,  pp.  165-249. 

Fred.  Seeuoum:  The  Oxford  Reformers,  Colet,  Erasmus,  and  More.  London,  1S69.  The  same:  The  Era 
of  the  Protestant  Revolution.    1S74. 

The  Church  Histories  of  England  and  of  the  English  Reformation  by  J.Collier  (non-Jnror), Dons 
(Rom.  Cath.),  Tiios.  Fuller  (Royalist;  Church  History  of  Great  Britain  until  1658  and  The  Worthies 
of  England),  Neal  (History  of  the  Puritans),  Ueylin,  Soames,  Massinoueard,  Suort,  Bunt,  Waddino- 
ton,  Weber,  Merer  D'ArntONE,  Fisher. 

Also  the  secular  Histories  of  England  by  IItme,  Maoaulav  (the  introductory  chapter),  Hallam 
{Conetitut  Hist.),  Lingaud  (Rom.  Cath.),  Knigut,  Fiioude,  Ranke,  Green,  iu  the  sections  on  the  Kcf- 
ormation  period. 

The  last  and,  in  its  final  results,  the  most  important  chapter  in  the 
history  of  the  Eefonnation  was  acted  in  that  remarkable  island  which 
has  become  the  chief  stronghold  of  Protestantism  in  Europe,  the  ruler 
of  the  waves,  and  the  pioneer  of  modern  Christian  civilization  and 
constitutional  liberty.  The  Anglo-Saxon  race  is  intrusted  by  Provi- 
dence with  the  sceptre  of  empire  in  its  eastward  and  westward  coarse. 
The  defeat  of  the  Armada  was  that  turning-point  in  history  when  the 
dominion  in  which  the  sun  never  sets  passed  from  Roman  Catholic 
Spain  to  Protestant  England. 

The  Eefonnation  in  Britain,  favored  by  insular  independence,  was 


594  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

a  national  political  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  movement,  and  carried  with 
it  Church  and  State,  rulers  and  subjects ;  while  on  the  Continent  it  en- 
countered a  powerful  opposition  and  Jesuitical  reaction.  It  began  with 
outward  changes,  and  was  controlled  by  princes,  bishops,  and  states- 
men rather  than  by  scholars  and  divines ;  while  in  other  countries  the 
reform  proceeded  from  the  inner  life  of  religion  and  the  profound 
study  of  the  Scriptures.  Good  and  bad  men,  from  pure  and  low  mo- 
tives, took  part  in  the  work,  but  were  overruled  by  a  higher  power 
for  a  noble  end.1  England  produced  no  reformers  of  such  towering  ge- 
nius, learning,  and  heroism  as  Luther  and  Calvin,  but  a  large  number  of 
learned  and  able  prelates  and  statesmen,  and  a  noble  army  of  martyrs 
worthily  led  by  Cranmer,  Latimer,  Ridley,  Hooper,  and  Rogers.  It  dis- 
played less  theological  depth  and  originality  than  Germany  and  Swit- 
zerland, where  the  ideas  and  principles  of  the  Reformation  were 
wrought  out,  but  a  greater  power  of  practical  organization.  It  gave 
the  new  ideas  a  larger  field  of  action  and  application  to  all  the  rami- 
fications of  society  and  all  departments  of  literature,  which  entered 
upon  its  golden  age  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  and  which,  in  wealth  of 
genius  and  in  veneration  for  the  truths  of  Christianity,  far  surpassed 
that  of  any  other  nation.2  Although  at  first  despotic  and  intoler- 
ant, English  Protestantism  by  its  subsequent  development  became  the 
guardian  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  The  fierce  struggle  between 
'the  old  and  new  learning'  lasted  for  more  than  a  century,  and  passed 
through  a  baptism  of  blood  which  purified  and  fertilized  the  soil  of 
England  and  became  the  seed  of  new  colonies  and  empires  beyond 
the  sea. 

The  British  Reformation  is  full  of  romantic  interest,  and  devel- 
oped a  great  variety  of  strongly  marked  characters,  who  still  excite 

1  Robert  Southey  (Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  I.  p.  2GG,  Harpers'  edition)  says:  '  In  England  the 
best  people  and  the  worst  combined  in  bringing  about  the  Reformation,  and  in  its  progress 
it  bore  evident  marks  of  both.' 

2  Fisher  (The  Reformation,  p.  f>33) :  'The  boldness  and  independence  of  the  Elizabethan 
writers,  their  fearless  and  earnest  pursuit  of  truth,  and  their  solemn  sense  of  religion,  apart 
from  all  asceticism  and  superstition,  are  among  the  effects  of  the  Reformation.  This  is  equal- 
ly true  of  them  as  it  is  of  Milton  and  of  the  greatest  of  their  successors.  Nothing  save  the 
impulse  which  Protestantism  gave  to  the  English  mind,  and  the  intellectual  ferment  which 
was  engendered  by  it,  will  account  for  the  literary  phenomena  of  the  Elizabethan  times.' 
Even  that  brilliant  and  racy  French  critic,  Taine,  must  acknowledge  the  constant  influence 
of  'the  grave  and  grand  idea  of  religion,  of  faith  and  prayer,'  upon  such  writers  ns  Bacon, 
Raleigh.  Burton,  and  Sir  Thomas  Browne. 


§  70.  THE  ENGLISH  REFORMATION.  595 

the  passions,  prejudices,  and  contradictory  judgments  of  writers  and 
readers.  It  is  a  succession  of  tragedies;  it  abounds  in  actions  and 
reactions,  in  crimes  and  punishments,  in  changes  of  fortune,  in  men 
and  women  elevated  to  the  pinnacle  of  power  and  happiness  and 
hurled  to  the  abyss  of  disgrace  and  misfortune.  It  furnishes  a  striking 
illustration  of  the  truth  that  the  history  of  the  Church,  as  well  as  of 
the  world,  is  a  judgment  of  the  Church.  This  idea  of  righteous  retri- 
bution imparts  a  thrilling  moral  effect  to  the  tragedies  of  Shakspere, 
who  lived  at  the  close  of  these  shifting  scenes,  and  gathered  from 
them  his  marvelous  knowledge  of  human  nature,  in  all  its  phases  and 
conditions,  such  as  no  poet  ancient  or  modern  ever  possessed. 

The  richest  fruit  of  the  British  Reformation  is  the  translation  of  the 
Bible — the  work  of  three  generations,  the  best  ever  made,  and  to 
this  day  the  chief  nursery  of  piety  among  the  Protestant  denomina- 
tions of  the  English-speaking  race ;  and  next  to  it  that  noble  respon- 
sive liturgy  which  animates  and  regulates  the  devotions  of  the  Epis- 
copal communion  on  land  and  sea.  These  two  works  are  truly  na- 
tional institutions,  and  command  a  veneration  and  affection  above  all 
other  books,  not  only  by  their  sacred  contents,  but  also  by  their  clas- 
sical diction,  which  sounds  in  the  ear  like  solemn  music  from  a  higher 
and  better  world. 

EPOCHS    OF    THE   ENGLISH    REFORMATION. 

The  history  of  the  English  Reformation  naturally  divides  itself  into 
four  periods : 

1.  From  1527  to  154-7.  The  abolition  of  the  authority  of  the  Ro- 
man See  over  England  and  the  dissolution  of  the  monasteries  by 
Henry  VIII.  This  was  chiefly  a  destructive  process  and  a  political 
change  of  the  supreme  governing  power  of  the  Church,  prompted  by 
unworthy  personal  motives,  but  it  prepared  the  way  for  the  religious 
reformation  under  the  following  reign.  The  despotic  and  licentious 
monarch,  whom  Leo  X.  rewarded  for  his  book  against  Luther  with  the 
title  'Defender  of  the  Faith,'  remained  a  Catholic  in  belief  and  senti- 
ment till  his  death;  he  merely  substituted  king-worship  for  pope- 
worship,  a  domestic  tyranny  for  a  foreign  one,  by  cutting  off  the  papal 
tiara  from  the  episcopal  hierarchy  and  placing  his  own  crown  on  the 
bleeding  neck;  but  he  could  not  have  effected  so  great  a  revolution 


596  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

without  the  sanction  of  Parliament  and  a  strong  clerical  and  popular 
current  towards  ecclesiastical  independence  and  reform,  which  showed 
itself  even  before  his  breach  with  Rome,  and  became  dominant  under 
his  successor. 

2.  From  1547  to  1553.  The  introduction  of  the  Reformation  in 
doctrine  and  worship  under  Edward  VI.,  Henry's  only  son,  and  the 
commencing  conflict  between  the  semi-Catholic  and  the  Puritan  tend- 
encies. The  ruling  genius  of  this  period  was  Archbishop  Cranmer,  the 
Melanchthon  of  England,  who  by  cautious  trimming  and  facile  sub- 
servience to  Henry  had  saved  the  cause  of  the  Reformation  through 
the  trials  of  a  despotic  reign  for  better  times. 

3.  From  1553  to  1558.  The  papal  reaction  under  Henry's  oldest 
daughter,  Mary  Tudor,  that  '  unhappiest  of  queens  and  wives  and 
women.'1  She  had  more  Spanish  than  English  blood  in  her  veins, 
and  revenged  the  injustice  done  to  her  mother,  Catharine  of  Ara- 
gon.  Her  short  but  bloody  reign  was  the  period  of  Protestant  mar- 
tyrdom, which  fertilized  the  soil  of  England,  and  of  the  exile  of 
about  eight  hundred  Englishmen,  who  were  received  with  open  arms 
on  the  Continent,  and  who  brought  back  clearer  and  stronger  views 
of  the  Reformation.  The  violent  restoration  of  the  old  system  inten- 
sified the  hatred  of  Popery,  and  forever  connected  it  in  the  English 
mind  with  persecution  and  bloodshed,  with  national  humiliation  and 
disgrace.  '  The  tale  of  Protestant  sufferings  was  told  with  wonderful 
pathos  and  picturesqueness  by  John  Foxe,  an  exile  during  the  perse- 
cution, and  his  "  Book  of  Martyrs,"  which  was  (under  the  following 
reign)  set  up  by  royal  order  in  the  churches  for  public  reading,  passed 
from  the  churches  to  the  shelves  of  every  English  household.' 

4.  From  1558  to  1603.  The  permanent  establishment  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  England  in  opposition  both  to  Roman  Catholic  and 
to  Puritan  dissent  during  the  long,  brilliant,  and  successful  reign  of 
Queen  Elizabeth. 

This  masculine  woman,  the  last  and  the  greatest  of  the  Tudors,  in- 
herited the  virtues  and  vices  of  her  Catholic  father  (Henry  VIII.)  and 
her  Protestant  mother  (Anne  Boleyn).2     She  was  endowed  with  rare 

1  Tennyson,  in  Queen  Mary,  act  v.  scene  2. 

2  Her  character  is  admirably  drawn  by  Fronde,  and  by  the  latest  historian  of  England, 
J.  R.  Green,  A  Short  History  of  the  English  People  (London,  1875),  pp.  3G2-370. 


§  16.  THE  ENGLISH  REFORMATION.  597 

gifts  by  nature,  and  favored  with  the  best  education;  she  was  brave 

and  bold,  yet  prudent  and  cautious;  fond  of  show,  jewelry  and  dress, 
yet  parsimonious  and  mean;  coldly  intellectual,  high-tempered,  capri- 
cious, haughty,  selfish,  and  vain,  and  well  versed  in  the  low  arts  of 
intrigue  and  dissimulation.  She  trusted  more  in  time  and  her  good 
fortune  than  in  Almighty  God.  She  was  destitute  of  religious  en- 
thusiasm, and  managed  the  Church  question  from  a  purely  political 
point  of  view.  She  dropped  the  blasphemous  title  'Head  of  the 
Church  of  England,'  and  was  content  to  be  the  supreme  'Governor' 
of  the  same.1  But  with  this  limitation  the  royal  supremacy  was  the 
chief  article  in  her  creed,  and  she  made  her  bishops  feel  her  power. 
'Proud  prelate,'  she  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  when  he  resisted  the 
spoliation  of  his  see  in  favor  of  one  of  her  favorites,  'you  know 
what  you  were  before  I  made  you  what  you  are !  If  you  do  not  im- 
mediately comply  with  my  request,  by  God !  I  will  unfrock  you.'  As 
a  matter  of  taste  she  liked  crucifixes,  images,  and  the  gorgeous  dis- 
play of  the  Roman  hierarchy  and  ritual ;  and,  being  proud  of  her  own 
virginity,  she  disliked  the  marriage  of  the  clergy;  she  insulted  the 
worthy  wife  of  Archbishop  Parker  by  refusing  to  call  her  *  Madam,'  the 
usual  address  to  married  ladies.  But  she  had  the  sagacity  to  perceive 
that  her  true  interests  were  identified  with  the  cause  of  Protestant- 
ism, and  she  maintained  it  with  a  strong  arm,  aided  by  the  ablest 
council  and  the  national  sentiment,  against  the  excommunication  of 
the  Pope,  the  assaults  of  Spain,  and  the  intrigues  of  the  Jesuits  at 
home.  This  is  the  basis  of  the  popularity  which  she  enjoyed  as  a 
ruler  with  all  classes  of  her  subjects  except  the  Ilomanists. 

Her  ecclesiastical  policy  at  home  was  a  system  of  compromise  in  the 
interest  of  outward  uniformity.  It  was  fortified  by  a  penal  code  which 
may  be  explained  though  not  justified  by  the  political  necessities  ami 

1  Parliament,  in  the  act  of  supremacy  (1584),  declared  King  Henry,  hifl  heirs  and  su< 
to  be  'the  only  supreme  head,  on  earth,  of  the  Church  of  England,  called  the  Anglicana  /■>- 
clesia.'  For  denying  this  royal  supremacy  in  spiritual  matters,  More  and  Fisher  Buffered 
martyrdom.  The  thirty-seventh  of  the  Elizabethan  Articles  modifies  it  considerably,  bul  Mill 
claims  for  'the  Queen's  Majesty  the  chief  power  in  this  Realm  of  England,  .  .  .  unto  whom  the 
chief  government  of  all  estates,  whether  they  he  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  in  all  causes  doth  apper- 
tain,' etc  Elizabeth  disclaimed  the  sacerdotal  character  which  her  father  ha.l  assumed,  hat 
retained  and  exercised  the  vast  power  <-f  appointing  her  prelates,  summoning  and  dissolving 
convocations,  sanctioning  creeds  and  canons,  and  punishing  heresies  ami  all  manner  of  abuses 
with  the  civil  sword. 


598  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  general  intolerance  of  the  times,  but  which  was  nevertheless  cruel 
and  abominable,  and  lias  been  gradually  swept  away  by  the  progress 
of  a  nobler  and  more  enlightened  policy  of  religious  liberty. 

As  in  the  case  of  her  predecessors,  we  should  remember  that  the 
policy  of  Elizabeth  was  merely  the  outward  frame  which  surrounds 
the  true  inward  history  of  the  religious  movement  of  her  age.  The 
doctrinal  reformation  with  which  we  are  concerned  was  began  in  the 
second  and  completed  in  the  fourth  period. 

With  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  ended  the  great  conflict  with  Rome.  It 
was  followed  by  the  internal  conflict  between  Puritanism  and  Epis- 
copacy, which,  after  a  temporary  triumph  of  the  former  under  Crom- 
well, resulted  in  the  re-establishment  of  the  Episcopal  Church  and  the 
expulsion  of  Puritanism  (1G62),  until  another  revolution  (16SS)  brought 
on  the  flnal  downfall  of  the  treacherous  Stuarts  and  the  toleration  of 
the  Dissenters,  who  thereafter  represented,  in  separate  organizations, 
the  left  or  radical  wing  of  English  Protestantism. 

§  77.  The  Doctrinal  Position  of  the  Anglican  Church  and  her 
Relation  to  other  Churches. 

The  Reformed  Church  of  England  occupies  an  independent  posi- 
tion between  Romanism  on  the  one  hand,  and  Lutheranism  and  Cal- 
vinism on  the  other,  with  strong  affinities  and  antagonisms  in  both 
directions.  She  nursed  at  her  breasts  Calvinistic  Puritans,  Arminian 
Methodists,  liberal  Latitudinarians,  and  Romanizing  Tractarians  and 
Ritualists.  This  comprehensiveness  of  the  Church  as  a  whole  is  quite 
consistent  with  the  narrowness  and  exclusiveness  of  particular  parties. 
It  repels  and  attracts ;  it  caused  the  large  secessions  which  occurred 
at  critical  junctures  in  the  seventeenth,  eighteenth,  and  nineteenth 
centuries,  but  it  also  explains  the  individual  accessions  which  she  con- 
tinually though  quietly  receives  from  other  Churches. 

The  English  mind  is  not  theorizing  and  speculative,  but  eminently 
practical  and  conservative ;  it  follows  more  the  power  of  habit  than 
the  logic  of  thought ;  it  takes  things  as  they  are,  makes  haste  slowly, 
mends  abuses  cautiously,  and  aims  at  the  attainable  rather  than  the 
ideal.  The  Reformation  in  England  was  less  controlled  by  theology 
than  on  the  Continent,  and  more  complicated  with  ecclesiastical  and 
political  issues.    Anglican  theology  is  as  much  embodied  in  the  episco- 


§  77.  THE  DOCTRINAL  POSITION  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

pal  polity  and  the  liturgical  worship  ;ls  in  the  doctrinal  standards.  The 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  is  catholic,  though  purged  of  superstitious  ele- 
ments; the  Articles  of  Religion  are  evangelical  and  moderately  Calvin- 
istic.1  The  hierarchical,  sacerdotal,  and  sacramental  systems  of  relig- 
ion are  congenial  and  logically  inseparable ;  they  moderate  and  cheek 
the  Protestant  tendency,  and  if  unduly  pressed  they  become  Roman- 
izing. In  great  minds  we  often  find  great  antagonisms  or  opposite 
truths  dwelling  together  unreconciled  ;  while  partisans  look  only  at  one 
side.  Augustine,  Luther,  and  even  the  more  logical  Calvin,  believed 
in  divine  sovereignty  and  human  responsibility,  free  election  and  sac- 
ramental grace,  and  combined  reverence  for  Church  authority  with 
independence  of  private  judgment.  The  English  Church  leaves  room 
for  catholic  and  evangelical,  mediaeval  and  modern  ideas,  without  an 
attempt  to  harmonize  them ;  but  her  parties  are  one-sided,  and  differ 
as  widely  as  separate  denominations,  though  subject  to  the  same  bishop 
and  worshiping  at  the  same  altar.  She  is  composite  and  eclectic  in 
her  character,  like  the  English  language;  she  has  more  outward  uni- 
formity than  inward  unity;  she  is  fixed  in  her  organic  structure,  but 
elastic  in  doctrinal  opinion,  and  has  successively  allowed  opposite 
schools  of  theology  to  grow  up  which  claim  to  be  equally  loyal  to 
her  genius  and  institutions.  She  has  lost  in  England  by  those  peri- 
odical separations  which  followed  her  great  religious  movements  (the 
Puritan,  the  Methodist,  the  Anglo-Catholic)  nearly  one  half  of  the  na- 
tion she  once  exclusively  controlled;  yet  she  remains  to  this  day  the 
richest  and  strongest  national  Church  in  Protestant  Christendom,  and 
exercises  more  power  over  England  than  Luthcranism  does  over  Ger- 
many or  Calvinism  over  Switzerland  and  Holland.  In  the  United 
States  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  numerically  much  smaller 

1  The  ingenious  and  sophistical  attempt  of  Dr.  John  Henry  Newman,  in  his  famous  Tract 
Number  Ninety  (Oxford,  1841),  to  nn-Frotestantize  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  haa  been  best 
refuted  by  his  own  subsequent  transition  to  Rome.  As  n  specimen  of  this  non-natural  inter- 
pretation we  mention  what  he  says  on  Art.  XI.,  which  teaches  as  'a  mosl  wholesome  doctrine' 
'that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only.'  This  means  that  faith  is  the  sole  internal  instrument  of 
justification,  while  baptism  is  the  Bole  outward  means  and  instrument ;  it  does  not  interfere  with 
the  doctrine  that  good  works  arc  also  a  means  of  justification  (pp.21  Bqq.).  That  '-.  the  Prot- 
estant doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  which  the  Council  ofTrenl  condemned,  is  Iden- 
tical with  the  Romish  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  and  works,  which  the  same  Council 
taught.  A  more  learned  and  elaborate  work,  which  minimizes  the  Protestantism  of  the  Ar- 
ticles and  make-  them  hear  a  catholic  Bense,  is  the  Explanation  by  the  late  Bishop  Forbes  of 
Brechin,  above  quoted. 

Vol.  I. — Q  q 


000  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

than  most  of  the  denominations  which  in  England  were  cast  out  or 
voluntarily  went  out  from  the  established  Church  as  Non-conformists 
and  Dissenters;  but  she  will  always  occupy  a  commanding  position 
among  the  higher  classes  and  in  large  cities,  because  she  represents 
the  noble  institutions  and  literature  of  the  aristocratic,  conservative, 
and  venerable  Church  of  England. 

THE   MELANCI1THONIAN   INFLUENCE. 

Germany  received  Roman  Catholic  Christianity  from  England 
through  Winfrid  or  Boniface,  and  in  turn  gave  to  England  the  first 
impulse  of  the  evangelical  Reformation.  The  writings  of  Luther  were 
read  with  avidity  by  students  in  Oxford  and  Cambridge  as  early  as 
1527.  Cranmer  spent  some  time  in  Germany,  and  was  connected 
with  it  by  domestic  ties.1  Henry  VIII.  never  overcame  his  intense 
dislike  of  Luther,  kindled  by  their  unfortunate  controversy  on  the 
seven  sacraments,  and  strengthened  by  Luther's  breach  with  Eras- 
mus ;  but  he  respected  Melanchthon  for  his  learning  and  wisdom, 
and  invited  him  to  assist  in  reforming  the  English  Church.2  He  en- 
tered into  negotiations  with  the  Wittenberg  divines  and  the  Lutheran 
princes  of  the  Smalcald  League,  but  chiefly  from  political  motives 
and  without  effect. 

Under  Edward  VI.  the  influence  of  the  Melanchthonian  theology,  as 
embodied  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  (1530)  and  the  Suabian  Confession 
(1552),  became  more  apparent,  and  can  be  clearly  traced  in  Cranmer's 
earlier  writings,  in  some  of  the  Articles  of  Religion,  and  in  those  parts 
of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  which  were  borrowed  from  the  '  Con- 
sultation' of  Archbishop  Hermann  of  Cologne,  compiled  by  Bucer  and 
Melanchthon  (1543).  Hence  the  English  Church  has  been  called  some- 
times by  Lutheran  divines  an  Ecclesia  Luther anizans. 

1  His  second  wife,  whom  he  secretly  married  in  1532,  before  his  elevation  to  the  primacy 
(March,  1533),  was  a  niece  of  the  Lutheran  divine  Osiander  at  Nuraberg,  who  subsequently 
excited  a  violent  controversy  about  the  doctrine  of  justification. 

2  Melanchthon  was  twice  called  to  England  in  1534  ('  Ego  jam  alteris  Uteris  in  Angliam 
vocor).  In  1535  he  dedicated  an  edition  of  his  Loci  to  Henry,  at  the  request  of  Barnes,  who 
thought  it  would  promote  the  progress  of  the  Reformation.  Henry  renewed  the  invitation  in 
1 538,  and  requested  the  Elector  of  Saxony  to  send  '  Dominion  Philippwn  Mel<incthonem,  in  cuius 
excellenti  eruditione  et  sano  judicio  a  bonis  omnibus  multa  spcs  reposita  est,'  together  with  some 
other  learned  men,  to  England.  Under  Edward  VI.  Melanchthon  was  called  again,  and  in  1553 
he  was  appointed  Professor  of  Divinity  in  Cambridge,  but  he  never  saw  England.  See  Laurence, 
I.  c.  pp.  198  sqq.  j  Hardwiek,  Hist,  of  the  Art.  pp.  52  sqq. ;  C.  Schmidt,  Phil.  Mel.  pp.  283-289. 


§  77.  THE  DOCTRINAL  POSITION  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH.     001 

But  the  peculiar  view-  of  Luther  on  the  real  presence  .and  the  ubiq- 
uity of  Christ's  body  fonnd  no  congenial  soil  in  England.  Cranmer 
himself  abandoned  them  as  early  as  Dec.  14, 1548,  when  a  public  dis- 
cussion  was  held  in  London  on  the  eucharist;  and  he  adopted,  to- 
gether with  Ridley,  the  Oalvinistic  doctrine  of  a  virtual  presence  and 
communication  of  Christ's  glorified  humanity.  He  held  that  '  Christ  is 
figuratively  in  the  bread  and  wine,  and  spiritually  in  them  that  wor- 
thily cat  the  bread  and  drink  the  wine;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  con- 
tended that  our  blessed  Lord  is  really,  carnally,  and  corporally  in 
heaven  alone,  from  whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead.'1  This  doctrinal  change  was  embodied  (1552)  in  the  revision 
of  the  first  Prayer-Book  of  Edward  YI. ;  the  prayer  of  oblation  was 
converted  into  a  thanksgiving,  and  the  old  formula  of  distribution. 
which  was  compatible  even  with  a  belief  in  transubstantiation  ('The 
Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'  etc.),  was  replaced  by  another  which 
a  Zwinglian  may  approve  ('Take  and  eat  this  in  remembrance  that 
Christ  died  for  thee,'  etc.).  In  the  Elizabethan  Service-Book  the  two 
formulas  were  combined  (the  second  being  an  explanation  of  the  first  j, 
and  have  ever  since  continued  in  use. 

In  the  violent  controversies  which  agitated  Germany  after  Luther's 
death,  and  which  led  to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  England  sided  with 
the  milder  Melanchthonian  school.  Queen  Elizabeth  made  an  effort 
to  prevent  the  adoption  of  the  Formula  and  the  condemnation  of  the 
Reformed  doctrines.2 


1  So  his  ultimate  doctrine  is  correctly  stated  by  Hardwkk,  ffiatorg  of  tl«'  Reformation, 
p.  209.  Cranmer  wrote  very  extensively  on  the  eucharist,  and  especially  against  the  Romish 
mass.  See  the  first  volume  of  the  Parker  Society's  edition  of  his  Works.  Hi-  change  of 
view  is  due  to  the  influence  of  the  book  of  Ratramnus  (Bertram)  against  transubstantia- 
tion, the  tract  of  Bullinger  on  the  eucharist,  and  the  personal  influence  of  Ridley,  Peter 
Martyr,  and  Bucer.  Bishop  Browne  saya  (on  Art.  XXVIII.  Sect  I.  \>.  71 1  of  the  Am.  ed  I: 
'Both  Cranmer  and  Ridley,  to  whom  we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  our  formularies,  maintained 
the  doctrine  nearly  identical  with  thai  maintained  by  Calvin,  and  before  bim  by  Bertram.  .  .  . 
These  sentiment*  of  our  Reformers  were  undoubtedly  embodied  in  par  Liturgy  and  Articles. 

.  .  .  In  the  main,  Calvin.  Melanrhlhun  in  his  later  riewa,  and  the  Anglican  divines  were  at 

one.'    John  Knox  entirely  agreed  with  Cranmer  iii  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  the  eucharist, 
and  he  objected  only  to  the  kneeling  posture,  which  led  to  the  insertion  of  :l  special  rubric  in 
die  Praver-Book.    See  Lorimer,  Jolm  Kwx  in  England,  pp.  tfl  and  l  (.'». 
3  See  above,  \>.  o'6~>. 


002  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

THE    ZWINGLIAN    AND    CALVINISTIC   INFLUENCE. 

The  doctrines  of  Zurich  and  Geneva  began  to  spread  in  England 
under  the  reign  of  Edward  YI.  Calvin,  whose  books  were  prohibited 
by  Henry  VIII.  (in  1542),  corresponded  freely  with  the  Duke  of  Som- 
erset (Oct.  22,  1548),  Edward  VI.,  and  Cranmer,  and  urged  a  more 
thorough  reformation  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  a  better  educa- 
tion of  the  clergy,  but  left  episcopacy  untouched,  which  he  was  will- 
ing to  tolerate  in  England  as  well  as  in  the  kingdom  of  Poland.1 
His  controversy  with  Pighius  about  predestination  excited  considera- 
ble sympathy  in  England  (1552),  and  his  doctrine  of  the  eucharist 
gained  ground  more  rapidly.  Cranmer  called  to  his  aid  prominent 
Reformed  and  Unionistic  divines,  such  as  Peter  Martyr,  Ochino,  Laski, 
Bucer,  and  Fagius,  and  gave  them  high  positions  in  Oxford,  Cam- 
bridge, and  London.  It  is  characteristic  of  his  catholicity  of  spirit 
that  in  1548  he  conceived  the  plan  of  inviting  Melanchthon  of  Wit- 
tenberg, Bullinger  of  Zurich,  Calvin  of  Geneva,  Bucer  of  Strasburg, 
Peter  Martyr,  Laski,  and  others  to  Lambeth  for  the  purpose  of  draw- 
ing up  a  union  creed  for  all  evangelical  Churches.2  John  Hooper, 
who  had  resided  two  years  at  Zurich,  was  made  Bishop  of  Gloucester 
(1551),  although  he  went  even  beyond  Bullinger  and  Calvin  in  mat- 
ters of  clerical  vestments  and  ceremonies,  and  may  be  called  a  fore- 
runner of  Puritanism.  He  died  heroically  for  his  faith  under  Mary 
(1555).  John  Knox  was  elected  one  of  the  chaplains  of  Edward  VI., 
and  was  offered  the  bishopric  of  Rochester,  which  he  declined.  He 
exerted  considerable  influence,  and  would  no  doubt  have  retained  it 
under  Elizabeth,  had  he  not  (together  with  his  teacher  and  friend, 

1  Stalielin,  Vol.  II.  pp.  51  sqq.,  discusses  at  length  Calvin's  correspondence  with  England. 
Hardwick  speaks  of  '  the  obtrusive  letters  of  Calvin  ;'  but  his  counsel  was  solicited  from  every 
direction.  In  the  controversy  of  the  English  exiles  at  Frankfort  both  parties  (Cox  and  Knox) 
appealed  to  the  Genevan  Reformer  for  advice.  Cranmer  requested  him  to  write  often  to  King 
Edward.  See  Calvin  to  Farel,  June  15,  1551  {Opera,  Vol.  XIV.  fol.  133):  '  Cantuariensis 
nihil  me  utilius  facturum  admoimit,  quam  si  ad  Rerjem  sayius  scriberem.  Hoc  mild  longe 
gratius,  quam  si  ingenti  pecunice  sutnma  ditatus  forem.'  Viret  informed  Farel  in  the  same 
year  and  month  (ibid.  fol.  131),  that  the  king  sent  to  Calvin  'coronatos  centum  et  libellum  a 
se  conscript  um  gullice  in  papatttm,  cuius  censuram  a  Calvino  exigit.  .  .  .  Accepit  Calvinus  a 
mult  is  Anglice  proceribus  multas  Uterus  plenas  fiumanitatis.  Omnes  testantur  se  ejtis  ingenio 
et  laboribvs  valde  oblectari.     Hortantur  ut  S(cpe  scribal.     Protector  scripsit  nominatim.' 

-  Strype's  Memorials  of  Cra timer,  Vol.  I.  p.  581;  Hardwick,  History  of  the  Reformation, 
]..  '-ML'. 


§  77.  THE  DOCTRINAL  POSITION  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH.     608 

Calvin)  incurred  her  personal  dislike  by  his  trumpet-blast  'against 
the  monstrous  regimen  of  women,'  which  was  provoked  by  the  fatal 
misgovernment  of  her  sister.1 

Under  the  reign  of  Mary  the  English  exiles  formed  the  closest  ties 
of  personal  and  theological  friendship  with  the  Reformers  of  Switzer- 
land, and  on  their  return  under  Queen  Elizabeth  they  took  the  lead  in 
the  restoration  and  reconstruction  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  England. 
Bishop  Jewel,  the  final  reviser  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  wrote  to 
Peter  Martyr  at  Zurich  (Feb.  7, 15G2) :  'As  to  matters  of  doctrine,  we 
have  pared  every  thing  away  to  the  very  quick,  and  do  not  differ  from 
you  by  a  nail's  breadth ;  for  as  to  the  ubiquitarian  [i.  e.,  the  Luther- 
an] theory  there  is  no  danger  in  this  country.  Opinions  of  that  kind 
can  only  gain  admittance  where  the  stones  have  sense.'2 

Bullinger's  'Decades'  were  for  some  time  the  manual  of  the  clergy. 
Afterwards  Calvin's  'Institutes'  became  the  text-book  of  theology  in 
Oxford  and  Cambridge.3  Even  his  Catechism  was  ordered  to  be  used 
by  statute  in  the  universities  (15S7).  Next  to  him  his  friend  and  suc- 
cessor, Beza,  was  for  many  years  the  highest  theologieal  authority.  The 
University  of  Cambridge,  in  thanking  him  for  the  valuable  gift  <<f 
Codex  D  of  the  New  Testament,  in  15S1,  acknowledges  its  preference 
for  him  and  John  Calvin  above  any  men  that  ever  lived  since  the  days 
of  the  Apostles.4     Beza's  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  his  elegant 

1  The  influence  of  Knox  upon  the  English  Reformation  has  been  more  fully  brought  to 
light  from  the  Knox  Papers  in  Dr.  Williams's  library  at  London  by  Dr.  Peter  Lorimer,  in 
John  Knox  and  the  Church  of  England  (London,  1875),  pp.  98  sqq. 

2  Zurich  Letters,  second  series,  I.  100.  Prof.  Fisher,  in  quoting  this  passage,  a. Ids  the 
just  remark  (The  Reformation,  p.  341):  'There  is  no  need  in  bringing  further  evidence  <>n 
this  point,  since  the  Articles  themselves  explicitly  assert  the  Calvinistic  view  [on  the  Lord's 
Supper].  In  speaking  of  the  English  Reformers  as  Calvinists,  it  is  not  implied  thai  they 
derived  their  opinions  from  Calvin  exclusively,  or  received  them  on  his  authority.  They  were 
able  and  learned  men,  and  explored  the  Scriptures  and  the  patristic  writers  for  themselves, 
Yet  no  name  was  held  in  higher  honor  among  them  than  that  of  the  Genevan  Reformer.' 

3  When  Robert  Sanderson  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Oxford,  1642,  afterwards  Bishop  of 
Lincoln,  d.  1663)  began  to  study  theology  in  Oxford  about  1606,  lie  was  recommended,  as 
was  usual  at  that  time,  to  read  Calvin's  Institutes,  'as  the  best  and  perfectesl  Bystem  of  di- 
vinity, and  the  fittest  to  be  laid  as  the  ground-work  in  the  study  of  this  profession.'  Blunt, 
Dictionary  of  Sects,  etc.,  p.  97.     Comp.  Hooker's  judgment  below,  p.  607. 

*  'Nam  hoc  scito,  j>"s/  unices  scriptures  sacratissitnam  cognitionem,  nullot  unquam  a  omni 
memoria  temporum  tcripton  s  extitisse,  quos  memorabili  viro  Joanni  I  'alvino  tibique prerf  ramus. ' 
See  Scrivener's  Codex  Dezw,  Introd.  p.  \  i..  and  his  Introd.  to  tin  t  Htic.  <>ftlt<  Nt  u-  T,  shim,  nt, 
second  edition,  1874,  p.  111-'.  Scrivener  regards  this  veneration  as  an  ill  omen  'for  the  peace 
of  the  English  ('lunch.' 


QQ4.  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Latin  translation,  and  exegetical  notes  were  in  general  use  in  England 
during  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James,  and  were  made  the  chief 
basis  not  only  of  the  Geneva  Bible  (1560),  but  also  of  the  revision  of 
the  Bishops'  Bible  under  King  James  (1611).1 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  ruling  theology  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  the  latter  half  of  the  sixteenth  and  the  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century  was  Calvinistic.2  The  best  proof  of  this  is  fur- 
nished by  the  'Zurich  Letters,'3  extending  over  the  whole  period  of 
the  Reformation,  the  Elizabethan  Articles,  the  Second  Book  of  Hom- 
ilies (chiefly  composed  by  Bishop  Jewel),  the  Lambeth  Articles,  the 
Irish  Articles,  and  the  report  of  the  delegation  of  King  James  to  the 
Calvinistic  Synod  of  Dort* 

EPISCOPACY. 

This  theological  sympathy  between  the  English  and  the  Continental 
Churches  extended  also  to  the  principles  of  Church  government,  which 
was  regarded  as  a  matter  of  secondary  importance,  and  subject  to 
change,  like  rites  and  ceremonies,  'according  to  the  diversities  of 
countries,  times,  and  men's  manners,  so  that  nothing  be  ordained 
against  God's  Word'   (Art.  XXXIV.).     The  difference  was  simply 

1  See  my  tract  on  the  Revision  of  the  English  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  pp.  28,  29, 
and  Westcott's  History  of  the  English  Bible,  pp.  204  sq.  A  number  of  errors  in  the  English 
Version,  as  well  as  excellences,  can  be  traced  to  Beza. 

1  Macaulay  (in  his  introductory  chapter,  p.  39,  Boston  edition)  says :  '  The  English  Reform- 
ers were  eager  to  go  as  far  as  their  brethren  on  the  Continent.  They  unanimously  condemned 
as  anti-Christian  numerous  dogmas  and  practices  to  which  Henry  had  stubbornly  adhered, 
and  which  Elizabeth  reluctantly  abandoned.  Many  felt  a  strong  repugnance  even  to  things 
indifferent,  which  had  formed  part  of  the  polity  or  ritual  of  the  mystical  Babylon.' 

3  So  called  because  they  are  mostly  derived  from  the  extensive  Simler  Collection  of  Zurich, 
where  the  Marian  exiles,  as  Bishop  Burnet  says,  '  were  entertained  both  by  the  magistrates 
and  the  ministers — Bullinger,  Gualter,  Weidner,  Simler,  Lavater,  Gesner,  and  all  the  rest 
of  that  body — with  a  tenderness  and  affection  that  engaged  them  to  the  end  of  their  lives 
to  make  the  greatest  acknowledgments  possible  for  it.'  The  correspondence  was  published 
by  the  Parker  Society  (Cambridge,  1812-47,  in  four  vols.),  in  two  series,  the  first  of  which 
covers  the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII.,  Edward  VI.,  and  Mary;  the  second  and  more  important 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth  (1558-1602).  They  include  letters  of  most  of  the  English  Reformers 
and  leading  bishops  and  divines  to  the  Swiss  Reformers,  with  their  answers,  and  are  noble 
monuments  of  Christian  and  theological  friendship. 

*  The  Suffrage  of  the  Divines  of  Great  Britain  concerning  the  Articles  of  the  Synod  of 
Dort  signed  by  them  in  the  Year  1619.  London,  1(524.  There  is,  however,  at  the  close  of 
this  document  (p.  170)  a  wholesome  warning  'concerning  the  mystery  of  ?■fj>robatio>l,,  that 
it  be  'handled  sparingly  and  prudently,'  and  that  'those  fearful  opinions,  and  such  as  have  no 
ground  in  the  Scriptures,  be  carefully  avoided,  which  tend  rather  unto  desperation  than  edi- 
fication, and  do  bring  upon  some  of  the  Reformed  Churches  a  grievous  scandal.' 


§  77.  THE  DOCTRINAL  POSITION  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH.     605 

this :  the  English  Reformers,  being  themselves  bishops,  retained  epis- 
copacy as  an  ancient  institution  of  the  Church  catholic,  but  fully  ad- 
mitted (with  the  most  learned  fathers  and  schoolmen,  sustained  by 
modern  commentators  and  historians)  the  original  identity  of  the 
offices  of  bishop  and  presbyter;  while  the  German  and  Swiss  Re- 
formers, being  only  presbyters  or  laymen,  and  opposed  by  their  bish- 
ops, fell  back  from  necessity  rather  than  choice  upon  the  parity  of 
ministers,  without  thereby  denying  the  human  right  and  relative  im- 
portance or  expediency  of  episcopacy  as  a  superintendence  over  equals 
in  rank.  The  more  rigid  among  the  Puritans  departed  from  both  by 
attaching  primary  importance  to  matters  of  discipline  and  ritual,  and 
denouncing  every  form  of  government  and  public  worship  that  was 
not  expressly  sanctioned  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  most  learned  English  divines  before  the  period  of  the  Restora- 
tion, such  as  Cranmer,  Jewel,  Hooker,  Field,  Ussher,  Hall,  and  Stilling- 
fleet,  did  not  hold  the  theory  of  an  exclusive  jure  divino  episcopacy, 
and  fully  recognized  the  validity  of  presbyterian  ordination.  They 
preferred  and  defended  episcopacy  as  the  most  ancient  and  general 
form  of  government,  best  adapted  for  the  maintenance  of  order  and 
unity ;  in  one  word,  as  necessary  for  the  well-being,  but  not  for  the 
being  of  the  Church.  Cranmer  invited  the  co-operation  of  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists  even  in  the  most  important  work  of  framing  the  Articles 
of  Religion  and  revising  the  Liturgy,  without  questioning  their  ordina- 
tion ;  his  own  views  of  episcopacy  were  so  low  that  he  declared  '  elec- 
tion or  appointment  thereto  sufficient'  without  consecration,  and  he  was 
so  thoroughly  Erastian  that  after  the  death  of  Henry  he  and  his  suf- 
fragans took  out  fresh  commissions  from  the  new  king.1  His  three 
successors  in  the  primacy  (Parker,  Grindal,  and  AVhitgift)  did  not 
differ  from  him  in  principle.  'Archbishop  Grindal,'  says  Macaulay, 
'long  hesitated  about  accepting  a  mitre,  from  dislike  of  what  he  re- 
garded as  the  mummery  of  consecration.  Bishop  Parkhurst  uttered 
a  fervent  prayer  that  the  Church  of  England  would  propose  to  her- 
self the  Church  of  Zurich  as  the  absolute  pattern  of  a  Christian  com- 

1  In  accordance  with  an  act  of  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  Henry  VIII.,  which  declares  that 
'Archbishops  and  the  other  ecclesiastical  persons  had  no  manner  of  jurisdiction  ecclesiaatica! 
but  by.  under,  and  from  his  Royal  Majestj  ;  and  that  bis  [loyal  Majesty  was  tin-  only  Bupreme 
head  "of  the  Church  of  England  and  [reland,  to  whom,  by  holy  Scripture,  all  authority  an  1 

power  was  wholly  given,'  etc. 


606  THE  CEEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

inanity.  Bishop  Ponet  was  of  opinion  that  the  word  bishop  should 
be  abandoned  to  the  Papists,  and  that  the  chief  officers  of  the  puri- 
fied Church  should  be  called  sujierintendents?  The  nineteenth  of  the 
Elizabethan  Articles,  which  treats  of  the  visible  Church,  says  nothing 
of  episcopacy  as  a  mark  of  the  Church.  The  statute  of  the  thirteenth 
year  of  Elizabeth,  cap.  12,  permits  ministers  of  the  Scotch  and  other  for- 
eign Churches  to  exercise  their  ministry  in  England  without  re-ordina- 
tion. After  the  union  with  Scotland  the  English  sovereign  represented 
in  his  official  character  the  national  Churches  of  the  two  countries,  and 
when  in  Scotland,  Queen  Victoria  takes  the  communion  from  the  hands 
of  a  Presbyterian  parson.  Prominent  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland, such  as  Travers  (Provost  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin),  Whittingham 
(Dean  of  Durham),  Cartwright  (Professor  of  Divinity  in  Cambridge, 
afterwards  Master  of  Warwick  Hospital),  and  John  Morrison  (from 
Scotland),  had  received  only  Presbyterian  ordination  in  foreign  Church- 
es. Similar  instances  of  Scotch, French,  and  Dutch  Reformed  ministers 
who  were  received  simply  on  subscribing  the  Articles  occurred  down 
to  the  civil  war.  The  English  delegates  to  the  Synod  of  Dort,  which 
was  presided  over  by  a  presbyter,  were  high  dignitaries  and  doctors 
of  divinity,  one  of  them  (Carleton)  a  bishop,  and  two  others  (Dav- 
enant  and  Hall)  were  afterwards  raised  to  bishoprics.  Archbishop 
Ussher,  the  greatest  English  divine  of  his  age,  who  in  eighteen  years 
had  mastered  the  whole  mass  of  patristic  literature,  defended  episco- 
pacy only  as  a  presidency  of  one  presbyter  over  his  peers,  and  de- 
clared that  when  abroad  he  would  take  the  holy  communion  from  a 
Dutch  Reformed  or  French  minister  as  readily  as  from  an  Episcopa- 
lian clergyman  at  home. 

But  the  reigns  of  James  and  Charles  I.  form  the  transition.  In  the 
heat  of  the  Puritan  controversy  both  parties  took  extreme  ground, 
Presbyterians  and  Independents  as  well  as  Episcopalians,  and  claimed 
exclusive  Scripture  authority  and  divine  right  for  their  form  of  gov- 
ernment. Truth  and  error  were  mixed  on  both  sides;  for  the  primi- 
tive government  was  neither  Episcopalian  nor  Presbyterian  nor  Inde- 
pendent, but  apostolic ;  and  the  Apostles,  as  inspired  and  infallible 
teachers  and  rulers  of  the  whole  Church  of  all  ages,  have  and  can 
have  no  successors,  as  Christ  himself  can  have  none. 

The  doctrine  of  the  divine  and  exclusive  right  of  episcopacy  was 


§  77.  THE  DOCTRINAL  POSITION  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH.     G07 

first  intimated,  in  self-defense,  by  Bishop  Bancroft,  of  London  (in  a 
sermon,  15S9),  then  taught  and  rigidly  enfouced  by  Archbishop  Laud 
(1G33-1G45),  the  most  un-Protestant  of  English  prelates,1  and  was 
apparently  sanctioned  in  1662  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  which  for- 
bade any  person  to  hold  a  benefice  or  to  administer  the  sacraments 
before  he  be  ordained  a  priest  by  Episcopal  ordination.  By  this  ernel 
Act  two  thousand  ministers,  including  some  of  the  ablest  and  most 
worthy  men  in  England,  were  expelled  from  office  and  driven  into 
non-conformity. 

Notwithstanding  this  change,  the  Church  of  England  has  never  offi- 
cially and  expressly  pronounced  on  the  validity  or  invalidity  of  non- 
episcopal  orders  in  other  Churches;  she  only  maintains  that  no  one 
shall  officiate  in  her  pulpits  and  at  her  altars  who  has  not  received 
episcopal  ordination  according  to  the  direction  of  the  Prayer-book.2 

KICIIARD    HOOKER. 

The  truest  representative  of  the  conservative  and  comprehensive 
genius  of  Anglicanism  in  doctrine  and  polity,  towards  the  close  of 
the  Elizabethan  period,  is  the  'judicious  Hooker'  (1553-1G00),  who  to 
this  day  retains  the  respect  of  all  parties.  In  his  great  work  on  the 
'  Laws  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity'  he  went  to  the  root  of  the  rising  contro- 
versy between  Episcopacy  and  Puritanism,  by  representing  the  Church 
as  a  legislative  body  which  had  the  power  to  make  and  unmake  insti- 
tutions and  rites  not  affecting  the  doctrines  of  salvation  laid  down  in 
the  Scriptures  and  oecumenical  creeds. 

1  Laud  made  such  a  near  approach  to  Koine  that  he  was  offered  a  cardinal's  b 
1633).  When  he  first  maintained,  in  his  exercise  for  Bachelor  of  Divinity,  in  1604,  the  doc- 
trine that  there  could  be  no  true  Church  without  a  bishop,  he  was  reproved  by  the  authorities 
at  Oxford,  because  he  'cast  a  bone  of  contention  between  the  Church  of  England  and  the. 
Reformed  on  the  Continent.'  But  when  he  was  in  power  he  spared  no  effort  to  force  his 
theory  upon  reluctant  Puritans  in  England  and  Presbyterians  in  Scotland. 

a  The  facts  above  stated  are  acknowledged  by  the  best  authorities  of  the  <  Iburch  of  England 
of  all  parties,  such  as  Strype,  Burnet,  Lathbury,  Keble,  and  by  secular  historians  Such  :i>  Sal- 
lam  and  Macaulav.  Sec  a  calm  and  thorough  argument  of  Prof,  <;.  I'.  Fisher,  Tht  i 
of  the  Church  of  England  /<>  tin-  other  Protestant  Churches,  in  the  'New-Englander'  for  Jan- 
nary,  1874,  pp.  1l'1-17l'.  This  article  grew  out  ofa  newspaper  controversy  in  the  New  York 
Tribune,  occasioned  by  the  secession  of  Bishop  Cummins  after  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  at  New  York,  October,  1^7::.  This  interdenominational  Conference  had 
the  express  sanction  of  the  Archbishop  oft  'antcrbury  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Dean  of  Canter- 
bury, i 'iic  of  the  prominent  delegates.  Bee  Proceedings  (published  X.  V..  1874),  p.  7:'<>.  Comp. 
also  Dr.  Washburn,  Relation  of  the  Episcopal  Church  t<>  other  Christian  Bodies,  N.  V..  1874. 


OOg  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

He  defends  episcopacy,  but  without  invalidating  other  forms  of 
government,  or  unchurching  other  Churches.  lie  highly  commends 
Calvin's  'Institutes'  and  'Commentaries,'  and  calls  him  'incomparably 
the  wisest  man  that  ever  the  French  Church  did  enjoy.' x  He  gener- 
ally agrees  with  his  theology,  at  least  as  far  as  it  is  Augnstinian,  and 
he  clearly  adopts  his  view  of  the  eucharist — namely,  as  he  expresses  it, 
that  'Christ  is  personally  present,  albeit  a  part  of  Christ  be  corporally 
absent,'  and  '  that  the  real  presence  is  not  to  be  sought  for  in  the  sac- 
rament (i.  e.,  in  the  elements),  but  in  the  worthy  receiver  of  the  sacra- 
ment.' But  he  keeps  clear  of  the  logical  sharpness  and  rigor  of  Cal- 
vinism, and  subjects  it  to  the  higher  test  of  the  fathers  and  the  early 
Church.2 

His  respect  for  antiquity  and  his  chnrchly  conservatism  gained 
ground  after  his  death  in  the  conflict  with  Puritanism;  and  when 
the  Synod  of  Dort  narrowed  the  Calvinism  of  the  Reformation  to  a 
five-angular  scholastic  scheme,  Arminian  doctrines,  in  connection  with 
High-Church  principles,  spread  rapidly  in  the  Church  of  England. 
She  became,  as  a  body,  more  and  more  exclusive,  and  broke  off  the 
theological  interchange  and  fraternal  fellowship  with  non-episcopal 


1  He  also  says:  'Of  what  account  the  Master  of  Sentences  [Peter  Lombard]  was  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  the  same  and  more  amongst  the  preachers  of  Reformed  Churches  Calvin  had 
purchased ;  so  that  the  perfectest  divines  were  judged  they  which  were  skillfulest  in  Calvin's 
writings;  his  books  almost  the  very  canon  to  judge  both  doctrine  and  discipline  by.'  See 
Hooker's  lengthy  account  of  Calvin's  life  and  labors  in  the  Preface  to  his  work  on  the  Laws 
of  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  Vol.  I.  pp.  158-174,  edition  of  Dr.  John  Keble. 

2  Dr.  Keble,  who  was  a  High  Anglican  or  Anglo-Catholic  of  the  Oxford  school,  says  in  the 
Preface  to  his  edition  (p.  xcix.) :  '  With  regard  to  the  points  usually  called  Calvinistic,  Hooker 
undoubtedly  favored  the  tone  and  language,  which  has  since  come  to  be  characteristic  of  that 
school,  commonly  adopted  by  those  theologians  to  whom  his  education  led  him  as  guides  and 
models  on  occasions  where  no  part  of  Calvinism  comes  expressly  into  debate.  It  is  possible 
that  this  may  cause  him  to  appear,  to  less  profound  readers,  a  more  decided  partisan  of  Cal- 
vin than  he  really  was.  At  least  it  is  certain  that  on  the  following  subjects  he  was  himself 
decidedly  in  favor  of  very  considerable  modifications  of  the  Genevan  theology.'  Keble  then 
contrasts  the  strict  Calvinism  of  the  Lambeth  Articles  with  the  cautious  predestinarianism  of 
Hooker  as  expressed  in  a  fragment  which  teaches  eternal  election  and  the  final  perseverance 
of  the  foreknown  elect,  without  mentioning  reprobation,  and  makes  condemnation  depend  on 
'the  foresight  of  sin  as  the  cause.'  Judas  went  to  his  place,  which  was  'of  his  own  proper 
procurement.  Devils  were  not  ordained  of  God  for  hell-fire,  but  hell-fire  for  them  ;  and  for 
men  so  far  as  it  was  foreseen  that  men  would  be  like  them.'  There  are,  however,  as  Keble 
himself  admits,  passages  in  Hooker  which  are  more  strongly  Calvinistic,  especially  on  the  doc- 
trine of  the  perseverance  of  saints,  which  he  considers  hardly  consistent  with  his  doctrine  of 
universal  baptismal  grace.  But  both  these  doctrines  were  held  by  Augustine  likewise,  from 
whom  Hooker  borrowed  them. 


§  77.  THE  DOCTRINAL  POSITION  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH.    <J09 

Churches.  But  wc  hope  the  time  is  coming  when  the  Christian  com- 
munion which  characterized  her  formative  period  will  be  revived 
under  a  higher  and  more  permanent  form. 

Note.— My  friend,  the  Rev.  Dr.  K.  A.  WASHBURN,  of  New  York,  an  Episcopalian  divine  of 
rare  culture  and  liberality  of  spirit,  has  kindly  famished  the  following  contribution  to  this 
chapter,  which  will  give  the  reader  a  broad  inside  view  of  Anglicanism  under  the  rations 
phases  of  its  historic  development: 

'The  doctrinal  system  of  the  English  Church,  in  its  relation  to  other  Reformed  commu- 
nions, especially  needs  a  historic  treatment ;  and  the  want  of  this  has  led  to  grave  mistakes, 
alike  by  Protestant  critics  and  Anglo-Catholic  defenders.  It  was  one  in  its  positive  prin- 
ciples, as  opposed  to  the  dogmatic  falsehoods  of  Home,  with  the  great  bodies  of  the  Conti- 
nental Reformation;  yet  it  grew  as  a  national  Church,  while  those  were  more  fully  shaped 
by  the  theology  of  their  leaders — Luther,  Calvin,  and  Zwingli.  This  fact  is  the  key  of  its 
history.  England  felt  the  same  influences,  religious  and  social,  that  awakened  Europe,  but 
its  ideas  were  not  borrowed  from  abroad  ;  it  only  completed  the  growth  begun  in  the  day  of 
Wyclif.  Its  earliest  step  was  thus  a  national  one.  Nor  was  this,  as  has  been  proved  by  its 
latest  historians  from  the  record,  the  act  of  Henry  VIII.;  for  before  his  quarrel  the  Parlia- 
ment annulled  forever,  by  its  own  decree,  the  supremacy  of  Home.  It  could  not  be  expo  ted 
that  during  his  reign  the  standard  of  doctrine  should  be  greatly  changed;  and  it  should  be 
remembered  that  Luther  himself  renounced  only  by  degrees  the  idea  of  Papal  authority.  The 
"Articles  devised  to  establish  Christian  Quietness,"  probably  the  original  of  the  later  Cot- 
ton MSS.,  and  the  "Institution  of  a  Christian  Man"  following  it  in  1637,  show  that  the  dog- 
ma of  the  mass,  the  seven  sacraments,  intercessory  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  reverence  of  the 
Virgin  and  saints  as  mediators,  remained.  It  is  worth  noting,  however,  that  the  "Erudition" 
in  1543  gives  signs  of  change,  as  the  "  corporal"  presence  is  there  only  the  "very  body,  "and 
the  idea  of  special  intercession  is  modified  to  prayer  "for  the  universal  congregation  of  Chris- 
tian people,  quick  and  dead."  But  the  next  reign  proves  that  the  act  of  national  freedom  held 
in  solution  the  whole  result.  Ultramontanism  meant  then,  as  now,  not  only  the  feudal  head- 
ship of  Rome,  but  its  scholastic  and  priestly  system.  The  Reformation,  ripened  in  the  minds 
of  Cranmer,  Latimer,  Ridley,  and  other  devout  thinkers,  bore  its  fruit  in  the  revised  Liturgy 
and  Articles;  nor  can  any  thing  be  clearer  than  the  doctrinal  standard  of  the  Church,  if  we 
trace  it  with  just  historic  criticism  to  the  time  when  these  were  fixed. 

'The  Articles  ask  our  first  study.  It  is  plain  that  the  foundation-truths  of  the  Reformation — 
justification  by  faith,  the  supremacy  and  sufficiency  of  written  Scripture,  the  fallibility  of  even 
general  councils — are  its  basis.  Yet  it  is  just  as  plain  that  in  regard  of  the  specific  points  of 
theology,  which  were  the  root  of  discord  in  the  Continental  Churches,  as  election,  predestina- 
tion, reprobation,  perseverance,  and  the  rest,  these  Articles  speak  in  a  much  mote  moderate 
tone.  It  is  from  a  narrow  study  of  that  age  that  they  have  been  called  articles  of  compromise 
between  a  Calvinistic  and  Arminian  party.  There  were  some  of  extreme  views,  as  the  Lam- 
beth Articles  prove,  but  they  did  not  represent  the  body.  The  English  Reformers  had  been 
lued,  like  the  great  Genevan,  in  the  school  of  the  greater  Augustine;  and  his  richer,  more 
ethical  spirit  appears  in  not  only  the  Article-,  hut  in  the  writings  of  well-nigh  all  from  Hooper 

or  Whitgift  to  Hooker.      There  was  the  friendliest  intercourse  between  them  and  the  divines 

of  the  Continent.    Melanchthon,  Calvin,  Bucerwere  consulted  in  their  common  work.     But 

the  unity  of  the  national  Church,  not  the  system  of  a  school,  was  uppermost;   ami  we  may 
write  the  character  of  them  all  in  the  words  of  the  biographer  of  field,  that  "in  poinl 
treme  difficulty  he  did  not  think  lit  to  be  so  positive  in  defining  as  to  turn  matters  of  opinion 
into  matters  of  faith." 

•  We  may  thus  learn  the  structure  of  the  liturgical  system.    The  English  Reformers  aimed 

not  to  create  a  new,  but  to  reform  the  historic  Church  :  and  therefore  they  kept  the  ritual  with 
the  episcopate,  because  they  were  institutions  rooted  in  the  soil.  They  clid  not  unchurch  the 
bodies  of  the  Continent,  which  grew  under  quite  other  conditions.  No  theory  of  an  exclusive 
Anglicanism,  as  based  on  the  episcopate  and  genera]  councils,  was  held  by  them.  Such  a  view 
is  wholly  contradictory  to  their  on  n  Articles.  Bnl  the  historic  character  of  the  church  gave  it 
a  positive  relation  to  the  past :  and  they  sought  to  adhere  to  primitive  usage  as  tin'  basis  of  his- 
toric unity.     In  this  revision,  therefore,  they  weeded  out  all  Romish  errors,  the  mass,  the  five 

added  sacraments  the  legends  of  saints,  and  superstitious  rites  ;  but  they  kepi  the  ancient  ApOS- 
tles'  <  'reed  and  the  Nicene  in  the  forefront  of  the  Service,  the  »acramenlal  offices,  the  festivals 
and  fasts  relating  to  (  'hri-t  or  ApOStles  with  whatever  they  though)  pure.     Such  a  work  could 


610  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

not  be  perfect,  and  it  is  false  either  to  think  it  so  or  to  judge  it  save  by  its  time.  There  are 
archaic  forms  in  these  offices  which  retain  some  ideas  of  a  scholastic  theology.  The  view  of 
regeneration  in  the  baptismal  service,  decried  to-day  as  Romish,  can  be  found  by  any  scholar 
in  Melanchthon  or  in  Bullinger's  Decades.  We  may  see  in  some  of  the  phrases  of  the  commun- 
ion office  the  idea  of  more  than  a  purely  spiritual  participation,  yet  the  view  is  almost  identical 
with  that  of  Calvin.  The  dogma  of  the  mass  had  been  renounced,  but  the  Aristotelian  notions 
of  spirit  and  body  were  still  embodied  in  the  philosophy  of  the  time.  The  absolution  in  the 
office  for  the  sick,  and  like  features,  have  been  magnified  into  "Romanizing  germs  "on  one 
side  and  Catholic  verities  on  another.  The  Athanasian  Creed,  revered  by  all  the  Reformers, 
was  retained,  yet  not  as  that  of  Nice  in  the  body  of  the  worship ;  and  it  was  wisely  excluded 
by  the  American  revisers,  as  the  English  Church  will  by-and-by  displace  it,  because  a  better 
criticism  shows  it  to  be  the  metaphysical  deposit  of  a  later  time,  un-catholic  in  descent  or 
structure.  Such  is  the  rule  by  which  we  are  to  know  the  unity  of  the  English  system.  The 
satire,  so  often  repeated  since  Chatham,  that  the  Church  has  a  "  Popish  Liturgy  and  Calvin- 
istic  Articles,"  is  as  ignorant  as  it  is  unjust.  All  liturgical  formularies  need  revision ;  but  such 
a  task  must  be  judged  by  the  standard  of  the  Articles,  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Prayer-book,  and 
the  known  principles  of  the  men.  In  the  same  way  we  learn  their  view  of  the  Episcopate. 
Not  one  leading  divine  from  Hooper  to  Hooker  claimed  any  ground  beyond  the  fact  of  prim- 
itive and  historic  usage;  and  Whitgift,  the  typical  High-Churchman  of  the  Elizabethan  time, 
in  reply  to  the  charge  of  Cartwright  against  prelacy  as  unscriptural,  took  the  ground  that  to 
hold  it  "of  necessity  to  have  the  same  kind  of  government  as  in  the  Apostles'  time,  and  ex- 
pressed in  Scripture,"  is  a  "rotten  pillar."  The  Puritan  of  that  day  was  as  narrow  as  the 
narrow  Churchman  of  our  own. 

'  This  historic  sketch  of  the  English  Reformation  explains  its  whole  character.  It  had 
in  it  varied  elements,  but  by  no  means  contradictory.  Had  not  other  influences  dwarfed 
its  design,  it  would  have  done  much  to  harmonize  the  communions  of  Protestantism,  to 
blend  the  new  life  with  a  sober  reverence  for  the  historic  past.  Lutheranism  and  Calvin- 
ism did  each  its  part  in  the  development  of  a  profound  theology.  The  English  Church 
had  a  more  comprehensive  doctrine  and  a  more  conservative  order.  It  placed  the  simple 
Apostles'  Creed  above  all  theological  confessions  as  its  basis,  and  a  practical  system  above  the 
subtleties  of  controversy.  But  its  defect  lay  in  the  policy  which  sought  uniformity  instead 
of  a  large  unity;  and  the  loss  of  the  conscientious  men  who  left  the  national  Church  gave  its 
ecclesiastical  element  an  undue  growth.  Yet  it  has  retained  throughout  much  of  its  compre- 
hensiveness. It  has  had  many  schools  of  thought,  but  none  has  ruled  it.  Calvinism,  al- 
though shorn  of  its  early  strength,  has  had  always  adherents,  from  the  saintly  Leighton  to 
Toplady  and  Venn.  The  Arminian  doctrine  entered  early  from  Holland,  and  in  the  visit  of 
the  divines  sent  by  James  to  the  Synod  of  Dort,  among  whom  were  Hall  and  Davenant,  we  have 
the  early  traces  of  the  change.  Davenant  was  nominally  against  the  Remonstrants,  but  the 
"  Suffrages  "  prove  already  the  milder  tone  of  the  English  theology.  It  is  with  Laud  that  the  sys- 
tem gained  strong  ground,  yet  it  never  led  to  such  quarrels  as  in  the  land  of  Grotius ;  it  repre- 
sented the  growing  dislike  of  a  harsh  supralapsarianism  and  the  mild  spirit  of  scholars  like 
Jeremy  Taylor.  The  criticism  has  often  been  made  that  Arminianism  is  more  akin  to  a 
High-Church  system,  because  it  teaches  that  divine  grace  is  conditioned  by  works  ;  but  if  so, 
perhaps  it  shows,  as  in  the  case  of  Jansenism,  that  a  metaphysical  creed,  in  losing  sight  of  the 
moral  side  of  its  own  truth,  will  always  drive  men  to  its  opposite.  The  English  theology 
of  the  next  period  has  the  like  variety.  It  had  its  divines  of  rich  learning — Bramhall, 
Cosin,  and  others— inclined  to  a  stricter  view  of  the  sacraments  and  ministry  than  the  Re- 
formers ;  yet  it  is  mere  exaggeration  to  call  them  the  Anglo-Catholic  fathers,  as  if  they  w-ere 
the  exponents  of  the  whole  Church.  They  belong  to  one  school  of  their  time.  Nor  is  it  a 
less  mistake  to  judge  from  their  opposition,  as  members  of  the  national  Church,  to  the  Dis- 
senters, that  they  unchurched  the  Continental  Protestants.  Bramhall  held  an  episcopate  to 
be  of  the  Eeclesia  Integra,  not  vera;  and  Morton,  while  bitter  towards  the  Presbyterians,  is 
"not  so  uncharitable"  towards  foreign  Reformed  bodies  "as  to  censure  them  for  no  Churches, 
for  that  which  is  their  infelicity,  not  their  fault."  Chillingworth  and  Hales  are  leaders  in  this 
period  of  a  more  liberal  thought.  The  Cambridge  school,  which  a  modern  critic  calls  the 
herald  of  broad  Churchmanship,  begins  here  with  Smith  and  Wliichcote.  The  theology  of 
England  passed  into  a  still  more  comprehensive  growth.  Its  larger  conflict  with  Deism  took 
it  out  of  the  guerrilla  war  of  the  past  into  the  field  of  Biblical  criticism,  Christian  evidence,  and 
history.  No  party  wholly  represents  it.  Such  different  minds  as  Tillotson  and  Waterland, 
Cud  worth  and  Paley,  Arnold  and  Keble  have  been  of  the  same  communion.  Its  successive 
movements  have  stirred,  yet  not  rent  it.  The  Methodist  revival  came  from  the  Arminian 
Wesley,  and  the  wave  of  spiritual  life  left  its  true  influence,  although  a  cold  establishment  pol- 
icy ignored  it.    The  evangelical  movement  was  Calvinistic,  yet  it  was  mainly  the  protest  of 


§  78.  THE  DOCTRINAL  FORMULAS  OF  HENRY  VIII.  ()11 

devout  men  likeWilberforce  against  formalism,  and  did  little  for  theological  growth.  Our  time 
has  been  busy  with  the  Oxford  divinity,  which  has  Bought  to  build  a  theory  of  Anglo-Cathol- 
icism on  the  basis  of  an  exclusive  episcopal  succession:,  a  Nicene  authority  concurrent  with 

Scripture,  and  a  priesthood  dispensing  grace  through  the  sacraments.  It  will  end  as  die  the- 
ory of  a  passing  school.    Our  sketch  will  show  on  what  grounds  we  judge  it  a  contradiction 

to  the  standards  of  the  body,  tin1  const  nsus  of  its  fathers  down  to  Hooker,  and  an  utter  misstate- 
ment of  the  historic  position  of  the  Church  of  England.  It  may  he  hoped  that  the  long  strife 
"ill  lead  to  a  better  understanding  of  its  relation  to  other  Reformed  communion.-,  and  to  its 
place  in  the  common  work  for  the  unity  of  Christendom.' 

§  78.  The  Doctrinal  Formulas  of  Henry  VIII. 

THE    TEN    ARTICLES. 

The  first  doctrinal  deliverance  of  the  Church  of  England  after  the 
rupture  with  Rome  is  contained  in  the  Ten  Articles  of  153G,  devised 
by  Henry  YIII.  (who  styles  himself  in  the  preface  '  by  the  grace  of 
God  king  of  England  and  of  France,  defender  of  the  faith,  lord  of 
Ireland,  and  in  earth  supreme  head  of  the  Church  of  England'),  and 
approved  by  convocation.1  They  are  essentially  Romish,  with  the  Pope 
left  out  in  the  cold.  They  can  not  even  be  called  a  compromise  be- 
tween the  advocates  of  the  'old  learning,'  headed  by  Gardiner  (Bishop 
of  Winchester  from  1531),  and  of  the  '  new  learning,'  headed  by  Cran- 
mer  (Archbishop  of  Canterbury  from  March,  1533).  Their  chief  ob- 
ject, according  to  the  preface,  was  to  secure  by  royal  authority  unity 
and  concord  in  religious  opinions,  and  to  'repress'  and  '  utterly  extin- 
guish' all  dissent  and  discord  touching  the  same.  They  were,  in  the 
language  of  Foxe,  intended  for  'weaklings  newly  weaned  from  their 
mother's  milk  of  Rome.'  They  assert  (1)  the  binding  authority  of  the 
Bible,  the  three  oecumenical  creeds,  and  the  first  four  oecumenical 
councils;  (2)  the  necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation,  even  in  the  case 
of  infants;2  (3)  the  sacrament  of  penance, with  confession  and  abso- 
lution, which  are  declared  'expedient  and  necessary;'  (4)  the  substan- 

1  First  printed  by  Thomas  Berthelet,  under  the  title  'Articles  |  devised  by  the  Kinges 
Ilighnes  Majestie,  |  to  Btablysbe  Christen  ciuietnes  and  unitie  |  nmoiige  us,  |  and  |  to  avoyde 
contentious  opinions,  [  which  articles  be  also  approved  j  by  the  consent  and  determination 
of  the  hole  |  clergie  of  this  realme.  |  Anno  M.D. XXXVI.'  They  are  given  by  Fuller,  Burnet, 
(Addenda),  Collier,  and  Ilardwick  (Appendix  I).  In  the  Cotton  MS.  the  title  is,  '  Articles 
about  Religion,  set  out  by  the  Convocatiai,  and  published  by  the  King's  authority.'  It  i>  im- 
possible to  determine  how  far  the  Articles  are  the  product  of  the  king  (who  in  hi-  own  con- 
ceit was  fully  equal  to  any  task  in  theology  as  well  as  Church  government),  ami  how  far  the 

product  of  bis  bishops  and  other  clergy.      See  ilardwick,  pp.  10  s<i'|. 

3  Art,  II.  says  that  'infants  ought  to  be  baptized;'  that,  dying  in  infancy,  they  '.-hall  un- 
doubtedly be  saved  thereby,  and  else  not;'  that  the  opinions  of  Anabaptists  and  Pelagians  are 
'detestable  heresies,  and  utterly  to  he  condemned.' 


012  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

tial,  real,  corporal  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  under  the 
form  of  bread  and  wine  in  the  eucharist;  (5)  justification  by  faith, 
joined  with  charity  and  obedience ;  (6)  the  use  of  images  in  church- 
es;  (7)  the  honoring  of  saints  and  the  Virgin  Mary;  (8)  the  invoca- 
tion of  saints ;  (9)  the  observance  of  various  rites  and  ceremonies  as 
good  and  laudable,  such  as  clerical  vestments,  sprinkling  of  holy  water, 
bearing  of  candles  on  Candlemas-day,  giving  of  ashes  on  Ash-Wednes- 
day ;  (10)  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  and  prayers  for  the  dead  in  pur- 
gatory. 

THE   BISHOPS'    BOOK    AND   THE    KING'S    BOOK.1 

These  Articles  were  virtually,  though  not  legally,  superseded  by  the 
'Bishops'  Book,'  or  the  'Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,'  drawn  up 
by  a  Committee  of  Prelates,  1537,  but  never  sanctioned  by  the  king. 
It  contains  an  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  the  Seven  Sacraments,  the  Ten 
Commandments,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Ave  Maria,  and  a  discussion  of 
the  disputed  doctrines  of  justification  and  purgatory,  and  the  human 
origin  of  the  papacy.  It  marks  a  little  progress,  which  must  be  traced 
to  the  influence  of  Cranmer  and  Ridley,  but  it  was  superseded  by  a 
reactionary  revision  called  the  '  King's  Book,'  or  the  '  Necessary  Doe- 
trine  and  Erudition  for  any  Christian  Man,'  sanctioned  by  Convoca- 
tion, and  set  forth  by  royal  mandate  in  1543,  when  Gardiner  and  the 
Romish  party  were  in  the  ascendant. 

THE   THIRTEEN   ARTICLES. 

During  the  negotiations  with  the  Lutheran  divines  (1535-1538), 
held  partly  at  Wittenberg,  partly  at  Lambeth,  an  agreement  con- 
sisting of  Thirteen  Articles  was  drawn  up  in  Latin,  at  London,  in 
the  summer  of  153S,  which  did  not  receive  the  sanction  of  the  king, 
but  was  made  use  of  in  the  following  reign  as  a  basis  of  several  of 
the  Forty-two  Articles.  They  have  been  recently  discovered  in  their 
collected  form,  by  Dr.  Jenkyns,  among  the  manuscripts  of  Archbishop 
Cranmer  in  the  State  Paper  Oince.2     They  treat  of  the  Divine  Unity 

1  Printed  in  Formularies  of  Faith  put  forth  by  Authority  during  the  Reign  of  Henry  VIII. 
Oxford,  1825. 

2  They  are  printed  in  Jenkyns's  Remains  of  Cranmer  (1833), Vol.  IV.  pp.  273  sqq. ;  in  Cox's 
(Parker"  Soc.)  edition  of  Cranmer  s  Works  (I84G),  Vol.  II.  pp.  472-480;  and  in  Hardwick's 
History  of  the  Articles,  Append.  II.  pp.  2G1-273.  Six  of  these  thirteen  Articles  were  previ- 
ously published  by  Strypeand  Burnet,  but  with  a  false  date  (1540)  and  considerable  variations. 


§  79.  THE  EDWABDINE  ABTICLES,  1568.  ci- 

and  Trinity,  Original  Sin,  the  Two  Natures  of  Christ,  Justification,  the 
Church,  Baptism,  the  Eucharist,  Penitence,  the  Use  of  the  Sacraments, 
the  Ministers  of  the  Church,  Ecclesiastical  Rites,  Civil  Affairs  the  Res- 
urrection and  Final  Judgment  They  are  based  upon  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  some  passages  being  almost  literally  copied  from  the  same.1 

Tin;    SIX    AUTICLKS. 

The  Thirteen  Articles  remained  a  dead  letter  in  the  reign  of  Henry. 
lie  broke  off  all  connection  with  the  Lutherans,  and  issued  in  1539, 
under  the  influence  of  Gardiner  and  the  Romish  party,  and  in  spite 
of  the  protest  of  Cranmer,  the  monstrous  statute  of  the  Six  Articles, 
'for  the  abolishing  of  Diversity  of  Opinions.'  They  are  justly  called 
the  'bloody'  Articles,  and  a  'whip  with  six  strings.'  They  bore  se- 
verely not  only  upon  the  views  of  the  Anabaptists  and  all  radical 
Protestants,  who  in  derision  were  called  '  Gospellers,'  but  also  upon 
the  previous  negotiations  with  the  Lutherans.  After  the  burning  of 
some  Dissenters  the  Articles  were  somewhat  checked  in  their  opera- 
tion, but  remained  legally  in  force  till  the  death  of  the  king,  who 
grew  more  and  more  despotic,  and  prohibited  (in  1542)  Tyndale's 
'false  translation'  of  the  Bible,  and  even  the  reading  of  the  New 
Testament  in  English  to  all  women,  artificers,  laborers,  and  husband- 
men. 

The  Six  Articles  imposed  upon  all  Englishmen  a  belief  (1)  in  tran- 
substantiation,  (2)  the  needlessness  of  communion  in  both  kinds,  (3)  in 
clerical  celibacy,  (4)  the  obligation  of  vows  of  chastity  or  widowhood, 
(5)  the  necessity  of  private  masses,  (C>)  auricular  confession.  Here  we 
have  some  of  the  most  obnoxious  features  of  Romanism.  "Whoever 
denied  transufistantiation  was  to  be  burned  at  the  stake:  dissenl  from 
any  of  the  other  Articles  was  to  be  punished  by  imprisonment,  con- 
fiscation  of  goods,  or  death,  according  to  the  degree  of  guilt. 

§  79.  The  Edwabdine  Articles.     A.D.  L553. 

"With  the  accession  of  Edward  VI.  (.Ian.  28,  L547)  Cranmer  and  the 
reform  party  gained  the  controlling  influence.  The  Six  Articles  were 
abolished.     The  First  Prayer-Book  of  Edward  VI.  was  prepared  and 

1  See  the  comparison  in  Hardwick,  pp.  02  sqq. 


G14  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

set  forth  (1519),  and  a  few  years  afterwards  the  Second,  with  sundry 
changes  (1552). 

The  reformation  of  worship  was  followed  by  that  of  doctrine.  For 
some  time  Cranmer  entertained  the  noble  but  premature  idea  of  fram- 
ing, with  the  aid  of  the  German  and  Swiss  Reformers,  an  evangelical 
catholic  creed,  which  should  embrace  '  all  the  heads  of  ecclesiastical 
doctrine,'  especially  an  adjustment  of  the  controversy  on  the  eucharist, 
and  serve  as  a  protest  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  as  a  bond  of  union 
among  the  Protestant  Churches.1 

This  project  was  reluctantly  abandoned  in  favor  of  a  purely  En- 
glish formula  of  public  doctrine,  the  Fokty-two  Articles  of  Religion. 
They  were  begun  by  Cranmer  in  1549,  subjected  to  several  revisions, 
completed  in  November,  1552,  and  published  in  1553,  together  with 
a  short  Catechism,  by  '  royal  authority,'  and  with  the  approval  of  '  a 
Synod  (Convocation)  at  London.'2  It  is,  however,  a  matter  of  dispute 
whether  they  received  the  formal  sanction  of  Convocation,  or  were 
circulated  on  the  sole  authority  of  the  royal  council  during  the  brief 
reign  of  Edward  (who  died  July  6,  1553).3  The  chief  title  to  the 
authorship  of  the  Articles,  as  well  as  of  the  revised  Liturgy,  belongs 
to  Cranmer;  it  is  impossible  to  determine  how  much  is  due  to  his 
fellow-Reformers — '  bishops  and  other  learned  men' — and  the  foreign 
divines  then  residing  in  England,  to  whom  the  drafts  were  submitted, 
or  whose  advice  was  solicited.4 

The  Edwardine  Articles   are   essentially  the  same   as  the  Thirty- 

1  See  Cranmer's  letters  of  invitation  to  Calvin,  Bullinger,  and  Melanehthon,  in  Cox's  edition 
of  Cranmer's  Works,  Vol.  II.  pp.  431-433. 

2  iArticuli  de  quilms  in  Synodo  Londinensi,  A.D.  M.D.LII.  ad  tollcndam  opinionum  dis- 
sensionem  et  consensum  verm  reliyionis  firmandum,  inter  Episcopos  et  alios*Eruditos  Viros  con- 
vcncrat.'  'Articles  agreed  on  by  the  Bishopes,  and  other  learned  menne  in  the  Synode  at 
London,  in  the  yere  of  our  Lorde  Godde,  M.D.LII.,  for  the  auoiding  of  controuersie  in  opin- 
ions, and  the  establishment  of  a  godlie  concorde,  in  certeine  matters  of  Religion.'  They  are 
printed  in  Hardwick,  Append.  III.  pp.  277-333,  in  Latin  and  English,  and  in  parallel  col- 
umns with  the  Elizabethan  Articles.  The  Latin  text  is  also  given  by  Niemcyer,  pp.  592-600. 
On  minor  points  concerning  their  origin,  comp.  Hardwick,  pp.  73  sqq. 

3  Palmer,  Burnet,  and  others  maintain  the  latter ;   Hardwick  (p.  107),  the  former. 

4  John  Knox  and  the  other  royal  chaplains  were  also  consulted  ;  see  Lorimer,  1.  c.  pp'.  126 
sqq.  Knox  did  not  object  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Articles,  but  to  the  rubric  on  kneeling  in 
the  eucharistic  service  of  the  Liturgy,  and  his  opposition  led  to  the  'Declaration  on  Kneel- 
ing," which  is  a  strong  protest  against  ubiquitarianism  and  any  idolatrous  veneration  of  the 
sacramental  elements.  It  was  inserted  as  a  rubric  by  order  of  Council  in  l.*>52,  was  omitted 
in  155!),  and  restored  in  1GG2. 


§80.  THE  ELIZABETHAN  ARTICLES,  15C3  AND  1.-.71.  015 

nine,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  (three  of  them  borrowed  from  the 
Augsburg  Confession),  which  were  omitted  in  the  Elizabethan  revis- 
ion—namely, one  on  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  (Art. 
XVI.);  one  on  the  obligation  of  keeping  the  moral  commandments 
—against  antinomianism  — (XIX.) ;  one  on  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  (XXXIX.);  one  on  the  state  of  the  soul  after  death— against  the 
Anabaptist  notion  of  the  psychopannychia —  (XL.);  one  against  the 
millenarians  (XLI.);1  and  one  against  the  doctrine  of  universal  sal- 
vation (XLII.).2  A  clause  in  the  article  on  Christ's  descent  into 
Hades  (Art.  III.),3  and  a  strong  protest  against  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's 
body,  and  '  the  real  and  bodily  presence  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood  in 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper5  (in  Art.  XXIX.),  were  likewise 
omitted. 

§  SO.  The  Elizabethan  Akticles.     A.D.  15G3  and  1571. 

After  the  temporary  suppression  of  Protestantism  under  Queen 
]\Iary,  the  Reformed  hierarchy,  Liturgy,  and  Articles  of  Religion  were 
permanently  restored,  with  a  number  of  changes,  by  Queen  Elizabeth. 

In  1559,  Archbishop  Parker,  with  the  other  prelates,  set  forth,  as  a 
provisional  test  of  orthodoxy,  Ei.kvi.x  Anrn  lt;s,  taken  in  part  from 
those  of  1553,  but  differing  in  form  and  avoiding  controverted  topics.4 
They  were  superseded  by  the  Thirty-nine  Articles. 

THE   LATEST   EDITION,   15G3. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  two  Convocations,  which  were  summoned 
by  Elizabeth  in  January,  15G3,  Parker  submitted  a  revision  of  the 
Latin  Articles  of  1553,  prepared  by  him  with  the  aid  of  Bishop  Cox 

1  '  Qui  Millenariorum  fabulam  rcrorare  conantnr,  sarris  Uteris  adversantw,  it  in  Judaica 
deliramenla  sese  pracipitant  (cast  themselves  headlong  into  a  Jui.-he  dotage).'  Comp.  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  Art.  XVII.,  where  the  Anabaptists  and  others  are  condemned  fbf 
teaching  the  final  salvation  of  condemned  men  and  devils,  and  the  Jewish  opinions  of  the 
millennium. 

-  '  Hi  quoque  damnations  di<jni  sunt,  qui  conantur  hudie  pemiciosam  opinionem  instuurnrr, 
quod  omnes,  quantumris  impii,  sirrnndi  sunt  tandem,  OWN  dsfinito  t  impure  a  justitin  divinu 
pcenas  de  qdmissisflagitiis  luerunt.' 

3  lNam  corpus  \<  'kristt]  usque  ml  resurrectiom  m  in  sepulckrojaeuit,  Spiritus  <;/<  iUo  emissus 
(his  ghost  departing  from  him)  cum  tpiritibus  qui  in  curare  sin-  in  inferno  dstinebantwrtfidt, 
illisque  pradicavit,  quemadmodum  t<st<itur  Petri  locus,  (-1'  no  ad  inferos  descent*  nuilos  <t 
carceribus  aul  tormentis  liberavit  Christus  Dominus.y 

*  They  arc  printed  by  Hardwick  in  Append,  [V,  pp.  :'>'<7  oJ.K 

Vol.  I.— Re 


616  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  Ely,  Bishop  Guest  of  Rochester,  and  others,  who  had  already  taken 
an  active  part  in  the  revision  of  the  Prayer-book.1  After  an  examina- 
tion by  both  houses,  the  Articles,  reduced  to  the  number  of  thirty- 
nine,  were  ratified  and  signed  by  the  Bishops  and  the  members  of  the 
lower  house,  and  published  by  the  royal  press,  1563. 

It  is  stated  that  Elizabeth  'diligently  read  and  sifted'  the  document 
before  giving  her  assent.  To  her  influence  must  probably  be  traced 
two  characteristic  changes  of  the  printed  copy  as  compared  with  the 
Parker  MS. — namely,  the  insertion  of  the  famous  clause  in  Art.  XX., 
affirming  the  authority  of  the  Church  in  matters  of  faith — and  the 
omission  of  Art.  XXIX.,  which  denies  that  the  unworthy  communi- 
cants partake  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.2  The  latter  Article, 
however,  was  restored  by  the  Bishops,  May  11,  1571,  and  appears  in 
all  the  printed  copies  since  that  time,  both  English  and  Latin. 

THE   ENGLISH   EDITION,  1571. 

The  authorized  English  text  was  adopted  by  Convocation  in  1571, 
and  issued  under  the  editorial  care  of  Bishop  Jewel  of  Salesbury.  It 
presents  sundry  variations  from  the  Latin  edition  of  1563.  Both  edi- 
tions are  considered  equally  authoritative  and  mutually  explanatory.3 

1  A  manuscript  copy  of  this  revision,  with  numerous  corrections  and  autograph  signatures 
of  'Matthaeus  Cantuar.'  (Parker),  and  other  prelates  (including  some  of  the  northern  province), 
is  preserved  among  the  Parker  MSS.  in  Corpus  Christi  College,  Cambridge,  and  was  published 
bv  Dr.  Lamb  in  1829.  The  handwriting  (as  Mr.  Lewis,  the  librarian,  informed  me  when 
uiere  on  a  visit  in  July,  1875)  is  probably  Jocelin's,  the  secretary  of  Parker.  The  copy 
'  CTitains  also  the  older  Articles  Nos.  40-42,  but  marked  by  a  red  line  as  to  be  omitted.  This 
copy  is  probably  the  same  which  Parker  submitted  to  Convocation,  but  it  presents  several 
variations  (especially  in  Art.  XX.)  from  the  copy  of  the  Convocation  records.  Comp. 
Hard  wick,  pp.  125  and  135  sqq. 

2  Hard  wick,  pp.  143  sqq. 

3  This  is  the  view  of  Burnet  and  Waterland,  adopted  by  Hardwick,  p.  1 58.  Watirland  says 
( Works,  Vol.  II.  pp.  316,  31 7) :  'As  to  the  Articles,  English  and  Latin,  I  may  just  observe  for 
the  sake  of  such  readers  as  are  less  acquainted  with  these  things  :  first,  that  the  Articles  were 
passed,  recorded,  and  ratified  in  the  year  1562  [1563],  and  in  Latin  only.  Secondly,  that 
those  Latin  Articles  were  revised  and  corrected  by  the  convocation  of  1571.  Thirdly,  that  an 
authentic  English  translation  was  then  made  of  the  Latin  Articles  by  the  same  convocation, 
and  the  Latin  and  English  adjusted  as  nearly  as  possible.  Fourthly,  that  the  Articles  thus 
perfected  in  both  lanyuages  were  published  the  same  year,  and  by  the  royal  authority.  Fifthly, 
subscription  was  required  the  same  year  to  the  English  Articles,  called  the  Articles  of  1562, 
by  the  famous  act  of  the  13th  of  Elizabeth. — These  things  considered,  I  might  justly  say 
with  Bishop  Burnet,  that  the  Latin  and  English  are  both  equally  atithentical.  Thus  much, 
however,  I  may  certainly  infer,  that  if  in  any  places  the  English  version  be  ambiguous,  where 
the  Latin  original  is  clear  and  determinate,  the  Latin  ought  to  fix  the  more  doubtful  sense 


§  80.  THE  ELIZABETHAN  ARTICLES,  1.-.G3  AND  1571.  617 

THE   BOYAJ     DECLARATION   OF   1G28. 

After  the  Synod  of  Dort,  to  which  James  I.  sent  a  strong  delega- 
tion, the  Arminian  controversy  spread  in  England,  and  caused  such 
an  agitation  that  the  king,  who,  according  to  his  own  estimate  and 
that  of  his  flatterers,  was  equal  to  Solomon  in  wisdom,  ordered  Arch- 
bishop Abbot  (Aug.  4, 1022)  to  prohibit  the  lower  clergy  from  preach- 
ing on  the  five  points.1  Charles  I.,  in  concert  with  Archbishop  Laud 
(who  sympathized  with  Arminianism),  issued  a  Proclamation  (1G26) 
of  similar  import,  deploring  the  prevalence  of  theological  dissension, 
and  threatening  to  visit  with  severe  penalties  those  clergymen  who 
should  raise,  publish,  or  maintain  opinions  not  clearly  warranted  by 
the  formularies  of  the  Church. 

As  this  proclamation  did  not  silence  the  controversy,  Charles  was 
advised  by  Laud  to  order  the  republication  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles 
with  a  Preface  regulating  the  interpretation  of  the  same.  This  Pref- 
ace, called  'His  Majesty's  Declaration,'  was  issued  in  1628,  and  has 
ever  since  accompanied  the  English  editions  of  the  Articles.3  Its 
object  was  to  check  Calvinism  (although  it  is  not  named),  and  the  quin- 
qnarticular  controversy  ('all  further  curious  search'  on  'those  curious 
points  in  which  the  present  differences  lie'),  and  to  restrict  theological 
opinions  to  the  'literal  and  grammatical  sense'  of  the  Articles.3     It 

of  the  other  (as  also  i-ice  versa),  it  being  evident  that  the  Convocation,  Qrieen,  ami  Parlia- 
ment intended  the  same  sense  in  both.' 

1  One  of  the  directions  reads:  'That  no  preacher  of  what  tide  soever,  under  the  degree  of  a 
Bishop,  or  Dean  at  least,  do  from  henceforth  presume  to  preach  in  any  popular  auditory  the 
deep  points  of  predestination,  election,  reprobation,  or  the  universality,  effieacy,  resistibility  or 
irresistibility  of  divine  grace;  but  leave  those  themes  to  be  handled  by  learned  men,  and  that 
moderatelv  and  modestly,  byway  of  use  and  application,  rather  than  by  way  of  positive  doc- 
trine, as  being  fitter  for  the  schools  and  Universities  than  for  simple  auditories." — Wilkin*;, 
Vol.  IV.  p.465j  Hardwick,p.  202. 

2  It  disappeared,  of  course,  in  the  American  editions.     It  is  printed  in  Vol.  III.  ]>.  186. 

3  'No  man  shall  either  print  or  preach  or  draw  the  Article'  [the  previous  sentence  speaks 
of  the  Articles  generally,  perhaps  Art.  XVII.  on  predestination  i>  mean!  particularly]  'aside 
any  way,  but  shall  submit  to  it  in  the  plain  and  full  meaning  thereof;  and  shall  nut  put  his 
own  serine  or  comment  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Article,  but  shall  take  it  in  the  literal  and 
grammatical  sense.'  In  a  '  Declaration'  of  Charles  on  the  dissolution  of  Parliament  (March 
10.  1628),  he  says,  concerning  his  intention  in  issuing  the  Declaration  before  the  Articles: 
4  We  did  tie  and  restrain  all  opinions  to  the  sense  of  these  Articles  that  nothing  might  be  left 
to  fancies  and  invocations' [probably  an  error  for  'innovations'].  '  For  we  call  God  to  record, 
•before  whom  we  stand,  that  it  is,  and  always  hath  been,  our  chief  heart's  de-ire.  to  be  found 

worthy  of  that  title,  which  we  account  the  most  glorious  in  all  our  crown,  h.j'.wlv  of  the 
Faith.'— Hardwick,p.  '-'»)<;. 


Qlg  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

was  a-rected  by  Arminians  and  High-Churchmen,  who  praise  its  mod- 
eration,1 but  was  resisted  by  Calvinists  and  the  Puritan  party  then 
prevailing  in  the  House  of  Commons,  which  declared  its  determina- 
tion to  suppress  both  '  Popery  and  Arminianism.' 2  The  subsequent 
history  of  England  has  shown  how  little  royal  and  parliamentary 
proclamations  and  prohibitions  avail  against  the  irresistible  force  of 
ideas  and  the  progress  of  theology. 

SUBSCRIPTION. 

Queen  Elizabeth  was  at  first  opposed  to  any  action  of  Parliament 
on  questions  of  religious  doctrine,  which  she  regarded  as  the  highest 
department  of  her  own  royal  supremacy ;  but  in  May,  1571,  she  was 
forced  by  her  council,  in  view  of  popish  agitations,  to  give  her  assent 
to  a  bill  of  Parliament  which  required  all  priests  and  teachers  of  re- 
ligion to  subscribe  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.3 

Subscription  was  first  rigidly  enforced  by  Archbishop  Whitgift  (in 
15S4,  which  is  noted  as  'the  woful  year  of  subscription'),  and  by  Ban- 
croft (1604). 

This  test  of  orthodoxy  was  even  applied  to  academical  students.  At 
Oxford  a  decree  of  Convocation,  in  1573,  required  students  to  sub- 

1  Hardwick  says  (p.  205):  'A  document  more  sober  and  conciliatory  could  not  well  have 
been  devised.'  Bishop  Forbes  goes  further,  and  thinks  that  it  was  'the  enunciation  of  the 
Catholic  sense  of  the  Articles,'  and  that  Newman's  Tract  XC.  and  Pusey's  Irenicon  are 
'legitimate  outcomes  of  the  King's  Declaration'  (1.  c.  Vol.  I.  p.  xi.). 

2  The  House  passed  the  following  vote  and  manifesto  on  the  royal  Declaration :  '  We,  the 
Commons  in  Parliament  assembled,  do  claim,  protest,  and  avow  for  truth,  the  sense  of  the 
Articles  of  Religion  which  were  established  by  Parliament  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  our  late 
Queen  Elizabeth,  which  by  the  public  act  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  by  the  general  and 
current  expositions  of  the  writers  of  our  Church,  have  been  delivered  unto  us.  And  we  reject 
the  sense  of  the  Jesuits  and  Arminians,  and  all  others,  wherein  they  differ  from  us.' — Hard- 
wick, p.  200. 

3  Stat.  13  Eliz.  c.  12.  It  enacts  'by  the  authority  of  the  present  Parliament,  that  every 
person  under  the  degree  of  a  bishop,  which  doth  or  shall  pretend  to  be  a  priest  or  minister  of 
God's  holy  Word  and  Sacraments,  by  reason  of  any  other  form  of  institution,  consecration,  or 
ordering,  than  the  form  set  forth  by  Parliament  in  the  time  of  the  late  King  of  most  worthy 
memory,  King  Edward  the  Sixth,  or  now  used,  .  .  .  shall  .  .  .  declare  his  assent,  and  sub- 
scribe to  all  the  Articles  of  Religion,  which  only  concern  the  confession  of  the  true  Christian 
faith  and  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  comprised  in  a  book  entitled  Articles,  .  .  .  put 
forth  by  the  Queen's  authority.'  The  subscription  to  the  Articles  was  urged  by  the  Puri- 
tanic party  in  Parliament  in  opposition  to  Romanism.  See  Hardwick,  pp.  150  sq.  The  word- 
ing of  the  statute  was  made  use  of  to  confine  assent  to  the  doctrinal  Articles  ('which  only 
concern,'  etc.),  and  to  relieve  the  conscience  of  the  Puritans  who  objected  to  the  royal 
supremacy,  the  surplice,  and  other  'defiled  robes  of  Antichrist.' 


§80.  THE  ELIZABETHAN  ARTICLES,  i:,,;.;  AM)   i:,71.  (J19 

6cribe  before  taking  their  degrees,  and  in  1570  this  requirement  was 
extended  to  students  above  sixteen  years  of  age  on  their  admission. 
At  Cambridge  the  law  was  less  rigid. 

The  Act  of  Uniformity  under  Charles  II.  imposed  with  more  strin- 
gency than  ever  subscription  on  the  clergy  and  every  head  of  a  col- 
lege. But  the  Toleration  Act  of  William  and  Mary  gave  some  relief 
by  exempting  dissenting  ministers  from  subscribing  to  Arts.  X  X  X  I  V 
XXXVI.  and  a  portion  of  XXVII.  Subsequent  attempts  to  relax  or 
abolish  subscription  resulted  at  last  in  the  University  Tests  Act  of 
1871,  by  which  'no  one,  at  Oxford,  Cambridge,  or  Durham,  in  order 
to  take  a  degree,  except  in  divinity,  or  to  exercise  any  right  of  grad- 
uates, can  be  required  to  make  any  profession  of  faith.'1 

RELATION   TO  THE   EDWARDINE   ARTICLES. 

The  Elizabethan  Articles  differ  from  the  Edwardine  Articles,  be- 
sides minor  verbal  alterations — 

(1.)  In  the  omission  of  seven  Articles  (Edwardine  X.,  XVI.,  XIX., 
XXXIX.  to  XLIL).  The  last  four  of  them  reject  certain  Anabaptist 
doctrines,  which  had  in  the  mean  time  disappeared  or  lost  their 
importance.2  Art.  XIX.  of  the  old  series,  touching  the  obligation 
of  the  moral  law,  was  transferred  in  substance  to  Art.  VII.  of  the 
new  series. 

(2.)  In  the  addition  of  four  Articles,  viz.:  On  the  Holy  Ghost  (Eliz. 
V.) ;  on  good  works  (XII.) ;  on  the  participation  of  the  wicked  in  the 
eucharist  (XXIX.) ;  on  communion  in  both  kinds  (XXX.). 

(3.)  In  the  partial  curtailment  or  amplification  of  seventeen  Articles. 
Among  the  amplifications  are  to  be  noticed  the  list  of  Canonical  and 
Apocryphal  Books  (VI.),  and  of  the  Homilies  (XXXV.);  the  restric- 
tion of  the  number  of  sacraments  to  two  (XXV.);  the  condemnation 
of  transubstantiation,  and  the  declaration  of  the  spiritual  nature  of 
Christ's  presence  (XXVIII.) ;  the  disapproval  of  worship  in  a  foreign 
tongue  (XXIV.);  the  more  complete  approval  of  infant  baptism 
(XXVIL),  and  clerical  marriage  (XXXII.). 

1  The  various  acts  enforcing  and  relaxing  subscription  are  conveniently  collected  in  the 
Prayer-Book  Interleaved,  London.  7th  ad.  1878,  pp.  860  Bqq.  Sec  also  chap.  xi.  of  Hard- 
wick's  History  qf  the  Articles. 

3  See  p.  616. 


620 


THE  CREEDS  OE  CHRISTENDOM. 


The  difference  of  the  two  series,  and  their  relation  to  the  Thirteen 
Articles,  will  be  more  readily  seen  from  the  following  table: 


Thirteen  Articles. 
1538. 

1.  De  Unitate  Dei  et  Tri- 
nitate  Personarum. 

2.  De  Peccato  Originali. 

3.  De  cluabus  Christi  Na- 
turis. 

4.  De  Justificatione. 

5.  De  Ecclesia. 

6.  De  Baptism o. 

7.  De  Eucharistia. 

8.  De  Poenitentia. 

9.  De  Sacramentorum 
Usu. 

10.  De   Ministris  Eccle- 

SliS. 

11.  De  Ritibus  Ecclesias- 
ticis. 

12.  De  Rebus  Civilibus. 

13.  De  Corporum  Resur- 
rectione  et  Judicio  Extre- 
mo. 

[This  order  follows,  as 
far  as  it  goes,  the  order  of 
the  doctrinal  articles  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession.] 


Forty-two  Articles. 
1553. 

1.  Of  faith  in  the  holie 
Trinitie. 

2.  That  the  worde,  or 
Sonne  of  God,  was  made  a 
very  man. 

3.  Of  the  goying  dounc 
of  Christe  into  Helle. 

4.  The  Resurrection  of 
Christe. 

5.  The  doctrine  of  holie 
Scripture  is  sufficient  to 
Saluation. 

6.  The  olde  Testamente 
is  not  to  be  refused. 

7.  The  three  Credes. 

8.  Of  originali  or  birthe 
sinne. 

9.  Offreewille. 

10.  Of  Grace. 

11.  Of  the  Justification 
of  manne. 

12.  Workes  before  Justi- 
fication. 

13.  "Workes  of  Superero- 
gation. 

14.  No  man  is  without 
sinne,  but  Christe  alone. 

15.  Of  sinne  against  the 
holie  Ghoste. 

16.  Blasphemie  against 
the  holie  Ghoste. 

17.  Of  predestination  and 
election. 

18.  We  must  truste  to  ob- 
teine  eternal  salvation  onely 
by  the  name  of  Christ. 

19.  All  men  are  bound  to 
kepe  the  moral  commaund- 
ementes  of  the  Lawe. 

20.  Of  the  Church. 

21.  Of  the  aucthoritie  of 
the  Churche. 

22.  Of  the  aucthoritie  of 
General  Counsailes. 


Thirty-nine  Articles. 
1571. 

1.  Of  Faith  in  the  Holy 
Trinity. 

2.  Of  Christ  the  Son  of 
God,  which  was  made  very 
man. 

3.  Of  the  Going  down  of 
Christ  into  Hell. 

4.  Of  the  Resurrection  of 
Christ. 

5.  Of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

6.  Of  the  Sufficiency  of 
the  Holy  Scripture  for  Sal- 
vation. 

7.  Of  the  Old  Testament. 

8.  Of  the  Three  Creeds. 

9.  Of  Original  or  Birth 
Sin. 

10.  Of  Free  Will. 

11.  Of  the  Justification 
of  man. 

12.  Of  Good  Works. 

13.  Of  Works  before  Jus- 
tification. 

14.  Of  Works  of  Super- 
erogation. 

15.  Of  Christ  alone  with- 
out sin. 

16.  Of  Sin  after  Baptism. 


17.  Of  Predestination  and 
Election. 

18.  Of  obtaining    Salva- 
tion by  the  name  of  Christ. 


19.  Of  the  Church. 

20.  Of  the  Authority  of 
the  Church. 

21.  Of  the  Authority  of 
General  Councils. 


80.  THE  ELIZABETHAN  ARTICLES,  1563  AM)  [571. 


621 


28.  OfPurgatorie. 

'.'1.  No  manne  inaie  min- 
ister in  the  Congregation 
except  he  be  called 

35.  Menne  must  speake 
in  the  Congregation  in 
soche  toung  as  the  people 
anderstandeth. 

20.  Of  the  Sacramentes. 

27.  The  wickednesse  of 
the  Ministrea  dooeth  not 
take  awaie  the  effectuall 
operation  of  Qoddes  ordi- 
nances. 

28.  OfBaptisme. 

29.  Of  the  Lordes  Supper. 


30.  Of  the  perfeicte  obla- 
cion  of  Christe  made  upon 
the  crosse. 

31.  The  state  of  single 
life  is  commaunded  to  no 
man  by  the  worde  of  God. 

32.  Excommunicate  per- 
sones  are  to  bee  auoided. 

33.  Tradicions  of  the 
Churehe. 

34.  Homelies. 

35.  Of  the  booke  of 
Praiers  and  Ceremonies  of 
the  Churehe  of  England. 

86.  Of  Ciuile  Magistrates. 

37.  Christien  inclines 
gooddes  are  not  commune. 

38.  Christien  monnc  maie 
take  an  oath. 

89.  The  Resurrection  of 
the  dead  is  not  yeal  brought 

to  passe. 

40.  The  soallea  of  them 
that  departe  this  life  doe 
neither  die  with  the  bodies 

nor  sleep  idlie. 

41.  Beretickes called  Mil 

lenarii. 

42.  All  men  shall  aol  bee 
Baued  at  the  length. 


22.  Of  Purgatory. 

28.  Of  Ministering  in  the 
Congregation. 

24.  Of  Speaking  in  the 
Congregation     in     such     a 

tongue  as  the  people  un- 
deratandeth. 

25.  Of  the  Sacraments. 
2G.  Of  the  Unworthinees 

of  Ministers  which  hinder 
not  the  effect  of  the  Sacra- 
ments. 

27.  Of  Baptism. 

28.  Of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
21).  Of  the  Wicked  which 

eat  not  the  Body  of  Christ  in 
the  use  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

30.  Of  Both  Kinds. 

81.  Of  the  one  Oblation 
of  Christ  finished  upon  the 
cross. 

32.  Of  the  Marriage  of 
Priests. 

33.  Of   Excommunicate 

Persons,  how  they  are  to 
be  avoided. 

34.  Of  the  Traditions  of 
the  Church. 

35.  Of  Homilies. 

3G.  Of  Consecrating  of 
Bishops  and  Ministers. 

37.  Of  Civil  Magistrates. 

38.  Of  Christian    men's 

goods,  which  are  DOl  com 
mon. 

39.  Of  a  Christian  man's 
oath. 

The  Ratification. 


622  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

§  81.  The  Intekpketation  of  the  Articles. 

The  theological  interpretation  of  the  Articles  by  English  writers 
has  been  mostly  conducted  in  a  controversial  rather  than  an  historical 
spirit,  and  accommodated  to  a  particular  school  or  party.  Moderate 
High- Churchmen  and  Arminians,  who  dislike  Calvinism,  represent 
them  as  purely  Lutheran  j1  Anglo-Catholics  and  Tractarians,  who  abhor 
both  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism,  endeavor  to  conform  them  as  much 
as  possible  to  the  contemporary  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent;2  Cal- 
vinistic  and  evangelical  Low-Churchmen  find  in  them  substantially 
their  own  creed.3  Continental  historians,  both  Protestant  and  Catholic, 
rank  the  Church  of  England  among  the  Reformed  Churches  as  dis- 
tinct from  the  Lutheran,  and  her  Articles  are  found  in  every  collec- 
tion of  Reformed  Confessions.4 

The  Articles  must  be  understood  in  their  natural  grammatical  and 
historical  sense,  from  the  stand-point  and  genius  of  the  Reformation, 
the  public  and  private  writings  of  their  compilers  and  earliest  ex- 
pounders. In  doubtful  cases  we  may  consult  the  Homilies,  the  Cate- 
chism, the  several  revisions  of  the  Prayer-book,  the  Canons,  and  other 
contemporary  documents  bearing  on  the  reformation  of  doctrine  and 
discipline  in  the  Church  of  England. 

In  a  preceding  section  we  have  endeavored  to  give  the  historical  key 
for  the  understanding  of  the  doctrinal  character  of  the  English  Arti- 
cles.    A  closer  examination  will  lead  us  to  the  following  conclusions: 

1.  The  Articles  are  Catholic  in  the  oecumenical  doctrines  of  the 
Holy  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation,  like  all  the  Protestant  Confessions 
of  the  Reformation  period ;  and  they  state  those  doctrines  partly  in 
the  very  words  of  two  Lutheran  documents,  viz.,  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  the  Wurtemberg  Confession. 

1  So  Archbishop  Laurence,  of  Cashel,  and  Hardwick,  in  their  learned  works  on  the  Articles. 
8  Newman,  Pusey,  Forbes.     Archbishop  Laud  had  prepared  the  way  for  this  Romanizing 
interpretation. 

3  Even  the  Puritans  accepted  the  doctrinal  Articles,  and  the  Westminster  Assembly  first 
made  them  the  basis  of  its  Calvinistic  Confession. 

4  From  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma  down  to  the  collections  of  Niemeyer  and  Bockel.  The 
Roman  Catholic  Mohler  likewise  numbers  the  Articles  among  the  Reformed  (Calvinistic) 
Confessions,  Spnbolik,  p.  22.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Articles  have  no  place  in  any  collec- 
tion of  Lutheran  symbols;  still  less,  of  course,  could  they  be  included  among  Greek  or  Latin 
symbols. 


§  81.  THE  IXTF.UI'Kl.TATinX  OF  THE  ARTICLES. 

2.  They  are  Augustlnlan  in  the  anthropological  and  Boteriological 
doctrines  of  free-will,  sin,  and  grace:  herein  Likewise  agreeing  with 
the  Continental  Reformers, especially  the  Lutheran. 

3.  They  are  Protestant  and  evangelical  in  rejecting  the  peculiar 

errors  and  abuses  of  Rome,  and  in  teaching  those  doctrines  of  Script 
nre  and  tradition,  justification  by  faith,  faith  and  good  worfcs,  the 
Church,  and  the  number  of  sacraments,  which  Luther,  Zwingli,  and 
Calvin  held  in  common. 

4.  They  are  Reformed  or  moderately  Cahrinistic  in  the  two  doc- 
trines of  Predestination  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  which  the  Lutheran 
and  Reformed  Churches  differed  ;  although  the  chief  Reformed  Con- 
fessions were  framed  after  the  Articles. 

5.  They  are  Erastkm  in  the  political  sections,  teaching  the  closes! 
union  of  Church  and  State,  and  the  royal  supremacy  in  matters  eccle- 
siastical as  well  as  civil ;  with  the  difference,  however,  that  the  Eliza- 
bethan revision  dropped  the  title  of  the  king  as  '  supreme  head  in 
earth,'  and  excluded  the  ministry  of  the  Word  and  Sacraments  from 
the  'chief  government'  of  the  English  Church  claimed  by  the  crown.1 
All  the  Reformation  Churches  were  more  or  less  intolerant,  and  en- 
forced uniformity  of  belief  as  far  as  they  had  the  power;  but  the 
Calvinists  and  Puritans  were  more  careful  of  the  rights  of  the  Church 
over  against  the  State  than  the  Lutherans. 

6.  Art  XXXV.,  referring  to  the  Prayer-book  and  the  consecration 
of  archbishops,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  is  purely  Anglican  and 
Episcopalian,  and  excited  the  opposition  of  the  Puritans. 

We  have  now  to  furnish  the  proof  as  far  as  the  doctrinal  articles 
are  concerned. 

THE   ARTICLES   ANT)   THE    ATJGSBTJBG    CONFESSION. 

The  Edwardine  Articles  were  based  in  part,  as  already  observed, 
upon  a  previous  draft  of  Thirteen  Articles,  which  was  the  joint  prod- 
uct of  German  and  English  divines,  and  based   upon  the  doctrinal 

1  The  modification  of  the  royal  supremacy  in  Art  XXWII..  u  compared  with  Art 
XXXVI.  nf  Edward,  was  intended  to  meel  the  scruples  ofRomaniete  and  CalvinUts,  Eforet 
tbeleea  this  article,  and  the  two  acts  of  supremacy  and  uniformity,  form  the  bask  of  that  re- 
strictive code  of  laws  which  pressed  so  heavily  for  more  than  t  w ..  centuries  upon  the  con- 
sciences of  Soman  <  atbolic  and  Protestant  dissenters.  Comp,  the  third  chapter  of  Ballam's 
Constitutional  History  of  England  (Harper's  ed.  pp.  71  sqq   . 


624 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Some  passages  were  trans- 
ferred verbatim  from  the  Lutheran  document  to  the  Thirteen  Arti- 
cles, and  from  these  to  the  Forty-two  (1553),  and  were  retained  in  the 
Elizabethan  revision  (1563  and  1571).  This  will  appear  from  the 
following  comparison.  The  corresponding  words  are  printed  in 
italics. 


Augsburg  Confession. 

1530. 

Art.  I.  De  Deo. 

Ecclesia?  magno  consensu 
apud  nos  docent,  Decretum 
Nica?na?  Synodi,  de  imitate 
essentia?  divinse  et  de  tribus 
personis,  verum  et  sine  ulla 
dubitatione  credendum 
esse.  Videlicet,  quod  sit 
una  essentia  divina,  quae  et 
appellatur  et  est  Dens,  ater- 
nus,  incorporeus  imimrtibilis, 
immensa  potentia,  sapientia, 
bonitate,  creator  et  conserva- 
tor omnium  rerum,  visibi- 
lium  et  invisibilium;  et  ta- 
men  tres  sint  persona,  ejas- 
dem  essentia  et  potential,  et 
corcterna?,  Pater,  Filius  et 
Spiritus  Sanctus.  Et  no- 
mine personam  utuntur  ea 
significatione,  qua  usi  sunt 
in  hac  causa  scriptores 
ecclesiastici,  ut  significct 
non  partem  aut  qualitatem 
in  alio,  sed  quod  proprie 
subsistit. 

Damnant  omnes  hsereses, 
contra  nunc  articulum  ex- 
ortas,  ut  Manicboeos,  qui 
duo  principia  ponebant, 
Bonum  et  Malum;  item 
Valentinianos,  Arianos, 
Eunomianos,     Mahometis- 


Thirteen  Articles. 

1538. 

Art.  I.  De  Unitate  Dei  et 

Trinitate  Personarum. 

De  Unitate  Essentia?  Di 
vina?  et  de  Tribus  Personis, ; 
censemus  decretum  Nicena? 
Synodi  verum,  et  sine  ulla 
dubitatione  credendum 
esse,  videlicet,  quod  sit  una 
Essentia  Divina,  qua?  et  ap- 
pellatur et  est  Deus,  ceter- 
nus,  incorporeus,  imparti- 
bilis,  immensa  potentia,  sa- 
pientia, bonitate,  creator  et 
conservator  omnium  rerum 
visibilium  et  invisibilium,  et 
tamen  tres  sint  p>ersona  ejus- 
dem  essentia  et  potentia,  et 
coseternse,  Pater,  Filius,  et 
Spiritus  Sanctus;  et  no- 
mine persona?  utimur  ea 
significatione  qua  usi  sunt 
in  hac  causa  scriptores 
ecclesiastici,  ut  significet 
non  partem  aut  qualitatem 
in  alio,  sed  quod  proprie 
subsistit. 

Damnamus  omnes  ha?re- 
ses  contra  hunc  articulum 
exortas,  ut  Manicha?os,  qui 
duo  principia  ponebant, 
Bonum  et  Malum :  item 
Valentinianos,  Arianos, 
Eunomianos,      Mahometis- 


Thirty-nine  Articles. 

1563. 
Art.  I.  De  Fide  in  Sacro- 
sanctum  Trinitatem. 
Unus  est  vivus  et  verus 
Deus  aternus,  incorporeus, 
impart ibilis,  i m  p  a s  s i b i  1  i  s, 
immensa  potentia,  sapientia 
ac  bonitatis:  creator  et  con- 
servator omnium  turn  visibi- 
lium turn  invisibilium.  Et 
in  unitate  huius  divina?  na- 
tura?  tres  sunt  Persona  ejus- 
dem  essentia,  potentia,  ac 
a?ternitatis,  Pater,  Filius,  et 
Spiritus  Sanctus.1 


1  The  same  passage  occurs  in  the  Reformatio  Legum  ecclesiastirarum  (De  Summa  Trini- 
tate, c.  2),  a  work  prepared  by  a  committee  consisting  of  Cranmer,  Peter  Martyr,  and  six 
others,  1551.  It  was  edited  by  Cardwell,  Oxford,  1850,  and  serves  as  a  commentary  on  the 
Articles.     £-'ee  Hardwick,  pp.  82  and  371. 


§  81.  THE  1NTERPBETATI0N  OE  THE  ARTICLES. 


625 


Augsburg  Confession. 
1530. 

tas,  ct  omnes  horum  simi- 
les. Damnant  et  Samosa- 
tenos,  veteres  et  neotericos, 
qui,  cum  tantum  unam  per- 
sonam esse  contendant,  de 
Verbo  et  tie  Spiritu  Sancto 


astute  et  impie  rhctorican- 
tur,  quod  non  sint  personae  j 
distincta?,  sed  quod  Verbum  j 
siguificet  verbum  vocale, et! 
Spiritus  motum  in  rebus 
creatam. 


Art.  III.  De  Filio  Dei. 

Item  docent,  quod  Ver- 
bum, hoc  est,  Filius  Dei, 
assumpscrit  huinanam  natu- 
ram  in  utero  beatte  Maria 
Virginia,  ut  sint  dim  natures, 
divina  et  humana,  in  unitate 
persona  inseparabiliter  cvn- 
juncta,  unus  Christ  us,  vere 
Dens  et  vere  homo,  natus  ex 
virgine  Maria,  vere  pasaus, 
crucijixus,  mortuus,  it  tepvU- 
tus,  id  reconciliaret  nobis 
Patrem,  et  host  in,  csset  non 
tantum  pro  culpa  originis, 
sed  etiam  pro  omnibus  actu- 
alibus  hominum  peeeatis. 

Idem  descendit  ad  infe- 
ros, et  vere  resurrexit  tertia 
die,  deinde  ascendit  ad 
coelos,  ut  sedeat  ad  dcxte- 
ram  Patris,  ct  perpctuo  ren- 
net et  dominetur  omnibus 
crcaturis,  sanctificet  cre- 
dentes  in  ipsum,  misso  in 
corda  corum  Spiritu  Sanc- 
to, qui  regat,  consolctur  ac 
vivificet  cos,  ac  defendat 
adversus  diabolum  ct  vim 
peccati. 

Idem  Cliristus  palam  est 
rediturus,  ut  judicct  vivos 
et  mortuos,  etc,  juxta  Sym- 
bolum  Apostolorum. 


Thirteen  Articles. 
1538. 
tas,  it   omnes  horum   simi- 
les.   Damnamnset  Samosa- 

tctios,  vetereS  et  neotericos, 
qui  cum  tantum  unam  per- 
sonam esse  contendant,  de 
Verbo  et  Spiritu  Sancto 
astute  et  impie  rhetorican- 
tur,  quod  non  sint  persons 
distincta?,  sed  quod  Verbum 
significet  verbum  vocale.  et 
Spiritus  motum  in  rebus 
creatam. 

Art.  III.  De  DuabusChristi 
Naturis. 

Item  doccmus,  quod  Ver- 
bum, hoc  est  Filius  Dei,  as- 
sumpserit  humanam  natu- 
ram  in  utero  beaten  Marias 
Virginia,  ut  sint  thus  natura, 
divina  et  humana,  in  unitate 
j>ersona  inseparabiliter  con- 
junctce,  unus  Christus,  vere 
Deus,  et  vere  homo,  natus  ex 
virgine  Maria,  vere  pasaus, 
crueijixus,  mortuus,  et  sepul- 
tus,  ut  reconciliaret  nobis 
Patrem,  et  hoatia  csset  non 

taut  a  in    pro    etllpa    nriijinis, 

Bed  etiam  pro  omnibus  actu- 
alibua  hominum  peccatia. 

Item  descendit  ad  infe- 
ros, et  vere  resurrexit  tertia 
die,  deinde  ascendit  ad 
coelos,  ut  sedeat  ad  dezte- 
ram  Patris  et  perpctuo  ren- 
net ct  dominetur  omnibus 
crcaturis,  sanctiticct  ere- 
dentes  in  ipsum,  misso  in 
conic  eoruni  Spiritu  Sanc- 
to. i|ui  regat,  consoletur,  ac 

vivilicct     eOS,   ac    defendat 

adversus  diabolum  ct  vim 

peccati. 

Idem  ChristUS  palam  est 

rediturus  ut  judicct   vivos 

et  mortuos,  etc..  juxta  Sym- 

bolum  Apostolorum. 


Tiiirty-mm:  Asm  u.-. 
1503. 


Art.  II.  Verbum  Dei  verum 

hominem  esse  factum. 

Filius,  qui  est  Verbum  Pa- 
tris ab  a'terno  a  Pat  re  geni- 
tus  verus  et  aeternus  I),  u-. 
ac  Patri  consubstantialis, 
in  utero  Beatir  Virginia  ez 
illius  substantia  naturam 
humanam  aaaumpait ;  ita  ut 
duce  natural,  divina  it  hu- 
mana integre  atque  per- 
fecte  in  unitate  personal, 
fuerint  inseparabiliter  con- 
iuncta :  ez  quibus  est  unus 

Christus,  Verut  lh  us  1 1  a  rus 

homo :  qui  vur  pauut  est, 
crucifixua,  mortuus,  <t  sepulr 
tus,ut  Patron  ;wbis  recon- 
eUiaret,  essetqae  hostia  non 

tantum  pro  culpa  or'njinis, 
verum  etiam  pro  omnibus 
actualibus  hominum  )n  cent  is. 


626 


THE  CEEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


Augsburg  Confession. 
1530. 

Art.  IV.  De  Justifica- 
tioue. 

Item  docent,  quod  homi- 
nes non  possint  justificari 
coram  Deo  propriis  viiibus, 
mentis  aut  operibus,  sed 
gratis  justificentur  propter 
Christum  per  Jidem,  cum 
credunt  se  in  gratiam  reci- 
pi,  et  peccata  remitti  prop- 
ter Christum,  qui  sua  morte 
pro  nostris  peccatis  satisfe 
cit.  Hanc  fidem  imputat 
Deus  pro  justitia  coram 
ipso.     Rom.  III.  et  IV. 

Art.  VII.  De  Ecclesia. 

Item  docent,  quod  una 
Sancta  Ecclesia  pepetuo 
mansura  sit.  Est  autem 
Ecclesia  congregatio  Sanc- 
torum [Versammlung  aller 
Oldubigen],  in  qua  Evange- 
lium  recte  [rein]  docetur,  et 
recte  [laut  des  Evangelii] 
administranttir  Sacramenta. 

Et  ad  veram  unitatem 
Ecclesiae  satis  est  consen- 
tire  de  doctrina  Evangelii 
et  administratione  Sacra- 
mentornm.  Nee  necesse 
est  ubique  esse  similes  tra- 
ditiones  humanas,  seu  ritus 
aut  ceremonias,  ab  homini- 
bus  institutes.  Sicut  in- 
quit  Paulus  (Eph.  iv.  5,  G) : 
Una  fides,  unum  Baptisma, 
unus  Deus  et  Pater  om- 
nium, etc. 

Art.  XIII.  De  Usu  Sacra- 

mentorum. 

De   usu    Sacramentorum 

docent,    quod    Sacramenta 

instituta  sint,  non  modo  ut 


Thirteen  Articles. 

1538. 
Art.  IV.    De  Justifica- 

tione. 
[Art.  IV.  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  is  enlarged,  and 
Art.  V.  added.  In  this 
case  the  English  Articles 
do  not  give  the  language, 
but  the  sense  of  the  Lu- 
theran symbols,  with  the 
unmistakeable  '  sola  fide,' 
which  was  Luther's  watch- 
word.] 


Art.  V.  De  Ecclesia. 
[This  Article  is  much  en- 
larged, and  makes  an  im- 
portant distinction  between 
the  Church  as  the  '  congre- 
gatio omnium  sanctorum 
et  fidelium'1  (the  invisible 
Church),  which  is  the  mys- 
tical body  of  Christ,  and 
the  Church  as  the  '  congre- 
gatio omnium  hominum 
qui  baptizati  sunt'  (the 
visible  Church).] 


Art.  IX.  Dc  Sacramento- 
rum Usu. 

Doccmus,    quod    Sacra- 
menta quae  per  verbum  Dei 

instituta   sunt,  non  tantum 


Thirty-nine  Articles. 

1563. 

Art.  XI.  De  Hominis  Iusti- 

ficatione. 

Tantum  propter  meritum 
Domini  ac  Servatoris  no- 
stri  Iesu  Christi,  per  Jidem, 
non  propter  opera  et  merita 
nostra,  iusti  coram  Deo  re- 
putamur.  Quare  sola  fide 
nos  iustijicari,  doctrina  est 
saluberrima,  ac  consola- 
tionis  plenissima:  ut  in 
Homilia  de  Iustificatione 
hominis  fusius  explicatur. 


Art.  XIX.  De  Ecclesia. 

Ecclesia  Christi  visibilis. 
est  coetus  Jidelium,  in  quo 
verbum  Dei  purum  praedi- 
catur,  et  sacramenta,  quoad 
ea  quae  necessario  exigun- 
tur,  iuxta  Christi  institu- 
tum  recte  administrantur.1 

Sicut  erravit  Ecclesia 
Hierosolymitana,  Alexan- 
dria et  Antiochena  :  ita  et 
erravit  Ecclesia  Romana, 
non  solum  quoad  agenda 
et  caeremoniarum  ritus,  ve- 
ruin  in  his  etiam  quae  cre- 
denda  sunt. 

[Compare  Art.  XXXIII. , 
which  treats  of  ecclesias- 
tical traditions,  and  corre- 
sponds in  sentiment  to  the 
second  clause  in  Art.  VII. 
of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion.] 

Art.  XXV.    De   Sacra- 

mentis. 
Sacramenta  a  Christo  in- 
stituta non  tantum  suntnotw 
professionis  Christ ianorum, 


1  The  silence  of  this  Article  concerning  the  episcopal  succession  was  observed  by  Jolifte, 
prebendary  at  Worcester,  who  added  among  the  marks  of  the  Church,  'legitima  et  continua  suc- 
cessio  vicariorum  Christi.' 


§  81.  TIIK  INTERPRETATION  OE  THE  ARTICLES 


627 


Augsburg  Confession. 
1530. 
sint  nota  profession  is  inter 
homines,  sed  magis  ut  sint 
signa  et  testimonia  volunta- 
tis  Dti  crga  nos,  ad  ezcitan- 
dam  et  eonfirmandam  fidem 
in  his,  qui  utuntur,  propo- 
sita.  Itaquc  utcinlum  est 
Sacramentis  ita,  ut  tides  ac- 
cedat,  qua)  credat  promis- 
sionibus,  quae  per  Sacra- 
menta  exhibentor  et  osten- 
duntur. 

Damnant  igitur  illos,  qui 
docent,  quod  Sacranienta 
ex  opere  operate justificent, 
nee  docent  fidem  requiri  in 
usu  Sacramcntorum,  quae 
credat  reniitti  peccata. 


Thirteen  Aktu'i.i ia 
1538. 
sint  nodv  professionis  inter 
Christianas,  sed  magis  carta 
quadam  testimonia  el  effiea- 
cia  rigna  gratia,  et  bona  voh 
untatia  J><  i  erga  nos,  pa  r  qua 
Deus  imnsibUiter  operatur 
in  w'liis,  et  suam  gratiam  in 
nos  invisibiliter  diil'undit, 
Biqnidem  ea  rite  susceperi- 
mus ;  quodque  per  ea  cxei- 
tatur  et  eonfirmatwr fides  in 

,  his  qui  eis  utuntur.  Porro 
docemus,  quod  ita  utendum 
sit  sacramentis,  ut  in  adul- 
tis,  prater    veram    contri- 

Jtionem,  necessario  etiam 
debeat  accedcre  fides,  quae 
credat  prtesentibus  promis- 
sionibus,  qua;  per  sacra- 
nienta ostenduntur,  exhi- 
bentur, et  prsestantur.  Ne- 
que,  etc. 


Thirty  mm:  AbTICLBS. 
1503. 
sed  eerta  quadam  potiua  tes- 
timonia, et  effieaeia  signa 
gratia  atque  bona  in  nos  oo- 
luntatia  l)<i.  }«r  qua  invisi- 
biliter ipse  iw  nobis  operatur, 
noetnmqviefidem  in  se,  nan 
solum  i.ccilat,  verutn  etiam 
confirmest. 


Besides  these  passages,  there  is  a  close  resemblance  in  thought, 
though  not  in  language,  in  the  statements  of  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,1  and  of  the  possibility  of  falling  after  justification.2  Several  of 
the  Edwardine  Articles,  also,  which  were  omitted  in  the  Elizabethan 
revision,  were  suggested  by  Art.  XVII.  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
which  is  directed  against  the  Anabaptists. 


THE   ARTICLES    AND   THE    WUBTEMBERG   CONFESSION. 

In  the  Elizabethan  revision  of  the  Articles  another  Lutheran  Con- 
fession was  used  (in  Arts.  II.,  V.,  VI.,  X.,  XL,  and  XX.) — namely,  the 
Covfessio  Wurtembergica,  drawn  up  by  the  Suabian  Reformer,  Bren- 
tius  (at  a  time  when  lie  was  still  in  full  harmony  with  Melanchthon), 
in  the  name  of  Duke  Christopher  of  Wiirtemberg  (1551),  and  pre- 
sented by  his  delegates  to  the  Council  of  Trent  (Jan.  24-,  1553).'     Soon 


1  Conf.  Aug.  Art.  II..  English  Art.  IX.,  from  Augustine. 

a  Conf.  Aug.  Art.  XII.  (*  Damnant  Anabaptistae  >/ui  negani  semdjnst\ficatos posse  umttert 
Spiritum  Ssnctam,' etc.),  English  Art.  XVI. 

■Printed  in  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma  Conf.,  nnd  in  Dr.  Heppe's  Il<  h  nntniss-S,  hrifti  n  der 
tdtprotestantischen  Kirche  Deatsehlands,  Caasel,  1865,  pp.  491  664.  Bee  above,  §  17,  pp.  848 
sq.    Archbishop  Laurence  {JBampton  Lectures,  pp.  40  and  -;'.:'.  son,.)  Brat  discorered  and 


62S 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


after  the  accession  of  Elizabeth  the  negotiations  with  the  German 
Lutherans  (which  had  been  broken  off  in  1538)  were  resumed,  with  a 
view  to  join  the  Smalcaldian  League,  but  led  to  no  definite  result.  It 
was  probably  during  these  negotiations  that  the  Wiirtemberg  Confes- 
sion became  known  in  England ;  and  as  it  had  acquired  a  public  noto- 
riety by  its  presentation  at  Trent,  and  was  a  restatement  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  adapted  to  the  new  condition  of  things,  it  was  very 
natural  that  it  should  be  compared  in  the  revision  of  the  Articles. 
Melanchthon's  'Saxon  Repetition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession'  would 
indeed  have  answered  the  same  purpose  equally  well,  but  perhaps  it 
was  not  known  in  time. 


CONFESSIO  WiJRTEMBERGICA,  1552. 

Art.  II.  De  Filio  Dei  (Heppe,  p.  492). 

Credimus  et  confitemur  Filium  Dei, 
Dominuni  nostrum  Jesum  Christum,  ab 
seterno  a  Patre  suo  genitum,  verum  et 
seternum  Deum,  Patri  suo  consubstantia- 
lem,  et  in  plenitudine  temporis  factum 
liominem,  etc. 

Art.  III.  De  Spiritu  Sancto  (Heppe, 
p.  493). 

Credimus  et  confitemur  Spiritum  Sanc- 
tum ab  aeterno  procedere  a  Deo  Patre  et 
Filio,  et  esse  ejusdem  cum  Patre  et  Filio 
essentia?,  majestatis,  et  gloria?,  verum  ac 
sctcrnum  Deum. 

Art.  XXX.  De  Sacra  Scriptura  (Heppe, 
p.  540). 
Sacram  Scripturam  vocamus  cos  Cano- 
nicos  libros  veteris  et  novi  Testamenti,  de 
quorum  authoritate  in  Ecclesia  nuuquam 
dubitatum  est. 


Thirty-nine  Articles,  1563. 
Art.  II.  Verbum  Dei  verum  bominem 
esse  factum. 
Ab  aeterno  a  Patre  genitus,  verus  et 
teternus  Deus,  ac  Patri  consubstantialis. 


Art.  V.  De  Spiritu  Sancto. 

Spiritus  Sanctus,  a  Patre  et  Filio  pro- 
cedens,  ejusdem  est  cum  Patre  et  Filio 
essentia?,  majestatis,  et  gloria?,  verus  ac 
a?ternus  Deus. 


Art.  VI.  Divina?  Scriptura?  doctrina 
sufncit  ad  salutem. 

.  .  .  Sacra?  Scriptura?  nomine  eos  Cano- 
nicos  libros  veteris  et  novi  Testamenti  in- 
telligimus,  de  quorum  auctoritate  in  Ec- 
clesia nunquam  dubitatum  est. 


pointed  out  this  resemblance.  Hardwick  (pp.  120  sqq.)  and  the  'Interleaved  Prayer-Book' 
speak  of  the  Confession  of  Brentius  alternately  as  the  'Saxon'  Confession,  and  the  'Wiir- 
temberg' (or  Wirtemburg !)  Confession,  as  if  the  Saxon  city  of  Wittenberg  and  the  Duchy 
(now  Kingdom)  of  Wiirtemberg  were  one  and  the  same.  The  'Saxon  Confession,'  so  called, 
or  the  'Repetition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,'  is  a  different  document,  written  about  the 
same  time  and  for  the  same  purpose  by  Melanchthon,  in  behalf  of  the  Wittenberg  and  other 
Saxon  divines.  See  above,  p.  340,  and  the  Oxford  Sylloge,  which  incorporates  the  Saxon  but 
not  the  Wiirtemberg  Confession. 


§  81.  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  ARTICLES. 


G20 


TlIIKTY-NINK    ArTKT.KS,  1.503. 

A  i:  i .  X.  De  Libera  Arbitrio. 


Confessio  WUrtembkkgica,  1552. 

Art.  IV.  Dc  Peccuto  (Heppe,  p.  493). 

Quod  autem  nonnulli  affirmant  bomini  Ba  est  bominis  post  lapsum  Ada'  con- 
post  Lapsum  tantam  animi  integritatem  ditio,  ut  Bese,  naturalibus  Buisviribua  el 
relictam,  ut  possit  sesc,  naturalibus  suis  bonis  operibus,  ad  fidem  et  invocationem 
viribus  et  bonis  operibus,  ad  fidem  et  in-  Dei  convertere  ac  pneparare  non  posait 
vocationem  Dei  convertere  ac  prsparare,  [The  next  clause,  'Quare  absque  gratia 
hand  obscure  pugnat  cum  Apostolica  Dei,1  etc.,  is  taken  almost  verbatim  from 
doctrina,  et  cum  vero  Ecclesia?  Catholics  Augustine,  Ik  gratia  et  lib.  arbitrio,  c  17 
consensu.  (al.  33).] 


Art.  V.  De  Justificatione  (Heppe, 

p.  495). 
Homo  enim  fit  Deo  acceptus,  et  repu- 


Abt.  XI.  De  Hominis  Justificatione. 


Tantum  propter  meritum  Domini  ac 
tatur  coram  eo  Justus,  propter  solum  Servatoris  nostri  Jesu  Cbristi,  per  fidem, 
Filium  Dei,  Dominum  nostrum  Jcsum  non  propter  opera  et  merita  nostra,  justi 
Christum,  per  fidem.  coram  Deo  reputamur. 

Art.  VIII.  De  Evangclio  Christi  (Heppe, 
p.  500). 

Nee  veteris  nee  novi  Testamcnti  ho- 
minibus  contingat  seterna  salus  propter 
meritum  operum  Legis,  sed  tantum  prop- 
ter meritum  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi, 
per  fidem. 

Art.  VII.  De  Bonis  Operibus  (Heppe, 
p.  499). 

Non   est  autem   scntiendum,  quod  iis 

bonis  operibus,  qua?  per  nos  facimus,  in  justificatos  sequuntur,  quanquam  peccata 

judicio  Dei,  ubi  agitur  de  expiatione  pec-  nostra  expiare,  et  divini  judicii  severita- 

catorum,   et    placatione    divina?    ira?,  ac  tern  ferre  non  possunt,  Deo  tamen  grata 

merito  a?terna?  salutis,  confidendem   sit.  sunt  et  accepta  in  Christo. 
Omnia   enim   bona  opera,  qu83  nos  faci- 


Art.  XII.  De  Bonis  Operibus. 


Bona  opera,  qua;  sunt  fructus  fidei,  et 


mus,  sunt  imperfecta,  nee  possunt  sevcri- 
tatem  divini  judicii  ferre. 

Art.  XXXII.  De  Ecclesia  (Heppe, 
p.  544). 

Credimus  et  confitemur, quod  una  sit 
Sancta  Catholics  et  Apostolica  Ecclesia, 
juxta  symbolum  Apostolorum  et   Nicsa 

num.  .  .  . 

Quod  hsec  Ecclesia  habeat  jus  judi- 
candi  de  omnibus  doctrinis.  jnxta  illud. 
Probate  spirit  ux,  num  ex  Deo  tint. 

Quod  lia-c  Ecclesia  habeat  jus  interprc- 
tandee  Scripture. 


Akt.  XX.  De  Ecclesia;  Autoritate. 

Habei  Ecclesia  ritus  Bive  ceremonies 
Btatuendijus,  et  in  Bdei  controvereiiBauc- 
toritatem,  quamvis  Ecclesia  non  licet 
quicquam  instituere,  « | n<  >*  1  verbo  Dei 
Bcripto  adversetur,  nee  unum  Bcriptura 
locum  sic  exponere  potest,  at  alteri  con- 
tradicat 


(530  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

THE   ARTICLES    AND    THE    REFORMED    CONFESSIONS. 

We  now  proceed  to  those  doctrines  in  which  the  Lutheran  and  the 
Reformed  Churches  differed  and  finally  separated— namely,  the  doc- 
trines of  predestination  and  the  eucharistic  presence.  Here  we  find 
the  English  Articles  on  the  Eeformed  side.  The  authors  and  revisers 
formed  their  views  on  these  subjects  partly  from  an  independent  study 
of  the  Scriptures  and  Augustine,  partly  from  contact  with  the  Swiss 
divines. 

The  principal  Eeformed  Confessions  were  indeed  published  at  a 
later  date— the  Gallican  Confession  in  1559 ;  the  Belgic  in  1561 ;  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  in  1563;  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  in 
1566.  But  Zwingli's  and  Bullinger's  works,  Calvin's  Institutes  (1536), 
and  his  Tract  on  the  Lord's  Supper  (1541),  the  Zurich  Consensus  (1549), 
and  the  Geneva  Consensus  (1552),  must  have  been  more  or  less  known 
in  England.  Bishop  Hooper  had  become  a  thorough  disciple  of  Bull- 
inger  by  a  long  residence  in  Zurich  before  the  accession  of  Edward 
VI.,  and  was  consulted  on  the  Articles.  Craniner  (as  previously  men- 
tioned) embraced,  with  Eidley,  the  Eeformed  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  as  early  as  1548 ;  he  corresponded  with  the  Swiss  Reformers, 
as  well  as  with  Melanchthon,  and  invited  them  (March  1552)  to  En- 
gland to  frame  a  general  creed ;  and  he  was  in  intimate  personal  con- 
nection with  Bucer,  Peter  Martyr,  John  Laski,  and  Knox  at  the  time 
he  framed  the  Articles.1  From  the  same  period  we  have  a  remarkable 
witness  to  the  influence  of  Calvin's  tracts  in  defense  of  the  doctrine  of 
predestination.2  Bartholomew  Traheron,  then  Dean  of  Chichester,  and 
Librarian  to  King  Edward,  wrote  to  Bullinger  from  London,  Sept.  10, 
1552,  as  follows:3  'I  am  exceedingly  desirous  to  know  what  you  and 
the  other  very  learned  men  who  live  at  Zurich  think  respecting  the 
predestination  and  providence  of  God.  If  you  ask  the  reason,  there 
are  certain  individuals  here  who  lived  among  you  some  time,  and  who 
assert  that  you  lean  too  much  to  Melanchthon's  views.4    But  the  greater 

1  One  of  the  last  letters  of  Cranmer  was  written  from  his  prison,  155"),  to  Peter  Martyr, 
who  was  a  decided  Calvinist.     See  Zurich  Letters,  First  Series,  Vol.  I.  p.  29. 

2  See  above,  p.  474. 

3  Zurich  Letters,  First  Series,  Vol.  I.  p.  325. 

4  From  this  we  might  infer  that  Melanchthon's  influence,  in  consequence  of  his  abandon- 
ment of  absolute  predestinarianism,  was  declining  in  England,  while  Calvin's  was  increasing. 


§  81.  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  ABTII  LES.  r,.;i 

number  among  us,  of  whom  I  own  myself  to  be  one,  embrace  the 
opinion  of  John  Calvin  aa  being  perspicuous,  and  most  agreeable  to 
holy  Scripture.  And  we  truly  thank  God  that  that  excellent  treatise 
of  the  very  learned  and  excellent  John  Calvin  against  PighlUS  and  one 
Georgius  Siculus  should  have  come  forth  at  the  very  time  when  the 
question  began  to  be  agitated  among  us.1  For  we  confess  that  he  has 
thrown  much  light  upon  the  subject,  or  rather  so  handled  it  as  that  we 
have  never  before  seen  any  thing  more  learned  or  more  plain.  AVe  are 
anxious,  however,  to  know  what  are  your  opinions,  to  which  we  justly 
allow  much  weight.  We  certainly  hope  that  you  differ  in  no  respect 
from  his  excellent  and  most  learned  opinion.  At  least  you  will  please 
to  point  out  what  you  approve  in  that  treatise,  or  think  defective,  or 
reject  altogether,  if  indeed  you  do  reject  any  part  of  it,  which  we  shall 
not  easily  believe.'  To  this  letter  Bollinger  replied  at  length,  but  not 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Dean,  who  wrote  to  him  again,  June  -'!.  L553, 
as  follows:2  'You  do  not  approve  of  Calvin, when  he  states  that  God 
not  only  foresaw  the  fall  of  the  first  man,  and  in  him  the  ruin  of  his 
posterity,  but  that  he  also  at  his  own  pleasure  arranged  it.  But  un- 
less we  allow  this,  we  shall  certainly  take  away  both  the  providence 
and  the  wisdom  of  God  altogether.  I  do  not  indeed  perceive  how 
this  sentence  of  Solomon  contains  any  thing  less  than  this:  "The 
Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  himself;  yea,  even  the  wicked  for  the 
day  of  evil"  (Pro v. xvi. 4).  And  that  of  Paul:  "Of  him  and  through 
him,  and  to  him  are  all  things"  (Rom.  xi.  3G).  I  pass  over  other  ex- 
pressions which  the  most  learned  Calvin  employs,  because  they  occur 
everywhere  in  the  holy  Scriptures.' 

The  Elizabethan  revision  was  the  work  of  the  Marian  exiles,  who 
felt  themselves  in  complete  theological  harmony  with  the  Swiss 
divines,  especially  with  Bnllinger  of  Zurich,  who  represented  an  im- 
proved type  of  Zwinglianism,  aud  agreed  with  Calvin  on  the  subject 


'lie  means  the  Consensus  Gmeommi  dt  mterna  Dei  pradestinatione, which  appeared  In 
1652,  and  acquired  semi-symbolical  authority  in  Genera.  Calvin  bad  also  previously  1648) 
written  a  tract  against  Pighins  <>"  the  doctrine  <>f  free-will,  and  dedicated  it  to  Melanchthon, 
who  gratefully  acknowledged  the  compliment,  but  modestly  intimated  his  dissent  and  h\±  In- 
ability to  harmonize  the  all-ruling  providence  of  God  wkh  tlie  action  of  the  human  wiD.  Bee 
Btahelin,  Co/u.Vol.  I.  p.  241. 

2  Zurich  Letten,  Bint  Series,  Vol  Lp.  827.  Bollinger's  tract  /'.  prorufatfto,  which  w^ 
occasioned  by  Traheron,  is  still  extant  in  MS.  in  Zurich,  and  is  fullv  noticed  by  Schweizer. 
See  above,  p.  4  7"». 

Vol.  I.— Ss 


632  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  the  Lord's  Supper  (as  expressed  in  the  Consensus  Tigurinus,  1540), 
but  was  more  moderate  and  guarded  on  the  subject  of  predestination.1 
His  writings  seem  to  have  been  better  known  and  exerted  more  in- 
fluence in  the  earlier  part  of  Elizabeth's  reign  than  those  of  Calvin, 
which  were  more  congenial  to  the  Scotch  mind;  but  they  became  all- 
powerful  even  in  England  towards  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

On  this  point  we  have  the  explicit  testimonies  of  the  very  men  who 
were  the  chief  assistants  of  Archbishop  Parker  in  the  revision  of  the 
Articles.  Bishop  Horn,  of  Winchester,  wrote  to  Henry  Bullinger, 
Dec.  13, 1563,  soon  after  the  adoption  of  the  Latin  revision  :  'We  have 
throughout  England  the  same  ecclesiastical  doctrine  as  yourselves.  .  .  . 
The  people  of  England  entertain  on  these  points'  [the  sacraments,  and 
'against  the  ubiquitarianism  of  Brentius']  'the  same  opinions  as  you 
do  at  Zurich.'2  Bishop  Grindal,  of  London,  afterwards  (1575)  the 
successor  of  Parker  in  the  primacy,  wrote  to  Bullinger,  Aug.  27, 1566  : 
'  We,  who  are  now  bishops,  most  fully  agree  in  the  pure  doctrines  of 
the  gospel  with  your  churches,  and  with  the  Confession  you  have 
lately  set  forth'  [i.  e.,  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  which  appeared 
in  the  same  year].  'And  we  do  not  regret  our  resolution  ;  for  in  the 
mean  time,  the  Lord  giving  the  increase,  our  churches  are  enlarged 
and  established,  which  under  other  circumstances  would  have  become 
a  prey  to  the  Ecebolians,  Lutherans,  and  semi-papists.'3  In  a  letter  to 
Calvin,  dated  June  19, 1563,  Grindal  says:  'As  you  and  Bullinger  are 
almost  the  only  chief  pillars  remaining,  we  desire  to  enjoy  you  both 
(if  it  please  God)  as  long  as  possible.  I  purposely  omit  mention  of 
Brentius,  who  having  undertaken  the  advocacy  of  the  very  worst  of 
causes'  [ubiquitarianism],  'seems  no  longer  to  acknowledge  us  as 
brethren.'4  The  letters  of  Bishop  Cox,  of  Ely,  to  Bullinger  and  Peter 
Martyr,  though  not  so  explicit,  breathe  the  same  spirit  of  grateful  re- 


1  On  Bullinger's  intimate  personal  relations  with  English  divines,  which  began  before  the 
reign  of  Edward  and  continued  till  his  deatli  (1 57")),  compare  Eestalozzi's  Htinrich  Bullinger, 
pp.441  sqq. 

2  Zurich  Letters,  Second  Series,  Vol.  I.  CA.D.  1558-1579),  p.  13."). 

3  Ibid.  p.  169.  Ecebolus  was  a  sophist  of  Constantinople  in  the  fourth  century,  who  fol- 
lowed the  Emperor  Julian  in  his  apostasy. 

4  Ibid.  Vol.  II.  p.  97.  Brentius  advocated  the  absolute  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body,  and 
fiercely  attacked  the  Reformed  in  several  tracts,  from  1560  to  1">G4  (ten  years  after  he  wrote 
the  Wiirtemherg  Confession).  He  was  answered  by  Bullinger  and  Peter  Martyr.  £ee  above, 
p.  290. 


§  81.  THE  INTERPRETATION   <>F  THE  ARTICLES.  033 

spect  and  affection.    The  strong  testimony  of  Bishop  Jewel  of  Balee- 
burv,  the  final  reviser  of  the  English  text  and   chief  author  of  the 

Second  Book  of  Homilies,  we  have  already  quoted.1 

PREDESTINATION    AND    ELECTION. 

On  the  premundane  mystery  of  predestination,  which  no  system  of 
philosophy  or  theology  can  satisfactorily  solve  in  this  world,  and  which 
ought  to  be  approached  with  profound  reverence  and  humility,  all  the 
Reformers,  in  their  private  writings,  followed  originally  the  teaching 
of  the  great  Augustine  and  the  greater  St.  Paul ;  meaning  thereby  to 
cut  human  merit  and  pride  at  the  roots,  and  to  give  all  the  glory  of 
our  salvation  to  God  alone.  But  the  Lutheran  symbols  (with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  later  Formula  of  Concord)  are  silent  on  the  subject, 
while  most  of  the  Reformed  standards,  under  the  influence  of  Calvin, 
give  it  a  prominent  place.  The  English  Articles  handle  it  with  much 
wisdom  and  moderation,  dwelling  exclusively  on  the  election  of  saints 
or  predestination  to  life.  We  give  the  XVIIth  Article  in  its  original 
form  with  the  later  amendments ;  the  clauses  which  were  omitted  in 
the  Elizabethan  revision  are  printed  in  italics,  the  words  which  were 
inserted  or  substituted  are  inclosed  in  brackets. 

Art.  XVII. 

OF    PREDESTINATION    AND    ELECTION. 

Predestination  to  Life  is  the  everlasting  purpose  of  God,  whereby  (before  the  foundations 
of  the  world  were  laid)  lie  hath  constantly  decreed  by  his  counsel  secret  to  us  to  deliver  from 
curse  and  damnation  those  whom  he  hath  chosen  [in  Christ]5  out  of  mankind,  and  to  bring 
them  by  Christ  to  everlasting  salvation,  as  vessels  made  to  honor.  Wherefore,  such  as  have 
[they  which  be  endued  with]  so  excellent  a  benefit  of  God  given  unto  tli<m,  be  called  accord- 
ing to  God's  purpose  by  his  Spirit  working  in  due  season  :  they  through  grace  obey  tin-  c  ail- 
ing:  they  be  justified  ircely  :    they  be  made   BOOS  [of  God]  by  adoption  :    they  In'  made  like 

the  image  of  (•oil's  [his]  only  begotten  Son  Jeans  Christ:  they  walk  religiously  in  good  woik*. 
and  at  length,  by  God's  mercy,  they  attain  to  everlasting  felicity. 

As  the  godly  consideration  of  Predestination,  and  our  Election  in  Christ,  is  full  of  sweet, 
pleasant,  and  unspeakable  comfort  to  godly  persons,  and  such  as  fed  in  themselves  the  wak- 
ing of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  mortifying  the  works  of  the  flesh,  ami  their  earthly  members,  and 

drawing  up  their  mind  to  high  and  heavenly  things,  rs  well  becanse  it  doth  greatlj  establish 

and  confirm  their  faith  of  eternal  salvation  to  be  enjoyed  through  Christ,  M  beeau.-e  it  doth 

1  See  his  letter  to  his  revered  teacher,  Peter  Martyr,  p.  808.  Grinds]  called  him  after  hit 
death  (Sept.  2'J,  1571 ),  '  the  jewel  and  singular  ornament  of  the  (  bun  h,  as  bit  name  implies.' 
—ZurUh  Letters,  Second  Series.  Vol.  f.p,  260.  An  adversary,  Moron,  said  of  him  :  '  I  should 
love  thee,  Jewel,  if  thou  wert  not  a  Zwinghan  ;  in  thy  faith  I  hold  thee  an  heretic,  but  miicU 

in  thy  life  thou  art  an  angel.'    Queen  Elisabeth  ordered  a  eopj  of  Jewel's  'Apology  of  the 

Church  of  England' (1562)  to  be  chained  in  every  parish  church. 

2  The  insertion  'in  Christ'  is  Scriptural  and  in  accordance  with  nil  the  IJcfoimed  Con 
fessions.    There  is  no  election  out  of  Christ  or  apart  from  Christ. 


(534  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

fervently  kindle  their  love  towards  God:  so,  for  curious  and  carnal  persons,  lacking  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  to  have  continually  before  their  eyes  the  sentence  of  God's  Predestination,  is  a  most 
dangerous  downfall,  whereby  the  Devil  may  [doth]  thrust  them  either  into  desperation,  or 
into  wretchlessness  of  most  unclean  living,  no  less  perilous  than  desperation. 

Furthermore,  although  the  Decrees  of  Predestination  are  unknoivn  unto  us,  yet  we  must  re- 
ceive God's  promises  in  such  wise,  as  they  be  generally  set  forth  to  us  in  holy  Scripture ; 
and,  in  our  doings,  that  Will  of  God  is  to  be  followed,  which  we  have  expressly  declared  unto 
us  in  the  Word  of  God. 

This  Article  can  not  be  derived  from  the  Augsburg  Confession,  nor 
from  the  Thirteen  Articles,  nor  from  the  Wiirtemberg  Confession — for 
they  omit  the  subject  of  predestination  altogether1  — nor  from  Melanch- 
thon's  private  writings,  for  he  abandoned  his  former  views,  and  sug- 
gested the  synergistic  theory  as  early  as  1535,  and  more  fully  in  154S.2 
It  can  not  be  naturally  understood  in  any  other  than  an  Augustinian 
or  moderately  Calvinistic  sense.  It  does  not,  indeed,  go  as  far  as  the 
Lambeth  Articles  (1595),  which  the  stronger  Calvinism  of  the  rising 
generation  thought  necessary  to  add  as  an  explanation.  It  omits  the 
knotty  points ;  it  is  cautiously  framed  and  guarded  against  abuse.3  But 
it  very  clearly  teaches  a  free  eternal  election  in  Christ,  which  carries 
with  it,  by  way  of  execution  in  time,  the  certainty  of  the  call,  justifica- 
tion, adoption,  sanctification,  and  final  glorification  (Rom.  viii.  29,  30). 

1  With  the  exception  of  an  incidental  allusion  to  the  absolute  freedom  of  divine  grace  in 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  Art.  V.,  De  Ministerio  :  '  Per  verbum  et  sacramenta  taviquam  per 
instrumenta  donatur  Spiritus  Sanetus,  quijidem  efficit,  ubi  et  quando  visum  est  Deo,  in  Us 
qui  audiunt  evangelium.''  Compare  with  this  the  expression  of  the  Form.  Concordia;  (Sol.  deck 
Art.  II.  de  lib.  arbitr.  p.  GTS)  :  '  Trahit  Deus  hominem,  quem  convertere  decrevit.'  It  is 
significant  that  in  the  altered  edition  of  1540  Melanchthon  omitted  the  words  iubi  et  quando 
visum  est  Deo,'  as  also  the  words  '  non  adjuvante  Deo'  in  Art.  XIX.  The  brevity  of  allusion 
shows  that  even  in  1530,  although  still  holding  to  the  Augustinian  scheme,  he  laid  less  stress 
on  it  than  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Loci.  This  appears  also  from  a  letter  to  Brentius,  Sept. 
30,  1531  (Corp.  Ref.Vol.  II.  p.  547),  where  Melanchthon  says:  '  Sed  ego  in  tota  Apologia 
fugi  illam  longam  et  inexplicabilem  disputationem  de  pradestinatione.  Ubique  sic  loquor, 
quasi  pro?desti?iatio  seqttatur  nostrum  fidem  et  oj>era.' 

2  See  above,  pp.  2G2  sqq.,  and  Schweizer,  Centraldogmen,  Vol.  I.  p.  384.  There  is  not  a 
trace  of  synergism  in  theXVIIth  Art.,  and  Art.  X.  expressly  denies  the  freedom  of  will,  while 
Melanchthon  asserts  it  in  the  later  editions  of  his  Loci  ('  Liberum  arbitrium  esse  in  homine 
facultatem  applicandi  se  ad  gratiam').  Laurence  (p.  179)  and  Hardwick  (p.  383)  derive  the 
last  clause  about  the  'general'  promises  and  the  'revealed  will'  from  Melanchthon,  but  the 
same  sentiments  are  found  in  Calvin,  Bullinger,  and  the  Reformed  Confessions.     See  below. 

3  This  element  of  caution  and  modesty  is  well  expressed  by  Bishop  Ridley :  '  In  these  mat- 
ters [of  God's  election]  I  am  so  fearful  that  I  dare  not  speak  further,  yea,  almost  none  other- 
wise than  the  very  text  doth,  as  it  were,  lead  me  by  the  hand.'  Ridley's  Works  (Parker  ed.), 
p.  368.  He  thus  wrote  in  a  letter  of  sympathy  to  his  friend  and  chaplain,  Bradford,  who  in 
prison,  at  London,  had  a  dispute  with  a  certain  '  free-wilier,' Henry  Hart,  and  wrote  an  ex- 
cellent 'Defense  of  Election.'  This  treatise  was  approved  by  his  fellow-prisoners,  and  shows 
what  an  unspeakable  comfort  they  derived  from  this  doctrine.  See  The  Writings  of  John 
Bradford,  Martyr,  1555  (Parker  Soc.  ed.),  pp.  307  sqq. 


§  81.  THE  INTEKI'UETATION  OE  THE  ARTICLES,  i;;);, 

This  is  all  that  is  essential,  and  a  matter  of  dogma  in  the  Reformed 
Churches;  the  rest  of  what  is  technically  called  Calvinism,  in  distinc- 
tion from  Arminianism,  is  logical  inference,  and  belongs  to  the  the- 
ology of  the  school.  It  should  be  remembered  that  all  the  Reformed 
Confessions  (even  the  Canons  of  Dort,  the  Westminster  Confession,  and 
the  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula)  keep  within  the  limits  of  infralapsa' 
rianism,  which  puts  the  fall  under  njwmissive  decree,  and  makes  man 
alone  responsible  for  sin  and  condemnation;  the  most  authoritative,  as 
the  Helvetic  Confession  of  Bollinger,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and 
the  Brandenburg  Confessions  (also  the  Scotch  Confession  of  L560)  teach 
only  the  positive  and  comforting  part  of  predestination,  and  ignore  or 
deny  a  separate  decree  of  reprobation ;  thus  taking  the  ground  prac- 
tically that  all  that  are  saved  are  saved  by  the  free  grace  of  God,  while 
all  that  are  lost  are  lost  by  their  own  guilt.  They  also  teach  that  God's 
promises  and  Christ's  redemption  are  general,  and  that  we  must  abide 
by  the  revealed  will  of  God,  which  sincerely  offers  the  gospel  salvation 
to  all  who  repent  and  believe.1 

The  remarks  of  the  Article  about  the  'sweet,  pleasant,  and  unspeak- 
able comfort'  of  our  election  in  Christ,  and  the  caution  against  abuse 
by  carnal  persons,  are  consistent  only  with  the  Calvinistic  interpretation, 
and  wholly  inapplicable  to  Arminian  views,  which  are  neither  comfort- 
able nor  dangerous,  and  have  never  thrust  any  man  'into  desperation, 
or  into  wretchlessness  of  most  unclean  living.'2 

The  view  here  taken  is  confirmed  by  the  contemporary  testimonies 


1  Conf.  Ilelv.  post.,  cap.  X.  :  '  Bene  sperandum  est  de  omnibus.  Vestrum  nan  <s'  •!<'  his  cu- 
riosius  inquirere.  .  .  .  Audiendu  est  pradicatio  evangetii,  riqtu  credendum  <st.  >t  pro  indubi- 
tuto  habendum,  si  credis  ac  sis  in  Christo,  electum  te  esse.  ..."  Venite  ad  tic  omtu  »,"  etc.  .  .  . 
"Sic  Dais  dilexit  mundum,"  etc.  .  .  .  "iVon  est  voluntas  Patris,  ut  </nis>/u<  <l<  his  j>usiltis 
pereat."  .  .  .  Promissiones  D<  i  sunt  universale*  fidelibus*  (not  electis),  etc.  Heidelb.  Cat., 
Qu.37:  'Christ  bore  the  wrath  of  God  against  the  sin  of  the  whole  human  race  (  1  Pet  ii.  -I  : 
1  John  ii.  2,  etc.).'  Conf.  Belg.,  Art.  XIII. :  lSufficit  nobis  ea  duntaxat  discere  qua  ipse 
verlio  sito  nos  doeet,neque  hos  fines  transilire  fas  < ssc  ducimus.'  Calvin  himself  often  warns 
against  idle  curiosity  and  speculation  mi  the  Becret  will  "t"  God,  and  exhort-  men  t"  abide  by 
the  revealed  will  of  God.  Sec  tin-  passages  quoted  by  St&helin,  Vol.  II.  p.  279.  Comp.  the 
remarks  of  Dr.  Julius  Midler  on  the  Reformed  Confessions  concerning  predestination,  in  his 
work,  Die.  evang.  Union  I  1854  .  p.  214,  and  his  Dogmat.  Abhandlungen  ( 1870),  p.  194, 

*  Dr.  Cunningham  (Tfti  Reformers  and  the  Theology  of  th*  Reformation,  p.  194),  says:  "It 
is  only  the  Calvinistic,  and  not  the  Arminian  doctrine  that  suggests  or  requires  Buch  guards 
or  caveats  ;  and  it  is  plainly  impossible  that  such  a  statement  could  ever  have  >><  eurred  t<>  the 

compilers  of  the  Articles  as  proper  and  necessary,  unless  they  had  1 n  distinctly  aware  that 

they  had  just  laid  down  a  statement  which  at  least  included  the  Calvinistic  doctrine.' 


