:ru
\ STUDIA IN /
Presented to
THE LIBRARY
of
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
Toronto
by
The Rev. Neill McRae
v * -w
Lrc
JUU(
The International
Theological Library
EDITORS' PREFACE
THEOLOGY has made great and rapid advances
in recent years. New lines of investigation have
been opened up, fresh light has been cast upon
many subjects of the deepest interest, and the historical
method has been applied with important results. This
has prepared the way for a Library of Theological
Science, and has created the demand for it. It has also
made it at once opportune and practicable now to se
cure the services of specialists in the different depart
ments of Theology, and to associate them in an enter,
prise which will furnish a record of Theological
inquiry up to date.
This Library is designed to cover the whole field of
Christian Theology. Each volume is to be complete
in itself, while, at the same time, it will form part of a
carefully planned whole. One of the Editors is to pre
pare a volume of Theological Encyclopaedia which will
give the history and literature of each department, as
well as of Theology as a whole.
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
The Library is intended to form a series of Text
Books for Students of Theology.
The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and com
pactness of statement. At the same time, they have in
view that large and increasing class of students, in other
departments of inquiry, who desire to have a systematic
and thorough exposition of Theological Science. Tech
nical matters will therefore be thrown into the form of
notes, and the text will be made as readable and attract
ive as possible.
The Library is international and interconfessional. It
will be conducted in a catholic spirit, and in the
interests of Theology as a science.
Its aim will be to give full and impartial statements
both of the results of Theological Science and of the
questions which are still at issue in the different
departments.
The Authors will be scholars of recognized reputation
in the several branches of study assigned to them. They
will be associated with each other and with the Editors
in the effort to provide a series of volumes which may
adequately represent the present condition of investi
gation, and indicate the way for further progress.
CHARLES A. BRIGGS
STEWART D. F. SALMOND
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS
THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D.,
D.Litt., Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union
Theological Seminary, New York.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTA
MENT. By S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew
and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.
CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
[Author to be announced later.
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Literature, Meadville, Pa. [Now Ready.
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By
FRANCIS BROWN, D.D., LL.D., D.Litt., President and Professor of
Hebrew, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D.,
LL.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh.
[Now Ready.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTA-
MENT. By Rev. JAMES MoFFATT, B.D., Minister United Free Church,
Broughty Ferry, Scotland. [Now Ready.
CANON AND TEXT OF THE N EW TESTAM ENT. By CASPAR RENE
GREGORY, D.D., LL.D , Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the
University of Leipzig [Now Ready,
THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By WILLIAM SANDAY, D D., LL.D., Lady
Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By
ARTHUR C McGiFFERT, D.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theo
logical Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By
FRANK C. PORTER, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology, Yale University,
New Haven, Conn.
THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By GEORGE B STEVENS,
D. D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New
Haven, Conn. [Now Ready.
BIBLICAL ARCH/EOLOGY. By G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor
of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford.
THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH. By ROBERT RAINY, D.D.,
LL.D., sometime Principal of New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready.
THE LATIN CHURCH FROM GREGORY THE GREAT TO THE
COUNCIL OF TRENT. [Author to be announced later
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES. By W. F. ADENEY, D.D.,
Principal of Independent College, Manchester. [Now Ready.
THE REFORMATION. By T. M. LINDSAY, D.D., Principal of the United
Free College, Glasgow. [2 vols. Now Ready.
CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN COUNTRIES SINCE THE COUNCIL OF
TRENT. By PAUL SABATIER, D.Lilt., Drome, France.
SYMBOLICS. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Professor of
Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary,
New York.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By G. P. FISHER, D.D.,
LL.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University,
New Haven, Conn. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.
CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. By A. V. G. ALLEN, D.D., sometime
Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School,
Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready.
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. By GEORGE GALLAWAY, D.D., Minister
of United Free Church, Castle Douglas, Scotland.
THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. By GEORGE F. MOORE, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor in Harvard University.
APOLOGETICS. By A. B. BRUCE, D.D., sometime Professor of N«w
Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow.
\Revised and Enlarged Edition.
THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. By WILLIAM N. CLARKE, D. D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology, Hamilton Theological Seminary.
[Now Ready.
THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. By WILLIAM P. PATERSON, D.D., Professor
of Divinity, University of Edinburgh.
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. By H. R. MACKINTOSH, Ph.D., Professor
of Systematic Theology, New College, Edinburgh.
THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. By GEORGE B. STE
VENS, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University.
\Now Ready.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. By WILLIAM ADAMS
BROWN, D.D., Professor cf Systematic Theology, Union Theological
Seminary, New York.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D., Pastor of Congrega
tional Church, New Haven. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.
THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE WORKING CHURCH. By
WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., Pastor of Congregational Church, Columbus,
Ohio. [Now Ready
THE CHRISTIAN PREACHER. By A. E. GARVIE, D.D., Principal of
New College, London, England.
IkF3 OTHER VOLUMES WILL BE ANNOUNCED LATER.
Jnternational Ebeological
EDITED BY
CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D.,
Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological
Sttninary, New York;
STEWART D. F. SALMOND, D.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology and New Testament Extgtsist
Free Church College, Aberdeen.
IV. HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
BY PROF. GEORGE PARK FISHER, D.D., LL.D.
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
HISTORY
OF
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
BT
GEORGE PARK FISHER, D.D., LL.D.
TITUS BTBEET PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
IX TALB UNIVJSBS1TY
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1911
:
EMMANUEL
COPYRIGHT, 1896, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S tONS
PREFACE
SEVERAL years have elapsed since I engaged to prepare this
work. The unexpected delay in its publication is owing chiefly
to the pressure of other and more imperative engagements. One
reason for it, however, is the fact that, although the subject is one
which I had long studied and on which I had given instruction to
many successive classes, more time was required for the compo
sition of the book than I had anticipated. This is partly for the
reason that it appeared to me, for the present purpose, expedient
to abandon for the most part the method which I had always fol
lowed in my Lectures of arranging the matter under the heads of
General and Special Doctrinal History. On this topic something
more is said in the introductory chapter. This change of plan
has involved an entire recasting of the materials to be incorpo
rated into this volume.
A number of the ablest of the recent German writers on Dog-
mengeschichte confine themselves to a description of the rise and
establishment of dogmas in the official significance of the term,
according to which it denotes simply the accredited tenets of the
principal divisions of the Church. The terminus of this branch of
study is, therefore, set not later than about the opening of the
seventeenth century. In the present work, the history of theolog
ical thought is carried forward through the subsequent essays at
doctrinal construction down to the present time. In other words,
the present work is a history of Doctrine as well as of Dogmas.
Those who hold that such a treatise should have a more restricted
VI PREFACE
aim are at liberty to look on the chapters which cover all the
additional ground, as being, to use the lawyers' phrase, obiter
dicta. It is, after all, a question of nomenclature. A history of
modern doctrinal theology, none will deny, is a legitimate under
taking.
It is hardly necessary to say how much, in common with all
students of Doctrinal History, I owe to the old masters in this
department, among whom the names of Neander and Baur have
so high a place. I wish to add here that not unfrequently I have
received aid from the writings of my lamented friend, Dr. Schaff.
Moller is one of the more recent authors on the general history of
the Church who has been specially serviceable. There are three
writers of a late date to whom particular acknowledgments are due.
These are Harnack, Loofs, and Thomasius. The vigorous and
brilliant Dogmengeschichte of Harnack is — whatever opinion may
be held as to its theological tendencies — an indispensable auxiliary
in studies of this nature. The numerous references in the follow
ing pages will indicate how much I have been stimulated and
instructed by it. From the Leitfaden of Loofs, written from the
same general point of view as the volumes of Harnack, I have
likewise derived important assistance. The Dogmengeschichte of
Thomasius, a conservative Lutheran in his creed, is acknowledged
by scholars of all shades of belief to be a work of extraordinary
merit. It has been read and consulted by me with no little
profit. In particular is it of service side by side with the treatises
representing more or less decidedly the prevalent Ritschlian
school. I may be permitted to add that I deem the Ritschlian
tendency to be justified so far as it lays stress on the fact that in
the earlier centuries the types of Greek philosophy then current
had no inconsiderable influence in the formulating of doctrine.
This, to be sure, is not a new discovery, but has been widely rec
ognized by competent historians, like Neander. Yet it may be
well that a new emphasis should be attached to it. Moreover,
PREFACE vii
there is no room for question that the Reformers mingled in their
teachings much that was drawn from Scholastic sources. All this
should be conceded to the Ritschlian movement, however large
the dissent may be from specific conclusions concerning the
extent and character of the modifications of Christian doctrine
from extrinsic influences, concerning the real purport of the New
Testament teaching, and concerning the trustworthiness of the
Gospel narratives.
The special design of this volume and the limitations of space
have compelled the exclusion of a larger amount of critical com
ment than its pages contain. The primary aim has been to pre
sent in an objective way and in an impartial spirit the course of
theological thought respecting the religion of the Gospel. What
ever faults or defects may belong to the work, the author can say
with a good conscience that nothing has been consciously inserted
or omitted under the impulse of personal bias or prejudice. The
precept of Othello is applicable to attempts to delineate theolog
ical teachers and their systems :
"Nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice."
In the revisal of the proof-sheets, I am glad to acknowledge the
generous assistance which I have received from Professor Egbert
Coffin Smyth of the Theological School at Andover, whose learn
ing and accuracy eminently qualify him for such a friendly service.
I have likewise received a number of valuable suggestions from
Professor Arthur Cushman McGiffert of the Union Theological
School in New York, who has given in his annotated edition of
Eusebius ample proof of the thoroughness of his historical inves
tigations. The index has been compiled by Mr. John H. Grant,
a member of the Senior Class in the Yale Divinity School.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PASES
AND SCOPE OP THE SUBJECT — THEOLOGY POSSIBLE — ITS
RELATION TO FAITH — ITS RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY — ITS
NEED AND ORIGIN — FACTORS IN FORMULATING CHRISTIAN
TRUTH — DEVELOPMENT. IN THEOLOGY — DIVISIONS IN THE
HISTORY OF DOCTRINE — SKE.TCH OF ITS COURSE — HISTORY
OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINE — THE LITERATURE OF THE
SUBJECT ' . . . . 1-22
The religion of the Gospel inseparable from the person and the
personal relations of its Founder. Nevertheless its contents capable
of being stated. Two conceptions of the scope of the History of
Doctrine. The first deals with it as a history of dogmas, — that is,
of definite statements of doctrines, propounded by the Church or
particular branches of it. In the Greek, 'dogma,* signified a tenet
or a,T^ Qj-dii^a^e. ; in the Bible7the latter ; among tire dtoics an'S in
the Fathers, the former. HARNACK'S History of Doctrine intended
to be strictly a Dogmengescluchte. Outline of this work. Secondly,
the history of Doctrine may embrace the history of Theology. This
the plan of Jjie present work. The fundamental truth of Christi
anity is the Sonship and Messiahship of Jesus. Possibility of
Theology questioned by Comte, Spencer, Kant, Hamilton, Mansel.
Agnosticism or Phenomenalism at the root of this opinion. Possi
bility of Theology questioned by Horace Bushnell from the alleged
infirmity of language. This opinion not essentially diverse from
the Nominalism of Occam. Different conceptions of the relation
)f Theology to faith : that faith is provisional, leading to and giving
vay to knowledge f CLEMENT of |A1exanai'ia>) ; that science may
demonstrate the contents of faith CAuGUSTTT^a.nn the schoolmen,
jid a similar view in LESSING) ; "that faith is the unscientific egniyn-
in thft popular minrl, qf philosophy (HWlT. ) . Science the
ntellectual apprehension of the contents of_ faith. Christian
Ideology differs from Philosophy in that it rests on historical facts^
The significance of them Theology explains. — — Room for a science
of Theology, since Christianity is set _ forth in the Scriptures in a
popular form, its appeal is primarily to the moral and spiritual
nature, and the Apostolic teaching is in a variety of types. The
ology arises from a natural yearning for knowledge, and as a means
of defence against error. The History of Doctrine includes an
CONTENTS
PA.QI
account of heresies. These spring from the amalgamation with
Christianity of elements foreign to its nature. Heresy involves, in
N. T. usage, a schismatical element. Heresy to be distinguished
from a defective stage of knowledge and from tentative hypotheses.
— Leadership not wanting in theological thought as in other
departments of Christian activity. - Three factors in the framing
of theological doctrine. — viz., the Scriptures, the authoritative norm
of doctrine, Christian experience, an auxiliary and a touchstone,
the intellect, which converts into lucid statements the truths of
Scripture and experience. Abuses grow out of a perversion ^or
exaggeration of either of these several factors ; of the first, Tjja-
ditionalism ; of the second, Mysticism ; of the third, Rationalism.
Mysticism regards feeling as a defect source of ikpe-rtfedgeT May
lay claim to revelations supph^rfentary to thj^rflPiptures. Rational
ism, a usurpation of the uriaWstandhj^r^'Mysticism and Rational
ism are each apparently the antip"ode of the other, yet both in
common hold to a siihjfii^jel-source and test of religious knowledge.
— Types of Theology vary with differences of time and diversities
of race. This apparent in the contrasts of Greek Theology, Latin
Theology, and Teutonic Theology. -- Different theories of theologu
cal development. BAUR and the Tiibin^p srhqol held to an evolu
tion jf the doctrinal r*nn*-ontp of Christianity itself, which proceeds
according to the method of HjgePs dialectic. NEWMAN'S theory of
Development, that Christianity unfold its contents and their neces
sary implic'a1 trans by degrees and under the guardianship of the
infallible ChurchTV that the Roman Catholic system Ja. thf 1p£JlJ-
niate growth of the "seed' sown bvjhe Apo^tl^s. This doctrine of
infallibility /in a priori theory, to be tested by history. J. B.
MOZLEY shows that there may be corruption from mere exagger
ation. - RITSCHL'S objection to the separation of General and
Special Doctrinal History, and preference of an "organic " or "physi
ologic " method. This method exemplified by HARNACK and others.
Certain chief landmarks in Doctrinal History. The Ancient
productive of the system as to its contents or constituent
materials ; the Mediaeval Period casting the matter into aj3vrstematic
form ; the Protestant Penfldreformmg the system .on the basis c^f
tlie Script ures^ This was followed'by a species of Protestant scho
lasticism. Then the advent of a new epoch in Philosophy, begin
ning with DESCARTES. The rise of a rationalistic revolt against
Protestant dogmatism, with attendant intellectual changes. The
coming of the scientific age with its new investigation of material
nature and its spirit of independent research in all directions, of the
results of which Theology has to take account. - History of the
History of Doctrine in the Patristic Age ; in the Reformation Period ;
in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Monographs and En
cyclopedias relating to the History of Doctrine.
CONTENTS XI
PART I
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
PERIOD I
THE RISE AND EARLY TYPES OF THEOLOGY TO THE ^COMPLETE
SYSTEM OF ORIGEN AND TO THE FULLY ESTABLISHED CON
CEPTION OF THE PREMUNDANE PERSONAL LOGOS (c. A.D. 300)
CHAPTER I
PAGK8
APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY — PALESTINIAN AND HELLENISTIC JUDAISM
— GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND GENTILE CULTURE . . 23-33
The sources of Christian Theology are the testimony and teach
ings of the Apostles. The bond between the Old Testament and
the New in the idea of the kingdom of God. JESUS as the Head
of the kingdom. Jesus the organ of the self-revelation of God: His
death the precursor of victory and the ground of forgiveness. His
kingdom, both present and to come. In the Synoptics the higher
nature of Christ implied in the Eschatology. His preexistence and
divinity taught by the Apostle Paul. His catholic interpretation of
the Gospel. The Apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel. It
brings out the metaphysical relation of the Son to the Father.
The disciples influenced by Jewish interpretation of 0. T. Scriptures,
and by Jewish Apocalypses. Hellenistic Jews might mediate
between Judaism and Gentile thought. This especially true of
Alexandrian Judaism, and of PHILO'S teaching. Philo, ft sincere
Jew, yet imbued with the Platonic and Stoic Philosophy. Held to
an occult sense of Scripture. His dualism caught up from Plato.
His intermediate Powers midway between persons and personifica
tions. This true of his conception of the Logos. Evil connected
with matter as the source. Souls to rise above sense to immediate
communion with God. The idea of the Incarnation of the Logos
foreign to Philo, as well as that of a personal Messiah. In
the age prior to the introduction of the Gospel, a decay of faith in
the heathen religion. A growing tendency to SYNCRETISM. In the
first century, a revival of religious feeling and a drift towards
monotheism. PLUTARCH found a place for the old divinities.
Philosophers beginning to do the work of pastors^ Influence of
Greek philosophy on Christian doctrine. SOCRATES, the founder of
ethical philosophy. Sought to lay a scientific basis for morals. A
way opened by his teaching for a one-sided intellectualism. In
PLATO, ideas conceived of as supersensible realities. The idea of
the good the cause both of being and cognition. God personal, but
matter eternal. Souls preexistent. Redemption a release from the
Xii CONTENTS
PAGES
bondage of sense. In Plato germs of Pantheism and of a Gnostic
hypostasizing of ideas. After Plato and Aristotle, Philosophy
practical. Tranquillity of spirit the end and aim of the two pre
vailing systems. In EPICUREANISM no affinity with the Gospel.
STOICISM indebted for its metaphysics to Heraclilus. Its theory a
materialistic Pantheism. Xeus (lie totality of things. The Logos,
the divine reason or wisdom, corporeal. Fate rules all. The vir
tuous man lives according to nature. Stoicism in the Roman
School parts with much of its rigor. It teaches the brotherhood
of man and the fatherhood of God. SENECA'S teaching ap
proaches in not a few particulars the precepts of the Gospel. In
New Platqnism Philosophy is most religious. God the Ineffabje
One. The highest attainment ecstatic communion with Him, when
the sense of individuality is lost. Theology, like the other
sciences, a Greek product. Influence of Greek thought on the
form of doctrinal statements. The patristic teaching stamped
with traces of Platonic and Aristotelian ideas. The main ques
tion, are the propositions of the ancient creeds the equivalent of
N. T. teaching?
CHAPTER II
THE ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 34-40
"Apostolic Fathers," an inexact designation. The Ep. of
CLEMENT doubtless genuine. Called out (c. 96) by a displace
ment of officers in the church at Corinth. The document
styled "Second Epistle of Clement" an ancient homily (c. 150).
"The Shepherd" of HERMAS a series of Visions, with Precepts
and Parables (perhaps as early as 90-100). The Ep. ascribed to
BARNABAS, not written by him, but probably by an Alexandrian.
Anti-Judaic in its tone. The " DIDACHE," recently recovered, a
church manual for catechists and congregations, and as early as
about 100. The Epp. of IGNATIUS, in the shorter Greek form^gen^
uine. Their date c. lip. POLYCARP'S Ep. to the Philippian's^gen-U
uine. Doubtful whether PAPIAS was a pupil of the Apostles. The $, ;Lt a*^
fragments of his "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord" ex
tremely valuable. He explains the origin of the first two Gospels. 3
The " Martyrdom of Poly carp" an account by the Church of
Smyrna, but enlarged and interpolated. The Writings of the
APOLOGISTS composed mostly in the age of the Antonines. The
work of Quadra tus lost. A part of that of ARISTIDES recovered.
We have fragments of Melito's Apology. The works of Claudius
Apollinaris and Miltiades lost. JUSTIN'S (B.C. 100) two Apologies
and the Dialogue with Trypho "written between 138 and 152.
Justin from the Platonic school. TATIAN, his pupil, the author of
an Apology (c. 152), and the " Diatesseron," a combination of ex
cerpts from the Four Gospels. The Apology of THEOPHILUS, Bp.
of Antioch, directed against heathenism in its popular and philo-
£"* tP}****** v*
£ONTENTS xiii
'
fc V
sophical forms. IRENAEUS and HIPPOLYTUS of the Asia Minor-
Roman School of Writers. The work of Irenaeus Adversus
Hcereses written c. 180. From his knowledge, Ins character and
repute for orthodoxy, is invaluable. Exists (except in extracts)
only in the Latin translation. Extant also are his Ep. to Florinus,
and fragments. HIPPOLYTUS, in his Refutation of all Heresies,*
(found in 1842), instructive as to the Gnostic sects. A strenuous
opponent of Patripassianism. The Latin writers are TERTUL- .j^j . *V»
LIAN and QYPRIAN. Tertullian (d. c. 220), trained as an advocate,
acute, fertile in thought, vehement. ISecame a Montanist. His
w>EJ,tnigs, apologetic, polemical, ascetic and ecclesiastical, numerous.
Cyprian, Bp. of Carthage (d. 258), wrote mainly on topics relating
to church government and discipline. The Alexandrian writers
blend Philosophy with Theology. Disposed to assimilate the best
teachings of Greek sages. The scholarship of the Church found
at Alexandria. The writings of the first teacher, Pantaenus, have
perished. CLEMENT, cultured in philosophy, distinguished by large
acquisitions and fertility of genius, as seen in his " Discourse to
the Greeks," his Paedagogos for the training of converts, and his
titromaLa, his most important treatise. " Who is the Rich Man
that is Saved" — Quis dives salvus — a briefer Essay. ORIGIN
(185-253), a pupil of Clement, a man of extraordinary powers of
mind and a prodigy of learning, excelled by none of the Fathers.
Studied New Platonism, but conversant with all the philosophical
schools. Included among his voluminous Writings, the Hexapla,
the Commentaries, — those on Matthew and John being of special
value, — the De Principiis, the earliest systematic treatise on the
ology (which we have only in Latin), and his Reply to Celsus, a
masterly defence of Christianity against the ablest of its assailants.
CHAPTER III
DOCTRINE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS ..... 41-47
The Apostolic Fathers lack the depth and power of the canonical
authors. Write for practical ends. Touch on doctrine incident
ally. BAUR'S theory of a Petrine and Pauline conflict — obsolete.
Disproved from Clement, Polycarp, Hegesippus, IrensBus. The
Apostolic Fathers antedate the canon. Yet the writings of the
Apostles treated by them as authoritative. Refer often to the free
dom of forgiveness in the Gospel. Yet exhibit a strain which may
be called "moralism," in contrast with the sharply defined doctrine
of the ApostleT^auT. Often conjoin faith and love. The death of
Christ often made the source of repentance. This from no conscious
dissent from the Pauline doctrine. The question of salvation by
faith or works not longer a "burning question." The Apostle him
self appropriated the terms of the law. In HERMAS and in others,
connected traces of an ascetic drift. How far repentance for sins
Xiv CONTENTS
PAGES
after baptism would avail, subject to question. Abstinence from a
second marriage lauded. A higher and a lower type of Christian
virtue recognized in the DIDACHK. In the Apostolic Fathers,
Chrjgt dissociated from the category of creatures. This true of
OI.KMICNT. h.NATirs assorts the eternal pivexistenre of Christ, that
He is the Son of Mary and the Son of God, and calls Him God in a
sense implying divinity. POLYCARP affirms the reality of the In
carnation. BARNABAS and HERMAS ascribe to Christ preexistence.
Hernias by the "Holy Preexistent Spirit" not improbably signifies
the Logos. The three persons conjoined in IGNATIUS and
CLEMENT. Baptism held to bring forgiveness and the purifying
grace of the Spirit. ' In the Didache, there mention made of the
longer, as well as the shorter, formula of baptism. The Lord's
Supper still connected with the Agape. Difficult to decide whether
IGNATIUS, when he styles the bread the "flesh of our Lord," is or
is not using symbolical language. The gifts of the bread and the
wine, with the prayers, styled an offering ; but with no other
significance. In the Didache, thanks to the natural gifts of God,
food and drink, a part of the Eucharistic service. The Second
Coming of Christ thought to be not remote. Barnabas and Papias
expected a literal millennium of bliss to follow His Advent.
CHAPTER IV
THE JUDAIC SEPARATIST PARTIES — THE GNOSTIC SECTS — MARCION 48-60
Jewish Christians mingled to some extent with Essenians. A
portion of Jewish Christians clung to the old ritual. " EBIONITES,"
signifying " the poor," a name adopted by Jewish disciples. Justin
Martyr and Origen distinguish between different types of these
sectaries. The less rigid used a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
Accepted the miraculous birth of Jesus, emphasized the importance
of His baptism, were not inimical to the Apostle Paul. This class
described by Jerome under the name of NAZARENES. The rigid,
Pharisaic Ebionites insisted on the necessity of circumcision, and
denied the miraculous conception. Held that Jesus was selected as
Messiah on account of his legal piety. His work was that of a
prophet and teacher. Averse to thinking of Him as a suffering
Messiah. Hostile to the Apostle Paul. Dwelt on the Second
Advent of Christ in regal splendor. JUSTIN denies fellowship to
the intolerant Ebionites, is charitable to the moderate class. Later,
the moderate class excluded from fellowship. An P^ssenian
Ebionitism mingled Gnostic elements with Ebionite doctrine. One
faction termed ELKESAITS. The characteristics of Essenian Ebion
itism in the Pseudo-Clementine Writings. In them Christ the re
storer of the primitive religion of Moses, and the last of a series
of eight prophets who taught the same truth. Traces of hostility
to the Apostle Paul. Yet assume an original religion to which
CONTENTS XV
PAGES
all religions are traceable, abjure sacrifices, and teach dualism
as to matter and the nature of sin. BAUR'S theory (that they
represent a prevalent anti-Pauline theology) groundless. A plau
sible hypothesis that Elkesait Writings were worked over by
Christians, who left in them undesignedly vestiges of anti-Pauline
feeling. GyflancigM the antipode of Ebionitism. An eclectic.
philosophy, amalgamating Jewish heathen and Christian elements,
in different proportions. Not without practical earnestness. An
offshoot of the prevailing syncretism. The Alexandrian-Jewish
school, with the help of allegory, had blended Old Testament facts
and truths with Platonism and Stoicism. The earliest Gnosticism
was from the Jewish side. This not true of Gnosticism in general.
The religions of .Syria, Asia Minor, and the East tributary to the
Gnostic movement. Gnostic th^pght fastened on TWO POINTS, V|/{A>rf"L c
GodL__as the absolute Being, and" the origin of evil.'' The two .
peculiarities — the claim to a profounder insight (yvudis} and the Ot «••**-
dogma that the Creator of the World is a being inferior to the
Supreme God. The person of the Redeemer conceived of in a
docetic manner. The Gnostic misconstruction of sayings of the
Apostle Paul. JQiscovery of symbols everywhere. As a rule, the
Apostolic Writings not rejected, but misinterpreted. The Gnostics
both within and without the churches. More and more had distinct
congregations. Germs and traces of Gnosticism seen in several
Pauline Epistles and some other N. T. books. J^JR^s classifi
cation: In one class of these systems, the three religions con
joined; in a second, Christianity separated from both the other
religions; in a third, Christianity identified with Judaism and
opposed to heathenism — (so in the PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE writ
ings). In the Syrian systems dualism more pronounced than in
the Alexandrian. N BANDER'S two leading divisions. In the one,
the principle of the world and state of the world lower but not
antagonistic to the Supreme God ; in the other, foreign and ad verse, .
The first comprising the Alexandrian systems ; the second, the
Syrian, with two subdivisions. SIMON MAGUS is historical per
son. Worshipped as an incarnation oTtlie godhead. CERINTHUS
an Ebionite Gnostic. Taught that in the ranks of angels of a lower
grade is the Creator and the God of the Jews. From the Baptism
of Jesus to the crucifixion, a heavenly Spirit united with Jesus. In
SATURNINUS, a Gnostic of the SYRIAN class, a descending gradation
of created spirits, the Demiurjje, the God of the Jews and maker of
the world, belonging to the lowest rank. The Saviour an Aeon
from the Supreme God, who appears hi an unreal 'body. Among
the branches of tlu> Saturninians, the OPHITES, who revered the
serpent as the symbol of wisdom. BASILIDES the first of the
noted leaders of the ALEXANDRIAN class. Exposition of his
system by Irenaeus and by Hippolytus. A seminal, chaotic
universe said to emanate from the Ineffable One. The Archon,
the God of the Jews, unconsciously fulfils the designs of the
s\ *A n^ c* * VSM* *.-r*v * *-j . t ^
XVi CONTENTS
PAGK8
Supreme. A system of self-evolution, in which the pneumatic
natures which require purification are delivered from the admixture
of matter. Jesus a compound being, the component parts of which,
at his death, rise, each to its proper home. BASILIDES taught a
moderate asceticism. Used the canonical Gospels, including John.
Y^LENTJ&US taught in Alexandria and Rome (c. 140). Holds to an
unfolding of the Absolute into two realms, a higher and a lower,
of finite beings. Jesus the Messiah of the Demiurge, at whose
baptism the heavenly Soter descends, with whose plans the Demi-
nrge falls in. Only the psychical Christ is crucified. MARCION
the most prominent among the anti-Judaic Gnostics. His temper
extremely practical and earnest. Pushing the Pauline teaching
beyond its proper bounds ; conceiving of the Old Testament as
inconsistent with the Gospel. The Demiurge a being of limited
power, whose retributive justice is incompatible with love. His
avenging judgments the good God would not suffer to be carried
out. He appeared in an unreal body, not as the Demiurge's
Messiah. His sufferings were only in appearance. Delivered the
heathen from Hades, and then compelled the Demiurge to acknow
ledge his guilt. Paul was the only true Apostle. The other
Apostles had corrupted the Gospel. Luke's Gospel which Marcion
mutilated, the only one of the Gospels that he received. To this
joined ten of Paul's Epistles. His code of morals ascetic. His
sect influential and widely diffused. Far greater danger from
Gnosticism than from Ebionitism, which sought to rescue an obso
lescent system. Gnosticism professed to furnish a rational, com-
pjete system of revealed truth, in which redemption through Christ
had a place. Had the charm of mystery. Was overcome by the
Christian doctrine of one God, the guilt of sin, the reality of the
Incarnation. Gnosticism stimulated the development of Christian
theology within the Church. The character of the old Catholic
Church partly the result of its indirect agency.
CHAPTER V
THE BEGINNINGS OP THEOLOGY — THE GREEK APOLOGISTS . 61-69
The APOLOGISTS treat Christianity predominantly as a body of
teachings relating to religion and morals. This due only in part to
the apologetic, conciliating motive. The Gospel regarded as re-
vealed philosophy, having a divine attestation. JUSTIN attribute* •
what is best in Plato and other philosophers to the Logos. Those
who lived according to Egason said to have been Cfirfstians.
The grand proof of Christianity the miracle of prophecy. Con
trast in JUSTIN between current phrases and his own reflections
upon Christianity. With customary expressions respecting God is
*l J°me(l tne Platonic, Alexandrian-Jewish conception of Him.
Justin used the Fourth Gospel, yet his idea of the Logos that of
CONTENTS Xvil
PAGES
§,to and Philo rather than of the Apostle John. The Logos the j \ \\*
ine reason, becoming personal at the creation. Tlie sonship of ,'
unrist traced back to the ante-mundane generation of the hypo-
static Logos. The Logos appeared in the theophanies of the Old
Testament. Yet becomes personal by an act of God's will. Sim
ilar view of TATIAN and ATHENAGORAS. The Logos in Justin the
organ of revelation. To the Logos are ascribed functions which
later were attributed to the Holy Spirit. The relation of the
Spirit to Father and Son not well defiaad. Justin teaches the reak *v
humanity of Christ. Yet perhaps assigns to the Logos the place on
the rational human spirit. No explicit denial by him of the^
eternity of matter. Justin repudiates Stoic fatalism, as do the
other Apologists. The expiatory work of Christ not prominent.
Rather is the Incarnation, which has the central place. Justin be
lieved in the temporal millennium, a doctrine widely diffused in the
second centurj^, and in the Second Advent as near. Holds that
souls are not essentially immortal. Does not teach conditional im
mortality. Respecting conversion and sanctification, Pelagian
expressions are mingled with those of an opposite character. —
Baptism called "regeneration"; it brings "illumination" and
forgiveness. The divine Logos mysteriously present in the bread
and the wine of the Sacrament, as in the incarnate Christ. —
The Epistle to DIOGXET^S is the pearl of the Apologetic Writings.
In it the incarnation and divinity of Christ earnestly affirmed.
Christ the eternal Word. The love and pity of God set forth in
glowing words. Yet the punishment of the wicked is eternal fire.
CHAPTER VI
THE RISE OF THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH — THE RULE OF FAITH
— THE CANON — THE EPISCOPATE — THE RISE AND THE EX
CLUSION OF MONTANISM ...... 70-83
"Catholic" comes to be used in a new sense, as describing or
thodox Christianity in its organized form. In IGNATIUS it denotes
Christians generally as distinguished from each local church.
The baptismal formula early expanded into a brief statement of
fundamental truths, to be repeated by candidates for baptism.
Spread of the story that the Apostles had composed it. The
Roman Symbol, a shorter form of the Creed, in use as early as the
middle of the second century. The Creed may have originated in
Asia Minor. Near the end of the century, is found in Smyrna, in
Southern Gaul, and in Carthage. In its mature form, spread from
Southern Gaul to Rome and elsewhere. In the East, where there
was no check to its mutations, melted away, other creeds taking
its place. Owing to the disciplina arcani,. the Apostles' Creed
kept secret. The " rules of faith " in Irenseus, Tertullian, and
Origen, a paraphrase or equivalent. The "rules of faith" varied
XV111 CONTENTS
PAGES
in form. Served as a bulwark against doctrinal novelties. JSo
Canon of the N. T. at the end of the second century. The O. T.
constituted the Bible. Christianity embodied in ofcal narrations
and writings of the Apostles. As Christians became conscious
that the period of revelation had passed by, Apostolic writings
began to be tampered with, forged compositions arose, oral tra
ditions grew insecure, heretical parties professed to have traditions
of. their own, the need of an authentic collection was felt. The
authority of Apostolic writings recognized by the Gnostics, by
Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Irenseus.
^IARCION'S CANON not the sole collection of the kind. The date
of the MURATORIAN CANON about 170 or 180. The Syrian trans
lation, the PESHITO, contains nearly all the N. T. books. Uni
formity in the contexts of the Collections not to be expected. In
the third century the N. T. Canon not definitely enclosed. Later,
EUSEBIUS enumerates seven books as not universally received, —
the " ANTILEGOMENA." The criteria of canonicity Apostolic guar
anty and internal marks of inspiration. The Jewish and
heathen idea of the passivity of inspired men adopted by Christian
authors. The legend as to the Septuagint translation an illus
tration of the fact. The Montanists held to the ecstatic inspiration
of Biblical authors. This opinion rejected by Miltiades, by Ire-
nfeus ; especially by Clement and Origen. Origen distinguishes
between the inspiration of Prophets and that of Apostles.
The Fathers discard the Gnostic method of interpretation, as op
posed to tradition. Allegorical exegesis a characteristic fault,
-f ^ Prevailed most at Alexandria. — - The tradition of Apostolic
teaching supposed to be guarded by the bishops. CLEMENT of
Rome ascribes to the Apostles a provision for an uninterrupted
succession by appointment and popular election. The original
identity of presbyters and bishops shown from CLEMENT of Rome,
POLTCARP, the DIDACHE, JEROME. Episcopacy in IGNATIUS local,
and purely governmental. As late as Irenaeus, a sacerdotal
function not yet ascribed to it. The beginnings of the episcopate
as distinct in the lifetime of some of the Apostles. The preser
vation of the succession came to be valued as securing the tra
ditions of doctrmeT This the view of Irenseus. Cyprian at
tributes to bishops a distinct sacerdotal function. Preeminence
attributed to Rome as a guardian and witness of traditions. The
precedence of Peter among the Apostles and of his successors
among bishops gradually established. In the second century the
permanent ministry rise above the itinerant prophetic order. A
catholic relation ascribed to bishops. Their dignity increased
through synods. A sharp distinction came to be made between
clergy and laity. Through these associated changes the OLD
CATHOLIC CHURCH arises. MONTANISM a reaction against ec-
clesiasticism and the growth of institutional Christianity. De
manded stricter discipline. Sought to uphold the ideals of the
CONTENTS XIX
PAGES
Apostolic age. Montanus claimed to be the organ of the promised
Paraclete. The "gifts of the Spirit" said to be now restored;
and the Lord soon to reappear. A call for austere strictness of
life. Spread of Montanisin. Irenaeus and others admit the re
vival of prophecy, but reject Montanistic extravagances. Ter-
tullian would give to the prophet the power to bind and loose.
The North African contests in church discipline, and the NOVA-
TIAN movement in Koine, issue in the prevalence of the broader,
more lenient view, which, however, did not fully prevail until after
the Donatist controversy, near the end of the fourth century.
CHAPTER VII
I • *2 T>
THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE IN THE ASIA MINOR SCHOOL — IRBN^EUS,
MKLITO OF SARDIS — IN THE NORTH AFRICAN SCHOOL —
TERTULLIAN — THE ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY —
CLEMENT . ". . . . '"™ ~" ^ ^ 84_97
rises above the point of view of the Apologists. His
teaching practical. The Scriptures and the rule of faith to be
adhered to. There are insoluble mysteries in Nature as well as in
Scripture. Our knowledge of God is relative. Creation is from
nothing. Sin is everywhere a free act. Punishment is a necessary
consequence. No interference with human freedom on the part of
God. - Q&ptf1 li> the Logos, the only-begotten Son, whose genera
tion is inscrutable. The Holy Spirit and the Son are included in
God, but subordinate. The Son becomes inparnate to reunite God
and man. His humanity emphasized. Christ the second head of
the race. In Him a recapitulatio of mankind, the effect of which
reaches backward as well as forward. - The death of Christ said
to be a substitution for our death ; yet the perfecting of the union j
of Christ with mankind is the main thought. The central element
in his work is obedience. The atonement is, however, objective.
- The ohurch the exclusive dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit.
Regeneration and baptism inseparably connected. -- The body
and blood mysteriously connected by the divine Logos with th^
bread and wine of the Sacrament. The bread and wine, and th^
prayer of thanksgiving, constitute the offering. -- Christ def
scended into Hades, as do his followers. It is their abode until thd
resurrection. Does not teach that the wicked are annihilated, but
that punishment is eternal. A peculiar guilt belongs to sins com
mitted after baptism. -- In Irenaeus, the ethical conception of the
Gospel, or " mqralism," tinges the evangelical view. The Old Testa
ment now placed on a level with the New, and again subordinated.
- MELTJO of Sardis affirms distinctly the two natures in Christ,
and that the Son is in God^is of God. Melito prominent in " The ,.,.
Later School of St. John." — — TERTULLIAN the fpunder of
theology. Is acquainted with the philosophers, but, disdains Philos-
XX CONTENTS
PAGB8
ophy. Magnifies the authority of traditiop. Heretics are to be
met with a praescriptio — a demurrer. They are confuted at the
outset by Apostolic tradition. Tertullian influenced by ^oj-
cisin. Holds that everything is of a corporeal nature. Is a Tradiir
cjan : the soul is generated with the body. llests the faith in
God on the inward " testimony of the naturally Christian soul."
First uses the term " Trinity." Asserts the immanent diversity of
the Persons. The LDJ££S is eternal, the reason and word of God.
But the Logos becomes personal not until the creation. Ajiiffer-
~ence in the degree of participation in the divine essence by the
several Persons in the Trinity. Tertullian implies the Jrue
humanity of Christ, and is emphatic on the necessity of His death.
Nothing said of a penal satisfaction, save that required of a peni
tent Christian. A certain legalism pervades his teaching : the
Gospel a nova lex. A freedom of will in both directions ; yet
an inborn, hereditary corruption asserted, although not consist
ently. Sometimes grace seems to be regarded as irresistible, yet
frequent assertions to the contrary. The good, except martyrs,
until the resurrection, are in Hades, whither Christ descended.
The millennial reign of Christ conceived of spirituajly. Hell is
eternal fire and is in the centre of the earth. CLEMENT of Alex-,1
andria, in contrast with Tertullian, is sympathetic with Philosophy.
Would build a b^jjige between the GQsrjel and Gentile wisdom.
The precursor of Origen, Clement is copious in suggestions, sjimu-
lating when not exact, and not moulded into a consistent whole.
— Scripture and reason made the sojiy&es of our knowledge of
divine things. AJiigh place given to reason. Yet purity of heart
made the door to" knowledge. Clement ascribes, but not consist-
.»• ently, Greek philosophy to Revelation. Teaches that the lyQjos
is the light of the Gentiles, and the seminal reason. The Son a
distinct Hypostasis, as is the Spirit. Christ truly human as well
as t^ujyjjiyjjie. Became man that man might become God. Christ
the ransom ; yet generally the obstacle to salvation said to lie in
men themselves. Redemption not so much the undoing of the past,
as the lifting of man to a^igher than even the unfallen state. Par
don includes deliverance from ignorance. Freedom of choice asso
ciated with dependence on the Spirit. A hjghgr and iQjj^r stage
of Christian character and of Christian knowledge. Clement's
explanations of the Eucharist vague and indeterminate. Justice
purely corrective in its inflictions. An opportunity for the heathen
to repent in Hades. The Milleriarian theory and the doctrine of a
bodily resurrection rejected.
CHAPTER VIII
PAQEP
MONARCHIANISM OVERCOME IN THE EAST THE
SYSTEM OF ORIGEX — THEOLOGY AFTER TEIE DEATH OF ORIGEH
NOVATIAN — DlONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA AND DlONYSIUS
OF ROME — METHODIUS ....... 98-116
A struggle required to complete the theology connected with the
doctrine of the Logos. From the fear of TjCJJthei§in MONARCH.IAN-
ij-jjvi arose. It embraced t.hft dynamic- or Adoptionist doctrine and
t.h£ Hoptrine that, Christ is djvjne, but indistinguishable from the
Father. The latjLi;r termed PATKIPASSI.VMSM, or Sabellianism, or
Modalism. Neither historically connected with Gnosticism or Eb-
ionitism. The ALOGI moved by their hostility to Montanism.
Not clear that they denied the divinity of Christ. Their number
small. THEODOTUS (the Currier) taught that Christ was a mere
man, receiving the Holy Spirit at His baptism. Accepted the Gos
pel of John. TIIEODOTUS (the Money Changer) was his disciple.
ARTEMON the last of the Adoptionist leaders at Rome. Promi
nent among Patripassianist leaders were PRAXEAS and NOETUS.
Their opinion embraced by two Roman bishops. Callistus, Bishop
of Rome, opposed by Hippolytus. BERYL, Bishop of Bostra, prob
ably a Modalist. SABELLIUS distinguished between the one divine
essence and its plural manifestations. Did he attribute a primacy
to the Father ? Excludes a proper human soul in Christ. PAUL OF
SAMOSATA propounded ar peculiar dynamic theory. ORIGEN in-
flj.cte.d a djecisiye_bloiw upon Monarchianism. His De Prflffltpiis a
system of doctrine. The unprejudiced, catholic tone of Origen.
He stands by the " rule. .QJL&ki£h-" Is 3- scriptural theologian.
Is an allegorist. Holds to the tlireeiold...ineaning of Script
ure. Holds to a doctrine of reserve. N^ew Platonic elements in
his conception of God. The Logos held to be personal and eter
nally generated. Represents the Son as truly divine. Yet attaches
to Him predicates indicating subordination. A method of recon
ciling conflicting passages foundTs his idea of the absolute. Attrib
utes, to Jesus a proper human soul. Is less explicit respecting the
deity of the Holy Spirit. Teaches the preexistence of souls
and their pre-mundane fall. Opposes unconditional predestination.
— Teaches'a deliverance from Satan by the rajosom rendered by
Christ, but presents other aspects of the Atonement. The re
demptive influence of Christ extends to all. Presents a spiritual
view of the Sacraments. Discards the doctrine of a bodily resur
rection. Origen's attractiveness as a teacher. ^i0^.]^1* re~
fleets in a modified form the teaching of Tertullian on the Trinity.
D^iONYajus of Alexandria rejects the Apostolic authorship of the
Apocalypse. His expressions respecting Christ qualified in conse
quence of the objections of Dionysius of Rome. METHODIUS at
tacked certain opinions of Origen. Presents a mystical view of
XX11 CONTENTS
PAGI8
the relation of the Logos to the race. Other opponents of Origen.
Christ iii creeds of the East, in the second century, designated as
the Logos.
PERIOD II
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PATRISTIC THEOLOGY IN THE EAST
AND IN THE WEST
IN THE EAST, FROM A.D. 300 TO THE DEATH OF JOHN OF DAMASCUS
(c. 754) ; IN THE WEST, TO GREGORY I (c. A.D. 600)
CHAPTER I
PAGK8
THE CONTROVERSY WITH HEATHENISM — THE DANGER OF DIVISION —
THE SEAT OF AUTHORITY — THE CANON, SCRIPTURE, AND TRA
DITION — THE GROUNDS OF THEISTIC BELIEF . . 117-124
The Church conscious of its strength. This partly due to political
triumph. New sources of attack and defence. CYRIL'S refuta
tion of Julian. AUGUSTINE, in the De Civitate Dei, answers heathen
accusations. A^re^ssive^at^tudeofApologists. Porphyry's attack.
Arguments of EuSfeBius~oi C^sarea. — — Catholic spirit and posi
tive teaching of Origen impugned. Tendencies to division counter
acted. Influence of CONSTANTINE and ATHANASIUS in this work.
— Gradual defining of the limits of the Caffim : Origen, Euse-
bius, Athanasius, Chrysostom. The Apocalypse, in the fourth
century. Conciliar acceptance of the O. T. Apocrypha. Inspira
tion and Biblical inerrancy. Critical spirit : Chrysostom, Jerome,
the School of Antioch. Doctrine of the sufficiency of the Script
ures. Authority of General Councils. VINCENT of LERINS : his
criterion of orthodox doctrine. The Church as the ark of safety.
Growing authority of the Roman Bishops. Grounds of belief
in God. Influence of New Platonisrn on the conception of God.
The nature and end of creation. Prominence given to angels and
demons.
CHAPTER II
DOCTRINES CONVERTED INTO DOGMAS — CHURCH AND STATE — THE
GREAT CONTROVERSIES — THE ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, EAST
AND WEST 125-133
Doctrines converted into dogmas. Interference of the State in
doctrinal controversies. Csesarean papacy of Byzantine rulers.
— Platonism in the ascendant, but Aristotle's influence increased.
Religious idealism : PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS. Rival schools of Alex
andria and Antioch. Rise and spread of Manichfeism. Great
controversies characteristic of the Period. Growing esteem of
orthodoxy and tradition in the East. The Trinity and Person of
XX111
rv*^4*-JW^7* * W'/ fr™-*- -v* . p^efc?' %-
Christ in the foreground in the EAST ; sin and the relation of the
will to grace, in the WEST. ROME, a powerful neutral in relation
to parties in the East. AUGUSTINE'S influence confined to the West,
practical piety prized in the East. Nevertheless, rage for doctrinal
disputation. The. Alexan.dr.ianjreachers. (ribbon's admira
tion of ATHAXASITS. KjsKiuts of Csesarea. TJie Cappadocian
Fathers. Kpiphanius, Eusebius of Emisa, Cyr.il of Jerusalem.
TJiree foremost Antiochians : CHRYSOSTOM, THEODORE, THEODORET.
The 00ntinuators of Eusebius. Latin Writers of fourth and fifth
centuries. HILARY of Poictiers ; JEROME ; RUFINUS ; AMBROSE.
The variety of Augustine's writings. "Prosper of Aquitaine. ~"Eeo*I.
Boethius's "Consolations of Philosophy"; Cassiodorus; John
Phiiopouus ; Gregory of Tours ; GREGORY I.
dgfl^j^f-ytf
CHAPTER III
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY TO THE
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (A.D. 381) 7 '. . 134-147
Ajjujs propounds the opinion that Christ is the first of created
beings", through whom all other things were made, and that in the
incarnate Christ the Logos takes the place of the rational human
spirit. Is excommunicated. Theologians and the Emperor Con-
stantine in vain seek to appease the conflict. Hence the COUNCIL
oj^NicjEA is convoked by CONSTANTINE. The ARIANS contend
thfjre that the Son had a beginning, by the Father's will. The
Athanasians assert the eternal generation of the Son, that he is
from the non-existent, and is consubstantial (HOMOOUSIOS) with
the Father. (ATHANASIUS held to a numerical unity, as to sub
stance, of Father and Son.) The middle party opposed the Homo
ousion. The creed offered by EUSEBIUS of Csesarea amended by
inserting the Homoousion, by denials of Arian formulas, and by
anathemas. The amended Creed carried by imperial influence.
The middle party, Homoousians, or EUSEBIANS (so-called
from Eusebius of Nicomedia), prevail with Constantine and Con-
stantiiis. Rome and the West adhere to the Nicene Confession.
The Athanasian cause weakened by the teaching of MARCELLUS
that the pre-incarnate Logos was impersonal, and by the greater
divergence of PHOTINUS. In the Antiochian Synods (341-345), the
Eusebians frame formulas with the aim to unite the West with the
East, but the (occidental) Council of SARDICA (343) declares for
Nic^a and Rome. The opposition to Marcellus and to Photinus
combines the Anti-Nicseans. In the Sirmian Creeds, and at the
Synod of Ancyra (358), the Semi-Arians reject Arian formulas,
but avoid the Homoousion. The Western Synods of ARLES and
MILAN deceived and coerced into taking ground against Athana-
sius (355). The Anti-Nicene party broken by the extreme posi
tion of AETIUS and EUNOMIUS. Athanasius conciliatory towards
XXIV CONTENTS
PAGE*
the conservative Homoousians. A class of moderate Nicaeans
arises. The Cappadocian theologians, BASIL and the two GREGO-
RIES, influential in securing the predominance of the Nicene
orthodoxy. The term "Hypostasis" used to denote a personal
subject, in distinction from "Usia." The later Nicaeans place
the mystery in the unity rather than the trinity. The Holy
Spirit said by Arius to be the first created nature produced by the
Son. Diversity of opinion respecting the rank of the Holy Spirit.
The opinion of Macedonius that He is a creature considered hereti
cal. The COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381) declared its approval
of the Nicene Creed. The "Creed of Constantinople" (so-called)
did not emanate from the Council, but is based on a confession of
Cyril of Jerusalem. The Nicene anathemas left out, and additions
made respecting the Holy Ghost, but in Scriptural language. After
451, the Council of Constantinople recognized in the East and the
West. Omission of the epithet "holy," in the Anglican Prayer
Book. In the Eastern theology, as in the Nicene and Constanti-
nopolitan Creeds, a subordination of the second and third Persons.
The insertion of the " filioque." The symbol " Quicunque," or the
(so-called) Athanasian Creed.
CHAPTER IV
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST
TO JOHN OF DAMASCUS ....... 148-160
Origen had not solved the problem of the mode of union of the
two natures in Christ. The Arians charged the Catholics with
holding to a conflict of the two natures. APOLLINA^S propounded
the view that the LOJJOS in Christ fills the place of the rational soul
in man. Apollinarianism withstood by Athanasius and the Cap
padocian theologians. ATHANASIUS teaches that God became man
that man might be divinized ; the Gregories, that human nature is
divinized by its union with the Logos. Gregory of Nyssa teaches
that at the glorification of Christ His body loses its human
attributes. Apollinarianism condemned at the Council of Con
stantinople (381). The Antiochian theologians, THEODORE,
«. i.- v ^ „--. .... * ^*W»-->
THEODORET, and IIJAS, hold thatuhrist, like other men, must
exercise moral choice. The Incarnation leaves to the jnan full
moral liberty. The union of natures a moral union and fellowship,
yet such that the man shares in the glory and dominion of the Logos.
This theology maintained by NESTORIUS. He discards the term
"Theotokos" as applied to Mary. A reciprocal connection of the
two sets of attributes in Christ and a mutual cooperation for a
common end, but no interchange. CYRIL of Alexandria joins the
adversaries of Nestorius. Asserts a physical (or metaphysical)
union of the two natures. Abstractly considered, two natures ; in
the concrete reality, but mie — "the one incarnated nature of the
Divine Logos." Hence in Christ incarnate a communion of attri-
CONTENTS XXV
butes. Ngglotijos condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431), by
the Cyrillians. John of Antioch and Cyril agree upon terms of peace.
The Nestorians flying to Persia establish a separate church.
The ranks of the Cyrillians broken by Ejjyjyjjyjs. Taught that (V'VA ty-4uA
Christ is of but not in two nature*, and that His body is not of the.. J"
same nature as our human bodies. Eutyches condemned. Dios- ?
curus, Cyril's successor, extorts from a Council at Ephesus, the Cu>»
"ROBBEK SYNOD," a decree in favor of Eutyches. The jCouN^jL
OF CHALCEDON deposes Dioscurus for his crimes, anathematizes
Nestorius, sanctions the Nicene Creed and Cyril's exposition of it,
and frames a creed based on the letter of Leo I., Bishop of Rome.
The Chalcedon Creed affirms the divinity and the humanity of.
Christ, two natures in one person. The Chalcedon Creed op- ^IMAM^
posed by the M.oxopimiiTES. Violent contests ensue. The jt ^ y v
Emperor Zeno, seeking to reconcile parties, issues the " HENOTI- f/^1^ »<*f
CON," which is ambiguous on the Chalcedon Creed. Justin I. ."(v(
yields to the demands of Rome and accepts the Creed. Hence, the '
separation of the Monophysite dissentients, — the COPTIC, ETHIOPIC, *
JACOBITE, and ARMENIAN Churches. Severus and his adherents ^^f
nicknamed by more extreme Monophysites — who held that the
body of Christ was insusceptible of decay — " Worshippers of the
corruptible." These last styled " Aphthartodocetce " or THEOPAS-
CHITES. LEONTIUS of Byzantium, a defender of the Creed, seeks
for harmony. To conciliate the Monophysites, Justinian sanctions
the phrase "God was crucified for us," issues the "Three
Chapters," against the Antiochian teachings, and embraces the
opinion of the Theopaschites. The MONOTHELITE doctrine, that
there was but one will in Christ, embraced by Sergius and Heraclius.
Is set forth in the " Ecthesis." Is withstood by Rome. The ,^r
opposite (Dyothelite) opinion asserted by the SIXTH (EcuMENJ,g>uj~
COUNCIL (G80), in the creed based on the Later of A<;ATHO, Bishop
of Rome. J°HN OF DAMASCUS will secure the unity of the two
natures by assigning to the Logos the formative agency. The
Logos assumes a potential human individual, having no hypostasis
of himself, but only in and through the Logos, — being thus en-
kypostatic. A circumincession of the persons of the Trinity, so
that neither is conceivable without the others.
CHAPTER V
THE DOCTRINES NOT DEFINED IN THE (ECUMENICAL COUNCILS . 161-175
The Greek tendency in theology from a practical motive not less
than from a speculative turn. The Atonement comparatively in
the background; also, but less so, in the Latin theology. The
pervading thought, in the Greek conception of Redemption, tile
bringing of men into unity with God as "partakers of the divine
nature," although other views were associated with it. ATHA
CONTENTS
PAGES
NASIUS teaches that it would not be fitting for God "to undo the
curse" ; nevertheless the necessity of being "joined to God" the
most prominent idea. The need of a ransom to Satan fully set
forth by Gregory of Nyssa. By Gregory of Nazianzum the theory
of a ransom in this form is rejected. Creationisni prevailed in
the West; in the East, opinion divided on this question. A
characteristic of the Greek theology was the doctrine of the con
tinued liberty of the will. Yet the Incarnation and the agency of
the Holy Spirit held to be indispensable. CHKVSOSTOM teaches that
mortality is inherited from Adam, but that guilt is from one's own
act. A common view that there is inborn corruption without
personal ill-desert. The renewal of the soul attributed to the joint
action of grace and free-will. Predestination made conditional. —
In the Greek Fathers, the Pauline conception of faith frequently
found, but the genetic relation of works to faith not definitely and
consistently affirmed. Heathen mysteries and other cults not
without influence on sacramental ideas and rites. The word
"mystery" applied when an occult reality was conceived to be
hidden under a material aspect. The chief blessings from Bap
tism held to be forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Bajgkj^m carries with it or in it the blessings symbolized. In the
Eucharist, the bread and wine, with the prayers and thanksgivings,
constituted the oblation. A propitiatory value obscurely attached
to the Eucharist by Cyprian. Difficult to interpret the Fathers as
to the relation of the bread and wine to the body and blood.
"ORIGEN a symbolist, or spiritualist. GREGORY OF NYSSA, CHRYSOS-
TOM, JOHN OF DAMASCUS, hold to a certain transformation of the
elements, yet not to the later Roman doctrine of transubstantiation.
The union of Christ with the elements conceived of as a continu
ance of the Incarnation. The consecrated bread and wine held to
be the seed of an immortal body. The influence of Origen
availed to abolish the opinion that redeemed souls are detained in
Hades, and Chiliasm. The doctrine of universal restoration,
espoused by Gregory of Nyssa and the Antiochians, at length
rejected universally. A succession of assaults on the orthodoxy
of Origen brought no small discredit upon his name. Doubtful
whether he was by name denounced by the fifth General Coun
cil. The craving of converted heathen mainly responsible for
the introduction of heathen ideas and cults. Opposition to the use
of pictures in public worship, the worship — distinguished in theory
from that offered to God — of Mary, of saints and of angels,
gradually overcome. Monasticism brought in the notion of a
higher than the ordinary type of morality. Augustine and Jerome
withstood attacks on these practices. In the East, a punctilious,
symbolical ritual established itself. This "mystagogy " full-blown
in the writings of PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS. The prolonged struggle of
iconoclasm finally failed. The (2d) Council of Nicaea ordered the
restoration of images. JOHN OF DAMASCUS, in treating of the
CONTENTS XXV11
person of Christ and the Trinity, follows in the path of Leontius,
ignores the speculations of Origen, and makes the entire ritual with
the "mysteries" a part of the orthodox system.
CHAPTER VI
THE THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM or Aji&tJSSiNE — THE PELAGIAN CON
TROVERSY . / .<• r*fo *• (i *t A A it) V • • 176-193
The unrivalled influence of 'AUGUSTINE due to the depth and va
riety of his powers. The original founder of the Scholastic theol
ogy, while his ideas were embodied in the Roman hierarchical and
sacramental system, and he was an inspiring source of the Refor
mation. Unreconciled elements in his system. The course of his
religious experience a search for truth and a, personal conflict with
evil. Two factors in his interpretation of Christianity, the writings
of the Apostle Paul, and the existing ecclesiastical system. -- In
his theology, faith precedes knowledge. Faith begins in the know
ledge of self and of God. The recognition of the authority of the
Scriptures and of the Church but another step in the same direc
tion. -- Creation the free act of God. Our knowledge of His
attributes relative. Augustine's exposition of the Trinity akin to
that of Athanasius. Augustine more distinctly recognizes the
humanity of Christ. - As to the Canon of Scripture, accepts the
decisions oi the Church, which had led him to a living knowledge
of the truth. Against the Donatists finds the criteria of the Church
to be unity, holiness, cathojieity, and apostolicity. Perfection in
the Church on earth not attainable. -- - VaMityjof Sacraments m>t
dependent on the personal character of the administrators. - -
The jLaith that justifies is united with love. With Augustine, merits
are also God's gifts. -- The death of Christ has a relation to
Satan. Also, He took on Himself our punishment. -- A sacra
ment is the visible form of an invisible grace. Baptism brings for-
gjyeness of 'sin, and weakens its power. The Eucharist a sacrifice,
the soul of which is the self-devotion of the recipient and which is
of benefit to the departed. Only he partakes of the body and blood
who is in union with Christ. — — God's plan universal. It extends
to all particulars. Since evil is a negation, God not its author.
He makes evil into good. Hence it is good that evil exists. -
There are two communities extending from the beginning ; the city
of God and the city of the world, the one destined to misery, the
other to blessedness. The institutions of human government made
necessary by the introduction and spread of sin. The world des
tined to a final conflagration, to be followed by a new world, the
abode of the redeemed. -- Augustine teaches that there is a literal
resurrection of the material body. Teaches, not that there is,~but
that there may be, a purgatorial fire. - In the Pelagian contro
versy, two systems in conflict. The experience of PELAGIUS in-
XXV111 CONTENTS
PAQl
fused a certain u moralism " into his views of Christianity, while
Augustine's religiouTexperience planted in him a profound sense of
dependence. Unlike Felagius, conceived the world as forever
requiring to be sustained by the divine energy, and even of unfallen
man as dependent for his goodness on God's grace. In Augus
tine, fjejetiom conceived of as the soul's obedience free from con-
straint,^y^'t a blessed necessity. With UgUigUjs, freedom is the
power of contrary choice, which, with Augustine, is only a tempo
rary possession of the creature, merging through its exercise into a
permanent state of the will. This power, according to Augustine,
lost by Adam through his act of disobedience. The consequences,
death, moral guilt, and enslavement to evil, fall alike upon him and
his posterity. This is just, since the race was embodied in its pro
genitor, and really, though not individually, ruined in him. This
realistic conception the prop rather than the source of his doctrine.
Pelagius and Julian maintained that this opinion contradicts the
sense of justice. Augustine loth to accept traducianism. His per
plexities connected with the ascription of guilt to infants, expressed
in a letter to Jerome. In the system of Pelagius, mortality
natural to man, and not a penalty. With Augustine, character is
simple, a single principle ; with Pelagius, it is composite, atomistic.
With Augustine, the will not eradicated, but* in bondage. With
Pelagius, grace consists in successive revelations of truth, to which
are added the discipline of trials and the like. Grace only facili
tates the right action of the will. From the helplessness of all
men, Augustine deduces an unconditional election. But not all
believers are of the elect. Perseverance a special gift. Augustine
at the outset had held to a predestination that is conditional.
Two" discordant veins of thought in Augustine, the common Catho
lic ecclesiasticism, the other the conception of the spiritual church
of the saints elect. Election does not cleave to the Sacraments.
The true Israel had contained men who were not Israelites.
CHAPTER VII
PELAGIANISM AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE EAST ON THE CONTRO
VERTED TOPICS — SEMI-PELAGIANISM — GREGORY I . 194-198
PKLAGIUS, and his supporter, CCELESTIUS, went over to Africa.
Coelestius condemned by a synod at Carthage ; repaired to the
East. JEROME, disposed to connect Pelagius with adherents of
Origen, wrote against him. At an assembly of Jerusalem pres
byters, Pelagius not censured. At a synod at DIOSPOLIS (415),
Pelagius acquitted of heresy, by means (Augustine affirms) of
equivocation on his part. The synods of Carthage and Mileve in
duce the Roman Bishop, Innocent I., to pronounce against him
(416). His successor, Zosirnus, at first approved both Pelagius
and Ccelestius, but changed his ground.- — The Pelagians un-
CONTENTS XXIX
PAGES
popular in the East from their connection with the Nestorians.
Hence the Council of Ephesus (431) condemned Cuelestius and his
adherents. The convictions of the Eastern Church midway
between Augustine and Pejag^us. 'Augustine's opiuio^ ngf
unanimously accepted in the West. Even the General Council of
Carthage (418) said nothing of irresistible grace or unconditional
predestination. Monks in Adruineturn perplexed by these doc
trines. Augustine addressed to them two writings. Even Jerome
did not accept the doctrine of absolute election. VINCENTIUS of
Lerins, who was an opponent of this doctrine, made universality
of belief the test of Catholic truth. -CASSIAXITS, a conspicuous
dissenter from Augustine and educated in the East, brought for
ward the ' ' Semi-Pelagian ' ' type of theology. Held that the in
born propensity to sin is not in the proper sense guilty, and
ascribed to the will a cooperative agency in conversion. The con
troversy continued before and after Augustine's death. In the
sixth century it broke out afresh. The SYNOD OF ORANGE (529)
asserted the need of prevenient and continued grace, that grace
precedes meritorious works, that all good is the gift of grace, 'but
did not affirm unconditional predestination or irresistible grace.
In dp^§f,.J., Augustinian beliefs mingled with Semi-Pelagian
ideas. Salvation partly by meritorious works. Augustine's con
jecture in respect to a Purgatory converted by Gregory into an
affirmation. The Lord's Supper regarded as a sacrifice of benefit
to the living and the dead. Stress laid on the intercession of
saints and angels, and kindred practices taken up by the Church
in its passage through heathen society.
PART II
MEDIAEVAL THEOLOGY
PERIOD III
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY IN THE
MIDDLE AGES AND ITS REDUCTION TO A SYSTEMATIC FORM
CHAPTER I
PAGES
FROM GREGORY I. TO CHARLEMAGNE — THE WORK OF MEDIAEVAL
THEOLOGY — THEOLOGY IN THE EASTERN CHURCH — THE
OLOGY AND EDUCATION IN THE WEST — JOHN SCOTUS 199-204
The doctrines of the Church, transmitted from the Fathers,
sanctioned by authority, under the guardianship of the Roman
hierarchy. N.o.full or e^act exposition of them. Contained in
the patristic writings or implied in liturgical practices and other
XXX CONTENTS
PAOBf
customs. Left for theology to give to the accepted doctrines pre
cision and harmony. In the Eastern Empire, contracted in its
area, a state of intellectual apathy~ahd"a clinging to the minutiae
of the culUis. The spirit of piety kept alive in the monasteries.
The Second Trullan Council asserted the authority of ^he first six
oecumenical Councils, and condemned the Roman Bishop, Hono-
rius. The long conflict between PHOTIUS, Patriarch of Constan
tinople, and Pope Nicholas I. led to ^.complete rupture. The sep
aration of the Churches completed through the excommunication
of the Patriarch, Michael Caerularius, by Pope LEO IX. (1054),
who charged him with ah sorts of heresies. Efforts at reunion
failed, including that of the later COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1439).
A number of Macedonian Emperors encouraged learning. D^al-
ism revived by the sect of PAULICIANS. They discarded the Sac
raments and were ascetic. TKeT EUCIIITES, another Dualist sect.
In the early portion of the Middle Ages, the work of the
ology was to produce compilations of excerpts from the Fathers, of
which works one was the Sentences of ISIDORE of Seville (d. 636).
THEODORE, the first Abp. of Canterbury, founded schools in Eng
land. The VENERABLE BEDE famous throughout the West. AL- j , ,, '
CHIN influential in founding cathedral and cloister schools on the
Continent. The spirit of Frank theologians comparatively free.
JOHN SCOTUS the author of a system of theology unique in its
character and seeming like an anachronism. His speculations
^ Pantheistic in their real import. Drew a line between popular and
scientific theology, the latter being pronounced identical with trjie
philosophy. Faith belongs to a preparatory stage of the intel
lectual life. The universe is the self-unfolding of the absolute
God, in Himself inconceivable. The Absolute runs through a
cycle of developed being, returning back" upon itself, reaching seU-
consciousness in man. Conceptions are the realities, material
things having only a semblance of reality.
CHAPTER II
FROM CHARLEMAGNE TO THE BEGINNINGS or SCHOLASTICISM — THE
ADOPTION CONTROVERSY — GOTTSCHALK'S DOCTRINE OF PRE
DESTINATION — RADBERT'S DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
— THE PENITENTIAL SYSTEM — THE TENTH CENTURY — CON
TROVERSY OF BERENGARIUS AND LANFRANC ON THE LORD'S
SUPPER 205-211
In the age of Charlemagne, the revived theological activity man
ifest in certain controversies. The ADOPTIONIST controversy.
The Adoptionists contended that Christ as man was the adopted
Son of God. The Cyrillian doctrine prevalent in the Spanish king
dom. Alcuin opposed Adoptionism. It was condemned by three
Prankish Synods. — The Western Church distinguished from the
CONTENTS XXXI
PAGES
Kastern by the iUin<niK introduced into the Nicene Cropd, by the
AThanasian Creed, and the use of the Apostles' Creed. QOTTS-
maintained Augustiniau predestination, and was withstood
by &A B A x L s INI A u it L s and IJJNCMAR, who, in their attachment to
lie ellirary of the Sacraments, modified in a J;>eii)i-Po-
the Augustinian tenet. In the Second Council of Chi-
ersy they affirmed that "Christ died for all men." In the First
Council of Chiersy (849) Gottschalk condemned. He was opposed
by John Scotus by arguments drawn from his own Pantheistic
speculation. --- RA]>DLUT propounded the bald doctrine of trun-
substantiation. RABA'XUS MAURUS and RATRAMNUS dissented.
Wh*aT"precisely is received in the Sacrament, by the non-believer,
Ratramnus does not clearly define. By the repetition of the mass
and stories of miracles, the Radbertian idea spread. - The Pjen-
itential system a gradual growth in the 'Western Church, and, as a
part of it, the rules for dealing with penitents. Among the Teu
tonic nations, old forms of penance necessarily modified. Compo
sition for crimes by payment of money customary. Thence grew
up the system of indulgences. From other legal analogies arose
the practice of ^ubstitutionary penance. The sway of a spiritual
government side by side with the civil authority. -- The tej^b.
century and the early portion of the eleventh the dark^age. This
owing to political anarchy, the baleful effect of Italian factions on
the papacy, and the disappearance of Latin as a spoken tongue,
with the decay of the schools. The Hildebrandian reform, with '<•' <L-</"i
other causes, aided the cause of learning. A special auxiliary was
the science of the Ajajas, and their Spanish schools. They studied
Aristotle and cultivated philosophy. -- In the eleventh century,
the scjiools at Rheims, Chartrgs, and Bee celebrated. In the con-
^rpversy of LANFRANC and BERENGARIUS on the Lord's SupjDer
(1050), the Aristotelian logic employed. Here begins the scho
lastic era. Bg^enffarjus went farther than Ratramnus towards a
spiritual coucerjtion of the Sacrament. Berengarius forced to re
tract. Lanfrane went beyond Radbert in the opposite direction.
Others, including Giutmund and Ansglm, maintained that the
whole Christ is in every portion of the*1bread and wine.
CHAPTER III
CHARACTERISTICS OF SCJIO^AST^^M — THE SCHOLASTIC MAXIM —
PHILOSOPHY: NOMINALISM AND REALISM — SCHOLASTICISM AND
TJIK UNIVERSITIES — THE METHOD OF SCHOLASTICISM . 212-215
Scholasticism undertook, not to revise the creed, but to av_ftfiBJa-
tjge and prove traditional and recognized beliefs. Yet necessarily
a. ..margin open for original inquiry. The Schoolmen adopted the
principle of Augustine, fides giuaer it intellectual. Temptation to-?
set aside irreducible matter. An exposure to sketicism and to a I
f^ J^j^^J^J^l
xxxii CONTENTS
falling back on authority. -- T_y" p^nfliptiny t^r|p»0r^Qg one ^0
exalt. and the other to cujA). the intellect. Philosophy pronounced
by ANSELM the handmaid of theology. Jt assumed the truth of
orlhodoxbeliefs. The Empire in philosophy shared by ARISTOTLE
and PLATO, the influence of the latter being chiefly indirect. The
Schoolmen had to combat New Platonic and Arabic Pantheism, the
latter being represented with most ability by AVERROES. - The
great problem of philosophy, the question of Nominalism aoid Real
ism. llKAjyftM in many types, the two principal being tli»^atonjc,
holding to the prior existence of universals or concepts, anathe
Jjan, holding to their real, but not to their prior, existence,.
<M the ^toic_doctrine that universals are merely abstrac
of the understanding. The intermediate theory of CONCEP-
M the purport of the teaching of some, of whom Abe lard was\^*\U
bl one. — — This controvers had weiht tholi
ly one.
ings. The spread of Scholasticism greatly promoted by the univer
sities, of which Paris was the first, and which grew out of the
cathedral and cloister schools. The most eminent of the Schoolmen
belonged to either the Dominican or the Franciscan order, both of
which, after a struggle, obtained chairs in the universities. - The
instrument of exposition and of debate was the syllogism. The
usual method to propose questions, present arguments affirmative
and negative, and to connect with them a "conclusion." The
most difficult and subtle problems broached and handled, according
to this method.
CHAPTER IV
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE SCHOLASTIC ERA — THE FIRST SECTION: AN-
SEL"M ; ABELARD ; BERNARD ; THE SCHOOL OF ST. VICTOR —
THE BOOKS OF SENTENCES — PETER LOMBARD . . 216-228
There are three sections in the Scholastic era. TJie MIDDLE sec
tion pretty nearly covers the THIRTEENTH century. In it, the other
works of Aristotle were possessed. The golden age of Scholasti
cism. In it, Realism superseded the previous Nominalism, but in
the third section gave way in turn to the latter. In the FIRST
section, Anselm, Abelard, and Bernard the principal names. In
AN-I.I.M, the two elements, the devout and mystical on the one
hand, the scientific and speculative on the other, evenly balanced.
He confutecTRoscellin, a Nominalist, who recanted his opinion, on
the Trinity. Aiiselm's most important productions are his cyyiort
argument for \\\c existence of (iod, in the Monuloyiuiti and Prqs-
Igqinm, and his work on the Atonement, Cur Deus^HAmo. The
former based on philosophical Realism. It is an inference from the
inevitable idea of the most perfect being, the necessity of the exist
ence of whom is included in its contents. The latter is the theory
of a Satisfaction to God, which not man, but only one who is both
d and jnan. can render. On Original Sin, Anselm holds to the
CONTENTS XXxiii
corruption of human nature in A darn, the literal guilt of native
"concupiscence," and the inheritance of a sinful^ nature, yet that
§in is jpredicable of the will alone. These views shared by the
Augustinian, against the Semi-Pelagian, Scholastics. -- His theory
of the AllliiiiH]Pnf is that of a reparation for the disobedience by
which God is deprived of what belongs to Him and treated with dis
honor. This reparation said to be made by the obedience of Christ,
who must be rewarded, yet cannot be personally, so that the re
ward thus due is bestowed on those to whom he is united by kin
ship and affection. -- His theory involves ideas of merit in the ^
Roman jural system, and, also, ideas drawn from German law. v\^
— In AIVKI,AUI>. the, inquisitive and dialectic tendency prepondei^j^
ates. I3id_not ^i_ve up the Scholastic maxim of the precedence of^'^A CC* fc"
faith, yet adventurous in, thought and full of confidence in. the pos
sibilities of reason. This was the spirit of his Introduction. In *
the Sic et Non an array of clashing opinions of the Fathers, to
show the necessity of in^j^ej^euJLlMJiUy. He thinks that even
the Prophets and Apostles could err. Cannot see how infants are,
properly speaking, guilty. Is the founder of the so-called " moral
view " of the ATOXEMKXT, — that by the manifestation of God's
love in Christ sin is overcome in the hearts of men. Yet concedes
the meritorious character of Christ's love, as giving weight to his
intercession. Was charged with Modalism in his idea of the
Trinity, was vigorously opposed byHSernard, and his teachings
were condemned by the Council of Sens (1141), arid by Innocent
II. The assaults upon Abelard considerably due to the atmosphere
of the time. Opinions avowed by him which, to be obnoxious,
ceased at a later day. -- Tlie foremost antagonist of Abelard was
BKRVAKD. Kininont for the fervor of his piety. Has thoughts
frSyeyangeiical in their tenor. Was shoeked"by the irreverence
which he attributed to the bold and restless spirit of Abelard.
The ground of certainty in the things of religion, in this life, is
fajfch. which is the embracing of the truth by the heart and will, in
anticipation of rational insight. Bernard not a foe to learning and
{science. As to the ATONEMENT, Satan has no claims for himself,
yet he is the executioner of divine justice. GILBERT akin in tem
per to Abelard, but his friends too strong for Bernard's charge of
heresy to be sustained against him. - The SCHOOL of ST. VICTOR
moderately conservative. HUGO ascribes the merit of faith to its
being determined by the affections. Finds in the Atonement a
quasi penal element not expressed in Anselm's theory. The ex
perience of Abelard and Gilbert inspired caution. - A via media
sought by the authors of the books of Sentences, in which proposi
tions and reasonings were sustained by extracts from the Fathers.
One was by Robert Pulleyn. The most eminent author of this
class was £ETER LOMBARD. He mingles with the view of Abelard
respecting the Atonement the doctrine of a release from Satan.
His orthodoxy impeached, but unsuccessfully. His book be-
*'^ M fa ¥ <£4*
9n
XXXiv CONTENTS
PAGES
same the current text-book. The most noted critic of Scholas
ticism was JOHN OF SALISBURY, a Humanist in his studies and
tastes.
CHAPTER V
THE S-Kg^jjy^Sjj^UJLU^ °*" THE SCHOLASTIC ERA — ST. FRANCIS AND
THE FRANCISCAN PIETY — MYSTICISM — A^LTIN^S AND SCOT us
. The second section of the Scholastic opens with ALEXANDER OF
HALES, who used freely the writings of Aristotle and of his Arabic
commentators. The great influence of ARISTOTLE on theology
mainly in directions coincident with already existing tendencies
and opinions. A vast influence on theology from the niendi-
cant orders, and in particular from the work and character~ofT5r!
FRANCIS. The laity largely concerned in the religious movement.
Much personal religious effort for the good of souls. The love of
Christ an absorbing passion. A loving contemplation of His hu
manity. Mysticism as inward self-surrender and rapturous in
sight belongs to the decline of Scholasticism. But was not absent
during its flourishing era. Moreover, it was by Schoolmen that
Mysticism was wrought into an articulated system. BONAVENTURA
eminent for such an achievement. Preferred the Platonic teaching
to that of Aristotle. Taught that communion with God is reached
by a process partly intellectual and partly ethical and practical.
ALBERT the Great, an expositor of Aristotle, likewise influenced
by New Platonic doctrine. Overshadowed in a measure by the
prince of the Schoolmen, JIIOMAS AQUINAS. In him there is the
just balance observed in Anselm. HP sought to harmonize Aris
totle's teaching with the doctrines of the Church. Was an Arigjp-
U'lian Kealisi. Jlis Hiirniud Theoloyuv, includes Ethics as well as
TheoIogyT* P. I. treats of God ; P. II. of Man ; P. III. of Christ,
the Sacraments, and Eschatology. The trend of Aquinas Augus-
tinian. His apologetic Work a defence of both Natural and Re
vealed religion. JOHN DuNsScoTus taught a type of theology
at variance with that of ^"3!qumas.""' Lacks the religious depth
and lucidity of style of the latter. Scotus more Platonic in his
Realism. His theology Semi-Pelagian. By relegating so much to
God's will and the realm of mystery, narrowed the function and
weakened the basis of Scholasticism. Aquinas and Scotus the
founders of TWO great conflicting SCHOOLS. In the third .see-
tion of the Scholastic era, Nominalism^ lejlsfid by DURANDUS, re-
gained its old standing through WILLIAM ^f (]fif4*f an emi
leader and defender of the Franciscan order. He taught that we
know only phenomena, that demonstrations in theology are im
possible, that the truths of Christianity are revealed either in the
Bible or .subsequently to the Church. He, den.iejl Papal infalli
bility, and was the .champion of the rights qikmgs. Held that
CONTENTS XXXV
PAGES
even g^general council might err. GABRIEL BIEL (d. 1495) another
advocate of Nominalism. After Occam, the third party of OCCAM-
ISTS added to the parties of THOAIISTS and the SCOTISTS.
CHAPTER VI
THE SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINES : NATURAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN
F,vii»i;\< i:s - Tin: TRINITY AND Tin: INCARNATION — DIVIXK
AND HUMAN AGENCY — ORIGINAL SIN . . . 234-244
bases the need of revelation on the fact that
higher jgn^d and destiny than other mundane creatures. There are
truths. ^a^vsj-ffastaj , but even t.hnsfl apgfigpib^ ^ voacm-i need to be
c^-nfirined. The necessity of faith a means of training in humility.
Analogies not wanting which are aids to faith. -- Not until the
rise of Humanism could historical and critical learning be used in
the defence of Christianity, but Scholastic apologies acute and co
gent. N_atural Religion distinguished from Revealed. AQUINAS
demies a miracle as an event beyond the order of nature in its to
tality. -- Describes G^od as energy fully realize^, and not merely
potential. The end which He sets before Him must be Himself.
The world as being thus related to God must be an object of His
love. He criticises the .argument of Anselm in proof of the being
of God. Presents five modes of proof, the first three of which are
cosmological. SCOTUS, as a source of theistic belief, calls in the
aid of Re velation'. " ""No reason required for acts of God except His
bare will. Aquinas holds that o.ur knowledge of God is relative.
This Scotus denies. Finally the contending parties took a middle
ground. -- The Scholastic definitions of the divine attributes,
e.g. omnipotence, discriminating and not unprofitable. Aquinas
taught the presence of God in all things as an agent is present to
that on which it acts; Scotus, the "ideal" presence of all things
in the divine mind. - Respecting the Personal distinctions in
God, Aquinas taught that they spring from an immanent activity.
In them the knowledge and love of God find an immanent real
ization. Aquinas's distinctions to avoid the Arian error, to guard
the simplicity of the divine nature, to avoid the loss of equality, to
preserve similitude, to escape Sabellianism. The human nature of
Christ not generic, yet personal as belonging to a more exalted
person, and as having the capacity to be personal. The narrative
of creation in Genesis interpreted by the Schoolmen both literally
and symbolically. The end of creation, according to Aquinas, to
communicate God's own perfection. - Like Albert, he was a de-
terminist, but denies the applicability of the term "necessity" to
the acts of the human will, the inward inclination being the very
thing produced by the divine agency. Evil being negative or a pri
vation, God is not its author. All things considered, or regarding
the system as a whole, it is good that evil exists. The distinction
XXXVI CONTENTS
PAGKS
between the secret or decretive will of God, which relates to all
events, and the revealed or preceptive will, which commands some
things and forbids others. So Peter Lombard and Alexander of
Hales. SCOTL'S denied determinism and many inferences drawn
from it. The Schoolmen were Creationists. Aquinas brings for-^ X^g
ward proofs of immortality from the nature of the soul and from\
its cognition of objects independent of space and time. Scotus
denies that the arguments from reason are valid. The distinction
generally made between the '-image" and the "similitude" of
God in man, the latter being His original holiness. This latter the
gift of God's grace, given, according to AQUINAS, at man's cre
ation, but according to SCOTUS, not then, but in connection with
man's voluntary receptive act. The Thomists added to the loss of
righteousness as the effect of the fall, "wounds" of nature, dis
order in the powers of the soul, utter helplessness as regards spir
itual excellence. From these positions Scotus dissented. Au
gustine's doctrine of a generic sin of the race in Adam, defended
by Anselm, advocated by Peter Lombard and the Schoolmen gen
erally. Aquinas argues for an organic unity of mankind with
Adam, analogous to what would be the relation of the hand to the
body were the hand endued with consciousness. No sin but the
first imputed to men, personal acts not being transmitted by gen
eration. All disorder in the soul originates in the alienation of the
will from God. The immaculate conception of Mary rejected
by Anselm and St. Bernard, by Bonaventura and Aquinas, but
became a tenet of the Franciscans. A kind of worship, between
the homage due to God and that due to the saints, accorded to the
Virgin by Aquinas.
CHAPTER VII
SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINES: THE ATONEMENT — CONVERSION AND SANGUI
FICATION — JUSTIFICATION — THE CHURCH AND THE PAPACY 245-253
AQUINAS holds to a full, objective satisfaction for sin through the
death of Christ. He satisfies who renders to an offended party
that which he loves more than he hates the offence. This Christ
has done. He has rendered an equivalent for the dishonor which
God has suffered. His merit redounds to the benefit of sinners.
At the basis of this transfer is the mystical union of Christ with his
members. When two persons become one through love, the one
can satisfy for the other. This is the relation of His followers, and
of the race potentially. Yet Aquinas makes responsive love on our
part a condition of forgiveness, and for sins after baptism we too
must endure pain and punishment. Points out three ways in which
the Passion of Christ is the cause of the. remission of sins. The
satisfaction of Christ declared to be superabundant. SCOTUS denies
the fundamental principle of Anselm, and affirms the absoluteness
CONTENTS XXX Vll
of the divine will. The ground of all merit said to be the " divine
acceptance." The merits of Christ finite, but are accepted as
iuiinite because God so chuoses. It is a merit of " congruity," not
of " condignity " ; that is, a suitableness for a recompense beyond
the actual desert. This is the theory of " acceptation." Thence
forward, two rival theories of the Atonement, the ANSELMIC or
judicial theory, and the SCOTIST theory. The Schoolmen distinguish
between prevenient and cooperative grace. - — Does Aquinas make
the will, in relation to grace, a coefficient, or is grace still the sole
efficient ? Questionable whether he is here always consistent. So
far as the new life springs from man's will, it has the merit of con
gruity alone. Alexander of Hales and Bonaventura attribute to
man good works antecedent to grace. SCOTUS definitely Semi-
Pelagian on this topic. Man's need of grace for his renewal made
by OCCAM to be solely a truth known by revelation. Justifica
tion, being an act of God, momentary ; its first element, according
to Aquinas, the infusion of grace into the soul ; its last, forgive
ness. Incipient love the condition precedent of pardon. The
saving quality of the faith that justifies is the love that is in it. It
is "Faith formed by Love." Faith first in the order of Christian
virtues. This legal spirit underlies the distinction of implicit and
explicit faith, the latter being the articles of the Creed clearly
apprehended ; the former, the pious disposition to believe. An
unthinking docility frequently accepted in the room of enlightened
perceptions of truth. The doctrine of a treasury of supererogatory
merits set forth by ALEXANDER OF HALES as a basis for the doctrine
of indulgences. The virtues divided by Aquinas into the four
natural virtues, attainable by natural principles, and the three
theological virtues, — Faith, Hope, and Charity. The Nominal-
istic theology of Scotus and Occam not beyond the pale of
orthodoxy. BUADWARDINE represents an Augustinian, inefficient
reaction. T^ie prevailing theology increased the tendency to base
ilvation on meritorious works, unqualified submission to the
'mreh, and reliance on the Sacraments. The^^iuxcJi more and
more identified with the visible hierarchical organization, with a
loss of the privileges of the laity. The growth of the ecclesiastical
monarchy not the result of craft or of Scholastic ingenuity, but of
inherent tendencies in European society. The canon law so
shaped as more and more to augment priestly and papal authority.
The Pope came to be regarded as the Vicar of Christ, or of God, as
the fountain of episcopal authority, with a supreme legislative and
judicial power, and as clothed with various lofty prerogatives. The
Pope considered INFALLIBLE by AQUINAS and the Thomists.
Aquinas defines and explains the Pope's authority over princes, as
descending also from Peter. Boniface VIII. only follows Aquinas
in declaring it obligatory on every human creature to be subject to
the Roman Pontiff on pain of perdition.
XXXV111 CONTENTS
CHAPTER VHI
PAGES
SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINKS : THE SACRAMENTS .... 254-262
The Sacramgnts held to be the channels through which grace is
conveyed. A .Sacrament both the sign and the visible |mage of the
.grace denoted ] must have been instituted by Christ ; has a sancti
fying efficacy, the cause of which is Christ. AQUINAS ascribes the
need of sacraments to our relation to things material and to the in
fluence of sin as rendering us niuiv affected by them. The number
of seven accepted by the Schoolmen in the thirteenth century;
sanctioned by the Council of Florence in 1459. Of these, the
Eucharist pronounced by Aquinas the chief. He points out the
special necessity and function of each. Three, Baptism, Confirma
tion, and Orders, stamp on the soul an "indelible character," and
are not to be repeated. Through the Sacraments we become par
ticipants of the divine nature. The root of the philosophy of
Aquinas on this subject is the idea of the mystical unity of the
Church, Christ being its Head. The effect of the Sacrament is ex
opere opera to. That is, the effect not dependent on the personal
character of the officiating priest, the intention to carry out the
purpose of Christ and the Church being alone sufficient, nor de
pendent on the exercise of faith by the recipient. The subjective
qualification reduced to non-resistance on his part, and the absence
of mortal sin. By Scoxus and the later Schoolmen, the required
measure of subjective qualification reduced, and a merit of con-
gruity attributed to it. The form of the Sacrament is the words
used ; the matter is the thing itself. The form of Baptism is the
words of the institution of the rite, the matter is the application of
water, the effect is sanctification and forgiveness, i.e. justification.
— The only exceptions to the necessity of Baptism are in the case
of martyrs, and where there is an intention to receive the Sacra
ment which is prevented without fault in the subject. The
ministrant is the priest, but in case of necessity may be any lay
man. Confirmation, which in the Latin Church is by bishops
alone, confers strength for the divine life. Marriage unlawful
between witnesses and the person confirmed, as between sponsors
and the subject of baptism. The Eucharist not indispensable,
when the omission to receive it is without fault as to intention.
The primary motive for withholding the cup from the laity was the
fear of dropping the bread and wine in the distribution of them.
The doctrine established that through "concomitance" the blood
of Christ is in the consecrated bread. The doctrine of TRAN-
SUBSTANTIATION sanctioned by Innocent III. in 1215. The doctrine
of Aquinas that it is by the "Conversion" of the elements. The
"accidents" or attributes of the elements miraculously preserved.
The whole of Christ asserted to be in every portion of the elements.
The inherited doctrine that the mass is a sacrificial offering led to
CONTENTS XXXIX
PAGES
such a reliance on their power to procure blessings that private
masses became common. Innocent 111. ordained that confession
and the partaking of the communion must be as often as once a
year. The greatest importance came to be attached to Penance
and Absolution. The form of absolution from being deprecatory
became declarative, and confession to the priest came to be con
sidered indispensable. The penalties as adjudged by him deemed
to be at once vindicative and medicinal. With the crusades plenary
indulgences came in. From the treasury of supererogatory merits
of Christ and the saints, merits may be set to the account of the
needy, on the ground of the mystical union. The power of the
Pope to release souls from purgatory is per modum suffragii, that
is, not as a judge, but by supplication. Five abodes in the in
visible world, viz., hell, a place of eternal suffering, the ulimbus of
infants,1' the " limbus of the fathers," or Old Testament saints,
purgatory, heaven. Besides the extension of indulgences into
purgatory, "contrition" lowered, especially by SCOTUS, to "attri
tion," or the deploring of sin from servile fear, as the condition
sine qua non of absolution. To attrition he ascribed the merit of
congruity, which secures the grace of the sacrament. Unction
made a sacrament conferring both a spiritual and a physical benefit,
the minister being the priest. Ordination communicates sacer
dotal authority and the grace to exercise it. The view prevailed
that priests and bishops differ in office but not in order. The
form of the sacrament of marriage held to be the consent of the
contracting parties, who are the ministers of the sacrament. Its
benefits, besides the restraint of carnal appetite, said to have refer
ence to the procreation and training of children, and the fellowship
of man and wife. The Schoolmen undertook the impossible
task of harmonizing Church beliefs and customs with Augustine,
and Aristotle with the Apostles. By SCOTUS the Semi-Pelagian
system really substituted for the Augustinian. OCCAM contrasted
the views of doctrine which reason would suggest with revealed
truth set forth by the Church. The Nominalistic theology, with
its characteristic ideas respecting Penance, demoralizing in its in
fluence.
CHAPTER IX
THE CATHARISTS — THE WALDENSES — THE MYSTICS — WESEL ;
WESSEL ; SAVONAROLA — THE DOCTRINES OF WYCLIF — Huss
— THE RENAISSANCE AND ITS INFLUENCE — ERASMUS. 263-268
Most of the movements and persons concerned with reforms
"before the Reformation" did not go beyond admissible types of
Catholic opinion. It was the n\a.rmpr .o| |jfe of the hierarchy to
which the CA^HARISTTS were inimical. The WALDENSES in impor
tant particulars only anticipated the Franciscans,~an^"did _ not, re
nounce in its essentials the accepted method of salvation. The
I CONTENTS
PAGES
GALLIC AN leaders clung to the Catholic dogmatic system. The
MYSTICS did not purpose to depart from Catholic orthodoxy, nor,
as a rule, did they. ECK.ART, and others like him, notwithstanding
Pantheistic speculations, were at heart theists. In what the Mys
tics taught of union to God, purification, and inward illumination
of spirit, they trod in the steps of Augustine, Aquinas, and the
Areopagite. Srso, in what he says of the "birth of God in the
soul," of adoring self-renunciation, of union to God, has no Pan
theistic intent. WESEL and WESSEL did not consistently teach a
doctrine that clashed with Catholic precedents. SAVONAROLA was
a Thomist in his theology. Even WYCLIF, respecting the process
of justification and the nature of the Sacraments, was essentially
Catholic. Huss's innovations in doctrine were decidedly less. He
did not, like Wyclif, discard the tenet of transubstantiation.
The corruptions of the Church and the vices of the clergy were
chastised in the literature of the vernacular tongues, e.g. in
CHAUCER, in DANTE, PETRARCH, and BOCCACCIO, but sacerdotal
rule and the spiritual supremacy of the Popes were not questioned.
— The Revival of Learning, having its centre in Italy, inspiring
a zeal for the study of classical literature, spread abroad in the
countries north of the Alps. The fall of Scholasticism, through its
loss of vitality under the influence of Nominalism, was hastened by
the attractions of the new learning. It inspired disgust for the
illiteracy of the Schoolmen and their endless disputation, and
diminished the ascendency of the clergy. Humanism, on the one
hand, engendered scepticism ; on the other hand, prompted to the
earnest study of the Fathers and of the Scriptures. REUCHLIN a
typical example of this last effect. In England, COLET and THOMAS
MORE advocates and exemplars of the new learning. The prince
of the Humanists, ERASMUS, was the foe of superstition and the
assailant of the " Pharisaic Kingdom " by his humorous and satiri
cal writings. Rendered a great positive service by his edition of
the New Testament, his editions of the Fathers, his Commentaries,
etc. Was "the precursor and introducer of the modern spirit."
But even he was not disposed to renounce the creed or cast off the
authority of the Church.
CONTENTS ill
PART III
MODERN THEOLOGY
PERIOD IV
THE PRINCIPAL TYPES OF PROTESTANT THEOLOGY — THE AGE OF
POLEMICS -THE CRYSTALLIZING OF PARTIES AND CREEDS
CHAPTER I
PAGES
THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER 269-284
The motive of LUTHER at the outset was to put an end to practical
abuses in the church. Did not begin as an assailant of authority.
The development of his theological opinions went along with the
progress of his religious experience. Influenced by the Mystics,
but kept back by his strong ethical feeling from embracing
Mysticism as a system. Gradually dropped the vestiges of the
notion of merit, derived from Augustine and the Schoolmen. In
his THESES, denied any special power in the Pope in relation to
Purgatory. Signs of seeming vacillation for a period indicate that
as to Papal authority he was feeling his way. In 1519, at LEIPSIC,
asserted that there could be a Church without a Pope. In his
ADDRESS to the German NOBLESSE (1520), affirmed that every
disciple is a priest, and that the consecration of a bishop is not
absolutely necessary. In his " Babylonian Captivity of the
Church" (1520), discusses the Sacrament, condemns the with
holding of the cup from the laity, rejects the theory of transub-
stantiatiori and the doctrines that the Sacrament is effective
without faith and that it is a sacrifice, and denies that there is a
sacrament of orders. In his little treatise on Christian Liberty
(also 1520), exalts the freedom that springs from faith in the prom
ises of God. MELANCHTHON published the first of the Protestant
works in systematic theology (1521), and the first Evangelical
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1522). ERASMUS
sympathetic with the first movements of the Saxon Reformers,
then takes up a neutral position, and (in 1524), in his De Servo
Arbitrio, defends against Luther the Semi-Pelagian doctrine.
The CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG and the Apology for the Confes
sion — written by Melanchthon (1530) ; the SMALCALD ARTICLES by
Luther (1537) ; his smaller and larger catechisms to be counted
among authoritative Lutheran symbols. From the religious
experience of Luther there emerged two principles which became
the essential principles of Protestantism everywhere, viz., the
material principle (justification by faith alone), and the formal
xlii CONTENTS
PAGB8
principle (the normative authority of the Bible). The believer,
according to Luther and the Lutheran theology, justified by faith,
through which he is united to Christ and obtains remission of sins.
By the Reformers generally personal ASSURANCE made a part of
saving faith. Later a gradual retreat from this position. By faith,
Luther taught, we become new creatures, — a new tree, the fruit
of which is of necessity good. He disparages law only when it is
made the ground of justification, which is forensic, faith being
imputed for righteousness. The vicarious, atoning death of
Christ based on His unification with us in love and inexhaustible
sympathy. Its effect is to draw us into a spiritual death of peni
tence. We are, as it were, one person with Christ, who has
demeaned Himself before God "as if He had deserved all that
which we have deserved." What Christ becomes and does as our
representative is through Him eventually reproduced within
us. Seeming inconsistency of Luther's criticisms relative to
the canon and particular books in it with the principle of the
authority of the Bible. To him the truth of Christ as the Saviour
carried in it its own attestation. With him the place of this
cardinal doctrine in the several Scriptures the criterion of their
relative value. The Word of God signifies in Luther now the
Gospel and now the Scriptures. The Word and the Sacraments
affirmed to be the means of grace. CARLSTADT and his followers
withstood when they made the influence of the Spirit to be
independent of the Bible. ABSOLUTION, at first made a sacra
ment, ceased to be so regarded by the Lutherans. The word and
promise of God give to a ceremony the character of a sacrament.
BAPTISM brings the various gifts of grace, yet not magical in its
operation. In the Augsburg Confession Baptism pronounced
essential to salvation. In the LORD'S SUPPER, the nature of the
bread and wine is unaltered, yet the body and blood so inseparable
from them, that they are received even by wicked communicants.
The Lutherans held to the interchange of the human and divine
attributes in the Saviour, and inferred the omnipresence of Christ
as a man. The Church declared to be invisible, the society of
true believers, yet to exist in a concrete form in "the congregation
of saints in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments
rightly administered." The CLERGY ministers of the flock, em
powered to offer no sacrifice. Christ the head of the Church ; the
POPE a usurper of this office. Respecting the guilt and power of
original sin, the Lutheran Reformers went beyond the most con
servative Schoolmen. It is inborn corruption which they em
phasize rather than the imputation of Adam's sin. The Form of
Concord asserts that there is nothing incorrupt in man's body or
soul. The Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds adopted in the Augs
burg and the Smalcald Articles. Luther's movement the con
servative branch of the Reformation. The retention of rites, it was
held, requires no explicit Scriptural sanction. Luther's respect for
CONTENTS xliii
PAGES
the teaching of the Church sometimes avowed in a form not
consistent with his utterances elsewhere. His doctrine of abso
lute predestination, even sin being attributed to the causal agency
of God, not exclusively the product of his aversion to Pelagianisin,
but partly, also, of his acceptance of the Scotist notion of God's
will as the ultimate basis of both His commands and His decrees.
CHAPTER II
THE THEOLOGY OF ZWINGLI — THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY —
PARTIES IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH TO THE FORM OF CON
CORD (1580) 285-297
Luther and Zwingli quite unlike in temperament and cast of
mind. In ZWINGLI, the influence of Humanism deeper, and
affected considerably his theological system. His doctrine of the
Sacrament was first suggested to him by Erasmus. He renounced
the authority of Home gradually, from the study of the Bible, and
without a severe inward conflict. Predestination, the starting-
point in his system, a theoretic tenet quite as much as a practical
truth. Kept by no inbred reverence from casting aside rites and
customs not enjoined in the Scriptures. Unlike Luther, a social
and political reformer as well as a religious leader. Preached
against indulgences for a while without any conflict with the
Church. His sermons at Zurich fearless expositions of the New
Testament. By order of the Zurich government, three Public
DISPUTATIONS in which Zwingli maintained his opinions. In his
Sixty-seven Articles (1523), denied that any other mediator is nec
essary save Christ, the "one eternal, supreme Priest," declared
that marriage ought not to be forbidden or confession to a priest
required, that the Scriptures know nothing of Purgatory, et ccet.
Attacked the doctrine of the mass. Roman worship with its char
acteristic ceremonies abolished by the magistrates of Zurich, in
conformity with Zwingli's inculcations. His first theological work
the Commentary on True and False Religion. Besides his Ratio
Fidei (1530), is the author of a later Confession. Taught that
the Bible is the rule of faith, but denied the canonicity of the
Apocalypse. Makes the first sin an object of God's efficient de
cree. Holds that the elect are not limited to the baptized, that un-
baptized infants are saved, and, perhaps, the infant children of
the heathen ; that the virtuous sages of antiquity also are saved.
Original sin in the posterity of Adam a disorder not involving
guilt. Zwingli's principal point of dissent from Luther was on
the EUCHARIST. Luther held that the union of the body of Christ
with the elements is not the mixture of two substances, and,
although real, does not continue after the administration of the
Sacrament. Zwingli's doctrine was that the Lord's Supper is a
memorial, with the further idea that it is a pledge of the grace of
xllV CONTENTS
PAGES
Christ. Zwingli contended that the human body of Christ is in
heaven, and not on earth. The Lutherans maintained 'ts ubiquity.
Luther's hostility to the Zwinglian tenet from the feeling that it
threatened the objective nature and reality of the means of grace.
The reception of Christ in the Supper made to depend on the feel
ings of the recipient. At the Conference at MARBURG the two
parties agreed on fourteen Articles, but could not agree on the
question whether the body and blood of Christ are present in the
Sacrament. After Zwingli's death (in 1531), very much through
the mediating efforts of MARTIN BUCER, the u Wittenberg Con
cord " framed, which was received by the Zwinglians in South
Germany, but was not acceptable to the Swiss. On two points
of doctrine MELANCHTHON came to differ from Luther. His opinion
on the Sacrament essentially consonant with that broached by Cal
vin. The central idea of CALVIN was, that Christ is truly re
ceived by the believiny partaker of the elements, but spiritually,
and that through the Holy Spirit even the body of Christ commu
nicates a power to the believing recipient. This regarded as the
source of a spiritual body to appear at the resurrection. The
second point of Melanchthon's difference from Luther pertained to
predestination. He arrived at the opinion styled SYNERGISM, that
in conversion the human will takes a part, although it be a minor
part, along with the Word and God's Spirit. Melanchthon's fear of
antinomian license the source of expressions on the obligations of
the law which were obnoxious to strict Lutherans. After the
death of Luther, Melanchthon's mediating trend provoked an in
creasing hostility. Early rise among the Lutherans of CONTRO
VERSIES on the relation of morals to religion. AGRICOLA'S con
tention that the preaching of the law should not precede the
preaching of the Gospel. VON AMSDORF'S proposition that good
works in relation to salvation are positively harmful. OSIANDER'S
teaching that Christ imparts his own essential, divine righteous
ness to the believing soul. In the Leipsic INTERIM, undue conces
sions of Melanchthon to Roman Catholicism in respect to doctrinal
statements and ceremonies. The ADIAPHORISTIC controversy on
the question whether the ceremonies recognized in the Interim
were or were not unlawful, or, if not in themselves wrong, were
made so by the circumstances. Continuance of the PHILLIPPIST
controversy (between the disciples of Melanchthon and the strict
Lutherans). Rise of a middle party. Stirred up strong opposi
tion to the teaching of FLAVIUS that original sin had corrupted the
substance of the soul. The FORM OF CONCORD framed in the
complete form in 1580. Condemns the Flavian notion, asserts
that the human will is utterly helpless, that the acceptance of
the Gospel is wholly the work of grace, yet denies that grace is
irresistible. Not easy to harmonize the different parts of this
creed.
CONTENTS xlv
CHAPTER III
PAGES
THE THEOLOGY OF CALVIN 298-309
CALVIN had more personal sympathy with Luther than with
Zwingli. His religious experience essentially like that of Luther.
His Institutes follow, as do the Catechisms of Luther, the order of
the Apostles' Creed. His ability as a commentator on a level with
his capacity as a dogmatic teacher. Makes the formal principle
more dependent on the material than Zwingli, and less dependent
than Luther. The Constitution of the CHURCH held by him to be
determined to a greater extent by the Scriptures than Luther held
it to be, but our conviction of the divine origin of the Scriptures
made to spring primarily from the " testimony of the Holy Spirit"
in the soul. On the CANON and on Inspiration deviates much less
from traditional opinion than Luther. Agrees with Luther on the
nature of faith, but not on ASSURANCE as an absolutely essential
part of it. Differs from Luther in the greater prominence given
to predestination and in the emphasis laid on the SOVEREIGNTY of
God in the gifts of grace. His doctrine includes the decree of
reprobation. Mere prescience fails to explain the hardening of
the heart. Notwithstanding various assertions of this character,
especially in the Institutes, not clear that he is a Supralapsarian.
In his Agreement by the Genevese Pastors, he stops with the assertion
of a volitive permission of the first sin ; he founds will upon right,
and not right upon will. His conviction is, that the existence of
evil, whenever and wherever it exists, is agreeable to the divine
will. How the occult decretive will can be opposed to the precep
tive a profound mystery. The motive of Calvin's belief in predesti
nation practical — that it is the correlative of salvation by grace
and the condition of the security of believers. Calvin differs from
Augustine and Luther in holding that all true believers are of the
elect. On Original Sin, Calvin, like the Lutheran Reformers,
leaves the imputation of Adam's sin in the background. He main
tains that we are condemned for the corruption that is in us at
birth. This is the first thing imputed to us. Like the Lutherans,
distinguishes between the visible and the invisible Church. The
latter embraces the elect ; the former, all professed believers who
receive the Sacraments, the word of the Lord, and the ministry ap
pointed to preach it. Does not deny that the churches acknowledg
ing the. Pope are " churches of Christ." A profound reverence felt
for the Church in his conception of it. Severely condemns schis
matics. Had slowly become convinced that to renounce the prelacy
is not to renounce the Church. As to the idea of the Sacraments,
Calvin at one with the Lutherans and Augustine. A Sacrament
derives its efficacy from the Spirit of God. Baptism is like a legal
instrument attesting the forgiveness of the believer. It is a token
of .purification. It is not for the past alone, but also for the future.
xlvi CONTENTS
PAGES
INFANT BAPTISM founded, first upon the covenant, the promise of
God relative to the offspring of believers, who are sinfully corrupt
at birth. They are ingrafted into the Church, but what spiritual
benefit they receive is pronounced inscrutable : regeneration is a
thing of degrees. Baptized infants who are of the elect, departing
from life before coming to years of discretion, are saved. Farther
than this Calvin does not go. As to the Lord's Supper, the ZWIN-
GLIANS finally (1549) with Calvin accepted a symbol of union. Ten
dency of this to produce an estrangement from the Lutherans. By
the " energy of His Spirit,1' Christ is said by Calvin to descend to
us and to present to us his body and blood. Calvin opposes
mere verbal contentions respecting the TRINITY. Is not a stickler
for such terms as "Trinity " and " Persons ": is only concerned to
avoid both Arianisin and Sabellianism. The original cause, princi-
pium et origo, is in the Father. It is not affirmed that redemption
is the exclusive reason for the Incarnation. Calvin guards the
proposition that the mission of Christ springs from no constraint,
but solely from free grace — which is not to be confounded with
the Scotist theory. Teaches that while God loves us, He is, until
reconciled in Christ, in "a certain ineffable manner " angry with
us. Christ has " sustained the punishment due to us," and so
" satisfied for our sins." The main thing in the Atonement the
death of Christ, but His obedience is not excluded. Even in His
death the principal circumstance is His voluntary submission.
The descent of Christ to Hades signifies, according to Calvin, that
on the cross He experienced in His own soul the pains of the lost,
although God had no feeling towards Him but love.
CHAPTER IV
RISE AND PROGRESS or PROTESTANT THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND 310-316
The Church of England considered to belong to the "Reformed"
division of the Protestant churches. The Lutheran doctrine on
the Lord's Supper at first espoused, but given up by CRANMER for
an opinion in accord with that of Calvin. The divorce of Henry
VIII. and the renunciation of the Pope's authority a step towards
the recognition of the exclusive authority of the Bible. The
TEN ARTICLES coupled with the Bible the three ancient creeds,
said nothing of the Real Presence to offend a Lutheran, denied that
the Pope can deliver souls from Purgatory, and cautioned against
the abuses connected with confession, etc. The Protestant elements
in the Ten Articles largely drawn from Lutheran sources. The
number of Sacraments limited to three, Penance being the third.
" The Institution of Christian Man " more Lutheran than the
Articles. It made a sharp distinction between the three Sacraments
and the other four. The reactionary movement of Henry and the
execution of Anne Boleyn end negotiations with the German princes
CONTENTS Xlvii
PAGES
for a political and religious agreement. A Lutheran embassy and
the king come to an agreement on statements of doctrine, but
he refuses to give the cup to the laity. Later the Six ARTICLES
framed, asserting transubstantiation and other Roman Catholic
tenets, and attaching penalties of various degrees, including among
them death, to expressions of dissent. Cranmer bowed to the
storm. At the accession of Edward VI., Cranmer and the Protest
ant party in the ascendant. In the FORTY-TWO ARTICLES, the
ubiquitarian doctrine expressly denied in a paragraph left out in
the revision under Elizabeth, but the Article in this revision asserts
a doctrine not dissonant from that of Calvin. The statement that
"the wicked eat not the body of Christ " in the Lord's Supper
continued in the Articles by the Parliament of Charles II. In
the Prayer Book of Elizabeth clauses from the sentence in the first
Prayer Book of Edward combined with a sentence from the second :
was drawn up under the Swiss influence. The XVIIth Article of
the Thirty-nine, on PREDESTINATION, sets forth the doctrine of un
conditional election, but without any mention of reprobation. The
LAMBETH ARTICLES, even after the draught of them was softened
by certain bishops and other theologians, more rigidly Calvinistic,
but they were never incorporated in the Anglican creed. In the
Articles nothing said of EPISCOPACY. Luther, Calvin, and Melanch-
thon did not object to this form of polity as existing jura, humano.
Cranmer asserted the parity of bishops and presbyters, and had no
thought of breaking fellowship with the foreign Protestant churches.
He sought a fraternal alliance with them. The cordiality of Angli
can sympathy with the foreign churches continued in Elizabeth's
reign. Near the end of the reign HOOKER recognizes the validity
of the ordination in use among them, although he considers it a
departure from the Apostolic model. Presbyterian ministers ad
mitted to livings in the English Church. Later, LORD BACON
refers to the denial that such persons are validly ordained as a
censurable novelty. In Elizabeth's reign, CALVIN'S influence in
England as a theologian dominant, and Calvinism the synonym of
Orthodoxy. The Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper the
prevailing belief. " The real presence of Christ's body," wrote
Hooker, " is not in the Sacrament but in the worthy receiver."
CHAPTER V
SECTS IN THE WAKE OF THE REFORMATION — THE SOCINIAN
SYSTEM 317-323
The new sects from antecedent germs. All forms of disaffection
with the existing order in Church and State woke into fresh life.
The Reformation furnished occasion for more radical movements
to correct imagined defects. Mysticism, revolts against civil and
ecclesiastical institutions, an unsparing skepticism which reached
xlviii CONTENTS
PAGES
to the oecumenical creeds, among diverse phenomena of this class.
The SCHWENKFKLDIANS complained that the Lutherans made too
much of salvation as an objective institute. The new creation,
they thought, brings an indwelling of God not attained at the first
creation. Christ imparts to believers His divine nature. The
atoning death is only the precursor of the higher life communicated
to His followers. The AXAKAPTISTS aimed at social and politi
cal changes. Yet only a portion of them revolutionary fanatics.
They rejected infant baptism, but their central principle that the
Church should be composed of only the regenerate, and should not
be subject to the civil authority. The ' kingdom of the saints '
the war-cry of the MUNZBRITBS. The Anabaptists in Switzerland
of a pacific type. The attempt of certain leaders to set up a the
ocracy at MLJNSTEU put down, not without cruelty. The anti-
psedobaptists in the Netherlands, the MENXOXITES, free from
violence and fanaticism. Would hold no office in the State. The
practice of immersion not at first in vogue among the Anabaptists.
John Smyth, an Englishman, baptized himself anew by immersion.
The Reformers had accepted the creeds of the ancient Church.
The anti-trinitarians did not share in the veneration for the past.
SOCINIAXISM exhibits the combined influence of Nominalism, of the
later Schoolmen, and of the Italian Renaissance. Lfelius Socinus,
and especially his nephew, FAUSTIIS, its most influential promoters.
SERVETUS preceded them. He held that the humanity of Christ is
a divine substance, fitted for the incorporation of the impersonal
Logos. No immanent Trinity. A Pantheistic leaven in the specu
lations of Servetus. The papers of Leelius Socinus, an inquisitive
scholar with Unitarian opinions, a legacy to his nephew. FAUSTCS
SOCINUS the leader of the Polish Unitarians, who won them
from the Anabaptist opinion. With his associates conjoins
rationalism with an extreme supernaturalism. The fundamental
element in religion obedience ; for the knowledge of the will
of God. Revelation necessary. In His nature, will has the
supreme place, as in the Scotist theology. The principal proofs
of the divine mission of Christ the miracles. The value of the
Old Testament chiefly historical. The New Testament the special
source of Christian knowledge. Reason along with Scripture
to determine what Christianity is. The Trinity said to be in
conceivable and self-contradictory. God reveals Himself through
Christ, who is a human being to whom God imparts supernatural
powers and offices. He is the Son of God by adoption. Upon
His resurrection He exalted to exercise a real but subordinate
sovereignty. Yet there is a sense in which He may be called
God. A part of the Unitarians held that Christ might be
adored ; another part denied this. . The Holy Spirit said to be an
other name for the influence of God. The death of Christ shows
the reality of the purpose of God to pardon sin. His resurrection,
which is considpred the fact of chief moment, confirms the divine
CONTENTS xlix
PAGES
offer of forgiveness. In His glorified state an Intercessor, an office
to waich great importance was attached. Some of the Sociniaris
constrained to teach His preexistenee only in the divine purpose.
The Scriptural passages respecting the Atonement classified by the
Socinians under four heads, viz. : passages speaking of redemption
by Christ or by His blood ; those which say that Christ died for us
or for our sins ; those which speak of Mis bearing our sins ; those
which refer to His death as a sacrifice. In neither of these classes
a place found for any idea of expiation or satisfaction for sin.
Optional with God whether to punish sin or not. Punishment not
transferable. The active and passive obedience of Christ (in the
orthodox view of the Atonement), one or the other of them, super
fluous. Christ, being one individual, not able to furnish the satis
faction demanded by that theory. The Socinians held that the
natural body perishes utterly and is succeeded by a spiritual body.
The soul in the intermediate state incapable of feeling or perception.
Annihilation the lot of the irreclaimably wicked. The antag
onism of the Socinian theology to Evangelical Protestantism the
result of the lower conception in the former of the malady which
the Gospel aims to remedy. A corresponding idea of redemption.
Socinianism has the negative distinction of setting exegesis free
from the trammels of dogmatism. " It has at bottom set aside
Christianity as a religion."
CHAPTER VI
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM RESTATED IN THE CREED OF TRENT
— THE THEOLOGY OF THE JESUITS — JANSENISM — QUIETISM
326-33*
At the Colloquy at RATISBON (1541), Melanchthon and Contarini
approached each other on several cardinal points of doctrine, but
failed to agree respecting the Eucharist, the authority of the Pope,
etc. The SOCIETY OF JESUS established, and the forces of the
Counter-Reformation gathering. On account of the urgency of
the Emperor, the COUNCIL OF TRENT assembled (1545). The
Council practically under the direction of the Pope. By corre
spondence his previous approval obtained for propositions relating
to doctrine. Decided to frame at first definitions of doctrine,
which were set forth in decrees with appended anathemas. Mem
bers divided on the question of the relation of the Episcopate and
the Papacy, and on the relation of divine agency to free will, the
Semi-Pelagian and Augustinian types of doctrine. The policy to
prevent conflict between opposing schools, by a careful choice of
phraseology. As to the sources of dogma, TRADITION placed on a
level with Scripture. The Vulgate translation declared to be
authoritative in addresses, debates, and expositions. The Old Tes
tament Apocryphal books included in the CANON. " Holy Mother
CONTENTS
PAGES
Church " to be the judge of interpretations of Scripture. On
ORIGINAL SIN, collision between Thorn is ts and Scotists avoided by
a vague expression. Freewill said to be attenuated and "bent
down," but not extinguished. Baptism declared a prerequisite of
JUSTIFICATION, in which prevenient grace — which may be rejected
— comes first. FAITH defined as belief in the revelations and
promises of God, i.p. in the doctrines of the Church. As to the
nature of Justification, the question left open whether remission of
sins precedes or follows the infusion of subjective righteousness.
A decision likewise avoided on the mooted question of ASSURANCE.
Affirmed that one should have a firm hope of Perseverance. PRE
DESTINATION spoken of as a mystery. Whom God has chosen, to
be known only by special revelation. PENANCE said to be the
"second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost." It is the pro
vision for the case of sins after baptism. Eternal life both a prom
ised grace and a reward of good works and merits. It is by the
virtue due to the grace of Christ that good works are performed.
Through the SACRAMENTS — which are seven in number — Justifi
cation in all its stages is imparted. Three of the Sacraments, Bap
tism, Confirmation, and Orders, have an indelible character. The
intention of doing what the Church does requisite in the minister.
TRANSI-HSTANTIATION and concomitance affirmed, and worship as
due to the Sacrament. Confession must precede the partaking of
the Sacrament. In the Sacrament of PENANCE, attrition said to
be "imperfect contrition," but no clear sanction of the Scotist
opinion on this topic. The satisfaction imposed on the penitents
who are absolved both medicinal and penal. Cautions against
abuses in connection with indulgences, and the popular handling of
difficult questions about PURGATORY. The ORDERS of the hie
rarchy said to have a divine sanction, and the special prerogatives
of bishops asserted, but the disputes between Episcopalism and the
Curialists left undetermined. The usual opinion of virginity and
celibacy as a higher state, and of the invocation of saints and the
veneration of relics and images, reaffirmed. The Council service
able in matters of practical reform, and as furnishing to the
Roman Catholic Church a definite statement of dogmas and here
sies. The PROFESSIO FIDEI and the ROMAN CATECHISE sup
plied buttresses of Papal prerogative. BELLARMINE, the ablest
champion of Roman doctrine, maintained the INFALLIBILITY of
the Pope and the derivation of Episcopal authority mediately from
him. The JESUIT theologians contended for an advanced type of
Semi-Pelagianism. In the Netherlands, a revived Augustinianism
appeared. Seventy-nine of the teachings of BAJUS condemned by
Pius V. (1567). MOLINA, a Spanish Jesuit, brought forward the
theory of scientia media as a shield for Semi-Pelagianism. The
widespread debate thus occasioned not decided by the Roman
Congregation called by Clement VIII. The Jesuits adopted a
theory of popular sovereignty, which, however, indirectly exalted
CONTENTS
Papal authority. Lax tenets in theology, loose ideas in casuistry,
such as the theory of " probabilism," mental reservation in prom-
i.ies, the lawfulness of tyrannicide, with baneful guidance offered
to priests in the confessional, called out widespread opposition to
the teachings of the Jesuits. The movement of JANSENIUS, in
behalf of Au^ustinian theology, gave occasion to a formidable
attack on the Theology and the ethics of their Society. The Port
Royalists the leaders in this warfare. PASCAL'S Provincial Letters
marked by great literary merit and keen satire. The bull cum oc
casion^ against alleged teachings of Jansenius resisted by Arnauld,
on the ground that these were not in the work of Jansenius,' and
that on this question of fact the Pope was not infallible. With the
aid of Louis XIV., the Jesuits triumphed, but Jansenism not eradi
cated. Quesnel's New Testament with Moral Reflections con
demned in the bull Unigenitus, which denied plain teachings of
Augustine. In contrast with the prevalent externalism in re
ligion, Mysticism in the form styled QUIETISM was developed. The
Spiritual (-riiide of MOLINOS (1675) made the secret of peace to lie
in contemplation and self-surrender to God. Against him the Jes
uits and the Inquisition. The ideas of Madame Guyon respecting
the absorption of the soul in God, and Fenelon's Maxims of the
Saints, which set forth a like doctrine, withstood by Bossuot and
by the Sorbonne, and this book declared by the Pope to be erro
neous (1699). BOSSUET presented the tenets of the Church in
a liberal and plausible form, and sought to make Protestantism a
synonym for a chaos of conflicting opinions. The "four propo
sitions" of Louis XIV. of, and the clergy of, France subordinated
the Pope's authority to that of a General Council, confined it to
spiritual matters, and limited it by the laws and usages of the
French Church. But later, the French bishops suffered to disavow
these articles, which comprised the creed of Gallicanism.
CHAPTER VII
THE ARMINIAN REVOLT AGAINST CALVINISM — THE SCHOOL or
SAUMUR — PAJONISM — THE FEDERAL THEOLOGY . . 337-352
CALVIN defended his doctrine of predestination against adver
saries, in his De Libero Arbitrio, and in the Consensus Genevensis.
BEZA an advocate of the supralapsarian form of the doctrine. —
The Arminian movement sprang up in Holland, where Calvinism
then prevailed. ARMINIUS, while preparing to defend supralap
sarian Calvinism, moved to give up Unconditional Election
altogether. A political division between the Arminians, who were
for a union of Church and State and were Republicans, and the
Calvinists, who adhered to Maurice, Prince of Orange. The
Anniiiian creed set forth in five Articles, in the Remonstrance —
which gave them the name of REMONSTRANTS. These embrace
Hi CONTENTS
PAXJl
conditional election, universal atonement, inability of sinful men
without regeneration through the Holy Spirit, grace indispensable,
but not irresistible, and the doubtfulness of the Perseverance of all
believers. At the SYNOD OK DOKT (1618), having in it delegates
from several Reformed Churches, the Remonstrance condemned,
the Belgic and Heidelberg Confessions sanctioned, and five doc
trinal Articles affirmed. They include, election from the fallen
race, different degrees of Assurance, prseterition of non-elect, the
necessity of a complete objective satisfaction for sin, the sufficiency
of the Atonement for all, although intended and willed to be effi
cacious only for the elect, the propagation of sin from Adam,
regeneration by a discriminating, efficient act of God's grace, but
without coercion, the Perseverance of all the regenerated. The
starting-point the eternal purposes of God. The Arminian
system proceeding from an ethical point of view. Involves the
Scotist idea of the divine will as supreme. Built on the basis of
the formal principle of Protestantism. Exalts the proof from
miracles and other external evidences. Faith justifies as being an
imperfect righteousness. Inherited inclinations to evil not cul
pable, but, without grace, incapable of restraint. GROTIUS in his
treatise on the Satisfaction of Christ, in opposition to Socinianism,
set forth the governmental theory of the ATONEMENT. God stands
in this matter in the relation, not of a creditor, but of a Ruler,
competent to revoke penalty, but only in case the end of penalty,
the prevention of future sin, is otherwise equally provided for.
This end attained by the death of Christ as a "penal example,"
showing the extent of the Lawgiver's hatred of sin. The theory
involves essentially the Scotist idea of "acceptation." Govern
ment conceived of as eudsemonistic in its end and aim. The
Arminians denied the aseity of the Son and favored the Nestorian
view of the two natures. The Arminians fostered Biblical criticism
and an unbiassed exegesis. In the French Huguenot school, of
SATJMUR, other innovations brought forward. AMYRATTT broached
the doctrine of hypothetic universal grace, which ascribed to God a
will or desire that all should repent. CAPPEL criticised, received
views of the text of the Old Testament. PLAC.EUS advocated the
doctrine of Mediate Imputation, or inherent depravity as prior to
the imputation of Adam's transgression. Held, however, to a
responsible participation in that transgression. Francis Turretine
and other Swiss theologians in the Formula Consensus Helvetica
framed formulas antagonistic to the Saumur doctrines. They
included an extreme view of verbal inspiration. Within fifty years
the Consensus abrogated. PAJONISM another effort to blunt the
edge of Calvinistic particularism. The gist of Pajon's theory this :
that the Spirit uses the truth of the Gospel in effecting the intel
lectual change which in regeneration the will follows, and, also,
uses for this purpose all the circumstances of the individual, which
are peculiar in the case of each one. The direct action of the Spirit
CONTENTS liii
PAOES
on the soul apparently excluded. Protestantism in the second
generation gradually lapses into the scholastic stage. This espe
cially true in the earlier decades of the seventeenth century. Relig
ious experience less influence in shaping dogma. The Bible treated
as an authoritative text-book. Dissent upon any point regarded as
heresy. In the Reformed Church, predestination the initial prin
ciple in the system of doctrine. The impression made of a divine
absolutism in the soul as well as in the world without. The
rigor of Calviniotic teaching softened by the scheme of the COVE
NANTS, in which jural relations took the place of naked sovereignty.
The Covenants are the promises of God — the promise of everlasting
life as the reward of a brief term of obedience on the part of
Adam ; the promise of forgiveness and salvation through Christ.
CoecEiL'.s, a leading advocate of the theology of the Covenants,
applied the method of typical interpretation through the Old
Testament. Was strongly opposed. The " Cocceians" favored the
philosophy of Descartes. The Federal Theology modified the
conception of Original Sin, by treating the first transgression as a
breach of the Covenant, but did not relinquish the Augustinian
realistic principle of the participation of mankind in this act. The
relation of mankind to Adam thus distinguished from the relation
of the redeemed to Christ. But in the Federal idea, in the form of
an exclusively legal representation of the race in Adam, at length
more and more accepted, being thought to obviate difficulties in the
Augustinian conception of real participation. In the Roman
Catholic theology, the doctrine of immediate imputation regarded
with little favor. In the Council of Trent, a protest against it.
BELLARMINE opposes it. JANSENITS hostile to the Covenant theory,
which he designates as anti-Augustinian and a wild dream.
CHAPTER VIII
THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY — RATIONAL
THEOLOGY — THE LATITUDINARIANS .... 353-369
In England, in the seventeenth century, able and learned dis
cussions in Theology, carried forward by scholars of remarkable
power, which, however, present scarcely any distinct points not
previously made familiar. Such were the controversy of Armin-
ianisin and Calvinism, of Churchmen and Puritans, the rise of
Rational Theology and the Latitudinarians, of Deism and of Arian-
isrn. The rise of the Anglo-Catholic party a phenomenon of inter
est. In the age of Elizabeth, the jure divino theory of Episcopacy
without any foothold. Not a tenet of Hooker or of Whitgift.
HOOKER held to unconditional election, but repudiated reprobation,
and affirmed that God longs for the salvation of all. On Original
Sin, an Augustinian. As to the effect of the Sacraments, does
not differ materially from Calvinists. " Sacrifice is now no part of
11 V CONTENTS
PAQM
the Christian ministry." Yet he gave a Churchly direction to
Anglican theology. Jure divino Presbyterianism the precursor
of the theory of a jure divino Episcopacy. Bishop ANDRE WES the
leading founder of the Anglo-Catholic school. Wrote vigorously
against the champions of "Roman Catholicism. Claimed a divine
right for Episcopacy, but did not blame the foreign churches for
being without it. Was quite moderate in his sanction of Augustin-
ian election. Maintains the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and a
real reception of the body and the blood. No proof of transubstan-
tiation. Literally speaking, only one sacrifice, that of Christ on the
cross. It was not unusual for Divines to speak of the Lord's Sup
per as commemorative of that sacrifice. THORNDIKE went farther
and called it propitiatory. The Puritan age fairly begins with
the reign of James I. At this time little hostility to Episcopacy or
the Liturgy, but Puritans mostly Calvinists and enemies of the
Church of "Rome. They were hostile to political absolution. The
Anglo-Catholics supported royalty, and were led into sympathy
with Arminianism. Puritanism turned into a warfare against
prelacy. The LONG PARLIAMENT abolished Episcopacy. At
the Restoration, the Anglo-Catholic party gained a new lease of
power. Its supporters maintained the obligation of passive obedi
ence. Under Charles I., LAUD their representative. But Bishop
Hall and many others did not " unchurch " the foreign Protestant
bodies. Laud included the sacerdotal function of the ministry in
his doctrine of Apostolic succession. As to the Real Presence,
agreed with Calvin. In the Supper only a commemorative offer
ing. In sympathy with the Arminian doctrine. Favored mutual
toleration respecting the subject of election and kindred topics.
But in the matter of ceremonies a martinet. The Long
Parliament constituted the WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY to give ad
vice on the reconstructing of the Church of England. After the
withdrawal of the Independents and the Erastians, the divine
right of the Presbyterian polity affirmed. In consequence of the
alliance of Parliament with the Scots, the revision of the Thirty-nine
Articles dropped. The creed based on the Irish Articles of 1616.
It is Calvinistic but Infralapsarian. The full assurance of faith in
the Scriptures based on the witness of the Spirit in the soul. Elec
tion unconditional. Prseterition in reference to the non-elect.
The Federal system, with the Covenant of Grace, set forth. The
Augustinian idea underlies the conception of the Fall. Satisfaction
to divine justice and eternal life procured by Christ for the elect,
including " elect infants." A number of members of the Assembly
maintained that God intended to provide salvation for all. The
Calvinistic opinion asserted, that ecclesiastical discipline does not
belong to the State, yet to the State is attributed the duty of sus
taining the authority of the Church and sound doctrine, and of
suppressing impiety and heresy. Melanchthon and Calvin held the
same tenet. The Westminster Confession founds the obligation
CONTENTS 1\?
PACKS
to observe SUNDAY on the Fourth Commandment. This not the
opinion of LUTHER and CALVIN. Both Melanchthon and the Synod
of Dort find a certain moral element in the comjnandment. HOOKER
and ANDREWES ascribe the change to the first day of the week to the
authority of the Church. The Puritan or so-called SABBATARIAN
view promulgated in 1575, in a sermon suppressed by Whitgift.
— RICHARD BAXTER, zealous for harmonizing Calvinists and Ar-
minians, taught a via media, in which Foreknowledge is an inde
pendent divine attribute, the sufferings of Christ secure the ends of
government, but are not the literal penalty, sufficient grace is given
to all, but not to all in an equal measure. For some — that is, the
elect — it secures the certainty of repentance. On the eve of
the Civil War, the movement styled " Rational Theology " arises,
partly the result of Arminian influences, with no partisan feeling
respecting the ecclesiastical controversy, not holding any polity as
jure divino, setting value on the capacity and prerogative of reason
in religious inquiries. Representatives of this movement are FALK
LAND and JOHN HALES of Eaton, and CHILLINGWORTH, who was
persuaded by Laud to sign the Article as "Articles of Peace." In
his " Religion of Protestants " convicts Romanists of reasoning in a
circle on the subject of authority. JEREMY TAYLOR an Arminian
and sympathetic in spirit with Falkland, Hales, and Chillingworth.
A " liberal " in his idea of the foundations of belief and the au
thority of the Fathers and of General Councils, and would not un
church non-episcopal bodies. STILLINGFLEET, in his Irenicwm,
denies the divine right of either of the contending systems of
polity, and in his later work does not discard the main principles
of the earlier treatise. The LATITUDINARIANS, or " Cambridge
Men," manifested the rising spirit of liberalism. Influenced by
Bacon and Descartes, much more by the Arminian scholars, in an
especial degree by Plato and Alexandrian Platonists. The chief
founders of the movement WHICHCOTE, JOHN SMITH, CUDWORTH,
and MORE. The Latitudinarians advocated freedom of inquiry and
toleration in non-essentials, and denied the necessity of Episcopacy
to the being of a Church. Lovers of learning, imbued with Platon-
ism, aimed to found a Theology defensible at the bar of reason —
an aim, however, imperfectly realized.
CHAPTER IX
THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY IN ENGLAND — THE ENGLISH DEISTIC
SCHOOL — THEOLOGY OF THE QUAKERS — EFFORTS ON THE
CONTINENT FOR THE REUNION OF CHURCHES . . 370-380
The Trinitarian controversy in England at first an historical de
bate. Bishop BULL'S writings chiefly in defence of the orthodoxy
of the pre-Arian Fathers against Socinian and Arminian interpre
tations of them. Afterwards the metaphysical phase of the con-
Ivi CONTENTS
PAGES
troversy, occasioned by Bishop SHERLOCK'S work on the Trinity,
which, his opponents asserted, inculcated Tritheism. Dr. SAMUEL
CLARKE, after publishing his u Demonstration " of the being and
attributes of God — which had for its foundation the necessary
assumption of one self-existent, immutable, eternal, omnipresent
being — wrote the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity : a defence of
Arianism in its highest form. Whether the Son derived His being
from the Father, and whether or not from the will of the Father,
said to be unrevealecl. Clarke's principal opponent, WATERLAND,
the author of three writings in defence of the orthodox tenet.
DEISM in England — besides the causes which also produced the
Latitudinarian school — the product of the temper of mind which
is disclosed in the inductive philosophy. The Deists believed in
God, but denied Revelation and Miracles. Sought for a funda
mental basis of all religions. This made by LORD HERBERT of
Cherbury to consist in FIVE PRINCIPLES, —the being of God, the
duty of worship, the obligations of virtue and piety, the duty of
repentance, the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. All
other doctrines were ascribed to superstition and priestcraft.
HOBBES, in the Leviathan, advocated determinism, also absolutism
in government, recognized no justice prior to the organization of
society, which is a product of expediency, and thus gave to might
the precedence over right. Respecting all forms of worship the
King is the dictator. This the only road to peace. That ' Jesus
is the Messiah ' is the Article of faith which in the Bible is made
the condition of salvation. The philosophical antagonists of
Hobbes very numerous. The discussions provoked by him extend
far into the eighteenth century. BLOUNT, like the Deists gener
ally, made no direct attack on Christianity. Aimed indirectly to
disparage its claims and evidences. Adopted the five principles of
Herbert. On the anti-deistic side, LOCKE defined faith to be
assent to a proposition on the testimony of Revelation, the truth of
Revelation being first established. Also advocated determinism.
Liberty, said by him to relate to events consecutive to volition. But
his position on this whole question was not permanently satisfactory
to himself. Discards a priori proofs of the being of God ; infers it
from the existence of the soul. In his theology denies every kind
of responsibility for Adam's sin, holds that mankind is saved from
utter loss of being, its consequence, by Christ ; that then salvation
from their personal transgressions is offered through grace, that
saving faith is belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, that the obsti
nately impenitent become utterly extinct. Rejected the doctrines
of election, expiatory atonement, and the deity of Christ.
TOLAND maintained that in Christianity there is not only nothing
contrary to reason, but nothing above reason — going thus beyond
Hobbes and Locke. Anticipated Baur's idea of the two parties in
the early Church. COLLINS contended for the right and duty of
free-thinking, and very acutely defended determinism. Against
CONTENTS Ivii
PA
Collins. CLARKE contended for the self-determining power of the
will, motives being only occasional causes. Admits the previous
certainty oi' voluntary acts. WOOLSTON contended for au allegori
cal interpretation of the Xew Testament narratives of miracles,
TINDAL for the sufficiency and perfection of natural religion, and
MORGAN asserted " accommodation," on the part of Jesus and the
Apostles, to popular errors. WARBURTO*. in the Divine, Legation
of Moses, endeavored to prove the divine origin of the Hebrew re
ligion from the very silence of the Pentateuch on the subject of a
future life. SHAFTKSBURY found fault with Christianity for its
appeals to hope and fear. BOLINGBROKE ascribed everything in
religion but the truths of nature to the shrewd invention of rulers,
for selfish ends. — —The rise of the society of Friends, called
" QUAKERS," as a reaction in the midst of the dogmatic strife of
the times, quite explicable. The central point in their theology
the doctrine of "the inner light," viz., that the illuminating in
fluence of the Spirit is bestowed on all men, and may communicate
truth additional to the contents of revelation in the Scriptures.
Taught that redemption, while objective, is of no value without a
mystical inward reception of Christ. Sacraments discarded. No
guilt before actual transgression. A time for every one when the
call of Christ may be obeyed. An order of ministers and liturgies
excluded ; oaths are lawful ; all wars forbidden. In the seven
teenth century efforts at RE UNION between the Lutherans and the
Reformed abortive; as that of Calixtus. The same true of like
efforts to unite Protestants and Roman Catholics. The method of
union proposed by GROTIUS was to ascertain by a general council
the points on which all Christians could unite. Leibnitz's scheme
like that of Grotius. Both willing to concede a primacy to the
Bishop of Rome. The point on which LEIBNITZ and BOSSUET
could not agree was the authority of the Council of Trent. The
widespread, perpetual clash of controversy inspired a longing for
peace, and led to a quest for a common ground for the contending
churchei.
Iviii CONTENTS
PERIOD V
THEOLOGY AS AFFECTED BY MODERN PHILOSOPHY AND
SCIEN1IFIC RESEARCHES
FROM THE PHILOSOPHY OF LOCKE AND LEIBNITZ TO THE PRESENT
CHAPTER I
PAGES
PHILOSOPHY ON THE CONTINENT AFTER DESCARTES : SPINOZA ; LEIB-
NJTZ — PHILOSOPHY IN ENGLAND: FRANCIS BACON; LOCKE;
BERKELEY ; HUME ; REID — THE WRITINGS OF BUTLER AND
PALEY — CHARACTER OF ENGLISH THEOLOGY TO THE MIDDLE
OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY — THE WESLEYAN THEOLOGY
381-393
DESCARTES asserted the independence of philosophy. "I think
therefore I am " verifies the existence of the ego. The next truth
in order the being of God. An innate idea ; hence implanted by
the infinite Being Himself. Involved, moreover, in the concept
of God. The perfection of God, including this veracity, not an
idea of our own devising. Trust in His veracity secures us against
solipsism. He is substance in the strict sense. The mind, and ex
tended substance, or body, are the finite substances. But how
to bridge the separation between subject and object ? Doctrine of
MALEKRANCHE and the Occasionalists that "we see all things in
God," which in Him exist ideally. Doctrine of SPINOZA an ex
plicit Pantheism. Only one substance, which is predicateless ; else
it would not be infinite. Yet has two attributes, thought and ex
tension, whence the double theophany, mind and matter, of which
all concrete things are forms. With personality, also, design, final
causes, freedom of the will, excluded. In Spinoza's Tractatus
Theoloffico-politicm not a few modern critical theories relative to
the Bible anticipated. The system of LEIBNITZ the antipode of
that of Spinoza. A multitude of substances, each independent,
yet related to all the others. A preestablished harmony of these
"monads,1' a constant concursus Dei. The mind, on the condition
of experience, produces the intuitions. Leibnitz a determinist.
In his Theodicy, argues that the best possible system involves the
divine permission of sin. Sin occasioned by the metaphysical im
perfections of man. The drift of philosophy in England in a di
rection opposite to that just described. BACON prompted to
an inductive study of nature for the exploring of secondary, effi
cient causes, and objected to the search for finite causes in Physics.
Locke made sensation and reflection — ultimately, sensation — the
sources of knowledge, without really meaning to deny the potential
reality of intuitions. Sought to demonstrate the being of God
CONTENTS llX
PAGES
from the constitution of ourselves and the world. BERKELEY a
nominalist. It is only things in the concrete that we perceive.
The perception of primary qualities as purely subjective as is the
perception of color, taste, etc. The only things that exist are
ideas. There are no beings but spirits. God the author of ideas.
The order of their occurrence through the divine agency the defi
nition of the laws of nature. All nature in this way the manifes
tation of God. In the Minute Philosopher the infidelity then cur
rent is controverted. HUME'S philosophical position that of a
skeptic, not of a dogmatist. Assuming (as an inference from
Locke) that knowledge is only of things observed without or
within, eliminated substance, cause, the soul, as a substance, the
eyo, and the Supreme Being. Cause means invariable antecedents.
The idea of power the result of customary association. Hume
seeks to invalidate the argument of design and the doctrine of a
moral government. The earliest form of religion held to have been
polytheism. Religion springs from the habit of personifying
unknown causes. Impossible to prove a miracle since the false
hood of the testimony, however accumulated, is more probable
than the event related, for the reason that we have had experience
of the former, but not of the latter, and experience is the ground
of belief. REID assumes an immediate knowledge of funda
mental axioms. We have a face-to-face view of external things.
The reality of the external world, and of cause, substance, etc.,
attested by "common sense." Hume's Philosophy a destructive
assault upon the position of the Deists respecting the origin of re
ligion. Shown by the Analogy of Bishop BUTLER that what
ever objections are alleged against religion, natural or revealed,
would be equally valid against Deism. PALEY in the Horcc Pau-
lince argued for the verity of the Acts and the Epistles from their
undesigned coincidences. In his Evidences, deals chiefly with the
external proofs of miracles. Modern discoveries may modify the
form, but they do not destroy the force, of the teleological argu
ment in his Natural Theology. In Ethics, BUTLER taught that
the native principles of self-love and love to others are regulated as
to their measure by conscience. PRICE taught that right is a
simple idea. PALEY taught a utilitarian theory of morals; HUTCHE-
»ON, that virtue is the synonym of general benevolence. The
first half of the eighteenth century marked by a low condition of
piety, skepticism, and ecclesiastical intolerance. WILLIAM LAW
promoted a spiritual awakening, defended theism, and the truth of
Christian miracles. His mystical tendency fostered by the influ
ence of Bb'hme. Of the two principal leaders in the METHODIST
Revival, JOH\ WESLEY was a great organizer as well as preacher.
Points of likeness and of contrast between the Methodist leaders
and the leaders of the modern Oxford movement. Wesley,
aiter a period of mystical piety and a connection with Moravian-
ism, attained to a vivid sense of forgiveness, and parted from
CONTENTS
PAGES
earlier guides and associates. A student of the Greek theology, an
Arminian in his creed, an intense antagonist of Calvinism. But
his Arminianism, unlike that of the Dutch School, not allied with
Socinian or Pelagian aitinities, but emphasized the need and the
agency of the Holy Spirit. This faith at the root of his assertion
of Assurance as a privilege of all believers, and of his doctrine of
Perfection — a Christian, not a legal, Perfection. Taught that
Adam's sin entails a corruption, sinful yet not meriting eternal
death ; but the Methodist system teaches that the provision of re
demption is required by justice. Atonement a governmental pro
vision, universal in its design. Grace not irresistible. The Gospel
a free gift intended for all. which every one has the power to re
ceive, the Spirit being ready to furnish the requisite aid. Cal-
vinists, as Ridgiey, Watts, and Doddridge, realism having been given
up, indefinite and half-hearted in defending the doctrines of Origi
nal Sin and Election. Watts holds to a preexistence of the human
nature of Christ, as the first of creatures, in an ineffable union
with God. No adequate or resolute refutation of Dr. John Taylor
and other Arminian writers.
CHAPTER II
THEOLOGY IN AMERICA IN THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CEN
TURIES — THEOLOGY OF THE FIRST SETTLERS OF NEW
ENGLAND — JONATHAN EDWARDS AND HIS SCHOOL ("THE
NEW ENGLAND THEOLOGY") — THE RISE OF UNITARIANISM :
CHANNING, EMERSON, PARKER — THE RISE OF UNIVERSALISM
— NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL —
THE THEOLOGY OF HORACE BUSHNELL — THE THEOLOGY OF
HENRY B. SMITH — CALVINISM IN THE PRESBYTERIAN-
CHURCH : CHARLES HODGE ...... 394-445
The first settlers of New England Calvinists. The "Cambridge
Platform" (1648) defined Congregationalism and sanctioned the
Westminster Confession as to doctrine. The Boston Synod (1680)
accepted the Savoy Confession, in doctrine tssentially the same.
This Creed approved in the Say brook Platform (1080). Spread
of Arminian theology in the eighteenth century, especially in East
ern New England. Opposition to Arrninianisrn accompanied the
"Great Awakening" (1740), in which JONATHAN EDWARDS was
the most prominent leader. He combined intellectual subtlety
with spiritual insight, the rational and the mystical elements. In
early youth his mental power most unusual and versatile, as seen
in his juvenile writings In them an idea of matter, the Fame as
the Berkeleian — which he continued to hold. Greatly inf uenced
by the study of Locke, — especially by Locke's discussion of
"Power," and of liberty and necessity. Edwards maintains
that liberty is the freedom to do as one chooses, and that choice
CONTENTS Ixi
PAGBE
invariably follows the mind's view of the greatest apparent good.
The distinction between inclination and will not clearly made.
As long as in choosing there is no constraint ab extra, there
is no necessity in the literal sense. The distinction of moral
necessity from natural necessity made to be that the former
relates to mental phenomena, No difference pointed out respect
ing the cennection between antecedent and consequent. The
certainty of the actual choice in every case the result of its
causes. In Edwards's theory of determinism is no restriction
of it to any class of choices or volitions, or to any class of moral
beings. In this respect he differs from Augustine and from
infralapsarian Calvinism. Determinism made to pertain to the
nature of the will. A sovereignty of God extending over the
entire realm of voluntary activity. But Edwards does not, as he
in places seems to, hold to a naked sovereignty, independently of
reason and justice back of it. His doctrine that sinful beings have
a natural ability to do all duty, but a moral inability, — that is,
that there is certainty that they will not choose aright without the
operations of grace. Edwards, in his posthumous treatise on
"ORIGINAL SIN," sets forth the doctrine of mediate imputation
based on the identity of the posterity of Adam with their pro
genitor. Propounds a speculation on the continuity of conscious
ness, as dependent on a creative act at every successive instant of
time. Apparently an application of the Berkeleian idea to the mind.
In his treatise on the NATURE OF VIRTUE, Edwards defines Virtue
as Love to Being in General — Benevolence in the broadest mean
ing — boundless love to God and impartial love to men. The
rectitude of this love discernible by the natural conscience. Hence
all morally responsible for the exercise of it. But this Love has,
besides, inhering in it a beauty, which is perceived only by experi
ence, or by the " relish," the sense of its sweetness, which none but
those who love can know. They only exercise a love of com
placency — added to Benevolence — or a delight in all who with
themselves share in this " Love to being in general." The reaction
of Benevolence against its opposite a form of hatred. It produces
an inward satisfaction in the punishment of the irreclaimably evil
at the hands of God. All particular affections which do not involve
universal love traced to that species of self-love which is the op
posite of this principle. The profound character of Edwards's
discussion set forth by Fichte. In his dissertation on "God's
Chief End in Creation," it is said that it is not unworthy of God
for Him to estimate the sum of His excellence at its real worth —
but not for the reason that it is His. His motive in creation to
communicate the infinite fulness of good that is in Himself. In
this no loss of the independence or absoluteness of God — since the
creation emanates from Himself — and there is no selfishness.
In the u History of the Work of the Redemption" is described the
historical preparation for the work of redemption, through Prov-
Ixii CONTENTS
PAGE:
idence. The work on the "Affections" undertakes to dis
criminate between natural and spiritual feelings, and is in the
author's mystical vein. In the Sermons on Justification it is
argued that faith justifies as being a bond connecting the soul with
Christ, and not for its moral worth. The starting-point of the
paper on "The Satisfaction of Christ,'1 is the proposition: Could
there be a repentance answerable to the guilt of sin, it would be
a sufficient compensation. This provided, and only can be, by
Christ, who is qualified to be an Intercessor by his absolute
sympathy with both God and man. This absoluteness of sympathy
attained by Him through the experience of death. His substitution
primarily in His own heart. In submitting to death He signified his
absolute approval of the law, even on the penal side. The
" Edwardeans," whose modifications of Calvinism were due to the
influence of Edwards, at length superseded its traditional form in
New England. Among the Arminians, a tendency developed
which issued in Unitarianism. The great aim of the EDWARDEANS
was, while adhering to the "doctrine of grace," to deprive unre-
penling men of every valid excuse. BELLAMY advocated the
opinion that there is more holiness and happiness in the created
system than if sin and misery had never entered. Makes a near
approach to a doctrine of general atonement. HOPKINS, on the
basis of Edwards's teaching, holds to a divine "constitution,"
whereby the character of men at birth is predetermined as certain
to be good or sinful, according to their progenitor's action. Im
putation thenceforth discarded from New England theology.
Hopkins brought in the doctrine of "divine efficiency" in the pro
duction even of sinful choices. Other deductions of Hopkins,
"disinterested benevolence," love to one's self only as a frac
tion of universal being, and "unconditional resignation," or the
willingness to be cast off should the glory of God require it.
" Unregenerate doings," such as prayer for conversion, not to
be encouraged by the preachers of repentance. The younger
EDWARDS maintained that Regeneration is the communication of
a new spiritual sense, bringing with it light and joy. Propounds
and defends a governmental theory of the ATONEMENT. It is not
the payment of a debt, but is a manifestation of God's hatred of
sin which has a power to prevent transgression equal to the power
which the penalty would have. Yet other conditions of forgive
ness may be imposed. This substantially Grotian or Arminian
view of the Atonement established itself as a part of New England
orthodoxy. EMMONS explicitly made God the universal cause
of sinful as well as holy choices. No sins, save "exercises" of
will, but sensibility and will are not duly distinguished from one
another. Character consists in a series of "exercises." "Nat
ural ability " in terms emphatically asserted. DWIGHT rejected
the Hopkinsian view of divine efficiency, held to the previous
" certainty " of all events, the existence of sin by a permissive de-
CONTENTS Ixiii
PAOM
cree, that virtue is benevolence, and sin is selfishness, that virtue
is founded in utility, that we are sinners, somehow as the conse
quence of Adam's sin, that infants are "contaminated" morally
at birth, that regeneration consists in a new " taste," and that the
use of means — prayer, etc. — by the unregenerate is right.
NATHANIEL W. TAYLOR undertook to carry to completion the New
England effort to reconcile human dependence and human respon
sibility. Aimed to give to "natural ability" a more real signifi
cance. No hereditary sin. A fact that all do sin from the begin
ning of personal moral agency, until they are renewed. This the
result of the joint action of the subjective and objective factors.
But all sin voluntary. Yet sin a permanent principle, an abiding
choice. Nevertheless, there is ever a power of contrary cnoice.
A special description of causes — namely, motives — which give
the certainty, but not the necessity, of their effect. As to the
action of the will, there is previous "certainty with power to the
contrary." Conversion supersedes the evil principle by the good,
love to the world by love to God. Taylor strictly distinguished
sensibility from will. The love of happiness an instinctive, neu
tral form of activity, to which right motives can be addressed.
Thus a full natural ability, yet certainty that it will not lead to re
pentance without renewing grace. Respecting the THEODICY,
Taylor denied that " sin is the necessary means of the greatest
good," and substituted the statements that the divine permission
of sin is better in the aggregate results than its complete exclusion
by dint of power, and that sin may be incidental to the best moral
system as far as the prevention of it by divine intervention is con
cerned. Redemption a method of excluding sin up to the limit
imposed by wisdom, i.e. by a supreme regard to the greatest
good. The motive of ELECTION Benevolence, which plans the
best results on the whole. Hence grace not distributed in equal
measure among sinful men. The New England opponents of
Dr. Taylor adhered to the belief in an inherited, properly sinful
bias prior to personal choice, to regeneration as a change of dispo
sition behind the reversal of choice, and to the thesis that sin is
the necessary means of the greatest good. The "Oberlin The
ology" combined with propositions akin to those of Taylor a doc
trine of "Christian Perfection" and certain other peculiarities.
In the system of Dr. E. A. PARK, regeneration considered to
be a change in " the balance of sensibilities," and rectitude to be
a simple idea or quality of Benevolence — in distinction from the
utilitarian doctrine of Taylor. Dr. H. B. SMITH taught "me
diate imputation," that sin is generic as well as individual, a racial
connection with Adam and a natural bond of connection with
Christ, that the atonement is general, that regeneration includes
the affections and the will. The influence of the New England
Theology widespread in Great Britain and in America. The
rise of UXITARIANISM in New England chiefly due to the spread of
IxiV CONTENTS
PAGBf
Arminianism, and was gradual. CHANNING'S "Baltimore Ser
mon" (1819) marks an epoch. He became the most eminent rep
resentative of American Unitariauism, owing to a combination of
characteristics, in each of which he was equalled, and in some of
them excelled, by others. Unitarianism spread mostly in
Eastern New England, where Arminianism was most prevalent.
Its rise associated with a new development of belles-lettres culture.
Another influential cause in the ethical and politico-ethical discus
sions connected with the American devolution. Charming early
interested in themes of this nature. In this direction an enthu
siast. Outgrew a stage of romantic sentiment and self-brooding.
But his maturer convictions not sympathetic with the tone and
spirit of Priestley or of Locke. Drawn to the ideas of Edwards
and Hopkins pertaining to disinterested love. Taught by Hopkins
to hate slavery. Had visions of the exalted nature and infinite
possibilities of man. The dignity of human nature a prominent
article in his creed. Unlike Pascal, had a less vivid sense of the
deterioration wrought by sin. The real point of controversy be
tween the Unitarian and "Orthodox" parties the doctrine of Sin
and of Conversion. Comparatively little of importance contrib
uted on the subject of the Trinity and the Person of Christ.
Along with the dignity of human nature, another leading idea of
CHAINING was that of the Fatherhood of God. Respecting Christ,
thought that He was a preexistent angel or spirit of some sort, who
had entered into a human body. Held still that the death of
Christ had some special influence in procuring the remission of
sins, while he condemned without stint the current orthodox
expressions on this subject, Christ's work as a Saviour preemi
nently through His teaching, which is recommended by His per
fect character and His death, and confirmed by His miracles, es
pecially by His resurrection. Further advances of the Liberal
movement. The Intuitional theory, stimulated by the study of
Spinoza, Schleiermacher, De Wette ; it attached a secondary
value to miraculous evidence ; was withstood by Professor NORTON
as " infidelity," and defended by GEORGE RIPLEV. The "tran
scendental school," in which R. W. EMERSON was the inspiring
genius, declined to recognize the special authority of Christianity,
or to admit that inspiration is confined to the men of the Bible.
The individual must listen to the voice of divinity within his own
soul. This quasi Pantheistic development accompanied or fol
lowed by THEODORE PARKER'S relegating the Biblical miracles to
the realm of myth, and to his classification of Christianity along
with the ethnic religions, as being equally a natural product. The
radical Unitarians imbued with the culture drawn from the conti
nental, in particular, the German literature. Some of them cher
ished ideas of an improved social organization. The movement of
Parker repugnant to the views of the conservative Unitarians ; an
occasion of sorrow, as well as of earnest dissent, to Channing, who
CONTENTS Ixv
PAGES
insisted on the reality and value of the Gospel miracles. But this
last class generally became humanitarians in their conception of
the person of Christ, discarding the doctrine of His preexistence.
Spread of Parker's rejection of miracles ; his theology became
widely recognized as an admissible type of Unitarianism. UNI-
VERSALISM, as the creed of a denomination, began with JOHN
MURRAY, who was a Trinitarian. The Universalists accepted the
authority of the Scriptures, but rejected the divinity and the atone
ment of Christ. At first, Restorationists ; later, for a considerable
period, denied that there is any punishment after death. By
the middle of the present century attention drawn away from the
distinctive themes of New England theology, and directed to
Chris tology and the question of naturalism and supernaturalism.
An increasing influence of German thought. The writings of COLE
RIDGE contributed to this change. HORACE BUSHNELL promulgated
opinions not in accord with the traditional and prevailing ortho
doxy. Following a suggestion of Coleridge, maintained the
thesis that the will is itself a supernatural agent. Also, contended
that the main reliance of the Church for the spread of religion
should be Christian nurture in the family, the means established by
God for the extension of His kingdom. Sought to show that exact
and systematic theology is precluded by the figurative character of
language. Set forth with freshness and originality a conception
of Christ and the Trinity, not diverse from the modal and Apolli-
narian idea. God manifests Himself under the restrictions of a
human and earthly life. Later, made a pretty close approach to
the Athanasian theology. On the subject of the Atonement,
propounded the moral view. The work of Christ conquers in men
disobedience and distrust and inspires confidence in God and in
His forgiving love. The result is the abolition of penalty, since
penalty consists in the spiritual disorder and pain involved in
separation from God. Subsequently, pointed out that Christ
endures the corporate curse of the race, but would lay no stress
on this fact. Later still, in his Forgiveness and Law, lie undertook
to show, that agreeably to a general spiritual law, God in Christ,
through suffering in self-sacrifice in behalf of offenders, appeases
His own moral displeasure. It is the divine, not the human, which
acts and suffers. Suggestion that the incorrigibly evil may waste
away and cease to exist. In opposition to the modifications of
theology brought forward by the New England School of Edwards
and his successors, Calvinism defended by the PRINCETON The
ological School and the theologians in sympathy with it. The
New England theology an indirect source of ecclesiastical divisions
in the Presbyterian Church.
Ixvi CONTENTS
CHAPTER III
PAGES
THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY : THE EVAN
GELICAL SCHOOL IN THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH — THE PHILOS
OPHY AND THE THEOLOGY OF COLERIDGE — THE EARLY ORIEL
SCHOOL: WHATELEY, ARNOLD — THE OXFORD MOVEMENT : ITS
SOURCES AND LEADERS : ITS PRINCIPLES AND AIMS : THE
TRACTS : THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY : THE CONVERSION OF
NEWMAN : THE DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST AND OTHER
TENETS OF THE OXFORD SCHOOL : THE GORHAM CASE : CANON
LIDDON : CANON GORE : J. B. MOZLEY'S THEOLOGICAL TEACH
ING 446-472
The Evangelical School in the Established Church, so useful to
the cause of practical religion, fills no space in the history of The
ology. Its leaders, — Whitefield, Newton, Venn, Scott, Wilberforce,
and other Calvinists. Little done by them to demonstrate the rea
sonableness of the Gospel. Coleridge introduced into English
Theology a new and more spiritual method. Through him the ex-
ternalism of Theology of the eighteenth century gave place to
deeper insight and a more profound philosophy. ONE of his
fundamental principles was the distinction of reason, the organ of
supersensuous realities, the faculty of institutions, — and under
standing. This alters the character of Christian evidences. A SEC
OND fundamental principle the distinction of Nature and Spirit.
Nature embraces the realm of cause and effect. Spirit is self-de
termining and self-conscious. Coleridge maintains that the
ideas which are assured by conscience cannot be pressed to all their
logical consequences. The ultimate source of faith in God is in
our moral and spiritual nature. Yet it is a truth corroborated by
everything without us as well as within. The source of the proofs
of the divinity of Christ of a like nature. The evidence of inspira
tion of the Bible internal. The Bible not absolutely infallible in
fact and doctrine : the spirit of the whole book to judge each sepa
rate part. Coleridge teaches that we find our wills determined in a
wrong direction. This presupposes a timeless act of the individual
known only through its consequences. Adam the first historic in
stance of this experience. The four generic representations of the
ATONEMENT, in the New Testament, describe its effects, not its
nature. They are instances of analogy. The redemptive act itself
inscrutable. Regeneration the best expression of the sum total of
its effect. A distinction made between the Visible Church of Christ
and the National Church whereby the Nation employs the ministers
of the Visible Church to do its work of moral culture. The Church
of Christ to be sharply distinguished from the hierarchy. From
about 1815 to the middle of the century, Oxford the centre of
theological movements. The EARLIER ORIEL SCHOOL, represented
by Whateley and Thomas Arnold, equally removed from the Evan
gelical Party and from all phases of High Church doctrine. WHXTE-
CONTENTS Ixvii
I'AUES
LEY denies Apostolic Succession ; approximates to a Congregational
idea of the nature of the Church. Opposes Calvinistic election.
Advocates conditional immortality. AKNOLU places in the fore
ground of his creed the divinity of Christ. Rejects the absolute
inerrancy of the Bible ; does not adhere closely to the traditional
views of the Canon. Espoused Hooker's theory of the identity of
Church and State, but would make the Church of England com
prehensive, and thus truly National. To the " OXFORD MOVE
MENT," so-called, Whateley and Arnold intensely hostile. PUSEY
later in engaging in this Movement than KKBLE and NEWMAN,
and than Hurrell Froude, but from his station and reputation
acquired a leadership. The primary aim of Newman and his
associates to produce a change within the Church. The enemy
assailed by them was " Liberalism," ecclesiastical and political.
The power of resistance to ecclesiastical innovations of this de
scription at that time apparently weak. The Evangelical Party
would favor nothing contrary to Low Church principles. The High
Church lukewarm, with a large body of worldly minded men in it,
and insular in its spirit. The "Movement" a revival of seven
teenth-century Anglo-Catholicism. Promoted indirectly by the
writings of Walter Scott and Wordsworth. Not intended to aid
Rome. Was a rally against Erastianism. Was an uprising of the
conservative, patristic, sacramental form of Anglican piety and
theology. The idea and pur[)oses of the authors of the Movement,
as stated in a Paper composed by Newman, comprised Apostolical
Succession, along with the efficacy of the Eucharist and the preser
vation of the Prayer Book from being bereft of the phraseology sup
posed to inculcate their views of sacramental grace. Other tenets
of the Party were the authority of tradition and of the Church
prior to the separation of the East from the West, justification by
faith and judgment by works, and certain practices generally sup
posed to belong to Romanism, for which a sanction was sought with
some success in the doctors of the earlier Anglo-Catholic school. A
very qualified sympathy with the Reformers. The aim to set forth
the Church of England as a branch coordinate with the Church of
Rome, of the Church Catholic. The task undertaken to assert a
via media between Protestantism and the Church of Rome. In
the Tracts for the Times the Doctrines of the School promulgated.
The contention that "Sacraments, not preaching, are the sources
of divine grace." PUSEY, writing on Baptism, taught Baptismal
Regeneration, and that sins, except venial sins, after Baptism
cannot in this life be fully pardoned. HAMPDEN strenuously
opposed by the Oxford leaders for distinguishing Scriptural doc
trines from inferences drawn from them and for not holding it
obligatory to accept the "immemorial judgment of the Church."
The Movement, while making rapid progress, more and more
charged with betraying the English Church. This imputation gain
ing in force from the teaching on the subject of " Reserve." The
Ixviii CONTENTS
PAGES
charge more emphatically and widely made when, in Tract No.
90, Newman sought to show that the Thirty-nine Articles admit
of a Catholic interpretation. Newman more and more doubt
ful of the soundness of his own arguments against Rome, and (in
184o) received into the Roman Catholic Church. Composed in the
same year his Essay on "Development."— —The character of
Newman's mind as explaining his conversion skilfully analyzed by
Thirl wall, Tail, and R. II. Hutton. The restlessness of the human
mind, the confusion of human opinions, impressed him with the a
priori probability of the institution of an ecclesia docens. His in
tellectual subtlety so great that he could dispose of whatever diffi
culties stood in the way of his moral prepossessions. Described
himself as having carried forward a life-long contest against " Lib
eralism " — the idea that one creed is as good as another.
PUSEV had cast aside free thoughts concerning Inspiration, ex
pressed in an early production. Devoted himself to the task of
proving that the obnoxious tenets of his School had a rightful place
in the English Church. Pusey's sermon on the Eucharist occa
sioned his suspension for two years from preaching in the Univer
sity. Does not accept transubstantiation since it is not verified by
Scripture and the Fathers. Fails in one point to do justice to the
Lutheran view. A point of dissent from Calvin in holding that the
body and blood are received (although not spiritually) by the un
worthy. Holds to a physical reception by the unworthy. The
Oxford leaders differ from the Reformers in teaching that the Real
Presence is extra usum. Whether a propitiatory quality belongs to
the Sacrament itself not lucidly or uniformly explained by the Ox
ford leaders. Pusey styles ABSOLUTION a Sacrament in a lower
sense. As to post-baptismal sins and the sacramental corollaries,
not " irreconcilably at variance " with Rome. Pusey had no zeal
in behalf of ritualistic innovations.- GORHAM taught that the
grace of the Spirit and its effect must precede the baptism of in
fants. The sanction of this tenet as not heterodox, by the Privy
Council, in the Gorham case, followed by a new wave of secession
to Rome. Canon GORE in his work on the " Christian Ministry "
teaches that at Corinth there was a plurality of Presbyters possessed
of the Episcopal functions inhering in the Apostolic Succession. In
Lux Mundi makes important concessions concerning Inspiration to
modern critical views, and on the person of Christ cautiously admits
a certain Kenosis. J. B. MOZLEY differed from his allies in the
Oxford Movement, respecting the Gorham case. Sought to recon
cile the doctrine concerning Baptism with Augustinian predestina
tion. In other Writings, illustrated his view respecting mysterious
truths, really but indistinctly conceived, by applying it to the doc
trines of Original Sin, the Trinity, and the Atonement. Agrees with
Coleridge's principle that conscience must be followed even when
logic appears to clash with moral intuitions. Makes it a part of
Old Testament Revelation that acts might have been enjoined which
CONTENTS Ixix
PAOE8
on a higher moral plane could not have been. On the ATONEMENT
maintains that there is not a literal but a moral substitution, it
being a psychological fact that the appetite for the punishment of
an offender is sated by the suffering of another in his behalf.
CHAPTER IV
THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY (continued) :
THE BROAD CHURCHMEN — THE "ESSAYS AND REVIEWS" —
THE BROAD CHURCH IN SCOTLAND: THOMAS ERSKINE ;
McLEOD CAMPBELL — THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS OF MATTHEW
ARNOLD — THE CHRISTIAN AGNOSTICISM OF HAMILTON AND
MANSEL — POSITIVISM — THE REVIVAL OF HUME'S PHILOSO
PHY: J. S. MILL — THE AGNOSTICISM OF HERBERT SPENCER
— INFLUENCE OF DARWINISM ON THEOLOGY — AGNOSTIC
OPINIONS OF T. H. HUXLEY 473-491
Under the "Broad Church" are embraced many varieties of
theological belief. FREDERIC DENISON MAURICE, a prominent
leader having many disciples, gave the central place to the Incar
nation and the eternal fatherhood of God. Discards penal satis
faction. Christ satisfied the Father by presenting an image of His
holiness and love. He bore the sins of the world in that he felt
them with an anguish possible only to a perfectly pure being who
is also perfectly sympathizing and gracious. He is the "sinless
root of humanity." The term "eternal" in Scripture has no ref
erence to time ; whether or not suffering will be eternal Maurice
professes himself unable to say. DEAN STANLEY a more advanced
latitudinarian. In his History of the Jewish Church, does not
undertake to distinguish between the natural and the supernatural.
In his Christian Institutions, finds the meaning of the Eucharist to
be that we must incorporate in our moral natures the substance of
the character and teaching of Christ. Christ is the Ideal of man
and the Likeness of God. Sacerdotalism will vanish like astrology
and alchemy. Episcopacy a gradual growth. The Church should
be as far as possible coextensive with the nation. The name " The
Father" represents to us all that Natural Religion teaches of God :
the Son, God in History ; the Holy Ghost, God in our hearts and
consciences. The volume of Ess<tys and Reviews considered the
climax of liberalism. It was pervaded by a spirit of criticism upon
prevailing views respecting the inspiration and authority of the
Bible. DR. TEMPLE said in his Essay that "the principle of pri
vate judgment puts conscience between us and the Bible." BADEN
POWELL'S Essay manifests incredulity as to the accepted proofs of
miracles. GODWIN'S Essay teaches that science and Genesis, as to
cosmogony, are not reconcilable. JOWETT'S Essay brings forward
historical and doctrinal difficulties in Scripture which are incon
sistent with current opinions respecting the Bible. WILSON ex
presses the hope of universal restoration, which ROWLAND WILLIAMS
1XX CONTENTS
PAGES
directly maintains. The same doctrine counts among its advocates
a gifted Scottish writer, THOMAS ERSKINE. JOHN McLEOD
CAMPBELL, in his treatise on the Atonement, rejects the idea that
it is the bearing of the penalty. Rather is it the adequate, expia
tory repentance for the sin of mankind, which is realized in the
consciousness of Christ, especially through the experience of death,
the wages of sin. His confession is an Amen to the condemning
judgment of God ; Faith is our Amen to this condemnation in His
soul. R. W. Dale and A. B. Bruce retain the objective sanction
rendered by Christ to the divine law. The doctrine of conditional
immortality has its advocates. MATTHEW ARNOLD, with a pro
fessed desire to rescue the Bible from neglect and contempt, insists
that its language is literary and not scientific. Manifests an exces
sive deference to the "Time-Spirit." Makes 'God' to signify
"the Power, not ourselves, that makes for righteousness." This,
Arnold contends, was the Israelites1 real conception of Jehovah.
Cannot say of the " Power " thus described that it is a person or a
thing. Will not deny that it is a conscious intelligence. Yet it is
only a law of things, " a stream of tendency.1' The method of
Christ is that of "inwardness,11 — Cleanse the cup." The secret
of Christ is self-renouncement. The element in which the method
and spirit are worked is a "sweet reasonableness." It is the lack
of this which distinguishes Buddhism from the method of Jesus.
Arnold discards the New Testament miracles. Discerns, however,
the weak side of Baur's criticism. SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON in
troduced a modified Kantian philosophy of religion, based on the
inconceivability of the Unconditioned in its various forms. The
doctrine is that faith rests on moral grounds and involves assent
to one of two mutually contradictory propositions, one of which is
necessarily true. By MANSEL, as a deduction from this doctrine,
both Rationalism and Dogmatic Theology are excluded, and our
knowledge in this province is pronounced to be only relative and
symbolic. In FRANCE the sensualistic and materialistic school
assailed by the spiritual eclectic philosophy of ROYER-COLLARD,
COUSIN, JOUFFROY, and others. AUGUSTS COMTE founded the
Positivist School on the theory that we can know only phenomena,
which, arranged according to likeness or unlikeness, and in chrono
logical order, constitute science. Religion a product of the imagina
tion. Three stages of knowledge, — the mythical, the metaphysical,
and the positivist. In ENGLAND the philosophy of Hume was
reproduced by JOHN STUART MILL. Intuitions said to be the
product of experience in infancy and early childhood ; causation
simply invariable association ; only memory prevents us from re
solving the mind into a series of sensations conscious of itself.
HERBERT SPENCER, in his Agnostic System, also traces intuitions
to an empirical source ; heredity, transmitting slowly acquired im
pressions, being substituted for forgotten impressions in individual
consciousness. With the Positivist doctrine associated a quasi
CONTENTS Ixxi
PAGES
Pantheistic theory of the Unknowable. That which we call mind
in man the outcome of an all-comprehending process of evolution,
and emerges from nervous organism. The relativity of knowledge
predicated not more of religion than of all sciences. Religion
made a growth out of the worship of ancestors, which in turn
springs from the effect of dreams, shadows, etc. Opinions of the
ablest Darwinian naturalists that teleology in nature is not ex
cluded by mechanical causation, and that the gulf between physical
states and consciousness is impassable. HUXLEY, in his exposi
tion of Hume and elsewhere, accepts the skeptical, philosophical
positions of that philosopher. Holds that the operations of the
mind are functions of the brain, which is developed from proto
plasm. Yet asserts that idealism cannot be disproved. Rejects
Hume's definition of a miracle, since our knowledge of nature is
incomplete, but treats the New Testament narratives of miracles
as tales of isolated marvels. (Later, Huxley's expressions less
discordant with a Theistic philosophy ; see p. 545 sq.) Modern
assaults on fundamental truths cogently met by MARTIXEAU,
FLINT, HARRIS, and others.
CHAPTER V
THE ANGLO-FRENCH DEISM — THEOLOGV IN GERMANY IN THE NINE
TEENTH CENTURY: DEISTIC ILLUMINISM IN GERMANY — ZIN-
ZENDORF AND THE MORAVIANS — THE THEOLOGY OF I/ESSING
— THE RATIONALISTIC BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM:
SEMLEI; ; EICHHORN — " THE THEOLOGY OF THE UNDERSTAND
ING " — THE PHILOSOPHY OF KANT — THE KANTIAN ETHICAL
RATIONALISM — JACOBI AND HERDER — Two DIVERGENT CUR
RENTS OF THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT .... 492-601
In France, in the eighteenth century, spread of deism in con
junction with a materialistic atheism. VOLTAIRE a Deist and a
believer in immortality, but did not spare in his assault the distinc
tive facts and doctrines of Christianity. CONDILLAC inferred from
Locke that all mental states spring from sensation. Ascribed all
inclinations to self-love. HELVETIUS identified morality with
selfishness. The Encyclopaedists and HOLBACH professed material
ism and atheism. The protest of ROUSSEAU based belief in the
truths of Christianity, including the superhuman nature of Jesus,
upon feeling. (In this period Swedenborg's doctrines revealed
to him and verified, as he thought, by a direct revelation. The
external world the counterpart of the inward and spiritual. Nature
a parable. The Bible under its literal sense carries an occult
spiritual meaning. God in His essence, love, and wisdom. The
Trinity modal and began with the creation. Christ preexistent,
and as such divine-human ; in the flesh, He is the Son ; the divine
which proceeds from Him is the Spirit. A substitutionary atonement
Ixxil CONTENTS
PAGES
rejected, and a physical resurrection. Angels are departed human
beings.) German Theology in later times includes a history of
the successive types of Rationalism, with counter-movements. In
the first era of Rationalism, the AXGLO-FRENCH DEISM dominant:
the epoch of Frederick II., spiritual religion cherished by the Pie
tists and the Moravians. In this period, LESSING mingled in the
religious controversies of the day. Agreeing with the Deists, that
true religion is the religion of reason, makes the discernment of its
truths to be, not at the start, but at the goal, as the result of the
divine education of the race, to which positive religions lead up, and
by which they are superseded. Lessing's distinction between
the 'religion of Christ' and ; the Christian religion.' Lessing's
publication of the work of Reimarus, attacking the credibility of
the Gospels. The lesson of his Nathan the Wise, that one's creed
is of little moment, charity alone being of worth. The period
of so-called "illumination" in Biblical and Historical Criticism,
opened by SEMLER, called in question received views in this whole
province. EICHHORN followed in the same direction, broaching
suggestions and problems without number. Brought in Astruc's
hypothesis of the documentary origin of Genesis, the precursor of
the subsequent " Higher Criticism" in the field of Old Testament
study. The orthodoxy of the period — that of MICHAELIS, MOSHEIM,
etc. — "the theology of the understanding." KANT laid the
foundation of a new era in philosophy by which theology was
powerfully affected. The "forms" of perception, space, and time
purely subjective ; the "categories " of the understanding, cause,
etc., modes of mental activity. The reality of the objects sug
gested by Reason — God, the ego, the world as a complete whole —
unverifiable and inconceivable. The several "proofs" of the
being of God, fallacies or fall short of their pretensions. Kant's
theoretical system, an organization of skepticism. Inihe prac-
tical philosophy, he rescued the truths of God, the personal ego, the
future life, as being verified by conscience. God, freedom, and
immortality thus certified to be real. Moral freedom the power of
determining the will by the moral law, uninfluenced by the desires.
Religion defined to be the recognition of our duties as divine
commands. Everything in religion not recognized and verified by
reason, ultimately to cease to be of any account. The subjection
of the will to the propensities implies a transcendental Ur-bose.
The new birth reverses this underlying disposition of the will. The
Son of God the ideal man. Saving faith is this belief. Belief in
miracles cannot be established, and not morally helpful. The
effect of the influence of Kant upon theology to subordinate Chris
tianity to an ethical legalism. The miraculous events eliminated
by stretching the principle of accommodation on the part of Christ
Himself, and by ascribing to the Apostles misconceptions of natural
events. So WEGSCHEIDER, RUHR, and others. HERDER, with a
genial enthusiasm, reasserted for feeling a high place in religion.
CONTENTS Ixxiii
PAGES
Assumes a primitive revelation to communicate to men the founda
tions of knowledge, and an ascending development of mankind, not
however a genetic evolution. Christ the ideal man. inspiration
the enlivening of human powers. A more definite protest
against Kant's philosophy of religion from JACOBI, who made the
fundamental truths of religion to rest upon a necessity of feeling.
Reason not merely regulative; it is intuitive. "Nature conceals
God " ; "man reveals God." Thenceforward, on the one hand,
a believing Christian theology, founded on "the consciousness of
God," and, on the other, a speculative Pantheism, resulting from
a modification of Kant's philosophy.
CHAPTER VI
SCHLEIERMACHER'S THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM .... 502-511
Herder and Jacobi the forerunners of SCHLEIERMACHER. In
him the mingled influences of the Gospel and Spinoza. Connected
with a profound insight into the character and work of Christ
speculative difficulties respecting the personality of God. He
sets aside both the rationalistic dogmatics, as identifying religion
with ethics, and the orthodox dogmatics, as starting from no single
principle, and as comprising matter not involved in Christian ex
perience. Dogmatics related to the Church. The Church a
society, a communion, based on PIETY. Piety a feeling, namely,
the feeling of absolute dependence, which coexists with the feeling
of relative dependence. Piety consists in the due relation of the
" consciousness of God" and the "consciousness of the world."
Piety thus purely subjective. Christian piety related to Christ as
consciously its author. Dogmatic theology states the contents
of Christian experience. What lies beyond is left to ethics, etc.
FIRST, it considers the pious experience (Gottesbewusstsein) in
itself ; SECONDLY, the sinful experience in itself ; THIRDLY, the ex
perience of redemption as related to the Redeemer. I. In the
feeling of absolute dependence, it is preservation, not creation,
that is involved, and the one divine attribute of primal causal
agency (ursachlichkeit). God the immanent cause of the world.
II. Sin is the predominance of the flesh over the spirit, the subju
gation of the religious feeling. As common to the race, is Origi
nal Sin. III. In Christ, the religious feeling in absolute control
from the start, yet there is a constant, advancing victory. His
perfect religiousness the peculiarity of his person. The formula
that He had a divine nature questionable. Not so properly the
Example as He is the Type of Mankind. Is the Source of a new
spiritual life in fellowship with God, which is first realized in Him
self, and is communicated to those who are drawn to Him. This
effect depends upon coming within the community of believers.
The redemptive work the imparting of the inward conscious-
Ixxiv CONTENTS
PAGl
ness of fellowship with God ; His atoning work the imparting of
His untroubled blessedness. God looks upon the sinner as he is
ideally, as he is as being in Christ. The believer forgiven, since
the root of sin in him is destroyed, and evil and pain lose their
punitive aspect. Forgiveness changes the significance of pain.
— The sufferings of Christ manifest His absolute devotion to
His work, and His blessedness as victorious over the most bitter
pain. His sympathy with human guilt and ill-desert, His sympa
thetic apprehension of it, at the highest pitch in His death, which
was thus for others — for the race. In His sufferings, His perfect
holiness and blessedness manifest. His consciousness the norm
and type of acceptable piety. He annihilated sin and suffering,
of which sin is the parent. The deliverance wrought by Christ,
according to iSchleiermacher, is in the sphere of the natural order.
— When the will ceases to be determined by the "flesh," there
is "conversion." "Justification " is the removal of our conscious
ness of guilt and ill-desert. But Justification not a single or dis
tinct act of God. Miracles whatever they may be, provided for in
Nature. Not a component part of our faith in Christ, but to im
peach them would discredit the testimony of the original reporters,
and so destroy the basis of faith. The greatest miracle of all is
Christ Himself. Faith in Christ precedes faith in the Script
ures, which are the norm of expositions of the Gospel. PRAYER,
as well as its answer, a product of Christ's agency, and their ex
istence and connection are events in the established order of
things. The Invisible Church the sum of all the effects of the
Spirit. In ESCHATOLOGY, no systematic construction of doctrine
possible. The continuance of personal life represented by the res
urrection. Punishment not eternal, since that would disturb the
happiness of Heaven. The Sabellian conception of the Trinity.
— Christian elements pervade the system of Schleiermacher, and
in it Christ has the central place. Yet one-sided in its subjecti
vism. The transcendence of God sacrificed and absorbed in His
immanence. Personality, freedom, fail of a just recognition.
The radical assumption of an intra-mundane causality as the
equivalent of God moulds the doctrinal definitions. Yet it is not
the same as the bare substance of Spinoza.
CHAPTER VII
THE LIBERAL EVANGELICAL OR MEDIATING SCHOOL : THE INFLU
ENCE OF SCHLEIERMACHER ; DORNER ; JULIUS MULLER ; NITZSCH
— THE SYSTEM OF UOTHE — LIPSIUS — THE CONFESSIONAL
LUTHERANS — THE RITSCHLIANS 512-530
The Liberal Evangelical Theology, the Mediating School, drew its
inspiration from Schleiermacher. At every point he is both followed
and criticised. In spirit, it resembles the point of view of Origen
CONTENTS 1XXV
PAGE!
in its tolerance of diversity of opinion. Was scientific, yet firmly
adhering to supernaturalism and the Evangelical Faith. Stood for
the concensus of the two confessions, the Lutheran and the Re
formed. Yet was not a weak eclecticism. It held that religion
has roots of its own, but that piety involves thought and will, as
well as feeling. It maintained both the transcendence and as the
immanence of God. It presented modified views of Inspiration,
not holding to Biblical inerrancy. Held to Justification by faith,
to the divinity of Christ, along with a diversity of views respecting
the mode of the Incarnation, to the historical verity of the miracles,
although all of them were not thought to be equally verified by the
evidence. As concerns Eschatology, differences of opinion on the
question of the eternity of future punishment. A continued oppor
tunity for repentance after death maintained by many. DORNER
in his method considerably influenced by Hegel. The centre of
his system the union of God and man in Christ. Rejecting the
theory of the KENOSIS, he teaches that this union, real from the
beginning, was gradual in its effects. The abnormal condition of
men at birth not imputed to the individual until the emergence of
the power to struggle against it. No final condemnation save for
obduracy, under the test presented by a knowledge of the Gospel.
Probation after death may prove effectual for good to all, but may
not. An objective atonement, but not that of the Anselmic doc
trine. JULIUS MULLER taught that the belief in God springs
from the consciousness of our own personality as finite, along with
our conscious subjection to the law of conscience. The proofs (so-
called) of God's existence and attributes, corroborative. The
ground and cause of sin a transcendent, non-temporal, voluntary
act of each individual. K. I. NITZSCH teaches that through the
Trinity the realization of the attributes of God is possible within
His own being. Redemption must involve the power to reawaken
religious sensibility and impart the power of self-punishment or the
death of contrition. Christ endures the infliction of the world's
unrighteousness that He may punish it upon us. He dies in our
place, as furnishing the power and possibility of our dying in Him.
The Scriptural teaching of the eternal damnation of individuals
hypothetically meant ; yet final resistance to grace is possible.
ROTHE equally established in his faith and bold in his speculation.
He undertakes to unite religion and ethics in one system, which starts
•with the Christian's consciousness of God, and is carried forward
by a logical process. Thus seeks to separate theology from phi
losophy, and to place theology on an independent footing. Two
sides of Revelation, Manifestation through objective acts of God in
His Providence and Inspiration. Revelation in its very nature
miraculous. The recorded miracles historical, yet the narrations
are to be tested like the records of ordinary events. The Scriptures
not free from errors, yet contain in themselves the corrective. An
immanent Trinity not accepted. Matter, although eternal, does
Ixxvi CONTENTS
PAGES
not clash with the perfection of God, since he can spiritualize it.
Man to take up and carry forward the spiritualizing process upon
his own physical being. Selfishness the natural result of his duality.
Rothe's idea a species of gnosticism. Redemption comes to our aid
and deliverance. The preexistence of Christ a subjective inference
of Paul and John. Christ reaches mature perfectness through con
flict, although He is free, through His miraculous birth, from the
dominance of the liesh. The Incarnation brings to pass, gradually,
an ethical union of God and man. Christ is thus truly divine.
The Holy Spirit and the glorified Christ one and the same. The
ultimate failure of any to achieve the absolute conquest of the
spirit must result in the extinction of their being. Redemption
only possible through forgiveness. Redemption must take away the
sinner's guilt and sin itself. The two elements condition each other.
The antimony solved, sin made forgivable by the guaranty ren
dered to God that sin, if it be forgiven, will be wholly put away
from the sinner, and that forgiveness will be the actual beginning
of purification. This guaranty through the perfecting of the
second Adam, the Redeemer. It is given in the case of every
sinner who enters into fellowship with Him. Christ by perfecting
Himself has entered into absolute union with God and with the
race of mankind, and so fitted Himself to be the cause and prin
ciple of our sanctification. This self-perfecting of Christ accom
plished through His successful combat with temptation and self-
surrender in death, out of love to men. He bore the penalties of
our sin in that He felt sympathetically the sufferings that befell
men and are not properly His. The glorification of Christ the
legitimate fruit of the spiritual perfection attained through conflict
with temptation and through self-surrender to death, by which His
spiritual power is vastly augmented.. In Kothe's conception of the
Atonement, stress laid upon the effect of the conflict of Jesus upon
Himself — its retroactive effect. Like Luther, Campbell, Edwards,
Schleiermacher, Rothe makes Christ take up into His conscious
ness the penal quality which inheres. in the ordinance of death.
LIFSIUS combines in his system elements derived from both
Kant and Schleiermacher. The Lutheran " Confessionalists "
stand upon the historic creeds of their church. VON HOFMANN
considered to have departed from the orthodox conception of the
atonement. THOMASIUS advocated the theory of Kenosis.
RITSCHL, notwithstanding the independent position ascribed to
him, betrays the large influence of Schleiermacher. Traces re
ligion to the sense of weakness consequent on the conflict of the
soul with the opposing, oppressive forces of nature. Separating
theology from metaphysics, does not abjure philosophy. Following
Kant, adopts the ethical postulate of freedom. Natural science,
having nothing to do with the world as a whole, stands apart from
theology. Miracles, so far as they may be thought to be historical,
need not be considered contrary to natural laws. The sources of
CONTENTS
PAGES
our religious knowledge are the Scriptures. This not true of the
Greek or the Scholastic systems. " Natural Theology " not among
the sources. Revelation, known through the Scriptures, the one
source. In them the record of the manifestation of God's right
eousness, i.e. His consistent purpose and procedure in saving His
people. Christ conscious of a vocation to carry out this divine
purpose. His obedience and suffering consequent, but there is no
expiatory quality in His death. The preexistence of Christ a sub
jective conception of the Apostles who teach it. As having ful
filled His vocation, Christ somehow exalted and entrusted with the
government of the world. Therefore, and on account of His unity
with God in love and purpose, may be called God and may be war-
shipped. The filial relation gained by entering into the kingdom
of His followers. -- A leading principle of Kitsch! is the doctrine
of value-judgments. It is the relativity of our knowledge con
cerning God and things divine. We cannot know them in them
selves. Christ the means of the revelation of God to us. An
ontological knowledge of Christ impossible. This phenomenology
a characteristic of Kitschl's system. - The Augustiniau doctrine
of sin discarded ; sin not an inheritance. All forgivable sins are
sins of ignorance. Whether any will reach the stage of wilful re
sistance to grace, not known to us. - The Kitschlian theologians
and critics not in all respects at one with the head of the school.
KAFTAN accepts the idea of "values," of religious knowledge as
drawn from the self-revelation of God in Christ, of the pernicious
influence of metaphysics upon theology. Holds that as yet we
cannot connect the Pauline forensic view of salvation with the
Pauline doctrine of an inward death and resurrection in fellowship
with Christ. HERMANN distinctly advances beyond the Ritschlian
phenomenology or agnosticism. Kaftan discovers a like conserv
ative tendency.
CHAPTER VIII
THE PANTHEISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY IN
GERMANY : FICHTE ; SCHELLING ; HEGEL — THE HEGELIAN IN
TERPRETATION OF CHRISTIANITY — THE WRITINGS OF STRAUSS
- BlEDERMANN - THE SYSTEM OF BAUR . . . 531-535
KANT refused to regard the laws of thought as the laws of things.
FICHTE drew the "thing in itself," the sole external object within
the subjective sphere. The result was idealism. All reality the
product of the activity of the ego. The finite ego the product of
the impersonal underlying ego, the Absolute. The moral order of
the world substituted for God. Morality and religion identical.
The limit of personal freedom the concession of a like freedom to
others. • - SCHELLING pronounced the Absolute the point of in
difference between the subject and the object. The world and the
ego. identical in substance and origin. The Absolute discerned by
Ixxviii CONTENTS
PAG1
"intellectual intuition." HEGEL accepted Schilling's funda
mental position, but undertook to supply the alleged defect and to
bridge the gulf between the finite and the infinite. The universe,
including God, nature, self, a chain of concepts, self-evolved, com
prising in themselves all that is real ; for thoughts are things, and
there are no other. This is the world as it unfolds itself to the
philosopher. The method of necessary evolution through thesis,
antithesis, and synthesis. To Hegel this Pantheistic philosophy is
the naked truth, of which Christianity is the popular form. The
contents of both identical. STRAUSS, in his Life of Jesus, de
rided the old Kantian rationalism of Paulus and others ; pronounced
the New Testament stories of miracles to be myths. The New Testa
ment idea of the union of God and man in Christ is the popular repre
sentation of the truth that the impersonal Absolute becomes self-
conscious in mankind collectively taken. In his second Life of Jesus,
Strauss alters his definition of a myth, and falls back for consolation
upon a kind of Stoicism. BIEDERMANN, without forsaking the
Hegelian principles, admits that in the practical religious life the
personality of God must be held. Sin a necessary step or stage for
a finite being to pass through. BACK'S critical construction con
formed to Hegelian Philosophy. Christianity treated as an evolution
according to the Hegelian method : first Ebionitism, then its liberal
(or Pauline) antithesis, then a synthesis as exhibited in the Acts and
(post-apostolic) epistles. The Fourth Gospel completes the process
of reconciliation. OTTO PFLEIDERER, especially in his Philos
ophy of Religion, seeks to combine the essential principle of
Schleiermacher with Hegel. Unlike Rothe, plants himself on the
theory of naturalism, discarding miracles.
CHAPTER IX
THE LATER ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY — INDIFFERENTISM IN THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY — THE FALL OF THE JESUIT ORDER
AND ITS REVIVAL — LIBERALISM OF LAMENXAIS AND HIS AS
SOCIATES — PAPAL REIGN OF Pius IX. — THE DOGMA OF THE
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION — THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE
DOGMA OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY — THE INTERPRETATION OF
THE DOGMA 536-544
In the eighteenth century, the spread of free-thinking and of indif-
ferentism enabled the Roman Catholic sovereigns to reduce the
exertion of Papal prerogatives in their respective dominions. Tem
porary downfall of the Jesuit Society through its contests with
other orders, and with the Popes in its conduct of missions, its
meddling in politics and its worldliness, and was abolished by
CLEMENT XIV. (1773). Under Napoleon, imperialism took the life
out of Gallicanism. Pius VII., in 1814, revived the Jesuit order,
which enlisted in the cause of absolutism. After the Bourbons
CONTENTS Ixxix
PAGES
came back to power, LE MAISTRE a champion of an extreme view
of the Pope's spiritual authority. Later, LAMENNAIS and others
combined the same principle with political liberalism, but found no
favor with GREGORY XIV. One of the most influential of the
writers on casuistry, ALFONSO DA LIGUORI (d. 1787) ; an " equi-
probabilist " ; lax in his casuistic teaching on certain topics. In
Germany, under the auspices of Mohler, rise of a learned school of
liberal Catholicism. Mohler taught that the dogmatic decisions of
Council and Pope united are infallible. DOLLINGER manifested in
later writings before the Vatican Council a better appreciation of
Luther, and an irenical spirit. Pius IX., after returning from exile,
a foe of political liberalism. After a series of preparatory steps, in
1854, declared it to be a revealed truth that the Virgin Mary was
from her conception free from original sin. In 1804 issued an EN
CYCLICAL Letter containing a syllabus of errors, under the head of
Rationalism, Nationalism, and Liberalism. — —The project of a
General Council called out, on the one hand, a class of infallibilists
and, on the other, strong opposition to their doctrine or purpose,
or to both. The VATICAN COUNCIL left by the plan of procedure
marked out for it, substantially under Papal control. A rule
adopted that only a majority should be required for a dogmatic de
cree. The sanction of Papal INFALLIBILITY carried through the
body, notwithstanding that the opposition to it, partly as untrue
and partly as inopportune, was strong both in numbers and in
weight of character. The Vatican decrees emanate from the
Pope, the Council approving. The Council does not make the de
crees and it abrogates the right to call in question the definitions
emanating from the Pontiff alone. Virtually the suicide of the
Liberalism defended at Constance and by the Liberal Catholicism.
— The decree of infallibility ascribes inerrancy to the Pope only
when he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals, and ad
dresses the entire Church with this explicit intention. The Roman
Catholic expositors of the decree attach strict limits to its meaning.
Exclude from the domain of inerrancy utterances in daily life,
books, correspondence, in judicial decisions and sentences, and in
the condemnation of books, etc. Only one sentence in the famous
bull unam sanctam conceded to be ex cathedra. The Vatican
Decree severely criticised by GLADSTONE and others as being in
conflict with the rights of the civil authority, since it left to the
Pope to define the limits of the conceded prerogative, or his own
jurisdiction. DOLLINGER and other leaders of the Old Catholic
movement rejected the Vatican Decree as not being unanimously
approved by the bishops or ratified by the whole Church. In one of
the Old Catholic Conference^ for the promotion of Christian union,
held at BONN (1874), fourteen doctrinal articles agreed upon,
and at a second Conference (1876) there was an agreement upon
six articles.
[XXX CONTENTS
CHAPTER X
PAGES
CONCLUSION : CERTAIN THEOLOGICAL TENDENCIES IN RECENT TIMES
545-557
Emphasis laid, more than in the last century, on the immanence
of God. Pantheism seen to contain a half-truth. The Deistlc habit
of thought supplanted. In Christian Evidences, external proofs
in a subordinate place. The trend towards a materialistic Pan
theism less perceptible than when the law of physical evolution
was first announced. HUXLEY depicts the moral task of man as in
direct conflict with the " cosmic process." A progress towards a
full recognition of the free and responsible nature of man. In the
personal history of KOMANES, a record of a progress of a man of
science from skepticism to Christian Theism. At present, the
supernatural not regarded as anti-natural. A search for unity
in the divine plan. It is felt that the miracles must have their
place in a comprehensive order. Respecting the ATONEMENT, a
quest for a point of view where the historic facts concerning Christ
shall interpret themselves conformably to the Christian doctrine.
— As to the seat of authority, a growing tendency to regard the
Scriptures less as a manual of revealed tenets than as disclosing
Christ and the purport of his mission and teaching. The absolute
inerrancy of the Scriptures in non-essentials not so generally main
tained. A prominent object of investigation is the " conscious
ness of Christ." The great antithesis between " Sacramentalism "
and the opposite view remains. The Vatican Decree a new obstacle
to Christian union. The opposite tendency of the doctrine of theo
logical development. The reduction of the area, and the partial
disintegration of the system, of Calvinism. Prominent causes : the
spread of Arminianism from its early home in Holland, the line of
Apologetics followed by Bishop BUTLER, the influence of Wesleyan
Methodism, the dissatisfaction with the views of the character of
God which have been associated with "limited atonement." The
real source of the opposition to Calvinism not its theory of determin
ism, but its doctrine of predestination as connected with its views
of Eschatology. A certain weakening of confidence in the tradi
tional theological solutions of central problems. Widely felt that
the exegesis of the past calls for revisal. These feelings not seldom
coexisting with an unshaken faith in the substance of the verities
imbedded in the historic creeds and the religious experience of
Christian people. The state of mind here referred to as set forth
by two typical representatives of modern orthodox opinion in Eng«
land, DEAN CHURCH and R. W. DALE.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
INTRODUCTION
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE SUBJECT — THEOLOGY POSSIBLE — ITS
RELATION TO FAITH ITS RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY ITS NEED
AND ORIGIN FACTORS IN FORMULATING CHRISTIAN TRUTH
DEVELOPMENT IN THEOLOGY DIVISIONS IN THE HISTORY OF
DOCTRINE — SKETCH OF ITS COURSE — HISTORY OF THE HISTORY
OF DOCTRINE — THE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT
CHRISTIANITY is the revelation of God through Jesus Christ
whereby reconciliation and a new spiritual life in fellowship with
Himself are brought to mankind. The religion of Christ is insep
arable from the life and character of its Founder and from his per
sonal relations to the race and to the community of his followers.1
Herein Christianity is differentiated from systems of philosophy.
They might remain unaltered were their authors forgotten or never
known. Equally is it contrasted with ethnic religions, whether
they spring up in the darkness of prehistoric times, or are linked
to the names of specific founders, real or imaginary. To under
take to dissever Christianity from Christ is to mistake its nature
and to ignore some of its essential requirements. Nevertheless,
Christianity is composed of teachings which are to be proclaimed,
and which call for a clear and connected interpretation. Al
though not without ritual observances, it is not a religion of
mystic ceremonies, the meaning and effect of which it is impossi-
1 He appears in the character of a second head of the race, the author of
a new spiritual creation. See I Cor. xv. 45 (" The last Adam became a life-
giving Spirit"). Cf. Rom. v. 12 sq.; also Eph. i. 22, 2 Cor. v. 17 ("a new
creature; the old things are passed away"), Gal. vi. 15. See, also, John XT.
5 (" ye are the branches ")
B I
2 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
ble to state or to understand. Its doctrines do not lie outside
the limit of intelligible expression. The History of Christian
Doctrine is the record of the series of attempts made in suc
cessive periods to embody the contents of the Gospel in clear
and self-consistent propositions.
The History of Doctrine admits of a wider or a more restricted
treatment. It may be the aim simply to exhibit the history of
dogmas ; that is, of the definitions of doctrine which have been
arrived at either in the Church at large, or in leading branches of it
— definitions which, when once reached, were held to be authori
tative. A dogma is a distinct conception and perspicuous state
ment of a doctrine professed by the body, or by a considerable
body, of Christian people. The word 'dogma' denoted in the
Greek a tenet or an ordinance. It was either a settled article of
faith or a precept sent forth from a recognized authority. In the
Bible the term is used in the last of these meanings, — that of an
edict or enactment.1 Among the Stoics " dogmas " meant funda
mental truths which have the character of axioms. Their title to
credence was conceived to partake of the sanctity of law. So
among the Christian Fathers, " dogmas " were not conceived of as
the injunctions of a superior, but rather as verities which orthodox
believers are agreed in accepting.2
It is to be borne in mind, then, that dogmas are not the opinions
of an individual merely, but are the interpretations of Christian
ity which have been cast in an explicit form, and have been
raised to the rank of doctrinal standards and tests. The history
of dogmas is thus an account of the process of formulating the
contents of Christianity in the creeds of acknowledged authority.
By a number of recent writers, of whom one of the ablest and
most conspicuous is Dr. A. Harnack, the function of the history
of doctrine is confined to the description of the genesis and de
velopment of " dogmas." The plan of Harnack's doctrinal history
is conformed to this conception of the subject. The dogmatic
interpretation of Christianity, the author justly considers, was at
1 In the Sept., Dan. ii. 13 (" decree " of Nebuchadnezzar), vi. 9 (interdict
of Darius), Esther in. 9, Luke ii. I (" decree " of Augustus), Acts xvi. 4 (" de
crees " of the apostles and elders), Eph. ii. 15, Col. ii. 14 (ordinances of O.T.
law).
3 On the history of the use of the word ' dogma/ see K. I. Nitrsch, DGM-
p. 52; F. NiUsch, DG., p. I.
INTRODUCTION 3
first, and to a great extent, a product of Greek thought, work
ing from the points of view and in the spirit peculiar to the
Hellenic mind. The outcome of this process of thought, which
was carried forward through several centuries of controversy,
appears in the oecumenical creeds pertaining to the Incarnation
and the Trinity. Through Augustine, the system underwent an
essential modification. There came in a practically new element,
which stamped upon the theology of the West its distinctive char
acter. In Augustine the old and the new, the Greek and the
Latin elements, stand in juxtaposition. Later through Luther the
Pauline type of teaching became a more determining factor in
dogmatic construction. Through the great Reformer there was
achieved an inchoate, incomplete re- formulating of that dogmatic
system which had assumed a definite form in the Middle Ages.
The result of the Protestant movement in the dogmatic field was
threefold : the Lutheran theology, Socinianism, and the restate
ment of the Roman Catholic system at the Council of Trent, —
this last system being amplified in recent days, especially through
the Vatican Council.1
But it has been the custom of former writers to give a broader
scope to the History of Doctrine. It may undertake to trace the
history of theology, not only so far as theological inquiry and dis
cussion have issued in articles of faith, but likewise so far as move
ments of religious thought are of signal interest, and are often not
unlikely to influence sooner or later the moulding of the Christian
creed. The present volume will include a survey, as full as is
practicable within the space at command, of the course of modern
theology down to the present day.
How shall we state concisely the essential truth in Christianity,
— that truth which Christian theology seeks to explicate ? Light
is thrown on this question by the response of Jesus to the declara
tion of Peter : " Thou art Christ, the son of the living God." "On
this rock," said Jesus, — meaning by the "rock," if not this avowal
of Peter, the Apostle himself in the character of a leader in the
confession and promulgation of the faith, — "I will build my
church." J This living conviction of Peter, it is added, was
inspired from above. Identical in substance with this passage
1 See Harnack, Lehrb. d. DG. (2 ed.)t I. l-io; Abriss d. DG. (2 ed.)
PP- i-5» P- 334 sq.
2 Matt. xvi. 16-18. (Cf. John ir. 42.)
4 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
are the words of the Apostle Paul : " No man can say Jesus is
* Lord ' but in the Holy Spirit." 1 In that title Jesus is recog
nized as the predicted Messenger of God and the head of the
kingdom. By way of protest against the denial of the true human
nature and experiences of the Christ the Apostle John propounds
the test : " Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is of God." 2 In the New Testament it is con
stantly assumed where it is not expressly affirmed, that mankind
in character are alienated from God, and that Christ is the Deliv
erer through whom reconciliation is made and a filial relation
reestablished. The substance of Christianity is expressed in the
word ' Redemption,' with its postulates and results.3
Is theology possible ? Is the human mind capable of forming
accurate conceptions and expressions of religious truth ? If not,
then the History of Doctrine is nothing more than a register of
incessant, but forever abortive, experiments. A denial of the possi
bility of theology is heard from the various schools of Agnosticism.
Comte, the founder of the Positivist system, who is not counted
technically among the Agnostics, denies that we have any evidence
of the reality of either efficient or final causes. All science dwin
dles to a record of bare phenomena, arranged by their sequence
in time and their likeness or unlikeness. Of course theology is
expunged from the list of sciences and degraded to a level with
astrology. Herbert Spencer, affirming the reality of an absolute
" Power" at the root of all phenomena, yet asserts that it is utterly
inscrutable. It is, but is an " Unknowable." This one step Mr.
Spencer takes in advance of the position of Comte. There is,
moreover, a theistic and Christian class of Agnostics, who, while
they do go farther than barely to admit the existence of the
object-matter of theology, still banish it beyond the purview of
conceptive thought. We may not know, although we are war
ranted in believing. Kant set out to confute the skepticism of
Hume, but Kant, in the theoretical part of his philosophy, so far
as the point in question is concerned, really organized skepticism.
He substituted for custom or imagination as the source of mental
intuitions nothing but a purely subjective necessity and univer
sality. Sir William Hamilton followed in the path of Kant so far
as to pronounce our religious beliefs — our belief in God and
1 I Cor. xii. 3. * i John iv. 2.
1 John i. 12, i John iii. I, 2 Cor. v. 19, Gal. iii. 26, Rom. viii. 15-17, etc.
INTRODUCTION
5
freedom, for example — to be a choice between inconceivables
which exclude one another, — this choice finding a warrant in
moral grounds alone. Hamilton's theory was carried out in a
philosophy of religion by Mansel in his " Limits of Religious
Thought." 'Faith without science' is the watchword of this phi
losophy. The contention is that all our notions of the infinite and
of God, being relative, are merely approximate. They will not
answer, therefore, as a basis for reasoning. They constitute no
materials for science, strictly so-called. The prop on which Ag
nostics lean is the assumed relativity of human knowledge. Our
knowledge, it is alleged, is solely of phenomena, of things as they
appear to us. It is only symbols, realities transformed into some
thing different from what they are, that the human mind can
discern. But phenomena are not masks ; they are revelations
of reality, and to know is not to transmute or to create. There
are bounds to the knowledge possible to finite intelligence. Em
phatically is this true as concerns the spiritual world. But this
circumstance does not justify the casting of discredit upon the
knowledge of which we are possessed. It affords no reason for
affixing to it the stamp of unreality.
It has sometimes been contended that theology can never be a
science, on account of the infirmities of language. These are said
to preclude exact expression. This view was propounded by an
eminent American preacher and author, Horace Bushnell.1 It is
an inference drawn from the material origin of language, by which
a merely symbolical character is given to all words denoting spirit
ual things. They are attempts to picture things invisible. They
are in their very nature figurative — a "fossil poetry." Under
neath this opinion there really lies the contention of Occam, the
Nominalist leader in the latter part of the Middle Ages, by whom
theological nescience was inferred from a denial to man of the con-
ceptive faculty. If the objection were sound, it would be equally
valid, for example, against ethics and political science. Intellectual
notions "are at the foundation of all science." It is no doubt
an important truth that words which signify spiritual states that
involve feeling — since feeling so varies in depth and warmth —
mean different things to different persons.2 The impressions
1 God in Christ (1849), Preliminary Essay: Christ in Theology (1851).
2 This fact is instructively dwelt upon by Cardinal Newman, University
Sermons, pp. 114, 115, and in his Grammar of Assent. The difference be-
6 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
excited in different minds by the words that denote virtues and
vices, and by epithets of praise and blame, differ exceedingly.
This difference affects the force of probable reasoning. But, apart
from the emotions that are stirred, it is enough to say with J. S.
Mill as to abstractions in general, that " in some cases it is not
easy to decide precisely how much a particular word does or does
not connote." 1
What is the relation of theology to that faith which, as it is
the first demand of the Gospel, is the initial element in Chris
tian experience? Discussions concerning the relation of faith to
knowledge we shall meet with at every period in the History of
Doctrine.2 First, knowledge is not a stage above that of faith, as
if faith were a ladder to be dropped when once the ascent by it is
made. This idea of the provisional function of faith is suggested
by Clement of Alexandria, yet is not by him consistently adhered
to.3 His partial error is the result of a failure to grasp firmly the
Pauline idea of faith. Faith is made by Clement the precursor of
knowledge. It is the path to that love and holiness which qualify
us to know divine things.4 It follows from this conception that
there is an esoteric Christianity. There is a higher plane than
that which the ordinary believer attains to. But faith, we are
taught by the Apostle, merges at last, not in science, but in sight.
Faith " abides " until beyond the veil it is resolved into vision.5
Secondly, there is another view which recognizes that faith has
roots of its own, yet holds that scientific knowledge may become,
and is destined to become, coextensive with it. That which faith,
impelled by the moral nature embraces, theology demonstrates.
This is the Scholastic theory. It is traceable to Augustine, and is
propounded by Anselm. Stress is laid, however, on the influence
of faith in clarifying the intellect and thus empowering it to do its
work. Later, in the thirteenth century, the inability of reason to
tween knowing certain truths and knowing them as they exist in another
individual's mind, is illustrated by J. B. Mozley, Miracles, p. xxviii.
1 Logic, I. ii. § 5.
2 See an excellent essay, " Gedanken iiber Glauben u. Wissen," in Julius
M tiller's Dogmatisch. Abhandll,, pp. 1-42.
8 Cf. Neander's exposition of Clement, Ch. Hist. (Tony's transl.), I. 529-
541.
* " In Clement's view the supreme End of all is not Love, but Knowledge."
Bigg's The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 88.
6 i Cor. xiii. 12, 13.
INTRODUCTION 7
do more than partially to fulfil its task was more explicitly asserted.
The goal is approached, but it is never reached. But according
to both Anselm and Aquinas, as fast as science advances faith is
displaced. From a point of view in general quite different from
that of the Scholastic theologians, Lessing, herein the spokesman of
a type of modern Rationalism, regards faith as a temporary leaning
upon authority up to the time when reason is so far developed as to
be able to cast aside this crutch. Hegel comes to the same result
in making faith an unscientific apprehension of that truth which
the philosopher evolves in its pure form without help from abroad.
The orthodox creed is construed as a popular version of the
Hegelian metaphysic.
The true view is that the faith of the Christian disciple is not
the product of science, but science is the intellectual apprehension
of its contents. Faith, to be sure, includes a perception of truth.
It presupposes ideas, in particular the idea of God and that of
moral freedom and responsibility. Its object is Christ, the per
sonal Saviour, coming to minister to the needs of the spirit, dying,
rising from the dead, reigning, but not forsaking his disciples. In
this faith, as a practical experience, are the materials of theology.
It is to be observed, however, that faith is not here taken as in
the vocabulary of the Church of Rome, where its object is made
to comprehend the entire body of ecclesiastical teaching, which is
to be accepted on the ground of authority.
What is the relation of Theology to Philosophy? For the
reason that their problems are to a considerable extent the same,
the point of difference between them is to be carefully observed.
Christianity is an historical religion. At the foundation of Chris
tian theology are facts which occur within the sphere of freedom,
and therefore do not admit of being explained upon any theory
of necessary evolution. As students of the Gospel we are in a
province where the agency of personal beings is the principal
matter. It was the love of God to mankind that led to the mis
sion of Christ. It was a free act of love, the bestowal of an
" unspeakable gift." The method of salvation is a course of self-
sacrifice which culminates in the cross. These things cannot be
made links in a metaphysical chain. They are not so many steps
on a logical treadmill. Their analogue is to be found in the
purest deeds of love, patience, and self-devotion which the annals
of humanity contain. Nevertheless, the facts of Christianity are
g HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
not barren occurrences. They are capable of an explanation.
They are not without a significance. They are in fulfilment of a
purpose. Their fitness to the end sought, theology with the aid
of Scripture seeks to point out. But philosophy has another start
ing-point. It begins with the data of consciousness and builds its
structure by a process in which historical events have no place.
That there is room for a science of Christian theology is evident
for a threefold reason. In the first place, Christianity is set forth
in the Scriptures in a popular, as distinguished from a literal and
methodical style of teaching. We meet there not the precise
phraseology of the schools, but the language of common life.
The Gospel was addressed principally to plain people. The
Apostles, with a single exception, were not educated men in
the ordinary sense of the term. It was for this reason that the
impressiveness with which they spoke astonished cultivated hear
ers.1 The training of the Apostle Paul himself was not acquired
from Greek masters. He was a student not of Aristotle, but of
Gamaliel. His education was in the lore and by the methods of
Rabbinical teachers, although in his case indeed there was mingled
a degree of influence from personal contact with Gentile debates
and speculation.
In the second place, the appeal of Christianity was immediately
to the moral and spiritual nature. It did not aspire to rival the
Greeks, the seekers of " wisdom," 2 on their own field. The
awakening of conscience, the new life of faith, the uplifting
hopes kindled by the Gospel, are, to be sure, not inwrought as
by a magical spell. They imply perceptions of truth. Yet they
are distinctively experiences of the heart. Converts embraced the
Gospel from practical motives and in a practical spirit. It was the
question, "What shall I do to be saved" to which an answer was
craved and rendered. In the third place, there is a diversity, —
not a contradiction, — but a diversity in the ways in which the
Apostles themselves conceive of the Gospel. For example, there
is a Pauline type of doctrine, and a Johannine type of doctrine, an
Epistle of James as well as an Epistle to the Romans. There are
points of variety as well as of identity, between these various repre
sentations of the Christian revelation. It was looked at from differ
ent points of view. The foregoing remarks may suffice to show that
an open space was left for the researches and generalizations of
1 Acts iv. 13 ; cf. John vii. 15. 2 I Cor. i. 22.
INTRODUCTION g
theology. They may serve, also, to make it clear how theology,
or the understanding of the Christian Revelation, may be pro
gressive, and yet that Revelation itself not be defective or faulty.
The incentives to a search for exact and coherent conceptions
of Christian truth are not far to seek. We are made to think as
well as to feel and to act. The yearning for knowledge, innate in
the human mind, could not fail to be stimulated by the teaching of
the Gospel and the reception of it. Inquiries would spring up
unbidden. Problems would suggest themselves that would press
for a solution. Apart from these inducements, opinions clashing
with Apostolic teachings and with Christian experience would arise
and create a need for definitions of the truth. Theology arose in
the Church as a means of self-defence. In resisting assailants, lines
of circumvallation are required. These must be related to the
positions taken by the attacking force. When, for example, it
was asserted, on the one hand, that compliance with the ritual
law of the Old Testament is indispensable, and, on the other
hand, that the entire Old Testament system is alien to the Gos
pel, the true relation of the Old to the New, of Judaism to Chris
tianity, must needs be defined. Other illustrations are needless.
Along the whole course of Church History — in a marked way,
in the early period — the menace contained in erratic speculation
has been a spur to theological thought and the precursor of dog
matic definitions.
Doctrinal history includes the history of heresies. Heresy
denotes an opinion antagonistic to a fundamental article of the
Christian faith. When Christianity is brought into contact with
modes of thought and tenets originating elsewhere, either of two
effects may follow. It may assimilate them, discarding whatever
is at variance with the Gospel, or the tables may be turned and
the foreign elements may prevail. In the latter case there ensues
a perversion of Christianity, an amalgamation with it of ideas dis
cordant with its nature. The product is then a heresy.1 But to
fill out the conception, it seems necessary that error should be
aggressive and should give rise to an effort to build up a party
and thus to divide the Church. In the Apostles' use of the term
' heresy ' contains a factious element.2 A heretic was likewise a
schismatic. The word ' sect ' — from the root of sequi — means
* Cf. Rothe, Anfdngt d. Christl Kirche, p. 333.
a I Cor. xi. 1 8, 19 ; Gal. v. 20.
I0 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
etymologically the ' following/ or clientele, of a leader, — not a frac
tion broken off, as it is sometimes thought to signify (as if it were
from the root of secare} . The word ' heresy ' meant originally
' choice ' ; then an opinion that is the product of choice or of the
will, instead of being drawn from the divine Word. It is a man-
made opinion. Hence the term was given as a name to depart
ures from orthodox teaching which carried in them a breach of
church unity. ' Heresy ' is to be distinguished from defective
stages of Christian knowledge. For example, the Jewish believers,
including the Apostles themselves, at the outset required the Gen
tile believers to be circumcised. They were not on this account
chargeable with ' heresy.' Additional light must first come in and
be rejected, before that earlier opinion could be thus stigmatized.
Moreover, heresies are not to be confounded with tentative and
faulty hypotheses broached in a period prior to the scrutiny of a
topic of Christian doctrine, and before that scrutiny has led the
general mind to an assured conclusion. Such hypotheses — for
example, the idea that in the person of Christ the Logos is substi
tuted for a rational human spirit — are to be met with in certain
early Fathers. Attention to what are called heresies fills a consid
erable space in Doctrinal History. This is because they are in
themselves interesting, and especially because of their indirect
agency in the origination of finally accepted beliefs. It is a sub
ject which is handled more fairly and dispassionately than was
formerly the case, when the prominent heresiarchs were often held
up to execration. At present it is more clear that moral depravity
is not of course the concomitant of intellectual error.
From age to age, in the spread of Christianity by missionary
labor, in the guidance of ecclesiastical affairs, and in the sphere
of Christian philanthropy, there have appeared eminent leaders.
The same is true in the field of theological thought. Names
like those of Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, are them
selves landmarks in the course of doctrinal history. Yet no
more than in secular history is the agency of individuals to be
magnified. Not only their personal influence, but not less the
force of a general current of which it is partly the outflow, is to
be taken into the account. They may furnish a voice to wide
spread, albeit undefined and unspoken, convictions, and for this
reason may evoke responsive assent from Christian people.
There are three factors which are, or should be, conjoined in
INTRODUCTION j r
the framing of theological doctrines. The first is the authorita
tive source of knowledge on the subject, namely the Scriptures.
Even the Church of Rome holds that the supplementary contents
of tradition are found, obscurely at least, in the sacred writings.
Normative authority belongs to the Bible. It is the objective
rule of faith. It is not robbed of this character in consequence
of modified theories of the mode and extent of inspiration. If it
be alleged that Christ is the one authority, yet it is through a
critical study of the Scriptures, apart from subjective prejudice,
that the knowledge of Christ is to be obtained. But Christianity
is designed to mould the inward life. Christian experience, the
correlate of the written Gospel, has its place as a touchstone for
distinguishing Christian truth from error. Believers are taught
by the Spirit. They are enabled to discern spiritual things, which
are presented in verbal form on the page of Scripture.1 The In
tellect, moreover, has an office to perform. Its function is to
translate the truth which the Bible teaches and the soul appro
priates in a living experience, into lucid statements. The Word,
the Spirit, the Intellect, or Scripture, Experience, Science, are the
factors by whose combined agency the Gospel is rendered into
systematic expressions of doctrine. When the right relation of
these several factors to one another is disturbed, when an undue
predominance is accorded to either of them at the cost of its
associates, ill consequences ensue. There may be an abuse of the
authoritative element. There may be a servile reliance on in
herited interpretations of Scripture, or the adoption of meanings
having no other ground than ecclesiastical prescription. The
result is a traditionalism, which fails to penetrate to the core of
Scriptural teaching. This spirit prevailed in the Middle Ages, and
is with difficulty exorcised from most of the branches of the
Church. There must be scope for the free activity of the Intel
lect and of Christian Feeling. When Feeling, however, comes to
be considered an immediate fountain of knowledge, the intelli
gence is deprived of its rights, and the Bible sinks below its
proper level. The result is Mysticism in the objectionable form.
This term is not unfrequently used to stigmatize all forms of relig
ious experience in which there enters an unusual warmth of emo
tion. If it be Mysticism to hold that obedience is the road to
1 For good remarks on the relation of faith to the objective form of Script
ure, see Dorner's Hist, of Prof. Theology, Vol. I. Div. ii. c. 4.
I2 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
knowledge, in respect to divine things, and to certainty of con
viction, or to hold that insight into the realities of religious faith
presupposes an inward experience, the New Testament is open to
the charge of being a mystical book.1 " It is plain that the relig
ious, the believing, man as such is a Mystic ; for whoever is jiot
conscious of God, does not feel Him, can neither know Him nor
revere Him ; but whoever only makes Him an object of thought
without loving Him and becoming pure in heart, cannot know
Him in a living way." 2 Mysticism may be used as the syno
nym of ecstasy, — the transport of feeling in which thought and
will are merged. Mysticism, in the sense in which it is produc
tive of error in the sphere of Christian doctrine, is the assump
tion that to the individual there are vouchsafed visions of truth
exceeding the limits of the written Revelation. It involves the
assumption that feeling is a direct source of knowledge. " When,"
says Coleridge, " a man refers to inward feelings and experiences
of which mankind at large are not conscious, as evidences of the
truth of any opinion, such a man I call a Mystic." 3 Illumination
is made to stretch over ground not within the circuit of the Chris
tian Revelation. Of course, the Mystic is tempted to undervalue
the Scriptures. Why take a lamp in our hands when the sun's
rays are falling directly upon us? It is likewise natural for the
Mystic to disparage reason and science. Why should the under
standing explore for truth which we have only to look within to
behold ? A third species of perversion in the framing of doctrine
arises from the exaggeration of the intellectual factor. The con
sequence is Rationalism. Rationalism has been well described as
" a usurpation of the understanding." The function *of conscience
and the affections as auxiliaries in the ascertainment of truth is
partially or wholly ignored. The authority of the Scriptures is
openly or virtually set aside. The attempt is made to construct
theology in the dry light of the understanding, independently of
spiritual experience and of objective authority. Under this proc
ess the deeper truths of Christianity, which shade off into mys
tery, are likely to be discarded. In the end religion is spun out
of the mind through a metaphysical process in which the facts of
Revelation, if recognized at all, are shorn of historical reality.
1 See John vii. 17, xviii. 37 ; Matt. xi. 15, xiii. 16 ; I John iv. 8.
'C. I. Nitzsch, DGM., p. 37.
9 Aids to Reflection (Conclusion).
INTRODUCTION 13
Such was the outcome of the modern Pantheistic Schools of
speculative Philosophy in Germany. Mysticism and Rationalism
are at one in rejecting an objective standard of doctrine, an
authority exterior to the individual. The one enthrones feeling,
the other enthrones understanding, in the seat of authority.
They are different forms of a one-sided subjectivism. But they
often afford an illustration of the maxim that extremes meet. An
excess of emotion in the one, or the quenching of fervor in the
other, leads to an exchange of places. The Mystic cools into
the Rationalist ; the Rationalist warms into the Mystic.1
Writers in past times on the History of Doctrine have remarked
that the principal topics or branches of Christian doctrine have
each, to the exclusion of the rest, absorbed the attention of a
particular people. Theology, or the Person of Christ and the
Trinity, engrossed attention in the ancient Greek Church ; Anthro
pology, the subject of sin and grace, was the subject of investiga
tion in the Latin Church ; and Soteriology, or the doctrine of
Reconciliation, in the Teutonic Church, the Church of the Refor
mation. It has been said that in each case the subject of absorbing
interest corresponded to the mental habit of the people by whom
it was especially considered and discussed. Athanasius, Augustine,
Luther, stand as representatives of tendencies of thought inherent
in the nations or races to which they respectively belonged. It
has been objected to this representation, that in no period has it
been the real intention to take up and solve a single problem, that
the general end of Christianity has been conceived of essentially
in the same way, and that the purpose has always been — the pur
pose of Greek, Latin, and Teuton — to set forth Christianity in its
entirety.2 This criticism is just. The statement should rather be
that in each of the epochs the prevailing interpretation of Chris
tianity has corresponded to the special characteristics of time
and race. The historic result, however, has been substantially
that which is expressed in the statement that is criticised.
Among theories pertaining to the historical development of
Christian theology, there have been brought forward in modern
1 " Die Mystik," says Harnack, " ist in der Regel phantastisch ausgefxihrte
Rationalism us, und der Rationalismus ist abgeblasste Mystik." DG. Vol. II.
416, N. 2.
3 Ritschl, Die Christl Lehre d. Rechtfertigung u. Versohnung (2 ed.),
Vol. I. p. 3.
!4 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
days two, unlike in their character, that are especially worthy of
notice.
1 . The theory of Dr. Baur, the leader of the Tubingen School,
was matched to the Hegelian dialectic. In the process of evolu
tion, thesis involves and produces antithesis, thesis and antithesis
engender a higher unity. This in turn is differentiated and leads
on to like triple movements, until the implicit contents of the idea
are completely evolved, and the finality, the developed absolute,
is reached. Baur assumed an original Petrine, judaizing type of
doctrine, of which the Pauline teaching was the antithesis ; thesis
and antithesis resolved themselves into a compromising system.
By a process of this kind, catholic theology emerges, the final stage
of which is the Nicene definitions. In this naturalistic develop
ment, which runs through several centuries, most of the New Tes
tament canonical writings come in as post-apostolic productions.
They are so many landmarks in the progress of the historic evolu
tion. In this theory, retrograde movements, aberrations of greater
or less moment, are excluded. The course of opinion moves on
under a necessary law. The fundamental postulate, which history
must be so construed as to verify, is an ideal Pantheism.
2. An interesting theory of development has been brought for
ward in later times by distinguished writers of the Roman Catholic
Church. It has served as a means of upholding specific tenets and
practices for which it is increasingly difficult to find a basis either
in the canonical Scriptures or in the primitive Church. The most
eminent expounders of the general theory have been De Maistre
in France, Mb'hler in Germany, and the late Cardinal Newman.
We confine our attention here to Newman's exposition. It is pre
sented in his Essay on Development, which was written in 1845,
simultaneously with his passage from the Anglican over to the
Roman Church. The starting-point of Newman's theory is the
avowal that the teaching comprised in the original deposit of re
vealed truth, which was promulgated by Christ and the Apostles,
opens its contents in an explicit form only by degrees and as time
advances. There has been a continuous unfolding of the latent
contents of the original teaching, and this has gone forward under
the guardianship of the infallible Church, by which error is kept
out. All ideas, it is said, except such as are on the plane of
mathematical truth, — all living ideas, such as have to do with hu
man nature or human duty, politics or religion, — are fruitful ideas.
INTRODUCTION I5
They do not remain inert in the minds into which they fall. They
are not passively received. They produce agitation, they are
turned over and over in reflection, new lights are cast upon them,
new judgments arise respecting them, ferment and confusion ensue.
At length from all this commotion definite doctrine emerges. The
new idea is looked at in its relation to other doctrines and facts,
to other religions and philosophies. It is questioned and assailed,
it is explained and illustrated. In the case of a moral or theologi
cal truth, the final outcome is an ethical code, a theological dogma
or system. The point to be observed is that the germ stands to
the outcome in a genetic relation. The latter is the just and ade
quate representation of the original idea. It was in that idea as
the blossom is in the bud. It was what the original idea meant
from the first. For example, the Wesleyanism of to-day may be
said to be the legitimate growth of the seed sown in the last
century by its founder. Newman recognizes the possibility of cor
ruption, as in the case of any growth. This interrupts or prevents
healthy development. But there are tests which avail to determine
whether given phenomena in the religious province are normal or
the opposite. These are such as ' preservation of the idea,' ' power
of assimilation,' ' logical sequence,' ' chronic continuance,' and so
forth. On the basis of this general view, Newman argues that
there is an a priori probability of a development in Christianity,
and a further probability of the same sort that there will be a
developing Authority to discriminate between that which is sound
and that which is corrupt. The main contention is that the
Roman Catholic religion, as we now behold it, is the legitimate
heir, successor, and representative of primitive Christianity.
There is not a little which is not only striking but well-founded
in the preliminary portions of Newman's discussion — that part
which deals with the vital character of moral and spiritual truth.
But as soon as the possibility of corruption through the introduc
tion of alien and false elements is recognized, the question whether
there is a constituted authority competent to detect and cast aside
what is thus abnormal must be settled, and it must be settled, not
by an a priori speculation, but by a searching inquiry into the con
sistency of Roman teaching with itself and with the primitive docu
ments of the Christian religion. The theory must be brought to
the touchstone of history. In such a matter, no merely a priori
.inference, even if it may seem plausible, can be deemed to be con-
!6 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
elusive. Another point of much weight was brought forward by
Canon Mozley in his answer to Newman.1 There may be corrup
tion from mere exaggeration. The circumstance that an opinion
or a practice grows out of something true and good does not of
itself prove that opinion or practice to be true and right. An over
growth is in itself an abuse. Aristotle's theory of the virtues is
that they are a mean between extremes. For example, rashness is
courage in excess ; timidity is caution in excess. That a natural
and proper veneration of the Virgin Mary runs into the worship of
the Virgin is no sufficient defence of such a practice. The theory
of Newman was directly at variance with the position taken by the
old polemical writers in behalf of Rome, such as Bellarmine and
Bossuet. As was early pointed out, Newman's thesis involves the
concession that the Roman Catholicism of to-day is not the same
as the faith of the primitive Church. The old ground of a literal
identity is forsaken. The limit of the contention is that the sys
tem of to-day is an offshoot from the system planted by the Saviour
and his Apostles, as that system is disclosed in the documents of
the Christian religion and in early Church History.2
It has been customary up to a recent date to divide Doctrinal
History into two parts, the General and the Special History of
Doctrine, and to complete the account of each period before
advancing to the next. Under the General History there is pre
sented a sketch of the characteristics of the period, with a notice
of the principal themes of discussion and of the principal writers
to whom we are to resort for materials. The General History is
an outline map of the period to be traversed. Under the Special
History the matter is collected under the loci or rubrics of the
theological system. This is the method of Miinscher, Neander,
also substantially of Baur and of most of the other authors.
Baumgarten-Cmsius gives the General History as a whole, under
successive periods, and lets the Special History follow under like
divisions. The same course is pursued by Shedd. Ritschl, in an
essay published in 1871, objected to the traditional method of
1 J. B. Mozley, Theory of Development^ a Criticism of Dr. Newman's Rssav,
etc. (1879). Ambiguities in Newman's theory, and voices against it from the
Roman Catholic side, are referred to by Mozley on pp. 196-223.
2 See Bishop Thirlwall's Charge, Remains, Literary and Theological (Vol.
I., pp. 99-144). For a trenchant criticism of Newman's theory, see Fairbairn's
The Place of Christ in Modern Theology, B. I. c. i.
INTRODUCTION ^j
separating the General from the Special History, and to the plan
of arranging the matter under the topics of the doctrinal system.1
He styled it an anatomic as distinguished from an organic or phys
iologic method. It fails to give due emphasis to that which is
distinctive in the current of thought in each period. Ritschl's
essay was a review of the work of F. Nitzsch, who had made an
approach to the method approved by him. This method has
been exemplified by Harnack and by some other authors. It has
the advantage of presenting better in its unity the system of a
great theologian, as Origen or Augustine, instead of bringing for
ward its parts — the disjecta membra — separated from one another.
Thomasius, in the part of his work which covers the patristic age,
takes up the three "Central Doctrines," one by one, but he con
nects with each leading section, either " peripheral " matter on other
topics, or illustrative supplements. In the subsequent periods, this
method gives way to a more miscellaneous classification. What
ever plan is adopted, the suggestions of Ritschl ought to be kept
in mind, and a due perspective and a proper unity to be secured.
This is measurably effected — for example, by Neander — through
cross-references and brief recapitulation. It is difficult and need
less to carry through all the periods a uniform scheme.
The chief landmarks in the course of Doctrinal History are
easily discerned. The earliest writings of a theological cast were
naturally apologetic. Christian truth was defended against assaults
without and within the Christian fold. Then followed within the
Church widespread controversy on central points of doctrine —
especially the Trinity and the Incarnation — the issue of which
was the Catholic theology. In the West there were controversies
on Sin and Grace, which settled, on these themes, but with less
precision, the bounds of orthodoxy. A period of intellectual stag
nancy ensued, not entirely unbroken, but lasting for several cen
turies. Then occurred the Rise of Scholasticism, and the opening
of a new theological era, which extended to the Reformation. At
that point begins the modern period in which criticism and essays
at reconstruction are defining characteristics.
The Ancient Period, embracing — to speak generally — the first
six centuries, was productive as regards the contents of the theo
logical system, and certain doctrines were stamped with the seal
1 Jahrb. d. deutsch. Theol. (1871, pp. 191-214); reprinted in Ritschl's
Ges&mmelt. Aufeatze (pp. 147-170).
T3 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of church authority. The Mediaeval Period set in order trans
mitted beliefs and reduced them to a systematic form, with the aid
of Philosophy and under the eyes of the Roman hierarchy. The
Modern Age has witnessed efforts to reconstruct the system in the
light of the Scriptures and in relation to the discoveries of science
in its various departments. During the first three centuries dis
cussions went forward without verdicts from a universally recog
nized authority. In the several centuries that immediately follow,
there intervenes the authoritative action of oecumenical councils.
From the end of the Patristic Period to about the middle of the
eleventh century there is an interval wherein — save in a brief
season in the age of Charlemagne — the products of intellectual
activity, except in the form of compilations, are scanty. At that
date there springs up a fresh intellectual life, the Scholastic era
opens, and the work of organizing the system fairly begins. Prot
estantism initiated the attempt to reform the creed on the basis of
the exclusive authority of the Bible and of an exchange of the
Scholastic theory of Justification for the Pauline teaching. The
various Protestant confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen
turies were framed on the basis of the principle of the supreme
authority of the Scriptures. With the approach of the eighteenth
century there are discerned the beginnings of a new era. It
may be described, in a general way, as aiming to conform the
theological system to the conclusions of scientific inquiry and criti
cism, or to bring into unity and harmony the knowledge derived
from revelation and that ascertained through man's natural powers.
It is the modern era in which we are now living.
In warfare with the Church of Rome and with one another the
different Protestant bodies intrenched themselves behind elaborate
Confessions. There arose in process of time a kind of Protestant
Scholasticism. Resistance was awakened. It was more and more
felt that the freedom of thought which Protestantism had seemed
to promise was unduly restricted. Owing to this discontent, in
conjunction with other causes soon to be adverted to, there sprang
up an intellectual revolt. This was unhappily not tempered and
kept within bounds by a spirit of practical piety, which had been
chilled by theological contention and by the religious wars in the
different countries — of which the Thirty Years' War was the most
prolonged and destructive. The skeptical tendencies of the Re
naissance, which had been stifled for the time by the religious life
INTRODUCTION 19
of the Protestant Reform, revived in full activity. There were
other phenomena of marked effect in the same general direction.
Society had advanced to a new epoch in culture. Education was
becoming liberated from exclusively clerical control. The partial
blight which absorption in theological conflicts had cast for the time
upon the literary life of the Renaissance was passing away. Other
studies were drawing away a portion of the attention which had
been so much concentrated upon theology. Under the auspices
of Descartes, philosophy was breaking away from the leading-
strings by which it had been held by the Church. The names of
Copernicus and Francis Bacon suggest the dawn of the new epoch
in the inductive investigation of nature. The cultivation of natural
and physical science, and the knowledge thus derived, have brought
forward new problems for the theologian to solve. Zeal in his
torical inquiry has kept pace with the ardor felt in the studies
which pertain to the material world. Traditional beliefs in theol
ogy, heretofore unquestioned, are confronted with data gathered
by historical researches. It might be expected that in this wide
range of curiosity, this quest for knowledge in all directions, the
Bible would become the object of a more exhaustive scrutiny.
Nor is there cause for wonder if the critical spirit, with no spiritual
discernment to accompany it, working solely in the dry light of the
understanding, should give rise even to extreme developments
of Rationalism. That the modern age is scientific is a truism.
Men are everywhere seeking for defined and verified knowl
edge. Science, in the comprehensive meaning of the term,
requires theology to take account of its teachings and to adjust
itself to them. Conflicts thus occasioned, modifications of opin
ion thus produced, characterize the present period of Doctrinal
History.
The Fathers of the first and second centuries who wrote against
heresies, especially Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian, were the
first authors who brought together materials for the History of
Doctrine. Epiphanius, in his polemical treatise, the " Panarion,"
describes not less than eighty heretical parties. The series of the
ancient Greek ecclesiastical historians, of whom Eusebius is the
first, are sources of knowledge respecting doctrine as well as
Church affairs in general. In the eighth century, the Greek theo
logian, John of Damascus, presents in his theological treatise both
a catalogue of heresies and numerous extracts from the Greek
20 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Fathers. In the West, a still earlier writer, Isidore of Spain,
furnishes a collection of excerpts from the Latin authors, Augus
tine, Gregory the Great, and others. The Reformation stimulated
researches into the tenets of the early Church as well as of later
ages. In the " Magdeburg Centuries," and in polemical publica
tions without number, the history of the doctrines in dispute was
discussed, of course commonly in a controversial spirit. The
great English divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
explored the writings of the patristic and scholastic doctors, and
used the learning thus acquired in the contests between Protestant
and Catholic, Churchman and Puritan. The famous scholars of the
Arminian School, on the continent, devoted to the early Fathers,
as well as to the Scriptures, a critical examination. In the middle
of the seventeenth century there appeared the first works treating
expressly of the history of doctrine. These were two in number,
one by a Protestant, the other by a Roman Catholic. The first
was written by a learned Scotchman, John Forbes of Corse — the
Instructiones Historico-Theologitz (Amsterdam, 1645). -^ was
designed to demonstrate the agreement of the tenets of the Re
formed Church with primitive orthodoxy. The second is the work
of the Jesuit scholar, Dionysius Petavius — De Theologicis Dog-
matibus (Paris, 1644-50). It is not only erudite and acute ; it is
written with a certain liveliness of style. The concession that
Ante-Nicene Fathers contain statements on points of doctrine
which fall below the creeds of later date has led to the hasty infer
ence that the author was an Arian in disguise. Bishop Bull's con
jecture that his purpose was to compel his readers to fall back on
Church authority as the umpire in doctrinal questions, is equally
unsupported.1 Petavius was not blind to the principle of theo
logical development. In the eighteenth century the contributions
of Mosheim to the history of doctrine are thorough and candid.
The Rationalistic School, of which Semler was the leader, gave to
Doctrinal History its distinct place as a branch of theology. But
from the point of view of this school it could only be regarded as
a record of clashing opinions. In this period, the most merito
rious author in this department was Miinscher. His text-books
are mostly made up of passages from the ecclesiastical writers,
arranged under appropriate topics. It is only during the present
century that works have been produced on Doctrinal History
1 See Bull's collected Works, Vol. V. pp. 12, 13.
INTRODUCTION 2 1
which have exhibited a due insight and attained to a scientific
form. The History of Doctrine by Baumgarten-Crusius brings
together a mass of concisely stated, accurate information, drawn
from original sources. But the scientific character of which we
speak belongs eminently to Neander's historical writings on the
subject, and to the writings of Baur. Gieseler's posthumous frag
ment stops at the Reformation. It is not without value as a sup
plement to his Church History, in which the history of doctrine is of
great value for its documentary references and extracts. Hagen-
bach's work contains a store of information, but would be more
valuable were it less a conglomerate. The American edition (from
the author's fourth edition) was enriched by additions on English
and American theology from the pen of Henry B. Smith. The
excellent book of Friedrich Nitzsch terminates at the end of the
patristic period. The Doctrinal History of Harnack, in which
the distinction between the General and Special History dis
appears, is a brilliant exposition of the subject, and presents,
more especially in the early period, the fruits of a quite thorough
investigation of the sources. The author's opinions as to the
origin of the New Testament writings and on Christian doctrines
are made apparent on its pages. The briefer work of Harnack is
a condensed but spirited review of the subject. One of the best
of the compendiums is the Leitfaden of Friedrich Loofs. See-
berg's Lehrbuch is a valuable aid to students. In Schmid's Lehr-
buch (edited by Hauck), the text is brief, but the collection of
extracts is judiciously made. The excellent text-book of Thom-
asius is the production of a scholar versed in the sources, writing
from the point of view of evangelical Lutheranism. Kenan's series
— Histoire des Origines du Chris tianisme — contains chapters
pertaining to doctrine which are well worthy of attention. Shedd's
History of Doctrine is a vigorous discussion of leading topics by
an earnest defender of Calvinism. It terminates with the rise of
the Socinian and Arminian systems. Sheldon's History of Doc
trine is lucid and is brought down to a recent date.
There is a considerable number of valuable monographs on
particular doctrines. Such are Dorner's History of the Doctrine
of the Person of Christ, Ritschl on the Doctrine of Justification,
Baur on the Trinity and on the Atonement. Treatises not dis
tinctively historical contain much historical matter. Such, for
example, are Julius Mliller's work on the Doctrine of Sin, Liddon's
22 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Bampton Lectures on the Divinity of Christ, Fairbairn's "The
Place of Christ in Modern Theology." Allen's The Continuity
of Christian Thought (1882) contains an able exposition of the
early Alexandrian theology. The Protestant Real-Encyklopadie
(edited in the new edition by Herzog, Plitt and Hauck), Wetzer
and Welte, Kirchenlexikon [Roman Catholic], (2d ed. 1886 sq.),
Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, are instruc
tive on the subject of Doctrinal History. As to the first three
centuries, the Prolegomena and Notes of Professor McGiffert,
pertaining to this subject, in his edition of the Church History
of Eusebius (1890), are very valuable.
PART I
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
PERIOD I
THE RISE AND EARLY TYPES OF THEOLOGY TO THE COM
PLETE SYSTEM OF ORIGEN AND TO THE FULLY ESTAB
LISHED CONCEPTION OF THE PRE-MUNDANE PERSONAL
LOGOS (c.A.D. 300)
CHAPTER I
APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY — PALESTINIAN AND HELLENISTIC JUDAISM
GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND GENTILE CULTURE
THE testimony and teachings of the Apostles constitute the
authentic sources of Christian theology. They are comprised in
the New Testament writings. The exposition of these documents
is the proper work of Biblical Theology, for which the Introduction
to the New Testament prepares the way. It is only brief com
ments on the New Testament doctrine that can here find a place.
The bond that unites the Old Testament with the New, the
religion of Israel with the Gospel, is the idea of the kingdom of
God. It is predicted, prefigured, initiated, in the earlier system ;
it is realized in the later. The new dispensation is the fulfilment
of that which was foretokened in the old. John the Baptist dis
cerned that his office was that of a herald of the messianic king
dom.1 So it was represented by Jesus.2 Jesus Himself appeared
i Matt. Hi. ii.
* Matt. xi. 13, 14 (Luke xvi. 16); Mark ix. 12, 13 (cf. Malachi iii. i).
24
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
in the character of the head of the kingdom. If He avoided
publicly proclaiming His regal station, it was to preclude popular
demonstrations springing from false ideals of the Messiah and the
messianic reign. The Sermon on the Mount was the legislation
of the new kingdom. The Mount of the Beatitudes succeeded
to the Sinai of the Decalogue. Holiness and peace are offered to
those who come to Him and surrender themselves to His guidance.
The contrast between the course which He pursued and the ideas
and expectations even of those who believed in Him, naturally
gave rise to doubts and questionings as to His precise rank among
divine messengers and the exact import of His mission. So we
may account for the conversation at Caesarea Philippi,1 and the
message of John the Baptist.2 In the Synoptical Gospels, Jesus
stands in such a relation to God that He alone knows God and is
known by Him.3 He is the organ of the self-revelation of God.
The devotion to Him required in His disciples transcends that
which is due in the dearest and most sacred human relations.4
His acceptance of the designation < Son of God/ and the added
assurance that from that time onward would be made manifest
His participation in divine power and honor was felt by the High
Priest, who discredited this avowal, to be nothing short of blas
phemy.5 By Him were to be determined the allotments of the
final judgment.6 Rejected by the Jews, He is nevertheless con
scious that the deadly blow aimed at His cause will open a way
to its final victory. His death will be the means of spiritual
deliverance, a " ransom " for many, the ground of the forgiveness
of sin.7 The kingdom is to advance gradually, as leaven and as
seed planted in the ground. It is to come, and yet it is a present
reality.8 If taken away from the chosen people, it will be carried
beyond their limits, even among the heathen.9 It is in the souls
of men ; it is a living force in the bosom of society. Yet there
is an apocalyptic side in the Synoptical portraiture of the king
dom. There is a goal in the future, a consummation, or Second
Advent of the Christ to judgment. The Disciples, knowing that
1 Mark viii. 27-31. * Matt. x. 37.
2 Matt. xi. 2, 3. 6 Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xir. 6l.
8 Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22. 6 Matt. xxv. 32.
7 Matt. xx. 28; Matt. xxvi. 28.
8 Matt. v. 3, 10; Mark x. 14, 15; Matt. xxi. 31; xi. II (Luke vii. 28).
9 Matt. xxi. 41 ; Mark xii. 9.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 35
they were living in the " Last Time," the final stage of Revela
tion, looked for the speedy coming of the last day. This antici
pation is more or less distinctly expressed in almost all of the
New Testament writings.1 Principally through the agency of the
Apostle Paul, the Gospel of the kingdom, with all its privileges,
was first proclaimed to the heathen. The older Apostles, moved
by the undeniable evidence of God's approbation of his work,
gave him "the right hand of fellowship," it being agreed that
while they should preach to the Jews, he, with Barnabas, his
companion for a while, should "go unto the Gentiles. "s In the
Synoptical Gospels it is in the Eschatology that the higher
nature and dignity of Christ are most apparent. In the Epistles
of Paul, the divine side of His being, His preexistence, His agency
in the work of creation, are explicitly taught.3 The success of
the mission to the Gentiles, the manifest marks of the divine
approval of it, the embittered temper of the Jews as time went on,
the fall of Jerusalem and the breaking up of the Jewish nationality,
had the effect fully to establish that catholic interpretation of
the Gospel of which Paul had been the fervent, unflinching cham
pion. That, after the death of Paul, the Apostle John took up
his abode at Ephesus is a fact which is too well attested to admit
of a reasonable doubt. The influence of his life and teaching,
emanating from that centre, is satisfactorily proved. Whatever
opinion may be held respecting the Johannine authorship of the
book of Revelation, the circumstance that it was so early attributed
to the Apostle John 4 is a sufficient proof of his residence in Asia
Minor and of his authority in the churches of that region. It is
impossible to review here the discussion concerning the author
ship of the Fourth Gospel and of the First Epistle which bears
the name of John. The external proof is a cumulative argument
the weight of which has seldom been duly estimated by the
opponents of the genuineness of these writings. The necessary
and pretty steady retreat backward of the adverse criticism, from
the date assigned to the Fourth Gospel by Baur and his followers
1 Matt. xxiv. 29, Luke xviii. 7, 8, John i. 21-23 J cf- I John "• 18, I Thess.
iv. 1 6, 17, 2 Thess. ii. 7, Phil. iv. 5, i Cor. xvi. 22, i Peter iv. 7, etc.
2 Gal. ii. 9.
3 Phil. ii. 6, 7, 2 Cor. viii. 9, i Cor. viii. 6.
* Justin, Dial. c. Tryph., c. 81 ; Iren. v. 35. 2 ; Tertullian, Adv.Marcionn
III. 14, Ibid. IV. 5 ; De Prascr. Hard. 33.
26 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
(c. 1 60), renders the problem of accounting for its origin, if
it be considered spurious, more and more difficult of solution.
It is now frequently admitted by the negative criticism that the
Gospel includes authentic traditions of the teaching of John,
edited, it may be, by one of his disciples. In the Fourth Gospel
and in the Epistle, the conception of the Son of God is deepened
and is carried back into a metaphysical relation of Christ to the
Father. The preexistence as well as the divinity of the Messiah
are plainly set forth. The term * Logos ' in the prologue is taken
up from current phraseology, which had its roots in the Old
Testament and the Old Testament Apocrypha, and which the
Alexandrian Jewish philosophy did much to diffuse. The term is
adopted by the Evangelist to designate the divine Saviour, the
Revealer of God. The new spiritual life through the believer's
union with Christ and fellowship with the Father involved therein,
is the condensed expression of the benefit imparted by the Gospel.
The apocalyptic element, although distinctly present in the Johan-
nine teaching, is in the background. The reality of the Incarna
tion is affirmed as a cardinal truth.1
Christian believers in common with the Jews received the Old
Testament writings as sacred Scriptures. The Disciples of Christ
were protected by His teaching from an ensnaring casuistry and
from other kinds of sophistry in the interpretation of them. Ex
clusion from the synagogue and the antipathy of the Jews operated
to keep off the same or like abuses of exegesis. Yet there were
traditional ways of explaining the Old Testament which the early
Christians could not but share. The rabbinical habit of attaching
double meanings to words, or of finding in them a mystic sense of
some sort, was not without its influence on Christian minds. A
natural fruit of the idea of verbal inspiration was the allegorical
treatment of Old Testament passages, or fanciful inferences from
, the orthography or sound of words. The Haggada — the mass
of comment, mingled with legend, which had grown up about the
historical, prophetic, and ethical portions of the Old Testament
Scriptures — contributed something to the stock of Christian
, beliefs. In the Jewish commentaries there was a union of two
I distinct elements. There was the scholastic, casuistic elemeqt.
1 and there was the fanciful element. These amplified and embel-
1 I John iv. 2, 3. The common authorship of the Gospel and the Epistle is
beyond reasonable doubt.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 2/
lished the writings regarded as inspired. There was, moreover,
an influence from the Jewish apocalypses, — for example, the
book of Enoch, which underwent modification in the hands of a
Christian editor. Other books of this class were the Apocalypse
of Baruch, the Fourth Book of Ezra, and, among the Hellenistic
Jews, the Sibylline Oracles. Papias repeats a prophecy of the
wondrous fruitfulness of the vine in the millennial times, when it
will bear colossal grapes, — a passage taken from the Apocalypse
of Baruch. What influence was exerted on Christian thought by
speculations in this literature l relative to the preexistence of per
sons and things, it is not easy to define.2 The Jews generally
conceived of the Messiah as a mere man. Trypho, the Jew, in
Justin Martyr's Dialogue, speaks of the idea of the Messiah's pre
existence as absurd.3
It was natural that the Hellenistic Jews should be, as a rule,
less rigid and more conciliating towards the Gentiles than their
Palestinian brethren. To some extent they stood as mediators
between the Jewish religion and Gentile thought. This was true
especially of that Alexandrian Judaism of which Philo is the fore
most representative. He was an old man when he headed a
deputation of Jews to the Emperor Caligula (A.D. 38 or 39).
The germs of his system were of an earlier date. They are seen
in the Wisdom of Solomon, an Alexandrian production. It was
at Alexandria, the meeting-place of nations, the confluence of
streams of thought from all directions, that this eclectic system,
this union of Biblical teaching with Platonic and Stoic tenets,
took its rise. Philp wj*s a believing_Jew,_withput any thought of
perverting the Old Testament, but aiming to extract what he con
sidered its deeper purport. His opinions in religion and ethics,
nevertheless>~were imbibed from the Gree^ philosophic teachers,.
By meanjLJjf allegory, he undertook to read into the Hebrew
Scriptures the tenets, of the Academy and the Porch. Where IKe /
Scripture had a literal meaning that was unobjectionable, it might | \$S
be accepted, but even in such_a_case there lay beneath it_an jl/^V/ y
egging sens_e which unveiled itself to_ the discerning. In Philo's ||
teaching there is a sliarp antithesis between God and the world.
1 Irenaeus, v. 33. 3; Schxirer, Gesch. d. Judisch. Volkes, etc., Vol. II. p. 644,
c. 48.
2 The "Notion of Preexistence" is discussed by Harnack, DG., I. 710 sq.
See, also, Ewald, Gesch. /. Volkes Israel, Vol. V. p. 73 sq. * c. 48.
28 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
This dualism is taken up from Plato. To God we may attach
none of the predicates which characterize finite things. To con
nect with Him specific qualities is to divest Him of His supreme
rank. There_can_be no action of God upon the world of matter
save through intermediate agents. These are constituted by the
Platonic~lHeas~an~d the efficient causes of the Stoic system, —
which are, also, the angels of the Jewish religion and the demons
of the Gentile mythology. These intermediate Powers are now
spoken of as personal, and again plainly fall short of personality,
being, rather, vivid personifications. The conception _of^ the
Logos has a central place in Philo's _syste_m.___The Logos is Jthe
Power of God, or the divine Reason, endowed with energy, ac
tion, and comprehending in itselfJalT subordinate Powers. Now
the LjQgos is conceived of as personal^and again, to exclude the
iglea of a separation from God^jt jsjrepresented as if impersonal?
The Logos^is not only the__First-Born of God, the Archangel
among angels^the Viceroy of God _in the world, but, also, repre-
Sfints the world before God, as_ its High Priest, its Advocate or
Paraclete. The world is not created outright, but is moulded
out of matter. Hence evil arises. Souls^ jire pre existent ; while
in the flesh they are in a prison. Therefore the end to be sought
is to break away from sense, to destroy its control. In this life
the highest achievement of the wise and virtuous is to rise in a
s2lL_PJL^-^la-§Y to tne imme4i§.te -Vision of God.. This direct
access to the divine Essence in rapturous contemplation, which
is ascribed to the sons of God, is something altogether above the
blessing which is open to the "sons of the Logos." Their
knowledge of God is in symbols ; their intercourse with the Su
preme is indirect.2 The idea of an incarnation of _the Logos
clashes .with _the fundamental principles of Phjlo.3 Nor is there
ic expectation. Peace will be the inheritance of
1 Drummond contends that all ascriptions of personality to the Logos in
Philo are figurative. " From first to last, the Logos is the Thought of God,
dwelling subjectively in the infinite Mind, planted out and made objective in
the universe." The cosmos is "a tissue of rational force," imaging the per-^
fections of God. "The reason of man is the same rational force entering
into consciousness," etc. Philo Judaaus, etc., Vol. II. p. 273.
2 Con/. Ling., 28. Cf. Somn. I. n, SS. Ab. et Cain, 38, Leg. All, III. 31.
8 On the contrast between Philo's idea of the Logos and the Johannine
conception, see Edersheim's Art. " Philo," Diet, of Christ. Biogr. IV. 379,
380.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
29
those who are established in virtue. Especially will the Israelites
be blessed and brought together in their own land. The largest
influence of the Philonic teaching was, not on the Jew or the
heathen, but on Christian schools of thought.1
In the age that preceded the introduction of Christianity, the
disruption of nationalities, the increased intercourse of peoples
with one another, and other kindred causes, had rudely shaken
the old fabrics of mythological religion. The rise of scientific
and philosophical inquiry had dealt a mortal blow at the tradi
tional systems of faith and worship. In the writings of Cicero we
are presented incidentally with a picture of the skepticism that
prevailed in the cultivated classes. There was a growing ten-
d^ncjiifiLSfiek for mental rest throughjscheme.s. of_ syncretism^hy
cpmbinin^ jjogredients of various religions and by adopting rites
diawnjrom the most diverse quarters. In the fijjl century there_
were strong indications of_a_rgvivaLQf J!£ligious.._ feeling. Augus
tus had undertaken religious reforms which were not wholly inef
fectual. There were attempts to_brealhe_fresh life into the ances-
*£*! Jfon5§LPJLwQrshi]? and to save an almost worn-out creed from
extinction. Quite_ conspicuous was thgjiiifjLtOHards. inonotheisip .
faith in a future life and in personal immortality revived from its
decay. Serious thinkers, such as Plutarch, whose philosophy was
a Platonic eclecticism, made room for the old divinities by reduc
ing them to the rank of subordinate beings. Repulsive tales in
the legends of the gods Plutarch connected with the action of
inferior demons, in which deities of a higher order had no part.
He labored to strike out a middle path between the follies of
superstition and the gloom of jttheism. Philosophers began to
assume an office not unlike that of pastors or confessors. Cynics
engaged, on the streets and highways, in a distinctively missionary
work, addressing their counsels and rebukes to whomsoever they
chose to accost.
Special attention is required to the influence of the Greek phi
losophy on Christian doctrine. E^hicjiLrahilosopjiy owed jtSLhegin-
1 Respecting Philo and his system, the older works of Gfrorer (2 vols.
1831) and Dahne (2 vols. 1834) are still of value. In the copious recent
literature on the subject, among the authors specially worthy of attention are
Schiirer, Gesch. d. Judisch. Volkes, P. II. pp. 831-886; Zeller, Die Phil. d.
Griechen, Vol. III.; Drummond's Philo Judxus, or the Jewish Alexandrian
Phil. (1888); and Siegfried, Philo -von Alexandria, etc. (1875).
30 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
L .Socrates. He turned his back on the physics and
speculative cosmology with which previous philosophers had
busied themselves. As a practical reformer, in opposition to the
undermining process of the Sophists, he felt the need of laying^a
scientific basis for morals. By his method of cross-examination
he cleared the minds "of his auditors of confusion and elicited
accurate definitions. In his ethical doctrine in which virtue was
identified with knowledge or insight, he introduced a partial trutn
which gave rise to a one-sided intellectualism, to the idea of an
aristocracy of thinkers. This conception produced far-reaching
consequences, not only in the Greek schools, but also within the
pale of Christianity. In Plato's doctrine of ideas^ there was
given to concepts, or abstract general notions, the character of
supersensible realities^ — the abiding realities of which concrete,
visible things in the world around us — things that appear only to
vanish — somehow partake. Compared with the ideas the world
ofjxmcrete things is a world of shadows. The ideas are coordi
nated and subordinated, until we reach in the upward ascent the
supreme idea of " the goocj^" The idea of the good is the cause
both of being and of cognition. Sometimes this idea is identified
with God. Yet Plato teaches that God is a personal intelligence,
by whom the world is fashioned from the matter which is eternal
and is partly intractable. The souls of men enter into material
habitations from a preexistence, either conceived of as actual or
mythically imagined. Redemption is, ther^fpj;e^^hysic.aJ_ort one
might^better say, metaphysi£al,j— a L release^ Jrom _the _bondagejof
sense. It is reached through enlightenment, wisdom and gooolrjess
beinfi regarded as inseparable. In the Platonic theory of ideas
there was a door opened for Philosophy to pursue afterwards a
Pantheistic direction. The theory of the relation of spirit to mat
ter invited to endless vagaries of speculation. The hypostasizing
of ideas, through a tendency Oriental in its source, or through
an imagination for some other cause lacking in sobriety, might
call into being Gnostic mythologies. After the creative epoch of
Plato and Aristotle, Philosophy, owing partly to political and
social changes, took a decidedly practical turn. Ethical and relig
ious inquiries, pertaining to the individual and to the attaining of
tranquillity of spirit, were uppermost in the two principal systems
that emerged. Epicureanism with its doctrine of a cosmos self-
fr^m^j^rimitive Jitoms, of 4e^les unconcerned about
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 3!
niundane affairs, and of a morality synonymous with prudent
pleasure- seeking) had little affinity with the Gospel and little influ
ence upon its teachejs. Respecting Stoicism the case was differ-
ent. The nqetaphysic of Stoidsm was borrowed from earlier
systems, especially from that of Heraclitus, and had nc^jjenetic
relation to the nobler system of Stoical ethics. The metaphysical
theory was a materialistic Pantheism. But the indwelling force
from which all things spring, if it operates blindly, is held to
operate rationally. The universe is subject to one all-ruling law.
The world, looked at as an organic unity, is perfect. Evil is
relative ; all things considered, there is no evil. _ Zeus, like Provi
dence and Destiny, is another name for the totality of things.
There^is no space for free agency. Logos, the divine reason or
wjsdom, designates the power that pervades the universe, jet _is
corporeal in its nature. It is sometimes styled, according to the
analogy of a seed stored with vital energy, the Generative or
Seminal Logos. The virtuous man, the Sage, is he who lives
according to nature, either his own nature or the nature of the
universe, — for the discrimination is not always made. He is
calm within, murmurs at nothing that is or that occurs, implicitly
obeys reason, uninfluenced by sensibility or emotion. The sys
tem of Zeno and Chrysippus parted with much of its rigor in the
later Stoicism of the Roman School. In_Seneca, Marcus Aurelius,
and the Greek freedman Epictejtus, there is a recognition, though
not uniform and persistent, of the personality of God,, of the_rejj-
i£y of the soul as distinguished from the body, and of the continu-
ayf.p nf pejffipnal Jiffy after death. The cosmopolitan element in
Stoicism, the idea of mankind as a single community, ripens into
the conception of the brotherhood of mankind, and of God as a
universal Father. In Senega, precepts enjoining patience, forgive
ness, benevolence, approximate to the purity and elevation of the
precepts of the Gospel,^ while the metaphysical setting remains
quite diverse. The sense of the need of divinp b^p is a new
element grafted into the later Stoicism. It is among the New
Platonists that Philosophy assumes the most -decidedly religious
aspect. Philo was a forerunner of this school, Ammonius Saccas *•
its reputed founder ; but it was Plotjnus who gayejt a systematicU^
form. Ggd was conceived of as the Ineffable One, the undifferen-
tiated Absolute. He isJncornprehensTble. He is utterly separate
from the world, for the system is thoroughly dualistic. Asceti'
32 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
cism is the path to the sdf-purification of the soul. The highest
attainment, the ideal blessedness, is the ecstafuTsTate wherein the
soul soars to the intuition and embrace of the Supreme Being.
TnT enraptured spirit loses" the sense of individuality, and lies, so
to speak, on the bosom of the Infinite.
The influence of Greek Philosophy upon the early Christian
theology is too obvious to be questioned. The sciences were the
creation of the Greek mind, and theology forms no exception to
this general statement. There was a "psychological climate" in
which theology took its form. There was an environment of
thought and culture from the influence of which it would have
been impossible for the theologians of the Church to escape. The
point of most importance is to determine the nature and the ex
tent of that influence by which they were necessarily affected.
That the form of enunciations of doctrine was affected by it, the
bare inspection of the ancient oecumenical creeds is sufficient to
show. Newman says that the use of the term ' consubstantial '
by the Nicene Council is " the one instance of a scientific word
having been introduced into the creed from that day to this."1
There are other terms in the creeds, however, such, for example,
as the word ' nature,' which imply a classification of our mental
faculties that does not conform precisely to our modern views.
Aside from the phraseology of the oecumenical creeds, the patris
tic teaching is stamped with the traces of philosophical ideas that
run back as far as Plato and Aristotle. It has been alleged by
some scholars in the past, and the assertion has been renewed by
certain recent authors, that the substance as well as the form of
Qhristian theology^jwas_essentiallv modified bv the Greek moulds
into^ which^Christian truth was cast. Views tending in this direc
tion have been presented of late by two learned scholars, Hatch
and Harnack. The question for the student to determine is,
how far have the ancient creeds, their authors and expounders,
gone beyond an intellectual equivalent, of the New Testament
teaching? What is to be referred to the Gospel, and what to
Greek philosophical thought? If alloy may be inwrought from
alien sources, it is the task of Biblical and historical scholarship to
ascertain its nature and limit.2
1 Grammar of Assent, p. 138.
2 The influence of the Greek Mysteries on Christian usages is a separate
although kindred, topic. Here the point of chief moment is the disciplina
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
33
arcani, embracing the secrecy observed respecting the Baptismal Confession,
etc., and the exclusion of non-communicants from being present at the Sacra
ment. Justin describes the Eucharist obviously without any idea of conceal
ment in connection with it (Apol. I. 65 sq.). From about A.D. 150, with the
development of the Catechumenate, and under the dangers incident to perse
cution, this sacred reserve — the disciplina arcani — arose and continued
until the Church emerged to a position of safety. But from Justin's time, the
Sacraments began to be looked upon after the analogy of the Mysteries, and
the effect of this habit of thought is perceptible both upon the language
respecting them and, in some degree, on the practices connected with them.
Yet the measure of this effect may be exaggerated. On this subject see
Zezschwitz's Art., Arkan-Disciplin, in the Real-Encycl., I. p. 637, Moller's
Kirchegesch., I. pp. 281, 282. The subject is discussed by Hatch, The Influ
ence of Greek Ideas, etc. (Lect. X.), and by Harnack, DG., I. pp. 176 sq.,
et al, (See the Index at the end of Vol. III.) See, also, Anrich, Das antike
Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christenthum (1894).
CHAPTER II
THE ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS
I. The Apostolic Fathers. — This is an inaccurate title given to
the group of earliest ecclesiastical writers after the Apostles. The
designation is owing to the fact that they were supposed to have
been immediate pupils of the Apostles. We have an Epistle of
Qlement, who is designated in the tradition as the firs^_Bisjioj>_of
&o_me. Whether or not he wore this title exclusively, or was
simply the leading presbyter, it is no doubt by him that this
letter from the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth was
written. Its date is about A.D. ^6. It contains moral injunctions
of a general nature, which are followed by special exhortations
occasioned by discord in the Corinthian Church, which was
thought to pay less than due respect to its presbyters. The
document styled the Second Epistle of Clement is a Homily,
which not unlikely was addressed, either orally or in writing, to
the same church, but is the production of an unknown author,
who wrote probably as early as A.D. 150. The first distinct
mention of it is by Eusebius. It is not ascribed to Clement by
the early ecclesiastical authors. It is the most ancient of extant
homilies. Hermas. the author of Tjie Shepherd, wrote his book
at Rome. Its division into three parts is from a later hand
than the author's. It comprises a series of visions, with which
are connected precepts, warnings, and parables. The Church,
which communicates the revelations made toTlermas, is personi
fied as an aged woman. Afterwards, in the guise of a shepherd,
the " angel of repentance " appears, by whom are delivered the
teachings in the closing parts of the book. The date assigned in
the ancient tradition (c. 140-155) seems late, in view of the fact
that shortly after the middle of the second century, the work is
known to have been in circulation in the churches of the East and
34
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 35
West. This circumstance, with other indications, leads Zahn and
some other critics to place its date as early as about 90—100. It
is cited by Irenseus and by Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria
was familiar with it. The Epistle with which the name of Rarna-
1&$ is connected^ was written, not by the companjon^of. JPauL but
by an unknown writer, probably_^n_Alexandrjan. It is strongly
anti- Judaic in its spirit. There are widely different judgments as
to its date. It is placed by some as early as A.D.7O ; by others
asjate as the beginning of the reign of Hadrian ( 1 1 7- 138) . The
determination of the question is partly dependent on the relation
of the book to the Didache, with which it has chapters in common.
This last named work, the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, was discovered in 1873^ by Bryennios, an Eastern prelate,
but was not published until 188,3. It is_pne of the most interest-
inj£_litej:ary_ discoveries Q{ recenttimes. It consists of two portions.
It is a church manual for catechists and for congregations., The
catechetical part, in the first six chapters, presents moral precepts
under the scheme of TwoJWay^, the way of life, and the way of
death. The second part contains dire^i^jisjpertainin^ to worship
arid_^jirc_h_d^cipline, with statements relating to Eschatology.
The first portion of the Didache, the Two Ways, is nearly identi
cal with passages in the Epistle of Barnabas, and in the Apostoli
cal Canons, a work composed probably as early as the beginning
of the third century ; and it is found, also, in a more expanded
form, in the Apostolical Constitutions. The Didache is assigned
by most critics to a time not later than the beginning of the second
century. As to its relation to the Epistle of Barnabas, that it is
not dependent on the Epistle has been shown by Zahn and others.
Harnack has considerable support in the opinion that both books
drew from a common source, but not in the conclusion that the
Didache has a much later origin (from 1 20 to 1 65 ) . The Epistles of .
Ignatitis, mainly from their bearing on the r^s.e of Episcopacy, have^ "
long been a subject of discussion. It was a gain when at last the
subject of controversy was narrowed down to the question of the
genuineness of the Sjeyen shorter Greek Epiqtles. That these are
the productions of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who was trans
ported to Rome and perished under Trajan, has been rendered,
to say the least, extremely probable, especially since the publica
tion of the works of Zahn and Lightfoot. The objections made to
the integrity of the Epistles can hardly be made good, especially
36 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
when it is remembered that the Episcorjacy for which Ignatius is
a zealous champion is not sacerdotal in its character, but is com
mended as a m^ans_of _order ancLjinity, and that he is struggling
to secure for bishops a degree of authority iJo^whichj it would
see^^they ha-d^not-as— yet attained. The date of the Ignatian
Epistles, according to Lightfoot, is about IIP. Harnack is pecul
iar in advancing the hypothesis of a much later date for the
martyrdom of the author, and so for the composition of his
writings. Pgjycazp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had personally known
the Apostle John, died as a martyr in 155 or 156. The Epistle
to the Philippians, which was in the hands of Irenaeus, who had
known Polycarp, is unquestionably genuine. Papias, Bishop of
Hierapolis, was a contemporary of Polycarp, and is said to have
been, like him, a pupil of John the Apostle. But this statement of
Irenaeus is called in question, possibly with truth, by Eusebius.
The Martyrdom of_Pol^aj'p is an account by the Church of
Smyrna of the~circumstances of the death of their aged pastor at
the hands of Roman executioners. It is enlarged and interpolated
by subsequent additions, but there is good reason to conclude
that it is essentially genuine. Papias wrote, in five books, the^
Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, of which we have preserved
to us a^w^gments,~one of which is the highly interesting and
valuable statement in Eusebius respecting the origin of the
Gospels of Matthew and of Mark. Besides comments on the
teachings of Christ, the work of Papias included information
respecting the Gospel histories which he had gathered from oral
sources.
II. The Apologists. — Only a portion of the writings of the
authors who first took up the defence of Christianity are ex
tant. These writings were addressed either to individuals, or to
heathen readers in general. They belong mostly to the age of
the Antonines. Quadratus may have addressed to Hadrian his
apology, which is lost. The work addressed to Antoninus Pius
by Aristides has lately been ;n part recovered. We have it in
an Armenian translation, also in a Syrian translation, and in an
imperfect Greek text. Fragments of an apologetic work of
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, addressed to Marcus Aurelius, are
preserved in Eusebius. A writing by Claudius Apollinarist
Bishop of Hierapolis, addressed to the same Emperor, and a
work of Miltiades, a rhetorician of Athens, addressed to M.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 37
Aurelius- and L. Verus, have both perished. The most important
of the writers of this class in the second century is Justin Martyj^. /i f
He was a native of Samaria, and was born about A.D. 100. He
had received a philosophical training, and was himself a philoso
pher by profession. He was a disciple of the Platonic school,
but was influenced, also, by the ethical ideas of the Stoics.
We have from his pen two Apologies, a longer and a shorter,
which, however, originally formed one work, and the Dialogue
wjthJTryphp (a Jew). The Discourse of the Greeks and The
Exhortation to the Greeks, which are often ascribed to Justin, are
by later writers. The Apologies were written not later than i$2
and not earlier than y£. The Dialogue is~a little later thafTtEe
Apologies. Tajiay was born in Assyria and was perhaps of <T J
Syrian parentageTbut was educated in Greek learning. At Rome '
he camejnto connection withjustm. He wrote a Discourse to the
Qre_ejj;s, about 152 orjj^- The " Diatesseron " was a work by him,
formed by combining seJectigns from the Four Gospels. Besides
the Commentary upon the work, by Ephraim of Edessa (who died
in 373), we have two, possibly three, very free translations of it into
other languages.1 Whether it was first written in Greek or Syrian
is uncertain. Tajjan became a. Gnnstir. and the leader of an
ascetic sect, the Encratites. Theophilus, gishop of Antiocht
wrote an Apology addressedlo Autolycus, a cultivated
heathen. It is directed against heathenism in its popular and
philosophical forms. The Epistle to Diognet, by an unknown
author, written about the end of the second century, is full of force
and eloquence, but exhibits an antagonism to the Jewish religion.
One of the most cogent of the early defences of Christianity is the
Qctavius of Minucius Felix, which, were we certain of its early
date, would be distinguished as the first of the Latin Apologies.
Whether it was^composed as early as 180, or as late as the
middle of the third century, is still a litigated point.
III. Irenceus and Hippolytus. — ffy far the most valuable i
wjriter, as a source for the History of Doctrine, in the second
century, is Irenaeus. Born in Asia Minor, about 125 or
separated by only a jjngle link from_ the_ Apostle John, whose
PUBJL. Polycarp. he jiad^een a.nr| keard, Irengus jjficajne.. .first
a 1^pg^te^njjhe_rhi^rh at T.yQps^-ag the co]l§^gue of the aged
Pothinus, and afterwards succeeded him in the bishopric. We
1 See Harnack, Gesch. d. Altchristl. Litt., I. 2, p. 495.
38 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
have the record of at least one visit, and probably of two visits,
n^ade by him to Rome. Such Was his standing that he could
address an ag!monitory Jetter ' JoJVjctor, a Roman bishop. His
copious work Adversus Harcscs was written to cgnfflfc the
Gnostics, about the year 180. He died_jTrnhahly in ggjg. The
wide acquaintance of^Irengeus withjhe churches East and West,
the sobriety of his character, and his unimpeached reputation for
orthodoxy, render him an invaluable witness, both respecting the
tenets of the Gnostics and of the Christians of his time. He was
clear in his perceptions, practical, and averse to speculation. The
work of Irenaeus e'xists only in a literal and crude Latin transla
tion; but we are fortunately in possession of copious extracts
from the original in Hippolytus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius.
Besides this work there are fragments, including the Epistle to
Florinus, which contain the reminiscences of Polycarp ; but the
" Pfaffian " fragments are of doubtful genuineness. The longest
them is certainly spurious. Hiffohtus was a pupil of Irenaeus.
Although he was a.^ celebrated rqan in his day, our information
concerning his personal history is scanty. He was a Presbyter at
Rome when Zephyrinus and Callistus were bishops, the first of
whom acceded to office in 199, and the last of whom died in 222.
Strenuous in maintaining the strictest theory as to Church dis
cipline, and energetic in opposing Patripassianism, he waged a
contest against these bishops, and would appear to have been a
bishop of a seceding party in opposition to them. His Refutation of
all Heresies, which was found in 1842, and first published in 1851,
under the title of Philosophumena, throws much light on the
, whose errors he traces to the heathen
philosophers. Missing parts of the work "probably "tfeatecPoF
Chaldean and other Oriental opinions.
„ IV. The Latin Writers, Tertullian and Cyprian. — T§rtullian
w,as the first to make the j^adn lapguage a vehicle for theology.
He was a Presbyter at J^arthage. was born about 160, andT died
afeout 220. At school, in addition to other branches, he learned
G.reek. ^Ie was trained to be anadvocate, and one peculiarity of
his writings is the frequent occurrence in them of legal ideas and
phraseology. Although not unacquainted with philosophy, he
TvHghs against th* philosophers, going so far as to denounce
fflato as the condimentarius of all heretics. Acute and fertile in
thought, he infuses into his writings a vehemence which belongs to
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 39
his temperament. Yet his genius shines through the cloud of ex
aggeration. An enthusiast by nature, he at length became an
avowed Montanist. His numerous works are upon a variety of
themes. They embrace polemical and apologetic works, against
parties without and within the Church, and discussions of an ascetic
and ecclesiastical cast. Cypjd&n. Bishop of Carthage^who died as
a martyr jn_2^.8, was largely influenced by the writings of Tertul- /
lian. His own literary activity waslnainTy7 upon topics relating to
Church government and discipline.
V. The Alexandrians. — It was at Alexandria, the seat of all
science, that philosophical theology first acquired a firm footing.
The iiflinn nf philosophy fr^ thfrnlngyj of which we see the begin-
njngs_in -the- Apologists, was there consummated. Catechetical
instruction, when cultivated and inquisitive heathen converts were
to be teughtjjagcessarily assumed a rj^w^Jbnn. The school for
catechumens Developed itself into a schooLfoiLthe trajnjng of Ihe
clejgy. The Alexandrian teachers met the educated heathen on
tljeir own ground. Instead of pouring out invectives, after the
mariner of Tertullian, against the Greek philosophers, thej recog
nized injhejeachings jof Jhe. j^e^^aggsjnatgrials which Christian
teachers might accept and assimilate. Attainments in knowledge
which were above the capacity of all believers might be open at
least to a part. The s chp_lar§hip^ ofjthe_ Church was at Alexandria.
Pantaenus, the first teacher, who began his work not far from 18
had been an adherent of the_gtoic school, while mingling in his
creed elements of Platonic doctrine. Efts writings have_pe_rished.
In his pupiL Clement, who succeeded him, and who taught — with
an interval of absence on account of the Severian persecution —
from about i^i until_he_reJ;ired. in 202, the peculiarities of the
Alexandrian type of theology are distinctly marked. He was b^n
injjreece, and had studied^hilosophy in different lands ancLundgr
various masters. In_^l^yajnt^e^JguiLd the satisfactioji_which
he had elsewhere sought in_xajn. In his writings, his large aco^jsi-
tions of learning and the fertility of his genius, as well as his lack of
system, are apparent. In his Discourse jQ_the^gr^e^, the superi-
0Q^LQL^le-^QSEgLJQ- tne heath p" sy«^.mg nf wors^JEL and of
thought^ is insisted on, with a generous recognition, however, of
thejroth to be found in their poets and_Bhilos.oph'ers. The Pg-
dagogos was designed for the_ethical training of convert, as" a
preparation for jgaining anJnsighiLJotQ the deep.er_mysteriesjof the
4o
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Christian teaching. Here Clement intermingles ideas drawn from
the Stoical morals. The crowning treatise of Clement is the
Zjiron^ja, or Patchwork— for the term denoted a coverlet made
oFpatches. Theauthor expatiates on the truths of Christianity,
without care_for systematic arrangement. In a briefer Essay,
"Who is the Rich Man that is Saved?" Clement undertakes to
evince that not the possession of riches, but an inordinate attach
ment to them, debars from the kingdom. At the same time, in
this Essay the ascetic feeling as concerns earthly good and the
pleasures of sense finds expression.
Origen, who in genius stands on a level with Augustine, and is
0£tst^pejdjii_j30^vjer_, and achievements by none of the Fathers,
was a pupil of Clement. Bpjn in 18; of Christian parents, he
received ITclassical ajTwell as a Christian education, and suc
ceeded Ckmen^_as_a_teachej, — a jjosj from which_he was driven
by the Bishop of Alexandria, Demetrius. In consequence of suffer
ings inflicted on him in the Decian persecution, he died at Caesa-
rea in Cappadocia, in 253. He was initiated into the^ study of
philosophy byJ^rrLm^riiurSaccas, the Neo-platoni§t ; but he made
himself conversant with the ten^ts_nf ^l^hejjhiln^pliical schools.
The writings of this great scholar are exceedingly various. His
HexagLa, a comparison of the tgxt_ of ..The . JSeptiiagint. with^the
Hebrewjext of the^)ld Testament and with,filhei X^e-ek^-etsiQas.,
was the fruiU^ twenty- seven years_j3fJabor. His co<rnmentaries,
of which those on Matthew and John are specially jaluable, as
exhibiting his theological opinions, extend over nearly all the Script
ures. The treatise D.e Principiis* or concerning First Trulls, is
the earliest systematic treatise on doctrinaLiheoiogy. We possess
it only in the very free translation of Rufinus, who omits, also,
parts of the original. In his later days Origen composed his
Rfffy ' fy (T^VS a_masterly defence of Christianity against the
ablest of its assailants, and a work which demonstrates, if proof
were required, that the speculations on doctrine which characterize
his numerous treatises had not the effect to loosen his hold on the
historical facts and essential verities of the Gospel.
CHAPTER III
DOCTRINE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
WITH the earliest Christian teachers authorship was not a habit
or a profession. Like the Apostles themselves, they wrote, as a
rule, to_meet^ some exigency. "When the_heavens i^ mightjart
asunder at anyjnoment, and reveal^tHe final doom." "there was
no care for Uteraiy__distinction." * Tr^Ap^toJ^c^Eathers Are inter-
mjgpliate between the New Testament writers and disjunctively theo
logical authors. We__miss ia them the .degth and power of the
canonical writers. Like these they have in view prjictical ends.
The light which they throw on the contemporary doctrinal beliefs
is incidental. And respecting the early ecclesiastical writings, it
must be borne in mind that such of them as survive are the relics
of a larger number that have perished. What Grote says of the
classical literature of Greece is applicable to the literature of the
Early Church : " \J[e j^pssess qnly_ what has drifted ashore from the
wreck of jtjtrand ej vessel." 2 Yet it is true of at least a portion
of the early ecclesiastical writings that remain, that their preserva
tion is due to the special value that was attributed to them. Hence
there is no occasion to speak slightingly of the aid which they lend
us in ascertaining the opinions and the modes of thought prevalent
in the sub-apostolic age. The theory, which was advocated by
Baur, of a radical antagonism in this period between Petrine and
Pauline disciples, is now so generally given up that it requires no
special confutation. Clement speaks of Peter and Paul as " the
good apostles " who merit equal honor.3 In like manner, the two
Apostolic leaders are placed in conjunction by Ignatius.4 Polycarp
makes mention of the wisdom of " the blessed and glorious Paul." *
1 Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. I.
a History of Greece, Vol. I. Preface.
* I Cor. 5. * Rom. 4. 5 Phil. 3.
4*
42 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
It may be added that Hegesippus, a Christian writer of Jewish
birth, in a fragment of his book, which was written about the
middle of the second century, refers with approval to Clement's
Epistle to the Corinthians. He is a witness, not for, but against
the Tubingen hypothesis. The theory of two opposing parties,
amalgamated later by methods of compromise, it is no exaggera
tion to say " can be upheld only by trampling under foot all the
best authenticated testimony." 1 A glance at the career and the
teachings of a single man, Irenaeus, is of itself sufficient to dis
prove it.
The^Apostolic Fathers wrote before the writings of the Apostles
had been collected into a canon. Although, wTtF a single excep~-
tion,2 passages obviously taken from them are not introduced by
the formula usually prefixed to quotations from the Old Testament,
are nevertheless treated as authoritative. The Apostolic
Fathers make no claim to stand on a level with the Apostles.
While they contain references to pre-Christian apocryphal writings,
we find in them no distinct Jgferencesjto ..a ;._New Testament
Apocrypha.
The Apostolic Fathers abound in allusions to the doctrine of
free forgiveness through the grace of God in the GospeJ. "And
so we," writes Clement, " having been called through His will in
Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our
own wisdom or understanding or piety, or works which we wrought
in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God
justified all men that have been from the beginning."3 This
passage is emphatically Pauline in its purport. XSlz__M--j!le
same time, we meet in Clejnejit^_aiigL in the_Apostolic Fathers
generally, a strain of thought which may be styled
— to borrow a word from the German — " moralism." Not only
is the Pauline doctrine of justification seldom brought out in
so clear and positive a form as in the passage just quoted ; there
is besides an emphasisjaid upon right conduct, and upon works
o/ obedience, jwhicj^ is somewhat in contrast with the manner
W St. PaujjjghfinJie is defining the method of justification. Even
'Clement, in the place mentioned above, goes on immediately
to insist on the importance of good works. Abraham was found
faithful in that he " rendered obedience." 4 It is not merely that
1 Lightfoot, The Apostol. Fathers, p. 9. ' I Cor. 32.
3 Barnabas, 4. * Clement, I Cor. 10.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
43
"Faith" and " Love " are often conjoined — which is especially
common in Ignatius. There is a lack of a distinct perception of
the genetic relation of faith as the root of Christian virtues.
Hermas makes continence the daughter of faith, simplicity to
spring from continence, guilelessness from simplicity, etc.1 In
the Didache, we read of " the knowledge and faith and immortality
made known " to us through Christ.2 Allusions to the cross of
Christ, to His death for our sins, to salvation through Him, are
quite frequent. Yet more often than is the custom of writers
thoroughly imbued with the Pauline spirit, the relation of the
death of Christ to the procuring for us of the means of repentance
and to opening the way to a new obedience is dwelt upon. A
large space is given to the prj££ptke_jiarts ojjthe..New--Tfiataraejit.
This type of evangelical le^alism becomes still more marked much
later in the century when the nova lex 3 of the new dispensation is
held up to view as being, along with better promises, its defining
characteristic.
This peculiarity of the early Christian writers, it is worth while
to reiterate, springs from no conscious dissatisfaction with the
teaching of St. Paul. It must be borne in mind that the Apostle's
sharply defined and resolute exclusion of the doctrine of salvation
by works of obedience was part and parcel of his warfare against
a Pharisaic theology. That contest with Judaism and Judaizing
Christianity had now passed by. Whether_sa,lyation is through
fgith or on the ground of obedience was no more "a burning
question." The special occasion for an energetic uprising to with
stand a narrow and intolerant party, on this subject, no more
existed. It must be borne in mind, moreover, that the Apostle
Paul himself, when he speaks of the judgment, makes it turn upon
"deeds done," upon the personal righteousness or unrighteousness
of the individual. The creed of Trent quotes against the Prot
estant doctrine the Apostle's anticipation of the " reward," the
"crown of righteousness," which the Lord, "the righteous Judge
will give" him.4 In short, St._Paul himself uses the terms of the
Jewish "scheme of debt and works," — terms, however, which are
capable of an interpretation consistent with his teaching elsewhere
on the adequacy and the life-giving power of faith.5 It is the
1 M. II. 8. « TertulL, De Prcescr. 13.
2 Didache, 10. * Sess. VI. Decree on Justification, CXVI.
6 On this topic, see the remarks of Stevens, The Pauline Theology, p. 359 sq.
44 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
characteristic of the earliest Christian writers that they bring to
gether the teachings of the different Apostles. They may be said,
not so much to strike an average, as rather to combine indiscrim
inately the various passages in the Apostles which relate to pardon
) and the new life. There is a failure, notwithstanding the Christian
j fervor of these authors, to penetrate to the inmost meaning and
( the mutual connection of these various forms of representation^
We find, especially in Hgrmas, traces of an ascetic drift, which
1 is in a large measure the result of the earnest reaction oLJhfi
Christian mind against the immorality. in_particular the unchastity,
sqjQrevalenMn heathen society. This ascetic tendency is con
joined with the legalism just adverted to. It was a question
whether repentance^ would be of any avail in_the_case ofLgrievous
o|fencjesj£pjm rite which was understood
to bring with it the remission of past sins. The solution in Hermas
is, that a single lapse of this character does not shut the door upon
delinquent ; but this js the limit Jbeyond which the spirit of
eniency in the Church will not go.1 Second^ marriages are not
forbidden, but abstinence from a second marriage brings "exceed
ing honor and great glory before the Lord." 2 Christian believers
I fall into different classes as to their d.egree of holiness, some being
on a higher, and others on a lower plane. The distinction between
a more exalted and an^jnferior^jtype of Christian virtue is even
more definite in the Didache?
v If in the Apostolic Fathers we miss a firm grasp of the New
' Testament teaching on the subject of Justification, no such defect
appears in their_conception of Jthe.jdoctrin^ofthe_j)erspn of Christ,
Inexact as their phraseology naturally is in comparison with what
is observed in authors of a later age, it is evident, as well in their
habitual tone as in particular passages, that in their minds Christ
isjdissQciated from the category-Qljcreaturea. Clement styles Him
1" the sceptre of the majesty of God," who "came not in the pomp
of arrogance or of pride though He might have done so, but in
lowliness of mind."4 "To whom," he exclaims in another place,
"be the glory and the majesty for ever and ever."5 In Igna-
1 L. III. Sim. 7. " Thinkest thou that the sins of those that repent are for
given forthwith? Certainly not; but the person who repents must torture his
own soul," etc.
2 M. IV. 4. * i Cor. 16.
•» VI. 2, Cf. Clem. II. Cor. VII. • I Cor. 20.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
45
tius, it is a central thought that through Christ man is delivered
from the dominion of death and made a partaker of incorruption.1
This is through the Incarnation, and the Resurrection following
upon the death on the Cross. The divine life in Christ is in
veritable humanity. DaoeJjsm, the idea that the human Christ i^
a ^phantom, is combated. The mystical tendency of Ignatius
appears in his conception of the connection of the bishop with
his presbyters about him with the like relation of the incarnate
Christ to the Apostles.2 Ignatius asserts the preexistence of
Christ. He "was with the Father before the world, and ap
peared at the end of time."3 Christ is "His Word (Logos)
that proceeded from silence " ; that is, in becoming incarnate.
"There is only one physician," Ignatius writes, "of flesh and
of spirit, generate and ungenerate, God in man4 . . . Son of
Mary and Son of God."5 The eternity of Christ is explicitly
affirmed : " Await Him that is above every season, the Eternal,
the Invisible, who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable,
the Impassible, who suffered for our sake."6 Ignatius gives to
Christ repeatedly the name "God," not as if He were God
absolutely, yet implying proper divinity.7 He is " the Son of the
Father," through whom the patriarchs and the whole Church enter
in.8 Polycarp declares that " every one who shall not confess that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is anti-christ," — a passage cor
responding to the statement of John (i John iv. 3), from whom it
is probably quoted.9 Barnabas refers to the suffering of Christ,
though He was the Lord of the whole world, and interprets the
words, "Let us make man in our own image" (Gen. i. 26), as
spoken to Him.10 Hermas says of " the Son of God " that He
" is older than all His creation, so that He became the Father's
adviser in His creation."11 "The Holy Preexistent Spirit," it is
said, " which created the whole creation God made to dwell in
flesh that He desired."12 Whether the " Spirit " is here a designa-
2 See Lightfoot, Apostol. Fathers, P. II. Vol. I. pp. 39, 359, sq. Cf. Gore,
The Christian Ministry^ p. 302. See, also, Von der Goltz, Ignatius v.
Antioch, als Christl. Theolog. Gebh. u. Harnack's Text. u. Untersuch., XII. 3.
3 Magn. 6. 6 Polyc. 3. 9 Ep. Polyc. 7.
4 iv ffapKl. 7 Ephes. Introduct., 18. 10 Barnab. 6.
6 Ephes. 7. 8 Philad. 9. ." Simil. IX. 12.
12 Simil. V. 6. Cf. IX. i. The passage is obscure, partly because " the ser
vant " in the Parable is said (6) to be " the Son of God," while another, who
4<5 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
tion of the pree'xistent Logos — a usage of which there are not
wanting other examples — or, as some think, Hermas considered
the Holy Spirit to be one and the same with the pree'xistent Christ,
there is at least here a clear assertion of the Saviour's preexistence
and divinity.1 The personality and distinct office of the Holy
Spirit are clearly set forth in Ignatius.2 The Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit are brought into close connection.3 Clement
writes : " Have we not one God, and one Christ, and one Spirit
of Grace that was shed upon us ? " 4
That Baptism brings the remission of sins ancl the purifying
gtace of tKeTSpirit is frequently said~of~Tmplied in the earliest
writers. In one place Ignatius ascribes to the death of Christ a
purifying effect upon the baptismal water.5 "We go down into
the water," says Barnabas, "laden witb-5ins_anxLjfiltb-and rise from
i^bearing fruit in the heart, resting our fear, and hope on Jesus in^
tfce spirit." 6 As to the formula used in baptism, it is thought to
have been, at the outset, in the Apostolic age, the shorter form in
the name of Christ.7 It is remarkable, however, that while in the
Didache, baptism " into the name of the Lord " is said to be
required for admission to the Eucharist,8 we have in the directions
for administering the rite the injunction to baptize "into the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 9 This
shows that the shorter form does not necessitate the inference that
the longer formula was not in use.
is called His "beloved son" and "heir" (2), is also spoken of. As to the
use of the term " Spirit " (irt>ev/j.a) to denote the Logos, see Lightfoot's note,
Clem. Rom. IX. 4. On the other view, that Hermas does not, in V. 6 and
IX. 4, use this term as the equivalent of Logos, see (against Zahn) Gebhardt
and Harnack, Patrum Apostolics, Opera, Fascic. III. p. 150 sq. See, also,
Harnack, DG. I. p. 160 — who considers Hermas an Adoptionist — and
Prof. McGiffert's Ed. of Eusebius, p. 135. Dorner has a full discussion of
the topic, presenting the opposite interpretation, Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. Person
Ckristi, I. p. 205 sq. But Dorner has a different reading of Simil. v. 6 from
that adopted (with Lightfoot, Apostol. Fathers) above.
1 On the passage in the Didache (X. 6) — " Hosanna to the God of David "
— and the question of the reading (0e<£ or v?$)» see Schaff, The Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles, p. 197.
2 See Ephes. 9. * I. Cor. 46. 6 Barnabas, n.
« Philad. Introduct. 6 Ephes. XVIII. 5.
7 See Acts xix. 5, I Cor. i. 13; cf. Neandcr, Planting and Training of the
Church, p. 29 ; Harnack, DG. I. p. 68, n. 3.
• IX. 5. 9 VII. i.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
47
The Lord's Supper, as we infer from the passages bearing on the
subject in Ignatius, was still connected with the Agape, or Love-
Feast, as it was in the days of the Apostles. If it had become
dissevered when Pliny wrote his letter to Trajan, the separation
may, perhaps, have been a local usage, which, it may be, was
adopted by the Christians in consequence of the rigid policy
introduced by that Emperor. We cannot expect in the Apostolic
Fathers clearly defined views respecting the import of the Lord's
Supper. Ignatius speaks of the Eucharist as "the flesh of our
Saviour, Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our jsins." l and
styles the " one bread " " the medicine of immortality and the
antidote that we should not die," 2 etc. We cannot be at all sure
that he is not using symbolical language.3 The bread and the
wine were gifts of C]irjstlajiJ^dievgrs__for this sacred use, anoV, in
connection with the prayers, were styled an offeripg ; but with no
other significance. From the prayer of thanksgiving, the rite was
styled the Eucharist. From the Didache the character of the
I Eucharistic prayers can be learned. Thanks are given to God
( for the food and drink, the natural gifts of God to men, as well as
/for the "spiritual food and drink" bestowed on believers through
Christ.4
The Second Coming ofLChjist is looked upon as an event not
remote. In one of the parables of Hermas, it is to follow the
building of "the Tower," and "the tower," it is said, "will soon
be built." The post-communion prayer in the Didache ends with
" Maranatha " — " The Lord Cometh."5 In^ Barnabas, the tem
poral reign of Christ for a thousand years, is expected to follow
His advent. Pajria.s, who cherishes the same idea, presented a
fantastic picture of millennial bliss and comfort.6
i Smyrn. VII. 2 Ephes. XX.
3 See Philad. V., Trail. VIII. Cf. Lightfoot (ad Smyrn. VII.). A more
literal interpretation is given by Thomasius, DG. I. p. 421.
* c. X. * c< X. 6 (as in I Cor. xvi. 22). Cf. Didache, c. XVI.
6 See infra, p. 88.
CHAPTER IV
THE JUDAIC SEPARATIST PARTIES — THE GNOSTIC SECTS — MARCION
BEFORE Jerusalem was invested by the army of Titus, there had
been a flight of Jewish Christians_to_pla.rps on the east of the Jor
dan in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea. There a portion of
these fugitives were brought in contact with the Essenes, and
probably adopted some of their tenets and customs. ~ When the
rites of Jewish worship were excluded from Jerusalem by Hadrian
(A.D. 135), there were Jewish Christians — a part of those who
had come back to Jerusalem from their temporary exile — who
joined with the Christians of Gentile origin, thus giving up the
Mosaic ceremonies. But there were Jewish Christians who were
qgtj[gaj|)Mtoj|D^^ in the ancient
Law. These constituted the heretical class who were calfetL Ebi;
ojntes. The name was not derived, as Tertullian and other
Fathers conjectured, from an imaginary founder named "Ebion."
The term was from the Hebrew, and was a name early adopted
by Jewish disciples, signifying " the poor," in contrast with their
Jewish countrymen, who were higher in rank and more favored
of fortune. Justin Martyr distinguishes between different types
of these sectaries, and Origen makes a like distinction.1 The
milder class, Justin tells us, do not turn their backs on their Gen
tile brethren who reject circumcision and the Jewish Sabbaths.
The__rnpre rigid class endeavor to compel Gentile believers to
conformjo the Old Testament rites.2 It is not said by Justin that
anylharp line^oTHivision separates these different phases of Judaic
Christianity. They all belong to one group. The name ' Ebi-
onites ' and the name ' Nazarenes ' were applied by the Fathers
indiscriminately to Jewish Christians, although the differences
among them are recognized. The less rigid Ebionites made use
i C. Celsum, V. ki. 2 Dial., c. 46.
48
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
49
of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. They accepted the miraculous
birth of Christ. They held that He was conceived of the Spirit
of God. They made no objection to suffering and death as
connected with the Messiah. To the baptism of Jesus they
attached great consequence, as the epoch when He was furnished
with qualifications for His messianic work. Unlike the more in
tolerant fraction of the Ebionites, they did not deny that Paul
was a true Apostle. This class of Moderates are described by
Jerome, for in his time they were still in being. They are com
monly called, he says, yazarejiesr He sketches their^ tenets, and
acids that in trying to be at once Jews and Christians, they fail of
being either.1 The rigid, Pharasaic_JEbionites ; insisted that cir
cumcision is necessary to salvation, that the^Mpsaic ceremonial
ordinances are stj]l,Mn^nj:._oii^iiristians. They rejected and
hated the Apostle Paul. They d£nied the miraculous conception
ofjesus, and regarded Him as literally the son of Toserjh. They
looked upon Him as a Jew, whose distinction from others lay in
His fulfilment oTthe l^w. His legal piety caused Him to be se-i
lected as Messiah by God ; but of this He, in His humility, was |
not conscious _until His baptisrn. Then the Spirit was given to*
Him, and He began His messianic work. It was the work of a I
prophet and teacher. He wrought miracles and enlarged the lawf
by precepts of greater strictness. This class or school of Ebionites*
was reluctant to think oj" the Christ as subject Jto suffering and
death, and preferred to dwell on His laws and teachings, and on
His future advent in regal splendor. Then He would establish for
Himself and His followers, especially for the pious Jews, a millen
nial kingdom of glory and blessedness.
With these intolerant Ebionites, Justin will have no fellowship.
He denies to them the hope of salvation. As to the treatment
proper for the more charitable branch of the party, he would
regard them as brethren, although, he tells us, some other Chris
tians were not disposed to do so. At a later day — exactly when
it is impossible to determine — even the moderate class_were___also
banished from Christian fellowship. It is not difficult to recognize
in these last, whatever modifications may have come in, the suc
cessors of the Jewish Christians of the Apostolic age who, while
observing the ritual for themselves, were not inimical to the Apos-
1 Dum volunt Judsei esse et Christian!, nee Judaei sunt nee Christian!. Ep.
cxii., 13 (ad Augustin.).
K
50 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
tie to the Gentiles ; while the rigid Ebioiutes^arejhe^ successors of
the Jydaizers who denied his claim to be an Apostle and pro^
nounced the ban on such disciples as failed to conform to the
ceremonial parts of the Law.
There was a third type of Ebionitism which may be denominated
Essenian Ebionitism. It embraced distinctive features of Ebionite
doctrine, with an admixture pf_Gnostic_elements. Its nascent ten
dencies are clearly seen in the heretical party in the church_at
Colosse, which is described in St. Paul's Epistle. to the Colossian^.1
How far what are called the Essenian features of the system sprung
out of the int^rjDOurse^of Jewish Christians_with the Essenian sect^
or were due to indirect agencleToFiTkiridred nature, it is not easy
to decide. One faction of the Jewish Christian party, of which
the peculiarities are foreshadowed in the Colossian heresy, bears
the name of Elkesaits. This title is derived from Elkesai, which is
not the name of a man, but of a book prized by the sect. The
characteristics of the Essenian Ebionitism appear in a curious work
pf a much later date, the Clementine romance, or the Pseudo-
Clementine writings, — frkg_TTnmjjips_jand ^ ^ prngrntjnn^2 the
date of which is probably near the beginning of the third century.
They contain a story of one Clement, a fictitious creation who is
identified with Clement of Rome and figures as the author of the
narrative. Clement, after long wanderings, meets his lost parents
and brothers. The tale is merely a vehicle for conveying to the
reader a set of religious ideas. It is related of this Clement that
he was converted by Peter, and listened to disputations of Peter
with Simon Magus, the champion of Gnostic heresies. Among the
main Ebionite elements in the Clementii^e_rjomance is the essejiijal
identity of Christianity with Judaism. Christ is the restorer of the
pure, primitive religion of Moses. Christ is the last of a series, of
eight prophets. — Abraham, Moses, ancfChrist being the chief, — by
all of whom the same truth has been inculcated. There are traces
of hostility to the Apostle Paul, and Peter is represented as the
founder of the Roman Church. On the other hand, there is a dis
position to find an original religion to which allj-eligions are trace
able ; there is d^lisnfin thTTdea of matter and respecting the
1 Lightfoot's instructive Dissertations on " The Colossian Heresy " and on
"The Essenes," are prefixed to his "Commentary on the Colossians," and are
printed also in his Dissertations on the Apostolic Age (1892).
3 The Epitome, the third book in the series, is a briefer writing of later date.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 51
nature of sin, a repudiation of sacrifices, and no expectation of_a^i
earthly theocratic kingdom .
In the absence of authentic information, various hypotheses have
been broached respecting the origin of the Clementine writings.
Baur conceived that he had found in these productions a warrant
for his theory of the prevalence of a Judaic, anti-Pauline theology
in the Church of the second century. That no support can be
derived from them for such a theory is now generally perceived.
Gieseler's conjecture was that a Roman Christian whose mind was
distracted by doubts and queries sought and found in the East,
among the Elkesaits, religious ideas which were in accord with his
predilections, and which he incorporated with opinions having a
different source and character.1 The most plausible suggestion
that can be offered at present to account for the phenomena is that
old Elkesait or other Jewish Christian writings were, to some
extent, taken up and read with interest by Christians ; that they
were worked over in order to render them more edifying and to
eliminate from them heretical ideas, and that such were the sources
of the Homilies and Recognitions. Not unlikely reflections cast
upon the Apostle Paul were not wholly excluded, but traces of
them were undesignedly left to stand.2 As Harnack remarks, "the
Pseudo-Clementines contribute nothing to our knowledge of the
origin of the Catholic Church and doctrine." Even as concerns
the knowledge of the tendencies and inner history of the syncre-
tistic Jewish Christianity, they "can be used only with great
caution."3
The Ebionitesjvould have robbed Christianity of its universal C »
Character and w_prld-wide destination, and have narrowed it down r****~*<A^
to_the_Jirjaits of Judaism, The GnosUcs? had they gained _the_
3ay, would have accomplished jusT the reverse. Gnosticism
fould have swept away the barriers by which Christianity, as
one absolute religion, fenced off the manifold systems of
[mythology and philosophy, and the^ multiform cults which existed
[among the heathen. Gnosticism may be described as an eclectic
pjrilosophy in which heathen, Jewish, and Christian elements are
1 Gieseler, Kirchengesch., I. iii. 2t § 58.
2 See Harnack's Discussion, DG., Vol. I., p. 264 sq.
3 Ibid. p. 268. " We are precluded from assigning to the syncretistic
Jewish Christianity, on the ground of the Pseudo-Clementines, a pbce in the
history of the origin of the Catholic Church and its doctrine." Ibid. p. 270.
52 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Commingled in^various proportions, giving rise to a diversity
of systems ; the ideas of these systems being incorporated in
mythical or mythological forms. When we speak of Gnosticism
as eclectic and as a philosophy, it is not to be understood that its
origin was due either to a skeptical or a merely speculative turn
of mind. The Gnostic leadexs were for the most part deeply
interested, from practical motives, in the problems of religion,
and laid stress not by any means exclusively on theoretical tenets,
but jjyenrnore on ritual forms, ascetic practices, and other matters
pertaining to conduct. In the sgcond century, the flourishing
period of the Gnostic systems, while, as we learn from the
explicit testimony of the Fathers, the mass of Christians belonged
to the humbler and uneducated classes, there were found culti
vated men who could not fail to be inquisitive as to the founda
tions of the Christian teaching, and its~relations to the ongnTanci
constitution of things. Moreover^ ~fEe"~aIpprevaiImg drift Tn the
direction of syncretism, the disposition to amalgamate mythology
iwith philosophy, tojexplain, and to assimilate, as far as might be,
O4^^1Ji3igiouj_sjstems^ and cults, created a ferment on the
bonier^ ofjthe .Christian., societies ej/erywhere. The authors of
the different speculative and theosophic systems, the fruit of this
passion for a universal solvent of religious and of philosophical
problems, would be glad to discover a warrant for their ideas
in an authoritative_reyejation. The canon of the New Testament
had not yet arisen. The Old Testament was an authoritative
book in the churches. Already the Judaic propaganda, through
[^ jiad fused Jay means of ^allegorical
interp^ej^atiojisjthej'acts and doctrines of the Qid_ Testament \yjt
the teachings of Platonism and Jjitoicism. It had given currency
to certain theological conceptions; to the dualistic idea of ay
absolu_te_De_i£y, separated^ at the jvidest remove from the world
oLmatter ; to the idea of a chain of intermediate beings ; to the
idea of the Logos, as a second deity, a demiurg^e;_s_tajmping by
jts energy the divine ideas upon the world ; to the ideaoFan
escape from matter~as the true deliverance of the soul. The very
ear1iqs.t Gnostic developments were from the_[udaic side. Yet
the ideas and tendencies just referred to, being~common to the
metamorphosed Judaism of Philo and to the Hellenic schools
from which he borrowed, we cannot attribute the Gnostic systems
generally to the Judaic source. The historical circumstances
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
53
of their rise would not justify us in this conclusion. The various
religions of Syria and Asia Minor furnished copious materials,
as well as leaders, to the Gnostical movement. The dualistic
religions of Persia and India made their contribution, although it
seems probable that it was through an Hellenic appropriation
of such elements that they found their way into the Gnostic
creations.
There were two main points to which .jGnostic thought was
directed.^ The^ one was the ^absol^tje^jBein^v^ The other was the
origin of EvJl. How did man become entangled in the fetters of
matter, and how should he be delivered? The Gnostics were
necessarily led to the consideration of cosmogony, and they were
in quest of a satisfactory theodicy. With all their errors and
vagaries, they ^soiied__after_a^ wide view, after a theology in^a
bread and comprehensive sense, and after a philosophy of history.
Underlying the creations of phantasy which puzzle and bewilder
us — the "aeons" emanating in a well-nigh endless succession, to
span the gulf between the transcendent Deity and brute matter —
there were earnest convictions. It was probably the practical
side Q.fjthe_Gnostic teaching, the pastoral, so to speak, rather than
the didactic office which the Gnostic heresiarchs assumed, that
gave them influence over the body of their adherents to whom
the region of abstruse speculation was a terra incognita".
The tajp prominent and prevailing peculiarities of the Gnostic
systems are the following:
Fir^t. the Gnostics laid claim to a^ deeper insight (yvoxns), or
knowledge of divine things than was open to common believers.
This Gno^ stood in contrast with Pistis, or the faith of Christians
generally. On this higher plane, theT^nostic alone stood. Dor-
ner has styled Gnostiqsm " tfog ^E.elagianjs.m of the jnlejjficjt."
In essence it was identical with the postulate of the Greek phi
losophers, who asserted the existence of a race of intellectual
patricians. There was an esoteric Christianity — something more
popular
Second, the Qnpstic sygtemsagree i___
that the Creator of the world is not the Sugrgme God, but is either
a subordinate, but^not^ hostile, instrument, or an n^feripr^_antago-
rnjjtic bejng. Hence LtheJ^djQ£±he_ OkLTpstfl -m enj; is not the God
who sends the Redeemer into the world, but is another being,
the Demiurge. •
54
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
In conformity with the requirements of their whole theory
respecting the Absolute and the identification of matter with evil,
the persgnjjf the Redeemer jyas conceived of in a docetic man-
nej; ; the divine was not really incarnate, but in temporary juxta-
It is not strange that in the hands of Gnostic teachers utterances
of the Apostle Paul were tortured into props of a theory quite
alien to his teachings. He had written of a "wisdom" (<ro</>ia)
which was reserved for " the perfect," in contrast with the rudi
mentary knowledge imparted by him to the immature,1 and of a
knowledge (Gnosis) which was possessed in different measures
by Christian disciples ; although with the Apostle it was an insight
and a practical perception from which none were debarred on
account of a deficiency in natural endowments. So the language
of the Apostle respecting the law and the Old Testament system,
as temporary stepping-stones to something higher, was equally
capable of being construed as a warrant for a radical disconnec
tion of the Old from the New. The loose and flexible method of
/ allegory which was applied by Christian as well as Judaic teachers
| to the ancient Scriptures opened the door for the application by
I Gnostic theologians of a like method to the facts and doctrines^of
1 thejGosrjel. The habit of looking for symbols everywhere, of
regarding historical occurrences as having their value in some
occult spiritual suggestion, invited speculative minds to transmute
the realities of the Evangelical history into materials for their own
use. We know that not a few of the Gnostics busied themselves
with the interpretation of the Apostolic writings, and that some of
them wrote commentaries upon them. It was not, as a rule,
by casting aside these writings, but by devices of exegesis, that
they^sought for a support for their doctrines.2 Sometimes, it is
true, the documents were altered, and romances in the shape of
apocryphal gospels and other apocryphal writings of a kindred
character were composed for the diffusion of their ideas. They
madejnuch of unwritten traditiojt^oj^
Of the forms and the extent of the influence of the Gnostics,
we covet more information than we possess. They were found
within the churches. Sometimes they formed a circle or sodality,
without separation from the societies of Christian believers.
1 I Cor. ii. 6.
0 a See Iren., Adv. ffar. III. ii. 2; Tertullian, DC Procter. H*r., c. 14. ?•
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
55
Often, and more and more, they were organized into distinct
bodies, having a cult and discipline of their own. Generally the
rites and symbolical ceremonies, and the rules of conduct which
were enjoined, formed conspicuous features of Gnosticism in its
various ramifications.
Tjaces of Gnosticism in its nascent forms are observable in the
New Testament, — in Simon Magus, who afterwards figures prom
inently in history and legend ; in the Epistle to the Qolossians,
where the adversaries of Paul are represented as ascetic, and as
holding to a God who reveals himself in ranks of angels, one
above another ; in the Epistles to Timothy, in a class who busy
themselves with Angelology ; in the First Epistle of John, in those
who denied the reality of the jJi.c^Lrnation ; in the Nicolaitans
of the ApQgaiypse, and in the false teachers referred to in the
Epistle of Juifle who fell into an antinomian immorality.
Gieseler gives a geographical classification of Gnostic systems,
putting in the first class, the Alexandrian, in the second, the
Syrian, and in a third class, the Gnostics of Asia Minor and
Rome, — including the system of Marcion. In the Syrian systems,
the dualism was more pronounced. In the religions of the world,
as in human nature, in the room of contrasts of higher and lower,
there were held to be absolute contrarieties. Baur's classification
is based on the views taken respectively by the several classes
of Gnostic systems, of the three principal forms of religion,
Christianity, Judaism, and Heathenism. In the first class, these
three forms of religion are conjoined ; in the second class are
placed the systems which separate Christianity from both of the
other religions ; and in the third, those which identify Christianity
and Judaism, and oppose them both to Heathenism. Under this
third class, Baur places the doctrine of the Pseudo-Clementine
writings, which we have placed under the head of Ebionitism.
Niedner's classification is not essentially diverse from that of
Baur. Niedner also has a second classification based on the
more friendly or more hostile relations of pis Us and gnosis in
the several systems. Neander makes two leading divisions, the
criterion being the relation of the Gnostic systems to the religion
of the Old Testament. The ground of the distinction is a milder
or a sharper dualism. The principle of the world and the state
of the world are conceived of either as only making up a lower
sphere, or as wholly foreign and adverse to the Supreme Being.
$6 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
There was supposed to be either a continuous development
running through pre-Christian and Christian times, or there was
the denial of any such unity. There was either a connecting,
or a sundering, of the Old and the New Testament The first
division embraces the Alexandrian systems ; the second, the
Syrian. But in the second division, the opponents of Judaism
may, or may not, exhibit a leaning towards Heathenism.
S.imon Magus is without doubt an historical person whose
existence and influence are attested not only in the book of Acts
(viii. 9 sq.), but also by Justin Martyr, who was himself a native
of Samaria.1 SiiaQj:r^s_considere(l by his adherents " that powej
of (^^jadiidi-Js_^xeat.."2 and was reverenced as the incarna
tion oLthg, godhead. His companion, who wandered about with
him, Hejenaj was styled ICnnoia^ thejfirst though^, the creative
intejHgejac^_QiLj£eIllM.ty. Simon mingled in his teachings
astrology and the arts__c^f magic. An influential follower was
Menander, and another Samaritan leader of like character and
pretensions was Dqsitheus.
Corjnthus may be styled an Eiiiojiitic_jGnQ§iic, or a Gnostical
Ebionite. He derived his ideas from Alexandria, but cjmie__to
Asia Minor, where he was a contemporary of the Aposjle_John.
He_jepresented the Supreme God as utterly separate^ from any
irnmediaie. rd^ULJQriJ£LJiiall^. Between them are ranks of angels,
.
the God of the Jews. Cerinthus rejected the miraculous con-
(cerjtion, and held that with Jesus at His baptism a heavenly spirit
jwasjinited, but ^forsook, Sim .at the beginning of His sufferings.
The Roman writer, Caius, imputes to him a sensuous Chiliastic
belief, but this statement may be a mistaken inference. Hippoly-
tus says that Cerinthus held to circumcision and the Sabbath.
We begin now with the Syjrian Qnosjs. Saturninus liveo! proba
bly in the time of Hadrian. In his system the highest God, the
"Father Unknown," creates a realm of spirits in descending
gradations, the spirits of the seven planets being on the lowest
stage. By them, or by the Demiurge at their head, the visible
world was made, and also man. The Demiurge is the God of
L-the Jews. A^divine spark .has been imparted by the Supreme_Jo
tlje_ja^^ijfLnien. Over the realm ol matter. or the Hyle. Satan
presides. The human race is composed of two chsses diamet-
1 Apol. I, 56. a Dial. c. Tryp. 120.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
57
rically opposed. The good God sends an ^Eon, Nous, who
appears in ari unreal body as a Saviour to deliver the spiritual
class, not only from Satan, but also from the Demiurge and the
associated planetary spirits. The means of deliverance embrace
abstinence from marriage and other forms of asceticism.
Allied in their conceptions to the Saturninians were the Ophites,
in their various branches, — the Naassenes, the Peratae, and
others. The Ophites paid reverence to the serpent, as the
symbol of hidden, divine wisdom. The maker of the world and
God of the Jews is laldabaoth, — Product of Chaos, — a narrow,
evil being, full of pride, but forced to carry out the plan of
the Supreme, as an instrument. To his psychical Christ the
Heavenly Christ descends from the pleroma, and, when the for
mer is crucified, places himself at the right hand of laldabaoth,
where, invisible to the latter, he guides all spiritual life upward
from its debasing mixture with matter into the pleroma. The
Cainites, who were a branch of the Ophite class, revered the bad
characters of the Old Testament as the really good, belonging to
the pneumatic natures.
Of the Alexandrian type of Gnosticism, Egsijides, who, like
Saturninus, lived under Hadrian, was the first of the noted
leaders. There are two diverse expositions of his system, that
given by Irenaeus, and that of Hippolytus, which is drawn from
different sources. According to the latter, Basilidqs
the heacj of all things the Being .who is pure nothing; i.e.,
nothing j!oncrete; the Ineffable One. From him comes the world-
seed, the seminal, chaotic universe, containing in it potentially all
beings, higher and lower, almost numberless, in their distinct
spheres. The Archpn, who is the God of the Jews? is not hostile
tojhe Smorejne, buTunconscioi^sly fulfilsjns i__designs. The problem
is for all beings to develop their nature and to rise each to its
appropriate place. It is a scheme of self-evolution. The pneu
matic natures, such of them as require purification, — which is
the third class of these natures, — are delivered through the
Gospel, which brings in a new period and redemptive influence
from the most exalted sources. Jesj^s is_lhe_Sotert a ^compound
" mjcrocosmiq " being ^ and^at^His death^the several parts. .oJLjrfis
b^ingj-ise each to its^ro^e^Jbome. Basilides taught a_moderate
asceticism in which marriage was not forbidden, although celibacy
was commended. He made use of the canonical Gospels, and,
58 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
according to Hippolytus, of the Gospel of John among them ;
also, of the Epistles of Paul. The foremost of his pupils was
his son, Isodorus. Later disciples, the Pseudo-Basilidians, became
degenerate and forsook the better tenets of their master.
Vajentinus was probably an Alexandrian Jew who was con
verted to Christianity. He taught in Alexandria and Rome about
A.D. 140. His system has clearer logical and philosophical^ ideas
tharrany other ofjhejGnostic schemes^ and discovers throughout
the inj|u^n^e_pJ^PlaJojiism. It is the Gnostic system which was
m£sjj^ejyjdiffu§ed_and js ^.bestJaiowiLtg_us. There is an unfold-
ing of the Absolute into finite forms of being in long succession,
ajid in two splieres, a higher realm, the scene of a thepgon^, and
a.lgwer_realm. the .sphere of sense. Thi§_lower world is the prov-
ince_of the Demiurge, but the human beings formed by himjiave
in them pneumatic elements. Redemption is undertaken by Jesus,
the Messiah of the Demiurge, upon whom, atjiis baptism, the
heavenly Soter descends to proclaim divine truth, and by impart-
ijig^the Gnosis for the sake of opening the eyes of the pneumatic
beings, to aid them in finding their way to the gleroma above.
The Demiurge falls in with the plans of the Softer. The psychical
Christ'is crucified, but the heavenly Christ prosecutes His redemp
tive work to its completion. In all this, Judaism is not presented
as antagonistic, but as subordinate, to the supreme powers.
Mardu^n is the most prominent figure among the Anti-Judaic
Gnostics. Yet, such are the peculiarities of his system that he
stands in important respects by himself. He was born in Asia
M^nor, and came__to__Rom e about A.D. 140. His intensely practi-
Qal_temp_er and his moral earnestness, are traits which command
respect. Deeply moved by the revelation of the merciful char
acter of God in the Gospel of Salvation, and by the Apostle Paul's
proclamation of the freedom and universality of divine grace, Mar-
cion conceived that the Old. Testajngn^s^stgm, esper.ially its rep
resentations of the character^ QJL_Gpdt are in contradiction to the
truth which_had so profoundly stirred his sympathy. He inferred
tnat" the Old Testament^jcould not have had the same origin as
the Gospel. He magnified the contrast of law_and_ grace into a
djrect antagonism. Moreover, nature struck him as imperfect,
and therefore as not proceeding from the Father of the Lord
Jesus Christ. Marcion assumed the existence of three princjpjgs :
Hyle, or matter, which is eternal ; we God of love, incapable of
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
contact with matter.pand the Demiurge, a being of limited power
wJLQ strives with._but jgartial_ success to form and shape matter.
The resistance of this element to the Demiurge is concentrated in
Satan. The Demiurge is a God of justice, but justice, retributive
djspjeasure. penalty, are incoinpatible_with Love^ Christianity,
therefore, is an utterly p^w^system, standing in no organic connec
tion with the former dispensation. It_ is hostile alike to Judaism
and heathenism. Without an insight into TRe progressive char
acter of divine revelation, and not resorting, like so many of his
contemporaries, to allegory as a solvent of difficulties, he had no
alternative but altogether to discard the Old Testament. The
Demiurge, he held, created men after his own image, giving them
material bodies, subject to evil desires, and revealed himself to
the Jews whom he chose for his own people. He gave them a
law made up of externals, together with a defective system of
morals, void of an inner, life-giving principle. He promised them
a world-conquering Messiah who should bring the heathen to a
rigid judgment. But the good God would not suffer this harsh
sentence to be carried out. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius, He
suddenly descended to Capernaum, in an unreal body, but styled
Himself the Messiah. Jesus, however, was not the Demiurge's
> Messiah, and disregarded his laws. The Demiurge caused Him
:o^be crucified. But_Hjs ^iifieiings^ere^nly jipparent ; the Demi-
saw hjmselL.d£Cjeiy.ed and his power destroyed. Christ de-
/scended to Hades and transported the poor heathen to the third
^heaven. He then revealed Himself to the Demiurge and com
piled him to acknowledge his guilt in crucifying an innocent per-
>n. It is only those who reject the fellowship of God who fall
mder the Demiurge's avenging justice.
MarcJQ,n_ regarded Paul_as the only true Apostle. -The other
A]3pj>tles_h£d corrupted the Gospel. For this reason he accepted
no other Gospel except that of Luke, from which he endeavored
to eliminate passages not congruous with his ideas of the Law.
With this Gospel, which was acceptable to him partly on account
of the relation of the author to Paul, he joined ten of Paul's Epis
tles. Marcion asserted no higher place for a gnosis above, the
faith of ordinary Christians. His code of morals was ascetic.
Marriage and the partaking of flesh and of wine were abjured.
His systern was an aggressive one and was zealously propa
gated. The Marcionites were found in Egypt and Syria, as well
y o
•j. -&+ jp
^^^ Vn
6o HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
as in Italy and Africa. The number of polemical books written
against them indicates how wide was the diffusion of the sect in
its different branches. Its votaries were still found several cen
turies after the death of its founder.
The danger to which the Church and the Christian religion were
exposed from the seductive influences of Gnosticism was far
greater than the peril arising from the antipodal heresy of Ebioni-
tism. Ebionitjsm was the struggle o£ aji_ obsolesc£jit^y<itp'.rn to
maintain its standing. It was a desperate eT^brtjtoIcling to__a rp.-
ceding past The ^freedom and catholicity of Ihe^ .Gospel .were
truths too evident to be obscured, an d_tqp ^precious Jn_be-surreji-
dered. The exaltation of Christ in His relation to God was felt
to be vitally connected with the Christian experience of Recon
ciliation through Him, and too plain in the Apostolic teaching to
be given up. But the Gnostic sects professed to furnish a rational
and comprehensiv£.SYst£m QLreligJQus truth, in which redemption
through Christ should have a place of honor. They connected
with their doctrines the charm of mystery, holding out to the
initiated the welcojne promise of light, and alluring many by
ascetic prescriptions.. Christianity manifested its innate power in
C withstanding this flood of error. The doctrine of one God, of the
( qngin_o£.sm, not in any natural necessity, but in a moral fall, and
I tne doctrine of ajreaHncamation, proved to be barriers too strong
o be swept away. Gnosticism stands on the page of jiistory_as a
erpetual warning against all endeavorsTo substitatelTphysical or
ysicjiTlc^jm ^thicaT^cTrlne^oT'sTn and redemption. One
of the marked effects of the Gnostical theories was the influence
exerted by them in stimulating the development of theology
^thinjthe limits of the Church. It may almost be said that it
was in the storm and stress occasioned by the Gnostical move
ment that Christian theology was roused to grapple with its most
weighty problems. The indirect agency of the Gnostic move
ment in determining the character of the old-Catholic church js-
majiifgst.
CHAPTER V
THE BEGINNINGS OF THEOLOGY : THE 'GREEK APOLOGISTS
THE beginnings of Christian theology are to be found in the
Greek Apologists. These writers treat Christianity predominantly
as a body of teachings pertaining to religion and morals. It is
true that we must bear in mind the special regard which they
have to the character and situation of those whom they address.
This circumstance is not sufficient, however, to explain their
pervading tendency. It is really the point of view from which
they habitually look at the Gospel. Justin Martyr, in the early
part of the First Apology, in a summary way describes Chris
tianity as consisting of the doctrine of the true God, in contrast
with the superstitions of the heathen — who, with the exception
of the philosophers, are misled by the demons — of the doctrine
of virtue, and of rewards and punishments in the world hereafter.1.
The Gospel is a new and improved philosophy the truth of which!
is attested by revelation. There is this heaven-given guaranty of
its truth, which is wholly wanting to the heathen in reference to
the beliefs which they have in common with Christians. Xhis 1
claim for Christianity that it is a philosophy, and as such merits 1
attention and respect, pervades the Apologetic literature. Even
Tatian, who speaks with scorn of the pride of the Greeks and the
boasting and wrangling of the philosophers, professed to be the
disciple of an older philosophy, superior in its contents, although
of " barbaric origin," and having the peculiar merit of being
accessible to all, "the rich and the poor," even "old women and
striplings."2 The Apologists are at pains to adduce from the
[heathen sages ideas and precepts coincident with those of the
ospel. Their teachings, it is affirmed, are mixed to some extent
1 Apol. I. 9-12. Cf. 6-8, 13-20.
8 Orat. c. xxxii. Cf. xxxv., xlii.
6l
62 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
with error. They are borrowed, it is sometimes alleged, from the
older teaching of Moses and the prophets. Yet, Justin emphati
cally maintains, what is best in Plato and the other philosophers
wjis imparted by the divine Logos, who did not withhold light
even from those guides of the heathen. Christ, says Justin, " is
the Legos (or Word) of whom the whole human race are par
takers, and those who lived according to reason are Christians,
even though accounted atheists. Such among the Greeks were
Socrates and Heraclitus, and those who resembled them." l
Justin is not silent respecting the work of Christ as a Redeemer.
It was a part of the mission of Christ to overcome the demons.2
"He cleansed by His blood those who believed on Him."3 By
His blood and the mystery of His cross, He bought us.4 Yet in
some places there is coupled with expressions of this kind lan
guage indicating that, nevertheless, it is the teaching of Christ
Vwhich holds the central place in Justin's thoughts. In keeping
with this way of looking at Christianity as a collection of tenets
respecting God and duty and future rewards and punishments, is
the view taken of its proofs. It is true that the Apologists do not
fail to refer to the purity and elevation of Christian doctrines^jn
comparison with ethnic teaching. They dwell, moreover, with
emphasis on the restraining and refining power of Christianity as
evinced in the lives of its adherents. But the i grand, proof on
which reliance is placed is thejniracle qfjgroghecy. The appeal
is constantly made to the marvellous correspondence of the
/ history of Chris^. with the predictions of the Old Testainejit.
I Here is the Gibraltar in which the early Greek defenders of the
ifaith plant themselves.
We proceed now to speak separately of the leading points in
the theology of Justin in their proper order. In his writings a
certain contrast is perceptible between what strike us as custom
ary phrases respecting the Gospel — expressions used, to be sure,
with no lack of sincerity — and the interpretations of Christianity
which spring from his own reflection, under the influence of his
philosophical bent.5 We find him attributing to God all the
varied personal attributes and agencies which it is usual for
1 Apol. I. 46. « Apol. I. 32. Cf. Dial. 40, 54.
2 Ibid. I. 45; II. 6; Dial. 131. * Dial. 134.
5 The difference here pointed out is well illustrated by Purves in Tht
Testimony of Justin Martyr to Early Christianity (1889).
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 63
Christian believers to ascribe to Him. He is the living God,
just and compassionate, the Father and Maker of all, knowing all
things, ruling all, caring for the individual as well as for the world
in its totality. Yet we have, presented prominently another con.-
r^tmr^Pl^r]]^ ar.H jXT^njjjan, Tewjsji. of God as the tran
scendent, ir^jTahlp One, too exalted to be the subject-jof-jdefinite
predicates, the ordinary representations of Him being merely
relative to our finite apprehension. It is only through an inter
mediate being that He is revealed. It is through the Logos or
Word, that God is manifested. Justin knew and used the Fourth
Gospel. It is not reasonable to suppose that the identifying of
Christ with the Logos in the extent to which he carries it, is to
be explained had he not been conscious of a warrant from Apos
tolic authority. Yet Justin's particular idea of the Logos is noi
consonant with that of John, but corresponds to that of Plato and
Philo. The Logos of Justin is not, as in the Palestinian sources,
including John, the Word of God, but the divine Reason. The
Logos, impersonal in God from the beginning, becomes personal
prior to the creation. " God begot of Himself a beginning,
before all creatures, a certain reasonable Power, which is called by
the Holy Ghost, Glory of the Lord, at other times Son, Wisdom,
Angel, God, Lord, and Logos." l In the production of the Son,
God was not Himself changed, more than a man's mind is
changed by the utterance of a word, or a fire lessened by having
another fire kindled from it. He is the only-begotten by the
Father of all things.2 He is from the Father " not by abscission,
as if the Father's essence were divided off."3 He is not an
emanation as the light emanates from the sun.4 The language of
Justin implies that the inner nature of the Son is identical with
that of the Father. The sonship of Christ is thus traced back to
the ante-mundane generation of the hypostatic Logos. Moreover,
the Logos, next to the Father, is the recipient of divine honors.
He is associated with the Father when it is said, " Let us make
man in our own image" (Gen. i. 26). 5 It was the Logos who
appeared in the theophanies of the Old Testament. Neverthe
less, Justin does not fully succeed in taking Christ out of the
category of creatures. He is begotten, or assumes a personal
form of being, by an act of God's will. He was generated from
1 Dial. 61. 3 Ibid. 105. 3 Ibid. 128.
* Ibid. 128. * Ibid. 62.
64
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the Father " by his power and will." l The Logos is another "in
number," but not in "mind (or will)."2 There is a personal
distinction, but this is not eternal, and it springs from an act of
God's will, anterior to the creation of the world.3 To the Son is
assigned the second place in relation to the eternal God.4 More
over, while the " unbegotten God " does not move, nor is he con
tained in any place, the Logos enters into the limits of place and
time.5 In Tatian and Athenagoras, the Logos is from eternity
potentially in God, and " came forth to be the idea and energiz
ing power of all material things." ( " By his simple will," says
Tatian, " the Logos springs forth," " the first-begotten work of the
Father," " the beginning of the world." Here is no abscission,
there is a participation on the part of the Logos,7 a function
devolved on the Logos, the power or principle from which he
springs being still inherent in the Father.8 Theophilus distin
guishes the internal Logos from the Logos expressed.9 The
former is said to be not distinguishable from God's mind and
thought.10
The Logos is the organ of divine revelation. It is God who
creates, but the rationality of the creation springs from the Logos.
He bears, according to Justin, the closest relation to the reason
of man. The human reason is akin to the divine, and all of
its perceptions of truth are derived, in a way that is only vaguely
indicated, from the Logos. Justin speaks of the " seminal Logos "
of whom all men partake. To the Logos are ascribed functions
which a riper theology, in conformity with Scripture, attributes
to the Holy Spirit. Justin says that it was the Logos who caused
the Virgin Mother to conceive.11 Little space is left in human
history for the activity of the Holy Spirit. It is the Logos which
inspires the prophets and is everywhere active. Yet Justin speaks
1 Dial. 128. He is (wvoyev^ (only-begotten) — Dial. 105. When He is
called first-born (TTPUH^TOKOJ) it is not implied that beings and things below
Him are begotten in the same sense. On this topic see the remarks of Engel-
hardt (in answer to Weizsacker), p. 146.
2 Cf. Dial. 56, 62, 128, 129. « Apol. II. 6.
* Dial. 127, cf. 34, 60.
6 Ibid. 1 27 ; cf. 34, 60. Athenagoras, 10.
6 Athenagoras, 10.
7 He comes into being Kara fupurp&v. Tatian, c. 5.
8 trfideeTo*. 10 Ad. Autol. II. IO, 22.
9 irpo<t>opiK6i. « Apol. I. 33.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 65
of the Spirit in conjunction with the Father and Christ, in such
terms as naturally to imply that the Spirit is regarded as distinct
from both, although subordinate to them.1 It is evident that
his conception of the Holy Spirit and of the relation of the Spirit
to the Father and Son is not well denned in his own thoughts.2
It is clear that Justin considered the humanity of Christ a reality
and not an illusive appearance. But in one particular a question
arises respecting his views on this subject. In one passage he
1 Apol. I. 13, 61, 65, 67. Cf. Dial. I, 4, 29.
2 In Apol. I. 6, Justin enumerates as the objects of Christian worship the
most true God, the Son who came from Him, " and the host of other good
angels," and the Spirit of Prophecy. The placing of the angels in the list
before the Spirit was probably an accident, being suggested not unlikely by
the mention of the Son as sent from God; that is, as a messenger, the literal
sense of " angel." But what of the worship which is said to be accorded to
angels ? As Justin nowhere else refers to a worship of angels, but asserts that
only the Father, Son, and Spirit are to be worshipped (Apol. I. 13, 61,65,66),
it is probable that the term ' worship ' is used in Apol. I. 6, without reflection,
in a loose sense, his aim being here to confute the charge of atheism. The
Christians, he would say, are not so destitute, as you assert, of celestial objects
of veneration. The apologetic motive leads Justin here to show that these
are numerous. (On this point, see Baumgarten-Crusius, DG., p. 175, note I.
The various opinions upon the sense of the passage are given in Otto's ed. of
Justin, ad loc.} It must be observed, however, that Justin represented mate
rial things and the care of men to have been committed to the charge of
angels (Apol. II. 5). There is ground for the remark of Neander, that " we
may observe a wavering between the idea of the Holy Ghost as one of the
members of the Triad, and a spirit standing in some relationship with the
angels." {Church History, Vol. I. p. 609. See especially the note on the
same page.) On this subject, there is an instructive passage in Engelhardt,
p. 146. His quotation from Nitzsch (DG., p. 186) is worthy of attention.
Athenagoras makes a part of Christianity, " rb 0eo\oyiKov /i^pos " — or the doc
trine of God — the affirmation of a multitude of angels and servants — " mean
ing, probably, angels that are servants — whom the Creator has appointed to
occupy themselves with the elements, and the heavens and the world and the
things that are in it, and with the regulating of them " (Emb. 10. Cf. c. 24),
Here there seems to be the recognition of divine beings of a secondary class.
The subordination of all these to the one God and Father was felt to be
adequate to the securing of monotheism. " So fluctuating (fliessend) and
indeterminate," says Thomasius (DG., I, 175) "is everything as yet. The
above-named Church teachers are themselves still struggling for the expression
that shall correspond to the common Christian faith." Or, in the words of
Neander, " the common (Christian) feeling did not find at once its correspond
ing expression irt the forms evolved by the understanding." {Church History,
1.609.)
r
66 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
speaks of Christ as composed of body, Logos, soul.1 Since he
elsewhere analyzes human nature into three elements, spirit, soul
— that is, animal soul — and body, it is inferred that in his con
ception of Christ, the Logos takes the place of the rational human
spirit. It is not certain, however, that he might not use " soul "
in the more comprehensive sense.2 It is not unlikely that the
question was not in his own mind a subject of discriminating
thought.
Justin asserts creation to have been by an act of the divine will.
But it is principally to the ordering of the world, the forming of
the cosmos, that his attention is directed. There is no explicit
rejection of the doctrine of the eternity of the preexisting matter,
the chaotic material.3 Even if he himself did not hold the Pla
tonic view, as did his pupil, Tatian, he nevertheless does not
consider that opinion an error of sufficient moment to call for a
denial of it.
In common with the other Apologists, Justin is strenuous in his
repudiation of Stoic fatalism. His earnestness in asserting the
liberty and responsibility of the individual carries along with it
the failure adequately to perceive the power of sinful habit. Sin,
he teaches, was brought into the world by the agency of demons,
but not without the consent of the transgressor in each case of
guilt. And it is still in the power of men to cast off sin byjthe
exertion of their own wills.4 There is no predestination to sin,
but simply foreknowledge of it. All men will be judged, each
for himself, "like Adam and Eve."5
It has been remarked that when Justin makes the ordinary
statements respecting the efficacy of the cross, it is not an expia
tory work of Christ which is prominent in his mind. It is the
Incarnation rather than the Atonement that interests him. Yet
a passage quoted by Irenaeus from Justin's lost work against Mar-
cion, suggests that in the other writings not extant Justin may
have had something more definite to teach on this last theme.
In this passage, he speaks of the only-begotten Son as sent into
1 <rw/ia, X67os, if'vx'n — Apol. II. IO.
2 The interpretation of Justin is impartially discussed, with a statement of
arguments on both sides, by Dorner, Person Christi, I. 433 sq.
3 The attitude of Justin on this point is well explained by Engelhardt, pp.
139, 140.
* Apol. I. 28, 43, 44 ; Apol. II. 7 ; Dial. 88, IO2, 140. 6 Dial. 124.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 6/
the world from the Father, and " gathering in Himself the work
of His own hands — suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans."
In Irenaeus, as we shall see, the gathering up (recapitulatio) of
mankind in Christ as their head is the thought at the root of his
exposition of the Atonement.1
Justin believed in the doctrine of #, temporal millennium, which
in the second century was widely diffused. Christ was to come
in a visible advent, and make Jerusalem the centre of His king
dom, which was to continue for a thousand years and was to be
followed by the resurrection and the judgment. In the Dialogue
with Trypho he teaches that there will be two resurrections, sepa
rated by the interval of the millennium.2 The Second Advent
was not far distant. The Jews are not described as to be in any
way distinguished in the triumphal advent of the Lord. Nothing
is said of a restoration of them to Jerusalem.
Justin departs from Plato in affirming that souls are not essen
tially immortal. Their continuance in being depends forever on
the will of God. The statement is not seldom reiterated, that
punishment in the world to come is eternal. The idea that it is
supposed by Justin to terminate, and that immortality in the strict
sense is made conditional on being righteous, is erroneously in
ferred from what is said of dependence on the will of God for
the continuance of being. " Immortality " in Justin, as in other
Apologists, includes the vision of God and blessed fellowship
with Him. This it is that the wicked are to be forever deprived
of. " I affirm," he says, " that souls never perish — for this would
be in truth a godsend to the wicked."3 "We have been taught
that they only will attain to immortality who lead holy and vir
tuous lives like God ; and we believe that all who live wickedly,
and do not repent, will be punished in eternal fire." 4
Of the intermediate state of the condition of souls, whether
righteous or wicked, prior to the resurrection, nothing definite
is said by Justin.
The Church, in Justin's conception of it, was a Gentile commu
nity. The number of Jews who had accepted the Gospel is said
to be small. He would not deny fellowship to Jewish believers
who kept up the Mosaic ceremonies, provided they did not strive
to induce Gentile Christians to adopt them. This was the limit
1 Irenseus, Adv. Her. IV. 6, 2. * "ftpnaiov. Dial. 5.
- Dial. 81, 113. * Apol. I. 21. Cf. Dial. 130, Apol. I. 28.
68 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of his charity in this direction. In his teaching relative to the
origin of the new life in the Christian soul, and its continuance,
there are found what have been not inaptly called Pelagian
statements in juxtaposition with teaching of an opposite character.
On the one hand, the Christian life is said to begin in the vir
tuous choice, a choice that is spoken of as if it were wholly self-
originated and self-sustained ; and, on the other hand, there is
not wholly wanting a recognition of an opening of " the gates of
life " by divine grace, " the grace of understanding." l Now
Baptism is spoken of as ensuing upon a conviction of the truth
of Christianity and a self-dedication to a life of virtue, and again
it is described as "regeneration" and as bringing "illumination"
to the soul.2 Baptism brings the remission of sins previously
committed. It thus clears the way to a hopeful endeavor to
voluntary efforts to obtain the rewards of heaven through a course
of obedience.3 As regards the Lord's Supper, nothing is said of
any direct effect of it to remove sin or guilt. But our flesh and
blood are said to be nourished by assimilating3 the bread and
wine of the sacrament, — nourished, the meaning probably is,
with reference to the resurrection and the future life of " incor-
ruption." The food thus received is said to be " the flesh and
blood of Jesus."4 The idea of Justin appears to be that the
divine Logos is mysteriously present in the bread and wine, as in
the Incarnate Christ. There is no probability that literal tran-
substantiation is meant.
The pearl of the Apologetic literature is the Epistle to Diognetus.
None of the early writings of this class rival it in spirit and impres-
siveness. The author fails to discern, as it would seem, the pre
paratory office of the Mosaic system, and puts the sacrifices and
ceremonies of the Jews as on the same level with the external ser
vices rendered by the heathen to their divinities. The true char
acter of Christian disciples and the cruelty with which they were
treated he depicts with nervous eloquence. The incarnation and
divinity of Christ are asserted with all earnestness. The Creator
of the Universe has sent to men, not an angel or any other
subaltern, but "the Artificer and Creator of the Universe Himself,"
by whom He made and ordered all things. He sent Him not to
1 Dial. 7, 30. a Apol. L 6l. s Ibid. L 66.
4 The passage is in Apol. I. 66. This is the sense of /terajSoXiJi'. See
Otto's Justin, I. p. 1 80 (ed. 3).
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 69
inspire terror. He sent Him to use persuasion, not force. He
sent Him "as sending God," and "as [a man] unto men." * " He
sent His only- begotten Son." He communicated His merciful
plan to His Son alone.2 He planned everything in His mind
with His Son.3 "The Word, who was from the beginning. . . .
He, I say who was eternal, who to-day was accounted a Son" —
by Him the riches of grace are bestowed on the faithful and on all
who seek for it.4 If Justin touches lightly the Atonement, the
opposite is true of the author of this Epistle. God " in pity took
on Him our sins, and Himself parted with His own Son as a ran
som for us, the holy for the lawless, the just for the unjust. . . .
In whom was it possible for us lawless and ungodly men to have
been justified, save only in the Son of God? O the sweet ex
change. . . . that the iniquity of many should be concealed in
One Righteous Man," etc.3 The love and pity of God are set
forth in glowing words ; yet the penalty that awaits the wicked and
unrepenting is "eternal fire."5
1 Epist. ad Diognct. c. 7. 2 c. 8. 8 c. 9. * c. II. 5 c. IO.
CHAPTER VI
THE RISE OF THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH — THE RULE OF FAITH —
THE CANON — THE EPISCOPATE — THE RISE AND THE EXCLUSION
OF MONTANISM
THE course of the development of doctrine is intimately con
nected with the rise of the Ancient Catholic Church. An essen
tial element in this historic change is indicated in the new mean
ing which came to be attached to the term ' Catholic.' In Ignatius
it signifies Christians generally, the Church of which Christ is the
centre, in contrast with each local church, the centre of which is
the bishop. The contrast is between the Catholic Church and a
particular body of Christians.1 Later, in the age of Irenseus, the
Catholic Church has come to signify orthodox Christianity in its
organized form in the world at large, as this Church stands aloof
from heretical sects. The three principal topics which we have to
consider under the general subject are the Baptismal Confession
or "Apostles' Creed" and the "Rules of Faith," Tradition and
Scripture, including the rise of the Canon, and organization under
the developed Episcopate.
I. The authoritative source of Christian knowledge was always
considered to be the Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve
Apostles, which forms the title of the Didache. In phraseology
of this kind the teaching of the Apostle Paul was understood to
be included. The instruction given to the young and to the con
verts was not confined to an inculcation of the precepts of the
Gospel such as we find in Hermas and the Didache. The
baptismal formula, as we find it in Matthew, was early expanded
into a brief statement of fundamental truths. As thus enlarged it
was repeated by the candidates for baptism and served as the
basis of preliminary instruction. Probably as early as the third
1 Smyrn. 8. See Lightfoot, Ignatius and Poly carp, II. i, p. 310.
70
ANCIENT THEOLOGY ji
century the story had sprung up that this Confession of faith was
not only made up of elements common to the Apostles' teaching,
but also that it was composed by the Apostles themselves, each
of them contributing a portion. The legend grew until it finally
embraced the statement that the creed was brought to Rome by
Peter. The oldest form of this Confession of which we have any
knowledge is the Roman Symbol. It was in use in the Church
at Rome before the middle of the second century. It read as
follows : " I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Chris
Jesus his only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Hol>
Spirit and the Virgin Mary, was crucified under Pontius Pilate and
was buried, on the third day He rose from the dead, (He) as
cended into Heaven, (He) sitteth at the right hand of the Father
whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead ; and ir
(the) Holy Spirit, the Holy Church, the remission of sins, the
resurrection of the body. Amen."1 This creed is thought b)
Zahn to have been in use in Ephesus as early as i3O.2 There are
not wanting arguments in favor of the opinion that it originated
in Asia Minor.3 Near the end of the century it is found in
Smyrna, in Southern Gaul, and in Carthage. In somewhat modi
fied forms the creed spread among the churches of the East and
West.4 In the shape which it assumed in Southern Gaul, probably
in the fifth century, it established itself in the churches in com
munion with Rome, superseding the older forms. In the East it
was not ascribed to the Apostles, and since there was no check
upon mutations in its text, it melted away, never gaining a perma
nent lodgment among the authoritative creeds.
Under the influence of the disciplina arcani — the obligation of
silence respecting the mysteries of the Christian faith — the
Apostles' Creed was not committed to writing or disclosed to the
heathen. But under the name of " rules of faith," we find in
Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, statements of Christian doctrine
which are equivalent to a paraphrase or expansion of the creed.
1 Hahn, Biblioth. d. Symb., etc., 15. See the texts and critical remarks in
Kattenbusch, Das Apostol. Symbol, I. pp. 59-78.
2 Zahn, Apostol. Symbol, etc. (2. ed. 1893), p. 47.
8 Kattenbusch, however, maintains the reverse — that the " Grundstock " of
the Oriental symbols is the Roman. Ibid. I. 368-392.
* See the collection of these forms in Denziger, Enchirid. Symboll. et
De/initt., pp. 1-8.
72 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
These are the regula fidei.1 They are not the same, save as to
their substance, in the different writers. Jn Irenaeus the Rule of
Faith is presented, in three places, in as many different forms. In
Tertullian also there are three varying forms of the regula. But
tjie Rules of Faith are represented to be the belief of " the Church,
scattered through the whole world," — the belief " which has been
received from the Apostles and their Disciples." 2 In this definiFe,
authoritative teaching, the Church everywhere finds a bulwark
against Gnostical innovations and perversions. It is a wall about
the Church for defence against open and covert assaults. If one
would ascertain what the Apostles taught, we are told that it is
only necessary to repair to the churches which they planted and
within which their doctrines have been preserved.3 These churches
are so many witnesses against the novelties of heresy.4
II. At the beginning of the second century there was no Canon
of the New Testament.5 That is to say, there was no body of
*New Testament writings which were recognized by the churches
as authoritative scriptures. As far as writings are concerned, the
Old Testament was in the foreground of their thoughts and con-
(stituted their Bible. It^ was to the Old Testament that they
'referred their adversaries in proof of the divine mission of Jesus
and of the facts of the Gospel. They appealed to the correspond
ence between prediction and fulfilment. At first the eyes of
Christian believers were directed upwards with a yearning expec
tation of the advent of the Lord. For a time tradition did not
become in a perceptible degree insecure. The combined influence
jof oral narration and writings of Apostles and their disciples suf
ficed for the understanding of what Christianity was. There was
mo distinct impression of the fact that the period of revelation had
1 They are collected in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, II. 12 sq.
2 Iren. Adv. Har. I. 10, I.
8 Tertullian, de Prascr. c. 36. Iren. Adv. Haer. III. 3, I sq.
4 Tertullian, de Prascr. c. 21.
5 The title " Canon " as a designation of the normative Scriptures first
appears in the 5Qth Canon of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363) and in the
Festal Epistle of Athanasius. On the origin and meaning of the term ' canon,'
see Westcott, Hist, of the Canon, p. I and App. A. For the names given to
the Bible, — "The Scripture," "The Scriptures," "The Holy Scriptures,"
"The Scriptures of the Lord" (al Kvpiaical ypatpai), "The Prophets," "The
Prophets and Apostles," " Testament," " Old and New Testament," " Instru
ment," "Instruments," etc.— see Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, I. i. 85-150.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
73
come to an end. Moreover, the Apostolic writings had not been
altered by heretical leaders or mingled with forged compositions.
But when an opposite state of things arose, the importance of pre
serving, collecting, and distinguishing the authentic documents of
the Christian Revelation, was appreciated. More and more, oral
traditions became less secure. Heretical parties set up the claim
to possess traditions of their own, by which they sought to sustain
their novel speculations. The Apostolic writings began to undergo
alteration. Works having no title to be ranked with them were
brought forward by sectaries. The means of forming the Canon,
as soon as the need of it was felt, were at hand. From the outset,
there had been a circulation of Apostolic writings from one church
to another.1 Basilides, the Gnostic, quotes as Scripture, the Epistle
to the Romans, and the First to the Corinthians.2 Paul's Epistles
were so regarded when the Second Epistle of Peter was written.3
The_ authority of the Apostles' Writings was not questioned in the
churches. They are referred to by Ignatius, at least by implica
tion, as a class of writings in the same rank with the prophet^.4
Clement of Alexandria divides the Christian books into the Gospjl,
the Apostles, — or "the Apostle.," — and the Prophets.5 "Take
up the Epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle," writes Clement of
Rome to the Corinthian Church.6 ^tjs "the voice of God," Justin
affirms, which Christians believe, — that voice "which is both
spoken again through the Apostles of Christ and proclaimed to
us by the prophets."7 "The preaching of the Church," Irenaeus
declares, " is on all sides consistent and continues like itself, and
hath its testimony from the prophets and apostles."8 When
Hegesippus found in the churches which he visited the doctrine
taught by "the law and the prophets and the Lord,"9 we cannot
be sure, although it is possible, that other New Testament writings
besides the Gospels are referred to.10 The " Memorabilia " of
which Justin speaks, and of which he says that they were written
1 See Col. iv. 16. The Ep. to the Ephesians may have been addressed to
the circle of churches in Asia Minor. See Weiss, Einl. in d. N. T., p. 261.
2 Hippolytus, Har. Ref. VII. xiii., xv., xiv.
3 2 Peter Hi. 16. * Phil. 5, 9.
6 Strom. III. 455 (ed. Potter), V. 561, VI. 659, 676, VII. 757, IV. 475.
See Reuss, Hist, of the N. T.t II. 303.
• I Ep. 3. 8 Iren. III. 24, i.
7 Dial. 119. » Euseb. H. E. IV. 22.
M See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 319.
74
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
by Apostles and their companions and were read on Sunday in the
meetings of the churches in city and country, were the Gospels,
and the evidence that they embraced the Four of the Canon is
convincing. That any other evangelical narrative besides these
is referred to by him under this title cannot be safely inferred.1
Maxd.on_jnade up a canon composed of a mutilated GospjeJLof
Luke and ten Epistles of Paul. It is not at all probable that Jie
was the first to set about a work of this kind. In relation to the
subject before us, the M^uratorian Fragment, which was probably
composed about 170 or 180, is an invaluable monument. It is
clear that it contained all of the New Testament books except
i John, i Peter, the Epistle of James, 2 Peter, and the Epistle to
the Hebrews, i John is quoted at another place in the Fragment.
The only book added is the Apocalypse of Peter, which is said,
however, not to be universally received.2 In the Pejshito, which
represents the Canon of the Syrian Church at the end of the second
century, there are wanting only 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and
the Apocalypse. From the way in which the collections in each
case were brought together, it could not be expected that the con
tents would be the same in all of them. The bare Ljfact oLjhe
omission of books here or there does not warrant an unfavorable
verdict respecting their origin and claims. In the early part of
the third century, Tertuljian, Clement ancl Origen give ample tes
timony to the existence and acceptance by the churches of a New
Testament Canon. Yet the second part of the Canon, that which
follows the four Gospels, was not inclosed by definite lines. The
criteria for deciding what books should be considered inspired and
normative had not been determined. WhileT therefore,, the New
Testament Canon, when Irenseus wrote, or in the last decades of
the second century, had attained to an equal authority with the_
Canon of the Old Testament, there were still open questions
respecting the books to be included in [£. Its boundary was
unsettled. A^century later, as we learn _from__the ..report of Eu^e.-
buis, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, James^ 2 jmjdj
John, 2 Peter, and Jude were not universally receivejfl. There
1 See my Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, p. 190 sq. It is prob
able that the apocryphal Gospel of Peter is not referred to by Justin. See
Salmon, Int. to the N. T. (yth ed.), p. 587 sq.
2 For a correct text of the Fragment, see Westcott, Hist, of the Canon,
App. C
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
75
were two considerations which were practically influential in the
ultimate decision of doubtful points relating to the limits of the
Canon. The firs! was the historical test. Was the authorship
of books apostolic, or, if not, did their authors have such a relation
to Apostles as to raise their books to the level of the Apostles'
writings? Secondly, had the contents of a given book such a
character, such a spirituality and elevation, as to make it worthy
qf this rank? In a word, the tesj; was partly external, and partly
internal. By^the use of these tests, certain books, as the Epistle
o( Clement and the Shepherd of Hernias, which for a considerable
time were not unfrequently read in churches, w^ere dropped from
the recognized body of authoritative Scriptures.
According to the legend which originated among the Alex
andrian Jews, the seventy authors of the Septuagint version were,
each of them writing independently of the others, inspired to
make the same translation. A similar conception of the passiv
ity of the human mind when inspired with the visions of prophecy
prevailed among the heathen. So the relation of the divine
Spirit to the soul was conceived by Plotinus. It was natural
that a like extreme view should be entertained by Christian
teachers. The Alexandrian legend is accepted as true by Ire-
naeus.1 Athenagoras,2 Theophilus,3 and Tertullian4 describe the
prophets as organs of the Spirit, who are moved upon as are
the flute or the lyre. The Montanists held to ecstatic inspiration.
Tertullian made the ecstatic condition the characteristic of the
inspired state.5 The position of the Montanists on this point
was disputed by orthodox opposers, or possibly by Miltiades.
As regards the inspiration of the New Testament writers, Jrenaeus
rejects the theory of passivity. Notwithstanding his belief in
verbal inspiration, he accounts for the transpositions of words
in Paul by the "velocity" of his utterance, and the vehemence
of his spirit.6 The Alexandrian writers, Clement and Origen, ,
taught that the New Testament writers were in the conscious!
exercise of their own powers. Origen says of the prophets that I
the Spirit's influence macTe their own minds clearer.7 Origen/
1 Iren. III. 21, 2. 2 Embassy, 7.
3 Ad Autol. II. 9. 4 Adv. Marc. IV. 22.
6 "Amentia," " excidat sensu," are his terms of description.
6 Adv. H<zr. III. 7, 3. " Spiritus " signifies the Apostle's own mind.
7 C. Celsum, VII. 4; Comm. on John, T. I. c. v.
76 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
ascribes the peculiarities of style in the New Testament authors
and their linguistic errors to their natural traits. Human agency
was thus made one of the factors in the production of the Apos-
(Jfir tolic writings. He held to_Ji difference in the_degree of inspira
tion among the sacred writers. The inspiration of the Apostles
was not the same as that ofjhe prophets. In the former are manj
passages which spring from no immediate divine influence. Yet
the New Testament writers were shielded from every kind of error.
In the interpretation of the Scriptures, the Fathers, not only
Irenaeus and Tertullian, but still more the Alexandrian teachers,
disprove the sophistical and fanciful exegesis of the Gnostics by
appealing to tradition as a witness to its error. The contents
of the " rule of faith " were known to be accordant with the
Scriptures, because the doctrines affirmed in it had been handed
down in the churches. Hence no interpretation at variance with
these doctrines could be correct. There was this barrier against
erroneous interpretation. The characteristic fault of the. orthodox
interpreters was their allegorical exegesis. This method of under
standing the Sacred Writers was derived from the Jews. It was
generally adopted, but was carried to the farthest extent by the
Alexandrian School, as it was in Alexandria that Jewish allegoriz
ing had flourished most.
III. The tradition of Apostolic teaching came to be considered
as under the special guardianship of the line of bishops, and the
unity of the Church to be secured through the unity of the epis
copate. Clement of Rome — with whom ' bishop ' and ' presby
ter ' are one and the same — tells us that the office of "the episco
pate" was instituted by the Apostles, who appointed presbyters
as ministers in each church and, to prevent contests later, pre
scribed that "other approved men" should succeed them. Pres
byters who were appointed by the Apostles, or by other men of
weight (eAAoyi'/ACDv), with the consent of the whole church, ought
not to be ejected from the ministry without good cause.1 An
uninterrupted succession was secured by a mixture of appoint
ment and popular election. The precedence of the bishop over
the presbyters had arisen gradually. Ascertain superintendence
was exercised by lames at Jerusalem, which was probably not
without influence as an example.2 Clement of Alexandria
1 Clem. Ep. adloc.y XLII, XLIV.
a According to Hegesippus (Euseb. //. E. III. li), another relative of
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
77
records a tradition that the change whereby the bishop was
endued with higher authority than the presbyters associated
with him took place in the Asia Minor churches, under the
direction of the Apostle John.1 The same tradition is implied
in Teitullian.2 The early: episcopacy where it existed, as we
see from the Epistles of Ignatius, was valued as a means of
preventing division and preserving order. It was local, not
diocesan, and it was purely governmental. At as late a period
as the age of Irenaeus, a j»acerdotal Junction jwas not yet as-
cribed to it. If there was a bishop at Philippi who was distin
guished from other presbyters in that church when Polycarp wrote
his Epistle to the Philippians, the distinction between the two
offices was so slight as to be deemed by him not worthy of notice.3
The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians is of such a
character that allusion would certainly have been made to the office
of bishop had such an office, raised above that of the presbyters,
existed then at Corinth. It is a letter of one church to another.
The author makes no reference to himself as bishop. He makes
no mention of himself at all. The recently discovered Didache
shows that episcopacy had not spread in the region where this
book was in use.4 Jerome's statement respecting the church at
Alexandria admits of no reasonable interpretation except that
which points to an original identity of the bishop and presbyter.
This he asserts to have originally existed in the churches.5 It was
long recognized at Alexandria in the appointment, by the presby-
ers, when a bishop died, of one of their own number, to take his
\t
Jesus, Simeon, succeeded James. The choice was still from the family of
Jesus.
1 Quis Div. Salv. 42. 2 Adv. Mar don, IV. 5.
3 Instead of there being a vacancy, it is " more probable that the ecclesias
tical organization there was not yet fully developed." Lightfoot, Ignatius
and Polycarp, P. I. Vol. I. 578.
4 " Episcopacy has not yet become universal." Lightfoot, Apostolic
Fathers, p. 216. The reference of Ignatius (Eph. iii.) to "bishops established
in the farthest parts" (Kara rh Tr^/mra) cannot be pressed in opposition
to specific facts. If it were stronger than it is, it might not be more of
an hyperbole than Justin's assertion as to the spread of the Gospel {Dial.
117), or even the Apostle Paul's language (/ Thcss. i. 8) on the spread of the
faith of the Thessalonians " in every place," or the same Apostle's language
in Col. i. 6 or in Rom. i. 8. On this expression of Ignatius see Lightfoot, Ignat.
and Poly carp, Vol. I. p. 381.
* The passages are cited in Gieseler, I. iii. § 34, n. i.
7.8
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
place. If there was any ordination or consecration, it is implied
that it was by those who selected him.1 It is one of a great
variety of proofs tending to show that the episcopate was de
veloped out of the presbytery, and began in a simple presidency
in the board of presbyters^ Its beginnings, however, were very
early, not improbably within the lifetime of some of the Apostles,
and the spread of the primitive, rudimental form of the episcopate
was so rapid that it was not very long before it became universal.2
In the latter part of the second century it was usual to assume
that existing ecclesiastical arrangements were of Apostolic origin.
This habit is illustrated in the erroneous assumption by Irenseus
that it was bishops and presbyters, and not presbyter-bishops, as
Luke plainly relates, who met the Apostle Paul at Miletus (Acts
xx. 17 sq.).3 Bishops are looked upon as the guardians of
Apostolic doctrine. Importance is attached to the idea of an
1 Mr. Gore questions the correctness of Jerome. But Mr. Gore is not will
ing to stake his view of Apostolic succession on the validity of the doubt. He
falls back on the supposition that the episcopal office may have been com
mitted to presbyters by their ordination (see Gore's Ministry of the Christian
Church, pp. 143 sq., 72 sq.). This view makes room for a temporary jure
divino Presbyterianism.
2 A theory as to the offices in the early Church, which is in some respects
peculiar, was proposed by Hatch and is advocated in a somewhat modified
form by Harnack. It is held by him that at the outset, in the Gentile
churches, the presbytery — the " elders " — were not technically officials, but
simply the older men. To these was left the work of pastoral guidance and
discipline. There were bishops who, in connection with the subordinate
officers, the deacons, were appointed to see to the cultus, especially to the
receiving and distributing of alms. Later in the Apostolic age, it is held,
the presbyters became a select official body. The bishops sat with them.
According to Hatch, the members of the body thus constituted were called
indiscriminately " elders " or " bishops" So much is evident from Acts xx.
17 sq., Titus i. 5, 7, I Tim. iii. I, 8. The standing of the bishops increased
with the increasing importance of their functions. Harnack thinks that the
bishop owed his advancement largely to his being considered to have, as the
apostles, prophets and teachers had previously, a relation to the entire Church,
in contrast with the local relation of the elders. (See Harnack's Texte u.
Untersuchungen, etc., II. 140.) How one of the bishops rose above the
others is not made clear. For the exposition of the theory, see Hatch's The
Organization of the Early Christian Churches, and the additions of Harnack
to his German translation of this book; also Harnack's discussion just referred
to. The theory has to encounter quite serious difficulties. Some of the most
weighty of them are stated by Weizsacker, TheoL Lit. Zeit., 1884, p. 312.
>. ffar. III. 14, 2.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 79
unbroken chain of succession. It was like the_ Roman idea of
the continuity o£ an office, the prerogatives of which were con
ceived to pass down without a break from each incumbent to
his successor. Hegesippus was interested in tracing the succes
sion of bishops at Rome and elsewhere.1 He conferred with
bishops respecting the traditions of doctrine in their respective
churches. It was not a historical work that he wrote, but a com
pilation of " the plain tradition of Apostolic doctrine." 2 Irenjgus
attributes to bishops a certain gift of grace for the custody of the
truth, a function of which Ignatius has nothing to say. In Clem
ent of Rome the providing for an orderly succession, as already
said, was to keep off divisions. Irenaeus goes so far as to say that
the bishops standing in the succession have received " a sure gift
of the truth " — " charisma veritatis certum." 3 Hence separatists
who withdraw from the " principal succession " are to be looked
upon as heretics and schismatics. They have broken away from
the truth. It is an " incorrupt guardianship " by which Christian
teaching and sound exposition of the Scriptures have come down
to us in the Church, with its "several successions of bishops."4
The bishop is no longer the mere head of a local church ; he has
a relation to the Church Universal. He has a part in the episco
pate, which is one and single. The truth is guarded by the
Church as a " treasure in a precious vessel." Within the Church
is the Holy Spirit. " Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of
God, and where the Spirit of God, there is the Church."5 It was
an easy, yet a marked step, in advance of Irenaeus, when Cvj^rian,
in his book on the " Unity of the Church," not only gives in
creased emphasis to the conception of Irenaeus, but attributes a
ffotiftf-t sarprnoral fnnr.rinn taAhf^hishnp^. Phrases in Tertullian
and Origen that might seem to sanction a like view, are shown by
other passages not to bear this interpretation.6
1 Euseb. H.E. IV. 22. Cf. c. n.
2 Ibid. IV. 8. See Weizsacker's remarks in Herzog and Plitt's Real-
Encycl. d. J^heol. u. Kirche, V., sub voce Hegesippus.
3 Irenaeus, IV. 26, 2.
* Ibid. IV. 33, 8. If Clement and Origen broach a like view, they neither
rigidly nor uniformly adhere to it. See the passages in Gieseler, I. iii. c. 4, § 67.