636  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

already  quoted,  and  by  the  first  learned  commentator  of  the  Articles, 
Thomas  Rogers,  who  was  chaplain  to  Archbishop  Bancroft,  and  did 
not  sympathize  with  the  Puritan  party.  He  draws  the  following  prop- 
ositions from  the  XVIIth  Article,  and  fortifies  them  with  abundant 
Scripture  passages : l 

'  1.  There  is  a  predestination  of  men  unto  everlasting  life. 

'  2.  Predestination  hath  been  from  everlasting. 

1  3.  They  who  are  predestinate  unto  salvation  can  not  perish. 

'  4.  Not  all  men,  but  certain,  are  predestinate  to  be  saved. 

'  5.  In  Christ  Jesus,  of  the  mere  will  and  purpose  of  God,  some  are 
elected,  and  not  others,  unto  salvation. 

'  6.  They  who  are  elected  unto  salvation,  if  they  come  unto  years  of 
discretion,  are  called  both  outwardly  by  the  Word  and  inwardly  by 
the  Spirit  of  God. 

'  7.  The  predestinate  are  both  justified  by  faith,  sanctified  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  shall  be  glorified  in  the  life  to  come. 

'  8.  The  consideration  of  predestination  is  to  the  godly-wise  most 
comfortable,  but  to  curious  and  carnal  persons  very  dangerous. 

'  9.  The  general  promises  of  God,  set  forth  in  the  holy  Scriptures, 
are  to  be  embraced  of  us. 

'  10.  In  our  actions,  the  Word  of  God,  which  is  his  revealed  will, 
must  be  our  direction.' 

To  this  theological  comment  I  add  the  judgment  of  an  impartial 
and  well-informed  secular  historian.  Henry  Hallam2  declares  that  the 
Articles  on  predestination,  original  sin,  and  total  depravity,  'after 
making  every  allowance  for  want  of  precision,  are  totally  irreconcil- 
able with  the  scheme  usually  denominated  Arminian.'  He  justly 
appeals  in  confirmation  of  this  judgment  to  contemporary  and  other 
early  authorities,  and  adds :  '  Whatever  doubts  may  be  raised  as  to  the 
Calvinism  of  Cranmer  and  Ridley,  there  can  surely  be  no  room  for 
any  as  to  the  chiefs  of  the  Anglican  Church  under  Elizabeth.  We  find 
explicit  proofs  that  Jewel,  Nowell,  Sandys,  and  Cox  professed  to  concur 
with  the  Reformers  of  Zurich  and  Geneva  in  every  point  of  doctrine. 


1  The  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  etc.,  first  published,  London,  1586, 
Parker  Society  ed.  (by  J.  J.  S.  Perowne),  1854,  p.  148.  This  important  work  has  not  been 
even  alluded  to  by  any  writer  I  have  consulted  on  the  subject. 

2  Constit.  History  of  England,  oh.  vii.  p.  2:30  (Amer.  ed.). 


§  81.  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  ARTICLES.  037 

The  works  of  Calvin  and  Ballinger  became  the  text-books  in  the  En- 
glish universities.  Those  who  did  not  hold  the  predestinarian  theory 
were  branded  with  reproach  by  the  name  of  Free-willera  and 
giansj  and  when  the  opposite  tenets  came  to  be  advanced,  as  they 
were  at  Cambridge  about  lo'JO,  a  clamor  was  raised  as  if  some  unusual 
heresy  had  been  broached.' 

The  Arminian  interpretation  of  the  Article  under  consideration  is 
an  anachronism  and  a  failure.  The  Lutheran  interpretation  ie  more 
plausible,  but  true  only  so  far  as  the  Lutheran  System  is  itself  Augus- 
tinian.  The  Tractarian  interpretation,  which  identifies  eternal  elec- 
tion with  ecclesiastical  calling,  and  the  elect  with  the  baptized,  is  con- 
trary both  to  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  Article.  It  must  in  all  fair- 
ness be  admitted  that  Art.  XVII.,  in  connection  with  Arts.  X.  and 
XIIL,  implies  the  infralapsarian  scheme,  and  that  the  Lambeth  Arti- 
cles are  not  a  reaction,  but  a  legitimate  though  one-sided  development. 

Note. — The  anti-Calvinistic  interpretation  began  after  the  Synod  ofDort  with  Archbishop 
Land,  or  his  biographer,  Peter  Heylin  (in  his  Hiatoria  Quinqu-Articularis,  London,  1660, 
which  was  answered  and  refuted  by  Henry  Hickman,  in  his  Hiatoria  Quinqu-Articul  I 
articulata,  1G73).  It  was  maintained,  with  hesitation,  by  Waterland  (1721),  more  decidedly 
by  Dr.  Winchester,  d.  1780  {Dissertation  on  the  X  VHth  AtHcU  ,  new  cd.  London,  1 808)  ;  by 
Dean  Kipling  {The  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  proved  not  to  be  Calvinistic,  Cam- 
bridge, 1802)  ;  by  Bishop  Tomline,  d.  1827  (.4  Refutation  of  Calvinism,  London,  1811);  and. 
with  considerable  learning,  by  Archbishop  Laurence,  d.  1839  (Bampt.  Lei  /.,  Led.  VII.  and 
VIII.,  Oxford,  1834,  3d  ed.  1838);  and  by  Hardwick  (Hist,  oftlu  Articles). 

Laurence  and  Hardwick,  as  already  remarked,  trace  Article  XVII.  to  Lutheran  source-. 
but  they  overlook  the  difference  between  the  Lutheran  system  (which  admits  the  Angos- 
tinian  premises,  and  even  the  doctrine  of  unconditional  election  of  grace — see  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  ch.  xi.)  and  the  Arminian  system  (which  denies  the  Augustinian  anthropology, 
and  makes  both  election  and  reprobation  conditional),  and  show  more  dislike  than  real  knowl- 
edge of  Calvin.  It  is  little  le-s  than  a  caricature  when  Laurence  says  of  Cnlvin  that  hi> 
'love  of  hypothesis'  was  superior  to  his  great  talent  and  piety  (p.  43);  thai  his  l vanity  in- 
duced him  to  frame  a  peculiar  system  of  his  own'  (pp.  262,  268),  and  that  'bo  man.  perhap*, 
was  ever  less  scrupulous  in  the  adoption  of  general  expressions,  and  no  man  adopted  them 
with  more  mental  reservations'  (p.  ;>7.">).  Principal  Cunningham  ha-  exposed  t  li  i  -  on  fairness 
(  Tht  Reformers  and  the  Theology  of  the  Reformers,  1866,  pp.  I7'.»  sqq.). 

Bishop  Burnet  (who  was  an  Arminian  and  Latitudinal  ian)  and  Bishop  Bron  ne  (a  moderate 
High-Churchman)  hesitate  between  the  Augustinian  and  the  Arminian  interpretation.  Bur- 
net, after  calmly  reviewing  the  different  theories  of  predestination,  says  (p.  286,  Oxford  ed 

'It  is  not  to  be  denied,  but  that  the  Article  seem-  to  be  fin d  according  to  St.  Austin's 

doctrine:  it  supposes  men  to  lie  under  a  curse  and  damnation,  antecedent!)  to  predestination, 
from  which  they  are  delivered  by  it ;  m>  it  i>  directly  against  the  Bupralapsarian  doctrine;  nor 
does  the  Article  make  any  mention  of  reprobation-  no.  not  in  a  bint  :  no  definition  i-  made 
concerning  it.  The  Article  does  also  seem  lo  assert  the  efficac]  of  grace  that  in  which  the 
knot  of  the  whole  difficulty  lies  is  not  defined ;  that  is,  whether  God's  eternal  purpose  or  de- 
cree was  made  according  to  what  he  foresail  bis  creatures  would  do,  or  purely  upon  u  abso 
lute  will,  in  order  to  his  own  glory.     It  i-  rery  probnble  that  those  who  penned  it  meant  that 


{J38  THE  CREEDS  OE  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  decree  was  absolute ;  but  yet  since  they  have  not  said  it,  those  who  subscribe  the  Articles 
do  not  seem  to  be  bound  to  any  thing  that  is  not  expressed  in  them  ;  and,  therefore,  since  the 
Remonstrants  do  not  deny  but  that  God  having  foreseen  what  all  mankind  would,  according 
to  all  the  different  circumstances  in  which  they  should  be  put,  do  or  not  do,  he  upon  that  did 
by  a  firm  and  eternal  decree  lay  that  whole  design  in  all  its  branches,  which  he  executes  in 
time ;  they  may  subscribe  this  Article  without  renouncing  their  opinion  as  to  this  matter.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Calvinists  have  less  occasion  for  scruple,  since  the  Article  does  seem  more 
plainly  to  favor  them.  The  three  cautions  that  are  added  to  it  do  likewise  intimate  that  St. 
Austin's  doctrine  was  designed  to  be  settled  by  the  Article ;  for  the  danger  of  men's  having 
the  sentence  of  God's  predestination  always  before  their  eyes,  which  may  occasion  either  desper- 
ation on  the  one  hand,  or  the  wretchedness  of  most  unclean  living  on  the  other,  belongs  only  to 
that  side ;  since  these  mischiefs  do  not  arise  out  of  the  other  hypothesis.  The  other  two,  of 
taking  the  promises  of  God  in  the  sense  in  which  they  are  set  forth  to  us  in  holy  Scriptures,  and 
of  following  that  will  of  God  that  is  expressly  declared  to  us  in  the  Word  of  God,  relate  very 
visibly  to  the  same  opinion.' 

Bishop  Browne,  after  a  long  discussion,  comes  to  the  conclusion  (p.  425)  that  '  the  Article 
was  designedly  drawn  up  in  guarded  and  general  terms,  on  purpose  to  comprehend  all  persons 
of  tolerably  sober  views.  ...  I  am  strongly  disposed  to  believe  that  Cranmer's  own  opinions 
were  certainly  neither  Arminian  nor  Calvinistic,  nor  probably  even  Augustinian ;  yet  I  can 
hardly  think  that  he  would  have  so  worded  this  Article  had  he  intended  to  declare  very  deci- 
dedly against  either  explanation  of  the  doctrine  of  election.' 

Bishop  Forbes,  a  Tractarian,  admits  the  Article  to  be  'Augustinian,  but  not  Calvinistic' 
(p.  252),  and  identifies  the  baptized  with  the  elect,  saying  (p.  254),  'God's  predestination  is 
bestowed  on  every  baptized  Christian.  .  .  .  The  fact  of  God  bringing  men  to  baptism  is 
synonymous  with  his  choosing  them  in  Christ  out  of  mankind.' 

John  Wesley,  unable  to  reconcile  Art.  XVII.  with  his  Arminiani:m,  omitted  it  altogether 
fi  om  his  revision  of  the  Articles. 

BAPTISMAL   REGENERATION   AND   FALL   FROM   GRACE. 

The  Articles  teach  also  the  possibility  of  falling  away  from  grace 
(XVI.)  and  the  doctrine  of  general  baptismal  regeneration  (XXVII.). 
This  seems  to  exclude  an  absolute  decree  of  election  '  to  everlasting 


tain  end.     Hence  the  attempts  to  explain  away  either  the  one  or  the 
other  in  order  to  save  the  logical  consistency  of  the  formulary.1 

In  Article  XVI.  there  is  no  real  difficulty.     It  is  directed  against 

1  Dr.  Goode,  in  his  learned  work,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  as  to  the  Effects 
of  Baj>lism  in  the  case  of  Infants  (1849),  labors  to  show  that  inasmuch  as  the  founders  of  the 
Church  of  England  were  Calvinists,  they  can  not  have  held  the  Tractarian  doctrine  of  baptis- 
mal regeneration,  which  is  incompatible  with  Calvinism.  Archdeacon  Wilberforce,  who  after- 
wards seceded  to  Rome,  showed,  in  his  Doctrine  of  Holy  Baptism  (London,  1S4!>),  in  opposi- 
tion to  Goode,  that  the  formularies  of  the  Church  of  England  do  clearly  teach  baptismal 
regeneration.  J.  B.  Mozley,  B.D.,  Eellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford,  in  his  able  work  on 
The  Primitive  Doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  (London,  185(i),  takes  a  middle  ground, 
viz.,  that  the  Church  of  England  imposes  the  doctrine  'that  God  gives  regenerating  grace  to 
the  whole  body  of  the  baptized,'  and  tolerates  the  doctrine  '  that  God  gives  grace  sufficient 
for  salvation  only  to  some  of  this  body,'  and  '  that  these  two  positions  can  not  really  be  in  col- 
lision with  each  other,  though  apparently  they  are.'  Mozley  grapples  with  the  difficulties  of 
the  problem,  but  has  after  all  not  succeeded  in  making  it  clear. 


§  SI.  THE  INTERPRETATION  <>!•'  THE  ARTIt  LES.  (;:;;i 

the  Anabaptists, -svho  'say  they  can  no  more  Bin,' and  the  modern  No- 
vatiansj  who  'deny  the  place  of  forgiveness  to  such  as  truly  repent/  and 
accords  with  a  similar  article  in  the  A.ugsbnrg  Confession.1     It  simply 

teaches  the  possibility  of  a  temporary  fall  of  the  baptized  and  regen- 
erated, but  not  a  total  and  final  fall  of  the  elect,  as  is  dear  from  the 
addition, 'and  by  the  grace  of  God  we  may  arise  again  and  amend  our 

lives.'  This  is  quite  consistent  with  Augustinianism,  and  even  with 
the  most  rigorous  form  of  Calvinism.3 

On  the  subject  of  baptism  the  Anglican  Church  agrees  much  more 
with  the  Lutheran  than  with  the  Calvinistic  creed.  She  retained  the 
Catholic  doctrine    of  baptismal    regeneration,  but   rejected  tin 

■>n/i  theory,  and  the  doctrine  that  baptism  destroys  the  nature  of 
original  sin  as  well  as  its  guilt.  Baptismal  regeneration  is  taught 
indefinitely  in  Article  XXVII.,3  more  plainly  in  the  Catechism/  and 
in  the  baptismal  service  of  the  Liturgy,  which  pronounces  every  child 
after  baptism  to  be  regenerated.5 

1  Comp.  Augs.  Conf.,  Art.  XII.  :  '  Damnant  Anabaptlstas,  qui  nerjant  semel  just\ficato» 
posse  amittere  Sjriritum  Sanctum.  .  .  .  I lumnautur  et  Novatiani  qui  nolebant  absolvert  lapsot 
post  baptismum  redeuntes  ad  pceuitentiam.'  Also  Bullinger's  Conies.  Ilelv.,  cap.  XIV.  : 
' Damnamus  et  veteres  et  novos  Novatianos,  atque  Catharos.' 

2  See  the  defense  of  this  Article  by  Dean  Bridges,  of  Sarum,  quoted  by  Hardwick,  p.  211. 

3  'Baptism  is  .  .  .  a  sign  of  regeneration  or  new  birth,  whereby,  as  by  an  instrument,  they 
that  receive  baptism  rightly,  are  grafted  into  the  Church.'  The  language  of  this  Article  bears 
a  Beformed  or  Calvinistic  interpretation.  Bishop  Hooper  and  several  of  the  Marian  exiles 
were  Zwinglians,  but  the  views  of  Cranmer  and  Ridley,  in  their  private  writings,  on  the  effects 
of  baptism  and  baptismal  grace,  agree  substantially  with  those  of  Luther.  See  Browne  on 
Art.  XX  VII.  pp.  668  sq.  ;  '.he  passages  collected  by  Jones,  Expos,  oftht  Art.  pp.  167  s>jq.  : 
also  Hardwick.  pp.  393  395. 

4  The  second  question:  'Who  gave  you  this  name?  Ans.  My  godfather  and  godmother 
in  baptism,  wherein  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.' 

5  After  the  public  baptism  of  infants,  the  priest  shall  say:  'Seeing  now,  dearly  ! 
brethren,  that  this  child  is  regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church,  lei  us 
give  thanks  to  Almighty  God  fortbese  benefits,' etc.  And  in  the  prayer  which  follows  :  'We 
yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  bath  pleased  thee  t"  regenerate  this 
infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorpo- 
rate him  into  thy  holy  Church.'  The  same  prayer  i-  prescribed  for  the  office  of  private  bap- 
tism <>f  infants.  The  baptismal  Bervice  is  derived  from  the  Sarum  Manual  and  from  the 
'Consultation'  of  Archbishop  Hermann  of  Cologne,  which  was  borrowed  from  Luther's 
Taufbtichlein.  See  Daniel,  Cod.  Litarg.  Eccl.  Luth.  p.  185,  and  Procter,  History  o/tht  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  p.  871, 11th  ed.  (1874).  Among  the  eight  particulars  in  the  Prayer- 
Book,  which  Baxter  and  bis  Nonconformist  brethren  objected  to  as  sinful,  the  fourth  was 

.'that  ministers  be  forced  to  pronounce  all  baptised  infants  to  be  regenerate  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  whether  they  be  the  children  of  Christians  or  Dot' (Procter,  p.  188).  The  last  clause 
intimates  that  baptized  children  of  Christian  parents  were  regarded  bj  them  is  rages  rate. 


Q±0  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

This  doctrine  seems  to  be  contradicted  by  the  undeniable  fact  that 
multitudes  of  baptized  persons  in  all  churches,  especially  in  those  where 
infant  baptism  is  indiscriminately  practiced,  show  no  signs  of  a  holy 
life  or  real  change  of  heart,  aud  belie  their  baptismal  engagements. 

To  remove  this  difficulty,  some  Anglicans  take  the  language  of  the 
baptismal  service,  not  in  a  real  and  literal,  but  in  a  hypothetical  or 
charitably  presumptive  meaning.1  Others  make  a  distinction  between 
baptismal  or  ecclesiastical  regeneration  (i.  e.,  incorporation  into  the  visi- 
ble Church)  aud  moral  or  spiritual  regeneration  (which  includes  reno- 
vation and  conversion).  Still  others  distinguish  between  the  regen- 
erate and  the  elect,  and  thus  harmonize  Art.  XXVII.  with  Art.  XVII. 
Augustine  regards  the  elect  as  an  inner  circle  of  the  baptized ;  and 
holds  that,  in  addition  to  the  baptismal  grace  of  regeneration,  the  elect 
receive  from  God  the  gift  of  perseverance  to  the  end,  which  puts  into 
execution  the  eternal  and  unchangeable  decree  of  election.  The  rea- 
son why  God  grants  this  grace  to  some  and  withholds  it  from  others 
is  unknown  to  us,  and  must  be  traced  to  his  inscrutable  wisdom. 
'Both  the  grace  of  the  beginning,'  he  says,  'and  the  grace  of  persever- 
ing to  the  end  is  not  given  according  to  our  merits,  but  according  to  a 
most  secret,  just, wise,  and  beneficent  will.'  'Wonderful  indeed,  very 
wonderful,  that  to  some  of  his  own  sons,  whom  he  has  regenerated,  and 
to  whom  he  has  given  faith,  hope,  and  charity,  God  does  not  give  per- 
severance.'2 

1  So  Mozley,  who  endeavors  to  fasten  this  meaning  upon  the  fathers,  and  the  standard 
Anglican  writers,  including  Hooker.  But  the  strong  language  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
fathers,  who  almost  identify  baptism  with  regeneration,  and  seem  to  know  no  other  regenera- 
tion but  that  by  baptism  (which  they  call  c\vay'tvvt}(nQ,  TrctXiyytvtaia,  Bcoytvitnc,  0wr«T/<<><-, 
regeneration  secunda  nativitas,  renascentia,  illuminalio),  must  be  understood  chiefly  of  adult 
baptism,  which  in  the  first  four  centuries  of  the  Church  was  the  rule,  while  infant  baptism 
was  the  exception,  and  which  was  administered  to  such  only  as  had  passed  through  a  course 
of  catechetical  instruction,  and  professed  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ.  The  same  is  true 
of  the  passages  of  the  New  Testament  on  baptism. 

2  See  his  tract  De  dono  perseverantice,  and  Mozley 's  Treatise  on  the  Augustinian  Doctrine 
of  Predestination  (Lond.  18.r>.r>),  pp.  191  sqq.,  and  the  Primitive  Doctrine  of  Baptismal  Re- 
generation, pp.  113  sqq.  Mozley  thinks  that  Augustine  means  by  baptismal  regeneration 
only  capacity  for  goodness  and  holiness.  Browne  (on  Art.  XXVII.)  presents  a  somewhat 
different  view,  viz.,  that  Augustine  uses  the  term  regeneration  sometimes  in  a  wider,  some- 
times in  a  stricter  and  deeper  sense.  'At  one  time  he  speaks  of  all  the  baptized  as  regen- 
erate in  Christ,  and  made  children  of  God  by  virtue  of  that  sacrament;  at  another  time  he 
speaks  of  baptismal  grace  as  rather  enabling  them  to  become,  than  as  actually  constituting 
them  God's  children  ;  and  says  that,  in  the  higher  and  stricter  sense,  persons  are  not  to  be 
called  sons  of  God  unless  they  hate  the  grace  of  perseverance,  and  walk  in  the  love  of  God' 


§  81.  THE  CNTERPRETATION  OF  THE  ABTII  LES.  041 

Here  is  a  point  where  Calvin  differs  from  Augustine,  at  least  in 

logic,  although  they  agree  in  the  result— namely,  the  non-salvation  of 
the  non-elect,  whether  baptized  or  not    Calvin  likewise  brings  baptism 

into  close  connection  with  regeneration,1  but  he  draws  a  sharper  dis- 
tinction between  the  outward  visible  sign  and  seal  (Bom.  iv.  11)  and  the 
inner  invisible  grace;  he  takes  moreover  a  higher  view  of  regenera- 
tion as  a  thorough  moral  renovation,  and  identifies  the  truly  regenerate 
with  the  elect.  lie  consequently  restricts  the  regenerating  efficacy  of 
the  Spirit  to  the  elect,  and  makes  it  so  far  independent  of  the  sacra- 
mental act  that  it  need  not  always  coincide  with  it,  but  may  precede 
or  follow  the  same.  Thus  the  Westminster  Confession  calls  baptism 
'  a  sign  and  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  of  his  [the  baptized  per- 
son's] ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  regeneration,  of  remission  of  sins,  and 
of  his  giving  up  unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  walk  in  uewn< 
life.'  But  it  adds  that  'grace  and  salvation  are  not  so  inseparably  an- 
nexed unto  it  [baptism],  as  that  no  person  can  be  regenerated  or  saved 
without  it  (Rom.  iv.  11 ;  Acts  x.  2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47) ;  or,  that  all  that  are 
baptized  are  undoubtedly  regenerated  (Acts  viii.  13,  23).  The  efficacy 
of  baptism  is  not  tied  to  that  moment  of  time  wherein  it  is  adminis- 
tered (John  iii.  8) :  yet,  notwithstanding  by  the  right  use  of  this  ordi- 
nance, the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhibited  and 
conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  such  (whether  of  age,  or  infants)  as 
that  grace  belongeth  unto,  according  to  the  counsel  of  God's  own  will, 
in  his  appointed  time  (Gal.  iii.  27;  Tit.  iii.  5  ;  Eph.  v.  25, 26;  Acts  ii. 
38, 41).' ^ 

The  objection  to  the  Calvinistic  view  is  that  it  resolves  the  baptism 
of  the  non-elect  into  an  empty  ceremony  (not  to  say  solemn  mockery); 
while  the  Augustinian  view  turns  the  baptismal  regeneration  of  the 
non-elect  into  a  failure.  The  former  sacrifices  the  universality  of  bap- 
tismal grace  to  the  particularism  of  election,  the  latter  sacrifices  the 
higher  view  of  regeneration  to  the  claims  of  baptism.     The  real  diffi- 

(p.  660).  There  i<  no  doubt  that  Augustine  wished  to  adhere  to  the  traditional  orthodox 
view  of  bnptism,  and  yet  he  could  not  help  teeing  that  his  new  doctrine  of  predestination 
required  a  modification,  which,  however,  he  did  not  fully  and  clearly  cany  not 

1  This  is  undoubtedly  the  case  in  the  Not  Testament  wherever  Christian  baptism  i-  men 
tioned:  John  iii.  5 ;  Acts  ii.  88 ;  Bom.vi.8,4;  GsJ.iii.27;  CoLii.  12;  Epb.Y.26;  Tit.  iii. 
.-, ;  i  Pet.  iii.  21.  Calvin's  exposition  of  some  of  these  passages  in  bis  commentaries  should 
be  compared  with  his  teaching  in  the  '  Institutes.' 

s  Chnp.  xxviii.  1 ,  5,  'i. 


612  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

culty  of  both  theories  lies  in  the  logical  incompatibility  of  a  limited 
election  and  a  universal  baptismal  grace.  The  predestinarian  system 
and  the  sacramental  system  are  two  distinct  lines  of  thought,  which 
neither  Augustine  nor  Calvin  have  been  able  satisfactorily  to  adjust 
and  to  harmonize. 

NECESSITY   OF   BAPTISM. 

As  to  the  necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation,  the  Anglican  Church  at 
first  followed,  but  afterwards  softened  the  rigor  of  the  Augustinian 
and  Roman  Catholic  doctrine,  which  excludes  even  unbaptized  infants 
dying  in  infancy  from  heaven,  and  assigns  them  to  the  limbus  infan- 
tum, on  the  borders  of  hell.  In  the  second  of  the  Ten  Articles  of  Henry 
VIII.  (1536),  it  is  asserted  that  '  infants  and  children  dying  in  infancy 
shall  undoubtedly  be  saved  thereby  [by  baptism],  and  else  not?  In  the 
first  revision  of  the  Liturgy,  the  introductory  prayer  that  the  child  may 
be  received  by  baptism  into  the  ark  of  Christ's  Church  contains  the  ex- 
clusive clause  '  and  so  saved  from  perishing.' J  But  in  the  revision  of 
1552  this  clause  wTas  omitted;  for  Cranmer,  who  framed  the  Liturgy, 
had  in  the  mean  time  changed  his  opinion,  as  we  may  infer  from  the 
treatise  upon  the  !  Reformation  of  Ecclesiastical  Laws,'  composed  under 
his  superintendency,  where  the  'scrupulous  superstition'  of  the  necessity 
of  infant  baptism  for  infant  salvation  is  rejected.2  This  change  must 
be  traced  to  the  influence  of  Zwingli  and  Bullinger,  who  first  boldly 
asserted  that  all  infants  dying  before  committing  actual  sin,  whether 
baptized  or  not,  whether  of  Christian  or  heathen  parents,  are  saved  in 
consequence  of  the  universal  merit  of  Christ  {^  propter  remedium  per 
Christum  exhibit  urn"1),  which  holds  good  until  rejected  by  unbelief.3 


1  Borrowed  from  the  Lutheran  service  composed  by  Melanchthon  and  Bncer  for  Cologne : 
'  That  being  separated  from  the  number  of  the  ungodly,  he  may  be  kept  safe  in  the  holy  ark 
of  thy  Church  (in  sancta  Ecclesice.  tmu  Area  tutus  servari  possit).'  See  Laurence,  p.  71 ; 
Procter,  p.  374.  The  Augsburg  Confession  (Art.  IX.,  Latin  ed.)  teaches  quod  baptismus  sit 
necessarius  ad  salutem,  and  condemns  the  Anabaptists  for  teaching  that  infants  may  be  saved 
without  baptism. 

3  Reformat.  Leg.,  De  Baptismo :  '  Illorum  etiam  videri  debet  scrupulosa  superstitio,  qui  Dei 
gratiam  et  Spiritum  Sanctum  tantopere  cum  sacramentorum  dementis  colligant,  ut  plane  affir- 
ment,  nullum  Christianorum  infantem  salutem  esse  conseculurimi,  qui prius  inorte  fuerit  occupa- 
tus,  quam  ad  Baptismutn  adduci  potuerit ;   quod  longe  secus  habere  judicamus.' 

3  See  above,  p.  378.  Zwingli  was  not  quite  so  positive  about  the  salvation  of  heathen  chil- 
dren, but  he  declared  it  at  least  ' probabilius  ut  gentium  liberi  per  Christum  salventur  quam  ut 
damnenttir.'  Bullinger  held  the  same  view,  though  not  so  clearly  expressed.  Fee  the  pas- 
sages quoted  by  Laurence,  pp.  '_'G0, 2G7,  who  agrees  on  this  subject  with  the  Zurich  Beformers. 


§  81.  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  ARTICLES.  G43 

Calvin  likewise   taught  the  possibility  of  salvation  without   baptism, 
but  confined  it  to  the  elect.     Thomas  Becon  (chaplain  to  Cranmer, 

and  one  of  the  six  preachers  of  Canterbury  Cathedral,  died  L567 
is  very  explicit  on  this  subject.  As  many  Jewish  children,  he  says, 
were  saved  without  circumcision,  so  many  Christian  children,  and 
even  Turks  and  heathens,  may  be  spiritually  baptized  and  saved  with- 
out water  baptism.  'Besides  all  these  things,  what  shall  we  say  of 
God's  election?  Can  the  lack  of  outward  baptism  destroy  and  make 
of  none  effect  the  election  of  God ;  so  that  when  God  hath  chosen 
to  everlasting  salvation,  the  want  of  an  external  sign  shall  cast  down 
into  everlasting  damnation?  ...  As  many  people  are  saved  which 
never  received  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  so  like- 
wise are  many  saved  though  they  were  never  outwardly  baptized  with 
water ;  forasmuch  as  the  regeneration  of  the  Christian  consisteth  rather 
in  the  spirit  than  in  the  flesh.  This  text,  therefore,  of  Christ,  "  Except 
a  man  be  born  of  water,1'  etc.,  is  to  be  understood  of  such  as  may  con- 
veniently be  baptized,  and  yet,  notwithstanding,  contemptuously  refuse 
baptism,  and  despise  the  ordinance  of  Christ.' '  Bishop  Jewel  says: 
1  The  grace  of  God  is  not  tied  to  any  sacraments.  lie  is  able  to  work 
salvation  both  with  them  and  without  them.'2  Hooker  is  much  more 
cautious  and  churchly.  'Predestination,'  he  says,  'bringeth  not  to  life, 
without  the  grace  of  external  vocation,  wherein  our  baptism  is  implied, 
.  .  .  which  both  declareth  and  raaketh  us  Christians.  In  which  respect 
Ave  justly  hold  it  to  be  the  door  of  our  actual  entrance  into  God's  house; 
the  first  apparent  beginning  of  life ;  a  seal,  perhaps,  to  the  grace  of 
election,  before  received  (Calvin,  Instil  iv.  15,  22),  but  to  our  sanctifi- 
cation  here  a  step  that  hath  not  any  before  it.  .  .  .  If  Christ  himself 
which  givcth  salvation  do  require  baptism  (Mark  xvi.1T>),  it  is  not  loi- 
ns that  look  for  salvation  to  sound  and  examine  him,  whether  nnbap- 
tized  men  may  be  saved,  but  seriously  to  do  that  which  is  required,  and 
religiously  to  fear  the  danger  which  may  grow  by  want  thereof.5  Vol, 
touching  infants  who  die  unbaptized,  he  inclines,  at  least  in  regard  to 
the  offspring  of  Christian  parents,  to  a  charitable  presumption  of  -the 
great  likelihood  of  their  salvation,'  for  the  reasons  that  c grace  is  not 
absolutely  tied   unto  sacraments;'    that  'God   bindeth   no  man   unto 

1  Quoted  by  Jones.  1.  c.  pp.  107  sq.  '  Ibid.  p.  171. 


(344  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

things  altogether  impossible;'  that  'there  is  in  their  Christian  parents, 
and  in  the  Church  of  God,  a  presumed  desire  that  the  sacrament  of 
baptism  might  be  given  them;'  and  that  'the  seed  of  faithful  parent- 
age is  holy  from  the  very  birth  (1  Cor.  vii.  14).'1 

The  Anglican  Church,  then,  as  far  as  we  may  infer  from  her  author- 
itative declarations,  makes  certain  the  salvation  of  all  baptized  infants 
dying  in  infancy,  and  leaves  the  possibility  of  salvation  without  bap- 
tism an  open  question,  with  a  strong  leaning  towards  the  liberal  view. 
The  Roman  Church  makes  infant  salvation  without  baptism  impossi- 
ble ;  the  Lutheran  Church  makes  it  at  least  improbable ;  the  Calvin- 
istic  Churches  make  it  certain  in  the  case  of  all  the  elect,  without 
regard  to  age,  and  decidedly  incline  to  the  charitable  belief  that  all 
children  dying  in  infancy  belong  to  the  number  of  the  elect. 

The  doctrine  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation  has 
always  been  based  upon  two  declarations  of  our  Lord,  Mark  xvi.  16, 
and  John  iii.  5  (on  the  assumption  that  'water'  refers  to  baptism). 
But  in  the  first  passage  our  Lord,  after  declaring  that  faith  followed 
by  baptism  saves,  states  the  negative  without  adding,  and  is  not  bap- 
tized ;  intimating  by  this  omission,  that  only  the  want  of  faith  or  the 
refusal  of  the  gospel,  not  the  want  of  baptism,  condemns.  In  the  dis- 
course with  Nicodemus  lie  does  not  say  that  water  baptism  is  regener- 
ation, nor  that  every  one  that  is  born  of  water  is  also  born  of  the 
Spirit  (which  was  certainly  not  the  case  with  Simon  Magus,  who,  not- 
withstanding Ills  baptism,  remained  'in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  the 
bond  of  iniquity');  he  simply  lays  down  two  conditions  for  entering 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  puts  the  emphasis  on  being  born  of 
the  Spirit.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  in  that  discourse  '  water' 
is  mentioned  but  once,  but  the  Spirit  four  times.  The  most  that  can 
be  inferred  from  the  two  passages  is  the  ordinary  necessity  of  baptism 
where  it  can  be  had — that  is,  within  the  limits  of  the  Christian  Church. 
We  are  bound  to  God's  ordinances,  but  God's  Spirit  is  free  and  '  blow- 
eth  where  it  listeth.'  We  should  never  forget  that  the  same  Lord  was 
the  special  friend  of  children,  and  declared  them  to  belong  to  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  without  any  reference  to  baptism  or  circumcision,  add- 
ing these  significant  words,  'It  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  who  is  in 
heaven  that  one  of  these  littlo  ones  should  perish'  (Matt,  xviii.14). 
1  Ecdes.  Polity,  Book  V.  cli.  GO  (Vol.  II.  pp.  341,  342,  34G,  347,  Keble's  ed.). 


II.  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  AKTK  I. is. 


G45 


THE    LOKI>  S    Pll'PKR. 


If  the  Articles  on  Predestination  and  Baptism  leave  room  for  differ- 
ent interpretations,  there  can  lie  no  reasonable  doubt  about  the  mean- 
ing of  Art.  XXVIII.  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  clearly  teaches  the 
Reformed  doctrine  of  the  spiritual  presence  and  spiritual  eating  by 
faith  only,  in  opposition  both  to  transubstantiation  and  consubstantia- 
tion, -which  imply  a  corporal  presence  and  an  oral  manducation  by  all 
communicants,  both  good  and  bad,  although  with  opposite  effect-. 

The  wide  departure  from  the  Lutheran  formularies,  otherwise  so 
freely  consulted,  may  be  seen  from  the  following  comparison  : 


Augsburg  Confession. 
1530. 
Art.  X. 
De   ccena  Domini  doeent. 


Thirteen  Articles. 
1538. 
Art.  VII. 
De  Eucharist ia  constant  r 


quod  corpus  et  sanguis  Chris-  credimxis  et  docemus,  quod  in 
ti  vere  adslnt,  et  distri-  sacramento  corporis  et  san- 
huantur  vescentibus  in  guinis  Domini  vere,  sub- 
cozna.  Domini;  et  improbant  stantialiter,1  et    reaxi- 


secus  doeent cs. 


ter  adsint  corpus  et  sanguis 
Ghristi  sub  srEciEBUs  pa- 
nts et  vini.3  Et  quod  sub 
ejusdem  speciebus  vere  et  re- 
aliter  exhibentur  et  distri- 
BUUNTUR  Mis  qui  sacra  im  n- 
tum  accipiunt,  sive  bonis 
sivi;  malis. 


Thirty-nine  Artk  hub. 

1563  and  1571. 

Art.  XXVIII. 

Corpus  Christ i  daiur,  ac- 

ci)/itur,et  manducatur  tan- 

TUM    CCELESTI    ET    SlMHITl- 

ai.i  rations  (only  after  an 

heavenly  and  spiritual  man- 
ner). Medium  autem  quo 
Corpus  Christi  aedpitur  et 
manducatur  in  coma,  i  rose 

est  (and  the  mean  whereby 
the  body  of  Christ  is  re- 
ceived and  eaten  in  the 
Supper,  is  faith). 


The  clause  here  epioted  from  the  Elizabethan  revision  was  wanting 
in  the  Edwardine  Articles,  and  was  inserted  on  motion  of  Bishop 
Guest  of  Rochester.3  Both  series  contain  the  assertion  that  the  bread 
which  we  break  is  a  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  'to  such  as 
rightly,  worthily,  and  with  faith  receive  the  same,' which  was  meanl 
to  exclude  the  oral  manducation.  Both  strongly  condemn  transubstan- 
tiation.    The  Edwardine  Articles  protest  also  against   the   Lutheran 

1  The  term  substantiality  is  borrowed  from  the  Apology  of  the  Augsburg Conf.,  Art.  X. 

8  Sub  speciebus  panis  et  vini,  from  the  German  edition  of  the  Aogabnrg  <  !on£  (»«/-  r  '.'- ttoA 
des  Brotes  und  Weines). 

3  This  is  inferred  from  a  letter  to  Cecil,  Dec.  2'2.  1566, where  GttMl  juMilies  the  use  of  the 
word  'only'  by  saying  that  he  did  noi  intend  t * >  exclude  'die  preeenee  ofChriet'a  body  from 

the  sacrament,  but  only  the  grossness  and  lentibleneM  in  the  receiving  thereof.'     Hardwick, 
p.  130. 


QiQ  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

hypothesis  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body.1  This  same  protest  against 
ubiquity  is  found  substantially  in  the  Parker  MS.  of  the  Latin  revision 
of  1503,  but  it  was  struck  out  in  the  Convocation.2  Instead  of  it  a 
new  Article  was  added  in  the  English  revision  of  1571,  denying  that 
the  unworthy  partake  of  Christ  in  the  communion.3 

The  Catechism  likewise  limits  the  reception  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood  to  the  'faithful,'  and  declares  the  benefit  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
to  be  '  the  strengthening  and  refreshing  of  our  sonls?  The  communion 
service  does  not  rise  above  this  view,  and  the  distribution  formula,  in- 
serted in  the  revision  of  1552,  expresses  the  commemorative  theoiy. 
The  rubric  on  kneeling,  at  the  close  of  the  service,  which  was  inserted 
in  the  second  Prayer-Book  of  Edward  VI.  (1552)  by  Cranmer,  through 
the  influence  of  Hooper  and  Knox  (one  of  the  royal  chaplains),4  then 
omitted  in  Elizabeth's  reign  from  regard  to  the  Catholics,  but  which 
was  again  restored  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  (1G62)  to  conciliate  the 
Puritans,  explains  the  kneeling  at  the  communion  not  to  mean  an 
adoration  of  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine,  or  any  corporal  presence 
of  Christ's  natural  flesh  and  blood.  '  For  the  natural  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  in  heaven,  and  not  here ;  it  being  against  the  truth 
of  Christ's  natural  body  to  be  at  one  time  in  more  places  than  one.' 
This  is  a  plain  declaration  against  consubstantiation  and  ubiquity. 

Before  the  Articles  were  framed  a  public  disputation  on  the  eucha- 

1  '  Forasmuch  as  the  truth  of  man's  nature  requireth  that  the  body  of  one  and  the  self-same 
man  can  not  be  at  one  time  in  diverse  places,  but  must  needs  be  in  some  one  certain  place : 
therefore  the  body  of  Christ  can  not  be  present  at  one  time  in  many  and  diverse  places.  And 
because  (as  holy  Scripture  doth  teach)  Christ  was  taken  up  into  heaven,  and  there  shall  con- 
tinue unto  the  end  of  the  world,  a  faithful  man  ought  not  either  to  believe  or  openly  to  con- 
fess the  real  and  bodily  presence  (as  they  term  it)  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood,  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper.' 

2  Hardwick  regards  this  omission  as  a  protest  against  Zwinglianism.  But  the  leading 
Elizabethan  bishops,  especially  Horn,  Jewel,  and  Grindal,  assure  Bullinger  and  Peter  Martyr 
of  their  full  agreement  with  them  against  the  ubiquitarian  hypothesis,  which  was  at  that  time 
defended  by  Brentius  and  Andreae,  and  opposed  by  the  Swiss.     See  pp.  603  and  G32. 

3  Art.  XXIX.  'Of  the  wicked  which  do  not  eat  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  use  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  wicked,  and  such  as  be  void  of  a  lively  faith,  although  they  do  carnally  and 
visibly  press  with  their  teeth  (as  St.  Augustine  saith)  the  sacrament  [i.e.,  the  sacramental 
sign]  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ :  yet  in  no  way  are  they  partakers  of  Christ,  but  rather 
to  their  condemnation  do  eat  and  drink  the  sign  or  sacrament  of  so  great  a  thing.'  This 
Article  is  wanting  in  the  Latin  edition  of  1563,  having  probably  been  withdrawn  from  the 
Convocation  records  in  compliance  with  the  desire  of  the  Queen  and  her  council  to  deal 
gently  with  the  adherents  of  the  'old  learning'  (whether  Romish  or  Lutheran);  but  it  was 
inserted  in  the  Latin  editions  after  the  year  1571.     See  Hardwick,  pp.  144  and  815. 

4  See  the  lengthy  discussion  of  this  subject  in  Lorimer's  John  Knox,  pp.  100-136. 


§81.  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  ARTICLES.  » ;  4  7 

ristic  presence  was  held  before  the  royal  oommissionen  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  Oxford,  May,  1549,  in  which  Peter  .Martyr,  then  professor  of 
theology,  defended  the  figurative  interpretation  of  the  words, 'This  is 
my  body,'  and  the  commemorative  character  of  the  ordinance.  The 
acts  of  the  disputation  were  published  by  Crannier,  with  a  preface  and 
discourse  of  Peter  Martyr.1  In  June  of  the  same  year  a  disputation  on 
the  same  subject,  in  which  Bucer  took  part,  was  held  in  the  University 
of  Cambridge.2 

Cranmer,  after  holding  first  to  transubstantiation,  then  to  coiisub- 
stantiation,  adopted  at  last  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  a  spiritual  real 
presence  and  a  spiritual  reception  by  faith  only,  and  embodied  it  in  the 
Articles  and  the  second  revision  of  the  Liturgy.3  lie  openly  confes.-cd 
this  change  at  a  public  disputation  held  in  London,  Dec.  14, 1548,  in 
the  Parliament  house,  'in  the  presence  of  almost  all  the  nobility  of 
England.' l     lie  wrote  an  elaborate  exposition  and  defense  of  his  final 


1  Tractatio  de  Sacramento  £ucharisti<e  habita  in  c.eleberrima  Universitate  Oxoniensi.  Ad 
here:  Disputatio  de  eodem  sacramento  in  eadent  Universitate  habita.  London,  I -~» 4 '. • ;  also  in 
Zurich,  1552,  and  an  English  translation,  l.">83.  See  an  account  in  Dr.  ('.  Schmidt,  V>hr 
Martyr  Vermigli,  Lebeu  and  ausgetoShlte  Schriften  (Elberfeld,  1858),  pp.  91-100,  105. 

2  Schmidt,  p.  10G.     Ridley's  Works,  pp.  171  Bqq. 

3  See  above,  p.  G01.  Cranmer  admits  the  charge  of  his  opponents.  Bishop  Gardiner  and 
Dr.  Smith,  that  he  was  upon  this  point  first  a  Papist,  then  a  Lutheran,  and  at  last  a  Zwin- 
glian.  'After  it  hath  pleased  God,'  he  says,  '  to  show  unto  me,  by  his  holy  Word,  a  more  per- 
fect knowledge  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  from  time  to  time  as  I  grew  in  knowledge  of  him,  by- 
little  and  little  I  put  away  my  former  ignorance.  And  as  God  of  his  mercy  gave  me  light,  so 
through  his  grace  I  opened  mine  eyes  to  receive  it,  and  did  not  willfully  repugn  unto  Hod  and 
remain  in  darkness.  And  I  trust  in  God's  mercy  and  pardon  for  my  former  errors,  because 
I  erred  but  of  frailness  and  ignorance.'     Answer  to  Smith's  Preface,  rVorks,  Vol.  I.  p.  874. 

4  Of  this  recantation  Bartholomew  Traheron  wrote  to  Bullinger  from  London.  Dec.  81, 
L">48,  as  follows:  'I  can  not  refrain,  my  excellent  Bullinger,  from  acquainting  you  with  cir- 
cumstances that  have  lately  given  us  the  greatest  pleasure,  that  you  and  your  fellow  -ministers 
may  participate  in  our  enjoyment.  On  the  14th  of  December,  if  I  mistake  nor.  a  disputation 
was  held  at  London  concerning  the  euchaiist,  in  the  presence  of  almost  all  the  nobility  of 
England.  The  argument  was  Bharplj  contested  by  the  Bishops.  The  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, contrary  to  genera]  expectation,  most  openly,  firmly,  and  learnedly  maintained  yoot 
opinion  upon  this  subject.  His  arguments  were  as  follows:  The  body  of  Christ  was  taken 
up  from  us  into  heaven.  Christ  has  left  the  world.  "  Ye  ha\e  the  poor  always  with  you,  but 
me  ye  have  not  always,"  etc  Next  followed  the  Bishop  of  Rochester  [  Ridley  |,  w  ho  handled 
the  subject  with  so  much  eloquence,  perspicuity,  erudition,  and  power,  as  to  stop  the  mouth 
of  that  most  zealous  papist,  tin'  Bishop  of  Worcester  j  Heath  |.  The  truth  never  obtained  a 
more  brilliant  victory  among  us.  I  perceive  that  it  is  all  oxer  with  Lutheianism,  now  that 
those  who  were  considered  its  principal  and  almost  only  supporters  ha\e  altogether  come 
over  to  our  side.  We  are  much  indebted  to  the  Lord  who  provides  for  us  also  in  this  particu- 
lar. '  In  a  postscript  to  this  letter.  .John  of  [Jlmis  adds:  -The  foolish  Bishops  have  made  :l 
marvelous  recantation.'     The  same  'notable  disputation  of  the  sacrament'  is  mentioned  in 

Vol.  I.— T  t 


(J4S  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

view  against  the  attacks  of  Gardiner.1  He  does  not  allude  to  Cal- 
vin's writings  on  the  eucharist,  although  he  can  hardly  have  been  igno- 
rant of  them,  but  quotes  largely  from  Augustine,  Tertullian,  Origen, 
Theodoret,  and  other  fathers  who  seem  to  favor  a  figurative  inter- 
pretation, and  approvingly  mentions  Bertram,  Berengarius,  and  Wycliff 
among  mediaeval  divines,  and  Bucer,  Peter  Martyr,  Zwingli,(Ecolampa- 
dius  among  the  Reformers,  as  teaching  substantially  the  same  doc- 
trine.2 lie  also  expressed  his  unqualified  approbation  of  Bullinger's 
'  Tract  on  the  Sacraments,'  which  was  by  his  desire  republished  in  En- 
gland (1551)  by  John  a  Lasco,  to  whom  he  remarked  that  '  nothing  of 
Bullinger's  required  to  be  read  and  examined  previously.'3  But  he 
traced  his  change  directly  to  Bishop  Ridley,3  and  Ridley  derived  his 
view  not  so  much  from  Swiss  sources  as  from  Bertram  (Ratramnus), 
who,  in  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century,  wrote  with  great  ability 
against  the  magical  transubstantiation  theory  of  Paschasius  Radbertus, 
and  in  favor  of  a  spiritual  and  dynamic  presence.4  Cranmer's  last  ut- 
terances on  this  subject,  shortly  before  his  condemnation  and  martyr- 
dom, were  made  in  the  Oxford  disputations  with  the  Romanists  to 
which  he,  with  Ridley  and  Latimer,  was  summoned  from  prison,  April 
(and  again  in  September),  1555.  lie  declared  there  that  Christ's  'true 
body  is  truly  present  to  them  that  truly  receive  him,  but  spiritually. 
And  so  it  is  taken  after  a  spiritual  sort.  ...  If  ye  understand  by  this 
word  "really"  re  ipsa,  i.  e.,  in  very  deed  and  effectually,  so  Christ,  by 


King  Edward's  Journal  as  having  taken  place  in  the  Parliament  house.  See  Zurich  Letters, 
15:57-1558,  pp.  322,  323. 

1  An  Answer  unto  a  Craft;/  and  Sophistical  Cavillation,  devised  by  Stephen  Gardiner, 
Doctor  of  Law,  late  Bishop  of  Winchester,  against  the  True  and  Godly  Doctrine  of  the  most 
holy  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  (1550).  The  sacramental 
writings  of  Cranmer  fill  the  first  volume  of  the  Parker  Society's  edition  of  his  works  (Cam- 
bridge, 1844). 

-  Works,  Vol.  I.  pp.  14,  173,  1!)6,  225,  374. 

3  See  a  letter  of  John  a  Lasco  to  Bullinger,  dated  London,  April  10,  1551  ;  Cardwell's  Lit- 
urgies of  Edward  VI.  (Preface),  and  Lorimer's  John  Knox,  p.  4'.*. 

4  Bishop  Browne  correctly  says  (p.  710):  'Ridley,  indeed,  refused  to  take  the  credit  of 
converting  Cranmer,  hut  Cranmer  himself  always  acknowledged  his  obligations  to  Ridley.' 
In  his  last  examination  at  Oxford,  before  Bishop  Brooks  of  Gloucester  (Sept.,  1555),  Cranmer 
said  that  'Doctor  Ridley,  by  sundry  persuasions  and  authorities,  drew  me  quite  from  my 
opinion'  (on  the  real  presence).  Works,  Vol.  II.  p.  218.  Brooks  on  the  same  occasion  re- 
marked: 'Latimer  leaneth  to  Cranmer,  Cranmer  to  Ridley,  and  Ridley  to  the  singularity  of 
his  own  wit;'  to  which  Ridley  replied,  that  this  was  'most  untrue,  in  that  he  was  but  a  young 
scholar  in  comparison  of  Master  Cranmer.'     Ridley's  Works,  pp.  283,  284. 


§  81.  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  ARTICLES.  G49 

the  grace  and  efficacy  of  his  passion,  is  in  deed  and  truly  present  to 
all  his  true  and  holy  members.  But  if  ye  understand  by  this  word 
u  really  ■'  corporaU(<:i\\.  e.f  corporally,  so  that  by  the  body  of  Christ  i> 
understanded  a  natural  body  and  organ ical,  so  the  first  proposition 
doth  vary,  not  only  from  usual  speech  and  phrase  "f  Scripture,  but 
also  is  clean  contrary  to  the  holy  Word  of  God  and  Christian  profes- 
sion: when  as  both  the  Scripture  doth  testify  by  these  words,  and  also 
the  Catholic  Church  hath  professed  from  the  beginning,  Christ  to  have 
left  the  world,  and  to  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  till  he  come 
unto  judgment." 

We  add  the  last  confessions  of  the  other  two  English  Reformers  at 
their  examination  in  Oxford. 

Bishop  Latimer  declared  '  that  there  is  none  other  presence  of  Christ 
required  than  a  spiritual  presence ;  and  this  presence  is  sufficient  for  a 
Christian  man,  as  the  presence  by  the  which  we  both  abide  in  Christ, 
and  Christ  in  us  to  the  obtaining  of  eternal  life,  if  we  persevere  in  his 
true  gospel.' 2 

Bishop  Ridley  said:  'I  worship  Christ  in  the  sacrament, but  not  be- 
cause he  is  included  in. the  sacrament:  like  as  I  worship  Christ  also 
in  the  Scriptures,  not  because  he  is  really  included  in  them.  .  .  .  The 
body  of  Christ  is  present  in  the  sacrament,  but  yet  sacramcntally  and 
spiritually  (according  to  his  grace)  giving  life,  and  in  that  respecl 
really,  that  is,  according  to  his  benediction,  giving  life.  .  .  .  The  true 
Church  of  Christ  doth  acknowledge  a  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the 
hold's  Supper  to  be  communicated  to  the  godly  by  grace,  and  spiritu- 
ally, as  I  have  often  showed,  and  by  a  sacramental  signiiication,  but 
not  by  the  corporal  presence  of  the  body  of  his  flesh.3 

REVISION   of  Tin:   A  Kin  i.i:s. 

The  Thirty-nine  Articles  have  remained  unchanged  in  England  since 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth.    The  objections  of  Nonconformists  to  Borne  of 

1  Worka,V6l.  r.  I.]..  894,  895. 

:  Jones,  1.  c.  ]'.  176,  where  also  the  passages  of  tin'  leading  divines  and  blshopt  of  :: 
bethan  age  on  the  subject  of  the  Lord's  Sapper  are  collected. 

3  Ridley's  Work*,  pp.  285  Bq.  Jewel  expresses  the  same  views  very  fully  in  his  contro- 
versy with  Harding,  rPbrifes,Vol.  I.  pp.  lis  iqq.  (Parker  Soc.  ed.  isi">  .  Bishop  Browne 
(]i.  7i;.)  Bays  that  all  the  great  luminaries  of  the  <  Ihnrcb  of  England  i  naming  afede,  Andrewes, 
Hooker,  Taylor,  Hammond,  Cosin,  Brnmhall,  [Jssher,  Pearson,  Patrick,  Bull,  Beveridge, 
Wake,  Waterlnnd)  agree  with  tlie  doctrine  of  the  formularies  in  denying  a  corporal,  ami  ac- 
knowledging a  spiritual  feeling  in  the  Snjiper  of  the  Lord. 


G50  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  Articles  (XXIV.,  XXV.,  the  affirmative  clause  of  XX.,  and  a  por- 
tion of  XXVII)  have  been  removed  since  16S8  by  relaxation  and  ex- 
emption ;  and  the  difficulties  arising  from  the  development  of  theo- 
logical schools  with  widely  divergent  tendencies,  within  the  bosom  of 
the  Church  of  England  itself,  have  been  met  by  liberal  decisions  al- 
lowing a  great  latitude  of  interpretation. 

During  the  reign  of  William  III.,  in  16S9,  a  thorough  revision  of  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  undertaken  and  actually  made  in  the  in- 
terest of  an  agreement  with  Protestant  Dissenters,  by  an  able  royal 
commission  of  ten  bishops  and  twenty  divines,  including  the  well-known 
names  of  Stillingfleet,  Patrick,  Tillotson,  Sharp,  Hall,  Beveridge,  and 
Tenison.  But  the  revision  has  never  been  acted  upon,  and  was  super- 
seded by  the  toleration  granted  to  Dissenters.  The  alterations  did  not 
extend  to  the  Articles  directly,  but  embraced  some  doctrinal  features  in 
the  liturgical  services — namely,  the  change  of  the  word  Priest  to  'Pres- 
byter' or  'Minister;'  Sunday  to  'Lord's  Day;'  the  omission  of  the 
Apocryphal  Lessons  in  the  calendar  of  Saints'  days,  for  which  chap- 
ters from  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes  were  substituted,  a  concession 
to  conscientious  scruples  against  kneeling  in  receiving  the  sacrament, 
and  an  addition  to  the  rubric  before  the  Athanasian  Creed,  stating 
that  '  the  condemning  clauses  are  to  be  understood  as  relating  only  to 
those  who  obstinately  deny  the  substance  of  the  Christian  faith.' l 

§  82.  American  Revision  of  the  Tiiikty-nine  Articles  by  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church.     A.D.  1801. 

Literature. 

William  White,  D.D.  (first  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  diocese  of  Pennsylvania  ; 
d.  1S36) :  Memoirs  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  New  York,  2d 
ed.  1836. 

William  Stevens  Perry,  D.D.  (Secretary  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  of  the  General 
Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States):  A  Hand-book  of  the  General  Con- 
vention of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  giving  its  History  and  Constitution,  17S5-1S74.  New  York, 
1874.    The  same:  Journals  of  the  General  Convention,  etc.,  17S5-1835.    Claremont,  N.  H.,  1S74. 

Also  Samuel  Wilherforce  (late  Bishop  of  Oxford):  A  History  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
America  (1S44) ;  Caswall:  History  of  the  American  Church  (2d  ed.  1S51) ;  and  Procter:  A  History  of 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  pp.  1C2  sqq.  (11th  ed.  1874). 

For  the  colonial  history,  comp.  the  Historical  Collections  relating  to  the  American  Colonial  Church,  ed. 
by  Dr.  Perry.    Hartford,  1871  8qq.  3  vols.  4tO. 

The  members  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  American  Colonies, 
from  the  first  settlement  of  Virginia  (1607)  till  after  the  War  of  the 

1  See  Procter,  History  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  pp.  144  sqq.  Some  of  these  altera- 
tions, with  many  more,  have  been  recently  revived  and  adopted  in  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church  in  America. 


§82.  AMERICA*!  REVISION  OOP  THE  ABTICLES.  051 

Revolution,  belonged  to  the  diocese  of  the  Biehop  of  London,  who 
never  vieited  the  country,  and  could  exercise  bat  an  imperfect  super- 
vision. Several  attempts  were  made,  by  the  friends  of  the  Church,  to 
establish  colonial  bishoprics,  but  failed. 

The  separation  from  the  crown  of  England  necessitated  an  inde- 
pendent organization,  which  assumed  the  title  of  The  Pbotebtant  Epis- 
copal Chdbch  in  the  United  States  oe  Amekk  a.  The  first  Btepe 
towards  such  an  organization  were  taken  by  a  meeting  of  clergy  and 
laity  in  New  Brunswick,  ^'c\v  Jfersey,  May  11,  1784,  and  by  another  and 
larger  one,  held  in  New  York,  Oct.  6  and  7,  of  the  same  year.  The  first 
General  Convention,  consisting  of  sixteen  clerical  and  twenty-six  lay 
deputies,  assembled  in  Philadelphia,  Sept.  27  and  28,  17S5,  Dr.  White 
presiding,  adopted  a  constitution  and  such  changes  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  as  were  deemed  necessary  to  conform  it  '  to  the  American 
Revolution  and  the  Constitutions  of  the  respective  States,' and  peti- 
tioned the  English  hierarchy  to  consecrate  such  bishops  for  the  inde- 
pendent Church  as  may  be  elected  by  the  separate  dioceses.1  The  re- 
vised provisional  Liturgy  was  rather  hastily  prepared  and  published, 
1786.  It  is  called  the  'Proposed  Book.'2  It  contains,  besides  many 
necessary  ritual  changes  and  improvements,  Twenty  Articles  of  Re- 
ligion, based  upon  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  but  differing  widely  from 
them,  being  a  mutilation  rather  than  an  improvement.3  The  altera- 
tions and  omissions  were  made  in  the  interest  of  an  unchurchly  latitu- 
dinarianism  which  then  prevailed.  The  Nicene  Creed  and  the  Athana- 
sian  Creed,  which  Art  VIIL  <>f  the  English  series  acknowledges,  were 
entirely  omitted  in  Art.  IV.  of  the  new  series;  the  Apostles'  (  reed  was 
retained,  but  without  the  clause  'He  descended  into  hell.5 

1  Shortly  before  the  Convention,  Bishop  Beabury,  of  Connecticut,  had  received  consecration 
at  Aberdeen  from  three  Bishops  of  Scotland  (Nov.  14,  1784),  but  he  did  nol  attend  I 
rention,  and  was  opposed  from  Bigh-Chnrch  principles  to  the  introduction  of  lay  representa- 
tion and  the  limitation  of  the  power  of  the  episcopate. 

2  It  is  sometimes  also  called  '  Bishop  White's  Prayer-Book, '  who  was  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  of  revision,  Dr.  William  Smith,  of  Maryland,  and  Dr.  Wharton,  of  Delaware,  be- 
ing the  other  members.  Smith  is  made  chiefly  responsible  for  the  changes  by  Perry,  p.  28. 
The  book  was  printed  in  Philadelphia,  1786,  in  London,  1789,  and  again  (with  omission  of 
the  amended  Articles  of  Religion)  in  New  fork,  Dec.,  1878,  for  provisional  dm  In  the  nen 
'Iicformcd  Episcopal  Church,' which  has  since  adopted  a  new  revision. 

3  Given  l>y  Perry,  Hand-book,  pp.  :;i  89,  from  ti riginal  MSS.  in  the  Convention  ar- 
chives. He  calls  the  Proposed  Book  a  ' hasty,  crude,  and  unsatisfactory  compilation,  which 
failed  utterly  to  establish  itself  in  the  American  Church' 


052  THE  CltEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  book  failed  to  give  general  satisfaction  at  home  or  abroad.  The 
English  Archbishops  demanded  the  restoration  of  the  three  (Ecumenical 
Creeds  in  their  integrity.1 

The  General  Convention  held  at  Wilmington,  Del.,  Oct.  11,  17SG, 
complied  with  this  request  so  far  as  the  Nicene  Creed  and  the  discre- 
tionary use  of  the  clause  of  the  descent  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  were 
concerned.2  The  omission  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  was  adhered  to,3 
and  subsequently  acquiesced  in  by  the  English  Bishops.  The  obstacle 
of  the  oath  of  allegiance  required  in  England  having  been  removed  by 
act  of  Parliament,  the  Hew  Drs.  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Provoost, 
of  New  York,  received  the  long-sought  '  Apostolical  succession,'  in  the 
chapel  of  Lambeth  Palace,  Eeb.  4,  1787.  At  one  time  this  result 
seemed  so  doubtful  that  steps  were  taken  to  secure  ordination,  with  a 
broken  succession,  from  the  Lutheran  bishops  of  Denmark,  and  the 
consent  of  the  Danish  government  had  actually  been  obtained,  when 
the  difficulties  in  England  were  removed. 

In  the  Special  Convention  of  Philadelphia,  June,  1799  (the  General 
Convention  having  been  prevented  in  the  preceding  year  by  an  epi- 
demic), a  new  revision  of  the  Articles  of  Religion,  reduced  to  seventeen, 
was  considered,  but  not  finally  acted  upon  by  the  House  of  Deputies, 
and  was  printed  as  an  Appendix  to  the  Journal  of  that  House.4  But 
it  gave  no  satisfaction,  and  shared  the  same  fate  with  the  previous 
draft  of  twenty  Articles. 

Einally,  the  General  Convention  held  at  Trenton,  New  Jersey,  Sept. 
8-12,  1801,  settled  the  question  by  adopting  the  Thirty-nine  Articles 
in  the  form  which  they  have  since  retained  in  the  American  Episcopal 
Church,  and  are  incorporated  in  its  editions  of  the  Prayer-Book.5  The 
only  doctrinal  difference  is  the  omission  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  from 

1  See  their  letter  in  Perry,  pp.  50-55. 

2  In  the  first  edition  of  the  new  Prayer-Book,  1790,  the  objectionable  elivuse  was  printed  in 
italics,  and  put  in  parentheses.  But  the  General  Convention  of  1792  left  it  discretionary  to 
use  it,  or  to  omit  it,  or  to  substitute  for  it  the  words,  '  He  went  into  the  place  of  dqtarted 
spirits,'  as  being  equivalent  to  the  words  iu  the  Creed. 

3  Bishop  Seabury  was  very  zealous  for  the  Athanasian  Creed ;  and  in  the  Convention  of 
1789  the  House  of  Bishops  agreed  to  its  permissory  use,  but  the  House  of  Deputies  'would 
not  allow  of  the  Creed  in  any  shape.'  Bishop  White  favored  a  compromise — viz.,  to  leave  it 
in  the  Prayer-Book  as  a  doctrinal  document,  hut  not  to  read  it  in  public  worship.  See  his 
Mpmoirs,  pp.  149,  150,  and  a  letter  of  White,  quoted  by  Perry,  p.  70. 

«  Perry,  pp.  90-95. 

8  See  Vol.  III.  pp.  477  sqq.,  where  they  are  given  in  full. 


§82.  AMERICAN  REVISION  OF  THE  ARTICLES.  G53 

Art.  VIII. ;  the  remaining  changes  are  political,  and  adapted  to  the 

separation  of  Church  and  State.     Otherwise  even  '  the  obsolete  diction' 
is  retained.     The  following  is  the  action  of  this  Convention  :' 

'Besolutions  of  the  Bishops,  the  Clergy,  end  the  Laity  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Cburcli 
ia  tiie  United  States  of  America,  in  Convention,  in  the  city  of  Trenton,  the  12th  day  of  Sep- 
tember, in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1801,  respecting  the  Articles  of  Religion. 

'The  Articles  of  Religion  are  hereby  ordered  to  he  sel  forth  with  the  following  directions, 
to  be  observed  in  all  future  editions  of  the  same  ;   that  is  t<>  say — 

'The  following  to  be  the  tide,  viz. : 

'  "Articles  of  Religion,  as  established  by  the  Bishops,  the  Clergy,  and  the  Laity  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  Convention,  on  the  12th  day  of 
September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1801." 

'The  Articles  to  stand  as  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the  Church  of  England,  with 
the  following  alterations  and  omissions,  viz.  : 

'In  the  8th  Article,  the  word  "three"  in  the  title,  and  the  words  "three — Athanasios1 
creed"  in  the  Article,  to  be  omitted,  and  the  Article  to  read  thus : 

'"Art.  VIII.     Of  the  Creeds. 

1  "The  Xicene  Creed,  and  that  which  is  commonly  called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  ought  thor- 
oughly to  be  received  and  believed,  for  they  may  be  proved  by  most  certain  warrants  of  Holj 
Scripture." 

'  Under  the  title  "Article  21,"  the  following  note  to  be  inserted,  namely, 

'  "The  21st  of  the  former  Articles  is  omitted,  because  it  is  partly  of  a  local  and  civil  nat- 
ure, and  is  provided  for,  as  to  the  remaining  parts  of  it,  in  other  Articles." 

'The  35th  Article  to  be  inserted  with  the  following  note,  namely, 

'  "This  Article  is  received  in  this  Church,  so  far  as  it  declares  the  Books  of  Homilies  to  1  e 
an  explication  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  instinctive  in  piety  and  morals.  But  all  references 
to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  England  are  considered  as  inapplicable  to  the  circumstances 
of  this  Church:  which  also  suspends  the  order  for  the  reading  of  said  homilies  in  chimin- 
until  a  revision  of  them  may  conveniently  be  made,  for  the  clearing  of  them,  as  well  from  ob- 
solete words  and  phrases,  as  from  the  local  references." 

'The  3Gth  Article,  entitled  "Of  Consecration  of  Bishops  and  Ministers,"  to  read  thus  ■ 

'"  The  Book  of  Consecration  of  Bishops,  and  ordering  of  Priests  and  Deacons,  as  set  forth 
by  the  General  Convention  of  this  Church  in  I  7'.c_\  doth  contain  all  things  necessary  to  BOch 
consecration  and  ordering:  neither  hath  it  any  thing  that,  of  itself,  is  superstitious  and  un- 
godly. And,  therefore,  whosoever  are  consecrated  or  ordered  according  to  said  form,  we  de- 
cree all  such  to  be  rightly,  orderly,  and  lawfully  consecrated  and  ordered." 

'The  37th  Article  to  be  omitted,  and  the  following  substituted  in  its  ; 

'"Akt.  XXXVII.    Of  tiii:  Poweb  <>f  the  Civil  Magistrate. 

'  "The  power  of  the  civil  magistrate  extendeth  to  all  men,  as  well  ClergJ  as  Laity,  in  all 
things  temporal;  but  hath  no  authority  in  things  purely  spiritual.  And  we  hold  it  to  he  the 
duty  of  all  men  who  are  professors  of  the  gospel,  to  pay  respectful  obedience  to  the  civil  au- 
thority, regularly  and  legitimately  constituted.'  '* 

'Adopted  bt  the  II< >t  -i:  op  Bishops. 

WILLIAM    Will  IT..  D.D.,  PEEUDIxa    BlSHOP. 

'Adopted  bt  the  Bouse  op  Cubi<  a  mid  Lai   Dbpi  ra  -. 

ABRAHAM   BEACH,  D.D.,  Pbesidi  m 

1  Terry,  pp.  09-101. 

3  This  Art.  appears  u  the  last  in  the  XVII.  Article!  of  I7:.»'.». 


654  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

On  the  nature  and  aim  of  this  action,  Bishop  White  remarks  : ! 

'The  object  kept  in  view,  in  all  the  consultations  held,  and  the  determinations  formed,  was 
the  perpetuating  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  on  the  ground  of  the  general  principles  which  she 
had  inherited  from  the  Church  of  England ;  and  of  not  departing  from  them,  except  so  far  as 
either  local  circumstances  required,  or  some  very  important  cause  rendered  proper.  To  those 
acquainted  with  the  system  of  tli3  Church  of  England,  it  must  be  evident  that  the  object  here 
stated  was  accomplished  on  the  ratification  of  the  Articles.' 

The  only  change  in  the  Prayer-Book  which  has  a  doctrinal  bearing, 
besides  the  omission  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  is  the  insertion  of  the 
Prayer  of  Oblation  and  Invocation  from  the  Scotch  (and  the  First  Ed- 
wardine)  Prayer-Book,  through  the  influence  of  Bishop  Seabury,  who 
had  been  consecrated  in  the  Scotch  Episcopal  Church. 

§  S3.  The  Catechisms  of  the  Church  of  England.     A.D.  1549  and 

1662. 

Literature. 

The  Church  Catechism  is  contained  in  all  the  English  and  American  editions  of  the  Book  of  Commou 
Prayer,  between  the  baptismal  and  the  confirmation  services,  and  is  printed  in  this  work  with  the 
American  emendations,  Vol.  III.  pp.  517  sqq.  The  authentic  text  of  the  final  revision  of  1CG2  is  in  the 
corrected  copy  of  the  Black-Letter  Prayer-Book,  which  was  attached  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  and  has 
been  republished  in  fac-simile,  Loud.  1871.  (It  was  supposed  to  be  lost,  when  in  1S67  it  was  discovered 
in  the  Library  of  the  House  of  Lords.) 

Archibald  Joun  STErnEns :  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  with  notes  legal  and  historical.  Loud.  1S54. 
Vol.  III.  pp.  1449-1477. 

Francis  Procter  :  A  History  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  11th  ed.  Lond.  1S74,  ch.  v.  sect,  i  (pp.  397 
sqq.). 

See  other  works  ou  the  Anglican  Liturgy,  noticed  by  Procter,  p.  viii. 

EARLIER    CATECHISMS. 

The  English  Church  followed  the  example  of  the  Lutheran  and  Re- 
formed Churches  on  the  Continent  in  providing  for  regular  catechet- 
ical instruction.  English  versions  and  expositions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
the  Creed,  and  the  Ten  Commandments,  with  some  prayers,  were 
known  before  the  Reformation,  and  constituted  the  '  Prymer,'  which  is 
commonly  mentioned  in  the  fifteenth  century  as  a  well-known  book 
of  private  devotion.2  In  1545  Henry  VIII.  set  forth  a  Primer  which 
was   '  to   be   taught,  learned,  and  read,  and   none   other  to   be   used 

1  Memoirs,  p.  33. 

2  The  earliest  known  copy,  belonging  to  the  latter  part  of  the  14th  century,  has  been  pub- 
lished by  Maskel  in  Momunenta  ritualia  Eccleshc  Anglic<in<v,\o\.  II.  It  contains  Matins 
and  Hours  of  our  Lady  ;  Evensong  and  Compline ;  the  seven  Penitential  Psalms ;  the  Psalmi 
graduates  (Psa.  CXX.-CXXXIV.);  the  Litany;  Placebo  (Vespers);  Dirge  (the  office  for 
the  departed) ;  the  Psalms  of  Commendation ;  Pater  noster ;  Ave  Maria ;  Creed  ;  Ten 
Commandments  ;   the  seven  deadly  sins.     See  Procter,  p.  15. 


§  83.  THE  CATECHISMS  OF  THE  CHUBCH  QE  ENGLAND.  G55 

throughout  all  his  dominions.' '  During  his  reign  the  curates  were 
frequently  enjoined  to  teach  the  people  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Creed, 
and  the  Ten  Commandments,  sentence  by  sentence,  on  Sundays  and 
llolydays,  and  to  make  all  persons  recite  them  when  they  came  to 
confession. 

granmeb's  catechism. 

'Cranmer's  Catechism,' which  appeared  with  his  sanction  in  L548, 
was  for  the  most  part  a  translation  of  the  Latin  Catechism  of  Justus 
Jonas,  and  retains  the  Catholic  and  Lutheran  consolidation  of  the  first 
and  second  commandments,  and  the  sacrament  of  penance  or  absolu- 
tion ;  but  it  was  soon  superseded.2  Cranmer  changed  about  that  time 
his  view  of  the  real  presence. 

THE    CATECHISM   OF   THE   PRAYER-BOOK. 

When  the  Reformation  was  positively  introduced  under  Edward 
VI.,  and  the  Book  of  Public  Worship  was  prepared,  a  Catechism  was 
embodied  in  it,  to  insure  general  instruction  in  the  elements  of  the 

1  It  contained,  besides  the  contents  of  the  older  Primers,  the  Salutation  of  the  Angel,  the 
Passion  of  our  Lord,  and  several  prayers.  See  Procter,  p.  15,  and  Burton,  Three  Primers,  pp. 
437  sqq. 

a  So  Ilardwick  (Hist,  of  the  Reform,  p.  1!U)  and  other  Episcopal  writers.  This  matter 
needs  further  investigation.  The  very  existence  of  a  Catechism  of  Jonas  is  doubted  by 
Langemack  and  MGnckeberg,  who  have  written  with  authority  on  Luther's  Catechism.  But 
it  is  a  fact  that  Luther,  before  he  prepared  his  own  Catechisms  (1529),  charged  with  this  task 
his  colleagues  and  friends  Justus  Jonas  and  Agricola  of  Eisleben  (who  afterwards  became 
the  leader  of  Antinomian  views  in  opposition  to  Luther),  for  he  wrote  tu  Hausmann,  Feb.  2, 
1525  :  'Jona  et  Eislt  l>io  mandates  est  catechismus  puerorum  parandus'  ( l)e  Wette,  Vol.  II.  p. 
621).  This  is  probably  the  Catechism  which  appeared  in  the  same  year  in  a  Latin  transla- 
tion anonymously  under  the  title  'Q;/o  pacta  statim  a  primis  aunts,  pueri  debeant  in  Christi- 
anismo  institui.  Libellus perutilis.'  At  the  close:  ' Impression  Wtttemberga  per  Georgimn 
Rhaw.  An.  1525.'  The  original  German  edition  has  not  been  traced,  but  Dr.  Schneider  has 
discovered  a  copy  of  an  improved  German  edition,  under  the  title  tEin  Buchlein  fur  die 
kinder  gebessert  und  ijemehret.  Der  Leyen  Biblia.  Wtttemberg,  1628,'  and  has  reproduced  it 
in  the  appendix  to  his  critical  edition  of  Luther's  Small  ( latechism,  1858.  tie  Leaves  it,  how- 
ever, uncertain  whether  it  was  composed  by  Jonas.  Comp.  his  Introduction,  pp.  w  sqq. 
It  consists  of  a  brief  expo-it  ion  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  I  Ireed,  the  Ford's  Prayer,  the 
Sacrament  of  Baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  with  an  addition  on  Confession;  and  so  tar 
it  anticipates  the  order  of  Luther's  Catechism.  This  must  be  the  basis  of  Cranmer's  Cate- 
chism; but  as  the  Parker  Soc.  edition  of  bis  works  gives  only  his  dedicatory  Preface  to  King 
Edward  (Vol.  II.  p.  IIs).  I  ean  not  verify  the  identity.  It  teems  strange  thai  Cranmer  did 
not  translate  rather  the  far  more  perfect  Catechism  of  Lather.  The  reason  was,  no  doubt. 
his  persona]  acquaintance  with  the  author's  boo,  Justus  Jonas,  Jan.,  who  was  recommended 

to  him  by  Melanchthon,  was  very  kindly  treated  by  him,  and  MMUJB  to  have  been  the  chief 

medium  of  his  communication  with  the  German  Lutherans.  See  Strype'i  Memoir  of  Cran* 
wer,  Vol.  II.  p.  581  :   Laurence,  p.  17;  nnd  Cranmer'!  FPor&a, Vol  II.  p.  125. 


G5G 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


Christian  religion.  In  the  Prayer-Books  of  Edward  YI.  (1540,  1552) 
and  Elizabeth  (1559)  this  Catechism  bears  the  title  '  Confirmation, 
wherein  is  contained  a  Catechism  for  Children.' 

This  work  has  undergone,  with  other  parts  of  the  Prayer-Book, 
sundry  alterations.  The  commandments  were  given,  first  very  briefly 
(as  in  King  Henry's  Primer),  then  in  full  with  a  Preface  in  the  edition 
of  1552.  The  explanation  of  the  sacraments  was  added  in  1604  by 
royal  authority,  in  compliance  with  the  wish  of  the  Puritans  expressed 
at  the  Hampton  Court  Conference,1  and  is  attributed  to  Bishop  Overall, 
then  Dean  of  St.  Paul's.  In  the  last  revision  of  the  Prayer-Book,  in 
16G1,  the  title  was  changed  into  '  A  Catechism,'  and  two  emendations 
were  introduced  in  the  answer  on  Baptism,  as  follows: 


Earlier  Editions. 

What  is  the  outward  visible  sign  or  form  in 
Baptism  ? 

Water;  wherein  the  person  baptized  is  dip- 
ped or  sprinkled  with  it,  in  the  name,  etc. 

Why  then  are  infants  baptized  when  by 
reason  of  their  tender  age  they  can  not  per- 
form them  [repentance  and  faith]  ? 

Yes  ;  they  do  perforin  them  by  their  Sure- 
ties, who  jtromise  and  vow  them  both  in  their 
names:  which  when  they  come  to  age  them- 
selves are  bound  to  perform. 


Edition  of  1GG1  (1GG2). 

What  is  the  outward  visible  sign  or  form  in 
Baptism? 

Water ;  wherein  the  person  is  baptized,  in 
the  name,  etc. 

Why  then  are  infants  baptized,  when  by 
reason  of  their  tender  age  they  can  not  per- 
form them? 

Hecause  they  promise  them  both  by  their 
Sureties ;  which  promise,  when  they  come  to 
age,  themselves  are  bound  to  perform. 


In  the  explanation  of  the  Commandments  the  words  'the  King  and 
his  Ministers'1  were  so  changed  as  to  read  '  the  King  and  all  that  are 
put  in  authority  tender  him? 

This  Catechism  is  a  considerable  improvement  on  the  mediaeval 
primers,  but  very  meagre  if  we  compare  it  with  the  Catechisms  of 
Luther,  Calvin,  and  other  Continental  Reformers. 

The  Nonconformist  ministers  at  the  Savoy  Conference  (April,  16G1), 
in  reviewing  the  whole  Liturgy,  objected  to  the  first  three  questions  of 
the  Catechism,  and  desired  a  full  exposition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the 
Creed,  and  the  Commandments,  and  additional  questions  on  the  nature 


1  Dr.  Reynolds  said  at  that  Conference:  'The  Catechism  in  the  Common  Prayer-Book  is 
too  brief,  and  that  of  Mr.  Nowell  (late  Dean  of  St.  Paul's)  too  long  for  novices  to  learn  by 
heart.  I  request,  therefore,  that  one  uniform  Catechism  may  be  made,  and  none  other  gen- 
erally received.'  To  this  King  James  replied :  '  I  think  the  doctor's  request  very  reasonable, 
yet  so  that  the  Catechism  may  be  made  in  the  fewest  and  plainest  affirmative  terms  that  may 
be, — not  like  the  many  ignorant  Catechisms  in  Scotland,  set  out  by  every  one  who  was  the 
son  of  a  good  man.' — Fuller's  Church  History  of  Brit  ain,  Vol.  V.  p.  284. 


§S;J.  THE  CATECHISMS  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  651 

of  faith,  repentance,  the  two  covenants,  justification,  adoption,  regent  ra- 
tion, and  sanctification.    These  censures  were  not  heeded.1 

The  American  Episcopal  Church  adopted,  with  the  body  of  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  the  Catcchi.-m  also,  substituting  'the  civil 
authority'  for  '  the  King,'  and  omitting  several  directions  in  the  ap- 
pended rubrics. 

Outside  of  the  Anglican  communion  the  Catechism  is  used  only  by 
the  Irvingites,  who  more  nearly  approach  that  Church,  especially  in 
their  liturgy,  than  any  other. 

LAKGEE    CATECHISMS. 

The  need  of  a  fuller  Catechism  for  a  more  advanced  age  was  felt  in 
the  Church  of  England.  Such  a  one  was  prepared  by  Poyuet,  Bishop 
of  Winchester,  and  published,  together  with  the  Forty-two  Articles,  in 
Latin  and  English,  in  1553,2  apparently  with  the  approval  of  Craniner 
and  the  Convocation.3  On  the  basis  of  this,  Dean  Nowell,  of  St. 
Paul's,  prepared  another  in  1562,  which  was  amended,  but  not  formally 
approved  by  Convocation  (Nov.  11,  1562),  and  published  (1570)  in 
several  forms — larger,  middle,  and  smaller.  The  smaller  differs  but 
slightly  from  that  in  the  Prayer-Book.4 

Besides  these  English  productions,  the  Catechisms  of  (Ecolampadius, 
Leo  Judse,  and  especially  those  of  Calvin  and  Bullinger  were  exten- 
sively used,  even  in  the  Universities,  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth.5 

1  Dr.  Shields,  in  his  edition  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  as  (miended  by  the  Savoy  Con- 
ference l'hil.i.  1867),  has  inserted  the  Shorter  Westminster  Catechism  in  the  place  of  the 
Anglican  Catechism.     But  it  does  not  harmonize  with  the  genius  of  the  Prayer-Book. 

3  Both  editions  are  reprinted  by  the  Parker  Society  in  Liturgies,  etc..  of  Edward  VI. 

3  '  Catechismus  brevis  Christiana  disciplines  summam  continent:'  'A  short  Catechism,  or 
plain  instruction,  containing  the  sum  of  Christian  learning,  set  forth  by  the  King's  Majesty's 
authority, for  nil  schoolmasters  to  teach.'  The  authority  of  this  Catechism  was  afterwards 
dispnted.     See  Hardwick,  Hist,  of  the  Articles,  p.  109. 

4  The  larger  Catechism  appeared  first  in  Latin  under  the  title  '  Catechismus,  rive  prima  Insti- 
tute disciplinaque  pietatis  Christiana,  latine  expticata.    Reprinted   in   Bishop   Randolph's 
Enchirid.  Theolog.      See  Chorion's  Idfi  of  Nowell,  pp.  188  aq.f  and  Lathbury,  iffi 
Convoc.  pp.  lf>7  sq. 

4  Procter  says  p.  f()n  :  '  Even  in  1578,  when  the  exclnsire  use  ofNowelTa  Catechism  bad 
been  enjoined  in  die  canons  of  1571,  those  of  Calrin,  Bullinger,  and  others  were  .-till  ordered 

by  statute  to  he  used  in  the  University  of  Oxford.' 


658  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

§  84.  The  Lambeth  Articles,  A.D.  1595. 

Literature. 

Articuli  Lambethani.  London,  1651.  Appended  to  Ellis's  Artie.  XXXIX.  Eccl.  Angl.  Defensio ;  re- 
printed 17-20. 

Peter  Heylin  (Arminian) :  Historia  Quinqu-Articularis.  London,  1G60.  Chaps,  xx-xxii.  Also 
his  History  of  the  Presbyterians. 

Stkype  :  Life  and  Acts  of  John  Whitgift,  Vols.  II.  and  III.  (Oxford  ed.  1S22). 

Thomas  Fuller  :  Church  History  of  Britain,  Vol.  V.  pp.  219-227  (Oxford  ed.  of  1S45). 

R.  Hooker's  Works,  ed.  Keble,  Vol.  I.  p.  cii. ;  Vol.  II.  p.  752. 

Collier  :  An  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Great  Britain,  Vol.  VII.  pp.  1S4-195. 

Neale  :  History  of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  I.  pp.  20S  sqq.  (Harper's  ed.). 

Hardwiok  :  History  of  the  Articles  of  Religion,  chap.  vii.  pp.  162-1S0,  343-347. 

The  Lambeth  Articles  are  printed  in  Vol.  III.  p.  523,  and  also  in  Strype,  Fuller,  Collier,  and  Hard- 
wick,  1.  c. 

The  Lambeth  Articles  have  never  had  full  symbolical  authority  in 
the  Church  of  England,  but  they  are  of  historical  interest  as  showing 
the  ascendency  of  the  predestiuarian  system  of  Calvin  in  the  last 
decade  of  the  sixteenth  century.1 

As  Calvin  became  more  fully  known  in  England,  he  acquired  an 
authority  over  the  leading  divines  and  the  Universities  almost  as  great 
as  that  of  St.  Augustine  during  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  or,  in  the 
language  of  Hooker,  as  that  of  the  'Master  of  Sentences'  in  the  palmy 
days  of  scholasticism,  'so  that  the  perfectest  divines  were  judged  they 
which  were  skillfullest  in  Calvin's  writings.'  Ilardwick,  speaking  of 
the  latter  part  of  the  Elizabethan  period,  admits  that  '  during  an  in- 
terval of  nearly  thirty  years  the  extreme  opinions  of  the  school  of  Cal- 
vin, not  excluding  his  theory  of  irrespective  reprobation,  were  predomi- 
nant in  almost  every  town  and  parish.'  The  stern,  bold,  uncompromis- 
ing predestinarianism  of  the  Geneva  Reformer  seemed  to  furnish  the 
best  antidote  to  the  twin  errors  of  Pelagianism  and  Popery.  The 
Puritan  party  without  an  exception,  and  the  great  majority  of  the  con- 
forming clergy,  understood  the  Articles  of  Religion  as  teaching  his 
doctrines  of  free-will,  election,  and  perseverance ;  but  some  of  them 
thought  them  not  strong  enough. 

1  Fuller  says  (Vol.  V.  p.  227) :  '  All  that  I  will  say  of  the  credit  of  these  Articles  is  this  : 
that  as  medals  of  gold  and  silver,  though  they  will  not  pass  in  payment  for  current  coin,  he- 
cause  not  stamped  with  the  King's  inscription,  yet  they  will  go  with  goldsmiths  for  as  much 
as  they  are  in  weight;  so,  though  these  Articles  want  authentic  reputation  to  pass  for  pro- 
vincial acts,  as  lacking  sufficient  authority,  yet  will  they  be  readily  received  of  orthodox 
Christians  for  as  far  as  their  own  purity  bears  conformity  to  God's  Word.  .  .  .  Their  testi- 
mony is  an  infallible  evidence  what  was  the  general  and  received  doctrine  of  England  in  that 
age  about  the  forenamed  controversies.' 


§  84.  THE  LAMBETH  ABTICLES,  1696,  C59 

Tlie  University  of  Cambridge  was  a  stronghold  of  the  Calvinistic 

system.  It  was  taught  there  by  Thomas  Cartwright,  the  Margaret 
Professor  of  Divinity  (who, however,  was  deposed  in  1571  for  Puritanic 
sentiments — d.  1G03);  William  Perkins,  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  Christ's 
College  (d.  1602);1  and  especially  by  Dr. William  Whitaker  (Whitta- 
ker),  the  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  (d.  15(J5).2 

But  in  the  same  University  there  arose  an  opposition  which  created 
great  stir.  It  began  with  Baro  (Baron), a  French  refugee,  who,  by  the 
favor  of  Burghley,  was  promoted  to  the  Margaret  Professorship  of 
Divinity  (1574).  He  inferred  from  the  history  of  the  Ninevites  that 
God  predestinated  all  men  to  eternal  life,  but  on  condition  of  their 
faith  and  perseverance.3  For  this  opinion,  which  he  more  fully  ex- 
plained in  a  sermon,  he  was  cited  before  Dr.  Goade,  the  Vice-Chancel- 
lor of  the  University;  and  although  the  proceedings  were  stopped  by 
the  interposition  of  Burghley,  he  retired  to  London  (1590),  where  he 
died  a  few  years  afterwards.  The  same  cause  was  taken  up  more 
vigorously  by  William  Barrett,  a  fellow  of  Caius  College,  who,  in  a 
'concio  ad  clerum,'  preached  in  Great  St.  Man's  Church,  April  i".', 
1595,  indulged  in  a  virulent  attack  on  the  honored  names  of  Calvin, 
Beza,  Peter  Martyr,  and  Zanchius,  and  their  doctrine  of  irrespective 
predestination. 

The  academic  controversy  was  carried  by  both  parties  first  to  the 
Vice-Chancellor  and  heads  of  Colleges,  and  then  to  Archbishop  "Whit- 
gift,  of  Canterbury.  Whitgift,  a  lligh-Churchnian  and  an  enemy  of 
Puritanism,  seemed  at  first  inclined  to  take  part  with  Barrett,  but 
yielded  to  the  pressure  of  the  University.  Barrett  was  obliged  to 
admit  his  ignorance  and  mistake,  and  to  modify  his  dogmatic  state- 
ments,    lie  left  England  and  joined  the  Church  of  Home. 

To  settle  this  controversy,  and  to  prevent  future  trouble,  the  heads 
of  the  University  sent  Dr. Whitaker  and  Dr.  Tvndal  (Dean  of  Ely)  to 

1  He  wrote  the  Golden  Chain,  or  ArmUla  amrea  (1692),  which  contufoa  a  very  dear,  logical 
exposition  of  the  predestinarian  order  of  the  causes  of  salvation  and  damnation.     Hi-  irorka 

were  published  in  ."'.  vols.  London,  1616    18. 

2  He  wrote  the  beat  defense  of  t  lir-  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  Scriptnrea  against  Bellarminc 
and  Stapleton.  His  works  were  published  in  Latin  at  < leneva  ( 1610), .  vols.,  and  in  pan  !<• 
published  by  the  Parker  Society,  Cambridge,  1849. 

1  Pralect.  in  Tonant  Prophetant,  London,  1579,  and  <'<»iri<>  ad C/bnrnr, preached  in  1595, 

Sec  the  Letter  of  the  heads  oft  lambridge,  Manh  B,  1595,  toSi  cretary  I. "id  Burghley  (Cecil), 
Chancellor  of  the  University,  in  Collier,  Vol.  VII,  p.  198. 


G60  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

London,  to  confer  with  the  Archbishop  and  other  learned  divines. 
The  result  was  the  adoption  of  Nine  Articles,  at  Lambeth,  Nov.  20, 
1595. l  They  contain  a  clear  and  strong  enunciation  of  the  predes- 
tinarian  system,  by  teaching — 

1.  The  eternal  election  of  some  to  life,  and  the  reprobation  of  others 
to  death. 

2.  The  moving  cause  of  predestination  to  life  is  not  the  foreknowl- 
edge of  faith  and  good  works,  but  only  the  good  pleasure  of  God. 

3.  The  number  of  the  elect  is  unalterably  fixed. 

4.  Those  who  are  not  predestinated  to  life  shall  necessarily  be 
damned  for  their  sins. 

5.  The  true  faith  of  the  elect  never  fails  finally  nor  totally. 

G.  A  true  believer,  or  one  furnished  with  justifying  faith,  has  a  full 
assurance  and  certainty  of  remission  and  everlasting  salvation  in 
Christ. 

7.  Saving  grace  is  not  communicated  to  all  men. 

8.  No  man  can  come  to  the  Son  unless  the  Father  shall  draw  him, 
but  all  men  are  not  drawn  by  the  Father. 

9.  It  is  not  in  every  one's  will  and  power  to  be  saved. 

The  Articles  were  drawn  up  by  Whitaker  (who  died  soon  after- 
wards), and  somewhat  modified  by  the  Bishops  to  make  them  less  ob- 
jectionable to  anti-Calvinists.  Thus  the  fifth  Article  originally  stated 
that  true  faith  could  not  totally  and  finally  fail  '  in  those  who  had  once 
been  partakers  of  it;'  while  in  the  revision  the  words  'in  the  elect' 
(i.e.,  a  special  class  of  the  regenerated)  were  substituted.2  The  Arti- 
cles thus  amended  were  signed  by  Archbishop  Whitgift,  Dr.  Richard 
Fletcher,3  Bishop  of  London,  Dr.  Richard  Vaughan,  Bishop  elect  of 

1  This  is  the  correct  date,  given  by  Strype  from  the  authentic  MS.  copy  which  is  headed, 
'  Articuli  approbati  a  reverendissimis  dominis  1).  D.  Joanne  archiepiscopo  Cantuariensi,  et  l\i- 
chardo  episcopo  Londinensi,  et  aliis  Theologis,  Lambethce,  Novembris  20,  anno  159.").'  Heylin 
and  Collier  give  the  1 0th  of  November. 

2  See  the  original  draft  and  the  comments  thereon,  in  Hardwick,  p.  345,  where  we  find  the 
remark:  'In,  autographo  Whitakeri  verba  erant,  "in  it's  qui 'samel  ejus  participes  fuerunt ;" 
]>ro  quibus  a  Lambethanis  substiluta  sunt  "in  electis,"  sensu  plane  alio,  et  ad  mentem  Angnsti- 
ni;  cum  in  autographo  sint  ad  mentem  Calvini.  Augustinus  enim  opinatus  est,  "vcramjidem  qmv 
per  dilectionem  operatur,  per  quam  contingit  adoj>tio,  justificatio  el  sanctificatio,  posse  et  inter- 
cidi  et  amitti :  fidem  vero  esse  commune  donum  electis  et  reprobis,  sed  perseverantiam  elect  is  pro- 
priam:"  Calvinus  aulem,  "veram  etjustijicanteinjidem  solis  salcandis  et  electis  contingere."  ' 

3  Not  Richard  Bancroft,  as  Fuller  states ;  for  Bancroft  was  not  made  Bishop  of  London 
till  1597. 


§84.  THE  LAMBETH  ARTICLES,  1505.  c,.;i 

Bangor,  and  otlicrs.  They  were  also  sent  to  Dr.  Iluttoii,  Archbishop  of 
York,  and  Dr. Young,  Bishop  of  Rochester.  Hotton  indorsed  the  first 
Article  with  '  verUaimumf  and  approved  the  rest  with  the  remark  that 
they  could  all  be  plainly  collected  or  fairly  deduced  from  the  Script- 
ures and  the  writings  of  St.  Augustine. 

AVhitgift  sent  the  Lambeth  Articles  to  the  University  of  Cambridge 
(Nov.  24),  not  as  new  laws  and  decrees,  but  as  an  explanation  of  certain 
points  already  established  by  the  laws  of  the  land.  Hut  inasmuch  as 
they  had  not  the  Queen's  sanction  (though  he  states  that  the  Queen  was 
fully  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  them,  which  is  inconsistent  with  her 
conduct),  they  should  be  used  privately  and  with  discretion.1 

Queen  Elizabeth,  who  had  no  special  liking  for  Calvinism  and  dog- 
matic controversies,  was  displeased  with  the  calling  of  a  Synod  without 
her  authority,  which  subjected  the  Lambeth  divines  to  prosecution.3 
She  commanded  the  Archbishop  to  recall  and  suppress  those  Articles 
without  delay.  At  the  Hampton  Court  Conference  of  King  James 
and  several  prelates  with  the  leaders  of  the  Puritans  (Jan.,  1G04),  Dr. 
Reynolds  made  the  request  that  'the  nine  orthodontal  assertions  con- 
cluded on  at  Lambeth  might  be  inserted  into  the  Book  of  Articles.'3 
It  is  stated  that  they  were  exhibited  at  the  Synod  of  Doit  by  the  En- 
glish deputies,  as  the  judgment  of  their  Church  on  the  Arminian  con- 
troversy. But  the  anti-Calvinistic  reaction  under  the  Stuarts  grad- 
ually deprived  them  of  their  force  in  England,  while  in  Ireland  they 
obtained  for  some  time  a  semi-symbolical  authority. 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  with  the  Lambeth  Articles  a  brief  pre- 
destinarian  document  of  Calvin,  recently  discovered  by  the  Strasburg 
editors  of  his  works,4  and  a  fragment  of  Hooker  on  free  will,  predesti- 
nation, and  perseverance.  The  former  is  stronger,  the  latter  i>  milder, 
and  presents  the  following  slight  modification  <>f  those  Article.-:'' 

'  Ileylin  endeavors  to  relieve  Wbitgift  from  the  odium  of  signing  the  Lambeth  Article!  by 
casting  donbt  on  his  honesty.  Whitgifl  sided  with  Hooker  againsl  Travers,  and  entertained 
Dr.  Ilai'Miet  it)  hi-  Family,  who  derided  t lie  doctrine  of  unconditional  reprobation  in  a  sermon 
at  St.  Paul's  Cross  (1584).  see  ( !ollier,  pp.  186,  189.  Bnl  while  lie  may  have  been  opposed 
to  strict  Calvinism,  a-  he  certainty  was  to  Puritanism,  he  seems  t"  have  I  ■  en  in  full  accord 
with  the  Aognstinian  infralapsarianism. 

:  Fuller  (Vol.  V.  p.  222)  relates  that  the  Qneen,  in  her  laconic  style,  reminded  the  Primate, 
half  in  jest,  that  by  hi-  nnanthoriaed  call  of  a  council  he  had  '  incurred  the  prill  of  praemunire.' 

2  See  Fuller,  w  ho  gives  a  minute  account  of  this  famous  •  inference,  VoL  v.  p.  'j;.*.. 

4  It  is  printed  in  VoL  III.  pp,  624  sq.  of  this  work. 

1  Hooker's  Workt,  cd.  Keblc,  Vol.  II.  pp.  762  sq. 


(562  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

'It  followeth  therefore  [says  Hooker,  at  the  close  of  his  fragment]  — 

'  1.  That  God  hath  predestinated  certain  men,  not  all  men. 

'  2.  That  the  cause  moving  him  hereunto  was  not  the  foresight  of 
any  virtue  in  us  at  all. 

'  3.  That  to  him  the  number  of  his  elect  is  definitely  known. 

'  4.  That  it  can  not  be  but  their  sins  must  condemn  them  to  whom 
the  purpose  of  his  saving  mercy  doth  not  extend. 

'  5.  That  to  God's  foreknown  elect  final  continuance  of  grace  is  given. 

[Art.  6  of  the  Lambeth  series  is  omitted  by  Hooker.] 

'  6.  [7.]  That  inward  grace  whereby  to  be  saved  is  deservedly  not 
given  unto  all  men. 

'  7.  [8.]  That  no  man  cometh  unto  Christ  whom  God  by  the  inward 
grace  of  his  Spirit  draweth  not. 

'  8.  [9.]  And  that  it  is  not  in  every,  no,  not  in  any  man's  own  mere 
ability,  freedom,  and  power,  to  be  saved,  no  man's  salvation  being 
possible  without  grace.  Howbeit,  God  is  no  favorer  of  sloth ;  and 
therefore  there  can  be  no  such  absolute  decree  touching  man's  salva- 
tion as  on  our  part  includeth  no  necessity  of  care  and  travail,  but  shall 
certainly  take  effect,  whether  we  ourselves  do  wake  or  sleep.' 

§  85.  The  Ikisii  Articles.     A.D.  1615. 

Literature. 

Works  of  the  Most  Rev.  James  Ussoee,  D.D.,  Lord  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  and  Primate  of  all  Ireland. 
With  a  Life  of  the  Author,  and  an  Account  of  his  Writings.  By  Cuaeles  Rioiiaed  Elkington,  D.D. 
Dublin,  1S47, 10  vols.    See  Vol.  I.  pp.  38  sqq.  and  Appendix  IV. 

Ch.  Hakdwick  :  A  History  of  the  Articles  of  Religion,  pp.  181  sqq.,  351  sqq. 

James  Skaton  Reit>,  D.D. :  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Ckurch  in  Ireland.    Belfast,  1S34,  3  vols. 

W.  D.  Killen,  D.D.  (Presb.  Prof,  of  Eccles.  Hist,  at  Belfast) :  The  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Ireland  from 
the  Earliest  Period  to  the  Present  Time.    London,  1ST5,  2  vols.    (Vol.  I.  pp.  492  sqq. ;  Vol.  II.  pp.  17  sqq.) 

The  Irish  Articles  are  printed  in  Vol.  III.  pp.  526  sqq.  of  this  work,  in  Dr.  Elrington's  Life  of  Ussher 
(Vol.  I.  Append.  IV.),  in  Hardwick  (Append.  VI.),  and  in  Killen  (Vol.  I.  Append.  III.). 

The  Protestant  clergy  in  Ireland  accepted  the  English  Prayer-Book 
in  1560.  Whether  the  Elizabethan  Articles  of  Religion  were  also 
adopted  is  uncertain.1     At  all  events,  they  did  not  fully  satisfy  the 

1  Archbishop  Ussher,  in  a  sermon  preached  before  the  English  House  of  Commons,  162], 
declared  :  'We  all  agree  that  the  Scriptures  of  God  are  the  perfect  rule  of  our  faith  ;  we  all 
consent  in  the  main  grounds  of  religion  drawn  from  thence;  we  all  subscribe  to  the  Articles 
of  Doctrine  agreed  upon  in  the  Synod  of  the  year  1562.'  But  he  must  have  understood  this 
in  the  general  sense  of  assent,  as  he  was  addressing  laymen  who  never  subscribed  the  Arti- 
cles. Islington,  p.  43,  and  Hardwick,  p.  182.  The  Irish  Church  adopted,  in  156G  (1507),  a 
'  Brief  Declaration'  in  XII.  Articles  of  Keligion  ;  but  these  are  substantially  the  same  as  the 
XI.  Articles  prepared  by  Archbishop  Parker,  1  .r>">9  or  1560,  and  provisionally  used  in  England 
till  1563.  In  Ireland  they  continued  in  force  till  1G1">.  See  Ellington,  Append. ;  Hardwick, 
pp.  122,  337;  and  Killen,  Vol.  I.  pp.  395,  51f,-520. 


§  85.  THE  HUSH  ARTICLES,  1615.  QQ3 

rigorous  Calvinism  which  came  to  prevail  there  for  a  period  even  more 
extensively  than  in  England,  and  which  found  an  advocate  in  an  Irish 
scholar  and  prelate  of  commanding  character  and  learning. 

The  first  Convocation  of  the  Irish  Protestant  clergy,  which  took 
place  after  the  model  of  the  English  Convocation,  adopted  B  doctrinal 
formula  of  its  own,  under  the  title  'Articles  of  Religion,  agreed  upon 
by  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops,  and  the  rest  of  the  clergy  of  Ireland, 
in  the  Convocation  holden  at  Dublin  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  God 
1G15,  for  the  avoiding  of  diversities  of  opinions,  and  the  establishing 
of  consent  touching  true  religion.' 

They  were  drawn  up  by  James  Dsshke,1  head  of  the  theological 
faculty  and  Vice-Chancellor  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  afterwards 
Archbishop  of  Armagh,  and  Primate  of  all  Ireland.  lie  was  born 
in  15S0,  died  1656,  and  was  buried  in  Westminster  Abbey  by  or- 
der of  Cromwell.  He  was  the  greatest  theological  and  antiquarian 
scholar  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  his  age,  and  was  highly  esteemed 
by  Churchmen  and  Puritans,  being  a  connecting  link  between  the 
contending  parties.  He  was  elected  into  the  Westminster  Assembly 
of  Divines,  but  the  King's  prohibition  and  his  loyalty  to  the  cause  of 
the  crown  and  episcopacy  forbade  him  to  attend.  lie  had  an  extraor- 
dinary familiarity  with  Biblical  and  patristic  literature,  and,  together 
with  his  friend  Vossius  of  Holland,  he  laid  the  foundation  for  a  criti- 
cal investigation  of  the  oecumenical  creeds.  "Whether  formally  com- 
missioned by  the  Convocation  or  not,  he  must,  from  his  position,  have 
had  the  principal  share  in  the  preparation  of  those  Articles.  They  are 
'in  strict  conformity  with  the  opinions  he  entertained  at  that  period  of 
his  life.'2 

By  a  decree  of  the  Synod  appended  to  the  Dublin  Articles,  they 
were  to  be  a  rule  of  public  doctrine,  and  any  minister  who  shoold 
publicly  teach  any  doctrine  contrary  to  them,  and  after  due  admonition 
should  refuse  to  conform,  was  to  be  'silenced  and  deprived  <>f  all  spirit- 
ual promotions.'  The  Viceroy  of  Ireland,  in  the  name  of  King  James, 
gave  his  approval     James,  with  all  his  high  notions  of  episcopacy  and 

1  He  and  lii.s  family  spell  the  name  with  double  s  (  Latin,  Uuaivt  •.  l.iu  it   I 
Us/ti  r. 

1  Dr.  Elrington,  Life  of  J.  UMcr,  pp.  48,  it.     Comp.  also  the  'Bod;  of  Divinity,' which 

was  published  in  Ussher'a  name  during  the  sessions  of  tin-  Westminster  Assembly,  and  which 
he  admitted  to  have  compiled,  in  early  life,  from  the  writing!  of  Others. 

y0L.  i._tj  ,- 


(364  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

hatred  of  Puritanism,  was  a  Calvinist  in  theology,  and  countenanced 
the  Synod  of  Dort.  It  is  stated  that  the  adoption  of  this  Confession 
induced  Calvinistic  ministers  of  Scotland  to  settle  in  Ireland.1 

But  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  and  his  adviser,  Archbishop  Laud,  a 
reaction  set  in  against  Calvinism.  An  Irish  Convocation  in  1635, 
under  the  lead  of  the  Earl  of  Strafford,  Lord-Lieutenant  of  Ireland, 
and  his  chaplain,  John  Bramhall  (one  of  the  ablest  High-Church  Epis- 
copalians, who  was  made  Bishop  of  Londonderry,  1634,  and  Arch- 
bishop of  Armagh,  1661 — died,  1663),  adopted  the  Thirty-nine  Articles 
'  for  the  manifestation  of  agreement  with  the  Church  of  England  in 
the  confession  of  the  same  Christian  faith  and  the  doctrine  of  the  sac- 
raments.' This  act  was  intended  quietly  to  set  aside  the  Irish  Articles ; 
and  hence  they  were  ignored  in  the  canons  adopted  by  that  convoca- 
tion.2 Ussher,  however,  who  continued  to  adhere  to  Calvinism,  though 
on  terms  of  friendship  with  Land,  required  subscription  to  both  series, 
and  in  a  contemporary  letter  to  Dr.  Ward  he  says :  ■  The  Articles  of 
Keligion  agreed  upon  in  our  former  Synod,  anno  1615,  we  let  stand  as 
we  did  before.  But  for  the  manifestation  of  our  agreement  with  the 
Church  of  England,  we  have  received  and  approved  your  Articles  also, 
concluded  in  the  year  1562,  as  you  may  see  in  the  first  of  our  Canons.' 3 
After  the  Restoration  the  Dublin  Articles  seem  to  have  been  lost  sight 
of,  and  no  mention  was  made  of  them  when,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  the  English  and  Irish  establishments  were  con- 
solidated into  'the  United  Church  of  England  and  Ireland.'4 

The  Irish.  Articles  are  one  hundred  and  four  in  number,  arranged 
under  nineteen  heads.  They  are  a  clear  and  succinct  system  of  di- 
vinity, in  full  harmony  with  Calvinism,  excepting  the  doctrine  of  the 
ecclesiastical  supremacy  of  the  crown  (which  is  retained  from  the 
English  Articles).  They  incorporate  the  substance  of  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  and  the  Lambeth  Articles,  but  are  more  systematic  and  com- 
plete. They  teach  absolute  predestination  and  perseverance,  denounce 
the  Pope  as  Antichrist,  inculcate  the  Puritan  view  of  Sabbath  observ- 


'  Killen,  Vol.  I.  p.  4!):>. 

2  Killen,  Vol.  II.  p.  23  :  '  The  silence  of  the  canons  in  respect  to  the  Calvinistic  formulary, 
now  nearly  twenty  years  in  use,  was  fatal  to  its  claims,  and  thus  it  was  quietly  superseded.' 
Heylin  errs  in  stating  (Life  of  Laud)  that  the  Dublin  Articles  were  actually  'called  in.' 

3  Ellington,  Life,  p.  1 7G. 

4  I  lard  wick,  p.  190. 


§  86.  ARTICLES  OF  THE  REFORMED  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  1875.    .:,;;, 

ance,  and  make  no  mention  of  three  orders  in  the  ministry,  nor  of  the 
necessity  of  episcopal  ordination.  In  all  these  particulars  tin 
pared  the  way  for  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly. They  were  the  chief  basis  of  the  "Westminster  Confession,  as  is 
evident  from  the  general  order,  the  headings  of  chapters  and  sub- 
divisions, and  the  almost  literal  agreement  of  language  in  the  state- 
ment of  several  of  the  most  important  doctrines.1 

§  86.  The  Articles  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Chtjbch.     A.I>.  1  875. 

Literature. 

I.  Abtici.es  of  Religion-  or  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Ciicrch,  a«  adopted  by  the  General  Council  of  the 

pal  Church,  an  the  18th  day  of  May,  Bi  the  year  of  our  Lord  1S75.    New  York 
Eonse),  1878,    They  are  printed  in  the  last  section  of  the  third  volume  of  this  work. 

II.  The  Book  <>i  Cokmom  Pkaykb  of  the  Ri-.kou.mkh  Episcopal  Cihrch.  Adopted  and  vet  forth  for  KM 
by  the  Second  General  Council  of  the  acrid  Church,  held  in  the  City  of  Mm  York;  May,  1874.  Philadelphia 
(James  A.  Moore),  1S74.  (This  took  the  place  of  the  'Proposed  Book'  of  1785,  republished  for  pro- 
visional use  in  Dec,  1S73.) 

III.  Journal  of  the  First  General  Council  of  the  Reformed  Ejiiscopal  Church,  held  in  Xcic  York;  Dec.  2, 
1S73.    New  York,  1873. 

Journal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Second  General  Council  of  the  Ref.  Epis.  Church,  held  in  : 
Philadelphia,  1-74. 

Journal  of  tlie  Proceedings  of  the  Third  General  Council  of  the  Ref.  Epis.  Church,  field  in  Chicago, 
Illinois,  May  12  to  May  IS,  1S75.     Philadelphia,  1875. 

IV.  Bishop  George  David  Cu.mminh:  Primitive  Episcopacy:  A  Return  to  the  Old  fiatht  of  8eripture 
and  theEarly  Church.    A  Sermon  preached  in  Chicago,  Dee.  14, 1878,  at  the  Consecration  of  the  /.'• 
Edicard  Cheney,  D.D.,  as  a  Bishop  in  the  Ref.  BptB.  <  hureh.    New  York,  1^74.— By  the  same:  The  Lord's 
Table,  and  not  the  Altar.    New  York,  1875, 

Bishop  Ciias.Edw.  Cheney:  The  Evangelical  Ideal  of  a  Visible  Church  (n  sermon).    Philadelphia,  1-74. 
James  A.  Latane:  Letter  of  Resignation  to  Bishop  Johns  of  Virginia.     Wheeling,  Va.,  1-74. 
Bishop  W.  R.  Nicholson:  Reasons  why  I  bccam,-  a  Reformed  Episcopalian.    Philadelphia,  1S75. 
Benj.  Aycrigo  :  Memoirs  of  the  Ref.  Epis.  Church,  and  of  the  ProL  Epis.  Church.    New  York,  1-7:.. 

Before  closing  this  section  we  must  notice  a  recent  American  re- 
construction of  the  English  Articles  of  Religion,  which  goes  much 
farther  than  the  revision  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  is 
disowned  by  it,  bat  must  still  be  considered  as  an  offshoot  from  the 
same  root.  "We  mean  the  'Articles  of  Religion'  set  forth  in  1875  by 
the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. 

origin. 
This  body   seceded  from  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church   in  the 
United  States  under  the  lead  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Geoboe  David  Cimmins, 
formerly  Assistant  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Kentucky.     The  reason  of 


1  This  agreement  bai  been  proved  by  Profeaaor  Mitchell,  D.D.,  of  St.  Andrews,  in  his 
tract  The  Westminster  Ctmftmm  tf  Faith,  Bd  ecL,  Edinbargb,  L867,  and  la  the  [ntrodoctfon 
to  his  edition  of  the  Minute*  >•/  the  Wewtmkmtter  Assembly  1874,  pp.  xhi.  ie>q.     We  shell 

return  to  the  subject  more  fully  in  the  lection  <>n  the  WeetoiiDtter  Coofeeiloo, 


QQQ  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

his  sudden  and  unexpected  resignation  was  bis  dissatisfaction  with 
High-Church  ritualism  and  exclusiveness,  and  his  despair  of  checking 
their  progress  within  the  regular  Episcopal  Church.  The  occasion  was 
the  manifestation  of  this  exclusiveness  in  a  public  protest  of  the  Bishop 
of  the  diocese  of  New  York  against  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  in  Oct.,  1S73,  and  against  the  interdenominational 
communion  services,  in  which  Bishop  Cummins,  together  with  the  Dean 
of  Canterbury  (with  the  full  approval  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury), had  taken  a  prominent  part.1  He  compared  his  conduct  with 
the  Old  Catholic  reaction  against  modern  Romanism.2  He  desired 
simply  to  organize  the  theology  and  polity  of  the  Low-Church  party 
on  the  historic  basis  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church  itself  in  its 
initial  stage,  as  represented  by  Bishop  White  and  the  first  bishops  of 
Virginia  and  New  York.  Hence  his  return  to  the  'Proposed  Book'  of 
1785,  and  to  the  labors  of  the  Royal  Commission  in  1689. 

The  resignation  of  Bishop  Cummins  was  followed  by  his  canonical 
deposition.  The  majority  of  his  brethren  preferred  to  fight  the  battle 
within  the  old  Church,  or  quietly  to  wait  for  a  favorable  reaction,  and 
strongly  disapproved  of  his  course.3  Others  deprecated  from  principle 
the  multiplication  of  denominations,  and  feared  that  the  new  sect 
might  become  narrower  than  the  old.  Still  others,  though  unwilling 
to  share  the  risk  and  responsibility,  wished  it  well,  in  the  hope  that  it 
might  administer  a  wholesome  rebuke  to  the  hierarchical  spirit.  A 
small  number  of  Low-Church  clergymen  and  laymen  followed  his  ex- 
ample. A  new  ecclesiastical  organization,  under  the  name  of  the  Re- 
formed Episcopal   Church,  was   effected   at  a   council  held   in  the 

1  In  his  letter  of  resignation  to  Bishop  B.  B.  Smith,  of  Kentucky,  dated  Nov.  10, 1873, 
Cummins  alludes  to  those  solemn  services,  and  adds:  'As  I  can  not  surrender  the  right  and 
privilege  thus  to  meet  my  fellow-Christians  of  other  Churches  around  the  table  of  our  dear 
Lord,  I  must  take  my  place  where  I  can  do  so  without  alienating  those  of  my  own  household 
of  faith.  I  therefore  leave  the  communion  in  which  I  have  labored  in  the  sacred  ministry  for 
over  twenty-eight  years,  and  transfer  my  work  and  office  to  another  sphere  of  labor.' 

2  There  is,  however,  this  material  difference,  that  the  Episcopal  Church  as  a  body  has  not 
altered  her  creed,  nor  added  new  dogmas,  as  the  Roman  Church  has  done  in  the  Vatican 
Council. 

3  Though  a  gentleman  of  unblemished  moral  character,  he  was  publicly  charged  by  one  of 
his  evangelical  fellow-bishops  with  the  threefold  crime  of  breaking  his  ordination  vows, 
creating  a  schism,  and  consecrating,  single-handed,  a  deposed  clergyman  (Dr.  Cheney,  of 
Chicago)  to  the  episcopate.  The  last  act  was  considered  the  crowning  offense ;  for  thereby 
he  destroyed  the  monopoly  of  the  apostolic  succession,  which,  in  the  estimation  of  many 
modern  Episcopalians,  is  the  article  of  a  standing  or  falling  Church. 


§  8G.  ARTICLES  OF  THE  REFORMED  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  1875.     GG7 

Young  Men's  Christian  Association  building,  at  New  York,  Dec.  2, 
1873.1     It  set  forth  the  following 

DECLARATION    OF    TKIXCIPLES  : 

I.  The  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  holding  'the  faith  once  delivered  unto  the  saint-.'  de- 
clares its  belief  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  the  Word  of  God, 
and  the  sole  Ride  of  Faith  and  Practice;  in  the  Creed  'common];  called  the  Apostles' 
Creed;'  in  the  divine  institution  of  the  Sacraments  of  15apti>m  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  and 
in  the  doctrines  of  grace  substantially  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  Thirty-nine  Article-  of  Re- 
ligion. 

II.  This  Church  recognizes  and  adheres  to  Episcopacy,  not  as  of  divine  right,  but  as  a 
very  ancient  and  desirable  form  of  church  polity. 

III.  This  Church,  retaining  a  Liturgy  which  shall  not  be  imperative  or  repressive  of  free- 
dom in  prayer,  accepts  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  it  was  revised,  proposed,  and  recom- 
mended for  use  by  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  A.l>.  1785J 
reserving  full  liberty  to  alter,  abridge,  enlarge,  and  amend  the  same,  as  may  seem  most  con- 
ducive to  the  edification  of  the  people,  'provided  that  the  substance  of  the  faith  be  kept  entire.' 

IV.  This  Church  condemns  and  rejects  the  following  erroneous  and  strange  doctrines  as 
contrary  to  God's  Word  : 

First,  That  the  Church  of  Christ  exists  only  in  one  order  or  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity. 

Second,  That  Christian  ministers  are  'priests'  in  another  sense  than  that  in  which  all  be- 
lievers are  'a  royal  priesthood.' 

Third,  That  the  Lord's  Table  is  an  altar  on  which  the  oblation  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ  is  offered  anew  to  the  Father. 

Fourth,  That  the  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  presence  in  the  elements  of 
Bread  and  Wine. 

Fifth,  That  Regeneration  is  inseparably  connected  with  Baptism. 

The  next  work  was  the  revision  of  the  Liturgy  on  the  basis  of  the 
1  Proposed  Book'  of  1785,  by  the  Second  Council,  held  at  Kew  York, 
1874.  The  Apostles'  Creed  and  the  Nicene  Creed  were  retained,  but 
the  clause  'He  descended  into  hell'  was  stricken  out  from  the  former. 
In  the  baptismal  service,  thanksgiving  for  the  regeneration  of  the  child 
was  omitted.  Throughout  the  book  the  words  'minister'  and  'Lord's 
table'  were  substituted  for  'priest'  and  'altar'— a  change  which  had 
been  proposed  long  before  by  the  English  commission  of  1GS9. 

THE    ARTICLES   OF    RELIGION. 

A  considerable  number  of  the  Western  members  of  this  new  de- 
nomination were  in  favor  of  adopting  simply  the  Apostles'  Creed  and 
the  Nine  Articles  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  Hut  the  majority  in- 
sisted on  retaining  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  with  a  Eew  changes.     The 

1  It  has  since  grown  steadily,  though  by  no  means  rapidly.  It  numbers  now  (1876)  five 
bishops,  fifty-six  presbyters,  and  aboal  as  many  congregations  in  the  United  States  ami  in 
( 'anada.  There  is  in  England  a  Free  Episcopal  <  'lunch,  which  holds  the  same  principles,  hut 
has  not  vet  effected  an  episcopal  organisation. 


668  THE  CKEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

revision  was  intrusted  to  a  Committee  of  Doctrine  and  Worship,  con- 
sisting of  Rev.  W.  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.  (since  consecrated  Bishop,  March, 
1876),  Eev.  B.  B.  Leacock,  D.D.,  Rev.  Joseph  D.  Wilson,  and  some 
laymen.  The  report  of  the  committee  was  amended  and  adopted  at 
the  Third  General  Council,  held  in  Chicago,  May  12-18, 1875. 

The  Articles  of  Religion  are  thirty-five  in  number.  They  follow 
the  order  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  and  adhere  to  them  in  language 
and  sentiment  much  more  closely  than  the  Twenty  Articles  of  the 
'Proposed  Book'  of  1785  and  the  Seventeen  Articles  of  the  Episcopal 
Convention  of  1799.  Articles  1  and  2,  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation, 
are  retained  with  slight  verbal  alterations.  Art.  3,  of  the  descent  of 
Christ  into  Hades,  is  omitted.  Art.  3,  of  the  Resurrection  'and  the 
Second  Coming'  of  Christ,  Art.  4,  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Art.  5,  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  are  enlarged.  Art.  8,  of  the  old  series,  concerning  the 
three  creeds,  is  omitted;  but  in  Art.  22  the  Nicene  Creed  and  the 
Apostles'  Creed  are  acknowledged.  The  xVrticles  of  free-will,  justifica- 
tion, and  good  works  are  retained,  with  some  enlargements  on  justifica- 
tion by  faith  alone  (which  Bishop  Cummins  regards  with  Luther  as 
the  article  of  a  standing  or  falling  Church).  Art.  18  is  an  abridgment 
of  Art.  17,  but  affirms,  together  with  predestination  and  election,  also 
the  doctrine  of  human  freedom  and  responsibility,  without  attempting 
a  reconciliation.  The  Articles  of  the  Church  and  Church  Authority 
are  enlarged,  but  not  altered  in  sense.  Art.  24  wholly  rejects  the  doc- 
trine of  'Apostolic  Succession'  as  ' unscriptural  and  productive  of 
great  mischief;'  adding, 'This  Church  values  its  historic  ministry,  but 
recognizes  and  honors  as  equally  valid  the  ministry  of  other  Churches, 
even  as  God  the  Holy  Ghost  has  accompanied  their  work  with  demon- 
stration and  power.'  Baptism  is  declared  to  be  only  '  a  sign  of  regen- 
eration' (not  an  instrument).  Art.  27  rejects  consubstantiation  as  well 
as  transubstantiation,  as  '  equally  productive  of  idolatrous  errors  and 
practices,'  but  otherwise  agrees  with  Art.  28  of  the  old  series.  Arts.  31 
and  32  reject  purgatory,  the  worship  of  saints  and  images,  confession 
or  absolution,  and  other  Romish  practices.  Art.  34,  of  the  power  of 
the  civil  authority,  is  the  same  as  Art.  37  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  (retained  from  the  draft  of  1799),  except  that  the  words  'as 
well  clergy  as  laity '  are  exchanged  for  '  as  well  ministers  as  people? 


§  87.  THE  REFORMATION  IN  SCOTLAND. 

VL  THE  PRESBYTERIAN   CONFESSIONS  OF  SCOTLAND. 
§  ST.  The  Information  in  Scotland. 

Literature. 
I.  Conke66ION8. 
[\Ym.  Duhxop]  :  A  Collection  0/  ConfettUmt  0/  Faith,  Catechisms,  Directories,  Books  0/  Discipline,  etc.,  0/ 
publick  Authority  in  the  Church  of  .Scotland.     Edinburgh,  1719-89, 1  vols. 
Hobatiub  Bonae:  Catechisms  </  thr  Scottish  Reformation,    With  Pnfoet  and  NotM.    Londoi 
Alexander  Tavi.ou  Innes  (Solicitor  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  Scotland):  The  Law  0/  ■ 
Scotland.    A  Treatise  on  the  Legal  lielation  of  Churches  in  Scotland,  established  and  not  eUab'ishcJ,  to  their 
Doctrinal  Standards.    Ediuburgh,  1SG7  (pp.  495). 

II.  History  of  the  Reformation  and  Chircii  in  Scotland. 

Wodrow  Society's  Pchucations:  24  vol?.  Svo.    Loud.  1S42  sqq.    Comprising  Knox's  Works,  Calder- 
wood's  History  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  Autobioyrajdrj  <>/  Robert  Blair  (1593-1636),  Scott's  Ap 
y'arration  (1560-1633),  Twedie's  Select  Biographies,  The  Wodrou  Correspondence,  and  otber  works.    (The 
Wodrow  Society  was  founded  in  1S41,  in  honor  of  Robert  Wodrow,  an  indefatigable  Scotch  Pn  - 
historian,  b.  1679,  d.  1734,  for  the  publication  of  the  early  staudard  writings  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
Scotlaud.) 

Spottiswoode  Society's  Prm.icATioNs.    16  vols.  Svo.    Edinburgh,  1S44  sqq.    Comprising  Keith's  His- 
tory (to  156S),  the  Spottiswoode's  History  and  Miscellany,  etc. 

Juiin  Knox  (1505-1572):  Historie  of  the  Reformation  of  Rcligioun  in  Scotland  (till  1567).     Edinburgh, 
15S4;  London,  1664;   better  ed.  by  McGavin,  Glasgow,  1831.     Best  ed.  in  complete  Works,  edited  by 
David  Laing,  Ediuburgh,  1846-64.    6  vols.    (The  first  two  vols,  contain  the  Llistory  of  thi   t;  / 
including  the  Scotch  Conf.  of  Faith  and  the  Book  of  Discipliue.) 

George  Buchanan  (1506-15S2):   Rerum  Scoticarum  llistoria.    Edinburgh,  15S2 ;  Aberdeen,  1762 :   in 
English,  1690. 

Jons  Spottiswoode  :  History  of  the  Church  and  State  of  Scotland  (from  203  to  the  death  of  Jani'  -  VI.  . 
London,  1663;  4th  ed.  1677;  ed.  by  the  Spottiswoode  Society,  Edinburgh,  1847-51,  iu  3  vols.     (John 
Spotswood,  or  Spottiswoode,  was  b.  1565;  Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  1603,  and  then  of  St.  Audn  • 
and  Chancellor  of  Scotland,  1635  ;  the  first  iu  the  succession  of  the  modified  Scotch  episcopacy  introduced 
by  James ;  was  obliged  to  retire  to  England,  and  died  in  London,  1639.) 

Damp  Calderwood  (a  learned  and  zealous  defender  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotlan d, 
The  History  of  the.  Kirk  of  Scotland.    (London,  1678.)    New  ed.  by  Thomas  Thomson.    Edinburgh, 
1S42-49,  S  vols.     (Wodrow  80c.) 

Sir  James  Balfocr  (King-at-arms  to  Charles  I.  and  II.) :  Historical  Work*  published  from  '■'  I 
3ISS.  Edinburgh,  1824,  4  vols.  (Contains  the  Annals  and  Memorials  of  Church  aud  State  in  - 
from  1067  to  1652.) 

Rout.  Keith  (Primus  Bishop  of  the  Scotch  Episcopal  Church,  Bishop  of  Fife,  d.  1767]  :  B 
Affairs  of  Church  and  State  in  Scotland,  from  the  Beginning  of  the  Reformation  to  tht 
Mary  into  England,  1668.    Edinburgh,  1734,  fol.  (reprinted  by  the  Spottiswoode  80c.  In 
the  same :  A  n  Historical  Catalogue  of  the  Scottish  Bishops  down  to  the  year  165.8.     New  ed.  by  M 
Edinburgh,  1-21. 

Gilbert  St  taut  M.  17~r0  :  History  of  the  Reformation  of  Religion  in  Scotland  (1617-1661).     London,  17-0 
and  1796.     By  the  same:   History  of  Scotland  from  the  Establishment  Of  Q 
Queen  Mary.    London,  17S3, 17S4,  2  vols.    (Iu  vindication  of  (^ueen  Mary.) 

QXOBOI  Cook  :   History  of  the  Reformation  in  Scotland.     Edinburgh,  id  ed.  1819,  I  TOll 
History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  from  the  Reformation  to  the  Revolution,     Edinburgh,  1816,  2d  I 
vols. 

Thomas  M'Crie  (d.  1835):  Life  of  John  Knoi.     Edinburgh,  1811, 9  Yob).  6U>  ed.  1-31.  and  of:.  • 
delphia,  1840 ;  Works  of  M'crie,  1868.    Bjthesan  Bte    London,! 

Thomas  M'<  'rie.  .Tun.  :   Shtrhcs  of  Scottish  Church  History.     -<1  ed. 

Prince  Ai. ex.  I-AitANoif :  Lettre»,In»  Sluarfc    London,  1844, 1 

Thomas  Brain  BVbrmoMon  to  the  Preetnt  T\ 

don,  1848  46,4  vol--. 

\V.  M.  HmmiHOTOH  (Free  Church):  History  of  the  Church  </  Scotland  till  1848.     I'!  I 

1353  (also  New  York.  1846),  9  role. 

Gen.  Voi  Bumvorr:  OemhUMs  dor  Reformation  tn  Sohottland.    Berlin,  1841  10, 9  toIs.  9d  «d 

(J.  \\"i  1:1  1::   <;.  s,-h.  tier  akatholischen  Kit  ■"  Urussbritanu, 

I.  p]).  607-669  ;  Vol.  II.  pp.  461-660). 


070  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

John  Cunningham  (Presbyt.) :  Church  History  of  Scotland  to  the  Present  Time.    1589,  2  vols. 

Jonu  Lee  :  Lectures  on  the  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.    Edinburgh,  1S60,  2  vols. 

George  Gruu  (Liberal  Episcopalian) :  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Scotland.    London,  1301,  4  vols. 

A.  Teulet:  Relation  politiques  dc  la  France  et  de  VEspagne  avec  I'Ecosse,  en  16me  siecle.  Paris,  1SG2,  5 
vols. 

Fr.  Brandes  :  John  Knox,  der  Reformator  Schuttlands.  Elbcrfeld,  1SG2.  (The  10th  vol.  of  Fathers  and 
Founders  of  the  Reformed  Church.) 

Merle  d'Aubigne  (d.  18T2):  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Europe,  in  the  Time  of  Calvin.  Vol.  VI. 
(1S70),  chaps,  i.-sv.  (to  1546).    Comp.  also  his  Three  Centuries  of  Struggle  (1S50). 

Dean  Stanley  (Broad-Church  Episcopalian) :  Lectures  on  the  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  de- 
livered in  Edinburgh  in  1872  (with  a  sermon  on  the  Eleventh  Commandment,  preached  in  Greyfriars' 
Church).    London  and  New  York,  1S72. 

Prof.  R.  Rainy  (Free-Church  Presbyterian) :  Three  Lectures  on  the  Church  of  Scotland  (against  Stan- 
ley's praise  of  Moderatism).    Edinburgh,  1872. 

Geo.  P.  Fisher  :  History  of  the  Reformation,  pp.  351  sqq.  (New  York,  1S73). 

Peter  Louimer,  D.D.  (Prof,  in  the  English  Presbyterian  College,  London) :  Patrick  Hamilton  (London, 
1857) ;  The  Scottish  Reformation  (1860) ;  John  Knox  and  the  Church  of  England  (London,  1S75). 

Compare  also  the  general  and  secular  Histories  of  Scotland  by  Robertson  (1759  and  often,  2  vols.); 
Pinkerton  (1S14,  2  vols.) ;  P.  F.  Tytler  (1S28^13,  9  vols.,  new  ed.  1S66, 10  vols.) ;  John  Hill  Burton 
(from  Agricola's  Invasion  to  the  Revolution  of  16SS.  London,  1867-70,  7  vols.— From  1689  to  1748.  1870, 
2  vols.) ;  the  chapters  relating  to  Scotland  in  the  Histories  of  England  by  Hume,  Lingard  (Rom.  Cath.), 
Knight,  Ranke,  Froude. 

The  Reformation  in  Scotland  was  far  more  consistent  and  radical 
than  in  England,  and  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  Calvinistic  Pres- 
byterianism  under  the  sole  headship  of  Christ.  While  in  England 
politics  controlled  religion,  in  Scotland  religion  controlled  politics.  The 
leading  figure  was  a  plain  presbyter,  a  man  as  bold,  fearless,  and  un- 
compromising as  Cranmer  was  timid,  cautious,  and  conservative.  In 
England  the  crown  and  the  bishops  favored  the  Reformation,  in  Scot- 
land they  opposed  it;  but  Scotch  royalty  was  a  mere  shadow  com- 
pared with  the  English,  and  was,  during  that  crisis,  represented  by  a 
woman  as  blundering  and  unfortunate  as  Elizabeth  was  sagacious 
and  successful.  George  Buchanan,  the  Erasmus  of  Scotland,  the 
classical  tutor  of  Mary  and  her  son  James,  maintained,  as  the  Scotch 
doctrine,  that  governments  existed  for  the  sake  of  the  governed,  which 
in  England  was  regarded  at  that  time  as  the  sum  of  all  heresy  and 
rebellion.1  When  James  became  king  of  England,  he  blessed  God's 
gracious  goodness  for  bringing  him  'into  the  promised  land,  where 
religion  is  purely  professed,  where  he  could  sit  amongst  grave,  learned, 
and  reverend  men ;  not  as  before,  elsewhere,  a  king  without  state, 
without  honor,  without  order,  where  beardless  boys  would  brave  him 
to  the  face.' a 


1  His  book,  De-jure  regni  ajmd  Scotos  (l.r)G9),  was  burned  at  Oxford  in  1G83,  together  with 
the  works  of  Milton. 

2  So  he  addressed  the  English  prelates  at  the  Hampton  Court  Conference.     Fuller,  Church 
History  of  Britain,  Vol.  V.  pp.  207  sq. 


§  87.  Till:  REFORMATION  IN  SCOTLAND.  (;;i 

The  Scotch  Reformation  was  carried  on,  agreeably  to  the  cluu 
of  the  people  of  that  age  and  country,  with  Btrong  passion  and  rii 

and  in  close  connection  with  a  political  revolution;  but  it  e!< 
Scotland  at  last  to  a  very  high  degree  of  religious,  moral,  and  intel- 
lectual eminence,  which  contrasts  most  favorably  with  its  own  me- 
diaeval condition,  as  well  as  with  the  present  aspect  of  Southern  Ro- 
man Catholic  countries,  once  far  superior  to  it  in  point  of  civilization 
and  religion.1 

In  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  Scotch  were  still  a  semi- 
barbarous  though  brave  and  energetic  race.  Their  character  and 
previous  history  are  as  wild  and  romantic  as  their  lochs,  mountains, 
and  rapids,  and  show  an  exuberance  of  animal  life,  full  of  blazing 
passions  and  violent  commotions,  but  without  ideas  and  progress.  The 
kings  of  the  house  of  Stuart  were  in  constant  conflict  with  a  restless 
and  rebellious  nobility  and  the  true  interests  of  the  common  people. 
The  history  of  that  ill-fated  dynasty,  from  its  fabulous  patriarch 
Banquo,  in  the  eleventh  century,  down  to  the  execution  of  Queen  Marv 
(15S7),  and  the  final  expulsion  of  her  descendants  from  England  |  L688), 
is  a  series  of  tragedies  foreshadowed  in  Shakspere's  'Macbeth,1  where 
crimes  and  retributions  come  whirling  along  like  the  rushing  of  a  furi- 
ous tempest.  The  powerful  and  fierce  nobility  were  given  to  the  chase 
and  the  practice  of  arms,  to  rapine  and  murder.  Their  dress  was  that 
of  the  camp  or  stable;  they  lived  in  narrow  towers,  built  for  di  I 
without  regard  to  comfort  or  beauty.  They  regarded  each  other  as 
rivals,  the  king  as  but  the  highest  of  their  own  order,  and  the  people 
as  mere  serfs,  who  lived  scattered  under  the  shadow  of  castles  and  con- 
vents. The  patriarchal  or  clan  system  which  prevailed  in  the  High- 
lands, and  the  feudal  system  which  the  Norman  barons  BOperinduced 


1  Thomas  Carlyle  cnlla  tlic  Scotch  Reformation  'a  resurrei  rion  from  death  to  lifts.     It  «as 

oof  a  smooth  business;  bat  it  mi  wela sorely,  and  cheap  at  thai  price;  lia<l  it  I 

rougher,  on  the  whole,  cheap  at  any  price,  as  life  is.    The  people  began  to  *mn  ••  they  needed 

first  of  all  to  do  that,  at  what  cost  and  COfltS  soever.      Scotch  literature  and  thonghl 

industry;  Janus  Watt,  David  Hume.  Walter  Scott,  Robert  Barns:  I  lad  Knox  and  the 
Reformation  acting  in  the  heart's  core  of  every  one  of  these  persons  and  phenomena;  I  find 
that  without  the  Reformation  they  would  not  have  been.  Or  what  of  Scotland?  The  Pur- 
itanism of  Scotland  became  that  of  England,  of  New  England,  A  tumult  in  the  Ilij/h  Charch 
'of  Edinburgh  spread  into  a  universal  battle  and  struggle  over  all  these  realm-:  then  came 
out,  after  fifty  years'  straggling,  what  we  call  the  glorious  Revolution,  a  Habeaa-Corpui  Ai  t, 
Free  Parliaments,  and  mnch  else !'    //  L    I  IV. 


672  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

in  the  south,  kept  the  nation  divided  into  a  number  of  jealous  and 
conflicting  sections,  and  made  the  land  a  scene  of  chronic  strife  and 
anarchy. 

In  this  unsettled  state  of  society  morals  and  religion  could  not  flour- 
ish. The  Church  kept  alive  the  faith  in  the  verities  of  the  super- 
natural world,  restrained  passion  and  crime,  distributed  the  consolations 
of  religion  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave,  and  built  such  monuments  as 
the  Cathedral  of  Glasgow  and  the  Abbey  of  Melrose ;  but  it  left  the 
people  in  ignorance  and  superstition.  It  owned  the  full  half  of  all  the 
wealth  of  the  nation  from  times  when  land  was  poor  and  cheap,  and 
it  had  the  controlling  influence  in  the  privy  council,  the  parliament, 
and  over  the  people.  But  this  very  wealth  and  political  power  be- 
came a  source  of  corruption,  which  rose  to  a  fearful  height  before  the 
Keformation.  The  law  of  celibacy  was  practically  annulled,  and  the 
clergy  were  shamefully  dissolute  and  disgracefully  ignorant.  Some 
priests  are  said  to  have  regarded  Luther  as  the  author  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  bishops  and  abbots,  by  frequently  assisting  the  king 
against  the  nobles,  and  rivaling  with  them  in  secular  pomp  and  in- 
fluence, excited  their  envy  and  hatred,  which  hastened  their  ruin. 

Owing  to  its  remoteness,  poverty,  and  inhospitable  climate,  Scotland 
was  more  free  than  England  from  the  interference  of  the  pope  and  his 
Italian  creatures.  But  this  independence  was  rather  a  disadvantage, 
for  without  preventing  the  progress  of  the  native  corruptions,  it  kept 
off  the  civilizing  influences  of  the  Continent,  and  removed  the  check 
upon  the  despotism  of  the  king.  James  III.  usurped  the  right  of  fill- 
ing the  episcopal  vacancies  without  the  previous  election  of  the  chap- 
ters and  the  papal  sanction,  and  consulted  his  temporal  interest  more 
than  that  of  religion.  Simony  of  the  most  shameful  kind  became  the 
order  of  the  day.  James  V.  (1528-42)  provided  for  his  illegitimate 
children  by  making  them  abbots  and  priors  of  Ilolyrood  House,  Kelso, 
Melrose,  Coldingham,  and  St.  Andrew's.  Most  of  the  higher  dignities 
of  the  Church  were  in  the  hands  of  the  royal  favorites  and  younger 
sons  of  the  nobility,  who  were  sometimes  not  ordained,  nor  even  of  age, 
but  who  drew,  nevertheless,  the  income  of  the  cathedrals  and  abbeys, 
and  disgraced  the  holy  office.  'By  this  fraudulent  and  sacrilegious 
dealing' — says  an  impartial  old  authority — 'the  rents  and  benefices  of 
the  CI  lurch  became  the  patrimony  of  private  families,  and  persons  in 


§83.  JOHN  KNOX.  073 

no  ecclesiastical  orders,  and  even  boys  too,  were,  by  the  presentation  of 
our  kings  and  the  provision  of  the  popes,  set  over  the  episcopa 
themselves.  The  natural  result  of  this  WM  that  by  far  too  many  of 
these  prelates,  being  neither  bred  up  in  letters,  nor  having  in  them  any 
virtuous  dispositions,  did  not  only  live  irregularly  themselves,  but 
through  neglect  of  their  charge  did  likewise  introduce  by  degrees  sueh 
a  deluge  of  ignorance  and  vice  among  the  clergy  and  all  ranks  of  men 
that  the  state  of  the  Church  seemed  to  call  loudly  fur  a  reformation 
of  both.' 

The  first  impulse  to  the  Reformation  in  Scotland  came  from  Lu- 
theran writings  and  from  copies  of  Tyndale's  New  Testament.  The  first 
preachers  and  martyrs  of  Protestantism  were  Patriek  Hamilton,  who 
had  studied  in  Wittenberg  and  Marburg,  and  was  burned  (1528),  George 
Wishartj  who  shared  the  same  fate  (154G),  and  the  aged  Walter  Mill, 
who  predicted  from  the  flames  (Aug.  28, 1558),  'A  hundred  better  men 
shall  rise  out  of  the  ashes  of  my  bones,  and  I  shall  be  the  last  to  suffer 
death  in  Scotland  for  this  cause.' 

In  the  mean  time  God  had  prepared  the  right  man  for  this  crisis. 

§  SS.  John  Khox. 

Literature. 
Besides  the  works  of  Knox,  the  excellent  biography  of  M'C'rie,  and  Lokimee's  monograph  quoted  in 
the  preceding  section,  comp.  FrtornK's  Lecture  on  The  tnjkmnet  <■/  Ou  1:  «/<  Char- 

acter, 1886  (iu  Short  Studies  on  Great  8utjecU,  Vol.  I.  pp.  128  sqq.),  and  an  exceedingly  charactt a 
say  of  Thomas  Carlti.e  on  the  Portraits  of  John  Kna,  which  first  appeared  in  J-'nts.-r's  MaffOttnt  for 
April,  1876,  and  then  as  an  appendix  to  his  Early  King*  of  Norway.    London,  1876  (pp.  S09-40T),  and 
New  York  (Harper's  ed.  pp.  173-257).    Brandea  follows  M'Crlo  very  closely.    Lalng,  in  the  0j 
his  edition  of  Knox's  History  of  the  Reformation  (pp.  xiii.-xliv.),  gives  a  convenient  chronological  sum- 
mary of  the  chief  events  of  his  life. 

John  Knox  (1500-1572),  the  Luther  of  Scotland,  was  educated  in 
the  University  of  Glasgow,  and  ordained  to  the  Romish  priesthood 
(1530),  but  became  a  convert  to  Protestantism  (1545,  the  year  of 
Wishart's  martyrdom1)  through  the  study  of  the  Bible  and  the  writ- 
ings of  Augustine  and  Jerome.  He  went  at  once  to  the  extreme  of 
opposition,  as  is  often  the  case  with  Btrong  and  determined  characters 
of  the  Pauline  type.  He  abhorred  the  mass  as  an  'abominable  idolatry 
and  profanation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,'  and  popery  BS  the  great  anti- 
Christian  apostasy  and  Babylonish  harlot  predicted  iu  the  Bible.' 

'This  is  the  date  given  by  Lning,  while  H'Crifl  aasiglll  Knox'l  conversion  to  the  year  1542. 
11  His  first  Protestant  sermon  in  the  pariah  cbnrcb  at  BtAndraw'i  mu  on  Dan.  rii.,  to 


674  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

After  preaching  awhile  to  the  Protestant  soldiers  in  the  garrison  of 
St.  Andrew's,  he  was  taken  prisoner  by  the  French  fleet  (1547),  and 
made  a  galley-slave  for  nineteen  months,  'going  in  irons,  miserably 
entreated  and  sore  troubled  by  corporal  infirmity.'  Regardless  of 
danger,  he  remained  true  to  his  faith.  When  called  upon  to  kiss  an 
image  of  the  Holy  Virgin,  he  declared  that  it  was  'no  mother  of  God, 
but  a  painted  piece  of  wood,  fit  for  swimming  rather  than  being  wor- 
shiped;' and  he  flung  the  picture  into  the  river  Loire. 

On  obtaining  his  liberty,  he  labored  five  years  (1549-1554)  in  En- 
gland as  a  pioneer  of  English  Puritanism.  He  preached  in  Berwick, 
on  the  borders  of  Scotland,  in  Newcastle,  and  in  London.  He  was 
elected  one  of  the  six  chaplains  of  Edward  VI.  (1551),  was  consulted 
about  the  Articles  of  Religion  and  the  revision  of  the  Liturgy,  and  was 
offered  the  bishopric  of  Rochester,  which  he  declined  from  opposition 
to  the  large  extent  of  dioceses,  the  secular  business,  vestments,  and 
'  other  popish  fooleries  remaining.' ' 

After  the  accession  of  Bloody  Mary  he  fled  among  the  last,  at  the 
urgent  request  of  friends,  to  the  Continent,  and  spent  five  years  (from 
January,  1554,  to  January,  1559,  interrupted  by  a  journey  to  Scot- 
land, November,  1555,  to  July,  1556),  at  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  and 
especially  at  Geneva.  Here  he  found  '  the  most  perfect  school  of 
Christ  that  ever  was  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles.'  Though  four 
years  older,  he  sat  an  admiring  pupil  at  the  feet  of  John  Calvin,  and 
became  more  Calvinistic  than  the  great  Reformer.  He  preached  to  a 
flock  of  English  exiles,  took  part  in  the  Geneva  version  of  the  Bible, 
and  aided  by  his  pen  the  cause  of  evangelical  religion  in  England  and 
Scotland. 

The  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth  opened  the  way  for  his  final  re- 
turn and  crowning  work,  although  she  refused  him  passage  through 
her  dominion,  and  never  forgave  him  his  'blast'  at  the  dignity  and 
ruling  capacity  of  her  sex.2 


prove  that  the  pope  was  the  last  henst,  the  man  of  sin,  the  Antichrist.  Some  of  the  hearers 
said:  'Others  hewed  at  the  branches  of  papistry,  but  he  struck  at  the  root  to  destroy  the 
whole.'     Calderwood,  Vol.  I.  p.  230  ;   Knox's  Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  192. 

1  His  labors  in  England,  and  the  reasons  for  his  nolo  episcopari,  are  fully  described  by  Dr. 
Lorimer,  in  part  from  unpublished  sources. 

2  Before  his  return,  while  the   fires  of  Smithfield  were   still  burning,  he  had  published 
anonymously  bis  '  First  Blast  of  the  Trumpet  against  the  Monstrous  Regiment  [i.  c.,  regimen 


§  88.  JOHN  KNOX  075 

The  remaining  twelve  years  of  his  life  were  devoted  to  the  fierce 
struggle  and  triumph  of  the  Reformation  in  his  native  land,  which  he 
has  himself  so  vividly,  truthfully,  and  unsellishly  described  in  his  His- 
tory? Shortly  before  his  death  he  heard  the  news  of  the  terrible 
massacre  of  the  Huguenots  on  St.  Bartholomew's  night, and  summoning 
up  the  remainder  of  his  broken  strength,  he  thundered  from  the  pul- 
pit in  Edinburgh  his  indignation  and  the  vengeance  of  God  against 
1  that  cruel  murderer  and  false  traitor,  the  King  of  France'  (Charles 
IX.).  His  last  sermons  were  on  our  Lord's  crucifixion,  a  theme  on 
which  he  wished  to  close  his  ministry.  He  presided  at  the  installation 
of  Lawson  as  his  colleague  and  successor,  and  made  an  impressive  ad- 
dress and  prayer.  As  he  left  the  church  a  crowd  of  people  lined  the 
street  and  followed  him  to  his  house  to  take  farewell  of  their  pastor. 
He  found  his  last  comfort  in  the  sacerdotal  prayer,  the  fifty-third 
chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  some  psalms, 'hearing'  what  was  read, and  '  under- 
standing far  better.'  He  died,  weary  of  life  and  longing  for  heaven,  in 
the  sixty-seventh  year  of  his  age,  in  peace,  without  a  struggle,  lamented 
Ly  the  clergy,  the  nobles,  and  the  people  (Nov.  24, 1572).  He  could 
conscientiously  say  on  his  death-bed,  before  God  and  his  holy  angels, 
that  he  never  made  merchandise  of  religion,  never  studied  to  please 

or  government]  of  Women,'  1568,  which  was  aimed  at  the  misgovernment  of  Mary  Tudor 
and  Mary  of  Guise.  This  ringnlar  ami  characteristic  but  unfortunate  book  begins  with  the 
sentence,  'To  promote  a  woman  to  hear  rale,  superiority,  dominion,  or  empire,  above  any 
realm,  nation,  or  city,  is  repugnant  to  nature,  contumely  to  God,  n  thing  mosl  contrarions  to 
his  revealed  will  and  approved  ordinance,  and,  finally,  it  is  a  subversion  of  all  eqnity  am!  jus- 
tice.' He  appealed  to  the  creation,  to  the  Jews,  to  St.  Paul,  to  ancient  philosophers  ami 
legislators,  to  the  fathers,  to  the  Salic  and  French  law.  His  error  was  that  from  some 
bail  examples  he  drew  sweeping  conclusions,  which  were  soon  confirmed  by  Mary  Stuart, 
but  disproved  by  Elizabeth  (as  they  are  in  our  day  by  the  reign  of  Victoria).  No  wonder 
that  Queen  Mary  and  Queen  Elizabeth  were  incensed  at  what  they  regarded  a  personal  Insult 

Knox  himself  foresaw  the  bad  consequences,  and  expected  to  be  called  'a  sower  of  sedition, 
and  one  day  perchance  to  be  attainted  for  treason,'  but  he  was  too  manly  to  retract,  and  re- 
tained his  opinion  to  the  last,  but.  not  wishing  to  obstruct  the  path  of  Elisabeth,  he  never 
published  the  intended  Second  and  Third  Blast.  See  M'<  Irie'l  J.  Kn  ■■ .  pp.  Ill  117  (Phila- 
delphia ed.),  and  Carlyle,  I.  c.  pp.  280  sqq. 

1  Knox  wrote  four  Hooks  of  his  History  of  the  Reformation^  down  to  1564,  at  the  request 
of  his  friends.  The  fifth  Book  is  not  found  in  any  MS.  copy,  and  was  first  published  by 
David  Iiuchnnnn  in  104  1;  it  relates  the  affairs  of  the  most  controverted  period  in  Scottish 
hi>tory,  from  Sept.,  1664,  to  Aug.,  1667,  when  Queen  Mary  abdicated.  Laing  thinks  that  it 
is  mostlv  derived  from  Knox's  papers  by  some  unknown  hand  (Works, Vol.  II.  p.  168). 
Carlvle  regrets  that  this  'hasty  and  strangely  interesting,  Impressive,  and  peculiar  History 
has  not  been  rendered  far  more  extensively  legible  to  serious  mankind  at  large.1  Laing  lias 
added  a  vocabulary. 


676  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

men,  never  indulged  his  private  passions,  but  faithfully  used  his  talents 
for  the  edification  of  the  Church  over  which  he  was  called  to  watch. 
He  was  buried  in  the  graveyard  of  St.  Giles's ;  no  monument  was 
erected ;  a  plain  stone  with  his  name  marks  the  spot. 

Knox  was  the  greatest  of  Scotchmen,  as  Luther  the  greatest  of  Ger- 
mans. He  was  the  incarnation  of  all  the  noble  and  rugged  energies 
of  his  nation  and  age,  and  devoted  them  to  the  single  aim  of  a  thorough 
reformation  in  doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline,  on  the  basis  of  the 
Word  of  God.1  In  genius,  learning,  wealth  of  ideas,  and  extent  of 
influence,  he  was  inferior  to  Luther  and  Calvin,  but  in  boldness, 
strength,  and  purity  of  character,  fully  their  equal.2  He  was  the  most 
heroic  man  of  a  heroic  race.  His  fear  of  God  made  him  fearless 
of  man.  Endowed  with  a  vigorous  and  original  intellect,  he  was 
eminently  a  man  of  action,  with  the  pulpit  for  his  throne  and  the 

1  Thomas  Carlyle,  himself  a  typical  Scotchman,  calls  Knox  '  the  most  Scottish  of  Scots, 
and  to  this  day  typical  of  all  the  qualities  which  belong  nationally  to  the  very  choicest  Scots- 
men we  have  known,  or  had  clear  record  of:  utmost  sharpness  of  discernment  and  discrimi- 
nation, courage  enough,  and,  what  is  still  better,  no  particular  consciousness  of  courage,  but 
a  readiness  in  all  simplicity  to  do  and  dare  whatsoever  is  commanded  by  the  inward  voice  of 
native  manhood;  on  the  Avhole,  a  beautiful  and  simple  but  complete  incompatibility  with 
whatsoever  is  false  in  word  or  conduct ;  inexorable  contempt  and  detestation  of  what  in 
modern  speech  is  called  humbug,  ...  a  most  clear-cut,  hardy,  distinct,  and  effective  man ; 
fearing  God,  and  without  any  other  fear.'  He  severely  characterizes  the  patriarchal,  long- 
bearded,  but  stolid  picture  of  Knox  in  Beza's  Icones  (Geneva,  1.580),  and  in  Laing's  edition, 
and  represents  the  '  Somerville  portrait,' with  a  sharp,  stern  face,  high  forehead,  pointed 
beard,  and  large  white  collar,  as  the  only  probable  likeness  of  the  great  Reformer. 

2  M'Crie  (p.  355)  well  compares  him  with  the  three  leading  Reformers :  '  Knox  bore  a 
striking  resemblance  to  Luther  in  personal  intrepidity  and  in  popular  eloquence.  He  ap- 
proached nearest  to  Calvin  in  his  religious  sentiments,  in  the  severity  of  his  manners,  and  in 
a  certain  impressive  air  of  melancholy  which  pervaded  his  character.  And  he  resembled 
Zwinglius  in  his  ardent  attachment  to  the  principles  of  civil  liberty,  and  in  combining  his  ex- 
ertions for  the  reformation  of  the  Church  with  uniform  endeavors  to  improve  the  political 
state  of  the  people.  Not  that  I  would  place  our  Reformer  on  a  level  with  this  illustrious  tri- 
umvirate. There  is  a  splendor  which  surrounds  the  great  German  Reformer,  partly  arising 
from  the  intrinsic  heroism  of  his  character,  and  partly  reflected  from  the  interesting  situation 
in  which  his  long  and  doubtful  struggle  with  the  Court  of  Rome  placed  him  in  the  eyes  of 
Europe,  which  removes  him  at  a  distance  from  all  who  started  in  the  same  glorious  career. 
The  Genevese  Reformer  surpassed  Knox  in  the  extent  of  his  theological  learning,  and  in 
the  unrivaled  solidity  and  clearness  of  his  judgment.  And  the  Reformer  of  Switzerland, 
though  inferior  to  him  in  masculine  elocution  and  in  daring  courage,  excelled  him  in  self- 
command,  in  prudence,  and  in  that  species  of  eloquence  which  steals  into  the  heart,  convinces 
without  irritating,  and  governs  without  assuming  the  tone  of  authority.  But  although  "he 
attained  not  to  the  first  three,"  I  know  not,  among  all  the  eminent  men  who  appeared  at  that 
period,  any  name  which  is  so  well  entitled  to  be  placed  next  to  theirs  as  that  of  Knox,  whether 
we  consider  the  talents  with  which  he  was  endowed,  or  the  important  services  which  he  per- 
formed. ' 


§  88.  JOBS  KNOX. 

word  for  his  sword.  A  statesman  as  well  B8  a  theologian,  lie  possessed 
rare  political  sagacity  and  intuitive  knowledge  of  men.  Next  to  Cal- 
yin,  he  is  the  chief  founder  of  the  Presbyterian  polity,  which  has 
proved  its  vitality  and  efficiency  for  more  than  three  centuries.  Like 
St.  Paul  and  Calvin,  he  was  small  in  person  and  feeble  in  body,  but 
irresistible  in  moral  force.1  'lie  put  more  life  into  his  hearers  from 
the  pulpit  in  an  hour  than  six  hundred  trumpets."  When  old  and 
decrepit,  leaning  on  his  staff  and  the  arm  of  his  faithful  servant,  he 
had  to  be  lifted  to  the  pulpit;  but  before  the  close  he  became  so 
animated  and  vigorous  that  he  seemed  'likely  to  ding  the  pulpit  in 
blads  [to  beat  it  in  pieces]  and  flic  out  of  it.'3  Well  did  the  Karl  of 
Morton,  the  newly  elected  regent,  characterize  him  over  his  open  grave 
in  that  sentence  which  has  since  been  accepted  as  the  best  motto  of  his 
life:  'Here  lies  he  who  never  feared  the  face  of  man.'1  And  in  a 
different  spirit,  James  YI.  paid  the  same  tribute  to  his  fearless  char- 
acter, when  with  uplifted  hands  he  thanked  God  that  the  three  sur- 
viving bairns  of  Knox  were  all  lasses ;  '  for  if  they  had  been  three  lad-,' 
he  said  to  Mrs.  Welch, '  I  could  never  have  bruiked  [enjoyed]  my  three 
kingdoms  in  peace.' 5 


1  'Hand  sda  an  unquam  majus  ingenium  in  fragili  et  imhirillo  rorjnisado  collocaTHS 
Principal  Smeton,  as  quoted  by  M'Crie,  p.  355. 

8  So  the  English  embassador,  Sir  Nicholas  Throckmorton,  wrote  to  Cecil. 

3  Thus  his  eloquence  was  described,  in  1671,  by  James  Melville,  then  a  student  and  cOn- 
stant  hearer  of  Knox.  A  lively  Frenchman,  in  the  Journal  da  Dtibato ,  gave  the  follow- 
ing amusing  version  of  this  account:  'A  Presbyterian  fanatic  named  Knox,  .  .  .  old  and 
broken  down,  .  .  .  began  his  sermon  in  a  feeble  voice  and  slow  action:  bat  soon  heating 
himself  by  the  force  of  his  passion  and  hatred,  he  bestirred  himself  like  a  madman  ;  kt  bnkt 
his  pulpit,  and  jumped   into   the  midst   of  his  hearers  (sautoit  mi  mi/itn  d<s   audit  tun),' 

M'Crie,  p.  825. 

4  Or,  in  the  less  graceful  but  more  expressive  original  phrase,  as  given  by  James  Melville 
(the  only  authority  for  it),  '  He  neither  feared  nor  flattered  any  flesh.' 

5  Mis.  Weld)  was  a  daughter  of  Knox,  and  gained  admission  to  the  King,  in  London,  L623, 

to  ask  his  permission  for  the  return  of  her  sick  husband  (a  worthy  Presbyterian  minister,  who 
had  been  exiled  for  his  resistance  to  the  re  establishment  of  episcopacy)  to  his  nati1 
land.  James  at  tot  yielded  on  condition  that  she  should  persosde  him  to  submit  to  the 
bishops;  but  the  lady,  lifting  up  bet  apron  and  holding  it  tOWOlda  the  King,  replied,  in  the 
genuine  spirit  of  her  father,  '  I'lea-e  JfOOr  Majesty,  I'd  rather  kip  [receive]  hi-  bead  there.' 
Mr.  Welch  died  in  London  soon  after  this  singular  conversation  :  hi-  widow  returned  to  Ayr, 
and  survived  him  three  years,  'a  iponse  and  daughter  worthy  ofsacfa  a  basband  and  soch  a 

father.'    M'Crie,  p. 862.     Knox  was  twice  married  and  had  two  -on-  from  hi-  lii-t  wife. 