5 Ibid. III. 24, i.
6 See Lightfoot, Dissertations, pp. 222, 224. Expressions of Hippolytus
{Har. Ref., Proem) may imply that sacerdotal terms in reference to the
clergy were coming into vogue.
go HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
The exalted position of Rome, in comparison with other
churches, consists, according to Irenaeus and Tertullian, in the
signal advantages belonging to the Roman Church for the custody
of the doctrines transmitted by the Apostles. The trustworthiness
oTthe traditions preserved there, Irenaeus .te.Us.jaSj. is preeminent. 1
There the great Apostles, Peter and Paul, had taught and died.
j The idea that Peter was the first bishop of Rome is firsT met
I with not far from the end of the second century. The gradual
elevation of Peter to this post of dignity, and the partial obscura
tion of Paul, spring from no opposition to the latter, no wish
to cast discredit upon him. The special controversy which
the Apostle Paul had carried forward with so much energy had
ceased to have any practical interest. The commission to the
Twelve to proclaim the Gospel through the Roman world, and
the relation of Peter to the Twelve as their head, were prominent
in the thoughts of Christians. Justin remarks on the " twelve
obscure men who went out from Jerusalem to proclaim the truth
to the race of mankind."2 To the mission of the Twelve, Aris-
tides makes reference in the Fragment of his Apology. The
mission of the Twelve, their unity in doctrine, an oecumenical
Church, the episcopal precedence of Peter, Rome as the seat of his
bishopric, the corresponding rank of his successors in comparison
with other bishops, — these formed a group of conceptions closely
-> connected. Cy^r^Ln^who_did jaotjhesitete on occasjons. to assert
his episcopal independence even jin^rejerence Jo_ Rpme^,could
stUljjjeak_o£R.^me .asJhe_"S>ee ^ of Petej^'_^the_principal church,
whence__sacerdptal unity proceeded."3 In the Didache, the
1 Apostles (or Evangelists), prophets and teachers, who are bound
to no one place of abode, but stand in relation to all the churches,
hold the chief place of honor. To quote from Lightfoot, " the
itinerant prophetic order has not yet Jbeen displaced by the
permanent localized ministry. >M But the second century wit
nesses a remarkable change. 1^ is this permanent ministry, with
t^he bishops at their head, who are foremost. To them is attrib
uted a special illumination by the Spirit. Not a mere local, but
1 This is the meaning of the noted passage (III. 3, 2) on the impossibility
that other traditions should disagree with the traditions of the Church at Rome.
* Apol. I. 39.
8 " Unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est." Epist. xii. 14, ad Cornelium
Migne, pp. 317, 321. * Apostol. Fathers, p. 215.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY gj
a catholic, relation is ascribed to the chief pastors. They fill tfoe
station vacated by the Apostles chosen by Jksus. The Synods,
which began to be held in opposition to Montanism., increase
their dignity. A sjiarp line of distinction is drawn between the,
clergy and the laity. The former constitute an order elevated
in rank above the ~plebs. It, is Tertullian who first applied these
terms to the ministry and the people, although he says that it
is the authority of the Church which has made the difference
between the two.1 Moreover, to carry back to the first centuries
the associations of diocesan episcopacy, would be an anachronism.
The position of the bishop of a city " in many respects resembled
that of the rector of a parish surrounded by his assistant clergy
rather than that of the modern bishop of a diocese, containing
perhaps several large towns." 2 During several centuries, it was
the custom for presbyters to sit with bishops in the synods and
to take an active part in their proceedings.
Injthejastjiecadesj>f^^ the Ancient Catholic
Church thus emerges to view, — a single, visible, compactly united ^
Body, with officers succeeding to their stations under fixed rules, 7 *^c2
and conceived to be endowed in virtue of their office with exalted
functions committed to them by Christ. Whether this system
was a normal and wholesome development of the Christianity of
the Apostolic age, is a question on which men's minds are still
divided. One thing is certain ; it was a change momentous
in its results.
It was a change that awoke manifestations of repugnance. Mon-
tajtism unquestionably partook of the character of a reaction against
ecclesiasticisjm, or institutional Christianity. It was, however, a
reaction pushed by its promoters to an extreme. It gave rise to
an excess of enthusiasm which had no warrant in the precedents
of the Apostolic age. But Montanism was one form of protest
against restraints upon freedom of jutterance under the influences
of the Spirit ; it was a demand for stricter discipline in the
Church, for nioj^_o^sconne^Uoji_wi^..JJie.jffO£ld and its ways ; it
was a revival of apocalyptic hopes ; itjwras an uprising in_hehalf .of
ideals which it was felt had been realized in the Apostolic age, but
which were now vanishing under the blight _of _ officialism . Mon
tagus., the leader, appeared in Ehiygia shortly after the middle of
the second century. His movement embraced the proclamation
1 De Exhort. Cast. 7. Cheetham, Ch. History, p. 128.
Q
82 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of himself as the inspired organ of the promised Paraclete, and
the announcement of the restoration of the primitive gifts of the
Spirit. The Father and the Son were now really i-n taVp np
th£ir abode in the souls of believers. Prophets and prophetesses
were again supernaturally inspired to utter heaven-given messages.
Joined with Montanus were two prophetesses conceived to be thus
illuminated, Prisca and Maximilla. TJie_LQrd JEIirnsel£_was .shortly
tp come in person, and to establish His kingdom at Pepuza in
Phrygia. In_this place Christians, were summoned by the new
prophets to assemble. To prepare for this kingdom, a^ austere
strictness of life was enjoined. Celibacy was to be practiced,
fasting was to be strict and was to be regulated by fixed rules.
Delinquents were to be subjected to severe ecclesiastical _penal ties.
Such as were excommunicated from the Church were nor to be
received back. Montanjsm spread in Asia Minor and in other
peaces. It attracted a qualified sympathy in the churches. _of
Southern Gaul, and was regarded for a time at Rome with con
siderable favor. InJNprth Africa especially, it won numerous con
verts, of whom Tertullian is the most famous. Not a few^and
among them Irenapus,v^erelTbt disposed to question the reality .of
the revived gift of prophecy, l^ut rejected the
which the Montanists associated with their tenet on this_subJ£ct.
Montanismrwas condemned so far as it was unfriendly to the insti-
tutional system^ which was too firmly established to be weakened.
Ttie ground taken by Tertullian was that the power of binding and
loosing belonged not to thTbisbop^but that to the pypjj^t as the
organ of the Spiritlt belonged to determine whether the repenting
offender in any case isjforgiven of God.. He may be thus forgiven
without being received back into the communion of the visible
Church, which is bound in its discipline to prevent in the future,
as far as it can, transgressions of the same character.
The contests in the Church on this matter of the disjcjpJine of the
excommunicated or of those deserving this sentence, and on the
connected question of the authority ofjhe bishop, w£re strenuous
anoMpng continued. It was against the lax principles of Callistus,
the Roman bishop (217-222), respecting the treatment of such as
had fallen into mortal sin that Hippolytus led a schismatical party.
It was a resistance to what was considered a secularizing spirit
that had crept into the Church along with its growth in numbers.
In North Africa, Cyprian, who was at first a rigorist on the disci-
ANCIENT THEOLOGY §3
plinary question, engaged in a struggle against the schismatics,
led by Felicissimus, who contended that the certificates of faithful
confessors of the faith should secure readmission to the Church
for such as had forsaken the faith in the Decian persecution.
The formidable schism of Novatian was in opposition to Corne
lius, Bishop of Rome, who was chosen to this office in 251, and
was on the side of leniency. Cyprian was induced to favor on the
whole the cause of Cornelius. The Npvatians made a distinction
between forgiveness by God and reception into the communion of
the Church. The one might take place without the other. The
Church must guard its purity with sedulous care. It must keep
its doors shut against those who had been guilty of a mortal sin.
This tenet was a direct denial of the doctrine that without thet
Church there is no salvation. Numerous Novatian churches were
formed. They_sprung up in almost all parts of the Empire. The
broader theory, which laid stress on the truth that the tares must
grow with the wheat, and made higher claims for the hierarchy,
prevailed. ButMt was not until after the Donatist controversy,
near the end of the fourth and in the beginning of the fifth cejn-
tury, that the^catholic and hierarchical view gained a fully decisive
victory. The exclusion of the Montanist societies was only one
step in the advance towards it. But Mcintanism left behind a
marked influence upon the .spirit ancl polity of the Catholic!
Ct^rch. The clejrgy^ were brough thunder jevere rules of disci-
pjine from which the laity were exempt. An impetus was^^iven
to the tendency to recognize two types of Christian life and char
acter, the lower or merely salvable type and the ascetic type,
standing on a higher plane as to sanctity of conduct and th
prospect of heavenly rewards.
CHAPTER VII
THE CAFHOLIC DOCTRINE IN THE ASIA MINOR SCHOOL I IRENJEUS,
MELITO OF SARDIS - IN THE NORTH AFRICAN SCHOOL : TERTULLIAN
- THE ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY : CLEMENT
was bqrn in Asia Minor. With the traditions in the
churches there he is familiar. His type of thought is not with
out traces of the Johannine teaching, the influence of which
prevailed in the region where he spent his youth. In his appre
ciation of th_e_ truth of redemption through the incarnate Christ,
the truth to which is given the central place in his system,
he^ rises above the point of view of the Greek Apologists.
Nevertheless, in his writings elements akin to their more rational-
i^ing apprehension of Christian doctrine mingle here and there
with more positive and profound interpretations of the Gospel.
t} And side by side with views which are incongruous in their
tendency he admits the chiliastic tradition in_ Eschatolqgy. The
aatagpjaist of Gnostic speculation, Irenagus^in the cast of_his
mind, is intensely practical. We are not to swerve_from the,
plain teaching of the Scriptures and,|rom .the''nile of faith which
enibodies it in outline.1 That is his maxim. What if we
cannot discover solutions of all questions ? This is no reason for
forsaking what is plainly taught. " Such things we ought to leave
to God." i Nature, too, is full of mysteries. What causes {he rise
iof the Nile and the ebb and flow of the ocean? Instead of
prying into things inscrutable pertaining to God, we should seek
to rise to Him in love and devotion. Apostolic teaching, attested
by Scripture and tradition, is the norm of faith. The divine
essence is inconceivable. Our knowledge of God is relative.
The language which we utter concerning Him is figurative.2
Adv. H<zr. II. 27, 28.
2 Ibid. II. 13,3,4.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 85
God creates the world out of nothing.1 Sin in men and angels
is a free act. Why some fall and others do not is a mystery.2
Yet Irenaeus suggests that in order to train men to avoid evil
and cleave to the good, it was necessary for them to have a pre
liminary experiment of both, God meantime foreknowing what
would occur and having in mind His plan of deliverance.3
Punishment is the necessary consequence of sin. It is provided
for, in the foresight that sin would come in.4 There is no inter
ference with human freedom. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart
is not a direct act of God. It is the incidental result of Pharaoh's
own character. The same is true of judicial blindness in those
who reject the Gospel.5 Christ is the only-begotten Son of God,
the Logos, through whom God reveals Himself. He was forever
with the Father.6 The idea of emanation is rejected. The mode
of the generation of the Son is incomprehensible.7 The Logos is
included in the divine Being, but the distinction of the immanent
and expressed Word is not admitted. There is no separation
between the Son and the Father, yet they are not confounded.
That the personal distinction of Father and Son is eternal is not
distinctly affirmed, but it is implied.8 The Holy Spirit is likewise
ever with the Father. It is " the Word and Wisdom, Son and
Spirit," by whom and in whom God freely does all things.9 The
Holy Spirit, as well as the Son, is included in God. As there is a
certain subordination of the Son to the Father, so the Spirit is
subordinate to both.10 But the special offices of the Spirit are left
in a measure indefinite. The incarnation had for its end to bring
mankind back to fellowship with God. Through sin man is s\
alienated from God and made a prey to corruption and death.^
The Son of God becomes man in order to reunite God and,m^r>
It is not, in truth, until after the fall that the union of man to
God is, in and through Christ, fully realized. " It became the
Mediator between God and man, through his intimate relation
ship to both to bring both into friendship and concord, and, while
presenting man to God, to make God known to men." u In many
1 Adv. Hcer. II. 28, 3; 30, g. 1 Ibid. II. 28, 4, 5.
2 Ibid. II. 28, 7. 8 See Duncker, Desheilig. Iren. ChristoL, p. 50 sq.
8 Ibid. IV. 39, i. 9 Irenseus, Adv. H<zr. IV. 20, i.
* Ibid. II. 28, 7. 10 Ibid. 1. 3, 5, in the Greek text. See Loofs, p. 127
6 Ibid. IV. 29, 30. 11 Ibid. III. 1 8, 7.
*IKd. II. 30,9; HI. 18, i; 11.25,3.
86 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
ways the full humanity of Christ is emphasized. If the reality of
both the human and the divine nature is not explicitly affirmed,
it is clearly implied. When, in insisting on the unity of the
person of Christ, it is spoken of as a mixture of the divine and
human,1 such expressions are not to be construed as implying that
there was literally a confusion of the two.2 Christ, the Son incar
nate, is the second head of the race. His relation to mankind is
designated as a recapitulatio? By this it is meant that in Christ
there is a restitution and renewal of the race, a taking up anew
of the development at the point where it was broken off by sin.
The term includes the idea that the incarnation and work of Christ
exert their influence backward as well as forward. Mankind in
Christ reverse the course which was entered upon at the fall.
There is a renewal of allegiance to God, a renewal and consumma
tion of the life in union with Him. " He [Christ] was made that
which we are that He might make us completely what He is." 4
This is the supreme end which He has in view. Hence it was
necessary for Christ to go through the successive stages of human
life, from infancy onward, that He might sanctify them all.5 In
the conception of the work of Christ there are blended, without
analytic separation in the author's mind, the two elements of
redemption and reconciliation or atonement. He refers to the
death of Christ as a substitution for our death. He speaks of the
Lord as having redeemed us with His own blood, and given His soul
for our souls and His own flesh for our flesh." 6 He gave His life
as a " ransom " for those in captivity. His death was the salvation
of such as believe in Him.7 Yet the context of such passages in
dicates that the perfecting of the union of Christ with mankind, and
the communion of man with God which is thus consummated, is
the most prominent thought. Christ is said to have done the work
of a High Priest, propitiating God, dying that man might come
out of condemnation.8 But this bearing of the Saviour's death is
not dwelt upon. It is not carried out in any definite form. The
central element in the work of Christ is His obedience, whereby
1 Adv. H<er. IV. 20, 4.
2 See v. 14, i; III. 17, 4. Cf. Loofs, DG. p. 94.
8 On this term and the conception involved, see Duncker, Des heilig. Iren.
Christol p. 163 sq. ; also Dorner, Person Christi, I. 485 sq. For the doctrine
of Irenaeus, see especially, Adv. Har. III. 16, 6; 18, i, 7; V. 14, 2; 19, 1 ; 21, I.
* Adv. Har. V. Pref. * Ibid. V. i, 2. 8 Ibid. IV. 8, 2.
6 Ibid. II. 22, 4. 7 Ibid. IV. 28, 3.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 87
the disobedience of Adam is cancelled. The end attained as
regards men is the destruction of sin and its consequences, the
imparting of a new spiritual life which carries with it incorruption,
salvation from death. The dominion of Satan was not subverted
by force, but in a way befitting order and righteousness ; that is,
by a moral conquest over the souls enslaved by him.1 The
" ransom " is not spoken of as a prize given to Satan. This view
comes into theology at a later day. While, therefore, Irenaeus
appreciates the importance of the death of Christ and conceives it
as vicarious, the idea of a penal satisfaction is not prominent.
Yet the atonement is objective and has an essential place in the
righteous order which sin has invaded.
The view taken of the sacraments in Irenseus is in keeping
with his idea of the external Church as thlTexclusive dwelling-
place of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration is inseparably associated
with baptism. The same term designates the rite and the new
birth itself. " Baptism is our new birth unto God."2 In Baptism,
we are regenerated.3 In one passage there is some reason to
think that thfi^bagtesm- -©f :ffifants.Js.J'ecognized/ In the Lord's
]o Supper, the bread jifter its consecration " is no longer common
bread, but a Eucharist constituted of two things, an earthly and
a_ heavenly." '' The heavenly element in the bread and wine is
thejbpdy and blood which the divine Logos mysteriously connects
withjhem. Thus the bread and wine of the sacrament rjourish
in us a life out of which springs the incorruptible body at the
Resurrection. The bread and wine are brought to God as an
offering with a prayer of thanks. The act is a symbol that all
that the believers have, and not a tenth alone, is to be brought to
God.6 The later idea of a specific offering to God by the hands
of a priest is not involved in this teaching. " Observing the law
of the dead," Christ descended into Hades, where He abode' for
three days, and thither His followers likewise descend. Thence
they come forth at the resurrection of the body."7 Irenceus
holds the jchiliastie.. doctrine, quoting the statement of Papias
is probably the sense of "suadelam" (in VI. I, l). See Dorner
(against Baur), Person Christi, I. p. 479 n.
2 Adv. Har. I. 21, I. 8 Ibid. III. 17, I.
* Ibid. II. 22, 4. See Ncander, Church History, I. 311.
6 Ibid. IV. 8, 5. 7 Ibid. IV. 32, 2.
s Ibid. IV. 18, 2.
88 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
relating to the vineyard with its colossal grapes.1 The
ment of the wicked is eternal. The impression that Irenseus
teaches the doctrine of the eventual annihilation of the wicked is
founded on a misapprehension of the meaning which he attaches
to the term ' continuance ' and to certain other terms, and is
contradicted in not a few unambiguous passages.2
The influence of that ethical, as distinguished from evangeli
cal, apprehension of the Gospel, which we have noticed in the
Apologists, appears here and there in Irenaeus. This is seen in
the peculiar guilt attached to sins committed after baptism. It
is seenTrftPTe conception of faith in the place where he says that
the eternal reward is given to such as believe Christ, " being
righteous," — adding, "Now to believe Him is to do His will."3
Faith JLsjnore often thejsynpnym of belief, in the trutjj^which are
brought together^ in the rule of faith, ar_the word is used, in_an
objective way^_to denote these truths collectively considered.
"We ought to fear," he says, "lest perchance, after the knowl
edge of Christ, we do something which is not pleasing to God,
and thus have no further remission of sins, but be excluded from
His kingdom." 4 There are fWQ p^^fi ^ rfoftrine in Trena^is.
On the one hand, there is the high£r^^y^ngglical_j:onception q£
the new life throughjthe incarnate Son_in whom the grace of thg
Father is revealed. This conception has gained a lodgment
in his mind. Qn the other hand, there are the traces of the
" moralism "of the Apologists1_which exalts_ the teaching ele-
ment In Christianity and makes everything depend on the frejj
choice of the path of obedience. There is a corresponding dif-
1 Adv. Hcer. V. 31, 2.
2 The opinion that Irenaeus accepts the doctrine of " conditional immortal
ity" rests on one passage (II. 34, I, 2, 3), where " continuance " (perseveran-
tia) and " length of days " are said to be the exclusive reward of the righteous.
But " life," " length of days," " perseverance," which the wicked forfeit, is the
better life which comes to the regenerate. " Separation from God is death ";
it is the rejection of the good things of God. (See V, 27, 2. Cf. V. 4, 3. )
The eternity of punishment is taught in various places. See, especially, IV.
28, i, 2; also, IV. 39, 4; IV. 27, 4; III. 23, 3. In one of the Pfaffian frag
ments (XL. ed. Stieren, p. 889), it is said that Christ is to come to destroy
all evil and to reconcile all things (reconcilianda universa), that there may
be an end of all impurities. This suggests, not annihilation, but restoration;
but it is a paraphrase of Col. i. 20, and probably means the purification of the
righteous. Moreover, the genuineness of the fragment is quite doubtful.
3 Adv. Bar. IV. 6, 5. * Ibid. IV. 27, 2.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
89
ference in the explanations given of the relation of the old dis
pensation to the new. Now the Old Testament is exalted to the
place of equality assigned to it by the Apologists, and now its
subordinate, preparatory function is pointed out. The source of
the contrast so marked in Irenaeus would appear to be that, not
withstanding his abundant citations from Paul, the roots of his
religious life were not in the distinctive teaching of the Apostle,
to the core of which he did not penetrate with a vivid insight.
The whole bent of Irenseus was practical. His attention was con
centrated upon the dejence of Christianity.1
One of the most highly esteemed of all the writers of the Asia
Minor School was Mej^p. Bishop of Sardis.2 His literary activity
began about A.D. 159. Unhappily, of his numerous works there
remain only a few fragments. But these furnish valuable materi
als for the History of Doctrine. In one of them, it is said that the
works of Christ after His baptism " showed His godhead concealed
in the flesh." " He concealed the signs of His godhead " before
His baptism, "although He was true God from eternity." " Being
perfect God and perfect man, He assured us of His two essences,"3
His godhead and His manhood. Here is a distinct declaration
that in Christ there were two natures, nothing, however, being
said of the particular mode of their union. In another fragment,
the genuineness of which is extremely probable, Christ is desig
nated " the perfect reason, the Word of God, who was begotten
before the light, who was Creator together with the Father," who
was "in the Father the Son, in God God," God who is of God,
" the Son who' is of the Father, Jesus Christ, the King for ever and
ever." Melito was one of the principal lights in the group which is
characterized by Lightfoot as "The Later School of St. John."4
1 On the two Testaments, see Adv. H<zr. IV. 9, 2 ; IV. 32, 2. On the
combination of the " apologist-moral " with the " Biblical-realistic " ingredients
in Irenaeus, see Harnack, DG. (Grundriss}, 101 sq., arid Loofs, DG., p. 95.
See especially the important work of Werner, Der Paulinismus d. Irenczus,
etc., in Gebhardt u. Harnack's AltchristL Lit. VI. 3 (1889).
2 On Melito and his writings, see Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural
Religion, p. 223 sq. The subject of the fragments is fully discussed by Har
nack, in Gebhardt and Harnack, Texte u. Untersuchungen, etc., p. 240 sq.
But see also Harnack in AltchristL Literatur, I. p. 250, where he concludes that
the four Syrian fragments belonged to one work, of which Melito was the author.
8 ofolas.
4 Contemporary Review, Feb. 1876. Reprinted in Essays on the Work
entitled " Supernatural Religion" pp. 217-250.
9o
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Tertullian, more than any other, is the founder of Latin the
ology. He deserves to be called the forerunner of Augustine.
He disdains the philosophers, going so far as to call the serenity
of Socrates in the presence of death a forced or affected com
posure. Yet he was not ignorant of the philosophers, and his
]x>wer as a thinker is not less marked than his extravagance.
His genius and elo.Qji£n.ce atone for his faults of temperament.
He was partly Latin and partly African, and he blends in himself
the qualities of his mixed parentage.
Tertullian goes farther than Irenseus in asserting the authority
of tradition. He dwells on the insufficiency of the Apostolic
Scriptures, which heretics can pervert without stint. It is useless
to argue with them on the basis of these writings, which really
belong only to those who have, together with them, the "rule
of faith." To this the appeal is to be made. Christ chose and
sent out the Apostles ; l these founded churches and made them
the depositories of their teaching ; in the churches there have
been the successions of bishops, the custodians of the tradition.2
Hence, heretics are met with a prascriptio — a demurrer. Their
dissent from the doctrine of the churches, the novelty of their
teaching, throws them out of court. Tertullian's argument here
is an example of his appropriation of legal ideas, a characteristic
of his writings.
Tertullian was much influenced by the Asia Minor theology.
The influence of Stoicism is also quite apparent in his theological
conceptions. In agreement with Stoic doctrine is his materialis
tic view of the constitution of the soul, which he contends for at
length in his treatise De Animal Indeed, his opinion is that noth
ing exists that is not of a corporeal nature. The soul is of a finer
species of matter. It is like the wind or the breath. It was
breathed into man by the Creator. We are not to deny even
that it has color and form, — its form being like that of the body.
Along with the body it is generated.4 It has a seminal beginning.
Tertullian was thus a Traducian, in opposition to the doctrine
that each soul originates in a distinct, creative act.
On the subject of the evidence of the being of God, Tertullian,
instead of marshalling, as other Christian Apologists of the time
were apt to do, the concessions of heathen writers, points to what
1 De Prescript. 20, 21. s See e.g., cc. 5, 7.
3 See, for example, de Prescript. 36. * De Antma, 27.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 9!
he calls the testimony of " the naturally Christian soul " to the
divine existence and unity. He invokes the untutored, unsophis
ticated soul to give its witness. Its unpremeditated expressions
-such as "Which may God grant," "If God will," "May God
repay," "God shall judge between us" — spring out of the depths
of the heart and are the best attestation to the truth.1 Tertullian
insists, also, on the evidence from design.2
As Tertullian is the first to use the word ' Trinjfrv.' 3 so is he
the first distinctly to say that tri-personality pertains to the one
God as He is in Himself.4 He plants himself on this ground in
antagonism to the lyLgparchjaji theory, which rejected the idea of
a diversity of persons as immanent in God. The Father^ ^on,
and Holy Ghost are "of one substance" ; they are susceptible of
number without division.5 The Son is from the essence of the
Father, proceeding from him, not by emanation, as the Gnostics
taught, yet by a self-projection or "prolation." The Son or
Logos is eternal, since the Logos is the reason and word of God.
The Father projected the Son, as the root the tree, and the foun
tain the river, and the sun the ray. But there is no separation.6
While Tertullian insists on the unity of substance and the tri-
plicity of persons, he fails of reaching the full. Trinitarian state
ment. TfcieJ^Qggg is represented to be the impersonal reason of i
God (ratio), and (jqps nnt hf^omg the WorH (Sermo), doesjnot /^ J
emerge into personality, . until Jhe work of creation is to begin.
Moreover, subordinationism in the Trinity is presented in the
crude form of a greater and less participation of the divine sub
stance on the part of the several persons. " The Spirit is third
from God and the Son, as the fruit out of the tree is third from
the root, and as the branch from the river is third from the
fountain, and as the apex of the sunbeam is third from the sun." 7
"The Father and the Son," we are told, "differ from one another
in measure. "€ The meaning is made clear in the next sentence :
" For the Father is the whole substance, but the Son a derivation
1 De Test. An. I, 2. 2 Adv. Marc. I. 11-13.
3 Adv. Prax. 3. But Theophilus (ad Autol. XV.) has TpiciSoj.
4 Ibid. 2. 5 /^ 2>
6 Ibid. 8. 9. An indirect influence of this book of Tertullian on the
shaping of the Nicene doctrine will be referred to later. The " unius sub-
stantiae " appears as the Homoousion.
7 Ibid. 8.
g2 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
and portion of the whole." But the notion of an actual division
of the substance is guarded against, when, for example, Tertullian
connects with the illustrations just cited (of the branch, the
river, the fountain, etc.) the statement: "Yet nothing is parted
(alienatur) from the source from which it derives its properties."
Tertullian brings out more definitely than any of the Fathers
before him — if we except the fragment of Melito — tjie_full
humanity of Christ and the distinctign_of the two natures, each
retaining its own attributes.1 There is no confusion, but a con
junction of the human and the divine. This conception of Qirist
asjjpssessed of a rational human spirit is the only one consistent
with his psychologyjjrjLwhich there is no possible disjunctiorTof
soul and spirit.2 This teaching must govern the interpretation of
looser expressions in which man in Christ is said to be mixed
with God. On the importance of the death of Christ in its
relation to human salvation, Tertullian is emphatic.3 But nothing
is said of any transaction with Satan for the release of man.
Satan was overcome in the temptation of Jesus. Christ was not
cursed of God, but by the Jews. Nor is anything said of a
satisfaction rendered by Christ to divine justice, although Tertul
lian conceives of justice as having in it a retributive element.
Justice appears even in nature, in the separation of things that
differ, as the day from the night.4 The power of God creates,
the justice of God orders and arranges. The " satisfaction " of
which Tertullian speaks is that which is required of the penitent
Christian who, having grievously sinned, would be reconciled to
an offended God. Tertullian is fervent in his exaltation of the
mercy of God in its relation even to the wayward believer. Yet
a certain Ip^alism pervades his teaching on the whole subject 'of
; repentance and God's acceptance of the repenting sinner. He
) speaks of the "reward" offered to repentance, even the repent-
yance in which the Christian life begins.5 He speaks of making
\ " satisfaction " unto the Lord, by repentance, for later sins,6 of
jjrelease from penalty as " a compensatory exchange for repent-
j'ance." 6 Satisfaction is made by confession ; by repentance " God
is appeased." 7 By f^slipg and other forms of " tejnjDpi^ mojtifi-
\ cation," thejenitent is able "to expjmge_eternal-4nin.ishmpnj-.v8
1 Adv. Prax. 27. * Ibid. II. 12. 7 Ibid. 7.
2 De Anima, 12. 5 De Poenit. 5. 8 Ibid. 9.
3 Adv. Marc. III. 8. • Ibid. 6.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 93
The expressions of contrition are " a self-chastisement in the matter
of food and raiment." l Tertullian is cautious about applying the
term ' merit ' to' repentance : " so far as we can merit," is the
phrase which he uses.2
The freedom of the will is a part of God's image and likeness
in man.3 There is entire freedom in " both directions " —
towards the right and towards the wrong. It is a part of
Tertullian's Traducianism that evil is propagated in the soul.
There is evil in the soul — ma/um animce — derived from its
corrupt origin — ex originis vitio ; and the evil has become in a
sense a second nature. " The corruption of our nature is another
nature." 4 Yet this suggestion of an inborn_ corruption, in which
Augustine is anticipated, is qualified and, in some places, virtually
excluded. The offspring of one Christian parent is said to be by
" the seminal prerogative " not unclean. In arguing for the post
ponement of baptism, it is asked : Why should this innocent age
hasten to procure the remission of sins?5 It is said that the
original good in man is obscured rather than extinguished. " It
carmot be extinguished because it is from God." " In the worst
men there is something good, and in the best something bad."6*
As regards regeneration, we are told that the grace of Goof is
more potent than the will, which is the faculty within us possessed
of autonomy.7 " The soul in its second birth is taken up by the
Holy Spirit." * Yet, as on the subject of innate depravity, there
are occasional passages which seem to teach that grace is irresist
ible ; but these contravene frequent assertions of a reserved power
and a concurrent agency in the will.
Christ, after His death, descends into Hades, the abode where
the evil and the good await the resurrection. The martyrs are
by themselves in a more exalted place : whether it be within or
without the limits of Hades is not quite clear.9 There is a first
and a second resurrection. There is a millennial reign of Christ,
but all sensuous, Jewish conceptions of it are repudiated. Tertul
lian dwells on the spiritual blessings to be enjoyed in that inter
mediate state. The Holy Land, he says, is not Judea, but rather
1 De Panit. u. * De Anima, 41. 7 Ibid. 21.
2 Ibid. 6. 5 De BapL !g. 8 Ibidf 4I<
3 Adv. Marc. 7. 6 De Anima, 41.
9 See Adv. Marc. IV. 34, v. 17; De Resurrect. 17, 25. In De Anima,
c. 7, the patriarchs and the bosom of Abraham are placed in Hades.
94 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the flesh of the Lord. The friendship of God is the supreme
good. Hell, " the treasure-house of eternal fire," is in the interior
of the earth, and the flames issuing from the mouths of volcanoes
have their source in hell.1
When we pass from Tertullian to C^ejnjejat-Q^-^^a^diia we
find ourselves in a very^differejilL atmosphere. We no longer hear
invectives against philosophy. "The multitude,"2 he says, "are
frightened at the Hellenic philosophy, as children are at masks,
fearing lest it should lead them astray."3 Clement, the first of
the Alexandrian teachers whose writings have come down to us,
is full of the thought that the mission of the Christian theologian
is to build a bridge between the Gospel and Gentile wisdom, to
point out the relations of Christianity to universal knowledge, to
give to the religion of Christ a scientific form, to show how the
believer may rise to the position of the true " Gnostic." Clement
is apart from all contact with the teaching of the West. Irenaeus
and Tertullian cast their theological thoughts in a polemical form,
their aim being to beat back the invasion of error. The Alexan
drians undertake a more direct and positive task. It was the work,
of Origen to fulfil this task of giving to Christian truth the unity;
of a system. Clement, the precursor of Origen, although copious
in suggestions, fails to mould them into a consistent or complete
whole.
The sources of knowledge respecting divine things, according
to Clement, are Scripture and reason. But, as nothing which
woukTcast dishonor upon God is worthy of belief, a high place
of authority is given to reason. Moreover, the method of allegory
applied in interpreting Scripture opens a wide door for the intru
sion of subjective speculations. Yet the road to insight, the path
upward to the plane of the true Gnostic, is the attaining of purity
of heart. Thus knowledge and holy character are not put asun
der. Clement abounds in passages in which the philosophy of
the Greeks is said to have sprung from a partial divine revelation,
although he occasionally makes their wisdom a plagiarism from
the Hebrew prophets.4 This is a specimen of the contradictions
in his writings. The bond of union between Gentile science and
the religion of the Gospel is in the conception of the Logos, which
is common to both. Clement follows the Greek masters in repre-
1 De Panit. 12. * Stromata, VI. 10.
« oi roXXol. « E.g. Ibid. V. 14, VI. 7.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
95
senting God as incomprehensible, transcendent, above the sphere
where distinctions and differences have a place. " Human speech
is incapable of uttering God." l The Logos is the Revealer, first
in the Creation, in which the Logos takes part, by whom wisdom
is stamped upon it ; again, in the light of reason imparted to man
kind ; then in special disclosures of divine truth; and, finally,
through the Incarnation in Christ. The light derived from the
Logos by the Gentiles may serve as the stepping-stone to the height
on which shines the full effulgence of the Gospel. " The Greek
Philosophy," says Clement, "purges the soul, as it were, and pre
pares it beforehand for the reception of faith, on which the Truth
builds up the edifice of knowledge." 2 The Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are the "Holy Triad."3 When we seek to ascertain the
relations of the Three to one another, the utterances of Clement
lack clearness and harmony with one another. There is an essen
tial unity between the Father and the Son. This unity has existed
forever. But the distinction of Father and Son is affirmed.4 Yet
in some passages the personal distinction seems to fade out. But
the prevailing view is that of the Son as a distinct hypostasis.5
The Logos is said to undergo no change, and the distinction of
immanent and spoken Logos is rejected.6 The Logos is conceived
of, after the manner of the Stoics, as the seminal reason diffused
in all beings to whom reason is given. There is a vagueness on
this point as there is in Philo's conception. The Holy Spirit is
spoken of as a distinct hypostasis, but how the Spirit is related to
the Father and the Son is not made clear. But there is no ambi
guity in the assertion of the true divinity and the true humanity
of Christ. " He [Christ] became man that man might become
God."7 Christ is our ransom;8 yet it is not said to whom the
ransom is paid. He is our propitiation.9 But the ordinary repre
sentation in Clement is that the obstacle to the salvation of men
is in themselves. Pardon is made to include deliverance from
ignorance, the source of sin. Redemption is not so much the
undoing of the past, as the lifting of man up to a higher state than
1 Strom. VI. 18; cf. V. ii, 12. 3 Ibid. V. 14.
2 Ibid. VII. 3. * Ibid. IV. 25.
6 On this subject, see Dorner, I. p. 443 sq.; especially p. 446; Thomasius,
DG. I. 201 sq.; Bigg, p. 67. 6 Strom. V. i.
7 Protr. i. For other passages, see the references in Bigg, p. 71.
* Quis Div. Salv. 37. 9 Peed. III. 12.
96
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
pertained to tmfallen man. Man was created upright. The free
dom of the will belonged to his nature.1 In the exercise of it, he
sinned. But Adam is the typical example of sin, rather than the
foundation whence it is spread through the race. Freedom of
choice remains, although the soul depends on the Spirit for its
renewal.2 The regenerated life begins in baptism. It includes
the forgiveness of sins. Henceforward there is a twofold possi
bility. There is a lower stage of Christian character, that of the
ordinary believer who attains to holiness under the influence of
fear and hope ; and there is the higher life, where fear is cast out
by love. Simply to be saved is something very different from
salvation in the nobler sense.3 This is the life of knowledge,
the life of him to whom divine mysteries are revealed. There
is higher truth which may not be communicated even to Chris
tians not inwardly prepared to receive it. This is the doctrine
of Reserve. Clement was not a mystic. He goes so far as to
appropriate from Stoicism the notion of apathy, and love is de
picted as being, in relation to our fellow-men, passionless. The
true Gnostic does not desire anything. He is free from all per
turbations of spirit.4 There is but one absolution from mortal sin
committed after baptism. Respecting the Eucharist, how vague
and indeterminate his explanations are is evident from the cir
cumstance that by some he has been thought to regard it as a
mere memorial, while others with even less reason have attributed
to him the doctrine of transubstantiation.5 Justice is divested of
the retributive element. The principal design of punishment is
the correction of the transgressor. Another object is the restraint
of others.6 After death and until the judgment chastisement con
tinues as a cure for sin. Then probation comes to an end. But
Christ, and the Apostles after Him, preached the Gospel in Hades.
In some places, the preaching is said to have been addressed to
such as simply lacked knowledge, the bent of the heart being
right ; but the heathen generally are also said to have the offer
of salvation presented to them in the intermediate state.7 It
would not be just, it is said, to deprive them of the opportunity
to be made acquainted with the way of salvation. At the deluge,
1 Strom. I. 17, II. 15. * Ibid. VI. 9.
2 Ibid. II. 19, IV. 26. 6 See Bigg, p. 105 sq.
8 Ibid. VI. 14. « Peed. I. 8; Strom. IV. 24.
7 For the principal statements on the subject, see Strom. VI. 6.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
97
punishment was inflicted on the antediluvians for their correction.
Clement rejected the Millenarian theory with antipathy. At the
Resurrection it is not a literal body of flesh that is raised, but a
spiritual body ; l but the Writing of Clement on this special subject
is lost.
1 Pad. II. 10.
CHAPTER VIII
MONARCHIANISM — MONARCHIANISM OVERCOME IN THE EAST — THE
SYSTEM OF ORIGEN THEOLOGY AFTER THE DEATH OF ORIGEN
- NOVATIAN DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA AND DIONYSIUS OF
ROME METHODIUS
IN answering the first and foremost question, " What think ye
of Christ?" Christian theology, beginning with Justin and the
Apologists, had taken up the conception of the Logos, blending
together the Jewish and the Platonic meanings associated with
that term. On the basis of this conception the doctrine of the
divinity of Christ was moulded. In Irenseus and Tertullian, the
Holy Ghost was so connected with the Father and the Son as
to form the Trias. The safeguard set up against dyotheism and
tritheism was the idea of subordination and of the precedence of
God the Father. But the theological construction which had the
Logos for the starting-point did not establish or complete itself
without a struggle, and a prolonged struggle, against opposition
within the Church. The dissatisfaction with it grew partly out of
the feeling that the doctrine of a hypostatic trinity was too meta
physical, and savored of Gnosticism, but chiefly arose from the
conviction that this doctrine trenched upon monotheism. To
this antagonistic opinion, in its different varieties, was given the
name of Monarchianism, a term first used by Tertullian.1 The
opinion held in common by the Monarchians was that God is a
single person as well as a single being. But the two principal
types of the Monarchian theory were widely distinct from one
another. The adherents of the first, the dynamic or adoptionist
doctrine, contended that Christ was a mere man, chosen of God
1 On Monarchianism and its different forms, see Harnack, Rtal-Encycl.
VIII. 178 sqq., and DG. I. 604-709; also the elaborate discussion in Dorner,
Person Christi, I. 497-562, 697-732.
98
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
99
and by Him supernaturally inspired and exalted. He was the
.Son of God, not in virtue of a metaphysical relationship to the
Father, but by adoption. The adherents of the second, on
the other hand, maintained that Christ was truly divine, but as
divine was indistinguishable from God the Father, being one
mode or manifestation of the divine being. These were termed
in the West Ifatripassians. In the East they were usually grouped
together under the name of Sabellians. There is no good ground
for supposing that the first or humanitarian class was ever numer
ous in the Church, whether in the East or the West. But the
opposite is the fact respecting the Medalists. It is to these that
Origen and Tertullian have reference when they speak of the
Monarchians as numerous.1 It is of the Medalist opinion — in
contrast with the " cecononjy," — that is, with the idea of the
trinity as a distinction of persons in the Divine Being Himself in
relation to creation and redemption — that Tertullian says : " To
be sure, plain people, not to call them ignorant and common — of
whom the greater portion of believers is always comprised —
inasmuch as the rule of faith withdraws them from the many gods
of the [heathen] world to the one and the true God, shrink back
from the ceconomy. . . . They are constantly throwing out the
accusation that we preach two gods and three gods. . . . We
hold, they say, the monarchy."2 When Monarchianism in either
of its two forms took its rise, it is impossible to say. Both types
seem to have made their appearance first in Asia Minor, where in
the second century there was so much discussion and diversity of
opinion. But as all ways led to Rome, so all sorts of doctrine
were likely to be carried thither. The dynamic or humanitarian
theory resembled the Ebionite opinion : Modalism had a docetic
tendency ; but the former, as far as can be ascertained, had no
historic connection with Ebionitism, nor had Modalism with the
1 Origen, in Johann. T. ii. § 2. Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 3. Hase (Kirchen-
gcsch. p. 99) remarks: "Justinus fvihrt es noch als eine Christliche Meinung
an den Herrn fur einen blossen Menschen zu halten, und widerwillig bezeugt
Tertullian dass es in seiner Umgebung die Volksmeinung war." This is an
error respecting Tertullian. As to Justin's words, " Some of our class," etc.
(Dial. 48), the reading — 'your ' for ' our ' — is defended by Bull, Thirlby, and
others. It is not rejected by Neander ( Ch. Hist. I. p. 363). It is not approved
by Otto (see his note ad loc.}, nor in the edition of Justin, in the "Oxford
Library of the Fathers," p. 129. But 'your ' is found by Harnack to be the
correct reading. DG. (3d ed.) I. 282 n. 2 Ado. Prax. 3,
IOO HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
docetism of the Gnostics. That Ebionitism was the doctrine of
the early Church, that the Church of Rome in the second century
was Ebionite, that Modalism was the fruit of a reaction against
that doctrine, that the Logos theology came forward as a mediat
ing and reconciling system, — these propositions, which were in
volved in Baur's speculative scheme, have at present no foothold
among scholars.
In the first class of Monarchians are commonly reckoned the
"Alogi."1 This designation is a nickname which was given to
them by Epiphanius.2 They appeared about A.D. 170. in Asia
Minor. They were prompted, by their extreme antipathy :to
Montanism, its ideas as to prophecy, and its doctrine of the Para
clete, to discard both the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John.
The Gospel they ascribed to Cerinthus. It is possible that they
rejected the doctrine of the Logos, but it is not clear that they
denied the divinity of Christ. They supported their repudiation
of the Fourth Gospel by critical objections drawn from a com
parison of it with the Synoptics, partly in respect to points of
chronology. The brevity and the mildness of the notice of them
in Irenaeus warrants the inference that their number was small.3
The leading opponents of Montanism, both in Asia Minor and
elsewhere, were not in accord with the opinion of the Alogi as
to the Fourth Gospel. If it were not for the lost writing of
Hippolytus concerning the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse,
and the confutation which Epiphanius borrowed from one or
more writings of this Father, we should have no proof that when
Hippolytus wrote there was anything left of the opposition of the
Alogi to this Gospel.4
1 The Alogi of late have been the subject of much discussion in Germany.
The topic is handled by Harnack in his brilliant article on " Monarchianism"
in the Real-EncycL (Vol. X.) and in his DG. It is considered at length in
the first half of the first volume of Zahn's History of the New Testament Canon
(1888). This last publication called out a polemical review from Harnack,
in which the Alogi forms one of the prominent themes : Das Neue Test, um
das Jahr 200, etc. (1889). In Zahn's brief pamphlet in reply to Harnack
(1889), however, this particular topic is not taken up. The subject is interest
ing now for its connection with the debate respecting the authorship of the
Fourth Gospel. See my Paper in Papers of Am. Ch. Hist. Soc. (1890); also,
Sanday, Inspiration (1893), pp. 14, 15, 64.
2 Htzr. 51. 3 Irenaeus, Adv. Har. III. n, 9.
4 Among the lost works of Hippolytus was one bearing the title, Concern
ing the Gospel according to John and Apocalypse. According to Eben Jesu
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
101
Theodotus, the Currier, came to Rome from Byzantium, and
was expelled from the Church by its bishop Victor (about A.D.
I95).1 Theodotus taught that Christ was a mere man. He held
to the miraculous conception of Christ and held that at His bap
tism the " Holy Spirit " descended upon Him in the form of a dove,
but that on this account He could not be called God. Caius, the
probable author of the " Little Labyrinth " quoted by Eusebius,
styles Theodotus the " inventor " of the humanitarian heresy.
Whether or not he was directly connected in any way with the
Alogi depends on the interpretation of a doubtful phrase in Epi-
phanius. He accepted the Gospel of John, but interpreted it in
his own peculiar way. Epiphanius cites a comment by him on
John viii. 40. His doctrine was not tolerated at Rome. One of
his disciples was a second Theodotus, the Money Changer, whose
followers are said to have taught that the " Holy Spirit " was
present in Melchizedek in a higher mode of presence and activity
than in Jesus. Hence they were called Melchizedekians. These
Monarchians are said to have been students of Aristotle, Theo-
(in Asseman), among the writings of Hippolytus was a defence of the Gospel
and the Apocalypse. Probably the title just given was the title of this work.
It indicates that there remained some of the Alogi, and adherents to their
opinions may have made their way to Rome. The same thing is thought to
be implied in what is said of John's Gospel in the Muratorian Canon; but
whether the statements there have really an apologetic intent is uncertain.
1 Euseb. H. E. V. 28. Eusebius, as above stated, calls Theodotus " the
inventor " of the heresy that Christ was a mere man. What is especially
important, Hippolytus, in the Ref. Omn. Htzr. (X. 23), expressly states it to
be the doctrine of Theodotus that, at the baptism of Jesus, Christ descended
upon him in the form of a dove, — precisely the doctrine which Hippolytus,
shortly before, ascribes also to Cerinthus. In another passage (VII. 36) Hip
polytus likens the opinion of Theodotus to that of the Gnostics. In the former
passage, however, he speaks of " that Spirit " which descended [and] which
proclaims him to be the Christ. Harnack is disposed to think that Hippoly
tus may have erred in denominating the Spirit which was said by Theodotus
to have descended " Christ," and to question whether Theodotus did thus
designate the Holy Spirit as "Christ" (Harnack, DG. I. 623, n. 2). This
last suggestion is connected with Harnack's interpretation of Hermas (Lib.
III., Simil. V.), which makes him identify the Holy Spirit with the Divine in
Christ. It may be added that Epiphanius, after connecting Theodotus with
the Alogi, adds that he had converse or communication (o-vyyevbfj.evos') with
other heretics before named and contemporary with them. Harnack's state
ment that nothing more than contemporaneity is here meant, can hardly be
justified.
IO2 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
phrastus and Galen, and to have been addicted to a grammatical
exegesis. They made an abortive attempt to set up a separate
church. The last representative of the adoptionist creed, who
appeared at Rome, was Artemon (about 230 or 240). l The
Artemonites were fond of Aristotle. Like other Theodotians,
they were critical and rationalistic. Their view of the person of
Christ may have somewhat differed from that of the Theodotians.
The espousal, by the Bishop of Rome, Zephyrinus, of the
Modalistic doctrine, which the Artemonites could with reason
pronounce an innovation, enabled them to assert with a color of
plausibility that their doctrine had prevailed down to the time of
Victor ; an assertion which was confuted by their opponents. It
is clear that Artemon is to be reckoned with the Adoptionists.
After the middle of the second century, the Humanitarian opinion
has practically no influence in the West. It reappears in the East
in the person of Paul of Samosata.
Among the Monarchians of the second class, one of the princi
pal names is Praxeas. He was equally inimical to Montanism
and to the doctrine of inherent personal distinctions in God.
Tertullian alleges that he was the first to import this heresy into
Rome. "He drove out the Paraclete and crucified the Father."2
He came to Rome from Asia Minor about the end of the second
century, and was received with favor by the Roman bishop, Victor.
Passing over into Africa, he won a great many adherents. The
Medalists were called Patripassianists, for the reason that their
doctrine implied that the Father suffered on the cross. This
designation belongs preeminently to another leader, Noetus, of
Smyrna, who through his followers, Epigonus and Cleomenes,
acquired much influence at Rome. Zephyrinus and his successor,
Callistus, embraced the Patripassianist opinion. The determined
opponent of Callistus was Hippolytus, who advocated the hypo-
static doctrine, and refused to accept formulas devised by Callistus
for terminating the controversy. Callistus excommunicated his
antagonist, perhaps, also, Sabellius ; so that there were two dis
senting parties, at the head of one of which, as a rival bishop, was
Hippolytus. Hippolytus tells us that Callistus combined the
notions of the Noetians and the Theodotians.3 By Praxeas it was
not taught directly that the Father suffered. The Father assumed
1 Eusebius, ff.E. V. 28. 2 Adv. Prax. I.
* Rcf. Omn. Her. X. 27.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
103
the flesh of humanity and thus became the Son ; but the Spirit in
Christ, which is God the Father, did not suffer.1 Nqetus affirmed
that the Father himself " was born and suffered and died."2 He
maintained that his doctrine " glorified Christ."
Beryl, Bishop of Bostra in Arabia, rejected the personal pre-
existence of Christ, and is probably to be considered a Medalist,
with some peculiarities which it is difficult accurately to ascer
tain. He certainly held that Christ did not preexist as a divine
person distinct from God the Father. He was converted from
his opinion by Origen, at a Council held at Bostra in 244^
The most famous representative of Modalism was Sabellius.4
He is often said to have been a Libyan by birth, but of this we
are not certain. He spent some time at Rome at the beginning
of the third century. Sabellianism underwent various modifica
tions, and as we have only a few fragments of the writings of
Sabellius, it is not easy to define precisely his teaching save in
a few chief points. He distinguished between the unity of the
divine essence and the plurality of its manifestations. He proba
bly advanced upon Noetus in connecting the Holy Spirit with the
Father and Son. The three manifestations follow one another in
order, like dramatic parts. God as Father is the Creator and
Lawgiver ; through the incarnation the same God fulfils the office
of Redeemer, up to the time of the ascension ; and, lastly, as
Holy Ghost regenerates and sanctifies. The three persons would
be thus equalized, each being a mode of action on a level with
each of the others.5 The Sabellians are said to have compared
the triplicity of God to the Sun, the light of the Sun, and its heat.
Athanasius ascribes to Sabellius himself the statement that the
Father extends or dilates Himself into " Son and Spirit," and
hence infers that " the name of the Son and Spirit will of necessity
cease when the need of them has been supplied." 6 If Athanasius
is correct, a primacy is here attributed to the Father. For the
proper human soul of Christ Sabellianism substituted God Him
self, in one mode of manifestation, streaming through a human
body.
About the year 262, Paul of Samosata was Bishop of Antioch,
1 Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 29. 2 Hippolyt, Adv. Nat. I.
8 Eusebius, H.E. VI. 33.
* For the sources respecting Sabellianism, see Harnack, Real-Encyd. X. 208.
6 See Athanasius, Adv. Ar. III. 4. * Ibid. IV. 13, I.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
which was then under the rule of Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra.1
There he exercised an authority almost equivalent to that of a
viceroy. He propounded a peculiar form of the dynamic theory.
Denying personal distinctions in the Deity, holding that Christ
was a man born of the Virgin, he taught that the Logos inspires
Him. But the Logos is an impersonal attribute of the Father,
and the light that dwells in Christ is not the Logos in its essence.2
By this divine power there is effected a union of Christ with God,
a union of will, not of essence, a union consisting in a love that
is carried to perfection. By reason of this ethical union, Christ
is exalted by the Father, is clothed with a divine dignity, and
may even be called " God." Political influences played an im
portant part in the long controversy occasioned by the promulga
tion of this novel opinion. Three synods were held at Antioch,
by the third of which Paul was declared to be excommunicated
and deposed. He continued, however, to retain his position
until the conquest of Zenobia by the Romans in 272, when the
Emperor Aurelian compelled him to give up the church building.3
The decisive blow against Monarchianism was struck by the
Alexandrian School, through its great representative, Origen. In
his work Qe Principiis — Concerning First Principles, or the
fundamental truths of Christianity — we have the first example
of a positive and rounded system of doctrine.4 Origen argues
against the Gnostics and the Monarchians, and against other
parties deemed heretical, but all this is incidental to the end in
view, which is to present a direct exposition of the body of Chris
tian doctrine. In this respect he stands apart from the Apologists,
and from Irenaeus and Tertullian. His refutation of disbelievers
and assailants is given in a special treatise, his Confutation of
Celsus. Unfortunately we possess the De Principiis, with the
exception of a few passages, only in the diffuse and inaccurate
translation of Rufinus. Yet the general tenor of the treatise,
and the other writings of its author, render it possible for the
1 For the sources on Paul of Samosata, see Harnack, Real-Encycl. X. p. 193.
2 So says Athanasius, De Decrett. c. v. 24.
3 The Letters of the bishops who condemned him (which are found in
Eusebius, H.E. vii. 27-30), give chiefly the personal, rather than the doctrinal,
charges against him. But all the proceedings show clearly the strong opposi
tion of the Church to the humanitarian doctrine. See Hefele, I. b. i. c. 2, § 9.
4 Baur argues for the other possible meaning of the title, "First Things."
DG. I. 276.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
105
most part to check the translator's deviations from the original.
When we take up the De Principiis of Origen, we seem to find
ourselves in the presence of a modern man. The atmosphere is
free from prejudice and polemical bitterness. The vocabulary
of denunciation is sparingly drawn upon. There is a warm
appreciation of the value of all knowledge, and of the possibility
and the importance of discerning the relationship of the Gospel
to philosophy and science. Not everything in theology is con
sidered to be settled. We are pointed, beyond the borders of
ascertained truth, to a broad margin of ground not yet so far
explored that differences of opinion are precluded. In reference
to problems not yet solved, the author is content to set forth
an opinion, freely granting to others the liberty of dissent.1 Such
open questions, for example, are whether the Traducian view
or its opposite is true, whether the Deity is absolutely immate
rial or not, the doctrine of the Holy Ghost in some important
particulars.2
But Origen plants himself on the rule of faith. This embodies
the justly recognized teaching of the Apostles, preserved by a
trustworthy tradition.3 Although a free-minded student, and nat
urally of a speculative turn, his position is that nothing is to be
received which is contrary to the Scriptures or to legitimate de
ductions from them. Origen is emphatically a scriptural theolo
gian. He has an astonishing familiarity with the contents of the
sacred books, and calls up from all parts of them passages apposite
to the subject which he is handling. All Christian truth, he holds,
is to be traced to Christ, who spoke through the prophets and
Apostles.4
Yet the allegorical method of interpretation leaves room for an
exegesis based really, although not with conscious intention, on
suggestions purely subjective in their origin. This allegorical
character of the Bible, Origen supports by appealing to particular
interpretations by the Apostle Paul and by other arguments.5
The Scripture has a threefold meaning, answering to the trichot
omy, body, soul, and spirit, in man.6 As to the first, there are
not wanting certain narratives which cannot be taken in their
literal sense, since the historical meaning implies something offen-
1 See, e.g., De Princip. I. viii. 4. 4 Ibid. Li. i.
* Ibid. I. i. 5, 9. 6 Ibid. IV. i. 13.
* Ibid. I. i. 1,2. * Ibid. IV. i. ii.
I06 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
sive to Christian feeling, or is, for other reasons, wholly improba
ble.1 Examples are the story of Lot and his daughters, and the
"morning and evening" before the sun was made (Gen. i).
Passages of this class are meant to be " stumbling blocks " to
drive us to the discovery of a higher significance in them. Fall
ing under the second head are the psychic interpretations, which
relate to the individual soul in this life, to its ethical relations,
including its relations to God. It is the third sense, the occult,
spiritual intent of Scripture, which embraces in it the riches of the
divine word. This profounder meaning is sealed to all save the
mature believer.2 It is dark to others : it is a mine into which he
only can descend. It is the wisdom which is open only to " the
perfect." This theory furnishes the warrant for the doctrine., of
Reserve in communicating truth. Pearls are not to be cast before
swine. There are aspects of Christian doctrine of which it is true
still that believers not yet ripe in faith and purity " cannot bear
them now." One example of this esoteric creed was the doctrine
of Restorationism, which it would not be expedient to proclaim
abroad.3 The Reserve, which is legitimate within due limits, was
of course carried to a wrong extreme when it was used as a war
rant for a tacit sanction, and, perhaps a more than silent counte
nance, of opinions considered by the enlightened class to be
erroneous.4
God, as He is in Himself, is incomprehensible. Here the New
Platonic conception is appropriated. He reveals Himself to us
partially in Nature, more fully in Christ. Our knowledge of God
being thus relative, it is of course inadequate.5 Even ' substance *
in the literal sense is not to be predicated of Him.6 Absolute
causality belongs to Him. The exercise of His attributes, such as
omnipotence and righteousness, is conditioned on the creation.
In order to be righteous, in any other than a potential sense, there
must be things over which He can righteously rule.7 Not only
must His omnipotence be eternally in exercise; it is in full exer
cise. He has done all that can be. done. Yet He can set
1 DC Princip. IV. i. 12 sq. a Ibid. I. i. 2.
8 Adv. Celsum, VI. 26.
4 See Bigg's remarks, The Christ. Platonists of Alexandria, p. 141 sq.
6 Ado. Cels. VI. Ixv.
6 6rAeetwi vov Kal ovfflat. C. Celsum, VII. 38. Cf. De Prin. I. L 6. Othet
references in Dorner, Person Christi, I. p. 66 1, n. 22.
?/ Princip. I. ii. 10.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
107
limitations upon the exercise of His attributes. So strenuous is
Origin in asserting the freedom of man that he attributes to God
a restriction of His own prescience in order to leave unimpaired
the liberty of the human will. Creation springs from God's wis
dom and benevolence. Inseparable, of course, from Origen's idea
of the divine attributes, is his doctrine that creation is eternal.
It is creation, not a Gnostic emanation ; but there was never a
time when God existed alone, and when the world of rational
beings was not.
The Mediator between God and the world, through whom the
world is made, is the Logos. In the Logos are all the ideas
which exist in an inscrutable unity in the Father, and are em
bodied in the creation. In relation to the Logos the Father " is
one and simple " ; while it is in the Logos that the world finds its
unity. The Logos is personal and without beginning.1 He is
generated of the Father, but this generation is eternal.2 Origen
rejects the proposition which afterwards became a watchword of
the Arians, — " There was (a time) when He was not."3 The
generation of the Son is, therefore, timeless. It is no momentary
act. He is without beginning. God is eternally a Father, — a
statement which is fundamental in the later Athanasian theology.
The personal Son or Logos is the complete manifestation of the
hidden Deity.4 He is the Wisdom of God, without which He
would not be God. How is the Son generated? Origen dis
cards every notion of sensuous emanation, and every notion of
division or partition. The Son is likened to the radiance of a
torch. The relation of the Son to the Father is compared to the
proceeding of the will from the mind in man.5 He is said, in one
place, to be generated from the substance of the Father.6 There
are numerous expressions of this general character which appear
to leave nothing wanting to the conception of the true and proper
divinity of the Son. Yet, in Origen's idea, the Father is the foun
tain-head of Deity.7 The Father, moreover, is God as He is, in
and of Himself; the Father is " God " with the article prefixed to
1 De Princip. I. ii. 2.
2 De Princip. I. ii. 4; In Jerem. 9, 4.
8 Fragment in Athanasius, De Decrett, 27.
* De Princip. I. ii. 7, 8. 6 Ibid. I. ii. 7.
6 Frag, of Pamphil. ad Hebr. (See Dorner, Person Christi> I. 633) : " Ex
ipsa Dei suhstantia generatur."
7 In Johann. II. 5, 6, 18.
I0g HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the term : whereas the Son is God, with the article omitted.1 He
is " the second God," a kind of repetition or duplicate of God.2
He is even said to be of another substance or essence.3 He is
from the will of the Father.4 In one place He is even called " the
most ancient of all creatures."5 It is in such expressions as these
that, at a later day, the Arians found satisfaction. Their opponents
appealed to the former class of representations. How to reconcile
Origen with himself on this subject is a question that has naturally
provoked much discussion. It must be remembered that the terms
involved had not acquired the precision of meaning which they
attained subsequently. It must be remembered, likewise, that
Origen, while insisting on the divinity of Christ, is solicitous to
fend off the Monarchian inference of the identity of the Father
and the Son, as well as Gnostic theories of emanation. This
motive it is which moves him to emphasize the difference between
Father and Son.
How can the Son be derived from the will of God, and yet be
not created, but begotten ? It cannot be denied that the two
classes of statements in Origen on this subject seem at first to be at
hopeless variance with one another. So Baur judges them really
to be.6 But there is a method of reconciliation which is certainly
more than plausible. 'Will/ like 'spirit/ 'truth/ is embraced in
the transcendent, inscrutable unity of the divine being. In the
objectifying of God the Father, or in His mysterious self-revelation,
will becomes explicit in the person of the Son.7 Occasionally, as
we have seen, the Father is said to be super-substantial.8 Even
'substance ' when predicated of Him would be a limitation. Hence
the Son is spoken of as another in substance. In this way His
1 In Johann. II. 2.
2 C. Celsum, V. 39. In C. CelsumtVlll. 12, 13, Origen is concerned only
to show that the Father and the Son are one in the harmony of their wills.
See Thomasius, DG. p. 203, n. 2.
8 De Orat. I. 15. Others take 6vo-La here in the sense of hypostasis. So
Neander, DG. I. 162; Bigg, 163, n. 3; Robertson, Athanasius, p. xxxi.
4 De Princip. I. ii. 6.
5 Hebr. I. 3. Cf. C. Celsum, V. 37.
6 " So vereinigt Origenes die beiden entgegengesetzten Lehrbegriffe, den
athanasianischen und den arianischen, im Keime in sich." DG. I. 453.
7 See Thomasius, DG. I. 202 sq.
8 Origen says that a discussion about ' substance ' and whether God is
" beyond substance," would be long and difficult. C. Celsum, VI. 64.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
109
personal distinction and subordination to the Father are guarded.1
"The generation," says Harnack, "is an indescribable act, which
can be represented only in inadequate similitudes ; it is no emana
tion . . . but is rather to be designated as an internally necessary
act of the will, which for this very reason is an effluence of the
nature."2 Two things are plain in the review of Origen's whole
teaching on this topic. One is the subordinationism that pervades
it. The other is the room left for a diversity of interpretation by
the seemingly inharmonious phrases to which we have adverted.
Concerning the incarnate Christ, Origen is at pains to show,
against the docetic opinion, that He is possessed of a human soul
in inseparable unity with the Logos.3 This human soul was a pure,
unfallen, preexistent spirit, chosen on account of these qualities.
Yet its freedom of choice is exercised, after the incarnation, in its
victory over temptation, a victory which is carried to completion.
To indicate how the Son incarnate is capable of revealing the
Father, he uses the illustration of the statue.4 There is a colossal
statue, so large as to fill the world, which therefore cannot be seen.
Yet a small statue precisely like it in form and material would en
able us to know what it is. Christ, the express image of the
Father, becomes such to us by divesting Himself of His glory.
Yet the human nature of Christ is not unaffected by its indissoluble
union with the divine Logos, — just as a bar of iron which is in the
fire remains iron, although it is different in its effects from what
it would be if it were not in the fire. This soul elected to love
righteousness, and the holiness which at first depended on the will,
was changed by custom into nature.5 It is perpetually in the
Word, in Wisdom, in God.6
The Holy Spirit is associated in dignity with the Father and the
Son. Whether or not He is created, writes Origen, has not been
clearly determined. The Holy Spirit has not that immediate rela
tion to the Father which belongs exclusively to the Son. Yet the
Holy Spirit has a direct knowledge of the Father, perceiving
1 See Dorner, Person Christi, p. 66 1.
2 Harnack, DG. I. 581. See, also, Denis, De la Philosophic d'Origene,
p. 93 sq. In De Princip. v. 15, u, in speaking of Mark x. 18 ("There is none
good save one"), Origen says that the Son is, as the Father is, ayaBbs, but
not ct,7ra/oaAX<fKTa>s dyadfa. The Father is the aboriginal fountain of good
ness. The passage was altered by Rufinu£.
3 De Princip. II. vi. 3. 5 Ibid. II. vi. 5.
* Ibid. I. ii. 8. e Ibid. II. vi. 6,
IIO HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
directly the deep things in the mind of God. He does not derive
this knowledge from the Son.1 The Spirit is an object of worship.
And if the rendering of Rufinus is here to be trusted, Origen says
that he has found no passage in the Scriptures where it is taught
that He is a creature.2 The Holy Spirit is confined in His agency
to the souls which He renews and sanctifies.3 Christians derive
existence from the Father, rational existence from the Son, holiness
from the Spirit.4
In order to understand Origen's ideas relative to man and to the
doctrine of sin, we must keep in mind how uniform and strenuous
— in opposition to fatalism — is his assertion of free^am.5 The
original creation consisted exclusively of rational spirits. They
were co-equal as well as co-eternal. A different view would imply
that the creation was defective. It would leave unanswered the
question why the creation was partly deferred. Moreover, Origen
is led by his general views to the conclusion that all inequalities were
due originally to " merits and qualities " pertaining respectively to an
gelic beings.6 The preexistence of men is involved in the theory of
creation. This supposition alone meets the objections to the
divine justice.7 The preexistent fall of men from holiness is not
only presupposed in their present character from birth ; it is the
ground and reason of the existence of the material world.8 The
fallen rational spirits become spuls, and are clothed with bodies.
The preexistent spirits have an innate capacity to be thus incorpo
rated in the flesh, but this potential materiality becomes actual in
consequence of their voluntary misdoing. Matter is called into
being for the purpose of supplying an abode and a means of disci
pline and purgation to these fallen spirits. Whether the souls
which are supposed to animate the heavenly bodies are tainted
with sin, or have special offices to fulfil, not the consequence of
any transgression on their part, is not made clear. Thus the world
in which we live is made as a theatre of redemption. Its suffer
ings and sorrows and the ordinance of death, are, to be sure, an
1 De Princip. I. iii. 4. 8 Ibid. I. iii. 5.
2 Ibid. I. iii. 3. * Ibid. I. v. 8.
5 See, e.g., Ibid. II. i. 2, III. i. 2 sq. Passages of like purport abound
in Origen's writings.
« Ibid. I. viii. i sq. 7 Ibid. III. iii. 5.
8 /eara/9oX^ (Matt. xxiv. 21 ) is said to mean dejection or fall, which gives
rise to the present state of being. De Princip. III. v. 34.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY TII
infliction of justice, but justice is a form of mercy.1 The earth is a
school for the recovery of the sinful. It is to be observed that,
notwithstanding the preexistent fall, even in this life sin does not
begin until reason awakes and there is a voluntary election of evil,
with no constraint from within or without. Origen is the earnest
foe of the doctrine of unconditional predestination. The end and
aim of all divine influence, and of the orderings of Providence, is to
bring men back to holiness and blessedness. Origen's interpreta
tions of St. Paul in the seventh of Romans, of what is said in the
Bible of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, and of what is said
respecting the "judicial blindness" to which the wicked are given
over, are in general accord with modern Arminianism.2 Only
Origen goes farther in maintaining that in such examples as that
of Pharaoh, the method of the divine cure of sin is like that pur
sued by physicians in certain physical maladies. It is slow and
gradual.3 It involves at certain stages severity and the infliction
of anguish ; but these are merciful in their intent and in their
ultimate effect.
Respecting the work of Christ, Origen includes the current
view of a conquest by Christ over the powers of evil by which men
are delivered from their sway. He broaches the doctrine of a
deceit practised on Satan, who accepts the soul of Christ as a
ransom, not knowing that he could not endure the presence of
a sinless soul.4 But this is far from being the exclusive doctrine
of Origen in regard to the significance of the Saviour's death. It
is a vicarious death in behalf of the race. It is an offering for sin,
typified in the sacrifices of the Old Testament. Under this head,
he teaches that for sin an atonement is necessary, the value of
which is measured by the value of the blood that is shed. The
death of Christ is thus vicarious. In his interpretation of Romans
iii. 25, he makes the death of Jesus to be a propitiation.5
It is through the Logos that light goes forth upon mankind,
not upon a part alone, but upon all. It is first through natural
1 De Princip. II. v. I. 2 Ibid. III. i. 10 sq.
8 Ibid. III. i. 17. See Origen in Matt. XVI. 8; XII. 28; XIII. 8, 9; Rom.
II. 13. For other passages, see the excellent monograph of Thomasius, p. 223,
or Redepenning's Origines, p. 405 sq. In this conception, Satan fills the
place of the demiurge of the Gnostics.
4 E.g., C. Celsum, VII. 17, I. 31.
5 Cf. In Johann. J. XXVIII. 14.
II2 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
law, and through the specially revealed law, which is given to
one nation by way of preparation for the higher light to come
through the Logos incarnate. But the redemptive influence of
the Logos extends beyond this life. Pharaoh was overwhelmed
in the Red Sea, but was not annihilated.1 He is still under the
divine superintendence. Not only men who have lived on earth
and died, but all fallen spirits, not excluding Satan and evil angels,
are visited by the redemptive influences. As a part of esoteric
doctrine, of the deeper disclosure of the Gospel, vouchsafed
to such as are prepared for it, the restitution of all was accepted
by Origen.2 But so far did he carry his idea of the freedom and
mutability of the will that he appears to have held to the possi
bility of renewed falls hereafter, and of worlds to take the place
of the present for the recovery, once more, of inconstant souls.3
The conception of the Sacraments is spiritualized in Origen.
Baptism is the symbol of the cleansing of the soul by the divine
Logos. Yet it is the real beginning of gracious influences for
believers who are inwardly fitted to receive them. So the Lord's
Supper is the symbol of the living word of truth which is
the true, heavenly bread given of Christ in like manner to all
who are spiritually qualified to receive it. To these, but only
to these, is the sanctifying influence which is connected with the
bread and wine after their consecration of any benefit.4
In discarding Chiliasm, Origen cast aside, also, the crass con
ception of the nature of the Resurrection. There is a living
power, a germ, in the present body, which gives to it shape and
form, and will give rise to a spiritual organism conformed to the
vjiature of the particular soul, be it good or evil, that receives it.
It is only a small fraction of disciples to whom the door of
blessedness in the vision of God is open immediately at death.
Generally speaking, the righteous enter into a state where they
are still under training, are advanced higher and higher in the
scale of knowledge, and are purified from the remains of sin.
Finally they reach the culmination of holiness and bliss. The
wicked are subjected to a discipline which has the same end
in view, but which includes pains of conscience of which fire
1 De Princip. III. I, 14. 2 E.g., see Ibid. I. vi. i, III. vi. 3.
8 See Jerome's Letter (CXXIV.) to Avitus. Cf. Thomasius, Origenes,
p. 259.
* See Neander's exposition of Origen's opinion, Ch. History, I. 648, 649.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY IT^
is the symbol, and they may even suffer outward inflictions.
For them the goal is remote, but it is eventually reached.
It was tar trom the intent of Origen to call in question the
essentials of the Christian teaching, to which he was profoundly
attached. That teaching, to be sure, comes from him, steeped in
an infusion of Greek Philosophy, besides being strongly tinctured
with certain other elements, the exclusive product of his own spec
ulation. But perhaps what is eccentric in his opinions excites
attention somewhat more in a brief sketch of his system than in
his own copious expositions. The influence of this great theo
logian was wide-spread and lasting. One evidence of this fact is
tbe^ series of attacks upon his opinions and the heated controver
sies^ respecting his orthodoxy. How attractive and impressive he
was when he taught with the living voice, is described by a pupil,
the saintly Gregory Thaumaturgus. He gained a new title to
reverence through his sufferings and steadfastness in the Decian
persecution. As is true of not a few pioneers in theological
inquiry, there lay in his writings the seeds of systems not in
accord with one another. So powerful was the stimulus imparted
by his genius to religious thought.
In the West, in the last half of the third century, the theology
of Origen had no considerable influence., Novatian, who after
the election of Cornelius as Bishop of Rome (A.D. 251) led the
revolt against the relaxation of discipline in the case of the lapsed,
was a man of mark, and is praised for his talents and learning by
Cyprian. He wrote a treatise on the Trinity, which, with some
deviations, reflects the teaching of Tertullian. He is very decided
against Monarchianism. He says that the Son was " always in the
Father; else the Father would not always be the Father." T The
Son, however, may be said to have a beginning, and in a certain
sense the Father precedes Him. Yet the Son was begotten and
born when the Father willed it, and proceeded from Him of whose
will " all things were made." 1 The Son is in all things obedient
to the Father from whom He derived His beginning. There is a
community of substance between the two.1 The incarnate Son
is God as well as man. But the true and eternal Father is the
one God by whom is imparted the divinity of the Son ; and the
Son at the end remits to the Father " the authority of His divin
ity." In the incarnation, " the legitimate Son of God " assumes
1 Novatian, De Trinitate, c. 31.
I
1I4 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
that "Holy Thing," and thus makes the Son of man — what He
"was not naturally" —the son of God.1 It is a proof of the
divinity ot Christ that the Holy Spirit receives from Him what the
Spirit declares, and is thus evidently "less than Christ."2
Nowhere was the influence of Origen so great as at Alexandria.
One of the most eminent oi his pupils was Dionysius, who was
bishop there from about 247 to 268. The fragments of his writ
ings that remain show him to have been a man of remarkable abili
ties. He wrote " Concerning the Promises," in answer to Nepos,
an Egyptian bishop, the author of a book defending Chiliasm
and opposing the allegorical interpretation of the Apocalypse.
The Alexandrian bishop defended the opinions of Origen. He
manifested critical ability in the reasons which he assigned for
regarding the book of Revelation as not from the pen of the
Apostle John, but as, perhaps, the work of another bearing the
same name and said to have likewise a tomb at Ephesus.
In a series of letters to certain bishops in the Pentapolis who
held Sabellian opinions, which were still prevalent in that district,
Dionysius was led by his zeal in behalf of the distinction of per
sons not only to 4guy that the Son is coessential (Homoousios^
with the Father, but to deny also that He is coeternal. He even
said that " the Son is a creature ... in essence alien from the
Father, just as the husbandman is from the vine, or the ship
builder from the boat ; for that, being a creature, He was not
before He came to be." 3 The namesake of the Alexandrian
Bishop, Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, informed of what he had
said, wrote a letter on the subject to Alexandria, and a personal
letter to its bishop. By way of response, the latter composed
a book, entitled Refutation and Defence, which was addressed
to the Roman Dionysius. Athanasius, from whom we ascertain
the contents of this correspondence, defends the orthodoxy of the
bishop who was complained of. This he does in his treatise on
the Decrees of the Nicene Council, and in a short special writing
on " the Opinion of Dionysius." Dionysius explains to his Roman
brother that in the use of the obnoxious expressions, which he
admits might have been more carefully chosen, his intent was to
guard on the one hand the distinction of the Son from the Father
and, on the other hand, to give emphasis to the fact of the genera-
1 De Trinitate, c. 24. '•• Ibid. c. 1 6.
3 Athanasius, De Sentent. Dionys. 4.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY !!$
tion of the Son from the Father. The term l made ' he had used
only in a wide and vague sense, — not in the sense of an artificer,
but more as a philosopher is said to be the maker of his own dis
course, or as men are said to be "doers of the law," or even as it
is applied to inward qualities, such as virtue or vice.1 At the same
time, he had also said that the Word was like " a river from a
well, and a shoot from a stock," as "light from light," and "life
from life."2 He did not object to the word 'Homoousios' if it
were not understood as confounding the persons.3 It helps to
explain the position of Dionysius to bear in mind that the third
synod at Antioch (268), in the case of Paul of Samosata, rejected
this term, doubtless for the reason which prompted the objection
of Dionysius. How strenuously the Roman bishop protested
against all language implying that the Son was made, may be
seen in a copious extract given by Athanasius.4 He calls it blas
phemy. The "divine triad" is to be preserved, and at the same
time " the holy preaching of the Monarchy." 5 Both the eminent
bishops, who seemed at first to be on the edge of a conflict,
were united against whatever called itself Sabellianism. The
Alexandrian in answer to objections from the Sabellian side, as
was natural, magnified subordinationism. The Roman simply
held fast to unity and tripersonality, with no philosophy on the
subject.
The Asia Minor theology, which was derived from the Apolo
gists and from Irenaeus, did not give place at once to the teaching
of Origen. That theology was not without its effect as a factor in
the subsequent shaping of the orthodox system. The novelties in
Origen's teaching could not fail to evoke dissent among some who
held him in reverence, and opposition from others who might
regard him with less esteem, but whose views in general bore the
impress of his influence. Among these partially hostile critics,
forerunners of more vehement assailants- to arise afterwards,
Methodius should be specially mentioned. He was Bishop of
Olympus, and then of Patara in Lycia, and later still of Tyre.
He died as a martyr in 311. He was a devoted student of the
writings of Plato. In several of the writings of Methodius, in
particular in his book on "Things Created," and his book on the
Resurrection, he attacked certain opinions of Origen. He under-
1 Athan., De Sentent. 20, 21. 4 De Dtcrctt. VI.
« Ibid. 19. » Ibid. 18. 6 Ibid. VI. xxvL
U6 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
takes to confute the doctrine of the eternity of the creation, and
the conception of the material world as the prison-house of the
soul. He combats Origen's spiritualized conception of the Res
urrection. He brings forward, also, a doctrine of " recapitulation "
allied to the conception of the headship of Christ which was pro
pounded by Irenaeus, — a teacher whom Methodius in some other
points followed. He presented, moreover, a mystical view of the
relation of the Logos to the race, — renewed humanity, as a whole,
being looked upon as the second Adam. Within each soul the
Logos, coming down once more from Heaven, must effect a
mysterious spiritual union with man. As the means of attaining
to this mystical union, it is not knowledge that is chiefly valued,
but rather asceticism and especially virginity. In the presence of
this ideal of self-mortification and inward unity with Christ, His
objective work does not, to be sure, disappear, but retires into the
background. In one of the fragments of Methodius there is an
hypostatic trias not dissimilar to Origen's doctrine. There is the
Father Almighty, uncaused and the cause of all, the begotten Son
and Word, and the person of the Spirit and His procession.
Methodius is far from discarding allegory. In opposing interpre
tations of Origen, he substitutes one allegory for another. l There
were others besides Methodius who felt called upon to come out
against the peculiar views of Origen which clashed with the tradi
tional beliefs. One was Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria, appointed
to this office A.D. 300, who wrote against Origen's opinion relative
to the preexistence of souls. He contended that the body and
soul of Adam were contemporaneous in their origin.
A striking proof and illustration of the substantial victory of the
theology which grew up in connection with the idea of the Logos,
a victory which was owing in a great degree to Origen, is the fact
of the introduction into the baptismal creed, in the principal
churches of the East, even before the close of the third century,
of theological statements respecting Christ as the Logos, and His
generation from the Father prior to the creation.2 This orthodoxy
— assent to propositions in theology pertaining to the person of
Christ — was made part and parcel of the Christian faith.
1 Respecting the opinions of Methodius, see Harnack, DG. I. 696-705.
2 On this point, see Loofs, DG. p. 141 (c).
PERIOD II
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PATRISTIC THEOLOGY IN THE EAST
AND IN THE WEST
IN THE EAST, FROM A.D. 300 TO THE DEATH OF JOHN OF DAMASCUS
(c. 754) ; IN THE WEST, TO GREGORY I (c. A.D. 600)
CHAPTER I
THE CONTROVERSY WITH HEATHENISM — THE DANGER OF DIVISION
THE SEAT OF AUTHORITY THE CANON, SCRIPTURE AND TRA
DITION THE GROUNDS OF THEISTIC BELIEF
THE Dioclesian persecution proved that Christianity in the
Roman Empire was not to be extirpated by force. The Church
was inspired with a consciousness of strength. No doubt this was
owing in no inconsiderable degree to the political triumph of the
Christian cause. It was felt to be safe under the shield of impe
rial protection. The result of the reaction under Julian (361-3)
plainly showed that heathenism had not vitality enough to enable
it to regain its ascendency. Events and changes running through
a number of centuries had provided the defenders of the old
religion with some new materials for assault, and the Church with
some fresh grounds both of attack and defence. This is illus
trated in the literary attack of the Emperor Julian and in the
refutation of it by Cyril of Alexandria. Julian directs his assault
partly against the Old Testament. He charges the narrators of
the creation and of the early history of mankind with absurdity.
He animadverts upon the Old Testament conception of God as
concerned for only one nation, to the exclusion of the rest of
mankind, and to the ascription in it of human passions to the
Deity. Christians have forsaken the old divinities for Judaism,
117
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the religion of a despicable people. Yet they have abandoned its
legally ordained rites and have violated its laws by paying divine
honors to a deceased man. It was easy for Cyril to meet these
and like reproaches by pointing out the pedagogical nature of the
old dispensation. But it was not so easy to dispose of the accu
sation that Christians had^deserted the doctrine of their Master
when they persecuted heathen and heretics, worshipped martyrs,
and treated as sacred their graves and monuments. The standing
accusation of the heathen was that after Christianity had begun
to flourish, the Roman Empire had been stripped of its former
glory and been afflicted with numberless disasters. At the close
of the fourth century this complaint was heard everywhere in the
West. It was taken up by Augustine in his great work De Civi-
tate Dei, wherein he brings forward the fact that calamities, great
and various, had befallen Rome before Christ was born, and the
principle that earthly good fortune is not always associated with
true virtue. The prosperity which Rome had enjoyed had been
bestowed upon her, not by the pagan divinities, but by the only
living God. The City of God, the divine State, has been from
the beginning the end and aim of God's Providence. This City
embraces in it all sincere worshippers of the true God, who will
finally attain to everlasting blessedness. In contrast with the City
of God is the City of the World, composed of the wicked, who
may be possessed of earthly bliss, but are destined to everlasting
misery. Early apologetic writers, as Tatian and Tertullian, had
not confined themselves to the defensive, but had carried the war
into the enemy's camp. They had assailed the doctrines and rites
of heathenism. The same is true of the later Apologists. The
futility of the attempt to justify the old religion by an allegorical
treatment of its mythology, after faith in it had vanished from
cultivated minds, was exposed. Eusebius of Caesarea dwells on
the contradictory character of the symbolical explanations. He
insists that by them religion is transformed into physics, and that
atheism is the logical outcome. Augustine deals in the same way
with the heathen allegorists. As to the philosophers, they were
charged by Christian writers with having borrowed their best ideas
from Moses and the prophets, and with being at swords' points
among themselves on fundamental issues. They were reproached
with hypocrisy for joining in the popular worship when they knew
it to be folly. Porphyry, from the New Platonist School, is said
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
to have been bitter in his tone, but he was certainly one of the
keenest assailants of the Scriptures on the ground of alleged incon
sistencies. The prophecy in the book of Daniel, he maintained,
was not prophecy, but history, the book being by a later Macca-
bean author. It is to be regretted that the reply to Porphyry by
Eusebius has not been preserved. He was the most learned of /
the Apologists. The PrcEfcaratio Evangelica and the Demonstratio £
Evangelica are really two parts of one work. The earlier part is
devoted to showing that in renouncing the Greek religion and
philosophy and in accepting the Hebrew Scriptures, Christians
have not been actuated by blind faith, but by good and sufficient
reasons. The later part, which we have in an incomplete form,
vindicates them for departing from Judaism, and proves the corre
spondence of the Christian truths with prophecy. Eusebius shows
that the character of Jesus is incompatible with an intention to
deceive, and that fraud in the case of the Apostles is out of the
question, owing to the injunction to be truthful which Christ had
laid upon them, to the circumstance that their testimony brought
to them no gain, but only loss, and to the candor with which they
record their own faults. The argument from miracles and prophe
cies continued to be urged by Apologists. A new force was given
to the proof from the spread of Christianity in the face of all its
adversaries and from its victory, notwithstanding the seeming weak
ness and insignificance of its founders. Its doctrines were con
sidered foolish ; yet even the doctrine of the divinity of Christ,
who perished on the cross, had won its way to acceptance.
The Church in the first three centuries had done more than to
maintain itself against violence and coercion, and against the
weapons of argument and ridicule. It had so far preserved the
integrity of its doctrine as to avoid a fusion or compromise with
parties whose creeds incorporated a large admixture of heathen
speculation. It had rejected from its theology Ehipnitism and
Sabellianism. Its teaching respecting Christ had been developed
on the basis of the conception of the Logos, and of the instru
mentality of the Logos in the work of crjeation and of redemp
tion. The system of Oxigen and his influence constitute a fact of
capital importance in relation to the period of theological history
that was now to open. He had distinguished faith from phi
losophy. He had avowedly left many problems unsolved. More
over, his positive teaching contained elements which, if not
120 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
strictly inharmonious, were capable of leading different inter
preters in diverse directions. We shall find that, in the progress
of theological discussions and conflicts, his distinction of faith and
philosophy vanished, that the neutral ground, if one may so term
it, was taken within the enclosure of dogma, that his questionable
opinions were set aside, and that finally his orthodoxy was widely
impeached, the result being the surrender of that intellectual
freedom of which he had been a signal example.
Could the Church be kept in unity in its profession of Christian
doctrine, or would it break into antagonistic sects ? There were
great diversities of mental tendency. The West was not like the
East. In the East, where thought was so restless, and contro
versy apt to be so heated, such divisions in matters of belief
might arise as would be fatal to unity of organization. The
episcopate was not an adequate safeguard of unity. No single
bishop was considered infallible in his doctrinal verdicts. As to
the Episcopate, as a whole, how could it be expected to speak
with one voice ? In truth the episcopate involved possibilities of
endless division. The great patriarchates which arose on the
basis of Constantine's division of the Empire into dioceses might
be, and often were, at hopeless variance with one another. They
might become centres of mutually hostile sects. They might
foment rather than quell emulation and strife. There were these
perils, but there were forces at work to counteract them. The
course of events took such a turn that the See of Rome, on the
whole, maintained its ascendency, and each of the other principal
sees were prevented from subjugating the others. The preserva
tion of unity in doctrine was the effect of a concurrence of causes,
among which the agency of Constantine is to be counted among
the most important. He was the powerful guardian of the unity
of the Church, and this unity involved the profession of a com
mon creed. Another instrument in preventing the perpetuation
of dissonant creeds and of keeping Christian theology from taking
on a characteristic heathen stamp, was Atfranasius, by whom,
notwithstanding the fury of the tempest, a final shipwreck was
averted. His name, in the relation of a conservator of unity, has
not unfitly been coupled with that of Constantine.1
Before proceeding to relate the theological history of the
period, we have to touch upon those presuppositions in respect
1 Harnack, Grundriss d. DG. p. 142.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 121
to the seat of authority and natural theology, on which interpreta
tions of revealed truth were grafted. What were the postulates,
themselves experiencing change from time to time, which were
tacitly or explicitly assumed in discussions of doctrine ?
We begin with Scripture and tradition. Here the first topic is
the Canon. Soon after the death of Origen we find that the
Epistles of Peter, John, Jude, and James are received as canon
ical. They are spoken of as a single group — James being at the
head of the list — and bear the name of the "Catholic epistles."
As an effect of Origen's influence, the Epistle to the Hebrews is
included among the Pauline writings. The book of Revelation is
also received as canonical notwithstanding the critical objections
of Dionysius of Alexandria. Eusebius leaves undetermined the
question whether it belongs among the Homologoumena. The
Council of Nicsea did not take up the question of the author
itative sources of doctrine. By the middle of the fourth century
the need was felt for fixing the limits of the Canon. As the 6oth
Canon of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363) is of uncertain
genuineness, its enumeration of Biblical books is left in doubt.
Athanasius gives the name of Apocrypha exclusively to writings
of heretics bearing the name of honored men of the Bible. He
makes room for a class of books 1 which, although not canonical,
may profitably be read in Church assemblies and put into the
hands of catechumens. This class includes our Old Testament
Apocrypha, from which the twenty-two books of the Hebrew
Canon are distinguished. As late as Chrysostom the term ' Ca
nonical ' signifies the books which the Church has fenced off
from other writings. But soon this term comes to signify the
books which are the rule of faith, and the word ' apocryphal ' is
used to designate books which the Church expressly rejects. In
the latter half of the fourth century, the Apocalypse is absent
from the lists of Biblical books in Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory
of Nazianzum, and from the Canon of the Council of Laodicea ;
and no mention of it is made by Chrysostom and Theodoret.
Later, it is received by Cyril of Alexandria, by Basil and Gregory
of Nyssa, as it had been by Athanasius. In the fifth century, its
place in the Canon is no longer doubted, and it stands in the
oldest Greek codexes. In the East, at the end of the fourth cen-.-
tury, the Canon had acquired definite bounds, with the exception >
I22 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of remaining doubts in respect to the Apocalypse. In the West,
the distinction made by Hilary, Rufinus, and Jerome, between the
Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, had no influence.
The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), and that of Carthage (397),
put the Old Testament Apocrypha in the same rank with the
books of the Canon. In the lists of both these Councils, the
Epistle to the Hebrews is included. It had gradually been intro
duced among the Western Churches during the fourth century,
and its general reception was secured by the powerful influence of
Augustine, ^ut on the limits and contents of the Canon, there
was in the We.st no verdict possessed of binding authority on the
Church as a body.
The extent to which the legend was credited that the books
of Moses were lost during the Exile, and restored by the pen
of Ezra, through the Holy Ghost, and the credence given to the
notion that the authors of the Septuagint version, even in their
deviations from the Hebrew text, were divinely guided in order
to accommodate the Scriptures to the heathen — a notion accepted
by Augustine — indicate the prevailing idea of Biblical inspiration.
Augugtine, in his " Harmony of the Gospels," illustrates at once
his candor and his faith in scriptural inerrancy. Comparing the
accounts given of the denials of Peter, he decides that Peter at
the moment was not where Jesus could have looked upon him, and
concludes that it was not a glance proceeding from the Lord "with
the eyes of the human body," but was a look cast from Heaven.1
In scholars like Chrysostom and Jerome there are indications of a
more critical discernment of the distinction between the human
and divine factors in the composition of the Scriptures. It is
only in the School of Antioch, however, and especially in Theo
dore of Mopsuestia, that we are met by more modern views of the
progressive nature of the Biblical revelation, and by consequent
qualifications of the doctrine of Inspiration.
There was always a conservatism of the past. It was always
deemed to be a valid reason for condemning an opinion if it could
be shown to be contradictory to what had been handed down.
New opinions, when accepted, were regarded as an explication of
doctrines held from the beginning. Great writers of the fourth
century, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Augustine, assert the
sufficiency of the Scriptures to acquaint us with whatever is
1 B. IV. c. vi. I.e., the Lord touched his heart. Cf. V. 1681 c., 558 a.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 123
essential to faith and conduct. There is no underrating of the
necessity of having Biblical proof for what we are to believe.
All this implies that the contents of the Scriptures and of Catho
lic tradition are considered to be essentially coincident. This
was the general view, despite occasional statements in certain
Fathers that tradition is a source of supplementary truth. In the
debates on Christology, tradition was appealed to in support
of a certain interpretation of passages in Scripture, and this was
made a touchstone of orthodoxy. Councils came to be regarded
as authorized expounders of the Catholic faith. This was emi
nently the fact respecting the general councils, through which
it was assumed that the voice of the Holy Ghost was heard,
speaking through and to the Church. The decisions were held
by Augustine to advance with the growing insight of the Church
at large, the Christian consciousness. He taught that the declara
tions of the earlier Councils might be improved by those which
are later.1 The idea of a progress from a less to a more definite
explication of doctrine in successive Councils, is set forth by
Vincent of Lerins, with whom originates the traditional test of
orthodox doctrine; namely, that it must have been believed
always, everywhere, and by all. With the rise of general councils,
the old appeal to Apostolic succession as securing the transmission
of Apostolic teaching, fell into the background.
In this period it was universally considered that the Church
is the ark of safety, within which alone salvation is possible.
In the East as in the West it was the visible Church to which this
distinction was attached. It is remarkable that in the East, while
there grew up an immovable orthodoxy resting upon the councils
and the Fathers and embodying likewise the whole system of
symbolical rites, comparatively little was done to formulate a
doctrine respecting the Church. In the West, on the contrary,
in the age of Augustine, in connection with contention against
antagonistic parties and opinions, the distinction between the
ideal and the actual Church, and the criteria of the Church
as distinguished from sects, received, as will be hereafter ex
plained, an exposition that became authoritative. The Roman
bishops gained an increasing influence as arbiters in doctrinal
1 Cont. Donatist. II. c. 3. ' Emendari ' is the term used. It is not safe
to infer that he meant anything more than the determination of points left
ambiguous or undecided. See Neander, Ch. Hist., Vol. II. p. 210.
124 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
disputes. Their supreme judicial authority was distinctly asserted
by Leo I.
That a true knowledge of God is attainable only by Revela
tion, and especially through Christ, was the common opinion.
This, however, did not deter the Fathers from bringing forward
evidences for the being of God from the light of nature. For
example, the proof from design in material nature is sometimes
urged,1 as well as the cosmological argument from the mutable
character of the world of things finite. The lack of purity of
soul is said by Athanasius to be the hindrance to the perception of
God,2 and the same thing is taught by Gregory of Nazianzum.
Theologians — as Augustine — imbued with New Platonism,
found the belief in God on an ontological ground. Yet Augus
tine sees a testimony to God in the heavens and the earth and in
all things, by which disbelievers are made inexcusable. Like
utterances are frequent in both the Greek and Latin Fathers.
Where the conception of the Divine Being was New Platonic, our
knowledge of Him was made to be not objective, but relative
to our .limited apprehension. Creation was a free act of God,
through the Logos, the repository of the ideas realized in cre
ation. The end of creation was the manifestation of the divine
goodness and the imparting of a share in the divine blessedness.
From the end of the third century, angels and demons assume
a constantly increasing prominence in the thoughts of Christians.
Constantine named a church after Michael, but this was not a
dedication of the edifice to him. It only signified that he was
believed to appear in it.3 The Council of Laodicea, about A.D.
360, forbade the worship of angels,4 but the only check to the
practice was found subsequently in efforts to draw a line between
that homage which was admissible and the rendering of divine
honors, which was prohibited.
1 E.g. Greg. Naz. Or at. XXVIII. 6, XIV. 33. August. Con/. X. 6.
2 Adv. Gent. I. 3. 3 Sozomen. H.E. II. 3.
4 Canon 35. It forbids "a cultus of the angels" and styles it a "hidden
idolatry." Hefele contends that this was not intended to exclude " a regu
lated worship of angels." Hist, of Councils, I. p. 317.
CHAPTER II
DOCTRINES CONVERTED INTO DOGMAS CHURCH AND STATE
THE GREAT CONTROVERSIES THE ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, EAST
AND WEST
WE are now familiar with the fact that during the first three
centuries the struggle of the Church in the field of doctrine was
with Judaism and Heathenism, and with systems compounded of
both or embracing elements deeply antagonistic to Christian truth.
In this period of self-defence, carried forward on the basis of a
common faith, there were brought forward doctrinal conceptions,
interpretations of the Gospel, more or less tentative and differing
from one another. Now the Church, except in the short reign of
Julian, is neither molested by persecution from without, nor, save
in a comparatively small degree, by alien speculations arising be
yond its borders. The, area of controversy is within the Church.
Conflicting tendencies are pushed in different directions. Con
tests necessarily spring up, which extend far and wide. In the
turmoil, while there is much sincerity and honest zeal, human
passions inevitably mingle. The grounds of mutual sympathy are
frequently forgotten, and intellectual differences, not reaching to
the essentials of the Gospel, provoke bitter warfare and division.
In this great productive period of doctrinal history, when so many
theological leaders expounded the Gospel in a positive form, or
crossed swords in debate, certain main doctrines through the action
Qf_oecumenical Councils were converted mTo~llQg'mas. This is
one characteristic of the present period in contrast with the era
which preceded it.
Another defining characteristic is the interference of the State
in doctrinal controversies. The Church was contemplated as a
unity. Its unity was one of the main pillars of the unity of the
Empire. Even on political grounds uniformity in doctrinal
125
126 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
teaching was considered indispensable. Christian Emperors as
sume the part of custodians of orthQOjoxy. More and more, es
pecially in the East, where the Empire continued in the vigorous
exercise of authority, they use force for the extermination of her
esy. Their authority is often invoked by contending parties. It
is by the Emperors that the general councils are called together,
and in the doings of these assemblies their will is potent. The
tide of battle turns to one side or the other, according as one
or another Court faction gets the upper hand. At length the
Byzantine rulers undertake practically to exercise a kind of Cae
sarian papacy. The humiliation of the Roman bishops in the
short interval of active Byzantine supremacy in Italy, after its
conquest by the generals of Justinian, shows how much the spir
itual power of the See of Rome was indebted for its growth to
its isolation as regards secular interference.
The second period comprises, loosely speaking, the second
three centuries. But as far as the East is concerned, it properly
includes the Monothelite Controversy, the last phase of the de
bate respecting the two natures of Christ. A not unsuitable ter
minus is the death of John of Damascus, the last eminent Greek
theologian, about 754, although he might be not unfitly classified
among the Scholastic authors. In the West, the second period
carries us to the death of Gregory I. (A.D. 604). He stands on
the line of division between the ancient and the mediaeval age.
In Philosophy, while Platonism is still largely in the ascendant
in the Church, and exerts a proportionate influence on Church
doctrine, there is an advance in the influence of Aristotle. Es
pecially is this true of the dialectics of the Stagyrite, which we
find, from the close of the fourth century, more and more called
into service in doctrinal definitions and disputes. Late in this
period, on the Latin side, Boethius was a commentator on Aris
totle. Occasionally there appeared a kind of religious idealism,
derived from a blending of Christian and Platonic elements, as in
the writings of Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais in Egypt, who died
in 412 or 413. The writings of Pseudo-Dionysius, composed in
Egypt, probably late in the fifth century, are permeated by a
peculiar myjiticjsm in which Platonic and Christian teaching, are
fused together.
An important fact in the doctrinal history of this period is the
appearance and enduring influence of two rival schools in theoi*
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 127
ogy, the school of Alexandria and that of Antioch in Syria. In
this place it is sufficient to say that while the Alexandrians made
the most of the divine fajctor in the person of Christ and in re
demption, planting themselves on an uncompromising supernat-
uralism, the Antiochians attributed to the human factor a larger
determining agency.
A noteworthy event in this period is the spread in the Roman
Empire of Manichaeism, a system originating (245 A.D.) with
Mani, a Persian religious teacher. He incorporated in his system
notions in religion which were imbibed from the Mandaeans or
other sects of " Baptisers," whose creed was tinged with Christian
elements. Manichaeism was rather a distinct religion than a
Christian heresy. Its groundwork was the Semitic or Babylo
nian religion, although Persian beliefs were involved in it. Mani
was put to death in 276 for his deviation from the orthodox Par-
sic religion. He held to dualism, — a kingdom of light and a
kingdom of darkness. Through Satan, a product of the kingdom
of darkness, both these elements were mingled in human nature.
Deliverance is accomplished by a physical process, and is the
achievement of a succession of prophets, of whom the celestial
Christ — not the Jesus of the Jews — is one. Mani himself was
the promised Paraclete. The system was ascetic as well as dual-
istic. At the head of the sect were twelve apostles. The " elect "
were a class above the " auditors " or novices. The Manichaean
converts were very numerous in the East as well as the West.
The curiosity and hope kindled by its mysteries and its promise
of illumination attracted many desponding or skeptical minds.
For nine years Augustine was an " auditor." From the time of
Diocletian, the Manichaeans were under the ban of the civil
power. Under Justinian, to be a Manichaean was a capital
offence.
The interest in the doctrinal history of this period centres
in several great controversies respecting cardinal points in the
Christian faith. These are, first, the Arian Controversy, on the
relation of Christ to God and on the Trinity ; second, the Cjirjsj>
ological Controversy, on the person of Christ ; third, the Pelagjgn
Controversy, on Sin and the function of Grace in man's recovery.
Theology, Christolagy, Anthropology, are the several themes.
The " Origenistic Controversies " were of much moment, and
covered incidentally a variety of topics, besides the question of
I28 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the doctrinal soundness of the great Alexandrian. The course
of theological discussion in the East, from the beginning of the
fourth century, developed an increasing sense of the importance
of orthodoxy in opinion, a growing deference for tradition as
dictating what ought to be believed, a r42££QJKing of the space
open to speculation and diversity of thought. The idea of prog
ress in theology became more and more repugnant. Some of
Origen's opinions, as we have seen, had been avowedly esoteric.
Portions of his teaching were taken as the starting-point of move
ments recognized as heretical. Personal and partisan motives
mingled among the causes of the ultimately successful crusade
against the theological standing of the Father of Greek Theology,
whom Athanasius had held in honor. Like influences were opera
tive with similar results, against the repute of the most eminent
leaders of the Antiochian school.
In the East, where Greek tendencies prevailed, it was the
more speculative side of Christianity, the subjects of the Trinity
and the relation of the two natures in the person of Christ, that
were ever in the foreground. In the West, it was rather the
doctrine of sin, and the subject of the will in relation to Grace,
that especially attracted attention. The West was not an indif
ferent spectator of the conflicts of the fourth and fifth centuries
in the East. It was obliged, especially at important crises, to
take some part in them. The position of Rome was not unlike
that of a powerful neutral, prone to be steadfast and conservative
and able on several great occasions to speak the decisive word.
Greek theological writers were introduced by translations and
otherwise to the knowledge of Western readers, and perceptibly
modified opinion. On the other hand, the great Master of Latin
Theology had no influence in the East. The effect of his teaching
was confined by Latin boundaries. In speaking of the theological
peculiarity of the East, it is necessary to guard against exaggera
tion. If the Greek teachers emphasized mainly the Incarnation
and the fellowship with God thereby brought to mankind, another
side of the work of Christ, that which had among the Latins
greater prominence, was far from being ignored. " That the work
of Christ was his achievement (Leistung)," says Harnack, "that
it culminates in his sacrificial death (Todesopfer) , that it signifies
the vanquishing and effacing of the guilt of sin, that salvation
consequently consists in the forgiveness, the justification, and the
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
I29
adoption of man, are thoughts which in no Church Father are
wholly absent. In some they stand out boldly. In the case of
most they make their way into the explication of the dogma of
redemption." 1 It must not be overlooked that the best of the
Greek Fathers — Athanasius is a striking example — if they
seemed to be contending for a metaphysical distinction, had at
heart the interest of practical piety, which they judged to be
identified with it. Nevertheless, the love of contention on nice
speculative points might easily, even in the popular mind, become
a malady quite harmful to genuine devoutness and destructive of
Christian charity. A graphic picture of " the rage " for doctrinal
disputation at Constantinople, during the Arian Controversy, is
drawn by Gregory of Nyssa : 2 " Every corner and nook of the
city is full of men who discuss incomprehensible subjects ; the
streets, the markets, the people who sell old clothes, those
who sit at the tables of the money-changers, those who deal in
provisions. Ask a man how many oboli it comes to, he gives you
a specimen of dogmatizing on generated and unregenerated being.
Inquire the price of bread, you are answered, ' the Father is
greater than the Son and the Son subordinate to the Father.'
Ask if the bath is ready, and you are answered, ' the Son of God
was created from nothing.' "
We have now to glance at the principal writers in this age, so
prolific in authorship. We begin with the Alexandrians. One of
the last of the Catechetical Teachers was Didymus, who died in
395. Although he was blind from his childhood, he was one of
the most learned men of his time. Of most of his works only
fragments remain. Athanasius was bishop from 328 until his
death in 373. His principal writings relate to the Trinity. Among
these his four Discourses against the Arians is the work of chief
importance. As there is a unity of purpose in his life, so is there
a singleness of aim in his literary productions. His " immortal
name," says Gibbon, "will never be separated from the Catholic
doctrine of the Trinity, to whose defence he consecrated every
moment and every faculty of his being."3 His writings, which
are tainted with no false rhetoric, breathe the earnestness that
belonged to his character. Unhappily deficient in the spirit of
1 DG. II. 50.
2 De Deitat. Fil. et Spirit. Sanct. See Neander, Ch. Hist. II. 423 n.
8 Decline and Fall, Vol. III. p. 69 (Smith's ed.).
K
130
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
wisdom and love which characterized the first great foe of the
Arians, was the later Alexandrian, the Patriarch Cyril, who died
in 444. Among his works, which include a treatise' on the Trinity,
besides Epistles, Commentaries, etc., the most noteworthy is his
polemical production (in five books) against Nestorius. Here
we may place a reference to a number of authors who exhibit the
tone of the earlier Alexandrian School and illustrate the profound
influence of Origen. One of them was Eusebius of Caesarea, who
was bishop there from 315 to 340. He is best known through
his Church History and his eulogistic Life of Constantine ; al
though much importance belongs to his apologetic and exegetic
writings. Under the same category belong the three Cappado-
cian Fathers, who, like Origen, were proficients in classical learn
ing, and were likewise imbued with Origen's humane and tolerant
temper. Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, called Basil the Great, is
famous as an administrator and as the great patron of the mo
nastic life, and for his instructive Letters, which afford a picture
of the times. Yet he was the author of other works — the Hexae-
meron, for example, treating of the Six Days of Creation. In
the capacity of a defender of the Nicene doctrine, he wrote his
book against Eunomius, and his Writing on the Holy Spirit.
Gregory of Nazianzum, for a short time Bishop of Constantinople,
the intimate friend of Basil, was surnamed, for the ability of his
discussions on the Trinity, " the Theologian." He was a brilliant
orator. He wrote against Julian, and was the author of numerous
orations, essays, letters, and poems. He died in 390. Gregory
of Nyssa, the brother of Basil, was more speculative in his dog
matic writings than the two Fathers just named. His leading
work is the treatise against Eunomius. His teaching has always
been regarded with profound reverence in the Greek Church.
In connection with a list of disciples of Origen may be put, by
the association of contrast, the name of Epiphanius, Bishop of
Salamis, in Cyprus, who died at an advanced age in 403. An
ecclesiastic of very wide influence, but of an intolerant spirit, and
untiring in his hostility to Origen, he left as his principal work his
uncritical but invaluable Panarion, or Drug-Chest. Here he de
scribes eighty heresies -and undertakes to furnish the proper anti
dotes of sound doctrine. Among the most prominent Syrian
teachers were Eusebius of Emisa, who died about 360, an effec
tive defender of the Nicene theology, Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 13!
(who died in 386), whose Catechetics exhibits instructively the
character of the popular teaching then in vogue, and Ephrai'm
Syrus, who died about 378, a copious author, by whom Greek
theological science was introduced into Syria. There are three
foremost representatives of the Antiochian school. The first is ,
Chrysostom, who was born in 347 and died in 407, the most cele
brated of the ancient preachers. His theology is to be studied in
his exegetical homilies, but with due allowance for the circumstance
that they are popular discourses. The second is-Theodore, Bishop ' ,
of Mopsuestia from 393 to 428, a great light in the Antiochian
school, whose commentaries, as far as they are extant, exist partly
in the original Greek and partly in Oriental translations. They
exemplify the grammatical and historical style of exegesis which
was characteristic of the Antiochians, in contrast with the Origen-
istic and Philonian method of allegory. The third of the leading
Antiochians is"Theodoret, Bishop in Cyrus in Syria (west of the
Euphrates) from 423 to his death, about 457. He wrote com
mentaries on the whole Old Testament, with the exception of
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job, a continuation of the Church
History of Eusebius from 322 to 428, apologetic and polemical
writings, and numerous letters of value. The other continuators
of Eusebius are Socrates (from 306-439), Sozomen (323-423),
and Evagrius (431-594).
We turn to the Latin Writers of the fourth and fifth centuries.
Hilary was bishop in his native place Poictiers, from about 350
to his death in 368. He was a highly cultivated man prior to
his conversion to Christianity. A supporter of the Athanasian
theology in opposition to Constantine, he was banished and spent
a number of years in the Asiatic provinces, where he increased
his acquaintance with the Greek language. In his exegetical
writings he was influenced in a marked degree by Origen. An
able man and independent in his thoughts, he defended in several
tTeaHses — as the de Synodis, the de Fide — the Nicene doctrine
against its adversaries. Jerome, who was born on the border
between Dalmatia and Pannonia, spent his life partly in the East,
and became in a scholarly way a connecting link between the
East and the West. Originally a disciple of Origen, he was
transformed into a vehement opponent. He served the Church
mainly through his extensive learning. By revising the old Latin
translations of the New Testament, and rendering the Old Testa-
132
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
ment from the Hebrew into the Latin, he became the framer
of the Vulgate Version. Rufinus was an Italian by birth. He
was born about 340. He rendered important service as a trans
lator of Origen, of whom he was a devoted admirer and defender.
His " Exposition of the Apostolic Symbol " furnishes us with valu
able information respecting its history. He died in 410. ^in-
brose, the Archbishop of Milan, was born in 340 and died in 398.
As far as his writings relating to doctrine are concerned, he was
dependent on Origen, Athanasius, Basil, and others, and in set
ting forth the duties of the clergy he did not hesitate to refashion
the de Officiis of Cicero. Yet in his teaching, as in ecclesiastical
administration, he displayed the qualities of a strong, self-respect
ing mind. On the subjects of sin and the relation of the will to
divine grace, he deviated from the Greek teachers, and paved
the way for Augustine.
Of the characteristics of Augustine and of his influence more
will be said hereafter. He was a voluminous author. His mind
was in perpetual motion. He was a deep thinker, but was one
who wrote mostly in response to practical exigencies. His opin
ions did not remain unaltered, and his Retractationes are a
review and partial correction of earlier utterances. He composed
works, such as the Contra Academicos, relating chiefly to phi
losophy and specifically to the philosophy of religion. His con
troversial writings are in opposition to the Manichaeans, the
Donatists, and the Pelagians. Apart from polemics, he composed
books on subjects of doctrinal theology. His great apologetic
treatise is the de Civitate Dei. Beyond the limits of this classifica
tion fall his exegetical homilies and other sermons, his numerous
epistles, in which religious themes are handled, his Autobiography
under the title of Confessions, and so forth. Prosper of Aqui-
taine was a zealous advocate of Augustine's opinions, in the Pela
gian Controversy. The position of Leo I., Bishop of Rome from
440 to 461, and the active part which he took in relation to the
doctrinal disputes of the time, render his letters and sermons of
theological value.
After the beginning of the sixth century the theological writ
ers in the West and the East are reduced to a small number.
Boethius, the trusted counsellor of Theodoric, King of the Ostro
goths, and a victim (in 525) to his false suspicions, was a man
of scholarly tastes and profound acquisitions. Through his studies
ANCIENT THEOLOGY $33
in Aristotle and his book on the " Consolations of Philosophy "
he stimulated thought and was much esteemed in the Middle
Ages. Cassiodorus, who died about 560, was first a statesman
under Theodoric and his successors, and then a monk. His writ
ings relate to history and theology. John Philoponus, an Aristo
telian at Alexandria in the first part of the sixth century, and a
Monophysite in his theology, applied his philosophy in such a
way to the Trinity as to expose himself to the charge of being
a Tritheist. Gregory, Bishop of Tours (573-595), wrote a work
on Miracles — the Miracula — and an Ecclesiastical History of
the Franks. The theology of Gregory I., Bishop of Rome (590-
604), is to be learned from his treatise called Moralia, founded
on the book of Job, and from his homilies and letters. „
CHAPTER III
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY TO THE
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (A.D. 381)
ARIUS was a presbyter in the Church at Alexandria. He had
been a pupil of Lucian, who conducted a school of theology at
Antioch, and died as a martyr. Some other leading men who
were in sympathy with Arius had also been taught by this exegeti-
cal teacher ; but his own opinions, probably always, certainly in
his closing years, were not in accord with the extreme views which
they advocated.1 He accepted the Origenist doctrine of the
Logos. Arius propounded the opinion that in the case of the
preexistent Christ, generation is not to be distinguished from
creation.2 He is the first of created beings, through whom all
other things are made. In anticipation of the glory that He was
to have finally, He is called the Logos, the Son, the only-begotten.
He may be called God, although not God in the full reality
implied by the term.3 He began to be, not strictly speaking in
time, but before time,4 since time begins with the creation ; yet
He began to be from the non-existent through a momentary act of
God's will.5 Before this, " He was not." 6 It was on account of
the foresight of his victory over temptation, that he was chosen
of God. It is a victory achieved by the Logos, since in the incar-
1 Respecting Lucian, see Euseb. H.E. viii. 13, and ix. 6, and Theodoret,
H.E. i. 3 (in the Letter of Alexander), and i. 4 (Letter of Arius to Euseb. of
Nic., " his fellow-Lucianist "). See, also, Harnack, DG. II. 184 sq., and Rob
ertson's Athanasius (Nic. and Anti-Nic. Fathers), p. xxvii. But a different
view is given of Lucian by Gwatkin, Studies ofArianism, p. 18 et at. " There
is really nothing against him but the leaning of his disciples to Arianism ; and
this can be otherwise accounted for."
2 yevvav is iroLclv. * trpb xp^vwv Kai
8 a\ij0tj>6j 0e6r. 5 4£ OVK 6vruv 5i
6 ^v ore OVK J)v or irplv yevvijQji OVK 1}v.
'34
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
135
nate Christ the Logos takes the place of a rational human spirit.
The rank assigned to Christ in the Arian theology is really that of
a demi-god. The demons, the inferior deities, were styled by the
heathen 'gods,' and as such received a homage proportional to
their rank.1 It was not a mistake on the part of the orthodox to
look on Arianism as in reality an introduction of a species of poly
theism into Christian theology. Arius was possessed of logical
acumen, was skilful as a disputant, and his austere life helped to
draw to him respect and sympathy. Alexander, the Bishop of
Alexandria, met these views with strenuous resistance. In letters
to other prominent bishops, he set forth clearly the opposite doc
trine of the divinity of Christ, in which the defining characteris
tics of the system of Arius are denied and denounced.2 Arius
likewise sent out letters to counteract the influence of Alexander
and to win support. In 321 or 322, at a large synod at Alexan
dria, Arius was deposed and excommunicated. He issued a book
called Thalia, a miscellaneous collection in prose and verse, and
songs for sailors, millers, and pilgrims. In this method of propa
gating his opinions he followed a practice then in vogue. He
thus embodied his ideas in a portable and easily remembered
form. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who held the same opinion as
Arius, wrote a letter to the Bishop of Tyre in his favor. Eusebius
of Caesarea, who was an Origenist and much more conservative
in his spirit than the Nicomedian bishop, was in favor of tolerating
him. Arianism was not really a new doctrine. The springs of it can
easily be seen in one class of Origen's statements, taken apart
from his teaching as a whole, and in expressions like those of
Dionysius of Alexandria. Such was the excitement of the conflict
in Egypt, and so wide-spread was the agitation elsewhere, that the
Emperor Constantine sent Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, his trusted
adviser, to Alexandria, with letters to the contending parties. The
disputes were petty, the Emperor said. The disputants were
agreed on the doctrine of Divine Providence ; let them bear with
1 For the sources in respect to what is left of the writings of Arius and the
history of the Controversy, see Gwatkin, Moller (Art. Arius and Arianism in
Real-Encycl. I. 620 sq.), and Schmid-Hauck, DG., p. 51; also Rolling, Gsch.
d. Ar. Haresie.
2 Letter of Alexander to the Bp. of Const., in Theodoret, H.E. I. 3. The
Letter of Alex, to his fellow-ministers of the Catholic Ch. is in Socrates, H.E.
1.6.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
one another as concerns minor differences.1 But the conflict was
not to be pacified so easily. Hosius had a deeper understanding
of the grave nature of the controversy. At length, in 325, the
Emperor convoked a General Council at Nicaea.2 It consisted of
not far from three hundred bishops, almost all from the East,
besides a large attendance from lower orders in the ministry.
Alexander was there, and with him his archdeacon, Athanasius,
who was in full sympathy with him and was destined to be the
life-long champion of the anti- Arian doctrine.3
The Arians in Council stood for their opinion that the Father
alone is without beginning, that the Son did not exist prior to His
generation, which was by an act of the Father's will, — " before all
ages," to be sure, since time began with the creation. Respect
ing the person of the incarnate Christ, Arius, as we have said, had
espoused the opinion that in Him the Logos takes the place of the
rational human spirit.
How far Athanasius was personally influential in the Council it
is impossible to determine. The conclusions reached were in full
accordance with his convictions, and he was afterwards the most
renowned and effective expounder of them. His theology centres
in his view of redemption. Unless Christ is truly God, is divine
in the literal sense, He is a creature. In this case, in fellowship
with Him we are brought no nearer to God ; the vital truth of re
demption, union to God in virtue of our union, through faith, to
Christ, is lost. This is the practical motive which underlies the
doctrine of Athanasius. It was the inspiring principle of his
undying hostility to the Arian formulas. The Arians discarded
Origen's conception of a " timeless " or eternal generation. This
Athanasius re-asserted. But the generation of the Son is an inter
nal, and therefore an eternal, act of God. The Arian formula
" there was [a time] when He was not," is false. Secondly, the
1 Constantine's Letter is given in full in Eusebius, Vita Const. II. 64-72,
and fragments of it in Socrates, H.E. I. 7.
2 The two principal authorities respecting the doings of the Council are
Eusebius of Caesarea, Vita Const. III. 6 sq., Epist. (in Theodoret H.E. I. n),
and Athanasius, De Decrett. Syn. Nic., and Epist. ad Afros. Neither of these
witnesses is without a bias. For a full statement of the sources, see Hefele,
Counciliengcsch. I. b. ii. c. 2, and Gass's Art. Nicaenisch. Koncil (Real-Encyl.
X. p. 530).
8 For a highly interesting description of the Council, see Stanley's Hist, of
the Eastern Church, Lect. II.-VII.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
137
Son is not "from the non-existent," but from the essence of the
Father ; and thirdly, He is of the same substance — homoousios
with the Father. God is the Father. Fatherhood is essential to
His being, — as truly so as omniscience or omnipotence. But were
it not for the Son, He would not be the Father. God the Father
could not be that which He is without the Son, just as the Son
could not be that which He is, without the Father. He is God's
son by nature, and not by an act of will.1 It is the idea of Atha-
nasius that one and' the same essence belongs to the Father and
the Son. This identity or numerical sameness is set forth through
the illustrations of the sun and its radiance, the same light being
in both, and of the river and the fountain, the same water being
in both. There are direct statements, positive and negative, of
the same purport.2 As to the meaning of generation, the expla-
1 See, e.g., Oratt. C. Ar. III. 60-64.
2 See De Decrett. Nic. 20, Expos. Fidei, i. Or C1. Ar. IV. I. In this last
passage it is said that while the Father and the Son are two, the Monas of the
Deity (fle^TTjros) is indivisible and inseparable (adiaiperov KO.I do'xto'TOJ/), and
more to the same effect. In C. Ar. III. 3, the identity (raurdr^Ta) of the
Deity (^TT/TOS) and the oneness of the essence (e^r^ra TT?S ovcrtas) are
distinctly asserted. The term ov<rla (essence), in Aristotle, signified, first, a
thing in the concrete, which is a subject and cannot be a predicate, an indi
vidual object, the supporter of attributes; and, secondly, a class, be it a species
or a larger class, a genus. (Arist. Categ, 5, p. 2a, Metaphysic., 6, n, p. 1037.)
This double capacity of the word to signify either physical or logical unity
made the Homoousion a convenient term for the Athanasians to apply to the
unity and plurality of the godhead, as the Latins from the same motive em
ployed the word ' consubstantial.' (See Hampden, The Scholastic Philosophy,
etc., p. 126 sq.) The Sabellians held to a merely physical (or nominal) unity;
the Arians, to a merely logical unity; the orthodox, to both. The distinc
tion of Father and Son is one of essential relations. The entire Deity is in
each. The divine attributes, such as wisdom and power, are not to be spoken
of as plural. The whole Deity was " transfused from the Father to the Son."
In one place {Expos. Fidei, 2) Athanasius distinguishes Homoousion from
J/i?«0ousion; but this is to exclude the Sabellian idea of the personal oneness
of the divine being, the exclusive physical unity, without the logical (Hamp
den, Ibid. p. 127). Aquinas insists on the importance of guarding against
the notion of the singularity of the divine being. In another passage {De
Synodis, 51, 53) men are said by Athanasius to be coessential. Here the
point on which he is insisting is the complete, and not merely generic, likeness
of the Son to the Father. The context (51, 52) emphasizes the point that the
Father and the Son are not divisible, as the analogies adduced might be
thought to imply. It is evident from the course of the Arian controversy that
the term ' Homoousion ' did not always avail, of itself, to exclude the merely
I3S HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
nations of Athanasius are mostly negative. One aim is to shut
out materialistic associations of the term. In its own nature, it is
inscrutable. The standing figure to represent the relation of the
Son to the Father is the radiance of a luminous body — which
would not be a luminous body if it did not shine.
When it came to the shaping of the creed, neither of the parties
comprised at the outset more than a minor portion of the mem
bers of the Council. There was a great middle party, constituting
a majority, who were far from being agreed among themselves on
the questions in debate, but were united in opposing the introduc
tion of new terminology. They wanted to frame a statement of
belief that would satisfy all, and thus pacify the disputants. They
were generally opposed to the Homoousion, — a part from fear of
a Sabellian interpretation, and another part because they were
Arians from conviction. The middle party found a representa
tive in Eusebius of Caesarea, whom the Emperor regarded with
special honor. He brought forward the programme of a creed
which was identical with that of his own Church of Caesarea. In
generic likeness of Arians, or its antipode, the singularity or solitude of the
Sabellians. The safeguard was contained in the idea of generation' and in the
€K rrjs oiKrtas, The safeguard was the idea of the co-inherence of the divine
persons (John xiv. u), called by the Greeks Tre/nxw/JTjo-is and by the Latins
circumincessio (see Ath. C. Ar. III. 22, § 3 sq.). Athanasius would not quar
rel with those who would shun the word ' Homoousion/ but held to the absolute
likeness of the Son to the Father, and the co-inherence. {Tom. ad Antioch.
6, 8.) In truth, he had no special fondness for that word and seldom uses it.
Instructive remarks on the history of the word 6fj.oov<rios, on the influence of
Rome and the East in reference to it, and on its probable relation to the
"unius substantise" of Tertullian (through Hosius), are made in a note of
Harnack (DG. II. pp. 228-231). See, also, the references in this note to
other passages in Harnack's DG. and to a passage in Bigg, The Christian
Platonists (p. 164 sq.). The explanation of terms in Hampden, Lect. III.,
with the Notes in the Appendix, is valuable.
That Athanasius teaches a numerical unity is at present the prevailing
opinion of scholars. See Niedner, Kirchengesch. p. 355; Thomasius, DG.
228 sq.; Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra, p. 20; Harnack, I. 212 sq. Petavius
maintained the opposite interpretation. He is supported by Cudworth, The
True Intellectual System of the Universe (London ed. 1845), Vol. II. 431 sq.
The same ground is taken as to the sense of the Nicene Creed (with differ
ences, however, as to the particular conception of Athanasius), by Miinscher
(in Henke's Neues Magazin, Vol. VI. and in his DG. I. § 74, p. 234 sq.); by
Meier, Gsch. d. Trinitdts Lehre, I. p. 157; by Gieseler, DG. pp. 309, 310;
and in an article in The New World (Dec. 1894) by L, L. Paine.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
139
it Christ was styled, " the Word of [or from] God," "God of God,
Light of Light, Life of Life," " begotten of the Father before all
the ages." Eusebius relates that his proposal was well received,
but that Constantine — who no doubt followed the suggestions of
Hosius and the other Homoousion bishops — recommended cer
tain amendments. These were adopted. They gave a decisively
anti-Arian character to the creed. The Son was declared to be
"from the substance of the Father," "begotten, not made," "con-
substantial (Homoousion) with the Father." Anathemas were
appended against those who professed the distinctive Arian for
mulas, " once He was not," etc., or held that He is of (or from)
another substance — "Usia or Hypostasis," the terms being used
as synonymous — than that of the Father. Eusebius, not without
delay and with reluctance, accepted the creed as thus amended.
In his letter to his church,1 he explained his action by minimizing
the significance of the terms to which he had at first objected.
He had no better reason to give for assenting to the anathemas
than that the phrases proscribed were not in Scripture and engen
dered controversy. His real opinion was that the Son is a second
substance and owed His being to the Father's creative will. But
he was sincere, if not logical, in shrinking from the conclusions
which the Arians drew from the same premises. Arius, with the
Egyptian bishops who stood with him, were banished. Later,
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicsea, who refused to
break off communion with Arius, were likewise banished.
The Nicene Creed was carried in the Council by the pressure
of imperial influence, against the judgment and inclinations of the
major part of the body. Such an act could not terminate the
battle. The defeated middle party, who acquired the name of
Homceousians, or Eusebians (from Eusebius of Nicomedia), con
tinued to assert that the true predicate to be attached to the pre-
existent Son is that of likeness to the Father. The Homoeousians
charged their opponents with Sabellianism ; these in turn accused
the Homoeousians of tritheism.
It only needed a change of mind in Constantine, which was
prompted indirectly by his sister, to move him to recall the ban
ished bishops and to decree the restoration of Arius to his office.
Athanasius, who succeeded Alexander as bishop in 326, interposed
resistance. The prejudice of Constantine against him, which was
1 This letter, with his proposed creed, is inTheodoret, I. 12.
140
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
fomented by false accusations of a political nature, was removed
for a time, but only for a time, by a personal interview (332). l
Being deposed by a Synod at Tyre (335), he was banished by the
Emperor to Treves. In the same year Arius, who was then eighty
years old, having presented to Constantine a creed, couched in
Scriptural language, was to be solemnly received back into the
Church ; but on the evening before the day appointed for the
ceremony, he suddenly died.
In 337 Constantine himself died. Constantius procured the
return of Athanasius to his flock. But the new Emperor, swayed
by the Eunuchs, the chamberlains at Court, took the side of the
Eusebians. Athanasius was at once involved in new contests with
his opponents. He was deposed by the Eusebians at a Synod at
Antioch in 341, and Gregory, a rough Cappadocian, was put in his
place. The Emperor being hostile, Athanasius, although warmly
supported by the greater portion of his people, was obliged to
take refuge in the West, where Constans was an adherent of the
Nicene confession. The Roman bishop, Julius, was of the same
mind, invited the exile to Rome, and with a Synod which met
there in 342, gave judgment in his favor. The East and the West
were now arrayed against each other. Anxious to avoid a rupture
between them, the Orientals, at another Antioch Council, issued,
one after the other, a series of symbols.2 These fell in with the
Nicene definitions, with two vital exceptions : they asserted the
homceousion and the generation of the Son by an act of the Father's ,
will.
The cause of Athanasius was weakened by the approach to
Sabellianism of a friend, Marcellus of Ancyra, and by the more
radical departure in this direction of Photinus of Sirmium. Mar
cellus,3 who had been a determined adversary of Arianism at
Nicaea, was anxious to dispose of the Arian objections, while hold
ing fast to the Homoousion. Accordingly he brought forward the
opinion that the Logos is immanent and therefore eternal in God,
1 Of this interview Gibbon, who shows a genuine admiration of the charac
ter of Athanasius, says : " The haughty spirit of the Emperor was awed by the
courage and eloquence of a bishop who implored his justice and awakened
his conscience." Decline and Fall, Vol. III. c. xxi.
2 Hahn, Biblioth. d. Symb., pp. 103-105.
3 The best exposition of the doctrine of Marcellus is by Zahn, Marcellut
of Ancyra (1867).
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
141
but not begotten and not personal. The divine Energy T so named
comes forth from the Father to accomplish the work of creation
and redemption. Only at the incarnation did the Logos become
personal. The incarnation was a union with an impersonal human
nature.2 It is only the incarnate Logos who in Scripture is called
the Son of God, and when the Saviour's work ends, the Logos
returns to its premundane relation to the Father. A like doctrine
was held respecting the Spirit ; both the Logos and the Spirit
being, in the sense defined, consubstantial with the Father. It
is not explained what becomes of the body of Christ when the
work of redemption is finished. Photinus regarded Christ as a
man, the Son of Mary, conceived of the Holy Ghost and under
the influence of the divine Logos, his idea being that the Logos,
as was held by Marcellus, was an impersonal power of God. In
336, in a Synod at Constantinople, Marcellus was condemned by
the Orientals, and Eusebius of Caesarea was charged with the task
of preparing a confutation of his opinions. But Athanasius and
Julius of Rome persisted in recognizing him as within the pale of
orthodoxy. Athanasius at a later day controverted his doctrine,
but avoided any attack upon him personally.3
The Antiochian Synods (341-345), of which mention has been
made, having failed to bridge the chasm between the East and
the West, the Western Emperor, Constans, prompted by Julius,
the Roman Bishop, persuaded his brother Constantius to call a
general Synod. In 347 this was ready to assemble, but the two
sections of the Church were deterred by mutual suspicion from
meeting in one body. The Orientals demanded in vain a recog
nition of the deposition of Athanasius and Marcellus. Accord
ingly the Occidentals met at Sardica and the Orientals in a much
smaller number at Philippopolis in Thrace. The latter planted
themselves on the fourth Antiochian symbol.'* The former de
clared for Nicsea and Rome. Julius prevailed on Constans to
2 Zahn, p. 164: "Aber diese impersonliche Menschennatur ist nicht ein
todtes Werkzeug, sondern Selbstdarstellung des Logos."
8 It is of the doctrine of Marcellus that Athanasius writes in C. Ar. Oratt.
iv. 4-24. This passage is discussed by Zahn, p. 198 sq. It had been consid
ered in its relation to Marcellus by two German writers, Rettberg and Kuhn;
also by J. H. Newman, Ath. Treatises, pp. 497-511. Cf. Gwatkin, p. 82.
* Hahn, p. 407. The documents framed by the two Synods are fully dis
cussed by Hefele, Vol. II. B. IV.
I42
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
procure from his brother, who for political reasons did not wish
to offend him, the return of Athanasius to Alexandria (346) ; but
the death of Constans, in 350, exposed the resolute bishop once
more to the intrigues of his enemies. In the proceedings relat
ing to Marcellus and Photinus, an occasion was found for all the
Anti-Niceans to combine. Photinus was anathematized by the
Antiochian Synod of Eusebius in 344. He was condemned after
wards in a series of synods held by the Eusebians and by the
orthodox. At the first Sirmian Synod (351) a creed, the first of
a series of four, framed at the same place, was adopted.1 The
Sirmian creeds rejected Arian formulas, but avoided the strict
definitions of Nicaea. A great effort was made to move Rome
and the West to abandon the support of Athanasius. Constan-
tius, after he conquered Magnentius in 353, was sole Emperor
until his death in 361. By cunning management and by force he
succeeded in bringing the Western bishops into ecclesiastical
fellowship with the Eusebians, through the Synods of Aries and of
Milan (355). There were a few of the bishops at Milan who
could not be deluded or coerced, and these were sent into banish
ment. Athanasius, thus condemned, found a refuge with faithful
monks in Egypt.
In this way the Anti-Nicene party for the time was everywhere
triumphant. Its success was the signal for its disruption. Relieved
from external pressure, the union of its really discordant parts was
broken up. Two of the Anti-Nicene leaders, ^Etius of Antioch
and Eunomius of Cyzicus in Mysia, denied the Homoeousion ;
that is, asserted that the Son is not like God. There sprung up
thus the new faction of Anomoeans. And the Eusebians, who
opposed them, were further divided among themselves. The
" Homoeans " would not go a step beyond the affirmation of a
" likeness,"-— meaning a likeness in will and active energy. The
bishops at the Court were eager to stave off an open rupture in
the Eusebian ranks. Their prescription was to abjure the use of
the unbiblical word usia, the centre of the contention. In the
second Sirmian creed (357), the members of which were Western
bishops, it was declared that no more mention should be made
of either ' Homoousion ' or ' Homoeousion.' The spirit of the
connected statements was decidedly Arian. A Synod of conserva
tive Semi-Arians at Ancyra in 358 issued a Letter affirming that
1 For the first two, see Hahn, p. 115 sq.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 143
the term ' Father ' implies in itself the Son's likeness in substance.
In a third Sirmian Creed, several symbols were put together —
one of which was one of the Antiochian Creeds of 341. The term
' Homoousion ' was avoided. Liberius, the Roman bishop, was
induced to agree to this attempt at compromise. A fourth symbol *
was composed at Sirmium, in which the Son was pronounced to
be like the Father, "according to the Scriptures," — an ambigu
ous phrase. The Easterns were assembled in a Council at Seleu-
cia and the Westerns at Rimini, by the dictatorial Constantius.
The last Sirmian formulary was modified by dropping the phrase
" according to the Scriptures." 2 The use of the words ' Homoou
sion ' and ' Homceousian ' was renounced, and the Anomceans
anathematized. On the accession of Julian, Athanasius returned
to his diocese (362). One more banishment he had to endure
under Valens, whose wife was an Arian ; but Valens was per
suaded by Valentinian to desist from persecution. This removed an
obstacle to the progress of the Nicene theology. Athanasius, in
his latter days, fell in with efforts to unite all the anti-Arians. The
spirit of conciliation characterized a Council at Alexandria assem
bled in 362. He did not repulse advocates of the Homoeousion
who held to the likeness of the Son to the Father in all respects.
There arose a class of moderate Nicaeans, of whom Meletius of
Antioch was one, who incurred the displeasure of both extreme
parties. A "Younger Nicaean Party" appeared, counting in it
leaders who "were heirs" — through Eusebius and his influence
— of a Homoeousion tradition, but " owed to Athanasius and the
Nicene Creed a more perfect interpretation of their unaltered
belief." They were disciples of the Origenist School. They did
much to secure the prevalence of the Nicene doctrine. The
principal chiefs were the three eminent Cappadocian bishops,
Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa. But their
teaching in reality modified the aspect of the Nicene formulas.
The term ' hypostasis,' instead of being a synonym of usia, was used
to designate a person or personal subject, in distinction from sub
stance. This use of the term became current in the East. Per
sonal distinctions in the Trinity were emphasized. The relation of
the persons in the godhead was compared by the Gregories to the
relation of three men to their common humanity. In the case of
1 See Hahn, p. 124.
2 For the Seleucian Symbol, see Hahn, p. 127.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Gregory of Nyssa, beneath this representation there was the Platonic
or realistic idea of the unity of human nature. It is by an abuse
of language, he tells us, that three human persons are called three
men, since as respects humanity — essentially — they are one.
Inasmuch as the person 1 of the Father is one, " from whom the
Son is generated and the Holy Spirit proceeds, for this reason,
properly speaking,2 we say that He who is the one ground or
cause 3 of the effects 4 — i.e., the Son and the Spirit — is one God.5
But in interpreting Gregory, it must be kept in mind that there is
in his conception a genetic relation among the persons and a
mutual ' inhabitation,' 6 so that neither is conceivable, neither is
complete, without the others. In this sense they are together the
One God. They constitute an inseparable unity. Hence they
are not with strict propriety to be called three. They are sepa
rated neither in time, nor place, nor will, nor work.7 Gregory's
illustration is the rainbow. In both the sunlight and in the rain
bow, the light is one. The colors of the bow remain in unity, and
although distinguishable, pass over inperceptibly into one an
other. Yet by the later Nicaeans the mystery was made to lie in
the unity of God rather than in the trinity. And the unity, as we
see, was secured by a subordinationism carried further than it was
carried by Athanasius. Meletius was recognized as the Bishop of
Antioch by the younger Nicaeans, but was not acknowledged as
such at Rome and in the West.
New contention arose on the subject of the Holy Ghost. Arius
had held that the Holy Spirit is the first created nature produced
by the Son. Athanasius and the Alexandrian Synod of 362 had
predicated the Homoousion of the Spirit. The Nicene Creed
contained on the subject a single indefinite sentence. In 380,
Gregory of Nazianzum writes that concerning the rank of the
Holy Spirit and His relation to God there is among theologians
a great diversity of opinion, some professing not to know what to
think on the matter, the Scriptures not having clearly explained
1 irpbffuirov. 4 alriaT&v.
2 Kvptus. 8 'Etf r&v KOIV&V evvoL&v, T. II. p. 85.
3 atriov. 6
7 See Dorner, Person Christi, II. pp. 919, 920, where the passages from
Gregory are given. Bishop Bull cites a passage from Petavius (Lib. IV. c.
1 6), where he admits that numerical unity may be inferred from 'inhabita
tion.' Bull, Defens. Fid. Nic., Lib. IV. § 4. Cf. Waterland, Works (Oxford
ed. 1833), Vol. II. p. 211.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY j^
this point.1 Hilary of Poictiers agreed with this last statement,
yet said that nothing could be foreign to God's essence which
searches the deep things of God.2 When Macedonius, Bishop of
Constantinople, pronounced the Holy Ghost to be a creature
subordinate to the Son, his opinion was generally considered
heretical, and his followers, the Macedonians, were given the
nickname of " Pneumatomachians." Under the auspices of
Theodosius the Great, the finishing stroke was given in estab
lishing the predominance of the Nicene Orthodoxy. Prominent
bishops who rejected it were deposed. At Constantinople, Gregory
of Nazianzum was put in the place of Demophilus. In 381, the
Emperor assembled the General Council of Constantinople. It is
a significant fact that Meletius was met by him with a cordial
greeting and appointed to preside over the Council. It consisted
of about one hundred and fifty bishops, all Oriental. This body
declared its approval of the Nicene Creed. It issued, also, an
exposition of the Trinity, but of its contents we have no definite
knowledge. What is called the Creed of Constantinople, however,
did not emanate from the Council.3 The foundation of the Creed
so called was a confession composed by Cyril of Jerusalem, prior
to his being made bishop, which was in 350. In the existing form
of the Creed, it is almost identical with a baptismal symbol
recommended by Epiphanius as early as 374. It is probable that
Cyril himself had enlarged this symbol for the benefit of his people
by introducing the passages from the Nicene Creed which formed
a part of it. A like enrichment of baptismal confessions took
place in other churches, the object being to shut out errors which
there was special reason to guard against, while at the same time
their popular character should be preserved. Thus the Nicene
anathemas were left out — although they are retained in the Creed
of Epiphanius. The additions relating to the Holy Ghost were
added, the phraseology being scriptural and thus consonant with
the popular character of the Jerusalem Confession.4 The East
1 Or at. 31, 5. 2 De Trinit. L. XII. c. 55.
3 As to the origin of the Constantinopolitan Creed, see the thorough discus
sion of Hort, Two Dissertations, etc. (1876), Diss. II. See also the article
of Harnack in the Real-EncycL (Vol. VIII. pp. 212-230).
4 " In der That is das sog. C. Panum nichts anders als das neu redigirte,
mit den wichtigsten nicaenischen Formeln und mit einer regula fidei betreffs
des hi. Geistes ausgestattete Taufbekenntniss der jerusalemischen Kirche."
Harnack, Real-EncycL VIII. 222.
L
146
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
and the West were not immediately brought into harmony, owing
to the modified spirit of the younger Nicaeans. When Meletius of
Antioch died, his supporters refused to acknowledge the rival
bishop, Paulinus, who was a Nicsean of the stricter cast. But after
451, the Council of Constantinople obtained, alike in the West and
East, recognition as an (Ecumenical Council. By some means
Cyril's Confession, the baptismal symbol of the Church at Jeru
salem, came to be regarded as its product. Just how
this came to be can only be conjecturally explained. The
Constantinopolitan Creed omits these words of the Nicene sym
bol : " that is, from the substance of the Father." In their place
stand the words : "begotten of the Father before all ages."
The words " God of God " are also omitted. These are the
principal variations from the Nicene text. They did not spring
from differences of belief. A striking peculiarity of the Con
stantinopolitan has been stated, — namely, the addition of the
clauses respecting the Holy Spirit, whose attributes are set forth in
words of Scripture. It is declared that the Spirit together with the
Father and the Son is to be worshipped and glorified. In Churches
of the West, the Creed which acquired the name of Constantino
politan is usually styled the Nicene. In the Anglican Prayer
Book, apparently through a mistake of its compilers, the epithet
" holy," in one of the four notes of the Church, is omitted. The
addition of "filioque " to the Western form of the Creed will soon
be referred to.
In the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds, there stands
first the confession of one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker
of all things. There is a paraphrase of the language of the Apostle
Paul (i Cor. viii. 5) where he defines the Christian faith, in con
trast with the belief of the heathen " in gods many and lords many."
While the Eastern theology likewise insisted on the consubstantiality
of the Son, there was always recognized the subordination of the
second and third persons. In the Deity the Father is the begin
ning ; it is to Him that primal causality belongs. From the outset
the West clung to the unity of substance, fastening attention on this
cardinal element in the doctrine. It was through Augustine that
in the West subordinationism was eliminated from the Trinitarian
conception. Functions and acts, like the theophanies in the Old
Testament, which had been ascribed to the Son, were attributed
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 147
by Augustine to the whole Trinity.1 By him the numerical unity
of the persons in respect of substance was unequivocally taught. It
was in pursuance of this movement of thought that on the conver
sion of Recared, King of Spain and Gaul, at the third Council of
Toledo (589), "filioque" was inserted in the Creed; whereby
an immanent procession of the Spirit from the Son, as well as
from the Father, was affirmed.2 In the symbol quieunque,
or the so-called Athanasian Creed, which was probably composed
in Southern Gaul, not earlier than the closing part of the fifth
century, and came into use in the age of Charlemagne, the process,
if one may so say, of equalizing the persons is seen at the climax.
The attributes of Deity are, one by one, affirmed of the three
persons severally, and with each affirmation is connected the
proposition that there are not three, but one, " eternal," " omni
present," etc. It is only the epithets " ingenerate," " generated
by the Father," and " proceeding," that are connected respectively
and exclusively with the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
1 De Trinitate, L. II. 9-18. He says of the mission of the Son, of the
Incarnation, and the birth from the Virgin, that they were wrought by the
Trinity. " Una eademque operatione Patris et Filii inseperabiliter esse fac-
tam, non utique inde separate Spiritu Sancto." (§ 9.)
2 Mansi, IX. 597 sq.; Harduin, III. 467 sq. See Hahn, p. 158 sq.
CHAPTER IV
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST
TO JOHN OF DAMASCUS
ORIGEN had brought out explicitly the doctrine of two natures in
Christ. He is the divine Logos, He is likewise, as to both body
and soul, man. Origen had affirmed with emphasis the unity of
His person. He had said that the divine Wisdom or Logos had
emptied himself, had submitted to a curtailment of knowledge —
for example, respecting the time when the advent to judgment
would occur. At the same time, however, he had said that the
Logos is incapable of increase or diminution, of being humbled or
exalted, and that it is humanity alone in Christ that suffers. The
transforming power of the Logos in its effect on the human nature,
especially on the body of Christ, is carried so far as to lend a
docetic tinge to the doctrinal conception.1 The problem of the
mode of union of the two natures still called for a solution. It
could not be said to have been clearly or consistently explained by
the great Alexandrian teacher. The Arian Controversy gave rise
to deeper scrutiny of the subject. The Arian theory was that of
a union of the Logos with a human body. To the Logos, therefore,
were attributed the sensations of hunger and thirst, the limitation
of knowledge, the mental anxiety, which in the Gospels are predi
cated of Christ. When the Catholics ascribed these experiences to
the human nature of Jesus, the Arians charged them with holding
to a conflict between the divine and human will in Him, to a divis
ion of Christ into two persons. The task was imposed on the
defenders of the Nicene theology of meeting this accusation.
One of the foremost and one of the ablest defenders of the
Athanasian doctrine had been Apollinaris, the Younger, Bishop of
1 Cont. Cels. III. 41. The mortal body and the human soul by their " union
and intermixture" (^vwo-ei /cal d^aK/sdo-ei) were changed into God.
I48
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
Laodicea. In the middle of the fourth century he was regarded
as one of the pillars of orthodoxy. He was versed in classical
learning and he was an acute reasoner. But he struck out a path
at variance with the accepted doctrine respecting the person of
Christ, and broached a theory which is called the Apollinarian.1
His main contention was that in Christ the divine Logos fills the
place of the rational soul in man. To the spirit or rational soul in
men should belong of right supreme control over the animal soul
and the body, the two other departments of human nature accord
ing to the Platonic trichotomy. But by reason of sin, spirit has
lost this control and become enslaved to the lower nature. Hence
the need of the incarnation of the Logos. Apollinaris argued that
two natures, each with free will, could not subsist together in
Christ ; that if there be a rational spirit, then there are two sons of
God in Him, one natural and the other adopted.2 Moreover, the
man, the adopted Son, would not be without error and sin ; He
would be mutable as the Arians alleged that He was. The
Johannine statement that "the Logos became flesh" is to be liter
ally taken. The second man is "from heaven" (i Cor. xv. 47).
He is in fashion "as a man" (Phil. ii. 7). If, as Apollinaris
argued, Christ is to be conceived of as a man with the self-direct
ing power of reason, then he is only a man inspired of God,3 he is
not truly divine : but this last is a heresy.
The Apollinarian doctrine met with a general opposition. It is
withstood by Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, although
the treatise against Apollinaris which bears the name of Athanasius
is not genuine. Athanasius distinguishes between actions and ex
periences of Christ which belong to him as God from such as per
tain to him as man. The necessity that He should be truly man
is inseparable from the idea of redemption, which involves the
purification of human nature in its entirety. Yet the phrase " two
natures " does not occur in Athanasius, although it is not to be
inferred that he took pains to avoid it. He speaks, however, of a
physical unifying of the divine and the human.4 God became man
that man might be made God — might be divinized.* He does
1 See Draseke's elaborate discussion, Apollinaris von Laodicea, etc. (1892), in
Gebhardt u. Harnack's Texte u. Untersuchungen, etc. The third part of DrS-
seke's discussion presents what are left of the dogmatic writings of Apollinaris.
2 efj ptv <t>v<rei . . . efs 6t 0^ros. * £»/a;<m <pv<nK-f).
8 eyfleos AvBpuirot. & E.g., DC Decrttis, 14; Ad, Adclph. 4.
ISO
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
not hesitate to speak of God as having been crucified,1 and more
than once styles Mary " theotokos " — Mother of God. So all-con
trolling, in his conception of the subject, is the divine factor in the
person of Christ. The Gregories are explicit in affirming the two
natures. Redemption loses its essential element if Christ was not
possessed of a rational soul like that of other men. Christ, says
Gregory of Nazianzum, is not one and another in the personal
sense of these terms, but in the impersonal, neuter sense.2 The
Gregories say in words that the natures remain unaltered. Yet
they use language — such terms, for example, as ' mixture' and
' compound'3 — which, were they to be interpreted strictly, would
contradict that proposition. The human nature is divinized by its
union with the Logos. It is "two natures flowing together into
one."4 Gregory of Nazianzum says that in Christ the Divine is to
the human as the sun among the stars, which if not obliterated are
yet too obscure to be visible. Gregory of Nyssa says that the
human is merged in the sea of the imperishable Deity as a drop of
vinegar is lost in the ocean.5 Separate in itself considered, the
flesh when " mixed with the Divine " no longer continues in its own
limitations and properties.6 The full consequences of the Incarna
tion, however, do not ensue until the glorification of Christ. Then,
according to Gregory of Nyssa, the body of Christ loses entirely its
human attributes. Then the human nature of Christ becomes
ubiquitous. These theologians expressed the general sense of the
Church in their protest against the curtailing of the human
attributes of Christ, as was done in the Apollinarian theory of His
person. But in the view which they substitute for it, the human
nature of Christ is taken up as the mere organ of the Logos^ as
the passive object of a divine, transfiguring agency. The Apol
linarian doctrine was condemned, without any mention of its
author's name, at Alexandria in the Synod of 362. It was con
demned at the Council of Constantinople in 381, as it had been
at Rome, under the auspices of its bishop, Damasus, in 377. But
there were Apollinarians who continued in a covert way to propa
gate their opinion, and some of their writings by being mingled
1 Ad. Epict. 10.
« «XXo &v Kdl mo . . . ofo AXXos 81 Kal AXXos.
8 Kpacris, ft^ts. Geg. Naz. Orat. 38, 13. He adds /car* oixrlav.
* 5«Jo ^iJtreis e/s ev cruvSpa/xoOcra. Orat. 37, 2.
* Cont. Eunom. V. p. 708. 8 Ibid. V. p. 693.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 1 51
with the writings of Athanasius and other Catholic Fathers exerted
a modifying influence in orthodox polemics.
The debates occasioned by Apollinaris resolved themselves
into a contest between the two schools, the Alexandrian and the
Antiochian. The former pursued, and often with less moderation,
the way opened by Athanasius and the Cappadocian bishops. On
the other hand, although Apollinaris was an Antiochian in his
associations, the Antiochian school of divines, of whom Theodore,
Theodoret, and Ibas were the principal representatives, moved in
a diametrically opposite direction. The Antiochians were critics
and exegetes ; they inherited the scholarly spirit of Origen, while
the impulse lent by him to the cultivation of dogmatic theology
was specially effective at Alexandria. The Antiochians, however,
discarded allegory. Their theology was ethical in its character.
In their system, as it is expounded by Theodore, the freedom of
the will holds a central place. Character presupposes at the foun
dation a free exercise of moral choice, and that which is true of
men generally must be true equally of the man Christ Jesus. He
came not only to be a deliverer of men from sin, but at the same
time to raise up man to a higher plane of development than be
longed to the first Adam, even before the fall. The union of God
and man must be of such a character that to the man is left full
liberty of action. God has taken up His abode in a perfect man
of the family of David. This union begins at the beginning of His
prenatal life. It is not, however, a uniting as to essence or sub
stance ; l for God as to His essence is present to all. Nor is it a
uniting of God as to His active energy,2 for his Providence, and
thus His forth-going energy, is universal. It is, therefore, a rnojral
fellowship and communion.3 Yet it is not on a level with the union
of God with good men — with the prophets and saints. It is such
a union with man that he shares in the honor, glory, and dominion
which belong to the Logos. Its effects, however, are progressive ;
they keep pace with the free, ethical advance of Jesus ; they are
not complete until He is raised from the dead and exalted to His
glorified life above.
In the Nestorian Controversy, the difference between the two
schools came to a head. Nestorius, who was educated in Antioch,
became Bishop of Constantinople in 428. The tendency to pay
* KCLT ovfflav. 2 KO.T' ev^pyaav.
8 KOT* (vSoxlav or *ar& x*Ptv- It is an £vwcm crxeruc^, a <rvvd0«(a.
I $2 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
honor to the Virgin Mary was on the increase. It was especially
manifest among the monks in the neighborhood of the capital.
Nestorius protested against the application to her of the term
" theotokos," l Mother of God. She should either be called
' mother of the man ' 2 Jesus, or ( mother of Christ.' 3 His objec
tion was to the transference of human attributes to the divine
Logos. He emphatically denied that the Logos participated in
the sufferings of the human nature of Christ. Cyril of Alexandria,
a man of vehement temper and intolerant, but sincere in his opin
ions, was quite ready to take up the cause of the adversaries of
Nestorius. Ecclesiastic rivalship in which the two Eastern Sees
and Rome in the West were the several parties, was not without
an important effect from the beginning of the widespread and
lasting controversy. Cyril succeeded in procuring the support of
Ccelestin I., the Roman bishop. A letter of exhortation from
Cyril to Nestorius produced no result.4 Other letters were writ
ten by both leaders. At an Alexandrian Synod in 430, Cyril sent
forth twelve anathemas against the Christological errors of Nesto
rius.5 The response of the latter was twelve counter-anathemas.
The position of Nestorius was that there was in Christ a union,
but not a union of essence, between God and man. The Divine
and the Human entered into a relation of constant co-existence
and co-working. The divine Logos took up his abode in the man
Jesus. There was a reciprocal connection of the two sets of
attributes, a mutual cooperation for the common end, but no
communication, no interchange of attributes. Only the smaller
fraction of the evangelic affirmations respecting Jesus during His
earthly life pertain to Him as at once God and man. Most of
them are true of Him either as God exclusively or as man exclu
sively. As to the former class, the predicates of the God-man,
they are true solely on the ground of the connection of the two
natures. Cyril, on the contrary, asserted a physical (or metaphys
ical) uniting of the two natures. God becomes man.6 After the
Incarnation, there are two natures abstractly considered, but in
the concrete reality but one, — namely, the one incarnated nature
1 Mopfa deordKos.
4 Cyril. Alex. Opp. Epist. IV. See Hahn, p. 235.
5 The anathemas of Cyril and the correspondence are in Mansi, Cone. Coll.
Vols. IV. and V., Hahn, p. 238 sq.
ob avvi}<$>9-t} av0p&ir<f.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
153
of the divine Logos.1 This was thought to be a phrase of Athana-
sius, but was in the treatise against Apollinaris, which was incor
rectly ascribed to him. The idea of Cyril is that the flesh, all the
human attributes, have become the attributes of the Logos without
the loss of His divine nature. The product is a theanthropic
person, not merely God, nor merely man, but throughout both in
pne. There is thus in Christ incarnate a communion of attributes.
There is one subject, with one nature, which is divine-human. In
this literal sense the Logos has assumed humanity. Hence it can
be said that ' God is born,' that ' God suffered,' if only it be added,
' according to the flesh.'2 Nestorius argued that such a conception
clashes with the distinction between God and man as to essence ;
that it annuls the immutability of God by imputing to Him a
change of nature, or a mixture with another nature, or a change
of place in coming into the flesh. But Cyril persistently asserted
that the uniting of the natures is not their fusion ; that ' to have
flesh' is not 'to be flesh.' Nestorius sought to repel the infer
ence that by his doctrine the unity of person was broken up,
since there is a constant, harmonious co-working of the human
nature in subordination to the divine. The human shares in the
dignity of the divine in virtue of its connection with it. Cyril
alleged that to render divine honors to one who is not ' by nature
God ' is man-worship. Each party, that of the Alexandrians and
that of the Antiochians, contended that its own theory alone fur
nished a basis for redemption.
Nestorius had explained his objection to the word 'Theotokos.'
It was on the ground of its ambiguity. The anathemas of Cyril
called out answers from two eminent Antiochians, Andreas,
Bishop of Samosata, and Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. To
appease the strife, Theodosius II. summoned a General Council
to meet at Ephesus (431). But Cyril, who was attended by
a throng of bishops, a great part of them from Egypt, did not
wait for the arrival of the Oriental bishops, but proceeded to
organize the Council, and, with Memnon of Ephesus to assist
him, pronounced Nestorius, despite the protest of the Emperor's
Commissioner, guilty of heresy and deposed. The Orientals,
when they arrived, organized separately under John, Bishop
of Antioch, and proceeded to depose Cyril and his principal
auxiliary, Memnon. Theodosius was incensed at the proceeding
1 fAiav <t>v<riv TOV 0eov \6yov <r€<rapKo/j.tvr)v. 2 /card ffdpica.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of Cyril, but was won over to his cause by the influence of the
monks, and of officers of the Court who were corrupted by
bribes. He had confirmed all three acts of deposition, but he
restored Cyril and Memnon, while he left Nestorius in his cloister
at Antioch. The rupture between the Orientals proper and other
provinces, especially Egypt, led to strenuous efforts to patch up a
peace. To promote this purpose, Theodosius exerted his author
ity in an arbitrary way. Cyril was steadily gaining ground at
the Court and in the Capital. In 433, John of Antioch agreed
upon terms of peace. Cyril signed a confession that was drawn
up by the Antiochians and contained nothing antagonistic to their
opinions. John of Antioch had been a conservative supporter of
the anti-Cyrillian theology, although he had expostulated with
Nestorius for raising a storm about a word which was capable of
an innocent interpretation. Now, however, for the sake of peace,
and moved by the threatening attitude of the Emperor, he con
sented to the condemnation of Nestorius and of the doctrinal
statements which had been proscribed. Nestorius, a persecuted
man, was driven from one place of refuge to another. He died
in 440. The theological school at Edessa — where the Persian
clergy had long been educated — under the lead of Rabulas, a
deserter from the Nestorian party, was thrown into confusion.
As the final result it was broken up (489). The Nestorian
dissentients fled into Persia and established there a separate
Church, in which Theodore and the other Antiochian leaders,
to the condemnation of whose writings they had refused to con
sent, were held in high esteem.
There was wide dissatisfaction with the concessions made by
John in the treaty with Cyril. But in Egypt there was a prevalent
discontent on the other side, and vehement opposition to the
doctrine of two natures. The Cyrillian partisans were accused by
the Orientals of Apollinarianism. At this point there begins
another stage in the prolonged warfare of opinion. Dioscurus,
a violent man, the successor of Cyril, and bishop from 444 to 451,
oppressed the Nestorians and compelled, where he could, the
renunciation of their doctrine. But the ranks of the Cyrillians
were broken through the promulgation by Eutyches, an old
Archimandrite of a cloister close by Constantinople, of an extreme
opinion, an opinion that went too far for all but the zealots of his
party. He held that after the Incarnation there is only one
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
155
nature. Christ, he said, is of two natures, but not in two.
Moreover, he held that the body of Christ was not of the same
nature (consubstantial) with our human bodies. Prosecuted by
Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who had been one of his friends, he was
condemned and dismissed from his office by a Synod at Con
stantinople (448) over which Flavianus, his bishop, presided.
Leo I., the Bishop of Rome, in a long letter to Flavianus,
approved of his course, and set forth the doctrine relative to the
person of Christ in which there was a distinct assertion of the two
natures.1 Dioscurus caused a Synod to assemble at Ephesus from
which, by means of brutal threats and coercion, a decree in favor
of Eutyches was extorted. The date of this Robber Synod, a
name given to it by Leo, was 449. Theodosius had exerted his
power, in the usual despotic style, in behalf of Eutyches ; but the
Emperor's death, in 450, left his sister, Pulcheria, with her
husband, Marcianus, on the throne — both hostile to the fanatical
Alexandrian bishop and in sympathy with Leo. An (Ecumenical
Council assembled at Chalcedon in 451. Dioscurus was deposed
for his crimes. Cyril was pronounced orthodox. Theodoret,
who had been deposed by the Robber Synod, but who had been
supported and declared to be reinstated by Leo, was now formally
restored, but was first driven by the clamor raised in the Council
to anathematize not only the doctrine of the " two sons," but,
also Nestorius and all others who held it. The antipathy to
Nestorius could nowhere be appeased except by a repudiation of
him by name. The Council first declared its firm adhesion to
the Creed ratified at Nicaea and Constantinople, and the expo
sition of it by Cyril at Ephesus. It sanctioned Leo's letter to
Flavian, and framed, besides, a creed of its own. The Chalcedon
Creed affirmed that the Son is consubstantial 2 with the Father as
to His godhead, and consubstantial with us as to His humanity,
that He is the Son of Mary, the Mother of God, as to His
humanity, that He is one person in two natures, united " incon-
fusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably," 3 the property of
each nature being preserved in the union, with no parting or
dividing into two persons.4 Notwithstanding the deference paid
by the Chalcedon Fathers to Cyril's teaching, Nestorius might
1 Mansi, V. 1366-1390; Hahn, Biblioth. p. 256 sq.
* For the creed, see Hahn, p. 84. In Mansi (VII. 108 sq.) the reading
156
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
have signed the Creed, including the title " Theotocos," as it was
qualified by the words appended to it.
Here begin the Monophysite struggles, the name of Monophy-
sites being given to the opponents of the Chalcedon Creed and
its affirmation of two natures. Disturbances arose at once in
Palestine, in Egypt, and even in Antioch, where Monophysitism
was espoused by violent champions. Of these and the subsequent
conflicts, which are often acrimonious in the extreme, it is possi
ble to give only a bare sketch. There were armed encounters of
rival theological factions. Bishops, some of them learned, and
godly up to the measure of their light, were driven into exile to
perish from hardship or the cruelty of barbarians. The tyranny,
the fickle tyranny, of the Byzantine rulers, inflicted harsh penal
ties, now on one side and now on the other. When the Emperor
Basil iscus gained the throne and took up the cause of the Mon-
ophysites, five hundred bishops signed a document which he
issued, rejecting the Chalcedon Confession. At Alexandria, an
orthodox bishop was slain in the church. In 482, the Emperor
Zeno strove to pacify the contending parties by the Henoticon,
which laid emphasis on the points on which they were agreed,
approved of Cyril's twelve anathemas, and was silent or ambigu
ous on the Chalcedon Creed. While this measure produced in
the Greek Empire a temporary quiet, it was openly opposed at
Rome and in the West as a surrender to the Monophysites. The
position taken by Rome found sympathy in Constantinople, and
the theological contest there was mixed up with the political dis
order. Justin I. was obliged by the military commander, Vitalian
(519), to comply with the demands of Rome, to abolish the
Henoticon, and formally to accept the creed of Chalcedon. This
measure resulted in the separation of the two parties, and in the
course of the sixth century, the Monophysites formed sects in
Egypt, Syria, and Armenia, which still exist under the names of
the Coptic, ^Ethiopic, Jacobite, and Armenian Churches. All
these separatists clung to Cyril's teaching, but disowned Eutyches.
The Emperor Justinian set out to bring back the Monophysite
separatists. The Monophysites had become divided among them
selves. The Severians (followers of Severus, Bishop of Antioch)
adhered to Cyril, and complained of the " two natures " of the
should be, not kv Svo <t>v<re<nv, but IK Svo (pvvewv. For the proceedings of the
Council before and after it was framed, see Hefele, Vol. II. b. xi.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
157
Chalcedon Creed ; but they held that the body of Christ prior to
His resurrection was corruptible. The " Julianists," in opposition
to "the corrupticolae," as they were nicknamed, — 'worshippers
of the corruptible,' — held that from the Incarnation the Saviour's
body was insusceptible of decay. The Julianists were the " Aph-
thartodocetse." It may be observed here that Hilary of Poictiers,
the leading Nicene theologian of the West, had advocated the
opinion that it was only by the voluntary consent of Jesus that he
suffered physical pain of any sort. There was another movement
which looked in the direction of harmony. This was a movement
led by Maxentius, whom the Scythian monks followed, and by
Leontius of Byzantium, a student of the philosophy of Aristotle,
whose aim it was to interpret the Chalcedon Creed in a Cyrillian
sense.1 The question was whether the more moderate Monophy-
sites could be conciliated, and Rome be won over to forms of
compromise which should leave the Creed, nominally at least, in
full authority. Great efforts were made by the Scythian monks
to secure a recognition of the phrase " One of the Holy Trinity
was crucified." : This was a phrase which, tried by the standard
of Chalcedon, was capable of an orthodox interpretation. Jus
tinian caused the proposition that " God was crucified for us,"
to be embodied in a law (533), and to be sanctioned by an
(Ecumenical Synod (the 5th) at Constantinople in 553. There,
also, was ratified his edict issued 554, "The Three Chapters,"3
in which were condemned the writings of Theodore of Mopsues-
tia, and certain anti- Cyrillian writings of Theodoret and Ibas, his
most eminent followers.4 In these proceedings, the antagonism
of Rome and of the Churches of the West was met by despotic,
coercive measures. The resistance of Vigilius, Bishop of Rome,
was overcome, and likewise the opposition of his successor, Pe-
lagius I. The result was that several important churches in the
West broke off communion with Rome, and remained thus sepa
rate until unity was restored by Gregory I. Justinian likewise
embraced the opinion of the Theopaschites, — the Aphthartodocetae,
— and in 564 declared it to be the orthodox doctrine. Nothing
but his death in 565 prevented the slavish clergy who were
1 See Loofs, Text. u. Untersuch. von Gebh. u. Harnack, III. i, 2.
'2 eVa r?}s dyias rptdSos ireirovdtvai vapKl. 3 Tpia /ce^dXeia.
4 For the fourteen anathemas of the Council, see Mansi, IX. 367-375;
Hahn, p. 86 sq.
!^8 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
governed by his decrees from giving their assent to the Caesarian
dogma.
With the death of Justinian, the shield which had been ex
tended over the Monophysites, in great part through the sym
pathy of Theodora, his wife, was withdrawn. For a half century
there followed an alternation of favor and persecution in the
treatment of them. To reconcile them to the Chalcedon symbol
continued to be a part of the imperial policy. In 622, Hera-
clius, in his expedition against Persia, tarried in Armenia and
Syria, and there was told by certain Monophysite bishops that
what was especially repugnant in the Chalcedon definitions was
the implication of two wills in Christ. Supported by Sergius,
Patriarch of Constantinople, and bent on securing the union of
parties, the Emperor declared for the doctrine of one will — the
Monothelite view. The great obstacle seemed to be removed
when Hon^ojrius, the Bishop of Rome, expressed himself in accord
ance with it.1 But ooposition arose on the orthodox side, So-
phronius, a monk of Constantinople, being active in fomenting it.
He acquired increased influence when, in 638, he became Patri
arch of Jerusalem. It was now the time for efforts to quiet the
storm which had been excited. In 638, Heraclius issued a docu
ment called the Ecthesis, composed by Sergius, which asserted
the unity of the person of Christ, the centre of all activities, for
bade the teaching of either one or two modes of activity, but
declared that in Christ there is only one will, morally speaking,
— one " thelema" The Monophysites were pleased, although
nothing beyond a moral unity of will was affirmed. But Theo
dore I., the Roman bishop, was not to be won over. He cordially
received Paulus, who had been deposed from the See of Constan
tinople, and at a public disputation at Carthage had been con
verted from Monothelitism by Maximus, who like him had come
over to Africa. Constans II., in 648, issued the Typos (Precept),
which forbade all controversy on the subject. Martin I., Bishop
of Rome, at the first Lateran Synod at Rome, in 649, condemned
1 This he did in two letters. For his opinion on this question he was
denounced as heretical by the Sixth General Council, and anathematized
later by Pope Leo II. Down to the eleventh century, every Pope on his
election had to ratify the condemnation of Honorius. The question relative
to his heterodoxy was warmly debated at the time of the Vatican Council.
The points in dispute, with the literature on the subject, are given by Schafii
Church History, IV. 500-506.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
159
both the Ecthesis and the Typos t and their authors. Both he and
Maximus were dragged off to Constantinople and perished in
exile. Superficial amity ensued between Rome and Constanti
nople. But the son and successor of Constans II. found it neces
sary to assemble an (Ecumenical Council — the sixth, or First
Trullan, Council — at Constantinople (680). As Leo I. had
furnished the basis for the Chalcedon definition, so Agatho, now
Bishop of Rome, who was determined to stand by the decisions
of the Lateran Synod, wrote a letter, the doctrine of which formed
the creed of the Council. The will, Agatho said, is a property
of the nature, so that as there are two natures, there are two
wills ; but the human will determines itself ever comformably to
the divine and almighty will. The creed was an addition to the
Chalcedon symbol and declared of the two wills just what that
symbol had asserted of the two natures. Conformably to the
accepted psychology of the time, according to which the will was
a component attribute of the nature, the conclusion was a logical
one. The Dyothelite opinion was thus converted into a dogma.
The Monothelite opinion was still cherished by the Maronites,
separatists from the Catholic body.1
We have now to consider briefly the doctrine of the person of
Christ as it is set forth by the most authoritative of the Greek
theologians after this time, John _pf Damascus.2 The unity of the
two natures it is attempted to secure by relegating to the divine
Logas, the formative and controlling agency. It is not a human
individual that the Logos assumes, nor is it humanity, or human
nature, in general. It is rather 3, potential human individual, a
nature not yet developed into a person or hypostasis. The hy-
postasis through which this takes place is the personal Logos
through whose union with this potential man, in the womb of
Mary, the potential man acquires a concrete reality, an individual
existence. Ffe has, therefore, no hypostasis of himself but only
in and through the Logos. It is denied that he is non-Kypostatic ; 3
it is affirmed that he is en- hypos tatic.* Two natures may form a
1 For the sources and the literature pertaining to Monothelitism, see Mol-
ler's art., Monotheliten, Real-EncycL Vol. X. p. 804.
2 The Christology of John of Damascus is instructively described by Dor-
ner, Person Christi, Vol. II. pp. 258-281, Thomasius, DG. I. pp. 386-392, A.
Dorner, Real-Encyd. VII. 29 sq.
* tvvir6ffTaTo*.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
unity, as the body and soul in man. So man, both soul and body,
is brought into unity with the Logos ; there being then one
hypostasis for both natures. There is a circumincession1 of the
divine and human, an interchange of attributes. There is a com
munication of divine attributes to the human nature so that the
latter is deified,2 and so that we may say that God has suffered in
the flesh. But in this interchange the human nature is merely
receptive and passive. The Son of God — the humanity, the
flesh included — is to be worshipped. The will, in accordance
with the current psychology, is regarded as a quality of the nature,
and it is said that in Christ the human will has become the will of
the incarnate God. It is simply the organ of the divine will.
While the Damascene makes distinctions which are intended to
preserve the reality of the human nature in Christ, the drift of his
teaching is in the Monophysite direction.
On the subject of the Trinity, the Damascene lays emphasis
upon the unity of persons. The unity is the real,3 the trinity the
logical.4 The distinction is in the fatherhood, the sonship, and
the procession. There is a circumincession, so that neither is
conceivable without the others. The Father is the ground and
cause of all. But the three are one in knowing, willing, and
acting.
8 T& Koivbv teal ev irpdy par i.
7775
CHAPTER V
THE DOCTRINES NOT DEFINED IN THE CECUMENICAL COUNCILS
BEYOND the group of doctrines which formed the subject of
conciliar verdicts and were thus converted into dogmas, we find
no close agreement among the Greek Fathers who were reputed
orthodox, nor do we observe in any single author a very near
approach to consistency with himself. We have in mind the great
productive period, the fourth and fifth centuries. Beginning with
the work of Christ, we sliould greatly err if we referred the absorp
tion in the questions relating to the Divinity of Christ and the
constitution of His person to a Greek fondness for subtle meta
physical discussion, as its chief source. There was a deep prac-
tjcaljnotiye connected with these inquiries. They borrowed their
interest from the underlying conviction that the work of Christ as
a Saviour is inseparably involved in them. One striking phenom
enon in the Greek theology is the quite subordinate place allotted
to the Atonement, in comparison with the relation of Christ to the
deliverance of man from the power and the subjective conse
quences of sin. The same is true of the Latin Fathers, even of
Augustine, although not in so great a degree. This peculiarity o,f
jthe Fathers, especially of the Greek Church, is due to the weak
jness of the feeling of guilt in connection with sin, when compared
Iwith the sense of its power, or baleful spiritual effects. It is
•another ruling idea in the Greek theology that one essential need
of the soul is enlightenment, a regaining and increase of our
knowledge of God, which sin has obscured. Bearing these things
in mind, we are less surprised to find Gregory of Nazianzum put
ting the sufferings of Christ in a list along with matter, the soul,
the resurrection, the judgment, retribution, and other subjects, —
themes on which it is considered that one may philosophize prof
itably, and respecting which there is no danger of going astray.1
1 Oral. XXVII. 10 (/cal rb dianaprdveiv
M 161
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
The one pervading thought of the Greek Fathers concerning
the redemptive work of Christ is that men are thereby brought
into unity wit^h^God. They do not hesitate to designate this
unity as a deification. It is an apotheosis. They dwell on the
idea that we "become partakers of the divine nature."1 To this
end the death and resurrection of Jesus were requisite. They
were requisite to the full deliverance and perfection of humanity.
Connected with this prevalent thought, however, there is still
found in leading Fathers the old notion of a ransom pai4 to Sajan
for man's release. Nor is there absent the conception of an
endurance by Christ of the curse in response to a demand in the
divine character and administration. But the great effect to be
wrought, the great blessing to be bestowed, is "incorruption."2
In Athanasius, the relation of the work of Christ to Satan retires
into the background. In his treatise on the Incarnation he sets
forth the grounds of the need of the Incarnation and of the death
of Jesus.3 The veracity of God would not have been maintained
had the law which threatened death not been carried out. More
over, He would have failed in his purpose in creating man. In
this sense, He would have failed in "goodness." 4 It would not
have been " becoming " in God to leave his creature to perish.
The difficulty was removed by the death of Jesus. Moreover, if
men had repented they might have fallen again had not more
been done than merely to pardon them. If a king has built a
city, and, owing to the negligence of the citizens,, it is seized by
robbers, he will not forsake it, but will do what is " becoming to
him " 5 to protect and defend it. So the Word of God, the all-
jood Father, did not leave the race of men to go down to corrup-
ion, but He obliterated death, by the offering of His own body, »
md " set right their negligence by His teaching, setting right all ,
;hings pertaining to man by His virtue and power." 6 Just as an
Emperor by taking up his abode in one house in a city, deters *
enemies from attacking it, so that it is made safe by his simple
presence, so the Son of God has come into our region, and taken
up His abode in one of our bodies, with the effect that all enemies,
;ven the " corruption of death," have vanished.7 These parables
1 2 Peter i. 4. 2 a<pdap<rla. 3 De Incarnat. 6-10.
* &ya6&Ti)s. Yet the " compassion " of God is not wholly left out. See
§ 12, § 14. The love (QiXavOpwiria) of Jesus is more often brought in.
6 els rb iavTov irptirov. 6 § 10. 7 § 9.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
are left without a definite interpretation. At a later date in the Arian
Controversy, Athanasius handles the same theme in a similar vein.1
It would not have been either fitting or profitable to men for God
'• to undo the curse " by a bare decree. If He had done so, man
might have become worse. Man must remain mortal unless " he
is joined to God." Christ offers to death His own body, so that all
may be freed from sin and the curse. " Man joined to a thing made
would not have been made God, unless the Son were very God. . . .
We should not have been delivered from sin and the curse had not
the flesh (which the Logos assumed) been by nature human."
/Through the whole discussion the idea of the necessity of being
*" joined to God " is uppermost.
The conception of a ransom paid by Christ to Satan is set forth
by Gr^egory^of Nyssa. God would take awayTrom Satan all ground
for the compTamFof injustice in dealing with Him. He would not,
therefore, wrest from the Evil One the captives whom he held in
his power through their own self-surrender. Hence the plan to
deliver them by purchase. Satan, attracted by a view of the power
to work miracles and by other qualities of Christ, was willing to
part with his hold on men in exchange for Him. By His being
veiled in human form, Satan was deceived ; for he could not have
endured the unveiled manifestation of Deity. In this plan the
wisdom of God was exerted, as well as His goodness and His power.
Gregory of Nazianzum protests against the opinion that Satan, an
unrighteous usurper of power, is entitled to a ransom. It is given
to God, not because he demanded or needed a price, but because
through the Incarnation, man could be purified and made holy.
It was a part of the method of salvation. Yet Gregory finds a
place for the deceiving of Satan, who, on account of the human
form of the Saviour, imagined that his contest was only with an
ordinary man.
,. As to redemption subjectively considered, the Greek Fathers
hold that grace and human agency are cooperative. But this
topic is best considered in connection with their views of Anthro
pology.
After the beginning of the fifth century, Creationism — the doc
trine of the creation of souls individually — prjgfgflea injhe West :
but the Greek Fathers were not united in this opinion. TnTTr^i-
was favored bv foregory of Nyssa. Origen's doctrine
1 Adv. Ar. Orat. II. § 66 sq.
i64
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of preexi§,tence was more and more proscribed and at length
deemed to be heterodox (553). With Origen, immortality was
generally thought to be a natural property of the soul. In the
analysis of human nature, some — of whom Gregory of Nyssa was
one — adhered to the Platonic trichotomy, while others — including
Athanasius — were dichotomists. By some of the Greek Fathers,
the distinction was made between the image and the similitude of
God. The image of God denoted man's natural powers of reason
and will, and included the dominion given to him over the lower
creation. Gregory of Nyssa makes the similitude to consist in the
qualities of the Christian produced by the Holy Spirit. A denning
characteristic of the Greek Anthropology is the uniformity and'
emphasis with which the freedom of the will, and its continued
liberty after the incoming of sin, is asserted. The Fathers are
agreed in tracing the sinfulness of mankind to the voluntary trans
gression of Adam. They agree in teaching that this transgression
brought the race of mankind under the dominion of Satan. The
discernment of God and of divine things became clouded. Sensual
propensities gained an augmented force. Nature and the revealed
law were ineffectual for man's recovery. This is achieved only
through the incarnate Logos, the source of man's original endowment
£>f reason and spiritual perception. The baneful effect of sin in the
individual goes forward gradually, from one degree of depravation
to another. This is the declaration of Athanasius. The sum of the
consequences of Adam's fall is made to consist in the dominion of
Satan, in mortality, and the increased exposure to the seductions
of evil. Yet by the Greek Fathers the reign of sin in mankind is
depicted in strong colors. This is true, for example, of Athanasius ;
and there are passages in Gregory of Nyssa which, were they all
that this author says on the subject, might lead us to infer that he
held to an inherited sinful depravity, involving guilt. But such was
not the fact. When Athanasius says that as man can turn to things
I .g°Qd, so he can turn away from the same,1 and when Methodius
1 says that"" sin is an actof personal freedom, without which there
f /* us nerErier sin nor virtue/^ neither reward nor punishment/7 they
express the common conviction of the Greek theologians. The
sharp distinction between nature and will is drawn out by Athana-
si^is in a passage having direct reference to the generation of the
Logos.2 Chrysostom, commenting on the 5ist Psalm, says that
1 Con*. Gent. 4. * C. Ar. III. 66.
ANCIENT THEOLOG1
I65
with the first sin a path was opened for the progress of sin over
the whole race. Adam and Eve have generated children who are
mortal, and subject to the influence of passion and appetite. The
reason is obliged to war against these, and wins glory by victory or
shame by defeat. In reference to Romans v. 19, Chrysostom sayS"
that a^nanjwQuld not deserve punishment, "if it were not from his
own self that he became a sinner." When the posterity of Adam
are called sinners, it means that they share in Adam's punishment
by being condemned to death. If the question is asked, how is
this just, the answer is given that death and the calamities akin to
it are a benefit to us, for we get from them " numberless grounds "
for being good. The present life is a " sort of school," and made
such by the discipline of suffering. Cyril of Jerusalem says explic
itly, " we come sinless into this world ; we sin now voluntarily." l
Athanasius goes so far as to say that there have been many saints
who have been free from all sin. Jeremiah and John the Baptist
are mentioned as examples. Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazian-
zum, Basil, and Chrysostom pronounce newjborn children free from
sin. It may seem difficult to reconcile passages like these just
referred to with other utterances found in the same teachers. In
passages of a different tenor, however, they have in mind a corrup
tion that does not involve guilt. Nevertheless, it is vain to attempt
to reduce the teaching of the Greek Fathers, even the most eminent
of them, to entire logical consistency.
As might be expected, the renewal of the soul is made to be /
the result of two factors, divine_ ffp^c'e and the exertion of mark's
fjeejwjj}- As a rule, the exertion of free-will, human efforts^jn
a rigkL direction, precede thejivin.e_aifl. and rencfer men w"orthy
of it. It is a doctrine of synerj^jsm. God and man cooperate.
The lack of a distinct and self-consistent separation of that which
is natural, and that which is an added supernatural gif* in the
soul, leads in some cases to a seeming reduction of tne agency
of the divine factor in regeneration. This remark applies to
Athanasius.2 In harmony with the foregoing views as to human
freedom and responsibility, conditional predestination's the doc-
trjne inculcated by the Greek Fathers. Election is a pre-ordina-
tion of blessings or rewards for such as are foreseen to be, up to
a certain measure, worthy of them. As an illustration, we may
1 Cat. IV. 19; see also 21.
2 See the remarks of Harnack, DG. II. 146 sq.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
refer to Chrysostom's interpretation of the ninth chapter of
Romans.1 The choice of Jacob instead of Esau is accounted
for by a perception by God, beforehand, of merits in the_ elect
one. The reference to the potter and the clay is not intended
to deny merit or freedom of choice, but is a rebuke of presump
tion on the part of those who cannot see all that God sees, — of
those who " will not allow Him to know who is worthy and who
is not so."
The Greek Fathers have rnuch to say of the necgs^ity anjl
yafyie of Jajfth in the process of salvation. Passages which are
truly Evangelical and Pauline are frequently to be met with in
their writings. Yet, as a rule, tjiej^fail to discern that genetic
relation of faith ^ to works which is an essential feature of the
Apostle Paul's teaching. Hence we find in them Pauline state
ments mingled with expressions of a different tenor. Good worjcs
I are coordinated with faith,, as a condition of salvatiojn. As this
1 is true of Justin, Iraeneus, and Origen, so is it of their successors.
Eor example, Cyril of Jerusalem says that the way of godliness
consists of these two things, pious doctrines and virtuous prac
tices,2 and in another place he says that the ways of finding eternal
life are many. Among them, along with faith are enumerated
martyrdom and confession in Christ's name, the preference of
Christ to kindred or riches, departing from evil works, etc. " For
the Lord has opened not one or two only, but many doors^ to
eternal life." 3 Chrysostom^while he frequently approaches near
ta the Pauline conception, yet here and there makes good works
supplementary to faith rather than its fruit. The separation of
faith from works naturally \ed to another conception of faith which
resplved it into the reception of doctrines, the_mind's gss^ni^p
the^ cre^ed. The transition, moreover, was easy to the idea that
almsgiving, fasting, prayers, and the like, were included in good
works as a part of the required complement of faith. In general
it may be said that while it would be an exaggeration to allege
that the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith suffered an
eclipse, yet in a very perceptible degree it was obscured.