Marjorv  Howes,  of  London,  and  three  daughters  from  lii-  MOOOd  wile,  Margaret  DleWOlt,  I  I' 
a  high  noble  family  in  Scotland.  The  BOtU  were  educated  at  Cambridge,  but  died  young, 
without  issue. 


678  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Knox  had  the  stern  and  uncompromising  spirit  of  a  Hebrew  prophet. 
He  confronted  Queen  Mary  as  Elijah  confronted  Jezebel,  unmoved  by 
her  beauty,  her  smiles,  or  her  tears.  He  himself  relates  the  four  or 
five  interviews  he  had  with  that  graceful,  accomplished,  fascinating, 
but  ill-fated  lady,  whose  charms  and  misfortunes  still  excite  fresh 
feelings  of  sympathy  in  every  human  heart.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine 
a  more  striking  contrast :  Knox  the  right  man  in  the  right  place,  Mary 
the  wrong  woman  in  the  wrong  place;  he  intensely  Scotch  in  character 
and  aim,  she  thoroughly  French  by  education  and  taste ;  he  in  the 
vigor  of  manhood,  she  in  the  bloom  of  youth  and  beauty ;  he  terribly 
in  earnest,  she  gay  and  frivolous ;  he  a  believer  in  God's  sovereignty 
and  the  people's  right  and  duty  to  disobey  and  depose  treacherous 
princes,  she  a  believer  in  her  own  absolute  right  to  rule  and  the  sub- 
ject's duty  of  passive  obedience;  he  abhorring  her  religion  as  idolatry 
and  her  policy  as  ruin  to  Scotland,  she  fearing  him  as  a  rude  fanatic, 
an  impertinent  rebel  and  sorcerer  in  league  with  Beelzebub.1  We 
must  not  judge  from  his  conversations  with  the  Queen  that  he  was  a 
woman-hater :  he  respected  right  women  in  their  proper  sphere,  as  he 
was  respected  by  them,  and  his  correspondence  reveals  a  vain  of  ten- 
derness and  kindly  genial  humor  beneath  his  severity.2  But  in  this 
case  he  sacrificed  all  personal  considerations  to  what  he  believed  to  be 
his  paramount  duty  to  God  and  his  Church. 

1  Carlyle  thus  speaks  of  this  remarkable  chapter  in  the  Scotch  Reformation :  '  The  inter- 
views of  Knox  with  the  Queen  are  what  one  would  most  like  to  produce  to  readers ;  but  un- 
fortunately they  are  of  a  tone  which,  explain  as  we  might,  not  one  reader  in  a  thousand  could 
be  made  to  sympathize  with  or  do  justice  to  in  behalf  of  Knox.  The  treatment  which  that 
young,  beautiful,  and  high  chief  personage  in  Scotland  receives  from  the  rigorous  Knox, 
would  to  most  modern  men  seem  irreverent,  cruel,  almost  barbarous.  Here  more  than  else- 
where Knox  proves  himself, — here  more  than  any  where  bound  to  do  it, — the  Hebrew  Prophet 
in  complete  perfection ;  refuses  to  soften  any  expression  or  to  call  any  thing  by  its  milder 
name,  or  in  short  for  one  moment  to  forget  that  the  Eternal  God  and  His  Word  are  great, 
and  that  all  else  is  little,  or  is  nothing;  nay,  if  it  set  itself  against  the  Most  High  and  His 
Word,  is  the  one  frightful  thing  that  this  world  exhibits.  He  is  never  in  the  least  ill-tem- 
pered with  her  Majesty;  but  she  can  not  move  him  from  that  fixed  centre  cf  all  his  thoughts 
and  actions :  Do  the  will  of  God,  and  tremble  at  nothing;  do  against  the  will  of  God,  and 
know  that,  in  the  Immensity  and  the  Eternity  around  you,  there  is  nothing  but  matter  of 
terror.  Nothing  can  move  Knox  here  or  elsewhere  from  that  standing-ground  ;  no  consider- 
ation of  Queen's  sceptres  and  armies  and  authorities  of  men  is  of  any  efficacy  or  dignity 
whatever  in  comparison ;  and  becomes  not  beautiful,  but  horrible,  when  it  sets  itself  against 
the  Most  High.' 

2  See  his  letters  of  comfort  to  Mrs.  Bowes,  his  mother-in-law,  who  suffered  much  from  re- 
ligions melancholy,  in  Works  by  Laing,  Vol.  III.  pp.  337-343,  and  Vol.  VI.  p.  513;  also  in 
Lorimer,  pp.  39  sqq. 


§88.  JOHN   KNOX.  879 

The  pulpit  proved  mightier  than  the  throne.  The  suicidal  blunders 
of  the  Queen,  who  had  more  trouble  from  her  three  husbands     two  oi 

them  handsome  but  heartless  and  worthless  ruffians  and  murderers 
than  her  grand-uncle  Henry  VIII.  had  from  his  six  wives,  are  the  best 
vindication  of  the  national  policy,  if  not  the  personal  conduct,  of  the  lie- 
former.  Had  Mary's  popish  policy  triumphed,  there  would  have  U-<  n 
an  end  to  Protestantism  and  liberty  in  Scotland,  and  probably  in  En- 
gland too;  while  Knox,  lighting  intolerance  with  intolerance,  laid  the 
solid  foundation  for  future  liberty.  He  felt  at  that  turning-point  of 
history  that,  what  is  comparatively  harmless  now, 'one  mass  was  more 
dangerous  to  Scotland  than  an  army  of  ten  thousand  enemies.'1 

If  Knox  lacked  the  sweet  and  lovely  traits  of  Christian  character,  it 
should  be  remembered  that  God  wisely  distributes  his  gifts.  Neither 
the  polished  culture  of  Erasmus,  nor  the  gentle  spirit  of  Melanchthon, 
nor  the  cautious  measures  of  Cranmer  could  have  accomplished  the 
mighty  change  in  Scotland.  Knox  was,  beyond  a  doubt,  the  providential 
man  for  his  country.  Scotland  alone  could  produce  a  Knox,  and  Knox 
alone  could  reform  Scotland.  If  any  man  ever  lived  to  some  purpose, 
and  left  the  indelible  impress  of  his  character  upon  posterity,  it  was 
John  Knox.  His  is  to  this  day  the  best  known  and  the  most  popular 
1  a ne  in  Scotland.  Such  fearless  and  faithful  heroes  are  among  the 
best  gifts  of  God  to  the  world. 

"We  need  not  wonder  that  Knox,  like  the  other  Reformers,  was  pur- 
sued by  malignant  calumny  during  his  life,  and  even  charged  with  un- 
natural crimes,  which  would  make  him  ridiculous  as  well  as  hideous. 
But  those  who  knew  him  best  esteemed  him  most.  I'-annatvne, his 
faithful  clerk,  calls  him,  in  his  journal, '  the  light  of  Scotland,  the  com- 
fort of  the  Church,  the  mirror  of  godliness,  the  pattern  of  all  true 
ministers  in  purity  of  life,  soundness  of  doctrine,  and  boldness  in  re- 
proving wickedness.'  James  Melville,  who  heard  Ilia  last  Millions, 
speaks  of  him  a.-  -  that  most  notable  prophet  and  apostle1  of  Scotland.1 


1  Fronde  Baye:  'Toleration  la  a  good  thing  in  ita  place;  Nut  yoa  can  not  tolenrtrwhat 
will  not  tolerate  yon,  and  is  Hying  to  cut  your  throat.  .  .  .  The  Covenanters  foughl  tin-  Bghl 

and  won  the  victory,  ami  then.  an. I  not  till  then,  Came  the  David  llnine>  with  their  I 
miracles,  and  the  Adam  Smith-,  with  their  political  c. ' .mi.-,  and  >tcam-eii«iiies,  and  rail- 
roads, and  philosophical  institutions,  and  all  the  other  bleated  01  unblessed  fruits  of  liberty' 
(1.  c.  ]<]k  1  18,  I  19). 

3  Beza  also  calls  him  ' Scotonm  <J/»o*/o/i/m.' 

Vol.  I.—  X  x 


(5 SO  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Posterity  has  judged  differently,  according  to  the  religious  stand-point. 
To  some  he  still  appears  as  a  semi-barbarous  fanatic,  a  dangerous 
heretic,  or  at  best  as  a  '  holy  savage ; '  while  Froude  regards  him  as 
1  the  grandest  figure  in  the  entire  history  of  the  British  Eeformation,' 
and  Carlyle  as  '  more  than  a  man  of  genius — a  heaven-iuspired  prophet 
and  heroic  leader  of  men.' 

§  89.  The  Scotch  Confession  of  Faith.     A.D.  1560. 

Literature. 

The  Scotch  Confession  in  the  original  Scotch  dialect,  together  with  the  authorized  Latin  version  of 
Patrick  Adamson  (1572),  is  printed  in  Vol.  III.  pp.  427-470,  from  Dunlop's  Collection,  Vol.  II.  pp.  13  sqq.  It 
appeared  at  Edinburgh,  1501  (Robert  Lekprevik),  without  the  marginal  Scripture  references,  in  the 
Minutes  of  Parliament,  in  Knox's  History  of  the  Reformation  (Vol.  II.  pp.  93  sqq. ;  Laing's  ed.),  in  Cal- 
derwood's  History  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  (Vol.  II.  pp.  10  sqq. ;  Thomson's  ed.  for  the  Wodrow  Soc),  in 
Edward  Irviug's  reprint  of  the  Conf.  and  the  Book  of  Discipline  (1S31),  and  (abridged)  in  Xnnes,  Law  of 
Creeds  (pp.  39  sqq.).  In  the  Writings  of  John  Knox,by  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication,  Phila., 
1S42,  pp.  237  sqq.,  it  is  given  in  modern  English. 

A  Latin  version  (less  correct  and  elegant  than  that  of  Adamson)  appeared  in  the  Corpus  et  Syntagma 
Conf.,  1012  and  1054,  and  is  reproduced  in  Niemeyer's  Collectio,  pp.  340  sqq.  Niemeyer's  critical  notice  in 
the  Proleg.,  p.  li.,  is  very  brief  and  meagre.    For  a  German  translation,  see  Bockel,  pp.  645  sqq. 

The  supplementary  Scotch  Confession  of  15S0  is  printed  in  Vol.  III.  pp.  470-475. 

ORIGIN   OF   THE    SCOTCH   CONFESSION. 

'  The  Creed  of  Scotland  and  the  Church  of  Scotland  emerge  into 
history  so  nearly  at  the  same  moment  that  it  is  difficult  to  say  which 
has  the  precedence"  even  in  order  of  time.  It  is  at  least  equally  diffi- 
cult to  say  which  is  first  in  respect  of  authority ;  and,  indeed,  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  Church  is  founded  upon  the  creed  or  the  creed  upon 
the  Church  appears  to  be  at  the  root  of  most  of  the  legal  difficulties 
that  lie  before  us.' l 

The  Reformed  Church  of  Scotland  was  not  legally  recognized  and 
established  by  Parliament  till  1567,  seven  years  after  the  Scotch  Con- 
fession was  adopted  and  the  first  General  Assembly  was  held ;  but 
it  existed  in  fact,  under  royal  protest,  as  a  voluntary  body  from  De- 
cember 3,  1557,  when  a  number  of  Protestant  nobles  and  gentlemen 
signed,  at  Edinburgh,  a  'Covenant'  to  maintain,  nourish,  and  defend 
to  the  death  '  the  whole  Congregation  of  Christ,  and  every  member 
thereof.'  This  was  one  of  those  religious  bonds  or  mutual  agree- 
ments by  which  the  confederation  of  Protestants  of  Scotland  was  so 
often  ratified  to  secure  common  privileges.  The  term  Congregation 
(iKtcXrima,  eedttsia),  which  afterwards  was  exchanged  for  Kirk  (nvpia- 

1  Innes,  The  Law  of  Creeds  in  Scotland,  p.  4. 


§  89.  THE  SCOTCH  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH,  L560.  Gil 

kuv),  then  signified  the  true  Church  of  Christ  in  opposition  to  thi 
tate  Papal  Church,  and  the  leaden  were  called  the  '  Lords  of  the  Con- 
gregation.'   For  a  few  years  the   Liturgy  of  Edward  VI.  and  the 
'Order  of  Geneva'  seem  to  hare  been  used, but  there  is  oo  record  ..j 
any  formal  approval  of  a  doctrinal  standard  before  1560,1 

On  the  first  of  August,  1560,  after  the  death  of  the  Queen  Begent, 
Mary  of  Guise,  and  the  expulsion  of  the  French  troops,  but  before  the 
arrival  of  Queen  Mary,  the  Scotch  Parliament  convened  at  Edinburgh 
to  settle  the  new  state  of  things  in  this  transition  period.  It  proved  to 
be  the  most  important  meeting  in  the  history  of  that  kingdom.  The 
Church  question  came  up  on  a  petition  to  abolish  popery,  to  restore  the 
purity  of  worship  and  discipline,  and  to  devote  the  ecclesiastical  reve- 
nues to  the  support  of  a  pious  clergy,  the  promotion  of  learning,  and 
the  relief  of  the  poor.  In  answer  to  the  first  request,  the  Parliament 
directed  the  Protestant  ministers  to  draw  op  a  Confession  of  Faith. 
This  was  done  hastily,  though  not  without  mature  preparation,  in  four 
days,  by  John  Knox  and  his  compeers.2  The  document  was  read  twice, 
article  by  article,  and  ratified  by  the  three  estates,  August  17,  L560, 
'as  a  doctrine  grounded  upon  the  infallible  Word  of  God.9  Every 
member  was  requested  to  vote.  The  papal  bishops  were  charged  to 
object  and  refute,  but  they  kept  silence.  The  temporal  lords  all  voted 
for  the  Confession  except  three,  the  Earl  of  Athole,  Lord  Somerville, 
and  Lord  Porthwick,  who  declared  as  their  only  reason  of  dissent,  '"We 
will  beleve  as  our  fathers  belevet.'3 

Randolph,  the  English  envoy,  wrote  to  Cecil  two  days  afterwards:  '  I 

1  'The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  English  Congregation  at  Geneva,'  1558,  consist!  only  of 
four   articles:    I, of  God  the  Father;   2,  of  Jesus  Christ;   8,  of  the   Holy  Ghost;   4.  of  the 

Church  ami  the  Communion  of  Saints.     It  was  probably  drawn  npby  Knox.     Chaps,  l  and  4 
hare  some  resemblance  to  the  corresponding  articles  of  the  Scotch  Confession.     It  is  re- 
printed in  Dunlop's  Collection,  Vol.  II.  pp.  I!   12.     The  editor  says  that  it  was  '  reed 
approved  by  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation. ' 

2  Knox  reports  (VoL  II.  p.  128):  'Commission  ami  charge  was  given  to  Mr.  John  Win- 
ram,  sub-prior  of  St.  Andrew's,  Mr.  John  Spottiswoode,  John  Hillock,  Mr.  .John  Douglas, 
rector  of  St.  Andrew's,  Mr.  John  Rowe,  ami  John  Knox,  to  chaw  in  a  volume  the  policy  and 
discipline  of  the  Kirk,  as  n-,//  us  they  had  dont  tin  doctrine.'  Thus  six  Johns  composed  both 
the  Confession  of  Faith  ami  the  Booh  of  Discipline,  which  breathe  the  spirit  of  the  church 

militant,  ami  arc  Pauline  rather  than  Johaunean.      Knox  Wis  no  doubt  the  chief  author  of 

both.  He  had  experience  in  the  preparation  of  such  documents,  as  he  was  consulted  aboui 
the  Edwardine  Articles  of  Religion,  prepared  the  Confession  for  the  English,  congregations 
in  Geneva,  and  mnsl  have  been  familiar  with  the  Swiss  Confessions. 

3  Knox.  His/.  Vol.  II.  p.  121  :   Caklerwood. Vol.  II.  p.  ST. 


C82  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

never  heard  matters  of  so  great  importance  neither  sooner  dispatched, 
nor  with  better  will  agreed  unto.  .  .  .  The  rest  of  the  Lords,  with  com- 
mon consent  and  as  glad  a  will  as  ever  I  heard  men  speak,  allowed  the 
same.  .  .  .  Many  offered  to  shed  their  blood  in  defense  of  the  same. 
The  old  Lord  Lindsay,  as  grave  and  godly  a  man  as  ever  I  saw,  said, 
"  I  have  lived  many  years ;  I  am  the  oldest  in  this  company  of  my  sort ; 
now  that  it  hath  pleased  God  to  let  me  see  this  day,  where  so  many 
nobles  and  others  have  allowed  so  worthy  a  work,  I  will  say  with 
Simeon,  JVunc  dimittis" ' ' 

The  adoption  of  the  Confession  was  followed  (Aug.  24, 1560)  by 
acts  abolishing  the  mass,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  pope,  and  rescinding 
all  the  laws  formerly  made  in  support  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
and  against  the  Reformed  religion.  A  messenger  was  dispatched 
with  the  Confession  to  Queen  Mary,  in  Paris,  to  secure  her  ratifica- 
tion, but  was  not  graciously  received.  Her  heart's  design  was  to  re- 
store in  due  time  her  own  religion. 

In  December  of  the  same  year  the  first  General  Assembly  convened, 
and  approved  the  Book  of  Discipline,  prepared  by  the  same  authors. 
It  was  submitted  to  the  state  authority,  but  this  refused  to  ratify  it.2 

Seven  years  afterwards  (1567),  the  Parliament  formally  established 
the  Reformed  Church,  by  declaring  the  ministers  of  the  blessed  Evan- 
gel and  the  people  of  the  realm  professing  Christ  according  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith  'to  be  the  only  true  and  holy  Kirk  of  Jesus 
Christ  within  this  realm.'  Subscription  was  required  from  all  minis- 
ters first  in  1572.3  From  that  time  till  the  Revolution  of  1688  this 
native  Confession  was  the  only  legally  recognized  doctrinal  standard 
of  both  the  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal  Churches  in  Scotland.  The 
Covenanters,  however,  during  the  Commonwealth,  adopted  the  West- 
minster standards,  which  have  thrown  the  older  Confession  into  the 
shade.  Besides,  the  General  Assembly  approved  and  recommended 
also  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  which  Beza  transmitted  to 
Scotland  (156G),  Calvin's  Catechism,  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism, 
but  no  subscription  to  these  foreign  confessions  was  ever  exacted. 

1  Knox,  Works,  Vol.  VI.  pp.  116-118;  Innes,  p.  1 1 . 

2  See  'The  Booke  of  the  Universall  Kirk  of  Scotland,'  containing  the  earliest  records  of 
the  Minutes  of  the  Assembly,  published  in  one  volume,  1839;  Caldenvood,  Vol.  II.  pp.  44 
sqq.  ;  Innes,  pp.  21  sqq. 

'■>  Innes,  pp.  30  and  4!). 


§  80.  THE  SCOTCH  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH,  1660. 
CONTENTS. 

The  Scotch  Confession  consists  of  twenty-five  Articles,  and  a  short 
Preface,  which  breathes  the  spirit  of  true  confessors  ready  for  martyr- 
dom* It  begins:  'Long  have  we  thirsted, dear  brethren, to  have  noti- 
fied unto  the  world  the  sum  of  that  doctrine  which  we  profess,  and  for 
the  which  we  have  sustained  infamy  and  danger;'  and  it  ends  with 
the  words:  *  We  firmly  purpose  to  abide  to  the  end  in  the  confession  of 
this  our  faith.'  But  the  authors  are  far  from  claiming  infallibility  for 
their  own  statements  of  the  truth,  and  subject  them  to  improvement 
and  correction  from  the  Holy  Scriptures.1  In  harmony  with  this,  the 
20th  Article  denies  the  infallibility  of  general  councils, 'some  of  which 
have  manifestly  erred,  and  that  in  matters  of  great  weight  and  im- 
portance.' 

The  Confession  covers  the  oecumenical  and  evangelical  doctrines,  be- 
ginning with  God  and  ending  with  the  Church,  the  Sacraments,  and 
the  Civil  Magistrate.  It  exhibits  a  clear,  fresh,  and  forcible  summary  of 
the  orthodox  Reformed  faith,  as  then  held  in  common  by  the  Protest- 
ants of  England,  Switzerland,  France,  and  Holland.  Though  decid(  dly 
Calvinistic,  it  is  yet  free  from  the  scholastic  technicalities  and  angular 
statements  of  the  Calvinism  of  a  later  generation.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Sacraments  is  similar  to  and  rather  stronger  than  that  of  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles.2     The  Church   is  declared  to   be   uninterruptedly  one 

1  'We  protest  that  if  any  one  will  note  in  this  oar  Confession  any  article  or  sentence  re- 
pugnant to  God's  Holy  Word,  that  it  would  please  him  of  bis  gentleness  and  for  Christian 
charity's  sake,  to  admonish  as  of  the  same  in  writing;  and  we,  upon  our  lienor  and  fidelity, 
by  God's  grace,  do  promise  unto  him  satisfaction  from  the  month  of  God  (that  is.  from  Ins 
Holy  Scriptures),  or  eke  reformation  of  that  which  he  shall provt  to  be  antits.'  Dean  Stanley, 
in  quoting  this  passage  from  the  Preface  (JBtctures,  etc.  p.  113),  says  that  it  is  the  only 
Protestant  Confession  which,  far  in  advance  of  it-  age,  acknowledges  ii-  nun  fallibility. 
Bnt  the  First  Confession  of  Basle  (1584)  does  the  same  in  express  words  in  the  closing  arti- 
cle (see  Niemeyer,  Collect,  pp.  84  and  l04)j  and  the  changes  <■!'  the  Augsburg  Confession 
(Art.  X.),  and  of  the  English  Articles,  imply  the  recognition  of  their  imperfection  on 
of  the  authors.  The  19th  Article,  in  declaring  that  all  churches  hare  erred  in  matters  « I 
foith,  could  certainly  not  intend  to  exempt  the  Church  of  England  and  her  formularies. 

•Tytler  [History  of  Scotia  W.  Wl.  III.  p,  129,  ed  of  if  i:   '  It  is  worthy  of  i<>- 

mark  that  in  these  holy  mysteries  of  our  faith  this  Confession,  drawn  op  by  the  primitive 

Scotch  Refor rs,  keeps  in  some  points  at  a  greater  distance  from  the  rationalising  of  ulna 

Protestantism  than  the  Articles  of  Edward.1    <  In  Knox's  rien  of  tl icharist,  see  Larimer, 

I.e. pp.  129  and  181.  He  held  the  Calvinistic  view  before  he  came  t"  Geneva, and  while 
still  a  disciple  ofWisbart,  who  learned  it  from  his  intercourse  with  the  Swiss  Churches  in 
1640,  and  translated  the  First  Helvetic  Confession  <■»'  1586  into  English. 


(5S4  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  world, '  one  company  and  multi- 
tude of  men  chosen  of  God,  who  rightly  worship  and  embrace  him  by 
true  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  is  the  only  Head  of  the  same  Church, 
which  also  is  the  body  and  spouse  of  Christ  Jesus ;  which  Church  is 
catholic,  that  is,  universal,  because  it  containeth  the  elect  of  all  ages, 
all  realms,  nations,  and  tongues,  who  have  communion  with  God  the 
Father,  and  with  his  Son,  through  the  sanctification  of  the  Holy  Spirit.' 
But  this  Church  is  put  in  strong  contrast  with  the  false  and  apostate 
Church  of  the  Papacy,  and  distinguished  from  it  by  three  marks — 
namely,  the  pure  preaching  of  the  gospel,  the  right  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  and  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  discipline.  The  first 
two  are  mentioned  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  English  Arti- 
cles ;  the  third  is  peculiarly  Calvinistic  and  Presbyterian. 

But  no  particular  form  of  Church  government  or  worship  is  laid 
down  in  this  Confession  as  binding,  and  freedom  is  allowed  in  cere- 
monies.1 Knox  himself  prepared,  after  the  Geneva  model,  a  liturgy, 
or  Book  of  Common  Order,  which  was  indorsed  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly (Dec.  26, 1564),  and  used  in  Scotland  for  a  long  time.2  The  ex- 
clusive theory  of  a  jure  divino  Presbyterian  ism  dates  not  so  much 
from  Knox  as  from  Andrew  Melville,  and  the  aversion  to  forms  of 
prayer  was  a  reaction  against  the  attempt  of  Laud  to  force  a  foreign 
episcopacy  and  liturgy  upon  the  reluctant  Scotch. 

Edward  Irving,  himself  one  of  the  purest  and  noblest  sons  of  Scot- 
land, who  for  several  years  thrilled  the  English  metropolis  with  his 
pentecostal  gift  of  tongues,  and  to  whom  Thomas  Carlyle,  the  friend  of 
his  youth,  paid  such  a  touching  tribute,  was  in  the  habit  of  reading  the 
Scotch  Confession  twice  in  the  year  to  his  congregation,  and  bestowed 
this  encomium  upon  it:3  'This  document  is  the  pillar  of  the  Eefor- 


1  Art.  XX. :  '  In  the  Church,  as  in  the  house  of  God,  it  becometh  all  things  to  be  done 
decently  and  in  order  :  not  that  we  think  that  one  policy,  and  one  order  of  ceremonies  can  be 
appointed  for  all  ages,  times,  and  places ;  fur  as  ceremonies,  such  as  men  have  devised,  are 
but  temporal,  so  may  and  ought  they  to  be  changed,  when  they  rather  foster  superstition 
than  edify  the  Church  using  the  same.' 

a  It  has  been  republished  by  the  Rev.  John  Cumming,  London,  1840.  dimming  says 
(p.  v.):  'The  Scotch  Church  never  objected  to  a  written  liturgy  in  her  public  worship,  pro- 
vided there  was  room  left  in  the  service  for  extemporaneous  service.'  John  Knox's  Liturgy 
was  never  formally  abolished,  but,  like  the  Scotch  Confession,  it  was  silently  superseded  by 
the  Westminster  standards. 

3  Collected  Writings  nf  Edward  Irving,  London,  1  SGI, Vol.  I.  p.  G01 ,  quoted  by  limes,  p.  55. 


§  90.  THE  SCOTCH  COVENANTS  AND  THE  SCOTCH  KIRK. 

mation  Church  of  Scotland,  which  hath  derived  little  help  from  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith:  whereas  these  twenty-live  article-. 
ratified  in  the  Parliament  of  Scotland  in  the  year  1560,  not  only  at 

that  time  united  the  states  of  the  kingdom  in  one  firm  hand  against 
the  Papacy,  but  also  rallied  the  people  at  sundry  times  of  trouble 
and  distress  for  a  whole  century  thereafter,  and  it  may  be  said  even 
until  the  Revolution,  when  the  Church  came  into  that  haven  of  rest 
which  has  proved  far  more  pernicious  to  her  than  all  the  storm-  ihe 
ever  passed  through;  for,  though  the  "Westminster  Confession  was 
adopted  as  a  platform  of  communion  with  the  English  Presbyterians  in 
the  year  L647,  it  exerted  little  or  no  influence  upon  our  Church,  and  was 
hardly  felt  as  an  operative  principle  cither  of  good  or  evil,  until  the 
Revolution  of  1GSS ;  so  that  the  Scottish  Confession  waa  the  banner 
of  the  Church  in  all  her  wrestlings  and  conflicts,  the  Westminster  <  Ion 
fession  but  as  the  camp  colors  which  she  hath  used  during  her  day-  of 
peace — the  one  for  battle,  the  other  for  fair  appearance  and  good 
order.  This  document  consistcth  of  twenty-five  articles,  and  is  written 
in  a  most  honest,  straightforward,  manly  style,  without  compliment  or 
flattery,  without  affectation  of  logical  precision  and  learned  accuracy, 
as  if  it  came  fresh  from  the  heart  of  laborious  workmen,  all  the  day 
long  busy  with  the  preaching  of  the  truth,  and  Bitting  down  at  night  to 
embody  the  heads  of  what  was  continually  taught.  There  is  a  fresh- 
ness of  life  about  it  which  no  frequency  of  reading  wears  off.' 

§  90.  The  Scotch  Covenants  and  the  Scotch  Kikk. 

Literature. 
The  Covenants  nrc  added  to  gome  Smtrh  edition*  of  the  We-ttninstcr  Standi: 

<1  Covenant  mi  often  separately  printed. 
James  Aikm vn  :  An  II 

ttunaftht  Grand  National  Covenant,  168&    Edlnbnrgl 

National  Covenants  or  politico-religi  menta  Eor  the  mainte- 

nance and  defense  of  certain  principles  and  privileges  are  a  peculiar 
and  prominent  feature  in  the  history  <>f  the  Kirk  of  Scotland. 
were  copied  from  Jewish  precedents.'     They  originated  in   critical 


1  .Ju-h.  wiv.  •_'.-, :  'SoJoehufl  made  a  corenant  with  the  people  that  day,  and  -ft  them  a 
statute  and  an  ordinance  at  Bbeehem;1  i  Kin.-  a]  17:  rAnd  Jeboiada  made  a  covenant 
between  the  Lord  and  the  king  and  the  people,  that  they  iboold  be  the  Lord'i  i pie  ;'  also 


QgQ  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

periods,  when  the  sacred  rights  and  convictions  of  the  people  were  in 
imminent  danger,  and  when  the  religious  and  national  sentiments  were 
inseparably  blended.  They  are  not  properly  confessions  of  faith,  but 
closely  connected  with  them,  and  must  therefore  be  noticed  here. 
They  are  solemn  pledges  to  defend  the  doctrines  and  polity  of  the  Re- 
formed Kirk  against  all  hostile  attempts  from  within  or  from  without, 
and  to  die  rather  than  surrender.1 

The  earlier  Covenants  were  safeguards  against  popery,  the  later 
against  episcopacy.  In  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  Scotland  since  the 
Reformation  we  may  distinguish  three  main  periods:  the  period  of 
anti-popery  (1560  to  1590),  the  period  of  anti-prelacy  (until  1690),  and 
the  period  of  anti-patronage  (until  1875). 

The  first  Covenants  were  made  for  mutual  protection  against  the 
Romanists  by  a  number  of  Protestant  nobles  and  gentlemen,  at  Mearns, 
1556,  at  Edinburgh,  Dec.  3,  1557,  at  Perth,  Dec.  31, 1559,  before  the 
Reformed  Kirk  was  properly  organized. 

THE    NATIONAL    COVENANT,  1581    AND    1G38. 

Far  more  important  is  the  'National  Covenant,'  or  the  'Second 
Scotch  Confession,'  also  called  the  '  King's  Confession,'  and  the  '  Nega- 
tive Confession.'  It  was  drawn  up  in  English  and  Latin  by  the  Rev. 
John  Craig,  a  noble,  well-educated,  and  devoted  man,  a  colleague  of 

1  Dr.  M'Crie  says  of  the  Scotch  Covenants  (p.  120):  'Although  they  have  been  con- 
demned as  unwarranted  in  a  religious  point  of  view,  and  dangerous  in  a  political,  yet  are  they 
completely  defensible  upon  the  principles  both  of  conscience  and  policy.  A  mutual  agree- 
ment, compact,  or  covenant,  is  virtually  implied  in  the  constitution  of  every  society,  civil  or 
religious ;  and  the  dictates  of  natural  law  conspire  with  the  declarations  of  revelation  in 
sanctioning  the  warrantableness  and  propriety  of  explicit  engagements,  about  any  lawful  and 
important  matter,  and  of  ratifying  these,  if  circumstances  shall  require  it,  by  formal  subscrip- 
tion, and  by  a  solemn  appeal  to  the  searcher  of  hearts.  By  strengthening  the  motives  to 
fidelity  and  constancy,  and  thus  producing  mutual  confidence  among  those  who  are  embarked 
in  the  same  cause,  they  have  proved  eminently  beneficial  in  the  reformation  of  churches  and 
nations,  and  in  securing  the  religious  and  political  privileges  of  men.  The  misapplication  of 
them,  when  employed  in  a  bad  cause  and  for  mischievous  ends,  can  be  no  argument  against 
their  use  in  a  legitimate  way,  and  for  laudable  purposes.  And  the  reasoning  employed  to 
prove  that  such  covenants  should  not  be  entered  into  without  the  permission  of  rulers  would 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  subjects  ought  never  to  profess  a  religion  to  which  their  superiors 
are  hostile,  nor  make  any  attempts  to  obtain  the  reform  of  abuses,  or  the  redress  of  griev- 
ances, without  the  consent  and  approbation  of  those  who  are  interested  in  their  support.' 
From  Scotland  the  custom  of  covenanting  passed  to  the  Puritans  in  England  and  New  En- 
gland, and  remains  to-day  in  the  shape  of  solemn  engagements  assumed  by  individual  Chris- 
tians when  they  enter  into  full  communion  with  a  church.  Such  covenants  take  the  place 
of  confirmation  vows  customary  in  the  Lutheran  and  Anglican  Churches. 


§  90.  THE  SCOTCH  COVENANTS  AND  THE  SCOTCH  KIRK  687 

Knox  and  author  of  two  Catechisms,  who,  after  an  eventful  and  ro- 
mantic career,  died  in  1G00,  in  the  eighty-eight  year  of  his  life.  It  is 
a  solemn  indorsement  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  15G0,  with  the 
strongest  possible  protest  against  'all  kind  of  papistry  in  general  and 
particular  heads,'  especially  against  the  'usurped  tyranny  of  the  Ro- 
man  Antichrist  upon  the  Scriptures  of  God,  upon  the  Kirk,  the  civil 
magistrate,  and  consciences  of  men  ;  all  his  tyrannous  laws  made  upon 
indifferent  things,  against  our  Christian  liberty ;  .  .  .  his  five  bastard 
sacraments,  with  all  his  rites,  ceremonies,  and  false  doctrine  added  to 
the  ministration  of  the  true  sacraments  without  the  Word  of  God ;  his 
cruel  judgment  against  infants  departing  without  the  sacrament;1 
his  absolute  necessity  of  baptism ;  his  blasphemous  opinion  of  transub- 
stantiation ;  his  devilish  mass;  his  blasphemous  priesthood;  his  pro- 
fane sacrifice  for  sins  of  the  dead  and  the  quick;  ...  his  worldly 
monarchy  and  wicked  hierarchy ;  his  three  solemn  vows ;  his  erroneous 
and  bloody  decrees  made  at  Trent,  with  all  the  subscribers  and  ap- 
provers of  that  cruel  and  bloody  band  conjured  against  the  Kirk  of 
God.'     No  other  Protestant  Confession  is  so  fiercely  anti-popish. 

This  Covenant  was  subscribed  by  King  James  VI.,  his  household,  and 
a  number  of  nobles  and  ministers,  at  Edinburgh,  Jan.  28, 1581  (or  15S0, 
old  style2) ;  then  by  the  Assembly  and  by  persons  of  all  ranks  in  March, 
1581 ;  again  in  1590,  together  with  a  '  General  Band  for  Maintenance  of 
the  True  Religion  and  the  King's  Person  or  Estate  ;'  it  was  solemnly  re- 
newed, with  additions,  in  163S  and  1639;  ratified  by  an  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment in  1640,  and  signed  by  King  Charles  II.,  in  exile,  at  Spey,  June  23, 
1650,  and  again  when  he  was  crowned  at  Scone,  in  Scotland,  Jan.  1,1651.3 

The  renewal  of  the  Covenant  in  163S,  which  is  more  particularly 
called  the  National  Covenant,  marks  the  Second  Reformation.  It  in- 
cludes the  old  Covenant  of  15S1,  the  Acts  of  Parliament  condemning 
popery,  and  a  protest  against  the  government  of  the  Kirk  by  bishops, 
and  all  those  measures  of  King  Charles  I.  which  'do  sensibly  tend  to 

1  This  is  the  first  confeuional  declaration  against  the  damnation,  and,  by  implication,  in 
favor  of  the  salvation,  of  unhaptized  infants  ;  and  agrees  with  the  private  opinion  previously 
expressed  by  Zwingli  and  Bullinger. 

3  'They  did  not  begin  the  year  in  Scotland,  at  that  time,  till  the  2."th  of  March.' — Dun- 
lop's  Collection,  Vol.  II.  p.  101. 

3  See  the  text  in  Vol.  III.  p.  480 j  and  in  Calderwood, Vol.  III.  p.  .r.02.  Calderwood 
thinks  (p.  605)  that  this  confession,  under  the  name  of  'wicked  hierarchy,' condemns  qtis- 
eopal  government ;  but  it  is  evident  from  the  context  that  the  jkijuiI  hierarchy  is  meant. 


(588  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  re-establishment  of  the  Popish  religion  and  tyranny,  and  to  the  sub- 
version and  ruin  of  the  true  Eeformed  religion,  and  of  our  liberties, 
laws,  and  estates.'  The  additions  were  prepared  by  Alexander  Hen- 
derson and  Johnston  of  Warriston,  to  meet  a  great  crisis.1 

The  introduction  of  the  semi-presbyterian  mongrel  episcopacy  of 
James  was  comparatively  harmless.  But  when  his  son  Charles  and  his 
spiritual  adviser,  Archbishop  Laud,  in  criminal  ignorance  or  contempt 
of  public  feeling,  attempted  to  force  upon  the  Scots  the  royal  su- 
premacy, with  a  Eomanizing  hierarchy  and  liturgy,  it  produced  a  revo- 
lution and  civil  war  which  extended  to  England,  and  culminated  in  the 
temporary  triumph  of  Puritanism.  Macaulay  traces  the  freedom  of 
England  to  this  'act  of  insane  bigotry.'  In  1633  Laud  displayed  the 
most  elaborate  pomp  of  ceremonial  worship  in  Holyrood  Chapel  to 
impress  the  descendants  of  John  Knox !  His  new  service-book  differ- 
ed from  the  English  in  a  marked  tendency  to  popery.  When  it  was 
first  introduced,  July  23, 1637,  in  the  cathedral  church  of  St.  Giles,  in 
the  presence  of  the  privy  council,  the  two  archbishops  of  Scotland, 
several  bishops,  and  the  city  magistrates,  a  poor  old  woman,  named 
Jenny  Geddes, confounding  'colic'  and '  collect,'  indignantly  exclaimed, 
'  Villain,  dost  thou  say  mass  at  my  lug,'  and  hurled  her  famous  stool  at 
the  head  of  the  unfortunate  dean,  who  read  '  the  black,  popish,  and 
superstitious  book.'  Instantly  all  was  uproar  and  confusion  all  over 
the  city.  The  people  shouted  through  the  streets, '  A  pope,  a  pope  ! 
Antichrist !  The  sword  of  the  Lord  and  Gideon ! '  The  unpremeditated 
riot  extended  into  a  popular  revolution.  The  result  was  the  overthrow 
of  the  artificial  scheme  which  bigotry  and  tyranny  had  concocted.2 

The  renewal  of  the  Covenant  took  place  in  Greyfriars'  Church,  in 
Edinburgh,  the  28th  of  February,  1638,  and  was  a  most  solemn  and  ex- 
traordinary scene.  No  less  than  sixty  thousand  people  flocked  to  the 
city  from  all  parts  of  the  kingdom.  The  dense  crowd  which  filled  the 
church  and  adjoining  graveyard  listened  with  breathless  attention  to 


J  See  the  additions  in  Dnnlop's  Collection,  Vol.  II.  pp.  1 25-137,  also  the  Acts  of  the  Assem- 
blies of  Glasgow,  1638,  and  Edinburgh,  1039,  pp.  114  sqq. 

2  'Never,'  says  Dean  Stanley  (p.  82),  'except  in  the  days  of  the  French  Revolution,  did  a 
popular  tumult  lead  to  such  important  results.  The  stool  which  was  on  that  occasion  flung 
at  the  head  of  the  Dean  of  Edinburgh  extinguished  the  English  Liturgy  entirely  in  Scotland 
for  the  seventeenth  century,  to  a  great  extent  even  till  the  nineteenth,  and  gave  to  the  civil 
war  of  England  an  impulse  which  only  ended  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Church  and  monarchy. ' 


§  00.  THE  SCOTCH  COVENANTS  AND  THE  SCOTCH  KIRK.    6S9 

the  prayers,  the  addresses,  and  the  reading  of  the  Covenant.  The  aged 
Earl  of  Sutherland  first  signed  his  name  with  trembling  hand  upon 
the  parchment  roll.  Name  followed  name  in  swift  succession.  '  Some 
wept  aloud ;  some  burst  into  a  shout  of  exultation ;  some,  after  their 
names,  added  the  words,  till  death  ;  and  some,  opening  a  vein,  sub- 
scribed with  their  own  warm  blood.  As  the  space  became  filled,  they 
wrote  their  names  in  a  contracted  form,  limiting  them  at  last  to  the 
initial  letters,  till  not  a  spot  remained  on  which  another  letter  could  be 
inscribed.  .  .  .  Never,  except  among  God's  peculiar  people,  the  Jews, 
did  any  national  transaction  equal  in  moral  and  religious  sublimity 
that  which  Avas  displayed  by  Scotland  on  the  great  day  of  her  sacred 
National  Covenant.' ' 

Similar  scenes  were  repeated  throughout  the  Northern  Kingdom. 
Noblemen  and  gentlemen  carried  copies  of  the  Covenant  in  their 
pockets  and  portmanteaus,  soliciting  subscriptions.  Women  sat  in 
church  day  and  night,  from  Friday  till  Sunday,  to  receive  the  com- 
munion with  it.  To  refuse  signature  seemed  to  some  denial  of  Chris- 
tianity itself.2 

THE    SOLEMN   LEAGUE   AND    COVENANT,  1643. 

'  The  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  for  Reformation  and  Defense 
of  Religion,  the  Honor  and  Happiness  of  the  King,  and  the  Peace  and 
Safety  of  the  Three  Kingdoms  of  Scotland,  England,  and  Ireland,'  is 
the  last  and  the  most  important  of  these  national  compacts  which  grew 
out  of  the  Reformation.  It  has  neither  the  doctrinal  import  nor  the 
ring  and  fervor  of  the  National  Covenant  of  1580  and  1G3S,  but  it  had 
a  wider  scope  and  greater  effect.  It  is  anti-episcopal  as  well  as  anti- 
papal.  It  is  the  connecting  link  between  Scotch  Presbyterian  ism  and 
English  Puritanism,  between  the  General  Assembly  and  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  between  the  Scotch  Parliament  and  the  Long  Parlia- 
ment. It  aimed  to  secure  uniformity  of  religion  in  the  united  realms, 
while  the  National  Covenant,  like  the  Confession  of  15G0,  was  purely 
Scotch,  and  never  exceeded  its  original  boundary.3 

1  Hetherington,  Z/i'.s/ory  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  01  (3d  cd.). 

a  For  fuller  particulars,  sec  Baillie's  Letters,  Vol.  I.,  Rothes's  Relation,  Alton's  Life  of 
Henderson,  Burton  (Vol.  VI.  p.  442).  Accounts  from  the  episcopal  side,  in  Thomas  Ste- 
phen's History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  Vol.  I.  pp.  652  Bqq.  ;   Stanley,  1.  c.  pp.  80  sqq. 

3  It  is  BnrprUing  that  these  two  Covenants  should  he  confounded  by  such  a  scholar  as 


090  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

We  present  first  the  text  in  full : ' 

'  We  Noblemen,  Barons,  Knights,  Gentlemen,  Citizens,  Burgesses,  Ministers  of  the  Gospel, 
and  Commons  of  all  sorts,  in  the  kingdoms  of  Scotland,  England,  and  Ireland,  by  the  provi- 
dence of  God,  living  under  one  King,  and  being  of  one  reformed  religion,  having  before  our 
eyes  the  glory  of  God  and  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  the  honor  and  happiness  of  the  King's  Majesty  and  Ins  posterity,  and  the  true  public 
liberty,  safety,  and  peace  of  the  kingdoms,  wherein  every  one's  private  condition  is  included : 
And  calling  to  mind  the  treacherous  and  bloody  plots,  conspiracies,  attempts,  and  practices 
of  the  enemies  of  God,  against  the  true  religion  and  professors  thereof  in  all  places,  especially 
in  these  three  kingdoms,  ever  since  the  reformation  of  religion ;  and  how  much  their  rage, 
power,  and  presumption  are  of  late  and  at  this  time  increased  and  exercised,  whereof  the  de- 
plorable state  of  the  Church  and  kingdom  of  Ireland,  the  distressed  estate  of  the  Church  and 
kingdom  of  England,  and  the  dangerous  estate  of  the  Church  and  kingdom  of  Scotland  are 
present  and  public  testimonies ;  we  have  now  at  last  (after  other  means  of  supplication,  re- 
monstrance, protestation,  and  sufferings,  for  the  preservation  of  ourselves  and  our  religion 
from  utter  ruin  and  destruction,  according  to  the  commendable  practice  of  these  kingdoms 
in  former  times,  and  the  example  of  God's  people  in  other  nations),  after  mature  delibera- 
tion, resolved  and  determined  to  enter  into  a  mutual  and  Solemn  League  and  Covenant, 
wherein  we  all  subscribe,  and  each  one  of  us  for  himself,  with  our  hands  lifted  up  to  the  most 
High  God,  do  swear, 

'I.  That  we  shall  sincerely,  really,  and  constantly,  through  the  grace  of  God,  endeavor,  in 
our  several  places  and  callings,  the  preservation  of  the  reformed  religion  in  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  in  doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  and  government,  against  our  common  enemies  ;  the 
reformation  of  religion  in  the  kingdoms  of  England  and  Ireland,  in  doctrine,  worship,  dis- 
cipline, and  government,  according  to  the  Word  of  God  and  the  example  of  the  best  Re- 
formed Churches ;  and  shall  endeavor  to  bring  the  Churches  of  God  in  the  three  kingdoms 
to  the  nearest  conjunction  and  uniformity  in  religion,  confession  of  faith,  form  of  Church  gov- 
ernment, directory  for  worship  and  catechising ;  that  we,  and  our  posterity  after  us,  may,  as 
brethren,  live  in  faith  and  love,  and  the  Lord  may  delight  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of  us. 

'  II.  That  we  shall,  in  like  manner,  without  respect  of  persons,  endeavor  the  extirpation  of 
Popery,  Prelacy  (that  is,  Church  government  by  Archbishops,  Bishops,  their  Chancellors  and 
Commissaries,  Deans,  Deans  and  Chapters,  Archdeacons,  and  all  other  ecclesiastical  Officers 
depending  on  that  hierarchy),  superstition,  heresy,  schism,  profaneness,  and  whatsoever  shall 
be  found  to  be  contrary  to  sound  doctrine  and  the  power  of  godliness ;  lest  we  partake  in 
other  men's  sins,  and  thereby  be  in  danger  to  receive  of  their  plagues ;  and  that  the  Lord 
may  be  one,  and  his  name  one,  in  the  three  kingdoms. 

'  III.  We  shall,  with  the  same  sincerity,  reality,  and  constancy,  in  our  several  vocations, 
endeavor,  with  our  estates  and  lives,  mutually  to  preserve  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
Parliaments,  and  the  liberties  of  the  kingdoms  ;  and  to  preserve  and  defend  the  King's  Maj- 
esty's person  and  authority,  in  the  preservation  and  defense  of  the  true  religion  and  liberties 
of  the  kingdoms:  that  the  world  may  bear  witness  with  our  consciences  of  our  loyalty,  and 
that  we  have  no  thoughts  or  intentions  to  diminish  his  Majesty's  just  power  and  greatness. 

'  IV.  We  shall  also,  with  all  faithfulness,  endeavor  the  discovery  of  all  such  as  have  been 
or  shall  be  incendiaries,  malignants,  or  evil  instruments,  by  hindering  the  reformation  of  re- 
Dean  Stanley,  in  his  eloquent  description  of  it,  in  Lectures  on  the  Church  of  Scotland,  pp. 
83-86  (Am.  ed.).     Dean  Hook  makes  the  same  mistake — Life  of  Laud,  p.  207. 

1  From  '  The  [Westminster]  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,  to- 
gether with  the  Sum  of  Saving  Knowledge,  Covenants,  National,  and  Solemn  League,'  etc. 
Edinburgh,  1788,  pp.  501  sqq.  Masson,  in  his  Life  of  Milton,\o\.  III.  p.  13,  gives  the 
essential  parts  of  the  National  Covenant.  Fuller  inserts  it  in  full,  Vol.  VI.  p.  2,V>,  and 
compares  it  (p.  2*>9)  to  '  the  superstitious  and  cruel  Six  Articles  enacted  by  King  Henry  VIII. ' 
Coin]).  Baillie's  Letters,  Vol.  II.  pp.  81-90;  the  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  for  1043; 
Stoughton,  The  Church  of  the  Civil  Wars,  pp.  293  and  320  ;  Masson,  1.  c.Vol.  III.  pp.  6-15 ; 
Hetherington,  1.  c.  pp.  110  sqq. 


§  90.  THE  SCOTCH  COVENANTS  AND  THE  SCOTCH  KIRK.  091 

ligion,  dividing  the  King  from  his  people,  or  one  of  the  kingdoms  from  another,  or  making 
uny  faction  or  parties  amongst  the  people,  contrary  to  this  League  and  Covenant ;  that  they 
may  be  brought  to  public  trial,  and  receive  condign  punishment,  as  the  degree  of  their  of- 
fenses shall  require  or  deserve,  or  the  supreme  judicatories  of  both  kingdoms  respectively,  or 
others  having  power  from  them  for  that  effect,  shall  judge  convenient. 

'  V.  And  whereas  the  happiness  of  a  blessed  peace  between  these  kingdoms,  denied  in 
former  times  to  our  progenitors,  is,  by  the  good  providence  of  God,  granted  unto  us,  and  hath 
been  lately  concluded  and  settled  by  botli  Parliaments  ;  we  shall  each  one  of  us,  according  to 
our  place  and  interest,  endeavor  that  they  may  remain  conjoined  in  a  firm  peace  and  union 
to  all  posterity,  and  that  justice  may  be  done  upon  the  willful  opposers  thereof,  in  manner 
expressed  in  the  precedent  article. 

1  VI.  We  shall  also,  according  to  our  places  and  callings,  in  this  common  cause  of  religion, 
liberty,  and  peace  of  the  kingdoms,  assist  and  defend  all  those  that  enter  into  this  League 
and  Covenant  in  the  maintaining  and  pursuing  thereof;  and  shall  not  suffer  ourselves,  directly 
or  indirectly,  by  whatsoever  combination,  persuasion,  or  terror,  to  be  divided  and  withdrawn 
from  this  blessed  union  and  conjunction,  whether  to  make  defection  to  the  contrary  part,  or 
to  give  ourselves  to  a  detestable  indiff'erency  or  neutrality  in  this  cause  which  so  much  con- 
cerned the  glory  of  God,  the  good  of  the  kingdom,  and  honor  of  the  king ;  but  shall,  all  the 
days  of  our  lives,  zealously  and  constantly  continue  therein  against  all  opposition,  and  pro- 
mote the  same  according  to  our  power  against  all  lets  and  impediments  whatsoever ;  and 
what  we  are  not  able  ourselves  to  suppress  or  overcome  we  shall  reveal  and  make  known, 
that  it  may  be  timely  prevented  or  removed :  all  which  we  shall  do  as  in  the  sight  of  God. 

'And,  because  these  kingdoms  are  guilty  of  many  sins  and  provocations  against  God  and 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  as  is  too  manifest  by  our  present  distresses  and  dangers,  the  fruits 
thereof,  we  profess  and  declare,  before  God  and  the  world,  our  unfeigned  desire  to  be  hum- 
bled for  our  own  sins,  and  for  the  sins  of  these  kingdoms ;  especially,  that  we  have  not  as  we 
ought  valued  the  inestimable  benefit  of  the  gospel ;  that  we  have  not  labored  for  the  purity  and 
power  thereof:  and  that  we  have  not  endeavored  to  receive  Christ  in  our  hearts,  nor  to  walk 
worthy  of  him  in  our  lives ;  which  are  the  causes  of  other  sins  and  transgressions  so  much 
abounding  amongst  us ;  and  our  true  and  unfeigned  purpose,  desire,  and  endeavor  for  our- 
selves, and  all  others  under  our  power  and  charge,  both  in  public  and  in  private,  in  all  duties 
we  owe  to  God  and  man,  to  amend  our  lives,  and  each  one  to  go  before  another  in  the  ex- 
ample of  a  real  reformation ;  that  the  Lord  may  turn  away  his  wrath  and  heavy  indignation, 
and  establish  these  Churches  and  kingdoms  in  truth  and  peace. 

'  And  this  Covenant  we  make  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  the  searcher  of  all  hearts, 
with  a  true  intention  to  perform  the  same,  as  we  shall  answer  at  that  great  day  when  the 
secrets  of  all  hearts  shall  be  disclosed  ;  most  humbly  beseeching  the  Lord  to  strengthen  us  by 
his  Holy  Spirit  for  this  end,  and  to  bless  our  desires  and  proceedings  with  such  success  as 
may  be  deliverance  and  safety  to  his  people  and  encouragement  to  other  Christian  Churches, 
groaning  under,  or  in  danger  of,  the  yoke  of  anti-Christian  tyranny,  to  join  in  the  same  or 
like  association  and  covenant,  to  the  glory  of  God,  the  enlargement  of  the  kingdom  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  peace  and  tranquillity  of  Christian  kingdoms  and  commonwealths.' 

The  immediate  origin  of  this  international  politico-religious  Covenant 
was  the  combined  application  of  the  English  Parliament,  then  at  war 
with  King  Charles  I.,  and  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines,  then 
sitting  under  its  authority,  for  the  effectual  aid  of  the  Scots,  who  occu- 
pied a  position  of  neutrality.  Six  commissioners — four  from  the  Par- 
liament (Sir  William  Armyn,  Sir  Harry  Vane  the  younger,  Mr.  Hatcher, 
and  Mr.  Darley)  and  two  from  the  Westminster  Assembly  (Stephen 


692  THE  CEEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Marshall  and  Philip  Nye) — appeared  with  official  and  private  letters 
before  the  Scotch  Convention  of  Estates  and  the  General  Assembly  at 
Edinburgh,  in  August,  1G43.  The  English  desired  a  civil  league;  the 
Scotch  were  for  a  religions  covenant,  and  made  the  latter  a  condition 
of  the  former.  Alexander  Henderson,  a  highly  esteemed  minister  at 
Edinburgh,  Eector  of  the  University  (since  1G40),  and  then  for  the  third 
time  Moderator  of  the  General  Assembly,  was  intrusted  with  the 
preparation  of  the  document.  He  had  drawn  up  a  part  of  the  Na- 
tional Covenant  five  years  before.  The  English  suggested  some  modi- 
fications which  gave  greater  prominence  to  the  political  feature.  The 
draft  was  unanimously  and  enthusiastically  adopted  by  the  General 
Assembly  and  the  Scottish  Convention,  Aug.  17,  1643.  The  people, 
who  had  not  forgotten  the  Covenant  of  163S,  manifested  their  most 
hearty  approval,  and  went  into  the  new  engagement  with  the  '  perfer- 
vidum  ingenium  Scotorum.' 

The  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  became  a  signal  of  war  and  vic- 
tory in  the  history  of  Puritanism.  It  was  followed  by  the  appointment 
of  Scotch  commissioners  to  the  Westminster  Assembly,  who  took  a 
leading  part  in  the  preparation  of  the  Westminster  standards  of  doc- 
trine, worship,  and  discipline.  It  was  debated  for  three  or  four  days 
in  that  Assembly,  and  approved,  with  a  few  verbal  alterations,  by  all 
the  members  except  the  Episcopalians.  On  the  21st  of  September 
Parliament  ordered  it  to  be  published  and  subscribed  throughout  En- 
gland. On  the  25th  of  September  the  members  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons (two  hundred  and  twenty-eight)  and  the  divines  of  the  Assembly 
set  the  example  in  St.  Margaret's  Church,1  beneath  the  shadow  of 
Westminster  Abbey.  It  was  one  of  the  strangest  and  most  solemn 
events  in  the  history  of  England.  It  reminds  one  of  the  formation  of 
the  Swiss  Confederacy  on  the  green  meadow  at  Grutli.  After  prayer 
and  addresses  by  White  of  Dorchester,  Philip  Nye,  and  Henderson,  the 
Covenant  was  read,  article  by  article,  from  the  pulpit,  and  every  mem- 
ber, standing  up  and  lifting  his  right  hand  to  heaven,  took  the  pledge, 
and  then  signed  his  name  on  the  rolls  of  parchment.  The  House  of 
Lords  followed  a  few  weeks  afterwards  (Oct.  15).  The  same  solemn 
scene  was  re-enacted  in  almost  every  English  town  and  parish  where 
the  authority  of  Parliament  prevailed.     Cromwell  among  the  Com- 

1  It  is  still  used  as  a  place  of  worship  on  special  occasions  by  the  Houses  of  Parliament. 


§  90.  THE  SCOTCH  COVENANTS  AND  THE  SCOTCH  KIRK.  G93 

mons,  and  probably,  also,  Milton  as  a  householder,  signed  the  document, 
though  Cromwell  afterwards  made  war  on  the  Scots,  and  Milton  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  '  new  Presbyter  is  but  old  Priest  writ  large.'  In 
vain  did  the  King,  from  his  head-quarters  in  Oxford,  forbid  the  League 
(Oct.  9),  as  '  a  traitorous  and  seditious  combination  against  himself 
and  the  established  religion  of  his  kingdom.'  It  became  the  shib- 
boleth of  Puritan  religion  and  patriotism.  There  were,  however, 
some  exceptions.  England,  after  all,  was  not  so  zealous  for  Presby- 
terianism  as  Scotland,  and  not  used  to  covenanting.  Richard  Baxter 
raised  his  voice  against  the  indiscriminate  enforcement  of  the  Cove- 
nant, and  prevented  its  being  taken  in  Kidderminster  and  the  neigh- 
borhood.1 

From  England  the  tide  flowed  back  to  Scotland,  and  Scotland, 
stimulated  by  the  example,  outran  the  neighboring  country  in  zeal  for 
the  League.  On  the  13th  of  October,  1643,  most  of  the  nobles,  in- 
cluding eighteen  members  of  the  Privy  Council,  solemnly  signed  it  in 
Edinburgh,  and  from  that  day  on  for  months  there  was  'a  general 
swearing  to  the  Covenant'  by  the  people  of  Scotland,  as  by  the  Parlia- 
mentarians in  England,  from  district  to  district,  from  city  to  city,  from 
village  to  village,  from  parish  to  parish.2 

'O'er  hill  and  dale  the  summons  flew, 
Nor  rest  nor  pause  the  herald  knew. 
Each  valley,  each  sequester'd  glen, 
Mustered  its  little  horde  of  men, 
That  met,  as  torrents  from  the  height, 
In  Highland  dales,  when  streams  unite, 
Still  gathering  as  they  pour  along, 
A  voice  more  loud,  a  tide  more  strong.' 

On  the  29th  of  November,  1G43,  the  two  countries  entered  into  a 
treaty,  by  which  the  Scots  promised  to  furnish  an  army  for  the  war, 
the  expenses  to  be  refunded  after  the  conclusion  of  peace.  The  Scots 
felt  that  they  were  playing  the  part  of  the  good  Samaritan  towards 
the  neighbor  who  had  fallen  among  thieves.  '  Surely,'  says  Paillie, '  it 
was  a  great  act  of  faith  in  God,  and  huge  courage  and  unheard-of  com- 
passion' on  the  part  of  the  Scotch  nation, '  to  hazard  their  own  peace 

1  Marsden  (History  of  the  Later  Puritan*,  p.  77) :  '  Such  is  the  weight  of  character:  one 
country  clergyman  prevailed  against  the  rulers  of  two  kingdoms.' 

2  Stoughton,  Vol.  I.  p.  294  ;.  Masson,  Vol.  III.  pp.  12,  13. 


G94  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  venture  their  lives  and  all,  for  to  save  a  people  so  irrecoverably 
ruined,  both  in  their  own  and  in  all  the  world's  eves.' 

The  united  army  fought  under  the  banner  of  the  Anglo-Scotch 
Covenant  against  royal  and  episcopal  tyranny,  and  for  the  establish- 
ment of  presbyterian  uniformity.  The  negative  end  was  gained,  the 
positive  failed.  '  Trusting  in  God  and  keeping  their  powder  dry,'  the 
Puritans  overthrew  both  monarchy  and  prelacy,  but  only  to  be  over- 
thrown in  turn  by  the  Nemesis  of  history.  No  human  power  could 
bring  the  two  kingdoms  under  one  creed  and  one  form  of  government 
and  worship.  Presbyterian  uniformity  in  England  was  as  preposterous 
as  Episcopal  uniformity  in  Scotland. 

The  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  was  weakened  by  the  quarrel  be- 
tween the  Presbyterians  and  Independents,  and  was  virtually  broken 
with  the  destruction  of  the  monarchy-  and  the  execution  of  Charles  I. 
(1G4S).1  The  English  army  put  down  the  Covenant  which  the  Scotch 
army  had  set  up.  After  the  Kestoration  it  became  an  object  of  in- 
tense hatred,  and  was  publicly  burned  by  the  common  hangman  in 
Westminster  Hall  by  order  of  Parliament  (1661).  Charles  II.,  who 
had  twice  sworn  both  to  the  Solemn  League  and  to  the  National  Cove- 
nant as  a  part  of  his  coronation  oath  in  Scotland  (June  23, 1650,  and 
Jan.  1, 1651),  broke  his  oath  as  soon  as  he  ascended  the  English  throne, 
and  established  the  royal  Supremacy  and  Episcopacy  even  in  Presby- 
terian Scotland  (1662).  But  the  Covenanters  fought  for  the  institu- 
tions of  their  fathers  with  the  heroic  spirit  of  martyrdom  through  all 
those  troubled  times, 

'Whose  memory  rings  through  Scotland  to  this  hour.' 
THE    SCOTCH   KIEK. 

After  severe  struggles  Prelacy  was  again  overthrown  and  Presby- 
terianism  permanently  re-established  in  Scotland  by  Parliament  in 
1690,  though  with  a  degree  of  dependence  on  the  state  which  kept  up  a 
constant  irritation,  and  which  led  from  time  to  time  to  new  secessions. 

1  The  Westminster  Assembly,  or  what  was  left  of  it,  sympathized  with  Presbyterian 
Scotland  in  loyalty  to  the  monarcliy,  and  unanimously  signified  its  desire  for  the  King's  re- 
lease. Forty-seven  ministers,  meeting  at  Sion  College,  signed  a  document  addressed  to 
Fairfax,  in  which  they  protested  most  earnestly  in  the  name  of  religion  and  the  Solemn  League 
and  Covenant  against  the  military  usurpation  and  the  violence  intended  to  the  King's  person. 
Masson,  Vol.  III.  p.  716  ;  Stoughton,  Vol.  I.  p.  529. 


§  00.  THE  SCOTCH  COVENANTS  AND  THE  SCOTCH  KIKK.  G95 

These  secessions  from  the  Established  Kirk,  down  to  the  great  exodus 
of  the  Free  Church  in  1S43,  were  no  new  departures,  but,  like  the  sects 
in  Russia,  returns  to  the  old  landmarks.  The  system  of  Calvinistic 
Presbyterianism  which  the  great  Reformer  had  established  in  Geneva 
found  in  Scotland  a  larger  and  more  congenial  field  of  action,  and 
became  there  more  free  and  independent  of  the  civil  power.  It 
was  wrought  into  the  bone  and  sinew  of  the  nation  which  seems  to  be 
predestinated  for  such  a  manly,  sturdy,  God-fearing,  solid,  persevering 
type  of  Christianity.  Romanism  in  the  Highlands  is  only  an  unsub- 
dued remnant  of  the  Middle  Ages,  lately  reinforced  by  Irish  emi- 
grants to  the  large  cities.  Episcopacy  is  an  English  exotic  for  Scotch- 
men educated  in  England  and  associated  with  the  English  aristocracy. 
The  body  of  the  people  are  Presbyterian  to  the  back-bone.  The  dif- 
ferences between  the  Established  Kirk,  the  United  Presbyterians,  the 
Free  Church,  and  the  smaller  secession  bodies  seem  insignificant  to  an 
outside  observer,  and  turn  on  questions  of  psalmody,  patronage,  and  re- 
lation to  the  civil  government.  The  vital  doctrines  and  principles  are 
held  in  common  by  all.  Differences  of  opinion,  which  in  other  coun- 
tries constitute  merely  theological  schools  or  parties  in  one  and  the 
same  denomination,  give  rise  in  Scotland  to  separate  ecclesiastical 
organizations.  The  scrupulous  conscientiousness  and  stubbornness 
which  clothe  minor  questions  with  the  dignity  and  grandeur  of  funda- 
mental principles,  and  are  made  to  justify  separation  and  schism,  are  the 
shadow  of  a  virtue.  Scotland  is  an  unconquerable  fort  of  orthodox 
Protestantism.  In  no  other  country  and  Church  do  we  find  such  fidelity 
and  tenacity ;  such  unswerving  devotion  to  the  genius  of  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  such  union  of  metaphysical  subtlety  with  religious  fervor  and 
impetuosity ;  such  general  interest  in  ecclesiastical  councils  and  enter- 
prizes  ;  such  jealousy  for  the  rights  and  self-government  of  the  Church ; 
such  loyalty  to  a  particular  denomination  combined  with  a  generous 
interest  in  Christ's  kingdom  at  large ;  such  reverence  for  God's  holy 
Word  and  holy  day,  that  after  the  hard  and  honest  toil  of  the  week 
lights  up  the  poorest  man's  cottage  on  '  Saturday  night.' 

The  history  of  Christianity,  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  furnishes 
no  brighter  chapter  of  heroic  and  successful  sacrifices  for  the  idea  of 
the  sole  headship  of  Christ,  and  the  honor  and  independence  of  his 
Church,  than  the  Free-Church  movement,  whose  leaders — Chalmers, 

Vol.  I. — Y  y 


696  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Welsh,  Candlish,  Cunningham,  Duncan,  Fairbairn,  Guthrie,  Buchanan, 
Arnot — have  now  one  by  one  taken  their  place  among  the  great  and 
good  men  of  the  past,  but  will  continue  to  live  in  the  memory  of  a 
grateful  people.  Dr.  Norman  Macleod,  himself  one  of  the  noblest  of 
Scotchmen,  who  was  a  member  of  the  disruption  Assembly  of  1843, 
and  found  it  harder  to  stay  in  the  Established  Church  as  '  a  restorer  of 
the  breach'  than  to  go  out  of  it  amid  the  huzzas  of  popular  enthusiasm, 
honored  himself  as  much  as  Dr.  Chalmers,  his  teacher,  when  he  spoke 
of  him  after  his  death  as  a  man  'whose  noble  character,  lofty  enthu- 
siasm, and  patriotic  views  will  rear  themselves  before  the  eyes  of  pos- 
terity like  Alpine  peaks,  long  after  the  narrow  valleys  which  have  for 
a  brief  period  divided  us  are  lost  in  the' far  distance  of  past  history.'1 
In  securing  liberty  for  itself,  the  Free  Church  conferred  a  blessing 
upon  the  mother  Church  by  rousing  it  to  greater  activity,  and  setting 
in  motion  an  agitation  which  resulted  in  the  total  abolition  of  the  Law 
of  Patronage  by  Act  of  Parliament  (1875). 

§  91.  The  Scotch  Catechisms. 

Catechetical  instruction  became  soon  after  the  Reformation,  and  re- 
mains to  this  day,  one  of  the  fundamental  institutions  of  Presbyterian 
Scotland,  and  accounts  largely  for  the  general  diffusion  of  religious 
information  among  the  people. 

The  First  Book  of  Discipline,  adopted  in  15G0,  prescribes  public 
catechising  of  the  children  before  the  people  on  Sunday  afternoon. 
The  General  Assembly  of  1570  ordered  ministers  and  elders  to  give  to 
all  the  children  within  their  parishes  three  courses  of  religious  instruc- 
tion— when  they  were  nine,  twelve,  and  fourteen  years  of  age.  Later 
assemblies  enacted  similar  laws,  and  enjoined  it  also  upon  the  heads 
of  families  to  catechise  their  children  and  servants.  The  Assembly  of 
1G49  renewed  the  act  of  the  Assembly  of  1C39  'for  a  day  of  weeklie 
catechising,  to  be  constantly  observed  in  every  kirk.'2 

The  older  Catechisms,  both  domestic  and  foreign,  contain  the  same 
system  of  doctrine  in  a  fresher  though  less  logical  form  than  the 
Westminster  standards,  by  which  they  were  superseded  after  the  middle 

1  Memoir  of  Norman  Macleod,  by  his  Brother,  1876,  Vol.  I.  p.  2G3  (N.  Y.  ed.). 
3  Book  of  Discipline,  cli.  xi.  sect.  3  ;   Bulk  of  Universal  Kirk,  p.  121  (Peterkin's  edition)  ; 
ilorntius  Bonar,  Catechisms  of  the  Scottish  Riformation  (London,  18GC),  Preface,  p.  xxxvii. 


§  91.  THE  SCOTCH  CATECHISMS.  (507 

of  the  seventeenth  century.  '  Our  Scottish  Catechisms,'  says  Dr.  Bonar, 
the  hymnist, 'though  gray  with  the  antiquity  of  three  centuries,  are  not 
yet  out  of  date.  They  still  read  well,  both  as  to  style  and  substance: 
it  would  be  hard  to  amend  them,  or  to  substitute  something  better  in 
their  place.  Like  some  of  our  old  church-bells,  they  have  retained  for 
centuries  their  sweetness  and  amplitude  of  tone  unimpaired.  It  may  be 
questioned  whether  the  Church  has  gained  any  thing  by  the  exchange 
of  the  Reformation  standards  for  those  of  the  seventeenth  century.  .  .  . 
In  the  Reformation  we  mid  doctrine,  life,  action  nobly  blended.  Be- 
tween these  there  was  harmony,  not  antagonism ;  for  antagonism  in 
such  cases  can  only  arise  when  the  parts  are  disproportionately  min- 
gled. Subsequently  the  balance  was  not  preserved :  the  purely  dog- 
matical preponderated.  This  was  an  evil,  yet  an  evil  not  so  easily 
avoided  as  some  think ;  for,  as  the  amount  of  error  flung  upon  society 
increased,  the  necessity  for  encountering  it  increased  also ;  controversy 
spread,  dialectics  rose  into  repute,  and  the  dogmatical  threatened  to 
stifle  or  dispossess  the  vital.'1 

FOREIGN    CATECHISMS. 

The  Catechism  of  Calvin  and  the  Palatinate  or  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism were  approved  by  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  much  used  in 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries.2 

An  English  edition  of  the  former  by  the  translators  of  the  Geneva 
Bible  appeared  first  at  Geneva,  1556,  for  the  use  of  the  congregation 
of  exiles,  of  which  Knox  was  pastor,  and  then  at  Edinburgh,  1564. 
The  latter  was  printed  in  Edinburgh,  1591, 1615,  and  1621. 

NATIVE    CATECHISMS. 

The  number  of  these  must  have  been  very  large.  King  James 
remarked  at  the  Hampton  Court  Conference  that  in  Scotland 
every  son  of  a  good  woman  thought  himself  competent  to  write 
a  Catechism.  We  mention  only  those  which  had  ecclesiastical  sanc- 
tion : 

1.  Two  Catechisms  of  John  Ckaig  (1512-1600),  an  eminent  minister 


L.  c.  p.  viii. 

See  liotli  in  Dnillop'a  and  Honor's  Collections.     Comp.  above,  pp.  4G7  and  537  sq. 


698  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

at  Aberdeen,  and  then  at  Edinburgh.1    He  was  the  author  of  the  Second 
Scotch  Confession.2 

The  Larger  Catechism  of  Craig  was  first  printed  in  Edinburgh,  by 
Ilenrie  Charteris,  in  15S1,  and  in  London,  1589.  The  General  Assem- 
bly of  1590  indorsed  it,  and  ordered  an  abridgment  by  the  author, 
which  was  approved  and  published  in  1591.  In  this  shorter  form  it 
was  generally  used  till  superseded  by  the  "Westminster  Catechism.  The 
author  says  in  the  Preface  (dated  July  20,  1581) :  '  First,  I  have  ab- 
stained from  all  curious  and  hard  questions  ;  and,  next,  I  have  brought 
the  questions  and  the  answers  to  as  few  words  as  I  could,  and  that  for 
the  ease  of  children  and  common  people,  who  can  not  understand  nor 
gather  the  substance  of  a  long  question  or  a  long  answer  confirmed 
with  many  reasons.'  The  work  begins  with  some  historical  questions, 
and  then  explains  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Ten  Commandments,  and 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  ends  with  the  means  of  grace  and  the  way  of 
salvation.  The  questions  and  answers  are  short,  and  of  almost  equal 
length.  We  give  some  specimens  from  the  larger  work,  which  is  little 
known : 

First  Questions. 

Ques.  Who  made  man  and  woman  ? 

Arts.    The  eternal  God  of  his  goodness. 

Ques.  Whereof  made  he  them  ? 

Ans.    Of  an  earthly  body  and  an  heavenly  spirit. 

Ques.  To  whose  image  made  he  them  ? 

Ans.    To  his  own  image. 

Ques.  What  is  the  image  of  God  ? 

Ans.    Perfect  uprightness  in  body  and  soul. 

Ques.  To  what  end  were  they  made  ? 

Ans.    To  acknowledge  and  serve  their  Maker. 

Ques.   How  should  they  have  served  him? 

Ans.    According  to  his  holy  will. 

Ques.  How  did  they  know  his  will  ? 

Ans.    By  his  Works,  Word,  and  Sacraments. 

Ques.  What  liberty  had  they  to  obey  his  will  ? 

Ans.    They  had  free  will  to  obey  and  disobey. 

Of  the  Sacraments. 

Ques.  What  is  a  Sacrament? 

Ans.    A  sensible  sign  and  seal  of  God's  favor  offered  and  given  to  us. 

1  Both  in  Bonar,  pp.  187-285.  The  Shorter  Catechism  is  also  printed  in  Dunlop's  Collec- 
tion,Vo\.  II.  pp.  305-377. 

3  See  p.  G8G  ;  Calderwood,  Vol.  III.  p.  354  ;  M'Crie,  J.  Knox,  pp.  236  sqq. 


§  91.  THE  SCOTCH  CATECHISM.  Q\)[) 


Ques.  To  what  end  arc  the  Sacraments  given  ? 

Ans.    To  nourish  our  faith  in  the  promise  of  God. 

Ques.   How  can  sensible  signs  do  this  ? 

Ana.    They  hare  this  office  of  God,  not  of  themselves. 

Ques.   How  do  the  Sacraments  differ  from  the  Word  ? 

Ans.    They  speak  to  the  eve,  and  the  Word  to  the  ear. 

Ques.  Speak  they  other  things  than  the  Word? 

Ans.    No,  but  the  same  diversely. 

Ques.  But  the  word  doth  teach  us  sufficiently  ? 

Ans.    Yet  the  Sacraments  with  the  Word  do  it  more  effectually. 

Ques.  What,  then,  are  the  Sacraments  to  the  Word? 

Ans.    They  are  sure  and  authentic  seals  given  by  God. 

Ques.  May  the  Sacraments  be  without  the  Word? 

Ans.    No,  for  the  Word  is  their  life. 

Ques,    -May  the  Word  be  fruitful  without  the  Sacraments? 

Ans.    Yes,  no  doubt,  but  it  worketh  more  plenteously  with  them. 

Ques.  What  is  the  cause  of  that? 

Ans.    Because  more  senses  are  moved  to  the  comfort  of  our  faith. 

Bapt 


ism. 

Ques.  What  is  the  signification  of  baptism? 

Ans.    Remission  of  our  sins  and  regeneration. 

Ques.  What  similitude  hath  baptism  with  remission  of  sins? 

Ans.    As  washing  cleanseth  the  body,  so  Christ's  blood  our  souls. 

Ques.  Wherein  doth  this  cleansing  stand? 

Ans.    In  putting  away  of  sin,  and  imputation  of  justice. 

Ques.  Wherein  standeth  our  regeneration  ? 

Ans.    In  mortification  and  newness  of  life. 

Ques.  How  are  these  things  sealed  up  in  baptism  ? 

Ans.    By  hiving  on  of  water. 

Ques.  What  doth  the  laying  on  of  the  water  signify  ? 

Ans.    Our  dying  to  sin  and  rising  to  righteousness. 

Ques.  Doth  the  external  washing  work  these  things  ? 

Ans.   No,  it  is  the  work  of  God's  Holy  Spirit  only. 

Ques.  Then  the  sacrament  is  a  bare  figure  ? 

Ans.    No,  but  it  hath  the  verity  joined  with  it. 

Ques.  Do  all  men  receive  these  graces  with  the  Sacraments? 

Ans.    No,  but  only  the  faithful. 

The  Lord's  Supper. 

Ques.  What  signifieth  the  Lord's  Supper  to  us? 
Ans.    That  our  souls  are  fed  with  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 
Ques.  Why  is  this  represented  by  bread  and  wine  ? 

Ans.    Because  what  the  one  doth  to  the  body,  the  same  doth  the  other  to  the  soul  spiritually. 
Ques.   But  our  bodies  are  joined  corporally  with  the  elements,  or  outward  signs? 
Ans.   Even  so  our  soids  be  joined  spiritually  with  Christ  his  body. 
Ques.  What  need  is  there  of  this  union  with  him  ? 
Ans.    Otherwise  we  can  not  enjoy  his  benefits. 
Ques.  Declare  that  in  the  Sacrament  ? 

Ans.    As  we  see  the  elements  given  to  feed  our  bodies,  even  so  we  see  by  faith  Christ  gave 
his  body  to  us  to  feed  our  souls. 


700  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Qaes.  Did  he  not  give  it  upon  the  Cross  for  us  ? 

Ans.  Yes,  and  here  lie  giveth  the  same  body  to  be  our  spiritual  food,  which  we  receive  and 
feed  on  by  faith. 

Ques.  How  receive  we  his  body  and  blood  ? 

A  us.    By  our  own  lively  faith  only. 

Ques.  What  followeth  upon  this  receiving  by  faith  ? 

Ans.    That  Christ  dwelleth  in  us,  and  we  in  him. 

Ques.  Then  we  receive  only  the  tokens,  and  not  his  body  ? 

Ans.    We  receive  his  very  substantial  body  and  blood  by  faith. 

Ques.  How  can  that  be  proved  ? 

Ans.    By  the  truth  of  his  Word,  and  nature  of  a  Sacrament. 

Ques.  But  his  natural  body  is  in  heaven  ? 

Ans.    I  no  doubt,  but  yet  we  receive  it  in  earth  by  faith. 

Ques.  How  can  that  be  ? 

Ans.    By  the  wonderful  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Cause  and  Progress  of  Salvation. 

Ques.   Out  of  what  fountain  doth  this  our  stability  flow  ? 

Ans.  Out  of  God's  eternal  and  constant  [unchanging]  election  in  Christ. 

Ques.  By  what  way  cometh  this  election  to  us? 

Ans.    By  his  effectual  calling  in  due  time. 

Ques.  What  worketh  this  effectual  calling  in  us  ? 

Ans.    The  obedience  of  faith. 

Ques.  What  thing  doth  faith  work  ? 

Ans.    Our  perpetual  and  inseparable  union  with  Christ. 

Ques.  What  worketh  this  union  with  Christ? 

Ans.   A  mutual  communion  with  him  and  his  graces. 

Ques.  What  worketh  this  communion? 

Ans.    Remission  of  sins  and  imputation  of  justice. 

Ques.  What  worketh  remission  of  sins  and  imputation  of  justice? 

Ans.    Peace  of  conscience  and  continual  sanctification. 

Ques.  What  worketh  sanctification? 

Ans.  The  hatred  of  sin  and  love  of  godliness. 

2.  A  Latin  Catechism,  entitled  Rudimcnta  Pietatis  and  Summula 
Catechismi,  for  the  use  of  grammar  schools.1  It  is  ascribed  to  An- 
drew Simpson,  who  was  master  of  the  grammar  school  at  Perth,  and 
the  first  Protestant  minister  at  Dunbar.  It  was  used  in  the  high- 
school  at  Edinburgh  down  to  1710. 

Besides  this,  the  Latin  editions  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and 
Calvin's  Catechism  (translated  by  Patrick  Adamson)  were  also  in  use. 

3.  The  Catechism  of  John  Davidson,  minister  at  Salt-Preston,  ap- 
proved by  the  Provincial  Assembly  of  Lowthiane  and  Tweddale,  1599.,,? 

4.  A  metrical  Catechism  by  the  Wedderbukns  in  the  time  of  Knox.3 

'  In  Dunlop's  Collection,  Vol.  II.  pp.  378-382,  and  in  Bonar,  pp.  289-293. 

2  Bonar,  p.  324. 

3  Bonar,  p.  301. 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  701 

The  sentiment  is  better  than  the  poetry.  The  Reformation  in  Scotland, 
as  well  as  in  France  and  Holland,  called  forth  metrical  versions  of  the 
Psalms,  while  in  Germany  it  produced  original  hymns.  The  gospel 
was  sung  as  well  as  preached  into  the  hearts  of  the  common  people. 
But  a  Catechism  is  for  instruction,  and  requires  plain,  clear,  precise 
statements  for  common  comprehension. 


VII.  THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS. 

§  92.  The  Puritan  Conflict. 

Literature. 
1.  Sources. 

1.  The  Parliamentary  Acts,  the  Minutes:  and  Standards  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  the  royal  Procla- 
mations, Cromwell's  Letters,  Milton's  stale  papers,  and  other  public  documents.  See  the  State  Calen- 
dars; Rcsiiwokth's  Collection  (1616-104S) ;  Cardweli.'s  Documentary  Annals  of  the  Church  of  England 
(1546-1716) ;  Camden's  A  nnals  of  James  I.  (with  the  king's  owu  works) ;  Win  wood's  Memorial*  of  State ; 
and  the  literature  meutioued  in  §  93  and  §  94. 

2.  The  private  writings  of  the  Episcopal  and  Puritan  divines  during  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  the 
Stuarts,  too  numerous  even  to  classify.  Much  material  for  history  may  be  drawn  from  the  works  of 
Archbishop  Laud  (b.  1573,  beheaded  1645),  especially  his  Diary  (in  the  first  vol.  of  his  Remains,  publ.  by 
H.  Wharton,  1695-1700,  in  2  vols,  fol.,  and  in  the  Anglo-Catholic  Library,  Oxford,  1847-1S50,  5  vols.),  and 
of  Ricmabd  Baxter  (1615-1691),  especially  in  the  Narrative  of  hit  Life,  and  Times  (publ.  by  Sylvester, 
1690,  under  the  title  Reliquiae  Baxteriance,  in  1  vol.  fol.,  and  by  Dr.  Calamy,  1713,  in  4  vols.,  and  in  ed. 
of  his  Practical  Works,  Lond.  1S30,  23  vols.  Baxter's  numerous  controversial  tracts  have  ucver  been  col- 
lected, and  have  gone,  with  his  medical  prescriptions,  to  'everlasting  rest,'  but  his  practical  works  will 
last).  Mrs.  Lucy  Hutcuinson's  Memoirs  of  (her  husband)  Colonel  Hutchinson,  with  Original  Anecdotes 
of  many  of  his  most  Distinguistied  Contemporaries,  and  a  Summary  Review  of  JHiblic  A  fairs  (publ.  from 
MS.  7th  ed.  Lond.  184S),  present  an  admirable  picture  of  the  inner  and  private  life  of  the  Puritans. 

3.  Innumerable  controversial  pamphlets  aud  tracts  for  the  times,  which  did  the  work  of  the  newspapers 
of  to-day.  From  1640  to  1060  no  less  than  30,000  pamphlets  on  Chinch  government  alone  are  said  to  have 
appeared.    Milton's  tracts  surpass  all  others  in  eloquence  and  force. 

2.  Historical. 

Thomas  Fuller  (100S-1G61,  Prebendary  of  Sarnm) :  The  Church  History  of  Britain,  from  the  Birth  of 
Christ  until  the  Year  164S.     Ed.  of  Brewer,  Oxford,  1845,  in  6  vols.  (Vols.  V.  and  VI.). 

Clarendon  (160S-1674,  Royalist  aud  Episcopalian) :  History  <f  the  Rebellion.  Oxford  ed.  1S39  and  1849, 
7  vols. 

Daniel  Neal  (167S-1743,  Independent) :  History  of  the  ruritanx,  or  Protestant  Nonconformists,  from  the 
Reformation  in  1517  to  the  Revolution  in  1688.  Lond.  1732 ;  Toulmiu's  ed.  1793,  5  vois. ;  Choules's  ed. 
New  York  (Harpers),  1S5S,  in  2  vols. 

J.  B.  Maksden  (Vicar  of  Great  Missenden) :  The  History  of  the  Early  Puritans,  from  the  Reformation  to 
the  Opening  of  the  Civil  War  in  1642.  Lond.  1850,  2d  ed.  1S53.  By  the  same :  The  fli.^torii  of  the  Later 
Puritans,  from  the  Opening  of  the  Civil  War  in  1642  to  the  Ejection  of  the  Nonconforming  Clergy  in  1062. 
Lond.  1852. 

Hallam  :  Constitutional  History  of  England,  5th  ed.  ch.  vii.-xi. 

Tu.  Caelyle:  Life  and  Letters  of  Cromwell.  Lond.  and  New  York,  1845,  2  vols.  ('Edited  with  the 
care  of  an  antiquarian  and  the  genius  of  a  poet.'— Green,  Eist  of  the  English  People,  p.  580.) 

Guizot's  French  works  on  Charles  I.  (1025-1049,  2  vols.),  Cromwell  (1049-1058),  the  Re-establishment  of 
the  Stuarts  (165S-1C60,  2  vols.),  Monk  (1000,  transl.  by  Scoble,  1S51),  the  English  Revolution  of  1040  (trans! 
by  Hazlitt,  Lond.  1856). 

Samuel  Hoi-kins:  The  Puritans  during  the  Reigns  of  Edward  VI.  and  Queen  Elizabeth.  Boston,  1859-61, 
3  vols. 

Principal  Tci.i.non  (Scotch  Presbyt.):  English  Puritanism  and  its  Leaders:  Cromieell,  Milton,  Baxter, 
Bunyan.     Lond.  1861. 

Dr.  John  Stouoiiton  (Independent):  Ecclesiastical  History  of  England  (during  the  Civil  Wars,  the 
Commonwealth, And  the  Restoration).  Loud.  1867-1375,6  vols.  By  the  same:  ('lunch  and  state  Two 
Hundred  Years  ago.    A  History  of  Ecclesiastical  Affair.,  in  England  from  lOOn  to  1603.    Lond.  1^6>.     By  the 


702  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

same:  Spiritual  Heroes;  or,  Sketches  of  the  Puritans  (Ch.  VI.,  The  Westminster  Assembly,  pp.  ICO  sqq.). 
Loud.  1S50. 

David  Masson  (Prof,  of  Rhetoric  and  English  Lit.  in  the  Uuiv.  of  Edinb.):  The  Life  of  John  Milton : 
Narrated  in  connection  with  the  Political,  Ecclesiastical,  and  Literary  History  of  his  Times.  Lond.  1S59 
sqq. ;  so  far  3  vols.    See  Vol.  II.  (1871),  Books  III.  and  IV.,  and  Vol.  III.  (1ST3),  Books  I.,  II.,  and  III. 

On  the  early  history  of  New  England  Puritanism,  see  the  well-known  works  of  Palfrey,  Bancroft, 
Ff.lt  ;  and  Leonard  Bacon's  Genesis  of  the  New  England  Churches  (New  York,  1S74). 

PROTESTANTISM    AND    CIVIL   WARS. 

The  Reformation  has  often  been  charged  by  Roman  Catholic  writers 
with  being  the  mother  of  the  bloody  civil  wars  which  grew  out  of  the 
close  union  of  Church  and  State,  and  which  devastated  Europe  for 
more  than  a  century.  But  the  fault  is  primarily  on  the  side  of  Rome. 
Exclusiveness  and  intolerance  are  fundamental  principles  of  her  creed, 
and  persecution  her  consistent  practice  wherever  she  has  the  power. 
In  Italy  and  Spain  Protestantism  was  strangled  in  its  cradle.  In 
Bohemia,  Hungary,  and  Poland  it  was  reduced  to  a  struggling  minority 
by  the  civil  sword  and  the  Jesuit  intrigues.  In  France  it  barely  es- 
caped annihilation  in  the  massacre  of  the  night  of  St.  Bartholomew, 
which  the  pope  hailed  with  a  Te  Deum ;  and  after  fighting  its  way 
to  the  throne,  and  acquiring  the  limited  toleration  of  the  Edict  of 
Nantes,  it  was  again  persecuted  almost  to  extermination  by  the  most 
Catholic  King  Louis  XIV.  In  Switzerland  the  war  between  the  Cath- 
olic and  Reformed  Cantons,  in  which  Zwingli  fell,  fixed  the  boundaries 
of  the  two  religions  on  a  basis  of  equalit}'.  Germany  had  to  pass 
through  the  fearful  ordeal  of  the  Thirty- Years'  War,  which  destroyed 
nearly  one  half  of  its  population,  but  ended,  in  spite  of  the  protest  of 
the  pope,  with  the  legal  recognition  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
Confessions  by  the  Treaty  of  Westphalia  in  1648.  The  United  Prov- 
inces of  Holland  came  out  victorious  from  the  long  and  bloody  struggle 
with  the  tyranny  and  bigotry  of  Spain.  Scotland  fought  persistently 
and  successfully  against  popery  and  prelacy.  England,  after  the  per- 
manent establishment  of  the  Reformation  under  Elizabeth,  Mas  shaken 
to  the  base  by  an  internal  conflict,  not  between  Protestants  and  foreign 
Romanists,  but  between  Protestants  and  native  Romanizers,  ultra- 
Protestant  Puritans  and  semi-Catholic  Churchmen. 

This  conflict  marks  the  most  important  period  in  the  Church  history 
of  that  island ;  it  called  forth  on  both  sides  its  deepest  moral  and  re- 
ligious forces  ;  it  made  England  at  last  the  stronghold  of  constitutional 
liberty  in  Europe,  and  laid  the  foundations  for  a  Protestant  republic 


§  92.  THE  PUBITAN  CONFLICT.  703 

iii  America.  Tlie  Puritans  were  the  pioneers  in  this  struggle  in  Old 
England,  and  the  fathers  of  New  England  beyond  the  sea.  As  the 
blood  of  martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the  Church,  so  freedom  is  the  sweet 
fruit  of  bitter  persecution. 

CHARACTER   OF   PURITANISM. 

Puritanism  —  an  honorable  name,  ctymologically  and  historically, 
though  originally  given  in  reproach,1  like  Pietism  and  Methodism — 
aimed  at  a  radical  purification  and  reconstruction  of  Church  and  State 
on  the  sole  basis  of  the  Word  of  God,  without  regard  to  the  traditions 
of  men.  It  was  a  second  Reformation,  as  bold  and  earnest  as  the  first, 
but  less  profound  and  comprehensive,  and  more  radical  in  its  antag- 
onism to  the  mediaeval  Church.  It  was  a  revolution,  and  ran  into  the 
excesses  of  a  revolution,  which  called  forth,  by  the  natural  law  of  reac- 
tion, the  opposite  excesses  of  a  reactionary  restoration ;  but  it  differs 
from  more  recent  revolutions  by  the  predominance  of  the  religious 
motive  and  aim.  The  English  Puritans,  the  Scotch  Covenanters,  and 
the  French  Huguenots  were  alike  spiritual  descendants  of  Calvin,  and 
represent,  with  different  national  characteristics,  the  same  heroic  faith 
and  severe  discipline.  They  were  alike  animated  by  the  fear  of  God, 
which  made  them  strong  and  free.  They  bowed  reverently  before  his 
holy  "Word,  but  before  no  human  authority.  In  their  eyes  God  alone 
was  great. 

The  Puritans  were  no  separate  organization  or  sect,  but  the  advanced 
wing  of  the  national  Church  of  England,  and  at  one  time  they  became 
the  national  Church  itself,  treating  their  opponents  as  Nonconformists, 
as  they  had  been  treated  by  them  before,  and  as  they  were  treated  after- 
wards in  turn.  Conformity  and  Nonconformity  were  relative  terms, 
which  each  party  construed  in  its  own  way  and  for  its  own  advantage. 
The  Puritan  ministers  were  educated  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  and 

1  The  name  Puritans  (from  pure,  as  Catharists  from  Kacapoc),  or  Precisians,  occurs  first 
about  [564  or  L566,  and  was  employed  to  brand  those  who  were  opposed  to  the  use  of 
priestly  vestments,  as  the  cap,  surplice,  and  the  tippet  (hut  not  the  f_rown,  which  the  Puritans 
and  Presbyterians  retained,  as  well  as  the  Continental  Protestant  ministers!.  Shakspere 
uses  the  term  half  a  dozen  times,  and  always  reproachfully  (see  Clarke's  Shaksp.  Concordance 
and  Schmidt's  Skakap.  Lexicon,  s.  v.).  In  the  good  sense,  it  denotes  those  who  went  back  to 
the  purity  and  simplicity  of  apostolic  Christianity  in  faith  and  morals.  Neal  defines  a  Puritan 
to  be  '  a  man  of  severe  moral-,  a  Calvin ist  in  doctrine,  and  a  Nonconformist  to  the  ceremo- 
nies and  discipline  of  the  Church,  though  not  totally  separated  from  it.' 


704  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

had  bishops,  deans,  and  professors  of  theology  among  their  leaders  and 
sympathizers.  Their  intention  was  not  to  secede,  but  simply  to  reform 
still  further  the  national  Church  in  the  interest  of  primitive  purity  and 
simplicity  by  legislative  and  executive  sovereignty.  The  tyrannical 
measures  of  the  ruling  party  drove  them  to  greater  opposition,  and  a 
large  portion  of  them  into  complete  independency  and  the  advocacy 
of  toleration  and  freedom.  But  originally  they  were  as  intolerant  and 
exclusive  as  their  opponents.  The  common  error  of  both  was  that  they 
held  to  a  close  union  of  Church  and  State,  and  aimed  at  one  national 
Church,  to  which  all  citizens  must  conform. 

ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY. 

'Nonconformity,'  says  Thomas  Fuller  in  his  quaint  and  pithy  way, 
•  was  conceived  in  the  days  of  King  Edward,  born  in  the  reign  of 
Queen  Mary  (but  beyond  the  sea,  at  Frankfort-on-the-Main),  nursed 
and  weaned  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  grew  up  a  youth  or  tall  stripling 
under  King  James,  and  shot  up  under  Charles  I.  to  the  full  strength 
and  stature  of  a  man  able  not  only  to  cope  with,  but  to  conquer  the 
hierarchy,  its  adversary.' 

The  open  conflict  between  Puritanism  and  lligh-Churchism  dates 
from  the  closing  years  of  the  sixteenth  century,  but  its  roots  may  be 
traced  to  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  which  embraced  two  dis- 
tinct tendencies— one  semi-Catholic,  conservative  and  aristocratic;  the 
other  anti-Catholic,  radical  and  democratic. 

The  aristocratic  politico  -  ecclesiastical  movement,  headed  by  the 
monarch  and  the  bishops,  grew  out  of  the  mediaeval  conflict  of  the 
English  crown  and  Parliament  with  the  foreign  papacy,  and  effected 
under  Henry  VIII.  the  national  independence  of  the  English  Church, 
and  under  Edward  VI.  a  positive  though  limited  reformation  in  doc- 
trine and  ritual. 

The  democratic  religious  movement,  which  sprang  from  the  desire 
of  the  people  after  salvation  and  unobstructed  communion  with  God 
and  the  Bible,  had  its  forerunners  in  Wycliffe  and  the  Lollards,  and 
was  nurtured  by  Tyndale's  English  Testament,  the  writings  of  the  Con- 
tinental Reformers,  and  the  personal  contact  of  the  Marian  exiles  with 
Bullinger  and  Calvin.  At  first  it  was  nearly  crushed  under  Henry 
VIII.,  who  would  not  even  tolerate  the  circulation  of  the  English 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  705 

Bible ;  but  it  gained  considerable  influence  under  Edward  VI.,  passed 
through  a  baptism  of  blood  under  Mary,  and  became  a  strong  party 
under  Elizabeth.  It  included  a  number  of  bishops,  pervaded  the  uni- 
versities, and  was  backed  by  the  sympathies  of  the  common  people  as 
they  were  gradually  weaned  from  the  traditions  of  popery. 

Under  Edward  VI.  the  martyr-bishop  Hooper,  of  Gloucester,  a  friend 
of  Bollinger,  and  one  of  the  fathers  of  Puritanism,  opened  the  ritual- 
istic controversy  by  refusing  to  be  consecrated  in  the  sacerdotal  gar- 
ments, and  to  take  the  customary  episcopal  oath,  which  included  an 
appeal  to  the  saints.  He  was  quieted  by  the  representations  of  the 
young  king,  of  Bucer,  and  Peter  Martyr,  who  regarded  those  externals 
as  things  indifferent;  but  he  continued  to  strive  after  'an  entire  purifi- 
cation of  the  Church  from  the  very  foundation.' 

Under  Queen  Mary  the  conflict  continued  in  the  prisons  and  around 
the  fires  of  Smithfield,  and  was  transferred  to  the  Continent  with  the 
English  exiles,  such  as  Jewel,  Grindal,  Sandys,  Pilkington,  Parkhurst, 
Humphrey,  Sampson,Whittingham,Coverdale,  Cox,Xowel,  Foxe,  Horn, 
and  Knox.  It  produced  an  actual  split  in  the  congregation  at  Frank- 
fort-on-the-Main.  There  it  turned  on  the  question  of  the  Prayer-Book 
of  Edward  VI.,  whether  it  should  be  adhered  to,  or  reformed  still  fur- 
ther after  the  model  of  the  simpler  worship  of  Zurich  and  Geneva.  The 
episcopal  and  liturgical  party  was  led  by  Dr.  Cox  (afterwards  bishop 
of  Ely),  and  formed  the  majority ;  the  Puritan  party  was  headed  by 
John  Knox,  who  was  required  to  leave,  and  organized  another  congre- 
gation of  exiles  at  Geneva. 

After  the  accession  of  Elizabeth  both  parties  flocked  back  to  their 
native  land,  and  forgot  the  controversy  for  a  while  in  the  common 
zeal  for  the  re-establishment  of  Protestantism.  As  long  as  the  ruling 
powers  favored  the  Reformation  the  Puritans  were  satisfied,  and  heart- 
ily co-operated  in  every  step.  Though  badly  treated  by  the  proud 
queen,  they  were  to  the  last  among  her  most  loyal  subjects,  and  prayed 
even  in  their  dungeons  for  her  welfare.  They  overlooked  her  faults 
for  her  virtues.  They  were  the  strongest  supporters  of  the  government 
and  the  crown  against  popish  plots  and  foreign  aggression,  and  helped 
to  defeat  the  Spanish  Armada,  whose  'proud  shipwrecks'  were  scat- 
tered over  '  the  Northern  Ocean  even  to  the  frozen  Thule.'  But  when 
the  anti-Romish  current  stopped,  and  the  Church  of  England  seemed 


706  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

to  settle  down  in  a  system  of  compromise  between  Rome  and  Geneva, 
fortified  and  hedged  in  by  a  cruel  penal  code  against  every  dissent, 
the  radicals  assumed  an  antagonistic  attitude  of  nonconformity  against 
the  rigorous  enforcement  of  conformity,  and  stood  up  for  the  rights  of 
conscience  and  the  progress  of  ecclesiastical  reform. 

The  controversy  was  renewed  in  different  ways,  between  Cartwright 
and  Whitgift,  and  between  Travers  and  Hooker.  In  both  cases  the 
combatants  were  unequally  matched :  Cartwright,  the  father  of  Pres- 
byterianism,  was  a  much  abler  man  than  Archbishop  Whitgift,  the 
father  of  High-Church  episcopacy ;  while  Hooker,  the  Master  of  the 
Temple,  far  excelled  Travers,  the  Lecturer  at  the  Temple,  in  learning 
and  depth.  Here  the  question  was  chiefly  whether  the  Scriptures  as 
interpreted  by  private  judgment,  or  the  Scriptures  as  interpreted  by  the 
fathers  of  the  primitive  Church,  should  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  dis- 
cipline. With  this  was  connected  another  question — whether  the  Ro- 
man Church  had  lost  the  character  of  a  Christian  Church,  and  was 
therefore  to  be  wholly  disowned,  or  whether  she  was  still  a  true  though 
corrupt  Church,  with  valid  ordinances,  coming  down  through  an  un- 
broken historical  succession.  The  Puritans  advocated  Scripture  Chris- 
tianity versus  historical  Christianity,  Hooker  historical  Christianity  as 
consistent  with  Scripture  Christianity.  But  in  substance  of  doctrine 
both  parties  were  Augustinians  and  Calvinists,  with  this  difference,  that 
the  Puritans  were  high  Calvinists,  the  Churchmen  low  Calvinists. 
Whitgift  advocated  even  the  Lambeth  Articles,  and  Hooker  adopted 
them  with  some  modifications.  Arminianism  did  not  make  its  appear- 
ance in  England  till  the  close  of  the  reign  of  James. 

THE   HAMPTON    COURT   CONFERENCE. 

The  accession  of  James  I.  (1603-1625)  marks  a  new  epoch.  He  was 
no  ordinary  man.  His  learning  ranged  from  the  mysteries  of  predes- 
tination to  witchcraft  and  tobacco ;  lie  had  considerable  shrewdness, 
mother-wit,  ready  repartee,  and  uncommon  sense,  but  little  common- 
sense,  and  no  personal  dignity  nor  moral  courage;  he  was  given  to 
profanity,  intemperance,  and  dissimulation.  His  courtiers  and  bishops 
lauded  him  as  the  Solomon  of  his  age,  but  Henry  IV.  of  France  char- 
acterized him  better  as  '  the  wisest  fool  in  Christendom.'  He  was 
brought  up  in  the  school  of  Scotch  Presbyterianism,  subscribed  the 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  707 

Scotch  Confession,  and  once  said  of  the  Anglican  liturgy  that  '  it  is  an 
ill-said  mass  in  English.'  But  the  Stuart  blood  was  in  him,  and  when 
he  arrived  in  England  he  felt  relieved  of  his  tormentors,  who  'pulled 
his  sleeve  as  they  administered  their  blunt  rebukes  to  him,'  and  was 
delighted  by  the  adulation  of  prelates  who  had  much  higher  notions 
of  royalty  than  Scoteh  presbyters. 

lie  lost  no  time  in  showing  his  true  character.  He  answered  the 
famous  Millenary  (or  Millemanus)  petition,  signed  by  nearly  a  thousand 
Puritan  ministers,  and  asking  for  the  reform  of  certain  abuses  and 
offenses  in  worship  and  discipline,1  by  the  imprisonment  of  ten  peti- 
tioners on  the  ground  that  their  act  tended  to  sedition  and  treason, 
although  it  contained  no  demand  inconsistent  with  the  established 
Church.  Thus  the  opportunity  for  effecting  a  compromise  was  lost. 
lie  agreed,  however,  to  a  Conference,  which  suited  his  ambition  for  the 
display  of  his  learning  and  wit  in  debate. 

The  Conference  was  held  January  14,  16,  and  18,  1004  (old  style, 
1G03),  at  Hampton  Court.  The  persons  summoned  were  nine  bishops, 
headed  by  Archbishop  Whitgift  of  Canterbury  and  Bishop  Bancroft 
of  London,  and  eight  deans,  on  the  part  of  the  Conformists,  and  four 
of  the  most  learned  and  moderate  Puritan  divines,  under  the  lead  of 
Dr.  John  Reynolds,  President  of  Corpus  Christi  College,  Oxford.2  The 
King  himself  acted  both  as  moderator  and  judge,  and  took  the  leading 
part  in  the  discussion.     He  laid  down  his  famous  pet-principle  (which 

1  Fuller,  Vol.  V.  pp.  305-30'J.  The  petition  was  dated  January  14,  1G03  (old  style),  but 
was  presented  April  4.     The  real  number  of  signers  was  only  825. 

1  Fuller  (Vol.  V.  pp.  378,  379)  speaks  in  very  high  terms  of  Reynolds,  who  was  so  uncere- 
moniously snubbed  by  Bishop  Bancroft.  He  praises  his  memory,  which  was  'little  less  than 
marvelous,'  and  'a  faithful  index,'  as  his  reason  was  'a  solid  judex  of  what  he  read,'  and  his 
humility,  which  '  set  a  lustre  on  all ;  communicative  of  what  he  knew  to  any  that  desired  in- 
formation herein,  like  a  tree  loaded  with  fruit,  bowing  down  its  branches  to  all  that  desired 
to  ease  it  of  the  burden  thereof,  deserving  this  epitaph, 

4  Incertum  est  utrum  doctior  an  melior.' 
lie  associates  him  with  Bishop  Jewel  and  Richard  Hooker,  all  born  in  Devonshire,  and  edu- 
cated at  Corpus  Christi  College,  and  says,  '  No  one  county  in  England  have  three  such  men 
(contemporary  at  large),  in  what  college  soever  they  were  bred ;  no  college  in  England  bred 
such  three  men,  in  what  county  soever  they  were  horn.'  John  Reynolds  was  at  first  a  zeal- 
ous papist  and  turned  an  eminent  protestant ;  while  his  brother  William  was  as  earnest  a 
protestant,  and  became  by  their  mutual  disputation  an  inveterate  papist,  which  gave  occasion 
to  the  distich  : 

'Quod  f/envs  hoc  jiurjna:  est  ?  vbi  virtus  gaitdet  vterque, 
Et  si mul  altcniter  se  superasse  dolet.' 
'What  war  is  this?  when  conquer'd  both  are  glad, 
And  either  to  have  conqner'd  other  snd.' 


708  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

he  called  his  { aphorism'), '  No  bishop,  no  king ;' !  and,  after  browbeating 
the  Puritans,  nsed  as  his  final  argument, '  I  will  make  them  conform 
themselves,  or  else  I  will  harry  them  out  of  the  land,  or  else  do  worse.' 

Archbishop  AVhitgift  was  so  profoundly  impressed  with  the  King's 
theological  wisdom  that  he  said,  'Undoubtedly  your  Majesty  speaks 
by  the  special  assistance  of  God's  Spirit ;'  and  Bishop  Bancroft,  of  Lon- 
don (who  first  proclaimed  the  doctrine  of  a  jure  divino  episcopacy), 
thanked  God  on  his  knees  that  of  his  singular  mercy  he  had  given  to 
them  '  such  a  king,  as  since  Christ's  time  the  like  hath  not  been.'  The 
same  haughty  prelate  rudely  interrupted  Dr.  Reynolds,  one  of  the  most 
learned  men  in  England,  saying, '  May  your  Majesty  be  pleased  that  the 
ancient  canon  be  remembered — Schismatici  contra  episcopos  non  sunt 
audiendi  ;  and  there  is  another  decree  of  a  very  ancient  council,  that 
no  man  should  be  admitted  to  speak  against  that  whereunto  he  hath 
formerly  subscribed.  And  as  for  you,  Doctor  Reynolds,  and  your  asso- 
ciates, how  much  are  ye  bound  to  his  Majesty's  clemency,  permitting 
you,  contrary  to  the  statute  primo  EUzabetha1,  so  freely  to  speak 
against  the  liturgy  or  discipline  established.' 

Fuller  remarks  '  that  the  King  in  this  famous  Conference  went  be- 
yond himself,  that  the  Bishop  of  London  (when  not  in  a  passion)  ap- 
peared even  with  himself,  and  that  Dr.  Reynolds  fell  much  beneath 
himself.'  The  Nonconformists  justly  complained  that  the  King  in- 
vited their  divines,  not  to  have  their  scruples  satisfied,  but  his  pleasure 
propounded — not  to  hear  what  they  had  to  say,  but  to  inform  them 
what  he  would  do.  Hal  lam,  viewing  the  Conference  calmly  from  his 
stand-point  of  constitutional  history,  says :  '  In  the  accounts  that  we 
read  of  this  meeting  we  are  alternately  struck  with  wonder  at  the  in- 
decent and  partial  behavior  of  the  King  and  at  the  baseness  of  the 
bishops,  mixed,  according  to  the  custom  of  servile  natures,  with  inso- 
lence toward  their  opponents.  It  was  easy  for  a  monarch  and  eighteen 
churchmen  to  claim  the  victory,  be  the  merits  of  their  dispute  what 
they  might,  over  four  abashed  and  intimidated  adversaries.'2 

1  He  also  said  to  Dr.  Reynolds  :  '  If  you  aim  at  a  Scotch  presbytery,  it  agreeth  as  well  with 
monarchy  as  God  and  the  devil.  Then  Jack,  and  Tom,  and  Will,  and  Dick  shall  meet  and 
censure  me  and  my  council.     Therefore  I  reiterate  my  former  speech,  Le  roy  s'avisera.' 

2  The  accounts  of  the  Hampton  Court  Conference  are  mostly  derived  from  the  partial  re- 
port of  Dr.  William  Barlow,  Dean  of  Chester,  who  was  present.  It  appeared  in  1G04,  and 
again  in  1638.  See  Fuller,  Vol.  V.  pp.  2(56-303  ;  Cardwell,  Hint,  of  Conferences,  p.  121  ; 
Procter,  Hist,  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  p.  F8  ;   Marsden.  Early  Puritans,  p.  2.">5. 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  709 

The  Conference,  however,  had  one  good  and  most  important  result — 
the  revision  of  onr  English  Bible.  The  revision  was  suggested  and 
urged  by  Dr.  Reynolds,  who  Mas  subsequently  appointed  one  of  the 
revisers,1  and  it  was  ordered  to  be  executed  by  King  James,  from 
whom  it  has  its  name.2 

With  all  his  high  notions  about  royalty,  James  had  not  the  moral 
courage  to  carry  them  into  full  practice,  and  with  all  his  high  notions 
about  episcopacy,  he  had  no  sympathy  with  Arminianism,  but  actually 
countenanced  the  Calvinistic  Presbyterian  Synod  of  Dort,  and  sent  five 
delegates  to  it,  among  them  a  bishop.  In  both  these  respects  Charles 
went  as  far  beyond  James  as  Laud  went  beyond  Whitgift  and  Ban- 
croft. 

KING    CHARLES    AND    ARCHBISHOP    LAUD. 

The  antagonism  was  intensified  and  brought  to  a  bloody  issue  under 
Charles  I.  (1G25-1649)  and  William  Laud.  They  belong  to  the  most 
lauded  and  the  most  abused  persons  in  history,  and  have  been  set  down 
by  opposite  partisans  among  the  saints  and  among  the  monsters.  They 
were  neither.  They  were  good  men  in  private  life,  but  bad  men  in 
public.  They  might  have  been  as  respected  and  useful  in  a  humble 
station,  or  in  another  age  or  country,  as  they  were  hateful  and  hurtful 

1  He  was  assigned  to  the  company  which  was  charged  with  the  translation  of  the  writings 
of  the  greater  and  lesser  Prophets.     But  he  died  in  1607,  before  the  completion  of  the  work. 

2  The  discussion  bearing  upon  this  subject  is  likewise  characteristic  of  the  King,  the  Bishop, 
and  the  Puritan,  and  may  be  added  here  (from  Fuller,  Vol.  V.  pp.  28 1,  2S.r>) : 

'■Dr.  Reynolds.  "May  your  Majesty  be  pleased  that  the  Bible  be  new  translated,  such  as 
are  extant  not  answering  the  original."     And  he  instanced  in  three  particulars  : 

In  the  Original.  Ill  Tramlattd. 

■Oal.iT.90L  <n.(TTO(x<r.  Bordereth. 

Psalm  cv.  23.  They  were  not  disobedient.  They  were  not  obedient. 

Psalm  cvi.  30.  Phiuehas  executed  judgment  Phinehus  prayed. 

'  Bishop  of  London.  "  If  every  man's  humor  might  be  followed,  there  would  be  no  end  of 
translating. 

'His  Majesty.  "I  profess  I  could  never  yet  sec  a  Bible  well  translated  in  English  :  but  I 
think  that  of  all,  that  of  Geneva  is  the  worst.  I  wish  some  special  pains  were  taken  for  an 
uniform  translation  ;  which  should  be  done  by  the  best  learned  in  both  universities,  then  re- 
viewed by  the  bishops, presented  to  the  privy  council,  lastly  ratified  by  royal  authority  to  be 
read  in  the  whole  Church,  and  no  other." 

'  Bishop  of  /.oiidon.    "  15 nt  it  is  tit  that  no  marginal  notes  should  be  added  thereunto." 

'His  Majesty.  "That  caveat  is  well  put  in ;  for  in  the  Geneva  translation  some  notes  are 
partial,  untrue,  seditious,  and  savoring  of  traitorous  conceits:  as  when,  from  Kxodus  i.  19, 
disobedience  to  kings  is  allowed  in  a  marginal  note;  and,  2  Chron.  xv.  111.  King  Asa  taxed 
in  the  note  for  only  deposing  his  mother  for  idolatry,  and  not  killing  her.  To  conclude  this 
point,  let  errors  in  matters  of  faith  be  amended,  and  indifferent  things  be  interpreted,  and  a 
gloss  added  unto  them ;  for,  as  Bartolns  de  Kegno  saith,  '  Better  a  king  with  some  weakness 
than  still  a  change;'  so  rather  a  Church  with  some  faults  than  an  innovation.  And  surelv, 
if  these  were  the  greatest  matters  that  grieved  you,  I  need  not  have  been  troubled  with  such 
importuna:e  complaints." ' 


710  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

at  the  helm  of  government  in  Protestant  England.  It  was  their  mis- 
fortune rather  than  their  crime  that  they  were  utterly  at  war  with  the 
progressive  spirit  of  their  age.  Both  were  learned,  cultured,  devout 
gentlemen  and  churchmen,  but  narrow,  pedantic,  reactionary,  haughty 
aristocrats.  The  one  was  constitutionally  a  tyrant,  the  other  constitu- 
tionally a  pope  or  an  inquisitor-general.  They  fairly  represented  in 
congenial  alliance  the  principle  and  practice  of  political  and  ecclesi- 
astical absolutism,  and  the  sovereign  contempt  for  the  rights  of  the 
people,  whose  sole  duty  in  their  opinion  was  passive  obedience.  King- 
craft and  priestcraft  based  upon  divine  right  was  their  common  shib- 
boleth. By  their  suicidal  follies  they  destroyed  the  very  system  which 
they  so  long  defended  with  a  rod  of  iron,  and  thus  they  became  the 
benefactors  of  Protestantism,  which  they  labored  to  destroy.  Both 
died  as  martyrs  of  despotism,  and  their  last  days  were  their  best. 
'Nothing  in  life  became  them  as  the  leaving  it.' 

Charles  wanted  to  rule  without  a  Parliament ;  he  did  so,  in  fact,  for 
more  than  eleven  years,  and  the  four  Parliaments  which  he  was  com- 
pelled to  convoke  he  soon  arbitrarily  dissolved  (1625, 1G2G,  1629,  and 
1610).  lie  preferred  ship-money  to  legal  taxation.  He  made  himself 
intolerable  by  his  duplicity  and  treachery.  'Faithlessness  was  the 
chief  cause  of  his  disasters,  and  is  the  chief  stain  on  his  memory.  He 
was  in  truth  impelled  by  an  incurable  propensity  to  dark  and  crooked 
ways.  It  may  seem  strange  that  his  conscience,  which  on  occasions  of 
little  moment  was  sufficiently  sensitive,  should  never  have  reproached 
him  with  this  great  vice.  But  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  he  was 
perfidious,  not  only  from  constitution  and  from  habit,  but  also  on  prin- 
ciple. He  seems  to  have  learned  from  theologians  whom  he  most  es- 
teemed that  between  him  and  his  subjects  there  could  be  nothing  of 
the  nature  of  mutual  contract;  and  that  he  could  not,  even  if  he  would, 
divest  himself  of  his  despotic  authority ;  and  that  in  every  promise 
which  he  made  there  was  an  implied  reservation  that  such  promise 
might  be  broken  in  case  of  necessity,  and  that  of  the  necessity  he  was 
the  sole  judge.'1 

1  Macaulay,  chap.  i.  p.  C5  (Boston  ed.).  I  add  the  admirable  description  of  Charles  by 
Mrs.  Lucy  Hutchinson,  in  the  Memoirs  of  her  husband  (Bonn's  ed.  p.  84):  'King  Charles 
was  temperate,  chaste,  and  serious  ;  so  that  the  fools  and  bawds,  mimics  and  catamites,  of  the 
former  court,  grew  out  of  fashion  ;  and  the  nobility  and  courtiers,  who  did  not  quite  abandon 
their  debaucheries,  yet  so  reverenced  the  king  as  to  retire  into  corners  to  practice  them. 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  7H 

William  Laud  '  rose,  like  Cardinal  AVolsey,  by  his  abilities  and  the 
royal  favor  from  humble  origin  to  the  highest  positions  in  Church  and 
State.  lie  began  his  career  of  innovation  early  at  Oxford,  and  asserted 
in  his  exercise  for  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Divinity  (1G04)  the  abso- 
lute necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation,  and  the  necessity  of  diocesan 
episcopacy,  not  only  for  the  well-being,  but  fur  the  very  existence  of 
the  Church.  This  position  exposed  him  to  the  charge  of  heresy,  and 
no  one  would  speak  to  him  in  the  street.  Under  James  he  was  kept 
back,2  but  under  Charles  he  rose  rapidly,  and  after  the  death  uf  Abbot, 

Men  of  learning  and  ingenuity  in  all  arts  were  in  esteem,  and  received  encouragement  from  the 
king,  who  was  a  most  excellent  judge  and  a  great  lover  of  paintings,  carvings,  gravings,  and 
many  other  ingenuities,  less  offensive  than  the  bawdry  and  profane  abusive  wit  which  was  the 
only  exercise  of  the  other  court.  But,  as  in  the  primitive  times,  it  is  observed  that  the  best 
emperors  were  some  of  them  stirred  up  by  Satan  to  be  the  bitterest  persecutors  of  the  Church, 
so  this  king  was  a  worse  encroacher  upon  the  civil  and  spiritual  liberties  of  his  people  by  far 
than  his  father.  He  married  a  Papist,  a  French  lady,  of  a  haughty  spirit,  and  a  great  wit 
and  beauty,  to  whom  he  became  a  most  uxorious  husband.  By  this  means  the  court  was 
replenished  with  Papists,  and  many  who  hoped  to  advance  themselves  by  the  change  turned 
to  that  religion.  All  the  Papists  in  the  kingdom  were  favored,  and,  by  the  king's  example, 
matched  into  the  best  families ;  the  Puritans  were  more  than  ever  discountenanced  and  per- 
secuted, insomuch  that  many  of  them  chose  to  abandon  their  native  country,  and  leave  their 
dearest  relations,  to  retire  into  any  foreign  soil  or  plantation  where  they  might,  amidst  all 
outward  inconveniences,  enjoy  the  free  exercise  of  God's  worship.  Such  as  could  not  flee 
were  tormented  in  the  bishops'  courts,  fined,  whipped,  pilloried,  imprisoned,  and  suffered  to 
enjoy  no  rest,  so  that  death  was  better  than  life  to  them ;  and  notwithstanding  their  patient 
sufferance  of  all  these  things,  yet  was  not  the  king  satisfied  till  the  whole  land  was  reduced 
to  perfect  slavery.  The  example  of  the  French  king  was  propounded  to  him,  and  he  thought 
himself  no  monarch  so  long  as  his  will  was  confined  to  the  bounds  of  any  law ;  but  knowing 
that  the  people  of  England  were  not  pliable  to  an  arbitrary  rule,  he  plotted  to  subdue  them  to 
his  yoke  by  a  foreign  force,  and  till  he  could  effect  it,  made  no  conscience  of  granting  any 
thing  to  the  people,  which  he  resolved  should  not  oblige  him  longer  than  it  served  his  turn ; 
for  he  was  a  prince  that  had  nothing  of  faith  or  truth,  justice  or  generosity,  in  him.  He  was 
the  most  obstinate  person  in  his  self-will  that  ever  was,  and  so  bent  upon  being  an  absolute, 
uncontrollable  sovereign  that  he  was  resolved  either  to  be  such  a  king  or  none.  His  firm 
adherence  to  prelacy  was  not  for  conscience  of  one  religion  more  than  another,  for  it  was  his 
principle  that  an  honest  man  might  be  saved  in  any  profession  ;  but  he  had  a  mistaken  prin- 
ciple that  kingly  government  in  the  State  could  not  stand  without  episcopal  government  in 
the  Church  ;  and,  therefore,  as  the  bishops  flattered  him  with  preaching  np  his  sovereign  pre- 
rogative, and  inveighing  against  the  Puritans  as  factious  and  disloyal,  so  he  protected  them  in 
their  pomp  and  pride,  and  insolent  practices  against  all  the  godly  and  sober  people  of  the  land.' 

1  Born  at  Beading,  Oct.  7,  1578;  ordained  1601  ;  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  IGL'l  ;  of  Bath 
and  Wells,  1626  ;  of  London,  1028  ;  Chancellor  of  Oxford  University,  1630  ;  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  1033;  impeached  of  high-treason.  1611  ;  beheaded  Jan.  10,  161."). 

2  'Because,' as  King  James  said,  in  keen  discernment  of  his  character,  'he  hath  a  restless 
spirit,  and  can  not  see  when  matters  are  well,  but  loves  to  toss  and  change,  and  to  bring 
things  to  a  pitch  of  reformation,  floating  in  his  own  brain,  which  may  endanger  the  steadfast 
ness  of  that  which  is  in  :i  good  pass.'  He  restrained  his  earl?  plans  "to  make  that  stubborn 
[Scotch]  Kirk  stoop  to  the  English  pattern,'  for  '  he  knows  not  the  stomach  of  that  people.' 

Vol.  I.— Z  z 


712  THE  CEEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

who  was  a  Puritan,  he  succeeded  him  in  the  primacy  of  the  English 
Church.  When  he  crossed  the  Thames  to  take  possession  of  Lambeth, 
lie  met  with  an  ominous  accident,  which  he  relates  in  his  Diary  (Sept. 
18, 1633).  The  overloaded  ferry-boat  upset,  and  his  coach  sank  to  the 
bottom  of  the  river,  but  he  was  saved  as  by  water,  and  'lost  neither 
man  nor  horse.' 

Laud  was  of  small  stature1  and  narrow  mind,  but  strong  will  and 
working-power,  hot  and  irascible  in  temper,  ungracious  and  unpopular 
in  manner,  ignorant  of  human  nature,  a  zealous  ritualist,  a  pedantic 
disciplinarian,  and  an  overbearing  priest.  He  was  indefatigable  and 
punctilious  in  the  discharge  of  his  innumerable  duties  as  archbishop 
and  prime  minister,  member  of  the  courts  of  Star-Chamber  and  High- 
Commission,  of  the  committee  of  trade,  the  foreign  committee,  and  as 
lord  of  the  treasury.  He  was  for  a  number  of  years  almost  omnip- 
otent and  omnipresent  in  three  kingdoms,  looking  after  every  ap- 
pointment and  every  executive  detail  in  Church  and  State.2 

His  chief  zeal  was  directed  to  the  establishment  of  absolute  outward 
uniformity  in  religion  as  he  understood  it,  without  regard  to  the  rights 
of  conscience  and  private  judgment.  His  religion  consisted  of  High- 
Church  Episcopalianism  and  Arminianism  in  the  nearest  possible  ap- 
proach to  Rome,  which  he  admired  and  loved,  and  the  furthest  possi- 
ble distance  from  Geneva,  which  he  hated  and  abhorred.3  But  while 
Arminianism  in  Holland  was  a  protestant  growth,  and  identified  with 
the  cause  of  liberal  progress,  Laud  made  it  subservient  to  his  in- 
tolerant Iligh-Churchism,  and  liked  it  for  its  affinity  with  the  Semi- 
pelagianism  of  the  Greek  fathers.  To  enforce  this  Semipelagian 
Iligh-Churchism,  and  to  secure  absolute  uniformity  in  the  outward 
service  of  God  in  the  three  kingdoms,  was  the  highest  aim  of  his  ad- 
ministration, to  which  he  bent  every  energy.  He  could  not  conceive 
spiritual  unity  without  external  uniformity.  This  was  his  fundamental 
error.  In  a  characteristic  sermon  which  he  preached  at  Westminster 
before  Parliament,  March  17,  lC28,on  unity  in  Church  and  State  (Eph. 

1  He  was  called  '  the  little  Archbishop.' 

2  '  His  influence  extended  every  where,  over  every  body,  and  every  thing,  small  as  well  as 
rrreat— like  the  trunk  of  an  elephant,  as  well  suited  to  pick  up  a  pin  as  to  tear  down  a  tree.' 
— Stoughton,  Vol.  I.  p.  33. 

'J  I  must  add,  however,  that  in  his  book  against  Fisher  the  Jesuit  there  are  a  few  favorable 
allusions  to  Calvin  as  a  theologian,  especially  to  his  doctrine  of  the  spiritual  real  presence. 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  713 

iv.  3),  he  says:  'Unity  of  any  "kind  will  do  much  good;  but  the  best 
is  safest,  and  that  is  unity  of  the  Spirit.  .  .  .  The  way  to  keep  unity 
both  in  Church  and  State  is  for  the  governors  to  carry  a  watchful  eye 
over  all  such  as  are  discovered  or  feared  to  have  private  ends.  .  .  . 
Provide  for  the  keeping  of  unity,  and  .  .  .  God  will  bless  you  with 
the  success  of  this  day.  For  this  da}',  the  seventeenth  of  March,  Ju- 
lius Coesar  overthrew  Sextus  Pompeius.  .  .  .  And  this  very  day,  too, 
Frederick  II.  entered  Jerusalem,  and  recovered  whatsoever  Saladin 
had  taken  from  the  Christians.  But  I  must  tell  you,  these  emperors 
and  their  forces  were  great  keepers  of  unity.1 1 

In  the  same  year  he  caused  the  Royal  Declaration  to  be  added  to 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles  to  check  their  Calvinistic  interpretation.2 
From  the  same  motive  he  displaced,  through  the  agency  of  Wentworth 
and  Bramhall,  the  Calvinistic  Irish  Articles,  and  neutralized  the  influ- 
ence of  Archbishop  Ussher  in  Ireland.  But  the  height  of  his  folly, 
and  the  beginning  of  his  fall,  was  the  enforcement  of  his  episcopal  and 
ritualistic  scheme  upon  Presbyterian  Scotland  in  criminal  defiance  of 
the  will  of  the  people  and  the  law  of  the  land.  This  brought  on  the 
Scotch  Covenant  and  hastened  the  Civil  War. 

In  England  he  filled  all  vacancies  with  Churchmen  and  Arminians 
of  his  own  stamp.  He  kept  (as  he  himself  informs  us  in  his  Diary)  a 
ledger  for  the  guidance  of  his  royal  master  in  the  distribution  of  pat- 
ronage :  those  marked  by  the  letter  O  (Orthodox)  were  recommended 
to  all  favors,  those  marked  P  (Puritans)  were  excluded  from  all  favors. 
Bishop  Morely,  on  being  asked  what  the  Arminians  held,  wittily  and 
truthfully  replied, '  The  best  bishoprics  and  deaneries  in  England.'  He 
expelled  or  silenced  the  Puritans,  and  shut  up  every  unauthorized 
meeting-house.  'Even  the  devotions  of  private  families  could  not  es- 
cape the  vigilance  of  his  spies.'  In  his  eyes  the  Puritans  were  but  a 
miserable  'fraction'  of  fanatics  and  rebels,  a  public  nuisance  which 
must  be  crushed  at  any  price.  He  made  the  congregations  of  French 
and  Dutch  refugees  conform  or  leave  the  land,  and  forbade  the  En- 
glish ambassador  in  Paris  to  attend  the  service  of  the  Huguenots. 
He  restrained  the  press  and  the  importation  of  foreign  books,  especially 

1  Works  (Oxf.  1847),  Vol.  I.  pp.  161,  1C7,  180,  181. 

5  That  Land  is  the  author  of  this  Declaration  was  charged  by  Prynne,  ami  is  proved  by 
the  Oxford  editor  of  his  Works,  Vol.  I.  pp.  158  sq.     Comp,  above,  p.  61  7. 


714  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  favorite  Geneva  translation  of  the  Bible  prepared  by  the  Marian 
exiles.  lie  stopped  several  ships  in  the  Thames  which  were  to  carry 
persecuted  and  disheartened  Puritans  to  New  England,  and  thus  tried 
to  prevent  Providence  from  writing  the  American  chapter  in  history. 
In  this  way  Oliver  Cromwell  is  said  to  have  been  kept  at  home,  that 
in  due  time  he  might  overthrow  the  monarchy. 

With  equal  rigor  Laud  enforced  his  ritualism,  which  was  to  him  not 
only  a  desirable  matter  of  taste  and  propriety,  but  also  an  essential  ele- 
ment of  reverence  and  piety.  He  took  special  care  and  showed  great 
liberality  for  the  restoration  of  cathedrals  and  the  full  cathedral  service 
with  the  most  pompous  ceremonial ;  he  made  it  a  point  of  vital  im- 
portance that  the  communion-tables  be  removed  from  the  centre  of  the 
church  to  the  east  end  of  the  chancel,  elevated  above  the  level  of  the 
pavement,  placed  altar-ways,  railed  in,  and  approached  always  with  the 
prescribed  bows  and  genuflexions.1  He  called  the  altar  '  the  greatest 
place  of  God's  residence  on  earth,'  and  magnified  it  above  the  pulpit, 
because  on  the  altar  was  Christ's  body,  which  was  more  than  his  Word ; 
but  he  denied  the  charge  of  transubstantiation.  He  introduced  pict- 
ures, images,  crucifixes,  candles,  and  brought  out  every  worn-out  relic 
from  the  ecclesiastical  wardrobe  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Being  himself 
unmarried,  he  preferred  celibates  in  the  priesthood.  In  the  University 
of  Oxford,  to  which  he  was  a  munificent  benefactor,  he  was  addressed 
as  His  Holiness,  and  Most  Holy  Father. 

No  wonder  that  he  was  charged  with  the  intention  to  reintroduce 
popery  into  England.  The  popular  mind,  especially  in  times  of  ex- 
citement, takes  no  notice  of  minor  shades  of  distinction,  and  knows  only 
friend  and  foe.  Laud,  no  doubt,  did  the  pope's  work  effectually,  but 
he  did  it  unintentionally.  He  loved  the  Roman  Church  much  better 
than  the  Protestant  sects,  but  he  loved  the  Anglican  Church  more. 
He  once  dreamed,  as  he  tells  us, '  that  he  was  reconciled  to  the  Church 

1  He  informed  the  king  of  'a.  very  ill  accident  which  happened  at  Taplow,  by  reason  of  not 
having  the  communion-table  railed  in,  that  it  might  be  kept  from  profanations.  For  in  the 
sermon  time  a  dog  came  to  the  table  and  took  the  loaf  of  bread  prepared  for  the  Holy  Sacra- 
ment in  his  mouth,  and  ran  away  with  it.  Some  of  the  parishioners  took  the  same  from  the 
dog  and  set  it  again  on  the  table.  After  sermon  the  minister  could  not  think  fit  to  conse- 
crate this  bread,  and  other  fit  for  the  Sacrament  was  not  to  be  had  in  that  town,  so  there  was 
no  Communion.' — Works,  Vol.  V.  p.  3G7.  This  brings  to  mind  the  grave  and  curious  dis- 
putes of  the  mediaeval  schoolmen  on  the  question  what  effect  the  consecrated  wafer  would 
have  upon  a  mouse  or  a  rat. 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  715 

of  Rome,'  but  was  much  troubled  by  it.1  He  was  twice  offered,  by 
some  unnamed  agent,  a  cardinal's  hat,  but  promptly  declined  it.2  He 
preferred  to  be  an  independent  pope  in  England,  and  aped  the  Roman 
original  as  well  as  he  could,  with  more  or  less  show  of  real  or  imaginary 
opposition  that  springs  from  rivalry  and  affinity.  Neal  says  that  he  was 
not  'an  absolute  papist,9  but '  ambitious  of  being  the  sovereign  patriarch 
of  three  kingdoms.'3  From  his  'Conference'  with  Fisher  the  Jesuit, 
which  is  by  far  his  ablest  and  most  learned  performance,  it  is  very  evi- 
dent that  he  differed  from  Rome  on  several  points  of  doctrine  and 
practice,  such  as  the  invocation  of  Mary  and  the  saints,  the  worship  of 
images,  transubstantiation,  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  works  of  superero- 
gation, the  temporal  power  of  the  pope,  and  the  infallibility  of  coun- 
cils; and  that  his  mind,  though  clear  and  acute,  was  not  sufficiently 
logical  to  admit  the  ultimate  conclusions  of  some  of  his  own  premises.4 
He  regarded  the  Reformation  merely  as  an  incident  in  the  history  of 
the  English  Church,  and  rejected  only  such  doctrines  of  Romanism 
as  he  was  unable  to  find  in  the  Bible  and  the  early  fathers.  In 
his  long  and  manly  defense  before  the  House  of  Lords  he  claimed  to 

1  Diary,  March  8,  1G2G  (  Works,  Vol.  III.  p.  201). 

2  He  relates,  in  his  Diary,  Aug.  4,  1633  (on  the  day  of  Archbishop  Abbot's  death),  that 
'  there  came  one  to  me,  seriously,  .  .  .  and  offered  me  to  be  a  Cardinal.  I  went  presently 
to  the  King  and  acquainted  him  both  with  the  thing  and  the  person.'  On  the  17th  of  August, 
having  in  the  mean  time  (Aug.  G)  been  appointed  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  he  had  a  second 
offer  of  a  red  hat,  and  again  answered  '  that  something  dwelt  within  him  which  would 
not  suffer  that  till  Home  were  other  than  it  is'  ( Works,  Vol.  III.  p.  219).  In  his  Marginal 
Notes  on  Prynne's  lireviate  (p.  2GG),  he  adds  that  his  'conscience'  also  went  against  this. 
But  it  is  by  no  means  certain  or  even  probable  that  the  pope  himself  (as  Fuller  states  without 
proof)  authorized  such  an  offer.  It  may  have  been  a  trap  laid  for  Land  on  the  eve  of  his 
elevation  to  the  primacy.  Lingard,  the  Roman  Catholic  historian  of  England,  says  that 
Laud  was  'in  bad  repute  in  Rome'  (Vol.  X.  p.  1 30),  and  Dean  Hook,  his  Anglo-Catholic 
biographer,  asserts  that  he  was  'dreaded  and  hated  at  Rome,' and  that  his  death  was  greeted 
there  with  joy  {Life  of  L.  p.  233).  Lingard  adds,  however,  that  '  in  the  solitude  of  his  cell, 
and  with  the  prospect  of  the  block  before  his  eyes,  Laud  began  to  think  more  favorably  of  the 
Catholic  [Roman]  Church,'  and  he  shows  that  Rosetti  inquired  of  Cardinal  Barberini  whether, 
if  Laud  should  escape  from  the  Tower,  the  pope  would  afford  him  an  asylum  in  Rome  with  a 
pension  of  1000  crowns.  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  Laud's  last  defense.  He  was  then 
over  seventy,  and  anxious  to  die. 

■>  Hist,  of  the  Puritans,  VoL  1.  p.  280. 

4  The  Conference  with  Fisher  (whose  real  name  was  Piersey  or  Percy)  took  place,  by  com- 
mand and  in  the  presence  of  King  James,  May  21,  1 622,  and  was  edited,  with  final  corrections 
and  additions,  by  Laud  himself  in  1689.  It  was  republished  1673  and  L686,  and  by  the  Ox- 
ford University  Pre--  1839,  with  an  Introduction  by  Edward  Cardwell.  It  is  also  included 
in  Vol.  II.  of  the  Oxf.  cd.  of  his  Works.  Laud  thought  that  his  way  of  defense  was  the  only 
one  by  which  the  Church  of  England  could  justify  her  separation  from  the  Church  of  Rome, 
lie  bequeathed  £100  for  a  Latin  translation  of  this  book. 


716  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

have  converted  several  persons  (Cliillingworth  among  them)  from 
popery,  but  frankly  admitted  that  '  the  Roman  Church  never  erred  in 
fundamentals,  for  fundamentals  are  in  the  Creed,  and  she  denies  it  not. 
Were  she  not  a  true  Church,  it  were  hard  with  the  Church  of  England, 
since  from  her  the  English  bishops  derive  their  apostolic  succession. 
She  is,  therefore,  a  true  but  not  an  orthodox  Church.  Salvation  may 
be  found  in  her  communion ;  and  her  religion  and  ours  are  one  in  the 
o-reat  essentials.  I  am  not  bound  to  believe  each  detached  phrase  in 
the  Homilies,  and  I  do  not  think  they  assert  the  pope  to  be  Antichrist ; 
yet  it  can  not  be  proved  that  I  ever  denied  him  to  be  so.  As  to  the 
charge  of  unchurching  foreign  Protestants,  I  certainly  said  generally, 
according  to  St.  Jerome,  "  No  bishop,  no  Church;"  and  the  preface  of 
the  book  of  ordination  sets  forth  that  the  three  orders  came  from  the 
apostles.'  In  his  last  will  and  testament  he  says :  '  For  my  faith,  I  die 
as  I  have  lived,  in  the  true  orthodox  profession  of  the  Catholic  faith  of 
Christ,  foreshadowed  by  the  prophets  and  preached  to  the  world  by 
Christ  himself,  his  blessed  apostles,  and  their  successors ;  and  a  true 
member  of  his  Catholic  Church  within  the  communion  of  a  living  part 
thereof,  the  present  Church  of  England,  as  it  stands  established  by  law.' 
In  one  word,  Laud  was  a  typical  Anglo-Catholic,  who  unchurched 
all  non-episcopal  Churches,  and  regarded  the  Anglican  Church  as  an 
independent  sister  of  the  Latin  and  Greek  communions,  and  as  the 
guardian  of  the  whole  truth  as  against  the  'sects,'  and  of  nothing  but 
the  truth  as  against  Rome.  The  Anglo-Catholicism  of  the  nineteenth 
century  is  simply  a  revival  of  Laud's  system  divested  of  its  hateful 
tyranny  and  political  ambition  and  entanglements.  Dr.  Pusey,  the 
father  of  modern  Anglo-Catholicism,  is  superior  to  Archbishop  Laud 
in  learning,  spirituality  and  charity,  but  in  their  theology  and  logic 
there  is  no  difference. 

1  The  Works  of  Laud  embrace  five  volumes  in  the  Oxford  'Library  of  Anglo-Catholic  The- 
ology.' His  seven  sermons  preached  on  great  state  occasions  abound  with  his  high  notions 
of  royalty,  episcopacy,  and  uniformity,  but  do  not  rise  above  mediocrity.  His  Diary — the 
chief  source  of  his  autobiography— though  not  'contemptible'  (as  Hallam  characterizes  it), 
is  dry  and  pedantic,  and  notices  trifling  incidents  as  important  occurrences,  e.  (j.,  the  bad  state 
of  the  weather,  his  numerous  dreams,  the  marriage  of  K.  C.  with  a  minister's  widow,  the  par- 
ticular posture  of  the  Elector  of  the  Palatinate  at  communion  'upon  a  stool  by  the  wall  before 
the  traverse,  and  with  another  and  a  cushion  before  him  to  kneel  at'  (Dec.  2">,  16S5),  and  his 
unfortunate  affairs  with  '  E.  B.'  (of  which  he  deeply  repented  ;  see  his  Devot.  Vol.  III.  p.  81 ). 
His  Devotions  are  made  up  mostly  of  passages  of  the  Psalms  and  the  fathers,  and  reveal  the 
best  side  of  his  private  character.     His  last  prayer,  as  he  kneeled  by  the  block  to  receive  the 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  717 

THE    BTAE-CHAMBEB    AND   THE    HIGH-COMMISSION    COURT. 

The  two  chief  instruments  of  this  royal  episcopal  tyranny  were  the 
Star-Chamber  and  the  High-Commission  Court — two  kinds  of  inquisi- 
tion— the  first  political,  the  second  ecclesiastical,  with  an  unlimited 
jurisdiction  over  all  sorts  of  misdemeanors,  and  with  the  power  to  in- 
flict the  penalties  of  deprivation,  imprisonment,  fines,  whipping,  brand- 
ing, cutting  ears,  and  slitting  noses. 

Freedom  of  speech  and  the  press,  which  is  now  among  the  funda- 
mental and  inalienable  rights  of  every  Anglo-Saxon  citizen,  was  pun- 
ished as  a  crime  against  society.  Prynne,  a  graduate  of  Oxford,  and  a 
learned  barrister  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  who  published  an  unreadable  book 
(Ilistrio-Mastix,  the  Players'  Scourge,  or  Actors''  Tragcdie,  divided 
into  Two  Parts)  against  theatres,  masquerades,  dancing,  and  women 
actors,  with  reflections  upon  the  frivolities  of  the  queen,  was  condemned 
by  the  Star-Chamber  to  be  expelled  from  Oxford  and  Lincoln's  Inn, 
to  be  fined  £5000,  to  stand  in  the  pillory  at  "Westminster  and  Cheap- 
side,  to  have  his  ears  cut  off,  his  cheeks  and  forehead  branded  with 
hot  irons,  and  to  be  imprisoned  for  life.  His  huge  quarto  volume  of 
1006  pages,  with  quotations  from  as  many  authors,  was  burned  under 
his  nose,  so  that  he  was  nearly  suffocated  with  the  smoke.  Leighton, 
a  Scotchman  (father  of  the  saintly  archbishop),  Bastwick,  a  learned 

fetal  stroke,  is  the  crown  of  his  prayers,  and  worth  quoting  ■  '  Lord,  I  am  coming  as  fast  as  I 
can.  I  know  I  must  pass  through  the  shadow  of  death  before  I  can  come  to  see  Thee.  But 
it  is  but  umbra  mortis,  a  mere  shadow  of  death,  a  little  darkness  upon  nature  ;  but  Thou,  by 
Thy  merits  and  passion,  hast  broken  through  the  jaws  of  death.  So,  Lord,  receive  my  soul, 
and  have  mercy  upon  me;  and  bless  this  kingdom  with  peace  and  plenty,  and  with  brotherly 
love  and  charity,  that  there  may  not  be  this  effusion  of  Christian  blood  amongst  them,  for 
Jesus  Christ  His  sake,  if  it  be  Thy  will.'  The  opinions  on  Laud  are  mostly  tinctured  by 
party  spirit.  His  friend  Clarendon  says,  '  His  learning,  piety,  and  virtue  have  been  attained 
by  very  few,  and  the  greatest  of  Ids  infiimilies  are  common  to  all,  even  the  best  of  men.' 
Prynne,  who  lost  his  two  ears  by  Laud's  influence,  calls  him  the  most  execrable  traitor  and 
apostate  that  the  English  soil  ever  bred  ('Canterbury's  Doome").  His  biographers,  Peter 
Heylin  (Cypriamts  Anglicanus,  Loud.  1C71J,  John  Parker  Lavvsoil  ( The  Life  and  Times  of 
William  Laud,  Lond.  1829,  2  vols.),  and  Dr.  Hook  (in  the  Lives  of  the  Archbishops  of  Can- 
terbury,Vol.  XI.  Lond.  187")),  are  vindicators  of  Ins  character  and  policy.  .May.  Hallam, 
Macaulay,  Lingard,  Green,  Hausser,  and  Stoughton  (Vol.  I.  pp.  402  8q.)  condemn  his  public 
acts,  but  give  him  credit  for  his  private  virtues.  May  |  History  of  Parliament,  approvingly 
quoted  by  Hallam,  chap.  viii.  Charles  I.)  says  ;  '  Laud  was  of  an  active,  or,  rather,  of  a  rest- 
less mind:  more  ambitious  to  undertake  than  politic  to  carry  on;  of  a  disposition  too  fierce 
and  cruel  for  his  coat.  He  had  few  vulgar  and  private  vices,  as  being  neither  taxed  of  cov- 
etousness,  intemperance,  nor  incontinence  ;  and.  in  a  word,  a  man  not  altogether  so  had  in  his 
personal  character  as  unfit  for  the  state  of  England.' 


718  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

physician,  and  Henry  Burton,  a  B.D.  of  Oxford,  and  rector  of  a  church 
in  London,  were  treated  with  similar  cruelty  for  abusing  in  printed 
pamphlets  the  established  hierarchy.  No  doubt  their  language  was 
violent  and  coarse,1  but  torture  and  mutilation  are  barbarous  and  re- 
volting. And  yet  Laud  not  only  thanked  the  lords  of  the  Star-Cham- 
ber for  their  'just  and  honorable  sentence  upon  these  men,'  but  re- 
gretted, in  a  letter  to  Strafford,  that  he  could  not  resort  to  more 
'thorough'  measures. 

THE    CIVIL   WAK    AND    THE    COMMONWEALTH. 

The  excesses  of  despotism,  sacerdotalism,  ceremonialism,  intolerance, 
and  cruelty  exhausted  at  last  the  patience  of  a  noble,  freedom-loving 
people,  and  kindled  the  blazing  war-torch  which  burned  to  the  ground 
the  throne  and  the  temple.  The  indignant  nation  rose  in  its  majesty, 
and  asserted  its  inherent  and  constitutional  rights. 

The  storm  burst  forth  from  the  North.  The  Scots  compelled  the 
King  to  abandon  his  schemes  of  innovation,  and  to  admit  that  prelacy 
was  contrary  to  Scripture.  In  England  the  memorable  Long  Parlia- 
ment organized  the  opposition,  and  assumed  the  defense  of  constitu- 
tional liberty  against  royal  absolutism.  It  met  Nov.  3, 1640,  and  con- 
tinued till  April  20, 1653,  when  it  was  dissolved  by  Cromwell  to  give 
way  to  military  despotism.  The  war  between  the  Parliament  and 
the  King  broke  out  in  August,  16-12.  For  several  months  the  Cav- 
aliers fought  more  bravely  and  successfully  than  the  undisciplined 
forces  of  the  Roundheads ;  but  the  fortunes  of  war  changed  when 
Oliver  Cromwell,  a  country  gentleman,  bred  to  peaceful  pursuits,  ap- 
peared at  the  head  of  his  Ironsides,  whom  he  selected  from  the  ranks 
of  the  Puritans.  It  was  an  army  snch  as  England  never  saw  before 
or  since — an  army  which  feared  God  and  hated  the  pope ;  which  be- 
lieved in  the  divine  decrees  and  practiced  perseverance  of  saints;  which 
fought  for  religion ;  which  allowed  no  oath,  no  drunkenness,  no  gam- 


1  Barton  called  the  bishops  s/e/>-fathers,  cater-\n\\ars,  limbs  of  the  beast,  blind  watchmen, 
dumb  clogs,  new  Babel-builders,  antichristian  mushrumps,  etc.  Prvnne  called  them  'silk 
and  satin  divines,' and  said  that  '  Christ  himself  was  a  Puritan,  and  that,  therefore,  all  men 
should  become  Puritans.'  But  their  opponents  could  be  equally  abusive.  Lord  Cottington, 
one  of  Prynne's  judges,  said  that,  in  writing  the  Histrio-Mastix,  'cither  the  devil  had  as- 
sisted Prynne  or  Prynne  the  devil.'  Another  judge,  the  Earl  of  Dorset,  called  him  l omnium 
in  alarum  ncquissimum. 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  71  (j 

bling  in  the  camp;  which  sacredly  respected  private  property  and  the 
honor  of  woman  ;  which  went  praying  and  psalm-singing  into  the  field 
of  battle,  and  never  returned  from  it  without  the  laurels  of  victory. 
And  when  these  warriors  were  disbanded  at  the  Restoration,  they  as- 
tonished the  royalists  by  quietly  taking  their  place  among  the  most 
industrious,  thrifty,  and  useful  citizens.1 

During  the  reign  of  the  Long  Parliament  the  Star-Chamber  and 
the  High -Commission  Court  were  ignominiously  and  forever  swept 
out  of  existence  amid  the  execrations  of  the  people.  The  episcopal 
hierarchy  and  the  Liturgy  were  overthrown  (Sept.  10,  1612) ;  about 
two  thousand  royalist  ministers,  many  of  them  noted  for  incapacity, 
idleness,  and  immorality,  others  highly  distinguished  for  scholarship 
and  piety  —  as  Hammond,  Sanderson,  Pocock,  Byron  Walton,  Hall, 
Prideaux,  Pearson — were  ejected  as  royalists  from  their  benefices  and 
given  over  to  poverty  and  misery,  though  one  fifth  of  the  revenues 
of  the  sequestered  livings  was  reserved  for  the  sufferers.2  This  sum- 
mary and  cruel  act  provoked  retaliation,  which  in  due  time  came  with 
increased  severity.  The  leaders  of  despotism — the  Earl  of  Strafford 
(May  12, 1611),  Archbishop  Laud  (Jan.  10, 1645),  and  at  last  the  King 
himself  (Jan.  30, 1619) — were  condemned  to  death  on  the  block,  and 
thus  surrounded  by  the  halo  of  martyrdom.  Their  blood  was  the 
seed  of  the  Restoration.  The  execution  of  Charles  especially  was  in 
the  eyes  of  the  great  majority  of  the  English  and  Scotch  people  a 
crime  and  a  blunder,  and  set  in  motion  the  reaction  in  favor  of  mon- 
archy and  episcopacy. 

At  first,  however,  Cromwell's  genius  and  resolution  crushed  every 
opposition  in  England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland.  On  the  ruins  of  the 
monarchy  and  of  Parliament  itself  he  raised  a  military  government 
which  inspired  respect  and  fear  at  home  and  abroad,  and  raised  En- 
gland to  the  front  rank  of  Protestant  powers,  but  which  created  no 
affection  and  love  except  among  his  invincible  army.  The  man  of 
blood  and  iron,  the  ablest  ruler  that  England  ever  had,  died  at  the 

1  One  of  the  noblest  specimens  of  a  Puritan  officer  was  Col.  Hutchinson,  whose  char- 
acter and  life  have  been  so  admirably  described  !>y  his  widow  (pp.  L'l  Bqq.  Bonn's  cd.). 

a  Comp.  Marsden,  Tin  Later  Puritans,  pp.  40  sqq.  I'.axter  himself  allows  that  'someable, 
godly  preachers  were  cast  out  for  the  war  alone.'  Among  these  was  also  the  excellent  Thomas 
Fuller,  the  author  of  the  incomparable  books  on  Church  History  and  the  Worthies  of  En- 
gland, although  in  the  daya  of  Laud  he  had  been  Btigmatized  as  a  Puritan  in  doctrine. 


720  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

height  of  his  power,  on  the  anniversary  of  his  victories  at  Dunbar  and 
"Worcester  (Sept.  3),  and  was  buried  with  great  pomp  among  the  le- 
gitimate kings  of  England  in  Westminster  Abbey  (Nov.  23, 1658). * 

THE    RESTORATION. 

The  Puritan  Commonwealth  was  but  a  brilliant  military  episode, 
and  died  with  its  founder.  His  son  Richard,  amiable,  good-natured, 
weak  and  incompetent,  succeeded  him  without  opposition,  but  resigned 
a  few  months  after  (April  22, 1659).  The  army,  which  under  its  great 
commander  had  ruled  the  divided  nation,  was  now  divided,  while  the 
national  sentiment  in  the  three  kingdoms  became  united,  and  demand- 
ed the  restoration  of  the  old  dynasty  as  the  safest  way  to  escape  the 
dangers  of  military  despotism.  Puritanism  represented  only  a  minor- 
ity of  the  English  people,  and  the  majority  of  this  minority  were 
royalists.  The  Presbyterians,  who  were  in  the  saddle  during  the  in- 
terregnum, were  specially  active  for  the  unconditional  recall  of  the 
treacherous  Stuarts.     The  event  was  brought  about  by  the  cautious 

1  On  his  last  days  and  utterances,  see  the  Mercurius  Politicus  for  Sept.  2-9, 1 G58,  and  Stough- 
ton,  The  Church  of  the  Commonwealth,  p.  511.  Macaulay  pays  the  following  tribute  to  Crom- 
well's foreign  policy :  '  The  Protector's  foreign  policy  at  the  same  time  extorted  the  ungracious 
approbation  of  those  who  most  detested  him.  The  Cavaliers  could  scarcely  refrain  from 
wishing  that  one  who  had  done  so  much  to  raise  the  fame  of  the  nation  had  been  a  legitimate 
king ;  and  the  Republicans  were  forced  to  own  that  the  tyrant  suffered  none  but  himself  to 
wrong  his  country,  and  that,  if  he  had  robbed  her  of  liberty,  he  had  at  least  given  her  glory 
in  exchange.  After  half  a  century,  during  which  England  had  been  of  scarcely  more  weight 
in  European  politics  than  Venice  or  Saxony,  she  at  once  became  the  most  formidable  power 
in  the  world,  dictated  terms  of  peace  to  the  United  Provinces,  avenged  the  common  injuries 
of  Christendom  on  the  pirates  of  Barbary,  vanquished  the  Spaniards  by  land  and  sea,  seized 
one  of  the  finest  West  India  islands,  and  acquired  on  the  Flemish  coast  a  fortress  which  con- 
soled the  national  pride  for  the  loss  of  Calais.  She  was  supreme  on  the  ocean.  She  was  the 
head  of  the  Protestant  interest.  All  the  Reformed  Churches  scattered  over  Roman  Catholic 
kingdoms  acknowledged  Cromwell  as  their  guardian.  The  Huguenots  of  Languedoc,  the 
shepherds  who,  in  the  hamlets  of  the  Alps,  professed  a  Protestantism  older  than  that  of  Augs- 
burg, were  secured  from  oppression  by  the  mere  terror  of  that  great  name.  The  pope  him- 
self was  forced  to  preach  humanity  and  moderation  to  popish  princes.  For  a  voice  which 
seldom  threatened  in  vain  had  declared  that,  unless  favor  were  shown  to  the  people  of  God, 
the  English  guns  should  be  heard  in  the  Castle  of  Saint  Angelo.  In  truth,  there  was  nothing 
which  Cromwell  had,  for  his  own  sake  and  that  of  his  family,  so  much  reason  to  desire  as  a 
general  religious  war  in  Europe.  In  such  a  war  he  must  have  been  the  captain  of  the  Prot- 
estant armies.  The  heart  of  England  wotdd  have  been  with  him.  His  victories  would  have 
been  hailed  with  a  unanimous  enthusiasm  unknown  in  the  country  since  the  rout  of  the  Ar- 
mada, and  would  have  effaced  the  stain  which  one  act,  condemned  by  the  general  voice  of  the 
nation,  has  left  on  his  splendid  fame.  Unhappily  for  him,  he  had  no  opportunity  of  display- 
ing his  admirable  military  talents  except  against  the  inhabitants  of  the  British  Isles.' — His- 
tory of  England^  ch.  i.    Cnrlyle  says  that  Cromwell  was  the  best  thing  that  England  ever  did. 


§  92.  THE  PDEITAN  CONFLICT.  721 

and  dexterous  management  of  General  Monk,  a  man  of  expediency, 
who  had  successively  served  under  Charles  I.  and  Cromwell,  and  wor- 
shiped with  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  and  Independents,  and  at  last 
returned  to  the  Episcopal  Church.  Charles  II., '  who  never  said  a  fool- 
ish thing,  and  never  did  a  wise  one,'  was  received  with  such  general  en- 
thusiasm on  his  triumphal  march  from  Dover  to  London  that  he  won- 
dered where  his  enemies  were,  or  whether  he  ever  had  any.  The  revo- 
lution of  national  sentiment  was  complete.  The  people  seemed  as  happy 
as  a  set  of  unruly  children  released  from  the  discipline  of  the  school.1 
The  restoration  of  the  monarchy  was  followed  by  the  restoration  of 
Episcopacy  and  the  Liturgy  with  an  exclusiveness  that  did  not  belong 
to  it  before.  The  Savoy  Conference  between  twenty-one  Episcopalians 
and  an  equal  number  of  Presbyterians  (April  15  till  July  25, 1GG1) 
utterly  failed,  and  left  both  parties  more  exasperated  and  irrecon- 
cilable than  before.  The  Churchmen,  once  more  masters  of  the  situa- 
tion, refused  to  make  any  concessions  and  changes.2  Thus  another  op- 
portunity of  comprehension  was  lost.  In  the  revision  of  the  Liturgy, 
which  was  completed  by  Convocation  at  the  close  of  the  same  year 
(Dec.,  1CG1),  approved  by  the  King,  and  ratified  by  Act  of  Parliament 
(April,  1662),  not  the  slightest  regard  was  paid  to  Presbyterian  objec- 
tions, reasonable  or  unreasonable,  although  about  six  hundred  altera- 
tions were  made;  on  the  contrary,  all  the  ritualistic  and  sacerdotal 
features  complained  of  were  retained  and  even  increased.3     The  Act 

1  'Almost  all  the  gentry  of  all  parts  went — some  to  fetch  him  over,  some  to  meet  him  at 
the  sea-side,  some  to  fetch  him  into  London,  into  which  he  entered  on  the  2'Jth  day  of  .May. 
with  a  universal  joy  and  triumph,  even  to  his  own  amazement ;  who,  when  he  saw  all  the 
nobility  and  gentry  of  the  land  flowing  in  to  him,  asked  where  were  his  enemies.  For  he  saw- 
nothing  but  prostrates,  expressing  all  the  love  that  could  make  a  prince  happy.  Indeed,  it 
was  a  wonder  in  that  day  to  see  the  mutability  of  some,  and  the  hypocrisy  of  others,  and  the 
servile  flattery  of  all.  Monk,  like  his  better  genius,  conducted  him.  and  was  adored  like  one 
that  had  brought  all  the  glory  and  felicity  of  mankind  home  with  this  prince.' — Memoirs  of 
the  Life  of  Col.  Hutchinson,  p.  401'. 

2  The  fullest  account  of  the  conference  held  in  the  Savoy  Hospital,  London,  is  given  by 
Baxter,  who  was  a  member,  in  his  Autobiography.  Comp.  Neal,  Cardwell,  Stoughton 
(Restor.  Vol.  I.  p.  157),  Ilallam  (Ch.  XL  Charles  II.  j,  and  Procter  {History  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  p.  LIS).  Uallam  casts  the  chief  blame  on  the  Churchmen,  who  had  it  in 
their  power  to  heal  the  division  and  to  retain  or  to  expel  a  vast  number  of  worthy  clergy- 
men. But  both  parties  Lacked  the  right  temper,  and  smarted  under  the  fresh  recollection  of 
past  grievances.  Baxter  embodied  the  changes  desired  by  the  Puritans  in  his  Liturgy,  tlie 
hasty  work  of  a  fortnight,  which  was  never  used,  but  republished  by  Prof.  Shield  of  Prince- 
ton, Philadelphia,  1H(J7. 