What the Latins called ' sacraments,' the Greeks called ' mys
teries.' The Latin Versions of the New Testament rendered the
term ' mystery ' by ' sacrament.' 4 The doctrine of the Latins in
l Homilies, XVL * Ibid. XVIII. 31, 30.
» Ca t. IV. 2. * Eph. v. 32.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY ^7
this period on the sacraments was connected with the term not in
its classic, but its etymologic sense, in which it designated some
thing holy or consecrated. How far the ideas and rites which
gradually associated themselves in the ancient Church, East and
West, with the sacraments or mysteries, were moulded or modified
by the heathen mysteries and by other cults with which the con
verts to Christianity were conversant, is a subject that would
require a searching and elaborate investigation. That the Greek
theology in process of time became permeated with beliefs and
sentiments that gathered about the Christian "mysteries," is a
fact beyond question. In the patristic usage, the word ' mystery '
was applied to whatever was at once mysterious and sacred, and
especially to objects or transactions of a symbolical character,
where an occult reality was conceived to be hidden beneath their ^j
ir^iteriaras*pect. " flehce the~terrnTiad'~no definite limit in its
application. Pseudo-Dionysius, in a passage where it is not clear
that he is giving an exhaustive list, enumerates six_ sacraments,
viz., bagtism, the Lord's Supper, unction — meaning, perhaps,
confirmation — the consecra^pn1 of priests, the congee ration ^of
m^nks, and the ritexof frugal. In this period it is Baptism and
the Lord's Supper which are accounted the principal sacraments, j
Baptisjn was regarded as the Sacrament of Regeneration, and is
not unfrequently so styled. More specifically it brings the pardon
of sins in the past, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Cappado-
cian Fathers add other blessings. The Greeks adhered to the
earlier prevalent view that the soul in baptism is cleansed from
sin itself as well as from its guilt. When we inquire into the mode
in which the effects of the Sacrament are communicated, we find
that it is never considered as exclusively a symbol. The spiritual
blessings are held to be bestowed with the application of the
baptismal water, either concurrently but independently, or through
the action of a power imparted to the water itself. It is not
always easy to distinguish which of these views is meant to be
expressed. The Gregories appear to teach merely the ^simulta
neous action .gf the water -and of, foe spirit, the one being simply
the type of the other. But Cyril of Jerusalem goes farther when
he exhorts his readers to " regard not the Laver as mere water," 2
adding that the water after the invocation acquires a new power of
holiness. More explicit and more extreme is Cyril of Alexandria.
* rcAcWtt. 2 Xtri* vSup : Cat. III. 3, 4.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
"By the Holy Ghost," he says, "the water perceived by the senses
is metamorphosed1 into a certain divine and ineffable power."2
Notwithstanding the use of these strong expressions, the actual
conversion of the water into a different substance, as is shown by
other passages in the same authors, is not meant. y
In the investigation of the history of the doctrine respecting
the Lord's Supper, two points are to be considered, viz., the view
of it as an offering, and the view taken of it as a sacrament in the
stricter sense.
In the Church at the outset, the bread and wine brought as
gifts for the Agape and for sacramental use, together with the
prayers and thanksgivings, constituted the oblation, the centre
and soul of which was the pure heart.3 Thanks were offered for
earthly blessings as well as for redemption through Christ. The
idea of a repetition in the Eucharist of the atoning sacrifice of
Christ, and hence of a propitiatory value attached to the rite, 'is
first broached, although even then in not a very clear way, by
Cyprian. It is in keeping with his definite sacerdotal idea of
the ministry. Much later, through Gregory I., it takes the form
of a distinct doctrine.
Peculiar difficulties arise when we seek to get at a precise
meaning in what the Fathers say relative to the Lord's Supper
as a sacrament, — the relation of the bread and wine to "the body
and blood of Christ. Are they speaking literally or in a figure ?
Are they defining doctrine, or repeating the phraseology of the
liturgy? What is said in homiletical or catechetical writings may
not accord with what is said in writings of a different description.
Moreover, ' symbol ' is not used with the intent to exclude a real
ity inseparable from it. The main inquiry is, what is that reality?
Origen may be designated a symbolist, or a spiritualist, for the
reason that the reality denoted by the elements is made to be the
teaching of Christ. He compares them to the showbread which
is exhibited in the temple, which has the character of a propitia
tory commemoration. Eusebius of Caesarea is more definite in
propounding this last interpretation of the sacrament. The Alex
andrians generally exhibit in a marked way a like tendency. This
is, on the whole, the position of Athanasius, notwithstanding forms
jLteTCKTTotxeiorat.
2 See the comments, with the citations, in F. Nitzsch, DG. p. 389.
8 According to Malachi, i. I L
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
169
of expression which, taken by themselves, might lead to an oppo
site conclusion. There is still more doubt respecting the opinion
of Basil, who has often been ranked with the " Symbolists." Ori-
gen was aware that he was setting forth a more spiritual view than
that adopted by Christians generally. After the middle of the
fourth century, the tendency towards a more lil^al interpretation
of the words of the Lord in instituting the Supper prevailed.
This is apparent, along with inconsistencies of statement, in Cyril
of Jerusalem. In Gregory of Nyssa and Chrysostom, and in John
of Damascus, the doctrine is presented of a transformation of the
elements in connection with the prayer of consecration. Gregory
says of bread that it was potentially the body of Christ, for after
it was eaten by him it became assimilated, entering into his body.
As such it became imperishable. So the bread in the sacrament
is made, upon its consecration, the body of the divine Logos.
There is the -qualification that it is not the body which was cruci
fied and rose from the dead, but the Eucharistic body. This
limitation does not appear in the pulpit teaching of Chrysostom.
In one of his homilies it is declared to be the actual body of
Christ. "This body," he says, " He hath given us both to hold
and to eat." l John of Damascus teaches that as Christ once
I assumed the body which was born of the Virgin, so now in the
sacrament He assumes the bread and the wine. The body which
He had on earth is now in Heaven, yet for this body and the
Eucharistic body there is but one and the same hypostasis or sub
ject. Yet these Fathers, the " Realists," do npt teach the later
I Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. They — for example, Cyril
of Alexandria and Chrysostom — use the same terms to express
the change in the baptismal water which they employ respecting
the bread and wine of the sacrament. They held to no literal
transubstantiation of the water. Gregory of Nyssa and others,
holding against the Monophysites that the two natures in Christ
are unmixed and unchanged, appeal to the analogy afforded by
the union of the Logos with the bread and wine.
By Gregory of Nyssa, the union of Christ with the elements
in the Lord's Supper is presented as a carrying forward, a con-
1 tinuance, so to speak, of the Incarnation. This conception is a
* vital peculiarity in the doctrine of the Fathers who follow him.
As to the effects of the Lord's Supper upon the communicant,
1 Homily in Ep. I. ad Cor. 2.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
they are variously described. The new life that begins in bap
tism is nourished and sustained. But Gregory of Nyssa, Chrys-
ostom and Cyril of Alexandria, among others, attribute to theji
consecrated bread and wine a mysterious, physical effect, the /
result of which is the formation of an immortal body like that)
of the risen and glorified Christ. They compare the body of
Christ received in the sacrament to a leaven which enters into
our mortal bodies and transforms them. Both body and soul are
saved from perishing and endued with immortal life.
In the East, from the beginning of the fourth century the opinion
of Origen that the souls of the good are not detained in Hades
until the resurrection prevailed. But their joy was thought to be
a foretaste of the perfect bliss of the heavenly state. Hades thus
remained only as a place of suffering. The influence of Origen
and his school availed to banish chiliasm. So, for a time, his
more spiritual idea of the resurrection was accepted in the East ;
but with the growth of the opposition to him as a teacher, in the
course of the fourth century, his opinion on this subject began to
be more and more rejected, and at length came to be considered
heretical. The same fate befell his doctrine of universal resto
ration, which was adopted by Gregory of Nyssa, who presents
various arguments in support of it ; also, by the Antiochian theo
logians, Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. It was favored
by Gregory of Nazianzum, although not in his public teaching.
Chrysostom, commenting on i Cor. xv. 28, remarks that "some"
infer from it the universal abolition of sin and iniquity, but he
himself expresses here no opinion on the subject.1
The controversies pertaining to the orthodoxy of Origen fill a
large space in the polemics of this era.2 In the period immedi
ately following his death his influence in Alexandria continued
to be predominant. Methodius, Bishop of Patara, was the first
of the noted assailants of his theology. Origen did not lack
devoted champions. About 306, Pamphilus and Eusebius of
Caesarea published a copious defence of his teaching. Some time
after the beginning of the Arian controversy the attack was re
newed upon him by prominent adversaries of Arius. Athanasius,
while professing to differ from Origen on important points, vindi-
* Horn. XXXIX. ii.
2 For a lucid narrative of them in detail, sec Mr. A. W. W. Dale's art,
Diet, of Christ. Biogr. Vol. IV. p. 142 sq.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
I/I
cated his orthodoxy on the subject of the Trinity and spoke of
him with reverence and admiration. Basil and Gregory of Nazi-
anzum shared in these feelings and published the Philocalia,
selections from his writings. With them stood Gregory of Nyssa,
and Didymus, the teacher of Jerome. Jerome, who had lauded
Origen and translated some of his treatises, was won over to the
ranks of his denouncers, at the head of whom was Epiphanius.
He had been anticipated in his crusade by Pachomius, the founder
of Egyptian monasticism. After 394, Jerome joined hands with
the enemies of the great Alexandrian Teacher. His course in
volved a rupture of friendship with Rufinus, the disciple and trans
lator of Origen. Passing over intermediate events, we have to
notice briefly the last stage in this protracted conflict. After a
long interval of comparative quiet, the crusade was renewed under
the auspices of Justinian, in whose Epistle to Mennas, the primate
of Constantinople, there is an enumeration of Origen's alleged
heresies. Whether he was anathematized by name by the Fifth
General Council, in 553, is a question which cannot be confidently
decided. Hefele judges that the evidence is not sufficient to
warrant us in expunging his name from the list of heretics given
in the nth Canon.
£ The conversion of Constantine, if it brought peace to the Church,
was followed by a weakening of that antagonism to heathen rites
and_ customs which had prevailed during the centuries of persej
cution. In the fourth and fifth centuries a multitude of heathen,
professed Christianity, and brought within its palejiabits of thought
imbibed from polytheism, and cravings which demanded a
gate for'the heathen cults which they had given .up^ These
pers of mind, natural to the uneducated mass of converts, must
be regarded as the main source of manifold practices which
Protestants generally unite in pronouncing superstitious. Thus
there arose a degenerate Christianity, a partially debased type
of religion, — what has been called a Christianity of the " second
rank" or grade. All along we meet with a resistance on the
part of enlightened teachers to the encroachments of this pagan
ized Christianity. This protest, however, is often mixed with
concessions which go far to deprive it of its effect, and more and
more gives way to what seems to be an irresistible tide. The
Council of Elvira in Spain (306), in its 36th Canon, forbids pictures
in churches, lest the objects of worship and adoration should be
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
depicted on their walls. Eusebius of Caesarea declares all por
traitures of Christ to be offensive to the Christian conscience.
Epiphanius tore apart the curtain of a church in Palestine which
had on it the embroidered picture of a saint. But as time went
on, in defiance of earlier restrictions, now become obsolete, the
costly churches that were erected were furnished with mural paint
ings. Amulets were prized, and supposed fragments of the true
cross were peculiarly precious. Homage was paid to martyrs,
supplications were addressed to them, their intercessions were
sought. More and more their bones, even their wearing apparel
and everything that was associated with their persons when living,
shared in this religious reverence. It was not long before saints,
persons of distinguished sanctity, were raised nearly or quite to
the level of the martyrs. Especially the worship of Mary, whose
perpetual virginity came to be generally accepted, — although it
had not been held by so eminent a teacher as Basil, — was carried
to a great height, in particular after the beginning of the Nestorian
controversy. The office of angels was magnified in a proportional
degree. They were recipients of religious honors, as the guar
dians of towns and cities, as well as of nations, the protectors
against danger and calamity. The individual had his guardian
angel, replacing the genius of the old religion. Thus there arose
a Christian Pantheon. When Vigilantius, a Presbyter from the
West, came out in opposition to the worship of martyrs and their
relics, he was denounced by Jerome. Mgnasticism, with its holy
class, whose function it was to live according to a sublimated ideal
of morality, might easily lead Christians generally to content them
selves with a standard in an equal degree too low. On this subject,
also, Jerome was equally zealous in combating Vigilantius, and
Augustine contended against Jovinian. As concerns the worship
accorded to saints and angels, the theologians distinguished —
whatever confusion might exist in the popular mind — between
the qualified homage offered to created beings and the worship
of God. As to the use of pictures in worship, it was sometimes
said that the prohibition of the decalogue had reference to sym
bolical representations of heathen divinities. Their advantage as
giving pictorial lessons to the ignorant was also dwelt upon. It
deserves to be remembered that in the Sacrament the sole refer
ence of the offering was to God.
The influence of the example of the heathen mysteries, of the
ANCIENT THEOLOGY, 173
symbolism that characterized them, and of their supposed effect on
the initiated, insensibly affected Christian ideas and spread itself
over the Christian cultus. In the rites or worship it was increas
ingly the aim to realize through sensuous representations divine
realities, and to gain a foretaste of heavenly good. Hence a
sacredness was attached to every feature of the ritual. The entire
cultus was enveloped in an atmosphere of mysticism. In the East,
in the domain of Greek Christianity, there was thus established a
punctilious ritualism like that of the Romans under the heathen
system. This all- pervading, sacred syrrjjx)lism linked itself to the
doctrine of the Invalidation, the manifestation of God in visible
humanity. The consequence in the Greek world was a petrifac
tion both in doctrine and the ceremonies of worship. Not a
syllable in the creed could be changed, not a rite could be
touched.
The mystagogy which had entered into the life of the Church
in the East appeared full blown, in the closing part of the fifth
century, in the Writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. They are, as
regards the conception of God and the conception of religion as
the union of the soul to God, permeated with a New Platonic
mysticism, which thus gained a long-continued influence, reach
ing to the mediaeval schoolmen. God is transcendent. He is
exalted above the positive qualities ascribed to Him in the " cata-
phatic " theology and the denials of them in the negatives of the
" apophatic." All that is is good ; evil is negative, the absence of
the good. Communion with God is not through reflection, not
through a process of the intellect, but by illumination and purifica-
tigjn. This is by means of the heavenly hierarchy, consisting, after
God, of the three generic ranks of angels, to which correspond
the three orders of the hierarchy on earth. The transition from
the hierarchy above to the hierarchy below is through the Incarna
tion. The whole ceremonial of the Church is symbolical. It is
by this complexity of symbols, as upon ladders, that the soul
climbs to a direct union with God. The system of Dionysius had
a zealous disciple and advocate in Maximus, the Confessor, who
mingled, however, with its mysticism an ethical element in the
conception of the freedom of the will.
The strong hold which heathenism in its Christian guise had
gained is shown by the ineffectual struggles of the Iconoclasts in
the Greek Empire. The first great leader in the attack on the
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
use of images in worship was the rough soldier, but vigorous
ruler, the Emperor Leo the Isaurian (716-741). He was partly
stimulated to his onset on what he considered paganism in the
Church by the abhorrence of it felt by the Mohammedans.
Having put down a revolt in the Cyclades, caused by his repres
sive measures, he commanded all portable images to be taken
out of the churches and ordered the frescoes that could not be re
moved to be painted over. The Roman Bishops, Gregory I. and
Gregory II., took sides with his opponents. John of Damascus,
who, living in a cloister near Jerusalem, was safe under the pro
tection of the Caliph, defended the obnoxious practice, seeking a
justification for it in the analogon of the Incarnation. The son of
Leo, Constantine (JtJJD^pnymos, pursued the same course as his
father. A fierce contest arose everywhere between the Icono
clasts, both clergy and laity, who undertook to carry out the imperial
decrees, and the people, especially the monks, who resisted them.
It was not until the accession of Irene (780) that the image-
worshippers began to acquire the ascendency. Their triumph
was secured at the (second) Council of Nicsea in 787, which
commanded the restoration of the images to the places from
which they had been dislodged. The Council set up a distinction
between the religious Veneration1 — which included lights and
the burning of incense — to be offered to images, and the adora
tion,2 in the strict sense, which was due to God alone. Once
more, for a time, the Iconoclasts got the upper hand under Leo V.,
the Armenian, who had the army at his back, which ascribed the
disasters of the Empire to image-worship ; but in 842 the Icono-
dulists celebrated their final victory. In this conflict, which had
raged, with intervals of cessation, for upwards of a century, the
party of Iconoclasts was actuated by mixed motives, in which
civil policy, political subserviency, and religious indifferentism had
a large share, while their opponents, however superstitious, waged
the contest with deep sincerity. Its issue secured to the heathen
elements which had become incorporated in the Christianity of the
East an immovable place.
John of Damascus, the final expositor of the Greek theology in
the ancient period, was much influenced by Aristotle, and in the
turn of his mind was a scholastic theologian, in the technical sense.
On the Trinity and the Person of Christ he follows in the path
1 d<T7ra0>t6s ; TIHIJTIKT) irpoffittvrjffis, a \arpeia.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
175
opened by Leontius and Maximus the Confessor. In Anthropol
ogy, he is a dichotomist. He distinguishes between the " image "
and the " similitude " of God in man. In Eschatology, he ignores
the speculations of Origen, and is orthodox. On the Atonement,
he holds that the death of Christ is a sacrifice offered to God and
not a price to Satan. The " mysteries," the entire ritual, are made
an integral part of the orthodox system. The worship of images
is defended on the ground of unwritten tradition.
CHAPTER VI
THE THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF AUGUSTINE — THE PELAGIAN
) CONTROVERSY
V»*- v
AUGUSTINE is the most influential of all the teachers of the
Church since the Apostolic age. Preeminent in the West, as
Origen was among the theologians of the East, his sway was not
like that of Origen, disputed and broken. It was of far longer
continuance. This unrivalled influence grew out of the depth and
variety of his powers, and the sincerity, energy, and fervor of
his religious character. In him the dialectical and mystical ele
ments coalesced. He was at once a philosopher and a saint. At
the same time he was a man of letters and an orator. His Con
fessions are an outpouring of his heart in the form of a converse
of his soul with God. Yet among devotional expressions full of
ardor we find him interweaving distinctions respecting the divine
attributes. The subtilty of his genius and his dialectical turn,
together with jiis doctrine respecting faith and knowledge, not to
speak now of other parts of his teaching, made him the^founder
of the mediaeval theology. However it might swerve from his
opinions, there was no explicit revolt against them. Through
the Middle Ages, his word was counted to be law. His ideas
respecting the Church and its institutions were embodied in the
Roman Catholic system of hierarchical rule and sacramental
grace. His teaching on another side, and the type of his relig
ious experience, were a great source and warrant of the Protestant
Reformation. Luther had learned, as he says, more from him
than from any other non-biblical author. Calvin quotes him, as
he says, " more frequently than any other as the best and most
faithful Writer of Antiquity."1 The variety in the effects thus
traceable to Augustine, while it indicates the presence in his
1 Institut. IV. xiv. 26.
176
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
177
teaching of unreconciled elements, testifies also to the wealth of
its contents. Were there space here to review the course of his
mental and religious life, we should dwell on his early training,
which included whatever belonged to the liberal education of the
time, a training which made him conversant with the Latin poets
as well as other Latin authors, although his knowledge of Greek,
owing, as he confesses, to his own negligence, was always imper
fect ; to his awakening, after giving way to sensual temptation, to
higher thoughts and aspirations, through a passage in the Hor-
tensius of Cicero ; to his long novitiate in connection with the
Manichasans, from whom he vainly hoped for a solution of the
perplexities that distressed his mind, an appeasing of his thirst for
knowledge ; the interval of skepticism and despondency that
ensued ; the refreshing and stimulating influence of New Plato-
nism which impressed on him the reality of spiritual things, and
opened his spirit to Christian influences ; his conversion through
the influence of the study of the writings of the Apostle Paul
and the sermons of Ambrose. He appreciated at once the value
and the insufficiency of the " Platonic books." Acquainting himself
with them before he entered into the meaning of the Scriptures,
he could distinguish between " those who saw whither they were
to go, yet saw not the way, a way that leadeth not merely to
behold the beatific country, but to dwell in it." l Augustine had
studied in his youth the dialectics of Aristotle ; but his philosophy
continued to be that of the New Platonists. Two fundamental
factors concurred in giving to his interpretation of Christianity its
distinctive form. The first was the writings of the Apostle Paul,
or the Pauline teaching realized in his own inward experience.
The second was the existing ecclesiastical system, — the Catholic
Church, its authority, its traditions, its sacraments. According
to the view of Protestant Christians, the second factor partially
neutralized the proper action of the first. Thus there were
mingled in his intellectual life the seeds of two discordant
systems.
In Augustine's theology, j^h.. precedes knowledge and is the
key to knowledge. The first truth is that of the soul's own exist -
ence, which, like Descartes, Augustine holds to be involved in
every conscious thought, even in every conscious doubt. Besides
our sensations and our knowledge of our sensations, there is reason
i Con/. B. VIII, xx. 26.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
which seeks after knowledge, and judges either correctly or erro
neously. In these activities of reason we postulate a norm of
judgment, a truth higher than ourselves, which is unchangeable.
This unchangeable truth is a reality ; it is God. To know ourselves
as real is to know God as real. In God, or the Wisdom of God,
are the rational grounds of all things. Thus in faith, thefree
acknowledgment of self and of God, all knowledge is founde<
That material things exist is only an object of faith. It is only
another recognition of the principle of authority when we accept
the Scriptures and the traditions of the Church. Here faith as
sumes an ethical and religious character. But thought and inquiry
are legitimate, for we are destined for knowledge, and " knowledge
is the reward of faith." l The connecting link between God and
the World is the Logos, in whom, as the Wisdom of God, are the
invisible grounds of all things created. But creation is the free
act of God, not the moulding of any previously existing materials.
As concerns the attributes of God, they are relative to our appre
hension. " He is good without quality, great without quantity,"
etc. He is even super-substantial, and it is more proper to speak
of His ' essence ' than of His ' substance.' In Him substance and
attribute, like the attributes themselves, are indistinguishable.
Here our best science is nescience. Respecting the Trinity,
Augustine insists on the divine unity. His mode of presenting
this doctrine is in contrast with that of Gregory of Nyssa and the
later Nicaeans, and is akin to that adopted by Athanasius. The
distinction of persons is limited to their relation to one another.
There is but one substance or essence, and when we speak of
" three persons," it is only because we lack words to express the
distinction between the Father and the Son, and between the
Holy Ghost and the Father and the Son. " Certainly there are
Three . . . Yet when it is asked, what Three, human language
labors from great poverty of speech. We say ' three persons,'
not that it may be so said, but that we may not keep silence."2
We say of each person that He is omnipotent, " but there are not
three omnipotents.3 The expressions of Augustine evidently were
at the basis of the so-called Athanasian Creed. ..In the concep
tion of the person of Christ, his humanity comes to its rights more
nearly than is true of the Eastern champions of orthodoxy. The
1 Ev.Johann. Tract. 29, § 6. Letters, 120.
2 De Trin. V. c. 9. * Ibid. c. 8.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
179
voluntary humiliation of Christ in becoming incarnate is an aspect
of the doctrine on which Augustine delights to dwell.
When we seek to determine where Augustine placed the seat of
authority, we meet with statements not easily reconcilable. He is
most deeply impressed with the evidences of divine inspiration in
the Scriptures. " To the canonical Scriptures alone I owe agree
ment without any dissent."1 Yet we find also numerous state
ments of the same general tenor as the following : " I should not
believe the Gospel, did not the authority of the Catholic Church
move me thereto."2 Moreover, he professes his faith in many
things which are not found in the Scriptures, but only in the
traditions accepted by the Church. On questions pertaining to
the Canon itself the decisions of the Church are with him de
cisive. At least a partial explanation of this inconsistency is sug
gested when we look at the circumstance of his conversion. When,
in listening to the preaching of Ambrose, his heart began to be
deeply stirred, he was surprised by the disclosure to his soul of
truth in the Scriptures which was far more profound than his
superficial interpretations had before discovered to him. It was
under the auspices of the Church, from the lips of its authorized
and anointed teachers, that he was thus lifted up to a new dis
cernment and appropriation of Biblical teaching. Apart from
this special influence, and along with it, the impression made by
the Church, spread as it was over the world, and stretching back
to the days of the Apostles, with its martyrs and saints, its miracles,
its intrepid condemnation of the world, its extending conquests,
was such as to excite belief in its claims to authority. In the
prosecution of the contest with the Donatists, Augustine was led
to 4evelop and define hisconception of thsJ^hnirji. The notes
of the Church are unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.
The CJmrcJi^ is the organization which is'* connected by The,
Apostolic Sees, among which Rome is preeminent, with the
Apostles. Ecclesiastical , discipline is a duty, but Jdeal perfectign
is^not possible here on earth. The tares must be left to grow
with the wheat. Not all who are within the fold of the Church
are heirs of salvation. On the great disputed questions of the
validity of baptism by heretics, and of ordination by traditors, he
maintained the affirmative, with the qualification that rites thus
performed require, not to be repeated, but to be supplemented
1 Nat. et Grat. 61. a Cont. Epist. Munich. 5.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
by the public admission of the recipients into the Church Catholic.
This position was conformed to the ordinances of the Synod of
Aries in 314. The proposition, which had been previously vindi
cated by Optatus of Milevis, that the sacraments are to this extent
valid, independently of the personal character of the administrators,
was established. Augustine connected his view with the general
ground that while love, the essential of salvation, is a grace to be:
acquired only within the Church, faith and hope, its proper, but
not necessary, precursors, are possible without its pale.
At this point, it is convenient to call attention to Augustine's
doctrine concerning the relation of faith to personal salvation.
The student of Augustine will subscribe to the remark of Harnack,
that " whoever looks away from the formulas to the spirit will
find everywhere in the Writings of Augustine a stream of Pauline
faith." 1 Yet in his dogmatic expositions, the Pauline conception
is modified in such a way that the organic relation of faith to
works, or its necessary relation, does not appear. The faith that
justifies is faith to which love is united. The solution which he
offers of the seeming contradiction of Paul and James is this :
their common doctrine is that faith is the first in order, but James
is interested to emphasize the point that it does not avail unless
,it is followed by works.2 Augustine retains the doctrjne_of merits,
as__taught_by his_ predecessors, only he magnifies grace by pro-
j nouncing all our.mgrits to' be God's gifts.3 Since it is held that
baptism effaces guilt for the past, and from the general turn of
Augustine's teaching, it would appear, that although his sense
of the guilt of sin is keen, it is less intense than his sense of the
tyranny of sin and of the corruption entailed by it.
Augustine reproduces the theory of a relation of the death of
Christ to Satan. Satan's dominion, after man's surrender, existed
of right ; but by inflicting death on one who was sinless, he justly
forfeited that dominion. Augustine, however, does not confine
himself to this view of the Atonement. The righteousness of God
is the motive of the infliction of punishment. There was a double
ground for the Incarnation of Christ, first that by suffering all
things in behalf of us He might deliver us from the bonds of sin,
and secondly, that He might set us free from its power.4 " He
took on himself, being without guilt, our punishment, that he
1 DG. III. 71. 2 De Fide et Oper. 14. « Con/. IX. 34.
* De Vcra Rclig. I. 1 6. See Baur, DG. I. (2), 382.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY jgj
might put away our guilt and put an end to our punishment."1
There are passages of like import in Hilary and Ambrose.2
The symbolical nature of Sacraments is very frequently set forth
by Augustine. Sacraments are said to be " visible words." " In
a sacrament, one thing is seen, another is understood." A sacra
ment is "the visible form of an invisible grace." Yet it is far
from his conception that the §a^rj^£nts are bare symbols. They
are_the_ concomitants, and inj^sense the vehicles, of the grace
which they figure tr> th«* jjfnggs- The water of baptism shows
outwardly " the sacrament 'of grace " ; the Spirit working inwardly
"the be nefit of grace."3 It brings the forgiveness of sin; it weak
ens its power within us. The literal interpretation of John vi. 33
is repudiated. The passage means that we are to participate in
the sufferings of our Lord, and remember meetly and to our profit
His death for us.4 We are not to confound signs with the thing
signified.5 The body of Christ which was on earth is now in
heaven.6 Yet those who are in " the unity of Christ's body " — in
the Church Catholic — " are truly said to eat the body and drink
the blood of Christ." 7 " He that dwelleth not in Christ, and in
whom Christ dwelleth not, neither eateth his flesh nor drinketh
his blood.8 But the Sacrament is a sacrifice, the life and soul
of which is the spiritual self-devotion of its recipients to God ;
nevertheless a sacrifice bringing benefit to the departed.
An essential element in Augustine's theodicy is the doctrine
that as God's plan is universal, His purpose and His will are com
pletely carried out. The goal that is aimed at in the creation is
attained. The Being who has not left " even the entrails of the
smallest and most insignificant animal, or the feather of a bird, or
the little flower of a plant, or the leaf of a tree, without a harmony,
and, as it were, a mutual peace among all its parts, — that God
can never be believed to have left the kingdoms of men, their
dominations and servitudes, outside of the laws of his Provi
dence." ' Evil exists, but evil, even moral evil, is a negation ;
it is the absence, or the privation, of good. It is therefore not
1 C. Faust. Manich. XIV. I. In Sermo 137, he apostrophizes Christ —
" sustinens poenam, ut et culpam solvas et poenam."
2 See Thomasius, DG. I. 409, 410. 6 Ep. 205, i.
8 Ep. 98, 2. 7 De Civ. Dei, XXI. 25.
* De Christ. Doctr. III. 16. 8 In Johann. Tract. 26, 1 8.
• Ibid. 9. » De Civ. Dei, V. 1 1.
j82 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
an object of creation. God is not its author. Moreover, God's
will is never defeated. The will of the creature when it opposes
the will of the Creator, He uses to carry out His will. He turns
evil into good. He accomplishes some of his purposes through
the evil desires of wicked men. When evil exists, God permits
it and wills to permit it.1 Augustine does not shrink from the
paradoxical saying, " it is good that evil exists." In the Civitas
Dei, the attempt is made to vindicate God's character in the
ordering of the course of history. The author was led to write
it by complaints uttered against Christianity by the heathen after
the capture of Rome by the Goths. There are two communities
whose origin is traced back six thousand years to the beginnings
of the race. One is the city of God, the other is the city of the
world. . . . The former begins with Abel ; the latter with Cain,
of whom it is significantly said that he " built a city." The one
is composed of the people of God, led forward from age to age,
through the old dispensation, and under the new, and destined to
attain to everlasting blessedness. The other is composed of the
wicked, consisting both of the flagrantly bad, but, also, of the
virtuous according to a human estimate, such as patriots, heroes
and sages, who are nevertheless without love to God. The end of
the members of the civitas mundi is eternal misery. During the
three ages of mankind, the period antecedent to Israel, the Old
Testament period, and the Christian — which are also subdivided
so as to made six in all — useful inventions, arts, and sciences
arise, kingdoms and empires are built up, — all subserving a
divine plan, and productive of much good. But secular society,
the institutions of human government, are in their origin tainted
with evil. Their necessity and their use are conditioned on the
introduction and spread of sin. Under this pre-supposition, hu
man government, the government of the Roman Empire, has a
rightful existence, and is ordained of God. But the Church is
the civitas Dei, which the State is bound to protect and uphold,
even to the extent of exercising coercion against heretics and
assailants of its legitimate authority. The end of the world is a
final conflagration which is followed by a new world, the abode of
the righteous, the heirs of salvation.
Augustine adopts a literal view of the mode of the resurrection,
and meets objections by fanciful hypotheses relative to the com-
1 Enchiridion, c. 101.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY 183
position and the stature of the bodies of the redeemed. He holds
fast to the prevalent doctrine of everlasting punishment, which he
tells us that " very many " disbelieve.1 It may be that the pains of
the condemned are at certain intervals mitigated. It may be that
" some believers " pass through a " kind of purgatorial fire " after
death. "It is a matter that may be inquired into or left doubt
ful." 2 But Augustine distinctly avers that the sacraments and alms
of the faithful on earth are of service to that middle class who are
neither too good to need such a benefit, nor too bad to have it
granted to them. It accrues to none save those who on earth
have earned such merit that such services can help them.3
In expounding the opinions of Augustine on Sin and Grace,
the most distinctive part of his theology, we are brought to the
Pelagian Controversy, in which his opinions in their mature form
were set forth and defended. Pelagius, a British monk, came to
Rome about the beginning of the fifth century. The ablest sup
porters of his teaching were Coelestius, who had been a Roman
lawyer, but became a monk, and later, Julian, Bishop of Eclanum,
a man of striking ability and an acute polemic. The external
events of the controversy, which involved a crisis of importance
parallel with that produced by the Ariari Controversy in the East,
will be touched upon hereafter. There were really two systems at
war with one another. Their main points can be here best exhib
ited by placing them in contrast, without reference to the chrono
logical course of the discussion.
Pelagius was a monk, strict if not austere in his morality. Augus
tine himself testifies to the high esteem in which he was held for
the purity of his life.4 He had passed through no arduous inward
struggle with propensities to evil, but approached the topics of
debate from an ethical point of view. Human responsibility and
its necessary conditions were the matter uppermost in his thoughts.
Before the contest began, he had found fault with Augustine's
sentence in the Confessions : " Give what Thou commandest, and
command what Thou wilt." His habits of mind, in connection
with his personal experience, naturally led him to extreme views
concerning obedience as a constitutive element in religion and
human power as commensurate with obligation. A rationalistic
1 Enchirid. 112. 2 Ibid. c. 66. 8 Ibid. no.
4 Ep. 1 86, ad Paul. De Pecc. Merit. III. i, 3. See Wiggers, Augustinism
and Pclagianism, p. 42 sq.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
tendency in the interpretation of the Gospel, a certain " moralism,"
were the natural accompaniments of this tendency. Augustine, on
the other hand, was most deeply impressed with the fact of man's
dependence. With him, human sin and human need were the
realities apart from which the salvation through the Gospel had no
meaning, or was emptied of its essential character. His point of
view was predominantly religious. In the first place, the world
itself, instead of being launched into being and left to a self-devel
opment, is forever dependent on God's co-working energy. In
the second place, man is not himself the author of goodness ; he
has no goodness save in communion with God, and this is impossi
ble — impossible for unfallen man or for any creature — without
God's indwelling, inspiring grace.1 Pelagius's opinion of unfallen
man was the very opposite. He is qualified for right or for wrong
action through a complete, inherent capacity.2 In the third place,
while Pelagius considered the freedom of the will to be the power
of alternate choice, — an inalienable power of contrary choice, —
with Augustine freedom in the true sense is the soul's actual superi
ority to the lower propensities, subjection to which is servitude.
Freedom thus coalesces with necessity, a necessity, however, which
is not constraint.3 In the case of God and of perfected saints, it is
a blessed necessity. Augustine cannot be said to be strictly a
determinist in his theory of the will ; for, in the first place, he held
to a power of contrary choice in civil or worldly concerns, and
secondly, he held to the existence, as a temporary possession, of the
same power in Adam, in the sphere of morals and religion. It was
in him a part of the apparatus of personal responsibility,4 but was
destined to merge on one side or the other, in a state of the will,
permanent, and if evil, by his own act irrevocable. But practically,
after the moral decision was made, determinism comes into play.
According to Augustine, Adam, through the grace given him,
was able to remain upright, in communion with God. By his
own act, the reverse of which was possible to him, he brought on
1 " His free-will would not have sufficed for his continuance in righteous
ness, unless God had assisted it by imparting a portion of his unchangeable
goodness." Enchirid. 106.
2 See, e.g., Ep. ad Demetr. c. 2, 3, 13, 14, and, in Augustin. De Grat. Christ.
4, De Nat. et Grat. 47. See, also, Julian (in August. Op. Imp. VI. 9, I. 91).
8 See, e.g., C. Duas Epp. Pel. I. 18.
4 " Man in Paradise was able of his own will, simply by abandoning right
eousness, to destroy himself." Enchirid. 106.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
I85
himself, justly, physical death, moral guilt, and an enslavement of
the will to sin. These consequences, likewise justly, appear in his
descendants from their birth.1
Augustine's theory rests on the idea that human nature as a
whole was deposited in the first man. This nature, as it came
from the hands of God, was pure. The long battle which he had
fought with Manichaean philosophy, both in his own soul and after
his conversion, made him sedulous to avoid their peculiar tenet.
But human nature, existing in its totality in Adam, was corrupted
in the first act of transgression, and as such is transmitted to his
descendants. The instrument of this transmission is the sexual
appetite. This appetite is itself the fruit of the first sin, as well
as the means whereby the sinful nature is communicated from
father to son. The race was embodied in its first representative,
and, when the race is unfolded or developed, the qualities which
it acquired in his act, which was both generic and individual,
appear as the personal possession of each individual at birth.
As a personal act, the first sin was not our act but the act of
another ; yet it was truly the common act of mankind in their
collective or undistributed form of existence. For the con
sequences of this act all are therefore responsible ; and as soon
as they exist as individuals, they exhibit in themselves the same
corruption of nature, — the same inordinate appetites (con
cupiscence), and slavery of the will to sin, — which resulted to
Adam. " This theory would easily blend with Augustine's specu
lative form of thought, as he had appropriated to himself the
Platonico-Aristotelian Realism in the doctrine of general con
ceptions, and conceived of general conceptions as the original
types of the kind realized in individual things." 2 It may be
remarked here that Realism either in the extreme Platonic form
or in the more moderate Aristotelian type, prevailed from
Augustine down through the Middle Ages, being embraced by the
orthodox schoolmen, and ruling both the great schools during the
productive, golden era of scholastic theology. That the realistic
mode of thought extensively influenced Protestant theology at the
Reformation and afterwards, admits of no question. But since it
is far from being true that all Augustinians have been avowed,
much less, self-consistent, Realists, it is better when we speak of
them as a class, to say that they are swayed by a realistic mode
1 See, e.g., DC Corrept. et Graf. 10. 2 Neander, Ch. History, II. 609.
lS6 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of thought than that they are the advocates of an explicit Realism.
It should be added that Realism, as far as it affected Augustine,
was rather a prop than a Source of his doctrine. The fact of
innate sin was so deeply lodged in his convictions that he was not
averse to any plausible support or defense of it that lay within his
reach.
In relation to the doctrine of a generic sin in Adam, we observe
that after he became established in this opinion, and through all of
his numerous treatises relating to the Pelagian Controversy, there
is a great uniformity in his expressions. The same set of proposi
tions and arguments appears and reappears. In that great sin of
the first man our nature was deteriorated, and not only became
sinful, but generates sinners.1 We were all in Adam and sinned
when he sinned. In his interpretation of Romans v. 12, he first
sets aside the supposition that the in quo of the Vulgate
refers to " sin " or to " death," and infers that it must refer to
Adam himself. " Nothing remains," he says, " but to conclude
that in the first man all are understood to have sinned, because
all were in him when he sinned ; whereby sin is brought in
with birth and not removed save by the new birth." He then
quotes approvingly the sentence ascribed to Hilary, the Roman
deacon : " it is manifest that in Adam all sinned, so to speak,
en masse"* By that sin we became a corrupt mass — massa
perditionis?
So important was this hypothesis in his view, that his defence
of the doctrine of Original Sin turned upon it. Without it, he
knew of no refuge against the sharp and merciless logic of his
adversaries. Pelagius himself was a man of no mean ability ; but
Augustine found in Julian his peer in dialectic skill, which he
owed partly to his Aristotelian training. Julian was a sharp and
vigorous, as well as a fearless antagonist. He seized on the vul
nerable points in Augustine's theory, and pursued him with ques
tions and objections, which the latter was quite unable to parry
except by his Realistic hypothesis. This is strikingly shown in
the Opus Imperfection or Rejoinder to the Second Response of
Julian. The Pelagian makes his appeal to the sense of justice
1 De Nupt. et Concup. II. xxxiv.
2 Cont. duas Epp. Pelag. IV. 7, cf. Op. Imp. II. bdii., De Pec. Mer. et
Remis. III. vii.
8 De Pecc. Orig. 31, De Correct, et Graf. 7.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
which God has implanted in every human breast, and which utters
a firm and indignant protest against the doctrine that we are
blamed, condemned, and punished for what we could not have
prevented. He lays hold of passages in favor of the voluntari-
ness of sin, which Augustine had written, whilst he was bent on
controverting the Manichaeans. To all this Augustine could only
reply that sin began in an act of the human will — the will of
Adam ; that in him was the very nature with which we are born ;
that we thus participated in that act, and justly partake of the
corruption that ensued upon it. He constantly falls back, first on
the authority of Paul, in the fifth of Romans, and hardly less often
on the authority of Ambrose, whose assertion of our community
of being with Adam and agency in his transgression, had the
greatest weight with his admiring and reverential pupil.
But how vital the hypothesis of sinning in Adam was in Augus
tine's theology is perhaps most manifest in the way in which he
treats the litigated question of the origin of souls. We may say
here that a great mistake is made by those who imagine that
Creationists — that is, those who believe that each soul is sepa
rately created — cannot be Realists. Whether they can be con
sistent and logical Realists may, to be sure, be doubted. At the
present day traducianism — the theory that souls result from pro
creation — is accepted by theologians who believe, with Augustine,
that we literally sinned in Adam. But this is very far from being
the uniform fact in the past. Even Anselm, like the Schoolmen
generally, was a Creationist. He, with a host of theologians before
and after him, held firmly to our real, responsible participation in
Adam's fall and to the corruption of our nature in that act, and
yet refused to count himself among the traducians. We must take
history as it is and not seek to read into it our reasonings and
inferences. If we do not find philosophers self- consistent, we
must let them remain self-inconsistent, instead of altering their
systems to suit our ideas of logical harmony.
In respect to the question of the origin of souls, the letter of
Augustine to Jerome is a most interesting document, and one the
importance of which has seldom been duly recognized.1 He had
previously expressed himself as doubtful on the question, though
obviously leaning towards the traducian side.2 But the fear of
materialistic notions, enhanced as it was by the opposition of the
1 Epistol. Classis, III. clxvi. 2 De Gen. ad loc. L. x.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Church to the refined .materialism of Tertullian, deterred Augus
tine then, as always, from espousing the traducian theory. This
fear, it may be here observed, together with the feeling that this
theory gives too much agency to second causes in the production
of the soul, operated in subsequent times to dissuade theologians
from giving sanction to the same hypothesis. The letter to Jerome
is a candid and memorable expression of the difficulties in which
Augustine found himself involved on the subject to which it relates.
To Jerome he resorts for light. He begins by saying that he
has prayed and still prays God to grant that his application may
be successful. The question of the origin of souls is one of deep
concern to him. Of the soul's immortality he has no doubt,
though it be not immortal as if it were a part of God, and in the
same mode in which He is immortal. Of the immateriality of the
soul, he is equally certain ; and his arguments to show the absurd
ity of supposing the soul to occupy space are convincingly stated.
He is certain, moreover, that the soul is fallen into sin by no
necessity, whether imposed by its own nature or by God. Yet
the soul is sinful and without baptism will perish. How can this
be? He entreats Jerome to solve the problem. "Where did
the soul contract the guilt by which it is brought into condemna
tion?" In his book De Libero Arbitrio, he had made mention
of four opinions in regard to the origin of souls, first, that souls
are propagated, the soul of Adam alone having tieen created ;
secondly, that for every individual a new soul is created ; thirdly,
that the soul preexists in each case, and is sent by God into the
body at birth ; fourthly, that the soul preexists, but comes into
the body of its own will. A fifth supposition that the soul is a
part of Deity, he had not had occasion to consider. But he had
gained no satisfactory answer to the problem. Beset by inquirers,
he had been unable to solve their queries. Neither by prayer,
reading, reflection, or reasoning, had he been able to find his way
out of his perplexity.1
" Teach me, therefore, I beg you, what I should teach, what I
should hold ;, and tell me, if it be true that souls are made now
and separately with each separate birth, where in little children
they sin, that they should need in the sacrament of Christ the
remission of sin " ; " or if they do not sin, with what justice they
1 Epist. III. LXV. c. iv. 9. " Et ea neque orando, neque legendo, neque
cogitando et ratiocinando invenire potuimus."
ANCIENT THEOLOGY j 89
are so bound by another's sin, when they are inserted in the
mortal, propagated members, that damnation follows them, unless
it is prevented by the Church (through baptism) ; since it is not
in their power to cause the grace of baptism to be brought to
them. So many thousands of souls, then, which depart from their
bodies without having received Christian baptism, — with what
justice are they condemned, in case they are newly created, with
no preceding sin, but, on the contrary, by the will of the
Creator, each of these souls was given to each new-born child,
for animating whom He created and gave it, — by the will of the
Creator, who knew that each of them, through no fault of his own,
would go out of the body without Christian baptism ? Since, then,
we can neither say of God that He compels souls to become sin
ful, or punishes the innocent, and since likewise it is not right to
assert that those who depart from the body without the sacrament,
even little children, escape from damnation ; / beseech you to say
how this opinion is defended which assumes that souls come into
being, not all from that one soul of the first man, but for every
man a separate soul, like that one for Adam ? "
Other objections to creationism Augustine feels competent
easily to meet ; but when it comes to the penalties inflicted on
little children, he begs Jerome to believe that he is in a strait and
knows not what to think or to say.1 He confesses that what he
had written in his book on Free-Will of the imaginary benefits of
suffering, even to infants, will not suffice to explain even the suffer
ings of the unbaptized in this life. "I require, therefore, the
ground of this condemnation of little children, because, in case
souls are separately created, I do not see that any of them sin at
that age, nor do I believe that any one is condemned by God, whom
He sees to have no sin." He repeats again and again this pressing
inquiry. " Something perfectly strong and invincible is required,
which will not force us to believe that God condemns any soul
without any fault." He fervently desires from Jerome the means
of escaping from this great perplexity ; he would prefer to em
brace the Creationist theory ; but on this theory, he sees no possi
ble mode in which native, inherent depravity and the destruction
of the unbaptized can be held, consistently with the justice of
God.
1 " Magnis, mihi, crede, coarctor angustiis, nee quid respondeam prorsus
invenio."
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Such was the theology of Augustine. If there is no real partici
pation in Adam's transgression on our part, he can see no justice
in making us partakers of its penalty, or in attributing to us a
sinful nature from birth.
"Persona corrumpit naturam ; natura corrumpit personam."
So the doctrine was summarily stated. In Adam human nature,
by his act, was vitiated. That corrupted nature is transmitted,
through physical generation, to his descendants. They acted in
him — in another — and are, therefore, truly counted sinners,
being sinfully corrupt from the beginning of individual life. Con
cupiscence, the principle of sin, includes the baser proclivities of
human nature, but it is the sexual passion which Augustine most
frequently has in mind in connection with the term. The sexual
instinct, he holds, was, in Paradise, void of lust and unattended by
shame.
In the system of Pelagius men were made mortal.1 They did
not become such by Adam's sin. As far as they are sinners it is
by doing as Adam did. All good or evil is something " done by
us, for we are capable of either." 2 There is at our birth nothing
within us but what God placed there.3 The supposition of sin in
infants before the exercise of reason, prior to the " election " of
evil, is monstrous. Pelagius makes room in his theory for the
increase and spread of sin among mankind, which renders it more
difficult to do right ; but the liberty of election is never subverted.4
Augustine's idea of character was qualitative. Everything de
pends on the single, underlying principle. If this be the love of
God, man is righteous. If the love of God is absent, his virtues
are at best splcndida vitia. The idea of the unity or simplicity of
character has no place in the system of Pelagius. His conception
of character is atomistic. In keeping with this difference, while
1 We have the extant writings of Pelagius himself: the Exposition.es in
Epist. Paul, Epist. ad Demetr., and the LibelL Fidei et Innocent, (both in
cluded among Jerome's works, the latter in Hahn, 2d ed. p. 213 sq.). Other
writings of Pelagius are only fragments, in Augustine and other opponents.
We have fragments of Coelestius in quotations in Augustine. For fragments
of his Confession of Faith, see Hahn, p. 218. Copious extracts from Julian
are in Augustine (Opw Imperfect, etc., and elsewhere), and in Marius Mer-
cator. Julian's Confession of Faith is in Hahn, p. 219 sq.
2 Pelagius, De lib. arbitr. (in Augustin., De Pecc. Orig. 14)
8 See Aug. De Pecc. Orig. 13.
* Ep. ad Demetr. c. 8 : " Longa consuetude vitiorum," etc.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
Augustine believed in the universality of sin (with the possible
exception of the Virgin Mary), Pelagius held that some — for
example, Abel, John the Baptist — had lived without sin.
In reply to Augustine's argument from the practise of infant
baptism, the Pelagians brought forward a distinction between
"life eternal," to which the unbaptized may attain, and the
" kingdom of heaven," a state of higher blessedness, which is open
only to the baptized. Baptized persons, said Augustine, are not
free from original sin. It is only the guilt that is washed away in
baptism ; the concupiscence, although weakened, is entailed and
remains.
Respecting the condition of the human will since the fall,
Augustine affirms that the will is not eradicated ; it continues in
full activity.1 Yet there is a bondage of the will, with no power
of self-deliverance. "We are not liberated from righteousness
save by the choice of the will ; we are not liberated from sin
save by the grace of the Redeemer."
To Pelagius the grace of God consisted in the revelations made
of His will and of the truth, first as sin began to increase, in the
Law, and then through the life and teaching of Christ.2 To these
gifts of grace are added the discipline of trials and the like.
Grace facilitates the right action of the will, but this action under
the Gospel is from man himself, accepting and obeying when he
has full power to refuse and disobey. Liberty continues, which
Julian concisely defines as the possibility in the will of either admit
ting or avoiding sin, it being exempt from a constraining necessity.
Whatever aids of grace are specially bestowed on Christians are
procured by their own merits. According to Augustine, all ex
ternal provisions designed to move the heart are ineffectual as a
means of conversion, apart from the Grace of the Spirit operating
within the soul. By this inward power from above, the will,
in the case of all true believers, is not only enabled to believe, but
is effectually moved to believe. There is bestowed not only, as
the Pelagians taught, the esse and the posse, but also the vetfe, —
the right choice, the new heart.
From the sinfulness and impotency of all men, Augustine
deduced the doctrine of unconditional predestination. They who
believe in the Gospel with a saving faith are not merely elected to
be the recipients of the heavenly reward ; they are elected to be
1 C. duas Epp. Pelag. II. 9. * See in Augustine, De Grat. Christ.
192
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the recipients of faith.1 Faith itself is the gift of God. All others
are left in their sins — left to perish. They are not predestinated
to sin, but rather to the punishment which sin deserves, from
which they are not saved by electing grace. The number of the
elect is fixed.2 It is predetermined in the plan of God. But not
all believers are of the elect. Perseverance in the new, holy life
is the gift of God, and is bestowed on that portion of believers to
whom God in His inscrutable wisdom chooses to grant it.
The doctrines which are sketched above were not the opinions
of Augustine in the earlier period subsequent to his conversion.
It was the period in which he controverted the Manichseans. At
that time he held, not to absolute, but to conditional, predestination,
and to a reserved power in the will, notwithstanding our need of
divine succor. Man, he held, can exercise faith by his own power,
and thereby obtain the gift of converting grace. In 394, when he
wrote his commentary on the Romans, he contrasted an election
on the ground of works with election conditioned on faith, and
ascribed to the elect hidden merits — occultissima merita — that
is, certain dispositions of heart which are the ground and reason
of their being elected. Further reflection on his own spiritual
experience and later study of the Scriptures convinced him that
election is unconditional, that the contrast in the Epistle to the
Romans is not between an election on the ground of works and an
election on the ground of faith, but between a work springing
wholly from God, and man's doings of whatever sort. The election
of a man is not a judgment in his favor, in comparison with other
men, but an act of sovereign grace. In the Apostle's assertion
(i Tim. ii. 1-4) : " Who will have all men to be saved, and to come
unto the knowledge of the truth," Augustine makes " all men "
denote " every sort of men." That is, the gift of salvation is not
restricted to any one nation or class. But we cannot believe that
" the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was
not done." 3
A study of Augustine's Writings reveals to us two discordant
veins of thought. There are two currents and they flow in oppo
site directions. On the one hand, there is the common Catholic
1 De Praedest. Sanctorum, 37, c. 1 8.
2 De Corrept. et Grot. 39, c. 15.
8 Enchirid. 103.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
ecclesiasticism, in which he lived and moved, and which as a
rule shapes his doctrinal statements. On the other hand, there
is the great idea of the church spiritual and invisible, composed
of the saints elect. This church is included within the ecclesias
tical body. The latter is a corpus per mix turn. Election does
not cleave to the sacraments. They have no saving efficacy for
the non- elect. Augustine wrote no full and elaborate system.
When his mind is turned to that spiritual body to which alone
future blessedness belongs, we find him no longer insisting on
the indispensableness of baptism and of the other sacraments.
There were men who were not Israelites, who yet belonged to
" the spiritual Jerusalem." That " holy and wonderful man Job "
was undeniably one of these. This instance of Job is given us
in Scripture that we might infer the existence of a larger, spiritual
Israel, embracing men of other nations.1 The Cumaean Sybil is
referred to by Augustine as another like example.2 More general,
and, as we may say, more generous, are statements in a letter to
Deogratias.3 " From the beginning of the human race," it is said,
"whosoever believed in Him" — that is in Christ, who prefigured
in different ways the manifestation of Himself in the flesh — " and
in any way knew him, and lived in a pious and just manner accord
ing to his precepts, was undoubtedly saved by him, in whatever
time and place he may have lived." Attention to much that
Augustine says relative to the hierarchy and ordination discovers
the' same bent as that here illustrated. The Enchiridion, which
is the only summary view of theology that he composed, connects
the development of doctrine with the three Christian virtues,
Faith, Hope, and Love.4
1 DC Civ. Dei, XVIII. 47. 2 Ibid. 23. 3 Let. OIL 12.
4 The antithesis in Augustine between the " vulgar-Katholisch " line of
thought and teaching and the spiritual, non-ecclesiastical, as well as other
antitheses in Augustine's teaching, are lucidly and thoroughly described by
H. Reuter, in his Augustinische Studien (1887). See especially the excellent
summaries, pp. 100-105, 150-152, 355-358. See, also, Harnack's very able
exposition of Augustine (DG. Vol. III.).
CHAPTER VII
PELAGIANISM AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE EAST ON THE CON
TROVERTED TOPICS — SEMI-PELAGIANISM — GREGORY I.
IN 411, Pelagius and Ccelestius went over to Africa, where
Pelagius met Augustine. Pelagius soon betook himself to the
East. In 412, the Presbyter Pauliniis, from Milan, charged
Coelestius with heresy, before a synod at Carthage, imput
ing to him six heretical propositions.1 Coelestius was excluded
from the fellowship of the Church, and repaired to the East.
There Jerome, with no clear understanding of the points of the
controversy, and swayed by his hostility to Rufinus, who was a
friend of Pelagius, entered with heat into the warfare against his
doctrines. In 415, Orosius, a young Spanish presbyter who was
on a visit to Jerome, made an accusation against Pelagius before
an assembly of Jerusalem presbyters under their bishop John,
who, on hearing the explanation of the accused, declined to
pronounce against him. As Pelagius was of the Latin Church,
he said, it belonged to the Roman bishop to take cognizance of
the matter. In the same year, at a Synod at Diospolis in Pales
tine, presided over by Eulogius, Bishop of Csesarea, Pelagius was
again charged with heresy by the Western bishops, but was ac
quitted, owing, Augustine alleges, to a lack of candor in his dis
avowals.2 The Synods of Carthage and Mileve and Augustine
personally, in 416, made a successful effort to procure a condem
nation of Pelagius and Ccelestius, from Innocent I. But his
successor, Zosimus, on receiving a confession of faith which
Pelagius had sent to Innocent, and certain declarations from
Ccelestius, pjublicly testified to the orthodoxy of both. The
African bishops, assembled at Carthage, at the end of 417 or
1 Mercator, Comm. II. p. 133. See Miinscher, DG. I. 374, N. I.
2 For accounts of this Synod, see Mansi, IV. pp. 315 sq. See Hefele,
History of Councils, II. B. VIII. § 118.
194
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
195
the beginning of 418, declared their adherence to the decision
of Innocent. At a general council of the North African bishops
in 418, eight or nine Canons were passed, asserting the Augus-
tinian, and rejecting the Pelagian, opinions.1 The Emperor
Honorius was induced to issue a threatening Rescript against
the adherents of the new heresy. There were other imperial
edicts promulgated later of the same character. Zosimus, after a
second and then a general African Council at Carthage, although
he had previously begun to waver, changed his position. At a
Roman Synod, Pelagius and Coelestius were condemned, and a
circular epistle — tractoria — was issued by Zosimus, sanctioning in
full the action of the North African Church. All bishops in the
West were required to assent to the letter of Zosimus on pain of
deposition. Eighteen bishops, of whom Julian of Eclanam was
the most eminent, refused compliance. Many of them took
refuge in the East. Julian was received by Theodore of Mop-
suestia, who did not agree with all his opinions, but rejected the
doctrine of innate sin. Their connection with Nestorius and
his followers brought upon some of the Pelagians a share of their
unpopularity. Marius Mercator, a layman from the West, made
great exertions to convince the Emperor Theodosius II. of the
heterodoxy of the Pelagians. As a result of these complications,
the Council of Ephesus in 431, which condemned Nestorius,
condemned also Ccelestius and his adherents, but without
specifying their errors. It is obvious in all these transactions
that the real convictions of the Eastern Church were midway
between Augustine and Pelagius, and that the East, especially
the Antiochian .theologians, apart from influences from without
and from accidental causes, were disposed to tolerate the obnox
ious leaders. These leaders always affirmed that their opinions
contained no dogmas, had received no authoritative condemna
tion from the Church, but related to questions where debate and
difference of judgment were permissible.
The support which Augustine received in the West, as concerns f
the doctrines of absolute inability, irresistible grace, and uncondi- \
tional predestinatiojij was far from being unanimous. The Gen- 1
eral Council of Carthage had gone no farther than to declare that !
it was the fall of Adam that brought in death, that infants are to
be baptized for the remission of sin derived from Adam, that
1 Mansi, III. 810-823. See Hefele (as above), § 119.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
grace operates within the soul, giving the requisite aid to avoid
sin, that sinless perfection is unattainable in this life. In 426 or
427, it was reported to Augustine that the monks in the cloister
of Adrumetum in North Africa were in some cases driven to
despair, in other cases moved to careless self-indulgence, by his
teaching as to man's helplessness and as to irresistible grace. He
addressed to them two Writings to correct these evils.1 Even
Jerome, the champion of the Augustinian cause, did not give up
his belief in a remaining freedom in the will, nor did he really
adopt the tenets of absolute election and irresistible grace. It
is a remarkable fact in Doctrinal History that it was by way of
indirect opposition to these opinions of Augustine that Vincent
of Lerins wrote his (first) Commonitory (434), in which he set
forth the criteria of catholic doctrine. These are declared to be
antiquity, universality. This is equivalent to saying that that only
is of the faith, is catholic or orthodox doctrine, which is accepted
always, everywhere, and by all — semper, ubique et ah..Qwnihys.
Among the mild and moderate dissenters from Augustine's doc
trine of predestination was Hilary, Bishop of Aries, who had
lived in the cloister at Lerins. But the most conspicuous of these
dissenters was John ^assianus. He had been educated in the
East, and was the founder and guide of the Cloister at Marseilles.
His name is associated with the type of theology designated by
the Schoolmen "Semi-Pelagian," but which, it has been said, might
as well be termed "Semi- Augustinian." He held to a proclivity
of the heart to sin, and to the need of an inward operation of
grace, man being of himself insufficient. But he did not consider
this inborn propensity to evil to be in the proper sense guilty, he
asserted a remaining power and a cooperative agency of the
human will in conversion, and, therefore, a conditional predes
tination. Made acquainted with these movements by Prosper of
Aquitania and another Hilary, a layman, Augustine wrote two
treatises in defence of his views.2 These friends wrote on the
same side, and continued the controversy after Augustine's death.
Prosper set forth Augustine's opinion on predestination with a
studious moderation. In the same spirit was^ written an anony
mous work on the Calling of the Gentiles,3 in which a distinction
1 De Graf, et lib. Arbitr. and De Corrept. et Graf.
2 De Predest. Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantia.
• De Vocat. Gentilium.
ANCIENT THEOLOGY
I97
was made between general and special grace, — the last alone
being effectual. Another anonymous work entitled Predestinates,
in which the doctrine was presented in the baldest form, was,
perhaps, composed by a Semi-Pelagian as a caricature and
weapon of assault. In the last half of the fifth century, Faustus,
Bishop of Rhegium, was an able advocate of the Semi-Pelagian
doctrine. One of his opponents, a presbyter, Lucidus by name,
an extreme defender of predestination, retracted his opinion at a
Council at Aries in 475. The treatise1 written by 'Faustus com
bated alike Pelagius, who was characterized as " pestiferous " and
the " error " of the advocates of predestination.
Through a peculiar conjunction of circumstances, in the sixth
century, the Semi-Pelagian Controversy broke out afresh. In
Sardinia and Corsica there were certain banished North African
bishops, among them Fulgentius of Numidia. In 519, Possessor,
an African bishop, in a contest with the Scythian monks respecting
their theopaschite formula, referred to Faustus as an authority on
his side of the question. The monks sought for a verdict against
the orthodoxy of his work, and not obtaining satisfaction from
Hormisdas, Bishop of Rome (514-553), they turned to the exiled
bishops. Fulgentius was thus led to compose a series of books
in defence of Augustinian predestination. Others appeared on
the same side in South Gaul, including Caesarius, Bishop of Aries,
although the Synod of Valence in 529 did not antagonize the
Semi-Pelagian opinion. On the occasion of the consecration of
a church in 529 at Orange, in the province of Aries, a Synod com
posed of fourteen bishops, including Csesarius, accepted a collec-
tioji of statements quoted from Augustine and Prosper, and adopted
an additional creed. The Council asserted the necessity of pre-
Y^enient grace, and the necessity of grace at every stage of the
soul's renewal, and affirmed that unmerited grace precedes merito
rious works, that all good, including love to God, is God's gift,
that even unfallen man is in need of grace. But not only is pre
destination to sin denied, but there is no affirmation of uncondi
tional election or irresistible grace. Moreover, free-will is said
to be " weakened " in Adam, and restored through the grace
of baptism. The creed is anti-Pelagian, but the tenets of Semi-
Pelagianism are only in part explicitly condemned. It was sanc
tioned by the Roman Bishop, Boniface II.
1 DC Grat. Dei et human. Mentis lib. arbitr.
198
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
In Gregory I., a great leader and administrator, but having no
eminence as a theological thinker, the patristic period in the
West is brought to a close. In him Augustinian beliefs were
intermingled with Semi- Pelagian ideas. Insisting on the doctrine
of prevenient grace, he drops the idea of a grace that is irresist
ible and a freedom that is totally lost. Sin is forgiven in baptism,
\ but salvation is a personal achievement thrpj^gjij^enitence and
I meritorious worksjith grace within as an auxiliary. If per^tion
is the_penalty of mortal sins, of mortal offences for which satis
faction through penances here has not been rendered, sins of a
lower grade may be atoned Tor and the soul purified in the fires
of purgatory. So the conjecture of Augustine is raised to the rank
of definite, positive teaching. The Lord's Supper is regarded as
a literal sacrifice, of avaU_nqt_pnly for the benefit of the Jiving
but also forjsufferers in purgatcyy. If the Church is not identified
with the community of saints, it is through the Church, its ordi
nances and its sacraments, that these are provided with the means
of salvation. Ajnain ground of hope is the intercession of per
fected saints and angels. In sympathy with Augustine, the Word
of God and the Spirif attending the dispensation of the Word are
prized. At the same time, those ceremonies and other prac
tices which the Church had taken up in its passage through heathen
society — which made up the Christianity of " the second grade,"
the common Catholicism which was accepted by Augustine, -but
which, however inconsistently, his deeper, spiritual thoughts broke
through at so many points — all these were cherished in the sys
tem of Gregory, and this combination of tenets was handed down
to the next following centuries. w
PART II
MEDIAEVAL THEOLOGY
PERIOD III
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY IN
THE MIDDLE AGES AND ITS REDUCTION TO A SYSTE
MATIC FORM
CHAPTER I
FROM GREGORY I TO CHARLEMAGNE — THE WORK OF MEDLEVAL
THEOLOGY — THEOLOGY IN THE EASTERN CHURCH — THEOLOGY
AND EDUCATION IN THE WEST — JOHN SCOTUS
A *vV
•k-zV
As far as the West is concerned, Gregory the First Ms the
connecting link between the ancient and the mediaeval period.
In him the patristic age comes to an end. The Church now
enters in earnest upon the work of converting and training the
nations of Germanic origin. They were taught its doctrines, and
its institutions were planted among them. In general it was no
longer a question what these doctrines are. They were transmitted
as an inheritance from the Church of the Fathers to the succeed
ing ages. It was a sacred tradition, attested by ecclesiastical
authority, the validity of which it was impious to doubt. Its
living guardians were the Roman hierarchy. Should doubts arise
as to its import, it was their function, and more and more, as time
went on, the recognized prerogative of the Popes, to define it.
But of this tradition there existed no full or exact, no lucid and
consistent exposition. It was comprised to a great extent in the
199
2QO HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
writings of Augustine and of the Fathers generally. Moreover —
and this is a point not to be overlooked — it was embodied, in
no small part, only by implication in those liturgical practices and
other customs of the Church which had grown up in the course
of centuries. Thus there was a, field open, albeit with prescribed
limits, for theological inquiry and discussion. This was the under
taking of the mediaeval theologians — to give precision and har
mony to the accepted beliefs, written and unwritten, and to defend
them. It would prove to be impossible to confine religious thought
strictly within the barriers set, but such was the design. It was
not a voyage for the discovery of new lands. Theology was like
an estate which is left to an heir with the liberty to run fegjc_es
across it and to connect its parts by rpads and bridges, but
to wicjen or contract its boundaries, to drain a marsh, or to
a single tree.
In the East, a petrified creed and ritual and the despotism of
secular rulers chilled intellectual activity. The Eastern Empire
appeared to be strong for a while, under Justinian, but it was
strong only in appearance. The fairest parts of Italy were soon
wrested from it by the Lombards, and there was left to the Byzan
tine rulers only a nominal sovereignly, limited to the coast. In
the sixth and beginning of the seventh century, the Persians rav
aged the Asiatic provinces and carried their arms almost to the
gates of Constantinople. A few years after the victories of Hera-
clius the Mohammedans began the career of conquest which tore
from the Empire the provinces that embraced the three patri
archates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Elsewhere the
Slavonic tribes, which were to the Eastern Empire what the Teu
tonic invaders were in the West, were pushing their incursions
and founding their settlements. The Empire was like a tree
centuries old, its branches broken off and its vigor departed, yet
still standing with a tenacity of life that yields, inch by inch, to
the process of decay. The Church clung to the minutiae of the
cultus. The Second Trullan Council (692) prescribed the manner*
in which a layman should hold his hands in receiving the com
munion. The Second Nicene Council (787) ordained that no
Church should be consecrated unless it were provided with relics.'
The Second Trullan Council asserted the authority of the first six
oecumenical councils, at the same time that it condemned the
Roman Bishop, Honorius ; it specified the authoritative sources
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 2OI
with regard to Church discipline, and laid down the law relative
to the marriage of the clergy, — presbyters and deacons, if they
are married before ordination, being permitted to continue in
the married state. The same Council reaffirmed the Canon of
Chalcedon on the rank of the Bishop of Constantinople, and
declared against the use of pictures of the Lamb, enjoining the
use of pictures of Christ himself instead of these typical represen
tations. Pope Sergius I. forbade the publication of the decrees
of the Council in the West. The spirit of piety in the East was
chiefly kept alive in the monasteries. From these the bishops
were generally taken. All through the Middle Ages there were
scholarship and learning in the Eastern Church, but after John
of Damascus their fruits appeared in antiquarian researches, not
in original production. After the controversy respecting images,
which was disastrous in its influence, intellectual life was chiefly
manifest in the contests with the Western Church, which from
time to time broke out afresh. They were aggravated by the
growing pretensions and extending power of the Popes. After
the coronation of Charlemagne, they were still further promoted
by political jealousy. The displacement of Ignatius from the
patriarchate of Constantinople (857) and the elevation of Photius
in his place brought on a conflict with Pope Nicholas I., in the
course of which Photius issued an encyclical letter (866) in which
he declared the Latin Church to be heretical on account of its
rule of celibacy, its interpolation of the creeds, and various ritual
practices. In 863 Nicholas had excommunicated him. In 867,
a synod at Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. After
various turns of fortune in the combat between Photius and his
enemies, and a temporary restoring of amity with Rome, Nicholas
(in 882) renewed the ban against him and it was not again re
called. In the middle of the eleventh century, the ruptuje
between the Churches of the East and the West was completed.
In a heated controversy between Michael Caerularius, Patriarch
of Constantinople, and Pope Leo IX., there were mutual allega
tions of heresy. The Latins, in addition to the customary accu
sations, were censured for using unleavened bread in the sacrament
and for eating things strangled. The Patriarch broke off all
intercourse with the Papal legates at Constantinople, and on July
i6th, 1054, the legates laid on the altar of St. Sophia the Pope's
bull, excommunicating him and charging him with all sorts of
2Q2 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
heresies. Repeated efforts at reunion, which were kept up after
the time of the Latin rule in Constantinople, proved abortive.
The same result befell the negotiations at the Council at Florence
(1439). The agreement there, couched in terms not free from
ambiguity, led to no practical effect and was formally and solemnly
revoked at a synod in Constantinople in 1472.
In the eighth and ninth centuries, a number of the Emperors
of the Macedonian dynasty lent a cordial encouragement to
studies in classical as well as ecclesiastical literature. Leo VI.
(886-912) was himself an author. The most conspicuous writer
in this period was Photius. His Myriobiblion l is made up of
excerpts, with summaries, abridgments and occasional critical
estimates, from two hundred and seventy-nine authors, heathen
and Christian. Not less than eighty of them are otherwise not
known to us. This is the principal work of Photius, although his
polemical and other writings are not without value.
Dualism was revived and propagated in the sect of the Pauli
cians, who arose about the middle of the seventh century. They
were called Manichaeans by the church writers, but their creed
was more allied to the principles of Marcion. In Mananalis,2
near Samosata, where there was probably a Marcionite society,
one Constantine, a member of it, blended teachings of St. Paul,
in which he was deeply interested, with his own previous tenets,
and became the leader of the new sect. The Paulicians held that
the Demiurge, the Evil Being, is the lord of the present world,
that Christ is sent from the Heavenly Father to deliver man from
the body and the world of sense. The Sacraments were dis
carded. The Paulicians were ascetic, but did not abjure marriage.
It is not certain that they received any Gospels except Luke or
any Epistles except those of St. Paul,3 together with an Epistle to
the Laodiceans, which they professed to have. Although victims
of severe persecution, they still became numerous, and continued
long to make proselytes. The Paulicians divided into different
branches, each having peculiar opinions of its own. Their influ
ence in the formation of European sects may have been exag
gerated.4 In the eleventh century, in Thrace there was a numerous
1
2 The correctness of this designation of place is doubted by Ter. Mkrttschian,
Die Paulikianer etc. (1893), P- I24-
» Ibid. p. 108. * Ibid. p. 127.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 2O3
sect called the Euchites, who were enthusiasts like the ancient
monastic sect of that name, but also Dualists. Akin to them in
their opinions were the Bogomiles, a name signifying " Friends
of God." At the beginning of the twelfth century, their leader,
Basilius, a physician, was burned to death, in the Hippodrome,
at Constantinople.
/ The conversion of the Franks to orthodox Christianity, their
ascendency over the other Arian peoples, and the spread of their
dominion, their alliance with the Papacy, the organization of
Empire in the West under Charlemagne, and the check put upon
anarchy and illiteracy — which was of great moment, even though
it was partial and was followed by the influence of reactionary
forces — these are facts of capital importance in European
.history.
In the early portion of the Middle Ages, in the absence of orig
inal authorship, compilations were made from the Fathers. For
a time there was more theological life in Spain than elsewhere.
The Sentences of Isidore of Seville (who died in 636) were
composed mostly of extracts from Augustine and Gregory the
Great. This work retained its popularity in the mediaeval period.
j In the eighth century there was more culture in England than in
f any other country except Italy. Theodore of Tarsus, the first
Archbishop of Canterbury (668-690), in connection with the
Abbot Hadrian, established schools in which Greek was taught.
From the cloister of J arrow went forth the venerable Bede, who
wrote on all the subjects then studied. He was famous for his
learning throughout the West. Bede composed an Ecclesiastical
tfistory of the English. In 782, Alcuin, an Englishman, who had
been educated at York, became the head of the domestic school
of Charlemagne which followed his migratory court. Alcuin was
well read in the classical poets, was an effective promoter of learn
ing, and an influential writer. Great credit belongs to him for
his agency in founding the cathedral and cloister schools. In
them was imparted the learning of the age, which was all com
prised in the seven sciences, the trivium and quadrivium. The
spirit of the Frankish theologians was comparatively free and
enlightened. They opposed the use of pictures save for purposes
of decoration and instruction. Agobard, Bishop of Lyons (who
died in 841), was prominent in the defence of this position. He
also contended against a rigid theory of verbal inspiration. Among
2O4
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
his writings is a polemical book against Judaism. Judaism and
Mohammedanism were objects of attack in this period, they being
the two forms of false doctrine outside of the Church. Under
Charles the Bald, Rabanus Maurus, Paschasius Radbert, Ratramnus
and Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, were conspicuous theolo
gians. To these is to be added the name of John Scotus called
" Erigena," which means probably " born in the Isle of Saints,"
a frequent designation of Ireland, which was also often called
Major Scotia. The system of Scotus was unique in its character.
It is an episode in the theological records of his time, where his
very existence almost seems an anachronism.
Shortly before the middle of the ninth century, Scotus took up
his abode at the court of Charles the Bald. The New Platonism
in Augustine's writings had its influence upon him, and still more
the works of Maximus the confessor, and those of Pseudo-
Dionysius, which he translated from the Greek. He repro
duced in a free way speculations which were Pantheistic in their
essential character. So peculiar were they that, although he
incurred suspicion and some opposition, their real import was
not discerned until long after his death. Like Pseudo-Dionysius,
he drew a line between popular and scientific theology. True
Philosophy — vera philosophia — and true Theology — vera theo- l
logia — are identical. Faith, which rests on authority, belongs
to the earlier stage of the intellectual life. Reason discerns
things in their necessary grounds and relations. The universe is
the unfolding of the absolute God. Respecting Him all our
affirmations are the language of appearance.1 They are unavoid
able, yet are accommodated to human weakness. Even love is
to be predicated of God in only a symbolical way. All existence
is only a theophany. God reaches self-consciousness in man. In
his principal work on the Division of Nature, His scheme of
the Universe is set forth. The Absolute is made to run through
a cycle. Archetypal ideas are embodied in visible existences,
and there follows a reversion to the original essence. In truth,
conceptions are the things themselves — " ipscz res." Material
things have only a semblance of reality. In the character of
his mind, as well as the drift of his system, Scotus anticipates
modern thinkers whose creed is an ideal Pantheism.
\J
1 The nature of God is " superessentialis." See, e.g., De Div. Nat. L. I.
76. (Migne, p. 522.)
CHAPTER II
(fa -
FROM CHARLEMAGNE TO THE BEGINNINGS OF SCHOLASTICISM — THE
ADOPTION CONTROVERSY GOTTSCHALK'S DOCTRINE OF PREDESTI
NATION — RADBERT'S DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER — THE
PENITENTIAL SYSTEM — THE TENTH CENTURY CONTROVERSY OF
BERENGARIUS AND LANFRANC ON THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE revived theological activity and culture in the age of
Charlemagne were manifest in several theological controversies.
The first was the .Adoption Controversy. About the year 780,
Elipandus, Bishop of Toledo, in Spain, was attacked for teaching
that, as man, Christ was the adopted Son of God.1 He was
defended by Felix, Bishop of Urgellis. The language of the
Adoptionists did not depart essentially from that of Augustine.
The same thing was said even in the Mozarabic Liturgy. The
Cyrillian interpretation of the Chalcedon creed, which had been
set forth under Justinian by the Fifth General Council, although
the decision of the Sixth General Council on the Monothelite
question was of an opposite tenor, was prevalent in the Spanish
Kingdom in consequence of its union with Rome. Leading
Frankish theologians, of whom Alcuin was the most conspicuous,
combated Adoptionism, which they identified with Nestorian
doctrine.2 It was condemned in three Frankish synods, the first
at Regensburg in 792, the second at Frankfort in 794, and the
third at Aix in 799.
The doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father
and the Son was defended by Alcuin and others, and as early as
the beginning of the eleventh century was included in the form of
1 " Jesum Christum adoptivum humanitate et nequaquam adoptivum divin-
itate" — Symbol of Elipandus, in Epist. ad Elipand. (Migne, 96, p. 917.)
2 " Sicut Nestoriana impietas in duas Christi personas dividit," etc. Alcuin
adv. Ftlic. I. n. (Migne, 101, p. 136.)
205
206 HISTORY OF* CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
'
the Nicene Symbol in use at -Rome. Still more was the Western
Church distinguished by its use of <^he Apostles' Creed and the
Athanasian Creed, both of which were 'unknown in the East.
A second controversy related to a^entral point of Augustinism.
In opposition to Semi-Pelagian opinion%f CxOtftchalk, a pious and
learned monk of Orbais, in the province of Rheims, propounded
the Augustinian doctrine. His principal adversaries were Raba-
nus ^[autus and .Vchbishop Hincmar. Gottschalk's doctrine, as
defined by himself, did not go beyond that of Augustine ; for,
while he taught a double predestination,1 the predestination of
the wicked was not to sin, as he was erroneously charged with
holding, but to punishment.2 Augustine had designated the
wicked as reprobi. The opponents of Gottschalk founded the
election of the saved on the divine prescience of their right use of_
the gifts of grace, although in the Second Council of Chiers^ia
8^3, they affirmed inconsistently that " in the first man we lost ouj*
feefidom of will." It is evident that for the sake of maintaining the
efficacy of the sacraments they preferred to modify in a Semi-
Pelagian way the Augustinian doctrine of unconditional election,
i without appreciating, perhaps, the extent of their deviation from it.
| It is evident, also, that the inference of Gottschalk that Christ died
only for the elect, was specially repugnant to their views. They
affirmed in the " Four Chapters " adopted at Chiersy, that " Christ
died for all men " and that God desires all men, without exception
to be saved.3 They referred in support of this opinion to i Tim.
ii. 4, a passage to which Augustine himself attached a different and
restricted meaning. At the first Synod of Chiersy in 849, Gottschalk
was condemned and, after being cruelly scourged, was imprisoned
for life in a cloister. Among those who took ground against him was
John Scotus, whose arguments, however, rested on the Pantheistic
ideas at the root of his theology. The very term '/^destination/
Scotus said, was a part of the language of appearance, having in
1 " gemina predestinatio."
2 Of reprobate man, his language in his first confession composed in prison,
is : " propter praescita certissime ipsorum propria futura mala merita praedes-
tinasse pariter per justissimum judicium suum in mortem merito sempiternam."
(Migne, 121, p. 347.)
8 " Deus omnes homines sine exceptione vult salvos fieri." (Mansi, XIV.
p. 921.) The sentence ends: "licet non omnes salventur." As Christ
assumed the nature of every man, there is no man for whom He did not
die. (Ibid. IV.)
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 2O?
its literal sense no reality.1 Against Hincmar there arose many
defenders of the Augustinian teaching, including Prudentius of
Troyes, Ratramnus, monk at Corbie, Servatus Lupus, Abbot at
Ferrieres, and Remigius pf Lyons. Political causes had their
influence in bringing to pass a union of bishops in a compromise
at the two synods of Savonieres (in 859) and Toucy (in 860) .2
To hold fast the efficacy of the sacrament of Baptism was the
intent of all. Practically the victory was on the side of Hincmar,
for the Semi-Pelagian principle had a prevailing acceptance,
despite the consentaneous profession of loyalty to the teaching
of Augustine.
A discussion respecting the LorcTs Supper began in 8^., when
Paschasius R&clbert propounded the bald doctrine of transub-
stantiation. He taught that the bread and the wine, as far as
color and taste are concerned, remain. If they did not, there
would be no room for faith. But within they are changed, as
to their substance, into the body and blood of Christ, — even
the same body in which He suffered and was crucified.3 Dissent
from the views of Radbert was expressed by Rabanus Maurus
and by Ratramnus. The latter wrote on the subject in reply to
the question of Charles the Bald whether the body and blood
of the Lord are actually received or not, in the mouth of believ
ing communicants. The answer of Ratramnus is not in all
respects lucid. He distinctly denies that the body and blood
which are in the sacrament after the consecration are identical
with the slain and risen Jesus.4 Rather is the body that is
received the memorial of that body. It is the spiritual body
and spiritual blood which exists under the veil of the material
bread and the material wine.5 The Spirit of Christ, the power
of the divine Word or Logos "is the invisible bread." The
leading idea appears, therefore, to be that of Augustine ; and
1 Neither prescience nor predestination can be predicated of God, " cui
nihil futurum, quia nihil expectat, nihil prseteritum, quia nihil ei transeat."
De Div. Pradest. (Migne, 122, p. 392.)
2 Mansi, XV. 563 sq.
8 De Corp. et Sanguin. Domini, 7. 2. " Substantia panis et vini in Christi
carnem et sanguinem efficaciter interius commutatur." 8. 2. (Migne, 120,
p. 1287.)
4 Ibid. c. 71. (Migne, 121, p. 156.)
8 " quoniam sub velamento corporei panis et vini spiritualiter corpus ct
sanguis Christi existunt." c. 16, p. 134.
208 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
t
the divine element in the Sacrament is compared to that which
is imparted to the baptismal water. Yet Ratrammis uses language
drawn from the liturgy, which, taken by itself, would imply a more
radical objective transformation, and what precisely is received
by the non-believer in taking the Sacrament is not satisfactorily
defined. Thenceforward, more and more the impression made
by the constant repetition of the mass, the central act of worship,
established in the minds of the people the belief in the literal,
objective miracle. This was confirmed by alleged miracles of
the host transformed into a lamb — an argument which Radbert
brought forward. Hence the Sacrament was regarded as the
renewal of the sacrifice on the cross. A doctrinal basis was
furnished for masses when no communicants were present, and
for masses, said in private, for the benefit of departed souls.
The course of Christian teaching cannot be understood without
attention to the elaborate penitential system which grew up, and
advanced from one stage to another, in the Western Church. A
network of law came by degrees to be stretched, not only over the
conduct, but, also, over the inward thoughts and purposes of the
people, all of whom, from the youngest to the oldest and from
the highest to the lowest, were subject to ecclesiastical rule and
supervision. A code of penalties, first for outward transgression,
then for sins of the heart as well, was administered by the priest
hood, with the cooperation, when it was needed, of secular author
ity. In the Sends in the Frankish Church, the visitations of the
Bishops, private confession came to be associated with the public
acknowledgment of grave offences. That personal dealing with
the conscience and allotting of penances which were customary
in the monasteries spread beyond their walls and into dealings
with the laity. Disciplinary penalties were appointed for the sins
reckoned as mortal. The origin of rules in detail for the penal
treatment of penitents was attributed to the Irish Cloisters and
to Theodore, the Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury. Among the
Teutonic nations respect was necessarily had to their ingrained
feelings and legal customs. Penances had to be modified. The
Qermanic peoples were accustomed to the payment of money a§
a^composition for even the gravest crimes. Certain exceptional
cases were, therefore, recognized, in which the usual penance
could be commuted to a pecuniary fine. Out of this simple
beginning grew the system of indulgences. Substitutionary en-
**
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 209
durance of penance had likewise its familiar analogies in German
law, although it likewise had support in the vicarious offices as
signed of old to the Saints. If the penitential system which grew
up among the new nations under the tutelage of the Church was
adapted to impress the conscience with the guilt of sin, it was at
the same time fitted to foster as a dominant feeling the desire to
be set free from its penalties. Side by side with the government
of the state was a spiritual government, weighing the merits and
demerits of all, and as the agent of the Almighty, meting out pun
ishments or dispensations of grace. The very word "penitence"
(pcenitentia) was translated by a word (Busse) which meant a
compensation or a fine. The equivalent for "to repent" (pcs-
nitere) in the penitential rules was "to fast" (je/unare).
The tejith_ century was the dark age in mediaeval . Jhistory . The
early portion of the eleventh century was of a piece with it. To
gether they made up a period of barbarism. The light that had
been kindled under the auspices of Charlemagne was well-nigh
extinguished. This was owing to a combination of causes : to
the hjreajsjpg-np nf the Car^^g^" F.mpi'r^ and the tumults, anji
anarchy that ensued, and the utter_demoralization of the papacy
through the conflicts of unbridled Italian factions, the disappear-
ance__of the LaJjnJEc'om the sjjgech of the people^and tliejittexsal
that elapsed prior to the reduction of the new Komanir tonguealo
unity, and the utter decay of the schools where alone Latin cpul$}
beT.earned. IfTtKe eleventh century the skies gradually became, '
more propitious. The Hiklebrandian movement of reform, as it
grew in strength, by restoring order and discipline in the Church,
aided the cause of learning. Intercourse with the Greek Empire,
where learning was still cherished, was reopened. Intercourse
sprang up with the Arabians in Spain, among whom the sciences
were cultivated. The Arabs, having been initiated in the knowl
edge of Greek learning by Christians in Syria, established in the
East celebrated schools, especially at Bagdad and Damascus. In
Spain, in 980, they founded a college at Cordova. The favorite
studies were mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. A lively
interest grew up in the Spanish Arabian schools in the study of
Aristotle and in philosophical inquiries to which it led. In the
middle of the tenth century, Gerbert, who became Archbishop of
Rheims and then Pope (Sylvester II.), is said to have brought back
from Seville and Cordova scientific acquisitions which excited
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
astonishment. By him the school at Rheims had a new spirit
infused into it, and made its influence widely felt in other similar
schools. The school at Chartres became quite famous through
the exertions of Bishop Fulbert (who died in 1028). A zeal for
the study of jurisprudence was awakened in the cities of Lom-
bardy. One sign of the revival of intellectual activity was the
renewal of the controversies with the Greek Church. In the first
half of the eleventh century the schools of Rheims and Chartres
stood in the front rank. Later in the century, the school at Tours
and the school in the cloister of Bee in Normandy rose to great
celebrity. Bee had for its prior Lanfranc, an Italian of noble
birth, who had turned from legal studies to theology and eventually
became Archbishop of Canterbury. At the head of the school of
Tours was Berengarius, a man of uncommon parts. He had been
a pupil of Fulbert of Chartres. In 1050, in a controversy on the
I Lord's Supper, these theologians employed the Aristotelian dia
lectic. This circumstance serves as a landmark for the beginning
of the scholastic era.
Berengarius in a letter to Lanfranc opposed the doctrine of a
literal change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ.
This view, together with the idea of such a change of substance as
does not affect the qualities or accidents he combated with logical
weapons. The opinion which he constantly maintained, except
When he was coerced into a denial of it, was that th£ change in the
[elements is dynamic, and of such a character that Christ is actually
[received only by the believer. He~went even farther than Ratramnus
lin the direction of a spiritual conception of the Sacrament. Lan
franc contended for the doctrine of Radbert. IrTio5O, Berengarius
was condemned, unheard, by Pope Leo IX., and, also, by a Synod
at Vercelli. In 1059, at Rome, he was driven to retract his opinion,
and to subscribe to statements drawn up by Cardinal Humbert,
that the body and blood of Chrjst, after thfi -consecration, are ir^
thejhands of the priest^ and are .eaterodttLthe teeth of the faithfuj.1
But he afterwards reasserted his real opinion, and Gregory VII., by
whom he had been shielded and who regarded him at least with
personal favor, could not stand in the way of his condemnation
once more at a Synod at Rome at Easter in 1079. Lanfranc
had gone beyond Radbert in distinctly affirming that the real flesh
and blood of Christ are received, although without beneficial effect,
1 In Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sanguine Dom. (Migne, 150, p. 411.)
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 211
by unbelievers and the unworthy. Others, especially Guitmund
/von Aversa, modified the traditional view by teaching that the
entire Christ, and not merely a part of Him, is in every portion of
the bread and wine.1 ^n§ejm added that the whole Christ, God
and man, is received when the bread is received and likewise when
the wine is received.2 The first known use of the word " transuj)-
s^anjjaje " was by Hildebert, Archbishop of Tours, (who died in
1114).
1 It is like the manna which fell from heaven : " Tota hostia est corpus
Christi, ut nihilominus unaquseque particula separata sit totum corpus Christi."
Guitmund, De Corp. et Sanguin. Christ, (Migne, 149, p. 1434.)
2 Yet " non tamen bis sed semel Christum accipirnus." Anselm, Epp. L.
IV. 107. (Migne, 159, p. 255.) Cf. Loofs, Leitfaden, p. 270.
CHAPTER III
CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOLASTICISM — THE SCHOLASTIC MAXIM —
PHILOSOPHY : NOMINALISM AND REALISM — SCHOLASTICISM AND
THE UNIVERSITIES — THE METHOD OF SCHOLASTICISM
SCHOLASTICISM was an application of reason to theology, not in
order to revise the creed or to explore for new truth, but to system
atize and prove the existing: traditional beliefs. It differed thus,
in having a larger aim, from theology in the pre-scholastic period.
In the patristic age, the authority of tradition and of the Church
was recognized. But the area of dogma was more contracted.
There was a larger margin for original inquiry. If in the Middle
Ages there were no teachers to equal in breadth and in their contri
butions to the stock of religious thought Origen and Augustine,
yet within their restricted bounds no abler men have ever culti
vated theology than Anselm, Aquinas and some other mediaeval
doctors.
The Schoolmen followed Augustine in their maxim that faith is
to seek for knowledge : "fides quczrit intellectum" There is an
innate and laudable desire of the understanding to justify to itself
what the heart immediately appropriates through its own experi
ence and on the ground of authority. The fundamental maxim
was received generally, even by the boldest thinkers, such as Abe-
lard, who distinguished faith from science, and recognized the dif
ferences of natural capacity in relation to science. The Schoolmen,
great as were their achievements in their own chosen path, were
impeded by their habit of including in the domain of faith the
whole field of the Church's teaching. Then there was always the
question how far reason could possibly advance in its task of show
ing the rationality of the whole sum of religious beliefs. In striv
ing to reach the goal, there was a temptation to cast aside doctrines
which could not be directly verified at the bar of reason, to get rid
212
MEDI/EVAL THEOLOGY
213
of irreducible material by a rationalizing process. As_ far as a fail
ure had to be confessed, either skerjticism would be likely to ensue,
or a refuge be sought in the arms of authority and under the veil
of mastery. In eitherjca.se, Scholasticism would undermine itself.
This proved to be the ultimate fact. All along we notice tjjp
rival tendencies, two classes of theologians, the one disposed to
magnify the ability and exalt the function of the intellect and to
make less of the indispensableness of authority ; the other to curb
reason and to insist on intuition and feeling rather than logic and
on the voice of the Church as the basis of certitude. The theory,
as expressed by Anselm, was that philosophy is the handmaid
(ancilla) of theology. But the servant will sometimes gain an
ascendency over the mistress, or the mistress dominate the ser
vant to such an extent as to repress all freedom of action.
As regards philosophical doctrine, the empire in the Scholastic
period was divided between Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle came
to be enthroned in the seat of authority, but Plato, through the
writings of Augustine and the works of Pseudo - D iony sius, had a
larger share than is commonly supposed in shaping theological
thought. Aristotle was first known through the translations of
Boethius ; later through Latin versions of Arabian translations, and
finally through his original writings brought from the East. For
a long time the influence of the Stagyrite was formal, through his
logic. Afterwards it affected the matter of theology and ethics.
The Schoolmen of the thirteenth century had to combat a subtle
form of Pantheism, springing ultimately from New Platonism, a
type of opinion of which Amalric of Bena and David of Dinanto,
teachers at Paris, were representatives. But Pantheism in a more
captivating shape was involved in the writings of Arabic philoso
phers, of whom the ablest was Averroes, who died in 1198. A
skeptical spirit infected certain Jewish authors in Spain who
emulated their Arabic neighbors in the study of Aristotle and in
rationalistic speculations. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) was
the most famous of these writers.
The great philosophical problem of the Middle Ages was that
of Nominalism and Realism. It is an exaggeration, however,
when Cousin says of the Schoolmen that, apart from theology,
their "philosophy is all embraced" in this dispute. Some of the
leading Schoolmen paid but little attention to this question. The
incentive to the discussion came from a passage in Boethius's
214
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Latin translation of a passage in Porphyry's " Introduction " to
Aristotle, where the question is stated without being solved. Under
each of the two theories, there were various shades of opinion ;
according to John of Salisbury not less than thirteen.1 The two
main forms were the Platonic tenet of the existence of universals,
or concepts, prior to the concrete things in which they are embod
ied, or ante rent. That is, the genus is real and is identical in all
the individuals comprising it. Such was the contention of Wnjiam
of Champeaux. The other main form of Realism was the Aristote
lian tenet of existence in re, which made the genus inherent in the
individuals, but not existing prior to them or independently J>f
them and not numerically the same in them. Nominalism
was the Stoic doctrine that universals are abstractions of the
understanding, with no objective reality, being merely common
names attached to individuals having like qualities. TJie_ inter
mediate doctrine of Conceptualism was the creed of some, of
whom Abelard was one. There were questions of vital moment
closely connected with this controversy, such as the objective
reality of human thought and knowledge, the relative claims of
Empiricism and Idealism. It had an important bearing on the
ological doctrines, such as the doctrine of original sin, the doctrine
of the Trinity.
The spread of the Scholastic theology was greatly promoted
by the inculcation of it in the universities. About the beginning
of the twelfth century, persons began to teach dialectics and
theology in the vicinity of the cloister schools in Paris, who
gradually formed a connection with one another and with the
teachers of the liberal arts. The diversifying and expansion
of the curriculum of the schools went on, and in the course of
the century, the university grew up to its full proportions, and
was the precursor of the other educational establishments of the
same character in England and on the Continent. Oxford stood
next in rank to Paris. To the universities where the new theology
was taught there streamed students, inspired with ardent curiosity,
from all the countries of Europe. Their number has been
sometimes exaggerated, but it was no doubt very large.
The most eminent of the Schoolmen belonged to one or the
other of the two mendicant orders, the Dominicans and the
Franciscans, each of whom, not without strenuous resistance,
1 See Prantl, Gesch. d. Logik, II. 118.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 21$
which was kept up, or renewed, from time to time, secured a
chair in the University of Paris. There, and at the other seats
of mediaeval learning, the lectures of renowned representatives of
these orders were attended by throngs of eager pupils.
The instrument of exposition, the weapon of assault and defence,
was the syllogism. The ordinary method of discussion, which is
exemplified in the principal Scholastic treatises, was to state
general subjects, which are resolved into subordinate topics, and
the ramification is carried forward until it is considered complete.
Under each head, questions are proposed, each question being
pluralized by analysis, and its branches severally handled. First,
the grounds negative of the thesis are set down in order, including
passages from Augustine, Aristotle, and other authors. Then
follow the grounds in the affirmative, and, in the last place,
the writer sums up, answering the objections and reconciling
seeming contradictions. This decision or opinion was termed
by the editors of Aquinas the "Conclusion." "There is no
conception," says Baur, " so subtle, no problem so difficult, that
trie Schoolmen would not have ventured to take it up, with con
fidence in the omnipotence of dialectics." Everything which had
any connection with dogma is brought in and scrutinized, and
with most fondness those aspects of doctrine which are of the
most interest to the speculative thinker, — the being, nature,
attributes of God, the relations between the persons of the Holy
Trinity, the relation of God to the World, of the finite to the
infinite, of freedom to contingency, and so forth. The whole
ethical material is likewise worked in. It is the great drawback
to the value of these wonderful feats of intellectual acumen that it
is abstractions and logical relations that are dealt with, so that
Christianity appears to lose, so to speak, its flesh and blood, and
to be resolved into a lifeless structure of metaphysics.
CHAPTER IV
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE SCHOLASTIC ERA THE FIRST SECTION :
ANSELM ; ABELARD j BERNARD J THE SCHOOL OF ST. VICTOR
IE BOOKS OF SENTENCES PETER LOMBARD
X3:
THE
THE Scholastic era by a natural division falls into three sections.
The first is the introductory period of the rise of Scholasticism,
e and may be said to terminate with Alexander of Hales, the first
«r-J of the Schoolmen to work out a complete system or "Sum of
Theology," making use not only of the Logic, but also of the
other works — the Physics, Metaphysics, and Ethics — of Arisy'
totle. The second section, which covers pretty nearly the thir
teenth century, was the flourishing period of Scholasticism, in
which appeared almost all of its most famous representatives, who
were generally of one or the other of the great mendicant orders.
In it Nominalism, which had prevailed after Anselm, was super
seded by Realism. The closing section, ending at the Reforma
tion, witnessed the revival and renewed sway of Nominalism, and
is marked by the decadence of Scholasticism, by its own slow
suicide and by the appearance of movements in the direction of
theological as well as ecclesiastical reform.
In the first section, the principal names are Anselm, Abelard,
and Bernard. If Scholasticism was introduced by Lanfranc and
Berengarius, Anselm, more than any other, is entitled to be called
its father. In him the two elements, the d^vgut and mystical on
the one hand, and the scientific and speculative on the other, are
evenly balanced. He is steadfast in adhering to his maxim,
" Credo ut intelligam." 1 " I desire," he says, " to understand
Thy truth which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek
to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may under
stand. For even this I believe, that if I did not believe, I should
1 Proslogium. (Migne, 158, p. 227.)
216
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 2 1/
not understand." Anselm addressed himself to the discussion
of the profoundest questions of theology. Roscellin, a canon at
Compiegne, was an advocate of Nominalism. The issue of the
application of his doctrine to the Trinity was Tritheism ; the three
divine persons being held to be one generically and in name only.
He was confuted by Anselm and recanted at the Council of
Soissons in 1092. The principal productions of Anselm are his
ajbriori argument for the being of God in his Monologium and in
the Proslogium, and an epoch-making treatise on the Atonement,
the Cur Deus Homo. Anselm 's attempted demonstration of
theism in the Monologium is not materially different from the
reasoning of Augustine. All specific predicates, even existence,
presuppose an absolute being in whom all excellent qualities in
their generic, absolute perfection are embraced. In the Pros-
logiurr^ the argument was reduced to a simpler form. We
necessarily conceive of something a greater than which cannot be
thought,1 i.e., God. Thus even the fool who says that there
is no God has tl>€ idea of God. But the existence of the idea
carries in it the existence of the reality ; otherwise, a greater
than the greatest conceivable could be thought. A God in in-
tellectu is less than a God who is likewise in re? To the
objection of the monk Gaunilo — who replied in behalf of the
fool — that by parallel reasoning, if we conceive of a lost island,
the most beautiful that can be conceived, we must infer that it
exists, Anselm answers that his reasoning applies only to that
which '^necessarily conceived^ or the absolute, and not to arbitrary
notions. As was said of Augustine's argument, the argument of
Anselm rests on the presupposition of Realism.
In his treatise On Original Sin, which forms a kind of sequel to
the Cur Deus Homo, Anselm says, in agreement with the Augus-
tinian doctrine, that when Adam and Eve sinned, " The whole,
which they were, was debilitated and corrupted " : not only the
body, but through the body, the soul ; and " because the whole
human nature was in them, and outside of them there was nothing
of it, the whole was weakened and corrupted. There remained,
therefore, in that nature the debt of complete justice " — that is,
the obligation to be perfectly righteous — " which it received, and
1 " Aliquid quo majus nihil cogitari potest." c. 2. (Migne, 158, p. 227.)
2 " Si enim vel in solo intellectu est, potest cogitari esse et in re : quod majus
est." c. 2. (Migne, Ibid. p. 228.)
2i8 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the obligation to make satisfaction, because it forsook this justice,
together with the very corruption which sin induced. Hence, as
in case it had not sinned, it would be propagated just as it was
made by God ; so, after sin, it would be propagated just as it
made itself by sinning." Thus it follows " that this nature is born
in infants with the obligation upon it to satisfy for the first sin,
which it always could have avoided, and with the obligation upon
it to have original righteousness, which it always was able to pre
serve. Nor does impotence excuse it" — that is, this nature —
" even in infants, since in them it does not render what it owes,
and inasmuch as it made itself what it is, by forsaking righteous
ness in the first parents, in whom it was as a whole — in q^^ibus
tota erat — and it is always bound to have power which it received
to the end that it might continually preserve its righteousness."1
That sin pertains exclusively to the rational will is a proposition
which Anselm clearly defines and maintains ; and on this branch
of the subject he gives to the Augustinian theology a precision
which it had not previously attained. Augustine holds that native
concupiscence, or the disorder and inordinate excitableness of
the lower appetites, is sinful ; but he also holds it to be voluntary,
in the large sense of the term. In the regenerate, the guilt
(reatus} of concupiscence is pardoned ; but the principle is not
extirpated. It does not bring new guilt, however, upon the soul,
unless its impulses are complied with, or consented to, by the will.
To these opinions the strict Augustinians in the Catholic Church
have adhered ; but, laying hold of that distinction between con
cupiscence and the voluntary consent to it, which Augustine
assumes in respect to the baptized, the Semi- Pelagians, as they
have been generally styled by their opponents, have affirmed that
native concupiscence is not itself sinful, but only becomes such
'by the will's compliance with it. At the first view, it would seem
as if Anselm adopted this theory, and so far deviated from Augus
tine. Anselm declares that as sin belongs to the will, and to the
will alone, no individual is a sinner until he is possessed of a will,
and with it inwardly consents to the evil desire. " The appetites
themselves," he says, " are neither just nor unjust in themselves
1 De Concept. Virg. et Orig. Pec. c. ii. (Migne, 158, p. 435.) Hence
Anselm held to the universal damnation of unbaptized infants : Pcccatum orig-
inale belongs equally to them all. The inference is that " omnes qui in illo
solo moriuntur, aequaliter damnari." c. 27.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY
219
considered. They do not make a man just or unjust, simply be
cause he feels them within him ; but just or unjust, only as he
consents to them with the will, when he ought not." The animals
have these appetites, but are rendered neither holy nor unholy
on account of them. " Wherefore there is no injustice (or un
righteousness) in their essence, but in the rational will following
them."1 This certainly sounds like an altered theology. But
we find that Anselm holds fully to the propagation of sin through
seminal or spermatic corruption, after the manner of Augustine.
He asserts, as we have seen, the existence of a properly sinful
nature which is transmitted from generation to generation. His
real theory would appear to be, that a wrongly determined will,
or a will already determined to evil, is a part of our inheritance.
But he sticks to his sharply defined proposition that sin is predi-
cable of the will alone ; and hence he denies that spermatic corrup
tion is sinful. Sin is not in semine, but simply the necessity that
there shall be sin when the individual comes to exist and to be
possessed of a rational soul.2 This whole theory turns upon the » /
distinction of nature and person. The descendants of Adam were
not in him as individuals ; yet what he did as a person he did
not do sine natura ; and this nature is ours as well as his.3 Thus,
no man is condemned except for his own sin. " Therefore when
the infant is condemned for original sin, he is condemned not for
the sin of Adam, but for his own. For if he had not sin of his
own, he would not be condemned." This sin originated in Adam,
" but this ground which lay in Adam why infants are born sinners,
is not in other parents, since in them human nature has not the
power that righteous children should be propagated from it."4
This matter was decided, and irreversibly so far as more immedi
ate parents are concerned, in Adam. It is Anselm's opinion,
we may add, that original sin in infants is less guilty than if they
had personally committed the first sin, as Adam did. The quan
tity of guilt in them is less. In this he does not differ from Au
gustine, who thought that the perdition of infants would be milder
and easier to bear than that of adult sinners.
In the Cur Deus Homo, Anselm makes the need of an Atone
ment for sin the ground of the Incarnation. As obedience is the
honor which man owes to God, disobedience both takes from
1 De Concept. Virg. et Orig. Pec. c. iv. (Migne, Ibid. pp. 437, 438.)
2 c. 7. * c. 23. * c. 26.
220 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
God what belongs to Him and dishonors Him.1 The sinner owes
not merely a restoration of what was taken, but also satisfaction
on account of this " contumely." Punishment would be satis
faction. " God would be acting unjustly if he let the sinner go
unpunished." ' Punishment both takes in turn from the trans
gressor what was his, and proves that he and his are subject to
God. The disobedient one himself cannot render adequate satis
faction. He cannot do this by means of contrition, or by any
other or all forms of obedience ; for obedience he owes for the
present. It does not make good the past. If he possessed the
whole world it would not, if offered to God, counterbalance a
single sin ; for even to gain the whole world one ought not to
commit the least sin. Yet it must be man, he being the trans
gressor, who makes satisfaction. Here is the paradox : man
must, man cannot? Hence the necessity for the Deus Homo, the
God-man. Obedience, it is true, is a debt which Christ owes
for Himself, but to the giving of His life, since He is sinless, He is
not bound. Being almighty, He can deliver Himself; being guilt
less, He has a right to. Now His life putweighs the evil of all sin ;
for one would choose rather to commit all other sins than to do
Him the slightest injury.4 As to the sin of putting Him to death,
it is not excluded from the possibility of pardon, for it was a sin
of ignorance (Luke xxiii. 34). But how can Christ's gift of His
life to God conduce to our advantage ? It is necessary that He
who makes such a gift to God should be rewarded. But all things
that are the Father's are already His, and He owes no debt that
might be remitted. He must have a reward, but cannot. The
escape from the dilemma is the giving of the reward to those for
whose salvation He became man, to his kindred who are so bur
dened with debt. " Nothing more rational, more sweet, more
desirable could the world hear." Certain fanciful speculations
are added, such as the need of making up the number of fallen
1 " Honorem debitum, qui Deo non reddit, aufert Deo, quod suum est, et
Deum exhonorat; et hoc est peccare." (Migne, 158, p. 376.)
2 " Si non decet Deum aliquid injuste aut inordinate facere, non pertinet ad
ejus libertatem aut benignitatem aut voluntatem, peccnntem, qui non solvit
Deo quod abstulit, impunitum dimittere." Ibid. p. 378.
3 " quam (satisfactionem) nee potest facere nisi Deus, nee debet nisi homo :
necesse est, ut earn faciat Deus Homo." II. 6. (Migne, p. 404.)
4 "vita ista plus est amabilis, quam sunt peccata odibilia." II. 14.
(Migne, p. 415.)
MEDIAEVAL THEOLOGY 221
angels, an idea drawn from Augustine, and the reasons for the
Son instead of the Father becoming the man.
Anselm's view is that a debt is due to God, that amends must
be made for the dishonor to Him. This satisfaction is not said
to be the vicarious endurance of the penalty of sin. No stress
is laid on the sufferings of Christ. It is not His passive obedience
that satisfies.1 Nor is it the active obedience of Christ, simply
considered. It is the supererogatory gift of His life. It was an
act of obedience, but a supererogatory act of obedience. Therein
lies its merit, its moral value, its capacity to procure forgiveness
for the ill-deserving.
The question has been debated whether Anselm's theory was
framed on the conceptions of Roman or of German law. It
unquestionably involves those ideas of merit which were m the
Church anterior to the influence of the Teutonic codes and cus
toms, and bears the traces of the Roman jural system. The
influence of the associations of German law, however, is percep
tible. It appears in the prominence of the ideas of personal
dishonor and reparation.2
Pe_ter Abelard was first established as a teacher in Paris in
1115, which was six years after the death of Anselm. In Abe-
lard the balance was lost between the devotional and the logical
elements. In hira the inquisitive spirit and the diajectic passion
had the decided ascendency. As an expert dialectician, he sur
passed all his contemporaries. Wherever he lectured and what
ever he wrote, a ferment was sure to arise. His bold and restless
intellect was ever broaching new problems or suggesting new
solutions of old questions. It is doubtless true, as Ritter ob
serves, that a certain ra§Jjft£&s, rather than free- thinking, was
characteristic of him ; for he did not renounce the fundamental
Scholastic principle of the precedence of faith. Yet he pushed
his innovations as far as was compatible with the principle of
authority. The intellect, he taught, can only develop the contents
1 Anselm is rightly interpreted in this particular by Thomasius, DGM. 3.
i. p. 136 n.; Neander, Ch. Hist. II. 103; Baur, Gesch. d. Versohnungslehre,
pp. 183, 184; Philippi, DGM. 4. 2. p. 87.
2 The Germanic source of the Anselmic theory is maintained by Cremer,
Stud. u. Kritik. 1880, p. 759, with whom coincides Ritschl, Rechtftrtigungs-
lehre, I. 2, p. 40 n. See, also, Thomasius, DG. II. 123. On the other side,
see the criticism of Loofs, DG. p. 273 n., and Harnack, DG. III. 342, n. 2.
Cremer's Reply is in Stud. u. Kritik, (1893) PP- 3T^ sqq.
222 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of faith. But faith without a knowledge of its grounds lacks
stability ; it is easily shaken. Moreover, Abelard has a sublime,
if it were not a presumptuous, confidence in the capacity _pf
reason to probe to the foundations of religious truth, to compre
hend the Gospel from centre to circumference. Face-to-face
knowledge, direct, empirical knowledge (cognoscere) is the re
ward to be expected in the future life, but rational understanding
(intelligere) is possible here. Concerning the Trinity, for exam
ple, we can discern why it is to be believed, and why the three
persons stand to each other in the relation in which they do, and
in no other. No wonder that his Introduction, which presented
these ideas without the least attempt at disguise, kindled an im
mense excitement. In his Yes and No — Sic et Non — he brought
forward clashing opinions of the Fathers on one hundred and
fifty-eight points of theology. His object he declares to be
to stimulate inquiry, for " by inquiring we arrive at the truth."
He will cultivate the acuteness of his readers.1 He can have
no other design in this procedure than to bring in more free-
*dom in doctrinal discussion by showing that to rest upon au
thority alone, as was the fashion, is to lean upon a broken reed.
Naturally he was disposed to minimize the distance between un
inspired philosophy and Christianity. Since the precepts of the
Gospel are an improved republication (reformatio) of the laws of
Nature, and since the Christian estimate of conduct is accord
ing to the intention of the mind, there is no dissonance between
heathen philosophy and Christianity, " save perhaps in those things
which pertain to the mysteries of the incarnation or the resurrec
tion." Respecting the inspiration of the Bible, Abelard says that
the prophets were not always under the influence of the Spirit and
sometimes uttered errors. Peter and Paul could differ in regard
to the observance of the law, and one could correct the other.
But if Apostles and prophets could err, how much more the
Fathers ! 2 On the subject of Original Sin, Abelard sees not how to
avoid the difficulties of the orthodox doctrine — how infants can
be guilty or deserve perdition. He is inclined to interpret Rom.
v. 1 2 as meaning that the sin of Adam is the cause of eternal con
demnation to his descendants, in the sense in which we say that
" a tyrant lives on in his children."
1 " ad maximum inquirendae veritatis exercitium provocent et acutiores ex
inquisitione reddant." Prolog, (Migne, 178, p. 1 349-)
2 Prolog, to Sic et Non. Ibid. p. 1341.
MEDIAEVAL THEOLOGY 323
Abelard may be considered the founder of what it is becoming
customary to call the moral view of reconciliation to God throughj
Christ. The traditional view of the relation of the death of Christ
to Satan he rejects. Satan has no just claims — no more than
one who has seduced a slave to run away from his rightful master
and keeps possession of him.1 He scouts the idea that God should
be placated by the slaying of His innocent Son.2 The work of
Christ, including His sufferings and death, is a manifestation of
divine love to the unworthy which is adapted to kindle gratitude
in their minds and to win them back to obedience to God. It is
this aspect or interpretation of the office of Christ by which Abe-
lard is deeply impressed. He connects with it, however, another
view which is the nearest approach that he makes to the concep
tion of an objective atonement. The love of Christ has in it
merit. And this love, with its meritorious quality in the sight of
God, is the basis of effectual intercession on his part in behalf of
sinful men.3 It can hardly be said that this representation is de
veloped in such a way as to involve the idea of a change effected
in the relation of an offended God to mankind.
So far as particular doctrines are concerned, Abelard gave
offence principally by his utterances on the Trinity. God as the
absolutely perfect combines in Himself absolute Might, Wisdom,
Love, and these constitute his threefold personality. Another
illustration was that of a sej^the material answering to the Father,
the figure carved in it to the Son, the seal impressing its stamp
(sigillum) to the Spirit. On the ground of sayings of this character,
he was charged with Modalism. In 1121 he was compelled — as
he asserts, without discussion — at a council at Soissons to cast
his writing on the Trinity into the fire, and was confined for a
while in a cloister.4 In 1141, at the Council of Sens, which was
guided by Bernard, his teachings were condemned.5 The verdict
was sanctioned by Innocent II., who adjudged him to perpetual
confinement in a cloister. Falling sick on the way to Rome, he
was received by Peter, Abbot of Cluny, and died in 1142.
1 " convinci videtur quod Diabolus in hominem quern seduxit nullum jus
seducendo acquisierit." Ep. ad Rom. L. II. (Migne, 178, p. 834, D.)
2 "Quam vero crudele et iniquum videtur ut sanguinem innocentis in pre-
tium," etc. — " nedum Deus tarn acceptam filii sui mortem habuerit, ut per
ipsam universo reconciliatus sit mundo." (Migne, Ibid. p. 833.)
* Ibid. p. 865. * Mansi, XXI. 265-266 sq. 6 Mansi, Ibid. 559-560 sq.
224
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
There is nothing to subtract from the foregoing remarks. But
in justice to Abelard something more should be said.1 His criti
cal turn was not a veil for a secret unbelief. He can be quoted
even against the over-estimate of the powers of the human mind,
whether by the dialectician or by the mystic. On various topics
he pursued ways which Augustine had really, but less definitely,
opened. In withstanding the Platonic realism, he resisted a popu
lar current, and his own opinion, which was nearer to that of Aris
totle, enabled him to emphasize the transcendence, as well as the
immanence of God, and to avoid giving way to a Pantheistic ten
dency easily allied to the Platonic extreme. He brought etfycs
within the domain of theology, and was a champion of the ethical
interest. Striking characteristics of Abelard's teaching were
taken up by the orthodox Schoolmen of the following century,
although drawn by them from Aristotle rather than from him.
The odium of which Abelard was the later object was partly owing to
the atmosphere of the period, which later was materially modified.
This is indicated by the fact that others, notably Peter Lombard,
were likewise subject temporarily to a like sort of censorship and
attack, which passed by with the lapse of time.
The great antagonist of Abelard was Bernard of Clairvaux.
The two men, as to mental peculiarities and character, are in the
strongest contrast to one another. If we look for the secret of the
overpowering eloquence of Bernard and of his unequalled influence
as an ecclesiastical leader, as a promoter of the crusades, a guide
and monitor of Popes, we shall find it in the depth and ardor of
his piety. And that type of piety of which he was so impressive
an example was productive of effects, in the realm of theological
thought, which in him and in those after him are historically in a high
degree important. His fervor of sensibility appears in yearnings
heavenward, in aspirations for communion with the Christ who is
no longer enshrined in the flesh — feelings which have a precedent
in the devotional outpourings of Augustine. But there are peculi
arities in Bernard's piety. In his allegorizing of the Canticles, his
highest aspiration, the goal of his hope, is to kiss the heavenly
bridegroom upon the lips. His expressions descriptive of his love
to the Lord are borrowed from the language of nuptial affection.
From this source similes are directly drawn. . But what is specially
1 See Deutsch's Monograph upon Abelard, and Harnack'i spirited apology,
DG. III. 326 sq.
f
0
f
MEDIAEVAL THEOLOGY
225
to be observed is Bernard's intense interest in the self-abasement
and suffering of the incarnate Jesus, and his absorbing contempla
tion of the Saviour in this character. From this point of view, he
occasionally utters thoughts truly evangelical in their tenor, one of
which brought comfort to Luther when he was chafing under the
fetters of legalism. Here and there he inculcates the truth of a
free and gratuitous pardon to the believer. Yet severe, ascetic
self-chastisement is essential in his conception of the religious life.
He remains a monk in theory and in practice.
Pervaded with reverence and awe for divine things, Bernard
was deeply aggrieved by Abelard's essays to explain them as if
they were every-day matters. He complains that through Abelard's
influence all minds were unsettled ; that it had come to pass in
France that the Trinity was almost a theme of disputation for boys
in the street, and that the sacred and mysterious truths of religion
were turned into a mere gymnastic for the understanding. He
points out three .conceivable ways of grasping divine truth.1 The
filgt is by the intellect, which apprehends them in their rationality ;
but this is not possible in the present life. The second is opinion,
which is something void of certainty. The third is faith, which is an
embracing by the heart and will, anticipatory of rational insight.2
There are possible ecstasies of feeling — raptus — when the soul
is illuminated and catches a glimpse of heavenly things, beyond
any perceptions open to the intellect. Bernard was not a foe to
learning and science, but his power was exerted in the direction
of laying a curb upon reason and exalting piety as the door to
knowledge. On the subject of the Atonement, Bernard earnestly
opposes the theory of Abelard respecting the bearing of the work
of Christ upon the sway of Satan. The right of Satan over man
kind, he contends, is not based on any obligation to him, but the
bondage to Satan, however iniquitously it was secured, is right
eously permitted as a just retribution for sin.3 He is the execu
tioner of the divine justice. This brings out a principle latent
in the old conception relative to deliverance from Satanic control.
1 De Considcratione, V. 3. (Migne, 182, p. 790.)
2 " Fides est voluntaria quaedam et certa prselibatio necdum propalatae
veritatis." "Nil autem malumus scire quam quse fide jam scimus." Ibid. 3.
(Migne, 182, p. 791.)
3 "jus, etsi non jure acquisitum, sed nequiter usurpatum; juste tamen per-
missum." Ep. CXC. sen Tract, ad Inn. IL (i 140) c. 5. (Migne, 182, p. 1065.)
Q
226 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Christ made this deliverance to harmonize with the justice of God,
who has ordained the servitude under the Evil One as a penalty
for man's transgression.
Akin to Abelard in spirit was Gilbert, Bishop of Poictiers —
Gilbert Porretanus (who died in 1 154)7" From the point of view
of a moderate Realism of the Aristotelian type, he distinguished
" God " from " Deity " or the Divine Essence. The latter is the
universal, as humanity is related to individual men.1 Father, Son,
and Spirit are one, but we may not say that God is Father, and
Son, and Spirit. We cannot say that the Deity became flesh. At
the great Council of Rheims in 1148, Bernard's accusation of
heresy was brought forward ; but Gilbert, aided by his powerful
friends and by the jealousy occasioned by the overshadowing in
fluence of his accuser, went away unharmed. Pope Eugene III.
declared against the opinion which he had held.
In the school of St. Victor near Paris were eminent theologians
who struck a middle path between the intellectual daring of Abe-
lard and an extreme conservatism. To this moderate school be
longed William of Champeaux, a friend and in some sense a guide
of St. Bernard, Hugo of St. Victor, the ablest representative of the
school, and Richard of St. Victor, of the particulars of whose life
not much is known. The merit of faith, Hugo teaches, lies in
the circumstance that our conviction is determined by the affec
tions when no adequate knowledge is yet present. By faith we
make ourselves worthy of knowledge, as perfect knowledge is the
ultimate reward of faith in the life above. On the Atonement,
Hugo teaches that through the sufferings and death of Christ an
adequate satisfaction is offered to God for man's sin.2 Thereby,
and on account of the bringing to Him of a perfect obedience,
God is reconciled and His displeasure removed. There is an
objective Atonement, comprising in it a quasi penal element.
This view is opposed to that of Abelard and contains an element
not expressed in Anselm's theory.
The effect of the conservative reaction illustrated in the treat
ment of Abelard and Gilbert was to inspire the Schoolmen of the
1 " Quod divina natura quae Divinitas dicitur, Deus non sit, sed forma qua
Deus est, quemadmodum humanitas homo non est, sed forma qua est homo."
" Sunt tres seternse." Mansi, XXI. Col. 711.
2 " Christus . . . debitum hominis patri solvit, et moriendo reatum hominis
expiavit." De Sacrum. I. 8, c. 4. (Migne, 176, p. 309.)
MEDIAEVAL THEOLOGY
227
time with greater caution. A via media between the two ten
dencies, the dialectic and the churchly, was adopted by the
authors of the books of Sentences. Propositions were sustained
by extracts from the Fathers. There were two principal writers of
this class. One was Robert Pulleyn, an Englishman, who died in
1150. By far the most celebrated of these authors was Peter
Lombard, who was born at Novara in Italy, taught theology at
Paris, became bishop there in 1159, and died in 1164. He set
forth the doctrines of the Church in a systematic form, explained
them, and argued for them, but everywhere supported his opin
ions by citations from the Fathers, especially from Augustine. He
was a pupil of Abelard and was obviously much affected by his
teachings. He lays much stress on the deliverance from sin
through the love that is awakened in the human heart by the
manifestation of God's love in the mission and death of Christ.1
But he connects with this representation the doctrine of man's
release from the hands of Satan, regarded as an executioner.
Here he agrees with Bernard. "By his death, one most real
sacrifice, whatever of faults there were for enduring the punish
ment of which Satan held us in his power, Christ extinguished."
He "merited for us." His consummate humility atoned for
Adam's pride.2 He even 'says that Christ took on himself the
punishment of sin, — a distinct step in advance of Anselm.3 But
the Lombard protests earnestly against the notion that God was an
enemy and did not begin to love us until we were reconciled by the
blood of Christ. Rather is it true that He loved us before the
world was, and this love was the motive of the atonement. Peter
Lombard did not escape suspicion and accusation. Among his
adverse critics were Walter of St. Victor, and Joachim of Floris, a
mystic. It was said that some of his statements respecting the
Trinity were unsound. Joachim attributed to him the idea of a
quaternity in the divine being, on the ground of the statement that
the Father as personal principle in the divine being generates the
Son. The divine essence, it was said, is thus made a fourth. But
the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, decided for the Lombard. The
Father is declared to be the active principle in the generation of
1 Sent. L. III. Dist. XIX. i. (Migne, 192, p. 795.)
2 Dist. XVIII. 5. (Migne, 192, p. 794.)
8 " Non sufficeret ilia pcena, qua poenitentes ligat ecclesia, nisi poena Christi
cooperetur, qui pro nobis solvit" Ibid. XIX. 4. (Migne, 192, p. 797.)
228 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the Son, not separable from the essence, but communicating it
to the Son. Respecting the Incarnation, the Lombard taught that
the divine person which had been simple and existing in one
nature, became the person of a man by assuming human nature,
thus becoming one divine person in two natures.1 Thus adop-
tionism was avoided.
Adverse criticism ceased as time went on, and the book of
Sentences became the current text-book in theology, on which
numberless lectures were delivered and commentaries written.
The dialecticians were too strong for the mystics to cast them into
discredit. The most noted of the critics of Scholasticism on the
ground of its logical fanaticism and neglect of ancient learning
was John of Salisbury, a Humanist in his studies and tastes. In
his closing years he was Bishop of Chartres. He died in 1180.
i L. III. 6. 6.
CHAPTER V
THE SECOND SECTION OF THE SCHOLASTIC ERA — ST. FRANCIS AND
THE FRANCISCAN PIETY MYSTICISM AQUINAS AND SCOTUS
THE transition to the second division of the Scholastic period
was made by Alexander of Hales — who was trained in the clois
ter of Hales in Gloucestershire, studied at Oxford and Paris, and
in 1222 became the first Franciscan teacher of theology at Paris.
By this " irrefragable doctor," as he was styled, the writings of
Aristotle, as well as those of his Arabic commentators, were freely
used. The approval by the Pope of this teacher's own commen
taries on Aristotle left theologians free from the restraint relative
to the use of the philosopher's writings, which had been imposed
by Gregory IX. in 1215. The reverence for him grew. It came
to pass that he was not only cited in lectures and treatises in con
nection with the Fathers of the Church, but that he was considered
to have exhausted the powers of human reason in the ascertain
ment of ethical and religious truth, as well as in physics and psy-
cliology. Yet the influence of Aristotle in shaping Christian
doctrine was mainly in the directions in which the Church of
itself had adopted kindred opinions or points of view. Much im
portance, even as regards the history of theology, belongs to that
great religious movement of the thirteenth century, which is con
nected in a preeminent degree with the work and example of
St. Francis of Assisi and with both the mendicant orders. It
was from the Franciscans that Dominic borrowed, and he enjoined
upon the order that he founded the rule of poverty. The type of
piety which sprung up under the auspices of the Saint of Assisi
had its precursor in St. Bernard, but was further developed in a
like direction, and exerted a vastly increased power and influence.
The idea that filled the mind of St. Francis was that of the repro
duction of the " life and the poverty of Jesus." The contem-
229
230 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
plation of Jesus, especially in his self-renunciation and sufferings,
was ever a fountain of joy and entered largely into the Franciscan
ideal of the religious life. But with this spirit, which is termed
the " mystical " side, there was united an inextinguishable ar^pr
in doing good, in which preaching and the care of souls formed
an essential part. In all this activity, the privilege of hearing
confessions and other prerogatives granted to the mendicant friars
by the Popes, great as was the hostility thus engendered among
the bishops and local priests, were an invaluable aid. There is
not space here to enter into details on these topics, but two
characteristics of the great Franciscan revival require to be dis
tinctly mentioned. The first is that in its origin and continuance
the laity were largely concerned, although, from the first, obedience
to the hierarchy, to the Pope especially, was a cardinal rule, and,
as time went on, the lay element more and more gave place to
priestly membership and control. The second point is the fact
that there was opened, on a large scale, personal religious effort
for the conversion and the religious guidance and comfort of
individuals. The love of Christ was a glowing, absorbing passion.
To dwell on His humility, His self-denial, His death on the cross,
was the main source of comfort and inspiration. It is remarkable
that while the Scholastic doctrine respecting Christ, as a whole,
leaned towards a monophysite view, or a view in which His human
nature was eclipsed by His divinity, there should prevail to such
an extent a loving contemplation of His human traits and ex
periences.
If we give the name of Mysticism to the self-surrender, amount
ing at times to the self-extinguishment, of the soul, in the glow of
emotion, and to a rapturous insight sought through this channel,
it is in the declining period of Scholasticism that Mysticism as
sumes a peculiar prominence. But in its essential character it is
a marked phenomenon in the preceding age. Mysticism and
Scholasticism were not antagonists. Among the theological
leaders, the great mystics were Scholastics, and the most eminent
Schoolmen, who are not classified with the Mystics, exemplified
Mysticism in their own experience and found a place for it in their
teaching. But in certain of the Schoolmen, Mysticism is elabo
rately explained and wrought into an articulated system. Such are
the " Victorines," Hugo and Richard. Such is Bonaventura —
John of Fidanza — " doctor seraphicus " — a pupil of Alexander of
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 231
Hales, his successor at Paris, and in 1256 made General of the
Franciscan order. He put the highest value upon spiritual illu
mination. He preferred the Platonic teaching to that of Aristotle.
Yet he was Scholastic in his method. In the mystical system the
approach to direct communion with God, the goal of human as
piration, is partly intellectual, but also, keeping pace with it, ethical
and practical. Above the empirical apprehension, above the
rational understanding, of the world, is the ascent of the soul, if
purified and enlightened by divine grace, to the enraptured per
ception, the ecstatic enjoyment, of the realities of faith. On this
height, above the plane of sense-perception and of logic, there are
discerned the allegorical import of nature and the allegorical sense
of Scripture.
No theologian of German birth in the Middle Ages stands
higher in merit than Albert the Great, styled from the extent
of his acquisitions, which embraced an acquaintance with natural
science, " doctor universalis." Distinguished for his expositions
of Aristotle, he was affected also by Platonic and New Platonic
doctrine, and by the mystical speculations of the Areopagite.
General ideas, he held, are in the mind of God, but are realized in
individual things. A versatile and prolific writer, he still left unfin
ished his Summa and his Commentary on the Lombard. But Albert
is in a measure overshadowed by the commanding distinction of
his renowned pupil, Thomas Aquinas, who, like his master, was a
Dominican, and the great light of that order. With his personal
friend Bonaventura, he maintained the claim of the mendicant
orders to chairs in the University of Paris. In Thomas there
reappears that just balance between the philosophical tendency and
; the religious which was so marked in Anselm. In Thomas, won
derful acumen blends with clearness. He is the most profound
and luminous of the Scholastic writers. He was, like Albert, an
Aristotelian Realist. In general, more than any other, he labored
to harmonize the principles of Aristotle with the teachings of the
Church, of whose authority, including the supreme authority of
the Popes, he was a devoted champion. His Summa Theologies
covers the field of Ethics as well as of Theology. It was not com
pleted by its author, but stopped in the midst of the discussion of the
doctrine of Penance. It is carried to the end, however, by means
of extracts from his other writings. The generic subject is God,
and the work is cast into three principal parts, each breaking into
232 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
divisions and subdivisions. The first part treats of God, including
the nature of God, the Trinity, the relation of God to the World.
The second treats of Man, or the " Motion of the Creature towards
God," where are discussed §in and Law, the Virtues, natural and
Christian or theological, and the contemplative or blessed life,
which is the end and aim of man's being, to be realized in the
world above. The thirjd part deals with the Person and Work of
Christ, the Sacraments, and with Eschatology. Christ is to us the
way of returning to God. Thus with God theology begins and \
\ ends. The trend of Aquinas is decidedly Augustinian. In his
apologetic Work, Christianity is defended against heathen, Moham
medans, and skeptics, the first part being upon the truths of nat
ural religion and the fourth or concluding book upon the truths of
revelation.
Associated with the name of Aquinas is that of the Scholastic
teacher who, as to the type of his theology, was at variance with
him, John Duns Scotus. He belongs to a generation later, was a
member of the Franciscan order, and died in 1308. Scotus was
appropriately named "doctor mirabilis." So far did he push the
process of hair-splitting analysis that he was driven to invent many
new terms. His style, compared with that of his Scholastic prede
cessors, is marked by its barbarous latinity. A sincere Christian
believer, and standing in his own day within the lines of admis
sible orthodoxy, he yet lacks the religious depth of Aquinas. In
philosophy, he did not stop with Aristotle, but was more Platonic
in his Realism. In his theology, he was Semi-Pelagian. The
effect of the teaching of Scotus was to begin the work of undgr-
mining the Scholasticism of which he was so famous a leader.
This effect was produced, partly by his critical treatment of the
arguments drawn from reason for the propositions of the creed.
Very little space was conceded to possible demonstration. Many
arguments which had been deemed sufficient to foreclose all
objections were reduced to a higher or lower degree of probabil
ity. Then essential parts of the divine administration and of the
procedure of God in redemption were represented as inexplicable,
or as sufficiently explained by the reference of them to God's will.
In these ways the sphere of authority was enlarged, and the ver
dict of the Church left as the sole verification of important
doctrines. So far as this ground was taken, the vocation of
Scholasticism was gone.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY
233
Aquinas and Scotus were the founders of the two great conflict
ing schools. The dissent of Scotus related to numerous points.
A radical difference, which affected the entire complexion of the
rival systems, was their diversity on the subject of Grace and
Free-will.
It is in the third section of the Scholastic Period that the dis
integrating work of Scotus, which tended to divorce philosophy
from theology, and to bring discredit upon the whole undertaking
of the Schoolmen, was carried out. Durandus de St. Pourcain, a
Dominican, at first a Thomist, broke away from his adhesion to
the school of Aquinas, and maintained that we have no clear knowl
edge save of individual things. He subjected the dominant Real
ism to a hostile criticism. Durandus died as Bishop of Meaux in
1334. But it was chiefly William of Occam, a pupil of Scotus,
who regained for Nominalism its long lost standing. He was for
a time a teacher at Paris. %He was a champion of the Franciscan
order in its contests against the Popes in behalf of the rule of
poverty. He stood by Louis of Bavaria in his resistance to the
political interference of the Avignonese Pontiffs. All our knowledge,
Occam asserted, is of phenomena. Individuals, things in the*con-
crete, alone exist. Common names, like algebraic signs, are to
designate them. Demonstrations in religion are out of the ques
tion. Logic when applied to the truths of Christianity lands us in
contradictions. These truths are revealed directly by God either
in the Bible or to the Church. Occam's assaults upon papal infal
libility and the power of the Pope over Kings and in temporal
affairs, his assertion that even a general council might err, even
that faith might depart save from the souls of a few devout women,
are interesting parts of his teaching. What concerns us just now
is his thesis that even transubstantiation is logically indefensible,
and is to be accepted as a revelation made to the Church. In the
latter part of the fifteenth century, Gabriel Biel, teacher of theol
ogy at Tubingen, who has been sometimes styled the last of the
Schoolmen, was prominent as an expounder of Nominalism and a
disciple of Occam. He died in 1495. After Occam appeared,
there were three, instead of two, contending schools, the Thomists,
the Scotists, and the Occamists. Nominalism was in the ascendant.
CHAPTER VI
THE SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINES : NATURAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN
EVIDENCES THE TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION DIVINE AND
HUMAN AGENCY — ORIGINAL SIN
IN presenting the opinions of the Schoolmen on specific doctrines,
chief attention will be given to the topics in connection with which
their teaching was something more than the bare reproduction of
patristic theology. Such topics are*the jflhujrh and the Sacra
ments, respecting which it was sought to interpret and justify the
existing practices ; me doctrine of sifl and of the operation of
gra^e, where there were important deviations from the Augustinian
teaching, and the^Atonement, — a subject on which discussion
was not fettered by any established dogma. Special attention
will naturally be given to the antithesis of the Thomist and the
Scotist opinions.
Aquinas endeavors to indicate the necessity of revelation against
the objection that if man were not furnished with all the powers
requisite for attaining the end of his being, he would be behind
all other creatures, who in this respect are sufficient of themselves.
The answer is that for the very reason that man has, a higher end,
a loftier destiny, which is nothing less than a participation in the
divine glory, he needs supernatural light and aid. Thomas dis
tinguishes two classes of truths from one another.1 There are the
truths above reason, — for example, the Trinity. There are truths
accessible to reason, — for example, the truth that there is a God.
But even truths of the second order need to be confirmed by the
testimony of revelation, since practically the knowledge of God
is attainable by only a few, through long effort, and not without
an admixture of error. That there should be truths which are
the object of faith is advantageous, as attracting the mind towards
1 Summa CathoL Fidei c. Gentiles, P. I. qu. I, art. I.
234
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY
235
a higher realm of knowledge,1 kindling aspirations after a more
exalted state, and fostering humility. As related to the truths of
faith, we are capable of discerning analogies — veras similitudi-
ncs — which, although without demonstrative force, and not suffi
cient to convince adversaries, are yet a mental exercise and solace
for the faithful, and show that these truths do not clash with
reason. In their defences of Christianity, the Schoolmen were
necessarily cut off from the use of arguments which involve his
torical and critical learning. It is not until the close of the
Scholastic period and the rise of Humanism that, through the
work of Marsilius Ficinus, the Florentine Platonist, the historical
evidence of Christianity is presented with any fulness of knowl
edge.2 The Schoolmen drew a line of demarcation between natu
ral and revealed religion. Their apologies were often cogent, if
they were not erudite, and had the merit of accuracy in definitions.
Aquinas explains a miracle to be an event beyond the order of
nature, not of any particular department of nature, but of nature
in its totality.3 It is an event, therefore, which God alone can
accomplish. As regards the divine origin of the Scriptures, Scotus
was the first to treat this topic elaborately. He presents eight
considerations, nearly all of which are internal proofs.
Aquinas, in his doctrine concerning God, describes Him as
endowed with thought and will. With Aristotle he says of Him
that He is actus purus, i.e., energy fully realized, instead of being
potential. God sets before Himself an end. This must necessarily
have reference to Himself, must be Himself. In pursuance of
this end the world was made. The world as being thus related
to God is an object of His love. But connected with these views
is the conception of God — which is derived from the Areopagite
— as a being of whom nothing positive can be predicated.4
As to particular proofs of the divine existence, Aquinas re
marks of the Anselmic argument that it assumes, what an Athe
ist will not concede, that the term ' God ' denotes the highest
1 " Oportuit mentem evocari in aliquid altius quam ratia nostra in prsesenti
possit pertingere."
2 De Relig. Christ, et Fidei Pietate (1475).
3 Summa Theol. P. I. qu. no, art. 4 — "sed non sufficit ad rationem mi-
raculi si aliquid fiat prseter ordinem naturae alicujus particularis . . . aliquid
dicitur esse miraculum, quod fit praeter ordinem totius naturae creatae, hoc
autem non potest facere nisi Deus," etc.
4 Ibid. P. III. qu. I, art. 2; cf. P. I. qu. 46, art. I.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
conceivable, and, if it does, that what exists in name exists
objectively.1 In agreement with Richard of St. Victor, he collects
five modes of proof, viz., from a first principle of motion (Aris
totle being here followed), from the necessity of a first efficient
cause, from the presupposition of an existence which is per se
necessary, from the supposition of the perfect as implied in the
scale of things imperfect, from design in nature.2 The first three
suggestions form the cosmological proof. But Aquinas holds that
prior to all reasoning, a knowledge of God is inherent " in a con
fused way " in all men.
SJcotus sets aside the ontological argument for the being of
God. The argument from effect to cause he does not reject.
But as a ground of theistic belief he calls in the aid of Revela
tion.3 Emphasizing the attribute of freedom in man, he likewise
makes will the predominant element in the conception of God.
But this autonomy is made so absolute that no reason is required
for the actions of God beyond or behind His bare will. While,
therefore, the personality of God is asserted in a more stringent
way than by Aquinas, a foundation is laid by Scotus for a series
of very questionable propositions in Christian doctrine.
Can man know God as He is in Himself, or, as the Schoolmen
express it, has he " a quidditative " cognition of God ? Thomas
replies in the negative ; all our knowledge is relative. Scotu,s
answers in the affirmative. Finally a middle ground was reached
by contending parties, — the position, namely, that some of the
essential attributes can be known as they are, and others cannot.
The Scholastic discussions respecting the significance of the sev
eral divine attributes are examples of subtle and often not unprofit
able discrimination. Omnipotence, says Aquinas, is the power to
do whatever does not involve a contradiction. But of this last it is
more true to say that it cannot be done than that God cannot do
it. In relation to God's omnipresence, the Thomist doctrine was
that God is in all things, not as a part of their essence, nor yet as
an accident or attribute, but as an a^ent is present to that on
which it acts. " Everything must be conjoined to that on which
it immediately acts." In opposition to this " virtual " presence
of God, which had been taught before by Alexander of Hales, the
1 Summa Theol. P. I. qu. 2, art. I. 2 Ibid. qu. 2, art. 3.
3 For a full exposition of Scotus's view, see A. Dorner's art., Real Encycl.
Vol. III. p. 739 sq.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY
237
Scotists asserted an " ideal " presence. Dependent existences are
conditioned only by their presence, or the presence of the ideal
exemplars of which they partake, in the divine mind.
There was a vast outlay of ingenuity among the Schoolmen in
the exposition of the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Incarna
tion. The conceptions of Aquinas were as clear and exact as the
nature of the questions permits, and in the main they ruled
opinion. Respecting persons in God, it is taught that the
activity in which they originate is immanent. They are related to
knowing and willing in the divine being. In the generation of
the Son and the procession of the Spirit, the divine knowledge
and the divine love find an immanent realization. We can say
that there are three wise, three eternal, etc., when we speak of
divine persons ; but, using the terms as substantives, we must say,
One Wise, One Eternal, etc.1 We must avoid opposite errors and
steer between them. To shun the Arian error, we must avoid the
terms ' diversity ' and ' difference ' and use the word ' distinc
tion.' To preserve the simplicity of the divine nature, we must
avoid the terms ' separation ' and ' division,' as if the whole were
divided into parts. To avoid the loss of equality, the term ' dis
parity ' must be shunned. To preserve similitude, ' alien ' and
' discrepant ' must be avoided. To escape Sabellianism, ' singu
larity' must be avoided, and the word 'single' (unicus), lest the
number of persons be destroyed. The same is to be said of the
term ' solitary,' in order that the society (consortium} of persons
may not be done away with.2
In treating of the Incarnation, Aquinas insisted that the human
nature of Christ is individual, not the nature of mankind generally.
Yet it was no human person, it was personal only as belonging to
a more exalted person, and as having the capacity and destination
to be personal.3
In contrast with the Pantheistic ideas of John Scotus, creation
was considered by the Schoolmen to be an act of the divine will.
The narrative in Genesis was commonly taken in both a literal
and allegorical sense. The spiritual expositions, says Aquinas,
must be framed on the basis of the literal meaning, which is first
to be accepted.
1 Aquinas, Sum. TheoL P. I. qu. 36, art. 4.
* Ibid. P. I. qu. 31, art. 2.
* Ibid. P. III. qu. 2, art. 2. See Schwane, DG. d. mittleren Zeit. p. 269.
238 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
In keeping with the whole tendency of his system, Aquinas
regarded the preservation of the world as a continuous act of
creation, an opinion which Scotus and his followers rejected. The
end of creation was said by Aquinas to be the communication of
God's own perfection, " which is His goodness." l " God acts not
for His own advantage, but solely by reason of His own goodness."
The radical difference between the Thomist and Scotist schools
appears in respect to the question of the divine agency in its
relation to the activity of the human will, or divine Providence as
concerned with the choices of man. Aquinas, like his preceptor,
Albert, held to determinism. There are second causes, but God
is the prime mover, acting upon them, and, in the case of the will,
so to speak, within them. The will is not necessitated when it is
moved by God to act in a particular direction, since there is no
external constraint. That which is produced is the inward incli
nation itself. " God in moving the will does not coerce it, since
He gives to it its own inclination. To be moved by the will is to
be moved by one's self, that is, by an internal principle ; but that
intrinsic principle may be from another extrinsic principle ; and
thus to be moved of one's self is not inconsistent with being moved
by another." ' In this way, " God is the cause of all the acts of
agents," whatever may be their nature. Yet Thomas denies that
God is the author of moral evil. He follows Augustine in main
taining that moral evil is purely negative, the absence in man
of what should be. Being negative, it cannot be the object of
a creative act. As to his theodicy, Aquinas maintains that the
defect of one thing may redound to the good of another. Hence
a defect in one particular part or place is permitted to be.
"There were not the life of the lion, if there were not the slaying
of animals " on which he feeds, "nor would there be the patience
of martyrs, if it were not for the persecution of tyrants." 3 It is
1 " (Deus) intendit solum communicare suam perfectionem, qvue est ejus
bonitas." Acting from no sense of need, He is " maxime liberalis." Sum. Theol.
P. I. qu. 44, art. 4.
2 " Deus movendo voluntatem non cogit ipsam, quia dat et ejus propriam in-
clinationem. Moveri voluntate est moveri ex se, id est, a principio intrin-
seco, sed illud principium intrinsecum potest esse ab alio principio extrinseco,"
etc. Ibid. P. I. qu. 105, art. 4.
3 It belongs to the Providence of God to permit " quosdam defectus esse in
aliquibus particularibus rebus, ne impediatur bonum universi perfectum. Si
enim omnia mala impedirentur, multa bona deessent universe. Non enim esset
MEDLEVAL THEOLOGY
239
desirable that there should be beings, " the order of the universe
requires that there should be some beings, who can depart from
goodness and sometimes do thus depart. " In instituting the order
of the universe, which is good, God " by consequence, and, as it
were, by accident," causes that which is corrupt in it.1 Sin is thus
made to be the necessary means of the greatest good. Respect
ing divine precepts which forbid moral evil, the distinction had
been previously made between the secret or decretive, and the
revealed or preceptive will of God. "Those things," says Peter
Lombard, " which God has commended or prohibited to all, He
has willed to be done or avoided by some but not by all." 2 The
distinction was adopted by Alexander of Hales and is thus set
forth by Aquinas : " God can be said metaphorically to will that
which He does not will in the proper sense. The exertion of His
agency is always in accord with the will in the sense of His good
pleasure," i.e., the decretive will, " but this is not the case with
regard to his precepts or counsels."8 That this world is the best
possible, the best within the power of God to produce, was taught
by Anselm and Abelard. But Aquinas (and with him Durandus)
held that while no beneficial change within the system is conceiv
able, since the effect of such a change would be to break up the
perfection of the parts in their natural relation, like the stretching
of a single chord of a harp, yet there might have been, had God
so willed, without any disaster, an enlargement of the system by
additions. From the determinism of Aquinas, Scotus dissented,
and hence, also, from not a few of the inferences drawn from it.
The Schoolmen were Creationists. Aquinas distinguished be
tween the sensitive or a,nhnal_§Q.ul which man has in common with
the brutes, and the intellective soul. The former is propagated
physically, the latter is immediately created.4 Aquinas argues for
the immortality of the soul from its simple and indivisible nature
and from its power of cognizing realities independent of time and
space.5 Scotus denied the validity of the proofs of immortality
vita leonis," etc. Ibid. P. I. qu. 22, art. 2. See Baur's exposition, Die Christl.
Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, etc. Vol. II. p. 736.
1 Ibid. P. I. qu. 48, art. 2. 2 Sent. I. Dist. 45 F.
3 " Operatic semper est eadem cum voluntate beneplaciti, non autem prae-
ceptum vel consilium." Sum. ThcoL P. I. qu. 19, art. n, 12.
4 " impossibile est quod virtus quae est in semine sit productiva intellectivi
principii." Ibid. P. I. qu. 118, art. 2.
5 " Scnsus non cognoscit esse nisi sub hie et nunc ; sed intellectus tpprehea-
240
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
which were drawn from reason. The question whether the soul is
naturally immortal was long debated, and was at last decided in
the affirmative by the Council of the Lateran, under Pope Leo. X.,
in 1513-
The distinction in man between the image and the similitude of
God was thus defined by Peter Lombard : " the image consists in
the cognition of truth ; the similitude in the love of virtue." l
With some differences of statement, the Schoolmen adhered
essentially to this distinction. They followed Augustine in ascrib
ing to man the pura naturalia, the natural powers of reason and
will, and the supernatural gift, the gift, superadded of God's
grace, — spiritual excellence or righteousness. On the one hand,
man was adapted through the physical and mental powers which
were inseparable from his nature to this mundane existence. On
the other hand, he received a further endowment whereby he was
brought into communion with God. But when and on what
terms was the superadded righteousness communicated? In
answering this question the two schools parted company. Ac
cording to Aquinas it was a gift outright, bestowed on man simul
taneously with his creation.2 According to Scotus, time elapsed
during which he was in a state of nature.3 Moreover, there was
a movement of will, a concurrence, a receptive act on the part of
man. Peter Lombard had likened the acquisition of the super
natural gift to the marriage of the soul to God, there being a prior
consent on the part of Adam. From this difference, important
corollaries followed.
Through the fall of Adam it was the common doctrine that the
gratia gr a turn facie ns — original righteousness — was forfeited and
lost. Man was left in the state of nature — in statit purorum
naturalium. But as to the extent of the effect wrought, the
Thomist and the Scotist were again divided. Aquinas taught
that there is introduced a disorder in the powers of the soul ;
wounds are inflicted.4 There is ignorance of God, aversion to the
true good, a great weakening of the powers of moral resistance,
dit esse absolute et secundum omne tempus." Hence the natural desire "esse
semper." But this desire " non potest esse inane." Ibid. P. I. qu. 76, art. 6.
1 Sent. Lib. II. Dist. 16 D.
2 Ibid. P. I. qu. 95, art. I. 3 Ibid. II. distinct. 39.
4 " Haec autem originalis justitia subtracta est per peccatum primi parentis
. . . et ipsa destitutio vulneratio naturae dicitur." Sum. Theol. P. II. i, qu. 85,
art. 3.
MEDIAEVAL THEOLOGY
24I
a vehement propensity for sensuous gratification. Prior to the
fall, so Aquinas taught, man had a natural power to fulfil the
divine law, not, however, from the motive of love to God, for
which the gift of supernatural grace was required. After the fall,
even that power vanished. The principle of sin was designated
by the Schoolmen as " concupiscence," which included inordinate
f desires in general, the sexual passion being the prominent element.
By the fall, Aquinas held, man lost his freedom and was reduced
I to a state of 'helplessness as regards spiritual excellence. The
transmission of sin was explained by the unity of the race and
the possession of a common nature which is transmitted from
the parent of the race. Scptus contended that by the loss of
original righteousness, the natural powers of man are not directly
affected, but become inordinate for want of the check derived
from divine grace. Concupiscence as a native desire is not
sinful. It brings guilt only through the consent of the will which
by the fall is not wholly deprived of freedom.
Of course the problem of the responsible connection of the race
with Adam and of the method of the transmission of sin from him
to his posterity is discussed by Aquinas. We have already seen
how it was handled by Anselm. Before reviewing the solution of
Aquinas, a few words may be said on the way in which it was dealt
with by the "Master of Sentences," the author of that text-book of
theology in the Middle Ages which held its place for centuries in
the European universities. Peter Lombard presents the doctrine
of Augustine in its essential parts, with abundant citations from his
writings. Sin did not spread in the world, he affirms, by imitation
of a bad example, but by propagation, and appears in every one at
birth.1 Original sin is not mere liability to punishment for the
first sin, but involves sin and guilt. That first sin not only ruined
Adam, but the whole race likewise ; since from him we derive at
once condemnation and sin. That original sin in us is concupis
cence. Our nature was vitiated in Adam; "since all were that
one man ; that is, were in him materialiter" We were in him
materialiter, casualiter, or seminally. The body is wholly de
rived from him. It is the doctrine of the Lombard that each
soul is created by itself, but is corrupted by contact with the
material part which is vitiated in Adam.2 He gives this explicit
1 Sent. II., Lib. II. Dist. XXX. (Ed. Cologne, 1576.)
2 Ibid. Lib. II. Dist. XXXI. XXXII.
R
242
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
answer to the problem which Augustine declines to solve. The
law of propagation, says Peter Lombard, is not suspended in con
sequence of the entrance of sin into the world ; and the corruption
of the soul in each case is an inevitable result of its conjunction
with the body. Augustine, in the Encheiridion, had admitted that
the sins of more immediate parents, as far back as the third or
fourth generation, may be imputed to the child, but had not posi
tively sanctioned this view. The Lombard argues that he could
not have entertained it without inconsistency, since it would be
incompatible with his doctrine that the sin and punishment of1
infants are comparatively light.1 He does not deny the position
of Anselm that sin belongs to the will ; 2 yet he is careful to say
that the soul on uniting with the body becomes ipso facto corrupt ;
since if an act of self-determination be supposed to intervene, it
would be actual, and not original, sin. On the whole, his repre
sentations accord with what we have explained to be the idea of
Anselm.
We turn now to the discussion of the subject by Aquinas. This
most acute and profound writer manifests caution in handling so
difficult a theme ; but his conclusions, as might be expected, coin
cide with the dogma of Augustine. Aquinas says that "although
the soul is not transmitted, since the virtus seminis cannot cause
a rational soul," yet by this means " human nature is transmitted
from parent to offspring, and with it, at the same time, the infec
tion of nature."3 Hence the new-born child is made partaker of
the sin of the first parent, since from him he received his nature
through the agency of the generative function. No man is pun
ished except for his own sin. We are punished for the sins of
near ancestors only so far as we follow them in their transgres
sions.4 The main point in the explication of original sin is the
nature of our union with Adam. This Aquinas sets forth by an
analogy. The will, by an imperative volition, bids a limb, or
member of the body, commit a sin. Now an act of homicide is
not imputed to the hand considered as distinct from the body, but
is imputed to it as far as it belongs to the man as part of him, an<£
is moved by the first principle of the motion in him, — that is, the
will. Being thus related, the hand, were it possessed of a nature
capable of sin, would be guilty. So all who are born of Adam arc
1 Sent. Lib. II. Dist. XXXIII. 3 Sum. Theol. P. II. qu. 81, art. I.
* Ibid. Dist. XLII. « Ibid. II. qu. 81, art. a.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 243
to be considered as one man. They are as the many members of
one body.
"Thus the disorder (inordinatio) which is in that man who
sprang from Adam, is not voluntary by the act of his own will, but
by the will of the first parent, who moves ' motione generationis J
all who derive their origin from him, just as the soul's will moves
all the limbs to an act ; whence the sin which is derived from the
first parent to his posterity, is called original : in the same way
that the sin which is derived from the soul to the members of the
body is called actual ; and as the actual sin which is committed
by a bodily member is the sin of that member, only so far as that
member pertains to the man himself — est aliquid ipsius ho minis —
so original sin belongs to an individual, only so far as he receives
his nature from the first parent." ] It may be remarked that
among others, Cajetan, the renowned commentator of Aquinas,
in the sixteenth century undertakes to explain and defend the
analogy. The descendant of Adam belongs to Adam, as a hand
to the body ; and from Adam, through natural generation, he at
once receives his nature and becomes a partaker of sin.
The realistic character of Aquinas's doctrine appears strongly
in the argument by which he attempts to prove that no sins but
the first sin of the first man are imputed to us.2 He sharply dis
tinguishes between nature and person. Those things which
directly pertain to an individual, like personal acts, are not trans
mitted by natural generation. The grammarian does not thus
communicate to his offspring the science of grammar. Accidental
properties of the individual may, indeed, in some cases, descend
from father to son, as, for example, swiftness of body. But quali
ties which are purely personal are not propagated. As the per
son has his own native properties and the qualities given by grace,
so the nature has both. Original righteousness was a gracious gift
to the nature at the outset, and was lost in Adam in the first sin.
" Just as original righteousness would have been transmitted to his
posterity at the same time with the nature, so also is the opposite
disorder (inordinatio}. But other actual sins of the first parent,
or of other later parents, do not corrupt the nature, as concerns its
qualities (quantum ad id quod natures est), but only as concerns
the qualities of the person."
Original righteousness was principally and primarily in the sub-
1 Sum. Theol. II. qu. 81, art. I. 2 Ibid. art. 2.
244 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
jection of the will to God. From the alienation of the will from
God, disorder has arisen in all the other powers'of the soul. Hence
the deprivation of original righteousness, through which the will
was subject to God, is the first or formal element in original sin,
while concupiscence or " ' inordinatio" is the second, or material
element. Thus original sin affects the will, in the first instance.
Its first effect is the wrong bent of the will. Aquinas's analysis of
native, inherent depravity is substantially accordant with that of
Anselm.
The doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary was denied
by Anselm, and when a festival in her honor was established at
Lyons (1140) by those who espoused this opinion, it was com
bated by Bernard of Clairvaux, who nevertheless held to her per
fect ante-natal sanctification. It was even rejected by Bonaventura,1
as well as by Aquinas ; but it was pronounced a probable truth by
Scotus.2 It became more and more a tenet of the Franciscans, a
tenet against which the Dominicans protested. But despite this
difference, there was a prevailing impulse to glorify the Virgin as
a mediator with her son, and fitted to be such through her spot
less innocence procured through grace by the retrospective effect
of the Redeemer's work. A kind of worship was accorded to her
even by Thomas, intermediate between strictly divine honors which
were due to God alone and the type of homage offered to the
saints.
1 "Teneamus secundum quod communis opinio tenet, Virginis sanctifica-
tionem fuisse post originalis peccati contraction." Lib. III. Dist. 3, art. I.
2 Summa, P. III. qu. 27, art. 2.
CHAPTER VII
SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINES : THE ATONEMENT — CONVERSION AND SANC-
TIFICATION JUSTIFICATION THE CHURCH AND THE PAPACY
AQUINAS retains the fundamental idea of Anselm's theory of the
Atonement, — the idea of a full, objective satisfaction for sin. Yet
such is his conception of God as an absolute being that he 4^nies
the strict necessity of the death of Christ as a means of redemption.
He even says that God is at full liberty to pardon sins outright, as a
man may forgive the injuries done to himself. This is a point in
which Aquinas departs from Anselm's view. Yet Aquinas holds to
a certain necessity in this case, since the mode of redemption
chosen of God is the best and the most adapted to the end in
view.1 The creature cannot satisfy for sins, on account of God's
infinite majesty, the infinite good — even God — of which sin
deprives man, and by reason of the possible repetition of Adam's
sin in an endless series of individuals.2 The sufferings and death
of Christ are manifestations of the greatness of God's love which
are suited to a^akgn.a_reciprpcal .love in men, and to furnish to
them an example of holy obedience. Besides, Satan who de
ceived maiTi's by man overcome, and is displaced from a domin
ion over men to which he had no right, yet under which God had
righteously left them. Christ in His humanity has voluntarily en
dured every variety of suffering, including the pain which springs
from sympathy with sinful men. All this He has endured of His
own free will, in a spirit of obedience to God. By this means,
satisfaction is made for sin. He satisfies who renders to an
offended party that which he loves more than he hates the offence. >
God ever loves us for the nature which He has created, yet He
ever hates us as far as we are sinners. By reason of the exceed-
1 Sum. Theol. P. III. qu. 46, art. 2.
2 Ibid. P. III. qu. 46, art. 3. Ibid, art. 4.
245
246 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
ing love of Christ, the extent and manifoldness of His sufferings,
the value of His life, Christ has in this way made satisfaction for
the sins of men not excepting the sins of those who put him to
death. In this satisfaction is included His universal obedience,
his fulfilment of the ceremonial law, He being the offering therein
typified, and of the moral law, to which he was obedient unto
death. He has rendered an equivalent for the dishonor which
God has suffered. It is a complete compensation. Thereby He
is placated as regards all the offences of those who are joined to
Christ. Howjs the atoning work of Christ available for the sal-
vation of men ? It is through his merit which redounds to~fheir
benefit. Just as he who arrogates to himself more than belongsj;o
him justly suffers a forfeiture of things tp_which he has a right, so
he who relinquishes freely in a righteous spirit that which he
justly possesses^js entitled to a reward. The explanatiorTof the
transfer of merit is in the conception of the mystical union of
Christ withjgis^ members.1 When two persons becomejone through
iQggi. tne one can satisfy for the other. Itjsjust as"lf~tHe7Hand
were to atone by a meritorious act for a sin which had been com
mitted by the foot. Christ is the head, mankind are the mem
bers ; His followers actually, the whole race potentially. A full
satisfaction for sin and guilt has been rendered by the social body,
taken as a whole, through its head. Yet Aquinas does not adhere
with strict consistency to the conception of the Atonement as ob
jective. One condition of our obtaining forgiveness of sins is love
on our part, excited in us by the love of Christ. For_sins after
baptism we, like ChrisX-Jnust endure pain and punishment. The
Passion of Christ is said to be the cause of remission of sins in
three ways, first as calling out love in us, secondly, by the mode of
redemption, the whole Church being, in connection with its head,
reckoned as one person, and third, as. the flesh in which He en
dured suffering is an efficient instrument whereby " His passions
and actions operate through a divine power for the expulsion of
SJJL" In one point, and that a very important one, Aquinas is in
full accord with Anselm. The satisfaction of Christ is pronounced
to be not only a sufficient, but a " superabundant " satisfaction for
the sins of the world.
1 " Caput et membra sunt quasi una persona mystica, et ideo satisfactio.
Christ! ad omnes fideles pertinet "... Sum. TheoL P. III. qu. 48, art. 2.
He is united to the race. Ibid. art. 3; cf. Schwane, DG. d. mittl. Zeit, p. 323.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 347
The theory of the Atonement advocated by Scotus is founded
on a radical difference in his philosophy from that of Anselm and
Aquinas. It is true that Aquinas says that it would be possible
for God to forgive without an Atonement, but this is said merely
in deference to the New Platonic idea of the Absolute which
enters into his conception of God. His exposition of the Atone
ment carries this concession no farther. Sogtus denies the fun
damental principles of Anselm. pie fundamental principle _of1
Scotus is the absoluteness of the rjivine wil^ The cause and
ground of all merit is " the .divine acceptance," the divine will to
affix this or that estimate to whatever is done or suffered. There
is no objective criterion of value inhering in the thing itself. A
thing is good because God loves it. It is the reverse of the prop
osition that He loves it because it is good. Had God pleased,
man might have been redeemed by acts of love done by Adam or
by an angel.1 Scotus maintains that the_ merits of Christ are
finite, for He does not merit as God, but as man. Hence,
weighed by their intrinsic value they cannot be accounted infi
nite, or as standing in the room of that which is infinite. But in
the circumstances and the dignity of Him who merits, there is an
extrinsic reason for accepting his merit as infinite, for counting it
as being what it really is not.'2 The merit of Christ thus derives
the value attached to it from the divine acceptance. It is a merit
of " congruity " and not of " condignity." That is to say, there is
that in it which is suitable- for a sort or amount of recompense to
which its real desert bears no actual proportion. If it were a
merit of condignity it would carry in it a title to the complete bene
fit awarded to it. Scotus says that it were possible for an angel or
a mere man, begotten without sin, to redeem mankind, but God
has chosen this way as a means of exciting love in us. He decides
to consider the merits of Christ a full atonement, to accept them for
more than their inherent value, independently of this acceptance.
Thenceforward, we have in the course of Christian theology two
general views of the Atonement. The first, which is often called
the Anselmic, and not infrequently the judicial, theory, makes the
atoning work of Christ the absolute, objective equivalent of the
punishment deserved by sin, and something required of divine
justice in the administration of the world. It embodied itself in
1 Oxon. L. $, Dist. 20, qu. I, schol. y, cf. Schwane, DG. etc., p. 330.
* Ibid. L. 3, Dist. 19, qu. unica; cf. Schwane, p. 330.
248
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the formula that Christ endured the penalty. The se^nd or the
Scotist view rejects this proposition, and brings in the divine will
to supply a deficiency, to eke out that substitution which of itself
falls short of being an equivalent. If we look at the principal,
although not the exclusive, thought of Scotus in his attempt to
solve the problem, we find in him tfee moral view, which makes the
value of the sufferings and death of Christ to be the direct impres
sion^ which they are adapted to make, of the forbearance and
compassionate love of God.
•
On the subject of the divine agency in the conversion and sanc-
tification of the soul, the Schoolmen distinguish between preve-
nient and cooperative grace. It is this distinction, in connection
with the adoption by Aquinas of the terms descriptive of human
merit which were enshrined in the current orthodoxy, that raises
the question whether he holds fast to the Augustinian view. The
" preyenient" grace of God is saidjo act upon the wi|], enabling
tn tnrn *n Gojl- This effect being produced, there
follows the " subsequent" or cooperative grace, whereby the divine
work in the soul is carried forward and the soul is qualified to
• perform good works. The question is whether a real agency is
j attributed to the will in the reception of the prevenient grace —
of the prima gratia — and in conjunction with the continued
! influences of grace after this initiative. As to the first point,
grace being at the outset the sole efficient, no merit belongs to its
recipient. But in respect to what follows upon the first effect of
grace, the position of Aquinas is not quite so clear. We cannot
attribute to him the opinion that the will is a coefficient merely on
account of the statement that the bondage of the will is not the
destruction of the will ; for herein he is in accord with Augustine.
Aquinas says that " infused virtue is produced in us without our-
i selves acting, but not without ourselves consenting," But this
language is possible to a believer in philosophical determinism.
Aquinas does not affirm the existence of a power of contrary
choice in the recipient of saving grace, even if he does not explic
itly deny it. If we are governed in our interpretation by his
exposition of his deterministic creed respecting the will, we must
pronounce him a strict Augustinian.1 But it is a fair question
1 Even Augustine, as we have seen, was not a determinist as concerns the
unf alien will. See supra, p. 184.
MEDIAEVAL THEOLOGY 249
whether he always consistently adhered to it. Merit is ascribed to
man. So far forth as his new life springs from his own will, it is
a merit of congruity alone, since the blessing or reward that is
bestowed is so vastly disproportioned to his action. But so far as
it springs from the agency of the Spirit of God, it is a merit of con-
dignity. Perseverance does not fall under the head of merit,
since it is a gift outright to whomsoever it is granted. Alexander
of Hales deviated from Augustinianism in attributing to men good
works antecedent to the infusion of grace. Bonaventura was of
the same mind. The Semi-Pelagian opinion was definitely set
forth by Duns Scotus. Man in the use of his natural powers, which
original sin has left unimpaired, can produce within himself such
dispositions of heart as to prepare himself to receive and to merit;
by the merit of congruity, the divine grace. This grace he re-
ce^ves, but can resist, and he can fall from grace. The powers of
the human will, apart from grace, were described by Occam as
sufficient for man's self-renewal, so far as reason enables us to
judge. It is only revelation that convinces us of the contrary.
Justification is an act of God imparting righteousness, and being ^tjJ
a divine act it is momentary. The analysis of the elements °f uV^'VX'
Justification which is presented by Aquinas gives the successive (7
steps, not according to the order of time, but in the order of!
nature.1 There is, firsl^the inJusioiiJif grace in the soul; second, j
the motion of the will towards God ; third, the inward turning j
away from sin; and, fourth, forgiveness. Thus right feelings, {
incipient love, are the condition precedent of the bestowal of par- \
don. The_ Schoolmen teach that it is faith that justifies. The
best of them present profound and spiritual ideas respecting faith,
yet its saving quality is defined by them to consist in the love that
enters into it. It is " Faith formed by love." The credence given
to the doctrines of the Church, when the animating principle of
love is included in it — this is that which brings salvation. Hence
faith is set forth by Aquinas as a virtue, and in the order of Chris
tian virtues stands first. In truth, a ..subtlejegalism pervades the
Scholastic theory concerning what is required in the Gospel as
the condition of forgiveness. This characteristic is manifest in
the use that was made of the distinction between implicit and
explicit faith. Explicit faith is clearly conscious of its object,
namely, the articles of the creed. Implicit faith, as described by
1 Sum. Theol. P. II. i. qu. 113, art. I.
250
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Aquinas, is the preparation of the mind "to believe what divine
Scripture contains." By him bounds are set to implicit or un
developed faith, but by later Schoolmen, and still more in the
practical apprehension of the people, implicit faith was resolved
into a readiness to receive whatever the Church, the authoritative
teacher, might inculcate. Thus, very easily, and very commonly,
an unthinking docility was allowed to be substituted for enlight
ened Christian perceptions of truth. The spirit of legalism is
manifest in the place given in the system of doctrine to the dis
tinction between the "precepts" of the Gospel and the "counsels,"
in the observance of which, Aquinas teaches, eternal life is attained
better and with greater facility.1 From the old doctrine of works
of supererogation, works surpassing the limit of imperative require
ments, there was developed by Alexander of Hales the idea of a
"treasury" of merits derived from them, and of a basis thus
. for the doctrine of indulgences.
Under the Scholastic conception of Justification and of the
nature of faith, no foundation for assurance, for a sure and estab
lished confidence in one's Christian standing, could exist. Ac
cording to Aquinas, the only means open for attaining an assured
hope are certain signs or indications which, however, afford no
certainty, and an immediate revelation from God which is some
times given to individuals as a special privilege.
The virtues are classified by Aquinas on the principle that man
is capable of a twofold blessedness. There is a blessedness which
is correlated to human nature in itself considered, and a blessed
ness which surpasses this limit. The one is attainable by natural
principles ; the other only by divine power. The last is a certain
participation of the divine nature. Thus we have the natural
(f.,' virtues, wisdom, justice, fortitude, temperance ; and the theological
virtues, faith, hope, and charity.
f The nominalistic theology as it was set forth by Scotus and
Occam was within the recognized pale of orthodoxy. There
flowed from it important results in the domain of practical religion.
An Augustinian reaction, of which Bradwardine, a contemporary
of Occam, was a representative, was of little avail to stem the tide.
In connection with the nominalistic theology, and as ajpartjrfjt,
there were propagated such views on the Sacraments as fomented
the prevailing tendency to make the means of salvation to be the
1 Sum. Theol. P. II. i. qu. 108, art. 4.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 25 I
performance of meritorious works, coupled with a faith of which
the essence was an unquestioning submission to the Church as
the vehicle of revelation, and reliance on the Sacraments as the
channels of grace.
The influence of the idea of the Church as the community of
the faithful, of the elect children of God, an idea which retained
a degree of power in the thoughts of Augustine, continually waned.
More and more the Church came to be identified with the visible,
hierarchical organization. Patristic authority, running back to
Cyprian, and even farther, could be appealed to in support of
this principle at the root of the mediaeval conception ; but in the
carrying out of this principle there was a wide gulf between the
earlier and the later period. The exaltation of the hierarchy,
the* absolute dependence of the laity upon the priesthood, existed
totn extent unknown in the patristic age. The privileges still
left to the laity in the concerns of the soul are so scanty as to be
the exception that proves the rule. Significant of the state of
thought that had long existed is the language of Philip the Fair in
his indignant answer to the haughty rebuke of Boniface VIII. :
" Holy Mother Church, the Spouse of Christ, is composed not
only of clergymen, but also of laymen."
The conversion of the Church into an ecclesiastical monarchy,
with almost absolute power in the Regent at Rome, was not the
work of theologians. Nor was its success in building up a world
wide monarchy, to which nations and kings should be subject,
owing, as a main cause, to their craft or their ambition. The
Schoolmen came forward with formulas and arguments in behalf
of the result of an ecclesiastical development which had grown
out of tendencies long rife in the Church, and out of the condi
tions of European society. The attempt to trace the growth of
hierarchical prerogatives and of the papacy would take us into the
field of jurisprudence. The subject belongs more to a record of
the rise and progress of canon law than to the history of doctrine.
In the alterations and accretions which that system experienced
from time to time, forgeries, of which the Pseudo-Isidorian decre
tals were far from being the exclusive example — a fraud which
nobody, at that time, was competent to detect and expose — were
an auxiliary cause. But the structure, as a whole, arose from cir
cumstances involved in the relation of the Church to the semi-
252
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
civilized nations, and from the judaistic elements mingled in its
faith and its ceremonies. The compilation of Gratian in the
middle of the twelfth century was succeeded by the rapid growth
of a system of canon law. Enlarged collections, each outdoing
its precursor in exalting priestly and papal authority, appeared in
the next following centuries. Under such Popes as Alexander
III. and Innocent III., new decrees of councils and ordinances of
Popes carried the pretensions of the papal see to the highest point
short of an apotheosis of the sovereign pontiffs. The process
went on through the reign of Boniface VIII.
1. The old theory of the equality of bishops as regards the
essential basis of their office was given up. The Pope was not
only Vicar of St. Peter and universal bishop, but became the
Vicar of Christ, or of God, and under Christ, the fountain* of
Episcopal authority, which from him is distributed among j|is v
fellow-bishops. They are all Jiis vicars. Their relation to the
Pope was compared by Aquinas to that of a Proconsul to an Em
peror. The Pope having this station, supreme legislative power
was more and more attributed to him, and along with it a co
extensive judicial authority. To him was ascribed the exclusive
right to depose bishops as well as to confirm their appointment,
| to summon general councils, and to ratify, or to veto, their doings,
to dispose of benefices and to tax the churches, to grant absolu-
' tion in all cases which he chose to reserve to himself, and to
decree canonization.
2. The personal infallibility of the Pope respecting Christian
doctrine remained a subject on which there were opposite opin
ions. Yet papal infallibility is approved by Aquinas on the ground
of the prayer of Christ for Peter that his faith might not fail (Luke
xxii. 32). But much stress is laid on a priori reasoning, and on the
injunction, ' Feed my sheep ' (John xxi. 16, ly).1 The Thomist
opinion on this point was espoused generally by the Dominicans.
3. The claims of the Popes to a superior authority in relation
to kings and princes were explained and asserted by Aquinas.
The doctrine was that the two swords, emblems of temporal and
spiritual authority, were given to Peter, but that the wielding of
the temporal sword is delegated to the Civil Power, which, how
ever, is answerable for the use of it to the successors of the Apostle.
To the Church was given the power to bind and to loose, and
1 Senttntt. iv. distinct. 24, qu. 3, art. 2, ad. I.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 353
this stretches over princes as well as subjects. The sentence in
the bull of Boniface VIII. (1302), the Unam sanctam, which
declares that every human being is subject to the Roman pontiff,
occurs in Aquinas. If the priesthood, according to the current
doctrine and practice, were raised far above the laity, the Popes
were exalted to a corresponding height above all other holders of
the priestly office.
CHAPTER VIII
SCHOLASTIC DOCTRINES : THE SACRAMENTS
THE channels through which the grace of Christ is conveyed by
the clergy are the Sacraments. The general theory on this sub
ject was framed upon the basis of Augustine's definition that a
sacrament is " the visible sign of an invisible grace." To this
conception there were added, by Hugo of St. Victor, and Peter
Lombard, the additional elements that the Sacrament is instituted
by Christ, is the_visible image of the grace which it denotes, and
confers this very grace on the recipient. Aquinas gives a sys
tematic form to the statements of the earlier ScrToolmen. There is
a sanctifying efficacy in the Sacraments. The cause of the sancti-
fication flowing thence is Christ, all grace being ultimately due to
His sacrifice ; holiness and virtue are its form, its immediate
product ; eternal life is its end. " In the new covenant, through
the form they have their sanctifying power, while in the matter
they have their sign."1 Since grace is invisible, the sign — the
significatio — of the Sacrament is by means of things visible.
It must be divinely instituted since it is God who is the
Sanctifier.
The need of Sacraments is founded by Aquinas on that pecul
iarity of our nature by which we are led up to spiritual and intelli
gible things by means of things corporeal and sensible, on the
effect of sin in rendering us more subject to things material, and
on the fact that our activity here has to do with corporeal exist
ences. Aquinas conceded that had man remained in a state of
innocence the Sacraments would not have been necessary.
The number of the Sacraments remained quite unsettled until
the middle of the eleventh century. Abelard and Hugo of St.
Victor had made five to be the number. Peter Lombard em-
1 Schwane, DC. d. mittl. Zeit, p. 589.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY
255
braced seven in his list, orders and extreme unction being added
to the five. This number of seven was accepted by the leading
Schoolmen of the thirteenth century, but was not sanctioned by
an ecclesiastical decision until the Council of Florence in 1439. l
It comprises Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance,
Extreme Unction, Orders, and Marriage. Baptism and the
Eucharist were usually pronounced the principal Sacraments.
The highest rank in the catalogue is assigned by Aquinas to
the Eucharist. He undertakes to point out the necessity of the
seven Sacraments, and their connection with one another.2 In
Baptism is the birth to spiritual life ; advance to mature strength
is through Confirmation ; the nourishing of this inward life is
through the Eucharist. Were man sound in body and soul, free
from sin and evil, these three Sacraments would suffice. But for
the cure of his maladies, he needs Penance and Extreme Unction.
Moreover, a spiritual consecration in reference to this life is
requisite, which, as regards clerical duty, is imparted by ordina
tion, and, as regards the preservation of offspring, by marriage.
Of the Sacraments there are three which are not to be repeated.
These are Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders. They stamp upon
the soul a certain " indelible character," but the precise nature of
this effect of grace it was found to be not easy to make clear.
Such an effect is said by Duns Scotus not to be ascribed to them
in Scripture, nor by the Fathers, but to be established on the
authority of the Roman Church. Durandus calls in question the
fact of such an internal character being imprinted. But the doc
trine of Aquinas prevailed.
The transcendant importance of the Sacraments in the Scho
lastic system is realized when we are told by Aquinas that it is by
them, through the hierarchy who administer them, that we are made
the recipients of that grace which renders us participants of the
divine nature. At the root of his philosophy in its bearing on the
subject is the idea of the mystical unity of the Church in one body,
having Christ for its head. In some way — it is not explained ex
actly how — through the Sacraments the benefits of the passion of
Christ are applied to men.3 The effect of the Sacrament is ex
1 For details as to the question of the number, see Schwane, p. 584 sq.
a P. III. qu. 65, art. I. See, also, P. III. 62, 5, where Baptism and the
Lord's Supper are said to be " potissima sacramenta."
* The varieties of opinion are clearly set forth by Schwane, p. 592 sq.
256
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
opere operate} That is to say, it is not dependent on the personal
character of the officiating priest. All that is requisite on his part
is the intentipn — the intention to carry out the purpose of Christ
and the Church as regards the Sacrament which he administers.
What is required of the recipient in order to get the benefit implied
in the Sacrament is a question of vital moment. The Sacrament
was held to be not dependent for its efficacious power upon the
exercise of faith on his part. This is a distinction between the
Sacraments of the Old Covenant and the New. Aquinas reiterates
the statement of Augustine that where there is no faith the bless
ing veiled in the Sacrament is not received. But the subjective
qualification was gradually reduced to a minimum. It was made
to consist, provided one is not in the state of mortal sin, merely
in the mental posture of non-resistance to the operation of the
Sacramental act, although its effect might be enhanced by a pious
disposition. So far was the theory of a quasi magical operation
of. .the. Sacrament extended. Among the later Schoolmen, from
Scotus onward, in connection with the Sacraments of Pejaance and
Extreme Unction, a certain low measure of subjective qualification,
to which there was attributed a merit of congruity, was made the
sole prerequisite for the attainment of the full benefit.
1. The form of Baptism is the use of the words used in the
institution of the rite.2 Its effect is sanctification and forgiveness,
—that is, Justification, which is received by the infant as well as by
the adult. The general opinion was that ccmcupiscence as a prin
ciple is not destroyed but weakened so that it does not longer reign
without our consent.3 In this opinion Aquinas substantially concurs
with Peter Lombard. The sense in which "regeneration" was
predicated of the subject of Baptism was not clearly explained.
There are no exceptions to the necessity of Baptism, save in the
case of martyrs and where the intention to receive the rite exists,
but is prevented from being fulfilled without fault on the part of
the subject. The faith of sponsors is in lieu of the faith of children.
2. Confirmation in the Latin Church could be imparted only
by the Bishops, since it was held that they alone may anoint with
holy-oil, and chrism being the matter of the Sacrament. It confers
1 Aquinas, Sentent. iv. distinct, iii. qu. 64, art. 8.
2 The questions relative to the form are most fully considered by Alexander
of Hales. See Schwane, p. 606.
3 Sum. Theol. P. II. i. qu. 81, art. 3.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY
257
strength for growth in the divine life. Witnesses are necessary by
whom, as Aquinas teaches, the candidate, being, " as it were,
heretofore, weak and a child," is sustained. A spiritual relation
ship is established between them and the candidate — as between
the baptized person and the sponsors — which precludes inter-
maxr.ia.ge.
3. The Eucharist was not, like Baptism, held to be indispensa
ble to salvation. It sufficed to have the desire and the intention
to receive it, but the fulfilment of the purpose must not be wil
fully neglected. In the twelfth century, the custom of admitting
children to the communion was abolished, the primary motive
being the increased veneration for the elements, and the danger
of dropping the bread and wine in the distribution of them. The
same motive led, at the outset, to the withholding of the cup from
the laity. Alexander of Hales is the first to speak of this custom
as common in the Church. Albert the Great was opposed to it.
It was advocated by Bonaventura and Ao^mnas. By the latter the
doctrine of concomitance was brought forward, — the doctrine
that in virtue of a natural accompaniment, the blood of ChrisiJs
in the consecrated bread.1 It is enough that the priest alone re
ceives the cup. This view was taken up by both of the great
orders, and prevailed. It added a new dignity to the priesthood.
The term ' transubstantiation ' first received an authoritative
sanction at the fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent III., in
1215. In the act of transubstantiation, it was the doctrine that
vthe whole . Christ is in every part of the elements. There was an
abundance of subtle speculation in the effort to show that while
these occupy space, their parts, through the exercise of divine
power, do not. The miracle was asserted by Aquinas to be, not
an annihilation of the substance of the elements, but a conversion
of it into the substance of the Lord.2 The doctrine of Peter Lom
bard was accepted, that through an exercise of omnipotence, the
accidents — the attributes — of the elements are kept in being
when their substance is gone from them.3 But Scotus held that
the substance of the elements is annihilated. By Occam there was
brought forward a doctrine of impanation or consubstantiality,
which had a resemblance to the later Lutheran conception. After
the eleventh century, an earlier Greek custom of elevating the
1 Sum. Theol. P. III. qu. 76, art. 2. 2 Ibid. III. qu. 75, art. 3.
8 Ibid. qu. 77, art. I.
s
258
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
host, originally a merely symbolical act, spread among the La^jns.