3  Procter  (p.  141) :  'Some  changes  were  made,  in  order  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  favoring 


722  THli  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  Uniformity,  which  received  the  royal  assent  May  19, 1662,  and  took 
effect  on  the  ominous  St.  Bartholomew's  Day,  Aug.  24, 1662  (involun- 
tarily calling  to  mind  the  massacre  of  the  Huguenots),  required  not 
only  from  ministers,  but  also  from  all  schoolmasters,  absolute  con- 
formity to  the  revised  Liturgy  and  episcopal  ordination,  or  reordi na- 
tion. By  this  cruel  act  more  than  two  thousand  Puritan  rectors  and 
vicars — that  is,  about  one  fifth  of  the  English  clergy,  including  such  men 
as  Baxter,  Howe,  Poole,  Owen,  Goodwin,  Bates,  Man  ton,  Caryl — were 
ejected  and  exposed  to  poverty,  public  insult,  fines,  and  imprisonment 
for  no  other  crime  than  obeying  God  rather  than  men.  A  proposition 
in  the  House  of  Commons  to  allow  these  heroes  of  conscience  one  fifth 
of  their  income,  as  the  Long  Parliament  had  done  in  the  removal  of 
royalist  clergymen,  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  ninety-four  to  eighty-seven.1 
Even  the  dead  were  not  spared  by  the  spirit  of  '  mean  revenge.' 
The  magnates  of  the  Commonwealth,  twenty-one  in  number  (includ- 
ing Dr.  Twisse,  the  Prolocutor  of  the  Westminster  Assembly),  who  had 
been  buried  in  Westminster  Abbey  since  1641,  were  exhumed  and 
reinterred  in  a  pit  (Sept.  12, 1661).  Seven  only  were  exempt;  among 
them  Archbishop  Ussher,  who  had  been  buried  there  at  Cromwell's 
express  desire,  and  at  a  cost  of  £200  paid  by  him.     Cromwell  him- 

the  Presbyterian  form  of  Church  government ;  thus,  church,  or  people,  was  substituted  for 
congregation,  and  ministers  in  for  of  the  congregation ;  priests  and  deacons  were  especially 
named  instead  of  pastors  and  ministers.'  The  Apocryphal  lessons  were  retained,  and  the 
legend  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  (omitted  in  1G04)  was  again  introduced  in  the  Calendar  of 
Daily  Lessons,  to  show  contempt  for  the  Puritan  scruples.  In  the  Litany  the  words  '  rebell- 
ion' and  'schism'  were  added  to  the  petition  against  'sedition.' 

1  Dr.  Stoughton,  a  well-informed  and  impartial  historian,  gives  it  as  the  result  of  his  care- 
ful inquiry  that  the  persecution  and  sufferings  of  the  Episcopalians  under  the  Long  Parlia- 
ment and  the  Commonwealth  are  not  to  be  compared  with  the  persecution  of  the  Noncon- 
formists under  Charles  I.  and  Charles  II.  (Ch.  of  the  Commonwealth,  p.  34G).  Hallam  is  of 
the  same  opinion.  Richard  Baxter,  one  of  the  ejected  ministers,  gives  a  sad  account  of  their 
sufferings  :  '  Many  hundreds  of  these,  with  their  wives  and  children,  had  neither  house  nor 
bread.  .  .  .  Their  congregations  had  enough  to  do,  besides  a  small  maintenance,  to  help  them 
out  of  prisons,  or  to  maintain  them  there.  Though  they  were  as  frugal  as  possible,  they 
could  hardly  live ;  some  lived  on  little  more  than  brown  bread  and  water ;  many  had  but 
eight  or  ten  pounds  a  year  to  maintain  a  family,  so  that  a  piece  of  flesh  has  not  come  to  one 
of  their  tables  in  six  weeks'  time  ;  their  allowance  could  scarce  afford  them  bread  and  cheese. 
One  went  to  plow  six  days  and  preached  on  the  Lord's  day.  Another  was  forced  to  cut 
tobacco  for  a  livelihood.  .  .  .  Many  of  the  ministers,  being  afraid  to  lay  down  their  ministry 
after  they  had  been  ordained  to  it,  preached  to  such  as  would  hear  them  in  fields  and  private 
houses,  till  they  were  apprehended  and  cast  into  gaols,  where  many  of  them  perished  '  (quoted 
by  Green,  p.  612).  Baxter  himself  was  repeatedly  imprisoned,  although  he  was  a  royalist 
and  openly  opposed  Cromwell's  rule.  For  many  details  of  suffering,  see  Orme's  Life  of  Bax- 
ter (Lond.  1830),  pp.  22'J  sqq. 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  723 

self,  Ireton,  and  Eradshaw  were  dug  up  Jan.  29,  1CG1,  next  day 
dragged  to  Tyburn,  hanged  (with  their  faces  turned  to  Whitehall), 
decapitated,  and  buried  under  the  gallows.  Cromwell's  head  was 
planted  on  the  top  of  "Westminster  Hall.1 

The  Puritans  were  now  a  target  of  hatred  and  ridicule  as  well  as 
persecution.  They  were  assailed  from  the  pulpit,  the  stage,  and  the 
press  by  cavaliers,  prelatists,  and  libertines  as  a  set  of  hypocritical 
Pharisees  and  crazy  fanatics,  noted  for  their  love  of  Jewish  names,  their 
lank  hair,  their  sour  faces,  their  deep  groans,  their  long  prayers  and  ser- 
mons, their  bigotry  and  cant.2  And  yet  the  same  Puritanism,  blind,  de- 
spised, forsaken,  or  languishing  in  prison,  produced  some  of  the  noblest 
works,  which  can  never  die.  It  was  not  dead — it  was  merely  musing  and 
dreaming,  and  waiting  for  a  resurrection  in  a  nobler  form.  Milton's 
'  Paradise  Lost'  (1GG7)  and  Banyan's  '  Pilgrim's  Progress'  (1G7S)  are  the 
shining  lights  which  illuminate  the  darkness  of  that  disgraceful  period.3 

1  Stanley's  Mat.  Memorials  of  Westminster  Abbey,  pp.191  sq.,  247, 320(3d  ed.Lond.  1869). 

2  Butler's  Hudilras  fairly  reflects  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  the  Restoration  period  about 
the  Puritans.    He  caricatures  them  in  liis  mock-heroic  style  (Part  I.  Canto  I.  vers.  192  sqq.)  as 

■  That  stubborn  crew 
Of  errant  saint.*,  whom  all  men  grant 
To  be  the  true  Church  militant : 
Such  as  do  build  their  faith  upon 
The  holy  text  of  pike  and  gun  ; 
Decide  all  controversy  by 
Infallible  artillery; 
And  prove  their  doctrine  orthodox 
By  apostolic  blows  and  knocks ; 
Call  fire,  aud  sword,  and  desolation 
A  godly  thorough  Reformation, 
Which  always  must  be  carried  on, 
Aud  still  be  doing,  never  done, 
As  if  religion  were  intended 
For  nothing  else  but  to  be  mended.' 

3  'Puritanism,'  says  an  Oxford  historian,  'ceased  from  the  long  attempt  to  build  up  a 
kingdom  of  God  by  force  and  violence,  and  fell  back  on  its  truer  work  of  building  up  a  king- 
dom of  righteousness  in  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men.  It  was  from  the  moment  of  its 
seeming  fall  that  its  real  victory  began.  As  soon  as  the  wild  orgy  of  the  Restoration  was 
over,  men  began  to  see  that  nothing  that  was  really  worthy  in  the  work  of  Puritanism  had 
been  undone.  The  revels  of  Whitehall,  the  skepticism  and  debauchery  of  courtiers,  the  cor- 
ruption of  statesmen,  left  the  mass  of  Englishmen  what  Puritanism  had  made  them — serious, 
earnest,  sober  in  life  and  conduct,  firm  in  their  love  of  Protestantism  and  of  freedom.  In 
the  Revolution  of  1688  Puritanism  did  the  work  of  civil  liberty,  which  it  had  failed  to  do  in 
that  of  IG42.  It  wrought  out  through  Wesley  and  the  revival  of  the  eighteenth  century  the 
work  of  religious  reform  which  its  earlier  efforts  had  only  thrown  back  for  a  hundred  years. 
Slowly,  but  steadily,  it  introduced  its  own  seriousness  and  purity  into  English  society,  En- 
glish literature,  English  politics.  The  whole  history  of  English  progress,  since  the  Restora- 
tion, on  its  moral  and  spiritual  sides,  has  been  the  history  of  Puritanism. ' — J.  R.  Green's 
Short  History  of  the  Eixjlish  People,  p.  T.8G 


724  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

With  the  Restoration  rushed  in  a  flood  of  frivolity  and  immorality ; 
the  King  himself  setting  the  example  by  his  shameless  adulteries, 
which  he  blazoned  to  the  world  by  raising  his  numerous  mistresses 
and  bastards  to  the  rank  and  wealth  of  the  nobility  of  proud  old 
England.  '  The  violent  return  to  the  senses,'  says  a  French  writer 
who  has  not  the  slightest  sympathy  with  Puritanism, 'drowned  moral- 
ity. Virtue  had  the  semblance  of  Puritanism.  Duty  and  fanaticism 
became  mingled  in  a  common  reproach. '  In  this  great  reaction,  devo- 
tion and  honesty,  swept  away  together,  left  to  mankind  but  the  wreck 
and  the  mire.  The  more  excellent  parts  of  human  nature  disappeared  ; 
there  remained  but  the  animal,  without  bridle  or  guide,  urged  by  his 
desires  beyond  justice  and  shame." 

THE    REVOLUTION. 

Bad  as  was  Charles  II.  (1660-1685),  his  brother,  James  II.  (1685- 
1688),  was  worse.  He  seemed  to  combine  the  vices  of  the  Stuarts 
without  their  redeeming  traits.  Charles,  indifferent  to  religion  and 
defiant  to  virtue  during  his  life,  sent  on  his  death-bed  for  a  Romish 
priest  to  give  him  absolution  for  his  debaucheries.  James  openly  pro- 
fessed his  conversion  to  Romanism,  filled  in  defiance  of  law  the  highest 
posts  in  the  army  and  the  cabinet  with  Romanists,  and  opened  negotia- 
tions with  Pope  Innocent  XL  At  the  same  time  he  persecuted  with 
heartless  cruelty  the  Protestant  Dissenters,  and  outraged  justice  by  a 
series  of  judicial  murders  which  have  made  the  name  of  Chief  Justice 
Jeffreys  as  infamous  as  Nero's. 

At  last  the  patience  of  the  English  people  was  again  exhausted,  the 
incurable  race  of  the  Stuarts,  unwilling  to  learn  and  to  forget  any 
thing,  was  forever  hurled  from  the  throne,  and  the  Prince  of  Orange, 
who  had  married  Mary,  the  eldest  daughter  of  James,  was  invited  to 
rule  England  as  William  III. 

THE    RESULT. 

The  Revolution  of  16S8  was  a  political  triumph  of  Puritanism,  and 
secured  to  the  nation  constitutional  liberty  and  the  Protestant  religion. 
The  Episcopal  Church  remained  the  established  national  Church,  but 

1  Taine's  Hislonj  of  English  Literature,  vol.  i.  p.  4G1  (Am.  ed.). 


§  92.  THE  PURITAN  CONFLICT.  725 

the  Act  of  Toleration  of  1GS0  guaranteed  liberty  and  legal  protec- 
tion to  such  Nonconformists  as  could  subscribe  thirty-five  and  a  half 
of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Religion,  omitting  those  to  -which  the 
Puritans  had  conscientious  scruples.  Though  very  limited,  this  Act 
marked  a  great  progress.  It  broke  up  the  reign  of  intolerance,  and 
virtually  destroyed  the  principle  of  uniformity.  The  Act  of  Uniform- 
ity of  1G62  was  intended  for  the  whole  kingdom,  and  proceeded  on  the 
theory  of  an  ecclesiastical  incorporation  of  all  Englishmen  ;  now  it  was 
confined  to  the  patronized  State  Church.  It  recognized  none  but  the 
Episcopal  form  of  worship,  and  treated  non-Episcopalians  as  disloyal 
subjects,  as  culprits  and  felons;  now  other  Protestant  Christians — 
Presbyterians,  Independents,  Baptists,  and  even  Quakers — were  placed 
under  the  protection  of  the  law,  and  permitted  to  build  chapels  and  to 
maintain  pastors  at  their  own  expense.  The  fact  was  recognized  that 
a  man  may  be  a  good  citizen  and  a  Christian  without  conforming  to  the 
State  religion.  Uniformity  had  proved  an  intolerable  tyranny,  and  had 
failed.  Comprehension  of  different  denominations  under  one  national 
Church,  though  favored  by  William,  seemed  impracticable.  Limited 
toleration  opened  the  way  for  full  liberty  and  equality  of  Christian 
denominations  before  the  law ;  and  from  the  soil  of  liberty  there  will 
spring  up  a  truer  and  deeper  union  than  can  be  secured  by  any  com- 
pulsion in  the  domain  of  conscience,  which  belongs  to  God  alone. 

Puritanism  did  not  struggle  in  vain.  Though  it  failed  as  a  national 
movement,  owing  to  its  one-sidedness  and  want  of  catholicity,  it  ac- 
complished much.  It  produced  statesmen  like  Hampden,  soldiers  like 
Cromwell,  poets  like  Milton,  preachers  like  Howe,  theologians  like  Owen, 
dreamers  like  Banyan,  hymnists  like  Watts,  commentators  like  Henry, 
and  saints  like  Baxter,  who  though  dead  yet  speak.  It  lives  on  as  a  pow- 
erful moral  element  in  the  English  nation,  in  the  English  Church,  in 
English  society,  in  English  literature.  It  has  won  the  esteem  of  the 
descendants  of  its  enemies.  In  our  day  the  Duke  of  Bedford  erected  a 
statue  to  Bunyan  (1874)  in  the  place  where  he  had  suffered  in  prison  for 
twelve  years;  and  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  and  Independents  united 
in  a  similar  tribute  of  justice  and  gratitude  to  the  memory  of  Baxter  at 
Kidderminster  (1875),  where  he  is  again  pointing  his  uplifted  arm  to  the 
saints'  everlasting  rest.  The  liberal-minded  and  large-hearted  dean  of 
Westminster  represented  the  nobler  part  of  the  English  people  when  he 


72G  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

canonized  those  great  and  good  men  in  his  memorial  discourses  at  the 
unveiling  of  their  statues.  Puritanism  lives  moreover  in  New  England, 
which  was  born  of  the  persecutions  and  trials  of  its  fathers  and  founders 
in  old  England,  and  gave  birth  to  a  republic  truer,  mightier,  and  more 
enduring  than  the  ephemeral  military  commonwealth  of  Cromwell.  It 
will  continue  to  preserve  and  spread  all  over  the  Saxon  world  the  love 
of  purity,  simplicity,  spirituality,  practical  energy,  liberty,  and  progress 
in  the  Christian  Church. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  for  the  children  of  the  Puritans  to  honor  the 
shining  lights  of  the  Church  of  England  who  stood  by  her  in  the  days 
of  her  trial  and  persecution.  That  man  is  to  be  pitied  indeed  who 
would  allow  the  theological  passions  of  an  intolerant  age  to  blind  his 
mind  to  the  learning,  the  genius,  and  the  piety  of  Ussher,  Andre  wes, 
Hall,  Pearson,  Prideaux,  Jeremy  Taylor,  Barrow,  and  Leighton,  whom 
God  has  enriched  with  his  gifts  for  the  benefit  of  all  denominations. 
It  is  good  for  the  Church  of  England — it  is  good  for  the  whole 
Christian  world — that  she  survived  the  fierce  conflict  of  the  seventeenth 
century  and  the  indifferentism  of  the  eighteenth  to  take  care  of  vener- 
able cathedrals,  deaneries,  cloisters,  universities,  and  libraries,  to  culti- 
vate the  study  of  the  fathers  and  schoolmen,  to  maintain  the  impor- 
tance of  historical  continuity  and  connection  with  Christian  antiquity, 
to  satisfy  the  taste  for  stability,  dignity,  and  propriety  in  the  house  of 
God,  and  to  administer  to  the  spiritual  wants  of  the  aristocracy  and 
peasantry,  and  all  those  who  can  worship  God  most  acceptably  in  the 
solemn  prayers  of  her  liturgy,  which,  with  all  its  defects,  must  be  pro- 
nounced the  best  ever  used  in  divine  service. 

While  the  fierce  conflict  about  religion  was  raging,  there  were  pro- 
phetic men  of  moderation  and  comprehension  on  both  sides — 
'  Whose  dying  pens  did  write  of  Christian  union, 

How  Church  with  Church  might  safely  keep  communion ; 

Who  finding  discords  daily  to  increase, 

Because  they  could  not  live,  would  die,  in  peace.' 

In  a  sermon  before  the  House  of  Commons,  under  the  arched  roof 
of  Westminster  Abbey,  Richard  Baxter  uttered  this  sentence :  '  Men 
that  differ  about  bishops,  ceremonies,  and  forms  of  prayer,  may  be  all 
true  Christians,  and  dear  to  one  another  and  to  Christ,  if  they  be  prac- 
tically agreed  in  the  life  of  godliness,  and  join  in  a  holy,  heavenly  con- 
versation.    But  if  you  agree  in  all  your  opinions  and  formalities,  and 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  727 

yet  were  never  sanctified  by  the  truth,  you  do  but  agree  to  delude  your 
souls,  and  neither  of  you  will  be  saved  for  all  your  agreement.' ' 

This  is  a  noble  Christian  sentiment,  echoing  the  words  of  a  greater 
man  than  Baxter :  '  In  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  any 
thing,  nor  uncircumcision,' — we  may  add,  neither  surplice  nor  gown, 
neither  kneeling  nor  standing,  neither  episcopacy  nor  presbytery  nor 
independency — '  but  a  new  creature.' 2 

§  93.  The  Westminster  Assembly. 

Literature. 
I.  Original  Sources. 

The  Westminster  Standards— see  §  94. 

Minutes  of  the  Sessions  of  the  Westminster  Assembi.y  of  Ditines  (from  Nov.  1644  to  March,  1G49). 
From  Transcripts  of  the  Originals  procured  by  a  Committee  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  ed.  by  the  Rev.  Alex.  F.  Mitchell,  D.D.,a>irf  the  Rev.  John  Struthers,  LL.D.  Ediub.  and  Loud. 
1ST4.  (The  MS.  Minutes  of  the  Westm.  Assembly  from  1043  to  1G52,  formerly  supposed  to  have  been  lost 
in  the  London  lire,  of  16C6,  were  recently  discovered  in  Dr.  Williams's  library,  Grafton  St.,  London,  and 
form  3  vols,  of  foolscap  fol.  They  are  mostly  in  the  handwriting  of  Adoniram  Byfield,  one  of  the 
scribes  of  the  Assembly.  A  complete  copy  was  made  for  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, and  is  preserved  in  Edinburgh.  They  are,  upon  the  whole,  rather  meagre,  and  give  only  the  re- 
sults, with  brief  extracts  from  the  speeches,  without  the  arguments.) 

Robert  Baillie  (Principal  of  the  University  of  Glasgow,  and  one  of  the  Scotch  delegates  to  the  As- 
sembly of  Westminster,  b.  1599,  d.  1062) :  Letters  a7id  Journals  ed.from  the  author's  MSS.  by  David  Laing, 
Esq.  Ediub.  1S41-42,  3  vols.  (These  Letters  and  Journals  extend  from  Jan.  163T  to  May,  1662,  and  ex- 
hibit in  a  lively  and  graphic  manner  '  the  stirring  scenes  of  a  great  national  drama,'  with  the  hopes  and 
fears  of  the  time.    Vol.  II.  and  part  of  Vol.  III.  bear  upon  the  Westm.  Assembly.) 

John  Lioiitfoot,  D.D.  (Master  of  Catharine  Hall  and  Vice-Chancellor  of  Cambridge,  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Westm.  Assembly,  b.  1602,  d.  1G75) :  Journal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines 
from  Jan.  1, 1643  to  Dec.  31, 1644.  In  Vol.  XIII.  pp.  1-344  of  his  Whole  Works,  ed.  by  John  Rogers  Pitman 
(Lond.  1S25,  in  13  vols.). 

George  Gillest-ie  (the  youngest  of  the  Scotch  Commissioners  to  the  Assembly,  d.  164S):  Xotes  of  De- 
bates atid  Proceedings  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  ed.  from  the  MSS.  by  David  Meek,  Ediub.  1S46. 
Comp.  also  Gillespie's  Aaron's  Rod  Blossoming  (a  very  able  defense  of  Presbyterianism  against  Inde- 
pendency and  Erastianism),  Lond.  1C4G,  republ.  with  his  other  works  and  a  memoir  of  his  life  by  Hkth- 
erington,  Ediub.  1S44-40,  2  vols. 

Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords  and  the  House  of  Commons  from  1643  to  1649. 

John  Rusuworth  (assistant  clerk  and  messenger  of  the  Long  Parliament,  and  afterwards  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  d.  1690) :  Historical  Collections  of  remarkable  Proceedings  in  Parliament. 
Lond.  1721,  7  vols. 

(The  'fourteen  or  fifteen  octavo  vols.'  of  daily  proceedings  which  Dr.  Thomas  Goodwin,  the  eminent 
Independent  member  of  the  Assembly,  is  reported  by  his  son  to  have  written  'with  his  own  hand,' 
have  never  been  published  or  identified.  They  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  three  folio  vols,  of 
official  minutes  in  Dr.  Williams's  library.) 

Historical. 

The  respective  sections  in  Fuller  (Vol.  VI.  pp.  247  sqq.),  Neat.  (Part  III.  chaps.  2,  4,  6,  S,  10),  Stougii- 
ton  (Vol.  I.  pp.  271,  327,  44S  sqq.),  Mabson  {Life  of  Milton,  Vols.  II.  and  III.),  and  other  works  mentioned 
in  §  92. 

W.  M.  Hetderington  :  History  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines.    Edinb.  1843 ;  New  York,  1844. 

James  Rkid  :  Memoirs  of  the  Lives  and  Writings  of  those  eminent  Divines  who  convened  in  the  famous 
Assembly  at  Westminster.    Paisley,  1S11  and  1815,  2  vols. 

Gen.  von  Rudlofk:  Die  Westminster  Synode,  1643-1649.  In  Niedner's  Zritschrift  fur  die  histor.  Thco- 
logie  for  1S50,  pp.  23S-296.    (The  best  account  of  the  Assembly  in  the  German  language.) 

1  Vain  Religion  of  the  Formal  Hypocrite.  Baxter's  Works,  Vol.  XVII.  p.  80.  Quoted 
by  Stoughton,  p.  195.  The  sermon  was  preached  Apr.  30,  10GO,  just  before  the  recall  of 
Charles  II.     See  Orme,  Life  of  Baxter,  p.  100. 

2  Gal.  vi.  15. 

Vol.  I. — A  a  a 


728  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

P.  Schaff:  Art.  Westminster  Synode,  etc.,  in  Herzog's  Real-Encykl.  Yo\.  XVIII.  pp.  52  sqq.,  and  Art. 
on  the  same  subject  in  the  Am.  Presbyterian  Review  for  1865,  pp.  179  sqq. 

Tiios.  M'Crie:  Annals  of  English  Presbytery  from  the  Earliest  to  the  Present  Time.     Loud.  1872. 

J.  B.  Bittingee:  The  Formation  of  our  Standards,  in  the  'Presbyterian  Quarterly  and  Princeton  Re- 
view '  for  July,  1S76,  pp.  3S7  sqq. 

Alexander  Mitchell,  D.D.  (Prof,  of  Ch.  Hist,  at  St.  Andrews,  and  ed.  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Assem- 
bly) :  Art.  Westminster  Assembly  and  Standards,  in  Johnson's  Universal  Cyclopaedia,  Vol.  IV.  New  York 
(to  be  published  in  1877). 

IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    ASSEMBLY. 

It  was  after  such  antecedents,  and  in  such  surroundings,  that  the 
"Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines  was  called  to  legislate  for  Christian 
doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline  in  three  kingdoms.  It  forms  the  most 
important  chapter  in  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  England  during  the 
seventeenth  century.  Whether  we  look  at  the  extent  or  ability  of  its 
labors,  or  its  influence  upon  future  generations,  it  stands  first  among 
Protestant  Councils.  The  Synod  of  Dort  was  indeed  fully  equal  to  it 
in  learning  and  moral  weight,  and  was  more  general  in  its  composi- 
tion, since  it  embraced  delegates  from  nearly  all  Reformed  Churches ; 
while  the  "Westminster  Assembly  was  purely  English  and  Scotch,  and  its 
standards  even  to-day  are  little  known  on  the  Continent  of  Europe.1 
But  the  doctrinal  legislation  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  was  confined  to  the 
five  points  at  issue  between  Calvinism  and  Arminianism ;  the  Assem- 
bly of  "Westminster  embraced  the  whole  field  of  theology,  from  the 
eternal  decrees  of  God  to  the  final  judgment.  The  Canons  of  Dort 
have  lost  their  hold  upon  the  mother  country ;  the  Confession  and 
Shorter  Catechism  of  "Westminster  are  as  much  used  now  in  Anglo- 
Presbyterian  Churches  as  ever,  and  have  more  vitality  and  influence 
than  any  other  Calvinistic  Confession. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  an  intense  partisan  like  Clarendon  should 
disparage  this  Assembly.2    Milton's  censure  is  neutralized  by  his  praise, 

1  It  is  characteristic  that  Dr.  Niemeycr  published  his  collection  of  Reformed  Confessions, 
the  most  complete  we  have,  at  first  without  the  Westminster  Standards,  being  unable  to  find 
a  copy,  and  issued  them  afterwards  in  a  supplement.  Dr.  Winer  barely  mentions  the 
Westminster  Confession  in  his  Symbolik,  and  never  quotes  from  it.  If  German  Church  his- 
torians (including  Gieseler)  were  to  be  judged  by  their  knowledge  of  English  and  American 
affairs,  they  would  lose  much  of  the  esteem  in  which  they  are  justly  held.  What  lies  west- 
ward is  a  terra  incognita  to  most  of  them.  They  are  much  more  at  home  in  the  by-ways 
of  the  remote  past  than  in  the  living  Church  of  the  present,  outside  of  Germany. 

'2  Clarendon,  who  hated  Presbyterianism  as  a  plebeian  religion  unfit  for  a  gentleman,  dis- 
poses of  the  Westminster  Assembly  in  a  few  summary  and  contemptuous  sentences :  '  Of 
about  one  hundred  and  twenty  members,'  he  says,  'of  which  the  Assembly  was  to  consist, 
a  few  very  reverend  and  worthy  persons  were  inserted ;  yet  of  the  whole  number  there  were 
not  above  twenty  who  were  not  declared  and  avowed  enemies  of  the  doctrine  or  discipline 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  709 

for,  although  lie  hated  presbytery  only  less  than  episcopacy,  he  called 
the  Assembly  a  '  select  assembly,' '  a  learned  and  memorable  synod,'  in 
which  'piety,  learning,  and  prudence  were  housed.'  This  was  two  years 
after  the  Assembly  had  met,  when  its  character  was  fully  shown.  He 
afterwards  changed  his  mind,  chiefly  for  a  personal  reason — in  con- 
sequence of  the  deservedly  bad  reception  of  his  unfortunate  book  on 
'Divorce,'  which  he  had  dedicated  in  complimentary  terms  to  this  very 
Assembly  and  to  the  Long  Parliament.1 

Richard  Baxter,  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  Assembly,  but  knew 
it  well,  and  was  a  better  judge  of  its  theological  and  religious  charac- 
ter than  either  Clarendon  or  Milton,  pays  it  this  just  tribute :  '  The 
divines  there  congregated  were  men  of  eminent  learning,  godliness, 
ministerial  abilities,  and  fidelity ;  and  being  not  worthy  to  be  one  of 
them  myself,  I  may  the  more  freely  speak  the  truth,  even  in  the  face 
of  malice  and  envy,  that,  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge  by  the  infor- 
mation of  all  history  of  that  kind,  and  by  any  other  evidences  left  us, 
the  Christian  world,  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  had  never  a  synod 
of  more  excellent  divines  (taking  one  thing  with  another)  than  this 
and  the  Synod  of  Dort.'  He  adds,  however,  '  Yet,  highly  as  I  honor 
the  men,  I  am  not  of  their  mind  in  every  part  of  the  government  which 
they  have  set  up.  Some  words  in  their  Catechism  I  wish  had  been 
more  clear;  and,  above  all,  I  wish  that  the  Parliament,  and  their  more 
skillful  hand,  had  done  more  than  was  done  to  heal  our  breaches,  and 
had  hit  upon  the  right  way,  either  to  unite  with  the  Episcopalians  and 
Independents,  or,  at  least,  had  pitched  on  the  terms  that  are  fit  for  uni- 
versal concord,  and  left  all  to  come  in  upon  those  terms  that  would.' 2 

of  the  Church  of  England ;  some  were  infamous  in  their  lives  and  conversations,  and  most 
of  them  of  very  mean  parts  in  learning,  if  not  of  scandalous  ignorance ;  and  of  no  other 
reputation  hut  of  malice  to  the  Church  of  England.'  These  charges  are  utterly  without 
foundation,  and  belong  to  the  many  misrepresentations  and  falsehoods  which  disfigure  his 
otherwise  classical  History  of  the  Rebellion.     The  number  of  members  was  151. 

1  In  his  Fragments  of  a  History  of  England  (1G70),  Milton  speaks  both  of  the  Long  Par- 
liament and  the  Assembly  in  vindictive  scorn,  and  calls  the  latter  'a  certain  number  of  divines 
neither  chosen  by  any  rule  or  custom  ecclesiastical,  nor  eminent  for  either  piety  or  knowledge 
above  others  left  out ;  only  as  each  member  of  Parliament,  in  his  private  fancy,  thought  fit, 
60  elected  one  by  one.'  He  charges  them  with  inconsistency  in  becoming  pluralist!  and  non- 
residents, and  with  intolerance,  as  if 'the  spiritual  power  of  their  ministry  were  less  available 
than  bodily  compulsion,'  and  the  authority  of  the  magistrate  '  a  stronger  means  to  subdue  and 
bring  in  conscience  than  evangelical  persuasion.'  On  his  unhappy  marriage  and  his  tracts  on 
Divorce  growing  out  of  it,  see  Masson,  Vol.  IK.  pp.  42  sqq. 

3  Life  and  Times,  Pt.  I.  p.  7.''.      ( 'cmp.  <  >nnc"s  Life  of  Baxter,  p.  GO. 


730  THE  CEEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Hallam  censures  the  Assembly  for  its  intolerant  principles,  but  ad- 
mits that  it  was  'perhaps  equal  in  learning,  good  sense,  and  other 
merits  to  any  Lower  House  of  Convocation  that  ever  made  a  figure  in 
England.'  One  of  the  best-informed  German  historians  says  of  the 
Assembly :  '  A  more  zealous,  intelligent,  and  learned  body  of  divines 
seldom  ever  met  in  Christendom.' l 

The  chief  fault  of  the  Assembly  was  that  it  clung  to  the  idea  of  a 
national  State  Church,  with  a  uniform  system  of  doctrine,  worship,  and 
discipline,  to  which  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  three  kingdoms 
should  conform.  But  this  was  the  error  of  the  age ;  and  it  was  only 
after  a  series  of  failures  and  persecutions  that  the  idea  of  religious 
freedom  took  root  in  English  soil. 

APPOINTMENT   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

Soon  after  the  opening  of  the  Long  Parliament  the  convening  of  a  con- 
ference of  divines  for  the  settlement  of  the  theological  and  ecclesiastical 
part  of  the  great  conflict  suggested  itself  to  the  minds  of  leading  men. 
The  first  bill  of  Parliament  to  that  effect  was  conceived  in  a  spirit  hostile 
to  the  Episcopal  hierarchy,  but  rather  friendly  to  the  ancient  liturgy, 
and  was  passed  Oct.  15, 1642,  but  failed  for  the  want  of  royal  assent. 

As  the  king's  concurrence  became  hopeless,  Parliament  issued  on  its 
own  responsibility  an  ordinance,  June  12,  1643,  commanding  that  an 
assembly  of  divines  should  be  convened  at  Westminster,  in  London,  on 
the  first  day  of  July  following,  to  effect  a  more  perfect  reformation  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  its  liturgy,  discipline,  and  government  on  the 
basis  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  thus  to  bring  it  into  nearer  agreement 
with  the  Church  of  Scotland  and  the  Reformed  Churches  on  the  Con- 
tinent. Presbyterianism  was  not  mentioned,  but  pretty  plainly  pointed 
at.  The  Assembly  was  to  consist  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  mem- 
bers in  all,  viz.,  thirty  lay  assessors  (ten  Lords  and  twenty  Commoners), 
who  were  named  first,2  and  included  such  eminent  scholars,  lawyers, 
and  statesmen  as  John  Selden,  John  Pym,  Boulstrode  Whitelocke, 
Oliver  St.  John,  Sir  Benjamin  Rudyard,  and  Sir  Henry  Vane,  and  of 

1  General  Rudloff,  in  his  article  above  quoted,  p.  2G3. 

'  '  There  must  be  some  laymen  in  the  Synod  to  overlook  the  clergy,  lest  they  spoil  the 
civil  work  ;  just  as  when  the  good  woman  puts  a  cat  into  the  milk-house  to  kill  a  mouse,  she 
sends  her  maid  to  look  after  the  cat,  lest  the  cat  eat  up  the  cream.' — Selden,  Table-Talk, 
\>.  169.     (Quoted  by  Stoughton  and  Stanley.) 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  731 

one  hundred  and  twenty-one  divines,  who  were  selected  from  the  dif- 
ferent counties,  chiefly  from  among  the  Presbyterians,  with  a  few  of 
the  most  influential  Episcopalians  and  Independents.  Forty  members 
constituted  a  quorum. 

The  Assembly  was  thus  created  by  State  authority.  In  like  manner, 
the  ancient  oecumenical  councils  were  called  by  emperors,  and  the 
Synod  of  Dort  by  the  government  of  the  United  Provinces.  The 
English  Convocations  also  can  not  meet,  nor  make  canons,  nor  discuss 
topics  without  royal  license.  The  twenty-first  of  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  forbids  the  calling  of  General  Councils  except  'by  the  com- 
mand and  will  of  princes.'  Parliament  now  exercised  the  privilege 
of  the  crown,  and  usurped  the  ecclesiastical  supremacy.  It  nominated 
all  the  members,  with  the  exception  of  the  Scotch  commissioners,  who 
were  appointed  by  the  General  Assembly,  and  were  admitted  by  Parlia- 
ment. It  fixed  the  time  and  place  of  meeting,  it  prescribed  the  work, 
and  it  paid  the  expenses  (allowing  to  each  member  four  shillings  a  day)  ; 
it  even  chose  the  prolocutor  and  scribes,  filled  the  vacancies,  and  re- 
served to  its  own  authority  all  final  decision ;  reducing  thus  the  As- 
sembly to  an  advisory  council.  Hence  even  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession was  presented  to  Parliament  simply  as  a  'humble  Advice.' 
But  with  all  its  horror  of  ecclesiastical  despotism,  engendered  by  the 
misgovernment  of  Laud,  the  Long  Parliament  was  the  most  religious 
political  assembly  that  ever  met  in  or  out  of  England,  and  was  thor- 
oughly controlled  by  the  stern  spirit  of  Puritanism.  Once  constituted, 
the  Assembly  was  not  interfered  with,  and  enjoyed  the  fullest  freedom 
of  debate.  Its  standards  were  wholly  the  work  of  competent  divines, 
and  received  the  full  and  independent  assent  of  ecclesiastical  bodies. 

The  king  by  proclamation  prohibited  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly, 
and  threatened  those  who  disobeyed  his  order  with  the  loss  of  all  their 
ecclesiastical  livings  and  promotions.  This  unfortunately  prevented 
the  attendance  of  loyal  Episcopalians. 

COMPOSITION    AND    PARTIES. 

It  was  the  intention  of  Parliament  to  comprehend  within  the  As- 
sembly representatives  of  all  the  leading  parties  of  the  English  Church 
with  the  exception  of  that  of  Archbishop  Laud,  whose  exclusive  High- 
Churchism  and  despotism  had  been  the  chief  cause  of  the  troubles  in 


732  THE  CllEEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Church  and  State,  and  make  co-operation  impossible.1  The  selection 
was  upon  the  whole  judicious,  though  some  of  the  ablest  and  soundest 
Puritan  divines,  as  Richard  Baxter  and  John  Owen,  were  omitted.  Scot- 
land came  in  afterwards,  but  in  time  to  be  of  essential  service  and  to 
give  the  Assembly  a  strong  Presbyterian  preponderance.  The  Colonial 
Churches  of  New  England  were  invited  by  a  letter  from  members  of 
Parliament  (Sept.,  1642)  to  send  the  Rev.  John  Cotton,  Thomas  Hooker, 
and  John  Davenport  as  delegates ;  but  they  declined,  because  compli- 
ance would  subject  them  to  all  the  laws  that  might  be  made,  and  might 
prove  prejudicial  to  them.  Hooker,  of  Hartford,  '  liked  not  the  busi- 
ness,' and  deemed  it  his  duty  rather  to  stay  in  quiet  and  obscurity  with 
his  people  in  Connecticut  than  to  go  three  thousand  miles  to  plead  for 
Independency  with  Presbyterians  in  England.  Davenport  could  not 
obtain  leave  from  his  congregation  at  New  Haven.  Cotton,  of  Boston, 
would  not  go  alone.2 

The  Assembly  itself,  by  direction  of  Parliament,  addressed  fraternal 
letters  to  the  Belgic,  French,  Helvetic,  and  other  Reformed  Churches 
(Nov.  30, 1643),  and  received  favorable  replies,  especially  from  Holland, 
Switzerland,  and  the  Huguenot  congregation  in  Paris.3  Hesse  Cassel 
advised  against  meddling  with  the  bishops.  The  king  issued  a  counter 
manifesto  from  Oxford,  May  14, 1644,  in  Latin  and  English,  to  all  for- 
eign Protestants,  and  denied  the  charge  of  designing  to  introduce 
popery.4 

As  to  doctrine,  there  was  no  serious  difference  among  the  members. 
They  all  held  the  Calvinistic  system  with  more  or  less  rigor.  There 
were  no  Arminians,  Pelagians,  or  Antinomians  among  them. 

But  in  regard  to  Church  government  and  discipline  the  Assembly 
was  by  no  means  a  unit,  although  the  Scotch  Presbyterian  polity 
ultimately  prevailed,  and  became  for  a  brief  season,  by  act  of  Parlia- 
ment, even  the  established  form  of  government  in  England.  The  most 
frequent  and  earnest  debates  were  on  this  point  rather  than  on  doctrine 

1  Laud  says  of  the  Assembly  :  '  The  greatest  part  of  them  were  Brownists,  or  Independ- 
ents, or  New  England  ministers,  if  not  worse ;  or  at  best  enemies  to  the  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Church  of  England,'  The  facts  are,  that  the  Independents  were  a  small  mi- 
nority, and  that  New  England  was  not  represented  at  all. 

2  Masson,  Life  o/Milton,Yo\.  II.  p.  605;  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  States  of  America 
(Centennial  ed.  187G),  Vol.  I.  pp.  331,  332. 

3  See  the  correspondence  in  Neal,  Vol.  I.  pp.  470  sqq.  (Harper's  ed.)- 

4  Neal,  Vol.  I.  p.  472. 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  733 

and  worship.  This  conflict  prevented  the  Assembly,  says  Xeal  (an  In- 
dependent), from  'laying  the  top  stone  of  the  building,  so  that  it  fell  to 
pieces  before  it  was  perfected.'  Hereafter  the  common  name  of  Pur- 
itans gave  way  to  the  party  names  of  Presbyterians  and  Independents. 
We  may  arrange  the  members  of  the  Assembly  under  four  sections :' 
1.  The  Episcopalians.  Parliament  elected  four  prelates, viz. :  James 
[Jbshee  (Archbishop  of  Armagh  and  Bishop  of  Carlisle),  Beownkigg 
(Bishop  of  Exeter),  Westfield  (Bishop  of  Bristol),  Peidealx  (Bishop 
of  Worcester);2  and  five  doctors  of  divinity, viz. :  Drs.  Featley  (Prov- 
ost of  Chelsea  College),  Hammond  (Canon  of  Christ's  Church,  Oxford), 
Holdswortii  (Master  of  Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge),  Sanderson 
(afterwards  Bishop  of  Lincoln),  and  Mokley  (afterwards  Bishop  of 
Winchester).  An  excellent  selection.  But  with  one  or  two  exceptions 
they  never  attended,  and  could  not  do  so  without  disloyalty  and  disobe- 
dience to  the  king;  besides,  they  objected  to  the  company  with  an 
overwhelming  number  of  Puritans,  and  a  council  not  elected  by  the 
clergy  and  mixed  with  laymen.  Ussher  is  said  to  have  attended  once, 
but  on  no  good  authority ;  he  was  present,  however,  in  spirit,  and 
great  respect  was  paid  to  his  theology  by  the  Assembly.3  Brownrigg 
sent  in  an  excuse  for  non-attendance.  Westfield  was  present,  at  least, 
at  the  first  meeting.  Dr.  Featley,  a  learned  Calvinist  in  doctrine,  and 
a  violent  polemic  against  the  Baptists,  was  the  only  Episcopalian 
who  attended  regularly  and  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  proceedings 
until,  after  the  adoption  of  the  Scotch  Covenant,  he  was  expelled  by 
Parliament  for  revealing,  contrary  to  pledge,  the  secrets  of  the  Assem- 
bly in  a  letter  to  Ussher,  then  in  the  king's  headquarters  at  Oxford, 
and  was  committed  to  prison  (Sept.  30, 1G43).  This  act  of  severity  is 
strongly  condemned  by  Baxter.  Here  ends  the  connection  of  Episco- 
pacy with  the  Assembly. 

Before  this  time  Parliament  had  been  seriously  agitated  by  the 
Episcopal  question.  As  early  as  Nov.  13, 1G40,  the  '  Root  and  Branch' 
party  sent  in  a  petition  signed  by  15,000  Londoners  for  the  total  over- 

1  Comp.  the  full  accounts  in  Neal,  Part  III.  cli.  iv.  (Vol.  I.  pp.  488  sqq.),  Iletherington, 
Stoughton,  and  Rfasaon. 

•  l'rideaux's  name  seems  to  have  heen  omitted  in  the  final  ordinance  of  June,  1643. 

'■'  l's>her  was  a  second  time  appointed  by  the  House  of  Commons  a  member  of  the  Assem- 
bly when  he  came  to  London  in  1847,  and  on  his  petition  received  permission  to  preach  in 
Lincoln's  Inn. — Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  Vol.  V.  ]>.  428  (quoted  by  Dr.  Mitchell). 


73-i  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

throw  of  the  Episcopal  hierarchy,  while  TOO  clerical  petitioners  prayed 
merely  for  a  reduction  and  modification  of  the  same.  Radicalism  tri- 
umphed at  last  under  the  pressure  of  political  necessity  and  the  popular 
indignation  created  by  Laud's  heartless  tyranny.  First  the  bishops 
were  excluded  from  the  House  of  Lords  (Feb.  5, 1642),  with  the  re- 
luctant assent  of  the  king ;  and  then  the  hierarchy  itself  was  decreed 
out  of  existence  (Sept.  10, 1642),  the  bill  to  take  effect  Nov.  5, 1643,1 
but  the  ordinances  to  carry  this  measure  into  full  effect  were  not  passed 
till  Oct.  9  and  Nov.  16, 1646.2  The  old  building  was  destroyed  before 
a  new  building  was  agreed  upon.  This  was  the  very  question  to  be 
decided  by  the  Assembly ;  hence  the  interval  between  the  law  and  its 
execution.  For  nearly  twenty  years  the  Episcopal  Church,  though  not 
legally  abolished,  from  want  of  royal  assent,  was  an  ecclesia  pressa  et 
illicita  on  her  own  soil. 

Among  the  scores  or  hundreds  of  pamphlets  which  appeared  in  this 
war  upon  the  bishops,  the  five  anti-Episcopal  treatises  of  John  Milton 
were  the  most  violent  and  effective.  He  attacked  the  English  hierarchy, 
especially  as  it  had  developed  itself  under  the  Stuarts,  with  a  force  and 
majesty  of  prose  which  is  unsurpassed  even  by  his  poetry.  He  went  so 
far  as  to  call  Lucifer  'the  first  prelate-angel,'  and  treats  Ussher  with 
lofty  contempt  as  a  mere  antiquarian  or  dryasdust.  '  He  rolls,'  says 
his  biographer,  '  and  thunders  charge  after  charge ;  he  tasks  all  his 
genius  for  epithets  and  expressions  of  scorn ;  he  says  things  of  bishops, 
archbishops,  the  English  Liturgy,  and  some  of  the  dearest  forms  of  the 
English  Church,  the  like  of  which  could  hardly  be  uttered  now  in  any 
assembly  of  Englishmen  without  hissing  and  execration.'3 

2.  The  Presbyterians  formed  the  great  majority  and  gained  strength 
as  the  Assembly  advanced.  Their  Church  polity  is  based  upon  the  two 
principles  of  ministerial  parity,  as  to  ordination  and  rank  (or  the  orig- 
inal identity  of  presbyters  and  bishops),  and  the  self-government  of  the 


1  '  An  act  for  the  utter  abolishing  and  taking  away  of  all  archbishops,  bishops,  their  chan- 
cellors and  commissaries,'  etc.  Clarendon  says  that  marvelous  art  was  used,  and  that  the 
majority  of  the  Commons  were  really  against  the  bill ;  but  the  writer  of  the  'Parliamentary 
Chronicle '  says  that  it  passed  unanimotisly,  and  was  celebrated  by  bonfires  and  the  ringing 
of  bells  all  over  London. — Neal,  Vol.  I.  p.  421.     Ilallam  also  follows  the  latter  account. 

2Neal,Vol.II.  pp.35  sq. 

3  Masson,  Vol.  II.  p.  245.  Comp.  pp.  356  sqq.,  and  the  just  estimate  of  Stoughton,  The 
Ch.  of  the  Civil  Wars,  p.  129. 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  735 

Church  by  representative  judicatories  composed  of  clerical  and  lay 
members.  It  was  essentially  the  scheme  of  Calvin  as  it  prevailed 
in  the  Reformed  Churches  on  the  Continent,  and  was  established  in 
Scotland. 

The  Scots  seemed  to  be  predestinated  for  Calvinistic  Presbyterianism 
by  an  effective  decree  of  Providence.  The  hostility  of  their  bishops 
to  the  Reformation,  and  the  repeated  attempts  of  the  Stuarts  to  forco 
English  institutions  upon  them,  filled  the  nation  with  an  intense  aversion 
to  Episcopacy  and  liturgical  worship.  Bishop  Bancroft,  of  London,  the 
first  real  High-Church  Episcopalian,  called  English  Presbyterianism  an 
'  English  Scottizing  for  discipline.' 

Iu  England,  on  the  contrary,  Episcopacy  and  the  Prayer-Book  were 
identified  with  the  Reformation  and  Protestant  martyrdom,  and  hence 
were  rooted  in  the  affections  of  the  people.  Besides,  the  early  bishops 
were  in  fraternal  correspondence  with  the  Swiss  Churches.  But  in  the 
latter  part  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  when  Episcopacy  took  exclusive  ground 
and  rigorously  enforced  uniformity  against  all  dissent,  Presbyterian- 
ism began  to  raise  its  head  under  the  lead  of  two  eminent  Calvinists, 
Thomas  Cartwright  (1535-lG03),Professor  of  Theology  in  Cambridge, 
and  Walter  Travers  (d.  162-1),  Preacher  in  the  Temple,  London,  after- 
wards Provost  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin.  The  former  was  in  con- 
flict with  the  Iligh-Churchism  of  Archbishop  Whitgift;1  the  latter  with 
the  moderate  Churchism  of  Richard  Hooker,  who  was  far  his  superior 
in  ability,  and  whom  he  himself  esteemed  as  '  a  holy  man.'  The  first 
English  presbytery  within  the  prelatic  Church,  as  an  ecclesiola  in  ec- 
clesia,  was  formed  at  Wandsworth,  in  Surrey,  in  1572,  and  Cartwright 
drew  up  for  it  a  '  Directory  of  Church-Government,'  or  '  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline,' in  15S3,  which  is  said  to  have  been  subscribed  by  as  many  as 
five  hundred  clergymen,  and  which  was  printed  by  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment in  1611.2 


1  Even  Whitgift.  however,  did  not  go  to  the  extreme  of  jure  divino  Episcopacy,  but  admitted 
that  the  Scripture  has  not  set  down  'any  one  certain  form  of  Church  government  to  he  per- 
petual.' Cartwright,  on  the  other  hand,  was  an  able  and  earnest,  hut  radical  Presbyterian, 
and  with  Calvin  and  Beza  advocated  the  death  penalty  for  heretics. 

2  A  fac-simile  of  this  Directory  vaB  reproduced  in  London,  1872  (James  Neshit  &  Co.),  for 
the  tercentenary  celebration  of  the  Presbytery  at  Wandsworth,  with  an  introduction  by  Prof. 
Lorimer.  On  Cartwright  and  the  Elizabethan  Presbyterianism,  comp.  Masson,  Life  of  Mil- 
ton, Vol.  II.  pp.  581  Bqq.,  and  Bf'Crie,  Armala  of  English  Prcst>ytcry,  pp.  87-131. 


736  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

This  anomalous  organization  was  stamped  out  by  authority,  but  the 
recollection  of  it  continued  through  the  reigns  of  James  and  Charles, 
and  gathered  strength  with  the  rising  conflict. 

The  Westminster  divines,  with  the  exception  of  the  Scotch  Com- 
missioners and  two  French  Reformed  pastors  of  London,1  were  in 
Episcopal  orders,  and  graduates  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  and  there- 
fore as  a  body  not  opposed  to  Episcopacy  as  such.  A  goodly  number 
inclined  to  Ussher's  scheme  of  a  'reduced'  or  limited  Episcopacy,  i.e., 
a  common  government  of  the  Church  by  presbyters  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  bishop  as  primus  inter  pares.2 

Had  the  moderate  Episcopalians  attended,  the  result  would  probably 
have  been  a  compromise  between  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery.  But 
the  logic  of  events  which  involved  Parliament  in  open  war  with  the 
stubborn  king,  and  necessitated  the  calling  in  of  the  aid  of  Presbyterian 
Scotland,  changed  the  aspect  of  affairs.  The  subscription  of  the  '  Sol- 
emn League  and  Covenant '  (Sept.,  1643)  bound  both  the  Parliament 
and  the  Assembly  to  the  preservation  of  the  doctrine,  worship,  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Church  of  Scotland  and  the  extirpation  of  popery  and 
prelacy  (i.e.,the  government  of  the  Church  by  archbishops  and  bishops). 

There  were,  however,  two  classes  of  Presbyterians,  corresponding  to 
the  Low  and  High  Church  Episcopalians.  The  liberal  party  maintained 
that  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government  was  based  on  human  right, 
and  '  lawful  and  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God,'  but  subject  to  change 
according  to  the  wants  of  the  Church.  The  high  and  exclusive  Pres- 
byterians of  the  school  of  Andrew  Melville  maintained  that  it  was 
based  on  divine  right,  and  '  expressly  instituted  or  commanded '  in  the 
New  Testament  as  the  only  normal  and  unchangeable  form  of  Church 
polity.  Twisse,  Gatakek,  Reynolds,  Palmer,  and  many  others  ad- 
vocated the  jus  humanum  of  Presbytery,  all  the  Scotch  Commission- 
ers and  the  five  '  Smectymnuans,' 3  so  called  from  their  famous  tract 

1  Samuel  de  la  Place  and  Jean  de  la  March. 

2  The  Reduction  of  Episcopacy  unto  the  Form  of  Synodical  Government  received  in  the  An- 
cient Church,  written  in  1641 ,  but  not  fully  published  till  1 658,  and  brought  forward  again  after 
the  Restoration  ;  in  Ussher's  Works  by  Elrington,  Vol.  XII.    Comp.  Masson,Vol.  II.  p.  280. 

3  The  Smectymnuans  were  Stephen  Marshall,  Edmund  Calamy,  Thomas  Young  (the  chief 
author),  Matthew  Newcomen,  and  William  Spurstow.  The  oddity  and  ugliness  of  the  title,  com- 
posed of  the  initials  of  each  author,  helped  the  circulation  and  provoked  witty  rhymes,  such  as 

'The  Sndducees  would  raise  the  question, 
Who  must  be  Since  at  the  resurrection.' 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  737 

Smedymnuus,  in  reply  to  Bishop  Hall's  defense  of  Episcopacy  (March, 
1641),  advocated  the  jus  divinum.  The  latter  triumphed,  but  for  the 
sake  of  union  they  had  to  forego  some  details  of  their  theory.1 

The  sequel,  however,  proved  that  Presbyterianism,  so  congenial  to 
Scottish  soil,  was  an  artificial  plant  in  England.  Milton's  prophetic 
words  were  fulfilled  :  '  Woe  be  to  you,  Presbyterians  especially,  if  ever 
any  of  Charles's  race  recovers  the  English  sceptre!  Believe  me,  yon 
shall  pay  all  the  reckoning.'  Independency  has  ultimately  far  out- 
grown Presbytery,  and  is  preferred  by  the  English  mind  because  it 
comes  nearer  to  Episcopacy  in  making  each  pastor  a  bishop  in  his 
own  congregation.  Baxter  says  that  Ussher  agreed  with  the  Inde- 
pendents in  this, '  that  every  bishop  was  independent,  and  that  synods 
and  councils  were  not  so  much  for  government  as  concord.'2  If 
Presbyterianism  has  recently  taken  a  new  start  and  made  great  prog- 
ress in  London  and  other  cities  of  England,  it  is  owing  mostly  to  the 
immigration  of  energetic  and  liberal  Scotchmen  and  the  high  character 
of  its  leading  ministers. 

3.  The  Independents,  called  'the  five  dissenting  brethren'  by  the 
Presbyterians.  They  were  led  by  Dr.  Thomas  Goodwin  and  Rev. 
Philip  Nye.3  Though  small  in  number  (twelve  at  the  most),  they  were 
strong  in  ability,  learning,  and  weight  of  character,  and  possessed  the 
confidence  of  the  rising  Cromwell  and  the  army,  as  well  as  the  distant 
colonies  in  New  England.    Some  of  them  had  been  driven  to  Holland 

1  One  of  the  dividing  questions  was  that  of  ruling  elders.  '  Sundry  of  the  ablest,'  says 
Baillie  (Vol.  II.  pp.  110  sq.),  'were  flat  against  the  institution  of  any  such  officer  by  divine  right, 
such  as  Dr.  Smith,  Dr.  Temple,  Mr.  Gataker,  Mr.  Vines,  Mr.  Price,  Mr.  Hall,  and  many 
more,  besides  the  Independents,  who  truly  spake  much  and  exceedingly  well.  The  most  of 
the  Synod  was  in  our  opinion,  and  reasoned  bravely  for  it;  such  as  Mr.  Seaman,  Mr. Walker, 
Mr.  Marshall,  Mr.  Newcomen,  Mr.  Young,  Mr.  Calamy.  Sundry  times  Mr.  Henderson, 
Mr.  Rutherford,  Mr.  Gillespie,  all  three  spoke  exceedingly  well.  When  all  were  tired,  it 
came  to  the  question.  There  was  no  doubt  but  we  would  have  carried  it  by  far  most  voices ; 
yet  because  the  opposites  were  men  very  considerable,  above  all  gracious  little  Palmer,  we 
agreed  upon  a  committee  to  satisfy,  if  it  were  possible,  the  dissenters.'  He  afterwards  ex- 
presses the  hope  that  the  advance  of  the  Scotch  army  'will  much  assist  our  arguments.' 

2  Quoted  by  Xeal,  V..I.  1.  p.  498. 

3  The  others  were  J&REMIAH  Blkuolc.iis,  William  Bridgk,  and  Stdbach  Simi-son. 
These  five  were  the  signers  of  the  'Apologetic  Narration.'  Afterwards  William  Carter,  Will- 
iam Greenliill,  John  Bond  (perhaps  also  Anthony  Burgees),  joined  them.  Baillie  (Vol.  II. 
p.  110)  counts  ten  or  eleven,  including  Carter,  Caryl,  Philips,  and  Starry.  Among  its  lav- 
assessors  Lord  Viscount  Say  and  Seale  and  Sir  Harry  Vane  sympathized  with  the  Independ- 
ents. Neal  says  :  '  Their  numbers  were  small  at  first,  though  they  increased  prodigiously  and 
grew  to  a  considerable  figure  under  the  protectorship  of  Oliver  Cromwell.' 


738  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

by  the  persecution  of  Laud  and  Wren,  and  had  administered  to  con- 
gregations of  their  expatriated  countrymen,  which  occupied  a  middle 
ground  between  Brownism  and  Presbytery,  after  the  model  of  John 
Robinson's  pilgrims  in  Leyden.  They  were  allowed  the  use  of  the 
Reformed  churches,  with  liberty  to  ring  the  bell  for  service.  After 
their  return  they  advocated  congregational  independency  and  tolera- 
tion, which  the  Presbyterians  abhorred.1  The  Independents  maintained 
that  a  Christian  congregation  should  consist  of  converted  believers,  and 
govern  itself  according  to  Christ's  law,  without  being  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  presbyteries  and  synods,  and  that  such  a  congregation 
had  even  a  right  to  ordain  its  own  minister.  They  fought  the  Presby- 
terians at  every  step  on  the  questions  of  ruling  elders,  ordination, 
jurisdiction  of  presbyteries  and  synods,  toleration,  and  threatened  at 
times  to  break  up  the  harmony  of  the  meeting. 

The  longest  debate,  called  '  the  Grand  Debate,'  which  lasted  thirty 
days,  was  on  the  divine  right  of  presbytery.  And  yet  the  two  parties 
had  great  respect  for  each  other.  '  I  wish,'  said  Gillespie,  in  the  heat 
of  the  controversy,  '  the  dissenting  brethren  prove  to  be  as  unwilling 
to  divide  from  us  as  we  have  been  unwilling  to  divide  from  them.  I 
wish  that,  instead  of  toleration,  there  may  be  a  mutual  endeavor  for  a 
happy  accommodation.'2 

The  Independents  appealed,  rather  inconsistently,  to  Caesar,  and  ad- 
dressed '  An  Apologetic  Narration  to  Parliament '  (Dec,  1643).  Under 
the  Protectorate  of  Cromwell  they  became  the  ruling  party,  and  had 
great  political  influence ;  but  after  the  Restoration  they  resolved  to 
seek  for  toleration  outside  of  the  National  Church  rather  than  for  com- 
prehension within  it.     New  England  was  their  Eldorado.3 

4.  The  Ekastians4  maintained  the  ecclesiastical  supremacy  of  the 
civil  government  in  all  matters  of  discipline,  and  made  the  Church  a 
department  of  the  State.     They  held  that  clergymen  were  merely 

1  Baillie  declares  'liberty  of  conscience  and  toleration  of  all  or  any  religion'  (as  advocated 
by  Roger  Williams  against  John  Cotton)  to  be  '  so  prodigious  an  impiety  that  this  religious 
Parliament  can  not  but  abhor  the  very  naming  of  it.' — Tracts  on  Liberty  of  Conscience 
(published  by  the  Hansard  Knollys  Society),  p.  270,  note.  But  Baillie  was  opposed  to  the 
employment  of  '  secular  violence'  in  dealing  with  heretics.     See  M'Crie,  p.  191. 

2  Minutes,  p.  28. 

3  On  the  Independent  controversy,  see  Baillie,  Gillespie,  and  Masson  (Vol.  III.  pp.  18  sqq.). 
*  So  called  from  the  Swiss  professor  and  physician,  Erastus,  properly  Lieblep,  or  LlEBER, 

who  wrote  against  Bullinger  and  Beza,  and  died  at  Basle,  1583. 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  739 

teachers,  not  rulers,  and  that  the  power  of  the  keys  belonged  to  the 
secular  magistrate.  They  hoped  in  this  way  to  secure  national  unity 
and  to  prevent  an  imperiwm  in  vnyperio  and  all  priestly  tyranny  over 
conscience ;  but  in  fact  they  simply  substituted  a  political  for  an  ec- 
clesiastical despotism,  a  ca^saropapacy  for  a  hierarchical  papacy. 
They  were  willing  to  submit  to  a,  jure  humano  Presbyterianism,  but 
they  denied  that  any  particular  form  of  Church  government  was  pre- 
scribed in  the  New  Testament,  and  claimed  for  the  State  the  right  to 
establish  such  a  form  as  might  be  most  expedient. 

The  advocates  of  Erastianism  in  the  Assembly  were  Seldex,  LionT- 
foot,  and  Coleman,  all  distinguished  for  LTebrew  learning,  which  they 
used  to  good  advantage.  They  appealed  to  the  example  of  Moses  and 
the  kings  of  Israel,  and  the  institutions  of  the  Synagogue.  They  were 
backed  by  the  lawyers  among  the  lay-assessors  and  by  the  Ilouse  of 
Commons,  most  of  whom  were  (according  to  Baillie)  '  downright 
Erastians.'  The  Assembly  itself  owed  its  existence  to  an  act  of  Eras- 
tianism. 

In  strong  opposition  to  them  the  Presbyterians  maintained  that  the 
Lord  Jesus,  as  sole  King  and  Head  of  his  Church,  has  appointed  a  spir- 
itual government  with  distinct  officers. 

The  controversy  was  ably  conducted  on  both  sides,  and,  we  may  say, 
exhausted.1 

The  Independents  and  Erastians  withdrew  before  the  final  adoption 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  left  the  field  to  the  Presbyterians.  The 
Presbyterian  Church  polity  was  at  length  established  by  the  English 
Parliament,  which  ordained,  June  29,  1G47,  that  'all  parishes  within 
England  and  Wales  be  brought  under  the  government  of  congrega- 
tional, classical,  provincial,  and  national  churches,  according  to  the 
form  of  Presbyterial  government  agreed  upon  by  the  Assembly  of 
Divines  at  Westminster.'  Provinces  were  to  take  the  place  of  dioceses, 
and  were  again  divided  into  classes  or  presbyteries,  and  these  were  to 

1  The  chief  books  on  the  Erastian  side  are  Seidell's  De  Sgncdriis  and  Lightfoot's  Journal; 
on  the  Presbyterian  side,  Gillespie's  Aaron  s  Rod  Blossoming,  or,  the  Divine  Ordinance  <■/ 
Church-Governnunt  Vindicated  (dedicated  to  the  Westminster  Assembly;  a.  very  learned 
book  of  5'JO  pages),  and  Rutherford's  Divine  Right  of  Church  Government  (both  published 
in  London,  1C4C).  The  Erastian  controversy  was  afterwards  transferred  to  Scotland,  and 
led  to  several  secessions.  Comp.  Principal  Cunningham's  Essay  on  the  Erastian  controversy 
in  his  Historical  Theology,  Vol.  IT.  pp.  r>:>7-588. 


740  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

elect  representatives  to  a  national  assembly.  But  Parliament  retained 
an  Erastian  power  in  its  own  Land,  and  would  not  permit  even  exclu- 
sion from  the  Lord's  table  without  allowing  to  the  offender  recourse  to 
the  civil  courts.  Presbyterianism  was  nominally  the  established  re- 
ligion, but  only  in  two  provinces,  London  and  Lancashire,  was  it  fairly 
established,  until  its  overthrow  by  the  Restoration.1 

THE   LEADING   MEMBERS. 

Among  the  121  divines  of  the  Assembly  there  was  a  goodly  por- 
tion of  worthy  and  distinguished  men  who  had  suffered  privation  and 
exile  under  the  misgovernment  of  Laud,  who  jeopardized  their  livings 
by  accepting  the  appointment,  notwithstanding  the  threats  of  the  king, 
and  who  had  the  courage,  after  the  Restoration,  to  sacrifice  all  earthly 
comforts  to  their  conscientious  convictions.  Not  a  few  of  them  com- 
bined rare  learning,  eloquence,  and  piety  in  beautiful  harmony.  '  The 
Westminster  divines,'  says  Dr.  Stoughton,  '  had  learning — Scriptural, 
patristic,  scholastic,  and  modern — enough  and  to  spare:  all  solid,  sub- 
stantial, and  ready  for  use.  Moreover,  in  the  perception  and  advocacy 
of  what  is  most  characteristic  and  fundamental  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ  they  were  as  a  body  considerably  in  advance  of  some  who 
could  put  in  a  claim  to  equal  and  perhaps  higher  scholarship.'2 

It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  mention  the  most  eminent  of  the 
Westminster  divines.3 

William  Twisse,  D.D.  (Oxon.),  Rector  of  Newbury,  Prolocutor  or 
Moderator  by  appointment  of  Parliament  till  his  death  (July,  1646). 
He  was  of  German  descent,  about  sixty-nine  years  of  age,  noted  as  a 
high  Calvinist  of  the  supralapsarian  school,  full  of  learning  and  subtle 
speculative  genius,  but  '  merely  bookish,'  as  Baillie  says,  and  poorly 

1  See  M'Crie,  pp.  189  sqq. 

2  Church  of  the  Civil  Wars,  p.  453. 

3  For  a  full  list  of  members,  with  biographical  notices,  the  reader  is  referred  to  D.  Masson, 
Life  of  John  Milton,Vo\.  II.  pp.  51G-524,  where  they  are  arranged  in  alphabetical  order; 
and  to  Dr.  Mitchell,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Mimites,  pp.  lxxxi.-lxxxiv.,  where  they  are 
given  in  the  order  of  the  ordinance  of  Parliament  calling  the  Assembly  (dated  June  12, 1G43), 
with  some  twenty  members  subsequently  added  to  fill  vacancies.  Meek  gives  various  lists 
in  his  edition  of  Gillespie's  Notes.  Neal's  list  has  several  errors.  Much  information  on  the 
leading  members  may  be  gathered  from  Baillie's  Journals,  Fuller's  Church  History  and 

Worthies  of  England,  Anthony  Wood's  Athena*,  et  Fasti  Oxonienses,  Neal's  History  of  the 
Puritans,  Stoughton's  historical  works,  and  Masson's  Milton.  Reid  gives  biographical  sketches 
of  the  Westminster  divines  in  alphabetical  order,  with  lists  of  their  work?. 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  741 

fitted  to  guide  a  delicate  assembly.  Bishop  Hall  calls  him  'a  man  so 
eminent  in  school-divinity  that  the  Jesuits  shrunk  under  his  strength.' 
Thomas  Fuller  says:1  'His  plain  preaching  was  good,  solid  disputing 
better,  pious  living  best  of  all  good.' 

Ohaeles  Iieki.e  (d.  1G59),  an  <  ).\ford  scholar,  and  Rector  of  Winwick 
in  Lancashire,  succeeded  Twisse  as  Prolocutor,  lie  was  a  moderate 
Presbyterian,  and,  in  the  language  of  Fuller,  '  so  much  Christian, 
scholar,  and  gentleman  that  he  could  unite  in  affection  with  those  who 
were  disjoined  in  judgment  from  him.'  lie  wrote  against  independ- 
ency, but  remarked  in  the  Preface  :  '  The  difference  between  ns  is  not 
so  great ;  at  most  it  does  but  ruffle  a  little  the  fringe,  not  any  way  rend 
the  garment  of  Christ.'3 

John  "White  (Oxon.,  d.  164S)  and  Dr.  Cornelius  Burgess  (Oxon.,  d. 
1665),  the  two  Assessors,  enjoyed  general  esteem.  White  was  snr- 
named  'the  patriarch  of  Dorchester,'  but  he  'would  willingly  contribute 
his  shot  of  facetiousness  on  any  just  occasion'  (Fuller).  He  was  the 
great-grandfather  of  the  Wesleys  on  the  maternal  side.  Burgess  was 
'  very  active  and  sharp,'  bold  and  fearless,  an  eminent  debater  and 
valiant  defender  of  Presbyterianism  and  royalty. 

Dr.  Arrowsmitii,  head  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  '  a  man 
with  a  glass  eye,'  having  lost  one  by  an  arrow-shot,  a  'learned  divine' 
and  'elegant  Latinist,'  and  long  remembered  in  Cambridge  for  his 
'sweet  and  admirable  temper,'  and  Dr.  Tuckney  (d.  1670),  Vice-Chan- 
cellor of  the  University,  an  inspiring  teacher  and  bountiful  friend  of 
the  poor,  must  be  mentioned  together  as  the  chief  composers  of  the 
Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms.  They  were  both  friends  of  the  broad- 
minded  Whichcote,  who  calls  Arrowsmitii  'the  companion  of  his  special 
thought.'3  Dr.  Tuckney,  when  requested  by  some  members  of  Parlia- 
ment to  pay  special  regard  to  piety  in  his  elections  in  Cambridge,  made 

1  Worthies  of  Engl 'and,  Vol.  I.  p.  9:5.  Dr.  Owen,  though  lie  wrote  against  him,  called  him 
'  the  veteran  leader,  so  well  trained  in  the  scholastic  field  ;  this  great  man  ;  the  very  learned 
and  illustrious  Twisse.'  M'Orie  descrihes  him  as  'a  venerable  man.  verging  on  seventy 
years  of  age,  with  a  long,  pale  countenance,  an  imposing  heard,  lofty  brow,  and  meditative 
eye;  the  whole  contour  indicating  a  life  spent  in  severe  and  painful  study'  (Annals  of  the 
English  Presbytery,  p.  145).  The  last  words  of  Twisse  were,  'Now  at  length  1  shall  have 
leisure  to  follow  my  studies  to  all  eternity.' 

"The  presence  of  such  a  man  in  the  chair  is  sufficient  to  redeem  the  Assembly  from  the 
charge  of  illiberality  or  vulgar  fanaticism.' — M'Crie,  p.  151. 

'Tulloch,  Rat.  Theol.  in  Enffland,Yol.  II.  (the  Cambridge  Platonists),  pp.  56  sq. 


742  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  sensible  reply :  '  No  man  lias  a  greater  respect  than  I  have  for  the 
truly  godly ;  but  I  am  determined  to  choose  none  but  scholars.  They 
may  deceive  me  in  their  godliness — they  can  not  in  their  scholarship.' 
He  is  said  to  be  the  author  of  the  exposition  of  the  Ten  Command- 
ments in  the  Larger  Catechism. 

Edmund  Calamy,  B.D.  (Cantab.),  one  of  the  four  representatives  of 
the  London  clergy,  was  a  very  popular  preacher  and  a  leader  in  the 
Presbyterian  party.  '  He  was  the  first  openly  to  avow  and  defend  the 
Presbyterian  government  before  a  committee  of  Parliament ;  and 
though  tempted  afterwards  with  a  bishopric,  he  continued  stanch  to  his 
principles  to  his  dying  day.' '  He  died  soon  after  the  great  fire  in  Lon- 
don (1666).    His  grandson,  of  the  same  name,  was  still  more  celebrated. 

Joseph  Caeyl,  M.A.  (Oxon.,  1602-1673),  was  a  moderate  Independ- 
ent, a  distinguished  preacher,  and  '  a  man  of  great  learning,  piety,  and 
modesty'  (Neal).  He  became  afterwards  one  of  Cromwell's  Triers, 
was  ejected  in  1662,  and  lived  privately,  preaching  to  his  congregation 
as  the  times  would  permit.  He  is  chiefly  known  as  the  indefatigable 
author  of  a  commentary  on  Job,  in  twelve  volumes,  4to  (Lond.  1648- 
1666),  which  is  an  excellent  school  of  its  chief  topic,  the  virtue  of 
patience.2 

Thomas  Coleman  (Oxon.)  was  called  '  Eabbi  Coleman '  for  his  pro- 
found Hebrew  learning.  Baillie  describes  him  as  half-scholar  and 
half-fool,  and  of  small  estimation.  He  died  during  the  heat  of  the 
Erastian  debate  (1647). 

Thomas  Gataker,  B.D.  (Cantab.,  d.  1654,  aet.  eighty),  a  devourer  of 
books,  and  equally  esteemed  for  learning, piety,  and  sound  doctrine.  He 
refused  various  offers  of  preferment. 

Thomas  Goodwin,  D.D.  (Cantab.,  d.  16S0,  aet  eighty),  one  of  the  two 
'  patriarchs  of  English  Independency,'  Philip  Nye  being  the  other. 
He  was  Vicar  of  Trinity  Church,  Cambridge,  relinquished  his  prefer- 
ments in  1634,  was  pastor  of  a  congregation  of  English  exiles  at  Arn- 
heim,  Holland,  then  in  London,3  and  afterwards  President  of  Magdalen 

1  M'Crie,  p.  155. 

2  Another  edition  in  two  large  folio  vols,  was  published  in  107C  sq.  Darling  calls  this  ex- 
position 'a  most  elaborate,  learned,  judicious,  and  pious  work.' 

3  He  founded  a  Congregational  church  in  London  in  1G40,  which  continues  to  this  day, 
and  has  recently  (under  the  pastorate  of  Dr.  Joseph  Parker)  erected  the  City  Temple,  with 
a  memorial  tablet  to  Goodwin  in  the  vestibule. 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  743 

College,  in  Oxford,  till  the  Restoration,  when  lie  resigned.  He  was  the 
favorite  minister  of  Cromwell,  eloquent  in  the  pulpit,  orthodox  in  doc- 
trine, and  exemplary  in  life,  but  '  tinctured  with  a  shade  of  gloom  and 
austerity  '  (M'Crie).  '  Though  less  celebrated  than  Owen,  his  great  at- 
tainments in  scholarship  and  the  range  and  variety  of  his  thoughts  as- 
tonish us  when  we  read  his  writings,  showing  how  familiar  he  was  with 
all  forms  of  theological  speculation,  ancient  and  modern  '  (Stoughton).1 

Dr.  Joshua  IIoyle  (Oxon.,  d.  1654),  Divinity  Professor  in  Dublin, 
afterwards  Master  of  University  College,  Oxford,  was  the  only  Irish 
divine  of  the  Assembly,  '  a  master  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,' 
who  '  reigned  both  in  the  chair  and  in  the  pulpit.' 

John  Lightfoot,  D.D.  (Cantab.),  the  greatest  rabbinical  scholar  of 
his  age,  whose  Ilorce  llebraicte  et  Talmudicce  are  still  familiarly 
quoted  in  illustration  of  the  New  Testament.  His  Journal  is  one  of 
the  chief  sources  for  the  history  of  the  Assembly,  especially  for  ex- 
egetical  and  antiquarian  aspects  of  the  Erastian  controversy.  In  1640 
he  became  Master  of  Catharine  Hall,  Cambridge,  and  retained  his  post 
till  he  died,  1675,  aged  seventy-three. 

Stephen  Maksiiall,  B.D.  (Cantab.),  Lecturer  at  St.  Margaret's,  West- 
minster, was  'the  best  preacher  in  England'  (Baillie),  a  fearless  leader 
in  the  political  strife,  a  great  favorite  in  the  Assembly, '  their  trumpet, 
by  whom  they  sounded  their  solemn  fasts '  (Fuller).  One  of  his  roy- 
alist enemies  called  him  '  the  Geneva  bull,  a  factious  and  rebellious 
divine.'  He  was  buried  in  Westminster  Abbey,  1655,  but  disinterred 
with  the  other  Puritans  after  the  Restoration. 

Piiilit  Nye  (Oxon.,  d.  1672),  minister  of  Kimbolton,  who  had  been 
in  exile  with  his  friend  Goodwin,  took  a  leading  part,  as  a  Commissioner 
of  Parliament,  in  soliciting  the  assistance  of  the  Scots,  and  securing 
subscription  to  the  Covenant ;  but  he  conceived  a  dislike  to  their 
Church  polity  and  gave  them  a  world  of  trouble.  He  kept  them  for 
three  weeks  debating  on  the  superior  propriety,  as  he  contended,  of 
having  the  elements  handed  to  the  communicants  in  their  own  seats 
instead  of  calling  them  out  to  the  table.     He  was  a  stanch  Independ- 

1  His  austerity  gave  rise  to  the  story  related  by  Addison,  in  the  Spectatoi;  that  Dr. 
Goodwin,  'with  half-a-dozen  night-caps  on  his  head  and  religious  horror  m  his  countenance,' 
overawed  and  terrified  an  applicant  for  examination  in  Oxford  by  asking  him  in  a  sepulchral 
voice,  'Are  yon  prepared  for  death?'  His  works  were  published  in  London,  1  <>81— 1704,  in 
5  vols. 

Vol.  I.— B  b  b 


744  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ent,  a  keen  debater,  and  a  '  great  politician,  of  uncommon  depth,  and 
seldom  if  ever  outreached'  (Real).  He  was  one  of  the  Triers  under 
Cromwell,  and  the  leader  of  the  Congregational  Savoy  Conference. 
After  the  Restoration  he  declined  tempting  offers,  and  preached  pri- 
vately to  a  congregation  of  Dissenters  till  he  died,  seventy-six  years  of 
age. 

Herbert  Palmer,  B.D.  (Cantab.),  Vicar  of  Ash  well,  afterwards  Mas- 
ter of  Queen's  College,  Cambridge,  was  a  little  man  with  a  childlike 
look,  but  very  graceful  and  accomplished,  a  fluent  orator  in  French  as 
well  as  English,  and  a  model  pastor.  He  spent  his  fortune  in  works  of 
charity,  and  his  delicate  frame  in  the  cure  of  souls.  He  had  scruples 
about  the  divine  right  of  ruling  elders,  but  became  a  convert  to  Pres- 
byterianism.  He  is  the  real  author  of  the  '  Christian  Paradoxes,'  which 
have  so  long  been  attributed  to  Lord  Bacon.1 

Dr.  Edward  Reynolds  (Oxon.,  d.  1676), '  the  pride  and  glory  of  the 
Presbyterian  party '  (Wood),  was  very  learned,  eloquent,  cautious,  but 
lacking  backbone.  He  accepted  from  Charles  II.  the  bishopric  of 
Norwich  (Jan.,  1660),  owing,  it  was  said,  to  the  influence  of  'a  covet- 
ous and  politic  consort '  (Wood) ;  but  '  he  carried  the  wounds  of  the 
Church  in  his  heart  and  in  his  bowels  to  the  grave  with  him.' 

Sir  Francis  Rous  (or  Rowse,  b.  1579,  d.  1659), '  an  old,  most  honest' 
member  of  Parliament,  afterwards  a  member  of  Cromwell's  Privy 
Council,  was  one  of  the  twenty  Commoners  who  were  deputed  to  the 
Assembly.  He  innocently  acquired  an  immortal  fame  by  his  literal 
versification  of  the  Psalms,  which  was  first  printed  in  1643,  then  re- 
vised, and  is  used  to  this  clay  in  Scotland  and  in  many  Presbyterian  con- 
gregations in  America  in  preference  to  all  other  versions  and  hymns.2 

LazaRus  Seaman,  B.D.  (Cantab.,  1667),  one  of  the  four  representa- 
tives of  the  London  clergy,  a  very  active  member  and  reputed  as  an 
Orientalist,  who  always  carried  with  him  a  small  Hebrew  Bible  without 
points.  He  is  described  as  '  an  invincible  disputant '  and  '  a  person  of 
most  deep,  piercing,  and  eagle-eyed  judgment  in  all  points  of  contro- 
versial .divinity,  in  which  he  had  few  equals,  if  any  superiors.'     He 

1  This  fact  has  recently  been  discovered  by  Rev.  A.  B.  Grosart  (1864).  See  Masson, 
Vol.  II.  p.  520. 

2  See  Balllie,  Vol.  II.  p.  1 20 ;  Vol.  III.  pp.  532  sqq.  ;  and  the  Minutes  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  pp.  131,  103,418. 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  745 

became  Master  of  Peterhouse,  Cambridge,  but  was  ejected  after  the 
Restoration. 

John  Selden  (15S4—1654),  one  of  the  lay  assessors,  and  a  scholar  and 
wit  of  European  reputation.1  His  scholarship  was  almost  universal, 
but  lay  chiefly  in  languages,  law,  and  antiquities  (hence  '  antiquariorum 
coryphaeus ').  For  a  long  time  he  took  an  active  part  in  the  debates, 
and  often  perplexed  the  divines  by  raising  scruples.  He  liked  to  cor- 
rect their  'little  English  pocket  Bibles'  from  the  Greek  and  Hebrew. 
Not  especially  fond  of  the  flesh  of  the  Scriptures,  he  cast  the  '  bones ' 
at  them  '  to  break  their  teeth  therewith '  (Fuller).  He  was  an  Erastian 
and  a  clergy-hater,  but  on  his  death-bed  he  declared  that  '  out  of  the 
numberless  volumes  he  had  read,  nothing  stuck  so  close  to  his  heart,  or 
gave  him  such  solid  satisfaction,  as  the  single  passage  of  Paul,  'The 
grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath  appeared  unto  all  men.' 

Richard  Vines,  Master  of  Pembroke  Hall,  Cambridge  (d.  1656),  'an 
excellent  preacher  and  very  powerful  in  debate,  and  much  respected 
on  all  accounts'  (Masson). 

Thomas  Young,  Master  of  Jesus  College,  Cambridge,  a  Scotchman 
by  birth,  Milton's  preceptor,  and  the  chief  of  the  five  '  Smectymnuans.' 

THE    SCOTCH    COMMISSIONERS. 

After  the  adoption  of  the  international  League  and  Covenant,  Scot- 
land sent  five  clerical  and  three  lay  commissioners  who  admirably 
represented  their  Church  and  country.  They  formed  a  group  by  them- 
selves at  the  right  hand  of  the  Prolocutor.  They  were  the  only  dele- 
gates who  were  elected  by  proper  ecclesiastical  authority,  viz.,  the 
General  Assembly  of  their  Church  (Aug.  19, 1643),  at  the  express  re- 
quest of  the  English  Parliament;  they  declined  being  considered 
members  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  they  were  allowed  by  warrant  of 
Parliament  to  be  present  and  to  debate,  and  practically  they  exerted 
an  influence  disproportionate  to  their  number.  They  arrived  in  Lon- 
don in  September,  fresh  from  the  battle  '  with  lordly  bishops,  popish 
ceremonies,  and  royal  mandates,'  and  full  of  the  ij>erfervidxim  ingeni- 
um  Sector  urn? 

Alexander  Henderson,  Rector  of  the  University  of  Edinburgh  since 

1  Opera  omnia,  ed.  Dav.  Wilkins,  London,  1726,  3  vols,  in  folio. 


746  TIIE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

1640,  sixty  years  of  age,  ranks  next  to  John  Knox  and  Andrew  Melville 
in  the  history  of  Scotch  Presbyterian  ism,  and  was  the  author  of  the 
'  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,'  which  linked  the  Scottish  and  English 
nations  in  a  civil  and  religions  alliance  for  the  Reformed  religion  and 
civil  liberty.  Being  unmarried,  he  gave  himself  entirely  to  the  Assem- 
bly from  Aug.,  1643,  to  Aug.,  1646.  He  has  heretofore  been  too  much 
ignored.  'My  researches,'  says  Masson,1  'have  more  and  more  con- 
vinced me  that  he  was,  all  in  all,  one  of  the  ablest  and  best  men  of  his 
age  in  Britain,  and  the  greatest,  the  wisest,  and  most  liberal  of  the 
Scottish  Presbyterians.  They  all  had  to  consult  him ;  in  every  strait 
and  conflict  he  had  to  be  appealed  to,  and  came  in  at  the  last  as  the 
man  of  snpereminent  composure,  comprehensiveness,  and  breadth  of 
brow.  Although  the  Scottish  Presbyterian  rule  was  that  no  church- 
man should  have  authority  in  State  affairs,  it  had  to  be  practically 
waived  in  his  case;  he  was  a  cabinet  minister  without  office.' 

Robeet  Baillie  (b.  1599,  d.  1662),  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Prin- 
cipal of  the  University  of  Glasgow,  did  not  speak  much,  but  was  a 
regular  attendant  for  fully  three  years,  a  shrewd  observer,  and  has 
been  called  the  Boswell  of  the  Assembly  and  '  the  pleasantest  of  letter 
gossips.'  His  ' Letters  and  Journals'  (not  properly  edited  until  1842)  are 
'  among  the  most  graphic  books  of  contemporary  memoir  to  be  found 
in  any  language.  His  faculty  of  narration  in  his  pithy  native  Scotch 
is  nothing  short  of  genius.  Whenever  we  have  an  account  from  Baillie 
of  any  thing  he  saw  or  was  present  at,  it  is  worth  all  accounts  put  to- 
gether for  accuracy  and  vividness ;  so  in  his  accounts  of  Strafford's 
trial,  and  so  in  his  account  of  his  first  impressions  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly '  (Masson). 

George  Gillespie,  minister  of  Edinburgh  (d.  164S),  was  only  thirty- 
one  years  of  age  when  he  entered  the  Assembly,  the  youngest,  and  yet 
one  of  the  brightest  stars, '  the  prince  of  disputants,  who  with  the  fire 
of  youth  had  the  wisdom  of  age.'  He  first  attracted  public  attention 
in  his  twenty-fourth  year  by  '  A  Dispute  against  the  English-Popish 
Ceremonies  obtruded  upon  the  Church  of  Scotland'  (1637),  which 
helped  the  revolt  against  Laud's  innovations.  He  took  a  leading  part 
in  the  debates  of  the  Assembly  against  Erastianism  and  Independency. 

1  Vol.  III.  p.  1G. 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  747 

According  to  Scotch  tradition  he  once  made  even  Selden  reel  and  say, 
'That  young  man,  by  his  single  speech,  has  swept  away  the  labors  of 
ten  years  of  my  life.'  This  is  probably  a  patriotic  exaggeration.  The 
excessive  ardor  and  activity  of  his  mind  wore  out  his  frame,  and  he  re- 
turned from  the  Assembly  to  die  in  his  native  land. 

Samuel  Rutherford  (1600-1661),  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Princi- 
pal of  St. Mary's  College  in  St.  Andrews,  was  one  of  the  most  fervid  and 
popular  preachers  in  Scotland,  and  highly  esteemed  for  his  learning  and 
piety.  'The  characteristics  of  his  mind  were  clearness  of  intellect,  warmth 
and  earnestness  of  affection,  and  loftiness  and  spirituality  of  devotion- 
al feeling.'  His  book, '  Lex  Hex,'  is  considered  one  of  the  best  exposi- 
tions of  the  principles  of  civil  and  religions  liberty;  and  his  glowing- 
letters  of  comfort  from  his  prison  in  Aberdeen  (which  he  called  '  Christ's 
Palace')  show  him  to  be  '  the  true  saint  and  martyr  of  the  Covenant.' 

Rev.  Robert  Douglas  never  sat.  Among  the  lay  commissioners,  John 
Lord  Maitland  (afterwards  Earl  of  Lauderdale)  distinguished  himself 
first  by  his  zeal  for  the  Scotch  Covenanters,  and  afterwards  by  his 
apostasy  and  cruelty  against  them.  Sir  Archibald  Johnstone,  of  War- 
ristone,  was  from  1637  a  leader  among  the  Scotch  Covenanters,  a  great 
lawyer,  and  a  devout  Christian,  who,  as  Bishop  Burnet,  his  nephew,  nar- 
rates, often  prayed  in  his  family  two  hours  at  a  time  with  unexhausted 
copiousness.  The  Marquis  of  Argyle  also,  who  afterwards  suffered 
death  for  his  loyalty  to  the  Scotch  Kirk,  sat  for  some  time  as  an  elder 
in  the  Assembly. 

OPENING    OF   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

The  Assembly  was  opened  on  Saturday,  July  1, 1643,  in  the  grand 
national  Abbey  of  Westminster,  in  the  presence  of  both  Houses  of 
Parliament  and  a  large  congregation,  by  a  sermon  of  Dr.  Twisse  on 
John  xiv.  IS:  'I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless;  I  Avill  come  unto 
you'— a  text  which  was  deemed  'pertinent  to  these  times  of  sorrow, 
anguish,  and  misery,  to  raise  up  the  drooping  spirits  of  the  people  of 
God  who  lie  under  the  pressure  of  Popish  wars  and  combustions."1 

After  service  the  members  of  the  Assembly, '  three  score  and  nine'2 

1  From  the  Parliamentarian  newspaper  No.  25,  for  July  :i-10,  1643,  quoted  by  Mitchel, 

p.  xi.  Lightfoot  reports  in  his  Journal  (p.  3)  that  'a  great  congregation'  was  present  be- 
sides the  members  of  the  Assembly  and  of  Parliament. 

3  This  is  about  the  average  attendance  of  the  Lower  House  of  the  Convocation  of  Canter- 
bury.— Stanley,  Memorials  of  Westminster  Abbey,  p.  .",07. 


748  TIIE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

(twenty-nine  more  than  the  required  quorum),  repaired  for  organiza- 
tion to  the  Chapel  of  Henry  VII.,  that  '  most  gorgeous  of  sepulchres,' 
where  the  Upper  House  of  Convocation  used  to  meet.  The  mediaeval 
architecture  formed  a  striking  contrast  to  the  Puritan  simplicity  of 
worship  arid  dress.  The  divines  appeared  in  black  coats  or  cloaks, 
skull-caps,  and  Geneva  bands  in  imitation  of  the  foreign  Protestants,1 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  Royalists  and  Episcopalians,  who  in  their 
canonical  gowns  seemed  '  the  only  non-Conformists.' 2  Add  to  this  ap- 
parel their  solemn  looks,  the  peaked  beards  and  mustaches,  and  the 
broad  double  ruff  around  the  neck,  and  we  have  a  spectacle  of  a  synod 
differing  as  much  from  a  modem  Presbyterian  Assembly  as  from  an 
Episcopal  Convocation  or  a  Roman  Catholic  Council.3 

Every  member  had  to  take  the  following  vow  (which  was  read  in 
the  Assembly  every  Monday  morning)  : 

'  I  do  seriously  promise  and  vow,  in  the  presence  of  almighty  God, 
that  in  this  Assembly,  whereof  I  am  a  member,  I  will  maintain  nothing 
in  point  of  doctrine  but  what  I  believe  to  be  most  agreeable  to  the 
Word  of  God ;  nor  in  point  of  discipline,  but  what  may  make  most 
for  God's  glory  and  the  peace  and  good  of  his  Church.' 

THE   ASSEMBLY    IN    THE   JERUSALEM   CHAMBER. 

For  several  wTeeks  the  meetings  were  held  in  the  Chapel  of  Henry 
VII.  But  when  extreme  cold  weather  set  in  at  the  close  of  Sep- 
tember, the  Assembly  repaired  to  the  'Jerusalem  Chamber,'  in  the 
Deanery  of  Westminster.4  '  What  place  more  proper  for  the  building 
of  Sion,'  asks  Fuller,  '  than  the  Chamber  of  Jerusalem,  the  fairest  of 
the  Dean's  lodgings,  where  King  Henry  IV.  died,  and  where  these 
divines  did  daily  meet  together?'5 

This  large  and  venerable  hall,  furnished  with  a  long  table  and 
chairs,  and  ornamented  with  tapestry  (pictures  of  the  Circumcision,  the 

1  Neal  and  Stoughton.  2  Fuller. 

3  M'Crie  and  Mitchell  compare  it  to  a  synod  of  Huguenots  as  pictured  on  the  title-page  of 
the  first  volume  of  Quick's  Synodicon.    But  there  the  Frenchmen  wear  broad-brimmed  hats. 

*  The  origin  of  the  name  is  uncertain.  Some  derive  it  from  the  tapestries  or  pictures  of 
Jerusalem  on  the  wall.  Dr.  Stoughton,  who  is  well  informed  in  English  history  and  archaeology, 
informs  me  (by  letter  of  May  4, 187G)  that  it  probably  arose  'from  the  fact  of  its  adjoining 
the  sanctuary,  the  place  of  peace ;'  and  he  quotes  a  passage  from  the  account  of  King  John's 
death  :  '  Nee  providet  quod  est  Romce  ecclesia  Jerusalem  dicta,  id  est,  visio  pacis ;  quia  qui- 
cunque  illnc  confugerit,  ciduscunque  criminis  obnoxius,  subsidium  invenit'  (William  of  Malmes- 
bury,  Dc  gestis  Angl.  Lib.  II.  p.  G7).  3  Church  Hist.  Vol.  VI.  p.  L'53. 


§  93.  THE  WKSTMINSTEB  ASSEMBLY.  749 

Adoration  of  tlie  Magi,  and  the  Passage  through  the  Wilderness),  -was 

originally  the  withdrawing-room  of  the  abbot,  and  has  become  famous 

in  romance  and  history  as  the  cradle  of  many  memorable  schemes  and 

events  from  the  Reformation  down  to  the  present  time. 

There,  before  the  fire  of  the  hearth — then  a  rare  luxury  in  England 

— King  Henry  IV.,  who  intended  to  make  a  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem, 

died  of  a  hideous  leprosy  (March  20, 1413).     "When  informed  of  the 

name  of  the  chamber,  he  exclaimed, 

'  Laud  be  to  God !  even  there  my  life  must  end. 
It  hath  been  prophesied  to  me  many  years 
I  would  not  die  but  in  Jerusalem; 
Which  vainly  I  supposed  the  Holy  Land. 
Rut  bear  me  to  that  chamber;   there  I'll  lie: 
In  that  Jerusalem  shall  Harry  die. ' ' 

There  Sir  Thomas  More  was  confined  (1534),  and  urged  by  the 
abbot  to  acknowledge  the  king's  ecclesiastical  supremacy ;  and  there 
probably  he  wrote  his  appeal  to  a  general  council  which  never  met, 
but  may  yet  meet  at  some  future  day. 

There,  under  the  genial  warmth  of  the  fire  which  had  attracted  the 
dying  king,  the  grave  Puritan  Assembly  prepared  its  standards  of  doc- 
trine, worship,  and  discipline,  to  be  disowned  by  England,  but  honored 
by  Scotland  and  America. 

There  the  most  distinguished  Biblical  scholars  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, in  fraternal  co-operation  with  scholars  of  Dissenting  denomina- 
tions, both  nobly  forgetting  old  feuds  and  jealousies,  are  now  engaged 
in  the  truly  catholic  and  peaceful  work  of  revising  the  common  version 
of  the  Bible  for  the  general  benefit  of  English-speaking  Christendom.2 

1  Shakspere,  Second  Part  of  King  Henry  IV.,  act  iv.  sc.  4. 

;  For  a  fuller  description  of  the  Jerusalem  Chamber,  see  Dean  Stanley's  Memorials  of 
Westminster  Abbey,  pp.  417  sqq.  I  may  be  permitted  to  add  from  personal  experience  an 
interesting  recent  incident  in  the  history  of  that  chamber.  At  the  kind  invitation  of  the 
Dean  of  Westminster,  the  delegates  to  the  International  Council  of  Presbyterian  Churches, 
then  meeting  in  London  for  the  formation  of  a  Presbyterian  Alliance,  repaired  to  the 
Jerusalem  Chamber  on  Thursday  afternoon,  July  22,  1875,  and.  standing  around  the  long 
table,  were  instructed  and  entertained  by  the  Dean,  who.  modestly  taking  'the  Moderators 
chair,' gave  them  a  graphic  historical  description  of  the  chamber,  interspersed  with  humor- 
ous remarks  and  extracts  from  Baillie.  He  dwelt  mainly  on  the  Westminster  Assembly. 
promising,  in  his  broad-Church  liberality,  at  some  future  time  to  honor  that  Assembly  by  a 
picture  on  the  northern  wall.  Dr.  BdcCosh,  as  Moderator  of  the  Preshyterian  Council,  pro- 
posed  a  vote  of  thanks  for  the  courtesy  and  kindness  of  the  Dean,  which  was,  of  course,  unani- 
mously and  heartily  given.  The  writer  of  this  expressed  the  hope  that  the  Jerusalem  Chamber 
may  yet  serve  a  still  nobler  purpose  than  anv  in  the  past,  namely,  the  reunion  of  Christen- 


750  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


BAILLIE  S    DESCRIPTION    OF    THE    ASSEMBLY. 

The  Assembly  in  actual  session  in  this  famous  locality,  and  its  order 
of  business,  can  not  be  better  described  than  in  the  graphic  language 
of  one  of  the  Scotch  Commissioners: 

'The  like  of  that  Assembly,'  says  Professor  Baillie,1  'I  did  never  see,  and,  as  we  hear 
say,  the  like  was  never  in  England,  nor  any  where  is  shortly  like  to  he.  They  did  sit  in 
Henry  the  Seventh's  Chapel,  in  the  place  of  the  Convocation ;  but  since  the  weather  grew 
cold,  they  did  go  to  Jerusalem  Chamber,  a  fair  room  in  the  Abbey  of  Westminster,  about  the 
bounds  of  the  College  forehall,  but  wider.  At  the  one  end  nearest  the  door  and  on  both  sides 
are  stages  of  seats  as  in  the  new  Assembly-House  at  Edinburgh,  but  not  so  high,  for  there 
will  be  room  but  for  five  or  six  score.  At  the  upmost  end  there  is  one  chair  set  on  a  frame,  a 
foot  from  the  earth,  for  the  Mr.  Prolocutor  Dr.  Twisse.  Before  it,  on  the  ground,  stand  two 
chairs  for  the  two  Mr.  Assessors,  Dr.  Burgess  and  Mr.  White.  Before  these  two  chairs,  through 
the  length  of  the  room,  stands  a  table,  at  which  sit  the  two  scribes,  Mr.  Byfield  and  Dr. 
Roborough.  The  house  is  all  well  hung  and  has  a  good  fire,  which  are  some  dainties  at 
London.  Foranent  [in  front  of]  the  table,  upon  the  Prolocutor's  right  hand,  there  are  three 
or  four  ranks  of  forms.  On  the  lowest  we  five  do  sit.  Upon  the  other,  at  our  backs,  the 
members  of  Parliament  deputed  to  the  Assembly.  On  the  forms  foranent  us,  on  the  Pro- 
locutor's left  hand,  going  from  the  upper  end  of  the  house  to  the  chimney,  and  at  the  other 
end  of  the  house,  and  backside  of  the  table,  till  it  comes  about  to  our  seats,  are  four  or  five 
stages  of  forms,  whereupon  their  divines  sit  as  they  please,  albeit  commonly  they  keep 
the  same  place.  From  the  chimney  to  the  door  there  are  no  seats,  but  a  void  for  passage. 
The  Lords  of  Parliament  use  to  sit  on  chairs  in  that  void,  about  the  fire.  We  meet  every 
day  of  the  week  but  Saturday.  We  sit  commonly  from  nine  to  one  or  two  [in  the]  after- 
noon. The  Prolocutor  at  the  beginning  and  end  has  a  short  prayer.  The  man,  as  the  world 
knows,  is  very  learned  in  the  questions  he  has  studied,  and  very  good,  beloved  by  all,  and 
highly  esteemed ;  but  merely  bookish,  and  not  much,  as  it  seems,  acquainted  with  conceived 
prayer,  [and]  among  the  unfittest  of  all  the  company  for  any  action ;  so  after  the  prayer 
he  sits  mute.  It  was  the  canny  convoyance  of  those  who  guide  most  matters  for  their  own 
interest  to  plant  such  a  man  of  purpose  in  the  chair.  One  of  the  Assessors,  our  good  friend 
Mr.  White,  has  keeped  in  of  the  gout  since  our  coming;  the  other,  Dr.  Burgess,  a  very  active 
and  sharp  man,  supplies,  so  far  as  is  decent,  the  Prolocutor's  place. 

'Ordinarily  there  will  be  present  above  threescore  of  their  divines.  These  are  divided 
into  three  committees,  in  one  whereof  every  man  is  a  member ;  no  man  is  excluded  who 
pleases  to  come  to  any  of  the  three.  Every  committee,  as  the  Parliament  gives  order  in 
writing  to  take  any  purpose  into  consideration,  takes  a  portion,  and  in  their  afternoon  meet- 
ing prepares  matters  for  the  Assembly,  sets  down  their  mind  in  distinct  propositions,  [and] 
backs  their  propositions  with  texts  of  Scripture.  After  the  prayer,  Mr.  Byfield,  the  scribe, 
reads  the  proposition  and  Scriptures,  whereupon  the  Assembly  debates  in  a  most  grave  and 
orderly  way.  No  man  is  called  up  to  speak;  but  who  stands  up  of  his  own  accord,  he  speaks 
so  long  as  he  will  without  interruption.     If  two  or  three  stand  up  at  once,  then  the  divines 

dom  on  the  basis  of  God's  revealed  truth  in  the  Bible;  and  he  alluded  to  the  fact  that  the 
Dean  had  recently  (in  the  '  Contemporary  Review,'  and  in  an  address  at  Saint  Andrews)  paid 
a  high  compliment  to  the  Westminster  Confession  by  declaring  its  first  chapter,  on  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  to  be  one  of  the  best,  if  not  the  very  best  symbolical  statement  ever  made. 

1  In  a  letter  to  his  cousin,  William  Spang,  dated  London,  Dec.  7,  1643.  See  Letters  and 
Jovrnah,Vol.  IT.  pp.  107-100.  I  have  retained  the  Scotch  words,  but  modernized  the  spelling. 
Extracts  from  this  letter  are  quoted  by  Neal,  lletherington,  Stanley,  Stoughton,  Mitchell. 


§  93.  THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY.  751 

confusedly  cnll  on  his  name  whom  they  desire  to  hear  first:  on  whom  the  loudest  and  maniest 
[most]  voices  call,  he  speaks.  No  man  speaks  to  any  but  to  the  Prolocutor.  They  harangue 
long  and  very  learnedly.  They  study  the  questions  well  beforehand,  and  prepare  their  speech- 
es; bat  withal  the  men  are  exceeding  prompt  and  well-spoken.  I  do  marvel  at  the  very  accu- 
rate and  extempore!  replies  that  many  of  them  usually  do  make.  When,  upon  every  propo- 
sition by  itself,  and  on  every  text  of  Scripture  that  is  brought  to  confirm  it,  every  man  who 
will  has  said  his  whole  mind,  and  the  replies,  and  duplies,  and  triplies  are  heard,  then  the 
most  part  calls  "To  the  question."  P.vfield,  the  scribe,  rises  from  the  table  and  conies  to  the 
Prolocutor's  chair,  who,  from  the  scribe's  book,  reads  the  proposition,  and  says,  "As  many  as 
are  of  opinion  that  the  question  is  well  stated  in  the  proposition,  let  them  say  I  ;"  when  I 
is  heard,  he  says.  "  As  many  as  think  otherwise,  say  No."  If  the  difference  of  Is  and  No's  lie 
clear,  as  usually  it  is,  then  the  question  is  ordered  by  the  scribes,  and  they  go  on  to  debate 
the  first  Scripture  alleged  for  proof  of  the  proposition.  If  the  sound  of  I  and  No  be  near 
equal,  then  says  the  Prolocutor,  "As  many  as  say  I,  stand  up ;"  while  they  stand,  the  scribe 
and  others  number  them  in  their  mind ;  when  they  sit  down  the  No's  are  bidden  to  stand,  and 
they  likewise  are  numbered.  This  way  is  clear  enough,  and  saves  a  great  deal  of  time,  which 
we  spend  in  reading  our  catalogue.  When  a  question  is  once  ordered,  there  is  no  more 
debate  of  that  matter;  but  if  a  man  will  vaige,1  he  is  quickly  taken  up  by  Mr.  Assessor,  or 
many  others,  confusedly  crying,  "Speak  to  order,  to  order."  No  man  contradicts  another 
expressly  by  name,  but  most  discreetly  speaks  to  the  Prolocutor,  and  at  most  holds  on  the 
general — The  reverend  brother,  who  lately  or  last  spoke,  on  this  hand,  on  that  side,  above, 
or  below. 

'  I  thought  meet  once  for  all  to  give  you  a  taste  of  the  outward  form  of  their  Assembly. 
They  follow  the  way  of  their  Parliament.  Much  of  their  way  is  good,  and  worthy  of  our 
imitation  :  only  their  longsomeness  is  woeful  at  this  time,  when  their  Church  and  Kingdom 
lies  under  a  most  lamentable  anarchy  and  confusion.  They  see  the  hurt  of  their  length,  but 
can  not  get  it  helped  ;  for  being  to  establish  a  new  Platform  of  worship  and  discipline  to 
their  nation  for  all  time  to  come,  they  think  they  can  not  be  answerable  if  solidly  and  at 
leisure  they  do  not  examine  every  point  thereof.' 

DEVOTIONAL   EX  EECISE8. 

With  theological  discussion  the  Assembly  combined  devotional  ex- 
ercises, and  observed  with  Parliament  regular  and  occasional  fasts 
which  are  characteristic  of  the  Puritan  piety  of  that  age.  At  the  joint 
meeting  of  the  Parliament  and  the  Assembly  in  St. Margaret's  Church, 
for  the  signing  of  the  Covenant  (Monday,  Sept.  25,  1G-13),  Mr.  "White 
'  prayed  near  upon  an  hour,'  Mr.  Nye  '  made  an  exhortation  of  another 
hour  long,'  Mr.  Henderson  '  did  the  like ;'  then  there  Mas  the  reading 
of  the  Covenant,  a  prayer  by  Dr.  Yonge,  'another  psalm  by  Mr.  Wil- 
son,' and  a  concluding  prayer,  when  they  'adjourned  till  Thursday 
morning,  because  of  the  fast.'2 

Baillie  describes  the  fast  observed  May  17,  1644,  at  the  request  of 
General  Essex  before  his  march  into  the  held,  as  'the  sweetest  day'  he 
saw  in  England,  although  it  lasted  eight  hours, from  nine  to  five, without 


Probably  '  wander'  (from  '  vague').  2  Lightfoot,  Journal,  p.  15. 


752  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

interruption.  '  After  Dr.  Twisse,'  he  writes, '  had  begun  with  a  brief 
prayer,  Mr.  Marshall  prayed  large  two  hours,  most  divinely,  confessing 
the  sins  of  the  members  of  the  Assembly  in  a  wonderfully  pathetic  and 
prudent  way.  After,  Mr.  Arrowsmith  preached  one  hour ;  then  a  psalm ; 
thereafter,  Mr.  Vines  prayed  near  two  hours,  and  Mr.  Palmer  preached 
one  hour,  and  Mr.  Seaman  prayed  near  two  hours ;  then  a  psalm.  After, 
Mr.  Henderson  brought  them  to  a  short,  sweet  conference  of  the  heart 
confessed  in  the  Assembly,  and  other  seen  faults1  to  be  remedied,  and 
the  convenience  to  preach  against  sects,  especially  Anabaptists  and 
Antinomians.  Dr.  Twisse  closed  with  a  short  prayer  and  blessing. 
God  was  so  evidently  in  all  this  exercise  that  we  expect  certainly  a 
blessing  both  in  our  matter  of  the  Assembly  and  whole  kingdom.'2 

We  can  not  read  such  accounts  without  amazement  at  the  devotional 
fervor  and  endurance  of  the  Puritan  divines.  And  yet,  if  we  consider 
the  length  of  their  prayers  and  sermons,  their  austerity  in  society,  dress 
and  manner,  their  peculiar  phraseology  and  cant,  their  aversion  to  the 
fine  arts  and  public  amusements,  however  innocent,  we  need  not  be 
surprised  at  the  popular  rebound  to  the  opposite  extreme  under  the 
frivolous  and  licentious  Charles  II.  'All  that  was  beautiful  in  Church 
music,  architecture,  or  ornament,  and  in  personal  elegance  and  refine- 
ment, was  rigidly  proscribed.  Even  poetry  was  at  a  discount ;  Milton 
himself,  in  his  lifetime, in  more  senses  than  one, "sung  darkling;"  and 
the  literary  style  of  the  day,  unlike  either  that  of  the  foregoing  or  the 
subsequent  age,  was  harsh,  stiff,  and  void  of  elegance.  Even  the  typog- 
raphy of  the  period  is  peculiarly  grim  and  unseemly.' 3 

It  should  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that  there  are  times  when 
aesthetics  must  give  way  to  more  important  matters,  and  that  radical 
extremes  are  unavoidable  in  critical  periods.  The  Catholic  Church 
itself,  in  the  first  three  centuries,  passed  through  the  gloom  of  the  cata- 
combs, and,  in  its  ascetic  abhorrence  of  heathen  art  and  beauty,  strange- 
ly misconceived  even  our  blessed  Lord's  personal  appearance  as  homely 
and  repulsive  in  the  clays  of  his  humiliation.  Tertullian,  in  his  way, 
went  farther  than  the  Puritans. 


1  Probably  a  misprint  for  '  beart-confessed  and  otbcr  seen  faults  in  the  Assembly.' 

2  Letters  and  Journals,  Vol.  II.  pp.  184  sq. 

3M'Crie,  Annals  of  English  Presb.  p.  173.     The  last  remark  applies  also  to  the  early 
editions  of  the  Westminster  standards  and  controversial  pamphlets. 


§  94.  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  753 

DURATION    AND   CLOSE. 

The  Assembly  occupied  about  five  years  and  six  months  for  the 
completion  of  its  proper  work — the  standards  of  doctrine,  worship,  and 
discipline — and  held  no  less  than  11G3  regular  sessions  from  July  1, 
1G13,  till  February  2'2, 1040,  when  it  ought  to  have  adjourned  sine  die. 
It  met  every  day,  except  Saturday  and  Sunday,  from  nine  o'clock  till 
one  or  two — the  afternoons  being  left  to  committees.  After  Nov.  9, 
1647,  we  find  no  mention  of  the  Scotch  Commissioners.  But  the  As- 
sembly continued  to  drag  out  a  shadowy  existence,  with  scanty  and 
irregular  attendance,  as  a  standing  committee  for  the  examination  and 
ordination  of  candidates  for  the  ministry,  meeting  every  Thursday,1  till 
March  25, 1G52,  when  it  informally  broke  up  before  the  dissolution  of 
the  'Bump'  Parliament  by  Oliver  Cromwell  (April  19,  1653).  'It 
dwindled  away  by  degrees,  though  never  legally  dissolved,'  says  Fuller. 
It  vanished  with  the  Long  Parliament  which  gave  it  birth. 

§  91.  The  Westminster  Confession. 

I.  Standard  Editions. 
1.  English. 

The  editio  princeps,  without  Scripture  texts,  was  printed,  but  not  published,  Dec.  7,  164G,  at  London, 
under  the  title,  '  The  Humble  \  Advice  |  of  the  |  Assembly  |  of\  Divines,  \  Koto  by  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment I  sitting  at  Westminster,  \  concerning  \  a  Confession  of  Faith,  \  presented  by  them  lately  to  both  Houses 
I  of  Parliament.  |  .  .  .  Loudon.    Printed  for  the  Company  of  Stationers.'    1647. 

A  second  edition  (of  600  copies)  was  printed  iu  Loudon,  under  the  same  title,  'with  the  Quotations 
and  Texts  of  Scripture  annexed,'  by  order  of  Parliament,  dated  April  29, 1647. 

The  first  Edinburgh  ed.  is  a  reprint  of  the  second  London  ed.  in  somewhat  different  type.  Only  300 
copies  were  printed,  Aug. 9,  1647,  for  the  use  of  the  General  Assembly.    See  fac-simile  in  Vol.  III.  p.  593. 

The  typography  and  paper  of  these  early  editions  are  very  poor.  After  the  adoption,  innumerable 
editions  appeared  under  the  proper  title,  'Confession  of  Faith.'  The  earliest  small  ed.  of  Edinb.  ap- 
peared 1660 ;  the  earliest  small  ed.  in  Lond.,  164S  or  1649.    See  Minutes,  p.  413,  note  4. 

The  edition  which  was  adopted  by  the  English  Parliament,  with  some  changes  (similar  to  those 
afterwards  made  in  the  Savoy  Declaration),  bears  a  differeut  title,  viz.:  Articles  |  of  |  Christian  Re- 
ligion, I  Approved  and  Passed  by  both  Houses  \  of  Parliament,  |  After  Advice  had  with  the  Assembly 
of  I  Divines  |  by  \  Authority  of  Parliament  sitting  at  |  Westminster.  |  Loudon :  |  .  .  .  June  27, 1648. 

Copies  of  the  earliest  and  other  rare  editions  I  found  and  compared  iu  the  British  Museum,  in  the 
Libraries  of  Edinburgh,  the  Free  Church  College  and  the  Advocates'  Libraries,  and  that  of  Union  Theol. 
Seminary  in  New  York.  Tin-  texts  vary  but  slightly.  I  used  also  a  London  ed.  of  1653  (pp.  108),  which 
is  a  little  superior  in  typography,  and  still  bears  the  title  Humble  Advice,  etc.  It  has  the  Scripture 
proofs  printed  out  in  full. 

Prof.  Mitchell  proposes  to  publish,  with  other  documents,  'a  careful  collation  of  the  earlier  editions 
of  the  Confession'  {Minutes,  p.  r>40). 

A  very  good  edition  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  together  with  the  Cov- 
enants (National  and  Solemn  League),  the  nets  of  Parliament  and  the  General  Assembly  relative  to  and 
approving  of  the  same,  was  printed  by  authority  at  Edinburgh  (University  Press),  1858  (pp.  5G1). 

The  American  editions  differ  from  the  English  and  Scotch  in  Chaps.  XXIII.  and  XXXI.,  and  In  the 
close  of  XX.    The  changes  are  given  in  Vol.  III.  pp.  600  sqq. 

1  The  sessions  held  after  Feb.  22,  1G4!)  (1048),  are  not  numbered.  The  last  regular  meet- 
ings were  likewise  devoted  merely  to  executive  business.     See  Minutes,  p.  ">39. 


754  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

2.  Latin. 

Confessio  Fidei  in  Conventu  theologorum  authoritate  Parliamenti  Anglieani  indicto  elaborata;  eidem 
Parliamento  postmodum  exhibita ;  quin  et  ab  eodem,  deinque  ab  Ecclesia  Scoticana  cognita  et  approbata ; 
una  cum  Catechismo  duplici,  majori,  minoriquc;  e  sermone  Anglicano  summa  cum  fide  in  Latinum  verm. 
Cnntabrigise,  1056  and  1659,  small  Svo  (229  pp.).  Other  eds.,  Edinb.  1G70, 1694, 170S,  1711 ;  Glasgow,  1660 ; 
iu  the  appendix  to  Niemeyer's  Collectio  Conf.  1S40.  See  Vol.  III.  pp.  600  sqq.  The  translation  is  good, 
but  the  translator  is  not  named,  nor  could  I  ascertain  his  name  from  the  librarians  in  Edinburgh  and 
London,  not  even  from  the  learned  Mr.  David  Laing  and  Dr.  Mitchell.  The  initials  below  the  preface 
are  'G.  D.'  (perhaps  G.  Dillingham,  D.D.,  of  Emanuel  College,  Cambridge  j  others  surmised  G.  Duport, 
of  Cambridge). 

3.  German. 

A  German  translation  appeared  as  early  as  164S.  A  new  one  in  Buckel's  Bekenntniss-Schriften  der 
evang.  reform.  Kirche,  pp.  6S3  sqq.  (under  the  title  Das  puritaniache  Glaubensbekenntniss).  Another 
version  is  published  by  the  Presbyterian  Board  in  Philadelphia. 

Historical. 

See  Literature  on  Westminster  Assembly,  §  93. 

Dr.  Alex.  F.  Mitouell  (Prof,  of  Ch.  Hist,  iu  St.  Andrews) :  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith :  a 
Contribution  to  the  Study  of  its  Historical  Relations  and  to  the  Defence  of  its  Teaching.  Ediub.  3d  ed.  1S67. 
Comp.  his  valuable  Introduction  to  the  Minutes,  1874. 

Alex.  Taylor  Innes  :  The  Law  of  Creeds  in  Scotland.    Edinburgh,  1867. 
Explanatory  and  Ai>ologetio. 

Truth's  Victory  over  Error;  or,  an  Abridgment  of  the  chief  Controversies  in  Religion,  etc.  [By  David 
Dickson.]    Edinb.  (1649),  1684;  Glasgow,  1725.    A  catechetical  exposition  of  the  Westm.  Conf. 

A  Brief  Sum  of  Christian  Doctrine  contained  in  Holy  Scripture,  and  holden  forth  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  etc.     [Drawn  up  by  David  Dickson.]    Edinb.  1093. 

Robert  Shaw  (Minister  of  the  Free  Church  at  Whitburn):  An  Exposition  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines.    With  an  Introduction  by  W.  M.  Hetherington.    Ediub.  1S45. 

Archibald  Alexander  Hodgk,  D.D.  (Prof,  of  Theol.  iu  Allegheny  Seminary):  A  Commentary  on  the 
Confession  of  Faith.    Philad.  1S6U  (Presbyt.  Board). 

Critical  and  Polemical. 

W.  Parker:  The  late  Assembly  of  Divines'  Conf.  of  Faith  Examined,  wherein  many  of  their  Excesses 
and  Defects,  of  their  Confusions  and  Disorders,  of  their  Errors  and  Contradictions,  are  presented.   Lond.  1651 . 

James  Stark:  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  critically  Compared  with  the  Holy  Scripture  and 
found  wanting.    Lond.  1803.    A  candid  but  captious  critique  of  all  the  chapters. 

Josevii  Taylor  Goodsir:  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  Examined  on  the  Basis  of  the  other 
Protestant  Confessions.    Lond.  1809.    Directed  chiefly  against  Ch.  XL,  on  Justification  by  Faith. 

A.  M.  Fairbairn  :  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Scotch  Theology.  An  article  in  the  'Contem- 
porary Review,'  answered  by  Prof.  Mitchell  in  the  Introduction  to  Minutes  of  the  Westminster  Assembly. 

William  Marshall  :  The  Principles  of  the  Westminster  Standards  Persecuting.    Edinb.  1S73. 

REVISION    OF    THE    ENGLISH    ARTICLES. 

The  Assembly  was  at  first  employed  for  ten  weeks  on  a  revision  of 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  being  directed  by 
an  order  of  Parliament  (July  5, 1643)  '  to  free  and  vindicate  the  doc- 
trine of  them  from  all  aspersions  and  false  interpretations.'  The  Pur- 
itans regarded  the  doctrinal  Articles  as  sound  and  orthodox  in  substance 
and  spirit,  but  capable  of  improvement  in  the  line  marked  out  by  the 
Lambeth  Articles  and  the  Irish  Articles ;  in  other  words,  they  desired 
to  make  them  more  explicitly  Calvinistic. 

Fifteen  of  these  Articles,  including  the  most  important  doctrines, 
were  thus   revised,  and  provided  with  Scripture  proofs.1     Very  few 

1  The  revised  Fifteen  Articles  have  been  reprinted  from  the  copy  as  approved  by  Parliament, 
in  Hall's  Harmony  of  Protestant  Confessions;  in  Appendix  No.  VII.  to  Neat's  History  of  the 
Puritans ;  in  Stoughton,  Church  of  the  Commonwealth,  Append,  pp.  228  sqq. 


§  94.  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  755 

changes  were  made.  Art.  I.,  on  the  Trinity,  was  left  untouched.  In 
Art.  II.,  on  the  Son  of  God,  the  word  '  all '  before  '  actual  sins  of  men' 
is  missing,  which,  if  not  an  oversight,  was  a  misimprovement  in  the 
interest  of  Calvinistic  particularism.1  In  Art.  III.  the  unhistorical  in- 
terpretation of  Christ's  descent  into  Hades,  which  makes  it  a  mere 
repetition  of  the  preceding  clause  in  the  Creed,  is  put  in.  In  Art.  VI. 
the  allusion  to  the  Apocrypha  is  omitted.  The  remaining  Articles  are 
retained  with  some  verbal  improvements,  except  Art.  VIII.  of  the  three 
Creeds,  which  is  omitted  in  almost  all  the  printed  copies.  But  in  the 
original  copy  which  the  Assembly  sent  to  Parliament,  Art.  VIII.  was 
retained  with  a  slight  verbal  change,2  and  omitted  in  the  copy  which 
Parliament  sent  to  the  King  at  the  Isle  of  Wight.  The  Assembly  cer- 
tainly had  no  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the  oecumenical  creeds,  and 
teaches  it  in  its  own  standards.  And  yet  the  omission  of  all  allusion 
to  them  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  so  far  characteristic  as  it  reveals 
a  difference  of  stand-point.  The  Puritan  Assembly  was  unwilling  to 
adopt  any  rule  of  faith  except  the  Scripture  explained  by  itself ;  while 
the  Episcopal  Church  was  reformed  on  the  basis  of  the  Scripture  as 
interpreted  by  the  ancient  Church,  or  at  all  events  with  respectful 
reference  to  primitive  creeds  and  canons. 

The  work  of  revision  was  suspended  by  an  order  of  Parliament,  Oct. 
12, 1643,  requiring  the  Assembly  to  enter  upon  the  work  of  Church 
government,  and  then  given  up  in  consequence  of  an  order  '  to  frame 
a  Confession  of  Faith  for  the  three  kingdoms,  according  to  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant.'  The  framing  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
is  therefore  due  to  Scotch  influence  and  the  adoption  of  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant.3 

1  The  'all'  was  in  the  original  edition  of  15(i3  and  the  edition  of  1528,  but  is  missing  in 
the  edition  of  1630  and  other  English  editions,  and  also  in  the  American  Episcopal  revision  ; 
see  Vol.  III.  p.  478. 

3  'The  three  creeds  that  go  under  the  name  o/"the  Nicene  Creed,  Athanasius'  Creed,' etc., 
instead  of  'The  three  Creeds,  Nicene  Creed,  Athanasian  Creed,'  etc.  Ussher  and  Vossius 
had  proved  the  post- Athanasian  origin  of  the  creed  which  bears  his  name.  Eight  foot  (Journal, 
p.  10)  notices,  probably  from  an  earlier  stage  of  the  debate,  another  change,  viz. :  'for  that 
the  matter  of  them  [for  they]  may  be  proved  by  most  certain  warrants  of  Holy  Scripture.' 
He  adds  that  'at  last  it  was  concluded  that  the  Creeds  should  be  pi-iuted  at  the  end  of  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles.'     Comp.  Mitchell,  in  Minutes,  p.  .Ml'. 

3  See  this  important  document  and  its  history  above,  pp.  GS!)  sqq.  Marsden  says  (Later 
Puritans,  p.  90):  'The  taking  of  the  Covenant  in  Scotland  was  perhaps  the  most  solemn 
scene  in  the  history  of  nations.     The  forced  imposition  of  it  in  England  was  an  insult  and  a 


756  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

This  was  a  wise  conclusion.  The  alteration  or  reconstruction  of  an 
established  creed  (except  in  minor  particulars)  is  in  itself  a  difficult 
and  ungrateful  task,  and  more  apt  to  produce  confusion  than  harmony, 
as  is  shown  by  the  history  of  the  Nicene  Creed  and  the  Augsburg 
Confession. 

PKEPAKATION   OF    THE    CONFESSION. 

The  first  appointment  of  a  Committee  to  prepare  matter  for  a  joint 
Confession  of  Faith  was  made  Aug.  20,  1644,  and  embraced,  besides 
the  Commissioners  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  the  following  English- 
men :  Dr.  Gouge,  Mr.  Gataker,  Mr.  Arrowsmith,  Dr.  Temple,  Mr.  Bur- 
roughs, Mr.  Burgee,  Mr.  Vines,  Dr.  Goodwin,  and  Dr.  Hoyle.  The 
chairman,  Dr.  William  Gouge,  a  graduate  of  Cambridge,  was  Minister 
of  Blackfriars,  London  (from  1608),  and  stood  in  high  veneration  among 
the  Puritans,  there  being  'scarce  a  lord  or  lady  or  citizen  of  quality 
in  or  about  the  city  that  were  piously  inclined  but  they  sought  his 
acquaintance.' l  He  died  Dec.  12,  1653,  seventy-nine  years  of  age. 
The  Committee  was  enlarged  Sept.  4,  1644,  by  adding  Messrs.  Pal- 
mer, Newcomen,  Herle,  Eeynolds,  Wilson,  Tuckney,  Smith,  Young, 
Ley,  and  Sedgwicke.2 

This  Committee,  it  seems,  prepared  the  material  and  reported  in  the 
434th  session,  May  12, 1645,  when  a  smaller  Committee  was  appointed 
to  digest  the  material  into  a  formal  draught.  The  members  were  taken 
from  the  old  Committee,  with  Dr.  Gouge  as  chairman.  The  Scotch 
Commissioners  were  to  be  again  consulted.3  On  July  7th,  1645,  Dr. 
Temple  made  a  report  of  a  part  of  the  Confession  touching  the  Holy 
Scripture,  which  was  read  and  debated.4  The  following  day,  Reynolds, 
Herle,  and  Newcomen,  to  whom  were  afterwards  added  Tuckney  and 
Whitaker,  were  appointed  a  Committee  '  to  take  care  of  the  wording 
of  the  Confession,  as  it  is  voted  in  the  Assembly  from  time  to  time,  and 

burlesque.'  Fuller  refutes  it  at  length  from  his  English  and  Episcopal  stand-point  (Church 
Hist.  Vol.  VI.  pp.  259  sqq.).  It  certainly  turned  out  to  be  a  blunder  in  England,  but  it  was 
a  sublime  blunder  for  a  noble  end,  and  not  without  important  results,  among  which  is  the 
one  mentioned  in  the  text. 

1  Masson,Vol.  II.  p.  518.  Gouge's  Commentary  on  Hebrews  was  republished,  18CG,  at 
Edinburgh,  in  3  vols.,  with  a  memoir,  in  which  he  is  called  '  the  father  of  the  London  min- 
isters and  the  oracle  of  his  time'  (p.  xii.). 

a  See  excerpts  from  Vol.  II.  of  the  MS.  Minutes,  in  Mitchell's  ed.  of  Minutes  (which  begin 
Nov.  18,  1G44),  p.  lxxxvi. 

3  Minutes,  p.  91.  *  Ibid.  p.  110. 


§  91.  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  757 

report  to  the  Assembly  when  they  think  fit  there  should  be  any  altera- 
tion in  the  words,'  after  first  consulting  '  with  the  Scotch  Commissioners 
or  any  one  of  them.' '  In  the  470th  session,  July  10, 1045,  the  heads  of 
the  Confession  were  distributed  among  three  large  committees  to  be 
elaborated  and  prepared  for  more  formal  discussion.2  The  chapters 
were  reported,  read,  and  debated,  section  by  section,  and  sometimes 
word  by  word. 

The  sub-committees  sat  two  days  every  week,  and  reported  as  they 
progressed.  On  Sept.  25, 1040,  the  title  was  fixed  ('The  Humble  Ad- 
vice,' etc.)  and  the  first  nineteen  chapters  were  sent  up  to  the  House  of 
Commons  at  their  request.  A  few  days  afterwards  (Oct.  1)  a  duplicate 
was  sent  to  the  House  of  Lords.3  The  House  of  Lords  passed  these 
chapters,  after  a  third  reading,  unanimously  (Nov.  0).  The  House  of 
Commons  delayed  definite  action  till  the  whole  was  presented.  In  the 
752d  Session,  Dec.  4, 1640,  the  Confession  was  completed  and  presented 
to  both  Houses  of  Parliament  in  a  copy  transcribed  with  great  pains 
by  Dr.  Burgess,  for  which  he  received  a  vote  of  thanks  from  the  As- 
sembly.4 

The  Confession  was  thus  prepared  in  two  years  and  three  months, 
amid  many  interruptions  by  discussions  on  the  Catechism  and  on  dis- 
cipline. No  other  symbolical  book  cost  so  much  time  and  labor,  ex- 
cept the  Tridentine  and  Vatican  Decrees,  and  perhaps  the  Lutheran 
Formula  of  Concord.  Besides  the  chairman,  Drs.  Tuckney,  Arrow- 
smith,  Reynolds  (afterwards  bishop),  Temple,  Hoyle,  Palmer,  Ilerle, 
and  the  Scotch  divines  seem  to  have  been  the  chief  authors  of  the 
work. 

The  Confession  was  first  printed  Dec,  1040,  or  Jan.,  1047,  for  the 
exclusive  use  of  Parliament  and  the  Assembly,  without  the  Scripture 
proofs.  The  House  of  Commons,  not  satisfied,  expressly  requested  the 
Assembly  to  send  them  the  Scripture  texts  (April  22, 1047),  which  was 
promptly  done  (April  29).5    Whereupon  the  House  of  Commons  ordered 


1  Minutes,  p.  1  in.  *  Ibid.  p.  1 H. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  L'!)0,  291  ;   Journals  of  the  II.  of  Commons,  Vol.  IV.  p.  G77  ;  and  the  II.  of 
Lords,  Vol.  VIII.  pp.  r,05,  588. 

«  Minutes,  p.  308 ;  Journals  of  the  II.  of  Commons,  Vol.  IV.  p.  739  ;   of  the  Lords,Vol  VIII. 

P.  r,97. 

5  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  Vol.  V.  p.  151  ;   Minutes,  p.  852.     Baillie  (in  a  letter 
to  Spang,  Jan.  26,  1G47,  Vol.  III.  p.  2)  ascribes  this  request  of  Parliament  to  the  'retarding 


758  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

'that  six  hundred  copies,  and  no  more,  of  the  Advice  of  the  Assembly 
of  Divines  concerning  the  Confession  of  Faith,  with  the  quotations 
and  texts  of  Scripture  annexed,  presented  to  this  House,  and  likewise 
six  hundred  copies  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines 
upon  the  Nine- and- thirty  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  be  forth- 
with printed  for  the  service  of  both  Houses  and  of  the  Assembly  of 
Divines;  and  the  printer  is  enjoined  at  his  peril  not  to  print  more 
than  six  hundred  copies  of  each,  or  to  divulge  or  publish  any  of  them." 
At  the  same  time  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  Assembly  was  passed  '  for 
their  great  pains  in  these  services.'  This  second  edition  appeared 
May,  1647,  and  contains  the  received  and  ecclesiastically  authorized 
text.     It  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  revised  text  of  Parliament. 

THE    ACTION    OF    PARLIAMENT. 

The  House  of  Commons  began,  May  19, 1617,  the  consideration  of 
the  '  Humble  Advice,'  chapter  by  chapter,  resumed  it  in  October,  and 
completed  it  March  22, 164S.  It  made  some  alterations  in  the  govern- 
mental chapters,  and  gave  the  document  the  title,  'Articles  of  Chris- 
tian Religion  approved  and  passed  by  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  after 
Advice  had  with  the  Assembly  of  Divines  by  authority  of  Parliament 
sitting  at  Westminster.'2 

The  House  of  Lords  agreed  to  all  the  alterations,  excepting  to  that  on 
marriage,  June  3,1618.  Whereupon  the  House  of  Commons,  on  the 
20th  of  June,  ordered  'that  the  Articles  of  Christian  Religion  sent 
from  the  Lords  with  some  alterations,  the  which  were  this  day  read, 
and  upon  the  question  agreed  unto,  be  forthwith  printed  and  published.' 
The  next  day  it  was  resolved  '  that  the  texts  of  Scripture  be  printed 
with  the  Articles  of  Faith.' 

A  copy  of  the  authorized  edition  of  these  Articles  is  preserved  in 
the  British  Museum.  It  differs  from  the  Assembly's  Confession  by 
the  omission  of  the  entire  Ch.  XXX.  (on  Church  Censures)  and  Ch. 

party, '  find  as  a  change  of  tactics  of  the  opponents,  and  remarks  that  the  Assembly  omitted 
the  Scripture  proofs  at  first  'only  to  eschew  the  offense  of  the  House,  whose  practice  hitherto 
has  been  to  enact  nothing  of  religion  on  divine  right  or  Scriptural  ground,  but  upon  their  own 
authority  alone.' 

1  Journals,  Vol.  V.  p.  ir>f>,  and  Minutes,  p.  354. 

'The  original  title,  'A  Confession  of  Faith,'  was  voted  down  by  sixty-one  to  forty-one. 
— Minutes,  p.  415. 


§  94.  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  759 

XXXI.  (on  Synods  and  Councils),  and  parts  of  Ch.  XX.  (§  4)  and  Ch. 
XXIV.  (§§  5,  6,  and  part  of  4). 

When,  after  Cromwell's  death,  the  Long  Parliament  was  restored 
in  1650,  it  adopted  the  Confession  with  the  exception  of  Ch.  XXX. 
and  Ch.  XXX L,  and  requested  Dr.  Reynolds,  Mr.  Calamv,  and  Mr. 
Manton  to  superintend  the  publication  (March  5, 1G60).1 

The  English  Parliament  thus  twice  indorsed  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession as  to  its  doctrinal  articles,  but  retained  an  Erastian  control 
over  matters  of  discipline.  With  the  restoration  of  the  monarchy  the 
Confession  shared  the  fate  of  Presbyterianism  in  England. 

THE    ACTION    OF    THE    GENERAL   ASSEMBLY    OF    SCOTLAND. 

The  Confession  was  at  once  brought  to  Scotland,  and  most  favorably 
received.2  The  General  Assembly  at  Edinburgh,  Aug.  27, 1647,  after 
careful  examination,  adopted  it  in  full  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of 
the  Westminster  divines,  declaring  it  'to  be  most  agreeable  to  the  Word 
of  God,  and  in  nothing  contrary  to  the  received  doctrine,  worship,  dis- 
cipline, and  government  of  this  Kirk,'  and  thankfully  acknowledging 
the  great  mercy  of  the  Lord,  'in  that  so  excellent  a  Confession  of 
Faith  is  prepared,  and  thus  far  agreed  upon  in  both  kingdoms.'  The 
Scotch  Parliament  indorsed  this  action,  Eeb.  7, 1649. 

Thus  the  Confession,  as  well  as  the  two  Catechisms,  received  the  full 
sanction  of  the  highest  ecclesiastical  and  civil  authorities  of  Scotland. 
But  the  royal  sanction  was  not  obtained  till  1690,  under  William  and 
Mary.3 

It  is  a  very  remarkable  fact  that  this  Confession  failed  in  its  native 
land,  and  succeeded  in  foreign  lands.  The  product  of  English  Pur- 
itans became  the  highest  standard  of  doctrine  for  Scotch  and  American 
Presbyterians,  and  supplanted  the  older  Confession  of  their  own  Re- 


1  Journals  of  the  House  ofCommons,\u\.\U.  p.  SG2;  Mitchell,  in  Minutes,  p.  417.  Mitch- 
ell gives  no  information  of  copies  of  this  edition. 

2  BaUlie  brought  a  copy  of  the  first  edition,  without  proofs,  in  January  (Letters,  Vol.  III. 
p.  2);  Gillespie  probably  a  copy  of  the  second  ed.,  with  proofs,  in  July,  when  he  returned. 
The  Assembly  ordered  an  edition  of  800  copies  to  be  printed  at  Edinburgh,  for  the  use  of 
the  members. — M inutta,  p.  411). 

3  See  the  Acts  of  the  Scotch  Assembly  and  Parliament,  and  of  the  English  Parliament,  in 
Minutes,  pp.  419  sqq.j  in  the  Kdinb.  ed.  of  the  Conf.,  1S55;  and  in  Innes,  The  Law  of 
Creeds,  pp.  9j  sqq. 

Vol.  I. — C  c  c 


760  THE   CREEDS   OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

formers.     The  Shorter  Catechism,  however,  was  for  a  long  time  ex- 
'  tensively  used  in  England. 

Another  remarkable  fact  is  that  the  English  authors,  with  their  sad 
experience  of  the  laws  of  uniformity,  never  intended  to  make  their 
Confession  binding  upon  the  conscience  as  a  document  for  subscrip- 
tion, while  the  Scots  adopted  it  at  once.1  Dr.  M'Crie  accounts  for  this 
difference  partly  '  by  national  idiosyncrasies,  partly  by  the  extreme 
desire  of  the  Scots  to  obtain  that  "  covenanted  uniformity  "  for  which 
England  was  not  prepared,  but  which  Scotland,  with  a  Church  fully 
organized  and  a  Parliament  favorably  disposed,  regarded  as  the  sheet- 
anchor  of  her  safety,  and  to  which  afterwards,  as  a  sacred  engagement, 
she  resolutely  clung,  in  hope  and  against  hope,  in  days  of  darkness  and 
storms.  In  England  Presbytery  had  yet  to  be  organized,  and  at  every 
step  it  encountered  conflicting  and  neutralizing  influences.' 

§  95.  Analysis  of  the  Westminster  Confession, 
sources. 

The  Westminster  Confession  sets  forth  the  Calvinistic  system  in  its 
scholastic  maturity  after  it  had  passed  through  the  sharp  conflict  with 
Anninianism  in  Holland,  and  as  it  had  shaped  itself  in  the  minds  of 
Scotch  Presbyterians  and  English  Puritans  during  their  conflict  with 
High-Church  prelacy.  The  leading  ideas,  with  the  exception  of  the 
theory  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  were  of  Continental  growth,  but  the 
form  was  entirely  English. 

The  framers  of  the  Confession  were  no  doubt  quite  familiar  with 
Continental  theology ;  Latin  was  then  still  the  theological  language ; 
the  Arminian  controversy  had  excited  the  greatest  attention  in  England, 
and  agitated  the  pulpit  and  the  press  for  years;  the  English  Church 
was  well  represented  at  the  Synod  of  Dort;  several  divines  of  the 

1  Dr.  Tuckney,  one  of  the  chief  authors  of  the  Confession  and  Catechisms,  says:  '  For  the 
matter  of  imposing  upon  I  am  not  guilty.  In  the  Assembly  I  gave  my  vote  with  others  that 
the  Confession  of  Faith  put  out  by  authority  should  not  he  required  to  he  either  sworn  or 
subscribed  to — our  having  been  burnt  in  the  hand  in  that  kind  before ;  but  [only]  so  as  not 
to  be  publicly  preached  or  written  against'  (quoted  by  M'Crie,  Annals,  p.  221).  Baxter,  also, 
while  highly  recommending  the  Westminster  Standards,  expressed  the  hope  that  '  the  As- 
sembly intended  not  all  that  long  Confession  and  those  Catechisms  to  be  imposed  as  a  test 
of  Christian  communion,  nor  to  disown  all  that  scrupled  every  word  in  it  [them].  If  they 
did,  I  could  not  have  commended  it  for  any  such  use,  though  it  be  useful  for  the  instruction 
of  families'  (Sylvester's  Life  of  Baxter,]).  122,  quoted  by  M'Crie,  p.  222). 


§  95.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  7G1 

Assembly  had  spent  some  time  in  Holland,  where  they  found  a  hos- 
pitable refuge  from  persecution  under  Charles  L,  and  were  treated 
with  great  respect  by  the  Dutch  ministers  and  divines.1 

But  while  the  Confession  had  the  benefit  of  the  Continental  theol- 
ogy, and  embodied  the  results  of  the  Arminian  controversy,  it  was  not 
framed  on  the  model  of  any  Continental  Confession,  nor  of  the  earlier 
Scottish  Confessions,  notwithstanding  the  presence  and  influence  of 
the  Commissioners  from  the  Church  of  Scotland.  On  the  contrary,  it 
kept  in  the  track  of  the  English  Articles  of  Religion,  which  the  Assem- 
bly was  at  first  directed  to  revise,  and  with  which  it  was  essentially 
agreed.  It  wished  to  carry  on  that  line  of  development  which  was 
begun,  several  years  before  the  Arminian  controversy,  by  the  framers 
of  the  Lambeth  Articles  (1595),  and  which  was  continued  by  Arch- 
bishop Ussher  in  the  Irish  Articles  (1615).2  It  is  a  Calvinistic  comple- 
tion and  sharper  logical  statement  of  the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles,  which  stopped  with  the  less  definite  Augustinian  scheme, 
and  left  a  considerable  margin  for  different  interpretations.  In  point 
of  theological  ability  and  fullness  it  is  far  superior  to  its  predecessors. 

The  "Westminster  Confession  agrees  more  particularly  with  the  Arti- 
cles which  were  adopted  by  the  Protestant  Church  in  Ireland,  but  after- 
wards set  aside  by  Archbishop  Laud  through  the  Earl  of  Strafford. 
This  is  manifest  in  the  order  and  arrangement,  in  the  titles  of  chapters, 
in  phraseology,  and  especially  in  the  most  characteristic  features  of 
Calvin's  theology — the  doctrine  of  Predestination  and  of  the  Sacra- 
ments. The  resemblance  is  so  striking  that  it  must  have  been  in- 
tended for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  essential  agreement  of  the 
Assembly  with  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  English  and  Irish  Ref- 
ormation. Lusher  himself  had  pursued  the  same  course  and  incor- 
porated in  his  Avork  the  substance  of  the  English  Articles  and  the 
full  text  of  the  Lambeth  Articles.  He  was  a  doctrinal  Puritan,  and 
although  he  declined  the  invitation  to  a  seat  in  the  Assembly,  lie 
was  highly  esteemed  by  the  members  for  his  learning,  orthodoxy,  and 

1  Dr.  M'Cric  (Annals,  p.  177)  asserts  without  proof  that  the  '  Westm.  Conf.  bears  unmis- 
takably the  stamp  of  the  Dutch  theology  in  the  sharp  distinctions,  logical  forms,  and  judicial 
terms  into  which  the  reformed  doctrine  had  gradually  moulded  itself  under  the  red  heat  of 
the  Arminian  and  Socinian  controversies.'  This  is  an  error  if  we  look  to  the  direct  source. 
See  below. 

2  See  pp.  658  and  CG'2. 


762 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


piety.     His  friend,  Dr.  Hoyle,  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Dublin,  be- 
longed to  the  committee  which  framed  the  Confession.1 

The  following  tables  will  illustrate  the  relation  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  to  the  preceding  standards  of  the  English  and  Irish  Church. 

WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.      1G47. 

Chapter  I.— Of  Holy  Scripture. 

VII.  All  things  in  Scripture  are  not  alike 
plain  in  themselves,  nor  alike  clear  unto  all; 
yet  those  things  which  are  necessary  to  be 
known,  believed,  and  observed  for  salvation 
are  so  clearly  propounded  and  opened  in  some 
place  of  Scripture  or  other,  that  not  only  the 
learned,  but.  the  unlearned,  in  a  due  use  of  the 
ordinary  means,  may  attain  unto  a  sufficient 
understanding  of  them. 


Chapter  II. — Of  God  and  of  the  Holy 
Trinity. 

I.  There  is  but  one  only  living  and  true  God, 
who  is  infinite  in  being  and  perfection,  a  most 
pure  spirit,  invisible,  without  body,  jiarts,  or 
passions,  etc. 

III.  In  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  there  be 
three  persons,  of  one  substance,  power,  and  eter- 
nity— God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

Chapter  III. — Of  God's  Eternal  Decree. 


I.  God  from  all  eternity  did,  by  the  most 
wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely 
and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to 
pass ;  yet  so  as  thereby  neither  is  God  the  au- 
thor of  sin,  nor  is  violence  offered  to  the  will 
of  the  creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty  or  contin- 
gency of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather 
established. 

III.  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifes- 
tation of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are 
predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others 
foreordained  to  everlasting  death. 

IV.  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predesti- 
nated and  foreordained,  are  particularly  and 
unchangeably  designed  ;  and  their  number  is 
so  certain  and  definite  that  it  can  not  be  either 
increased  or  diminished. 

V.  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated 
unto  life,  God.  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  was  laid,  according  to  his  eternal  and 
immutable  purpose,  and  the  secret  counsel  and 
good  pleasure  of  his  will,  hath  chosen  in  Christ 
unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere  free 
grace  and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith 
or  good  ivories,  or  perseverance  in  either  of 
them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as 


IRISH   ARTICLES.      1G15. 

Of  Holy  Scripture. 

.r>.  Although  there  be  some  hard  things  in 
the  Scripture,  .  .  .  yet  all  things  necessary 
to  be  known  unto  everlasting  salvation  are 
clearly  delivered  therein  ;  and  nothing  of  that 
kind  is  spoken  under  dark  mysteries  in  one 
place  which  is  not  in  other  places  spoken 
more  familiarly  and  plainly,  to  the  capacity 
both  of  learned  and  unlearned. 


Of  Faith  in  the  Holy  Trinity. 

8.  There  is  but  one  living  and  true  God, 
everlasting,  without  body,  parts,  or  passions, 
of  infinite  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness,  etc. 

And  in  unity  of  this  Godhead,  there  be  three 
persons  of  one  and  the  same  substance,  power, 
and  eternity — the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost.     [English  Art.  I.] 

Of  God's  Eternal  Decree  and  Predes- 
tination. 

11.  God,  from  all  eternity,  did,  by  his  un- 
changeable counsel,  ordain  whatsoever  in  time 
should  come  to  pass:  yet  so  as  thereby  no  vio- 
lence is  offered  to  the  ivills  of  the  reasonable 
creatures,  and  neither  the  liberty  nor  the  con- 
tingency of  the  second  causes  is  taken  away, 
but  established  rather. 

12.  By  the  same  eternal  counsel  God  hath 
predestinated  some  unto  life,  and  reprobated 
some  unto  death  :  of  both  which  there  is  a 
certain  number  known  only  to  God,  which  can 
neither  be  increased  nor  diminished.  [See 
Lambeth  Art.  I.  and  III.] 


13.  Predestination  to  life  is  the  everlasting 
purpose  of  God,  whereby,  before  the  founda- 
tions of  the  world  were  laid,  he  hath  constant- 
ly decreed  in  his  secret  counsel  to  deliver  from 
curse  and  damnation  those  whom  he  hath 
chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind,  and  to  bring 
them  by  Christ  unto  everlasting  salvation,  as 
vessels  made  to  honor. 

14.  The  cause  moving  God  to  predestinate 


1  This  agreement  was  first  brought  to  light  and  set  forth  in  detail  by  Prof.  Mitchell,  of  St. 
Andrews,  in  the  pamphlet  above  quoted,  and  also  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Minutes,  p.  xlvii. 


§95.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION. 


703 


Westminster  Confession — Continued. 

conditions,  or  causes  moping  him  thereunto 
and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace. 


VI.  As  God  hath  appointed  ihe  elect  unto 
glory,  so  hath  he,  by  the  eternal  and  most 
free  purpose  of  his  will,  foreordained  all  the 
means  thereunto.  Wherefore  they  who  are 
elected,  being  fallen  in  Adam,  are  redeemed 
by  Christ;  are  effectually  called  to  faith  in 
Christ  by  his  Spirit  working  in  due  season; 
are  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  kept  by 
his  power  through  faith  unto  salvation.  Nei- 
ther are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effec- 
tually called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and 
saved,  but  the  elect  only. 

VII.  The  rest  of  mankind  God  was  pleased, 
according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his 
own  will,  whereby  he  extendeth  or  withhold- 
eth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his 
sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by, 
and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for 
their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice. 
[Com]).  Irish  Art.  §  14:  'leaving  the  rest  to 
be  spectacles  of  hi*  justice.'] 

VIII.  The  doctrine  of  this  high  mystery  of 
predestination  is  to  be  handled  with  special 
prudence  and  care,  that  men  attending  to  the 
will  of  God  revealed  in  his  Word,  and  yielding 
obedience  thereunto,  may,  from  the  certainty 
of  their  effectual  vocation,  be  assured  of  their 
eternal  election. 

So  >hall  this  doctrine  afford  matter  of  praise, 
reverence,  and  admiration  of  God,  and  of  hu- 
mility, diligence,  and  abundant  consolation,  to 
all  that  sincerely  obey  the  gospel. 

Chapter  V. — Of  Providence. 

IV.  [His  providence]  extendeth  itself  even 
to  the  first  fall,  and  all  other  sins  of  angels  and 
men,  and  that  not  by  a  bare  permission,  but 
such  as  has  joined  with  it  a  most  wise  and 
powerful  hounding,  and  otherwise  ordering 
and  governing  of  them  in  a  manifold  dispensa- 
tion to  his  own  holy  ends:  yet  so  as  the  sin- 
fulness thereof  proceedeth  only  from  the  creat- 
ure and  not  from  God,  who,  being  most  boly 
and  righteous,  neither  is  nor  can  be  the  author 
or  approver  of  sin. 

Chapter  VI. — Of  the  Fall  of  Man,  of 
Sin,  etc. 

V.  This  corruption  of  nature,  during  this 
life,  doth  remain  in  those  that  are  regenerated : 


IBIBH  Articles — Continued. 

unto  life  is  not  the  foreseeing  of  faith,  or  per- 
severance, or  good  works,  or  of  any  thing  which 
is  in  the  person  predestinated,  but  only  the 
good  pleasure  of  God  himself.  For  all  things 
being  ordained  for  the  manifestation  of  his 
glory,  and  his  glory  being  to  appear  both  in 
the  works  of  his  mercy  and  of  his  justice,  it 
seemed  good  to  his  heavenly  wisdom  to  choose 
OUt  a  certain  number  towards  whom  he  would 
extend  his  undeserved  mercy,  leaving  the  rest 
to  be  spectacles  of  his  justice. 

16.  Such  as  are  predestinated  unto  life,  be 
called  according  unto  God's  purpose  ( his  Spirit 
working  in  due  season)  and  through  grace  they 
obey  the  calling,  they  be  justified  freely,  they 
be  made  sons  of  God  by  adoption,  they  be 
made  like  the  image  of  his  only-begotten  Son 
Jesus  Christ,  they  walk  religiously  in  good 
works,  and  at  length,  by  God's  mercy  they 
attain  to  everlasting  felicity.  But  such  as  are 
not  predestinated  to  salvation  shall  finally  be 
condemned  for  their  sins.  [English  Art. 
XVII. ;  Lambeth  Art.  II.] 

32.  None  can  come  unto  Christ  unless  it  be 
given  unto  him,  and  unless  the  Father  draw 
him.  And  all  men  are  not  so  drawn  by  the 
Father  that  they  may  come  unto  the  Son. 
Neither  is  there  such  a  sufficient  measure  of 
grace  vouchsafed  unto  every  man  whereby  he 
is  enabled  to  come  unto  everlasting  life. 
[Lambeth  Art.  VII.,  VIII.,  IX.] 

17.  We  must  receive  God's  promises  in  such 
wise  as  they  be  generally  set  forth  unto  us  in 
Holy  Scripture;  and  in  our  doings,  that  will 
of  God  is  to  be  followed  which  we  have  ex- 
prosslv  declared  unto  us  in  the  Word  of  God. 
[English  Art.  XVIL] 

1  (1.  The  godlike  consideration  of  predestina- 
tion and  our  election  in  Christ  is  full  of  sweet, 
pleasant,  and  unspeakable  comfort  to  godly 
persons,  etc.     [English  Art.  XVIL] 

Of  the  Fall  of  Man,  etc. 
28.  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin  ;  howbeithe 
doth  not  only  permit,  but  also  by  his  providence 
f/ovem  and  order  the  same,  guiding  it  in  such 
sort  by  his  infinite  wisdom  as  it  turneth  to 
the  manifestation  of  his  own  glory,  and  to  the 
good  of  his  elect. 


Of  Original  Sin. 

24.   This  corruption  of  nature  doth  remain 
even  in  those  that  are  regenerated ;  .  .  .  And 


764: 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


Westminster  Confession — Continued. 

and  although  it  be  through  Christ  pardoned 
and  mortified,  yet  both  itself  and  all  the  mo- 
tions thereof  are  truly  and  properly  sin. 


Chapter  VIII. — Of  Christ  the  Mediator. 

II.  The  Son  of  God,  the  second  person  in 
the  Trinity,  being  very  and  eternal  God,  of 
one  substance  and  equal  with  the  Father,  did, 
when  the  fullness  of  time  was  come,  take  upon 
him  mans  nature,  with  all  the  essential  prop- 
erties and  common  infirmities  thereof,  yet 
without  sin  :  being  conceived  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  of  her  substance.  So  that  two  whole, 
perfect,  and  distinct  natures,  the  Godhead  and 
the  manhood,  were  inseparably  joined  together 
in  one  person,  without  conversion,  composi- 
tion, or  confusion.  Which  person  is  very  God, 
and  very  man,  yet  one  Christ ;  the  only  Media- 
tor between  God  and  man. 

Chapter  XVI. — Of  Good  Works. 
I.  Good  works  are  only  such  as  God  hath 
commanded  in  his  holy  Word,  and  not  such 
as,  without  the  warrant  thereof,  are  devised  by 
men,  out  of  blind  zeal,  or  upon  any  pretense  of 
good  intention. 


Chapter   XVII. — Of   the  Perseverance 
of  the  Saints. 

I.  They  whom  God  hath  accepted  in  his  Be- 
loved, effectually  called,  and  sanctified  by  his 
Spirit,  can  neither  totally  nor  finally  fall  aioay 
from  the  state  of  grace ;  but  shall  certainly 
persevere  therein  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally 
saved. 

Chapter  XXI. — Of  Religious   Worship 
and  the  Sabbath  Day. 

II.  Religious  worship  is  to  be  given  to  God 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  him 
alone. 

VIII.  This  Sabbath  is  then  kept  holy  unto 
the  Lord,  when  men  ...  do  not  only  ob- 
serve an  holy  rest  all  the  day  from  their  own 
works,  words,  and  thoughts  about  their  world- 
ly employments  and  recreations,  but  also  are 
taken  up  the  whole  time  in  the  public  and  pri- 
vate exercises  of  his  worship,  and  in  the  duties 
of  necessity  and  mercy. 

Chapter   XXIII. — Of  the  Civil   Magis- 
trate. 

III.  The  Civil  Magistrate  may  not  assume 
to  himself  the  administration  of  the  Word  and 


Irish  Articles — Continued. 

howsoever  for  Christ's  sake  there  be  no  con- 
demnation to  such  as  are  regenerate  and  do 
believe,  yet  doth  the  apostle  acknowledge  that 
in  itself  this  concupiscence  hath  the  nature  of 
sin.     [English  Art.  IX.] 

Of  Christ,  the  Mediator  of  ihh  Second 
Covenant. 
29.  The  Son,  which  is  the  Word  of  the  Fa- 
ther, begotten  from  everlasting  of  the  Father, 
the  true  and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance  with 
the  Father,  took  man's  nature  in  the  womb  of 
the  blessed  Virgin,  of  her  substance :  so  that 
two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say, 
the  Godhead  and  manhood,  were  inseparably 
joined  in  one  person,  making  one  Christ  very 
God  and  very  Man.     [English  Art.  II.] 


Of  Sanctification  and  Good  Works. 

42.  The  works  which  God  would  have  his 
people  to  walk  in  are  such  as  he  hath  com- 
manded in  his  Holy  Scripture,  and  not  such 
works  as  men  have  devised  out  of  their  own 
brain,  of  a  blind  zeal  and  devotion,  without 
the  warrant  of  the  Word  of  God. 

Of  Justification  and  Faith. 

38.  A  true,  lively,  justifying  faith,  and  the 
sanctifying  Spirit  oi*  God,  is  not  extinguished, 
nor  vanisheth  away,  in  the  regenerate,  either 
finally  or  totally.     [Lambeth  Art.  V.] 


Of  the  Service  of  God. 

54.  All  religious  worship  ought  to  be  given 
to  God  alone. 

50.  The  first  day  of  the  week,  which  is  the 
Lord's  day,  is  wholly  to  be  dedicated  unto  the 
service  of  God  ;  and  therefore  we  are  bound 
therein  to  rest  from  our  common  and  daily 
business,  and  to  bestow  that  leisure  upon  holy 
exercises,  both  public  and  private. 


Of  the  Civil  Magistrate. 

58.  .  .  .  Neither  do  we  give  unto  him  hereby 
the  administration  of  the    Word  and  sacra- 


§  05.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION. 


r65 


Westminster  Confession—  Continued. 

sacraments,  or  the  power  of  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

Chapter  XXV.— Of  the  Church. 

I.  The  Catholic  or  Universal  Church,  which 
is  invisible,  consists  of  the  whole  number  of 
the  elect  that  have  been,  are,  or  shall  be  gath- 
ered into  one,  under  Christ,  the  head  thereof; 
and  is  the  spouse,  the  body,  the  fullness  of 
him  who  fillet h  all  in  all. 

Chapter  XXVIII.— Of  Baptism. 
I.  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Test- 
ament, ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  for 
the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized 
into  the  visible  Church;  but  also  to  be  unto  him 
a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  of  his 
ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  regeneration,  of  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  of  his  giving  up  unto  God, 
through  Jesus  Christ  to  walk  in  newness  of 
life. 

Chapter  XXIX. — Of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

I.  The  sacrament  of  his  body  and  blood 
...  for  the  perpetual  remembrance  of  the 
sacrifice  of  himself  in  his  death,  the  sealing  all 
the  benefits  thereof  unto  true  believers,  their 
spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  him. 

VII.  Worthy  receivers,  outwardly  partaking 
of  the  visible  elements  in  this  sacrament,  do 
then  also  inwardly  by  faith,  really  and  indeed, 
yet  not  carnally  and  corporally,  but  spiritually, 
receive  and  feed  upon  Christ  crucified,  and  all 
benefits  of  his  death  :  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  being  then  not  corporally  or  carnally 
in,  with,  or  under  the  bread  and  wine,  yet  as 
really,  but  spiritually,  present  to  the  faith  of 
believers  in  that  ordinance,  as  thte  elements 
themselves  are  to  the  outward  senses. 

VIII.  Although  ignorant  and  wicked  men 
receive  the  outward  elements  in  this  sacra- 
ment, yet  they  receive  not  the  thing  signified 
thereby  ;  but  by  their  unworthy  coming  there- 
unto are  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord,  to  their  own  damnation.  Wherefore, 
all  ignorant  and  ungodly  persons,  as  they  are 
unfit  to  enjoy  communion  with  him,  so  are 
they  unworthy  of  the  Lord's  table,  and  can  not, 
without  great  sin  against  Christ,  while  they 
remain  such,  partake  of  these  holy  mysteries, 
or  be  admitted  thereto. 


Irish  Articles — Continued. 

ments,  or  the  power  of  the  keys,  etc.     [See 
English  Art.  XXXVII.] 

Of  the  Church,  etc. 

OS.  There  is  but  one  Catholic  Church,  out 
of  which  there  is  no  salvation  :  containing  the 
universal  company  of  all  the  saints  that  ever 
were,  are,  or  shall  be  gathered  together  in  one 
body,  under  one  head,  Christ  Jesus. 


Of  Baptism. 
89.  Baptism  is  not  only  an  outward  sign  of 
our  profession,  .  .  .  but  much  more  a  sacra- 
ment of  our  admission  into  the  Church,  sealing 
unto  us  our  new  birth  (and  consequently  our 
justification,  adoption,  and  sanctification)  by 
the  communion  which  we  have  with  Jesus 
Christ.     [English  Art.  XXVII.] 


Of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

92.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  not  only  a  sign, 
but  much  more  a  sacrament  of  our  preserva- 
tion in  the  Church,  sealing  unto  us  our  spiritual 
nourishment  and  continual  growth  in  Christ. 
[English  Art.  XXVIII.] 

94.  But  in  the  inward  and  spiritual  part 
the  same  body  and  blood  is  really  and  sub- 
stantially presented  unto  all  those  who  have 
grace  to  receive  the  Son  of  God,  even  to  all 
those  that  believe  in  his  name.  And  unto  such 
as  in  this  manner  do  worthily  and  with  faith 
repair  unto  the  Lord's  table,  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  is  not  only  signified  and  offered,  but 
also  truly  exhibited  and  communicated. 


96.  The  wicked,  and  such  as  want  a  lively- 
faith,  although  they  do  carnally  and  visibly  (as 
St.  Augustine  speaketh)  press  with  their  teeth 
the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
yet  in  no  wise  are  they  made  partakers  of 
Christ ;  but  rather  to  their  condemnation  do 
eat  and  drink  the  sign  or  sacrament  of  so  great 
a  thing.     [English  Art.  XXIX.  J 


CONTENTS. 

Neal  says :  '  Though   all  the   divines  were   in   the   anti-Arminian 
scheme,  yet  some  had  a  greater  latitude  than  others.     I  find  in  my 


766  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

MS.  the  dissent  of  several  members  against  some  expressions  relating 
to  reprobation,  to  the  imputation  of  the  active  as  well  as  passive  obe- 
dience of  Christ,  and  to  several  passages  in  the  chapter  on  liberty  of 
conscience  and  Church  discipline;  but  the  Confession,  as  far  as  re- 
lated to  articles  of  faith,  passed  the  Assembly  and  Parliament  by  a 
very  great  majority.' 1  Neal  does  not  specify  the  differences  to  which 
he  alludes.  Since  the  publication  of  the  Minutes  we  are  enabled  to 
ascertain  them,  at  least  to  some  extent,  from  the  meagre  and  'broken 
reports  of  debates  on  election  and  reprobation,  on  the  fall  of  Adam, 
on  the  Covenants,  on  providence,  free-will,  creation,  justification,  sanc- 
tification,  the  sacraments,  and  other  topics.  In  most  cases  the  fact  is 
simply  mentioned  that  there  was  a  debate;  in  others  brief  extracts  of 
speeches  are  given  which  reveal  minor  differences  of  views,  though 
not  of  parties,  or  even  of  schools.  The  debates  on  Church  government 
were  much  more  serious  and  heated.  The  harmony  of  so  many 
scholars  from  all  parts  of  England  and  Scotland,  on  a  whole  scheme 
of  divinity,  is  truly  surprising,  and  accounts  for  their  sanguine  hopes 
of  securing  a  doctrinal  uniformity  in  the  three  kingdoms. 

The  Confession  consists  of  thirty-three  chapters,  which  cover,  in  nat- 
ural order,  all  the  leading  articles  of  the  Christian  faith  from  the  cre- 
ation to  the  final  judgment.  It  exhibits  the  consensus  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  on  the  Continent  and  in  England  and  Scotland,  which  was 
one  of  the  objects  of  Parliament  intrusted  to  the  Assembly. 

BIBLIOLOGY. 

Following  the  precedent  of  most  of  the  Continental  Reformed 
Confessions  and  the  Irish  Articles,  the  Westminster  formulary  prop- 
erly begins  with  the  Bible,  on  which  all  our  theology  must  be  based, 
and  sets  forth  its  divine  inspiration,  authority,  and  sufficiency  as  an 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  in  opposition  both  to  Romanism, 
which  elevates  ecclesiastical  tradition  to  the  dignity  of  a  joint  rule  of 
faith,  and  to  Rationalism,  which  teaches  the  sufficiency  of  natural 
reason.  It  excludes  the  Jewish  Apocrypha  entirely  from  the  Canon, 
while  in  the  English  and  Irish  Articles  they  are  at  least  enumerated, 
though   distinguished   from    the    canonical  books.2      The   Confession 

1  Vol.  II.  p.  41. 

5  The  Lutheran  svmbols  make  no  such  distinction  and  give  no  list  of  the  canonical  books. 


§  95.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  707 

gives  to  reason,  or  the  light  of  nature,  its  proper  place,  distinguishes 
between  the  original  Scripture  and  the  translations,  maintains  the  true 
exegetical  principle  of  the  self-interpretation  of  Scripture  in  the  light 
of  the  Spirit  that  inspired  it,  and  caref  ally  avoids  committing  itself  to 
any  mechanical  or  magical  or  any  other  particular  theory  concerning 
the  mode  and  degrees  of  inspiration,  or  obstructing  the  investigation  of 
critical  questions  concerning  the  text  and  the  authorship  (as  distinct 
from  the  canonicity)  of  the  several  books.1  It  rests  the  authority  of 
the  Bible  on  its  own  intrinsic  excellence  and  the  internal  testimony 
of  the  Spirit  rather  than  the  external  testimony  of  the  Church,  how- 
ever valuable  this  is  as  a  continuous  witness.2 

No  other  Protestant  symbol  has  such  a  clear,  judicious,  concise,  and 
exhaustive  statement  of  this  fundamental  article  of  Protestantism. 
It  has  been  pronounced  equal  in  ability  to  the  Tridentine  decree 
on  justification.3  It  may  more  aptly  be  compared  to  the  Tri- 
dentine decree  on  Scripture  and  tradition  (Sess.  IV.)  and  the  re- 
cent Vatican  decree  on  the  dogmatic  constitution  of  the  Catholic 
faith  (Sess.  III.),  as  far  as  this  relates  to  reason  and  revelation,  and 
may  be  regarded  as  the  best  Protestant  counterpart  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  rule  of  faith.  The  Confession  plants  itself 
exclusively  on  the  Bible  platform,  without  in  the  least  depreciating 
the  invaluable  aid  of  human  learning  —  patristic,  scholastic,  and  mod- 


Thev  have  no  separate  article  on  the  Scriptures  at  all,  beyond  the  important  statement  in 
the  introduction  to  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

1  Thus  we  find  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  named  separately,  and  not  included  in 
' fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul,'  as  in  the  IJelgic  Confession.  Canonicity  is  not  necessarily  de- 
pendent on  a  traditional  view  of  authorship  or  genuineness. 

2  Ch.  I.  5  :  '  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of  the  Church  to  an  high 
and  reverent  esteem  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy 
of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole 
(which  is  to  give  all  glory  to  God),  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man's  sal- 
vation, the  many  other  incomparable  excellencies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  ar- 
guments whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  Word  of  God ;  yet,  notwith- 
standing, our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  thereof 
is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  Word  in  our 

hearts.' 

3  While  arguing  ttt/ainst  creeds  and  councils.  Dean  Stanley  (in  the  Conlcmp.  Rev.  for  Aug. 
1874,  p.  490)  writes:  '  Is  there  any  Bingle  theological  question  which  any  council  or  synod  has 
argued  and  decided  with  an  ability  equal  to  that  of  any  of  the  great  theologians,  lay  or  cler- 
ical ?  The  nearest  apjiroaches  to  it  are  the  chapters  on  Justification  in  the  Decrees  of  Trent, 
and  on  the  Bible  in  the  Westminster  Confession.''  Comp.  also  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Mitchell, 
Intiod.  to  Minutes,  p.  xli.x. 


76S  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ern — in  its  own  proper  place,  as  a  means  to  an  end  and  an  aid  in 
ascertaining  the  true  sense  of  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
through  his  own  inspired  Word  must  alternately  decide  all  questions 
of  the  Christian  faith  and  duty.  It  is  clear  that  Protestantism  must 
sink  or  swim  with  this  principle.  Criticism,  philosophy,  and  science 
may  sweep  away  human  traditions,  confessions,  creeds,  and  other  out- 
works, but  they  can  never  destroy  the  fortress  of  God's  Word,  which 
liveth  and  abideth  forever. 

THEOLOGY    AND   CHEISTOLOGY. 

Ch.  II.,  'Of  the  Trinity,'  and  Oh.  XYIIL,  'Of  Christ  the  Media- 
tor,' contain  one  of  the  best  statements  of  the  Nicene  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  and  of  the  Chalcedonian  Christology,  as  held  by  all  orthodox 
Churches.  On  these  articles  the  evangelical  Protestant  Confessions 
are  entirely  agreed. 

PREDESTINATION. 

Ch.  III.,  'Of  God's  Eternal  Decree,'1  Ch.  V.,  'Of  Providence,'  Ch. 
IX.,  '  Of  Free  Will,'  and  Ch.  XVIII.,  '  Of  the  Perseverance  of  the 
Saints,'  are  closely  connected.  They  present  a  logical  chain  of  ideas 
which  make  up  what  is  technically  called  '  the  Calvinistic  system,'  as 
developed  first  by  Calvin  himself  against  Komanism,  then  in  Holland 
and  England  against  Arminianism. 

This  system  had  at  that  time  a  powerful  hold  upon  the  serious  re- 
ligious minds  in  England  and  Scotland,  including  many  leading  Epis- 
copal divines  (not  of  the  Laudian  type)  who  otherwise  had  no  sympa- 
thy with  Puritanism,  and  ridiculed  it  with  bitter  sarcasm,  like  -Dr. 
South.  Even  the  authorized  English  version  of  the  Bible  (1611)  has 
been  charged  by  Arminians  with  a  Calvinistic  bias,  while  Calvinistshave 
never  complained  of  any  defect  in  this  respect.2     The  only  question  in 

1  The  English  and  Scotch  editions  use  the  singular,  some  American  editions  the  plural  (as 
in  the  Catechisms).  There  was  a  dispute  in  the  Assembly  ahout  decree  and  decrees.  Sev- 
eral memhers  were  opposed  to  dividing  the  one,  all-comprehending  decree  of  God.  Seaman 
said  :  'All  the  odious  doctrine  of  the  Arminians  is  from  their  distinguishing  of  the  decrees, 
but  our  divines  say  they  are  one  and  the  same  decree.'  Reynolds  differed.  See  Minutes, 
]).  151.  But  both  Catechisms  in  all  editions  have  decrees  (comprehended  under  the  one 
jiw-jinse  of  God ;  see  Shorter  Catechism,  Quest.  7). 

3  The  charge  derives  some  plausibility  from  the  fact  that  the  supralapsarian  Beza,  by  his 
Greek  Testament  and  his  Latin  translation  and  notes,  exerted  a  marked  influence  on  the  trans- 
lators. It  is  supported  chiefly  by  three  passages.  In  Matt.  xx.  23,  the  words  '  it  shall  be 
given'  are  unnecessarily  inserted  (after  the  precedent  of  the  Geneva  version).     In  Acts  ii. 


§  95.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  7G9 

the  Assembly  was  as  to  the  logical  extent  to  which  they  should  carry 
the  doctrine  of  predestination  in  a  confessional  statement.  The  more 
consistent  and  rigorous  scheme  of  supralapsarianism  had  its  advocates 
in  Westminster  as  well  as  in  Dort,  and  was  favored  by  Dr.  Twisse,  the 
Prolocutor,  who  followed  Beza  and  Gomarus  to  the  giddy  abyss  of  in- 
cluding the  fall  itself  in  the  absolute  eternal  decree  as  a  necessary 
means  for  the  manifestation  of  God's  justice;  but  the  infralapsarian 
(or  sublapsarian)  scheme  of  Augustine  decidedly  triumphed.  Supralap- 
sarianism has  always  remained  only  a  private  speculation. 

The  Westminster  Confession  goes,  indeed,  beyond  the  two  Helvetic 
Confessions,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  the  Scotch  Confession,  and  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles ;  but  it  goes  not  a  whit  further  than  the  Canons  of 
Dort  (which  had  the  approval  of  the  delegates  of  King  James),  the  Lam- 
beth Articles,  and  the  Irish  Articles.1  It  teaches  really  no  more  on  pre- 
destination than  the  great  Catholic  Augustine  had  taught  in  the  fourth 
century,  as  well  as  two  archbishops  of  Canterbury — Anselm  in  the  elev- 
enth, and  Bradwardine  in  the  fourteenth  century.2  It  gives,  however,  a 
clearer  logical  shape  and  greater  prominence  to  the  doctrine  in  the  sys- 
tem by  placing  it  among  the  first  articles.  It  puts  the  fall  with  its  sinful 
consequences  only  under  a  permissive  (as  distinct  from  a  causal  or  ef- 
fective) decree,  and  emphatically  exempts  God  from  all  authorship  of 
sin.3  It  does  not  teach  the  horrible  and  blasphemous  doctrine  (so  often 
unjustly  and  unscrupulously  charged  upon  Calvinism)  that  God  from 

47,  we  read,  'The  Lord  added  to  the  Church  such  as  should  be  saved,'  instead  of  'such  as 
were  being  saved,  or  in  the  way  of  salvation  '  (rove  ato^ofiivovg,  not  tovc  awSnaonivovc). 
In  Heb.  x.  38 — 'Now  the  just  shall  live  by  faith;  but  if  any  ?nan  draw  back,  my  soul  shall 
have  no  pleasure  in  him' — any  man  is  inserted,  with  Beza  ('si  quis  se  subduxerit'),  to  dis- 
tinguish the  subject  of  vTroo\(i\j}Tai  from  the  (Jiicaioe  of  the  first  clause,  and  to  evade  an 
argument  against  the  perseverance  of  saints.     But  the  case  here  is  doubtful. 

1  See  the  comparative  table,  pp.  762,  7<>.'!.  Ussher  adhered  to  his  views  on  predestination, 
which  he  had  expressed  in  the  Irish  Articles.  In  his  '  Method  of  the  Christian  Religion,' 
written  in  his  youth,  but  revised  and  republished  shortly  before  his  death,  he  has  even  a 
stronger  passage  on  reprobation  than  the  Westminster  Confession,  viz., '  Did  God,  then,  before 
he  made  man,  determine  to  save  some  and  reject  others  ?  A.  Yes,  surely  ;  before  they  had 
done  either  good  or  evil,  God  in  his  eternal  counsel  set  some  apart  upon  whom  he  would  in 
time  show  the  riches  of  his  mercy,  and  determined  to  withhold  the  same  from  others,  npon 
whom  he  would  show  the  severity  of  his  justice.'  See  Vol.  XI.  of  his  Works:  and  Mitchell, 
p.  liv.  note. 

2  Bradwardine's  treati-o,  /><  causa  Dei  adversus  Pelagium,  which  leads  even  to  supralap- 
sarianism, was  republished  in  London  in  1GI8  by  Archbishop  Abbot,  the  Calvinistic  prede-- 
cessor  of  the  anti-Calvinistic  Laud. 

s  Ch.  V.  4 :  '  God,  being  most  holy  and  righteous,  neither  is  nor  can  be  the  author  r '"'  aP" 
prover  of  sin.' 


! 


770  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

eternity  foreordained  men  for  sin  and  damnation ;  but  it  does  teaeh 
that  out  of  the  fallen  mass  of  eorruption  God  elected  a  definite  num- 
ber of  men  to  salvation  and  'passed  by'  the  rest,  leaving  them  to  the 
just  punishment  of  their  sins. 

This  is  severe  and  harsh  enough,  but  very  different  from  a  decree  of 
eternal  reprobation,  which  term  nowhere  occurs  in  the  Confession. 
The  difference  is  made  more  clear  from  the  debates  in  the  '  Minutes.' 
Several  prominent  members,  as  Calamy,  Arrowsmith,  Vines,  Seaman, 
who  took  part  in  the  preparation  of  the  doctrinal  standards,  sym- 
pathized with  the  hypothetical  universalism  of  the  Sanmnr  school 
(Cameron  and  Amyrauld)  and  with  the  moderate  position  of  Daven- 
ant  and  the  English  delegates  to  the  Synod  of  Dort.  They  expressed 
this  sympathy  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  as  well  as  on  other  occa- 
sions. They  believed  in  a  special  effective  election  and  final  perse- 
verance of  the  elect  (as  a  necessary  means  to  a  certain  end),  but  they 
held  at  the  same  time  that  God  sincerely  intends  to  save  all  men ; 
that  Christ  intended  to  die,  and  actually  died,  for  all  men ;  and  that 
the  difference  is  not  in  the  intention  and  offer  on  the  part  of  God, 
but  in  the  acceptance  and  appropriation  on  the  part  of  men.1 

1  Calamy  said,  in  a  sermon  before  the  House  of  Commons  :  '  It  is  most  certain  that  God  is 
not  the  cause  of  any  man's  damnation.  lie  found  us  sinners  in  Adam,  but  made  none  sin- 
-ners.'  In  the  debate  on  redemption  in  the  Assembly,  he  stated:  'I  am  far  from  universal 
redemption  in  the  Arminian  sense,  but  I  hold  with  our  divines  in  the  Synod  of  Dort  that 
Christ  did  pay  a  price  for  all,  [with]  absolute  intention  for  the  elect,  [with]  conditional  in- 
tention for  the  reprobate  in  case  they  do  believe ;  that  all  men  should  be  salvabiles,  non  ob- 
stante iapsu  Adami;  that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  only  die  sufficiently  for  all,  but  God  did  intend, 
in  giving  of  Christ,  and  Christ  in  giving  himself  did  intend,  to  put  all  men  in  a  state  of  salvation 
in  case  they  do  obey.'  .  .  .  'This  universality  of  redemption  does  neither  intrude  upon  either 
doctrine  of  special  election  or  special  grace'  (Minutes,  p.  152).  'The  difference  is  not  in  the 
offer,  but  in  the  application.  For  the  word  world  [in  John  iii.  1G]  signifies  the  whole  world  ' 
(p.  156).  'It  can  not  be  meant  of  the  elect  because  of  that  ivhosoever  believeth,  and  Mark 
xvi.,  "Preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature"''  (p.  154).  'In  the  point  of  election  I  am  for 
special  election,  and  for  reprobation  I  am  for  inassa  corrupta  ;  .  .  .  there  is  ea  administrate  of 
grace  to  the  reprobate  that  they  do  ivi/lful/i/  damn  themselves1  (p.  153);  Seaman  said:  'All 
in  the  first  Adam  were  made  liable  to  damnation,  so  all  are  liable  to  salvation  in  the  second 
Adam.  Every  man  was  damnalnlis,  so  is  every  man  salvabilis'  (p.  15-1).  Dr.  Mitchell  (pp. 
lvi.  sqq.)  shows  that  Arrowsmith,  Gataker,  and  other  members  of  the  Assembly,  in  their  pri- 
vate writings,  agreed  with  Calamy.  His  interpretation  of  icua/toc,  in  John  iii.  10,  is  indeed  the 
only  tenable  one,  and  seems  to  he  favored  by  the  exegetical  tact  of  Calvin  himself  (in  he.), 
for  Calvin  the  exegete  is  more  fair  and  free  than  Calvin  the  theologian.  Dr.  Arrowsmith, 
who  was  a  member  of  the  Committees  on  the  Confession  and  on  the  Catechisms,  in  his 
explanation  of  Kom.  ix.  22,  28,  justly  presses  the  important  difference  between  the  passive 
KaTij)T'"l'tva  an(l  tne  active  irpotjroifiairtv.  'I  desire,'  he  says,  'to  have  it  punctually  ob- 
served rl?*  tnc  vesse's  °f  wrath  are  only  said  to  be  fitted  to  destruction,  without  naming  by 


V 


§95.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  771 

Another  important  and  modifying  feature  is  that  the  Confession, far 

from  teaehing  fatalism  or  necessitarianism,  expressly  recognizee  the 
freedom  of  will,  and  embraces  in  the  divine  decrees  '  the  liberty  or  con- 
tingency of  second  causes'  (Ch. IH.,1).1  Herein  it  agrees  with  Ussher, 
IJullinger,  and  Calvin  himself,  and  favorably  differs  from  the  Lutheran 
Formula  of  Concord,  which  (following  the  strong  expressions  of  Luther 
and  Flacius)  nnphilosophically  represents  the  human  will  before  con- 
version to  be  as  passive  as  a  dead  log  or  stone.  The  Confession  makes 
no  attempt  to  solve  the  apparent  contradiction  between  divine  sover- 
eignty and  human  freedom,  but  it  at  least  recognizes  both  sides  of  the 
problem,  and  gives  a  basis  for  the  assertion  that  God's  absolute  decrees 
have  no  causal  effect  upon  the  sinful  actions  of  men,  for  which  they 
alone  are  responsible. 

"With  the  Calvinistic  particularism  the  limitation  of  redemption2  is 
closely  connected.  The  difference  is  chiefly  one  of  logical  consistency. 
It  refers  to  the  efficiency  of  redemption  or  its  actual  application.     All 

whom— God,  Satan,  or  themselves  ;  whereas,  on  the  other  side,  God  himself  is  expres-lv  said 
to  have  prepared  his  chosen  vessels  of  mercy  unto  glory.  Which  was  purposely  done  (as  I 
humbly  conceive)  to  intimate  a  remarkable  difference  between  election  and  pretention,  in  that 
election  is  a  proper  cause  not  only  of  salvation  itself,  but  of  all  the  graces  which  have  any 
causal  tendency  thereunto,  and  therefore  God  is  said  to  prepare  his  elect  to  glory ;  whereas 
negative  reprobation  is  no  proper  cause  either  of  damnation  itself  or  of  the  sin  that  bringeth 
it,  but  an  antecedent  only  ;  wherefore  the  non-elect  are  indeed  said  to  be  fitted  to  that  de- 
struction which  their  sins  in  conclusion  bring  upon  them,  but  not  by  God.  1  call  it  a  remark- 
able difference,  because  where  it  is  once  rightly  apprehended  and  truly  believed,  it  sufficeth  to 
Btop  the  month  of  one  of  those  greatest  calumnies  and  odiums  which  arc  usually  cast  upon 
our  doctrine  of  predestination,  viz.,  that  God  made  sundry  of  his  creatures  on  purpose  to 
damn  them— a  thing  which  the  rhetoric  of  our  adversaries  is  wont  to  blow  up  to  the  highest 
pitch  of  aggravation.  But  it  is  soon  blown  away  by  such  as  can  tell  them,  in  the  words  of 
the  excellent  Dr.  Davenant,  "It  is  true  that  the  elect  are  severally  created  to  the  cud  and 
intent  that  they  may  be  glorified  together  with  their  head,  Christ  Jesus;  but  for  the  non- 
elect,  we  can  not  truly  say  that  they  are  created  to  the  end  that  they  may  be  tormented  with 
the  devil  and  his  angels.  No  man  is  created  by  God  with  a  nature  and  quality  fitting  him 
to  damnation.  Yea,  neither  in  the  state  of  his  innocency  nor  in  the  state  of  the  fall  aud  his 
corruption  doth  he  receive  any  thing  from  God  which  is  a  proper  and  fit  means  of  bringing 
him  to  his  damnation."  ' — Chain  of  Principles,  pp.  335,  :v.'X<.  etc.,  edition  1659  (quoted  by 
Mitchell,  p.  Ixi.). 

1  Comp.  Ch.  IX.  I  :  'Cod  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with  that  natural  liberty  that  it 
is  neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determined,  to  good  or  evil  (Matt. 
xvii.  1L' ;    Dent.  xxx.  19). 

'■"The  term  atonement  is  not  used  in  the  Confession.  The  English  Bible  exceptionally 
renders  Rom.  v.  1 1,  KaraWayi)  {reconciliation),  by  atonement,  which  in  its  old  sense  (  at-one- 
ment)  means  reconciliation,  but  is  now  equivalent  to  expiation,  satisfaction  (iXaouog).  Re- 
demption (a7ro\i<7f>w<Tic)  is  a  wider  term.  'Ibis  distinction  should  be  kept  in  view  in  the 
explanation  of  the  Confession. 


772  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

were  agreed  as  to  its  absolute  sufficiency  or  its  infinite  intrinsic  value. 
All  could  subscribe  the  formula  that  Christ  died  svljicienter  pro  om- 
nibus, efficacltcr  pro  electis.  Dr.  Reynolds,  who  seems  to  have  de- 
fended the  more  rigorous  view,  said  in  the  debate:  'The  Synod  in- 
tended no  more  than  to  declare  the  sufficiency  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  it 
is pretium  in  se,  of  sufficient  value  to  all — nay,  ten  thousand  worlds." 
Nevertheless,  behind  the  logical  question  is  the  far  more  important 
theological  and  practical  question  concerning  the  extent  of  the  divine 
intention  or  purpose,  viz.,  whether  this  is  to  be  measured  by  God's  love 
and  the  intrinsic  value  of  Christ's  merits,  or  by  the  actual  result.  On 
this  question  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  among  the  divines,  as 
the  '  Minutes '  show,  and  this  difference  seems  to  have  been  left  open  by 
the  framers  of  the  Confession.  On  the  one  hand,  the  closing  sentences 
of  Ch.  III.  6  ('  neither  are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually 
called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only'),  and 
Ch.VIII.  8  ('To  all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  redemption, 
he  doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply  and  communicate  the  same'), 
favor  a  limited  redemption,  unless  the  word  redeemed  be  understood  in 
a  narrower  sense,  so  as  to  be  equivalent  to  saved,  and  to  imply  the  subject- 
ive application  or  actual  execution.2  On  the  other  hand,  Ch.  VII.  3 
teaches  that  under  the  covenant  of  grace  the  Lord  'freely  offereth 
unto  sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  requiring  of  them 
faith  in  him,  that  they  may  be  saved ;  and  promising  to  give  unto  all 
those  that  are  ordained  unto  life  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  make  them  will- 
ing and  able  to  believe.'  This  looks  like  a  compromise  between  con- 
ditional universalism  taught  in  the  first  clause,  and  particular  election 

1  Minutes,  p.  153.  The  ablest  modern  defendants  of  a  limited  atonement,  Drs.  Cunning- 
ham and  Hodge  (see  his  Theology,  Vol.  II.  pp.  544  sqq.),  are  as  emphatic  on  the  absolute 
sufficiency  as  Reynolds.  Their  arguments  are  chiefly  logical ;  but  logic  depends  on  the 
premises,  and  is  a  two-edged  sword  which  may  be  turned  against  them  as  well.  For  if  the 
atonement  be  limited  in  design,  it  must  be  limited  in  the  offer ;  or  if  unlimited  in  offer,  the 
offer  made  to  the  non-elect  must  be  insincere  and  hypocritical,  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
truthfulness  and  goodness  of  God.  Every  Calvinist  preaches  on  the  assumption  that  the 
offer  of  salvation  is  truly  and  sincerely  extended  to  all  his  hearers,  and  that  it  is  their  own 
fault  if  they  are  not  saved. 

s  Compare  the  remarks  of  Mitchell,  p.  lvii.,  who  considers  the  language  of  the  Confession 
in  Ch.  III.  compatible  with  the  liberal  view,  while  the  other  passage,  strictly  construed,  ex- 
cludes it,  unless  '  redemption '  be  there  taken  in  the  sense  of  Baxter,  as  meaning  '  that  special 
redemption  proper  to  the  elect  which  was  accompanied  with  an  intention  of  actual  application 
of  the  saving  benefits  in  time.'  The  difference  of  views  came  up  again  in  the  debate  on  the 
08th  question  of  the  Larger  Catechism.     See  Minutes,  pp.  30!),  392,  3!)3. 


§  95.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  773 

taught  iii  the  second.  This  is  in  substance  the  theory  of  the  school  of 
Satimnr, which  was  first  broached  by  a  Scotch  divine,  Cameron  (d.1625), 
and  more  fully  developed  by  his  pupil  Amyrault,  between  A.I).  1630 
and  1050,  and  which  was  afterwards  condemned  in  the  Helvetic  Con- 
sensus Formula  (1G75).1 

ANTHROPOLOGY. 

Chapters  YI.  to  IX.  present  the  usual  doctrines  of  the  Evangelical 
Reformed  (Augustinian)  anthropology,  with  the  new  feature  of  the 
Covenants.  The  doctrine  of  covenants  belongs  to  a  different  scheme 
of  theology  from  that  of  the  divine  decrees.  It  is  biblical  and  histori- 
cal rather  than  scholastic  and  predestinarian.  It  views  man  from  the 
start  as  a  free  responsible  agent,  not  as  a  machine  for  the  execution  of 
absolute  divine  decrees. 

Ch.  VII.  distinguishes  two  covenants  of  God  with  man,  the  cov- 
enant of  works  made  with  Adam  and  his  posterity  on  condition  of 
perfect  and  personal  obedience,  and  a  covenant  of  grace  made  in 
Christ  with  believers,  offering  free  salvation  on  condition  of  faith  in 
him.  The  covenant  of  grace  again  is  administered  under  two  dispensa- 
tions, the  law  and  the  gospel.  In  the  Old  Testament  it  was  adminis- 
tered by  promises,  sacrifices,  circumcision,  the  paschal  lamb,  and  other 
types  and  ordinances  which  forshadowed  the  future  Saviour.  Under 
the  New  Testament  the  covenant  of  grace  is  dispensed  through  the 
preaching  of  the  Word  and  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments. 
There  are  therefore  not  two  covenants  of  grace  differing  in  substance, 
but  one  and  the  same  under  various  dispensations. 

The  exegetical  arguments  for  the  covenant  of  works  are  derived 
chiefly  from  Gal.  iii.  10, 12,  21 ;  Rom.  iii.  20  ;  x.  5  ;  but  these  passages 
refer  to  the  covenant  of  the  law  of  Moses,  not  to  a  covenant  in  the 
primitive  state,  and  lead  rather  to  a  distinction  between  the  covenant 
of  the  law  ("which,  however,  was  also  a  covenant  of  promise)  and  the 
covenant  of  the  gospel  (the  fulfillment  of  the  law  and  promise).8 

The  doctrine  of  covenants  is  usually  traced  to  Dutch  origin  ;  but  it 
was  inaugurated  after  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  bj  Caspar 
Olevianus  (d.  15S7),  one  of  the  authors  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism, 
in  a  work  on  'the  Nature  of  God's  Covenant  of  Mercy  with  the  Elect,' 

1  See  pp.  480  sqq. 

2  Eater  federalists  based  the  primitive  covenant  of  works  on  IIos.  vi.  7.     See  p.  484. 


774  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

on  the  basis  of  Jer.  xxxviii.  31-34;  Heb.viii.  S-12.1  Dr.  Mitchell  says 
that  the  Confession  teaches  no  more  on  this  subject  than  had  been 
taught  before  by  Pollock  in  Scotland  and  Cartwright  in  England.  It 
is  not  probable,  though  not  impossible,  that  the  more  fully  developed 
theory  of  the  covenants  by  John  Coccejus  was  already  known  in  Eng- 
land at  the  time  when  the  Confession  was  framed.  Coccejus  likewise 
distinguishes  the  fcedus  ojperum  or  naturce  in  the  state  of  innocence, 
and  &  fcedus  gratice,  after  the  fall,  but  he  views  the  latter  under  three 
stages,  the  patriarchal  or  Abrahamic  {ceconomia  ante  legem),  the  Mosaic 
(ceconomia  sub  lege),  and  the  Christian  (ceconomia post  legem).- 

SOTEEIOLOGY. 

Chapters  X.  to  XVIII.  contain  the  best  confessional  statement  of 
the  evangelical  doctrines  of  justification,  adoption,  sanctification,  sav- 
ing faith,  good  works,  and  assurance  of  salvation.  The  statement  of 
justification  by  faith  is  as  guarded  and  discriminating  on  the  Protest- 
ant side  of  the  question  as  the  Tridentine  statement  of  justification  by 
faith  and  works  is  on  the  Poman  Catholic  side. 

ECCLESIOLOGY. 

Chapters  XXV.  and  XXVI.  In  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  the 
Protestant  distinction  between  the  invisible  and  visible  Church  is  first 
clearly  formulated,  and  the  purest  Churches  under  heaven  are  admit- 
ted to  be  '  subject  to  mixture  and  error.'  Christ  is  declared  to  be  the 
only  head  of  the  Church — a  most  important  principle,  for  which  the 
Church  of  Scotland  has  contended  faithfully  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  the  civil  power  through  years  of  trial  and  persecution.  On 
the  subject  of  the  independence  and  self-government  of  the  Church  in 
her  own  proper  sphere,  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  (as  also 
the  Dissenting  Churches  in  England,  and  all  American  Churches)  are 

1  De  substantia  fccderis  gratuiti,  etc.  See  a  German  version  in  SudhofTs  Olevianus  und 
Urslnus  (Elberfeld,  1857),  pp.  573  sqq. 

2  Coccejus,  or  Koch,  was  at  first  Professor  in  firemen  (his  native  place),  then  at  Franeker, 
1  <;.'!(i,  and  last  at  Leyden,  1641),  where  he  died,  1<>G9.  His  chief  work,  Summa  doctrines,  de 
fozdere  et  testamento  Dei,  appeared  in  1048  (a  year  after  the  Westminster  Conf.)  and  again 
in  1653.  It  was  the  first  attempt  of  a  biblical  and  exegetical  theology  in  distinction  from  the 
scholastic  orthodoxy  which  then  prevailed  in  Holland.  Coccejus  was  denounced  by  the 
orthodox  as  a  Judaizing  and  l'elagianizing  heretic.  Comp.  the  article  Coccejus  and  his 
School,  by  Dr.  Ebrard,  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyH.  Vol.  IT.  pp.  742  sqq. 


§  95.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  775 

immeasurably  in  advance  of  all  the  Protestant  Churches  on  the  Con- 
tinent, and  even  of  the  Church  of  England,  which  is  still  dependent  on 
the  crown  and  the  will  of  a  Parliament  composed  of  professors  of  all 
religions  and  no  religion. 

Put  while  the  Confession  claims  full  freedom  for  the  Church  in 
the  management  of  her  own  affairs,  it  claims  no  authority  or  superior- 
ity over  the  State  like  the  hierarchical  principle.  It  declares  the  Pope 
of  Pome,  who  pretends  to  be  the  supreme  head  of  the  Church  on 
earth,  to  be  'that  Antichrist, that  man  of  sin  and  son  of  perdition  that 
exalteth  himself  in  the  Church  against  Christ  and  all  that  is  called 
God'(2Thess.ii.3,4,8,9).1 

The  chapter  on  the  Communion  of  Saints  urges  the  duty  of  cherish- 
ing and  promoting  union  and  harmony  with  all  Christians  of  what- 
ever part  of  the  visible  Church.2 

THE    SACRAMENTS. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments  in  general,  and  Paptism,  and  the 
Lord's  Supper  in  particular,  in  Chs.  XXVII.-XXIX.,  is  the  Calvin- 
istic  theory  which  we  have  already  discussed  elsewhere.3  It  is  the 
same  which  is  taught  in  all  the  Peformed  Confessions — Continental. 
Anglican,  and  Scotch.  This  is  admitted  by  candid  scholars.  '  On  the 
doctrine  of  the  sacraments,'  says  Marsden,  an  English  Episcopalian, 
'  we  do  not  perceive  a  shade  of  difference  from  the  teaching  of  the 
Church  of  England.'4  And  Dr.  Mitchell,  a  Scotch  Presbyterian,  says :. 
'  The  teaching  of  the  Confession  on  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  teaching. 
of  Cranmer,  Latimer,  and  Ridley,  of  Hooker,  Ussher,  and  many  others,. 
...  as  well  as  of  Knox,  who  from  his  long  residence  in  England,  and 
with  English  exiles  on  the  Continent,  had  thoroughly  caught  up  their 

1  This  statement,  which  is  made  also  in  other  Protestant  Confessions  and  in  the  Irish 
Articles  (No.  80;  see  Vol.  III.  p.  540),  does  not  unchurch  the  Church  of  Kome,  or  declare 
her  ordinances  invalid ;  for  Antichrist  sits  in  the  temple  of  God,  and  there  is  a  material  differ- 
ence between  the  papacy  and  the  Koman  C'athoiic  Church,  as  there  is  between  the  Jewish, 
hierarchy  and  the  people  of  Israel. 

1  Preshyterians  therefore  act  in  perfect  consistency  with  their  Confession  if  they  take  a 
leading  part  in  all  Bible  Societies,  Tract  Societies,  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  and  other  cath- 
olic societies.  They  are  among  the  most  liberal  of  orthodox  denominations  in  the  support 
of  these  societies. 

3  See  pp.  281,  37f,,  I",.  601,689,  041,  645. 

*  History  of  the  Later  Puritans,  p.  84.  He  then  quotes  the  questions  of  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism on  the  Sacraments. 

Yol.  L— D  D  D 


77G  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

warm  and  catholic  utterances.  This  teaching  is  as  far  removed  from 
the  bare  remembrance  theory  attributed  to  the  early  Swiss  Reformers 
as  from  the  consubstantiation  of  Luther  and  the  local  or  supra-local 
presence  contended  for  by  Roman  Catholics  and  Anglo-Catholics.  It 
is  so  spiritual,  yet  so  really  satisfying,  that  even  some  High-Churchmen 
have  owned  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  better  directory  in  the 
study  of  questions  relating  to  this  sacrament  than  is  supplied  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith." 

THE    CHRISTIAN    SABBATH. 

Ch.  XXL,  '  Of  Religious  Worship  and  the  Sabbath  Day,'  must  be 
mentioned  as  (next  to  the  Irish  Articles)  the  first  symbolical  indorse- 
ment of  what  may  be  called  the  Puritan  theory  of  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath which  was  not  taught  by  the  Reformers  and  the  Continental  Con- 
fessions, but  which  has  taken  deep  root  in  England,  Scotland,  and  the 
United  States,  and  has  become  the  basis  of  a  far  stricter  observance  of 
the  Lord's  day  than  exists  in  any  other  country.  This  observance  is  one 
of  the  most  prominent  national  and  social  features  of  Anglo-American 
Christianity,  and  at  once  strikes  the  attention  of  every  traveler.2 

The  way  was  gradually  prepared  for  it.  Calvin's  view  of  the  au- 
thority of  the  fourth  commandment  was  stricter  than  Luther's,  Knox's 
view  stricter  than  Calvin's,  and  the  Puritan  view  stricter  than  Knox's.3 


1  Introduction  to  Minutes,  p.  lxviii. 

2  The  most  recent  manifestation  of  the  national  American  sentiment  was  the  closing  of  the 
Centennial  Exhibition  in  Philadelphia  (187G)  on  the  Lord's  day. 

3  There  is  a  tradition  that  Knox  once  called  on  Calvin  on  Sunday,  and  found  him  enjoying 
the  recreation  of  bowling  on  a  green.  Knox  himself  on  one  occasion  had  one  or  two  friends 
taking  supper  with  him  on  Sunday  night,  and  no  doubt  considered  this  innocent  (see  Ran- 
dolph's letter  to  Cecil,  Nov.  30,  15G2,  quoted  by  Hessey,  Bampton  Lectures  on  Sunday,  Lond. 
1860,  p.  270).  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  designation  of  '  Sabbath'  for  Sunday, 
and  the  enumeration  of  '  the  breaking  of  the  Sabbath '  among  the  grosser  sins,  originated 
with  Knox,  or  at  all  events  in  Scotland  at  his  time.  The  First  Book  of  Discipline,  which 
was  drawn  up  by  Knox  and  five  other  ministers,  abolishes  Christmas,  Circumcision,  and  Epiph- 
any, 'because  they  have  no  assurance  in  God's  Word,'  but  enjoins  the  observance  of  Sun- 
day in  these  words  :  '  The  Sabbath  must  be  kept  strictly  in  all  towns,  both  forenoon  and  aft- 
ernoon, for  hearing  of  the  Word ;  at  afternoon  upon  the  Sabbath,  the  Catechism  shall  be 
taught,  the  children  examined,  and  the  baptism  ministered.  Public  prayers  shall  be  used 
upon  the  Sabbath,  as  well  afternoon  as  before,  when  sermons  can  not  be  had.'  The  third 
General  Assembly  resolved,  July  4,  1  f>(J2,  to  petition  the  queen  for  the  punishing  of  Sabbath- 
breaking  and  all  the  vices  which  are  'commanded  to  be  punished  by  the  law  of  God,  and  yet 
not  by  the  law  of  the  realm.'  Similar  acts  occur  in  the  Assemblies  of  L575,  1690,  and  1596. 
See  Gilfillan's  work  on  the  Sabbath,  and  Appendix  D  to  Mitchell's  tract  on  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession,  pp.  58  sqq. 


§  9.1.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  777 

The  Prayer-Book  of  the  Church  of  England,  by  incorporating  the  re- 
sponsive reading  of  the  Decalogue  in  the  regular  service,  kept  alive  in 
the  minds  of  the  people  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, and  helped  to  create  a  public  sentiment  within  the  Church 
of  England  favorable  to  the  Puritan  theory,  although  practically  great 
desecration  prevailed  during  Elizabeth's  reign.  The  'judicious'  Hook- 
er, who  was  no  Puritan,  says  :  '  We  are  bound  to  account  the  sanctifi- 
cation  of  one  day  in  seven  a  duty  which  God's  immutable  law  doth 
exact  forever' ' 

Towards  the  close  of  Elizabeth's  reign  the  Sabbath  question  assumed 
the  importance  and  dignity  of  a  national  movement,  and  of  a  practical 
reformation  which  traveled  from  England  to  Scotland  and  from  both 
countries  to  North  America.  The  chief  impulse  to  this  movement  was 
given  in  1505  by  Dr.  Nicolas  Bownd  (or  Bound),2  a  learned  Puritan 
clergyman  of  Norton  in  Suffolk.  He  is  not  the  originator,  but  the  sys- 
tematizer  or  first  clear  expounder  of  the  Puritan  theory  of  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath,  namely,  that  the  Sabbath  or  weekly  day  of  holy  rest  is  a 
primitive  institution  of  the  benevolent  Creator  for  the  benefit  of  man, 
and  that  the  fourth  commandment  as  to  its  substance  (that  is,  the  keep- 
ing holy  one  day  out  of  seven)  is  as  perpetual  in  design  and  as  binding 
upon  the  Christians  as  any  other  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  of  which 
Christ  said  that  not  '  one  jot  or  one  tittle '  shall  pass  away  till  all  be 
fulfilled.3 

1  Eccles.  Polity,  Bk.  V.  ch.  70,  sec.  9.  The  fifth  book  came  out  in  1597,  two  years  after 
Bownd's  book.  Ussher,  Leighton,  Pearson,  Beveridge,  Cecil,  and  other  leading  divines  of 
the  Church  of  England  take  the  same  ground  on  the  perpetuity  of  the  fourth  commandment, 
and  so  far  agree  with  the  Puritan  theory.  But  the  Puritan  practice  in  Scotland  ami  New 
England  often  runs  into  Judaizing  excesses. 

3  He  was  a  graduate  of  Cambridge,  was  suspended  with  others  in  1583  for  some  act  of 
non-conformity,  and  died  in  1G07.  Isaac  Walton  states  (in  his  Life  of  Hooker)  that  he  was 
offered  by  Whitgift  the  mastership  of  the  Temple,  but  this  seems  inconsistent  witJi  the  Arch- 
bishop's hostility  to  his  book.  Bownd  wrote  also  The  Holy  Exercise  of  Fasting  (1G04);  A 
Storehouse  of  Comfort  for  the  Afflicted  (1G04);  and  a  sermon  on  the  Unbelief  of  Thomas,  for 
the  Comfort  of  all  who  desire  to  believe,  which  armeth  us  against  I ><  epair  in  tin'  Hour  of  IX  ath 
(1008).  There  is  a  biographical  sketch  of  Bownd  in  Brook's  Lives  of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  II. 
pp.  171-17G. 

3  The  first  edition  of  Bownd's  book  appeared  in  1695,  and  was  dedicated  to  the  Earl  of 
Essex  (see  the  title  in  Vol.  V.  p.  211  of  Fuller's  Church  History,  Brewer's  cd.).  The  second 
and  enlarged  edition  of  1606  was  dedicated  to  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  and  the  Dean  of  Ely. 
and  bears  the  following  characteristic  title  (which  somewhat  differs  from  the  title  of  the  first) : 
'  Sabbathum  Veteris  et  Novi  Testament!:  or,  The  True  Doctrine  of  the  Sabbath,  held  and 
practised  of  the  Church  of  God,  both  before  and  under  the  Law,  and  in  the  time  of  the  Cos- 


778  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  work  in  which  this  theory  was  ably  and  earnestly  vindicated 
proved  to  be  a  tract  for  the  times.  Heylin,  a  High-Church  opponent, 
says  '  that  in  a  very  little  time  it  grew  the  most  bewitching  error,  the 
most  popular  deceit  that  had  ever  been  set  on  foot  in  the  Church  of 
England.' '  Fuller  dates  from  it  '  the  more  solemn  and  strict  observ- 
ance of  the  Lord's  day,'  and  gives  the  following  description  of  the  effect 
produced  by  it : 

'It  is  almost  incredible  how  taking  this  doctrine  was,  partly  because  of  its  own  purity,  and 
partly  for  the  eminent  piety  of  such  persons  as  maintained  it,  so  that  the  Lord's  day,  especially 
in  corporations,  began  to  be  precisely  kept,  people  becoming  a  law  to  themselves,  forbearing 
such  sports  as  [were]  yet  by  statute  permitted  ;  yea,  many  rejoicing  at  their  own  restraint 
therein.  On  this  day  the  stoutest  fencer  laid  down  the  buckler,  the  most  skilful  archer  un- 
bent his  bow,  counting  all  shooting  besides  the  mark  ;  May-games  and  Morris-dances  grew 
out  of  request,  and  good  reason  that  bells  should  be  silenced  from  gingling  about  men's  legs, 
if  their  very  ringing  in  steeples  were  adjudged  unlawful ;  some  of  them  were  ashamed  of  their 
former  pleasures,  like  children  which,  grown  bigger,  blushing  themselves  out  of  their  rattles 
and  whistles.  Others  forbore  them  for  fear  of  their  superiors,  and  many  left  them  off  out  of 
a  politic  compliance,  lest  otherwise  they  should  be  accounted  licentious. 

'  Yet  learned  men  were  much  divided  in  their  judgments  about  these  Sabbatarian  doc- 
trines. Some  embraced  them  as  ancient  truths  consonant  to  Scripture,  long  disused  and 
neglected,  now  seasonably  revived  for  the  increase  of  piety.  Others  conceived  them  ground- 
ed on  a  wrong  bottom,  but  because  they  tended  to  the  manifest  advance  of  religion  it  was 
pity  to  oppose  them,  seeing  none  have  just  reason  to  complain  being  deceived  into  their  own 
good.    But  a  third  sort  flatly  fell  out  with  these  positions,  as  galling  men's  necks  with  a  Jew- 

pel:  Plainly  laid  forth  and  soundly  proved  by  testimonies  both  of  Holy  Scri/iture  and  also  of 
old  and  new  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  Fathers  and  Councils,  and  Laws  of  all  sorts,  both  civil, 
canon,  and  common.  Declaring  first  from  what  things  God  would  have  us  straitly  to  rest 
upon  the  Lord's  day,  and  then  by  what  means  ive  ought  publicly  and  privately  to  sanctify 
the  same.  Together  with  the  sundry  Abuses  of  men  in  both  these  kinds,  and  how  they  ought 
to  be  reformed.  Divided  into  two  Books  by  Nicolas  Bownd,  Doctor  of  Divinity  ;  and  noiv 
by  him  the  second  time  perused,  and  enlarged  ivith  an  Interpretation  of  sundry  points  belong- 
ing to  the  Sabbath,  and  a  more  ample  proof  of  such  things  as  have  been  gainsaid  or  doubted 
of  by  some  divines  of  our  time,  and  a  more  full  Answer  unto  certain  objections  made  against 
the  same:  with  some  other  things  not  impertinent  to  this  argument.'  London,  KJOG,  4to,  pp. 
479.  Having  been  unable  to  obtain  this  rare  work,  I  copied  the  title  from  Robert  Cox,  The 
Literature  of  the  Sabbath  Question  (in  2  vols.  Edinb.  18G5),Vol.  I.  p.  145.  There  is  a  copy 
in  the  Bodleian  Library,  and  another  in  the  library  of  the  University  of  Edinburgh.  Cox 
himself  is  opposed  to  the  Puritan  theory,  and  holds  the  Church  of  England  responsible  for 
originating  it  by  requiring  the  fourth  commandment  to  be  read  and  responded  to  in  the  Lit- 
urgy. Of  Bownd's  book  he  says :  '  In  the  treatise  bearing  this  long  title  the  Sabbatarian 
opinions  of  the  Puritans,  which  afterwards  found  more  precise  expression  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  and  Catechisms,  and  are  now  maintained  by  the  Evangelical  sects  in  this  country, 
were  for  the  first  time  broadly  and  prominently  asserted  in  Christendom.'  Fuller  gives  a  full 
account  of  the  contents,  Vol.  V.  pp.  2 1 1  sqq.  His  editor,  Brewer,  says  that  Bownd's  book  '  is 
written  in  a  truly  Christian  spirit,  and  ought  by  no  means  to  be  considered  as  the  fruit  of  Pu- 
ritan principles.'  The  accounts  of  Collier  (Eccl.  Hist.  Vol.  VII.  pp.  182  sqq.),  Neal  (Vol. 
I.  pp.  208  sq.),  and  Hesse  (Sunday,  pp.  27G  sqq.)  are  drawn  from  Fuller. 
1  Quoted  by  Hessey,  p.  281. 


§  95.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  779 

ish  yoke,  against  the  liberty  of  Christians  :  that  Christ,  as  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  had  removed 
the  rigor  thereof,  and  allowed  men  lawful  recreations  ;  that  this  doctrine  put  an  unequal 
lustre  on  the  Sunday,  on  set  purpose  to  eclipse  all  other  holy  days,  to  tlie  derogation  of  the 
authority  of  the  Church;  that  the  strict  observance  was  Bet  up  nut  of  faction  to  be  a  charac- 
ter of  difference,  to  brand  all  for  libertines  who  did  not  entertain  it.'  ' 

The  Puritan  Sabbath  theory  was  denounced  and  assailed  by  the 
rising  school  of  High-Churchism  as  a  Sabbatarian  heresy  and  a  cun- 
ningly concealed  attack  on  the  authority  of  the  Church  of  England, by 
substituting  the  Jewish  Sabbath  for  the  Christian  Sunday  and  all  the 
Church  festivals.2  Attempts  were  made  by  Archbishop  Whitgift  in 
1500,  and  by  Chief  Justice  Popham  in  1G00,  to  suppress  Bownd's  book 
and  to  destroy  all  the  copies,  but  '  the  more  it  was  called  in  the  more 
it  was  called  on ;'  its  price  was  doubled,  and  '  though  the  book's  wings 
were  clipped  from  flying  abroad  in  print,  it  ran  the  faster  from  friend 
to  friend  in  transcribed  copies,  and  the  Lord's  day,  in  most  places,  was 
most  strictly  observed.  The  more  liberty  people  were  offered,  the  less 
they  used  it.  . .  .  It  was  sport  for  them  to  refrain  from  sports. .  . .  Scarce 
any  comment,  catechism,  or  controversy  was  set  forth  by  the  stricter 
divines,  wherein  this  doctrine  (the  diamond  in  this  ring)  was  not  largely 
pressed  and  proved  ;  so  that,  as  one  saith,  the  Sabbath  itself  had  no 
rest.'3 

At  last  King  James  I.  brought  his  royal  authority  to  bear  against 
the  Puritan  Sabbatarianism  so  called,  and  issued  the  famous  '  Book 
of  Sports,'  May  2-i,  1G18,  which  was  afterwards  republished,  with  an 
additional  order,  by  his  son,  Charles  I.,  no  doubt  by  advice  of  Arch- 
bishop  Land,  Oct.  IS,  1G33.4     This  curious  production  formally  author- 

1  Vol.V.  pp.  214  sqq. 

2  The  chief  writers  against  the  Puritan  theory  were  Thomas  Rogers,  Bancroft's  chaplain 
(in  his  Preface  to  the  Articles)  \  and  afterwards  Bishop  WHITE  of  Ely  (.1  Treatise  of  the 
Sabbath-Dag  .  .  .  against  Sabbatarian  Novelty,  Lond.  1635);  Peter  Heylin,  Land's  chap- 
lain (The  History  of  the  Sabbath,  Lond.  2d  ed.  1G3C);  and  Dr.  John  Pocki.inv.tov  (Sun- 
day no  Sabbath,  Lond.  1636).  See  extracts  from  their  works  by  Cox,  1.  c.  Vol.  I.  pp.  ICC 
gqq.  "White  and  Heylin  wrote  at  the  request  of  Laud.  Bishop  Prideaux  (16*22),  Bishop 
Cosin  (163")),  and  Dr.  Young  (1639)  took  a  more  moderate  view.  Bichard  Baxter  (1671), 
though  strongly  leaning  to  the  Puritanic  side,  tried  to  mediate  between  the  strict  Sal>l>a!'i 
theory  and  the  ecclesiastical  Sunday  theory,  and  maintained  the  joyous  rather  than  the  pen- 
itential character  of  the  Lord's  day.     See  llessey,  pp.  28S  sq. 

3  Fuller,  pp.  218,  219. 

4  Of  the  first  edition  no  copy  is  known  to  exist.  The  second  edition,  of  which  a  copy  is 
preserved  in  the  British  Museum,  hears  the  title :  '  The  Kings  |  Maiesties  \  Declaration  to  [ 
His  Subjects,  I  Concerning  lawfull  Spobts  to  bee  vsed.  Imprinted  at  London  by  |  Rob- 
ert Barker,  Printer  to  the  Kings  |  must  Excellent  Maiettie:  And  by  \  the  Assignee  of  John 


780  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

izes  and  commends  the  desecration  of  the  evening  of  the  Lord's  day 
by  dancing,  leaping,  fencing,  and  other  '  lawful  recreations,'  on  condi- 
tion of  observing  the  earlier  part  by  strict  outward  conformity  to  the 
worship  of  the  Church  of  England.1  The  professed  object  of  this  in- 
dulgence to  the  common  people  was  to  check  the  progress  of  the 
Papists  and  Puritans  (or  '  Precisians '),  and  to  make  '  the  bodies  more 
able  for  war'  when  his  majesty  should  have  'occasion  to  use  them.' 
The  court  set  the  example  of  desecration  by  balls,  masquerades,  and 
plays  on  Sunday  evening ;  and  the  rustics  repaired  from  the  house  of 
worship  to  the  ale-house  or  the  village  green  to  dance  around  the  May- 
pole and  to  shoot  at  butts.  To  complete  the  folly,  King  James  ordered 
the  book  to  be  read  in  every  parish  church,  and  threatened  clergy- 
men who  refused  to  do  so  with  severe  punishment.  Ring  Charles  re- 
peated the  order.  But  in  both  cases  it  became  the  source  of  great 
trouble  and  confusion.2  Several  bishops  disapproved  of  it.  Arch- 
bishop Abbot  (the  Puritan  predecessor  of  Laud)  flatly  forbade  it  to  be 
read  at  Croydon.  The  Lord  Mayor  of  London  commanded  the  king's 
own  carriages  to  be  stopped  as  they  were  passing  through  the  city  on 

Bill.  |  M.DC.XXXIII.'  4to,  24  pp.  This  edition  has  been  reprinted  on  tinted  paper,  in 
exact  imitation  of  the  original,  at  London  (Bernard  Quaritcli),  15  Piccadilly,  1SG0.  The 
Long  Parliament,  in  1643,  ordered  the  book  to  be  burned  by  the  common  hangman,  in 
Cheapside  and  other  places. 

1  '  Our  expresse  pleasure  therefore  is,  that ...  no  lawfull  Recreation  shall  bee  barred  to 
Our  good  People,  which  shall  not  tend  to  the  breach  of  Our  aforesayd  Lawes,  and  Canons 
of  Our  Church :  which  to  expresse  more  particularly,  Our  pleasure  is,  That  the  Bishop,  and 
all  other  inferiour  Churchmen,  and  Churchwardens,  shall  for  their  parts  bee  carefull  and  dili- 
gent, both  to  instruct  the  ignorant,  and  conuince  and  reforme  them  that  are  mis-led  in  Re- 
ligion, presenting  them  that  will  not  confonne  themselues,  but  obstinately  stand  out  to  Our 
Iudges  and  Iustices :  Whom  We  likewise  command  to  put  the  Law  in  due  execution  against 
them. 

'Our  pleasure  likewise  is,  That  the  Bishop  of  that  Diocesse  take  the  like  straight  order 
with  all  the  Puritanes  and  Precisians  within  the  same,  either  constraining  them  to  confonne 
themselues,  or  to  leaue  the  Country  according  to  the  Lawes  of  Our  Kingdome,  and  Canons 
of  Our  Church,  and  so  to  strike  equally  on  both  hands,  against  the  contemners  of  Our  Au- 
thority, and  aduersaries  of  Our  Church.  And  as  for  Our  good  peoples  lawfull  Recreation, 
Our  pleasure  likewise  is,  That  after  the  end  of  Diuine  Feruice,  Our  good  people  be  not  dis- 
turbed, letted,  or  discouraged  from  any  lawfull  recreation,  Such  as  dauncing,  either  men  or 
women,  Archery  for  men,  leaping,  vaulting,  or  any  other  such  harmelesse  Recreation,  nor 
from  hauing  of  May-Games,  Whitson  Ales,  and  Morris-dances,  and  the  setting  vp  of  May- 
poles &  other  sports  therewith  vsed,  so  as  the  same  be  had  in  due  &  conuenient  time,  with- 
out impediment  or  neglect  of  Diuine  Seruice.' — Book  of  Sports,  pp.  8  sqq. 

2  Fuller  says  (Vol.  V.  p.  4;"»2) :  'When  this  declaration  was  brought  abroad,  it  is  not  so 
hard  to  believe  as  sad  to  recount  what  grief  and  distraction  thereby  was  occasioned  in  many 
honest  men's  hearts.' 


§  95.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION.  7$1 

a  Sunday.  James  raged  and  swore,  and  countermanded  the  prohibi- 
tion. The  Lord  Mayor  yielded,  with  this  answer:  '"\Yhilu  I  was  in 
my  power  I  did  my  duty,  but  that  being  taken  away,  it  is  my  duty  to 
obey.'  Some  clergymen,  after  reading  the  book  from  the  pulpit,  fol- 
lowed it  up  by  a  sermon  against  it,  or  by  reading  the  fourth  command- 
ment— 'Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy' — and  added, 
'  This  is  the  law  of  God,  the  other  the  injunction  of  man.'  Those  who 
refused  to  read  the  royal  Book  of  Sports  were  suspended  from  office 
and  benefice,  or  even  excommunicated  by  Laud  and  his  sympathizing 
fellow-bishops.1     Many  left  England,  and  joined 

'The  pilgrim  bands,  who  crossed  the  sea  to  keep 
Their  Sabbaths  in  the  eye  of  God  alone, 
In  his  wide  temple  of  the  wilderness.' 

This  persecution  of  conscientious  ministers  for  obeying  God  rather 
than  men  gave  moral  strength  to  the  cause  of  Sabbath  observance, 
and  rooted  it  deeper  in  the  affections  "of  the  people.  It  was  one  of 
the  potent  causes  which  overwhelmed  Charles  and  Laud  in  common 
ruin.  The  sober  and  serious  part  of  the  nation  were  struck  with  a 
kind  of  horror  that  they  should  be  invited  by  the  highest  authorities 
in  Church  and  State  to  destroy  the  effect  of  public  worship  by  a  dese- 
cration of  a  portion  of  the  day  consecrated  to  religion. 

On  the  Sunday  question  Puritanism  achieved  at  last  a  permanent 
triumph,  and  left  its  trace  upon  the  Church  of  England  and  Scotland, 
which  reappeared  after  the  licentious  period  of  the  Restoration.  For, 
although  the  Church  of  England,  as  a  body,  never  committed  itself  to 
the  1*11  ri tan  Sabbath  theory,  it  adopted  at  least  the  practice  of  a  much 
stricter  observance  than  had  previously  obtained  under  Elizabeth  and 
the  Stuarts,  and  would  never  exchange  it  for  the  Continental  laxity, 
with  its  disastrous  effects  upon  the  attendance  at  public  worship  and 
the  morals  of  the  people. 

The  Westminster  Confession,  without  entering  into  details  or  sanc- 
tioning the  incidental  excesses  of  the  Puritan  practice,  represents  the 
Christian  rest-day  under  its  threefold  aspect:  (1)  as  a  divine  law  of 


1  I'rynne  Bays :  '  How  many  hundred  godly  ministers  have  been  suspended  from  their  min- 
igtry,  sequestered,  driven  from  their  livings,  excommunicated,  prosecuted  in  the  High  Com- 
mission, and  forced  to  leave  the  kingdom,  for  not  publishing  this  declaration,  is  experiment- 
ally known  to  all  men.'     For  particulars,  see  Neal,  Vol.  I.  pp.  312  sqq. 


7S2  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

nature  (J us  divinum  naturale),  rooted  in  the  constitution  of  man,  and 
hence  instituted  (together  with  marriage)  at  the  creation,  in  the  state 
of  innocence,  for  the  perpetual  benefit  of  body  and  soul ;  (2)  as  a  pos- 
itive moral  law  {jus  divinum  joositivum),  given  through  Moses,  with 
reference  to  the  primitive  institution  ('  Remember ')  and  to  the  typical 
redemption  of  Israel  from  bondage ;  (3)  as  the  commemoration  of  the 
new  creation  and  finished  redemption  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ; 
hence  the  change  from  the  last  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  its 
designation  'the  Lord's  day'  {dies  Dominica).  And  it  requires  the 
day  to  be  wholly  devoted  to  the  exercises  of  public  and  private  worship 
and  the  duties  of  necessity  and  mercy. 

To  this  doctrine  and  practice  the  Presbyterian,  Congregational,  and 
other  Churches  in  Scotland,  England,  and  America  have  faithfully 
adhered  to  this  day.  Yea,  twenty-seven  years  before  it  was  formu- 
lated by  the  learned  divines  of  Westminster,  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  of 
America  had  transplanted  both  theory  and  practice  first  to  Holland, 
and,  finding  them  unsafe  there,  to  the  wild  soil  of  New  England.  Two 
days  after  their  landing  from  the  Mayflower  (Dec.  22, 1620),  forgetting 
the  pressing  necessities  of  physical  food  and  shelter,  the  dreary  cold  of 
winter,  the  danger  threatening  from  wild  beasts  and  roaming  savages, 
they  celebrated  their  first  Sunday  in  America  on  a  barren  rock  and 
under  the  stormy  sky  of  heaven,  and,  in  the  exercise  of  the  general 
priesthood  of  believers,  they  offered  the  sacrifices  of  contrite  hearts  and 
the  praises  of  devout  lips  to  their  God  and  Saviour,  on  his  own  appoint- 
ed day  of  holy  rest ;  not  dreaming  that  they  were  the  bearers  of  the 
hopes  and  destinies  of  a  mighty  future  and  the  founders  of  a  republic 
stretching  across  a  continent  and  embracing  millions  of  intelligent 
Christian  freemen.1 

The  political  articles  of  the  Confession  touching  the  power  of  the 
civil  magistrate  and  the  relation  of  Church  and  State  will  be  discussed 
hereafter  (§  97)  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  religious  toleration 
and  the  changes  which  have  been  introduced  in  later  editions. 

1  Comp.  my  essay  on  the  Anglo- American  Sabbath,  New  York,  1SG3. 


§  96.  THE  WESTMINSTER  CATECHISMS.  783 


§  9G.  The  Westminster  Catechisms. 

Editions. 

The  Humble  |  Advice  |  of  the  |  Assembly  |  of  |  Divines,  |  A'otc  by  Authority  of  Parliament  |  sitting  at 
Wkstmlnbtib;  I  Concerning  |  A  Labgkb  Catxobish  :  |  Presented  by  them  lately  to  both  Houses  \  of  Parlia- 
ment. |  Printed  at  Loudon  [Oct.  1G47,  without  Scripture  proofs],  and  reprinted  at  Edinburgh,  by  Evan 
Tyler,  Printer  to  the  King's  most  Excellent  Majestic,  1G47  [Dec.].  The  Edinburgh  reprint  has  fifty-six 
pages,  aud  no  Scripture  proofs.  See  fac-siraile  in  Vol.  III.  p.  C74.  Of  the  London  editio  prince)*,  six 
hundred  copies  were  printed,  but  not  published,  by  order  of  Parliament,  for  its  own  use.  Of  the  Edin- 
burgh editio  princepe,  eight  hundred  copies  were  ordered  by  the  General  Assembly,  Dec.  23, 1C47.  The 
second  ed.,  which  appeared  in  London  [after  April  14, 164S],  coutaius  the  proofs  from  Scripture. 

The  Shorter  Catechism  appeared  under  the  same  title  (except  Shorter  for  Larger)  a  little  later  [after 
Nov.  25,  1647],  by  order  of  Parliament.  Mr.  John  Laing,  the  obliging  librarian  of  the  Free  Church  College 
in  Edinburgh,  informs  me  that  both  Catechisms  appeared  in  one  vol.  of  seventy-nine  pages,  at  Edin- 
burgh, Dec.  23, 1647,  with  a  general  title  and  a  separate  title  for  each.  A  statement  to  the  same  effect  I 
see  in  the  Advertisement  to  Dunlop's  Collection  of  Confessions,  Yoh  I.  p.  clviii.,  with  the  additional  re- 
mark that  this  edition  was  sent  to  the  Presbyteries  for  examination. 

The  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  often  appeared  in  connection  with  the  Westminster  Confession, 
nnd  exist  in  innumerable  English  and  American  editions,  especially  the  Shorter.  The  textual  varia- 
tions are  insignificant,  except  that  the  American  (General  Assembly's)  editions  of  the  Larger  Catechism 
omit  the  words  '  tolerating  a  false  religion  '  in  the  answer  to  Question  109. 

I  have  made  use  of  the  tirst  Edinb.  ed.,  and  a  large  London  ed.  of  1658,  which  contains  the  Conf. 
and  both  Catechisms  under  their  original  (three  separate)  titles  (The  Humble  Advice,  etc.),  with  the 
Scripture  proofs  in  full.  Opposite  the  special  title  of  the  Shorter  Catechism  is  the  order  of  Parliament, 
dated  'Die  Lunoe  15.  Septemb.,  164S,'  directing  that  the  Shorter  Catechism  'be  forthwith  printed  and 
published,  wherein  Mr.  Henuy  Rohorovgu  and  Mr.  Aponiram  Byfield,  Scribes  of  the  Assembly  of 
Divines,  are  requested  to  use  all  possible  care  and  diligence.' 

The  Catechisms  have  been  translated  into  many  languages,  especially  the  Shorter.  A  Latin  version 
appeared,  together  with  the  version  of  the  Confession,  in  Cambridge,  1056,  as  has  been  noted  above, 
p.  753.  The  Latin  text  of  the  Shorter  Catechism  is  printed  in  Vol.  III.  pp.  C7G  sqq.  For  a  German 
version  of  both,  see  Bookel,  pp.  716  sqq.  A  Greek  version  of  the  Shorter  Catechism  (with  the  Latin),  by 
John  Harm  ah  (Regius  Professor  of  Greek  in  Oxford),  was  published  at  London,  16G0;  a  new  one  by 
Robert  Younq  (rj  KuTrjxno'i?  owronantpa),  Edinburgh,  1854.  A  Hebrew  version  by  G.  Seaman,  M.D. 
(London,  1689),  and  another  by  H.  S.  MoKee  (Edinb.  1S54 ;  Dublin,  1S64).  Also  Syriac,  Arabic,  modern 
Greek,  Portuguese,  Welsh,  and  other  versions. 

The  largest  number  of  editions  and  translations  are  to  be  found,  as  far  as  I  know,  in  the  British 
Museum. 

Expositions. 

Thomas  Lye  (Minister  in  London,  d.  16S4) :  An  Explanation  of  the  Shorter  Catechism.    London,  1676. 

Hugh  Binning  (d.  1653,  Prof,  of  Moral  Philos.,  Glasgow):  The  Common  Principles  of  the  Christian  Re- 
ligion. ...  .4  Practical  Catechism.    1671. 

Thokab  Yincf.nt  (Minister  in  London,  d.  1671) :  An  Explanation  of  the  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism. 
London,  1708;  Edinb.  1799;  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication,  Philadelphia. 

Thomas  Watson  (Minister  in  London,  d.  1690) :  A  Body  of  Practical  Divinity,  consisting  of  above  17G 
Sermons  on  the  Shorter  Catechism.    5th  ed.  Glasgow,  1797 ;  Lond.  1S07 ;  Glasgow,  1S3S  j  N.  Y.  1836. 

John  Fr.Avr.i.  (b.  1627,  d.1691):  Exposition  of  the  Catechism.  1692.  In  his  Whole  Works,  $  vols.  fol. 
1701,  7th  ed.  Edinb.  1762;  and  in  6  vols.  London,  1S20. 

Thomas  Ridci.ey  (b.  1667,  d.  1 734) :  A  Body  of  Divinity  .  .  .  Being  the  Substance  of  Lectures  on  the  Assem- 
bly's Larger  Catechism.  Loudon,  1731-33,  2  vols.  fol. ;  an  ed.  in  4  vols.  Svo,  1S14 ;  Edinb.  1S45, 2  vols.  Svo; 
New  York,  1865. 

Sami-ei.  Wii.i.arp  (I).  1040,  d.  1707):  A  Body  of  Divinity  in  250  Lectures  on  the  Assembly's  Catechism. 
1  vol.  fol.  Boston,  1726. 

John  Wii.lison  (Minister  of  Dundee  from  1718  to  1750):  An  Example  of  Plain  Catechising  upon  the 
Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism.     Edinb.  1737  ;  2d  ed.  Glasgow,  1764. 

I"i  iiir.'s  Catechism:  The  Westminster  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism  Explained,  by  way  of  question  and 
answer.  By  some  Ministers  of  the  Gospel.  The  authors  are  RAi.rn  Erskine  (d.  1752),  Eiif.ne/.er  Erskine 
(d.1754),  aud  James  Fisher  (d.  Sept.  28,1775,  Secession  Minister  at  Grey  friars,  Glasgow).  Fisher  prepared 
the  second  part  alone,  and  issued  the  third  ed.  Glasgow,  1753.  Hence  the  whole  work  is  called  by  his 
name.    14th  ed.  Edinb.  1800  ;  17th  ed.  Glasgow,  1813  ;  also  by  the  Board  of  Publication,  Philadelphia. 

John  Bbowm  (Minister  at  Haddington  from  1751  to  17S7) :  Easy  Explication  of  the  Assembly's  Shorter 
Catechism.    Bth  ed.  Edinb.  1812;  9th  ed.  Montrose,  1^22. 

Henuy  Bxlfbagi  (d.  1^35) :  A  Practical  Exjtosition  of  the  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism,  exhibiting  a  Sys- 
tem of  Theology  in  a  Popular  Form.    Ediub.  2d  ed.  1S34.    2  vols. 

Ai.ex.  Mair  (d.  1751) :  A  Brief  Explication  of  the  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism.    New  ed.  Montrose,  1S37. 


784  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Alex.  Smith  Paterson  :  A  Concise  System  of  Theology:  being  the  Shorter  Catechism  Analyzed  and  Ex- 
plained.   Edinb.  1S41 ;  2d  ed.  1844. 

Asubet,  Green,  D.D.  (President  of  Princeton  College  from  1S12  to  1S22 ;  d.  184S):  Lectures  on  the 
Shorter  Catechism.    Phila.  1841,  2  vols.,  Presbyt.  Board  of  Publ. 

Jonathan  Ckoss  :  Illustrations  of  the  Shorter  Catechism.  Proof-text.'),  Exposition,  and  Anecdotes.  2  vols. 
ISmo.    Presbyt.  Board  of  Pnbl. 

Edwin  Halt.,  D.D. :  The  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  with  Analysis  and  Scripture 
Proofs.    Presbyt.  Board  of  Publ. 

James  R.  Boyd,  D.D. :  The  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism;  with  Analysis,  Proofs,  Explanations,  and 
Illustrative  Anecdotes,    ISmo.    Presbyt.  Board  of  Publ. 

The  Belief onte  Series  of  Tracts  on  the  Answers  to  the  Shorter  Catechism,  written  by  numerous  Presby- 
terian ministers,  and  edited  by  the  Rev.  Wm.  T.  Wvlie.    Bellefonte,  Pa.  1875. 


PREPARATION    AND    ADOPTION. 

Simultaneously  with  the  Confession,  the  Assembly  prepared  first 
one,  and  afterwards  two  Catechisms :  a  larger  one  for  public  expo- 
sition in  the  pulpit,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  Reformed  Church- 
es on  the  Continent,  and  a  smaller  one  for  the  instruction  of  children, 
a  clear  and  condensed  summary  of  the  former.1  Both  are  amply  pro- 
vided with  Scripture  proofs.  The  questions  of  Church  polity  and 
discipline  are  properly  omitted. 

The  Catechisms  were  finished  and  presented  to  Parliament  for  ex- 
amination and  approval  in  the  autumn  of  1647.2  Parliament  ordered 
six  hundred  copies  to  be  printed,  and  then  examined  and  approved  the 
Catechisms,  with  some  slight  exceptions  (Sept.  15, 1648).  The  General 
Assembly  at  Edinburgh  adopted  the  Larger  Catechism,  July  20, 164S, 
and  the  Shorter  Catechism,  July  28,  declaring  both  to  be  '  agreeable  to 
the  Word  of  God,  and  in  nothing  contrary  to  the  received  doctrine, 
worship,  discipline,  and  government  of  this  Kirk.'  These  acts  were 
approved  by  the  Scottish  Parliament,  Feb.  7,  1649,  but  repealed  under 
Charles  II.  in  1661.  When  the  Scottish  Parliament,  in  1690,  estab- 
lished Presbyterian  government  in  Scotland,  and  ratified  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  no  express  mention  was  made  of  the 
Catechisms,  but  both  continued  in  ecclesiastical  use,  and  the  Shorter 

1  The  first  Catechism  of  the  Assembly,  according  to  Baillie,  was  nearly  agreed  on  at  the 
end  of  1G44,  but  was  never  published.  Perhaps  it  was  the  same  which  is  partially  inserted  in 
the  Minutes ;  or  it  may  have  been  the  MS.  Catechism  of  Sam.  Rutherford,  which  is  pre- 
served in  the  University  library  at  Edinburgh.  In  the  774th  session,  Jan.  14,  ]  G47  (old  style, 
1  (MO),  the  Assembly  ordered  '  that  the  Committee  for  the  Catechism  do  prepare  a  draught  of 
two  Catechisms,  one  more  large  and  another  more  brief,  in  which  they  are  to  have  an  eye  to 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  to  the  matter  of  the  Catechism  already  begun'  (Minutes,  p.  321). 

-  Both  Catechisms  were  first  presented  to  Parliament  without  Scripture  proofs,  the  Larger 
before  Oct.  25,  1C47,  the  Shorter  on  Nov.  25,  1047  (Minutes,  pp.  485,  48G,  492),  and  were 
forthwith  printed  in  London  and  Edinburgh.  The  Catechisms  with  Scripture  proofs  were 
presented  to  Parliament  on  or  before  April  14,  1G48  (Minutes,  p.  511). 


§  96.  THE  WESTMINSTER  CATECHISMS.  785 

Catechism  was  often  earnestly  enjoined  upon  ministers,  teachers,  and 
parents  by  the  General  Assembly.1 

GENERAL    CHARACTER. 

The  two  Catechisms  are,  in  the  language  of  a  Scotch  divine, '  inim- 
itable as  theological  summaries ;  though,  when  it  is  considered  that 
to  comprehend  them  would  imply  an  acquaintance  with  the  whole 
circle  of  dogmatic  and  controversial  divinity,  it  may  be  doubted  wheth- 
er either  of  them  is  adapted  to  the  capacity  of  childhood.  .  .  .  Experi- 
ence has  shown  that  few  who  have  been  carefully  instructed  in  our 
Shorter  Catechism  have  failed  to  discover  the  advantage  of  becoming 
acquainted  in  early  life,  even  as  a  task,  with  that  admirable  "  form  of 
sound  words." ' 2 

Both  Catechisms  have  the  peculiarity  that  each  answer  embodies 
the  question,  and  thus  forms  a  complete  proposition  or  sentence  in 
itself. 

Both  depart  from  the  catechetical  tradition  by  omitting  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed,  which  in  other  orthodox  Catechisms  is  the  common  histor- 
ical basis  of  the  exposition  of  the  Articles  of  Faith.  It  is,  hov\-ever, 
annexed  to  the  Shorter  Catechism, '  not  as  though  it  were  composed 
by  the  Apostles  or  ought  to  be  esteemed  canonical  Scripture,  as  the 
Ten  Commandments  and  the  Lord's  Prayer,  but  because  it  is  a  brief 
sum  of  the  Christian  faith,  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  ancient- 
ly received  in  the  Churches  of  Christ.'  A  note  is  attached  to  the  arti- 
cle on  the  descent  into  Hell  (better,  Hades  or  SheoJ),  to  the  effect  that 
it  simply  means  Christ '  continued  in  the  state  of  the  dead  and  under 
the  power  of  death  until  the  third  day.'  This  explanation  (like  that 
of  Calvin  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism)  misses  the  true  sense  of  the 
descent,  and  ignores  its  peculiar  significance  in  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion for  the  world  of  the  departed  (comp.  Luke  xxiii.  43;  Acts  ii.  31 ; 
Eph.iv.8,9;  1  Cor.  xv.  55,  57;  1  Pet.  iii.  18, 19;  2  Pet.iv.6j  Rev.i. 

1  Mitchell,  Minutes,  p.  515,  note.  Innes  (Law  of  Creeds,  p.  195)  Bays:  'The  Shorter 
Catechism  has  been  for  many  generations  the  real  creed  of  Scotland,  so  far  as  the  mass  of 
the  people  is  concerned.' 

■  M'Crie,  Annals,  pp.  177  sq.  Neal  (Vol.  II.  p.  42)  judges  similarly.  'The  Larger  Cate- 
chism,'lie  says,  'is  a  comprehensive  system  of  divinity,  and  the  smaller  a  rery  accurate  sum- 
mary, thoagh  it  has  by  some  been  thought  a  little  too  long,  and  in  some  particulars  too  ab- 
struse for  the  capacities  of  children.'     Baillie  was  of  the  same  opinion  ( In  tiers.  III.  69). 


786  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

IS).  The  escbatology  of  the  Reformation  standards  is  silent  or  de- 
fective on  the  middle  state,  and  most  Protestant  versions  of  the  Bible 
confound  Hell  and  Hades,  which  represent  separate  and  distinct  though 
cognate  ideas. 

THE   LARGER    CATECHISM. 

The  Larger  Catechism  occupied,  as  the  Minutes  show,  a  good  deal 
of  the  Assembly's  attention  during  the  year  1647,  and  was  discussed 
question  by  question.  It  was  prepared  before  the  Shorter.1  It  is 
chiefly  the  work  of  Dr.  Anthony  Tuckney,  Professor  of  Divinity  and 
Vice-Chancellor  at  Cambridge.2  It  is  a  masterpiece  of  catechetical 
skill,  superior  to  any  similar  work,  and  exhibits  in  popular  form  a 
complete  system  of  divinity,  like  the  Roman  Catechism  and  the  Long- 
er Russian  Catechism  of  Philaret.  It  also  serves  in  part  as  a  valuable 
commentary  or  supplement  to  the  Confession,  especially  on  the  ethical 
part  of  our  religion.  But  it  is  over-minute  in  the  specification  of  what 
God  has  commanded  and  forbidden  in  the  Ten  Commandments,  and 
loses  itself  in  a  wilderness  of  details.3 

THE    SHORTER    CATECHISM. 

Dr.  Tuckney  was  also  the  convener  of  the  Committee  which  pre- 
pared the  Shorter  Catechism,  but  its  concise  and  severely  logical  an- 

1  This  appears  from  the  Minutes,  p.  410.  The  report  on  the  Shorter  Catechism  was  first 
called  for  in  the  896th  session,  Aug.  0,  1647.  Mr.  Palmer  reported,  and  Messrs.  Calamy 
and  Gower  were  added  to  the  Committee.  The  opposite  view  is  clearly  wrong,  though  advo- 
cated by  Nerd  (Vol.  II.  p.  42),  and  even  quite  recently  by  Dr.  M'Crie,  who  says  (Annals,  p. 
177):  'The  Larger  Catechism  was  not  prepared  till  some  time  after  the  Shorter,  of  which  it 
was  evidently  intended  to  form  an  amplification  and  exposition.' 

*  It  is  based  in  part  on  Ussher's  catechetical  Body  of  Divinity,  perhaps  also  on  the  con- 
cise theological  compendium  of  John  Wolleb,  Antistes  at  Basle  (1626). 

3  Take  for  example  Question  113  : 

'What  are  the  sins  forbidden  in  the  third  commandment? 

'  The  sins  forbidden  in  the  third  commandment  are,  the  not  using  of  God's  name  as  is  re- 
quired; and  the  abuse  of  it  in  an  ignorant,  vain,  irreverent,  profane,  superstitious,  or  wicked 
mentioning,  or  otherwise  using  his  titles,  attributes,  ordinances,  or  works,  by  blasphemy, 
perjury;  all  sinful  cursings,  oaths,  vows,  and  lots;  violating  our  oaths  and  vows,  if  law  fid ; 
and  fulfilling  them,  if  of  things  unlawful ;  murmuring  and  quarreling  at,  curious  prying  into, 
and  misapplying  of  God's  decrees  and  providences;  misinterpreting,  misapplying,  or  any  way 
perverting  the  Word,  or  any  part  of  it,  to  profane  jests,  curious  or  unprofitable  questions,  vain 
janglings,  or  the  maintaining  of  false  doctrines ;  abusing  it,  the  creatures,  or  any  thing  con- 
tained under  the  name  of  God,  to  charms  or  sinful  lusts  and  practices ;  the  maligning,  scorn- 
ing, reviling,  or  any  wise  opposing  God's  truth,  grace,  and  ways ;  making  profession  of  re- 
ligion in  hypocrisy  or  for  sinister  ends  ;  being  ashamed  of  it,  or  a  shame  to  it,  by  unconform- 
able, unwise,  unfruitful,  and  offensive  walking  or  backsliding  from  it.' 


§  9G.  THE  WESTMINSTER  CATECHISMS.  787 

swers  are  traced  to  the  Eev.  John  Wallis,  M.A.,  an  eminent  mathema- 
tician, who  as  a  young  man  fresh  from  Cambridge  was  appointed  an 
amanuensis  of  the  Assembly.1  He  afterwards  became  Professor  of 
Geometry  at  Oxford  and  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Eoyal  Society, 
lie  was  probably  the  last  survivor  of  the  Westminster  divines,  for  he 
died  1703,  aet.  eighty-eight.2  Gillespie's  name  is  traditionally  con- 
nected with  the  question  '  What  is  God  V  He  is  said  to  have  an- 
swered it  in  prayer,  apparently  without  meditation,  when  the  Assem- 
bly were  in  suspense  for  words  to  define  the  Being  of  beings.  But 
the  Scotch  Commissioners  had  little  to  do  with  the  Shorter  Catechism, 
as  most  of  them  had  left  before  it  was  discussed  in  the  Assembly.3 

The  Shorter  Catechism  is  one  of  the  three  typical  Catechisms  of 
Protestantism  which  are  likely  to  last  to  the  end  of  time.  It  is  fully 
ccpial  to  Luther's  and  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  ability  and  influ- 
ence, it  far  surpasses  them  in  clearness  and  careful  wording,  and  is 
better  adapted  to  the  Scotch  and  Anglo-American  mind,  but  it  lacks 
their  genial  warmth,  freshness,  and  childlike  simplicity.4  It  substi- 
tutes a  logical  scheme  for  the  historical  order  of  the  Apostles'  Creed. 
It  deals  in  dogmas  rather  than  facts.  It  addresses  the  disciple  as  an 
interested  outsider  rather  than  as  a  church-member  growing  up  in  the 
nurture  of  the  Lord.  Its  mathematical  precision  in  definitions,  some 
of  which  are  almost  perfect,5  though  above  the  capacity  of  the  child, 
is  a  good  preparation  for  the  study  of  theology.  Its  use  among  three 
denominations  (Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  and  Regular  Bap- 
tists) proves  its  solid  worth.  Baxter  called  it  '  the  best  Catechism  he 
ever  saw,  a  most  excellent  sum  of  the  Christian  faith  and  doctrine,  and 
a  fit  test  to  try  the  orthodoxy  of  teachers.'  Thomas  Carlyle,  in  speaking 
against  modern  materialism,  made  this  confession  (1S76):  'The  older 
I  grow — and  I  now  stand  upon  the  brink  of  eternity — the  more  comes 
back  to  me  the  first  sentence  in  the  Catechism  which  I  learned  when 
a  child,  and  the  fuller  and  deeper  its  meaning  becomes:  "What  is  the 
chief  end  of  man?     To  glorify  God,  and  to  enjoy  him  forever."' 

1  In  the  Minutes,  p.  488,  Wallis  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  Shorter  Catechism, 
lie  published  an  exposition  of  it.  ■  Afaason's  Hilton,  Vol.  II.  p.  515. 

3  The  Scotch  Commissioners  took  leave  Dec.  2">,  lG4fi.  The  last  mention  of  them  is  Nov.  9, 
1647,  when  Rutherford  took  his  leave. — Minutes,  pp.  471 ,  487.  Dr.  Mitchell  informs  me  that 
the  fourth  question  is  probably  derived  from  '  A  Compendious  Catechism'  (by  J.  F.),  printed 
at  London  in  April,  1<;4"»:  'God  is  a  spirit,  One,  Almighty,  Eternal,  Infinite,  Unchangeable 
Being,  Absolutely  Holy,  Wise.  Just,  and  Good.' 

4  For  a  fuller  comparison,  see  pp.  648   "'I"'.  s  For  example,  Questions  4,  21,  92. 


788  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

§  97.  Criticism  of  the  Westminster  System  of  Doctrine. 

The  Westminster  Confession,  together  with  the  Catechisms,  is  the 
fullest  and  ripest  symbolical  statement  of  the  Calvinistic  system  of 
doctrine.  In  theological  ability  and  merit  it  is  equal  to  the  best  works 
of  the  kind,  and  is  not  surpassed  by  the  Lutheran  Formula  of  Con- 
cord or  the  Roman  Decrees  of  the  Councils  of  Trent  and  the  Vatican. 
Its  intrinsic  worth  alone  can  explain  the  fact  that  it  has  supplanted 
the  older  Scottish  standards  of  John  Knox  and  John  Craig  in  the  land 
of  their  birth,  and  that  it  was  adopted  by  three  distinct  denominations  : 
by  the  Presbyterians  in  full,  and  by  the  Congregationalists  and  the 
Regular  Baptists  with  some  slight  modifications.  Of  these  the  Con- 
gregationalists had  but  a  small  though  very  able  representation  in  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  the  Baptists  none  at  all.  It  has  at  this  day  as 
much  vitality  as  any  of  the  Protestant  symbols  and  more  vitality  than 
most  of  them.  It  materially  aids  in  shaping  theological  thought  and 
religious  activity  as  far  as  the  English  tongue  prevails.  Altogether  it 
represents  the  most  vigorous  and  yet  moderate  form  of  Calvinism, 
which  has  found  (like  Christianity  itself)  a  more  congenial  and  per- 
manent home  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  than  in  the  land  of  its  birth. 

The  doctrines  of  the  Confession  are  stated  with  unusual  care,  log- 
ical precision,  clearness,  caution,  and  circumspection,  and  with  an  eye 
to  all  their  various  aspects  and  mutual  relations.  Where  they  seem  to 
conflict  or  can  not  be  harmonized  by  our  finite  intelligence — as  absolute 
sovereignty  and  free  agency,  the  fall  of  Adam  and  personal  guilt,  the 
infinite  divinity  and  the  finite  humanity  of  Christ — both  truths  are  set 
forth,  and  room  is  left  for  explanations  and  adjustments  by  scientific 
theology  within  the  general  limits  of  the  system.  The  important  dif- 
ference between  a  public  confession  of  faith  and  a  private  system  of 
theology  was  at  least  distinctly  recognized  in  principle,  although  (as  we 
shall  see  presently)  not  always  consistently  carried  out.1 

The  style  of  the  Confession  and  Catechisms  is  clear,  strong,  dignified, 
and  well  adapted  to  the  grave  subject.  The  selection  of  Scripture 
proofs  is  careful  and  judicious,  and  reveals  a  close  familiarity  with 
the  sacred  writings. 


1  In  the  debate  on  predestination  Dr.  Reynolds  wisely  said,  '  Let  us  not  put  disputes  and 
scholastic  things  into  a  confession  of  faith.' — Minutes,  p.  151. 


§  97.  CRITICISM  OF  THE  WESTMINSTEB  SYSTEM  OF  DOCTRINE.     789 

The  merits  of  the  "Westminster  standards  have  been  admitted  not 
only  by  Presbyterians,1  but  also  by  liberal  Episcopalians,2  and  even  by 
Methodists,  who  entirely  dissent  from  its  theology.3 

1  Principal  Baillie  wrote  (Jan.  26,  1047,  Letters,  Vol.  IH.  p.  2) :  '  The  Confession  is  much 
cried  up  by  all,  even  many  of  our  greatest  opposite*,  as  the  best  confession  yet  extant.'  The 
moderate  and  judicious  Richard  Baxter  esteemed  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Cate- 
chisms the  best  books  in  his  library  next  to  the  Bible,  and  says  (in  his  Confession,  ch.  i.  §  5) : 
'I  have  perused  oft  the  Confession  of  the  Assembly,  and  verily  judge  it  the  most  excel- 
lent, for  fullness  and  exactness,  that  I  have  ever  read  from  any  Church  ;  and  though  the 
truths  therein,  being  of  several  degrees  of  evidence  and  necessity,  I  do  not  hold  them  with 
equal  clearness,  confidence,  or  certainty;  and  though  some  few  points  in  it  are  beyond  my 
reach,  yet  I  have  observed  nothing  in  it  contrary  to  my  judgment,  if  I  may  be  allowed  those 
expositions  following.'  The  saintly  Archbishop  Leigh  ton,  though  he  left  the  Church  for 
which  his  father  had  suffered  such  cruelties  from  Laud,  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession 
to  the  end  of  his  life. 

'"'  J.  B.  Marsden  (  The  History  of  the  Later  Puritans,  18o2,  pp.  80,  81),  while  judging  se- 
verely of  the  Assembly  on  account  of  its  treatment  of  Episcopacy,  thinks  the  Westminster 
Confession  inferior  to  none  of  the  Protestant  Confessions  except  in  originality,  and  adds : 
'  It  does  not,  however,  detract  from  the  real  merit  of  these  later  divines,  that  they  availed 
themselves  of  the  labors  of  the  Reformation ;  or  that  Bullinger  and  Calvin,  especially  the  lat- 
ter, should  have  left  them  little  to  accomplish,  except  in  the  way  of  arrangement  and  com- 
pression. The  Westminster  Confession  should  be  read  by  those  who  can  not  encounter  the 
more  ponderous  volumes  of  the  great  masters  from  which  it  is  derived.  It  is  in  many  re- 
spects an  admirable  summary  of  Christian  faith  and  practice.  None  can  lay  it  down  with  a 
mean  opinion  of  the  Westminster  divines.  The  style  is  pure  and  good,  the  proofs  are  select- 
ed with  admirable  skill,  the  arguments  are  always  clear,  the  subjects  well  distributed,  and 
sufficiently  comprehensive  to  form  at  least  the  outline  of  a  perfect  system  of  divinity.'  It  is 
but  just  to  add  that  Marsden  goes  on  to  censure  what  he  calls  its  'rigid  ultra-Calvinism, 
which  has  always  repelled  the  great  majority  of  English  Christians.'  Dean  Stanley,  who  has 
no  theological  sympathy  with  the  Westminster  Confession,  says  that  of  all  Protestant  Con- 
fessions 'it  far  more  nearly  approaches  the  full  proportions  of  a  theological  treatise,  and  ex- 
hibits /ar  more  dejith  of  theological  insight,  than  any  other.'  He  adds,  however,  that  *it  re- 
flects also  far  more  than  any  other  the  minute  hair-splitting  and  straw-dividing  distinctions 
which  had  reached  their  height  in  the  Puritanical  theology  of  that  age,  and  which  in  sermons 
ran  into  the  sixteenthly,  seventeenthly  sections  that  so  exercised  the  soul  of  Dugald  Dalgetty 
as  he  waited  for  the  conclusion  of  the  discourse  in  the  chapel  of  Inverary  Castle.  It  accord- 
ingly furnished  the  food  for  which  the  somewhat  hard  and  logical  intellect  of  Scotland  had  a 
special  appetite '  {Lectures  on  the  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  delivered  in  1872, 
Am.  ed.  p.  88).  In  another  place  Stanley  calls  the  Westminster  formulary  '  that  famous 
Confession  of  Faith  which,  alone  within  these  islands,  was  imposed  by  law  on  the  whole 
kingdom;  and  which,  alone  of  all  Protestant  Confessions,  still,  in  spite  of  its  sternness  and 
narrowness,  retains  a  hold  on  the  minds  of  its  adherents,  to  which  its  fervor  and  its  logical 
coherence  in  some  measure  entitle  it '  {Memorials  of  Westminster  Abbey,  p.  618). 

3  Dr.  Currey,  for  many  years  editor  of  the  '  Methodist  Advocate,'  of  New  York,  in  an  ed- 
itorial on  Creeds  (Aug.  0, 1874),  calls  '  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  the  ablest,  clear- 
est, and  most  comprehensive  system  of  Christian  doctrine  ever  framed.  That  venerable  in- 
strument purposely  embodies  in  its  unity  the  dogma  of  absolute  predestination,  which  neces- 
sarily becomes  the  corner-stone  of  the  edifice,  so  giving  it  shape  and  character.  But,  despite 
that  capital  fault,  it  is  not  only  a  wonderful  monument  of  the  intellectual  greatness  of  its 
framers,  but  a  comprehensive  embodiment  of  nearly  all  the  precious  truths  of  the  gospel. 
If  set  forth  without  ecclesiastical  authority,  for  the  edification  of  believers,  it  would,  despite 


790  THE  CREEDS  OE  CHRISTENDOM. 

DEFECTS. 

The  Westminster  standards,  like  all  human  productions,  including 
the  translations  of  the  Bible  itself,  have  imperfections. 

The  great  revival  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  followed  in  the  Re- 
formed  and  Lutheran  Churches  by  a  dry  scholasticism  which  was  more 
biblical  and  evangelical  than  the  mediaaval  scholasticism,  but  shared 
with  it  the  defects  of  a  one-sided  intellectualism  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  mystic  and  emotional  types  of  Christianity.  Scholasticism  in  the 
technical  sense — whether  Roman  Catholic  or  Protestant — is  the  prod- 
uct of  the  devout  understanding  rather  than  the  glowing  heart,  and 
approaches  the  deepest  mysteries  of  faith,  such  as  the  Trinity,  the  In- 
carnation, the  eternal  decrees  of  election  and  reprobation  of  men  and 
angels,  with  profound  reverence  indeed,  yet  with  a  boldness  and  assur- 
ance as  if  they  were  mathematical  problems  or  subjects  of  anatomical 
dissection.1  It  shows  usually  a  marvelous  dexterity  in  analysis,  division, 
subdivision,  distinction,  and  definition,  but  it  lacks  the  intuition  into 
the  hidden  depths  and  transcending  heights  where  the  antagonisms  of 
partial  truths  meet  in  unity. 

The  Westminster  standards  do  not  go  so  far  in  this  direction  as  the 
Canons  of  Dort  or  the  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula,  but  certainly  fur- 
ther than  the  Reformation  symbols,  which  are  less  logical  and  precise, 
and  more  fresh  and  elastic.  They  reflect  the  hard  severity  of  Puritan- 
ism. They  embody  too  much  metaphysical  divinity,  and  overstep  the 
limits  which  divide  a  public  confession  of  faith  from  a  scientific  treatise 
of  theology.  It  would  be  impossible  nowadays  to  pass  such  an  elabo- 
rate system  through  any  Protestant  ecclesiastical  body  with  a  view  to 

its  faults,  be  a  work  of  inestimable  worth ;  but  enforced  by  such  authority,  and  imposed 
upon  men's  consciences,  it  is  a  yoke  and  a  chain  and  a  cage  of  iron.  And  yet  this  is  the  ac- 
cepted formula  of  faith  of  nearly  all  the  Calvinistic  Churches  of  America.  Even  the  Con- 
grcgationalists  in  National  Council,  at  Plymouth  ltock,  only  a  few  years  ago,  reaffirmed 
their  acceptance  of  it.' 

1  Dr.  Wallis,  the  mathematician,  who  is  said  to  be  the  chief  author  of  the  sharp  definitions 
of  the  Shorter  Catechism  (see  p.  78G),  wrote  towards  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  a 
pamphlet  in  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  against  rising  Unitarianism,  where  he  com- 
pares the  Almighty  to  a  cube  with  its  length,  breadth,  and  height  infinitely  extended,  longum, 
latum, prof 'undtan,  which  are  the  equal  sides  of  one  substance,  and  fairly  resemble  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  He  finds  nothing  mysterious  in  this  doctrine.  'It  is,'  he  says,  'but 
this,  that  there  be  three  somavhats,  which  are  but  one  God,  and  these  somewhats  are  called 
Persons.'     Quoted  by  Stoughton,  The  Church  of  the  Revolution,  p.  213. 


§  97.  CRITICISM  QF  THE  WESTMINSTER  SYSTEM  UF  DOCTRINE.     791 

impose  it  upon  all  teachers  of  religion.  The  Confession,  however, 
as  already  mentioned,  was  not  intended  as  a  yoke  by  the  English 
framers,  nor  has  subscription  ever  been  required  to  all  its  details,  but 
only  to  the  general  scheme.  The  Bible  is  expressly  declared  by  Cal- 
vinists  to  be  'the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,'  and  the 
Confession  is  adopted  'as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
the  holy  Scriptures.' ' 

The  chief  characteristics  of  Calvinistic  scholasticism  as  it  prevailed 
in  the  seventeenth  century  are  that  it  starts  from  God's  sovereignty 
and  justice  rather  than  from  God's  love  and  mercy,  and  that  it  makes 
the  predestinarian  scheme  to  control  the  historical  and  christological 
scheme.  This  brings  us  to  the  most  assailable  point  in  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  and  Larger  Catechism,  the  abstract  doctrine  of  eternal 
decrees,  which  will  always  repel  a  large  portion  of  evangelical  Christen- 
dom. We  believe  that  the  divine-human  person  and  work  of  Christ 
furnish  the  true  key  to  the  full  understanding  of  the  plan  of  salvation 
and  the  solid  platform  for  the  ultimate  agreement  of  all  evangelical 
creeds. 

PKETERITION   OF   THE   REST   OF   MANKIND. 

Absolute  predestinarianism  is  the  strength  and  the  weakness  of  Cal- 
vinism. The  positive  decree  of  eternal  election  is  its  impregnable 
fort,  the  negative  decree  of  eternal  reprobation  its  Achilles'  heel. 
Predestination  to  holiness  and  happiness,  being  a  gracious  purpose  of 
God's  love,  is  full  of  '  sweet,  pleasant,  and  unspeakable  comfort  to  god- 
ly persons,'2  and  affords  'matter  of  praise,  reverence,  and  admiration 
of  God,  and  of  humility,  diligence,  and  abundant  consolation  to  all 
that  sincerely  obey  the  gospel.'3  Predestination  to  death  and  damna- 
tion, being  a  judicial  decree  of  God's  wrath  on  account  of  Adam's  fall, 
is — whether  true  or  false — a  '  decretum  horribiW  (as  Calvin  himself 
significantly  calls  it,  in  view  of  the  apparent  ruin  of  whole  nations 
with  their  offspring),  and  ought  never  to  be  put  into  a  creed  or  con- 
fession of  the  Church,  but  should  be  left  to  the  theology  of  the  school. 
Hence  it  is  Avisely  omitted  by  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  the  Helvetic 


1  This  is  the  American  formula  of  subscription  required  from  ministers.     On  the  Scottish 
subscription  formulas,  see  Innes,  pp.  66,  81,  84,  108,  158. 
3  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  Art.  XVII. 
3  Westm.  Conf.  Ch.VHiv§  8.     This  last  section  is  the  best  in  the  whole  chapter. 

Vol.  I.— E  e  e 


Hi 


792  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Confessions,  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  and  other  Reformed  symbols. 
Even  the  old  Scotch  Confession  of  John  Knox  does  not  mention  it,  and 
the  Second  Scotch  Confession  expressly  rejects,  as  an  antichristian  error, 
the  horrible  popish  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  nubaptized  infants. 

The  Westminster  Confession,  it  is  true,  carefully  avoids  the  term 
reprobation,  and  substitutes  for  it  the  milder  idea  of  pretention.  It 
uses  the  verb  predestinate  only  with  reference  to  eternal  life,  while  the 
lost  are  spoken  of  as  being  ordained  or  judicially  condemned  to  death. 
Yet  it  makes  the  dogmatic  assertion  that  '  God  was  pleased,  according 
to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby  he  extendeth  or 
withholdeth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power 
over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  to  ordain  them 
to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  jus- 
tice." Now  there  are  indeed  passages  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
especially  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  seem 
to  bear  out  this  statement,2  but  they  must  be  interpreted  in  the  light 
of  the  biblical  idea  of  a  God  of  infinite  love  and  mercy,  and  in  con- 
nection with  other  passages  which  in  their  obvious  and  natural  sense 
declare  that  God  sincerely  desires  all  men  to  repent  and  be  saved,  that 
Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  that  lie  is  the  propitiation  not  only 
for  our  sins,  '  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,'  and  that  he 
condemns  no  one  absolutely  and  finally  except  for  unbelief — that  is, 
for  the  willful  rejection  of  the  gospel  salvation.3  This  fundamental 
doctrine  of  God's  universal  love  and  abundant  provision  for  the  salva- 
tion of  all  mankind  should  be  put  into  a  confession  of  faith  rather 

1  Ch.  III.  7.  This  seventh  section  is  the  one  dark  spot  in  the  Confession,  and  mars  its 
beauty  and  usefulness.  Comp.  Larger  Catechism,  Quest.  13:  '  God  hath  passed  by  and  fore- 
ordained the  rest  to  dishonor  and  wrath  to  be  for  their  own  sin  inflicted,  to  the  praise  of  the 
glory  of  his  justice.'  The  Shorter  Catechism  (Quest.  7)  wisely  omits  the  negative  part  of 
predestination. 

2  Matt.  xi.  25  ('Thou  hast  hid  these  things,'  etc.) ;  Rom.  ix.  17,  18,  21,  22 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  20 ; 
Jude  4 ;  1  Ret.  ii.  8 — all  quoted  in  the  Confession.  The  ninth  chapter  of  Romans  is  the 
exegetical  bulwark  of  the  doctrine  of  reprobation ;  but  it  must  be  explained  in  connection 
with  the  tenth  chapter,  which  brings  out  the  unbelief  of  the  creature  as  the  cause,  and  with 
the  eleventh  chapter,  which  opens  the  prospect  of  a  glorious  solution  of  the  problem  in  the 
conversion  of  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  people  of  Israel,  and  ends  with  the  grand 
declaration  that  '  God  hath  shut  up  all  unto  disobedience,  that  he  might  have  mercy  vjwn  all.' 
We  have  no  more  right  to  limit  the  all  in  the  second  clause  than  in  the  first.  Comp.  the 
parallelism  in  Rom.  v.  12  sqq. 

3  John  i.  2f> ;  iii.  16 ;  iv.  24  ;  1  John  ii.  2  ;  iii.  8,  1G  ;  iv.  14  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  4  ;  Titus  ii.  1 1  ;  2 
Pet.  iii.  9;  Mark  xvi.  1G. 


§  97.  CRITICISM  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  SYSTEM  OF  DOCTRINE.     793 

than  the  doctrine  of  reprobation  or  pretention,  which  is,  to  say  the 
least,  as  objectionable  in  such  a  document  as  the  damning  clauses  in 
the  Athanasian  Creed. 

The  cxegetical  and  theological  adjustment  of  this  whole  subject  of 
predestination,  and  of  the  unequal  distribution  and  partial  withholding 
of  the  favors  of  Providence  and  the  means  of  grace  in  this  world,  is 
involved  in  insurmountable  difficulties,  and  the  contemplation  of  it 
should  make  us  cautious  and  charitable.  A  few  general  remarks  may 
tend  to  set  the  problem  in  its  true  light,  and  to  open  the  prospect  of 
at  least  a  partial  solution.1 

It  must  in  fairness  be  admitted  that  the  Calvinistic  system  only 
traces  undeniable  facts  to  their  first  ante-mundane  cause  in  the  in- 
scrutable counsel  of  God.  It  draws  the  legitimate  logical  conclusions 
from  such  anthropological  and  eschatological  premises  as  are  acknowl- 
edged by  all  other  orthodox  Churches,  Greek,  Roman,  Lutheran,  and 
Reformed.  They  all  teach  the  condemnation  of  the  human  race  in  con- 
sequence of  Adam's  fall,  and  conline  the  opportunity  and  possibility 
of  salvation  from  sin  and  perdition  to  this  present  life.2  And  yet  every 
body  must  admit  that  the  vast  majority  of  mankind,  no  worse  by  nature 
than  the  rest,  and  without  personal  guilt,  are  born  and  grow  up  in 
heathen  darkness,  out  of  the  reach  of  the  means  of  grace,  and  are  thus, 
as  far  as  we  know,  actually  '  passed  by '  in  this  world.  No  orthodox 
system  can  logically  reconcile  this  stubborn  and  awful  fact  with  the 
universal  love  and  impartial  justice  of  God. 

The  only  solution  seems  to  lie  either  in  the  Quaker  doctrine  of 
universal  light — that  is,  an  uncovcnanted  offer  of  salvation  to  all  men 
in  this  earthly  life — or  in  an  extension  of  the  period  of  saving  grace 
beyond  death  till  the  final  judgment  for  those  (and  for  those  only) 
who  never  had  an  opportunity  in  this  world  to  accept  or  to  reject  the 
gospel  salvation.  But  the  former  view  implies  a  depreciation  of  the 
visible  Church,  the  ministry  of  the  gospel,  and  the  sacraments;  the 
latter  would  require  a  liberal  reconstruction  of  the  traditional  doctrine 

1  Comp.  our  remarks,  pp.  451  Bqq. 

*  The  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  purgatory  is  no  exception,  for  this  is  confined  to 
members  of  the  Catholic  Church  who  were;  converted  in  this  life  but  need  farther  purifi- 
cation before  they  can  enter  heaven.  The  Roman  creed  is  more  pronounced  than  the 
Greek  and  the  1'iotcstant  on  the  impossibility  of  salvation  outside  of  the  \i>il>le  Church  on 
earth. 


791  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  the  middle  state  such  as  no  orthodox  Church,  in  the  absence  of 
clear  Scripture  light  on  this  mysterious  subject,  and  in  view  of  proba- 
ble abuse,  would  be  willing  to  admit  in  its  confessional  teaching,  even 
if  theological  exegesis  should  be  able  to  produce  a  better  agreement 
than  now  exists  on  certain  disputed  passages  of  the  New  Testament 
and  the  doctrine  of  Hades. 

So  far,  then,  the  only  difference  is  that,  while  the  other  orthodox 
Confessions  conceal  the  real  difficulty,  Calvinism  reveals  it,  and  thus 
brings  it  nearer  to  a  solution. 

Moreover,  the  Calvinistic  system,  by  detaching  election  from  the  ab- 
solute necessity  of  water-baptism,  has  a  positive  advantage  over  the 
Angustinian  system,  and  is  really  more  liberal.  All  the  creeds  which 
teach  baptismal  regeneration  as  an  indispensable  prerequisite  of  salva- 
tion virtually  exclude  the  overwhelming  majority  of  mankind — whole 
nations,  with  untold  millions  of  infants  dying  in  infancy — from  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  whether  they  expressly  say  so  or  not.  The 
Christian  heart  of  the  great  African  father  shrunk  from  this  fearful 
but  inevitable  conclusion  of  his  logical  head,  and  tried  to  mitigate 
it  by  making  a  distinction  between  positive  damnation  or  actual  suf- 
fering, and  negative  damnation  or  absence  of  bliss,  and  by  subjecting 
unbaptized  infants  to  the  latter  only.  And  this  is  the  doctrine  of 
Roman  Catholic  divines.  The  Calvinistic  theory  affords  a  more  sub- 
stantial relief,  and  allows,  after  the  precedent  of  Zwingli  and  Bullin- 
ger,  and  in  accordance  with  the  analogy  of  Melchisedek,  Job,  and 
other  exceptional  cases  of  true  piety  under  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
an  indefinite  extension  of  God's  saving  grace  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
visible  Church  and  the  ordinary  means  of  grace.  It  leaves  room  for  the 
charitable  hope  of  the  salvation  of  all  infants  dying  in  infancy,  and 
of  those  adults  who,  without  an  historical  knowledge  of  Christ,  live  up 
to  the  light  of  nature  and  Providence,  and  die  with  a  humble  and  pen- 
itent longing  after  salvation — that  is,  in  a  frame  of  mind  like  that  of 
Cornelius  when  he  sent  for  St.  Peter.1  This  was,  indeed,  not  the  pro- 
fessed Calvinism  of  Calvin  and  Beza,  nor  of  the  divines  of  Dort  and 
Westminster,  nor  of  the  older  divines  of  New  England  ;2  but  it  is  con- 

1  Sec  above,  p.  378. 

2  The  Rev.  Michael  Wigglesworth,  of  Maiden,  Mass.,  a  graduate  and  tutor  of  Harvard 
College  (d.  1705),  published  a  popular  poem,  The  Day  of  Boom  (1GG2;  6th  ed.  1715;  re- 


§  97.  CUITICISM  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  SYSTEM  OF  DOCTRINE.     705 

sistent  with  the  Calvinistic  sclicme,  which  never  presumed  to  fix  the 
limits  of  divine  election,  and  with  a  liberal  interpretation  of  the  West- 
minster Confession,  which  expressly  acknowledges  that  eleet  infants 
and  elect  adults  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  without  being 
outwardly  called  by  the  gospel.1 

Modern  Calvinism,  at  least  in  America,  has  decidedly  taken  a  lib- 
eral view  of  this  subject,  and  freely  admits  at  least  the  probability  of 
the  universal  salvation  of  infants,  and  hence  the  salvation  of  the  greater 
part  of  the  human  race.  Christianity  can  not  be  a  failure  in  any  sense 
— it  must  be  a  triumphant  success,  which  is  guaranteed  from  eternity 
by  the  infinite  goodness  and  wisdom  of  God.2 

But  whatever  may  be  the  theoretical  solution  of  this  deep  and  dark 
mystery,  there  is  a  practical  platform  on  which  evangelical  Christians 
can  agree,  namely,  that  all  men  who  are  and  will  be  saved  are  saved 
by  the  free  grace  of  God,  without  any  merit  of  their  own  (faith  itself 
being  a  gift  of  grace) ;  while  all  who  are  lost  are  lost  by  their  own 
guilt.  It  has  often  been  said  that  pious  Calvinists  preach  like  Ar- 
minians,  and  pious  Arminians  pray  like  Calvinists.  In  this  both  may 
he  inconsistent,  but  it  is  a  happy  and  a  useful  inconsistency.     The 


printed  as  .1  curiosity  by  the  Amer.  News  Company,  New  York,  18G7),  in  which  God  reasons 
on  the  judgment-day  with  reprobate  infants,  who  '  from  the  womb  unto  the  tomb  were 
straightway  carried,' about  the  justice  of  their  eternal  damnation;  and  in  consideration  of 
their  lesser  guilt,  assigns  them  (like  St.  Augustine)  '  the  easiest  room  in  hell!' 

1  Ch,  X.  ."> :  'Elect  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through 
the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when  and  where  and  how  he  pleaseth.  So  are  all  other  elect 
persons  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word.'  The 
Confession  nowhere  speaks  of  reprobate  infants,  and  the  existence  of  such  is  not  neces- 
sarily  implied  by  way  of  distinction,  although  it  probably  was  in  the  minds  of  the  framers 
as  their  private  opinion,  which  they  wisely  withheld  from  the  Confession.  I  think  the  in- 
terpretation of  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  of  Allegheny,  in  his  Commentary  on  this  section  (p,  240), 
is  fairly  admissible:  'The  Confession  affirms  what  is  certainly  revealed,  and  leaves  that  which 
revelation  has  not  decided  to  remain  without  the  suggestion  of  a  positive  opinion  upon  one 
side  or  the  other.'  He  agrees,  as  to  the  salvation  of  all  infants  dying  in  infancy,  with  his 
father,  who  asserts  that  'he  never  saw  a  Calvinistic  theologian  who  held  the  doctrine  of 
infant  damnation  in  any  sense'  {System.  TheoL,V6L  III.  p.  605). 

2  Dr.  Hodge,  of  Princeton,  is  of  the  opinion,  which  would  be  preposterous  in  the  Augustin- 
ian  and  Soman  Catholic  system,  that  the  number  of  those  who  are  ultimately  lost  is' very 
inconsiderable  as  compared  with  the  whole  number  of  the  saved.1  This  i>  the  closing  sentence 
of  hi-  System.  T/ieol. ,  Vol.  III.  p.  87!>.  That  the  number  of  the  saved  will  far  exceed  the 
number  of  the  lost  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  iro\\if>  fiiiWov  of  Paul  (Rom.  v.  1."..  I  7  | ; 
but  this  inference  can  not  well  be  harmonized  with  the  declaration  of  our  Lord,  Matt.  vii.  II, 
that  but  few  cuter  the  strait  gate,  unless  we  a^-urne  the  universal  salvation  of  infants,  and 
look  forward  to  great  progress  of  the  gospel  in  the  future. 


796  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Calvinistic  Wliitefield  was  as  zealous  and  successful  in  converting 
souls  as  the  Arminian  Wesley,  and  Wesley  was  as  fervent  and  pre- 
vailing in  prayer  as  Wliitefield.  They  parted  in  this  world,  but  they 
have  long  since  been  reconciled  in  heaven,  where  they  see  the  whole 
truth  face  to  face.  We  must  work  as  if  all  depended  on  our  efforts, 
and  we  must  pray  as  if  all  depended  on  God.  This  is  the  holy  paradox 
of  St.  Paul,  who  exhorts  the  Philippians  to  work  out  their  own  salva- 
tion with  fear  and  trembling,  for  the  very  reason  that  it  is  God  who 
worketh  effectively  in  them  both  to  will  and  to  work  of  his  own  good 
pleasure.  God's  Avork  in  us  and  for  us  is  the  basis  and  encourage- 
ment of  our  work  in  him  and  for  him. 

INTOLERANCE.1 

The  principle  of  intolerance  has  been  charged  upon  Chaps.  XXIII. 
(Of  the  Civil  Magistrate),  XXX.  (Of  Church  Censures),  XXXI.  (Of 
Synods  and  Councils),  and  the  last  clause  of  Ch.  XX.  (Of  Christian 
Liberty,  viz.,  the  words  'and  by  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate'). 
The  same  charge  applies  to  a  few  words  in  the  109th  question  of  the 
Larger  Catechism,  where  'tolerating  a  false  religion'  is  included 
among  the  sins  forbidden  in  the  Second  Commandment  with  refer- 
ence to  some  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  Book  of 
Revelation  (ii.  2,  16,  20;  xvii.  16,  17). 

There  is  no  doubt  that  these  passages  assume  a  professedly  Chris- 
tian government,  or  the  union  of  Church  and  State  as  it  had  come 
to  be  established  in  all  Christian  countries  since  the  days  of  Con- 
stantine,  and  as  it  was  acknowledged  at  that  time  by  Protestants  as 
well  as  Roman  Catholics.2  It  is  on  this  ground  that  the  Confes- 
sion claims  for  the  civil  magistrate  (of  whatever  form  of  govern- 
ment) the  right  and  duty  not  only  legally  to  protect,  but  also  to  snp- 


1  On  the  subject  of  Toleration  and  Persecution,  with  special  reference  to  England,  the 
reader  may  profitably  consult  a  series  of  Tracts  on  Liberty  of  Conscience  and  Persecution, 
1G14-1661,  edited  by  Edward  B.  Underbill  for  the  Hansard  Knollys  Society,  London,  1846; 
W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  History  of  Rationalism  in  Europe.  (4th  edition,  London,  1870;  New  York 
edition,  1875,  in  2  vols.),  ch.  iv.  ;  Masson,  Life  of  Milton,Vo\.  III.  pp.  87  sqq.,  383  sqq. ; 
Stoughton,  The  Church  of  the  Revolution  (London,  1874),  ch.  iv.  pp.  114  sqq.;  and  Mar- 
shall's book  quoted  on  p.  7/>4. 

3  The  first  dissenting  voices  came  from  Anabaptists  and  Socinians,  and  from  Castcllio, 
who  had  nothing  to  gain  and  every  thing  to  lose  from  the  existing  alliance  of  government 
and  religion. 


§  97.  CRITICISM  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  SYSTEM  OF  DOCTRINE.    797 

port  the  Christian  Church,  and  to  prohibit  or  punish  heresy,  idola- 
try, and  blasphemy. 

The  power  to  coerce  and  punish  implies  the  principle  of  intol- 
erance and  the  right  of  persecution  in  some  form  or  other,  though 
this  right  may  never  be  exercised.  Fur  just  as  far  as  a  civil  govern- 
ment is  identified  with  a  particular  Church,  an  offense  against  that 
Church  becomes  an  offense  against  the  State,  and  subject  to  its  pe- 
nal code.  All  acts  of  uniformity  in  religion  arc  necessarily  exclusive, 
and  must  prohibit  the  public  manifestations  of  dissent,  whatever  may 
be  the  private  thoughts  and  sentiments,  which  no  human  government 
can  reach. 

It  is  a  fact,  moreover,  that  the  Westminster  Assembly  was  called 
for  the  purpose  of  legislating  for  the  faith,  government,  and  worship 
of  three  kingdoms,  and  that  by  adopting  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  it  was  pledged  for  the  extirpation  of  popery  and  prelacy 
and  all  heresy.1 

The  few  Independents  demanded  a  limited  toleration,  and  were 
backed  by  Cromwell  and  his  army,  which  -was  full  of  Independents, 
Baptists,  Antinomians,  Socinians,  New  Lights,  Familists,  Millenarians, 
and  other  'proud,  self-conceited,  hot-headed  sectaries'  (as  Baxter  calls 
them).  All  these  sectaries,  who  sprung  up  during  the  great  religious 
excitement  of  the  age,  but  mostly  subsided  soon  afterwards,  were  of 
course  tolerationists  in  their  own  interest.  But  for  this  very  reason  the 
prevailing  sentiment  in  the  Assembly  was  stoutly  opposed  to  tolera- 
tion, as  the  great  Diana  of  the  Independents  and  supposed  mother 
and  nurse  of  all  sorts  of  heresies  and  blasphemies  threatening  the 
overthrow  of  religion  and  society.2     The  Scottish  delegation  Avas  a 

1  Ami  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  fact  and  the  whole  history  of  the  seventeenth  century,  Dr.Heth- 
erington  fin  his  Introduction  to  Shaw's  Exposition  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  pp.  xxviii.) 
broadly  denies  any  taint  of  intolerance  in  the  Confession. 

3  Thomas  Edwarda,  a  zealous  Presbyterian  minister  at  London,  published  in  1645  a  treatise 
of  GO  pages,  dedicated  to  Parliament,  under  the  title.  Gangrana  ;  or,  a  Catalogue  and  Dis- 
covery of  many  of  the  Errors,  Heresies,  Blasphemies,  and  Pernicious  Practices  of  tin  Sectaries 
of  this  Time,  in  which  he  collects  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  seventy-six  miscellaneous 
'errors,  heresies,  and  hlasphemies,'  and  enumerates  sixteen  heretical  sects— namely  :  1,  Inde- 
pendents; 2,  Brownists;  8, Millenaries;  4, Antinomians;  5, Anabaptists;  6,Arminians;  7,Lib- 
ertines;  8, Familists;  9, Enthusiasts;  10, Seekers;  ll,Perfectists;  12,  Socinians;  l8,Arians; 
1 1,  Antitrinitarians;  1 6,  Antiscripturists ;  16,  Skeptics.  'The  industrious  writer,' says  Neal, 
'might  have  enlarged  his  catalogue  with  Papists,  Prelatists,  Deists,  Banters, Behemenista, etc., 
etc.,  or,  if  he  had  pleased,  a  less  number  might  have  served  his  turn,  for  very  few  of  these 


798  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

unit  on  the  subject,  and  Baillie  wrote  a  Dissuasive  from  the  Errors  of 
the  Time  (1645)  against  toleration,  and  attacked  it  in  his  Letters}  In- 
numerable pamphlets  were  published  on  both  sides.  The  advocates  of 
toleration  were  defeated,  and  could  only  exact  from  the  Assembly  the 
important  declaration  that  God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience. 

And  yet,  if  we  judge  the  Westminster  standards  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  compare  them  with  similar  doc- 
uments, they  must  be  pronounced  moderate. 

1.  They  go  no  further  on  the  subject  of  intolerance  than  the  Belgic 
Confession,2  the  Gallican  Confession,3  the  English  Articles,4  and  the 
Irish  Articles.5  They  teach  less  than  is  implied  in  the  Anglican  doc- 
trine of  the  royal  supremacy,  which  puts  the  religion  of  a  whole  na- 
tion in  the  hands  of  the  temporal  sovereign,  and  which  was  employed 
for  the  severest  measures  against  all  dissenters,  Roman  Catholic  and 
Protestant. 

2.  The  Presbyterians,  during  the  fifteen  years  of  their  domination,6 
used  their  power  very  moderately,  with  the  exception  of  a  wholesale 
ejectment  of  a  large  number  of  prelatists  from  office  (allowing  them, 
however,  one  fifth  of  their  income).  This  was  a  folly  and  a  crime 
(viewed  from  our  standpoint),  but  not  nearly  as  cruel  as  the  hanging 
and  burning,  the  imprisonment,  torture,  and  mutilation  so  freely  exer- 
cised against  themselves  and  other  non-conformists  before  1640  and 
after  1661.  During  the  disgraceful  period  of  the  Restoration,  which 
they  unwisely  brought  about  without  exacting  any  pledges  from  the 
faithless   Stuart,  they  suffered  for  their  loyalty  to  the  Westminster 


were  collected  into  societies ;  but  his  business  was  to  blacken  the  adversaries  of 
Presbyterian  uniformity,  that  the  Parliament  might  crush  them  by  sanguinary  methods.' 
See  an  account  of  this  book  in  Neal,  Part  III.  ch.  vii.  (Vol.  II.  p.  37),  and  Masson,  Vol.  III. 
pp.  143  sqq. 

1  Innes  {Law  of  Creeds,  pp.  243  and  244)  says :  '  Toleration  was  long  unknown  in  the  law, 
as  in  the  history,  of  Scotland.  The  intense  sentiment  of  national  unity  was  strongly  against 
it.  The  nation  was  one,  and  the  Church  became  one.  The  Church  claimed  to  be  the  Church 
of  Christ  in  the  realm,  exclusively  and  of  divine  right.  .  .  .  The  Scottish  commissioners  went 
to  the  Westminster  Assembly  to  work  out  the  "covenanted  uniformity  in  religion,"  and  the 
new  doctrine  of  the  "toleration  of  sects"  which  met  them  there  they  most  earnestly  resisted.' 

2  Art.  36.  See  Vol.  III.  p.  432. 
2  Art.  39.  See  Vol.  III.  p.  372. 
♦Art,  37.  See  Vol.  III.  p.  5 1 2. 
5  No.  70.     See  Vol.  III.  p.  540. 

•  We  exempt  the  five  years  of  Cromwell's  Protectorate  (1653-1658),  during  which  the 
Independents  were  in  the  ascendency. 


§  'J7.  CRITICISM  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  SYSTEM  OF  DOCTRINE.    799 

standards  as  much  hardship  and  displayed  as  much  heroism,  both  in 
England  and  Scotland,  as  any  Church  or  sect  in  Christendom  ever  did.' 

3.  The  Confession  expresses  for  the  first  time  among  the  confessions 
of  faith,  whether  consistently  or  not,  the  true  2>r^ncW^e  of  religious 
liberty,  which  was  made  the  basis  of  the  Act  of  Toleration,  in  the 
noble  sentiment  of  Ch.  XX.  2:  '  God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience 
(James  iv.  12;  Rom.  xiv.  4),  and  hath  left  it  free  from  the  doctrines 
and  commandments  of  men,  which  are  in  any  thing  contrary  to  his 
"Word,  or  beside  it,  in  matters  of  faith  or  worship  (Acts  iv.  19 ;  v.  29 ; 
1  Cor.  vii.  23 ;  Matt,  xxiii.  8-10 ;  xxv.  9 ;  2  Cor.  1,  24).  So  that  to 
believe  such  doctrines  or  to  obey  such  commandments  out  of  con- 
science is  to  betray  true  liberty  of  conscience;  and  the  requiring  of 
an  implicit  faith,  and  an  absolute  and  blind  obedience,  is  to  destroy 
liberty  of  conscience,  and  reason  also'  (Isa.  viii.  20;  Acts  xvii.  11). 

4.  The  objectionable  clauses  in  the  Confession  and  Larger  Cate- 
chism have  been  mildly  interpreted  and  so  modified  by  the  Pres- 
byterian Churches  in  Europe  as  to  disclaim  persecuting  sentiments.2 

1  A  recent  able  writer,  who  has  no  sympathy  whatever  with  the  faitli  of  Presbyterians, 
thus  describes  their  persecutions  under  the  Stuarts:  '  In  Scotland,  during  almost  the  whole 
period  that  the  Stuarts  were  on  the  throne  of  England,  a  persecution  rivaling  in  atrocity  al- 
most any  on  record  was  directed  by  the  English  government,  at  the  instigation  of  the  Scotch 
bishops,  and  with  the  approbation  of  the  English  Church,  against  all  who  repudiated  episco- 
pacy. If  a  conventicle  was  held  in  a  house,  the  preacher  was  liable  to  be  put  to  death.  If  it 
was  held  in  the  open  air.  both  minister  and  people  incurred  the  same  fate.  The  Presbyte- 
rians were  hunted  like  criminals  over  the  mountains;  their  ears  were  torn  from  the  roots; 
they  were  branded  with  hot  irons;  their  fingers  were  wrenched  asunder  by  the  thumbkins; 
the  bones  of  their  legs  were  shattered  in  the  boots;  women  were  scourged  publicly  through 
the  streets;  multitudes  were  transported  to  the  Barbadoes ;  an  infuriated  soldiery  was  let 
loose  upon  them,  and  encouraged  to  exercise  all  their  ingenuity  in  torturing  them.'  (Lecky, 
1.  c.  Vol.  II.  p.  48,  Amer.  ed.) 

2  The  Established  Church  of  Scotland,  the  Original  Secession  Church,  the  English  Pres- 
byterian Church,  and  the  Irish  Presbyterian  Church  adhere  to  the  'whole  doctrine'  of  the 
Westminster  Confession,  with  a  slight  qualification  of  Ch.  XXXI.  2.  The  Reformed  Pres- 
byterian Church  does  the  same,  but  declares  in  its  Testimony  that  it  is  'not  pledged  to  defend 
every  sentiment  or  expression,' and  asserts  that  'to  employ  civil  coercion  of  any  kind  tor  the 
purpose  of  inducing  men  to  renounce  an  erroneous  creed,  or  to  espouse  and  profess  a  sound 
Scriptural  one.  is  incompatible  with  the  nature  of  true  religion,  and  must  ever  prove  ineffect- 
ual in  practice.'  The  United  Presbyterian  Church  introduces  into  its  Formula  of  subscription 
this  clause:  'It  being  understood  that  yon  are  not  required  to  approve  of  any  thing  in  these 
documents  which  teaches,  or  is  supposed  to  teach,  compulsory  or  persecuting  and  intoler- 
ant principles  in  religion.'  The  Eree  Church  of  Scotland  meets  the  difficulty  by  a  question- 
able exegesis,  declaring  (in  an  'Act  anent  Questions  and  Formula,' June  1,  1646):  'The  General 
Assembly,  in  pa-sing  this  Act,  think  it  right  to  declare  that,  while  the  Church  firmly  main- 
tains the  same  Scriptural  principles  as  to  the  duties  of  nations  and  their  rulers  in  reference 


SOO  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the  United  States  have  taken  the  more 
frank  and  effective  course  of  an  entire  reconstruction  of  those  chap- 
ters, so  as  to  make  them  expressly  teach  the  principle  of  religious  free- 
dom, and  claim  no  favor  from  the  civil  magistrate  but  that  protection 
which  it  owes  to  the  lives,  liberties,  and  constitutional  rights  of  all 
its  citizens.1 

GENEKAL   REMARKS   ON   THE    PROGRESS    OF    RELIGIOUS   LIBERTY. 

The  question  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  was  about 
toleration  and  persecution.  But  religious  freedom  requires  much  more, 
and  is  now  regarded  as  one  of  the  fundamental  and  most  precious 
rights  of  men,  which  must  be  sacredly  protected  in  its  public  exer- 
cise by  the  civil  government,  within  the  limits  of  order,  peace,  and 
public  morals.  This  liberty  is  the  final  result  and  gain  of  ages  of 
intolerance  and  persecution. 

The  history  of  religious  persecution  is  the  darkest  chapter  in  Church 
history — we  may  call  it  the  devil's  chapter — and  the  darkest  part  in 
it  is  the  persecution  of  Christians  by  Christians.  It  is,  however, 
relieved  by  the  counter-manifestation  of  the  heroic  virtues  of  Chris- 
tian martyrdom  and  the  slow  but  steady  progress  of  liberty  through 
streams  of  martyr  blood. 

All  Christian  Churches,  except  a  few  denominations  of  recent  date 
which  never  had  a  chance,  have  more  or  less  persecuted  when  in 
power,  and  must  plead  guilty.  The  difference  is  only  one  of  degree. 
The  Episcopalians  were  less  intolerant  than  the  Roman  Catholics,  the 
Presbyterians  less  intolerant  than  the  Episcopalians,  the  Independ- 
ents less  intolerant  (in  theory)  than  the  Presbyterians.  But  they 
were  all  intolerant.  Even  the  Independents  of  Old  England,  with 
the  great  Cromwell  and  the  great  Milton  as  their  leaders,  excluded 
Romanists,  Prelatists  (i.  e.,  Episcopalians),  and  Unitarians  from  their 
programme    of  toleration,2  and,  strange   to   say,  when   in   power  in 


to  true  religion  and  the  Church  of  Christ,  for  which  she  has  hitherto  contended,  she  disclaims 
intolerant  or  persecuting  principles,  and  does  not  regard  her  Confession  of  Faith,  or  any  por- 
tion thereof,  when  fairly  interpreted,  as  favoring  intolerance  or  persecution,  or  consider  that 
her  office-bearers,  by  subscribing  it,  profess  any  principles  inconsistent  with  liberty  of  con- 
science and  the  right  of  private  judgment.'   Fee  Innes,  The  Law  of  Creeds,  pp.  453,  461,  468. 

1  See  next  section. 

2  Milton,  the  independent  of  Independents  and  the  boldest  as  well  as  most  eloquent  cham- 


§  07.  CRITICISM  OF  THE  WESTMINSTER  SYSTEM  OF  DOCTRINE.    801 

New  England,  they  expelled  Baptists  and  hanged  Quakers  on  the  vir- 
gin soil  of  Massaehusetts  before  and  after  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly. On  the  other  hand,  however;  there  is  not  a  Christian  Church 
or  sect  that  has  not  complained  of  intolerance  and  injustice  under 
persecution,  and  that  has  not  furnished  some  bold  advocates  of  tol- 
eration and  freedom,  from  Tertullian  and  Lactantius  down  to  Roger 
Williams  and  William  Penn.  This  is  the  redeeming  feature  in  this 
fearful  picture,  and  must  not  be  overlooked  in  making  up  a  just  esti- 
mate. 

It  is  therefore  the  greatest  possible  injustice  to  charge  the  perse- 
cutions to  Christianity,  which  breathes  the  very  opposite  spirit  of  for- 
bearance, forgiveness,  love,  and  liberality;  which  teaches  us  to  suffer 
wrong  rather  than  to  inflict  wrong;  and  which,  by  restoring  the  di- 
vine image  in  man,  and  lifting  him  up  to  the  sphere  of  spiritual  free- 
dom, is  really  the  pure  source  of  all  that  is  truly  valuable  in  our 
modern  ideas  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  Whatever  may  be  said 
of  the  severity  of  the  Mosaic  legislation,  which  assumes  the  union  of 
the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power,  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  both  by 
precept  and  example,  strictly  prohibit  the  use  of  carnal  means  for  the 
promotion  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  is  spiritual  in  its  origin, 
character,  and  aim.  The  reminiscence  of  this  spirit  lingered  in  the 
Church  through  the  darkest  ages  in  the  maxim  Ecclcsia  own  sitit 
scuiguinem. 

It  is  also  wrong  to  derive  intolerance  from  the  strength  and  in- 
tensity of  religious  conviction — although  this  undoubtedly  may  come 
in  as  an  additional  stimulus — and  to  trace  toleration  to  skepticism  and 
unbelief.1  For  who  had  stronger  convictions  than  St.  Paul  I  His 
Jewish  conviction  or  pharisaical  fanaticism  made  him  a  bitter  perse- 
cutor, but  his  Christian  conviction  inspired  his  seraphic  description 
of  love  (1  Cor.  xiii.)  and  strengthened  him  for  martyrdom.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Deist  philosopher,  Hobbes,  by  giving  the  civil  power 
an  absolute  right  to  determine  the  religion   of  a  nation,  taught  the 


pion  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  in  the  seventeenth  century,  was  unwilling  to  tolerate  Ro- 
manists,  because  be  regarded  them  aa  idolaters  and  as  enemies  of  freedom.  !See  bis  Areopa- 
gilica,  of  which  Lecky  (Vol.  tl.p.  80)  says  that  it  is  as  glorious  a  monument  of  the  genius 
of  Milton  as  bis  Paradise  l."si.  ami  that  it  'probably  represents  the  uiy  highest  point  that 

Knglisb  eloquence  has  attained.' 
1  This  is  the  tbeory  of  Lccky. 


802  TI1E  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

extreme  doctrine  of  persecution ;  and  the  reign  of  terror  in  France 
proves  that  infidelity  may  be  as  fanatical  and  intolerant  as  the  strong- 
est faith,  and  may  instigate  the  most  horrible  of  persecutions. 

Intolerance  is  rooted  in  the  selfishness  and  ambition  of  human  nat- 
ure and  in  the  spirit  of  sectarian  exclusiveness,  which  assumes  that 
we  and  the  sect  to  which  we  belong  have  the  monopoly  of  truth  and 
orthodoxy,  and  that  all  who  dissent  from  us  must  be  in  error.  Perse- 
cution follows  as  a  legitimate  consequence  of  this  selfishness  and  big- 
otry wherever  the  intolerant  party  has  the  power  to  persecute. 

The  Roman  Church,  wherever  she  controls  the  civil  government,  can 
not  consistently  tolerate,  much  less  legally  recognize,  any  form  of  wor- 
ship besides  her  own,  because  she  identifies  herself  with  the  infallible 
Church  of  Christ,  out  of  which  there  is  no  salvation,  and  regards  all 
who  dissent  from  her  as  damnable  schismatics  and  heretics.1  Prot- 
estants, who  begau  with  the  assertion  of  private  judgment  against  the 
authority  of  Rome,  and  complained  bitterly  of  her  persecuting  spirit, 
are  inconsistent  and  more  inexcusable  if  they  refuse  the  same  right 
to  others  and  persecute  them  for  its  exercise.  For  a  long  time,  how- 
ever, Protestantism  clung  to  the  traditional  idea  of  uniformity  in  re- 
ligion, and  this  was  the  source  of  untold  suffering,  especially  in  Eng- 
land, until  it  became  manifest  beyond  a  doubt  that  doctrinal  and 
ceremonial  uniformity  was  an  impossibility  in  a  nation  of  intelligent 
freemen.  The  Toleration  Act  of  May  24, 10S9,  for  the  relief  of  Dis- 
senters, marks  the  transition.  Since  that  time  religious  persecution 
by  the  civil  power  has  ceased  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  and  the  prin- 
ciple of  religious  liberty  has  gradually  become  a  settled  conviction 
of  the  most  advanced  sections  of  the  Christian  world. 

For  this  change  of  public  sentiment  the  chief  merit  is  due  to  the 
English  Non-conformists,  who  in  the  school  of  persecution  became 
advocates  of  toleration,  especially  to  the  Baptists  and  Quakers,  who 
made  religious  liberty  (within  the  limits  of  the  golden  rule)  an  arti- 
cle of  their  creed,  so  that  they  could  not  consistently  persecute  even 

1  The  limited  toleration  in  some  Roman  Catholic  countries  exists  in  spite  of  Romanism, 
and  the  liberal  opinions  and  Christian  feelings  of  individual  Catholics  have  no  influence  on 
the  system,  which  is  the  same  as  ever,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  papal  Syllabus  of  1804,  and 
from  the  recent  papal  protest  against  even  the  minimum  of  religious  toleration  in  Spain  (1876). 
In  Protestant  countries  the  Roman  Church  claims  as  much  liberty  as  she  can  get,  and  advocates 
toleration  in  her  own  interest,  but  would  deny  it  to  others  as  soon  as  she  attained  to  power. 


§  07.  CRITICISM  OF  THE  WESTMINSTEH  SYSTEM  OF  DOCTRINE.     803 

if  they  should  ever  have  a  ehance  to  do  so.1  It  was  next  promoted 
by  the  eloquent  advocacy  of  toleration  in  the  writings  of  Chilling- 
worth,2  Jeremy  Taylor,3  and  other  Anglican  divines  of  the  latitudina- 
rian  school ;  further,  by  the  mingling  of  creeds  and  sects  in  the  same 
country  where  persecution  failed  of  its  aim  ;  and,  lastly,  by  the  skepti- 
cal philosophy  and  the  religious  indifferentism  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, which,  however,  has  repeatedly  shown  itself  most  intolerant  of 
all  forms  of  positive  belief,  and  can  therefore  be  no  more  trusted  than 
the  bigotry  of  superstition.  Eeligious  freedom  is  best  guaranteed  by 
an  enlightened  Christian  civilization,  a  liberal  culture,  a  large-hearted 
Christian  charity,  a  comprehensive  view  of  truth,  a  free  social  inter- 
course of  various  denominations,  and  a  wise  separation  of  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  government. 

During  the  last  stages  of  the  age  of  persecution  Providence  began 
to  prepare  in  the  colonies  of  North  America  the  widest  field  and  the 
proper  social  basis  for  the  full  exercise  of  religious  liberty  and  equal- 
ity by  bringing  together  under  one  government  the  persecuted  of  all 


1  See  the  'Fourteenth  Proposition'  of  Barclay,  adopted  by  the  Quakers:  'Since  God  hath 
assumed  to  himself  the  power  and  dominion  of  the  conscience,  who  alone  can  rightly  instruct 
and  govern  it,  therefore  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  whatsoever,  hy  virtue  of  any  authority  or 
principality  they  hear  in  the  government  of  tliis  world,  to  force  the  consciences  of  others ;  and 
therefore  all  killing,  banishing,  fining,  imprisoning,  and  other  such  things,  which  men  are 
afflicted  with,  for  the  alone  exercise  of  their  conscience,  or  difference  in  worship  or  opinion, 
proceedeth  from  the  spirit  of  Cain,  the  murderer,  and  is  contrary  to  the  truth;  provided  al- 
ways that  no  man,  under  the  pretense  of  conscience,  prejudice  his  neighbor  in  his  life  or 
estate,  or  do  any  thing  destructive  to,  or  inconsistent  with,  human  society ;  in  which  case  the 
law  is  for  the  transgressor,  and  justice  to  be  administered  upon  all,  without  respect  of  per- 
sons.' This  was  published  in  1  G7o.  Bossuet,  therefore,  was  imperfectly  informed  when  at 
the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  (1G88)  he  mentioned  the  Anabaptists  and  Socinians 
as  the  only  Christians  who  did  not  admit  the  power  of  the  civil  sword  '  dans  les  matieres  de 
la  religion  et  de  la  conscience'  (Hist,  des  Variations,  LIV.  x.  56). 

2  The  Religion  of  Protestants  a  Safe  Way  to  Salvation,  1G37  (or  1G38;  dedicated  in  a  most 
humble  preface  to  King  Charles  I. ;  3d  ed.  1GG4  ;  10th  ed.  1742 ;  reprinted  in  the  first  two 
vols,  of  the  Oxford  ed.  of  Chillingworth's  Works,  1 838,  in  3  vols.).  This  book  is  a  vindication 
of  Protestantism  and  of  the  author's  return  to  it,  and  proclaims  that  the  Bible,  the  whole 
Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible,  is  the  religion  of  Protestants,  and  that  no  Church  of  one  de- 
nomination is  infallible.  At  Chillingworth's  burial,  in  Jan.,  1C.44,  Dr.  Chcynell.  who  had 
shown  him  great  kindness  during  his  sickness,  flung  this  book  into  the  grave,  with  the  words, 
'  Get  thee  gone,  thou  cursed  book;  go  rot  with  thy  author.'  Chillingworth,  however,  had  no 
idea  of  civil  liberty,  and  wrote  as  an  extreme  royalist  on  the  Unlawfulness  of  Resisting  the 
Lawful  I'rincr,  although  most  Impious,  Tyrannical,  ami  Idolatrous. 

3  Liberty  of  Prophe%ying,  written  in  exile  (1647),  and  unfortunately  retracted  in  part  after 
the  Restoration  by  the  author  himself,  who  declared  it  to  have  been  a  ruse  de  guerre.  Coleridge 
regards  this  weakness  as  almost  the  only  stain  on  Taylor's  character. 


S04  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

nations  and  sects,  so  that  the  enjoyment  of  the  liberty  of  each  de- 
pends upon  and  is  guaranteed  by  the  recognition  and  protection  of  the 
liberty  of  all  the  rest. 

§  98.  The  Westminster  Standards  in  America. 

AVith  the  Puritan  emigration  from  England  and  the  Presbyterian 
emigration  from  Scotland  and  the  North  of  Ireland,  the  Westminster 
standards  were  planted  on  the  virgin  soil  of  America  long  before 
the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The  most  popular  is  the  Shorter 
Catechism,  which  has  undergone  no  change  except  a  very  slight  one 
among  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians.1 

THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  OF  NEW  ENGLAND. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  was  first  adopted  'for  substance  of  doc- 
trine,' but  without  the  principles  of  Presbyterian  discipline,  by  the 
Congregational  Synod  of  Cambridge,  in  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts, 
A.D.  1648,  one  year  after  its  issue  in  England ;  then,  in  the  Savoy 
recension,  by  the  Synod  of  Boston,  Mass.,  May  12, 1080  ;  and  again,  in 
the  same  form,  by  the  Congregational  churches  of  Connecticut  at  a 
Synod  of  Saybrook,  Sept.  0, 1708. 

The  Smaller  Catechism  was  formerly  used  as  a  school-book  in  New 
England,  but  has  been  thrust  into  the  background  by  the  modern  prej- 
udice against  catechisms  and  by  a  flood  of  more  entertaining  but  less 
solid  Sunday-school  literature. 

THE   PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCHES. 

The  various  Presbyterian   bodies  of  English  and  Scotch  descent 

used  at  first  all  the  Westminster  standards  without  alteration.     The 

Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  the  oldest  in  America,  was  organized  in 

1706,  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  in  1717,  and  the  Synod  of  New  York 

in    1743.     The   Synod   of  Philadelphia,  Sept.  19,  1729,  adopted  the 

Confession  with  a  liberal  construction,  in  these  words: 

'  Although  the  Synod  do  not  claim  or  pretend  to  any  authority  of  imposing  our  faith  upon 
other  men's  consciences,  but  do  profess  our  just  dissatisfaction  with  and  abhorrence  of  such 
impositions,  and  do  utterly  disclaim  all  legislative  power  and  authority  in  the  Church,  being 
willing  to  receive  one  another  as  Christ  has  received  us  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  admit  to 

1  See  next  section. 


§  98.  THE  WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS  IN  AMERICA.  S05 

fellowship  in  sacred  ordinance*  all  such  as  we  hare  grounds  to  believe  Christ  will  at  la>t 
admit  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  yet  we  are  undoubtedly  obliged  to  take  care  that  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints  be  kept  pure  and  [incorrupt  among  us,  and  so  handed  down  to 
our  posterity. 

'Ami  [we]  </"  therefore  agree  l/t<it  all  the  ministers  of  this  Synod,  or  that  shall  hereafter 
lie  admitted  to  this  Synod,  shall  declare  their  agreement  in  ami  approbation  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  with  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster, 
as  l»  in//,  in  ail  the  essential  and  necessary  articles,  good  forms  of  sound  nerds  and  systems  of 
Christian  doctrine,  and  do  also  adopt  the  said  Confession  and  Catechisms  as  the  confession 
of  our  faith. 

'And  we  do  also  agree  that  all  the  Presbyteries  within  our  bounds  shall  always  take  care 
not  to  admit  any  candidate  of  the  ministry  into  the  exercise  of  the  sacred  function  but  what 
declares  his  agreement  in  opinion  with  all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  said  Con- 
fession,  either  by  subscribing  the  said  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  or  by  a  verbal 
declaration  of  his  assent  thereto,  as  such  minister  or  candidate  shall  think  best.  And  in 
case  any  minister  of  this  Synod,  or  any  candidate  for  the  ministry,  shall  have  any  scruple 
with  respect  to  any  article  or  articles  of  said  Confession  or  Catechisms,  he  shall,  at  the  time 
of  his  making  said  declaration,  declare  his  sentiments  to  the  Presbytery  or  Synod,  who  shall. 
notwithstanding,  admit  him  to  the  exercise  of  the  ministry  within  our  bounds,  and  to  minis- 
terial communion,  if  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  judge  his  scruple  or  mistake  to  be  only 
about  articles  not  essential  and  necessary  in  doctrine,  worship,  or  government.  But  if  the 
Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  judge  such  ministers  or  candidates  erroneous  in  essential  and  nec- 
essary articles  of  faith,  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  declare  them  incapable  of  communion 
with  them.  And  the  Synod  do  solemnly  agree  that  none  of  us  will  traduce  or  use  any  op- 
probrious terms  of  those  that  differ  from  us  in  these  extra-essential  and  not-necessary  points 
of  doctrine,  but  treat  them  with  the  same  friendship,  kindness,  and  brotherly  love  as  if  they 
had  not  differed  from  us  in  such  sentiments.'1 

In  the  afternoon  session  the  scruples  about  adopting  these  standards 
were  solved,  and  the  Synod  unanimously  declared  that  they  do  not  re- 
ceive 'some  clauses  in  the  twentieth  and  twenty-third  chapters  in  any 
such  sense  as  to  suppose  the  civil  magistrate  hath  a  controlling  power 
over  Synods  with  respect  to  the  exercise  of  their  ministerial  authority, 
or  power  to  persecute  any  for  their  religion,  or  in  any  sense  contrary 
to  the  Protestant  succession  to  the  throne  of  Great  Britain.' 

This  supplementary  action  foreshadows  the  changes  which  were 
afterwards  made. 

When  the  Synods  of  Philadelphia  and  New  York  united  in  one 
body  at  Philadelphia,  May  29,  175S,  they  adopted,  as  the  first  article 
of  the  plan  of  union,  the  following  : 

'Both  Synods  having  always  approved  and  received  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith 

1  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  a-  published  in  the  Records  of  the  Preshyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  (embracing  the  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, and  of  the  Synods  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  from  1706  to  1788).  1'hilad. 
Presbyt.  Board  of  Public.  1841,  p.  92.  See  also  W.  E.  BfoOBB'fl  Preshyterian  Digest:  « 
Cornpe nd  of  the  Acts  and  Deliverances  of  tin  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  (1'hilad.  Presbyt.  Board),  second  ed.  1873,  pp.  45  sq. 


SO 6  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,  as  an  orthodox  and  excellent  system  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, founded  on  the  Word  of  God,  we  do  still  receive  the  same  as  the  confession  of  our 
faith ;  and  also  adhere  to  the  plan  of  worship,  government,  and  discipline  contained  in  the 
"Westminster  Director}',  strictly  enjoining  it  on  all  our  members  and  probationers  for  the 
ministry,  that  they  preach  and  teach  according  to  the  form  of  sound  words  in  said  Confes- 
sion and  Catechisms,  and  avoid  and  oppose  all  errors  contrary  thereto.'1 

THE    AMERICAN   REVISION. 

After  the  Revolutionary  War  the  united  Synod  of  Philadelphia  and 
New  York,  which  met  at  Philadelphia,  May  28,  17S7,  appointed  a 
committee  to  prepare  an  alteration  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Ch. 
XX.  (closing  paragraph),  Ch.  XXIII.,  3,  and  Ch.  XXXI.,  1,  2,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  new  relation  of  Church  and  State.2 

The  changes  proposed  were  adopted  by  the  joint  Synod  at  a  subse- 
quent meeting  in  Philadelphia,  May  28, 17SS,  in  the  following  action  : 

'The  Synod  having  fully  considered  the  draught  of  the  form  of  government  and  discipline, 
did,  on  a  review  of  the  whole,  and  hereby  do  ratify  and  adopt  the  same,  as  now  altered  and 
amended,  as  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America,  and  order  the  same  to 
be  considered  and  strictly  observed  as  the  rule  of  their  proceedings  by  all  the  inferior  judica- 
tories belonging  to  the  body.  And  they  order  that  a  correct  copy  be  printed,  and  that  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  as  now  altered,  be  printed  in  full  along  with  it,  as  making 
a  part  of  the  Constitution. 

'  Resolved,  That  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  above  ratification  by  the  Synod  is, 
that  the  Form  of  Government  and  Discipline,  and  the  Confession  of  Faith,  as  now  ratified,  is 
to  continue  to  be  our  constitution  and  the  confession  of  our  faith  and  practice  unalterable, 
unless  two  thirds  of  the  Presbyteries  under  the  care  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  propose 
alterations  or  amendments,  and  such  alterations  or  amendments  shall  be  agreed  to  and 
enacted  by  the  General  Assembly.'3 

On  the  day  following  (May  29)  the  Synod  '  took  into  consideration 
the  Westminster  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,  and  having  made  a 

1  See  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  17f>8  as  published  in  the  Records  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
p.  28G.  Also  Moore's  Diyest,  p.  48;  and  Gillett,  Hist,  of  the  Presbyt.  Ch.  in  the  U.  S.  of 
America,  Vol.  I.  p.  138. 

1  See  Records  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  p.  539,  where  we  find  the  following  minute, 
dated  May  28,  1787:  'The  Synod  took  into  consideration  the  last  paragraph  of  the  twenti- 
eth chapter  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  the  third  paragraph  of  the  twenty-third 
chapter,  and  the  first  paragraph  of  the  thirty-first  chapter  ;  and  having  made  some  altera- 
tions, agreed  that  the  said  paragraphs,  as  now  altered,  be  printed  for  consideration,  together 
with  the  draught  of  a  plan  of  government  and  discipline.  The  Synod  also  appointed  the 
above-named  committee  to  revise  the  Westminster  Directory  for  public  worship,  and  to 
have  it,  when  thus  revised,  printed,  together  with  the  draught,  for  consideration.  And  the 
Synod  agreed  that  when  the  above  proposed  alterations  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  shall  have 
been  finally  determined  on  by  the  body,  and  the  Directory  shall  have  been  revised  as  above 
directed,  and  adopted  by  the  Synod,  the  said  Confession  thus  altered,  and  Directory  thus  re- 
vised and  adopted,  shall  be  styled,  "The  Confession  of  Faith  and  Directory  for  Public  Wor- 
ship of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America."' 

3  Records  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  p.  54G  ;  Moore's  Diyest,  p.  51. 


§98.  THE  WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS  IN  AMERICA.  g()7 

small  amendment  of  the  Larger,  did  approve,  and  do  hereby  approve 
and  ratify  the  said  CateeliismSj  aa  now  agreed  on,  as  the  Catechisms  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  said  United  States.'  At  the  same  time 
it  was  ordered  that  all  these  standards,  as  altered  and  adapted  to  the 
wants  of  the  American  churches,  be  printed  and  bound  up  in  one 
volume.1 

The  changes  consist  in  the  omission  of  those  sentences  which  imply 
the  union  of  Church  and  State,  or  the  principle  of  ecclesiastical  estab- 
lishments, making  it  the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrate  not  only  to  pro- 
tect, but  also  to  support  religion,  and  giving  to  the  magistrate  power  to 
call  and  ratify  ecclesiastical  synods  and  councils,  and  to  punish  heretics. 
Instead  of  this,  the  American  revision  confines  the  duty  of  the  civil 
magistrate  to  the  legal  protection  of  religion  in  its  public  exercise, 
without  distinction  of  Christian  creeds  or  organizations.  It  thus  pro- 
fesses the  principle  of  religious  liberty  and  equality  of  all  denomina- 
tions before  the  law.  This  principle  has  been  faithfully  and  consist- 
ently adhered  to  by  the  large  body  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
xVmerica,  and  has  become  the  common  law  of  the  land.  To  facilitate 
the  comparison  we  present  the  respective  sections  in  parallel  columns : 


Original  Text. 

C'li.  XXIII.  3.— Of  the  Civil  Magistrate. 

The  civil  magistrate  may  not  assume  to 
himself  the  administration  of  the  Word  and 
Sacraments,  or  the  power  of  the  keys  of  the 


American  Text. 

Ch.  XXIII.  3.— Of  the  Civil  Magistrate. 

Civil  magistrates  may  not  assume  to  them- 
selves the  administration  of  the  Word  and 
Sacraments;1  or  the  power  of  the  keys  of  the 


kingdom  of  heaven  ; '  yet  he  hath  authority,  kingdom  of  heaven  ;2  or,  in  the  least,  interfere 
and  it  i>  bis  duty  to  take  order,  that  unity  and  in  matters  of  faith.1  Yet,  as  nursing  fathers, 
peace  be  preserved  in  the  Church,  that  the    it  is  the  duty  of  civil  magistrates  to  protect 


troth  of  God  he  kept  pure  and  entire,  that  all 
blasphemies  and  heresies  be  suppressed,  all 
corruptions  and  abuses  in  worship  and  dis- 
cipline  prevented  or  reformed ;  and  all  the 
ordinances  of  God  duly  settled,  administered, 


1  2  Chron.  xxvi.  18;  Matt,  xviii.  17;  xvi. 
19;  I  Cor.  xii.  28,  29;  Eph.hr.  7,  12;  1  Cor. 
iv.  1,2;    Bom.  x.  1.".;   Heb.  v.  4. 


the  Church  of  our  common  Lord,  without 
giving  the  preference  to  any  denomination  of 
Christians  above  the  rest,  in  such  a  manner 
that  all  ecclesiastical  persons  whatever  shall 
enjoy  the  full,  free,  and  unquestioned  liberty 


1  2  Chron.  xxvi.  18. 

•Matt.  xvi.  1'.);   1  Cor.  iv.  1,  2. 

3  John  xviii.  3ti;   Mai.  ii.  7;   Acts  V.  29. 


1  Records,  p.  ">17;  Moore's  Digest,  p.  52.  The  first  edition  of  the  new  book  appeared 
Fhilad.  1789, under  the  title:  'The  Constitution  of  tin-  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
.>'/'//'.<  of  America,  containing  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Catechisms,  tin  Government  and 
Discipline,  and  tin  Directory  of  the  Worship  of  God,  ratified  and  adopted  /"/  the  Synod  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  May  28,  1788.  The  Assembly  of  17:>2  ordered  a  new  edition 
with  the  Scripture  texts  annexed,  and  appointed  a  committee  for  the  purpose.  This  edition 
was  adopted  by  the  Assembly  in  171)4  (Moore's  Digest,  p.  52). 
VOL  I.— F   FF 


SOS 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


and  observed. '  For  the  better  effecting  where- 
of he  hath  power  to  call  synods,  to  be  present 
at  them,  and  to  provide  that  whatsoever  is 
transacted  in  them  be  according  to  the  mind 
of  God.2 


Ch.  XXXI.— Of  Synods  and  Councils. 
For  the  better  government  and  further  edi- 
fication of  the  Church,  there  ought  to  be  such 
assemblies  as  are  commonly  called  synods  or 


II.  As  magistrates  may  lawfully  call  a  synod 
of  ministers  and  other  fit  persons  to  consult 
and  advise  with  about  matters  of  religion:4 
so,  if  magistrates  be  open  enemies  to  the 
Church,  the  ministers  of  Christ,  of  them- 
selves, by  virtue  of  their  office ;  or  they,  with 
other  fit  persons,  upon  delegation  from  their 
churches,  may  meet  together  in  sucli  assem- 
blies.5 


of  discharging  every  part  of  their  sacred  func- 
tions without  violence  or  danger.1  And  as 
Jesus  Christ  hath  appointed  a  regular  govern- 
ment and  discipline  in  his  Church,  no  law  of 
any  commonwealth  should  interfere  with,  let, 
or  hinder  the  due  exercise  thereof  among  the 
voluntary  members  of  any  denomination  of 
Christians,  according  to  their  own  profession 
and  belief.2  It  is  the  duty  of  civil  magistrates 
to  protect  the  person  and  good  name  of  all 
their  people,  in  such  an  effectual  manner  as 
that  no  person  be  suffered,  either  upon  pre- 
tense of  religion  or  infidelity,  to  offer  any  in- 
dignity, violence,  abuse,  or  injury  to  any  other 
person  whatsoever;  and  to  take  order  that  all 
religious  and  ecclesiastical  assemblies  be  held 
without  molestation  or  disturbance.3 

Ch.  XXXI.— Of  Synods  and  Councils. 
For  the  better  government  and  further  edi- 
fication of  the  Church,  there  ought  to  be  such 
assemblies  as  are  commonly  called  synods  or 
councils.*  And  it  belongeth  to  the  overseers 
and  other  rulers  of  the  particular  churches,  by 
virtue  of  their  office,  and  the  power  which  Christ 
hath  given  them  for  edification,  and  not  for 
destruction,  to  appoint  such  assemblies ;  and 
to  convene  together  in  them,  as  often  as  they 
shall  judge  it  expedient  for  the  good  of  the 
Church.5 


1  Isa.  xlix.  23. 

2  Psa.  cv.  15  ;  Acts  xviii.  14,  1 5,  1 G. 

3  2  Sam.  xxiii.  13;  1  Tim.  ii.  1  ;  Rom. 

4  Acts  xv.  2,  4,  6. 

6  Acts  xv.  22,  23,  25. 


1  Isa.  xlix.  23 ;  Psa.  cxxii.  9 ;  Ezra  vii.  23- 
28;  Lev.  xxiv.  1G ;  Deut.  xiii.  5,  6,  12;  1 
Kings  xviii.  4 ;  1  Chron.  xiii.  1-9 ;  2  Kings 
xxiii.  1-26;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  33;  xv.  12,  13. 

2  2  Chron.  xv.  8-17  ;  xxix.  30  ;  Matt.  ii.  4, 
5. 

3  Acts  xv.  2,  4,  G. 

4  Isa.  xlix.  23;  I  Tim.  ii.  1,  2;  2  Chron. 
xix.  8-12;  xxix.  and  xxx.  ;  Matt.  ii.  4,  5; 
l'rov.  xi.  14. 

5  Acts  xv.  2,  4,  22,  23,  25. 

In  Ch.  XX.,  §  4,  the  last  sentence,  'and  by  the  power  of  the  civil 
magistrate,'  was  omitted,  so  as  to  read, '  they  [the  offenders]  may  law- 


§98.  THE  WESTMINSTEB  STANDARDS  IN  AMERICA.  S09 

fully  be  called  to  account,  and  proceeded  against  by  the  censures  of 
the  Church.5 

The  only  change  made  in  the  Larger  Catechism  was  the  striking  out 
of  the  words  'tolerating  a  false  religion,9  among  the  sins  forbidden  in 
the  Second  Commandment  (Quest.  100). 