Attended by the ringing of a bell, it came to be the sign to the
people of ttye simultaneous occurrence of the miracle, and the
signal for them to fall on their knees. A festival of the adoration
of the host, which was introduced in 1259, was ordained for the
whole Church by Urban IV., in 1264. After debate it was decided,
in accordance with the teaching of Aquinas, that the transubstan
tiated elements continue to be such, even if a mouse may chance
to eat of the converted bread. The doctrine was inherited from
the former period that the mass is a real offering, renewing and
repeating the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and giving peculiar
efficacy to the prayers for the living and for the dead which were
offered up in connection with it. The efficacy in averting evils
and procuring blessings that was supposed to inhere in masses,
led to a common practice of private masses, the priest alone being
present. At the same time, as it was only venial sins that obtained
pardon through this Sacrament, the reception of it came to have
a diminished importance in the eyes of the generality of people,
i This prompted Innocent III., in 12^5, to ordain that every layman
! should confess and partake of the communion at least once in the
year. Penance — the Sacrament of Confession and Absolution —
from the benefits attainable through it, assumed in the popular
mind the highest importance. But among the Mystics, in the
cloisters, frequent communion was prized as the means of spiritual
union with the Lord.
4. In respect to £§iiance there took place in the Middle Ages the
most important changes in doctrine and practice. As early as the
eighth and ninth centuries, absolution began to be pronounced in
anticipation of the satisfaction or temporal penalties to follow upon
repentance and confession. For a long period the form of absolu
tion was deprecatory. It was a prayer for the forgiveness of the
penitent. The three elements in the Sacrament we*£ theZ^ontri-
tion of the heartj%ie confession of the mouth, anc?4atisfaction by
the offender — satisfactio opens. But as late as the twelfth cen
tury, confession to a priest was not generally considered indispen
sable to the obtaining of forgiveness, and if a priest was not at
hand confession might be made j£La_lay.znan. In the thirteenth
century the doctrine assumed the definite form that while mjortal
sin§ committed after baptism incur the penalty of eternal death,
by repentance and CQ&fession this is commuted into temporal pen-
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY
259
alties, or satisfaction, to be adjudged by the priest. These penal
ties are both vindicative and medicinal. The priest pronounces
absolution in the character of a judge administering the divine
la\vT~This is the fiower of the keys. Thereafter the priest speaks
in the first person : "Ego absolve te" To ^confess at least once a
year was made a law by Innocent III.1 If there are no mortal
sins to confess, Aquinas holds that there must be a confession of
vernal sins, an opinion from which Scotus dissented. With the
crusades there was introduced the practice of granting plenary
indulgences. As a basis for the doctrine of indulgences, or the
remission of temporal penalties imposed in connection with abso
lution, Alexander of Hales and Albert the Great brought forward
the doctrine of the treasury of supererogatory merits, amassed by
Christ and the Saints, — merits which may be set to the account
of the needy, to discharge the debt of satisfaction due from them.
Aquinas endeavors to show the reasonableness of this idea on the
ground of the mystical union, binding the Church together and to
its head. It is committed to the ?pj^e, and to those to whom he
may delegate his prerogative, to dispense these merits by which
temporal penalties are cancelled.2
This power of the Church through the Pope extends — "in
directly," says Aquinas — to Purgatory. This was one of the
five abodes in the invisible world. These are: i. Hell, a place
of eternal suffering, the abode of those who die in mortal sin,
without absolution. The Schoolmen unite in affirming torment by
eternal fire. 2. The limbus of infants dying unbaptized — limbus
signifying literally a border, as, for instance, the bank of a river.
In this abode the inmates are cut off from the vision of God,
but, it was generally held, are not subject to positive inflic
tions of pain. 3. The limbus patrum — the abode of the Old
Testament Saints, now, since the advent of Christ, turned into
a place of rest. 4. Purgatory, for souls not under condemna
tion for mortal sin, yet doomed to temporal, terminable punish
ments. These served the double purpose of an atonement and
of a means of purification. 5. Heaven, the abode of the souls
1 Lateran Council IV. c. 21.
2 This power of the Pope is exercised, as far as release from Purgatory is
concerned, not per modum judicii, but per modum suffragii, i.e., through
supplication to God. It is connected with the Pope's infallibility by Albert
and Aquinas. See Schwane, pp. 674, 548, 543.
26o HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
which at death need no purification and of souls cleansed in
the fires of Purgatory. Dante, as to his theology, was a disciple
of Thomas Aquinas, and his description of these several regions
is in the spirit of the orthodox doctrine.
The extension of the benefit of indulgences into the domain of
Purgatory for the sake of abridging the duration of its pains was
one of the baleful innovations in connection with the Sacrament
of Penance. Another modification, equally, if not more mis
chievous in its practical effects, was the reduction of the " con
trition," the first condition for the obtaining of absolution, to
;i lower form of repentance. This doctrine was introduced by
Alexander of Hales l and Bonaventura, who taught that " attri
tion," the " servile fear " of one who deplores sin from the dread
of hell, is a sufficient preparation to receive the Sacrament, which
operates to make good the deficiency. This doctrine does not
gain a place in the teaching of Aquinas, but it is prominent in the
theology of Scotus, who goes so far as to ascribe to this attrition
a merit of congruity. It is a disposition of heart whereby the
sinner merits the grace of the Sacrament, by which the work thus
begun attains to completion.
5. After the ninth century, the ancient custom of anointing
the sick — which rested on James v. 14 (and Mark vi. 13) — was
lifted to the rank of a Sacrament. Thomas Aquinas, differing
from the Schoolmen before him, taught that it was instituted, not
by the Apostles, but by Christ himself.2 Scotus adopted this
opinion, which was sanctioned by the Council of Trent. The
spiritual effect came to be regarded as the chief benefit. The
physical advantage was secondary. It was to be applied, not to
the sick generally as of old, but only to those whose lives were in
peril. Its matter, as Aquinas explains, is the " oil blessed by the
bishop." It was to be put upon the ejes, the ears, the nostrils, the
lips, the hands, the feet, the thighs. The minister of the Sacra
ment is the priest, the effect is the " healing of the mind " and, it
might be, of th^body also. It is only venial sins that are remitted
in this Sacrament. The remainders of sin are cleansed away. The
sojul is strengthened for the struggle of death. There is a marked
indefiniteness in the descriptions of ^x^rjynejj^gjjflri, and of
its relation to the two great Sacraments of the Eucharist and
1 Sum. Theol. P. III. qu. 60, art. 3. See Schwane, p. 666.
2 Suppl. qu. 29, art. 3.
MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY 26l
Penance. If the patient partially recovers, Unction may be re
peated, provided there is a relapse and renewal of danger.
6. The number of orders, according to Acjumas, is se^en.
Since the thirteenth century, all orders except bishops, priests,
and deacons have been termed "minor orders." Ordination
communicates to the priesthood sacerdotal authority and the
grace for the exercise of it. The priest is thus empowered
and qualified to dispense the Sacraments. {t leaves an indeli
ble character, and therefore is not to be repeated. What the
rqajy^of this Sacrament is, it was not found easy to determine.
Aquinas confesses that while the efficacy of the other Sacra
ments resides in the matter, here it rests in the person of the
administrator and from him passes to the person to be
ordained. The outward acts are the blggsing, the laying-on of
hands, and the anointing. The minister of ordination is the
bishop. The question whether ordination by heretical bishops is
valid or not, was answered in the negative by Peter Lombard.
Aquinas teaches that the Sacrament in such a case is not, ineffica
cious, but fails to confer grace on account of the sin of receiving
ordination against the prohibition of the Church. As to the
relation of priests to bishops, it was the view of Aquinas, which
became prevalent, that they are of the same order, and differ only
in office. But the attempt was made to vindicate for bishops a
right of jurisdiction, a superiority of office, through the appoint
ment of Christ. Scpjtus favored the view that the, consecration
o£ bishops is a special Sacrament.1
7. Marriage was pronounced a Sacrament. Yet it was a Sacra
ment of which the priest was deprived, and the unmarried state
was regarded as higher than the married. To point out the
sacramental virtue of such a rite was attended with no small diffi
culty." Aquinas taught that it received the character of a Sacra
ment from Christ, since it became the symbol of His relation to
the Church (Kph. v. 32), and by Aquinas its indissoluble character
was reaffirmed. He taught that the fopn of the Sacrament is
the consent of the persons entering into the marriage relation.
The contracting parties are the ministers of the Sacrament ; yet
Aquinas makes the benediction of the priest to be "something
•sacramental," although not the Sacrament itself.2 By many, fol-
1 For the passages, see Schwane, pp. 679, 680.
2 Aquinas, Suppl. qu. 42, art. i, qu. 45, art. i, 2. Schwane, p. 688.
262 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
lowing Augustine, a benefit of the Sacrament since the fall is the
check imparted to carnal appetite.1 The common view was that
there is likewise imparted a positive gift of grace, having refer
ence to the procreation and training of children, and the mutual
fellowship of man and wife.
The great Schoolmen, and foremost among them, Thomas Aqui
nas, undertook the herculean task of harmonizing the existing opin
ions and practices of the Church with the teaching of Augustine.
They virtually attempted — and here Aquinas is the principal figure
— to take up Aristotle into the company of the Apostles, and to
establish a concord in the circle thus constituted. The task was
an impossible one. As to the problems just stated, certainly as
to the first of them, Aquinas was the nearest to success, for he
kept nearer to the teaching of the prince of the Latin Fathers.
Augustine inconsistently admitted " merits " into his system, calling
them, however, gifts of God. The determinism of Aquinas, his
doctrine of the sole efficiency of prevenient grace and of the grace
which confers perseverance, are Augustinian elements. But an
ambiguity, to say the least, cleaved to the theory of cooperative
grace, and to the description of the kinds and degrees of merit
which pertain to the several types and stages of regenerated char
acter. By Scotus, the Augustinian point of view was really super
seded by the Semi-Pelagian. The system took on an ethical
character. But the nominalistic philosophy and the acknowledged
•"impossibility of explaining rationally the articles of faith compelled
theology to fall back on the will of God as the ground, and mirac
ulous revelation as the only verification, of the realities of re
demption as interpreted by the Church. This tendency culminated
in Occam, by whom, concerning the gravity of the first sin — which
seemed to be less than it was revealed to be — concerning the
Eucharist, and so concerning other articles of faith, what seemed
to be rational views were set in contrast with the authoritative
teaching of the Church, a teaching, nevertheless, which Occam
sincerely accepted. So far as practical religion is concerned, it
cannot be questioned that the widespread influence of the nomi
nalistic theology, with its lower conception of the need of grace
and its exaggeration of the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance,
had a demoralizing effect upon the popular mind.
1 Suppl. qu. 42, art. 2.
CHAPTER IX
THE CATHARISTS THE WALDENSIANS THE MYSTICS WESEL ; WES-
SEL ; SAVONAROLA — THE DOCTRINES OF WYCLIF — HUSS THE
RENAISSANCE AND ITS INFLUENCE — ERASMUS
A VALUABLE book by Ullman bears the title, " Reformers before
the Reformation," — a title which, as Ritschl has pointed out, is
somewhat misleading. It is true, not of all, but of most of the
movements and persons described in this work, that they did not
overstep the pale of Catholic doctrine, or break away from admis
sible and sanctioned types of Catholic piety. The Catharists in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of whom the Albigenses were
a branch, revolted against the hierarchy and mingled in their
opinions a dualism which was caught up from Eastern sects whose
influence spread into the West. They were in general loosely
and incorrectly styled Manichaeans. The Catharists have no place,
except as a striking phenomenon, in the history of doctrine. Even
the Waldensians, in their attachment to the Scriptures and in
their interest in engaging the laity in the work of preaching, were
chargeable with no heresy.1 They accepted the Sacraments of the
Church. In their ideal of poverty they were far from standing
alone. In this particular and in their evangelistic labors they
anticipated _thfi Franciscans. The Waldensians sought for the
recognition of the Church and the Pope. It is true, however,
that they discarded the doctrine of Purgatory and of Indulgences.
And the Waldenses of Lombardy, when the persecution of them
set in, went farther, rejecting the worship of images, of saints, and
of Mary. But in respect to the method of salvation, the Wal-
1 For the true history of the early Waldenses, see the works of Dieckhoff
and Herzog, Muller, Die Waldenser u. ihre einzel. Gruppen bis z. 14 ten.
Jahr. (1886), and Comba, Hist. d. Vaudois cT Ital. (1887), and his art. Wai-
denser (Real-Encycl. XVI. 610 sq. See, also, Harnack, DG. III. 366 sq.).
263
264
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
denses, generally speaking, did not forsake the accredited theology
in any essential particulars. They had no perceptible influence
in giving rise to the Protestant movement. The Gallican , leaders
who were so conspicuous in the Reforming Councils of the fifteenth
century, contended for the supreme authority of the collective
Episcopate, and this was affirmed at Constance. A General
Council they held, as far as it represents the universal Church,
is infallible. But they were outdone by none in their zeal for
Church authority, they were unshaken in their faith in a media
torial priesthood, and they clung to the Catholic dogmatic system.
The Mystics of the fourteenth century and their disciples,
especially the German school of Mystics, did pave the way for
the Reformation by inculcating, by precept and example, the
inwardness of true religion, and by making the value of the
doctrines to consist in their relation to practical piety. Among
the most eminent of the later Mystics are Master Eckart, Henry
Suso, John Tauler, Ruysbroek, Thomas a Keinpis, and the anony
mous author of the little work which Luther prized so highly,
The German Theology. It is a mistake to think that the
Mystics intended to depart, or that any of them in a marked
degree did depart, from Catholic teaching or from approved types
of Catholic piety. Most of them were Dominicans, imbued with
deep respect for the writings of Thomas Aquinas, and developing
their theological statements from portions of his teaching. Some
of them, it is true, especially Master Eckart, propounded specu
lations on the being of God and His relation to the soul, which,
literally taken, are Pantheistic, and called out censure. But in
this procedure they were pressing with emphasis a conception
of God, the basis of which was in Augustine and Aquinas, and in
the Areopagite. Eckart in his deep, practical convictions was a
theist. The Mystics did not undervalue an active life of duty,
a life of faithful labor in one's vocation. Along with it they
placed the contemplative life, the blissful communion with God,
as the supreme object of aspiration. The path to this experience
was through purification, inward illumination, and union to God.
By these means the veil is withdrawn from the eyes and one be
comes a new creature. As Suso explains the steps of this experi
ence, one must emancipate himself from love to created things
and from the hope of peace through them. In accomplishing
this, the Sacraments — the Lord's Supper and Penance — are an
MEDIAEVAL THEOLOGY
265
essential aid, and, with these, absorbing reflection upon the love
of God to sinners. Then follows the partaking of Christ by
the sympathetic contemplation of His sufferings. Their atoning
efficacy by which we are delivered from wrath is recognized,
but the stress is laid on the love therein manifested, and on the
Lord's example of purity and patience. The cross is to be taken
up and self-seeking eradicated. Lastly, there is "the birth of
God" in the soul, and the entering of the divine being into the
inmost depths of the spirit. The soul comes into an ineffable
union with Him. The language of Suso is Pantheistic, but this
is not its real intent. God and man are still held to be essen
tially distinct. The mystical piety had in Germany numerous
circles of votaries. It did not carry with it a departure from
the Catholic idea of grace and of faith. Yet npt by faith, but
by love and adoring self-renunciation, comes salvation. Regen
eration, not justification, was the engrossing idea.
There were individuals who are often counted as forerunners
of Luther, and who gave utterance to evangelical thoughts, but
who, nevertheless, did not, at least consistently, teach a doctrine
wholly at variance with Catholic precedents. Such are Wesel
and Wessel, who attacked abuses connected with indulgences.
But the same thing was done by many, and the blows of these
teachers were not aimed at the root of the tree. When they
dwelt on the Church as a spiritual body, they could quote in
behalf of their fundamental idea Augustine and Aquinas ; yet
they used expressions which broke through the restrictions of
Scholastic theology and the claims of the rulers of the Church
to a divinely given jurisdiction. Savonarola was a preacher of
righteousness and an assailant of ecclesiastical corruption. His
tract, written in prison, on the fifty-first Psalm, spoke of justifi
cation in a strain that called forth an encomium from Luther.
Yet the Florentine Reformer was a Thomist in his theology.
It was Wyclif who carried his warfare, which began in opposition
to offensive practices in the Church, to the length of an exjglicit
antagonism to important articles in its creed. In this course, he
was followed, but with slower steps, by his more conservative
disciple, John Huss. Wyclif was a Realist and an Augustinian,
and followed Bradwardine in the advocacy of determinism. In
the earlier portion of his career, or prior to 1366, it is true that
he strongly asserted the normal authority of Scripture, and de-
266 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
fined the Church as consisting of the body of the elect ; but for
these statements he could cite Augustine, and he did not pro
pound negative inferences destructive of the deference paid to
tradition and to the hierarchy. Even after he fairly engaged in
the struggle in behalf of the rights of the civil power, and against
hierarchical domination, he had no quarrel with the Franciscan
type of piety, and spoke approvingly of St. Francis and his order.
He declared excommunication, even when pronounced by the
Pope, not to be necessarily valid or harmful. After 1377, and
during the Papal Schism, he sharpened his weapons and advanced
in his opinions so far as to express doubts as to the doctrine of
transubstantiation. After his theses oinTthis subject were con
demned at Oxford, his dissent from Roman tenets became more
definite and extended. He affirmed that the Roman Church
might err in doctrine. He distinctly rejected transubstantiation,
and presented a view of the Eucharist not dissimilar from that of
Augustine. In his last and principal work, the Trialogus, his re
formatory views pertaining both to doctrines and rites are fully
exhibited in their mature form.1 Papal decrees are asserted to
have no validity except so far as they rest on Scripture. He
opposes transubstantiation, ascribing the acceptance of it to the
substitution of faith in Papal decisions for faith in the Scriptures.
He asserts that meddling with civil affairs should be interdicted
to the clergy. It is doubtful whether there is a Scriptural founda
tion for Confirmation. There is no necessity for auricular con
fession, and no Scriptural authority for Extreme Unction, or for
Unction in connection with baptism and confirmation. There is
no ground for the multiplied ranks of the clergy, — popes, cardi
nals, patriarchs, monks, canons, etc. The doctrine of indulgences
and of supererogatory merits is discarded. Begging, as practised
by the mendicant monks, is not a Christian virtue. Included
in the rites and practices which are condemned by Wyclif are
Church music, Church asylums for criminals, canonization, pil
grimages, celibacy of the clergy, etc. In the light of such state
ments, one might be led to consider him not only a Protestant,
but even a Protestant of the Puritan type. Nevertheless, his
conception of faith and of its part in the process of Justification
was essentially Catholic, and the same is the fact respecting his
radical view of the office and operation of the Sacraments. Huss
1 For copious extracts, see Gieseler, Kirchengcsch. III. iv. i. 8 n. 21.
MEDIAEVAL THEOLOGY
was strongly influenced by the teachings of Wyclif, but he was not
led to renounce the doctrine of transubstantiation, while he insisted
that the cup should be given to the laity. The later Bohemian
brethren were moved by the intervening conflicts to depart more
widely from the traditional creed, and were prepared to receive
with sympathy the doctrine of Luther.
The development of the new languages and the rise of a
national literature in the European countries were early signs
of a weakening of the control of mediaevalism. Many of the
writings which appeared in Italy, France, Germany, and England
in the vernacular tongues, chastised the vices of the clergy and
the corruptions of the Church. But in such writings as the
Vision of Piers Ploughman by Longland, the poems of Chaucer,
the works of Dante. Petrarch, and Boccaccio, there was no
thought of a crusade against the principle of sacerdotal authority
or the spiritual supremacy of the Popes.
From the Revival of Learning — from that new culture and
intellectual tone which are designated as Humanism — there went
forth a mighty influence which was felt within the sphere of
theological doctrine. The centre of this movement was Italy.
Dante had found the voice of Virgil hoarse from long disuse, but
the Roman authors, and after them the Greek writers, were more
and more read with delight. Petrarch inspired his countrymen
with a passion for the classic productions of antiquity. The
monasteries of the West were ransacked for manuscripts of the
ancient poets, philosophers, and orators. Scholars came from
the East to Florence and other cities. Before and after the fall
of Constantinople, in 1453, the treasures of Greek learning were
conveyed to the West. The new art of printing lent its aid to
the diffusion of copies of the ancient authors, together with
dictionaries and grammars, versions and commentaries. From
Iltaly the new light spread abroad in the countries north of the
Alps.
Scholasticism lost its vital power through the reign of Nominal
ism, but its fall was hastened by the newly awakened literary
taste, and the disdain engendered for the comparative illiteracy,
the wiredrawn subtlety, and endless wrangling of the Scholastic
teachers. The ascendency of the clergy was diminished in pro
portion as they ceased to be exclusively the educated class,
268 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
or, at least, the sole almoners of learning, and as knowledge and
cultivation were diffused among the laity. The effect of Human
ism was to produce in sojtne cases skepticism and indifferencejn
matters of religion, and, in other cases, an earnest search for its
fundamental truths. But the writings of the Fathers were com
pared with their Scholastic interpreters and with the creed of the
Church. Better than all, the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testament were studied in the original languages. In the acad
emies of Italy, a skeptical spirit mingled to a hurtful extent with a
blind adulation of antiquity. The Council of the Lateran (1512-
1517) felt itself called upon to affirm the immortality and individ
uality of the soul. A service was rendered to the cause of truth
by the exposure of historical mistakes and of forgeries, as in the
case of the Donation of Constantine, which Laurentius Valla
proved to be a fiction. In Germany, the new learning was culti
vated in a religious spirit. Earnest inquirers examined the Fathers
and the Scriptures with critical zeal, but without any taint of
irreverence. Of these Reuchlin, an untiring but devout scholar,
the leader of the foes of obscurantism, was a typical example. In
England, Colet, whose expository lectures on the Epistles of St.
Paul were listened to by an eager throng of hearers, and Thomas
More, were advocates of the new learning. With Colet and More
there was associated for a time the prince of the Humanists,
Erasmus. The Praise of Folly was written at More's house.
It can be said truly of Erasmus that his great purpose through
life was to deliver the minds of men from superstition and dog
matism, and to bring in a reign of culture and liberality, of a
simpler and purer Christianity. Besides the blows which he
struck at what he considered " the Pharisaic Kingdom " by his
humorous and satirical writings, he rendered a great service of a
positive nature by his edition of the Greek Testament, with a
Latin translation, by his editions and translations of the Fathers,
by his Commentaries and his treatise on preaching. In his
writings we see everywhere the evidences of the arrival of the
modern, as distinguished from the mediaeval, age. He has been
called " the precursor and introducer of the modern spirit." But
not even Erasmus was disposed to reject any of the articles of the
creed as defined by the authority of the Church or to disown that
authority. More lived to be the champion and martyr of the
traditional faith.
4?y
PART III
MODERN THEOLOGY
PERIOD IV
THE PRINCIPAL TYPES OF PROTESTANT THEOLOGY — THE
AGE OF POLEMICS— THE CRYSTALLIZING OF PARTIES
AND CREEDS
CHAPTER I
THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER
NONE who are acquainted with the history of Luther need to be
told that he did not start upon his career as a Reformer, either from
the point of view of a theological critic, or as an assailant of the
authority of the Church or of the Pope. His simple motive was
to put an end to certain practical abuses which, as he deeply felt,
were working dire mischief both to religion and morality. The
development of new theological opinions in his mind was closely
connected with the progress of his religious experience. It kept
pace with his gradual deliverance from the thraldom of fear and
the attainment of freedom and peace, through the clear perception
of the distinction between law and Gospel. In the cloister he had
been a stuclfintof Augustine, and of Occam, D'Ailly, and other npjai-
nalistic Schoolmen. He was affected by Mystics, who partook of
the spirit of St. Bernard, and by such writings as the sermons of
Tauler, and that devout little treatise, which he edited in 1516, the
" German Theology." But his strong, ethical feeling, his vivid
sense of personality in God and man, and of personal responsi-
269
2/0
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
bility, kept him from embracing Mysticism in its peculiar char
acter as a system of devotion. It is possible to trace the progress
of Luther's mind, step by step, from the year 1513, until he
reached a distinct perception and firm grasp of the doctrine that
salvation, from beginning to end, is an absolutely free gift of God's
grace.1 The vestiges of a notion of merit, which was inherited
from Augustine and the Schoolmen, ceased at length to mingle in
his enunciation of this profound conviction. As early as 1516, he
propounds the statement that faith is ourjusttfia interior — inward
righteousness \ that yet it is the gift of God, and the source, not
the consequence, of good works.2 But utterances like these were
simply a reflex of his religious life ; they were not set forth in the
way of opposition to the reigning orthodoxy. In 1517, in the
95 Theses, he affirmed that the Pope can remit no penalties which
he has not the power to impose ; 3 that he has no more power
in relation to purgatory than any other bishop, or even any other
curate has within his own precinct ; 4 that true contrition seeks and
loves punishment ; 5 that the true treasure of the Church is the
Holy Gospel of the glory and grace of God.6 " At that time, so
far was he from any thought of breaking with the Church or rebel
ling against Rome, that he describes himself as having been then
a monk and a mad Papist." 7 Inconsistent expressions respect
ing the Pope and his authority, signs of a vacillation of feeling on
this topic, which continued for a considerable period, indicate not
insincerity, but simply that he was feeling his way on a dimly
lighted path. He tells us that he was of the number, of whom
Augustine said that he was one, who advance gradually, by writing
and teaching.8 The Disputation at Leipsic, in July, 1519, was
the occasion of calling out from him the avowal of a conviction to
which he had now arrived, that the Church could exist without a
Pope — a fact, he said, of which the Greek Church furnished an
example — and that not even a General Council is infallible. It
was during the last half of the year 1520, that there were issued
from his pen three publications of great historic significance, both
1 A catena of illustrative passages is given by Loofs, DG. p. 346 sq.
2 Weimar, ed. I. 118, 25-30; Loofs, p. 351.
8 Theses, 5, 20. 6 Ibid. 40.
4 Ibid. 25. 6 Ibidt 62.
T Praf. Oper. (1545). In a letter to Leo X. (May 30, 1518) he calls tht
Pope'i will the " voice of Christ." De Wette, Brief et etc., I. 123.
• Praf. Oper. (1545)-
MODERN THEOLOGY
from the effect produced by them and as exhibiting his now
ripened beliefs. In his Address to the German Noblesse, he
struck a blow at the root of the entire hierarchical system by de
claring that the priest is not distinguished from the layman, save
that the priest exercises, at the bidding of the Church as its repre
sentative, a ministerial office. All disciples are priests. If an
exigency should exist where consecration by bishops could not be
obtained, it might be dispensed with. The choice of the brethren
would be sufficient.
In the " Babylonian Captivity of the Church," he takes up the
subject of the sacraments. There is a threefold bondage, he de
clares, under which Christians have been placed. First, there is
the withholding of the cup in the sacrament. Secondly, there is
the theory of transubstantiation, against which he argues, although
he says that any one who will may accept it. He preaches the
doctrine that the bread and wine are not changed as to their sub
stance, but that in and with them the body and blood of Christ are*
imparted and received. Thirdly, there is the false doctrine that
the sacrament is an opus operatum — is effective for good inde
pendently of faith — and that it is a sacrifice. Without faith, sac
raments are declared to be useless. As to infants, the faith is that
of those who bring them to baptism. Afterwards Luther taught
that there might be a nascent faith imparted in baptism to infants
themselves.1 Private confession is profitable, but it may be made
to a lay brother. All baptized persons are, in reality, priests. The
ordained priest may even remit his office and become a layman.
However sacred and exalted may be the works of priests and of
the religious orders, " they differ not at all in the sight of God
from the works of a husbandman laboring in his field or a woman
attending to her household affairs." " Of the sacrament of orders,
the Church of Christ knows nothing ; it was invented by the
Church of the Pope."
In the little treatise on " Christian Liberty," Luther rises above
the level of polemics into a more serene atmosphere. He pre
sents a glowing picture of the freedom which belongs to the soul
united by a living faith to God and Christ. Precepts " show us
what we ought to do, but do not give us the power to do it."
Taught that he is impotent, a man finds in himself no means of
salvation and justification. Then come the promises of God, words
1 The subject is discussed at length in his Larger Catechism.
272
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of holiness, truth, righteousness, and peace. The soul cleaves to
them with a firm faith, is penetrated by them, absorbed by them.
It receives from Christ all that are His — grace, life, salvation.
Such a man will not be careless or lead a bad life, but will feel no
need of works as a ground of justification. " It is not from .works
that we are set free by the faith of Christ, but from the belief in
works, that is, from foolishly presuming to seek justification through
works." " Repentance comes from the law of God, but faith and
grace from the promises of God."
In 1521, Melanchthon published the Loci Communes, the first
of the Protestant works in systematic theology. He was at this
time but twenty- four years of age, having been born in 1497.
Luther was born in 1483 and was, therefore, about fourteen years
older. Melanchthon was a remarkable instance of precocity in
youth, the promise of which was nobly fulfilled in maturer years.
His Commentary on the Romans was issued in 1522, so that he
was the pioneer among Protestants in exegesis as well as in dog
matics. Of his modifications of opinion we shall speak later.
Erasmus was pleased with the first movements of the Saxon Re
formers, but more and more stood aloof from them as the com
bat thickened, and it became evident that it would lead to a
rupture in the Church. He dreaded the effect of the controversy
on the cause of learning. He shrunk from participating in a doc
trinal conflict, all the more when his sympathy with neither party
was undivided. His preference was to maintain a position of
neutrality, at least of silence ; but he was too prominent a person
for this to be possible. Urged in many quarters to come out on
the side of the Church, he at length ventured to take the field in
an assault upon Luther's teaching, at a point where it seemed
especially vulnerable and where an opponent might count upon
extensive support.1 In 1524, he published his book De Servo
Arbitrio, in which he defended the Semi-Pelagian doctrine. Lu
ther, moved by the purpose to magnify grace and to destroy
every possible basis of merit, had asserted the Augustinian doc
trine of the Will, carrying it beyond the limit set by Augustine
himself. In his reply to Erasmus, he reiterated with vehemence
his propositions relative to human impotence and the absolute
control of God within the sphere of man's voluntary action.
1 Details respecting the relations of Luther and Erasmus, with illustrative
extracts, are given in my History of the Reformation, p. 127 sq.
MODERN THEOLOGY
273
Far more serious than the debate with Erasmus was the great
Sacramentarian controversy with the Zwinglians, which began
about the same time. The Conference at Marburg in 1529 failed
to establish fellowship between the contending parties. At the
Diet in 1530, the Augsburg Confession, the authoritative exposition
of the Lutheran theology, and the most influential of all the Prot
estant creeds, was presented by Melanchthon, its author, after it
had previously been approved by Luther. The copious Apology
for the Confession was likewise written by Melanchthon. In
1537, the Smalcald Articles were signed by the members of the
League of Smalcald. They were composed by Luther, to be laid
before a General Council which was expected to be held under
the auspices of Pope Paul III. The small and the larger Cate
chisms of Luther, owing to their extensive use, may be counted
among the authoritative symbols of Lutheranism.
From the religious experience of Luther there emerged two
principles, which were not only the defining characteristics of his
theology, but were likewise the essential principles of Protestantism
everywhere. At present we confine our attention to Luther's teach
ing and to the Lutheran system. The first, the "material," princi
ple, is justification by faith alone. The second is the normative
authority of the Bible.
How shall a sinful man, conscious of his sins and self-condemned,
acquire that standing before God who abhors sin, that conscious
ness of his love and favor, which belongs of right to one who has
been perfectly obedient to the Divine law? The answer is, by
nothing that he can do, by no merit of his own, but by faith alone,
on account of Christ. And what is justifying faith? It is, in the
words of Luther, " a certain sure confidence of heart and firm as
sent by which Christ is apprehended, so that Christ is the object
of faith, nay, not the object, but, so to speak, in faith itself Christ
is present." l The believer is " cemented " to Christ, so that the
two are made, as it were, one person, inseparably united, so that
the believer can say, ' I am Christ, that is, the righteousness, vic
tory, life, etc., are mine ' ; and in turn Christ can say, ' I am that
sinner, because he cleaves to me and I to him, for we are joined
by faith as members of His body, of His flesh, and His bones '
(Eph. v. 30) .2 This close fellowship with Christ is part and par-
1 Ad. Gal. ii. 16 ( Works> Erlangen ed. I. 191).
* Gal. ii. 20 ( Works, I. 246).
T
274
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
eel of justifying faith. The believer "is not thereby justified fully
and actually, but in hope. He has begun to be justified and
healed," so that what is left of sin, " by reason of Christ," is not
imputed to him.1 There is remission of sins, reconciliation to
God; but the foundation of the entire blessing is the atoning
work of Christ. It is the "apprehensive " quality of faith, not any
love, not any moral excellence of any sort, that is involved in it,
that gives to faith its justifying quality.2 Melanchthon, in the
Apology, says : " We teach that rewards have been offered and
promised to the works of believers. We teach that good works
are meritorious, not for the remission of sins, for grace or justifi
cation (for these we obtain only by faith), but for other rewards,"
according to i Cor. iii. 8. "There will be different rewards,
according to different labors." 3
The Reformers — and this remark applies to Calvin as well as
to Luther and his associates — make personal Assin^nce a part of
saving faith. It is included in the definition of faith in the
Augsburg Confession (Art. IV.), and in the Apology. The same
is true of several other Lutheran Confessions of an early date.
The happy release which the Reformers personally gained from
the bondage of fear, imposed by the mediaeval doctrine of
merit, naturally led to exaggeration on this topic. " The knowl
edge of the faith," says the Apology, " brings sure and firm con
solation to pious minds."4 In various ways — for example, in
dealing with Christians afflicted with distrust — the early Re
formers did not adhere consistently to the position thus taken.
It was long, however, before it was explicitly abandoned.5
Such is the nature of faith that good works, such as the law
requires, are its necessary fruit. The law is powerless either to
give peace of conscience, or to engender righteous conduct. But
1 Ad. Gal. ii. 17 sq.
2 " If faith receive the remission of sins on account of love, the remission of
sins will always be uncertain because we never love as much as we ought."
Apol. p. 107. (The pages refer to Miiller's Symbolischen Biicher. I have
frequently used, with slight revision, Jacobs's The Symbol. Books of the Evan
gel. Luth. Ch., Vol. I. Philadelphia, 1882.)
3 Apol. p. 121. 4 Ibid. 117.
5 The Confession of the Westminster Assembly denies that Assurance is
" of the essence of saving faith." As to the creeds as related to this subject,
see Cunningham's The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, Essay
III. pp. 124, 125.
MODERN THEOLOGY 2/5
faith is efficacious for this last effect, as well as for the first. It is
so, not through any legal spur, but because right conduct is as the
free and natural product of a penitent soul, pardoned and brought
nigh to God, through Christ, and laying hold of the promises of
mercy in the Gospel. " Believers," says Luther, " are a new
creature, a new tree. Therefore all those modes of speech, which
are customary in the law, belong not here, as : 'a. believer should
[or is bound to] do good works.' As it is not proper to say :
' the sun should shine,' but it does this of itself, unbidden ; for it
is made for this ; so a good tree of itself brings forth good
fruits ; three and seven are ten already, they are not first bound
to be ten. To say of a sun that it ought to shine, of a believer^
that he must do good, is ridiculous." T
No unprejudiced student, whose mind is not of too prosaic a
cast to be capable of interpreting a writer so full of force and
imagination, a writer whose natural ardor breaks out in hyperbole,
and whose vehemence and humor are alike irrepressible, will think
of charging Luther with a lax sense of moral obligation or a weak
apprehension of the guilt of sin. His writings, not to speak of
his own religious experience, abound in contradictions to such a
reproach. An exhortation like " pecca fortiter " — " sin on bravely "
— is addressed to Melanchthon, one of the most conscientious of /
men, to overcome his distrust in the amplitude of God's forgiving \
mercy. It is an extravagant mode of setting forth the Pauline /
declaration that where sin abounds, grace much more abounds.2
When the Saxon Reformers, Luther especially, use language that
might seem to undervalue " the law," they are speaking of law as
the ground of justification. The Apostle Paul had to guard him
self against a censorious criticism not unlike that to which they
have been subject.
Justification then, according to Luther and his followers, was
forensic. Its prime element is the remission of sins. The prop
osition was that faith is imputed for righteousness, on account of
the union of the believer with the Righteous One. The same
theory, later especially, was expressed in the statement that the
1 Luther's Works (Halle ed.), xxii. 717.
2 Dean Church is more just to Luther than are many of the same school as
himself. See his remarks on the misinterpretation of the " pecca fortiter," as
if it were " a provocation to sin or an excuse for it." The Oxford Movement,
p. 307, note.
276
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer. That is to
say, he is dealt with as if the righteousness of the Saviour were
literally his own achievement. The distinct separation of the
active obedience of Christ from his passive obedience, or endurance
of suffering, and the doctrine of the imputation of both, belongs
to the later form of Lutheran theology.
When Luther refers to the Atonement, he often dwells on the
conquest by Christ of sin and death and Satan. But he uses
the strongest language in describing the vicarious endurance by
Christ of the curse denounced against sinners in the law. " Christ
took all our sins upon him, and for them died upon the cross :
therefore it behoved that he should become a transgressor, and,
as Isaiah the prophet saith, ' be reckoned and accounted among
transgressors and trespassers.' " " Christ is innocent as concern
ing his own person, and therefore he ought not to have been
hanged on a tree. . . . But Christ sustained the person of a sinner
and a thief, not of me, but of all sinners and thieves." l The
divinity of Christ is evident from the work which he accom
plished ; for to overcome sin and death, the curse and divine wrath
itself, he " must needs be truly and naturally God."
It is not in the Commentary on the Galatians alone that Luther
fervently insists on the truth of Christ's unification of Himself with
us, and of the unification of ourselves with Him through faith. In
all his writings which pertain to the subject, the same thought is
prominent.2 The soul of the Reformer entered deeply into the
crushing feeling of guilt, as distinguished from that of misery or
finite weakness. In this feeling, we first appreciate our unworthi-
ness, but at the same time understand the value of our personality
in the eyes of God. The longing for expiation or atonement in
volves the first pure ethical impulse. Conscious of our helpless
ness, our inability to make an atonement ourselves, we are met by
the joyful tidings of a Mediator, sent from God, and of a right
eousness in Him, which corresponds to the divine righteousness.
This righteousness, although, in the first instance, it is His, may
also become ours through faith ; faith being the personal assent
and affirmation which we give to that Love on His part which
takes our place, to its righteousness, holiness, and power. This
1 Gal. iii. 13.
2 Luther's ideas on this theme are clearly presented by Dorner, Person
' Christi, II. 513 sq.
MODERN THEOLOGY
substitution on His part carries in it so high a respect for us as
individuals, for our personality, that it does not aim to do away
with it, or to absorb it. The aim is, rather, to present it as right
eous before God in a substitution which shall act upon it, recog
nizing it all the time as a separate personality, while the individual,
on his side, gives himself up to Christ in faith, to be moulded by
His plastic influence into the divine image, to be transformed into
a child of God — a child in whom, reconciled and made holy, the
righteousness of God attains to a personal manifestation. By faith
we are drawn into the spiritual death of penitence, through the
consciousness of being condemned in Him, but not without at the
same time becoming aware of the divine will to save us — save our
personal being itself — as reconciled in Christ. Luther states that
before the Evangelical doctrine was brought out, preachers aimed
to depict to their hearers the sufferings of Christ for the purpose
of exciting their pity, and to make them weep. This, he says, is
wrong. We make the right use of Christ's sufferings, when we are
led, by seeing Christ so sorrowful on our account, to sorrow for
ourselves, for the sins that made Him mourn and suffer. We are
to mourn over ourselves, and not over Him. His contrition in
our behalf should make us contrite. Christ is to Luther the Child
of God, who offers Himself to our faith that we may be clothed
upon with divine sonship. God gives to us His Son, and tells us
that He is well pleased with all that Christ says and does for us.
" Thinkest thou not that if a human heart truly felt that good-
pleasure which God has in Christ when He thus serves us, it would
for very joy burst into a hundred thousand pieces? For then it
would see into the abyss of the fatherly heart, yea into the fath
omless and eternal goodness and love of God, which He feels
towards us, and has felt from eternity?"1 "God's good-pleasure
and His whole heart thou seest in Christ, in all His words and
works ; " and in turn Christ is in God's heart, and an object of
His good-pleasure. " Since Christ is thine and mine, we, too, are
in the same good-pleasure of God, and as deep in His heart as
Christ Himself." " We must first be in Christ, with all our nature,
sin, death, and weakness, and know that we are freed therefrom,
and redeemed, and pronounced blessed by this Christ. We must
swing above ourselves and beyond ourselves over upon Him, yea
be utterly incorporated in Him, and be His own." Then sin, and
1 Festpostill, von der Taufe Christi.
278 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
fear, and death are gone : " I know of no death or hell. For I
know that as Christ is in the Father, I am, also, in Christ." " In
fine, by the word we become incorporated in Christ, so that all
that He has is ours, and we can take Him on, as our own body.
He in turn must take on Himself all that which befalls us, so that
neither the world, the devil, nor any calamity can hurt or over
come us." " One must teach of faith correctly — even thus —
that by it you become bound and united with Christ, so that out
of Him and you there arises, as it were, one person, which does
not suffer the two to be parted or sundered from one another, but
where you evermore hang on Christ, and can say with joy and com
fort — ' I am Christ ; not personally ; but Christ's righteousness,
victory, life, and everything which He has, is my own ; ' and so
that Christ can say — ' I am this poor sinner, that is all his sin
and death are my sins and my death, since he hangs on me by
faith, I on him,' — therefore, St. Paul says, ' we are members of
Christ's body, of His flesh and His bones.' Wherefore when you
in this affair separate your person and that of Christ from one
another, you are under the law and live not in Christ." Christ has
taken on our flesh, which is full of sin, and has felt all woe and calam
ity, has demeaned Himself not otherwise before God, His Father,
than if He had Himself done all the sin which we have done,
and "as if He had deserved all that which we have deserved."1
The doctrine of Luther is that the uncreated Son of God has
entered into human nature, has become man, has thus closely
united Himself to us, has, in the fulness of His love and sympathy,
taken upon His heart the whole burden of man as a sinner, has
taken us up into His heart, making our case absolutely His own,
has bewailed our sins before God, and died as if He had been
Himself a sinner ; that the end of all is to fashion us like Himself,
into the image of God as His children ; that in all this love to us
and service in our behalf, the Father is well pleased, and receives
us in Christ, provided we accept Him, cordially recognize the
meaning of His grief, and giving up, as it were, our isolated indi
viduality, surrender ourselves to Him to be moulded into the like
ness of His Sonship. All things that belong to God are His, and
all things that are His are ours. What Christ becomes and does
for us, as our representative, is eventually reproduced through Him
within us.
1 Festpostill in der Friihchristmcss.
MODERN THEOLOGY
2/9
As early as 1525, the second, or formal principle, that of the
exclusive authority of the Scriptures, was definitely associated with
the first, with the doctrine of Justification. It was implied in all
the denials by Luther of the authority of the Pope, taken in con
nection with his avowal at the Leipsic Disputation that Councils
might err, with the same declaration at the Diet of Worms, in the
presence of the representatives of the German Empire, and with
numerous expressions elsewhere of the same general tenor. Re
specting the Canon, the Protestants, instructed by Jerome and
Origen, universally denied the right of the Old Testament apocry
pha to rank with normative Scriptures. The principle of "the
analogy of faith " was introduced ; that is, the principle that the
central doctrines which are perspicuously set forth in the Bible,
are to govern the interpretation of passages which are more or less
obscure.
At first view it seems difficult to harmonize critical statements
of Luther relative to canonical books and to the inspiration of
Biblical writers, with the principle that the Bible is the rule of
faith.1 No one could speak with more reverence for Holy Writ
than Luther often speaks. Yet many of the statements of the
kind just referred to are found in the Preface of his translation of
the New Testament, — put there for all the world to read. He
ascribes to the several books different degrees of doctrinal value
and of insight into the essence of the Gospel. " St. John's Gos
pel," he says, "and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially
those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter's First
Epistle, — these are the books which show to thee Christ, and
teach everything that it is necessary and blessed for thee to know,
even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine.
Therefore St. James's Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared
with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." It must
be observed that he did not question the genuineness of this to
his mind (comparatively) valueless epistle. The prophets, he
says, studied Moses, and the later prophets the earlier, and have
written their thoughts down which were given by the Holy Ghost.
But "if sometimes there mingled in hay, straw, wood, and not
1 Vorrede auf das N. T. (1524). Like criticisms, but less severe, are in
the Leipsic Theses (1519) and in the Babylonian Captivity (1520). He had an
unfavorable opinion, varying somewhat from time to time, on Jude, Hebrews,
and the Apocalypse.
28o HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
solely silver, gold, and precious stones, nevertheless, the founda
tion abides while the fire consumes the rest. " l That the con
tents rather than the author of the book is the point of chief im
portance is implied in what he says of Genesis : " What matter if
Moses did not write it?" Luther ascribes an error to Stephen
in Acts vii. 2 (compare Gen. xii. 1-4). How are observations
of which the foregoing are prominent examples, compatible with
the recognition of an objective seat of authority? Luther's re
ligious history furnishes the clew to the answer. It was the truth
of Christ as the Saviour from condemnation under law, the truth
of salvation by grace alone, which came home to him with such
power as to be its own attestation. Those Scriptures in which the
truth, considered to be the substance of the Gospel, had the central
place, furnished the criterion for gauging the relative value and
the degree of inspiration to be attributed to the other sacred
writings. The doctrine of Justification by Faith served as a stan
dard for a species of criticism which otherwise might seem to be
purely subjective, if not arbitrary.
" The ' Word of God ' is a phrase which signifies to Luther the
Gospel of God's grace, whether it be proclaimed orally or in
Scripture. This Gospel is to be believed because it is God's
Word, and because it verifies itself within the soul. Yet the
identity of the Holy Scriptures with the Word of God is gener
ally assumed by Luther, and is occasionally expressed in explicit
language.
The Word and the Sacraments were affirmed to be the means
of grace. Through these and in connection with them, the
agency of the Spirit is exerted. Carlstadt and the enthusiasts with
him whose disturbances at Wittenberg moved Luther against the
remonstrance of the Elector to leave his asylum in the Wartburg,
sought to magnify the influence of the Spirit by making it inde
pendent of the Word. On the ground of the alleged instigation
of the Spirit, they disparaged knowledge and study, besides hurry
ing forward to introduce sweeping changes in the rites of worship.
Against this species of subjectivism, Luther resolutely and success
fully contended. The Apology for the Augsburg Confession, like
the " Babylonian Captivity," associated Absolution as a sacrament,
along with Baptism and the Lord's Supper. But in the Smalcald
Articles, Absolution is not reckoned among the sacraments, and it
1 Tischreden.
MODERN THEOLOGY 28l
ceased to be so regarded by the Lutherans. Of the sacraments
in general the Augsburg Confession teaches that they " were or
dained not only as marks of profession amongst men, but still
more as signs and testimonies of the will of God towards us, set
forth for the purpose of exciting faith in such as use them.
Wherefore sacraments are to be used so that there may be joined
faith that believes the promises, which through the sacraments
are exhibited and shown."1 It is the word and promise of God
which gives to the ceremony the character of a sacrament. The
effect of Baptism is briefly set forth in the Large Catechism of
Luther. " Every Christian has enough in Baptism to learn and to
practise all his life. For he has always enough to do to believe
firmly what Baptism promises and brings, viz., victory over death
and the devil, forgiveness of sin, the grace of God, the entire
Christ and the Holy Ghost with his gifts." ~ Denying that any
change is wrought in the water and that any magical operation
belongs to this or to any other sacrament, Luther and his followers
still insisted on the great importance of baptism. " What God
does and works in us, He proposes to work through such external
institutions."3 In the Augsburg Confession, Baptism is affirmed
to be essential to salvation. As to the Lord's Supper, while the
nature of the bread and wine remains unaltered, yet the body and
blood are so inseparable from them, that, to quote Luther in the
Smalcald Articles,4 at the same time that " the sophistical subtlety
concerning transubstantiation " is discarded, "the bread and wine
in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are
given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked
Christians."
Inseparable from this idea of the Real Presence of Christ in such
a sense that all partakers of the sacrament receive His body and
blood, is the doctrine of the Saxon Reformers respecting the per
son of Christ. It is the doctrine of the interchange of the human
and divine attributes of the Saviour. Through this communica
tion of qualities, divine attributes are imparted to the human
nature, whereby there follows the omnipresence of Christ as a
man.
The Church is not the hierarchy, not the organized institution,
but is really and primarily " the communion of saints." Luther
1 Art. XIII. 3 Larger Catechism, p. 489.
* Ibid. pp. 471, 491. * Art. VI.
282 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
interprets this phrase in the Apostles' Creed as synonymous with
the " holy Catholic Church." It is the society of true believers,
and as such it is invisible. Otherwise, it would not be, as the
creed declares it to be, an object of faith. Yet, as Melanchthon
avers in the Loci, it is not a Platonic state. It is not a dream of
Utopia ; but exists in a concrete form, and has definite marks of
its reality. It is " the congregation of saints in which the Gospel
is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered." l It is
not necessary that " traditions, rites, or ceremonies " of human
institution " should be alike everywhere." There is another clause
in the article which was not so consistently carried out practically :
" Unto the unity of the Church, it is sufficient to agree concerning
the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the sacra
ments." Melanchthon argues earnestly against the theory that
virtuous heathen, men who had no knowledge of Christ, can be
considered to have been members of the Church or in a salvable
condition.2 The clergy are neither infallible interpreters of Script
ures, nor mediators between the congregation and God ; for through
Christ the way of access is opened for all. The clergy are minis
ters of the flock, commissioned to offer no sacrifice, as if the sacri
fice of Christ required a supplement ; and the power of the keys,
embracing the power to exclude the unworthy from ecclesiastical
fellowship, was given to the congregation as a body.3 To this body
belongs the right to choose and to induct into office its ministers.
These ministers are on a footing of equality. All distinctions of
rank among them are of human origin. Christ is the head of the
Church ; the headship of the Pope is in violation of the Gospel.
In their conception of original sin, of its guilt and power, the
Lutheran Reformers went beyond the teaching of the most con
servative of the Schoolmen. It was the native sinfulness of men
on which they chiefly dwelt. Nothing is said of the imputation
of Adam's sin, in the Augsburg Confession or in the Apology.
Melanchthon says that by reason of our native corruption, conse
quent on the fall of Adam, we are born guilty (or exposed to pun
ishment), and ' children of wrath'; that is, condemned of God.
1 Augsb. Confession, VII.
2 Loci (ed. Erlangen, 1828), p. 287. "Intuecamur coetum vocatorum, qui
est ecclesia visibilis, nee alibi electos ullos csse somniemus, nisi in hoc ipso."
P. 283.
3 Stnalcald Articles, VII.
MODERN THEOLOGY
283
" If any one chooses to add that men are guilty, also, for the fall of
Adam, I do not stand in the way." l But, he goes on to say, the
prophets and apostles, with whom Augustine, Hugo, Bonaventura,
are in agreement, teach that original sin is not imputation alone,
but our depraved nature. The foundation of our guilt (reatus —
" fundamentum hujus relationis " — is " ipsum vitium nobiscum
nascens."2 It is propagated corruption that is referred to when
the Apostle (Rom. v. 12) says, for that all have sinned — " quia
omnes peccaverunt." We will guard against the idea that men are
condemned for Adam's sin alone.2 In the Lutheran Creed, con
cupiscence is asserted to be not only a seeking for the pleasure of
the body, but also carnal wisdom and righteousness, hatred of God's
judgment, flight from God, anger towards Him, confidence "in
present things," — that is, in earthly good. So the Apology
teaches.3 In the later Form of Concord, we read that original sin
"is so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy
or incorrupt in a man's body or soul, in inner or outward powers,"
is left.4 The consequences of inborn sin are positive as well as
negative. The effect is a total inability of will as far as all actions
holy or pleasing to God are concerned.
The boldness of Luther, his defiance of ecclesiastical decrees
against him, his vehement and often contemptuous denunciation
of many traditional opinions, might give the impression that he
was a radical in the general character of his theology. So far
from this being true, his movement is rather to be styled the con
servative branch of the Reformation. In the retention of rites
and customs he did not require an explicit authorization from
Scripture. Enough that they were not forbidden, and are ex
pedient and useful. His aversion to breaking loose from the
essentials of Latin Christianity in matters of doctrine is equally
manifest. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed are adopted
in the Augsburg Confession, in the Apology, and in the Smalcald
Articles. Luther's respect for the teaching of the Church, not
withstanding his protest against corruptions, was so impassioned,
that unreconciled utterances concerning doctrine are left in his
writings, — instances of disharmony between the old point of
view and the new.5 On matters of doctrine, he declares, the
1 " non impedio." Loci (ed. Hase), p. 86.
2 Loci (ed. Hase), p. 92. 3 Apology, 78. 4 Form. Cone. p. 494.
5 On this topic see the citations in Loofs, DG. p. 370 sq.
284 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
view of the whole world for a thousand years is not to be regarded.
Yet, when arguing for his views of the Real Presence, he says
that "the testimony of the entire holy Christian Church, even
without any other proof, should be sufficient, ... for it is peril
ous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the united
testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church
... for now over fifteen hundred years." This, he says, would
be to nullify the promise of Christ, to be with His Church. We
have already spoken of the use of the phrase ' Word of God,'
now as denoting the central truth of the Gospel, and now as
covering the entire Scriptures. Luther's doctrine of absolute
predestination, even sin being attributed to the causative agency
of God, was not wholly the fruit of a zeal to shut out everything
that might be perverted into a Pelagian philosophy. It was partly
an acceptance of the Scotist and Nominalistic notion of God's
will and sovereignty as the ultimate basis of whatever he com
mands or decrees.
CHAPTER II
THE THEOLOGY OF ZWINGLI — THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY —
PARTIES IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH TO THE FORM OF CONCORD
(1580)
ZWINGLI was born on the ist of January, 1484, and thus was only
seven weeks younger than Luther, who was born on the loth of
the preceding November. The two Protestant leaders were quite
unlike in temperament, cast of mind, and culture. Luther was a
Humanist. The only two books which he carried into the cloister
were Vergil and Plautus. He was a champion of the new learn
ing, to foster which was one motive in the founding of the Univer
sity of Wittenberg. But with him the interest of literature sank out
of sight in comparison with the cause of religion and the claims of
theology. With Zwingli, the influence of Humanism went deeper
and modified the texture of his theological system. He had met
Erasmus and exchanged letters with him. His doctrine of the
Sacrament was first suggested to him by Erasmus, although its
source was in the teaching of John Wesel. On fundamental points,
Zwingli differed from Erasmus, for he was of too robust a nature
to be a servile adherent He renounced the teachings of Rome
gradually, as the result of the study of the Bible and of reflection,
without passing through any such spiritual struggles — any such
distress from a sense of condemnation — as Luther experienced.
It cost him no spiritual conflict to throw off the yoke of ecclesi
astical authority, which had rested somewhat lightly upon him.
Hence, while holding clearly and firmly to the doctrine of Justifi
cation by grace without merit, it did not assume all that over
shadowing importance which it had in the eyes of Luther. The
starting-point in Zwingli's construction of theology is predestina
tion or the divine purposes. Even this doctrine was quite as
much a theoretic postulate as a practical, urgent truth. Quite
285
286 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
different was the conception of it in Calvin. As Zwingli did not
share in the Saxon Reformer's inbred reverence for the past, and
was not affected, as Luther was, by the mingling of imagination
in his temper of feeling, he felt no reluctance to cast aside rites
and customs not enjoined, even if they were not forbidden, in
Scripture, nor did he hesitate to reject any interpretation that, in
his opinion, could not stand the cool scrutiny of the understand
ing. There was a curious blending in his spirit of the tone of the
Renaissance and that of the Protestant Reform. There is another
respect in which there was a marked contrast between Luther and
Zwingli. Luther was a man of the people, conversant with their
wants and ways, and, although hostile to revolutionary movements
and measures, was not wanting in sympathy with all classes. But
Zwingli was a social reformer, as well as a religious leader. He
felt that an ethical renovation was called for, and that the recovery
of the State from debasement was necessarily involved in securing
the proper effect of the Gospel upon individuals. Joining as a
chaplain those who took up arms in a righteous cause, he fell in
battle.
In 1518, Zwingli preached at Einsiedeln against the traffic in
indulgences. This brought on no breach with the authorities
of the Church. He continued to receive a pension from the
Pope until 1520. In 1519, he entered upon his labors at Zurich.
He was fully resolved to follow the Scriptures fearlessly. His
sermons were expositions of the books of the New Testament.
In 1522, a discourse in which it was asserted that there was no
biblical ground for prohibiting the eating of meat in Lent brought
him into conflict with the Bishop of Constance. In the same
year he was married secretly, his marriage not being publicly
made known for two years. After the sermon relating to Lent,
the question was whether the municipal government of Zurich —
the burgomaster and the two councils — would sustain him in his
rejection of the ceremonies ordained by the Church. There
followed, under order of the government, three public Disputations,
in which Zwingli defended his own position and assailed that
of his opponents. In preparation for the first, he drew up
(in 1523) sixty-seven Articles of belief. In these he makes fore
most the assertion of the sufficiency of the Saviour's atoning
death, and his place as the " one, eternal, and supreme priest "
(14), the declaration that the mass is not a sacrifice, but a com-
MODERN THEOLOGY
memoration of the3 always valid sacrifice of Christ, and, as it were,
" a seal of our redemption" (18), that no other mediator is
necessary (20), that a Christian is bound to keep no rules
relating to meats and drinks which Christ has not established (24),
that the same is true of ordinances respecting times and places
(25), that Christians are to call no one "Father" on earth, all
of them being brethren (27), that marriage ought not to be
forbidden to the clergy (29), that confession to one's priest or
one's neighbor should be only to obtain advice, not for the
remission of sins (52, 53), that the imposing of penance is a
human tradition and is of no value (53), that the Scriptures know
nothing of a purgatory (57), and that, although prayers that grace
may be given to the departed are not excluded, no limit of time
is to be set up for the offering of them and no gain to be sought
through them (60). The second of the three Disputations was
chiefly on the Mass, and at the conclusion of the third the
magistrates decided against its continuance in the churches.
The complete abolition of the Roman worship soon followed.
All relics and pictures and crucifixes were removed from the
churches, pictures from the walls were effaced, altars and candles
taken away, and the bones of the saints buried. Zwingli delighted
in music, but the organs were finally excluded from the places
of worship. In 1525, the crucifixes, the chalices, and other vessels
and ornaments of gold and silver were melted or otherwise dis
posed of, and the robes of the clergy sold or given away. This
crusade against all that was thought to be idolatry or to savor
of it was a defining characteristic of the Swiss as distinguished
from the German Reformation. In 1529, Zwingli published his
first theological work, the " Commentary on True and False Relig
ion." A creed, the "Ratio Fidei" was presented by him at the
Diet of Augsburg in 1530. Another confession from his pen,
written shortly before his death, and addressed to Francis I., King
of France, was published in 1536, by Bullinger, his successor at
Zurich.
Zwingli taught, as did the Lutherans, that the Bible is the rule
of faith. He accepted as canonical all the books, except the
Apocalypse. Of this he said at the Disputation at Berne in 1529,
"it is not a biblical book." There was no serious difference with
Luther on the doctrine of Predestination. Zwingli extends the effi
cient decrees and the agency of Providence over the first sin as well
288 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
as over all others, and sets forth this opinion in the baldest terms.1
He differs from the Saxon Reformers in holding that the elect are
not confined to the number of the baptized, or even to those to
whom Christ is preached. All children of Christian parents, who
die in infancy, are saved, and we are not to despair of the salvation
of the infant children of the heathen. Moreover, all true and
virtuous men, all the good and faithful, will be found in heaven.
He includes among them Socrates, Aristides, Numa, the Catos,
the Scipios, and the mythical heroes, Theseus and Hercules.2
On the subject of original sin, we find in Zwingli a like latitude of
opinion. Original sin in the descendants of Adam does not in
volve guilt. It is a disorder simply : " Morbus est et conditio."
We are in the situation of the servants or children of one taken
captive in war. In these two articles, the drift of Zwingli's thought
and the influence of the tone of the Renaissance are apparent. But
the great point of diversity from Luther was in relation to the Eu
charist. In 1524, Carlstadt, a leader of the Radicals and Enthu
siasts at Wittenberg, proposed the absurd interpretation that on
uttering the words " this is my body," Jesus by a gesture pointed
to His own body. From this time Luther assumed an attitude of
hostility to every figurative view of the words of the institution,
and maintained the literal exposition. Zwingli set forth his opinion
in 1525, and in 1526 the polemical dicussion between the Ger
man and the Swiss Reformer had its beginning. The doctrine of
Luther, the suggestion of which came from nominalistic sources,
was that the human body of Christ is inseparably joined with the
elements in the Supper. The union is not an " impanation," or
inclusion of one of the substances with the other, or the mixture of
the two, the result of which would be something different from
both. It is not a union that is continued after the administration
of the sacrament. But the union, which is mysterious in its nature,
is such that believers and disbelievers alike, who receive the bread
and wine, receive simultaneously the body and blood. The entire
Christ is received by each communicant. Luther occasionally
described in crass terms the real manducation of the body of
Christ, but such an idea of a " capernaitic " manducation is con
trary to his more sober representation, and is repudiated by the
earlier and later representatives of Lutheranism. The contention
1 De Providcntia Dei, p. 113; cf. Schaff, Ch. Hist. VII. p. 92 sq.
2 Exposit. Chr. Fid. XII. (in Niemeycr's Coll. Confess., etc., p. 61).
MODERN THEOLOGY
289
of Zwingli was that in the Supper Christ is present in " the con
templation of faith." The Eucharist is a memorial, with the fur
ther idea that it is a pledge, as a ring is a pledge, of the grace
of Christ. The chief thought in connection with the Supper is
that of a memorial. The elements are merely symbols.
The standing objection of Zwingli and the Zwinglians to the
teaching of Luther on this subject was that the human body of
Christ, since the Ascension, is in heaven and not on earth. The
answer of Luther was the assertion of the communication of the
attributes of one nature to another, and the consequent ubiquity
of the human nature. Christ is at the right hand of God, which
means that He is everywhere. Wherever Christ is, there His
humanity is present. He brought forward the scholastic distinc
tion of the threefold mode of presence, the local or circum-
scriptive, a presence in one place and not elsewhere, the defini
tive, and the repletive. The last is equivalent to ubiquity. The
second means that one is present whenever he wills to be. The
union of the two explains the presence of Christ in the Lord's
Supper. It might seem strange that Luther should habitually
stigmatize the Sacramentarians, as the Zwinglians were called, as
visionaries and enthusiasts, " Schwarmer," since from his point of
view they would be styled, one would think, frigid rationalizers.
But, apart from the consideration that Carlstadt was a coryphaeus
of a class more properly styled enthusiasts, Luther's hostility to
the Sacramentarians was rooted in the feeling that they were
assailants of the objective reality of the means of grace. They
were introducing a species of subjectivism in the apprehension of
the Christian religion. He resisted everything that seemed to
him to threaten the objective nature, whether of the Word or of
the sacraments.1 Just as the truth in the Word enters into the ear of
the hearers, good or bad, so is Christ in the sacramental elements,
whatever the belief or feelings of the recipient, and the recipi
ent partakes of Christ.
There is not room here for a detailed record of the series of
efforts made to bring the two parties into an agreement, or at
least into a relation of mutual toleration and fellowship. The
most memorable of these attempts was through the Conference of
Marburg in 1529. It was unsuccessful. On fourteen Articles they
were agreed, but on the question whether " the real body and
1 See my History of the Reformation, p. 150.
290
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine," they differed,
and they could only promise " to cherish Christian charity for one
another, so far as the conscience of each will permit," and to pray
for the enlightenment of the Spirit.1 Luther declined to extend
the hand of fellowship to Zwingli, although at parting the contest
ants on both sides shook hands as a token of friendship. At the
Diet of Augsburg in 1530, Zwingli inserted in his Ratio Fide i a
clear exposition of his idea of the sacraments as testimonies or
signs of divine grace, and classifies with the " Papists," as far as
this subject is concerned, " those who look back to the fleshpots
of Egypt." 5 Zwingli was no rival of Luther in the use of vituper
ative language. Luther's vocabulary of abusive nicknames and
epithets was copious. But the Swiss leader had at times an
exasperating manner, and his utterances were sometimes in keep
ing with it. Luther had not the temper of a peacemaker, as
Melanchthon had in an eminent degree. But it is not to Luther's
discredit that he had no relish for the ambiguities of compromise ;
and Zwingli was not the man to veil his opinions or to keep
silence under assaults upon what he considered the truth. Both
men were true to their convictions. Zwingli died in 1531.
"The Wittenberg Concord" was the result of an undertaking to
reconcile the discordant groups of ministers and churches. The
most prominent intermediary was Martin Bucer, preacher in
Strassburg, who was a Zwinglian, but after the Marburg Conference,
in which he took part, he regarded with less disfavor the Lutheran
opinion. He was not inexpert in composing formulas as little
offensive as possible to either party. The four imperial cities of
Southern Germany had presented at Augsburg a confession much
more moderate in its terms than the creed of Zwingli. Later, in
1532, they had consented to the Augsburg Confession. After a
conference in Cassel, in 1535, between Melanchthon and Bucer,
there met in the following year at Wittenberg a company of dis
tinguished theologians of upper Germany. Luther and his asso
ciates agreed with them in the adoption of a statement on the
points in dispute, in which the Lutheran opinion on the sacrament
was apparently adopted, while Bucer's distinction between the
" unworthy " and " disbelievers," which Luther allowed to stand
in the document, helped the representatives of the cities to
1 See SchafTs narrative, Ch. Hist. VII. p. 646.
2 See Niemeyer, Coll. Con/, p. 26 sq.
MODERN THEOLOGY 29 1
escape from a real and full assent to his doctrine. The " Con
cord " was accepted by their constituents in upper Germany, but
was unacceptable to the Swiss.
There were two subjects on which the opinions of Melanchthon
came to differ from those of Luther. This dissent was gradual
in its origin. One of these points of difference had respect to
human agency as related to divine agency in conversion. The
other was the so much litigated question of the Real Presence of
Christ in the Lord's Supper. For a long time Melanchthon was
fully agreed with the doctrine of Luther. He was always averse
to the Zwinglian theory. As long as Luther's view was the only
alternative Protestant explanation, he received it ; but at length,
when a middle theory was brought forward, which retained that
which he practically valued in the sacrament, he altered his
opinion. His own reflections, the influence of Bucer, and further
study of the Fathers, to which he was led by a writing of the
learned Zwinglian, CEcolampadius, moved him to give up the
idea of an oral manducation of the body and blood and a
reception of them by such as are without a living faith. When
the middle view concerning the sacrament was developed by
Calvin, and brought forward by him in a guarded way, Melanch
thon was confirmed in his altered conviction. Intercourse, espe
cially by correspondence, with Calvin was not without a marked
effect. Calvin, while he rejected the doctrine of the ubiquity of
the body of Christ and its objective presence in and under the
elements, still held that Christ is received spiritually by the believ
ing partaker of them, and that, through the Holy Spirit, even the
body of Christ communicates a power to the believing recipient.
A central idea in Calvin's doctrine is that of a real communion
with Christ which the sacrament, received in faith, operates to
increase. At the same time, there is received, in connection with
the elements, through the power of the Spirit, the mysterious
source of a spiritual body to appear at the resurrection. Melanch-
thon's old belief was shaken as early as the Wittenberg Concord
of 1536. The change is indicated in the amendment of the
tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession, in the edition of it
which he published in 1540. Melanchthon believed that the
points of difference between the Lutheran and the intermediate
theory were not essential, and that the controversy was both need
less and mischievous in the extreme. This is expressed by him
292
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
freely in his confidential letters to friends.1 Yet he so deprecated
contention, that he could not be moved by the urgency of .Calvin
to break silence and avow his real judgment in the matter. That
he approached near to Calvin on this subject is manifest from his
correspondence. When it is remembered how Luther abhorred
everything that subtracted an iota from his definitions of the Real
Presence, and how in his later years his health was broken and
his increased intolerance of dissent was aggravated by partisan
supporters of a temper even more unsparing than his own, —
when all this is borne in mind, in connection with the reserve of
Melanchthon, and his withdrawal within himself, out of natural
timidity and dread of an uproar, it is not strange that for a long
period their relations were strained, and the open cordiality of
their personal intercourse damped. Rather is it strange that
Luther refrained from all attacks upon Melanchthon, and that
the mutual love of the two men, once so closely united, was never
uprooted.
The Calvinists made prominent the points of agreement between
the Lutheran doctrine and their own. Their opinion spread in the
southwest of Germany, in the Palatinate, and in other places, in
cluding Wittenberg, among the pupils of Melanchthon. At length
the Lutherans were awakened to a clearer perception of the differ
ence between the two opinions, and were roused to withstand the
progress of Calvinism. Joachim Westphal, a preacher in Hamburg,
took the field, to whom Calvin replied. The Elector Palatine,
Frederic III., adopted Melanchthon's advice to stop at the words
of the Apostle Paul on the Sacrament in i Cor. x. 16. In 1560,
he established the Reformed Church in his land. In 1562, the
Heidelberg Catechism by his direction was framed by two profess
ors at Heidelberg, Ursinus and Olevianus. In 1560, in the midst
of these scenes of strife, Melanchthon died, not unwilling to be
delivered from the "fury of theologians," and to go to the light
where he could comprehend the mysteries which he had not been
able to understand on earth.
In his battle with Erasmus, Luther affirmed in almost reckless
language the impotence of the human will. God's agency was
1 See Schaff, Ch. Hist. VII. 664 sq., VI. 656; Fisher, Hist, of the Reforma-
titn, p. 160; Hase, Libri Symbol, p. xvi. See, also, Galle's Charakteristik
Melanchthonsy etc., especially the Zwcitcr Abschnitt., and Thomasius, DG.
543 sq-
MODERN THEOLOGY
293
asserted to be the universal cause. His will was declared to be
subject to no law, but to be the foundation of right. Predestina
tion was declared to be unconditional and to include as its objects
the lost as well as the saved. "By this thunderbolt," he said,
*' free-will is laid low and thoroughly crushed." Melanchthon, in
this point, as in others, was in accord with him. But from about
the time of the controversy of Luther with Erasmus, Melanchthon
began to part with this opinion. He began to look at these mat
ters more from the ethical point of view, and was concerned to
find room for human freedom and a basis for human responsibility.
In the Augsburg Confession (VII.) man's will was said to have
"some liberty to work a civil righteousness, and to choose such
things as reason can reach to." In successive editions of the Augs
burg Confession, the Apology, and the Loci, we can trace the steps
which he took to the clear propounding of synergism, or the
doctrine that in conversion the human will takes a part, although
it be a minor part, along with the Word and God's Spirit. In the
adoption of these new views he was not molested by Luther.
Luther had, however inconsistently, affirmed with all emphasis that
God from eternity desires the salvation of all men, and that if they
are not saved it is because they spurn his earnest offer. That salva
tion is by divine grace, without merit, is the one truth which was
near to Luther's heart. The extravagant propositions which reach
the limit of fatalism were taken up from another quarter than his
own religious thoughts and experience, and used to batter down
the doctrine of merit. Hence, although to the last the book on the
Servitude of the Will was one of the few writings of his compositions
to which he attached much value, it was not on account of the ex
treme theory of the will which was advocated in it, but on account
of the doctrine of grace of which it served as a weapon of defence.
The ethical feeling of Melanchthon and the fear of antinomian
perversions of the doctrine of gratuitous justification, led him to
set forth views respecting the obligations of the law, which excited
distrust and opposition. In the edition of the Loci in 1535, he
affirms " the necessity of good works for eternal life," adding, how
ever, that they necessarily follow reconciliation. He says, more
over, that " good works merit material and spiritual rewards." Such
statements he always explained as not affecting the truth of the
remission of sins or the condition of faith in divine mercy through
Christ,
294
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
The death of Luther released Melanchthon from the almost ser
vile anxiety under which he had long suffered. It made him the
head of the Wittenberg Faculty and the principal theological
leader among Lutheran Protestants. But, at the same time, it
took away the aegis which Luther had really stretched over him,
and left to his adversaries a better prospect in their antagonism
to him and his teachings. More than this, it took away the re
straint which Luther's presence had excited upon the tendency in
Melanchthon's own mind to go farther than was meet in the
direction of concessions to the Roman Catholics and of measures
of pacification. He was a Humanist, and as such a lover of
learning, who deserved the title of " The Preceptor of Germany."
By nature he hated extremes, hated angry disputes on verbal
distinctions, prized unity and peace. He was not personally
estranged from Erasmus on account of Luther's heated contest
with him. He had the courage to qualify his subscription to the
Smalcald Articles by adding, in the face of Luther's statements
in this creed, that if the Pope would allow the Gospel, he would,
for the sake of peace, concede to him jure humano superiority over
bishops, of which he was actually possessed. Such were the traits
of Melanchthon, that, in the circumstances of the times after the
death of Luther, in connection with the theological parties into
which the Lutherans divided, he must inevitably become the
occasion of division and a target of assault. A condensed notice
of these controversies is here in place.
i. There were controversies bearing on the relation of morals
to religion. In 1527, John Agricola came forward with the denial
that the preaching of the law should precede the preaching of the
Gospel. Luther stood by Melanchthon ; and ten years later, when
Agricola contended that repentance as well as faith must proceed
from the influence of the Gospel alone, Luther vigorously opposed
him. In 1552, George Major avowed that good works are neces
sary to salvation, not meaning that they are meritorious, or intend
ing to deny that in faith they originate. Nicholas von Amsdorf
met Major with the offensive assertion that not only are good
works not necessary to salvation, but in relation to that end are
positively harmful. The design was utterly to reject the idea that
the law has any relation to believers. It was a fanatical proclama
tion of the all-sufficiency of faith.
~ In order to fill out what he considered to be a defect in
MODERN THEOLOGY 295
Melanchthon's limiting of the office of justifying faith to the for
giveness of sin, and to relieve the doctrine of merely forensic
justification of its barrenness, Andrew Osiander in 1552 brought
forward the doctrine of the actual appropriation by the believer of
the righteousness of Christ, who is received in faith and really
imparts His own essential, divine righteousness to the soul. Luther
had regarded faith as the reception of the entire Christ as the
living Saviour and the source of inward life. Osiander considered
himself to be an expounder of Luther's ideas. He held to the
expiatory work of Christ, as the ground of forgiveness, but the
stress was laid on the mystical union with Christ, and the actual
partaking of His divine quality of righteousness. But Osiander
was resisted not only by Melanchthon, on the ground that he made
forgiveness of small account, but also by Matthias Flacius and
other strenuous Lutherans. After Osiander's death the controversy
was long continued.
The adiaphoristic, Majoristic and Osiandrian controversies were
closely related to the preceding differences. They were connected
with the Leipsic Interim. After the defeat of the Protestants
Melanchthon and theologians in sympathy with him, in 1548, lent
their countenance and help to Maurice of Saxony in the framing
of the Interim for the ordering of religious affairs within his
domain. The concessions to Roman Catholicism, both in respect
to doctrinal statements and as to ceremonies, went altogether
beyond a reasonable sacrifice for the sake of peace and union.
This Melanchthon himself afterwards frankly admitted. In this
dark and troublous period, the strenuous Lutherans, such as
Flacius and Amsdorf, in their antagonism to the Interim, did not
spare Melanchthon, who was held responsible for its obnoxious
provisions. They constituted the " Gnesio-Lutherans," as they
were styled, — persistent adversaries of Melanchthon's opinions.
The adiaphoristic controversy was waged on the question whether
the Roman Catholic ceremonies — formerly interdicted, but rec
ognized, on grounds of expediency, in the Interim — were or were
not unlawful, or if not in themselves wrong, were not made so
under the circumstances. This debate, violent on the part of the
more rigid Lutherans, ended upon the overthrow of Charles V. by
Maurice and the Peace of Augsburg (1555), when the question
ceased to be practical.
The Philippists, as the followers of Melanchthon were called by
296
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
their opponents, were, until 1574, dominant at Wittenberg and
Leipsic. The rigid Lutherans had their stronghold first at Mag
deburg, and then at Jena. In 1555, the synergistic controversy
entered upon a new stadium by a publication of Pfeffinger of
Tena, which was followed, after an interval of several years, by
publications on the other side by Amsdorf and Flacius. The most
prominent champion of the Philippists was Strigel, Professor at
Jena. He maintained that will in the natural man is weakened and
crippled so that it is incapable of originating anything spiritually
good, but when moved upon by the Holy Spirit, it can cooperate
in the work of conversion. This ascription of a concurrent power
to the will met with great opposition. But the position of the
champion of the strict Lutherans, Flacius, that the will is spiritually
dead, and has no capacity except perpetually to resist the influ
ences of grace, were also repugnant to the more moderate class of
Strigel's opponents. A middle class then arose, of which Chem
nitz and Andreae were members, who strove to mediate between
the two extremes. The difference centred in the idea of conver
sion, the initial step in the Christian life. The moderate party
attributed the concurrence and consent of the creaturely will,
not to the use of an inherent power, but rather to the will when
healed or invigorated by a prior influence of the » Holy Spirit.
Flavius stirred up a general dissent when he advanced the doc
trine that original sin has affected the very substance of the soul,
a proposition presupposed in his theory of the will as being dead
so far as holy preferences are concerned. In order to bring to
an end the contests that prevailed, the Form of Concord, after
years of labor upon it, was completed in 1580. The theologians
of the school of Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and others, refrained
from insisting on statements which they would have preferred to
make. The result of all the conferences and negotiations was
the creed in two parts, the briefer Epitome, and the larger Solid
Repetition and Declaration. The Form of Concord condemns
the Flavian notion about Original Sin. It asserts (Art. II.) in
the strongest possible language the helplessness of the human
will. Man's acceptance of the Gospel is exclusively the effect of
grace. Yet, in the eleventh Article, it is declared that " God is
not willing that any should perish," that His offers of grace are to
all men, that Christ " is anxious that all men should come unto
Him and permit Him to help them," that the reason why any sin-
MODERN THEOLOGY
297
ners are lost is that they wilfully despise God's grace, " close their
ears and harden their hearts," so that the Holy Ghost cannot do
His work upon them and within them. It is the denial that grace
is irresistible. Some of the ablest Lutheran divines grant that a
path of reconciliation between these two Articles is difficult to be
found.
CHAPTER III
THE THEOLOGY OF CALVIN
CALVIN in his intellectual qualities differed widely from Zwingli,
but he gave to the Swiss or Reformed theology its mature form,
and completed a work which his forerunner had commenced.
Nevertheless, he had little sympathy with the personal traits
of Zwingli, and Dorner is right in saying that there was, all
things considered, more affinity between him and Luther and
the Lutheran exposition of the Gospel, than there was with
Zwingli and with the Zwinglian theology taken as a whole.
The religious experience of Calvin corresponded essentially to
that of Luther. Distress of conscience and a sense of help
lessness were followed by peace of mind, through trust in the
wholly undeserved grace of the Gospel.1 The first edition of
his Institutes of Theology was printed in Latin at Basle in 1536.
The work grew in compass in the successive editions, without
any modification of its doctrines. From its form, as issued in
1559, the later editions have been printed. It is rather a fervid
discourse than a dry, scholastic disquisition. In its four books it
follows the order of the Apostles' Creed, as did Luther in the
doctrinal part of his Catechisms. The continuity of teaching in
the Church was thus implied. Calvin's genius as a commentator
fully equals his capacity as a dogmatic teacher. To get a full view
of his thoughts it is necessary to consult his observations on
special passages of Scripture, as well as his treatises ; for in the
former we meet with distinctions and qualifications which in the
latter are not always found.
In respect to the relation of the formal principle, the authority
of the Bible, to the material principle, Justification by faith, Calvin
1 One of the most interesting statements of Calvin respecting himself is in
his Letter to Sadolet.
298
MODERN THEOLOGY
299
stands between Luther and Zwingli. He makes the former more
dependent on the latter for its origin than Zwingli ; yet he makes
the formal principle more controlling in the construction of doctrine
than Luther. For example, he holds that the constitution of the
Church is to a greater extent determined by the Scriptures. But
when it comes to the evidences of the divine origin of the Bible,
he rejects the opinion that the first place belongs to external proofs,
and spurns the idea that for our conviction on this subject we
depend upon the authority of the Church. Our conviction on this
point is based on the " testimony of the Holy Spirit," the testi
mony within us of the same Spirit that inspired the sacred writers.
The Bible by its power and elevation speaks directly to the soul,
but speaks with convincing effect only to the soul which has been
drawn to accept Christ with a living faith. On the subject of the
canon and of inspiration, Calvin does not (save in discarding the
apocrypha) deviate from traditional opinion as Luther does. Yet
it accords with his manliness as an interpreter that he resorts to
no petty devices to escape a difficulty ; for example, to dispose of
minor discrepancies. The " different phrases," ' coat and cloak '
in Matt. v. 40, and ' cloak and coat ' in Luke vi. 29, "do not
alter the sense." Comparing the variation of Heb. xi. 21 from
Gen. xlvii. 31, he remarks that in this matter "the apostles
have not been so very scrupulous ; in substance (in re ipsd) there
is little difference." How 'Jeremiah' got into Matt, xxvii. 9,
instead of ' Zachariah,' he does not know, nor will he worry him
self about it.1 Like Luther, he has no fancy for allegorical inter
pretation.
There is a full agreement with Luther in Calvin's description of
the nature and function of faith. It brings the believer into union
with Christ so that Christ imparts to him all that is His. We are
saved by the imputation of His righteousness, not on the ground of
anything, not even faith, in ourselves. And faith includes in it
Assurance — the certitudo salutis. Still Calvin allows for the im
perfection of faith, for the struggle with remaining sin, and the
consequent occasional or partial chilling of the believer's confidence.
Justification, the remission of sins, is distinct from Sanctification,
but they are never disjoined.
Although Calvin is not less sweeping in his assertions of divine
predestination and control than Luther, certainly than Luther in his
1 " nee anxie laboro."
300
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
earlier statements, he differs from the Saxon leader, and is in
accord with Zwingli, in placing in the forefront of his system God
and His universal control. Calvin and Calvinism emphasize not
only the freedom, the unmerited character, of grace, but equally
the sovereignty of God in the bestowal of it. The idea is thatt
apart from this sovereignty in the selection of the subjects of it,/
grace would not be grace. This doctrine of God's sovereignty, and
the use made of it, is one thing that differentiates Calvinism from
Lutheranism, and increasingly the more in the Lutheran system
election retreats into the background. The second point of differ
ence relates to the Lord's Supper, — a topic which has already
been explained.
The peculiarity of Calvin's doctrine of predestination is that it
includes in it the decree of reprobation. This the Lutheran con
fessions exclude. According to Calvin,1 God has determined by an
eternal decree " what He would have to become of every individual
of mankind." Eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal
damnation for others. " Every one is created for one or the other
of these ends." God has once for all determined " whom He
would admit to salvation and whom He would condemn to destruc
tion." 2 Prescience does not explain the hardening of heart, which
includes an intervention of God, beyond mere foreknowledge. It
takes place, first, by the withdrawal of God's Spirit, and secondly
by the employment of Satan, the minister of His wrath, to influence
their mind and their efforts.3 To inquire into the reasons of the
divine will is idle ; for there is nothing " greater or higher than the
will of God." It is "the cause of everything that exists."4
Notwithstanding these assertions, it is not altogether clear
whether Calvin was a supralapsarian or an infralapsarian. These
terms, it should be remarked, did not come into vogue until a later
day. The distinction pertains to the relation of predestination to
the fall of man — to the first sin. This was held by extreme Cal-
vinists to be the object of an efficient decree, while the more mod
erate Calvinists made the decree relate to the fall, and to be only
permissive. The supralapsarians, when they worked out their phi
losophy, made the final cause or end of the divine administration to
be the manifestation of God's attributes, — of His justice in punish
ing, and of His mercy in saving. To accomplish this end creation is
1 Inst. III. xxi. 5. • Ibid. II. iv. 3.
2 Ibid. III. xxi. 7. * Ibid. III. xxiii. 2.
MODERN THEOLOGY
301
decreed, the fall after it, the election of part of mankind as objects of
mercy, of another part as objects of punitive righteousness. This
is the order of the divine purposes. This philosophy is crowned
by the assumption that the procedure of the divine government
needs no other defence than the bare fact of the divine decree, the
will of God being the foundation, as well as the evidence or cri
terion, of righteousness. The infralapsarians, on the contrary,
made election to be from those fallen by their own act into sin
and condemnation, an act of theirs in no degree necessitated by
causes referable to God's power.
If we had nothing to guide us but the Institutes, we should say
without hesitation that Calvin was a supralapsarian. He asserts
that the foreknowledge cf God is dependent upon His decrees ;
that God not only foresaw " the fall of the first man and in him the
ruin of his posterity, but arranged all by the determination of His
own will." l It is absurd to think, he says, that God did not choose
what should be the condition of the principal of His creatures.
The first man fell because God judged that it was expedient that
he should fall. Why not, he argues, object .to the decree that his
posterity should be included in perdition by his fall? Yet such
is the fact. Of the composite purpose, including the sin of Adam
and the ruin of his posterity, he says : " It is a terrible decree,
I acknowledge."2 There is more in the Institutes of the same pur
port. But elsewhere in the Agreement by the Geneve se Pastors,
he speaks more guardedly, and does not overstep the position of
Augustine, from whom he quotes with approbation. He asserts
merely a permissive decree — a volitive permission — in the case
of the first sin. Moreover, Calvin explicitly asserts that for every
decree of the Almighty, however mysterious it might be to us,
there is a good and sufficient reason ; 3 that is to say, he founds will
upon right, not right upon will. It is probable that we have
here his opinion, literally stated, while in the passage quoted
above, which appears to imply that God's will is the fountain, as
well as the evidence of right, we have an over-statement, due to
the fervor of his polemic.
Calvin's language on the decree relating to sin is intimately
connected with his conviction that sin exists and is evil, yet
1 Inst. III. xxiii. 7. To say that God determined to treat Adam as he
might deserve is a " frigidum commentum."
3 Ibid. Ill, xxiii. 7. 8 Opera (Amst. ed.), Vol. VIII. p. 638.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
because it exists under God's government it must be good that it
should exist.1 It would not be permitted to be were it not desir
able that it should be. Hence the existence of evil, whenever
and wherever it exists, is in accord with the divine will. It is
in accord with a mysterious, inevitable appointment of God's will,
notwithstanding His declared commandment against it. God does
not permit sin to be nolens, but volens. In this particular, Calvin
reproduces the doctrine of Augustine and Aquinas, that the system
as a whole is better with evil in it than without evil in it. As to
the two wills in God, the decretive and preceptive, the former is
always said by Calvin to be involved in deep mystery. On this
subject nothing, he declares, is "better for us than a learned igno
rance." 2 In explaining the offers of the Gospel, he, like Augustin-
ians before him, makes them refer to nations, and to signify that the
elect are not confined to any one of them. When he comes to the
lament of Jesus over Jerusalem (Matt, xxiii. 3 7), to the expression of
the Saviour's will to gather to Himself the people who had willed not
to come to Him, he faces the difficulty, and affirms that the duality
of the divine will is merely relative to our understanding, or is an-
thropopathic. Somehow " between the velle of God and their
[the people's] nolle there is an emphatic opposition."
As was the case with the other Reformers, Calvin was not actu
ated in his zeal for the doctrine of predestination by speculative
reasons. He was impelled by its supposed necessity if the
truth of salvation by grace alone is to be upheld. A second rea
son for clinging to it was the dependence upon it of the security
and comfort of believers. For Calvin differed from the Lutherans
as well as from Augustine, in holding that all true believers are of
the number of the elect, since all are preserved from falling.
In Calvin, as in the Lutheran Reformers, in treating of original
sin, the imputation of Adam's sin is left in the background. It is
the innate sin, derived by inheritance from Adam, which is the
primary source of our condemnation. The Augustinian unity of
the race, and the consequent responsibility of the race for the
first transgression, as far as it was generic, is the underlying con
ception. Two propositions are constantly asserted by Calvin.
One is that we are not condemned or punished for Adam's sin,
apart from our own inborn depravity, which we derive from him.
1 Consens. Genev. (Niemeyer, p. 230).
2 Opera (Amst. ed.), Vol. III. p. 641.
MODERN THEOLOGY
303
The sin for which we are condemned is our own sin, namely, the
corruption of nature within us at birth, and were it not for this we
should not be condemned. The other proposition is that our
nature was vitiated in Adam, and in that condition we received it.
On commenting on Rom. v. 12, he says :
" Observe the order here, for Paul says that sin preceded; that from it
death followed. For there are some who contend that we are so ruined by
the sin of Adam, as if we perished by no iniquity (culpd} of our own, in the
sense that he only as it were sinned for us. But the Apostle expressly affirms
that sin is propagated to all who suffer its punishment. And he urges this
especially when he assigns the reason shortly after, why all the posterity of
Adam are subject to the dominion of death. The reason is, he says, that all
have sinned. That sinning of which he speaks is, being corrupted and
•vitiated. For that natural depravity which we bring from our mother's womb,
although it does not at once bring forth its fruits, yet it is sin before the Lord
and deserves the penalty."
To the same effect are his remarks on Eph. ii. 3, where he
says : " Sin is inherent in us, because God does not condemn the
innocent." " God is not angry with innocent men, but with sin."
In the chapter on original sin in the Institutes, we read :
" These two things are to be distinctly observed; first, that being thus vitiated
and perverse in all the parts of our nature, we are, on account of this corrup
tion, deservedly held as condemned and convicted before God, to whom
nothing is acceptable but justice, innocence, and purity; for this is not liability
to punishment for another's crime ; for when it is said that by this sin of
Adam we become exposed to the judgment of God, it is not to be understood
as if, being ourselves innocent and undeserving of punishment, we had to bear
the sin (culpani} of another; but because by his transgression we all incur
a curse, he is said to have involved us in guilt (obstrinxisse). Nevertheless,
not only has punishment passed from him upon us, but pollution instilled from
him is inherent in us, to which punishment is justly due. Wherefore Augus
tine, although he often calls it another's sin (that he may the more clearly
show that it is derived to us by propagation), at the sam^ time asserts it to
belong to each individual. . . . And so also infants themselves, as they bring
their condemnation with them from their mother's womb, are exposed to
punishment, not for another's sin but for their own. For though they have
not yet produced the fruits of their iniquity, they have still the seed inclosed
in them; even their whole nature is as it were a seed of sin, and cannot
be otherwise than odious and abominable to God. Whence it follows that
it is properly accounted sin in the eye of God, because there could not be guilt
(reatus} without fault (culpa). The other thing to be remarked is that this
(iepravity never ceases in us, but is perpetually producing new fruits, etc." l
i /**&!.!.&
304
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
It is clear that, in Calvin's view, the first thing imputed to us as
the ground of punishment is our own sinful nature.
Calvin makes the same distinction as the Lutherans made be
tween the visible and the invisible Church.1 The one comprises
all the elect. The other includes the multitude of professed be
lievers, who receive the two sacraments, the word of the Lord, and
the ministry who are appointed of Christ to preach it. He did
not deny that the Christian societies acknowledging the Pope are
" churches of Christ." His warfare, he asserted in his letter to
Sadolet, was with the Pontiff and his pseudo-bishops, by whom
the truth was perverted and the kingdom of Christ brought almost
to destruction. If the Pope could prove his succession from
Peter, obedience would not be due to him unless he maintains his
fidelity to Christ. His contest was like that of the prophets and
apostles with the churches of their time. He indignantly denies
that he has withdrawn from the Church.2 The prelates of the day
cannot prove their vocation by any laws, human or divine. The
characteristics of a well-ordered church are the preaching of
sound doctrine and the pious administration of the sacraments.
The servants of God have never been obstructed by the empty title
of ' Church,' when it was used to uphold the reign of impiety. His
devotion to the true merits of the Church he affirms in the most
solemn manner.3 Schism, in the proper meaning of the term, he
utterly condemns. In arguing against the Anabaptists he insists
upon the criminality of separating from the Church even when
corruption and sin are prevalent among its members. There
is no excuse for deserting the Church where the word of God
is preached and the sacraments administered.4 In his protest
against these schismatics we might imagine ourselves to be
hearing the voice of an enemy of Protestantism in every form.
But Calvin's deference to authority considered by him legitimate
was profound. The same is true of his attachment to unity, and
abhorrence of unlawful mutiny.5 His reverence for the Church
had led him to hesitate about becoming a Protestant. He con-
1 Inst. IV. i. 10.
2 Works (Amst. ed.), Vol. VIII. See Schaff, Ch. Hist. VII. pp. 404, 405.
3 On the Necessity of Reforming the Church (1545) : full citations in Schaff,
Vol. VII. 452 sq.
4 Inst. IV. i. 19.
* Ibid. I. iv. 10; cf. IV. i. 10.
MODERN THEOLOGY 305
vinced himself that to renounce the prelacy was not to renounce
the Church. "A departure from the Church would be a renuncia
tion of God and of Christ." The original officers in the Church
were partly permanent and partly not. The officers ordained to
be permanent are the pastors and elders. They are not to be
chosen by the congregation. In the polity established at Geneva
Calvin did not fully realize his theory on the subject. In this
particular he was like Luther.
Upon the general idea and intent of the sacraments, Calvin
thought as did the Lutheran Reformers.1 A sacrament is an out
ward sign which is at the same time a seal or confirmation of the
promises of grace and also a testimony before all, the Creator and
His creatures, of our piety towards Him. There is no sacrament
without an antecedent promise to which it is subjoined. The
word — that is, the teaching of the Gospel as to its significance —
is a part of the sacrament. Augustine is right in calling a sacra
ment a "visible word," it being a mirror of the grace contained in
the promises. It is for the increase of faith ; yet it confers no
benefit on a wicked person. And its validity is not contingent
on the intention of the administrator. Its office is precisely like
that of the truth of the Gospel.2 It announces, shows, ratifies the
things given of God. To give it efficacy the Spirit must attend it.
It has no efficacy ex opere operato.
Baptism is a token of purification.3 It is like a legal instrument
attesting the forgiveness of the believer. It is not for the past
alone, but for the future ; for the believer is ever to remember it
as the pledge of his pardon and as designed to reassure him of it.
It reminds us perpetually of our new life in Christ and of the
sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. It testifies that being united
to Him we shall be partakers of all His benefits.
In the Institutes Calvin makes an elaborate argument in behalf
of Infant Baptism. He will not say that infants have the same
faith, or knowledge of faith, that adult believers have. The
principal warrant for baptizing them is the covenant, the promise
of God to the offspring of believers — to believers and their seed.
The blessing of little children by Christ is another basis for it.
Those who brought little children to Him had the spirit of disci
ples. As to the need of infants of the blessings denoted by the
rite, "they bring their own condemnation into the world with
1 Inst. IV. xiv. i, 2. 2 Ibid. IV. xiv. 17. 8 Ibid. IV. xv. 15.
x
306 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
them," their whole nature being, " as it were, a seed of sin," and
therefore " abominable to God."1 The first benefit possible to be
imparted to infants is their ingrafting into the Church. The next
benefit which they are capable of receiving, which is figured in
the sacrament, is their regeneration. The precise nature of this
benefit he does not profess to be able to explain. Neither in
their case, nor in the case of adults, is there any virtue in the
water itself. Whatever is done, is done by the Spirit. Where, by
reason of age, there is not yet any capacity of learning, God has His
different degrees of regenerating those whom He has adopted.2
Yet nowhere in this prolonged discussion does Calvin say that all
those baptized children of Christian parents who die in infancy are
saved. " If any of those who are objects of divine election " depart
from life, after baptism, and before they attain to years of dis
cretion, " the Lord renovates them by the power of His Spirit,
incomprehensible to us, in such a manner as He alone foresees to
be necessary."3 Farther than this he does not go.4 Respect
ing infants who cannot repent and believe, as to the advantage of
baptism in the case of such of them as are not of the elect,
Calvin encountered a difficulty similar to that which Augustine
failed to solve in dealing with the relation of the sacraments to
predestination.
Calvin's opinion concerning the Lord's Supper has been already
stated. Prior to his establishment in Geneva, his aim had been, in
writing on the sacrament, to cultivate peace with the Lutherans
by emphasizing the points of agreement with them. Hence at
the outset the Zwinglians were somewhat suspicious of him.
Zwingli, however, in his latter days, had made room in his theory
for a presence of Christ in connection with the Supper, and had
made more of the Supper as a pledge of Christ's love. Bullinger
and his associates did the same. Consequently the Consensus
Tigurinus, in 1549, was formed as a symbol of union. But in
proportion as Calvin brought forward his points of agreement
with Zwingli, he lost the measure of sympathy with which the
Lutherans had regarded him. In the Institutes, he asserts that
1 Inst. IV. xv. 10. 2 Ibid. IV. xvi. 31. 8 Ibid. IV. xvi. 21.
4 Occasionally he appears to embrace all. Inst. IV. xv. 20, xvi. 9, 31.
The sum of his doctrine is that between baptism and circumcision, there is " a
complete agreement in the internal mystery, the promises, the use, and the
efficacy." IV. xvi. 16.
MODERN THEOLOGY
307
the only difference with the Lutherans on the subject of the
presence of Christ in the sacrament relates to the manner of His
presence.1 " They suppose Christ not to be present, unless He
descends to us ; as though we cannot equally enjoy His presence,
if He elevates us to himself. The only question between us, there
fore, respects the manner of this presence." " I doubt not that He
[Christ] truly presents them [the body and blood] and I receive
them."1 By the "energy of His Spirit" He accomplishes that
which He promises.2 Yet it is evident that our being lifted up to
Christ is figuratively meant, since of the difficulty from the dis
tance of Christ, Calvin says that he cuts the knot in this way,
that Christ, although he does not change His place, by His power
descends to us.3 Faith is confirmed, and the seed of an immor
tal body, like that of Christ, is received by the believing com
municant.
Calvin's expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity are characterized
by great sobriety and clearness. He is no stickler for terms, pro
vided the central elements of the doctrine are retained. He was
even, much to his chagrin, accused of Arianism by one Caroli.4
He will not contend, he says, for mere words.5 He would be
glad if such terms as 'Trinity' and ' persons' were buried out of
sight, if only it were agreed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are
one God, and yet are distinguished by some peculiar property.
Since the original cause — principium et origo — is in the Father,
when the Father, Son, and Spirit are mentioned together, the
name * God ' is specially appropriate to the Father.6 Thus the
order of the persons is preserved, while nothing is subtracted from
1 Inst. IV. xvii. 31. 2 Ibid. IV. xvii. 10.
8 Secunda Defensio (against Westphal), C. R. 37, 72. That this elevation
to Christ is figuratively meant is made clear. See Kahnis, Lehre v. heilig
Abtndm., S. 140, with the comment of Jul. Mxiller, Wissenschaftl. Abhandl.,
p. 432. See also, Loofs, DG., p. 435. The connection between the body of
Christ and the believing communicant is always said by Calvin to be effected
by the Holy Spirit. But it is a real connection and reception.
* For the circumstances, see Henry, Das Lebtn Calvins, vol. I., p. 178 sq.,
Schaff, Ch. Hist., vol. VII. p. 632. Calvin said of the Athanasian symbol that
no legitimate church — legitima ecclesia — would ever have approved of it.
The subject is one on which "we ought to philosophize with great sobriety
and moderation." * For the essential orthodox doctrine as against Arians and
Sabellians he was strenuous.
5 Inst. I. xiii. 5, 6 Ibid. I. xiii. 20.
* Ibid. I. xiii. 21.
308
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the deity of the Son and the Spirit. He is only concerned to
steer clear of Arianism on the one hand, and Sabellianism on the
other.
It is accordant with Calvin's general mode of thought that while
the Incarnation is set forth as having for its prime end the re
demption of man, yet this is not said to be the exclusive ground
of its necessity. He expressly says that if man had remained up
right, yet he is so far below the Creator that he could not, without
a mediator, have attained to union with Him.1 He strenuously
insists on the full reality of the human nature of Christ, as not
affected by its union with the divine.
In one paragraph of the Institutes, Calvin says that the merit of
Christ by which we are saved depends merely on the good pleasure
of God, which appointed this method of salvation for us.2 This is
interpreted by Thomasius as implying that the work of Christ was
not necessary, and as thus suggesting the same Scotist idea that the
will of God is the foundation of merit.3 It is admitted, however,
that such a view is not carried out by Calvin. But the real sense
of the passage is simply that the mission of the Saviour springs
from the grace of God, and from no constraint to which He was
subject to provide a way of salvation. Calvin is earnest in ascribing
the gift of a Saviour to the love of God, although " in a certain in
effable manner, at the same time that He loved us He was never
theless angry with us until He was reconciled in Christ."4 God
Himself " removes every obstacle in the way of His love towards
us." The obstacle lay in God's justice and righteous condemnation
of sin. Christ has " satisfied for our sins ; He has sustained the
punishment due to us ; He has appeased God by His obedience." 5
Christ has so united himself to us that what is ours becomes His,
and vice versa. Like Luther, his mind dwells on this union. He
expresses it in the phrase : " Our sins were transferred to Him
by imputation." The main thing in the atoning work of Christ is
His death. But " there is no exclusion of the work of His obedience
which He performed in this life." " Indeed, His voluntary sub
mission is the principal circumstance even in His death." The
sacrifice must be freely offered. By " the whole course of His
1 Inst. II. xii. i; cf. Dorner, Person Christi, II. 719, and Baur, DG.
III. 179.
2 Inst. II. xviii. I. * Inst. II. xvi. 2.
3 DG. Vol. II. p. 641. * Ibid. 3.
MODERN THEOLOGY 309
obedience" He has achieved our salvation. The distinction
between an active and a passive obedience is not expressed.
Calvin denies the descent of Christ to the under-world (Hades).
The only meaning that can be accepted in such a statement, he
affirms, is that on the cross Christ, when He felt himself forsaken
of God, experienced in His own soul the pains of the lost. Yet He
was free from guilt, and God had no feeling towards Him but love.
CHAPTER IV
RISE AND PROGRESS OF PROTESTANT THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND
THE Church of England, from the time of the framing of its
formularies under Edward VI., was justly considered to belong to
the " Reformed " division of the Protestant churches. On the
great subject of contention, the Lord's Supper, it expressly rejected
the Lutheran opinion, and preferred an opinion accordant with
that of Calvin. It was the influence of Luther's writings on young
men in the universities that began the work of doctrinal reforma
tion. As far as the Protestant faith was espoused, it was first in
the Lutheran form. When Cranmer gave up transubstantiation,
he exchanged this opinion for that of the Saxon Reformers, and
condemned the doctrine of Zwingli. For defending the Roman
doctrine of the sacraments against Luther, Henry VIII. had re
ceived from the Pope the title of Defender of the Faith. His
divorce and his renunciation of the Pope's authority were a long
step towards a recognition of the exclusive authority of the Script
ures. In 1536, the ten Articles, which were adopted by convo
cation and sanctioned by the king, made the Bible and the three
ancient creeds the authoritative standard of teaching. The Ar
ticle on Justification rejects human merit, but connects with this
denial an assertion of the necessity of works to follow Justifica
tion. It is an attempt to unite Lutheran and Roman Catholic
tenets. As to the Real Presence, it is affirmed in language which
a Lutheran could have accepted. There is a Purgatory, but the
Pope cannot deliver souls from it. There are cautions against
the abuses connected with confession, invocation of saints, and
the use of images in worship. In the discussion which pre
ceded this compromise, Cranmer was on the progressive side.
The Protestant parts of the Articles were largely drawn from the
Apology for the Augsburg Confession and other writings of Me-
MODERN THEOLOGY
lanchthon.1 Among other features, the limitation of the number
of sacraments to three — Penance being the third — excited much
disaffection, especially in the North, where the Roman side had
great strength. This creed fell into disuse on the publication, in
I537» of the "Bishops' Book," as it was popularly called, — The
Institution of a Christian Man. This, too, was the fruit of a
compromise. It was framed by a commission sitting at Lambeth.
It was decidedly more Lutheran than the ten Articles. It was to
a large extent an expansion of Luther's catechisms, but Cranmer's
contributions in it were in his best vein. The sacraments were
said to be seven, but a sharp distinction was drawn between the
three and the remaining four. The sympathy between the Eng
lish and the German Reformers was manifested in various ways,
and was only restrained by the force of the king's will. The
power of the Smalcald League had its influence in moving Henry
to seek the friendship of the German princes. In 1535, envoys
were sent by him to Germany to negotiate with them, with a view
to a religious agreement and a political alliance. These proceed
ings were frustrated, — partly, it is thought, by the agency of
Gardiner. The reactionary movement of Henry and the execu
tion of Anne Boleyn, in 1536, broke them off for a time alto
gether. In 1538, these negotiations were resumed. Henry had
a liking for Melanchthon, and was quite desirous that he should
come to England. A Lutheran embassy, which Melanchthon was
not able to join, came to London to confer with a committee of
bishops and doctors, which was appointed by the king. As to
propositions respecting doctrine, they arrived at an agreement;
but Henry steadily refused to permit the cup to be given to the
laity, to give up propitiatory masses, or to allow the clergy to
marry. Among papers belonging to Cranmer, there was found
by Dr. Jenkyn a manuscript containing in Latin thirteen Articles,
on the unity of God, original sin, and other doctrinal topics. It
is judged to be the statement of the Articles drawn up at the
Conference to serve as a basis of union with the Germans. They
are derived in the main from the Augsburg Confession. While
they have this connection with the past, they appear to be the
groundwork of the Anglican Articles at present in use.2 In 1539,
1 See Jacobs, The Lutheran Movement in England during the Reigns oj
Henry VIII. and Edward VI. (i89o),c. VI.
2 See Hardwick, History of the Articles, p. 74.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the negotiations with the Germans were continued. They refused
to send theologians, but an embassy of civilians came to London.
The effort proved abortive. Gardiner and the hierarchical party
were now in the ascendant. The six Articles were enacted " for
abolishing diversity of opinions in religion." Whoever denied
transubstantiation was to be burned at the stake. The needless-
ness of communion in both kinds, the celibacy of the clergy, the
necessity of private masses and of auricular confession, were
decreed. The penalty of an attack on either of these last articles
was death as a felon, without benefit of clergy. Expressions of
dissent from them were to be punished according to their form
and degree, by imprisonment, confiscation of goods, and death.
Cranmer bowed to the storm. There was in his character a
remarkable mixture of compliance with behests which it was im
possible for him to withstand, with an unyielding persistence in
the pursuit of the end which he had at heart, — reform in doc
trine as well as in things external. Further endeavors of Henry
to frame an alliance with the Germans failed from their resolute
refusal to take a step without his acceptance of the Augsburg
Confession. One more doctrinal publication was issued under
the auspices of Henry VIII. It was a revision of The Institu
tion of a Christian Man and was issued in 1543 under the title,
" Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian." Annota
tions by Cranmer and a few by the king himself were embodied
in it.1 It was approved by Convocation.
With the accession of Edward VI. in 1547, Cranmer and the
doctrinal Protestants were left free to carry out their ideas. Up
to this time Cranmer had continued to his adhesion to the
Lutheran doctrine. In 1538, he tried to induce Lambert, who
held the Zwinglian opinion, to renounce it. Lambert refused and
was burned at the stake. In 1548, Cranmer published a catechism.
It was little more than a translation of a Lutheran catechism which
had been rendered into Latin at Nuremberg by Justus Jonas, the
intimate friend of Luther.2 This was the period of the Smalcaldic
war and of the Interim in Germany. The hands of Cranmer and
Ridley were strengthened by theologians from the Continent.
Peter Martyr and Ochino were made professors at Oxford in 1547,
and Bucer and Fagius were called to Cambridge in 1549. At a
1 See Hardwick, p. 65.
2 See Fisher, Hist, of the Reformation, p. 341.
MODERN THEOLOGY
313
Disputation held in London, in 1548, Cranmer declared himself a
believer in the Reformed doctrine of the sacrament and argued
against the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's body.
In this change, he says himself, Ridley's influence had great
weight with him. His words are : " Dr. Ridley did confer with me,
and by sundry persuasions and authorities of doctors, drew me
quite from my opinion." 1 We can fix the date of this conversion.
On August ist, Traheran writes to Bullinger that Cranmer is on the
Lutheran side?2 The same thing is said in letters from others to
Bullinger as late as October 29th.3 On September 28th, Traheran
reports that Cranmer has come over to the opposite opinion.4 On
December 3ist, it is said that he had "most openly, firmly, and
learnedly " maintained Bullinger's doctrine. In Cranmer's treatise
on the sacrament and in his rejoinder to the reply of Gardiner, he
advocates distinctly and emphatically the opinion of which Calvin
and Bucer were the expositors.5 The forty-two Articles of Religion
were adopted in 1552. In Article XXVIII. (on the Lord's Sup
per) there is a denial of the doctrine of " the reall and bodilie
presence, as thei terme it, of Christe's flesh and bloude, in the
sacramente of the Lorde's Supper." In the Elizabethan revision of
the Articles, by which they are reduced in number to thirty-nine,
the paragraph thus expressly condemning the Lutheran doctrine (in
cluding the ubiquitarian opinion) is left out, but the Calvinistic
opinion is still explicitly stated. The twenty-ninth of the thirty-
nine Articles, " of the wicked which eat not the body of Christ in
the use of the Lord's Supper," was confirmed by the Church in
convocation (and by the Act of Uniformity in 1662), but is not
in the list authorized by the i3th of Elizabeth, where the Articles
are only thirty-eight in number. This most Protestant of all the
Articles " was confirmed by the Parliament of Charles II., but
not by the Act which first imposed the Articles, and which had
for its object the admission of Presbyterian orders" — that is, to
1 Jenkyn's Cranmer {Examination), IV. 97.
2 Original Letters relative to the English Reformation, I. 232.
8 Ibid. II. 381, 643.
4 Ibid. 322, 323. See also Hooper's statement, Ibid. I. 73. Traheran
attributes Cranmer's change of belief to the influence of John a Lasco, who
had been himself a Lutheran.
5 Cranmer says of the doctrine of Bucer (with which he agreed) respecting
the Real Presence : " Bucer dissenteth in nothing from CEcolampadius and
Zwinglius." Treatises on the Lord's Supper (Cox's ed.), p. 225.
314
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
meet the case of ministers ordained abroad.1 In the first Prayer
Book of Edward VI., in the Communion Service are the words
" The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee,
preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." In the second
Prayer Book of Edward, this clause disappears and substituted
for it are the words : " Take and eat this in remembrance that
Christ died for thee, and feed on them in thy heart with faith and
thanksgiving." The Swiss influence is here apparent. In the
Prayer Book of Elizabeth, the two clauses are brought together
and are still so connected.2
There has been much discussion of the question whether Article
XVII. (" Of Predestination and Election ") is or is not " Calvinis-
tic." If the meaning of the question is whether, according to the
Article, predestination is unconditional or is conditioned on fore
knowledge, in the later (Arminian) sense, the answer must be that
it is unconditional. It is a decree by " the counsel of God secret
to us " — which implies the distinction between His secretive and
preceptive will. It relates to those " chosen in Christ out of
mankind," aas vessels made to honor." They are called "ac
cording to God's purpose by His Spirit," " through grace obey,"
are justified and adopted. The caution against brooding over "the
sentence of God's predestination," a doctrine " secret and pleas
ant to godly persons," would be quite out of place if conditional
predestination were referred to. To speak of the Article, however,
as " Calvinistic," meaning that its doctrine was learned from Cal
vin, would be to say too much, although Calvin's influence even
then was strongly felt in England. The seventeenth Article asserts
the common doctrine of the Reformers — the later views of Me-
lanchthon excepted. It stops short of Augustine's and Calvin's
teaching in that reprobation is left out. That is to say, it is an
expression of moderate Calvinism, or rather of an opinion which
1 See Stanley's Christian Institutions, pp. 109, no.
2 Ibid. pp. IIO-U2. Respecting the additions to the Catechism, in the
time of James I., see Stanley, p. 1 10. The Body and Blood " are verily and
indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." The Decla
ration added to the Communion Office in Edward's Prayer Book, omitted in
Elizabeth's time, excludes, as restored in 1661, the adoration of "any corporal
presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood." It originally read, " the Real
and Bodily, the Real and Essential Presence." A " real and essential Presence "
of the same is, therefore, not condemned. Ibid. p. in. See, also, Blunt's
Annotated Book of Common Prayer, p. 199.
MODERN THEOLOGY
315
Cranmer and his associates held in common with Calvin. When
Arminianism was beginning to spread, the " Lambeth Articles "
were drawn up as a protest against it. But the rigid Calvinism of
these Articles, in their original forms, was decidedly softened by
the bishops and other theologians who revised them. They were
composed by Whitaker, a stout Calvinist. But in the revised form
the perseverance of all believers is exchanged for the perseverance
of " the elect," so that room is left open for the Augustinian view.
There were other changes of phraseology tending to mitigate the
rigidness of the language asserting predestination. And the Lam
beth Articles were never incorporated into the Anglican prescribed
creed.
The definition of the Church (Art. XIX.) and the assertion of
the fallibility of General Councils (Art. XXI.) agree with the ordi
nary Protestant doctrine. In the Articles nothing is said of Epis
copacy. It was not a subject of contention among the Reformers
anywhere. On the one hand, Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin
have no objection to an Episcopacy existing jure humano. Epis
copacy in England was no barrier to ecclesiastical fellowship with
the Protestant churches on the Continent. Cranmer distinctly
asserted the parity of bishops and presbyters, and that bishops
need no special consecration. There is no good ground for the
opinion that he changed his mind on this subject. Passages
from Cranmer's Catechism which have been quoted in support of
this assumption were taken by him from the Lutheran Catechism
of Justus Jonas, of which mention has been made.1 Cranmer in
his last days was writing to the Continental Reformers with the
intent to bring together a general meeting to frame a consensus of
doctrine. To " unchurch " the Protestant bodies was a thought
that never entered into his mind. To Calvin he urges that har
mony of doctrine will tend "to unite the Churches of God"
" The Church of God " — he means the same churches — " has
been injured," he says, " by divisions and varieties of opinion
respecting the sacrament of unity." Of the same tenor is his
letter to Bullinger. To Melanchthon he expresses the same de
sire for an agreement in the formulating of doctrine among those
" in whose churches the doctrine of the Gospel has been restored
and purified." Nothing is said in this correspondence about
polity. Differences in this respect were not thought essential.
1 See Jacobs, The Lutheran Movement in England, p. 323.
316 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE,
The one subject on which there was discord that occasioned
anxiety was the Lord's Supper. After the accession of Elizabeth
and the return of the exiles, most of whom had sojourned with
the Swiss, the fraternal fellowship with the Reformed Churches
remained unbroken. As late as near the end of Elizabeth's reign,
Hooker recognizes the validity of the ordination practised in the
foreign Protestant churches, albeit he considers it not conformed
to the Apostolic model. Ministers having no other than Presby
terian ordination, on coming into England, were admitted to liv
ings on the basis of it. Even as late as Lord Bacon wrote his
" Advertisement " concerning controversies in the Church of Eng
land, he refers to the denial that such persons are " lawful minis
ters " as a novel and extremely censurable proceeding of " some
indiscreet persons." Those ministers thus spoken against he
describes as "some of our men," "ordained in foreign parts."
The contention that the Episcopal polity exists jure divino, and
is, therefore, essential to the being of a church, sprung up in con
sequence of the conflict with the Presbyterians who made a like
assertion in behalf of their system. Such was the contention of
Cartwright, the champion of the Presbyterian polity. Elizabeth
was herself a Lutheran, but in her reign Calvin's personal influence
was dominant among the clergy, and Calvinism was long a syn
onym of orthodoxy. Hooker compares Calvin's sway to the
authority of Peter Lombard in the flourishing period of Scholasti
cism. He deprecates this almost absolute sway, although he lauds
Calvin's Institutes and Commentaries, and says of Calvin that he
was the greatest man whom the French Church — meaning the
Protestant Church — has produced. The Calvinistic doctrine of
the Lord's Supper was the prevailing doctrine, accepted almost
without dissent by churchmen. " The real presence of Christ's
body," wrote Hooker, " is not in the sacrament but in the worthy
receiver."
CHAPTER V
SECTS IN THE WAKE OF THE REFORMATION — THE SOCINIAN SYSTEM
THE sects which sprang up in the wake of the Reformation had
their origin chiefly in the preexisting tendencies and opinions
which appear in the later portion of the Middle Ages. The
trumpet of Luther woke into vigorous life all forms of disaffection
with the existing order of things in Church and State. Real or
imagined defects in the systems of the Reformers called out
opposition and dissent, and attempts at organization on a different
basis. More radical movements broke out in different directions.
The steadfast adherence of the Protestant leaders to the objective
means of grace, the Bible and the sacraments, provoked dissent in
the form of Mysticism. Their conservatism in matters pertaining
to civil and ecclesiastical institutions excited a widespread revolt,
varying in its types. Side by side with their unshaken confidence
in the fundamental principles of the ancient, pre-scholastic creeds
there arose as a concomitant a more far-reaching skepticism
which did not spare the earlier, oecumenical creeds. This devel
opment was the natural fruit of the seed sown in the period of the
Renaissance.
One of the most noteworthy phenomena on the mystical side
was the rise of the Schwenkfeldians, the disciples of a Silesian
nobleman, Caspar Schwenkfeld, who died in 1561. For a time
he stood in a friendly personal relation to Luther, but came out
in partial opposition to his teaching. He was probably somewhat
influenced by the reading of Tauler and other Mystics. Luther
and his followers, he held, made too much of salvation as an
objective institute. They were fettered to the external Scriptures,
in the room of the divine Word — the word of the Spirit — within
the soul. What man needs is the indwelling of God. This was not
attained by the first creation, even if sin is left out of the account.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
This new, immediate fellowship with God is gained through
Christ, in whom the divine presence and illumination are manifest.
Christ is truly human, but His humanity, owing to His birth from
the Virgin through the Spirit, is susceptible of a reception of
God and a close, albeit progressive, union with Him. Through
this union in the glorified Christ, the creaturely element vanishes.
God and man are now one. Christ imparts to believers His
divine nature. This He does in the Lord's Supper, where the
bread is the symbol of the true bread of the soul, which is Christ
himself. Schwenkfeld did not reject the doctrine of the death
of Christ, which effaces guilt ; but this was only the stepping-
stone to the higher life which Christ makes the possession of His
followers through a real, spiritual communication of it. The true
believer can live without sin. Infant baptism he did not favor.
Schwenkfeld was a man of learning and piety. His followers
were not numerous. In 1734 a number of them emigrated to
Pennsylvania.
The parties known by the name of Anabaptists embraced large
numbers of adherents. This movement is one of much historical
importance. The efforts to bring to pass revolutionary changes
of a social and political nature is one of its main characteristics.
It was only to a part, however, that the wild and destructive
fanaticism which belonged to many can be imputed. There
were drawn into the movement the mass of oppressed and muti
nous peasants whose insurrection and defeat form a dark page
in the records of this period. ' Anabaptists ' is a word meaning
1 re-baptizers.' As a rule, the sects bearing this name were hostile
to infant baptism and baptized anew such as had received baptism
in infancy. There had been opposition to infant baptism among
a part of the Waldenses and among the Bohemian brethren — the
unitas fratrum. It had been opposed, also, by Peter of Bruges
and Henry of Clugny. Yet this designation of Anabaptists does
not bring out what was really the central principle of the sects to
whom it was applied. They insisted that the Church must be
composed exclusively of the regenerate, and that the rule of the
civil authority over it has no rightful place. The substitution of
a kingdom of the saints was the war-cry of some ; notably of
Thomas Miinzer, the prophet of Zwickau, who was beheaded by
the magistrates in the Peasant War. Miinzer, it is worthy of
remark, was acquainted with the writings of Suso, Tauler, and
MODERN THEOLOGY
319
other Mystics. He pronounced infant baptism unscriptural, but
did not give it up. Storch, who was an associate of Miinzer at
Zwickau, introduced the chiliastic theory, which prevailed exten
sively among the Anabaptists.
Quite different in spirit from Miinzer were the Anabaptists in
Switzerland, such as Hubmaier, and such as Grebel, Blaurock, and
others who organized a separate church at Zurich, which refused
to be governed in ecclesiastical matters by the city, and discarded
infant baptism. On this last point, Zwingli had been for a while of
a like opinion. Grebel and his associates were devout enthusi
asts, but they were believed to aim at the overthrow of the
Magistracy, and their movement was quelled, not without cruel
persecution. It must be said of Grebel that while he did not
approve of rebellion, he preached in a district where the peasants
rose in armed revolt, and thus exposed himself to the suspicion of
sympathizing with fanatical schemes of sedition. Itinerant mis
sionaries of the sect diffused Anabaptist opinions of the pacific
type far and wide in South Germany. Among them Chiliasts
were active and influential. Some of the Anabaptist leaders,
Denck and Hetzer among them, adopted a mystical form of anti-
trinitarian doctrine. An attempt was made at Miinster to set up
a theocracy (1532-35), but the town was captured and the tyranni
cal leaders suffered a cruel death. The third and fourth decades of
the sixteenth century were a period in which " Anabaptism spread
like a burning fever through all Germany." It was not strange that
such events as the Miinster tragedy should give rise to a general
crusade against all who were identified with the Anabaptist cause,
— a merciless crusade, because there was little discrimination
between the innocent and the guilty. In the Netherlands, after
about 1537, the anti-psedobaptists were organized in peaceful
communities, free from violence and fanaticism. The leader in
this work of organization was Menno Simons. Included in this
new body were many in the regions adjacent to the Netherlands.
The Mennonites discarded the use of weapons, oaths and every sort
of revenge, and would hold no office in the state. They became
divided, as to discipline, into a stricter and more lenient party.
Later they were influenced doctrinally by the Socinians. Ana
baptist congregations were formed at Norwich and other places
in England by emigrants from the Low Countries. The practise
of immersion was not in vogue at first among the Anabaptists. It
320
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
was adopted, it is thought, after a time, by Grebel and his com
panions in Switzerland. In 1605, Rev. John Smyth, an English
man, separated from the Independent Church in Amsterdam
and rebaptized himself, there being no other to perform that
service for him. Whether he baptized himself by immersion
or not, and when this mode of baptism began among the Bap
tists in England, are still subjects of controversy.
The rise and spread of anti-trinitarian opinions, especially the
development of Socinianism, constitute an important chapter in
the early history of Protestantism. The Reformers, while they
subjected the Scholastic theology to a sifting scrutiny, planted
themselves on an oecumenical basis — the creeds of the ancient
Church. On this ground they stood in company with their
Roman Catholic adversaries. This position was not due mainly
to the power of tradition and a veneration for the Church of the
early centuries. Their religious life was interwoven with the con
ceptions of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, which are
embodied in the ancient formularies. The anti-trinitarians, who
were generally Italians and imbued with the spirit of the Italian
Renaissance, felt no such restraint. They took the same attitude
in relation to the oecumenical faith as towards the systems of the
Scholastic age. It is true of Socinianism, as of like sporadic
movements preceding it, that it exhibits the combined effect of
the Nominalism of the later Schoolmen and of the rationalistic
drift of the contemporary Italian culture. Among the Italian Protest
ants, who sought for a refuge north of the Alps, principally in Geneva
and other cities, were cultured persons, such as Camillo Renato,
Blandrata, Gentilis, and as Ochino, who in the latter part of his
life, agreed with the others just named in the adoption of Unita
rian opinions. Laelius Socinus and his nephew, Faustus, were of
the same class. But prior to Faustus Socinus the most able and
distinguished of the opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity was
a Spaniard by birth, Michael Servetus. His theology was in no
small degree connected with his studies and speculations in natural
science. In his " Errors of the Trinity " and subsequently in his
" Restitution of Christianity," which included the substance of the
former work, he expounded the system which his acute and rest
less intellect had wrought out. The doctrine of an immanent
Trinity is rejected. God is, in every sense, an indivisible essence.
MODERN THEOLOGY
321
For personal differences there are substituted eternal self-mani
festations. The Logos is impersonal, the image of the world, ever
present to God, of which the idea of Christ is the centre. The real
izing of this idea in a human person is the self-revelation of God in
time. Servetus holds to the miraculous birth of Christ ; but his
humanity is a divine substance, fitted for the incorporation of the
Logos, and so for the manifestation of the Father. A Pantheistic
leaven pervades the whole system of Servetus. Next to the error of
the Trinity the other two most baleful errors are declared by him to
be Infant Baptism and the doctrine of a hierarchy in the Church.
Lselius Socinus was an Italian of good birth and ample means,
and was one of the Protestants who crossed the Alps and found
an asylum in Switzerland. He visited Calvin at Geneva twice ;
conversed, also, on theological topics with many other eminent
Protestant teachers, and died in Zurich in 1562. His learning, his
polished manners, and interest in religious questions, were mani
fest. In conversation he commonly took the part of an inquirer,
was reserved in communicating opinions of his own, but was
anxious for relief from doubts and difficulties. Calvin found fault
with his excessive curiosity. The papers of Laelius passed into the
hands of his gifted nephew, Faustus, who also spent a considerable
time in Switzerland at Zurich and at Basle, and originated, on the
basis of the hints and suggestions left by his uncle, the system
called Socinianism. In 1579, he went to Poland, where Unitarian
emigrants before him had settled, and where the influence of Ital
ian culture and opinions was exclusive. At first, the Unitarians at
Cracow who held the Anabaptist opinion, demanded of him that
he should be rebaptized. Eventually he won them over from
their insistence on this test, to which he refused to conform. He
became the leader of the Polish Unitarians, who were protected
by sympathetic nobles of the country. A summary of the tenets
of the Polish Unitarians is given in the Racovian Catechism, com
posed by the preachers of Racow, and first published in 1605, a
year after the death of Faustus. It was translated from Polish
into Latin in 1609. In 1659, it was issued in a much enlarged
form by Crell and Schlichting, eminent Socinian leaders. The
writings of Faustus, together with those of the two authors just
named, and the works of Wolzogenius, are the authorities for the
exposition of the Socinian system, a system which was wrought
out with remarkable logical and critical acumen.
Y
322 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
The characteristics that strike us first in looking at this system
is the conjunction in it of rationalism and an extreme supernatural-
ism. This union is accounted for when we observe that religion
is conceived of as a way of attaining eternal life, and as having
its roots in obedience to God, of whose will it is professed that
we are not able by our unassisted faculties to become acquainted.
Connected with this view of the nature of religion as ethical in
its essence, and of human nature as incapable of discerning super
natural realities, is the conception of God. In Him, will has the
central and supreme place. The whole view is closely akin to the
rationalism of Scotus and the later Nominalists, who, in despair
of otherwise ascertaining truths respecting divine things, fell back
exclusively on the testimony of revelation. In accord with this
peculiarity of Socinus and his associates, is their large reliance
on the miraculous proofs of the divine mission of Christ, and on
the external evidences of the authority of the Scriptures. The
Bible, especially the New Testament, is the authoritative source
of religious knowledge. As Christianity in its principal feature
is a revelation of God's will, or of law, and as the New Testa
ment carries this to perfection, the value of the Old Testament
is considered to be chiefly historical. Reason is to be exercised
in interpreting the contents of the Bible, and Reason is expressly
associated with Scripture as a means of deciding what Christianity
really is. The point of difference between the Socinians and the
later Nominalists lies in the rejection by the former of the doc
trines which constitute the mysterious side of Christian theology,
— in particular the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. Here
we recognize the influence of the Italian Renaissance. Every
thing is examined and judged in the dry light of the understand
ing, yet — under the prescribed limitations — with consummate
ability.
The Socinians considered the Trinity to be inconceivable and
self-contradictory, and thus incapable of being really believed.
God is an individual. His will is exerted and manifested in Crea
tion, in His universal Providence, and in the bestowal of rewards
upon those who obey Him. What God is in Himself is inscruta
ble. We only know what He wills, and what He reveals concern
ing His will. His revelation is made through Christ. He is a
man. A combination of two natures, as the orthodox doctrine
teaches, is impossible and hence incredible. But God can im-
MODERN THEOLOGY
323
part superhuman powers to creatures and commit to them offices
exalted above the capacity of unaided humanity to fulfil. Christ
differs from other men in his miraculous birth. His nature, how
ever, is not the less exclusively human on account of this mode of
coming into being. He is the Son of God by adoption. Before
He enters upon His ministry He is taken up to Heaven and made
acquainted with what He has to teach. Upon His resurrection
He is exalted to the exercise of a subordinate but real dominion
over God's Kingdom, and so will be qualified supernaturally to
exercise judgment. Thus endowed and clothed with sovereignty,
He may be called God in the sense in which the Old Testament
uses the title respecting creatures raised by Him to a participation
in His counsels and His administration. He may even, Socinus
taught, be adored, and He may, without sin, be invoked. On this
point, an opposite opinion was advocated by Francis Davidis, a
prominent Socinian leader. There came to be two parties on the
question relative to adoring Christ, the adorantes and the non-
adorantes. The Holy Spirit, in the Socinian theology, is another
name for a power of influence, exerted by God. The church
doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ is denied. His death is a
manifestation of compassion, and its principal significance is the
assurance it furnishes of the reality of God's purpose to pardon
sin. It is the resurrection of Jesus which, in the Socinian system,
is the fact of primary importance. It confirms the divine offer
of forgiveness. It brings Christ into the glorified life, wherein He
exercises His High Priestly office as an intercessor.
The Socinian exegesis, as far as the divinity of Christ is con
cerned, encountered the most difficulty in disposing of passages
concerning His preexistence. Some of the Socinians were con
strained to teach a preexistence only in the divine purpose. As
to the prologue of John's Gospel, the Logos was said to be
impersonal, and the "all things" made were said to denote the
things of the Gospel, the spiritual creation which springs from
the Saviour's agency among men. The title of Logos is given
to Christ for what He is to be and for the exaltation which
He is to experience.
Socinus classified the Scriptural passages pertaining to the
Atonement under four heads. The passages which speak of
redemption by Christ or by His blood, or of His life as being
a ransom for us, are pronounced metaphorical. Moses is said to
324
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
have redeemed Israel from bondage. The passages which say
that Christ died for us or for our sins are said to mean that our
sins were the cause or occasion of His death, or that He died to
win us from the practice of sin, — nothing else being required as
the condition of pardon. The passages which refer to the bear
ing • of our sins by Christ — e.g. i Peter ii. 24 — are asserted to
denote simply that He took away our sins by moving us to aban
don them, or (as possibly in the case of Isaiah Iviii. 6), that his
sufferings were occasioned by our transgressions, no idea of satis
faction for sins being included. The passages which designate
the death of Christ as a sacrifice and Christ as a High Priest
contain no idea of expiation, for such an element is not in the
Old Testament institutions from which these expressions are
derived. The priestly office of Christ consists in His doing every
thing requisite for the communication to us of the forgiveness
promised by God. The capital element in this function of Christ
is His intercession above, to which the Epistle to the Hebrews
refers. The objections of Socinus to the Church doctrine on
grounds of reason are acutely stated. He denies that retributive
justice is a property of God's nature any more than His com
passion. Both are dependent upon His will. Forgiveness and
satisfaction are incompatible. Punishment is something purely
personal and hence not transferable. One or the other of two
kinds of obedience, active and passive, attributed to Christ, is
superfluous, since passive obedience removes all the guilt growing
out of a want of active obedience. It is impossible for Christ to
furnish the satisfaction required by the orthodox theory. He can
endure but one eternal death. He is not, as an exalted person,
to have on that account a lighter punishment. As God, He does
not suffer. If He did suffer, this would not atone for man's sin.
Moreover, Christ owes active obedience for Himself. If He did
not, it would avail for only one person.
The Socinians held that the natural body perishes utterly and
finally, and that the body with which the spirit is clothed hereafter
is a new spiritual body. The condition of the soul in the inter
mediate state is very obscurely indicated, since it is the recipient
of no sorrow and the subject of no penal suffering. Without the
body, it is near to non-existence, since it is incapable of feeling or
perception. As immortality is represented as a gift of God to the
righteous, annihilation is the lot of the wicked, but the question
MODERN THEOLOGY
325
when this lot is experienced — whether at the judgment or later
— is also left unanswered.1
The ultimate source of the antagonism of the Socinian theology
to Evangelical Protestantism lies in the radical difference on the
subject of sin and of its effects on the soul. The sin of the first
man is not transmitted to his posterity. Men in their natural state
are still free to choose the right. Their moral depravity is minified,
both as to its guilt and its control, in comparison with the doctrine
of the Reformers on this subject. They can still withstand
temptation, and comply with the special commandments of the
New Testament. The conception of the remedy is matched to the
lower conception of the malady from which man is to be delivered.
As critics the Socinians set exegesis free from the trammels of dog
matic theology. They pursued their investigations into provinces
which had been guarded in a great degree from scrutiny by the
force of tradition. Thus they fill an important place in the progress
of theological science. But their service for the most part ends
here. Their positive construction of doctrine partakes of the
weakness of the foundations on which it is made to rest. "With
the old dogmas," says Harnack, " Socinianism has at bottom set
aside Christianity as a religion. Guilt and Penitence, Faith and
Grace, are conceptions which are only saved by inconsistencies
— out of regard to the New Testament — from being wholly elimi
nated."2
1 For the passages on this topic, see Fock, Der Socianismust Vol. II. p.
71 5 *q.
8 DG. III. 691,
CHAPTER VI
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM RESTATED IN THE CREED OF TRENT —
THE THEOLOGY OF THE JESUITS — JANSENISM — QUIETISM
THE year 1541 may be considered a landmark in the course of
the contest between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics. In
that year occurred the Colloquy at Ratisbon between the theo
logians of the two parties. Melanchthon, on the one side, the
most pacific of the Protestant theologians, conferred with Contarini,
a representative of those on the Papal side who had the least
antipathy to Protestant views of justification. They were able to
unite on several cardinal points, but were hopelessly at variance
on certain other points, including the Eucharist and the authority
of the Pope. An armed conflict between the parties in Germany
which were organized in distinct leagues was at that time threat
ened. This effort to avert it proved futile. A year before the
conference at Ratisbon, the organization of the Society of Jesus
had received the Papal sanction. The various forces that brought
on the Counter-Reformation were beginning to operate with an
efficiency that went on increasing. The Popes had steadily re^-
sisted and baffled attempts to procure the assembling of a General
Council. Apart from other considerations, the memory of Constance
and Basle was too fresh. At last there was no escape from taking
this unwelcome step. The independent action of princes and
countries in ecclesiastical affairs was equally, if not more, to be
dreaded than a council. The urgent demands of the Emperor,
Charles V., could not longer be evaded. At the call of Paul III.,
in December, 1545, the Council of Trent — Trent being under
German rule — assembled. In this first period of the Council,
the number of members, all told, did not exceed 112. They were
mostly Italians. In 1547, the Council was adjourned sine die. It
was reassembled by Julius III. in 1551, but in the following year
326
MODERN THEOLOGY
327
was again adjourned. After ten years, in January, 1562, it met
once more, called together by Paul IV., and terminated its exist
ence in December, 1563. In this third period, 255 persons were
counted as members, of whom two-thirds were Italians.
From the beginning, the Council was really under the direction
of the Pope. Votes were not taken by nations, as at Constance.
The Papal legates presided and in the main controlled the pro
ceedings. It was insisted that no proposals should be brought
before the body except by them. By constant correspondence
with Rome the Papal approval was secured in advance for all
the propositions relative to doctrines for which the sanction of the
Council was asked. The topics were discussed in committees or
congregations of theologians and canonists, were sometimes taken
up in the general congregation, and, when adopted, were solemnly
proclaimed in the general sessions of the body. The history of
the Council was written by Father Paul Sarpi, who was a moderate
Catholic, with a strong anti-papal bias, and also by Pallivicini, with
a bias equally strong in the opposite direction. In the copious
literature on the subject, the publication by Theiner of the official
acts of the Council is a writing of great value.1
The difficulties which the Council had to face might seem in
superable. How should it begin ? Should the reform of abuses be
first undertaken, or should the initial work be the positive enunci
ation of doctrine and the condemnation of the Protestant tenets ?
The decision was adverse to the urgent demand of the Emperor
Charles. Questions of doctrine and of reform were to be con
sidered together, but it was decided to frame first the definitions
of doctrine, in opposition to heretical opinions. These definitions
were set forth in a series of decrees, with anathemas appended
under each head. In the Council there were advocates of the
Episcopal system, which made all bishops as to apostolical succes
sion on a par with the Bishop of Rome. What should be deter
mined on this subject? There were a few members who in their
ideas of Justification approached near to the Protestant opinion.
1 Theiner's work (2 vols. fol. 1874) contains only the official Relation, pre
pared by the Secretary, of the public proceedings of the Council. Father
Paul's htoria, etc., was first published in London (1619). Pallivicini's htoria
appeared in 1656-57. Both authors made use of important documents. For
the bibliography relating to the Council, see the Real-Encycl. d. Prot. Theol.
Vol. XVI. p. 12, Moller's Kirchtngesch. Vol. III. p. 21 5,
328
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
They might, without great difficulty, be overruled and silenced.
But there was the marked diversity upon the relation of divine
agency to free-will, where the Franciscans followed the Scotist
tendency and leaned decidedly to Semi-Pelagian tenets, while
the Dominicans, the followers of Aquinas, who had of late brought
to the front the more Augustinian type of teaching, were arrayed
against them. The decrees were drawn up on the disputed ques
tions, with patient and long-continued labor, and with exceeding
skill. The policy adopted was to abstain from any declaration on
points where the several schools were at variance, and to select
phraseology ambiguous enough to secure the assent of each of
them. Since the interpretation of the Tridentine Creed was rele
gated to the Pope exclusively, its character led of necessity to an
augmenting of the Papal prerogative. The discussion of the most
weighty dogmatic questions began in the fourth session of the
Council. The first thing to be settled was the authoritative
sources of dogma. On this point, tradition was pronounced to
have equal authority with Scripture. The Bishop of Chiazza as
serted in the discussion that this opinion is impious. He soon left
the Council and afterwards retracted his obnoxious statement. By
this decree, the usages sanctioned by Rome were furnished with an
apostolic warrant. The Vulgate translation was made authorita
tive — "pro authentica habeatur " — in all public addresses, ex
positions, and debates. The books in it, including the Old
Testament Apocrypha, were declared to be canonical, — the
Epistle to the Hebrews being set down in the list as the four
teenth Epistle of Paul. Moreover, it was decreed that interpre
tations of Scripture must be in accord with those of " Holy Mother
Church," the judge of " its true sense." This criterion was set up
in place of the unanimous voice of the Fathers. In the fifth ses
sion, Original Sin was expounded. It was necessary to provide
against a collision of the Thomists and Scotists. The anathema
was pronounced against all who deny that " the entire Adam "
" as to body and soul," was changed for the worse — " in deterius
commutatum." The phrase is vague and comprehensive. The
merit of Christ, the ground of salvation, is applied in baptism to
infants as well as adults. By this sacrament, " the guilt of original
sin " is remitted. The evil principle, concupiscence, remains, but
brings guilt only to those who consent to its impulses ; for as it
springs from sin, so is it an incentive to sin. We come in the
MODERN THEOLOGY 329
sixth session to the decree on Justification, which contains sixteen
chapters and is followed by the negations in thirty-three canons.
On this subject there was disagreement in the debates on many
particulars, and a vast amount of time was spent in settling upon
the formulas. At the outset, along with an assertion of the need
of the grace of the Gospel, free-will is declared to be attenuated
and bent down (inclinatum), but by no means (minime) extin
guished. The merit of the passion of Christ is the basis of the
bestowal of the grace whereby men are "made just" {justi
fiuni). Justification is a translation from the natural state to the
state of grace, for which change baptism " or the desire thereof"
is necessary. As to the preparation for justification in the case of
adults, " prevenient grace " comes first, which men can consent
to or reject. It is to be observed that a thread of Semi-Pelagianism
runs through the whole series of definitions. If one accepts this
prevenient grace, he exercises faith • that is, believes the revelations
and promises of God to be true. This is equivalent to saying that
he accepts the doctrinal teachings of the Church. When he thus
believes, when he begins to hope in the divine mercy, and to love
God, to hate sin, and purpose to be baptized and to begin a new
life, the preparation is complete. Next comes the answer to the
question what Justification is and its causes. It embraces the
remission of sins and sanctification. The instrumental cause is
the sacrament of baptism, the primal cause is God's justice (or
righteousness), whereby we are renewed in spirit by the Holy
Ghost, who distributes to every one as He wills and according to
" each one's disposition and co-operation." Man receives at once
forgiveness and grace, hope and charity. By this formula the
controversy in the Council on the question whether remission pre
cedes or follows the infusion of subjective righteousness was
allayed. Justification is by faith and freely, first because faith
is the beginning and root of Justification, and secondly because
neither antecedent faith nor works merit the grace itself of Justi
fication. There was a lack of unity among the Fathers of the
Council on the subject of assurance. They took refuge in the
statement that it is not to be said that sins are forgiven to any one
who boasts (jactanti) of the certainty of His forgiveness, and "rests
in that alone." As one ought not to doubt of the mercy of God,
so, in view of his own weakness, he may have " fear and appre
hension" (Jormidare et timere). Justification is declared to be
330
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
capable of increase. As to Perseverance, one should have a firm
hope, but cannot be absolutely assured. If he is not himself over
confident or negligent in doing his part, God's help will not be
wanting. Respecting Predestination, very little is said. It is
spoken of as a hidden mystery. No one is to presume that if he
is justified, he cannot sin or that he is sure to repent if he does
sin. Whom God has chosen can only be known by special reve
lation. For those who have fallen from grace, the sacrament of
penance opens the way to receive this grace. Penance is " the
second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost." This is the
provision for those who sin after baptism. Its parts are confes
sion, absolution, and satisfaction by fasts, prayers, alms, etc.
Eternal life is both a grace promised to the children of God and
a reward for their good works and merits. It is through the
virtue infused by the grace of Christ that their meritorious
works are performed. God will have His own gifts to be their
merits. The canons emphasize the part taken by free-will in
preparing for justification (IX.), and condemns the errors
that good works are purely the fruit of justification, do not
increase it, and are not meritorious (XXIV., XXXII.).
In the decree on the sacraments (Session VII.) the characteristics
of the Roman Catholic system are most distinctly brought out.
Through the sacraments, Justification in all its stages is imparted.
They are seven in number, all instituted by Christ. They convey
grace to all who interpose no obstacle thereto. Three of them,
baptism, confirmation, and orders, imprint an indelible character,
the meaning of which is not explained. The intention of doing
what the Church does is required in the minister. Baptism is
necessary to salvation. In the Eucharist (which is treated in
Session XIII.) Christ is said to be present in His own substance
by a manner of existing not explicable in words, but possible to God.
Transubstantiation takes place, and concomitance is affirmed. The
highest form of worship (latria) is due to the sacrament. The
annual festival of Corpus Christi is said to have been most
piously and religiously introduced into the Church. No one must
approach the sacrament except after sacramental confession, a
rule that applies to priests as well as laymen. In the twenty-first
session, it was declared that the Church has a right to withhold
the cup from communicants, and that when this is done, a true
sacrament is nevertheless fully received. In the sacrament of
MODERN THEOLOGY 33!
penance (Session XIV.) the priest fulfils the office of a judge.
Contrition is the first requirement and element. Attrition is
designated as an " imperfect contrition. " It assists the penitent,
disposing him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament. The
language here is not clear, but on the whole it appears that sanc
tion is not given to the Scotist opinion on this topic. All mortal
sins must be confessed, and this must be done at least once a
year. The reservation of cases, both by the Pope, and by ordi
nary bishops, each in his own diocese, is sanctioned. At the
point of death there is no reservation. Then all priests may ab
solve all penitents. Satisfaction is required of such as are absolved,
the efficacy of which is through Christ. It is both medicinal and
penal. In the twenty-fifth session the doctrine concerning indul
gences was set forth. Caution was imposed relative to entering, in
popular discourses, into subtile and difficult questions about Pur
gatory. Whatever savors of filthy lucre in connection with this
matter of indulgences is to be avoided. It is ordained that all
evil gains from the issue of indulgences, " a prolific cause of
abuses," shall be abolished. But the people are to be taught that
masses, prayers, alms, and the like are to be performed according
to the rules of the Church, for the departed. Under the head of
Ordination (Session XXIII. ), the divine institution of the hierarchy
is affirmed. Its divine orders are authorized either by Scripture
or tradition (c. II.). Bishops are declared to be superior to pres
byters. To bishops belong the right to confirm and to ordain.
But the disputed question whether bishops derive their succession
directly from Christ, as does the Pope, or through him, was left
untouched. There was a strenuous party on the side of Episco-
palism and against the Curialists. The brief reference (Session
XXIII. Canon VIII.) to the Roman Pontiff, in connection with
"legitimate and true bishops," is obscure and indeterminate. Nor
is the question settled by the phrases in the Roman Catechism
respecting the "legitimate successor of Peter" and the vicar of
Christ (c. 10. q. 10). One of the canons on marriage (X.)
anathematizes those who place it above the state of virginity, and
who say that the state of virginity and celibacy is not better than
that of matrimony. On the invocation of saints and the veneration
of relics and images, the established traditions were sanctioned,
but abuses that may have crept in were to be sedulously weeded
out by careful teaching. The Council of Trent did a good service
332
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
by enactments relative to the education and morals of the clergy,
and by other ordinances bearing on practical reforms in matters
ecclesiastical. To the Roman Catholic Church it was of inesti
mable value as furnishing a definite statement of its dogmas, and
a catalogue of the opinions which were to be considered false and
heretical.
Buttresses of Papal prerogative, which were not erected in the
Council itself, were indirectly supplied in the formularies which, in
accordance with an act of the Council, were issued later under
the auspices of the Pope. In 1564, the Professio Fidei, the form
of acceptance of the Tridentine Creed, to be subscribed by priests
and instructors of youth, was published by Pius V. It contains
an explicit promise of obedience to the Pontiffs. The Roman
Catechism — Catechismus Romanus — was composed under Do
minican influence, and hence the Jesuits often preferred their own
Catechism, composed by Canisius. The Roman Catechism makes
the Pope the visible head, as Christ is the invisible, of the Church,
and styles him the " Vicar and Minister " of the powers of Christ.1
The Jesuits wer.e the stanch defenders of Papal supremacy
until their own opinions encountered Papal opposition, and finally
their policy in the conduct of missions in the East was con
demned at Rome. The ablest theological champion of the
Roman Catholic doctrine was a Jesuit, Robert Bellarmine, whose
work furnished a storehouse of controversial weapons to be used
against Protestant heresies. Bellarmine advocates the doctrine of
the Pope's personal infallibility as a teacher of doctrine and also
of morals. He taught that the authority of bishops is derived,
not immediately from Christ, but from the Pope. On the ques
tions which divided Thomists from the school opposed to them,
the Council of Trent had managed to steer between Scylla and
Charybdis, partly by means of silence and partly by ambiguity.
Subsequently there sprung up two movements adverse to one
another, and representing extremes as compared with the via
media of the Council. The Jesuit theologians contended with
zeal for an advanced type of Semi-Pelagianism. Against them,
there occurred a revival of Augustinianism, the authors of which
adhered closely to the tenets of the founder of the system. In
1 The Index libr. prohwii. was issued by Pius IV. (1564). The reading of
the Bible in the vernacular is permitted only to such as have a written license
from the Bishop and Inquisitor, given upon the advice of the Father Confessor.
MODERN THEOLOGY 333
the Netherlands, where the revived Augustinianism first appeared,
the movement was not due to any Protestant influence, nor was
it so, to any material extent, elsewhere. Michael Bajus, at the
University of Louvain, promulgated the tenets of the Latin
Father in their pure form. Seventy-nine points of his teaching
were condemned by Pius V. in 1567. In the list are the state
ments that no sin is in its nature venial, that free-will without
grace to help can only sin, that in the redeemed there is no
merit which is not gratuitously given by God, that concupiscence
continues to be sin.1 Afterwards the Louvain faculty as well as
Bajus were compelled to abjure the obnoxious theses. In 1588,
Molina, a Spanish Jesuit, distinctly propounded Semi-Pelagianism.
He brought forward the theory of scientia media, — the doctrine,
namely, that God, foreknowing what all persons would do under
any and all circumstances, sends to perdition such as He foresees
would remain obdurate, whatever exertions might be made, even
by divine grace, to recover them. This doctrine had been first set
forth by Fonseca, a Portuguese theologian. The Molinists were
combated not only by many outside of the Jesuit order, but even
by a party within it. The debate spread and became so excited
that Clement VIII. appointed a special congregation — Congregatio
de auxiliis gratia — to give a decision. This was in 1597. Noth
ing but an unwillingness to offend the Jesuits deterred him from
rendering a decision against them. But the congregation came to
no result, and in 1607 Paul V. imposed silence on both parties of
disputants, forbidding anything written by them on the subject to
be printed.
In various other particulars, the Jesuits inculcated a lax theology.
They taught that in the Sacrament of Penance, where there is only
attrition, it suffices for Justification.2 High authorities among
them, of whom Bellarmine was one, argued in favor of the propo
sition that a Pope could not embrace heresy, and that an act
believed by one to be sinful, one ought, nevertheless — if it were
enjoined by the Pope — to perform.3 The theory of popular sov
ereignty was adopted and served as a means of exalting the Popes
as deriving their authority, in distinction from princes, directly
1 For the passages, see Gieseler, KG. Vol. III. iii. § 59; Thomasius, DG«
Vol. II. p. 720.
2 For the passages from Jesuit authorities, see Gieseler, V. III. iii. § 60.
8 Ibid. Vol. V. p. 99.
334
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
from God. Laxness in theology was accompanied by a mis
chievous casuistry and by a not unfrequent inculcation of ethical
precepts which strike at the foundations of morality.1 The doc
trine of " probabilism," which, if they did not originate, they took
up and spread abroad, sanctioned the doing of an act the lawful
ness of which is supported by the authority of a single doctor.
The maxim that the end justifies the means, if it be not explicitly
avowed, is assumed. It is taught that a man without offending
conscience may do an act which conscience forbids, when his
design is not to sin, but to promote a good cause. So the doc
trine of mental reservation in promises — of qualifications, not
expressed, but purely mental — had a wide approval. The right-
fulness of tyrannicide was frequently defended by Jesuit authors
of high repute. The murder of Henry III. was extensively ap
proved. The assassin of Henry IV. had studied with Jesuits, and
had adopted the idea of the rectitude of such a deed. There were
also writers on casuistry, for the guidance of priests in the Confes
sional, who, apart from other baneful teachings, gave such directions
and entered into such distinctions in respect to sexual relations as
are shameful in their indecency and corrupt tendency. The Jesuit
Society did important services to learning. It has comprehended
in its ranks many unselfish and holy men. But, while these merits
ought not to be overlooked, they ought not to screen from de
served reprobation the sins — in doctrine as well as practice —
which brought upon the organization widespread condemnation.
The most noteworthy movement in this period in behalf of
Augustinian theology was Jansenism. It became the occasion of
a formidable and effective attack upon the Jesuit theology and
ethics. Jansenius was a professor at Louvain, and then Bishop of
Ypres. He died in middle life, in 1638. On his posthumous
work, Augustinus, he had labored for twenty-two years. It is a
statement and defence of Augustine's system in its genuine form.
On Original Sin, the fall of the race in Adam, on human inability,
on irresistible grace, and the other kindred points, the actual
teaching of the Latin Father was clearly set forth. The book was
printed in 1 640. Shortly after, it was prohibited by the Inquisitors
and by Urban VIII. The Papal bull (in eminenti) was not ac
cepted in France by the group of men known as Port Royalists.
The Abbot of St. Cyran, Arnauld, Blaise Pascal, and Nicole, were
1 See Gieieler, ut supra.
MODERN THEOLOGY
335
the leaders in an aggressive warfare upon the theology and ethics
of the Jesuits, by whom Jansenism was fiercely assailed. These
leaders were devoted Catholics, earnest and ascetic in their piety.
All were men of striking abilities. The great genius among them
was Pascal, whose Thoughts — preliminary notes for an intended
work on Apologetics — are marked by originality and insight. In
the Provincial Letters, Pascal held up to view, in a most attractive
literary style and with keen satire, the theology and ethics preva
lent among the Jesuits. Innocent X., in 1653, in the bull cum
occasione, condemned five propositions purporting to be extracted
from Jansenius's work. One of them is the proposition that grace
is irresistible. Another is that it is Semi-Pelagian to assert that
Christ died for all men. In resisting this decision, Arnauld took
the ground that the propositions, as they were recited, were not
in the Augustinus, and that on this question — question de fait —
the Pope was not infallible. Pope Alexander VIL, in 1656, anath
ematized all those who should say that the five propositions are
not in Jansenius. To the formula of assent to the bulls against
him, including the last, all the French bishops were finally moved
to subscribe. The influence of the Jesuits and the power of their
ally, Louis XIV., secured their triumph. The cloister of Port
Royal was demolished. But Jansenism was not eradicated. The
last stage in the Jansenist controversies carries us into the
eighteenth century. The New Testament with Moral Reflections
of Quesnel was the work of a Jansenist. The Jesuits obtained at
Rome, in the bull Unigenitus, a condemnation of the work, speci
fying one hundred and one heresies said to be contained in it.
The King's confessor had charged it with containing more than a
hundred heresies, and the bull was shaped with a view to make
good the charge. The bull went beyond the denial of the plainest
utterances of Augustine and other Fathers of the Church, and in
cluded the denunciation of doctrines accepted by Christians gener
ally. The Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, had approved
of Quesnel's book. Those who called for an appeal from the Pope
to a General Council were styled Appellants ; the opposite party
were the Acceptants. The Appellants were numerous and distin
guished. Parliament was in favor of them. The government,
especially after Louis XV. acceded to the throne, was against them,
and their cause was crushed. The subsequent events relating to
Jansenism it does not belong to the History of Doctrine to narrate.
336
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
In contrast with the prevalent externalism in religion was the
development of mysticism in the form which has received the
name of Quietism. Molinos published in 1675 The Spiritual
Guide, in which he unfolded his ideas pertaining to a devout life
and the sources of inward peace. Abstinence, maceration of the
body, penances, were deemed by him of little value, save at the
beginning of a course of self-discipline. The secret of peace is in
contemplation and self-surrender to God. The opposition of the
Jesuits was aroused. The Inquisition took up the matter. Mo-
linos was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. The charge that
he retracted his teachings, or that he taught an immoral doctrine of
the indifference of exterior acts when the soul is wedded to God,
is not sustained by adequate proofs. The ideas of Madame Guyon
respecting the bliss of an absorption of the human will in the divine
and the absorption of the soul in God, were judged to be heretical
by Bossuet and other prelates. Fenelon, who dissented from this
opinion, inculcated in his Maxims of the Saints a like mystical
doctrine. Bossuet was supported in his disapproval of this book
by the Sorbonne, and by the Pope, who, in 1699, declared that its
teachings are erroneous. Thereupon, Fenelon immediately and
in public retracted them.
Bossuet, in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, presented
the tenets of the Church in a liberal and plausible form. His
polemical work, the History of the Variations of Protestantism,
(1688) is an ingenious attempt to show that Protestantism is
another name for a chaos of conflicting opinions, from which the
only escape is in submission to the authority of the Church. Dur
ing the contest of Louis XIV. for absolutism in matters ecclesias
tical as well as civil and secular, the clergy of France, in the
Assembly of 1682, asserted the four propositions of Gallicanism,
that the Pope's authority extends only to spiritual affairs, that his
authority is subordinate to that of a General Council, that he is
bound by the canon law and by the special institutions and usages
of the French Church, and that his doctrinal decisions are not
irreformable unless they have the concurrence of the whole Church.
After the King made peace with Innocent XL, the Articles were
no longer insisted upon, and the bishops were suffered to disavow
them. In this conflict, Bossuet was the champion of Gallican
freedom, but, owing to the settlement just referred to, his work
in defence of it did not see the light until 1729.
CHAPTER VII
THE ARMINIAN REVOLT AGAINST CALVINISM — THE SCHOOL OF
SAUMUR PAJONISM THE FEDERAL THEOLOGY
CALVIN in his lifetime had to contend against adversaries who
assailed his doctrine of Predestination. One was Albert Pighius,
a Roman Catholic bishop at Utrecht, who, from a Pelagian point
of view, undertook to prove by the usual arguments that the doc
trine was destructive of morality. Calvin answered him in his
book De Libero Arbitrio. Castellio, after he left Geneva,
attacked Calvin's opinion. Jerome Bolsec, who had been a
Carmelite, and had established himself as a physician at Geneva,
was imprisoned, and afterwards banished, on account of his hos
tility to the doctrine of unconditional election, although the
theologians of Basle, Zurich, and Berne counselled milder treat
ment. In consequence of these attacks, Calvin composed the
Consensus Genevensis. After the death of Calvin, the extreme
supralapsarian form of the doctrine was set forth without qualifica
tion by his followers. This was Beza's opinion. Previous opposi
tion was of little account, compared with the great Arminian
revolt. Arminianism was an uprising against the Calvinistic doc
trine, of signal importance in the history of the Reformed Theol
ogy. It appeared in Holland, which, even more than Switzerland,
became the centre of theological activity. This was owing, in no
small degree, to the influx of Protestant theologians of ability and
learning from France. Calvinistic influences more and more
gained the preponderance over the Lutheran, and found expres
sion in the Belgic Confession, which was presented to Philip II.
in 1562. There were symptoms of dissent from the Calvinistic
tenet before James Arminius raised the standard against it. He
was a ripe scholar, had travelled extensively, had been a pupil of
Beza, and had followed his teaching. Being called upon, how-
* 337
338
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
ever, to defend the supralapsarian opinion, against Koornheert and
others, he entered into investigations which led him to renounce
it. When he became professor at Leyden (in 1603), he fell into
conflict with his colleague, Gomarus, a rigid Calvinist. Arminius
died in 1609, not before he had had time to set forth fully, and
in a lucid style, his theological system. There were leaders of
great talents to follow in his steps, of whom Episcopius, his suc
cessor at Leyden, and Uytenbogaert, were the ablest. Arminian-
ism spread among the clergy and laity. Political differences
mingled in the theological dispute. The Calvinists were adhe
rents of Maurice, Prince of Orange. The Arminians, who counted
on their side the great statesmen, Olden Barneveld and Hugo
Grotius, advocated the union of Church and State, and a Repub
lican system. Strong as the Arminians were in the genius and
learning of their chiefs, they were greatly outnumbered, both
among the clergy and the laity, by their opponents. These were
not at all disposed to tolerate what they considered doctrinal and
political heresy. The Creed of the Arminians was set forth in
the Remonstrance addressed in 1610 to the States of Holland
and West Friesland, the document which gave to them the name
of Remonstrants. It consists of five Articles. The first asserts
conditional election, or election dependent on the foreknowledge
of faith. The second asserts universal atonement, in the sense
that it is intended, although it is not actually efficient, for all.
The third affirms the inability of men to exercise saving faith, or
to accomplish anything really good without regeneration through
the Holy Spirit. The fourth declares that although grace at every
step of the spiritual life is indispensable, it is yet not irresistible.
The fifth pronounces the Perseverance of all believers doubtful.
Later, the Arminians went further on this last point, maintaining
that believers may fall from grace finally. The Remonstrance
was met by a counter-Remonstrance from the Calvinists. An
epoch in the progress of the contention was reached through the
meeting of the Synod of Dort in 1618, which was attended by
delegates from England, sent by James I., and from a number
of other Reformed Churches. It was unquestionably a learned,
as well as an imposing, assembly. The Arminians were not per
mitted to sit as members, but were invited to meet the Synod
and to represent their cause in public conference with its mem
bers. Neither their arguments nor their pleas for toleration had
MODERN THEOLOGY
339
any effect. The Synod condemned their five Articles, sanctioned
the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, and pro
mulgated five heads or chapters of doctrine of its own. Each
chapter is divided into a series of specifications. The chapters
open with the doctrine of Predestination, which is sub-lapsarian
in its form. So far the Dort Creed sanctioned (against Gomarus)
the more moderate type of Calvinism. Election is from the fallen
race, condemned for their sin in Adam (i.). The elect attain to
assurance in various degrees and in an unequal measure (xii.).
There is a praeterition of the non-elect, and " this is the decree
of reprobation" (xvi.). There follows, as in the case of each of
the articles, a list of Rejected Errors. The necessity of a com
plete, objective satisfaction to the divine justice is affirmed. This
is through the death of Christ, which owes its atoning value to
His divine nature. There was difficulty and discussion respecting
the statement to be made as to the relation of the Atonement to
the non-elect. The Atonement was declared to be of infinite
value, and sufficient to expiate the sins of the world (II. iii.), so
that no one is lost for want of an Atonement (vi.) . It was, how
ever, the " will and intention " of God that the Atonement should
be efficacious only in relation to the elect, who are given to Christ
by the Father (viii.). The significance of "limited Atonement"
is thus seen to be that in the divine intention — the " intention of
love," it was sometimes called — the elect alone were included.
The relation of the Atonement to the non-elect is, therefore, only
incidental. The corruption of human nature is said to be propa
gated from Adam (III. and IV. ii.). Without regenerating grace,
none can return to God (iii.). The call of the Gospel is made
earnestly to all who hear it (viii.). Nevertheless, the acceptance
of it is due solely to a discriminating, efficient act of God's grace,
founded exclusively on election (x.), an act to be compared to
the raising of the dead to life (xii.). The mode of this action of
the Spirit is inscrutable (xiii.), but it is not properly coercion, or
a destruction of the qualities of the human will (xvi.) . The Per
severance of all the regenerated is positively asserted (V.) .
The Canons of Dort, both in spirit and letter, present Calvinism,
not in its extreme, yet in its unadulterated, form. The glory and
majesty of God are in the forefront. The starting-point of the
system is the eternal purposes of God. The Arminian system is
an attempt to formulate a protest from an ethical point of view.
340
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
The end sought is the maintenance of human responsibility and
the moral conditions of praise and blame, reward and penalty,
while still upholding salvation by grace. But in pursuing this
end, the Arminian teachers fell back on the Scotist idea of the
absolute supremacy of the divine will. God is not more bound
to punish than to forgive. The difficulty of avoiding a more or
less subtle form of legalism is inherent in all denials of the sole
efficacy of grace. The Arminian teachers in their recoil from
mysticism and their anxiety to guard the liberty of the will, con
structed their system on the basis of the formal principle of Prot
estantism, the exclusive authority of the Scriptures, rather than on
the experience of justifying faith. The testimony of the Holy
Spirit to the divinity and verity of the Scriptures gave way to a
predominant reliance on miracles and other external evidences.
This is the character of the work of Grotius on Christian evidences.1
In the Arminian theology faith is reception of the doctrines and
laws of revealed religion ; and faith is justifying, not as an instru
ment uniting the soul to Christ, but as an imperfect righteousness,
which is mercifully accepted by God as if it were perfect. On the
subject of Original Sin, the Arminians taught that the inclinations
to evil inherited from Adam are not in themselves blameworthy.
It is only consent to them that brings real guilt. By Limborch
they are represented as only different in degree from the same
appetites in Adam. By Episcopius, they are declared to be so
controlling in their strength that without prevenient grace, restor
ing human powers, there is no possibility of finding the way of
life and salvation and of returning to God.2 Thus the gift of the
grace of God is made indispensable to an escape from sin and
perdition. It would seem to follow that the withholding of grace
would be unjust, — that is, that grace is a debt.
The character of the Arminian theology is illustrated in one of
its most important writings, the treatise of Grotius on the satisfac
tion of Christ, which was written in opposition to Socinianism.
Grotius sets out to vindicate the " Catholic doctrine," the ortho
dox belief. The attack of Socinus had derived its force from the
assumption of the Anselmic theory that the relation of sinful man
1 Df Veritate Christ. Relig. (1627).
2 See Limborch, Theolog. Christiana (L. III. c. 2, § 24, c. 2, § 1-4, c. 4,
§ i); Apol. Rtmonstr. (written by Episcopius), p. 84, b; Episcopius (L. IV.
§ 5, cc. i, 2). See Jul. Miiller, Lehre v. d. Siinde, Vol. II. b. iv. c. 3, § 3.
MODERN THEOLOGY
341
to God is that of a debtor to a creditor. Grotius discards this
idea. The relation of God to man is that of a Ruler (Rector) to
a subject. A ruler has a right to remit a penalty, provided the
end for which the penalty is ordained is otherwise attained. This
end is the preservation of order and the prevention of future
transgressions. The death of Christ secures this end, as being a
" penal example"; that is, as showing impressively what sin de
serves, what the penalty would be were it actually inflicted on the
transgressor. It is a manifestation of the Lawgiver's hatred of
sin. It is not actual punishment, but rather a symbol of it. Not
being the literal penalty, God may determine what other condi
tions are properly requisite for the issue of a pardon. This, in
brief outline, is the governmental theory of the Atonement. In
the room of the righteous necessity of the penalty, or the obliga
tion of God to inflict it, we have the Scotist conception of the
liberty of the divine will in this respect. The penalty is not
endured ; but Grotius avoids a sanction of the Scotist term " ac-
ceptilation," on technical grounds. This term signifies something
received, as well as given ; and this cannot be said of Christ's
endurance of suffering. Calvinists considered that the govern
mental theory was not a vindication, but a surrender, of the
"Catholic" doctrine, — a defence which gave up the citadel to
the foe. Grotius simply carried out the Arminian conception of
" the wrath of God " as His goodness regulated by wisdom. The
motive of the divine government is conceived of as eudsemonistic.
Arminius, it is true, lays emphasis on the inflexibility of God's
righteousness, which consists, according to Episcopius, in main
taining His truthfulness in attaching a penalty to His command
ments. But Episcopius holds that the sacrifice of Christ is a
price because God is willing so to regard it.1 The intercession of
Christ in heaven is, among the later Arminians, the chief element
in his High-Priestly office.
The Arminians denied the aseity of the Son,2 which Calvin had
taught. He is subordinate to the Father, as the Spirit is to both
the Son and Father. The Father is first in dignity and power.3
Yet the divine nature belongs to Son and Spirit As to the
1 See Dorner, Hist, of Prot. Theology, II. p. 423.
2 That is, His avroeeOT^.
• * So Episcopius and Limbroch. See the passages in Winer's Symbolik,
p. 43, and cf. Dorner, Person Christi, II. 891.
342 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
person of Christ, Arminian leaders favored the Nestorian concep
tion. Curcellseus and the later Arminians make the agency of
the Logos to be a " special influx " or " operation " of the divine
nature. It is an assistance of God, involving a communication of
divine powers so far as a creature can receive them.
The Arminian scholars did much to liberate exegesis from
servitude under dogmatic theology. Clericus and Wetstein carried
forward the work of Biblical criticism which their predecessors
of the same school had begun. Affinities to Sociniam'sm which
lurked in certain features of the Arminian system were developed
by the incoming of exiled Socinian scholars. There was a tendency
to intermingle the two systems and their adherents. But the
earlier founders of Arminianism are unjustly charged with
Pelagianism, which they repudiated. They insisted on the agency
of the Spirit in regeneration and sanctification as altogether the
predominant, as well as a necessary factor. The Wesleyan system,
an English product of the last century, was evangelical in its
spirit. It has been well described as " Arminianism on fire."
A remarkable attempt to mitigate the repugnance that was often
awakened by the Calvinistic doctrine of election is the theory of
Amyraldus (in the French, Amyraut), designated as the doctrine
of hypothetic universal grace. The innovations which were
attributed to his colleagues in the Faculty at Saumur likewise
raised much opposition.
The French school of Saumur, one of the Protestant academies
of theology, had for its professors, after the year 1633, three men
of marked ability and erudition, Louis Capellus (Cappel), Moses
Amyraldus (Amyraut), and Joshua Placseus (La Place). Before
them, John Cameron, a Scotchman by birth, had produced some
commotion by his doctrine as to the operation of grace, which was
that the spirit renews the soul, not by acting on the will directly,
but rather by an enlightening influence on the intellect. This was
broached partly for the sake of parrying Roman Catholic objections
to the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. Cameron's theory
did not attenuate this doctrine in the slightest degree, as was
admitted so soon as his theory was understood. His substantial
orthodoxy was allowed by those who withheld their sanction from
the theory. The most eminent of his pupils was Amyraut. He
boldly propounded the doctrine of hypothetical universal grace,
as it was called, which was substantially equivalent to a doctrine
MODERN THEOLOGY 343
of universal atonement. He maintained that there is in God, in
some proper sense, a will or desire (ydleitas, affcctus) that all
should repent and be saved. In case all should repent, no pur
pose of God would stand in the way of their salvation. But the in
dispensable means of repentance — regenerating grace, following
election — are not bestowed on them. In the order of nature the
decree of election follows the decree providing the atonement.
The attempt was made in two National Synods to procure a con
demnation of his doctrine, but in both cases it failed. He success
fully defended himself, and proved that his theory was not
inconsistent with the Creed of the Synod of Dort.1
Cappel was a Biblical scholar, and by his critical opinions in
this department caused a commotion only less than that excited by
his colleague. He taught that the vowel- pointing of the Hebrew
text of the Old Testament is an invention later than the Christian
era, and is clothed with no infallible authority ; and that the
masoretic text of the Ancient Scriptures is open to amendment
from the comparison of manuscripts and versions.
Placaeus is one of these three disturbers of theological quiet,
with whom we have to do at present. He was understood to deny
that the first sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity, and to resolve
original sin into mere hereditary depravity. At the Synod of
Charenton, in 1644-5, Garrisolius (Garrisole), the head of the
rival school of Montauban, presided. In no small degree through
his influence there was carried through the Synod a condemnation of
the opinion attributed to Placseus, although his name was not men
tioned. This opinion was pronounced an error, and was declared
1 A full sketch of the contents of Amyraut's first work, which was on Predes
tination and its Principles, is given by Al. Schweizer, Die protestant. Central-
dogmen, c. 4. The end of God in creation is the exercise of His love. He
willed to impart even a higher good than Adam lost. Hence the gift of Christ
and the Atonement. This is made equally for all. There is a compassion
for all. To every one salvation is sincerely offered. Their common inability
to accept it is owing to the bent of the will, consequent on sin. At this point
it is that predestination comes in, whereby a portion of mankind are by grace
inwardly taught and enlightened. The will, just as Cameron taught, follows
the light thus imparted. As by the Calvinists generally, why this saving light
is given to some and withheld from the rest, is left an inscrutable mystery.
Only it should not be said that the latter class are predestinated to unbelief.
They are simply left as they are. They reject the objective means of salvation,
the offer of which is earnestly made. The resemblance of these views to the
" New England Theology " will be seen when we come to speak of the latter.
344
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
to involve in peril the doctrine of inherent sin itself, on the ground
that, apart from the imputation of the first transgression, that
doctrine rests on no secure foundation. Placaeus did not consider
himself to be at all touched by the decree of Charenton. He
explained that he denied, not the imputation of Adam's sin, but
its priority to the imputation of inherent depravity. He held to
imputation, but to mediate imputation. This explanation satisfied
various prominent theologians who at first arrayed themselves
against him. The general theory to which Placaeus agreed was
that the imputation of Adam's sin and native depravity are insep
arable. On all sides there was held to be a responsible partici
pation in the first transgression and the derivation of a sinful
nature from Adam. The testimonies collected by Rivet, in con
nection with the controversy, are clear on this point.1 Placseus,
in his writings, both before and after Synod,2 maintains that Adam's
sin is imputed to us as its authors, the guilt of Adam's first sin
and of inherent depravity being one and the same guilt. He had
not dropped, as his opponents supposed, the idea of participation
in the first sin.3
1 Riveti, Opera, T. III. That participation is an essential element in origi
nal sin, may be seen especially by reference to the passages, in Rivet, from
Pareus, Musculus, Viretus, Bucanus, Polanus, Chamierus, Mestrezatius, Whit-
taker (Professor at Cambridge), Davenant, Ames, Wakeus, Junius, Frisius,
Hommius — who says, " Peccatum Adami non est nobis omnino alienum, sed
est proprium cujusque, quod propter hanc naturae communionem singulis homi-
nibus non tantum imputatur, sed a singulis etiam est perpetratum," — Lauren-
tius, Zanchius, Piscator, Textor, Crocius, Bucer, Chemnitz (the author of the
Examen. Cone. Trid.). Compare the two Dissertations on Original Sin by
Rivet himself, Disput. II. (T. III. p. 747), and the Theses Theolog. dc pec.
orig. (T. III. p. 824). In the former, sections x.-xvi. (inclusive) and xxiv.
deserve particular attention; in the latter, sections 5, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29,
33» 34. 42.
2 Syntagma Thes. Theolog. in Acad. Salm, etc. Edit. Secunda. P. I. 205 sq.
Placsei opera Omnia : Edito novissima : Franequer. De Imp. primi pec. Adami
Disput. etc. Tom. I. p. 161 sq.
3 The doctrine of mediate imputation is advocated by an eminent Swiss
theologian of the seventeenth century, Stapfer, in his Theologia Polemica.
Jonathan Edwards is a defender of the same opinion. The passages quoted
by Edwards from Stapfer (Dwight's ed. of Edwards, Vol. II. pp. 545, 546)
explain what I conceive to be the real meaning of Placaeus. The language of
Stapfer closely resembles that of Placaeus; for example, in what is said of our
consent to Adam's sin (although \i\sphysical act was not ours). The doctrine
of mediate imputation is clearly explained by Dr. H. B. Smith, System oj
MODERN THEOLOGY
345
One of the most active opponents of the doctrines of the
Saumur professors was Francis Turretine. Though he had
studied at Saumur as well as at Paris, he allied himself with the
more rigid theologians of Montauban. He became the head of
a party at Geneva, which labored to procure the condemnation of
the Saumur views by the Swiss Church. Opposed to this party at
Geneva were Mestrezat and Louis Tronchin, colleagues of Turre
tine, and other theologians of a liberal and tolerant spirit. Turre
tine and his party at length effected a partial success by securing
the promulgation and partial enforcement, for a time, in Switzer
land, of the Formula Consensus Helvetica, which they took the
lead in framing. They were not deterred from this step by the
remonstrance of eminent ministers of foreign churches, among
whom were the Paris pastors, the younger Daille", and the famous
Claude, together with the distinguished theologian of Holland,
J. R. Wetstein. Turretine and the party to which he belonged
professed to regard with charity and toleration the ministers who
differed from them on the points of theology to which the Con
sensus relates ; they were only anxious to keep the Swiss Church
free from erroneous teaching. Their creed is leveled at the peculiar
doctrines of each of the three Saumur professors. Against Cappel,
they go so far as to assert the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel-
points in the Old Testament, and to condemn, also, his critical
views respecting the Hebrew text — thus giving their solemn
sanction to the Buxtorfian grammar and criticism ! Having
demolished Capellus, the Consensus condemns Amyraldism,—
universal atonement and the doctrine that God desires the
salvation of all. Amyraut's doctrine of hypothetic universal
grace is carefully defined and denounced. Then the Placaean
doctrine, or the doctrine which Turretine persisted in ascribing
to Placaeus, is put under the ban. The Consensus never acquired
authority outside of Switzerland. Within about fifty years it was
abrogated. One of the strongest advocates of this last measure
was Turretine's son, Alphonso Turretine, who was as zealous in
Christian Theology, pp. 285, 286, 314-323. (The Editor's Notes must be
carefully distinguished from the Author's.)
An interpretation of Placseus, the same as that attached to it by his early
opponents, is adopted by Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of
the Reformation, p. 379 sq., and by Dr. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology^
p. 207 sq.
346
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
opposing as his father had been in advocating it.1 The Formula
Consensus was the manifesto of a theological party.
Another modification of doctrine, designed to blunt the edge of
Calvinistic particularism, while preserving its substance, was Pa-
jonism, so called from the name of its author. Claude Pajon be
came professor of theology at Saumur in 1666. After a short ser
vice he left that place to become a pastor at Orleans. He followed
Cameron and Amyraut in the opinion that the change wrought in
the soul of the regenerate by grace is an effect upon the intellect,
and not directly upon the heart or will. The will, by a psycho
logical law, follows the perceptions of truth thus imparted to the
intellect. The adoption of this opinion sprung from an aversion to
the idea of anything like a physical operation of grace upon the
feelings and will. It was held at the same time, however, that
given this intellectual insight, the spiritual change ensues accord
ing to an invariable moral necessity, albeit the will is active in the
production of it. The main peculiarity of Pajon's theory, and the
one which chiefly provoked dissent, was his conception of re
generating grace. The Spirit uses the truth of the Gospel as its
instrument in effecting the antecedent intellectual change ; but
the Spirit also uses all the circumstances of the individual, his
whole providential environment. This aggregate of objective in
fluence is not the same in different individuals. To this aggregate
regeneration, where it takes place, is due. It is the act of God be
cause the antecedent circumstances are the effect of God's order
ing and are adapted by him to produce the result. But, although
Pajon in words asserted that the influence of the Spirit upon the
soul is immediate, and although he was not insincere, yet in real
ity this assumed influence does not include the exertion of any
direct action of the Spirit upon the soul. A leading opponent of
Pajon's doctrine was Claude, a distinguished preacher in Paris, and
1 In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the younger Turretine says
that the Consensus would exclude from the ministry many excellent ministers
of God; almost all the doctors of the first four centuries and a great number
of ages following; almost all of the Reformers, a great part of the Reformed
theologians of France, and the ablest among them; a great portion of the
German theologians, and almost all the theologians of the English Church.
This letter may be read in the Supplement to Bayle's Dictionary by Chau-
seppie, — Art. " Louis Tronchin," Note C. The earlier letter of F. Turretine
to Claude, on the other side, is in curious contrast with the sentiments of his
son. This may also be read in Chauseppie".
MODERN THEOLOGY
347
Jurieu, first professor at Saumur and then pastor at Rotterdam.
A prominent supporter was Lenfant, pastor at Chatillon. The
pupils of Pajon, Le Ce"ne, and Papin, swerved much farther from
the line of orthodoxy, and adopted Pelagian views. Pajonism ex
cited widespread interest in the French Church, but the commo
tion would have been much greater and more enduring but for the
political calamities that fell with such weight upon that church.1
More and more, as the first generation of Protestant leaders
recedes into the past, the theology of those who come after passes
into the scholastic stage. It is the era especially of the earlier dec
ades of the seventeenth century, in both the Lutheran and the Re
formed churches. The material principle of the Reformation, and
the religious experience out of which it sprung, no longer exerted
the same influence in shaping the system as they had at first. The
formal principle, the principle of authority, was uppermost in its
construction. The Word of God and the Bible were held to be
identical, with the loss of certain qualifications which were potent
in Luther, and not without a decided influence on the other Re
formers, in the formulating of doctrine. The Bible was looked upon
as an authoritative text-book, from which doctrines and proofs of
doctrine were to be drawn with little or no discrimination as to the
use to be made of the different sacred books. Such were the rami
fications of the system that little if any space was left for varieties
of opinion, and dissent upon any point was treated as a heresy.
In the Reformed Church, predestination was taken for the initial
principle in the systematic exposition of the Christian religion.
The impression often made was that of a divine absolutism en
throned in the souls of men as well as in the visible world of
creatures.
A change for the better was effected by the introduction of the
Federal Theology or the scheme of the Covenants. The idea of
the Covenant of Grace seems to have been based on such passages
as Heb. viii. 10; ix. 15, 16. The idea of the Covenant of works
which was entered into with Adam, was superadded to that of the
Covenant of Grace, which came into operation after his fall. The
Covenants were, of course, not conceived of as being like mutual
contracts among men. In the origin of them, men simply act the
part of recipients. The Covenants are divinely instituted. They
1 For a detailed account of the history and doctrine of Pajonism, see
A. Schweizer, Protcstantischc Ccntraldogmen, Vol. II. pp. 564-602.
348
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
are promises of God. In the Covenant of works, an everlasting
good is promised as the reward of a brief term of obedience.
The Covenant of Grace is the method of forgiveness and salvation
through Christ. The scheme of the Covenants, whatever may be
thought of it in other respects, softened the rigor of Calvinistic
teaching by setting up jural relations in the room of bare sover
eignty.