The  example  set  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
was  afterwards  (1S01)  followed  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  revision  of  the  political  sections  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of 
Religion. 

PRESBTTBBIAN    REUNH  "N.1 

The  division  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  into  Old  School  and  New 
School,  which  took  place  at  Philadelphia,  June  S,  1837,  arose  chiefly 
from  contentions  in  consequence  of  the  Plan  of  Union  formed  in  1S01 
between  the  General  Assembly  and  the  Congregational  Association  of 
Connecticut,  and  involved  two  different  constructions  of  the  doctrinal 
standards — the  one  more  strict  and  conservative,  the  other  more  liberal 
and  progressive — but  did  not  affect  the  organic  law  of  the  Church.2 
The  Old  School,  it  is  true,  charged  the  New  School  with  sixteen  Pe- 
lagian and  Arminian  errors,  which  had  their  origin  in  recent  develop- 
ments of  New  England  theology ;  but  the  New  School  met  the  charge 
with  the  'Auburn  Declaration*  (Aug.  1837), which  denied  those  errors 
and  adopted  sixteen  '  true  doctrines '  in  essential  harmony  with  the 
Calvinistic  anthropology  and  soteriology.  This  Declaration  must  be 
regarded  as  expressing  the  belief  of  the  New-School  body  at  that 
time,  whatever  the  views  of  individual  members  may  have  been.3 

In  the  preparatory  steps  towards  a  reunion  of  these  two  bodies 

1  For  the  documentary  history  of  this  remarkable  movement,  see  the  Minutes  of  the  two 
General  Assemblies  for  lK(;7-<;!>.  and  of  the  reunited  Assembly  from  1870  to  1^71' ;  also  the 
new  edition  of  Moore's  Presbyterian  Digest  (1873),  pp.  T>7-100;  and  the  Memorial  Volume 
on  Presbyterian  Reunion,  New  York,  1870. 

:  For  the  documentary  history  of  the  separation  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  the  'Ex- 
scinding Acts'  of  the  Old-School  Assembly,  see  Baird's  Collection  (<).  S.),  pp.  710  sqq.,  and 
the  first  edition  of  Moore's  New  Digest  (N.  S.  |,  pp.  456  sqq.  In  the  new  edition  of  Moore's 
Digest  (187:?),  the  chapter  on  the  division  is  omitted,  and  the  documents  on  the  reunion 
inserted  instead. 

3  The  sixteen  errors  charged  are  found  in  Baird's  <  'oil,  ction,  pp.  71 1  and  745  sqq.,  together 
with  the  reply  of  the  New  .School,  which  was  afterwards,  in  Aug.  of  the  same  year,  adopted 

by  a  convention  of  98  commissioned  ministers  and  58  laymen  (besides  24  corresponding  mem- 
bers) .it  Aid. mil,  X.  Y.,  and  is  hence  called  the  'Auburn  Declaration.'  The  latter  is  also 
embodied  in  the  third  volume  of  this  work,  p,  771.  On  its  history,  conip.  Dr.  Morris,  in  the 
Amer.  Prcsbi/t.  Review,  for  January,  \s~i\. 


810  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

after  a  separation  of  thirty-two  years,  the  question  of  the  doctrinal 
basis  took  a  prominent  part.  It  was  proposed  that  '  in  the  United 
Church  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  shall  be  received  and 
adopted  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.'  It  is  characteristic  of  the  excellent  temper  and  spirit  of 
concession  which  prevailed  on  both  sides,  that  at  the  '  Presbyterian 
National  Union  Convention,'  held  in  November,  1S67,  at  Philadel- 
phia, Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith,  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York,  a  prominent  leader  of  the  New  School,  proposed  a  defining 
clause,  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  Old  School  orthodoxy ; '  while  the 
Kev.  Dr.  Gurley,  pastor  of  an  Old-School  church  in  Washington  City, 
proposed  an  additional  clause  to  guarantee  the  New  School  liberty  of 
interpretation.2  The  amendments  were  received  unanimously,  with 
great  joy  and  gratitude. 

But  after  further  consideration  it  was  found  best  to  drop  both  these 
amendments,  and  when  the  reunion  was  consummated  by  the  two 
assemblies  at  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  Nov.  10, 1S69,  the  following  article  was 
unanimously  adopted : 

'The  reunion  shall  be  effected  on  the  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  basis  of  our  common 
Standards  ;  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  shall  be  acknowledged  to  be  the 
inspired  Word  of  God,  and  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  the  Confession  of 
Faith  shall  continue  to  be  sincerely  received  and  adopted,  as  containing  the  system  of  doc- 
trine taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  shall  be  approved  as  containing  the  principles  and  rules  of  our 
polity. ' 

Thus  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
which  had  been  unfortunately  separated  by  a  permissive  decree  of 
God,  was  happily  and,  we  trust,  forever  reunited  by  an  efficient  and 
gracious  decree  of  God.3 

OTHER    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCHES    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES. 

In  addition  to   this  large  Presbyterian  Church,  there  are  in   the 

1  The  '  Smith  amendment '  was  in  these  words  :  '  It  being  understood  that  this  Confession 
is  received  in  its  proper  historical,  that  is,  the  Calvinistic  or  Reformed,  sense.'  This  would 
exclude,  of  course,  Antinomianism  and  Fatalism  on  the  one  hand,  and  Arminianism  and 
Pelagianism  on  the  other. 

3  The  'Gurley  amendment'  was  in  these  words:  'It  is  also  understood  that  various  meth- 
ods of  viewing,  stating,  explaining,  and  illustrating  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession,  which  do 
not  impair  the  integrity  of  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  system,  are  to  be  freely  allowed  in 
the  United  Church,  as  they  have  hitherto  been  allowed  in  the  separate  Churches.' 

3  ^ee  the  address  of  Dr.  Musgrave  at  the  meeting  in  Pittsburgh,  Memorial  Volume,  p.  388. 


§08.  THE  WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS  IN  AMERICA.  Sll 

United  States  a  number  of  smaller  ones  having  distinctively  a  Scot- 
tish origin.  Of  these  and  of  their  relation  to  the  Westminster  stand- 
ards the  Eev.  G.  D.  Mathews,  of  New  York,  from  his  own  familiar 
acquaintance  with  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  Scotland  and  the 
United  States,  kindly  furnishes  for  this  work  the  following  account : 

'Among  the  emigrants  into  tin's  country  in  the  last  century  were  many  who  had  heen 
connected  with  the  Associate  Church  of  Scotland.  The  fathers  of  that  Church,  the  Er- 
skines,  objected  not  so  much  to  the  constitution  of  the  Established  Church  as  to  its  admin- 
istration, especially  in  reference  to  patronage  and  to  Church  discipline.  In  17.">.'$  the  Amer- 
ican Associate  Church  was  organized  as  a  Presbytery  subordinate  to  the  Antiburgher  Synod 
of  Scotland,  equalling  if  not  surpassing  the  mother  Church  in  its  rigid  adherence  to  the 
doctrinal  system  of  the  Westminster  standards.  Its  zeal  for  these,  indeed,  served  to  deepen 
its  opposition  to  the  Scottish  Establishment  as  a  Church  that  had  become  unfaithful  to  its 
religious  profession. 

'In  1774  a  Reformed  Presbyterian  Presbytery  was  constituted  in  America  by  followers 
of  Cargill,  Cameron,  and  Renwick.  These  held  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  had  forfeited  its 
standing  as  a  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  by  entering  into  union  with  an  immoral  government — 
the  government  of  Great  Britain  being  of  this  character  because  not  based  on  Scriptural 
principles.  Of  this  latter  position  the  proof  was  alleged  to  lie  in  its  disregard,  as  shown  by 
the  national  acceptance  of  Episcopacy  at  the  Restoration  in  1GG0,  and  again  at  the  Revolution 
in  1GS8,  of  that  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  which  had  been  sworn  to  in  1648,  a  Covenant 
whose  engagements  were  affirmed  to  be  binding  on  the  people  of  the  British  Empire  until  ful- 
filled. An  additional  proof  lay  in  the  absence  from  its  constitution  of  any  acknowledgment 
of  God  as  the  Author  of  its  existence  and  the  source  of  its  authority,  of  Jesus  Christ  as  its 
Ruler,  and  of  the  Bible  as  the  supreme  law  of  its  conduct. 

•  Notwithstanding  some  actual  differences,  the  force  of  circumstances  brought  these  Churches 
together,  so  that  in  1782  they  became  united  under  the  name  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church — minorities  on  both  sides  refusing  to  enter  the  union,  and  thus  perpetuating  their 
respective  Churches.  In  1790  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  issued  an  edition  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  containing  the  following  changes  from  the  original  documents: 

Chap.  XX.  4. —  .  .  .  faith,  worship,  conversation,  (insert)  or  the  order  which  Christ  Lath 
established  in  his  Church,  they  may  lie  lawfully  called  to  account,  and  proceeded  against  by  tht 
censures  of  the  Church ;  and  in  proportion  as  their  erroneous  opinions  or  practices,  either  in 
th,  V  own  nature  or  in  the  manner  of  publishing  or  maintaining  them,  are  destructive  to  the  exter- 
nal peace  of  the  Church  and  ofcivU  society,  they  may  also  be  proceeded  against  by  the  power  of 
the  civil  magistrate. 

Chap.  XXIII.  :;.—  .  .  .  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  (Add)  1'./.  as  the  gospel 
revelation  lays  indispensable,  obligations  ujion  all  classes  of  people  who  are  favored  with  it, 
magistrates,  as  such,  arc  bound  to  execute  their  respective  offices  in  a  sufmerviency  thereto,  ad- 
ministering government  on  Christian  principles,  and  ruling  in  the  fear  of  God,  according  to  the 
directions  of  his  \\'<>rd;  as  those  who  shall  give  an  account  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  whom  God  hath 
appointed  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  world. 

11,  nc  magistrates,  as  such,  in  a  Christian  country  are.  bound  to  promote  the  Christian  religion, 
as  the  most  valuable  interest  of  their  subjects,  l<y  all  such  means  as  are  not  inconsistent  with  civil 
rights,  and  d»  not  imply  an  interference  with  the  policy  of  the  church,  which  is  the  free  and  inde- 
pendent kingdom  of  the  Redeemer,  nor  an  assumption  of  dominion  over  conscience. 

Chap.  XXXI.  '_'. — (Substitute.)  The  ministers  <</•'  Christ  themselves,  and  by  virtue  of  their 
office;  or  they  with  other  fit  persons,  »/»>»  delegation  from  their  churches,  have  th,-  exduskx  right 

In  appoint,  adjourn,  or  dissolc-  such  synods  or  councils  ;  though  in  extraordinary  cases  it  may  be 
pi  up,  r  for  magistrates  t,>  ,/,  sin  th,  railing  of  a  synod  of  ministers  ami  other  ni  persons,  to  con- 
sult and  adds,  with  about  matt,  is  of  r,  liginn  ;  and  in  such  cas,s  it  is  tin  duty  of  churches  to 
comply  with  th'  ir  <hsire. 

'  In  the  Larger  Catechism,  under  the  things  forbidden  by  the  Second  Commandment,  the 
word  authorizing  was  substituted  for  "tolerating  a  false  religion.'' 


812  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

'In  1858  the  Associate  Church,  which  had  by  this  time  grown  considerably,  joined  with 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  when  the  name  United  Presbyterian  Church  was  assumed 
and  the  Westminster  Confession  again  altered.  The  edition  used  by  this  Church  differs  from 
the  original  in  the  following  passages  : 

Chap.  XX.  4. —  .  .  .  hath  established  in  the  Church,  they  (add)  ought  to  be  called  to 
account,  and  proceeded  against  by  the  censures  of  the  Church,  if  they  belong  to  her  communion, 
and  thus  be  amenable  to  her  own  spiritual  authority.  And  as  the  civil  magistrate  is  the  minister 
of  God  for  good  to  the  virtuous  and  a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil,  he  is 
therefore  bound  to  suppress  individuals  and  combinations,  whatever  may  be  their  avowed  objects, 
whether  political  or  religious,  whose  principles  and  practices,  openly  propagated  and  maintained, 
are  calculated  to  subvert  the  foundations  of  properly  constituted  society. 

Chap.  XXIK.  8. —  .  .  .  kingdom  of  heaven,  (add)  or  in  the  least  interfere  to  regulate  matters 
of  faith  and  worship.  As  nursing  fathers,  magistrates  are  bound  to  administer  their  government 
according  to  the  revealed  principles  of  Christianity,  and  to  improve  the  opportunities  which  their 
high  station  and  extensive  influence  afford  in  promoting  the  Christian  religion  as  their  own  most 
valuable  interest  and  the  good  of  the  people  demand,  by  all  such  means  as  do  not  imply  any  in- 
fringement of  the  inherent  rights  of  the  Church,  or  any  assumption  of  dominion  over  the  consciences 
of  men.  They  ought  not  to  punish  any  as  heretics  or  schismatics.  No  authoritative  judgment  con- 
cerning matters  of  religion  is  competent  to  them,  as  their  authority  extends  only  to  the  external 
works  or  practices  of  their  subjects  as  citizens,  and  not  as  Christians.  It  is  their  duty  to  protect 
the  Church  in  such  a  manner  that  all  ecclesiastical  persons  shall  enjoy  the  free,  full,  and  unques- 
tioned liberty  of  discharging  every  part  of  their  sacred  functions  without  violence  or  danger.  They 
should  enact  no  law  tvhich  would  in  any  way  interfere  with  or  hinder  the  due  exercise  of  govern- 
ment and  discipline  established  by  Jesus  Christ  in  his  Church.  It  is  their  duty  also  to  protect  the 
person,  good  name,  estate,  natural  and  civil  rights  of  all  their  subjects  in  such  a  way  that  no  per- 
son be  suffered,  upon  any  pretense,  to  violate  them ;  and  to  take  order  that  all  religious  and  eccle- 
siastical assemblies  be  held  without  molestation  or  disturbance.  God  alone  being  Lord  of  the  con- 
science, the  civil  magistrate  may  not  compel  any  under  his  civil  authority  to  worship  God  contrary 
to  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences ;  yet  it  is  competent  in  him  to  restrain  such  opinions  and  to 
punish  such  practices  as  tend  to  subvert  the  foundations  of  civil  society  and  violate  the  common 
rights  of  men. 

Chap.  XXXI.  2. — (Substitute.)  We  declare  that  as  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  a  king- 
dom distinct  from  and  independent  of  the  state,  having  a  government,  laws,  office-bearers,  and  all 
spiritual  power  peculiar  to  herself  for  her  own  edification;  so  it  belongs  exclusively  to  the  minis- 
ters of  Christ,  together  with  other  Jit  persons,  upon  delegation  from  their  churches,  by  virtue  of 
their  office  and  the  intrinsic  power  committed  unto  them,  to  appoint  their  own  assemblies,  and  to 
convene  together  in  them  as  often  as  they  should  judge  it  expedient  for  the  good  of  the  Church. 

'In  the  question  of  the  Larger  Catechism,  changed  in  1700,  the  original  word  tolerating 
was  restored. 

'  At  no  period  has  the  Associate  Church,  which  still  exists,  altered  the  language  of  the 
Confession.  It  has  refrained  from  doing  this,  "judging  it  to  be  improper  for  one  eccle- 
siastical body  to  alter  any  deed  of  another,  making  it  rather  express  their  own  views  than 
those  of  the  body  by  whom  it  was  originally  framed,  for  hereby  the  sentiments  of  one  body 
may  be  unfairly  palmed  upon  another."  Any  obscurity  or  error  in  the  Confession  should  be 
remedied  by  the  emitting  of  a  Testimony,  in  which  there  could  be  given  a  full  and  accurate 
statement  of  the  particular  truth  in  question.  In  1784,  therefore,  the  Associate  Church  issued 
such  a  Testimony,  in  which  (Articles  15-10),  speaking  of  the  civil  magistrate,  it  affirmed  that 
the  magistrate,  as  such,  is  no  ruler  in  the  Church;  that  he  should  not  grant  any  privileges  to 
those  whom  he  judges  professors  of  the  true  religion  which  may  hurt  others  in  their  natural 
rights ;  that  his  whole  duty,  as  a  magistrate,  respects  men,  not  as  Christians,  but  as  members 
of  civil  society;  that  any  de  facto  government  governing  orderly  is  that  ordinance  of  God  which 
must  be  obeyed,  and  that  with  any  such  government  Christians  may  lawfully  co-operate. 

'  The  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  has  also  retained  the  Westminster  Confession  unal- 
tered. Adhering  to  its  teaching  on  the  Civil  Magistrate,  as  this  was  received  by  the  Church 
of  Scotland  in  the  Adopting  Act  of  1617,  it  issued  in  180G  a  Testimony,  in  which  it  declared 
that  civil  government  is  a  natural  institution,  but  that  to  be  a  lawful  one,  so  that  a  Christian 
man  may  take  part  in  it,  God  must  be  acknowledged  in  its  constitution  as  the  fountain  of  all 


§  99.  THE  WESm  STANDARDS  IN  THE  CUMBERLAND  PEESBYT.  CTI.  813 

power  and  authority,  and  that  Christian  rulers,  appointed  to  office  according  to  a  righteous 
civil  constitution,  have  authority  from  God  to  rule,  in  suhserviency  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 
The  absence  from  the  American  national  constitution  of  any  such  acknowledgment  renders 
that  covenant  unscriptural  and  immoral,  and  so  precludes  Christian  men  from  becoming 
identified  with  its  administration.  Another  reason  for  this  political  dissent  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  binding  obligation  of  the  Scottish  Covenants. 

'  A  difference  of  opinion  that  had  gradually  risen  within  this  Church  as  to  the  extent  of 
this  precluding  led  to  the  formation,  in  1833,  of  the  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church  holding  the  extremest  view  of  political  dissent,  and  of  the  General  Synod  of  the  same 
Church,  permitting  its  members  to  exercise  the  political  franchise. 

'As  regards  the  doctrinal  articles  of  the  Confession,  all  these  Churches  are  Caluino  Cal- 


§  99.  The  "Westminster  Standards  in  the  Cumberland  Presby- 
terian Church. 

SOURCES. 

I.  On  the  part  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church: 

The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  Re- 
vised and  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly,  at  Princeton,  Ky.,  May,  1S29.  Nashville,  Tennessee  (Board 
of  Publ.  of  the  C.  P.  Ch.),  1ST5  (pp.  286).  The  same  book  contains  also  the  Shorter  Catechism,  the 
Form  of  Government  and  Discipline,  the  Directory  of  Worship,  and  Manual. 

The  history  of  the  origin  of  the  schism  is  contained  in  the  Circular  Letter  of  the  late  Cumberland 
Presbytery ;  the  Reply  to  a  Pastoral  Letter  of  West  Tennessee  Presbytery. 

II.  On  the  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church : 

Samuel  Baird:  Collection  of  the  Acts,  Deliverances,  and  Testimonies  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Philad.  (Presbyt.  Board),  1855;  second  ed.  1S59,  pp.  040  sqq.  Contains  the  official  acts  of  the  General 
Assembly  on  the  origin  and  disorders  of  the  Cumberland  Presbytery. 

Wm,  E.  Moore:  A  Sew  Digest  of  the  Acts  ayid  Deliverances  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  Philadelphia,  1S61,  p.  95  (on  the  validity  of  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  ordinances),  and  p.  44S  (on  terms  of  correspondence). 

Rohf.rt  Davidson:  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  State  of  Kentucky.  New  York,  1S47 
(ch.  ix.  pp.  223  sqq.,  'The  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Schism'). 

Historical  and  Doctrinal. 
Jambs  Smith  :  The  History  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians.    Comp.  his  Art.  in  Brown's  Encychp.  of 
Relig.  Knoicledge,  p.  968. 

E.  B.  Crisman  :  Origin  and  Doctrines  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church.  1S56,  new  ed.  Nash- 
ville, Tenn.  1S75.  * 

Richard  Beard  (D.D.  and  Prof.  of-Syst,  Theol.  in  Cumberland  University,  Lebanon,  Tennessee): 
Why  am  la  Cumberland  Presbyterian  j  Nashville,  Tenn.  1ST2.  By  the  same:  Lectures  on  Systematic 
Theology,  3  vols.    Nashville  (Board  of  Publ.).    Comp.  his  Art.  in  Johnson's  Universal  Cyclop.  lST6,Vol.  I. 

F.  R.  Cossitt  :  Life  and  Times  of  Rev.  Finis  Swing,    Louisville,  1853. 

HISTORICAL. 

The  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  so  called  from  its  birth-place,  the  'Cumberland  Country'  in 
Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  took  its  rise  in  an  extensive  revival  of  re- 
ligion which  began  in  the  southwestern  part  of  Kentucky  in  1797,  and 
reached  its  height  in  1S00  and  1S01,  among  a  population  mostly  of 
Scotch-Irish  descent.  Methodist  ministers  took  part  in  it.  This  re- 
vival called  for  a  larger  number  of  ministerial  laborers  than  could 
be  supplied  in  the  regular  way  by  the  few  Presbyterian  institutions 
of  learning  then  existing.     Hence  the  Presbytery  of  Cumberland  ('at 


814  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  recommendation  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Rice,  the  oldest  Presbyterian  min- 
ister then  residing  in  Kentucky')  licensed  and  ordained  a  number  of 
pious  men  without  a  liberal  education,  and  allowed  them,  in  sub- 
scribing the  Westminster  Confession,  to  express  their  dissent  from 
what  they  called  the  doctrine  of  'fatality,'  i.e.,  the  doctrine  of  abso- 
lute decrees.  The  Synod  of  Kentucky  demanded  a  re-examination  of 
these  ministers  and  candidates ;  this  being  refused,  it  dissolved  the 
Cumberland  Presbytery  in  1S06.  The  General  Assembly  confirmed 
the  action,  but  ultimately  recognized  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians 
as  an  independent  organization,  and  entered  into  terms  of  correspond- 
ence with  them  as  with  other  evangelical  denominations.1 

The  dissenters  organized  an  independent  '  Cumberland  Presbytery,' 
February  4,  1S10,  consisting  of  four  regularly  ordained  ministers,  six 
licentiates,  and  seven  candidates.  The  presbytery  grew  into  the  Cum- 
berland Synod  in  1813,  and  this  adopted  a  Confession,  Catechism,  and 
Form  of  Church  Government.  The  Confession  was  the  work  of  a 
committee  of  which  the  Rev.  Finis  Ewing  was  the  leading  spirit.  The 
Cumberland  Synod  was  divided  into  three  (1828),  and  a  General  As- 
sembly was  formed,  which  held  its  first  session  in  May,  1829.  This 
body  subjected  the  Confession  of  Faith  to  a  final  revision.  '  In  so 
doing,  the  Synod  and  General  Assembly  only  exercised  an  undeniable 
right,  allowed  by  the  God  of  the  Bible  and  secured  by  the  civil  consti- 
tution ;  and  discharged  what  they  conceived  to  be  a  duty  to  the  Church 
and  the  world.  .  .  .  Let  the  work  be  tried  neither  by  tradition  nor  the 
fathers,  but  by  the  holy  Scriptures.' 2 

1  In  1825  the  General  Assembly  declared  that  the  ministrations  of  the  Cumberland  Pres- 
byterians 'are  to  be  viewed  in  the  same  light  with  those  of  other  denominations'  (Baird's 
Collection,  p.  040).  In  1849  the  General  Assembly  of  the  New  School  entered  into  cor- 
respondence with  them,  and  passed  this  resolution  :  'The  General  Assembly  of  each  Church 
shall  appoint  and  receive  delegates  from  the  General  Assembly  of  the  other  Church,  who 
shall  be  possessed  of  all  the  powers  and  privileges  of  other  members  of  such  Assemblies,  except 
that  of  voting '  {Minutes,  p.  184 ;  Moore,  p.  448).  The  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander  J.  Baird  appeared 
as  a  delegate  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  before  the  United  General  Assembly  in 
Baltimore,  1873,  and  was  cordially  received  {Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyt. 
Church  for  1873,  p.  485).  In  the  following  year  the  General  Assembly  at  St.  Louis  sent  a 
salutation  to  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Assembly  then  in  session  at  Springfield,  Mo., 
with  the  words:  'Serving  the  same  Lord,  we  are  one  in  him.  May  he  dwell  in  us.'  To 
this  the  Cumberland  Assembly  responded  in  the  same  fraternal  spirit  {Minutes  for  1874,  pp. 
18  and  20).  A  committee  of  conference  on  union  was  also  appointed,  but  was  discharged 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  1875  {Minutes,  p.  480). 

2  Preface  to  the  Confession. 


§  09.  THE  WESTM.  STANDARDS  IN  THE  CUMBERLAND  PRESBYT.  CII.   815 

The  Cumberland  Church  has  since  spread  raj. idly,  and  extends  now 
from  Western  Pennsylvania  to  Texas  and  California.  It  furnishes  the 
proof  that  people  may  be  good  Presbyterians  without  being  Calvinists. 

THE    CUMBERLAND    PRESBYTERIAN    CONFESSION. 

The  Cumberland  Presbyterians  differ  from  the  regular  Presbyteri- 
ans in  two  points — the  education  for  the  ministry  and  the  doctrine 
of  predestination.  They  adopt  and  use  the  Westminster  Confession 
in  full,  with  the  American  amendments  in  Chs.  XXIII.  and  XXXI.. 
and  slight  verbal  changes,  but  they  depart  from  it  in  rejecting  the  un- 
conditional election  and  reprobation  as  taught  in  Ch.  III.1  They  re- 
tain, however,  substantially  Ch.  XVII.  on  perseverance,  although  per- 
severance presupposes  unconditional  election,  and  is  inconsistent  with 
conditional  election.  The  Cumberland  Confession  teaches  on  the  one 
hand  conditional  election  and  unlimited  atonement,  and  on  the  other 
the  final  perseverance  of  the  saints.  It  is  an  eclectic  compromise 
between  Calvinism  and  Arminianism;  it  is  half  Calvinistic  and  half 
Arminian,  and  makes  no  attempt  to  harmonize  these  antagonistic 
elements.  '  Cumberland  Presbyterians,'  says  one  of  their  writers,  '  be- 
lieve as  firmly  as  Arminians  do  that  salvation,  in  all  cases,  is  con- 
ditional. But  they  believe  that  every  genuine  saint  will  comply  with 
the  conditions;  and  thus  salvation  becomes  certain  to  saints.  It  is 
uncertain  to  sinners  because  it  is  doubtful  whether  they  will  comply 
with  the  conditions;  but  certain  to  saints  because  it  is  certain  that 
they  will  comply  with  the  conditions — "My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and 
they  follow  me.'"2  The  same  writer  answers  the  usual  objections  to 
the  doctrine  of  perseverance  (the  fall  of  xYdam  and  the  angels,  of  Sol- 
omon and  Peter,  the  warnings  and  exhortations  of  Scripture,  the  al- 
leged inconsistency  of  the  doctrine  with  free  agency  and  the  duty  of 
watchfulness),  and  urges  nine  reasons  against  the  Arminian  view  of 
falling  from  grace.3 

Another  departure  connected  with  the  former  is  the  affirmation  of 

1  See  the  changes  in  Vol.  III.  p.  771. 

*  Crisman,  1.  c.  p.  158.  Comp.  an.  of  Prof.  K.  Beard.  1.  c. :  'Its  theology  is  Calvinistic, 
with  the  exception  of  the  offensive  doctrine  of  predestination  so  expressed  as  to  seem  to  em- 
body the  old  pagan  dogma  of  necessity  or  fatality.' 

3  The  difficulties  of  this  great  problem  of  predestination  have  been  discussed  more  fully  in 
§  97,  pp.  701  sqq. 


816  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  salvation  of  all  infants  dying  in  infancy.  The  old  Confession  says, 
Ch.  X.  3:  '  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved 
by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when  and  where  and  how 
he  pleaseth.'  This  seems  naturally  (though  not  necessarily)  to  imply 
the  existence  of  reprobate  infants  who  are  not  saved.  To  avoid  this 
interpretation,  the  Cumberland  Confession  substitutes  all  for  elect,  and 
thus  positively  teaches  universal  infant  salvation.  In  this  point  it  has 
anticipated  what  seems  now  to  be  the  general  sentiment  among  Ameri- 
can Presbyterians,  who  harmonize  it  with  the  Westminster  Confession 
either  by  interpreting  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  elect,  or 
that  it  confines  itself  to  state  as  an  article  of  faith  what  is  clearly 
warranted  in  Scripture,  and  leaves  the  rest  to  private  opinion. 

The  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Assembly  has  been  changed  by  the 
Cumberland  Presbyterians  in  Question  7  as  follows: 


Westminster  Catechism. 

What  are  the  decrees  of  God? 

The  decrees  of  God  are  his  eternal  purpose 
according  to  the  counsel  of  his  will,  whereby, 
for  his  own  glory,  he  hath  foreordained  what- 
soever comes  to  pass. 


Cumberland  Catechism. 

What  are  the  decrees  of  God? 

The  decrees  of  God  are  his  purpose  accord- 
ing to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby  he 
hath  foreordained  to  bring  to  pass  what  shall 
be  for  his  own  glory :  sin  not  being  for  God's 
glory,  therefore  he  hath  not  decreed  it. 


In  Question  20  the  words  'God  did  provide  salvation  for  all  man- 
kind'' are  substituted  for  '  God,  having  elected  some  to  everlasting  life,' 
and  the  phraseology  is  otherwise  changed.  In  Question  31,  for  the 
phrase  'What  is  effectual  calling?'  is  substituted  'What  is  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  V 


§  100.  GENERAL  SURVEY.  817 


EIGHTH  CHAPTER. 

MODERN  PROTESTANT  CREEDS. 

§  100.  General  Survey. 
With  the  Westminster  standards  the  creed-making  period  of  the 

Reformed  Churches  was  brought  to  a  close.  Calvinism  found  in  them 
its  clearest  and  fullest  exposition.  The  Helvetic  Consensus  Formula 
(1G75)  was  only  a  weak  symbolical  after-birth,  called  forth  by  the  Sau- 
mur  controversies  on  the  extent  of  divine  election  and  the  inspiration 
of  Hebrew  vowel-points.  The  creative  power  of  Lutheran  symbolism 
had  exhausted  itself  much  earlier  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  (1577), 
and  was  followed  by  a  period  of  scholastic  analysis  and  demonstration 
of  the  Lutheran  system  as  embodied  in  its  authoritative  confessions. 
The  prevailing  tendency  in  these  Churches  is  to  greater  confessional 
freedom  and  catholic  expansion  rather  than  sectarian  contraction. 
While  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  our  age  has  narrowed  its  creed 
by  adding  two  new  dogmas  of  wide  range  and  import,  and  has  doomed 
to  silence  every  dissent  from  the  infallible  decisions  of  the  Vatican, 
like  a  machine  that  is  worked  by  a  single  motive  force,  and  makes 
resistance  impossible,  the  Protestant  Churches  would  simplify  and 
liberalize  their  elaborate  standards  of  former  days  rather  than  increase 
their  bulk  and  tighten  their  authority.  The  spirit  of  the  age  refuses 
to  be  bound  by  rigorous  formulas,  and  demands  greater  latitude  for 
private  opinion  and  theological  science. 

"We  might  therefore  close  our  history  of  creeds  at  this  point.  But 
evangelical  Protestantism  extends  far  beyond  the  boundaries  of  Luthcr- 
anism  and  Calvinism. 

Since  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  there  arose,  mainly  from 
the  fruitful  soil  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  England,  first  amid  much 
persecution,  then  under  the  partial  protection  of  the  Toleration  Act  of 
1G89,  a  number  of  distinct  ecclesiastical  organizations,  which,  while 
holding  fast  to  the  articles  of  the  (ecumenical  faith  of  orthodox  Chris- 
tendom, and  the  evangelical  principles  of  the  Protestant  Reformation, 
differ  on  minor  points  of  doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline.  They  have 
passed  through  the  bloody  baptism  of  persecution  as  much  as  the  old- 
er Churches  of  the  Reformation,  and  by  their  fruits  they  have  fully 


SIS 


THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


earned  a  title  to  an  honorable  standing  in  the  family  of  Christian 
Churches. 

The  most  important  among  these  modern  denominations  are  the 
Congeegationalists,  Baptists,  and  Quakers,  who  rose  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  and  the  Methodists  and  Moravians,  who  date  from 
the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  They  originated  in  England, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Moravians  (who  are  of  Bohemian  and  Ger- 
man descent),  and  found  from  the  start  a  fruitful  and  congenial  soil 
in  the  American  colonies,  which  offered  an  hospitable  asylum  to  all 
who  suffered  from  religious  persecution.  The  Congregationalists  had 
established  flourishing  colonies  in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  be- 
fore they  were  even  tolerated  in  the  mother  country.  Boger  Williams, 
the  patriarch  of  the  American  Baptists,  though  of  English  birth  and 
training,  made  Bhode  Island  his  permanent  home.  The  fathers  and 
founders  of  the  Society  of  Friends — Fox  and  Penn ;  of  Methodism — 
Wesley  and  Whitefield ;  of  the  Moravian  Church — Zinzendorf,  Span- 
genberg,  Nitschmann —  visited  America  repeatedly,  and  with  such 
success  that  they  gave  to  their  denominations  an  Anglo-American 
stamp.  Two  of  these  denominations,  the  Methodists  and  Baptists, 
have  in  the  United  States  during  the  nineteenth  century  numeric- 
ally far  outgrown  the  older  Protestant  Churches,  and  are  full  of 
aggressive  zeal  and  energy,  both  at  home  and  in  distant  missionary 
fields.1 

On  the  Continent  of  Europe  these  Anglo-American  denominations 
till  quite  recently  were  little  known,  and  were  even  persecuted  as  in- 
truders and  unchurchly  sects.     National  State  Churches  will  allow  the 


1  The  following  comparative  table  of  ministers  and  churches  in  1776  and  1876  claims  no 
jsolute  accuracy,  but  gives  at  least  an  approximate  idea  of  the  growth  of  Protestant  de- 


nominations in  the  United  States  during  its  first  centennial : 


Statistics  of  1776. 


Congregationalists, 

Baptists 

Episcopalians 

Presbyterians 

Lutheraus 

Reformed  Dutch... 
Reformed  German. 

Methodists 

Moravians 

Roman  Catholics... 


575 

700 

370 

410 

250 

300 

140 

300 

25 

60 

25 

60 

25 

60 

20 

25 

12 

8 

26 

52 

Statistics  of  1S76. 


j   Ministers.        Churches. 


Congregationalists. 

Baptists 

Episcopalians 

Presbyterians 

Lutherans 

Reformed  Dutch... 
Reformed  German. 

Methodists 

Moravians 

Roman  Catholics... 


:i,2:t:i 

10.517 

3,140 

7.954 

2,662 

476 

643 

20,453 

75 

5,141» 


2,750 
9,S22 
4,623 
601 
1,34S 
40,000 
75 
5,046t 


56  bishops,  10  archbishopB, » 


1,180  ihnpels 


§  100.  GENERAL  SURVEY.  S19 

■widest  latitude  of  theological  speculation  within  the  limits  of  outward 
conformity  rather  than  grant  freedom  of  public  worship  to  dissenting 
organizations,  however  orthodox.1 

The  nineteenth  century  has  given  birth  in  England  to  the  Ikving- 
ms  and  Dabbyttxs,  and  in  America  to  the  Cumbebland  Psesbyte- 
EIAHB,  Hefokmei)  EriscorALiANS,  and  other  organizations,  which  more 
or  less  depart  from  the  older  Protestant  confessions,  but  adhere  to  the 
supernatural  revelation  in  the  Bible  and  the  fundamental  articles  of 
general  orthodoxy.2 

The  creeds  of  these  modern  Protestant  denominations  (if  we  except 
the  Savoy  Declaration  of  1G58  and  the  Baptist  Confession  of  1GSS, 
which  contain  the  body  of  the  Westminster  Confession)  are  thin, 
meagre,  and  indefinite  as  compared  with  the  older  confessions, 
which  grew  out  of  the  profound  theological  controversies  of  the  six- 
teenth century.  They  contain  much  less  theology;  they  confine  them- 
selves to  a  popular  statement  of  the  chief  articles  of  faith  for  practical 
use,  and  leave  a  large  margin  for  the  exercise  of  private  judgment 
In  this  respect  they  mark  a  return  to  the  brevity  and  simplicity  of  the 
primitive  baptismal  creeds  and  rules  of  faith.  The  authority  of  creeds, 
moreover,  is  lowered,  and  the  absolute  supremacy  and  sufficiency  of  the 
Scriptures  is  emphasized. 

In  the  present  age  there  is,  especially  in  America,  a  growing  tendency 
towards  a  liberal  recognition  and  a  closer  approach  of  the  various 
evangelical  denominations  in  the  form  of  a  free  union  and  co-opera- 
tion in  the  comm<on  work  of  the  Master,  without  interfering  with  the 
inner  organization  and  peculiar  mission  of  each.  This  union  tendency 
manifests  itself  from  different  starting-points  and  in  different  direc- 

1  Under  the  disparaging  name  of  sects  the  Methodists  and  Baptists,  and  other  denomina- 
tions figure  usually  in  (ierman  works  on  Symbolics  that  recognize  only  three  Churches  or 
( ':/'/:  ssiona — the  Catholic  (Greek  and  Roman),  the  Lutheran,  and  the  Reformed  (Calvinistic). 
The  late  Professor  Marheineke,  one  of  the  chief  writers  on  Symbolics,  after  explaining  to  his 
catechumens  of  Trinity  Parish,  in  Berlin,  that  there  are  three  Churches  in  Christendom, 
asked  a  pupil,  'To  what  Church  do  you  belong?'  and  received  the  answer,  'To  Trinity 
Church.'  The  science  of  Symbolics,  or  Comparative  Theology,  has  thus  far  been  almost  ex- 
clusively cultivated  in  Germany,  hut  should  he  reconstructed  OB  a  much  more  liberal  scale  in 
England  and  America,  where  all  denominations  meet  in  daily  intercourse  and  on  terms  of 
eqnal  rights. 

3  Some  of  these  have  already  hecn  considered,  the  <  lumberland  Presbyterians  in  connection 
with  the  Westminster  Confession,  the  Reformed  Episcopalians  in  connection  with  the  historv 
of  the  Thirtv-nine  Articles. 


S20  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

tions,  now  in  the  form  of  voluntary  associations  (such  as  Bible  and 
Tract  Societies,  Young  Men's  Christian  Associations,  the  Evangelical 
Alliance,  the  German  Church  Diet),  now  in  the  form  of  ecclesiastical 
confederations  (Pan- Anglican  Council,  Presbyterian  Alliance,  Anglo- 
Greek  Committees,  the  Bonn  Conferences),  now  in  the  form  of  organic 
union  (the  evangelical  Union  of  Lutherans  and  Keformed  Churches  in 
Prussia  and  other  German  States,  Presbyterian  Reunion  of  Old  and 
jSew  School).  The  same  tendency  calls  forth  efforts,  feeble  as  yet,  to 
formulate  the  essential  consensus  of  the  creeds  of  congenial  sections  of 
Christendom.  The  old  motto,  in  necessariis  unitas,  in  dubiis  libertas, 
in  omnibus  caritas,is  struggling  to  become  a  practical  reality;  the  age 
of  separation  and  division  is  passing  away,  and  the  age  of  the  reunion 
of  divided  Christer/dom  is  beginning  to  dawn,  and  to  gather  the  corps 
of  Christ's  army,  so  long  engaged  in  internal  war,  against  the  common 
foe  Antichrist. 

§  101.  The  Congeegationalists. 

Literature. 
I.  English  Congregationalism. 

See  the  sources  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and  the  historical  works  of  Neal,  Stoughtou,  and 
others  mentioned  in  5§  92,  93,  and  94. 

John  Robinson  (Pastor  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  in  Leyden,  d.  1625) :  Works,  with  Memoir  by  Robert 
Ashton.    London,  1S51,  3  vols. 

The  Grand  Debate  concerning  Presbytery  and  Episcopacy  in  the  Westminster  Assembly  (Lond.  1652). 

The  works  of  Drs.  Goodwin,  Owen,  Howe,  and  other  patriarchs  of  Independency. 

Benjamin  Brook  :  The  Lives  of  the  Puritans  from  Queen  Elizabeth  to  1662.    London,  1813, 3  vols. 

Benjamin  Hanhcry  :  Historical  Memorials  relating  to  the  Independents  or  Congregationalists,  from 
their  Rise  to  the  Restoration  of  the  Monarchy,  A.D.  1660.  London  (Congreg.  Union  of  England  and 
Wales),  1S39-1844,  3  vols. 

Jos.  Fletcher:  History  of  Independency  in  England  since  the  Reformation.    London,  1S47-1S49,  4  vols. 

George  Puncharp  (of  Boston) :  History  of  Congregationalism  from  about  A.D.  250  to  the  I"resent  Time. 
2d  ed.  rewritten  and  enlarged,  New  York  and  Boston  (Hurd  &  Houghton),  1S05-1S67,  3  vols.  (The  first 
two  vols,  are  irrelevant.) 

John  Washington  :  Congregational  History,  1200-1567.  London,  1S69.  Second  volume  from  1567  to 
1700,  Lond.  1874.  (See  a  searching  and  damaging  review  of  this  work  by  Dr.  Dexter  in  the  '  Congreg. 
Quarterly '  for  July,  1S74,  Vol.  XVI.  pp.  420  sqq.) 

Robert  S.  Skeats  :  A  History  of  the  Free  Churches  of  England  from  10SS  to  1S51.    London,  1S69. 

II.  American  Congregationalism. 
(1)  Sources. 

The  works  of  John  Robinson,  above  quoted,  especially  his  Justification  of  Separation  from  the 
Church  of  England  (1610,  printed  in  1639). 

John  Cotton  (of  Boston,  England,  and  then  of  Boston,  Mass.) :  The  Way  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in 
Xew  England.  Or  the  Way  of  Churches  Walking  in  Brotherly  Equality  or  Co-ordination,  without  Subjection 
if  one  Church  to  another.  Measured  by  the  Golden  Reed  of  the  Sanctuary.  Loudon,  1645.  By  the  same : 
The  Way  of  Congregational  Churches  cleared  (against  Baillie  and  Rutherford).    London,  164S. 

Thomas  Hooker  (of  Hartford,  Conn.) :  A  Survey  of  the  Summe  of  Church  Discipline.    London,  164S. 

Robinson,  Cotton,  and  Hooker  are  the  connecting  links  between  English  Independency  and  Ameri- 
can Congregationalism.  Their  rare  pamphlets  (wretchedly  printed,  like  most  works  during  the  period 
of  the  civil  wars,  from  want  of  good  type  and  paper)  are  mostly  found  in  the  Congregational  Library  at 
Boston,  and  ought  to  be  republished  iu  collected  form. 


§  101.  THE  COXGREGATIONALISTS.  S21 

At  i -\.\\iir.n  YOOMO:  Chronicles  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  of  the  Colony  of  Plymouth,  from  1C02  to  1028. 
Bostou,  1841. 

Alexander  Tonne  :  Chronicles  of  the  First  PUntert  </  the  Colony  of  kfaeeaehueette  Day.  From.  1023  to 
1636.    Boston,  1>40. 

Gbobsi  B.  Chxktzb:  The  Journal  of  the  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth,  in  New  England,  in  102H;  reprinted 
from  the  original  volume,  with  illustrations.    New  York,  1848. 

Nathan w  i  UoKToa  (Secretary  to  the  Court  for  the  Jurisdiction  of  New  Plymouth):  Sew  England's 
Memorial,  Boston,  1806  (6th  ed.  CoDgreg.  Hoard  of  Publication).  Reprints  of  Memorial  of  loo:», 
Bradford's  History  of  Plymouth  Colony,  etc. 

(2)  Histories. 

Benjamin  Titr.Miiii.i.,  D.D. :  A  Complete  History  of  Connecticut,  Cicit  and  Fcclesiastical,/rom  the  Emi- 
gration of  its  First  Ptanters,from  England,  in  the  year  1680,  to  the  year  1T64.    New  Haven,  1818,  •>  rota. 

Leonakd  Bacon:  Thirteen  Historical  Discourses,  on  the  Completion  oj  Two  Hundred  Years  from  the 
Beginning  of  the  First  Church  in  New  Harm.     New  Haven,  1839. 

Josi  in  l>.  Felt:  The  EeclesiastieaX  History  of  Sew  England;  comprising  not  only  Religious,  but  also 
Moral  and  other  Delations.    Boston,  Mass.  (( longregational  Library  Association),  185G  1 368,  2  vols. 

JOSEPH  S.  CkARK:  .1  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Congregational  Churches  in  Massachusetts  from  1020  to 
1S5S.    Boston,  1858. 

Memorial  of  the  Semi-Oentennial  Celebration  of  the  Founding  of  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Andover. 
Audover,  Mass.  1859. 

Contributions  to  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Connecticut;  prepared  under  the  Direction  of  the  Gcrieral 
Association  to  Commemorate  the  Completion  of  One  Hundred  and  Fifty  Years  since  its  First  Annual 
Assembly.    New  Haven  (publ.  by  We.  L.  Kingsi.ey),  1S61. 

Daniel  Aitleton  White  :  New  England  Congregationalism  in  its  Origin  and  Purity;  Illustrated  bu 
the  Foundation  and  Early  Records  of  the  First  Church  in  Salem  [Mass.].  Salem,  1861.  Coinp.  Reply  to 
the  above,  by  JosEru  B.  Fei.t.    Salem,  1801. 

The  first  vols,  of  G.  Bancroft's  History  of  the  United  States  (begun  in  1834) ;  last  ed.  1S7G,  C  vols. 

John  Goriia.m  Palfrey  :   History  of  Xete  England.     Boston,  ls.59-1874,  4  vols. 

Leonard  Bacon  :   The  Genesis  of  the  Sew  England  Churches.     New  York,  1874. 

Henry  Martyn  Dexter:  As  to  Roger  Williams  and  his  ' Banishment '  from  the  Massachusetts  Planta- 
tion ;  with  a  fur  further  Words  concerning  the  Baptists,  the  Quakers,  and  Religious  Liberty.  Boston,  1876 
(Congregational  Publishing  Society).  A  vindication  of  the  Massachusetts  Colony  against  the  charge 
of  intolerance. 

Numerous  essays  and  reviews  relating  to  the  Congregational  polity  and  doctrine  and  the  history  of 
Congregational  Churches  may  be  found  in  the  volumes  of  the  following  periodicals: 

.1  merieam  Quarterly  Register.    Boston,  Mass.  1S27-1843, 15  vols. 

The  Christ  ion  Spectator.    1st  series  monthly  ;  2d  series  quarterly.    New  Haven,  1S19-1S3S,  20  vols. 

The  New-Englander,  quarterly  (continued).    New  Haven,  1S43-1S70,  34  vols. 

The  Congregational  Quarterly  (continued).  Boston,  Mass.  1st  series,  1859-1SC8,  10  vols. ;  2d  scries, 
1SG9-1S7G,  8  vols. 

The  Congregational  Year-Dook.    New  York,  1S54-1S59,  5  vols. 

Other  light  is  thrown  on  the  Congregational  history  and  polity  by  Results  of  Councils,  many  of  which, 
in  cases  of  peculiar  iuterest,  have  been  published  in  pamphlet  form. 

(3)  Congregational  Polity, 
itional  Order.     T7ic  Ancient  Platforms  of  the  Congregational  Churches  of  New  England,  with  a 
Digest  of  Doles  luul  Usages  in  Connecticut     Publ.  by  direction  of  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut. 
MfddleUrwn,  Conn.  1848.     [Edited  by  Leonard  Bacon,  David  D.  Field,  Timothy  P.  Gii.lkt.] 

Thomas  C.  UrHAM :  Ratio  Disriplimr ;  or.  The  Constitution  of  the  Congregational  Churches,  Examined 
ami  Deduced  from  Early  Congregational  Writers,  and  other  Ecclesiastical  Authorities,  and  from  Usage. 
2d  edition.     Portland,  1344. 

r  Cl  mminiis:  A  Dictionary  of  Congregational  Usages  and  Principles  according  to  Ancient  and 
Modem  Authors;  to  which  are  added  brief  Notices  of  some  of  the  Principal  Writers,  Assemblies,  and 
Treatises  referred  to  in  the  Compilation.    Boston,  1S52. 

Qeoboe  Punoiiabd:  A  View  of  Congregationalism,  its  Principles  and  Doctrines;  the  Testimony  if 
EeclesiastieaX  History  in  its  Favtr,  its  Practice,  and  its  Advantages,  list  edition,  imo.j  Third  edition, 
revised  and  enlarged.    Boston  (Congreg.  Board  of  Publication),  1856. 

Henry  Martyn  Dexter:  Congregationaliem:  What  it  Is;  Whence  it  is;  Hon-  it  Works;  Why  it  is 
Retter  than  any  otlier  Form  of  Church  Government.    Boston,  1S65 ;  4th  ed.  revised,  18T4. 

Congregationalism  has  its  name  from  the  prominence  it  gives  to  the 
particular  congregation  as  distinct  from  the  general  Church.1     It  aims 

1  This  term  is  preferable  to  Independency.     In  England  both  terms  are  used  synonymous- 


§22  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

to  establish  a  congregation  of  real  believers  or  converts,  and  it  declares 
such  a  congregation  to  be  independent  of  outward  jurisdiction,  whether 
it  be  that  of  a  king  or  a  bishop  or  a  presbytery.  Under  the  first 
aspect  it  has  several  precedents;  under  the  latter  aspect  it  forms  a  new 
chapter  in  Church  history,  or  at  least  it  carries  the  protest  against  for- 
eign jurisdiction  a  great  deal  farther  than  the  Reformers,  who  protest- 
ed against  the  tyrannical  authority  of  the  papacy,  but  recognized  some 
governmental  jurisdiction  over  local  congregations. 

CONGREGATIONS    IN    THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE. 

In  the  ISTew  Testament  the  word  church  or  congregation*  denotes 
sometimes  the  Church  universal,  the  whole  body  of  Christian  believers 
spread  throughout  the  world;2  sometimes  a  particular  congregation  at 
Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Corinth,  Rome,  or  any  other  place.3  The  congre- 
gations are  related  to  the  Church  as  members  to  the  body.  The  de- 
nominational and  sectarian  use  of  the  word  is  foreign  to  the  Scriptures, 
which  know  of  no  sect  but  the  sect  called  Christians.4  Denominations 
or  Confessions  are  the  growth  of  history  and  adaptations  of  Christian- 
ity to  the  differences  of  race,  nationality,  and  psychological  constitution ; 
and  after  fulfilling  their  mission  they  will,  as  to  their  human  imper- 
fections and  antagonisms,  disappear  in  the  one  kingdom  of  Christ, 
which,  however,  in  the  beauty  of  its  living  unity  and  harmony,  will 
include  an  endless  variety. 

An  organized  local  congregation  in  the  apostolic  age  was  a  company 
of  saints,5  or  a  self-supporting  and  self-governing  society  of  Christian 
believers,  with  their  offspring,  voluntarily  associated  for  purposes  of 
worship,  growth  in  holiness,  and  the  promotion  of  Christ's  kingdom. 
The  Apostolic  churches  were  not  free  from  imperfection  and  cor- 

ly.  The  American  Congregationalists  rather  disclaim  the  designation  Independents,  except 
for  a  small  portion  of  their  ancestors,  namely,  the  '  Pilgrim  Fathers'  of  Plymouth.     See  below. 

1  i/ocA^ffta,  from  iKKaX'tw,  to  call  oict,  means  (like  ?vj!£)  any  public  assembly,  but  especially 
a  religious  assembly. 

"  Matt.  xvi.  18  ;  Acts  xx.  28  ;  Gal.  i.  13  ;  Eph.  i.  22,  etc. 

3  Matt,  xviii.  17;  Acts  v.  11;  viii.  3;  xv.  41  (in  the  plural,  «i  tiac\i]<Tiai') ;  Gal.  i.  22;  Rom. 
xvi.  4,  5,  etc. 

4  Comp.  Acts  xi.  2G ;  xxvi.  28;  1  Pet.  iv.  10.  There  were  parties  or  sects  among  the 
Christians  at  Corinth  which  assumed  apostolic  designations,  but  Paul  rebuked  them  (1  Cor. 
i.  10-13;  iii.  3,  4).  The  tribes  of  Israel  may  be  quoted  as  a  Jewish  precedent  of  the  divisions 
in  Christendom,  but  they  formed  one  nation. 

s  t/cKXr/criVii  twv  ayiuv,  1  Cor.  xiv.  33. 


§  101.  THE  CONGREGATIONAL1STS.  823 

ruption,  but  they  were  separated  from  the  surrounding  world  of  un- 
believers, and  constantly  reminded  of  their  high  and  holy  calling. 

TBS   ANTK-Nk'KNi:   GHUBGHES. 

Ill  the  ante-Xicene  age  a  distinction  was  made  between  the  church 
of  believers  or  communicant  members  and  the  church  of  catechumens 

or  hearers  who  were  in  course  of  preparation  for  membership,  but  not 
allowed  to  partake  of  the  communion.1  Public  worship  was  accord- 
ingly divided  into  the  service  of  the  faithful  (missa  fiddlum)  and  the 
service  of  the  catechumens  (missa  catechumcnorum). 

MIXTURE    OF    THE    CHURCH    WITH    THE    WORLD. 

With  the  union  of  Church  and  State  since  Constantino  the  original 
idea  of  a  church  of  real  believers  was  gradually  lost,  and  became 
identical  with  a  parish  which  embraced  all  nominal  Christians  in  a 
particular  place  or  district.  Baptism,  confirmation,  and  attendance  at 
communion  were  made  obligatory  upon  all  residents,  whether  converted 
or  not,  and  every  citizen  was  supposed  to  be  a  Christian.3  The  distinc- 
tion between  the  Church  and  the  world  was  well-nigh  obliterated,  and 
the  Church  at  large  became  a  secular  empire  with  an  Italian  sovereign 
at  its  head.     Hence  the  complaint  of  Dante  (in  Milton's  rendering) : 

'Ah!  Constantine,  of  how  much  ill  was  cause, 
Not  thy  conversion,  but  those  rich  domains 
That  the  first  wealthy  Pope  received  of  thee!' 

ATTEMPTS    TO   RESTORE    THE   ITRITY   OF    THE    CHURCH. 

Monasticism  was  an  attempt  in  the  Catholic  Church  itself  to  save 
the  purity  of  the  congregation  by  founding  convents  and  nunneries 
secluded  not  only  from  the  world,  but  also  from  all  tics  of  domestic 
and  social  life.  It  drained  the  Church  of  many  of  its  best  elements, 
and  left  the  mass  more  corrupt. 

The  Bohemian  Brethren  and  the  Waldensea  introduced  strict  con- 
gregational discipline  in  opposition  to  the  ruling  Church. 

The  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century  deplored  the  want  of  truly 

1  Comp.  the  modern  American  distinction  between  (lunch  proper  and  congregation. 

'The  Jews— like  the  'untaxed  Indians'  in  the  United  States—  were  excluded  from  the 
rights  of  citizenship,  and  as  unmercifully  persecuted  during  the  Middle  Ages  as  the  Christians 
were  persecuted  by  the  Jews  in  the  apostolic  age.' 

Vol.  1. — G  o  g 


824:  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Christian  congregations  after  the  apostolic  model,  and  wished  to  revive 
them,  but  Luther  and  Zwingli  gave  it  up  in  despair  from  the  want  of 
material  for  congregational  self-government  (which  can  never  be  de- 
veloped without  an  opportunity  and  actual  experiment). 

Calvin  was  more  in  earnest,  and  astonished  the  world  by  founding 
in  Geneva  a  flourishing  Christian  commonwealth  of  the  strictest  dis- 
cipline, such  as  had  not  been  seen  since  the  age  of  the  Apostles.  But 
it  was  based  on  a  close  union  of  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power, 
which  destroyed  the  voluntary  feature,  and  ended  at  last  in  the  same 
confusion  of  the  Church  and  the  world. 

The  Anabaptists  and  Mennonites  emphasized  the  voluntary  princi- 
ple and  the  necessity  of  discipline,  but  they  injured  their  cause  by 
fanatical  excesses. 

The  German  Pietists  of  the  school  of  Spener  and  Fran  eke  realized 
their  idea  of  ecclesiolce  in  ecclesia,  or  select  congenial  circles  within 
the  outward  organization  of  the  promiscuous  national  Church,  from 
which  they  never  separated.  Wesley  did  originally  the  same  tiling, 
but  his  movement  resulted  in  a  new  denomination. 

The  Moravians  went  farther,  and  established  separate  Christian  col- 
onies, which  in  the  period  of  rationalism  and  infidelity  were  like 
beacon-lights  in  the  surrounding  darkness. 

ENGLISH    AND    AMERICAN    CONGREGATIONALISM. 

English  and  American  Congregationalism,  or  Congregationalism  as 
a  distinct  denomination,  arose  among  the  Puritans  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  It  was  at  first  identified  with 
the  name  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Browne,  and  called  Brownism ;  but,  be- 
ing an  unworthy  representative  and  an  apostate  from  his  principles, 
he  was  disowned.1  It  had  other  and  more  worthy  pioneers,  such  as 
Barrowe,  Greenwood,  Johnson,  Ainsworth,  Penry,  and  especially  John 
Robinson.2     The  Independents  were,  like  every  new  sect,  persecuted 

1  Robert  Browne,  a  clergyman  of  the  Established  Church  and  a  restless  agitator,  urged  a 
reformation  'without  tarrying  for  any,'  a  complete  separation  from  the  national  Church  as 
an  anti-Christian  institution,  and  the  formation  of  independent  Christian  societies.  After 
suffering  persecution  and  exile  (he  was  imprisoned  about  thirty  times),  he  returned  to  the 
ministry  of  the  national  Church,  where  he  led  an  idle  and  dissolute  life  till  his  death,  in  1030, 
at  the  age  of  eighty  years. 

2  See  on  these  early  witnesses  and  martyrs  of  Independency,  Hanbury  (Vol.  I.  chaps, 
ii.-xxvi),  Brook  (Vol.  III.),  and  Puuchard  (Vol.  III.). 


§  101.  THE  CONGREGATIONALISTS.  S25 

iinder  the  reigns  of  James  and  Charles  I.,  and  obliged  t<>  seek  shelter 
first  in  Holland  and  then  in  the  wilderness  of  New  England 

But  with  the  opening  of  the  Long  Parliament,  which  promised  to 
inaugurate  a  jubilee  to  all  tender  consciences,  they  began  to  breathe 
freely,  and  hastened  to  return  from  exile;  '  for,'  says  Fuller,  *only 
England  is  England  indeed,  though  some  parts  of  Holland  may  be 
like  unto  it.' '  They  had  a  eonsiderable  share  in  the  labors  of  the 
\Wtminster  Assembly  of  Divines,  espeeially  through  Dr.  Goodwin 
and  Rev.  Philip  Nye,  who  are  styled  the  'patriarchs'  of  orthodox 
Independency.  They  became  the  ruling  political  and  religious  power 
in  England  during  the  short  protectorate  of  Cromwell,  and  furnished 
the  majority  to  his  ecclesiastical  commission,  called  the  Triers.  After 
the  Restoration  they  were  again  persecuted,  being  held  chiefly  re- 
sponsible for  the  execution  of  King  Charles  and  the  overthrow  of 
the  monarchy.  In  1689  they  acquired  toleration,  and  are  now  one 
of  the  most  intelligent,  active,  and  influential  among  the  Dissenting 
bodies  in  England. 

The  classical  soil  of  Congregationalism  is  New  England,  where  it 
established  'a  Church  without  a  bishop  and  a  State  without  a  king.' 
From  New  England  it  spread  into  the  far  West,  to  the  shores  of  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  and  exerted  a  powerful  influence  upon  other  Churches. 
Puritan  Congregationalism  is  the  father  of  New  England  and  one 
of  the  grandfathers  of  the  American  Republic,  and  it  need  not  be 
ashamed  of  its  children.2     It  lacks  a  proper  appreciation   of  histor- 

1  Vol.  VI.  p.  280. 

2 1  beg  leave  to  quote  from  an  essay  which  I  wrote  and  published  in  the  midst  of  our  civil 
war  (18G3),  when  New  England  was  most  unpopular,  the  following  tribute  to  its  influence 
upon  American  history:  'It  seems  superfluous,  even  in  these  days  of  sectional  prejudice, 
party  animosity,  and  slander,  to  say  one  word  in  praise  of  New  England.  Facts  and  insti- 
tutions always  speak  best  for  themselves.  We  might  say  with  Daniel  Webster,  giving  his 
famous  eulogy  on  Massachusetts  a  more  general  application  to  her  five  sister  States :  "There 
they  stand  :  look  at  them,  and  jndge  for  yourselves.  There  is  their  history— the  world  knows 
it  by  heart :  the  past  at  least  is  secure."  The  rapid  rise  and  progress  of  that  rocky  and  bar- 
ren country  called  New  England  is  one  of  the  marvels  of  modern  history.  In  the  short 
period  of  two  centuries  and  a  half  it  has  attained  the  height  <>f  modern  civilisation  which  it 

required  other  countries  more  than  a  thousand  years  to  reach.  Naturally  the  poorest  part 
Of  die  United  States,  it  has  become  the  intellectual  garden,  the  busy  Workshop,  and  the  think- 
ing brain  of  tlii-,  rast  republic.  In  general  wealth  and  prosperity,  in  energy  ami  enterprise, 
in  love  of  freedom  and  respect  for  law,  in  the  diffusion  of  intelligence  and  education,  in  letters 
and  aits,  in  virtue  and  religion,  in  every  essentia]  feature  of  national  power  and  greatness,  the 
people  of  the  six  New  England  States  and  more  particularly  of  Massachusetts,  need  not  fear 
a  comparison  with  the  most  favored  nation  on  the  globe.      Bat  the  power  and  influence  of 


§26  'Jliie  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ical  Christianity  and  its  claims  upon  our  regard  and  obedience ;  but 
by  bringing  to  light  the  manhood  and  freedom  of  the  Christian  peo- 
ple, and  the  rights  and  privileges  of  individual  congregations,  it  marks 
a  real  progress  in  the  development  of  Protestantism,  and  has  leavened 
other  Protestant  denominations  in  America;  for  here  congregations 
justly  claim  and  exercise  a  much  larger  share,  and  have  consequently 
a  much  deeper  interest  in  the  management  of  their  own  affairs  than 
in  the  State  Churches  of  Europe.  The  Congregational  system  implies, 
of  course,  the  power  of  self-government  and  a  living  faith  in  Christ, 
without  which  it  would  be  no  government  at  all.  It  moreover  requires 
the  cementing  power  of  fellowship. 

INDEPENDENCY  AND  FELLOWSHIP. 

Anglo-American  Congregationalism  has  two  tap  roots,  independency 
and  fellowship,  on  the  basis  of  the  Puritan  or  Calvinistic  faith.  It  suc- 
ceeds in  the  measure  of  its  ability  to  adjust  and  harmonize  them.  It 
is  a  compromise  between  pure  Independency  and  Presbyterianism.  It 
must  die  without  freedom,  and  it  can  not  live  without  authority.  In- 
dependency without  fellowship  is  ecclesiastical  atomism ;  fellowship 
without  Independency  leads  to  Presbyterianism  or  Episcopacy.1 

It  starts  from  the  idea  of  an  apostolic  congregation  as  an  organized 


New  England,  owing  to  the  enterprising  and  restless  character  of  its  population,  extends  far 
beyond  its  own  limits,  and  is  almost  omnipresent  in  the  United  States.  The  twenty  thousand 
Puritans  who  emigrated  from  England  within  the  course  of  twenty  years,  from  1G20  to  1G10, 
and  received  but  few  accessions  until  the  modern  flood  of  mixed  European  immigration  set 
in,  have  grown  into  a  race  of  several  millions,  diffused  themselves  more  or  less  into  every 
State  of  the  Union,  and  take  a  leading  part  in  the  organization  and  development  of  every 
new  State  of  the  great  West  to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific.  Their  principles  have  acted 
like  leaven  upon  American  society ;  their  influence  reaches  into  all  the  ramifications  of  our 
commerce,  manufactures,  politics,  literature,  and  religion ;  there  is  hardly  a  Protestant  Church 
or  Sabbath-school  in  the  land,  from  Boston  to  San  Francisco,  which  does  not  feel,  directly  or 
indirectly,  positively  or  negatively,  the  intellectual  and  moral  power  that  constantly  ema- 
nates from  the  classical  soil  of  Puritan  Christianity.' 

1  Dr.  Emmons,  one  of  the  leaders  of  New  England  Congregationalism,  is  credited  with 
this  memorable  diet mn:  '  Associationism  leads  to  Consociationism  ;  Consociationism  leads 
to  Presbyterianism;  Presbyterianism  leads  to  Episcopacy;  Episcopacy  leads  to  Roman 
Catholicism;  and  Roman  Catholicism  is  an  ultimate  fact'  (Prof.  Park,  in  Hfemoir  of  Em- 
mons, p.  1G3).  But  there  would  be  equal  force  in  the  opposite  reasoning  from  Independency 
to  anarchy,  and  from  anarchy  to  dissolution.  Independents  have  a  right  to  protest  against 
tyranny,  whether  exercised  by  bishops  or  presbyters  ('priests  writ  large');  but  there  are  Lord 
Brethren  as  well  as  Lord  Bishops,  and  the  tyranny  of  a  congregation  over  a  minister,  or  of  a 
majority  over  a  minority,  is  as  bad  as  any  other  kind  of  tyranny. 


§  101.  THE  CONG  RKGATIOX  A  LISTS.  827 

brotherhood  of  converted  believers  in  Christ.  This  was  the  common 
ground  of  the  Westminster  divine?.1  But  they  parted  on  the  question 
of  jurisdiction  and  the  relation  of  the  local  congregation  to  the  Church 
general.     The  Independents  denied  the  authority  of  presbyteries  and 

synods,  and  maintained  that  each  congregation  properly  constituted  is 
directly  dependent  on  Christ,  and  subject  to  his  law,  and  his  law  only. 
The  whole  power  of  the  keys  is  vested  in  these  individual  churches, 

At  the  same  time,  however,  it  is  admitted  and  demanded  that  there 
should  be  a  free  fraternal  intercommunion  between  them,  with  the 
rights  and  duties  of  advice,  reproof,  and  co-operation  in  every  Chris- 
tian work. 

This  fellowship  manifests  itself  in  the  forms  of  Councils,  Associations 
(in  Massachusetts),  Consociations  (in  Connecticut),  on  a  larger  scale  in 
'  the  Congregational  Union  of  England  and  Wales,'  and  '  the  National 
Council  of  the  Congregational  Churches  in  the  United  States.'  It  is 
this  fellowship  which  gives  Congregationalism  the  character  of  a  de- 
nomination among  other  denominations.  But  the  principle  of  congre- 
gational sovereignty  is  guarded  by  denying  to  those  general  meetings 
any  legislative  authority,  and  reducing  them  simply  to  advisory  bodies.2 

There  were  from  the  start  two  tendencies  among  Congregationalists — 
the  extreme  Independents  or  Separatists,  of  whom  the  '  Pilgrim  Fathers' 
are  the  noblest  representatives,  and  the  more  churchly  Independents, 
who  remained  in  the  English  Church,  and  who  established  on  a  Cal- 
vinistic  theocratic  basis  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts.  John 
Robinson,  the  Moses  of  American  Independency,  who  accompanied 
his  flock  to  the  deck  of  the  Mayflower,  but  never  saw  the  promised 

1  '  The  Form  of  Presbyterial  Church  Government  agreed  upon  by  the  Assembly  of  Divines 
at  Westminster,' and  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Scotland  in  1645,  thus  defines  a 
local  Church  :  '  Particular  churches  in  the  primitive  times  were  made  up  of  visible  faints, 
viz.,  such  as,  being  6fage,  professed  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  unto  Christ,  according  to 
the  rules  of  faith  and  life  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  of  their  children.'  The 
Form  of  Government  ratified  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  in  May.  1821,  gives  this  definition  (Ch.II.  4):  'A  particular  church  consists 

of  a  number  of  professing  Christians,  with  their  offspring,  voluntarily  associated  together  for 
divine  worship  and  godly  living,  agreeably  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  submitting  to  a.  cer- 
tain form  of  government.' 
•  The  most  serious  conflict  between  the  principles  of  Independency  and  Fellowship  in  recent 

times  has  grown  out  of  the  nnhappy  Beecher  trial,  which  has  shaken  American  Congrega- 
tionalism to  the  very  base.  See  Proceedings  of'the  two  Councils  held  in  Brooklyn  in  187-t 
and  1876,  which  represent  both  sides  of  the  question  (Dr.  Stern's  and  Mr.  Beecher's), though 

presided  over  by  the  same  Nestor  of  American  Congregationalism  (Dr.  Leonard  Hacon). 


§28  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

land  himself,  was  a  separatist  from  the  Church  of  England,  though  he 
disowned  Brownism  with  its  extravagances.  His  colony  at  Plymouth 
were  Separatists.  The  settlers  of  Boston,  Salem,  Hartford,  and  New 
Haven,  on  the  other  hand,  were  simply  Nonconformists  within  the 
Church  of  England.  Their  ministers — John  Cotton,  Richard  Mather, 
Thomas  Hooker,  John  Davenport,  Samuel  Stone,  and  others— were 
trained  in  the  English  Universities,  mostly  in  Cambridge,1  and  had 
received  Episcopal  ordination.  They  rejected  the  term  Independents, 
and  inconsistently  relapsed  into  the  old  notion  of  uniformity  in  re- 
ligion, with  an  outburst  of  the  dark  spirit  of  persecution.  But  this 
was  only  temporary.  American  Congregationalism  at  present  is  a 
compromise  between  the  two  tendencies,  and  vacillates  between  them, 
leaning  sometimes  to  the  one,  sometimes  to  the  other  side. 

CONGREGATIONALISM   AND    CEEEDS. 

The  effect  of  the  Congregational  polity  upon  creeds  is  to  weaken 
the  authority  of  general  creeds  and  to  strengthen  the  authority  of  par- 
ticular creeds.  The  principle  of  fellowship  requires  a  general  creed, 
but  it  is  reduced  to  a  mere  declaration  of  the  common  faith  prevailing 
among  Congregationalists  at  a  given  time,  instead  of  a  binding  formula 
of  subscription.  The  principle  of  independency  calls  for  as  many  par- 
ticular creeds  as  there  are  congregations.  Each  congregation,  being  a 
complete  self-governing  body,  has  the  right  to  frame  its  own  creed,  to 
change  it  ad  libitum,  and  to  require  assent  to  it  not  only  from  the 
minister,  but  from  every  applicant  for  membership.  Hence  there  are 
a  great  many  creeds  among  American  Congregationalists  which  have 
purely  local  authority;  but  they  must  be  in  essential  harmony  with 
the  prevailing  faith  of  the  body,  or  the  congregations  professing 
them  forfeit  the  privileges  of  fellowship.  They  must  flow  from  the 
same  system  of  doctrine,  as  many  little  streams  flow  from  the  same 
fountain. 

In  this  multiplication  of  local  creeds  Congregationalism  far  outstrips 
the  practice  of  the  ante-Nicene  age,  where  we  find  varying  yet  essen- 

1  Masson  (Life  of  Milton,  Vol  II.  p.  f>63)  says  that  of  seventeen  noted  ministers  who  emi- 
grated to  New  England,  fourteen  were  bred  in  Cambridge,  and  only  three  (Davenport,  Mather, 
and  Williams)  at  Oxford.  R.  Williams  was  probably  likewise  a  Cambridge  graduate.  It  was 
therefore  natural  that  the  first  college  in  New  England  should  be  called  after  Cambridge. 


§  102.  ENGLISH  CONGREGATIONAL  CREEDS.  829 

tially  concordant  rules  of  faith  in  Jerusalem,  Ca-sarea,  Antioch,  Aqui- 
leja,  Carthage,  Rome. 

With  these  local  creeds  are  connected  'covenants'  or  pledges  of 
members  to  live  conformably  to  the  law  of  God  and  the  faith  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Church.  A  covenant  is  the  ethical  application  of  the 
dogmatic  creed. 

In  the  theory  of  creeds  and  covenants,  as  on  the  whole  subject  of 
Church  polity,  the  Regular  or  Calvinistic  Baptists  entirely  agree  with 
the  Congregationalists. 

§  102.  English  Congregational  Creeds. 

Literature. 

A  |  Df.ci.akation  I  of  the  |  Faith  and  Oei>f.r  |  Owned  and  practised}  n  the  |  Congregational  Churches 
I  in  |  ENGLAND;  |  Agreed  upon  and  consented'  unto  |  bii  their  |  BldkbS  ami  Musi  NOl  B8  |  in  \  their 
Mkktini;  at  the  Savoy,  |  Octob.  1'2, 1058.  |  London  |  Printed  for  D.L.  And  are  to  be  sold  in  Paul's  Church- 
yard, Fleet  |  Street,  and  Westminster  Hall,  1G59. 

A  Latin  edition  appeared  in  1C62  at  Utrecht,  under  the  title,  Con/essio  nuper  edita  Independentivm  sen 
Congregational  ium  in  Anglia. 

The  Preface,  the  Platform,  and  those  doctrinal  articles  which  differ  from  the  Westminster  Confession 
are  printed  in  Vol.  III.  pp.  TOT  sqq.,  from  the  first  London  edition.  The  Savoy  Declaration,  without  the 
Preface,  is  also  given  by  IIamiuv,  Memorials,  Vol.  III.  pp.  51T  sqq. ;  and  by  Dr.  A.  H.  Quint,  in  the  'Con- 
gregational Quarterly"  for  July  and  October,  1S6C  (Vol.  VIII.  pp.  241 -2GT  and  341-U44). 

On  the  Savoy  meeting,  conip.  Hahbuby,  Memorials,  Vol.  III.  pp.  515  sqq. 

THE   SAVOY    DECLABATION.       A.D.  1658. 

AVe  now  proceed  to  the  general  creeds  or  declarations  of  faith 
which  have  been  approved  by  the  Congregational  Churches  in  Eng- 
land and  America.  They  agree  substantially  with  the  Westminster 
Confession,  or  the  Calvinistic  system  of  doctrine,  but  differ  from 
Presbyterian  ism  by  rejecting  the  legislative  and  judicial  authority 
of  presbyteries  and  synods,  and  by  maintaining  the  independence 
of  the  local  churches.  In  the  course  of  time  the  rigor  of  old  Cal- 
vinism  has  relaxed,  both  in  England  and  America.  '  Kew  England 
theology,'  as  it  is  called,  attempts  to  find  a  via  media  between  Cal- 
vinism and  Arminianism  in  anthropology  and  soteriology.  IJut  the 
old  standards  still  remain  unrepealed. 

The  first  and  fundamental  Congregational  confession  of  faith  and 
platform  of  polity  is  the  Savoy  Declaration,  so  called  from  the 
place  where  it  was  composed  and  adopted.1 

1  The  Savoy,  in  the  Strand,  London,  is  remarkable  for  it-  historical  associations.     The 

palace,  on  the  banks  of  the  Thames,  was  built  by  Peter,  Earl  of  Sa\<>v  and  Richmond,  in 
1246;  enlarged  and  beautified  by  Henry,  Duke  of  Lancaster,  r828.     King  John  II..  of 


S30  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  position  of  the  Congregationalists  during  the  short  period  of 
their  ascendency  under  Cromwell's  Protectorate  (1G53-1658)  was 
rather  anomalous.  They  were  by  no  means  so  strongly  committed 
to  the  voluntary  principle  and  against  a  national  Church  as  to  re- 
fuse appointments  in  the  universities  and  parish  churches,  with  the 
tithes  and  other  emoluments  connected  therewith.  Dr.  Goodwin  was 
President  of  Magdalen  College,  Cambridge ;  Dr.  Owen,  Dean  of 
Christ  Church  and  Vice-Chancellor  at  Oxford ;  Philip  Nye,  Rector 
of  St.  Bartholomew's,  London  ;  Joseph  Caryl,  Rector  of  St.  Mary 
Magnus ;  William  Greenhill,  incumbent  of  the  village  of  Stepney ; 
William  Bridge,  town  lecturer  at  Yarmouth  :  John  Howe,  parish  min- 


lO~) 


pai 


ister  at  Torrington,  and  afterwards  court  chaplain  to  Cromwell  until 
his  death.1  Cromwell  himself  had  no  idea  of  disconnecting  the  gov- 
ernment from  religion.  Christianity  was  fully  recognized  under  his 
rule  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  law  of  the  land.  It  accompanied  with 
its  solemn  worship  the  ordinary  business  of  Parliament.  Public  fasts 
were  frequently  appointed  by  the  Protector  (to  which  the  Presby- 
terians objected  as  an  Erastian  intrusion),  and  lasted  usually  from 
nine  in  the  morning  until  four  in  the  afternoon.  The  rights  of  patron- 
age were  not  disturbed ;  the  tithes  and  other  provisions  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  clergy  and  the  repair  of  churches  were  continued.  A 
commission  of  Triers,  or  judicial  examiners,  one  fourth  of  whom  were 
laymen,  was  appointed  to  test  the  fitness  of  clerical  applicants  and  to 
remove  unworthy  incumbents,  and  Church  boards  of  gentry  and  clergy 
were  set  up  in  every  county  for  the  supervision  of  ecclesiastical  affairs. 
The  Triers  took  the  place  of  the  late  Westminster  Assembly  in  its 
administrative  work,  but  were  less  numerous,  and  included  Independ- 
ents, Presbyterians,  and  Baptists.  Dr.  Owen,  Goodwin,  and  Man  ton 
belonged  to  them,  besides  others  of  less  wisdom  and  charity.  They 
were  subject  to  a  certain  Erastian  control  by  the  Protector  and  hie 

France,  while  a  prisoner  in  England,  resided  there  (1357-G3).  It  was  burned  in  Wat  Tyler's 
insurrection,  1381;  rebuilt  and  endowed  as  a  hospital  by  Henry  VII.,  \~>Q~>.  It  was  the  city 
residence  of  the  Bishop  of  London.  The  royal  chapel  was  burned  down  in  18G4,  but  beauti- 
fully restored  by  Queen  Victoria,  and  reopened  Nov.  2G,  1865.  The  Congregational  meeting 
of  1658  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  'Savoy  Conference'  between  Episcopalians  and 
Presbyterians  which  was  held  there  from  April  15  to  July  25,  1GG1. 

1  Comp.  Stoughton,  Church  of  the  Commonwealth,  ch.  ix.  pp.  207  sqq.  A  number  of  the 
Baptists  likewise  accepted  preferments  under  the  Protectorate.  See  ib.  p.  242,  and  Ivimey's 
list  of  Baptists  who  were  ejected  at  the  Restoration,  History  of  Baptists,Yo\.  I.  p.  328. 


§  102.  ENGLISH  CONGREGATIONAL  CREEDS.  831 

Council  of  State,  but  left  to  decide  each  case  according  to  their  best 
judgment,  without  imposing  any  creed  or  canon  or  statute.  The  plan 
seems  to  have  worked  well,  and  furnished  the  country,  as  Baxter  Bays, 
who  Mas  no  friend  of  Cromwell,  with  '  able,  serious  preachers,  who 
lived  a  godly  life,  of  what  tolerable  opinion  soever  they  were.'  Crom- 
well's Protectorate  was  too  short  to  develop  a  full  system  of  ecclesias- 
tical polity.  It  was  a  government  of  experiments  in  accommodation 
to  existing  circumstances.  Upon  the  whole,  it  was  more  tolerant  than 
any  previous  reign,  but  only  to  Puritanism  and  such  Protestant  sects 
as  recognized  the  Scriptures  and  the  fundamentals  of  the  Christian 
faith;  while  it  was  intolerant  to  Romanists,  Socinians,  and  Episcopal 
royalists,  who  endangered  his  government.  In  his  foreign  policy  Crom- 
well was  the  boldest  protector  of  Protestantism  and  religious  liberty 
that  England  has  ever  produced.1 

Under  these  favorable  circumstances,  and  in  view  of  the  successful 
establishment  of  an  exclusively  Congregational  commonwealth  by  their 
transatlantic  brethren,  the  Independents  might  think  of  repeating  in 
a  milder  form  the  experiment  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  to  secure 
at  least  a  certain  degree  of  religious  uniformity  in  England,  with  a 
limited  amount  of  toleration  to  orthodox  dissenters.  Their  great  pro- 
tector did  not  seem  to  favor  such  a  scheme,  but  shortly  before  his  death 
he  reluctantly  gave  his  consent  to  'the  humble  petition  and  advice'  of 
influential  members  of  Parliament  to  issue  a  confession  of  faith  for 
the  whole  kingdom,  yet  '  without  compelling  the  people  thereto  by 
penalties,'  and  to  extend  liberty  to  all  Christian  professions,  except 
'popery  or  prelacy,'  or  such  as  'publish  horrid  blasphemies  or  practice 
or  hold   forth  licentiousness   or  profaneness  under  the  profession  of 

1  Comp.  Stongliton,  1.  c.  pp.  81  sqq.  Green  {History  of  the  English  People,  p.  ."7.1)  judges 
upon  the  whole  quite  favorably  of  Cromwell's  ecclesiastical  polity:  "In  England, Cromwell 
dealt  with  the  Royalists  as  irreconcilable  enemies;  but  in  every  other  respect  lie  carried  out 
fairly  his  pledge  of  "healing  and  settling."  .  .  .  From  t lie  Church,  which  was  thus  reorgan- 
ized, all  power  of  interference  with  faiths  differing  from  its  own  was  resolutely  withheld. 
Cromwell  remained  true  to  his  great  cause  of  religious  liberty.  l'.ven  the  Quaker,  rejected 
by  all  other  Christian  bodies  as  an  anarchist  and  blasphemer,  found  sympathy  and  protection 
in  Cromwell.  TheJews  had  been  excluded  from  England  since  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Firsl ; 
and  a  prayer  which  they  now  presented  for  leave  to  return  was  refused  by  the  commission  of 
merchants  and  divines  to  whom  the  Protector  referred  it  for  consideration,  Hut  the  reftual 
was  quietly  passed  over,  and  the  connivance  of  <  Iromwell  in  the  settlement  of  a  few  Hebrews 
in  London  and  Oxford  was  so  clearly  understood  that  no  one  ventured  to  interfere  with 
them.' 


832  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Christ.'  A  notice  from  the  clerk  of  the  Council  of  State  summoned 
the  Congregational  churches,  in  and  near  London,  to  a  meeting  in  the 
Savoy,  but  it  was  not  held  till  twenty-six  days  after  Cromwell's  death. 
About  two  hundred  delegates  from  one  hundred  and  twenty  congre- 
gations attended  the  Conference,  which  lasted  from  Sept.  29  till  Oct. 
12,  1658.  They  agreed  unanimously  upon  the  Confession  and  Order 
of  Discipline.  It  was  regarded  by  them,  in  the  language  of  the  Pref- 
ace, '  as  a  great  and  special  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  that  so  numerous 
a  company  of  ministers  and  other  principal  brethren  should  so  readily, 
speedily,  and  jointly  give  up  themselves  unto  such  a  whole  body  of 
truths  that  are  after  godliness.' 

The  Savoy  Declaration  is  the  work  of  a  committee,  consisting  of 
Drs.  Goodwin,  Owen,  Nye,  Bridge,  Caryl,  and  Greenhill,  who  had  been 
members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  with  the  exception  of  Dr.  Owen. 
It  contains  a  lengthy  Preface  (fourteen  pages),  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith  with  sundry  changes  (twenty-two  pages),  and  a  Plat- 
form of  Church  Polity  (five  pages). 

1.  The  Preface  is  prolix  and  indifferently  written,  but  deserves 
notice  for  inaugurating  a  more  liberal  view  of  the  authority  of 
creeds  and  the  toleration  of  other  creeds.  The  chief  ideas  are  these : 
To  confess  our  faith  is  an  indispensable  duty  we  owe  to  God  as 
much  as  prayer.  Public  confessions  are  a  means  of  expressing  the 
common  faith,  but  ought  not  to  be  enforced.  '  Whatever  is  of  force 
or  constraint  in  matters  of  this  nature  causes  them  to  degenerate 
from  the  name  and  nature  of  Confessions,  and  turns  them  into 
Exactions  and  Impositions  of  Faith.''  With  this  we  should  ac- 
knowledge '  the  great  principle  that  among  all  Christian  States  and 
Churches  there  ought  to  be  vouchsafed  a  forbearance  and  mutual 
indulgence  unto  saints  of  all  persuasions  that  keep  unto  and  hold 
fast  the  necessary  foundations  of  faith  and  holiness,  in  all  other  mat- 
ters extra-fundamental,  whether  of  faith  or  order.' 

This  was  a  considerable  step  beyond  the  prevailing  notion  of  uni- 
formity, although  it  falls  far  short  of  the  modern  theory  of  religious 
liberty.  The  Preface  goes  on  to  guard  itself  against  the  charge  of 
indifference  or  carelessness. 

2.  The  Declaration  of  Faith.  This  is  a  slight  modification  of  the 
Westminster  Confession.    '  To  this  Confession,'  the  Preface  states. '  we 


§  102.  ENGLISH  CONGREGATIONAL  CREEDS  838 

fully  assent,  as  do  our  brethren  of  New  England  and  tlie  churches 
also  of  Scotland,  as  each  in  their  genera]  synods  have  testified.  A 
few  things  we  have  added  for  obviating  some  erroneous  opinions,  and 
made  other  additions  and  alterations  in  method  here  and  there,  and 
some  clearer  explanations  as  we  found  occasion.'  The  Declaration  is 
divided  into  thirty-two  chapters,  in  the  same  order  as  the  Westminster 
Confession,  which  has  thirty-three  chapters.  In  the  exceptions  taken 
the  Savoy  Council  followed  the  example  set  by  the  Long  Parliament 
in  its  edition  of  the  Westminster  Confession.  The  only  important 
changes  refer  to  matters  of  Church  government  and  discipline.  Chaps. 
X  X  X., «  Of  Church  Censures,'  and  XXXI.,  '  Of  Synods  and  Councils,' 
are  omitted  altogether.  Chaps.  XXIII.  (XXIY.), '  Of  the  Civil  Magis- 
trates,' XXIV.  (XXV.), '  Of  Marriage  and  Divorce,'  and  XXVI., '  Of 
the  Church,'  are  modified.  Chap.  XX.,  'Of  the  Gospel,'  in  the  Savoy 
Declaration,  is  inserted,  and  hence  the  difference  in  the  numbering 
of  the  remaining  chapters.  The  change  in  Chap.  XXIV.  is  a  decided 
improvement,  if  we  judge  it  from  the  American  theory  of  Church  and 
State.  A  similar  and  more  thorough  change  was  subsequently  made 
by  the  American  Presbyterians  in  the  AVestminster  Confession. 

3.  The  Declaration  of  '  the  Institution  of  Churches  and  the  Order 
appointed  in  them  by  Jesus  Christ'  contains  the  principles  of  the  Con- 
gregational Church  polity  which  we  have  already  explained.  Similar 
Platforms  of  Discipline,  as  they  are  called,  have  been  issued  from 
time  to  time  by  the  American  Congregationalists  —  at  Cambridge, 
1G48,  at  Saybrook,  170S,  and  at  Boston,  1865. 

THE    DECLARATION    OF    1S33. 

This  is  a  popular  abridgment  of  the  older  confessions,  and  presents 
a  milder  form  of  Calvinism.  It  was  prepared  in  1833  by  the  Rev.Dr. 
Redford,  of  Worcester,  and  other  members  of  a  committee  of  the 
'Congregational  Union  of  England  and  Wale-/  which  was.organized 
in  1S31.  It  is  annually  printed  in  the  'Congregational  Year-Book,' 
but  it  disclaims  any  authority  as  a  standard  of  subscription.' 

NOTE. — The  Rev.  Dr.  John  STorr.HTON,  of  London,  a  leading  divine  and  historian  among 
the  English  Independents,  lias  kindly  inpplied  me  with  the  following  statement  concerning 
the  prevailing  sentiment  of  that  body  on  the  authority  of  creeds,  a  statement  which  applies 
largely  to  American  Congregationalists  in  the  present  age: 

1  See  Vol.  III.  pp.  7:J0  sqq. 


S3tt  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

'  Looking  at  the  principles  of  Congregationalism,  which  involve  the  repudiation  of  all  hu- 
man authority  in  matters  of  religion,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  persons  holding  those 
principles  can  consistently  regard  any  ecclesiastical  creed  or  symbol  in  the  same  way  in 
which  Catholics,  whether  Roman  or  Anglican,  regard  the  creeds  of  the  ancient  Church. 
There  is  a  strong  feeling  among  English  Congregationalists  against  the  use  of  such  docu- 
ments for  the  purpose  of  defining  the  limits  of  religious  communion,  or  for  the  purpose  of 
checking  the  exercise  of  sober,  free  inquiry ;  and  there  is  also  a  widely  spread  conviction  that 
it  is  impossible  to  reduce  the  expression  of  Christian  belief  to  a  series  of  logical  propositions, 
so  as  to  preserve  and  represent  the  full  spirit  of  gospel  truth.  No  doubt  there  may  be  heard 
in  some  circles  a  great  deal  of  loose  conversation  seeming  to  indicate  such  a  repugnance  to 
the  employment  of  creeds  as  would  imply  a  dislike  to  any  formal  definition  of  Christian  doc- 
trine whatever ;  but  I  apprehend  that  the  prevailing  sentiment  relative  to  this  subject  among 
our  ministers  and  churches  does  not  go  beyond  the  point  just  indicated.  Many  consider  that 
while  creeds  are  objectionable  as  tests  and  imperfect  as  confessions,  yet  they  may  have  a  cer- 
tain value  as  manifestoes  of  conviction  on  the  part  of  religious  communities. 

'  The  Westminster  Assembly's  Catechism  never  had  the  authority  in  Congregational  church- 
es which  from  the  beginning  it  possessed  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  and  its  use 
in  schools  and  families  for  educational  purposes,  once  very  common,  has  diminished  of  late 
years  to  a  very  low  degree.  The  Savoy  Declaration,  which  perhaps  never  had  much  weight 
with  Congregationalists,  is  a  document  now  little  known,  except  by  historical  students.  The 
Declaration  of  1833  was  prepared  by  a  committee  of  the  Congregational  Union,  of  which  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Bedford,  of  Worcester,  was  a  member.  He,  I  believe,  drew  up  the  Articles,  and  it 
was  only  in  accordance  with  his  well-known  character  as  a  zealous  antagonist  of  human  au- 
thority in  religion  that  he  introduced  the  following  passages  in  the  preliminary  notes : 

'  "It  is  not  designed,  in  the  following  summary,  to  do  more  than  to  state  the  leading  doc- 
trines of  faith  and  order  maintained  by  Congregational  churches  in  general. 

'  "It  is  not  intended  that  the  following  statement  should  be  put  forth  with  any  authority, 
or  as  a  standard  to  which  assent  should  be  required. 

'  "  Disallowing  the  utility  of  creeds  and  articles  of  religion  as  a  bond  of  union,  and  protest- 
ing against  subscription  to  any  human  formularies  as  a  term  of  communion,  Congrega- 
tionalists are  yet  willing  to  declare,  for  general  information,  what  is  commonly  believed 
among  them,  reserving  to  every  one  the  most  perfect  liberty  of  conscience. " 

'  It  would  be  well  to  insert  a  statement  made  to  me  by  one  who  from  his  official  position 
has  the  best  means  of  ascertaining  the  state  of  opinion  in  our  churches  : 

'  "I  do  not  believe  that  the  Declaration  of  1833  could  now  with  success  be  submitted  for 
adoption  to  an  Assembly  of  the  Congregational  Union  ;  in  part,  because  not  a  few  would  dis- 
pute its  position,  and  in  part  because  many  more — I  believe  the  majority — without  objecting 
on  strictly  doctrinal  grounds,  would  object  on  grounds  of  policy." 

'  I  may  add  to  this,  in  the  words  of  the  Dean  of  Westminster,  who  wrote  them  on  the  au- 
thority of  "a  respected  Congregational  minister,"  that,  beyond  care  in  the  matter  of  ordina- 
tion, "no  measures  are  adopted  or  felt  to  be  either  desirable  or  necessary  for  preserving 
uniformity  of  doctrine,  excepting  only  that  the  trust-deeds  of  most  of  their  places  of  worship 
contain  a  reference  to  leading  points  of  doctrine  to  which  the  minister  may  be  required  to 
express  his  assent.  In  practice  this  is  merely  a  provision  against  any  decided  departure  from 
the  faith  as  commonly  received  among  us,  the  trustees  of  the  property  having  it  in  their 
power  to  refuse  the  use  of  the  building  to  any  minister  whose  teaching  may  be  contrary  to 
the  doctrines  contained  in  the  deed.     Such  cases,  however,  are  extremely  rare." 

'In  some  cases  trust-deeds  make  reference  to  the  Declaration  of  1833,  as  containing  the 
doctrines  to  be  taught  in  substance  within  the  places  of  worship  secured  by  such  deeds ; 
but  in  most  cases  a  brief  schedule  of  doctrines  is  employed,  of  which  the  following  is  an 
example  : 

'  "  1.  The  divine  and  special  inspiration  of  the  holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment, and  their  supreme  authority  in  faith  and  practice. 


§  103.  AMERICAN  CONGREGATIONAL  CBEEDS.  835 

'  "2.  The  unity  of  God.     Tlic  Deity  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son, end  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

'"3.  The  depravity  of  man,  ami  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  Holy  Spirits  agency  in 
man's  regeneration  and  Banctification. 

1  ••  i.  The  incarnation  <'f  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  person  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  the  nni- 
rersal  sufficiency  of  the  atonement  by  his  death  ;  and  the  free  justification  of  sinners  by  faith 
alone  in  him. 

•  ••:>.  Salvation  by  grace,  and  the  duty  of  all  who  hear  the  gospel  to  believe  in  Christ. 

'"•;.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  final  judgment,  when  the  wicked  'shall  go 
away  into  everlasting  punishment,  but  the  righteous  intu  life  eternal.'  " 

'The  Secretary  of  our  Chapel  Building  Society  informs  me  that  "one  reason  for  the  dis- 
use of  the  Declaration  may  he  its  length,  and  the  circumstance  that,  to  put  it  beyond  question 
what  document  is  meant,  it  has  been  thought  it  would  be  needful  to  embody  it  in  the  deed, 
which  would  add  to  the  cost." 

'It  has  been  remarked,  on  the  authority  of  one  already  cited,  "that,  notwithstanding  the 
absence  of  tests,  there  is  among  Independents  a  marked  uniformity  of  opinion  on  all  impor- 
tant points."  Perhaps  this  statement,  still  true  on  the  whole,  would  require  more  qualifica- 
tion than  it  did  some  years  ago.  There  are  among  us  a  few  men  of  mental  vigor  who  have 
departed  very  considerably  from  the  published  creeds  of  Congregationalism.  There  may 
be  a  larger  number  whose  opinions  are  of  an  Arminian  cast;  but,  again  to  use  language 
supplied  by  a  friend,  in  whom  I  place  confidence  as  to  this  subject:  "It  would  still  be  fair, 
I  think,  to  describe  our  ministry  as  moderately  Calvinistic.  An  immense  majority  of  the 
ministers  are  so.  An  impression  to  the  contrary  has,  I  am  aware,  become  prevalent;  but 
that  is  owing,  I  believe,  to  the  fact  that  the  greater  number  of  the  men  who  have  departed 
from  the  Calvinistic  type  hold  prominent  positions,  and  have  'the  habit  of  the  pen.'"  It  is 
a  difficult  and  delicate  task  to  report  the  state  of  large  religious  communities  among  whose 
members  there  exist  some  diversities  of  opinion.  One  person  biased  by  his  own  predilections 
will  give  one  account,  and  another  person  under  an  influence  of  the  same  kind  will  give 
another. 

'  In  what  I  have  said  I  have  endeavored  to  be  as  impartial  as  possible ;  and,  to  give  the 
more  weight  to  my  statements,  I  have  sought  the  assistance  of  official  brethren  who  have 
wider  means  of  information  than  I  possess,  and  who  may  look  at  things  from  points  of  view 
not  exactly  identical  with  my  own.' 


§  103.  American  Congregational  Creeds. 

Literature. 

Special  essays  relating  to  the  creeds  and  Church  order  of  American  Congregationnlists. 

The  Formation  of  Creeds.    Article  by  the  Rev.  Josei-u  P.  Thompson  iu  the  'New-Euglandcr,' Vol.  IV. 
pp.  265-2T4.     1S4C. 

tUtonaUem  and  Symbolism.  Article  by  the  Rcv.Wm.  G.T.  Siieud  in  the  'Bibllotheca  Sncrn,' 
Vol.  XV.  pp.  C01-090.  1853.  (An  argument  showing  the  need  of  a  more  positive  creed  for  Congrega- 
tionalism.) 

ConfetsioM  of  Faith.     Article  by  the  Rev.  Ei>wari>  W.  Gii.man  iu  the  'Congregational  Quarterly,' 
Vol.  IV.  pp.lTO-lffL     1SC2. 

Declaration  of  Faith  and  the  Canfettton,     Article  by  the  Rev.  Eiuvaei)  A.  Lawkknce.    lb.  Vol.  VIII. 
pp.  173-190.     L86& 

.1  nei  hi  i  •'•»/.  itUnu  <<f  F«ilh  ami  Family  Covenants.     Ry  E.  W.  G.     lb.  Vol.  XI.  pp.  51G-M7.     1S69. 

Tin-  National  OomuQ  (of  is7i).    Article  by  Dr.  A.  II.  Qunra  in  the  'Cong.  Quarterly,'  Vol.  XIV.  i>p.  el- 
se.    1-72. 

The  American  Congregationali>ts  have  from  time  to  time  adopted 
the  Westminster  standards  of  doctrine,  with  the  exception  of  the  sec- 
tions relating  to  synodical  Chnrch  government.  Formerly  the  Assem- 
bly's Shorter  Catechism  was  taught  in  all  the  schools  of  New  England  ; 


836  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

but  of  late  years  those  standards  have  gone  much  out  of  use,  though 
they  have  never  been  disowned. 

THE   SYNOD    OF    CAMBRIDGE,  1648.1 

The  '  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  churches  assembled  in  the  Synod 
at  Cambridge,  in  New  England,'  in  June,  1648,  adopted  the  West- 
minster Confession  one  year  after  its  publication,  in  these  words: 
1  This  Synod  having  perused  and  considered  with  much  gladness  of 
heart,  and  thankfulness  to  God,  the  Confession  of  Faith  published  of 
late  by  the  reverend  Assembly  in  England,  do  judge  it  to  be  very- 
holy,  orthodox,  and  judicious  in  all  matters  of  faith ;  and  do  therefore 
freely  and  fully  consent  thereunto,  for  the  substance  thereof.  Only  in 
those  things  which  have  respect  to  Church  government  and  discipline 
[in  some  sections  of  Chaps.  XXV".,  XXX.,  and  XXXI.]  we  refer  our- 
selves to  the  Platform  of  Church  Discipline  agreed  upon  by  this  present 
assembly;  and  do  therefore  think  it  meet  that  this  Confession  of  Faith 
should  be  commended  to  the  churches  of  Christ  among  us,  and  to  the 
honored  court,  as  worthy  of  their  consideration  and  acceptance.  How- 
beit,  we  may  not  conceal,  that  the  doctrine  of  vocation,  expressed  in 
Chap.  X.,  §  1,  and  summarily  repeated  in  Chap.  XIII.,  §  1,  passed  not 
without  some  debate.  Yet  considering  that  the  term  of  vocation  and 
others  by  which  it  is  described  are  capable  of  a  large  or  more  strict 
sense  or  use,  and  that  it  is  not  intended  to  bind  apprehensions  precisely 
in  point  of  order  or  method,  there  hath  been  a  general  condescendency 
thereunto.  Now  by  this  our  professed  consent  and  free  concurrence 
with  them  in  all  the  doctrinals  of  religion,  we  hope  it  may  appear  to 
the  world  that  as  we  are  a  remnant  of  the  people  of  the  same  nation 
with  them,  so  we  are  professors  of  the  same  common  faith,  and  fellow- 
heirs  of  the  same  common  salvation.' 

The  Cambridge  Synod  thus  anticipated  by  ten  years  the  work  of 
the  Savoy  Conference  (1658). 

The  Cambridge  Platform,  which  is  said  to  be  the  work  of  the  Rev. 
Richard  Mather,  sets  forth  in  substance  the  same  principles  of  inde- 
pendent Church  government  and  discipline  as  the  Savoy  Declaration. 

1  '  The  Congregational  Order '  above  quoted  contains  the  Cambridge  Platform  and  the 
Saybrook  Platform,  together  with  the  *  Saybrook  Confession  of  Faith,'  /.  p.,  the  Savoy  Con- 
fession as  previously  adopted  by  the  Synod  of  Boston. 


§  103.  AMERICAN  CONGREGATIONAL  CBEEDS.  837 

THE    SYNOD    OF   BOSTON,  1G80. 

The  Synod  of  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  New  England  Conjrre- 
gational  churches,  held  in  Boston,  Mass.,  May  12,  1680,  adopted  and 
published  the  Savoy  recension  of  the  "Westminster  Confession, together 
with  the  Cambridge  Platform.  It  says,  in  the  preface  to  its  Declara- 
tion : 

'That  wbieh  was  consented  unto  by  the  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  Congregational 
churches  in  England,  who  met  at  the  .Savoy  (being  for  the  most  part,  some  small  variations 
excepted,  the  same  with  that  which  was  agreed  upon  first  by  the  Assembly  at  Westminster, 
and  was  approved  of  by  the  Synod  at  Cambridge,  in  New  England,  anno  1G48,  as  also  by  a 
General  Assembly  in  Scotland),  was  twice  publicly  read,  examined,  and  approved  of:  that 
little  variation  which  we  have  made  from  the  one,  in  compliance  with  the  other,  may  be  seen 
by  those  who  please  to  compare  them.  But  we  have  (for  the  main)  chosen  to  express  our- 
selves in  the  words  of  those  reverend  Assemblies,  that  so  we  might  not  only  with  one  heart, 
but  with  one  mouth,  glorify  God  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. -i 

THE   SYNOD    OF    SAYBROOK,  1708. 

The  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  churches  in  the  Culony  of  Con- 
necticut assembled  at  Saybrook,  Sept.  9,  1708,  agreed  that  the  Bos- 
ton Confession  should  '  be  recommended  to  the  honorable  general 
assembly  of  this  Colony,  at  the  next  session,  for  their  public  testimony 
thereunto,  as  the  faith  of  the  churches  of  the  Colony.'  They  also  ac- 
cepted '  the  Heads  of  Agreement  assented  to  [in  1692]  by  the  united 
ministers  [of  England],  formerly  called  Presbyterian  and  Congrega- 
tional,' and  so  virtually  gave  indorsement  to  three  creeds  as  essentially 
teaching  the  same  system — the  doctrinal  part  of  the  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  the  Westminster  Confession  or  Catechisms,  and 
the  Confession  agreed  on  at  the  Savoy. 

TIIK    NATIONAL   COUNCIL   OF   BOSTON,  18G5.2 

The  National  Council  of  Congregational  churches  of  the  United 
States,  held  in  the  Old  South  Meeting-house  of  the  city  of  Boston 
after  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  (which  suggested  this  Council),  in 

1  The  changes  are  very  slight,  and  in  part  restorations  of  the  Westminster  text.  They  arc 
noted  by  Dr.  Quint  in  the  '  Congregational  Quarterly '  for  July,  1866,  p.  266. 

1  Debates  and  Proceeding*  of  the  National  Council  of  the  Congregational  C/turrhrs,  held  at 
Boston,  Mass.,  June  1 1  24,  1866.  From  the  Phonographic  Report  In/-/.  M.  W.  Yerrintm  and 
Henri/  M.  Parkhurst,  Boston,  Amer.  Cong.  Association,  1866  (ed.  under  the  care  of  the  lie  v. 
A.  H.  Qcimt  and  the  Ker.  Isaac  P.  Lakowobtht),  pp.  9C  98,844  847,861  868,  101   108 


838  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  year  1865  (June  14-24),  adopted  a  'Declaration  of  Faith.'  This 
Declaration  passed  through  three  transformations  : 

The  first  draft  was  prepared  by  a  committee  consisting  of  three 
divines  (two  progressive,  one  conservative),  viz.,  Dr.  Joseph  P.  Thomp- 
son (then  Pastor  of  the  Church  of  the  Tabernacle,  New  York), 
Dr.  Edward  A.  Lawrence  (Prof,  in  the  Theol.  Seminary  of  East 
Windsor  [now  at  Hartford],  Conn.),  and  Dr.  George  P.  Fisher  (Prof, 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  Yale  College).  The  Committee  declined 
to  give  a  formulated  statement  of  doctrines,  but  characterized,  in  a 
comprehensive  way,  the  doctrines  held  in  common  by  the  Congrega- 
tional churches,  and  referred  to  the  ancient  Confessions  of  West- 
minster and  Savoy,  as  sufficiently  answering  the  end  of  a  substantial 
unity  in  doctrine.  This  draft  was  read,  discussed,  and  referred  to  a 
larger  committee. 

The  second  draft  was  presented  by  the  Rev.  J.  O.  Fiske,  of  Bath, 
Maine,  and  in  conformity  with  the  usage  of  the  councils  at  Cam- 
bridge, 1648,  at  Boston,  1680,  and  at  Saybrook,  1708,  expresses  ad- 
herence to  the  Westminster  and  Savoy  Confessions  for  '  substance  of 
doctrine '  and  the  system  of  truths  commonly  known  as  '  Calvinism,' 
and  emphasizes  in  opposition  to  modern  infidelity  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  the  incarnation,  the  atonement,  and  other  fundamental  arti- 
cles of  the  common  Christian  faith. 

The  third  draft  was  read  by  the  Rev.  Alonzo  II.  Quint,  by  direction 
of  the  business  committee,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Council  held  June  22d, 
on  Burial  Hill,  Plymouth,  on  the  spot  where  the  first  meeting-house  of 
the  Pilgrims  stood,  and  which  Dr.  Bacon  declared  to  be  to  Congrega- 
tionalists  '  the  holiest  spot  of  all  the  earth.'  This  paper  was  substan- 
tially approved  and  referred  to  a  committee  of  revision  to  improve  the 
form.  This  committee  reported,  Friday,  June.  23,  through  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Stearns,  President  of  Amherst  College,  a  number  of  slight  verbal  alter- 
ations. In  this  improved  form  the  Declaration  was  twice  read  '  in  a 
distinct  and  impressive  manner,'  and  after  prayer  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ray 
Palmer,  of  New  York,  unanimously  adopted  by  rising.  The  singing  of 
Dr.  Palmer's  well-known  hymn,  'My  faith  looks  up  to  thee,'  and  the 
old  doxology, '  To  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,'  concluded  the  solem- 
nity.1 

1  The  Boston  Declaration  is  printed  in  Vol.  III.  p.  734. 


§  103.  AMERICAN  CONGREGATIONAL  CREEDS.  839 

The  same  Council  adopted  a  new  Platform  of  Discipline,  called  the 
Boston  Platform  of  1SG5,  and  published  by  the  Congregational  Board. 

This  virtually  supersedes  the  Cambridge  and  Saybrook  Platforms. 

THE  oi:i:i:i. IN    NATTOKAL   COUNCIL,  1871. 

The  Oberlin  Council  of  1S71  is  the  first  of  a  regular  triennial  series 
of  National  Councils  of  the  Congregational  churches  in  the  United 
States.1  It  adopted  a  constitution,  one  paragraph  of  which  briefly  re- 
fers to  the  rule  of  faith  in  a  very  general  way.- 

Note. — Besides  the  creeds  of  General  Councils,  there  are  in  use  among  American  Congre- 
gationalists  a  great  number  and  variety  of  creeds,  concerning  which  the  Bcv.  EDWABD  W. 
G  ii. man,  D.I).  (Secretary  of  the  American  Bible  Society)  kindly  furnishes  the  following  in- 
formation : 

'  1 .  State  Associations  and  Conferences. 

'The  usage  is  various.  The  General  Association  of  Massachusetts,  founded  in  1803,  ac- 
cepts as  a  basis  of  union  "the  doctrines  of  Christianity  as  they  are  generally  expressed  in 
the  Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism/'  So  do  the  General  Convention  of  Vermont,  founded 
179G,  and  the  General  Association  of  New  Hampshire,  founded  1747.  The  General  Asso- 
ciation of  New  York,  founded  1S34,  has  separate  Articles  of  Faith.  So  has  the  General 
Association  of  Illinois.  The  General  Conferences  of  Maine  and  Connecticut  have  no  ex- 
press doctrinal  basis. 

'2.  County  Consociations  (of  twenty  or  thirty  churches). 

'The  Lincoln  and  Kennebec  Consociation  (Maine),  1808,  recommended  to  its  constituent 
churches  Articles  of  "  Union,  Faith,  and  Practice."  The  Northwestern  Consociation  (Ver- 
mont), 1818,  recommended  to  its  churches  a  uniform  Confession  and  Covenant.  The  Litch- 
field South  Consociation  (Conn.),  1828,  prepared  a  Confession  and  Covenant  fir  the  general 
use  of  its  churches.  The  New  Haven  West  Consociation  (Conn.)  admits  only  churches 
which  accept  the  doctrinal  part  of  the  Saybrook  Platform. 

'3.  Institutions  of  Learning. 

'The  Hollis  Professor  of  Divinity  in  Harvard  College  must  "declare  it  as  his  belief  that 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice," 
and  the  first  incumbent  ( 1  722),  being  examined  by  the  Corporation,  declared  his  assent  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith  in  the  Assembly's  Catechism  and  to  the  doctrinal  Articles  of  the  Church 
of  England.  Assent  to  the  Westminster  Confession  or  the  Saybrook  Platform  was  required 
of  Professors  in  Yale  College  from  1758  to  1828.  In  the  Theological  Institution  at  Andover 
both  Visitors  and  Professors  are  required  to  subscribe  a  Declaration  of  Faith  drawn  up  by 
the  founders  in  1808,  and  to  renew  this  declaration  at  intervals  of  five  years. 

'4.  L>"  w.  <  in  BCHK8. 

'The  types  are  various,  and  while  each  church  is  at  liberty  to  construct  and  alter  its  own 

formulas,  certain  tendencies  towards  uniformity  of  usage,  at  different  periods,  are  noticeable. 

Individual  Professions.     Snch  wera  those  made  by  John  Cotton,  at  Charlestown,  in 

1680,  and  by  John  Davenport,  at  New  Haven,  in  1689.    (See  the  latter  in  Ancient  Waymarka, 

published  at  New  Haven  in  1858.     Sec  also  Cong.  Quarterly,  1869, Vol.  XI.  p,517.) 

1  Formerly  General  Councils  or  Synods  were  held  only  occasionally  (1687,  1646,  1648, 

1662,  1680,  l7os,  1852,  1866),  when  wme  1 troreny  OC  matter  of  special  concern  to  all  the 

churches  gee d  to  justify  them. 

3  Printed  in  Vol.  III.  p.  7:17. 

Vol.  1,-11  n  11 


840  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

1  (b)  Brief  general  references,  either  to  the  holy  Scriptures  as  the  only  rule  of  belief  and 
duty,  or  to  the  Westminster  Catechism  or  the  Boston  (i.e.,  Savoy)  Confession,  as  agreeable  to  the 
Scriptures.    This  usage  came  in  at  an  early  day,  and  was  current  at  the  beginning  of  this  century. 

'  (c)  Articles  of  Faith,  embracing  in  theological  phraseology  the  outlines  of  a  system  of 
divinity.  After  the  year  1800  these  came  into  general  use  as  formulas  for  the  reception  of 
members,  and  great  reliance  was  placed  upon  them  as  helps  in  maintaining  the  purity  of  the 
churches  against  the  inroads  of  false  doctrine.  Candidates  for  admission  to  Church  privileges 
were  required  to  give  their  assent  to  the  several  propositions,  which  thus  in  many  cases  were 
made  tests  of  worthiness.  Dr.  Samuel  Worcester  (Fitchburg,  1798)  and  Dr.  E.  D.  Griffin, 
the  first  pastor  of  the  Park  Street  Church,  Boston  (1811),  had  much  to  do  in  shaping  the  prac- 
tice of  the  churches  from  their  day  to  the  present  time.  Formulas  of  this  class  have,  however, 
been  subjected  to  various  modifications,  by  way  of  accommodation  to  individual  opinions,  or 
for  the  sake  of  denying  current  error,  or  of  emphasizing  truths  peculiar  to  the  Calvinistic 
system,  but  especially  in  order  to  secure  brevity  in  the  Church  service.  In  this  way  it  has 
unfortunately  sometimes  happened  that  doctrines  fundamental  to  Christianity  have  failed  to 
find  a  place  in  the  formal  Confession  of  Faith. 

'  (d)  Creeds  divested  of  theological  terms,  and  clothed  in  language  so  clear  and  simple  and 
general  as  to  prevent  no  Christian  from  giving  them  his  prompt  and  hearty  assent.  The 
revisions  of  the  last  twenty  years  have  been  looking  in  this  direction,  and  churches  are  be- 
ginning to  be  formed  with  no  other  symbol  of  faith  than  the  Apostles'  Creed.' 

§  104.  The  Anabaptists  and  Mennonites. 

Literature. 

I.   On   THE   ANABArTIBTS. 

The  writings  of  Luther,  Melanchthou,  Zwingli,  Calvin,  Bullinger,  and  other  Reformers  and  older  di- 
vines against  the  Anabaptists  are  polemical. 

H.  W.  Erukam  :  Gesckichte  der  Protest.  Sekten  im  Zeitalter  dcr  Reformation.  Hamburg  und  Gotha,  ISIS, 
pp.  479  sqq. 

Cornelius:  Geschichte  dcs  Miinstcrischcn  Aufruhrs.    Leipz.  1S55  and  1SC0,  2  vols. 

Karl  Hase:  Das  Reich  der  Wiedertavfer.    Neue  Propheten.    2d  edition,  Leipz.  1SC0. 

Bouterweck:  Zur  Liter,  und  Geschichte  der  Wiedertavfer.     Bonn,  1SC5. 

Gerii.  Uiilhorn  :  Die  Wiedertavfer  in  Munster,  in  his  Vermischte  Vortrage.   Stuttgart,  1875,  pp.  193  sqq. 

Comp.  also  SonREiuER's  Biography  of  Uiibmaier,  in  his  Taschenbuch  f.  Geschichte  und  Alterthum  in 
Siiddeulschland,  1839  and  1840. 

II.  On  the  Mennonites. 

Menno  Simons  :  Fundamentnm,  1539, 1558,  etc. ;  Opera,  Amst.  1G46,  4to ;  Opera  ovinia  theologica,  Amst. 
1681,  in  1  vol.  fol.    (Both  editions  in  Dutch.) 

Herm.  Souyn:  Historia  Christianorum  qui  in  Belgio  foederato  Mennonitce  appellantur.  Amst.  1723. 
The  same  in  Dutch,  with  additions  by  Geiardus  Maatschoen,  Amst.  1743-1745,  in  3  vols.  12mo.  By  the 
same :  Histor.  Mennonit.  plenior  Deductio.    1729. 

S.  Blaupot  Ten  C'ate  :  Gesehiedenis  der  Doopsgczinden.    Amsterdam,  1S39-47.    5  vols.  Svo. 

Cramer:  The  Life  of  Menno  Sim.    Amst.  1S37  (Dutch). 

Harper  :  Leben  Menno  Simons.    Konigsberg,  1846. 

Roosen  :  Menno  Simons.     Leipz.  1S48. 

Erbkam  :  Geschichte  der  Protest.  Sekten,  pp.  4S0,  571. 

Gieseler :  Kirchengeschichte,  Vol.  III.  Part  II.  pp.  90  sqq. 

Henke  :  Neuere  Kirchengescliichte  {herausgegehen  von  Dr.  Gass).    Halle,  1S74,  Vol.  I.  pp.  414  sqq. 

The  various  branches  of  the  Baptist  family  of  Christians1  differ  very 
widely,  and  have  little  or  no  connection  except  that  they  agree  in 
rejecting  infant  baptism  and  in  requiring  a  personal  and  voluntary 

1  Mennonites,  Calvinistic  Baptists,  Arminian  Baptists,  Dunkers,  River  Brethren,  Seventh- 
Day  Baptists,  Six-Principle  Baptists,  Disciples  or  Campbellites.  The  last  are  very  numerous 
in  the  West ;  they  reject  all  creeds  on  principle. 


§  mi.  THE  ANABAPTISTS  AND  MENNONITIX  g^ 

profession  of  faith  in  Christ  as  a  necessary  condition  of  baptism. 
Most  of  them  agree  also  in  opposition  to  sprinkling,  or  any  other 
mode  of  baptism  but  that  by  total  immersion  of  the  body  in  Mater. 
The  largest  and  most  respectable  denomination  of  Baptists  took  its 
rise  in  the  great  religions  commotion  of  England  during  the  seven- 
teenth century,  and  differed  from  the  Puritans  only  in  the  doctrine 
of  baptism  and  in  the  steadfast  advocacy  of  religious  freedom.  But 
the  Baptist  movement  began  a  century  earlier  on  the  Continent,  and 
this  first  stage  must  at  least  be  briefly  noticed. 

THE    ANAIIAPTISTS. 

The  early  history  of  the  Anabaptists  exhibits  a  strange  chaos  of 
peaceful  reforms  and  violent  revolutions — separatism,  mysticism,  mil- 
lenarianism,  spiritualism,  contempt  of  history,  ascetic  rigor,  fanati- 
cism, communism,  and  some  novel  speculations  concerning  the  body 
of  Christ  as  being  directly  created  by  God,  and  different  from  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  other  men.  An  impartial  history,  with  a  careful 
critical  sifting  of  these  incongruous  elements,  is  still  a  desideratum. 

The  modern  Anabaptists1  figure  prominently  in  the  history  of  the 
Reformation,  and  meet  us  in  Germany,  Switzerland,  Holland,  and 
England.  They  were  Protestant  radicals,  who  rejected  infant  baptism 
as  an  invention  of  the  Roman  Antichrist,  and  aimed  at  a  thorough 
reconstruction  of  the  Church.  They  spread  mostly  among  the  labor- 
ing classes.  Some  of  their  preachers  had  no  regular  education,  de- 
spised human  learning,  and  relied  on  direct  inspiration ;  but  others 
were  learned  and  eloquent  men,  as  Grebcl,  Manz,  Ilctzcr,  Iliib- 
maier,  Denk,  Roublin,  and  Rothmann.  They  were  regarded  as  a 
set  of  dangerous  fanatics,  who  could  not  be  tolerated  under  a  Chris- 
tian government.  Their  supposed  or  real  connection  with  the  Peas- 
ant War,  against  the  tyranny  of  landholders  (1524),  and  with  the 
bloody  and  disastrous  excesses  at  Minister  (1534-),  increased  the  oppo- 
sition.    Their  doctrines  were  condemned  in  the  Lutheran   and  Re- 

1  Or  Rebaptizers,  so  called  by  their  opponents  became  they  rebaptized  those  baptized  in 
infancy,  while  they  themselves  denied  the  validity  of  infant  baptism  (some  of  them  Catkolu 
baptism  in  general),  and  regarded  voluntary  baptism  in  yean  of  discretion  as  the  only  true 

baptism.  The  ancient  Anabaptistl  OT  Rebaptizers,  headed  by  Cyprian,  denied  the  validity  of 
heretical  baptism,  and  carried  the  principle  of  Catholic  c\<-hid\iMii  to  a  logical  extreme, 
which  the  Roman  Church  has  always  rejected. 


S±2  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

formed  Confessions.  The  Reformers,  even  the  mildest  among  them 
(Melanchthon,  Bucer,  Bullinger,  and  Cramner,  as  well  as  Luther, 
Zwingli,  and  Calvin),  felt  that  their  extermination  was  necessary  for 
the  salvation  of  the  churchly  Reformation  and  social  order.  And 
vet  they  must  have  known  worthy  men  among  them  ;  Calvin  him- 
self married  the  widow  of  an  Anabaptist  pastor.  Protestant  and 
Roman  Catholic  magistrates  vied  with  each  other  in  cruelty  against 
them,  and  put  them  to  death  by  drowning,  hanging,  and  burning. 

But  it  is  the  greatest  injustice  to  make  the  Anabaptists  as  such  re- 
sponsible for  the  extravagances  that  led  to  the  tragedy  at  Miinster. 
Their  original  and  final  tendencies  were  orderly  and  peaceful.  They 
disowned  the  wild  fanaticism  of  Thomas  Miinzer,  John  Bockelsohn, 
and  Knipperdolling.  They  were  opposed  to  war  and  violence.  They 
were  the  crude  harbingers  and  martyrs  of  some  truths  which  have  ger- 
minated in  other  ages.  They  upheld  the  necessity  of  discipline  and 
congregational  organization  on  the  basis  of  personal  faith  in  Christ, 
instead  of  carnal  descent  and  parochial  boundaries.  They  attacked 
the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  damnation  of  unbaptized  infants,  and  the 
equally  horrible  doctrine  of  persecution.  Balthasar  Hubmaier  (Illib- 
mor,  or,  as  he  was  called  by  a  Latin  name,  Pacimontanus),  the  ablest 
and  most  learned  among  the  Anabaptists,  a  pupil  of  Dr.  Eck  (Luther's 
opponent),  and  for  some  time  Professor  of  Catholic  Theology  at  In- 
golstadt,  then  a  zealous  and  eloquent  Protestant  preacher,  was  per- 
haps the  first  who  taught  the  principle  of  universal  religious  liberty, 
on  the  ground  that  Christ  came  not  to  kill  and  to  burn,  but  to  save,  and 
condemned  the  employment  of  force  in  his  kingdom.  lie  held  that 
those  only  are  heretics  who  willfully  and  wickedly  oppose  the  holy 
Scriptures ;  and  even  these  ought  to  be  treated  by  no  other  than  moral 
means  of  persuasion  and  instruction.1  He  was  burned  at  the  stake  in 
Vienna,  March  10, 1528,  and  died  with  pious  joy ;  his  wife,  who  encour- 
aged him  in  his  martyr  spirit,  was  three  days  afterwards  drowned  iri 
the  Danube. 

THE   MENNONITES. 

Menno  Simons,  a  converted  Roman  Catholic  priest,  collected  the 
scattered  remnant  of  the  Anabaptists  into  a  well-organized,  peaceful, 

1  Von  Kelzern  und  ihren  Vcrbrennern.     A  very  rare  book. 


§  104.  Till-:  ANABAPTISTS  AND  MENNONITES.  843 

and  industrious  community  in  Holland  and  on  the  borders  of  Germany 
(153G).  He  gave  them  a  strict  system  of  discipline,  and  endeavored 
to  revive  the  idea  of  a  pure  apostolic  congregation  consisting  of  true  be- 
lievers unmixed  with  the  world.  He  labored  in  constant  peril  of  life 
with  untiring  patience  till  his  death,  Jan.  13, 1561.  'For  eighteen  years,9 
he  says, '  with  my  poor  feeble  wife  and  little  children,  has  it  behooved 
me  to  bear  great  and  various  anxieties,  sufferings,  griefs,  afflictions, 
miseries,  and  persecutions,  and  in  everyplace  to  find  a  bare  existence, 
in  fear  and  danger  of  my  life.  "While  some  preachers  are  reclining  on 
their  soft  beds  and  downy  pillows,  we  oft  are  hidden  in  the  caves  of 
the  earth;  while  they  are  celebrating  the  nuptial  or  natal  days  of  their 
children  with  feasts  and  pipes,  and  rejoicing  with  the  timbrel  and  the 
harp,  we  are  looking  anxiously  about,  fearing  the  barking  of  the  dogs, 
lest  persecutors  should  be  suddenly  at  the  door;  while  they  arc  saluted 
by  all  around  as  doctors,  masters,  lords,  we  are  compelled  to  hear  our- 
selves called  Anabaptists,  ale-house  preachers,  seducers,  heretics,  and 
to  be  hailed  in  the  devil's  name.  In  a  word,  while  they  for  their  min- 
istry are  remunerated  with  annual  stipends  and  prosperous  days,  our 
wages  are  the  fire,  the  sword,  the  death.' 1 

His  followers  were  called  Meiinonites  after  his  death.2  They  ac- 
quired at  last  toleration,  first  in  Holland  from  Prince  William  of 
Orange,  1572,  and  full  liberty  in  1G2G.  They  spread  to  the  Palati- 
nate, Switzerland,  Eastern  Prussia,  and  by  emigration  to  South  Russia, 
Pennsylvania,  and  other  parts  of  North  America.  Quite  recently  sev- 
eral hundred  families  left  their  Russian  settlements  for  America  be- 
cause the  privilege  of  exemption  from  military  service  was  withdrawn. 
They  are  a  small,  quiet,  peaceful,  industrious,  and  moral  community, 
like  the  Quakers.  Their  historian,  Schyn,  labors  to  show  that  they 
have  no  connection  whatever  with  the  fanatical  and  revolutionary 
Anabaptists  of  Minister. 

The  Meunonites  were  divided  during  the  lifetime  of  Menno  into 
two  parties  on  questions  of  discipline:  1,  the  'coarse'  Mennonites  {die 
Groben),  or  Waterlanders,  who  were  more  numerous,  and  flourished  in 

'Schyn,  Plenior  Deduct,  p.  183  (quoted  in  Introd.  to  Baptist  Tracti  on  Liberty 
scu  nee,  ]>.  Ixxxii). 

'-  or  Doopsgezinden,  i.e.,  Dippers.  In  Memo's  writings  they  are  called  GemeeiUt  Gods, 
ettendige,  wccrlozc  Ckriatenen,  brooders,  etc,  bat  never  Mennonitet.  See  Gieseler,YoL  III. 
Pt  II.  p.  92. 


S44  THE  CREEDS  OE  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  Waterland  district  of  North  Holland  ;  2,  the  '  refined '  Mennonites 
{die  Feinen),  who  were  chiefly  Flemings,  Frieslanders,  and  Germans. 
The  latter  adhered  to  the  strict  discipline  of  the  founder. 

The  Mennonites  acknowledge  '  the  Confession  of  Waterland,'  which 
was  drawn  up  by  two  of  their  preachers,  John  His  (Hans  de  Rys)  and 
Lubbert  Gerardi  (Gerritsz),  in  the  Dutch  language.1 

It  consists  of  forty  Articles,  and  teaches,  besides  the  common  doc- 
trines of  Protestant  orthodoxy,  the  peculiar  views  of  this  community. 
It  rejects  oaths  (Art.  XXXVIII.,  on  the  ground  of  Matt.  v.  37  and 
James  v.  10),  war  (XYIIL),  and  secular  office-holding,  because  it  is  not 
commanded  by  Christ  and  is  inconsistent  with  true  Christian  character ; 
but  it  enjoins  obedience  to  the  civil  magistrate  as  a  divine  appointment 
wherever  it  does  not  contradict  the  Word  of  God  and  interfere  with 
the  dictates  of  conscience  (XXXVIL).  The  Church  consists  of  the 
faithful  and  regenerate  men  scattered  over  the  earth,  under  Christ  the 
Lord  and  King  (XXIV.).  Infant  baptism  is  rejected  as  unscriptural 
(XXXI.) ;  but  the  Mennonites  differ  from  other  Baptists  by  sprink- 
ling.2 On  the  Lord's  Supper  they  agree  with  Zwingli.  They  admit 
hereditary  sin,  but  deny  its  guilt  (Art.  IV.).  They  hold  to  condition- 
al election  and  universal  redemption.3  But  during  the  Arminian  con- 
troversy a  portion  sided  with  the  strict  Calvinists.  They  reject  also 
law-suits,  revenge,  every  kind  of  violence,  and  worldly  amusements. 
In  many  respects  they  are  the  forerunners  of  the  Quakers  quite  as 
much  as  of  the  English  and  American  Baptists. 

1  Schyn  gives  a  Latin  translation,  in  his  Historia  Mennonitarum,  pp.  172-220,  under  the 
title,  Prceci/iuoruni  Christians  fidei  Articulorum  brevis  Confessio  adornata  a  Joanne  Risio  et 
Lubber  to  Gerardi.  He  calls  it  also  Mennonitarum  Confessio,  or  Formula  Consensus  inter  Water- 
landos.  He  says  the  confessions  of  the  other  branches  of  the  Mennonites  agree  with  it  in  all 
fundamental  articles.  Winer  (Compar.  Darstellung,  etc.,  pp.  24,  25),  gives  a  list  of  Mennon- 
ite  Confessions  and  Catechisms. 

2  One  branch  of  them,  the  Collegiants  or  Rhynsburgers,  held,  however,  to  the  necessity  of 
immersion.  They  have  but  recently  become  extinct,  having  had  among  them  some  men  of 
distinction. 

3  Art.  VII.  derives  sin  exclusively  from  the  will  of  man,  and  teaches  that  God  predestinated 
and  created  all  men  for  salvation  (omnes  decrevit  et  creavit  ad  salutem),  that  he  provided  the 
remedy  for  all,  that  Christ  died  for  all,  and  saves  all  who  believe  and  persevere. 


lOJ.  THE  REGULAR  OR  CALVINISTIC  BAPTISTS.  $±{ 


§  105.  The  Regulab  ob  Calvinistic  Baptists. 

Literature. 

Confessions  0/ Faith  and  other  Puttie  Documents  illustratiee  of  the  History  of  the  Baptist  Churches  of 
England  in  the  Seventeenth  Omtury.  Edited  for  the  Hanserd  Knollyi  Society  by  Bswabd  Bkan  Umdxshill. 
Loudon  (Iladdou  Brothers  &  Co.),  l&M.  Contains  reprints  of  seven  Baptist  Confessions  from  1611  to 
16S8,  the  Baptist  Catechism  of  Collins,  and  several  letters  and  other  documents  from  the  early  history  of 
Baptists  In  England. 

Tnos.  Crosby:  The  History  of  the  English  Baptists,  from  the  Reformation  t»  the  Beginning  of  the  Reign 
of  King  George  I.    London,  174i>.    4  vols.    Contains  important  documents,  but  also  many  iuaccurncies. 

JosKi-u  Ivi.mkv:  History  of  the  English  Baptists,  including  an  Investigation  of  the  History  if  Baptism  in 
England.    London,  1811-88.    Iu3vols.  Svo. 

Isaac  Backus  (d.  1806) :  History  of  Sew  England,  with  especial  Reference  to  the  Baptists.  In  8  veils.  A 
new  edition,  by  David  Weston,  was  published  by  the  Backus  Historical  Society,  Newton  Centre,  Mass.lSTl. 

David  Bk.nkihct  (Pastor  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  Pawtncket,  H.  I.) :  A  (lateral  History  <f  the  Baptist 
Denom  ination  in  A  merica  and  other  Parts  of  the  World.  Boston,  1S13,  in  2  vole. ;  new  edition,  New  York, 
1848,  in  1  vol.  (978  pp.)-    A  chaos  of  facts. 

Fbanois  Wa  vi.am>  :  Notes  011  the  Principles  and  Practices  of  the  Ba])tist  Churches.  New  York  (Sheldon, 
Blakeman,  &  Co.),  1S57. 

SlWAU.  S.  Ccttinu  :  Historical  Vindications;  .  .  .  with  Appendices  containing  Historical  Xotes  and  Con- 
fessions if  Faith.    Boston  (Gould  &  Lincoln),  1S59. 

J.  M.  Ckamv:  Baptist  History,from  the  Foundation  of  the  Christian  Church  to  the  Close  of  the  Eighteenth 
Century.    Philadelphia  (American  Baptist  Publication  Society),  1SGS.    For  popular  use. 

J.  Jackgon  Goadby  :  Bye-Paths  in  Baptist  History:  A  Collection  of  Interesting,  Instructive,  and  Curious 
Information,  not  generally  known,  concerning  the  Baptist  Denomination.  London,  1S74  (pp.  375).  Chap. 
VI.  treats  of  Baptist  Confessions  of  Faith. 

The  Baptists  and  the  National  Centennial:  A  Record  of  Christian  Work,  1776-1S7G.  Edited  by  Lbwtxx 
Moss,  D.D.  Philadelphia  (Baptist  Publication  Society),  1S76  Contains  a  chapter  on  '  Doctrinal  History 
and  Position,'  by  Dr.  Pepper,  pp.  51  sqq. 

The  English  and  American  Baptists  have  inherited  some  of  the 
principles  without  the  eccentricities  and  excesses  of  the  Continental 
Anabaptists  and  Mennonites.1  They  are  radical  but  not  revolution- 
ary in  politics  and  religion,  and  as  sober,  orderly,  peaceful,  zealous, 
and  devoted  as  any  other  class  of  Christians.  They  rose  simultaneous- 
ly in  England  and  America  during  the  Puritan  conflict,  and  have  be- 
come, next  to  the  Methodists,  the  strongest  denomination  in  the  United 
States. 

The  great  body  of  Baptists  are  called  Regular  or  Particular  or 
Calvinistic  Baptists,  in  distinction  from  the  smaller  body  of  Gen- 
eral or  Arminian  or  Free-Will  Baptists.  They  are  Calvinists  in  doc- 
trine and  Independents  in  Church  polity,  but  differ  from  both  in  their 
views  on  the  Subjects  and  mode  of  baptism.  They  teach  that  believers 
only  ought  to  be  baptized,  that  is,  dipped  or  immersed,  on  a  voluntary 
confession  of  their  faith.     They  reject  infant  baptism  as  an  unscript- 

1  Their  older  scholars  claim  an  origin  earlier  than  the  Continental  or  the  English  Ref- 
ormation, going  hack  to  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  and  to  the  Lollard  movement  follow- 
ing, in  Britain,  the  labors  of  Wycliff.  The  tradition  of  the  Holland  Mennonites  gave  them 
a  Waldensian  ancestry.  Bnt  these  points  are  disputed,  nnd  no  historical  connection  can  he 
traced. 


S46  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ural  innovation  and  profanation  of  the  sacrament,  since  an  infant  can 
not  hear  the  gospel,  nor  repent  and  make  a  profession  of  faith.  They 
believe,  however,  in  the  salvation  of  all  children  dying  before  the  age 
of  responsibility.  Baptism  in  their  system  has  no  regenerative  and 
saving  efficacy :  it  is  simply  an  outward  sign  of  grace  already  be- 
stowed, a  public  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  to  the  world,  and  an 
entrance  into  the  privileges  and  duties  of  church  membership.1  They 
also  opposed  from  the  start  national  church  establishments,  and  the 
union  of  Church  and  State,  which  one  of  their  greatest  writers  (Robert 
Hall)  calls  'little  more  than  a  compact  between  the  priest  and  the 
magistrate  to  betray  the  liberties  of  mankind,  both  civil  and  relig- 
ious.' They  advocate  voluntaryism,  and  make  the  doctrine  of  re- 
ligious freedom,  as  an  inherent  and  universal  right  of  man,  a  part  of 
their  creed. 

THE   BAPTISTS   IN   ENGLAND. 

In  England  the  Baptists  were  for  a  long  time  treated  with  extreme 
severity  on  account  of  their  supposed  connection  with  the  fanatical 
fraction  of  the  German  and  Dutch  Anabaptists.  A  number  of  them 
who  had  fled  from  Holland  were  condemned  to  death  or  exiled  (1535 
and  1539).  Latimer  speaks,  in  a  sermon  before  Edward  VI.,  of  Ana- 
baptists who  were  burned  to  death  under  Henry  VIIL,  in  divers 
towns,  and  met  their  fate  -  cheerfully  and  without  any  fear.' 

Under  Edward  VI.  they  became  numerous  in  the  south  of  England, 
especially  in  Kent  and  Essex.  Two  were  burned — a  Dutchman,  named 
George  van  Pare,  and  an  English  woman,  Joan  Boucher,  usually  called 
Joan  of  Kent.  These  were  the  only  executions  for  heresy  during  his 
reign.  The  young  king  reluctantly  and  with  tears  yielded  to  Cranmer, 
who  urged  on  him  from  the  Mosaic  law  the  duty  of  punishing  blas- 
phemy and  fundamental  heresy.  Joan  of  Kent,  besides  rejecting  in- 
fant baptism,  was  charged  with  holding  the  doctrine  of  some  German 
and  Dutch  Anabaptists,  that  Christ's  sinless  humanity  was  not  taken 
'  from  the  substance  of  the  Virgin  Mary,'  who  was  a  sinner,  but  was 
immediately  created  by  God.  She  resisted  every  effort  of  Cranmer  to 
change  her  views,  and  preferred  martyrdom  (May  2, 1550).  Several  of 
the  Forty-two  Edwardine  Articles  were  directed  against  the  Anabaptists. 

1  The  Campbellites,  or  Disciples,  differ  from  tlie  other  Baptists  by  identifying  baptismal 
immersion  with  regeneration,  or  teaching  a  concurrence  of  both  acts. 


§  105.  THE  EtEGULAB  OB  CALVINISTIC  BAPTISTS.  g  ;; 

Under  Elizabeth  a  congregation  of  Dutch  Anabaptists  was  discov- 
ered in  London;  twenty-seven  members  were  imprisoned,  some  re- 
canted, some  were  banished  from  the  kingdom.  The  two  most  ob- 
stinate, John  Wielmaker  and  Henry  Terwoort,  were  committed  to  the 
flames  in  Smithtield,  July  22,  1575,  notwithstanding  the  petition  of 
John  Foxe,  the  martyrologist,  who  begged  the  queen  to  spare  them, 
not  indeed  from  prison  or  exile  (which  he  deemed  a  just  punishment 
for  heresy),  but  from  being  'roasted  alive  in  fire  and  flame,'  which 
was  'a  hard  thing,  and  more  agreeable  «to  the  practice  of  Rbmanists 
than  to  the  custom  of  Evangelicals.'1  These  Dutch  Anabaptists  were 
charged  with  'most  damnable  and  detestable  heresies,'  such  as  that 
Christ  took  not  flesh  from  the  substance  of  Mary;  that  infants  ought 
not  to  be  baptized ;  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  a  Christian  man  to  be  a 
magistrate  or  bear  the  sword  or  take  an  oath.  These  are  evidently 
doctrines  of  the  Mennonites,  afterwards  adopted  by  the  Quakers,  and 
now  generally  tolerated  without  any  injury  to  society. 

During  the  reigns  of  James  and  Charles  the  Baptists  made  common 
cause  with  the  Puritans,  especially  the  Independents,  against  the  pre- 
latical  Church,  but  withdrew  more  completely  from  the  national  wor- 
ship, and  secretly  assembled  in  woods,  stables,  and  barns  for  religious 
worship.  They  began  to  organize  separate  congregations  (1G33),  but 
were  punished  whenever  discovered.  Many  fled  to  Holland,  and  some 
to  America.  Their  earliest  publications  were  pleas  for  liberty  of  con- 
science.2 

With  the  Long  Parliament  they  acquired  a  little  freedom,  though 
their  views  were  opposed  by  Presbyterians  and  Independents,  as  well 
as  by  Episcopalians.  They  increased  rapidly  during  the  civil  wars. 
In  1644  they  numbered  seven  congregations  in  London,  and  forty- 
seven  in  the  country.  Cromwell  left  them  unmolested.  He  had 
many  of  them  in  his  army,  and  some  even  held  positions  in  his  ex- 
perimental Broad  Church.3    Milton  is  claimed  by  them,  on  the  ground 

1  Sec  Foxe'fl  letter  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  in  Latin,  in  Append.  III.  to  Neal'B  History  (Vol.  II. 
p.  139). 

the  Tracta  on  Liberty  of  Conscience,  republished  for  tlie  Hanserd  Knollya  Society  by 
]"..  B.  (Jnderhil]  (London,  1846),  which  contains  seven  Baptist  works  on  this  suljcet  from 
1C14  to  1661.    On  Roger  Williams,  see  below, 

■  Samm  1  Richardson,  a  Baptist,  who  knew  him  personally,  speaks  very  highly  of  Cromwell, 
as  a  man  who  '  aimeth  at  the  general  good  of  the  nation  and  just  liberty  of  every  man,  who  is 


S4:8  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  a  passage  unfavorable  to  infant  baptism,  but  with  no  more  justice 
than  Arians,  Unitarians,  and  Quakers  may  claim  him.1 

After  the  Restoration  they  were  again  persecuted  by  fines,  impris- 
onment, and  torture.  They  suffered  more  severely  than  any  other 
Non-  conformists,  except  the  Quakers.  Among  their  most  distin- 
guished confessors,  who  spent  much  time  in  prison,  were  Vavasor 
Powell  (d.  1670),  Hanserd  Knollys  (d.  1690),2  Benjamin  Keach,  and 
John  Banyan  (d.  1688). 

The  Act  of  Toleration  (1689)  brought  relief  to  the  Baptists,  and 
enabled  them  to  build  chapels  and  spread  throughout  the  country. 
Since  then  they  have  become  one  of  the  leading  branches  of  Dis- 

faithful  to  the  saints,  who  hath  owned  the  poor  despised  people  of  God,  and  advanced  many 
to  a  better  way  and  means  of  living.'     See  Tracts  on  Liberty  of  Conscience,  p.  240. 

1  Milton,  it  seems,  withdrew  at  last  from  all  Church  organizations,  regarding  them  with 
equal  respect  and  indifference,  except  the  Romanists,  whom  he  excludes  from  toleration  as 
idolaters  and  enemies  of  toleration.  With  his  illustrious  friend,  the  younger  Sir  Henry 
Vane,  whom,  as  understanding  the  true  relations  of  Church  and  State,  he  praises  in  one  of 
his  most  beautiful  sonnets,  he  joined  the  '  Seekers,'  a  body  looking  for  a  more  perfect  Church 
yet  to  come.  Roger  Williams,  the  friend  of  both  poet  and  statesman,  joined  them  in  his  last 
years  in  occupying  the  same  ground.  In  1G73,  the  year  before  his  death,  Milton  published  a 
treatise  on  '  True  Religion,  Heresy,  Schism,  Toleration,  and  the  Best  Means  against  the 
Growth  of  Popery,'  in  which  he  defines  heresy  to  be  'a  religion  taken  up  and  believed  from 
the  traditions  of  men  and  additions  to  the  Word  of  God.'  In  this  sense  Popery  is  the  only  or 
the  greatest  heresy ;  its  very  name,  Roman  Catholic,  a  contradiction ;  one  of  the  Pope's  bulls 
as  universal  particular,  or  catholic  schismatic  ;  while  Protestants  are  free  from  heresy, 
which  is  in  the  will  and  choice  professedly  against  the  Scriptures.  He  represents  four  classes 
of  Protestants — Lutherans,  Calvinists,  Anabaptists,  and  Socinians — as  agreed  in  the  articles 
essential  to  salvation,  and  says :  '  The  Lutheran  holds  consubstantiation ;  an  error,  indeed, 
but  not  mortal.  The  Calvinist  is  taxed  with  predestination,  and  to  make  God  the  author  of 
sin,  not  with  any  dishonorable  thought  of  God,  but  it  may  be  overzealously  asserting  his 
absolute  power,  not  without  plea  of  Scripture.  The  Anabaptist  is  accused  of  denying  infants 
their  right  to  baptism ;  again,  they  say  they  deny  nothing  but  what  Scripture  denies  them. 
The  Arian  and  Socinian  are  charged  to  dispute  against  the  Trinity;  they  affirm  to  believe 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  according  to  Scripture  and  the  Apostolic  Creed.  As  for 
terms  of  trinity,  trim-unity,  co-essentiality,  tri-personality,  and  the  like,  they  reject  them  as 
scholastic  notions,  not  to  be  found  in  Scripture,  which,  by  a  general  Protestant  maxim,  is 
plain  and  perspicuous  abundantly  to  explain  its  own  meaning  in  the  properest  words  belong- 
ing to  so  high  a  matter  and  so  necessary  to  be  known ;  a  mystery  indeed  in  their  sophistic 
subtleties,  but  in  Scripture  a  plain  doctrine.  Their  other  opinions  are  of  less  moment.  They 
dispute  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  or  rather  the  word  satisfaction,  as  not  Scriptural,  but  they 
acknowledge  him  both  God  and  their  Saviour.  The  Arminian,  lastly,  is  condemned  for  setting 
up  free-will  against  free-grace ;  but  that  imputation  he  disclaims  in  all  his  writings,  and 
grounds  himself  largely  upon  Scripture  only.' 

8  Knollys  fled  to  Massachusetts  (1038),  and  preached  for  some  time  in  the  extreme  north- 
ern part  of  the  colony,  but,  being  exposed  to  danger  as  a  Baptist  and  Separatist,  he  returned 
to  England  in  1(341.  The  society  for  the  republication  of  scarce  old  Baptist  tracts  is  called 
after  him. 


§  103.  THE  REGULAR  OR  CALVINISTIC  BAPTISTS.  §49 

senters  in  England.  They  have  produced  some  of  tlio  most  eminent 
preachers  and  authors  in  the  English  language,  such  as  John  Banyan, 
Andrew  Fuller,  Robert  Hull,  John  Foster,  Joseph  Angus,  C.  II.  Spur- 
geon. 

ROGER   WILLIAMS. 

Literature. 

See  Lives  of  Roger  Williams  by  Kkowms  (1884),  Qjumnx  (1S45,  ls46,  1*M),  nnd  Ei.ton  (18B 
Arnold's  History  of  Rhode  Inland  (1880),  Vol  I. ;  Palfbky's  History  of  New  England,  Vols.  I.  and  11.:  Bam- 
OSOrr'e  History  of  the  C.S.,\o\.  I.  ;  M  LBSOIT,  lAft  Of  Milton,\u\.  II.  pp.  660  sqrj.,  078  sq.  >  AlUBOHK,  Diet. of 
Brit,  and  A  our.  Author 8,VoL  III.  p.  'JT4T  ;  and  Dexter,  .1*  to Roger  Williams  and  his  ' Vanishment'  from 
the  Massachusetts  Plantation  (Boston,  18T6). 

The  works  of  Williams  were  republished  by  the  Norrag&nsett  Club  (First  Series,  Vol.  I.,  Providence, 
lSGG),aud  by  Underbill  for  the  Ilauserd  Kuollys  Society  (Loudon,  184S), 

In  America  the  Baptists  trace  their  origin  chiefly  but  not  exclu- 
sively to  Roger  Williams  (b.  probably  in  Wales,  1509, !  d.  in  Provi- 
dence, R.  I.,  16S3),  the  founder  of  Rhode  Island.  Originally  a  cler- 
gyman in  the  Church  of  England,  he  became  a  rigid  separatist,  a 
radical  come-outer  of  all  Church  establishments,  an  'arch-individual- 
ist,' and  an  advocate  of  'soul-liberty'  in  the  widest  acceptation  of  the 
term.  lie  was  a  pious,  zealous,  unselfish,  kind-hearted,  but  eccentric, 
'conscientiously  contentious,'  and  impracticable  genius,  a  real  tronbler 
in  Israel,  who  could  not  get  along  with  any  body  but  himself;  and 
this  accounts  for  his  troubles,  which,  however,  were  overruled  for 
good.  Cotton  Mather  compared  him  to  a  windmill,  which,  by  its 
rapid  motion  in  consequence  of  a  violent  storm,  became  so  intensely 
heated  that  it  took  fire  and  endangered  the  whole  town. 

Pursued  out  of  his  land  by  Bishop  Laud,  as  he  says,  he  emigrated 
with  a  heavy  heart,  in  company  with  his  wife  Mary,  to  the  colony  of 
Massachusetts,  and  arrived  after  a  tedious  and  tempestuous  voyage  in 
February,  1631. 

lie  first  exercised  his  ministerial  gifts  as  an  assistant  to  the  pastor 
of  Plymouth  Colony,  and  acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  Indian  language. 
In  1033  he  removed  to  Salem  as  assistant  of  Mr.  Skelton,  and  in  1635 
he  was  ordained  pastor  of  Salem   Church.      But  he  was  even  then 

1  The  accounts  of  tlic  year  <>f  his  birth  vary  Prom  1598  to  1606.  He  was  a  protege*  of  the 
celebrated  judge,  sir  Edward  Coke.  Hietoriana  differ  as  to  whether  lie  was  Rodericus 
Williams,  from  Wales,  who  entered  Jesus  ('(.Urge,  Oxford,  in  1624,  or  Rogenu  Williams, 

whose  name  appears  in  the  mbscription-1 k  of  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge,  in  1626. 

Elton  and  Afassoo  take  the  former,  Arnold  and  Dexter  the  tatter  view,  which  better  ngrces 
with  his  Christian  name. 


850  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

in  open  opposition  to  the  prevailing  views  and  customs  of  the  colony, 
and  refused  to  take  the  oath  of  fidelity.  Besides  this,  he  was  charged 
with  advocating  certain  opinions  supposed  to  be  dangerous,  viz.,  that 
the  magistrate  ought  not  to  punish  offenses  against  the  first  table; 
that  an  oath  ought  not  to  be  tendered  to  an  unregenerate  man ;  that  a 
regenerate  man  ought  not  to  pray  with  the  unregenerate,  though  it  be 
his  wife  or  child ;  that  a  man  ought  not  to  give  thanks  after  the  sacra- 
ment nor  after  meat.  He  was  unwilling  to  retract,  and  advised  his 
church  to  withdraw  from  communion  with  the  other  churches  of  the 
colony,  'as  full  of  anti-Christian  pollution.5  For  these  reasons  the 
court  banished  Williams  (Oct.,  1635).  The  question  of  toleration  was 
implied  in  the  first  charge;  he  denied  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil 
magistrate  over  matters  of  conscience  and  religion,  and  defended 
this  principle  afterwards  in  a  book,  '  The  Bloudy  Tenent  of  Persecu- 
tion for  Cause  of  Conscience,'  against  John  Cotton  (1644).1  His  views 
on  baptism  were  developed  afterwards ;  but  they  would  only  have 
aggravated  his  case,  and  in  fact  his  rebaptism  brought  upon  him  the 
sentence  of  excommunication  from  the  church  of  Salem,  of  which  he 
was  still  nominally  a  member.2 


1  This  book  was  anonymously  published  in  London,  when  Williams  was  there  occupied  in 
obtaining  a  charter  for  Rhode  Island,  and  is  exceedingly  rare,  only  six  copies  being  known 
to  exist ;  but  it  has  been  reprinted  from  the  copy  in  the  Bodleian  Library  by  Edward  Lean 
Underbill,  together  with  the  Answer  to  Cotton's  Letter  and  a  Memoir  of  Williams  (London, 
1848,  pp.  439  and  xxxvi.).  It  is  written  in  a  kindly  and  moderate  spirit,  free  from  the  con- 
troversial bitterness  of  the  age,  in  the  form  of  a  conference  between  Truth  and  Peace.  Will- 
iams begins  with  this  sentence :  '  The  blood  of  so  many  hundred  thousand  souls  of  Protest- 
ants and  Papists,  spilt  in  the  wars  of  present  and  former  ages,  for  their  respective  consciences, 
is  not  required  nor  accepted  by  Jesus  Christ,  the  Prince  of  Peace.'  He  maintains  that  civil 
government  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  spiritual  matters,  over  which  God  alone  rules, 
and  that  religious  liberty  should  be  extended  not  only  to  all  Christian  denominations  and 
sects,  but  even  to  '  the  most  Paganish,  Jewish,  Turkish,  or  anti-Christian  consciences  and 
worships'  (p.  2).  John  Cotton,  his  chief  opponent,  wrote  in  reply  'The  Bloudy  Tenent 
washed,  and  made  white  in  the  Blond  of  the  Lambe :  being  discussed  and  discharged  of 
blood -guiltiness  by  just  Defense'  (London,  1GA7).  Williams  defended  his  position  in 
'  The  Bloody  Tenent  yet  more  Bloody  by  Mr.  Cotton's  endeavour  to  wash  it  white  in  the 
Blood  of  the  Lambe'  (London,  1 G52,  4to,  pp.  373).  John  Cotton  (1 585-1  (>r>2),  who  emigrated 
to  America  two  years  after  Williams  (1(133),  was  one  of  the  patriarchs  of  New  England,  and, 
together  with  Hooker  and  Stone,  constituted  the  '  glorious  triumvirate '  that  supplied  the  Puri- 
tans in  the  wilderness  witli  their  three  great  necessities — '  Cotton  for  their  clothing,  Hooker 
for  their  fishing,  and  Stone  for  their  building.' — Cotton  Mather's  Mogilalia,  Vol.  III.  p.  20. 

8  Dr.  Dexter's  monograph  is  a  learned  and  elaborate  partisan  defense  of  the  action  of  the 
young  Colony,  which,  he  says,  'was  reluctantly  compelled  to  choose  between  the  expulsion  of 
Williams  and  the  immediate  risk  of  social,  civil,  and  religious  disorganization '  (p.  88).     He 


§  105.  THE  REGULAR  OR  CALVIXISTIC  BAPTISTS.  -,,1 

The  banishment  was  the  best  thing  that  could  have  happened  to  Will- 
iams: it  led  to  the  development  of  his  heroic  qualities,  and  gave  him  a 
prominent  position  in  American  history.  lie  left  Salem  with  a  few- 
friends,  and  made  his  way  in  dreary  winter  through  •  a  howling  wilder- 
ness' to  the  wigwams  of  his  Indian  friends,  and  was  sorely  tossed  in  frost 
and  snow  among  barbarians  for  fourteen  weeks,  'not  knowing  what 
bread  or  bed  did  mean.'  In  June,  1C3G,  he  founded  with  live  families 
who  adhered  to  him  the  town  of  Providence,  lie  scrupulously  bought 
the  land  from  the  Indians,  and  acted  as  pastor  of  this  democratic  set- 
tlement. In  1G3S  he  became  a  Baptist;  he  was  immersed  by  Ezekiel 
Hollyman,  and  in  turn  immersed  Ilollyman  and  ten  others.  This  was 
the  iirst  Baptist  church  on  the  American  Continent.  But  a  few  months 
afterwards  he  renounced  his  rebaptism  on  the  ground  that  Hollyman 
was  unbaptized,  and  therefore  unauthorized  to  administer  the  rite  to 
him.  He  remained  for  the  rest  of  his  life  a  '  Seeker,9  cut  loose  from 
all  existing  Church  organizations  and  usages,  longing  for  a  true  Church 
of  God,  but  unable  to  find  one  on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth.  He 
conceived  '  that  the  apostasy  of  Antichrist  hath  so  far  corrupted  all 
that  there  can  be  no  recovery  out  of  that  apostasy  till  Christ  send 
forth  new  apostles  to  plant  churches  anew.' 

In  1643  he  went  to  England,  and  obtained  through  the  Commissioners 
of  Plantation  a  charter  which  allowed  the  planters  to  rule  themselves 
according  to  the  laws  of  England,  '  so  far  as  the  nature  of  the  case 
would  admit.'  In  1GG3  he  accepted  for  the  colony  another  and  more 
successful  charter,  a  patent  from  the  English  crown  similar  to  that 
of  Massachusetts,  to  which  he  had  formerly  objected.  He  kept  up 
friendly  relations  with  the  Indians,  and  twice  saved  the  Massachusetts 
colony  from  danger,  thus  returning  good  for  evil.  His  fame  rests 
on  his  advocacy  of  the  sacredncss  of  conscience.  Bancroft  goes  too 
far  when  in  his  eloquent  eulogy  he  calls  him  '  the  iirst  person  in 
modern  Christendom  who  asserted  in  its  plenitude  the  doctrine  of  the 
liberty  <>i*  conscience,  the  equality  of  opinions  before  the  law.'  The 
Anabaptists  and  Mennonites  had  done  the  same  a  hundred  years  be- 
fore. But  "Williams  planted  the  first  civil  government  <>n  the  prin- 
ciple of  universal  'soul-liberty,'  and  was   followed   by  William    I'ciii: 

.takes  the  ground  that  Williams  m  baniabed,  not  on  religions,  bat  on  political  grounds.    15m 
religion  and  politics  were  inseparably  interwoven  in  llie  New  England  theocracy. 


852  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

in  his  Quaker  colony  in  Pennsylvania.  Milton  calls  Roger  Williams 
'  that  noble  confessor  of  religious  liberty,  that  extraordinary  man  and 
most  enlightened  legislator,  who,  after  suffering  persecution  from  his 
brethren,  persevered,  amidst  incredible  hardships  and  difficulties,  in 
seeking  a  place  of  refuge  for  the  sacred  ark  of  conscience.' ' 

In  the  other  colonies  the  Baptists  were  more  or  less  persecuted  till  the 
time  of  the  Revolution,  but  after  that  they  spread  with  great  rapidity. 

The  American  Baptists  differ  from  their  English  brethren  by  a  strict- 
er discipline  and  closer  communion  practice.  They  are  very  zealous 
in  missions,  education,  and  other  departments  of  Christian  activity. 
In  theology  they  cultivate  especially  biblical  studies  with  great  success. 

BAPTIST   CONFESSIONS. 

The  Baptists,  like  the  Congregationalists,  lower  the  authority  of  gen- 
eral creeds  to  mere  declarations  of  faith  prevailing  at  the  time  in  the 
denomination,  to  which  no  one  is  bound  to  give  assent  beyond  the 
measure  of  his  conviction ;  and  they  multiply  the  number  and  elevate 
the  authority  of  local  or  congregational  creeds  and  covenants,  by  which 
the  members  of  particular  congregations  voluntarily  bind  themselves 
to  a  certain  scheme  of  doctrine  and  duty.  Notwithstanding  the  entire 
absence  of  centralization  in  their  government,  and  the  unrestrained 
freedom  of  private  judgment,  the  Calvinistic  Baptists  have  maintained 
as  great  a  degree  of  essential  harmony  of  faith  as  they  themselves 
deem  desirable. 

'  The  Baptist  creeds,'  says  Dr.  Joseph  Angus,  in  behalf  of  English 
Baptists,2  '  were  prepared  in  the  first  instance  for  apologetic  and  de- 
fensive purposes.  They  merely  describe  the  doctrines  held  by  the 
bodies  from  which  they  emanated.  They  were  never  imposed  on 
ministers  and  members  of  the  churches  of  either  section  of  the  Bap- 
tists. Even  when  adopted,  as  they  sometimes  were,  by  any  church,  as 
an  expression  of  its  sentiments,  all  sister  churches  were  left  free,  and 
in  the  particular  church  a  considerable  latitude  of  judgment  was  al- 
lowed in  interpreting  them.  They  have  never  been  accepted  as  tests, 
and  merely  represent  in  a  general  way  the  sentiment  of  the  body.     In 

1  Letter  to  Count  Pallavicini  de  Saluces,  the  Genoese  envoy  to  England,  quoted  by  Alli- 
bone,  Vol.  III.  p.  2747. 

2  In  a  letter  to  the  author. 


§  105.  THE  REGULAR  OR  CALVIMSTIC  BAPTISTS.  ggg 

trust  deeds  or  in  the  rules  of  associations  they  never  appear.  Prop- 
erty in  trust  is  held  for  the  use  of  evangelical  Christians  maintaining 

the  doctrines  commonly  held  by  Particular  (or  (  foneral  |  Baptists;  some- 
times these  doctrines  are  enumerated  iu  the  briefest  possible  way — the 
trinity,  the  atonement,  etc. — and  sometimes  they  arc  not  enumerated 
at  all.  Of  course,  in  the  event  of  an  appeal  to  law,  the  creeds  and 
confessions  would  be  evidence  of  the  faith  of  the  body.  Substantially 
the  two  sections  of  the  Baptist  body  believe  as  of  old.  Put  their  con- 
fessions are  not  authoritative  except  as  evidence  and  in  matters  of 
property ;  while  in  the  interpretation  of  them  it  is  a  principle  to  allow 
as  much  freedom  as  is  consistent  with  a  substantial  agreement  in  the 
same  general  truth.' 