A leading advocate of the Federal theology was Cocceius, a
celebrated theologian of Holland, professor at Franeker and then
at Leyden, where he died in 1669. The idea of the Covenant, to be
sure, is found in some earlier theologians,1 but it was Cocceius who
gave to the idea a precise and comprehensive form and made it
current. Cocceius divides the history of the new Covenant into
three parts, or " economies " ; the ante-legal, in the era of the
patriarchs, where the kingdom was a family, and law was given
1 See Dorner, Hist, of Prot. Theology, Vol. II. p. 36. Dorner refers to the
teaching of Eglinus, Professor at Marburg (d. 1622). But Rev. John Ball, a
moderate English Puritan, wrote a book entitled, A Treatise of the Covenant
of Grace, which was published after his death in 1645. It was recommended
by Calamy, Reynolds, and other members of the Westminster Assembly. This
shows that there was " a fully developed ' doctrine of the Covenants ' taught in
Britain before the time of the Westminster Assembly." (See A. F. Mitchell,
Catechisms of the Second Reformation, p. xlii.) William Ames, the famous
Independent preacher, who went over to Holland in the reign of James I. and
became a professor at Franeker in 1622, taught the foedus operum. See his
Marrow of Sacred Divinity (1642) c. x., or the Medulla Theologies, c. x.
There is no mention of such a covenant of works in the Augsburg Confes
sion, the Form of Concord, or in any other of the principal creeds of the Lu
theran Church. There is no mention of it in the principal Confessions of the
Reformed Church, with the exception of the Creeds of Westminster; for the
Formula Consensus Helvetica, where the Covenant appears, is a creed of
minor importance and of comparatively insignificant authority. We do not
find the doctrine of a covenant with Adam in the First Basle Confession
(1532), the Second Basle (or First Helvetic) (1536), the Gallic (1559), the
First Scottish Confession (1560), the Belgic (1562), the Heidelberg Catechism
(1573), the Second Helvetic Confession (1565), the Hungarian (1570), the
Polish (Declaratio Thoruniensis) (1645), or the Anglican Articles (1562).
Weissmann, a learned Lutheran, in his History of the Church in the Seventeenth
Century, has entered into a somewhat full account of the rise of the Federal
theology. He explains why the Federal method, which spread in the Reformed
churches, especially of Holland, so that the systems constructed on this method
could hardly be numbered, did " not find many favorers " among the Luther
ans. Weissmann, Introductio in Memorabilia Eccl. Historic Sacra, etc.
Vol. II. p. 698 sq. Ibid. p. 1 103.
MODERN THEOLOGY 349
through conscience ; the legal era, in which grace was shown through
the prophets and typical ceremonies, the kingdom being national ;
the post-legal, in which Christ appeared, and the kingdom became
universal. Cocceius carried the method of typical interpretation
through the writings and the ceremonial institutions of the Old
Testament. The exegesis in its particulars was often fanciful.
Although he failed to apprehend the progressive character of the
Biblical revelation in this respect, that he made the system of
grace pervade the Old Testament as it pervades the New, he
yet made a fruitful beginning of Biblical theology. He promoted
the study of the Scriptures. He broke the sway of the contem
porary Scholastics. He was strongly opposed by Voetius and
others among them. There arose in Holland a Cocceian and a
Voetian party. The Cartesian philosophy which was favored by
the Cocceians brought into the contest a new element. The
division was attended by a political antagonism. A schism
was threatened, but was averted.
The Federal theology eventually occasioned important modifi
cations in the explanation of Original Sin. The culpable corrup
tion of the descendants of Adam at birth was the common ground
on which the Calvinistic expounders of the imputation of the first
transgression stood. What is the basis of this imputation? The
Federal theory did not abolish the Augustinian idea that the first
sin was generic as well as personal. When the law was broken,
the Covenant was broken, for the Covenant was the law with a
gracious promise attached to the condition of obedience. The
prevailing theology in the Reformed Church long continued to
hold to the literal guilt of men as partners in Adam's trans
gression, in distinction from guilt merely in the legal sense of
exposedness to penalty. The relation of mankind to Adam was
distinguished from the relation of the redeemed to Christ and the
imputation of his righteousness.1 It became common, however,
to connect the quasi realistic conception of race-unity — illustrated
often by the figure of the root and branches — with the Federal
idea. From this last idea, aid was sought in explaining why the
1 This distinction is made explicitly and with emphasis, for example, by a
leading English Calvinist of the seventeenth century, John Owen. See his
Display of Arminianism, p. 74. See, also, pp. 71, 73, 74, 80. (Owen's
Works, Vol. X.) See, also, Owen, The Doctrine of Justification, etc., Phila
delphia ed., p. 227.
350
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
first sin of Adam is imputed to us, but not his subsequent offences
or the sins of immediate ancestors. Besides the effect of the
Covenant, Owen says : " We were then in him [Adam] and parts
of him." We are condemned by reason of " the iniquity of that
portion of nature in which we are proprietaries." ] This may be
termed the Augustino-Federal solution of the problem of imputa
tion. The more modern view rests upon the Covenant alone.
Adam is conceived to have been constituted in virtue of a sover
eign constitution of the Creator a representative of mankind, the
kinship of Adam and his descendants being the reason why he and
not another is appointed to stand in their place. They have no
guilt, in the sense of culpableness, on account of his sin. Their
guilt is exclusively a legal liability to the penalty of that offence, by
reason of the representative relation established through God's
ordinance. It is a legal responsibility. The penalty of this vica
rious breach of the Covenant is our inborn natural depravity, and
eternal death is the penalty of this depravity.2 The Covenant
theory, separated from the Augustinian idea, gained acceptance
more and more, owing to the pressure of the difficulty, which had
so deeply perplexed the mind of Augustine himself, of reconciling
his doctrine of a generic sin in Adam with Creationism. Creation-
ism was the received opinion in the Reformed Church.
In the Roman Catholic theology the doctrine of immediate
imputation has found little favor. It has been broached by cer
tain Nominalists in the Middle Ages. It is remarkable that in the
Council of Trent the Federal theory was brought forward by
Catharinus, the opponent of Calvin, and a man who was all his
life suspected in his own church of being loose in his theology in
relation to the points which separated Augustine from Pelagius.
According to Father Paul, Catharinus explained his opinion to be
that as " God made a covenant with Abraham and all his posterity,
when He made him father of the faithful, so when He gave original
righteousness to Adam and to all mankind, He made him seal an
obligation in the name of all, to keep it for himself and them,
observing the commandments ; which, because he transgressed, he
1 Owen, Works, Vol. X. pp. 75, 80.
2 For a clear exposition and vigorous defence of this doctrine of immediate
imputation of the first sin, on the ground of the Covenant, or sovereign consti
tution, see Dr. A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, c. xxi., and Dr. Charles
Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II. p. 192 sq.
MODERN THEOLOGY
351
lost, as well for others as for himself, and incurred the punishments
also for them."1 Against this opinion, the celebrated champion of
orthodoxy, Dominicus Soto, protested.2 He distinguished between
the actual sin of Adam and the principle or habit " bred in the
mind of the actor." " This habitual quality," remaining in Adam,
" passed into the posterity, and is transfused as proper unto every
one." "He compareth," says Father Paul, " original sin to crook
edness, as it is indeed a spiritual obliquity ; for the whole nature
of man being in Adam, when he made himself crooked by trans
gressing the precept, the whole nature of man, and, by consequent,
every particular person remained crooked, not by the curvity of
Adam, but by his own, by which he is truly crooked and a sinner,
until he be straightened by the grace of God." Afterwards, Father
Paul observes that the opinion of Catharinus was best understood,
" because it was expressed by a political conceit of a bargain made
by one for his posterity, which being transgressed, they are all
undoubtedly bound ; and many of the Fathers did favor that ;
but perceiving the contradiction of the other divines, they durst
not receive it." In his theological writings, composed after the
Council, Soto opposed the covenant theory and defended pure
Augustinism. Bellarmine declares that the Council intended to
condemn the doctrine of Pighius and Catharinus, who denied that
innate depravity is properly sinful. This great expounder of
Catholic theology maintains that the first sin of Adam was
generic. "There could not be anything in infants," he says,
of the nature of sin, unless they were participant in the first
sin of Adam." 3 This sin is imputed to all who are born of
Adam, since all, existing in the loins of Adam, in him and by
him sinned, when he sinned."4
By common consent of Protestants, Jansenius is considered to
have been, on the Catholic side in the seventeenth century, the
most faithful follower of Augustine. He read all the writings of
Augustine seventeen times. Jansenius opposes the Covenant
theory with all his might, as being at war with Augustinian the
ology. Recent theologians have invented that theory, he says.
"They could not have excogitated anything more foreign to Augus
tine's thoughts, more absurd in relation to his system, or more
1 We quote from the old English translation of Father Paul's History of the
Council of Trcn^ pp. 175, 177. 8 Vol. III. Cont. II. Lib. Vo c. xviii.
a Ibid. p. 1 76. * Ibid. c. xiii.
352
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
repugnant to his principles. l Augustine held that the greatness of
the first sin is the cause of the corruption of nature and of the
transmission of corruption ; and so that " all things take place by
no agreement, but happen from the nature of things, because the
children are said to have sinned in the parent and to have been
one with him."2 " In Augustine's view nothing else is original sin,
but concupiscence with guilt." Jansenius declares that nobody ever
had so wild a dream as to imagine that this great depravation of
human nature comes upon men from some agreement made by
God with their parents, or is propagated by the positive law or will
of God.3 Augustine, he says, never resorted to any compacts or
positive laws of God for the explication of this subject. It was
through the nature of things, in Augustine's view, that the first
great sin, together with human nature, pass to the posterity of
Adam.4 There are found in Jansenius pages of argument and
warm denunciation directed against the Federal theory. It is not
merely the idea of imputation without inherent sin — the notion of
Pighius and Catharinus — that he opposes, but also the whole con
ception of a covenant with Adam, entailing a curse on his pos
terity. The importance of his sentiments on this subject grows
out of his standing as a champion of Augustine. He considers
the Federal hypothesis an innovation hostile to the spirit of the
Augustinian doctrine.
1 Jansenius, Augustinus (Louvain, 1640), T. II. p. 208.
2 Ibid. p. 211. 3 Ibid. p. 247. * Ibid. p. 246.
CHAPTER VIII
THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY — RATIONAL
THEOLOGY — THE LATITUDINARIANS
IN England in the seventeenth century there were numerous
theologians whose writings are worthy of respect. Among them
there are found authors of remarkable ability and of unsurpassed
learning. Yet the materials for an account of the historical devel
opment of doctrine are comparatively scanty. The two systems
of Calvinism and Arminianism had been brought out on the
Continent. That issue, therefore, in England had only the effect
to call forth a large use of dialectic skill and of erudition. The
other principal controversy had to do with the constitution of the
Church and the nature of its government. Of this long debate
the same thing is to be said. The rise of " Rational Theology,"
and the Latitudinarian school, interesting as it was, by which that
type of thought was promulgated, had no characteristics which
call for extended treatment in the history of dogmatic theology.
This is equally true of that more radical protest against the dog
matic systems which emanated from the school of Deists. The
debate caused by the rise of Arianism, learned and sometimes
acute as it was, involved scarcely any points not already made
familiar by the theology of earlier times.
Within the Church of England the rise and progress of the Anglo-
Catholic party is a phenomenon of special interest. Hooker,
who died in 1600, may be regarded as standing on the border-line
between the period embracing the reign of Elizabeth and the age
of the Stuarts. Through most of the former periods the jure divino
theory of Episcopacy had no foothold. A prelate like Whitgift,
a vigorous defender of the Anglican polity as lawful and expedient
in England, had no disposition to find fault with the foreign Prot
estant churches for the lack of it. Hooker, notwithstanding his
2 A 353
354
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
strong preference of Episcopacy, and his belief — in which he
came to differ from his master, Field — that it had prevailed since
the time of the Apostles, contended that "there may be some
times very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination without
a bishop."1 That reason, he admitted, in the case of the foreign
churches, was valid. As far as his theological opinions are con
cerned, Hooker holds to the Augustinian and Calvinistic principle
of unconditional election.2 Thus far he follows Augustine, who
has had, he says, " no equal in the Church of God from that day
to this." s God has ordained by " an act of special or personal
providence " " on whom [the Gospel] shall be effectual." 4 But
Hooker rejects reprobation and the whole supralapsarian scheme.
" Souls were not ordained for hell-fire, but hell-fire for them." 5
He affirms emphatically that God desires the salvation of all.
" He longeth for nothing more than that all men might be
saved."6 He follows Augustine on the subject of the Fall and
Original Sin. The death of infants is a punishment.7 In relation
to Justification, Hooker firmly adheres to the Protestant doctrine.
Nor does he differ materially, as to the effect of the Sacraments,
from the teaching of the Calvinists. While he sets the Lord's
Supper in a relation to the Incarnation, the reception of Christ is
held to be purely spiritual and by " the worthy alone." Nor is
there any reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, save the men
tion of it as a thank-offering. " Sacrifice," he says, " is now no
part of the Christian ministry."8 He earnestly contends against
the idea that there is a Sacrament of Penance. Ritual practices,
such as proved later a characteristic feature of the Anglo-Catholics,
are nowhere recommended, and are hardly noticed. It is not by
any novelties of opinion that Hooker was distinguished from the
Early English Reformers. He founded "no especial school."9
1 E celesta si. Polity, B. VII. c. 14. n.
2 Hooker discusses, in his usual elevated tone, the subject of predestination,
in the Fragment of an Answer to a Letter (in Keble's ed. of Hooker, Vol. V.
App. I).
3 Ibid. p. 580. * Ibid. p. 574. 6 Ibid. p. 575.
6 Ibid. p. 573. Hooker, in the summary statement of his opinions on Elec
tion (p. 596), evidently has in mind the Lambeth Articles. It is interesting to
notice the points of variation from them (which Keble, perhaps, somewhat
magnifies), (c. ii.)
7 Ibid. p. 570. 8 B. V. c. 78. 2.
9 Barry, in Masters of English Theology , p. 59.
MODERN THEOLOGY 355
Yet the whole turn of his work served to give a new direction to
Anglican Theology. The contention of Cartwright and his sup
porters for a jure divino Presbytefianism had much to do in leading
their opponents gradually to a like contention in behalf of their
system. That reverence for antiquity and the "Primitive Church,"
that interest in the Fathers and deference to patristic teaching,
which had belonged to the English Reformation from the outset,
acquired an increasing sway in a class of minds to which the rigid
definitions of Calvinism, with its characteristic polity and forms of
worship, became more and more unattractive. These were disposed
to claim for the Anglican Church a distinct place in the Church
Catholic. They felt a growing willingness to withdraw from the
fraternal connection with the Protestant bodies with which the
English Church under Edward and Elizabeth had been so closely
allied. Among the founders of the Anglo-Catholic school, the fore
most place belongs, on the whole, to Bishop Lancelot Andrewes.
Andrewes was only five years younger than Hooker, but he lived
until 1620. The depth of his learning, which he had at complete
command, the variety of his tastes and attainments, — he was much
interested in the observation and study of nature, — his logical
skill, and the sincerity of his piety, are beyond question. His
ritualistic tastes were manifest in the furniture and decorations of
his chapel. Yet he did not take upon himself the task of propa
gating his preferences in respect to symbols and ceremonies. In
reply to Roman Catholic champions, Bellarmine and Duperron,
he wrote effectively against the pretensions of the Church of
Rome. But his polemical writings on this subject, although
vigorous, were free from animosity. Still he argues that the
Pope is probably Antichrist. Andrewes claimed for the Episco
pal polity a divine right. His position is explained in his corre
spondence with Du Moulin. He disclaims, however, the intention
to blame the foreign churches for not having bishops. It was not
their fault, but the fault of the times.1 His comments on the
Lambeth Articles contain a moderate and guarded approval of
Augustinian election, a subject on which he says that he had
never debated, either in public or in private.2 Respecting the
Eucharist, Andrewes maintains with emphasis the reality of the
Presence of Christ. Of the mode in which the Bread is the body,
1 Resp. ad Ep. III. Opuscula, p. 211 (Lib. of Angl. Cath. Fathers).
2 Minor Works of Bishop Andrewes, p. 294 sq.
356 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
" there is not a word in the Gospel." Transubstantiation, there
fore, cannot be an article of faith. There is a true " fruition of
the body and blood of Christ," and not of a sign or remembrance
of it. It is, moreover, a sacrifice, a means of renewing a cov
enant with God. It is a commemoration of the Sacrifice on the
Cross, as the Old Testament offerings were a " praefiguration " of
it.1 In the Sacrament there is an " applying of the Sacrifice " of
Jesus. " In rigor of speech . . . there is but one only sacrifice . . .
Christ's death." 2
The ascription of a sacrificial quality to the Lord's Supper, the
sacrifice being commemorative in its meaning, and not implying
any deficiency to be made up in the Atonement made once for
all, is not very uncommon in the divines of the English Church,
especially in their Homiletic language.3 But few writers, even
of the Anglo-Catholic type, go so far in their approximation to
Roman doctrine as Thorndike, Prebendary of Westminster.4 It
need not be said that he is a stout advocate vtjure divino Episco
pacy. He maintains that the wicked as well as believers receive
the body and blood offered in the Sacrament, although they are
not " spiritually nourished by the Same." In this sense they do
not " eat " the Same ; yet in another sense, they do, for they are
to be condemned for " eating the Body and Blood " without the
faith of a Christian. The Eucharist is affirmed by Thorndike to
be not only representative, but propitiatory, its influence being
like that of Christ in the exercise of His intervening priesthood
on high, the efficacy of which is dependent on the Sacrifice upon
the Cross.
With the accession of James I. the Puritan age of English
history fairly begins. At this time the Puritans, who were in
control in the House of Commons, were generally not hostile to
Episcopacy or the Liturgy. But they were, first, thoroughly hos
tile to political despotism, and, secondly, they were mostly Calvin-
ists, and deeply incensed at the idea of any movements looking
1 Against Bellarmine, c. 8.
2 Sermons of (he Resurrection, p. 457.
8 For a large collection of passages, see No. IV. of the Catena Patrum, in
the " Tracts for the Times," on the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
4 Thorndike's ideas on the Eucharist are set forth in the Laws of the Church,
B. I. cc. i. and ii. For a full collection of extracts, see Chambers, The Doc
trine of the Holy Eucharist, as expounded by Thorndike (1855).
MODERN THEOLOGY 357
to compromise with the Church of Rome. The Anglo -Catholics
became the ardent supporters of royalty. In the mixed contest,
which was both political and religious, they were easily drawn into
sympathy with Arminian theology. James himself was lukewarm in
his Calvinism, compared with the generality of the Puritans. He
would not have the Articles changed and he would prevent, if he
could, the public discussion of the disputed questions. The Cal-
vinists were everywhere against whatever savored of Erastianism ;
the Arminians were in favor of the close union of Church and
State. The defence of the royal prerogative and the defence of
Arminianism, or of neutrality between the contending religious
systems, became the common ground of numerous ecclesiastical
supporters of the Stuarts. Puritanism, in the course of the fierce
contest, turned into a warfare against "prelacy." The victory was
won by the party zealous for political freedom. The Long Parlia
ment abolished Episcopacy. The Anglo-Catholic party continued
to cherish its zeal for the cause of monarchy. The Restoration of
Charles II. gave it a new lease of power. In the next reign, in
1683, the Declaration in behalf of the doctrine of passive obedi
ence was framed. The party suffered a signal defeat at the Revo
lution of 1688, but the Non-jurors did not forsake their position.
The prominent representative of the Anglo-Catholics under Charles
I. was Archbishop Laud. The public avowal of the advanced doc
trine of the jure divino authority of bishops is commonly traced to
Bancroft's famous sermon at St. Paul's Cross in 1589. But this
general doctrine was often held later by Anglo-Catholic leaders
who did not press it to the extent of unchurching the foreign
Protestant bodies. Bishop Hall, being then Dean of Norwich,
one of James's deputies to the Synod of Dort, in his Apology
against the Brownists, spoke of his love to the Protestant churches
abroad, as the " sisters " of the Church of England. Later, at the
request of Laud (in 1640), he wrote his work on the Divine Right
of Episcopacy. In this work, and in the Defence of it, he does
not renounce his former position. In this last book, he distin
guishes between " the being and the well-being " of a church. The
foreign churches " lose nothing of the true essence of a Church,
though they miss something of their glory and perfection." Laud,
in speaking of the foreign Protestant churches, wrote to Hall, in
relation to his Humble Remonstrance — published after the De
fence — that he had been " a little more favorable than our [their]
358 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
case will now bear."1 This remark indicates Laud's point of view.
His doctrine of Apostolic Succession included the sacerdotal theory
of the ministry. As a theologian, he was a man of no mean ability ;
he had no intention to carry over the Church of England to the
Church of Rome, although he was not inclined to style Rome
" Antichrist," or to call it an apostate (instead of a merely cor
rupted) church. As to the Real Presence in the Sacrament, his
opinion was identical with that of Calvin. He defends Calvin
against the misrepresentation of Bellarmine. " Calvinists," he
says, "maintain a most true and real presence." There is no
offering in the Sacrament except a " memory " of the Sacrifice of
Christ, an offering of praise and thanksgiving, and a self-surrender
of the communicant to God. Laud's sympathy was with the
Arminian doctrine. The two opposing opinions on election and
kindred topics were to be tolerated. On this point, he was more
Catholic than his adversaries. The policy was to silence conten
tion on these litigated questions. But Laud was a lover of cere
monies, and a martinet in respect to them. With him " the beauty
of holiness " was a phrase denoting the externals of worship. He
was of a hard, inflexible disposition. To enforce uniformity, to
compel submission to the ordinances of the Sovereign was his
obstinate purpose, whatever tyranny and cruelty might be required
to carry it out.
In the Long Parliament, as the hatred of prelacy grew, the
Presbyterian party increased in numbers. Their polity was finally
adopted, it being an indispensable condition of effecting a union
with the Scots in the conflict against the King. In 1642, Parlia
ment called together the Westminster Assembly to give advice in
the matter of reconstructing the Church of England. One hun
dred and twenty-one divines, among whom were men of great
learning and weight, were invited to sit in it. Ussher and nearly
all the prelates who were invited declined to attend the sessions
on account of their loyalty to the King and on account of the
control exercised by the Presbyterians. A small number of Inde
pendents sat in the body. It was after the withdrawal of the
Independents and the Erastians that the vote was taken — the
learned Lightfoot dissenting — which asserted the divine right of
the Presbyterian system. The Assembly first undertook to modify
1 The correspondence with Hall is in Laud's Works, Vol. X. See, also,
Lawson's Life -^*ud, II. pp. 334 sq.
MODERN THEOLOGY
359
the thirty-nine Articles, with the intent to make them more sharply
Calvinistic. They labored for ten weeks on fifteen Articles, giving
to them this character.1 The adoption by Parliament, in 1643, °f
the Solemn League and Covenant put an end to the possibility of
setting up a modified Episcopacy, — such a form of polity as
men like Ussher and Baxter would have agreed in approving.
The Assembly dropped the Articles and turned to the framing
of a new creed and polity. The creed was based on the Irish
Articles of 1615 — Articles adopted by the convocation of the
Irish Episcopal Church, the composition of which is attributed
to Archbishop Ussher, then professor at Dublin.2
It has never been doubted that the Westminster Confession is
Calvinistic. Although it brings into the foreground the doctrine
of God's decrees, it is, nevertheless, infralapsarian. The " full
persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divinity of the
Scriptures" springs from the witness of the Spirit in our hearts"
(I. v.). As to whatever is necessary to salvation, the Scriptures
are sufficiently plain (vii.). God foreordains all things, but with
out violence to the will of creatures. Election is unconditional.
The non-elect He is pleased to pass by (praterire) and to ordain
them to punishment, " to the praise of his glorious justice "
(III. vii.). Our first parents "were left to the liberty of their
own will" (IV. ii.).3 Their sin is permitted (VI. i.). The Con
fession sets forth the Federal System, and the Covenant of Grace,
as in Cocceius, is extended over the whole period after the Fall
(VII.). The guilt of the sin of the first parents is imputed to
their posterity and a sinful nature transmitted, " they being the
root of all mankind" (VI. 3). In the Shorter Catechism, the
Covenant with Adam " for himself and his posterity " is given as
the reason why " they sinned in him and fell with him in his first
transgression " (Qttcest. 16). In the Irish Articles, the " Covenant
of the Law " is said to have been " engrafted in his [Adam's]
heart," and original sin is said to be the propagated " fault and
corruption of nature " in every man born of Adam. It is still a
litigated question whether the design of the Westminster divines
was to assert mediate or immediate imputation. There is no
1 See Neal, History of the Puritans, App. No. VII.
2 The Irish Articles directly assert reprobation. They lean strongly to the
supralapsarian opinion. (See 14.)
8 See, also, IX. i. ii.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
doubt that underlying their conception of the Fall was the Augus-
tinian idea.1 Satisfaction to divine justice, reconciliation, and eter
nal life were procured by Christ for the elect (among whom " elect
infants " are included) (VIII. 5) . There were some in the Assembly
who favored the idea of a design to provide a possible salvation for
all in case they should repent. Calamy, Arrowsmith, and others
advocated substantially the opinion of Cameron and Amyraut, the
opinion of the Saumur School, which Bishop Davenant had favored
at the Synod of Dort. They contended that God intended to pro
vide a salvation for all, although He had a special intention respect
ing the regeneration of the elect, and that the " world," in John
iii. 1 6, means the entire race of mankind.2 But the more liberal
view, although not excluded, substantially finds no expression in
the Westminster creeds.
As in other Protestant creeds, the functions of the Civil Magis
tracy are defined. As by the Calvinists generally, the right to
exercise ecclesiastical discipline within the Church is denied to
the civil authority. Yet the civil magistrate is to provide for the
unity and tranquillity of the Church, for the preservation of divine
truth in its purity and integrity, for the suppression of blasphemy
and heresy, and for the removal of all corruptions and abuses, and
for the right administration of all divinely established institutions.
He has power to convoke synods and to see that whatever is trans
acted in them be " according to the mind of God" (XXIII. 3).
The Assembly could hardly attribute less authority to the magis
trate without calling the acts of the Long Parliament, including
that to which they owed their own existence, a usurpation. But
in thus extending the power of the civil authority they are in
accord not only with the practice of Protestants generally, but
also of their uniform teaching. Melanchthon is equally explicit.
He comprises in the function and obligations of rulers the duty to
suppress " the ethnic ddctrine of the Pope, the ethnic rites of the
invocation of the dead, and the horrid profanations of the Lord's
1 In Ball's Short Catechisme, which had gone through twelve editions in
1628, to the question " Did all mankind sinne in Adam? " the answer is given
"Yes; for we were all in his loynes." See A. F. Mitchell, Catechisms of the
Second Reformation, p. 71.
2 See Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, pp. 152, 154, 155, and Intro
duction, p. Ivi. sq. For further illustrations of the liberal view from Arrow-
smith's writings, see the editor's notes to the passage; also Schaffs Creeds o/
Christendom , Vol. I. p. 770 sq.
MODERN THEOLOGY 361
Supper."1 The Lutherans went much beyond the more narrow
definition of the sphere of the magistrate, as first set forth by
them in the Augsburg Confession.2 Calvin, it need hardly be
said, has the same doctrine as Melanchthon on this subject.3 In
England, ideas of toleration which border on more modern views
were entertained by a few Independents.
The Westminster Confession declares the fourth commandment
in the decalogue to be a positive, moral, and perpetual command
ment, so far as the sanctification of one day in seven as a Sabbath
is concerned. It is added that from the resurrection of Christ the
Sabbath was "changed into the first day of the week" (XXL 6).
The Reformers, Knox as well as Luther and Calvin, held that the
Lord's day is not to be identified with the Old Testament Sabbath.
They considered that the fourth commandment was a part of the
ceremonial law. With the early Fathers, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertul-
lian, and others, they made the Sabbath typical of the continual
rest given to God's people in this world and the next. "The
substance of the Sabbath," says Calvin, is " not in one day but in
the whole course of our lives." The opinion that the observance
of one day in seven is an injunction still in force he puts among
" the dreams of false prophets."4 Melanchthon, however, teaches
that in the commandment there is a moral part which still remains.
The part relating to the seventh day is abolished. But the moral
part requires that " on some day the people should be taught the
Gospel and the rites divinely ordained be observed." The com
mand is broken by servile labor, and by spending the time in sports
and vicious pleasures, on the day " constituted " for the public
ministry of the Gospel.5 The Synod of Dort recognized a moral
part of the Old Testament law, and inferred the existence of " a
certain and stated day appointed for worship." But Gomarus, as
well as Grotius, went no farther in their opinion on this subject.
Hooker affirms that one day in seven, or one-seventh part of the
time, is ordained for worship by an immutable law. The first day
was adopted in the room of the seventh, by the Church, to which
in this matter authority is ascribed. A similar idea of the Lord's
day is adopted by Andrews. The Puritan doctrine carried in it
the obligation to abstain from all employments, save those of ne-
1 Loci, pp. 173, 174 (Hase's ed.). 3 Institutes, IV. xx. 3.
2 Ibid. Part II. vii. * Ibid. II. viii. 34.
5 Loci, pp. 123, 124.
362
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
cessity and mercy (viii.). It extended the moral part so far as to
embrace in it a much closer conformity to the specific regulations
of the Old Testament respecting the Sabbath than it was customary
to connect with the Lord's day. The so-called " Sabbatarian " view
was publicly promulgated by Dr. Bound in 1575, in a sermon that
was printed but was suppressed by Whitgift. One of the grievances of
the Puritans was James's insisting on the proclamation by the clergy
of the liberty of the people to engage in sports on the Lord's day.
A signal attempt among the Puritans to mediate between the
Calvinists and the Arminians was made in the laborious endeavors
of Richard Baxter, whose mediating system received the name
of Baxterianism.1 He was not less eminent for learning and
ingenuity than for ardent piety. Most differences, he judged,
grew out of the ambiguity of terms. He was a most voluminous
writer. He is the author of two copious and elaborate theologi
cal treatises, The Catholic Theology and the Methodus Theologies.
On Original Sin, he advocates Augustinian Realism. God's
foreknowledge is not dependent on His purposes, but is an
independent attribute. To deny all " signs of imperfection " in
the Bible is one of the instances of "overdoing" "which tempt
men to infidelity." The sufferings of Christ are not the literal
penalty due to sinners. They so express God's hatred of sin that
they enable Him to attain the ends of government in a better way
than by executing the law. On this subject, Baxter waged a con
troversy with John Owen, who contended for the judicial theory
of a vicarious endurance of the penalty. Baxter teaches that suffi
cient grace is given to all to repent, but that the grace of the
Spirit is not given in equal measure to all. Where it is granted
in larger measure, it is partly on account of a greater receptivity,
but partly for good reasons inscrutable to us. Election is abso
lute j that is to say, it involves the giving of grace adequate to
secure the certainty of repentance in a certain portion of mankind.
As we approach the outbreaking of the Civil War, we come
upon the first stage of a movement which bears not inaptly the
name of " Rational Theology." 2 A lack of sympathy with either
1 1 have given an elaborate statement of Baxter's teachings, in two articles
in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. IX.
2 An extremely interesting historical survey of the whole movement is given
by Dr. Tulloch in his Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England
in the Seventeenth Century. 2 vols. 1874.
MODERN THEOLOGY 363
of the contending parties, the High Churchmen and the Puritans,
and a disposition to set a higher value upon the powers and pre
rogatives of reason in matters of religion, are its characteristics.
From the outset, the influence of the opinions and spirit of the
Arminians is obvious. Lord Falkland was for a time the centre of
a group of able and inquisitive men who took up this middle posi
tion. Falkland was in favor of Episcopacy, but denied the jure
divino opinion. He disliked Laud. He said in Parliament of
him and of the bishops who were his adherents that they had
" denied our Church by adorning our churches." They have
"slackened," he said, "the strictness of that union which was
formerly between us and those of our religion beyond the sea:
an action as impolitic as ungodly."1 We must follow reason in
interpreting Scripture ; where God has not clearly and indubitably
revealed, "it will not stand with His goodness to damn man for
not following it." 2 John Hales, of Eaton, was a friend of Falk
land. His spirit is expressed in the following passage from a
letter to Laud : —
" For the pursuit of truth hath been my only care ever since I
first understood the meaning of the word. For this I have for
saken all hopes, all friends, all desires which might bias me and
hinder me from driving right at what I aimed. For this I have
spent my means, my youth, my age, and all I have, that I might
remove from myself that censure of Tertullian, ' Suo vitio quis
quid ignorat? ' If with all this cost and pains my purchase is
but error, I may safely say, to err hath cost me more than it has
many to find the truth ; and truth itself shall give me this testi
mony at last, that if I have missed of her, it is not my fault, but
my misfortune."
Being chaplain of the English ambassador to the Hague, Hales
had attended the sessions of the Synod of Dort, and sent reports
to him of its doings. There he seems to have been by degrees
persuaded of the truth of the Arminian doctrine. The saying is
attributed to him that after hearing Episcopius address the Synod,
he said : " I did bid John Calvin good-night." 3 Hales insisted
on the distinction between dogmatic differences and religious
differences. The confounding of opinions with necessary truths,
he said, " is generally one of the greatest causes which keeps the
churches this day so far asunder." The remedy is " mutual for-
l See Tulloch, Vol. I. pp. 138, 155. 2 Ibid. Vol. I. p. 161. * Ibid. p. 223.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
bearance in this kind." ] Heresy is an act of the will, not of
reason.2 There may be a schism when the " schismatic is not
he that separates," or when "both parties are the schismatics."8
The foundation of convictions in religion should be personal
thought and investigation. The alleged authority of bishops and
councils, the real or pretended tests of " universality " and " an
tiquity," are not proper grounds of belief. Antiquity is "man's
authority born some ages before us." " Universality is nothing
but a quainter and a trimmer name to signify the multitude."4 A
more famous man belonging to this circle was William Chilling-
worth. His ability and fondness for debate remind us of an
adherent of the modern Oxford School, William G. Ward, who,
however, made a full surrender to the authority of Rome. Chil
lingworth was a godson of Laud. While a student at Oxford he
was persuaded by Fisher, an acute Jesuit, to become a Roman
Catholic, but, as the result of his thoughts and experience at
Douay, he renounced his new creed. Thenceforward, he was a
churchman of the moderate and liberal class. The basis of belief
is affirmed by him to be Scripture, the truth of which is established
by just reasoning, and of the meaning of which every man is to
judge. But charity is to be exercised towards such as differ.
The way to heaven is not to be -narrower "than Christ left it."
If instead of being zealous Papists, earnest Calvinists, rigid Luther
ans, they would become themselves, and let others "be plain,
honest Christians," there would be as to essentials " unity of
opinion."5 Chillingworth was persuaded by Laud to sign the
thirty-nine Articles, which he did professedly as "Articles of
peace," without an inward assent to all their specific statements.
It is remarkable that the work on which his fame rests, the
Religion of Protestants, was approved by Laud. In this work,
Chillingworth proves that the Romanist reasoning on the subject
of the seat of authority is reasoning in a circle. The authority of
the Church in interpreting Scripture is sought to be proved by the
declarations of Scripture. But unless it is conceded that these
can be interpreted by private judgment, the thing to be proved is
assumed. There are various reasons why Jeremy Taylor is hardly
to be classified with the men of whom we have spoken. He was
a bishop, was, in his way, a great preacher, and distinguished for
1 Tullocb, Vol. I. p. 226. 2 Ibid. p. 228. 3 Ibid. p. 232.
* Ibid. p. 250. * Ibid. p. 336.
MODERN THEOLOGY 365
his devotional writings. Yet he is in accord in his leading
principles with Falkland, Hales, and Chillingworth. He was an
Arminian, and on such subjects as Original Sin and Regeneration
advocates the Arminian opinions. In his Liberty of Prophesying,
he is a liberal, not only on the subject of toleration, but also on
the whole subject of the just foundations of belief. He says that
the term "heresy" is never to be applied to "speculative proposi
tions" or to "pious opinions."1 It means "a wicked opinion, an
ungodly doctrine." The Nicene Fathers, although they did well,
might better have left the Creed undefined.2 The "damnatory
appendix " of the Athanasian Creed is wrong.3 General Councils
are not infallible and have contradicted one another. The same is
true of the Fathers. In interpreting divine revelation, every man
must fall back upon reason and private judgment. Taylor believed
strongly that Episcopacy is the primitive and the best method
of Church government, but not that the absence of it, any more
than the want of a liturgy, should exclude churches from fraternal
recognition.4
Another ecclesiastic, who was, however, on a lower plane of
temper and character than Taylor, the author of Holy Living
and Dying, was Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop of Norwich, a man
of learning and an able controversialist. When a young rector
at Button he published The Irenicum, a Weapon-Salve for the
Church's Wounds, the second edition of which he issued in 1662.
Its tenor is signified in two of the mottoes on the title-page, one
from Casaubon, and one from Grotius. The purport of both is
that if men would discriminate between divine right — jus divinum
— and ecclesiastical law, controversy between good men would be
less long and less bitter. This thesis Stillingfleet advocates in
relation to Episcopacy and Presbyterianism. The liberal position
he proceeds to show was that of the English Reformers and of
Anglican divines before his time. In his later years, in 1680,
under Charles II., he published the Unreasonableness of Separa
tion, wherein he referred to his former work as written in youth
and with " great tenderness towards Dissenters before the laws were
established''1 He is not carried so far, however, by the altered politi
cal circumstances, as to disavow the main principles or question the
soundness of the arguments in the earlier treatise.
1 Tulloch, p. 387. 8 Ibid. p. 394.
* Ibid. p. 393. * Ibid. p. 408.
366
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
The specific name of Latitudinarians — or " men of latitude "
— was attached by their opponents to a school of " Cambridge
Men," — men connected with the University of Cambridge. Un
like the group of men before considered, these, although church
men, " belonged more to the Puritan side." They were many of
them graduates of Emmanuel College, the favorite nursery of
Puritan divines, where so many of the early New England clergy
were trained. They were appointed under the Long Parliament,
and kept in their places by Cromwell. They manifest in its most
tangible and effective form a rising spirit of liberalism, which was
more stimulated than repressed by the work of the Westminster
Assembly. The reading of Bacon and Descartes was not without
an influence in originating the Cambridge movement. Of greater
influence were the writings of the Arminian scholars. But beyond
these agencies, and of chief moment, was the forsaking of Aristotle,
and the earnest and sympathetic study of Plato and the Alexan
drian Platonists of the Christian school. Bishop Burnet, who was
imbued with the spirit of the Latitudinarians, has described them
in an interesting passage, which must here be quoted : " These
were generally of Cambridge, formed under some divines, the
chief of whom were Drs. Whichcote, Cudworth, Wilkins, More,
and Worthington. Whichcote was a man of rare temper, very
mild and obliging. He had great credit with some that had been
eminent in the late times ; but made all the use he could of it to
protect good men of all persuasions. He was much for liberty of
conscience ; and being disgusted with the dry, systematical way
of those times, he studied to raise those who conversed with him
to a nobler set of thoughts, and to consider religion as a seed of a
deiform nature (to use one of his own phrases). In order to this,
he set young students much on reading the ancient philosophers,
chiefly Plato, Tully, and Plotin, and on considering the Christian
religion as a doctrine sent from God, both to elevate and sweeten
human nature ; in which he was a great example as well as a wise
and kind instructor. Cudworth carried this on with a great
strength of genius and a vast compass of learning." Burnet adds
that the principles of Hobbes, and the impiety produced by them,
stimulated these men. So this set of men at Cambridge studied
to assert and examine the principles of religion and morality on
clear grounds, and in a philosophical method : " all these and
those who were formed under them, studied to examine farther
MODERN THEOLOGY
367
into the nature of things than had been done formerly; they
declared against superstition on the one hand and enthusiasm on
the other; they loved the constitution of the Church, and the
liturgy, and could well live under them ; but they did not think
it unlawful to live under another form. They wished that things
might have been carried with more moderation ; and they con
tinued to keep a good correspondence with those who had differed
with them in opinion, and allowed a greater freedom both in phi
losophy and in divinity ; from whence they were called men of
latitude : and upon this men of narrower thoughts and fiercer
tempers fastened upon them the name of Latitudinarians. They
read Episcopius much ; and the making out the reasons of things,
being a main part of their studies, their enemies called them Socin-
ians." "The most eminent of these," says Burnet, — speaking of
the preachers allied to the movement, — " were Tillotson, Stilling-
fleet, and Patrick. This set of men," he adds, " contributed more
than can well be imagined, to reform the way of preaching, which
among the divines of England before them was overrun with
pedantry, a great mixture of quotations from Fathers and ancient
writers, a long opening of a text with the concordance of every
word of it, and a giving all the different expositions with the
grounds of them, and the entering into some parts of controversy,
and all concluding in some, but very short, practical applications,
according to the subject or the occasion. This was both long and
heavy, when all was piebald, full of many sayings of different lan
guages. The common style of sermons was either very flat and
low, or swelled up with rhetoric to a false pitch of a wrong sub
lime." Of the new preachers, he says : "Their style was clear,
plain, and short. They gave a short paraphrase of their text,
unless where great difficulties required a more copious enlarge
ment : but even then they cut off unnecessary shows of learning,
and applied themselves to the matter, in which they opened the
nature and reasons of things so fully, and with that simplicity that
their hearers felt an instruction of another sort than had commonly
been observed before ; so that they became very much followed ;
and a set of these men brought off the city in a great measure
from the prejudices they had formerly to the Church."
The chief founders of the movement were Whichcote, John Smith,
Cudworth, and Henry More. Benjamin Whichcote deserves to be
called the first among them in point of time and in the effect of
368
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
his teachings. In his correspondence with Tuckney, his former
tutor, his liberalism is clearly expressed, and appears in its con
trast with the position, as to doctrine and liberty of thought, of a
divine of the old school. " I receive the truth of the Christian
religion," says Whichcote, " in a way of illumination, affection, and
choice." * " Let all uncertainties lie by themselves in the cata
logue of disputables ; matters of further inquiry." 2 Ralph Cud-
worth, in the Intellectual System of the Universe, presented a
learned and. profound refutation of Atheism and Pantheism, and
a noble exposition of the Platonic system. In his treatise on
Immutable Morality he defends the doctrine of intuitive mor
als, and, generally, the validity of ideas not derived from sense-
perception. Henry More was an advocate of free inquiry and
of toleration. There was in him a peculiar vein of Mysticism,
which was attended by the belief that he had occasional visions
and states of rapture. One of the best of his writings is his Anti
dote to Atheism. John Smith is the most attractive writer and,
with the possible exception of Cudworth, at the head of the four as
a speculative thinker. He was, moreover, a preacher of uncommon
power. The Select Discourses of Smith, published after his death,
are the direct source of our knowledge of his opinions. Other
prominent theologians of the Latitudinarian party are John Norris,
Theophilus Gale, and Richard Cumberland, Bishop of Peterborough.
Conspicuous among the distinctive traits of the Cambridge School
were, first, their advocacy of freedom of inquiry, their allowance of
a large space for diversity of opinion in respect to non-essentials,
their genial temper in controversy, their interest in the cause of
toleration, their liking for episcopacy, while rejecting its exclusive
pretensions ; secondly, their love of learning, their interest in effect
ing a reconcilement of theology and philosophy ; thirdly, their
attachment to Platonic studies and Platonic doctrine ; fourthly,
their conception of religion, as far less a doctrine or a ritual than
an inward life ; fifthly, their purpose to found a rational theology
which should avail to answer atheistic objections. As defects in
the Latitudinarian school, Tulloch with justice enumerates three,
— their lack of critical qualifications, which led to the confound
ing of Platonism and New Platonism, the ideas of Plato and those
of Plotinus j a certain speculative fancifulness, from the lack of
1 Letters to Tuckney, p. 48.
2 Moral and Religious Aphorisms (547).
MODERN THEOLOGY
369
"adequate criteria, of knowledge"; "their misappreciation of
evidence as to the supernatural and spiritual world." l This criti
cism is illustrated not in More alone, but also, although to a less
extent, even in Cudworth. Their positive work, we may add, was
rather an essay to construct, than an actual construction, of a
definite and stable religious philosophy.
1 Tulloch, Vol. II. pp. 478-488.
SB
CHAPTER IX
THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY IN ENGLAND THE ENGLISH DEISTIC
SCHOOL — THEOLOGY OF THE QUAKERS EFFORTS ON THE CON
TINENT FOR THE REUNION OF CHURCHES
THE ferment produced by the Socinian theology not only
extended into Holland, but also had its effect in England. The
Socinian and Arminian writings on this subject were the imme
diate occasion of the Trinitarian controversy. In its first phase
it was mainly an historical debate. The great writer is Bishop
Bull, whose Defensio fidei Nicani, published in 1689, was a ref
utation of the views of Petavius, and also of Sandius and Zwicker,
both of the Socinian school. Bull sought to show that the ante-
Nicene Fathers were orthodox. His learning was great, and he
was a strong reasoner. He claimed somewhat more for the cor
rectness of the pre-Arian Fathers than the scholarship of the
present day is able to sanction. Bull's later Judicium Ecclesicz
Catholics — for which he was thanked by Bossuet in the name
of the Catholic clergy of France — had reference to the views of
Episcopius and Curcellaeus. His last important work was his
Primitive and Apostolical Tradition.
The Trinitarian controversy was carried into the region of Meta
physics. In 1690, Bishop (then Dean) Sherlock put forth his Vin
dication of the Doctrine of the Trinity. His doctrine was that
in God there are three substances undivided, each being conscious
of each of the other's thoughts and spiritual states. This triplicity
is thus consistent with unity. This book was the signal for the
appearance of numerous books and pamphlets, mostly polemical.
Dr. Robert South wrote against Sherlock. He denies that self-
consciousness constitutes personality. Rather is it true that con
sciousness presupposes personality. The opponents of Sherlock
pronounced his doctrine to be Tritheism. Among the authors
370
MODERN THEOLOGY
371
who entered the lists in this controversy, besides South, were Wal-
lis, Stillingfleet, John Owen, and John Howe, one of the best of
the Nonconformist theologians, who wrote A Calm Discourse of
the Trinity. The warfare would have lasted longer and have
become more engrossing had it not been for the rise and prog
ress of Deism, a common enemy.
The Arian controversy, properly so called, begins with the pub
lication of Dr. Samuel Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,
in 1720. Clarke was the leading metaphysician of the day. In
the Boyle lectures for 1 704-5 he had presented his Demonstration
of the Being and Attributes of God, which was founded on the exist
ence of one self-existent immutable being, necessarily implied in
the existence of the world, and in the implication of eternity and
omnipresence in duration and space, these being pronounced to be,
not substances, but attributes. A defence of Arianism, to be sure,
in the highest form, by such a man, excited a commotion. Clarke's
doctrine was that the Son derives His being and attributes from the
Supreme Cause, the Father. When the Son had His origin, and
whether from the will of the Father or not, the Scripture does not
explain. Several answers to Clarke soon appeared. His principal
opponent was Dr. Daniel Waterland, who published three succes
sive writings in defence of the orthodox doctrine.
The same tendencies which produced the Latitudinarian move
ment led, in minds of a different cast and training, to the develop
ment of Deism, and gave rise to the Deistic controversy.1 There
were minds less appreciative of the need and the nature of Chris
tianity. There were special cooperative influences, among which
was the effect of the Copernican discovery upon the views taken
of Scripture, and its effect, along with that of the philosophy of
Bacon, and of the new studies in natural science, upon the general
mood of feeling. This new mood may be described, for the lack
of a better term, as rationalistic. Deism in its English type did
1 The old work on English Deism is Leland's View of the Deistical Writers
(1754-56), which is both descriptive and controversial. Lechler's Gesch. d.
Englisch. Deismus (1841) gives a full and fair account of the Deistic Writings.
Hunt's Religious J^hought in England, 3 vols. (1870-72), gives a sketch of the
treatises on both sides of the controversy. Leslie Stephen's History of English
Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols., 1876, is an able criticism of the
principal writers in the warfare of opinion, in a spirit not unfriendly to the
rationalistic leaders. See, also, Mark Pattison's Essays on the Tendencies
of Religious Thought in England from 1688 to 1750.
372
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
not, like the Epicurean theory, deny the Providence of the Deity.
It cast aside the belief in a special revelation, and of course the
reality of denied miracles. The Latitudinarians sought for the
basis of the religious creed in the truths held in common by
the various contending Christian, or, at least, Protestant bodies.
The Deists did the same in reference to the different forms of
religion, including the Christian. The value of the Bible is made
to consist in its republication, but without supernatural sanction,
of the principles of natural religion, ascertainable and ascertained
by "the light of nature."
The " father of Deism " was Lord Herbert, of Cherbury. His
treatise, De Veritate, which was published in 1624, was an able, if
not very successful, effort to set forth the philosophical principles
at the foundation of religious inquiry. His principal treatise, De
Religione Gentilium, brings forward the five truths at the basis of
all religions. There is no doubt that he means to be understood
to comprise in this list whatever he considers to be true and val
uable in Christianity. They are the existence of a supreme God,
the duty of worship, the obligations of virtue and piety, the duty
of repentance of sin, the fact of rewards and punishment here and
hereafter. There is no polemic against Christianity, but there is
no doubt that, with most of the Deists, he considered all other
religious doctrines the offspring of superstition, or the invention of
priests for establishing their sway.
The writer on the Deistic side who more than any other pro
voked controversy and occasioned numerous writings in defence
of Christianity was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). The Levia
than, which followed earlier productions from his pen, advocates
determinism in philosophy, and is probably the first distinct and
logical exposition of that theory, and one of the ablest defences
of it. In political ethics, he contended for absolutism in govern
ment, embracing the right of the King to control, by his sole
authority, all expressions of religious belief and forms of worship.
The state of nature is the state of war, where every one desires
everything and has a right to everything. The only rescue from
destruction, the only way to peace, is in the institution of a com
mon power. Hobbes recognizes no such thing as justice before
the organization of society, and society as a product of expediency.
Might has the precedence over right. It is only fair to add that
the political notions of Hobbes were adopted prior to the Restora-
MODERN THEOLOGY
373
tion of the Stuarts, and were not first inspired by a spirit of ser
vility to a reigning monarch. Hobbes enters into an analysis of
the contents of the Bible. He concludes that the only Article of
Faith which it makes the condition of salvation is that Jesus is the
Messiah. The extent of the influence of Hobbes is well sketched
by Mackintosh 1 : —
" The answers to Leviathan would form a library. But the far
greater part have followed the fate of all controversial pamphlets.
Sir Robert Filmer was jealous of any rival theory of servitude.
Harrington defended liberty, and Clarendon the Church, against a
common enemy. His philosophical antagonists were Cumber
land, Cudworth, Shaftesbury, Clarke, Butler, and Hutcheson.
Though the last four writers cannot be considered as properly
polemics, their labors were excited, and their doctrines modified,
by the stroke from a vigorous arm, which seemed to shake Ethics
to its foundation. They lead us far into the eighteenth century ;
and their works occasioned by the doctrines of Hobbes, sowed the
seed of the ethical writings of Hume, Smith, Price, Kant, and
Stewart ; in a less degree, also, of those of Tucker and Paley ; not
to mention Mandeville, the buffoon and sophister of the ale-house ;
or Helvetius, an ingenious but flimsy writer, the low and loose
moralist of the vain, the selfish, and the sensual."
Charles Blount was born in 1654 and died in 1693. His first
work was Anima Mundi : or, an Historical Narration of the
Opinions of the Ancients concerning Man's Soul after this Life :
according to Unenlightened Nature. The design was to raise the
esteem of his readers for heathen philosophy and thereby covertly
to depreciate Christianity. The title is an example of the usual
method of the Deists, who made no direct assault on Revelation,
but either made use of sarcasm or irony, or attacked the validity
of the principal arguments in its behalf. Apart from other
motives, an open assault was punishable by the civil law. Blount
published The First Two Books of Philostratus, concerning the
Life of Apollonius Tyanceus, translated with copious notes. The
obvious purpose was to disparage and refute the supernatural char
acter of Christianity, by presenting in Apollonius a parallel narra
tive. His miracles are explained on the naturalistic theory and
partly by suggestions resembling the modern mythical hypothesis.
argues, as did Hobbes, against the Mosaic authorship of
1 Progress of Ethical Philosophy, p. 69.
374
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the Pentateuch, and in favor of a literal (or physical) interpreta
tion of the narrative of the Creation in Genesis. The Oracles of
Reason were published after his death by suicide. Blount adopted
Hobbes's notion of the authority of the State in matters of religion,
together with Herbert's five principles and his doctrine of the
corruption of the religion of reason by the selfish cunning of
priests.
The Latitudinarian theologians defended the cause of religion
and revelation. Henry More contended that the higher truth
taught by the sages of antiquity was derived either from the
Logos, or from the earliest doctrine of the Church and of the
Jewish Kabbala. Gale, in his Court of the Gentiles, endeavored to
show that the wisdom of the heathen philosophers was borrowed
from the Jewish Scriptures. Of the writers on the anti-deistic
side, there was none abler or more eminent than John Locke
(1632-1704). There was in him, associated with great upright
ness and a noble love of liberty, a " rationalistic " tone which
belonged to him in common with his opponents. His intellectual
habit appears in his political theories ; in particular in his theory
of the Social Compact. His combat with Deism took the form of
a revision of orthodox theology, whereby it was hoped to render
it less vulnerable. In his Essay concerning Human Understand
ing, he defines faith to be an assent to a proposition on the testi
mony of Revelation, the credibility of Revelation being first proved.1
This is declared to be the only shield against fancy and enthusi
asm.2 On liberty and necessity, Locke is a determinist. Liberty
relates to events consecutive to volition. Choice itself is accord
ing to the last dictate of the understanding as regards personal
happiness.3 Yet it appears from his letters that he did not
continue perfectly assured of his solution of the problem, but was
confident of the fact of freedom. As might be expected, Locke
rejects a priori proofs of the being of God. He presents an argu
ment of his own from the existence of the soul, and the impossi
bility that a " cogitative " being should spring from an " incogita-
tive " as its cause. His book on the Reasonableness of Christianity
was written, as he tells us, to influence disbelievers. Dissatisfied
with existing systems of divinity, he had turned from them to the
Scriptures. The condemnation of mankind for Adam's sin is an
opinion " that shakes the foundation of all religion." To make
i B. IV. c. 18. 2 Ibid. « B. II. § 8 et passim.
MODERN THEOLOGY 375
Christ to be only the restorer of pure natural religion makes
Christianity almost nothing. His own doctrine is that Adam's
sin brought upon the race death, or complete annihilation; the
race is saved from this death by Christ, and is continued, since
by Him is the resurrection ; mankind, however, put under a pro
bation of law, sin for themselves ; through grace, salvation is offered
on the condition of faith ; faith is the belief that Jesus is the
Messiah ; all who believe — Locke explained afterwards that he
included, also, the condition of repentance — are saved ; all others
perish, or become utterly extinct ; the heathen may be saved by
repentance and using the light they have. The need of revelation
is based on five grounds, which include the desirableness of more
light respecting God and duty, and new incentives and helps to a
virtuous and holy life, — such as the proclamation of immortal
life, the example of Jesus, the aids of the Spirit. The orthodox
critics of Locke complained that he had not included in his
system the Atonement. He answered that his object had been
simply to state what was necessary to be believed in order to be
saved. In truth, he did not accept the doctrine of the satisfac
tion of Christ, but regarded his principal office to be that of a
legislator. Nor did he believe in the supreme divinity of Jesus.
He pronounces the doctrine of election practically harmful.1 He
raises the question whether all that Luke wrote was inspired.2
John Toland (1669-1722) was the author of Christianity not
Mysterious (1696). He went beyond the assertion of Hobbes and
Locke, that there is nothing contrary to reason in Christianity, by
maintaining that there is nothing above reason in it ; that every
thing is plain to reason, asserting that there is no profit in anything
not intelligible. In primitive Christianity there were no unsearch
able mysteries, but these have been introduced, in the course of
time, partly in accommodation to Judaism with its levitical rites,
and Heathenism with its mysteries, and partly by the mixture of
philosophy. He wrote also, Amyntor, a defence of some remarks
in his life of Milton, in which he had been supposed to throw
out doubts concerning the canon of the New Testament. He
declared that he referred to the apocryphal books of the New
Testament, and the apostolical Fathers, whose alleged writings he
did not regard as genuine. Toland anticipated Baur in affirming
1 See extracts in King's Life of Locke ^ Vol. II. pp. 99, 103.
2 Ibid. pp. 96, 97.
376 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
that the early Church was divided into two parties, the Ebionites
or Judaizers, and the liberal party of Paul ; and these discordant
schools (which, however, he does not affirm to have been hostile)
were brought together in an artificial union.
Amyntor drew out Dr. Samuel Clarke's Historical Account of the
Canon of the New Testament in Answer to Amyntor. The great
work of Nathaniel Lardner — The Credibility of the Gospel History
— was written later, and without reference to Toland. (It appeared
in 1727.)* Toland's Pantheisticon, and other later writings, man
ifest an embittered feeling towards Christianity and a decline into
a kind of " unscientific Pantheism."
Anthony Collins was one of the ablest of the Deists. In his
Discourse of Free-thinkers, he undertook to prove that free-
thinking cannot be restricted. To say that it can be involves
a contradiction. Neither ought it to be restricted. Without it,
no one can ever be convinced of error. Collins was answered by
Bentley, writing under the name of " Philoleutherus Lipsiensis," —
a Leipsic Lover of Freedom. Bentley maintains that thinking
must be really free, and not subject to the bias of infidel preju
dice. It may be observed here that " free-thinkers " came to be
a common designation of the Deists. Collins suggests that the
Jews may have derived their theological doctrines from Egyptians
and Chaldaeans. Probably a large portion of the Old Testament,
he says, was reconstructed by Ezra. The book of Daniel belongs
to the Maccabean age. Collins 's work on Liberty and Necessity
is a very acute argument in behalf of determinism, with an answer
to objections. The curious correspondence between his reason
ing and that of Jonathan Edwards is not due, as Dugald Stewart
suggested that it is, to a use of Collins's work by Edwards. It
is not probable that Edwards had read Collins.
Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his Remarks on Collins's book, attacks
his conception of the will. Clarke asserts that there exists a
principle of self-motion in man, a power of initiating motion,
or of voluntary self-determination. This power is not deter-
1 The Boyle lectures were founded by the will of Robert Boyle (who had
taken part in founding the Royal Society). Boyle died 1691. The lectures
were " to prove the truth of the Christian Religion against infidels, without
descending to any controversies among Christians." The first lecturer on
this foundation was Bentley. After him, are the names of Samuel Clarke
{Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God} and William Whiston.
MODERN THEOLOGY
377
mined as to the mode of its exertion by anything but itself; that
would involve a contradiction. It is self-moving. It is absurd
to attribute efficiency to the mental states which are called
motives. If they had efficiency, man would be like a clock,
or a pair of scales, endowed with sensation or perception.
He would not be an agent. What we call motives are bare
antecedents, or occasional causes.1 Clarke shows that the oppo
site supposition involves an infinite regress of effects with no
cause at all. Moreover, uniformity of action does not imply a
necessity in the connection of the act with its antecedents. " The
experience of a man's ever doing what he judges reasonable to do,
is not at all an experience of his being under any necessity so
to do. For concomitancy in this case is no evidence at all of
physical connection."2 The argument for necessity from God's
prescience, Clarke seeks to confute by maintaining the previous
certainty of acts, even on the supposition that they are free, and
by claiming for God " an infallible judgment concerning contin
gent truths," which is only a power that we ourselves possess,
carried to perfection.
Woolston attacked the literal interpretation of the New Testa
ment narratives of miracles, and contended for an allegorical
treatment of them. Among the replies to Woolston was Bishop
Sherlock's Trial of the Witnesses, an argument for the historical
reality of the resurrection of Christ. Matthew Tindal (1657-
1733) wrote Christianity as Old as Creation. It was an endeavor
to prove the sufficiency and perfection of natural religion, and that
Christianity, as far as it is true, republishes it in a form free from
corruptions. Among his opponents were Conybeare, Waterland,
and Law. Thomas Morgan, in his Moral Philosopher, contended
that the guides of the Jewish Church, as well as Jesus and the
Apostles, had practised an "accommodation" respecting persons
and events, in order to conciliate the ignorant and the bigoted.
Paul was the great free-thinker of his age. There was a division
in the primitive Church, but, unlike Tindal, Morgan holds that a
hostility sprang up between the two parties. Morgan's work was
the revision of the composition of Warburton's once famous work,
The Divine Legation of Moses, in which it was maintained that the
silence of the Pentateuch on the subject of the future life is a
decisive argument for, and not against, the divine origin of the
1 Remarks^ etc. p. 9 (London, 1717). 2 Ibid. p. 25.
378
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Hebrew religion. Such a silence is without a parallel in similar
circumstances, and warrants the conclusion that Moses was bent
on protecting his people from the superstitions which in Egypt
were inseparably mingled with this tenet. Chubb is a Deistic
writer of inferior consequence. Lord Shaftesbury was one of the
few Deists of rank and social position. He wrote the Character
istics, which found fault with the Gospel for making the hope of
reward and the fear of punishment incentives to virtue. Virtue is
its own reward, and is vitiated so far as its source is a mercenary
motive. Bolingbroke (1678-1751), in writings left to be pub
lished after his death, assumes that Monotheism was the primitive
religion, and argues for it on the ground of the consent of all
tradition that the world had a beginning. Almost everything not
contained in the creed of nature is ascribed to the shrewd inven
tion of rulers, who, in order to keep the people in subjection,
have played on their fears.
It should occasion no surprise to the historical student that in
England, in the middle of the seventeenth century, in the midst of
the dogmatic strife, the debate among creeds, there should appear
such a development of mysticism, mingled, especially at first, with
enthusiasm, as we witness in the society called Quakers. Our atten
tion here is to be directed only to the beliefs of the followers of
George Fox and of William Penn. A little less than twenty years
after Fox began his preaching tours, the Quakers were joined by
Robert Barclay, an educated Scotchman, who became the theologi
cal expounder of the tenets of the new sect. His Apology for the
True Christian Divinity was published in 1675. The Catechism
and Confession of Faith, drawn up by Barclay, were adopted by the
sect. The central, conspicuous peculiarity in the theology of the
Quakers was the doctrine of " the inner light." The reformers
had carefully guarded against the introduction of teaching resting
upon subjective feeling by insisting that it is the office of the
Spirit to make the truths in Scripture evident and duly impressive
on the minds of men. The Quakers enlarged the function of the
Spirit by the doctrine that this illuminating power is bestowed on
all men, and that it is not confined to the use of truth already
believed, but may communicate additional truth to the mind open
to receive it. As the Bible is from God, the Bible is the umpire,
so far that nothing contrary to Scripture can be accepted as com
ing from Him. In keeping with this idea concerning the Spirit
MODERN THEOLOGY
379
was the doctrine of the Quakers that redemption, although object
ive, is of no value until there follows a mystical reception of Christ
by the soul. This is an essential side of Justification. The dis
carding of the Sacraments altogether is another natural conse
quence of the controlling place of the subjective factor in the
religious life. It was held that there is a transmitted seed of evil
in men since the Fall, but it is not reckoned to our account as sin
until actual transgression is connected with it. Election is rejected,
although in some cases Grace is said to act with an irresistible
power. But all have their time of visitation when they are inwardly
called by Christ and are able to hear and obey the call. The
equal position of women and their privilege of taking part in
religious meetings is an inference from the view taken of depend
ence upon the Spirit as choosing for his organs whom he will. The
same is true of the refusal to permit an order of ministers to exist
or a liturgy to be used. The discarding of oaths, the ceasing to
use the names of the months and days which are of heathen origin,
the use of Christian names in converse with others, and the adhe
rence to modes of dress which fashion has set aside, are all parts of
a certain simplicity which is congenial with the spirit of Quakerism.
The same literal intepretation of the Sermon on the Mount which
appears in various customs, operates, in conjunction with a domi
nant spirit of Christian kindness, to give rise to an absolute con
demnation of all war, whether offensive or defensive.
The seventeenth century, the period of theological warfare and
division, witnessed efforts in behalf of the reunion of sundered
and hostile churches. Persistent efforts were made to bring to
pass a good understanding and union between the Lutherans and
the Reformed. In these efforts, George Calixtus and the theo
logians of Helmstadt earnestly engaged. Such attempts proved
abortive. They were resisted generally by the Lutherans. The
same result followed projects of this kind looking to a reunion of
the Protestants and the Roman Catholics. Erasmus had con
tended for Christian union on the basis of a common acceptance
of essential truths, all minor points being waived, or postponed,
not until "the next general council," but until the future life.
Calixtus labored in the cause of a reunion on the basis of the
Scriptures and of the Church of the first five centuries. The con
ciliatory spirit of Erasmus and Melanchthon was revived in Hugo
Grotius. By his own observation of the bitterness and calamities
380 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
incident to the conflicts of party, and affected by his intercourse
with Roman Catholics during his sojourn in France, he was moved
to exert himself to bring to pass a reconciliation between the two
great divisions of the Western Church. In his publications, he
sought to mitigate the enmity to Roman Catholic dogmas by
showing that more than one interpretation might be attached to
them. Certain practices that were condemned by Protestants
might be admitted without wrong or harm. His method of union
was to ascertain by a universal council the propositions on which
all Christians could unite, and to make the resulting creed the
basis of ecclesiastical unity. On the Catholic side, Spinola, a
theologian of Vienna, engaged in a like undertaking, and travelled
through Germany in order to further it. This movement was the
occasion of a correspondence between Molanus, a Lutheran theo
logian, and, afterwards, Leibnitz, on the one side, and Bossuet on
the other. The ground that Leibnitz took was almost the same
as that taken by Grotius. Both were willing to concede a primacy
to the Bishop of Rome. The point on which Leibnitz and Bos-
suet could not agree was the authority of the Council of Trent.
It is interesting to observe, in the pacific writings both of Grotius
and Leibnitz, how the sharp antagonism to the tenets of Rome,
which had formerly prevailed, is blunted. The mutual intolerance
of the Protestant sects, the evils of perpetual discord between
them, and of the perpetual contest between Protestantism and
Romanism, had inspired a longing for peace on the basis of a
comprehensive standard of belief.
PERIOD V
THEOLOGY AS AFFECTED BY MODERN PHILOSOPHY AND
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES
FROM THE PHILOSOPHY OF LOCKE AND LEIBNITZ TO THE PRESENT
CHAPTER I
PHILOSOPHY ON THE CONTINENT AFTER DESCARTES : SPINOZA ;
LEIBNITZ PHILOSOPHY IN ENGLAND : FRANCIS BACON ; LOCKE ;
BERKELEY; HUME; REID — THE WRITINGS OF BUTLER AND PALEY
CHARACTER OF ENGLISH THEOLOGY TO THE MIDDLE OF THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY — THE WESLEYAN THEOLOGY
To find the beginning of the new epoch in the history of
philosophy when its independence of theology was asserted, we
must go back to Descartes. Instead of starting with the assump
tion of a multiplicity of beliefs respecting things mundane and
divine, philosophy, he taught, begins with universal doubt, and
searches for a primal principle, something evident and undeniable.
This is the proposition, " I think and therefore I am," which is
not a syllogism, but the implication of the being of the thinker in
the act of thought. To say that I doubt that I think is a self-
contradiction. No other statement respecting myself has this
character. The criterion of truth is the clearness and distinctness
of the idea. This is inferred from the character of the basal con
viction. Next, in the order of the objects of knowledge, is God.
The highest and clearest of all our ideas is that of God, the abso
lutely perfect being. This is not derived from the senses, nor is
it formed by an act of my own. It must be implanted by the
infinite Being Himself. It is an innate idea. God's existence,
moreover, is involved in the concept of God, from which necessary
382
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
existence is inseparable. The Anselmic argument is presented in
a modified form. Besides, the idea of the supreme perfection of
God, including His veracity, cannot be an idea of our own devis
ing. The veracity of God, once ascertained, establishes the truth
of our perceptions of the outward world. He cannot deceive us.
So we are saved from solipsism. We are sure of the existence of
other beings than ourselves. The soul and external things are
substances in the imperfect sense that they are not dependent upon
one another. God alone is substance in the strict sense, His
existence not being conditioned on the existence of anything else.
Finite substances are the mind, the thinking substance, and ex
tended substance, or body. How the first finite substance can
cognize the second, which is essentially distinct from it, is one of
the cardinal problems of which the efforts of Descartes afford no
satisfactory solution.
To supply this defect, to build a bridge between the subject and
the object, was the endeavor of the " Occasionalists," first Geu-
lincx, and especially Malebranche. The former supposes imme
diate acts of God whereby, for example, the movements of my
body are matched to my volitions. Malebranche 's doctrine was
that "we see all things in God." All things are contained in a
spiritual or ideal way in God. So closely are we united to Him
that through Him we behold things even as He does. Ideas, as
well as we ourselves, are in God, who is the universal reason. We
see things as God sees them.
It was a difficulty, in the system of Descartes, to explain how
finite substances can be distinct from the substance in the strict
sense of the word. It was a difficulty, in the system of Male
branche, to avoid falling into a pantheistic idealism and merging
the finite mind in the infinite. But both philosophers stood firmly
on the ground of theism.
Spinoza converted Cartesian principles into an explicit panthe
ism, in which there is only one substance — una et unica substan-
tia — the infinite being. Substantial existence belongs to nothing
finite. To that being, as infinite, no predicates can, without con
tradiction, be attached ; for " all determination " — all affirmation
of qualities — "is negation," or the subtraction of their opposites.
Yet two " attributes " are assigned to the infinite being, thought
and extension, whence comes the double theophany, mind, on the
one hand, and material things, on the other. All concrete things
MODERN THEOLOGY
383
are " modes " of these attributes. How the ascription of attributes
is consistent with the above-stated maxim is still a puzzle and a
subject of controversy among the interpreters of Spinoza. The
conception of infinitude excludes personality. With personality,
of course, design, final causes, vanish. The consciousness of free
dom in man is an illusion which is owing to a failure to perceive
the proximate causes of choice. If religion is the communion of
person with person, religion disappears in Spinoza's system ; and
the same fate must befall ethics, if moral liberty be the condition
of responsibility. Spinoza was a Hebrew by birth, but was cast
out of the synagogue for heresy. His ideas respecting the Script
ures of the Old Testament, and his interpretations, are presented
with acuteness in the Tractatus Theologico-politicus, wherein not a
few modern critical theories and judgments are anticipated.
Leibnitz (1646-1716), whose genius and versatility almost
make him a peer of Aristotle, constructed a philosophy, the
antipode of Spinoza's system. Substance is characterized by
activity. Instead of there being but one substance, the universe
is composed of a multitude of created substances, which are
indivisible, unextended centres of force. Each is independent
of the others, yet related to all. Each represents in itself all
others, and is, so to speak, a mirror of the universe. Obscure
states of representation or perception pertain to the lower orders
of monads. In inorganic nature, this representation is com
pared to a state of slumber. There is in nature a harmony in
the action of the monads which is preestablished by the Creator,
and there is a constant co-working of God (concursus Dei) , which
is not destructive of second causes. The soul is a monad, inde
pendent of the body, but the two coincide — as when the arm is
raised by a volition — through the preestablished harmony. The
mind produces, on the condition of experience, the intuitions.
To the maxim, " There is nothing in intellect that was not pre
viously in sense," Leibnitz added the qualifying clause, " save the
intellect itself" — prater intellectum ipsum. In his doctrine of
the will, Leibnitz was a determinist.
In his Theodicy, Leibnitz discusses, with great ability and learn
ing, the problem of evil. Why is evil permitted by the Almighty
to exist? The question turns finally on the ground of the per
mission of moral evil. The answer is that the system which, in
the nature of things, is the best possible, involves the permission
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of sin. Its existence, therefore, constitutes no objection to the
doctrine of God's omnipotence or benevolence. The occasion of
sin is owing to the metaphysical imperfections of man. Being
finite, he is liable to over-vivid impressions from objects near at
hand, or otherwise exerting an undue attraction. He does not
attempt to explicate the actuality of sin, which is a voluntary act,
but only its possibility.1
If the tendencies of philosophy on the continent were towards
idealism, the drift of English philosophy was in the opposite
direction. If, in the one case, a gate was opened that might lead
off in the direction of an ideal pantheism, in the latter case a way
was left open in the direction of materialism. It was the object
of Bacon to cast aside a speculative and conjectural study of
nature, and to turn inquiries into the sure and alone fruitful path
of induction. Instead of taking for a torch to light his way the
idea of final causes, the student was diligently to explore for
secondary or efficient causes. But it was the handling of final
causes in Physics to which Bacon objected, and not in " Meta-
physic," nor did he think. of denying their reality in the scheme
of nature.2 As for theology, he says, it " ought to be derived
from the Word and works of God, and not from the light of
nature or the dictates of reason." 3 "We are to believe His Word,
though we find a reluctation in our reason," just as we obey His
law when our wills are reluctant.4
If the actual influence of Bacon's writings was in favor of an
empirical philosophy, Locke was understood to propound a system
in which this philosophy is formulated. The sources of our knowl
edge are declared to be two, — sensation and reflection, the one a
perception of external phenomena, the other a perception of that
which is within. Of these two fountains of knowledge, sensation
is the first. The mind is like a blank sheet of paper on which are
written the things that are perceived. There are no innate ideas.
But when we proceed with the study of Locke's Essay and exam
ine his Letter to Stillingfleet, we find that it is not his intention to
deny either that intuitions (as of cause and effect, etc.) are from
an inward source, or to call in question their validity. In truth,
both Locke and the advocates of the doctrine of innate ideas failed
1 See Jul. Muller, Lehre v. d. Sunde, Vol. I. p. 578.
« DC Augment. B. III. Works (Boston, 1864), Vol. VIII. p. 508.
« Ibid. B. IX. Vol. IX. p. 334. * Ibid. p. 346.
MODERN THEOLOGY
385
adequately to define their meaning. Locke understands the phrase
to denote ideas of which we are conscious, holding that there are
none others. The Cartesians mean by it simply that the intui
tions are potentially in the mind from the beginning, although not
elicited save on the condition of experience. There is a light
of reason, Locke teaches, or irresistible knowledge which is self-
evident, and on which demonstration is built. There is in us
a faculty enabling us to become conscious of intuitive ideas, a
faculty, also, of finding out the moral differences of actions. He
presents a demonstrative proof of the existence of God, a truth
which he considers to be necessarily inferred from the constitution
of ourselves and of the world. Every step in the process is taken
with an intuitive certainty. All this stands in at least a verbal
inconsistency with the fundamental statements relative to the
origin of our knowledge. It was these statements which furnished
Condillac and other pure empiricists with the premises for their
arguments.
After Locke the two principal English philosophers in the eigh
teenth century were Berkeley and Hume. Their systems stand
in a near relation to theology. Reid, the founder of the Scottish
metaphysical school, sought to reestablish the foundations of
knowledge which the speculations of Hume had rendered inse
cure.
Locke had taught that all our knowledge is of " ideas," but
" ideas " he had not undertaken fully or accurately to define.
They are another term for sense-perceptions or perceptions of
mental phenomena. The primary qualities of matter are what
we perceive them to be. There are two essential principles in
Berkeley's system.1 In the first place, in opposition to Locke,
who was a conceptualist, he was a nominalist. Abstractions are
not objects of thought. We cannot represent them. It is only
things in the concrete that we can perceive. Secondly, the per
ception of the primary qualities of matter is as purely subjective
as the perception of the secondary qualities, — color, taste, etc.
Matter as an object independent of percipient subjects does not
exist. Ideas are the only objects which exist. There is no evi
dence of the existence of any beings but spirits, finite minds and
1 For Berkeley's teaching, see Prof. A. C. Eraser's excellent edition of the
Works of Berkeley, 4 vols. (1871), and Professor Eraser's Life and Letters of
Berkley.
1C
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the infinite mind. To God alone can we refer the origin of the
ideas which are evidently not the product of our own minds. He
is their author and cause. The world is a world of ideas, and the
order of their occurrence, through the divine agency, is what is
meant by the laws of nature. To get rid of brute matter, and to
have left only a universe of spirits, removed, in Berkeley's judg
ment, a prime source and support of Deism. He does not exam
ine into the validity of the ideas of cause and substance. This is
taken for granted. The principal work of Berkeley in opposition
to the free-thinkers is the Minute Philosopher, which was published
in 1732. It is in the form of a dialogue. In this noble compo
sition the author combats, through his own method, the different
types of infidelity current at the time. Berkeley's conception of
the nature of religion was more spiritual than that which was
prevalent in his day. Under his view of nature, all nature is the
manifestation of God. There is an inward light of God's grace
which, not less than reason and authority, is the source of
Christian belief.
Hume did not advocate nor dispute the reality of external
things. His philosophical skepticism struck deeper. It under
mined the common beliefs respecting the reality of aught save
observed phenomena — the objects of external and internal obser
vation, or, in the Lockeian phrase, of "sensation and reflection."
Hume subtracted substance and cause from the catalogue of
things known. The notion of cause is the product of customary
association. When one event is always noticed to be accom
panied by another, — for example, a sensation of burning when
there is contact with fire, — we involuntarily expect this concomi
tance. This necessity of expectation is carried over, without
warrant, to the external phenomena. An imaginary tie of neces
sity is attributed to antecedent and consequent. Pushing forward
in this scrutiny, Hume eliminates from things known to be, the
soul as a thinking substance, an ego, and the Supreme Being.
Hume's Natural History of Religion appeared in 1757, and his
Dialogues concerning Natural Religion in 1779, after his death.
In the Dialogues, the arguments for the being of God, beginning
with the ontological proof, are the object of a searching analysis.
The argument of design is alleged to fail, first, as being anthropo
morphic in its character, the world being an effect not to be set
in analogy with the products of human art ; and secondly, as only
MODERN THEOLOGY 387
proving, if conceded to be valid, a Creator of limited power.
In an essay on " Providence and a Future State," Hume pursues
this same argument, applying it, also, to the doctrine of a moral
government of the world, which, it is said, can only be established
by assumptions as to a future state, not justified by the observed
facts. In the Natural History of Religion, it is argued, from the
point of view of the skeptic, that polytheism was the earliest form
of religion, that monotheism is the product of the elevation of a
favorite deity by his adoring worshippers, and that the constant
tendency is to revert to a polytheistic faith by imagining mediators
in other inferior deities. Religion originates in the natural habit
to refer events that affect our happiness to unknown causes which
the imagination personifies. In the Essf^ on Miracles, the design
is, not to question the possibility of a miracle, but to show that
it is impossible to prove one. Belief is founded on experience.
We have had no experience of the " transgression " of natural
laws. We have had experience of the falsehood of testimony.
Weighed in the scales, therefore, the improbability of the alleged
event outweighs the improbability that the testimony, however
accumulated, is, for one reason or another, false. Hume endeav
ored to fortify his reasoning by reference to the testimony for the
alleged Jansenist miracles at the tomb of the Abbe" Paris. The
replies to this ingenious essay were numerous, and did not always
hit the mark. Apart from the assumption that belief is founded
wholly on experience, Hume departs from his own principles in
assuming that experience is all adverse to the recurrence of a
miracle. The evidence of such an assertion, as J. S. Mill points
out, " is diminished in force by whatever weight belongs to the
evidence that certain miracles have taken place." Moreover, the
further assumption is that there is no God with moral ends in
view, which a miracle in conceivable circumstances might pro
mote. The argument deals with a naked miracle, cut off from
all consideration of any special use or design.
Reid assumes the immediate knowledge of fundamental axioms.
Proof of them there is none. They are the basis of all proof.
Among them is the principle that the qualities of external things,
which are perceived immediately, inhere in a subject or substance,
and that the same is true of our thoughts. The freedom of the
will is another basal principle, under a different class. Still an
other of the same kind is that what is to occur in nature will
388
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
probably be like what has previously occurred in similar circum
stances.
The Philosophy of Hume was a destructive assault upon the
main position of the Deists respecting the origin of all religions
save what they called "the religion of nature." On the other
hand, not only by its criticism of the basis of positive belief in
general, but also by its dealing with the proofs of the Christian
creed in particular, it presented to Christian Apologists problems
of the gravest consequence.
Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, had published (in 1736) his
Analogy — the Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to
the Constitution and Course of Nature. It is sometimes said
that Hume, especially in his Essay on Providence, successfully
answered Butler. In reality Hume's reasoning does not touch
the proposition of the Analogy. Butler's argument is directed
against Deists, and takes for granted that which they concede.
He undertakes to prove that if there is a likeness between the
known course of nature and the system of religion, natural and
revealed, objections to the latter cannot be drawn from anything
similar in the former, " which is acknowledged to be from Him."
He takes it "for proved that there is an intelligent Author of
Nature and natural Governor of the world." Butler establishes
what he sets out to establish. A more sweeping and radical
skepticism, of course, requires to be met in another way.1
Next to Butler, the most famous of the English Apologists in
this period was Paley. He was not, like Butler, an original
thinker, but he was possessed of remarkable tact and common
sense, and for lucidity of style is almost unrivalled. In the Horcz
PaiilincB he pointed out undesigned coincidences between the
Acts and the Epistles, proving the authenticity of all these writ
ings. In his Evidences of Christianity he marshals, in the most
perspicuous and orderly manner, the proofs from testimony of the
miracles recorded in the Gospels. To the external argument from
miracles is given the leading place in the discussion. The Natural
Theology is the last in the order of time of this series of works. It
is a statement and illustration of the argument of design, the illus
trations of it being drawn mainly from human and comparative
1 In his 22d year (1713), Butler corresponded with Clark respecting his
Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, and was convinced by his
arguments.
MODERN THEOLOGY
389
anatomy. It is true that the progress of natural science modifies
the form, although it does not lessen, but rather increases, the
force of the teleological argument. Our attention is turned more
to the general order and progress of nature than to particular
specimens of contrivance. Yet an examination of Paley will show
that he anticipates the hypothesis of evolution and the theory
of indefinite, fortuitous variation, and shapes his argument accord
ingly. In his theological opinions Paley may be called a latitudi-
narian, although in his whole cast of thought he was at a wide
remove from the school bearing that name.
The most learned contribution to Christian evidences was made
by Nathaniel Lardner, a Unitarian in his creed, an indefatigable
student, whose Credibility of the Gospel History, a thesaurus of
the testimonies of antiquity, was published in its different parts
at intervals from 1727 to 1755.
The three principal writers on ethics in England, in the last
century, were Butler, Price, and Paley. Butler's ethical doctrines
are found in his Dissertation on Virtue and in his Sermons on
Human Nature. He teaches that self-love and benevolence —
or altruism, to use the phrase now in vogue — are native, consti
tutional principles. Conscience is the regulative principle, defin
ing their due proportion to one another and binding to its ob
servance. Equal love to self and to one's neighbor and supreme
love to God are the sum of duty. Veracity and justice are some
times treated as forms or branches of benevolence. Elsewhere it
is intimated that they are virtues parallel with it, and independent.
Price maintained that right is a simple idea, not to be resolved
into constituents. Paley taught in his Moral Philosophy the utili
tarian doctrine. Virtue is defined as the " doing good to man
kind in obedience to the will of God, and for the sake of
everlasting happiness." The sentence is stamped with Paley 's
characteristic way of thinking as a theologian. Paley makes the
springs of virtue to be in self-love. At the opposite pole stands
Hutcheson, who identifies virtue with general benevolence, which
must enter into every action that partakes of virtue.
The interval between the accession of Anne, in 1714, and the
death of George II., in 1760, is a period in the religious history
of England to which neither Churchmen nor Dissenters can look
back without shame and regret. The efforts at comprehension
made by Tillotson and his school after the Revolution were baffled
390
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
by the resolute intolerance of the High Churchmen and by the
fear of a division in the Church itself. Puritanism had lost not
only a great part of its influence, but also a great part of its vigor.
A prevalent indifference and skepticism, the spread of vice, partly
a heritage from the last Stuart kings, and the ignorance of the
clergy, did not lessen a whit the acrimony of ecclesiastical dis
putes. Convocation was reduced to silence in 1717, and until
1854 was not again allowed to transact business. After the middle
of the century the state of things, as regards education and prac
tical religion, only gradually improved. What was the condition
of the universities in the period may be learned from such books
as the autobiography of Gibbon, who was matriculated at Magda
len College in 1752. Bishop Burnet, in 1713, wrote of those who
came to be ordained as follows : " They can give no account, or
at least a very imperfect one, of the contents even of the Gospels,
or of the Catechism itself." Bishop Butler, in the Preface to the
Analogy, remarks that it had come to be taken for granted " that
Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry ; but that it is
now at length discovered to be fictitious." In 1751, in a charge,
he affirms the deplorable distinction of the age to be " an
avowed scorn of religion in some and a growing disregard of it
in the generality." The dark picture is somewhat relieved when
we see on the canvas such figures as Doddridge and Watts among
the Nonconformists, and Bishop Wilson, the author of Sacra
Privata, among the Churchmen. William Law was the writer
who, more than any other, promoted a spiritual awakening. By
his Serious Call, Dr. Johnson was first aroused " to thinking in
earnest on religion." Besides his influence in promoting piety,
he was an acute defender of theism and of the truth of Christian
miracles. His mystical tendencies, fostered by the influence of
Bohme, induced a change which led him to look on the inward
life and the inward light as the real verification of Christianity,
and to make the office of Christ to be principally the conquest of
evil of every sort, and the impartation of a new life to his fol
lowers. He did not come, says Law, " to quiet an angry Deity."
Into the details of the history of the great Methodist Revival
we cannot here enter. It is only of its relation to the history of
doctrine that we have here to speak. If Whitefield was the most
persuasive and eloquent preacher of the early Methodists, John
Wesley was incomparably the greatest man. He was a trained
MODERN THEOLOGY
391
scholar, as well as an effective preacher, and he was an organizer,
in this respect on a level with the most renowned leaders of the
mediaeval monastic orders. He was born in 1703 and died in
1791. Wesley, with his brother Charles, and the others of the
group of young men at Oxford who originated the Methodist
movement, was at the outset a High Churchman and a ritualist.
There is a striking resemblance between these young Oxford
Methodists and the leaders of the modern Oxford movement.
But there entered into Wesley's mind and experience two potent
differentiating elements. There was in him, as in his associates, a
burning evangelistic zeal ; and in his religious experience he was
pretty early brought to a living apprehension of the Pauline doctrine
of justification by faith alone. At first he fed on mystical and devo
tional writings. He was devoted to Law and his books ; he read
with deep sympathy Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living and Dying ; he
was a disciple of Thomas a Kempis, whose Imitation of Christ was
one of the first books which he caused to be published. He was
long a seeker for inward religious peace. He came into intimate
relations with the Moravians, and his relation to Spangenberg and
others may remind one of Luther's relation to mystical teachers.
There was a great change in Wesley's inward life, a change that
gave character to his subsequent career, when, on the 28th of
May, 1738, at a meeting of a Moravian society in London, he
listened to a reading of Luther's Preface to his Commentary on
the Romans. There entered into his soul, as by a flash of light,
a joyful assurance that his sins were freely forgiven. After this
time William Law's teaching seemed to him quite inadequate.
He pronounced upon it a too harsh judgment. He parted by
degrees from the Moravians, partly because their teachers in Lon
don at that time inculcated ideas concerning justification — such
as that " weak faith is no faith " — which he denied. In truth,
the leaven of quietism in the Moravian Christians with whom he
had consorted in London, was now foreign to his convictions.
Wesley was not only conversant with devout writers and cer
tain mystical teachers; he had acquainted himself with the
ancient Greek theology. He had studied Chrysostom. He was
an Arminian in his creed. On this point Whitefield, who was a
devoted Calvinist, parted company with him, and was the leader
of the Calvinistic Methodists in England. Wesley's antagonism
to the Calvinistic doctrine of election and its correlate of exclusive
392 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
divine agency in conversion was intense, and remained so through
his life.1 It is natural to ask how it was that the evangelical
Arminianism of Wesley was so different in its tone and its practi
cal effect from the Arminianism of Holland and the same system
as held by its English advocates contemporary with him. In
the first place, the Dutch Arminianism was early modified by
Socinian and other Pelagian elements. The central point in
Wesley's creed was always justification by faith alone. Secondly,
in Wesley it was not valued predominantly as an ethical theory,
but as being identified, according to his view, with the interests of
practical religion. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit, of His indis
pensable agency in conversion and sanctification, was never dis
placed or lowered in the Wesleyan creed. This faith in the living
power of the Holy Spirit, not anything ascribed to unaided human
agency, was the secret of the emphasis which was laid on Assur
ance as a privilege attainable by all believers. From the same
source sprang the Wesleyan doctrine of Perfection. All believers
may attain to a perfection, which, however, is not a legal, but
a Christian, perfection. It is a state where love to God and
man reigns continuously, where there are no presumptuous sins,
yet where there are still involuntary negligences and ignorances,
transgressions of the perfect law, for which, therefore, forgive
ness, through the Atonement, is requisite.
Wesley holds to an inherited corruption, which, however, of
itself does not involve the desert of eternal condemnation. We
are implicated in the guilt of Adam's sin — how, Wesley does not
distinctly explain.2 Fletcher favors the realistic hypothesis. Wat
son seems to adopt the federal theory.3 But the Wesleyan doc
trine is that the remedial system, dating from the fall of man, is
provided not only as a dictate of divine goodness, but also as
required by divine justice in case the race is to be continued in
being. The Atonement is a provision under the moral govern
ment of God. It is a governmental provision, not a literal
satisfaction of the claims of law. It is universal in its design.
Regenerating grace is the primary and principal agent in conver
sion, but grace is not irresistible. The unregenerate who will pray
1 See, for example, his " Sermon on Free Grace," Works, Vol. I., Sermon
LIV., and his Controversy with Toplady.
2 Works, Vol. V. pp. 526, 535, 577. Cf. Miley, Syst. Theol. II. 506.
*Ibid. Vol. I. p. 284; Vol. III. pp. 255-257. Cf. Miley, II. 507.
MODERN THEOLOGY 393
for the Spirit, under a sense of their own inability and looking
upward for help, will be blessed with the needed aid from above,
The Wesleyan theology insists on the Gospel being a free gift
which is intended equally for all, and on a freedom of decision as
to the acceptance of it, along with the absolute necessity of regen
erating grace. Whatever may be thought of this combination,
logically considered, it constituted in the hands of the Wesleyan
ministry a most effective instrument in the propagation of Chris
tianity.
There were defenders of Calvinism, in the Church of England,
in the eighteenth century. Of their number were Toplady, and
Thomas Scott (1747-1821), whose chief distinction was that of a
commentator. Ridgley, Watts, and Doddridge, advocates of Cal
vinism, were dissenters. Nominalistic philosophy and a theory of
individualism had now fully superseded the Augustinian concep
tion of race-unity. It is evident that the writers named above are
struggling with difficulties on the subject of Original Sin and of
Election, which they are conscious of an inability to overcome.
They retreat upon the idea of a lessened and qualified responsi
bility for the sin of Adam. Solutions are suggested only to be
given up, or confessed to be inadequate. Election, according to
Doddridge, secures such an influence of God on the hearts of the
elect that their salvation " should on the whole be ascribed to him
and not to themselves." Watts, it may be observed, in addition to
a like half-hearted, apologetic tone in reference to sin and election,
propounds a peculiar opinion on the person of Christ. He holds
to the preexistence of His human nature, which was the first of
created beings, and had existed in a mysterious, ineffable union
with God the Father. Under the assaults of the champions of
Arminian theology, prominent among whom were Whitby and Dr.
John Taylor of Norwich, the Calvinistic line — if so it can be
called even metaphorically — reeled and seemed anxious chiefly
to avoid a complete rout.
CHAPTER n
THEOLOGY IN AMERICA IN THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CEN
TURIES THEOLOGY OF THE FIRST SETTLERS JONATHAN EDWARDS
AND HIS SCHOOL (" THE NEW ENGLAND THEOLOGY ") THE RISE
OF UNITARIANISM : CHANNING, EMERSON, PARKER — THE RISE OF
UNIVERSALISM NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL
THE THEOLOGY OF HORACE BUSHNELL THE THEOLOGY OF
HENRY B. SMITH CALVINISM IN THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH:
CHARLES HODGE
THE settlers of New England were strict Calvinists. Calvinism
was the creed of John Robinson, the pastor of the Leyden Church,
from which the Pilgrims came over to Plymouth. It was the com
mon faith of the colonists who planted the other New England
communities, and adopted the Congregational polity. So it con
tinued to be through the seventeenth century. A writing of
William Pynchon, of Springfield, — The Meritorious Price of
Chris fs Redemption, etc., — presenting a view of the Atonement,
which is not essentially diverse from the governmental theory, was
condemned in 1650 by the General Court, the Colonial Legisla
ture of Massachusetts, and burned in the market-place in Boston.
By direction of the Court, it was answered by John Norton, a
minister of Boston. In 1648, the "Cambridge Platform" was
adopted by a Massachusetts synod. It sanctioned the West
minster Confession "for the substance thereof." The Savoy
Confession, which the English Congregationalists had adopted in
1658, was essentially the same as to doctrine as the Westminster
creed. It was adopted, with slight changes, by the Boston Synod of
1680. This creed of 1680 was approved by the Saybrook Synod
in Connecticut in 1708. But there was an increasing intercourse
and interchange of thought with the " mother country." The
eighteenth century brought in the Arminian theology, which had
394
MODERN THEOLOGY 395
spread among Dissenters as well as Churchmen in England. The
Arminian writers, Whitby, John Taylor, Dr. Samuel Clark, were
imported and read. What was called Arminianism, coupled with
tendencies toward Arian and Socinian opinions, gradually super
seded the old creed in the minds and in the teachings of many,
especially in eastern New England. The same decline of earnest
ness in practical religion, which prevailed in England, was expe
rienced on this side of the Atlantic. The " Great Awakening,"
which began about 1740, was accompanied by the advocacy of
Calvinistic doctrines and attacks upon Arminianism. The leaders
in the Revival were aided in preaching by the eloquence of White-
field. Jonathan Edwards, to whom he looked up with admiring
reverence, was not only an eminent preacher ; he was the theo
logian of the movement. He was the originator of that modified
Calvinism which is termed " New England Theology."
It is pretty clearly implied in a remark of Dugald Stewart that
up to his time Jonathan Edwards was the only philosopher of note
that America had produced. "He," it is added, "in logical
acuteness and subtilty, does not yield to any disputant bred in
the universities of Europe."1 "The foundation of the literature
of independent America," writes F. D. Maurice, speaking of
Edwards's treatise on the Will, " was laid in a book which was
published while it was a subject of the British crown." 2 Edwards
is an example of that rare mingling of intellectual subtilty and
spiritual insight, of logical acumen with mystical fervor, which
qualify their possessor for the highest achievements in the field of
religious thought. In this respect, he resembles Augustine, and
the typical leaders of Scholasticism, Anselm and Aquinas. Let
any competent student take up Edwards's work on the Will, and
mark the keen, unrelenting logic with which he pursues his oppo
nents through all the intricate windings of that perplexed contro
versy, and then turn to the same author's sermon on the Nature
and Reality of Spiritual Light, or to his book on the Affections.
It is like passing from the pages of Aristotle to a sermon of
Tauler ; only that Edwards knows how to analyze the experiences
of the heart, and to use them as data for scientific conclusions.
He has left a record of meditations on " the beauty and sweet
ness " of diyine things, when even the whole face of nature was
1 Stewart's Works (Hamilton's ed.), Vol. I. p. 424.
* Modern Philosophy, p. 469.
396 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
transfigured to his vision. We see this cool dialectician, whose
power of subtile argument Sir James Mackintosh pronounces to
have been "perhaps unmatched, certainly unsurpassed, among
men," l overcome by the emotions excited by the contemplation
of the spiritual excellence of Christ. Edwards may be ranked
with Pascal as an example of precocious mental development.
He entered Yale College when he was not yet thirteen. It was
while he was a member of college that he committed to writing
philosophical remarks that would do credit to the ablest and
maturest mind. At the age of twelve, he wrote a letter, which
is really a well-reasoned scientific paper, on the habits of the
spider, as ascertained from his own singularly accurate observa
tions.2 His copious Notes on physics and natural science, which
afford a striking proof of his intellectual grasp and versatility, were
written, at least in great part, before he left college. But besides
the composition of these, he began, under the head of Mind,
a series of metaphysical definitions and discussions, which, as
emanating from a boy of sixteen or seventeen, are surprising. In
them may be found the germs of much that is developed after
wards in his theological writings. A large part of these juvenile
papers are devoted to the elucidation and defence of what is known
as the Berkeleian doctrine that the percepts of sense have no exist
ence independently of mind ; that, although they are not origi
nated by us, but by a power without, that power is not a material
substance or substratum, but the will of God acting in a uniform
method.3 The popular objections to the Berkeleian theory are
stated accurately, and are answered. Thus the way is open for the
conclusion, which Edwards considers to be the truth, that there
are only spiritual beings or substances in the universe. There is
not wanting evidence of a continued adherence of Edwards to this
opinion. In the treatise on " Original Sin," one of his latest compo
sitions and a posthumous publication, this remark occurs : " The
course of nature is demonstrated by late improvements in phi
losophy to be indeed what our author himself says it is, viz.,
nothing but the established order of the agency and operation
of the Author of nature." 4 Here it is altogether probable that
1 Progress of Ethical Philosophy, p. 108 (Philadelphia ed. 1832).
1 In Dwight's Life of Edwards, c. ii.
8 Ibid. pp. 669, 674.
4 Dwight's ed. Vol. II. p. 540.
MODERN THEOLOGY 397
the reference is to the philosophy of Berkeley. With this passage
may be compared inqidental statements on perception, in the
treatise on the Will, which, however, do not go so far as neces
sarily to imply the Berkeleian theory.1
Locke is the author whose stimulating influence on Edwards is
most obvious. He read Locke when he was fourteen years old,
with a delight greater, to use his own words, " than the most
greedy miser finds when gathering up handfuls of silver and gold
from some newly discovered treasure." 2 Yet he read Locke with
independence, and not only pursued a theological direction quite
opposite to that of his master, but not unfrequently dissents from
his opinions and replies to his arguments. Of his relation to
Locke we shall soon have occasion to revert.
Edwards felt assured that the reasoning of the current Arminian
writers was erroneous and weak. He was quite confident that it
could be overthrown with ease. He was offended by the air of
invincibility which they seemed to him to assume. He went to
the heart of the controversy when, in 1754, he published his
Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions
of Freedom of Will.
An examination of the work shows that it is to Locke's chapter
on Power that the author was most indebted for quickening sug
gestions. This discussion, as we are explicitly informed, caused
him to perceive that an evil man may properly be said to have a
natural or physical ability to be good. Locke anticipates Edwards
in combating the proposition that choice springs from a previous
state of indifference, an absolute neutrality of feeling, either pre
ceding the act of judgment or interposed between that act and
the act of will. Locke's conception of liberty as relating exclu
sively to the effects of choice, or events consecutive to volition,
and not to the origination of choice itself, is precisely coincident
with that of Edwards. " Freedom," says Locke, " consists in the
dependence of the existence, or non-existence, of any action upon
our volition of it." Locke asserts that the question whether the
will itself be free or not is unreasonable and unintelligible ; and
he precedes Edwards in seeking to fasten upon one who asks
whether a man is free to choose in a particular way rather than
in the opposite, the absurdity of assuming the possibility of an
infinite series of choices, or of inquiring whether an identical
1 Dwight's ed. Vol. II. pp. 206, 207. a Dwight's Life^ p. 30.
398
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
proposition is true. " To choose as one pleases," if one does not
mean " to choose as one chooses to chopse " — which involves
the absurdity of a series of choices ad infinitum — can only mean
"to choose as one actually chooses," a futile identical proposition.
In the psychology of the act of choice there is no essential differ
ence between Locke and Edwards. Both represent the mind as
perpetually moved by the desire of good. Locke's invariable
antecedent of choice, " uneasiness of desire," or last dictate of
the understanding as to good or happiness, does not differ from
Edwards's " view of the mind as to the greatest apparent good."
In one grand peculiarity they coincide : will and sensibility are
confounded. The twofold division of the powers of the mind
still prevailed in philosophy. We are endued with understanding
and will; and mental phenomena which do not belong to the
understanding are relegated to the will. The principal inconsist
ency of Edwards in his discussions of this subject, in his various
writings, is the failure persistently to identify or persistently to
distinguish voluntary and involuntary inclinations. Inclination
and choice are treated as indistinguishable,1 and yet the one is
spoken of as the antecedent and cause of the other. The ambi
guity of " inclination " and of its synonyms has been a fruitful
source of confusion. It was reserved for the metaphysicians of
the present century to establish the bounds between sensibility,
an involuntary function, and will. It is important, however, not
to overlook the distinction between those choices which are perma
nent states of the will, and constitute the abiding principles of
character and motives of action, and the subsidiary purposes and
volitions which they dictate. It is right to add that, however
Edwards may have owed to Locke pregnant hints on the subject
of the will, these fell into the richest soil ; and the doctrine of
philosophical necessity was elaborated and fortified by the younger
writer with a much more rigid logic and a far wider sweep of
argument than can be claimed for Locke's discussion. Locke
modified his opinions from one edition to another ; and his cor
respondence with Limborch discloses the fact that he was him
self not satisfied with the views of the subject which he had
presented in his work. The conviction of Edwards, on the other
hand, was attended by no misgivings, and stayed with him to the
end of life.
1 See, e.g., Vol. V. pp. IO, II.
MODERN THEOLOGY
399
There are striking resemblances between statements and argu
ments in Edwards's book on the Will and passages in Hobbes and
Collins. Edwards incidentally remarks that he had never read
Hobbes, and the same is probably true respecting Collins.1
These coincidences between Edwards and the authors above
named are really not remarkable. The defenders of the doctrine
of necessity naturally take one path. They demand an explana
tion of the determination of the will, so far as it involves the
election of one thing in preference to another. They deny that
the mere power of willing accounts for the specification of the
choice, by which one thing is taken and another rejected. Tak
ing this weapon, the axiom of cause and effect, they chase their
opponents out of every place of refuge. Edwards is peculiar only
in the surpassing keenness and unsparing persistency with which
he carries on the combat, even anticipating defences against his
logic which had not been as yet set up. He was anxious to de
molish forts even before they were erected. His habit of taking
up all conceivable objections to the proposition which he advo
cates, in advance of the opponent, is one main source of his
strength as a disputant. He not only fires his own gun, but
spikes that of the enemy.
Of course it is far from being true that Edwards was the first to
assert the impropriety of the term ' necessary ' as a predicate of
acts of will, on the ground that ' necessity ' presupposes an opposi
tion of the will which, of course, is precluded when the occurrence
in question is itself a choice. I am constrained to that to which
my will is opposed, but which nevertheless occurs. That is nec
essary "which choice cannot prevent."2 The same objection
is made to the terms ' irresistible,' 'unavoidable,' ' inevitable,'
'unable,' and their synonyms, as descriptive of the determina
tions of the will. If Augustine does not use the above-mentioned
terms in an explicit form, yet there lurks continually under his
statements the feeling that underlies this criticism ; as, for in
stance, when he speaks of " the most blessed necessity " of not
sinning, under which the Deity is placed, " if necessity it is to be
called," — "si necessitas dicenda est."3 But the objection to all
1 See Hobbes's Works (Molesworth's ed.), Vol. II. pp. 247, 410, and
Collins's Inquiry, pp. 2, 41, 58, 59, 83 sq.
2 Edwards's Works, Vol. II. p. 84.
• Op. imp. I. 103.
4OQ HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
terms implying coercion, especially to the word ' necessity,' is set
forth by Thomas Aquinas as clearly as by Edwards.1
It is the doctrine of Edwards, then, that the will is determined
by " that view of the mind which has the greatest degree of pre
vious tendency to excite volition." 2 This antecedent mental
state secures the result by a strictly causal efficiency. Moral
necessity is distinguished from the natural necessity that prevails
in material nature, in that the former is concerned with mental
phenomena, with motives and the volitions which they produce ;
but the difference " does not lie so much in the nature of the
connection, as in the two terms connected." 3 It is cause and effect
in both cases. To the objection that morality and responsibility
are subverted by this doctrine, Edwards replies that men are re
sponsible for their choices, no matter what the causes of them
may be ; that moral quality inheres in the choices themselves, and
not in their causes. As liberty " does not consider anything of the
cause of the choice," 4 so it is with moral accountableness, with
merit and ill-desert. Sufficient that the choice exists in the man as
an operation of will.5 On no other hypothesis than the necessita
rian did Edwards think it possible to hold to the omniscience of
God and His universal providence and government. Principles
which freethinkers maintained for other ends, he defended as the
indispensable foundations of religion.
Edwards, as we have intimated, came forward as the champion
of Calvinism against Whitby and its other English assailants. He
intended " to bring the late objections and outcries against Cal-
vinistic divinity to the test of the strictest reasoning."6 He scat
tered to the winds the loosely defined notions of free-will which
made it include the choosing of choices, and choice from a pre
vious indifference, or apart from all influence of motives. It is not
true that, out of various possible choices, the mind decides upon,
i.e., chooses one. Nor is it true that the act of choice starts into
being independently of inducements. Although his adversaries
must have felt that he took advantage of the infirmities of lan
guage, and confuted what they said rather than what they meant,
yet it is quite untrue that he was guilty of any conscious un
fairness.
1 Summa, Part I. Qu. 5, Art. 4. * Ibid. p. 39; cf. p. 191.
2 Works, Vol. II. p. 25. 5 Ibid. p. 185 sq. (Part IV. § i).
8 Ibid. Vol. II. p. 34. 6 Letter to Erskine, Dwight's Life, p. 497.
MODERN THEOLOGY
4OI
He had no faith in their conception of freedom, however it
might be formulated. But, in prosecuting his purpose, Edwards
set up a philosophy of the will which is not consonant with the
doctrine that had been held by the main body of Augustinian
theologians. It is true that the Wittenberg Reformers, at the
outset, and Calvin, in his earlier writings, especially the Institutes,
pushed predestination to the supralapsarian extreme. The doc
trine of Augustine, however, and the more general doctrine even
of Calvinistic theologians, the doctrine of the Westminster As
sembly's creeds, is that a certain liberty of will ad utrumvis, or
the power of contrary choice, had belonged to the first man, but
had disappeared in the act of transgression, which brought his
will into bondage to evil. It was the common doctrine, too, that
in mankind now, while the will is enslaved as regards religious
obedience, it remains free outside of this province, in all civil and
secular concerns. In this wide domain the power of contrary
choice still subsists. But Edwards's conception of the will admits
of no such distinction. In the room of an acquired slavery of
the will, he teaches a determinism belonging to its very nature.
Freedom is as predicable of men now as of Adam before he
sinned ; of religious morality as of the affairs of worldly business ;
of man as of God. He asserts most emphatically that he holds
men to be possessed now of all the liberty which it is possible to
imagine, or which it ever entered into the heart of any man to
conceive.1 Of course, there can have been no loss of liberty, no
forfeiture of a prerogative once possessed. Philosophical neces
sity belongs to the very nature of the will. Therefore it binds
all spiritual beings alike. This is not the philosophy of Augus
tine or of the Westminster divines. They held to a mutability
of will once belonging to man, but now lost ; to a freedom
pertaining at present to men in one sphere of action, but not
in another.
It is plain that Edwards believed in predestination in the
extreme supralapsarian form. He encloses in the network of
philosophical necessity all intelligent beings. The sovereignty of
God in the realm of choices, as in the realm of matter, and His
omnipresent agency, are fundamental in his creed. Sometimes
he seems to contend for a naked sovereignty, for the exercise and
manifestation, in a certain sphere of pure will. But the impression
1 Letter to Erskine, Dwight's Life, p. 293.
2D
402 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
is elsewhere corrected.1 The Arminian objection that, according
to Calvinism, a sinful man cannot love God, cannot repent, is met
by a denial. He can if he will. If it be asked, can he will, the
question is pronounced to be nonsensical. He is possessed of
conscience and will ; he has a natural ability to do all duty, not
withstanding the certainty that without the operations of grace,
he will not, — that is, notwithstanding his moral inability. The
first is the ground of responsibility ; the second, of dependence.
Both are absolute.
We turn now to the second great subject on which Edwards
entered the lists against the Arminians, for the purpose of recover
ing the ground which Watts, Doddridge, and other half-hearted
apologists for Calvinism seemed to have surrendered. His Doc
trine of Original Sin Defended did not appear until 1758, just
after his death. In this treatise he blinks no difficulties; but,
having established by cogent reasoning and by Scripture, with
appeals to heathen as well as Christian authority, the tremendous
fact of sin, as a universal characteristic of mankind, he endeavors
to prove that men are truly, and not by any legal fiction, judged
to be sinful from the start, and literally guilty of the primal trans
gression. To this end, he seeks to bring the continuance of sin
in the individuals of the race, onward from the beginning of their
personal life, under the familiar law of habit. It is analogous to
the self-perpetuation of any habit which arises from an initial act.
To prove that Adam's act was our act, he launches out into a
bold speculation on the nature of identity. Personal identity, he
asserts, is the effect of the divine will and ordinance. If it con
sists in the sameness of consciousness, that is kept up by divine
acts from moment to moment. If it be thought to consist in the
sameness of substance, even this is due to the perpetual divine
preservation ; and preservation is not to be distinguished from
constantly repeated acts of creation. Our identity is a constituted
identity, dependent upon the creative will, and in this sense arbi
trary, yet conformed to an idea of order. So the individuals of
the human race are the continuation of Adam; they truly — that
is, by the will and appointment of God — constitute one moral
whole. It is strictly true that all participated in the act by which
1 See remarks of Prof. E. C. Smyth in the Andaver Review, March, 1890,
in review of observations of Professor Allen {Life of Edwards, pp. 59, 60^
297).
MODERN THEOLOGY 403
" the species first rebelled against God." l We are not con
demned for another's evil choice, but for our own, and the prin
ciple of sin within us is only the natural consequence of that
original act. Time counts for nothing : the first rising of evil
inclination in us is one and the same with the first rising of evil
inclination in Adam ; it is the members participating in, and con
senting to, the act of the head. The habit of sinning follows
upon this first rising of evil inclination, in us as in Adam. Such
is the constitution of things ; and on the divine constitution, the
persistence of individuality, of personal consciousness and iden
tity, equally depends. It is to be noticed that, in defence of his
theory, Edwards does not lay hold of the traducian hypothesis of
the evolution of souls. He admits that souls are created ; but so
are consciousness and the substance of our individual being at
every successive instant of time. Like Anselm, and the School
men generally, he is a creationist. It is evident that Locke's
curious chapter on Identity and Diversity2 put Edwards on the
track on which he advanced to these novel opinions. Locke there
attempts to prove that sameness of consciousness is the sole bond
of identity, and that identity would remain were consciousness dis
joined from one substance and connected with another. Edwards's
opinion is peculiar to himself, but there is no reason to doubt that
the initial impulse to the reflections that issued in it was imparted
by the discussion of Locke. Is an influence of Berkeley as well as
of Locke to be assumed in Edwards's speculation? It is really
the application of the Berkeleian idea to the mind — a step which
of course Berkeley himself had not thought of taking.3
The ethical theory of Edwards is propounded in his masterly
1 Edwards's Works, Vol. II. p. 543. 2 Locke's Essay, B. II. c. 27.
3 Professor Fraser, in his ed. of Berkeley's Writings (Vol. I. p. 179, n. 91),
says : " In several of his writings Edwards approaches the peculiar doctrines
of Berkeley regarding the material world. It is worthy of note that when
Berkeley was in Rhode Island, Edwards was settled in Massachusetts." See,
also, Vol. II. p. 155 n. An elaborate paper from the pen of Prof. E. C. Smyth,
published in the Proceedings of the Am. Antiq. Soc. (1895), discusses the " Early
Writings of Jonathan Edwards, 1714-1726." Professor Smyth writes after a
careful study of the manuscripts. His conclusion is adverse to the supposi
tion that Edwards had read Berkeley. " From across the waters," says Pro
fessor Smyth, " the minds that were most stirring his own were, in physics,
Sir Isaac Newton's; in philosophy, Locke's." The paper referred to is
highly instructive respecting the dates and chronological relation of these
early writings of Edwards.
404 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
treatise on the " Nature of True Virtue." He does not content him
self, as philosophers before him had so often done, with the inquiry,
What is the abstract quality of virtue, or the foundation of moral ob
ligation? but he sets forth the nature of virtue in the concrete, or the
principle of goodness. This he finds to be benevolence, or love to
intelligent being. It is love to the entire society of intelligent beings
according to their rank, or, to use his phrase, "the amount of being"
which belongs to them. It is thus a proportionate love ; supreme
and absolute as regards God, limited as regards inferior beings.
Under this conception, ethics and religion are inseparably con
nected. True love to man is love to him as being, or as having
being in himself, and is indissolubly connected, if it be real and
genuine, with a proportionately greater love to God. This benev
olence, which embraces in itself all goodness, is the fountain and
essence of specific virtues. It is described as a propensity to
being, a union of heart to intelligent being, a consent to being,
which prompts one to seek the welfare of the objects loved. It
is not synonymous with delight in the happiness of others, but is
the spring of that delight. Now, he who actually exercises this
love delights in the same love when it is seen in others ; and this
delight induces and involves an additional love to them, the love
of complacency. There is a spiritual beauty in benevolence
which is perceived only through experience. The relish which
this beauty excites and gratifies is possible only to him who is
himself benevolent. There is a rectitude in benevolence, a fitness
to the nature of the soul and the nature of things ; and the per
ception of this rectitude awakens the sense of obligation, and
binds all men to be benevolent. The natural conscience makes
a man uneasy " in the consciousness of doing that to others which
he should be angry with them for doing to him, if they were in
his case, and he in theirs." This feeling may be resolved into a
consciousness of being inconsistent with himself, of a disagreement
with his own nature. With the feeling of approbation and disap
probation, there is joined a sense of desert, which consists in a
natural agreement, proportion, and harmony between malevolence
or injury and resentment and punishment. An essential element
in Edwards's whole theory is this double excellence of universal
love : first, a Tightness recognized by all men, whether they be
good or bad ; and a peculiar, transcendent beauty revealed only
to the good, or on the condition of the exercise of love as a prac-
MODERN THEOLOGY
405
tical principle. Of the natural conscience in its relation to love he
says : " Although it sees not, or rather does not taste its primary
and essential beauty, i.e., it tastes no sweetness in benevolence
to being in general, simply considered, for nothing but general
benevolence itself can do that ; yet this natural conscience, common
to mankind, may approve it from that uniformity, equality, and jus
tice, which there is in it ; and the demerit which is seen in the
contrary, consisting in the natural agreement between the con
trary, and being hated of being-in-general." l The moral sense
which is common to all men, and the spiritual sense which belongs
to the benevolent, may be called sentiments ; but not with the
idea that they are merely subjective or arbitrary, and not corre
spondent to the objective reality. The quality of Tightness and
the quality of spiritual beauty inhere in love as intrinsic attributes.
By means of this distinction between the intrinsic rectitude and
the spiritual beauty of the virtuous principle, Edwards built up
a foundation for his doctrine of spiritual light, or for that mystical
side which has been pointed out in his character and in his con
ception of religion. The reaction of benevolence against its oppo
site as being unrighteous and offensive to the sense of spiritual
beauty, and as an injury to the beings on whom benevolence fixes
its regard, is a form of hatred. This hatred on the part of God
and of all benevolent beings toward " the statedly and irreclaim-
ably evil " inspires a feeling of satisfaction in their punishment.
Those descriptions in Edwards of the sufferings of incorrigible
evil-doers in the future world, and of the contentment of the
righteous at beholding them, which grate on the sensibility of
most of the present generation, he felt no difficulty in reconciling
with the doctrine that impartial and universal love is the essence
of virtue.
The disinterested love which is identical with virtue is the an-
tipode of self-love. If self-love signifies nothing but a man's loving
what is pleasing to him, this is only to say that he loves what he
loves ; since, with Edwards, loving an object is synonymous with
being pleased with it. It is " the same thing as a man's having a
faculty of will." '* But the proper meaning of self-love is regard
to self in distinction from others, or regard to some private inter
est. Edwards undertakes to resolve all particular affections which
do not involve a regard to universal being, and a willingness that the
1 Works, Vol. III. p. 132. 2 Ibid. Vol. III. p. 118.
406
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
subordinate interest should give way whenever it competes with the
rights and the interests of the whole, into self-love. This is true of
habits of feeling and actions that are done at the dictate of natu
ral conscience, which may be looked upon " as in some sort aris
ing from self-love, or self-union," or the uneasy consciousness of
being inconsistent with one's self. The most questionable feature
in Edwards's whole theory is the position to which the natural
perception of right and sense of moral obligation are reduced, in
order to exalt the sense of spiritual beauty as the one necessary
attendant of true virtue. But he is not justly chargeable with dis
placing the particular affections — love of family, patriotism, and
the like — although Robert Hall thinks that Godwin built up his
ethical notions on the reasoning of Edwards, as Godwin avowedly
leaned upon Edwards in his exposition of liberty and necessity.1
In the dissertation on " God's Chief End in Creation," which,
like the essay on the " Nature of True Virtue," was posthumous,
Edwards " o'erleaped these earthly bounds," and sought to unveil
the motive of the Deity in calling the universe into being. He rejects
every notion of an indigence, insufficiency, and mutability in God,
or any dependence of the Creator on the creature for any part of
His perfection or happiness. Every pantheistic hypothesis of this
nature he repels. God must be conceived of as estimating the
sum total of His own excellence at its real worth. This regard for
His glory, or His glorious perfections, not because they are His, but
for their own sake, is not an unworthy feeling or motive to action.
The disposition to communicate the infinite fulness of good which
inheres eternally in Himself, ad extra, is an original property of
His nature. This incited Him to create the world. That His attri
butes should be exerted and should be known and esteemed, and
become a source of joy to other beings, is fit and proper. His
delight in His creatures does not militate against His independence,
since the creation emanates from Himself, and this delight may be
resolved into a delight in Himself. In God, the love of Himself
and the love of the public are not to be distinguished as in man,
" because God's being, as it were, comprehends all." Nor is it
selfish in Him to seek for the holiness and happiness of the creat
ure, out of supreme regard to Himself, or from the esteem which
He has for that excellence, a portion of which He imparts to them,
1 Compare Hall's Works (Bohn's ed.), p. 284; Godwin's Political Justicct
VoL I. p. 279 (Dublin, 1 793).
MODERN THEOLOGY
407
and which He reasonably desires to see an object of honor, and
the source of a joy like His own. " For it is the necessary conse
quence of true esteem and love, that we value others' esteem of
the same object, and dislike the contrary. For the same reason,
God approves of others' esteem and love of Himself." The creat
ure is intended for an eternally increasing nearness and union to
God. Under this idea, his " interest must be viewed as one with
God's interest," and is therefore not regarded by God as a thing
distinct and separate from Himself. Thus, all the activities of God
return to Himself as the final goal.
Edwards was acquainted with Hutcheson. " The calm, stable,
universal good-will to all, or the most extensive benevolence," and
" the relish and reputation of it," or " the esteem and good-will of
a higher kind to all in whom it is found," are phrases of this writer1
which remind us of the American philosopher. But the scientific
construction of the theory of virtue, especially in the place which
love to God finds in it, is original with Edwards. The younger
Fichte expresses admiration for this essay, which is only known to
him through the brief sketch of Mackintosh. " What he reports
of it," says Fichte, " appears to me excellent." 2 He speaks of
the bold and profound thought that God, as the source of love in
all creatures, on the same ground loves Himself infinitely more
than any finite being ; and therefore in the creation of the world
can have no other end than the revelation of His own perfection,
which, it is to be observed, consists in love.3 " So," concludes
Fichte, " has this solitary thinker of North America risen to the
deepest and loftiest ground which can underlie the principle of
morals : universal benevolence which in us, as it were, poten
tially latent, and in morality to emerge into full consciousness
and activity, is only the effect of the bond of love, which encloses
us all in God." The degree or amount of being is a somewhat
obscure idea ; nevertheless the German critic considers it a true
and profound thought that the degree of the perfection of a being
is to determine the degree of love to him. Mackintosh, to whom
Fichte owed his knowledge of Edwards, apparently fails, in one
passage, to apprehend Edwards's distinction between love and
esteem, or benevolence and moral complacency.
1 Moral Philosophy , Vol. I. p. 69.
8 " Was dieser von ihm berichtet finden wir vortrefflich." System der Ethik,
Vol. I. p. 544. « Ibid. pp. 544, 545.
408
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Shortly before his death Edwards refers, in a letter, to an unfin
ished work, "a body of divinity in an entire new method, being
thrown into the form of a history." It was to treat of the redemp
tion of the world by Christ as the centre toward which the whole
current of anterior events converged, and from which all subse
quent events radiate. There were to be interwoven in the work
" all parts of divinity," in such a method as to exhibit to the best
advantage their "admirable contexture and harmony." The con
ception was not unlike that of Augustine in the De Civitate Dei.
The treatise, in its unfinished state, was published after the author's
death, under the title, A History of the Work of Redemption, con
taining the Outlines of a Body of Divinity, including a View of
Church History in a Method entirely new. In its incomplete
form it remains an impressive monument of the variety of the
author's powers and of the broad range of his studies and reflec
tions. The preparation of redemption, the accomplishment of it
through the life and death of Christ, and its effects, are the three
divisions into which the book is cast. He compares the work of
redemption, which he undertakes to delineate in its orderly prog
ress, to " a temple that is building : first the workmen are sent
forth, then the materials are gathered, the ground is fitted, and
the foundation laid ; then the superstructure is erected, one part
after another, till at length the top stone is laid and all finished." 1
Of course the acts of the drama, which are still in the future, have
to be learned from prophecy.
Edwards's treatise on " Religious Affections " was published in
1746. His satisfaction with the results of the Revival was mingled
with not a little disappointment. A portion of the converts fell
back to their former life. Excitement of the emotions was
attended by evil as well as good fruits. One design of this
treatise was to sift the converts, to distinguish between religious
feelings which are sound and such as are unhealthy or spurious.
The analysis is carried so far — for example, in the distinction
of natural gratitude from pious gratitude, and so in respect to
other feelings — that the effect of the book was to awaken in the
minds of many good Christians in after days a distrust, the anti-
pode of the Assurance which the Reformers valued as a great
advantage of their doctrine. But the treatise presents the author's
ideal of religious experience. It makes the indwelling of God's
i Works, Vol. III. p. 171.
MODERN THEOLOGY
409
Spirit in the souls of true believers the source of an inward state
which the natural man cannot conceive of, and begetting a love
of God from pure delight in His holiness, — a love which is the
fountain of all Christian virtues. In this treatise the mystical
element in Edwards, the elements of insight and intuition in his
religious thoughts, find a full expression.
In Five Sermons on Justification Edwards includes a defence
of the proposition that faith justifies, not as being morally worthy,
but as a vinculum connecting the soul with Christ. In an essay
on the " Trinity," he presents an ingenious philosophical defence
of the Athanasian doctrine. A paper by Edwards on " The Satis
faction of Christ " is one of the most profound of his numerous
discussions. He begins with the statement that, where there is
sin, something of the nature of compensation is required, — either
punishment or a repentance, humiliation, and sorrow which are
proportionate to the guilt incurred. No repentance answerable
to the guilt of sin is possible to men. This Edwards avers on the
ground of the infinitude of guilt. Only a brief sketch of the
principal points in the exposition can here be given : —
1. Christ is first presented in the character of an Intercessor.
Nor is this conception entirely dropped out of mind in the
process of the discussion. As a prerequisite to this office, He
must enter fully into the mind of the offended party, as well as
the distress of the party offending. This absolute sympathy, or
identification of Himself in feeling, with both parties, is neces
sary to qualify Him to intercede. Without it, His intercessions
would not be intelligent on His own part, or acceptable and
prevailing.
2. The sympathy of Christ with God and with man, the offended
One and the offender, was perfected by means of His death. Then
and thereby it attained to its consummation. Then He under
stood fully what guilt involves ; He appreciated both the holy
resentment of God, and the criminality and forlorn situation of
man. We do not depart from the spirit of Edwards's teaching,
if we say that the prayer of Christ for His enemies, on the cross,
emanated from a state of mind that absolutely meets the condi
tions of acceptable intercession.
3. The substitution of Christ was primarily in His own heart.
It was love, which comes under another's burden, makes another's
suffering lot its own, lays aside self, as it were, and becomes an-
4io HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
other. This inward substitution led to, and was completed in,
the final act of self-sacrifice.
4. By His voluntary submission to death, Christ signified His
absolute approval of the righteousness of the law, on its penal, as
well as its preceptive side. He gave the strongest possible proof
of His sense of the justice of the divine administration in the
allotment of death to the sinner. Being among men, and one of
them, He honored and sanctioned the law both by keeping it, by
overcoming temptation, and also by sharing, without a murmur,
in the righteous penalty which He had not personally incurred.
The originality and attractiveness of Edwards's discussion lies
in the circumstance that it is an attempt to find the moral and
spiritual elements of the Atonement, and thus unfold its rationale.
It is not in the quantity of the Saviour's suffering alone, but in the
sources and meaning of it, that he is interested. While holding
that Christ suffered the penalty of sin, Edwards not only care
fully excludes the idea that He was in consciousness, or in fact,
an object of wrath ; but he dwells also upon those spiritual per
ceptions and experiences which gave significance to the pain which
He endured.1
The " Edwardeans," the theologians who modified Calvinism
under the stimulus imparted by the writings of Edwards, and in
a sense built on his foundations, were at first a small minority.
They grew in numbers until their theology well-nigh superseded
the traditional type of Calvinism, although they were divided
among themselves into different schools. On the other hand,
among the Arminians who looked with disfavor on the Revival
there was developed a tendency which issued in the Unitarian
movement.
We have first to attend to the Edwardean leaders, the represent
atives of " the New England Theology." Their general aim, like
that of Edwards himself, was to wrest from Arminianism its
weapons. Their purpose was to maintain the distinctive principle
of Calvinism, the " sovereignty " of God, but, at the same time,
to present in pulpit instructions such a statement of Christianity
1 On the memorial window in honor of Edwards, in the chapel of Yale
College, of which he is an illustrious graduate, stands the just inscription :
" lonathan Edwards summi in ecclesia ordinis vates fuit, rerum sacrarum
philosophus qui saeculorum admirationem movet, Dei cultor mystice amantis-
simus: hie studebat, docebat."
MODERN THEOLOGY
as would leave unrepenting men without excuse for not accepting
the Gospel. Joseph Bellamy (1719-90) published in 1750 the
True Religion Delineated, an able and spirited work, in which the
way of salvation was set forth. It was read in manuscript by
Edwards, and was commended by him. It explains Original Sin
by the covenant or representative hypothesis.1 Yet in another
publication in 1758, Bellamy refers to Edwards's unpublished
treatise on this subject. In his Wisdom of God in the Permission
of Sin (1758), Bellamy contended that the system is "more holy
and happy than if sin and misery had never entered." God
could have prevented sin without infringing on free-will. He
permits sin, in itself " infinitely evil," because it can be overruled
to a greater good. The question whether unconverted persons
should be urged to pray for regeneration, read the Scriptures as a
means to this end, etc., — the question relative to " unregenerate
doings," — was much discussed. Bellamy takes ground in the
affirmative. In relation to the Atonement, Bellamy represents it
to be a satisfaction of divine justice in the sense that God, con
sistently with His honor and holiness, can offer pardon to men.
Christ died for the salvation of all who will repent and believe.
The conception resembles that of Amyraut. It is even said in
one place that God " heartily " invites all.2 This goes beyond
Bellamy's usual statement that " God has opened a door for all to
be saved conditionally." There is at least a near approach to the
doctrine of a general Atonement. Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803)
was a pupil of Edwards. In certain places he appears to sanc
tion Edwards's theory of an identity with Adam.3 But his ordi
nary and more precise teaching is that men are sinners from birth
through a divine " constitution," establishing an infallible certainty
that, if Adam sins, all men after him will begin their existence as
sinners. But their sin is their own, and not his.4 It is declared
to be a free act. As soon as children are capable of " motions
and exercises " of heart contrary to the law of God, they sin,
although "they have no consciousness " that such " exercises " are
wrong. Hopkins brought in the doctrine of "divine efficiency"
in the production even of sinful choices. This is deduced from
1 See Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. p. 300. 2 Ibid. Vol. I. p. 383.
3 See Hopkins's Works (1852), Vol. I. p. 199. He published with com*
mendation Edvvards's book on Original Sin.
* Ibid. Vol. I. pp. 211, 235.
412
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Edwards's doctrine of a prior infallible certainty of their recur
rence. From this time, imputation is discarded from the New
England theology. The theory of the Covenant, with Adam as a
representative, is exchanged for the theory of " sovereign consti
tution," or fixed, established connection. Thenceforward the
doctrine was that Adam's sin carried with it, by a divine decree,
the certainty of his descendants being sinners from the outset of
their personal being. From Edwards's definition of virtue as
" love to being in general," Hopkins drew out his exposition of
disinterested benevolence. Man must love himself, not as self,
but only as a portion of universal being. Hence followed the
doctrine of "unconditional resignation," or a willingness to be
finally cast off and to perish, if the glory of God require it. A
doctrine often brought forward by the mystics — for example, in
the "German Theology" —is presented by Hopkins and his fol
lowers in the hard terms of logic. By them, also, it is made an
element of practical piety. Hopkins asserted the sinfulness of
" unregenerate doings," and the consequent unlawfulness of ex
horting sinners to pray for conversion or to do anything prelimi
nary to conversion. The first duty is to repent and believe.
Thus there was combined the highest view of divine sovereignty
with the highest assertion of "natural ability" and consequent
responsibility. The certainty of conversion, whenever it occurs,
is the effect of the special agency of God's Spirit, in pursuance
of His elective purpose. Like Bellamy, Hopkins defends the
thesis that sin, as a part of the divine system, although the evil
act of the creature, is the necessary means of the greatest good.
The younger Edwards — Jonathan Edwards, Jr. — (1745-1801)
agrees with Hopkins, his teacher, respecting the sinfulness of " un
regenerate doings " and the use of " means " by the unconverted
to pave the way to repentance and conversion. He concurs with
Hopkins in his idea of Original Sin. He dissents from his views
respecting disinterested benevolence. Regeneration, the younger
Edwards defines to be the communication of a new spiritual sense
or taste, "in consequence of which light breaks in upon the under
standing, and joy enters the heart." His principal contribution
to theology is his Sermons on the Atonement together with his
Brief Thoughts on the same subject. With Grotius, he denies
that the Atonement is the payment of a debt. It is a satisfaction
to the general justice of God, by which is meant that regard to the
MODERN THEOLOGY
413
greatest good which leads Him, while bestowing forgiveness, to
sustain the authority of law. " Christ suffered that in the sinner's
stead which as effectually tended to discourage or prevent trans
gression and excite to obedience as the punishment of the trans
gressor according to the letter of the law would have done." The
end of punishment is the restraining of others from sin. The
Atonement does this because it shows God's hatred of sin and His
determination to punish it. Vicarious suffering not being the dis
charge of a debt, does not bind the Ruler to remit the penalty.
Other conditions of pardon may be imposed. The matter of the
Atonement is the sufferings of Christ. His active obedience is
only a condition sine qua non.
Thenceforward the governmental theory of the Atonement
became a characteristic of the New England orthodoxy. It is
remarkable that substantially the Grotian or Arminian tenet on
this subject was set in connection with so high a doctrine of divine
sovereignty. But this very idea of God's sovereignty inspired a
reluctance to seem to fetter the exercise of it by assuming that
God is bound morally to extend pardon to the elect. Moreover,
the New England divines were ever in quest of a theology that
could be preached and defended against gainsayers. Under their
doctrine it could not be said by the impenitent, in reference to
exhortations to turn to God, that the Atonement was not intended,
in any proper sense, for them ; that is to say, did not spring from
love to them.
Nathaniel Emmons (1745-1801) was on most points of the
same mind as Hopkins. He taught in the most explicit terms
that God is the universal cause — the cause of sinful as well as
holy actions. But He creates men free, and because they are sin
ful it does not follow that He is, any more than He resembles the
poison of the asp which He creates. Men begin to sin, " proba
bly," as soon as life begins, — a fact resulting from the sin of
Adam. They are not, however, answerable for his transgression :
all sin is actual sin. All sins are " exercises " of will. But in
Emmons, as in so many, affections or feelings and will are not
carefully discriminated. So strongly did Emmons emphasize this
atomic view of character that he was understood to teach that the
mind consists of a chain of acts or exercises with no substratum of
personality beneath. In this part of his system we clearly discern
the influence of Edwards's idea of substance and consciousness as a
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
continuous series of creative acts. Yet the strongest language is
used in the assertion of " natural ability," nothing being wanting
but choices to render a sinful man holy. The " unconditional
resignation " taught by Hopkins is reaffirmed. Justification is
denned to be pardon. Being pardoned, an imperfect Christian is
rewarded for the amount of holiness of which he is possessed.
But his distinction from an unregenerate person is that some of his
" exercises " are holy, while in such a person all the exercises
are morally evil. Each exercise is perfect in its kind. On this
idea of the nature of Christian character Emmons differed from
Hopkins.
Opposed to the peculiarities of Hopkins was another school of
Edwardeans, of whom President Dwight of Yale College (1752-
1817) was the most distinguished representative. An Hopkinsian
in early life, he discarded the special opinions of that school. His
system is exhibited in a series of sermons. Dwight rejects " divine
efficiency" in respect to evil actions. A discourse, entitled "The
Soul of Man, not a Chain of Ideas and Exercises," is aimed at
Emmons's philosophy. In it, he speaks of theology " in this part
of the country " as " verging towards Pantheism." He is moderate
in his Calvinism. He holds to the previous certainty of all events,
to the divine permission of sin, that foreknowledge and decrees
are " coetaneous." Virtue is founded in utility, — that is, in its
tendency to promote the happiness of the universe. Virtue in the
concrete is benevolence ; sin is selfishness. Dwight rejects the
doctrine of imputation. We are not responsible for Adam's sin.
Through his sin, we become sinners, but how we cannot explain.
Nevertheless, Dwight asserts that infants are " contaminated in
their moral nature," and that this is proved by their death.
Regeneration does not consist in the creation of holy exercises,
but in the communication of a new taste or disposition; it is
instantaneous, and at the moment imperceptible by the subject of
it. Dwight is strenuous in advocating " the use of means " — of
prayer, etc. — on the part of the unregenerate.
Excelled by none of the New England divines, after the elder
Edwards, as a metaphysician, a theological teacher, and as a
preacher of impressive power, was Nathaniel W. Taylor (1786-
1858). He was a pupil of Dwight. He undertook to complete
what he considered an unaccomplished effort of the Edwardeans
to reconcile human dependence and personal responsibility. To
MODERN THEOLOGY 4! 5
this end he held that the conception of "natural ability" must
have a reality and fulness of meaning not conceded to it by them.
There is no such thing as hereditary sin. Nor is it correct to
say that the soul is " corrupt " prior to the exertion of moral
agency. When it is said that nil raen are sinners by nature, it is
meant that under all the appropriate circumstances of life they
will sin until renewed by the Gospel. Their sin is the result of
two factors, — their subjective constitution in its present condition,
and their circumstance. To neither can the fact be exclusively re
ferred. Nor is it certain that an infant, transferred to heaven before
a sinful act, would, left to himself, there develop a sinful character.
All sin is voluntary. In saying that there is no such thing as
hereditary sin, the Hopkinsians were right. But they were wrong
in resolving sin into particular acts of will. Rather is sin a per
manent principle or state of the will, an abiding choice and
motive of subordinate choices ; and the same is true of holiness.
Man is the proximate cause of all his voluntary states and actions.
Into the idea of freedom or " ability," Taylor introduced the power
of contrary choice, which he held to be continuous and perpet
ual and indispensable to accountable agency. Had he gone no
farther, his theory would be Arminian, if not Pelagian, as his oppo
nents declared it to be. But the prior certainty of all moral
choices was also asserted ; and this certainty was admitted to be
the result, in each case, of their antecedents. In other words,
there is a special order of causes — " motives " they are called —
which give the certainty, but not the necessity of their effect.
The formula, in a brief phrase, is "certainty with power to the
contrary " ; the certainty of a persistence of all men in sin, from
the beginning of moral agency, until, under the influences of
grace, they are converted. Conversion is the superseding of the
wrong governing principle, love to the world, for the only right
ruling principle, love to God. Taylor brought in the threefold,
instead of the twofold, division of mental faculties. The sensibility,
the involuntary nature, which is neither morally good nor morally
evil, is capable of being acted upon by the truths of the Gospel,
and by its movements to become the motive of a reversal of the
governing purpose, which is the essence of character. The neutral
district in the soul, having this capacity, was considered to be the
natural love of happiness — to which the not wholly fit name of
" self-love" was given, Thus in man, irrespective of grace, there
416 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
is a full equipment for obeying the divine law, for accepting the
Gospel, He will not, although he can. As to the connection of
the race with Adam, their sinful actions are the consequences,
following with certainty, but there is no necessity such as destroys
the power to the contrary.
The solutions, which had been proposed by his New England
predecessors, and by theologians in the past generally, of the
problem of the theodicy Taylor considered to be inadequate. Sin
is not the " necessary means of the greatest good." It is not
better that sin should exist than that it should not exist. Because
it is better that sin should enter into the system, wherever sin is
found in it, than that it should, in these cases, be prevented by
divine intervention to exclude it, the conclusion does not follow
that it is a good thing, either in itself or " all things considered."
It might and would be prevented, if free agents avoided sinning.
As to the exclusion of sin, there are two conceivable ways of
effecting it. The method of divine power may be incompatible
with the constitution of the best system of the universe, in which
freedom is one main excellence.
Redemption is a method of excluding sin up to the limit pre
scribed by wisdom — by a regard for the greatest good — to divine
interposition. Election is the plan of God for securing the largest
amount of holiness and consequent happiness which the necessary
conditions of the system render it possible for benevolence to
secure. The plan of the dispensation of the grace of the spirit,
as for the dissemination of the Gospel, is dictated by benevolence.
Thus grace is not given to all in an equal measure. The elect are
such as yield to the influences of grace under the most beneficent
allotment of them. One reason for the election of a person may
be his greater prospective influence in the kingdom. This was
apparently the fact in the case of the Apostle Paul. Another
reason may be a more pliable disposition in some. But reasons
may exist which are to us inscrutable.
There were many who looked upon " Taylorism," not as a vin
dication, but as a surrender of the Calvinistic positions. A warm
controversy arose in New England. Bennet Tyler, and Leonard
Woods, Professor at Andover, were prominent writers against the
new teaching of Dr. Taylor, Dr. Fitch, and the defenders of it. The
antagonists generally clung to the belief in an inherited, properly
sinful, bias or tendency to evil-doing, an " inclination " prior to
MODERN THEOLOGY 417
personal choice. They rejected the definition of regeneration as
simply descriptive of a reversal of the central voluntary principle,
viewed from the side of divine agency in leading to it. And they
held fast to the thesis that sin is the necessary means of the great
est good, and to the proposition that the exclusion of it by God
from the best moral system would involve no contradiction in the
nature of things.
The New England theology was cast by Dr. Mahan and Charles
G. Finney, in a peculiar form which bore the name of " Oberlin
Theology." Finney (1792-1875) taught in his Lectures on Sys
tematic Theology (1846) that virtue is the choice of the greatest
happiness of the universe, including God ; that happiness is the
only ultimate good, giving to everything else its value ; that the
principle of love, the only virtue, is in the will ; that obligation is
limited by the agent's power ; that when a man's generic choice
or purpose is to promote the happiness of the universe, he is per
fectly holy, and when this is not his choice, he is perfectly sinful ;
that conversion or regeneration is a change of purpose, but in
effecting it there is an agency of the Holy Spirit ; that Christian
Perfection is goodness up to the measure of present ability, which
limits present responsibility; that faith, repentance, sanctification,
are as truly the conditions of Justification as the Atonement, which
removes an obstacle to pardon. The doctrine of " Perfection "
was considered a most prominent feature of the Oberlin Theology.
A younger contemporary of Dr. Taylor, a remarkably able and
accomplished expositor of the New England divinity, is Edwards
A. Park, who was long a teacher of theology at Andover. But his
system has not been published. Its peculiar features may be
gathered from his critical biographies of Hopkins and Emmons,
from controversial papers in opposition to " Princeton theology," 1
and from a number of sermons. Dr. Park is a champion of the
doctrine of a continued power of contrary choice, coupled with
the uniform result of like antecedents. He emphasizes the effect
of the Fall upon the propensities to inferior good, regards regener
ation as a divinely effected change in the " balance of sensibili
ties," and advocates the proposition that the rectitude of that
benevolence, which is the sum of goodness, is a simple idea, and
not the tendency to produce happiness.
Surpassed in learning and philosophical ability by none of the
1 In the Bibliotheca Sacra, Vols. VIII., IX.
2B
418
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
New England School since the elder Edwards, was Henry B.
Smith.1 With Edwards, he maintains the idea of mediate impu
tation. " The race is not a mere aggregate of units, but rather
a physical and moral unity." There is a law of moral descent,
although not a mystical identity of substance. Because sin is
generic as well as individual, we come into the world in a state
of sin and death, and liable to penal evils now and hereafter. Sin
is an immanent state and preference. But as there is a bond of
race connecting us with Adam, so by a natural bond are we con
nected with the incarnate Redeemer. The salvation procured by
him comes to us individually through faith. The Atonement is
not a matter of pure distributive justice. It answers the ends of
"public justice," — that is, it shows God's supreme love of holi
ness and hatred of sin. Thus the Atonement is general. Regen
eration affects the immanent preference, which includes the
affections and the will. It illuminates the mind and gives to the
will a new bent.
The influence of the writings of the earlier theologians of the
Edwardean class, in particular of the elder Edwards, and of
Dwight, was extensive in Great Britain as well as in America. An
drew Fuller professes to have learned his theology from Edwards.
The same is true of Dr. Thomas Chalmers. The Sermons of
Dwight, partly from their attractive rhetorical character, passed
through many editions in England, and were much read in Scot
land. In America, the theology of the New England schools
eventually encountered the hostility of those Presbyterians in
the Middle States who adhered strictly to the Westminster Con
fession. The spread of the theological principles of Dr. Taylor
beyond the limits of New England, was a potent influence,
along with others, which led to the division of the Presbyterian
Church, in the United States, into the "New School" and the
" Old School " branch. Many, however, who fell from choice
into the " New School " division, did not accept the distinctive
peculiarities of Taylor's system.
The rise and progress of Anti-Trinitarian opinions in New Eng
land resembled the like changes that took place in England in
the same period. In both cases there was a reaction against
Puritan theology and in favor of the Arminian type of thought.
The English controversial writers on the Trinity, together with the
1 See his Life and Work (1881).
MODERN THEOLOGY
419
writers in behalf of the Arminian ideas of sin and grace, were,
from the close of the seventeenth century, read on this side of
the Atlantic, especially in Boston and its vicinity. The " Conven
tion Sermon," preached annually in that town to the Congrega
tional clergy of Massachusetts, according as the preacher was of
the Calvinistic or of the opposite school, indicates the antagonism
that was more and more clearly coming to the surface. As early
as 1722, Cotton Mather, in his convention discourse, expresses
alarm at signs of lower views being cherished respecting the
person and offices of Christ. English Arians were in correspond
ence with American ministers. The deviations of Watts from the
orthodox doctrine were not without their influence. In connec
tion with a more or less conscious and explicit loss of sympathy
with Calvinistic orthodoxy, there grew up an outspoken hostility
to creeds of human composition, and a demand for a large charity
and liberty of thought on abstruse questions of divinity. In 1747,
Jonathan Mayhew was settled as a pastor in Boston. He was of
the class familiar with the writings of Locke, Samuel Clarke,
Whiston, John Taylor of Norwich, and others of a like tendency.
A part of the clergy, on account of his Anti-Trinitarian belief, de
clined to take part in Mayhevv's ordination. In his published ser
mons, he denounces with vigor the habit of magnifying the impor
tance of opinions in contrast with practices. " Since the substance
of Christian duty is love to God and to our neighbor," he says,
" this shows us what a Gospel minister's preaching ought chiefly
to turn upon." He is not to dwell on " speculative points " or
" metaphysical niceties," but on the two commandments enjoining
love. In 1750, leading ministers in the neighborhood of Boston,
and many of the educated laity, had ceased to believe in the
Trinity. In 1768, Dr. Hopkins prepared a sermon to be preached
in Boston, " under the conviction that the doctrine of the divinity
of Christ was much neglected, if not disbelieved, by a number of
the ministers " there. In 1782 James Freeman was chosen pastor
of King's Chapel, an Episcopal church in Boston. As the bishop
declined to ordain him, he was ordained, in 1788, by his congre
gation. The liturgy was altered by the omission of passages recog
nizing the doctrine of the Trinity. " The first Episcopal Church
in New England became the first Unitarian Church in America."
At the beginning of the new century, a majority of the minis
ters in Eastern Massachusetts were dissenters from the orthodox
42O HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
doctrine. The division of parties was stimulated and accelerated
by the acceptance by many on the orthodox side of the severe
tenets of Hopkins and Emmons. In 1805, the election of Henry
Ware, a Unitarian, to the Hollis Professorship of Divinity in Har
vard College was the signal for the outbreaking of a heated con
troversy. In 1810, Noah Worcester published the Bible News,
in which Christ was said to be a being derived from God, but not
made outright, prior to the Creation, and entering into the flesh.
He broached this novel opinion, disclaiming alike the Arian and
the orthodox doctrine. From about this time, the debate be
tween the respective parties, through periodicals and other chan
nels, was prosecuted with increasing zeal. In 1815, William
Ellery Channing, who was to become the most distinguished
leader of the Unitarians, writes of the Unitarian ministers :
" Their Unitarianism is of a very different kind from that of Mr.
Belsham. ... A majority of our brethren believe that Jesus
Christ is more than man ; that he existed before the world ; that
he literally came from heaven to save our race," etc. Channing
adds that another class, while they reject the Trinity of persons,
profess no definite opinion on the subject, and that another class
still, few in number, " believe the simple humanity of Christ." In
another letter (November, 1815), he says that the prevalent senti
ments of the " Liberal Christians " substantially agree with the views
of Dr. Samuel Clarke and Worcester. A sermon of Channing in
Baltimore, in 1819, was the signal for the opening of a new stage
in the doctrinal warfare. In this sermon the distinctive points of
Calvinism were assaulted without reserve. It occasioned the
publication of Letters in answer by Professor Moses Stuart of
Andover, the best equipped of the orthodox scholars in New
England. Since Hopkins, the doctrine of the eternal generation of
the Son had been given up for the most part in this region.
Stuart's conception of the Trinity is that of three eternal, imma
nent " distinctions " in the Deity, not admitting of precise defini
tion, and of the true and proper divinity of the Son and of the
Spirit. The ablest and most accurate scholar on the Unitarian
side was Professor Andrews Norton whose Statement of Reasons
for not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, etc., appeared in
1833. There being no central authority among Congregation-
alists, a formal ecclesiastical rupture could not take place. But
practically a division was effected, by the ministers of the respec
MODERN THEOLOGY
421
tive parties ceasing to exchange ministerial services with one
another, or to unite in clerical associations, and by churches no
longer coming together in advisory Councils.
Channihg is the most eminent representative of the Unitarian
movement in this country. It is true that others among the
gifted men who have been conspicuous in that school have
equalled or surpassed him in some of the titles to distinction.
There have been in their number more eloquent preachers. The
younger Buckminster was one, of whom Edward Everett declared
that he had the most melodious voice " that ever passed the lips
of man ; " l of whom, also, one of the ablest of the early Unitarian
preachers, who afterwards rendered most honorable service in
literature and in public life — John Gorham Palfrey — has said
that his pulpit utterances approached near " to what we imagine
of a prophet's or an angel's inspiration."2 In the graces of style
and delivery, according to the taste of that time, Channing was
outdone by the youthful Everett himself, in the short time in
which the latter served as the successor of Buckminster in the
Brattle Street Church. No doubt, Channing's manner was marked
by a glow of chastened earnestness, indicating deep emotions
held under restraint, and thus had a peculiar fascination of its
own. Sometimes, though rarely, he broke out in a more impas
sioned strain. Of a sermon preached by him in New York, in
1826, an admiring listener writes : "The man was full of fire, and
his body seemed, under some of his tremendous sentences, to
expand into that of a giant ; ... his face was, if anything, more
meaning than his words." 3
If there were others who had more of the qualifications con
sidered to be characteristic of the clerical orator than were pos
sessed by Channing, it is also the fact that, as a theological
scholar, he was much surpassed by Andrews Norton; in famil
iarity with philosophical and general literature, by George Ripley ;
and in a certain cautious accuracy and weight of reasoning in
moral science, by James Walker. Nor in devoutness of spirit
does he excel the younger Henry Ware and Ephraim Peabody.
Those who knew Channing remarked in him something delicate,
fastidious, patrician, notwithstanding his humane sympathy ; and
hence in the aptitude to reach directly the common mind he was
1 Memoirs of the Buckminsters, p. 396. 2 Ibid. p. 481.
« Life of Henry Ware, Jr., Vol. I. p. 219,
422
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
outstripped by Theodore Parker, whose robust energy and racy
dialect better fitted him for contact with the multitude. But
Channing unites in himself various characteristics which conspire
to give him preeminence. A clear mind, not wanting in imagi
native warmth, a transparent, natural style, neither slovenly nor
overwrought, the sympathies and attainments of a man of letters,
even though he was not widely read — are manifest in his writ
ings. Superadded to these qualities, there was a sanctity of spirit
which was felt by those who heard him in the pulpit, or met him
even casually in conversation. It was not simply that he was sin
cere, and that he spoke in the accents of conviction. It was not
simply that he was above the influence of personal motives, like
the love of praise and the dread of censure, and that he had a
courage corresponding to his convictions. This necessary attri
bute in a popular leader he exemplified in an inspiriting letter
to Henry Ware, Jr., when the latter was desponding over the
poor outlook for their cause in New York, and in other more
serious emergencies.1 Channing's eminence is chiefly due, first,
to the elevated fervor which inspired his teaching, and which was
of inestimable advantage in a movement in which the intellectual
factor stood in so high a ratio to the religious ; and, secondly, to
the circumstance that he embodied in himself so fully the ethical
and philanthropic impulse which principally constituted the posi
tive living force of the Unitarian cause. Following out the
humanitarian tendency, he acquired, at home and abroad, a high
and, in the main, a deserved fame as the champion of justice
in opposition to slavery and other social evils.
It is remarkable that the Unitarian movement was confined
chiefly to Eastern New England, and did not extend into Western
Massachusetts and Connecticut. In Connecticut there were never
more than two or three Unitarian churches, and these in obscure
towns. One ground of this fact is, that in that State the Episco
pal Church struck a deeper root than in Massachusetts. For all
who might dislike the style of preaching and the peculiar measures
which characterize what is called " revivalism," with its exciting
appeals and its prying interrogation of individuals as to their
religious experience, and for all who recoiled from rigorous meta
physical definitions of religious truth, the door of the Episcopal
Church in Connecticut stood open. Here was a church with an
1 Lift of Henry Ware, Jr., Vol. I. p. 132.
MODERN THEOLOGY 423
evangelical creed and evangelical worship, where those who were
disaffected with Puritan ways, old or new, could find a quiet har
bor. Another reason for the difference of which I speak lay in
the circumstances which gave to the Edwardeans a complete
ascendancy in Connecticut. The old Arminianism was not so
strong or so strongly intrenched there as in Eastern Massachu
setts. The Calvinists of the older school, from their greater fear
of Arminian doctrine, were inclined to coalesce with the fol
lowers of Edwards, as is seen in the case of President Clap, of
Yale College (1739-66). President Stiles, of the same college
(1777-95), was more of a latitudinarian in his opinions and affil
iations ; he looked back on the Revival " as the late period of
enthusiasm." But he was succeeded by Dwight, whose acces
sion to the presidency secured the complete ascendancy of the
school of Edwards. The moderation of Dwight in his theological
statements, his strenuous opposition to Hopkinsian extravagances,
and, more than all, his commanding influence as a preacher and
an instructor of theological students, contributed much towards
keeping the Congregational churches and ministers in the old
path. This result, however, might not have occurred had there
been that deep and varied preparation for a doctrinal revolution
which had been going forward in Boston and its neighborhood
through the greater part of the eighteenth century.
If we would understand the Unitarian schism, we must take
into account the fact that there were not only two interpretations
of the Bible which came into collision, but that there were, at the
same time, two types of culture. Unitarianism, as it has appeared
in history, has been conjoined with no single form of church pol
ity. It has sprung up in the midst of Anglican Episcopacy. It
has sprung up at Geneva, in connection with Presbyterianism, and
close by Calvin's grave. But it has frequently gone hand in hand
with literary criticism and belles-lettres cultivation. This was the
case in the Italian Unitarianism of the sixteenth century, which
arose out of the Renaissance culture, and in the Unitarianism
that spread so widely among the gentry of Poland. The same
was conspicuously true of the Unitarian party in New England.
There grew up about Boston and Cambridge a method of Biblical
criticism which was nourished by the study of Griesbach and of
Arminian scholars of an earlier date. In connection with these
studies there was a new and wider range of literary activity, and
424
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
an altered style and standard of literary and aesthetic training.
Dwight and the elder Buckminster had been fellow-students and
tutors together at Yale College in the latter part of the last cen
tury. They broke loose from the metaphysical style of discussion
which had been in vogue before in the pulpit, and fostered the
reading of the contemporary English classics. But they still ex
hibit a stiff and somewhat tumid quality of style. In the sermons
of the younger Buckminster we find that these faults have been
outgrown ; although even he expresses himself with a certain for
mality, and with an avoidance of the vocabulary of common life.
From these remaining fetters Channing escaped, thereby evincing
the continued advance of literary taste. He speaks somewhere
of the habit that had prevailed of shunning familiar words as
if they had been soiled by common use. In his own style there
is nothing artificial and nothing slovenly. As the Unitarian move
ment went forward to later stages, the changes in the type of
literary culture became very decided and very influential. But
at the outset, at the epoch when Channing began his career, one
feels, in looking at the writers on the Unitarian side, that they
have passed beyond the point of bending entranced over the
pages of Sir Charles Grandison, and are likely soon to become
insensible to the attractions of Miss Hannah More. Theodore
Parker says of Unitarianism : " The protest began among a class
of cultivated men in the most cultivated part of America; with
men who had not the religious element developed in proportion
to the intellectual or the aesthetic element." 1 Of this there can
be no doubt — that, along with a real interest in theology and
religion, there was a very decided taste and aptitude for literary
pursuits. Among those who left the Unitarian pulpit to devote
themselves to literature or politics are Sparks, Everett, Ban
croft, Emerson, Ripley, Palfrey, Upham. If an equal number of
leading minds had withdrawn themselves from the pulpit in the
Methodist body — supposing that, in its early days, it had pos
sessed so many able and learned men — or from any other
religious body not more numerous than the Unitarians were, the
fact would be considered very remarkable. This matter is referred
to merely as an indication of the general change of atmosphere, so
to speak, in the places where Unitarianism appeared. The old
Puritan training, with its altogether predominant devotion to
1 Weiss's Life of Parker, Vol. I. p. 270.
MODERN THEOLOGY 425
religious and theological writers, its austere jealousy of imagina
tive literature, and its rigid metaphysical habit, was fast giving
way to a different and more diversified type of culture. In the
circle of students to which Channing belonged at Cambridge,
there was a newly awakened zeal in the study of Shakespeare.
Another powerful agency, after the middle of the eighteenth
century, had operated to turn the thoughts of men in that region
away from metaphysics and abstract inquiries in theology into
another channel. This was the discussion of political questions,
which formed the prelude to the American Revolution, and called
off many vigorous minds from theological controversy to another
arena. These discussions were afterwards carried forward with
absorbing interest during the administration of our first presidents,
when the French Revolution and the stirring events on the conti
nent of Europe to which it gave rise brought forward questions of
the highest moment relating to government and society. Human
rights and the well-being of mankind were topics of which Chan
ning had heard from his childhood.
Channing was in contact from early life on the one hand with
the strong religious influence which was still felt in Puritan New
England, and, on the other, with laudations of mental freedom
and with the growing tendencies to liberal or latitudinarian thought
in matters of belief. With his sensitive, conscientious spirit and
his passion for liberty, he responded to both these influences.
There were several critical epochs in his mental history. At New
London, where he was at school in his boyhood before entering
college, he received during a revival deep and lasting impressions,
and, as his biographer tells us, dated his religious life from that
time.1 In college he read with delight Ferguson's work on " Civil
Society." The capacities and the destiny of mankind, human
nature and human progress, warmly interested his attention.
Hutcheson especially, the Scottish writer on " Morals," whose glow
ing pictures of the beauty of universal benevolence produced a
strong effect on many other New Englanders, kindled Channing's
enthusiasm to a flame. On one occasion, when only fifteen, walk
ing under the trees with his book in hand, these ideas of his favor
ite author, which suggested to him the possibility of an endless
progress and the glory of disinterested virtue, awakened a rapture
that stamped the place and the hour indelibly upon his memory.
1 Memoirs of Channing (3 Vols. 1848), Vol. I. p. 43.
426 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
But he passed through a sentimental period of considerable dura
tion. He gave himself up to idle musings, to delicious or gloomy
reveries. He would stand upon the beach at Newport, and, in
a high Byronic mood, long to rush to the embrace of the waters,
whose tumultuous heavings harmonized with the mood of his own
spirit. He had read the Stoics, and fancied himself akin to them.
He wept over Goldsmith and over a sonnet of Southey, and even
over the poems of Rogers. It is hard to believe that these maud
lin tempers could ever have belonged to a man of Channing's ster
ling sincerity. He afterwards deplored them, and was ashamed
of them. After graduating, while he was teaching at Richmond,
Virginia, his more sensible brother writes to him : " You know
nothing of yourself. You talk of your apathy and stoicism, when
you are the baby of your emotions, and dandled by them without
any chance of being weaned." 1 He was weaned, however. At
Richmond a revolution took place in his inward life. "I was
blind," he says, "to the goodness of God, and blind to the love
of my Redeemer. Now I behold with shame and confusion the
depravity and rottenness of my heart. ... I have now solemnly
given myself up to God. ... I love mankind because they
are the children of God." This act of self-consecration put an
end to aimless sentiment, and morbid revery, and self-brooding.
Thenceforward it should be his undivided purpose to serve God
and mankind, oblivious of self. Of this moral crisis in Channing's
course we might be glad to have more definite knowledge. It
does not appear that perplexities of doctrine or metaphysical
problems, such as we might look for in a New Englander sprung
from the Puritan stock, disturbed his thoughts in the least at that
critical time. In truth, at all times moral and spiritual relations
were uppermost in his mind. His strongest objection to the doc
trine of the Trinity is the practical perplexities which he supposed
it to occasion in worship ; his objections to Calvinism are not so
much logical, but lie principally in what he terms the moral argu
ment against it. He was never fond of Priestley. In this case, to
be sure, the materialistic and necessarian theories of this author
were repugnant to his convictions. Much as he honored Locke
as a man, and frequently as he refers to him as an example of
Anti-Trinitarian belief in conjunction with high intellectual endow
ments, Locke's philosophical tenets were not congenial to him.
1 Mtmoirs, VoL I. p. 108.
MODERN THEOLOGY
427
He was delivered from them by his favorite writer, Price, whose
dissertations won him over to the intuitive school, and who con
tributed essentially to the formation of his philosophical and
theological opinions. This author is really a lucid as well as an
animated expositor of the spiritual, in opposition to the empiri
cal, philosophy. He vindicates the reality of a priori truth in
the spirit of Cudworth. The genial tone of Price and his Anti-
Trinitarian opinions also recommended him to Channing's favor.
There is one link of connection between Channing and the
earlier New England theologians. This is through Hopkins, who
was a minister at Newport in the youth of Channing, and had not
a little personal intercourse with him. A notice of his relation
with Hopkins brings us naturally to one of the cardinal features of
Channing's religious system. He says : " I was attached to Dr.
Hopkins chiefly by his theory of disinterestedness. I had studied
with great delight during my college life the philosophy of Hutche-
son and the stoical morality, and these had prepared me for the
noble, self-sacrificing doctrines of Dr. Hopkins." 1 The theory of
virtue to which Channing alludes was unfolded in its essential
points by Jonathan Edwards. Holiness, goodness, virtue — moral
excellence, by whatever name it may be called — consists in Love.
It is love towards the universal society of intelligent beings, of
which God is the head. This love is impartial; it goes out to
every being, and gives to each his due portion. God, the infinite
One, is entitled to love without limit. Every one who is of the
same order of being as myself I am to love equally with myself.
Love is disinterested. I am to love myself not as my self, but
only as one member of this universal society — a member whose
welfare is a proper object of pursuit, not less and not more than
is the welfare of any other human being, every other one being
of equal worth or value. Self is merged in the sum total of being,
as a drop in the ocean. It is obvious that Love, as thus defined,
has two directions : one upward to God, and the other outward
towards our fellow-men. Not that piety and philanthropy, in their
true and perfect form, are really separable from one another ; yet
it is quite possible for the feelings of adoration, devotion, submis
sion, and the whole religious side of love to engross as it were the
mind, so that the interests of man and of human life in this mun
dane sphere, except so far as man is to be prevented from inflict-
1 Memoirs, Vol I. p. 137.
428
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
ing dishonor on God and ruin upon himself by that means, should
be left in the background. God is to be exalted and glorified —
this is the main thought. Such was the tendency of Calvinism ;
of Calvinism in New England as elsewhere. All such statements
are, indeed, subject to much qualification. Calvinists demanded
righteousness of conduct. Channing was taught by Hopkins to
hate slavery. This intrepid old man lifted his voice against
slavery and the slave-trade in Newport, when that town was a
principal mart of this iniquitous traffic. But, speaking generally,
it was the first and great commandment, and the feelings directly
involved in it, that mainly absorbed the attention. It was not ab
solutely forgotten that the second commandment is " like unto it."
The duties of man to his neighbor were placed on the ground of
religious obligation. But an active, warm-hearted, many-sided
philanthropy, which looks after the temporal as well as the eternal
interests of mankind, and goes out with tender sympathy to min
ister to suffering of every kind ; which raises hospitals, builds
comfortable habitations for the honest poor, visits those who are
sick and in prison, cherishes a conception of education as com
prehensive as the faculties of the mind — such a spirit of philan
thropy was not characteristic of the religion of New England, and
Channing and Unitarianism have done much to promote it. The
disinterested benevolence of Edwards and Hopkins now turned
from lofty and sometimes almost ecstatic meditations upon the
sovereignty and perfection of God, and the iteration of the solemn
demand to submit to His authority and to live to His glory, to the
man-ward side of this principle. Edwards was transported by
visions of the sweetness of Christ and of the sublime attributes
of God ; Channing, by the exalted nature and infinite possibilities
of man.
The dignity of human nature, then, was a fundamental article
in Channing's creed. In every human being there is the germ of
an unbounded progress. An unspeakable value belongs to him.
His nature is not to be vilified. A wrong done to him is like
violence offered to an angel.
This idea of the dignity of man is a great Christian truth. No
one can doubt that it was a living conviction in Channing's mind,
It imparted to him that " enthusiasm of humanity " which became
the passion of his soul. He was not equally impressed by another
side to the picture. " It is dangerous," says Pascal, " to make man
MODERN THEOLOGY
429
see how he is on a level with the brutes, without showing him his
greatness. It is dangerous, again, to make him see his greatness
without seeing his baseness. . . . Let man estimate himself at
his real value. Let him love himself, if he has in him a nature
capable of good ; but let him not love on this account the vile-
nesses that belongs to it. Let him despise himself, because this
capacity is waste ; but let him not on this account despise this
natural capacity. Let him hate himself; let him love himself."
Channing considered the Church in all past ages to have been im
mersed in error on religious themes of capital importance. This
was his judgment respecting the churches of the Reformation, as
well as the church of the Middle Ages. On these topics, which
stand in the forefront of Christian theology, he frankly and boldly,
but always without bitterness or malignity, declared that the lead
ing Reformers were the victims of superstition. The movement of
which he was an advocate was represented as a new instauration
of Christianity. The light which had been obscured by dismal
clouds had at last broken forth in its full illuminating power. He
openly, though without the least arrogance, claims the character
of an innovator and a dissentient.
The orthodox critics of Channing miss in him a strong grasp of
sin as a principle, revealing itself in multiform expressions or phe
nomena, entering into numberless phases of manifestation, exer
cising sway in mankind, and holding fast the will in a kind of
bondage. The diversified forms of selfish and unrighteous action
are not habitually traced back by him to the fons et origo malomm
— the mysterious alienation of men from the fellowship of God.
The moral malady is not explored to its sources ; and hence the
tendency is to treat it with palliatives. He is too much inclined
to rely on education to do the work of regeneration. He speaks
of customary accusations of sin brought against mankind as ex
aggerated. In dealing with the doctrine of Man, Channing was
captivated by an ideal. He saw what man might be, what man
ought to be ; but not so clearly what man really is.
It must be remembered that the real point of controversy be
tween the two parties in New England was the doctrine of Sin
and the correlated doctrine of Conversion. The field of debate
was Anthropology. The New England mind was not speculative ;
and Jonathan Edwards was almost the only one of our divines
who showed an extraordinary talent or relish for speculative
430
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
divinity. It was the practical side of theology, sin and regenera
tion in their relation to the conditions of human responsibility,
that interested his successors. They wanted to make Calvinism
self-consistent, and to parry objections that arose in the minds
of their own hearers, or were disseminated by the English Armin-
ian writers. It is remarkable, although the Trinity and the person
of Christ were nominally the subject of contention in the Uni
tarian controversy, how little of importance was contributed on
either side to the elucidation of these topics. Even Norton and
Stuart, the best- equipped disputants, say little that had not been
said before.
The next of the leading ideas of Channing was that of the
Fatherhood of God. Against the Calvinistic assertion of the
sovereignty of God, he was never tired of proclaiming God's
paternal character. He meant and professed to follow the Script
ures ; but he dwelt on the paternal relation of God to mankind,
and insisted less on the fact that a relation which is practically
subverted by their disloyalty can be restored only by their return
to filial allegiance. The severe side, the side of judgment and
penalty, which is adapted to produce fear, had been held up to
view, sometimes disproportionately. Both Edwards and Hopkins
had stated in the baldest language that the righteous in heaven
would derive satisfaction from contemplating the torments of the
lost. This conclusion they supposed to follow by an irresistible
logic from the justice of the appointed penalty — as if a due
sympathy with the righteous administration of law requires that
we should attend and enjoy public executions. In the powerful
reaction against representations of this character, against the
corresponding portraiture of God, against sensuous pictures of
retributive torment, and the predominant appeals to fear, the
Unitarians tended to divest religion of those elements which
awaken dread in the guilty. Channing, when he was a boy,
not only never killed a bird, and avoided crushing an insect, but
he let rats out of a trap to save them from being drowned.1
What was Channing's conception of Christ ? Christ was a pre-
existent rational creature, an angel or spirit of some sort, who
had entered into a human body. He was not even a man except
so far as His corporeal part is concerned, but was a creature from
some upper sphere. The particular conception which Channing
1 Memoirs, VoL I. p. 40.
MODERN THEOLOGY
431
set up in the room of the church doctrine of the Incarnation is
one of the crudest notions which the history of speculation on
this subject has ever presented. The transitional character of
Channing's type of theology is strikingly indicated in this indefi
nite, unphilosophical sort of Arianism, to which it would seem
that he adhered to the end.
Channing did not absolutely renounce the orthodox opinion.
Having referred to the opposite view, he says : " Many of us are
dissatisfied with this explanation, and think that the Scriptures
ascribe the remission of sins to Christ's death, with an emphasis
so peculiar that we ought to consider this event as having a
special influence in removing punishment, though the Scriptures
may not reveal the way in which it contributes to this end." But,
in keeping with his transitional position, he lays no stress on this
truth. On the contrary, he is unsparing, though never inten
tionally unfair or extravagant, in his denunciation of the current
expressions in which it is set forth. Either from a want of famil
iarity with the history of doctrine, or from not being addicted to
patient intellectual analysis, he is content with giving expression
to his revolted feeling. He does not stop to inquire whether a
profound truth may not be contained in a statement which, if
literally taken, is obnoxious. Nor does he attempt to separate a
particular representation of some school in theology from the
underlying truth which theology, with varying degrees of success,
has been endeavoring to formulate.
Apart from his criticism of adverse views, Channing's positive
idea is that Christ does His work of reclaiming men from sin by
teaching truth, which is recommended by His spotless character
and by His death, and confirmed as having authority by His mir
acles, especially His resurrection from the dead. Of the teaching
of Christ, especially of His ethical teaching, and of the unapproach
able beauty and perfection of His character, it is well known that
Channing has written much that is admirable. When we inquire
specifically what the capital points of that doctrine are which
Christ was sent into the world to announce, we find them to be
the doctrine of God the Father, and of the immortality of the
soul. This last truth is brought home to men's belief by the res
urrection of Jesus. These two truths are singled out by Channing,
in writing on Christian Evidences, as most important points of
the Saviour's teaching. The paternal character of God is de-
432 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
clared and evinced, and thereby superstitions and gloomy fears
growing out of them are dispelled ; and the soul's destiny to sur
vive death is vividly exhibited, and is also proved, by the raising
of Jesus from the dead. The Christian revelation is reduced in
its contents substantially to these two articles of faith.
It might have been predicted, from the analogies of experience,
that the Liberal movement would not stop with the abandonment
of the doctrines of the Incarnation and Atonement, and with the
resolution of Christianity into the inculcation of an elevated mon
otheism, coupled with the truth of immortality, and verified by
miracles.1 A ferment like that which Channing and his associates
excited could not stop where it began. In such an atmosphere
changes occur fast. The revolution of thought, like political rev
olutions, could not halt where its authors might wish it to stop,
but must move on to more advanced stages.
The first remarkable phenomenon was the development of the
Intuitional Theory, if so it may be styled. Schleiermacher, and
the French and German philosophers, were read by some. The
thoughts of these writers fell into a genial soil. Religious truth,
which the older Unitarians, after the manner of Locke and Paley,
received on the ground of miraculous proof, was now affirmed to
be evident to the soul independently of that species of evidence,
which was pronounced to be of secondary value. This view of
things involved a carrying of mental freedom further than had
been anticipated. It was supposed to threaten the basis of super-
naturalism. It awakened alarm. Professor Norton, learned in
New Testament criticism and in the early patristic literature, in an
address to the Cambridge Divinity School, in 1839, uttered a
warning against the new doctrine of a light within the soul, as the
latest form of infidelity. Spinoza, Schleiermacher, De Wette, and
kindred spirits, were put under the ban, and their followers excom-
1 Among the works which throw light on the history of Unitarianism in
New England, in its successive phases, are the Memoirs of Dr. Buckminster
and of J. S. Buckminster, Channing 's Memoirs (by W. H. Channing), the
Life of Dr. Gannett (by his son), the Biographies of Parker (by Weiss and by
Frothingham), Frothingham's Transcendentalism, and the Memoir of Mar
garet Fuller : also, History of the Unitarians in the U.S. (by J. H. Allen),
articles on Unitarianism and on Channing (by J W. Chadwick) in John
son's Encyclopedia, (new ed.). See, also, a learned article on th« History and
Literature of the Unitarian Controversy (by E. H. Gillett), Historical Maga-
ztnlf, 2d series, April, 1871.
MODERN THEOLOGY
433
municated with bell and candle. His position was that "no proof
of the divine commission of Christ could be afforded save through
miraculous displays of God's power." " No rational man," he
said, " can suppose that God has miraculously revealed facts which
the very constitution of our nature enables us to perceive." To
this address, Mr. George Ripley responded in a scholarly and
trenchant pamphlet, in which he earnestly vindicated Schleier-
macher and others from the charge of infidelity, and proved by
citations from eminent theologians that the internal proof of the
Gospel had been considered by the deepest thinkers of various
schools the principal evidence of its divine origin.
In this discussion both Ripley and Theodore Parker, who wrote
under a norn de plume on the same side, professed their belief in
the historical reality of the Gospel miracles. By degrees the
Transcendental School, of which Ralph Waldo Emerson was the
inspiring genius, although he could never act as the general of a
party, emerged into a distinct flourishing life. In 1832 Emerson
had resigned his office as a pastor in Boston, for the reason that
he was not willing to administer the Lord's Supper. He printed
by way of explanation a sermon to show that it was not meant to
be a perpetual observance. In 1836, in a published address to
the Divinity School at Cambridge, he brought forward his charac
teristic ideas respecting religion, which were considered by the
conservative Unitarians to be pantheistic in their import. His
utterances won a slowly increasing sympathy and excited, at the
same time, an ardent opposition. In this new teaching Christian
ity was not recognized as a specially revealed or authoritative relig
ion. Inspiration is not limited to the men of the Bible ; the soul
has voices within it which reveal eternal truth : let the individual
hearken for these utterances of the universal spirit, and no longer
lean on the crutches of authority. The maxim " Every man his
own prophet " seemed to some to need no further verification
when Mr. Emerson, professing a carelessness of logic, as with the
insight though with none of the assumption of an oracle, and with
the subtile, exquisite charm of his peculiar genius, began to impro
vise in the hearing of sympathetic listeners of both sexes.
A crisis in the development of Unitarianism was reached when
Theodore Parker, in 1841, delivered a discourse on "The Tran
sient and the Permanent in Christianity," in which the New Tes
tament narratives of miracles were pronounced to be myths. In
2F
434
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
1842 he set forth his opinions more fully in a volume entitled Dis
course of Matters pertaining to Religion. Miracles were relegated
by Parker to the transient in Christianity, and by him Christianity
was classified with the ethnic religions as a purely natural product.
Without renouncing theism, he affirmed that its doctrine issues
from the progress of religion on the plane of nature, and is not
derived from supernatural teaching. The truths which the Unita
rians had made the sum and substance of the Gospel he asserted
that we know intuitively. What need, then, to use Paley's phrase,
of "the splendid apparatus of miracles," to prove what we already
know by the light of Nature ? The immortality of the soul, it had
been said, is established by the resurrection of Jesus. But it is
easier, Parker declared, to prove that we are immortal than to
prove the resurrection. In short, he pronounced the evidence of
miracles superfluous : there was no dignus vindice nodus. If there
was nothing to prove, why should there be any proof? The essen
tials of Christianity had been reduced to a minimum; that mini
mum Parker conveyed over to natural theology. His opinions at
first encountered a pretty general protest from the side of the
Unitarian clergy and churches.
As between the older Unitarians and the orthodox, so now
between the conservative Unitarians and the Radicals, there was
a striking difference in the type of culture. The intuitional party
had given a hospitable and eager welcome to the continental
literature, not only to the metaphysicians and theologians, like
Cousin, Schleiermacher, and De Wette, but also to the poets and
critics — to such as Herder and Schiller, and especially to Goethe.
Carlyle's critical essays, before and after he began to pour out the
powerful jargon which became the characteristic of his style, were
eagerly read, and the new evangel of sincerity, unconscious genius,
and hero-worship mingled its stream in the current already swollen
by its Teutonic tributaries. The memoir of that woman of rare
intellectual gifts, Margaret Fuller, gives one a lively impression of
the enthusiasm awakened by the European authors. To men like
Professor Norton, a student of German, but who had derived no
very agreeable conception of the German mind from the earlier
Rationalistic writers whom he had been called upon to confute —
to men like him, highly cultivated, according to the older stan
dard, by the perusal of Locke and the English classics, and whose
favorite poet was not Goethe but Mrs. Hemans, this influx of
MODERN THEOLOGY 435
continental speculative mysticism and poetry was odious in the
extreme. Some of the devotees of the new culture cherished
ardent visions of an improved organization of society, in which
existing abuses and hindrances to intellectual progress should be
swept away. The Brook Farm Association, with its highly edu
cated circle of members, was one fruit of this class of ideas.
Mr. Parker was not the man to hide his light under a bushel.
The open avowal in the pulpit of opinions which had commonly
been considered infidel, made it necessary to draw lines. This,
on several accounts, was awkward. There was, to be sure, a real
difference between those who admitted and those who denied a
miraculous element in Christianity. But the promoters of the
Unitarian movement had made large professions of liberality.
They had called for an unrestricted mental freedom. They had
uttered a constant protest against "the system of exclusion,"
which thrusts men out of the pale of the Church for their opinions.
They had made it a merit to cast off the yoke of creeds. Now it
seemed requisite to construct a creed, to define Christianity, to
separate between liberality and license, and practically to excom
municate ministers, not for an alleged want of the Christian spirit,
but for their doctrines. No one will doubt that the appearance
of Parkerism was a highly unwelcome phenomenon, and a rather
unmanageable one, to the leading representatives of the liberal
theology. What added to the difficulty was, that there might not
be that amount of agreement among themselves which would
appear requisite if a creed were to be framed that should embrace
even so much as a tolerably precise definition of the authority to
be ascribed to the Scriptures and to Christ.
Channing naturally leaned strongly to an intuitional philosophy.
We have seen how he was drawn away from Locke by the influ
ence of Price. He had made much of the moral and spiritual
faculties of man, and of the spontaneous response which the con
tents of the Gospel call forth from human nature. There were
not wanting, then, affinities to draw him towards the new school
of Liberals. On the other hand, however, he was deeply attached
to historical Christianity. His biography contains a number of
memorable and beautiful letters in which he expresses himself
respecting Parkerism temperately but frankly. In their whole
tone they manifest, in the most attractive way, the loveliness of
his Christian spirit. He felt that a rejection of the miracles was
436
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
a rejection of Christ. The miracles, he says, are so interwoven
with His history that, if they are torn away, nothing is left ; that
history is turned into fable ; the historical Christ is gone. But
why not let Him go ? First, the soul craves not only the idea, but
the existence, of perfection. Christian truth without Christ and
His character loses a great portion of its quickening power. The
miracles are among the manifestations of Christ's character ; they
are symbolical of His spiritual influence — for these reasons they
cannot be spared. The miracles are credible. God could not
approach a darkened, sensual world by mere abstract teaching.
The inward perfection of Christ is itself a miracle, which renders
the outward acts of superhuman power easy of belief. Channing
recoils from pantheism, which he sees to be latent in the mind of
the new school of " true spiritualists." Speaking of a sermon
which he had heard on " the loneliness of Christ," he says : " I
claim little resemblance to my divine Friend and Saviour, but I
seem doomed to drink of this cup with Him to the last. I see
and feel the harm done by this crude speculation, while I also
see much nobleness to bind me to its advocates. In its opinions
generally I see nothing to give me hope. . . . The immense
distance of us all from Christ " in character is a fact so obvious
that not to recognize it implies such a degree of self-ignorance,
and of ignorance of human history, " that one wonders how it can
have entered a sound mind." ] In these letters there is no un
seemly denunciation, but there is genuine, manly sorrow at the
promulgation of opinions that are regarded as undermining his
torical Christianity.
From about the time of Parker's innovations in theology, the
conservative class of Unitarians, who resisted them, were gener
ally, although not universally, simple humanitarians in their doc
trine concerning Christ. They discarded the belief of Channing
in His preexistence as an exalted creature. But the repugnance
to Parker's negative positions gradually lessened. He came to
be commonly recognized by Unitarians as representing one admis
sible type of Unitarian theology. Even sympathy with his rejec
tion of the miraculous elements and events of the Gospel spread
until it became the prevailing sentiment.
The Universalist denomination began in America with the
preaching of John Murray (1741-1815), an Englishman, a con-
1 Memoirs, Vol. II. p. 448.
MODERN THEOLOGY 437
vert to Methodism, and for a time a Wesleyan preacher. He
adopted the doctrine of the final salvation of all, which he
preached along the Atlantic seaboard, but principally in New
England from 1 7 70 until his death. He was a Trinitarian. Another
early leader of the Universalists was Elhanan Winchester (1751-
1797), who began his ministry as a Baptist pastor. On various
points he differed from the theology of Murray. Walter Balfour
(c. 1776-1852), a Presbyterian minister from Scotland, preached
Universalism in America, and published the Inquiry, etc., and
other writings in behalf of this tenet. The most effectual agent
in propagating Universalism and in giving definite form to its
creed was Hosea Ballou (1771-1852). The Universalists have
recognized the Scriptures as a divine revelation. They have
rejected the doctrines of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and
His expiatory office. At the outset they were generally Restora-
tionists. Later they commonly disbelieved in future punishment
altogether ; but in more recent times they have often reverted to
the former opinion, in some instances with higher views of the
person and work of Christ.