'  Confessions  of  faith,'  says  Dr.  Osgood,  with  special  reference  to  the 
Paptists  in  the  United  States,1  '  have  never  been  held  as  tests  of  ortho- 
doxy, as  of  any  authoritative  or  binding  force ;  they  merely  reflect  the 
existing  harmony  of  views  and  the  scriptural  interpretations  of  the 
churches  assenting  to  them.  ""We  believe,'',  says  Wayland,  "  in  the  full- 
est sense,  in  the  independence  of  every  individual  church  of  Christ.  We 
hold  that  each  several  church  is  a  Christian  society,  on  which  is  con- 
ferred by  Christ  the  entire  power  of  self-government.  No  church  has 
any  power  over  any  other  church.  No  minister  has  any  authority  in 
any  church  except  that  which  has  called  him  to  be  its  pastor.  Every 
church,  therefore,  when  it  expresses  its  own  belief,  expresses  the  belief 
of  no  other  than  its  own  members.  If  several  churches  understand  the 
Scriptures  in  the  same  way,  and  all  unite  in  the  same  confession,  then 
this  expresses  the  opinions  and  belief  of  those  who  profess  it.  It,  how- 
ever, expresses  their  belief  because  all  of  them,  from  the  study  of  the 
Scriptures,  understand  them  in  the  same  manner,  and  not  because  any 
tribunal  has  imposed  such  interpretations  upon  them.  "We  can  not 
acknowledge  the  authority  of  any  such  tribunal.  "We  have  no  right 
to  delegate  such  an  authority  to  any  man  or  to  any  body  of  men.  It 
is  our  essential  belief  that  the  Scriptures  are  a  revelation  from  God, 
given  ...  to  every  individual  man.  They  were  given  t<>  every  individ- 
ual that  he  might  understand  them  for  himself,  and  the  word  that  is 
given  him  will  judge  him  at  the  great  day.     It  is  hence  evident  that 

1  Letter  to  the  author. 


854  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

we  can  have  no  standards  which  claim  to  be  of  any  authority  over 
us.'"1 

I.  The  Confession  of  the  Seven  Churches  in  London.  Dr.  Daniel 
Featlcy,  a  prominent  Episcopalian  of  the  Puritan  party  and  member  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly  (from  which,  however,  he  was  expelled  for 
informing  the  king  of  its  proceedings),  had  a  public  disputation  with 
the  Baptists  in  1644,  and  published  it,  with  a  dedication  to  the  Parlia- 
ment, under  the  title, '  The  Dippers  dipt;  or,  the  Anabaptists  Duck'd 
and  Plung'd  over  Head  and  Ears  at  a  Disputation  in  South wark.'2 

This  gave  rise  to  a  Confession  of  Faith,  on  the  part  of  seven  Lon- 
don churches,  with  an  Epistle  Dedicatory  to  the  two  houses  of  Parlia- 
ment. It  appeared  in  1644  (three  years  before  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession), and  again  with  some  additions  and  changes  in  1646,  under 
the  title, '  A  Confession  of  Faith  of  Seven  Congregations  or  Churches 
of  Christ  in  London,  which  are  commonly  (but  unjustly)  called  Ana- 
baptists.' 3  This  document  consists  of  fifty-two  (51)  Articles,  and  shows 
that  in  all  important  doctrines  and  principles,  except  on  the  sacra- 
ments and  Church  government,  the  Baptists  agreed  with  the  orthodox 
Reformed  Churches.  The  concluding  paragraph  admits  the  fallibil- 
ity of  human  confessions,  and  the  readiness  of  Baptists  to  receive 
further  light,  but  also  their  determination  '  to  die  a  thousand  deaths 
rather  than  do  any  thing  against  the  least  tittle  of  the  truth  of  God, 
or  against  the  light  of  our  own  consciences.' 


1  F.  Wayland,  Princijtles  and  Practices  of  Baptist  Clinrches,  pp.  13,  14. 

8  London,  3d  ed.  1645;  7th  ed.  1GG0.  The  spirit  of  this  book  may  be  judged  from  the 
title  and  the  following  passage  of  the  Epistle  Dedicatory:  '  Of  all  heretics  and  schismatics, 
the  Anabaptists  ought  to  be  most  carefully  looked  into,  and  severely  punished,  if  not  utterly 
exterminated  and  banished  out  of  the  Church  and  Kingdom.  .  .  .  They  preach  and  print 
and  practice  their  heretical  impieties  openly;  they  hold  their  conventicles  weekly  in  our 
chief  cities  and  suburbs  thereof,  and  there  prophesy  by  turns ;  .  .  .  they  flock  in  great  mul- 
titudes to  their  Jordans,  and  botli  sexes  enter  into  the  river,  and  are  dipt  after  their  man- 
ner with  a  kind  of  spell,  containing  the  heads  of  their  erroneous  tenets.  .  .  .  And  as  they 
defile  our  rivers  with  their  impure  washings,  and  our  pulpits  with  their  false  prophecies 
and  fanatical  enthusiasms,  so  the  presses  sweat  and  groan  under  the  load  of  their  blasphe- 
mies.' 

3  Printed  in  Underbill's  Collection,  pp.  11-48.  The  title-pages,  which  are  all  given  by 
Underbill,  slightly  differ  in  the  three  editions  of  1G44,  '4G,  and  '51.  I  have  before  me  a 
copy  of  the  fourth  ed.,  London,  1G52,  which  has  been  for  more  than  two  hundred  years  in 
the  family  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Holme,  a  Baptist  clergyman  of  New  York.  It  has  the  same  title 
as  the  third  ed.,  but  only  fifty-one  Articles ;  Art.  XXXVIII.,  on  the  support  of  the  ministry 
by  the  congregation,  being  omitted. 


§  105.  THE  BEGULAB  OR  CALVIXISTIC  BAPTISTS.  S55 

II.  The  Confession  of  Somessbt,  L656.  It  was  signed  by  the  dele- 
gates of  sixteen  churches  of  Somerset  and  the  adjoining  counties.  It 
consists  of  forty-six  Articles.1 

III.  The  Confession  of  1GS8.  This  is  by  far  the  most  important 
and  authoritative.  It  has  superseded  the  two  earlier  confessions,  and 
is  to  this  day  held  in  the  highest  esteem.  It  appeared  first  in  1<*>77,  at 
London,  under  the  title,  'A  ( lonfession  of  Faith  put  forth  by  the  Elders 
and  Brethren  of  many  congregations  of  Christians  baptized  upon  pro- 
fession of  their  faith.'  It  was  reprinted  in  1688,  1689,  and  approved 
and  recommended  by  the  ministers  and  messengers  of  above  a  hun- 
dred congregations  met  in  London,  July  3-11,  1GS9.2  It  has  been 
often  reprinted.3  '  It  is  still  generally  received  by  all  those  congrega- 
tions that  hold  the  doctrine  of  personal  election  and  the  certainty  of 
the  saints'  final  perseverance.'4  In  America  it  was  adopted  by  the 
Baptist  Association  which  met  in  Philadelphia,  Sept.  25,  1742,  and 
hence  is  known  also  by  the  name  of  the  Philadelphia  Confession. 

This  Confession  consists  of  thirty-two  chapters,  beginning  with  the 
holy  Scriptures  and  ending  with  the  last  judgment.  It  is  simply 
the  Baptist  recension  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  as  the  Savoy 
Declaration  is  the  Congregational  recension  of  the  same  Westminster 
Confession.  It  follows  the  Westminster  Confession  in  sentiment  and 
language,  with  very  few  verbal  alterations,  except  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  and  the  Sacraments.  The  Preface  sets  forth  that  the 
Confession  of  Westminster  is  retained  in  substance  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  the  agreement  of  the  Baptists  with  the  Presbyterians  and 
Congregationalists  '  in  all  the  fundamental  Articles  of  the  Christian 
religion,'  and  also  to  convince  all  that  they  have  'no  itch  to  clog 

1  Underbill,  pp.  74-106. 

3  The  following  certificate  was  prefixed :  '  We,  the  ministers  and  messengers  of,  and  con- 
cerned for,  upwards  of  one  hundred  congregations  in  England  and  Wales,  denying  Armxnian- 
ism.  being  met  together  in  London,  from  the  third  day  of  the  seventh  month  to  the  eleventh 
of  the  same,  1G89,  . .  .  have  thought  meet  for  the  larisfoction  of  all  other  Christiana  that  differ 
from  us  in  the  point  of  baptism,  to  recommend  to  their  perusal  the  confumm  tfowrfritk,  .  .  . 
which  confession  we  own,  as  containing  the  doctrine  of  our  faith  and  practice:  and  do  desire 
that  the  members  of  our  churches  respectively  do  famish  themselves  therewith.'  Signed  by 
thirty-seven  persons  in  the  name  of  the  whole  assembly. 

3  Editions  of  1699,  1719,  i7-_'o,  etc  An  American  ed  was  issued  by  Benj.  Franklin,  and 
one  at  Pittsburgh  (8.  William.-.),  1881.  It  is  also  reprinted  by  Crosby, YoL  III.  Append.  II. 
pp.  56-111  :  Underbill,  pp.  168  246. 

*  Dr.  Angus. 

Vol.  I. — I  i  i 


S5Q  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

religion  with  new  words,  but  do  readily  acquiesce  in  that  form  of 
sound  words  which  has  been,  in  consent  with  the  holy  Scriptures, 
used  by  others  before  us ;  hereby  declaring  before  God,  angels,  and 
men  our  hearty  agreement  with  them  in  that  wholesome  Protestant 
doctrine  which  with  so  clear  evidence  of  Scripture  they  have  as- 
serted.' The  Appendix  is  a  defense  of  the  Baptist  theory  against 
Psedobaptists. 

The  Confession  differs  from  that  of  the  Westminster  in  the  chapters  on 
the  Church  and  on  the  sacraments.  It  omits  the  chapters  '  Of  Church 
Censuses'  (XXX.)  and  '  Of  Synods  and  Councils.'  The  chapter  '  Of  the 
Church'  (XXV.)  is  adapted  to  the  independent  polity  ;  and  the  chapter 
'  Of  Baptism '  is  altered  to  suit  the  Baptist  theory,  limiting  the  right 
of  baptism  to  those  '  who  do  actually  profess  repentance  towards  God, 
faith  in  and  obedience  to  our  Lord  Jesus,'  and  declaring  'immersion 
or  dipping  of  the  person  in  water'  to  be  '  necessary  to  the  due  admin- 
istration of  this  ordinance'  (XXIX.).  A  chapter, '  Of  the  Gospel  and 
the  Extent  of  Grace  thereof,'  is  inserted  from  the  Savoy  Declaration  as 
Ch.  XX.  (which  causes  the  change  of  the  numbering  of  the  chapters 
which  follow).1 

IY.  In  1693  a  Catechism  based  on  this  Confession  was  drawn  up 
by  William  Collins,  at  the  request  of  the  General  Assembly  which  met 
at  London  in  June  of  that  year.  It  is  taken  chiefly  from  the  West- 
minster Shorter  Catechism,  and  follows  closely  its  order  and  method. 
It  is  also  called  '  Keach's  Catechism.'  Benjamin  Keach  was  with  Col- 
lins among  the  signers  of  the  Confession  of  1688,  and  seems  to  have 
had  much  to  do  with  the  work.  It  is  the  only  Catechism  which  has 
found  general  acceptance  among  Baptists  in  England  and  America.2 

During  the  seventeenth  century  there  were  also  some  private  confes- 


'  See  Vol.  III.  pp.  738  sqq. 

2  Underhill  says,  p.  xv. :  '  It  is  the  only  Catechism  of  value  among  Baptists.'  He  gives  it 
from  the  lGth  Engl,  eel.,  pp.  247-270,  but  says  nothing  of  Keach's  co-authorship,  and  ascribes 
to  him  another  Catechism  ('The  Child's  Instructor:  a  New  and  Easy  Primer,' 24mo,  1GG4), 
for  which  he  was  imprisoned  under  Charles  II.  The  American  Baptist  Publication  Society 
publishes  it  under  the  title,  'The  Baptist  Catechism  commonly  called  Reach's  Catechism; 
or,  A  Brief  Instruction  in  the  Principles  of  the  Christian  Religion,  agreeably  to  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  put  forth  by  upwards  of  a  hundred  congregations  in  Great  Britain,  July  3, 
1689,  and  adopted  by  the  Philadelphia  Baptist  Association,  Sept.  22,  1742.'  Here  the  name 
of  Collins  is  omitted.  But  the  Catechism  is  literally  the  same  as  the  one  in  Undcrhill"s 
Collection. 


§  IOC.  AKMIXIAX  OR  FREE-WILL  BAPTISTS.  857 

sions  written  by  John  Bunyan,  Vavasor  Powell,  Benjamin  Keach,  and 
Elias  Reach. 

V.  The  New  Hampshire  Confession  was  prepared  about  1833  or 
1834:,  by  the  Rev.  J.  Newton  Brown,  of  New  Hampshire  (<1.  L66&),  the 
editor  of  a  'Universal  Cyclopssdia  of  Religions  Knowledge.'  It  is 
shorter  and  simpler  than  the  Confession  of  1GSS,  and  presents  the 
Calvinistic  system  in  a  milder  form.  It  has  been  accepted  by  the 
Baptists  of  New  Hampshire  and  other  Northern  and  "Western  States, 
and  is  now  the  most  popular  creed  among  American  Baptists.1 

§  10G.  Akminiax  on  Fbee-will  Baptists. 

IN    ENGLAND. 
[See  Literature  on  p.  845.] 

The  General  or  Armenian  Baptists  differ  from  the  Particular  or 
Calvinistic  Baptists  in  rejecting  unconditional  election  and  the  per- 
severance of  saints,  and  in  maintaining  the  freedom  of  will  and  the 
possibility  of  falling  from  grace.  So  far  they  followed  the  Men- 
nonites.  They  assign  greater  power  to  a  general  assembly  of  asso- 
ciated churches,  and  hold  three  orders  —  bishops  or  messengers,  pas- 
tors or  elders,  and  deacons;  while  the  Particular  Baptists,  like  the 
Congregationalists,  recognize  only  two — bishops  or  pastors  and  dea- 
cons (elders  being  a  title  applicable  to  the  first  or  to  both). 

I.  The  first  Confession  of  Arminian  Baptists  was  published  by  Eng- 
lish refugees  in  Holland,  under  the  title, 'A  Declaration  of  Faith  of 
English  People  remaining  at  Amsterdam  in  Holland,'  Amsterdam. 
1G11.2  It  was  drawn  up  by  Smyth  and  Ilelwisse.  It  consists  of 
twenty-seven  (2G)  Articles.  The  first  Article  confesses  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  in  the  spurious  words  of  1  John  v.  7.  Election  is 
conditioned  by  foreknown  faith,  reprobation  by  foreknown  unbelief, 
and  the  perseverance  of  saints  is  denied.3     The  Church  of  Christ  is 

1  It  is  printed  in  Vol.  III.  pp.  742  sqq. 

5  It  is  reprinted  in  ('r<»!>y's  Hittory,  Vol  II.  Appendix  I.  pp.  l  '-K  and  in  Underhill'a  col- 
lection, pp.  l-l<>.  A  manuscript  copy  o\i-ts  in  the  archives  <>r  the  Bfennonite  church  at 
Amsterdam,  to  which  the  original  subscriptions  of  forty-two  Dames  are  appended,  preceded  bj 
the  modest  remark. '  We  ■ubseribe  lo  the  truth  of  these  Articles,  desiring  farther  iii^ti-uc-ti.^ii.' 

3  Art.  V.:  'God  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  bath  predestinated  that  all  that  believe 

in  him  shall  he  saved,  and  nil  that  helicvc  not  shall  he  damned  ;   nil  which  he  knew  before. 
And  this  is  the  election  and  reprobation  ipoken  ••fin  the  Scriptures,  .  .  .  ami  not  that  Qod 


858  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

defined  (Art.  X.)  to  be  '  a  company  of  faithful  people  separated  from 
the  world  by  the  "Word  and  Spirit  of  God,  being  knit  unto  the  Lord, 
and  one  unto  another,  by  baptism,  upon  their  own  confession  of  the 
faith.'  Baptism  is  confined  to  adults,  but  nothing  is  said  of  immersion. 
The  duty  of  obedience  to  the  magistrate  is  very  earnestly  enjoined 
(Art.  XXIV.). 

II.  The  'London  Confession'  was  approved  by  more  than  twenty 
thousand  Baptists,  and  was  presented  to  Charles  II.,  July  26,  1660. 
It  contains  twenty-five  Articles.1 

III.  The  'Orthodox  Creed'  was  published  in  167S,  by  the  General 
Baptists  of  Oxfordshire  and  the  parts  adjacent.  It  makes  a  near  ap- 
proach to  Calvinism,  with  a  view  to  unite  the  Protestants  in  the  funda- 
mental articles  against  the  errors  of  Home.2 

IN    AMERICA. 
Literature. 

I.  D.  Stewart:  The  History  of  the  Free-will  Baptists  for  Half  a  Century.  Dover,  1S62  sqq.  (Vol.  I.  from 
1TS0  to  1S30).  Comp.  also  the  Lives  of  Randall,  Stiuchfield,  Colby,  Thornton,  Marks,  Bowles,  Phiuuey, 
and  Elias  Smith ;  the  Records  of  Yearly  Meetings  and  Quarterly  Meetings,  and  sundry  articles  in  the  re- 
ligions periodicals  and  other  publications  of  the  Free-will  Baptists  issued  from  their  Printing  Establish- 
ment at  Dover,  New  Hampshire. 

The  American  General  Baptists  are  called  Free-will  Baptists  or 
Free  Baptists.  They  trace  their  origin  to  Benjamin  Randall  (1719- 
1808),  who  was  converted  by  one  of  the  last  sermons  of  Whitefield  at 
Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire,  Sept.  28,  1770.  He  was  at  first  a  Con- 
gregationalist,  but  in  1776  he  united  himself  with  a  regular  Baptist 
church  in  South  Berwick,  Maine,  and  entered  the  ministry.  In  1780 
he  organized,  in  New  Durham,  New  Hampshire,  a  Baptist  church, 
which  became  the  nucleus  of  a  new  denomination,  holding  the  doc- 
trines of  conditional  election,  free  will,  and  open  communion.  In 
government  it  is  congregational. 

In  1827  the  Free-will  Baptists  organized  a  General  Conference  in 
New  England,  and  opened  correspondence  with  the  Arminian  Bap- 
tists in  England  and  North  Carolina. 

hath  predestinated  men  to  be  wicked,  and  so  be  damned,  but  that  men  being  wicked  shall  he 
damned.'  Art.  VII. :  '  Men  may  fall  away  from  the  grace  of  God,  and  from  the  truths  which 
they  have  received  and  acknowledged.' 

1  Underbill,  pp.  107-120. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  121-1G8. 


§  107.  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS,  OR  QUAKERS  S59 

Their  Confession  of  Faith,  together  with  a  directory  of  discipline, 
was  prepared  by  order  of  the  General  Conference  of  1S32,  approved 
1S34,  revised  by  a  committee  in  1848,  18G5,  and  1SG8.  It  is  the  clear- 
est and  ablest  exposition  of  the  principles  of  the  Free-will  Baptists.1 

§  107.  The  Society  ok  Friends,  oe  Quakebb. 

Literature. 

I.  Sources. 

Geo.  Fox  (founder  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  d.  1490):  Works  (containing  his  Journal,  Letters,  nud 
Exhortations!),  London,  1094-1706,  in  3  vols.  (61.;  also  Philadelphia,  in  8  vols.  8vo. 

Robert  15ai:i;i.ay  (the  standard  divine  of  the  Quakers,  d.  1890) :  Worka,  edited  by  William  P( 
don,  1892,  under  the  title,  'Truth  Triumphant  through  the  Spiritual  War/an,  Christian  Labor*  and 
Writings  of  that  Able  and  Faithful  Servant  of  Jews  Christ,  Robert  Barclay,'  etc.  The  principal  <>f  these 
works  are:  Apologia  TheqlogioB  vere  ChrisHarue,  Orel  in  Latin,  Amst  1075;  then  in  English,  by  the  author 
himself;  also  in  German,  Dutch,  French,  and  Spanish.  The  full  title  of  the  Euglish  edition  is,  'An 
for  the  True  Christian  Divinity,  bt  lag  an  Explanation  and  Vindication  of  the  Principles  and  Doc- 
trim  a  of  the  People  called  Quakers.'   (I  have  a  very  elegant  copy  of  the  eighth  edition,  Birmingham,  1765.) 

Confession  of  Faith,  approved  "/and  agreed  unto  by  the  General  Assembly  of  U 
archs,  Prophets,  ami  Apostles,  Christ  himself  Chief  Speaker  in  and  among  them.    (The  answers  wholly 
biblical.)    1G73.    The  same,  iu  Latiu  [Oatechesis  et  Fidei  Confessto,  etc.).    Rotterdam,  1070.    Treatise  on 
Christian  Discipline,  etc. 

William  Penn  (d.  171S) :  A  Summary  of  the  History,  Doctrine,  and  Discipline  of  Friends  (London,  1092)  j 

Brief  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  People  called  Friends  (London,  1094) ;  '  Quakerism  n  .v.  u 

Nickname  for  Old  Christianity;'  'The  Great  Case  of  Liberty  of  Conscience  Debated  and  Defended,' etc. 

Some  of  Pcun'8  tracts  were  translated  iuto  German  by  Seebohm  (Pyrmont,  1799  and  17'.^). 

II.  Historical. 

Gerard  Croese  :  History  of  the  Quakers,  containing  the  Lives,  Tenets,  Sufferings,  Trials,  Speeches,  and 
Letters  of  all  the  most  Eminent  Quah  is/mm  the  First  Rise  of  the  Sect.    London,  1896,  Bvo. 

William  Bbwxl  (d.1725):  History  of  the  liise,  Increase,  and  Progress  of  the  Christian  People  called 
Quakers.  London,  1725,  fol. ;  0th  edition,  1S34,  in  2  vols,  j  also  in  Dutch  and  German.  (Charles  Lamb 
pronounced  this  book  '  far  more  edifying  and  affecting  than  any  thing  of  Wesley  and  his  Coileagnes.') 

Joseph  Besse:  Collection  of  the  Sufferings  of  the  People  called  Quakers,  for  the  Testimony  of  a  (joodCon- 
science.    London,  1753,  2  vols.  fol. 

.(..us  GoUGH  :  The  History  of  the  Quakers.    Dublin,  1789,  4  vols.  Svo. 

S  v  m.  M.  Janney  :  History  of  the  Friends.     Philadelphia,  1887,  4  vols. 

Biographies  of  G.  Fox,  by  Jonah  Marsh  (1848),  S.  M.  Janney  (1S53),  W.  Tali.ack  (1SCS). 

Biographies  of  W.  Penn,  by  Marsiliac  (1791),  Clarkso.n  (1S13),  Ellis  (1S52),  Janney  (1S52),  Hei-wortii 
Dixon  (1S56). 

III.  EXPLANATORY    ANI>   Arol.OGETtO. 

Tnot.Ci.A«XBO»(d.l848):  -4  Pm-tresiture  of  Quakerism,    London,  1808;  2d  cd.l>»07.3  vols. 
Joaspo  John  Qdbkzt  (d.  1847) :  Observations  on  the  Distinguishing  View  and  Practices  of  the  Society  of 
i        is.    7th  edition,  London,  1884;  ed  American  from  the  7th  London  edition,  New  York,  1889. 

Tlios.  Evass:  ,1-1  Exposition  of  the  Faith  of  the  lieligiuus  Society  of  Friends.  Philadelphia,  1S2S. 
Approved  by  the  Quakers  at  a  meeting  held  in  Philadelphia,  Oct.  19, 1S27,  and  often  printed.  (Man- 
chester edition,  1887.) 

The  a  ndent  Testimony  of  the  Religious  Soeii  ty  of  Fri,  tuU —  n  '''red  and  given  .forth  by  the  Yearly  Meet- 
n  Philadelphia  tn  the  Fourth  Month.  1848.    Philadelphia,  at  Friends'  book-store.    A  summary 
of  orthodox  Quakerism,  chiefly  from  the  writing!  or  Barclay. 

W.  I.  Auimsom:  Art.  Friends,  in  M'Cllntock  and  Strong's  Cydop.,Xol.  III.  pp.  007  sqq.  (New  York, 
1870). 

Friends'  Review,  a  Rel  ,ani  Miscellaneous  Journal.    Philadelphia,  so  far  twenty-nine 

vols,  till  ls70  (edited  by  Henry  Harishorne). 

IV,  Pei  i  hioas  un>  Ommasx, 

For  a  full  account  of  the  literature  BgatOBl  the  Quaker-.  MS  7<W.  Smith's  BOUothtm  anti-Quakcriaim  ; 
or,  A  Catalogue  of  Book*  adverse  to  the  i.  -•    AfphabetbaOtf  ewranged,    With  He 


1  It  ifl  published  at  Dover,  N.  H..  under  the  title,  Treatisi  on  the  Faith  and  Practice  of 
the  Free-will  Baptists,  nud  forms  B  little  hook  of  fifty  pages.  The  doctrinal  part  is  printed 
in  Vol.  III.  pp.  749  «qq. 


860  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Notices  of  the  Authors,  together  with  the  Answers  which  have  been  given  to  some  of  them  by  Friends  and 
others.    London,  8vo,  pp.  474. 

Mohlek  (R.  C) :  Symbolik,  pp.  48S-532  ;  Run.  Hofmann  :  Symbolik,  pp.  514-520 ;  Scuneckenbuegek, 
Lchrbegn'ffe  der  kleineren  protest.  Kirchenparteien,  pp.  69-102. 

HISTORICAL    SKETCH. 

The  Religious  Society  of  Friends,  as  they  call  themselves  —  or 
Quakers,  as  they  are  usually  called1 — originated  in  the  Puritan  com- 
motion which  roused  all  the  religious  energies  of  England. 

It  was  founded  by  George  Fox  (1024-1690),  one  of  the  oddest 
saints  in  Christendom,  a  self-taught  and  half-inspired  man  of  genius, 
who  was  called  by  a  higher  power  from  the  shepherd's  staff  to  the 
evangelism  of  the  baptism  by  fire  and  by  the  Spirit.  In  early  youth 
he  felt  inclined  to  ascetic  retirement,  like  the  hermits  of  old.  He 
was  a  thorough  mystic,  and  desired  to  get  at  the  naked  truth  with- 
out the  obstruction  of  church,  sacrament,  Ceremonies,  theology,  and 
ordinary  study,  except  the  Scriptures  spiritually  understood.  He  loved 
to  commune  with  nature  and  nature's  God,  to  walk  in  the  inward 
light,  to  enjoy  the  indwelling  Christ,  and  to  receive  inspirations  from 
heaven.  He  spent  much  time  in  fasting  and  prayer,  he  wrestled 
with  the  devil,  and  passed  through  deep  mental  distress,  doubt,  and 
despondency.  His  moral  character  was  beyond  reproach — pure,  truth- 
ful, unworldly,  just,  temperate,  meek,  and  gentle,  yet  bold  and  utterly 
regardless  of  conventional  usage  and  propriety.  He  began  his  public 
testimony  in  his  twenty-third  year,  and  traveled  through  England,  Hol- 
land, and  the  American  colonies,  preaching  and  praying  with  pente- 
costal  fervor  and  power,  revealing  hidden  truths,  boldly  attacking  pride, 
formality,  and  worldliness,  and  exhorting  to  repentance,  humility,  and 
mercy.     He  sometimes  interrupted  the  clergymen  at  public  service, 

1  The  name  '  Friends '  designates  a  democratic  brotherhood  in  Christ.  The  name  '  Quak- 
ers'  is  sometimes  wrongly  derived  from  the  warning  of  Fox  to  the  magistrates  '  to  (make  for 
fear'  and  'to  tremble  at  the  Word  of  the  Lord'  (Isa.  lxvi.  2).  It  comes  rather  from  their 
own  tremulous  utterance  of  emotion  in  prayer  and  exhortation.  Barclay  (Apology,  p.  310, 
on  Prop.  XI.)  speaks  of  the  trembling  motion  of  the  body  under  the  power  of  the  truth,  by 
which  Quakers  are  exercised  as  in  the  day  of  battle,  and  says :  '  From  this  the  name  of 
(Quakers,  i.  e.,  Tremblers,  was  first  reproachfully  cast  upon  us  ;  which,  though  it  be  none  of  our 
choosing,  yet  in  this  respect  we  are  not  ashamed  of  it,  but  have  rather  reason  to  rejoice 
therefore,  even  that  we  are  sensible  of  this  power  that  hath  oftentimes  laid  hold  of  our  ad- 
versaries and  made  them  yield  unto  us.'  Allinson  says  (1.  c.  p.  GG8) :  'The  epithet  Quakers 
was  given  in  derision,  because  they  often  trembled  under  an  awful  sense  of  the  infinite 
purity  and  majesty  of  God,  and  this  name,  rather  submitted  to  than  accepted  by  them,  has 
become  general  as  a  designation.' 


§  107.  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS,  OB  QUAE  SGI 

and  the  lawyers  in  court,  and  warned  tlieni  against  the  wrath  to  come. 
He  was  a  stern  ascetic,  clad  in  leather,  and  wearing  loog  hair.  He 
addressed  every  body  'thou'  or  '  thee,'  and  sublimely  ignored  all  world- 
ly honors  and  dignities.1  lie  was  nine  times  thrown  into  prison  for 
breaches  of  the  peace  and  blasphemy,  and  suffered  much  hardship 
and  indignity  with  imperturbable  temper;  but  towards  the  close  of 
his  meteoric  career  he  enjoyed  comparative  rest.  His  'Journal'  givi  - 
an  account  of  his  labors,  and  is,  in  the  language  of  Sir  James  Mackin- 
tosh, 'one  of  the  most  extraordinary  and  instructive  narratives  in  the 
world.'  Fox  was  providentially  provided  with  the  best  aid  in  found- 
ing his  society. 

Robert  Barclay  (1G4S-1G90)  was  the  apologist  and  theologian  of 
the  Quakers,  the  only  one  known  to  fame.  -Descended  from  a  noble 
family  in  Scotland,  and  educated  in  Paris,  he  became  a  convert  first 
to  Romanism,  then  to  Quakerism  (1GG7).  lie  had  therefore  the  ad- 
vantage of  an  experimental  as  well  as  theoretical  knowledge  of  the 
Scotch  Calvinistic  and  the  Roman  Catholic  creeds,  lie  made  vari- 
ous missionary  journeys  in  company  witli  William  Penn;  he  walked 
through  the  streets  of  Aberdeen  in  sackcloth  and  ashes,  and  was  sev- 
eral times  imprisoned,  but  spent  his  last  years  in  peace  on  his  estate 
of  Try. 

William  Penh  (lG-i-i-lTIS),  the  statesman  and  politician  of  the 
Quakers,  and  the  founder  of  Pennsylvania,  was  the  son  of  an  ad- 
miral, and  enjoyed  the  favor  of  James  II.  (his  father's  friend),  which 
he  used  in  the  cause  of  justice  and  mercy.2  lie  himself  was  ex- 
pelled for  his  religion  from  the  University  of  Oxford  and  his  father's 
house,  and  was  twice  imprisoned,  but  ably  defended  the  liberty  of  con- 
science, and  was  acquitted.  By  his  influence  more  than  twelve  hun- 
dred Quakers  were  set  at  liberty.  In  1GS0  he  obtained  from  the 
king,  in  payment  of  a  claim  of  £1G,000,  an  extensive  tract  of  land 
west  of  the  Delaware  River,  and  organized  a  colony  on  the  basis  of 
perfect  freedom   of  religion    (1682).     The   city  of  Philadelphia,  or 


1  'The  Lord  forbade  him,'  laji  Scwel,  'to  pal  off  his  hut  to  any  man,  high  or  low;  he 
was  required  to  /'/«"<  and  /'/,«/  ererj  man  and  woman  without  distinction, and  not  to  hid 
people  Good-narrow  or  Good-evening  .•  neither  might  he  bow  or  scrape  bis  leg  tn  any  one.' 

7  The  charges  of  Lord  Maraulav  against  Perm's  integrity  have  been  repelled  by  YV.  K.  Fors- 
ter  (  William  1'mu  and  Thomat  Babington  Macavlay,  1860)  ami  .1.  Paget  (Edinburgh-,  1868). 


8(52  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

brotherly  love,  became  the  chief  asylum  of  persecuted  Quakers,  a 
century  afterwards  the  cradle  of  American  independence,  and  in 
1876  the  theatre  of  the  most  remarkable  centennial  ever  celebrated 
by  any  nation.  Penn  was  twice  in  America,  but  died  in  England. 
He  made  a  treaty  with  the  Indians,  of  which  Voltaire  said  that  it 
was  the  only  treaty  never  sworn  to  and  never  broken.  The  United 
States  government  would  have  fared  better  with  the  aborigines  of  the 
country  if  it  had  followed  the  humane  example  of  Roger  Williams 
and  William  Penn. 

The  Quakers,  during  the  first  forty  years  of  their  history,  were  more 
severely  persecuted  than  any  sect  of  Christians  had  ever  been,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Waldenses,  and  bore  it  with  unflinching  heroism. 
Their  eccentricities  and  fanatical  excesses,  their  utter  disregard  for  the 
courtesies  and  conventionalities  of  civilized  life,  their  fierce  abuse  of 
the  national  churches  (or  'steeple-houses')  and  clergymen,  their  opposi- 
tion to  tithes,  salary,  the  oath,  and  military  service,  provoked  the  com- 
bined hostility  of  magistrates,  ministers,  and  people.  Their  places  of 
worship  were  invaded  by  the  populace  armed  with  staves,  cudgels,  and 
pitchforks ;  the  windows  broken  by  stones  and  bullets ;  their  religious 
services  rudely  interrupted  by  hallooing  and  railing;  their  property 
destroyed  or  sold ;  their  persons  ridiculed,  buffeted,  assailed  with  stones 
and  filth,  dragged  by  the  hair  through  the  streets,  or  thrown  into  loath- 
some prisons  and  punished  as  heretics  and  blasphemers. 

Cromwell,  who  had  a  tender  feeling  for  all  'godly'  radicals  and 
enthusiasts,  was  rather  pleased  with  George  Fox,  with  whom  he  had 
an  interview  (1654) ;  he  allowed  him  to  keep  on  his  hat,  and  to  speak 
about  the  mysteries  of  spiritual  experience ;  and,  although  he  disap- 
proved his  disorderly  conduct,  he  pressed  his  hand  and  said,  '  Come 
again  to  my  house ;  if  thou  and  I  were  together  but  an  hour  in  every 
day,  wre  should  be  nearer  one  to  the  other.'  But  Cromwell  could  not 
control  the  local  magistrates  and  the  rabble. 

Under  Charles  II.  the  Quakers  fared  much  worse,  and  notwith- 
standing the  influence  of  Penn  upon  James  II.,  who  favored  them  for 
political  reasons  in  the  interest  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  they  contin- 
ued to  suffer  until  the  Act  of  Toleration,  in  1680,  or  rather  until 
1696,  when  by  a  special  Act  of  Parliament  their  solemn  affirmation 
was  recognized  as  equivalent  to  an  oath. 


§  107.  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS,  OK  QUAKERS.  SG3 

During  the  period  from  1G50  to  1GS0,  according  to  the  patient  re- 
searches of  their  historian,  Joseph  IJesse,  no  less  than  13,258  Quakers 
suffered  fine,  imprisonment,  torture,  and  mutilation  in  England,  Scot- 
land, and  Ireland,  219  were  banished,  and  360  perished  in  prisons, 
some  almost  literally  rotting  in  pestilential  cells. 

In  New  England  they  were  not  treated  any  better:  170  instances  of 
hard  usage  arc  enumerated,  47  were  banished,  and  4  hanged  (three 
men  and  one  woman,  Mary  Dyer).  In  explanation,  though  not  in 
justification,  of  this  severity  of  the  Puritan  colony  towards  them,  we 
should  remember  those  offenses  against  public  decency  which  led 
some  Quaker  men  and  women  to  invade  churches  during  divine  serv- 
ice, and  to  promenade  the  streets  of  Boston,  Cambridge,  and  Salem 
in  sackcloth  and  ashes,  even  in  part's  natural'thus,  for  '  a  sign  and 
wonder'  (in  imitation  of  Isa.  xx.  2,  3),  to  symbolize  the  'naked  truth,' 
and  to  utter  a  prophetic  'testimony'  against  the  'hireling  priests,'  the 
tyrannical  magistrates,  and  the  wicked  and  perverse  generation,  warn- 
ing them  of  the  impending  judgments  of  the  Lord,  who  would  come 
with  fire  and  sword.1  Even  Roger  Williams,  in  his  debate  with  the 
Quakers  at  Xewport  (1072),  with  all  his  liberality,  condemned  such 
conduct.2 

Notwithstanding  these  persecutions,  the  Society  of  Friends  spread 
rapidly,  and  numbered  about  70,000  members  towards  the  close  of 
the  seventeenth  century.  They  afterwards  diminished  in  England, 
but  increased  in  America,  though  not  as  much  as  other  denomina- 
tions. On  the  Continent  they  had  only  a  few  adherents  in  Holland 
and  Germany. 

The  fanatical  heat  of  the  martyr  period  of  the  Quakers  cooled  down 
with  the  cessation  of  persecution.  They  became  a  sober,  quiet,  orderly, 
and  peaceful  community.  The  oddities  which  they  still  retain  are 
perfectly  harmless,  and  form  an  interesting  chapter  in  the  history  of 

1  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  Vol.  II.  pp,  461-486;  Dexter.  At  /■■  Roger  Will- 
iams,' etc.,  ]<]>.  124  sqq.  One  Bocfa  ease  of  Oriental  teaching  by  signs  occurred  also  in 
England,  and  is  mentioned  by  Fox  himself  in  liis  Journal:  'The  Lord  made  one  to  go  naked 

amongsl  yon,  a  figure  ot'  thy  nakedness,  and  a-  a  sign,  before  your  destruction  cometh,  that 

you  might  see  that  you  were  naked  and  not  covered  with  the  truth. "     See  BtOUghtOU,  Tkt 
Church  of  the  Commonwealth)  p.  860. 

a  He  wrote  a  curious  honk.  '.  /       digg'd  out  of  hit  Burrowee,  etc..  which  was  repub- 

lished by  the  Narragansett  Club,  l$7'2,  with  an  introduction  by  Prof  Diman.     Comp.  Dex- 
ter, I.e.  j).  188. 


864  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

morals.     Quakerism  is  not  so  much  a  new  theology  as  a  new  mode  of 
Christian  life,  representing  the  utmost  simplicity  in  opposition  to  show, 


ornament,  and  amusement. 


QUAKER    CONFESSIONS. 

The  Quakers  are  more  radical  than  the  Independents  and  the  Bap- 
tists. They  utterly  broke  with  historical  Christianity,  and  reject  its 
visible  ordinances,  which  the  Independents  and  the  Baptists  retained. 
They  kept  aloof  from  the  Puritans,  and  would  have  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  the  national  English  or  any  other  Church  or  sect  in  Christen- 
dom. They  oppose  all  outward  authority  in  religion,  though  it  be  the 
letter  of  the  Bible  itself. 

With  such  views  they  can  not  consistently  recognize  any  binding 
standards  of  doctrine  which  might  obstruct  the  freedom  of  interpreta- 
tion of  the  divine  Word  under  the  direct  illumination  of  the  Spirit. 

Nevertheless,  with  all  their  radicalism,  the  Quakers  retained  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Christian  faith,  and,  following  the  example  of  the  early 
Christians,  they  set  forth  their  tenets  in  a  number  of  apologies  against 
the  misrepresentations  of  their  enemies.  The  first  '  Confession  and 
Profession  of  Faith  in  God'  was  published  by  Kichard  Farnsworth 
in  1658.  Similar  apologetic  documents  followed  in  1659  and  1661 
by  George  Fox  the  Younger,  in  1662  by  John  Crook,  in  1664  by  Will- 
iam Smith,  in  1668  by  William  Penn,  in  1671  by  Whitehead  and 
Penn,  in  1698  by  Penn  and  others,  in  1671, 1675,  and  16S2  by  George 
Fox.1 

The  ablest  and  most  authoritative  exposition  of  the  belief  of  the 
Quakers  is  the  'Apology'  of  Eobert  Barclay,  written  in  his  quiet  re- 
treat in  Ury,  Scotland,  1675,  and  addressed  to  Charles  II.  It  is  his 
most  elaborate  work,  and  is  still  held  in  the  highest  estimation  by  the 
orthodox  Friends.  lie  pays  the  school-divinity  the  compliment  that, 
although  it  takes  up  almost  a  man's  whole  life-time  to  learn, it  'brings 
not  a  whit  nearer  to  God,  neither  makes  any  man  less  wicked  or  more 
righteous.'  'Therefore,'  he  continues,  'hath  God  laid  aside  the  wise 
and  the  learned  and  the  disputers  of  this  world,  and  hath  chosen  a  few 
despicable  and  unlearned  instruments  as  he  did  fishermen  of  old,  to 

1  On  these  earlier  confessions,  see  Evans,  pp.  xii.  sqq. 


§  107.  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS,  OR  QUAKERS.  865 

publish  his  pure  and  naked  truth,  and  to  free  it  of  those  mists  and 
fogs  wherewith  the  clergy  hath  clouded  it.'     Nevertheless,  Barclay 

makes  use  of  a  considerable  amount  of  learning — classical,  patristic, 
and  modern— for  the  defense  of  his  views. 

The  'Catechism'  of  Barclay  (written  in  1073)  treats  in  fourteen  chap- 
ters of  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  answers  the  questions 
in  the  language  of  the  Bible,  without  addition  or  comment,  evidently 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  entire  harmony  of  the  Quakers  with  the 
written  Word  of  God.  Their  distinctive  peculiarities  arc  skillfully  put 
into  the  question,  and  the  Scripture  passages  are  so  selected  as  to  con- 
firm them.1  To  the  Catechism  is  added  a  brief  'Confession  of  Faith.' 
in  twenty-three  Articles,  which  is  almost  entirely  composed  of  Scripture 


1  Comp.  Ch.  XL,  concerning  Baptism,  and  Bread  and  Wine.  I  will  select,  as  a  specimen, 
the  questions  on  the  Lord's  Supper  : 

'  Ques.  I  perceive  there  was  a  baptism  of  water,  which  was  John's  baptism,  and  is  there- 
fore by  John  himself  contradistinguished  from  Christ's:  was  there  not  likewise  something 
of  the  like  nature  appointed  by  Christ  to  his  disciples,  of  eating  bread,  and  drinking  wine, 
in  remembrance  of  him? 

lAns.  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord,  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you.  That  the 
Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread  :  and  when  li<'  bad  given 
thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said,  Take,  eat  ;  this  is  my  body  which  is  broken  for  you:  tlii-  do 
in  remembrance  of  me.  After  the  same  manner  aiso  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped, 
saying,  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood;  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  re- 
membrance of  me.     1  Cor.  xi.  23-25. 

'  Ques,   How  long  was  this  to  continue? 

'Arts.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death 
till  he  come.     1  Cor.  xi.  26. 

•  Ques.   Did  Christ  promise  to  come  again  to  his  disciples? 

lAns.  And  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless;  I  will  come  to  you.  Jesus  answered  and 
said  unto  him,  If  a  man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my  words,  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and 
we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him.     John  xiv.  18,  28. 

'Qua.  Was  this  an  inward  coming? 

'Aits.  At  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and  you  in  me,  and  I  in  you. 
John  xiv.  20. 

•  Ques.  But  it  would  seem  this  was  even  practiced  by  the  church  of  Corinth,  after  Christ 
was  come  inwardly:  was  it  so,  that  there  were  certain  appointment-  positively  commanded, 
yea,  and  sealonsly  ami  conscientiously  practiced  by  the  saint>  of  old,  which  were  not  of  per- 
petnal  continuance,  nor  yet  now  needful  to  be  practiced  in  the  Church  ? 

'Ana.  If  I  then  your  Lord  and  Master  have  washed  your  feet,  ye  ought  also  to  wash  one 
another's  feet.  For  I  have  given  von  an  example,  that  vou  should  do  as  I  have  done  to  you. 
John  xiii.  14,  15. 

'  For  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us,  to  lav  upon  you  no  greater  burthen 
than  these  necessary  things:  that  ye  abstain  from  meats  offered  to  idols,  and  from  blood, 
and  from  things  strangled,  and  from  fornication  :  from  which  if  ye  keep  youi-ehes.  ye  shall 
do  well:   Fare  ye  well.     Act*  XT.  28,  29. 

1  I-  any  man  sick  among  you  ?  let  him  call  for  the  elders  of  the  church,  and  let  them  pray 
over  him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,     .hums  v.  1  I. 

These  commands  are  no  less  positive  than  the  other;  yea,  some  of  them  are 
asserted  as  the  very  Bense  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  a-  no  less  necessary  than  abstaining  from 

fornication,  and  yet"  the  generality  of  Protestant*  ha\e  laid  them  aside,  BS  not  of  perpetual 
continuance:  but  what  other  Scriptures  are  there,  to  show  that  it  is  not  Decenary  for  that 
of  bread  and  wine  to  continue? 


866  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

THE   DISTINCTIVE   PRINCIPLES    OF   THE   FKIENDS. 

The  Friends  are  few  in  number,  but  honorably  distinguished  for 
their  philanthropy,  their  consistent  advocacy  of  religious  freedom  and 
the  universal  rights  of  men,  their  zeal  in  behalf  of  prison  reform,  the 
abolition  of  slavery  and  war.  In  private  and  social  life  they  excel  in 
simplicity,  honesty,  neatness,  temperance,  self-control,  industry,  and 
thrift.     Their  oddities  in  dress  and  habits  are  the  shadows  of  virtues. 

In  theology  and  religion  they  are  on  the  extreme  border  of  Protest- 
ant orthodoxy,  and  reject  even  a  regular  ministry  and  the  visible  sacra- 
ments ;  yet  they  strongly  believe  in  the  supernatural  and  the  constant 
presence  and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  hold  the  essentials  of 
the  evangelical  faith,  the  divine  inspiration  and  infallibility  of  the 
Scriptures  (though  they  disparage  the  letter  and  the  human  means  of 
interpretation),  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  (in  substance,  though  not  in 
name),1  the  incarnation,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  atonement  by  his 
blood,  the  regeneration  and  sanctification  by  the  Spirit,  everlasting  life 
and  everlasting  punishment.  And  while  they  deny  the  necessity  of 
water  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  participation  of  the  ele- 
ments of  bread  and  wine,  and  regard  such  rites  as  a  relapse  into  the 
religion  of  forms  and  shadows,  they  believe  in  the  inward  substance 
or  invisible  grace  of  the  sacraments,  viz.,  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  and 
fire,  and  the  vital  communion  with  Christ  by  faith.  They  belong  to 
the  supernaturalistic  line  of  Protestant  dissenters,  while  the  Socinians 
and  Unitarians  tend  in  the  opposite  rationalistic  direction. 

Several  of  the  peculiar  views  and  practices  of  the  Quakers  were 

lAns.  For  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink  ;  but  righteousness  and  peace,  and 
joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.     Horn.  xiv.  17. 

'Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat  or  drink,  or  in  respect  of  an  holy  day,  or  of  the 
new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days.  Wherefore  if  ye  be  dead  with  Christ  from  the  rudiments 
of  the  world,  why,  as  though  living  in  the  world,  are  ye  subject  to  ordinances  (touch  not, 
taste  not,  handle  not :  which  all  are  to  perish  with  the  using),  after  the  commandments  and 
doctrines  of  men?    Col.  ii.  16,  20-22. 

'  Ques.  These  Scriptures  are  very  plain,  and  say  as  much  for  the  abolishing  of  this,  as  to 
any  necessity,  as  aught  that  can  be  alleged  for  the  "former:  but  what  is  the  bread  then,  where- 
with the  saints  are  to  be  nourished  ? 

'Ans.  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Moses  gave  you  not  that 
bread  from  heaven,  but  my  Father  giveth  you  the  true  bread  from  heaven,'  etc. 

Then  follows  the  whole  section,  John  vi.  32-35,  48-58. 

1  I  can  not  find  the  term  Trinity  in  Fox's  Journal  nor  in  Barclay's  Apology,  but  both 
teach  very  clearly  that  Christ  is  God,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God,  that  all  knowledge  of 
the  Father  comes  through  the  Son,  and  all  knowledge  of  the  Son  through  the  Holy  Spirit. 


§  107.  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS,  OR  QUAKERS.  $G7 

anticipated  by  Carlstadt,  the  Zwickan  Prophets,  the  Mennonitee,  and  es- 
pecially by  Caspar  von  Schwenkfeld,  a  pious  and  retiring  nobleman  of 
Silesia  (born  1490,  banished  154S,  d.  15G1  at  Dim).  Behwenkfeld  cm- 
braced  and  preached  the  doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation  with 
zeal  till  1524,  when  he  adopted,  as  by  a  higher  revelation,  a  peculiar 
view  of  the  Lord's  Slipper,  explaining  the  words  of  institution  to  mean, 
My  body  is  this  bread,  i.e.,  spiritual  nourishment  for  the  soul.1  He 
also  taught  the  deification  of  Christ's  flesh,  and  opposed  bibliolatry 
and  all  outward  ecclesiasticism.  A  small  remnant  of  his  sect  that 
was  banished  from  Germany  still  survives  in  the  eastern  counties  of 
Pennsylvania.2  There  is,  however,  no  historical  connection  between 
George  Fox  and  these  predecessors.  His  views  were  entirely  his  own. 
The  history  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  furnishes  a  parallel  in  the 
quietism  of  Miguel  de  Molinos  (1627-1698),  who  taught  that  Christian 
perfection  consists  in  the  sweet  repose  of  all  the  mental  faculties  in 
God,  and  in  indifference  to  all  the  actions  of  the  body.  He  was  con- 
demned as  a  heretic  by  Pope  Innocent  XI.  (1687),  and  shut  up  for 
life  in  a  monastic  prison. 

Quakerism  is  a  system  of  mystic  spiritualism.  It  is  the  only  organ- 
ized sect  of  mystics  in  England  and  America.  The  strong  practical 
common-sense  of  the  English  race  is  constitutionally  averse  to  mystic 
tendencies.  Quakerism  is  an  extreme  reaction  against  ecclesiasticism, 
sacerdotalism,  and  sacramentalism.  It  demonstrates  the  paramount 
importance  of  the  spirit  in  opposition  to  the  worship  of  the  letter;  the 
superiority  and  independence  of  the  inward  and  invisible  in  opposition 
to  the  overestimate  of  the  external  and  visible;  and  the  power  of 
silence  against  the  excess  of  speech. 

Christianity  undoubtedly  is  spirit  and  life,  and  may  exist  under  dif- 
ferent forms,  or  if  necessary  without  form,  like  the  spirit  in  the  disem- 
bodied state.  But  the  normal  condition  is  a  sound  spirit  in  a  sound 
body,  and  while  God  is  independent  of  his  own  ordinances,  we  arc 
bound  to  them.     The  Quakers  make  the  exception  the  rule,  but  by  the 

1  He  understood  aiifta  and  al/ia  to  be  the  subject,  and  tovto  the  predicate. 

2  See  Erbium,  (-rsuhichte  der  protest.  Sekten  I'm  Zeitaiter  dt  r  Reformation,  pp.  ".".7  sqq., 
and  Kadelbach,  Gackieku  K.r.  SehwtmkftUf^  ete.(Laaban,  1861).  The  German  Catechism 
of  the  Schwenkmldians  of  Pennsylvania,  by  Christopher  Schnlts,  Senior  (translated  by  Daniel 

Kupp,  Skippackvillc,  Pa,  1868),  teaches  Schwcnkfcld's  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sapper, 
but  not  the  deification  of  Christ's  flesh. 


868  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

law  of  reaction  formalism  takes  revenge.  Their  antiformalism  becomes 
itself  a  stereotyped  form,  and  their  peculiar  hats  and  coats  are  as  distinct- 
ive as  the  clerical  surplice  and  gown.  When  they  leave  their  Society 
they  usually  join  the  Episcopal  Church,  the  most  formal  among  the  Prot- 
estant denominations. 

THE   INNEK   LIGHT. 

The  ruling  principle  of  Quakerism  is  the  universal  inner  light.1  It 
is  also  called  the  seed,  the  Word  of  God,  the  gift  of  God,  the  indwell- 
ing Christ.  This  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  reason  or  conscience, 
or  any  natural  faculty  of  man.2  It  is  supernatural  and  divine  in 
its  origin ;  it  is  a  direct  illumination  of  the  mind  and  heart  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  for  the  purpose  of  salvation.  It  is  the  light  of  the 
Logos,  which  shines  'in  darkness'  and  'lighteth  every  man  that  cometh 
into  the  world.'3  It  is  Christ  himself  dwelling  in  man  as  the  fountain 
of  life,  light,  and  salvation.  It  is  the  primary  source  of  all  religious 
truth  and  knowledge.  It  opens  the  sense  of  spiritual  mysteries;  it 
convinces  and  converts ;  it  gives  victory  over  sin,  and  brings  joy  and 
peace.  It  is  communicated  to  men  without  distinction  of  race  or  re- 
ligion or  education,  not  indeed  in  the  same  measure,  but  in  a  degree 
sufficient  to  save  them  if  they  obey  it,  and  to  condemn  them  if  they 
reject  it.  'The  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath  appeared 
to  all  men.'4     A  day  of  merciful  visitation  comes  to  every  human  be- 

1  Penn  (in  the  Preface  to  Fox's  Journal,  p.  xiv.)  calls  it  '  the  fundamental  principle  which 
is  as  the  corner-stone  of  their  fabric,  and,  to  speak  eminently  and  properly,  their  character- 
istic or  main  distinguishing  point  or  principle,  viz.,  the  light  of  Christ  within,  as  God's  gift 
for  man's  salvation.  This  is  as  the  root  of  the  goodly  tree  of  doctrines  that  grew  and  branched 
out  from  it.'  Fox's  Journal  is  full  of  it ;  see  the  list  of  passages  in  Vol.  II.  pp.  551  sq.  of  the 
Cth  ed.  (Leeds,  1836). 

2  Barclay  (Ajiol.  p.  74)  rejects  the  errors  of  Pelagians  and  Socinians,  and  teaches  the  cor- 
ruption of  human  nature  in  consequence  of  the  fall,  but  maintains,  in  opposition  to  Augus- 
tine, Luther,  and  Calvin,  that  God  does  not  impute  sin  to  infants  until  they  commit  actual 
transgression.  Gurney  says  (I.e.  p.  G):  'Never  did  they  [the  Quakers]  dare  to  consider  this 
light  as  a  part  of  fallen  man's  corrupt  nature;  never  did  they  hesitate  to  ascribe  it  to  the  free 
and  universal  grace  of  God  through  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.' 

3  John  i.  0.  The  difference  in  the  construction  of  ipx^^'ov  fig  rbv  Kocfiov  does  not  affect 
the  universality,  which  is  sufficiently  sustained  by  iravTa  arSpwirov ;  but  the  question  is 
whether  John  means  the  light  of  reason  or  the  light  of  grace,  and  in  the  latter  case  whether 
it  is  sufficient  for  salvation  or  merely  preparatory  to  it.  When  Fox,  on  his  second  visit  to 
Cromwell  (in  165G),  quoted  this  passage,  he  was  met  with  the  objection  that  John  meant 
'  the  natural  light ;'  but  he  '  showed  him  the  contrary — that  it  was  divine  and  spiritual,  pro- 
ceeding from  Christ,  the  spiritual  and  heavenly  man'  (Journal,  Vol.  I.  p.  3S3). 

4  Titus  ii.  11.     Other  passages  quoted  by  Quakers  for  their  favorite  doctrine  are,  Gen.  vi. 


§  107.  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FBIENDS,  OU  QUAKERS.  S69 

ing  at  least  once  in  his  life,  and  marks  a  critical  turning-point  which 
determines  his  character  in  this  world  and  his  eternal  fate  in  the 
world  to  come.     To  many  the  voice  from  heaven  speaks  often. 

Cornelius  was  under  the  divine  influence  of  that  light  before  the 
arrival  of  Peter  and  the  hearing  of  the  gospel.  Socrates  traced  his 
better  impulses  to  the  divine  monitor  in  his  breast,  who  from  child- 
hood checked  his  evil  passions  without  coercion.1  The  savage  Indians 
of  North  America  followed  the  light  when,  after  having  been  long  en- 
gaged in  war,  they  sacriliced  a  spotless  white  dog  to  the  Great  Spirit 
and  threw  their  tomahawks  into  the  lake.2 

If  Christ  died  for  all  men,  his  benelits  must  in  some  way  be  offered 
to  all.  He  is  the  personal  Light  of  the  whole  world,  which  shines  into 
all  parts  of  the  human  family  backward  to  Adam  and  forward  to 
the  end  of  time.  As  many  are  sinners  without  ever  having  heard  of 
Adam  and  the  fall,  so  many  are  partakers  of  Christ  without  any  ex- 
ternal knowledge  of  him  or  the  Scriptures.  Else  idiots,  infants,  and 
the  saints  who  died  before  Christ's  advent  could  not  be  saved.  His- 
torical knowledge  can  not  save  without  experimental  knowledge,  but 
experimental  knowledge  ma}7  save  without  historical  knowledge. 

The  inner  light  agrees  with  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  though  not 
confined  to  its  letter.  It  is  the  true  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  which 
without  it  remains  a  sealed  book.  It  holds  in  this  respect  the  same 
position  which  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  assigns  to  unwritten  tradi- 
tion, with  this  important  difference,  that  tradition  is  an  outward,  ob- 
jective authority,  and  confined  to  the  visible  Church,  while  the  inner 
light  is  subjective,  and  shines  upon  all  men. 

Quakerism  thus  boldly  breaks   through   the   confines  of  historical 

3;  Deut.  xxx.  14  ;  Horn.  x.  3;  Luke  ii.  10;  Rom.  ii.  14,  15;  Col.  i.  28  ;  Eph.  v.  13;  Acts 
x.  35. 

1  Apol.  Soc.  He  calls  liis  Sttip6vu>v  (in  Jowett's  translation)  'a  voice  which  come-  to  me 
and  always  forbids  me  t<>  do  something  which  I  am  going  to  do,  hut  never  commands  me  to 
do  any  thing,  and  which  stands  in  the  way  of  my  being  a  politician.1     Ho  goes  on  to  say  that 

in  politics  he  would  have  perished  long  Bgo  witl t  doing  any  good  cither  to  the  people  or 

to  himself.  The  case  of  Socrates  i-  not  mentioned  by  Barclay,  hut  by  Gurney,  i>.  48;  '  When 
Socrates,  as  compared  with  Ids  fellow-countrymen,  attained  to  an  emineni  degree  of  disin- 
terestedness, integrity,  justice,  and  charity;  when  he  obeyed  the  counsels  of  that  unknown 
monitor  who  so  frequently  checked  him  in  the  hour  of  temptation;  when  he  bore  so  clear  a 
testimony  to  virtue  as  to  ho  persecuted  to  death  for  rirtae's  take— on  what  scriptural  grounds 

can  any  man  deny  that  lie  was  made  a  partaker,  to  a  certain  degree,  of  a  divine  Influence?' 
3  Gurney,  p.  42. 


870  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Christianity  and  the  means  of  grace,  indefinitely  expands  the  sphere  of 
revelation,  and  carries  the  saving  power  of  Christ,  even  in  this  present 
life,  into  the  regions  of  heathen  darkness.  It  must  consistently  regard 
all  virtuous  and  pious  heathen  as  unconscious  Christians,  who,  like  the 
Athenians  of  old, '  unknowingly '  worship  an  '  unknown  God.'  Justin 
Martyr,  the  first  Christian  philosopher,  advanced  the  idea  that  the 
'  Logos  spermaticos,'  i.e.,  the  Eternal  Word  of  God,  before  his  incarna- 
tion, scattered  the  divine  seed  of  truth  and  righteousness  among  the 
Greeks  as  well  as  the  Jews.  Zwingli  taught  the  salvation  of  many 
heathen  and  of  all  children  dying  in  infancy.  But  these  were  isolated 
private  opinions;  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  orthodox  Churches — 
Greek,  Latin,  and  Protestant — know  of  no  Christ  and  no  salvation  out- 
side of  Christendom  and  without  the  written  or  preached  gospel.  The 
Quakers  teach  the  absolute  universality,  not  indeed  of  salvation,  but  of 
the  offer  and  the  opportunity  of  salvation. 

This  doctrine  is  the  corner-stone  of  their  system.}  It  is  the  source 
of  their  democracy,  their  philanthropy,  their  concern  for  the  lowest  and 
most  neglected  classes  of  society,  their  opposition  to  slavery,  war,  and 
violence,  their  meekness  under  suffering,  their  calmness  and  serenity 
of  temper.  But  the  same  doctrine  explains  also  their  comparative 
disregard  of  the  written  Scriptures,  the  visible  Church,  the  ministry, 
the  means  of  grace,  the  forms  of  worship,  and  their  indifference  to 
heathen  missions.  There  is,  however,  more  recently  among  ortho- 
dox Friends  a  growing  disposition  to  aid  in  the  circulation  of  the 
Bible,  the  work  of  foreign  missions,  and  to  associate  with  evangel- 
ical Christians  of  other  Churches. 

Barclay's  theses. 
Barclay  reduces  the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Friends  to  fifteen  prop- 
ositions or  theological  theses,  which  are  briefly  as  follows:2 

1.  The  Foundation  of  Knowledge. — The  height  of  happiness  is  in 
the  true  knowledge  of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ  (John  xvii.  3). 

2.  Immediate  Revelation. — This  comes  from  the  Son  of  God  (Matt. 
xi.  27)  through  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit. 

This  is  the  inner  light  which  has  already  been  sufficiently  explained. 

1  Hence  their  name,  '  Professors  of  the  Light,' '  Friends  of  Light,'  '  Children  of  Light.' 
3  See  them  in  full,  Vol.  IH.  p.  749. 


§  107.  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS,  OR  QUAKERS.  S71 

3.  The  Holy  Scriptures. — They  contain  the  revelations  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  to  the  saints.  They  are  a  declaration  of  the  fountain,  but  not 
the  fountain  itself;  they  are  the  secondary  rule  of  faith  and  morals, 
subordinate  to  the  Spirit  from  which  they  derive  all  their  excellency 
and  certainty  (John  xvi.  13). 

4.  The  Condition  of  Man  after  the  Fall. — All  men  arc  by  nature 
fallen,  degenerated,  and  spiritually  dead,  but  hereditary  sin  is  not  im- 
puted to  infants  until  they  make  it  their  own  by  actual  transgression. 
Socinianism  and  Pelagianism  are  rejected,  but  also  the  doctrine  of  the 
1  Papists  and  most  Protestants,'  that  a  man  without  the  grace  of  God 
may  be  a  true  minister  of  the  gospel. 

5.  Universal  Redemption  by  Christ. — God  wills  all  men  to  be  Saved ; 
Christ  died  for  all  men ;  the  light  is  sent  to  every  man  for  salvation,  if 
not  resisted. 

On  this  point  the  Quakers  side  with  Lutherans  and  Arminians 
against  Calvinists,  but  go  far  beyond  them. 

C.  Objections  to  the  universality  of  redemption  refuted. 

7.  Justification. — Man  is  regenerated  and  justified  when  he  receives 
the  inner  light.  It  is  not  by  our  works  that  we  are  justified,  but  by 
Christ  who  is  both  the  gift  and  the  giver,  and  the  cause  producing  the 
effects  in  us. 

The  Quakers  closely  connect  justification  with  sanctification,  and 
approach  the  Roman  view,  with  this  difference,  that  they  teach  justifi- 
cation in  our  works,  not  on  account  of  our  works.  Penn  distinguishes 
between  legal  justification,  that  is,  the  forgiveness  of  past  sins  through 
Christ,  the  alone  propitiation,  and  moral  justification  or  sanctification, 
whereby  man  is  made  inwardly  just  through  the  cleansing  and  sancti- 
fying power  and  Spirit  of  Christ. 

8.  Perfection. — Man  may  become  free  from  actual  sinning,  and  so 
far  perfect;  yet  perfection  admits  of  growth,  and  there  remains  a  pos- 
sibility of  sinning.1 

The  Methodists  have  substantially  adopted  this  view,  and  call  it 
entire  consecration  or  perfect  love. 

9.  Perseverance. — Those  who  resist  the  light,  or  disobey  it  after  re- 

1  Penn  (Preface  to  Fox's  .Journal,  p,  xiv.)  sins  that  tlie  Friends  'never  held  a  perfection 

in  wisdom  and  glory  in  ilds  life,  or  from  infirmities  or  death,  u  Borne  bare  with  a  weak  or 

ill  mind  imagined  and  insinuated  against  them.' 

Vol.  I. — K  k  k 


872  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ceiving  it,  fall  away  (Hcb.  vi.  4-6 ;  Tim.  i.  6) ;  but  it  is  possible  in  this 
life  to  attain  such  a  stability  in  the  truth  from  which  there  can  be  no 
total  apostasy. 

This  is  a  compromise  between  Calvinism  and  Arminianism. 

10.  The  Ministry. — Those  and  only  those  are  qualified  ministers  of 
the  gospel  who  are  illuminated  and  called  by  the  Spirit,  whether  male 
or  female,  whether  learned  or  unlearned.  These  ought  to  preach  with- 
out hire  or  bargaining  (Matt.  x.  8),  although  they  may  receive  a  vol- 
untary temporal  support  from  the  people  to  whom  they  administer 
in  spiritual  things. 

11.  Worship. — It  consists  '  in  the  inward  and  immediate  moving  and 
drawing  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  neither  limited  to  places  or  times  or 
persons.'  All  other  worship  which  man  appoints  and  can  begin  and 
end  at  his  pleasure  is  superstition,  will-worship,  and  idolatry. 

All  forms  and  even  sacred  music  are  excluded  from  the  naked  spir- 
itualism of  Quaker  worship.  It  is  simply  reverent  communion  of  the 
soul  with  God,  uttered  or  silent.  I  once  attended  a  Quaker  meeting 
in  London  whose  solemn  silence  was  more  impressive  than  many  a 
sermon.  I  felt  the  force  of  the  word, '  There  was  silence  in  heaven 
for  the  space  of  half  an  hour.'  At  another  meeting  I  heard  one  man 
and  several  women  exhort  and  pray  in  a  tremulous  voice  and  with 
reverential  awe,  as  if  in  the  immediate  presence  of  the  great  Je- 
hovah.    All  depends  upon  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

12.  Baptism. — It  is  'a  pure  and  spiritual  thing,  a  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  and  of  fire,'  by  which  we  are  purged  from  sin  (1  Pet.  iii.  21 ; 
Kom.  vi.  4 ;  Col.  ii.  12 ;  Gal.  iii.  27 ;  John  iii.  30).  Of  this  the  water- 
baptism  of  John  was  a  figure  commanded  for  a  time.  The  baptism  of 
infants  is  a  human  tradition,  without  Scripture  precept  or  practice. 

13.  The  Communion  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  likewise 
inward  and  spiritual,  of  which  the  breaking  of  bread  at  the  last  Supper 
was  a  figure.  It  was  used  for  a  time,  for  the  sake  of  the  weak,  even 
by  those  who  had  received  the  substance,  as  the  washing  of  feet  and 
the  anointing  of  the  sick  with  oil  was  practiced ;  all  which  are  only 
the  shadows  of  better  things.     (John  vi.  32-35  ;  1  Cor.  x.  1G,  17.) 

This  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  is  a  serious  departure  from  the 
universal  consensus  of  Christendom  and  the  obvious  intention  of  our 
Saviour.     It  can  only  be  accounted  for  as  a  protest  against  the  op- 


§  107.  THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS,  OB  QUAKERS 

posite  extreme,  which  substitutes   the   visible  sign   for  the  invisible 
grace. 

14.  The  Power  of  the  Civil  Magistrate. — It  does  not  extend  over 
the  conscience,  which  God  alone  can  instruct  and  govern,  provided 
always  that  no  man  under  pretense  of  conscience  do  any  thing  de- 
structive to  the  rights  of  others  and  the  peace  of  society.  All  civil 
punishments  for  matters  of  conscience  proceed  from  the  spirit  of  Cain 
the  murderer. 

Here  the  Quakers,  like  the  Baptists,  commit  themselves  most  un- 
equivocally to  the  doctrine  of  universal  religious  liberty  as  a  part  of 
their  creed. 

15.  Salutations  and  Recreations. — Under  this  head  are  forbidden 
the  taking  off  the  hat  to  a  man,  the  bowings  and  cringings  of  the  body, 
and  '  all  the  foolish  or  superstitious  formalities '  which  feed  pride  and 
vanity  and  belong  to  the  vain  pomp  and  glory  of  this  world;  also  all 
unprofitable  and  frivolous  plays  and  recreations  which  divert  the  mind 
from  the  fear  of  God,  from  sobriety  and  gravity.  Penn  said  of  Fox 
that  he  was  'civil  beyond  all  forms  of  breeding.' 

The  Apology  of  Barclay  is  a  commentary  on  these  propositions. 

Note. — The  Hicksites. — In  the  year  1827  a  schism  took  place  among  the  Friends  in 
Philadelphia,  and  extended  to  most  of  the  yearly  meetings  in  America,  but  bad  no  influence 
in  England.  Since  then  the  Quakers  are  divided  into  'orthodox'  Quakers  and  'Hicksites,' 
although  the  latter  refuse  to  be  called  by  any  other  name  but  that  of  'Friends'  or  'Quakers.' 
The  founder  of  this  rupture  was  Elias  Hicks,  born  in  Hempstead,  Long  Island,  March  19, 
17G8  ;  died  in  Jericho,  N.  Y.,  Feb.  27,  1830. 

He  took  strong  ground  against  slavery,  and  abstained  from  all  participation  in  the  fruits  of 
slave  labor.  He  was  for  a  long  time  an  acceptable  preacher,  but  early  in  the  present  century 
he  advocated  radical  Unitarian  and  other  heterodox  doctrines,  which  shocked  the  majority 
of  the  Quakers  and  led  to  commotion,  censure,  and  schism.  The  first  separation  took  place 
in  the  Yearly  Meeting  at  Philadelphia,  and  then  a  similar  one  in  New  York.  Baltimore,  Ohio, 
and  Indiana.  Many  espoused  the  cause  of  Hicks,  in  the  interest  of  religious  liberty  and 
progress,  without  indorsing  his  heretical  opinions  on  the  articles  of  the  Trinity,  the  divinity, 
and  the  atonement  of  Christ. 

The  extreme  left  of  the  Hicksites  broke  off  in  1858  in  Chester  County.  Pa.,  and  organised 
a  separate  party  under  the  name  of  Progressive  Friends.  They  opened  the  door  to  all  who 
recognize  the  equal  brotherhood  <>f  the  human  family,  without  regard  to  sex,  color,  or  condi- 
tion, and  engage  in  works  of  beneficence  and  charity.  They  disclaim  all  creeds  and  dis- 
ciplinary authority,  and  are  opposed  to  every  form  Of  ecclesiasticism. 

The  Bicksite  movement  drove  the  orthodox  Quakers  more  closely  to  the  Scriptures,  and 
called  forth  several  official  counter-demonstrations. 

On  the  'llicksite'  Quakers,  see  Bum  Hi<  as,  Journal  of  his  Life  and  Labor*,  and  his 
Sermons,  1'hila.  1828:  and  Janni.v  (a  Hicksite),  History  oftkt  Society  of  Friend*,  VoL  IV. 


874  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 


§  108.  The  Moravians. 

See  the  Literature  on  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  §  75,  p.  565,  and  the  Waldenses,  p.  5GS. 

DOCTRINAL   AND   CONFESSIONAL. 

I.  Zinzendorf:  Ein  und  zicanzig  Discourse  iiber  die  Augsburgische  Confession,  1747-174S  (never  pub- 
lished through  the  trade,  and  therefore  rare).  Also  the  other  writings  of  Zinzeudorf,  and  especially 
his  hymns  and  spiritual  poems,  collected  and  published  by  Albert  Knaiv,  with  a  spirited  sketch  of 
his  life  and  character  (Stuttg.  1845). 

Aug.  Gottlieb  Siwngenberg:  Idea  Fidci  Fratrum  oder  Kurzcr  Begriff  der  christlichen  Lelire  in  den 
evang.  Brudergemeinen.  Barb}',  177S,  17S2 ;  Gnadau,  1S33;  English  ed.  Loud.  1784.  Accepted  as  author- 
ity.   By  the  same  :  Declaration  itber  die  zeither  gegen  uns  ausgegangenen  Beschuldigungen.    Berlin,  1772. 

Hermann  Pi.itt  (Pres.  of  the  Morav.  Theol.  Seminary  in  Gnadeufeld):  Evangelische  Glaubenslchre 
nach  Schri/t  und  Erfahrung.  Gotha,  1SG4,  2  vols.  Not  authoritative.  By  the  same:  Zinzendorf 's 
Theologie.    Gotha,  1SC9-1874,  3  vols. 

The  hymns  and  liturgies  of  the  Moravian  Church. 

Eiim.  DE  Sciiweinitz  (Morav.  Bishop) :  The  Moravian  Manual.  Publ.  by  authority  of  the  Synod.  2d 
enlarged  ed.  Bethlehem,  Pa.  1S69. 

II.  Among  the  early  opponents  of  the  Moravians  we  mention  Fresenios,  Fabricitjs,  Georgies,  and 
the  celebrated  commentator,  J.  A.  Ben  gel  (Abriss  der  sogcn.  Brudergemeinde,  in  welchem  die  Lehre  und 
die  ganze  Sache  gepri'/ft,  das  Gute  und  Dose  dabci  unterschieden,  etc.    Stuttg.  1751 ;  republ.  Berlin,  1S59). 

III.  Modern  representations  by  divines  not  of  the  Moravian  Church. 

Mohler:  Symbolik,  pp.  533  sqq. ;  Soiineokenbcrger:  Vorlesungen  fiber  die  kleineren  protest.  Eirchen- 
parteien,  pp.  152-171 ;  R.  Hofmann  :  Symbolik,  pp.533  sqq. 

Historical. 

I.  Biographies  of  Count  Zinzendorf. 

Spangenbeeg:  Leben  des  Graf  en  Zinzendorf.  Barby,  1772-1775,  8  vols.  Thorough,  reliable,  and 
prolix. 

J.  G.  Mult.er  (brother  of  the  Swiss  historian,  John  von  M.) :  Bekenntnisse  merkiourdiger  Manner  von 
sich  selbst.    3  vols.  1775. 

L.  C.  von  Souratjtenbach  :  Der  Grafv.  Zinz.  und  die  Drudergemeinde  seiner  Zeit,  hcrausgeg.  v.  F.  W. 
Eblbing.  Gnadau,  1851.  Written  iu  17S2,  but  not  for  publication,  and  kept  as  MS.  iu  the  Archives  of 
the  Moravian  Church  till  1851.  One  of  the  most  interesting  works  on  Zinzendorf,  setting  forth  the 
philosophy  of  his  religion. 

Varnhagen  von  Ense:  Leben  Zinzendorf 's.  Berlin,  1830 ;  2d  ed.  1S46.  The  view  of  an  outsider,  sim- 
ilar to  Southey's  Life  of  Wesley. 

J.W.Verbeok:  Gr.  Zinzendorf 's  Leben  und  Charakter.    Gnadau,  1S45.    An  extract  from  Spaugenberg. 

F.  Bovet  :  Le  Comte  de  Zinzendorf.    Paris,  1860. 

G.  Burkuaedt:  Zinzendorf  unci  die  Drudergemeinde,  in  Herzog's  Real-Encykl.  Vol.  XVIII.  pp.  508-592 
(Gotha,  1864),  and  published  as  a  separate  volume. 

II.  Histories  of  the  Moravian  Church. 

Many  MS.  sources  in  the  Archives  of  Herrnhut,  Saxony,  especially  the  '  Lissa  Folios,'  relating  to  the 
history  of  the  Ancient  Bohemian  and  Moravian  Church;  the  'Diarium  der  Gemeinde  zu  Herrnhut' 
down  to  1736;  the  journals  and  letters  of  Zinzendorf;  and  the  history  both  of  the  Ancient  and  Re- 
newed Church,  by  John  Plitt,  from  1722  to  1836,  in  9  vols. 

The  Biiding'sche  Sammlung.    Budingen  and  Leipzig,  1742-1744,  3  vols.    A  collection  of  documents. 

The  Darby'sche  Sammlung.    Barby,  1760,  2  vols.    A  continuation  of  the  former. 

David  Cranz:  Alte  und  neue  Bruderhistorie  (down  to  1769).  Barby,  1772;  continued  by  Hegner,  in 
3  parts,  1791-1816.    Engl,  transl.  by  La  Trobe,  London,  17S0. 

Die  Gedenktage  der  erneuerten  Brudcrkirche  (Memorial  Days  of  the  Renewed  Brethren's  Church). 
Gnadau,  1820. 

Bp.  Holmes:  History  of  the  United  Brethren.    Lond.  1S25,  2  vols. 

A.  Bort:  Histoire  de  VEglise  des  Frires  de  BoMme  et  Moravie.  Paris,  1S44,  2  vols.  Abridged  English 
transl.  publ.  by  the  Relig.  Tract  Soc.  of  London,  1848. 

Bp.  E.  W.  Croger:  Geschichte  der  erneuerten  Brudcrkirche  (down  to  1822).  Gnadau,  1S52-1854,  3  vols. 
(The  same  wrote  also  a  Geschichte  der  alten  Brudcrkirche.    Gnadau,  1S05  and  1866,  2  vols.) 

Verbeek  :  Geschichte  der  alten  und  neuen  Bri'/der-Unitdt.    Gnadau,  1S57. 

II.  Pi.itt:  Die  Gemeine  Gottes  in  ihrem  Geiste  und  ihren  Formen  mit  Bezichung  avf  die  Brudergcme.ine. 
Gotha,  1859. 

Dr.  Nitzsoii:  Kircliengeschichtliche  Bedeutung  der  Brudergemcindc.    Berlin,  1S53. 

Missionary. 

The  missionary  literature  of  the  Moravians  is  very  large  and  important,  and  embraces  the  works 

of  Cuanz  on  Greenland  (1767);  Oldendorv  (1777)  on  Danish  Missions ;  Heckewelder  (1817)  on  Indian 


§  108.  THE  MORAVIANS.  875 

Missions ;  L  KAlbimq,  Uebereiehi  <i>-r  Miaaiontgaachicktt  (far  namg.  BrOdtrUrcht  (188!  and  1888) ;  Bp.  to* 
ScinvEiNiTz.L*/' ■■■..■  er(Phlla,18T0).  Comp.thelW«^onarylfanuoJondWrtctory</fft«£rntf« 

Fiat i- it, a,  Bethlehem,  Pa.  1878. 

BIBTOKIGAL   SKETCH. 

AVe  must  distinguish  between  the  old  Bohemian  and  Moravian  Breth- 
ren who  belonged  to  the  Slavonic  race,  and  the  new  .Moravians  who  are 
chiefly  German  or  of  German  descent.  The  connecting  link  between 
the  two  was  the  celebrated  educator,  John  Amos  Comenius  (1592-1671), 

the  Jeremiah  of  the  former,  and  the  John  the  Baptist  of  the  latter, 
who,  hoping  against  hope  for  the  resurrection  of  the  Bohemian  I'nitas 
Fratrum,  nearly  crushed  to  death  by  persecution,  left  behind  him  their 
order  of  discipline,  and  made  provision  for  the  ordination  of  two 
bishops,  that  through  them  the  succession  might  be  preserved  in  a  qui- 
escent state,  until,  in  1735,  it  was  transferred  to  the  renewed  Church. 

The  new  Mobaveah  Ciiurcii1  took  its  origin  from  the  remnant  (the 
;  Hidden  Seed')  of  the  Bohemian  and  Moravian  Brethren,  to  whom 
Count  Zixzendorf  (1700-17G0),  under  the  guidance  of  a  special  provi- 
dence, gave  an  hospitable  refuge  on  his  estates  at  Berthelsdorf,  in  Upper 
Lusatia,  Saxony.  The  asylum  was  called  ITcrrnlnit  (the  Lord's  Pro- 
tection), and  became  the  mother  church  and  the  centre  of  the  denomi- 
nation. 

The  little  colony  of  immigrants  from  Moravia  soon  increased,  by  the 
accession  of  German  families  of  the  pietistic  school  of  Spener,  to  the 
number  of  three  hundred  souls.  It  was  organized  on  the  basis  of  the 
Ratio  Disciplince  of  Comenius.  David  Xitschmann  was  consecrated 
the  first  bishop  by  Daniel  Ernst  Jablonsky  (court  chaplain  in  Berlin) 
and  Christian  Sitkov,  the  surviving  bishops  of  the  old  succession  (March 
13,  1735).  This  consecration  was  performed  secretly  in  the  presence 
of  only  two  members  of  the  Bohemian  congregation  in  Berlin,  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  sending  ordained  ministers  to  the  distant  missions  and 
colonies.  It  was  not  intended  to  establish  an  episcopal  form  of  govern- 
ment, separate  and  distinct  from  the  national  Lutheran  Church,  but 
eparation  was  the  natural  consequence.  The  second  bishop  was 
Count  Zinzendorf  himself,  who  gave  up  his  office  at  the  Saxon  court 

'Also  called  the  I'nitas  Fratkum,  the  Ubthd  Bbbthrkh,  the  HIorayzah  Brsthreh; 
in  German,  Bbdderqbmbisb,  or  Hi  rrvhi  n  k.    They  must  ii"!  !"•  confounded  with  the 

Methodist  'United  Brethren  in  the  United  States,' founded  by  Kev.  William  Otterhein  in 
1800. 


876  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  his  worldly  prospects  to  devote  himself  entirely  to  the  Church 
of  his  own  planting.1  With  all  his  eccentricities,  he  was  one  of  the 
purest  and  most  remarkable  men  in  the  history  of  Christianity,  a  relig- 
ious and  poetic  genius,  and  a  true  nobleman  by  nature  and  divine  grace 
as  well  as  by  rank.  He  had  but  one  all-absorbing  passion — Christ  and 
him  crucified.2  From  his  childhood,  when  he  used  to  write  letters  to 
his  beloved  Saviour,  this  sacred  fire  burned  in  him,  and  continued  to 
burn  till  he  was  called  to  see  him  face  to  face.  He  early  conceived 
the  idea,  by  planting  in  the  spirit  of  Spener  a  true  Church  in  the  nom- 
inal Church,  to  reform  the  Church  at  home,  and  to  carry  the  gospel  to 
the  heathen.  We  may  call  him  the  German  Wesley;  he  was  an  or- 
ganizer like  John  Wesley,  and  a  true  hymnist  like  his  brother  Charles. 
The  Oxford  Methodists  started  with  a  legalistic  type  of  piety,  but  they 
received  a  new  inspiration  from  the  childlike,  cheerful,  serene,  and 
sublime  trust  in  God  which  characterized  the  Moravians  with  whom 
they  came  in  contact. 

The  patriarchs  of  Moravianism — Zinzendorf,  Nitschmann,  and  Span- 
genberg — like  the  patriarchs  of  Methodism,  labored  in  both  hemispheres 
at  a  time  when  the  stagnant  State  Churches  of  Germany  and  England 
cared  little  or  nothing  for  their  children  in  America.  They  founded 
Bethlehem  (1741)  and  Nazareth  in  Pennsylvania,  and  other  colonies 
which  remain  to  this  day.  Zinzendorf  endeavored  to  unite  the  other 
German  denominations  and  sects  in  Pennsylvania  into  one  Church, 
but  in  vain.3 

The  Moravian  brotherhood  is  jpar  excellence  a  missionary  society  at 
home  and  abroad.  It  has  but  few  regularly  organized  congregations 
scattered  in  Christian  lands,  but  in  an  age  of  indifferentism  and  ration- 
alism they  were  like  cities  of  refuge  and  oases  in  the  wilderness,  with 
fresh  fountains  and  green  pastures  for  multitudes  who  flocked  to  them 
for  refreshment.4     They  are  still  holding  up  the  model  of  living  con- 


]It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  Frederic  William  I.,  king  of  Prussia,  advised  Zinzendorf  to 
get  the  old  Moravian  Episcopal  ordination,  and  that  Zinzendorf  conferred  on  the  subject  with 
Bishop  Jablonsky,  and  with  his  friend,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (John  Potter). 

"  '  Jch  habe  nur  eine  Passion,  und  die  ist  Er,  nur  Er.' 

'■'  On  the  unionistic  labors  of  Count  Zinzendorf  in  Pennsylvania  from  1742  to  1748,  see  an 
interesting  article  of  the  Rev.  L.  F.  Reichel  (mostly  from  unpublished  MSS.)  in  Schaff's 
Deutscher  Kirchenfreund  for  1819,  pp.  1)0-107. 

4  Ilase  (Kirchengeschichte,  p.  G3G,  'Jth  ed.)  :   '■Die  FrQmmujkeit  ist  in  Herrnhut  eine  Ma- 


§  108.  THE  MORAVIANS.  877 

gregations  of  real  Christians,  Pesides,  they  have  mission  stations,  call- 
ed Diaspora  (1  Pet.  i.  1),  fur  those  who  wish  to  derive  spiritual  benefit 
from  them  without  severing  their  connection  with  the  established 
Churches.  These  half-members  may  be  compared  to  the  Jewish  prose- 
lytes of  the  gate  as  distinguished  from  the  proselytes  of  righteou 
The  Moravians,  however,  are  free  from  the  spirit  of  proselytism, 
and  endeavor  to  promote  peace  and  union  among  the  Christians  at 
home.  But  they  are  aggressive  abroad,  and  concentrate  their  energies 
on  foreign  missions.  Their  chief  glory  lies  in  the  extraordinary  seal 
and  self-denial  with  which,  since  1732,  they  have  labored  for  the  con- 
version of  the  most  ignorant  and  degraded  heathen  in  Greenland,  Lab- 
rador, among  the  American  Indians,  and  the  African  negroes  and  Es- 
quimaux, at  a  time  when  orthodox  Protestant  Christendom  had  not  yet 
awoke  to  a  sense  of  its  long-neglected  duty.  To  the  small  band  of 
Moravians  belongs  the  first  place  of  honor  in  the  work  of  foreign 
missions. 

DISCIPLINE    AND    WOB8BTP. 

The  Moravian  congregations  in  Germany  are  select  communities  of 
converted  Christians,  ecclesice  in  ecclesia,  separate  and  distinct  from  the 
national  Churches  and  the  vanities  of  the  surrounding  world.1  They 
have  a  strict  discipline,  but  they  are  free  from  gloomy  asceticism,  and 
cherish  a  cheerful  and  trustful  piety  with  love  for  music  and  social  re- 
finement. Their  educational  institutions  attract  pnpila  from  all  direc- 
tions. 

The  form  of  government  is  a  kind  of  Episcopal  Presbyterianism, 
under  the  supreme  legislative  power  of  synods,  and  an  executive  ad- 
ministration of  an  elective  board  of  bishops  and  elders,  called  the  '  I'ni- 
ty'a  Elders' Conference.'  The  bishops  ordain  deacons  and  presbytere: 
they  represent  the  whole  Un'itas  Fr a  trui  a,  are  official  members  of  the 
Bynods,  and  have  usually  a  scat  in  the  governing  boards.  They  claim 
an  unbroken  succession,  but  lay  no  stress  on  it,  and  fully  recognize 
the  validity  of  Presbyterian  orders. 

The  home  churches  are  divided  into  three  provinces,  Continental, 


ni>  r  v  won*  n,  aber  nth  ttiUe  oder  gtbrochtni  fi!  •■■•  n  katttn  Uer  <im  Heimath,  wtddtr  altt 

Christ  us  in  tint  Ziitm  <l>s  I'mjhiuhrns  'in  ffti/ii/t  hum.' 

1  The  Bforerian  settlement!  in  the  United  States  were  orgaairod  un  the  same  exclusive 
principle,  bn1  bare  recently  been  thrown  open  to  other  people. 


§78  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

British,  and  American.  In  1857  these  were  declared  independent  in 
local  and  provincial  affairs,  but  they  continue  to  be  united  in  doctrine 
and  the  work  of  foreign  missions. 

In  worship,  the  Moravians  combine  liturgical  and  extemporaneous 
prayer.  At  all  the  liturgical  services  music  forms  a  prominent  feature. 
Their  liturgy  and  hymn-book  are  of  a  superior  order.  They  have  great- 
ly enriched  the  treasures  of  German  hymnology,  and  produced  also  one 
of  the  best  English  hymnists  in  James  Montgomery  (1771-1854),  'the 
Cowper  of  the  nineteenth  century.'  Love-feasts  are  held  preparatory 
to  the  communion,  in  imitation  of  the  ancient  Agapse.  Foot-washing 
was  formerly  practiced,  but  has  been  discontinued  since  the  beginning 
of  the  present  century.  The  former  use  of  the  lot  in  connection  with 
marriage  has  been  practically  abandoned ;  and  in  connection  with  the 
appointment  of  ministers  it  has  been  restricted  or  is  left  discretional. 

DOCTUIXES. 

The  Moravians  acknowledge  no  exclusive  and  compulsory  symbols. 
They  are  essentially  unionistic,  and  seek  union  in  harmony  of  spirit, 
life,  and  worship,  rather  than  in  a  logical  statement  of  doctrine.1  Their 
most  authoritative  creed  is  the  Easter  Litany,  which  dates  from  1749, 
and  is  still  used  annually  in  all  Moravian  churches,  but  as  an  act  of 
worship,  not  as  a  formula  for  subscription.2  They  have  always  laid 
the  chief  stress  on  the  atoning  death  of  Christ,  and  the  personal  union 
of  the  soul  with  him,  but  more  in  a  devotional  and  practical  than  doc- 
trinal way.  Christ  crucified  and  living  in  them  is  the  all  in  all  of 
their  religion,  their  only  comfort  in  life  and  death ;  but  they  have  not 
formulated  any  particular  theory  of  the  atonement  or  of  the  unio  mys- 
tica.  They  prefer  the  chiaroscuro  of  mystery  and  the  personal  attach- 
ment to  Christ  to  all  scientific  theology. 

Historically  and  nationally,  they  are  more   nearly  related  to  the 


1  Burkhardt  (in  Herzog,  Vol.  XVIII.  p.  580)  says :  '■Die Briidcrgemeinde stellt  nie  ein  ausser- 
Uch  formulirtes  Bekenntniss  nac.h  aussen  kin  an/  das  sie  von  anderen  evangeliscken  Glaubens- 
genossen  trennen  konnte.  Sie  luird  es  und  Jcann  es  nie  thun,  denn  nicht  AOsr.hluss  und  Schei- 
dung,  sondern  Union  ist  ihr  Prinri/>.  Aber  nur  jene  wahre  und  positive  Union  auf  Grund 
der  heiligen  Sehri/t  und  der  lebendigen  Herzens-Er/ahrung,  die  allein  die  Ilerzen  vereinigt. 
Bishop  Schweioitz  says  {Manual,  p.  95)  :  '  The  Renewed  Church  of  the  Brethren  lias  no  Con- 
fession of  Faith  as  such,  that  is,  no  document  bearing  this  name.' 

2  See  the  Moravian  Litany  in  Vol.  III.  p.  703. 


§  108.  THE  MORAVIANS.  870 

Lutheran  denomination  than  to  any  other.  They  sustain  to  it  a  re- 
lation similar  to  that  which  the  Wesleyans  sustain  to  the  Church  of 
England.  They  professed  from  the  start  their  agreement  with  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  Spangenberg,  the  exponent  of  their  doctrinal 
system,  begins  the  preface  to  his  Idea  Fidei  Fratrum  with  the  dec- 
laration that  his  book  is  no  new  confession,  but  that  the  Confessio 
Augustana  of  1530  is  and  shall  remain  their  confession. 

But  we  should  remember  that  this  indorsement  of  the  doctrinal  ar- 
ticles of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  though  no  doubt  sincere,  was  partly 
a  matter  of  policy  and  necessity  to  secure  toleration  in  Lutheran  coun- 
tries.1 It  had  no  force  outside  of  Germany  and  Scandinavia,  and  even 
there  no  subscription  to  this  document  was  ever  required.2  The  Mo- 
ravians never  adopted  the  other  Lutheran  symbols,  least  of  all  the  For- 
mula of  Concord,  which  strict  Lutherans  regard  as  a  legitimate  devel- 
opment of  the  Augustana.  They  never  wished  to  be  considered,  nor 
were  they  recognized  as  Lutherans,  but  were  violently  assailed  by  them 
for  their  alleged  doctrinal  latitudinarianism  and  various  excesses  dur- 
ing their  early  history.  Even  the  Pietists  for  a  period  made  common 
cause  with  their  orthodox  enemies  against  the  new  sect,  though  less  on 
doctrinal  grounds.  The  Moravians  claim  to  be  the  legitimate  descend- 
ants and  heirs  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  who  were  closely  connected 
with  the  Waldenses,  and  had  their  own  Confessions  and  Catechisms  be- 
fore and  after  the  Reformation.  They  admitted  to  their  communion 
Lutherans,  Pietists,  Calvinists,  Anglicans,  without  inquiring  into  their 
creed,  if  only  they  were  devout  Christians.  In  England  they  were 
recognized  by  Parliament,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  bench  of  bish- 
ops, as  'an  ancient  Episcopal  Church'  (1749),  and  allowed  to  settle  in 
the  American  colonies.  They  also  freely  associated  with  Wealeyans. 
They  were  the  advocates  of  a  conservative  evangelical  union  of  three 
chief  types  of  doctrine3— the  old  Moravian  or  Bohemian,  the  Lutheran, 

■After  ten  years'  banishment  from  Saxony,  Zinzendorf  secured  in  1748  recognition  of  his 
congregation  as  Augsburgischt  Religiontverwandtt  (Addicti  Augustana  Con/.") — a  title  under 
which  the  Reformed,  or  Calvinists,  were  included  in  the  Treat;  of  Westphalia. 

'Manual,  p.  96:  'This  acknowledgment,  according  to  the  declaration  of  the  General  Syn- 
od, does  not  hind  the  conscience  of  any  member,  much  less  is  it  of  any  weight  in  those  prov- 
inces of  the  Unity  where  the  Augsburg  Confession  has  no  other  value  than  as  being  the  creed 
of  one  (the  Lutheran)  nmong  many  Churches  enjoying  eqnal  rights'  (Synod  Result!  of 
1857,  p.  96). 

3  LehrtrqptH  (rpviroi  irauilar),  as  Zinzendorf  celled  them.      He  meant  different  educational 


880  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  the  Reformed — living  in  brotherly  harmony  as  a  true  unitas  fra- 
trurn,  and  having  their  common  centre  in  Christ.  They  rise  above  the 
boundaries  of  nationality  and  sect,  and  represent  a  real  catholicity  or 
universalism  of  creed  with  Christ  as  the  only  fundamental  article.  '  I 
know  of  no  other  foundation,'  says  Zinzendorf,  'but  Christ,  and  I  can 
associate  with  all  who  build  on  this  foundation/  He  was  at  one  time 
even  open  to  a  project  of  union  with  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches 
and  all  sorts  of  Christian  sects,  but  he  learned  that  the  union  here  be- 
low must  be  spiritual  and  inward. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  great  German  theologian,  Schleier- 
macher,  was  cradled  in  the  Moravian  community,  and  conceived  there 
his  love  for  Christian  union  and  personal  devotion  to  Christ,  which 
guided  him  through  the  labyrinth  of  speculation  and  skepticism,  and 
triumphed  on  his  death-bed.  He  shook  almost  every  dogma  of  ortho- 
doxy, and  was  willing,  if  necessary,  to  sacrifice  all,  if  he  could  only 
retain  a  perfect  and  sinless  Saviour. 

Zinzendorf's  theology  and  piety  passed  through  a  process  of  develop- 
ment— first  a  sound  evangelical  stage  (1723-1742),  then  a  period  of 
sickly  sentimentalism  (1743-1750),  and,  last,  a  period  of  purification 
and  reconstruction  (1750-1760).1  These  phases  are  reflected  in  the 
history  of  his  followers.  Encouraged  by  his  own  unguarded  language, 
in  poetry  and  prose,  about  the  luxurious  reveling  in  the  wounds  of  the 
Lamb,2  and  the  personal  intimacy  with  the  Saviour,  they  ran  into  wild 
and  dangerous  excesses  of  an  overheated  imagination.  As  is  often 
the  case  in  the  history  of  religious  enthusiasm,  the  spirit  was  about 
to  end  in  the  flesh.3     But  Zinzendorf  himself,  honestly  confessing  his 


ways  of  God  adapted  to  the  varieties  of  national  and  individual  character.  The  Lutheran 
type  prevailed  among  the  Moravians  in  Saxony,  the  Reformed  in  Holland  and  England. 
The  Moravian  type  furnished  the  historical  base  and  a  peculiar  element  in  discipline  rather 
than  doctrine. 

1  See  especially  Plitt  and  Burkhardt. 

3  Or  'Lambkin,'  Lammlein,  as  the  favorite  phrase  was.  The  side-wound  was  made  es- 
pecially prominent. 

3  Bishop  Schweinitz  thus  describes  this  period  {Moravian  Manual,  pp.  35  sq.) :  '  The  rela- 
tion between  Christ  and  his  Church  was  described  in  language  more  highly  figurative,  and 
under  images  more  sensuous,  than  any  thing  found  even  in  the  Song  of  Solomon.  A  mania 
spread  to  spiritualize,  especially  the  marriage  relation,  and  to  express  holy  feelings  in  extrav- 
agant terms.  Hymns  abounded,  treating  of  the  passion  of  Jesus,  apostrophizing  the  wound 
in  his  side,  degrading  sacred  things  to  a  level  with  the  worst  puerilities,  and  pouring  forth 
sentimental  nonsense  like  a  flood ;  while  services,  in  themselves  devotional  and  excellent, 


§  10a  THE  MORAVIANS.  SSI 

share  of  responsibility,  recalled  his  followers  from  the  abyss  to  the 
purity  and  simplicity  of  the  gospel. 

The  purified  and  matured  system  of  the  Moravians  is  best  exhibited 
in  Spangenberg's  Idea  F'ulci,  which  occupies  a  similar  position  among 
them  as  Melanchthon's  Loci  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  It  is  also  set 
forth  from  time  to  time  in  the  Synodical  Jiesidts.  The  Synod  of  1SG9 
issued  the  following  summary  of  such  doctrines  as  are  deemed  most 
essential  to  salvation : 

'  1.  The  doctrine  of  the  total  depravity  of  human  nature:  that  there  is  no  health  in  man, 
and  that  the  fall  absolutely  deprived  him  of  the  divine  image. 

'2.  The  doctrine  of  the  love  of  God  the  Father,  who  has  "chosen  us  in  Christ  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  and  "so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life." 

'3.  The  doctrine  of  the  real  godhead  and  the  real  manhood  of  Jesus  Christ:  that  God,  the 
Creator  of  all  things,  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  ami  lias  reconciled  the  world  unto  himself; 
and  that  "he  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist." 

'4.  The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  and  satisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ  fur  us :  that  he  '•  was 
delivered  for  our  offenses,  and  was  raised  again  for  our  justification ;"  and  that  in  his  merits 
alone  we  find  forgiveness  of  sins  and  peace  with  God. 

'5.  The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  operations  of  his  grace:  that  it  is  he  who 
works  in  us  the  knowledge  of  sin,  faith  in  Jesus,  and  the  witness  that  we  are  children  of  <  rod. 

'G.  The  doctrine  of  the  fruits  of  faith:  that  faith  must  manifest  itself  as  a  living  and  ac- 
tive principle,  by  a  willing  obedience  to  the  commandments  of  God,  prompted  by  love  and 
gratitude  to  him  who  died  for  us. 

'In  conformity  with  these  fundamental  articles  of  faith,  the  great  theme  of  our  preaching  is 
Je81  -  <  iiiust,  in  whom  we  have  the  grace  of  the  Lord,  the  love  of  the  Father,  and  the  com- 
munion of  the  Holy  Ghost.  We  regard  it  as  the  main  calling  of  the  Brethren's  Chnrch  to 
proclaim  the  Lord's  death,  and  to  point  to  him,  "as  made  of  God  unto  us  wisdom,  and 
righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  redemption."  ' ' 

were  changed  into  occasions  for  performances  more  in  keeping  with  the  stage  of  a  common 
theatre  than  with  the  sanctity  of  the  house  of  God.  In  short,  fanaticism  rioted  among  min- 
isters and  people,  and  spread  from  Herrnhaag  and  Marieuborn  to  other  churches  both  on  the 
Continent  of  Europe  and  in  England.  Those  in  America  escaped,  or  were  but  slightly  af- 
fected. This  continued  for  about  five  years,  reaching  its  climax  in  174!>.  It  is  possible  that 
immoralities  of  life  may  have  occurred  in  single  instances,  although  there  are  no  p. .~it i%  e 
proofs  of  this;  the  great  majority  of  the  Brethren,  however,  were  preserved  from  Buch  ex- 
tremes.' Similar  antinomian  excesses  occurred  in  the  Moravian  congregations  in  England 
(I7".l).  and  turned  Wesley  and  Whitelield  against  their  old  friends,  whom  they  charged  with 
neglecting  to  preach  the  law  either  as  a  schoolmaster  or  as  a  rule  of  life,  with  irreverent  senti- 
mentalism  and  superstitious  fopperies,  See  Tyermau.  Lift  of  John  Wesley,  VoL  IL  pp.  95 
sqq.  i  Harper's  ed.). 

1  Bishop  Nrhweinitz.  in  M'C'lintoek  and  Strong's  Cyclop.  Vol.  VI.  p.  587.  Com]',  his  Com* 
pend  of  Doctrine  in  XVII.  Articles,  compiled  from  the  authorized  publication  in  the  iiora; 
dan  Manual,  pp.95  I'1".  A  popular  statement  is  contained  in  the  Catechism  of  Christian 
Doctrim  for  tht  Instruction  of  Youth  in  the  Chnrch  of  tht  United  Brethren,  and  the  E/rit- 
ii), i'  of  Christian  Doctrine- for  the  Instruction  of  Candidates  for  Confirmation  (various 
editions  in  German  and  English). 


882  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

§  109.  Methodism. 


I.  Doctiunal  Standards. 

John  Wesley  (1703-1791) :  Sermons  on  Several  Occasions;  and  Explanatory  Xotes  on  the  Xew  Test.  In. 
many  eds.,  Loudon,  Bristol,  New  York,  Cincinnati,  etc.  Best  ed.  of  the  Sermons  by  Thomas  Jackson, 
Lond.  1S25,  New  York,  1S75. 

Richard  Watson  (17S1-1833) :  Theological  Institutes:  or  a  View  of  the  Evidences,  Doctrines,  Morals, 
and  Institutions  of  Christianity.  First  ed.  Lond.  1S22-2S,  in  6  parts ;  best  ed.,  with  an  Analysis  by 
John  M'Clintock,  New  York,  in  2  vols.  (29th  ed.  1S75). 

W.  B.  Pope  (Theol.  Tutor,  Didsbury  College,  Manchester):  A  Compendium  of  Christian  Theology: 
being  Analytical  Outlines  of  a  Course  of  Theological  Study,  Biblical,  Dogmatic,  Historical.  London  (Wes- 
leyan  Conference  Office),  1S75  (752  pp.).  By  the  same :  The  Peculiarities  of  Methodist  Doctrine.  London, 
1873. 

D.  D.Whedon,  D.D.  (Ed.  of  the  'Methodist  Quarterly  Review,'  and  of  a  Popular  Commentary  on  the 
New  Test.) :  Doctrines  of  Methodism.    In  '  Bibliotheca  Sacra '  for  April,  1SC2,  pp.  241-274.   Andover,  Mass. 

W.  F.Warren:  System.  Theologie.    Bremen,  1S65,  Vol.  I. 

The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  1872.  Ed.  by  Bishop  Harris.  New 
York  (Nelson  &  Phillips)  and  Cincinnati  (Hitchcock  &  Waldeu). 

Catechisms  of  the  Methodist  Ejriscopal  Church.  New  York  (Nelson  &  Phillips).  Especially  No.  3,  which 
is  designed  '  for  an  advanced  grade  of  study.'  Approved  by  the  General  Conference,  1S52.  Two  Ger- 
man Catechisms  by  the  Kev.  Dr.  William  Nast,  1S6S. 

II.  Other  Sources  for  the  Doctrines  and  History  of  Methodism. 

The  Complete  Works  of  John  Wesley  (first  ed.  Bristol,  1771  sqq.,  in  32  small  vols,  full  of  typographical 
errors ;  3d  and  best  ed.  with  the  author's  last  corrections,  ed.  by  Thomas  Jackson,  Lond.  1831, 14  vols. ; 
New  York,  7  vols.). 

The  Poetical  Works  of  John  and  Charles  Wesley.    Ed.  by  G.  Osborn,  D.D.    Lond.  1S72.,  13  vols. 

The  Works  of  John  Fletcher  (Lond.  1S15, 10  vols. ;  New  York,  1831,  4  vols.). 

The  Sermons  and  Journals  of  George  Wuitefield  (1756, 1771). 

The  Journals  of  Bishop  Asbury  (new  ed.  N.  Y.  1S54,  3  vols.). 

III.  Biographies. 

John  Wesley,  by  Coke  and  Mooke  (Lond.  1792);  by  John  Hampson  (1791,  3  vols.);  by  Robert 
Southey  (with  Notes  by  Sam.  T.  Coleridge,  3d  ed.  Lond.  1846 ;  Amer.  ed.  with  Notes  by  Coleridge,  Alex. 
Knox,  and  Daniel  Curry,  N.  Y.  1S47,  2  vols.) ;  by  Richard  Watson  (Lond.  1S31 ;  Amer.  ed.  with  Notes  by 
T.  O.  Summers) ;  by  L.  Tyerman  (Lond.  and  New  York,  1S72,  3  vols.) ;  Isaac  Taylor  :  Wesley  and  Method- 
ism (Lond.  and  New  York,  1855) ;  James  H.  Rigg:  The  Living  Wesley  as  he  was  in  his  Youth  a?ul  his 
Prime  (Lond.  1S75 ;  New  York  ed.  with  Introduction  by  Dr.  Hurst,  of  Drew  Theol.  Seminary).  Comp. 
Dr.  Rigg's  article  on  the  Churchmanship  of  John  Wesley,  in  the  '  Contemporary  Review '  for  Sept.  1S76. 

Charles  Wesley  (1708  to  17S8),  by  Thomas  Jackson  (Lond.  1S41,  2  vols.). 

George  Whitefield  (the  founder  of  Calviuistic  Methodism,  b.  1714,  d.  1770),  by  J.  Gillie  (Lond.  1772, 
1S13);  by  Robert  Philip  (Lond.  1830;  also  in  German,  with  a  Preface  by  Tholuck,  Leipz.  1S34) ;  by  L. 
Tyerman  (announced  by  Hodder  &  Stoughton,  London,  1876). 

The  Oxford  Methodists:  Memoirs  of  Clayton,  Ingham,  Gambold,  Hervcy,  and  Broughton.  By  L.  Tyerman. 
London  and  New  York,  1873. 

Early  Methodist  Preachers.    Ed.  by  Thomas  Jackson  (Lond.  1839,  2  vols.). 

IV.  General  Histories  of  Methodism. 

Dr.  Abel  Stevens  {History  of  Methodism,  New  York  and  Lond.  1858-C1,  3  vols. ;  History  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  N.  Y.  1866-67,  4  vols. ;  Centenary  of  A  merican  Methodism,  N.  Y.  1S65) ;  Dr.  Georgi; 
Smith  (Lond.  1S57-62,  3  vols. ;  illustrated  popular  edition,  1S64),  and  a  number  of  other  works.  For  a 
concise  summary,  see  Stevens's  art.  '  Methodism,'  in  Johnson's  '  Uni vers.  Cyclop.'  Vol.  III.  (1876).  Also 
for  popular  use,  James  Porter:  The  Revised  Compendium  of  Methodism.  New  York,  1S75.  Jacoby: 
Geschichte  des  Methodismus.    Bremen,  1S70. 

Comp.  The  Wesleyan  Methodist  Magazine.  London  (Wesleyan  Conference  Office),  177S  to  1S76  (xcix. 
vols.). 

The  Methodist  quarterly  Review.    New  York  (Nelson  &  Phillips),  Vols.  LVI1I.  till  1876. 

M'Clintock  and  Strong's  Cyclo}>cedia  (New  York,  1873  sqq.,  so  far  6  vols.),  is  edited  by  Methodists, 
and  pays  special  attention  to  Methodist  and  Aimiuian  articles. 

V.  Bibliographical,  Critical,  and  Polemical. 

For  Kic  anti-Methodist  literature,  see  II.  C.  Deoanver:  Catalogue  of  Works  in  Refutation  of  Methodism 


§  100.  METHODISM.  8S3 

from  its  Origin,  to  1729,  to  the  Present  Tim,:  Phila.  (John  WningtonJ,  1S4C.  Contnins  in  alphabetical 
order  the  titles  of  -i-±~  books  and  sermons  against  Methodism,  tnoet  <>i  which  are  forgotten. 

C*.  Osiiohn  i  OutUate  <•/  Wulei/an  BMbgrapky,    London,  1809. 

M.  Souneckenucugeu:  Lehrbegrijj'e  dcr  kUiiuren  protcnt.  Kircheii]xirtcien.     1SC3,  pp.  10S-151. 

Jon.  Ji.N(iST:  Amerikaniseher  Methodisrnw  in  Dsutsehkmi  und  B.  FsanaU  Bmitk,  Gotba,lS75.  By 
the  same:  Weten  umi  Lerechtiyiuxj  ties  Mcthudismus.    Qotha,  1878. 


CHAEACTEE   OF   METHODIBM. 

Methodism  is  the  most  successful  of  all  the  younger  offshoots  of  the 
Reformation.  In  one  short  century  it  has  become  one  of  the  largest 
denominations  in  England,  and  the  largest  in  the  United  States,  with 
missionary  stations  encircling  the  globe. 

The  founders  were  admirably  qualified  fur  their  work,  and  as  well 
fitted  together  as  the  Reformers.  John  Wesley  was  one  of  the  greatest 
preachers  and  organizers,  and  in  the  abundance  of  his  labors  perhaps 
the  most  apostolic  man  that  England  ever  produced.  As  a  revivalist 
of  practical  religion  he  may  be  called  the  English  Spener,  as  an  or- 
ganizer the  Protestant  Ignatius  Loyola.  His  brother  Charles  occu- 
pies, next  to  Watts,  the  first  place  in  English  hyinnology,  and  sang 
Methodism  into  the  hearts  of  the  people.  Whitefield,  the  orator  and 
evangelist,  kindled  a  sacred  fire  in  two  hemispheres  which  burns  to 
this  day.  Their  common,  single,  and  sole  purpose  was  to  convert  sin- 
ners from  the  service  of  Satan  to  the  service  of  God,  by  means  of 
incessant  preaching,  praying,  and  working.  For  this  end  they  were 
willing  to  spend  and  be  spent,  to  be  ridiculed, reviled, pelted  and  hoot- 
ed by  mobs,  maltreated  by  superiors,  and  driven  from  the  church  into 
the  street;  for  this  they  would  in  another  age  have  suffered  tort- 
ure, mutilation,  and  death  itself  as  cheerfully  as  the  Puritans  did 
before  them.  The  practical  activity  of  these  great  and  good  men  was 
equaled  only  by  that  of  the  Reformers  in  the  theoretic  sphere.  Dur- 
ing the  fifty  years  of  his  itinerant  ministry,  John  Wesley  traveled 
'a  quarter  of  a  million  of  miles,  and  preached  more  than  forty  thou- 
sand sermons."  Charles  Wesley  composed  over  six  thousand  religious 
poems,2  in  the  study,  in  the  pulpit,  on  horseback,  in  bed,  and  in  his  (]\- 


'  Tyerman,  John  Wesley,  Vol.  III.  p.  668  I  Harper's  ed  i.  Dr.  Iti^g  (The  Living  Wesley, 
Hurst's  ed.  p.  208)  remarks  tbal  Wesley  rode  ordinarily  sixty  miles  a  day,  and  not  seldom 
eighty  and  ninety  miles,  besides  preaching  twice  or  thrice. 

-  Osborn's  edition  contain-,  7600  poems  of  Wesley,  including  those  of  John,  who  com- 
posed all  the  translations  from  the  German. 


SS4  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

ing  hour.1  "Whitefield,  besides  traveling  through  England,  Ireland,  and 
Scotland,  made  seven  evangelistic  voyages  to  America,  turning  the 
ship  into  a  church,  and  'preached  in  four -and -thirty  years  upwards 
of  eighteen  thousand  sermons,  many  of  them  to  enormous  crowds, 
and  in  the  teeth  of  brutal  persecution.'2  A  day  before  his  death  he 
preached  his  last  sermon  of  nearly  two  hours'  length  in  the  open 
air,  'weary  in  the  work,  but  not  of  the  work'  of  his  Lord.  Fletcher 
labored  in  a  more  restricted  sphere,  as  Vicar  of  Madely,  but  just  as 
faithfully  and  devotedly,  visiting  his  people  and  the  poor  ignorant 
colliers  early  and  late,  in  rain  and  snow,  studying  intensely,  living 
all  the  while  on  bread  and  cheese  or  fruit,  and  exhibiting  an  an- 
gelic type  of  character,  so  that  Wesley,  from  a  personal  acquaint- 
ance of  more  than  thirty  }Tears,  gave  him  the  testimony  that  'he 
never  heard  him  speak  an  improper  word  or  saw  him  do  an  improper 
action,'  and  that  he  never  knew  a  man  'so  inwardly  and  outward- 
ly devoted  to  God,  so  unblamable  in  every  respect.'3  The  pioneers 
of  American  Methodism  were  animated  by  the  same  zeal.  Bishop 
Asbury,  '  in  the  forty-five  years  of  his  American  ministry,  preached 
about  16,500  sermons,  or  at  least  one  a  day,  and  traveled  about 
270,000  miles,  or  6000  a  year,  and  presided  in  no  less  than  224  an- 
nual conferences,  and  ordained  more  than  4000  preachers.' 4  He  was 
ordained  bishop  (1784)  when  the  number  of  American  Methodists  fell 
below  15,000,  and  he  died  (1816)  when  it  exceeded  211,000,  with 
more  than  700  itinerant  preachers. 

Methodism  owes  its  success  to  this  untiring  zeal  in  preaching  the 
gospel  of  the  new  birth  and  a  '  full  and  free  salvation '  to  the  common 
people,  in  churches,  chapels,  and  the  open  air,  and  to  its  peculiar  meth- 
ods and  institutions — itinerancy,  missionary  bishops,  presiding  elders, 

1  When  hardly  able  to  articulate  any  more,  he  dictated  to  his  wife  these  lines : 

'In  age  and  feebleness  extreme, 

Who  shall  a  helpless  worm  redeem? 

Jesus,  my  only  hope  thou  art, 

Strength  of  my  failing  flesh  and  heart ; 

Oh  could  I  catch  a  smile  from  thee, 

And  drop  into  eternity  1' 
aTyerman,Vol.  III.  p.  78. 

3  See  Wesley's  Funeral  Sermon  on  the  death  of  John  W.  Fletcher,  who  was  a  French 
Swiss  by  birth  (de  la  Fle'chiere),  born  at  Nyon,  Canton  de  Vaud,  1720,  educated  at  Geneva, 
died  at  Madeley,  1785.     His  chief  works  is  Checks  to  Antinomianism,  against  Calvinism. 

4  Stevens,  Centenary  of  American  Methodism  (N.  Y.  18Gf>),  p.  94. 


§  109.  METHODISM.  SS5 

lay  helpers,  class-meetings,  camp-meetings,  conferences,  and  systematic 

collections.  Methodism,  as  Dr.  Chalmers  characterized  it,  is  '  Christian- 
ity in  earnest.'  It  works  powerfully  upon  the  feelings;  it  inspires 
preachers  and  members  with  enthusiasm;  it  gives  every  man  and  wom- 
an too  a  distinct  vocation  and  responsibility;  it  'keeps  all  at  Murk  ami 
always  at  it,'  according  to  Wesley's  motto;  it  knows  nothing  of  churches 
without  ministers,  or  ministers  without  charges,  as  long  as  there  are 
sinners  to  be  converted  in  any  corner  of  the  globe.  Methodism  is  bet- 
ter organized  than  any  other  Protestant  denomination,  and  resembles 
in  this  respect  the  Church  of  Rome  and  its  great  monastic  orders.  It 
is  a  powerful  rival  of  that  Church.  It  has  an  efficient  machinery  with 
an  abundance  of  steam,  and  is  admirably  adapted  for  pioneer  work  in 
a  new  country  like  America.  It  is  a  well-disciplined  army  of  conquest, 
though  not  so  good  an  army  of  occupation,  since  it  allows  so  many  '  to 
fall  away  from  grace,'  not  only  temporarily,  but  even  '  totally  and  final- 
ly.' Till  1872  the  laity  was  excluded  from  participation  in  Church 
government  (and  is  so  still  in  England),  but  was  compensated  by  a 
large  liberty  in  the  sphere  of  worship,  in  class-meetings,  band-meetings, 
love-feasts,  which  tend  to  develop  the  social  and  emotional  element  in 
religion. 

METHODISM    AND    ITKIT  ANISM. 

Methodism  forms  the  third  great  wave  of  the  Evangelical  Protest- 
ant movement  in  England,  and  represents  the  idea  of  revival.  The 
Reformation  destroyed  the  power  of  the  papacy.  Puritanism  aimed 
at  a  more  thorough  Reformation  in  Church  and  State,  and  controlled 
for  a  time  the  civil  and  religions  life  of  the  nation.  Methodism  kept 
aloof  from  politics,  and  confined  itself  to  the  sphere  of  practical  re- 
ligion. Puritanism  was  animated  by  the  genius  of  Calvinism;  Meth- 
odism, in  its  main  current,  by  the  genius  of  Arminianism.  Both  made 
a  deep  and  lasting  impression  upon  the  national  Church  from  which 
they  proceeded,  and  moulded  the  character  of  American  Christianity. 
The  Methodist  revival  checked  the  progress  of  Bkepticism  and  infidelity 
which  had  begun  to  set  in  with  deism.  It  brought  the  life  and  light 
of  the  gospel  to  the  most  neglected  classes  of  society. 

If  evangelical  Christianity  to-day  has  a  stronger  hold  on  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  race  in  both  hemispheres  than  on  any  other  nation,  it  is  chiefly 
due  to  the  influence  of  Puritanism  and  Methodism. 


886  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

RELATION    TO    TIIE    CHUECII    OF   ENGLAND. 

Methodism  is  a  daughter  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  was  nursed 
in  the  same  University  of  Oxford  which,  a  century  later,  gave  rise  to 
the  Tractarian  school  in  the  opposite  direction  towards  Eome.  The 
'Holy  Club'  of  the  fourteen  Oxford  students  associated  for  prayer, 
holy  living,  and  working,  began,  like  Dr.  Pusey  and  his  friends,  with  a 
revival  of  earnest,  ascetic,  and  ritualistic  High-Churchism,  and  received 
the  name  'Methodists'  for  its  punctual  and  methodical  habits  of  de- 
votion. Wesley  was  at  first  so  exclusive  an  Episcopalian  that  he 
shrank  from  street-preaching  and  lay-preaching,  and,  at  least  on  one 
occasion,  even  rebaptized  Dissenters.  But  his  contact  with  the  sim- 
ple-hearted, trustful,  and  happy  German  Moravians  (Peter  Bolder, 
Nitschmann,  and  Spangenberg)  whom  he  met  on  his  voyage  across 
the  Atlantic,  in  the  Colony  of  Georgia,  and  after  his  return,  led  to  his 
second  'conversion,' which  took  place  May  24, 1738,  and  imparted  to 
his  piety  a  cheerfully  evangelical  and,  we  may  say,  a  liberal  Broad- 
Church  character.1 

He  now  entered  upon  his  independent  evangelistic  career,  yet  with 
no  idea  of  forming  a  separate  denomination.  His  object  was  simply 
to  revive  experimental  piety  within  the  limits  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
as  Spener  and  Erancke  had  done  before  within  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sion in  Germany.  Although  badly  treated  by  bishops  and  other  clergy, 
he  had  no  quarrel  with  the  authorities  in  Church  or  State,  but  only 
with  sin  and  Satan.  His  aim  was  to  build  the  city  of  God  and  to  save 
souls  within  the  establishment,  if  possible ;  without  it,  if  necessary.    He 

1  'At  the  first,'  says  Dr.  Rigg  ('Contemporary  Review'  for  187G,  pp.  G56  sq.),  'with 
Wesley  faith  had  meant  the  intellectual  acceptance  of  the  creeds,  together  with  the  submis- 
sion of  the  will  to  the  laws  and  services  of  the  Church.  .  .  .  Until  he  met  with  Bolder,  he  had 
not  embraced,  scarcely,  it  would  seem,  had  conceived  the  idea  of  faith  as  being,  in  its  main 
element,  personal  trust  and  self- surrender,  as  having  for  its  central  object  the  atonement  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  as  inspired  and  sustained  by  the  supernatural  aid  and  concurrence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  .  .  .  Wesley  confessed  that  Bohler's  teaching  was  true  gospel  teaching.  .  .  .  Here 
ended  his  High-Church  stage  of  life.  Here  began  his  work  as  an  evangelist  and  Church  re- 
vivalist. All  dates  from  his  final  acceptance  of  BOhler's  teaching  as  to  the  nature  of  faith.' 
Dr.  Stevens  says  {Centenary,  p.  31) :  '  Methodism  is  indebted  to  Moravianism  for  not  only  some 
of  the  most  important  features  of  its  moral  discipline,  but  for  the  personal  conversion  of  both 
the  Wesleys.'  But  Wesley  was  converted  before  as  much  so  as  Luther  was  when  he  entered 
the  convent  of  Erfurt  several  years  before  he  experienced  his  second  or  evangelical  conver- 
sion to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone.  On  the  other  hand,  some  of  the  Oxford 
Tractarians  were  converted  over  again,  or  backward,  when  they  joined  the  Church  of  Rome. 


§  109.  METHODISM.  §87 

performed  indeed  some  nncanonical  acts  whicb  led  ultimately  to  seces- 
sion, but  he  did  it  from  necessity,  not  from  choice,  lie  never  made 
common  cause  with  Dissenters,  lie  lived  and  died  in  the  Church  of 
his  fathers.  His  brother  Charles  was  even  more  conservative,  and 
took  great  offense  at  his  violation  of  the  canons. 

Had  the  Church  of  England  been  as  wise  and  politic  as  the  Church 
of  Rome,  she  would  have  encouraged  and  utilized  the  great  revival 
of  the  eighteenth  century  for  the  spread  of  vital  Christianity  at  home 
and  abroad,  and  might  have  made  the  Weslcyan  society  an  advocate 
of  her  own  interests  as  powerful  as  the  order  of  the  Jesuits  is  of  the 
Papacy.  Now,  after  a  century  of  marvelous  success,  the  founder  of 
Methodism  is  better  appreciated,  and  has  been  assigned  (1STC)  a  place 
of  honor  among  England's  mighty  dead  in  Westminster  Abbey. 

The  English  Wcsleyans  continue  to  hold  a  middle  position  between 
the  Established  Church  and  the  Dissenters  proper,  but  tend  latterly 
more  to  Free-Churchism. 

AMERICAN    METHODISM. 

In  the  United  States  the  Methodists  were  made  an  independent 
organization  with  an  episcopal  form  of  government  by  Wesley's  own 
act.  As  a  Tory  and  a  believer  in  political  non-resistance,  he  at  first 
wrote  against  the  American  '  rebellion,'  but  accepted  the  providential 
result;  and,  considering  himself  as  a  'Scriptural  Episeopos,'  he  or- 
dained, on  the  second  day  of  September,  17S4,  two  presbyters  (Richard 
Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey)  and  one  superintendent  or  bishop,  viz., 
the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.  (a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England), 
for  his  American  mission,  which  then  embraced  S3  traveling  preachers 
and  14,98S  members.1  This  was  a  bold  and  an  irregular  act,  but  a 
master-stroke  of  policy,  justified  by  necessity  and  abundant  success.2 

1  The  first  Methodist  society  in  America  was  formed  in  17CG,  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
among  a  few  Irish  emigrants,  by  Philip  Embury,  a  local  preacher,  and  by  his  cousin,  Mi-.  Bar- 
bara Heck,  a  true  '  mother  in  Israel.'  Hence  Methodism  celebrated  its  centenary  in  1866  with 
great  festivities. 

2  He  al.-o  ordained  a  few  preshyters  for  Scotland  and  England  to  a-si-t  him  in  administer- 
ing the  sacraments,  on  the  plea  that  the  regular  clergy  often  refused  t>>  admit  bis  people  to 
the  Lord's  table,  At  the  Conference  of  1 788  he  consecrated  (according  to  Samuel  Bradborn'a 
statement)  one  of  his  preachers  as  a  superintendent  or  bishop.     He  had  long  before  been 

convinced  by  Stillingfieet's  '  Irenicon'  and  Lord  King's  '  Primitive  Church '  that  hishops  and 
presbyters  were  originally  one  order,  and  that  diocesan  episcopacy  was  not  founded  on  divine 

YOL.  I. — L  L  L 


888  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Bishop  Coke,  assisted  by  the  Rev.  P.  W.  Otterbein,  of  the  German 
Reformed  Church,  ordained,  according  to  Wesley's  direction,  Francis 
Asbury  to  the  office  of  joint  superintendent,  and  twelve  others  to  the 
office  of  presbyters,  at  the  first  General  Conference  held  in  Baltimore 
(Dec.  27, 1784).  These  were  the  first  Protestant  bishops  in  America, 
with  the  exception  of  Dr.  Samuel  Seabury,  who  was  consecrated  a  few 
weeks  before  (Nov.  14, 1784),  at  Aberdeen,  as  bishop  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  diocese  in  Connecticut.1  In  a  short  time  the  society,  thus 
fully  organized,  overtook  older  denominations,  and  kept  pace  with  the 
rapid  progress  of  the  young  republic. 

The  separation  from  the  mother  Church  of  England  was  complete, 
but  her  blood  still  flows  in  the  veins  of  Methodism  and  shows  itself 
in  a  half-way  assent  to  her  doctrinal  standards  (as  far  as  they  admit 
of  an  Arminian  interpretation),  to  her  liturgy  (as  far  as  it  does  not 
encourage  sacerdotalism  and  ritualism  or  interfere  with  the  freedom 
of  worship),  and  to  her  episcopacy  (as  based  upon  expediency,  and 
not  on  the  divine  right  of  succession). 

BRANCHES    OF   METHODISM. 

The  Methodist  Christians  in  England  and  America  are  divided  into 
a  number  of  distinct  ecclesiastical  organizations  —  the  'Wesleyans,' 
the  '  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,'  the  '  Primitive  Methodists,'  the 
'  Primitive  Wesleyans  of  Ireland,'  the  '  Bandroom  Methodists,'  the 
'Methodist  Protestant  Church,'  the 'Welsh  Calvinistic  Methodists,'  the 
'  Free  Methodist  Church,'  the  '  African  (Bethel  and  Zion)  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,'  etc.  To  the  Methodist  family  belong  also  the 
'  Evangelical  Association '  (or  '  Albright's  Brethren,'  so  called  from 
Jacob  Albright,  a  Pennsylvania  German,  who  founded  this  society  in 
1800), and  the  'United  Brethren  in  Christ'  (founded  by  Philip  William 
Otterbein,  a  German  Reformed  minister,  d.  in  Baltimore,  1S13). 

The  great  parent  body,  however,  are  the  Wesleyans  in  England 

right.  In  a  letter  to  his  brother  Charles  (178"))  he  calls  the  uninterrupted  episcopal  succes- 
sion 'a  fable  which  no  man  ever  did  or  can  prove.' — Rigg,  1.  c"  p.  GOO.  For  a  full  discussion 
of  Wesley's  ordination  acts,  see  Stevens,  History  of  Methodism,  Vol.  II.  pp.  209  sqq.,  and 
Tyerman,  John  Wesley,  Vol.  III.  pp.  42G  sqq. 

1  Bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  not  consecrated  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
until  Feb.  4,  1 787,  the  consecration  being  delayed  and  nearly  frustrated  by  certain  impedi- 
ments. 


§  109.  METHODISM. 


SS9 


and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  They 
far  outnumber  all  the  other  branches  put  together.    The  Methodist 

Episcopal  Church  was  divided  in  1844  on  the  question  of  slavery  into 
'the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church'  (North), and  'the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,'  but  measures  have  been  inaugurated  (1S7G) 
for  reuniting  them.  Similar  schisms  for  the  same  cause  rent  other 
Churches  before  the  civil  war,  but  have  been  healed  or  will  be  healed, 
since  the  war  has  removed  the  difficulty.  The  Roman  Catholic,  and 
next  to  it  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  owing  to  their  conserva- 
tism, were  least  affected  by  the  disturbing  question  of  slavery,  and 
remained  intact. 

The  differences  between  the  various  branches  of  Methodism  refer 
to  the  episcopate,  the  relative  powers  of  the  bishops  and  the  general 
conference,  lay  representation,  and  other  matters  of  government  and 
discipline  which  do  not  come  within  the  scope  of  this  work.  The  doc- 
trinal creed  is  the  same  in  all,  with  the  exception  of  the  "Whitefieldian 
Methodists,  who  are  Calvinists,  while  all  the  rest  are  Arminians. 


Note. — The  Cyrlujntdla  of  M'Clintock  and  Strong,  Vol.  "VT.  p.  159,  gives  the  following 

list  of  Methodist  denominations,  with  the  date  of  their  organization  and  estimate  of  their 
ministers  and  church  members  in  1872: 

GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND. 


Denomination. 

Date  of 
Orgndntioa. 

Number  of 
Mini.tert. 

Number  of 
Church 
Member.. 

1 199 
(1745) 

1797 

1810 

1816 

1815 

1 328  -40 

1S4<J 

3,157 

807 
200 
948 

85 
204 
81S 

80 

657,996 
68,677 
86,708 

161,829 
14,847 
86,841 

9,393 

;in  Reform  Union 

981,400 

Denomination. 


D«te  of 

|     OrganinUion. 


Methodist  Episcopal  Chard)  (in  1878) 

Methodist  Church  (Non-Episcopal) 

Brethren 

Evangelical  Association  (Albrights 

African  Methodist  Episcopal 

African  Methodist  Episcopal  (Zion) 

Canada  Wesleyans 

Eastern  British  American  Wesleyan  Mi 

Methodist  Episcopal  Chorch  of  Canada 

Methodist  Protestants.  South 

American  Wealej  m) 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church, Sonth  (in  1871)*... 

Free  Methodists 

Primitive  Methodists 

Totals 


IT-t 

1800 
1800 

1819 
1888 
18641 


1-1  : 
1-U 


1".T4_- 


nbonl  '."> 
about  80 


164, 

16,118 


'  ThU  doe*  not  include  the  colored  membership  now  Kparately  organized  •>  the  Colortd  ifctWi'rf  Epitope!  i'.',u-M,  .SuuM. 


890  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

§  110.  Methodist  Ceeeds. 

The  American  Methodists  have  three  classes  of  doctrinal  standards : 

1.  The  Twenty-five  Articles  of  Religion.1  They  were  prepared  by 
John  Wesley,  from  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England 
(together  with  an  abridgment  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer),  for 
the  American  Methodists,  and  were  adopted  by  the  Conference  in  Bal- 
timore, 1784,  with  the  exception  of  Article  XXIII.,  which  recognizes 
the  United  States  as  '  a  sovereign  and  independent  nation,'  and  which 
was  adopted  in  1804.  These  articles  are  now  unalterably  fixed,  and 
can  neither  be  revoked  nor  changed.2 

2.  John  "Wesley's  Sermons  and  Notes  on  the  New  Testament.  They 
are  legally  binding  only  on  the  British  Wesleyans,  but  they  are  in  fact 
as  highly  esteemed  and  as  much  used  by  American  Methodists,  and 
constitute  the  life  of  the  denomination.  When  eighty-one  years  of  age 
(Feb.  28,  17S4),  Wesley,  in  his  famous  Deed  of  Declaration,  which  is 
called  the  Magna  Charta  of  Methodism,  bequeathed  the  property  and 
government  of  all  his  chapels  in  the  United  Kingdom  (then  359  in 
number)  to  the  'Legal  Hundred,'  i.  e.,  a  conference  of  one  hundred 
of  his  traveling  preachers  and  their  successors,  on  condition  that  they 
should  accept  as  their  basis  of  doctrine  his  Notes  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  the  four  volumes  of  Sermons  which  had  been  published  by 
him  or  in  his  name  in  or  before  1771.3  These  sermons  are  fifty-eight 
in  number,  and  cover  the  common  faith  and  duties  of  Christians,4  but 
contain  at  the  same  time  the  doctrines  which  constitute  the  distinctive 
creed  of  Methodism.5  The  Notes  on  the  New  Testament  are  for  the 
most  part  a  popular  version  of  Bengel's  Gnomon. 

1  See  Vol.  III.  pp.  7G6  sqq.  Comp.  also  Emory.  History  of  the  Discipline,  ch.  i.  §  2 ; 
Comfort,  Exposition  of  the  Articles  (New  York,  1847);  Jimeson,  Notes  on  the  Twenty-five 
Articles  (Cincinnati,  1 853). 

2  '  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor 
establish  any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present  existing  and  estab- 
lished standards  of  doctrine.'  This  article  can  not  be  amended  (Discipline,  p.  51).  The 
General  Conference  is  the  highest  of  the  five  judicatories,  and  the  only  legislative  body  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

3  Tyerman,  Vol.  III.  pp.  417  sqq. 

4  Thirteen  discourses  are  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  chiefly  ethical ;  two  are  funeral 
discourses  (on  the  death  of  Whitefield  and  Eletcher) ;  one  on  the  cause  and  cure  of  earth- 
quakes ;  one  on  the  use  of  money. 

5  On  Salvation  by  Eaitli ;   Scriptural  Christianity;  Original  Sin;  Justification  by  Faith; 


§  110.  METHODIST  CREEDS.  393 

3.  The  Book  of  Discipline  and  several  Catechisms,  one  published  in 
1852,  another  in  1SGS  (by  Dr.  Nast),  are  at  least  secondary  standards 
for  the  American  Methodists. 

The  distinctive  features  of  the  Methodist  creed  are  not  logically  for- 
mulated, like  those  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches.  It  allows 
a  liberal  margin  for  further  theological  development  John  Wesley, 
though  himself  an  able  logician  and  dialectician,  sought  Christianity 
more  in  practical  principles  and  sanctified  affections  than  in  orthodox 
formulas,  and  laid  greater  stress  on  the  (ecumenical  consensus  which 
unites  than  on  the  sectarian  dissensus  which  divides  the  Christians. 
The  General  Rules,  or  recognized  terms  of  membership,  for  the  original 
Methodist  'societies'  (not  churches),  are  ethical  and  practical, and  con- 
tain not  a  single  article  of  doctrine.  They  require  'a  desire  to  flee 
the  wrath  to  come  and  be  saved  from  sin,'  and  to  avoid  certain  spe- 
cific vices. 

Nevertheless  Methodists  claim  to  have  more  doctrinal  harmony 
than  many  denominations  which  impose  a  minute  creed.  There  is  a 
Methodist  system  of  doctrine  and  a  Methodist  theology,  however  elas- 
tic they  may  be.  But  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  their 
standard  writers  as  to  the  degree  of  originality  and  completeness 
of  this  system  and  its  relation  to  other  confessions.  "We  may  dis- 
tinguish au  American  and  an  English  view  on  the  subject. 

An  ingenious  attempt  has  recently  been  made  to  raise  the  Methodist 
creed  to  the  importance  and  dignity  of  a  fourth  confession  or  symbolical 
system  alongside  of  the  Roman  Catholic,  the  Lutheran,  and  the  Cal- 
vinistic,  and  far  above  them.  ,According  to  Dr.  Warren,  Catholicism 
makes  salvation  dependent  upon  a  meritorious  co-operation  of  man 
with  God,  and  is  essentially  pagan  :  Calvinism  makes  salvation  depend 
exclusively  on  the  eternal  decree  and  free  grace  of  God,  and  views 
Christianity  from  the  stand-point  of  the  Old  Testament;  Lntheranism 
derives  salvation  from  the  personal  relation  of  man  to  the  means  of 
grace  (the  Word  and  Sacraments),  and  views  Christianity  from  the 
stand-point  of  justification  by  faith  alone;  Methodism  makes  salvation 
exclusively  dependent  upon  man's  own  free  relation  to  the  illuminating, 
renewing,  and  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Boly  Spirit,  and  represents 

Free  Grace;  the  Witness  of  the  Spirit  (three  sermons);  on  Christian  Perfection.    It  is  singu- 
lar there  is  not  one  sermon  on  the  Freedom  <>f  the  Will. 


§92  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  stand-point  of  Christian  perfection.  Calvin  retains  the  Christians 
under  the  dispensation  of  the  Father,  Luther  under  the  dispensation 
of  the  Son,  Wesley  leads  them  into  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit.  The 
first  confines  salvation  to  the  favorite  number  of  the  elect ;  the  second 
binds  it  to  the  baptismal  font,  the  altar,  and  the  pulpit ;  the  third  offers 
it  freely  to  all.  Calvin's  ideal  Christian  is  a  servant  of  God,  Luther's 
a  child  of  God,  Wesley's  a  perfect  man  in  the  full  stature  of  Christ.1 

English  Methodists  claim  for  their  system  a  humbler  position,  and 
represent  it,  in  accordance  with  the  intention  of  the  founders,  as  a  lib- 
eral evangelical  modification  of  the  Anglican  creed,  with  some  orig- 
inal doctrines  to  which  they  attach  great  importance.2 

1  Syst.  Theol.  Vol.  I.  pp.  90,  99,  119,  140,  149,  1G0.  Dr.  Warren  (who  is  now  President 
of  the  Methodist  University  in  Boston)  wrote  this  able  book  (which  is  as  yet,  1870,  unfinished) 
while  in  Germany,  and  under  the  stimulus  of  the  generalizing  theories  of  some  German 
divines.  Zinzendorf  had  made  a  somewhat  similar  distinction  between  the  Lutheran,  Re- 
formed, and  Moravian  types  of  doctrine  {Lehrtropen),  but  comprehended  them  all  in  his 
brotherhood.  James  Martineau,  from  the  Unitarian  point  of  view,  represents  Luther,  Calvin, 
and  Wesley  as  the  representatives  of  the  orthodox  gospel  in  three  dialects  (Studies  of  Chris- 
tianity, London,  1873,  pp.  399  sq.). 

2  Professor  William  B.  Pope,  of  Didsbury  College,  Manchester,  one  of  the  leading  Wes- 
leyan  divines,  makes  the  following  statement  concerning  the  creed  of  the  English  Metho- 
dists (in  the  Introduction  to  his  translation  of  Winer's  Comparative  View  of  the  Doctrines 
and  Confessions  of  the  various  Communities  of  Christendom,  Edinb.  1873,  pp.  lxxvi.-lxxviii.): 
'It  may  be  said  that  English  Methodism  has  no  distinct  articles  of  faith.  At  the  same  time 
it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  no  community  in  Christendom  is  more  effectually  hedged  about 
by  confessional  obligations  and  restraints.  Reference  has  been  made  to  the  distinction  of 
creeds,  confessions,  and  standards.  Methodism  combines  the  three  in  its  doctrinal  consti- 
tution after  a  manner  on  the  whole  peculiar  to  itself.  Materially  if  not  formally,  virtually 
if  not  actually,  implicitly  if  not  avowedly,  its  theology  is  bound  by  the  ancient  oecumenical 
Creeds,  by  the  Articles  of  the  English  Church,  and  by  comprehensive  standards  of  its  own, 
the  peculiarity  of  its  maintenance  of  these  respectively  having  been  determined  by  the  specific 
circumstances  of  its  origin  and  consolidation — circumstances  with  which  it  is  not  our  business 
here  to  enter.  In  common  with  most  Christian  Churches  it  holds  fast  the  Catholic  Symbols ;  the 
Apostolical  and  Nicene  are  extensively  used  in  the  Liturgy,  and  the  Athanasian,  not  so  used, 
is  accepted  so  far  as  concerns  its  doctrinal  type.  The  doctrine  of  the  Articles  of  the  Church 
of  England  is  the  doctrine  of  Methodism.  This  assertion  must,  of  course,  be  taken  broadly, 
as  subject  to  many  qualifications.  For  instance,  the  Connection  has  never  avowed  the  Arti- 
cles as  its  Confession  of  Faith  ;  some  of  those  Articles  have  no  meaning  for  it  in  its  present 
constitution ;  others  of  them  are  tolerated  in  their  vague  and  doubtful  bearing,  rather  than 
accepted  as  definitions  ;  and,  finally,  many  Methodists  would  prefer  to  disown  any  relation  to 
them  of  any  kind.  Still  the  verdict  of  the  historical  theologian,  who  takes  a  comprehensive 
view  of  the  estate  of  Christendom,  in  regard  to  the  history  and  development  of  Christian  truth, 
would  locate  the  Methodist  community  under  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  He  would  draw  his 
inference  from  the  posture  towards  them  of  the  early  founders  of  the  system;  and  he  would 
not  fail  to  mark  that  the  American  branch  of  the  family,  which  has  spread  simultaneously 
with  its  European  branch,  has  retained  the  Articles  of  the  English  Church,  with  some  neces- 
sary modifications,  as  the  basis  of  its  Confession  of  Faith.     Setting  aside  the  Articles  that  have 


§  111.  ANALYSIS  OF  AKMIXIAN  METHODISM. 


893 


§  111.  Analysis  of  Akmiman  METHODISM. 
Till';  skmi-am.i.kan  DOCTRINES. 
The  Twenty-five  Articles  represent  the  doctrines  which  Methodism 
holds  in  common  with  other  evangelical  Churches,  especially  with  the 
Church  of  England.  They  are  an  abridgment  of  the  Thirty-nine  Ar- 
ticles of  Religion,  with  a  view  to  simplify  and  t<»  liberalize  them. 
"Wesley  omitted  the  political  articles,  which  apply  only  to  England, 
and  those  articles  which  are  strongly  Angustinian,  especially  Article 
17,  of  Predestination  (which  teaches  unconditional  election  to  salvation 
and  the  perseverance  of  the  elect),  Art.  13,  of  Works  before  Justifica- 
tion (which  are  said  to  have  the  nature  of  sin),  and  Ait.  8  (which 
indorses  the  three  Creeds).     On  the  other  hand,  Art.  10,  of  Free  Will. 

to  do  with  discipline  rather  than  doctrine,  the  Methodists  universally  hold  the  remainder  as 
tenaciously  as  any  of  those  who  sign  them,  and  with  as  much  consistency  as  the  great  mass 
of  English  divines  who  have  given  them  an  Arminian  interpretation.  That  is  to  say,  where 
they  diverge  in  doctrine  from  the  Westminster  Confession,  Methodism  holds  to  them;  while 
this  Confession  rather  expresses  their  views  on  Presbyterian  Church  government  It  may 
suffice  to  say  generally  on  this  subject,  that  so  far  as  concerns  the  present  volume  [ofWiner], 
every  quotation  from  the  English  Articles  may  stand,  if  justly  interpreted,  as  a  representative 
of  the  Methodist  Confession. 

'  Finally,  we  have  the  Methodist  Standards,  belonging  to  it  as  a  society  within  a  Church, 
which  entirely  regulate  the  faith  of  the  community,  but  are  binding  only  upon  its  ministers. 
Those  Standards  are  to  be  found  in  certain  rather  extensive  theological  writings  which  have 
none  of  the  features  of  a  Confession  of  Faith,  and  are  never  subscribed  or  accepted  as  such. 
More  particularly,  they  are  some  Sermons  and  Expository  Notes  of  John  Wesley :  more  gen- 
erally, these  and  other  writings,  catechisms,  and  early  precedents  of  doctrinal  definition  ;  taken 
as  a  whole,  they  indicate  a  standard  of  experimental  and  practical  theology  to  which  the 
teaching  and  preaching  of  its  ministers  arc  universally  conformed.  What  that  standard 
prescribes  in  detail  it  would  be  impossible  to  define  here.  .  .  .  Suffice  that  the  Methodist 
doctrine  is  what  is  generally  termed  Arminian,  as  it  regards  the  relation  of  the  human  race 
to  redemption;  that  it  lays  great  stress  upon  the  personal  assurance  which  seals  the  personal 
religion  of  the  believer;  and  that  it  includes  a  strong  testimony  to  the  office  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  entire  renewal  of  the  soul  in  holiness,  as  one  of  the  provisions  of  the  covenant 
of  grace  upon  earth.  It  may  be  added,  though  only  as  an  historical  fact,  that  a  rigorous 
maintenance  of  this  common  standard  of  evangelical  doctrine  has  been  attended  by  the  pres- 
ervation of  a  remarkable  unity  of  doctrine  throughout  this  large  communion.' 

Dr.Whedon,  the  editor  of  the  'Methodist  Quarterly  Review,'  in  a  notice  of  Pope's  Wimr 
(October  No.,  is:::,  pp.  680  sqq.)i  enters  'his  firm,  fraternal  protest  against  being  recorded 

before  the  eves  of  the  world  as  training  under  the  Thirty-nine   Articles  of  the  Church  of 

England,' and  savs,  'The  entire  body  of  Methodists  of  the  United  States  no  more  hold  the 

Thirty-nine  Articles,  doctrinally.  than  they  do  the  Westminster  Confession,  They  reject  a 
large  share  of  both  for  the  same  reason,  namely,  that  they  are,  m  their  proper  interpretation, 

Calvinistic.  Nor  does  this  Confession  express  their  riews  on  Presbyterian  church  govern- 
ment; for  the  Confession  affirms  the  divine  obligation  of  Presbyterianism,  and  the  large 
body  of  American  Methodists  believe  in  the  right  of  a  voluntary  episcopacy.' 


S94:  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

which  teaches  (with  Augustine,  Luther,  and  Calvin)  the  natural  inabil- 
ity of  man  to  do  good  works  without  the  grace  of  God,  is  literally  re- 
tained (Meth.  Art.  S). 

Minor  doctrinal  changes  were  made  in  Art.  2  (Art,  2),  where  the 
clauses  '  begotten  from  everlasting  of  the  Father,'  and  '  of  her  [the 
Virgin's]  substance,'  are  omitted  (either  as  doubtful  or  lying  outside 
of  a  creed) ; l  in  Art.  9  (7),  where  the  last  clauses,  which  affirm  the  con- 
tinuance of  original  sin  in  the  regenerate,  are  left  out  (as  inconsistent 
with  Wesley's  view  of  perfection);  in  Art.  16  (12),  where  'sin  after 
justification'  is  substituted  for  'sin  after  baptism'  (to  avoid  the  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  regeneration) ;  in  Art.  25  (16),  of  the  Sacraments, 
where  the  words  '  sure  witnesses  and  effectual,'  before  '  signs  of  grace,' 
are  stricken  out  (which  betrays  a  lowering  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacra- 
ments) ;  in  Art.  34:  (22),  where  '  traditions  of  the  Church'  are  changed 
into  '  Rites  and  Ceremonies.' 

These  omissions  and  changes  are  significant,  and  entirely  consistent 
with  Methodism,  but  they  are  negative  rather  than  positive.  Wesley 
eliminated  the  latent  Calvinism  from  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  but  did 
not  put  in  his  Arminianism,  nor  his  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Witness 
of  the  Spirit  and  Christian  Perfection,  leaving  them  to  be  derived 
from  other  documents  of  his  own  composition. 

THE    ARMINIAN   DOCTRINES. 

The  five  points  in  which  Arminius  differed  from  the  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem are  clearly  and  prominently  brought  out  in  Wesley's  writings, 
though  mostly  in  the  form  of  popular  and  practical  exposition  and  ex- 
hortation. He  put  the  name  of  Arminius  on  his  periodical  organ,  and 
struck  the  keynote  to  the  Arminian  tone  of  Methodist  preaching.  The 
Arminian  features  of  Methodism  are,  freedom  of  the  will  (taken  in  the 
sense  of  liberurn  arbitrium,  or  power  of  contrary  choice)  as  necessary 
to  responsibility;  self-limitation  of  divine  sovereignty  in  its  exercise 

1  Emory,  in  his  History  of  the  Discipline,  inserts  the  clause,  '  begotten  of  everlasting  from 
the  Father,'  as  adopted  in  1784,  and  omitted  in  1786  and  in  later  editions,  perhaps  by  typo- 
graphical error.  A  Methodist  correspondent  (Rev.  D.  II.  Whedon)  suggests  to  me  that 
Wesley  may  have  made  a  distinction  between  the  eternal  Sonship  and  the  eternal  Generation, 
and  may  have  maintained  the  former,  but  questioned  the  latter  as  referring  to  the  manner 
rather  than  the  fact.  Prof.  Pope,  the  latest  Methodist  writer  on  Dogmatics,  avoids  this 
question  as  belonging  to  the  transcendental  mysteries  (Christ.  Theol.  p.  272). 


§  111.  ANALYSIS  OF  AKMINIAN   METHODISM.  S95 

and  dealings  with  free  agents;  foreknowledge  as  preceding  and  con- 
ditioning f oreordination ;  universality  of  redemption;  resistibility  of 

divine  grace;  possibility  of  total  and  final  apostasy  from  the  state  of 
regeneration  and  sanctitieation. 

( 'alvinism  and  Methodism  agree  in  teaching  man's  salvation  by  (  tad's 
free  grace,  in  opposition  to  Pelagianism  and  Seinipelagianism.  Bat 
Calvinism  traces  salvation  to  the  eternal  purpose  of  God,  ami  confines 
it  to  the  elect;  Methodism  makes  it  dependent  en  man's  free  accept- 
ance  of  that  grace  which  is  offered  alike  to  all  and  on  the  same  terms; 
|  Calvinism  emphasizes  the  divine  side,  Methodism  the  human.1  Herein 
Methodism  entirely  agrees  with  Arminianism,  and  is  even  mere  em- 
phatically opposed  to  the  doctrines  of  absolute  predestination,  limited 
atonement,  and  the  perseverance  of  saints  than  Arminius  was,  who  left 
the  last  point  undecided. 

"Wesley  began  the  thunder  against  the  imaginary  horrors  and  blasphe- 
mies of  Calvinism  which  has  since  resounded  from  innumerable  Meth- 
odist pulpits.  He  defines  predestination  to  be  'an  eternal,  unehange- 
able,  irresistible  decree  of  God,  by  virtue  of  which  one  part  of  man- 
kind are  infallibly  saved,  and  the  rest  infallibly  damned;  it  being 
impossible  that  any  of  the  former  should  be  damned,  or  that  any  of 
the  latter  should  be  saved ;'  and  then  he  goes  on  to  show  that  this  doc- 
trine makes  all  preaching  useless;  that  it  makes  void  the  ordinance 
of  God;  that  it  tends  directly  to  destroy  holiness,  meekness,  and  love, 
the  comfort  and  happiness  of  religion,  zeal  for  good  works,  and  the 
whole  Christian  revelation;  that  it  turns  God  into  a  hypocrite  and  de- 
ceiver; that  it  overturns  his  justice,  mercy,  and  truth,  and  represents 
him  'as  worse  than  the  devil,  more  false,  more  cruel, and  more  unjust.' 
'  This,'  he  says, '  is  the  blasphemy  clearly  contained  in  the  horrible  de- 

1  Dr.  Warren,  1.  c.  p.  HO,  states  the  difference  in  an  extreme  form,  which  would  sub- 
ject Methodism  to  the  charge  of  downright  Pelagianism  :  'Nach  der  MethodUtiechen  Auf- 
fassunrjihs  Heileverh&Unieeee  Gottet  und  det  Menechen  kingt  <Lis  //<:/  oder  Nicht-Hi  iletm  ■ 
jeden  Menschen  ledigUch  von  teinetn  rigenen  Jreien  Verkalten  gegtnOber  <1<>i  erleuchtenden, 
erneuernden  and  heiUgenden  Einunrkvngen  da  heiHgen  Geista  "/<.  VerhiUt  man  rich  gegen- 
iiber  diesen  Einurirkungen  empfSnglich,  so  wird  man  hier,  »»'l  einst  dort,  si  Hi;  werden;  >,,- 
schliesst  man  tein  Here  gegen  dieeelben,  s<>  wird  man  hier,  and  aufeurig  \m  Todi  verbleiben. 
Mit  dieeer  Grundanechauung  hSngen  alii  tonttigen  EigenthOmlichkeiten  dee  Methodism  - 
z.  B.  seine  eigenth&mliche  FreUu  itsli  hn ,  a,  int  !'•<  taming  </•  r  Wirkeamkt  it  <l< ■  /« iligt  n  Geistes, 
seine  Lehre  von  <l<r  chrietlichen  VoWcommenheit,  und  dergleicken,  eng  tueammen.  Seinen  in- 
nersten  Geist  und  Weten  nach  let  er  eint  Auffateung  det  Chrietentkumt  mm  Standpvnktt  </<r 
chrietlichen  VoWcommenheit  odcr  der  vvlligen  lAebe.' 


896  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

cree  of  predestination,  and  for  this  I  abhor  it  (however  I  love  the  per- 
sons who  assert  it).'  To  this  decree  he  sets  over  the  other  decree,  '  I 
will  set  before  the  sons  of  men  life  and  death,  blessing  and  cursing ; 
and  the  soul  that  chooseth  life  shall  live,  as  the  soul  that  chooseth 
death  shall  die.'  The  elect  are  all  those  who  'suffer  Christ  to  make 
them  alive.'1 

The  vehemence  of  this  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination 
must  be  explained  in  part  from  the  subjective  and  emotional  nature 
of  Methodist  piety,  which  exposes  it  much  more  to  an  antinomian 
abuse  of  this  doctrine  than  is  the  case  with  the  calm  intellectual 
tendency  of  Calvinism. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  the  'evangelical'  Arminianism  of  Wes- 
ley, as  it  is  called,  differs  from  the  Dutch  Arminianism,  as  developed 
by  Episcopius  and  Limborch,  and  inclines  as  much  towards  Augustin- 
ianism  as  Arminianism  inclines  towards  Pelagianism.  In  this  respect 
it  resembles  somewhat  the  Lutheran  anthropology  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  though  it  differs  altogether  from  its  christology  and  sacra- 
mentalism. 


1  Sermon  liv.,  on  Free  Grace  (Rom.  viii.  32),  preached  at  Bristol.  It  follows  immediately 
after  the  eulogistic  funeral  discourse  on  the  Calvinistic  Whitefield.  His  brother  Charles 
wrote  a  polemical  poem  on  'The  Horrible  Decree,'  in  which  his  poetic  genius  left  him,  as 
may  be  inferred  from  the  following  specimens : 

'0  Horrible  Decree, 

Worthy  of  whence  it  came ! 

Forgive  their  hellish  blasphemy, 

Who  charge  it  on  the  Lamb.' 

'To  limit  Thee  they  dare, 

Blaspheme  Thee  to  Thy  face, 
Deny  their  fellow-worms  a  share 
In  Thy  redeeming  grace.' 

In  another  poem,  on  'Predestination,'  he  prays: 

'  Increase  (if  that  can  be) 

The  perfect  hate  I  feel 
To  Satan's  Horriui.e  Dfoup.e, 

That  genuine  child  of  hell ; 
Which  feigns  thee  to  pass  by 

The  most  of  Adam's  race, 
And  leave  them  in  their  blood  to  die, 

Shut  out  from  saving  grace.' 

How  infinitely  superior  to  these  polemical  effusions  is  his  genuine  hymn : 
'Jesus,  lover  of  my  soul,' 

which  a  Calvinist  may  sing  as  heartily  as  a  pious  Methodist  will  join  in  his  antagonist's  (Top- 
lady's)  : 

'  Rock  of  Ages,  cleft,  for  me.' 


§  111.  ANALYSIS  OF  AKMINIAN  METHODISM 

1.  Methodism  holds  a  much  BtrODger  view  of  original  sin  than  Armin- 
ianism,  and  regards  it  not  simply  as  a  disease  or  weakness,1  but  as  a  total 
depravity  that  unfits  man  altogether  for  co-operatiun  with  the  grace  of 
Grod  towards  eonversion.  Wesley,  Fletcher,  and  Watson  desoribe  this 
natural  corruption  in  consequence  of  Adam's  fall  in  the  darkest  col- 
orSj  almost  surpassing  the  descriptions  of  Augustine,  Luther,  and  Cal- 
vin; Lut  they  deny  the  personal  responsibility  of  Adam's  posterity  for 
his  fall  or  the  doctrine  of  original  guilt;  and  herein  they  agree  with 
the  Arminians  and  the  Quakers. 

2.  Methodism  teaches  the  freedom  of  will  as  a  gift  of  prevenienl 
grace,  which  is  given  to  every  man  as  a  check  and  antidote  to  original 
sin;  while  Arminianism,  with  its  milder  view  of  the  fall,  allows  man 
a  certain  freedom  of  will  in  a  weakened  state  as  an  inherent  and  in- 
herited power  of  nature. 

3.  Methodism  lays  greater  stress  on  the  subjective  experience  of 
conversion  and  regeneration.  Its  preaching  is  essentially  radical  evan- 
gelistic revival  preaching,  which  rouses  the  sinner  to  a  sense  of  his 
danger,  and  the  paramount  necessity  of  an  immediate,  sudden,  and 
radical  change  of  heart  and  life. 

THE    ORIGINAL    DOCTRINES    OF    METHODISM. 

To  these  modifications  of  Arminianism  must  be  added  a  few  doc- 
trines which  Methodism  claims  as  its  own  contributions  to  the  better 
understanding  of  the  Christian  system. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  the  universality  of  divine  grace,  not  only  in  its 
intention,  but  in  its  actual  offer.  Herein  Methodism  resembles  the 
Quaker  doctrine  of  universal  light.  It  is  assumed— on  the  ground  of 
Paul's  parallel  between  the  first  and  second  Adam  (Tiom.  v.)— thai  all 
men  are  born  into  an  order  of  saving  grace,  as  well  as  into  an  order 
of  sin.  Adam  brought  a  universal  seed  of  death,  but  Christ  brought  a 
universal  seed  of  life,  which  is  available  for  all  who  do  not  reject  it.- 

1  Episcopitu  calk  the  peccatum  <»i</inls  an  infirmitaa  or  calamitcu  or  malum,  bat  nol  a 

nullum  culpa  iiml  malum  puiur.  Eihnborcfa  callfl  it  milium  natural*,  nut  ]><rcatum  imstri  rc- 
spertu.     See  Winer,  Comp.  St/mb.  pp.  00  eqq. 