By the middle of the present century the themes which had
most engaged the attention of the Evangelical party in New Eng
land since Edwards's day were beginning decidedly to lose their
special attraction. Questions relating to the effect of Adam's sin,
to the divine permission of sin, to natural and moral ability, were
perceptibly receding into the background. The person of Christ,
the Atonement, the authority of the Scriptures, naturalism and
supernaturalism, were the topics that were obviously coming to
the front. Among those called orthodox, the German theology
was modifying the type of theological culture and tendencies in
philosophy. To give a single example, Henry B. Smith was
thoroughly conversant with the modern phases of German thought.
Upon certain able and inquisitive minds, the writings of Coleridge,
which were first introduced to American readers by President
Marsh of the University of Vermont, opened new vistas of thought
and inquiry.
The indirect influence of German speculative thought in some
degree, and still more the direct influence of Coleridge, appeared
in Horace Bushnell, an original and gifted preacher, but not a
technical scholar.1 If a book was really stimulating, he found it
1 His Life and Letters, edited by his daughter, appeared in 1880.
438 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
difficult, he said, to read it through, its effect being to start his
" mind off on some track of its own." A few sentences of Cole
ridge in the Aids to Reflection were the germ of an eloquent trea
tise by Bushnell on "Nature and the Supernatural" (1858). In
it the thesis is illustrated that the will by virtue of its power of
initiating action is itself a supernatural agent. The first publica
tion, however, which brought Dr. Bushnell prominently before the
public as a theological author was his discourses on " Christian
Nurture." In this discussion he took up the divine constitution
of the family as a provision for planting Christian character in
children, and of thus extending the kingdom of God. The
organic relation of parents to their offspring, the organic unity of
the family, was insisted on in opposition to an extreme theory of
individualism. The atomic conception of Christian society was
vigorously attacked. It was the design of Providence that char
acter should be transmitted from parent to child. It should be
expected of children that they should grow up in the exercise of
Christian piety. To take it for granted that the young born in
religious households are to be irreligious up to the age of matu
rity, and are then to be suddenly converted, was pronounced a
gross practical error. The main reliance of the Church for the
spread of religion should not be revivals and revivalism, but right
methods of Christian nurture. Spasmodic excitements and spo
radic conversions were of minor utility compared with the silent
agency of the family within its own circle. The criticism was
made that the author had accounted for the congenital origin and
the progressive growth of Christian character on the plane of
naturalism, by the law of heredity : there was no more recognition
of the agency of the Spirit of God, it was said, than a pious deist,
who holds to the immanence of the divine Spirit and Providence
in the whole creation, might allow. This criticism, however, was
conceded not to bo valid as regards the intent of the author, and
could be justified only by reference to the apparent drift of a
portion of his language. He postulated an operation of Grace,
and an operation as immediate as is presupposed in the prevailing
creed, in the case of adult conversions. It was evident to all
that the book exhibited modes of thought diverse from those
in vogue among the principal adherents of the New England
theology.
In the volume entitled God in Christ (1849), Dr. Bushnell
MODERN THEOLOGY 439
discussed the doctrine of the Trinity. An essay of Schleiermacheiy
translated by Professor Stuart, was at the basis of this discussion.
This was followed, in 1851, by Christ in Theology. In these
works it is contended that since language is made up of symbols
it is of necessity inaccurate, so that theological definitions are
metaphors and creeds are in reality poems. They are only par
tially successful attempts to express that which can only be set
forth in forms of the imagination. Following the hints derived
from Schleiermacher, Bushnell undertook to solve the problem of
the Trinity by bringing forward the Sabellian hypothesis, — that of
the Trinity as solely a method of Revelation, — with which he con
nected a view that did not essentially differ from the Patripassian
theory of the person of Christ. Schleiermacher had been led into
his doctrine by his speculative difficulties respecting the person
ality of God. Bushnell was no Pantheist. Yet he sought to show
that personality in the Deity is to us incomprehensible, and
appears to clash with the infinitude of the divine attributes. It is
through the medium of three modes of personal action that the
ineffable One discloses Himself and comes near to the apprehen
sion of His creatures. The Logos is the self-revealing faculty of
the Deity; Father, Son, and Spirit are the dramatis persona
through which the hidden Being reveals Himself. In Christ, Bush
nell said, God manifests Himself under the limitations of human
life, — thinking, feeling, suffering with us. The existence of a
human spiritual nature, if not expressly denied, was held to be
practically of no account. It was substantially the Apollinarian
idea. " The human element is nothing to me, save as it brings
me to God, or discovers to me, a sinner, the patience and brother
hood of God as a Redeemer from sin. . . . The union of the
divine and human, being only for expression, what is there in it for
us beyond the expression ? There may be a human soul here, or
there may not : that is a matter with which we have nothing to do,
and about which we have not only no right to affirm, but no right
to inquire." * This was BushnelPs conception of Christ. God
surrenders Himself to the restrictions of a human organization, and
subjects Himself to the conditions of an earthly life on our level, as
a medium through which to manifest Himself to us. It is all, liter
ally speaking, divine thought, divine emotion, divine action, even
divine suffering. This was the fundamental thought in Dr. Bush-
1 Christ in Theokgy, pp. 93, 96.
440
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
nell's Christology, — the thought which, whatever were his muta
tions of opinion, was always uppermost.
But Dr. Bushnell did not stay by the modal theory of the
Trinity. Smitten by antagonistic critics on all sides, he began to
explore the history of doctrine, and discovered — discovered more
and more — that the Nicene or Catholic definitions embraced wel
come features which had been dropped out of later and more pro
vincial representations of the doctrine. There was the great idea
of self-expression, — " God of God," " Light of Light," etc. ; there
was the subordination of the Son, the Revealer, though not in the
Arian sense of inferiority of attributes ; there was especially a
Trinity belonging to the life and activity of the Deity, and not a
mechanical juxtaposition of three individuals or "distinctions."
"On a careful study of the creed prepared by this council [of
Nicsea], as interpreted by the writings of Athanasius in defence of
it, I feel obliged to confess that I had not sufficiently conceived its
import, or the title it has to respect as a Christian document."1
However, notwithstanding his effort to prove his close approach to
the Nicene formula, he still withholds his assent to the hypothesis
of an immanent Trinity. He holds that the distinction of persons
is incidental to revelation, which, to be sure, may — but may
not — have been eternal. Whether that distinction will ever cease
to be, he likewise finds it impossible to conclude. In short, the
immanence and eternity of the personal distinctions in the Deity
he is not quite prepared to admit. Still later, in an article marked
by consummate ability, — the ablest of his contributions to this
discussion,2 — he makes a further advance towards the Nicene
standard. Here he argues that the infinity of God engulfs us in
Pantheism unless we conceive of Him as a triple personality ; the
term ' person,' whether as a predicate of the One or of each of
the Three, being a figure, an approximative term, and so far inde
finable. The " practical infinity of God and the practical person
ality of God" are both secured by the Trinitarian conception. By
some interior necessity of His nature, He is thus " accommodated
in His action to the finite ; . . . He is eternally threeing Himself, or
generating three persons. ... In some high sense indefinable, He
is datelessly and eternally becoming three, or by a certain inward
1 Christ in Theology, p. 177.
2 The Christian Trinity a Practical Truth. New Englander, November,
1854.
MODERN THEOLOGY
441
necessity being accommodated in His action to the categories of
finite apprehension, — adjusted to that as that to the receiving of
this mystery. . . . We must have no jealousy of the Three, as if
they were to drift us away from the unity or from reason ; being
perfectly assured of this, that in using the triune formula, in the
limberest, least constrained way possible, and allowing the plu
rality to blend, in the freest manner possible, with all our acts of
worship, — preaching, praying, singing, and adoring, — we are
only doing with three persons just what we do with one ; making
no infringement of the unity with the Three, more than of the
infinity with the One." Here is a certain real immanence of the
Trinity. Still, however, there is a relation, as a necessary property
of the Deity, to the finite and to revelation ; hence a dependence
on the finite, at least as a possible existence. It is immanence
conditioned on relativity. The Nicene doctrine holds to the
Trinity as being independent of such a relation, as belonging to
the eternal necessary activity of the Divine Being, because it is the
realization to Himself of His own nature. It steers clear of every
germ of Pantheism. Bushnell's statement still postulates a poten
tial relation to the finite as the ground or condition of tri-person-
ality. It is evident, however, that the Athanasian theology more
and more commended itself to Bushnell's mind. The movement
of his thought was in this direction.
Bushnell's departure from the prevalent doctrine of the Atone
ment was even more provocative of dissent. On the orthodox
side in New England there was a popular representation of the
work of Christ which was offensively meagre. His death was
treated as a make-weight in a scheme of moral government. At
a given point a certain amount of suffering was wanted by way of
counterpoise to the penalty remitted, and the passion of Christ
served the purpose. The defect arising from the limited quantity
of suffering was said to be balanced by the dignity of His person.
The governmental theory as set forth by the younger Edwards, and
before him by Grotius, was the opinion in vogue. The death of
Christ was not penalty, but a substitute for it, — an expression of
God's abhorrence of sin, equivalent, in respect to the ends of gov
ernment, to the infliction of the penalty. Very well, said Bushnell,
let it be considered an "expression." The correlate of expression
is impression; and if there is expression it must be according to
aesthetic laws ; it must be in a mode conformed to the laws by
442
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
which thought or feeling is conveyed from mind to mind. What
are those laws? How is it that the death of Christ is thus expres
sive? To this question the New England theology, as he con
tended, gave no intelligible answer. But Bushnell, in his earlier
expositions of the subject, gave up altogether the propitiatory
idea as a literal truth. Christ, he taught, came into the world to
renovate character. This was the one comprehensive end of His
mission. Nothing was needed but the reconciliation of men to
God, or a new spirit in men. Christ produces this through the
power exerted by Him as bringing into visible manifestation the
forbearance, pity, yearning, forgiving love of God. Disobedience
and distrust are both conquered ; they melt away under this face-
to-face view of the divine goodness. The restoration of the trans
gressor to confiding communion with God arrests the progress of
that disordered action of our spiritual nature which is the principal
penalty of sin. There results a healing of the soul, — inward
health and peace. This is the moral view of the Atonement
which, in its characteristic principle, was advocated by Abelard.
It is not radically different from the Socinian theory. But Bush
nell held fast to the divinity of Christ, who is ever present to the
believing soul ; and he emphasized the truth that our life is per
petually in Christ. He is infinitely more than an example to be
copied : he is a power of righteousness. Much that was involved
in the old idea of the unto mystica Bushnell interwove in his con
ception. There is a living, spiritual, reciprocal fellowship between
the believer and Christ ; but propitiation and all kindred terms
were declared to be the language of appearance : they are figures,
as when we say that the sun rises. A change which takes place
in ourselves we metaphorically impute to God. The removal of
our distrust and alienation, which sets us at one with Him, we rep
resent to ourselves as a removal of hostility in Him. But this
imaginative exercise, Bushnell contended, is necessary to the end
in view, — which is the production within us of penitent and trust
ful feeling towards God. It is the means, therefore, of that change
in us which is the indispensable condition of restored communion
with Him. The sacrifices of the old covenant were a " transac-
tional liturgy," which was operative in this way. Bushnell's
standing illustration is the analogy of prayer. This is not, he
tells us, a self- magnetizing process. Prayer is to produce an
effect. Nevertheless the effect is only indirectly an effect on
MODERN THEOLOGY
443
God. He is not changed. The effort to change Him produces
such a change in us that the sole obstacle to the exercise of His
beneficence towards us is removed. In this circuitous way we
may be said to prevail with God in supplication. In no other
way is He said to be propitiated.
It cannot be said that the " altar form," as originally presented,
continued to satisfy Bushnell himself. In his elaborate treatise
on "Vicarious Sacrifice," he set forth the moral view of the Atone
ment, — the renewing influence upon character which flows out
from Christ, from His sympathy and suffering with us, and His
whole collective manifestation. He went beyond his former dog
matic statements so far as to give some place to the voluntary
participation of Christ in " the corporate curse " of the race, or
in the sufferings which come upon mankind as a retributive inflic
tion consequent upon sin. But he was careful to say that he laid
no great amount of stress on this element in his view. One lead
ing proposition, it should be remarked, in this treatise is that the
incarnation and suffering of Christ fall under a law of self-sacrifice
which is of universal obligation.
It is a fine instance of Bushnell's intellectual honesty that he
came before the public once more with a frank avowal of a modi
fication of his opinion on this momentous theme. This was in his
Forgiveness and Law (1874). He still considered the aton
ing function of Christ to be nothing exceptional in its principle,
to be nothing at variance with general law. It was grounded, as
the title-page announced, "in principles interpreted by human
analogies." Bnt there had been " an unexpected arrival of fresh
light " into his mind. He had caught sight of a meaning and a
reality in propitiation which he had not discerned before. It had
struck him that in all cases of heavy grievance, even though there
is a placable wish and intent, it is psychologically impossible to
quiet the resentful, retributive impulse inherent in one's own
conscience, save by undertaking some work involving loss and
suffering in behalf of the offender. Only by this means is the
feeling of forgiveness realized in the heart of the party wronged ;
only thus are all traces of the vengeful sentiment of justice dissi
pated. This Dr. Bushnell supposed to be a general fact, holding
true of men, and by analogy presumably of all rational beings. It
is a fact of experience, however inexplicable it may be. Accord
ingly God Himself in Christ enters upon a work of self-sacrifice
444
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
and self-propitiation. By undergoing suffering, by the cross and
passion, He realizes in Himself the clemency which He would fain
exercise. He appeases His own justly indignant sentiment. The
end was still the recovery of the sinful creature from the guilty and
painful bondage of sin. This was the benefit to be imparted. It
is to be observed that one leading idea runs like a thread through
all his thinking on this subject, in its successive stages. It is God
Himself who is active and passive in all the experiences of Christ.
They are an expression of God. It is the divine, not the human,
which acts and suffers. The human is at best but a transparent
glass, through which we look directly into the heart of God. The
fundamental thought with which Bushnell started remained with
him to the end. There is not a full recognition of the real human
ity of Christ.
In this treatise ] Dr. Bushnell remarks that " the staple of being
and capacity" in wicked men diminishes by a natural law, and
adds that the possibility is thus suggested that at some remote
period they may be quite wasted away or extirpated." The opin
ion that reprobate men will thus be "annihilated," which, as will
be seen, has had its advocates in Germany and in England, has
been maintained in the United States in writings of Dr. Lyman
Abbott and by other authors. The doctrine — not coupled with
the doctrine of " conditional immortality " — of a continued pro
bation of such as do not hear or wilfully reject the offers of
salvation through Christ has been supported as the necessary
consequence of a general Atonement by able theologians of the
Andover School of Theology.
The modifications of Calvinism in the New England theology
have met with a steady opposition which has had its principal
centre in the Princeton Theological School, founded in 1812. Its
doctrines are presented in the elaborate treatise of its most cele
brated teacher, Charles Hodge.2 By him the church doctrine of
the eternal generation of the Son is defended. This doctrine was
maintained, in opposition to Stuart, by Miller, also a professor at
Princeton. On the subject of Original Sin, the doctrine of the
immediate imputation of Adam's sin on the basis of the Covenant
1 p- i47-
2 Systematic Theology (3 vols. 1872). A clear summary of the Princeton
theology is given by Dr. A. A. Hodge in his Outlines of Theology (i voL
1879).
MODERN THEOLOGY 445
is supported. The realistic hypothesis, which is taught in the
system of Shedd, is combated. The relation of Adam is alleged
to be that of a representative, acting for the posterity to be born
of him, according to a benevolent, as well as righteous, arrange
ment instituted of God, whereby the penalty of his sin is judicially
inflicted upon them. Consequently, they are born with a sinful
tendency to evil-doing, which realizes itself at the beginning of
personal agency in actual transgressions. This inborn depravity
carries in it a just condemnation to eternal death, unless redeem
ing grace intervenes. A parallelism is affirmed to exist between
the relation of Adam on the one hand, as the author and source
of condemnation, and the relation of Christ on the other. The
righteousness of God requires that all sin should be adequately
punished. The Atonement is a substitution judicial in its nature
and effect, and thus avails necessarily for the salvation of all for
whom it was intended.
The spread of the New England theology, especially in the
later developments of the School of Edwards, produced theological
contests in the Presbyterian Church. Their result, in connection
with other causes of difference, led to the division of that body
in 1838, which continued down to 1869-70; the Presbyterian
Church of the South, in the interval, in consequence of political
estrangement, having broken off from the " Old School " section.
CHAPTER III
THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY : THE EVAN
GELICAL SCHOOL IN THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH THE PHILOSOPHY
AND THE THEOLOGY OF COLERIDGE THE EARLY ORIEL SCHOOL :
WHATELEY, ARNOLD — THE OXFORD MOVEMENT : ITS SOURCES AND
LEADERS : ITS PRINCIPLES AND AIMS : THE TRACTS : THE HAMP-
DEN CONTROVERSY : THE CONVERSION OF NEWMAN : THE DOCTRINE
OF THE EUCHARIST AND OTHER TENETS OF THE OXFORD SCHOOL :
THE GORHAM CASE : CANON LIDDON : CANON GORE : J. B. MOZ-
LEY'S THEOLOGICAL TEACHING
THE Evangelical School in the Established Church was largely,
although by no means wholly, the fruit of the Methodist revival.
If Whitefield was not its founder, he was its efficient promoter.
Among the preachers and writers of this school are Henry Venn,
Romaine, John Newton, the pastor of Cowper, Thomas Scott,
Milner, and Hannah More. Wilberforce's Practical View, published
in 1797, had a great influence both in Great Britain and America,
and was translated into a number of languages. Simeon had a
remarkably successful career at Cambridge as a preacher of the
Evangelical School. But of this school, great as was the service
rendered to the cause of practical religion by it, little is to be said
in a history of theology. It formed the strength of the Low Church
party, which was prevalent in the early decades of the present
century. Its leaders cherished Calvinistic opinions. It was one
of their defects that so little was done by them to throw light upon
the reasonableness of the doctrines which were inculcated with so
much faith and fervor.
The distinction of introducing a new and more spiritual method
into English theology belongs to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, equally
eminent as a poet and philosopher. Versed in the systems
of the later German philosophers, and drawing from these
446
MODERN THEOLOGY 447
sources what was congenial with his own thoughts, he still evinces
always the originality of true genius. Unhappily, he constructed
no system. The most orderly exposition of his religious ideas and
speculations is found in the Aids to Reflection, and in essays in The
Friend. But scattered through his writings of a more miscella
neous nature are quickening suggestions and criticisms. Through
Coleridge, the characteristic defect of the orthodoxy of the last
century, its external and rationalizing mode of explaining and
defending Christianity, gives place to a deeper insight and a more
profound philosophical apprehension. A fundamental principle
in the teaching of Coleridge is the distinction between reason and
understanding. It is substantially the distinction of Kant, but
modified in such a way that reason is conceived of as the organ
of supersensuous realities, by which they are recognized and their
existence is verified. It is the faculty of intuitions as to things
above sense. With Jacobi, it is described as an organ " bearing
the same relation to spiritual objects, the universal, the eternal,
and the necessary, as the eye bears to material and contingent phe
nomena" This doctrine bears directly on the relative place and
weight of what are called the "evidences " of religion, both nat
ural and revealed. A second fundamental principle of Coleridge
is the distinction between Nature and Spirit. Nature embraces
the realm subject to the law of cause and effect. Spirit is self-
determining and self-conscious. The will, not being in this net
work of causation, but self-determining, — that is, originating
its own acts and states, — belongs in another and higher order
than that of Nature. Coleridge condemns the theory of " mod
ern Calvinism " as really destructive of will, and as dissonant
from the conception of early Lutheranism and Calvinism. It is
" the difference of a captive and enslaved will, and no will at all."
Coleridge holds of all the ideas of which we are assured by
conscience, directly or implicitly, — ideas derived "from the moral
being," — that they cannot, like " theoretical positions, be pressed
onward into all their logical consequences." On these, the law of
conscience, and not the canons of logic, must be heeded. A veto
at least belongs to this law. Inferences are not to be admitted
which are repugnant to the dictates of conscience.
The ultimate source of our belief in God is to be found in
the moral and spiritual nature of man. His existence is not
literally demonstrable. Some room is left " for will and moral
448
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
election." It is a truth corroborated by everything without as
well as within us. Scripture teaches us that miracles of them
selves cannot work conviction in the mind, — not if a man were
to rise from the dead to confirm them. If the spiritual truths
" which derive their evidence from within " are not believed, mira
cles, even were they credited, would be of no practical efficacy.
The right order of proofs is inverted by the Paleyan school.
There must be " a predisposing warmth " in the soul. Moreover,
the attempt must not be made to carry conviction respecting the
mysteries of faith by borrowing faulty analogies from human ex
perience. The proofs of the divinity of Christ are in the require
ments of our moral being. "On the doctrine of Redemption
depends the faith, the duty, of believing in the divinity of our
Lord." There is an "utter incompatibility" of the offices of
Christ as Saviour and Mediator with a mere creature.
In his posthumous Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, Coleridge
has presented striking suggestions respecting the inspiration of the
Scriptures. The evidence of the inspiration of the Bible is internal.
In the Scriptures, says Coleridge, "I have met everywhere more
or less copious sources of truth, and power, and purifying im
pulses. . . . Need I say that I have found words for my inmost
thoughts, sounds for my joy, utterances for my hidden griefs, and
pleadings for my shame and my feebleness? . . . Whatever/;^ me,
bears witness for itself that it has proceeded from a Holy Spirit,"
etc. Coleridge does not hold to the infallibility of all parts of
the Scriptures. He suggests that the spirit of the whole book is
to judge each separate part. But faith in Christ precedes faith
in the Scriptures.
Coleridge rejects the Arminian solution of the problem of
Original Sin, and criticises Jeremy Taylor's exposition of the sub
ject. His own view is as follows : At the beginning of the con
scious life of each individual, his will is found to be determined
to the inferior good. This evil direction of the will is common to
all men, and is the source of all particular sins of habit and act.
This evil disposition presupposes an act originating it, but known
only through its consequences. It is a timeless act. " It is a
link in the chain of historic instances whereof Adam is the first."
It is not, however, instilled into my will by the will of another.
The phrase, "the old man," is used in the Epistles of Paul as the
equivalent of "Adam," and is used symbolically and universally.
MODERN THEOLOGY
449
In this matter, every man is the adequate representative of all.
That anything further is involved in the relation of our sin to
Adam's can neither be denied nor conceived.
Respecting the Atonement, Coleridge says that the four generic
representations in the New Testament of this truth are representa
tions not of the redemption act itself, but of its effects. These
effects are depicted by so many analogies drawn from human rela
tions. The effect itself is denoted by St. John, as far as it can
be to our minds, by the term ' regeneration,' involving deliver
ance from spiritual death. As to the redemption act itself, we
are taught that Christ was made a life-giving Spirit, and that the
Incarnation, the obedience of Christ, His death for us, which
involves a conquest of death for all who receive Him, was neces
sary. The redemptive act presupposes an Agent who can at once
act on the Will as an exciting cause, quasi ab extra, and in the
will " as the condition of its potential and the ground of its actual
being." Regeneration is the sum total of the effect, but its conse
quences are purification from sin and deliverance from its inherent
and penal consequences in the world to come. It is a mistake to
attribute to Coleridge the opinion that the atoning work of Christ
consists in its power to affect the minds of men. That Act is left
a mystery on which only partial light can be thrown.
In the view which Coleridge presents of the Church, he
dissents from Hooker. Church and State are not one and the
same society in different aspects. He agrees with Warburton that
originally they are distinct and independent. The Visible Church
of Christ is not to be confounded with the National Church. The
former has ministers of its own, appointed and sustained by itself.
The National Church is created by the Nation for the moral cult
ure of the people. The Nation, on fixed terms, employs the
ministers of the Visible Church, to do the work. The connection,
however, is a separable one. Coleridge's hostility both to the
identifying of the Church with the State, and of the Church with
the clergy, is thus emphatically expressed : —
" As far as the principle on which Archbishop Laud and his
followers acted went to reactuate the idea of the Church, as a
coordinate and living power by right of Christ's institution and
express promise, I go along with them ; but I soon discover that
by the Church they meant the clergy, the hierarchy exclusively,
and then I fly off from them in a tangent. For it is this very
2G
450
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
interpretation of the Church, that according to my conviction
constituted the first and fundamental apostasy ; and I hold it for
one of the greatest mistakes of our polemic divines, in their con
troversies with the Romanists, that they trace all the corruptions
of the gospel faith to the Papacy."
From about the year 1815 to the middle of the present century,
Oxford was the centre and source of theological movements of
great moment. The first of these was connected with what is
designated the Earlier Oriel School. It is in strong contrast with
the later school, led by John Henry Newman and his associates,
which is also linked in its origin to the same college. The prin
cipal representatives of the Earlier Oriel School are Richard
Whately, who became Archbishop of Dublin, and Thomas Arnold,
the head- master of Rugby School. In a sense they stood by
themselves. They were not affiliated with the Evangelical Party,
not being in sympathy with its tone or with its standard of ortho
doxy, and they were at a further remove still from High Church
doctrine in any of its phases. Whately, as to his point of view
and general spirit as a religious thinker, has been fitly likened to
Grotius. He handled with clearness and logical strength what
ever subject he took up. In his Christian Evidences and in
his annotated edition of Paley on the same theme, a quite promi
nent place is assigned to the external proofs, after the manner
of the apologists of the eighteenth century. In his work on
the " Kingdom of Christ " he holds fast to the idea that the Church
is a distinct society, not to be confounded with the State, with
which it may be allied. He approximates to a Congregational
idea of the nature of the Church. He denies Apostolic Succes
sion as not capable of proof and as not necessary to the valid
exercise of the ministry. The analogies of political obligations
are applied to the duty of conforming to existing modes of eccle
siastical organization, and, as an extreme resort, to the right of
secession or revolution. In his Essays on Some of the Difficulties
in the Writings of St. Paul, he opposes Calvinistic election. This
position, with other kindred views, along with his opinions per
taining to the future state — he held to conditional immortality —
and his rejection of the doctrine that the observance of Sunday
rests on the legal basis of the Jewish Sabbath, were obnoxious to
the Evangelical Party. But the Broad Church position of Whately
lacked certain vital characteristics of the party bearing the same
MODERN THEOLOGY 45!
name at a later day. This last took a different view of the nature
of revelation and of its evidences.
The theological opinions of Arnold are disclosed in his pub
lished sermons, his reviews and essays, and in the correspondence
printed in Stanley's Memoir. Everywhere in Arnold's utterances
there is manifest an intense moral earnestness. He gives the
foremost place in his creed to the truth of the divinity of Jesus
Christ. He rejects the doctrine of the absolute inerrancy of the
Scriptures ; but he holds that concerning the things of faith, in
cases where the Apostles were in error, — as in the expectation of
a speedy Second Advent of Christ, — a special provision has been
made to guard against conclusions adverse to their authority,
and against harmful practical inferences on the part of their
readers. He expresses critical views pertaining to the Canon —
for example, the origin and date of the book of Daniel — views
at variance with the traditional opinion, and foretells that the
coming discussion of these topics will produce a commotion like
that caused by the Reformation. On the subject of the Church,
Arnold reproduces Hooker's theory of the identity of Church and
State in a Christian community. Their functions are inseparable.
He would make the English Church so comprehensive as to include
in it the body of the people, and thus to become literally national.
Arnold contends with the utmost ardor of conviction against the
doctrine of a priesthood in the Christian Church, a doctrine which
he considers to have been the fountain of ecclesiastical tyranny and
corruption. Apostolical Succession, and everything which is made
a part or warrant of sacerdotalism, he vigorously repudiates.
To the " Oxford Movement," to give it the title usually applied
to it at present, Whately and Arnold were always hostile. From
the talents of its originators and the interest that belongs to their
personal history, and from its profound and, as the event has
proved, lasting influence on the Anglican Church in its various
branches, the Movement must retain a conspicuous place in the
annals of English Christianity. Here we have to consider it in
its bearings on Christian doctrine. In that fascinating piece of
autobiography, the Apologia of Newman, we have an account of
the rise and progress of the party of which — up to the time
of his secession to Rome — he was the life and soul.1
1 The literature relating to the Oxford Movement is copious. The Apologia
pro sua Vita, occasioned by a paragraph from the pen of Charles Kingsley,
452
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Newman gives John Keble the credit of starting the Movement
by his assize sermon at Oxford in July, 1833, in which Keble dis
cussed the existing perils of the Church. Hurrell Froude was a
pupil of Keble, and in his turn influenced his teacher. Froude
brought Newman into personal connection with Keble. Pusey,
who enlisted somewhat later in the cause (in 1835), brought to
the advocacy of it advantages arising from his aristocratic con
nections, his academic station of Regius Professor, and his repute
as an Oriental scholar. The proceeding of these and the rest of
the group who participated in the Movement in its early stages,
not unlike as it was in some respects to the undertaking of John
Wesley and his Oxford associates a century before, differed from
it in one striking particular. Wesley and his companions em
barked in the work of propagating the Gospel among the people by
preaching in-doors and out-of-doors. It was the primary aim of
Newman and his friends to produce a change within the Church.
Their appeals were to the cultivated class, and especially to the
clergy.
The enemy which the Oxford leaders set out to resist and to
baffle was " Liberalism." It was the period in Great Britain of
Catholic Emancipation and of the Reform Bill. The state of
things is sketched by Newman in the Apologia, and by William
Palmer, a learned scholar who cooperated with the promoters
was published in 1864. It was recast and printed in 1865, as A History of
my Religious Opinions. The editions after the first introduced some changes,
examples of which are given in E. A. Abbott's The Anglican Career of Car
dinal Newman (1892), Vol. II. c. vii. Church's The Oxford Movement,
Twelve Years, 1833-1845 (1891), is a sympathetic but candid narrative.
The Life of Edward Bouverie Pusey, was begun by Liddon and was com
pleted and edited by Johnston and Wilson, in 4 vols. (1893-95). Other impor
tant books bearing on the Oxford Movement are the Remains of Hurrell
Froude; the Letters of Newman while in the Anglican Church; the Reminis
cences of T. Mozley; the Letters of James B. Mozley; the Contributions, etc.,
of Newman's younger brother, F. W. Newman (written in advanced age,
but of some value respecting J. H. Newman's early days) ; E. A. Abbott's
work, referred to above, together with his earlier Philomythus (1891), both
of which are adverse in tone, but the first-named especially of value as a care
ful critical study; the Autobiography of Mark Pattison (somewhat cynical,
as by one who looks back on his discipleship as a period of delusion). The
Memoirs of Archbishop Tait, of Dean Stanley, of William George Ward, of
Mark Pattison, the Autobiography of Isaac Williams, are among the numerous
publications which throw almost an excess of light on the general subject.
MODERN THEOLOGY
453
of the Movement at the beginning, before Romanist tendencies
repelled him, and whose work on the Church is one of the most
erudite and solid productions emanating from the High Church
theologians. " Bulwarks " of the English Church, like the Test
and Corporation Acts, had been repealed in 1828. Parliament
opened its doors to the admission of Romanists and Dissenters.
The democratic principle seemed on the road to a triumph which
would strip the Anglican Church of whatever independence had
been left to it by former political encroachments. In the progress
of political reform ten of the Irish bishoprics had been effaced.
Lord Grey had met the spirit of resistance to liberal measures in
an uncompromising spirit, warning the bishops in England to set
their house in order. It is undoubtedly true that the power of
ecclesiastical defence against innovation under the banner of lib
eralism, seemed feeble. The Evangelical party had somewhat
degenerated in character. It could not be counted upon to sup
port measures at variance with Low Church principles. The
High Church, not inaptly characterized as " High and Dry," had
in it good and scholarly men, whose temper, however, was not
adapted to conflict. In it, likewise, among the clergy, there was
a worldly, self-seeking class, pervaded by a spirit of insular Angli
canism, in distinction from what may be called a catholic con
sciousness. Its supporters were, for the most part, inert.
The Oxford Movement was essentially a revival of the Anglo-
Catholicism of the days of Andre wes and Thorndike. Hooker was
revered, and there was a disposition to seek shelter behind his
shield ; but Hooker cannot fairly be counted among the doctors
of this school. Other influences, as Newman has pointed out,
conjoined to foster the theological tendency now awakened to a
new life. Such was the effect of the writings of Walter Scott,
which lent a charm to medisevalism. Such, in a different way,
was the impression made by the poetry of Wordsworth. There
was no purpose to aid the cause of the Church of Rome. On the
other hand, the political concessions to Rome in relation to Ire
land formed one of the grounds of complaint. The Movement
was a rally against Erastianism. It was an uprising, on the part of
a few religious and highly gifted men, in behalf of that conserva
tive, patristic, sacramental form of Anglican piety and theology, of
which Laud was the precursor and Andrewes the typical repre
sentative, which had been cherished among the non-jurors, but
454 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
had undergone a long, if not a total, eclipse, at least as to some
of its distinguishing features. The ideas and intentions of the
authors of the Movement are presented in the document that was
adopted at a meeting held at the house of Rev. Hugh James Rose,
one of the most eminent High Church divines of the day.1 It was
resolved "to maintain inviolate the doctrines, the services, and
the discipline of the Church," " the primitive practice in religious
offices," the Apostolical prerogatives and commission of the three
orders in the ministry. Dangers to the Establishment was a topic
waived for the time in view of graver perils. In some minds,
especially in the case of Keble, the liking to the Establishment
had become chilled, owing to disgust at the expansion of secular
control. Preparatory to the meeting with Mr. Rose, Newman
had drawn up a programme, which was published by Mr. Perceval.
It is more full and specific than the paper (composed mainly by
Palmer) which it was decided to adopt. It comprises four heads :
i. The only way of life is the partaking of the body and blood of
Christ. 2. The expressly authorized means is the sacrament.
3. The expressly authorized security for the continuance and due
administration of the sacrament is the apostolical commission of
bishops. 4. In view of the danger, under present circumstances,
that these things will be slighted and practically disowned, several
pledges are proposed: (i) to be on the watch for opportunities
to inculcate them ; (2 and 3) to circulate books and tracts to the
same end ; (4) to endeavor to secure the revival among Church
men of daily common prayer, and more frequent partaking of
the Lord's Supper; (5) to resist unauthorized alterations of the
Liturgy; (6) to diffuse accounts of points in discipline and wor
ship "most likely to be undervalued or misunderstood." The
character of this statement may be summed up in one word, —
Sacramentalism. It is Apostolical Succession, associated with the
efficacy of the Eucharist, and the preservation of the Prayer Book
from being robbed of phraseology which was thought to inculcate
the views taken of sacramental grace ; for this is the motive of the
pledge relative to the Liturgy. Other particulars of doctrine were
subsequently contended for. One was the authority of Tradition,
in connection with Scripture, as handing down the teaching of the
Apostles. The authority of the undivided Church, prior to the
separation of the East from the West, was maintained by Pusey in
1 Palmer, Narrative of Events, etc. (1883), p. 104.
MODERN THEOLOGY 455
his Eirenicon and in various earlier writings by him, and by the
party generally. It was insisted that if justification is by faith,
judgment is by works. For other practices, such as the adoration
of Christ in the Sacrament, invocation, prayers of a certain kind
for the dead, — practices generally supposed to belong distinctively
to Romanism, — authority was diligently sought, and not without a
degree of success, in earlier doctors of the Anglo-Catholic school.
The attitude of the Movement in relation to the Reformers was
necessarily that of only partial sympathy, which might easily lapse
into antipathy. Not only were the Oxford leaders strangers to
that unenlightened hostility to the Church of Rome, which it has
commonly been easy to kindle into a flame ; they were naturally
prompted, both by their own predilections and by their desire to
infuse into the current Protestantism phases of opinion common
to themselves and to the Roman Church, virtually to take sides on
many points with the Romanists. To exhibit the Church of Eng
land as one branch of the Church Catholic, the Church of Rome
being a coordinate branch ; to maintain that for Anglicans there
is a seat of authority in the Church Visible, the Church of the
first centuries, and a secure possession of sacramental grace
through an Apostolic priesthood ; in short, to assert the reality of
a satisfactory via media between Protestantism as ordinarily under
stood and Rome — such was the task undertaken. The Declara
tion, in the moderate shape in which it was cast at the meeting
with Mr. Rose, received the signatures of seven thousand of the
clergy. In a modified form it was signed by 230,000 heads of
families. The somewhat informal propaganda which had been
started at that conference bore its fruit in the Tracts for the
Times; these gave to the party the nickname of "Tractarians."
Subsequently they were popularly styled " Puseyites." Several of
the first tracts in the series were composed by Newman. The
doctrine on which he specially insisted was that of Apostolic Suc
cession. In the earliest of them presbyters and deacons are
addressed. It is said : " I fear we have neglected the real ground
on which our authority is built — "OUR APOSTOLICAL DESCENT."
The clergy are exhorted to exalt the bishops " as representatives
of the Apostles," and to magnify their own office " as being
ordained by them." l In the preface to the first volume of the
Tracts, which comprises forty-six, there is the same train of re-
1 Quoted in Church, pp. 101, 103.
456 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
mark. It is said that " Sacraments, not preaching, are the sources
of divine grace." ] In 1835 three elaborate tracts in a series (67,
68, 69) on " Baptism," were contributed by Pusey. They inculcate
the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, and the imparting by it
of spiritual life. Baptism, it is taught, washes away all guilt. But
sins, save venial faults, committed afterwards, could never in this
life be fully pardoned. There might be an admission to a lower
state of divine favor. But, as Newman phrases it in his explana
tion of the doctrine of this Tract, there is nothing more " than the
suspension of our sins over our heads " until the Last Judgment.
The contrast between Luther's idea of baptism, as being, through
the recollection of it, a source of comfort to the distressed peni
tent ever afterwards, and Pusey's doctrine is absolute. By this
essay space is really cleared for a resort to Confession, to Penance,
and Absolution, and for a new conception of the import and value
of the Eucharist. Like most of the author's writings, it is thickly
strewn with quotations from the Fathers. In 1836 Dr. Hampden
was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity. This appointment
called out a storm of opposition, in which Pusey and his friends
were joined by a large body of conservative Churchmen in the
University, who were not of their party. This opposition was
based principally on Hampden's Bampton Lectures for 1832, on
"The Scholastic Philosophy in Relation to Christianity." It is
conceded that he was in truth " unexceptionably, even rigidly,
orthodox in his acceptance of Church doctrine and Church
creeds."2 He had even defended the Athanasian creed. His
offence lay in his drawing a distinction between the facts of
Scripture, the doctrines as there expressed, and the human infer
ences deduced from them, which he did not consider that the
" immemorial judgment of the Church " necessarily bound us to
accept. His book was accused of a rationalistic drift. A personal
element mingled in the strife, and consequent bitterness. Dr.
Arnold's spirit was aflame at what he considered a cruel persecu
tion, and he poured out his hot indignation in the article in the
Edinburgh Review on "The Oxford Malignants." In the same
year (1836), the Library of the Fathers, prior to the division of
the East and West, under the editorship of Pusey, Keble, and
Newman, was announced. Its translations, introductions, and
notes were to exhibit from the original sources the genuine
1 Quoted in Church, p. 108. a Church, p. 144.
MODERN THEOLOGY 457
Catholic theology, before the errors of Romanism or of Protes
tantism had a being.
For a series of years, the Movement made rapid progress. It
was in everybody's thoughts and speech at Oxford, and the fer
ment excited there spread abroad. The preaching of Newman
and his personal fascination were the most potent agency in
exciting attention and winning adherents. His influence for a
time at Oxford was something almost unprecedented. It was in
truth a powerful influence which cast a spell over so many persons
of high promise. It was felt by some, as Mark Pattison and James
Anthony Froude, who in the reaction from it lapsed into skepti
cism. It entered as a disturbing force for a while into the minds
of devoted admirers of Arnold, such as Arthur dough, and even
in a perceptible degree impressed Arthur Stanley. But the charge
made from the beginning against the fomenters of the Movement,
that it was really if not consciously Romanist in its character, —
some even denouncing it as a treasonable conspiracy to betray
the English Church, — was conceived by an increasing number to
be sustained by the course of events. Injudicious tracts were
published, — notably the tract on "Reserve," by Isaac Williams,
which taught that religious beliefs, from prudential motives, may
be expressed only in part, and may be veiled until the fitting
moment for announcing them arrives. It was the doctrine of
" economy," of the " tact and management " rightly to be em
ployed in the inculcation of truth. Aside from circumstances of
this kind, among the followers of Newman there were able men
whose drift was from the beginning Romewards, and who became
conscious of it sooner than Newman was distinctly aware of such
a drift in himself.1 Perplexities that operated to obstruct his
progress in that direction retarded them in a less degree. Francis
Faber and William George Ward belonged to this section. But it
was the issue, early in 1841, of the tract No. 90, from the pen of
Newman, that caused the storm of disapproval to break out in the
English Church from Anti-Romanists of every shade. The design
of the tract was to show that the language of the Thirty-nine
Articles admits of a " Catholic " interpretation, and is designed in
some cases to oppose dogmas of Rome, but more often abuses
connected with them, but not taken up into the Roman system.
Its intent was to prove that an Anglo-Catholic need not desert
1 See Church, p. 208.
458 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the Church of England, although he might in certain instances
condemn Papal doctrine. It is an extremely ingenious essay. It
reads, however, more like the plea of a skilful advocate, than like
the opinion of a fair-minded judge. This is substantially admitted
by Dean Church, so far as the actual impression made by it is con
cerned. " Some of the interpretations," says Church, " undoubt
edly seemed far-fetched and artificial."1 There were numerous
readers of tract No. 90 who felt it to be an example of immoral
sophistry. Especially offensive to Arnold was the attempt to ex
plain away the real purport of the XXIst Article, which declares
that General Councils " may err, and sometimes have erred." An
example equally open to censure is the comments on the XXVIIIth
Article, in which transubstantiation is denied, and on the explana
tion appended to the Communion Service that the " natural body
and blood " of Christ are " in heaven and not here." Resort is
had to a speculation on the nature of locality, in which it is emp
tied of the meaning commonly attached to it. This is well styled
by the author himself a " specious defence," the validity of which
is not absolutely asserted. It is remarkable how Newman leans
upon the Homilies for the support of his interpretations of the
Articles. The XXXVth Article says of the Homilies that they
" contain a godly and wholesome doctrine." Their popular style
and patristic phraseology easily lend themselves to this use. He
dismisses their repeated designation of the " Bishop or the Church
of Rome " as Antichrist, on the ground that the statement does
not bear on doctrine.2
At this time Newman himself was not without misgivings
respecting the title of the Anglican Church to the character of
" catholicity." He was in a measure debating with himself. He
had grown to believe that a portion of the arguments which he had
used against Rome were unsound. This inward questioning had
commenced several years earlier. The drawing towards Rome
was not a little due to the influence of Hurrell Froude, who was
a medievalist in all his tendencies. In 1834 Froude writes to a
correspondent that it is no matter where the pulpit is placed, if it
do not " stand in the light of the Altar, which is more sacred than
the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple." 3 From Froude, New-
1 p. 248. 2 Tract 90, p. 33.
8 Quoted by E. A. Abbott, The Anglican Career of Cardinal Newman,
VoL I. p. 166.
MODERN THEOLOGY
459
man says that he derived his admiration for Rome, his dislike of
the Reformation, devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and belief in the
Real Presence.1 This is a large debt, although its items are not
exhaustively recounted. Newman's memory was haunted by the
sounding phrase of Augustine : "Securus judicat orbis terrarum."
His faith in Anglicanism as a via media was not subverted, but
was felt to be less secure. It was no longer a tranquil faith.2
The severe handling of the tract by the dignitaries of the Univer
sity and the Church could not fail to strengthen the nascent sense
of alienation from a communion which apparently had no shelter
under its roof for such as he. For several years after the issue of
the famous tract, he gradually withdrew from public activity and
social intimacies, and lived, with a few disciples, in retirement in
the immediate vicinity of Oxford,3 much absorbed in the reflec
tions and inward struggles through which he was making his way
to the goal that was finally reached in 1845, when he professed
conversion and was received into the Roman Catholic Church. In
this year he was engaged in composing his essay on "Development"
It exhibits the process of thought which yielded a solvent for the
difficulties he had felt, arising from the obvious differences between
the primitive Apostolic Church, and the Latin Church as it now is.
The effect of this event was like that of an earthquake. Al
though it was not sudden or wholly unexpected, it spread con
sternation for the moment among the adherents of the Movement.
Beyond their ranks, it seemed to confirm the worst suspicions that
had been entertained respecting Newman's sincerity in his pro
fessed loyalty to the Church of England and in his opposition to
Romanism. This mistrust derived support from the avowals of
such as Ward, the author of the Ideal of a Christian Church,
whose secession preceded that of Newman, and who, with a
1 Quoted by E. A. Abbott, The Anglican Career of Cardinal Newman,
Vol. I. p. 137. The whole chapter (VII.) is instructive.
2 In a letter to J. B. Mozley (Nov. 24, 1843), ne savs that in 1839, in the
study of the Monophysite and Donatist controversies, the feeling " came
strongly upon" him that Anglicans were external to the Catholic Church.
He was slow in giving way to this feeling. See Newman's Letters and Cor
respondence, Vol. II. p. 384.
3 J. B. Mozley writes at this time : " With respect to J. H. N., all I know
about him is he has been regularly down about things for the last year or two,
and that he has expressed doubts about the catholicity of th€ English Church."
Letters of Rev. J. B. Mozley, D.D.,y. 157.
460
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
blunt, but as it seemed to many, an almost shameless, honesty,
avowed that he was delaying his desertion to Rome in order to
carry others along into the same camp. The psychological inter
est, in connection with the many problems, connected with New
man's career and the catastrophe by which he was lost to the
English Church, have naturally given rise to a world of com
ment and discussion. The charge of conscious dishonesty may
be at once dismissed. Whatever fluctuation in his expressions
may be discerned in the interval between about 1839 and
1845, they are not more remarkable than like phenomena in
the experience of Luther during several years after the posting
of his Theses, when he was moving in a direction opposite to that
taken by Newman. Thirlwall, perhaps the ablest man on the
bench of English bishops at that time, — who, however, did not
know Newman personally, — expresses the opinion of many when
he says " that his mind was essentially skeptical and sophistical "
. . . without " the power of taking firm hold on either speculative
or historical truth. Yet his craving for truth was strong in pro
portion to the purity of his life and conscience. He felt that he
was naturally unable to satisfy this craving by any mental opera
tions of his own, and that if he was to depend on his own ability
to arrive at any settled conclusion, he should be forever floating
in a sea of doubt ; therefore he was irresistibly impelled to take
refuge under the wings of an infallible authority. . . . He bowed
to an image which he had first set up. There was at once his
strength and his weakness. He could deceive himself and could
not help letting himself be deceived." l Archbishop Tait writes
thus : " I have always regarded Newman as having a strange
duality of mind. On the one side is a wonderfully strong and
subtle reasoning faculty, on the other a blind faith, raised almost
entirely by his emotions. It seems to me that in all matters of
belief he first acts on his emotions and then he brings the subtlety
of his reason to bear until he has ingeniously persuaded himself
that he is logically right. The result is a condition in which he
is practically unable to distinguish truth from falsehood." 2 R. H.
Hutton, in his appreciative essay on Newman, refers to "the
imaginative power which he shows in getting over religious objec.
1 Letters of Thirlwall ( 1 867) , pp. 260, 261. Compare the Letter on pp. 268,
269, which speaks of Newman's " utter want of historical tact and judgment*
2 Benham's Life of Tail, Vol. I. p. 89.
MODERN THEOLOGY
461
tions to his faith."1 In a memorable passage of the Apologia,
Newman depicts with graphic eloquence the confused scene of
human life and history, implying an aboriginal catastrophe hap
pening to the race.2 He dwells, also, on the restless character of
the human intellect, the impossibility of curbing it in its wayward,
wild excursions. Were it not for the conscience and heart, he
would be an atheist, or pantheist, or polytheist. On the supposi
tion that God wills to interfere for the rescue of mankind, for
retaining in the world a knowledge of Himself, there is no im
probability in supposing that He would introduce a power into the
world " invested with the prerogative of infallibility in religious
matters." 3 This passage brings out that assumption of the proba
bility of an infallible Church, as the only salvation from intellectual
as well as moral anarchy, which underlies Newman's entire career.
The ark of safety in the flood is an ecclesia docens. Failing to
find the criteria of such a Church, of such a Seat of Authority,
within the pale of Anglicanism, he found it in that imperial, en
during, world-wide Institution having its centre in Rome. Diffi
culties, historical or doctrinal in its structure, were disposed of
by that marvellous sublety so evident in all his writings. They
vanished to his eye, as the spots on the disk of the sun disappear
in the blaze of its radiance. There is no evidence that he was
ever skeptical respecting the fundamental truths of natural or re
vealed religion. The roots of his personal faith were in his moral
nature. But a subtlety so wonderful might be a means of mis
leading its possessor as well as others. There was a snare in this
rare power of delicate discrimination and exquisite expression.
A mind of another cast, while assenting to the vivid description
of the moral situation of the race and the perils of the intellect,
which the passage in the Apologia presents, may be moved to
assume as probable a divine guidance of men more immediate
than through the instrumentality of a human tribunal to sit in
judgment on the operations of their minds. There are threads
of unity running through the successive stages of Newman's career.
One he professed to point out, when, on the occasion of receiving
the dignity of Cardinal, he said that for thirty, forty, fifty years he
had been contending against liberalism — the idea " that there
is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as
1 Hutton, Modern Guides of English Thought in Matters of Faith, p. 50.
2 p. 266 sq. 3 Apologia, p. 266 sq.
462 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
another." There are two additional facts to be taken into the
account if one would explain the career of Newman. The one
is the imaginative habit, which even in boyhood led him some
times to indulge the thought that life is a dream and the world
unreal, the idea of its reality being a deception wrought by the
angels. Thirlwall, in a letter previously quoted, ascribes to him
in one respect the credulity of a " born Papist," and illustrates
his meaning by referring to a conception of Newman that the
work of the physical universe, from " planetary and sidereal rota
tion " to the " dislocations of the molecules of an atom," is carried
forward by the agency of personal beings. One may conjecture
that there is some bond of connection between his youthful fancy
that matter is an illusion with such a strange conception. At
least we are aided in accounting for his belief that " material phe
nomena are both the types and the instruments of things unseen." l
The other fact is the predominant quality of his religious experi
ence as discovered in his sermons in all of the Anglican period.
It is the sense of the holiness and righteousness of God that
breathes through these discourses. It is a religion in which fear
is a pervasive element. The tenderness and love manifested in
the Gospel are by no means proportionately emphasized. It is
worthy of notice that for so great a theologian he was restricted,
not in the amount, but in the range, of his reading. This is true
in relation to the department of philosophy. He passes by in
silence the German philosophers and the theologians of the pres
ent century. " How different," remarked Stanley, " the fortunes
of England might have been if Newman had been able to read
German ! " 2 It was not until 1884 that he read Kant. Then he
expressed his sympathy with Kant's making our moral nature the
basis of religious beliefs.
After the secession of Newman, Pusey was the recognized
leader of the party. In his youthful days, having, as a student
in Germany, had an acquaintance with Tholuck and Ewald, he
had replied to Rose's strictures on the state of German theology,
and had brought forward suggestions on Inspiration more free
than the traditional view permitted. But these afterwards were
spoken of by him with regret. This supposed indiscretion was
fully atoned for during the rest of his life by a rigorous orthodoxy
1 The words are R. H. Hutton's (Modern Guides, etc.), p. 73.
2 Quoted in Mark Pattison's Memoirs, p. 210.
MODERN THEOLOGY
463
on the critical questions, as is evinced in his commentaries on
Jonah and Daniel. His confidence in his own position and in
the via media was tranquil. His piety was deep and sincere.
While he lacks the imagination and power of luminous exposition
which belong to Newman, he was a miracle of industry, his acqui
sitions of learning were large, and his mind was straightforward
in its operations. James Mozley said of him that he had no idea
of "economy," — that is, of prudential reserve in the expression
of beliefs.1 The editors of Liddon's biography of Pusey say of
him that from 1845 to ^5 8 ne was engaged in convincing people
that there was a firm foothold for Tractarians in the English
Church, and in vindicating " the Anglican claim to the doctrine
of Regeneration, of Absolution, of the Real Presence, of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice, and other important truths." 2
In 1843 Pusey preached a sermon on the "Eucharist as a
Comfort to the Penitent." It was meant as a counterpart — an anti
dote, his critics might say — to his disheartening sermon on " Bap
tism." It was fervid in style, abounds in citations from the Fathers,
and in the printed form presented in the Appendix corroborative
extracts from the old English divines.3 Great hostility was
awakened by this discourse, and its author was suspended for two
years from preaching within the precincts of the University. In
the outcry against the sermon, wrong interpretations were fastened
upon it. The objections to it from the point of view of adverse,
but intelligent, critics, are summarized in a letter of Bishop
Wilberforce written at the time. He thinks that its great evil is
a sort of " misty exaggeration " of the truth, which is adapted to
breed errors in others. He censures its un-Anglican tone, its un
qualified quotations of uncareful expressions from the Fathers —
such as " having on your very lips the blood of Christ," etc., and,
most of all, its connection of the remission of sins with the Eu
charist, as if the justified man were not in a forgiven state, and
as if there were in the Eucharist, the act, rather than the seal,
of remission.4 The Pauline doctrine of Justification, Wilberforce
thought, was virtually denied. As was the case three centuries
before, the doctrine of the Lord's Supper became once more in
1 See E. A. Abbott, Vol. I. p. 218. 2 Life of Pusey, Vol. III. p. vi.
8 These are reprinted in Pusey's The Doctrine of the Real Presence, etc.
(1855).
* Life of Bishop Wilberforce, Vol. I. pp. 230, 231.
464 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
England an engrossing theme of controversy. To get at the exact
doctrine of Dr. Pusey and his school on this subject, is a task of
some difficulty. On the one hand the tenet of transubstantiation
is not accepted, because it is a mode of explanation not verified
by Scripture and not in the creed of the Patristic Church. How
does Pusey's opinion differ from the Lutheran? The Lutherans
did not hold that in the Sacrament the body of Christ occupies
space. Pusey himself defends them from the charge of teaching
consubstantiation.1 "The weak point in the Lutheran system,"
says Pusey, " is that the only office assigned to the Sacrament is
to kindle faith. . . . Union with Christ is the end of the Sacra
ments and the reward of faith ; faith is not the object of the
Sacraments." Here Pusey fails to do full justice to the Lutheran
view. It embraced under the term 'faith' union to Christ.
Pusey himself cites the Apology of the Augsburg Confession as
teaching a spiritual union with Christ " by faith and sincere love."
The real difference from the Lutheran tenet is another, as will
soon be pointed out. Respecting the Calvinistic opinion, Pusey
himself, in a letter to Newman, truly remarks : " Such persons as
Laud, Cosin, not to say Hooker, and, I believe, all our writers
until ourselves, have interpreted Calvin, etc., in a sound sense as
to the Sacraments." 2 But Pusey's objection to Calvin, so far as
the question of the Reality of the Presence is concerned, rests
upon an incorrect interpretation of the single passage respecting
the communicant being taken up to Christ.3 Calvin, like Pusey,
rejected the notion of a corporeal Presence as of a body, and of
a local Presence, in the strict and proper sense. Calvin says that
" Christ presents the spiritual meat and the spiritual drink to all.
. . . He literally offers to them that which they reject."4 The
most obvious point of dissent from Calvin, which is a point of
agreement with the Lutherans, is that the body and blood are
received really, although not spiritually, by the unworthy, as well
as the worthy, communicant. Yet among the authorities ap
pended by Pusey to his sermon, is Palmer, who teaches as the
probable opinion of the Church that " Sinners . . . partake only
1 Doctrine of the Real Presence, p. 32 sq.
2 Life of Pusey, Vol. II. p. 224.
8 See supra, pp. 291, 306, where Calvin's opinion is explained.
4 Inst. IV. xvii. 33. " Spiritualem hunc cibum omnibus porrigit Christus,"
etc. For other references, see Mailer, Wissenschaftl. Abhandll. p. 424.
MODERN THEOLOGY 465
of the bread and wine." In truth, very few of the authorities there
cited run counter to this statement. Overall and Jackson are
among the exceptions. Pusey and most of the representatives of
the Oxford Movement hold to the physical reception by the un
worthy, and undertake to reconcile this opinion with Art. XXIX.,
which affirms of the wicked and unbelieving that while they eat
and drink " the sign or Sacrament " of the Body and Blood of
Christ, "yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ." l The main
divergence of the Oxford School from the Protestant Reformers
relates to the effect of the consecration of the bread and wine,
and to the question whether the Real Presence is or is not extra
usum, that is, independent of the communicant. The Oxford
School maintain that after consecration the Presence abides,
unless, as may be the case, the Presence is miraculously with
drawn when the consecrated bread is eaten by an animal. How
the bread and wine are affected by the consecrating act there is
no attempt to explain. The simple proposition is that when they
are received the body and blood are received.2 The Caroline
divines taught the extra usum? Bishop Cosin asserts this with
much emphasis.4 This is true also of Bishop Sparrow in treating
of communion of the sick:5 Both these bishops were active in
the revision of the Prayer Book at the Savoy Conference in 1661,
when the rubric was introduced into the Communion Service,
providing that what is left of the consecrated bread and wine
shall not be carried out of the church, but the minister and other
communicants shall reverently eat and drink the same.6
A certain sacrificial character is attributed by the Oxford School
to the Eucharist. Here it is important to inquire, Is the Eucharist
1 The XXIXth Article was not printed until 1571. The contention is that
to be "a partaker of Christ" means here to experience "the wholesome oper
ation " of the Sacrament. So Forbes, Bishop of Brechin, Explanation of the
Thirty-nine Articles, p. 581. See, also, Bishop Guest's Articles XXVIII.
and XXIX. (by G. F. Hodges, 1894).
2 See Forbes, Bishop of Brechin, Primary Charge (1857), pp. 26-29, and
Explanation of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 574 sq.
8 See Hallam, Const. Hist. c. VIII. (p. 272 n. in Am. ed. 1847).
4 IVorh,Vol V. p. 131.
5 Rationale of the Prayer Book (1684), P- 266.
6 See Kempe, Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, etc. (1887) ; also,
Cobb, Kiss of Peace (last ed.). For clear statements on this and other topics
of divinity, from the point of view of the Oxford School, see the able and
'earned Digest of Theology, by H. R. Percival (1893).
2H
466
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
a purely commemorative sacrifice of the finished propitiation on
the Cross, or is it in itself likewise propitiatory ? The answers to
this question are not always lucid. The Bishop of Brechin argues
that, as the Same Body, which is naturally in heaven, is " supra-
locally and mystically" taken and received, its "faculty of impe-
tration" — that is, its intercessory appeal — Continues, while yet
there is no repetition of the sacrifice of the Cross.1 The twenty-
first of the Articles affirms that masses for "the remission of
pain or guilt " are " blasphemous fables and dangerous conceits."
Pusey, in a letter to Bishop Bloomfield, states that he had termed
the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice, but in the sense that the
Church in this act pleads the efficacy of the one sacrifice.2 As
to adoration of the Lord in the Eucharist, he cites with approval
a saying of Andrews that wherever Christ is present, He is " truly
to be adored."3
In the letter referred to above, Pusey states that he had called
Absolution a "sacrament," in the lower sense of this word. He
had taught that there are higher forms of service and devotion to
which all are not called. This appears to sanction the Roman
tenet as to a salvable, and a higher than salvable, type of Christian
character. He defends the adaptation he had made of Roman
Catholic books of devotion, and what they say of our Lord's Five
Wounds, of the use of "rosaries" (simple forms of devotion),
etc. He claims English precedents of a similar adoption of
revised Roman productions.4 It is evident, not only from his writ
ings, but from his practice, — for example, from the disciplinary
penances to which he subjected himself with the consent of Keble,
1 Sermon, p. 40. For a clear exposition of the Anglo-Catholic view, see
Blunt's Annotated Prayer Book, p. 155.
2 See Life of Pusey, Vol. III. pp. 297, 298. For other explanations by
Pusey of his teaching on various topics, which, as was natural, was extensively
regarded as encouraging Romanism, see his Correspondence with Bishop
Wilberforce in 1851. Pusey's "Letters" are in his Life, Vol. III. App. to
Chap. XII.
8 J. B. Mozley, with his usual clearness, explains that without faith the body
and blood are not partaken of, that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is purely
commemorative, and that the worship paid to Christ is " not a worship paid
to Him as present under the form of the sacramental elements," but only " a
worship paid to Him upon the particular opportunity of the Sacrament."
The body and blood is " not the object of the worship, but only the occasion
of it." Mozley's Lectures, etc., pp. 208, 209, 213, 216, 217.
4 Life of Pusey, Vol. III. pp. 100, 104, 107, 108.
MODERN THEOLOGY
467
whom he had persuaded to act as confessor, — that he made such
an approach to the Roman Catholic system, doctrinal and prac
tical, as is certainly not compatible with the principles and spirit
of the Reformers. This disparity is most apparent in his doctrine
as to post-baptismal sins, with the sacramental corollaries adhering
to it. " I cannot but think," he wrote in 1845, " that Rome and
we are not irreconcilably at variance." 1
The Anglo-Catholic party were deeply moved by the unsuc
cessful result of the strenuous efforts made by them in 1848 to
prevent the induction of Hampden into the bishopric of Hereford.
They were still more exasperated and alarmed by the refusal of
the judicial committee of the Privy Council to sanction the deci
sion of the Court of Arches against Gorham, when the Bishop of
Exeter declined to institute him to a cure within his jurisdiction.
Gorham was charged with rejecting the doctrine of baptismal regen
eration, his opinion being that the grace of the Spirit and its effect
must precede the administration of the Sacrament to infants. Two
facts in relation to this case were considered to be in the highest
measure grievous. One was the adjudication of a doctrinal dis
pute by a civil tribunal. The other was the sanction supposed to
be given to a heretical opinion. Then followed a new wave of
secession to Rome, which carried over Archdeacon Manning and
R. I. Wilberforce. Manning, in a work on the " Holy Spirit," pub
lished in 1875, founds his allegiance to Rome on his perception of
the Christian doctrine on this subject. He came to see, he tells
us, that it is in the Church, in the visible Apostolic Organization,
that the Spirit has His abode.
It may be added that Pusey did not personally partake in the
growing zeal for ritualistic innovations. He insisted, however,
that nothing should be prohibited which established law per
mitted ; and, as on other matters, and in common with his party,
he always protested against a policy of legal restraint against their
type of churchmanship, while immunity was conceded to the
advocates of latitudinarian opinions deemed by him to be plainly
inconsistent with the Anglican standards.
The late Henry Parry Liddon, Canon of St. Paul's, eminent as
1 Life of Pusey, Vol. III. p. 45. Pusey was confident in his hopes for the
future of Tractarianism. He says that " even the pared and maimed Prayer
Book of the Church in the United States still affords it a home." Letter
(1851), Vol. III. p. 300.
468
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
a preacher, was the author of a learned and carefully written vol
ume (of Bampton Lectures) on the " Divinity of Christ." A living
writer, Charles Gore, not departing from the essential ideas of the
Oxford School, is not unwilling to modify its usual beliefs in some
respects, and even to make room for opinions characteristic of the
later Biblical criticism. His work on the "Christian Ministry,"
although defending the High Church theories respecting the
origin of Episcopacy, is remarkable likewise for its concessions.
For example, it is admitted that in the church of Corinth, to which
the Epistle of the Roman Church, written by Clement, was sent,
there was no vacancy in the bishopric, and no bishopric, in the
ordinary sense, to be vacant, but only a plurality of presbyters,
constituting, it is said, a hierarchy with the functions inhering in
the Apostolic Succession.1 Canon Liddon, commenting on the
Saviour's " professed ignorance of the day of the last judgment,"
does not surrender the view that there was a co-existence of igno
rance and knowledge. Canon Gore, in his lectures on the " Incar
nation,"2 cautiously and reverently indicates the belief that the
" Eternal Son," to a certain extent, " restrained the natural action
of the divine being," 3 that there was a " refraining from the exer
cise of what He possessed," that " He was so truly acting under
the conditions of human nature as Himself to be ignorant."4
There is a guarded admission of a certain Kenosis. More
noteworthy still are the observations of Canon Gore in Lux
Mundi, on the subject of " Inspiration." 5 There was a conscious
inspiration of the Jews as a people, although there were " special
men," " the inspired interpreters of the divine message to and in
the race." 6 Their natural activity is not superseded by the super
natural influence.7 In the sacred books the aim is not the discov
ery of science.8 In Genesis, the first traditions of the race are
given "from a special point of view." The inspiration of prophets
is consistent with certain " erroneous anticipations " analogous to
St. Paul's expectation of the " second coming of Christ within his
own lifetime." Limitations as to "the powers and possibilities of
the divine compassion are characteristic of the Psalms and of the
1 p. 322 sq.
2 "The Incarnation of the Son of God," Bampton Lectures for 1891.
3 Ibid. p. 162. 4 Ibid. p. 266.
5 Lux Mundi (5th ed.), Essay VII. "The Holy Spirit and Inspiration."
3 Ibid. p. 342. 7 Ibid. pp. 342, 345. 8 Ibid. p. 344.
MODERN THEOLOGY 469
Old Testament generally." l The historical record from Abraham
downward is "in substance, in the strict sense, historical," yet
there " is still room for the admixture of what, though marked by
a spiritual purpose, is yet not strictly historical." 2 Inspiration is
not shut out if we admit " distinct stages in the growth of the law
of worship" — an " unconscious idealizing of history." 3 It may
even be admitted with safety that the earlier Biblical narratives
prior to the call of Abraham are " of the nature of myth in which
we cannot distinguish the historical germ, though we do not at all
deny that it exists."4 The use made by Christ of the Old Testa
ment is not an argument against concessions of this kind.5 If He
had " intended to convey instruction to us on critical and literary
questions, He would have made His purpose plainer."6
James B. Mozley (1813-78) was a theologian of extraordi
nary vigor and independence. He was long closely allied with
the leaders of the Oxford Movement, with whom he was per
sonally intimate. After the withdrawal of Newman, by whose
secession his opinions were not in the least affected, he was led
to differ from the party on certain important questions, and,
although always a High Churchman, to take up a position by
himself. Among his writings in the earlier period is the able, but
one-sided, essay on Luther, whose depth and power both of intel
lect and character he fails to appreciate. A similar comment
would not be unjust if applied to his essay on Dr. Arnold. From
the epoch marked by the Gorham case, he disagreed with his
former associates. He was so far an Augustinian as to consider
it necessary to formulate the doctrine of baptism so as to har
monize it with the doctrine of predestination. His treatise On
the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination (1855) was followed,
in 1856, by his work on The Primitive Doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration. In the later edition (1862) it appears under the
title, A Review of the Baptismal Controversy. The editor of
the volume soon to be noticed says of him, that " he undertook
the task of reconciling the tradition about baptism with the theol
ogy of what is called Calvinism." He says that " Scripture is
silent with respect to infants as recipients of the grace of bap-
1 Lttx Mundi (5th ed.), Essay VII. "The Holy Spirit and Inspiration,"
P- 35°-
a Ibid. pp. 351, 352. * Ibid. p. 358. 6 Ibid. p. 359.
* Ibid. p. 353. 6 Ibid. p. 358 sq.
470 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
tism," that the Fathers take one view and the Reformers another,
and "that according to the rule of our [the English] Church
the regeneration of all infants in baptism is not an article of the
faith." l " There is nothing, in the Gorham judgment, that in
volves a departure from Anglican principles." 2 In the treatise on
Augustinianism, and in the posthumous volume of Lectures and
Other Theological Papers (1883), Mozley has propounded, in his
usual clear and impressive style, his philosophy respecting " Myste
rious Truths." This is applied to such truths as Original Sin,
the Trinity, and the Atonement. Such, we are told, are truths
"which agree with human reason in a large and general way,"3
which we recognize as truths, but of which we have not the full
idea or conception.4 Our conception is real but indistinct.
There is a field of thought where we are not shut up to " pure
ignorance or pure knowledge." This is true of the "ideas of
substance, cause, Mind or Spirit, Power, Infinity." Of these we
have some idea, but " no adequate or complete idea." Now in the
case of truths of this class we are not at liberty to draw logical
inferences, practical conclusions, which offend the moral sense.
When moral truth is contradicted by logic, there is a flaw in
the logic ; and this is traceable to the imperfect character of
the notions which enter into the premises. Mozley appears to
sanction the dictum of Coleridge that, when logic seems to clash
with moral intuitions, the superior authority belongs to conscience.
As to the truth of Original Sin, the inference of the perdition of
infants is under this test excluded. So as to predestination. It
is a truth on which sound practical convictions rest ; but there
is apparently a counter-truth. It, likewise, must not be ignored.
They meet somewhere in the region of mystery. Objections —
such as that a truth not understood cannot be believed — are
grappled with in this essay and in the treatise on "Augustinianism."
They are asserted to have their parallel in certain truths of science.
Truths at the bottom of all religion "we feel and reach after
rather than intellectually apprehend."5 Here is the place for
faith; for "reasonable faith" does not require full intellectual
apprehension.6 The lesson of this philosophy is, for example,
that we are not to demand a middle formula between predesti
nation and free-will, a compromise in which neither is embraced,
1 A Review, etc., p. 226. 3 Lectures, p. 102. 5 Ibid. p. 114.
* Ibid. p. vi. 4 Ibid. p. 408. 6 Ibid. p. 115.
MODERN THEOLOGY
471
or a formula in which one or the other is given up. Rather are
we to hold both, with an interrogation mark or a minus sign — if
one may so say — affixed to each, whereby practical inferences, un-
scriptural or immoral, are ruled out. In the Ruling Ideas in Early
Ages, Mozley exhibits the progressive character of the Old Tes
tament Revelation. Acts may be done, and may be commanded,
which on a higher stage of moral development could not be done,
and would not be commanded, but which " are the highest and
most noble acts " to which the conceptions of an age, lower down
in the scale of moral perception, can give rise. Reference has
already been made to Mozley's Lectures on Miracles. Among
his essays are included extremely valuable discussions of the
"Argument of Design" and of " Causation." In the first of
these papers, objections brought against the doctrine of final
causes in nature, on the ground of evolution as taught by Dar
win, are met by an invincible logic.
One of Mozley's sermons is on the Atonement.1 After reject
ing the idea that there is a satisfaction to justice by the literal
bearing of the penalty by a substitute, he adds : —
"There is, however, undoubtedly contained in the Scriptural
doctrine of the Atonement, a kind, and a true kind, &i fulfilment of
justice. It is a fulfilment in the sense of appeasing and satisfy
ing justice ; appeasing that appetite for punishment which is the
characteristic of justice in relation to evil. There is obviously an
appetite for justice which is implied in that very anger which is
occasioned by crime, by a wrong being committed ; we desire the
punishment of the criminal as a kind of redress, and his punish
ment undoubtedly satisfies a natural craving of our mind. But
let any one have exposed himself thus to the appetite for punish
ment in our nature, and it is undoubtedly the case, however we
may account for it, that the real suffering of another for him, of
a good person for a guilty one, will mollify the appetite for pun
ishment, which was possibly up to that time in full possession of
our minds ; and this kind of satisfaction to justice, and appeasing
of it, is involved in the Scriptural doctrine of the Atonement.
And so, also, there is a kind of substitution involved in the Script
ure doctrine of the Atonement, and a true kind ; but it is not a
literal, but a moral kind of substitution. It is one person suffer
ing in behalf of another, for the sake of another : in that sense
1 University Sermons, p. 175 sq.
472
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
he takes the place and acts in the stead of another, he suffers
that another may escape suffering, he condemns himself to a
burden that another may be relieved. But this is the moral sub
stitution which is inherent in acts of love and laborer others; it
is a totally different thing from the literal substitution of one per
son for another in punishment. The outspoken witness in the
human heart, which has from the beginning embraced the doc
trine of the Atonement with the warmth of religious affection, has
been, indeed, a better judge on the moral question than particular
formal schools of theological philosophy. The atoning act of
the Son, as an act of love on behalf of sinful man, appealed to
wonder and praise : the effect of the act in changing the regards
of the Father towards the sinner, was only the representation, in
the sublime and ineffable region of mystery, of an effect which
men recognized in their own minds. The human heart accepts
mediation. It does not understand it as a whole ; but the frag
ment of which it is conscious is enough to defend the doctrine
upon the score of morals." "Justice is a fragment, mercy is a
fragment, mediation is a fragment ; justice, mercy, mediation as
a reason for mercy — all three; what indeed are they but great
vistas and openings into an invisible world in which is the point
of view which brings them all together?"
CHAPTER IV
THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY (CONTINUED) I
THE BROAD CHURCHMEN — THE "ESSAYS AND REVIEWS" THE
BROAD CHURCH IN SCOTLAND : THOMAS ERSKINE ; McLEOD CAMP
BELL THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS OF MATTHEW ARNOLD THE
CHRISTIAN AGNOSTICISM OF HAMILTON AND MANSEL POSITIVISM
THE REVIVAL OF HUME'S PHILOSOPHY : J. S. MILL THE
AGNOSTICISM OF HERBERT SPENCER INFLUENCE OF DARWINISM
ON THEOLOGY AGNOSTIC OPINIONS OF T. H. HUXLEY
WHILE the Oxford Movement was spreading, liberalism in the
English Church was advancing and assuming different phases.
The name of " Broad Church " is indefinite, and embraces under
it writers of widely varying tenets. The influence of Arnold was
continued, but was greatly modified by the effect of the religious
philosophy of Coleridge. The " evidential " or Paleyan spirit,
which belonged to Whately and his school, gave way to a differ
ent tone. Archdeacon Julius Charles Hare, a warm friend of
Bunsen, who had for a time considerable influence on theological
thought in England, was ' broad,' yet evangelical in the true mean
ing of the term. This is apparent in his Victory of Faith (1840),
and in his earlier work, the Mission of the Comforter. Frederick
Denison Maurice was a leader, with not a few disciples, in the
Broad Church party. He began life as a Unitarian, but became
a fervent believer in the Incarnation, which had a central place
in his beliefs. Of his many productions in theology and philoso
phy, perhaps the Kingdom of Christ is the most important. In
his work on " Sacrifice " and in his Theological Essays, he discards
the idea of satisfaction by suffering of a penal nature. " Christ
satisfied the Father by presenting the image of His own holiness
and love." " In His sacrifice, this holiness and love came forth
completely." "He bore the sins of the world in the sense that
473
474
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
He felt them with that anguish with which only a perfectly pure
and holy being, who is also a perfectly sympathizing and gracious
being, can feel the sins of others." " His whole life was a reflec
tion of the mind of God." There is no " artificial substitution,"
Christ being the " sinless root of humanity," the source of all
light in them, " the root of righteousness in each man." Maurice
was involved in a controversy in consequence of his expressions
on the subject of eternal punishment. His views on this topic are
presented in the volume of Essays, in his treatise on the Gospel
of John, and in his Letter to Dr. Jelf. In this last publication he
denies that he is a Universalist. Whether suffering hereafter will
be without end, he professes himself unable to affirm or deny.
The word 'eternal' (cuowos) in Scripture is said to have no
reference to time ; it is applied to God and to things extra-
temporal. It denotes not duration, but a state or quality. Life
eternal is the knowledge of God ; it is now as well as hereafter.
The opposite is the condition of a soul bereft of God. F. W. Rob
ertson and Charles Kingsley were among the many who looked
up to Maurice as their inspiring teacher.
Dean Stanley, so prominent a personage among Broad Church
men, was a much more advanced latitudinarian than men like
Hare and Maurice. But his predominant tastes were literary and
historical. Although keen in his perceptions, he was constitu
tionally averse to metaphysics, and, as a rule, we seek in vain
in his writings for positive or sharp definitions on litigated points
of doctrine. In his History of the Jewish Church he follows in
general, as he professes to do, in the steps of Ewald. He disavows
the intention to discriminate between the natural and supernatural
in the events of Old Testament history. In his interesting book
on Christian Institutions, Stanley touches on various doctrinal
topics in a manner characteristic of the author's habit of thought.
In baptism no efficacy is imputed to the water. " Infant baptism
is a recognition of the good there is in every human soul." * " In
each little child our Saviour saw, and we may see, the promise
of a glorious future." 2 In the Eucharist, the body is " the essence
of Christ's character." 3 The Supper signifies that we must " in
corporate and incarnate in ourselves — that is, in our moral natures
— the substance, the moral substance, of the teaching and char
acter of Jesus Christ."4 The Cup is a sign of the offering made,
1 Christian Institutions^ p. 14. 2 Ibid. p. 27. 8 Ibid. p. 1 17. * Ibid. p. 121.
MODERN THEOLOGY
475
" not by a feeble, erring mortal, but by Him who is by all of us
acknowledged to be the Ideal of man and the Likeness of God." *
It signifies the self-denying, life-giving love of Christ, and is a test
of our love and loyalty in self-sacrifice. The rite of Absolution
is founded on a " misinterpretation of texts." " The mystical
offices of a sacerdotal caste will vanish " — as alchemy and astrol
ogy, brutal amusements and scholastic casuistry — " before the
growth of manly Christian independence and generous Christian
sympathy." The institution of the Clergy or Bishops sprang up
after the death of Christ. The primitive offices (the pastoral
and intellectual) were in a sense His gift after His earthly life.2
Episcopacy was a gradual growth. The various grades of the
Christian clergy have sprung up in the same ways and by the
same divine, because' the same natural, necessity as the various
grades of government, law, and science.3 The ministry is divine
as being " the inevitable growth of Christian hopes and sympa
thies, of increasing truth, of enlarging charity."4 Stanley was in
full sympathy with Arnold's theory of the oneness of Church and
State, and of the consequent obligation of making the Church as
nearly as possible coextensive with the nation by the process
of ecclesiastical tolerance and comprehension. The usual note
of vagueness belongs to Stanley's statements respecting the Trin
ity. The name "The Father " in the Creed " expresses to us the
whole faith of what we call Natural Religion." 5 It represents to
us God in nature, "in the heavenly or ideal world."6 The Son
represents to us God in history.7 In Christ the kindness, wisdom,
and tenderness of God are reflected.8 His life is the Word, the
speech that comes out of " that eternal silence which surrounds
the Unseen Divinity." " To believe in the name of Christ is to
believe that no other approach to God exists except through the
same qualities of justice, truth, and love which make up the mind
of Christ."9 " The name of the Holy Ghost represents to us God
in our own hearts and spirits and consciences."10 "The Spirit
is manifest in this teaching within us, in the promptings of truth
and purity, of justice and humility." u
The Oxford Movement appeared to come to a head in the pub
1 Christian Institutions, p. 132. 5 Ibid. p. 288. 9 Ibid. p. 301.
2 Ibid. pp. 216, 217. « Ibid. p. 299. 10 Ibid. p. 305.
8 Ibid. p. 218. 7 Ibid. pp. 209, 305. u Ibid. p. 312.
* Ibid. p. 220. 8 Ibid. p. 300.
476
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
lication of Tract No. 90, and was the signal for the adverse parties
to combine against it. In like manner, the publication of Essays
and Reviews, in 1860, was regarded as the climax of tendencies
of liberalism which had excited dread and hostility. The volume
was the product of seven authors, each writing independently of
the others. The essays were written with great, although unequal,
ability. They were from authors who would have found it diffi
cult to agree upon theological formulas. The first essay, by
Dr. Temple, would probably have provoked comparatively little
antagonism, but for the company in which it was found. Yet
through the volume there runs a thread of criticism upon prevail
ing views relative to the inspiration and authority of the Bible.
It was naturally complained that, as concerns the miracles as his
torical facts, there was a kind of ambiguity or indecision, as well
as respecting what is meant by the authority of Scripture. It is
intimated by Dr. Temple that there is occasional inaccuracy in the
Bible, and it is said that " the principle of private judgment puts
conscience between us and the Bible " ; * the effect of which is
that, as a matter of fact, interpretation is determined in accord
with the verdicts of conscience. The essay of Rowland Williams,
on " Bunsen's Biblical Researches," adopts the opinions in what
is now called " higher criticism " of that learned, yet somewhat
dilettantish, writer. Baden Powell's essay on " The Study of the
Evidences of Christianity " is an able discussion, cautious, but at
bottom incredulous as to the methods adopted by Apologists in proof
of the truth of the Scriptural miracles. The essay of Wilson on
the " National Church " points out the comfort to the " ideologist "
of perceiving that if the fact of miracles cannot be accepted, their
" spiritual significance " is not lost, since they may " be equally
suggestive of true ideas." 2 The essay of Godwin on the " Mosaic
Cosmogony " argues for the impossibility of reconciling the truths
of science with the conceptions of the author of Genesis, believed
by him to be accordant with fact. The essay of Jowett on " The
Interpretation of Scripture," while it insists that Scripture, con
trary to usage in the past, must be " interpreted like any other
book," brings forward "difficulties" in Scripture, historical and
doctrinal, which are evidently considered by the author to be
incompatible with the traditions as to the origin of some of its
books and with current opinions as to its inerrancy.3 Mr. Wilson
1 PP- 5°. 5*» 54- 2 P- 227- 8 E-g-» PP- 376, 416.
MODERN THEOLOGY 477
concludes his essay by professing the hope that after death there shall
be found receptacles for those who are infants as to spiritual develop
ment, — nurseries where the undeveloped may grow up and the per
verted be restored, so that finally all shall find a refuge "in the bosom
of the Universal Parent."1 The opinions expressed in the volume
by Rowland Williams on the inspiration of the Bible and against the
eternity of future punishment were pronounced by the Judicial Com
mittee of the Privy Council lawful for an English clergyman to hold.
" Broad Church Theology " — deviations from Calvinism not
unfitly so designated — has had conspicuous representatives in
Scotland. Thomas Erskine of Linlathen (1788-1870), who was
educated as a lawyer, but early retired from legal practice, pub
lished in 1820 the Internal Evidence for the truth of Revela
tion. His main idea, then and afterwards, was that the adapted-
ness of the Gospel to man's nature and needs is the proof of its
truth. Faith is the principle of spiritual life, which is awakened by
Christ, and is the eternal righteousness which God bestows. In
it love is felt to be the law of life. He advocated universal restora
tion on the ground of the fatherly character of God, whose love
will attain to its end and aim.2 The Shepherd will seek for the lost
sheep " until he is found." This doctrine Erskine supposed to
be taught by the Apostle Paul in Rom. v. and xi.3 " Eternal "
in Matt. xxv. " means essential in opposition to phenomenal."
It does not refer to duration.4 Erskine's influence upon Maurice,
Stanley, and others, by his books, his correspondence, and con
versation, was of much weight.
John McLeod Campbell (1800-1872) was excluded from the
ministry of the Scottish Church by the Assembly in 1831, for
preaching the unlimited Atonement of Christ as the only warrant
for bidding men to be assured of God's love to them. He lived,
however, to be universally esteemed and honored for his religious
excellence. Norman McLeod said of him that he had never seen
any one whose character so closely resembled that of Jesus. Camp
bell published a book on the Eucharist.5 But his principal pro
duction is on the subject of the Atonement6 — a treatise which
1 p. 232. 8 Ibid. p. 239.
2 See Erskine's Letters, Vol. II. p. 243. * Ibid. pp. 135, 240.
5 Christ the Bread of Life (1851, 2d ed. 1869).
6 The Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life (1856, 4th ed. 1873).
478
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
for its depth and religious earnestness has commanded general
respect. He starts with the alternative of Jonathan Edwards, that
sin must be followed by punishment, or by an adequate repent
ance. Discarding the idea that the Atonement is the bearing of
the penalty, he regards it as an adequate repentance effected in
the consciousness of Christ, the ingredient of personal remorse
being absent, but all the spiritual elements being present which
Edwards finds in the experience of Christ. Christ made an
expiatory confession of our sins, which was " a perfect Amen in
humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of man." 1 Faith is
our " Amen " to this condemnation in the soul of Christ. Christ
enters fully into the mind of God respecting sin ; into His con
demnation of it, and into His love to the sinner. There was " the
equivalent repentance " which Edwards makes the alternative of
punishment. With this, sanctioned, reproduced in its essential
elements, in the believer, through his connection with Christ, God
is satisfied.
Campbell goes beyond the Moral View of the Atonement.
He makes the death of Christ necessary to the realization by Him
of God's feeling and man's need. Without " the perfected expe
rience of the enmity of the carnal mind to God," " an adequate
confession of man's sin" could not have "been offered to God
in humanity in expiation of man's sin, nor intercession have been
made according to the extent of man's need of forgiveness."2
Moreover, it is declared that Christ endured, and that it was nec
essary to the development of His inward experience that He
should endure, death, under a sense of its character as "the
wages of sin." "As our Lord alone truly tasted death, so to
Him alone had death its perfect meaning as the wages of sin, for
in Him alone was there full entrance into the mind of God
towards sin, and perfect unity with that mind." 3 Christ, as being
alone holy, could alone understand, and duly feel, what the for
feiting of life means. If men were mere spirits, a response to
the divine mind concerning sin could only have had spiritual ele
ments ; but man being capable of death, and death being the
wages of sin, it was not simply sin that had to be dealt with, but
" an existing law with its penalty of death, and that death as
already incurred." Hence a response was necessary to "that
1 The Nature of the Atonement, etc., 3d ed., p. 136.
3 Ibid. p. 289. 8 Ibid. p. 302.
MODERN THEOLOGY
479
expression of the divine mind which was contained in God's
making death the penalty of sin." l The characteristic of Camp
bell's view is that suffering, as such, he regards as of no account,
but suffering and death are necessary as a conditio sine qua non
of that entering into the mind of God — that expiatory confes
sion — which he considers the moral essence of the Atonement.
Yet, it will be observed that, according to this representation
Christ endures death, and with a vivid, painful, complete con
sciousness of the penal quality that belongs to it. It may be
asked, how could this death come nearer to being identical with
penalty, save by the introduction of an element of personal
remorse or self-accusation, which Edwards equally excludes?
Campbell's conception approaches nearer to the idea of an
objective, penal satisfaction — not, however, a legal substitution
— than he appears distinctly to perceive. This is suggested in
Dr. R. W. Dale's thoughtful work on the Atonement, in which it
is urged that the obstacle to the offer and exercise of divine for
giveness is removed objectively by the sanction which Christ
renders to the law of God through His willing endurance of the
lot justly suffered by transgressors.
An appreciative criticism of Campbell's treatise is included in
Dr. A. B. Bruce's work, The Humiliation of Christ This author, who
reviews in an enlightened spirit modern as well as ancient types
of opinion respecting the Atonement, finds room for the aspects
of the subject which are of later origin, yet does not give up the
penal element in the sufferings of Christ, the objective imputation
of sin to the Redeemer.2
The doctrine of conditional immortality, or the ultimate annihi
lation of the incorrigibly wicked, has been espoused in England by
a number of distinguished writers. It has been controverted with
ability in the writings of James Baldwin Brown. It is presented
in the Life of Christ and in other writings of Mr. Edward White.
He maintains that immortality is a truth, not of reason but of
revelation, and that it is a gift of God not indiscriminately bestowed.
Mr. White connects with this opinion a belief in a continued pro
bation after death for such as have not hardened their hearts by
a rejection of Christ. On this point he is in accord with Dorner.
Dr. Orr, in his recent work, while bringing forward arguments
1 The Nature of the Atonement^ etc., 3d ed., p. 303.
a See his 2d ed., p. 351.
4So HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
against this opinion of Mr. White, says : " The conclusion I arrive
at is, that we have not the elements of a complete evolution and
we ought not to attempt it. What visions beyond there may be,
what larger hopes, what ultimate harmonies, if such there are in
store, will come in God's good time ; it is not ours to anticipate
them or lift the veil where God has left it drawn ! " l
In Mr. Hutton's Essays on Modern Guides of English Thought,
Matthew Arnold is one of the four later writers to whom a place
in this list is accorded. It is, no doubt, owing much to the
attraction which he was able, as a master of the literary art, to
lend to his discussions of religious topics. His position is unique
and hardly falls within the limit of any creed recognized as
Christian. Yet he deserves credit for a sincere desire to rescue
the Bible from the neglect and even contempt with which it is
often treated in these days, especially by the uneducated class.
There is an important basis of truth in the general affirmation, on
which Arnold is never tired of insisting, that " the language of
the Bible is fluid, passing, and literary, not rigid, fixed, and scien
tific." He is not a profound Biblical scholar, nor, on the other
hand, is he a superficial or ill-informed writer, even on matters
pertaining to New Testament criticism. Among the exceptions
of a general nature to be taken to his ways of thought, there is to
be reckoned his overweening regard for that impersonal divinity,
the Zeitgeist, or "Time-Spirit," as he well renders the German
phrase. The " Time-Spirit " was nevei more self-assured, never
more full of disdain for all who questioned its authority, than in
the eighteenth century, in the period when a shallow deistic philos
ophy was prevalent. In the earlier part of the present century the
"Time-Spirit " in Germany found in the older and now exploded
naturalistic Rationalism, springing from the Kantian school, the
acme of possible attainment in the sphere of religion. The in
junction of the Apostle is to " hold fast " — not that which is new
— but " that which is good."
Arnold wished to find " for the Bible a basis in something which
can be verified." The corner-stone of his system, if system it is
to be called, is a conception of God which he not only regards as
true, and evidently so, but even identifies with the Biblical idea
respecting this fundamental point. His theory may be termed
an unscientific Pantheism ; or perhaps, inasmuch as he does not
1 The Christian View of God and the World (2d ed.), p. 397.
MODERN THEOLOGY
profess to exhaust the conception of the Deity by his definition,
an Agnostic Pantheism. In Literature and Dogma, with much,
although it can scarcely be said with wearisome, iteration he ex
plains that the equivalent of God is " the Power, not ourselves, that
makes for righteousness." Does " Power " here mean " Cause "?
There is a Power, a Power exerting itself, or being exerted, a
Power exerting itself for a particular end, or producing a definite
effect ; yet it must not be denominated a " cause." In his sec
ond work, God and the Bible, he makes an elaborate effort to
explain his remarkable definition of God, and the Israelites' con
ception of Him, and to rule out the idea that under the " Power,
not ourselves," there is included the notion of a being. In this
latter work we are told that we must not think of " the Power that
makes for righteousness " as inhering in a subject : this is a mis
conception ; it is anthropomorphic. Yet there is an " operation "
of which blessedness is the result. Things are so constituted that
the supposed effect is produced. It is a " law of nature " like the
law of gravitation. It is a " stream of tendency." When we
speak, and when the Israelites spoke, of the " Power that makes
for righteousness " as " eternal," all that is really signified is that
righteousness always was and always will be attended with blessing.
Arnold does not seem to be aware that in trying to fence off the
conception of being as> connected with the " Power, not ourselves,"
he does not succeed in escaping from what he styles " meta
physics." There is an "operation" left; there is "a perceived
energy." The doctrine is simply this: that the world — things
collectively taken — is such that a certain result, namely, blessed
ness, is sure to be worked out by the practice of righteousness.
It falls short of being a dogmatic Pantheism by the added state
ment that we cannot " pretend to know the origin and composi
tion of the Power " ; we cannot say that it is a person or thing.
In one place Arnold professes that he will not deny that " the
Power" is "a conscious intelligence." But ordinarily he treats
the conception that this "Power" is intelligent as pure anthropo
morphism. If it be this, why admit it even as a possibility? Per
haps the study of a few pages of Lotze might have convinced
him that, if by anthropomorphism is meant the limiting of God, or
making Him finite, no such consequence follows from personality.
What becomes of devotion, of what men have always meant by
prayer and communion with God, when God is made to be nothing
21
482 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
more than a law of things, " a stream of tendency " ? In a foot
note Arnold gives the following answer : " All good and fruitful
prayer, however men may describe it, is at bottom nothing else
than an energy of aspiration towards the Eternal, not ourselves, that
makes for righteousness, — of aspiration towards it, and coopera
tion with it." The Eternal, it must be remembered, which is
referred to by the use of the pronoun it, signifies no being, —
this is expressly disclaimed. " It," " the Eternal," is the fact
that " righteousness was salvation," and will " go on being salva
tion." "It," "the Eternal," is the experienced and expected
conjunction of these two things. What aspiration towards " it,"
and cooperation with " it " denote, and with what propriety either
of these or both together can be taken to signify prayer, in partic
ular the supplication which has always been held to be the prime
essential in prayer, is not explained.
Considering the tendencies of the time in the direction of
Pantheistic thought, it is not a matter of surprise that Arnold
should bring forward the notion of an impersonal divinity. There
is surely some reason for surprise that Arnold should present his
conception as the kernel of the Israelites' faith, the living God of
whom the prophets spoke, and in praise of whose perfection the
Psalms were composed. He admits, to be sure, that the Hebrews
personified, and could not but personify, " the Stream of ten
dency." Yet he regards the personal qualities which the Hebrews
attached to God as an accidental and separable element in their
faith. Not even an intuition is allowed them of this imaginary
divinity, the connection of righteousness with happiness, but their
knowedge of " it " is described as empirical ; it is something
found out by experience. " From all they could themselves make
out, and from all that their fathers had told them," they arrived at
the conclusion that righteousness is the way to happiness.
Having subtracted from religion and theology the fundamental
truth of a personal God, what account does Arnold give of the
substance of Christianity? Certainly he presents thoughts and
suggestions of spiritual value, and certain felicitous phrases respect
ing Christ which easily take lodgment in the memory. The sum
of his doctrine is contained in his often-repeated statement of the
" method " and the " secret " of Jesus, and the spirit or tone of
His teaching. The method is that of "inwardness,"— -"Cleanse
the inside of the cup." So far there is nothing novel and nothing
MODERN THEOLOGY
483
to be disputed in our author's exposition. The secret is self-
renouncement, — " He that will save his life, shall lose it." The
element in which the method and spirit are worked is mildness, or
what is expressively termed " sweet reasonableness." There was,
it is well said, a " winning felicity " and a " balance," free from all
fanaticism and extravagance. But the " secret " of Jesus leaves
out all that Jesus says of the Father in heaven, of the relation of
the human soul to Him, of the joy of personal trust in Him, of His
unsleeping care of His children. The Divine Father Himself is
left out. It leaves out the conception which Jesus has of the
inward life of the soul, of his conscious relation to the Father. It
takes no account of the prayers of Jesus, of the saying that He
was not alone because the Father was with Him, of His last words,
" Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit." We are not
surprised when Arnold tells us that Buddhism has not only the
sense for righteousness, but has even the " secret of Jesus." But
it employs the secret ill, it is added, because it lacks the method,
" the sweet reasonableness, the unerring balance." The central,
substantial principle, the " secret," is declared to be in both sys
tems the same. The real distinction between them, the radical
distinction and source of differences, Arnold omits to point out,
— namely, the Pantheistic root of the Buddhistic ethics, in con
trast with the doctrine of the living, personal God and Father,
which is involved in all the teaching of Jesus, and pervades Chris
tianity as a religious and ethical system.
That Arnold should discard the New Testament miracles alto
gether, is the necessary consequence of his repudiation of Christian
theism. If nature and the course of nature are not traced back
to the will of a Creator and Sustainer of all things, there is no
room left for the supernatural either in the realm of matter or in
that of spirit. Arnold well defines his position on this subject
when he says that if we had accounts of the ministry of Christ
which we knew to have come from the immediate Disciples, we
should not have in them a whit less of the miraculous than the
canonical Gospels contain. We must infer that it was impossible
for Jesus, in case He really healed the blind and the lame, as the
Gospels record, to have furnished any credible evidence that He
did it, — any evidence to be relied on in after times, or affording
ground for reasonable belief in the facts even to those who were
with Him when they occurred. Our conception of Christ Himself
484 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
must be seriously affected if it could be assumed that the family of
followers whom He associated with Himself, whom He personally
taught and trained, were utterly disqualified from giving substan
tially trustworthy testimony concerning what with their own eyes
they saw Him do. In his comments on the Gospels, Arnold shows
himself quite capable of discerning the weak side of the criticisms
of Baur and the Tubingen School. He rejects the idea that the
Fourth Gospel is a theological romance, as Baur conceived it to
be, and with it the notion that the Apostle John did not live at
Ephesus.1
A kind of believing and Christian agnosticism was introduced
into theology by Sir William Hamilton and some of his disciples.
Hamilton followed Kant in denying that the Unconditioned can
be an object of conception or positive thought. The Uncondi
tioned embraces the Infinite and the Absolute. The Absolute
denotes that which is free from all necessary relations to any other
being — which is free from every relation as a condition of exist
ence. The Infinite denotes that which is free from all possible
limitations ; than which a greater is inconceivable, and which,
therefore, can be possessed of no attribute which it had not from
1 The contrast is striking between the light humor o/ Matthew Arnold's
prose writings and the gloom of his poetry. In the poems, which are so ad
mirable in their way, one may not doubt that his inmost feeling finds expres
sion. There pervades them a tone of sadness, — a sadness without remedy
and without solace. Faith gone, the fountains of joy are dry. And yet he
sees that the millions —
" Have such need of joy ! "
The want of the world is —
" One mighty wave of thought and joy lifting mankind amain."
But the poet sees no ground of hope. He has no counsel to give to mortals,
in their unquenchable yearning for bliss, but to " moderate desire," to be con
tent with what a few days on earth may yield. A lesson may be read in
Tennyson the reverse of the despairing inference of Arnold : —
" My own dim life should teach me this,
That life shall live for evermore,
Else earth is darkness at the core,
And dust and ashes all that is ;
"This round of green, this orb of flame,
Fantastic beauty ; such as lurks
In some wild poet, when he works
Without a conscience or an aim."
MODERN THEOLOGY
485
eternity. They involve the negation of conceivability. Yet in
reference to space, time, and degree, " the three species of quan
tity which constitute the relations of existence," we are presented
with contradictory propositions, one of which, therefore, must be
true. For example, we can conceive of space neither as infinitely
extended nor as absolutely bounded. Yet one or the other must
be real. Hamilton's inference is that the limits of our thought are
not the limits of existence. He blames Kant for not showing that
the antinomies are due to the fact that the Unconditioned is not a
notion, either simple or positive, but " only a fasciculus of nega
tives." The truth is that we are not able to understand as possi
ble either of two extremes, one of which must be recognized as
true.1 The sources of religious and Christian belief are in our
moral nature. Which horn in each case of the dilemma — for
example, the dilemma of necessity or freedom — we are to take,
is determined by our moral nature. In Mansel's Limitations of
Religious Thought, the Hamiltonian philosophy is applied to
Christian Theology. Faith rests on the feeling of dependence
and the feeling of obligation, and on the Christian Revelation.
But Rationalism and Dogmatic Theology are both silenced by
reason of the inconceivable nature of the objects of faith. Our
knowledge in this province is relative. It is symbolic rather than
literal. It tells us how God would have us think of Him, but not
what He is in itself. This last is incommunicable. Even the
moral attributes cannot be affirmed to correspond fully to the
same qualities in men. Even his personality must be asserted
with a like reservation. Mansel's work evoked energetic protests
in very diverse quarters. Among the antagonists who wrote
against it were F. D. Maurice, Goldwin Smith, and John Stuart
Mill.
Before touching on the renewed appearance of an empirical
philosophy in England, a brief reference may be made to a like
event in France. The Sensualistic and Materialistic School, which
professed to build upon the premises of Locke, was assailed by a
spiritual eclectic philosophy, of which Royer-Collard (1763-1845)
was the founder. He was a disciple of Reid. The work that he
began was carried forward by Victor Cousin (1792-1867) and his
followers, of whom Jouffroy (1796-1842) was the ablest. The
1 Hamilton's Lectures on Metaphysics, p. 527 ; Appendix, p. 647. "Phi
losophy of the Conditioned " (in Wright's ed. of Hamilton's Philosophy), p. 459.
486 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Eclectic School was influenced by Kant, and to some extent by
Schelling. It was under the auspices of Auguste Comte (1798-
1857) that the grounds of theism were once more attacked. From
him sprung the Positivist School. He maintained that we have
no knowledge save of phenomena, or things as manifested to our
consciousness. Phenomena are arranged according to their like
ness or unlikeness, and in their chronological order of occurrence.
How we become possessed of the notions of likeness and of suc
cession is not cleared up. Of efficient or final causes, if they
exist, we have no knowledge. Religion is a product of imagination .
There are three stages of thought, — the mythical, the metaphysical,
and the scientific or positivist. In the first the personifying
imagination attributes natural phenomena to personal agents.
Theism is the ripe form of this tendency. In the second stage
persons are exchanged for substances and causes. In the third,
it becomes plain that knowledge is limited to phenomena, to be
classified by their degree of resemblance and their temporal rela
tion. In his old age Comte sought, to the disgust of many of his
followers, to bring back religion, which his system had banished,
in the form of a sentimental worship of humanity, of which woman,
the Virgin Mary in particular, is the symbol.
In England, the philosophy of Hume was reproduced by John
Stuart Mill. The associational psychology found in him an
acute advocate. It is expounded in his Inductive Logic, in his
Review of Sir W. Hamilton's Writings, and in miscellaneous
essays. " Intuitions " are the product of experience. They arise
from impressions which begin in infancy, and are so frequently
conjoined as to seem native to the mind. This is said of geo
metrical axioms. We are told that there may be other planets
where two and two are five. Causation is another name for the
invariable association of phenomena by which an expectation as
to their recurrence is created that is delusively thought to be
instinctive. The mind is a series of sensations with the possibility
of other sensations. We are hindered only by the fact of memory
from asserting the mind to be nothing but such a " series " con
scious of itself. In his later writings, Mill was disposed to believe
in a form of theism, and to find considerations in favor of the
doctrine of a future life. He attributed weight to the argument
of design, but his faith in it was weakened by the appearance of
Darwinism.
MODERN THEOLOGY 487
The agnostic system of Herbert Spencer accords with Hume
and Mill in tracing intuitions to an empirical source. It is not,
however, the experience of the individual, but that of the race, to
which their origin is attributed. Heredity is taken as the clew to
the solution of the problem of their emergence in the conscious
ness of the individual. They are a legacy of remote ancestors,
by whom they were gradually acquired. This is one of Spencer's
modifications of the Positivist Creed. Moreover, with the Posi-
tivist doctrine that all our knowledge is of phenomena, he seeks
to connect the Pantheistic theory of an unknown substance or
power — called "the Unknowable" — at the root of all phenom
ena. We only know that it is, and that all phenomena are its
manifestations in consciousness. From Hamilton is adopted the
notion of the relativity of knowledge, and the inconceivability of
" the Infinite " ; but the supplementary doctrine of Kant and
Hamilton of a well-grounded belief in God and in freedom, on
the basis of our moral nature, is set aside or left out. That which
we call mind in man is the outcome of an all-comprehensive
process of evolution. Nervous organism is the product of develop
ment ; from nervous organism emerge mental phenomena. " Rea
son rejects " the belief in our personality, unavoidable as this
belief is confessed to be.1 But materialism is disavowed, on the
ground that the nerve-movement is not less phenomenal than the
feeling; both being assumed to be the "faces" or "sides" of
the same unknown reality. "The force by which we ourselves
produce changes and which serves to symbolize the cause of
changes in general " is all that we know of cause in the Absolute,
the Unknowable. If Spencer made the causal idea as thus de
rived the symbol for the interpretation of " changes in general,"
he would be a theist. By deftly resolving cause into the physical
idea of force, he stamps upon his system a Pantheistic character.
Were he to predicate intelligence of God, he would be guilty of
no graver assumption than when he ascribes intelligence to his
fellow-men. It has been conclusively shown that, according to
Spencer's principles, whatever anthropomorphism can be laid to
the door of Christian theism must be predicated of the whole
fabric of natural and physical science. " Relativity " is not more
fatal in the one place than in the other. Religion, in Spencer's
theory of its origin, begins in the worship of ancestors.2 The
1 first Principles, pp. 64, 65. a Principles of Sociology, Vol. I. c. viii. sq.
488 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
belief in their continued existence after death arises partly through
dreams. The " primitive man," too, mistakes his shadow for
another man, the duplicate of himself. Epilepsy, insanity, and
like maladies confirm the notion that ghosts come and go.
Temples were at first tombs of the dead. Fetiches were parts
of their clothing. Idols were their images. To explain the wor
ship of plants, animals, and of heavenly bodies, other hypotheses
or conjectures, such as linguistic blunders, figures of speech being
taken as literal expressions, are brought in.
It is pretty generally agreed that the Darwinian theory of the
descent of existing animal species, even when man is included,
does not militate against theism, or sap the foundation, however
it may vary the form, of the argument of design. " The teleo-
logical and the mechanical views of nature are not mutually exclu
sive."1 Darwin himself, to be sure, admitted an element of
" chance " in the variation which furnishes the materials for
"natural selection"; but "chance," he said, is an incorrect
expression of our "ignorance of the cause of each particular va
riation." 2 Yet he can see no evidence of design as to the use to
be made of the results of variation, and finds here " an insoluble
difficulty," like that of "free-will and predestination."3 Such a
difficulty, it is plain, would at best have force as an objection, not
against the existence, but against the wisdom, of an intelligent
Creator. However, the fact of such a haphazard variation is
disputed or doubted by naturalists of the highest ability who
accept the evolutionary hypothesis of Darwin.4 Intelligent advo
cates of evolutionary doctrine in its extreme form perceive that
the gulf between physical states and consciousness is impassable.5
It is more and more recognized that such questions as those of the
personality of God and the free and responsible nature of man,
are beyond the province and the power of physical science to
determine. Verified knowledge in this department may affect tra
ditional interpretations of early narratives in the book of Genesis,
or ideas relative to their inspiration, but can reach no farther.
1 Huxley, Critiques, p. 307. 2 Origin of Species, p. 137.
8 Animals and Plants under Domestication, p. 58.
4 For example, Dr. Asa Gray, Darwiniana, p. 148; Huxley, EncycL Brit.
Vol. VIII. p. 751.
5 For example, Tyndall, Fragments of Science, p. 121 : "The passage from
the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthink
able," etc.
MODERN THEOLOGY 489
" It may be remarked," writes an able expositor of natural sci
ence, " that scientific men often give utterance to opinions which
far transcend the limits which we have assigned for the scope of
science. . . . When a scientific man expresses an opinion on
such questions as the existence of God and the immateriality of
the human soul, his utterances are not science but philosophy, —
good or bad philosophy, as the case may be. The opinions of a
scientific man on philosophy or theology are no more a part of
science than are his opinions on politics or poetry." ]
One of the class of scientific men who have interested themselves
in questions of philosophy and theology — that class, of which
Professor Rice remarks that to their opinions " the popular mind
often attributes the same degree of probability as belongs to the
legitimate conclusions of science " — is Professor Huxley. In his
little book on Hume, in his Lay Sermons, in his controversial
papers against Professor Wace, he has expressed himself too
clearly to leave us in any doubt in reference to his philosophical
opinions. He has explained how he came to invent the term
' Agnostic,' which describes his position.2 Professor Huxley
thinks that what we call the mind is a collection or series of sen
sations standing in certain relations to each other, and that this is
all we know about it. That there is a thinking agent, such as
men generally suppose to exist when they use the word ' I,' there
is no proof. Their conviction is not an intuition ; it is not a
rational postulate ; it is naught except a bare hypothesis which
there is no ground for affirming as a fact. There is a uniformity
of succession in the sensations which constitute the soul, as far as
we know anything of it or have any reason to assert anything of
it ; but there is no freedom of choice, in the sense that the cir
cumstances, internal and external, being the same, any different
determination of the will from that which actually takes place is
possible. It is a natural inquiry, What space is there, on this
view of things, for personal responsibility, or for the obligations
1 The passage is from Professor W. N. Rice's admirable little book, Twenty -
Jive Years of Scientific Progress and Other Essays (New York, 1894), p. 106.
2 If the name is new, the main thing denoted by it is expressed by the
Apostle Paul when he says of the world, that it "knew not God" although
the agnosticism to which the Apostle referred commonly had a stock of
beliefs of its own in regard to the world unseen, therein differing from the
agnosticism of which Professor Huxley has the distinction of being the god
father.
490
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of morality? "What we call the operations of the mind," says
Professor Huxley, " are functions of the brain, and the materials
of consciousness are products of cerebral activity." But the
brain, like everything else that is alive, is developed from proto
plasm, the primitive form of living matter. Still Huxley resents
the imputation of materialism. He insists that we have no knowl
edge of anything but the heap of sensations, impressions, feelings,
— or by whatever name they may be called. There may be a
real something without, which is the cause of all our impressions.
In that case, sensations are the symbols of that unknown some
thing. This conclusion Huxley favors, although he is at pains to
declare that idealism is unassailable by any means of disproof
within the limits of positive knowledge. It is not explained how,
if this last alternative is accepted, the idealist is to avoid the con
clusion which metaphysicians style ' solipsism.' But the " some
thing " of which the brain is a product is unintelligent ; and when
the brain dissolves, there is nothing to prove that the phenomena
of intelligence continue. There is no proof that the soul — that
is, the series of sensations — does not come to an end. The
existence of a personal God is another of the propositions which
are incapable of being established. " In respect to the existence
and attributes of the soul, as of those of the Deity," says Huxley,
" logic is powerless and reason silent." As regards the attributes
of God, — justice, benevolence, and the like, — he indicates no
dissent from the " searching critical negation " of Hume. If there
be a God, he thinks it demonstrable that God must be " the cause
of all evil as well as all good," — a conclusion which would follow,
to be sure, from the tenet that man is not a personal agent, freely
originating his voluntary actions, but is no proper adjunct of the
opposite doctrine. As a consistent agnostic, Huxley rejects
Hume's definition of a miracle as a violation of the order of
nature, for the reason that the " laws of nature " are based on
incomplete knowledge. But in dealing with the New Testament
narratives he follows Hume in treating the miracle as an isolated
marvel. He confines his attention to its unusual character, if we
suppose it to be an actual occurrence. His philosophy admits of
no interpretation of it save as requiring an alteration of our con
ception of the constitution of nature.1
1 On what is meant by the " order of nature," and the relation of miracles
to »*• **• Mozley, Rampton Lectures, p. 43.
MODERN THEOLOGY
491
No more searching and cogent answers to the assailants of the
fundamental truths of religion in recent times have appeared than
are contained in writings of the most eminent of the English
Unitarian ministers, James Martineau. In defending a spiritual
philosophy against materialism and agnosticism, he has carried
the war with equal energy and courtesy into the enemy's coun
try.1 Other authors, such as Robert Flint 2 and Samuel Harris,3 —
and not a few other names would have to be added to complete
the list, — have exposed the fallacies of antagonistic schools, and
have set forth the rational foundations of Christian theism.
1 Dr. Martineau is the author of Religion and Modern Materialism (1874),
A Study of Religion, its Sources and Contents (1888), Types of Ethical Theory
(1886), etc. In The Seat of Authority in Religion (1890), Dr. Martineau
takes up questions pertaining to Revealed Religion. Here he advocates
opinions characteristic of the Tubingen School and of the later German
Critical School.
2 Author of Theism (yth ed. revised, 1874), Anti- Theistic Theories
(2 ed. 1880).
3 Author of The Philosophical Basis of Theism (1883), The Self- Revelation
CHAPTER V
THE ANGLO-FRENCH DEISM — THEOLOGY IN GERMANY IN THE NINE
TEENTH CENTURY : DEISTIC ILLUMINISM IN GERMANY ZINZEN-
DORF AND THE MORAVIANS THE THEOLOGY OF LESSING THE
RATIONALISTIC BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM : SEMLER ;
EICHHORN — "THE THEOLOGY OF THE UNDERSTANDING" — THE
PHILOSOPHY OF KANT THE KANTIAN ETHICAL RATIONALISM
JACOBI AND HERDER TWO DIVERGENT CURRENTS OF THEOLOGI
CAL THOUGHT
THE last century witnessed in France the spread of deism, which
took its rise in England, and with deism the advocacy and spread
of a materialistic atheism. Voltaire (1694-1778), whose sway
in the domain of letters surpassed that of any other author since
Erasmus, defended deism, as verified both on moral grounds
and by scientific proof. He held likewise the doctrine of immor
tality. At the same time he used his wonderful resources of wit
and sarcasm to assail ' superstition,' under which term he included
not only perversions and abuses in current conceptions of Chris
tianity, but also the distinctive facts and doctrines of Christianity
itself. A step farther was taken by Condillac (1715-80), build
ing upon the premises of Locke, who, as he judged, had failed to
press to its proper conclusion the proposition that all mental states
spring from sensation. Self-love, Condillac taught, is the source
of all our inclinations, whether evil or good. Man's superiority
to the brute is largely owing to his possession of language.
Yet he does not go so far as to assert the materiality of the
soul or to deny the being of God. Helvetius (1715-71), in his
work On the Mind, carries out the idea of Condillac respecting
the principle of self-love, by tracing in detail all virtue to self-
interest, and identifying morality with selfishness. The deism
of Voltaire was followed by the materialism and atheism of the
492
MODERN THEOLOGY 493
" Encyclopaedists," — so called from the title of the copious work
of Diderot and D'Alembert, the Encyclopedic, which was sympa
thetic with these extremes of infidelity. They were explicitly set
forth in The System of Nature, of which Baron Holbach (1723-
1789), a German by birth, was the author. God, freedom, and
immortality are treated as chimeras, and duty is resolved into
a form of self-gratification.
Against these debasing opinions Rousseau protested in the
Savoyard Vicar's Profession of Faith (contained in Emile).
The fundamental truths of religion rest upon our feeling of
their truth, although dogmatic atheism and materialism may be
met by reasoning as cogent as the pleas in their favor. The
authority of conscience is stamped upon the heart of man.
When we examine the evidences of Christianity, we are left in
doubts and difficulties. Reasons on one side are balanced by
reasons on the other. But the heart speaks with a convincing
voice, affirming the inspiration of the Scriptures and that Jesus
is more than man. The moral excellence which He exhibited
in precept and example, when the time and place in which
He lived are considered, could not have had a human origin.
Despite oscillation and an excess of sentiment in his utterances
respecting religion, Rousseau anticipates in a more indefinite
way the ideas of Kant in his Practical Reason.
In a work like the present some notice should be taken of the
tenets of Emanuel Swedenborg, although it has the appearance of
a digression. Swedenborg was born in 1688. Well educated, he
was a remarkable proficient in mathematical and physical science,
combining scientific insight with practical skill. In 1 743 he first
believed himself to have a vision of Christ and direct intercourse,
through angels and by immediate perception, with supernatural
states of existence. By special illumination he was qualified to
unveil their nature and to set forth the true theology. He was a
voluminous writer. In the Arcana Cozlestia and elsewhere he
expounds his system. The universe is one whole, the outward
world being the counterpart of the inward and spiritual. There
is a correspondence between the two. Nature is a parable. In
the Bible beneath the literal sense, there is the occult, spiritual
meaning, the Word of God, open to the discerning. Swedenborg
dissents in many points from the ordinary church theology. He
denounces without stint the doctrine of justification by faith alone,
494
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
as set forth in the current Lutheran teaching.1 God is in His
essence Love and Wisdom. There is an approach to an ideal
theory of matter. God is a single person. The idea of an imma
nent Trinity is rejected. There was no Trinity before the creation.
Jesus derived His body from Mary. That which is divine in Christ
is the Father, the name of God after He has "assumed the
human " ; the divine in this connection with the human is the
Son ; the divine which proceeds from Him is the Holy Spirit.
Thus the Trinity is in Christ. Christ was victor over the powers
of hell. A substitutionary atonement is rejected. Christ is glori
fied, and, through Him, the divine man, we have the true idea of
God and are conjoined by love to Him. A physical resurrection
is discarded. At death the eyes are opened to the spiritual world
in which we exist now. After death men live essentially as they
lived here. At length they are drawn by their affinities to hell or
to heaven. Angels are the spirits of departed human beings.
It is in Germany, eminently " the land of scholars," that in these
latter days, theological thought, as well as investigation, has more
than elsewhere flourished. The history of German theology in the
modern period comprises in it a record of the different types of
" Rationalism " which have appeared, together with a sketch of the
counter-movements in the exposition and defence of the evan
gelical cause. Rationalism is a word of not very exact meaning,
but it is used to designate the partial or total denial of the fact of
Revelation, or the rejection of the Scriptures as the rule of faith,
or, still further, the discarding of what have been generally termed
the principles of natural religion.
The first era of Rationalism was the period when the Anglo-French
deism was dominant. It was the age of Frederick the Great, who
began to reign in 1740 and died in 1786. The sway of France,
in opinions as well as in respect to language and manners, pre
vailed on the Continent. Frederick was himself a disciple of the
school of Voltaire, who resided for a time at his court, and
corrected the bad French of his verses. It was the period of
" illuminism " in Europe, styled by the Germans the period of
Aufklarung. The reign of superstition, it was thought, was now
at an end. Darkness was giving way to the broad sunlight of a
new day. Living faith in Christianity, however, did not perish.
It survived in Pietism, the name derisively applied to the religious
1 See, e.g., The True Christian Religion^ §§ 98, 181, 389.
MODERN THEOLOGY 495
spirit of those who set a value, and the highest value, on the
religion of personal experience, but with less than a just respect
for thought and science. It survived in the Moravians, the
followers of Zinzendorf (1700-60), with whom Christ and the
Atonement had a central place, and whose love and zeal operated
as a leaven beyond their ranks. Among them the worship of
Christ was sometimes too exclusive to conform to the Apostolic
standard, and was one of the peculiarities which incurred the
censure of such truly Christian scholars in the Lutheran Church
as Bengel, the author of that admirable commentary of the New
Testament, the Gnomon.
In this period falls the career of the great poet and critic,
Lessing, who mingled in the religious controversies of the time.
He believed with deists, that true religion is a religion of reason.
He dissented from them in holding that religion reaches the
rational stage, the stage when its truths are discerned as founded
in reason, only at the end of a course of development. Positive
religions precede and lead up to this goal. But the historical and
statutory part of religion is like a shell, the result of an organic
growth, and not superimposed from without. This integument
is dropped off by degrees until religion in its rational content or
essence remains, having and needing no other support than its
recognized reasonableness. He begins his suggestive essay on the
" Education of the Human Race " with the remark that " Revela
tion, in the case of the entire human race, is what education is in
the case of the individual." l Education gives nothing which the
individual could not have from himself, only it gives "more
quickly and more easily." The same is true of revelation. As
in education, so in revelation, there is an order and a progress.
A particular people was chosen for a special education.2 God
caused Himself to be disclosed to them by degrees. He did
not commit the fault of a vain pedagogue, whose teaching is
beyond the capacity of the pupil. The experiences of the Israel
ite, out of his own land "with other children," helped him to
some knowledge. "A better pedagogue must come, and take
the exhausted elementary book out of his hands. — Christ came." *
The reason of the race in pupilage had advanced. The New
Testament is a second, a better, elementary book for the race.
l Wtrke (Boxberger's ed.), Vol. XII. p. 348.
3 Ibid. p. 349. 8 Ibid. p. 361.
496 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
It was necessary that every people should for a while regard it
as the ne plus ultra of its knowledge.1 Just as we can dispense,
as to the doctrine of the unity of God, with the Old Testament,
and, as to the doctrine of immortality, with the New, so will it be
as to the other Biblical truths. So it is, Lessing attempts to show,
in regard to the Trinity, to which he offers what he thinks a
philosophical equivalent,2 as also to the doctrines of Original Sin3
and the Satisfaction of Christ.4 What if here we have taken all
the steps towards perfection that temporal rewards and penalties
can lead to? " Is not all eternity mine?"5 In Lessing's post
humous essays and fragments of essays, there are interesting state
ments indicative of his opinions. He distinguishes between " the
religion of Christ," the religion which He as a man recognized
and practised, and " the Christian religion," which assumes as
true that He was more than a man, and " as such makes Him an
object of worship." The religion in the Gospels is not the Chris
tian, but the religion of Christ. The latter is clearly set forth.
As to the former, two men will hardly ever, as long as the world
stands, be found to attach to it the same meaning.6 Respecting
the evidences of Christianity, proof from miracles avails only to
the Apostles and their contemporaries. Lessing is at pains to show
that the Gospel was taught before the New Testament was writ
ten. Christ, not the Scriptures, is the primary object of belief.
In the drama of Nathan the Wise, a Jew, Mohammedan, and
Christian are brought together in the time of the Crusades. The
lesson from the spirit of Nathan, the Jew, is that one's creed is of
little moment, provided there is a temper of charity and tolerance.
Lessing published the Wolfenbiittel Fragments, purporting to be
from a manuscript of an unknown author, found in the library of
Wolfenbiittel, of which he had charge. It was really the work of
Reimarus, a physician. It was an attack on the credibility of the
Gospels. The greatest excitement was occasioned by it. Lessing
defended the right and expediency of publishing the book, in the
interest of free discussion, and in opposition to an orthodox Ham
burg pastor, Goze. He himself wrote an essay, showing much re
search, on the Evangelists considered as merely human historians.7
* tf^r/k (Boxberger's ed.), Vol. XII. p. 363. * Ibid. p. 366.
2 Ibid. p. 364. 6 Ibid. p. 370.
* Ibid. p. 365. • Vol. XIII. pp. 475, 476.
7 It it in tb« Nachlasse, Werke, Vol. XIII. p. 350 sq., "Neue Hypothesen," etc.
MODERN THEOLOGY
497
The period of " illumination " in Biblical and historical criti
cism, although it had its forerunner in the Socinian and Arminian
scholars, was opened by Semler (1725-91), a contemporary of
Lessing. In Germany, says Tholuck, " it is Semler by whom, in
the whole expanse of Biblical and historical criticism, traditional
assumptions and opinions are combated, now the text of the Bible
attacked, now the genuineness of Biblical books contested, now
the foundation of received views respecting the Church and the
history of doctrines taken away." Zeal for exploration in all these
directions was kindled in all the German universities. Among
the critics, Eichhorn (1752-1827), for fifty-two years a teacher at
Jena and Gottingen, brought forward suggestions and problems
without number which stimulated thought and demanded solution.
For example, the documentary hypothesis as to the composition
of Genesis, first propounded by Astruc, was introduced into Eich-
horn's Introduction to the Old Testament. The way was opened
for the discussions relative to the authorship of the Pentateuch
and of Joshua, in which, in later times, De Wette, Bleek, Ewald,
Hupfeld, and, more recently, Kuenen, Graf, Reuss, Wellhausen,
and many others, have taken part. In the period of Semler and
Eichhorn, there were not wanting orthodox men of distinction,
such as Michaelis, Ernesti, Mosheim, but their orthodoxy was of
a dry and unspiritual kind, — a " theology of the understand
ing," as the Germans commonly characterize it.
It was inevitable that a powerful influence on the course of
theology — an influence not confined to his own country and
time — should be exerted by the foremost philosopher of modern
days, Immanuel Kant (1722-1804). He began as an adherent
of the philosophy of Leibnitz in the form in which it was cast by
Wolf. The speculations of Hume awoke him from his "dog
matic slumber," and compelled him to inquire for a basis of
knowledge not resting on unverified assumptions, or leading to
universal skepticism. He was thus prompted to examine the
mind itself as an organ of knowledge, and in the Critique of
Pure Reason to undertake to distinguish between that which is
contributed by the object and by the knowing instrument, the
mind itself — between the objective and subjective sources of
knowledge. By the criteria of universality and necessity we are
assured that while objects of perception — "the thing in itself" —
are real and external, the " forms " of perception, space and time,
2K
498 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
are purely subjective. By the same criteria, we are assured that
the " categories," or concepts, by which the understanding, the
faculty of judging, connects the objects of perception into an
orderly experience, are likewise subjective, and belong to the
constitution or mechanism of the knowing agent. For example,
cause is not a function of things, an external power binding
together antecedent and consequent ; nor is it, as Hume said, a
mere result of customary association, an objectified product of
fancy. It is a necessary mode of our mental activity in contact
with phenomena, — for it is only of phenomena, not of the nou-
mena behind them, that we have cognizance. Only the world as
it is related to the mind can we know. The legitimate action of
the understanding through the a priori concepts or categories
"hath this extent, no more." But there is a third department of
mental activity, — the Reason. We seek to unify the knowledge
acquired by experience — acquired through the understanding.
Thence arise ideas or suggestions, the presuppositions of all our
judgments. The ultimate premises implied in the different forms
of syllogism give us these ideas. They are the unconditioned
subject, the ego, not capable of being a predicate ; the world, as
a complete series of conditions resting on nothing beyond itself;
God, the supreme condition of " the possibility of all realities."
But while we are thus brought, as it were, to the threshold of a
supernatural realm, we are stopped there. The reality of the
objects thus suggested by reason is not only unverifiable, as
beyond experience ; it is inconceivable. For the moment it is
assumed and reasoned upon, we land in antinomies — in dilem
mas, each branch of which in every case is demonstrable, yet
each is the contradiction of the other. The mind is straying
beyond its province. Thus Kant argues that freedom and neces
sity are each provable, but each inconsistent with the other. He
considers the proofs of the being of God untenable. The onto-
logical proof is a fallacy, a thing being inferred from a thought ;
the cosmological has to fall back on the ontological for support ;
and even the argument of design is not demonstrative, and at the
best could not establish the infinitude of the divine attributes.
Rational psychology, rational cosmology, and rational theology
have no foothold. The upshot of the Kantian achievement is the
organization of skepticism.
But in the Practical Reason, that which is lost is recovered.
MODERN THEOLOGY 499
The moral nature testifies to God, freedom, and immortality. I
ought, and, if I ought, it is true that I can. I am made for virtue
and for happiness, two ends. Of this I am conscious. Then
there is a Moral Governor by whom these ends are made to coin
cide, and an immortality, the scene of their junction. The free
dom of which I am possessed is the power of determining the
will by the moral law, uninfluenced by the desires. The Practical
Reason gives the rule : " So act that your act can be generalized
into a maxim " ; that is, will nothing that you cannot will as uni
versal. Religion, according to Kant, is the recognition of our
duties as divine commands. It is throughout ethical and legal.
It is the " categorical imperative " that is exalted. There is no
place for Love, the content of the law. It is in his Religion
within the Bounds of Pure Reason that we find the exposition of
Kant's religious views. In consonance with the thought of Lessing,
whatever in religion is exterior to ethics, whether it be facts or
doctrines, — the "statutory faith," — is simply valuable on account
of the weakness of human nature. As reason becomes more
mature, and as the moral sense comes to exercise control, every
thing not recognized and verified by reason will cease to be of any
account. Even now we must deduce from Scripture in our inter
pretations that, and that only, which conforms to universal morality.
Kant holds that the subjection of the will to the propensities, as it
must be self-originated, implies an Ur-bose, a transcendental act of
which it is the result, an act independent of our present conscious
ness or memory. The new birth is the reversal of that underlying
disposition of the will. The Son of God is the ideal of the per
fect man. Saving faith is the belief in that ideal which is repre
sented in Christ. It is not the belief in historical circumstances
respecting Him. The various doctrines of the Christian system
are subjected to a transformation of the same general character.
The Church is a community for mutual help in the practice of
virtue. It is thus a family of the children of God. Any service
of God beyond the service of morality is either superfluous and
sometimes practically harmful, or a useful crutch for the weak.
Belief in divine influences on the soul can neither be approved nor
denied. Belief in miracles cannot be sustained by proof, and is
not helpful in the performance of duty.
The teaching of Kant on the moral side was a most healthful
rebuke of the lax tone and low ideals of the deistic illuminism.
5oo
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Its bracing atmosphere was wholesome for many minds. But it
brought in a type of rationalism in which the distinctively religious
character of Christianity was eclipsed or subordinated to an ethical
legalism, and in which the miraculous parts of the Gospel narra
tives were interpreted out of them by such devices as the pushing
of the notion of accommodation on the part of Christ Himself to
a groundless extreme. Misconceptions of an absurd nature were
attributed to the Apostles to account for their testimony. Paulus
(1761-1848) was the most conspicuous example of this style
of exegesis. In dogmatic theology, Wegscheider (1771-1848)
believed in a high providential mission of Jesus, but resolved
the miracles into mistakes of witnesses and reporters. Other
prominent exponents of this general type of teaching were Rohr
(1777-1848) and Bretschneider (1776-1848). Even preachers
like Reinhard (1753-1812), and theologians like Storr (1746-
1805), while not adopting the Kantian theology, were affected by
its influence.
A system which made religion a function of the will and exalted
the behest of conscience in such a way as to leave no verification
of the truths of religion in the voices of the heart — such a lofty
but barren legalism could not but evoke dissent and a reaction.
Prominent in proclaiming the high place that belongs to feeling
in religion was Herder (1744-1803). If not an exact and self-
consistent thinker, he was fertile in quickening suggestions, full of
a genial enthusiasm, and versatile, a poet of merit and an elo
quent preacher. He exerted a kindling influence in every direc
tion. In his book on the Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, and in various
other writings, he impressed his readers with the sublimity and
attractiveness of the Scriptures, although a somewhat undue stress
was laid upon their aesthetic and literary charm. Without reject
ing the facts of revelation, he dwells on their spiritual import.
He is interested in the allegorical significance of Biblical narra
tives. He assumes a primitive revelation to communicate to men
language and the foundations of knowledge. His principal work
is the Ideas towards a Philosophy of the History of Mankind.
Nature is looked upon as a progressive development looking
towards man as the goal. So there is an ascending development
of mankind. But development is not a genetic evolution of
organisms, as in recent theories of natural science. The lower
stage prefigures the stage that follows. Reason directly recog-
MODERN THEOLOGY CQI
nizes God as the Supreme Reason, the primary cause and the
bond of all things. As man's development is incomplete here,
we are warranted in our expectation of immortality. Christ knows
God as His Father and all men as His brethren, and is thus the
ideal man. Inspiration is the enlivening of all the higher powers
of the human soul. There are nobler impulses of action than
mere law. Such are love and the enthusiasm of truth. With
the traditional dogmatic construction of the Christian teaching
Herder has no sympathy. Less indefinite than Herder's pro
test against Kant's philosophy of religion was the protest of
Jacobi (1743-1819). He agreed that the fundamental truths
of natural religion are indemonstrable. They are objects of an
immediate belief, a belief spontaneous, inspired by a necessity of
feeling and connected with a spiritual craving. This instinctive
faith is an act of Reason. Reason is not, as according to Kant,
merely regulative ; it is intuitive. " Nature conceals God ; " it
is a chain of efficient causes, excluding both chance and provi
dence. " Man reveals God." As he is conscious of a power
within him which is independent of nature, superior to nature,
"so has he a belief in God, a feeling, an experience of His
existence."1 Jacobi's exposition of his ideas in the book Of the
Divine Things had a great number of sympathetic readers who
were repelled by the frigid rationalism of the Kantian School.
Thenceforward, there appear two streams in the field of Ger
man thought, a believing Christian theology, founded on the
recognition of a " consciousness of God," indigenous in the soul,
and a speculative Pantheism, the fruit of a modification, in this
direction, of Kant's philosophy.
1 Jacobi, Werke, Vol. III. pp. 424-426.
CHAPTER VI
SCHLEIERMACHER'S THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM
HERDER and Jacobi were only forerunners of a prince among
theologians, an extraordinary genius, who exerted an influence
proportionate to his powers, Frederic Schleiermacher (1768-
1834). He early received deep religious impressions from the
Moravians. He was a philosopher who was excelled by none in
dialectic and speculative ability. His translation of all Plato's
writings is only one evidence of his interest in metaphysical
studies. Mingled with the powerful Christian influence in deter
mining the cast of his thought was an early and lasting attraction
exerted by the doctrine of Spinoza. On the one hand, a deep
appreciation of Christ as the Redeemer, a rare insight, in whatever
respects it may be defective, into His character and office among
men, and, on the other hand, speculative difficulties in conceiving
of God as possessed of attributes of personality — these are the
two facts explanatory of Schleiermacher's system. His Discourses
on Religion to the Cultivated among its Despisers (1799) and his
Monologues (1800), vague as they are in respect to doctrine, are
an impressive, and proved an effective, appeal in behalf of spiritual
religion as the true life of the soul. His principal theological work,
a consecutive exposition of his system, is The Christian Faith —
Der christliche Glaube (1822).
In this " epoch-making " treatise the author sets aside the ration
alistic dogmatics as identifying religion with ethics, the orthodox
dogmatics as comprising propositions not involved in Christian
experience, and as deducing its contents from no single principle.
Dogmatics is a theological science. As such it is related to the
Church. What is the Church? It is a society, a communion
(Gemeinsfhaff), based on piety. This is the bond of union. What
is piety ? It is not a function of the knowing faculty, for its seat is
502
MODERN THEOLOGY
not the intellect, nor of the will. We are always carried back of
the voluntary act to the impulse behind it (Antricti) . The seat of
piety is feeling. But what specifically is the feeling which consti
tutes piety? It is the feeling of absolute dependence. It is not
the feeling of freedom ; it is not the feeling of relative dependence
which we have towards the world, or finite things about us. In feel
ing, the soul is closely united with the object — in the embrace of
its object. In knowing, the object stands over against the subject ;
it is defined. The feeling of absolute dependence coexists with
the feeling of relative dependence. It is in the due relation of
these feelings, the dominating, determining power of the former
that piety consists. They are the " consciousness of God " and
" the consciousness of the world." It is by this postulate of piety as
purely subjective, that not only at the outset, but always, Schleier-
macher steers clear of his speculative difficulties connected with
theism. Christian piety is the piety which is conscious of being
related to Christ as its author, of itself as an effect of the soul's
connection with Him. The Church, as the society of the religious,
is an organism whose members are active and passive, who give
and receive religious impressions (Erregungen) .
The function of Dogmatic Theology can now be stated. Its
principle is the feeling of absolute dependence in its relation to
Christ. It is the statement of the contents of Christian experience.
Nothing else has any place in this science. Other facts and doc
trines belong elsewhere — to Ethics or to other branches of knowl
edge. Dogmatics considers, first, the pious experience (Gottes-
bewusstseiri] in itself; secondly, the development of the sinful
experience or principle ; and thirdly, the consciousness of grace,
or the inward experience of redemption, as related to Christ.
I. It is not creation, but divine preservation, that is involved in
the religious feeling, the sense of absolute dependence. Creation
from eternity is the true conception, God having no relation to
time. And the only attribute to be ascribed to God, on the
foundation of the religious feeling, is primal causal agency (ursach-
lichkeif). The world as a totality is referred to God, not anything
singly considered. He is the immanent cause of the world. His
omnipotence only signifies that all separate causes, manifestations
of power, are referable to Him. It is not implied in the religious
feeling that there is in God surplus, unexerted power. His om
niscience signifies that His agency is a living power ; but this is all.
504
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Plans and execution of plans are not to be attributed to Him.
The activity designated as omniscience is not to be distinguished
from omnipotence.
II. Sin is the predominance, the victory, of the flesh over the
spirit. It consists in the subordination, the subjugation, of the re
ligious feeling under the lower nature, or worldliness. This condi
tion as common to the race is Original Sin. It is the natural
condition of all men from the beginning. Thus there is no real
distinction between sin, and the consciousness of sin. Adam was
like us in this respect : there was no fall from holiness. Here the
creeds are said to be in error.
III. Christ is distinguished from other men by the absolute
control from the start of the religious feeling — the sense of God.
He is sinless, yet His character made progress by continual victories
as the appetencies of nature unfolded themselves. His continu
ous and perfect religiousness is the indwelling of God in Christ
and is the peculiarity of His person.
His person is supernatural as not explicable by circumstances,
by His environment, but only by reference to an act of God.
This, however, is not to be understood as an interposition in time.
It is nature as a whole, or the race, which evolves this person at a
particular time. We are not required, therefore, to deny that He
had a human father. In Christ the human is wholly passive and
receptive. The formula that He had a divine nature is question
able, since nature implies passivity. The perfection of Christ is
in the religious province. He must, moreover, express Himself
through national peculiarities and modes of thought. He is not
properly styled the Example ( Vorbild) , but the Type, of Mankind.
He realizes in Himself the ideal of man.
To Schleiermacher, Christ is the Source of a new spiritual life of
communion with God, first realized in the Saviour Himself, and
from Him communicated to those who are drawn out of them
selves into fellowship with Him. But this effect is conditioned on
the entering of the individual within the historically constituted
sphere of the Saviour's influence, the community of believers. It
is not the effect of a direct, supernatural act of Christ in relation
to the individual. Christ is compared to an individual in whom
the idea of the State should first come to consciousness, and who
should gather the unorganized mass of men from the state of
nature into a civil community by taking them up into a participa-
MODERN THEOLOGY
505
tion in this new life — the life of citizenship. The redemptive
agency of Christ consists in the imparting to men, through the
attractive power which He exerts upon them, that inward con
sciousness of fellowship with God {Gottesbewusstseiri) which in
Him is absolutely controlling, and holds every other feeling in due
subordination to itself. His atoning work is the communication to
them of His own undisturbed blessedness, which is the concomi
tant of this filial communion with God. Christ receives the
believer to be a partaker of His holiness and blessedness — of His
inward spiritual life. He acts upon men to this end. God looks
upon the sinner, not as he is actually, but as he is in virtue of his
relation to Christ — as he is ideally, as he will be when the process
which has begun is complete. Sin still exists in him, but as a
vanishing element.
The union of the believer with Christ brings the forgiveness of
sin ; since, the principle of sin being itself destroyed at the root,
sin being driven, as it were, from the centre to the circumference
of the character, evil or pain does not break up the harmony of
the inward life ; if the disciple suffered, the Master suffered like
wise : and evil, including death, loses its punitive aspect, and is
transmuted into chastisement, or a merciful infliction. Forgive
ness does not free from suffering ; it simply changes its effect and
its significance. The sufferings of Christ are not directly essential
to His work as a Saviour. They are needful, first, as His devotion
to the work of founding the new kingdom could be manifested in
its fulness only by His not giving way to the utmost resistance,
even to that which involved the destruction of His person ; and,
secondly, because His blessedness could only appear in its perfec
tion in the continuance of it through the most extreme suffering,
even that which grew out of the withstanding of sin, and out of
His own fellow-feeling with sinful men, which attended this most
bitter experience.
In the exposition of the priestly office of Christ, Schleiermacher
fully develops the idea sketched above. " The fact that only what
Christ does corresponds perfectly to the divine will, and expresses
purely and completely the reign of godliness {Gottesbewusstseiri)
in human nature, is the foundation of our relation to Him ; and
on the recognition of this everything that is distinctively Christian
rests. In this is included the fact that, independently of his con
nection with Christ, neither any individual man, nor any particular
5o6
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
part of the collective life of humanity, in any era, is, in and of
itself, righteous before God, or an object of His approbation."
" In living fellowship with Christ, no one will be, or will be con
sidered by God, anything for himself; but every one will appear
only as inspired by Him, and as a portion, in the process of
development, of His work." He is like the High Priest in rela
tion to the people ; God looks on them as in Him. " His pure
will to fulfil the divine will is, by means of the vital fellowship
between Him and us, operative in us, and we thus have part in
His perfection, if not in the actual realization, nevertheless in the
stimulus and spur (Antrieb}" Christ has actually fulfilled the
will of God, therefore, "not in our stead, but for our benefit." As
concerns the passive obedience, or sufferings, of Christ, " in
every human community, so far as it can be considered a distinct
whole, there is as much evil as there is sin ; so that, to be sure,
evil is the punishment of sin; not, however, in the sense that each
individual suffers completely and exclusively just the evil which
stands in connection with his personal sin. Therefore, in every
case where another suffers evils which are not connected with his
own sin, it can be said that he suffers punishment for others, who,
since the sin, as the cause and fountain of evil, has exhausted
itself, are no longer smitten with evils in consequence of it. Since
Christ, in order to take us up into the fellowship of His life, must
enter into the fellowship of our life which is sinful, where sin is
continually begetting suffering and evil, He suffered for the entire
human race ; for to the whole race He chose to ally Himself. As
High Priest, moreover, His sympathy with human guilt and ill-
desert, or His sympathetic apprehension of it, which was the
motive of His redemptive work, reached its highest pitch when it
inspired Him to undergo death at the hands of sinners. Here
was His victory over sin ; and with it, over evil which sin brings
in its train. Hence, by the sufferings of Christ punishment may
be said to be abolished, because in the communion of His blessed
life, evil, which becomes a vanishing element, is no longer felt as
a penalty. It is in His sufferings that we behold His holiness,
and His blessedness also, which are seen to be invincible under the
severest test. By entering into His sufferings, the conviction of
His holiness and blessedness is brought home to us. The suffer
ing of Christ is vicarious, in that His sympathetic apprehension
(Mifgefuhf) of sin is complete, even as regards those who are not
MODERN THEOLOGY 507
themselves distressed by the consciousness of sin; and in the
sense that, being Himself sinless, He is not under obligation to
suffer. His sympathetic compassion for men as sinners is strong
enough to take in all ; it exhibits itself fully in His freely giving
Himself up to death ; and it serves ever to complete and perfect
our imperfect consciousness of sin. Christ sustains a relation to
us which renders Him the representative of the entire human
race, inasmuch as, in the character of a High Priest, He brings
our prayers to God, and brings to us the divine blessing. He is
the Priest whom all preceding priesthoods imperfectly foreshadow.
He is the most perfect Mediator between God and every separate
portion of the human race, no one of whom, in and for himself,
could be an object for God, or come into any connection with
Him. In His consciousness is the norm and the fountain of
acceptable piety. Even the penitence which is appropriate for
sin, finds its pattern and potence in His sympathetic sense of its
evil."1
It is impossible not to be struck with the spiritual insight and
scientific method which mark Schleiermacher's discussion of this
subject. Christ, bringing into the race the life of holy and blessed
communion with God ; maintaining in Himself this life of filial love
and of deep, inward peace consequent upon it, even in the midst
of death inflicted by the malignity of men, into whose condition
of sin and misery He entered with an exhaustive sympathy ; anni
hilating thus, by His holy constancy, sin as a principle, and with
it the suffering of which sin is the parent, and which is put in
the way of gradual extinguishment ; propagating this inward life,
within the circle of His historic influence, by drawing sinful men
up into the fellowship of His filial relation to God, and thus giving
them, too, the victory of the spirit over the flesh ; lifting them,
also, above the power of outward calamity to break the soul's
calm, and transmuting for them all outward suffering, including
physical death, into a means of purification and peace, — these
ideas surely include an important part of the Gospel.
But the subjective character of Schleiermacher's theology is
manifest in this discussion of the Atonement. Sin is not con
ceived of strictly as something abnormal, but as a lower stage in
human development. The end of the work of Christ is not so
much to rescue, as to elevate, human nature. Hence the feeling
1 Der Christlichc Glaube, II. I, § 51 sq.
508
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
of guilt and its correlate, the holy displeasure of God, are left out.
When the principle of sin is broken in its control, it is conceived
that guilt and the sense of guilt disappear of themselves. Guilt
is really made to be a spur to an onward development, instead of
being retrospective and retributive in its import. Therefore a
conscious need of expiation finds no place. According to Schlei-
ermacher, the work of Christ, and His death as a part of it,
delivers from sin, and delivers from punishment; but this last
effect is within the sphere of the natural order, in the way of
cause and effect, and not from any other influence upon the mind
of God.
The new life through Christ is progressive. As beginning, it is
Regeneration ; as in progress, it is Sanctification. Viewed from
the side of man, Regeneration is termed Conversion ; from the
side of God, Justification. When the will ceases to be determined
by the " flesh," by the influences of the world of sense, and when
the religious consciousness, the incentives emanating from this
source, become dominant, the change is " conversion." Justifica
tion is the removal by God of our consciousness of guilt and of
ill- desert. It begins with forgiveness. This is simultaneous with
the sinner's union to Christ, when he begins to contend against
his own sin, makes it no longer his own. Then the sense of guilt
vanishes. Then he becomes willing to suffer with Christ. Hence
natural evil is no longer felt to be penal. Against future evil he
is secured by his part in the kingly office of Christ. As Christ
lives in us, we become partakers of His Sonship. But Justification
is not a distinct act of God in time, but a single, temporal effect
of one comprehensive act of God. It is the effect in time of one
eternal and universal " purpose " — the last term being figuratively
used.
Respecting the miracles of Christ, Schleiermacher is obliged to
deny the possibility of miracles in the sense of special interposi
tions, effects of supernatural power. Whatever phenomena are
called miraculous, in case their occurrence is established, are effects
of the Power immanent in the world — effects provided for in
nature. Miracles are not a component element in our faith in
Christ. But the rejection of them would be such an impeachment
of the competency of the original reporters as to cast discredit on
their testimony, in general, respecting Christ, and thus destroy the
basis of faith. This is the case as concerns His resurrection.
MODERN THEOLOGY
509
His Ascension is not sufficiently verified by the evidence, but
nothing can be admitted inconsistent with our faith in Him, —
for example, that He lived on in concealment. His Second
Advent signifies that the perfecting of the Church is possible only
by a sudden advance — as it were, a bound — when the propaga
tion of the race ceases, and the mingling of the good and the evil.
It can only be looked upon as proceeding from the kingly office
of Christ. The great miracle for us is the effect of Christianity on
mankind. The greatest miracle of all is Christ Himself. Schleier-
macher must conceive of conversion as exclusively due to God's
agency. This is expressed by the term ' Election,' with the ad
ditional fact that the occurrence of conversion in each case is at
a particular time. But all are ultimately saved. The Church is
one, as a nation is one, through the one spirit that pervades it and
unites all its members, amid individual peculiarities. Reception
into fellowship with Christ and reception of the Holy Spirit, are
one and the same thing. Faith in Christ precedes a doctrine
concerning the Scriptures. They are the first exposition of the
Christian faith, and the norm of all that follow it. The call to the
ministry is the inward disposition in some to exercise predomi
nantly the forth-going, rather than the receptive, species of activity,
both species being characteristic of the members of the Church.
Prayer is not to be conceived of as producing an effect on God.
True prayer springs from a presage in the Christian mind of what is
to be done by Christ, of what is to occur in His kingdom. The
prayer, as well as its answer, are products of Christ's agency as
king. True prayer has no other object than something that is
included in the divine order of events. Moreover, the state of
mind out of which prayer arises is one of the conditions, in the
natural order, of its fulfilment. The Visible and the Invisible
Church are not spatially separated. Every visible part of the
Church is a mixture of the Church and the world. The Invisible
Church is the sum of all the effects of the Spirit. The Church
will be perfect when all reactionary influences of the world upon
it and within it cease. This gives, the distinction of the Militant
and the Triumphant Church. Belief in immortality may be a
selfish or an unselfish belief. The real foundation of it is the fact
of the union of God and man in Christ, and its design to
redeem and perfect the individuals of the race. In eschatology,
no systematic construction of doctrine is possible. The con-
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
tinuance of personal life is represented under the image of the
resurrection of the body : it is the taking away of death. The
perfection of the Church, from one point of view, — as the
Church is no more to be acted upon to its hurt by the world, —
is the Last Judgment. From another point of view, as excluding
all imperfection, it is eternal blessedness. Schleiermacher argues
against the doctrine of eternal punishment, on the ground that it
would interfere with the happiness of heaven. Whether the in
dividual at death takes on a new organism, or whether the " gen
eral resurrection " takes place at the Last Judgment, is a question
on which Schleiermacher gives no decision. The divine govern
ment is the causal agency of God as directed to the existence and
spread of the Church. The Church, or the kingdom of God, in
its whole extent and in all its consequences, is the end of the
divine government. Love is the tendency of one to unite himself
to another and to live in another. In the Church God unites Him
self with men. Thus Love is the controlling principle, just as in the
harmonious ordering of redemption God's Wisdom is discovered.
But the application of these terms to the undivided causal agency
of God is anthropopathic. The Church doctrine of the Trinity
is not an "immediate expression respecting the Christian self-
consciousness, but only a conjunction of several such expressions."
Consistently with his whole system, Schleiermacher declares for
the Sabellian conception.
In any brief sketch of Schleiermacher's system justice can hardly
be done to the Christian elements that pervade it. Religion is
set free from servitude to philosophy, and gains an independent
footing for itself. A central place is given to Christ. His influ
ence, His relation to His disciples, is conceived of as deep and
controlling. Schleiermacher is not ashamed to call it mystical, in
contrast with the rationalistic descriptions of it. Yet it is a system
such that one is at a loss whether to call it Christianity leavened
with Pantheism, or Pantheism leavened with Christianity. In truth,
as it has been said, it is a mixture of the two where each is com
pletely pulverized and both so thoroughly mixed that it is not easy
to discern them separately. In the conception of God at the
outset His transcendence is sacrificed and absorbed in His imma
nence. At the starting-point religion is resolved into the sense of
dependence. Personality, freedom, fail of a due recognition.
The radical assumption of an immanent, intramundane causality
MODERN THEOLOGY
moulds the conception of sin, of the person of Christ, of prayer,
of justification — in short, of every point of Christian doctrine.
Although personality is wanting in Schleiermacher's conception of
God, yet it is something different from the bare substance of
Spinoza. It embraces the idea of a living, active energy.
CHAPTER VII
THE LIBERAL EVANGELICAL OR MEDIATING SCHOOL : THE INFLUENCE
OF SCHLEIERMACHER ; DORNER j JULIUS MULLER ; NITZSCH -
THE SYSTEM OF ROTHE LIPSIUS THE CONFESSIONAL LUTHERANS
THE RITSCHLIANS
SCHLEIERMACHER broke a pathway out of the ethical rationalism
to a more living apprehension of religion and the Gospel. He
was the founder of the School of Liberal Evangelical Theology,
which not only drew inspiration from his teaching, but took up rich
materials from it to be incorporated in systems differing from his
own. The Mediating School, as it is called, counts among its
members the great historian Neander, exegetes like Liicke,
Tholuck, Bleek, and numerous writers in dogmatic theology, of
whom Twesten, Nitzsch, Julius Miiller, Rothe, Dorner, are among
the most eminent. For many years the Studien und Kritiken, a
quarterly review, was the organ of the school. It is a school
whose representatives naturally have differed widely among them
selves in theological opinion. They carry us back to the point
of view taken by Origen in his time, where diversity on many
important questions is not regarded as a ground for sundering
fellowship, and problems not a few are admitted to be waiting for
a satisfactory solution. In relation to Schleiermacher, his influ
ence is perceptible in all their theological constructions. At
every point, he is both followed, and, if not combated, is criticised.
The Mediating School accepted the conclusions of theological
investigation ; it partook earnestly of the scientific spirit, but planted
itself firmly on the ground of supernatural revelation and the
evangelical faith. It was "mediating," moreover, as supporting
the union of the Lutheran and Reformed churches, on the basis
of the consensus of their confessions in things deemed to be essen
tial. Although the epithet "mediating" was sometimes applied
512
MODERIs THEOLOGY
513
as a term of reproach, the theologians of this class are not
chargeable with a weak eclecticism. They were not at all inter
ested in making a patchwork out of conflicting systems. The
principal theologians in their ranks have been independent in
their thinking, as they have been vigorous and learned in their
discussions.
While agreeing with Schleiermacher that religion is not a prod
uct of philosophy, but has roots of its own in the spirit of man,
they, generally speaking, consider his definition of piety to be
quite incomplete. It designates piety in its nascent life in the
soul ; but piety — faith — involves thought and will as well as
feeling. In the origin of religion, psychologically viewed, con
science has a part. Freedom, as well as dependence, is an ele
ment. Man not only consciously depends on God, he gives himself
to God. God is personal; personality does not exclude infini
tude in the proper idea of the infinite ; His power is not confined
to the extent of its exertion in the finite world ; He is transcendent
as well as immanent. The mediating theologians accept the char
acteristic doctrines of the Reformers. They present modified
views of Inspiration, not holding to the inerrancy of Scripture, yet
maintaining that the Scriptures as a whole are the norm of doc
trine. Justification by faith alone, the Christian life as the off
spring of faith, are, likewise, tenets earnestly maintained. They
are agreed in believing in the divinity of Christ, although not at
one as to the mode of the Incarnation, and the connection of the
divine and the human in the historical Christ. They defend the
historical verity of the miracles of Scripture, including the miracle
of the Resurrection of Jesus, although not holding that all the
recorded miracles, more than the rest of the incidents in the Biblical
record, have an equal historical verification, or are equally entitled
to credence. As on the subject of Inspiration, so on the subject
of Eschatology, — for example, in respect to the eternity of future
punishment, — there is no absolute concurrence of opinion. As to
this particular question, many lean towards a negative judgment,
and many consider it doubtful. Commonly it is held by them
that the opportunity of repentance and reclamation continues after
death, and can only terminate when a state of incurable obduracy
supervenes, or the power of spiritual sensibility and of response
to the incentives to repentance, is exhausted. As to the proba
bility of the occurrence of such a fatal event in the case of
2L
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
any, the mediating theologians, it has already been remarked,
variously judge, in view of considerations drawn from reason
and the Bible.
Dorner is the author of four extended works, all of them monu
ments of his extraordinary talents and learning, and of his genuine
piety : The History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, The
History of Protestant Theology, The System of Christian Doctrine,
and Christian Ethics. He is a philosophical, as well as Scriptural,
theologian, and suggestions, especially as to the method of historical
development, remind one of Hegel. The centre of his system is
the union of God and man in Christ, the consummation to which
not only the Old Testament Revelation, but all religions, point to
or look towards. Dorner rejects the theory of Kenosis. Incarna
tion, real from the beginning, is gradual in its effect, keeping pace
with the ethical development of Jesus. Thus, his limitations as to
knowledge, etc., are to be explained. In the experience of justifi
cation by faith, wherein faith advances from lower stages to its
goal, are contained the truths of which it is the province of
Christian thought to gain a scientific apprehension. Here is
opened the field of Biblical study and of legitimate speculation.
Men in their natural state are in an abnormal condition which is
the inherited consequence of the fall, and is displeasing to God,
yet not imputed to the individual, until his personality is developed,
with the power to struggle against it.1 There may be said to be
a collective sin and a collective guilt. This is punishable, and is
punished.2 But as the evil of the personal subject and of the race
are mingled, although the consequence without divine help is a
sinking to an even lower depth morally, yet it does not bring
final condemnation until and unless sin advances to obduracy
under the test presented by a knowledge of the Gospel. With
out this knowledge, there is deserved condemnation, and the
provision for salvation is wholly of grace. But nothing short
of a wilful failure to meet the test involved in the coming of
the light of the Gospel can lead to hopeless perdition. They
to whom this opportunity has not been given fairly and fully,
will enjoy it beyond this life. But that it will prove effectual
for good in all cases cannot be confidently asserted. The
Anselmic idea of Atonement is discarded, yet the fact of an
objective change in the relation of God to mankind through
1 Glaubenslchre, Vol. II. p. 165 sq. * Ibid. p. 173.
MODERN THEOLOGY
515
the work of Christ is maintained in a discussion pursued with a
keen discrimination.1
Julius Mliller taught theology with a masterly vigor and clear
ness of discernment, mingled with profound moral earnestness.
The weakness of his health in his closing years preventing such
a revisal of his lectures on dogmatic theology as he deemed
requisite, he directed that they should not be published. But in
his treatise on " The Christian Doctrine of Sin " is involved an
exposition of the foundations of theism and of certain other
leading topics. The belief in God takes its rise in the conscious
ness of our personality as finite, yet as differing toto genere from
the world without, and in the conscious subjection to the law of
conscience, which is independent, as to its source, of our wills.
This belief is elicited and corroborated by the proof (so called) of
God's existence and attributes.
All theories to account for sin otherwise than through the self-
determination of the creature, or to define it as anything but volun
tary selfishness, are confuted. The stages in the development of
sin, the nature and degree of freedom consistent with its existence,
are pointed out. Miiller is led by his reasonings to assume as the
ground and cause of sin a transcendent, non-temporal, voluntary
act of each individual of the race, — a revival of the hypothesis
(in its general character) of Origen. This is an inference from
the proposition that our state is, prior to conscious moral choices,
culpable, as presupposing a will already determined in the wrong
direction, and from the conditions of personal guilt and responsi
bility.
Carl Immanuel Nitzsch was revered as the Nestor among the
Schleiermacherian theologians. He was born in 1789. His Sys
tem of Christian Doctrine is sometimes spoken of as obscure, but
its obscurity is owing to no want of precision either of thought or
expression, but to the amount of thought which is packed into a
small space. It becomes lucid, therefore, to a patient and atten
tive student. Nitzsch sets forth the doctrine of an immanent
Trinity. He considers it as the one complete shield against
" Atheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, or Dualism." The Jewish and
the Mohammedan conception of God, by their barrenness and
emptiness (Trockenheit und Leere) have misled into the most
1 See especially Glaubenslehre, Vol. II. pp. 656-659, with the preceding
( evievr of theories.
516 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
crass Pantheism. Through the Trinity, the realization of the attri
butes of God is seen to be possible within His own being, without the
necessity of creation, and the Incarnation to be possible with no con
founding of God and man.1 The world, in its need of redemption,
requires such a redemption as shall not only reawaken its religious
sensibility and capacity, but shall also impart the power of self-
punishment, and of entering, through the death of contrition, into
the life of holiness. Here is the need of a Mediator. " The world's
unrighteousness spends itself upon the Holy and Righteous One,
completes and exhausts itself. He endures it in the glory of His
innocence, in order, by His spirit, to punish it upon us. Only
as the power and possibility of an actual release of men from sin
(Entsundigung) , of our dying with Him, and rising in a new life,
does He suffer death in our place, and make Himself an offering
to God. Only thus is He a ransom for many. It is in the depth
of His sympathy, and in the endeavor for the world's salvation,
that He bears the penalty of its sin." According to Nitzsch, the
Scripture teaches an eternal damnation of individuals hypotheti-
cally. Grace not being coercive, final resistance is possible, and,
supposing it to be actual, there is an eternal condemnation. Whether
this "hypothesis" will become "thesis," or actuality, is another
question. He argues against the doctrine of the annihilation of
the wicked. If universal restoration be the fact, or annihilation, or
the reduction of the soul to a ruin, bereft of all good as well as
evil activity, it is conceivable that the same Apostle who had
preached eternal damnation, nevertheless, in his final eschatology
(in i Cor. xv.), passes beyond and above this expectation.
Neander likewise discerns in Paul a progress in his knowledge of
eschatology, and a later teaching (i Cor. xv. 27, 28; Phil. ii. 10.
ii ; Col. i. 20) of universal restitution. This, he says, would not
contradict the doctrine of eternal punishment, as it appears in the
Gospels ; " for, although those who are hardened in wickedness,
left to the consequences of their conduct, their merited fate, have
to expect endless unhappiness, yet a hidden purpose of the divine
compassion is not necessarily excluded."2
None among the modern German theologians excels in original
ity — and, it may be added, in attractions of character — Richard
Rothe. Large as is the debt which he owes to Schleiermacher, he
is not to be classified, without much qualification, with the Schleier-
1 System d. Christl. Lehre, p. 188. a PI. and 7>. of the Christ. Ch. p. 487.
MODERN THEOLOGY
macherian School. He writes with a faith in theism which, as he
tells us, has never been ruffled by a doubt, and with the most
decided supernaturalism relative to Christianity, a singular bold
ness in speculation, not coupled in the least with arrogance.
Rothe holds that Ethics and Religion are not to be dissevered.
In his great work, the Theological Ethics, the two are fused in one
system. The starting-point is the Christian's consciousness of God
and the idea contained in it. From this religious consciousness
Rothe holds that a theology may be deduced by a logical process
in which every step implies every other. The process is carried
forward independently of the facts of natural and revealed religion.
Its results must correspond to these realities, and its freedom from
error must be tested by its conformity or dis-conformity to them.
Thus he holds to the possibility of a speculative theology, in its foun
dation, independent of metaphysical philosophy.1 In his posthu
mous Dogmatics, the system of orthodox doctrine is explained, and
undergoes at every point a criticism by which it is greatly modi
fied. In his little work serving as an introduction to Dogmatics
he states his views of the Bible and its authority. Revelation
has two sides. It is Manifestation, the objective acts of God in
Providence as it is concerned, in the old Dispensation, with the
Hebrew people, and in the new with Christ, and Inspiration, an
illumination of the mind for the interpretation of them. Revela
tion is in itself miraculous. Special miracles are not in the least
in conflict with a right conception of natural law, which is not
a chain upon the Creator. The recorded miracles are historical
facts, to be tested, however, like the natural events in the narra
tive, by attention to the evidence in the special cases. Yet belief
is not in these days to be exacted of those who — for instance,
from misconceptions as to science — find them incredible. The
Scriptures are not free from errors. Yet they contain in them
selves — that is, the body of these writings contain — when studied,
a corrective. Rothe undertakes to explain the inner self-realization
of God. An immanent Trinity is excluded. Matter is eternal and
necessary, it being the non-ego which God opposes to Himself in
the act of self-consciousness. But it does not clash with His per
fection as the Absolute, since by a process of creation He can
spiritualize matter, infuse it with spirit, and thus more fully realize
1 For a criticism of this position, see Flint's Art. "Theology" (Encych
Brit. Vol. 23, p. 270).
HISTORY OF qHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
His idea. When man is created there is in him a duality. He is
to take up and carry forward the spiritualizing process. He is to
spiritualize his own physical being. But selfishness is the natural
and necessary result of his relation to matter and the promptings
of his material nature. The historic fall of man and the transmis
sion of sin by heredity or imputation are not admitted. Although
Rothe does not exclude the freedom of the will, which is involved
in the ethical obligation to develop a spiritual body, yet his idea
is a species of gnosticism. The design of God is counteracted
by sin, flesh dominates spirit, but redemption comes to our aid
and deliverance. Rothe contends that the preexistence of Christ
is not asserted by Himself. This doctrine, so far as it appears in
Paul and in John, is a subjective inference on their part from His
divinity. His miraculous birth is a requisite condition of His
freedom from the dominance of the flesh, to which the rest of
mankind are subject. He is, however, subject to temptation and
reaches mature perfectness through conflict. The Incarnation
brings to pass an ethical union of God and man in the person of
Christ, which keeps pace in its progress towards absolute unity
with his ethical advance. That advance consists or carries in
it the conquest over sense, the spiritualizing of the material nature,
the progressive origination of a spiritual body. No one, says
Rothe, would style this a merely ethical unity, if he understood
what ethical unity means and involves. Christ is thus truly
divine. The Holy Spirit and the glorified Christ are one and the
same. The Spirit is not an hypostasis distinct from the ascended
Redeemer whose powers correspond to the offices ascribed to
" the Spirit " in the New Testament. Rothe was willing to style
himself a theosophist and to own thankfully his obligations to
Oetinger. Consistently with his general conception of man's
composite being and moral task, he makes our completed salva
tion lie in the absolute conquest by the spirit, the spiritualizing of
our whole being. The ultimate consequence of a failure, in
whomsoever it may finally occur, to achieve in this way, through
the helps of grace, immortality, is the necessary extinction of life
and being.
Rothe's exposition of the Atonement is specially interesting.
Redemption must take away the consequence of sin to the trans
gressor, in his relation to God, — his being under the wrath of
God, or guilt and punishment. This is possible only through for-
MODERN THEOLOGY 519
giveness. And redemption must take away sin itself, and restore
in man the dominion of the opposite principle. Both elements
mutually condition each other. God, on account of His holiness
and righteousness, cannot forgive the sinner unless he is actually
freed from sin ; but, on the other hand, this last is impossible if
the sinner is not first forgiven, for so long as God repels him, he
cannot turn to God, or get rid of sin. Here is an antinomy.
Even the holiness and righteousness of God require this to be
dissolved and removed ; for these attributes are not content with
the mere punishment of sin ; they crave the actual destruction
of sin itself, the termination of its control in the hearts of men.
So that, in case forgiveness is indispensable to this result, holiness
and righteousness call for forgiveness ; only they demand inexorably
that pardon shall be granted in such a way as to carry in it, like
wise, the holy reaction of God against sin ; i.e., these very feelings
of holiness and righteousness. The solution of the antinomy is
the Atonement, or the making of && forgivable, — a modification
in the relation between the sinner and God, in virtue of which
God, notwithstanding His holiness and righteousness, can forgive
the sin which still cleaves to him, and, notwithstanding its pres
ence, can enter into communion with him. There is only one
way of effecting this result. If sin is to be forgiven before it is
actually removed or destroyed, God must have a guaranty, which
is perfect, as inhering in the transaction itself, that sin will in the
future be in fact wholly put away from the sinner, provided for
giveness is provisionally imparted to him, so that this preliminary
reception of pardon, this pardon by anticipation, shall be itself
the actual beginning of a continuous process of purification from
sin, which will at length be absolutely complete. If forgiveness
can be thus the first step, the indispensable and sure antecedent,
of the actual deliverance from sin itself, then, and then only, can
the relation of God to the sinner be one in which God does not
manifest wrath. Nay it will become a relation in which even His
holiness and righteousness require Him to receive the sinner, as
reconciled, into communion and favor. Sin is so connected with
sin, and man so connected with man, that this new possibility
must come in with reference to the race of mankind as a whole.
This possibility is created, with regard to the race and to indi
viduals, by the perfecting of the second Adam, as Redeemer. In
Him dwells the power sufficient for the actual abolition of sin in
520
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
mankind, as a whole and as individuals ; and He has actually set
on foot the historical process which will have this issue, it being
presupposed that the anticipatory forgiveness of sin on the side
of God takes place. In the case of every individual who by faith
enters into fellowship with Christ, there is given to God a guaranty
for his future complete emancipation from sin, and for the fact
that his pardon is only the initial step of the efficient process
which is to remove sin in him, and to separate him wholly from
it. By the Saviour, then, a foundation is laid for the reception
into the relation of fellowship with God of the old sinful humanity
estranged from Him, and for an ethico-religious development
which will more and more lead that humanity into the way of
righteousness.
How has the Redeemer atoned for mankind? Rothe answers,
By qualifying Himself to be a Redeemer. What was needed was
a human being who should be absolutely qualified completely to
effect the abolition of sin, or the recovery of men from its influ
ence and control. Christ has developed Himself in an absolutely
normal way to the point of perfection as a moral and spiritual
being ; and in doing so He has brought Himself into an absolute
union, on the one hand with God, and, on the other, with the race
of mankind. This is the completed sanctification of the Redeemer,
by which He is specially fitted to be, in a perfectly adequate way,
the cause and principle of our sanctification. The moral task which
Jesus set before Him was that of a complete self- surrender to God,
on the one hand, and to man, on the other. He gave all that
belonged to Him, including His own sensuous being, His life, as
an offering to God, an offering of Himself, and to men as a self-
sacrifice, for their best good, and out of love to them. This was
a work done in and upon Himself, in the midst of trial, in success
ful combat with the Tempter of souls ; but done for the sake of
men. This work culminated in the voluntary endurance of death,
which consummated the surrender of everything His own. This
submission to death perfected at once His union to God, and His
union to men. Love could go no farther. This self-surrender,
carried to an exhaustive accomplishment, involved the most stren
uous moral exertion on His part. Being a work undertaken
entirely for our sake, it was vicarious : the holy One performed a
work in the name of the sinner, which the sinner was incapable of
performing for himself. Potentially in Him the old sinful race
MODERN THEOLOGY
521
were regenerated ; and He was, therefore, the representative of
mankind, and of every individual. His suffering has its ground,
not in Himself, the sinless One, but only in the sinfulness of
the world, in which He had to fulfil the moral task of His life,
and for the sake of which He fulfilled it. He shares the world's
suffering, and thereby takes it away ; since in overcoming sin, He
overcomes evil, or suffering, the consequence of sin, and since,
through His fellow-feeling with the sinful world, He felt sympa
thetically the sufferings that befell men, and which are properly
not His — not His in the character which pertains to them in the
mind of the ill-deserving who endure them — i.e., as the penalty
of sin. Thus He bore the penalties of our sins ; not, however, as
His own punishment, but as ours. He put Himself in feeling in
our place, though without any confusion of consciousness, or self-
accusation. Unlike good men, martyrs, He endured suffering in
absolute innocence, and His suffering is the absolute ground and
cause of our exemption from it, or of its ultimate removal. So
that the suffering of the Redeemer is, in an altogether peculiar
way, vicarious. By merit is meant a product of moral exertion,
which is of a nature to be an instrument adapted and available to
all in the work that devolves on them in life as moral beings.
The Redeemer by making Himself what He was, the one suffi
cient instrument of the moral renovation of men, and of their
recovery from sin, created this merit — this sacrament as it may
be called, universal in its efficacy and value. When through Him
we receive the forgiveness of our sins, it is by means of His merit
being reckoned to us, or imputed : that is to say, our sin is for
given, not because there is in ourselves the real possibility and
absolute warranty of a future complete deliverance from sin, but
because these inhere in the Redeemer ; and this deliverance is
conditioned on our relation to Him. It lies in that which He has
produced as the means of our attaining the end of our being. It
is a part of Rothe's conception, that the glorification of Christ,
and the power which He exerts upon men, as the dispenser of
influences from above, is the legitimate fruit of that spiritual per
fection to which He attained in conflict with temptation and
through His self- surrender in death. His personal power continues
to be exerted in a vastly augmented degree, in this higher develop
ment and sphere of His being.
No theologian has laid more stress than Rothe upon the retro-
522
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
active bearing of the conflict of Jesus with evil — its effect upon
Himself. In Rothe this view stands connected with a particular
theory of the relation of matter to spirit, and of the spiritualization
of matter. But, independently of this speculation, he insists upon a
truth which the interpreters of the New Testament, at the present
day, more distinctly recognize than it was formerly the habit to
do. Sinless as Christ was from the beginning, the events of His
career, the victory over temptation, the experience of sorrow and of
death, did not leave His character unaffected. It is characteristic
of that great religious genius, Jonathan Edwards, that he should
have spoken of the increase of the Saviour's holiness in passing
through the scenes that preceded and attended the crucifixion.
The meaning of His life, as regards Himself, and hence in relation
to others, is missed, unless the reality of His temptation, and of
all the struggles which the Evangelists record, especially that in
the Garden, is fully recognized, and unless His character in the
maturity of its perfection is looked upon as the product of His
own faithful performance, amid the circumstances in which He
was placed, of the work given Him to do. It was of an achieve
ment, as well as of an endurance, that He said : " It is finished r "
It will be observed that Rothe, in common with Luther, Camp
bell, Edwards, Schleiermacher, ascribes to Jesus a fellow-feeling
with sinful men, which carried Him out of Himself and caused
Him, though without the least self-reproach, to take up into His
consciousness the penal quality which inheres in the ordinance of
death, and thus to have an intimate knowledge of what it is to be
punished by God, and to be under His frown. The outward
inflictions of punishment were there, and the inward experience,
also, as far as an utterly self-devoted sympathy could engender it.
But Rothe, with Schleiermacher, conceives of guilt as the mere
shadow of sin, vanishing as sin vanishes, and makes the energy of
the divine love and righteousness concentrate upon the breaking
of the control of sin as a principle, that it may be put on the way
to an ultimate extinction. The retributive element, the divine
resentment, " the wrath of God," demands nothing but a guaranty
for the abandonment of sin ; although it should be said, by way of
qualification, that God requires the means for working out this
result to be originated and gathered by the struggle and sacrifice
of the second Adam, on the plane of our human life, subject to all
its exposures and penal inflictions.
MODERN THEOLOGY 523
Lipsius is the author of a system in the creation of which the
philosophy of Kant and the theology of Schleiermacher are
equally influential. Like so many of his contemporaries of differ
ent schools, he attributes our knowledge of God to His self-reve
lation ; yet he declines to draw a distinct line between the natural
and the supernatural. He does not differ from Ritschl in ascrib
ing the origin of religion in man to a striving against the bondage
which the limitations of the outer world would impose upon the
freedom and progress of the soul. With Schleiermacher he holds
that creation is not one act of God, but the entire development of
the world from the point of view of divine agency. It is thus
without beginning or end. Sin is pronounced a necessary stage
in human development, the desires being at the outset predomi
nant. Natural evils are considered as penal, not because they are
so, but because an evil conscience so regards them. Jesus is the
one sinless human being. He is the ideal man, in whom God
dwells. He is the " God-filled " man, the object of God's love,
the founder of the kingdom of souls in fellowship with God.
The Church is conscious of having its foundation in Christ, the
typical and the creative source of the realization of the Christian
idea.
No sketch, however brief, of the modern theological parties in
Germany can omit to refer to the Lutheran Conservatives — " Con-
fessionalists " they are called in common parlance — who have
•taken their stand upon the historic creeds of their Church. In
the religious reaction which followed the deliverance of Germany
from bondage to Napoleon, there arose among many a reawakened
zeal for the Evangelical doctrine as it had been formulated by
Luther and in the Lutheran creeds. The influence of the con
temporary leaders of religious thought, as the event proved, could
not be wholly escaped ; yet their more or less startling innovations
were rejected. Among the adherents of the Confessions, the
" Erlangen School " of theologians has the most prominent
place. Luthardt, whose academic career has been mostly at
Leipsic, and Philippi, are writers who have departed least from
the traditional tenets, and have been unflagging in their zeal to
maintain them. Von Hofmann in his Sehriftbeweiss^ undertook
to deduce the theological system logically from the Christian
experience. He begins, not with the idea of God, but with the
1 2 ed. (1857-1860).
524
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
new birth, and on this basis he essays to construct a speculative
system answering to the facts of Christianity. Von Hofmann was
vigorously attacked within his school for giving up the doctrine of
vicarious Atonement. Thomasius is justly esteemed for his solid
ability both as a writer on Dogmatic theology and on the history
of doctrine. In his treatise on " Dogmatics," he advocated the
theory of Kenosis, or the self-limitation of the Divine Logos, in
connection with the Incarnation.
The "Ritschlian School" is so named from Albert Ritschl (1822-
1889), who, although he shows in important points of his teaching
the influence of Schleiermacher, so far deviates from him that he
is regarded as holding an independent position. Ritschl began
as an adherent of the Tubingen School, but he renounced the
leadership of Baur, and. in the second edition of his book on the
Rise of the Old Catholic Church (1857) he traverses Baur's main
propositions. It is a work of high merit. Later he assumed an
independent position, the characteristics of which are brought out
in the copious work on Justification especially, and in other pro
ductions.1 Religion he traces to the conflict of the soul of man
with the opposing, oppressive forces of nature. The sense of
weakness leads to the belief in the aid of more exalted spirits.
But religion is not exclusively a feeling of dependence. It em
braces, likewise, thought and will. Like Schleiermacher, Ritschl
breaks the link between theology and philosophy. He does not,
however, utterly discard metaphysics, as he distinctly asserts.
Rather is he in concord with Kant in setting aside transcendental
reasoning concerning religion, and adopting the ethical postulate
of freedom. To Lotze he is here and there indebted. No inter
ference with theology from the side of natural science is possible :
for natural science has nothing to do with the world as a whole,
and steps beyond its province when it sets up a theory of materi-
1 Die Christl. Lehre v. d. Rechtfertigung u. Versohnttng (2 ed. 3 vols. 1882).
Among the numerous critical discussions of RitschFs system, two brief essays
may be here mentioned; the first entirely favorable, the other, on the whole
decidedly adverse : Darstellung d. Theol. Albert Kitschl's, by Julius Thikolter
(2 ed. 1887) ; Kitsch? s Place in the History of Doctrine, by Charles M. Mead,
D.D., 1895. Kattenbusch's Von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl, by a Ritschlian,
is clear and interesting, but it quite fails of a just appreciation of the " media
ting" theologians. A critical discussion of The Ritschlian Theology in its
different Stages may be found in Nippold's comprehensive Handbuch d. neues-
Un Kirchengesch.) Vol. III., Abth. I.
MODERN THEOLOGY
525
alism or its opposite. Miracles are defined by Ritschl as strik
ing natural occurrences " with which the special help of God is
connected." If supernatural events appear to be recorded in
the Bible, there is no religious obligation to consider them to be
wrought " contrary to natural laws." Nothing more definite is
propounded on the subject. Unlike Schleiermacher, he holds fast
to the personality of God, and makes His fundamental attribute
to be Love. Respecting the sources of our knowledge of God and
of Christianity, Ritschl declares that we are confined to the Script
ures of the Old and New Testaments. The Greek theology, he
avers, was made to rest upon a cosmology borrowed from the
philosophers. The Schoolmen built likewise upon a substruct
ure the materials of which were drawn from Plato and Aristotle ;
and theology since has followed their example. Instead of a
" natural theology," independent of revelation, the Scriptures ex
clusively are for the Christian the fountain of religious knowledge.1
They are historical documents bringing to us the knowledge of the
revelation made to the prophets and through Christ and the
Apostles. The genuineness of the fourth Gospel is not questioned
by Ritschl himself. It was defended in his work on the Rise of the
Old Catholic Church. But his doctrine respecting Christ is de
duced from the first three Gospels, for the reason, it would seem,
that the fourth is thought to be colored by subjective conceptions.
The Scriptures give us the record of the manifestations of God's
" righteousness," which denotes His consistent purpose and proced
ure in the work of saving His people. "Just" and "righteous,"
Ritschl contends, are used by Paul, as well as in the Old Testament,
not in the judicial, classical sense, but as including an element
of benevolence. The " wrath of God " is felt and exerted only
towards wilful and inexcusable transgressors. In the Old Testa
ment, it is not for these, but for offences not thus grievous, that
sacrifices avail. The life of Christ, comprising His obedience and
His suffering, was in pursuance of a vocation of which He was
conscious. He was inwardly cognizant of the divine purpose of
saving grace or righteousness, and of Himself as called to carry out
this purpose in founding and conducting to its goal the kingdom
of the redeemed. There is no penal or expiatory quality in the
death of Christ. In it are perfected and evinced His absolute
fidelity and His divine calling. How Christ became cognizant of
1 Rechtfertigung u. Versohnung, Vol. III. p. 181.
526
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
this eternal, divine purpose, and how He became aware of His
vocation in relation to it, are questions, it is said, which we are
incapable of answering. The preexistence of Christ as it is taught
by John, Paul, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is
their subjective conception. The only real preexistence of Christ
is in the divine foreknowledge and predestination and as being
the object of God's eternal love. As such, He is the type of man
kind as predestined for the kingdom of God. On account of His
perfect purity and fidelity, because He overcame the world and
made Himself the vehicle in whom God's purpose and the char
acter of God are manifest, He is raised to the right hand of God.
He is — we cannot divine how — entrusted with the government
of the world. Therefore, and by reason of His unity with God in
love and purpose, He may be called God and is an object of wor
ship. It is not by a coming as an individual into personal relation
to Christ that one becomes a partaker of the filial relation to God,
but by entering into the kingdom of His followers. Hence the
high place accorded to the Church as the fellowship of believers.
To believe in Christ is to appropriate the " value of the love of
God " revealed in what Christ does for our reconciliation to Him.
The expression illustrates the idea of Ritschl — in which he was
anticipated by Lotze — of " value-judgments." In Ritschl it
signifies that we can only know what God and things divine are
in themselves, so far as we perceive that which is of worth in
relation to our salvation. It is one feature of Ritschl's teaching
that everything of a " mystical " nature, such as the idea of per
sonal union and communion with Christ, is discarded. The feeling
towards " pietism " is nothing short of antipathy. Justification
is the reception of the sinner, conscious of his guilt, into fellowship
with God. Along with it reconciliation, or the harmony, now be
ginning, of his will with the design of God respecting His kingdom,
is the fundamental condition of the Christian life.1
Ritschl adopts the general view that redemption presupposes
1 Ritschl has given this summary statement of his theological " standpoint " :
" In strictest recognition of the Revelation of God through Christ, closest
use of the Holy Scriptures as the source of knowledge of the Christian
religion; taking of Jesus Christ as the source of knowledge for all parts of the
system, in harmony with the original documents of the Lutheran Reformation
with respect to the peculiarities in which it deviates from the theology of the
Middle Ages." (From a letter to Dr. Schaff, in the supplement to Schaffr
Eneycl., p. 181, note.)
MODERN THEOLOGY 527
the universality of sin. But sin is no part of the contents of
Revelation. It is simply a fact of experience. It is to be under
stood by reference to Jesus and the idea of His kingdom. But
the New Testament does not assume that sin is an inheritance.