■  -No  man  Bring, '  Bays  Wesley,  '  i>  witl I  lome  preventing  grace,  end  every  degree  of 

grace  is  a  degree  of  life.  There  is  ft  mensuiv  of  tree  will  •opentatarallj  restored  to  every 
man.  together  with  that  sn [ i.-niMt ur.il  light  which  enlighten-  every  man  that  cometb  into 
this  world.'  'That  by  the  offense  "t  one,  judgment  oame  npon  all  men  fall  born  into  the 
world)  unto  condemnation,  is  an  undoubted  troth,  and  effect!  every  infant  as  well  as  every 


898  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

For  by  virtue  of  the  universal  atonement,  man,  though  born  in  sin,  is 
held  guiltless  until  he  arrives  at  the  point  of  personal  responsibility. 

"While  Romanism  and  Lutheranism  save  those  only  who  are  brought 
into  contact  with  the  Church  and  the  Sacraments,  Calvinism  those  only 
who  are  elect  from  eternity,  Methodism  brings  the  opportunity  of  sal- 
vation to  all  men  in  this  present  life,  though  in  different  forms  and  de- 
grees, so  that  they  are  actually  saved  if  they  do  not  incur  the  guilt  of 
rejecting  salvation  by  unbelief.  Hence  all  children  are  saved  if  they  die 
before  they  commit  actual  sin.  Though  born  in  sin,  they  are  not  held 
guilty  before  the  age  of  responsible  agency.  They  are  saved  by  the 
same  power  of  the  universal  atonement  which  saves  adults ;  though 
there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  regeneration  of  infants  before 
death.1  On  the  same  ground  all  heathen  may  be  saved  who  do  not 
neglect  their  opportunities.     Ability  and  opportunity  are  the  measure 

adult  person.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  by  the  righteousness  of  One,  the  free  gift  came  upon 
all  men  (all  born  into  the  world — infants  and  adults)  unto  justification.'  D.  D.  YVhedon 
(Biblioth.  Sacra,  18G2,  p.  258):  'Under  the  redemptive  system,  the  man  is  born  into  the 
world,  from  Adam,  a  depraved  being.  It  is  as  a  depraved  being  that  he  becomes  an  Ego. 
But  instantly  after,  in  the  order  of  nature,  he  is  met  by  the  provisions  of  atonement.'  '  Every 
human  being,'  says  Warren,  'has  a  measure  of  grace  (unless  he  has  cast  it  away),  and  those 
who  faithfully  use  this  intrusted  gift  will  be  accepted  of  God  in  the  day  of  judgment,  whether 
Jew  or  Greek,  Christian  or  heathen.  In  virtue  of  Christ's  mediation  between  God  and  the 
fallen  race,  all  men  since  the  first  promise,  Gen.  iii.  15,  are  under  an  economy  of  grace,  and 
the  only  difference  between  them  as  subjects  of  the  moral  government  of  God  is  that,  while 
all  have  grace  and  light  enough  to  attain  salvation,  some,  over  and  above  this,  have  more  and 
others  less'  (Vol.  I.  pp.  14G  sq.).  Pope  (pp.  239-248)  distinguishes  this  doctrine  from  the 
Augustinian,  Pelagian,  Semipelagian,  Tridentine,  Lutheran,  Calvinistic,  and  Arminian,  and 
says  that  there  is  no  doctrine  which  '  so  irresistibly  and  universally  appeals  for  its  confirma- 
tion to  the  common  conscience  and  judgment  of  mankind.' 

1  Dr.  D.  D.  Whedon  (Biblioth.  Sacra,  1862,  p.  258)  remarks  on  this  point :  '  That  the  dying 
infant  is  saved,  and  saved  by  the  atonement,  we  all  agree.  But  his  precise  condition,  as 
affected  by  the  atonement,  while  a  living  infant,  seems  to  be  a  somewhat  undecided  matter. 
Probably  a  large  majority  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  have,  for  some  time  past,  held, 
without  much  discussion,  that  the  living  infant  was  both  unjustified  and  unregenerate,  and 
yet  upon  his  death  he  obtained  both  blessings.  This  making  death  the  condition  of  justifica- 
tion and  regeneration  appears  to  many  hardly  logical,  and  not  without  danger.  Mr.  Wesley's 
earlier  expressions  of  opinion  indicated  a  holding  of  the  churchly  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation in  infancy.  His  later  indications  of  opinion  indicate  that  he  held  all  infants  to  he 
members  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  he  also  held  that  regeneration  is  a  condition  to 
membership  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  but  he  does  not  expressly  draw  the  inference  that 
all  infants  are  regenerate.  Fletcher  maintained  the  doctrine  both  of  infant  justification  and 
regeneration.  Dr.  Fisk  held  to  infant  justification.  Our  baptismal  service  first  declares,  in 
its  Scripture  lesson  of  infants,  that  "of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God, "and  yet  declares  "that 
none  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  unless  he  be  regenerate."  But  neither  here  is  the 
inference  expressly  drawn.  The  subject  is  a  matter  of  e&lm  discussion,  and  perhaps  the 
number  of  those  holding  the  doctrine  of  infant  regeneration  has  decidedly  increased.' 


§  111.  ANALYSIS  OF  AKMINIAX  METHODISM.  899 

of  responsibility,  ami  God  requires  ho  more  from  man  than  he  empow- 
ers him  to  perform.  ( Jurist's  atonement  covers  the  deficiency  of  abil- 
ity in  the  ease  of  infants,  and  the  deficiency  of  opportunity  in  the  case 
of  the  heathen. 

Fletcher  distinguishes  three  dispensations  in  this  general  economy  of 
grace:  the  dispensation  of  the  Father, embracing  the  heathen  and  Mo- 
hammedans, who  know  God  only  from  his  general  revelation  in  nature, 
providence,  and  the  conscience;  the  dispensation  of  the  Son,  for  those 
who  live  within  the  limits  of  Christendom  and  the  reach  of  the  gospel ; 
and  the  dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  those  who  have  an  experi- 
mental knowledge  of  the  regenerating  and  sanctifying  Spirit.  Wes- 
ley, Watson,  and  Pope  teach  essentially  the  same  view  of  the  univer- 
sality of  grace. 

2.  The  next  distinctive  doctrine  of  Methodism  is  the  Witness  of  the 
I  Spirit  or  the  assurance  of  salvation  (Rom.  viii.  15, 1G).  It  is  a  double 
and  concurrent  witness  of  God's  Spirit  and  of  our  spirit  concerning 
our  justification.  The  former  is  objective  and  divine,  and  antecedes ; 
the  latter  is  subjective  and  human,  and  follows.  The  Holy  Spirit 
bears  testimony  to  our  spirit  that  by  faith  we  are  the  children  of  God. 
This  testimony  is  immediate  and  direct,  and  follows  the  work  of  justifi- 
cation and  regeneration.  On  the  ground  of  this  testimony  the  believer 
feels  assured  of  his  present  acceptance  with  God,  and  has  a  /tope  of  his 
final  salvation,  but  he  is  at  the  same  time  guarded  against  carnal  se- 
curity by  the  fear  of  a  total  and  final  fall  from  grace.  Hence  there 
are  so  many  backsliders,  who  constitute  a  special  class  among  Meth- 
odists.1 


1  Comp.  the  three  sermons  of  Wesley  on  the  Witness  of  the  Spirit  (x. -xii.),  Vol.  I.  pp.  8.~> 
sqq.  He  traced  this  doctrine  to  his  contact  with  some  Moravians  on  his  voyage  to  Georgia 
(1735),  whose  childlike  trust  and  serene  cheerfulness  led  him  to  exclaim:  '  I,  who  went  to 
America  to  convert  others,  was  never  myself  converted  to  God.'  He  meant  conversion  from 
legal  bondage  to  evangelical  freedom  and  a  sense  of  assurance  of  pardon.  He  Bnbseqnently 
visited  Count  Zinzendorf and  the  Moravians  in  Germany  to  study  their  discipline  (1789), 

Watson  (Vol.  II.  p.  271)  distinguishes  four  views  on  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  and  thus 
states  his  own,  which  agrees  witli  Wealey'a:  '  It  i-  twofold;  a  direct  testimony  or  "inward 
impression  on  the  soul,  wherebj  the  Spirit  of  God  witnesses  to  my  spirit  that  I  am  a  child 
of  God  ;  that  Christ  hath  loved  me,  and  given  himself  for  me.  that  I,  even  I,  nm  reconciled 
to  God"  (Wesley's  Sermons);  and  an  indirect  testimony,  arising  from  the  work  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  heart  and  life,  which  St.  Paul  calls  the  testimony  of  our  own  spirit :  for  this  is  Inferred 
from  his  expression,  "And  the  spirit  bearetb  witness  with  our  spirit,  etc"   This  testhnonj 

of  our  own  spirit,  or  indirect  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  and  through  our  own  spirit,  i.-, 


900  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Herein  the  Methodist  doctrine  differs  from  the  Calvinistic  doctrine 
of  assurance  which  is  based,  not  on  subjective  feeling,  but  on  the 
divine  promises  and  the  unchangeable  decree  of  God's  election,  and 
which  covers  not  only  the  present  state,  but  the  whole  process  to  its 
final  completion,  conditioned  by  the  perseverance  of  saints  as  the 
final  test  of  genuine  conversion.1 

3.  The  last  and  crowning  doctrine  of  Methodism,  in  which  the 
Quakers  likewise  preceded  it,  is  Perfectionism.  It  is  regarded  as 
a  mighty  stimulus  to  progressive  holiness,  and  forms  the  counterpart 
of  the  doctrine  of  apostasy,  which  acts  as  a  warning  against  backslid- 
ing. It  is  derived  from  such  passages  as  Matt.  v.  48 ;  Phil.  iii.  15 ; 
Heb.  vi.  1 ;  x.  14 ;  1  John  iii.  G  ;  v.  18.  Methodist  perfection  is  not  a 
sinless  perfection  or  faultlessness,  which  Wesley  denied,2  but  a  sort  of 
imperfect  perfection,  from  which  it  is  possible  to  fall  again  tempo- 
rarily or  forever.3  It  is  entire  sanctification  or  perfect  love  (1  John  ii. 
5 ;  iv.  12),  which  every  Christian  may  and  ought  to  attain  in  this  present 
life.  From  this  state  all  voluntary  transgressions  or  sinful  volitions 
are  excluded,  though  involuntary  infirmities  may  and  do  remain  ;  in 
this  state  all  the  normal  qualities  are  possessed  and  enjoyed  in  their 
fullness.  As  to  the  attainment  of  perfection,  it  comes  according  to  the 
prevailing  view  from  gradual  growth  in  grace,  according  to  others  by 
a  special  act  of  faith.4 

considered  confirmatory  of  the  first  testimony.'  Pope  (p.  465) :  '  Assurance  is  the  fruit,  not 
the  essence  of  faith.  .  .  .  Perfect  faith  must  be  assured  of  its  object.  .  .  .  The  internal  assur- 
ance of  faith  is  a  privilege  that  all  may  claim  and  expect;  seasons  of  darkness  and  depression 
and  uncertainty  are  only  the  trial  of  that  faith  of  assurance. ' 

1  The  Westminster  Confession,  Ch.  XVIII.,  says  that  true  believers  'may  in  this  life 
be  certainly  assured  that  they  are  in  a  state  of  grace,  and  may  rejoice  in  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God,  which  hope  shall  never  make  them  ashamed.'  This  assurance  is  'founded 
upon  the  divine  truth  of  the  promises  of  salvation,  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  witnessing  with 
our  spirit  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.'  It  is  not  of  '  the  essence  of  faith,'  and  may  be 
'  shaken,  diminished,  and  intermitted,'  yet  revived  again  in  due  time  and  keep  us  from  utter 
despair. 

2  In  his  sermons  on  Temptation,  Vol.  II.  p.  215,  and  on  Perfection,  Vol.  I.  p.  35G;  Vol.  II. 
p.  168:  'The  highest  perfection,'  he  says,  'which  man  can  attain  while  the  soul  dwells  in  the 
body,  does  not  exclude  ignorance  and  error  and  a  thousand  infirmities.' 

3  Meth.  Catech.  No.  3,  p.  37  :  '  It  is  the  privilege  of  every  believer  to  be  wholly  sanctified, 
and  to  love  God  with  all  his  heart  in  the  present  life ;  but  at  every  stage  of  Christian  expe- 
rience there  is  danger  of  falling  from  grace,  which  danger  is  to  be  guarded  against  by  watch- 
fulness, prayer,  and  a  life  of  faith  in  the  Son  of  God.' 

*  Wesley  has  two  sermons  on  Christian  Perfection,  one  on  Phil.  iii.  12  (Vol.  I.  p.  355),  and 
one  on  Ileb.  vi.  1  (Vol.  II.  p.  167).     lie  distinguishes,  (1)  angelic,  (2)  Adamic,  (3)  absolute 


§  LIS.  CALVINISTIC  METHODISM.  901 

§  112.  Calyinistic  Methodism. 

WHTTEFIELD. 

George  Whitefield  labored  with  Wesley  until  L741,  when  they  parted 
on  the  question  of  predestination  and  free  will;  the  former  taking  the 
Calvinistie,  the  latter,  with  his  brother  and  the  majority  of  Methodists, 
the  Arniinian  side,  and  henceforth  they  pursued  different  paths, like  Panl 
and  Barnabas.  Personally  they  became  cordial  friends  again, and  their 
friendship  continued  until  death.  This  should  not  be  forgotten  when 
we  read  the  bitter  predestinarian  controversy  which  their  friend-  and 
followers  carried  on  and  renewed  from  time  to  time.  When  Whitefield 
heard  of  the  dangerous  illness  of  "Wesley,  who  had  already  written  his 
own  epitaph,  he  sent  him  an  affectionate  letter  (Dec.  3, 1753),  saying, *  I 
pity  myself  and  the  Church,  but  not  you.  A  radiant  throne  awaits  you, 
and  ere  long  you  will  enter  into  your  Master's  joy.'1  When  Whitefield 
died  in  Newburyport  (Sept.  30, 1770),  Wesley  preached  his  funeral  ser- 
mon (Nov.  18)  at  Whitefield's  Chapel  in  Tottenham  ConrtEoad  and  at 
the  Tabernacle,  near  Moorfields,  on  the  text  Numb,  xxiii.  10, '  Let  me  die 
the  death  of  the  righteous,  and  let  my  last  end  be  like  his!'  Without 
alluding  to  their  temporary  separation,  he  speaks  of  him  in  the  highest 
terms  as  an  eminent  instrument  of  God,  who  in  the  business  of  salvation 
put  Christ  as  high  as  possible,  and  man  as  low  as  possible,  and  who 
brought  a  larger  number  of  sinners  from  darkness  to  the  light  than  any 
other  man.  He  praises  his  '  unparalleled  zeal,  his  indefatigable  activity, 
his  tenderness  of  heart  towards  the  afflicted,  and  charitableness  to  the 


perfection — all  of  which  he  denies  to  man  in  his  present  state— and  (I)  the  relative  perfec- 
tion, which  he  claims  for  him  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  namely,  perfect  love  to  God. 
From  1  John  iii.  G  and  v.  18,  he  reasons,  '  A  Christian  is  so  far  perfect  as  not  to  commit 
sin '  (Vol.  I.  j).  865}    He  affirms  thai  several  persons  have  enjoyed  this  blessing  of  need. mi 

from  sin  without  interruption  tor  many  years,  and  not  a  few  unto  their  death,  as  they  have 
declared  with  their  last  breath  (Vol.  II.  p.  171).  Pope  says  (p.  627  !  'Hie  Spirit  i-  im- 
parted in  this  fullness  for  the  perfect  consecration  of  the  son!  to  the  Triune  God:  this  is 
called  the  love  of  God  perfected  in  us.  The  commandment  requires  from  u-  in  return  (he 
perfect  love  of  the  soul  to  God  and  man  ;   and  this  perfection,  promised  to  faith  working  by 

love,  is  ahundantly  attested  as  the  possible  and  attained  experience  of  Christiana.1    Pope 
distinguishes  the  Methodist  theorj  of  perfection  from  the  ascetic,  the  fanatical,  the  Pelagian, 
the  mystical,  the  Romanist,  the  impotationist  (modern  Calvinistie),  and  the  Arminian  | 
and  he  mentions  five  characteristic  marks  of  the  Methodist  doctrine,  the  thief  of  which  is 

entire  consecration  to  God  in  perfect  love  '  p.  640  I. 

1  >>ee  the  whole  letter  in  Tyennan,  ./.  It  ->/<»/.  VoL  II    p.  17.".. 


002  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

poor.  Ills  deep  gratitude,  his  most  generous  and  tender  friendship,  his 
modesty,  frankness,  patience,  courage,  and  steadfastness  to  the  end.' ' 

Whitefield  was  free  from  sectarian  spirit  and  cared  little  for  organi- 
zation. His  sole  purpose  was  to  convert  sinners  to  Christ,  and  to  re- 
vive Churches  to  new  zeal  and  energy.2  His  labors  were  crowned  with 
signal  success.  The  day  of  judgment  alone  will  reveal  the  number  of 
his  converts,  and  the  amount  of  good  which  he  kindled  by  his  flaming 
sermons  among  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  and 
other  denominations,  as  well  as  among  the  crowds  of  ungodly  people 
who  were  attracted  by  his  eloquence.3 

But  although  most  of  his  converts  fell  in  with  existing  denomina- 
tions, a  considerable  number  of  them  formed  three  separate  organiza- 
tions. One  of  them,  called  '  the  Whitefield  Methodists,'  were  lost 
among  the  Independents.     The  other  two  still  remain. 

THE   COUNTESS   OF   HUNTINGDON'S    CONNECTION. 

Selina,  Countess  of  Huntingdon  (1707-1791),  a  lady  of  true  nobility 
of  heart  and  intellect  as  well  as  rank,  devoted,  after  the  death  of  her 
husband  and  four  children,  her  time  and  fortune  to  the  spread  of  vital 
religion  among  the  nobility  and  the  court  as  well  as  the  common  peo- 
ple. She  purchased  halls  and  theatres  in  London,  Bristol,  and  Dublin, 
built  over  sixty  chapels,  supported  ministers,  founded  a  college  at 
Trevecca,  in  Wales,  and  stirred  up  others  to  similar  liberality.  She 
dispensed  with  her  luxurious  equipage  and  sold  even  her  jewels  for 
the  benefit  of  this  work.  She  took  Whitefield,  with  whose  Calvin- 
ism she  sympathized,  under  her  special  patronage,  and  made  him  her 
chaplain,  and  exercised  a  sort  of  leadership  over  his  congregations. 

1  Sermon  hill.  Vol.  I.  pp.  470  sqq. 

2  In  this  unselfish  ze;il  he  has  a  worthy  successor  in  our  clay  in  Mr.  Moody. 

3  '  Whitefield's  preaching  was  such  as  England  never  heard  before — theatrical,  extrava- 
gant, often  commonplace,  but  hushing  all  criticism  by  its  intense  reality,  its  earnestness  of 
belief,  its  deep,  tremulous  sympathy  with  the  sin  and  sorrow  of  mankind.  It  was  no  common 
enthusiast  who  could  wring  gold  from  the  close-fisted  Franklin  and  admiration  from  the 
fastidious  Horace  Walpole,  or  who  could  look  down  from  the  top  of  a  green  knoll  at  Kings- 
wood  on  twenty  thousand  colliers,  grimy  from  the  Bristol  coal-pits,  and  see  as  he  preached 
the  tears  "making  white  channels  down  their  blackened  cheeks."' — Green,  History  of  the 
English  People,  p.  718  (Engl.  ed.).  Dr.  Abel  Stevens,  an  Arminian  Methodist,  calls  White- 
field  'the  most  eloquent,  the  most  flaming  preacher  that  the  Christian  Church  has  known 
since  its  apostolic  age,  whose  eloquence  sanctified,  wakened  the  whole  British  empire'  (Cen- 
tenary of  Avicr.  Methodism,  p.  24). 


§  112.  CALVDHSTIC  METHODISM.  QQ3 

Hence  they  became  known  as  the  'Countess  of  (or  Lady)  Hunting- 
don's Connection. 

"Whitefield  bequeathed  to  the  Countess  his  benevolent  institution* 
and  lands  in  Georgia,  and  this  resulted  in  a  mission  to  America. 

The  ministers  of  this  connection  are  almost  identical  in  doctrine  and 
Church  polity  with  the  Independents,  but  in  public  worship  they  use  to 
some  extent  the  Anglican  Liturgy.     Their  principal  institution  is  Clies- 


TIIE    WELSH    CALVINISTIC   METHODISTS. 

Whitefield's  preaching  through  Wales,  and  the  kindred  labors  of 
Howell  Harris,  of  Trevecca,  Griffith  Jones,  Daniel  Rowlands,  lb. well 
Davies,  and  William  Williams — most  of  them  clergymen  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church  who  joined  the  Methodists — produced  a  powerful  and 
extensive  revival,  and  resulted  in  a  new  connection  in  1743,  and  more 
fully  in  17S5,  when  the  Rev.  Thomas  Charles,  of  Bala,  one  of  the  most 
zealous  and  useful  preachers  of  his  day,  joined  it.1 

For  many  years  the  Welsh  Methodists  existed  without  a  settled 
form  of  government  or  doctrinal  confession. 

In  1823  it  was  unanimously  agreed  at  the  Associations  of  Abervst- 
with  and  Bala  to  issue  in  the  Welsh  language  such  a  document,  to- 
gether with  a  sketch  of  the  origin  and  early  history  of  the  denomina- 
tion.    An  English  edition  was  published  in  1827.' 

The  Confession  of  Faith  consists  of  forty-four  chapters,  and  accords 
substantially  in  spirit  and  arrangement  with  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion, though  it  is  far  inferior  to  it  in  ability  and  accuracy. 

The  articles  in  which  it  differs  from  the  Weslejan  scheme  arc  Arts. 
V.,  XII.,  and  XXXIV.,  which  are  as  follow- : 

V.— Of  the  Decree  of  God. 

God,  from  eternity,  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  <>wn  will,  and  for  the  manifestation 
and  exaltation  of  his  glorious  attributes,  decreed  all  things  which  Ik-  should  perform  in  time 

1  Charles  graduated  at  Oxford  a*  A.B.  in  1778,  labored  leren  umi-  :i-  a  clergyman  of  the 
Established  Church,  united  himself  with  the  Calrinistic  Methodists  in  1786,  and  drew  up  in 
1790  a  scries  df  Rules  for  conducting  Associations  or  Quarterly    :  in-  was  one  of 

the  founders  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society. 

''  'ihi  History ,  Cotutitution,  Rule*  of  DUcipline,  and  Confemon  of  Faith  of  the  Calvinittic 
Methodists  in  Walt  t.  Drawn  »/>  /"/  their  own  Aeeodated Minister*.  Third  ed.  Mold,  1840.  I 
am  indebted  to  the  Rev. Dr.  Wm.  C.  Roberts,  ofElisabethtown,  N.J..  for  a  copy  <>t  tin-  book. 

Vol.  L— M  11  m 


004  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

and  to  eternity,  in  the  creation  and  governing  of  his  creatures,  and  in  the  salvation  of  sinners 
of  the  human  race ;  yet  in  such  a  manner  that  he  is  neither  the  Author  of  sin,  nor  does  he 
force  the  will  of  his  creatures  in  the  fulfillment  of  his  decree;  and  this  decree  of  God  is  not 
depended  on  any  thing  in  a  creature,  nor  yet  on  the  foreknowledge  of  God;  but  rather  God 
knows  that  such  and  such  circumstances  will  take  place,  because  he  has  ordained  that  it 
should  be  so.  God's  decree  is  infinitely  wise,  perfectly  righteous,  and  existing  from  eternity ; 
it  is  a  free,  an  ample,  a  secret,  gracious,  holy,  good,  an  unchangeable  and  effectual  decree. 

XII.— Of  the  Election  of  Grace. 

God  from  eternity  elected  and  ordained  Christ  to  be  a  Covenant  Head,  a  Mediator,  and  a 
Surety  to  his  Church  ;  to  redeem  and  to  save  it.  God  also  elected  in  Christ  a  countless  mul- 
titude out  of  every  tribe,  tongue,  people,  and  nation,  to  holiness  and  everlasting  life ;  and 
every  means  were  employed  to  effect  this  purpose  most  securely.  This  election  is  eternal, 
righteous,  sovereign,  unconditional,  peculiar  or  personal,  and  unchangeable.  It  wrongs 
none,  though  God  has  justly  left  some  without  being  elected,  yet  he  has  not  wronged  them: 
they  are  in  the  same  condition  as  if  there  had  been  no  election ;  and  had  there  been  no  elec- 
tion, no  flesh  had  been  saved. 

XXXIV.  —  Of  Perseverance  in  Grace. 

Those  whom  God  has  made  acceptable  in  the  Beloved,  whom  he  has  effectually  called,  and 
whom  the  Spirit  sanctifies,  can  not  completely  and  forever  fall  from  a  state  of  grace,  but 
they  shall  assuredly  be  supported  unto  the  end,  and  they  shall  be  saved.  Their  perseverance 
depends  not  on  their  own  will,  but  on  the  unchangeableness  of  the  purpose  of  God,  the  elec- 
tion of  grace,  the  power  of  the  Father's  love,  the  sufficiency  of  the  propitiation  of  Christ,  the 
success  of  his  intercession,  union  with  him,  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  within  them,  the  seed 
of  God  implanted  in  their  souls,  the  nature  and  strength  of  the  covenant,  and  the  promise 
and  oath  of  God.  Founded  on  these  things,  perseverance  is  certain  and  unfailing.  Though 
they  may,  through  the  temptations  of  Satan  and  the  world,  the  great  power  of  their  indwell- 
ing corruption,  and  the  neglect  of  using  the  means  for  their  support,  fall  into  sins,  and  re- 
main in  them  for  some  time,  and  thus  displease  God,  grieve  the  Holy  Spirit,  injure  their 
grace,  lose  their  comfort,  harden  their  hearts,  sting  their  consciences,  draw  a  temporal  judg- 
ment upon  themselves,  harm  others,  and  disgrace  the  cause  of  God,  yet  they  shall  be  kept 
by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  to  salvation,  though  their  falls  will  be  felt  most  bitterly  by 
them. 

Those  who  continue  to  live  quietly  in  sin,  and  comfort  themselves  that  they  are  in  a  gracious 
state,  show  evident  signs  that  they  are  self-deceivers.  For  by  perseverance  in  grace  is  not 
meant  the  continuing  to  enjoy  and  to  inherit  external  Gospel  privileges  merely ;  but  a  con- 
tinuance in  holiness,  diligence,  watchfulness,  a  holy  temper  and  walk,  and  a  scrupulous  ob- 
servance of  every  duty.  There  is  nothing  more  opposed  to  sin  than  a  perseverance  in  grace  ; 
and  whosoever  shall  thus  continue  in  grace  to  the  end  shall  be  saved. 


§  113.  the  catholic  apostolic  church  (called  [bvingites 
§  113.  The  Catholic  Apostolic  Church  (galled  [byotoi 

/       aturt. 
I.  Bora  i  s. 
Edward  Irving:   Works,  collected  and  edited  by  his  nephew,  the  Hev.  (i.  Carlyle.    London. 
5  vols. 

Mi.  a  mi.  Horn.:  Lruchstucke  aus  &tm  Lebcn  und  den  Sehriftt  n  /.'.  Into  ft,    St.  Galleu,  1S39;  2d  ed. 
1850. 

Mrs.  M.  O.W.  Omimiant:  The  Life  of  I  ■'  Scotch  Church, 

illustrated  by  hit  Journals  and  Correspondence.    London  and  New  York  (Harpers),  [80S. 

tuny  to  the  King  of  England,  and  another  ta  the  Bishops  of  England.    London,  1886.    (Anony- 
mous.   Prepared  by  the  Apostles.) 

A  Testimony  addressed  to  all  Patriarchs,  Archbishops,  awl  Bishops,  and  the  Beigntng  9  • 
tendom.     1S3*.    (Anonymous.) 

Liturgy  and  other  Divine  Offices  of  the  Church.    London,  1849.    Drawn  up  by  the  ' Apostles, '  and 
enlarged  from  time  to  time. 
C.  M.  Cakrk  :  The  First  and  Last  Bays  of  ""•  Church  of  Christ.    London,  1861. 
Readings  upon  the  Liturgy.    (By  one  of  the  Apostles.)    London,  1868. 
The  Catechism.    (The  Ens''81'  Episcopal  Catechism  enlarged.) 

Thomas  Cari.vi.e  (one  of  the  Apostles) :  The  Door  >■/  Hope  for  Britain,  and  The  Boor  of  Hope  J 
tendom.    Loudon, 1553.    By  the  same :  Apostles  Qioen,  Lost,  Restored :  Pleadings  with  my  Mother. 

Kcv.  William  Dow  (one  of  the  Apostles,  originally  a  Scotch  Presbyt.):  First  Prb 
trine  of  Christ.    Ediub.  1S56.    By  the  same:  A  Series  of  Discourses  on  Practical  a>wi  Duct  r  inn 
Edinb.1853;  2d  series,  Edinb.lSCO. 

Rev.  J.  S.Davenport:  Edward  Irving  and  the  Catholic  Apostolic  Church.     New  York,  1888.     Bjf  the 
same:  Christian  Unity  and  Us  Recovery.    New  York,  l>00.    By  the  same:  Letter  to  Bishop  Wh 
The  Church  and  the  Episcopate.    Montreal,  18T8. 

W.W.Akdbkws:  The  True  Constitution  of  the  Church  and  its  Restoration.     New  York,  1864.     Bj  the 
same:  Review  of  Mrs.  OUphant's  Life  of  B.  Irving,  in  the  '  New-En  glander'  for  July  and  Oct  l  B] 

the  same:  The  Catholic  Apostolic  Church,  its  History,  Organization,  Doctrine,  and  IForaMp,  In  the  'Bil>- 
liotheca  Sacra' for  Jan.  aud  April,  1SC6.    Audover,  Mass.    By  the  same:  The  True  Marks  of  U 
Hartford,  1S67. 

Rev.  Nicholas  Armstrong  (one  of  the  Apostles):  Sermons  on  acta.    2d  cd.  London.  1-7". 

By  the  same:  Homilies  on  the  Epistles  and  Gospels.    Loudon,  1S70. 
Rev.  T.  Groser:  Sermons,  1st  and  2d  series.    London,  18T1  and  1874. 
Apostles''  Doctrine  and  Fellowship.    Anonymous.    London,  18TL 

The  Purpose  of  God  in  Creation  nod  /;..;.  mption.    Anonymous.    4th  ed.  Edinburgh,  1874. 
Readings  for  the  Sundays  nod  Hot,  taays  of  the  Church'*  year.    Auouymous.    London,  1818. 
The  Dispensation  of  the  Parousin.    Hartford,  1876. 

Various  writings  of  Henry  Diummond  (one  of  the  Apostles),  Ciias.  Bfimr,  C.  Ronnt,  A.  K8mnv, 
Ernst  Gaab,  Bossi  l\  -.her  (author  of  an  essay  'On  the  Gift  of  Tongnes,1  and  ■  history  of  the  move- 
ment under  the  title  Der  Avfbau  der  Kirche  Christi  auf  dm  vrsprungUchen  Orundlagen),  and  • 
H.W.J.  Thiersch  (the  Tertullian  of  this  modern  Montan  ism,  and  its  most  learned  minister  in  Germany, 
who  wrote  Lectures  on  Catholici  ntism,  1848,  on  the  Canon  of  tit,  s.  T.,  1-4.'.,  on  the  Church 

in  the  Apostolic  Are,  1S52,  aud  other  excellent  work-). 

II.  Criticisms. 
De  QOTOOBY,  in  Literary  II  •  ol.  II. 

Thomas  Cari.vi.i-,  in  'Eraser's  Magazine'  for  Jan.  1?38. 

Articles  on  Irving  in  'Edinburgh  Beriew'  for  Oct  1868:  'North  British  Beriew'  r..r  a 
•Blackwood's  Magazine'  for  Nov.  1866,  and  June,  1868]   'London  Quarterly  Beriew'  for  I 
list  Quarterly  Beview.'Jan.  im;>,  1868. 
I'nii.ie  Bobafi  :  /'•  r  I' i  togismus  und  ..'„■  Kirch*  nfrage,  in  his  '  Deutst  bet  Kirchenlreund/Jahrg.  HI. 
I860,  pp.  49  eqq.  61  sqq.  1C1  sqq.  '-".'.T  sqq.    Mercersburg,  Pa. 
(;.  W.  Leiim.vns:  Ueberdie  Trvingianer.    Hamburg,  1868. 

Comp.  J.  LJaoobi:  Bie  Lehre  der  Trvingiten  odtr  der  sogenanntsn    .  wutmtk  ttrgUekem 

m it  der  hciligcn  Schrift    Berlin,  1 368. 

EDWAED    n:vi.\... 

Edward  Irving,  the  herald  and  pioneer  of  the  'Catholic  Ap 
Church,'  was  born  at  Annan,  In  Scotland,  L79S,  and  died  in  the  vigor 


906  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

of  manhood  at  Glasgow,  Dec.  8,  1S34,  where  he  lies  buried  in  the 
crypt  of  the  cathedral.  He  belonged  to  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  for  several  years  (1819-1822)  labored  in  Glasgow  as  the  assist- 
ant of  the  great  and  good  Dr.  Chalmers. 

In  1822  he  accepted  a  call  to  the  Caledonian  Chapel,  Hatton  Gar- 
den, London,  and  at  once  became  the  most  powerful  and  popular 
preacher  of  the  metropolis.  He  was  at  that  time  overflowing  with 
bodily  and  spiritual  life  and  energy.  He  excelled  in  the  noblest 
gifts  of  eloquence,  cultivated  on  the  models  of  Hooker  and  Jeremy 
Taylor.  Lofty  thoughts  clothed  in  gorgeous,  semi-poetic  language, 
devotional  fervor,  a  solemn  manner,  a  sonorous  voice,  a  quaint  an- 
tique style,  a  broad  Scotch  accent,  an  imposing  figure,  bushy  hair 
flowing  down  in  ringlets,  a  beaming  face  (which  reminded  Sir  Walter 
Scott  of  that  of  the  Saviour  on  Italian  pictures),  all  combined  to  at- 
tract large  and  intelligent  audiences,  and  to  secure  their  closest  atten- 
tion, as  if  they  listened  to  a  messenger  from  the  presence  of  the  great 
Jehovah.  De  Quincey  judged  him  to  be,  more  than  any  man  he  ever 
saw, 'a  son  of  thunder,  and  unquestionably  by  many  degrees  the  great- 
est orator  of  our  times.'  He  attracted  people  from  all  classes — noble- 
'  men,  statesmen,  and  authors.  When  on  a  visit  to  Edinburgh  and 
Glasgow,  he  roused  the  population  at  sunrise  from  their  beds  to  hear 
his  discourses.     He  shook  the  kingdom  with  his  eloquence. 

While  he  ruled  like  a  monarch  from  his  pulpit,  he  was  a  docile  pupil 
of  Coleridge,  and  received  from  the  suggestive  conversations  of  the 
old  sage  seeds  of  truth  which  seriously  modified  his  Scotch  Calvinistic 
creed.  He  now  made  more  account  of  the  incarnation  and  the  true 
humanity  of  Christ,  maintaining  that  he  assumed  our  fallen,  i.  e., 
temptable,  mortal,  corruptible  nature,  yet  without  sin  itself,  into  com- 
plete fellowship  with  his  divine  person.  This  exposed  him  to  the 
charge  of  denying  the  sinlessness  of  our  Saviour,  which  was  far  from 
his  thoughts.  He  also  gave  a  large  place  to  the  hope  of  the  glorious 
return  of  Christ,  and  the  revival  of  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  Church. 

In  these  views  he  was  greatly  strengthened  by  the  sudden  reap- 
pearance of  what  he  believed  to  be  the  supernatural  gifts  of  tongues, 
prophesying,  and  healing.  These  manifestations  first  occurred  in  the 
spring  of  1830  in  the  west  of  Scotland,  on  the  shores  of  the  Clyde, 


§  113.  THE  CATHOLIC  APOSTOLIC  CHUECfl  (CALLED  IKYIM.l  I ']  - 

among  some  pious  Presbyterian  men  ami  women,  who  believed  that 

their  organs  of  speech  were  made  use  of  by  the  Spirit  of  God  for  the 
utterance  of  his  thoughts  and  intentions.  Several  persons  from  Lon- 
don, on  hearing  of  these  things,  visited  Scotland,  and,  on  their  return, 
held  prayer-meetings  in  private  houses,  attended  by  devout  members 
of  different  denominations.  They  united  in  supplications  for  the 
restoration  of  spiritual  gifts.  In  April,  1831,  the  same  manifesta- 
tions took  place  among  members  of  the  Church  of  England  and 
friends  of  Irving  in  London.  The  *  prophesyings '  were  addressed  to 
the  audience  in  intelligible  English,  and  resembled  the  solemn  exhorta- 
tions of  Quakers  moved  by  the  Spirit.  The  speaking  in  tongues  con- 
sisted of  soliloquies  of  the  speaker,  or  dialogues  between  him  and  God 
which  no  one  could  understand.  The  burden  of  the  prophetic  utter- 
ances was  the  judgments  impending  on  the  apostate  Church,  the  Bpeedy 
coming  of  Christ,  and  the  duty  of  preparing  his  way.1 

Similar  manifestations  of  ecstatic  utterances  in  seasons  of  powerful 
religious  excitement  appeared  among  the  Montanists  in  the  Becond 
century,  the  persecuted  Protestants  in  France,  called  the  'Prophets  of 
Cevennes,'  and  among  the  early  Quakers. 

These  extraordinary  proceedings  naturally  led  to  a  rupture  between 
Irving  and  the  Presbytery  of  London  (1832).  He  was  turned  out  of 
the  church  built  for  him  in  Regent  Square,  and  ultimately  deposed 
from  the  ministry  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  by  the  Presbytery  of 
Annan  (1S33),  from  which  he  had  received  his  first  license  to  preach. 

On  being  driven  from  Regent  Square,  he  was  followed  by  the  largei 
part  of  his  congregation  to  Newman  Street;  and  the  following  year, 
when  his  Presbyterian  orders  had  been  taken  from  him,  he  humbly 
submitted  to  reordination  by  one  whom  he  received  as  an  apostle. 
lie  never  rose  beyond  the  position  of  an  '  angel,'  or  pastor,  in  the  new 
Church,  and,  after  less  than  two  years  of  great  labors  and  sufferings, 
passed  from  this  world  of  trial  into  the  regions  of  light. 

'  See  A  Brief  Account  of  a  Virit  to  aome  of  the  Brethren  in  tht  R  tofS  tland,  London, 
1831  (J.  Niebet);  Robot  Baxti  b  Brrt  a  believer  in  the  divine  origin  end  then  In  the  n 
tani«  origin  of  these  gifts):  Narratioi  of  Facta  characteristic  of  the  Supernatural  Maudfuta- 
/inns  in  Membi  re  of  Mr.  Irving t  i  'ongregation  and  othi  r  Individuals,  in  England  ">nl  6 
and  formerly  in  the  Writer  himself,  Lond.  <  Nisbit),  1888  ;  Il<>m  .  I.  c,  (quoted  in  my  Hist,  oj 
the  Apost.  <'li.  §  .">.">.  p.  198).     Comp.  also  Stanley,  Comn  I    p,  to  the  Corinthians, 

4th  ed.  London,  1S7<-.,  pp.  250  Bqq. 


908  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

He  is  little  mentioned  in  the  writings  of  his  followers,  and  is  re- 
garded by  them  merely  as  a  forerunner  or  John  the  Baptist,  not  as 
the  founder  of  their  community.  His  brilliant  meteoric  career,  lofty 
character,  and  sad  end  created  profound  interest  and  sympathy.  Dr. 
Chalmers,  on  hearing  of  his  death,  said  that  '  he  was  one  in  whom  the 
graces  of  the  humble  Christian  were  joined  to  the  virtues  of  the  old 
Roman.'  Thomas  Carlyle,  his  countryman  and  early  friend,  thus  char- 
acterizes Irving:  'He  was  appointed  a  Christian  priest, and  strove  with 
the  whole  force  that  was  in  him  to  be  it.  I  call  him,  upon  the  whole, 
the  best  man  I  have  ever,  after  trial  enough,  found  in  this  world,  or 
now  hope  to  find.'1 

THE    CATHOLIC    APOSTOLIC    CHUECII. 

This  remarkable  man,  whose  purity  and  piety  can  be  as  little  doubt- 
ed as  his  genius  and  eloquence,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  his  sound- 
ness and  judgment,  gave  the  strongest  if  not  the  first  impulse  to  the 
religious  movement  which,  since  its  organization,  is  usually  called 
after  his  name,  but  which  calls  itself  '  The  Catholic  Apostolic 
Church.'  2  It  took  full  shape  and  form  after  his  death,  as  it  claims, 
under  supernatural  direction.  It  is  one  of  the  unsolved  enigmas  of 
Church  history :  it  combines  a  high  order  of  piety  and  humility  of  in- 
dividual members  with  astounding  assumptions,  which,  if  well  found- 
ed, would  require  the  submission  of  all  Christendom  to  the  authority 
of  its  inspired  apostles. 


1  When  he  adds,  'Oh  foulest  Circean  draught,  thou  poison  of  popular  applause! 
is  in  thee,  and  death ;  thy  end  is  Bedlam  and  the  grave,'  he  seems  to  cast  a  reflection  on 
Irving's  character  which  is  not  justified  by  facts;  for  Mrs.  Oliphant's  Life  shows  him  to  have 
willingly  sacrificed  popularity  to  his  convictions. 

2  'They  do  not  lay  claim  to  the  name  Catholic  Apostolic  as  exclusively  their  own,  but  they 
use  it  as  a  proper  designation  of  the  one  body  of  Christ,  of  which  they  are  an  organic  part, 
and  they  refuse  to  be  called  by  any  other.  They  do  this  on  the  ground  that  it  is  wrong  to 
affix  to  the  Church  the  name  of  an  eminent  leader,  like  Luther  or  Calvin  or  Wesley ;  or 
one  founded  upon  some  feature  of  Church  polity,  such  as  Episcopal,  Presbyterian,  or  Con- 
gregational; or  one  derived  from  some  peculiar  doctrine  or  rite,  as  Baptist  or  Free-will 
Baptist;  or  one  expressing  geographical  limitations,  such  as  Roman,  Greek,  Anglican,  or 
Moravian.  The  essential  characteristic  of  a  thing  should  be  expressed  by  its  name,  and  the 
Church  has  for  its  three  chief  features,  Unity,  as  the  only  organism  of  which  Christ  is  head  ; 
( 'atholiriiy,  as  having  a  universal  mission;  and  Apostolicity,  as  sent  by  Christ  into  the  world, 
even  as  he  was  sent  by  the  Father.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  this  name,  adopted  in  the 
Nicene  Creed,  has  practically  every  where  been  changed,  as  into  the  Roman  Catholic,  the 
Creek  Orthodox,  the  Protestant  Episcopal,  or  something  still  narrower  and  more  sectarian.' 
— W.  W.  Andrews,  in  Biblioth.  Sacra,  1.  c. 


§  113.  THE  CATHOLIC  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH  (CALLED  IKYIN.,1 1  ES 

The  modern  'Apostolic3  Church  believes  and  teaches  thai  the  Lord', 
who  will  soon  appear  in  glory,  lias  graciously  restored,  or  at  least 

begun  to  restore  his  one  true  Church, by  reviving  the  primitive  Buper- 
natural  offices  and  gifts,  which  funned  the  bridal  outfit  of  the  apostolic 
age,  but  were  soon  afterwards  lo>t  or  marred  by  the  ingratitude  and 
unbelief  of  Christendom.  It  claims  to  have  apostles,  prophets,  and 
evangelists  for  the  general  care  of  the  Church,  and  angels  (or  bish- 
ops), presbyters  (or  priests),  and  deacons  for  the  care  of  particular  ooilr 
gregations.  All  officers  are  called  by  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the 
voice  of  the  prophets,  except  the  deacons,  who  are  chosen  by  the  con- 
gregation as  its  representatives.  They  form  a  more  complete  hierarchy 
than  that  of  the  Episcopal  or  even  the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches, 
whose  bishops  never  claimed  to  be  inspired  apostles,  but  only  succes- 
sors of  the  apostles. 

If  the  twelve  modern  apostles  were  truly  called  by  Christ  and  en- 
dowed with  all  the  powers  and  functions  of  that  unique  office,  men 
will  naturally  look  for  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fact.  Hut  nine  of 
these  apostles  died  before  1S76,  and  their  vacancies  have  not  been 
filled,  nor  are  they  expected  to  be  filled.  The  Church,  then,  is  re- 
lapsing into  the  same  destitute  condition  which,  according  to  their  own 
theory,  preceded  this  movement.1  Their  only  hope  is  in  the  speedy 
return  of  our  Lord. 

To  this  apostolic  hierarchy  corresponds  a  highly  ritualistic  worship, 
with  a  solemn  liturgy,  based  upon  the  Anglican  and  ancient  Greek 
liturgies,  and  with  an  elaborate  symbolism,  derived  from  a  fanciful  in- 
terpretation of  the  Jewish  tabernacle  as  a  type  of  the  worship  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  the  wilderness. 

In  this  hierarchical  constitution  and  ritualistic  Worship  consists  the 
chief  peculiarity  of  this  community.  Its  ministers  and  members 
have  accordingly  a  very  high  idea  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Sacra- 
ments. They  are  strict  believers  in  baptismal  regeneration  and  the 
real  presence,  though  neither  in  the  Roman  nor  the  Lutheran  sense. 

1  From  a  conversation  with  a  learned  minister  of  that  Church,  t>>  whom  I  mentioned  tliis. 
difficulty,  I  infer  that  he  at  least — I  do  not  know  how  ihmiiv  inore— regard*  it-,  testimony  as 
a  partial  failure,  or  merely  as  a  temporary  provision,  t.>  l--  superseded  by  a  better  one.  An- 
other writes  to  me  in  answer  to  the  tame  question:  'We  are  quite  ready  i<>  admit  failure, 
great  failure,  so  f.ir  as  to  the  present  effects  of  the  movement  upon  Christendom.     But  ia- 

trinmcally,  and  in  relation  to  God's  plans,  we  '1"  i»"t  think  it  n  failure.' 


910  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

They  reject  transubstantiation  and  consubstantiation  as  well  as  the 
merely  symbolical  presence,  and  hold  to  the  spiritual  real  presence  of 
Calvin,  but  combine  with  it  the  view  of  Irensens  and  other  early  fa- 
thers, that  the  elements,  after  being  consecrated  by  the  invocation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  have  a  heavenly  and  spiritual,  as  well  as  a  material 
character,  and  are  antitypes  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  They 
regard  the  eucharist  as  the  centre  of  Christian  worship,  and  not  only 
as  a  sacrament,  but  also  as  a  sacrifice  in  the.  patristic  sense  of  a  thank- 
offering,  and  they  connect  with  it  a  commemoration  of  the  departed. 
They  are,  upon  the  whole,  the  highest  of  High-Churchmen.  They  are 
in  this  respect  the  very  antipodes  of  the  Plymouth  Brethren,  the  low- 
est of  Low-Churchmen  and  the  most  independent  of  Independents, 
although  both  agree  in  their  antagonism  to  the  historical  Churches 
and  their  expectation  of  the  speedy  coming  of  the  Lord. 

Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Irvingites  are  unquestionably  Protestant, 
and  accept  the  positive  results  of  the  Reformation.  They  reject  the 
Pope,  not  indeed  as  the  Antichrist  or  '  the  man  of  sin,'  who  will  be  re- 
vealed in  the  last  times  as  the  outgrowth  of  unbelief  and  lawlessness, 
but  as  an  antichristian  usurper  of  supreme  authority  in  the  Church. 
In  their  general  belief  they  are  as  orthodox  as  any  other  denomination. 
They  receive  the  whole  Scriptures  with  devout  reverence  as  their  su- 
preme guide.  They  lay  stress  on  the  oecumenical  creeds,  and  embody 
them  in  their  liturgical  services.  In  catechetical  instruction  they  use  the 
Anglican  Catechism,  with  an  additional  part  inculcating  their  peculiar 
views  about  the  constitution  and  order  of  the  Christian  Church.  They 
manifest  a  catholic  spirit,  and  sustain,  as  individuals,  fraternal  relations 
with  members  of  other  denominations.  Upon  the  whole,  they  have 
most  sympathy  with  the  Episcopal  Church,  from  which  they  received 
the  majority  of  their  original  members.  Of  their  apostles,  eight  were 
Anglicans  (including  two  clergymen  and  two  members  of  Parliament), 
three  Presbyterians,  and  one  Independent.  Their  main  strength  is 
in  London,  where  they  have  seven  churches,  after  the  model  of  the 
seven  churches  in  Asia  Minor.  They  have  also  congregations  in  many 
of  the  principal  cities  in  England  and  Scotland,  and  in  some  parts  of 
the  Continent  of  Europe,  especially  North  Germany ;  while  in  Roman 
Catholic  countries  and  in  America  they  have  made  little  or  no  progress. 

The  Irvingite  movement  has  directed  the  attention  of  many  serious 


§  113.  THE  CATHOLIC  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH  (CALLED  IKV1N..I  1 i.s...    911 

minds  to  a  deeper  study  of  the  supernatural  Older  and  outfit  of  the 
Apostolic  Church,  the  divisions  and  reunion  of  Christendom,  and  the 
eschatological  questions  connected  with  the  second  advent 

STATEMENT    OF    THE    REV.  W.  AV.  ANDREWS. 

With  these  remarks  we  introduce  a  fuller  inside  account  of  the 
Catholic  Apostolic  Church,  which  was  kindly  prepared  for  this  work 
by  the  Rev.  W.  W.  Andrews,  of  Wethersfield,  Conn.  He  has  been 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  movement  from  the  beginning,  and 
is  highly  esteemed  by  all  who  know  him  as  a  Christian  gentleman  and 
scholar : 

'The  body  of  Christians  who  call  themselves  by  the  name  of  the  ClTHOLN  APOSTOLIC 
Church,  not  as  exclusively  their  own,  but  because  it  is  the  proper  designation  of  the  one 
Catholic  Church,  is  distinguished  from  all  other  Christian  communions  by  the  claim  to  the 
possession  of  gifts  and  ministries  which,  after  having  been  long  lost  or  suspended  in  their 
exercise,  they  believe  to  be  now  again  restored  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  coming  and  king- 
dom of  the  Lord. 

History. 

'The  history  of  this  religious  movement  can  be  given  in  few  words.  About  the  beginning 
of  the  second  quarter  of  the  present  century,  there  was  much  prayer  in  many  countries,  bnt 
especially  in  Great  Britain,  for  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  early  in  the  year 
1830  supernatural  manifestations  occurred  in  several  parts  of  Scotland,  in  devout  members 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  the  form  of  tongues,  prophesying?,  and  healings.  The  fol- 
lowing year  similar  manifestations  took  place  in  London,  first  in  members  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  afterwards  among  other  religious  bodies. 

'Towards  the  end  of  the  year  1832,  by  which  time  the  supernatural  character  and  divine 
origin  of  these  spiritual  phenomena  had  been  abundantly  attested,  and  a  considerable  number 
of  persons  had  become  believers,  another  and  most  important  step  was  taken  in  the  restora- 
tion of  the  apostolic  office.  The  will  of  God  that  certain  men  should  serve  him  as  apostles 
was  made  known  through  supernatural  utterances  of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  prophets,  as  when, 
at  Antioch,  he  said,  "Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  "hereunto  I  have  called 
them."  The  apostolate  to  the  Gentiles,  begun  in  the  calling  of  Paul,  but  then  left  unfinished, 
the  Lord  now,  at  the  end  of  the  dispensation,  set  his  hand  to  restore;  and  by  the  middle  of 
the  year  1835  the  full  number  was  completed,  and  they  entered  as  B  twelvefold  Apostolic 
College  on  the  work  of  caring  for  the  whole  Christian  Church.  As  Great  Britain  bad  been 
chosen  of  God  to  be  the  centre  of  this  catholic  movement,  one  of  the  tir-t  duties  laid  npon 
the  restored  apostles  was  the  preparing  of  a  Testimony  to  the  Bishops  of  the  Church 
land  and  Ireland,  and  of  another  to  the  King's  Privy  Council,  in  which  they  pointed  out  the 
sins  and  perils  of  those  lands,  and  testified  to  tho  coming  of  the  Lord  a>  the  only  hope  of 
mankind,  and  to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ai  the  necessary  means  of  preparation. 

'A  year  or  two  later,  they  addressed  a  more  full  and  complete  testimony,  of  the  Ml 
eral  character,  to  all  the  Balers  in  Church  and  state  throughout  Christendom.  Tiny  did 
this,  because  it  was  their  duty,  from  the  nature  of  their  office,  to  seek  the  blearing  of  the 
whole  flock  of  God.  Apostles  alone  have  universal  jurisdiction,  as  they  alone  receive  their 
commission  directly  from  the  Lord ;  and  it  belonged  to  them,  when  restored  towards  the  close 
of  the  long  history  of  the  Church,  to  take  np  those  question!  in  respect  to  doctrine,  organiza- 
tion, and  worship  which  had  broken   the  unity  of  Christendom;   and   having  examined   the 


012  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

creeds  and  rites  and  usages  of  every  part,  to  separate  the  evil  from  the  good,  and  to  stamp 
with  their  apostolic  authority  every  fragment  of  divine  truth  and  order  which  had  been  pre- 
served. This  they  have  been  doing  for  more  than  forty  years,  and  the  results  to  which  they 
have  arrived  may  be  thus  briefly  stated. 

Doctrines. 

'  They  hold  the  holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  (the  Old  Testament  as  re- 
ceived from  the  Jews,  without  the  Apocrypha)  to  contain  the  sum  and  substance  of  all  divine 
revelations,  and  therefore  to  be  the  supreme  and  infallible  standard  of  doctrine. 

'But  they  also  believe  that  Christ's  promise  to  be  with  his  Church  to  the  end  of  the  world 
has  not  been  made  void,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  borne  a  living  witness  to  the  one  faith 
in  all  generations ;  and  they  have  adopted  the  three  great  creeds  commonly  called  the  Apos- 
tles', the  Nicene,  and  the  Athanasian,  as  expressing  more  clearly  than  any  others  the  belief 
of  the  Universal  Church.  The  great  doctrines  of  the  holy  Trinity,  the  incarnation,  the  atoning 
death  and  bodily  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  his  ascension  and  high  priestly  work  in  heaven,  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  draw  men  to  Christ,  and  to  regenerate,  sanctify,  and  endow  with 
heavenly  gifts  them  that  believe,  together  with  the  second  personal  coming  of  the  Lord  to 
judge  the  quick  and  the  dead,  and  to  administer  eternal  retributions,  they  hold  in  their  plain 
and  obvious  import,  in  harmony  with  the  whole  Orthodox  Church,  Greek,  Roman,  and  Prot- 
estant. 

'  These  creeds  they  have  appointed  to  be  used  in  divine  worship:  the  Apostles',  at  the  daily 
morning  and  evening  services  ;  the  Nicene,  in  the  ordinary  celebrations  of  the  eucharist  on  the 
Lord's  Day  ;  and  the  Athanasian,  four  times  in  the  year,  at  the  great  festivals  of  Christmas, 
Easter,  Pentecost,  and  All-Saints.  They  use  the  Nicene  Creed  in  the  form  in  which  the 
Western  Church  receives  it,  retaining  the  Filioque,  but  not  condemning  the  Eastern  Church 
for  using  it  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  left  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople. 

'  In  respect  to  the  great  central  truth  of  the  incarnation,  the  key  to  all  the  purposes  and 
works  of  God,  they  teach  that  the  second  Person  in  the  adorable  Godhead,  the  only  and 
eternally  begotten  Son,  became  man  by  assuming  our  entire  humanity — body,  soul,  and  spirit 
— under  the  conditions  of  the  fall,  but  without  sin,  through  the  overshadowing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  They  reject,  therefore,  the  dogma  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  mother  of  the 
Lord  as  against  the  truth  of  holy  Scripture,  which  declares  the  whole  human  race  to  have 
been  involved  in  the  fall  of  the  first  Adam.  They  teach  that  by  being  born  of  a  mother  of  the 
fallen  race,  he  took  the  common  nature  of  man,  with  all  its  infirmities,  burdens,  and  liabili- 
ties, so  that  he  could  be  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are,  and  be  dealt  with  in  all  things 
by  the  Father  as  the  representative  of  mankind.  But  they  also  make  prominent  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  effecting  the  incarnation,  holding  that  it  was  through  his  presence  and 
power  that  the  Son  of  God  was  conceived  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  afterwards  anointed  for 
his  public  ministry ;  so  that  while  it  was  a  divine  person  who  became  incarnate,  he  had  no 
advantage  of  his  Godhead  in  his  earthly  life,  but  did  every  thing  as  man  upheld,  guided,  and 
energized  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

'They  hold,  with  the  Church  of  England,  and  all  the  great  leaders  of  the  Reformation,  that 
the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  "a  full,  perfect,  and  sufficient  sacrifice,  oblation,  and 
satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world"  (and  not  merely  for  those  of  the  elect);  and  on 
this  ground  they  stand  aloof  both  from  the  rationalism  which  denies  its  vicarious  and  expiatory 
nature,  and  from  the  Roman  doctrine  of  the  mass,  which  teaches  that  the  sacrifice  of  the 
cross  needs  to  be  supplemented  by  the  sacrifices  of  the  eucharist,  in  which  the  Lamb  of  God 
is  continually  immolated  afresh. 

'  But  they  go  beyond  the  theology  of  the  Reformation  in  respect  to  the  Church,  which  they 
look  upon  as  the  fruit  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  which  followed  his  ascension ;  and  as  differing,  therefore,  fundamentally  in  its  spirit- 
ual essence  and  prerogatives  from  all  the  companies  of  the  faithful  in  the  preceding  dispensa- 
tions. They  believe  that  in  rising  from  the  dead  he  became  the  fountain  of  a  new  life,  the 
head  of  a  redeemed  humanity,  of  which  those  who  believe  in  him  arc  made  partakers  by  the 


§  113.  THE  CATHOLIC  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH  (CALLED  IRVING]  i  ES  ,    '.'l:; 

operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost  working  in  and  through  the  ordinance!  of  bit  Chnrch.  The 
Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  the  divinely  appointed  means  of  conveying 
and  nourishing  this  new  life  of  hifl  resurrection,  by  the  implanting  and  energizing  ofwhicb 
the  whole  multitude  of  the  faithful  are  made  to  he  the  One  Body  of  Christ. 

'As  to  the  structure  and  endowments  of  the  Church,  they  hold  that  its  original  constitu- 
tion contains  the  abiding  law  for  all  generations.  The  fourfold  ministry  of  tposties,  proph- 
ets, evangelists,  and  pastors,  first  fulfilled  by  the  Lord  himself  when  upon  earth,  was  OOU 
tinued  in  his  Church  after  he  had  gone  into  heaven,  because  it  was  the  accessary  instrumen- 
tality of  conveying  his  manifold  grace  and  blessing,  and  of  bringing  his  Body  to  the  statute 
of  his  fullness  (Kph.  iv.  11-16).    The  Holy  Ghosl  was  given  to  he  the  permanent  p 

of  his  people;  and  the  apostles  reject  the  common  distinction  between  ordinary  and  extraor- 
dinary gifts  as  wholly  unscriptural,  and  as  restraining  the  manifestations  of  the  Spirit.  They 
lay  great  stress  upon  the  connection  of  the  descent  of  the  Comforter  with  the  glorifj  ing  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  (John  vii.  39),  and  teach  that  the  object  of  his  mission  was  to  reveal  the  glory  and 
manifest  the  energies  of  the  Man  whom  God  had  exalted  from  the  weakness  and  dishonor  of 
the  grave  to  his  own  right  hand.  Supernatural  gifts  and  miraculous  workings  are  therefore 
in  accordance  with  the  nature  of  the  dispensation,  which  hegan  with  the  resurrection  of  the 
Lord,  and  is  to  end  with  the  resurrection  of  his  saints. 

Worship. 

'  Its  chief  features  are  the  celehration  of  the  Eucharist  on  every  Lord's  day ;  services  at  six 
in  the  morning  and  five  in  the  evening  of  every  day  in  the  year,  requiring  for  their  complete 
fulfillment  the  three  ministries  of  angel,  priests,  and  deacons;  the  observance  of  the  great 
feasts  of  the  Church,  excluding  those  in  honor  of  particular  saints;  and  a  monthly  service  by 
the  seven  churches  in  London  gathered  into  one  as  a  symbol  of  the  Universal  Church,  which 
is  also  observed  in  all  the  congregations  throughout  the  world. 

'The  holy  Eucharist  is  made  to  be  the  centre  of  worship,  of  which  Christ,  the  great  Iligli- 
Priest  in  the  heavens,  is  the  leader,  and  the  Mosaic  ritual  the  shadow  and  type.  The  show- 
ing to  the  Father  of  that  one  sacrifice  of  the  cross,  which  is  the  basis  of  all  intercession,  is 
effected  by  the  Lord  himself,  by  his  own  bodily  presence  in  heaven  :  and  the  (  'hurch  is  enabled 
to  do  the  same  upon  the  earth  by  means  of  that  sacrament  in  which  he  places  in  her  bands 
the  symbols  and  spiritual  reality  of  his  body  and  blood.  The  eacharist  is  regarded  as  the 
antitype  of  the  priestly  act  of  Melchi/.edek  in  bringing  forth  bread  and  wine  to  Abraham,  the 
father  of  the  faithful,  from  whom  he  received  the  tenth  of  all;  and  in  the  offertory,  both  the 
tithes  and  the  offerings  of  the  people  are  brought  up  and  presented  to  God  as  an  act  of  wor- 
ship. 

'As  the  death  of  the  cross  was  itself  the  fulfillment  of  all  the  bloody  sacrifices  of  the  Law, 
the  commemoration  of  it  in  the  holy  Supper  becomes  the  distinguishing  Christian  rite,  from 
which  all  other  acts  of  worship,  especially  the  daily  morning  and  evening  services — the  anti- 
type of  the  daily  services  of  the  Tabernacle — derive  their  life  and  power.  All  the  purest  and 
most  catholic  parts  of  all  the  rituals  of  Christendom  have  been  gathered  up  and  WOVOU  to- 
gether, to  form,  with  such  additions  as  the  present  exigencies  of  the  Church  demand,  a  com- 
prehensive and  organic  system  of  worship,  at  once  purely  Scriptural,  ami  embodying  the  rich- 
est liturgical  treasures  of  the  past.  Among  the  errors  and  superstitions  which  bate  1m-.ii 
weeded  out  are  transubstantiation,  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ami  of  saints  and  angels, 
the  use  of  images  and  pictures,  and  prayers  for  deliverance  from  purgatorial  tires.  15m  in  re- 
jecting the  corruption  of  the  truth,  the  truth  itself  has  nut  been  CBSl  away  j  ami  the  doctrine 
of  the  real  presence  (as  a  spiritual  mystery  involving  no  physienl  change  of  the  elements),  tin' 
thankful  and  reverential  mention  of  the  Mother  of  the  Lord  (  "  And  with  the  holy  angebj,  and 
with  thy  ( 'hurch  in  all  generations.  \w  call  her  blessed  "i.  and  continual  supplications  and  in- 
tercessions in  behalf  of  the  faithful  departed,  that  they  '■may  rest  in  the  peace  of  God,  and 
awake  to  a  joyful  resurrection,"  all  have  place  in  the  serviCH  appointed  by  the  apostles. 


914  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

Organization  and  Unity  of  the  Church. 

'The  unity  of  the  Church  is  held  as  a  fundamental  fact,  resulting  from  the  acts  and  opera- 
tions of  God,  and  not  from  the  agreements  and  confederacies  of  men.  There  is  one  Body 
of  Christ,  embracing  all  who  have  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (though,  like  the  unfruitful  branches  of  the  vine,  many  may  at  last 
be  cut  out  and  cast  away)  ;  and,  in  the  absence  of  the  Head,  the  harmonious  intercommunion 
of  the  members  is  secured  by  the  inworking  of  the  One  Spirit,  and  by  a  ministry  proceeding 
immediately  from  the  Head,  and  having  jurisdiction  over  all  the  parts.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  Church  Universal  and  the  local  or  particular  churches  which  compose  it,  is  sharply 
drawn  in  the  organization  which  has  been  developed  under  the  rule  of  the  apostles.  The 
apostles  themselves  are  the  great  Catholic  ministry,  through  which  guidance  and  blessing  are 
conveyed  to  the  whole  body,  and  they  are  assisted  in  their  work  by  prophets,  evangelists,  and 
pastors. 

'  But  each  particular  church,  when  fully  organized,  is  under  the  rule  of  an  angel,  or  chief 
pastor  or  bishop,  with  presbyters  and  deacons  helping  him  in  their  subordinate  places.  It  is 
his  office  to  stand  continually  at  his  own  altar  at  the  head  of  his  flock,  carrying  on  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  cherishing  and  directing  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  exercising  the  pastoral 
charge  over  all  the  souls  committed  to  his  care.  The  threefold  ministry  of  Episcopacy  (and, 
in  a  lower  form,  of  Presbyterianism)  is  here  united  with  the  central  authority  which  Rome 
has  wrongfully  sought  to  attain  by  exalting  her  bishop  to  the  place  of  universal  headship. 

The  Second  Coming. 

'  In  respect  to  eschatology,  they  hold,  with  the  Church  of  the  first  three  centuries,  that  the 
second  coming  of  the  Lord  precedes  and  introduces  the  millennium  ;  at  the  beginning  of 
which  the  first  resurrection  takes  place,  and  at  the  close  the  general  resurrection,  with  the 
final  judgment  and  its  eternal  retributions  to  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  This  period  of 
a  thousand  years  will  be  marked  by  the  presence  of  the  Lord  and  his  risen  and  translated 
saints  upon  or  in  near  proximity  to  the  earth,  then  freed,  at  least  partially,  from  the  curse  ;  by 
the  re-establishment  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  in  their  own  land,  in  fulfillment  of  the  promises  to 
their  fathers,  with  Jerusalem  rebuilt,  to  be  the  metropolitan  centre  of  blessing  to  all  na- 
tions ;  and  by  the  bringing  of  all  the  families  of  mankind  into  the  obedience  and  order  and 
blessedness  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

'  The  restoration  of  the  primitive  gifts  and  ministries,  like  the  ministries  of  Noah  and  of  John 
the  Baptist  at  the  close  of  the  antediluvian  and  Jewish  dispensations,  is  to  prepare  for  the  usher- 
ing in  of  this  next  stage  of  God's  actings.  The  order  of  events  is  to  be  as  follows  :  The  im- 
mediate and  special  work  of  the  apostles  is  to  gather  and  make  ready  a  company  of  first-fruits, 
described  (Rev.  vii.  1-8)  as  sealed  with  the  seal  of  the  living  God — the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
bestowed  by  the  hands  of  the  apostles  (Eph.  i.  13  ;  Acts  xix.  1-5)— and  as  organized  after  a 
twelvefold  law,  of  which  the  type  was  given  in  the  structure  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
They  are  sealed  while  the  angels  are  holding  back  the  winds  of  judgment,  before  the  great 
tribulation  (Rev.  vii.  14)  is  let  loose  upon  the  earth,  that  in  them  the  Lord's  words  may  be  ful- 
filled, and  they  be  counted  worthy  to  escape  all  the  things  that  are  coming  to  pass,  and  to 
stand  before  the  Son  of  Man  (Luke  xxi.  36). 

'But  the  taking  away  of  the  first-fruits  is  only  the  first  stage  of  the  mighty  work  to  be  done 
in  the  bringing  of  this  dispensation  to  a  close.  It  is  to  be  followed  by  the  revelation  of  the 
Man  of  Sin,  the  infidel  Antichrist,  who  will  be  successfully  resisted  for  a  time  by  the  two 
witnesses  (Rev.  xi.  3-12),  but  will  at  length  prevail  over  them,  and  for  a  short  time  rule  the 
nations  with  the  tyrannizing  power  and  lurid  splendors  of  the  pit.  In  the  midst  of  the  terrors 
of  that  great  tribulation  the  harvest  will  be  reaped,  and  all  the  faithful  gathered  into  the  garner 
of  the  great  Husbandman  ;  and  thereupon  will  be  the  vintage  of  wrath  (Rev.  xiv.  15-20),  and 
the  Lord  will  come  forth  to  tread  the  wine-press  of  his  Father's  indignation,  and  to  cast  the 
beast  and  the  false  prophet  into  the  lake  of  fire. 


§  114.  THE  ARTICLES  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE.  \t\;t 

PrsspceU, 

'They  regard  the  failure  of  their  lahon  to  gather  the  Churches  of  ChrUtondoa  Into  their 
communion  as  being  after  tbe  analogy  of  the  failures  at  the  close  of  all  preceding  dispensa- 
tions, and  as  furnishing  no  argument  against  the  reality  of  their  dirine  mission. 

'The  apostles  do  not,  therefore,  expert  t<>  hare  a  large  following  at  this  stage  of  God's  work. 
As  a  sheaf  of  first-fruits  to  the  harvest,  such  will  he  the  relation  of  the  few  who  receive  their 
testimony  to  the  great  multitude  who  will  bo  saved  out  of  the  fiery  trial  of  the  time  of  the 
Antichrist.  Nor  dues  their  faith  fail  because  many  of  their  brethren  have  been  taken  auav 
by  death,  and  it  lias  pleased  God  to  leave  their  places  unfilled ;  for  they  look  npou  this  as  an 
indication  that  their  present  work  is  nearly  finished,  and  that  the  Lord  will  soon  take  those 
who  shall  be  found  ready,  to  stand  with  him  upon  .Mount  Zion,  -ale  in  his  hiding-place, 
while  he  pours  out  the  vials  of  his  wrath  upon  the  earth.  It  would  seem  that  the  two  BPOa- 
tolates  at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  dispensation  form  the  company  of  the  four-and- 
twenty  elders  who  sit  on  thrones  around  the  throne  of  the  great  King  (Rev.  iv.  I  \  partakers 
of  his  dominion,  and  associated  With  him  in  his  work  of  judgment  and  rule. 

Relation  to  other  Churches. 

'This  brief  statement  of  the  position  and  doctrines  of  the  "Catholic  Apostolic  Church" 
shows  the  grounds  of  their  refusal  to  be  called  by  any  other  name  than  belongs  to  the  whole 
community  of  the  baptized.  They  are  a  part  of  the  one  Church,  differing  from  their  brethren 
in  being  gathered  under  the  proper  ministries  of  the  Church  universal,  and  in  being  organized 
according  to  the  original  law  of  the  Church  as  defined  by  St.  Paul  when  speaking  of  the  Uody 
of  Christ  (1  Cor.  xii.).  They  hold  the  one  faith,  the  one  hope,  and  the  one  baptism ;  and, 
without  departing  from  the  exact  and  literal  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  they  bare  added 
to  these  the  larger  statements  of  truth  which  have  been  the  fruits  of  Cod's  presence  with  his 
Church  through  all  her  generations. 

'  Having  its  origin  among  the  Protestant  Churches,  and  retaining  all  the  great  truths  pertain- 
ing to  the  cross  of  Christ,  for  which  the  Reformation  was  a  noble  and  Buccessful  struggle,  this 
Catholic  work  has  laid  under  contribution  the  rich  stores  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  commun- 
ions, and  is  leading  the  Church  on  into  still  deeper  knowledge  of  the  purposes  of  God  con- 
tained in  holy  Scripture,  by  means  of  the  living  ministers  of  Christ  and  the  revelations  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  to  the  end  of  preparing  her  as  a  bride  for  the  marriage  of  the  Lamb.' 

§  114.  Tin:  Articles  of  the  Evangelical  Ai.i.iam  i:. 


Report  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Conference,  held  at  Freemasons'  Hall,  London,  from  A  UQMSt  lOr/i  to 
September  id  inclusive,  1S4G.    Published  by  Order  <■/  ti„  i  mdon  (Partridge  A  Oak) 

uoster  Row',  1-17. 

Comp.  also  the  Proceedings  of  the  Six  Genera!  ■  '/•   Alliance,  held  at  London,  1861,  Pan's, 

1866,  Berlin,  1867,  Geneva,  184(1,  Amsterdam,  1867,  and  Neu  York,  w:!,  all  published  in  Engl  • 
also  in  the  German,  French,  Dutch,  and  other  languages. 

The  General  Conference  of  New  York,  the  first,  held  on  American  soil,  was  the  mopt  important, 
and  its  proceedings  (published  by  Harper  &  Brothers,  X.  Y.  1814)  farm  an  in  teres  tin;/  panoramic  view 
of  the  intellectual  aud  spiritual  state  of  the  Christian  world  at  that  time. 

CHARACTER    AND    AIM    OF    THE    ALLIANCE. 

The  'Evangelical  Alliance'  is  not  an  ecclesiastical  organization, and 
lias,  therefore,  no  authority  to  issue  and  enforce  an  ecclesiastical  creed 
or  confession  of  faith.  It  is  a  voluntary  society  for  the  manifestation 
and  promotion  of  Christian  onion,  and  for  the  protection  of  religions 
liberty.    Its  object  is  not  to  bring  about  an  organic  onion  of  Churches, 


916  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

nor  a  confederation  of  independent  Churches,  but  to  exhibit  and  to 
strengthen  union  and  co-operation  among  individual  members  of  differ- 
ent Protestant  denominations  without  interfering  with  their  respective 
creeds  and  internal  affairs.  It  aims  to  realize  the  idea  of  such  a  Chris- 
tian union  as  is  consistent  with  denominational  distinctions  and  varieties 
in  doctrine,  worship,  and  government.  It  may  ultimately  lead  to  a  closer 
approximation  of  the  Churches  themselves,  but  it  may  and  does  exist 
without  ecclesiastical  union ;  and  ecclesiastical  union  would  be  worthless 
with  Christian  union.  It  is  remarkable  that  our  Lord,  in  his  sacerdotal 
prayer,  which  is  the  magna  charta  of  Christian  union,  makes  no  refer- 
ence to  the  Church  or  to  any  outward  organization.  The  communion 
of  saints  has  its  source  and  centre  in  their  union  with  Christ,  and  this 
reflects  his  union  with  the  Father. 

The  Alliance  extends  to  all  nationalities  and  languages,  but  is  con- 
fined, so  far,  to  Christians  who  hold  what  is  understood  to  be  the  Scrip- 
tural or  evangelical  system  of  faith  as  professed  by  the  Churches  of  the 
Eeformation  and  their  legitimate  descendants.  It  thus  embraces  Epis- 
copalians, Lutherans,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Baptists,  Meth- 
odists, Moravians,  and  other  orthodox  Protestants,  but  it  excludes  Eo- 
man  and  Greek  Catholics  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  antitrinitarian 
Protestants  on  the  other.  The  Quakers,  though  unwisely  excluded 
by  Art.  IX.,  are  in  full  sympathy  with  one  of  the  two  chief  objects  of 
the  Alliance — the  advocacy  of  religious  liberty. 

THE   CONFERENCE   OF    1S1G. 

The  call  to  the  London  Conference  of  1846  for  the  formation  of  an 
Evangelical  Alliance  against  infidelity  was  sufficiently  liberal  to  encour- 
age all  orthodox  Protestants  to  attend  without  doing  any  violence  to 
their  confessional  conscience.  But  the  High-Church  elements,  from 
aversion  to  miscellaneous  ecclesiastical  company,  kept  aloof,  and  left 
the  enterprise  in  the  hands  of  the  evangelical  Low-Church  and  Broad- 
Church  ranks  of  Protestantism.  The  meeting  was  overwhelmingly 
English,  and  controlled  by  Episcopalians,  Scotch  Presbyterians,  and 
English  Dissenters.  Next  to  them,  America  was  best  represented,  and 
exerted  the  most  influence.  The  delegation  from  the  Continent  was 
numerically  small,  but  highly  respectable.  The  whole  number  of  at- 
tendants was  over  eight  hundred  ministers  and  laymen,  from  about 


§  114.  THE  ARTICLES  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE.  MIT 

fifty  distinct  ecclesiastical  organizations  of  Protestant.  Christendom, 
among  them  many  scholars  and  ministers  of  the  highest  ( Shristian  stand- 
ing in  their  respective  Churches  and  countries.  Those  who  took  the 
most  active  part  in  the  proceedings  were  Sir  Culling  Eardley  Smith 
(President), E.Bickersteth,B.W.  NToel,W.  M.  Bunting,  J. Angell  James, 
Dr. Steane,Wm.  Arthur, T.  Binney,0.  Win-low,  Andrew  Reed, of  Eng- 
land; Norman  Macleod,  W.  Cunningham,  W.  Arnot,  K.  Bachanan, 
James  I3egg,  James  Henderson,  Ralph  Wardlaw,  of  Scotland;  Drs. 
Samuel  II.  Cox,  Lyman  Beecher,  W.  Patton,  Robert  Baird,  Thomas 
Skinner,  E.  W.  Kirk,  S.  S.  Schmucker,  of  the  Qnited  State-  :  I  >rs.  Tho- 
lnck,W.  Hoffmann,  E.Kuntze,  of  Germany;  Adolphe  Monod,  <  ieorges 
Fisch,  La  Ilarpe,  of  France  and  Switzerland.  The  meeting  was  one 
of  nnusnal  enthusiasm  and  interest.  One  of  its  most  eloquent  speak- 
ers, Dr.  Samuel  II.  Cox,  of  New  York,  characterized  it  as  an  assembly 

1  Such  as  earth  saw  never, 
Such  as  Heaven  stoops  down  to  see.' 

The  late  Dr.  Norman  Macleod  wrote  during  the  meeting,  in  a  private 
letter  recently  brought  to  light:1  'I  have  just  time  to  say  that  our 
Alliance  goes  on  nobly.  There  are  one  thousand  members  met  from 
all  the  world,  and  the  prayers  and  praises  would  melt  your  heart. 
Wardlaw,  Biekersteth,  and  Tholuck  say  that  in  their  whole  experience 
they  never  beheld  any  thing  like  it.  .  .  .  It  is  much  more  like  heaven 
than  any  thing  I  ever  experienced  on  earth.' 

Tin:   DOCTRINAL   BASK. 

The  part  of  the  proceedings  with  which  we  arc  concerned  here  is 
the  attempt  made  to  set  forth  the  doctrinal  consensus  of  evangelical 
Christendom  as  a  basis  for  the  promotion  of  Christian  union  and  relig- 
ious liberty. 

The  Rev.  Edward  Biekersteth,  Rector  of  Walton,  Herts,  and  one  of 
the  leaders  of  the  evangelical  party  in  the  Established  Church  of  Kng- 
land,  moved  the  adoption  of  the  doctrinal  basis, and  Dr.  B.  II.  Cox,  a 
Presbyterian  of  New  York,  supported  it  in  a  stirring  speech,  on  the 
third  dav  (Aug.  21).  After  considerable  discussion  and  some  unes- 
sential modifications,  the  basis  was  adopted  on  the  fifth  day  (Aug.  84), 

i  Memoir,  by  hit  Brother,  l*7<;.  VoL  I.  p.  260  I  X.  Y.  ed. ).  The  letter  t<»  his  itaer  dated 
Aug.  4,  1846,  should  he  dated  Aug.  24. 


918  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

nemine  contradicente ;  the  vast  majority  raising  their  hands  in  ap- 
proval, the  rest  abstaining  from  voting.     The  chairman  then  gave  out 

the  hymn, 

'All  hail  the  great  Immanuel's  name, 
Let  angels  prostrate  fall.' 

It  'was  sung  by  the  Conference  with  a  depth  of  devotional  feeling 
which,  even  during  the  meetings  of  the  Conference,  had  never  been 
surpassed.' ' 

The  doctrinal  basis  is  expressly  declared  '  not  to  be  a  creed  or  con- 
fession in  any  formal  or  ecclesiastical  sense,  but  simply  an  indication 
of  the  class  of  persons  whom  it  is  desirable  to  embrace  within  the  Al- 
liance.' It  consists  of  nine  articles:  (1)  the  divine  inspiration  and  su- 
preme authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  (2)  the  right  and  duty  of  private 
judgment  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  (3)  the  unity 
and  trinity  of  the  Godhead ;  (4)  the  total  depravity  of  man  in  conse- 
quence of  the  fall ;  (5)  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  his  atone- 
ment, and  his  mediatorial  intercession  and  reign ;  (6)  justification  by 
faith  alone ;  (7)  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion  and  sancti- 
fication ;  (8)  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
the  judgment  of  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ,  with  the  eternal  blessed- 
ness of  the  righteous  and  the  eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked; 
(9)  the  divine  institution  of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  the  perpetuity 
of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  basis  is  merely  a  skeleton :  it  affirms  '  what  are  usually  under- 
stood to  be  evangelical  views '  on  the  nine  articles  enumerated.  To 
give  an  explicit  statement  of  these  views  would  require  a  high  order 
of  theological  wisdom  and  circumspection.  For  the  practical  purpose 
of  the  Alliance,  the  doctrinal  basis  has  upon  the  whole  proved  suffi- 
cient, though  some  would  have  it  more  strict,  others  more  liberal,  since 
it  excludes  the  orthodox  Quakers.  It  has  been  variously  modified 
and  liberalized  by  branch  Alliances  in  calling  General  Conferences. 
The  American  branch,  at  its  organization  in  New  York,  Jan.,  1867, 
adopted  it  with  a  qualifying  preamble,  subordinating  it  to  the  more 
general  consensus  of  Christendom,  and  allowing  considerable  latitude 
in  its  construction.2 

1  Proceedings,  p.  1 93.  3  See  Vol.  Ilf.  p.  821 . 


§  Wo.  THE  CONSENSUS  AND  DISSENSUS  (»F  i  1:1. ID-.  ;>[;> 


§  115.  The  Consensus  and  Dissensus  of  Creeds. 

Philip  Soiaff:   The  Antagonisms  0/  Creeds,  in  the  'Contemporary  Review.1  London,  Oct.  I 
XI.  pp.  S3G-S50). 

The  Creeds  of  orthodox  Christendom  have  passed  before  us.  A 
concluding  summary  of  the  points  of  agreement  and  disagreement  will 
aid  the  reader  in  forming  an  intelligent  judgment  on  the  possibility, 
nature,  and  extent  of  an  ultimate  adjustment  of  the  doctrinal  antago- 
nisms which  are  embodied  and  perpetuated  in  the  symbols  of  the  his- 
toric Churches.  The  argumentation  from  Scripture,  tradition,  and  rea- 
son belongs  to  the  science  of  Symbolics. 

A.  The  Catholic  Consensus  of  Greek,  Latin,  and  Evangelical 
Christendom. 

The  Consensus  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  in  the  oecumen- 
ical Creeds  which  all  orthodox  Churches  adopt.  It  may  be  more  fully 
and  clearly  specified  as  follows : 

I. — RULE    OF   FAITH    AND   PRACTICE. 

The  Divine  Inspiration  and  Authority  of  the  Canonical  Scriptures 
in  matters  of  faith  and  morals.     (Against  Rationalism.) 

II. — THEOLOGY. 

1.  The  Unity  of  the  Divine  essence.     (Against  Atheism,  Dualism, 

Polytheism.) 

2.  The  Trinity  of  the  Divine  Persons. 

Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  the  Maker,  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier. 
(Against  Arianism,  Socinianism,  Onitarianism.) 

3.  The  Divine  perfections. 

Omnipotence,  omnipresence,  omniscience,  wisdom,  holiness,  justice, 
love,  and  mercy. 

4.  Creation  of  the  world  by  the  will  of  God  out  of  nothing  for  hifl 

glory  and  the  happiness  of  hifl  creature-.    (Against  Material- 
ism, Pantheism,  Atheism.) 

5.  Government  of  the  world  by  Divine  Providence. 
Vol.  I.— N  n  n. 


920  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

III. — ANTHEOPOLOGY. 

1.  Original  innocence. 

Man  made  in  the  image  of  God,  with  reason  and  freedom,  pure 
and  holy  ;  yet  needing  probation,  and  liable  to  fall. 

2.  Fall :  sin  and  death. 

Natural  depravity  and  guilt ;  necessity  and  possibility  of  salva- 
tion.    (Against  Pelagianism  and  Manichseism.) 

3.  Eedemption  by  Christ. 

IV. — CHEISTOLOGY. 

1.  The  Incarnation  of  the  eternal  Logos  or  second  Person  in  the 

Holy  Trinity. 

2.  The  Divine-human  constitution  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 

3.  The  life  of  Christ. 

His  superhuman  conception ;  his  sinless  perfection ;  his  crucifix- 
ion, death,  and  burial ;  resurrection  and  ascension ;  sitting  at 
the  right  hand  of  God ;  return  to  judgment. 

4.  Christ  our  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  forever. 

5.  The  mediatorial  work  of  Christ,  or  the  atonement. 
'He  died  for  our  sins,  and  rose  for  our  justification.' 

Y. — PNEUMATOLOGY. 

1.  The  Divine  Personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

2.  His   eternal  Procession  (tinro/osuffie,  processio)  from  the  Father, 

and  his  historic  Mission  (iridic,  missio)  by  the  Father  and  the 
Son. 

3.  His  Divine  work  of  regeneration  and  sanctification. 

VI. — SOTERIOLOGY. 

1.  Eternal  predestination  or  election  of  believers  to  salvation. 

2.  Call  by  the  gospel. 

3.  Regeneration  and  conversion. 
Necessity  of  repentance  and  faith. 

4.  Justification  and  sanctification. 
Forgiveness  of  sins  and  necessity  of  a  holy  life. 

5.  Glorification  of  believers. 


§  115.  THE  CONSENSUS  and  DI88EN8C8  OP  I  SEEDS.  02] 

VII. — ECCLESIOLOGY   AND   BACBAMENTOLOQY. 

1.  Divine  origin  and  constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ. 

2.  The  essential  attributes  of  the  Church  universal. 

Unity,  catholicity,  holiness,  and  indestructibility  of  the  Church. 
Church  militant  and  Church  triumphant. 

3.  The  ministry  of  the  gospel. 

4.  The  preaching  of  the  gospel. 

5.  Sacraments:  visible  signs,  seals,  and  means  of  grace. 
G.  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

7.  The  Lord's  Supper  for  the  commemoration  of  the  atoning  death 
of  Christ. 

VIII. — ESCHATOLOGT. 

1.  Death  in  consequence  of  sin. 

2.  Immortality  of  the  soul. 

3.  The  final  coming  of  Christ. 

4.  General  resurrection. 

5.  Judgment  of  the  world  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
G.  Heaven  and  Hell. 

The  eternal  blessedness  of  saints,  and  the  eternal  punishment  of 
the  wicked. 
7.  God  all  in  all  (1  Cor.  xv.  28). 

B.  Consensus  and  Dissensus  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches. 

(a)   CONSENSUS. 

I.  The  articles  of  the  oecumenical  Creeds,  excepting  the  FUioque 
of  the  Latin  recension  of  the  Nicene  Creed  and  the  ct  JSUo  of  the 
Athanasian  Creed. 

II.  Most  of  the  post-oecumenical  doctrines,  which  are  not  contained 
in  the  oecumenical  Creeds,  and  from  which  Protestant  di^ent,  viz.: 

1.  The  authority  of  ecclesiastical  tradition,  as  a  joint  rule  of  faith 

with  the  Scriptures. 

2.  The  worship  (rffiqrunj  wpomcOvnms)  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  Saints. 

their  pictures  (not  statues),  and  relics. 

3.  The  infallibility  of  the  Church— that  is,  the  teaching  hierarchy 

{ecclcsia  docens). 
The  Roman  Church  lodges  infallibility  in  the  papal  monarchy. 


922  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

the  Greek  Church  in  the  (seven)  oecumenical  Councils,  and  the 
patriarchal  oligarchy  as  a  whole.1 

4.  Justification  by  faith  and  works,  as  joint  conditions. 

5.  The  Seven  Sacraments  or  Mysteries,  with  minor  differences  as  to 

confirmation  and  unction. 

6.  Baptismal  regeneration  (in  an  unqualified  sense),  and  the  necessity 

of  water-baptism  for  salvation. 

7.  Priestly  absolution  by  divine  authority. 

8.  Transubstantiation  (jtuTovaiojcrig),  and  the  adoration  of  the  conse- 

crated elements. 

9.  The  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  for  the  living  and  the  dead. 

This  forms  the  centre  of  worship.     Preaching  is  subordinate. 
10.  Prayers  for  the  departed. 

On  the  authority  of  the  Apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
transubstantiation,  Purgatory,  and  a  few  other  points,  the  Greek 
doctrine  is  not  so  clearly  developed  and  formulated ;  but,  upon 
the  whole,  much  nearer  the  Roman  view  than  the  Protestant. 

As  to  the  popular  use  of  the  Bible,  there  is  this  important  differ- 
ence, that  the  Greek  Church  has  never  prohibited  it,  like  the  Ro- 
man, and  that  the  Russian  Church  has  recently  favored  it,  and 
thus  opened  the  way  for  a  wholesome  progress  and  possible  ref- 
ormation. 

(b)    DISSENSUS. 

I.  The  eternal  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Son  (Filioque) : 
denied  by  the  Greek,  taught  by  the  Latin  Church. 

II.  The  papal  supremacy  and  infallibility :  rejected  by  the  Greek 
Church  as  an  antichristian  usurpation,  asserted  by  the  Latin  Church 
as  its  corner-stone. 

III.  The  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary:  proclaimed  as 
a  dogma  by  the  Pope,1854.2 

'  We  say  as  a  whole;  for  the  Greek  Church  does  not  claim  infallibility  for  any  individual 
patriarch,  and  has  herself  condemned,  in  oecumenical  Synods,  as  heretics  not  only  Pope  Hono- 
rius,  of  Rome,  but  also  several  of  her  own  patriarchs,  e.  g.,  Nestorius,  of  Constantinople ;  Dios- 
curus,  of  Alexandria ;  Peter  the  Fuller,  of  Antioch  ;  Sallustius,  of  Jerusalem  ;  Cyril  Lucar, 
of  Constantinople. 

2  The  Greek  Archbishop  Lykurgos,  of  Syra  and  Tenos  (d.  187G),  declared,  while  in 
England,  in  a  conference  with  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  Feb.  4,  1870:  'The  Orthodox  Church 
considers  the  immaculate  conception  to  be  blasphemous.     It  destroys  the  doctrine  of  the 


§  115.  THE  CONSENSUS  AND  UISSENSUS  OF  CREEDS.  903 

IV.  The  marriage  of  the  lower  clergy:  allowed  by  the  Greek,  for- 
bidden by  the  Latin  Church. 

V.  Withdrawal  of  the  eucharistic  cup  from  the  laity. 

VI.  A  number  of  rites  and  ceremonies, 

Greek  rites:  threefold  baptismal  immersion,  instead  of  ponring 
or  sprinkling;  use  of  leavened,  instead  of  unleavened,  lucid 
in  the  eucharist;  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  tin- 
benediction  of  the  sacred  elements;  infant  communion  : 
anointing  baptized  infants;  the  repetition  of  holy  unction 
(to  tv\(\atov)  in  sickness. 

C.  Consensus   and   Dissensus  of   the   Greek   Church   and  the 
Evangelical  Churches. 

(a)  consensus. 

I.  They  believe  the  Scriptures  and  the  doctrines  of  the  oecumenical 

Creeds.     (See  A.) 

II.  They  reject : 

1.  The  supremacy  and  infallibility  of  the  Pope. 

2.  The  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

3.  The  withdrawal  of  the  cup  from  the  laitv. 

4.  The  enforced  celibacy  of  priests  and  deacons. 

(The  Greek  Church,  however,  prohibits  the  second  marriage  of  the 
lower  clergy,  and  requires  the  celibacy  of  the  bishops.) 

{b)   DISSENSUS. 

I.  The  double  Procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit.' 

II.  In  the  post-oecumenical  doctrines  mentioned  sub  B.  (a),  II.,  the 

Greek  Church  sides  with  Rome  against  Protestantism. 


Incarnation.'     But  in  practice  the  worship  of  the  hTonoil  Virgin  is  carried  as  far  In  the 
Greek  Church  as  in  the  Latin. 

1  In  this  doctrine  the  Protestant  Confessions  side  with  the  Laiin  Cborcb,  or  at  'tnrt  they 
do  not  oppose  it.  The  eternal  procession  of  the  Spirit  was  DO  topic  of  controversy  in  tin- 
period  of  the  Reformation,  and  may  he  regarded  as  an  open  qaestion  rabjoet  to  farther  e\- 
egetical  and  theological  investigation.  A  Dumber  <>f  Episcopalian!  in  England  and  America 
would  he  willing  to  expunge  the  Filtoque  from  the  Nicene  Creed,  1  r  to  compromise  with 
the  Orientals  on  the  single  procession  of  the  Spirit  from  the  Father  through  tht  Son,  See 
the  Theses  of  the  Bonn  Conference  of  IS".".,  at  the  1  lost  1  t  V..].  H. 


924:  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

D.  Consensus   and   Dissensus   of   the   Roman   Catholic   and  the 
Evangelical  Pkotestant  Churches. 

(a)  consensus.     (See  sub  A.) 

(b)    DISSENSUS. 

I.  Scripture  and  Tradition,  as  a  rule  of  faith. 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine : 

The  necessity  of  ecclesiastical  tradition  (culminating  in  the  infal- 
lible decisions  of  the  papal  see),  as  a  joint  rule  of  faith  and  as 
the  sole  interpreter  of  Scripture. 
Protestant  doctrine : 

The  absolute  supremacy  and  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  as  a 
guide  to  salvation. 

II.  Other  differences  concerning  the  Scriptures. 

1.  Extent  of  the  Canon  : 

The  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament  are  included  in  the  Roman, 
excluded  from  the  Protestant  Canon. 

2.  Authority  of  the  Latin  Vulgate : 

Put  on  a  par  with  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures  by  Rome ; 
while  Protestantism  claims  divine  authority  only  for  the  origi- 
nal Scriptures  of  the  inspired  authors. 

3.  Popular  use  and  circulation  of  the  Bible : 

Discouraged  (and  relatively  forbidden)  by  Rome;  encouraged  by 
Protestantism,  which  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  Word  of  God, 
and  must  stand  or  fall  with  it. 

III.  Objects  of  Worship. 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine: 

1.  God  (latria) ; 

2.  The  Virgin  Mary  (hyperdulia) ; 

3.  Angels  and  Saints  (didia) ; 

4.  Images  and  Relics  o'f  Saints. 
Protestant  doctrine : 

God  alone.     All  other  worship  is  gross  or  refined  idolatry. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Christian  approaches  Christ  through  human 
mediators,  and  virtually  substitutes  the  worship  of  Mary  for  the 
worship  of  Christ;  the  Protestant  approaches  Christ  directly, 


§  115.  THE  CONSENSUS  AND  DISSENSls  OF  <  REEDS.  920 

and  prays  to  him  as  his  only  and  all-snfBcient  Higu-Friesi  and 
Intercessor  with  the  Father. 

IV.  Primitive  State. 

Difference  (asserted  by  Roman  Catholics,  denied  by  Protestants)  be- 
tween the  image  of  God  {imago,  chew*,  -~  ■  .  the  natural  per- 
fection of  the  first  man  as  a  rational  and  free  being,  and  .simili- 
tude of  God  {si  mil  Undo,  6/mmWic,  RWj),  i.< ..  the  supernatural  en- 
dowment of  man  with  righteonanesB  and  holiness  together  with 
the  immortality  of  the  body. 

V.  Original  Sin. 

Roman  Catholic  doctrine : 

Original  sin  is  a  negative  defect  {carcntia ijuititia  originalis),  OT 
the  loss  of  the  similitude — not  of  the  image — of  God,  and  is 
entirely  removed  by  baptism. 
Protestant  doctrine : 

Original  sin  is  a  positive  corruption  and  total  depravity,  involving 
the  loss  of  (spiritual)  freedom,  and  retains  the  character 
after  baptism. 

VI.  Justification  by  faith  and  good  works  (Roman  Catholic) ;— or  by 

faith  alone  (Protestant). 

1.  Different  conceptions  of  justification  (ciKaiuoig,  ju*tijhCat\ 
gradual  process  of  making  the  sinner  righteous  (identical  with 
sanctification) ;  —  or  a  judicial  and  declaratory  act  of  God  (ac- 
quittal of  the  penitent  sinner  on  the  ground  of  Christ's  mer- 
its and  on  condition  of  faith  in  Christ),  followed  by  sanctifica- 
tion. 

2.  Different  conceptions  of  faith :  intellectual  assent  and  snbmission 
to  divine  authority; — or  personal  trust  in  Christ  and  living  union 
with  him. 

3.  Different  position  assigned  to  works:  condition  of  justification; 
— or  evidence  of  justification. 

4.  Assurance  of  justification  and  salvation:  denied  (except  on  the 
ground  of  a  special  revelation)  by  Roman  Catholics:  asserted 
by  Protestants  (though  in  different  degn  - 

Paul  and  James.     Basis  of  reconciliation:   faith  operative  in  lo 


1  Gal.  v.  6,  irianc  St  dyi'nnir  Ivipyovpbni,  is  to  l.c  explained  ■■  i!h-  dynamic  middle,  not 

08  the  passive,  'completed  in  love'  (lUejiJi  */<■,-  CttfaoUc  GOauOMtMon). 


926  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

VII.  Good  works  of  believers. 

The  meritoriousness  of  good  works  {meritum  ex  congruo  and  meri- 
tum  ex  condigno) :  Works  of  supererogation,  not  commanded, 
but  recommended  (consilia  evangelica),  with  corresponding  extra 
merits,  which  constitute  a  treasury  at  the  disposal  of  the  Pope 
for  the  dispensation  of  indulgences. 

Here  is  the  root  of  the  ascetic  and  monastic  system  (vota  monastica  : 
voluntary  obedience,  poverty,  and  celibacy),  and  the  chief  differ- 
ence between  Roman  Catholic  and  Evangelical  ethics. 

VIII.  The  Church. 

1.  Identification  of  the  Church  of  Christ  with  the  Church  of  Home 
— the  fundamental  error  (the  npCoTov  ^tuSoe)  of  the  papacy. 

2.  Distinction  of  the  invisible  Church  (one  and  universal  under  the 
sole  headship  of  Christ),  and  the  visible  Church  (existing  in  many 
organizations  or  denominations) :  asserted  by  Protestants ;  denied 
by  Roman  Catholics. 

3.  Different  conception  and  application  of  the  attributes  of  the 
Church ;  unity,  holiness,  catholicity,  apostolicity,  indefectibility, 
infallibility,  and  exclusiveness,  especially  the  last  {extra  ecclesiam 
nulla  salus,  which  is  made  to  mean  extra  ecclesiam  Romanam). 

IX.  The  Pope. 

The  infallible  head  of  the  Universal  Church,  the  Vicar  of  Christ  on 
earth,  by  virtue  of  his  office  as  the  successor  of  Peter. 

This  is  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  Romanism,  but  rejected  by  Greeks 
and  Protestants  as  an  antichristian  usurpation  of  the  prerogative 
of  Christ. 

X.  Sacraments  in  general. 

1.  Definition:  visible  signs  of  invisible  grace  instituted  by  the  ex- 
press command  of  Christ  in  the  New  Testament  (Protestant) ; — 
or  simply  by  the  authority  of  the  Church  (Roman  Catholic). 

2.  Number:  seven  (Roman  Catholic);  —  or  two  (Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper). 

3.  Effect:  ex  opere  ojperato  (i.e.,  by  virtue  of  the  objective  act); — or 
through  faith  (as  the  subjective  condition). 

XI.  Baptism. 

Its  effect  on  original  sin ;  its  relation  to  regeneration ;  its  necessity 
for  salvation  ;  and  several  ritual  differences. 


§  115.  THE  CONSENSUS  AND  DIS8EN8U8  OF  CBE1  DS.  ','l'T 

XII.  The  Eucharist. 

Romanism  holds,  Protestantism  denies : 

1.  Transubstantiation  and  the  adoration  of  the  elements. 

2.  The  withdrawal  of  the  cup  from  the  laity. 

3.  The  Eucharist  as  a  sacrifice,  /'. «.,  an  actual  though  unbloody  rep- 
etition of  Christ's  sacrifice  on  the  cross  by  the  priest  for  the  sins 
of  the  living  and  the  dead  (the  souls  in  purgatory). 

The  celebration  of  the  Mass  is  the  centre  of  Roman  Catholic  worship. 

XIII.  The  other  five  Sacraments:  Confirmation,  Penance,  Matrimony, 
Ordination,  Extreme  Unction. 

Maintained  by  Rome  as  sacraments  proper;  rejected  by  Protestants, 
or  admitted  only  as  semi-  or  quasi-sacramental  act-. 

1.  Confirmation. 

Retained  by  the  Lutheran,  Anglican,  and  the  German  Reformed 
Churches  (as  supplementary  to  infant  baptism  after  a  course 
of  catechetical  instruction).  Rejected  by  other  Protestant 
Churches,  in  which  a  voluntary  union  with  the  Church  by  a 
public  profession  of  faith  takes  the  place  of  confirmation. 

2.  Penance  (sac r amentum  jpeenitentict). 

Auricular  confession  and  priestly  absolution ;  satisfaction  for 
venial  sins ;  indulgences.  The  Lutheran  (and  Anglican)  stand- 
ards approve  private  confession  to  the  minister;  other  Churches 
leave  it  entirely  optional;  all  Protestants  deny  the  efficacy  of 
priestly  absolution  except  as  an  official  declaration  of  God's 
forgiving  mercy  to  the  penitent. 

3.  Ordination. 

A  separate  priesthood  and  clerical  celibacy  (Roman  Catholic); 
the  general  priesthood  of  the  laity  and  the  right  of  the  laity 
to  participate  in  Church  government  (ProtestanO. 

4.  Matrimony. 

Differences  in  matrimonial  legislation,  mixed  marriages,  and  di- 
vorce. 

5.  Extreme  unction. 

Rejected  by  Protestants,  who  in  James  v.  11  emphasise  the  pray- 
ing rather  than  'the  anointing  with  oil'  (a  physical  remedy). 

XIV.  Purgatory. 

A  temporary  middle  place  and  state  (until  the  final  judgment)  be- 


928  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

tween  heaven  and  bell  for  the  purification  of  imperfect  Christians, 
which  may  be  advanced  by  prayers  and  masses  in  their  behalf. 

Protestantism  holds  that  there  are  only  two  conditions  in  the  other 
world,  but  with  various  degrees  of  bliss  or  misery. 

The  indulgences  closely  connected  with  purgatory  were  the  first  oc- 
casion, though  not  the  cause,  of  the  Reformation. 

E.  Doctkinal  Differences  among  Evangelical  Protestants. 

I. — LUTIIERANISM   AND   CALVINISM. 

1.  Baptismal  Regeneration. 

Baptism  a  means  of  regeneration  (as  concurrent  with  the  sacra- 
mental act),  and  hence  necessary  for  salvation ; — or  only  a  sign 
and  seal  of  regeneration  (whether  concurrent  or  preceding  or 
succeeding,  according  to  God's  free  pleasure). 

2.  The  Eucharistic  presence. 

Corporeal  real  presence  (in,  with,  and  under  the  elements)  for  all 
communicants ; — or  spiritual  real  (dynamic  and  effective)  pres- 
ence for  believers  only. 

3.  Christological. 

The  extent  of  the  communicatio  idiomatum}  The  ubiquity  of 
Christ's  body :  asserted  by  the  Lutheran  Church  (as  a  dogmatic 
support  to  its  doctrine  of  the  eucharistic  multipresence) ;  denied 
by  the  Reformed  (as  inconsistent  with  the  limitations  of  human- 
ity and  the  fact  of  Christ's  ascension  to  heaven). 

4.  Predestination  and  the  perseverance  of  saints. 

No  difference  between  Luther  and  Calvin,  who  were  both  Augus- 
tinians,  but  between  their  followers.  (Synergism  of  Melanch- 
thon  in  his  later  period.  Semi-Augustinianism  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord.     Extreme  Calvinism  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.) 

II. — CALVINISM   AND    ARMINIANISM. 

1.  Election:  unconditional; — or  conditional. 

2.  Extent  of  redemption:  limited  to  the  elect;— or  unlimited  to  all 

men. 

1  That  is,  whether  it  includes  also  the  genus  majestaticvm,  or  the  communication  of  the 
attributes  of  the  divine  nature  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ— affirmed  by  the  Lutheran 
symbols,  denied  by  the  Reformed.     See  pp.  319  sqq. 


§  US.  THE  CONSENSUS  AND  DISSENSUS  OF  CREED& 

3  and  4.  Nature  of  faith  and  grace:  irresistible; — or  resistible. 

5.  Perseverance  of  saints;— or  the  possibility  of  total  and  final 

tasy. 

III.—  •  ■om;i:i;...vii..nau-m. 

1.  Conception  of  a  Christian  congregation  or  local  church:  ■  self- 

governing  body  of  converted  believers  voluntarily  associated  for 

spiritual  ends. 

2.  Independence  of  such  a  church  of  foreign  jurisdiction. 

3.  Duty  of  voluntary  fellowship  with  other  ehurches. 

IV. — baptist  doctkim:-. 

1.  Congregationalism  as  sub  III. 

2.  Baptism. 

(a)  Its  subjects:  only  responsible  converts  on  the  ground  of  a 

voluntary  profession  of  their  faith. 

(b)  Its  mode :  total  immersion  of  the  body. 

3.  Universal  liberty  of  conscience  as  a  sphere  over  which  civil  gov- 

ernment has  no  control.     ('Soul-liberty.')1 

V. — QUAKER   DOCTRIM-. 

1.  Universal  diffusion  of  the  inner  light  for  the  salvation  of  men. 

2.  Immediate  revelation  superior  to,  though  concordant  with,  the  out- 

ward testimony  of  the  Scriptures. 

3.  The  ministry  of  the  gospel  depending  on  inspiration, and  not  con- 

fined to  a  class  or  sex. 

4.  The  sacraments  are  spiritual  acts,  not  visible  rites  and  ceremonies, 

as  under  the  old  dispensation. 

5.  Worship  is  purely  inward,  and  depends  upon  the  immediate  mov- 

ing of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

6.  Universal  religious  liberty. 


1  President  Anderson,  of  Rochester  University  (article  Baptist!  in  Johnson's  CSfdopatSa, 
Vol.  I.  |>.  .'5S-'!),  enumerates  tour  distinctive  doctrinal  principle!  of  the  Baptists:  ( I )  Immersion; 
(2)  believers  only  to  constitute  a  risible  chord) :  (8)  responsible  converts  onl?  entitled  to  bap- 
tism; (4)  separation  of  ('liurcli  and  Stale,  and  Independence  of  each  individual  chord)  a*  ■ 
body  of  baptized  believers  of  any  other  body,  whether  ecclesiastical  or  political  Bet  the 
second  article  is  held  also  bj  the  CongTegationalists,  and  the  fourth  can  not  be  called  an 

article  of  faith. 


930  THE  CREEDS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

VI. — METHODIST   DOCTRINES. 

1.  Universal  offer  of  salvation  in  different  dispensations. 

2.  Witness  of  the  Spirit,  or  assurance  of  present  acceptance  with  God. 

3.  Christian  perfection,  or  perfect  sanctification. 

F.  Orthodox  Protestantism  and  Heterodox  Protestantism. 

I.  Socinianism  (Unitarianism).    Denies  the  following  oecumenical  doc- 

trines : 

1.  The  Trinity. 

2.  The  Incarnation  and  eternal  Divinity  of  Christ. 

3.  Original  sin  and  guilt. 

4.  The  vicarious  atonement. 

II.  Universalism  departs  from  the  orthodox  doctrines  of  the — 

1.  Nature  and  extent  of  sin  and  its  consequences. 

2.  Endless  punishment.  (Difference  between  Restorationism  and 
Universalism  proper). 

III.  Swedenborgianism  asserts : 

1.  A  new  revelation  and  a  new  Church  (the  New  Jerusalem). 

2.  Intercourse  with  the  spirit  world. 

3.  It  limits  the  number  of  the  canonical  Scriptures. 

4.  It  claims  to  unlock  the  deeper  inner  sense  of  the  Scriptures. 

5.  It  dissents  from  the  evangelical  doctrines  of  the  tripersonality  of 
the  Godhead,  the  incarnation,  the  atonement,  justification,  the 
Church,  the  sacraments,  and  the  resurrection. 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  I. 


Adiaphoristic  Controversy,  298. 

Adrian  VI. ,  92. 

-AEpinus,  296. 

Agricola,  278. 

A  Lasco,  565,  583. 

Alencon,  Synod  of,  483. 

Alexander  VI.,  166. 

Alexander  VII.,  104,  125. 

Alliance,  Evangelical,  606,  915. 

Alva,  503. 

Ambrose,  114. 

American  Catholic  Bishops  against  Papal  In- 
fallibility, 152. 

American  Congregational  Creeds,  835. 

Arasdorf,  267,  276. 

Amyraut  (Amyraldus),  477,  480,  488. 

Anabaptists,  841. 

Andres  (Jacob),  50,  289,  308,  311,  339. 

Andres  (Valentine),  460. 

Andrews  (W.  W.),  on  the  Catholic  Apostolic 
Church,  911. 

Anglican  Articles  of  Religion,  592. 

Anglican  Catechism,  654. 

Anglican  Church,  212,  218,  592,  598. 

Anglican  Liturgy,  595,  601. 

Anglo-Catholic  Correspondence  with  the  East- 
ern Church,  74. 

Anglo-Catholicism  of  Laud,  716. 

Angus  (Joseph),  852. 

Anselm,  on  the  Immaculate  Conception,  122. 

Antinomian  Controversy,  277. 

Anypostasiaofthe  Human  Nature  ofChrist,  32. 

Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  818. 

Apostles'  Creed,  14  and  jxissim. 

Armada,  ~o."i. 

Armenians,  81. 

Arminianism  in  Holland,  508 ;  in  England, 
713;  of  Methodism,  894. 

Arminius  and  Arminians,  510. 

Arrowsmith,  741,  770. 

Articles  of  Religion  :  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land,  611,  618,  616,  620;  revised  by  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  752  ;  of  the  Prot- 


estant Episcopal  Church  In  Ama 

668;  of  Lambeth, 668 ;  Irish,  662;  of  the 

Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  666,  I 

the  Methodists,  889;   of  the  Evangelical 

Alliance,  '.U  7. 

Article-  ofSmalcald,  868. 
Asbury  (Bishop),  884,  888. 
Assembly  of  Westminster,  727.    Bee  Wut- 

minster  Assembly. 

Associate  Church,  812. 

Associate  Reformed  Church,  811. 

Athanasian  Creed,  34. 

Atonement,  universal  or  limited,  481,  512, 
771,  895. 

Auburn  Declaration,  809. 

Augsburg  Confession,  226  and  passim  ;  need 
in  the  Anglican  Articles,  628. 

Augsburg  Diet,  226. 

Augsburg  Interim,  299. 

Augusta,  679, 

Augustine,  on  the  Apostles'  Creed,  15,  17.  [8; 
on  the  Sinlessness  of  Mary,  II'1:  against 
Papal  Infallibility,  175;  influence  <>n  l'n.t- 
estant   Creeds,  210 ;    on    Infant    Salvation, 

379;  on  Predestination, 462 ;  on  Baptismal 

Regeneration  and  Perseverance,  »'.  lo. 
Augustus,  Elector  of  Saxony, 
557. 


Bacon  (Leonard  .  821,  827,  B   - 

Baillie   (Robert),  690,  698,  727,  787,  748; 
his  description  of  the  Westminstei 
bly,  7.">o ;  of  a  day  of  prayer  and  fasting, 
752 :  on  the  Westminster  < 

Bains,  124. 

Bancroft  (Bishop),  607, 

Baptism,  Lutheran  doctrine  of,  848,  849; 
Zwinglian,  878 ;  Calvinistic,  114,641  :  An- 
glican, 689;  necessity  of,  642;  Baptist  doc- 
trine, 846 :  Quaker  doctrine, 

Baptists  advocating  Religious  Libert; 
history  of,  B44. 

Baptists  I  Anniiii.iii   . 

Baptists  I  Calvinistic  ,846. 


932 


INDEX. 


Barclay  (Robert),  859,  861,  864. 

Barlow  (William),  708. 

Barneveldt,  511. 

Baro,  659. 

Barrett,  659. 

Basle,  First  Confession  of,  385,  387 ;  Second 
Confession  of,  388. 

Bathori,  585. 

Baur  versus  Mohler,  89  ;  on  Calvin,  4-49. 

Baxter  (Richard),  725,  726 ;  on  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  729  ;  on  the  Westmin- 
ster Standards,  760. 

Becon  (Thomas),  on  Baptism,  643. 

Belgic  Confession,  504. 

Bellarmin,  Standard  Champion  of  Romanism, 
85,  102  ;  on  Infallibility,  182  ;  on  Ubiquity, 
334. 

Benedict  XIII.,  107. 

Benedict  XIV.,  107. 

Bergen  Formula,  311.  See  Formula  of  Con- 
cord. 

Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  against  the  Immaculate 
Conception,  121. 

Berne,  Conference  and  Ten  Theses  of,  364. 

Bersier,  498. 

Bertram,  648. 

Bessarion  (Cardinal),  46. 

Beza,  393,  429,  434,  436,  438,  441,  468,  603. 

Bible.     See  Scriptures. 

Bibliander,  477. 

Birgitte,  124. 

Bismarck,  133,  150. 

Blaarer,  397. 

Blackmore,  68,  71,  73. 

Blondel,  482. 

Bockel,  355  and  passim. 

Bohler  (Peter),  886. 

Bockelsohn  (John),  842. 

Bogerman,  513. 

Bohemian  Brethren,  in  Bohemia,  566;  in  Po- 
land, 582. 

Bohemian  Confessions,  576. 

Bolsec,  421,474. 

Bonar  (Horatius),  on  Catechisms,  544,  697. 

Boniface  VIII.,  165,  176. 

Book  of  Concord,  220. 

Borromeo,  100. 

Bossuet,  86,  102,  183. 

Boston  Declaration  of  Faith,  837. 

Boucher  (Joan),  846. 

Bownd  (Nicolas),  on  the  Christian  Sabbath, 
777. 

Bradwardine,  769. 

Bramhall  (Bishop),  664. 

Brandenburg  Confessions,  554. 


Breitinger,  513. 

Bremen  Confession,  564. 

Brentius.     See  Brentz. 

Brentz,  his  Christology  and  Ubiquity  doctrines, 
290;  his  Wurtemberg  Confession,  344, 627. 

Bres  (Guido  de),  504. 

Breviary,  Roman,  190. 

Browne  (Bishop),  on  the  Apostles'  Creed,  16  ; 
on  the  XXXIX.  Articles,  601,  638,  648. 

Browne  (Robert)  and  Brownists,  824. 

Brownson  (Orestes),  90. 

Briick,  233,  243. 

Bucer,  304,  388,  471,525. 

Buchanan  (George),  670. 

Bullinger,  his  life  and  labors,  390;  his  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  390 ;  on  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, 471;  on  Predestination,  475;  on  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  551  ;  influence  in 
England,  602,  630,  637. 

Bungener,  on  Calvin,  441. 

Bunyan  (John),  723,  725,  848. 

Burnet  (Bishop),  637. 

Buxtorf,  479. 

C. 

Calamy  (Edmund),  742,  770. 

Calixtines,  566. 

Calixtus,  350,  380,  557,  561. 

Callistus,  177. 

Calovius,  350,  380,  561. 

Calvin,  on  the  Apostles'  Creed,  15,  20;  on 
the  Nicene  Creed,  27;  relation  to  Luther 
and  Melanchthon,  214,  215,  217,  218; 
signs  the  Augsburg  Confession,  235 ;  on 
the  Adiaphoristic  Controversy,  301 ;  life 
and  character,  421  ;  his  theology,  446  ; 
his  Institutes,  447;  on  Predestination,  451, 
474 ;  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  455  (281, 
376)  ;  his  Exegesis,  457 ;  on  Church  Polity 
and  Discipline,  460 ;  on  Religious  Persecu- 
tion and  Liberty,  403,  400  ;  his  Catechism, 
4G7;  Consensus  Tigurinus,  471;  Consen- 
sus Genevensis,  474 ;  on  Episcopacy  in  Po- 
land, 582;  influence  in  England,  G02,  630, 
658;  on  Baptism  and  Election,  641. 

Calvinism,  446.  See  Calvin,  Dort,  Lambeth 
Articles,  and  Westminster  Confession. 

Calvinistic  Baptists.     See  Baptists. 

Calvinistic  Methodism,  901. 

Cambridge  Platform,  830. 

Cameron,  480. 

Campbellites,  840,  845. 

Capito,  385,  388. 

Cappel  (Louis),  479. 

Cardoni,  163. 


INDr.X. 


933 


Carlyle  (Thomas), on  the  Scotch  Reformation, 
C71 ;  on  John  Knox,  G7G ;  on  the  Westntin- 
Bter  Catechism,  787;  on  Edward  Irving,  908. 

Cartwright,  706,  785. 
Caryl  (Joseph),  742. 
Castellio,  475. 

Catechism,  Anglican,  G54  ;  of  the  Bohemian 
Brethren,  574;  of  Calvin,  467;  of  Craig, 
G97;  of  Emden,  665;  Heidelberg  (Lula- 
tinate),  529;  of  Luther,  245,  648;  of  Mo- 
gilas  (Russo-Greek),  58;  of  Platen,  71  ;  of 
Philaret,  71  ;  Scotch,  696  :  Tridentine 
(Roman),  100;  Waldensian,  572;  West- 
minster, .",4;;,  783;  of  the  Quakers,  8G4; 
of  the  Methodists,  882,  B91. 

Catharine  of  Siena,  124. 

Catholic  Apostolic  Church,  905. 

Catholicism  and  Protestantism,  207. 

Catholicism  and  Romanism,  S3,  205. 

Chalcedon,  Creed  of,  29. 

Chalmers  (Thomas),  G9G,  885,  90G,  908. 

Chandien,  49.'!. 

Charenton,  Synod  of,  483. 

Charles  (Thomas),  903. 

Charles  I.,  G17,  GG4,  688,  G91,  G93,  G94  ;  his 
character  and  reign,  709. 

Charles  II.,  619,  094,  721,  724. 

Charles  V.,  92,  225,  227,  503. 

Chemnitz,  against  the  Council  of  Trent,  9G ; 
on  the  Conununicatio  Lliomatum  and  the 
Ubiquity  of  Christ's  Body,  292. 

Chillingworth,  on  the  Athanasian  Creed,  40; 
on  Religious  Toleration,  803. 

Christological  Controversy,  285. 

Christology,  Chalcedonian,  30  ;  Lutheran  and 
Reformed,  317,  325,  347,  348. 

Church,  meaning  of,  822. 

Church  Diet  of  Berlin  adopts  the  Augsburg 
Confession;  286. 

Civiltli  Cattolica,  139,  158. 

Clarendon,  728. 

Clement  of  Rome,  174. 

Clement  VIII.,  189. 

Clement  XL,  105,  L07. 

Coccejus(John),  774. 

Cochlacus,  227. 

Coke  (Thomas),  887. 

Coleman  (Thomas),  712. 

CollyridiaiKv,  1 19. 

Comenius  (Amos),  507,  875. 

Communicatio  Idioinatuin,  Lutheran  doctrine 
of,  818,  824. 

Concord,  Rook  of,  220:    Formula  of.  268. 

Confession  and  Absolution  in  the  Lutheran 
Church.  248. 


Confession  of  Faith.    Bee  <'reeJ$. 
Confession   of  Anhalt,  568;    of  Augsburg, 

225;    Baptist,   851  :    of    Baste,    I   . 

Baste,  II..  888;  of  Belgium,  602;  of  the 
Bohemian  Brethren,  576;  of  Brandenburg, 
654  ;  of  Bremen,  664  :  <  ongrej 
828;  Cnmberland  Presbyterian,  816;  ol 
Cyril  Lacar,  54  :  of  Dodthens  (8ynod  of 
Jerusalem),  61  ;  French  Befbrmed  (Galil- 
ean), \w,  :.oii;  of  Friends,  864,  B70;  of 
6ennadina,46;  Helvetic,  I., 888;  Helvetic, 
II.,  890;  of  Hessia,  664  :  Hungarian,  691  ; 
Methodist,  B90;  of  Metrophanes  Critopu- 
lus,  52:  nf  Mogila,  58  :  Moravi 
of  Nassau,  664;  Befbrmed  (in  general), 
::.">(:  Savoy, 829;  Scotch,  [.,680;  Bcoteb, 
II..  686;  ofSigismnnd,  555  ;  Tetrapolitan, 
526;  of  Thorn,  562;  Welsh  Calrinistic, 
903;  of  Westminster,  768. 

Confutatio  Papistica,  22:.  248. 

Congregational  Declaration-.    Sec  Ctmfumotu 

Congregationalism     and    Congrcgationalists, 
820. 

Consensus  and  Dissensos  of  Creeds,  919. 

Consensus  of  Geneva.  471:    Helreticns,   177, 
485;  of  Sendomir,  586;  of  Zurich,  471. 

Consubstantiation,  282,  .ill,,  :;:'.->.  ;;.'7. 

Cop.  I 'J  7. 

Copts,  80. 

Corvinus,  302. 

Cotton  (.John),  820,  850. 

Council,  of  Nicaea,  first,  26,44,  17:::  second, 
44 ;  of  Chalcedon,  2:1.  i:.::  of  Constanti- 
nople, Bret,  25,  28,  1 1  j  Beeond,  it  ;  third, 
44;  fourth,  178;  of  Ephesus,  44;  of  Far*, 
rara  ami  Florence,  46,  :>7,  181 ;  1  I 
lem  (1672),  61  ;  of  Pisa,  Constance,  Baste, 
182;  of  Trent,  '.'l.  124;  of  the  Vatican, 
184,  168. 

Covenantor-.  694. 

Covenants,  Scotch,  685;  doctrine  of,  778. 

Cranmer,  •".'.";.  601,  605,  611,  61  1.  680,  842; 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  647;  Catechism  of, 

G55. 
Creeds:   name  and    definition,   '•'•  :   authority, 

7  :    u-,',   8  ;    classification, 

fusion. 
Civil.  288,  845. 
Cromwell,  698,  711.  720,  728;    hie   Potter, 

880;  towards  Baptists,  847 ;  towards Quak- 
.'.  868. 
Crosby  1  rhomai 
( 'ru-iii-  (Martin),  50. 
Crypto-CalTinistic  Controversy,  879. 


93± 


INDEX. 


Crypto-Calvinists,  267,  281,  346. 
Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church,  813;  Con- 
fession of,  815. 
Cummins  (Bishop),  665. 
Cunningham,  635,  637. 
Currey,  on  the  Westminster  Confession,  789. 
Cyprian,  against  Papal  Infallibility,  174. 
Cyril  Lucar,  54. 
Czenger,  Confession  of,  591. 

D. 

Daille,  482. 

Damasus,  Creed  of,  395. 

Darboy  (Archbishop),  against  Papal  Infalli- 
bility, 156;  submits  with  a  mental  reserva- 
tion, and  dies  a  martyr,  161. 

Dathenus,  537. 

De  Maistre,  on  Infallibility,  166. 

Decrees.     See  Predestination. 

Decretals,  pseudo-Isidorian,  180. 

De'vay,  589. 

Dexter  (Henry  Martyn),  821,  849,  8G3. 

Discipline,  461. 

Dullinger,  88,  146,  153,  164;  his  writings, 
193;  his  protest  against  the  Vatican  De- 
crees, and  his  excommunication,  195. 

Dominicans,  124. 

Dorner,  on  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  265  ;  on 
Luther  and  Reformed  Christology,  264, 
290,  334;  on  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
322  ;  on  Zwingli,  383  ;  on  Calvin,  442. 

Dort,  Synod  of,  478,  512. 

Dositheus  (Patriarch  of  Jerusalem),  61. 

Douglas  (Robert),  747. 

Du  Moulin,  482. 

Duns  Scotus,  for  the  Immaculate  Conception, 
123. 

Dupanloup  (Bishop),  against  Papal  Infallibil- 
ity, 156 ;  submits,  162. 


Eastern  Church  Association,  75. 

Ebrard,  456,  471,  564,  and  passim. 

Eck,  226,  241. 

Edward  VI.,  596,  613. 

Edwardine  Articles,  614. 

Edwards  (Thomas),  797. 

Election.     See  Predestination. 

Elizabeth  (Queen),  596,  601,  674,  705. 

Elizabethan  Articles,  615. 

Elrington,  662. 

Emmons  (Dr.),  on  Congregationalism,  826. 

England,  Church  of,  593,  598.     See  Amjlican 

Church,  etc. 
Episcopacy  (English),  004,  667;  in  the  West- 


minster Assembly,  732  ;   abolished  by  the 

Long  Parliament,  719,  734  ;  restored,  721 ; 

reduced,  736. 
Episcopius,  511,  523,  897. 
Erasmus,  385. 
Erastians,  738. 
Erbkam,  840,  867. 
Eucharistic    Controversies,    279,   326.      See 

Lord's  Supper. 
Eusebius,  Creed  of,  24. 
Evangelical  Alliance,  915. 

F. 

Faber,  227. 

Farel,  429,  438. 

Featley,  733,  852. 

Filioque,  26. 

Fisher  (George  P.),  443,  594,  603,  607,  838. 

Fisher  (the  Jesuit),  715r 

Fiske  (J.  O.),  838. 

Fitzgerald  (Bishop),  votes  against  Papal  In- 
fallibility, 158. 

Flacian  Controversy,  268. 

Flacius,  269,  276,  300. 

Fletcher  (John  W.),  884,  899. 

Forbes  (Bishop),  599. 

Formula  Consensus  Helvetica,  478. 

Formula  of  Concord,  258,  311. 

Fox  (George),  860,  868. 

Foxe  (John),  846. 

France,  Reformation  in,  491. 

Francis  I.,  368,  427,  450,  491. 

Franciscans,  124. 

Frederick  III.,  392,  532 ;  his  Confession,  563. 

Free  Will,  denied  by  Luther  and  the  Formula 
of  Concord  II.,  106,  313;  Arminian  doc- 
trine of,  508;  Westminster  doctrine  of, 
771  ;  Methodist  doctrine  of,  897. 

Free-will  Baptists,  857. 

Friedberg,  135. 

Friedrich,  135,  145,  194,  196. 

Friends,  society  of,  859. 

Frommann,  97,  135. 

Fuller  (Thomas),  658,  707,  708,  709,  741, 
753,  and  passim. 

Funck,  273. 


Gallican  Confession,  490. 
Gallicanism  and  Ultramontanism,  167. 
Gardiner,  611,  613. 
Gattaker  (Thomas),  742. 
Geddes  (Jenny),  688. 

General  Assembly  of  Scotland,  adopting  the 
Westminster  Standards,  759. 


INDEX. 


Geneva,  422,  429;  Church  of,  460;  Consen- 
sus of,  474. 

Gennadius,  4G. 

German  Empire,  founded  after  the  Infallibil- 
ity Decree,  160. 

Gernler,  478. 

Giessen  Divines  on  Christologv  and  Ubiquity, 
294. 

Gillespie  (George),  727,  74G. 

Gilman  (Edward  W.),  on  Congregational 
Creeds,  839. 

Gindely,  5(>5  and  passim. 

Gomarus,  511. 

Good  "Works,  necessity  of,  274. 

Goodwin  (Thomas),  737,  742. 

Gouge  (William),  756. 

Gratry,  163;  submits  to  the  Vatican  Council 
on  his  death-bed,  1G1  ;  on  Honorius,  1G4. 

Greek  Church,  43. 

Green  (J.  R.),  on  Puritanism,  723  ;  on  Crom- 
well, 831  ;  on  Whitefield,  902. 

Gregory  I.  against  Papal  Infallibility,  175. 

Gregory  XV.,  125. 

Grindal,  605. 

Grotius,  511. 

Grynauis,  388. 

Guibert  (Archbishop),  publishes  the  Vatican 
Decrees,  161. 

Guido  de  Bres,  504. 

Guizot.  on  Calvin,  423,  428, 440, 442,  449,  4G3. 

Gurley  (Dr.),  810. 

Gurney  (Joseph  John),  859,  8G8,  8G9. 

II. 

Hades,  Controversy  on,  296. 

Hagenbach,  388,  395,  and  passim. 

Hall  (Bishop),  72G,  737. 

Hallam,  on  English  Articles,  G3G  ;  on  Hamp- 
ton Court  Conference,  708  ;  on  Laud,  717. 

Haller,  3G5. 

Hamilton  (Patrick),  673. 

Hampton  Court  Conference,  6G1,  70G. 

Hardwick,  592  and  passim. 

Hase  (Carl),  89;  on  Infallibility,  172. 

Heathen,  Salvation  of,  382. 

Hefele  (Bishop),  against  Papal  Infallibility, 
156;  submits,  1G1  ;  on  the  case  of  Hono- 
rius, 178. 

Heidegger  (J.  H.),  478,  486. 

Heidelberg  Catechism,  629,  .">:•..". 

Helvetic  Confession,  the  First,  388 ;  the  Sec- 
ond, 396. 

Helvetic  Consensus  Formula,  477. 

Henderson  (Alexander.),  692,  71.".. 

Henry  IV.,  491. 

Vol.  I.— O  o  o 


Henry  VIII.,  596,  600,  606,  811,  818. 

Heppe,  on  Formula  of  Concord,  887 ;  on  the 
Saxon  and  Wurtemberg  I 
Gorman  Reformed  I  668  and 

pmtim. 

Heretical  Popes,  176,  178, 

Herminjard,  421,  42.".. 

Heraog,  on  the  Waldi 
cykL,'  poena  in  Literature. 

Heshnsiua,  266,  27o.  282. 

Hessian  ( ionfession,  664. 

Hetherington,  689. 

Heurtley,  on  the  Apostles'  Creed,  19. 

Heykamp,  r.'7. 

Heylin,  717,  778. 

Hicks  (Elias),  and  the  Ilicksite  Quakl 

High-Commission,  717. 

Hodge  (A.  A.),  on  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion, 7">l.  7'.».">. 

Hodge  (Charles),  on  Infallibility,  17o;  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  376;  on  Infant  Salvation, 
381;  on  the  Helvetic  Confession,  ;;:»•;;  on 
Predestination,  455  ;  on  the  Number  of  the 
Lost  and  Saved,  7'.>.">. 

Holland,  Reformation  in,  502. 

Hommius,  507,  513. 

Honorius  (Pope),  condemned  as  a  heretic,  178. 

Hook  (Dean),  717. 

Hooker  (Richard),  607 j  on  Calvin,  608;  on 
Baptism,  643 ;  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  649  : 
on  the  Lambeth  Articles,  663  ;  on  Travers, 
706 :  on  the  Lord's  Day.  777. 

Hooker  (Tbomai 

Hooper,  on  Ubiquity,  886;  corresponds  with 
Bollinger,  891,  i;"2.  680;  refusal  to  con- 
form, 7<>.".. 

Hosius,  585. 

Hottinger  (John  Jacob),  4  77. 

Iloyle  (Joshua),  748. 

II  uber,  194. 

Hubmaier,  842. 
Hiilsemann,  5"i7. 
Hungarian  Confession,  691. 

Hungary,  Reformation  in,  689. 
HiiimitiN,  845, 

Huntingdon  (Lady),  902. 

II  as,  666. 

Hussites,  666. 

Hut.  bin-on  (Mn.  Lney),  Memoirs,  701;  de- 

s«  rij.ti. .11  of  Chariei  I.,  710. 
Ilyacintlu- 1  Pere  .  194. 

I. 

Idcllette  de  Buren,  180. 
Ignatius,  171. 


936 


INDEX. 


Immaculate  Conception,  definition  of,  108. 

Imputation,  48+. 

Iudependency  and  Fellowship,  82G. 

Independents,  737,  824.  See  Congregation- 
alists. 

Infallibilists,  1G3,  1S4. 

Infallibility  of  (Ecumenical  Councils,  1G8  ;  of 
the  Pope,  150,  164. 

Infant  Salvation,  378,  381,  794,  898. 

Innes,  G69,  798,  800. 

Innocent  III.,  17G. 

Innocent  IV.,  17G. 

Innocent  X.,  103. 

Innocent  XIII.,  107. 

Inopportunists,  153. 

Institutes,  Calvin's,  447. 

Intolerance,  79G,  800,  802. 

Irenaeus,  174. 

Irish  Articles  of  Religion,  GG2,  761  ;  com- 
pared with  Westminster  Confession,  762. 

Irving  (Edward),  on  the  Scotch  Confession, 
684 ;  his  life  and  labors,  905. 

Irvingites.     See  Catholic  Apostolic  Church. 


Jacobites,  80. 

James  I.,  604,  606,  617,  697;  his  character, 

706 ;  at  Hampton  Court  Conference,  708 ; 

on  Bible  Kevision,  709  ;  on  Laud,  711. 
James  II.,  724. 
Jansen,  103. 
Jansenists,  Papal  Bulls  against  the,  102;  in 

Holland,  107. 
Janus,  134,  164,  195. 
Jeremiah  II.  (Patriarch  of  Constantinople), 

50. 
Jerome,  119. 

Jerusalem  Chamber,  748. 
Jesuits,  103,  124,  138,182. 
Jewell  (Bishop),  603,  605,  G33,  G43. 
Joan  of  Kent,  846. 
John  XXII.,  177. 

John,  Elector  of  Saxony,  227  and  )>assim. 
Jonas  (Justus),  239  ;  his  Catechism,  655. 
Judex,  266. 
Justification  by  Faith,  206, 211 ,  216,  231 ,  255, 

271,  275,  406. 


Kahnis,  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  327 ;  on  the 
Two  States  of  Christ,  328 ;  on  the  Reformed 
opposition  to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  334  ; 
on  Calvin,  442. 

Kampschulte,  on  Calvin,  421,  425,  433,  446, 
449,  4G3. 


Keble,  GO. 

Keenan,  Catechism  against  Infallibility,  183. 

Kenosis,  294,  323. 

Kenrick  (Archbishop  of  Baltimore),  90. 

Kenrick  (of  St.  Louis),  144,  153,  156,  163, 
172,  187. 

Ketteler  (Bishop),  prostrate  before  the  Pope, 
156,  1G3,  172,  187. 

Killen  (W.  D.),  6G2,  GG4. 

Knollys  (Hanserd),  844,  848. 

Knox,  on  the  Church  of  Geneva,  460  ;  labors 
in  England,  602 ;  his  life  and  character, 
673;  his  Confession,  681;  his  Liturgy, 
684 ;  views  on  Sunday  observance,  776. 

Kollner,  on  the  Formula  of  Concord,  336. 

Koolhaas,  510. 

Koornhart,  510. 

Krauth  (Charles  P.),  on  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, 235;  on  Luther's  Catechism,  251  ; 
on  the  Formula  of  Concord,  318,  337, 
340. 


La  Place,  479,  484. 

Lainez,  182,  194. 

Lambeth  Articles,  658. 

Langen,  164. 

Lasco.     See  Laski. 

Laski  (a  Lasco),  565,  583. 

Latimer,  649. 

Laud  (Archbishop),  607,  617,  664,  688;  his 
character  and  administration,  709,  711  ;  on 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  732. 

Launoy,  108,  123. 

Laurence  (Bishop),  on  the  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  634,  637. 

Lawrence  (Edward  A.),  835,  838. 

Lecky  (W.  E.  II.),  796,  799,  S01. 

Lefevre,  492. 

Leighton,  717. 

Leipzig  Interim,  299  ;  Colloquy,  558. 

Leo  Juda3,  388. 

Leo  X.,  160. 

Liberius,  177. 

Liberty,  Religious,  465,  800,  818,  849. 

Light,  the  inner,  868. 

Lightfoot  (John),  727,  743,  755. 

Lipomani,  585. 

Liturgical  Standards  of  Rome,  189. 

Lijhe,  on  Luther's  Catechism,  251. 

Lord's  Hay,  doctrine  of  the,  776. 

Lord's  Supper,  Luther's  doctrine,  232,  2G0, 
31G,  325,  347,  645;  Melanchthon's,  232, 
241,263;  Zwingli's,  374  ;  Bullinger's,  415: 
Buccr's,    528;     Calvin's,    281,    376,    455; 


LXDF.X. 


Cranmer's,  601,  < "- 1 7  ;  words  of  institution 
explained,  327.  .".71 ;  Consensu  of  Zurich, 
471;  Tetrapolitan  Confession,  528 j  Bei- 
delberg  Catechism,  686,  648;  Consensus 
of  Sendomir,  687;  Hungarian  Confession, 
">9l ;  Anglican  Article-,  801,  846;  Irish 
Articles  and  Westminster  Confession,  7o:. : 
Westminster  doctrine  of,  77.">. 

Lorimer,  129,  131,  688. 

Londun,  Synod  of,  I-::,  198. 

Louis  XIV.,  104,  105,  491,  198. 

Loyola,  491. 

Loyson,  194. 

Lucas  of  Prague,  i>C8. 

Luther,  liis  character  and  influence,  214;  re- 
lation to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  228; 
his  Catechisms,  245;  on  Confession  and 
Absolution,  218;  Articles  of  Smalcald, 
253;  on  Justification  by  Faith,  256;  on 
Popery,  the  Mass,  Purgatory,  255 ;  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  266;  relation  to  Mclanch- 
thon,  214,  259,  265 ;  relation  to  Zwingli, 
212,  200;  against  Antinomianism,  278;  on 
the  Ubiquity  of  Christ's  Body,  287;  on  the 
Descent  into  Hades,  297;  on  Free-will  and 
Predestination,  215,  303;  on  Damnation 
of  the  Heathen,  382  ;  Conduct  towards  the 
Swiss,  389;  Judgment  on  Calvin,  480; 
compared  with  Calvin,  438;  influence  on 
the  English  Reformation,  600. 

Lutheran  Creeds,  220. 

Lutheranism  and  Reform,  213. 

M. 
Macaulay,  on  English  Reformation,  004,  G0o  ; 

on  Charles  I.,  710;  on  Cromwell.  720. 
Macleod  (Norman),  on  Chalmers,  696. 
M'Crie  (Jr.),  on  the  Westminster  Assembly, 

752;  on  the  Westminster  Standards,  761,785. 
M'Crie  (Thomas),  669,  073,  07:.,  676,  686. 
Major,  27."). 

Majoristic  Controversy.  274. 
Manning  (Cardinal),  90,  135,  148,  152,  163; 

defines  Infallibility,  107;  on  History,  171  ; 

on  Ilonorius,  180. 
Manuel,  365. 
Manutius,  91. 
Marbach,  306. 

Marburg,  Conference  of,  212,  228. 
Maret (Bishop), against  Infallibility.  156,  168; 

retracts,  161. 
Margaret  (Queen  of  Navarre),  191. 
Maronites,  80. 
Mamt,  492. 

Marsden  (J.  B.),  on  Westminster  Conf.,  7-:'. 


Marshall  (Stephen),  748. 

Mary,  immaculate  Conception  of,  108. 

Mary  Stuart,  671,  678, 

Mary  Tudor.  596. 

Masson,  690,  698,  784,  7l«»,  and  passim. 

Mather  (Cotton),  849. 

Matthews  (G.  l>  >.  Bll. 

Maulbronn,  Colloquy  i  ouda  < •:. 

810. 
Maurice,  Elector  of  Saxony,  299. 
Maurice.  Prince  of  <  hangs,  514. 

Maximilian  II.,  o70,  679,  690. 

Megander,  389. 

Melanchthon,  60;    his  character,  914,  961; 
irg  <  ktnfession,  226  ;  Apolot 
Angsburg  Confession,  248;  on  l.piscopacy 
and  Popery,  254  ;   relation  to  Lutl 

259 ;  changes  his  doctnne  of  Free-will, 
202;  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  268;  on  the 
Work-.  276 :  against 
Ubiquity,  288  :  on  the  De-cent  into  Hade-. 
2:17 ;  on  the  Adiaphora,  800 ;  silanced  but 
not  destroyed,  889 ;  his  Confessio  Baxoni- 

CB,  311  ;  friendship  with  Cahin,  181  j  re 
lation  to  the  Reformed  Church,  626 j  1  n - 
Buence  in  England,  600. 

Melville  1  Andre*  .  684. 

Melville  (James),  677,  679. 

Menno  Simons,  si 2. 

Mennonites,  B 12. 

Methodism  and  Methodists,  382 

Methodist  Creeds,  B90. 

Metrophsnes  Critopulus,  62. 

Michaud,  101. 

Michelet,  on  Cahin,  111. 

Michelis,  194,  196. 

Mill  (Walter),  678. 

Millenary  Petition,  7< »7. 

Milner,  90. 

Milton,  on   the  WaldenSM,  7.71  :   on   the  Sol- 
emn  League  and  Covenant,  693  •.  on  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  72:" :  agsinsl  Epis- 
copacy, 7::  1 :  Bgsinst  Presbytery, 
Religions  Toleration,  -  jer  Will- 

iams, 

Missal,  Roman,  189. 

Mitchell    Alex.  l.i.  727.  754,  77«i.  775. 

Mogihu 

Mohler,  88,  188,  sad  passu*. 

Mohnike,  97. 

Motinseus,  182. 

MonophytUes,  80. 

Montalembert,  opposes  the  erection  of  an  idol 
on  the  Vatican,  158;  dies  during  the  Yati- 
ciii  <  louncU,  161. 


938 


INDEX. 


Montauban,  485. 
Moravians,  5G7,  874. 
More  (Sir  Thomas),  749. 
Morlin,  272. 

Mornay  (Du  Plessis),  479. 
Moaravieff,  51,58,59,69,73. 
Mozley,  63S,  G40. 
Miihlhausen,  Confession  of,  887. 
Miinzer  (Thomas),  842. 
Myconius  (Friedrieh),  387. 
Myconius  (Oswald),  387. 

N. 

Nantes,  Edict  of,  498. 

Napoleon  I.,  499. 

Napoleon  HI.,  139,  160. 

Nassau,  Confession  of,  564. 

Nast  (William),  882,  891. 

National  Covenant,  686. 

Neal  (Daniel),  701,  797,  and  passim. 

Nestorians,  79. 

Nevin,  on  the  Apostles'  Creed,  16,  23  ;  on  the 
Eeformed  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
456  ;  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  541. 

New  England,  825. 

Newman  (J.  H.),  on  Papal  Infallibility,  154; 
Tract  No.  90,  599. 

Nicasa,  Council  of,  25. 

Nicene  Creed,  24. 

Niemeyer,  355  and  passim. 

Nitchmann,  875,  886. 

Nitzsch,  89. 

Noailles,  105,  107. 

Non-Jurors,  74. 

Nowell's  Catechism,  657. 

Nye  (Philip),  737,  743. 

O. 

Oberlin  Declaration,  839. 

(Ecolampadius,  374,  386. 

(Ecumenical  Councils  against  Papal  Infallibil- 
ity, 173,  179;  Creeds,  12,  210. 

Old  Catholics  in  Holland,  107;  in  Germany 
and  Switzerland,  191,  198. 

Olevianus,  534. 

Olivetan,  492. 

Original  Sin,  Controversy  on,  268 ;  Zwingli's 
view,  377  ;  Methodist  view,  897. 

Orthodox  Confession  of  Mogilas,  59. 

Osgood  (Howard),  853. 

Osiander,  272. 

Osiandric  Controversy,  271. 

Otterbein,  887. 

Overberg,  against  Infallibility,  183. 

Owen  (John),  830. 


Palacky,  565  and  passim. 

Palatinate  Catechism,  529. 

Pallavicini,  91,  90. 

Palmer  (Herbert),  744. 

Palmer  (Ray),  838. 

Pare  (George  Van),  846. 

Parker  (Archbishop),  616. 

Parkhurst,  605. 

Parliament,  action  on  the  "Westminster  Con- 
fession, 758. 

Parthenius,  59. 

Passaglia,  108. 

Paul  III.,  93. 

Paul  IV.,  585. 

Paul  V.,  125. 

Pax  Dissidentium,  585. 

Pelagius,  on  the  Sinlessness  of  Mary,  120; 
on  Infant  Salvation,  379. 

Pelargus,  556. 

Penn  (William),  861,  8G8. 

Perfectionism,  900. 

Perkins  (William),  659. 

Perrone,  89,  108,  123,  126,  127,  178. 

Perry,  650. 

Pestalozzi,  388,  395. 

Peter,  his  Primacy,  185. 

Peter  Martyr,  477. 

Peucer,  282,  283. 

Pfeffinger,  270. 

Philaret,  Catechism  of,  71. 

Philip  II.,  503. 

Philip  of  Hesse,  226,  234,  and  jiassim. 

Philippists,  267. 

Pighius,  474. 

Pilgrim  Fathers,  782,  827. 

Pinkerton,  on  Eussia,  70. 

Pius  IV.,  91,  96,  100. 

Pius  V.,  101,124,189. 

Pius  IX.  defines  the  dogma  of  the  Immacu- 
late Conception  of  Mary,  108;  issues  the 
Papal  Syllabus,  128  ;  convenes  the  Vatican 
Council,  136;  controls  its  proceedings,  142; 
proclaims  the  dogma  on  the  Catholic  Faith, 
150 ;  believes  in  his  Personal  Infallibility, 
and  exerts  his  influence  in  favor  of  this 
dogma,  152 ;  receives  the  deputation  of 
anti-Infallibilists  and  declines  their  request. 
157;  proclaims  the  dogma  of  Papal  Ab- 
solutism and  Infallibility,  158;  excommu- 
nicates the  Old  Catholics,  200. 

Placeus,  479,  485,  488. 

Planck,  on  Andrse,  SOS ;  on  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  336. 


INDEX. 


Platon  (Metropolitan  of  Moscow),  71. 

Pletho,  4G. 

Plitt  (Hermann),  872. 

Plymouth  Brethren,  910. 

Poland,  Reformation  in,  581. 

Ponet,  GOG. 

Pope  (W.  B.),  892,  898,  900,  901. 

Popery,  158.  Sec  Pint  ZX,  Syllabus,  Infal- 
libility, Vatican  Decrees. 

Port  Royal,  103. 

Predestination,  controversy  on,  305;  Luther- 
an doctrine,  329,  347;  Zwingli's,  870  :  (  'al- 
vin's,  451,  471  ;  Amyraut's,  480;  Anglican 
doctrine,  033  ;  Irish  Articles  and  Westmin- 
ster Confession,  7G2,  7G8,  791 ;  opposed  by 
Wesley  and  the  Ai  ininian  Methodists,  895  ; 
adopted  by  Whitefield,  901  ;  and  the  Welsh 
Methodists,  903. 

Presbyterian  Polity,  4G2,  737,  739. 

Presbyterian  Reunion,  809. 

Presbyterianism  in  England,  734,  73G. 

Presbyterians  in  Scotland,  685  ;  persecuted, 
798  ;  in  America,  804. 

Pretention,  791. 

Profession  of  the  Tridcntine  Faith,  9G. 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States,  G50. 

Protestantism,  203;  principles  of,  20G ;  com- 
pared with  Romanism,  207. 

Prynne,  717. 

Pseudo-Isidor,  180. 

Psychopannychia,  428. 

Puritans  and  Puritanism,  701,  723. 

Pusey  (Dr.),  108,  71G. 


Quakers,  859. 

Quesnel,  105. 

Quick,  490,  493. 

Quint  (Alonzo  H.),  829,  835,  838. 

Quirinus,  Letters  of,  135,  145,  157,  159. 

R. 

Radziwill,  582. 

Randall  (Benjamin),  858. 

Ranke,  on  the  Augsburg  Confession,  234  ;  on 
Luther's  Catechism,  251. 

Rauscher  votes  against  Papal  Infallibility, 
156;  submits,  160,  196. 

Redford(Dr.),  834. 

Reformation,  204 ;  in  Geneva,  411;  in  Franc, 
491;  in  Holland,  .",(12;  in  Bohemia,  565 J 
in  Poland,  581 ;  in  Hungary,  589  ;  in  Eng- 
land, 593. 

Reformed,  211,  25G,  35G,  353. 


Reformed  Churches  compared  with  the  Lu- 
theran, 212. 

Keformed  Confessions,  854. 

Reformed  Episcopal  <  Ihurch,  665. 

Reformed  Presbyterian  ('lunch,  812. 

Regular  Baptists,    Bee  Hijitists. 

Reinkens,  164,  L91,  194  ;  elected  Bishop  of 
the  Old  Catholics,  197  ;  pleads  for  the  Bi 
ble  in  the  old  Catholic  c 
Btance,  199;  extends  greetings  t"  the  <>••!!- 
era]  Conference  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance. 
200;  answers  the  Papal  Excommunication, 

201. 

Renan,  on  Calvin,  412. 

Kerne,  Dnchess  of  1-Vrrar.i,   128. 

Repetitio  Anhaltina,  568. 

Reprobation,  77<>,  793.     Bee  Prsdesfjaattea. 

Restoration  (of  the  Smarts  and  Episcopaci  >. 
720. 

Reunion  of  Old  and  New  School  l'i 
an  Churches,  809. 

Reusch,  194. 

Revision  of  the  Bible,  749. 

Revision  of  the  English  Bible  (by  King 
James),  709. 

Revolution  of  I688j  721. 

Reynolds  (Dr.  Edward),  711,  786,  772. 

Reynolds  (Dr.  John  >.  7<i7. 

Riecio  (Bishop),  votes  against  Papal  Infalli- 
bility, 158. 

Richelieu.  1-1. 

Ridley  (Bishop),  601,680, 648. 

Rigg  (James  II.),  882,  88G,  888. 

Ripley  (Ceorge),  reports  the  timnder-stonn 
in  St.  Peter's  at  the  Proclamation  of  the 
Papal  Infallibility  Decree,  159. 

Ritualism  of  Land,  71 1. 

Rivet,  162,  185. 

Robinson  (John),  820. 

Rogers  (Thomas),  on  English  Arties  • 

Roman  Catechism,  100. 

Roman  Catholic  Church,  on  persecution,  802. 
Romanism  and  <  'atholici-.ni. 

Romanism  and  Protestantism,  207. 
Rothe,  Christology, ::::. 

Rons  (Frauci-t,  71 1. 

Rudolph  II..  580,  590. 

Kutiniis,  on  the  AjN.stle,'  Cp-el,  •-'.'. 

Rmtian  Church,  88,  7"..  77. 
Rtirtiflf1  Schismatics,  68. 
Rntberford  (Samuel),  717. 

s. 

Sabbath.      See   /.■■'./'      , 

Sacrament.   Bee  Baptism  and  ( 


940 


INDEX. 


Sadeel,  354,  493.  I 

Saliger  (John),  28.",. 
Sarpi,  91,  93,  96. 
Saumur,  471). 
Savoy  Conference,  721. 
Savoy  Declaration,  829. 
Saxon  Articles  of  Visitation,  345. 
Saxon  Confession,  346. 
Saybrook  Platform,  837. 
Schleiermacher,  45 1 ,  880. 
Schneckenburger,  883. 
Schulte,  194. 
Schwabach  Articles,  22S. 
Schwarzenberg  votes  against  Papal  Infallibil- 
ity, 158;  submits,  160,  196. 
Schweinitz  (Bishop  Edmund  de),  824. 
Schweizer  (Alexander),  451,  477,  483. 
Schwenkfeld  (Caspar  von),  867. 
Schyn  (Hermann),  841,  843,  844. 
Scotch  Confession  of  Faith,  680. 
Scotch  Presbyterian  Church,  694. 
Scotists,  124. 

Scotland,  Reformation  of,  669. 
Scriptures  and  Tradition,  206,  211,  216. 
Seaman  (Lazarus),  744,  770. 
Seekers,  848,  851. 
Selden  (John),  730,  745. 
Semisch,  on  the  Apostles'  Creed,  15. 
Sendomir,  Consensus  of,  586. 
Seneca,  on  Mercy,  edited  by  Calvin,  424. 
Servetus,  428,  464. 
Sewel  (William),  859. 
Shakespere,  749  and  passim. 
Shedd  (W.  G.  T.),  835. 
Sigismund  Augustus  II.,  582. 
Sigismund  Confession,  555. 
Sigmund  III.,  585. 
SixtusV.,182. 
Smalcald,  Articles  of,  253. 
Smectymnuans,  736. 
Smith' (Henry  B.),  108,  810. 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  690. 
Spangenberg  (Bishop),  874,876,  879,  881,  886, 
Spanheim,  482. 
Speil,  89,  113. 

Staholin,  on  Calvin,  421,  425,  448,  602. 
Stahl,  on  Ubiquity,  324. 
Stancarus  (Francesco),  273. 
Stanley  (Dean),  688,  723,  749,  767 ;   on   the 

Westminster  Standards,  789. 
Star-Cbamber,  717. 
States  of  Humiliation  and  Exaltation,  Luther 

an  and  Reformed  views  of,  323. 328 ;  Form 

ula  of  Concord,  306. 
Stevens  (Abel),  8S2,  884,  902. 


Stqughton   (John),  690,  693,  720,  722,  740, 

748  ;  on  Creeds,  833. 
Straflford  (Earl  of),  664. 
Strasburg,  Reformation  of,  304;    Confession 

of,  526. 
Strossmayer  (Bishop),  in  the  Vatican  Coun- 

il,  145,  149. 
Stuart,  Dynasty  of,  671. 
Sunday  in  England,  777. 
Swabian  and  Saxon  Formula,  310. 
Sylburg,  537. 
Syllabus,  the  Papal,  128. 
Symbols.     See  Creeds. 
Syncretism  and  Synergistic  Controversy,  349. 
Synergism,  262,  264. 
Synergistic  Controversy,  270. 


Tangermann,  196. 

Taylor  (Jeremy),  on  the  Athanasian  Creed, 
40  ;  on  Toleration,  803. 

Tetrapolitan  Confession,  526. 

Thiers,  499. 

Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Religion,  615. 

Thomasius,  on  the  Formula  of  Concord,  339. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  against  the  Immaculate 
Conception,  122  ;  in  favor  of  Papal  Infalli- 
bility, 181. 

Thomists,  124. 

Thompson  (Joseph  P.),  83S. 

Thorn,  Colloquy  of,  560 ;  Declaration  of,  562. 

Thuanus  (De  Thou),  490. 

Timann,  266. 

Toleration  and  Intolerance,  463,  466,  704, 
725,  848,  849. 

Torgau  Articles,  229. 

Torgau  Book,  310. 

Torquemada,  108. 

Traheron,  630  ;  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  647. 

Travers  (Walter),  735. 

Trent,  Canons  and  Decrees  of,  91. 

Tridentine  Faith,  96. 

Triers,  830. 

Trinity,  doctrine  of,  37. 

Tubingen  Divines,  on  Christology  and  Ubiq- 
uity, 294. 

Tuckney  (Dr.),  741,760,  786. 

Turretin  (Francis),  478,  485. 

Twisse  (William),  740,  752. 

Tyerman,  882  and  passim. 

Tyndale,  613,  673,  704. 

U. 
Ubiquitarian  Controversy,  285. 
I  Ubiquity  of  Christ's  Body,  285,  322,  325,  348. 


IXDEX. 


.'II 


UUmann,  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  561. 
Ultramontanism  and  Gallieanism,  K7. 
Underhill  (Edward  B< 
Uniformity,  Acl  of,  t',117. 
Union,  Evangelical,  222,  287, 
Unites  Fratrui  tan*. 

United  Presbyterian  Chnrch,  B12. 
Unirersalism  of  Amyraut,  180. 
Urban  VIII..  189,  L90. 

Urainns,  on  the  Formula  of  Concord,  888; 

author  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  688. 
UsBher  (Archbishop),  605,  668,  726,  I 

761. 
Utraqnists,  666. 


Vatican  Council,  184,  168. 
Vatican  Decrees,  1 17. 

Vergerius,  •-'".:'..  584. 

Vigilius,  177. 

Vines  (Richard  .  745. 

W. 

Waldenses,  668. 

Waldensian  Catechism,  674. 

Wallis  (John),  787,  790. 

Wandsworth  Presbytery,  7."..". 

Warren  (W.  F.),  B82,  391,  - 

Washburn  (E.  A    .  on  the  Anglican  Church, 

609. 
Waterland,  <>n  the  Athanasian  Creed,  84,  ■"•''■. 

37;  on  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  GIG. 
Waterlanders,  848. 
Watson  (Richard  I,  682. 
Wayland  1  Francis),  B45. 
Welsh  Calvinistic  Methodists,  908. 

Wesley(John  .  7'.";.  B88,  B90;  on  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles,  89Sj  on  Arminianiam,  894  : 
on  Predestination,  695  :  on  the  Witness  of 
the  Spirit,  899 ;  on  Perfectionism,  900 ;  re- 
lation toWhitefield,901. 

Wesleyans.     B      M  "'  xlisU. 

Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines,  727. 

Westminster  Catechisms,  788. 

Westminster  Confession,  on  Infant  Salvation, 
380,  7!>.">;  on  Baptism  and  I 
Origin  and  History  of,  758;  Analysis  of, 
7G0;  doctrine  of  Predestination,  7 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Day,  778  Criticism 
of,  788  ;  Intolerance  of,  796  \  American 
Kevision  of,  80G. 


Weatphal,  280,  178. 
Westphalian  Treaty.  243. 

Wln.h. n  (D.  D 

tioo,  - 

Whitaker  (William  .  I 

John  .7(1. 

WhiteticM  It..  .  901. 

Whitgift   (Archbishop  .  605,  618,  I 

785. 
Wigand,  266,  270. 

ivorth  (Michael),  on  Infant  I 
don,  79 i. 

William  [II.,  724. 

William-  (B    -       ,849. 

Wimpina,  227. 

Wiseman, 90. 

Wishart    I 

Witness  of  the  Spirit,  Methodist  doctrine  of, 

899. 
Wladislans  IV 
Wohnar,  198. 

Works.     See  Good  Worht, 
Wurtemberg  Confession,  844,1  -' 
Wydiffe,  668,  704. 
Wyttenbach,  885. 


Young  (Thi  mas  .  71.' 


Zanchi, 

Zeller,871. 

Zephyrinus,  177. 

Zintendorf,  874,  87G. 

Ziska, 

Zockler,  >>n  the  on  the 

org  Confession,  287,  241. 

Zosimus,  177. 

Zurich  Consensus,  171. 

Zurich  Letters,  891,  604,  680, 

Zwingli,  at  Marburg,  212;  his  chars 
importance,  860;   judgment    on    Lather, 
bis   Article-   ur  Conclusioi 

ne,  885;  Confession  <>(  Faith 
to  Charles  v..  866;   to  Brands   [.,888 
doctrine  of  Providence  and  Predestination, 

-  U  laments.  872  :  oftl       I 

Supper,  874;  of  Original  Sin,  877 ;  Salva- 
tion of  Infanta,  878;  Balvatton  of  the  Hea- 
then. 
Zwinglian  Conft 


Date  Due 

' 

h 

llt*X\$ 

**  ,  (D  . 

IA  6 

L 

FF'z7'53 

... 

r;P   lg^} 

. 

:.-mHac» 

Mipy  a  w 

^*iwwni"«» ! 

«) 

i