It does not teach the Augustinian doctrine. Sin results from the
impulse to exercise freedom without restraint, — a native im
pulse, — and from the allurements to selfishness. There grows
up by the joint action of many, from one generation to another, a
kingdom of sin, a power of seduction, but this brings not an abso
lute loss of freedom. The right estimate of sin and of its guilt is
possible only in the light of Christ. None are to that degree
hardened that they are incapable of repentance. Natural evils
are to be counted as punishments no farther than the individual
conscience so interprets them. In the religious sense punishment
is the deprivation, more or less, of communion with God. Death
is neither to be considered the penalty of the first sin nor of one's
own personal transgressions. All forgivable sins are to be pro
nounced sins of ignorance. Whether there be men, and who they
are, if there be any, who will actually reach the final stage of
wilful resistance to God, it is beyond our power to say.
Ritschl's doctrines have had numerous defenders and numerous
opponents. Among the latter, strenuous for a more conservative
theology, are Dieckhoff and Luthardt.1 They maintain that the
theory of " value- judgments " makes the question what God,
Christ, the Resurrection, are in themselves, a matter of indif
ference, and attaches importance only to our judgment of their
worth to ourselves ; that the basis for denominating Him divine is
something shared or to be shared by him with all believers ; that
Justification is not an act of God having respect to the individual,
but a subjective enrolling of himself in the body to which that act
exclusively relates, and that its ground, moreover, is not laid in the
atoning work of Christ.
Discarding as irrelevant in relation to faith the historical evi
dences of Revelation, the Ritschlians attach weight to the corre
spondence between the Christian religion and the needs of the
soul. This perceived conviction is corroborated by nature and
the history of mankind. How shall we ascertain the contents of
the consciousness of Christ ? How shall we discriminate between
1 See, also, Prof. C. M. Mead, Ritschl's Place in the History of Doctrine
(I895).
528
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
that which is verifiable in his own feelings and expressions, and
that which is not ? The Ritschlian theologians and critics afford
examples of the temptation to fall back upon purely subjective
criteria of judgment on these cardinal questions of history and
criticism.
Kaftan is one of the ablest representatives of the Ritschlian
tendency. He has presented his system in two connected works,
the first on The Nature or Essence of Christianity? and the
second having for its title The Truth of Christianity?1 He founds
religion upon feeling, but not in the exclusive sense, nor with
the inferences, of Schleiermacher. He adopts Ritschl's idea of
"values." Religion is a practical matter. It springs, not from
observations of the world and theoretical judgments, but from our
own position in relation to the world, — the attitude which we,
with our personal interests, assume. It cannot be forced on any
one, like the truths of science. " It is an affair of inward free
dom."2 This is true of all religions. A religion is true so far,
and only so far, as it rests upon revelation.4 " Our religion is
founded on the self-revelation of God in the historical personal
life of Jesus Christ."5 It brings to pass in the believer a life in
God through Christ ; but this union to God is ethical, and not the
contemplation of the mystic. The kingdom of God is the Christian
idea of the highest good.6 It was the early mistake of theology to
leave this idea, and to found itself, through a mixture with Greek
philosophy, upon the conception of the Logos. Faith was turned
into something theoretic, a stage of knowledge. The rise of
dogmas brought with it the reign of authority in matters of belief.
The Scholastic theology made dogmas to be of two classes, — those
springing from natural reason, and those having a supernatural
source. Protestantism, notwithstanding its rectified idea of faith,
was entangled with the Roman Catholic theory. It took the
Scriptures and made them the text- book of supernaturally revealed
doctrinal propositions.
Kant, despite the dualism of his system, is held to have opened
a new era by his doctrine of the practical reason. In truth, the
idea of the highest good is at the basis of rational speculation.
1 Das Wesen des Christenthums (2 ed. i!
2 Die Wahrheit des Christenthums (1889).
8 Das Wesen, etc. p. 50. 6 Ibid. p. 202.
4 Ibid. p. 197. 6 Die Wahrheit, etc. p. 545.
MODERN THEOLOGY
529
Its result corresponds with the teaching of Christianity that the
highest good is not to be found in the world, but in the super-
terrestrial kingdom of God.
Kaftan insists that the Scriptures are the documentary sources
of historical Christianity. They are the source of the divine reve
lation. But the New Testament writers did not ascribe to their
productions the inspiration which they assumed to exist in the case
of the Old Testament record of God's revelations. The theologi
cal idea of inspiration works ill to theology, and would require as
a supplement an inspired exegesis. Respecting the teaching of
Christ Himself, preference is to be given decidedly to the Synoptics.
There is no sufficient ground for rejecting the Johannine author
ship of the fourth Gospel. The author has, however, a particular
aim and point of view, although what he writes rests upon a his
torical foundation. The essential truth of Christianity is the
divinity of Christ, the real indwelling and the complete revelation
of God in Him. The beginning of the new life is in the belief in
the free, unconditional forgiveness of sins. This is justification,
which is followed by reconciliation. The preaching of the king
dom, after the death of Jesus, became in the mouth of the disci
ples the proclamation of the risen and glorified Jesus. The death
and resurrection of Christ are the two sides, the negative and posi
tive, of the same transaction. They are the symbol and the power
of the death to sin and the resurrection to life in fellowship with
the risen Lord. The opinion that other views — the forensic view,
especially — are found in Paul, is avowed by Kaftan, but it is held
that as yet we discern no method of connecting them with the
fundamental idea just expressed. In general, " we are to turn to
account (verwerthen) the Apostolic writings first of all as the testi
monies of the faith and of the religion of their authors, — that is,
of the Christian religion, in which they are for us normative pat
terns ( Vorbilder) . The key-note ( Grundton) , despite the theo
logical coloring, is in their character as " testimonies of faith to
faith." T
One of the most distinguished representatives of the Ritschlian
School is W. Herrman. The view which we take of the world as
a whole, or the world-whole (Weltanschauung), depends on sub
jective grounds. Its source is in moral and religious feeling. Its
root is in the feeling of personal worth which demands that the
1 Das Wesen, etc. p. 248.
214
530
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
world-whole shall be suited to it. In this general position he does
not differ from Kaftan. Revelation is not by doctrine, but by the
direct manifestation of God in the historical Christ, which the soul
feels. But Herrman distinctly indicates the necessity of a ground
work of objective beliefs respecting the person of Christ, and takes
a step in advance of the Ritschlian agnosticism. He says that the
question how Christ can have such importance for us may be un
avoidable, and that here the Christological determinations of the
ancient Church " still always mark out the limits within which such
attempts must move." ] Kaftan shows the same tendency to go
back of mere "value-judgments." He says that we must believe
in the Godhead of Christ, and that He stands in a connection with
God that is perfectly unique and not capable of being repeated.2
1 Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott (2. ed. 1892), p. 46.
2 Brauchen ivir ein neues Dogma ? p. 58. Cf. Orr, The Christian View
of God and the World (a work of remarkable ability), p. 449 sq. (1893).
CHAPTER VIII
THE PANTHEISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
IN GERMANY : FICHTE ; SCHELLING ; HEGEL — THE HEGELIAN
INTERPRETATION OF CHRISTIANITY — THE WRITINGS OF STRAUSS
BIEDERMANN THE SYSTEM OF BAUR
THE theoretical philosophy of Kant bore fruit which he had
not expected to spring from it. In the hands of Fichte it was
transformed into idealism. Kant had refused to regard the laws
of thought as the laws of things. Space and time are " forms " in
which perceived phenomena are set by the subject ; the categories
by which things are connected are concepts, likewise subjective in
their origin ; the ideas which bring into unity the judgments are
subjective index-fingers which point to nothing that can be con
sidered real. Nothing external is left but the "thing in itself."
Fichte drew this sole object within the subjective sphere. It is
only a thought. If it be assumed as a cause to account for states
of consciousness, the answer is that the principle of causation is
purely subjective. Fichte's thesis is that all reality is the product
of the activity of the ego, which in its nature is essentially active.
The object is simply the limit set to its activity by its own nature.
But the finite ego with the object is the product of the impersonal
ego, the underlying, absolute source of being. In the room of God
there is substituted the moral order of the world. Philosophy begins
in the positing of the ego through an act of reflection. Ethics is
exalted to the supreme place. Morality and religion are identical.
The limit of personal freedom is in the concession of a like equal
freedom in others. In the later part of his career, Fichte intro
duced an element of feeling into the notion of religion, but the
conception of Deity would appear to have remained unaltered.
Schelling modified Fichte's conception of the Absolute, the root
of all particular existences. It is no more to be called subject
53*
532 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
than object. It is equidistant — the point of indifference —
between the subjective and the objective, for the world and the
perceiving ego are identical in essence and origin. Nature is
pervaded through and through with rationality. The knowledge of
nature is nature attaining to self-consciousness. But how to cog
nize the hypothetical Absolute consistently with its being an object
in consciousness and thus, according to Schelling's theory, finite?
The answer is the postulate of a mystical faculty of " intellectual
intuition," by which the soul, somewhat as in the New Platonic
Pantheism, breaks through the bonds of consciousness, and has
a direct vision of the indefinable — impersonal, of course —
Supreme.
Schelling's general idea of the relation of the Absolute to the
thinking subject and the object Hegel accepted. Not so did he
regard Schelling's mode of bridging the gulf between the finite
and the infinite. This had been left in the dark. The conclu
sion of Schelling's as to their relation had been, as it were, " shot
out of a pistol." Hegel professed to set forth the process in which
the entire universe is evolved, and necessarily evolved. Thought
and being are identical. Thoughts are things, and there are no
other things than thoughts. The world is a chain of concepts.
The universe, including God, nature, self, is resolved into a chain
of concepts self- evolved, comprising and exhausting in themselves
all reality. Concrete existences take their places as concepts in
the all- comprehending series. This is the world as known to the
philosopher. But the philosophic view is the last stage in the
development of consciousness. It is in the consciousness of
the philosopher that the Deity, the Absolute, becomes fully self-
conscious. The process is the self-unfolding of the innermost
nature of things. The method of this evolution, starting with the
highest abstraction, thence moving onward, is that of thesis, of
implied antithesis, and necessary synthesis — the movement ad
vancing, by a momentum in itself, until all things are brought into
the net.
Hegel and his followers professed to find an equivalent for the
objects of Christian faith and the propositions of orthodox theology
in the dogmas of their system. Christianity presents in a popular
form that which philosophy exhibits in the form of naked truth.
The substantial contents of both are averred to be identical.
The Trinity is made to designate the triplicity in the notion of the
MODERN THEOLOGY
533
Absolute: first, the Absolute in itself; secondly, as developed in
the intelligible world, corresponding to the Son ; and thirdly, in
the philosophy in which the Absolute comes back to itself. The
sense of estrangement in man is sin, a necessary phase in his spir
itual progress, which gives way to a consciousness of unity with
the Absolute. Christ is a man who is conscious of being one with
the Infinite Being, and represents in this respect what every man
is in idea. That which is predicated of Him specifically is true
literally of humanity as a whole. Hegel treated with disdain the
" vulgar " rationalism which assailed the truths of Christianity.
He professed, no doubt sincerely, to accept them in their real,
inner significance. At first, not a few hailed this assumed recon
ciliation of Christianity and philosophy. A portion of the Hegel
ians, forming a " right wing," either by affixing to Hegel's state
ments an interpretation satisfactory to themselves, or by certain
modifications of expression, continued to maintain a theistic version
of Hegelianism. But when Strauss published his Life of Jesus, it
became obvious to discerning Christian believers that the trans
mutation of the truths of the Gospel into Pantheistic equivalents
was not anything to rejoice in. Strauss derided the rationalism
of the Biblical critics like Paulus, as superficial and jejune. He
undertook to show that the narratives of miracles in the New
Testament are myths, — unconscious embodiments of the idea of
the Messiah that was cherished in early communities of disciples
cut off from the corrective guidance of the Apostles. Strauss held
the great central truth of Christianity to be the doctrine of a union
of God and man in Jesus Christ. It is a popular conception of a
deep philosophical truth, — the truth, namely, that God becomes
man in mankind collectively taken. For the indwelling and full
expression of the Infinite, all the members of the race are required.
Christ is divine so far and in the same sense as every other indi
vidual of the race is God. And God is the impersonal being, of the
evolution of whom all men are the transitory products. The later Life
of Jesus by Strauss (1864) was designed for cultivated readers gen
erally. Prompted by the criticism of Baur upon his earlier work,
he discusses the origin and authorship of the Gospels. Prompted
further by Baur's theory of a doctrinal tendency as giving rise to
narrative matter in the historical books of the New Testament, he
modified essentially his definition of a myth, permitting it to be the
product of the imagination of an individual, and made room for
534
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
conscious invention. Strauss and Baur conceded that the imme
diate disciples of Jesus testified to His Resurrection. Strauss falls
back upon a kind of Stoicism as a substitute for the consolations
of religion, and, in contrast with the previous work, manifests a
scornful and bitter spirit, especially towards the clergy. In his
treatise on Dogmatic Theology, the negative position respecting
the Supernatural is consistently carried out. Strauss's learning
was not up to the level of his literary power. Superior in all
respects to this work is the treatise on " Dogmatic Theology " by
Biedermann, a leader of the " young Hegelian School," who, in his
Christian Dogmatics, as in other writings, did what could be done
to infuse warmth into a system which rejects the personality of
God and personal immortality. In the idea of God as personal,
the mind objectifies " His universal, eternal, absolute, true nature
(Wesen)." Yet it is held that in the practical religious life the
notion of God as personal must be held fast. Sin, although it is a
self-determination in which sense and selfish feeling are the source,
is a necessary step or stage for a finite being to experience.
Neither creeds nor the Bible, nor the " theoretic self-consciousness
of Jesus," can be an infallible norm of belief. Biedermann under
takes, and with no small skill and learning, to trace forms of doc
trinal conception in the New Testament to divers historical sources,
and to prove them unworthy of a literal acceptance.
The influence of Hegelianism on theology is most conspicuous
in its effect in the province of historical and Biblical criticism.
In this province Baur was the master. His theories respecting
the rise and development of Christianity and the date and
authorship of the New Testament writings conform to the
Hegelian law of development. The Gospel is at first Ebionitic,
then comes the liberal or Pauline antithesis, then a synthesis in the
Acts and certain Epistles, pronounced to be post-apostolic. The
fourth Gospel, after the middle of the second century, completes
the process of reconciliation, but the evolution of doctrine pro
ceeds in its triple movement until it brings us to the Nicene
doctrine. Extensive as were the researches of Baur, original and
sincerely held as were his hypotheses, the agency of an a priori
philosophy, which excludes the Supernatural in its proper meaning,
in the forming of his critical system, cannot be ignored.
In the writings of Otto Pfleiderer, especially in his work on
the Philosophy of Religion, there is presented a theology which
MODERN THEOLOGY
535
attempts to combine the essential principle of Schleiermacher
respecting the original source of religion, with Hegel. But, unlike
Rothe, Pfleiderer, although he holds to the personality of God and
the freedom of His agency, discards miracles, and plants himself on
the ground of naturalism.
CHAPTER IX
THE LATER ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY INDIFFERENTISM IN THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY THE FALL OF THE JESUIT ORDER AND
ITS REVIVAL — LIBERALISM OF LAMENNAIS AND HIS ASSOCIATES —
PAPAL REIGN OF PIUS IX. — THE DOGMA OF THE IMMACULATE
CONCEPTION — THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE DOGMA OF PAPAL
INFALLIBILITY THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA
THE Council of Trent was chiefly absorbed in the work of build
ing up barricades against Protestantism. It left undecided the
questions between Episcopalism and Curialism: Is the seat of
authority in the Council or in the Pope, or is it in both united ?
It gave no unambiguous verdict on the disputed question of grace
and free-will. The question respecting the sinless character of
Mary from the moment of conception remained where the Scho
lastic theology had left it, awaiting a dogmatic decision. Time
was to decide what would be the fate of the Semi-Pelagian theol
ogy of the Jesuits, and of their loose ethical theory of probabilism.
With the fortunes of their society, the modern history of Roman
Catholic doctrine is closely connected.
In the Church of France, under Louis XIV., Jansenism was
prostrated, the Jesuit theology got the upper hand, and the Jesuit
casuistry made headway, despite the attacks of the Port Royalists.
In the eighteenth century, the spread of free-thinking and of
religious indifferentism incited and enabled Roman Catholic sov
ereigns to restrict to the utmost the exercise of papal prerogatives
within their dominions. The reforms of the Emperor Joseph II. ,
in Austria, were prepared for by the work of Febronius, which
advocated the reduction of papal authority to a simple primacy,
limited as concerns other bishops to the giving of counsels and
admonitions. Innovations like those of Joseph II. were adopted
in other states. The " punctation " or programme of German
536
MODERN THEOLOGY 537
Catholic archbishops who met at Ems in 1 786, proposed, in the
interest of German prelates, to subtract from the papacy a large
portion of the ecclesiastical prerogatives which it had exercised.
Movements of this kind in different lands, among statesmen and
churchmen, were broken off by the outbreaking of the French
Revolution. The Society of the Jesuits owed its temporary down
fall to its interference with politics, its worldliness and thirst for
gain. Its obstinate contests with other orders, and with the popes
themselves, in the conduct of Asiatic missions, had weakened its
standing. It was its own practical renunciation of the ideals of
its founders, however, that, more than any other single cause, led
to its overthrow, and to its abolition by Clement XIV. in 1773.
The record of the period during which Napoleon I. was supreme
in France includes the story of alternate concessions and resist
ance on the part of Pius VII. Of this course of events it is true
that, great as was the prostration of papal authority, the result was
that imperial domination, with Rome for a real, although incon
stant ally, extinguished the life of liberal Gallicanism, and, on the
fall of Napoleon, left the ground clear for the building of ultramon-
tanism on its ruins. In France this could be done only by degrees.
But, as elsewhere, the reaction in behalf of the throne and the
altar had its effect. One of the first measures of Pius VII., on
his restoration to Rome, was the issue of a bull, on August 7, 1814,
authorizing the revival of the Jesuit order. The Jesuits spared
no effort to exalt the cause of absolutism in politics and religion.
After the restoration of the Bourbons, an extreme theory of the
spiritual authority of the Pope, as the great security of public order,
was vindicated by Le Maistre, a scholar and diplomatist. After the
accession of Louis Philippe, the same tendency was pursued by
Lamennais, Lacordaire, Montalembert, and some others. Their
contention was in behalf of liberal opinions in politics, together
with an anti-Gallican theory of papal sovereignty in the spiritual
sphere. But their teachings were condemned in bulls of Pope
Gregory XVI., the first in 1832 and the second in I834.1 Lamen
nais became alienated from the Church. Lacordaire concentrated
his attention upon preaching, and became a great light in the
French pulpit. Montalembert kept up an undiminished interest
in Church affairs, and retained his liberal opinions to the end of
his life. There is not room here to trace the growth of ultramon-
1 Extracts in Denziger, pp. 343-346.
538 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
tanism and of Jesuit influence in the different Catholic countries.
One of the most influential of all Catholic writers on matters of
casuistry was not himself a Jesuit, but very friendly to that order,
the founder of the Redemptorists, the Neapolitan priest and saint,
Alfonso da Liguori (1696-1787). He was at first a Probabilist,
but sought for a middle position in " Equiprobabilism," — a posi
tion not far removed from the Jesuit ground. If the law con
cerning an act, he held, is doubtful, if the authorities are evenly
balanced, the maxim that right is on the side Of the "possessor "L
— that is, on the side of liberty to do the act — is applicable. A
well-nigh boundless deference is paid to the casuistic teaching of
Liguori, which, however — on the subject of Equivocation, for
example — would be condemned by Protestant moralists. In
Germany there sprung up in the second and third decades of the
present century a school of liberal Catholics, eminent alike for
their learning and their controversial strength. Its rise is due to
the influence of a theologian not less engaging in his manners and
captivating as a teacher, than he was brilliant in talents, — John
Adam Mohler. In his most important work, The Symbolics, he
rejects the Episcopal system as it was set forth by the councils of
Constance and of Basel — the doctrine that " the Pope is subject
to a general council lawfully convoked."2 He calls it " one-sided."
His ground is that " the dogmatic decrees of the Episcopate
(united with the general head and centre) are infallible ; for it
represents the universal Church."3 One of Mohler's pupils was
Hefele, a profound scholar, the author of the History of Councils.
Munich became the seat of the liberal school. Its most eminent
leader, Dollinger, was the author of learned historical works antag
onistic to Protestantism ; but in later writings, prior to the breaking
out of the controversy on the question of infallibility, manifested
a highly appreciative view of the greatness of Luther, and a more
irenical spirit in relation to the churches of the Reformation.
Pius IX. assumed the papal office in 1846. He began with a
policy directly the reverse of that of his predecessor, Gregory XIX.
He showed himself friendly to the liberal Catholics in France.
He introduced railways and other modern improvements into the
Roman state. He favored civil freedom there and a constitu-
1 "Melior est conditio possidentis." See the Kir chen- Lexicon (ist ed.
Vol. VIII. p. 791; also, 2d ed. Vol. VII. pp. 2036, 2037).
2 Eng. Trans/, p. 301 n. 8 Ibid. p. 302.
MODERN THEOLOGY
539
tional monarchy. Not able to satisfy the demands of the repub
licans, he was forced, in 1848, to fly from Rome to Gaeta, where
he remained until he was restored, in 1850, by means of French
bayonets. He came back an altered man in his spirit and aims.
Thenceforward in civil and ecclesiastical relations he was an
extreme conservative. He took into his service, under his special
control, a group of Jesuit writers, by whom the Civilta Cattolica
was issued, a journal devoted to the advocacy of an intense ultra-
montanism. Enthusiastic from his youth in the homage he paid
to the Virgin Mary, he conceived that it was by her special aid
that he had escaped with his life in the revolutionary tempest.
In 1849, while at Gaeta, in an Encyclical Letter, he called for the
opinions of all bishops upon the subject of the immaculate con
ception of the Virgin. A large majority — about two-thirds of
those who made answer — replied as the Pope desired that they
should ; but others, including German and French bishops, ex
pressed themselves on the other side. To consider the question
a commission was appointed, comprising in it leading Jesuit theo
logians, such as Perrone and Passaglia. Its decision was in accord
with the Pope's inclination. In 1854, without assembling a council
to determine the question, in the presence of about two hundred
bishops, forming a part of a great concourse, Pius IX. declared it
to be a revealed truth that the Blessed Virgin, from the first instant
of her conception, " was preserved free from all stain of Original
Sin." The bull affirmed that all "who should think otherwise in
their hearts must " have made shipwreck concerning the faith,
and fallen away from the unity of the Church.1 This dogmatic
definition contradicts the opinion of Anselm, St. Bernard, Bonaven-
tura, Aquinas, and with Aquinas the body of Dominican teachers
down to recent times. Yet it is undeniable that it was a goal to
which a succession of previous steps naturally led. It sanctioned
an opinion which had been gaining strength since the advocacy of
it by Duns Scotus. Not later than 1661, Pope Alexander VII.
had expressed himself on the doctrine in language almost identical
with that used by Pius IX., and only declined to pronounce the
opposite opinion heretical.
On December 8, 1864, Pius IX. sent out an Encyclical Letter
containing an extended syllabus of errors. The preface quotes
1 For the substance of the bull (" Ineffabilis Deus"), see Denziger, p. 356,
or Schaff, Creeds »f Christendom, Vol. II. p. 21 1.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
with approval the encyclical of Gregory XVI., of August 13,
1832, against Lamennais and the Liberals, in which "insanity"
(deliramentum) is the name given to the doctrine that " liberty of
conscience and of worship is the right of every man," and the doc
trine of the liberty of the press. Catholics are exhorted, in the perils
of the times, to resort to the Virgin Mary as their " mediatrix "
with Christ, and to beseech the intervention of Peter, " the chief
of the Apostles," and of Paul. The Syllabus denounces eighty
alleged errors, which may be summed up under the heads of
Rationalism, Nationalism, and Liberalism, as these were regarded
by the eyes of the Pontiff. Among the baneful errors condemned
are these : That Roman Pontiffs have exceeded their power in
relation to princes, or have erred " in defining matters of faith and
morals (23) ; that the Church may not avail itself of force (24) ;
that schools may be freed from ecclesiastical authority," govern
ment and interference (47) ; that Church and State ought to be
separated (55) ; that there may be a true marriage by a merely
civil contract (73). The Syllabus was made up from the contents
of previous allocutions, letters, and bulls of Pius IX. It was
intended to put into a compact form his manifold protests in
opposition to the spirit of the age. An attempt to turn the
edge of it was made in France by Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans,
by affirming that it was aimed not against liberty but the lawless
abuses of liberty.
To an assembly of five hundred bishops, gathered at Rome in
honor of the eighteenth centenary of St. Peter's martyrdom, Pius
IX. first announced his intention to convoke a General Council.
This was on June 26, 1867. On the 2Qth of June, 1868, the en
cyclical was issued for its convocation. It was understood to be the
purpose of the Council to build up such a wall against the errors
of the day as the Council of Trent had erected against Prot
estantism. The Pope always said that it was no part of his pur
pose to bring forward the matter of papal infallibility. The design
was to reassert in a positive form the doctrines embraced in the
Syllabus, and to attach to them a new sanction. But in an article
published in the Civilta Cattolica, on February 6, 1869, the infallibil
ity of the Pope was declared to be one of the points to be decreed.
The same thing was proclaimed elsewhere by Archbishop Manning
and other infallibilists. Liberal Catholics were aroused. A power
ful and learned attack on the doctrine of papal infallibility was
MODERN THEOLOGY 54 r
published in 1869, "The Pope and the Council," by Janus, — the
production, it is understood, of Dollinger, Friedrich, and Huber
of the University of Munich. Ketteler, Bishop of Mayence,
Maret, Dean of the Paris Theological Faculty, and others, pub
lished books on the same side. The Council was opened on Decem
ber 8, 1869. There were present 719 members. Preliminary
commissions, appointed by the Pope, had discussed and determined
the matter to be submitted for consideration. At the outset, a
bull of the Pope laid down the rules of procedure. He was to
nominate the officers of the Council. Whatever proposals should
be made by bishops were to be submitted to a commission selected
by him, and consisting half of Italians. If a proposal were ap
proved by the commission, it must have the sanction of the Pope
before it could be discussed. When a decree had been discussed,
it went to one of the four special commissions to be corrected,
and must then be voted upon without debate. The papal theolo
gians were predominant in all these committees. A new regula
tion (on the 22d of February, 1870) reversed the old rule that
required unanimity for a dogmatic decision, and substituted for it
a numerical majority. A protest, dated March i, against this un
exampled rule, although signed by more than one hundred prelates,
was of no avail. There were strong anti-infallibilists who dis
believed in the proposed doctrine. Such were Hefele, Archbishop
Kenrick of St. Louis, and Strossmayer. Others, of whom Dupan-
loup was one, opposed the dogmatic definition as inopportune.
At the stage of the proceedings when a private vote was taken
there were 88 who cast negative votes, 61 a qualified negative,
and 91 abstained from voting, although present in Rome. Out
side of Rome there was an intense feeling of grief and indigna
tion among Catholics, hostile, on various grounds, to the projected
decree. This feeling finds expression in a private letter of Dr.
Newman to his bishop, which afterwards found its way into print.
" Why," he says, " should an aggressive, insolent faction be allowed
' to make the heart of the just sad, whom the Lord hath not made
sorrowful?'" After it was found that no modification of the pro
jected dogma could be obtained, fifty-six bishops in a written pro
test informed the Pope of their resolve to return to their dioceses.
On the same evening, together with sixty additional members, they
left Rome. On the final vote, all but two of the 535 fathers pres
ent voted " Yea." In the debate, there were not wanting eloquent
542
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
voices, notably those of Strossmayer and Kenrick, from the
ranks of the opposition. There is not a little discrepancy in the
different reports relative to the proceedings in connection with
the Council. It is certain that the influence of the Pope and of
his supporters was strenuously exerted to carry their measure and
to quell resistance. It is certain that the leaders of the minority
earnestly complained that the freedom of debate was crippled by
unjust restrictions and unseemly interruptions. It is certain that
while everything in favor of the dominant party was sent out from
the press at Rome, the writings and speeches of its adversaries,
like Hefele's pamphlet on the " Honorius Question," and the long
argument which Kenrick was not able to deliver, had to be printed
elsewhere.
The majority in the Council was united and resolute, and had
every aid from the surrounding circumstances. The minority were
weakened by the fact that so many opposed the decree, not declar
ing it to be false, but merely inopportune. The whole force of the
surrounding circumstances at Rome was against them. Owing to
the peculiar political situation in Europe, the governments remained
inert when, in other conditions, they would have spoken with effect.
But the minority was fatally hampered by the previous actual exer
cise of the disputed prerogative of the Pope in the decree of the
immaculate conception, which had been received with acquiescence.
The question is often asked, How could the Council establish
the Pope's infallibility, without the assumption in the very act that
in the Council supreme authority resides? The answer is, that
the decree was not the act of the Council, but the act of the Pon
tiff, the assent of the Council being the destruction of the doctrine
of Episcopalism. It was so far an act of suicide on the part of the
defenders of the conciliar theory as to the seat of authority. The
Vatican decrees do not open with formulas like those of Trent :
"The sacred and holy, oecumenical and general" Synod teaches or
declares so and so; but it is "We," that is, Pius IX., "the sacred
Council approving, teach and define," etc. The Council abrogates
the right accorded to it by liberal Catholicism by sanctioning the
Pope's declarations that " the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church."
The dogmatic decree declares that when the Pope speaks
ex cathedra ; that is, when in his character of " pastor and doctor
of all Christians," he "defines a doctrine regarding faith and
MODERN THEOLOGY 543
morals," he is possessed of infallibility. How is the dogmatic
decree to be interpreted? Of course, it says nothing as to the
personal character of pontiffs. It may be good or bad. It does
not ascribe inerrancy to the Pope in ordinary conversation on
theology and ethics, or to letters or other writings not addressed
by him to the entire Church with the explicit intention to define
belief, and belief within this restricted circle of topics. But the
interpretation of the Vatican decree, even by authorities in the
ultramontane party, limits the papal prerogative in a degree quite
unexpected, not to say logically untenable. One of these ex
positors of the dogma is Fessler, who was Secretary of the Council.
In his book, in reply to Dr. Schultz, a canonist of Prague, a leader
in the Old Catholic party, Fessler affirms that what popes have
thought, said, done, or ordained is not pertinent to the question
as to Catholic dogmas, but only what they have decided ex cathedra
to be Catholic doctrine in faith and morals ; that things done by
popes are not papal declarations ex cathedra ; that the same is true
of their utterances in daily life, books, or ordinary correspond
ence ; that the same is true of their solemn declarations made in
the exercise of their jurisdiction as lawgivers in matters of disci
pline, and in pronouncing judicial decisions and sentences ; that re
marks accompanying a really dogmatic declaration which is made
ex cathedra are not a part of the declaration itself, and are not
infallible. Applying these criteria, Fessler asserts that affirmations
of popes in connection with the condemnation of books, declara
tions of Leo X. in the bull excommunicating Luther, etc., do not
fall under the head of dogmatic decisions. Still more sweeping
is the exclusion from this category of papal declarations relating
to the "state, to countries, peoples, and individuals." Only one
sentence in the bull, unam sanctam, is conceded to be ex cathedra.
We are assured by Fessler that it is not conceded by Catholic
theologians that all the sentences in the Syllabus of Pius IX., which
are drawn from previous documents, are, according to the decree
of the Vatican Council, spoken ex cathedra. He avers that no
one is guilty of such theological folly ( Unsinn) as to put a papal
declaration on a level with the Gospel. That the Pope's " infalli
ble decisions ex cathedra are inspired of God was neither asserted
by the Vatican Council, nor ever taught in the Catholic Church."
It is not by this method that the Church is saved from being
misled by erroneous teaching emanating from its chief pastor.
544
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
It was unavoidable that the Vatican decree should be consid
ered by many to imperil the foundations of civil authority. Glad
stone maintained this, first in an article in The Contemporary Re
view? and then in a distinct publication, The Vatican Decrees in
their Bearing on Civil Allegiance. Manning made answer, and
Newman, also, wrote on the same side. Gladstone dwelt on the
all-pervading presence of the obligation of duty in human conduct.
He quoted Manning's language that the " spiritual power " in mat
ters of religion and conscience, is supreme, and the proposition
that this power " alone can fix the limits of its own jurisdiction,
and can thereby fix the limits of all other jurisdictions." That
is to say, the Pope alone is authorized to decide what are the
bounds within which the province of the State is confined, and
when they are transgressed.
During the sessions of the Council, Dollinger, whom Gladstone
pronounced " the most famous and learned theologian of the
Roman Communion," wrote that not only must an article of faith
be unanimously approved by the bishops united with the Pope,
but that the oecumenicity of their acts must be acknowledged and
ratified by the whole church. Dollinger and Friedrich, at the
head of forty-two Munich professors, publicly protested against
the Vatican decree. This began the Old Catholic movement,
which spread elsewhere in Germany, in Switzerland, and to some
extent in other places. In the assemblies of these dissentients,
Dollinger was not willing to unite in the creation of the separate
organization which was formed by them. He adhered to his
denial of the binding force of the Vatican decrees, and was at
length excommunicated. The Old Catholic organization intro
duced several reforms, such as the giving of the cup to the laity,
the abolition of the law of celibacy, the use of the vernacular in
the service of worship. Dollinger presided over two Old Cath
olic conferences, which included several members from Russia,
France, and England, for the promotion of Christian union among
the hierarchical churches opposed to papal usurpations. At the
first of these meetings, held at Bonn in 1874, fourteen doctrinal
articles were agreed upon. At the second, held also at Bonn, the
next year, there was an agreement upon six articles relating to the
doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit, and to the controversy on
this subject between the Eastern and Western churches.
1 October, 1874.
CHAPTER X
CONCLUSION : CERTAIN THEOLOGICAL TENDENCIES IN RECENT TIMES
THE design of these remarks is to advert to certain drifts in
theology which are specially observable in the last few decades.
In contrast with what was customary in the last century, we find
that emphasis is laid upon the immanence of God. Thus there is
recognized in Pantheism a half-truth which, in the combat for
the transcendence of the divine Being, in former days, was often
overlooked. A measure of reasonableness, moreover, is conceded
to the Mysticism which, in past ages, in varied forms, has made
much of the inward, living presence of God in the devout soul.
The Deistic habit of thought which characterized not only the
champions of Deism, but, also, their orthodox opponents, has been
supplanted by a deeper conception of the relation of God to the
Creation. Accordingly, in Apologetics, the Evidential theology of
the last century, which gave the precedence to miracles and to the
proofs of them through testimony, has given way to a method which
attributes a higher probative value to the internal, spiritual charac
teristics of the Christian Revelation.
The trend towards a materialistic Pantheism which was often
connected with the first proclamation of the law of physical evolu
tion is far less perceptible. Further reflection tends to convince
the ablest naturalists of the defects of such a theory of the universe.
It is more and more clear that the moral history of mankind
cannot be resolved into a natural history. In one of Professor
Huxley's lay sermons,1 the relation of man to the laws of nature,
including men and their ways, is likened to a game with an unseen
Power, conceived of as inflexible, but righteous, — a calm, strong
angel, who is playing for love, " and would rather lose than win."
Entering thus into the illustration are elements at variance with
1 Lay Sermons, Addresses, etc. (1871), p. 31.
*N 545
546 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
the agnostic philosophy. More significant still is the general
tenor of one of the latest productions of the same author, the
Romanes Lecture. The moral task of man is depicted as in
direct conflict with the " cosmic process." " The practice of what
is ethically best," we are assured, — what we call goodness or
virtue, — "involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is
opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle
for existence." "The ethical progress of society depends, not on
imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it,
but in combating it." l It is true that here and there in this
lecture, and more distinctly in the added "Prolegomena," this
ethical resistance is itself made a part of the "cosmic process"
regarded as a whole. But the progress of the author's mind is
obviously towards the perception of the free and responsible ele
ment that enters into man's constitution, account for its genesis
as we may. Even the gloomy, pessimistic outlook upon the
future of the world is so far brightened that the author says :
" I see no limit to the extent to which intelligence and will, guided
by sound principles of investigation, and organized in common
effort, may modify the conditions of existence, for a period longer
than that now covered by history. And much may be done to
change the nature of man himself."2 It is admitted to be "an
apparent paradox," " that ethical nature, while born of cosmic
nature, is necessarily at enmity with its parent." 3
An interesting instance of a complete advance to a religious
and even a distinctly Christian view of the world and of man is
that of George John Romanes, the gifted expositor of Evolution,
who founded the lecture bearing his name — a name which Hux
ley cannot record without " deploring his untimely death in the
flower of his age."4 In A Candid Examination of Theism, by
Physicus, which Romanes published in 1876, he had arrived at
a wholly skeptical conclusion as to the being of God and the
freedom of the will. Gradually this position was abandoned for
that of Christian Theism. He saw that he had attached too little
importance to the needs and intimations of the human spirit — to
phenomena which it behooves a scientific man not to overlook.
He adopted as the most reasonable opinion the doctrine that all
causation is volitional, that there is a teleology in nature, and that
1 See Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays (1894), pp. 81-83.
2 Rid. p. 85. 8 Ibid. p. viii. * Ibid. p. v.
MODERN THEOLOGY
547
the scientific objections to the freedom of the will are not valid.1
"It is no argument," he came to think, "against the divine origin
of a thing, event, etc., to prove it due to natural causation." 2 By
a path of his own, an able interpreter of the philosophy of Spencer
finds his way to Theism and to the truth of personal immortality."
The reaction against a Deistic, as distinguished from a Theistic,
position, is manifest in the method of dealing with the antithesis
of the natural and the supernatural. The idea that one is the
antipode of the other is no longer satisfactory. There is an impa
tience of duality, a search for unity, in the plan of Providence.
The vague impression that redemption is somehow an afterthought,
a remodelling of the scheme of the world to meet an emergency
not at first provided for, is dispelled. There is perceived a ten
dency to follow Augustine and to harmonize the seemingly con
flicting parts of the system by the doctrine that the natural is
supernatural — that, albeit there are two classes of events, they
nevertheless constitute one order of things. Hence theologians
cast about for a hypothesis concerning the miracles of Scripture
that shall do away with the idea that they are anti-natural,
and show that, in the circumstances in which they occur, they
have their place in the comprehensive order. On the subject of
the Atonement, theology seeks for a point of view where all ap
pearance of arbitrariness in the doctrinal explanations of the New
Testament as to the purport and effect of the sufferings and death
of Christ, shall disappear — where the historic facts shall interpret
themselves in accordance with these explanations.
Among Protestants and Roman Catholics the old question re
specting the seat of authority in religion is once more eagerly
disputed. Since Coleridge and Schleiermacher insisted that the
primary object of faith is not the Bible, but Christ, there has been
a growing tendency to regard the Scriptures less as an authorita
tive manual of revealed tenets in theology and morals, than as the
medium of disclosing to us the personal Christ and the import of
His mission and teaching. The absolute inerrancy of Scriptural
statements, especially in the narrative portions of the Bible, is no
1 See Romanes, Thoughts on Religion, edited by Canon Gore (2d ed. 1895),
P-3I-
2 Ibid. p. 128.
8 John Fiske, The Destiny of Man viewed in the Light of his Origin
(1884) ; The Idea of God as affected by Modern Knowledge (.1885).
548
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
longer maintained, in England and America, by numerous theolo
gians who are firmly attached to the principal doctrines of the
Evangelical system. An American theological teacher — whose
early death was generally lamented — writes as follows, speaking
of American Congregationalists : l " We are coming more clearly
to understand the great purpose of the Bible ; namely, to bring
the Church and the individual in all ages into vital contact with
the historic facts, the divine truth, and the spiritual power of
Christianity ; and so to discern what is essential and non-essential
for the attainment of that purpose. We are most of us ready to
admit that false standards have been set up, that an infallibility in
non-essentials has been demanded which the Bible never claims,
and which, if it existed, would render it less fitted for its end. We
are beginning to see that we may grant that the sacred writers
were not scientific historians, not philosophers or men of science,
not experts in the methods of scientific exegesis or of literary criti
cism, and yet may rest firm in our conviction that they were so
directed by the supernatural influence of God's Spirit as to give
us the perfect rule of faith and life." The tendency of opinion
to which reference is here made is reinforced at present by
whatever is deemed verifiable in the " Higher Criticism." In
Germany, one prominent object of investigation 'of late has been
the " consciousness of Christ," and the inquiry has been prose
cuted by means of a scrutiny of the Scriptures, in which the
inerrancy of their several parts is far from being assumed or
acknowledged. At the same time, Protestant theologians, even of
the class referred to, are frequently disposed to admit an authority
of the Church, in some substantial meaning of the terms. The
Christian experience of the Church at large, the collective " Chris
tian consciousness," is considered a trustworthy witness in regard
to the substance of the Gospel.2
1 The Present Direction of Theological Thought in the Congregational
Churches in the United States, a paper read before the International Congre
gational Council in London (1891), by Lewis F. Stearns.
2 Professor Charles A. Briggs, a distinguished scholar in the Presbyterian
Church, in an Inaugural Address (1891), maintained that there are "three
fountains of divine authority"; namely, the Bible, the Reason, and the
Church. In subsequent discussions he disavowed the intention to coordinate
these.* He alleged in support of his thesis the divine institution of the Church,
* The Defence before the Presbytery, p. 82 seq.
MODERN THEOLOGY
549
The great antithesis between Sacramentalism — the doctrine of
the inherent efficacy of the Sacraments — and the opposite view
as to their significance remains. With the exception of the Lu
theran Church in its doctrine of the Eucharist, Sacramentalism
has been connected with belief in the continued priestly office of
the clergy. A new obstacle in the way of the reunion of the
churches and the portions of churches in which Sacramentalism
is the creed has been created by the Vatican declaration of Papal
infallibility. Yet the attenuated meaning attached to the new
dogma lessens the height of the wall of division among Sacerdo-
talists, and the toleration of the theory of development, in the
room of tradition, as the basis of the Roman system, — an allow
ance implied in such an act as the raising of Newman to the
cardinalate, — removes, in the apprehension of many, a barrier
that had kept away from the Church of Rome conscientious
historical students.1
The reduction of the area of Calvinism, and its partial disinte
gration in communities where it had long been established, is a
fact which challenges attention. If we go back to the dawn of
the seventeenth century, we find that the Reformed or Calvinistic
creed, to say nothing of its prevalence in Bohemia, Hungary, and
other regions of less note, was dominant in Switzerland, the Palat
inate, Holland, the Protestant Church of France, of Scotland, and
in England, where, to the end of the reign of Elizabeth, the theo
logical influence of Calvin was a controlling power. Arminianism
inflicted a severe blow upon the dominion exercised by the Gene
van system, not only in Holland, but, more and more, under the
the Ministry, and the Sacraments. On the subject of Biblical Infallibility he
said : " The Bible has maintained its authority with the best scholars of our
time, who with open minds have been willing to recognize any error that might
be pointed out by historical criticism; for these errors are all in the circum
stantials and not in the essentials; they are in the human setting and not in
the precious jewel itself; they are found in that section of the Bible that theo
logians commonly account for from the providential superintendence of the
mind of the author as distinguished from divine revelation itself." * Oppo
nents of this teaching of Professor Briggs contended for the infallibility of the
"original autographs" of the Scriptures.
1 The difference of the old and the new theory was appreciated by
Dr. Pusey : " The Council of Trent does not go, as dear Newman does, on
development, but on tradition." — Life of Pusey, Vol. III. p. 207.
* Inav'+nral Address, p. 22.
550
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Stuarts, in England. In the last century, among the agencies
which contributed still further to diminish the sway of Calvinism
in English-speaking communities, the influence of Bishop Butler,
through the method of his Analogy, is an important factor. In
that notable work, so valued a defence of the truths of religion,
the doctrine of man's probation has a prominent place. It is not,
however, the Calvinistic doctrine of the probation of the race, but
the doctrine of the probation of the individual, each for himself,
on which the author insists. In the decline of interest in the old
disputes on questions which Calvinists had debated with their
opponents, in the presence of issues more fundamental, the natural
tendency of Butler's discussions had a marked effect on the habit
of thought. The Wesleyan movement induced a certain reaction,
but Calvinism contended against great odds, owing to the rapid
growth and diffusion in America, as well as England, of Wesley's
reinforcement of an aggressive Arminianism. The dissatisfaction
which has appeared, from time to time, with one feature of Cal
vinism, which is denominated " limited atonement," the persist
ence of a strong predilection for the opinion that the salvation
of the non-elect is an object of sincere desire in the mind of God,
have proved, likewise, a disintegrating force. It is worthy of re
mark that, among Presbyterians in the United States and Great
Britain, in efforts, in some cases successful, and in some cases not,
to revise the Westminster Confession, a special aim has been to
incorporate in the creed, or to annex to it, the opinion just
referred to. To one who looks below the surface of conten
tions in theology, it is pretty obvious that it is not the doctrine
of predestination — the network of teleology in which Calvinism
encloses the realms of nature and Providence — that more com
monly excites repugnance to this compact and logical system.
The theory of determinism, in a more rigid form than any opinion
of the Genevan reformer, is not unfrequently expressed by phi
losophers who, on questions of religion, are of the free-thinking
class. The real, even when unconscious, motive of this antago
nism is the objection felt to the connected doctrine relative to
the outcome of the course of the world — to the Calvinistic
eschatology. It cannot be denied that, whether justly or unjustly,
to a multitude of minds, in modern days, the system of Calvinism
wears an aspect of cruelty. The source of this impression, how
ever, is not so much any dogma pertaining to divine and human
MODERN THEOLOGY 55!
agency, as the tenet as to the actual issues of the divine govern
ment and of the drama of human life. In a survey of the theo
logical tendencies of the present day, one general cause of the
decadence of Calvinism is entitled to a more particular con
sideration, and will now be adverted to.
It is plain to keen observers that, in the later days, both within
and without what may be called the pale of Calvinism, there
is a certain relaxing of confidence in the previously accepted
solutions of some of the gravest theological problems. This
appears among many whose attachment to the core of the essen
tial truths formulated in the past does not wane, whose substantial
orthodoxy, as well as piety, is not often, if it be at all, questioned,
and who have no sympathy with agnosticism, in the technical sense
of the word. The fact is here stated, with no purpose either to
applaud or to censure. It is in part an incidental effect of the
exegetical method and spirit in which history, as well as philology,
is applied, in a manner somewhat new, to the interpretation of the
Bible. The exegesis of the past is felt to be in need of a revisal
from fresh points of view and of a larger infusion of literary tact.
The reduced confidence in traditional solutions is partly owing to
a sense of the need of a sharper distinction between the funda
mental truths of the Gospel and the philosophy which has been
employed in the formulating of them. This motive may prompt,
as is the case with a section of the Ritschlian School in Germany,
to an unduly agnostic position respecting the objective reality of
the truths themselves, and to the abjuring of philosophy altogether.
But such is not the state of mind in the class of orthodox teachers
of religion who are here referred to. Even by them the formulas
respecting the precise connection of divine agency with human
agency, in the composition of the Scriptures, and in regenera
tion and sanctification, the theodicy as concerned with the intro
duction and perpetuation of evil, the process of the Incarnation,
the mode in which the Saviour's death affects the mind of God
and lays a basis for the proclamation of forgiveness, the ultimate
destiny of the impenitent and non-Christian portion of mankind,
— the formulas on these themes are looked upon with at least a
modicum of distrust. A larger space is remanded to the region
of mystery. There is a tendency to enlarge the domain of the
unrevealed.
The purport of the foregoing statements may be better under-
552
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
stood by particular reference to two English theological writers,
each of acknowledged worth and eminence, and each a revered
leader in his own communion.
The first of these writers is the late Dean Church, who was
affiliated with the Oxford Movement and has best recorded its
history. The extracts which follow are from letters in reply to
correspondents who brought before him their difficulties in relation
to eternal punishment, the limitation of the knowledge of the
incarnate Christ, the Atonement. They touch incidentally on the
principles of Biblical interpretation.1
" Whatever one says of the millions of publicans and sinners,
or the ' sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between
their right hand and their left,' must rest on other premises.
There, it seems to me that we are between the certainties of
God's justice, mercy, and love, on the one hand; and on the
other, our own absolute and hopeless ignorance as to how He
deals, and will deal, with these millions, both in and out of Chris
tendom, as to whom the first difficulty that presents itself is, —
why they were born for such inevitable lives, and, apparently,
certain moral failure. I say apparently, because none but He
who knows, in each concrete case, the light given, and the real
movements of the will, can know what the failure really is.
Scripture, which tells us the doom not only of deliberate sin, but
of sinful trifling and carelessness in those who know, or might
have known, is silent about these masses of mankind, who, so far
as we can see, are without what we have."
*******
" The common topic against eternal punishment, ' Could any
man of ordinary feeling appoint it ? and if not, how could God ? '
is quite as strong about evil. How can we imagine ourselves, sup
posing we had omnipotence or omniscience, enduring to bring
into being such unintermitting masses of misery and sin? The
difficulty of finally dealing with evil is to me a far less difficulty
than that of evil itself. The ordinary language about eternal
punishment seems to me simply to forget the fact of the equal
difficulty of evil. Two difficulties do not make one solution;
but at least they ought to teach patience and guarded lan
guage.
1 Life and Letters of Dean Church (1894), pp. 315, 318, 319, 328.
MODERN THEOLOGY 553
" On the other hand, Scripture, though awfully plain-spoken
and stern, seems to me very general in its language on this
matter."
*******
" I have no doubt that we have not yet reached the true and
complete method of Scripture exegesis, and that a great deal
remains to be done by sober and reverential inquiry, in dis
tinguishing between its definite and precise language (' the Word
was God ') and its vague or incidental or unqualified language
('hate his father and mother,' 'shall not come out till he has
paid the uttermost farthing'). But I shrink much from specu
lating on the human knowledge of our blessed Lord, or the limita
tions — and they may have been great — which He was pleased
to impose on Himself, when he ' emptied Himself,' and became
as one of us. I have never been satisfied with the ordinary expla
nations of the text you quote, St. Matt. xxiv. 36. They seem
simply to explain it away as much as any Unitarian gloss of St.
John i. i. To me it means that He who was to judge the world,
who knew what was in man, and, more, who alone knew the
Father, was at that time content to have that hour hidden from
Him — did not choose to be above the angels in knowing it — as
He was afterwards content to be forsaken of the Father. But the
whole is perfectly inconceivable to my mind, and I could not base
any general theory of His knowledge on it. I think it is very
likely that we do not understand the meaning of much that is
said in Scripture ; — its sense, and the end and purport for which
at the time it was said. But it would perplex me much to think
that He was imperfect or ignorant in what He did say, whether
we understood Him or not."
*******
" As far as I understand the difficulty it is this : How could our
Lord really have sympathized in all human pain, when He could
not, by supposition, have known that which gives it its worst sting,
— its apparent uselessness and its helplessness ? Well, I can only
say that I cannot form the faintest conception how, in the actual
depths of that Divine suffering nature, all human pain was borne,
and shared, and understood. I can only see it from the outside.
I see the suffering ; I am told, on His authority, what it means
and involves. I can, if I like, and as has often been done, go on
and make a theory how He bore our sins, and how He gained
554 HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
their forgiveness, and how He took away the sins of the world
But I own that the longer I live the more my mind recoils fron?
such efforts. It seems to me so idle, so, in the very nature of our
condition, hopeless, just in proportion as one seems to grasp more
really the true nature of all that went on beyond the visible sight
of the Cross, all that was in Him who was God and man, whose
capacities and inner life human experience cannot reach or reflect.
But one of the thoughts which pass sometimes through our minds
about the sufferings of the Cross, is, what could be the necessity
of such suffering? What was the use of it? How, with infinite
power, could not its ends have been otherwise attained? Why
need He have suffered? Why could not the Father save Him
from that hour ? Did that thought, in the limitations and ' empty
ing ' (Phil. ii. 7) of the Passion, pass through His mind too ?
" But I suppose that, after all, the real difficulty is not about
Him, but ourselves. Why pain at all ? I can only say that the
very attempt to give an answer, that the very thought of an answer
by us being conceivable, seems to me one which a reasonable
being in our circumstances ought not to entertain. It seems to
me one of those questions which can only be expressed by such a
figure as a fly trying to get through a glass window, or a human
being jumping into space ; that is, it is almost impossible to express
the futility of it. It is obvious that it is part of a wider subject,
that it could not be answered by itself, that we should need to
know a great many other things to have the power of answering.
And what is the use of asking what we cannot know ? . . . The
facts which witness to the goodness and the love of God are clear
and undeniable ; they are not got rid of by the presence and cer
tainty of other facts, which seem of an opposite kind ; only the
coexistence of the two contraries is perplexing. And then comes
the question, which shall have the decisive, governing influence on
wills and lives ? You must, by the necessity of your existence,
trust one set of appearances ; which will you trust ? Our Lord
came among us not to clear up the perplexity, but to show us
which side to take."
The second of the writers is the late Dr. R. W. Dale, the re
spect for whom among the Congregationalists of England, among
whom he was an honored leader, was shared by men of the
highest worth in the Established Church, and by fellow-Christians
MODERN THEOLOGY
555
jf his own communion in America. The following extracts are
from the discourse of Dr. Dale on the " Evangelical Revival " of
the last century.1
"When the Reformers undertook the task of constructing a
theology for the Reformed Churches, the intellectual revolution
which began with the Renaissance was incomplete — it is not
complete yet — and while they made immense and salutary
changes in the dogmas of the Church by a constant appeal to the
authority of the Holy Scripture, their method was still powerfully
influenced by the decaying Scholasticism. There were other causes
which gave to their work a provisional character. Indeed all work
of this kind is necessarily but for a time ; it has to be done over
again whenever any great changes have taken place in the intel
lectual condition of Christendom. Such changes have plainly
been going on very rapidly during the last three hundred years.
It looks as if we had almost escaped from the philosophical
methods which still retained much of their authority in the time
of the Reformers. If the intellectual revolution is approaching
its term, the process of reconstructing our theological systems will
soon have to be gone through again. . . . Among Evangelical
Nonconformists the severe and rigid lines of Calvinism have been
gradually relaxed. Mr. Spurgeon stands alone among the modern
leaders of Evangelical Nonconformists in his fidelity to the older
Calvinistic creed.
"The decay of Calvinism among Evangelical Nonconformists
has been largely due to the influence of Methodism. . . . But
other influences have been acting on the traditional creed of our
churches. . . .
" That general movement of European thought of which I have
spoken is rendering it impossible to retain theological theories
which were constructed in the sixteenth century. Men whose
whole life is rooted in Christ, to whom He is the Eternal Word of
God, e the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image
of His person,' ' the propitiation for the sin of the world,' the
Prince, the Saviour, and the Judge of men, are conscious that the
rivets which fastened their doctrinal definitions are loosening —
they hardly know how or why ; that their theological theories, as
distinct from their religious faith, are dissolving and melting away.
1 The Evangelical Revival and Other Sermons (1880), pp. 19, 21-25.
556
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
While not relaxing their hold on the Divine revelation which has
come to them through Christ, they are asking for some more satis
factory intellectual account of the great facts and truths which are
their joy and strength. There is hardly a theological definition
which they can accept without qualification; there is hardly a
theological phrase which is not colored by speculations which
seem to them incredible. They have not lost sight of sun and
stars ; they will tell you that with their increasing years the glory
of the sun is brighter to them than ever, and that the stars are
more mysterious and divine; but they want a new astronomical
theory. The sun and stars are God's handiwork; astronomi
cal theories are the provisional human explanations of Divine
wonders."
*******
" The work of theological reconstruction must be done. It can
only be done effectively when the religious faith and ardor of the
Church are intense, and when robust genius and massive learning
are united with saintly devotion. A theology which is the creation
of a poor and degraded religious life will have neither stability nor
grandeur. We must all become better Christians before we can
hope to see great theologians.
" Meanwhile — and this, perhaps, is the lesson of the hour —
all Evangelical Churches should frankly recognize that the Evan
gelical theology — not the Evangelical faith — is passing through
a period of transition. We should not rigorously insist on the
acceptance either of the subordinate details of our creed or of the
scientific forms in which we are accustomed to state even its regal
and central articles. It would be treason to truth to trifle with
the immortal substance of the gospel of Christ ; it would be
treason to charity to refuse to receive as brethren those who may
differ from us about the theological forms in which the substance
of the Gospel may be best expressed."
Since the Reformation, in contrast with the more distinctively
ecclesiastical ages preceding, the ethical side of the Gospel has
been more and more brought into the foreground. The relation
of Christianity to political and social reform, to philanthropy in
all directions, engages attention. Allied to this spirit is the more
absorbing interest in the Life of Jesus, which gives rise to numerous
special works of biography, in different languages. Theology con
centrates its inquiries upon Christ with a greater subordination of
MODERN THEOLOGY 557
all other topics. It appears to be felt that the outcome, the ripe
fruit, of the Old Testament dispensation is to be found in the
Woman and the Child in the manger at Bethlehem. The upper
most question is, What think ye of Christ ? This question, and
the implications of His person and work, form the rubrics of the
theological system.
INDEX
Abbott, E. A., 452, 459, 463.
Abelard, Peter, his characteristics, 221 ;
his confidence in reason, 222; on in
spiration, ib.; on original sin, ib.; on
the atonement, 223 ; on the Trinity, ib. ;
accused and condemned, ib.; his ser
vice to theology, 224.
Absolution, 258, 280, 330, 331, 466. See
" Penance."
Adam's sin, doctrine of. See " Original
Sin."
Adiaphoristic controversies, the, 295.
Adoption controversy, the, 205.
yEthiopic Church, the rise of, 156.
^Etius of Antioch, 142.
Agape, the, in the early Church, 46, 168.
Agatho, Bishop of Rome, 159.
Agnosticism, a certain species of in Sir
W. Hamilton, 484; also in Mansel,
485 ; in Spencer, 487 ; in Huxley, 489.
See "Agnostics."
Agnostics, on the possibility of theology,
4-
Agobard, Bishop of Lyons, 203.
Agricola, John, 294.
Aix, Synod of, 205.
Albert the Great, 231, 257, 249.
Albigenses, 263.
Alcuin, 203, 205.
Alexander VII., Pope, 335.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, 135.
Alexander of Hales, influence of Aris
totle on, 216, 229 ; on divine and hu
man agency, 249 ; his idea of a treas
ury of merits, 250, 259; on the pre
requisite for absolution, 260.
Alexandria, theological school at, 39, 94,
127, 151 ; synods at, 135, 150, 152.
Allegorical interpretation, in Palestinian
and Alexandrian Judaism, 26, 27;
among the Gnostics, 54 ; among the
Apostolic Fathers generally, 76 ; Clem
ent of Alexandria on, 94; in Origen,
105; in Methodius, 116; in Bernard
of Clairvaux, 224; in Cocceius, 349.
Alogi, the, 100.
Amalric of Bena, 213.
Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, his writ
ings, 132 ; his influence on Augustine,
177, 179, 187 ; on original sin, 187.
Ames, William, 348.
Ammonius Saccas, 31, 40.
Amsdorf, 295, 296.
Amyraut (Amyraldus) , his theology, 342,
345-
Anabaptists, their rise, and tenets, 318 ;
in Switzerland, 319; their spread, ib.
Ancyra, Synod of, 142.
Andover theologians on continued pro
bation, 444.
Andreae, 296.
Andreas, Bishop of Samosata, 153.
Andrewes, Lancelot, Bishop, his the
ology, 355.
Angels, the doctrine of, in Philo, 28 ; in
the Gnostic systems, 56; in Justin
Martyr, 65 note ; in Pseudo-Dionysius,
173 ; the worship of, 124, 172, 198.
"Anglo-Catholic" party and theology,
rise of, 353 $q.t 357 ; revived in the
Oxford movement, 455 sq.
Annihilation of the wicked, doctrine of
the, 88, 444, 479, 516. See "Future
State," " Immortality."
Anomoeans, 142, 143.
Anselm, on the relation of faith and
knowledge, 6, 213, 216; realism and
creationism conjoined in, 187 ; on the
Lord's Supper, 211; the father of Scho
lasticism, 216; his writings, 217 ; on the
proofs of the being of God, ib.; on
original sin, ib. sq. ; his doctrine of sin
compared with that of Augustine, 218 ;
his doctrine of the atonement, 219;
this compared with that of Aquinas,
245, 246.
Antioch, school of, its spirit and teach
ing, 122, 127, 151; synods of, 104, 115,
140, 142.
Antiochian symbols, 140, 141.
Apocalypses, Jewish, influence on early
Christian thought, 271.
559
56o
INDEX
Apocalyptic element in the N. T. con
ception of the kingdom, 24.
Apocrypha, use of the term by the
Fathers, 121 sq.; in the Creed of
Trent, 328.
Apollinaris, and the Apollinarian doc
trine, 148 sq.
Apologists, Greek, their conception of
Christianity and of its proofs, 61, 62.
See under the several names.
Apostles' Creed, its origin, 70 ; its oldest
form, 71 ; its relation to the regulce
Jidei, ib. ; in the Western church, 206 ;
incorporated in the Protestant creeds,
283.
Apostolic succession, in Clement of
Rome, 76, 79 ; in Irenaeus, 79 ; Whately
on, 450; Thomas Arnold on, 451 ; the
Oxford Declaration on, 454 ; Newman's
contention for, 455 ; Canon Gore on,
468. See " Episcopacy," " Orders."
Aquinas, Thomas, on the relation of faith
and knowledge, 7, 231 ; his philo
sophical position, 231 ; his writings, ib. ;
on the necessity of revelation, 234 ;
on two classes of truths, ib. ; on mira
cles, 235; on inspiration, ib.; on the
being of God, and the proofs of it, ib. ;
on the extent of our knowledge of
God, 236 ; on the divine attributes, ib, ;
on the Trinity, 237; on the incarna
tion, ib.; on creation, ib., 238; on di
vine and human agency in conversion,
238, 248 ; on the theodicy and the
nature of evil, 239; on the nature of
man, 239; on immortality, ib.; on the
connection of the race with Adam, 240,
242 sq, ; on the atonement, 245 sq. ; on
the will, 248; on justification, 249; on
two classes of virtues, 250; on papal
infallibility and prerogatives, 252; on
the nature, need, and function of the
sacraments, 254 sq. ; on the effect of
baptism, 256; on confirmation, 257;
on the Lord's Supper (the doctrine of
concomitance) , 257 ; on transubstanti-
ation, ib.; on confession, 259; on the
doctrine of supererogatory merits, ib. ;
on purgatory, ib. ; on extreme unction,
260 ; on ordination, 261 ; on marriage,
ib. • his relation to Augustine, 262.
Arianism, rise of, 134^.; in England,
yjQsq.; in New England, 418 sq. See
"Trinity."
Aristides (the Apologist), 36.
Aristotle, his influence on the course of
doctrine, after the fourth century, 126 ;
among the Schoolmen, 209, 213, 214,
216, 229, 231, 262.
Arius, his doctrine, 134 sq., 144; the
Thalia of, 135; his banishment and
recall, 139, 140. See "Arianism."
Aries, Synod of (A.D. 355), 142.
Armenian Church, the, as a distinct
body, 156.
Arminianism, rise and spread of, 337;
in the age of the Puritans, 356; of
Wesley compared with the Dutch,
392; in New England, 394. See " Ar-
minians," " Arminius."
Arminians, their creed, 338 ; their sys
tem characterized, 339; on original sin,
346; on the atonement (the govern
mental theory of Grotius) , 340, 341 ; on
the self-origination of the Son, 341 ;
on the person of Christ, 342 ; the spirit
of their scholars, ib.
Arminius, James, 337.
Arnauld, 334, 335.
Arnold, Matthew, his theological point
of view, 480 ; on the being of God,
ib.; on prayer, 482 ; on the substance
of Christianity, ib. ; on miracles and
the supernatural, 483.
Arnold, Thomas, his theology, 451, 456.
Artemon and the Artemonites, 102.
Assurance, the doctrine of, impossible
under the Scholastic system, 250;
among the Reformers, 274; in Cal
vin, 299; in the Creed of Trent, 329;
among the Wesleyans, 392.
Astruc, 497.
Athanasian Creed, the, 147, 206.
Athanasius, on the orthodoxy of Diony-
sius, 114; conservator of unity, 120;
on authoritative Scriptures and Apocry
pha, 121 ; on the hindrance to the per
ception of God, 124; his writings, 129;
Gibbon on, ib.; at the Council of
Nicaea, 136 sq.; the practical motive
underlying his doctrine of the Trinity,
136 ; on numerical unity of substance,
137 sq. ; repeated banishments, 140,
143 ; on the Apollinarian heresy, 149 ;
on the work of Christ, 162; on the
Fall, 164.
Athenagoras, 64, 75.
Atonement, doctrine of the, Justin Mar
tyr on, 66 ; the Epistle to Diognet
on, 69; Irenasus on, 86; fertullian
INDEX
56l
on, 92; Origen on, in; the Greek j
Fathers on, 161, 162; Augustine on,
180 ; Anselm on, 219, 247 ; Abelard
on, 223 ; Bernard on, 225 ; Hugo of
St. Victor on, 226; Peter Lombard
on, 227 ; Aquinas on, 245 ; Scotus on,
247, 248 ; the Mystics of the four
teenth century on, 265; Luther on,
276; Zwingli on, 286; Calvin on, 308 ;
the Socinians on, 323 ; the Creed of the
Arminians on, 338 ; the Dort Creed
on, 339; the governmental theory (of
Grotius), 340; Episcopius on, 341;
Amyraut on, 343; the Formula Con
sensus Helvetica on, 345 ; Richard
Baxter on, 362; John Owen on, ib. ;
Locke on, 375 ; the Quakers on, 379 ;
Wesley on, 392; Edwards on, 409;
Bellamy on, 411 ; the younger Edwards
on, 412 ; the governmental theory of,
characteristic of the New England
theology, 413 ; Henry B. Smith on,
418; Bushnell on, 441-444; Charles
Hodge (and the Princeton theology)
on, 445; Coleridge on, 449; Moz-
ley on, 471 ; Maurice on, 473 ;
Campbell on, 477 sq. ; Swedenborg
on, 494; Schleiermacher on, 505, 507;
Dorner on, 514; Nitzsch on, 516;
Rothe on, 518 ; Ritschl on, 525.
Augsburg, Confession, 272, 274, 280, 281,
283, 290, 291, 293 ; Diet of, 272, 287,
290 ; Peace of, 295.
Augustine, his De Civitate Dei, 118, 132,
182; on inspiration, 122; on the de
cisions of councils, 123 ; on the proof of
the being of God, 124; his mental
qualities and writings, 132, 196; elimi
nates subordinationism, 146; his influ
ence, 176 ; experience and personal
traits, ib.; determining factors of his
theology, 177 ; on faith and knowledge,
ib.; on the attributes of God, 178; on
the Trinity, ib.; on the person of
Christ, ib.; on the seat of authority,
179; on the Church, ib., 193; on faith
and salvation, 180; on merits, ib.;
on the atonement, ib. ; on the incar
nation, ib. ; on the Sacraments, 181,
J83, 193, 254, 256; on Providence, 181,
184; on the relation of God to evil,
181 ; on the resurrection and the future
state, 182; his point of view compared
with Pelagius, 184; his theory of the
will, ib., 191 , on Adam's sin and its
2 O
consequences, ib. sq.; his controversy
with Julian, 186; on the origin of
souls, 187 sg.; letter to Jerome, ib.;
on the nature of character, 190; on
baptism, 191 ; on grace, ib. ; his
earlier and later views of predestina
tion, 191 sq.; discordant veins of
thought in, 193 ; dissent from, in the
West, 195 ; his doctrine of predestina
tion revived by Gottschalk, 206; his
doctrine of original sin compared with
that of Anselm, 218 ; his relation to
Aquinas and the Schoolmen, 262; his
influence upon Luther, 272; his sys
tem revived by the Jesuits, 332 ; and
by Jansenius and the Port Royalists,
334-
Augustus, Emperor, 29.
Authority, the seat of, presuppositions
respecting, in the second period, 121 ;
Augustine on, 179 ; the mediaeval doc
trine of, 252 ; Wyclif on, 265 ; Luther
on, 278 ; Zwingli on, 287 ; Calvin on,
298; the Ten Articles (1536) on, 310;
the Socinians on, 322 ; the Council of
Trent on, 328 ; the Arminians on, 340 ;
the Protestant Scholastic view of, 347 ;
John Hales on, 364 ; Chillingworth on,
ib.; the Quakers on, 378 ; the Oxford
school on, 454, 455; recent discussions
on, 547.
Averroes, 213.
Bacon, Francis, 19, 384.
Bajus, Michael, 333.
Balfour, Walter, 437.
Ball, John, 348, 360.
Ballou, Hosea, 437.
Baptism, the Apostolic Fathers on, 44,
46; earliest formula used, 46; Justin
Martyr on, 68 ; Irenseus on, 87 ; Ori
gen on, 112; the Greek Fathers on,
167 ; Augustine on, 181 ; the School
men on, 255, 256; Luther on, 271,
281 ; the Lutherans on, 281 ; Calvin on,
305; form of, in vogue among the
Anabaptists, 320 ; the Creed of Trent
on, 329, 330 ; the Oxford Tracts on,
456. See " Baptism of Infants."
Baptism of infants, recognition of, in Ire-
naeus, 87 ; Calvin on, 305 ; Schwenk-
feld on, 318 ; the Anabaptists on, ib. ;
Michael Servetus on, 321 ; Dean
Stanley on, 474.
Barclay, Robert, 378.
562
INDEX
Barnabas, the Epistle of, 35 ; on the per
son of Christ, 45; on baptism, 46; on
the second advent, 47.
Barneveld, Olden, 338.
Barry, John, 354.
Baruch, the Apocalypse of, 27.
Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, 130; on the
Trinity, 143 ; on the character of in
fants, 165.
Basilides, his system, 57.
Basiliscus, Emperor, 156.
Basil ius, 202.
Baumgarten-Crusius, 16, 21 ; on Justin
(Apol. I. 6), 65.
Baur, F. C., his theory of theological
development, 14, 534 ; divisions of his
doctrinal history, 16; his theory of a
Pauline-Petrine dissension, 41, 51 ; on
the Clementine writings, 51, 55; his
classification of the Gnostic systems,
55 ; on the Scholastic method, 215 ; his
theory of opposing parties in the early
Church anticipated by Toland, 375.
Baxter, Richard, his system, 362.
Bee, the school of, 210.
Bede, the Venerable, 203.
Belgic Confession, the, 337, 339.
Bellamy, Joseph, 411.
Bellarmine, Robert, 16, 332, 333, 351.
Bengel, J. A., 495.
Bentley, Richard, 376.
Berengarius, 210.
Berkeley, Bishop, his philosophy, 285;
and Edwards, 403.
Bernard of Clairvaux, character of his
piety, 224, 225; opposes Abelard, 225;
on faith and knowledge, ib.; on the
atonement, ib. ; precursor of St. Francis
and the mendicants, 229 ; on the im
maculate conception, 244.
Beryl, Bishop of Bostra, 103.
Beza, 337.
Biblical criticism, among the Arminian
scholars, 342 ; Louis Cappel's contri
bution to, 343; among the Deists, 376,
377; among the Unitarians in New
England, 423; Matthew Arnold's ser
vices to, 480 ; in Germany in the period
of " illumination," 497; the influence
of Hegelianism on, 534.
Biblical theology in the school of Coc-
ceius, 349.
Biedermann, 534.
Biel, Gabriel, 233.
Bigg, Charles, 6, 138.
Bishops, original, identical with presby
ters, 76 sq. ; the guardians of doctrine,
78; gradual precedence of the Roman,
80, 123 ; their subordination under the
papacy, 252; alone may confirm in
the Latin Church, 256; Aquinas on
their relation to priests, 261 ; Cranmer
on, 315 ; the Creed of Trent on, 331 ;
Bellarmine on, 332 ; John Hales on,
364 ; the Oxford Tracts on, 455 ; Canon
Gore on, 468. See " Episcopacy."
" Bishop's Book," the, 311.
Blaurock, 319.
Blount, Charles, 373.
Blunt, J. H., 314, 466.
Boccaccio, 267.
Boethius, 126, 132, 213.
Bogomiles, the, 202.
Bolingbroke, 378.
Bolsec, Jerome, 337.
Bonaventura, 230, 244, 249, 257, 260.
Boniface II., 197; Boniface VIII., 251,
252, 253.
Bonn, Old Catholic Conferences at, 544.
Bossuet, 16, 336, 380.
Bostra, Council of (A.D. 244), 103.
Bound, Dr. Nicholas, 362.
Boyle, Robert, 376.
Bradwardine, 250.
Bretschneider, 500.
Briggs, Charles A., 548.
" Broad Church" theology, in England,
473-477 : in Scotland, 477-479-
Brook Farm Association, 435.
Brown, James Baldwin, 479.
Bruce, A. B., 479.
Bryennios, 35.
Bucer, Martin, 290, 312, 313.
Buckminster, Joseph Stevens, 421.
Buddhism, Matthew Arnold on, 483.
Bull, Bishop George, 20, 99, 144, 370.
Burnet, Bishop, on the Latitudinarians,
366, 367-
Bushnell, Horace, on the possibility of
theology, 5 ; on Christian nurture, 438 ;
on the Trinity, 438-441 ; on the atone
ment, 441-444 ; on annihilation of the
wicked, 444.
Butler, Bishop Joseph, 388, 389, 390; in
direct anti-Calvinistic influence, 557.
Caesarius, Bishop of Aries, 197.
Cainites, the, 57.
Cajetan, 243.
Caiixtus, George, 379.
INDEX
563
Callistus, Bishop of Rome, 82, 102.
Calvin, John, his doctrine on assurance,
274; his influence on Melanchthon,
291 ; on the Lord's Supper, 291, 306 ;
his relation to Zwingli and Luther, 298-
309 et passim ; his intellectual qualities,
ib.; his religious experience, ib.; his
Institutes, ib. ; on the testimony of the
Spirit to the divinity and truth of the
Bible, 299 ; on the nature of faith and
assurance, ib.; on predestination, ib.;
was he a supralapsarian, 301 ; on
original sin, ib., 302; on tv.o wills in
God, 302 ; on the Church visible and
invisible, 304; on the nature of the Sac
raments, 305 ; on baptism, ib. ; of in
fants, ib. ; on the Trinity, 307 ; on the
Athanasian Creed, ib.; on the incar
nation, 308; on the atonement, ib.; on
the descent of Christ into Hades, 309 ;
Hooker on, 316; his defences of pre
destination, 337 ; on the Lord's Day,
361. See " Calvinism."
Calvinism, its spread resisted by Luther
ans, 292; how differentiated from
Lutheranism, 300; influence of, in
Elizabeth's reign, 316; the Arminian
revolt against, 337 sq. ; in the Canons
of Dort, 339 ; in the school of Saumur,
342; of Pajon, 346; defended by the
Puritans, 356; in the Westminster
Confession, 359 ; in the Church of
England in the eighteenth century,
393; in New England, 394 sq. ; as
defended by Jonathan Edwards, 400;
in the Presbyterian Church, ^44 ; par
tial disintegration of, 549 sq.
Campbell, John McLeod, his treatise on
the atonement, 477 sq.
" Cambridge Platform," the, 394.
Cameron, John, 342.
Canon of the New Testament, the, its
origin, 72 sq. ; the antilegomena, 74;
tests for admission of books into, 75 ;
discussion of, in the post-Nicene pe
riod, 121 ; Luther on, 279 ; Zwingli on,
287 ; Calvin on, 299 ; Dr. Arnold on,
451-
Canonization, condemned by Wyclif,
266.
Cappel, Louis, 343, 345.
Carlstadt, 280, 288.
Carlyle, Thomas, 434.
Carthage, Council at, (A.D. 397) 122;
the second, 195.
Cassian, John, his doctrine, 196.
Cassiodorus, 133.
Castellio, 337.
Catechumens, school for, at Alexandria,
39-
Catharinus, 350.
Catharists, the, 263.
Catholic Church, the old, the term 'Catho
lic,' 70 ; rise of, in the second century,
70-81 ; recent organization under this
name, 544.
Celibacy of the clergy, rule of Second
Trullan Council concerning, 200; de
prives them of a sacrament, 261 ;
Wyclif on the, 266 ; Zwingli on, 287 ;
the Six Articles on, 312.
Celsus, 40, 104.
Cerinthus, 56, 100.
Chalcedon, Council and Creed of, 155,
156.
Channing, William Ellery, on different
types of Unitarians, 420 ; his Baltimore
sermon, ib. ; personal qualities and
preaching gifts, 421 sq.; his mental
history, 425 ; his doctrine of disinter
estedness, 428; of sin, 429; of the
Fatherhood of God, 430 ; of the person
and work of Christ, 430, 431 ; his atti
tude toward the intuitional philosophy,
435-
Charenton, Synod of, 343.
Charles the Bald, theology in the time
of, 203 ; Ratramnus's letter to, on the
Lord's Supper, 207 ; V., Emperor, 326,
327-
Chartres, school at, 210.
Chaucer, 267.
Cheetham, on the function of bishops of
the first century, 81.
Chemnitz, 296.
Chiazza, the Bishop of, 328.
Chiersy, second Council of, 206; first
Synod of, ib.
Chiliasm. See " Millennial reign of
Christ."
Chillingworth, William, 364.
Christ, the person of, in the Pauline epis
tles, 25; in the Johannine teaching,
26; the Apostolic Fathers on, 44, 45;
the Ebionites on, 48, 49 ; in the Pseudo-
Clementines, 50 ; the Gnostics on, 54,
56; the Ophites on, 57; Marcion on,
59; Justin Martyr on, 63, 65; in the
Epistle to Diognet, 68; Irenaeus on,
85 ; Melito on, 89 ; Tertullian on, 92 ;
564
INDEX
Clement of Alexandria on, 95; the
adoptionist and modalistic views of,
98 sq.; the Sabellian views of, 103;
Paul of Samosata on, 104 ; Origen on,
107-109, 148; Novatian on, 113; the
doctrine of, introduced into baptismal
creeds in the East, 116; the Alexan
drian and Antiochian schools on, com
pared, 127 ; the Arian doctrine of, 134,
136,148; Marcellus on, 140; Photinus
on, 141 ; the Apollinarian doctrine of,
148 ; Athanasius on, 149 ; the Gregories
on, 150; the AntiochLins on, 151 ; Nes-
torius on, 152 ; Cyril of Alexandria on,
ib.; Eutyches on, 154; the Chalcedon
Creed on, 155 ; the Monophysite doc
trine of, 156 sq. ; the Monothelite view
of, 158; John of Damascus on, 159;
Augustine on, 178 ; the Adoptionists
on, 205 ; the German Reformers on,
281; the Zwinglians on, 289; the So-
cinian doctrine of, 322 ; the Arminian
doctrine of, 342 ; Watts on, 393 ; Chan-
ning on different Unitarian views of,
420; Channing on, 430; Bushnell on,
439 ; Liddon on, 468 ; Canon Gore on,
ib. ; Baron Holbach on, 493; Sweden-
borg on, 494; the Moravians on, 495 ;
Kant on, 499 ; Schleiermacher on, 504 ;
the Mediating School (of Germany)
on, 513; Rothe on, 518; Lipsius on,
523 ; Ritschl on, 526 ; Kaftan on, 529 ;
Herrman on, 530 ; Hegel on, 533 ;
Strauss on, ib.
Christ, the Second Coming of, in the
Synoptists, 24; the Apostolic Fathers
on, 47; the Ebionites on, 49; Justin
Martyr on, 67 ; the Montanists' ex
pectation of, 82; Schleiermacher on,
509.
Christ, the work of, the Ebionites on,
49; in the Clementine writings, 50;
Justin Martyr on, 62 ; Irenseus on, 86 ;
Clement of Alexandria, 95; Origen on,
in ; the Antiochians on, 151 ; Gregory
of Nazianzum on, 161 ; the Greek
Fathers on, 162; Athanasius on, ib.;
Edwards on, 408 ; Channing on, 431 ;
Schleiermacher on, 504 sq.; Nitzsch
on, 516 ; Ritschl on, 525. See the two
preceding titles and " Jesus."
Christianity, its distinction from other
systems, i ; capable of doctrinal defi
nition, ib. ; the essential truth in, 3 ; an
historical religion, 7; requires theo
logical interpretation, 8 ; influence of
Jewish thought and methods on, 26;
tendencies of the age preceding, 29;
influence of Greek philosophy on, 29
sq. ; conception of, in the Pseudo-Cle
mentine writings, 50; peril of, from
Gnosticism, 51, 60; Marcion's view of,
59 ; as conceived by the Greek Apolo
gists, 6osy.; attacked by Julian, 117;
defended by Cyril, 118; modified by
pagan customs, 171 sq.; Abelard on,
222; the Socinian view of, 322; Mat
thew Arnold on, 482; Hegelian inter
pretation of, 532. See " Christ, the
person of," " Christ, the work of."
Chrysippus, 31.
Chrysostom, his writings, 131 ; on origi
nal sin, 164, 165 ; on faith and works,
166 ; on the Lord's Supper, 169, 170.
Church, Dean, 275, 452, 458 ; on difficul
ties in the formulas of theology, 552 sq.
Church, the, of the first three centuries
characterized, 119 ; its unity threatened,
120 ; the scene of internal controversy
in the Nicene and post-Nicene period,
125 ; in the East, ritualism in, 200 ; the
division of East and West in, 201 ; the
hierarchical form of, in the Middle
Ages, 251.
Church, the doctrine of, Justin Mar
tyr on, 67; the Nicene and the post-
Nicene Fathers on, 123 ; Augustine on,
179, 193 ; Gregory I. on, 198 ; Luther at
the disputation at Leipsic on, 270; the
Lutheran reformers on, 281 ; Luther
on its authority in doctrine, 283 ; Cal
vin on, 304 ; the Thirty-nine Articles
on, 315; the Anabaptist view of, 318;
Coleridge on, 449; Wrhately on, 450;
Thomas Arnold on, 451 ; Kant on,
499; Schleiermacher on, 509. See
"Bishops," "Episcopacy," "Church
and State."
Church and State, after Constantine, 125 ;
Wyclif on, 266; the Anabaptists on,
318 sq. ; the Arminians on, 338 ; the
Anglo-Catholics on, 357; the West
minster Confession on, 360; Hobbes
on, 372; Blount on, 374; Coleridge
on, 449; Whately on, 450; Thomas
Arnold on, 451 ; Stanley on, 475. See
" Church, the doctrine of."
Church union, Constantine and Athana
sius conservators of, 120 ; gradual inter
ference of the State for the preservation
INDEX
565
of, 125 ; Cranmer's effort toward, 315 ;
John Hales on, 363 ; efforts toward, in
the seventeenth century : Calixtus, 379 ;
Erasmus on, ib.; Hugo Grotius's pro
posal for, 380 ; Spinola a promoter of, |
ib.; Leibnitz and Bossuet's correspond
ence concerning, ib.
Clarke, Samuel, 371, 376.
Claude, 345, 346.
Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hiera-
polis, 36.
Clement VIII., 333.
Clement of Alexandria, on faith and
knowledge, 6; his personal qualities
and career, 39 ; his writings, 39, 40 ; on
justification, 42 ; his tendency toward
legalism, ib.; on the person of Christ,
44; on the division of the Christian
books, 73 ; on bishops and presbyters,
76; on the mission of the Christian
theologian, 94 ; on the sources of Chris
tian knowledge, ib. ; on Greek philoso
phy, 94, 95 ; on the being of God, 95;
on the Logos, ib.; on the Father and
Son, ib.; on the Holy Spirit, ib.; on
the work of Christ, ib. ; on the freedom
of the will, 96 ; on Adam's sin, ib. ; on
the doctrine of reserve, ib.; on the
Lord's Supper, ib.; on the future state,
ib.; on Christ's preaching in Hades,
ib. ; on the resurrection, 97.
Clement of Rome, on justification, 42 ;
on the person of Christ, 44; on the
Holy Spirit, 46; on the Episcopate,
76 ; the Epistle of, 34, 75, 77 ; the sec
ond epistle ascribed to him, 34.
Clementine writings, the Pseudo-, doc
trinal contents of, 50; origin of, 51.
Cocceius, on the doctrine of the Cove
nants, 348.
Coelestine I., Roman bishop, 152.
Coelestius, 183, 190, 194, 195.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, his influence
in New England, 437 ; on the distinc
tion between reason and understand
ing, 447 ; on the distinction between
Nature and Spirit, ib.; on ideas de
rived from conscience, ib.; on the
source of belief in God, 447 ; on inspi
ration, 448; on original sin, ib.; on
the atonement, 449; on regeneration,
ib.; on the Church, ib.
Colet, John, 268.
Collins, Anthony, 376.
Colosse, heresy in the Church at, 50.
Colossians, Epistle to, the traces of Gnos
ticism in, 55.
Comte, Auguste, 4, 486.
Conceptualism, 214.
Concomitance, the doctrine of, 257.
Condillac, 492.
Confession, an element of the sacrament
of penance, 258 ; the office of priest
in relation thereto, ib.; Innocent
III.'s prescription concerning, 259;
Aquinas on, ib. ; Wyclif on, 266 ; Lu
ther on, 271 ; Zwingli on, 287 ; the
Six Articles on, 312; the Creed of
Trent on, 330, 331.
" Confessionalists," the, of Germany, 523.
Confirmation, the Schoolmen on, 255,
256; Wyclif on, 266; the Creed ot
Trent on, 330.
Constans, 140-142 ; II., 158.
Constantine, guardian of church unity,
120 ; his effort to quell the Arian con
troversy, 135 ; convokes the Council of
Nicasa, 136; recalls Arius, 139; his
pretended ' Donation,' 268.
Constantine, the Paulician, 202.
Constantinople, councils and synods at,
141, 145, 146, 150, 157, 159, 171, 201;
the Creed of, its origin and contents,
145, 146.
Constantius, 140 sq.
Contarini, 326.
Coptic Church, rise of the, 156.
Cordova, the University at, 209.
Corinth, the Church of, the Epistle of
Clement to, 34 ; organization of, 468.
Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, 83, 113.
Councils, significance of in the Nicene
and post-Nicene period, 123.
Cousin, Victor, 485.
Covenants, the doctrine of, 347, 348,351.
See " Federal Theology."
Cranmer, 310 sq. ; his Catechism, 312;
on the Lord's Supper, 313; on Epis
copacy, 315.
Creation, the Gnostics on, 56; Justin
Martyr on, 66 ; Irenasus on, 85 ; Ori-
gen on, 107; the Nicene and post-
Nicene Fathers on, 124 ; Augustine on,
178; the Schoolmen on, 237 ; Edwards
on, 406; Lipsius on, 523.
Creationism, 163, 187 sq., 239, 350.
Cudworth, Ralph, 366, 368.
Cumberland, Richard, 368.
Cyprian, his writings, 39 ; on sacerdotal
function of bishops, 79, 80 ; on disci*
566
INDEX
pline, 82, 83; on the Lord's Supper,
168.
Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, 130 ; his re
lation to the Creed of Constantinople,
145; on freedom from original sin,
165 ; on faith and works, 166 ; on bap
tism, 167, 169.
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, refutes
Julian, 117; his writings, 130; on the
person of Christ, 152 ; organizes the
Council of Ephesus, 153; deposed,
ib.; is restored, 154, 155; on baptism,
167 ; on the Lord's Supper, 169, 170.
Dale, R. W., his treatise on the atone
ment, 479 ; on the loosening of the
rivets of doctrinal definitions, 555 sq.
D'Alembert, 493.
Daniel, the book of, Porphyry on, 119;
Anthony Collins on, 376.
Dante, 260, 267.
Darwinism and theology, 488. See also
" Evolution."
David of Dinanto, 273.
Davidis, Francis, 323.
Deism, English, influence leading to, 371 ;
its leading representatives and tenets,
372 sq.; answered by the Latitudina-
rians, 374 ; the Anglo-French, 492 sq.
See the names of the several writers.
De Maistre, 14.
Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, 40.
Descartes, 19, 381.
Determinism, not strictly held by Augus
tine, 184; in Aquinas, 238, 248; in
Hobbes, 372 ; in Locke, 374 ; in Leib
nitz, 383 ; in Collins, 376 ; in Jonathan
Edwards, 401. See " Will."
" Diatesseron," the, 37.
Didache, the, analysis and date of, 35;
baptismal formula in, 46; on the
Second Advent, 47 ; on the authorita
tive source of Christian knowledge,
70; its evidence respecting Episco
pacy, 77, 80.
Diderot, 493.
Didymus, 129, 171.
Diodorus, 170.
Diognet, the Epistle to, 37, 68, 69.
Dionysius of Alexandria, 114, 115.
Dionysius of Rome, 115.
Dioscurus, oppresses the Nestorians,
154; convenes the Robber Synod,
155; deposed, ib.
Diospolis, the Synod of, 194.
Doctrine, various Biblical types of, 8;
leadership in the development of, 10 ;
factors in the formulation of, ib. ; de
velopment of, in relation to nations,
13 ; influence of Greek philosophy on,
29 sq. ; Vincent of Lerins on the test
of Catholic, 123, 196; converted into
dogmas in the second period, 125 ; re
lation of the patristic to the mediaeval
period of, 199. See " Theology."
Doddridge, Philip, 393.
Dogma, defined, 2 ; the term in Biblical
and classical usage, ib. ; history of, de
fined, ib.
Dollinger, 538, 544.
Dominic, 229.
Dominicans, 214, 252, 328.
Donation of Constantine, 268.
Dorner, 21 ; on Gnosticism, 53 ; on the
relation of Calvin to Luther and
Zwingli, 278; his system, 514.
Dort, the Synod and Creed of, 338, 339,
361.
Dositheus, 56.
Drummond, on the Logos in Philo, 28.
Dualism, in Alexandrian Judaism
(Philo), 27; in New Platonism, 31 ; in
Gnosticism, 55 ; in Manichaeism, 127 ;
among the Paulicians, 202 ; among the
Catharists, 263.
Dupanloup, 540, 541.
Durandus, 233, 255.
Dwight, Timothy, his doctrines, 414,
423-
Ebionites, their origin, 48; principal
types of, 48 sq. ; Justin Martyr on,
48, 49 ; their predecessors in the Apos
tolic age, 49 ; the Essenian, 50 ; their
menace to Christianity, 51, 60.
Eckart, Master, 264.
Eclectic School, the French, 485.
Edessa, the school at, 154.
Edward VI. of England, 312.
" Edwardeans," the, 410 sq. ; their influ
ence in Great Britain, 418; in Con
necticut, 423. See "New England
Theology."
Edwards, Jonathan, originator of the
" New England theology," 395 ; Dugald
Stewart quoted on, ib. ; mental char
acteristics, ib. ; his earliest writings,
396 ; how influenced by Locke, 397 ;
his treatise on the will, 397 sq.; how
differing from Calvinism, 401; on
INDEX
567
original sin, 402 ; had he read Berke
ley? 403 ; on the nature of virtue, 403
sq.; on God's chief end in creation,
406; on the work of redemption, 408 ;
on "Religious Affections," ib.; ser
mons on justification, 409; on the
atonement, ib.
Edwards, Jonathan, Jr., his doctrines,
412.
Eichhorn, 497.
Elipandus, Bishop of Toledo, 205.
Elkesaits, 50, 51.
Elvira, Council of, 171.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 433.
Emmons, Nathaniel, his doctrines, 413.
Encratites, the, 37.
" Encyclopaedists," the, 493.
England, eighth-century culture in, 203 ;
the Renaissance in, 268; the Reforma
tion in, 310 sq. ; its relation to the Ger
man Reformation, 311 ; theology in, |
in the I7th to the middle of the i8th
century, 389 sq, ; theology in the igth
century in, 446-491.
England, the Church of, its sympathy
with the " Reformed " division of Prot
estantism, 310; the Articles of, ib.; its \
relation to foreign Protestant bodies, j
315 ; rise of the Anglo-Catholic party j
in, 353 ; the Westminster Assembly for '
the reconstruction of, 358; Calvinism j
in, in the i8th century, 393 ; the Evan
gelical School in, 446 sq.; the Early
Oriel School in, 450 ; the Oxford Move
ment in, 451 sq. ; the Broad Church
party in, 473 sq. See, also, " Episco
pacy."
Enoch, the Book of, 27.
Ephesus, Council of, 195.
Ephraim of Edessa, 37.
Ephralm Syrus, 131.
Epictetus, 31.
Epicureanism, 30.
Epigonus, 102.
Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, 19, 101,
130, 145, 171, 172.
Episcopacy, in the Ignatian epistles, 36 ;
rise of, 76 sq. ; its governmental func
tion, 77 ; the Didache on, ib. ; acquires
sacerdotal functions, 79 : in England
in the first age of the Reformation, 315,
316; Cranmer on, 315; in relation to
the Thirty-nine Articles, ib. ; Whitgift
on, 353; advance of the jure divino
theory of, in England, 355; Bishop
Andrews on, ib.; Thorndike on, 356;
in conflict with Puritanism, 357 ; abol
ished, ib.; first avowal in England of
the jure divino theory of, ib. ; Bishop
Hall on, ib. ; Laud on, 358; effect of
the solemn League and Covenant on,
359 ; Falkland on, 363 ; Jeremy Taylor
on, 365; Stillingfleet on, ib.; Coleridge
on, 449; Whately on, 450; Dr. Arnold
on, 451 ; Gore on, 468 ; Stanley on, 475.
See " Bishops."
Episcopius, 338, 340, 341.
Erasmus, position and services of, 268 ;
his controversy with Luther, 272; on
church unity, 379.
Erskine, Thomas, 477.
Essenes, the, 48.
Eucharist, the term, 47. See " Lord's
Supper."
Euchites, the, 202.
Eugene III., Pope, 226.
Eulogius, Bishop of Caesarea, 194.
Eunomius of Cyzicus, 130, 142.
Eusebians, the, 139, 140, 142.
Eusebius of Caesarea, 118, 119, 130, 135,
138, 141, 168, 170, 172.
Eusebius of Doryleeum, 155.
Eusebius of Emisa, 130.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, 135, 139.
Eutyches, 154, 155, 156.
Evangelical School, the, of the English
Established Church, 446 sq., 453.
Evagrius, 131.
Evolution, referred to in Paley, 389; as
held by Spencer, 487 ; by Darwin, 488 ;
consistent with Theism, 488, 545 sq.
Excommunication, 82, 266.
Extreme unction, the Schoolmen on, 255,
256, 260 ; Wyclif on, 266.
Ezra, the Fourth Book of, 27.
Fairbairn, A. M., 16, 22.
Faith, the Apostolic Fathers on, 43 ;
Aquinas on, 249 ; explicit and implicit,
ib. ; according to Luther, 273 sq. ; Cal
vin on the nature of, 299; Arminian
view of its relation to justification, 340 ;
its function, according to J. Edwards,
409 ; see " Faith and Knowledge."
Faith and knowledge, Clement of Alex
andria on, 6 ; the Schoolmen on, ib. ;
Lessing and Hegel on, 7 ; true view
of, ib.; Augustine on, 177; John Sco-
tus on, 204; Anselm on, 216; Abelard
on, 221 ; Bernard on, 225 ; Hugo of
568
INDEX
St. Victor on, 226 ; William of Occam
on, 233.
Falkland, Lord, 363.
Fall, the. See " Original Sin."
Fathers, the Apostolic, the term, 34; their
place and value in the history of doc
trine, 41 ; Baur respecting, ib. ; their
relation to the Canon, 41, 42; their
doctrine of justification compared with
the Pauline, 42, 43 ; traces of ascetic
drift in, 44 ; on marriage, ib. ; on the
person of Christ, ib. ; on baptism, 46;
on the Lord's Supper, ib. ; on the
Second Advent, 47 ; on inspiration,
75; their method of interpretation, 76.
Fathers, the Greek, their practical mo
tive, 129, 161 ; on the atonement, 161,
162; on the origin of the soul, 163;
on the freedom of the will, 164; on
Adam's sin, ib.; on the image and
similitude of God, ib.; on regenera
tion, 165 ; on predestination, ib. ; on
faith and works, 166 ; on baptism, 167 ;
on the Lord's Supper, 168.
Faustus, Bishop of Rhegium, 197.
Febronius, 536.
Federal theology, the, its doctrine of
the Covenants, 347 ; effect of on the
doctrine of original sin, 349; antici
pated at the Council of Trent, 350;
attacked by Jansenius, 351; set forth
in the Westminster Confession, 359.
Felicissimus, 83.
Felix, Bishop of Urgellis, 205.
Fen61on, 336.
Fessler, 543.
Fichte, 407, 531.
" Filioque," inserted in the Nicene Creed,
147, 205.
Finney, Charles G., 417.
Fiske, John, 547.
Flacius, 295, 296.
Flavianus, 155.
Flint, Robert, 491.
Florence, Council of, 201, 255.
Florinus, letter of Irenaeus to, 38.
Fonseca, 333.
Forbes, Bishop of Brechin, 465.
Forbes, John, of Corse, 20.
Form of Concord, 283 ; its origin and
contents, 296.
Formula Consensus Helvetica, 345.
Forty-two Articles, the, reduced to thirty-
nine, 313.
Fox, George, 378.
Francis of Assisi, 229, 230.
Franciscans, the order of, rise and char
acteristics of, 229, 230, 244, 263, 328.
Frankfort, Synod of, 205.
Fraser, A. C., on the relation of J.
Edwards to Berkeley, 403.
Frebonius, 536.
Frederick III., the Elector Palatine,
292.
Freedom of the will. See " Will."
Freeman, James, 419.
Friedrich, Johann, 544.
Froude, Hurrell, 452, 458.
Fulbert, Bishop, 210.
Fulgentius of Numidia, 197.
Future state, the, Justin Martyr on, 67;
the Epistle to Diognet on, 69 ; Irenaeus
on, 88 ; Clement of Alexandria on, 96;
Origen on, 112, 170 ; Augustine on, 180 ;
the Socinians on, 324; Whately on,
450 ; Maurice on, 474 ; Henry B. Wil
son on, 476 ; Thomas Erskine on, 477 ;
views of recent English theologians on,
479; Swedenborg on, 494; Schleier-
macher on, 510; the German Mediat
ing School on, 513; C. I. Nitzsch on,
516. See, also, "Annihilation of the
Wicked," " Restorationism," and " Im
mortality."
Gale, Theophilus, 368.
Galen, 101.
Gallicanism, as defined in 1682, 336.
Gardiner, Thomas, 311, 312.
Garrisolius, 343.
Gaunilo, 217.
Gerbert, 209.
Geulincx, 382.
Gibbon, on Athanasius, 129, 140.
Gieseler, his History of Doctrine, 21 ; on
the origin of the Clementine writings,
51 ; his classification of the Gnostic
systems, 55.
Gilbert, Bishop of Poictiers, 226.
Gladstone, William E., 544.
" Gnesio-Lutherans," the, 295.
Gnosticism, its menace to Christianity,
51, 60; general character and spirit of,
51 ; historical conditions leading to,
52 ; sources of, ib. ; main doctrinal in
terests of, and tenets, 53; allegorical
method of, 54; traces of, in the New
Testament, 55 ; classification of its sys
tems, ib. ; various types of, 56 sg. ; its
effect on doctrinal development, 60.
INDEX
569
God, the attributes of, Philo on, 28 ; in i
later Stoicism, 31 ; Justin Martyr on,
62; Origen on, 106 ; Augustine on,
178 ; the Schoolmen on, 236 ; Spinoza
on, 382 ; Jonathan Edwards on, 406 ;
Channing on, 430 ; Schleiermacher on,
503 ; Ritschl on, 525.
God, the being of, Plato on, 30; the
New Platonists on, 31 ; Irenceus on,
84; Clement of Alexandria on, 95;
Monarchian view of, 98 ; Sabellius on,
103 ; Pseudo-Dionysiuson, 173 ; Scotus
on, 204, 236 ; Thomas Aquinas on, 235 ;
the Mystics of the fourteenth century
on, 264; the Socinian view of, 322;
Matthew Arnold on, 480 ; Swedenborg
on, 494; the Mediating School on,
513; Ritschl on, 525; Biedermann on, j
534-
God, proofs of His being, Tertullian on,
90; the post-Nicene Fathers on, 124; |
Anselm on, 217 ; Aquinas on, 233, 235 ; !
Scotus on, 236; S. Clarke on, 371;
Locke on, 374 ; Descartes on, 381 ; '
Hume's criticism of, 386 ; Coleridge
on, 447 ; Sir W. Hamilton on, 484 ; j
Mansel on, 485; J. S. Mill on, 486;
Spencer on, 487; Huxley on, 490; Kant I
on, 498 ; J. Miiller on, 515.
God, His relation to the world, Philo on,
27, 28; the New Platonists on, 31;
the Gnostics on, 53, 56-58; Marcion
on, 58 ; Justin Martyr on, 63 ; Au
gustine on, 181, 184; Pelagius on, ib.
See the three preceding titles.
Gomarus, 338.
Gore, Charles, 45, 78, 468.
Gorham case, the, 467.
Gottschalk, his career and doctrines,
206.
Gratian, 252.
Gray, Asa, 488,
" Great Awakening," the, 395.
Grebel, 319.
Gregory I., Bishop of Rome, 133, 168,
174,198; II., 174; VII. (Hildebrand),
209,210; IX., 229; XVI., 537.
Gregory, Bishop of Tours, 133.
Gregory of Nazianzum, his writings, 130 ;
on the Trinity, 143 ; on the Holy Spirit,
144 ; instated at Constantinople, 145 ;
on the person of Christ, 150; impor
tance of the atonement in, 161 ; on
the idea of a ransom to Satan, 163;
170, 171.
Gregory of Nyssa, his writings, 130; on
the Trinity, 143 sq. ; on the person of
Christ, 150 ; on the idea of ransom to
Satan, 163 ; on the Lord's Supper, 169,
170; a restorationist, 170; 171.
Grotius, Hugo, his theory (the govern
mental) of the atonement, 340; his
efforts at reunion of the churches, 379.
Guitmund von Aversa, 211.
Guyon, Madame, 336.
Gwatkin, H. M., 134, 135.
Hades, the doctrine of, Irenseus on, 87;
Tertullian on, 93 ; Clement of Alexan
dria on, 96 ; the Greek Fathers on, 170 ;
descent of Christ into, Marcion on, 59 ;
Irenaeus on, 87; Tertullian on, 93;
Clement of Alexandria on, 96 ; Calvin
on, 309. See " Future State."
Hadrian, the Abbot, 203.
Hagenbach, 21.
Haggada, the, 26.
Hales, John, 363.
Hall, Bishop Joseph, 357.
Hamilton, Sir William, on the philosophy
of religion, 4, 484 sq.
Hampden, Bishop, 137, 138, 456.
Hare, Julius Charles, 473.
Harnack, A., on the function and course
of doctrinal history, 2 ; on the Mystic,
13 ; his divisions of doctrinal history,
17 ; on the influence of Greek culture
on theology, 32 ; on the origin of the
Didacke, 35 ; on the date of the Igna-
tian epistles, 36; on the Clementine
writings, 51 ; on the polity of the early
Church, 78 ; on Hippolytus's interpre
tation of Theodotus, 101 ; on the gen
eration of the Son, 109; on the work
of Christ, in the Fathers, 128 ; on the
Constantinopolitan Creed, 145 ; on
the writings of Augustine, 180; on
Socinianism, 325 ; et passim.
Harris, Samuel, 491.
Hatch, Edwin, on the influence of Greek
culture on the clergy, 33 ; on the polity
of the early Church, 78.
Hebrews, the Epistle to the, 121, 122,
279, 328.
Hefele, 124, 538.
Hegel, on faith and knowledge, 7 ; his re
lation to the Tubingen critical school,
14, 534 ; philosophy of, 532 sq.
Hegesippus, 42, 76, 79.
Heidelberg Catechism, 292, 339.
5/0
INDEX
Hell, Tertullian 00,94; the Schoolmen
on, 259. See " Future State."
Helvetius, 492.
Henry VIII., 310, 311.
Heraclitus, 31.
Heraclius, 158.
Herbert, Lord, of Cherbury, 372.
Herder, 500.
Heresy, denned, 9 ; its relation to schism,
ib.; distinguished from defective
knowledge and tentative hypotheses,
10 ; its place in doctrinal history, ib.
Hermas, the " Shepherd " of, 34 ; ascetic
drift of, 44 ; on marriage, ib. ; on the
person of Christ, 45 ; on the Second
Advent, 47.
Herrman, W., 529.
Hilary, Bishop of Aries, 196.
Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, 131, 145, 157.
Hildebert, Archbishop of Tours, 211.
Hildebrand. See " Gregory VII."
Hincmar, 203, 206.
Hippo, Council of (A.D. 393), 122.
Hippolytus, 19, 38, 82, 100-102.
Hobbes, Thomas, 372, 373.
Hodge, Charles, 345, 444.
Hofmann, von, 523.
Holbach, Baron, 493.
Holy Spirit, the, in the formulation of
doctrine, n ; the Apostolic Fathers
on, 45 ; Justin Martyr on, 64 ; Irenaeus
on, 85 ; Clement of Alexandria on, 95 ;
Origen on, 109; post-Nicene writers
on, 144 sq. ; the Constantinopolitan
Creed on, 146; the Council of Toledo
on, 147; Alcuin on, 205; Carlstadt
and the radical reformers on the rela
tion of, to the Word, 280; Calvin on
the testimony of, to the divinity of the
Bible, 299; the Socinian doctrine of,
323 ; the Creed of the Arminians on,
338; the Dort Creed on, 339; John
Cameron on, 342 ; Pajon on, 346 ;
the Quakers on, 378 ; Wesley on, 392 ;
Rothe on, 518. See " Trinity."
Homoeousians, 139. See " Trinity."
Honorius, the Emperor, 195.
Honorius, Bishop of Rome, 158, 200.
Hooker, Richard, 316, 353, 354, 361,
455-
Hopkins, Samuel, and the Hopkinsians,
411 sq., 419.
Hosius, 135, 136.
Howe, John, 371.
Hubmaier, 319.
Hugo of St. Victor, on faith and knowl
edge, 226; on the atonement, ib.; on
the number of the Sacraments, 254.
Humanism, the influence of, upon theo
logical thought, 267 sq. See, also,
" Revival of Learning."
Humbert, Cardinal, 210.
Hume, 4, 386, 486.
Huss, John, 267.
Hutcheson, Francis, 389.
Hutton, R. H., on Newman, 460, 462.
Huxley, T. H., his philosophical opin
ions, 488, 489 sq. ; his partial recogni
tion of ethical freedom, 545 sq.
laldabaoth, deity of the Ophites, 57.
Ibas, 151.
Iconoclastic controversy, the, 173 sq.
Iconodulists, the, 174.
Ignatius of Antioch, on the person of
Christ, 45 ; on the Holy Spirit, 46 ; on
baptism, ib.; on the Lord's Supper,
47 ; the term ' Catholic ' in, 70.
Ignatius, the Epistles of, 35, 77.
Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
201.
Illuminism, the period of, in Germany,
494 SV-
Immaculate conception, doctrine of, 49,
56, 244, 518 ; made a dogma, 539.
Immortality, in the later Stoics, 31 ;
Justin Martyr on, 67; Origen on, 164;
Aquinas on, 239 ; Scotus on, ib. ; the
Socinians on, 324; Channing on, 431;
Theodore Parker on, 434; Whately
on, 450 ; views of recent English writ
ers on, 479; Herder on, 501 ; Schleier-
macher on, 509. See " Future Life."
Imputation, Calvin on, 302; Placaeus
on, 343 ; Stapfer on, 344 ; Jonathan
Edwards on, ib. ; the Consensus Hel
vetica on, 345; in the Federal the
ology, 349; in the Roman Catholic
theology, 350; in the Westminster
Confession, 359 ; discarded from the
New England theology, 412 ; Henry
B. Smith on, 418 ; in the " Princeton
theology," 444. See " Original Sin."
Incarnation, the, in Philo, 28 ; the Epistle
to Diognet on, 69; Irenaeus on, 85;
Origen on, 109; Novatian on, 113;
Marcellus on, 141 ; Apollinaris on,
149 ; Gregory of Nyssa on , 150 ; Peter
Lombard on, 228 ; Aquinas on, 237 ;
Luther on, 278 ; Calvin on, 308 ; Canon
INDEX
571
Gore on, 468 ; the Kenosis theory, and
other recent discussions on, 514 sq.
Indulgences, origin of, 208 ; in relation
to the doctrine of merits, 250, 259 ; in
relation to purgatory, 260; Wyclif on,
266; Zwingli preaches against, 286;
the Creed of Trent on, 331.
Infallibility of the Pope, William of Oc
cam on, 233; Aquinas on, 252; Wyc
lif on, 266; Bellarmine on, 332, 333;
Arnauld on, 335; the French clergy
in the assembly of 1682 on, 336 ; made
a dogma, 540 sq.
Innocent II., 223 ; III., 258, 259, 335.
Inspiration, the Apostolic Fathers on,
75 ; Nicene and post-Nicene views of,
122; Augustine on, 179; Agobard on,
203 ; Abelard on, 222 ; Aquinas on,
235; Luther on, 279 sq.; Calvin on,
299; Cappel on, 343; the Consensus
Helvetica on, 345; the Protestant
Scholastic view of, 347 ; Richard Bax
ter on, 362; Coleridge on, 448; Dr.
Arnold on, 451 ; Canon Gore on, 468 ;
Dr. Temple on, 476 ; Jowett on, ib. ;
Herder on, 501 ; the Mediating School
of Germany on, 513; Rothe on, 517;
Kaftan on, 529.
Irenseus, an authority in doctrinal his
tory, 19; his career, 37; his character
and writings, 38 ; on inspiration, 75 ;
on bishops, 79 ; on the primacy of the
Roman Church, 80; his theological
spirit, 84; on the being of God, ib.;
on creation, 85; on sin, ib.; on the
person of Christ, ib.; on the Holy
Spirit, ib.; on the incarnation, ib.; on
the work of Christ, 86; on baptism,
87 ; on the Lord's Supper, ib. ; on
Hades, 87; on the millennium, ib.; on
the future state, 88 ; his athical con
ception of the gospel, 88 ; two phases
of doctrine in, ib.; his practical aim,
89.
Isidore of Seville, 20, 203.
Jacobi, 501.
Jacobite Church, the, rise of, 156.
James I. of England, 356.
|:imcs, the Epistle of, received as canon
ical, 121 ; Luther on, 279.
[ansenius and Jansenism, 334 sq., 351.
)°rome, on the Ebionites, 49; on the
identity of bishop and presbyter, 77 ;
his career and writings, 131; the trans
lator of the Vulgate, 132 ; renounces
allegiance to Origen, 171, 172 ; Augus
tine's letter to, on the origin of souls,
187 ; attacks the Pelagian doctrine,
194 ; his disagreement with Augustine,
196.
Jesuits, their theology and ethics, 332 sq. ;
their decline and revival, 537.
Jesus, the synoptist's view of, 24 ; in
Alexandrian Gnosticism, 57; in Mar-
cion, 59. See " Christ."
Jewish commentaries, 26.
Joachim of Floris, 227.
John, the apostle, his abode at Ephesus,
25 ; his authorship of the fourth gos
pel, 25 sq.; the incarnation in the
teaching of, 26.
John, the Epistles of, the genuineness of,
25; conception of Christ in, 26; trace
of Gnosticism in, 55; received as
canonical, 121.
John, the Gospel of, its genuineness, 25 ;
conception of Christ in, 26; Justin's
acquaintance with, 63 ; the Monarchi-
ans on, 100, 101 ; Luther on, 279 ;
Matthew Arnold on, 484 ; Ritschl on,
525 ; Kaftan on, 529 ; Baur on, 534.
John a Lasco, 313.
John, Bishop of Antioch, 153, 154.
John the Baptist, 23, 24.
John of Damascus, 19; on the person
of Christ, 159; on the Trinity, 160;
on the Lord's Supper, 169; summary
of his doctrines, 174.
John of Fidanza. See " Bonaventura."
John Philoponus, 133.
John of Salisbury, 228.
John Scotus. See " Scotus."
Joseph II., Emperor, 536.
Jouffroy, 485.
Jowett, Benjamin, 476.
Judaism, Alexandrian, spirit and tenets
of, 27 sq. ; its relation to Gnosticism, 52.
Judaism within and without Palestine,
26 sq.
Jude, the Epistle of, traces of Gnosti
cism in, 55; received as canonical,
121.
Julian, the Apostate, 117.
Julian, Bishop of Eclanam, 183, 186,
191. 195.
" Julianists," the, 157.
Julius, Bishop of Rome (A.D. 337-352)1
140, 141 ; III., 396.
Jurieu, 347.
572
INDEX
Justification, the Apostolic Fathers on,
42 sq.; patristic compared with the
Pauline view of, 43 ; Aquinas and the
Schoolmen on, 249, 250, 256; Luther
on, 273; the Ten Articles (1536) on,
310; the Creed of Trent on, 329; the
Arminians on, 340 ; Edwards on, 409 ;
Emmons on, 414; Swedenborg on.
493 ; Schleiermacher on, 508 ; the Me
diating School on, 513; Ritschl on,
526 ; Kaftan on, 529.
Justin I., 156.
Justin Martyr, his training and writings,
37 ; on the Ebionites, 48, 49 ; his con
ception of Christianity, 61 ; on the
heathen philosophers, 62; on the
work of Christ, ib. ; his twofold con
ception of God, ib.; on the Logos,
ib. ; on the person of Christ, 63, 65 ;
on the Holy Spirit, 64; on the place
of angels, 65 ; on creation, 66 ; on the
freedom of the will, ib.; on the atone
ment, ib. ; on the Second Advent, 67;
on immortality and the future state,
ib.; on the Church, ib.; on regenera
tion, 68 ; on baptism, ib. ; on the
Lord's Supper, ib.
Justinian, the Emperor, 156, 157, 171.
Kaftan, his system, 528, 529.
Kant, his system and influence, 4, 497 sq.,
528.
Kattenbusch, 71, 524.
Keble, John, 452.
Knowledge and faith. See " Faith,"
" Faith and Knowledge."
Lacordaire, 537.
Lambert, Francis, 312.
Lambeth Articles, 315.
Lamennais, 537.
Lanfranc, 210.
Laodicea, Council of, 72, 121, 124.
Laodiceans, Epistle to the, 202.
La Place (Placaeus), 343.
I^ardner, Nathaniel, 376, 389.
Lateran Council, the Fourth, 227, 257,
259 ; the Fifth, 240, 268.
Latitudinarians, their rise, 366 ; Bishop
Burnet on their leading representa
tives, ib. ; their distinctive traits, 368 ;
Tulloch on their defects, ib. ; their
work, 369.
Laud, Archbishop, 357, 358.
Laurentius Valla, a68.
Law, William, 390.
Leibnitz, 380, 383.
Leipsic, disputation at, 270.
Leipsic Interim, the, 295.
Lenfant, 347.
Leo I., Pope, 124, 132, 155 ; II., 158 ; IX.,
201, 210, 240.
Leo III., Emperor, 174; V., 174; VI.,
202.
Leontius of Byzantium, 157.
Lessing, his opinions, 7, 495.
Liberal Evangelical School, the, of Ger
many, 512 sq. See " Mediating the
ology."
Liberius, Roman Bishop, 143.
Liddon, Canon, 452, 467.
Lightfoot, Bishop J. B., on the date of
the Ignatian Epistles, 36; on author
ship among the Fathers, 41 ; on the
theory of dissenting parties in the
Apostolic age, 42 ; on the identity of
bishop and presbyter in the church
at Philippi,77; on the precedence of
the prophetic order in the first cen
tury, 80.
Liguori, Alfonso da, 538.
Limborch, 340.
Limb us infantum, 259 ; patrum, ib.
Lipsius, 523.
Locke, John, 374, 384, 397 sg., 403.
Logos, the doctrine of, in the prologue
of the fourth gospel, 26 ; Philo on, 28 ;
the Stoics on, 31 ; Justin Martyr on,
63 sq. ; Tatian on, 64; Theophilus on,
ib. ; Irenseus on, 85 ; Tertullian on, 91 ;
Clement of Alexandria on, 94, 95 ; Paul
of Samosata on, 104; Origen on, 107;
Methodius on, 116; the Arians on,
134, 148 ; Marcellus on, 140 ; Photinus
on, 141 ; Apollinaris on, 149. See
" Christ."
Lombard, Peter, on the atonement, 227 ;
on the incarnation, 228 ; on the image
and similitude of God, 240 ; on Adam's
sin, 241 ; on the nature and number
of sacraments, 254 ; on the effect of
baptism, 256; on the Lord's Supper,
257 ; on ordination, 261.
Lombards, the, 200.
Longland, 267.
Long Parliament, 357, 358.
Loofs, 21 ; et passim.
Lord's Day, the, the early Fathers on,
361 ; the Reformers on, ib. ; the Synod
of Dort on, ib. ; Andrews and Hooker
INDEX
573
on, ib. ; the Puritan opinions on, 361
sq. ; Whately on, 450.
Lord's Supper, its connection with the
Agape, 46 ; the Apostolic Fathers on,
ib.; Justin Martyr on, 68; Irenaeus
on, 87 ; Clement of Alexandria on, 96 ;
Origen on, 112; the Greek Fathers on,
168 sq. ; Augustine on, 181 ; Gregory
I. on, 198; Radbert on, 207; Ratram-
nus on, ib. ; Berengarius on, 210 ;
Lanfranc on, ib. ; Anselm on, 211;
Guitmund von Aversa on, ib. ; the
Schoolmen generally on, 255, 257;
Pope Innocent III. 's proscription con
cerning, 258 ; Luther on, 271 ; the
Lutherans on, 281, 288; Zvvingli on,
286, 289; Carlstadt and the radical
tism, 283 ; on the Church as an author
ity in doctrine, ib. ; on predestination,
284, 292 ; compared with Zwingli, 285,
286; in the Eucharistic controversy,
288 ; points of Melanchthon's dissent
from, 291; Calvin's relation to, 298-
309.
Lutheran Reformers, two characteristics
of their theology, 273 ; on the doctrine
of assurance, 274 ; on the relation of
faith and works, ib.; on the Sacra
ments, 280 ; on the person of Christ,
281; on the Church, ib.; on the min
istry as related to the Word and Sacra
ments, 282 ; on original sin, ib. ; their
system differentiated from Calvinism,
300. See " Luther, Martin."
Reformers on, 288 ; the Marburg Arti
cles on, 289; Calvin on, 291, 306, 316; Macedonians, the, 145.
Cranmer on, 313; Schwenkfeld on, ; Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople,
318; the Council of Trent on, 330;
Hooker on, 354; Bishop Andrews
on, 355; Thorndike on, 356; Arch
bishop Laud on, 358; R. W. Emer
son on, 433; the Oxford School on,
454, 458, 463-467 ; Dean Stanley on,
474-
Louis XIV., 536.
Louis of Bavaria, 233.
Lucian, 134.
Lucidus, 197.
Luthardt, 523, 527.
Luther, Martin, his gradual perception
of the freedom of forgiveness, 269;
the doctrine of his theses, 270; his
disputation at Leipsic, ib.; his three
treatises of 1520, 270, 271 ; on the priest
hood of all believers, 270 ; on orders
and ordination, 270, 271 ; on the Lord's
Supper, 271, 281, 283, 288; on bap
tism, 271, 281 ; on confession, 271 ; on
justification, 271, 273 sq. ; his contro
versy with Erasmus, 272; the author
of the Smalcald Articles, 273 ; two de
fining characteristics of his theology,
ib. ; his definition of justifying faith,
ib. ; his doctrine of assurance, 274 ; on
the relation of faith and works, 275 ;
his doctrine of justification forensic,
ib.; on the atonement, 276^.; on the
incarnation, 278; on the authority of
the Scriptures, ib. ; on the Canon and
inspiration, 279 sq. ; on the "Word of
God," 280; on the relation of the
Word to the Spirit, id. ; his conserva-
145-
Mackintosh, Sir James, 373.
" Magdebury Centuries," the, 20.
Magistracy, the civil, the Westminster
Confession on, 360 ; the Reformers on,
ib. See " Church and State."
Mahan, Asa, 417.
Maimonides, Moses, 213.
Major, George, and the Majoristic con
troversy, 294, 295.
Malebranche, 382.
Mandaeans, 127.
Mani, 127.
ranichaeism, its rise, doctrines, and
spread, 127.
Manning, Cardinal, 467.
Mansel, H. L., 5, 485.
Marburg, Conference of, 289.
Marcellus of Ancyra, 140, 141.
Marcianus, 155.
Marcion, his temper and doctrines, 58 ;
his canon, 59, 74 ; spread of his sys
tem, 59.
Marcus Aurelius, 31.
Marius Mercator, 195.
Maronites, the, 159.
Marriage, pronounced a sacrament by
the Schoolmen, 255, 261 ; Aquinas on,
261 ; the Creed of Trent on, 331. See,
also, " Celibacy of the Clergy."
Marsilius Ficinus, 235.
Martin I., Bishop of Rome, 158.
Martineau, James, 491.
Martyr, Peter, 312.
Martyrs, veneration of, ijz.
574
INDEX
Mary, the mother of Jesus, 150, 152, 155,
159 ; the worship of, 172, 244, 263, 486,
540.
Mather, Cotton, 419.
Maurice, Duke of Saxony, 295.
Maurice, Frederick Denison, 473.
Maxentius, 157.
Maximilla, 82.
Maximus, 158, 159.
Maximus, the Confessor, 173, 204.
Mayhew, Jonathan, 419.
Mead, Charles M., 524, 527.
" Mediating Theology," the, of Germany,
512 sq.
Meier, 138.
Melanchthon, his works, 272; presents
the Augsburg Confession, 273 ; on the
relation of faith and works, 274 ; on the
Church, 282 ; on original sin, ib. ; points
of dissent from Luther, 291 ; his change
of opinion on the Lord's Supper, ib. ;
personal traits, 292, 294 ; his adoption
of Synergism, 293; on the necessity
of good works, ib, ; at the colloquy of
Ratisbon, 326 ; on the civil magistracy,
360; on the Lord's Day, 361.
Melchisedekians, the, 101.
Meletius of Antioch, 143-146.
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, 36; materials
for doctrinal history in, 89.
Memnon, 153, 154.
Menander, 56.
Mennas, epistle to, 171.
Menno Simons and the Mennonites, 319.
Merit, the doctrine of, Augustine on,
180; Alexander of Hales on, 250; the
Schoolmen on, 259 ; Wyclif on, 266.
Messiah, prevalent Jewish conception of,
27.
Mestrezat, 345.
Methodist revival, 390 ; its relation to the
Evangelical School of the Established
Church, 446.
Methodius, Bishop of Patara, his teach
ings in opposition to Origen, 115, 170;
on sin, 164.
Michael Caerularius, 201.
Milan, Synod of, 142.
Mill, J. S., his philosophy, 6, 486.
Millennial reign of Christ, the doctrine
of, in Irenaeus, 84, 87; in Tertullian,
93; rejected by Clement of Alexan
dria, 97; in Origen, 112; introduced
among the Anabaptists, 319.
Miltiades, the rhetorician, 36, 75.
Minucius Felix, 37.
Miracles, Aquinas on, 235; prominence
of the proof from, in the Arminian
system, 340; Woolston on, 373, 377;
Hume on, 387; Parker on, 434;
Channing on, 435; Matthew Arnold
on, 483 ; Huxley on, 490 ; Lessing on,
496 ; Kant on, 499 ; Wegscheider on,
500 ; Schleiermacher on, 508 ; the Ger
man Mediating School on, 513 ; Rothe
on, 517 ; Ritschl on, 525 ; Strauss on,
533-
Mitchell, A. F., 348, 360.
" Medalists," the, 99, 102, 103.
Mohler, 14, 538.
Molina and the Molinists, 333.
Molinos, 336.
Moller, W., 135, 159, 327.
Monarchianism, on the being of God,
98 ; two types of, ib. ; vanquished by
Origen, 104.
Monasticism, 172.
Monophysites, the, and the Monophysite
controversy, 156 sq.
Monothelite controversy, the, 158.
Montalembert, 537.
Montanism, its rise, 81 ; its teachings and f
I practices, 82; its spread and influ-j
ence, ib.
Montanus, 81.
Montauban, the school of, 343, 345.
" Moralism," in the Apostolic Fathers,
42, 43 ; in the Apologists, 61 ; in Ire-
f naeus, 88 ; in Tertullian, 92 ; in Pelagius,
183 ; in the Schoolmen, 251 ; in Ar-
minianism, 340.
Moravians, the, 495.
More, Hannah, 446.
More, Henry, 368, 374.
More, Thomas, 268.
Morgan, Thomas, 377.
Mosheim, 20.
Mozarabic Liturgy, the, 205.
Mozley, J. B., on Newman, 16, 459; on
the Lord's Supper, 466 ; his career and
writings, 469; on mysterious truths,
470; on the progressive character of
Old Testament revelation, 471 ; on the
atonement, ib.
Mu'ller, Julius, 21 ; on the origin of the
belief in God, 515 ; on the ground and
cause of sin, ib.
Miinscher, 16, 20.
Miinzer, Thomas, 318.
Muratorian Fragment, the, 74.
INDEX
575
Murray, John, 436.
Mysteries, the Greek, their influence on
Christian usages, 32, 166, 172.
Mysticism, the nature of, n; kinds of,
id.; point of similarity to rationalism,
13; revived and systematized by the
Schoolmen, 230 ; in the fourteenth cen
tury, 264 ; in the wake of the Reforma
tion, 317 ; its development in the form
of Quietism, 336; in Thomas More,
368 ; in the Quakers, 378.
Mystics, the, of the fourteenth century,
their theology, 264.
Naassenes, the, 57.
Nazarenes, 48. See " Ebionites."
Neander, 16, 17, 21 ; his classification of
the Gnostic systems, 55 ; on Justin's
idea of the Holy Ghost, 65 ; on Augus
tine's Realism, 185 ; on the eschatclogy
of Paul, 516.
Nestorians, the, their separation from
the Greek Church, 154.
Nestorius and the Nestorian contro
versy, 151 sq.
" New England theology," 410-418 ; in
fluence of, in England, 418 ; in the
United States, ib., 445.
New Platonism, 31, 173, 177, 204.
Newman, J. H., his theory of develop
ment, 14 sq., 459 ; on the term ' consub-
stantial,' 32 ; his program of doctrine
for the Oxford School, 454; on Apos
tolic succession, 455 ; his influence on
the Oxford Movement, 457 ; his tract
on the Thirty-nine Articles, ib.; his
conversion and its effect, 458 sq. ; ex
planation of his career, 460 sq.
Nicaea, Council of, convoked, 136; parties
represented at, 138 ; its doctrinal work,
139 ; the Second Council of, 174, 200.
^Nicene Creed, its formation, 138 sq. ;
r how changed in the Constantinopoli-
tan, 146 ; addition of "filioque" to, 147 ;
adopted in Lutheran creeds, 283. See
" Nicaea, Council of."
Nicholas I., Pope, 201.
Nicholas von Amsdorf, 294.
Nicole, 334.
Niedner, his classification of the Gnostic
systems, 55.
Nitzsch, Carl Immanuel, 12, 515.
Nitzsch, Friedrich, 17, 21.
Noetus, 102, 103.
Nominalism, 213, 314, 216, 233, 262.
Norris, John, 368.
Norton, Andrews, 420, 421.
Novatian and the Novatians, 83, 113.
" Oberlin Theology," the, 417.
Occam, William of, 5, 257, 262.
" Occasionalists," the, 382.
Ochino Bernardino, 312.
Octavius, 37.
GEcolampadius, 291.
" Old Catholic " Movement, the, 544.
" Old School " Presbyterians, the, 418.
Olevianus, 292.
Ophites, the, 57.
Optatus of Milevis, 180.
Orange, Council and Creed of, 197.
Orders and ordination, the Schoolmen
on, 255, 261; Wyclif on, 266; Luther
on, 270, 271 ; Hooker on, 316, 354 ; the
Creed of Trent on, 330, 331 ; the
Quakers on, 379.
Oriel School, the Early, its representa
tives and theology, 450, 451.
Origen, his training and career, 40 ; his
writings, ib., 104; on inspiration, 75;
his spirit and aim, 105; a scriptural
theologian, ib. ; his allegorical method,
ib. ; his doctrine of reserve, 106 ; on
the attributes of God, ib. ; on the free
dom of the will, 107, 116; on creation,
107 ; on the Logos, 107, 148 ; on the
relation of the Son to the Father, 107 ;
on the person of Christ, 107, 109, 148 ;
on the Incarnation, 109; on the Holy
Spirit, ib. ; on the preexistence and
fall of men, 109, 163 ; on the design of
the world, no; on divine justice, ib.,
on Providence, in; on the work of
Christ, ib.; on the future state, 112,
170; on baptism, 112; on the Lord's
Supper, 112, 168 ; on the Resurrection,
112; his teaching and influence, 113,
116, 119; dissent from, in the East,
115, 128, 170 ; the crusade against, and
its issue, 171.
Original sin, the doctrine of, Clement
of Alexandria on, 96 ; the Greek
Fathers on, 164 ; Augustine on, 184 sq. ;
Ambrose on, 187; Pelagius on, 190;
John Cassian on, 196; Anselm on,
217 sq.; Abelard on, 222; Aquinas on.
240, 242 sq. ; Scotus on, 241; Peter
Lombard on, ib. ; the Lutheran Re
formers on, 282 ; the Form of Concord
on, 283 ; Zwingli on, 288 ; Flavius on,
S76
INDEX
296; Calvin 00,301,302; the Socin-
ians on, 325 ; the Creed of Trent on,
328 ; the Dort Creed on, 339 ; the Ar-
minians on, 340; Placasus on, 343;
the Federal theology on, 349 ; the Fed
eral theory of, anticipated by Catha-
rinus, 350; Dominicus Soto on, 351;
Bellarmine on,ib.; Jansenius on, 352;
Hooker on, 354 ; the Westminster
Confession on, 359; Richard Baxter
on, 362 ; Locke on, 374 ; the Quakers
on, 379; the Wesleyan doctrine of,
392 ; Jonathan Edwards on, 402 ; Bel
lamy on, 411; Hopkins on, ib. ; im
putation discarded from, in the New
England theology, 412; Jonathan Ed
wards, Jr., on, ib. ; Emmons on, 413 ;
President Dwight on, 414 ; Taylor on,
415; Park on, 417; Henry B. Smith
on, 418; Charles Hodge (the Prince
ton theology) on, 444; Coleridge on,
448 ; Mozley on, 470 ; Schleiermacher
on, 504; Dorner on, 514; Rothe on,
518 ; Ritschl on, 527.
Orosius, 194.
Orr, James, 479, 530.
Osiander, Andrew, and the Osiandrian
controversy, 295.
Otto, 99.
Owen, John, 350, 362, 371.
Oxford Movement, the, 452-472 ; sources
of information concerning, and leaders,
451, 452; contrasted with the Wes
leyan movement, 452 ; occasion of its
rise, ib. ; its general character and
principles, 453 sq. ; on the doctrine of
the Sacraments, 454,456,463-467; its
particular aim, 455 ; its propaganda
through the Tracts, ib. ; the Hampden
controversy, 456 ; the Library of the
Fathers projected, ib. ; progress of,
457; the secession of Newman, 458 sq.;
Pusey assumes leadership of, 462.
Pachomius, 171.
Pajon, Claude, and Pajonism, 346.
Paley, William, 388, 389.
Pallivicini, 327.
Palmer, William, 452.
Pamphilus, 170.
Pantaenus, 39.
Pantheism, has roots in Plato's theory of
ideas, 30; in John Scotus, 204; com
bated by the Schoolmen, 213 ; of Spi
noza, 382; of Matthew Arnold, 480;
of Schleiermacher, 510 ; modern Ger
man schools of, 513 sq. ; seen to be a
half-truth, 546.
Papacy, the, its growth, 251 sq.; its pre
rogatives in the Middle Ages, 252;
so-called " Reformers " before the Ref
ormation concerning, 263 sq. ; Luther
on, 270 sq. ; Erasmus on, 272; Me-
lanchthon on, 282; Calvin on, 304;
Servetus on, 321; and the Council of
Trent, 326-332 ; how regarded by the
Jesuits, 332; Bishop Andrews on,
355; in the eighteenth century, 536 sq.;
and the Vatican Council, 539 sq.
Papias, 27, 36, 47.
Park, Edwards A., 417.
Parker, Theodore, 422, 433 sq.
Pascal, Blaise, 335.
Paschasius Radbert, 203, 207, 208.
Patripassianism, 99, 102.
Paul, the Apostle, his training, 8; his
epistles on the person of Christ, 25 ;
relation to Peter, 41 ; compared with
the Apostolic Fathers on justification,
43 ; attitude of the Ebionites towards,
49, 50; quoted to defend Gnosticism,
54 ; his eschatology, 516.
Paul, III., Pope, 326; IV., 327, 333.
Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch,
103 sq., 115.
Paulicians, their origin and doctrines,
202.
Paulinus, 146.
Paulus, 158, 500.
Pelagian controversy, the, 183 sq. ; in
the East, 194.
Pelagius, his career and personal quali
ties, 183, 194 ; his point of view com
pared with Augustine, 183; on the
relation of God to the world, 184 ; on
human freedom, ib.; on Adam's sin,
190; his writings, ib., note ; his concep- -
tion of the nature of character, ib. ; *
on the privileges of the baptized, 191 ;
on grace, ib. ; attacked in the East, and
condemned, 194, 195. See "Pelagian
controversy."
Penance, Gregory I. on, 198; rise and
growth of the system of, in the West
ern Church, 208; recognized as a
sacrament by the Schoolmen, 255, 256 ;
modification of, in the Middle Ages,
258; three elements of, and the rela
tion of the priest thereto, ib. ; Luther's
thesis on, 270; Zwingli on, 287; the
INDEX
577
Creed of Trent on, 330, 331 ; the Jesuits
on, 333 ; Hooker on, 354 ; Pusey's de
fence of, 466.
Penn, William, 378.
Pentateuch, the, the rise of the modern
criticism of, 497.
Peratas, the, 57.
Percival, Henry R., 465.
Perfection, the Wesleyan doctrine of,
392; Oberlin view of, 417.
Perseverance, Augustine on, 192; Cal
vin's doctrine of, 302 ; Arminian doc
trine of, 338 ; doctrine of the Synod of
Dort on, 339 ; the Council of Trent on,
330.
Peshito, the, 74.
Petavius, 20, 138.
Peter, the Apostle, his relations with
Paul, 41 ; the episcopal precedence of,
80 ; the Schoolmen on the primacy of,
252 ; the Epistles of, received as canon
ical, 121 ; Luther on, 279; apocryphal
Gospel of, 74.
Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria, 116.
Peter, Abbot of Cluny, 223.
Petrarch, 267.
Pfleiderer, Otto, 534.
Philippi, 523.
Philippians, the, Polycarp's Epistle to,
36.
Philippists, the, 295.
Philippopolis, Council of, 141.
Philo, the sources of his system, 27;
dualism in, ib.; his doctrines, v&sq.;
forerunner of New Platonism, 31.
Philosophy, contrasted with Christianity,
I ; relation of, to theology, 7, 213 ; set
free from subjection to the Church, 19,
381 ; influence of Greek, on doctrine,
29 sq. ; after Plato and Aristotle, 30 ;
in the second period, 126 ; in the Scho
lastic period, 213. See Table of Con
tents.
Photinus of Sirmium, 140, 142.
Photius, 201, 202.
Pictures and images in the churches, 171,
172, 174, 200, 203, 263, 287, 310, 331.
See, also, " Iconoclastic Controversy."
Pietism, 494.
Pighius, Albert, 337.
Pilgrim Fathers, the, 394.
Pius IV., 332; V., 332, 333; VII., 537;
IX., 538 sq.
Placaeus (La Place), his doctrine of im
putation, 343.
2 P
Plato, his doctrine of ideas, 30; on the
being of God, ib. ; on the soul and re
demption, ib. ; his influence on Justin
Martyr, 63; on the Schoolmen, 213,
214; on the Latitudinarians, 366.
Plotinus, 31.
Plutarch, 29.
" Pneumatomachians," the, 145.
Polycarp, 36, 37, 41, 45 ; the martyrdom
of, 37-
Porphyry, 118, 214.
Port Royalists, the, 334.
Positivism, 486.
Possessor, 197.
Pothinus, 37.
Powell, Baden, 476.
Praxeas, 102, 103.
Prayer-book, the, of Edward VI., 314.
Predestination, Origen on, in ; the Greek
Fathers on, 165 ; earlier and later views
of Augustine on, 191 sq. ; John Cassian
on, 196; the Gottschalk controversy
on, 206 ; John Scotus on the term, ib,;
Luther on, 284, 292; Zwingli on, 287;
Calvin on, 299 sq. ; the Thirty-nine
Articles on, 314; the Creed of Trent
on, 330; the scientia ?nedia theory of
Molina concerning, 333 ; the Armin-
ians on, 337, 338 ; the Dort Creed on,
339 ; Amyraut on, 343 ; J. Wesley on,
391 ; in Protestant Scholasticism, 347 ;
Hooker on, 354; the Westminster
Confession on, 359; Richard Baxter
on, 362 ; Edwards on, 401 ; Canon
Mozley on, 470.
Presbyterians, the English, influence of
their jure divino claim on Episcopacy,
316, 355 ; in the Westminster Assem
bly, 358.
Price, Richard, 389.
Princeton theology, 444.
Prisca, 82.
Probabilism, the doctrine of, held by the
Jesuits, 334, 538.
Prosper of Aquitaine, 132, 196.
Providence, Origen on, in ; Augustine
on, 181 ; the Thomists and Scotists on,
238. See, also, " God, relation of to
the world."
Prudentius, 207.
Pseudo-Clementine writings, the. See
" Clementine Writings."
Pseudo-Dionysius, 126, 167, 173, 304,
213.
Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, 951.
578
INDEX
Pulleyn, Robert, 227.
Purgatory, Augustine on, 183; Gregory
I. on, 198 ; Scholastic doctrines of,
259 ; relation of indulgences to, 260 ;
Luther's thesis on, 270; Zwingli on,
287; the Ten Articles (1536) on, 310;
the Creed of Trent on, 331.
Puritans, rise of the, 356 ; their aim, 356,
357 ; their view of the Lord's Day, 361.
Pusey, Edward B., on the seat of author
ity, 454 ; becomes leader of the Ox
ford Movement, 462 : his personal
traits, 463 ; on the Eucharist, ib. ; his
doctrine of the Eucharist, compared
with the Lutheran and Calvinistic, 464.
Quadratus, 36.
Quakers, the tenets of, 378.
Quesnel, 335.
Quietism in the Roman Catholic Church,
336.
Rabanus Maurus, 203, 206, 207.
Rabulas, 154.
Racovian Catechism, the, 321.
" Rational Theology " in England, 362.
Rationalism, and the Scriptures, 12 ;
general spirit of, 12, 13, 19 ; in Abelard,
222; of the Socinians, 322; in Ger
many, 494 sq.
Ratisbon, Colloquy at, 326.
Ratramnus, 203, 207.
Realism, in Augustine, 185; its later
prevalence, ib.; conjoined with crea-
tionism in early theologians, 187 ; two
main forms of, 214; of Anselm, 217;
of Scotus, 232 ; opposed by Durandus,
233 ; 216, 224.
Reason, in the formulation of doctrine,
ii ; Clement of Alexandria on, 94;
Bernard of Clairvaux on, 225 ; the
Schoolmen on, 212; Abelard on, 221;
the Socinians on, 322; place of, in the
"Rational Theology," 363,366; Falk
land on, 363 ; John Toland on, 375 ;
Anthony Collins on, 376 ; Coleridge
on, 447; Lessing on, 495; Kant's
definition of, 497 ; Herder on, 500 ;
Jacobi on, 501.
Recared, King of Spain, 147.
Redemption, central truth of Christianity,
4; Plato on, 30; the Gnostics on, 57, j
58, 60 ; Marcion on, 59 ; Justin Martyr
on, 62; Irenaeus on, 86; Clement of I
Alexandria on, 95 ; in Manichaeism, I
127; Athanasius on, 136; the Antio-
chians on, 151. See " Christ," et
Reformed Church, 292, 347, 350.
Regeneration, Justin Martyr on, 68;
Irenseus on, 87; Tertullian on, 93:
Clement of Alexandria on, 96 ; the
Greek Fathers generally on, 165 ; the
Mystics of the fourteenth century on,
265 ; Pajonistic view of, 346 ; Wesley
on, 392; the younger Edwards's defi
nition of, 412; President Dwight on,
414 ; Henry B. Smith on, 418 ; Cole
ridge on, 449 ; the Oxford Tracts on,
456 ; Schleiermacher on, 508.
Regensburg, Synod of, 205.
Regula fidei, 71, 72, 76.
Reid, Thomas, 385, 387.
Reimarus, 496.
Reinhard, 500.
Remigius, 207.
Renaissance. See " Revival of Learn*
ing."
Renan, 21.
Reserve, the doctrine of, in Clement of
Alexandria, 96; in Origen, 106; tract
of Isaac Williams on, 457.
Restorationism, Origen on, 112 ; rejec
tion of his opinion, 170 ; as held by
American Universalists, 437 ; held by
Thomas Erskine, 477 ; held by Schleier
macher, 510; position of the Mediat
ing School respecting, 516.
Resurrection, Justin Martyr on, 67;
Clement of Alexandria on, 97 ; Origen
on, 112; Augustine on, 182.
Reuchlin, John, 268.
Reuter, 193.
Revelation, the Nicene and post-Nicene
writers on, 124 ; Thomas Aquinas on,
234; Jeremy Taylor on, 365; the
Deists' method of treating, 373; the
Latitudinarians on, 374; Locke on
the need of, 375; the attitude of Ra
tionalism toward, 494 ; Lessing on,
495; Rothe on, 517; Herrman on, 530.
Revelation, the Book of, traces of Gnosti
cism in, 55 ; concerning its canonicity,
121 : Dionysius of Alexandria on, 114;
Zwingli on, 287.
Revival of Learning, the, effect of, on
theological thought, 18 sq., 267 sg.
Rheims, school at, 210; Council of, 226.
Rice, W. N., on the theological opinion
of men of science, 489.
INDEX
579
Richard of St. Victor, 226, 230.
Ridgley, 393.
Ridley, Bp., 312, 313.
Rimini, Council of, 143.
Ripley, George, 433.
Ritschl, A., 13, 17, 21 ; his system, 524-
527-
Ritschlian School, the, 527-530.
Robber Synod, the, 155.
Rohr, 500.
Roman Catechism, the, 332.
Roman Catholic theology, the later,
536 sg.
Romaine, William, 446.
Romanes, G. J., his advance from skep
ticism to Christian Theism, 546.
Rome, see of, 80, 120, 126, 128 ; Synod
at, 140, 210.
Roscellin, 217.
Rothe, Richard, his system, 516-522.
Rousseau, 493.
Royer-Collard, 485.
Rufinus, 132, 171.
Ruysbroek, 264.
Sabellianism, 99; its conception of the
Trinity, 103, 137.
Sabellius, 102, 103.
Sacramentalism, characteristic of the Ox
ford Movement, 454 sg. ; and its oppo
site in recent times, 549.
Sacraments, the, Irenaeus on, 87 ; Origen
on, 112; the Latin view of, 166; influ
ence of the heathen mysteries on, 167 ;
Pseudo-Dionysius's list of, ib.; the
doctrine of the Greek Fathers on, ib. ;
Augustine on, 181, 183, 193; Gregory
I. on, 198 ; Hugo of St. Victor on, 254 ;
Peter Lombard on, ib.; Abelard on,
ib.; Aquinas on the nature and need
of, ib. ; on the number and function of,
255; Aquinas on the indelible char
acter of three of, ib.; Duns Scotus on,
ib.; Durandus on, ib.; Aquinas on the
ex opere operate effect of, ib. ; the Mys
tics of the fourteenth century on, 264;
Wyclif's view of, 266; Luther on,
271 ; the Augsburg Confession on, 280 ;
Zwingli on, 288, 289 ; Calvin on, 305 ;
the Ten Articles (1536) on, 311; the
"Bishop's Book" on, ib.; the Creed
of Trent on, 330 ; Hooker on, 354 ; the
Quakers on, 379; the Oxford Declara
tion on, 454 ; the Tracts on, 456. See,
also, the several Sacraments.
Sardica, Council of, 141.
Sarpi, Father Paul, 327, 350.
Satan, the Gnostic conception of, 56, 57,
59; in Manichceism, 127; Christ a
ransom to, Origen on, in ; the Greek
Fathers on, 162, 163; Augustine on,
180; Abelard on, 223; Bernard of
Clairvaux on, 225 ; Peter Lombard on,
227.
Saturninus, his system, 56.
Saumur, the school of, 342 sg.
Savonarola, 265.
Savonieres, Synod of, 207.
Savoy Confession, the, 394.
Schelling, his philosophy, 531.
Schleiermacher, Frederic, his influence
on New England Unitarianism,432j-^.;
on Bushnell, 439; his personal quali
ties, 502 ; on the principle and scope
of dogmatic theology, ib. sq. ; on the,
attributes of God, 503 ; on sin, 504; on
the person and work of Christ, ib. sq.;
on the atonement, 507 ; on the regen
erate life, 508 ; on miracles, ib. ; on the
Second Advent, 509 ; on the Church,
ib.; on prayer, ib. ; his eschatological
views, ib. ; on the divine government,
510; on the Trinity, ib.; his system
characterized, ib. ; his influence, 512.
Scholasticism, characteristics and maxim
of, 212; rival tendencies in, 213; its
principal philosophical problem, ib.;
in the universities, 214 ; method of, 215 ;
divisions of the era of, 216; promi
nence of Mysticism in, 230; influence
of Scotus on, 232; influence of the
Revival of Learning on, 267 ; in later
Protestant theology, 347.
Schoolmen, the, on faith and knowledge,
6, 212; defects in their method, 212;
influence of Plato and Aristotle among,
213 ; Nominalists and Realists, ib. ;
Dominicans and Franciscans, 214;
Baur on, 215 ; subjects and methods of
their speculation, ib.; Mysticism in,
230 ; their apologetics, 235 ; on the
attributes of God, 236; on creation,
237; on the origin of the soul, 239; on
the image and similitude of God, 240;
on Adam's sin, 240 sg.; on the im
maculate conception, 244; on divine
and human agency in conversion,
248; on justification, 249, 250; on
explicit and' implicit faith, 249; on
papal infallibility and prerogatives,
58o
INDEX
252 ; on the nature, number, and func
tion of Sacraments, 254 sq. ; on bap
tism, 256 ; on confirmation, ib. ; on the
Lord's Supper, ib. ; on penance, 258 ;
on the five abodes of the invisible
world, 259 ; on extreme unction, 260 ;
on ordination, 261 ; on marriage, ib. ;
relation of, to Augustine, 262. See
" Scholasticism."
Schwane, 254.
Schwenkfeld, Caspar, and the Schwenk-
feldians, 317.
Scotists, the, 233, et passim.
Scott, Thomas, 393, 446.
Scott, Walter, 455.
Scotus, John Duns, his characteristics
and his influence upon Scholasticism,
232 ; on the proof of the being of God,
236 ; on the extent of our knowledge
of God, ib.; on immortality, 239; on
the image and similitude of God, 240 ;
on the fall, 241 ; on the atonement,
247 ; on divine and human agency in
conversion, 249; on the Sacraments,
255 ; on the Lord's Supper, 257 ; on
the prerequisite for absolution, 260;
his point of view, 262.
Scotus, John " Erigena," his career and
system, 203 sq., 206.
Scriptures, the Sacred, source of doc
trine, ii ; attitude of the Traditionalist,
the Mystic, and the Rationalist toward,
n, 12; their authority, the basis of
Protestant creeds, 18 ; rise of a scien
tific scrutiny of, 19 ; the method of the
Fathers in the interpretation of, 76;
Irenaeus on, 84; Origen on, 105; Ni-
cene and post-Nicene writers on, 222 ;
Augustine on, 179; Luther on, 278;
Calvin on, 299; the reading of, in the
vernacular restricted by the Roman
Catechism, 332 ; Louis Cappel on, 343 ;
the Protestant Scholastic view of, 347 ;
the Westminster Confession on, 359;
Matthew Arnold on, 480 ; other recent
views on, 493, 500, 513, 517, 525, 529.
See " Inspiration," " Canon," " Biblical
Criticism."
Sect, import of the term, 9.
Seleucia, Council of, 143.
Semi-Pelagianism, relation of John Cas-
sian to, 196; revival of the contro
versy on, 197 ; opposed by Gottschalk,
206 ; conception of sin in, 218 ; its doc
trine of divine and human agency set
forth by Duns Scotus, 249 ; defended
by Melanchthon, 272; held by the
Franciscans, 328; in the Creed of
Trent, 328 sq. ; espoused by the Jesu
its, 332, 333-
Semler, 20, 497.
Sends, in the Frankish Church, 208.
Seneca, 31.
Sens, Council of, 223.
Sentences, the books of, 227, 228.
Septuagint, legend respecting it, 75, 122.
Sergius I., Pope, 201.
Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 158.
Servatus, Lupus, 207.
Servetus, Michael, his system, 320.
Severians, 156.
Shaftesbury, his Characteristics, 378.
Shedd, W. G. T., 16, 21 ; his realistic
hypothesis, 445.
" Shepherd," the, of Hermas, 34, 75.
Sherlock, Bishop, 370, 377.
Sibylline Oracles, the, 27.
Simeon, Charles, 446.
Simon Magus, 50, 56.
Sin, Irenaeus on, 85 ; Tertullian on, 93 ;
Origen on, no, in ; the Greek Fathers
generally on, 161, 164; Augustine on,
185, 218; Pelagius on, 190; Peter
Lombard on, 241; Leibnitz on, 383;
the New England theologians on,
411-418, passim; Channing on, 429;
Schleiermacher on, 504; Dorner on,
514; J. Miiller on, 515; Lipsius on,
523; Ritschl on, 527; Biedermann
on, 534. See " Original sin."
Sirmian creeds, the, 142, 143.
Six Articles, the, 312.
Smalcald Articles, the, 273.
Smith, Henry B., his theology, 418.
Smith, John, of Cambridge, 368.
Smyth, Professor E. C., on Jonathan
Edwards's relation to Berkeley, 403.
Smyth, Rev. John, 320.
Socinianism, its origin and leading rep
resentatives, 320, 321 ; characteristics
of the system, 322; its creed, ib. ; its
attack on the Anselmic theory of the
atonement, 323 ; its effect, 325 ; in
England, 370. See, also, " Unitarian-
ism."
Socinus, Faustus, 320, 321.
Socinus, Laelius, 321.
Socrates, gives ethical character to phi
losophy, 29.
Socrates, a continuator of Eusebius, 131.
INDEX
58l
Soissons, Councils of, 217, 223.
Solemn League and Covenant, the,
adopted, 359.
Sophronius, 158.
Soto, Dominicus, 351.
Soul, the doctrine respecting, in Philo,
28 ; in Plato, 30; in Tertullian, 90, 93 ;
in the Greek Fathers, 163 ; in Augus
tine, 187 ; in Aquinas, 239.
South, Robert, 370.
Sozomen, 131.
Spanish Arabian schools, 209.
Spencer, Herbert, his agnostic theory,
4, 487.
Spinola, 380.
Spinoza, 382, 432.
Stanley, A. P., 474 sq.
Stapfer, 344.
Stearns, Lewis F., 548.
Stiles, Ezra, 423.
Stillingfleet, Edward, 365, 367, 371.
Stoicism, 31, 90, 96.
Storr, 500.
Strauss, D. F., 533.
Strigel, Victorin, 296.
Stuart, Moses, 420.
St. Victor, the School of, 226.
Subordinationism, in Tertullian, 91; in
Origen, 109; in Dionysius of Alexan
dria, 115; in Gregory of Nyssa, 144;
eliminated in the West, 146. See
" Trinity."
Supralapsarianism. See "Arminianism,"
"Calvin," "Will."
Suso, Henry, 264, 265.
Swedenborg, Emanuel, his system, 493.
Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemsis, 126.
Systems, theological, relaxing of adher
ence to, 551.
Tait, Archbishop, 460.
Tatian, his writings, 37; his conception
of Christianity as a philosophy, 61 ; on
the Logos, 64, 66.
Tauler, John, 264, 269, 317.
Taylor, Jeremy, 364.
Taylor, Nathaniel W., his theology, 414.
" Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." See
" Didache."
Temple, Bishop, 476.
Ten Articles (of 1536), the tenets and
sources of, 310.
Tertullian, materials for doctrinal his
tory in, 19 ; his training and personal
qualities, 38 ; on the philosophers, id.,
90 ; his writings, 39 ; a Montanist, 82 ;
on the power of binding and loosing,
ib.; on tradition, 90; on the soul, id.;
on the proof of the being of God, ib. ;
on the Trinity, 91 ; on the Logos,
ib. ; on the person of Christ, 92 ; on the
atonement, ib.; legalism in, ib. ; on
human freedom and sin, 93 ; on regen
eration, ib.; on the millennium, ib.; on
the Monarchians, 99.
Theodore I., Bishop of Rome, 158.
Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury,
208.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 122, 131, 151,
154, 157. See "Antioch, School of."
Theodore of Tarsus, 203.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, 131, 153,
155- 157-
Theodosius the Great establishes the
Nicene orthodoxy, 145; II., 153, 154.
Theodotus, the Currier, his humanitarian
doctrine, 101.
Theodotus, the Money Changer, 101.
Theognis of Nicasa, 139.
Theology, the possibility of, 4 sq.; its
relation to faith, 6 ; its relation to phi
losophy, 7 ; reasons for the science of,
8 ; progressive character of, ib. ; incen
tives to the development of, 9 ; Baur's
theory of the development of, 14 ; New
man's theory of the development of,
ib.; influence of the Renaissance on,
18 sq.; authentic sources of, 23; influ
ence of Greek philosophy on, 29 sq.;
at Alexandria, 39 ; earliest treatises on,
40; in the Greek Apologists, 61 ; course
of, in the East after the fourth century,
128 sq. ; ruling ideas of the Greek
Fathers, 161 sg. ; mediaeval compila
tions in, 203 ; the Roman Catholics
restated in the Creed of Trent, 326 sq. ;
as affected by modern philosophy, 381-
393 ; Schleiermacher on the principle
and scope of, 502 ; recent tendencies
of, 546 sq. See, also, " Doctrine."
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, 37, 64,
75-
Theophrastus, 101.
Thirlwall, Bishop, 460, 462.
Thirty-nine Articles, the, the groundwork
of, 311; reduced from the forty-two
Articles, 313; on the Lord's Supper,
ib.; is Article XVII. (on predestina
tion) Calvinistic? 314; on the Church,
315 ; the Westminster Assembly's par-
582
INDEX
tial revision of, 359; Newman on (in
Tract XC.), 457-
Thomas a Kempis, 264.
Thomasius, 17, 21, 65, 524.
Thomists, the, 233, et passim.
Thorndike, Prebendary, 356.
" Three Chapters," the, 157.
Timothy, the Epistles to, traces of Gnos
ticism in, 55.
Tindal, Matthew, 377.
Toland, John, 375, 376.
Toledo, Council of, 147.
Toplady, Augustus, 393.
Toucy, Synod of, 207.
Tours, the school at, 210.
" Tractarians," the, 455. See "Oxford
Movement."
Tradition, how viewed by the early Fa
thers, 76 sq. ; Tertullian on, 90 ; its place
in the Nicene and post-Nicene writers,
123 ; its authority in the Middle Ages,
213 ; in the Creed of Trent, 328 ; in
the Oxford School, 454 ; vs. Develop
ment, 549.
Traditionalism, n.
Traducianism, in Tertullian, 93 ; Augus
tine's attitude toward, 187 sq.
Traheran, on Cranmer's change of be
lief, 313.
" Transcendental " School in New Eng
land, the, 433.
Transubstantiation, the doctrine of Pas-
chasius Radbert on, 207 ; Berengarius
on, 210; Lanfranc on, ib. ; modified
by Guitmund, 211 ; first use of the
term, ib. ; Anselm on, ib. ; William of
Occam on, 233 ; the term authorita
tively sanctioned, 257 ; the Schoolmen
on, ib. ; rejected by Wyclif, 266 ; Luther
on, 271 ; the Six Articles on, 312 ; the
Creed of Trent on, 330 ; Bishop An
drews on, 356 ; Tract XC. of Newman
on, 458. See " Lord's Supper."
Trent, the Council of, its organization,
326 ; Papal control of, 327 ; difficul
ties confronting, ib.; on the sources
of doctrine, 328 ; on the Vulgate, ib. ;
on the test of orthodoxy, ib. ; on origi
nal sin, ib.; on justification and assur
ance, 329; on perseverance, 330; on
predestination, ib.; on penance, ib.;
on the Sacraments, ib.; its service,
331.
Trinitarian controversy in New England,
418 sq.
Trinity, the doctrine of, the era of con
troversy upon, 17; first use of the
term, 91 ; Tertullian on, ib.; Clement
of Alexandria on, 95 ; the Monarchian
controversy upon, 98 sq. ; the Sabellian
view of, 103; Paul of Samosata on,
104; Origen on, 107 sq. ; Novatian on,
113 ; Dionysius of Alexandria on, 114;
Dionysius of Rome on, ib. ; Methodius
on, 116; the younger Nicasans on,
143; John of Damascus on, 160;
Augustine on, 178 ; Roscellin on, 217 ;
Abelard on, 223; Gilbert of Poictiers
on, 226; Aquinas on, 237; Calvin on,
307 ; Michael Servetus on, 320 ; the
Socinian doctrine of, 322; Bishop
Sherlock on, 370 ; controversy in New
England on, 418 sq. ; Professor Moses
Stuart on, 420; Bushnell on, 438-441 ;
Stanley on, 475 ; Swedenborg on, 494 ;
Schleiermacher on, 510; C. I. Nitzsch
on, 515 ; Rothe on, 517 ; Hegel on,
532. See "Arianism," "Christ, the
person of."
Tronchin, Louis, 345.
Trullan Council, the First, 159 ; the Sec
ond, 200.
Trypho, Justin's dialogue with, 27, 37,
67.
Tubingen School, the, 14, 41, 51, 534.
See " Baur, F. C."
Tulloch, John, on the Latitudinarians,
368.
Turretine, Francis, 345, 346, note.
Turretine, Alphonso, 345.
Tyler, Bennet, 416.
Tyndall, 488.
Tyre, Synod at, 140.
Ultramontanism, 537, 539.
Unitarianism, rise of, 320; in Poland,
321 ; in New England, its rise, 418 sq. ;
Channing on the various types of, 420 ;
its chief representatives, 421 ; confined
chiefly to Eastern New England, 422 ;
its cultivation of Biblical criticism and
belles lettres, 423; Theodore Parker
on, 424; its promotion of philan
thropy, 425 ; its theology as taught by
Channing, 427-432; radical develop
ment in the intuitional theory, 432;
the Transcendental School, 433 ; Par-
kerism, 433 sq.; gradual prevalence of
the progressive school in, 436. See,
also, " Socinianism."
INDEX
583
Universalism, in America, 436. See
" Restorationism."
Urban IV., 258 ; VIIL, 334.
Ursinus, 292.
Ussher, Archbishop, 358, 359.
Uytenbogaert, 338.
Valentinus, 58.
Vatican Council, the, 158, 540 sq.
Venn, Henry, 446.
Vercelli, Synod of, 210.
Victor, Bishop of Rome, 38.
Vigilantius, 172.
Vincent of Lerins, 123, 196.
Voetius, 349.
Voltaire, 492.
Vulgate, the, 131, 328.
Waldensians, the, 263.
Walter of St. Victor, 227.
Ware, Henry (Sr.),42O.
Ware, Henry (Jr.), 421.
Waterland, Daniel, 371, 377.
Watts, Isaac, 393.
Wegscheider, 500.
Weissman, 348.
Wesel, John, 265, 285.
Wesley, John, his theology, 390 sq., 452.
Wesleyanism, 342.
Wessel, John, 265.
Westminster Assembly, 358 ; Confession,
274, 359 sq.
Westphal, Joachim, 292.
Whately, Richard, his theology, 450.
Whichcote, Benjamin, 366, 367.
Whiston, William, 376.
White, Edward, 479.
Whitefield, George, 390, 391, 395, 446.
Wilberforce, Bishop, 446.
Will, the, the Stoics on, 31 ; Justin Mar
tyr on, 66 ; Tertullian on, 93 ; Clement
of Alexandria on, 96; Origen on, 107,
no; the Antiochian School on, 151;
the Greek Fathers on, 164; Augustine
on, 184, 191 ; Pelagius on, 184 ; Aqui
nas on, 238 ; Luther on, 284, 292 ; the
Augsburg Confession on, 293; Me-
lanchthon's change of view on, ib. ; the
Philippists on, 295 ; the Form of Con
cord on, 296; S. Clarke on, 376;
Spinoza on, 383 ; Locke on, 397 sq. ;
Edwards on, 397 sy. ; Taylor on, 415 ;
Professor Park on, 417; Rothe on,
518. See, also, " Determinism."
William of Occam, 233, 249-257, 262.
William of Champeaux, 214, 226.
Williams, Isaac, 457.
Williams, Rowland, 476.
Wilson, Henry B., 476.
Winchester, Elhanan, 437.
Wisdom of Solomon, the, 27.
Wittenberg Concord, the, 290.
Wolzogenius, 321.
Woods, Leonard, 416.
Woolston, Thomas, 377.
Worcester, Noah, 420.
Wordsworth, William, 455.
Wyclif, John, his theology, 265 sq.
Zahn, on the date of the Didache and
" Shepherd," 35 ; on the Apostle's
Creed, 71, 100, 141.
Zeno, the philosopher, 31.
Zeno, the emperor, 156.
Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome, 102, 103.
Zinzendorf, 495.
Zosimus, Bishop of Rome, 194, 195.
Zwingli, his intellectual qualities and
religious experience, 285 ; compared
with Luther, ib., 286; the starting-
point of his theology, 286; a social
reformer, ib.; his disputations and
articles of belief, ib.; his theological
works, 287 ; on the Canon, ib. ; on
predestination, ib. ; on original sin,
288; his controversy with Luther on
the Lord's Supper, ib. sq.; efforts at
reconciliation, 289 sq. ; relation oi
Calvin to, 298-309, passim.
Zwinglians, 272.
The International Theological Library
VOLUMES NOW READY
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa
ment. By Professor S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.
"As a whole there is probably no book in the English Language equal
to this ' Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, for the
student who desires to understand what the modern criticism thinks
about the Bible." — Dr. LYMAN ABBOTT, in The Outlook.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age.
By ARTHUR C. MCGIFFERT, Ph.D., D.D.
" The clearness, self-consistency, and force of the whole impression of
Apostolic Christianity with which we leave this book goes far to guar
antee its permanent value and success." — The Expositor.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
Christian Ethics. By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D.
"As this book is the latest, so it is the fullest and most attractive treat
ment of the subject that we are familiar with. Patient and exhaustive
in its method of inquiry, and stimulating and suggestive in the topic it
handles, we are confident that it will be a help to the task of the moral
understanding and interpretation of human life." — The Living Church.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
Apologetics ; or, Christianity Defensively Stated.
By ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D.
" We have not for a long time taken a book in hand that is more
stimulating to faith. . . . Without commenting further, we repeat that
this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced, and sharpest
defence of Christianity that has ever been written. No theological
library should be without it." — Zion's Herald.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
Old Testament History. BY HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D.
" Prof. Smith has, by his comprehensive and vitalized history, laid all who
care for the Old Testament under great obligations." — The Independent.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
The Theology of the New Testament. By GEOROE B
STEVENS, D.D., LL.D.
" It is a fine example of painstaking, discriminating, impartial research
and statement."— The Congregationalism. Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
History of Christian Doctrine. By GEORGE p. FISHER,
D.D., LL.D.
" It is only just to say that Dr. Fisher has produced the best History
of Doctrine that we have in English." — The New York Evangelist.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net,
The Christian Pastor and the Working Church.
By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., LL.D.
"A comprehensive, inspiring and helpful guide to a busy pastor. One
finds in it a multitude of practical suggestions for the development of
the spiritual and working life of the Church, and the answer to many
problems that are a constant perplexity to the faithful minister."
— The Christian Intelligencer.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
Christian Institutions. By ALEXANDER V. B. ALLEN, D.D.
" Professor Allen's Christian Institutions may be regarded as the most
important permanent contribution which the Protestant Episcopal
Church of the United States has yet made to general theological
thought." — The American Journal of Theology.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
The Theology of the Old Testament. By A. B. DAVIDSON,
D.D., LL.D., D.Litt.
" We hope every clergyman will not rest content until he has procured
and studied this most admirable and useful book. Every really useful
question relating to man — his nature, his fall, and his redemption,
his present life or grace, his life after death, his future life, is
treated of." — The Canadian Churchman. Crown 8vo. $2 50 net
The Christian Doctrine of Salvation. By GEORGE B.
STEVENS, D.D., LL.D.
" Professor Stevens has performed a task of great importance, certain to
exert wide and helpful influence in settling the minds of men. He has
treated the subject historically and has given to Christ the first place in
interpreting his own mission." — Congregationalisi and Christian ll'orld.
C own 8vo. $2.50 net.
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
The Ancient Catholic Church. B> ROBERT RAINEY, D.D.,LL.D.
"As a comprehensive work on the formative stage of the Church's ex
perience the volume will easily find its place in the front rank among
books on the subject composed in the English language." — The Interior.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
The Reformation in Germany. By THOMAS M. LINDSAY,
M.A., D.D.
" The arrangement of the book is most excellent, and while it is a
worthy and scholarly account it is so arranged that for the student of
the Reformation it is almost encyclopaedic in its convenience and con
ciseness. It is a book no library, public or private, can really be
without." — Record of Christian Work.
Crown 8vo. $2.~o net.
The Reformation in Lands Beyond Germany. BV THOMAS
M. LINDSAY, D.D.
" Together these two volumes will at once take their place as the clas
sical English History of the Reformation." — The Expository Times.
" The good ba]ance of material which he has attained by a self-denying
exclusion, as well as by much research and inclusion of fresh material,
makes the work a real addition to our materials for study."
— The Congregation a list.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
Canon and Text of the New Testament. BV CASPER RFNK
GREGORY, D.D., LL.D.
" The book is a treasury of learning, and its fairness in dealing with the
matter in hand is admirable. From first to last, the purpose of the
author is not to show upon how slight basis our confidence in the can-
onicity of the New Testament is based, but rather upon how solid a
foundation our confidence rests." — Journal and Messenger.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
The Greek and Eastern Churches. By WALTER F. ADENEY,
M.A., D.D.
"It seems to me an excellent and .nost useful piece of work. I do
not know anything in English which covers the same ground and
am sure Dr. Adeney has put us all in his debt by his scholarly, well-
balanced and judicious treatment." — P>'<Jf- William Adams Brown.
Crown 8vu. $2.=;o net.
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
The Christian Doctrine Of God. By WILLIAM N.CLARKE, D.D.
" The book is a treasury of learning, and its fairness in dealing with
the matter in hand is admirable. From first to last, the purpose of the
author is not to show upon how slight basis our confidence in the
canonicity of the New Testament is based, but rather upon how solid
a foundation our confidence rests." — Journal and Messenger.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
\n Introduction to the Literature of the New Testa
ment. By JAMES MOFFATT, B.D., D.D.
" In point of scholarship, breadth of treatment, and mastery of the prob
lems at issue, it will bear comparison with Driver's companion volume
on the literature of the Old Testament, than which no higher praise
can be given. . . . The student will find in Dr. Moffatt's volume the
most complete presentation as yet attempted by any scholar of all that
modern critical scholarship has done for the literature of the New
Testament. ' ; — Scotsman.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
The International
Critical Commentary
On the Holy Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments
EDITORS' PREFACE
THERE are now before the public many Commentaries,
written by British and American divines, of a popular
or homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for
Schools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students.
The Speaker1 s Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff),
The Expositor's Bible, and other similar series, have their
special place and importance. But they do not enter into the
field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of
Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes excgetisches Handbuch zum
A. T. ; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegctisches Handbuch zum
N. T. ; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kommcntar ; Keil and
Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar uber das A. T. ; Lange's
TheologiscJi-homiletisches Bibclwerk ; Nowack's Handkommentar
zum A. T, ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar zum N. T. Several
of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged
and adapted, for the English-speaking public ; others are in
process of translation. But no corresponding series by British
or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has
been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott,
Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the
time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enter
prise, when it is practicable to combine British and American
scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive
Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholarship,
and in a measure lead its van.
IHE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMBNTAK?
Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs.
T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series
of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, under the
editorship of Prof. C. A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., in America, and
of Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., for the Old Testament, and
the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., for the New Testament, in
Great Britain.
The Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional,
and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They
will be based upon a thorough critical study of the original texts
of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They
are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be
written in a compact style. Each book will be preceded by an
Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discuss
ing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details
of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the
Commentary. Each section of the Text will be introduced
with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details
of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept
distinct from matter of a more general character ; and in the
Old Testament the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with
Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books will be
dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with critical
notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical
and Archaeological questions, as well as questions of Biblical
Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but
*iot Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will con
stitute a uniform series.
The International Critical Commentary
ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS
THE OLD TESTAMENT
GENESIS. The Rev. JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor of
Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church
of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready.
EXODUS. The Rev. A. R. S. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
University of Edinburgh.
LEVITICUS. T. F. STENNING, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.
NUMBERS. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Mansfirld College, Oxford. [Now Ready.
DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready.
JOSHUA. The Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., LL.D., Principal of the
University of Aberdeen.
JUDGES. The Rev. GEORGE MOORE, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theol
ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready.
SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. SMITH, D.D., Professor of Old Testament
Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. [Now Ready.
KINGS. The Rev. FRANCIS BROWN, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President
and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological
Seminary, New York City.
CHRONICLES. The Rev. EDWARD L. CURTIS, D.D., Professor of
Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Pro
fessor of Old Testament Literature, General Theological Seminary, New
York City.
PSALMS. The Rev. CHAS. A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Gradua'e Pro-
fessor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological
Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Ready
PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. TOY, D.D., LL.D., Prof essor of Hebrew,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready*
JOB. The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of He
brew, Oxford.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Pro
fessor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. [In Press.
ISAIAH. Chaps. XL-LXVI. The Rev. A. S. PEAKE, M.A., D.D., Dean
of the Theological Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Bib
lical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England.
JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England.
EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. COOKE, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Interpre
tation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. CHARLES F.
BURNEY, D.Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College,
Oxford.
DANIEL. The Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor
of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's
Church, New York City.
AMOS AND HOSEA. W. R. HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime President
of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [Now Ready.
MICAH TO HAGGAI. Prof. JOHN P. SMITH, University of Chicago;
W. HAYES WARD, D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New York;
Prof. JULIUS A. BEWER, Union Theological Seminary, New York, and
Prof. H. G. MITCHELL, D.D., Boston University. [In Press.
2ECHARIAH TO JONAH. Prof. H. G. MITCHELL, D.D., Prof. JOHN P.
SMITH and Prof. J. A. BEWER. [In Press.
ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart
ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready.
ECCLESIASTES. Prof. GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli
cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [JV<nv Ready,
RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev. CHARLES A.
BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia
and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and
Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. \Now Re*4y.
ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa
ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. \^N(nv Ready.
ST. LUKE. The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of
University College, Durham. [Nvw Rtttdy.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ST. JOHN. The Very Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean of St.
Patrick's and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin.
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D.,
LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, ana the Rev. WlL-
LOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew,
Exeter College, Oxford.
ACTS. The Rev. C. H. TURNER, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College,
Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the
Bishop of London.
ROMANS. The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev.
A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of King's College, London.
[Now Ready.
I. CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. ARCH ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D.,
Lord Bishop of Exeter, and Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., late Master of
University College, Durham. [Now Ready.
II. CORINTHIANS. The Rev. DAWSON WALKER, D.D., Theological
Tutor in the University of Durham.
GALATIANS. The Rev. ERNEST D. BURTON, D.D., Professor of New
Testament Literature, University of Chicago.
EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D.,
D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin,
now Librarian of the same. [Now Ready.
PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. MARVIN R VINCENT,
D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New
York City. [Now Ready.
THESSALONIANS. The Rev. JAMES E. FRAME, M.A., Professor of
Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. WALTER LOCK, D.D., Warden
of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.
HEBREWS. The Rev. JAMES MOFFATT, D.D., Minister United Free
Church, Broughty Ferry, Scotland.
ST. JAMES. The Rev. JAMES II. ROPES, D.D., Bussey Professor of New
Testament Criticism in Harvard University.
PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D., sometime Regius
Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
[Now Ready.
THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Rev. E. A. BROOKE, B.D., Fellow
and Divinity Lecturer in King's College, Cambridge.
REVELATION. The Rev. ROBERT H. CHARLES, M. A., D.D., sometime
Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin.
The
International Critical Commentary
VOLUMES NOW READY
Numbers. By the Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Mansfield College, Oxford.
"Most Bible readers have the impression that 'Numbers' is a dull
book only relieved by the brilliancy of the Balaam chapters and some
snatches of old Hebrew songs, but, as Prof. Gray shows with admirable
skill and insight, its historical and religious value is not that which lies
on the surface. Prof. Gray's Commentary is distinguished by fine
scholarship and sanity of judgment; it is impossible to commend it too
warmly." — Saturday Review (London).
Crown Svo. $3.00 net.
Deuteronomy. By the Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius
Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
"It is a pleasure to see at last a really critical Old Testament com
mentary in English upon a portion of the Pentateuch, and especially
one of such merit. This I find superior to any other Commentary in
any language upon Deuteronomy."
Professor E. L. CURTIS, of Yale University.
Crown Svo. $3.00 net.
Judges. By Rev. GEORGE FOOT MOORE, D.D., LL.D., Professor of
Theology in Harvard University.
" The work is done in an atmosphere of scholarly interest and in
difference to dogmatism and controversy, which is at least refreshing.
... It is a noble introduction to the moral forces, ideas and influences
that controlled the period of the Judges, and a model of what a
historical commentary, with a practical end in view, should be."
— The Independent.
Crown Svo. $3.00 net.
The Books Of Samuel. By Rev. HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa.
" Professor Smith's Commentary will for some time be the standard
work on Samuel, and we heartily congratulate him on scholarly work
so faithfully accomplished." — The Athenaeum.
Crown Svo. $3.00 net.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
The Book Of PsalmS. By CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGOS, D.D.,
D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics,
Union Theological Seminary, New York, and EMILIE GRACE BRIGGS, B.D.
" Christian scholarship seems here to have reached the highest level yet
attained in study of the book which in religious importance stands next
to the Gospels. His work upon it is not likely to be excelled in learning,
both massive and minute, by any volume of the International Series, to
which it belongs." — The Outlook.
a Volumes. Crown 8vo. Price, $3.00 each net.
By the Rev. CRAWFORD H. TOY, D.D., LL.D., Professor of
Hebrew in Harvard University.
" This volume has the same characteristics of thoroughness and pains
taking scholarship as the preceding issues of the series. In the critical
treatment of the text, in noting the various readings and the force of
the words in the original Hebrew, it leaves nothing to be desired.
Crown 8vo. $3.00 net.
AmOS and Hosea. By WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D.,
late Professor of Semitic Languages and Literature and President of the
University of Chicago.
" He has gone, with characteristic minuteness, not only into the analysis
and discussion of each point, endeavoring in every case to be thoroughly
exhaustive, but also into the history of exegesis and discussion. Nothing
at all worthy of consideration has been passed by. The consequence is
that when one carefully studies what has been brought together in this
volume, either upon some passage of the two prophets treated, or upon
some question of critical or antiquarian importance in the introductory
portion of the volume, one feels that he has obtained an adequately
exhaustive view of the subject." — The Interior.
Crown 8vo. $3.00 net.
Esther. By L. B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartford
Theological Seminary.
This scholarly and critical commentary on the Book of Esther presents
in full the remarkable additions to the Massoretic text and the varia
tions in the various versions beginning with the Greek translation and
continuing through the Vulgate and Peshitto down to the Talmud and
Targums. These are not given in full in any other commentary, yet
they are very important both for the history of the text and the history
of the exegesi*.
Crown 8vo. $2.25 net.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
VOLUMES NOW READ^
By GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical
Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa.
" It is a relief to find a commentator on Ecclesiastes who is not en
deavoring to defend some new theory. This volume, in the International
Commentary series, treats the book in a scholarly and sensible fashion,
presenting the conclusions of earlier scholars together with the author's
own, and providing thus all the information that any student needs."
— The Congregationalist.
Crown 8vo. $2.25 net.
St. Matthew. By the Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow
of Exeter College, Oxford.
"As a microscopic and practically exhaustive study and itemized state
ment of the probable or possible sources of the Synoptic Gospels and
of their relations, one to another, this work has t;st been surpassed.
I doubt if it has been equaled. And the author is not by any means
lacking in spiritual insight." — The Methodist Review (Nashville).
Crown 8vo. $3.00 net.
St. Mark. By the Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., sometime Professor of New
Testament Exegesis, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.
" The whole make-up is that of a thoroughly helpful, instructive critical
study of the Word, surpassing anything of the kind ever attempted in
the English language, and to students and clergymen knowing the
proper use of a commentary it will prove an invaluable aid."
— The Lutheran Quarterly.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
St. Luke. By the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of
University College, Durham.
" We are pleased with the thoroughness and scientific accuracy of the
interpretations. ... It seems to us that the prevailing characteristic of
;;he book is common sense, fortified by learning and piety."
— The Herald and Presbyter.
Crown 8vo. $3.00 net.
Romans. By the Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev.
A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of Kings College, London.
" We do not hesitate to commend this as the best commentary on Romans
yet written in English. It will do much to popularize this admirable
and much needed series, by showing that it is possible to be critical and
scholarly and at the same time devout and spiritual, and intelligible to
plain Bible readers."— The Church Standard.
Crown 8vo. $3.00 net.
THE iNfERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
VOLUMES NOW READY
and ColOSSianS. By the Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, D.D.,
D.Litt., formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, now of Hebrew, Trinity Col-
kgc, Dublin.
"An able and independent piece of exegesis, and one that none of us can
afford to be without. It is the work of a man who has made himself
master of this theme. His exegetical perceptions are keen, and we are
especially grateful for his strong defense of the integrity and apostolicity
of these two great monuments of Pauline teaching." — The Expositor.
Crown 8vo. $2.50 net.
Philippians and Philemon. By RCV. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D.,
Professor of Biblical Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York.
" Professor Vincent's Commentary appears to me not less admirable for
its literary merit than for its scholarship and its clear and discriminating
discussions of the contents of these Epistles." — Dr. GEORGE P. FISHER.
Crown 8vo. $2.00 net.
St. Peter and St. JudC. By the Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D.,
sometime Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University,
New York.
" The careful and thorough student will find here a vast amount of in
formation most helpful to him in his studies and researches. The inter
national Critical Commentary, to which it belongs, will prove a great
boon to students and ministers." — The Canadian Congregationalist.
Crown ftvo. $€.50 net.
By the Rev. JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor of
Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church
of England, Cambridge, England.
" Exact scholarship, a scientific temper of mind, and the reverence of
a believer in Divine revelation combine to render Principal Skinner
an ideal commentator on the Book of Genesis. The work before us
will unquestionably take its place in the very front rank of modern Old
Testament commentaries. We can award it no higher praise than to
say that it need not shrink from comparison with what has hitherto
been facile princeps in the series to which it belongs — Driver's Deu
teronomy." — Rev. J. A. SELBIE, D.D., in The Expository Times.
Crown 8vo, $3,00 net
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
The Books Of Chronicles. By the Rev. EDWARD L. CURTIS,
Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, and Rev. ALBERT A.
MADSEN, Ph.D.
" The Commentary deserves unstinted praise, and will be found of
extreme value by all who are interested in this late constituent of the
Canon, which possesses so much interest alike from the literary and
the religious stand-point. Dr. Curtis has supplied the English-speaking
student of the Old Testament with precisely the work he required."
— Rev. J. A. SELBIE, D,D., in The Expository Times.
Crown 8vo. $3.00 net (Postage additional)
3- I--UA
)
"l<f
'&*